April 16-18, 2011
Apr 16 09:17 Quin Hillyer's Masterpiece Apr 16 17:44 Progressive Taxation & the Left's Intellectual Dishonesty Apr 16 19:02 Taking Bets: When Will Amy Intervene? Apr 17 09:29 The DFL's Corruption Deficit Apr 18 08:01 Summarizing Obama's Campaign: Demagogue Central Apr 18 12:48 BREAKING NEWS: Reform Legislation Alert Apr 18 13:56 S & P Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating Outlook Apr 18 18:13 Scott Wright's Twitter Mock Draft Apr 18 19:51 Has Juan Williams Gone Insane?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Quin Hillyer's Masterpiece
I've been a faithful follower of Quin Hillyer's columns and posts for a very long time. This post , however, is the best piece of writing I've seen from him, which says alot considering the standard he's set. In this post, Hillyer explains in great detail what to like about the 2011 budget deal and why. Let's start with this section:
This is an Appropriations bill. Approps bills are primarily expressed through "budget authority," not through "outlays." A project in an Approps bill that receives budget authority in FY 2011 might not actually get spent, there may not be an "outlay" of the full amount, in 2011. If it is a construction project, that will almost certainly be the case. This late in the fiscal year, which began last October 1, and thus is more than halfway over, some of these projects may not even get the contracts signed before the end of the fiscal year. So cutting that project would not cut a single dollar from actual spending this year. But that does NOT...NOT NOT NOT NOT NOT...mean that cutting the project is a waste of time. If the budget authority is removed, it means that the money that absolutely would have been spent in future years now CANNOT be spent, by law. It saves real money.
That's illuminating. It appears that what Hillyer is saying is that money appropriated in a fiscal year often isn't spent until the next FY. Further, it appears that Hillyer is saying that this budget deal eliminates the budget authority for money already appropriated, meaning that those monies appropriated can't be spent. In the case of Highway Trust Fund monies, that can be a substantial amount of money.
Hillyer continues:
It's not a perfect analogy, but think about what happens if you re-finance a $300,000 house to cut the interest rate from 5% to 4.5%. In the first year, it saves almost no money, because you must pay a refinancing fee (and because, of course, it's only one year of a 30-year mortgage). Does that mean that refinancing is useless? Of course not. Over the life of the mortgage, it will save tens of thousands of dollars. The first-year "outlay" might be nearly the same, but what matters is the long-term budget authority: the full payout of the mortgage. The savings are real. It's the same thing with a lot of the items that critics are calling "smoke and mirrors" just because they don't cut this year's outlays. The criticism is utterly ill-informed and baseless.
I won't pretend to believe that everything in this omnibus spending bill is something that conservatives will like. What I can say, however, is that, based on this information, there's alot to like about this legislation.
I know this is beating a dead horse but pressuring President Obama into not increasing spending that his budget called for should be included in the savings. We should also add the money this clips from future baselines. That isn't chump change, folks. It's possible as much as $250,000,000,000 will be saved over the next decade just as a result of that. That's before adding in the $38,500,000,000 in agreed to cuts.
This information can't be overemphasized:
Granted, there also are accounts that contain leftover money that supposedly wasn't going to be spent anyway, so in this case, say the critics, cutting the budget authority doesn't save money; it's just forcing the official accounting to catch up with the reality of the unspent funds...Well, yes and no. Or rather, maybe. The dirty little secret about unobligated funds is that many of them are in accounts that aren't impressively tight. Executive branch bureaucracies, without approval of Congress, often can tap into those funds (in effect) for other purposes, merely by shifting them among accounts. Most funds are fungible.
That's why Sen. Tom Coburn is making such a big deal...about cutting hundreds of billions in unobligated funds: because as long as they remain on the books, they still can get spent, and in most cases will get spent. Therefore, eliminating the budget authority for these programs does indeed save real money. It's not just an accounting trick. It takes away all legal authority to spend that money. It means the taxpayers will not be on the hook for the money.
What part about taking away "all legal authority to spend that money" don't people understand? I wish Levin, Hannity and Rush had dug into this more before shooting their mouths off. It isn't that this is a fantastic deal that conservatives should be doing handstands and cartwheels over. It's just something that they shouldn't be trashing.
Posted Saturday, April 16, 2011 9:17 AM
Comment 1 by Michael Chopp at 16-Apr-11 03:22 PM
You are on to something with the numbers problem and comprehension of same.
Relate to something physical. According to Paul Calore published in www.historical.whatitcosts.com, the replacement cost of the Interstate Highway System in 2008 dollars is $500 billion. Look it up.
Regards,
Michael Chopp
Progressive Taxation & the Left's Intellectual Dishonesty
This morning, St. Cloud resident John Wertz has a Your Turn editorial in the St. Cloud Times. Saying that Mr. Wertz's YTE is filled with cheapshots, incomplete quotes and deceitful tactics is understatement. Here's the first deceitful tactic Mr. Wertz used:
At a March 16 'town hall' meeting at the St. Cloud Public Library, I questioned St. Cloud-area legislators Reps. Steve Gottwalt, King Banaian and Sen. John Pederson if they believe in progressive taxation, those with greater ability to pay contribute an increasingly higher percentage of their income to taxes.
Gottwalt and Pederson said they do not support this approach. Banaian, the only one of the three who is an economist, affirmed his belief in progressive taxation, including that highest income earners would pay the greatest percentage.
Mr. Wertz is right in saying that Rep. Banaian said that he supports a progressive taxation system. It's just that he intentionally omitted King's stipulation. King said that tax progressivity should be determined by including federal income taxes into the equation.
This makes sense because a state imposing high taxes on itself gives its surrounding states a significant competitive advantage. Why would any state decide to give its neighboring states that type of competitive advantage?
Here's one of Mr. Wertz's cheapshots:
What I hear in Gottwalt's and Pederson's perspectives is that they believe the wealthiest Minnesotans should pay 2 percent less of their income than the rest of us. They appear to believe that this is appropriate state policy, even in these difficult economic times.
It isn't surprising that a progressive advocate would play the class warfare card. In fact, it's totally predictable. In reality, Sen. Pederson's explanation on why he doesn't favor progressive taxation is straightforward.
First, a little background is in order. This subject came up at last month's townhall meeting. In the month following that first townhall meeting, Sen. Pederson took time to study the subject of tax progressivity.
The heart of Sen. Pederson's answer was that, historically speaking, states with the most progressive tax systems are prone to wild swings between big surpluses and massive deficits.
Sen. Pederson said that he'd prefer a taxation system that didn't produce the volatile revenue swings that are part and parcel of progressive tax systems.
It's also time to expose the DFL's supposed love of tax progressivity. Each time that the DFL employs that tactic, they expose themselves to charges of political hypocrisy. The DFL loves tax regressivity if it means they can use it for a dedicated funding source for one of their myriad of special interest projects.
Since Jan. 1, 2008, the DFL has proposed and enacted the following regressive tax increases: the state sales tax increase (Legacy Act), the state gas tax, the 7-county-wide sales tax to pay for transit in downtown St. Paul-Minneapolis, higher license plate fees and a gas tax surcharge.
That isn't what political parties committed to tax progressivity do. It's what people who just love higher taxes do.
If they want to spend money on transit, they won't hesitate raising the most regressive taxes. If big city mayors insist on keep paying off his political allies but the state won't subsidize his spending, that's fine; they'll raise property taxes without hesitation. If the DFL insists on increasing funding 'the environment' and 'the arts' but there isn't enough money in the general fund, they'll fight until they pass a constitutional amendment that funds the arts and the environment.
In fact, if the constitutional amendment fails when it increases spending on 'the environment', they'll just come back another time and include 'the arts' and parks to gain the limosine liberal vote and win over a few soccer moms.
The DFL is genetically predisposed to raising taxes. The thought of holding oversight hearings to see if money is being spent wisely doesn't enter their thoughts. PERIOD. In the DFL's world, if money was appropriated once, it won't be questioned in the future, at least not until there's a massive deficit again.
The DFL and their puppets often talk about the necessity of government and taxes. What they don't talk about are the things taxes pay for that don't serve any useful purpose. Things like $50,000 drinking fountains. Things like $1.2 million dollars to the Perpich Center for the Arts, near $40 million for trails, $4 million dollars for a volleyball center in Rochester, millions for sculpture gardens and nature centers, $16 million for the Ordway Performing Arts Center, $17 million for Orchestra Hall.
When the DFL talks about tax progressivity, it's only in the context of getting a major income tax increase passed. The DFL isn't opposed, as I've proved earlier in this post, to tax regressivity. They've voted for the biggest regressive tax increases in recent state history.
Their arguments about tax progressivity are phonier than a $3 bill.
Posted Saturday, April 16, 2011 5:44 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Apr-11 10:08 PM
As we were told today at the State Central meeting, to remember "the top 5% of Minnesotans pay 43% of the income taxes." The DFL is correct. It's not fair.
Taking Bets: When Will Amy Intervene?
This past week, air traffic controllers had a difficult time not falling asleep. First, it was at the Nevada-Tahoe airport . This afternoon, it was at the Miami airport :
The Miami case is the seventh incident this year in which a controller has been suspended for falling asleep on the job, The Washington Post reported.
This is a serious issue that needs to be resolved. Still, there's a better than even money bet that Sen. Klobuchar will introduce legislation dealing with this 'crisis'. What I'm wondering is when that legislation will be introduced.
Will it right after the Passover/Easter recess? Next month? Time's wasting, Sen. Klobuchar. If you don't act quickly, there's a good possibility that the problem might get fixed. You'll lose a perfectly good grandstanding/photo op opportunity.
You didn't waste time getting to a gas station while gas prices started going through the roof . She didn't have a solution but that didn't prevent her from taking advantage of a photo op.
Folks, it's time to weigh in. Give me your best guess on when Sen. Klobuchar submits a bill to 'fix' the air traffic controller crisis.
Posted Saturday, April 16, 2011 7:02 PM
Comment 1 by Stonewall Jackson at 16-Apr-11 08:06 PM
Gary,
For the most prolific blogger in the Twin Cities, you are remarkably quiet about Tom Emmer's latest defeat today.
Emmer, the party-on frat boy who ran the worst campaign for governor in the history of MN and who snatched defeat from the jaws of victory last fall, lost to the adult Jeff Johnson for RNC.
A great day for all Republicans who use their heads for something other than a hat rack!!!!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Apr-11 11:06 PM
I wasn't a delegate to the State Central Committee. BTW, I don't live in the Twin Cities.
The DFL's Corruption Deficit
It's no secret that there's a state budget deficit. Unfortunately, that's the smaller deficit preventing a budget resolution. The bigger deficit is the DFL's integrity deficit.
This isn't an accusation that all DFL legislators are liars. I don't believe that for a split-second.
What I'm refering to is the corrupting of the fiscal note process. When I liveblogged the Photo ID bill hearing in the House State Government Finance Committe, Rep. Kiffmeyer was asked about the fiscal note she'd just gotten prior to walking into the hearing. She explained that she'd just received the note while walking into the hearing.
Almost immediately, Rep. Mike Benson questioned the fiscal note, saying that some of the expenses in the fiscal note were for things that weren't in the bill's language. Rep. Banaian noted that costs were applied to things that weren't demanded by the bill.
In one instance, Rep. Kiffmeyer's legislation gave counties this flexibility :
Counties employing electronic rosters in whole or in part shall allocate computers to affected precincts based upon the total number of registered voters in each precinct 90 days preceding the primary election and historical statistics regarding election day registrants. The minimum computers required shall be on site at each precinct. Precincts employing electronic rosters shall be allocated a minimum of two computers.
Since there's no way of telling how many computers will be used, it isn't knowable what cost to attach to it.
Then there's this provision:
Sec. 33. PUBLIC EDUCATION CAMPAIGN.
The commissioner of administration shall contract for the production and
implementation of a statewide public educational campaign related to the voter identification requirements of this article. The campaign must inform voters of the requirements for identification when voting, methods of securing sufficient identification, including securing a free voter identification card if necessary, and the process for provisional balloting for voters unable to meet the identification requirements on election day. The secretary of state may consult with the vendor in coordinating material related to the campaign, but the secretary, the secretary's staff, and any other documents or materials promoting the office of the secretary of state may not appear visually or audibly in any advertising or promotional items disseminated by the vendor as part of the public education campaign.
$....... is appropriated in fiscal year 2012 and $....... is appropriated in fiscal year 2013 from the general fund to the commissioner of administration for purposes of implementing this section.
The corruption is obvious once you read this :
The Department of Administration used numbers from a Common Cause Minnesota report to back up its contention that a multi-million dollar ad campaign is necessary to inform the public about a new photo ID requirement at the polls. They also used information from two other outside groups cited in the Common Cause report , the Brennan Center for Justice and the Pew Center on the States.
Whether you agree that a multi-million dollar ad campaign should happen or whether you think it isn't needed, the reality of it is that it isn't mandated by the legislation. That means this fiscal note is corrupt and shouldn't be taken seriously.
That's why Rep. Steve Simon, a DFL legislator, applauded Chairman Morrie Lanning's decision to not vote on the bill until the fiscal note was corrected.
If Dayton's numbercrunchers let Common Cause MN put their input into this fiscal note, what other fiscal notes did other DFL special interest groups give input into?
I remember watching the House floor debate on the State Government Finance bill, during which time Republicans like Rep. Keith Downey questioned the integrity of the fiscal notes concerning several of his reforms. One of Rep. Downey's reforms, the so-called 15 by 15 reform, called on the state to reduce its workforce by 15% by 2015.
Though it called for significantly reducing government employment, the fiscal note said it would actually cost the state more to reduce the workforce than to keep it where it's at.
How can a thoughtful person accept such worthless thinking as fact? The numbers on that fiscal note weren't just faulty; they were laughable.
Still, Gov. Dayton insists that the GOP's budget is off by $1,000,000,000. That's proof that Gov. Dayton isn't clued into the fiscal note problem or that he's willfully looking the other way on this issue.
Gov. Dayton knows that his tax-the-rich scheme won't get serious consideration if the MNGOP legislature's budget balances without raising taxes. They'd be dead in the water. Therefore, the only way his tax-the-rich scheme gets a serious consideration is if he convinces people the GOP legislature's budget doesn't balance.
Until the Dayton administration's duplicitousness stops, this deficit won't get fixed. The corruption must end ASAP.
The media must report on this if they don't want to be ridiculed as being Gov. Dayton's shill. With some media people, I don't know that that's a big deal.
DFL TV mouthpieces like Don Betzold and Javier Morillo-Alicea will continue repeating Gov. Dayton's talking points forever.
Let's be clear about something: if the special interests want to make their voices heard on a piece of legislation's provisions, that's well within their rights. When they want input into the numbercrunchers' work product, I'm seriously not ok with that.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan enjoyed saying that everyone's entitled to their own opinions. They just aren't entitled to their own facts.
Giving Common Cause MN input into fiscal notes means that Gov. Dayton is letting them input into influencing legislation through their activism and through their influencing these fiscal notes.
If Rep. Thissen or Rep. Winkler talk about the nonpartisan office that's producing these fiscal notes, they should be ridiculed. It isn't credible because we've got proof that partisans are influencing fiscal notes.
That's before considering the fact that the numbercrunchers serve at the pleasure of the governor. Thus far, their track record has been sloppy at best, corrupt at worst.
What's more important is that the DFL can't point to a single instance where Gov. Pawlenty's numbercrunchers let special interests give their input into what pieces of legislation would cost. This is a first, though it isn't a first that I'd be proud of.
What we're finding out is that the DFL's special interest allies are corrupt to the point of being willing to say anything to get their policies enacted into law. Unfortunately, we're finding out that this DFL administration is altogether too willing to let their special interest allies corrupt a previously uncorrupted process.
The DFL's corruptability deficit is, by far, the biggest deficit in St. Paul.
Posted Sunday, April 17, 2011 9:43 AM
Comment 1 by Stonewall Jackson at 17-Apr-11 10:00 PM
Dayton is doing what T-Paw never did, namely using the machinery of state government to advance his political interests. This is why I can't support T-Paw for Prez; he never got control of the state government by putting his people into office. Dayton is not making that mistake.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Apr-11 11:59 PM
Dayton's mistake is bigger, though. He's thinking the Strib can save him & that people think of the 70's & 80's as Minnesota's golden years...at least 1/3 of the voting population were born in the 70's...how much will they remember or think back to Minnesota's supposedly glory days?
Comment 2 by Kirien at 18-Apr-11 11:58 AM
I have to question how you and your fellow Republicans have managed to convince yourself that your position is worth defending with lies.
Sorry, this is what that fiscal note you're having such a tizzy with actually says:
There is no precise method to determine the actual costs of the education campaign without issuing a public solicitation that defines the required work and evaluating the vendor responses. However, for purposes of establishing an appropriation and budget, the SOS's estimate of related costs ($2,700,000 million in FY 2013 and $1,350,000 in FY 2015) appears appropriate for the vigorous education campaign intended.
Lets see...SOS stands for Secretary of State. It does not stand for Common Cause. In other words, children, the fiscal note is not, I repeat, not using Common Cause's numbers.
Now since you right wingers love claiming you're oh so moral then why don't you practice a little morality by acknowledging and apologizing for your stupid lie and attempt to con the people of this state.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Apr-11 12:17 PM
I don't care what the SecState's estimate is because it isn't part of the bill's language. It's an opinion on what the SecState's office would like to be in the bill, not what's actually in the bill. Fiscal notes aren't supposed to calculate the cost of what special interest groups think should be in the bill or what constitutional offices think should be in the bill. They're supposed to calculate the cost of the things actually contained in the legislative language.
To be fair, though, Mr. Kessler has a point. Here's what Common Cause is calculating as the cost of implementing Photo ID:
The costs, according to the Common Cause and CEIMN, include: voter education and outreach ($19 million); the subsidization of voters who don't have official IDs and need them ($4 million); equipment in every precinct in the state for the electronic roster/pollbooks ($59 million).In other words, Common Cause MN's estimate is more ridiculous than the Dayton administration's fiscal note.
Summarizing Obama's Campaign: Demagogue Central
If there's a way to summarize the central part of President Obama's re-election campaign, it that they're spending the next 18 months demagoging (in the real world, it's called lying) Republicans' policies. That's borne out in many places but especially with President Obama's weekly radio address :
Obama blasted Ryan's plan, which passed the House Friday with no Democratic votes in favor.
"It's a vision that says that in order to reduce the deficit, we have to end Medicare as we know it, and make cuts to Medicaid that would leave millions of seniors, poor children and Americans with disabilities without the care they need," Obama said.
If anything is clear about recent Democratic campaigns, it's that they aren't interested in the truth. They'd rather play on people's fears rather than on providing real solutions to people's biggest problems. President Obama isn't distancing himself from that strategy. If winning ugly by muddying the waters sufficiently is the only way he'll win, then that's the strategy he'll stick with.
Let's return to the Medicaid demagoguery.
President Obama, Medicaid as it's currently configured will bankrupt states within the next decade. As it's currently configured, limits states' flexability in dealing with the very real needs of the poorest of the poor. That's because Medicaid is ancient and badly needs to be built on a 21st Century model. That's right. It's the 21st Century. Get with it!!! Using that ancient of a model subjects people to a substandard life. It guarantees that taxpayers' money will be wasted.
What's particularly disgusting about President Obama's demagoging this issue is that Medicaid can't continue keeping President Obama's promises much longer. He's making promises that he knows he doesn't have the money to keep.
First, ask state legislators whether adding 30,000,000 people to Medicaid will cause catastrophic damage to their state's budget. Thoughtful legislators will tell you with unanimity that expanding Medicaid that dramatically will hurt their states.
The president called reducing the debt "critical," but he blasted Republicans for taking what he said is an unbalanced approach that proposes "drastic cuts" while giving $1 trillion in tax breaks to the wealthiest Americans.
He's talked that talk in every speech he's given the last 2 years. I won't trust him because he's caused the 3 biggest deficits in U.S. history. His actions aren't remotely close to matching his talk. That's why i won't take his talk about deficit reduction seriously.
I'm supposed to trust the guy who's added $5,000,000,000,000+ to the national debt since taking office as caring about reducing the debt? That might fool some people but it won't fool people who've noticed that this president is more about talking the talk than about walking the walk.
To reduce the national debt, you need to start running surpluses. If the GDP grows at a 5% a year average each year for the next decade, President Obama's budgets will add $10,000,000,000,000 in that decade. That's T as in trillion. Considering the fact that JP Morgan revised their GDP forecast to 1.4% for 2011 , there's no chance we'll see a balanced budget before 2016, if then.
Simply put, trusting that President Obama cares a whit about deficit reduction requires the willful suspension of disbelief. There's nothing in his actions that indicates he's interested in anything other than spending like a crazed teenager on his millionaire dad's credit card.
President Obama's SOTU speech was hailed beforehand as his blueprint for reducing the deficit and jumpstarting the economy. He didn't even mention deficit reduction in the first half of his SOTU speech. Even then, he spoke about it in passing, not in detail. President Obama spoke at length about "investing in the future". That shows what type of a priority he's putting on deficit reduction and how much higher of a priority he's putting on continuing his spending binge.
Part of President Obama's criticizing Paul Ryan is because Chairman Ryan's Path to Prosperity budget blueprint shifted the center of political gravity in DC away from President Obama. Chairman Ryan exposed President Obama as a policy lightweight. President can't let that perception go unanswered, if for no other reason than his ego won't permit it.
With President Obama's approval rating with independents in the latest Gallup poll at 35%, President Obama knows that he can't afford to not respond by attacking Chairman Ryan. The risk for President Obama is that he might be further exposed as a lightweight. If that happens, he knows he won't win re-election.
President Obama's attacks aren't really about offering a superior vision for the nation. It's to win ugly. He won't win going away like last time. In fact, if gas prices keep climbing, his odds against getting re-elected skyrocket. High gas prices mean that unemployment stays high, too.
It's important to understand early that DC in President Obama's lexicon means Demagogue Central. For all his lofty rhetoric, the reality is that President Obama is a man with a long laundry list of things from the progressives' wishlist but few real solutions.
He's desperate to get re-elected because he might well think that that's the only way Obamacare doesn't get thrown into history's stockpile of failed ideas.
The antidote to Obama is Paul Ryan. If Ryan were to get into this race, the fight would be over. Last night, in a Hannity special, a focus group composed of 50% McCain voters, 50% Obama voters consistently gave Ryan rave reviews. Republicans consistently gave him scores in the mid- to high- 80's & Democrats giving him ratings solidly in the mid 70's.
With voters sending that signal, President Obama's advisers are likely drinking Maalox by the bottle. Their guy would get his butt whipped in a matchup against Paul Ryan.
Ryan is the guy who, in a debate, President Obama couldn't demagogue. Ryan is too composed, too knowledgeable, too good at laying out his vision for eliminating the debt and running actual surpluses. This stuff, frankly, is nothing more than the political version of basketball trash-talking.
That works against up-and-coming stars who aren't totally sure of themselves. Trash-talking didn't work against MJ. Similarly, it doesn't work against Paul Ryan.
Posted Monday, April 18, 2011 8:01 AM
No comments.
BREAKING NEWS: Reform Legislation Alert
BREAKING NEWS-- Chairman Morrie Lanning and Rep. King Banaian introduced HF1506 , a bill that assigns "new duties to the Legislative Commission on Planning and Fiscal Policy". Here's the key portion of the legislation:
Subd. 5. Duties. (a) The commission shall:
(1) provide the legislature with research and analysis of current and projected state revenue, state expenditures, and state tax expenditures;
(2) provide the legislature with a report analyzing the governor's proposed levels of revenue and expenditures for biennial budgets submitted under section 16A.11 as well as other supplemental budget submittals to the legislature by the governor;
(3) provide an analysis of the impact of the governor's proposed revenue and expenditure plans for the next biennium;
(4) conduct research on matters of economic and fiscal policy and report to the legislature on the result of the research;
(5) provide economic reports and studies on the state of the state's economy, including trends and forecasts for consideration by the legislature;
(6) conduct budget and tax studies and provide general fiscal and budgetary information;
(7) review and make recommendations on the operation of state programs in order to appraise the implementation of state laws regarding the expenditure of funds and to recommend means of improving their efficiency;
(8) recommend to the legislature changes in the mix of revenue sources for programs, in the percentage of state expenditures devoted to major programs, and in the role of the legislature in overseeing state government expenditures and revenue projections;
(9) make a continuing study and investigation of the building needs of the
government of the state of Minnesota, including, but not limited to the following: the current and future requirements of new buildings, the maintenance of existing buildings, rehabilitating and remodeling of old buildings, the planning for administrative offices, and the exploring of methods of financing building and related costs; and
(10) conduct a continuing study of state-local finance, analyzing and making recommendations to the legislature on issues including levels of state support for political subdivisions, basic levels of local need, balances of local revenues and options, relationship of local taxes to individuals' ability to pay, and financial reporting by political subdivisions. In conducting this study, the commission shall consult with the governor, the staff of executive branch agencies, and the governor's Advisory Commission on State-Local Relations.
(b) In performing its duties under paragraph (a), the commission shall consider, among other things:
(1) the relative dependence on state tax revenues, federal funds, and user fees to support state-funded programs, and whether the existing mix of revenue sources is appropriate, given the purposes of the programs;
(2) the relative percentages of state expenditures that are devoted to major programs such as education, assistance to local government, aid to individuals, state agencies and institutions, and debt service; and
(3) the role of the legislature in overseeing state government expenditures, including legislative appropriation of money from the general fund, legislative appropriation of money from funds other than the general fund, state agency receipt of money into revolving and other dedicated funds and expenditure of money from these funds, and state agency expenditure of federal funds.
(c) The commission's recommendations must consider the long-term needs of the state. The recommendations must not duplicate work done by standing committees of the senate and house of representatives.
(d) The commission shall:
(1) prepare fiscal notes and revenue notes on pending legislation;
(2) prepare local government impact notes on pending legislation; and
(3) prepare a forecast of state revenues and expenditures.
(e) The commission shall report to the legislature on its activities and
recommendations by January 15 of each odd-numbered year.
(f) The commission shall provide the public with printed and electronic copies of reports and information for the legislature. Copies must be provided at the actual cost of furnishing each copy.
The fiscal notes prepared by the Dayton administration on the GOP reforms haven't recorded savings caused by the reforms. For instance, fiscal notes have been submitted that record the cost of the reform, then don't reflect the money saved by the reforms.
DFL legislators are sure to complain that this is the GOP's attempt to hijack the fiscal note process to support the GOP's numbers. Those complaints are baseless:
Section 1. Minnesota Statutes 2010, section 3.885, subdivision 1, is amended to read:
Subdivision 1. Membership. The Legislative Commission on Planning and Fiscal Policy consists of nine three members of the senate appointed by the Subcommittee on Committees of the Committee on Rules and Administration and three members of the senate appointed by the senate minority leader, three members of the house of representatives appointed by the speaker, and three members of the house of representatives appointed by the house of representatives minority leader. Vacancies on the commission are filled in the same manner as original appointments. The commission shall elect a chair and a vice-chair from among its members. The chair alternates between a member of the senate and a member of the house of representatives in January of each odd-numbered year.
In other words, this truly would be a nonpartisan board evaluating the numbers. The Senate Majority Leader and Minority Leader would each pick 3 people to serve on this commission. Likewise, the Speaker of the House and the House Minority Leader would pick 3 people to serve on the commission.
Further, this legislation provides for replacing people on the basis of the party that made the initial pick would pick the replacement.
The biggest thing to take from this is that this takes the responsibility afor preparing fiscal notes away from the governor's political appointee who serves at the pleasure of that governor and transfers that responsibility to a truly nonpartisan commission.
Posted Monday, April 18, 2011 12:48 PM
No comments.
S & P Downgrades U.S. Credit Rating Outlook
President Obama is trying to downplay the fact that Standard and Poors downgraded the U.S. credit rating outlook from stable to negative . Still, that isn't likely to play with the American people.
The Obama administration moved swiftly Monday to downplay ratings agency Standard & Poor's downgrade of its U.S. credit outlook, calling the decision a political judgment that should not be taken too seriously.
The timing of S&P's announcement was unwelcome for the White House, coming just as President Obama tried to regain the initiative on the deficit debate in Washington.
Last week Obama laid out his plan to reduce the budget deficit by $4 trillion over 12 years, trying to give markets confidence that he was serious about tackling U.S. fiscal woes.
Unwelcome is the understatement of the year. At a time when President Obama is annoyed mightily by Paul Ryan and his Path to Prosperity plan, and with people giving Ryan's plan serious consideration, the last thing President Obama can afford is to have interest rates on the debt go up.
It's instructive that the Obama administration's plan for combatting this announcement is purely political, not substantive. Here'spart of their strategy:
Pan S & P.
"I don't think that we should make too much out of that," top White House economist Austan Goolsbee said on MSNBC, referring to the S & P downgrade.
"What the S & P is doing is making a political judgment and it is one that we don't agree with," he said on CNBC.
Praise Moody's.
The rival ratings agency said it viewed the direction of U.S. fiscal policy as "credit positive. It appears to me that Moody's and some others did not agree with that judgment," Goolsbee said.
The people see that President Obama isn't serious about reducing spending, cutting deficits or dealing with the national debt. He's paid lip service to cutting deficits but he's never submitted a budget that comes close to cutting deficits.
The American people won't settle for politicians' schtick from either side of the aisle. They're demanding the real thing. Thus far, what President Obama has proposed on cutting deficits wouldn't even rate as a cheap imitation.
Posted Monday, April 18, 2011 1:56 PM
Comment 1 by IndyJones at 18-Apr-11 03:55 PM
Neither Moodys or S&P rating system are accurate. Like today, in the 70's neither of these rating agencies would consider a downgrade until the institution was already bankrupt. The only people to trust is Weiss ratings, and they determined the Government to be bankrupt long ago.
Comment 2 by eric z at 19-Apr-11 10:22 AM
IndyJones -
A long time ago?
Was that "bankrupt" rating from back in Reagan-Bush years, or was it from W-Bush years?
Or Clinton years (but the debt WAS paid down during Clinton years)?
Just wondering.
Also, IJ --- Is Ron Paul for real, or will GOP regulars be able to derail him? They, the regulars, appera to be no part of any real solution. Each side in the two party system we now suffer plays Kabuki theater; Tweedledee and Tweedledum fantasizing that there's a difference.
Scott Wright's Twitter Mock Draft
Each year, I follow Scott Wright's NFLDraftCountdown website for the excellent work he does, reviewing tape, attending the Senior Bowl & publishing mock drafts.
Tonight, Scott is doing a Twitter mock draft. Follow Scott at @DraftCountdown. It's starting momentarily so get moving.
PS- Follow Scott because he's an SCSU grad, too. And we've seen what contributions SCSU grads have made. (King Banaian & his student Dave Kleis leap to mind.)
Here goes:
With the 1st pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Carolina #Panthers select Cameron Newton, QB, #Auburn. #NFLDraft
With the 2nd pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Denver #Broncos select Marcell Dareus, DT, #Alabama. #NFLDraft #CrimsonTide
10 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply ~
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 3rd pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Buffalo #Bills select Von Miller (@MillerLite40), OLB, #TexasAM. #NFLDraft
8 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply ~
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
by ChrisSteuber
With the 4th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Cincinnati #Bengals select A.J. Green, WR, #Georgia. #NFLDraft #Bulldogs
8 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply ~
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 5th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Arizona #Cardinals select @BlaineGabbert, QB, #Missouri. #NFLDraft
6 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply ~
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
With the 6th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the Cleveland #Browns select Robert Quinn, DE, #NorthCarolina #NFLDraft #TarHeels
6 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply ~
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 7th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the San Francisco #49ers select Patrick Peterson, CB, #LSU. #NFLDraft
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
by ChrisSteuber
With the 8th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the Tennessee #Titans select Nick Fairley, DT, #Auburn #NFLDraft
6 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply ~
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 9th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Dallas #Cowboys select Tyron Smith, OT, #USC. #NFLDraft
5 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply ~
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
by ChrisSteuber
With the 10th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the Washington #Redskins select Julio Jones, WR, #Alabama #NFLDraft #CrimsonTide
4 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply ~
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 11th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Houston #Texans select @PrinceAmukamara, CB, #Nebraska. #NFLDraft
3 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply ~
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
With the 12th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the Minnesota #Vikings select Jake Locker, QB, #Washington #NFLDraft #Huskies
2 minutes ago Favorite Retweet Reply ~
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 13th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Detroit #Lions select Anthony Castonzo, OT, #BostonCollege. #NFLDraft
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
by ChrisSteuber
With the 14th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the St. Louis #Rams select Aldon Smith, DE, #Missouri #NFLDraft #Mizzou
With the 15th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Miami #Dolphins select @Ryan_Mallett_15, QB, #Arkansas. #NFLDraft
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
by ChrisSteuber
With the 16th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the Jacksonville #Jaguars select Ryan Kerrigan, DE, #Purdue #NFLDraft
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 17th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the New England #Patriots select @JJWatt, DE, #Wisconsin. #NFLDraft
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
by ChrisSteuber
With the 18th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the San Diego #Chargers select Cameron Jordan, DE, #Cal #NFLDraft
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 19th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the New York #Giants select Mike Pouncey, C/OG, #Florida. #NFLDraft
With the 20th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the Tampa Bay #Buccaneers select Da'Quan Bowers, DE, #Clemson #NFLDraft #Bucs
With the 21st pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Kansas City #Chiefs select Gabe Carimi, OT, #Wisconsin. #NFLDraft
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
With the 22nd pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the Indianapolis #Colts select Nate Solder, OT, #Colorado #NFLDraft #Buffaloes
With the 23rd pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Philadelphia #Eagles select Jimmy Smith, CB, #Colorado. #NFLDraft
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
With the 24th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the New Orleans #Saints select Muhammad Wilkerson, DE, #Temple #NFLDraft #Owls
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 25th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Seattle #Seahawks select Corey Liuget, DT, #Illinois. #NFLDraft
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
With the 26th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the Baltimore #Ravens select Brandon Harris, CB, #Miami (FL) #NFLDraft
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 27th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Atlanta #Falcons select Adrian Clayborn (@AJaClay), DE, #Iowa. #NFLDraft
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
With the 28th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the New England #Patriots select Mark Ingram, RB, #Alabama #NFLDraft
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 29th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Chicago #Bears select Derek Sherrod, OT, #MississippiState.
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
With the 30th pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the New York #Jets select Akeem Ayers, OLB, #UCLA #NFLDraft #Bruins
ChrisSteuber Chris Steuber
With the 31st pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft, the Pittsburgh #Steelers select Cameron Heyward, DE, #OhioState. #NFLDraft (Son of Ironhead Heyward)
DraftCountdown Scott Wright
With the 32nd pick in the Steuber/Wright Twitter Mock Draft the Green Bay #Packers select Justin Houston, OLB, #Georgia #NFLDraft #Bulldogs
Posted Monday, April 18, 2011 6:56 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 19-Apr-11 10:11 AM
Locker, first round, not Mallett?
No love for Joe Webb?
I bet the Vikings wait until a later round and make a surprise selection.
As they did with Tavaris Jackson, as the Patriots did with Tom Brady.
Sometimes you're the Liousville Slugger, sometimes the ball ...
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Apr-11 10:44 AM
I think Locker & Mallett are first round talents. I wouldn't hate it if they didn't draft a QB with the 12th pick if it meant shoring up another position, like either offensive line (Mike Pouncey) or D-Line (Da'Quan Bowers?)
I don't know that Joe Webb is the answer but he's got some unique skills.
Please, please, please drop the TJax talk. I used to get nightmares thinking of him running Chilly's "kick ass offense."
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 19-Apr-11 04:07 PM
Gary:
I had nightmares about that field goal in the Miami game in the first quarter that Chilly didn't kick. If he kicked that we would've easily won the Miami game and the whole season might be different.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Has Juan Williams Gone Insane?
I'm just watching the Panel on Special Report. What I just saw just blew my mind. Anchor Brett Baier started by saying that Congressman Ron Paul said that DC needs to "live within their means." Juan Williams' response defies sensibility:
"Well, that's just TEA Party rhetoric and it's just dangerous when you start playing with the debt limit."
Getting spending under control is dangerous??? That's essentially what Juan Williams is saying. That isn't drinking the Kool-Aid. That's guzzling Geithner's strange brew. Juan should know better than that.
This is just the White House attempting to keep concessions to a minimum. This isn't about policy as much as it's about President Obama attempting to look centrist without pissing his base off to the Nth degree.
The reality is that people want deep spending cuts. In fact, I'd be surprised if they didn't want to get to surpluses and paying off debt ASAP. That isn't just TEA Party rhetoric as Juan suggests. It's what sane people everywhere are worrying about.
I know it's easy to get rapt in the DC political gamesmanship mindset. That's why Juan really needs to make periodic visits to the heartland. Without that perspective, life gets thrown all out of kilter, causing people to say really crazy things like Juan said tonight.
Posted Monday, April 18, 2011 7:51 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 19-Apr-11 10:04 AM
Are you using Juan Williams as a strawman?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Apr-11 10:44 AM
No
Comment 2 by eric z at 19-Apr-11 10:31 AM
You say Geithner, but there also is Bernanke, some would say Bernanke-with-more-real-power, so do you, Gary, or any readers see his place in the equation?
After all, his game is collecting the debt service into the banking industry, and for what?
That "for what" is a big part of Ron Paul's agenda, or am I misreading that?
I expect Bernanke remains as happy as the rest of Wall Street with debt service.
How big a slice of the pie is debt service, these days, these GOP proposed budgets, Dem proposals, and when is "too much" measured that way instead of saying the debt is $XXX trillion?
Any thoughts? I don't see the Chinese rocking the boat any time soon. Do you GOP guys foresee that?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Apr-11 10:39 AM
Bernanke is definitely part of the equation in the debt problem. It's the fed's policy to keep printing money.
