April 21-23, 2011
Apr 21 03:46 Performance Bonuses For MnSCU Chancellor? Apr 21 12:16 Demolishing Jeff Rosenberg's Photo ID Arguments Apr 21 18:08 Huckabee, the Wimp Apr 22 13:50 Gov. Dayton, Balanced Budget Expert? I Don't Think So Apr 22 17:57 Birds of a Feather: Huckabee and Trump Apr 23 09:43 Capitalism, not Unions, Destroyed the Economy? Apr 23 11:49 Gold Standard No More Apr 23 14:11 Issa Investigation Into Energy Criminals Apr 23 20:49 Sutton vs. Martin
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Performance Bonuses For MnSCU Chancellor?
Perhaps I'm a bit naive but I'm having a little difficulty figuring out what types of things the MnSCU chancellor would be rated on to earn "up to $50,000 in performance bonuses." According to this article , Steven Rosenstone agreed to a contract paying him $360,000 per year in salary:
The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system has reached a deal with the system's next chancellor that will pay a base salary of $360,000 plus up to $50,000 a year in performance bonuses.
The system trustees agreed to the contract with Steven Rosenstone on Wednesday. They picked him in February to succeed retiring Chancellor James McCormick.
The contract runs from Aug. 1 through July 31, 2014, although the board may terminate him at any time.
The benefits include a housing allowance of up to $3,000 a month for the use of the chancellor's residence for official functions and $1,000 a month for transportation costs.
My first reaction to the performance bonuses was in questioning whether the things his performance bonus would be based on were objective or subjective in nature. With cronyism a distinct possibility in a college system, taxpayers have the right to question what their money is being spent on.
It's also the taxpayers' right to question the chancellor's salary and benefits. Between the salary and the performance bonus, Mr. Rosenstone will potentially be paid $410,000. Factor in the housing allowance and the transportation allowance and you're closing in on $500,000.
The next question is what the MnSCU chancellor's responsibilities are. Here's what outgoing chancellor James H. McCormick's website says:
As chancellor, Dr. McCormick is responsible to the 15-member Board of Trustees for the administration of all facets of the system. With seven state universities and 25 two-year colleges on 54 campuses across the state, the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities System serves about 390,000 students each year. Employing approximately 19,000 full- and part-time faculty and staff, the system has an annual budget of about $1.7 billion.
That's a pretty loosely defined set of responsibilities. First, what's the responsibility of the MnSCU board? Is it to monitor the 25 two-year colleges and seven state universities?" If so, is the chancellor's job to monitor the people who monitor the community colleges and state universities?
This statement provides a little insight into how performance bonuses are determined:
The board did not increase McCormick's base annual salary, which will remain at $360,000, a decision that reflects the wage freeze in place for nearly all other system employees. He received a one-time performance incentive of $32,500 based on his performance in 2008-2009. He was eligible for a performance incentive of up to $50,000.
'Over the past several years, the board has moved toward a more aggressive performance pay arrangement with the chancellor, reflecting the board's general philosophy of basing compensation on demonstrated performance and achievements,' said Trustee Ruth Grendahl, who chairs the board's human resources committee.
'Based on his performance, I believe the board could justify awarding a higher percentage of the $50,000 performance pay incentive, but we are mindful of the economic realities facing our system and other system employees.' McCormick's contract expires June 30, 2011.
Look at that last sentence:
we are mindful of the economic realities facing our system and other system employees.'
Notice that the statement didn't say that they were "mindful of the economic realities facing" taxpayers. It focused solely on the system and its employees. In light of that sentence, I'm driven to questioning the validity of this statement:
The statement also said the chancellor's ability to pursue the board's legislative agenda was enhanced by the positive legislative relationships he works to maintains. In the year ahead, the statement said long-range planning and achieving even greater administrative efficiencies remain high priorities for the board and the chancellor.
Why should taxpayers think that "greater administrative efficiencies remain high priorities for the board and the chancellor?" Based on the things I've seen in looking through the MnSCU websites, there's alot of slop in the system.
The incoming chancellor might well be a good guy. I'm not questioning that. I won't hesitate in questioning whether the MnSCU Board or the MnSCU chancellor are committed to finding "greater administrative efficiencies" within MnSCU.
Posted Thursday, April 21, 2011 3:46 AM
No comments.
Demolishing Jeff Rosenberg's Photo ID Arguments
This morning, Jeff Rosenberg's post gave me a hearty laugh. First, it appears to be written in reaction to this post . Jeff and I reference the same report:
A widespread voter fraud investigation has led to charges against 11 people in Washington County with prosecutors saying more charges were forthcoming.
All of the people charged are convicted felons who had not been cleared to vote, with most infractions occurring during the 2010 election: .
'I didn't know I couldn't' said Asst. Washington Co. Attorney Rick Hodsdon, describing what was commonly heard when the suspects were confronted.
Here's Jeff's conclusion:
That doesn't mean it's not still a problem. It is, and it's one we should fix. But it's not one that could be fixed by instituting photo ID. These people weren't trying to misrepresent who they were in any way. In a system with photo ID, they would have been properly identified and still allowed to vote.
If Jeff meant that these felons told the election officials their real names, then I'll agree with him that they "weren't trying to misrepresent who they were." If he means that these felons didn't hide the fact that they were felons, I won't agree with that. We don't know that they weren't hiding this information despite their claim that they "didn't know" they couldn't vote.
I'm not willing to take the word of a convicted felon without first digging into things deeper. The reality is that these statements might be pure spin. Convicted felons shouldn't be given automatic credibility.
The problem, instead, is that a handful of felons on probation aren't being correctly marked on the voter rolls as being ineligible to vote. Without that indication, you could could check their IDs or even scan their retinas and it wouldn't matter in the slightest.
I agree with Jeff on this statement, though I'm sure he won't agree with me that Mark Ritchie has blown it the last 2 election cycles. HAVA gave each state's top election official the affirmative responsibility to frequently update the voter registration lists:
Section 303(a) of HAVA also requires State election officials to ensure that the computerized list is accurate and current by: (i) ensuring that all registered voters are included in the list; (ii) removing only the names of voters who are not registered to vote or who are otherwise ineligible to vote ; (iii) removing duplicate names from the computerized list; and (iv) implementing safeguards to ensure that eligible voters are not removed from the list in error. 42 U.S.C. $5 15483(a)(2), 15483(a)(4).
HAVA REQUIRES state election officials to ensure the list's accuracy. It doesn't suggest it. It REQUIRES it. That means that Mark Ritchie didn't do his job of putting this updating procedure in place, then monitoring the process to guarantee the list's accuracy. In fact, he went further than that in this video:
About 5 minutes into the 14+ minute video, SecState Ritchie asked Rep. Severson "Why did you vote against the legislation giving our office the authorization to use the corrections data?" Rep. Severson responded saying that "that legislation didn't address this problem."
For years, literally, the DFL and their apologists have said, including in this video, that Photo ID "was a solution in search of a problem", at times suggesting, other times saying, that voter fraud didn't exist in Minnesota.
There's been proof of attempted voter fraud in Minnesota since 2004:
Among the well-funded and supposedly independent groups supporting John Kerry in the campaign is Americans Coming Together (ACT). ACT has taken notice of Minnesota's special vulnerabilty to vote fraud and organized a sophisticated effort to exploit it in a manner that violates Minnesota law. In Minnesota the Bush campaign has come into the possession of the following email from ACT to its Minnesota volunteers:
Election Day is upon us. You are confirmed to volunteer with ACT (America Coming Together - http://www.actforvictory.org/) on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 2.
We will be creating name badges that include your Ward and Precinct information for each of the thousands of volunteers that day to make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter at the polls.
I am emailing you to request your street address, city and zipcode. We've already got your other contact information, but your record in our database does not include this information.
You can save us time on election day by replying today to this email with this information, or give us a call at [phone number with St. Paul area code].
In order to get your badge correct, please reply by Thursday.
Thank you for your help and cooperation. See you on Election Day!
This email is a smoking gun of massive premeditated vote fraud. The ACT effort contemplates the prepositioning of registered voters as volunteers at their precincts of residence to provide the "vouching" necessary to get individuals registered to vote on election day in the precinct whether or not the volunteer "personally knows" the residence of the unregistered voter. It is a recipe for illegal voting in every precinct of the state.
While it's true that Photo ID might not have prevented these felons from voting, this email shows that a progressive organization had put a plan in place to get DFL activists to vouch for "volunteers" whose contact information was being requested so ACT could "make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter at the polls." That's more than a little strange. In fact, it seems particularly criminal.
Photo ID ends vouching, a system that's particularly open to voter fraud. ACT was a well-funded organization. They had staff and leadership that put a plan together that would've assisted ACT to commit voter fraud on a pretty massive scale.
Photo ID makes sense if for no other reason than eliminating vouching voter fraud schemes. If Jeff won't listen to any other argument, that's the argument I'll rest my case on.
While we're at it, let's destroy another DFL myth:
Photo ID would take away some Minnesotans' right to vote while failing to stop illegal voting. It would be a travesty if we were to disenfranchise some Minnesotans but allow the real problem to continue.
In the above video, SecState Ritchie claims that 100,000 Minnesotans might not be able to vote if Photo ID is enacted. In Crawford v. Marion County Election Board, a Democratic special interest group argued that " up to 989,000 registered voters in Indiana did not possess either a driver's license or other acceptable photo identification ." Judge Barker "estimated that as of 2005, when the statute was enacted, around 43,000 Indiana residents lacked a state-issued driver's license or identification card."
Further complicating this argument is Judge Barker finding "that petitioners had 'not introduced evidence of a single, individual Indiana resident who will be unable to vote as a result of SEA 483 or who will have his or her right to vote unduly burdened by its requirements.'
The notion that large numbers of people won't be able to vote if Photo ID simply isn't supported by legal findings of facts. Here's what Justice Stevens wrote in his majority opinion:
There is not a single plaintiff who intends not to vote because of the new law, that is, who would vote were it not for the law. There are plaintiffs who have photo IDs and so are not affected by the law at all and plaintiffs who have no photo IDs but have not said they would vote if they did and so who also are, as far as we can tell, unaffected by the law. There thus are no plaintiffs whom the law will deter from voting.
No doubt there are at least a few such people in Indiana, but the inability of the sponsors of this litigation to find any such person to join as a plaintiff suggests that the motivation for the suit is simply that the law may require the Democratic Party and the other organizational plaintiffs to work harder to get every last one of their supporters to the polls.
Simply put, there just isn't proof that Photo ID prevents people from voting. There are tons of DFL allegations of that but allegations and suppositions don't equal proof.
Finally, let's recognize this important point made in the SCOTUS ruling on this lawsuit:
The State has identified several state interests that arguably justify the burdens that SEA 483 imposes on voters and potential voters. While petitioners argue that the statute was actually motivated by partisan concerns and dispute both the significance of the State's interests and the magnitude of any real threat to those interests, they do not question the legitimacy of the interests the State has identified. Each is unquestionably relevant to the State's interest in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process.
That's a stunning statement:
"They don't question the legitimacy of the interests the state has identified. Each is unquestionably relevant to the state's interst in protecting the integrity and reliability of the electoral process."
States have an affirmative responsibility to make sure that people aren't disenfranchised, either by voter fraud or by putting unreasonable burdens on people. The Supreme Court ruled that Photo ID doesn't put unreasonable burdens on people.
It's time the DFL and their media enablers put aside their myths and projections and dealt with verifiable facts. If the DFL isn't willing to put aside their myths, then this issue will have to be settled by the voters in November, 2012.
Posted Thursday, April 21, 2011 12:16 PM
Comment 1 by Dan McGrath at 21-Apr-11 04:45 PM
Photo ID alone wouldn't stop felons voting - but that doesn't matter, because that isn't the proposal being debated. HF210 (Kiffmeyer-Benson 21st Century Voter ID) and Senator Limmer's companion bill, SF509 DO prevent felons and other ineligible voters from getting a ballot, using up to the minute eligibility verification that even works for election day registrants - on the spot, at the polls. See www.wewantvoterid.com for insight into how 21st Century Voter ID works. Stop agreeing with the bogus leftist talking point that photo ID doesn't prevent felons from voting. That's a strawman. HF 210 and SF509 DO stop felons voting.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 21-Apr-11 06:26 PM
With all due respect, Dan, agreeing with the fact that Photo ID won't eliminate voter fraud isn't caving into them. It's disarming them. It's that that point is stipulated. let's move on to other important parts of election reform where they're defenseless.
Comment 2 by eric z at 22-Apr-11 06:56 AM
The feds could make a social security card with bar codes, and a required current photo; renewed every year for current accuracy.
Have a height bar in the background.
Front and left profile, and log tatoos or other identifying body characteristics. Even take DNA samples and put a DNA code on the social security card.
Make it a smart card, with a microchip holding other data, readable only with the proper government machine.
You want that? That is the direction the GOP would lead us, and many do not like the prospect.
Also, there is an inconsistency in saying don't encourage sound food habits and energy efficient lighting; but then saying everyone has to carry "papers."
It's like the '40s movies, the guy in the black leather trench coat, "Let me see your papers."
No thanks. Tracking people by their social security numbers is bad enough. Everybody is a number or a non-person. Then, there is warrantless cell phone geo-tracking and other privacy intrusions.
What's the Fourth Amendment about? Why do we have it? What abuse was feared?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Apr-11 07:59 AM
Make it a smart card, with a microchip holding other data, readable only with the proper government machine.
You want that? That is the direction the GOP would lead us, and many do not like the prospect.That isn't what I'd want. What's more is that that isn't "the direction the GOP would lead us."
Huckabee, the Wimp
Thanks to on of Jedediah Bila's great columns , we're able to see that Mike Huckabee is too willing to look away from liberal policies. Here's what I'm talking about:
On 'Fox News Sunday,' Mike Huckabee declared, 'What Michelle Obama is proposing is not that the government tells you that you can't eat dessert. What Michelle Obama has proposed is that we recognize that we have a serious obesity crisis, which we do.'
Similarly, at a Christian Science Monitor-sponsored event on Feb. 23, Huckabee opined that Michelle Obama's anti-obesity campaign has been greeted negatively by some conservatives 'because she is the one presenting it.' He added, 'I still think that her approach is the right one. I do not think that she's out there advocating that the government take over our dinner plates. In fact, she's not. She's been criticized unfairly by a lot of my fellow conservatives. I think it's out of a reflex rather than out of a thoughtful expression , and that's one of the things that bug me most about the political environment of the day.'
There's just one problem with Huckabee's apologist approach. It isn't rooted in reality:
As reported by The New York Times, ' A team of advisers to Mrs. Obama has been holding private talks over the past year with the National Restaurant Association, a trade group, in a bid to get restaurants to adopt her goals of smaller portions and children's meals that include healthy offerings such as carrots, apple slices, and milk instead of French fries and soda .'
The column continued, 'The discussions are preliminary, and participants say they are nowhere near an agreement like the one Mrs. Obama announced recently with Walmart to lower prices on fruits and vegetables and to reduce the amount of fat, sugar, and salt in its foods. But they reveal how assertively she is working to prod the industry to sign on to her agenda.'
The Times added, 'Her team has worked with beverage makers to design soda cans with calorie counts and is deeply involved in a major remake of the government's most recognizable tool for delivering its healthy-eating message: the food pyramid. She encouraged lawmakers to require restaurants to print nutrition information on menus, a provision that wound up in President Obama's landmark health care law.'
There's no arguing that Gov. Huckabee is a nice guy. Unfortunately, he's tippytoed around Democrats rather than fighting for liberty. We don't need a wimp. We need a lion.
It's bad enough that he won't deal with reality. It's worse when he says things like "She's been criticized unfairly by a lot of my fellow conservatives. I think it's out of a reflex rather than out of a thoughtful expression." Gov. Huckabee isn't dealing with reality.
In his quest to be respectful to liberals, he's given this administration the ability to run roughshod on our liberty. Now isn't the time to be nice just for the sake of being nice. It's time to fight for the principles that strengthen and energize this nation.
Gov. Huckabee makes some sense some of the time but he's too liberal or too wimpy too often for me to support him. Playing the nice guy against people that have repeatedly shown that they're willing to jam things (like O'Care and the stimulus) down our throats is stupid. It's ceding a battlefield without a fight.
Ceding important fights is what's caused the jumbo-sized debt crisis. Too often, Sen. McCain, Sen. Graham and other wimps have put a higher priority on accomodating Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid than they've put on fighting for important policies that expand our liberties and increase our prosperity.
Gov. Huckabee thinks that he's got a shot of winning the South Carolina primary. That's delusional thinking. That's Jim Demint's state. It's also Lindsey Graham's state. Don't be fooled by that latter fact. Had the SC GOP found a viable candidate, they would've defeated Sen. Graham in the primary.
I won't support someone that doesn't fight well-intentioned, intrusive government. Those types of politicians are a dime-a-dozen. However, I'll enthusiastically support candidates that unabashedly fight for liberty. I'd bet the proverbial ranch that the vast majority of independents would flock to those types of candidates and elected officials.
Thanks to Ms. Bila, Gov. Huckabee is exposed as being timid in the name of niceness. If your opponent wants to ignore you and pound you into the pavement, your first reaction shouldn't be to befriend your opponent. My first instinct is fight for what's right, not what isn't controversial.
President Obama and his union thug allies have signalled that this campaign won't be for the faint of heart. Sending a wimp into that arena won't cut it. It'll take a lion, not a wimp, to defeat President Obama and his thug allies.
Posted Thursday, April 21, 2011 6:08 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 22-Apr-11 06:46 AM
You disagree with food content labels?
I think it is a small step, but a needed one.
One thought is to be harder on the additives fed livestock, since many view the chemicals used to fatten cattle and poultry as part of what we eat with a steak or chicken sandwich.
Obesity also is an outgrowth of a sedentary lifestyle.
I would be curious to know how the military applies food science as part of keeping a fighting force healthy and trim.
I expect you'd have no problems with food consumption management there. But then why encourage lax practices in the private sector?
Do you disagree with things such as enriched flour?
Fluoridation of drinking water?
Energy efficient lighting?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Apr-11 08:04 AM
Wake up Eric. We already have food content labels. They've existed most of my adult life. I've never complained about them. That's, at best, a phoney argument.
The First Lady's 'team' talking (I suspect dictating to) with the National Restaurant Association on food portion sizes is Nanny State control freakism at its worst. This administration's obsession with cramming things down people's throats will be its demise.
Comment 2 by eric z at 22-Apr-11 06:48 AM
On the closing you wrote, send in a Goliath. Send in a Timmy.
Gov. Dayton, Balanced Budget Expert? I Don't Think So
Gov. Dayton, the campaigner who claimed his tax-the-rich scheme would raise $4.6 billion, said that the GOP budget is still $1,000,000,000 short of balancing. He's acting like he's an authority on balanced budgets .
Governor Mark Dayton is happy with the progress being made in this year's State Legislative session. He says the budget bills are making progress towards his desk. However, he says so far the 10 budget bills don't add up to a balanced budget.
Let's refute Gov. Dayton's claims. Trust me, it isn't difficult:
But Tuesday's analysis, while looking at only the plan to add tax brackets, showed that adding a new top tax bracket at a rate of 10.95 percent starting in 2011 would raise roughly $1.9 billion in the 2012-13 biennium. Adding the new bracket would give Minnesota one of the highest tax rates in the country for high-income earners. The 10.95 percent rate is set at $150,000 for married joint filers, $75,000 for married separate filers and $130,000 for single and head of household filers, the department said.
Here's what his spokeswoman said in response:
Katharine Tinucci, a Dayton spokesperson, said the analysis showed 'that more work is needed to identify additional sources of revenues'. The analysis, she added, 'shows us what we already know: there is no single solution to raising the revenues needed to make Minnesota's taxes fair and to fund essential services.'
A host of MOBsters already knew his numbers didn't come close to adding up. The Minnesota Department of Revenue's report just confirmed what we knew.
Further adding to Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's shame is the fact that Dayton's departments have produced a number of fiscal notes that don't add up. More than once, the DFL's fiscal notes have scored the GOP's reform bills as costing more than they'd save.
The explanation came with Rep. Kiffmeyer's Photo ID bill. The fiscal note said that $440,000 would be spent on one of the reform provisions. The fiscal note then said that the $440,000 that was being spent on reforms wouldn't save taxpayers money. It was explained that that isn't figured into fiscal note calculations.
Gov. Dayton's accusation that the GOP budget doesn't balance is his only option if he still wants to get his tax-the-rich scheme passed. The instant he admits that the GOP reform, growth and cuts budget actually balances, he's telling Minnesotans that his tax-the-rich scheme isn't needed.
At that point, his highest priority is history.
There's no denying that Gov. Dayton talks a good game. Similarly, there's no arguing that his alleged expertise is quickly exposed as foolishness when verifiable facts are introduced into the equation.
I'm 99% positive that Gov. Dayton's accusation against the GOP legislature is a negotiating ploy. I'm 98% positive that this isn't about serious policymaking. I'm 100% certain that Gov. Dayton doesn't have credibility on balancing budgets.
I trust Gov. Dayton's budget projections like I trust Donald Trump's populist tendencies.
Posted Friday, April 22, 2011 1:50 PM
No comments.
Birds of a Feather: Huckabee and Trump
At first glance, free-wheeling Donald Trump and straight-laced Bible thumper Mike Huckabee wouldn't appear to have much in common. Dig a little deeper, though, and one major similarity emerges: a love of government control and big government.
Recently, Glenn Beck labeled Gov. Huckabee a progressive, a term I think is accurate. Here's how Gov. Huckabee responded:
This week Glenn Beck has taken to his radio show to attack me as a Progressive, which he has said is the same as a "cancer" and a "Nazi." What did I do that apparently caused him to link me to a fatal disease and a form of government that murdered millions of innocent Jews?
I had the audacity, not of hope, but the audacity to give respect to the efforts of First Lady Michelle Obama's Let's Move campaign to address childhood obesity. I'm no fan of her husband's policies for sure, but I have appreciated her efforts that Beck misrepresented, either out of ignorance or out of a deliberate attempt to distort them to create yet another "boogey man" hiding in the closet that he and only he can see.
The First Lady's approach is about personal responsibility, not the government literally taking candy from a baby's mouth. He seems to fancy himself a prophet of sorts for his linking so many people and events together to describe a massive global conspiracy for pretty much everything.
Sadly, he seems equally inept at recognizing the obvious fact that children are increasingly obese and that we now see clinical evidence of diseases in children that as recent as 20 years ago were found only in adults, such as Type 2 diabetes. The costs to our nation are staggering in increase health care expenses, but it even effects national security with now 75% of young men between the ages of 17 and 24 are unfit for military service primarily due to obesity!
His ridiculous claim that John McCain and I collaborated and conspired in the 2008 campaign is especially laughable. Is he not aware that McCain and I were competitors, not cohorts? Beck needs to stick to conspiracies that can't be so easily de-bunked by facts. Why Beck has decided to aim his overloaded guns on me is beyond me. But he ought to clean his gun and point it more carefully lest it blow up in his face like it did this time.
Huckabee's response is utterly laughable. Let's start with his claim that, because he and McCain were competitors, they couldn't possibly have took each opportunity to attack Mitt Romney. The vitriol Sen. McCain and Gov. Huckabee had for Gov. Romney was constantly on display. Here's Dictionary.com's definition of collaborate:
to work with another...on a joint project
That certainly fits what McCain and Huckabee did. Their joint project was to hit Romney with everything they had while pulling their punches for each other.
Here's another claim that Huckabee made:
The First Lady's approach is about personal responsibility, not the government literally taking candy from a baby's mouth.
I expect more honesty from an ordained Baptist minister than this. I cited Jedediah Bila's column in this post . Here's what she said about Huckabee's claim:
As reported by The New York Times, 'A team of advisers to Mrs. Obama has been holding private talks over the past year with the National Restaurant Association, a trade group, in a bid to get restaurants to adopt her goals of smaller portions and children's meals that include healthy offerings such as carrots, apple slices, and milk instead of French fries and soda.'
The column continued, 'The discussions are preliminary, and participants say they are nowhere near an agreement like the one Mrs. Obama announced recently with Walmart to lower prices on fruits and vegetables and to reduce the amount of fat, sugar, and salt in its foods. But they reveal how assertively she is working to prod the industry to sign on to her agenda.'
HINT TO GOV. HUCKABEE: When the federal government is strongarming trade organizations to "get restaurants to adopt her goals of smaller portions and children's meals that include healthy offerings such as carrots, apple slices, and milk instead of French fries and soda', I'll question where the personal responsibility is. That sounds like the long arm of the Nanny State making businesses an offer they shouldn't refuse.
Trump's love of all-powerful government takes a different form, as highlighted by Michelle Malkin's article :
While casting himself as America's new constitutional savior, Trump has shown reckless disregard for fundamental private property rights. In the 1990s, he waged a notorious war on elderly homeowner Vera Coking, who owned a little home in Atlantic City that stood in the way of Trump's manifest land development. The real estate mogul was determined to expand his Trump Plaza and build a limo parking lot, Coking's private property be damned. The nonprofit Institute for Justice, which successfully saved Coking's home, explained the confiscatory scheme:
'Unlike most developers, Donald Trump doesn't have to negotiate with a private owner when he wants to buy a piece of property, because a governmental agency, the Casino Reinvestment Development Authority or CRDA, will get it for him at a fraction of the market value, even if the current owner refuses to sell. Here is how the process works.
'After a developer identifies the parcels of land he wants to acquire and a city planning board approves a casino project, CRDA attempts to confiscate these properties using a process called 'eminent domain,' which allows the government to condemn properties 'for public use.' Increasingly, though, CRDA and other government entities exercise the power of eminent domain to take property from one private person and give it to another. At the same time, governments give less and less consideration to the necessity of taking property and also ignore the personal loss to the individuals being evicted.'
Trump has attempted to use the same tactics in Connecticut and has championed the reviled Kelo vs. City of New London Supreme Court ruling upholding expansive use of eminent domain. He told Fox News anchor Neil Cavuto that he agreed with the ruling '100 percent' and defended the chilling power of government to kick people out of their homes and businesses based on arbitrary determinations:
'The fact is, if you have a person living in an area that's not even necessarily a good area, and government, whether it's local or whatever, government wants to build a tremendous economic development, where a lot of people are going to be put to work and make (an) area that's not good into a good area, and move the person that's living there into a better place, now, I know it might not be their choice, but move the person to a better place and yet create thousands upon thousands of jobs and beautification and lots of other things, I think it happens to be good.'
There isn't a self-respecting conservative that doesn't think that Kelo v. New London isn't one the 5 worst Supreme Court rulings in this nation's history. Nothing in the Takings Clause suggests that it should be used to profit billionaires' real estate ventures. Here's the text of the Fifth Amendment :
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Having the government act as a billionaire's real estate agent isn't part of the Takings Clause. The Takings Clause talks about private property being "taken for public use". It doesn't say government should use the Takings Clause to transfer ownership of land from one private property owner to real estate developer.
What Constitution-loving TEA Party patriot would agree with Trump on that? I certainly wouldn't stand with him on that. I don't know any conservative that would.
In the end, Gov. Huckabee and Trump wouldn't think twice about expanding government. Their first principle of government is that it isn't REALLY restricted by the Constitution if it's for the right purposes. In other words, the ends justify the means.
Gov. Huckabee's response to Glenn Beck dripped with compassionate conservatism buzzwords. That's expansionist government stuff. That isn't the stuff advocated by TEA Party activists. Trump's staunch belief that using the Takings Clause for private real estate transactions against the will of the original landowner certainly isn't a principle that TEA Party activists would support.
In the end, Huckabee and Trump are altogether to throw the Constitution under the bus if it's for the right cause. That's why, though there are differences between them, they're birds of a feather in terms of supporting activist, expansionist government.
Posted Friday, April 22, 2011 5:57 PM
Comment 1 by Lady Logician at 22-Apr-11 08:22 PM
"He seems to fancy himself a prophet of sorts..."
Nice obligatory slam on Mormonism...still at it eh Governor?
LL
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 23-Apr-11 12:21 AM
Thanks for the moment of clarity. I knew there was something about these two I didn't like; now I have two less candidates to consider.
Comment 3 by Brian at 23-Apr-11 12:50 AM
Do we call Tea-Paw progressive or progressive lite? He mirrors Huck in alot of ways.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Apr-11 07:49 AM
Personally, I'd call TPaw a capitalist through & through. BTW, there's no such critter as a progressive capitalist.
Comment 4 by Mary at 23-Apr-11 11:36 AM
Thanks for the good article. For the life of me I cannot understand why so many supposedly conservatives and Tea Party members are jumping on Trump's bandwagon. If you know how to use a search engine, the internet is chocked full of articles about Trump's endorsements and financial support of NUMEROUS liberal Democrat candidates and state Democrat committees. Far more than any conservative/Republicans. The more I dig up on him the more slimy he is appearing and very disingenuous. Are we going to allow the main stream media to choose our candidate for us again like they did with John McCain?
In my mind, Donald Trump is no conservative and no Republican. He is not even a rino. He is a liberal/progressive/Democrat. My dad always said you are judged by the company you keep. The biggest percentage of Trump's is liberal Democrats.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Apr-11 11:54 AM
Mary, Anyone that contributes to Anthony Weiner, Chuck Schumer & Hillary Clinton is red-flagged as a liberal. If that same person contributes to Charlie Crist while twice ignoring contributing to Marco Rubio, you're talking about a total liberal, though not a liberal as hard left as Obama.
Comment 5 by Mary at 23-Apr-11 12:28 PM
Gary, you must have dug up the same info that I did. Multiple contributions to Chuck Schumer. Also add in Kirsten Gillibrand, Charlie Rangel (multiple contributions to him), Harry Reid (Trump's reason on that one is "I did not know Sharon Angle and it was a good business decision). He gave to the Delaware and New York DNC's as well.
I am feeling very discouraged as I watch the traction the press, including FOX is giving this guy.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Apr-11 12:46 PM
Mary, Don't be discouraged. Flavor-of-the-Month fame is fleeting. This, too, shall pass.
Comment 6 by J. Ewing at 23-Apr-11 01:40 PM
I don't think "capitalist" is a progressive term. Conservative or Liberal tells me something, but saying somebody is a "compassionate conservative" or "pragmatic liberal" (which also does not exist) tends to depend on who is talking, and about whom.
Comment 7 by J. Ewing at 23-Apr-11 01:41 PM
This time around, let us NOT let the MSM tell us who our nominee should be!
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Apr-11 02:01 PM
Jerry, the chances of that happening is between slim & ZERO.
Capitalism, not Unions, Destroyed the Economy?
This propaganda from People's World magazine suggests that capitalism is to blame for this nation's problems and that unions will save this nation from economic ruin:
Now, it's true, Detroit has come a long way down from its heyday, when it was a bustling city with crowded streets, stores filled with goods and people who stood in line to buy them.
The same could be said for many other cities throughout this country. And not just the cities. One can get off most any interstate, travel the rural roads and see town after town (with mostly white populations) with empty main streets and boarded up stores.
What went wrong?
It certainly wasn't unions. They have helped keep the American dream alive longer than it would have on its own. When there were ample union jobs and decent wages, working families had the ability to jam the stores, eat in the restaurants, and go to the movies. Those jobs and the incomes they provided were the life support for many small businesses, and the big ones too. Detroiters were among the best customers for Big Three cars.
The short version of what went wrong is that capitalism and in the case of Detroit, racism, combined to set back this great city and cities and towns across the country. Capitalism's drive to maximize profits caused it to abandon this city, and globalization made the job easier. Ford found it could make automobiles in Mexico, Brazil, and many other places by paying less than the minimum wage. Same for General Motors, Chrysler and a host of other manufacturers.
It wasn't capitalism's drive to maximize profits that caused the Big Three automakers to "abandon this city." Putting anti-capitalist regulations on the books helped strangle businesses. Many regulations were put on at the federal level, making overseas the only place to escape to.
Saying that "it certainly wasn't unions" isn't a serious argument. Saying that "when there were ample union jobs and decent wages, working families had the ability to jam the stores, eat in the restaurants, and go to the movies" is historically accurate but it's hardly relevant to today.
Reality changed because paradigms and demographics shifted. At the start of the Industrial Age, the majority of people were younger than today. It was the start of the baby boom era. Now those boomers are retiring.
It doesn't take rocket science to understand that older unionized people retire and start collecting fixed benefit pensions, driving up costs to businesses. That's what's driving the exhorbitant legacy costs to the Big 3 automakers through the proverbial roof.
In other words, it's more than possible that the unions that helped build the industrial age are tearing Michigan's and America's economies apart. When the payments for legacy costs exceeds the amount paid to factory workers, it's predictable what happens next.
When a corporation is paying more for people to enjoy their retirement than they're paying people who actually produce products, it's guaranteed that they won't sustain that trajectory very long.
Rather than working out a reasonable new plan that lets the companies keep their factories in operation while still paying a equitable retirement to retirees and that reforms the pension systems, the unions took a my-way-or-the-highway approach to negotiations. Predictably, manufacturers took the highway.
Now propagandists like People's World attempt to convince people that the corporations desire to make money, not the unions' intransigence, is to blame. What's really laughable is that alot of the unions' pensions portfolio is invested in those villainized corporations.
Isn't it ironic that the corporations that help fund their retirements are suddenly the villains? How it is that the people that paid their wages and their health care benefits and who fund their retirements are villains? If anyone figures that out, let me know.
Posted Saturday, April 23, 2011 9:43 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Quigley at 23-Apr-11 11:01 AM
Yep, paying someone $75-$100k a year to put lug nuts on a wheel had nothing to do with Detoilets demise. These clowns are funny, too bad no one is laughing with them.
Comment 2 by eric z at 23-Apr-11 03:54 PM
Wall Street and speculative capitalism is separate from productive activity.
Wall Street and the banks, owners after all of the Fed, do us in, including the productive firms, and they do it every so often but not too often where there would be ongoing effective regulation.
It's squeeze, then ease up for a time, squeeze again, etc.
It is Wall Street, London, Honk Kong, all the exchanges and the big trader-gamblers, rigging the game to screw little people and productive people and firms.
It needs to stop and your guy Ron Paul has a big part of the set of answers, including downsizing the military-industrial segment of the economy so that civilian products might again be Made in the USA.
It's been a long time ---
Gold Standard No More
The DFL's insistance that Minnesota's election system is the nation's gold standard isn't verifiable anymore. This statement by Minnesota Majority offers more proof that our election system is crumbling and that it needs a major reformation:
Today, Minnesota Majority filed affidavits with 70 county attorneys alleging voter fraud by ineligible felon voters in the 2010 General Election. In total, Minnesota Majority is asking for investigation of 743 individuals suspected of possible voter fraud.
Minnesota Majority researchers have vetted the list of suspected ineligible voters by reviewing court documents, removing names of people where identity matches were inconclusive, or where court records did not indicate the voter was ineligible at the time of the 2010 election. Where court records were unclear, those suspects were flagged as 'inconclusive,' and forwarded to county attorneys for additional verification.
222 suspects had conclusive court records indicating ineligibility to vote, while the rest were less clear.
'We're basically as sure as we can be that 222 ineligible felons slipped through the cracks and voted in 2010 Maybe as many as 743, which are fewer than we found in the 2008 election, but that was a presidential election year' said Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis. 'We clearly still have a problem with ineligible voters.'
I remember the 2008 report because MinnMaj notified Mark Ritchie about what they'd found:
Minnesota Majority is a state legislative watchdog group. Its purpose is to track and report on public policy issues and provide tools to make citizen involvement in the process easier. To those ends, we obtained a copy of the statewide voter registration system (SVRS) file from the Minnesota Secretary of State's office in 2008 in order to conduct pre-election voter surveys. In the course of this effort, we began to notice anomalies in the SVRS data, including apparent duplicate voter registrations, deceased voters on the active voter rolls, and non-existent and/or invalid voter registration addresses. This prompted us to submit a letter to Secretary of State Mark Ritchie on October 16th, 2008 explaining our concerns.
On October 17th 2008, Secretary Ritchie called a press conference in response to our letter, defending the integrity of Minnesota's election system. Minnesota Majority did not believe that Secretary Ritchie adequately addressed our concerns, so our research into election system irregularities continued.
On November 3rd of 2008, the day before the General Election, KMSP TV aired a story about convicted felons on the voter registration rolls. Tom Lyden reported that he had found about 100 felons newly registered to vote. One of them was inexplicably registered while still in prison . Lyden brought his findings to Secretary Ritchie, who said he was aware of 26 ineligible felons who had registered to vote and he offered his assurances that the felons problem would be addressed.
In other words, this isn't something that Minnesotans haven't heard about before. It's something, apparently, that's become a chronic condition during the Ritchie era.
How could a felon who's still in prison get registered to vote? Are ACORN or TakeAction Minnesota making prison visits now? That's an explanation I can't wait to hear.
Our gold standard election system a) has allowed hundreds of felons to vote in each of the last 2 election cycles, b) still doesn't update the SVRS to eliminate no-longer-eligible voters from the eligible to vote lists that election workers rely on for election integrity, c) doesn't prevent still-imprisoned felons from registering to vote and d) doesn't protect the most vulnerable people in society from rank partisan manipulation.
That's what the DFL considers the gold standard election system in the United States? It's foolish to take the DFL's arguments defending the status quo election system seriously.
Let's remember this golden oldie statement from former state DFL Chairman Melendez:
'The Secretary of State's most important duty is protecting the citizens' right to vote, that crown jewel of liberty that safeguards all other rights. But Dan Severson would toss up barriers to citizens voting. His rhetoric is disrespectful to the hard-working election officials who, county by county, community by community, shepherd our democratic processes. Severson is a radical partisan who is unsuited to the office of Secretary of State.
"Minnesotans deserve a Secretary of State who cares about maintaining our fair and secure election system and who will work to make sure that all eligible voters can cast their ballots. Dan Severson is not that person. Severson evidently cares a great deal about flinging baseless accusations in a vain quest to rewrite the history of the 2008 recount, but cares very little about maintaining the fair and transparent processes that made that recount a success."
Recounts only prove that someone's math skills are correct. They don't prove whether felons voted illegally. They don't prove that someone from Wisconsin voted in Wisconsin AND Minnesota, which is certainly possible with college students.
I'm betting that most Minnesotans would agree with the need to tighten up Minnesota's election system if they heard about these travesties. Felons being allowed to register to vote while in prison. Jim Stene voting even though Minnesota's constitution forbids it. The SVRS not getting updated in a timely fashion in direct violation of HAVA. Hundreds of felons voting in each of the last two cycles.
That's the gold standard only if you're willing to suspend all critical thinking principles on the subject. Otherwise, it's the picture of an emerging laughinstock system.
Minnesota, it's time to stop living with the image created by years of running elections right. We had the gold standard election system. Then we installed Mark Ritchie and things haven't been right since. That isn't just my opinion. It's what the hard facts tell us.
Posted Saturday, April 23, 2011 11:49 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Quigley at 23-Apr-11 12:39 PM
The DFL argues there's no voter fraud yet they provide no proof to support their arguement.
An overwhelming majority of people want voter ID yet the DFL is trying to stop it. What are they hiding?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Apr-11 12:51 PM
Chad, the DFL insists that there's no proof to give people because voter fraud isn't widespread. It's the perverse inverse of "When did you stop beating your wife"?
With each investigation, their 'gold standard' claims have less impact. With each article talking about felons voting arrests, their arguments appear less compelling. It isn't that one article or one investigation will sap their power. It's more the drip, drip, drip of one more allegation getting verified that'll change people's minds.
Response 1.2 by Gary Gross at 23-Apr-11 12:51 PM
PS- Be of good cheer & stay persistent. That's how we'll win this fight & restore election integrity.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 24-Apr-11 07:02 AM
We need to keep the DFL on the defensive side of the issue. Make them PROVE that any legal voter will be disenfranchised, or that no college student voted twice, or that ZERO felons voted, or that nobody was falsely vouched for, or that dead people didn't vote, or that people who lived in vacant lots or didn't exist at all didn't vote. PROVE that the election rolls were properly scrubbed before the election, and PROVE that the hard-working and honest election judges were trained to all of this fraud.
Minnesota's system isn't the gold standard, it's iron pyrite.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Apr-11 08:01 AM
Perhaps, it could be included in one of the bills that the SecState must sign off one month before Election Day that the SVRS has been updated. Additionally, we should demand that the SecState certify the voter rolls the last Tuesday before the election.
Remember Sarb-Ox, the legislation that passed after the financial scandals like Enron? That legislation required the CEO to sign his/her signature to their company's financial statements. One provision of the legislation said that their signature on the financial statement meant that they had read the report & stood by the accuracy of the financial statements. If fraud was discovered, the CEO was on the hook in criminal & civil court.
Why shouldn't the Chief Election Official be required to verify the accuracy of the SVRS under penalty of law?
Issa Investigation Into Energy Criminals
President Obama has created a new commission headed by AG Eric Holder to investigate why gas prices are going up so quickly. In his statement on creating this commission, President Obama hinted that speculating by investors.
It's time for a different investigation. Actually, two investigations are needed.
The first investigation should focus on...the federal government's policies. Their policies have created a self-imposed energy crisis. They've put a century of oil off-limits.
They've villified oil companies. They've lied about the amount of oil we have, saying that we only have 2% of the world's oil supply. That's a blatant lie, a lie that's been repeated by President Obama and his administration.
The 2% lie is simply explained by saying that that figure only counts KNOWN energy supplies. It doesn't include the expected energy supplies, areas where the geologic work hasn't happened but that's in or near known energy supplies.
The other investigation that needs to happen is the investigation into the militant environmentalists' litigation strategy. These militant environmentalists' organizations tie energy project up with litigation until the cost of the projects is prohibitive.
Again, this needs to be put into context. Democratic politicians have prevented the reform in the energy permitting process, much to the delight of their militant environmentalist allies' delight.
This administration and other Democratic politicians have collaborated with militant environmentalists in bottling up huge supplies of oil and natural gas. They're the real culprits in driving up gas prices, home heating bills and groceries.
It's time Issa's committee published a comprehensive list of militant environmentalist organizations that've filed lawsuits tying up our energy supplies.
Posted Saturday, April 23, 2011 2:11 PM
Comment 1 by M Hanson at 23-Apr-11 03:20 PM
Oil companies are not the least bit interested in drilling at present. Much more lucrative to use what they got and sell.
This libyan tArget shoot should not have effected the price of crude.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Apr-11 03:42 PM
If they aren't willing to drill, then I'm betting that wildcatters can start popping up & drilling & making money. If there's a nitch that isn't getting filled, markets will fill them in. They ALWAYS do.
Comment 2 by M Hanson at 23-Apr-11 03:25 PM
Only 1 permit for a new refinery has been applied for and it was granted. Internal Refinery construction has been extensive the past 30 yrs. Just enough oil to keep us paying more. These guys are smart.
Comment 3 by eric z at 23-Apr-11 03:49 PM
Ending the refinery bottleneck in the US would be beneficial. Whenever the Saudis are criticized, they always say they'd build refinery capacity in the US but always are stymied by regulators (in cahoots with the Koch brothers and big oil).
Second, the commodity oil markets are being manipulated. Last price spike that was investigated by Sen. Cantwell's committee [subcommittee? - with Klobucher a member] and the price promptly went back to normal when that heat got turned up.
The markets are manipulated periodically, but never long enough to lead to any permanent energy policy or behavioral changes.
It's a periodic shakedown, one the mob would be proud of, but it's Wall Street; begging as always for honest regulation (not the in-bed-together obscenity now playing via our two party problematic system).
Big oil will do all it can to kill the electric car at the same time it will be buying up lithium reserves to own the battery trade. If you can't suppress them, own them the other way.
And I agree, Obama is as complicit in the citizen shakedown as Newt Gingrich.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 23-Apr-11 04:14 PM
Eric, Speculators can't sustain rising oil prices for 28 months. A blip here & there? Definitely. 28 months? It takes alot more than speculators to accomplish that.
The reality is that the militant environmentalist organizations attrition litigation has significantly more to do with rising gas prices than almost all other factors combined.
Comment 5 by M Hanson at 24-Apr-11 04:08 AM
Give me a break with the environmentalist BS. Big oil is like a nation upon itself. Oil has had a very good run since the economy started coming out of the Bush recession. Remember when Ghadaffi at Georgetown in the waning days of the Cheney administration threatened to nationalize his oil industry? We get our oil from Canada. Wildcatters couldn,t supply the US oil demand.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Apr-11 07:51 AM
First, if oil is "like a nation upon itself", why can a coalition of militant environmentalists stop scores of projects dead in their tracks? Second, I'm not suggesting that wildcatters can supply all of the oil we need. I'm merely pointing out that free markets adapt to what people want. If the big oil companies won't produce the oil we're demanding, it's almost certain that a group of capitalists will put a new company together to take advantage of a new opportunity. If they're given the opportunity to make money with a limited amount of environmental litigation, they'll take that opportunity.
Comment 6 by M Hanson at 24-Apr-11 09:18 AM
Why would oil want to produce any mor oil than they currently are. They are meeting the demand. Pipeline capacity, going through a farmers land to assist an american consumer is and has been an issue. While common practice in republican circles is to blame obama for everything, he did approve the building of the tar sands pipeline across our Northern terrain.. Its time to look at the business practice of big oil without wearing political sunglasses
Comment 7 by M Hanson at 24-Apr-11 09:24 AM
And let's not forget the ability of "capitalists" to transport their oil across the pipelines owned by big oil. Or getting their oil refined. Big oil winks as they pass in the hall
Comment 8 by walter hanson at 24-Apr-11 11:40 AM
M Hanson:
If the environmentalists aren't responsible for stopping oil production then why is it when you can get over $100 per barrel oil you're not taking a drop of oil from the gulf.
It's not the oil companies stopping it since they are suing to get the right to drill in the gulf. It's the environmentalists led by Obama and his administration that is stopping them.
So quit lying!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 9 by M Hanson at 24-Apr-11 02:43 PM
Walter
Perhaps you should answer that question and then you might begin to formulate an answer.
Environmentalists have not stopped the flow of Canadian oil in our northern region so why has the price of fuel increased during the libyan target shoot? Aren,t prices locked in the futures market?
Comment 10 by M Hanson at 24-Apr-11 03:21 PM
Challenging preconceived notions is what a good conservative does. Time for supposed conservatives to question some relationships. Repeating the same old BS is what is done in Washington and St Paul. When my party got in bed with the Christian right it lost its soul.
Response 10.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Apr-11 04:52 PM
Let's see if I've got this straight. Militant environmentalists tie energy projects up in court for years, costing these companies hundreds of millions of dollars in litigation fees while inhibiting the building of new power plants, new drilling projects, new refineries, etc., but that doesn't affect the supply of oil, gas or home heating fuels? Is that the idiot argument that you're attempting to make? Or are you making an even more foolish argument than that?
Comment 11 by M Hanson at 24-Apr-11 03:28 PM
Walter
Considering oil companies have not been paying us as part of the royalty agreements should we not be restricting their access?
Comment 12 by M Hanson at 24-Apr-11 06:08 PM
There has been one refinery permit applied for the past 30+ yrs. It was granted.
Power plants etc...may be a different story. To suggest our oil issues are directly linked to environmentalists is foolish.
There are those of us who consider themselves conservative who are about corporate transparency and individual responsibility..
Response 12.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Apr-11 02:29 AM
Issuing a permit is only the first step. Then the refineries have to fight through the militants environmentalists' attrition litigation for the next 5 years or more. Then they have to fight through another wave of attrition litigation getting the state permits. That's before thinking about whether another EIS will be required by the courts or the state permitting bureaucracy.
Comment 13 by M Hanson at 24-Apr-11 06:24 PM
The bottom line for oil companies appears to be good at present. Who are we to say we are gonna have two dollar gas.
I don't think oil companies need people like Ms Bachmann and Ms Palin how to run their business. Tell oil companies how to do business, to build more refineries and when will they stop?
Comment 14 by M Hanson at 24-Apr-11 06:38 PM
And remember they have no interest in building more refineries. They give American consumers all the oil they need at ever increasing prices.
Comment 15 by M Hanson at 25-Apr-11 05:00 AM
Refining margins are not very good. Big oil has curtailed investing in refining operations. If the money was good big oil would be up to their ears in adding on to their refineries. Amazing how the wingnuts are fascist like in telling oil how to run their business. When will they stop....
Response 15.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Apr-11 09:31 AM
You haven't paid attention, have you??? There isn't a profit margin for building a new refinery because the militant environmentalist organizations, most of them corrupted by their vision for a green world, sue energy producers except if they're green energy. Here in Minnesota, MCEA bragged that they'd kept their attrition litigation going for years before killing the Big Stone II power plant project. Other organizations do that across the nation with oil refineries.
Big Environment, not Big Oil, is the real cause for this oil shortage.
Comment 16 by M Hanson at 25-Apr-11 02:23 PM
Gary
Have you had to wait in line at the gas pump? I love the term militant. I am a conservative from a long time ago. I voted for RR and my dad was a repub before me. Nice article this AM in the Winona Daily News opinion. Big oil is playing with you dude
Comment 17 by M Hanson at 25-Apr-11 02:33 PM
Gary
Why would big oil want to pump more oil? It I don't think registers for you.
Believe it or not everything is not obamas fault. Nor was it RRs in his first two years. We live in a complex society with many different motivations.
What do you think those oil companies felt after Ghadaffis Georgetown speech? Was he going to nationalize?
Comment 18 by M Hanson at 25-Apr-11 02:48 PM
Do you believe in the benevolence of Big Oil Gary? Do you know why Sr Koch peddled his wares to the Soviet Union. I own a lot of oil stock Gary cause they got the world by the balls.
Comment 19 by M Hanson at 25-Apr-11 05:17 PM
I will say DFL leadership is putrid. Who is head of the DFL? Does he know it?
Comment 20 by walter hanson at 26-Apr-11 12:52 AM
M. Hanson:
Besides the gulf how about these two recent examples.
One, Shell oil has tried to get an offshore well going in Alaska (they want to drill and spend money). They can't because the EPA has now denied for a second time their permit. The excuse being they didn't take into account the greenhouse admissions of a ship involved in the project.
Two, in Texas and New Mexico a three inch lizard is being used to stop drilling.
So quit the Sierra Club or at least trying to defend them.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 21 by M Hanson at 26-Apr-11 09:22 AM
Walter
Two instances in the largest industry in the world. Kill the lizard. We don't have a shortage we got a dependency. Work on a solution before we got a shortage. Read this months scientific american.
Comment 22 by walter hanson at 26-Apr-11 11:10 AM
Okay M here's a solution. Every American who voted for Obama because he believes in green energy can no longer drive their cars.
I guess you're taking a bus to work.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 23 by M Hanson at 26-Apr-11 02:00 PM
Walter
That response doesn't befit a thinking man. Technology driven energy solutions need more research. We put. A man on the moon a long time ago we can find solutions
Comment 24 by walter hanson at 27-Apr-11 11:48 PM
M. Hanson
I'm a thinkng man. I just wish you were a thinking man. You're thrown facts and try to pretend they're not facts. That reminds me of the claims that the man at 1600 made this morning.
So when you're ready to think we can have a chat. It's obvious that you're busy looking at the Sierra Club's press release for a new talking point.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 25 by M Hanson at 28-Apr-11 01:50 PM
Walter
We will continue this conversation on another bd or at another time. Do you think I'm a sierra club member? My daddy voted for Nixon the first time and I for Reagan as a as a 20 year old. Conservatives don't necessarily believe in tea party ranting. Buncha punks on their first go round
Comment 26 by walter hanson at 29-Apr-11 07:07 AM
M. Hanson
If you really voted for Reagan you know that Reagan will think that global warming was silly and wouldn't have the EPA trying to destroy the economy.
The fact that you can't see it happening and support it since you don't think the EPA shows that your statement #30 is a joke.
Oh and wanting to make a statement supporting Nixon as a credential isn't good since a lot of things Nixon did help set the stage for the bad economy in the last 1970's.
I guess you're not a thinking man after all since a think person would see these obvious facts.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 27 by M Hanson at 29-Apr-11 12:03 PM
I think President Reagan would be mad as hell at the Oil companies. It was Jimmy Carter who opened up the oil markets. After all Reagan put some finishing touches on the Horse and Sparrow theory of economics. The sparrows are still hungry and rich folks are tired of buying the oats.
Response 27.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Apr-11 01:22 PM
A little history lesson is in order. Jimmy Carter imposed a limit on how much money oil companies could make on existing wells. The oil companies then green-capped those wells before drilling new wells alongside of the existing wells. Since they were technically new wells, the Carter regulations didn't apply to the 'new wells'.
Comment 28 by M Hanson at 29-Apr-11 12:28 PM
Besides environmentalists are obviously not hurting their bottom line. The oil continues to flow from Canada. We had a summer blend rise and a greed grab. Just the way it is.For some folks if they can't blame someone got nothing to talk about.
Response 28.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Apr-11 01:23 PM
If you want to lower profit margins on anything, the best way to do it is to incentivize people to increase production.
Comment 29 by M Hanson at 29-Apr-11 02:57 PM
The economic theory of. Supply side was originally called horse and sparrow round the turn of the century. We got a problem rich folks got tired of buying the oats, (he sparrows got fat and. Lazy in their ways and the middle class is gettin squeezed
Comment 30 by M Hanson at 29-Apr-11 03:09 PM
Walter
The earth is warming. Its a question if its caused by man and I personally have doubts. I'm guessing a thinking man like you also has doubts and reservations.
Comment 31 by walter hanson at 01-May-11 03:00 PM
M. Hanson
One of the first things that Reagan did was end the windfall profits tax instead of asking for extra taxes. Guess that proves you're liberal democrat pretending to be a conservative.
Carter opened the oil markets? Um what horribe history book did you read that in?
Oil flows from Canada in part because the environment groups don't care in Canada. You're saying it's okay to get oil from Canada, but not to produce it in the United States.
And as for your silly crap about global warming. Minnesota has lakes because there was an ice age years ago and when it melted (global warming years before we had cars) it left behind the lakes.
About 30 or 40 years ago there was talk that we were about to have another ice age.
If global warming is such a threat why does Al Gore who has made a fortune claiming that the sea level will rise by a house on the coast of the Pacific Ocean? Even he knows it's a hoax.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 32 by M Hanson at 02-May-11 02:38 PM
Phased dereg of oil markets in 79 during the second oil crisis. Jimmy Carter.
Reagan legacy-deficit spending
Comment 33 by M Hanson at 02-May-11 03:11 PM
Walter
Al Gore is an #*#hole full of his own self
Comment 34 by M Hanson at 02-May-11 03:16 PM
Cut the mil 20 percent. Ag budget 25 percent. Eliminate dept of Education. Institute national sales tax of 1 percent 2 year sunset. Proceeds to retire Outstanding T bills. Srs of high inc cut curtail SS.
Comment 35 by M Hanson at 02-May-11 05:30 PM
Walter
- went back and read the commentary. I've decided you are nothing more than a wingnut and true conservatives are appaled by your political perceptions. I'm a bit more like the repubs that got booted out this fall and called quisling by the 300 pound ex taco king.
Comment 36 by walter hanson at 02-May-11 06:57 PM
M. Hanson:
Here's why you think I'm a wingnut. I give you facts! You then ignore facts!! You don't like dealing with the truth.
The truth is that environmental movement is trying to destroy our production of oil, of electricity, of heating our homes. They want us to live in caves unless you're an elite person like Al Gore who complains about Global warming. Since you support global warming you're a supporter of Al Gore and the other people who believe in that hoax called global warming.
So go and move to a cave so we can have what's left of the oil and electric power that we're allowed to produce and use.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 37 by M Hanson at 02-May-11 08:49 PM
In fact Walter there on the Pacific Coast are 17 miles of pristine shoreline currently occupied by the federal govt. Put it in private hands
Sutton vs. Martin
Friday night, newly re-elected GOP Chairman Tony Sutton debated newly elected DFL Chairman Ken Martin on Almanac in an interesting debate. Chair Martin said that Gov. Dayton was the only politician who's created jobs and kept his promises.
First, Gov. Dayton hasn't created jobs. Until he signs a budget that's based on the budget he's proposed, that claim isn't serious. In fact, it's laughable.
It's accurate to say that he's proposed a bonding bill. It's also accurate to say that that proposal has high bipartisan nonsupport. I was struck by the how silent it got when Gov. Dayton proposed raising taxes on "the rich" and how silent it was when he proposed the $1,000,000,000 bonding bill.
Chairman Martin also accused Republicans of "raising taxes by $1.4 billion." When Eskola if he was referring to property tax increases, Chair Martin confirmed that.
First, it's almost impossible for Speaker Zellers and Sen. Koch to dictate to R.T. Rybak how Minneapolis spends their money, with the exception of imposing unfunded mandates on cities.
More importantly, when did it become a sin for cities to pay for the things they deem important to their city's health. Why should other cities be forced to pay for part or all of the $50,000 drinking fountains in Minneapolis or additional Minneapolis bureacracy? Whatever happened to the concept of accountability and personal responsibility?
If R.T. Rybak wants to act irresponsibly, that's Minneapolis' decision whether he's acting in their best interest or not. If he isn't acting in their best interests by foolishly spending money they don't have, then it's their responsibility to fire him the next time he's up for re-election. If they think he's doing a fine job by spending an additional $44,000 per fountain, that's their choice.
When state government takes St. Cloud taxpayers' money or Willmar taxpayers' money to pay that additional $44,000 per fountain, we don't get a say in whether he's wasting money, at least not in a way that gets him terminated.
Rybak's justification for the drinking fountains is typical central planning stuff:
During the Aquatennial festival that begins Friday, the city plans to unveil concepts for 10 artist-designed drinking fountains that Rybak championed at $50,000 each. Typical park fountains cost as little as $6,000.
Rybak described his proposal as an out-of-the-box method for promoting flagging city water consumption, both for nostalgic reasons and hard-headed water financial imperatives.
Who gives a rip whether city water consumption is up or down, except during a drought? As goofy as that is, that isn't the dumbest of Rybak's decisions. This is:
The city is also awarding a $180,000 contract for a marketing campaign on behalf of city water, to be paid from water bills. And it has hired a consultant for almost $50,000 to develop a strategy for approaching suburbs about using more city water.
In one fell swoop, Rybak and the Minneapolis city council spent $730,000 for 10 artistic drinking fountains, $180,000 for an advertising campaign and $50,000 for a consultant to talk suburbs into buying more water.
If Chairman Martin wants to argue that Minnesota's job creators should be taxed more to pay for $730,000 water boondoggles in Minneapolis, let's have that debate.
The bottom line is this: Property taxes aren't a sign of how cheap state government is. They're more a sign of whether a city spends its money foolishly or wisely.
Chairman Sutton was strong throughout, saying that legislators appreciate the support they're getting from the state party. Chairman Sutton said that legislators appreciate the praise they're for sticking with the agenda they promised voters.
Chairman Martin, by contrast, said that it wasn't his job to hold his legislators' "feet to the fire", knowing full well that his cast of drones won't swerve from their mantras and policies.
A party devoid of original ideas is a party that doesn't have rifts. They're also the minority party.
It was impressive to hear Chairman Sutton say that legislative Republicans got almost 50% of the vote but that Gov. Dayton only got a plurality of the vote.
Finally, Chairman Sutton said that the GOP legislature would pass a balanced budget that didn't increase taxes, finishing by saying that Gov. Dayton should just accept as fact that Republicans weren't going to raise taxes.
Once that balanced budget is sitting on Gov. Dayton's desk, he has 2 options:
1) to veto it and argue during a special session that we have to raise taxes on job creators so government can spend fistfuls of money; or
2) to sign the bills and prevent a special session.
Republicans have made totally defensible proposals throughout the budget. The DFL haven't made many proposals, spending their time complaining about the GOP budget without providing ideas of their own.
Posted Saturday, April 23, 2011 8:49 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 24-Apr-11 11:36 AM
Gary:
Lets not forget I believe Minneapolis spent $5 million instead of $1 million to do the roof of the Target Center because they wanted an environmentally friendly roof.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 24-Apr-11 12:48 PM
If Dayton vetoes, the Repubs should go back to the original budget figure, $1B less than the current proposal, and then offer to "compromise" by spending the $1B more. Still without raising taxes. Nothing wrong with a reserve fund that keeps growing.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 24-Apr-11 06:50 PM
a couple of questions: does this mean that the Republicans are going to send the entire budget to date and in one bill, as Dayton demanded? Nothing wrong with that, except I think it makes it harder for Dayton to argue that we have to raise taxes when sitting before him is a complete budget which doesn't. It also makes it harder for Dayton to veto the whole thing because he would then have to submit a complete balanced budget of his own, which he has repeatedly failed to do even WITH tax increases, which won't fly. And of course he cannot do as Pawlenty did, unallotting or line item vetoing, because those only work to reduce spending, not increase it. It just seems to me like Mr. Dayton has painted himself into a corner and, if so, that's good for us.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Apr-11 02:31 AM
They've already sent one omnibus bill to Gov. Dayton, which he signed. They'll send him more by the end of this week. They won't send it to him as one big budget bill.
Comment 4 by erec z at 25-Apr-11 12:17 PM
Sutton and Brodkorb reelected. Anderson and the AG candidate going on to the GOP national committee.
That one contest where the AG candidate prevailed, it looks interesting to me, and I am an outsider, not inside the tent.
And in your mentioning Brod, there was something I saw allusions to about Sieffert and Brod, I think it was those two, during the ramp-up to selection of a 2010 GOP candidate for governor. Or am I mistaken?
It seems the Sieffert-others rift still exists. There are still hard feelings. Some still believing Sieffert as a candidate would have won against Dayton, I guess.
