April 7, 2011
Apr 07 01:01 MnSCU Misdeeds? Apr 07 09:22 Bashing State Employees or DFL Spin? Apr 07 12:30 DFL Continues Fight For Failed Status Quo Apr 07 14:30 Pelosi's Prevarication Problems Persist Apr 07 15:34 Legal Hogwash, Rep. Winkler? Apr 07 17:17 Photo ID Liveblogging Apr 07 18:49 Game-Changing Time? Apr 07 23:56 Dem 'Moderates' Vote For EPA Power Grab
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
MnSCU Misdeeds?
I've spent time each of the past couple of days researching the MnSCU system. I documented some of the oddities I found that MnSCU needs to address systemically. Here's the first thing I found that I'm questioning:
Alexandria Technical and Community College offers Computer Information Systems both at their campus and online. What I'm questioning is why ATCC operates identical 'campuses'. Perhaps there's a good reason but I'll stay skeptical until I hear that explanation.
In fact, ATCC operates identical 'campuses' for these programs:
Energy Technical Specialist, Law Enforcement: Career Transition, Legal Administrative Assistant, Legal Receptionist
Why does ATCC operate identical campuses for all these programs? Wouldn't they save money if these programs were only offered online?
Anoka-Ramsey Community College offers 86 identical programs in Cambridge (Isanti Cty.) and Coon Rapids (Anoka Cty.) They also offer Accounting, Business, Business Generalist online, too.
This totally stunned me. I thought that Anoka-Ramsey served the cities of Anoka and Ramsey, its 'suburb' to the north. I didn't know that Anoka-Ramsey Community College stood for Anoka County and Ramsey County. I'd love to know who proposed creating such a community college.
I'll go farther as it pertains to Central Lakes Community College offering a program in Ecotourism. Graduates of the program would receive an Associate in Applied Science degree.
Is this the best use for Minnesota taxpayers' money? I don't think so.
Posted Thursday, April 7, 2011 1:01 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 07-Apr-11 08:11 AM
I see these "online" programs as desperation, not progress. With rampant over-capacity in higher ed, public and private institutions are advertising and promoting at record levels trying to recruit students. I can see technology used to broadcast a lecture at one campus to another. Many churches are now doing this, where the music is at one site, the sermon another etc, works pretty well in fact. But that's not what's going on here.
Bashing State Employees or DFL Spin?
During yesterday's debate on the state government finance omnibus spending bill , DFL legislators, with Rep. Thissen leading his forces, accused Republicans of dissing state workers. Rep. Keith Downey, R-Edina, was having none of Rep. Thissen's demagoguery.
Following the Minnesota Senate's lead, the House on Wednesday chose to freeze state employee salaries for the next two years and trim the state workforce 15 percent by 2015.
The GOP-controlled House voted 72-61 along party lines for the state government finance bill, which cuts spending by 34 percent for various offices and functions and contains a laundry list of ways to change and consolidate how state government works.
'I believe this bill has more government-reform proposals than any we have seen in a long time,' said Rep. Morrie Lanning, R-Moorhead, the bill's chief sponsor.
But Democratic-Farmer-Labor lawmakers and state agency heads warned that those cuts, leading to almost 5,000 fewer jobs, would damage services. With fewer workers, they said, state roads would suffer, snow removal would be slowed, tax returns would be delayed, and critical water investigations would be hampered.
'It's going to have disastrous consequences, not just in transportation but on our entire quality of life,' said Rep. Frank Hornstein, DFL-Minneapolis.
The reality is that the Republicans' plan is predicated on the fact that state employees are retiring at significant rates. Rep. Downey cited the testimony given in committee hearings saying that 6 percent of the state workforce is expected to retire each of the next 3 years.
If that prediction is accurate, the legislation's goal would be met through retirements alone. There was talk about buying people out to get them to retire early.
This is being done as part of the Republicans' changing the state government's mission and focus. For years, budgets were calculated using baseline budgeting. For example, money appropriated in 2009 is automatically included in the starting point budget the following budget cycle.
Thanks to King Banaian's bill, that practice is likely to stop. If King's bill is passed and signed into law, state government agencies and departments will be required to justify their entire budget rather than just getting money added to the previous biennium's budget.
Also included in King's bill, HF2 , is a sunset commission. Here's what the legislation says about the commission's report:
Sec. 9. COMMISSION REPORT.
By February 1 of each even-numbered year, the commission shall present to the legislature and the governor a report on the agencies and advisory committees reviewed.
In the report the commission shall include:
(1) its findings regarding the criteria prescribed by section 3D.10;
(2) its recommendations based on the matters prescribed by section 3D.11; and
(3) other information the commission considers necessary for a complete review of the agency.
Here's a partial list of the criteria the commission will use in putting the sunset report together:
The commission and its staff shall consider the following criteria in determining whether a public need exists for the continuation of a state agency or its advisory committees or for the performance of the functions of the agency or its advisory committees:
(1) the efficiency and effectiveness with which the agency or the advisory committee operates ;
(2) an identification of the mission, goals, and objectives intended for the agency or advisory committee and of the problem or need that the agency or advisory committee was intended to address and the extent to which the mission, goals, and objectives have been achieved and the problem or need has been addressed.
In other words, the commission will report on whether the agency is efficient, whether it's effectiveness and whether the agency has addressed the problem it was created to address. Additionally, the committee would identify the specific mission, goals, and objectives intended for the agency.
In other words, the commission would use specific, objective criteria to determine whether the agency is doing what it was commissioned to do and whether it's doing it efficiently.
The commission also makes a report on its recommendations:
In its report on a state agency, the commission shall:
1) make recommendations on the abolition, continuation, or reorganization of each affected state agency and its advisory committees and on the need for the performance of the functions of the agency and its advisory committees;
(2) make recommendations on the consolidation, transfer, or reorganization of programs within state agencies not under review when the programs duplicate functions performed in agencies under review
In other words, the recommendations would include whether the agency should be continued or abolished. If the commission recommends that the agency should continue, it will recommend whether the agency should be reformed.
The bottom line on this is simple: if HF2 becomes law, the government would be required to justify its existence on a periodic basis. Hopefully, the era of status quo government is behind us.
In the end, it isn't about the workers as much as it's about governing philosophy. Should agencies be kept open because we won't determine each agency's importance in serving Minnesota's taxpayers? Or should a commission study agencies, then recommend whether the agency is still serving the important goal it was created to do.
That has nothing to do with whether state employees are conscientious. It has to do with governing philosophies. Ultimately, it has to do with a) serving Minnesotans and b) being good stewards of the taxpayers' money. If it doesn't meet those criteria, then the money shouldn't be spent.
Posted Thursday, April 7, 2011 9:22 AM
No comments.
DFL Continues Fight For Failed Status Quo
If any bill illustrates how committed the DFL is to maintaining failed status quo policies, it's their fight against Mary Kiffmeyer's Photo ID legislation. This post highlights their time-tested arguments that a) it's too expensive and b) isn't needed:
Sherry Knuth of the state's League of Women Voters called the bill "unnecessary, costly and harmful."
Let's test the validity of Ms. Knuth's statement.
It's Unnecessary
Saying that the legislation isn't necessary is the equivalent of saying that people don't try cheating the system. Over the past few years, ACORN employees have confessed in court to submitting voter registrations for nonexistent people.
Closer to home, ACT tried committing voter fraud by using Minnesota's vouching provisions in the 2004 elections.
More recently, in 2008, felons illegally voted in Minnesota. We know this because of the convictions that have been reported. In 2010, according to this video, eyewitness Monty Jensen said that he heard the residents of the Crow Wing Group Home being told to vote a straight DFL ticket:
At approximately the 3:48 mark, Jensen was asked if the residents of the Crow Wing County Group Home were being told who to vote for. Jensen replied that "They were told to vote for DFL candidates right down the line."
If these reports are true, then people are, at minimum, trying to manipulate the system and at most, are trying to illegally influence an election in a voting area.
As such, saying that the Rep. Kiffmeyer's bill isn't necessary is on shaky ground. That isn't to say that Photo ID will eliminate all voter fraud. Nothing can do that. It is accurate, however, to say that Photo ID would eliminate a potential loophole that can be exploited by those who want to commit voter fraud.
It's Costly
I question how valid this argument is because of the discrepancy between the fiscal note Rep. Kiffmeyer got from the Pawlenty administration and the fiscal note Rep. Kiffemeyer got from Gov. Dayton's administration.
Yesterday, during the debate on the State Government Finance omnibus bill, it was said that the fiscal note from the Pawlenty administration was approximately $180,000. The fiscal note from the Dayton administration was $3.2 million.
Certainly, that's a huge discrepancy between the two fiscal notes, something approximately on the level of an 1800 percent discrepancy. At minimum, a respectable argument can be made that Minnesotans would be willing to spend $180,000 to improve election integrity.
I confirmed that such a discrepancy existed between the two notes. This contact confirmed that the discrepancy existed without assigning blame or praise to either administration.
It's Harmful
Of the stated complaints made by the MLWV, this might be the most questionable of the complaints. Photo ID was ruled constitutional prior to the 2008 election. Voter turnout in Indiana increased substantially in 2008. In 2008, 2,805,986 people voted in Indiana. By comparison, 2,468,002 people voted in Indiana in 2004.
By that hard data, which is verifiable information, Photo ID didn't hurt turnout one iota.
Let's suppose for the sake of this discussion that there was verifiable information that said Photo ID might pose some challenges. Legislators deal with challenges daily. It's up to them, in consultation with the SecState's office and the people who will implement the bill, to figure out a way to eliminate the challenges they initially confronted.
Minnesotans expect the legislature to figure out solutions to the problems they're confronted with, whether we're talking about Photo ID, health care, K-12 education or Transportation issues.
It's been proven, both in 2004 and 2008, that people have attempted to commit voter fraud. We know that because people have been convicted of that felony.
Now all that's left is whether interest groups like the MLWV will stick their head in the sand and deny that a problem exists. It's time that they admitted the obvious.
Photo ID is an idea whose time has come. It's important that we act to prevent voter fraud rather than reacting to it after the fact. By then, the damage will have been done.
Posted Thursday, April 7, 2011 12:30 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Apr-11 10:54 PM
I'll say it again: DFL, PROVE to me that voter fraud doesn't exist. You can't, with the current system (and especially if you don't look for it). So either admit that you cannot win without cheating, or allow this to become law to prove you can.
Pelosi's Prevarication Problems Persist
When Nancy Pelosi exaggerates, she doesn't mess around. Glenn Kessler's post is proof of that. First, let's start with what Pelosi said:
'In one of the bills before us, 6 million seniors are deprived of meals - homebound seniors are deprived of meals. People ask us to find our common ground, the middle ground. Is middle ground 3 million seniors not receiving meals? I don't think so. We've got to take this conversation from a debate about numbers and dollar figures and finding middle ground there to the higher ground of national values. I don't think the American people want any one of those 6 million people to lose their meals or the children who are being thrown off of Head Start and the rest of it.'
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), April 4, 2011
It's stunning that Pelosi thinks that she can say things like this and get away with it. Certainly, her constituents will keep electing her. That isn't the issue. It's that she's the Botoxed face of House Democrats. Just because her constituents buy it doesn't mean voters nationwide buy it.
Prevarications like this are a major reason why independents avoided House Democrats like they were selling toxic waste. Facts like this are what drive them towards Republicans:
The meal programs, which cost about $818 million a year, are managed by the Administration on Aging (AOA), an arm of the Department of Health and Human Services. The House bill would cut $65 million from the approximately $2.4 billion budget of the agency, a figure derived from GOP estimates of the savings in the agency from repealing the health care law, as well as eliminate $6 billion in earmarks.
The first problem with Pelosi's statistic is that, according to the agency's budget documents , only about 2.6 million seniors receive such meals. That's even less than what she decried as the mushy middle ground of compromise.
Instead of admitting they got their figures badly wrong, Pelosi's staffers took a different approach:
After we pointed out that fact, Pelosi spokesman Drew Hammill said 'she means meals for seniors, 6 million meals.' In 2011, the agency is expected to deliver a little over 200 million meals, so that's a cut of about three percent.
That's a pretty big 'oops.' She referred to '6 million seniors,' '3 million seniors' and '6 million people.' We understand slips of a tongue, but three times in a row, so emphatically, is hard to fathom.
But Hammill tried to defend the number of 6 million, though he acknowledged that 'that pot of money I mentioned is not exclusively dedicated to this program.'
According to Hammill, the agency has 'informally indicated' to Pelosi's staff that if they had to cut $71 million in the last seven months of the fiscal year, the two programs where services could be cut quickly to achieve quick savings would be the senior nutrition programs and senior centers. So Pelosi's staff assumed a $30 million cut from the overall budget for senior meals, or 3.6 percent, resulting in 6 million fewer meals.
It's obvious that Pelosi wasn't interested in the truth. Her staff didn't do any research into what she talked about. That isn't me criticizing her staffers. They likely were caught off guard by Ms. Pelosi's off-the-cuff comments.
It's far more likely that she just shot from the lip with the expectation that her media allies wouldn't criticize her for saying something that outlandish.
In that, she thought wrong.
Posted Thursday, April 7, 2011 2:30 PM
No comments.
Legal Hogwash, Rep. Winkler?
During last night's debate of the HHS Omnibus spending bill, Republicans questioned the constitutionality of Obamacare. This video of Rep. Winkler's response will leave anyone with an understanding of the Tenth Amendment at a loss for words:
Here's the transcript of Rep. Winkler's comments:
Furthermore, Rep. Wardlow, Rep. Gruenhagen, Rep. Franson, James Madison, who you like to quote, said "There are some who would say that this language, this Tenth Amendment, is superfluous" and I agree. It might be unnecessary. Which is to say, members, that the architect of the Constitution said that the Tenth Amendment is just a little comfort language. All it is is a little bit of comfort to the states who might feel like nothing in the Constitution said to them that they had...that the federal government didn't have some limits on power.
Members, states rights are a truism. The Tenth Amendment is a truism. That's how the Supreme Court has interpreted it forever. That means that there's nothing in the Tenth Amendment that creates an independent ground for a legal argument.
Using the Tenth Amendment is really a bogus argument. And it's obviously very passionately followed by certain members of activist organizations in the United States today but it doesn't change the fact that the argument is legal hogwash .
Here's the text of the Tenth Amendment :
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Rep. Winkler, here's Dictionary.com's definition for reserved:
to retain or secure by express stipulation.
to set apart for a particular use, purpose, service, etc.: ground reserved for gardening.
to keep for oneself.
Securing something by express stipulation doesn't sound like comfort language. Setting something apart for a particular use doesn't sound like comfort language either. Keeping something for oneself sounds pretty proprietary to me.
Let's take a step back, though, to gain insight into the thoughts of the people who debated, then wrote, the U.S. Constitution. They understood that the European model where a distant government ruled over the people wasn't the model of governance that they wanted.
Still, they were wise enough to know that certain things were either best left to the federal government or were the sole jurisdiction of the federal government. Declaring war or signing and ratifying treaties is the federal government's responsibility.
Regulating commerce "between the several states" was written into the Constitution to prevent trade wars between states. That was codified into the Constitution because they recognized that the states were sovereign governments.
The architects of the Constitution designed it so that states and people would be the principle deciders of their fate, not a distant, unaccountable government.
According to the bio on his House website, Rep. Winkler is an attorney who got his law degree from the U of M.
I can't imagine someone who honestly thinks that the Tenth Amendment is just "comfort language" or that thinks using the Tenth Amendment to challenge federal laws "is legal hogwash" can pass the bar.
That's why I think it's possible that Rep. Winkler was in full spin mode when he made this speech. God help us if he was serious.
Originally posted Thursday, April 7, 2011, revised 08-Apr 8:17 AM
No comments.
Photo ID Liveblogging
5:10-- Steve Simon outraged that a technical amendment brought by the SecState's office doesn't have a fiscal note and that they weren't given 24 hrs. notice.
5:14-- Rep. Kiffmeyer reviewing court history, citing the fact that SCOTUS ruled it constitutional.
5:15-- Rep. Kiffmeyer talking about how verifying eligibility after the ballot is cast defeats the purpose.
5:31-- Rep. Mike Benson questioning validity of fiscal note on HF210 .
5:32-- Rep. Gauthier asking why the bill is being offered.
5:33-- Rep. Kiffmeyer responds, saying that she explained that in her PowerPoint presentation.
5:35-- Rep. Banaian asks when the request was made for the fiscal note. Question answered by Ms. Roberts.
5:36-- Rep. Banaian now asking about provision possible costs to local units of gov't.
5:37-- Rep. Kiffmeyer said that it's possible they something isn't required.
5:38-- Rep. Banaian questioning the validity of the fiscal notes, citing the fact that some of the fiscal notes apparently pertain to things that aren't required.
5:39-- Chairman Lanning announces that they won't be voting on HF210.
5:40-- Rep. Simon apologizes for his previous comments, saying that they came out of frustration. Rep. Simon then says that this committee has the responsibility of questioning the validity of fiscal notes.
5:47-- Rep. Banaian responds to Rep. Kahn's statement about fiscal notes, saying that he simply wanted to ensure that the number wasn't based on a false premise.
5:50-- Rep. Benson repeating his skepticism of the fiscal note.
5:52-- Rep. Downey citing Rep. Winkler's criticism during yesterday's floor hearing on State Gov't Finance bill. Rep. Downey's comments come in light of the questioning of today's fiscal note.
6:01-- Vic Harvath testifying, citing his history as an election judge, union organizer, then says he supports this legislation. Mr. Horvath said that, as an election judge, Photo ID would speed election processing.
6:08-- Mike Dean testifying, saying that HF210 has too much gov't in part of it, other parts have too little gov't in it. He talks about how Minnesota becoming part of a national ID movement.
Next, he says that there's too little gov't from the perspective of not appropriating enough money to implementing Photo ID.
6:12-- Beth Frazier of SecState's office says the HAVA funds are drying up. She says that those funds will be needed for other HAVA Act responsibilities.
6:16-- Rep. Severson testifying, talking about the Crow Wing Group Home scandal. Rep. Severson characterizes Minnesota as having a broken election system.
6:20-- Andy Cilek testifying, saying that Crow Wing Group Home and the SecState office refused to answer Michelle Tafoya's questions. Cilek says that 38,000 voter registration cards were returned, which was twice as much as the total amount returned as undeliverable for 2004 and 2006 combined.
Posted Thursday, April 7, 2011 6:34 PM
No comments.
Game-Changing Time?
If this report is accurate, the unions will have spent a ton of money to lose a race. Here's what WTMJ's John Mercure is reporting:
Newsradio 620 WTMJ's John Mercure reports, "I have been told that several thousand votes are currently unaccounted for and that the majority of them will end up going to David Prosser."
"We're not talking a couple hundred. We're not even talking a couple thousand. I have been told and confirmed through multiple sources that this is several thousand votes and it will completely and obviously change the dynamic."
WOW!!! If that's right, that'll utterly stun the public employee unions. It'll send the signal that the energy and money they invested in this race was a waste of time.
Gateway Pundit's Jim Hoft thinks this is a game-changer :
BREAKING: Computer Error Could Give Prosser 7,381 More Votes, VictoryFor such a tight race, this would be a seismic shift.
UPDATE: Melchert reported: Numerous sources tell me Prosser will pick up 7000 votes in Waukesha Cty. 14,000 votes were apparently not entered into computer system.
UPDATE: This Washington Times article appears to shovel alot more dirt on the unions' grave. Here's what Valerie Richardson is reporting:
On Thursday evening, however, the Waukesha County clerk's office dropped a bombshell, telling state election officials that the county would be adjusting its totals to give the conservative-leaning jurist another 7,500 net votes.
Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus said a 'human error' meant about 14,000 votes in the Republican-leaning county weren't reported to the Associated Press for its unofficial election-night tallies, on which news organizations based their reporting.
If this is accurate, which seems more likely by the minute, there won't be an automatic recount triggered.
Posted Thursday, April 7, 2011 7:08 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Apr-11 10:05 PM
Gary:
I was at an union event on Tuesday. A speaker showed up which had no business being there. He mentioned in Wisconsin that they were thinking that at least three Republican senators were going to get recalled giving Democrats controll.
They were obviously counting on a large victory over Posser which their money and organizing skills could pull off. If they can't win this race I bet a few DEMOCRAT Wisconsin senators are going to be recalled. Especially ones that aren't in Dane or Milwaukee county.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-11 10:21 PM
Walter, I've been predicting all along that Democrats would lose net seats in the Senate recall elections. Now, I'm more confident that Republicans won't lose any recall elections. In fact, I'm hearing that Democrats might only get enough signatures to get 1 Republican senator into a recall election.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 07-Apr-11 10:22 PM
I just got a call fund-raising to fight the recall of Governor Walker. Here's hoping the unions continue to throw away money they no longer will be getting.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Apr-11 11:08 PM
I couldn't agree more, Jerry.
Dem 'Moderates' Vote For EPA Power Grab
According to Phil Kerpen's article , alot of so-called moderate Democrats have voted to keep intact the EPA's power grab:
Some senators chose to support phony amendments that only pretended to stop the EPA's job-crushing regulations.
The Baucus amendment, a rubber stamp for the EPA that pretended to help small businesses and farms but was opposed by the National Federation of Independent Business and the American Farm Bureau, got just seven votes: Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Kent Conrad (N.D.), Kay Hagan (N.C.), Tim Johnson (S. D.), Amy Klobuchar (Minn.), and Carl Levin (Mich.).
The Rockefeller amendment, which intended to delay some of the EPA regulations for two years, but was written in a largely ineffective way, got just 12 votes. Three Republicans, Scott Brown (Mass.), Susan Collins, and Lindsey Graham (S.C.), and nine Democrats, Kent Conrad, Tim Johnson, Mary Landrieu, Joe Manchin, Claire McCaskill (Mo.), Ben Nelson, Mark Pryor, Jay Rockefeller (W. Va.), and Jim Webb (Va.), voted for it.
This is essentially the death nell for most of these senators, including Lindsey Graham, Scott Brown and Susan Collins. Conrad and Webb are retiring, making this an easy vote for them. Everyone I've talked with says that Amy Klobuchar is safe but I'm not buying that.
For instance, I wrote an op-ed that Duluth News Tribune recently published. The topic was Sen. Klobuchar's photo-op at a busy Twin Cities gas station. I wrote much the same thing in that op-ed as I wrote in this post :
In her time in office, Sen. Klobuchar hasn't proposed legislation that would actually increase domestic oil and natural gas production. Instead, she's sided with her militant environmentalist allies in proposing what Democrats always propose.
Since Sen. Klobuchar doesn't understand or appreciate how markets work, she apparently hasn't figured out that the way to end speculation is by significantly increasing production of whatever speculators are profiting off of. The minute there's a surplus, speculators' jobs get infinitely more difficult.
Rather than proceeding with her doomed SAFEST Act legislation, Sen. Klobuchar should become a co-sponsor of the American Energy Act, a true all-of-the-above 21st Century energy plan. She won't co-sponsor the AEA, though, because her environmentalist allies would be mightily upset with her.
Sen. Klobuchar pulled the same stunt at a Brainerd gas station on Memorial Day, 2006:
May 23: Brainerd Dispatch Reports Amy Klobuchar Will Hold Photo-Op At Brainerd Gas Station. 'U.S. Senate candidate Amy Klobuchar will talk to Brainerd residents at 11:30 a.m. Wednesday at the West Brainerd Auto gas station about their concerns about rising gas prices.' ('Klobuchar To Listen To Concerns About Gas Prices,' Brainerd Dispatch, May 23, 2006)
Sen. Klobuchar has proven with her actions that she bringing gas prices down isn't a high priority with her. She's voted against expanding drilling on the OCS, in ANWR and in the continental United States. Meanwhile, she's recently voted to let the EPA raise gas prices through regulations while sidestepping the legislative process.
What this means is that Sen. Klobuchar has voted against initiatives that would increase domestic energy production that's proven, reliable and inexpensive when produced in sufficient quantities. She's voted against Minnesotans by not limiting the EPA's regulatory authority.
When Missouri voters learn that Sen. McCaskill has effectively voted to keep gas prices high, she'll essentially be history. She won't be returning to DC in 2013.
Ditto with Ben Nelson. He infuriated people with his negotiating the now-infamous Cornhusker Kickback deal. Now he's voted to raise fuel prices right before planting season. With gas prices skyrocketing, this isn't a good time to be Ben Nelson.
At the time of the Obamacare debate, Karl Rove predicted several difficult election cycles for the Democrats. Couple skyrocketing gas prices with their unpopular votes for Obamacare and the stimulus and you've got a pretty toxic mix.
Factor in President Obama's flippant ridiculing of a man and the mix gets more toxic:
Obama needled one questioner who asked about gas prices, now averaging close to $3.70 a gallon nationwide, and suggested that the gentleman consider getting rid of his gas-guzzling vehicle. 'If you're complaining about the price of gas and you're only getting 8 miles a gallon, you know,' Obama said laughingly. 'You might want to think about a trade-in.'
What President Obama says reflects onto vulnerable Democratic senators because they've voted in lock-step with him on all the major issues since he took office. That won't help Democrats running in 2012. He'll be as big an albatross around their necks as their votes for his radical economic agenda has been.
I'd pity the fools if I didn't think they deserved it so much.
Posted Thursday, April 7, 2011 11:56 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 08-Apr-11 03:35 PM
Kvetching over whether it would be wise for our nation to exhaust its limited petroleum reserves faster than others is ignoring one thing. You job creators, 3M, are building a solar energy plant, in China.
Go figure. They are creating jobs, I would not dispute that ...
The Chinese are investing heavily in solar and wind, and 3M and other beloved GOP "job creators" are selling them the rope, as Lenin said.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Apr-11 04:52 PM
Eric, The myth about us exhausting our oil supplies is exceptionally overblown. The first known story about that was run in the late 1800s. At the time, they thought that oil wasn't found beneath the surface. The thought of drilling for it was as foreign to them as the thought of splitting an atom, as foreign to them as manned flight.
In the 1970s, the Sierra Club railed against building the Alaska pipeline, saying that it'd destroy the migration routes of the Barrows Caribou. "And for what? A couple years worth of oil at best." Thirty-three years after the pipeline opened, we're still pumping oil from Prudhoe Bay. The alarmist rantings are where the current Democratic Party learned its scare tactics from.
We're in competition with everyone. Why wouldn't we want to stay competitive? Yet, that's the precise approach that Dayton & Obama are taking. Don't bet that they won't both be one-termers.
