August 10-12, 2011
Aug 10 03:12 R.T. Rybak's Budget Disaster Aug 10 08:23 The Spin Begins Aug 10 09:22 For whom the death knell tolls Aug 10 11:31 The Union's Crushing Defeat Aug 10 17:11 Chip Cravaack, townhall meetings and the stimulus Aug 11 04:29 Debt man walking is also dead man walking Aug 12 01:36 Tonight's debate from a contrarian perspective Aug 12 13:42 Eleventh Circuit rules individual mandate unconstitutional
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
R.T. Rybak's Budget Disaster
R.T. Rybak, the man who spent $500,000 on 10 artistic drinking fountains , has now decided to lay off firefighters :
Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak said the city was hoping to avoid public safety cuts. But Rybak said when the state cut back on local government aid it forced the city to make a tough decision.
'I talked with a number of these guys and told them how much we want them back and if we have retirements that could happen. Public safety is very important, but every part of this city has to make due during a very tough time,' said Rybak.
Rybak said he is asking the city council for contingency money to soften the blow. But Mark Lakosky, president of the Minneapolis Firefighters union, said the city has already taken too much from the fire department over the years. He said the department has lost dozens of positions and he worries in some emergencies, the department could be out-manned and out-matched.
'It's coming and I don't want to be out front talking about how that rig didn't get here for 10 minutes so I couldn't get up to that fire and pull that family out of that fire because no one was there yet,' said Lakosky.
Rybak's statement that "every part of this city has to make due during a very tough time" reads like an indictment. It's totally, utterly shameful. Why would any chief executive, whether it's the city, state or federal government, put its citizens at risk? That's the first and most important responsibility of mayors, governors and presidents. If they fail that responsibility, they've totally failed.
According to this document , the biggest part of Minneapolis's budget is the public works budget:
The Public Works Department makes up the largest part of the City's budget (22.8 percent, $310.3 million). The main tasks of Public Works include the following: offering safe transportation to residents by maintaining streets, bike paths and sidewalks; offering high-quality drinking water to residents and visitors by managing the sewer and water system, and facilitating the collection and disposal of garbage and recycling.
First, is it possible to trim the street, bike path and sidewalk maintenance budgets to keep these firefighters employed? Next, approximately $35,000,000 is spent in the city coordinator's office. Part of the city coordinator's budget pays for communications. Here's what that entails :
We tell the stories of Minneapolis City Government, gathering and distributing information to keep folks informed about city policies, programs, services and neighborhoods. If you want to watch your city leaders in action but can't make it down to City Hall, we air City Council meetings on TV and stream them on the web. That City brochure or poster you're looking at? We likely produced it. But we're doing even much more behind-the-scenes. We're always planning and collaborating with city leaders departments, and outside organizations to make sure that residents, businesses and visitors of Minneapolis understand what is happening in Minneapolis city government and how it affects their lives.
How much money could be trimmed from the communications section of the city coordinator's office budget? Shouldn't that budget be trimmed instead of laying off firefighters? Is R.T. Rybak putting a higher priority on the communications operation in the city coordinator's office than he's putting on firefighters? Shame on him if he is.
If that's what he's doing, he's unfit for office. That can't happen. Ever .
Putting people at risk to pay for lower priority items is first degree mismanagement and gross incompetence. Minneapolis residents are getting ripped off. Their property taxes are getting increased to pay for low priority budget items.
Posted Wednesday, August 10, 2011 3:12 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 10-Aug-11 08:04 AM
This just in: Rybak found some money in a contingency account, avoiding the layoffs. But I'd still ask who's paying for all those "Downtown Improvement Zone" patrols? We can afford them to watch your house burn down?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Aug-11 08:26 AM
It's all about setting intelligent priorities, isn't it? We know who won't set them, don't we?
Comment 3 by Karen at 10-Aug-11 12:37 PM
Downtown Improvement Zone patrols are paid for by the Downtown Improvement District --not the city General Budget
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 10-Aug-11 12:48 PM
Liberals go straight for emergency services when they are forced to cut and then scream bloody murder. It's all part of their playbook.
Comment 5 by Luke Matthews at 10-Aug-11 06:18 PM
It's absurd that "Raise Taxes" Rybak would rather let our buildings burn to the ground than cut funding for his precious patronage. We have legions of people in lime green vests wandering aimlessly through the downtown. We have clean bike paths and propaganda newsletters for every idiotic agency and neighborhood. But we can't cut that. No, we need to keep his voters in beer and skittles. It's disgusting and amoral.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 10-Aug-11 06:53 PM
Luke, Absurd is a good word for R.T.'s decisionmaking. The more I think about his decisionmaking, the more I think appalling is the right word for the situation.
Comment 6 by Rex Newman at 10-Aug-11 07:46 PM
Karen is correct, I found out the DID patrol is paid by the downtown businesses. Odd, though, that they have to do what Rybak should anyway. And one more time: Mpls total budget is around $1.3 billion. Police and fire together are around 20% of that. And the rest?
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 11-Aug-11 03:47 AM
Rex, I found out that the biggest portion of Minneapolis's budget is public works at 23% of their operating budget.
Whether the patrol is paid for by the general fund budget or whoever, it's still fact that the Minneapolis operating budget could use some substantial trimming.
Comment 8 by Corey J. Sax at 11-Aug-11 01:00 PM
This is the sloppiest hit piece, I think I've ever seen.
The Spin Begins
Following last night's recall elections in Wisconsin, both parties started the spin cycle , explaining why their party won:
Republicans may be able to gain back some of the losses next week, when two Democrats face recall elections.
Democrats had hoped to block the Republican agenda by taking control of the Senate in the recall elections, but the GOP should be able to continue to advance its agenda.
"I think it's a huge victory for us," said John Hogan, director of the Committee to Elect a Republican Senate. "Voters gave us a mandate last fall...They backed us up again (Tuesday). Voters told us loud and clear, 'Stay the course. Things are working.'"
But Democrats claimed victory for the two seats they captured from Republicans.
"We went on their turf and we won on Republican turf," said Mike Tate, chairman of the state Democratic Party. "We will not stop, we will not rest...until we recall (Gov.) Scott Walker."
Both parties have a point but it's essentially irrelevant. Facts are overtaking spin, especially the Democrats' spin.
The facts that'll change the debate going forward is the fact that Gov. Walker's reforms are working, saving millions of dollars for cities and school districts :
So it turns out that the sky isn't going to fall on all local governments in Wisconsin. The numbers now starting to come in show that Gov. Scott Walker's 'tools' for local governments apparently will help at least some of them deal with cuts in state aid imposed by the state budget.
That's contrary to the expectation and the rhetoric of critics in the spring, and it's to Walker's credit. It bears out the governor's assessment of his budget-repair bill, although we still maintain he could have reached his goals without dealing a body blow to public employee unions:
But the news is good for many. The latest example is Milwaukee, where the most recent estimates show the city with a net gain of at least $11 million for its 2012 budget. That will take a slice out of the city's structural deficit, which is created by costs rising faster than revenue, and will reduce cuts that Mayor Tom Barrett and the Common Council must impose.
When people see their property taxes stabilize and their school district's or city's budgets experience savings, they'll love it. The unions and other liberal special interest allies will hate it but they certainly aren't the majority.
I suspect that rank-and-file teachers won't hate this either. After all, lots of teachers got notices that they'd be terminated at year's end. Thanks to the money saved as a direct result of Gov. Walker's budget fix, many of their jobs have been saved.
This editorial in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel trumpets the fact that "the sky isn't falling":
So it turns out that the sky isn't going to fall on all local governments in Wisconsin. The numbers now starting to come in show that Gov. Scott Walker's "tools" for local governments apparently will help at least some of them deal with cuts in state aid imposed by the state budget.
That's contrary to the expectation and the rhetoric of critics in the spring, and it's to Walker's credit. It bears out the governor's assessment of his budget-repair bill, although we still maintain he could have reached his goals without dealing a body blow to public employee unions.
The Republicans swept Democrats from office in the 2010 midterms in Wisconsin. Scott Walker replaced Jim Doyle. They also control the House and Senate. Most importantly, Gov. Walker and the GOP legislature hit the ground running, implementing the budget fix. They had a plan and the determination to implement it.
The Democrats, aka the slaves to the public employee unions, fled to Illinois rather than fight for their position. Frankly, those senators should've been drummed out of the Senate for neglecting their duties. It's simply inexcusable for legislators to refuse to vote. That's gutless. It's why Democrats should get swept out of office next week and in 2012.
Wisconsin doesn't need gutless wonders who are beholden to a group of thugs. They need public servants who've implemented a plan that's helping many cities and school districts across the state.
The bottom line is this: Republicans have a plan that's working. The Democrats' union thugs bosses demand that they fight hard for the failed status quo.
That's a pretty clear choice.
Posted Wednesday, August 10, 2011 8:23 AM
No comments.
For whom the death knell tolls
Based on the barrage of negative economic news that's landed in President Obama's lap this past week, you'd think he'd be justified in feeling shell-shocked. The last thing he needs is more bad news. This polling represents more bad news for President Obama:
The Rasmussen Consumer Index, which measures the economic confidence of consumers on a daily basis, fell a bit further on Wednesday to reach another two year low. At 60.1 consumer confidence is down five points from a week ago, down eight points from a month ago and down 16 points from three months ago. Confidence is now just five points above the lowest levels of the post-9/11 era.
Currently, just seven percent (7%) rate the economy as good or excellent while 66% say poor.
Ten percent (10%) believe the economy is getting better while 74% say it's getting worse.
At the beginning of 2011, Americans were far less pessimistic. At that time, 30% thought the economy was getting better and just 45% held the more pessimistic view.
When you combine this polling with what the Federal Reserve did yesterday, the unmistakable message is that the economy stinks and everyone knows whose fault it is. (Hint to liberals: It isn't the TEA Party's fault.) It's President Obama's and the Pelosi/Reid Democrats' fault.
They're the ones who passed the stimulus that failed, the budgets that heaped trillions of dollars of debt onto future generations and Obamacare, which is a budgetary disaster that's doomed for failure if it's implemented.
People get it that the Democrats' ideology checklist has led the United States' economy to the brink of a second recession in 3 years. When the 2012 campaign ends, they'll understand that this administration and the Democrats hate a robust domestic energy production strategy. They'll know that because the Democrat's militant environmentalist puppeteers insist on their opposition.
They'll know that Democrats are slaves to their union thugs' agenda. They just got a crash course of what it looks like this past year in Wisconsin. Now that the union thugs' agenda has been rejected in Wisconsin, especially after the unions dumped an estimated $40,000,000 into the recall elections, the nation's focus can now return to the disaster President Obama has created.
They can also focus on the president's unwillingness to accept responsibility for the disaster he's created. Based on Scott Rasmussen's polling results, it appears as though they're already pinning blame for the next recession on President Obama, whether he's willing to accept responsibility for that or not.
Posted Wednesday, August 10, 2011 9:22 AM
Comment 1 by Deborah at 10-Aug-11 10:00 AM
I read that Barky had the news of the downgrade at 1:30 PM on Friday. Instead of addressing this personally with the American people he snuck off to Camp David and didn't say a word for 96 hours.
This is the sign of a guilty coward.
As a mental health professional who spent years working with criminals, I somewhat understand the psychology behind Barky's behaviors. Sociopaths will never take responsibility for their actions. It is a symptom of their mental illnes.
Obama did not care how the downgrade would affect Americans. This is another symptom of sociopaths, they do not have the ability to care about others.
The next year and a half is going to be very difficult for all of us.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 10-Aug-11 12:47 PM
Deborah, what are your thoughts on Barack's narcissism? Is is related to his inability to accept responsibility or do you see something else?
The Union's Crushing Defeat
To the headline readers, people will think that Democrats and their union thug puppeteers did pretty well with the recall elections last night. After all, they fell just 1 seat short of retaking the majority in the Wisconsin state senate.
That's the wrong perspective. The unions lost alot more than that.
The progressives poured all their massive assets into Wisconsin the past couple months. Rumor has it that they spent between $30,000,000 and $40,000,000 on the 6 recall races.
The unions especially poured alot of money into defeating Sen. Sheila Harsdorf. The bad news for the unions is that Sen. Harsdorf squeaked by with a paltry 58% of the vote last night.
One of the 2 races that Democrats won was in a heavy Democrat district. The other victory came in a race against a Republican who got caught cheating on his wife. Then his wife endorsed his opponent. If that's the best ROI the unions can get for spending that amount of money, then they'll have to settle for alot of moral victories in 2012. That's because victories that come with election certificates won't be commonplace for Democrats.
That's before considering the unions' ability to focus all their money, manpower, media manipulation and attention on Wisconsin. How thin will the unions be stretched next year when they'll have to fight, scratch and claw for victories in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan and elsewhere?
It isn't possible for the unions to focus their attention and money on everywhere.
Rest assured that unions will have lots of districts to defend, much less gain seats. Ohio and Wisconsin are just the tip of the iceberg. Michigan is warming up in the bullpen. Ditto with Pennsylvania.
This is a major defeat for the unions because they couldn't even make significant gains when they could focus all their attention and resources on 6 state senate seats.
Posted Wednesday, August 10, 2011 11:31 AM
No comments.
Chip Cravaack, townhall meetings and the stimulus
Whenever a politician holds a townhall meeting, the chance for odd questions is always a possibility. According to this Duluth News-Tribune article , that's what happened at Chip Cravaack's townhall meeting:
Kevin Kooiker of Pequot Lakes wasn't so sure of Cravaack's answer and said the tax rate today is lower than it's been in years. He said major corporations are known to be sitting on sizeable amounts of money instead of creating new jobs.
'People need to get more money in their pockets,' he said. 'The stimulus bill was way too small.'
Progressives like Paul Krugman have argued that the stimulus passed a month into President Obama's administration. That's a questionable argument at best.
That isn't what's holding the economy back. What's holding the economy back is Obamacare's regulations and costs. What's holding the economy back are the strangling regulations of the NLRB and the EPA.
Let's look objectively at whether additional spending would help. It's important to remember that, in addition to the stimulus spending, we've had QE-1 and QE-2, in which the Federal Reserve has pumped tens of billions of dollars into the economy.
In addition to both rounds of the Fed's quantitative easing, the Fed has kept interest rates artificially low. Economists' initial worries about QE-1 and QE-2, coupled with the low interest rates, was that we'd see massive inflation if the economy ever took off.
Unfortunately, we haven't had to worry about that scenario.
Easing the EPA's strangling regulations, coupled with cutting governmental red tape, would get PolyMet running in a hurry. Couple those changes with a robust domestic energy production policy and you'd have the foundation for a robust recovery.
In other words, doing the opposite of having the government stimulate the economy would be the right medicine. Getting government out of the way of the job creators, letting them put their capital at risk without this administration villifying them for making profits, that's how to revive this economy.
Posted Wednesday, August 10, 2011 5:11 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Quigley at 11-Aug-11 10:12 AM
These dopes don't understand that no matter how high or low the tax rate, the US collects an average of 18% of GDP. If government spending solved recessions, we would never be in a recession with as much as the government spends. Liberals can't think straight especially when the MSM and liberal politicians keeps feeding loads of crap.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 11-Aug-11 11:50 AM
'People need to get more money in their pockets,' he said. 'The stimulus bill was way too small.'
What liberals can't tell you, of course, is how porkulus put money into people's pockets -- of course, by this I mean those who weren't members of Obama's favored groups (unions and financiers).
Of course, porkulus doesn't put money into people's pockets a) because it doesn't work and b) because money given to the federal government is by definition taken out of a pocket first.
Comment 3 by Chris K at 12-Aug-11 01:23 AM
Right on. Fantastic article. It is a tragedy to AmerIcans that we are not hearing this in the mainstream media.
Comment 4 by Gary F at 12-Aug-11 06:50 AM
I'm in Duluth this week. On London Road last night there were 15-20 people waving various anti-Cravack signs and a guy with a video camera taking footage. It didn't look like a news camera crew, so I think they were trying to make a staged event.
Comment 5 by Kevin Kooiker at 18-Aug-11 06:27 AM
You and the Congressman are proposing the same policies that the government tried in 1937, leading to a deepening of the Great Depression. Cutting back on government spending at a time like this is insane. Businesses are not expanding now because they have no new customers. People are not spending because they are either out of work or already dealing with too much debt.
The government puts money in people's pockets by putting them to work. There is an enormous amount of infrastructure in need of repair, and people all over the world are eager to lend us money at the lowest interest rates in history. We need to be repairing roads and bridges, replacing sewer and water systems, constructing new railroads and transit systems, and investing in green energy sources. That would put money back into the pockets of construction workers and laborers, and from there into the pockets of the rest of the community. Businesses will then finally be able to expand, because people will be able to buy their products.
I know this isn't what you want to hear, but it is basic Keynesian economics. This is the economic plan that took us out of the Great Depression and through the great American economic expansion of the Fifties and Sixties. It may not be applicable in all settings, but it is exactly what we need now. The budget deficit will be dealt with when the economy recovers and begins to expand again.
Debt man walking is also dead man walking
Earlier this week, Rush Limbaugh called President Obama a "debt man walking." Based on the statistics Karl Rove put together , I'd contend that, politically speaking, he's a dead man walking, too:
As of August 7, the president's approval number is down 28 points with independents (to 34% rating), 27 points with college graduates (to
42%), 26 points with women (to 43%) and with those who live in the Midwest (to 39%), 25 points with young voters (to 50%) and 23 points with points
with Hispanics (to 51%).
That means President Obama's support has dropped with each key constituent group from 2008. That's before factoring in turnout rates, which political experts expect to decline from 2008.
Putting approval rating statistics together with declining turnout rates and you've got a recipe for an electoral disaster for President Obama and the Democrats.
If President Obama wants to win back these individuals, he must do more than just talk about jobs and the economy when he goes on his Midwest bus tour next week. He had better start showing real leadership or he risks losing those them for good.
With people already being anxious over high unemployment and stagnant economic growth, people aren't in a cut-him-some-slack mood. They're getting more impatient by the day. That's why I'm not certain he hasn't lost these voters already.
People who've paid any amount of attention know that President Obama isn't into listening and taking advice from advisors. He's got too big of an ego for that. They know he won't change because he hasn't changed thus far.
If he won't change after his policies have failed thus far, why should people think that he'll change now that the 2012 election is getting closer?
Whether people look at these polling statistics, President Obama's struggles in key battleground states that he breezed through last year, or whether they look at President Obama's job approval ratings, it still says the same thing, that he's heading for a humiliating defeat.
November, 2012 can't get here soon enough.
Posted Thursday, August 11, 2011 4:29 AM
No comments.
Tonight's debate from a contrarian perspective
With so many different angles to cover from tonight's debate, it was impossible to decipher it without first digesting it a little bit. Some things were exceptionally straightforward, like Newt Gingrich cleaning Chris Wallace's clock for asking about campaign minutia rather than asking about the serious issues facing the United States.
Other episodes in the debate were filled with subtexts and subplots, thereby requiring a pundit to think things through before offering an opinion that will withstand the test of time.
For instance, the fight that erupted between Gov. Pawlenty and Rep. Michele Bachmann seemed to favor Rep. Michele Bachmann in the initial response from pundits covering the event.
It's certainly possible to make a respectable argument for that. However, upon further scrutiny, it's possible that Rep. Bachmann missed a bigger opportunity than just fighting back. The leader of the free world has to do more than just fight for smart policies. Presidents need to bring people together in a divided government and get those policies enacted.
There was no proof tonight that Michele Bachmann is anything more than a fighter for the right causes. It's easy to love Michele Bachmann for her feistiness. It's easy to agree with her remedies. It's difficult to picture her bringing differing factions together and putting together a solution.
Gov. Pawlenty didn't help himself much during his fight with Rep. Bachmann either. Still, his line about finding President Obama's plans on the deficit and the economy was the funniest line of the night. It's also the type of line that will be used by Republicans' presidential candidates in grilling President Obama's economic failures.
Mitt Romney won the war tonight according to Frank Luntz. Mitt lost the debate on his first question from Bret Baier when asked about the debt ceiling and "going into the Mittness protection program." When Mitt evaded the question on why he'd remained silent during the debt ceiling debate, it was proof that he knew that he'd failed to stay engaged in the fight.
That he gave a 7-point answer on how to grow the economy during the question is irrelevant. The nation doesn't need a president who weighs in after the fact. This nation needs a leader who's engaged in the problem-solving phase of debates. Mitt failed the leadership test badly.
The other time when Mitt got tripped was on the similarities between Romneycare and Obamacare. Mitt's reply throughout has hinged on the 10th Amendment. That was exposed tonight as artful and slippery. Neither the state or federal government have the authority to tell a person that they have to purchase something simply based on a person's existence.
That's what Romneycare does.
The clear winner tonight was Newt. Besides whacking Chris Wallace, Newt reminded people that he'd produced impactful solutions while dealing with divided government. He reminded the audience both in the hall and across the nation that he'd played a part in getting the Reagan tax cuts enacted.
Then he reminded people that he'd gone toe-to-toe with Bill Clinton, got welfare reform passed, got "the biggest capital gains tax cut in history" passed after "getting the first tax cuts in 16 years passed" with Bill Clinton in the White House.
Besides that, Newt provided solutions to today's problems while criticizing the Supercommission. Newt didn't say 'go to Newt.org' for his plan. He said that the House should return to Washington Monday, then vote to repeal Sarbanes-Oxley the first day, Dodd-Frank the second day, Obamacare the third day, then challenge the Democratic Senate to either stay on vacation or return to Washington to fix the problems that the nation is facing.
That's the difference between Speaker Gingrich and Rep. Bachmann. Newt's learned how to come from a seemingly underdog position and get solutions enacted. Michele might get that done in the future but she hasn't shown the ability to do that at this point in her career.
The other man who had a strong night tonight was Sen. Santorum. He talked about the role he played in getting welfare reform passed in 1996. He totally schooled Ron Paul on why isolationism in the Middle East is dangerous to the region and to the continental United States.
While Paul has preached a consistent gospel of not engaging the world because it's half a world away, Sen. Santorum noted that Iran getting nuclear weapons might hurt the United States because the mullahs would gleefully sell nuclear weapons to Hugo Chavez. Suddenly, nuclear missiles half a world away would be 1200 miles away.
In the final analysis, Newt took a big step forward, Mitt got hit hard on Romneycare and his absence of leadership during the debt ceiling debate. Meanwhile, Tim Pawlenty and Michele Bachmann both took a major step sideways at best.
Posted Friday, August 12, 2011 1:36 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 12-Aug-11 09:43 AM
You would expect Gingrich to do well in a policy debate. However, his conduct during the Clinton government shutdown, personal issues and recent coziness with the left on issues such as AGW rule him out for a lot of conservatives. On issues, he's a great thinker. No doubt about that.
All this debate did for me was reinforce two key truths: for the good of the party the nominee can't be Romney and for the good of the nation it can't be Huntsman. I like my Democrats to man up and admit what they are.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 12-Aug-11 12:23 PM
Bob, I don't disagree with you on any of those things. Romney isn't a conservative. Most importantly, he isn't a leader, which we're missing badly right now.
We don't need 2 in a row.
I'd put Huntsman & Ron Paul in the worthless category for different reasons. Santorum totally schooled Paul on Paul's leave-them-alone strategy towards Iran. He asked Paul what happens when Iran gets a nuclear weapon & deploys it in Venezuela? FYI- it's only 2,000 miles from Venezuela to DC.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 12-Aug-11 12:51 PM
Gary:
Lets not ignore that Santorum pointed out that the major source of the deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan are coming from Iran. That's why we have to deal with Iran.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 12-Aug-11 03:06 PM
Gary, please pardon me. I forgot about Paul. Thankfully, come the primaries, so will the majority of the voters.
Comment 5 by eric z at 12-Aug-11 03:26 PM
Perry was not there. Isn't that the whole story? The rest is window dressing, such as whether Pawlenty or Bachmann is the Iowa drop-out, with the other to drop out soon afterward, New Hampshire or the southern primaries?
Out of curiousity, does anyone view Palin as a serious contender any more? Or Santorum? Each seems only slow to shut up.
Comment 6 by eric z at 12-Aug-11 03:28 PM
Romney says insistently that a corporation is a person because he's more like a corporation than a human. Romney, Inc.
Fictitious, as a human candidate for the job.
Comment 7 by Rex Newman at 12-Aug-11 10:55 PM
I might agree that Gingrich landed the most blows on Obama. But you might agree that he has the most baggage on the stage. He was beaten when he started.
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 13-Aug-11 12:47 AM
Rex, this post was just about debate performance, nothing more. Frankly, I thought Newt made Michele look small at times, which is unfair.
She fights for the right things. It's just that Newt got to work with Bill Clinton & Bob Dole. I'll admit that that's infinitely less difficult than working with Pelosi & Obama. Still, I haven't seen in Michele the ability to bring people together to strike a great deal that makes life better.
Comment 9 by eric z at 13-Aug-11 10:07 AM
Newt got to work with Bob Dole. Two Republicans.
Comparably, Michele gets to work with Mitch McConnell.
Care to go there, Gary?
Response 9.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Aug-11 10:18 AM
If Mitch McConnell was majority leader, he'd help get Michele's legislation passed. Reid is utterly corrupt. He's harming America. Reid's agenda is simple: protecting President Obama at all costs.
Comment 10 by eric z at 13-Aug-11 10:11 AM
That was the debate. Today is the straw poll.
I noticed no predictive post.
Not pushing. There's a host of reasons to not go there before the results are in. I expect you await them.
And I expect you will do a post-mortum. It is like a political version of Survivor. Who's due to be off the island.
Eleventh Circuit rules individual mandate unconstitutional
According to this report , the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled the individual mandate in Obamacare unconstitutional. While that isn't surprising, this statement is astonishing:
One of the three judges of the appeals court panel, Stanley Marcus, agreed with the administration in dissenting from the majority opinion.
The majority "has ignored the undeniable fact that Congress' commerce power has grown exponentially over the past two centuries and is now generally accepted as having afforded Congress the authority to create rules regulating large areas of our national economy," Marcus wrote.
The dissenting opinion is astonishing in the sense that the problem is that previous courts have used the Interstate Commerce Clause as the justification for all kinds of misguided rulings. It's been the courts' catch-all clause.
Because past courts have frequently abused the ICC, they've told Congress that they can essentially ignore the Constitution, that they'll invoke the ICC to cover Congress's backsides in overstepping their authority.
Thanks to the sane-thinking majority, steps are being taken to restore the ICC to its proper interpretation. Congress doesn't have the authority to tell people it must purchase something as a condition of their existence. The ends don't justify the means.
Posted Friday, August 12, 2011 1:43 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 12-Aug-11 03:09 PM
There's only one Stanley Marcus. Thank God.
Comment 2 by eric z at 12-Aug-11 03:21 PM
I saw the report on Strib's website, Gary, and came to FreedomRing, expecting you would post.
There's a lot of overstepping elsewhere.
Where in the Constitution does it say standing army, intelligence agencies, or tampering at the federal levels into marriage or reproductive choice?
I've not seen it. Where's the outrage on those fronts. It is not selective blindness, is it?
Your Republican guy, Ron Paul, at least the man is consistent, not elastic in thinking the Constitution's elastic too, where it's wanted to be.
The Jusus-right tears up the document, as to separation of church and state. The war mongers and war profiteers dishonor it.
That said, I agree with the contention that one can be forced into any particular act of private commerce. Even requiring insurance to drive, you can elect to not drive, and avoid the reach. The law's been replete with prohibitions impacting liberty; but this hummer is a private sector purchase demand, not a prohibition, and it is unique that way.
Gary, can you or any reader recall any other instance where people were told to either buy insurance or be fined? I cannot. That was the most offensive thing included in the legislation. The real shame was all the stuff left out, indeed, taken off the table at the start of things by Obama.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 12-Aug-11 04:28 PM
Eric, the car insurance/health insurance debate is mostly about comparing apples with oranges.
The individual mandate is levied against living people. People that don't own cars aren't mandated to buy car insurance.
Comment 4 by Kim at 12-Aug-11 05:16 PM
Where in the Constitution does it give judges the right to expand anything in it? We need judicial reform seriously!
Comment 5 by eric z at 13-Aug-11 10:05 AM
Gary - sorry I mistyped. Second paragraph from the end, it should have been "disagree."
We are on the same page. Health insurance and auto insurance are different. One says you cannot lawfully drive uninsured. The other says you have to pay the government money if you do not buy insurance.
In some ways there is overlap. You drive uninsured, get caught you have to pay the government money. You decline buying health coverage, don't get noticed doing that, you don't have to pay the government money.
If the law stands you have to buy health insurance or pay a penalty, what's the argument left if the government says everyone must buy and own an automobile or pay the government money?
We agree. I mistyped.
But I stand firm, however, on the fact that other Constitutional principles, especially separation of church and state, are imperiled by some in your camp, Gary. Kiffmeyer has gone so far as to publicly disclaim separation. She disclaims the Constitution. She is a danger. That way and others. I think Katherine Kersten, one of her nags is anti-separation, but she's a nag, not a danger.
