August 13-16, 2013
Aug 13 07:45 Weak governor opposes tax repeal Aug 13 12:24 Cummings, Levin defend the indefensible Aug 13 14:22 Delaying Obamacare, not defunding, is GOP's best strategy Aug 14 00:52 Dayton's special session ultimatum Aug 14 12:14 Just desserts: PPACA hits school districts, cities Aug 14 21:59 The DFL's neverending tax hikes Aug 15 03:24 MNSCU & the legislature: Where's the accountability? Aug 15 11:38 The partial government shutdown fallacy Aug 16 14:18 King Obama's reign
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Weak governor opposes tax repeal
Appearing weaker by the day, Gov. Dayton is publically opposing the repeal of the warehousing services tax increase :
Dayton has said a repeal of the warehousing tax can wait until the 2014 session, because it doesn't take effect until next April.
That's a feeble argument. 'It can wait because it won't hurt businesses until April' isn't compelling, especially considering this information:
Dayton wants to call lawmakers back to St. Paul on Sept. 9 to approve disaster relief for 18 counties hit hard by storms in June. He said yesterday he also wants the special session to exempt farm equipment from a new tax on business equipment repair.
I'm fine with them not repealing the warehouse tax until next winter. The tax increase will be repealed. While it's still on the books, though, it's a constant reminder that Gov. Dayton's and the Democrats' highest priority is to raise taxes regardless of whether it hurts Minnesota's economy.
Dayton and the Democrats that control the legislature worry more about raising taxes than they care about strengthening Minnesota's economy. Cargill shipped 200 high-paying union jobs to Colorado. Red Wing Shoes is seriously considering building a $20,000,000 warehouse in Wisconsin as a direct result of Gov. Dayton's warehouse tax.
It's shocking that a governor would oppose repealing a tax that's threatening to move dozens of jobs to Wisconsin on the basis that the tax won't hurt a major employer until next April.
Chamber President David Olson's letter asks for a repeal of the entire tax on business equipment repair, along with new taxes on warehousing services and equipment purchases by telecommunication providers. He said the taxes are hurting business and job growth.
'Business must plan ahead and these new taxes are already impacting their decisions,' Olson wrote. 'We are aware of situations where expansion plans are now on hold or where companies are considering relocating some or all of their operations to other states.'
"Companies are considering relocating...operations to other states" is code for Red Wing Shoes, though it might include other companies, too.
Since gaining total control of the legislature, Democrats have weakened Minnesota's economy with their foolish, counterproductive tax increases. They've put businesses in their crosshairs . They've paid off their special interest allies with illegal legislation that hurts Minnesota's poorest families.
The Democratic Party in Minnesota is nothing if not finely attuned to their special interest allies. That's why repealing foolish, counterproductive taxes isn't their priority. That's why we can't afford another 2 years of their policies.
Tags: Warehouse Tax , Red Wing Shoes , Cargill , Wisconsin , Colorado , Special Interests , Amazon Tax , Mark Dayton , DFL , Minnesota Chamber of Commerce , Small Business
Posted Tuesday, August 13, 2013 7:45 AM
No comments.
Cummings, Levin defend the indefensible
Elijah Cummings and Sander Levin wrote this op-ed to essentially defend the indefensible corruption of the Obama administration and the IRS.
House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) led the charge, alleging this was the ' targeting of the president's political enemies .' Other Republicans followed suit, citing ' the enemies list out of the White House ' and arguing that President Obama 'doesn't have clean hands.' And they invoked the specter of disgraced former president Richard Nixon.
Yet our committees' review of thousands of documents and interviews with more than a dozen IRS employees have not uncovered a scintilla of evidence to substantiate their claims. Unfortunately, the facts have not stopped our Republican colleagues from lobbing baseless accusations in the cynical hope that people would believe them. The column last week on this page, 'Holes in the IRS narrative,' by Issa and Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-Mich.), continued the effort to suggest the existence of a scandal that the established facts do not support.
I won't tapdance about this. Elijah Cummings and Sander Levin are lying through their teeth. They're partisan hacks. In May, when this story first broke, President Obama acknowledged that the IRS scandal was disturbing and real. He promised to get to the bottom of this story.
Of course, that's when the scandal was about "2 rogue agents in Cincinnati." The minute testimony was given showing that Washington knew about the scandal and actually was involved in halting processing of conservative organizations' applications for tax exempt status, Democrats switched into 'Republicans are engaged in a partisan witch hunt' mode. That's when President Obama and Jay Carney started talking about phony scandals.
Let us be clear: There was mismanagement at the IRS, and IRS employees screened applications for tax-exempt status for further review based, in part, on the names of the organizations. But there is absolutely no evidence of political motivation or White House involvement.
Let's be clear about this: There's irrefutable proof that the IRS was used a weapon against President Obama's political enemies. Refusing to make a final decision on conservative organizations' tax-exempt applications isn't happenstance. It's deliberate. Furthermore, Carter Hull testified that William Wilkins micromanaged the tax-exempt application process from DC. We know that President Obama appointed Wilkins to his position.
In other words, it's impossible to conduct a thorough investigation without political ramifications.
It's insulting (infuriating, too) that Mssrs. Cummings and Levin mention mismanagement. WRONG. Crimes have been committed. Based on the credible testimony given to the House committees with jurisdiction over this disturbing scandal, several people will be convicted of crimes the minute they're prosecuted. Lois Lerner will be convicted if she's tried. Douglas Schulman will be convicted of lying to Congress for repeatedly telling Congress that conservative organizations weren't being targeted. J. Russell George, the IRS Inspector General, audited the IRS's tax-exempt office. What he found was that 292 conservative organizations were harassed by the IRS and that each of their applications were put on hold.
By not making a final ruling on their applications, the IRS prevented these conservative organizations from appealing the IRS's ruling. That prevented these activists from raising money to get their message out to people during the presidential election cycle. That means the IRS's actions had a profound political impact on the presidential campaign. There's no way that isn't a political consideration.
Republicans have also recently claimed, as Issa and Camp wrote in their op-ed, that progressive groups received 'routine scrutiny' that was somehow fundamentally different from the systematic treatment of the tea party applications.
But Daniel Werfel, the acting commissioner of the IRS, disagrees. He testified that there were progressive groups that were treated similarly to the tea party applicants, with some facing three-year delays. In fact, he said some progressive groups were even denied tax-exempt status - unlike the tea party applicants, who were just delayed.
Werfel isn't honest. Since the IRS scandal erupted, there hasn't been a single progressive organization named that was delayed 3 years. On the conservative side, I can rattle off lots of organizations' names that applied for tax-exempt status that are still pending. True The Vote, Linchpins for Liberty and the National Organization for Marriage are just a few of the dozens of conservative organizations who applied for tax-exempt status and who are still waiting for a final determination.
Mssrs. Cummings and Levin are political hatchetmen doing this administration's bidding. They aren't honest people at a time when we need people of integrity in Congress. Instead of getting people of integrity in government and Congress, we're dealing with weasels like Danny Werfel, Lois Lerner, William Wilkins, Elijah Cummings and Sander Levin.
Tags: IRS Scandal , President Obama , Elijah Cummings , Sander Levin , Politicians , Lois Lerner , Douglas Schulman , Daniel Werfel , William Wilkins , Political Appointees , Democratic Culture of Corruption , Crime , Lying to Congress , Democrats , J. Russell George , IRS Inspector General , Carter Hull , Dave Camp , House Ways & Means Committee , Darrell Issa , House Oversight Committee , Investigation , GOP
Posted Tuesday, August 13, 2013 12:24 PM
No comments.
Delaying Obamacare, not defunding, is GOP's best strategy
With big fights on the budget looming, a group of GOP senators are pushing an ill-advised 'defund Obamacare' strategy. It isn't a matter of whether Republicans will fight against implementation of the PPACA. It's a matter of whether they'll pick smart fights they have a chance of winning. Ed Morrissey makes the case against defunding the PPACA in this post :
Once again, the White House has chosen businesses over consumers and workers, in large part driven by the economic implications of the law it champions. So far, the White House refuses to budge on the individual mandate, even though the exchanges won't be able to verify income levels to prevent fraudulent subsidy requests, nor secure the personal data needed for submission in the exchanges, putting consumers at risk for identity theft.
The administration doesn't have much choice in this fight. If they cave on the individual mandate, they'll be admitting that implementation of the PPACA is a slow-motion trainwreck happening in plain sight. There's a time-tested political axiom that says, roughly, that 'when your opponent is falling apart, it's best to get out of the way and let them self-destruct.'
Ed's right on with this opinion:
Democrats are simply not going to agree to separate ObamaCare funding from the rest of the budget, nor do they need to do so in the Senate. They have the votes to pass a budget or a CR without Rubio or any of the rest of the Republicans, since filibusters cannot apply to budgetary bills according to Senate rules. Rubio's remarks are aimed more at the House, and both he and Cruz want to draw a line in the sand that will lead to a shutdown when Senate Democrats refuse to adopt any bills defunding ObamaCare.
I've agreed with the smarter approach from Day One. Apparently, Mitch McConnell is already there :
Americans should not be forced into the exchanges, and certainly not without these assurances. If you rush to go forward without adequate safeguards in place, any theft of personal information from constituents will be the result of your rush to implement a law to meet the agency's political needs and not the operational needs of the people it is supposed to serve.
The data hub is a nightmare-waiting-to-happen. Republicans should push this as the reason why the individual mandate should be delayed. Here's more on why that's a potent argument:
After Obama unilaterally postponed enforcing the statutory deadline for the employer mandate, Republicans have argued that the individual mandate should also be delayed. The Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin reported on McConnell's demand to the CMS administrator for a delay, based on the inability of the selected contractor to ensure data security in the exchanges on time for the ACA's October 1 rollout. '[J]ust last year,' McConnell wrote, 'it was disclosed that more than 120,000 enrollees in the federal Thrift Savings Plan had their personal information, including Social Security numbers, stolen from your contractor's computers in 2011.'
This is a potent argument, especially considering how worried people are about identity theft. Couple that with the IRS leaking confidential documents to political allies and it's a political nightmare for Democrats waiting to happen.
There's another benefit to delaying the PPACA. It keeps the issue alive through the mid-term election and into the presidential election cycle. That's important because, though it's called Obamacare, it's really Hillary's plan in many respects. Let's remember that then-Candidate Obama criticized her for proposing the employer and individual mandates:
During the 2008 presidential campaign, Obama expressed opposition to a mandate requiring all Americans to buy health care insurance. In a Feb. 28, 2008, interview on the Ellen DeGeneres show, Obama sought to distinguish himself from then-candidate Hillary Clinton by saying, "Both of us want to provide health care to all Americans. There's a slight difference, and her plan is a good one. But, she mandates that everybody buy health care.
"She'd have the government force every individual to buy insurance and I don't have such a mandate because I don't think the problem is that people don't want health insurance, it's that they can't afford it," Obama said. "So, I focus more on lowering costs. This is a modest difference. But, it's one that she's tried to elevate, arguing that because I don't force people to buy health care that I'm not insuring everybody. Well, if things were that easy, I could mandate everybody to buy a house, and that would solve the problem of homelessness. It doesn't."
Causing Hillary to defend the individual mandate would be fun to watch. In a very real sense, she's got a Romney-sized problem in defending herself on the PPACA. Delaying the PPACA's implementation keeps the issue on the table for people who aren't well-equipped to defend it. As a conservative, that's a position I want to operate from.
Tags: President Obama , Hillary Clinton , Individual Mandate , Employer Mandate , Identity Theft , Health Insurance Exchange , Data Hub , Implementation , Trainwreck , Democrats , Mike Lee , Rand Paul , Marco Rubio , Defund Obamacare , Mitch McConnell , Delay Obamacare , GOP , Election 2014 , Election 2016
Posted Tuesday, August 13, 2013 2:22 PM
No comments.
Dayton's special session ultimatum
Tonight while attending a BPOU fundraiser, we got news that Gov. Dayton won't call a special session if Republicans insist that the the warehouse sales tax be repealed. Gov. Dayton's insistence that Republicans not attempt to repeal the warehouse sales tax is puzzling. Gov. Dayton knows it's hurting Minnesota's economy. Gov. Dayton knows Red Wing Shoes is holding off on a $20,000,000 warehouse project until they know that tax is repealed.
There's nothing positive gained by keeping the Democrats' mistake tax on the books. There's plenty of economic bad news that likely will happen if it isn't repealed.
Several of the legislators I spoke with noted with sadness that the tax revenue for July fell short of expectations :
In all, Minnesota took in just shy of $936 million in taxes, about 2.2 percent less than anticipated.
If that trend continues, which we can't predict at this time, that would mean the deficit from the first year of the all-DFL budget would be almost $850,000,000. Despite that bad news, Gov. Dayton issued an ultimatum that he wouldn't call a special session if the GOP wanted to repeal a tax that's harming Minnesota economy.
There's no disputing the fact that the warehousing tax won't go into effect until April, 2014. Similarly, there's no disputing the fact that Red Wing Shoes have put off a major warehouse project until that tax is repealed. That's at minimum. If that tax isn't repealed, Red Wing Shoes will build their warehouse in neighboring Wisconsin.
What's the logic behind Gov. Dayton's ultimatum? Does he really want to hurt Minnesota's economy that much? Is it that he doesn't understand what makes the economy tick? Whatever the reason, it's apparent that Minnesota can't afford another 4 years of liberal stupidity in the Governor's Mansion.
Tags: Special Session , Mark Dayton , Warehouse Tax , Disaster Relief , Deficit , Economy , DFL , Red Wing Shoes , Construction Project , Wisconsin , Capital Flight
Posted Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:52 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 14-Aug-13 02:01 PM
What's the logic? Gov. Goofy doesn't benefit from repealing a warehousing tax for "rich" busniesses like he does when he repeals the farm equipment tax for "poor" farmers.
The GOP needs to stand strong, call his bluff and hang it around his and the DFL's neck in 2014.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Aug-13 06:37 PM
Check in tomorrow for a different angle on Dayton's ultimatum.
Comment 3 by Ryan at 15-Aug-13 07:49 AM
Might as well save it for next year so he can appear to save the day right before the tax goes live.
Just desserts: PPACA hits school districts, cities
This article exposes another disastrous facet of the PPACA. People that campaigned for its passage are now getting hit as reality sets in:
According to the law, employers will have to offer health coverage to all full-time employees, defined as those who work an average of 30 or more hours per week each month, or else pay a fine starting in 2015.
School boards, already struggling to manage after years of state budget cuts, are trying to get ahead of the potential costs of Obamacare for the current academic year, education and labor officials say. The need to find creative solutions, or risk cutting back staff hours further, will increase as they finalize their budgets, they say.
In Pennsylvania's Penn Manor School District, Superintendent Mike Leichliter said there is no room in its constrained budget to provide additional employee insurance. Instead of cutting hours, the district used a substitute-teacher contracting service to pay part of the salaries for 95 employees. Money for such a service does not count against the school's budget.
"When we looked at our costs, (healthcare) was one area that really had the potential to skyrocket," Leichliter said. "This is absolutely the worst time for school districts to be faced with mandated increases."
The National School Board Association said many states and school districts have at least explored reducing hours, according to Linda Embrey, a communications officer. Several school officials contacted by Reuters said they could not find a way around cuts.
The PPACA is being exposed as an unmitigated disaster. Whatever it touches, it destroys. It's delicious that the unions that campaigned for the PPACA are now getting hit with tight budgets. That's what's called getting their just desserts. (Getting their comeuppance fits, too.)
The PPACA is inflating health insurance premiums, making health insurance less affordable. When it's fully implemented, assuming it's ever implemented, people's hours will have been cut. The middle class will be substantially worse off. School districts and municipalities will face steeper bills, making budgeting trickier for them.
This year's jobs statistics prove that the PPACA is turning the US into Part-Time Nation . Of the 953,000 jobs created thus far this year, 731,000 of them are part-time jobs. That's 77% of the jobs created.
Most of the employees affected are substitute teachers, classroom aides, cafeteria workers, bus drivers or similar support staff, according to school officials and labor representatives. They had not been receiving healthcare coverage from their employers in the past. Now, instead of getting such employer-sponsored benefits under the reform law, they may be eligible for government-subsidized coverage that will be offered by new state insurance exchanges starting on October 1.
This information hits at the heart of the PPACA. People that thought they'd get employer-provided health insurance won't get employer-provided health insurance. It's one thing to not have hope. People can adjust to that. Having no hope, then being told a solution is right around the corner, only to have those hopes dashed, is devastating.
It's ironic that the people that fought hardest for the PPACA are the ones getting hit with the biggest disappointments. It's delicious to see them getting their just desserts for the pain they've inflicted on the nation.
Tags: Insurance Premiums , Health Insurance , School Districts , Part-Time Nation , President Obama , PPACA , Democrats
Posted Wednesday, August 14, 2013 12:14 PM
No comments.
The DFL's neverending tax hikes
This afternoon, Dan Ochsner interviewed Bill Blazer from the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. The first topic, the only topic really, was Dayton's ultimatum insisting that he won't call a special session if the four legislative leaders don't agree to an agenda limited to releasing the federal disaster relief funds and repealing the farm equipment repair sales tax. If Republicans insist that repealing the warehouse tax must be part of the agenda, Gov. Dayton says he won't call a special session.
Blazer told Ochsner that nothing is nonnegotiable. He hinted that the Minnesota Chamber would continue to lobby for including the repeal of all of the business-to-business sales taxes. Twenty-four hours ago, I thought Gov. Dayton was bluffing. I'm rethinking that position in light of the fact that July's revenues missed projection by 2.2%. They expected to collect $936,000,000 this month. The state collected $915,000,000, a deficit of $21,000,000.
Gov. Dayton insisted that the warehouse tax will be repealed during next year's regular session. I'm not sure it will. Frankly, it's irrelevant. If it's repealed, another tax will be created or raised. With this DFL legislature and a Democrat governor, it's just a game of whack-a-mole. Kill one mole, another pops its head up. Kill that mole, a different mole pops its head up.
Last night at the BPOU fundraiser, one legislator told me that Minnesotans should brace for more tax increases. This legislator said that's just who the DFL is. It isn't just what they do. It's part of their DNA. They've got a lengthy list of things that their special interest allies want to pay for. They'll only quit raising taxes if their special interest allies suddenly run out of things on their wish list.
That won't happen, which means the only effective way of stopping the tax increases is to defeat them, to remove the gavels from their hands and to get a conservative governor in office. Democrats insisted that making historic investments in education and transportation would spark an economic revival.
Cargill saw that historic investment in education and left for Colorado. Red Wing Shoes saw the DFL legislature pass a warehouse tax and Gov. Dayton sign it into law. Then they lobbied for repealing the tax. Gov. Dayton hinted that it would get repealed during the regular session. With a major deficit looming, Red Wing must be seriously thinking about building their warehouse in Wisconsin. They'd be foolish not to.
Yes, we need a well-trained workforce. Yes, we need a world-class transportation system. Unfortunately, that isn't enough. Minnesota needs a world-class tax and regulatory environment, too. Right now, we don't have a world-class anything. That's why businesses and people are leaving Minnesota.
If we don't change that, Minnesota will be a cold California, a state with great natural resources and a tanking economy.
Tags: Special Session , Special Interests , Farm Equipment Sales Tax , Federal Disaster Relief , Mark Dayton , DFL , Bill Blazer , Minnesota Chamber of Commerce , Business-to-Business Sales Tax , Cargill , Colorado , Red Wing Shoes , Wisconsin
Posted Wednesday, August 14, 2013 9:59 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 15-Aug-13 12:42 PM
Is education and transportation really an investment we need to be making seeing how we are not seeing a return on that investment? How much more money do we need to pour down those rat holes before we say enough? More money does not mean a better anything.
Cy Tao said it best a few years ago, when he said "when the DFL wins, we take your money and when the GOP wins, you get to keep your money." The DFL is only living up to that statement.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Aug-13 04:02 PM
Cy Thao's quote wasn't reported in a newspaper. It was reported here first.
It isn't fair to say education & transportation aren't important to a strong economy. They are. It's that the current transportation system & current education need a major overhaul to be effective.
Where I've strongly disagreed with the DFL is that we need a strong educational system, a 21st century transportation system in addition to competitive tax & regulatory systems.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 16-Aug-13 10:53 AM
Never said education and transportation were not important, just asked how much more money will we dump down the rat holes just hoping for some positive results. The DFL's priorities for both are so screwed up that giving them more money for either is just a huge was of taxpayer money. All day daycare (kindergarten)and building trains that no one rides except on gameday are benefiting no one except for the unions.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 17-Aug-13 12:54 PM
Gary:
Here's an idea for a post. I heard on the radio during a news break that in July Minnesota's unemployment held steady and the largest source of new jobs was government.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
MNSCU & the legislature: Where's the accountability?
One of the things that needs dramatic change is the bureaucracy known as the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities, aka MNSCU. The situation that's most troubling is the fact that there isn't a system of accountability. Presidents at MNSCU's tech colleges, community colleges and universities report directly to the chancellor of MNSCU.
That's 31 public colleges and 54 campuses in 47 cities across the state for a single chancellor to keep track of. The chancellor's office is in the Twin Cities. With campuses in International Falls, Moorhead, East Grand Forks, Ely, Eveleth and Thief River Falls, it's impossible to think a single chancellor could keep track of what's happening at these colleges and universities.
Over the past 2 years, I've studied this system. In that time, I've seen proof that procedures are ignored . When programs are eliminated, MNSCU procedure 3.36.1 requires that the university document 9 specific things. Here's what MNSCU Procedure 3.36.1 requires:
The academic program closure application must be documented by information, as applicable, regarding
1.academic program need,
2.student enrollment trends,
3.employment of graduates,
4.the financial circumstances affecting the academic program, system college or university,
5.the plan to accommodate students currently enrolled in the academic program,
6.impact on faculty and support staff,
7.consultation with appropriate constituent groups including students, faculty and community,
8.alternatives considered, and
9.other factors affecting academic program operation.
When St. Cloud State closed the Aviation Program, President Potter didn't provide MNSCU with the required documentation. When he was called out on this, Interim Vice Chancellor for Academic and Student Affairs Larry Litecky replied "My staff and I remain persuaded that the university conducted required and appropriate consultations and assessments that informed its decisions.'
This isn't a matter of being persuaded. It's a matter of whether President Potter and St. Cloud State provided the documentation justifying the closing of the Aviation program at St. Cloud State. Simply put, MNSCU rubberstamped President Potter's decision despite the absence of the required documentation.
The MNSCU chancellor theoretically reports to the MNSCU Board of Trustees. I say theoretically because the MNSCU Board of Trustees hasn't rocked the boat or overruled the chancellor in years. In other words, university presidents can do what they want, knowing that the chancellor will rubberstamp their decisions. The chancellor can do this because he's certain that the MNSCU Board of Trustees will rubberstamp his decisions.
That would make the legislature the last line of defense. Despite repeated pleas to the committees of jurisdiction, aka the Higher Education committees in the House and Senate, they haven't conducted oversight hearings on these irregularities and abuses. Thus far, they haven't held a single hearing on whether there's a system of accountability in place to make sure that the taxpayers' money is spent properly or whether the students are getting a quality education.
Right now, it's impossible for an informed person to think that there's any accountability built into the system. In the private sector, a manager or director who didn't require that a major decision be fully documented would be terminated. Larry Litecky wasn't even slapped on the wrist. In the private sector, a person who told one untruthful justification to the corporation's president, then told a different untruthful justification to that corporation's Board of Directors, would be terminated.
At this point, nothing remotely approaching this has happened. Frankly, it's disheartening to think that the House and Senate Higher Education committees might not rock the boat or conduct legitimate oversight into the serial abuses and outright corruption found in MNSCU.
If university presidents a) won't follow MNSCU procedures and b) will stonewall faculty demands for why transcripts are being dramatically altered without the professors' signing off on the changes, that's a system where corruption will flourish. If the chancellor won't intervene in such matters, then the board should replace the chancellor and demand that a man or woman of integrity be hired to replace the rubberstamp chancellor.
If the chancellor won't do that, then the legislature should intervene. They should reform MNSCU that insists on a culture of accountability. They should conduct oversight hearings to find out whether MNSCU is spending money wisely (it isn't) and providing educations that will help students start a great career when they graduate (that isn't happening either.)
Don't students and taxpayers deserve better?
Tags: MNSCU , Culture of Corruption , MNSCU Chancellor , University Presidents , Transcript Scandal , Higher Education Committees , Oversight Hearings , Accountability , Reform
Posted Thursday, August 15, 2013 3:24 AM
Comment 1 by Linda at 31-May-15 03:59 PM
Mnscu is corrupt on many levels. HR does not protect employees or students from retaliation acted out on those who speak up. HR is about PR and hushing whistleblowers in this unethical educational system. Pull your students/ give money to learning institutions that actually care about human beings. The rhetoric they use to persuade the masses to be blinded by this corruption is sleek but do not be fooled.
Comment 2 by Mystique at 31-May-15 08:51 PM
Linda is correct. Just look at this post. MnSCU is deplorable.
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=15899
The partial government shutdown fallacy
Is it really wise to fight a fight we can't win? That's one of the important questions that the TEA Party hasn't answered yet. In other words, should Republicans fight to defund Obamacare in the upcoming budget fight, especially knowing that it's a fight they'll lose while shutting down the government?
One myth that's been peddled is the myth about a partial government shutdown. It's fiction. There's no doubt that the House will pass 2 bills, one to defund Obamacare, the other to fund the rest of government. Likewise, there's no doubt that Harry Reid will take the House bill funding government, modify it to include funding of Obamacare. Finally, there's no doubt that they'll then send that modified bill back to the House.
At that point, the Republicans' options are to cave or shut the government down. Neither option is a positive option. Jim Hoft points out that polling shows strong support for defunding Obamacare :
With citizens across America asking their congressman to support defunding Obamacare, Heritage Action CEO Michael A. Needham alongside leading pollster Jon Lerner today released a poll showing the idea of defunding Obamacare is broadly supported. Moreover, the potential of a partial government shutdown does little to dampen the desire to stop the implementation of Obamacare.
Independents in the survey strongly support defunding Obamacare by a margin of 57 percent to 34 percent. Further, only 20 percent of voters in these districts support going forward with Obamacare unchanged.
I won't dispute Heritage Action's findings. I'll simply highlight the fact that that isn't the pertinent question. The pertinent question is whether the people who support defunding Obamacare will hate Republicans for shutting down government.
Another thing we're hearing is that this is the last chance to rid ourselves of the PPACA. The people pushing defunding the PPACA insist that it's our last chance. Those same people will list a lengthy list of catastrophies either happening or waiting to happen.
They insist that it's all over the minute people start getting premium support checks from the HHS. Again, that's a myth. Here's why:
34 states didn't set up state-run health insurance exchanges, aka HIXs. The people in those states that buy health insurance through those HIXs aren't eligible for premium support. There's another thing to factor in in the defund vs. delay debate:
Here's the relevant portion of the interview:
SCOTT PRUITT: Well, Greta, as you know, state health care exchanges are a major part of the Affordable Care Act and Congress each of the states a decision, a decision on whether to set up a health care exchange. And there's something very important that happens when a state chooses not to set up a state health care exchange and it's that the employer mandate penalties that flow when companies don't provide qualified health care -- they cannot be assessed in those states.
Pruitt later said that the IRS implemented a rule granting them the authority to collect the employer mandate in states that didn't establish HIXs. Greta then asked a question clarifying Pruitt's statement. Here's what she said:
GRETA: Alright, so what you're saying is that if the state had set up the exchanges, then the IRS could do that but that the way the law is written, that if the state declines to set up a health insurance exchange and the federal government has to set up an exchange, that they (the federal gov't) doesn't have the expressed authority to do that?
PRUITT: That's exactly what we're saying.
That's bombshell information. If these 34 states continue to refuse to put together state-run HIXs, then the IRS can't impose fines on companies in those states. If free market capitalists believe that free markets work, then we should think that the reddest of those states would become a magnet for companies who don't want to pay the employer mandate if Oklahoma wins this lawsuit.
The PPACA is a trainwreck waiting to happen. I've called it a house of cards waiting for a strong breeze to topple it. This administration is proving that they can't implement major parts of the PPACA. It's collapsing right in front of our eyes. The best strategy when something is collapsing is to get out of the way and let it collapse on its own.
I get it that people want to get rid of the PPACA. I'm one of those people. I just want conservatives to be smart for a change and let something that's collapsing collapse.
Tags: Heritage Action , Polling , PPACA , Government Shutdown , Employer Mandate , IRS , Oklahoma Lawsuit , Greg Pruitt , Attorney General , Defunding Obamacare , Delaying Obamacare , Free Market Capitalism
Posted Thursday, August 15, 2013 11:38 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Aug-13 09:35 AM
I am all in favor smart tactics, but this is a battle that must be won and it cannot be won if it isn't fought. The massive failures of Obamacare ought to be obvious to anyone, but they are not because Obama and his minions are busily propping it up on every side. They will not allow it to collapse, and you are arguing that they will not allow somebody to push it over, either, but we have to find a way. I am not one who believes that the best medical care system in the world can be quickly rebuilt after it's been smashed by the ACA. Somebody is going to have to kick the props out from under this monstrosity before there is any more damage.
My suggestion would be that Republicans threaten to fully implement Obamacare! There is already a case in court that says it is unconstitutional in its entirety:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/12859-legal-foundation-obamacare-still-unconstitutional
Republicans should be in court right now because Obama has stalled the employer mandate unconstitutionally. They should be in court challenging the unconstitutional exemption that Obama gave Congress. They should be in court challenging Obama's unilateral delay of the insurance caps. They should be in court challenging Obama's unilateral delay of the eligibility requirements for premium support. If nothing else, the publicity surrounding these court cases would bring more people to recognize the abject failure of Obamacare. And many of these decisions would come down just as next year's election is heating up.
Comment 2 by Jason at 01-Oct-13 05:05 AM
Best medical system in the world? You obviously make too much money and have a maid. Welcome to reality where half the country makes too much to get free care but too little too pay for health care. Welcome to reality
King Obama's reign
Since his second term began, President Obama has acted like a Third World dictator. His attitude has been that he'll ignore Congress if they won't do what he wants them to do when he wants them to do it. He's re-written laws. He's ignored others. Now he's instructed Attorney General Eric Holder and the Justice Department to lie to judges. Charles Krauthammer has noticed President Obama's lawlessness :
As a reaction to the crack epidemic of the 1980s, many federal drug laws carry strict mandatory sentences. This has stirred unease in Congress and sparked a bipartisan effort to revise and relax some of the more draconian laws.
Traditionally - meaning before Barack Obama - that's how laws were changed: We have a problem, we hold hearings, we find some new arrangement ratified by Congress and signed by the president.
That was then. On Monday, Attorney General Eric Holder , a liberal in a hurry, ordered all U.S. attorneys to simply stop charging nonviolent, non-gang-related drug defendants with crimes that, while fitting the offense, carry mandatory sentences. Find some lesser, non-triggering charge. How might you do that? Withhold evidence - for example, the amount of dope involved.
In other words, evade the law, by deceiving the court if necessary. 'If the companies that I represent in federal criminal cases' did that, said former deputy attorney general George Terwilliger, 'they could be charged with a felony.'
George Will has noticed , too:
Explaining his decision to unilaterally rewrite the Affordable Care Act (ACA), he said: 'I didn't simply choose to' ignore the statutory requirement for beginning in 2014 the employer mandate to provide employees with health care. No, 'this was in consultation with businesses.'
He continued: 'In a normal political environment, it would have been easier for me to simply call up the speaker and say, you know what, this is a tweak that doesn't go to the essence of the law...It looks like there may be some better ways to do this, let's make a technical change to the law. That would be the normal thing that I would prefer to do. But we're not in a normal atmosphere around here when it comes to Obamacare. We did have the executive authority to do so, and we did so.'
Serving as props in the scripted charade of White House news conferences, journalists did not ask the pertinent question: 'Where does the Constitution confer upon presidents the 'executive authority' to ignore the separation of powers by revising laws?' The question could have elicited an Obama rarity: brevity. Because there is no such authority.
As Mr. Krauthammer explains, this isn't about the merits of the policies:
The point is not what you think about the merits of the DREAM Act. Or of mandatory drug sentences. Or of subsidizing health care premiums for $175,000-a-year members of Congress. Or even whether you think governors should be allowed to weaken the work requirements for welfare recipients - an authority the administration granted last year in clear violation of section 407 of the landmark Clinton-Gingrich welfare reform of 1996 .
The point is whether a president, charged with faithfully executing the laws that Congress enacts, may create, ignore, suspend and/or amend the law at will. Presidents are arguably permitted to refuse to enforce laws they consider unconstitutional (the basis for so many of George W. Bush's so-called signing statements). But presidents are forbidden from doing so for reasons of mere policy, the reason for every Obama violation listed above.
President Obama isn't interested in the rule of law. What he's done by assuming imperial power at every turn is say he isn't interested in governing within the Constitution's framework.
It's time for reporters to start calling him out, repeatedly, on his lawlessness. The reason he can't get his agenda passed is because his agenda doesn't have majority support. He's wanted to radically transform America since before he was elected. He's repeatedly ignored the Constitution's limitations. He's ignored established laws. He's told his administration not to enforce immigration laws.
When liberals complained about President Bush's "imperial presidency", they were partially right but mostly wrong. President Bush overstepped in a couple areas. President Obama didn't just overstep a little bit. He's scrapped the Constitution's framework whenever he's deemed it essential to implementing his agenda or hiding his failures.
Prior to this administration, America was a nation of laws. This administration is an administration of lawlessness and abuses.
Tags: President Obama , Imperial Presidency , Third World Dictator , Lawlessness , Employer Mandate , Illegal Immigration , Dream Act , NSA , FISA Court , Warrants , Executive Fiat , Democrats , Constitution , George Will , Charles Krauthammer , Conservatism
Posted Friday, August 16, 2013 2:18 PM
No comments.
