December 1-3, 2010
Dec 01 06:48 Is Minnesota the Gold Standard? Dec 01 08:33 Axelrod to Newshour: We'll Kill the Recovery Dec 01 17:51 Dems' Priorities Aren't America's Priorities Dec 02 02:11 Rachel Smith's Intimidation Dec 02 16:06 The Revolution Must Be Expanded Dec 03 08:23 Who's the Budget Loser? Dec 03 12:08 Saved By Chairman Ryan? Dec 03 15:20 Is A Tarryl vs. Michele Rematch in the Offing?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Is Minnesota the Gold Standard?
Mark Ritchie's and the DFL's mantra regarding Minnesota's election system is that it's the gold standard of all the election systems in the United States. They cite as proof the 2008 Coleman-Franken recount. Then they talk about how much experience state election officials have with recounts.
I'm not buying that for a minute, thanks in large part to this tweet:
MinnesotaDFL RT @stowydad: Duluth ballots feared missing located. Sealed envelope was in election storage ctr, says St. Louis County auditor
First, I'm thankful that the ballots were found. That said, why didn't election officials know where the ballots were? That seems like a high priority, possibly only behind making sure the people that vote are eligible to vote and guaranteeing that the people who vote sign the sign-in sheet.
I'd also argue that any system that has vouching is a system that's ripe for voter fraud. Before anyone argues that there's no proof of that, I'd highlight Powerline's post showing proof that progressive organizations, including ones associated with Minnesota SecState Ritchie, had a plan in place for voter fraud in 2004:
In Minnesota the Bush campaign has come into the possession of the following email from ACT to its Minnesota volunteers:
Election Day is upon us. You are confirmed to volunteer with ACT (America Coming Together - http://www.actforvictory.org/) on Election Day, Tuesday, Nov 2.
We will be creating name badges that include your Ward and Precinct information for each of the thousands of volunteers that day to make it easier to find a volunteer to vouch for a voter at the polls .
I am emailing you to request your street address, city and zipcode. We've already got your other contact information, but your record in our database does not include this information.
You can save us time on election day by replying today to this email with this information, or give us a call at [phone number with St. Paul area code].
In order to get your badge correct, please reply by Thursday.
Thank you for your help and cooperation. See you on Election Day!
Why would there be a need to create badges that include the volunteer's name and precinct number? The principle behind vouching is that the person vouching knows the person who doesn't have proof of residence.
Certainly, the person being vouched for should know their voting place, including the ward and precinct number.
That's before talking about all the felons that illegally voted in the 2008 election. That's before talking about Ritchie complaining that he didn't have the authority to update the voter list even though HAVA of 2002 gave him authority, indeed the responsibility, to update the registered voter lists and keep them current.
Put these things together and it's impossible for a thinking person who's looked at these events objectively to state that Minnesota's election operations are smooth, much less the gold standard that the rest of the country should attempt to emulate.
Posted Wednesday, December 1, 2010 6:48 AM
Comment 1 by M. Groetken at 02-Dec-10 05:49 AM
Gary, I volunteered this week at the Henn. Co. recount. It is interesting what you hear in your down time. I heard one of the table judges tell another that she is an election judge in "Southwest Mpls. where we always have 70% voter turnout in every election." She was also very proud of the fact that in this last election they had "200 same day registrations." Somehow that seems like an attempt by someone to overwhelm that particular precinct with all that is involved with that process making it so easy for election officials to be pressed for time and just sort of pass people through to keep the lines moving. We have to get rid of same day registration and vouching.
Axelrod to Newshour: We'll Kill the Recovery
While this post's title is a paraphrase of what Mr. Axelrod said, it's essentially what he said. Here's what he really said:
JUDY WOODRUFF: On the tax cuts question, David Axelrod, we know the president would prefer that they not be extended for the wealthy. But, if the Republicans insist on that, is he prepared to go along with it?
DAVID AXELROD: Well, look, the president's position is very clear. He thinks there ought to be a permanent tax cut for the...for the middle class. The middle class has had a...not just a difficult time in this recession, but it's been battered through the last decade, where incomes have actually declined, while incomes at the top have actually...have grown exponentially.
So, that makes sense. What he's also said is that we can't afford a permanent tax cut for the wealthy. It would cost $700 billion that we don't have in the next 10 years alone. We don't want to borrow that money and add to our debt to do it. And those are the parameters he's set. And we're, Mr. Geithner and Mr. Lew are going to sit down with their representatives and see where we can go from there.
JUDY WOODRUFF: But it sounds like you're saying...you're basically saying what the president has said before. Is there give is what I'm asking.
DAVID AXELROD: Not on those issues. I mean, we obviously...we want a tax cut for the middle class. We have to have that. The middle class can't go into January 1 without...without that tax cut. And we can't accept a permanent tax cut for the wealthy, at a cost of $700 billion we don't have.
Put succinctly, President Obama and the Democrats are saying, at least for now, that they won't change their mind even if it means causing the next round of layoffs and the Obama recession.
The economy has the jitters as it is. Raising taxes on America's job creators while they're anticipating the impact of Obamacare's regulations and tax increases in addition to the lapsing of the Bush tax cuts will put this economy in a major tailspin.
If Axelrod is being honest and President Obama is serious about raising taxes on America's job creators, then they should prepare themselves for 20+ months of questions about the Obama Recession and the Obama Tax Hike. This is an economic and political disaster waiting to happen for the Obama administration.
Prior to that definitive statement, Mr. Axelrod did some serious tapdancing when asked about the potential Obama Tax Hike:
JUDY WOODRUFF: You said it was positive, constructive. But we gather no real differences were bridged today. The president wasn't looking for that?
DAVID AXELROD: Well, I think that there was -- I think there was a significant discussion outlining a way forward to solve some of the things that are in front of us right now.
As the president mentioned, and you know, he's designated his treasury secretary, Tim Geithner, and Jack Lew, the new budget director, to sit down with designees, members from the two chambers, to work through potential solutions on this tax issue. That would be very important for the economy, very important for every middle-class person in this country, who will see their taxes go up by thousands of dollars if we can't resolve this before January 1.
So, I consider that progress. But a number of other issues were touched on. There was a good give-and-take. I think it was a positive spirit. And, you know, as I said, we will see what comes of it, but you had to feel good about the meeting if you were there.
Mr. Axelrod isn't being honest with the American people. How can there be "a good give-and-take" at the same time that President Obama is telling Republican leadership that he isn't willing to compromise on the thing preventing a positive resolution to this vexing economic issue?
This would fit the definition of being penny-wise and dollar stupid. If President Obama 'succeeds' in raising taxes on America's job creators, he'll lose the election and damage the Democratic Party for a decade.
What's more is that he's ignoring November's election results. It's as if Democrats didn't get shellacked, which they did. It isn't every midterm election that you lose 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats. Despite that thrashing, President Obama is acting like a president still in full command of the political landscape.
He isn't.
What's worse is that he'll hear from the American people that they're furious with his decisionmaking and his willingness to ignore what they've said.
It's difficult to imagine a more toxic situation to run for president than during a recession of his own making at a time when he's refusing to listen to the American people. In my opinion, that's as toxic a situation to run in as is possible.
Posted Wednesday, December 1, 2010 5:28 PM
No comments.
Dems' Priorities Aren't America's Priorities
This tweet from Aaron Klemz is totally consistent with what Democrats have done during their time in the majority:
I just want to ask: who thought that GOP would be more amenable to pass legis in lame duck AFTER election where they were sure to win seats?
It's interesting that Klemz is upset with House Democratic leadership for not bringing more issues up prior to the election. Why would he think that there was any support for the Democrats' tax-raising, regulation-increasing agenda at any time?
This is proof that Democrats weren't, and possibly still aren't, listening to the American people. The American people don't want tax increases of any sort. They don't want Congress wasting time on things that don't absolutely have to get finished during the lame duck session.
Wasting time of a food safety bill isn't essential, especially since it doesn't pass constitutional muster :
Apparently, no one told Harry Reid to check Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution before passing S510, the food-safety bill that Democrats hailed as a major lame-duck session achievement earlier this week, and which ran afoul of their own party in the House. Section 107 of the bill raises taxes, and as any Constitutional scholar can attest, or anyone else who has actually read the document that Senators swore to uphold when taking office; only the House of Representatives has that power...
The Senate, under Harry Reid's leadership, wasted time on a bill that now will likely get shelved until next year rather than spending that time on extending the Bush tax cuts or passing a continuing resolution to keep the government open. Those are things that should've gotten first attention by this Congress.
Ignoring what's important to the American people is what got Democrats fired in November in historic numbers. Since then, they've acted like nothing's changed, that the Republicans' thrashing didn't happen.
HINT TO DEMOCRATS: The thrashing happened and it happened for a reason. Actually, it happened for a multitude of reasons. (That's a different post for a different day.)
If the Democrats want to suffer another crushing defeat, including more state legislative seats, they're heading in the right direction.
Honestly, the hyperventillating left is already mischaracterizing the letter :
Just hours after Democrats and Republicans agreed to bargain on tax cuts, and fewer hours still after Defense Secretary Robert Gates implored Congress to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell this year, word leaked that Republicans aren't really interested in any of it, a major repudiation of Gates' authority.
According to a letter delivered to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid this morning, Republicans will block all debate on all legislation until the tax cut impasse is bridged and the federal government has been fully funded, even if it means days tick by and the Senate misses its opportunity to pass DADT, an extension of unemployment insurance and other Dem items.
I know this is a foreign concept to Democrats but putting a higher priority on not shutting the government down and keeping the economy running is more important than debating DADT or passing, improperly, a food safety bill.
Reid obviously doesn't get it:
Late update: Here's Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's response on the Senate floor this morning: "My Republican colleagues...know that the true effect of this letter is to prevent the Senate from acting on many important issues that have bipartisan support. With this letter, they have simply put in writing the political strategy that the Republicans pursued this entire Congress: Namely, obstruct, delay action on critical matters, and then blame the Democrats for not addressing the needs of American people. Very cynical, but very obvious. Very transparent."
Sen. Reid's statement is the epitome of spin. DADT isn't something that needs to get approved this week. Ratifying the START treaty isn't vital this week, either. Sen. McConnell's office just issued a statement titled "No More Dem Wish List Before Preventing Tax Hikes And Funding Gov't." The things that the Democrats have voted on or debated since returning have had nothing to do with passing a budget or resolving the tax issue.
The concept of passing a real budget and bringing certainty to America's job creators is obviously foreign to Sen. Reid. That's why it's puzzling that Nevadans returned him to the Senate for another term. They should've fired him and put him out of our misery once and for all.
The next 24 months will expose the Democrats as extremists with misguided priorities. After that, they'll suffer more losses in the House, Senate and state legislatures. If they don't change, their policies will plunge the economy into a double-dip recession, which might turn President Obama into a one-term wonder.
That's the only good news coming from the Democrats' refusal to set the right priorities.
Posted Wednesday, December 1, 2010 5:51 PM
No comments.
Rachel Smith's Intimidation
It's becoming increasingly clear that Rachel Smith isn't being an impartial judge of the recount. During an interview with reporters, Ms. Smith was asked if "challenges by the Emmer campaign were slowing things down." Here's Ms. Smith's reply:
This afternoon, MNGOP Chairman Tony Sutton issued this statement:
"We do think that, by the Emmer campaign frivolously challenging ballots, we are required to sticker...and it delays time. In one precinct, there was over 100 frivolous challenges..."
"After overseeing an unprecedented 400,000 vote error on election night, Hennepin County Elections Manager Rachel Smith today tried to change the rules in the middle of game to advance the interests of Mark Dayton. Instead of serving as a neutral referee like Ramsey County Elections Manager Joe Mansky, Smith has repeatedly inserted herself into the action by siding with the Dayton campaign on a host of issues, including her attempt today to arbitrarily change the recount schedule.
Smith also unsuccessfully tried to change the rules by expanding the number of tables and changing the 'sign in' rules for challenged ballots to discourage Emmer observers from lodging challenges. Smith's maneuvering sends a chilling signal to all Minnesotans who believe in fair play for all sides. Instead of expediting the recount, Smith's machinations have only served to slow things down. As the advocates for Tom Emmer's interests in this process, we will not be intimidated by Smith."
I wasn't sure what was meant by "the 'sign in' rules for challenged ballots initially but I was able to later confirm that Smith wanted the volunteer to sign a log each time they issued what she deemed a frivolous challenge.
As Chairman Sutton said, this is incredibly intimidating. Smith's job is to be an impartial judge. It isn't her responsibility to track who's challenging a ballot. As far as I know, there isn't a statute saying anything about this type of provision.
I'd argue that she's arguing in circles; in her interview, she complains about how much time is being wasted putting stickers on ballots she's deemed as frivolous challenges. Then she attempted to have a person sign a sign-in sheet each time there was a supposedly frivolously challenged ballot.
Wouldn't that be that much more time-consuming? Did anyone ask Ms. Smith what the purpose of this sign-in sheet is? Was she planning on keeping these sign-in sheets for future reference? If yes, why? If she wasn't, then what's the purpose of the sheets? Why is Smith getting upset with the time being consumed on the recount? Shouldn't getting the job done right be her only focus?
The bottom line is this: characterizing challenges as frivolous isn't part of Smith's responsibility. Worse, it's giving the appearance that she's siding too much with the Dayton campaign, a definite no-no when your responsibility is supposed to be that of an impartial observer. The least she can do is make a half-hearted attempt at looking impartial.
Posted Thursday, December 2, 2010 2:11 AM
Comment 1 by Kevin Slator at 02-Dec-10 03:24 PM
So a county elections supervisor is "intimidating" a team of $400/hour Republican lawyers and party officials? Give me a break.
The sign-in was proposed to identify those who are responsible for making the most frivolous challenges -- a reasonable solution. The challenges aren't just frivolous, they're ridiculous and they're making Emmer and the party (mostly the party) look idiotic and desperate. If those same $400/hour lawyers tried that sort of thing in court they'd have their case dismissed and would be sanctioned. Too bad the Secretary of State doesn't have that same power.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Dec-10 03:53 PM
Nice attempted non sequitur argument but it fails. The names being put on the ballot, according to the report, were mostly recount volunteers. I don't think they qualify as "$400/hour Republican lawyers and party officials."
Creating a sign-in sheet isn't a "reasonable solution" by any stretch of the imagination.
Comment 2 by Chris at 02-Dec-10 03:33 PM
Characterizing challenges as frivolous is in fact part of Smith's responsibility. Moreover, the rules require the ballot challenge be marked with either the name of the challenger or the candidate that the challenger represents. If the Election Manager has a reason to choose one over the other, such as improving efficiency by discouraging UNLAWFUL frivolous challenges, it seems within her responsibility to the citizens of Hennepin County to do so. It is nobody's right to make frivolous challenges; they are expressly forbidden. See Minn. Rule 8235.0800. They should be discouraged, no matter which party thinks it is their right to make them.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Dec-10 03:49 PM
Is this another selective enforcement argument? Because I don't recall hearing anything about writing the name of the challenger's or the candidate's name on the challenged ballot in 2008, when I was a recount volunteer.
As for the statement that Minnesota law expressly forbids making frivolous challenges, that's laughable because frivolous is a totally subjective term to the point that it's unenforceable. It's a shameful argument.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 02-Dec-10 08:03 PM
Actually, categorizing ANY challenge as "frivolous" is a violation of the law. Such a determination may, by law, be done only by the State Canvassing Board, when they review the ballots. Look through the law and you will not find the word "frivolous" anywhere. It's just more of Mark Ritchie trying to "fix" the election for Dayton, on top of all of the shenanigans, corruption, malfeasance and misfeasance he's already managed.
Anybody that thinks Minnesota's elections are fair would probably buy ocean-front property in Austin.
Comment 4 by Petter at 02-Dec-10 10:08 PM
You're misinformed with just about everything you've said in this article. I've been an election judge there everyday. The sign-in sheet was to be signed ONCE at the beginning of each new precinct, the election judges and partisan observers were encouraged to sign it but not required to. It is in fact completely the responsibility of Rachel Smith and the election judges to deem challenges frivolous or not. She's not siding with the Dayton campaign, she's siding with the non-partisan judges whose job it is to get through this process efficiently.
Your post is an excellent example of poor research, an obvious partisan slant, and bad sportsmanship. Dayton will win the election because Minnesota voters favored him, the ballots prove that. Let's let our government get back to work.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Dec-10 05:41 AM
Petter, Show me which statute gives Rachel Smith the affirmative responsibility of deeming challenges frivolous. I'm not holding my breath that you'll be able to do that.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 03-Dec-10 02:15 PM
Petter, "the ballots prove that"?
What proves that the ballots were legally and legitimately cast? Dead people, doppelgangers, deadbeats, deceivers and duplicates are not supposed to be allowed to vote at all, let alone have their ballots counted just like real people. The only thing "frivolous" in this recount is Mark Ritchie.
Comment 6 by Kevin Slator at 03-Dec-10 07:34 PM
Gary, it was the Tony Sutton who said: "As the advocates for Tom Emmer's interests in this process, we will not be intimidated by Smith." Presumably "we" includes the well-nourished Tony Sutton and $400/hour lawyers along with the volunteer Emmer observers.
As to your challenge to Petter to identify the statutory basis for Smith's deeming ballot challenges to be frivolous, it's not based on a statute but is part of the recount procedures adopted by the Canvassing Board. You must have known that already. It was in all the papers.
The Revolution Must Be Expanded
The TEA Party movement fancies itself as the Party of Revolution. Since Rick Santelli's rant on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange started the TEA Party movement, Americans of all different demographic groups have said they've had enough with government ignoring us.
To those of us watching the Minnesota recount, it's clear that the TEA Party revolution needs to be expanded to the judiciary. The reason I'm saying that is because of the Minnesota Supreme Court's misbehavior in making a ruling to the lawsuit filed by Tom Emmer demanding that there be a by-the-book reconcilliation of each of the 4,136 precincts in Minnesota.
After a paltry 45 minutes of deliberation, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled against the Emmer campaign. What's worse is that they issued the ruling without writing an opinion or saying what the final vote was or who voted against the Emmer campaign.
First, it's a tyranny that they ignored the statute that governs reconcilliation.
It's the height of arrogance for the court to refuse to explain what statutes they applied in reaching the ruling they issued. It's standard for them to do so. They didn't this time.
Not issuing an opinion is, in my opinion, a form of corruption. At some point, We The People have a right, indeed the affirmative responsibility, to speak out against this type of corruption. There's never a time when that type of corruption is acceptable. PERIOD.
I'm not suggesting that the courts should make rulings based on public opinion. I'm just suggesting that they make their rulings based on established, clearly written statutes instead of basing their rulings on personal policy preferences.
Without being able to read an opinion and having that opinion based on established constitutional or statutory principles, We The People will undoubtedly be suspicious of the opinion's validity. Without that confidence, the atmosphere for revolution invariably increases.
People of all political stripes should do everything possible to eliminate that type of atmosphere. The only way to strengthen society's institutions is by having them behave in a consistent manner. Erratic behavior is the fastest shortcut to undermining confidence.
That might not always lead to the outcome that people want but it will lead to order, which won't undermine confidence. For the near future, it's vitally important that we rebuild institutional integrity.
In a sense, that's the best way to revolutionize and revitalize American society an its societies.
Let the revolution continue.
Posted Thursday, December 2, 2010 4:06 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 02-Dec-10 11:06 PM
gary:
If a report asked alan page the following question:
Mr. Page when the Vikings played football weren't the officials suppose to count the number of players on the field and if there were 12 players they got a penalty. So why can't our officials count what is suppose to be the number of legal votes so we can see that there aren't too many votes in play.
I wonder how Mr. Page will answer that question. Of course he probably didn't care because he was being held on every play when he was in his prime.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Who's the Budget Loser?
I had to laugh, albeit politely, when I read Jeff Rosenberg's post talking about how the MNGOP is between a rock and a hard place on the budget. Here's the part that amused me most:
Later today, the November budget forecast will be released, and it will show that Minnesota has a massive budget deficit, at least $5 billion, and in all probability over $6 billion, not even counting inflation. This is going to be a serious problem for the Republican-controlled legislature. It will be interesting to see how they decide to deal with it.
That's amusing to me, first, because what's being called a $5,000,000,000 deficit is based on last biennium's budget tails, which were wildly oversized vs. the projected revenue. According to the figure from the campaign trail, Minnesota is projected to take in almost $33,000,000,000 compared with $30,700,000,000 for the current biennium.
When omnibus spending bills are put together, the spreadsheet contains the amount that will be spent for that biennium and the amount that they'd like to spend in the next biennium. The second biennium request is called a budget tail. It's what the MMB people are required to use for their budget projections. It isn't something that must be spent.
It's rare that they spend what the tails call for. In fact, the legislature can just as easily choose to spend significantly less. In fact, I suspect that's what will happen, partially because Republicans have a number of reforms that will save significant amounts of money, starting with King Banaian's reform to ZBB and Steve Gottwalt's Healthy Minnesota Plan.
Those 2 reforms will save Minnesota taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars this biennium.
That's before talking about what size government should be. When Gov. Pawlenty signed the omnibus spending bills of 2007, the general fund budget called for approximately $35,000,000,000. What Sen. Dayton and the DFL and their allies in the Sorosphere are advocating for is the state general fund budget should be almost $40,000,000,000.
Who in their right mind thinks that the state general fund budget should increase by 20+ percent for the 2012-13 biennium over what's being spent this biennium?
I suspect that DFL legislators and progressive pundits like Mr. Rosenberg will complain that it isn't possible to save that much money through reforms and through setting responsible priorities. The MNGOP is anxious to prove them wrong.
The other thing that's laughable is the part about the forecast not including inflation. Jeff's right; it doesn't. There's a good reason for that: government shouldn't get an autopilot raise. The only reason why it should get a 'raise' is because it fits our priorities, that the increase is essential to achieve those priorities and because we have the money to pay for that raise. PERIOD.
They face a difficult juggling act indeed. Just consider:
1.The Republicans must balance the budget, or they'll rightfully be blamed for shutting down the government.
2.Their conservative base will not stand for any new taxes.
3.Few Minnesotans will tolerate $6 billion in budget cuts.
Republicans will balance the budget. During that time, they'll be forced to make tough, adult decisions, something that the DFL appears unwilling to do. The DFL's approach appears to be to raise taxes on Minnesota's job creators, then couple that with some spending cuts and a bucketload of federal money.
Here's a look at some of the line items in the current budget:
Here are the major factors driving the $8.3 billion in spending growth for the next biennium:
Replacing federal stimulus money: -$2.3 billion
School shifts: -$1.9 billion
School shift buyback: -$1.4 billion
One-time reductions: -$660 million
Government program growth: -$2 billion
Rather than setting intelligent priorities, the DFL chose to increase taxes and use one-time federal bailout money. That can't continue. Steve Gottwalt gets it:
What we really need is jobs and a strong economic recovery. That will only happen as the private sector businesses that create jobs and wealth are able to get back on their feet. That means we must help make Minnesota a more business and jobs-friendly state. The businesses we need to create those jobs have told us loud and clear: "Get out of our wallets and off our backs, and watch what we can do!"
To be responsible, we must make difficult decisions in the coming legislative session. As chairman of the House Health and Human Services Reform Committee, I am dedicated to enacting real reforms and sustainable solutions, instead of finding reasons to avoid necessary changes.
History shows tax increases only result in more spending. Mark Dayton's "tax-the-wealthy" approach to budget balancing might sound good to those who don't consider themselves wealthy, but it would kill jobs and facilitate further, irresponsible state spending increases. Even if we adopted Mr. Dayton's plan, it falls billions short of balancing our budget.
Let's remember that Sen. Dayton's second stab at eliminating the deficit fell $1,200,000,000 short:
Democrat Mark Dayton's second stab at a plan to resolve Minnesota's projected budget deficit leaves him about $1 billion shy of a complete fix.
The former U.S. senator provided new details Tuesday that calls for $3.6 billion in new state revenue, mostly in the former of increased taxes on high-end earners. His plan relies on profits from a yet-to-be-authorized state-owned casino at the Mall of America or Minneapolis-St. Paul airport.
Dayton's proposal outlines $1.2 billion in spending cuts.
I said then what I'll repeat now: that Sen. Dayton's plan is long on class warfare, that it isn't about growing the economic pie and is based mostly on fairness. That isn't a great economic message to fight for. In fact, that's why I suspect few DFL legislators will fight that vigorously for his plan.
Senate Minority Leader-in-waiting Tom Bakk has already said Dayton's plan isn't viable :
"[Tom] Bakk, the chairman of the Senate Tax Committee, says Minnesota can't realistically tax the rich enough to erase the state's projected $5.4 billion deficit in the next biennium and can't afford to pump a boatload of new money into schools when the state is awash in red ink, The Revenue Department's [Paul] Wilson told Minnesota Public Radio that Dayton's proposal would require a 40 percent income tax increase on those top earners, raising their rate from 7.85 percent to around 13 percent. That would be by far the highest income tax rate in the nation, Bakk called Dayton's plan unrealistic, Bakk said he isn't trying to pick a fight with, Dayton. But he said all the candidates should stop suggesting easy but out-of-reach solutions to the state's budget problems. He said it's going to be 'really tough medicine' to take. 'But we should tell them the truth.'" (Bill Salisbury, "Tax the Rich? Is it that simple?" Pioneer Press, December 12, 2009)
The numbers haven't changed, at least that much. The reality is that the DFL is fighting a difficult fight in the sense that their first arrow out of their economic quiver is to raise taxes, which isn't where Minnesotans are at right now.
If the DFL sides with Sen. Dayton, they're the ones who will be in a difficult fight in 2012. Yes, I agree that it being a presidential election changes the dynamics of their races but let's not think people who support massive tax increases will win over many independents.
There's a reason why people elected Republicans to majority party status. It can be argued that part of voters' disgust was the result of the federal government's overspending and bailouts, including the Obamacare bill. Expecting things to be significantly better because President Obama is on the ballot isn't paying attention.
Frankly, I think it's quite possible, even likely, that there will be lots of people who vote for President Obama, then vote for the conservative legislator on the ballot.
Posted Friday, December 3, 2010 8:23 AM
No comments.
Saved By Chairman Ryan?
If there's anything that small businesses should feel encouraged about heading into the new year, it's that Paul Ryan will chair the House Budget Committee. Congressman Ryan's seriousness about getting spending under control and living within our means will do alot to stabilize the economy, create jobs and dramatically reduce the deficits.
Based on the information in this interview with Sean Hannity, I'd say there's reason for alot of optimism:
Nancy Pelosi might have a political machine in DC but Paul Ryan has the most energized group of supporters in the heartland, namely the TEA Party activists and like-minded people. What Pelosi doesn't understand is that the TEA Party isn't just the people who attend TEA Party events. They're accurately counted by adding people who agree with TEA Party principles with actual TEA Party events.
The other thing that shouldn't be misunderestimated is that, if there's a battle of wits between Paul Ryan and Speaker Pelosi, Paul Ryan might refuse to fight an unarmed woman. Let's compare their statements:
SPEAKER PELOSI: $700 billion in tax cuts to the wealthiest 2 percent in our country and our Republican colleagues say we should do that and not pay for it; we should add that $700 billion to the deficit. But when it comes to unemployment insurance and adjusted renewal we want to have that costs $18 billion, they're saying that has to be paid for.
Tax cuts for the rich do not create jobs. They haven't throughout the Bush administration. Unemployment insurance creates jobs . It does not add to the deficit.
Question: Did they legalize pot in California? I didn't see that they had in the last election but I might've missed something that night. Either that or Speaker Pelosi is among the biggest liars in DC, which is saying alot. Now let's compare that statement with Congressman Ryan's reply:
Congressman Ryan is right on the money with this. It isn't good politics. The election proved that. It isn't good economics because it's based on flawed economic principles that nonproductivity boosts the economy but rewarding preferred behavior makes for a lousy economy.
PAUL RYAN: We're not even talking about cutting taxes. We're talking about preventing tax increases. She talks about $700 billion in spending. That presumes that's the government's money unless it benevolently wants to let people keep some of it back. I mean, it's a totally different philosophy. But class warfare; it didn't work in the last election but they're still sticking with it. They still believe in preying on people's sense of fear of envy and fear. This is wrong.
It might make good politics but it's not good economics and I'm not even sure it makes good politics...
Only a San Francisco liberal could think that people would be stupid enough to buy that spin. Simply put, she's out of her league. Only brain-dead progressives that haven't had an original though in a decade or two could buy into that spin.
Speaker Pelosi presents a major problem for the Democrats. Each time she opens her mouth with spin like that, independents side with Republicans.
Pundits say that she's playing to the Democrats' base, keeping them happy, something that I agree with. The unfortunate part for Democrats is that that's all they have left in any meaningful numbers. At this point, growing the party isn't an option. Hanging onto the true believers is about all that's left. That worked in California, New York and Illinois but it didn't work in other states, at least not in the numbers to keep her in the Speaker's chair.
Congressman Ryan also will win most of the fights with President Obama, too. We saw that fight before during the health care summit :
It was the Wisconsin congressman who made the most pointed remarks about Obama's reform proposal. For example:
This bill does not control costs (or) reduce deficits. Instead, (it) adds a new health care entitlement when we have no idea how to pay for the entitlements we already have.
The bill has 10 years of tax increases, about half a trillion dollars, with 10 years of Medicare cuts, about half a trillion dollars, to pay for six years of spending. The true 10-year cost (is) $2.3 trillion.
The bill takes $52 billion in higher Social Security tax revenues and counts them as offsets. But that's really reserved for Social Security. So either we're double-counting them or we don't intend on paying those Social Security benefits.
The bill takes $72 billion from the CLASS Act (long-term care insurance) benefit premiums and claims them as offsets.
The bill treats Medicare like a piggy bank, (raiding) half a trillion dollars not to shore up Medicare solvency, but to spend on this new government program.
The chief actuary of Medicare (says) as much as 20% of Medicare providers will either go out of business or have to stop seeing Medicare beneficiaries.
Millions of seniors who have chosen Medicare Advantage (Medicare President Obama didn't dare question Ryan's analysis.
This wasn't a great moment for President Obama because Congressman Ryan had the facts down so solid that he didn't even attempt a rebuttal.
After the 1994 revolution, President Clinton regathered himself and won re-election, thanks in large part because of John Kasich's insistence on balancing the budget. I'm not certain we'll see a repeat of that for two reasons.
First, Bill Clinton was a heavyweight who could hold his own in a wonk-talk debate. President Obama delivers a great speech but he isn't a policy wonk by any stretch of the imagination.
Second, I haven't seen proof that President Obama has a moderation capability. Early in the campaign, I saw that Bill Clinton had that capability. That isn't to say that President Obama doesn't have political instincts. It's just that he's more willing to fight on certain things.
The bad news for him is that those things aren't often things where he can win. At the end of the day, I'm confident that Paul Ryan will win the important fights because he's got an impressive command of the facts, he's got the people on his side and because President Obama has a history of fighting fights that he loses in the long-term.
Originally posted Friday, December 3, 2010, revised 17-Feb 5:35 AM
No comments.
Is A Tarryl vs. Michele Rematch in the Offing?
The Hill is reporting that Tarryl is gearing up for another run at Congress . They're asking whether it'll be a rematch against Michele Bachmann:
Minnesota Democrat Tarryl Clark is showing signs of preparing for another challenge to Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.).
The state senator sent an e-mail to her supporters Thursday urging them to donate to Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.). The team-player move; Ellison won reelection by some 40 points, might be aimed at shoring up her party support ahead of 2012.
"As we regroup and recommit ourselves to organizing for victories in 2012, I would like to take a moment to ask you to join me in thanking my friend, and one of our campaign's greatest supporters, Congressman Keith Ellison," she wrote. "Keith has been a progressive voice not just for Minnesota families but for the millions across the country, and the globe, who are without a voice in Washington."
If Clark does decide to run again, she'll definitely need all the fundraising help she can get. Bachmann raised $13.2 million in the 2010 cycle and has $1.97 million in the bank, according to Minneapolis Star Tribune, citing her latest Federal Election Commission filing.
Clark raised about $4.5 million for the cycle, according to her pre-election FEC filing.
Bachmann defeated Clark by about 13 points last cycle.
First, it isn't foolish for Tarryl to maintain her visibility. The reality is, though, that she's been exposed as a liberal this past election. Though she tried portraying herself as the true conservative in the race, the results speak for themselve.
If the district doesn't change fairly dramatically, Tarryl will face a stiff, uphill fight against Michele. If the district changes substantially, Tarryl might find herself pitted against Chip Cravaack. Another possibility is that we're put into the 7th District, where she'd either have to challenge Collin Peterson, which isn't likely, or she'd be pitted against Lee Byberg.
I wouldn't rate Tarryl as the favorite against Michele, Chip Cravaack or Lee Byberg. Michele would beat Tarryl like a drum because Tarryl was exposed as a tax-hiking liberal. That isn't a good position to be in.
Tarryl wouldn't be the favorite against Chip Cravaack either because the 8th District is largely exurban or rural, with lots of pro-life and 2nd Amendment voters in the district. That isn't the type of demographic group Tarryl does well with.
Finally, Lee Byberg ran a strong campaign against Collin Peterson. Last year, people didn't think he stood a chance against Peterson. Now they know different. In 2008, Peterson won by a 72-28 percent margin. It was understandable why people viewed him as unbeatable.
Things changed significantly in 2010, when Peterson defeated Byberg by a 55-38 margin .
Frankly, Tarryl wouldn't do well in CD-7 because she's significantly to the left of Collin Peterson. That won't play well in CD-7.
The bottom line is this: Tarryl fared much better playing in the relatively small pond of the state legislature. I won't say that her running for Congress is out of Tarryl's league but it's definitely a major step up, one she didn't show well in this time.
Let's remember that Tarryl got alot of contributions simply because she was opposing Michele. I heard more than a few pieces of scuttlebutt how Pelosi and the DCCC wanted to defeat Michele so badly that they were directing contributions in Tarryl's direction moreso than she might otherwise have gotten.
Whoever the opponent, Tarryl's facing an uphill fight.
Posted Friday, December 3, 2010 3:20 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 04-Dec-10 02:31 PM
Gary:
Keep in mind her thinking includes:
* Obama is on the ballot so a whole lot more Democrats will vote.
* Bachmann might be the Senate candidate thus it will be a whole lot easier to out fundraise and beat the person in the six.
* The Republicans will be blamed for the still bad econonmy instead of the Republicans.
* She's a politician who doesn't know how to function in the private sector.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Dec-10 05:58 PM
Walter, I hate disagreeing with you but Obama will drive independents away from the DFL, not to them. Michele Bachmann won't be the Senate candidate. The DFL will attempt to blame the GOP for the bad economy but we're on the side of the angels on spending & taxes so let the DFL shout to the mountaintops. Tarryl is a terrible fit for the district. PERIOD. She's staunchly pro-abortion to the point of abortion on demand. That won't play well in this district anytime soon.
The only reason why Tarryl did this well with fundraising is because she ran against Michele, which meant Pelosi told Democrats' donors to funnel huge amounts of money to her campaign. If St. Cloud is suddenly put into the 8th District, she'll have to run against Chip Cravaack, which is an uphill fight for Tarryl on her best days.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 04-Dec-10 07:05 PM
Gary:
Keep in mind I opened my comment her thinking includes. That is what I think Clark is thinking.
She's dead wrong, expect maybe for the comment I made that she's a politician who doesn't know how to function in the private sector.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
