December 11-13, 2016
Dec 11 04:53 Examining the Iron Range's 'victory' Dec 11 10:37 Scott Pruitt vs. the EPA, Part I Dec 11 11:23 Scott Pruitt vs. the EPA, Part II Dec 12 05:00 Hillary's problem: all money, no message Dec 12 16:42 Pelosi calls for investigation Dec 12 17:36 Resolution 54, the PUC & the DFL Dec 13 06:18 Karen Finney, Clinton hack Dec 13 11:56 Is Resolution 54 vote a victory?
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Examining the Iron Range's 'victory'
Now that Resolution 54 has been defeated and labor leaders are experiencing a mini-Kumbaya moment, it's time to examine what the Iron Range won yesterday. I'll return to that in a bit but it's important to set this up properly.
Rick Nolan apparently gave a speech that set the mood for the vote, saying "Nobody loves the environment more than the Rangers. I don't want to see the party take a stance against mining or agriculture or manufacturing."
What's important to notice about Saturday, though, is that that was a show vote. In yesterday's setting, Democrats from rural Minnesota had a voice. All parts of the state had a voice. That dynamic changes dramatically in January. Does anyone seriously think that the Sierra Club will suddenly stop demagoguing "sulfide mining"? Will the MCEA stop filing lawsuits aimed at killing PolyMet? Will Minnesota's Public Utilities Commission stop meddling in pipeline construction projects?
The answer to each of those questions is an emphatic 'NO!'
Most importantly, it isn't likely that Gov. Dayton's administration will grant PolyMet the permits it needs so PolyMet can start growing the Iron Range's economy. The final analysis of Saturday's vote is this: while Environmental Caucus Chair Veda Kanitz and her supporters claim to have extended an olive branch to the Iron Range yesterday, it isn't likely that environmental activist organizations like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, MCEA and Conservation Minnesota will suddenly start fighting fair.
These organizations aren't mainstream organizations. They've got an anti-mining, anti-fossil fuel agenda. It's worth noting that the DFL, as a political party, still supports shifting to renewable energy. Renewable energy won't sustain mining operations.
Notice whose names are missing in this paragraph:
While tabling the resolution gained momentum, an impassioned Congressman Rick Nolan, DFL-Crosby, roused the crowd in the auditorium with a plea to truly unite by not taking a stance against the issue. Nolan was speaking on behalf of Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Al Franken and Congressman Tim Walz.
Missing from that paragraph are Mark Dayton and Tina Flint-Smith. Their silence is deafening.
The Iron Range won a minor skirmish yesterday. The thrill of that victory will soon fade. Organizations like the Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, MCEA and Conservation Minnesota are in this for the long haul. Celebrate now because the battle is just starting.
Posted Sunday, December 11, 2016 4:53 AM
No comments.
Scott Pruitt vs. the EPA, Part I
Kim Strassel's latest column highlights an exciting possibility for the American people. What's exciting is a nerdy subject but a subject that might teach the average person the virtues of the system that our Founding Fathers gave us.
Ms. Strassel opened her article by writing "Donald Trump had barely finished announcing his pick to lead the Environmental Protection Agency before the left started listing its million reasons why Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt was the worst nomination in the history of the planet: He's an untrained anti-environmentalist. He's a polluter. He's a fossil-fuel fanatic, a lobbyist-lover, a climate crazy. Mr. Pruitt is not any of those things. Here's what he in fact is, and the real reason the left is frustrated: He's a constitutional scholar, a federalist (and a lawyer). And for those reasons he is a sublime choice to knock down the biggest conceit of the Obama era - arrogant, overweening (and illegal) Washington rule."
Then she wrote something that some of us have known for the entirety of President Obama's administration:
We've lived so many years under the Obama reign that many Americans forget we are a federal republic, composed of 50 states. There isn't a major statute on the books that doesn't recognize this reality and acknowledge that the states are partners with - and often superior to - the federal government. That is absolutely the case with major environmental statues, from the Clean Air Act to the Clean Water Act to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Based on the Democrats' description of Gen. Pruitt, you'd think he'd look like Lucifer himself. Instead, Pruitt looks like this:
If I earned $100 each time that the EPA has overstepped its statutory authority or constitutional boundaries, I'd be Warren Buffett-style rich. Scott Pruitt's mission is to put the EPA back into its proper box. That's only possible if Gen. Pruitt applies the principles of federalism to the EPA. That's the last thing the environmental activists want. They want the EPA's decisions moved as far away from the people and local control as possible. That's why they support globalism. It's the ultimate in unaccountability.
After his first two years in office, [President Obama] never could convince the Congress to pass another signature initiative. His response - and the enduring theme of his presidency - was therefore to ignore Congress and statutes, go around the partnership framework, and give his agencies authority to dictate policy from Washington. The states were demoted from partners to indentured servants. So too were any rival federal agencies that got in the EPA's way. Example: The EPA's pre-emptive veto of Alaska's proposed Pebble Mine, in which it usurped Army Corps of Engineers authority.
There's much to unravel after 8 years of this administration running roughshod against the Constitution and the rule of law. Gen. Pruitt won't fix it in a week or month or even in a year. Still, he's the man uniquely qualified to dismantle the Obama administration's regulatory leviathan.
Posted Sunday, December 11, 2016 10:37 AM
No comments.
Scott Pruitt vs. the EPA, Part II
In Part I of this series, I wrote about the virtues of federalism. Now it's time to talk about the negative things that happened when the Obama administration ignored the Constitution and the rule of law. Specifically, I'll quote from Kim Strassel's article about Scott Pruitt.
Picking up where I left off, let's rejoin Strassel's article where she wrote "Under the Clean Air Act, states are allowed to craft their own implementation plans. If the EPA disapproves of a state plan, it is empowered to impose a federal one - one of the most aggressive actions the agency can take against a state, since it is the equivalent of a seizure of authority. In the entirety of the presidencies of George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, the EPA imposed five federal implementation plans on states. By last count, the Obama administration has imposed at least 56 ." That's where Pruitt comes in.
According to Strassel, much "of Mr. Pruitt's tenure as Oklahoma's AG was about trying to stuff federal agencies back into their legal boxes. Most of the press either never understood this, or never wanted to. When the media wrote about state lawsuits against ObamaCare or the Clean Power Plan or the Water of the United States rule, the suggestion usually was that this litigation was ideologically motivated, and a naked attempt to do what a Republican Congress could not - tank the president's agenda."
The next paragraph, Ms. Strassel wrote this:
The basis of nearly every one of these lawsuits was in fact violations of states' constitutional and statutory rights - and it is why so many of the cases were successful. It was all a valiant attempt to force the federal government to follow the law. And it has been a singular Pruitt pursuit.
On issues of executive overreach, President Obama had a terrible record in the Supreme Court, at one point losing 13 straight 9-0 decisions. It will take time to tame the EPA. You can't change the entire Agency culture with the blink of an eye. Here's the good news:
In announcing his nomination, the president-elect took care to note that Mr. Pruitt was an "expert in constitutional law" and that his job would be to restore the "EPA's essential mission."
Which is exactly the reform the EPA needs. The agency doesn't need a technically trained environmentalist at its head, since it is already bubbling over with green regulations. It doesn't need a climate warrior, as Congress has never passed a climate law, and so the EPA has no mandate to meddle there. What it needs is a lawyer, one with the knowledge of how to cut the agency back to its proper role - restoring not just an appropriate legal partnership with the states, but also with other federal bodies. One who reminds agency staff that the EPA was not created to oppose growth and development.
Getting the EPA to live within its statutory and constitutional boundaries is a monumental responsibility. If Pruitt accomplishes a culture change before he leaves, he'll have my vote for the greatest EPA administrator in history.
Posted Sunday, December 11, 2016 11:23 AM
No comments.
Hillary's problem: all money, no message
This Washington Times article reports that the "Clinton campaign, Democratic Party and pro-Clinton expenditure committees and PACs spent a record $1.2 billion, twice as much as the $600 million laid out by the Trump camp, Republicans and pro-Trump groups."
In his post, Jazz Shaw warns against drawing too many conclusions from this unusual election. I agree with Jazz's statement that "For the majority of candidates, they need a fair chunk of that spending just to make sure a sufficient number of voters even know their name, to say nothing of their policies. And the media can easily overlook most of the activity in a candidate's campaign schedule unless it has enough of a 'wow factor' to attract eyeballs to their cable news show or newspaper. Trump was somewhat unique in both regards. Everyone knew The Donald already, for better or worse, so no formal introductions were required. And the media followed him around like a puppy dog long before it became obvious that he'd win the primary."
There are multiple lessons that Republicans should take from this. First, candidate quality matters. Next, message matters. Third, spending money on a ground game is priceless. Fourth, if you don't have a quality candidate and a message that connects, you won't have a great ground game.
Hillary's staffers are complaining about Russian interference in the election. That's sour grapes. They, like Hillary, can't admit publicly that they ran a terrible campaign or that their candidate was a terrible candidate. With Trump putting his cabinet together, it's time to move on.
Posted Monday, December 12, 2016 5:00 AM
No comments.
Pelosi calls for investigation
This morning, House Minority Leader For Life Nancy Pelosi issued this statement calling for a bipartisan investigation into the Russians allegedly interfering with our presidential election.
True to Ms. Pelosi's nature, her statement starts by saying "The U.S. intelligence community has determined that Russia interfered in U.S. elections. There must be no equivocation or ignoring the seriousness of the intelligence community's conclusion about Russia's actions. Regardless of the outcome of the election, the American people deserve to know the truth and a commitment to protect our democracy from foreign meddling."
It's amazing that Democrats are suddenly interested in cybersecurity. They weren't interested in it when hackers accessed federal employees' personal information . That wasn't the first time hackers accessed government information. This article talks about how disinterested the Obama administration was about the threat hacking posed:
The Office of Personnel Management database penetrated by Chinese hackers didn't use encryption or other technology to protect the Social Security numbers of federal workers, despite such measures being industry best practice. The massive data breach there affected the records of 4.1 million current and former federal employees and may be linked to a Chinese state-backed hacker group known as "Deep Panda," which recently made similarly large-scale attacks on the health insurers Anthem and Premera.
Encryption and data obfuscating techniques "are new capabilities that we're building into our databases," Donna Seymour, the OPM chief information officer, told POLITICO.
Now that Mrs. Clinton lost, Democrats are interested in cybersecurity. It's important to separate these issues. It's entirely possible that the Russians hacked into the DNC's computers. It's entirely possible, though, that Mrs. Clinton's defeat didn't have a thing to do with what the Russians might've or might not have done. To quote Reince Priebus, "the Russians didn't tell Hillary Clinton to ignore Wisconsin and Michigan."
It's entirely different, though, to talk about the issue of cybersecurity. That's something that the Obama administration gets a failing grade on. There's no justifying anything else. It isn't surprising that Ms. Pelosi didn't mention that the last 3 years.
Posted Monday, December 12, 2016 4:42 PM
No comments.
Resolution 54, the PUC & the DFL
The lede in this article sounds a triumphant tone. The opening says "Labor Democrats decided to fight Saturday and won a major victory for the party's future on the Iron Range." While it's a procedural victory for the Range, it isn't a major victory if you're judging it by whether anything changed as a result of the vote.
In defeating Resolution 54, the Range Delegation kept the language of the resolution out of the DFL state party platform. That shouldn't be mistaken for defeating the environmental activist Metrocrats. It shouldn't be mistaken as proof that Gov. Dayton will approve any permits for PolyMet. Defeating Resolution 54 doesn't mean that the DFL is suddenly open to mining.
The DFL loves bogging things down with regulations, regulators and lawsuit. The thing Iron Rangers should ask themselves seems unrelated at first. This past winter, the Public Utilities Commission (PUC)decided to look into the Sandpiper Pipeline project. Specifically, they took jurisdiction over whether the pipeline path should be rerouted. The first question that should be asked is straightforward: what does the agency that regulates electricity rates have to do with infrastructure permitting? It isn't like the PUC was the first regulatory agency to review the Sandpiper Pipeline's potential impact on its environment. The point is that the PUC took jurisdiction to hinder the permitting process.
Here's another important question that the DFL hasn't answered: why didn't Gov. Dayton scream bloody murder when the PUC hijacked jurisdiction on the Sandpiper Pipeline project? In 2013-14, when the DFL had total control of the legislature and had a friendly DFL governor to work with, why didn't they streamline the permitting process? Might it be because they prefer a permitting process that's complex and convoluted?
Ask PolyMet's investors whether these DFL-supporting organizations haven't used the same tactics to kill PolyMet. If they're being honest, they'd say that's the exact playbook that's been used against them. Until the pro-mining part of the DFL becomes the dominant part of the DFL or until pro-mining voters switch to the GOP, there won't be a change in the outcome. Saturday's vote was all show. In the real world, it meant nothing. The anti-mining wing of the DFL still rules the DFL.
Posted Monday, December 12, 2016 5:36 PM
No comments.
Karen Finney, Clinton hack
According to Wikipedia , Karen Finney is a time-tested veteran of high profile campaigns. Among other tours of duty, "Finney served four years as the spokesperson and Director of Communications at the Democratic National Committee." Later, "Finney joined Media Matters as a senior fellow and consultant" on November 25, 2014. Ms. Finney isn't a centrist Democrat by anyone's stretch of the imagination.
Last night, Ms. Finney appeared on The Kelly File. SIDENOTE: Shannon Bream sat in for Ms. Kelly last night. During the interview, Ms. Finney stuck to the DNC's script, saying "In addition to the briefing that the electors are asking for, all of this information at some point should be made public, to the American people. We are the greatest democracy on the face of the planet. We need to know if the Russians are trying to infiltrate our government in these nefarious ways. I mean, our brave men and women in our intelligence agencies and who serve in uniform, they fight to give us this type of information and to uncover these sorts of things, and I think their next commander-in-chief, Mr. Trump, owes it to them, not to just dismiss them out-of-hand ... Again, if the electors are suggesting that part of their constitutional responsibility is they want to hear a briefing so that they can feel confident..."
Democrats are desperately trying to convince the public that getting a briefing is part of the electors' responsibilities. It isn't part of the electors' responsibility. This is what Article 2, Section 1 of the Constitution says their responsibility is:
Article II
Section 1. The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America. He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President, chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows
Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.
The Congress may determine the Time of choosing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.
As electors, what the intel community thinks about Russian hacking and causing mayhem is immaterial. As electors, their responsibility is to cast their vote for the candidate that gathered the most votes in the state. Period.
As citizens , though, they have the responsibility of demanding that their government protect against cybercrimes. Ms. Finney didn't hold the Obama administration's feet to the fire. She didn't live up to the standard that she's advocating for now. I might say that that's hypocritical but I won't. Instead, I'll say that she's exercising her right to be a partisan who's more interested in being a good Democrat than she's interested in being an American patriot first.
First, Jim Comey tilted the election to Trump. Next, it was fake news. After that, it was the electoral college gave Trump the victory. Now, it's supposedly the Russians who are giving Trump the victory. I'd ask Democrats when they'll admit that Mrs. Clinton lost because a) she was the status quo candidate, b) she ran a crappy campaign and c) an overwhelming majority of people think that the Obama administration was taking the country in the wrong direction.
Posted Tuesday, December 13, 2016 6:18 AM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 13-Dec-16 10:28 AM
What puzzles me is the rampant illogic and things not said. They are talking as if Russia actually hacked the voting machines, when we all know it didn't happen and isn't possible. Then they are trying to say that Russia leaked material that helped the Trump campaign, but if they are talking about the DNC files and those are true, why should they object to voters having the truth? And they are saying that Russians did this to help Trump. Is there any reason to believe that Russians would prefer tough, clear-eyed negotiator Trump over impotent, dreamy-eyed, "reset"-pushing Hillary? They are even saying that Russia hacked both DNC and RNC but released only DNC material. FBI confirms RNC was not hacked, but two years ago, the White House AND Hillary's illegal server were. Should we be worried about the Russians who hacked them, or the people who left them open to hacking?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Dec-16 11:30 AM
TASTY QUESTION: If Hillary's home-brew server was hacked, which it was, wouldn't the Russians be better served using that against President Hillary rather than preventing her from becoming president? I mean, if you've got the goods on someone powerful like Hillary, isn't that more useful if she's president than if she isn't?
Is Resolution 54 vote a victory?
There's been lots of celebrating on the Range after Resolution 54 got defeated Saturday. This article said that Jason Metsa thinks that the vote is "a clear indication of where the party is at." Then Metsa admitted that "the issue will be coming up again."
First, the Range DFL survived Saturday, partially because all parts of the state were represented at the meeting. Anyone that thinks that John Marty will give up his anti-mining crusade anytime soon is kidding themselves. New incoming House Minority Leader Melissa Hortman hasn't announce that she'll take a more centrist, pro-mining position now that she's the top-ranking Democrat in the House.
That's before talking about whether organizations like the Sierra Club, MCEA or Conservation Minnesota (which gets significant funding from Alida Messenger) will stop bringing lawsuits against PolyMet. MCEA's mission is to file lawsuit after lawsuit against mining companies or utilities. Winning the lawsuits isn't MCEA's goal. Their goal is to wear down the investors until those investors quit. I wrote about that tactic in this post , which I titled Attrition, not litigation.
Third, defeating Resolution 54 isn't a victory because it didn't approve a single permit for PolyMet or Twin Metals. The last I looked, Gov. Dayton hasn't relented in saying no to the initial permits for the Twin Metals mining project.
Fourth, the DFL hasn't lifted a finger to streamline the permitting process. I won't trust them until they support permitting reform and regulatory relief. Even then, I'll remain skeptical because these guys won't permit the DFL to do real reforms:
Posted Tuesday, December 13, 2016 11:56 AM
No comments.
