December 12-14, 2010
Dec 12 13:51 Kill the Bill Dec 12 19:04 The Cluelessness of True Believers Dec 13 09:57 Toeing the Dayton Family Line Dec 13 11:38 Keeping the Care You Already Have? Dec 13 15:14 DFL, Unions & Structural Deficits Dec 13 23:02 A Giant Step Towards Sanity Dec 14 15:53 When Is the Coronation? Dec 14 17:41 Obamacare Fails By Its Own Standards Dec 14 18:44 That Evil MNGOP
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Kill the Bill
Now that Democrats are larding up the tax bill with Christmas ornaments to their special interest allies, it's time for Republicans in the Senate to kill this bill. This isn't the bill that Republicans agreed to.
If I was the GOP's media consultant, I'd have high profile people like Paul Ryan, Mike Pence and Thad McCotter in front of the cameras every couple of hours talking about the Democrats endangering the extension of the unemployment benefits by larding the bill up with Christmas presents to their special interest allies.
It's gotten so bad that the AP has listed the bill's defects :
The add-ons were being attached behind the scenes.
Almost $5 billion in subsidies for corn-based ethanol and a continuing tariff to protect against ethanol imports were wrapped up and placed on the tree Thursday night for farm-state lawmakers and agribusiness lobbyists. Environmentalists won more grants for developers of renewable energy, like wind and solar.
For urban lawmakers, there's a continuation of about-to-expire tax breaks that could save commuters who use mass transit about $1,000 a year. Other popular tax provisions aimed at increasing production of hybrid automobiles, biodiesel fuel, coal and energy-efficient household appliances would be extended through the end of 2011 under the new add-ons.
The package also includes an extension of two Gulf Coast tax incentive programs enacted after Hurricane Katrina to spur economic development in Mississippi, Louisiana and Alabama.
The ethanol money was added despite a growing congressional opposition to subsidizing the fuel after decades of government support. Last month, 17 Republican and Democratic senators wrote to leaders calling the tax breaks "fiscally indefensible," since there's already a law in place that requires ethanol be blended into gasoline.
These additional buyoffs aren't just obscene. They're infuriating. If Republicans added them, they should be excoriated, then primaried.
We have the right to protect the brand. Including big pieces of corporate welfare isn't helping Republicans' image. More importantly, they aren't helping the economy, the deficits/debt and they aren't helping balance the budget.
Because this version of the bill is radically different from the one agreed to, I'm suggesting that Republicans do everything in their power to stop the bill and start from scratch when the new congress is sworn in.
It's time the GOP sent a message to the nation that they're the party who won't tolerate favors to special interest groups and that, yes, subsidies for ethanol are a waste of the taxpayers' money. It's time that the GOP showed that they're the party that is hell-bent on reforming how DC does business, starting with the structure of the tax system works.
Finally, it's time that the GOP told the Democrats that Christmas ornaments are for Christmas trees and for decorating homes. They aren't for stuffing inside a bill to extend the Bush tax rates.
Posted Sunday, December 12, 2010 1:51 PM
No comments.
The Cluelessness of True Believers
This past week, lots of progressive true believers have cried about the foolish deal President Obama made in compromising with Republicans on the Bush tax rates. None has stated their case like SCSU Professor Jeff Bineham in this St. Cloud Times op-ed . Professor Bineham's delusion is showing when he said this:
First, it's politically expedient. Call the Republicans' bluff. Their view is clearly the minority view in the Senate and in the House, as well as among the populace. The Republicans refuse to end the tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans because they think the alternative the Democrats will agree to is to end the cuts for everyone.
Don't do it. Take the other alternative: End them for no one and make clear this has happened because of Republican obstructionism.
Second, and more importantly, it's the right thing to do economically. To extend the tax cuts adds hundreds of billions of dollars to the deficit.
First things first. While it's true the Republicans' view is "clearly the minority view in the Senate", it isn't a majority view amongst the American people. When politically charged terms like "tax cuts for the rich" are eliminated and accurate terminology is used, like maintaining the current tax rates for America's job creators, the polling results change dramatically.
Secondly, letting the tax rates on America's job creators and wealth creators lapse is anything but the right thing to do. First, letting them lapse will trigger the next round of layoffs and trigger the 2nd Obama recession. That'd trigger the next hole in the deficits, something we absolutely can't afford.
The Bush tax cuts were implemented with the provision that they would sunset after 10 years. That sunset, planned and approved, is now defined unfortunately as "raising taxes." It's not.
Actually, the 10 years part was only agreed to because Democrats promised a filibuster if brought up under regular order in the Senate, causing them to use reconcilliation. That limited the length of the Bush tax rates to 10 years. Had the Democrat majority not filibustered the first tax bill, President Bush would've made all of the tax rates permanent.
That's why the argument that letting the tax rates lapse isn't a tax increase is silly. Of course it's a tax hike when tax rates change. That's what will happen if the Democrats sabotage their president's bill. Bineham uses this misguided analogy to sell his 'it isn't a tax hike' story:
Consider this analogy: When stores have their Black Friday sales and prices go back to previous levels on Saturday, we don't say they raised prices; we say the sale is over. If you let the Bush tax cuts expire, you are not raising taxes, you're saying the sale is over, just as planned when the cuts were implemented.
This analogy fails is because having a temporary price reduction of a couple hourse isn't the same as a 10 year reduction. Let's put it this way: If J.C. Penneys lowered their price on jeans and kept it at that price for a decade, then raised it when the cost of shipping those jeans jumped when gas prices increased, we'd consider that a price hike. Some people might think it's reasonable after keeping prices stable for a decade but there isn't anyone who wouldn't think it wasn't a hike.
Professor Bineham is a professor of rhetoric in the department of communication studies at St. Cloud State University. My question after reading this op-ed is whether this program is essential to the educational outcomes of the students there. I'm willing to be convinced but it'll take a fair amount of salesmanship to convince me after reading that op-ed.
From my perspective, this is a perfect example of what an op-ed looks like when written by a true believer.
Posted Sunday, December 12, 2010 7:04 PM
Comment 1 by Ed Kohler at 13-Dec-10 02:02 AM
Interesting point on framing the issue on "tax cuts for the rich" vs "job creators". Now, could you help me understand how taxing people's personal income is impacting job creation? Isn't the tax on the money they've taken out of their businesses rather than spending on job creation? Couldn't they avoid the tax simply by hiring more people rather than paying themselves so much?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Dec-10 05:16 AM
Isn't the tax on the money they've taken out of their businesses rather than spending on job creation?No, it isn't. That's where the liberal argument fails. Small businesses that file as individuals report their profits, which often are used later on to expand the business or upgrade their equipment, as ordinary income. Because these profits often aren't used immediately, they're taxed immediately.
As Chad rightly points out, the assumption that this income belongs to the gov't because they'd like to use it for their pet projects is an act of outright theft. Levying taxes to pay for affirmative responsibilities listed in the Constitution is one thing. Using taxes to buy votes is plain wrong.
Comment 2 by Chad A Quigley at 13-Dec-10 03:07 AM
The biggest fallacy is that by extending the tax cuts to the rich robs the government of $700 billion. The liberals are counting on money they don't have to reduce a debt they expolded in the three years they have had total control.
Comment 3 by Ed Kohler at 13-Dec-10 06:46 AM
Gary, I don't doubt that there are some Americans who fall into the bucket of running a small business where they bring home $250,001 or more white filing as individuals AND plan to reinvest the money at a later date. Are you suggesting that the current tax system is punitive in cases like that? I can't say that I've seen a lot of case studies regarding this supposedly harmed portion of the upper class.
Chad, I'd suggest that the government was robbed during the Bush administration when he spent a ton of money we didn't have. We were running a surplus before he took office and a deficit when he left. Either way, we have a hole we need to dig our way out of. We should do things to cut spending, but it doesn't seem like the numbers will balance through spending cuts alone (although I'd love to hear your suggestions).
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but wouldn't the economy see a much faster rebound by putting money into the hands of people who'll spend it immediately?
If you give a gallon of gas to someone with an empty tank, they can move forward. What's the point of giving it to someone with a full tank?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Dec-10 10:39 AM
Actually, tax rates should be dramatically dropped because they're being spent on things that the federal government shouldn't be spending money on. Like Obamacare. Like studies at universities. Like bridges that don't serve a useful purpose other than getting a Jim Oberstar re-elected. (Except this time when 8th District voters woke up.)
If government lived within its constitutional restrictions, taxes would drop dramatically & quality of life would improve significantly.
You're wrong about this because putting that proverbial gallon of gas into an empty vehicle only helps it go a short distance. It's better than nothing but not by much. On the other hand, giving entrepreneurs an incentive to create jobs & wealth means that multiple people with empty tanks will be employed, giving each of them the ability to buy multiple gallons of gas.
Isn't that far more preferable than your scenario?
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 13-Dec-10 02:24 PM
Seems to me that the good professor was simply demonstrating the ability of rhetoric to cloud over what would otherwise be obvious: The Democrats (at least) are the robber class, and worse. They aren't even content with spending the plunder they have, they spend TWICE what they have and enslave untold generations to their debt. The fundamental principle here is IT'S NOT THEIR MONEY! Tax cuts don't "cost" the government a nickel, but it requires them to be more careful with existing dollars, as minor a restraint as that seems to be. Tax hikes DO come out of the economy, somewhere, somehow, and it doesn't really matter from where; call it trickle-down poverty.
Somebody suggested that Republicans should allow Democrats like the good professor to scuttle the deal, giving just enough votes to keep it close and themselves blameless. Then next year they can come back with the same deal and offer spending cuts equal to the unemployment extension AND the supposed "cost" of the tax cuts combined. THAT would be a good start.
Comment 5 by Ed Kohler at 13-Dec-10 03:13 PM
Gary, if the goal is to stimulate job creation creation among entrepreneurs, wouldn't it make more sense to create a program that does that, rather than cut taxes on people who are not entrepreneurial or being held back in hiring due to a tax burden? And, again, this would only be on those who happen to be filing individually and taking home a minimum of $250,001 in order to be taxed slightly higher on $1. Do you have any examples of people taking home $250,001 or more in personal income - after deductions - who swear that they'd hire more people rather than pay themselves more if they paid slightly lower taxes? I imagine that such a person exists, but I personally don't know any and haven't heard of any.
How about a kitchen table analogy. What family, that's living in debt, quits their job before cutting their budget? Isn't the mature thing to do to cut spending first in order to balance the budget?
Comment 6 by Jay Banks at 17-Dec-10 10:40 AM
"Tax cuts for the rich" represents a very popular solution in all the world. The Fed and the government are the ones responsible for the trouble. They and their private profit got rich taking the US economy down and they will keep getting richer so long as they can confuse enough people into thinking they have either the wish or competency to fix the problem. Anyone who thinks we can tax ourselves to prosperity is too economically uneducated to be trusted with a checkbook. Unfortunately, that would probably describe more than 70% of the American public.
Toeing the Dayton Family Line
If any proof was needed that the DFL would soon be toeing the Dayton family line, Sunday morning's @Issue With Tom Hauser offered that proof. Couple that with Brian Melendez announcing that he isn't running for a 4th term as DFL Chairman and it's pretty much assumed that the Dayton family is asserting its control over the DFL.
First, it's important to put the @Issue things into context. Tom Hauser asked what the fate was for the Dayton tax increases. First, Ben Golnik said that they were DOA. Dayton can propose them but there isn't a prayer that they'll pass. Republicans ran on living within their means, not raising taxes. If Gov-elect Dayton wants to argue that he won on a mantra of tax-the-rich, that's his rightg but he's badly misreading the message voters sent.
Later, in the Face-off segment, Phil Krinkie repeated that, although he said that Republicans might go squishie if it gets to a government shutdown situation. With all due respect to Mr. Krinkie, that ain't happening.
When it was the DFL's time to respond to those questions, Blois Olson and Cathie Hartnett replied, almost verbatim, that Mark Dayton "is a smart man, a good negotiator" and that it would be "foolish to underestimate his negotiating abilities." He's alot of things but if he's those things, he's kept those abilities hidden for his entire political career.
The point is that Olson and Hartnett couldn't have reached that conclusion on their own because it's utterly absurd to think of Dayton as a great negotiator.
The bigger proof that the DFL is giving into the Dayton family pressure is that, within 48 hrs. of Alida Messinger's threat that she wouldn't be cutting the DFL checks if Brian Melendez continued as DFL Chairman, Melendez announced that he wouldn't seek a 4th term.
Let's remember that Messinger is Dayton's ex-wife. She's also one of the most prolific givers to DFL/progressive causes. When she issues an edict, the DFL, it appears, submits without question.
The only question left to be answered is whether Dayton family control of the DFL drives it into the ground quickly or whether their control forces people like Gene Pelowski to abandon Dayton family rule.
In 2009, the DFL had a difficult time passing the conference report tax increase, passing it by a 35-31 margin in a veto-proof Senate . Does anyone think they won't have a more difficult time now that they're the minority party after getting annihilated this past November?
If the Daytons want to micromanage the DFL, it's their right to attempt that. I just don't see a happy ending to the story.
Posted Monday, December 13, 2010 9:57 AM
No comments.
Keeping the Care You Already Have?
When President Obama was shoving Obamacare down our throats against our will, he repeated the lie that people who liked their coverage/care could keep it. Marc Siegel's op-ed in the NY Post proves that statement false:
A recent survey finds that countless MDs will respond to ObamaCare by limiting which patients they'll see.
The Physicians Foundation asked 2,400 doctors and American Medical Association members what they thought of the new law; a full 67 percent were against it.
More important, it asked how they'd cope with the new rules (which don't fully kick in until 2014). Sixty percent said they feel compelled to "close or significantly restrict their practices to certain categories of patients." And 59 percent said the "reform" would oblige them to spend less time with the patients they do have.
Of course, many doctors already limit how many patients they'll take on who depend on government insurance (whose fees rarely cover an MD's costs). But it'll get worse under ObamaCare: In the survey, some 87 percent said they would significantly restrict Medicare patients and 93 percent said they'd significantly restrict Medicaid patients .
When people see that Obamacare overpromises and underdelivers, they'll demand its repeal in tones so strenuous that even Democrats will understand it. I've said before that having health insurance is worthless if there aren't any doctors who will treat you.
This outcome was totally predictable.
BTW, for those of you who ridiculed Sarah Palin's Death Panels statement, what do you think happens when the number of doctors who won't treat Medicare or Medicaid patients drops dramatically? Do you think health care improves? If that's what you think, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.
I practice medicine alone, something ObamaCare intentionally makes more difficult. Physicians like me are going to become harder and harder to find, at least, ones who'll take your insurance. Many MDs will join the growing group of "boutique" doctors who'll only see patients who pay cash up front.
That trend is no solution. Because it lacks even the oversight of insurers, this group includes many charlatans and hucksters who promote questionable treatments. Yes, it'll also have plenty of solid physicians as ObamaCare hits home, but that's just creating a two-tier system of health care, with good care for those who can afford it and second-rate care by overstressed MDs for the rest of America.
The number of flaws in Obamacare is only outnumbered by the tax increases in the system. Obamacare doesn't lower health care costs. It does nothing to improve accessability because of the impending doctor shortage and their refusal to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Frankly, the more important question to ask is whether there's much of anything in the Obamacare legislation that's worth applauding. I don't think there is.
Posted Monday, December 13, 2010 12:51 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 13-Dec-10 02:30 PM
That is one more reason why I think the Republicans can and very definitely ought to simply repeal the whole thing, saying that there are too many flaws known and unknown to let it stand. If Pelosi is right, that we have to pass the bill to find out what's in it, then SOH Boehner should say that we have to repeal the bill before we find out all that's in it. Take up alternatives later, after we get the budget passed and the deficit under control.
DFL, Unions & Structural Deficits
If anyone thinks that there isn't a connection between the DFL, their union allies and Minnesota's structural deficits, they obviously didn't read this union propaganda sheet . Here's the tipoff that there's a strong connection:
The Minnesota Nurses Association said the governor-elect faces a difficult burden of solving the state's budget deficit while maintaining a safety net for Minnesota's most vulnerable population.
"As health care providers, one of MNA's highest priorities is making sure that Minnesota accepts the federal Medical Assistance expansion and the $1.4 billion that comes with it," said MNA President Linda Hamilton.
The $1.4 billion won't last forever. It runs out in 2014. It isn't quite one-time money but it isn't money that can be counted on annually. That shocking revelation, though, appears to be news to the MNA. They apparently think that when 2014 rolls around and the money runs out, they'll just lobby Congress for more money, heaping more money onto the next generation's backs. It's as if they don't care as long as they get their fair share.
That type of behavior is disgusting and unacceptable.
In a very real way, they're the opposite of the TEA Party movement in that they're only in it for what's in it for them.
"Fortunately, Governor-elect Dayton, with his background as a state auditor, has the good sense to back a balanced approach to resolving the state's budget deficit. I want to offer him MAPE's support as he moves forward."
Since MAPE is into transparency, let's be transparent on MAPE's lobbying for a "balanced approach to resolving the state's budget deficit." Since their jobs rely strictly on a steady flow of the taxpayers' money, it's all but automatic that they're for tax increases. It isn't a stretch to think that they're opposed to reforms that include looking at how the bureaucracy is structured.
Here's a little background on who MAPE is and what they do :
MAPE members work in all segments of state of Minnesota service, and they are significant contributors to the high quality of life that is enjoyed by all Minnesotans! MAPE members deliver the services that make it all possible!
Here's a snapshot of what MAPE members do each day to help make this state a better place for all Minnesotans to live, both at work and at play.
Whether you're into fishing, hunting, boating, hiking, bird watching, camping or any of the other outdoor interests, Minnesota is a great place to live.
Our members help guard the environment. They help to ensure that the food and water supply is safe for the general public.
MAPE members oversee the insurance, apartment rental and sales industries. They make life a bit better when Minnesotans get their hair cut, and when they visit the state's zoo. They help keep our buildings safe, and they help resolve tax problems. Our financial and legislative auditors help keep a watchful eye on government. They also make life better for our military veterans.
From arson to murder, MAPE's forensic scientists help solve some of the most difficult criminal cases. Our members also work as parole experts.
MAPE members at the Department of Human Services work together with other members of the community to ensure that the most vulnerable of Minnesota residents are well cared for. We license nursing homes to be sure that our elders are safe, and foster care homes to ensure that kids who need a second chance will have one. Along with county workers, we provide assistance to those who need help with child care costs in order to work, and those who need help paying for medical bills. We provide policy and automation support to any number of social service agencies around the state. We work hard to make sure that Minnesota remains a comfortable and caring place to grow up and grow old in.
In other words, MAPE is essentially into every part of the state government. They've got their fingers into everything. What they don't have is their finger on private Minnesota's pulse. They don't have a flipping clue what Minnesota's private sector is thinking.
Tim Pawlenty's WSJ op-ed tells a similar story to the one I'm writing:
Federal employees receive an average of $123,049 annually in pay and benefits, twice the average of the private sector. And across the country, at every level of government, the pattern is the same: Unionized public employees are making more money, receiving more generous benefits, and enjoying greater job security than the working families forced to pay for it with ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt.
How did this happen? Very quietly. The rise of government unions has been like a silent coup, an inside job engineered by self-interested politicians and fueled by campaign contributions.
Public employee unions contribute mightily to the campaigns of liberal politicians ($91 million in the midterm elections alone) who vote to increase government pay and workers. As more government employees join the unions and pay dues, the union bosses pour ever more money and energy into liberal campaigns. The result is that certain states are now approaching default. Decades of overpromising and fiscal malpractice by state and local officials have created unfunded public employee benefit liabilities of more than $3 trillion.
In other words, they're into tax increases, too. They aren't much into the pulse of the private sector, either.
It isn't surprising that the unions are supporting Gov-Elect Dayton. Why wouldn't they support him? He's proposing raising taxes, which means he'll use that money to pay off his union allies. I wouldn't have a problem with him paying off his political allies if he wasn't attempting to do it with our money.
Using the Early MA money just makes Minnesota's structural deficit that much substantial because it's using one-time money to pay for an ongoing budget item.
How foolish is that?
Posted Monday, December 13, 2010 3:14 PM
No comments.
A Giant Step Towards Sanity
This am, Judge Henry Hudson ruled that the Obamacare individual mandate isn't constitutional :
In a 42-page opinion, Hudson said the provision of the law that requires most individuals to get insurance or pay a fine by 2014 is an unprecedented expansion of federal power that cannot be supported by Congress's power to regulate interstate trade.
"Neither the Supreme Court nor any federal circuit court of appeals has extended Commerce Clause powers to compel an individual to involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market," he wrote. "In doing so, enactment of the [individual mandate] exceeds the Commerce Clause powers vested in Congress under Article I [of the Constitution.]
That's a major blast of lucidity into a sea of insanity. The ruling is solid, too, in that Judge Hudson stated what circuit courts and SCOTUS have refused to do. He didn't make up a reason for ruling it unconstitutional. He didn't use a personal policy preference as his reason for ruling the individual mandate unconstitutional.
He simply and elegantly stated that other courts have refused to define the ICC that broadly. Saying that the judiciary hasn't said in any of their rulings that the ICC is broad enough to compel people to "involuntarily enter the stream of commerce by purchasing a commodity in the private market."
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott released this statement following U.S. District Judge Henry E. Hudson's ruling:
The federal court's ruling is consistent with the Constitution and consistent with the American people. There are limits to congressional power, and Congress has overstepped its limits here by forcing Americans to purchase health insurance, even against their will.
The court's ruling is an important step toward limited government and reducing federal mandates. The judge's decision bodes well for Texas' position in its lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of ObamaCare.
The federal health care takeover's requirement that all Americans, against their will, purchase government-approved health insurance is unprecedented and violates the Constitution. The Commonwealth of Virginia's challenge, as well as Texas' challenge, contends that Congress does not have the authority to force individuals to buy a service from a private insurance company as a condition of being a law-abiding American, and unconstitutionally infringes upon Americans' individual liberties. No public policy goal, no matter how important or well-intentioned, can be allowed to trample the protections and rights guaranteed by our Constitution.
This isn't a tiny decision. Judge Hudson didn't just rule a portion of the bill unconstitutional. He shot down each of the fed's three arguments.
Congress is weighing in on the ruling. Here's Michele Bachmann's statement on the ruling:
For decades the government has grown uninhibitedly, with no visible signs of returning to the limited form of government intended at our nation's founding. The United States is almost $14 trillion in debt and this Congress continues to pass bills vastly expanding the scope and control of the federal government. Such is the case of Obamacare, in which the government goes so far as to mandate individuals purchase health care.
The United States was founded on freedom, and requiring citizens to purchase something against their will violates that fundamental value. I am pleased Federal Judge Henry E. Hudson recognized today Obamacare's unconstitutional mandate is outside the authority of Congress as Virginia's lawsuit moves forward.
I am committed to defunding and repealing Obamacare in the 112th Congress as we continue to see its far-reaching and adverse effects on individuals, families and businesses. The unconstitutional individual mandate is just one example of why Obamacare must be done away with.
Michele nailed it with this statement:
The United States was founded on freedom, and requiring citizens to purchase something against their will violates that fundamental value.
That's the heart of things. This bill doesn't pass that fundamental test. It doesn't come close.
That's why this ruling is such a giant step towards sanity. I hope there are 2 more steps in that direction on this case.
Posted Monday, December 13, 2010 11:02 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 14-Dec-10 02:04 AM
I'm interested to know if this "fundamental" piece of the legislation is struck down, does the rest of it stand? Did Congress insert the usual "severability clause"?
Comment 2 by Chris Taus at 14-Dec-10 08:53 AM
Wait a minute, cf, are you saying that all of the actual health care provisions of the bill are struck down but all 400 earmarks and pork projects are not?
Comment 3 by eric z at 16-Dec-10 08:45 AM
J. Ewing -- Gary's link to the WaPo reporting, (and Googling), is worthwhile. The WaPo item had a link so you can download the actual opinion of the court, and see what the order and rationale were. I think there has been reporting that there exists a question about what other provisions of law were stricken, related to the part judicially rejected by this court, are affected and incorporated by a vague reference in the opinion, and in what precise ways. That might relate to Chris' comment.
What this opinion forces is review in the appellate courts. What the Supremes do, if/when cert is requested, is yet to be learned.
But at least this judge's supervising circuit court will have a say. Clearly, the AG will be appealing.
When Is the Coronation?
This am's edition of the Strib has an article announcing what we've known for some time: that Ken Martin is interested in being the DFL chairman. Thus begins the Daytons' plan to install their team at DFL HQ, thereby destroying the DFL for the next decade.
Longtime Minnesota political operative Ken Martin announced Monday that he is running for DFL Party chairman.
Martin is the first, and may be the only, announced candidate for the DFL job. The party will hold its vote on the new chairman in February, when outgoing Chairman Brian Melendez completes his term.
The only other known potential contender, DFL activist and Minneapolis attorney Mike Rothman, said Monday that he would sit the race out.
"I have decided to support Ken Martin for chair," Rothman said. "I believe that Ken, with our support, will succeed and help the state DFL Party move forward."
It's apparent the fix is in and who paid for that fix. This is Alida's gift to her ex. He'll now have the ability to ruin the DFL as he sees fit. If anyone gets in the way, Alida will buy their silence. If they won't be bought, she'll dispatch an army of opposition research people to discredit the object standing in Mark's way.
Yes, I'[ being more than a bit sarcastic about Alida buying people off or paying for the opposition research. I'm not the least bit sarcastic, though, in talking about Dayton ruining the DFL. Though people don't know it yet, within a year, they'll know that Dayton's policies aren't what people thought they were buying.
His tax-the-rich scheme will fail miserably. By the time May rolls around, the DFL will have abandoned him on that. That should make for an interesting test for then-DFL Chair Martin, who will be asked why the DFL is abandoning their leader.
Who am I kidding? The DFL's lapdog press won't ask tough questions of their fearless leader. They'll probably be silent as a mouse on this stuff. The Twin Cities press didn't do their due diligence on Dayton. I shouldn't expect them to investigate his pick to chair the DFL.
Then again, people like Rachel SB, Nick Coleman and Lori Sturdevant might investigate Martin if he starts ruining the DFL. One man might come and go. Ruining their party might be another matter.
This paragraph tells us everything we need to know on why Martin is the likely next DFL Chairman:
He also is trusted by the big-money Democratic donors, including unions and Dayton's ex-wife Alida Messinger. During the gubernatorial campaign, Martin ran two DFL interest groups, the 2010 Fund and Win Minnesota, which poured money into extensive ad campaigns against Republican rival Tom Emmer.
If he hadn't been Alida-approved, he wouldn't have a shot at being the next chairman. It's just that uncomplicated.
The 2010 Fund and WIN Minnesota are far left organizations that fit into the Daytons' political vision. The good news for the MNGOP is that that isn't Minnesotans' vision for Minnesota.
I don't doubt that he's a skilled operative, as Ben Golnik suggests. I'm just suggesting that someone who has to cover for Gov-Elect Dayton and defend the DFL's policies needs more than skill.
I'd argue that he needs a compliant press operation, too. The bad news is that he doesn't have that thanks to people like Mitch Berg, Sheila Kihne, Erin Haust, myself and others.
Posted Tuesday, December 14, 2010 3:53 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Dec-10 08:24 AM
It is a shame that Don Fraser is largely retired these days from politics. I think Fraser would be a sound long-term policy advisor for Dayton - a sounding board over where Minnesota should aim to be in ten, fifteen years. Bruce Vento is no longer around to represent the very best of what the DFL has been, but Fraser is available.
Dayton should not miss the opportunity to consult with such a meritorious party elder statesman.
Obamacare Fails By Its Own Standards
Based on things written in Eric Holder's and Kathleen Sebelius's Washington Post op-ed , Obamacare can't even meet the standards they say are Obamacare's goals. For instance:
Everyone wants health care to be affordable and available when they need it. But we have to stop imposing extra costs on people who carry insurance, and that means everyone who can afford coverage needs to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014.
If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it's essential that everyone have coverage. Imagine what would happen if everyone waited to buy car insurance until after they got in an accident. Premiums would skyrocket, coverage would be unaffordable, and responsible drivers would be priced out of the market.
Some obvious questions leap to mind, starting with If it's such a crisis, why does "everyone who can afford coverage" need "to carry minimum health coverage starting in 2014"? Shouldn't that be immediately? Why should those that are paying $1,000 more a year have to wait until 2014?
More importantly, why should the federal government be in the business of telling health care shoppers what constitutes "minimum health coverage"? Shouldn't that be left to the health care shopper, aka the patient, and their physician? Doesn't it make more sense to leave that decision in the hands of the health care professional and the patient?
This begs a bigger, deeper question: why should the federal government think that a bureaucrat, potentially a thousand miles away, would a) care more about the health care shopper and b) know more about the impending health care decision?
That 60 leftist Democrats think that a guy with a chart knows better for the patient is patently absurd.
It isn't absurd to think that people who aren't buying insurance drive up costs on those that do. It's also incomplete. What Holder and Sebelius don't mention is that government is driving alot of the cost-shifting by underpaying Medicare and Medicaid patients.
Each time that the hospital, clinic or doctor gets underpaid for a Medicare or Medicaid patient, they have to charge extra for someone covered by private insurance.
The moral of that story is that it isn't just what you're told; it's also what you aren't being told that costs you.
This statement isn't true either:
If we want to prevent insurers from denying coverage to people with preexisting conditions, it's essential that everyone have coverage.
Having the state establish a high risk pool, then giving people in that pool a tax credit or deduction to cover the higher premiums would cover people with PEC's just as efficiently as forcing everyone to buy insurance. The best thing about doing it that way is that there's no question that it's constitutional.
The car insurance argument isn't flimsy. It's beyond that. First, car insurance is licensed at the state level. Second, the state doesn't impose 68 mandates on car insurance like Minnesota imposes on health insurance. Third, car insurance is true insurance. It indemnifies the driver against significant risks.
What we call health insurance is essentially prepaid health care. Imagine how expensive car insurance would be if the policies included coverage for tune-ups, changing spark plugs , new tires and brakes or new shocks. Yet that's precisely what's mandated by Obamacare.
There's a list of things that must be covered. Additionally, there's a provision in the legislation that says there isn't a limit to the amount of damages that can be collected by the patient.
Simply put, shoving more people onto the system, then telling them that they don't have to change their health habits one iota and that the government will 'stick it to the health insurance companies' is akin to telling people that they don't need to start living health lifestyles or that they don't need to be smart health shoppers.
That the Obama administration insists that their system will lower costs while insisting on these things is patently absurd. It's intellectually insulting, too.
This is before we start dealing with the constitutional questions, things like the ability of the federal government to tell states how they must spend their money, that they must raise taxes (both thanx to Medicaid expansion), whether the federal government can use the ICC to tell people that they must purchase a product or get fined simply as a condition of living in the United States.
Judge Henry Hudson took the right step in saying that he wouldn't go where other courts have refused to go. Like I said in this post , it's a giant step in the direction of sanity.
Unfortunately, the things written in Eric Holder's and Kathleen Sebelius's op-ed are a step in the opposite direction.
Posted Tuesday, December 14, 2010 5:41 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 16-Dec-10 08:33 AM
Gary, have you been following the judicial constitutional challenges to the mish-mosh bad bill so-called reform?
I don't have links, but apparently two federal district courts have fully rejected challenges to constitutionality, while one in the Southeast has rejected all challenges but to the mandatory buy-in part, ruling that provision to be unconstitutional overreaching per the commerce clause.
Is that judicial effort being side-tracked as a GOP priority?
Is the aim now to propagandize it all, once again, in legislative ranks? What's that gain, really, besides unneeded divisiveness and distraction from new business?
I tend to agree with the one judge who ruled the one part over-stepped, but that the rest of the legislation is legislatively and constitutionally proper.
Any thoughts? Or did I miss some recent earlier post here? I know months ago the issue was addressed.
Comment 2 by eric z at 16-Dec-10 08:37 AM
Sorry - I just hit the recent post here on that very issue. The link you gave to the WaPo story gives a download link to the actual opinion, for anyone wanting to have a look. Glad to see you posted about it.
That Evil MNGOP
Ever since the MNGOP State Central Committee told some high-profile malcontents that they needed to start acting like Republicans, the DFL's media lappuppies have trained their focus on lambasting Republicans.
This op-ed by the Winona Daily News is just more of the same we've heard before:
Former Gov. Al Quie had the right response - laughter. And it would be funny if it weren't so sad. But Quie, along with other Minnesota GOP notables like Gov. Arne Carlson and Sen. David Durenberger have been banned from state Republican politics for two years all because they wouldn't back Tom Emmer for governor.
So much for freedom of thought and choice.
And it would be silly and laughable if it weren't so sad.
The two-year ban that Quie and 17 other Republicans face represents a sad shift for a party that once claimed to be "big-tent" for varying opinions.
The exile should be seen as a badge of pride for the 18. Names like Quie, Durenberger and Carlson are known for a thoughtful, collaborative approach. Their endorsements didn't carry weight because of the party affiliation; they carried weight because they were statesmen, not politicians.
A big tent is worthless if there aren't any unifying principles guiding a political party. More importantly than just the petty rantings of this editorial board is the fact that people expressed their agreement with the size (and principles) of the MNGOP tent. The reality is that people voted, across the nation, not just in Minnesota, that they wanted principled politicians who didn't just go along to get along.
In droves, people have said they want politicians who say what they mean and mean what they say. Meanwhile, Sen. Durenberger, Gov. Quie and Gov. Carlson essentially said that they're too big to be bothered by governing principles, living up to a party platform and actually doing things that identify themselves as Republicans.
By endorsing a snake oil salesman, they essentially said that that sort of loyalty was beneath them. They said that they'd prefer playing personality politics than being principled politicians.
At a time when voters across the state and nation are telling politicians that they want politicians with a spine, the MNGOP not only has the right to stand up to politicians who think they can do whatever they want. They have an affirmative responsibility to protect the conservative brand.
Should Republicans ignore the will of the people? That's essentially what the Winona Daily News is essentially telling the MNGOP. They're essentially saying that they should set aside principles because these 3 people are high profile people.
Meanwhile, voters showed time and again that they were perfectly willing to put a boot to unprincipled politicians' backsides when these politicians got too big for their britches.
The editorial ignores the fact that there's frequently spirited debate on issues within the MNGOP and that people like Jim Abeler gets along just fine with people like Tom Emmer.
If the MNGOP's tent is tiny, how can people like Jim Abeler and Tom Emmer co-exist? The truth is that the MNGOP isn't nearly as strident as the DFL and their compliant lap puppies would have people believe.
Originally posted Tuesday, December 14, 2010, revised 15-Dec 2:01 AM
Comment 1 by Skip at 15-Dec-10 12:12 AM
Those who were "banned" were not dissenters, but defectors. Nobody interfered in their opportunity to debate freely and vigorously. The sanction was because they abandoned the GOP, endorsing and campaigning for a candidate of a different party. What did these has-been losers expect?
Comment 2 by eric z at 16-Dec-10 08:20 AM
Is being unable to stomach Tom Emmer that serious a breach of "party" loyalty? How far should party loyalty - or more clearly stated, compliance with even the worse of decisions by those temporarily holding hands on the levers of control - reach? Stalin had his views. Brodkorb and Sutton have theirs.
What about a ducking stool? That's a thought for you guys.
Different question -- What's Emmer going to do? Join Coleman or Mark Kennedy in some old-folks home GOP make-work job, now that he's out of the legislature?
Any news on that?
