December 16-18, 2010
Dec 16 06:59 Principles Matter Dec 16 09:14 Tarryl's Neverending Campaign Dec 16 11:28 Where's the Beef? Dec 16 16:50 McCotter Making Sense Dec 17 02:23 Original Reporting: School Board Passes Property Tax Increase Dec 17 09:07 Defeat 6 Weeks Too Late Is Still Sweet Dec 17 11:54 GREAT POINT OX!!! Dec 18 14:18 Politifiction: Where the Truth Gets Mangled
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Principles Matter
Tuesday, I wrote about the MNGOP disciplining 18 wayward Republicans for supporting Tom Horner, former IP gubernatorial candidate and prospective snake oil salesman. In that post, I said that the MNGOP has an affirmative responsibility to protect their brand.
Wednesday afternoon, the Hill reported that Sens. Voinovich, Collins, Bond and Bennett are thinking about voting for the 1,924-page omnibus spending bill . This tells you everything you need to know why Voinovich and Bennett were run out of the GOP.
Voting for this pork-laden bill without having sufficient time to read it tells voters that these senators aren't there to protect the taxpayers' pocketbooks. They're there to go along and get along, to be friends with the echochamber, not the taxpayer.
We need more politicians, senators especially, who'll show that they've got a spine. That quartet just proved that they're spineless. Unfortunately, there's nothing that we can do to push Voinovich, Bond and Bennett to doing the right thing but there's hope with Collins, though not much.
More importantly, we should be prepared to primary spineless R's if they won't protect our pocketbooks. We're dealing with exploding deficits and these idiots are spending like they're Nancy Pelosi's best friend. (Yes, I know they serve in the Senate, not the House, but they're the type of spendaholic that Pelosi gets along with.)
This should infuriate every Republican:
Despite strong opposition from Thune and Senate GOP Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.), several Senate Republicans are considering voting for the bill.
"That's my intention," said retiring Sen. Bob Bennett (R-Utah) when asked if he would support the package.
b Bennett said earmarks in the bill might give some of his GOP colleagues reason to hesitate but wouldn't affect his vote. " It will be tough for some, but not for me ," he said .
He got booted from his job in the Utah caucus because other candidates were willing to listen to the will of the people. His 'Christmas gift' to them is voting for a pork-filled bill that further burdens every man, woman and child across America. Sen. Bennett just proved that he either doesn't care about fiscal responsibility or he's a 'take my ball and go home' spoiled brat.
Personally, I'm leaning towards the latter. I'm leaning towards the opinion that he's a total loser. Good riddance. I'd like to thank the delegates to the Utah State GOP Convention for booting him without giving him the opportunity of winning the primary.
What's particularly bothersome is that there won't be time to read the bill. This apparently doesn't bother Sen. Bennett. Apparently, he's perfectly willing to vote yes on reckless spending without reading the legislation.
Just like the MNGOP disciplined the 18 unprincipled people for being reckless, the Utah Republican party should discipline Sen. Bennett. They get to control who's a member in good standing and who isn't.
That's an argument that I'll have with voters anytime. Explaining to them that there's room for disagreement but there isn't room for fiscal recklessness and unprincipled politicking is something I'll bet most people will agree with.
Posted Thursday, December 16, 2010 7:05 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Dec-10 07:16 AM
While I agree with you on some sort of "reprimand" for wayward elected officials, Bennet et al, just like Arne Carlson and Al Quie, are "former" elected officials, probably calling themselves "former Republicans" by now. I don't think calling them "former Republicans" is sanction enough and I don't think it is appropriate to "boot them out of the Party" at all. Yes, we can choose not to endorse them before election and we can "chastise" or "denounce" or "censure" them at any time for particularly odious or stupid public stances or votes, but we shouldn't be kicking people out of the Party. We need all the friends we can get, even if they sometimes say stupid stuff. If we need it, we should draft into the Party Constitution a serious formal process for how to discipline our membership, but it should be for only the most serious public offenses, including a penalty like censure but NOT expulsion) from high-profile members (preferably elected officials only), and with an overwhelming-- 80% or higher-- vote, not 59-55 in a poorly-attended meeting.
Comment 2 by eric z at 16-Dec-10 08:00 AM
I don't think the Papacy is hard enough on priests who have tampered with alter boys and such. Does that mean the Pope should have an audience with Sutton-Brodkorb?
Comment 3 by eric z at 16-Dec-10 08:12 AM
Martin Luther was excommunicated by Pope Leo. Without repatriation, long-term that did not work out well for the Church.
We've cold and snow enough, so would a Walk to Canossa do?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walk_of_Canossa
Stand outside in penance, at some party convening event, etc., and then move on to real things?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Dec-10 08:20 AM
Standing on principles isn't a real thing??? Is that the argument you're making? When Joe Lieberman stood on principle to support the Iraq war, Ned Lamont was supported to the Nth degree in the primary, tossing aside a man who, in all other areas was a solid liberal, for a 'flavor of the month' candidate.
I guess principles mattered then, didn't they???
Tarryl's Neverending Campaign
It isn't surprising to informed people that Tarryl Clark hasn't stopped campaigning for Michele Bachmann's House seat . Mostly, Tarryl's campaign at this point is making ferocious-sounding statements. Kinda like this:
Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann (R) is "right to worry" about her political future, according to her former rival.
State Sen. Tarryl Clark (D) warned Bachmann will be facing a "much different political landscape" if she runs for reelection in 2012.
That's when she "will have to explain to voters what exactly she and the Republican-controlled Congress did to improve the economy, help people find a job or stay in their homes, and care for our seniors, veterans and children," Clark wrote in an e-mail to her supporters on Wednesday.
I'd put this in the 'throw the uber-partisans some red meat' category. These are typical DFL talking points. They're things Tarryl used in the last campaign. They didn't work then. In fact, I'm positive conservatives and a majority of independents ignored these talking points.
It isn't that conservatives and independents don't care about these issues. It's that their solutions isn't government intervention. Their solution is getting regulations under control, especially reducing health care mandates, keeping spending and taxes as low as possible and putting pro-prosperity policies in place.
Thanks to the Obama administration and Sen. Reid as majority leader, it won't be possible to enact as much of the conservatives' pro-prosperity policies as they'd like. Minnesotans are smart enough to not take Tarryl's bait on who's to blame.
Both parties will point fingers at each other. The difference is that there's more people who agree with less government intervention, lower taxes and repeal/defunding of Obamacare than prefer more government intervention, higher taxes and the implementing of Obamacare.
Unless the district dramatically changes, Tarryl will still be facing an uphill fight . Good luck with that.
The Democrat denied she has started fundraising for a 2012 bid.
"The only thing I'm 'amassing' right now is quality time with friends and family, because the holidays are about coming together, not fear and divisiveness," she wrote.
Tarryl knows more than a little about fear and divisiveness. When she claimed that Michele's vote against the stimulus was a vote to increase taxes, she knew that was an outright lie. When Tarryl said that she was the real conservative in the race during the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce debate , it was her attempt to sell herself as something she's never been.
They were attempts to tell voters that they couldn't trust Michele, that she was the only person telling the truth. That's the picture of divisiveness and fearmongering.
Throughout the campaign, there was speculation that Tarryl really didn't expect to win, that she was preparing for 2012, when redistricting would move St. Cloud into CD-7 and Collin Peterson would retire. The theory was that she'd then step in and be annointed to run against a nobody in an open seat.
First, there's a strong possibility that St. Cloud won't get moved into CD-7. Next, the supposed nobody turned out to be Lee Byberg, who could've defeated Collin Peterson had he gotten better funding. Lee didn't get the early funding because people didn't give him much of a chance. That dynamic has changed dramatically since the early days of last year's campaign.
One other thing has changed since then, too, namely that Tarryl was initially seen as the perfect candidate to oppose Michele. She has great name ID and she was seen as a moderate. Thanks to her outlandish claims during the campaign, she's been exposed as anything but a moderate. Raising one type of tax after another doesn't yell moderate to anyone except those on the distinct left. Heralding your support for the stimulus certainly isn't a way to distinguish yourself as a moderate, either.
There's no question that Tarryl will raise millions of dollars for 2012. I suspect, though, that 2012 will be much like 2010 in the sense that no amount of money will save a person if their message isn't appealing.
Hint: Tarryl's message doesn't appeal to people in CD-6.
Posted Thursday, December 16, 2010 9:14 AM
Comment 1 by MplsSteve at 16-Dec-10 09:43 PM
"...because the holidays are about coming together, not fear and divisiveness, she wrote.
I think I threw up in my mouth a little after reading that comment of Tarryl's.
That fact aside, Tarryl Clark is more than welcome to run again in 2012. Bachmann has survived in worse political climates - such as 2006 and especially 2008.
There's no reason to assume that 2012 will turn so poisonous to the GOP that it will electorally endanger Bachmann.
Comment 2 by Average Joe at 17-Dec-10 08:43 AM
Tarryl Clark is a flipping liar. That's what I learned from her 2010 campaign. Every word she over-pronounced was a lie (and she looked like a freak saying the words) and she can't be trusted. 60% of the voters of the 6th District figured that out pretty easily.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Dec-10 09:52 AM
Joe, I can't argue with that.
Where's the Beef?
When it comes to the Obama administration's argument for why Obamacare's individual mandate is constitutional, I'm left asking "Where's the beef"? The administration, in the form of AG Eric Holder, is making noises but there isn't much in terms of substance. James Taranto has noticed this, too:
The piece is titled "Health Reform Will Survive Its Legal Fight." Here is the basis for Attorney General Holder's confidence in his client's legal position:
It's not surprising that opponents, having lost in Congress, have taken to the courts. We saw similar challenges to laws that created Social Security and established new civil rights protections. Those challenges ultimately failed, and so will this one.
Holder doesn't explain the basis for his analogy, but if he means this as a legal argument, it is a pathetically weak one. True, Atlanta Motel v. U.S. , the 1964 case that upheld the public-accommodations provisions of that year's Civil Rights Act, provides support for the general proposition that the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause should be interpreted broadly.
I don't know what Holder's argument is. Frankly, his statement appears to be that 'they lost so we expected them to challenge this in the courts.' If that's his argument, I'd argue that it isn't a legal argument, just political spin. He didn't bother citing precedents regarding the ICC.
He didn't bother citing what part of the Constitution gives the federal government the authority to tell people that they must buy something and what specific features this something must possess.
I suspect that Holder didn't cite these things because a) precedent doesn't exist for this type of authority and b) the Constitution doesn't allow for this attempted usurpation of freedom.
Taranto, however, cites a court precedent that highlights the weakness of Holder's case:
But the 1937 case that upheld the Social Security payroll tax, Steward Machine Co. v. Davis , actually points to a deficiency in the ObamaCare statute. In Steward Machine Co., Justice Benjamin Cardozo noted that the tax "is described in the statute as an excise." This is not true of ObamaCare's penalty for failing to purchase insurance. As constitutional scholar Randy Barnett noted in our July Weekend Interview:
"The bill doesn't say excise tax," Mr. Barnett says. "The bill does have excise taxes in it. Tanning salons are subject to an excise tax. Medical devices are subject to an excise tax...This bill has an entire section...in which they're trying to identify all the revenue-raising aspects of the bill for purposes of scoring its costs. They failed to include the penalty...They didn't even think of it as a source of revenue."
In his ruling, Judge Hudson made this statement:
While this case raises a host of complex constitutional issues, all seem to distill into the single question of whether or not Congress has the authority to regulate, and tax, a citizen's decision not to participate in interstate commerce. Neither the U.S. Supreme Court nor any circuit court of appeals has addressed this issue squarely.
The Thomas More Law Center issued a statement yesterday afternoon stating that they were filing an appeal to overturn another judge's ruling that Obamacare's individual mandate is constitutional. Here's part of TMLC's statement:
This afternoon, the Thomas More Law Center (TMLC), a national, public interest law firm based in Ann Arbor, Michigan, along with co-counsel, David Yerushalmi, filed its opening brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, in its first in the Nation challenge to the constitutionality of Obamacare. TMLC is challenging the Obamacare mandate that requires all legal residents to purchase minimum essential healthcare coverage under penalty of federal law.
In this appeal, TMLC is asking the court to reverse the ruling by U.S. District Court Judge George Caram Steeh, the first federal judge to rule on the merits of Obamacare, which upheld the constitutionality of the new federal health law on the unprecedented grounds that pursuant to the Commerce Clause, Congress can regulate not only economic activity, but economic decisions as well. Consequently, according to Judge Steeh, Congress can regulate a private citizen~s decision to not purchase healthcare by penalizing that decision as a matter of federal law.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that Congress can tell citizens what they must buy. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that the ICC is so expansive that it means whatever Congress wants it to mean.
To use Ken Cuccinelli's words, agreeing with A.G. Holder is essentially saying that federalism is dead. Gen. Cuccinelli has a coherent legal argument that he's arguing. Holder doesn't.
If the administration doesn't find something more concrete before appearing before the 9 justices, they'll be legal laughingstocks.
Posted Thursday, December 16, 2010 11:28 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 16-Dec-10 01:44 PM
Gary:
I have some interesting questions that a reporter should ask Erik.
Question, "Erik if the constitution said that a state has a right to pass laws why are you opposing Virginia passing a law for it's citizens?"
"Erik if the loser goes to court than are you admiting that the winning argument in Arizona's immigration law is the state of Arizona's position since you were the person who went to court?"
"Erik if the loser goes to court why haven't you filed a friend of the court brief to support prop eight in California?"
Any reporters in Washington feel free to ask those questions.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
McCotter Making Sense
Earlier today, Thad McCotter announce that he won't vote for the tax bill compromise in a speech on the House floor. Here's the transcript of his speech:
Amidst our tumultuous Age of Globalization, wherein big government's restructuring is not merely desirable but inevitable, the sovereign people's Congressional servants must facilitate the conditions for sustainable economic growth so people can work; and preserve and promote Americans' economic preeminence in the world.
To accomplish these vital tasks, government must adopt deep and enduring tax relief, and spending, deficit and debt reduction. These policies are neither novel nor fashionable. They are necessary.
Therefore, because I oppose raising taxes, increasing deficits and debt, and worsening the entitlement crisis, I fundamentally object to this compromised tax bill's following provisions:
A permanent tax increase in exchange for a temporary tax reprieve, since any and all tax increases in a recession retard a recovery; and
A raid on Social Security requiring increased federal debt to fund a temporary tax gimmick that will not increase sustainable employment.
Despite its proponents' best intentions, this bill will not end the suffering of unemployed and economically anxious Americans. It will prolong it. For we cannot delay the day of big government's restructuring; and, in endeavoring to do so, we make the inevitable more painful, more prolonged, and, because it was unnecessary, more deplorable.
Finally, to those Republicans who claim no choice but to vote for a flawed bill now rather than wait three weeks for a better one, I disagree. Such a view is analogous to General Custer prior to the Battle of the Little Big Horn stating: "We must strike now before there are more of us."
Recognizing this folly, it is my sincere hope and goal that, come the 112th Congress, new legislation will be introduced that rectifies this bill's failings; and commences a lasting American economic renaissance.
It makes no sense to cut the employee's portion of the FICA tax when Social Security is already paying out more than it's taking in. Only an idiot would think that's wise economic policy. It's time DC's politicians stopped playing economic gimmicks. It's time they put together a pro-growth, pro-prosperity package.
Increasing spending through the omnibus bill is like throwing a pale of cold water on a waning fire. It all but ends the recovery. That's if you think there's really a recovery. Technically, there's a recovery but without dynamic job growth, it isn't a 'population-recognized' recovery.
Economists pinpoint when recessions ended. That's their responsibility. People tell economists and politicians when the recovery started.
Good conservatives are coming down on both sides of the tax bill. Paul Ryan, a man whose opinion I trust greatly, will vote for it. Mike Pence, Thad McCotter and Michele Bachmann, three people with impeccable conservative credentials, oppose the bill.
I'd prefer a clean tax bill but I won't get upset if the bill passes as it exists. At worst, Chairman Ryan can pass a bill with tons of budget cuts in the 112th Congress. The bill that I really care about is the omnibus porker bill that funds senators' campaigns. If that gets passed, I won't be the only TEA Party activist that'll want their senator's scalp. (I'm figuratively speaking.)
Thad McCotter is one of the most overlooked, brilliant legislators in DC. I hope more people start recognizing him as a great leader. With a GOP majority in the House starting in 2012, I'm certain he'll start getting recognized for his intelligent conservative policies.
Posted Thursday, December 16, 2010 5:07 PM
No comments.
Original Reporting: School Board Passes Property Tax Increase
As expected, the ISD 742 School board voted, by a 6-1 margin, to raise St. Cloud homeowners property taxes by $4.3 million. The lowlights of the evening were the speeches delivered by board members Bruce Hentges and Bruce Mohs.
Hentges, defeated on Nov. 2 by soon-to-be former St. Cloud City Councilman John Pederson used his time to criticize Tom Emmer's "no-new-taxes plan", sounding like all the world like he'll run against State Sen. John Pederson in 2012.
Mohs used his time to talk about how he was raised in humble setting in back of Selke Field" and how his parents "were glad" to pay their property taxes so their kids would get a great education.
Outside the City Council Chambers, I talked with people who didn't see things the same way that the school board members did. One gentleman told me "it was obvious" to him that "nobody on the board" had a clue about budgeting, negotiations or reforms.
Another gentleman said he was tired of the sanctimonious tone of the school board members. He cited specifically how one person had been in education, either as a teacher or board member for almost 50 years. In this gentleman's opinion, this board member had spent too much time in the education echochamber.
Prior to the meeting, one gentleman asked one of the board members if they were expecting people to show up and protest the tax hike. This gentleman then said, "At this point, who cares anyway, right"?
According to Mohs, the board has done a great job making do with less. That struck me as odd because they didn't talk about reforms. Worse, Hentges complained about how the state hadn't met its obligations. Never once did it appear as though he'd thought about getting Minnesota's economy running strong, just about making sure that the education community got its fair share.
Frankly, it's apparent that people are apathetic about this facet of the education system. Until that changes, we'll be stuck with these sanctimonious jackasses declaring emergencies and voting on property tax increases that the public doesn't get to vote on.
The bottom line is this: These board members don't think twice about these votes because they don't worry about losing their jobs. If people don't step forward to challenge them, the problem will persist, if not get worse.
Posted Friday, December 17, 2010 2:23 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 17-Dec-10 07:13 AM
I thought that the citizens were allowed a vote on any tax increase. Can school boards just decide on their own to assess an increase in property taxes without a vote on it? Are school board member a law unto themselves? I thought we elected them to manage the sytem and then to "propose an increase in taxes that was put to the voters.
It was clever of them to do this maneuver after the elections. Sort of like the US House and Senate rushing in and trying to jam through all sorts of spending during the lame duck session. They have no respect for their fellow citizens who have to pay for their spend thrift ways.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Dec-10 08:20 AM
Gretchen, If the school board determines that there's a fiscal emergency, they can now enact the tax increase without bringing it before the people. Sucks, huh?
That's only part of it. The utter arrogance of some of the board members was almost unbearable. Still, I'll be there for the next meeting so their actions & statements are exposed.
PS- A special thanks goes to Dave Aikens, who answered a number of questions for me.
Comment 2 by David at 17-Dec-10 12:13 PM
Perhaps that law should be on the short list for this year's GOP majority to repeal along with allowing non-referendum increases for retiree benefits. But none of that will happen unless more of us step up. I ran in ISD 186 Crosby-Ironton this year and came in fourth but only by 200 votes. Times are pretty good right now but one board member told me the superintendent and business manager have little to say but 'doom and gloom'; my interpretation? He'd like teachers to get a bump next year. I was able to get all my signs back and there's another election next year. Wish me luck.
Comment 3 by David Allan Pundt at 17-Dec-10 12:14 PM
Sorry, forgot my last name. We're all in this together, no matter what school district we live in.
Comment 4 by David Allan Pundt at 17-Dec-10 12:17 PM
Hmm. Comments got deleted somehow. The short version; we have to urge our new GOP majority to repeal the fiscal emergency provision as well as the one to increase without referendum to cover retiree benefits. Keep on shouting, y'all.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Dec-10 12:56 PM
David, They didn't get deleted. I just hadn't approved them. They're now all posted.
Defeat 6 Weeks Too Late Is Still Sweet
Last night, Harry Reid pulled the pork-filled omnibus spending bill , agreeing to a 1-page CR to fund the government through the holidays:
After wrestling with, and finally abandoning, a 1,900-page catch-all spending bill stuffed with more than $8 billion in home-state projects known as earmarks in Washington and pork in the rest of the country, Senate leaders need to come up with a measure to keep the federal government running into early next year.
Nearly $1.3 trillion in unfinished budget work was packed into the spending measure, including $158 billion for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid gave up on the bill Thursday after several Republicans who had been thinking of voting for it pulled back their support.
Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had thrown his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in the days before Christmas legislation that usually takes months to debate.
This was a major victory for the TEA Party, who called their senators until they cried uncle.
The media's yapping about earmarks suggests that Republicans are just as bad as Democrats. Thanks to Byron York's reporting , we now know that isn't factual:
The Senate is a different story. But even though some Republicans are still seeking earmarks, Democrats are by far the bigger spenders. The watchdog groups found that Democrats requested 15,133 earmarks for 2011, for a total of $54.9 billion, while Republicans requested 5,352 earmarks, for a total of $22 billion.
There's just a 3:1 difference between R's and D's. Practically indistinguishable, wouldn't you agree? This isn't a defense of porkers like Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker. They're terrible abusers of the pork system. I won't defend the indefensible.
Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had thrown his weight against the bill in recent days, saying it was "unbelievable" that Democrats would try to muscle through in the days before Christmas legislation that usually takes months to debate.
"Just a few weeks after the voters told us they don't want us rushing major pieces of complicated, costly, far-reaching legislation through Congress, we get this," McConnell said. "This is no way to legislate."
The turn of events was a major victory for earmark opponents like Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Tom Coburn, R-Okla., who for years have been steamrolled by the old-school members of the powerful Appropriations Committee.
The spending barons saw their power ebb in the wake of midterm elections that delivered major gains for Republicans, with considerable help from anti-spending tea party activists.
"We just saw something extraordinary on the floor of the United States Senate," a grinning McCain said.
This is a victory for TEA Party activists, Tom Coburn and John McCain. Eventually, Washington will get the message that we're fed up with the spending on totally worthless junk. A memorial to Ted Kennedy? Another memorial to John Murtha? Nearly $20,000,000 for the two of them?
The people who proposed these earmarks will talk about what a fitting tribute these things are to two giants and all the jobs they'll bring to the state/district. They won't talk about the projects that couldn't get funded when the government took that money out of entrepreneurs' hands.
Buffoons like Harry Reid either don't know this (not likely) or they'd rather pork things up so they can say 'I brought this many jobs to Nevada' or wherever. It's time to turn the porkmeister machine off.
Tell these jackasses that their overspending will get them fired the next time they're up for re-election. Tell them that "we're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore."
Posted Friday, December 17, 2010 9:07 AM
No comments.
GREAT POINT OX!!!
This morning, I called into Hot Talk with the Ox to talk about last night's school board meeting. When I told Ox and Don Lyons that I wouldn't be surprised if Bruce Hentges ran against John Pederson in 2012, Ox made this brilliant point:
Anyone on that board who voted for that property tax increase doesn't stand a chance of getting elected in 2012.
Ox then said that for DFL'ers (my term) to win in 2012 would require the political climate not just to swing back the other direction but to totally change course. (Sorry, Ox, for not getting that quoted verbatim.)
Simply put, people are in a sour mood these days about spending and tax increases. The people I spoke with after the hearing expressed that sentiment in emphatic terms. They didn't mince words. They didn't hide their disdain for the school board, especially with Mohs and Hentges.
With the anti-tax sentiment running as high as it is, votes like this, without letting school district residents vote on the increase, only fuels the fire. Last night's vote only increased the anti-tax sentiment.
I was just reflecting on last night's meeting when something else popped into my head. A woman was giving a presentation on funding, this time focusing on per pupil spending. Hentges quizzed "And they expect us to compete with the world on that funding?" Without missing a beat, the presenter said "And we are."
If we're competing successfully, why do we need additional funding? To pay off political cronies perhaps? This after Mohs said last night that the school board does an excellent job with the money. Mr. Mohs, We The People will be the judge of that, starting with the next elections.
Posted Friday, December 17, 2010 11:54 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 17-Dec-10 04:25 PM
My experience with school board elections is that it is difficult to get someone to run who doesn't want to be Santa Claus, and almost impossible to get them elected against the unions and vested interests. If everyone voted based on a full knowledge of the situation and the candidates' positions, there would be no question that heads would roll. I'll believe /that/ if I ever see it.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 18-Dec-10 06:47 AM
I can also prove to you that school funding is a NEGATIVE indicator of school achievement in general, and irrelevant to any particular school. In other words, quit worrying about how much is spent, and start paying attention to how well the available funds are spent to get results. When the district has to "cut" spending, watch to see if they cut the least important things, or rush immediately to cut the most visible and important things, to extort parents for more tax money. Watch to see how much gets spent on wholly fictitious ideas about how lowering class size improves results.
Politifiction: Where the Truth Gets Mangled
Earlier today, MN2020 took TPaw to task for getting his facts wrong in his op-ed on public employee unions . The thing that got me suspicious about MN2020's accusations is that they used Politifiction, aka Politifact, as their factchecker.
That's plain stupid. Politifiction doesn't have alot of credibility. For instance, Politifiction has a chart titled the Obameter , which lists how many promises he's kept, broken, etc. According to the Obameter, President Obama has broken 24 promises. According to Jim Geraghty, who coined the phrase that Obama's promises come with expiration dates, President Obama has broken 40 promises , which is almost double what Politifiction acknowledges.
Politifiction isn't reliable. When Robert Hurt said that Obamacare is a government takeover of health care , here's Politifiction's reply:
As previous national PolitiFact checks have shown, no matter how you look at it, the legislation cannot reasonably be considered a government takeover.
The government will not take over hospitals or other privately-run health care businesses. Doctors will not become government employees, like in Britain. And the U.S. government intends to help people buy insurance from private insurance companies, not pay all the bills like the single-payer system in Canada.
The legislation is, in fact, designed to set up new systems to encourage private health insurance companies to provide more coverage and better services.
That coverage would be paid for the same way it is now, by private employers and individual premiums. That's not a government takeover.
Politifiction knows that a government takeover doesn't require government ownership. A government takeover simply requires the government to dictate to private companies which products they must offer, which features these products must include and who must buy these products.
Those requirements fit Obamacare to a T. If Obamacare is ruled constitutional by the SCOTUS, the requirements would essentially tell private citizens what they must do and tell companies which products they must offer. That certainly doesn't describe the health care system of 15 years ago.
That's before talking about how the federal government, through Medicare and Medicaid, cause costshifting by vastly underpaying hospitals, doctors and clinics. That's before talking about how ARRA gave new power to a government panel to tell doctors what procedures were allowed or disallowed based on QALYs.
BTW, doctors that ignore this board's rulings are subject to significant fines. Does that sound like hospitals, doctors and clinics have control of the system?
Politifiction is nothing more than a politically biased website pretending to be a fact-checking organization. It isn't a serious fact-checking organization.
Posted Saturday, December 18, 2010 2:18 PM
No comments.
