December 19-21, 2010
Dec 19 11:28 The Power of Misunderstanding Dec 19 15:15 Making Too Much of a Moment? Dec 20 12:18 Targeting Cravaack Might Backfire on DCCC Dec 20 14:45 Anti-Earmark Hysteria Sweeping The GOP? Dec 20 17:05 What Happens When The Money Dries Up? Dec 21 11:51 Proof That Liberals Need a Sense of Humor Dec 21 14:52 Thanx Byron Dec 21 16:46 FCC Ignores Net Neutrality Ruling Dec 21 23:26 The Comeback Kid??? This Isn't a Game
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
The Power of Misunderstanding
Awhile back, people started speculating that Chip Cravaack opposed the new terminal project at Duluth International Airport, most likely because special interest groups speculated that he'd oppose that project because he opposes the proposed Northern Lights Express passenger train.
Thanks to this Duluth News Tribune article , we now know that Chip Cravaack thinks that the Duluth International Airport terminal project should be funded:
'When I met him at the front door of the terminal, he walked in and he said, ~Brian, we need a strong airport and the terminal is a big part of it and this is a good project,' ~ Ryks said.
Ryks noted that the terminal received no funding through congressional earmarks.
'It was a project that was justified based on the merits of the project,~ Ryks said. 'I think once Congressman-elect Cravaack found more out about it, he certainly felt it was a very viable project.~
I've talked with Chip Cravaack multiple times over the past few months. I was the first media person that predicted he'd defeat Rep. Oberstar, before Tom Scheck, Esme Murphy, Pat Kessler, Mary Lahammer or Tom Hauser made that prediction.
When Congressman-Elect Cravaack asked questions about the need for that terminal project, it was simply to show he'd evaluate projects on the merits. It wasn't an indication that he opposed that specific project.
During his interview with Eric Eskola and Cathy Wurzer on Almanac last night, Congressman-Elect Cravaack reaffirmed his commitment to getting that project funded, saying that it's important for airport security purposes, among other considerations.
For people who haven't gotten a fix on Congressman-Elect Cravaack, I'll simply tell them that it's wise to not hear what he didn't say. Some people on the DNT's editorial page speculated that he opposed the airport project because he opposed the passenger train project. Besides being faulty logic, it's supposing something that wasn't said or even hinted at.
Congressman-Elect Cravaack opposes the passenger train project because a) it isn't a need in his opinion, b) it's something that won't sustain itself financially and c) it'd require substantial government subsidies to keep it in operation.
That's foolish prioritizing, especially at a time when the federal government is drowning in red ink.
Chip Cravaack is different from Jim Oberstar in a positive way. Congressman-Elect Cravaack will protect taxpayers' pocketbooks whereas Oberstar was most concerned with bringing home the bacon, especially for projects of questionable importance. (Think bike trails.)
It's already apparent that Cravaack is paying more attention to PolyMet's needs than Oberstar did over the past 4 years. The people of CD-8 will notice the difference between Chip Cravaack and Jim Oberstar.
In fact, I suspect that they'll appreciate Chip's willingness to listen to them and his protecting their wallets.
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 11:28 AM
No comments.
Making Too Much of a Moment?
For almost 2 weeks, Charles Krauthammer has been talking about how President Obama got the best of the GOP on extending the Bush tax rates. For almost 2 weeks, I've been arguing that he's making too much of the incident.
Charles has been talking about how President Obama got a second stimulus passed. First, I disagree that it's a stimulus plan. Second, it isn't like the first stimulus worked all that well. Let's remember that ARRA actually contributed to President Obama's dropping poll ratings. Third, it isn't like the fundamentals of Obamanomics will lead to long-term growth.
Let's admit that extending the Bush tax rates simply prevented a second economic disaster from happening. It isn't that keeping the tax rates the same for another 2 years is suddenly going to instill a new burst of consumer confidence.
This morning, on FNS, Kevin Madden made a great point, saying that it's important that we not mistake a moment with a trend. What happens to President Obama's moderate image when Paul Ryan puts a massive list of specific budget cuts on Harry Reid's desk and it dies there?
It's important to understand that Ryan won't just let those cuts die quietly in the Senate. He'll push them. If President Obama sits on his hands instead of pushing for spending cuts, he'll be exposed.
Ditto when House Republicans defund unpopular parts of Obamacare. That'll just remind people of how the Democrats shoved Obamacare down our throats against our will. That's what drove independents away from Obama.
Charles is heaping tons of praise on President Obama for a singular moment. He isn't considering what happens when the moment disappears. That isn't the brightest analysis I've seen from Mr. Krauthammer.
I hope Mr. Krauthammer wakes up quickly.
Posted Sunday, December 19, 2010 3:15 PM
No comments.
Targeting Cravaack Might Backfire on DCCC
Based on what I've learned about Chip Cravaack during the campaign and in this DNT article , I'm thinking that the DCCC's recent announcement that they're targeting Chip Cravaack might backfire on them. Contrary to their stated beliefs , Chip isn't the easy target that they're painting. Here's why I say that:
Cravaack is quick to say he doesn't oppose all spending: Legitimate infrastructure needs have to be addressed. But priorities have to be clear, he said. Too often, money has been spent on the whims of senior members of Congress, he said.
Cravaack divides potential spending into 'needs versus wants,' with 'wants' getting the ax. He applies that to his own district. He had barely won the election when he stirred anger in an interview with the News Tribune by questioning whether projects such as the Northern Lights Express high-speed railroad between Duluth and St. Paul, completion of the new terminal at the Duluth International Airport and extension of the Munger Trail to Duluth's Lakewalk qualified as 'needs.'
But Cravaack won't say he favors an absolute ban on earmarks.
"For the last five years we've been trying to find out what the definition of the earmark is," he said. 'That's the issue. There is no definition of an earmark. "It's the process itself that I'm rallying against."
I'm betting that setting intelligent priorities will play well with most of the voters in MN-8. Alot of the district is rural, with another large part of the district being exurban. There's also a substantial number of more conservative liberals in the district, too.
The storyline in Minnesota was that the only thing keeping MN-8 in DFL hands was Oberstar. Little did we know that Oberstar's votes on Obamacare and Cap and Tax would get him fired.
To Oberstar's most loyal supporters, the thought that their new representative would set spending priorities must shock them. They're likely the most vocal protesters against Chip Cravaack. I suspect that most of the other people in MN-8 think Chip's approach makes sense.
In the end, that's why Chip Cravaack will be difficult to defeat in 2012.
Posted Monday, December 20, 2010 12:18 PM
No comments.
Anti-Earmark Hysteria Sweeping The GOP?
I didn't know this but after reading this post on TPM, I'm informed that an anti-earmark hysteria is sweeping through the GOP in DC. If TPM is declaring it, then it must be true.
After all, it isn't like TPMDC is some far left, Soros-funded, distribute-the-wealth website that used to accept everything that proceeded from President Obama's or Speaker Pelosi's mouth as gospel fact.
On second though, I'd better retract those opening paragraphs.
Here's TPM's declaration:
"if you look at non-security, then it's about $88 billion, or about 20 percent below what's in the omnibus [spending bill]," says Jim Horney, a fiscal policy expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. The omnibus spending bill, which would have funded the federal government through September 2011, died in the Senate last week, a victim of the anti-earmark hysteria that's overcome the GOP.
I would've sworn that Thad Cochran and Roger Wicker piled tons of earmarks into last week's defeated omnibus spending bill. I must've gotten that wrong.
The basis for TPM's diatribe is the House GOP's reiteration that they intend on following through on significant budget cuts:
This week, Congress is expected to continue funding the government at current levels through early March, at which point a newly Republican House of Representatives will get to take an axe to the federal budget. Naturally, they're promising dramatic cuts in non-defense spending.
"I don't know what's going to happen here today, or tomorrow, or Sunday in terms of how we keep the government funded," said soon-to-be House Speaker John Boehner at his weekly press conference last week. "But what I can tell you is all you have to do is go to the Pledge to America and we outline pretty...clearly that we believe that spending at '08 levels is more than sufficient to run the government."
One of the line items that the House GOP plans on not including in the omnibus is the $1,000,000,000 in funding for implementing Obamacare. With the GOP being unwilling to implement Obamacare and with public opinion consistently saying they favor repeal of Obamacare, the likelihood of that being defunded appears to be strong.
The midterms proved that there's a great hunger for getting spending under control. Starting today, I'll start refering to this midterm as the election where voters said they wanted the deficits brought under control by Congress cutting spending.
At one of the presidential debates, then-Sen. Obama said that there was a need to cut spending but not with a cleaver "but with a scalpel." After the Obama/Pelosi/Reid spending binge, I'd argue that it's time to get out the meat cleavers because spending increased at unsustainable rates.
This wasn't just a matter of degrees in spending. This was a spending binge of historic proportions. This isn't something where a little trimming around the edges will fix things. This is the type of spending binge where eliminating spending increases from 2009-2010 are perfectly in order.
I wrote in this post about the Heritage Foundation's spending cuts. Based on the descriptions of what's being cut, I'd argue that cutting these items would barely be noticed by the general public.
It's time that the Democrats realized that a) this election's message was that they spent way too much money in way too short a period of time and b) this is the start of the sane reaction to their spending overreaction.
In short, it's time that Democrats got over it.
Posted Monday, December 20, 2010 2:45 PM
No comments.
What Happens When The Money Dries Up?
Peter Nelson's op-ed about the early opt-in for Early MA raises a number of interesting questions, some dealing with its constitutionality, some dealing with its economic wisdom. I have additional questions. First, let's start with Nelson's constitutional questions:
First, the statute that allows Dayton to expand Medicaid is probably unconstitutional. Second, rolling GAMC into the state's Medicaid program effectively reinstates the old GAMC program, with all its shortcomings.
The Minnesota Constitution divides power between the legislative, executive and judicial branches and requires that these powers remain separate.
The Legislature is given the power to enact laws. Giving the next governor the power and discretion to expand Medicaid through an executive order effectively delegates the power to enact a law, which violates the separation-of-powers requirement.
Yes, the division of powers is not always clear. There are certainly instances in which the Legislature can delegate authority to the executive, and the distinction between proper and improper delegation can be hazy.
But there is no haziness here.
The Legislature essentially gave away its authority to settle whether Medicaid expansion became Minnesota law, a clearly improper delegation. The Legislature and governor cannot delegate their power and responsibility to settle tough issues.
I'm not an authority on Minnesota's Constitution but Nelson's arguments seem reasonable. I'll leave those arguments to the legal scholars. That said, I'll cheerily take on the economic arguments:
The problem with expanding Medicaid in this way is that it abandons our efforts to redesign GAMC and reinstates the old program's payment system.
Like Medicaid, the old GAMC program paid providers for treatment delivered to an uninsured patient if the patient enrolled in GAMC soon after.
Consequently, providers were paid to sit back and wait for people to show up at the emergency room or wherever. Paying providers to do so is both bad for the budget and bad for the impoverished Minnesotans who need timely and coordinated care.
In other words, early enrollment in Early MA is the undoing of the reforms negotiated by Matt Dean and Erin Murphy . Earlier this afternoon, I contacted some area legislators for their opinion on accepting early enrollment in Early MA. Here's Rep. Steve Gottwalt's reaction:
"It's more of the same: Grabbing federal dollars with significant strings attached when we have no assurance those funds will continue beyond a certain point. Making promises we cannot keep with money we do not have.
Instead of reforming our systems to put them on more sustainable footing, it's just more cash to continue the same tax-and-spend approach that got us into this mess. We need to wean ourselves from addiction to federal deficit dollars and make promises we can keep with the money we've got!"
We've seen the destruction to our economy that's been caused by overspending, refusing to change our spending habits when warning signs appear and, frankly, doing things the way they've always been done out of subbornness. (Think Linda Berglin.)
We can't afford not to think about the best way to do things. We can't, as Rep. Gottwalt says, keep looking for the federal government to bail the states out. They're in worse shape than we're in.
Thankfully, we've dispatched some legislators who didn't change their spending mentality. Witness this tweet :
Sen. Kubly says early MA is good for our rural hospitals...I agree wholeheartedly!!
I never got a response from soon-to-be-former Rep. Junhke when I asked what happened if the funds dried up after 2014, which is what they're scheduled to do.
WARNING: Remember this 'grab the one-time money while we can' episode the next time the DFL whines about structural deficits. This time, the structural deficit was created by the DFL's preference for one-time money to pay for existing, outdated programs over reforming those outdated programs with ideas that save money in the 21st Century.
Why shouldn't conservatives and thoughtful independents demand that our legislators, whether they're located in Washington, DC (that stands for District of Corruption) or in St. Paul, MN? Shouldn't we demand that these public servants spend our money wisely and in limited amounts?
It's time to retire the politicians who whine about structural deficits after they've created these structural deficits. Good riddance.
Posted Monday, December 20, 2010 5:05 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 21-Dec-10 07:48 AM
Gary:
Part of the problem is that Democrats don't know that money dries up or they think they can go out and tax for it with no problems.
Not to mention they under estitimate the demands on the program.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Proof That Liberals Need a Sense of Humor
If people needed proof that liberals need a sense of humor, or perhaps a mass infusion of common sense, this LTE should settle things once and for all. Here's what I'm reacting to:
Campaign finance reports reveal that U.S. Rep.-elect Chip Cravaack received nearly $7,000 in campaign contributions from individuals associated with Tobie's Restaurants in Hinckley, Minn., his largest single source of campaign funding. Perhaps this explains our newly elected congressman's obsessive opposition to high-speed rail service between Duluth and the Twin Cities, as well as his initial skepticism about the new passenger terminal at the Duluth International Airport.I've been to Tobie's tons of times. I've heard political conversations in their restaurant most of those times. It's laughable to think of Tobie's as a hotbed of support for conservatives.
And here I thought Tea Party Republicans were supposed to be free of entanglements with special interests.
Be that as it may, the reality is that Chip's stated multiple times that he doesn't support the rail service between the Twin Cities and Duluth because it'd require massive government subsidies, not to mention the fact that it isn't clear that it'd have consistent ridership.
The train might be a quaint idea but it's anything but important. It isn't a need, which is the criteria that Chip Cravaack has told voter after voter by which he'll base his votes.
The person who wrote this LTE isn't a serious person. Either that or she's a DFL shill whose sole responsibility with this LTE is to sound like she knows something about the TEA Party movement. She clearly doesn't have a clue what it's about.
Posted Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:51 AM
No comments.
Thanx Byron
Thanks to Byron York's Washington Examiner article , I have additional vindication for this post . In my post, I called Politifact.com Politifiction. York approaches things more systematically:
The fact-checking analysis was done by an organization called PolitiFact.com. The group recently cited as "Lie of the Year" the charge that Obamacare represents "a government takeover of health care." Writes PolitiFact: "As Republicans smelled serious opportunity in the midterm elections, they didn't let facts get in the way of a great punchline."
PolitiFact says the charge is false because it "conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees." But that's not even true in much of Europe. And imposing draconian new regulations on the health care industry, creating "exchanges" that tightly control the sale of health coverage, fining people who don't purchase coverage, and dictating to insurance companies what they may and may not charge, if that's not a government takeover of health care, it's certainly in the ballpark.
And besides, if the Republican charge is a lie, then what is this: "If you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period. No one will take it away, no matter what." That promise, now partially retracted, was made by Barack Obama in June 2009, and repeated many times.
That's hilarious. Politifiction can't even get its basic facts straight? "In much of Europe", health care workers aren't public employees, as Politifiction suggests. How could they not get that basic fact right?
What Politifiction isn't mentioning is that it's a takeover by the federal government because of the huge increase in the government telling private companies what they can and can't do, what they must do. I'd love hearing Politifiction's explanation of how it isn't a government takeover when the government dictates what must be done and what can't be done and how it's to be priced and what prices are excessive.
That's before mentioning what coverages must be included in the insurance policies and before telling the insurance companies that they have to charge high risk patients the same low prices as low risk patients.
What part of those regulations doesn't constitute a takeover of the health insurance industry? It's insulting that Politifiction has tried peddling their explanation off as fact.
Like typical liberals, Politifiction is talking to the American people like we're a bunch of 8-yr-olds. That might've worked years ago but that won't work anymore.
Posted Tuesday, December 21, 2010 2:52 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Dec-10 09:49 AM
That's another in a long line of classic "distinction without a difference" arguments of which the left is so fond. They accuse conservatives of "lying" because we use plain words rather than haughty obfuscations.
FCC Ignores Net Neutrality Ruling
When Julius Genachowski's FCC board voted to regulate the internet, it did so without regard for a federal court's ruling that the FCC didn't have the authority to regulate the internet . Here's what the AP is reporting on the FCC's attempted powergrab:
A federal court threw the future of Internet regulations and U.S. broadband expansion plans into doubt Tuesday with a far-reaching decision that went against the Federal Communications Commission.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ruled that the FCC lacks authority to require broadband providers to give equal treatment to all Internet traffic flowing over their networks. That was a big victory for Comcast Corp., the nation's largest cable company, which had challenged the FCC's authority to impose such "network neutrality" obligations on broadband providers.
The unanimous ruling by the three-judge panel marks a serious setback for the FCC, which is trying to adopt official net neutrality regulations. FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski, a Democrat, argues such rules are needed to prevent phone and cable companies from using their control over Internet access to favor some kinds of online content and services over others.
The D.C. Circuit isn't just another appellate court. It's the second highest court in the land behind SCOTUS. Having the D.C. Circuit rule against him previously obviously didn't mean a thing to Mr. Genachowski. He pushed ahead with today's vote anyway as if he hadn't been chastised by the D.C. Circuit previously.
That's the epitome of arrogance, which should earn Mr. Genachowski a stiff tonguelashing from the D.C. Circuit. I'm certain that they won't appreciate Mr. Genachowski's ignoring their unanimous ruling this past April telling him the FCC's authority didn't extend as far as he'd hoped it would.
The decision also has serious implications for the massive national broadband plan released by the FCC last month. The FCC needs clear authority to regulate broadband in order to push ahead with some its key recommendations, including a proposal to expand broadband by tapping the federal fund that subsidizes telephone service in poor and rural communities.
In a statement, the FCC said it remains "firmly committed to promoting an open Internet and to policies that will bring the enormous benefits of broadband to all Americans" and "will rest these policies on a solid legal foundation."
This isn't about free internet. It's about whether the government regulates the internet or whether the private sector, through vigorous competition, regulates the internet. People don't trust the government, especially this administration, to properly regulate the internet.
It isn't that they trust the private sector, it's that they trust them more than they trust this administration.
DEAL WITH IT!!!
Posted Tuesday, December 21, 2010 5:02 PM
No comments.
The Comeback Kid??? This Isn't a Game
For the past couple weeks, Charles Krauthammer has been absolutely gaga over President Obama's supposed outmaneuvering Republicans in extending what he calls tax cuts.
It's now official. It's ok to say that I'm more than annoyed with Charles's logic. This is some of the most short-sighted punditry I've ever seen. Let's take this step-by-step.
First, let's ask ourselves whether extending President Bush's tax policies and extending the unemployment insurance will have a stimulative effect. At best, the answer is possibly. This isn't a guaranteed boost to the economy by any stretch of the imagination.
Next, let's ask the most important question, which is whether any of these things will create jobs by the 100's of thousands. That's really the thing that voters are worrying about the most. The answer to that question, at least according to the WSJ's Kimberley Strassel.
On last weekend's Journal Editorial Report, aka JER, Ms. Strassel said that extending President Bush's tax policies meant that we'd avoided another recession, that it didn't guarantee a vibrant recovery.
After seeing the unemployment rate at almost 10 percent for 18 months, the American people don't care about clever maneuvering or who got the better of what legislation. They simply want the economy growing again. There's no proof that anything President Obama did last week will get the economy growing at a pace that will significantly lower the unemployment rate. Until that happens, everything President Obama does will be viewed as insignificant.
Finally, we're seeing that President Obama's administration keeps working hard to control our lives, whether it's through net neutrality or through Obamacare. Tuesday, the FCC voted to ignore the DC Circuit's ruling that it doesn't have the authority to regulate the internet, setting up another embarrassing court lost for the Obama administration.
Another in that they got handed a pretty stinging defeat in Virginia when Judge Henry Hudson said that the government didn't have the authority to regulate nonactivity.
When Paul Ryan puts a substantial list of sensible spending cuts and Dave Camp puts together a sensible plan to reform the tax code and after the House Budget Committee refuses to fund the implementation of Obamacare, people will see that President Obama is still the same radical he's been through the first 23 months of his administration.
When further litigation is brought about Obamacare, people will be reminded that President Obama totally ignored the people and shoved it down our throats anyway. I'll guarantee that that won't play well with independents.
When Republicans put together a serious set of thoughtful spending cuts, the people will be reminded that the Obama administration, with their willing accomplices in the House and Senate, spent like maniacs.
When Republicans propose better health insurance legislation than Obamacare, one that doesn't rely on the government telling people what they must do, one that doesn't tell insurance companies what their prices will be or what things they'll have to cover, the Comeback Kid talk will be silenced.
Krauthammer can talk smart about how Obama got the better of the Republicans because he doesn't have any skin in the game. In fact, to him, it's just a game. To the 15,000,000 people who aren't employed, this isn't a game. In some instances, it's a matter of life and death.
I don't think Mr. Krauthammer is thinking that. It's time he pulled his head out of his backside and started thinking in terms of what's best for America instead of thinking about things in terms of Washington echochamber games.
This isn't a game. And President Obama isn't the Comeback Kid.
Posted Tuesday, December 21, 2010 11:26 PM
No comments.
