December 26-28, 2010
Dec 26 10:46 Legal Seriousness v. Obamacare Dec 26 11:13 Raise Taxes, Kill A State Dec 26 20:53 Administration's Thirst To Control Internet Showing Dec 27 01:41 Counties to Citizens: Tax Hikes For Thee, Pay Raises For Gov't Employees Dec 27 20:44 Minnesota's Budget Battle: DFL Irresponsibility vs. GOP Austerity Dec 28 07:25 Bachmann Suddenly Pro-Earmark? Dec 28 09:37 Think Long Game Initially Dec 28 13:16 Dayton's First Major Mistake? Dec 28 18:36 Attritition, Not Litigation
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Legal Seriousness v. Obamacare
Friday morning, I read three articles expressing significant questions about the constitutionality of Obamacare. I first read Mona Charen's column , followed by Kim Strassel's column and finishing with Thomas McClanahan's op-ed . Here's the opening to Ms. Charen's column:
It was always for our own good. It was always for a very good reason. It was always within the American tradition of this, that, or the other.
That's what they've told us, that's how they've patronized us, for generations, as the long tendrils of the federal government have spread and multiplied into every realm of American life. It had become so utterly unremarkable, this robotic and seemingly inexorable aggrandizement of federal power, that when Speaker Nancy Pelosi was asked, in 2009, where in the Constitution Congress was granted the authority to force people to buy health insurance, she didn't even seem to understand the question. "Are you serious?" she asked. "Are you serious?"
But Judge Henry Hudson (don't you love the historically resonant name?) was very serious when he ruled that the Constitution created a federal government of "enumerated powers," and that limits on those powers have continuing force. He's not only serious, he's cautious and learned. And he represents something we wouldn't necessarily have predicted back in 2008 when a new liberal hegemony was predicted to unfold over the next 25 years, a principled backlash against federal overreach.
Those tea party protesters in their Founders costumes may have looked ridiculous to Pelosi and Harry Reid, but their interest in seemingly antique concepts like limited government is showing up more and more. In just one month, a federal judge has ruled that the Commerce Clause cannot be stretched to cover absolutely everything the Congress wishes to do, and a chorus of limited government voices has noisily protested the Federal Communications Commission's attempt to assert control over the Internet.
I'm told that some liberal ConLaw professors have deemed the Ninth and Tenth Amendments the "Dead Amendments", probably because they think the federal government can or should be all things to all people. It shouldn't and it can't.
Henry Hudson's ruling is reasoned, measured, logical and serious. Compared with soon-to-be-ex-Speaker Pelosi's now infamous "Are you serious" question, the unmistakable image is that of a serious constitutionalist vs. a politician having a snit fit because someone dared challenge her on something she wanted very, very badly.
Put differently, the image is that of a serious constitutionalist vs. a child throwing a temper tantrum.
Which leads to Kim Strassel's column:
The historians will long be fighting over the legislative legacy of the 111th Congress. As to its legal legacy, the only real question is whether this just-finished Democratic Congress was the most unserious in decades, or the most unserious in history.
That much is clear from the recent ObamaCare court proceedings. Federal Judge Henry Hudson, responding to a lawsuit by the state of Virginia, last week struck down the core of the law, the individual mandate. His decision came the same week that a coalition of 20 states presented oral arguments against the health law in front of Florida federal Judge Roger Vinson. In October, Judge Vinson ruled against the Obama Justice Department's motion to dismiss the states' lawsuit.
The law professors and think-tankers and media folk who initially ridiculed these lawsuits have now had to dream up sinister reasons for why they are succeeding. Judges Hudson and Vinson, we are told, were both appointed by Republicans and obviously can't be trusted to fairly interpret the law. Some commentators have gone further, suggesting that we are witnessing a cabal of right-wing activists, lawyers and judges conspiring to kill not just ObamaCare, but the entire New Deal. If only.
I've read Ms. Strassel's columns before. They're serious and measured. It takes alot for her to question whether this Democratic congress's legal legacy "is whether this just-finished Democratic Congress was the most unserious in decades, or the most unserious in history." Still, it's apparent that the 111th Congress and this administration was the most power-hungry bunch to invade DC since LBJ, since FDR or in the history of the Republic. Which of those titles fits best is still debatable but it's one of those three.
Strassel cites the slapdown that Judge Vinson gave the government's lawyers:
Knowing how audacious the commerce-clause theory is, Justice has been trying to argue that the penalty is, in fact...a tax. This has only annoyed Judge Vinson, who is well aware of the history, and in fact rapped the Justice Department for the bait-and-switch.
"Congress should not be permitted to secure and cast politically difficult votes on controversial legislation by deliberately calling something one thing," Judge Vinson wrote in October, "after which the defenders of that legislation take an 'Alice-in-Wonderland' tack and argue in court that Congress really meant something else entirely."
TRANSLATION: Congress can't say something is a penalty in the legislation, then have the DOJ argue that it's a tax.
With that statement, Judge Vinson gave the DOJ a worse reputation than the average forked-tongue attorney. That's a hard slapdown, one which they richly deserve.
Finally, here's Thomas McClanahan's take on the Obama administration's and the 111th Congress's attempted usurpation of power:
The ongoing strikes and riots in Europe, however, represent the long-term risks of the progressive vision, in which government-delivered social benefits are portrayed as personal rights.
No wonder they're rioting in Europe. They believe their personal rights are being violated by budget cuts brought on by the sovereign debt crisis.
Government benefits expressed in this way are known to political scientists as positive rights, which differ from the negative rights with which we're more familiar.
Negative rights generally describe things the government cannot do, take your stuff without due process, stifle your right to express your point of view, lock you up without cause, etc.
Positive rights describe things the government says it will do for you.
A good example was the Second Bill of Rights pushed by President Franklin Roosevelt. Everyone, he said, should have the right "to a useful and remunerative job...to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing...to adequate medical care...to a good education" and more.
The Constitution, to the liberals' gall, is a document with few affirmative things the federal government must do and many things shouldn't do. Ironically, the affirmative responsibilities that the Constitution has given the executive branch are things that progressives and liberals won't do but the things that should be left to the states are things that liberals and progressives want to legislate about.
If it's to be done at all, health care reform should be done at the state level. Education shouldn't be a federal issue, either. Because it involves federal land, energy should be a federal issue.
To progressives like Pelosi, Obama and Reid, everything should be a federal responsibility. The Constitution and strict constructionist judges strenuously disagree.
There's a definite swing against the loose interpretation of the Interstate Commerce Clause. For years, liberals used the ICC to justify every questionable action. Thanks to the judicial picks of President Bush and President Reagan, they're now saying 'No More!!!'
The final test will be whether Justice Kennedy says 'No More!!!' too. He's this court's swing vote. The good news is that he isn't nearly as unreliable as Justice O'Connor.
The bottom line is this: What progressives like Pelosi previously laughed at, they're now forced to take seriously. Hopefully, that'll also include the SCOTUS shooting down this constitutional mess of a bill.
Posted Sunday, December 26, 2010 10:46 AM
No comments.
Raise Taxes, Kill A State
I wrote here that Mark Dayton is still pushing his tax-the-rich scheme, something that Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch has shut the door on . Based on the census results, Dick Morris thinks raising taxes is a foolish thing :
High taxes kill states. There can be no better evidence than the 2010 Census. The states that lost House seats, because they're shrinking, relative to the nation, had taxes 27 percent higher than the ones that gained seats.
Of the seven states that don't have a personal income tax, four (Texas, Florida, Nevada and Washington) account for eight of the 12 seats apportioned to the fastest-growing states.
New York and Ohio lost two more seats. Other losers, down one each, are Massachusetts, Missouri, Michigan, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, Louisiana and Iowa. What do they all have in common? High taxes.
Texas, with the second lowest taxes in the nation, gained four seats, Florida picked up two and Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina, Utah, and Washington state each gained one. All have low taxes.
The states that lost seats ranked an average of 24th in taxes and had an average tax burden of $2,267 per capita (weighted more toward the states that lost more than one seat).
The states that gained seats ranked an average of 39th in taxes and had an average tax burden (weighted) of $1,788, 27 percent lower than the losing states.
People vote with their feet and flee to low-tax states. It's not the climate; it's the taxes.
Minnesota barely missed losing a seat. If Minnesota's tax climate doesn't improve in the next decade, we'll lose the seat then. It doesn't take rocket science to figure that out.
What these statistics prove is that people vote with their feet, that they'll abandon states that aren't competitive taxwise.
In 1980, Ronald Reagan won New York, gaining its 41 electoral votes. In 2012, New York will have 30 electoral votes. People aren't just leaving New York. They're fleeing it like they're selling toxic waste door-to-door.
In 1980, Texas had 26 electoral votes . In 2012, it'll have 38 . People aren't just flocking to Texas. They're fleeing other states for it like gold grew on trees. They've gained an average of 3 electoral votes per census, roughly the same as New York has lost.
Consider Buffalo. From half a million people in 1960, it has fallen to a quarter of a million. It's lost half its population in 50 years.
Thanks to New York's liberal policies, it's killing itself. Within another 2 decades, they'll be like the NY Times: still with a great worldwide reputation but teetering on the brink of collapse.
If Minnesota wants to follow New York's path to economic destruction, it just needs to enact Mark Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme. Thankfully, Sen. Koch and Speaker Zellers will prevent that.
Posted Sunday, December 26, 2010 11:13 AM
No comments.
Administration's Thirst To Control Internet Showing
This administration is perhaps the most control-freakish administration since the Nixon administration. Thanks to Jonathan Gurvitz's illuminating column , we can see the FCC's naked attempt to control the internet:
So what's wrong with the Internet? According to FCC Commissioner Michael Copps, 'It may be dying because entrenched interests are positioning themselves to control the Internet's choke points.' That was Copps' prediction in 2003, one year before Facebook was launched, two years before some former employees of PayPal, another Internet success story, started YouTube, and three years before Amazon began offering cloud computing services.
If the last decade is an indication of what Internet necrosis and choke points look like, then by all means, let's have more of them. Yet in his statement concurring with the decision to regulate the Internet, Copps, who is still an FCC commissioner, writes unashamedly that his 2003 warning was issued 'somewhat dramatically perhaps, but not inaccurately.'
That's chutzpah personified. Copps is embarrassingly wrong but he insists that his 2003 warning wasn't inaccurate. How can he say that with a straight face? From a different perspective, let's consider the possibility that an honest person couldn't make that type of statement.
This afternoon, I used Twitter, which didn't exist when Copps made his statement, to ask Jeff Jarvis, one of the smarter people on the internet, what he thought of net neutrality. Here's Jeff's reply :
Cheap smartphones make the FCC's net unneutrality all the more offensive: The future is unprotected.
He followed that tweet up with this tweet :
Fortune: 500m smartphones sold in 2011; will eclipse PCs as way most get on internet: http://bit.ly/dHGG87
I think we're at that point where we can emphatically state that net neutrality is utterly unnecessary. Further, we can state that the FCC's rulemaking isn't about diversifying the internet. It's about this administration attempting to control the internet. This question lays it out perfectly:
Net neutrality is anything but neutral. It takes the operation of the Internet away from the heterogeneous and diversified interests of the private sector that has created it and concentrates it in the hands of an unelected and unaccountable board of political appointees atop a federal bureaucracy. Does that sound like a recipe for continued innovation?
The best way to crush innovation is to put it in the hands of political appointees. When's the last time the government thought of the next Fedex, the next Microsoft? Try NEVER.
This administration is littered with people who want to control communications in general and the internet in specific. Fortunately, the courts and this Republican House will put the kibosh on their attempts.
Posted Sunday, December 26, 2010 8:53 PM
Comment 1 by Bill C at 26-Dec-10 11:41 PM
[i]How can he say that with a straight face?[/i]
Megalomaniacal power grabbing people say all sorts of blatant falsehoods with a straight face all the time. Given that they spit into the face of federal judiciary by releasing this "plan", I think the only hope we have is if congress stays a (R) majority, the senate swings (R) so we can get some laws passed about NEVER restricting the net, and a conservative gets elected president in 2012 to actually sign those laws.
Counties to Citizens: Tax Hikes For Thee, Pay Raises For Gov't Employees
This LTE explains something that will infuriate every Minnesotan. Here's what's got me furious:
I read with amazement the Dec. 15 Times report that the Stearns County commissioners have put the county attorney, sheriff, auditor-treasurer and recorder positions on the county's salary grid. This means that the county attorney will get an increase of $13,444; the sheriff an increase of $16,829 ; auditor-treasurer $6,480 and the recorder $4,904 by July!
This is being done while many people are unemployed, facing foreclosure and generally struggling to make a living in this very difficult time.
The DFL whines all the time that we need to take a balanced approach to balancing the budget, that it can't be done by cutting alone. I've never bought that myth because government employees are paid too much and/or there are too many government employees. That's before we start talking about the pensions they're paid and/or their retiring only to get rehired to the same jobs while collecting their pension .
Before some whiney liberal starts yapping that this is happening at the county level, I'll simply remind them that these exhorbitant pay raises increase property taxes all across Minnesota. While these exhorbitant pay raises happen quietly, the DFL whines that the 'no-new-taxes-crowd' is responsible for LGA cuts and higher property taxes.
The reality is that pensions for school administrators, county employees and the like drive up property taxes far more than living within our means ever could.
Blaming the 'no-new-taxes-crowd' for property tax increases is just the DFL's spin designed to protect their cronies' salaries.
How can these people expect a $16,000 pay raise when the people paying their salaries are taking pay cuts or getting laid off? That's the personification of insensitivity.
It's time we stopped growing government and started living within our means. There's no other way we'll get Minnesota's budget mess under control.
Growing government just produces more government. Limiting government produces growing economies, which will generate the revenues needed to pay for our needs.
Limiting government is the solution to our structural deficits. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme is nothing but class envy mixed with a heavy dose of DFL mythology.
Posted Monday, December 27, 2010 1:41 AM
No comments.
Minnesota's Budget Battle: DFL Irresponsibility vs. GOP Austerity
Mark Dayton and the DFL have told us we're facing "a $6.2 billion deficit" and that "the rich" aren't paying their fair share. It's time we looked at this through an historical perspective.
According to this MMB pdf file , Minnesota's biennial budget passed in 2007 was $32,637,644,000. Actually, it was more than that originally but it was reduced by unallotments agreed to by Gov. Pawlenty and the DFL legislature when it became obvious Minnesota's revenues were shrinking. The original budget bills signed by Gov. Pawlenty called for spending $34,500,000,000.
For there to be a $6.2 billion deficit this biennium, the state general fund budget would have to approach $39,000,000,000. This biennium, we're scheduled to spend $30,700,000,000. (That's before factoring in the education shifts.)
To reach $39,000,000,000 in spending this biennium, they'd need to increase spending by upwards of 20 percent. In this economy, Dayton and the DFL want to increase government spending by 20+ percent. Are they nuts? That's insanity or, at minimum, the height of irresponsibility.
In fact, Minnesota is projected to have almost $33,000,000,000 in revenues this biennium. That means the deficit comes almost entirely from department-by-department spending increases. Those spending increases total almost $6,000,000,000 or over 20 percent.
In this economy, no sane person can justify that type of spending increase. The truth is that it'd be almost impossible to justify that type of spending increase if our economy was creating wealth and prosperity in unprecedented fashion.
Thankfully, there's reform-minded, fiscally responsible GOP majorities in the both houses of the Minnesota legislature. They'll keep spending under control, thanks in large part to the implementation of cost-saving reforms that could've been passed during the DFL's reign of failure.
Yes, their time in the majority is a major failure. They took a $2.2 billion surplus & turned it into back-to-back $6.4 billion & $6.2 billion deficits. They did that because they rejected common sense, cost-saving reforms that the GOP offered.
That's why voters rejected them this past November. That's why Gov. Dayton will be confused and frustrated this year. I'm betting that he isn't prepared for the magnitude of reforms he'll face.
This should be a good year for the House and Senate GOP. They'll be able to showcase all the great reforms that the DFL bottled up the last 4 years. That means that the Agenda Media's credibility will be demolished if they argue that Republicans are just the party of no.
Realistically speaking, it's more likely that they'll be honestly called the Ideas Party. That's how to win independents and elections.
Posted Monday, December 27, 2010 8:44 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Dec-10 06:18 AM
The DFL had a balanced budget.
Pawlenty vetoed half of it.
Then he did that unallotment crookedness that the Courts slapped down as wrong.
Now he is out, but the legislature will be the problem.
We are very very fortunate that Dayton won. At least there will be a sound executive for a change.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Dec-10 10:16 AM
Actually, they didn't. I wrote about that in a number of posts. The last budget they passed in 2009 had a $20,000 surplus thanks to the DFL's copying many of the Pawlenty cost shifts. A month later, the Dept. of Revenue said that their revenue projections had dropped & that they were now facing a 6-figure deficit.
As for Dayton, he'll get his clock cleaned. He's an idiot who's never had to work for a living. His campaign budgets were a total joke, falling billions of dollars short of balancing the budget. Now he's rumored to be interested in nominating an environmental extremist to be the MPCA Commissioner. A guy who's led the fight to kill thousands of jobs through litigation (attrition?)
The DFL best brace for a bad 2012 cycle. Victories will be scarce.
Bachmann Suddenly Pro-Earmark?
In this editorial , the St. Cloud appears to pose the question of whether Michele Bachmann is pro-earmark. They suggest that she's starting to sound like a corrupt, old-fashioned politician:
Wait. Hold onto your saucer. Upon discovering her district has some transportation needs, she now says she wants to 'redefine' congressional earmarks, something she has advocated against? That sounds disturbingly like an old-fashioned Washington politician.
It's important that people get an accurate perspective on Michele's position on earmarks. I published Michele's position on earmarks in this post :
Like you, the status of the DeSoto Bridge repairs is very important to me. There are few arteries or bridges more vital to the St. Cloud area. Regrettably, it's critical projects just like this that are shortchanged most by rampant pork barrel spending in Washington.
That's why I've taken a pledge to not take any earmarks this year while working with my colleagues from both sides of the aisle who are determined to reform the earmarking system. It is our hope to replace a system of backroom backscratching with one in which projects are judged on merit and each of your tax dollars is spent wisely on real priorities.
In my first year in the Congress, I requested local earmarks for my district and was fortunate to secure funding for important local projects, including $803,600 for St. Cloud Metro Bus. I was able to stand confidently by each and every earmark request made, knowing they could stand on their merits withstand public scrutiny. Not all my colleagues could say that. Some sought millions of dollars in funding for golf programs, Christmas tree gift shops and the like.
In other words, Michele's opposed to the corruption practiced by porkmeisters like the late John Murtha or the vanquished Jim Oberstar. Their type of earmarking was based on buying off votes or helping friends get re-elected, not on the basis of what's a priority.
Why would Michele support Oberstar- or Murtha-style corruption?
This isn't news, at least to those who read this blog. I wrote that post in May, 2008. That's 32 months ago. Had the Times read my post, they would've known Michele's position on earmarks. They wouldn't have made the mistatement they made.
The TEA Party movement and organizations like the Club for Growth are worried about earmarks, partially for the corruption that's involved but mostly they're worried about the air-dropped earmarks that get dropped into a conference report that gets either an up or down vote.
Air-dropped earmarks aren't debated in committee mark-ups of bills or are rejected in committee because the projects are deemed unworthy. Until recently, the earmarks' authors weren't revealed. The system is improving but it's still far from perfect.
Many of the air-dropped earmarks are put in ahead of requests for DeSoto Bridge-type projects to secure votes for passage. That's what Michele is fighting against.
The SCTimes editorial board needs to do better research if they're going to write provocative things about Michele. Why should it be left to me to correct their editorials?
Posted Tuesday, December 28, 2010 7:25 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Dec-10 06:15 AM
Plain and simple.
A hypocrite.
Many already knew that, and more will come to see it.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Dec-10 10:20 AM
It's interesting that you say a straightforward explanation is proof of Michele being a hypocrite. Just to be helpful, here's the definition of hypocrite:
a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.Please state specifically what desirable or public approved attitude Michele is faking.
Think Long Game Initially
Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson isn't one of the brighter bulbs in the progressive media's chandelier. Still, I'd hoped he'd gotten better with his observations and opinions than he shows in this column . Here's what I'm referring to:
I don't want to overstate the Republicans' predicament. They did, after all, take control of the House and win six more seats in the Senate. But during the lame-duck session, it seemed to dawn on GOP leaders that they begin the new Congress burdened with great expectations, but lacking commensurate power. It's going to be a challenge for Republicans just to maintain party unity, much less enact the kind of conservative agenda they promised to their enthusiastic, impatient voters.
It's easy to see Robinson's bias in that paragraph. Like most progressives, he's resorted to talking down to the readers. NOTE TO MR. ROBINSON: We know that we won't undo all the destructive policies that the 111th Congress established. We couldn't even if we would've won back control of the Senate, too.
That doesn't mean TEA Party Republicans aren't committed to getting rid of most of the destructive policies the Democrats put in place. It's just that they know they'll need to take the incremental approach to this endeavor.
Barring something unexpected happening, Obamacare won't be disappearing in the next 2 years. We won't be able to undo all of the reckless spending that the Obama/Pelosi/Reid trio enacted. That said, we can certainly put alot of dents in the 'Obamamobile'.
Let's start with hearings on Obamacare. Let's ask Kathleen Sebelius about the $670,000,000,000 worth of tax increases that will go into effect at midnight, Jan. 01, 2011. Let's ask her about the new rule she's trying to implement . Let's pin her down on what this financial incentive on end-of-life counseling involves.
Let's ask Eric Holder why he withdrew the NBPP case after the DOJ won it.
Most importantly, though, let's get Paul Ryan, Dave Camp and others working on putting a more appealing set of policies together that will put America's economy on the pathway to prosperity and fiscal sanity.
It's important that Republicans take a two-track approach to this. The minute that Republicans start conducting oversight hearings, it's guaranteed that Democrats and the Democrats' shills in the media will start whining that Republicans don't want to govern, that they really only want to conduct partisan witch hunts.
That's why having Ryan and Co. working on their reform agenda is vital. When the Democrats and their media shills whine about the partisan witch hunts, Republicans can instantly point to the reforms that Ryan, Camp and others are working on.
That's how you discredit the media and the Democrats.
Bit by bit, these hearings and these reforms will change the debate in DC and across the nation. With the TEA Party's amplification, we'll be able to tell the story on what's getting accomplished.
There will be times when we won't get everything we want, though, simply because President Obama will push back. That's ok because putting a healthy-sized dent in Obamacare is a positive thing as long we aren't satisfied with just putting a dent in it.
The eventual goal must be to put Obamacare in the outsized junkyard of failed progressive ideas.
Conservatives are smart enough to know that we won't get everything done overnight, Mr. Robinson, so don't worry yourself about the fracturing of the GOP. It ain't happening anytime soon.
Posted Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:41 AM
No comments.
Dayton's First Major Mistake?
A devoted reader of this blog just contacted me with information, saying that Dayton might be in the process of making a major mistake with one of his appointments.
I'm still working the information and my contacts for more on this but I wanted to tip people to this development. If what I've heard is true, and this source is very reliable, I can confidently say that this appointment would instantly undercut Dayton's credibility.
What I can tell you is that this potential appointee isn't a friend of agriculture and he isn't a friend of business. This appointee would be, to no one's surprise, appointed to one of the environmental regulatory agencies.
I'll further tell you without hesitation that this appointee would be a major mistake on Dayton's behalf and would hurt his public image from the start.
UPDATE: I've now confirmed that Dayton is thinking of appointing Paul Aasen of the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy to be the commissioner of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Here's what caught my attention about Aasen's current organization :
The Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy is the legal and scientific voice protecting and defending Minnesota's environment. We work in the courts, the legislature and state agencies using science and policy to develop, communicate and implement environmental change.
A brief google search brought me to this tasty tidbit of information :
It appears that MCEA is in the environmental litigation industry. I can't picture Aasen getting confirmed in the Senate.
Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and two other organizations filed suit recently against the U.S. Forest Service for its travel management plan, which would add new roads and trails in northern Minnesota's Superior National Forest.
The suit in U.S. District Court, which also was brought by the Sierra Club and Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness, challenges the government's plan which would add more than 140 miles of roads to the forest's official road system. Many of the new roads are old logging skid trails never meant to be permanent and which should have been reforested.
Some of the roads would skirt the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness, contribute to unwanted noise and threaten the habitat of the Canada Lynx and the gray wolf, among other species, according to the lawsuit.
'Adding 142 more miles of roads to the already heavily-roaded Superior National Forest threatens wildlife and degrades wildlife habitat,' said MCEA attorney Matt Norton. 'Residents and visitors want a natural experience and quiet when they're in the woods, especially in the Boundary Waters Wilderness."
Posted Tuesday, December 28, 2010 1:31 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Dec-10 06:10 AM
This is a good sign. Polymet will not get a free ticket to be a bad citizen if there's a good sheriff in town.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Dec-10 10:24 AM
Free ticket??? Are you nuts??? PolyMet has invested millions of $$$ in studies already. That's before tacking on the costs of fighting this attrition factory in courts. Aasen isn't a good sheriff. He's more like a well-funded bank heist man. He's a strong believer in killing things he doesn't like through attrition & strong-armed threats. If that's your definition of a good sheriff, I'm thankful you aren't picking sheriffs.
Comment 2 by The Lady Logician at 29-Dec-10 02:22 PM
"Polymet will not get a free ticket to be a bad citizen if there's a good sheriff in town."
Polymet won't get a chance to do ANYTHING with this guy at the helm. Kiss any economic development in the North Woods good bye! No one will be able to do ANYTHING - except maybe move to Superior - with this guy in charge!
LL
Comment 3 by G at 07-Jan-11 08:32 PM
Aasen, is one of the best appointee's, and Marks doing a great job with the rest too. It's about time we get someone in the MPCA that will make sure polluting industries are folowing the laws. The current MPCA has been sleeping with industry for far too long, way to go Mark.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Jan-11 10:35 PM
Aasen is an ideologically-driven job-killing machine. His goal isn't to prevent pollution. It's to kill jobs. PERIOD. When MCEA's attorneys filed lawsuit after lawsuit after lawsuit year after year after year until the Big Stone II power plant collapses, there's only a couple conclusions: that Aasen doesn't care about having cheap energy & that he sees his mission to kill jobs that don't fit into his preferred list of industries.
This proves that Gov. Dayton is an extremist who isn't serious about creating jobs. He can stomp his feet if he'd like. He can throw the biggest temper tantrum in gubernatorial history but this extremist won't be confirmed.
Attritition, Not Litigation
Earlier this afternoon, I wrote that Gov.-Elect Dayton was thinking about nominating Paul Aasen to be the next commissioner of the MPCA . Since that post, I've had time to do a little digging into who Paul Aasen is and what he's been involved with. One thing I've learned is that he co-authored an op-ed with Michael Noble that ran in the Strib on Sept. 16, 2009.
Here's a telling part of their op-ed :
Along with our allies at the Izaak Walton League of America, the Union of Concerned Scientists and Wind on the Wires, the Minnesota Center for Environmental Advocacy and Fresh Energy argued, first in South Dakota, then before the Minnesota Public Utilities Commission (PUC), that the new plant was a bad idea. Our message was simple: The utilities had not proven the need for the energy, and what energy they did need could be acquired less expensively through energy efficiency and wind.
We kept losing , but a funny thing happened. With each passing year , it became clearer that we were right. In 2007, two of the Minnesota utilities dropped out, citing some of the same points we had been making. The remaining utilities had to go through the process again with a scaled-down 580-megawatt plant.
This time around, the administrative law judge ruled in our favor, saying the utilities had proven the need for, at most, 160 megawatts and had failed to prove that coal would be the least expensive way of providing the electricity. The Minnesota PUC approved the transmission lines into Minnesota, and we filed an appeal that is pending with the Minnesota Court of Appeals.
These words should put a chill in every sane Minnesotan's mind: "We kept losing but a funny thing happened."
My first question is who's funding Aasen's litigation organization? It takes tons of money to litigate this type of case. There's lawyers to pay, court costs, research costs, just to mention a few of the many costs.
Another question I've got is what Al Junhke, Tom Bakk and the construction unions think. Does Junhke like the attrition litigation against agribusinesses in his district? Does Sen. Bakk like the lawsuits filed against logging companies and mining companies up in the Arrowhead?
Do the construction unions get upset that MCEA has cost them construction jobs on the Iron Range and on Big Stone II?
Was MCEA funded by people who have made big investments in green energy businesses? Or in Cap-And-Trade futures markets?
Most importantly, would Aasen be hostile to companies that would upset the green energy business model?
Aasen's track record with MCEA has proven to be more hostile towards businesses than collaborative. At a time when the legislature and the executive branch should be putting in place policies that create jobs, Aasen's nomination would send a terrible signal to the legislature and to Minnesota that a Dayton administration would be hostile towards small businesses.
Posted Tuesday, December 28, 2010 6:36 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Dec-10 06:08 AM
It appears to be a sound choice.
Score one for Dayton.
To the extent greater amounts of energy may be needed the wind blows in Southwest Minnesota and the infrastructure needed is transmission - improvement of the now overloaded grid, and wind turbines. Not Excelsior.
To the extent there has been resistance to upgrading the grid, the NIMBY thing against transmission lines, things do need to change.
