December 27-28, 2011
Dec 27 08:04 The GOP's weakest link Dec 27 09:09 Will Sunset Commission Democrats vote against Sunset Commission recommendations? Dec 27 23:25 With all due respect Dec 28 02:06 The Higher Ed/MnSCU beasts we're fighting Dec 28 10:41 LFR's quarterly bleg
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
The GOP's weakest link
Rep. Louie Gohmert, (R-TX), is one of the conservatives' good guys. According to this article , he said something that hasn't been said before. Here's what he said:
Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), a member of the House Tea Party caucus, blamed Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) for the fiasco over the payroll tax extension.
'What we have here is a failure to communicate,' Gohmert said Monday on Fox News.
House Republicans initially balked on passing a two-month extension after it passed the Senate with overwhelming support, but the House GOP eventually relented and passed the short-term option.
'If the message had been properly communicated to the Senate that we were not going to go along with a two month extension, then the Senate would not have voted 89 votes for that extension,' Gohmert said.
Rep. Gohmert is right that the Senate hung the House GOP out to dry. When it came to final negotiations, Sen. McConnell didn't do anything right.
It's long oast time for Senate Republicans to dump the current leadership team. They're almost totally worthless. It's time to install Marco Rubio, Rand Paul and either Rob Portman or Pat Toomey as the Senate's GOP leaders. This isn't a time for Mitch McConnell's go-along-to-get-along 'leadership'. It isn't a time for John Cornyn's type of 'leadership', either.
The thought of Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Rob Portman and Pat Toomey making arguments for conservative economic policies should excite conservatives, partially because their conservatism plays well in public but also because they're tough private negotiators. Most importantly, they won't cave like Mitch McConnell did.
The GOP's weak link in DC are in the Senate. They've vastly underperformed considering the hand they had to play. They hung the House GOP out to dry rather than communicating their message to America.
Since the 2010 shellacking, Mitch McConnell has lost 2 straight fights over taxes. Last year, he lost the battle over the Bush tax rates by caving on other items that President Obama wanted. This year, he lost because he caved on things Republicans and Democrats wanted.
With President Obama's policies failing, it's time to chart a new course. We can't have a pushover in charge of negotiating important policy initiatives.
NO MORE!!!
Tags: Mitch McConnell , Payroll Tax Holiday , John Cornyn , Rand Paul , Pat Toomey , Marco Rubio , Rob Portman , Conservatism , GOP , President Obama , Unemployment , Democrats
Posted Tuesday, December 27, 2011 8:04 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 27-Dec-11 09:11 AM
"With President Obama's policies failing, it's time to chart a new course. We can't have a pushover in charge of negotiating important policy initiatives.
"NO MORE!!!"
Back to Bushco-Boehner, because it worked so well?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 27-Dec-11 09:18 AM
Eric, The "failed policies of the last 8 years" mantra doesn't work because it isn't supported by the facts. The average unemployment rate during the Bush administration was under 6%. Does that sound like a disaster? If it does, what does Obama's 11% unemployment rate (based on 1/2009 participation rate numbers) represent?
More people have given up looking for work during the Obama administration than they've created jobs. There are more people collecting food stamps than at any time in our nation's history. Chronic unemployment is the highest it's been since the 1930's.
Does that sound like success to you? It sounds like failure to me.
Comment 2 by Gary Farland at 28-Dec-11 12:08 AM
Let us not forget who's policies caused the bubble that burst and who was president when it happened.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Dec-11 01:02 AM
Let's not forget that then-Sen. Obama filibusterd the bill that would've prevented the bubble from bursting in such dramatic fashion.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 29-Dec-11 06:51 AM
Obama is responsible for the economic failure during the Bush years because Obama at the time was a more powerful figure than Bush? That is the story? The carryover of the Clinton years, economically, held unemployment down plus sending Guardsmen to Iraq and Afghanistan affected the job market, positively, while the Bush and GOP deregulation allowed the mortgage backed garbage to be produced and marketed with the Wall Street firms selling such stuff and hedging against what they sold and that was all Obama's fault because he was more instrumental in bringing about deregulation and its ills than Phil Gramm? It Obama setting policies that bailed out Wall Street while Paulson was Treasury Secretary and while Main Street was left to take gas? You guys have been biting the same mushroom Alice did. Seeing a big talking white rabbit too? And -- the tea party?
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Dec-11 10:54 AM
With all due respect, 6 of the 8 Bush years were pretty good years economically. 2001 wasn't because of the Clinton recession, 9/11 & Enron. 2008 wasn't good because the housing bubble burst & Fannie & Freddie collapsed.
President Obama didn't cause the recession. He's just prevented a meaningful recovery. Between the possibility of the Bush tax cuts lapsing, Dodd-Frank, the NLRB's & the EPA's excessive rulemaking, people aren't creating jobs.
Will Sunset Commission Democrats vote against Sunset Commission recommendations?
It's fact that the vast majority of DFL legislators voted against creating the Sunset Commission. Now that the Sunset Commission has officially been signed into law, the question turns to whether DFL appointees will attempt to sabotage the Commission's efforts.
That's still to be determined but it's safe to say that expectations aren't high. According to this article , outsiders are already tamping down expectations:
But William Eggers, a corporate consultant who worked for a similar commission in Texas isn't as optimistic. "Your chances of succeeding, I'm going to be frank with you, are not very high," he said.
Eggers told the Minnesota Sunset Commission last month that similar efforts in several other states failed because they didn't take their jobs seriously enough.
"The one thing I will guarantee you is that without resources from a staff perspective, this will not succeed."
Hiring additional staff to work on a commission whose goal is to a) reduce the size of government and b) improve service levels is like hiring an atheist to give the Christmas message. There's no questioning that there's alot of work to this commission. There's also no questioning the fact that they should be frugal.
No one on the board indicates whether they will recommend any cuts this year. But behind the scenes, agencies and their advocates have been working to make their case.
For example, people supporting the Council on Black Minnesotans sent an email calling on others to attend a Sunset Commission hearing to show support for the council. Rosella Collins-Puoch is the vice-chair of the Council on Black Minnesotans. She doesn't think the Sunset Commission will try to eliminate her organization.
"People understand that communities of color still have many many challenges and there has to be some entities that ensure Africans and African Americans are treated equitably in the state of Minnesota," Collins-Puoch said.
How many Minnesotans knew that there was a state government agency titled The Council on Black Minnesotans? I didn't. Would it surprise you to find out that there are other state agencies for other minority groups? I don't know that there are but I wouldn't be surprised if there were.
If there are multiple agencies with the goal of aiding communities of color, do they share the same back-staff? That's what Sen. Mike Parry wants to know:
Others, like Sen. Mike Parry,R-Waseca, said the Sunset Commission may look to consolidate agencies that are duplicating work. He said no agency should consider itself on the chopping block but said officials had better be prepared to answer how they're spending public money.
"If they are out of the chute worried about not being in existence, that might lead some to believe that maybe they shouldn't have been there in the first place. That's why I'm hoping that all of the boards and agencies realize this is not and never was intended to be any kind of witch-hunt," Parry said.
Minnesotans aren't an ATM to be tapped whenever a legislator wants to pander to one organization or constituency group. I'm not arguing that creating the Council on Black Minnesotans was pandering, though I won't rule that possibility out.
I'm simply saying that politicians have a habit of using other people's money to pay off constituencies they'll need for re-election. Having looked through a budget or two in my lifetime, I can state with 100% certainty that alot of these types of commissions, councils and agencies don't appear to have meaningful responsibilities.
I can also state without hesitation that alot of these commissions, councils and agencies get created by stuffing them into omnibus spending bills.
Thanks to King Banaian's legislation, we now have a mechanism to a) shine a spotlight on these agencies and b) recommend the elimination or reorganization of these agencies.
The question now remains is whether the DFL will work quietly to sabotage the Commission's efforts. They can't afford to look obstructionist but they can't afford to alienate their special interest allies, either.
Tags: Sunset Commission , Reforms , King Banaian , Mike Parry , Mary Kiffmeyer , GOP , Mark Dayton , Council on Black Minnesotans , DFL
Posted Tuesday, December 27, 2011 9:09 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 27-Dec-11 09:14 AM
Would KB have proposed this if Pawlenty were still there to distribute the spoils?
If so, or if Emmer had been elected, would the GOP like the idea of shrinking the spoils?
These commissions and boards and paychecks are places to park losing legislators. Pawlenty did it. No GOP whining.
It is the height of hypocrisy now to whine because the other side gets the spoils.
In the abstract, there should not be a spoils system and government should be pure. Good luck, Charlie.
Comment 2 by True North Fan at 28-Dec-11 12:05 AM
Of course the "DFL appointees" will "sabotage" what the Commission needs to do by whatever means necessary. Deal with it and have a Plan B ready.
Why weren't staff already on board to specifically support the Commission so when members were appointed, they were ready to go to work instead of piecemealing the work to other staffers? Get organized. This isn't brain surgery.
So Texas' plan didn't work. Let the Commission learn what went wrong and brainstorm their own recipe for success and be a model other states can emulate.
Other agencies similar to Council on Black
Minnesotans are:
Council on Asian Pacific Minnesotans
Chicano Latino Affairs Council
Indian Affairs Council
The Commission needs to ignore the media and get to work focusing on making Minnesota state government services more efficient and cost-effective for all
it's citizens.
With all due respect
This evening, I was stunned by the headline to John Hinderaker's post in which he endorsed Mitt Romney. Here's John's opening argument:
It is time for Republicans to get serious. After flirting with just about every candidate in a large presidential field, is is time to come home to the one candidate who has the demonstrated ability to run the largest organization in the United States, the Executive Branch of the federal government; who has never been touched by the slightest taint of scandal; whose success in the private sector makes him the outsider that Republicans say they are looking for; and who has by far the best chance of beating President Obama: Mitt Romney.
The 'anybody but Romney' mentality that grips many Republicans is, in my view, illogical. It led them to embrace Rick Perry, who turned out to be unable to articulate a conservative thought; Newt Gingrich, whose record is far more checkered than Romney's; Ron Paul, whose foreign policy views-indistinguishable from those of the far left-and forays into racial intolerance make him unfit to be president; and Michele Bachmann, whom I like very much, but who is more qualified to be a rabble-rouser than a chief executive.
I won't get into a name-calling fight with John because he's a deliberate, thorough, thoughtful man. John isn't the sellout or troublemaker type. In this instance, I just vehemently disagree with John.
First, it isn't irrational to reject Mitt. He isn't a conservative and he isn't the man we need for this transformational point in our nation's history.
Second, he's proven time and again that he isn't trustworthy. He's shape-shifted to more audiences than chameleons change colors against a plaid background.
The reality is that Mitt and Newt have caused conservatives to question their conservative credentials. The distinction is that Mitt's actually done liberal things whereas Newt has said some things that make people wonder whether he's totally committed to conservatism.
For instance, Mitt took John Holdren's advice on CO2 emissions. Then Mitt imposed CO2 emission limits on Massachusetts power plants:
Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation.
As if that wasn't bad enough, it gets worse. Alot worse, in fact:
In addition to reaffirming existing stringent CO2 limits, the draft regulations announced today, which will be filed next week, contain protections against excessive price increases for businesses and consumers.
Here's the hard, cold truth. Mitt went further on limiting greenhouse gases than the Obama administration's EPA went. Then Mitt slapped price controls on the power plants so they'd have to eat the cost of Mitt's CO2 regulations.
My questions for John are simple:
- What type of a capitalist imposes huge regulatory burdens on power plants?
- What type of capitalist imposes price controls on businesses immediately after dumping costly regulations on that business?
- What type of capitalist would consider adding a VAT to our tax system without first eliminating the Sixteenth Amendment?
The answer is simple to each of those questions is simple: true capitalists wouldn't do any of those things. It's time for Mitt's supporters to admit that Mitt isn't a conservative. I'm not certain I'd call him a moderate. I'd readily agree that he talks like a conservative at times. Altogether too often, Mitt has played the class warfare card this campaign. That's what he's done in defending his capital gains tax cuts for people making less than $200,000 annually.
When Speaker Gingrich asked Mitt why he didn't cut the capital gains rates for people with higher incomes, Mitt's reply was that the rich have done fine, that it's the middle class that've gotten hit the hardest. That's the defense that Democrats use and John knows it. Here's something else that Mitt's supporters haven't answered. Why hasn't Mitt dropped his defense of Romneycare? Mitt's said repeatedly that he'd eliminate Obamacare. Why should we trust him on that considering the fact that he's obviously defending O'Care?
Mitt's fond of saying that the Tenth Amendment puts more restrictions on the federal government than on state governments. That's true but it's missing the point. In fact, it's ignoring the final part of the Tenth Amendment. Here's the text of the Tenth Amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
I asked in this post why Mitt thinks that a bureaucrat in a state HHS department knows what's best for a family rather than the family itself. In the fight over whether Romneycare is solid conservative policy, shouldn't we have a fight over whether it'd be better for families to make decisions on what's best for their families or whether it's better for a state-level bureaucrat to determine what's best for individual families.
In 1980, we were faced with an historic choice. Should we pick Jimmy Carter or the bombthrowing cowboy Ronald Reagan? Carter was the safe, albeit terribly flawed, candidate; Reagan was the crazy man who would start WWIII. The people picked Reagan because they related to him and because Carter was a terrible president. The establishment went into shock when President Reagan called the Soviet Union an "evil empire."
The same establishment went positively apoplectic when President Reagan announced that he'd put Pershing II missiles into western Europe. Tens of thousands of words were written predicting the end of western civilization as a result. When the careerists in Foggy Bottom were presented with President Reagan's Tear Down This Wall speech, they repeatedly tried nixing that section of the speech. Can anyone picture Mitt not following the inside-the-Beltway intelligentsia's advice?
Thanks to President Reagan's bold leadership, he ignored the inside-the-Beltway intelligentsia's advice. Thanks to President Reagan's ignoring the inside-the-Beltway intelligentsia's advice, the Soviet Union collapsed. We're at another turning point in our nation's history. We can't afford another cautious manager of the status quo. That's who Mitt is.
This juncture in history requires a bold leader who's willing to call evil evil, to call corruption corruption, to call overbloated government overbloated government. Most importantly, this juncture in America's history requires a leader with time-tested conservative solutions. There's only one person that fits that description. His name is Newt Gingrich.
Tags: Blogs , Powerline , Endorsements , Mitt Romney , Romneycare , CO2 Emissions , Price Caps , Newt Gingrich , Ronald Reagan , Evil Empire , Tear Down This Wall , Bold Colors , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, December 27, 2011 11:25 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Dec-11 08:10 AM
If you start with the assumption that Mitt is the only Republican that can beat Obama, there is only one conclusion. If that assumption is "inoperative," then what great policy idea recommends a Romney Presidency over, say, Newt's "American Solucions"?
Every Republican candidate is going to face a media onslaught greater than any in history, and it doesn't matter who it is. If Mitt is squeaky clean, they'll make stuff up. My bet is that Newt is better able to weather such an onslaught and even benefit from it.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Dec-11 09:16 AM
First, I don't start with the premise that Mitt's the only Republican that can beat Obama. In fact, I start from the premise that Mitt's cautiousness will turn off TEA Party activists en masse. If that happens, Mitt would get his ass handed to him.
The myth that Mitt's the 'most electable' should be scrapped immediately. He's won 1 election. That's the best the GOP can do in terms of electability?
In terms of who's best equipped to give better than he gets, Newt wins that argument all day. How many debates has he had where he's supplied the all-encapsulating, summary statement of the night?
Pretty much all of them.
Mitt, by comparison, is timid. Newt isn't. Let's face reality. Passion sells. For all the talk that moderation sells, it doesn't. Was BHO a moderate? We knew he wasn't a moderate. He was passionate & he won with ease.
The other thing working in Newt's favor is that his policies are more popular than Mitt's.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 28-Dec-11 06:13 PM
J.Ewing - "... they will make stuff up ..."
The term is, "They will Swift Boat him."
You may recall. You may have forgotten.
Gary - It is early but there is more and more of elected politicians, Pawlenty, Coleman [formerly so], and the current South Carolina Governor endorsing Mitt.
I don't like either, but Romney seems less tarnished to me, but it really seems early for this kind of "Oops, I endorsed too early" risk.
Is that part of what you are saying?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 28-Dec-11 11:22 PM
Actually, swiftboating was telling the truth about Kerry. It was just a Democrat talking point that Republicans were lying.
Mitt is totally worthless. Entrenched politician endorsing a guy who's won 1 race in his political career. If he's the nominee, Obama will defeat him handily.
The Higher Ed/MnSCU beasts we're fighting
Readers of this blog know that I've written alot about higher education issues this year. My writings have been about corruption, student loan costs, cronyism and the expanding cost of a college education.
This afternoon, I started reading this report by the Center for College Affordability and Productivity. According to CCAP's report, the number of administrators is projected to grow from less than 700,000 in 2007 to almost 1,400,000 in 2022. What's startling is that, during the same time period, the number of instructors is projected to grow from approximately 775,000 to 1,200,000.
This isn't just a long-term problem. According to CCAP's report, it's projected that there will be more administrators than instructors by 2014. I'm betting that, if they were questioned, adminstrators couldn't justify there being more administrators than professors. In fact, I'm betting that administrators wouldn't want to be questioned on the need for each individual position.
There's more:
While the previous section discussed the growth of college administrations in absolute terms over the past twenty years, colleges have also experienced a growth in enrollment during the period. Therefore, a measure of administrative growth relative to enrollment is perhaps more appropriate. Figure 6.3 displays, by sector, the ratio of FTE administrative employees141 per 100 FTE students in 1987, 1997 and 2007. This ratio has increased over each time period for all four of the sectors mentioned. The private not-for profit 4-year institutions had the highest ratio of FTE administrative employees per 100 FTE students, 9.3 in 2007, an increase of 30.2 percent since 1987. The public 4-year institutions had a ratio of 7.5 in 2007, an increase of 38.2 percent over twenty years. The private not-for profit 2-year institutions had a ratio of 7.0 in 2007, an increase of 47.8 percent since 1987. The public 2-year institutions had a ratio of 2.1 in 2007, an increase of 36.4 percent over twenty years.142 Thus, it is clear that the growth of administrative employees has occurred not only in absolute terms, but also relative to enrollment.
I'd love hearing university presidents justify this explosion in administrative FTEs. CCAP's report verifies that the growth of administrative FTEs can't be justified.
I'm tired of hearing DFL politicians like Sandy Pappas whine that we're starving higher education with 11.3% biennial increases or Tom Bakk whining that we must invest in higher ed.
The payouts for MnSCU retirees are, at minimum, extravagant . MnSCU retirees cashed out in a big way. Retired Chancellor James McCormick was paid a $360,000 salary for his final year. In addition, he was awarded a non-bonus bonus of $50,000.
Unfortunately, it doesn't end there. When he retired, McCormick was paid $92,965.52 for the unused sick pay he'd accumulated. McCormick was also paid $180,000 in severance pay and $46,896.55 for his unused vacation time. That's a total of $319,862.07. McCormick received the highest payout but others got ridiculous payouts too.
Jon Quistgaard received a payout of over $223,000. Linda Baer's payout was in excess of $190,000. Rounding out the top 10 was Ann Wynia. (FYI-Wynia was a DFL candidate for the U.S. Senate in 1994.) Her payout was a comparitive pittance at $110,000.
Minnesotans aren't different from the rest of the country with this higher ed bubble. They're getting soaked just as badly for crap salaries as anywhere else in the nation.
Tags: Higher Education Bubble , Administrators , Professors , CCAP , Bureaucrats , Pork , James McCormick , Jon Quistgaard , Severance Pay , Ann Wynia , MnSCU , Reform
Posted Wednesday, December 28, 2011 2:06 AM
No comments.
LFR's quarterly bleg
This past three months have been busy months here at LFR. In that time, I've made alot of influential enemies. One of those enemies is SCSU President Earl Potter. My exclusive reporting on President Potter's constant changing of why he closed the Aviation Department has upset him mightily.
I wear that as a badge of honor.
LFR's researching and reporting on the unions' attempt to organize small businesses pretty much stood alone. LFR also played a prominent role in exposing DTL-Minnesota's attempt to corrupt Minnesota's redistricting plans. LFR was the first in reporting that Judge Dale Lindman had ruled against ABM, TakeAction Minnesota and Common Cause MN.
LFR was also a leader in analyzing DTL-Minnesota's corruption.
The next three months promise to be even more eventful. With people's financial support, I'll be able to deliver the type of original reporting that you won't get from the Strib, the St. Cloud (Some)Times and the Pi-Press.
Any support given, whether it's $5, $25 or more goes along way because I keep my expenses to a minimum.
Your contributions (Click on the donate icon in the upper right corner of the page) will go a long ways towards winning the hearts and minds battles that conservatives confront daily. Thanks so much for your support and loyal readership.
Posted Wednesday, December 28, 2011 10:41 AM
No comments.
