December 7-8, 2010
Dec 07 08:33 The Beast Is Back Dec 07 09:50 Will Obama's Surrender Split Democratic Party? Dec 07 11:01 Dayton, Trumka Dusting Off Trick From Old Playbook Dec 08 09:53 Michelle Rhee Starts Pushing Back Dec 08 06:31 Obama: Republicans Tax Demands Held America Hostage Dec 08 09:32 Welcome to Hell, Mr. Dayton Dec 08 10:45 Will Tax Cuts Alone = Economic Recovery? Dec 08 17:28 Truth vs. Fiction Dec 08 18:09 A Tribute To Tom & Annette
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
The Beast Is Back
Now with the Vikings all but mathematically eliminated, the Beast is back and healthy. His name is Sidney Rice and he made some catches Sunday that prove beyond all doubt that he's healthy and that he's a beast.
His first catch, for 46 yards down the right sideline, was a tricky catch that he made look easy. His second catch, for a 31-yard TD that was first ruled incomplete, was a catch that only he, Larry Fitzgerald and Andre Johnson could've made, much less kept his feet inbounds while wrestling the ball away from two well-positioned defenders.
Sunday removed all doubts 1) that he's back healthy and 2) that, when he's healthy, he's a total beast. When he's healthy, he's one of the elite WRs, in a class by himself just barely beneath Andre Johnson and Larry Fitzgerald.
Prior to yesterday's game, there were rumors that the Vikings might not offer Rice a bigtime contract. Now, in my opinion, there's no chance he won't get a nice contract extension for at least 5 years.
The Vikings' other offensive beast, Adrian Peterson, played a strong game, too. After leaving the Redskins game early, he was listed as questionable. Yesterday, he was anything but questionable, running through defenders like they weren't there.
This season is all but over but the good news for Vikings fans is that the Vikings have more than a few pieces to build around.
Posted Tuesday, December 7, 2010 8:33 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Dec-10 02:21 PM
I wonder if the Vikings can give him some type of penalty for not doing the hip surgery that ruined the Vikings season. We would've had a different season if he had been healthy at the start of the season.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Will Obama's Surrender Split Democratic Party?
Thanks to a deal keeping all Bush tax rates in place , the American people won't have to pay higher taxes the next two years. Thanks to President Obama's caving, Republicans will have a fantastic political issue to use against him while he runs for re-election. Here's the details of the deal struck between President Obama and congressional Republicans:
Republicans control neither the House nor the Senate, and certainly not the White House. But they largely dictated the terms of President Barack Obama's proposed tax-cut compromise, which disgruntled congressional Democrats want to discuss in closed meetings that are likely to be rowdy.
Republicans prevailed on their biggest demand: continuing Bush administration tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans, despite Obama's 2008 campaign promise to let them expire for households earning more than $250,000 a year. Obama, while acknowledging Democratic unrest, agreed to extend the tax breaks for two years, whereas Republicans wanted a permanent extension.
House and Senate Democratic leaders were noncommittal on the proposal, saying they would discuss it in closed caucus meetings Tuesday. Vice President Joe Biden, a key player in seeking a compromise, scheduled a rare visit to the Senate Democrats' weekly luncheon the same day.
Congressional Democrats can discuss this all they want but their answer is certain. They'll vote for extending these cuts, at least enough of them to pass the bill. Doing anything less would cut President Obama off at the knees, something that many House Democrats might see as a worthwhile option.
When we look back, it wouldn't surprise me if we see this day as the day when someone decided to step forward and challenge President Obama in the Democratic primaries. Certainly, the natives aren't happy, with some progressives calling it capitulation :
But many Democrats felt the president gave up too much and gave in too fast. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) was noncommittal. Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont said he would filibuster, and a group of progressive Democrats in the House circulated a letter in opposition.
Adam Green of the Progressive Change Campaign Committee called the deal a capitulation.
"Everything President Obama has done has signaled weakness and has sent a signal to Republicans that if they block tax cuts long enough, at the end of the day he will pass whatever comes across his desk. That is not how you negotiate," Green said.
The reality is that letting the Bush tax cuts expire would've led to the next economic downturn, which would've meant President Obama being a one-term president. For all his talk about rather being a great one-term president than a mediocre two-term president, President Obama proved that his strongest instinct is to preserve his political career.
Carving out common ground might be what independent voters want the president to do, but it's not what his base wants. MoveOn.org has created a television ad featuring Obama voters who ask, "What's happened to that bold progressive man we elected president?" The ad is aimed at the politically crucial state of Iowa.
That "bold progressive man" was an illusion. He didn't really exist. That was just his stage personna. Dick Morris was right during last night's Hannity appearance when he said that "to characterize this as a deal is like that famous deal that Emporor Hirohito struck with Gen. MacArthur on the battleship Missouri. This is surrender. This is Obama absolutely caving."
This won't seal Obama's defeat but it will outrage his base. What it does is it shrinks Obama's margin for error. His base won't let him compromise with Republicans again. If he surrenders again, it's certain that he'll face a primary challenger, which will split the Democratic Party wide open.
Until now, the Democratic Party has successfully hidden the fact that they're essentially two seperate parties, with the MoveOn.org side dominating the DLC side. Remember Howard Dean's saying that he represented the " Democratic wing of the Democratic Party "? Here's his explanation of that cliche:
BOB EDWARDS, host: You say you represent the Democratic wing of the Democratic party. Explain that.
Former Vermont Gov. HOWARD DEAN: That was really a phrase that was first developed by Paul Wellstone, and although Paul Wellstone's probably a little more liberal than I, his characteristic, which I enormously admire, was that he's willing to stand up for what he believes in. I think there are so many people in our party that aren't. When I go around talking to Democratic audiences, one of the lines that gets an enormous round of applause is that there are almost as many Democrats that I talk to that are angry at the Democrat Party as they are angry at the Republican Party.
The reality is that the MoveOn.org types see the DLC types as Republican lite.
President Obama played to the MoveOn.org side during the 2008 campaign. Tonight, he essentially threw that wing under the bus. This will cause the MoveOn.org side lots of heartburn and consternation, not to mention alot of re-examination and soul-searching.
DLC types will note that, whereas President Obama caved during negotiations, President Clinton never got rolled in negotiations, just adding fuel to the fire that President Obama is in over his head.
This is a major victory for Republicans, an embarrassing defeat and surrender for President Obama.
UPDATE: Based on this post , I'd say that the Democrats are in danger of picking a fight with President Obama:
A bloc of Senate Democrats could decide not to support a White House-brokered deal on tax cuts and unemployment benefits, thereby putting the plan in danger, according to the second-ranking Senate Democrat.UPDATE II: Based on Jake Tapper's reporting , the fight is on between the White House and Capitol Hill:
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (Ill.) suggested Monday evening that many caucus members could threaten to back away from the deal as leverage to ensure it gets what it wants from a potential compromise with Republicans.
Vice President Biden heads to Capitol Hill today to lobby Senate Democrats to support the tax cut compromise, as President Obama faces criticism from congressional Democrats that he should have fought more for the Bush tax cuts on the middle class, and against the cuts for wealthier Americans.
The White House has two arguments for what they acknowledge are "frustrated" Democrats:
1) We wanted a fight on these tax cuts, and Congressional Democrats never took up the charge and held a vote ;
2) This is a good deal, and we weren't willing to let taxes go up on middle class Americans, or to deprive the unemployed of insurance benefits, just to prove a political point.
"We wanted a fight, the House didn't throw a punch," a senior White House official tells ABC News, pointing out that for months before the 2010 midterm elections, President Obama was making the case against the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans. "The House wouldn't vote before the Senate, and the Senate was afraid they'd lose a vote on it."
"It was like the Jets versus Sharks except there weren't any Jets," the official said. "Senator Schumer says he wants a fight? He couldn't hold his caucus together."
Based on this reporting, the guns are out and the circle is forming. This ain't gonna be pretty.
UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. Check out my other posts, some about Minnesota politics, some about Chuck Schumer's dishonest ploy about taxing the rich.
Posted Tuesday, December 7, 2010 1:13 PM
Comment 1 by Harry at 07-Dec-10 01:09 PM
Good observations. It is revealing about the left that they just got through hating one president for eight years, and now they are ready to start on another. This will result in their complete alienation from most Americans and an inability to influence American politics in any meaningful way. Goodbye and good riddance.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 07-Dec-10 02:19 PM
Gary:
I say a problem with this line of thinking is that President Clinton caved on some key points during the 1995-1997 war:
* He signed welfare reform.
* The Republicans so called cave on the budget was a cave by Clinton since he agreed to the plan that balanced the budget. Mind you the left than went and took credit for it happening.
The trouble was that they didn't see those as a cave.
Maybe the other problem is with the bills they have become adjusted shoving down our throat they don't like a good bill being worked out.
Man if they're this unhappy I wonder how those House members will be reacting in 2013 when they realize that not only they don't control the agenda no dream acts will be debated.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by richard40 at 07-Dec-10 08:05 PM
This is actually an encouraging sign. Along with Obama's proposal to freeze fed salaries, it indicates that Obama might actually be capable of Clinton style compromise. Of course it also means that if Obama moves to the center, he might be reelected, just like Clinton did, especially if repubs nominate a poor candidate.
The attitudes of his left wing base confirm how delusional they are. They will eventually become irelevant if they continue in this pattern. If Obama draws a left wing challenger, and the base remains disconted, Obama might lose reelection anyway, even if he moves to the center and manages to reclaim the centrists that left him. But after the new congress moves in dems in the house will no longer be relevant anyway, although they will continue to be in the senate.
Comment 4 by Chris Crieta at 10-Dec-10 07:40 AM
I knew the Dems would block it, and Obama knew it too. It was all strategy! Obama knows what he's doing and he's doing it better than anybody, he's smarter better and more awesome than any other president ever!
Comment 5 by Katie Mason Stevens at 10-Dec-10 09:48 AM
I hope the schism between moderate Dems and the Progressives continues to grow and become irreparable. The Progressives act as if they alone are due access to the elected leadership. Their minions in the Progressive Media are also an awful lot with their superiority complex.
Progressives have incessantly pushed and pushed existing Dems and Independents further away from the party with their delusions of gutting and taking over the party, then the government and eventually all of American society. They may have put in many hours and dollars during the 2008 campaign but they are not the only ones who participated.
As time goes on more moderates will leave the Dems behind and vote independent. The days of adhering strictly to one party is gone.
It's ironic that a group of people who call themselves Progressive are actually regressive with their desire to control and micromanage the citizenry all the while the world is growing more unprectible and volatile.
Dayton, Trumka Dusting Off Trick From Old Playbook
This isn't surprising but the DFL and national Democrats are dusting off an old playbook. Mark Dayton is using it . Richard Trumka is, too. Here's what the it is:
Speaker after speaker Sunday decried what they said are economic, educational and racial inequities in the state.
"It's time to close that gap," said the Rev. Billy Russell of Greater Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Minneapolis. "I want one Minnesota."
ISAIAH has organized and held meetings at homes attended by an estimated 4,000 people in the past three months.
The goal was to come up with a detailed program to present to the next governor. Ministers did that Sunday with Dayton, who appears destined to be the next governor as Emmer has failed to make up much ground in the ongoing recount.
The group gave Dayton and the crowd a booklet outlining recommendations on transportation, education, health care, commerce, and public safety.
There's alot of similarities between Dayton's tactics and Richard Trumka's tactics:
AFL-CIO president Richard Trumka has announced that his union is starting a new campaign using "1,000 congregation-based unemployed worker support committees" to offer support to the unemployed and advocate for jobs.
"The campaign will help combat the severe unemployment crisis that is devastating so many working people and families and help rebuild the foundations of our nation's economy," Trumka announced in a statement.
"[F]aith groups, political leaders and progressive activists have come together in the Faith Advocates for Jobs Campaign, which was launched this week at a Capitol Hill meeting," Trumka added. "The campaign will help combat the severe unemployment crisis that is devastating so many working people and families and help rebuild the foundations of our nation's economy."
That certainly sounds innocent enough. That's the hook, however:
The campaign's mission statement, however, reads like a progressive jobs manifesto. "As people of faith, we call for an economy that provides a job for everyone who wants and needs one ," Trumka quotes it as saying. " We affirm that all jobs should be good jobs, paying living wages and benefits, allowing workers dignity and a voice at the workplace , ensuring workers' health and safety, and guaranteeing their right to organize unions."
That certainly doesn't sound like a faith-based manifesto. It sounds more like a political vehicle disguised as a faith-based initiative. In fact, it sounds more like a vehicle for the implementation of socialism than anything else.
In 2008, King noticed this about ISAIAH:
ISAIAH is one of 60 similar organizations around the country affiliated with the Gamaliel Foundation in Chicago. Our national network provides training and resources for organizing far beyond what we would have available doing this work by ourselves. It also gives us a national powerbase to influence federal legislation on immigration, transportation, and housing.
While I recognize the right of religious organizations to have political opinions, I find it disgusting to see religious groups used primarily as a political vehicle. A simple question that Mssrs. Dayton and Trumka haven't and won't answer is what transportation has to do with religion. I'm certain that they couldn't answer that if their life depended on it.
The group Tumka says will oversee the initiative, Interfaith Worker Justice, also doesn't shy away from progressive talk.
I did a quick google of IWJ. Here's their vision statement :
IWJ envisions a nation where all workers enjoy the rights to:
- Wages, health care, and pensions that allow workers to raise families and retire with dignity;
- Safe working conditions;
- Organize and bargain collectively to improve wages, benefits, and conditions without harassment, intimidation, or retaliation;
- Equal protection under labor law, regardless of immigration status , and an end to the practice of pitting immigrant and U.S.-born workers against one another;
- Fair and just participation in a global economy that promotes the welfare of both domestic and foreign workers.
This is a political organization, not a religious organization. I've yet to see a genuine religious organization that advocates law-breaking. It's one thing to say Rosa Parks was right in not giving up her seat on that bus all those years ago. As a human being, she had the right to be treated as a human being. That isn't the same as advocating the fair treatment of people who've broken the law to enter this country.
ISAIAH is especially concerned about the economy and education, with the group stressing that racial disparities in both areas must be addressed by the next governor. "The bottom is falling out for so many of us," said Ramsey County Commissioner Toni Carter, a participant in the first roundtable discussion of the day, "Opening Opportunity: Public Investments for the Common Good." Dayton said he shared the group's concerns, but said that as governor he would need help from ISAIAH and others to make the desired changes. "There needs to be a lot of people from ISAIAH [at the Capitol] to frame that debate," Dayton said. "So let's do it together, all of us, all 10,000 voices."
"Public Investments for the Common Good"? That sounds alot like socialism, doesn't it? Dayton saying that he'd "need help from ISAIAH and others to make the desired changes", changes that include transportation funding, sounds like he needs lobbyists of faith to push across his political proposals. When the Pharisees asked Jesus whether it was ok to be taxed, He said we should "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's". I'm ok with that. It's another thing when secular groups use religious garb to tell Caesar what we should be taxed and how much should be spent on secular budget items. Technorati: Taxes , ISAIAH , GRIP , Mark Dayton , Richard Trumka , AFL-CIO , Religion , Immigration , DFL
Posted Tuesday, December 7, 2010 11:01 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Dec-10 01:56 PM
I always fume when I hear that "job for everybody that wants and needs one" crapola. I say there ought to be a job for everyone, whether they want one or NOT! And if it doesn't pay what you think you need, you may have to actually work at this job.
Comment 2 by James Douglass at 07-Dec-10 11:55 PM
Keep up the good work. These communist bastards like Trumpka need to be hunted down, exposed and rendering powerless as soon as possible.
Michelle Rhee Starts Pushing Back
When the conversation shifts to education reform, there's nobody more informed than Michelle Rhee. In this op-ed , Rhee shows America that she gets it. Here's the part that jumped out at me most:
When you think about how things happen in our country-how laws get passed or policies are made-they happen through the exertion of influence. From the National Rifle Association to the pharmaceutical industry to the tobacco lobby, powerful interests put pressure on our elected officials and government institutions to sway or stop change.
Education is no different. We have textbook manufacturers, teachers' unions, and even food vendors that work hard to dictate and determine policy. The public-employee unions in D.C., including the teachers' union, spent huge sums of money to defeat Fenty. In fact, the new chapter president has said his No. 1 priority is job security for teachers, but there is no big organized interest group that defends and promotes the interests of children.
You can see the impact of this dynamic playing out every day. Policymakers, school-district administrators, and school boards who are beholden to special interests have created a bureaucracy that is focused on the adults instead of the students. Go to any public-school-board meeting in the country and you'll rarely hear the words "children," "students," or "kids" uttered. Instead, the focus remains on what jobs, contracts, and departments are getting which cuts, additions, or changes. The rationale for the decisions mostly rests on which grown-ups will be affected, instead of what will benefit or harm children.
The teachers' unions get the blame for much of this. Elected officials, parents, and administrators implore them to "embrace change" and "accept reform." But I don't think the unions can or should change. The purpose of the teachers' union is to protect the privileges, priorities, and pay of their members. And they're doing a great job of that.
What that means is that the reform community has to exert influence as well. That's why I've decided to start StudentsFirst, a national movement to transform public education in our country. We need a new voice to change the balance of power in public education. Our mission is to defend and promote the interests of children so that America has the best education system in the world.
Rhee is right in saying that teachers unions' first priority should be protecting "the privileges, priorities, and pay of their members." The teachers paying their dues have a right to expect their union look out for their best interests. That's why it's important for parents and concerned citizens should become members of Rhee's latest reform vehicle, StudentsFirst.
If teachers unions' first priority is protecting teachers, it's time that parents and other concerned citizens should form their own union/lobbying unit. If teachers unions push hard for increasing teachers' pay and benefits, then it's only fair that parents have an organization that pushes back in an attempt to get the reforms implemented that will improve children's educational outcomes.
I really like this set of statements:
Studentsfirst will work so that great teachers can make a tremendous difference for students of every background. We believe every family can choose an excellent school-attending a great school should be a matter of fact, not luck. We'll fight against ineffective instructional programs and bureaucracy so that public dollars go where they make the biggest difference: to effective instructional programs. Parent and family involvement are key to increased student achievement, but the entire community must be engaged in the effort to improve our schools.
Though we'll be nonpartisan, we can't pretend that education reform isn't political. So we'll put pressure on elected officials and press for changes in legislation to make things better for kids. And we'll support and endorse school-board candidates and politicians, in city halls, statehouses, and the U.S. Congress, who want to enact policies around our legislative agenda. We'll support any candidate who's reform-minded, regardless of political party, so reform won't just be a few courageous politicians experimenting in isolated locations; it'll be a powerful, nationwide movement.
This is exactly the right mindset. Anyone who's willing to sign onto Studentfirst's reform agenda should be welcomed. This is too big an issue to turn it into an us vs. them fight. In fact, that's the surest path to not improving educational outcomes.
That said, people opposing educational reforms should know that they'll get trampled. Improving educational outcomes is imperative.
Speaking of which, MN2020 appears to be throwing cold water on the reform movement :
Waiting for "Superman" follows a handful of children and their families who turn to charter schools to seek an education not afforded to them in traditional public schools. Unfortunately, since there are more children than charter school openings, the children must enter a lottery and wait for their names to be called. Ultimately, there is not enough room for every child.
The documentary implies that broad national education reform is needed.
Responses to the documentary have been mixed. Tom Dooher, president of Education Minnesota, defended his union by stating that Guggenheim's main arguments were not applicable to Minnesota.
A few Minnesota public school teachers and administrators were asked to comment and noted that they felt unthreatened by the documentary's general message but were critical of some of the documentary's themes. However, they generally agreed amongst themselves on several points regarding the documentary's main points in relation to Minnesota:
1. While public schools in Minnesota have not reached their full potential, most Minnesota schools are not "failing,"
2. It's unfair to say that teachers' unions are the sole cause of public schools' problems, and
3. Charter schools are not and cannot be a panacea to the problem.
It's true that charter schools aren't a silver bullet, fix-all type of thing, there's no denying that increasing competition will improve teacher quality, one of the 3 most important things needed to improving a child's educational outcome.
It's time to push back against the MN2020's of the world. The best way to do that is to put some muscle behind Michelle Rhee's Studentsfirst initiative. Clearly, she's shown that her reforms work:
Though all of these actions caused turmoil in the district, they were long overdue and reaped benefits quickly. In my first two years in office, the D.C. schools went from being the worst performing on the National Assessment of Educational Progress examination, the national test, to leading the nation in gains at both the fourth and eighth grade in reading as well as math. By this school year we reversed a trend of declining enrollment and increased the number of families choosing District schools for the first time in 41 years.
Michelle Rhee's mission is to be the parents' advocate in the education administration. She wants to push back when she's trying to implement solid education policy that puts children first, unions not so much. That's as it should be.
Posted Wednesday, December 8, 2010 9:53 AM
No comments.
Obama: Republicans Tax Demands Held America Hostage
This afternoon, President Obama accused Republicans of holding Americans hostage because they wanted to keep the tax cuts in place for job creators, saying that keeping tax rates low for "the rich" was the Republicans' Holy Grail.
The simple fact is that Republicans got a great deal, though it isn't a perfect deal. Here's the line that'll hurt Obama for months to come:
"I've said before that I've felt that the middle class tax cuts were being held hostage to the high-end tax cuts," Obama said. " I think it's tempting not to negotiate with hostage takers unless the hostage gets harmed, then people will question the wisdom of that strategy. In this case, the hostage was the American people and I was not willing to see them get harmed."
This will haunt Obama. Why does he think of America's jobs creators as parasites on society? That's what he's saying by arguing that America is being held hostage. Clearly, he didn't hear about Reagan's quote that "You don't strengthen the weak by weakening the strong."
Obama's war on America's job creators is a major reason why he's got the worst job creation (job-wrecking?) record since Hoover. There's something to be said about the company he keeps. Check out the lunacy AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said about the tax deal:
The tax cut deal rewards Republican obstructionism by giving the wealthy the tax breaks they demanded. It throws away precious resources needed for investments in jobs and our economy on upper income tax cuts that will do very little to propel economic growth-setting up excuses for the deficit hypocrites to argue for even more cuts to programs serving working families. It lards the tax cuts for the top 2 percent with an indefensible cut in the estate tax, giving yet another bonus to the super-rich. Taken together, this package locks in the growing income inequality that has plagued our country for at least another two years, and quite possibly much longer.
It is unconscionable that the price of support for struggling middle class families and workers who have been unable to find jobs for months and months and months is yet more giveaways for our country's wealthiest families. Millions of jobless workers have lived in fear for months while Senate Republicans had the gall to use their hardships as political leverage for the benefit of the rich.
Letting job creators keep their money so they can invest in their businesses while creating jobs. Since Pelosi, Obama, et al, took over, congress has shown their hostility towards businesses. Why wouldn't America's job creators pull their money out of the economy?
UPDATE: I just watched a portion of the presser. Saying that President Obama played fast and loose with the truth is understatement. From the press conference transcript :
Q: If I may follow up quickly, sir, you're describing the situation you're in right now. What about the last two years when it comes to your preferred option? Was there a failure either on the part of the Democratic leadership on the Hill or here that you couldn't preclude these wealthier cuts from going forward?
THE PRESIDENT: Well, let me say that on the Republican side, this is their holy grail, these tax cuts for the wealthy. This is...seems to be their central economic doctrine. And so, unless we had 60 votes in the Senate at any given time, it would be very hard for us to move this forward. I have said that I would have liked to have seen a vote before the election. I thought this was a strong position for us to take into the election, to crystallize the positions of the two parties, because I think the Democrats have better ideas. I think our proposal to make sure that the middle class is held harmless, but that we don't make these Bush tax cuts permanent for wealthy individuals, because it was going to cost the country at a time when we've got these looming deficits, that that was the better position to take. And the American people were persuaded by that.
But the fact of the matter is, I haven't persuaded the Republican Party. I haven't persuaded Mitch McConnell and I haven't persuaded John Boehner. And if I can't persuade them, then I've got to look at what is the best thing to do, given that reality, for the American people and for jobs.
President Obama knows that it wouldn't have taken 60 votes in the Senate to pass his tax cuts because it didn't take 60 votes to pass Bush's 2001 tax cuts because they went through reconciliation. That's why the maximum length of the 2001 tax cuts was 10 years. That's the maximum allowed when using reconciliation.
Now, I could have enjoyed the battle with Republicans over the next month or two, because as I said, the American people are on our side. This is not a situation in which I have failed to persuade the American people of the rightness of our position. I know the polls. The polls are on our side on this. We weren't operating from a position of political weakness with respect to public opinion. The problem is that Republicans feel that this is the single most important thing that they have to fight for as a party. And in light of that, it was going to be a protracted battle and they would have a stronger position next year than they do currently.
If President Obama knew that they were on the right side of this issue and if he knew that creating new jobs was the most important issue of the campaign, how is it that the Democrats lost 63 seats? They certainly can't say that they didn't get their message out. They outspent Republicans by a wide margin. Simply put, the Democrats' statements don't square with reality.
Charles Krauthammer thinks that this is a big win for President Obama, saying that the economy will recover in time for his campaign. First, people will know that it recovered in spite of his policies. Second, his spoiled brat attitude today, lashing out at both sides, isn't the way to connect with people. He looked like a petulant child or a spoiled brat. Neither image will ingratiate him with independents.
The bottom line is this: President Obama's hatred of small businesses was exposed in these negotiations. People know that an environment in which small businesses can flourish is required for the economy to create jobs in quantities that will drop the unemployment rate and spur dynamic economic growth.
Finally, keeping the Bush tax rates in place was important to keep the economy from crashing again. Repealing Obamacare will be required to get this economy flourishing again.
Posted Wednesday, December 8, 2010 6:31 AM
No comments.
Welcome to Hell, Mr. Dayton
With Tom Emmer apparently ready to concede, it's time to look at the incoming Dayton administration. First, congratulations are in order to Mr. Dayton. Your family's riches bought you 4 years of hell.
Thanks in large part to ABM's utterly dishonest ads, and your family's funding of those ads, you made it appear as though Tom Emmer was as unqualified as you are. Now that the campaign is apparently over, however, and you're faced with dealing with a Republican legislature, the mask will come off.
You can't pretend anymore, not like you did when you told the state's voters that taxing the rich was going to generate $4,000,000,000. That was exposed when the Department of Revenue said your tax-the-rich scheme would net $1,900,000,000, less than half of the money you said it would generate.
You didn't put together a list of budget cuts either, meaning you're stuck between a rock and a hard place in terms of balancing Minnesota's budget.
Meanwhile, House and Senate Republicans will pass a long list of reforms that will expose you as incompetent and as a one trick pony who does the will of the DFL's stable of special interest allies.
The GOP's lists of reforms will take on the DFL's special interest allies, forcing them to defend indefensible policies that benefit the special interests, not the people.
The bad news is that the Republican pro-growth, reform agenda will appeal to independents, giving them a great opportunity to add seats in both the House and Senate.
You can forget about your annual billion-dollar-a-year bonding bills, too, because Republicans will push bills that will create a dynamic economy, not a government-funded one like you're proposing.
I hope your House and Senate candidates have fun campaigning on your failed agenda. Raising taxes and promising the special interests big payoffs won't work next time.
The DFL should attempt to enjoy the next 4 years because they'll be exiled for another long stretch after Minnesotans compare Dayton's disastrous policies with the GOP's appealing reform, pro-growth agenda.
Welcome to 4 years of hell, Sen. Dayton. You certainly deserve it.
Posted Wednesday, December 8, 2010 9:32 AM
Comment 1 by John Anderson at 08-Dec-10 04:14 PM
So much for gracious defeat and civility in the public square. Your mother must be very proud of you.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Dec-10 05:03 PM
To John Anderson: Sunday was the 17th anniversary of Mom's death. Thanks for your gentlemanly remarks.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 08-Dec-10 09:06 PM
It's always more difficult to actually solve problems than to make promises. Both Dayton and the Republicans are about to find that out. The advantage Republicans have is that at least their promises were based in reality and have a chance of doing what was promised. Dayton should count his blessings that all he has to do for the next four years is promise that the DFL way would have been better.
Comment 3 by MplsSteve at 09-Dec-10 03:36 AM
I don't doubt for a minute that the GOP-led state senate and state house will run rings around Mark Dayton.
I hope they do realize that the media in this state is still very much in the bag for the Democrats. They'll still continue to ignore Dayton's many foibles (political and personal) and when they can't ignore it, they'll downplay it.
Somehow, the GOP better find a way of getting their message out to the voters instead of trying to curry favor with the likes of Rachel Stassen-Berger, Lori Sturdivant, the St Cloud Times editorial board or the Humphrey Institute.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Dec-10 12:01 PM
Steve, One way to combat the likes of RSB, Ms. Sturdivant, the Times' editorial board, etc., is to contribute to this blog. I'm doing this full-time & I think I do a pretty good job of combatting the Agenda Media. No contribution is too small & all contributions are greatly appreciated.
Just go to the bottom of the page & click on the Donate icon. Help me fight the DFL's arguments. Help me prove that the DFL's arguments are without merit.
Will Tax Cuts Alone = Economic Recovery?
The last two nights, Charles Krauthammer has used his perch on Special Report to essentially say that the deal on extending the Bush tax rates would give President Obama the strong economy he needs to win re-election. It isn't often that I disagree with Mr. Krauthammer but I must this time.
There's no question that the economy would've crashed had President Obama let the Bush tax rates lapse into the Obama tax increase. That would've doomed President Obama's administration to a single term.
That alone, though, doesn't mean we'll see a strong economic recovery. There's still alot of trouble on the horizon that hasn't been dealt with, starting with the pain Obamacare will inflict on America's jobs creators, aka small businesses.
Until the Supreme Court rules it unconstitutional or it's repealed or defunded, businesses won't invest like they have in recovering from past recessions.
Let's also understand that extending the Bush tax rates for only 2 years won't incentivize businesses to start a new round of vigorous hirings. If they know that they're getting hit with higher labor costs 2 years from now, they'll be cautious at minimum.
That's before thinking about the effect of high priced energy. Thanks to the Obama administration's 7 year moratorium in the Gulf, energy prices will continue to rise, thereby raising prices on everything from heating bills to groceries to gas prices. That isn't the way to rebuild an economy.
People forget that the strongest performance of the Clinton economy came when gas prices dipped below $1.00/gallon. That wasn't a coincidence.
What's worst is that President Obama prefers high gas prices.
It's foolish to think that an economy will flourish when businesses have to worry about high energy prices, the high cost of Obamacare, overly burdensome financial regulations, unstable tax rates and a presidential administration that's openly anti-capitalist and anti-free trade.
That isn't the picture of an administration open to stabilizing and lowering business costs. That's more the picture of an administration that will hurt America's jobs creators.
It isn't a stretch to say I can make a strong case that, if there's a recovery, it's more in spite of President Obama's policies than because of his policies.
It's far from a fait accompli that extending the Bush tax rates will bring this economy to full health. Extending them is an important piece of the pie but it's only one piece of the pie.
Posted Wednesday, December 8, 2010 10:45 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 08-Dec-10 04:26 PM
Just understanding that there are no tax cuts here (except for the paltry 2% "holiday" on FICA), but simple avoidance of a tax INCREASE, says you are right, and that's even before all of the other downward pressures on the economy you cite.
I'm going to suggest that the GOP push hard to turn the economy around by ending these threats and uncertainties, and not worry about the political boost that might give Obama two years hence.
Truth vs. Fiction
During his press conference, President Obama said that he'd kept all his campaign promises or had tried to prior to his waving the white flag on the Bush tax rates. That isn't the truth. First, here's President Obama's statement :
And so then my question is, does it make sense for me to tack a little bit this way or tack a little bit that way, because I'm keeping my eye on the long term and the long fight not my day-to-day news cycle, but where am I going over the long term?
And I don't think there's a single Democrat out there, who if they looked at where we started when I came into office and look at where we are now, would say that somehow we have not moved in the direction that I promised.
Take a tally. Look at what I promised during the campaign. There's not a single thing that I've said that I would do that I have not either done or tried to do. And if I haven't gotten it done yet, I'm still trying to do it.
Jim Geraghty's list suggests otherwise:
HEALTH-CARE MANDATES
HEALTH-CARE NEGOTIATIONS ON C-SPAN
RAISING TAXES
RECESS APPOINTMENTS
BORDER SECURITY
GUANTANAMO BAY
MILITARY TRIBUNALS
RECOVERY.GOV
Eighteen from his first 100 days:
1. "As President I will recognize the Armenian Genocide."
2. "I will make sure that we renegotiate [NAFTA]."
3. Opposed a Colombian Free Trade Agreement because advocates ignore that "labor leaders have been targeted for assassination on a fairly consistent basis."
4. "Now, what I've done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut."
5. "If we see money being misspent, we're going to put a stop to it, and we will call it out and we will publicize it."
6. "Yesterday, Jim, the head of Caterpillar, said that if Congress passes our plan, this company will be able to rehire some of the folks who were just laid off."
7. "I want to go line by line through every item in the Federal budget and eliminate programs that don't work, and make sure that those that do work work better and cheaper."
8. "[My plan] will not help speculators who took risky bets on a rising market and bought homes not to live in but to sell."
9. "Instead of allowing lobbyists to slip big corporate tax breaks into bills during the dead of night, we will make sure every single tax break and earmark is available to every American online."
10. "We can no longer accept a process that doles out earmarks based on a member of Congress's seniority, rather than the merit of the project."
11. "If your family earns less than $250,000 a year, you will not see your taxes increased a single dime. I repeat: not one single dime."
12. "Barack Obama and Joe Biden believe the United States has to be frank with the Chinese about such failings and will press them to respect human rights."
13. "We must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights."
14. "Lobbyists won't work in my White House!"
15. "The real gamble in this election is playing the same Washington game with the same Washington players and expecting a different result."
16. "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills."
17. "Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days." Obama is 1-for-11 on this promise so far.
18. A special one on the 100th day, "The first thing I'd do as president is sign the Freedom of Choice Act. That's the first thing I'd do."
I guess President Obama means that he's kept every promise other than the dozens he's already broken. I can't imagine President Obama intentionally telling a whopper of that magnitude. That would be so unstatesmanlike.
Posted Wednesday, December 8, 2010 5:28 PM
Comment 1 by Chris Crieta at 10-Dec-10 07:56 AM
Yes, if Republicans have a spine the Bush across-the-board-tax-cuts will become permanent, and at the same time we will make a balanced budget an amendment to the U.S. constitution (and then we'll make it a crime to overstay a visa).
A Tribute To Tom & Annette
Following this morning's gracious concession speech by Tom Emmer, the MNGOP issued this statement:
"Tom Emmer and Annette Meeks have served Minnesotans with great distinction for many years. As conservative champions of lower taxes, reform, and smaller, sensible government, Tom and Annette waged a principled and optimistic campaign that Minnesotans can be proud of. While Tom may be conceding the governor's race, his ideas that government must live within its means won the day as he led the ticket that took control of the state house and the state senate for the Republican Party. His message of smaller, sensible government will be what guides the legislature and is the political reality that the incoming governor will have to recognize. On behalf of the Republican Party of Minnesota, we wish Tom, Annette and their wonderful families all the best in their future endeavors."
I'll take it a few steps further. While I congratulate Sen. Dayton for his victory, it's important that he understand that Minnesotans essentially rejected his tax-the-rich scheme. They also said yes to the House and Senate GOP's message of living within our means, reform and bringing state government into the 21st century.
Tom and Annette lost the race but won the war. Their ideas won the day throughout the state. Thanks to their message, Minnesotans can now rest easy knowing that they won't have to worry incessantly about their taxes getting raised because spending is out of control.
Thanks to their message and the candidates' hard work, there is a major check to Sen. Dayton's plans.
That alone is worthy of our praise.
Posted Wednesday, December 8, 2010 6:09 PM
Comment 1 by TW at 08-Dec-10 07:59 PM
Really? Nice tribute and he is a fine man but we were screwed by the Mn Supreme Court. A simple matching of the signatures against the number of votes would have settled this. Dayton will try and bring the tax the rich and everyone else, spend everything on entitlements, elitist mentality to fruition here now that the Dems have failed nationally. This is gonna be ugly. Then again nationally we didn't win either. We got the tax rate extention (which the state will now take away) and had to give up on another year of unemployment, DREAM and DADT repeal. One step forward and three steps back.
Comment 2 by Stonewall Jackson at 09-Dec-10 04:11 PM
The sad reality is that Emmer ran a lousy campaign.
At the time of the GOP state convention, he had raised about the same amount of money that 5th-tier DFL candidate Tom Ruvavina had raised.
Without money, Emmer was off the air all summer long. Meanwhile, ABM was slamming him and, in the process, defining him on the TV airwaves as not only a drunk driver but a self-serving one as well. While Emmer effectively rebutted that line of attack by Seifert prior to the GOP state convention, he never responded to the ABM's attack. His silence was both defeaning and troubling.
To compound Emmer's problem, he screwed up on a slow news day in July. Hoping to take advantage of the long July 4th holiday, Emmer held his now famous "$100,000 waiter" press conference in Saint Paul. I was there and, along with several other Emmer supporters, our mouths dropped.
By the time Emmer had moved to turn thing around by bringing in the (gasp) neo-cons from Norm Coleman's campaign, the damage was done. It was liking getting grades of straight "F" for half the semester and then hoping to get enough good grades to get on the honor roll. The hole had been dug and it was too deep for Emmer to emerge.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Dec-10 04:21 PM
To be sure, Tom did make a couple costly mistakes. That said, I reject the notion that Tom ran a lousy campaign. I don't buy that for a minute. I had several opportunities to watch Tom campaign & debate.
More than anything else, the lack of fundraising hurt, as did the media's stunning bias & silence. It's difficult to win a state-wide race when you're being outspend by a 2:1 or 3:1 margin when factoring in third party spending.
Comment 3 by Stonewall Jackson at 09-Dec-10 04:58 PM
When a major party candidate's fundraising is, at the time of the state convention, in the Rukavina zone, that's a lousy campaign.
When a candidate for governor allows others to define him all summer without response on television, that's a lousy campaign.
When a candidate for governor screws up on a slow news day and than spends two weeks talking about waiters who make $100,000, that's a lousy campaign.
When a candidate for governor changes themes like changing shirts from "Taking Back Minnesota" to the "Jobs Governor" etc, that's a lousy campaign.
When a candidate for governor is silent when he is pounded day in and day out for being not only a drunk driver but a self-serving one at that, that's a lousy campaign.
When a candidate for governor is bringing in a whole new campaign staff in the summer, that's a lousy campaign.
The reality is that Emmer ran a fantastic campaign to get the endorsement but an equally lousy one when he had to face the electorate as a whole. The other reality is that money is the mother's milk of politics. Emmer did not raise much by the time of the convention, had little during the summer and, by the time he did raise some money with [and here, the Ron Paul types reading this should avert their eyes for fear of having to face some unpleasant information] the aid of the neo-cons from Norm Coleman's camp, Emmer was too much in the hole to ever successfully climb out.
Is Emmer a great speaker and a great guy? Absolutely. Did he run a lousy campaign? See above for the long and short of it.
