December 7-8, 2011
Dec 07 01:54 Unemployment governor attends fundraiser for Arrowhead food shelves Dec 07 09:24 Obama's re-election strategy: Lie like hell Dec 07 16:04 Mitt the creature of the private sector? Dec 07 18:06 Chip named to Defense Dept. conference committee Dec 08 12:14 Paul, Romney, Bachmann losing ground Dec 08 14:14 President Obama: Unemployment creates more jobs than Pipeline Dec 08 17:12 Dissecting President Obama's speech Dec 08 18:55 Gov. Dayton is challenging Judge Lindman's ruling
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Unemployment governor attends fundraiser for Arrowhead food shelves
Gov. Dayton, the man I named the unemployment governor when he needlessly laid off 22,000 state employees when he shut government done, attended an Arrowhead fundraiser to fill area foodshelves :
Hunger remains an acute problem in Minnesota, Dayton said. The governor appeared at the same fundraiser last December, and said things haven't improved much since then for Minnesota's most needy.
"The economy has improved a little bit, but for people that are in desperate straights, I don't think it's improved very much," Dayton said. "We still have almost 200,000 people in Minnesota out of work, and there's a lot of misery out there. We haven't made anywhere near as much progress we need to."
The economy might've improved if Gov. Dayton and the executive council had approved the 77 leases to explore for copper and other precious metals :
This month, Minnesota's State Executive Council, which includes the governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, attorney general and state auditor, voted to delay 77 leases to explore for copper and nickel on private lands in northern Minnesota.
This short-sighted action was initiated by Gov. Mark Dayton and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. It was unfortunate for the job situation in the Northland, and I know many Minnesotans are terribly disappointed.
After all, the people of Minnesota own the rights to minerals in the state, including those under private land. Anyone from Northeastern Minnesota knows this; I remember learning this fact in elementary school.
Thanks to this decision, lots of people in Minnesota's Arrowhead will needlessly be without work. That's because Gov. Dayton is committed to supporting the militant environmentalists who helped him win his election.
It's shameful that Gov. Dayton won't hesitate in attending a fundraiser for food shelves but he'll hesitate in creating real jobs that would create wealth in the Arrowhead.
That's bassackwards thinking in high political office.
Posted Wednesday, December 7, 2011 1:54 AM
No comments.
Obama's re-election strategy: Lie like hell
Yesterday, President Obama delivered a speech in Osawatomie, KS, that was as surreal as it gets. President Obama is the worst jobs president since FDR. Rather than admit to reality, he insisted that Reaganomics doesn't work :
The theory of 'trickle down economics,' which holds that greater wealth at the top generates jobs and income for the masses below, drew some of Obama's harshest criticism.
'It's a simple theory, one that speaks to our rugged individualism and healthy skepticism of too much government. It fits well on a bumper sticker. Here's the problem: It doesn't work,' Obama said of supply-side economics, drawing extended applause. 'It's never worked.'
This speech is getting criticized all across America's heartland because people know the difference between President Obama's BS and reality. People still remember that Reaganomics created 20,000,000 jobs in 8 years. Thanks to the Gingrich campaign, people are getting reminded that Reaganomics created 1,100,000 jobs in September, 1983.
Meanwhile, President Obama is hoping that people forget that his stimulus failed, the annual deficits are the biggest in U.S. history and job creation is running a deficit, too.
In 2008-09, President Obama and the Democrats railed against "the failed policies of the past 8 years." I've highlighted their flawed arguments by highlighting the fact that unemployment during President Bush's administration was solid, though not spectacular. Meanwhile, President Obama's job creation numbers have been dismal at best.
It isn't difficult to make the argument that the commander-in-chief has added campaigner-in-chief and BSer-in-chief to his list of titles. This administration is a laughingstock. They've run huge deficits. They haven't created jobs. They've taken over entire industries. There are significantly more people on food stamps now than at any time in a generation.
President Obama's BS isn't serious. It's just his only way of not getting laughingstock treatment, which he richly deserves. That he's willing to say that Reaganomics didn't work is proof that he's willing to lie through his teeth to get re-elected.
The American people aren't as stupid as he needs them to be to get re-elected. They know that they're hurting and that his policies have turned a difficult situation into a dire situation.
When President Obama's only term expires, our brief national nightmare will cease to exist. Only then can we start cleaning up his gigantic mess.
Election Day can't arrive soon enough.
Posted Wednesday, December 7, 2011 9:24 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick Mattson at 07-Dec-11 11:41 AM
Don't forget community organizer in chief
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Dec-11 04:13 PM
Patrick, I hope to totally forget about the community organizer-in-chief starting on Jan. 20, 2013. The sooner we can erase his 'accomplishments', the sooner the U.S. economy will get stronger & the sooner we'll return to being a prosperous people.
What the organizer-in-chief hasn't figured out is that you can't "spread the wealth around" if you aren't creating wealth. He's too focused too much on wealth redistribution to pay attention to weatlh creation.
Comment 2 by eric z at 07-Dec-11 01:52 PM
Gary, we are in 100% agreement:
"Election Day can't arrive soon enough."
Yesterday would have been excellent.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Dec-11 04:09 PM
Eric, I agree. Had Election Day been yesterday, the socialist-in-chief would've gotten beaten like a drum.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 08-Dec-11 11:18 AM
That speech was an utter disgrace. Simple class warfare and hatred practiced by a master of social division.
Newt, however, is like Johnny Cash sang in "Sunday Morning Coming Down".
"I found my cleanest dirty shirt".
Sort of what we're reduced to now that the media and Beltway GOP have eliminated all the conservatives. I don't have an conservative answer for you anymore so it looks for now like we're stuck with your guy.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 08-Dec-11 12:16 PM
The media hasn't eliminated the conservatives. Newt's still standing & he's a conservatives. Ditto with Rick Perry.
Comment 5 by Ron J at 08-Dec-11 03:09 PM
Newt and Perry and RINOs. They are a far cry from conservatives.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Dec-11 03:18 PM
Right. When was the last time Ron Paul created 11,000,000 new jobs, ended welfare as we know it, reformed Medicare & put in place policies that created 4 straight surpluses? Oh, that's right. He hasn't. Neither has Mitt. Neither has Michele Bachmann. Neither have any of the other candidates.
When did RP engineer the GOP takeover of the House of Representatives? That's right. He didn't. Neither has Mitt. Neither has Michele Bachmann. Neither have any of the other candidates.
When has RP stood with our British & Israeli allies? That's right. He's lumped them in with Iran. How is that any different than what President Obama, the most liberal president in my lifetime, has done? That's right. RP is the same in national security as President Obama.
Whose actions are those of a RINO? That's right. It's RP.
Mitt the creature of the private sector?
It isn't a secret that I'm a Newt guy. It isn't a secret that I've criticized Mitt. After reading this article , I have to respond. Here's what Mitt said that started things:
Drawing a strategic contrast with the man now besting him in the polls, Mitt Romney took steps to define himself as the consummate Washington outsider with an unblemished record as a family man.
'I don't have a political career,' Romney told the Republican Jewish Coalition on Wednesday, calling himself a private-sector creature and the opposite of a Washington insider.
Technically speaking, Mitt isn't a career politician. That's because he's lost too many times to be a career politician. In 1994, Mitt lost because he couldn't get far enough to the left of Ted Kennedy.
In 2002, he won election as Massachusetts governor. When he announced that he wasn't running for re-election, he started running for president. He's still running for president. When Mitt lost in 2008, it was because he couldn't get to the right of Sen. McCain.
When he lost the 2008 race, it was clear that a) GOP activists didn't warm to him and b) GOP activists weren't likely to warm to him anytime soon. People simply don't trust him, partially because he's still defending the individual mandate and Romneycare during debates while insisting that Obamacare is wrong for the nation.
Calling himself a man of the private sector is a major stretch.
The issue isn't black and white for Romney, who served as the governor of Massachusetts, ran for president in 2008 and has been campaigning for the 2012 nomination almost from the day President Obama was inaugurated.
But embracing an anti-Washington, individualist persona affords Romney an opportunity to differentiate himself from Gingrich, who served in Congress from 1979 to 1999 and, as a former House Speaker, is widely considered a GOP establishment figure.
Embracing "an anti-Washington, individualist persona" doesn't afford Mitt the opportunity "to differentiate himself from Gingrich". Portraying himself as a pure-as-the-driven-snow-DC-outsider will cause him to be the object of ridicule with GOP activists. At this point, Mitt's target audience must be GOP activists in Iowa and New Hampshire.
These aren't wet-behind-the-ears novices. They're people who pay attention to politics. GOP activists know that Mitt's been running for office a long time. They know that it's been a decade since he's worked in the private sector.
Prior to Mitt running for governor, he was hired to run the Olympic Games in February, 1999. He hasn't been in the private sector since. After running the Winter Games, he ran for governor in Massachusetts and getting elected. After Mitt announced that he wasn't seeking a second term in 2006, he essentially started running for president. Now it's late 2011 and Mitt's still running for president.
In short, he hasn't worked in the private sector in almost 13 years.
It has become increasingly urgent for Romney to take advantage of lingering animosity toward Gingrich and present himself as the fresh-faced alternative for voters who see Gingrich as part of the problem with a gridlocked Washington.
Mitt the CEO is on full display again. He isn't a Washington outsider but that's what he thinks people are looking for so he's repackaging himself yet again to win favor with voters. Mitt apparently hasn't figured out that his multiple repackagings are why people don't trust him.
That, more than anything else, is why he didn't connect with GOP activists in 2008 and why he's failing this time, too.
If Mitt doesn't win this time, it'll be because people have decided that they can't trust him or predict who he'll be a year from now.
Posted Wednesday, December 7, 2011 4:04 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Dec-11 07:20 AM
Implicit in your analysis, Gary, you are discounting all the other hopefuls.
I believe you may be correct.
When should the fringe players drop out? Aside from that, when might we expect them to?
It is sort of a question of how you see the process progressing, since it still is early now with no states having yet voted, but Bachmann seems to believe she can bankrupt her funding in this play, and return to CD6 and somehow fund and run a campaign late on the calendar.
I expect she might succeed.
The DFL has not even yet defined a challenger.
That is similar to the GOP and Klobuchar.
I guess it's what, dig up Rod Grams again, or such?
Redistricting should not hurt Bachmann's base in Sherburne and Wright County, where they love her; unlike Stillwater, where they know her.
But Gary, posting so far, you seem like Bachmann. Ignoring the district.
Back on point, you cannot call Romney a Washington insider since that's clearly false, so you use a kind of indirection. Bottom line, however, Bomney's NEVER been anybody's stinking lobbyist.
Or has he? I really do not know for certain. I should say I am unaware of any lobbying by Romney.
Chip named to Defense Dept. conference committee
It isn't commonplace for a freshman to get named to a conference committee. For instance, Sen. Klobuchar has been a senator since January, 2007 and she still hasn't been named to a conference committee. Al Franken might never serve on a conference committee.
By comparison, Chip Cravaack was appointed by Speaker John Boehner to be one of the conferees on the Defense appropriations conference committee:
U.S. Representative Chip Cravaack (MN-8) has been entrusted to serve on the bi-partisan, bi-cameral conference committee to preside over the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012 (NDAA), to authorize appropriations for fiscal year 2012 for military activities of the Department of Defense.
'I look forward to working with my House and Senate colleagues toward the best bill to ensure our continued national security,' said Rep. Cravaack.
The conference committee, a temporary panel of House and Senate negotiators, will convene immediately to resolve differences in the House and Senate-passed versions of the bill. Conferees are selected from the standing committees of each chamber which originally considered the legislation.
The Defense Appropriations bill is traditionally one of the most important bills passed each year. This year, it's more important than it's traditionally been because the Supercommittee's disastrous agreement to dramatically cut defense spending.
Because Rep. Cravaack is a retired military veteran, rest assured that the military won't get shortchanged. It isn't likely that the Pentagon will get everything they want. Rep. Cravaack has earned the reputation for being the taxpayers' watchdog.
His being the taxpayers' watchdog and his time in the military indicates that he'll be a frugal hawk while insisting that our military be capable of defending America.
Since his election, Cravaack's had a positive impact in fighting wasteful spending while leading the fight for creating good-paying mining jobs.
Posted Wednesday, December 7, 2011 6:06 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Dec-11 07:24 AM
Pork dispenser. Sure. We really need that.
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 08-Dec-11 10:56 AM
Good news for Minnesota-based units such as the 148th Fighter Wing. He's my Congressman (thank God) and he's doing a hell of a job.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 08-Dec-11 12:18 PM
Anyone that thinks that Chip's a "pork dispenser" isn't paying attention.
Comment 4 by Kari Abbott at 08-Dec-11 09:56 PM
It's nice to know that someone concerned with our military's well being, and with personal experience in the military will be a member of this committee.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Dec-11 10:49 PM
Kari, Chip isn't the only conferee from Minnesota who cares about the Defense Appropriations conference committee. Earlier today, I found out that John Kline a retired Marine who represents Minnesota's 2nd District is also a conferee negotiating this bill. How's that for good news?
Paul, Romney, Bachmann losing ground
There's no question that the GOP presidential candidates are feeling unexpected pressure caused by Newt's unexpected momentum. Ron Paul's been a sourpuss from the start so his going negative won't change things much. He's been the grumpiest of the candidates this cycle and last. Michele Bachmann has the ability to inspire but she's decided to go negative recently.
Now Mitt's decided that going negative against Newt gives him his best shot at winning. That's a major misdiagnosis on Mitt's behalf. His problem isn't with Newt. Mitt's challenge is himself . Going after Newt won't solve Mitt's problems.
Michele's decided that she has to go negative. That's a mistake for her because she hasn't figured out how to go negative without sounding shrill. Shrill doesn't win votes. It alienates people.
Ron Paul's in another category altogether. He's been grumpy from the start. He appeals to his base and not a single voter beyond his loyal supporters. That's worth a maximum of 15% in Iowa, then tails off in the following states. By the time Florida casts its ballots, he'll be fortunate to get 8%.
Newt appears to be the only candidate who's figured it out that people are looking for solutions-oriented candidates. That's Newt's specialty. That's what he thrives on. He's earned alot of goodwill from voters because he's obeyed Reagan's Eleventh Commandment. He's highlighted his conservative accomplishments. (It's noteworthy that Mitt doesn't have any significant public sector conservative accomplishments, isn't it?)
Meanwhile, this cartoon partially explains Newt's rise:
Isn't it clear that Newt's biggest advantage in his fight to defeat Mitt is that he isn't Mitt?
Posted Thursday, December 8, 2011 12:14 PM
No comments.
President Obama: Unemployment creates more jobs than Pipeline
In December, 2010, outgoing Speaker Pelosi said that unemployment checks created jobs . If that hadn't happened, it'd be astonishing to hear President Obama say that unemployment checks will create more jobs than the Keystone XL Pipeline project will create . Here's the video of Ms. Pelosi's statement:
Here's what President Obama, the worst jobs president in my lifetime, said about the Keystone XL Pipeline project:
President Obama said that he will delay his vacation and keep Congress in session until the passage of his desired payroll tax cut and unemployment benefits extension, two proposals that Obama said would create more jobs than the Keystone XL pipeline that his administration recently delayed.
"I would not ask anyone to do something I'm not willing to do myself," Obama said when asked if he would go on vacation while keeping Congress in Washington D.C. "We are going to stay here as long as it takes [to get unemployment extended and pass the payroll tax cut]."
As Obama called for passage of those bills, he also responded to a recent Republican push to require him to approve the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada. "However many jobs might be generated by the Keystone pipeline," he said, "it's going to be a lot fewer than the jobs created by the payroll tax cut and extending unemployment insurance."
At best, the payroll tax holiday created a handful of jobs. At best, unemployment benefits doesn't create jobs.
Meanwhile, the Keystone XL Pipeline will immediately create 20,000 construction jobs. Those union workers that are getting stiffed by this administration would've gotten paid $30+ an hour with lots of overtime available to supplement their paychecks.
That's before considering how many indirect jobs would be created :
"We believe that the benefits of this pipeline are too many to be allow it to be derailed by environmental extremists. The Keystone XL will create good-paying jobs here in the U.S. and Canada," says Brent Booker of the Laborers International Union.
And Bruce Burton of the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers adds, "The Keystone XL pipeline is shovel-ready. As soon as a presidential permit is granted, jobs will be created , jobs that our members desperately need."
The unions argue the pipeline would create 20,000 direct jobs and 115,000 indirect jobs from suppliers and the like.
I'm betting that President Obama doesn't want to argue that the payroll tax holiday and unemployment checks have created 135,000 jobs. I'm betting that he's saying this to create political cover for himself and congressional Democrats.
There's no reason to take President Obama's word on these statements. Let's remember that he predicted that passing the stimulus would keep unemployment below 8%. It's been as high as 10.2%, with the current 8.6% being artificially low because workforce participation has dropped since President Obama's inauguration.
If workforce partipation was still where it was in January, 2009, the unemployment rate would be 11%.
President Obama is the worst jobs president of my lifetime. What's disappointing is that the other presidents don't even come close to being this awful.
It's time to run this administration out of office ASAP. If we don't, it'll take a decade or more to recover from the Obama disaster.
Posted Thursday, December 8, 2011 2:14 PM
No comments.
Dissecting President Obama's speech
President Obama's speech in Osawatomie, KS, is riddled with statements that are ripe for ridicule. Let's start with this paragraph:
And these values gave rise to the largest middle class and the strongest economy that the world has ever known. It was here in America that the most productive workers, the most innovative companies turned out the best products on Earth. And you know what? Every American shared in that pride and in that success, from those in the executive suites to those in middle management to those on the factory floor. So you could have some confidence that if you gave it your all, you'd take enough home to raise your family and send your kids to school and have your health care covered, put a little away for retirement.
Let's add in the things that President Obama omitted. He said that American workers are the most productive workers in the world. That's true. What he forgot to say is that he's caved to militant environmentalist organizations to prevent the building the Keystone XL Pipeline project.
Thanks to President Obama's giving into these militant environmentalists, hard-working construction workers can't create wealth for their families. They can't save money to raise their families. Thanks to this project getting delayed, they'll find it more difficult to save for their retirement or put money away to send their kids to college.
Mr. President, where's the shared propserity for these people? Scratch that. Where's America's stolen prosperity?
And ever since, there's been a raging debate over the best way to restore growth and prosperity, restore balance, restore fairness. Throughout the country, it's sparked protests and political movements, from the tea party to the people who've been occupying the streets of New York and other cities. It's left Washington in a near-constant state of gridlock. It's been the topic of heated and sometimes colorful discussion among the men and women running for president.
President Obama omits the fact that the Occupy protesters have committed dozens of violent crimes, from rape to assault. That's before talking about the disgusting health mess they intentionally left in the aftermath of their temper tantrum.
If the fight is between Obamanomics and Reaganomics, this isn't a fight. It's a massacre. Obamanomics has exploded the deficits in ways we couldn't have imagined in the 2008 campaign. Obamanomics has picked which of his cronies would benefit the most from his reckless stimulus spending.
Obamanomics has stymied wealth creation. When Scott Rasmussen asked who they should fear more, greedy Wall Street types or overreaching politicians, people said that they feared overreaching politicians more :
In a recent Rasmussen Poll, voters agreed by 3:1 that they had more to fear from overreaching politicians than from greedy businessmen .
That isn't surprising but it's gotta be unnerving to the Obama campaign.
Now, in the midst of this debate, there are some who seem to be suffering from a kind of collective amnesia. After all that's happened, after the worst economic crisis, the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression, they want to return to the same practices that got us into this mess. In fact, they want to go back to the same policies that stacked the deck against middle-class Americans for way too many years. And their philosophy is simple: We are better off when everybody is left to fend for themselves and play by their own rules.
What a blowhard. Reaganomics got us into this current mess? This is proof that President Obama doesn't have a flipping clue. It's his industry takeovers, his bailouts, his excessive regulations, his failed economic policies and his rewarding cronies and other political allies that's caused this economy.
Reaganomics didn't create trillion dollar deficits. It created 20,000,000 new jobs in 8 years. Obamanomics created trillion dollar deficits and skyrocketing unemployment. It's destroyed wealth while giving political allies preferential treatment.
I am here to say they are wrong. I'm here in Kansas to reaffirm my deep conviction that we're greater together than we are on our own. I believe that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, when everyone does their fair share, when everyone plays by the same rules. These aren't Democratic values or Republican values. These aren't 1 percent values or 99 percent values. They're American values. And we have to reclaim them.
Consider this President Obama's indictment of his economic policies. Not everyone is getting a fair shot. Ask Boeing if they got a fair shot from President Obama's NLRB. Ask Keystone XL if they're getting a fair shot from President Obama's State Department.
The answer is obvious. They didn't get a fair shot. That's because they weren't one of President Obama's prefered cronies. They weren't one of President Obama's bundlers. If you're Jeffrey Immelt, you can move tens of thousands of jobs to China if you such up to this administration on green jobs. Apparently, you can even get named to President Obama's Jobs Council if you suck up to President Obama on green jobs.
There's nothing fair about President Obama's economic policies. If you don't suck up to him, you're his next political target. That's proven by President Obama's actions during his takeover of GM.
President Obama isn't a nice man who believes in fair play. The reality is that he's a corrupt, disgusting man who's elevated his cronies while he's exploded the deficit and refused to create wealth-creating jobs that would restore prosperity.
Posted Thursday, December 8, 2011 5:12 PM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton is challenging Judge Lindman's ruling
Gov. Dayton won't say no to his special interest allies. That's why he's contesting Judge Lindman's ruling :
Gov. Mark Dayton will continue to argue on behalf of his right to order an election on unionizing child-care workers, he announced today. His office issued a one-sentence statement reading: "The Governor has decided to contest the issuance of the Temporary Injunction at the January 17, 2012 hearing."
Sen. Hann and Sen. Parry responded with this statement:
'Judge Lindman was very clear in his decision to block the scheduled unionization vote, stating concerns that the governor was circumventing the legislature, the governor does not have authority to enact a law of this type through executive order, and the governor is potentially harming the thousands he excluded from the democratic process.
'With this information in hand, the governor had the opportunity to withdraw, rethink and reconsider his executive order, but he has instead decided to forge ahead while his union allies cheer him on. We agree with Judge Lindman's statements from the bench that it is likely the providers will prevail, and we continue to stand in their support."
Judge Lindman's ruling was clear in stating that he saw Gov. Dayton's executive order as an attempt to bypass the legislative process.
Clearly, Gov. Dayton is intent on fighting for his political allies to whatever extent he needs to. Here's a partial transcript of Judge Lindman's ruling:
But I do find one thing dispositive for purposes of today's hearing. And that issue is whether the governor has the power to enact a law such as the one that is involved here and that is being done here by executive order.
It occurs to this court that if unionization of day-care providers is to become the law of the State of Minnesota, it must first be submitted to the law-making body of the state. That is to say that it should be vetted through the law-making process.
Judge Lindman didn't stop there. Here's another important part of Judge Lindman's ruling:
Articles three, four, and five of the Constitution of the State of Minnesota delineate the powers granted to the courts, the legislature, and to the governor. The legislature is the law-making body of the state.
This court believes that the seperation of powers provisions of the Minnesota Constitution do not allow the governor to enact by executive order a law that should be initiated by the legislature.
There's nothing in Minnesota's laws that says public employee unions have the right to force a union vote on people who aren't public employees. That's why Judge Lindman correctly stated that this requires legislation to be written and passed in the legislature and signed into law by the governor.
Judge Lindman is essentially saying that a) Gov. Dayton is attempting to create a law through executive branch fiat and b) Judge Lindman isn't ok with that because Minnesota's Constitution gives Minnesota's lawmaking responsibilities to the legislature.
Shortly after Judge Lindman's ruling, AFSCME Council 5 issued this statement :
In issuing a temporary restraining order, Judge Dale Lindman said the unionization issue should have gone through the Legislature. But taking our case to the Legislature would be futile. It's led by the same Republican legislators whose lawsuit denies providers their right to vote and have a voice in decisions that affect their work and the families they serve.
AFSCME's justification for bypassing the legislative processs is that the legislature won't pass their legislation. It's difficult to picture that argument being persuasive in court. If that's AFSCME's argument, they should
What's astonishing is Gov. Dayton's and AFSCME's disregard for Minnesota's Constitution and Minnesota's lawmaking process. A persuasive argument could be made that AFSCME and Gov. Dayton believe that they should ignore Minnesota's Constitution because the ends justify the means.
UPDATE: Kim Crockett, the President of the Minnesota Free Market Institute, left a comment that's worthy of greater attention. Here's Kim's statement:
The brave childcare providers need to raise another $35-$40,000 to fight the Governor's office and unions. Unlike the state, providers do not have access to taxpayers funds to fight. Your readers can help here:https://www.wepay.com/donate/65011I urge my loyal readers to click this link & contribute to these small business's legal defense fund. This is an important fight, one that must be won.
Kim Crockett, President
Originally posted Thursday, December 8, 2011, revised 09-Dec 10:39 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 09-Dec-11 09:08 AM
Superbly stated, Gary. I continue to be amazed at how Governor Mini-Me believes he can force small business owners (i.e. management) to have a vote to join a union.
Comment 2 by kim crockett at 09-Dec-11 09:37 AM
Great work, Gary! (Posted on MN Free Market Institute Facebook page.) The brave childcare providers need to raise another $35-$40,000 to fight the Governor's office and unions. Unlike the state, providers do not have access to taxpayers funds to fight. Your readers can help here:https://www.wepay.com/donate/65011
Kim Crockett, President
