February 11-12, 2011
Feb 11 14:01 Unserious Arguments From An Unserious Governor Feb 11 13:37 Why I'm Supporting Janet Beihoffer Feb 11 15:28 Crisis Management Feb 12 04:01 It Isn't A Matter of Whether We'll Raise Taxes Feb 12 04:22 Strawmen as far as the Eye Can See Feb 12 17:43 EPA Selling Half-Truths
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Unserious Arguments From An Unserious Governor
Gov. Dayton vetoed a GOP bill that would've cut $900,000,000 of spending, which wasn't unexpected. What's disappointing is Gov. Dayton's reason for vetoing the bill:
Dayton indicated that his veto should not have come as a surprise to Republicans.
'I was very clear. I have been for the last couple of weeks,' he said of his disapproval of the direction Republicans were taking. 'I don't understand why there's such a rush to judgment,' said Dayton.
Lawmakers have 'ample' time to address the state budget, Dayton said at a press conference late afternoon.
That's one of the least serious excuses for vetoing a bill I've ever read. "Rush to judgment"??? It's like Gov. Dayton's arguing that there's an inappropriate time to cut wasteful spending. Shame on him.
I'd argue that there's a valid reason for cutting spending early in the session. It's called the 2007 budget session, when all the 500-1,000 page omnibus spending bills got dumped on the House with 4-6 hrs. left in the session.
I'd love asking Gov. Dayton why the legislature shouldn't start cutting now. For that matter, I don't know why it matters if the cuts are considered "piecemeal" or part of a comprehensive budget.
Difficult decisions will have to be made this session. By vetoing this bill, Gov. Dayton is showing that, at this point, he's more about grandstanding than about serious governance.
One other thing that's painfully obvious is that Gov. Dayton isn't a gracious person. His classless diatribes against Gov. Pawlenty didn't have a place in a major speech. They were just part of a speech that's getting poor ratings on Main Street.
Thus far, Gov. Dayton hasn't shown that he's got a plan to balance Minnesota's budget. It's most likely that the GOP legislature will have to do the heavy lifting in putting a budget together. People shouldn't put alot of faith in Dayton's budget because it's more a political document than an economic document.
It's time for Gov. Dayton to push aside Alida's ideology-driven agenda and get down to the serious business of doing what's best for Minnesota. Increasing spending and raising taxes aren't what's best for Minnesota.
Posted Friday, February 11, 2011 2:01 PM
Comment 1 by Chad A Quigley at 11-Feb-11 10:43 PM
Why rush the cutting when the DFL has months to dream up new taxes you and I can't even fathom. Cutting in little chunks makes way too much sense considering the DFL likes to wait until the last minute.
Dayton learned his graciousness from Obama who takes a shot at Bush every chance he gets.
Why I'm Supporting Janet Beihoffer
Tomorrow, I'll be participating in my county's BPOU convention. I will put my name into nomination to be a state central delegate. If anyone asks who I'm supporting to be the next RNC committeewoman, I'll tell them that I'm supporting Janet Beihoffer.
Anyone who's known Janet knows that she's the type of person who knows how to get things done, no matter the size of the challenge. Janet's known some difficult political challenges & met those challenges.
Starting with her training people to be election judges to her GOTV training system, Janet is equipped to meet the challenges that the RNC faces.
That's before talking about Janet's communications & marketing skills. If there's anything that the RNC desperately needs, it's someone who understands communications.
Janet is a woman of exceptional skills and unparalleled drive.
That's why I'm proudly supporting Janet.
Posted Friday, February 11, 2011 1:37 PM
No comments.
Crisis Management
Many of DC's pundits have said that the Obama administration has done an acceptable job managing the Egyptian crisis. I'd beg to differ. If abandoning an ally, albeit a corrupt one, who was a steady ally to Israel and who helped gather intel against the terrorist networks.
This WSJ article talks about this administration's mistakes in mishandling the Egyptian crisis:
After a extended meeting with his national security team, President Barack Obama released the longest statement of the Egyptian crisis, making it clear the appearances of Messrs. Mubarak and Suleiman on Egyptian state television had muddled the transition process, not clarified it.
"The Egyptian people have been told that there was a transition of authority, but it is not yet clear that this transition is immediate, meaningful or sufficient," Mr. Obama said.
We can't afford an administration that's clueless about national security. NID James Clapper looked totally clueless testifying yesterday about what the Muslim Brotherhood stood for:
Director of National Intelligence James Clapper raised some eyebrows today at a House Intelligence Committee hearing when he called described the Muslim Brotherhood as a 'largely secular' organization.
'The term 'Muslim Brotherhood,' Clapper said, 'is an umbrella term for a variety of movements, in the case of Egypt, a very heterogeneous group, largely secular, which has eschewed violence and has decried Al Qaeda as a perversion of Islam: They have pursued social ends, a betterment of the political order in Egypt, et cetera. In other countries, there are also chapters or franchises of the Muslim Brotherhood, but there is no overarching agenda, particularly in pursuit of violence, at least internationally.'
As bad as Clapper's testimony was, President Obama's publicly pitching Mubarak under the bus was worse. Coupled with his appeasing America's enemies like Iran and Russie and his abandoning trusted allies like the British, the Polish and the Israelis, nations are worried that the US isn't a reliable ally.
It's shameful that this administration hasn't figured the national security/diplomacy things out. They've given the back of the hand to allies while appeasing enemies like Iran and Russia.
Simply put, this administration's national security team is incompetent, possibly even worse than the Carter administration's team. That's saying alot considering the fact that Jimmy Carter once called Ayatollah Khomeini, the father of the current jihadist movement, a "great man of religion."
If throwing allies under the bus is acceptable national security policy, then this administration is fine. If you expect our administrations to keep friendly relations with our allies, however, this administration is a total disaster.
Posted Friday, February 11, 2011 3:28 PM
Comment 1 by Jeff Rosenberg at 11-Feb-11 04:46 PM
Let me get this right. You think Obama should have stood in opposition to the Egyptian people's calls for democracy?
So we should only support democracy when the country being liberated has oil fields we hope to profit from?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 11-Feb-11 05:18 PM
Thanks for trying, Jeff, but that isn't what I was suggesting. Instead, the Obama administration should've used quiet diplomacy to nudge Mubarak towards leaving. Then I would've issued a statement today saying something like "For the last 18 days, the Egyptian people have expressed their desire to be free. This afternoon, President Mubarak heeded the wishes of his people & resigned. We thank President Mubarak for his tireless work in fighting jihad, for his being a strong ally of Israel & for his stabilizing influence in the Middle East."
"This administration pledges our full support for the sovereign people of Egypt. We offer them our full cooperation in charting a course towards liberty & in keeping extremists away from the levers of power."
That's how you conduct diplomacy, not via an endless parade of press conferences, misstatements & ultimatums.
It Isn't A Matter of Whether We'll Raise Taxes
Friday night, former AG Mike Hatch tried playing the 'raising taxes is inevitable' card during the political roundtable on Almanac. His argument is that we'll either raise property taxes or income taxes to balance the budget.
Hatch even cited MMB statistics showing that the GOP's plan to not raise income taxes will cause "a $428 million property tax increase." That's nonsense. Here's why.
First, MMB can't assume that local units of government will change their priorities or spending habits even though it makes sense. In the real world, people make different decisions when financial conditions change.
Next, Mr. Hatch apparently thinks that citizens won't fire elected official who'd rather raise taxes than set intelligent priorities. With money being tight, I think the odds of citizens just settling for that type of representation is unlikely.
Finally, the people who'd raise property taxes would property taxes on their neighbor, their co-worker, their friend or someone they know at church. It's one thing for someone in St. Paul to raise taxes on people who they'll likely never meet. It's another for a person to raise taxes on their neighbor, friend or co-worker. After all, it's likely that that politician's neighbor, friend or co-worker will want to have a chat with them if they cast an unpopular vote.
Also appearing on the panel were Fritz Knaak, Marty Seifert and Denise Cardinal. One thing that's apparent is that Ms. Cardinal was outclassed by Mssrs. Hatch, Knaak and Seifert by a significant amount.
Marty made a number of substantive suggestions on how Minnesota could save money, including unfunded mandate reforms and privatizing things. He specifically mentioned sending printing jobs to a private company several years back rather than using the in-house print shop.
Bids were taken. Predictably, the government unions complained about losing jobs. The job was done by a private company for a cheaper price than the job would've cost had they kept the project in-house. It took less time.
Most importantly, Minnesota's Main Street didn't notice the change. Had they noticed, I'd bet they would've been fine with the change because it saved the state money, which means citizens could've kept more money in their wallets.
The thing that stood out most to me was when Fritz Knaak said that, this week, it became apparent to him that the DFL was the party of the status quo, that they weren't the party of ideas. I didn't realize that Mr. Knaak hadn't noticed that before tonight but it's nice that he's noticed.
I've written for the past 3 years that the DFL was an obstructionist majority and that Sen. Berglin's HHS committee was "where good health care reforms go to die." This isn't news to GOP activists. It's a bit of a yawner, in fact.
The reality is, though, that the DFL is stubbornly wedded to the status quo because too many government unions rely on the status quo.
DFLers Hatch and Cardinal apparently didn't notice that voters rejected their policies in rather significant numbers this past election. It wasn't just a matter of the DFL losing a few seats in both houses. In the Senate, the DFL lost one-fourth of their members, dropping from 46 seats to 30. In the House, Democrats went from 87 seats to 62 seats, a drop of almost 30 percent.
Cardinal hasn't shown that she's figured that out yet, replying that the GOP majorities will have a difficult time governing. That's foolishness. Thus far, the GOP majorities have kept one promise after another in terms of streamlining the permitting process and cutting spending.
DFL legislators shouldn't heed the advice of pundits like Ms. Cardinal. If swing district legislators listen to her, they'll soon be former legislators.
Hatch is right about this though. Something is inevitable. That inevitability just isn't what he said. Change is what's inevitable. It's just a matter of whether the DFL listens to the people or whether they'll get hit with the political equivalent of a steamroller.
Based on their actions thus far, I'm betting it's the latter.
Posted Saturday, February 12, 2011 4:01 AM
Comment 1 by Gretchen Leisen at 12-Feb-11 08:54 AM
Thanks for you excellent commentary on all the latest political news and ideas. You are a great watchdog for conservative principles. Your blog is first on my list to view every morning.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Feb-11 12:45 PM
Thanks Gretchen. I hope life is well with you.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 12-Feb-11 10:30 PM
Gary:
I live in Minneapolis. Here's an interesting difference that makes your point. In 2011 my county property taxes went down even though the county had suffered budget cuts from the states.
On the other hand my taxes for the city of Minneapolis went up. Their budget is over $1.3 billion and the amount of state aide which was cut was $20 million or 1.5% of their budget. Easy to replace. Of course since they don't want to cut dream worthless spending they cut police, fire, street repairs first. Of course when the city is so totally control by the democrats they don't care.
Um Gary I think the Democrats lost more than a third of their Senate members.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Rex Newman at 13-Feb-11 10:57 AM
Ms. Cardinal must live in the same la-la land as Lori Sturdevant. I'm at least glad she's in politics, not doing something where such folly doesn't work. Like handling explosives, wiring office buildings, brain surgery, rocket science, ...
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Feb-11 12:04 PM
I totally agree, Rex. The reality is that Ms. Cardinal isn't skilled in making logical arguments. About all she's skilled at is repeating that day's talking points. You can train parrots to do that.
Strawmen as far as the Eye Can See
If there's anything that's certain from this article , it's that new DFL Chairman Ken Martin isn't afraid of using strawman arguments. Here's what I'm talking about:
Ken Martin's challenge as new DFL State Party chairman in a small way may be reflected in his brother.
Martin, of Eagan, recently spoke of a brother living in the northern exurbs, a carpenter by trade hard hit by the recession, who votes Republican.
He votes Republican, Martin said, because he's wrongly convinced Democrats want to take away his guns, tax him out of his home, tell him where and where he can't snowmobile.
None of that is true, Martin explained.
'He votes his fears over his hopes, over his pocketbook issues,' said Martin. 'We just have to take those (wedge) issues off the books,' he said.
First, Republicans aren't telling people that the DFL wants to take their guns away, tax him out of their home or tell people where they can or can't snomobile. It's true, though, that the DFL is the party who are genetically predisposed to raising taxes whether they're regressive taxes (See Transportation Bill) or progressive taxes (See Gov. Dayton's campaign pledge).
While it's true that President Obama has earned the reputation of not being a fierce defender of the Second Amendment, Iron Range DFLers are staunchly pro-Second Amendment. In fact, alot of people who formerly were pro-Second Amendment DFL activists voted for Chip Cravaack. I wouldn't be surprised if they put him over the top.
The reality is that Republicans have campaigned on being the party that wants to create a dynamic economy as opposed to the DFL's Bonding Bill-reliant economy. The GOP wants to reform the state's regulatory system so businesses can expand in a timely fashion.
Right now, the DFL locally and Democrats nationally stand for poorly prioritized spending and taxing the rich. That simply isn't where people are at right now.
The DFL's problem isn't the GOP's deceptive messaging. The DFL's problem is the DFL's policies. Until they straighten that out, they'll continue having problems, especially at the legislative level. Until they straighten that out, they'll continue blaming people for not understanding how brilliant their policies are and about not getting their message out.
Getting DFLers to go to the polls next election is critical. But additionally, the party needs to expand its base of support.
'If you look at our base in the DFL Party, it's become more and more concentrate in the urban core. And the suburbs and exurbs with their growing population is becoming more Republicans,' said Martin.
Democrats need to find ways to communicate with voters in suburbs, exurbs, Greater Minnesota, he said. 'Because we can't win election anymore with just our base,' said Martin.
The DFL as it's currently configured, will have difficulty regaining the majority anytime soon. They'll have to make substantial changes to appeal to voters. If they want to be competitive in Central Minnesota, they'll have to recruit candidates that are genuine fiscal conservatives, not just candidates that campaign that way.
With researchers digging into candidates' school board or city council voting records, the GOP will be able to inform people about pretender candidates.
Martin faces a difficult proposition, one made only marginally better by the Twin Cities media. He'll need alot more than that to win in 2012.
Posted Saturday, February 12, 2011 4:22 AM
Comment 1 by Chad A Quigley at 12-Feb-11 09:10 AM
How does Martin not understand that the only reason the DFL still has the Urban areas is that they have brainwashed those people into thinking the DFL is there to help them with the promise of lower property taxes, more free money, and the rich will pay their fair share (of what I do not know), none of which they have been able to deliver on.
The people in the suburbs and rural areas for the most part have learned that once out from under the spell of the DFL, life is actually pretty good and that personal responsibility makes you feel good too.
EPA Selling Half-Truths
Derrick Jackson's column on controversial EPA administrator Lisa Jackson's recent House testimony is a story based on half-truths. Here's an example of what I'm talking about:
THE REPUBLICAN attack on the Environmental Protection Agency began in earnest Wednesday with Representative Joe Barton of Texas saying that regulations to curb pollutants and limit greenhouse gases will "put the American economy in a straitjacket, costing us millions of jobs."
Lisa Jackson, the EPA administrator, was ready to combat the job-killing rhetoric. In her opening statement to a House Energy and Commerce Committee subcommittee, she quoted a UMass Amherst study that found that the construction and retrofitting investments in the eastern US under two new EPA air quality rules would produce nearly 1.5 million jobs over the next five years. The rules limit the emissions of sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxide, mercury, lead, dioxin, arsenic, and other pollutants. She said the EPA's implementation of the Clean Air Act, even in the last year of a Republican Bush administration loath to admit to the dangers of global warming, 'contributed to dynamic growth in the US environmental technologies industry and its workforce."
First, the EPA is a corrupt agency committed to sidestepping the legislative process. Next, there's no doubt the backdoor version of Cap and Tax will create some jobs. Still, there's equally no doubt that higher energy costs will kill jobs, too. That's what economists call an opportunity cost.
Higher energy prices stop thriving economies. High energy prices cause faltering economies to run up high deficits and drive unemployment through the roof.
Then there's the crony capitalism angle. Generally speaking, most of the people investing in green technologies are lefties. The biggest investors in green jobs technologies are lefties. Ms. Jackson's push is nothing more than this administration is using whatever means are available to pay off political cronies.
There's no question that cronyism inhabits both sides of the aisle. That isn't the point. The point is whether the Democrats' cronyism hurts the American economy or helps it. At this point, that's open for debate.
James Heintz, associate director at the UMass's Political Economy Research Institute, which did the study, said in a telephone interview that the potential job growth was not only dynamic, but diverse. 'You are talking about an intense infusion of new capital for construction and installation and direct jobs for [people making] boilers, pollution control technologies, scrubbers, and component parts," he said. 'The indirect jobs are the kind created that when you install a natural gas-fired generator" which includes components made at factories across the country.
The first question that needs to be asked is whether these things aren't already being done without the EPA rule. The next question is whether this is a limited market. At what point do we get to the end of retrofitting, etc., and we're back to square one. At this point, we don't have that answer either.
Most importantly, what we know is that the EPA, under Ms. Jackson's lead, will have intruded into our lives without legislative action for a questionable project.
That's what the usurpation of freedom looks like.
Posted Saturday, February 12, 2011 5:43 PM
Comment 1 by Anonymous at 12-Feb-11 11:02 PM
Thanks for the "fair and balanced" view. lol
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 13-Feb-11 07:10 AM
The question that needs to be asked is whether all of these jobs and spending would have occurred if the government hadn't mandated it. Is there some VALUE to the great expense and diversion of the labor pool? Some of these pollutants are serious dangers to the public health, at certain levels, and to the degree cost-effective technology exists to prevent these things from getting into our environment, they make sense. There is absolutely zero reason to believe that such a reason extends to preventing CO2 from getting into the environment. Our lungs contain it at a level hundreds of times higher than what industrial "pollution" produces.
