February 13-14, 2011
Feb 13 15:57 Mubarak Slams Obama Before Resigning Feb 13 16:27 DFL, Public Unions Waging War On Minnesota? Feb 13 17:19 Ken Martin's Public Debut Feb 13 22:31 This Makes Too Much Sense Feb 14 07:20 This Is Moderation? Feb 14 09:33 Fed Deficits a 'Growth Industry'? Feb 14 19:06 Teamsters' Dishonest Ad Campaign
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mubarak Slams Obama Before Resigning
I can't fault former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak for slamming the Obama administration right before resigning. The Obama administration's handling of its allies have been despicable, starting with Inauguration Day.
Hosni Mubarak had harsh words for the United States and what he described as its misguided quest for democracy in the Middle East in a telephone call with an Israeli lawmaker a day before he quit as Egypt's president.
The legislator, former cabinet minister Benjamin Ben-Eliezer, said on TV Friday that he came away from the 20-minute conversation on Thursday with the feeling the 82-year-old leader realized "it was the end of the Mubarak era".
"He had very tough things to say about the United States," said Ben-Eliezer, a member of the Labor Party who has held talks with Mubarak on numerous occasions while serving in various Israeli coalition governments.
"He gave me a lesson in democracy and said: 'We see the democracy the United States spearheaded in Iran and with Hamas, in Gaza, and that's the fate of the Middle East,'" Ben-Eliezer said.
"'They may be talking about democracy but they don't know what they're talking about and the result will be extremism and radical Islam,'" he quoted Mubarak as saying.
There's a difference that pundits from both sides of the aisle haven't talked about, which is the difference between President Bush's push for liberation and President Obama's push for democracy. Democracy only means that there are elections. Liberty is freedom, human dignity and universally-recognized human rights.
President Obama's public calling for elections might've seemed like a good idea but it wasn't. The best diplomacy is quiet diplomacy. Essentially pushing Mubarak out was foolish because it told other nations' leaders that President Obama would overreact, especially if you'd been a trusted ally. Had President Obama just kept nudging him further from power while building the institutions of government that Egyptians will need, other nations would've accepted Obama's actions.
Now they're walking on eggshells.
It's time for the Obama administration to understand that they can't continually throw allies under the bus just because their polling shows it's a popular idea. They must learn that getting policy right is most important because decisions have other consequences.
Thus far, the Obama administration has proven to be exceptionally incompetent. That's bad enough but they're needlessly make the world a more dangerous world.
It's just another thing they've proven incompetent on. That's why President Obama won't win another election.
Posted Sunday, February 13, 2011 3:57 PM
No comments.
DFL, Public Unions Waging War On Minnesota?
Based on this article , it seems that Minnesota's unions are itching for a fight over a proposed wage freeze. They shouldn't expect much public sympathy if that fight erupts.
Predictably, the DFL is fighting for public worker unions because they're key contributors to DFL campaigns. Rep. Thissen, the House Minority Leader, is chief among them:
"There's no reason for us to demonize public employees and single them out as the group that ought to bear the brunt of the burden," said House Minority Leader Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis. "The idea that you are going to be attacking middle-class Minnesotans who are doing a public service...makes no sense to me."
It doesn't take rocket science to figure out that shared sacrifice will be needed in fixing Minnesota's budget problems. It does require twisted logic to understand how Rep. Thissen gets from sharing in Minnesota's sacrifices to making public employees bear the brunt of Minnesota's budgetary problems.
Private sector employees have taken hits, either in the form of wage freezes, increased contributions to their health care plan or who have been layed off. Rep. Thissen's thinking indicates that he thinks public sector workers are more equal than private sector employees, that they should be exempted from the pain.
Calling for a wage freeze for public sector employees when private sector employees have lost their jobs is hardly the definition of attacking public sector employees. It's more like a gentle tap than a full frontal assault.
Rep. Thissen's logic appears to be that we shouldn't freeze public union workers' pay because it isn't a silver bullet solution. Rep. Thissen knows better than think there's a single silver bullet solution.
This section of the article offers a great contrast between the public and private sectors:
For years, government work was seen as a tradeoff: slightly lower salaries in exchange for security, good benefits and a comfortable pension. Over time, other perks crept in.
At the University of Minnesota, employees attended school free until last year; they now pay 25 percent. Up until just a few years ago, Duluth city employees got free health care when they retired, including public safety workers who could retire in their mid-40s with young families.
Corporations, meanwhile, have been moving away in massive numbers from the defined benefit programs that governments had emulated. In 2008, just 48,000 companies in the U.S. offered pension programs, down from 150,000 in 1988.
Public employees aren't getting rich but they're doing far better than private sector employees. It isn't acceptable for them to complain about wage freezes while Minnesota has a deficit or while private sector workers are losing their jobs or taking pay cuts.
Rep. Thissen isn't building a great public image in all this. He's building a reputation of being a whiner. He's building a reputation of supporting only people who belong to unions.
It's time for the DFL to prove that they're for the little guy, not just the little guy who belongs to a union. Thus far, there isn't much proof that they're for the little guy. There's ample proof that they're for the public sector unions and not much else.
Wednesday's SOS speech was nothing if not one sop to the public employee unions after another. The messages that came through were 'Let's return to the 80's and let's treat public employee unions with kid gloves.'
This is Main Street Minnesota's message for the DFL: Focus on our priorities or we'll run more of you out in 2012. It's a message the DFL should heed. If they don't, it'll be a difficult couple of election cycles for the DFL.
Posted Sunday, February 13, 2011 4:27 PM
Comment 1 by Chad A Quigley at 13-Feb-11 09:39 PM
Note to Rep. Thissen: When those of us who pay for the salaries and benefits of these public employees are having to take cuts in our salary and benefits because of the recession, why shouldn't public employees take a cut too?
The DFL still doesn't get it. There's no money tree to keep getting more and more money from to pay for their pet projects, social programs, and public employees.
Comment 2 by merrygale at 14-Feb-11 10:37 AM
There's really no reason why public employees even need a union to represent them. They are already a protected and special class of people. Most contribute nothing or very little to their health insurance for themselves and their families, they get pensions that pay almost their full salaries after only 25 years of service, also without having to contribute much themselves. I've been unemployed for a year and a half. My standard of living is now at the poverty level. Where is their shared sacrifice again? Give us all a break and stop your whining.
Comment 3 by Jaimie Nickisch at 21-Nov-12 07:08 AM
AmericanHealthJournal is looking for content partnerships with webmasters in the health care field. AmericanHealthJournal is a medical site which contains over 3000 of high quality medicine videos. We are in need of bloggers to submit guest blog articles to our web site. Get in touch with us at our contact form on our website.
Ken Martin's Public Debut
This morning, newly annointed DFL Chairman Ken Martin made his public debut during an interview with Esme Murphy. It wasn't a great performance based on what I saw.
At one point, Esme Murphy asked about how cutting spending would cause property taxes to spike. In response, Martin said that decisions in St. Paul might cause local government officials to "have to make difficult decisions."
I was astonished at his response to the point that I rewound my the DVR to hear his response again. I'd heard right. Apparently, Chairman Martin thinks that Minnesota's families and job creators shouldn't be protected from making difficult decisions if that means local officials are protected from making difficult decisions.
This isn't totally surprising. When haven't the DFL not worshiped at the altar of expanding government? This is just their latest worship service to bloated government.
Time after time, we've seen the DFL's policies and legislation reflect their government-first priorities. That's the biggest reason why we're in the mess we're in. But I digress.
I'd submit that it's essential that local government officials to set intelligent spending priorities, then live within the income they've received rather than raising property taxes or cutting essential services like firefighters or police officers.
Local citizens can send local officials that they don't expect just their representatives in St. Paul to set intelligent priorities. They expect their mayors and city councilmembers to set intelligent spending priorities, too.
Earlier in the program, Senate Majority Leader Amy Koch set the right tone by saying the legislature looked forward to working with local units of government in eliminating underfunded/unfunded mandates that tie local officials' hands.
The difference is striking. Martin's interview was centered on complaining that elected officials would have to make difficult decisions. Sen. Koch's interview focused on finding solutions so government lived within its means rather than automatically raising taxes.
The more the public sees the difference between the policies offered by the MNGOP's leaders and the DFL's leaders, the worse off the DFL will be. This isn't a small thing. There's a sizeable difference between the MNGOP's solutions and the DFL's complaining.
It doesn't lead to a flattering image for the DFL.
Posted Sunday, February 13, 2011 5:19 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 13-Feb-11 08:17 PM
Everything you say about Ken Martin is right. What you're perhaps forgetting is that you're not in the choir he's preaching to. It's not in his job description to make you and me happy, or even make sense.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 13-Feb-11 08:36 PM
I'll have lots of opportunities to preach to those who haven't 'joined the choir' yet. That's because I look for those opportunities.
This Makes Too Much Sense
This article , if I'm reading it right, essentially calls for the elimination of many important union principles. First, here's the list of suggestions from Tom Heurman:
Government agencies do exactly what they were designed to do. And those designs can change to enhance performance significantly. Politicians need to establish the big goals and then get out of the way and hire professionals to partner with managers and workers to transform how government works.
Here's how:
- Develop a clear vision for the state and for every government agency with specific big goals,
- Hire workers on the quality of their character and then on their possessing the talents needed for the job,
- Let employees do what they are good at,
- Invest in supervisor development because people quit their immediate supervisor, not the state,
- Provide the tools employees need to do their jobs well,
- Negotiate with unions to make work rules and work processes more effective, efficient, and flexible. If unions refuse to participate in good faith, use the adversarial process ,
- Set clear and achievable goals linked to the vision, mission, and strategy of the agency, and involve employees. Everyone should have: financial, customer service, process improvement, and learning goals,
- Provide immediate and ongoing feedback to employees,
- Give employees recognition-but not bribes,
- Care about employees as people; encourage their development and listen to their ideas and opinions.
- Provide a fair process where people get their say on matters that impact them,
- Award salary increases based on performance with a portion of salary "at risk" and earned via exceptional achievements,
- Streamline the disciplinary process to improve accountability. The union exists to assure workers of a fair process, not to protect incompetent or destructive employees who are cancers on an organization,
- Fewer employees will be needed in a redesigned organization. Do not lay people off-involve them and use employee talents to change work processes, which they know better than anyone. Downsize by attrition, buyouts, and early retirements,
- Implement efficiency training for all and also have targeted "Manhattan Projects" in high budget/high inefficiency programs, and
- Hold employees and managers accountable for achieving their objectives AND living the values of the organization.
This has no chance of getting signed into law by Gov. Dayton. It makes too much sense. It would radically change unions by increasing their accountability and weakening their power. I could've written this list when I was a supervisor at Fingerhut. These were the key principles that guided me as a supervisor. Rewarding exceptional efforts is just common sense. Let me digress for a moment. One year, the company was suffering through some tough times. Our CEO at the time said that we should trim the budget by $5,000,000. People attending the meeting gasped. How could we do that? That was unreasonable. When I returned to my cubicle, I started thinking about that. The next day, I spoke with a salesman that had been trying to get me to buy some of his product. I told him of a part that wore out on the printers once a month. The part cost just short of $1,000. He took a look at the part and said that most of these could be repaired once or twice by replacing the bearing. He said he'd sell me the bearing for $0.35 each. I spoke with my manager about what I'd just done. He was smiling ear-to-ear. With 24 printers, our annual cost on that part prior to the meeting was almost $300,000. As a result of thinking outside-the-box, our annual expense on that part dropped to less than $10,000 annually. Think of what would be possible if we incented government employees to find cost savings. What would happen if they were given a bonus check for every $1,000 of savings they identified. Gov. Dayton would immediately veto any legislation with this provision in it:
Negotiate with unions to make work rules and work processes more effective, efficient, and flexible. If unions refuse to participate in good faith, use the adversarial process
Considering the money and manpower the unions contribute to the DFL, no DFL governor could sign legislation with that provision in it. PERIOD. Truer words were never spoken:
Involving and engaging the talents of employees is difficult work that requires good, tough-love leaders. Many change efforts fail due to lack of courageous and committed leadership. But this work grows people, evolves organizations, and delivers phenomenal business results: efficiency, productivity, customer service, and cost savings. I know because I've done it as a leader and taught it as a consultant.
With Minnesota facing a deficit and a longterm structural deficit, it's vital that we identify people who a) aren't afraid of thinking outside the box, b) visionaries and c) can inspire people to think differently than they're currently thinking. I'd love hearing DFL legislators argue against these reforms. I'd love seeing the MNGOP target those legislators in 2012. Things might get more than a little ugly for legislators who opposed these recommendations if they became legislation.
Posted Sunday, February 13, 2011 10:31 PM
No comments.
This Is Moderation?
I've written numerous times that there are no real moderates in the Democratic Party anymore, that the image of moderation isn't substantive. Last week's Senate vote on repealing O'Care offers proof that Senate moderates are a product of spin, not substance:
Last week's Senate vote to reject the repeal of ObamaCare offered stark evidence that the so-called moderate Democrats in the Senate will be forced to walk the plank and vote for Obama's liberal positions in the 2011-2012 legislative session, guaranteeing that many won't return. Every single Democrat stood up and voted against repeal (except for one absentee and Independent, Joe Lieberman of Connecticut).
Harry Reid and Obama might well have let them off the hook. They could easily have let the likes of Sens. Jim Webb (D-Va.), Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), Ben Nelson (D-Neb.), Bill Nelson (D-Fla.), Bob Casey Jr. (D-Pa.) and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) save their seats and vote for repeal. Then, either the remaining Senate Democrats could block a vote or, more likely, Obama would veto the repeal legislation and no override would be possible. Such a posture would have gone a long way toward saving the Senate Democratic majority.
But Obama and Reid would have none of it. Like Captain Ahab accepting no excuses for not killing the white whale, they are determined to sacrifice the cream of their Senate majority in order not to repeal a law that the courts are going to throw out as unconstitutional anyway.
The 'moderate' Democrats in question lacked the guts and integrity to stand up to their leaders and vote to repeal this massively unpopular law. So much for their supposed 'moderation.'
So-called moderate Democrats voted the same way self-described Socialist Bernie Sanders voted. It's time Republicans reclaimed the vocabulary and said 'Enough's enough.'
Here's Dictionary.com's definition of moderate:
a person who is moderate in opinion or opposed to extreme views and actions, especially in politics or religion.
There's nothing moderate about Bernie Sanders or this bill. Similarly, there's nothing endearing about politicians who won't stand up on principle, especially against the likes of Harry Reid and Dick Durbin.
It would be different if they'd gotten pushed into voting in a close vote by LBJ. I barely knew LBJ, the president. I didn't know LBJ, the senator. Still, I know that Harry Reid is no LBJ. Far from it.
Of the people who voted against repealing O'Care who won't be senators in 2012, the names most likely missing will be Jon Tester, Mary Landrieu, Ben Nelson, Bill Nelson and Bob Casey, Jr.
Additionally, Jim Webb's and Kent Conrad's seats will certainly flip from blue to red.
Depending on the quality of candidates the NRSC can recruit, Herb Kohl's, Claire McCaskill's and Debbie Stabenow's seats are likely in play, too.
So it now must be with the Nelsons, Tester, Webb, Manchin and Casey. American Crossroads, Americans for Prosperity and Sixty Plus, the trio whose aggressive attacks led directly to the 2010 victories, must get on the air and inform voters of their senators' refusal to repeal this law.
Everyone knows the saying that, in politics, money talks. Wise politicos know that 'one better'; that early money shouts, especially with open seats. It might even scare out a freshman like Tester.
When President Obama told Fox News's Bill O'Reilly that the public was 'about evenly divided' on his healthcare plan, he was applying the same inability to count that characterizes his deficit-reduction programs. Rasmussen Reports shows a 55-40 margin for repeal, hardly a break-even scenario.
President Obama was stuck when O'Reilly asked that question. He's painted himself into a corner. This is his signature issue. If O'Care gets a radical transformation or is thrown out in the courts, that will be seen as a major defeat for President Obama and his allies in the Senate.
What's worse is that O'Care is just the start of things. These senators will be forced to vote against giving a) the EPA the authority to 'enact' Cap and Tax via regulation and b) the FCC the authority to regulate the internet via net neutrality. These aren't issues Democrats running in 2012 are eager to tackle. Nonetheless, the Republican House will put these instructions into the budget bills, forcing a vote on these issues.
That isn't likely to boost their ratings with independents.
Let's be blunt. The Democrats' predictions that they'll make a major comeback in 2012 is spin. It'll be another difficult election cycle for them.
Republicans can thank Harry Reid's boneheaded tactics for that.
Posted Monday, February 14, 2011 7:20 AM
No comments.
Fed Deficits a 'Growth Industry'?
Based on this WSJ article , about the only thing that will be a growth industry under the Obama administration is the deficits:
WASHINGTON - The White House projected Monday that the federal deficit would spike to $1.65 trillion in the current fiscal year, the largest dollar amount ever, adding pressure on Democrats and Republicans to tackle growing levels of debt.
The projected deficit for 2011 is fueled in part by a tax-cut extension that President Barack Obama and Republican lawmakers brokered in December, two senior administration officials said. It would equal 10.9% of gross domestic product, the largest deficit as a share of the economy since World War II.
The new estimate is part of Mr. Obama's proposed budget for fiscal year 2012, which becomes public Monday morning.
Mr. Obama is proposing $3.73 trillion in government spending in the next fiscal year, part of a plan that includes budget cuts and tax increases that administration officials believe will sharply bring down the federal deficit over 10 years.
President Obama's budget is proof that he isn't serious about reducing deficits or exercising fiscal restraint. Freezing spending at a mega-inflated level isn't a virtue. It's a sham. You'd think he'd do better just giving into his political allies' lobbyists.
This paragraph should scare people:
Senior administration officials said the new budget would address concerns about the country's long-term fiscal challenges while spending more money on education and research programs that the administration says are needed to boost economic growth.
It's as if he's ignoring last November's elections. The American people spoke with a booming voice that they demanded spending cut. Instead of proposing robust spending cuts, President Obama is proposing a timid, tiny spending freeze.
If President Obama won't listen to the will of We The People, then it's time to fire him in November, 2012. We literally can't afford more of his fiscal irresponsibility.
Posted Monday, February 14, 2011 9:37 AM
No comments.
Teamsters' Dishonest Ad Campaign
The Rochester Post-Bulletin is reporting that the Teamsters Local 320 is making a $100,000 ad buy :
Teamsters Local 320, which describes itself as "Minnesota's Most Powerful Labor Union," is launching a massive ad campaign on Sunday targeting a bill that would reduce the state's workforce by 15 percent over the next four years.
The union plans to spend $100,000 on TV and radio ads in cities across the state, including Rochester. Dubbed the " Stop the 15% Slash" campaign , the ads warn that if the bill advances it will mean the loss of key state workers including 1,275 cops.
To make that point, one of the newspaper ads features a burglar armed with a crowbar about to smash the window of a home. Above the picture, the ad text states "The 15% slash will cost Minnesota 1,275 cops. And some folks couldn't be happier."
According to the Gospel of the Teamsters, any budget cut will "slash" the budgets so badly that police officers and firefighters will be fired, property taxes will get raised and local officials will be faced with difficult decisions .
I'm predicting that these ads won't have a significant impact on the legislature or the budget process. I'm predicting that because the claims are easily disproven. People in outstate Minnesota know that their mayors will cut other services long before they'll cut public safety budgets.
The other thing that these ads prove is that the Teamsters think we're really stupid. Here's what the Teamsters are hyperventillating about:
Anti-worker legislators think they know why Minnesota is $6.2 billion in debt. It's not home foreclosures, failed banks, crooked Wall Street CEOs, incompetent federal regulators or the thousands of jobs corporations have shipped overseas.
Instead, they blame Minnesota's public employees. Like the 8,500 sworn sheriff's police and state patrol officers who leave their own families every day in order to protect ours. So they're determined to slash public employee rolls and pay by 15%.
Ladies and gentlemen, this isn't spin. It's a lie. PERIOD. The only legislation dealing with public employee pay is Sen. Dave Thompson's pay FREEZE on teachers.
The Teamsters don't care about the truth. They care about doing whatever it takes to keep their budgets from getting cut. They play fast and loose with the truth when they even bother dealing with the truth. This is a despicable organization that shouldn't be trusted AT ALL.
I'm not saying this about all unions. I'm saying it about the Teamsters in this instance, though it easily could describe any of the unions that contributed to ABM.
The Slash 15 program would mean approximately 1,275 sworn officers would be looking for work instead of looking for crooks. Equipment would get older. Response times longer. Criminals bolder.
If you agree that Minnesota needs those 1,275 enforcement officers out working for us, visit www.stoptheslash.com. From there, you can send lawmakers your own message of support for Minnesota's law enforcement and other public employees.
There is legislation that would reduce the state's workforce by 2015. Rather than "slash" these jobs outright from state payrolls, it's anticipated that most of these jobs will be lost through retirements and reforms.
REPEAT AFTER ME:
THERE IS NO PLAN TO CUT LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THERE IS NO PLAN TO CUT LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THERE IS NO PLAN TO CUT LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THERE IS NO PLAN TO CUT LAW ENFORCEMENT.
THERE IS NO PLAN TO CUT LAW ENFORCEMENT.
REPEAT AFTER ME:
THIS IS A SCARE TACTIC.
THIS IS A SCARE TACTIC.
THIS IS A SCARE TACTIC.
THIS IS A SCARE TACTIC.
THIS IS A SCARE TACTIC.
There's no question that Rep. Downey's bill intends to shrink Minnesota government's workforce by 15 percent. Likewise, there's no question that the Teamsters can't know that 1,275 law enforcement officials will "be looking for work instead of looking for crooks."
Unlike the Teamsters, this GOP legislature believes in setting priorities. At or near the top of those priorities is public safety. While I won't pretend to have proof positive that law enforcement won't be cut, I can say with confidence that keeping law enforcement beefed up and strong is their priority.
The Teamsters and other unions that rely heavily on government spending use these tactics to distract people from the truth: that there are lots of agencies that, if they were vaporized, wouldn't be noticed by the public. The Teamsters want you to think that every state agency and every employee is essential to Minnesota's well-being.
That's insulting to our intelligence. It's also their habit. Shame on them for a) spewing these lies and b) paying $100,000 for these lies to run in newspaper ads. They're shamefully dishonest and they can't be proven. They're allegations based on...who knows what.
What's worst is that the Teamsters think that they can get away with these unsubstantiated allegations. It's as if they think we're that easily duped. The Teamsters won't stop with this vicious campaign unless they start paying a price for making these types of unsubstantiated and unverifiable allegations.
This is corruption, pure and simple. Our society can't function with this level of dishonesty and corruption. It must end ASAP!!!
Posted Monday, February 14, 2011 7:06 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 15-Feb-11 08:13 AM
Gary:
They're probably listening to the city of Minneapolis which if they have any budget crisis will cut police first to justify a property tax increase to hide the rest of their wasteful spending.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
