February 19-24, 2013

Feb 19 02:41 Where's the accountability?

Feb 21 00:38 Intelligent people don't trust Spinmeister-In-Chief
Feb 21 02:03 DFL betrays students
Feb 21 10:02 Rep. Ward isn't looking out for students, parents, taxpayers

Feb 22 01:55 McCollum, Ellison push for Iranian nukes
Feb 22 09:09 Yes, Chris Matthews said that

Feb 23 04:28 Guns and gay marriage

Feb 24 11:16 Franken & Klobuchar: MIA on sequestration

Prior Months: Jan

Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Where's the accountability?

According to President Potter's office, $146,652 of SCSU's general fund was spent on the C.A.R.E. Initiative, aka the Community Anti-Racism Education Initiative. According to SCSU's website , "students, faculty and community participants [overwhelmingly] tell us this is one of the best workshops they have ever attended because the workshops are relevant, engaging, informational, comfortable and eye opening!"

That sounds great but there's no quantifiable, objective numbers to match with SCSU's statement. Without verification, we can't be certain that quote isn't anything more than happy talk. It wouldn't be the first time a public institution had issued a statement that was pure blather.

Further exploration of SCSU's website shows that the first "C.A.R.E. Leadership Team Meeting" was held on Sept. 1, 2006. According to the minutes of that meeting , things got off to a fantastic start:

Convocation week CARE Orientation Workshops were well attended and response from new employees was good.

It's odd that Sept. 1 and Sept. 21, 2006 are the only meetings of the C.A.R.E. Initiative executive board. That is, they're the only meetings on the SCSU website.

Here's the text of President Potter's email:

From: President's Office

Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013

To the Campus Community

As we continue our efforts to create an anti-racist culture with a commitment to diversity and inclusion, I offer this report on the resources we have devoted to this effort over the last several years. A shared understanding of what has been invested in diversity initiatives is all the more critical as we come to grips with a significant reduction in the external resources supporting the Center for Access & Opportunity, the largest single diversity initiative on campus.

An examination of the three most recently completed fiscal years, FY 2010, FY 2011, and FY 2012, reveals that we have a multitude of activities underway that are helping us advance these initiatives. In addition, it should be noted that there are numerous efforts in all areas of campus operations that are embedded in programs which are not included in the financial data in this report. A few examples of such efforts include programs in ethnic studies, African Studies, Global Studies, and Latin American Studies in the College of Liberal Arts; dedicated advisors for students of color in the Center for Advising; and the School of Education's targeted recruiting program for students of color who are interested in teaching careers. Though critical to our community, these activities cannot be readily identified from an analysis of expenditure data.

University funds that support diversity initiatives have been divided into three groups based on the sources of funds that support the initiatives:

M&E (also known as University General Fund)

Student fees

State and private grants.

Each year, about twenty-five different programs have expended resources in the promotion of diversity at SCSU. Total expenditures across all these programs from the three major sources increased each year from $4.16M in FY 2010 to $4.24M in FY 2011 and $4.32M in FY 2012. The largest segment of programs and resources are supported from the University General Fund which comprised 96 percent of the total expenditures in FY 2010 and FY 2011 and 92 percent of the total in FY 2012. Student fee supported programs increased from 4 percent of the total expenditures in FY 2010 and FY 2011 to 6 percent of the total in FY 2012. The table on the next page provides the expenditure history in each of the programs supported by the three major fund sources during FY 2010, FY 2011, and FY 2012.These important questions weren't answered:

How are the program results being measured?

What are the stakeholders getting in return for their $4.3 million?

Could some programs be combined or eliminated?

Could some services provided by programs like the SCSU Women's Center be handled by Stearns County Social Services?

Posted Tuesday, February 19, 2013 2:41 AM

Comment 1 by M.B. Cooper at 19-Feb-13 01:08 PM

Gary,

Some of us enjoy your blogs about SCSU and various examples of administrative conniving (all on taxpayer's money). Assuming you're not a double agent whose loyalties are with Potter and SCSU despite criticisms published, you are basically correct in you assessments, conclusions and suspicions. However, as an outsider, you are missing details that would better prove/validate your criticisms. In other words, you're already 65% correct but more details and specifics would boost your accuracy to 95% or more.

Let me offer three examples based on chronological order of your recent blogs. First, just for openers, what you're missing are historic details/facts about blatant bigotry exposed but ignored via: (a) the Mary Craik Psychology Department sexism case (1984); (b) the Marjorie Fish gender pay equity case involving 267 female faculty members (1998); (c) the anti-Semitism Ari Zmora class action lawsuit victory, 2002), (d) whistle blowing concerning blatant racism by two Black faculty members beginning in 2002; (e) the Somali high school girls' rebellion against carefully ignored race-based maltreatment in District 742, (later investigated and supported by the U.S. Department of Education's Civil Rights Division, 20011); and (f) hidden reasons for firing Mahmoud Saffari (2011).

The basis for your suspicions, discoveries and blog-stated complaints really began with the following national study findings published by the National Institute Against Prejudice and Violence entitled, "Campus Ethno-violence and the Policy Options," March 1990). Among 250 colleges, universities and their host communities studied, St. Cloud and SCSU were found to be most racist of all:

"The St. Cloud study implicates a hostile community and a campus that is equally hostile. Levels of ethno-violence reported here exceed those in any campus or community study that we have reviewed. THere is at St. Cloud a different normative structure than at any of the other universities studied." ("Campus Ethno-violence and the Policy Options;" National Institute Against Prejudice & Violence, Institute Report, No. 4, March 1990)

1. Evidently, Earl Potter has little or no clout with Dave Kleis and City Hall in terms of aggressively combating racism in ways that are convincing to invasive fact-finding independent study groups, news media beyond St. Cloud, you and me. So, if the problem is threatening enough, employ tactics of concealment and cover-ups (to include books cooking). Otherwise, simply ignore the problem until those two Black SCSU faculty members, Mahmoud Saffari or Gary Gross begin to make discoveries?

2. First, to explain such low Black student retention and graduation rates without prompting an outside investigation from the news media and/or MnSCU, SCSU decided to begin counting Blacks who enrolled, left/transferred away (to safer campus/community environments) "and then went on to graduate elsewhere" as SCSU graduates. Let's call it fraud.

3. If the problem of students of color attrition is serious enough (and it certainly is), why not simply change grades of Blacks and a few others of color unilaterally (without approval from faculty members who initially issued the grades from their courses). Who would know? Most faculty members don't know and few students would complain even if they did know via unilateral transcript changes later. Plus, if "white Cloud" is on its knees economically, why not keep those students of color in town with their spending power to help the community economy if only slightly (however CONNIVING and HYPOCRITICAL)?

Rather than aggressively attacking community racism that drives most SCSU Black students and others of color away from "white Cloud" (creating an "attrition rate" so high that books are cooked with numbers are being juggled to redefine as "attrition" as "retention."

Since talk is cheap, let's dare to deal with facts/numbers (from SCSU documents):

(a) among a total of 187 Black students reported enrolled (to MnSCU) for fall 2002, only 16 graduated six years later in 2008.

(b) among a total of 385 Black students reported enrolled (to MnSCU) for fall 2006, only 27 graduated six years later in 2008.

(c) Based on regressive analysis and speculation, among a total of 685 Black students reported enrolled (to MnSCU) for fall 2009, only 40, circa, will graduate six years later in 2015.

With an attrition rate like this at SCSU and knowing well paid heads would roll if MnSCU and taxpayer's were aware, wouldn't you at least consider cooking the books? If Mahmoud Saffari was daring and honest enough to complain (with so much to hide), wouldn't you fire him?

Gary, all this may be overwhelming and threatening, so do your own research.

Forgive the typos. My eyes are very bad and the type is very small. However, this information should interest you and others enough to challenge or verify. Beyond merely writing about such conniving by Potter and company, how do we/you force an invasive investigation from the outside? This is a scandal waiting to be discovered.

Cooper

Comment 2 by Jethro at 19-Feb-13 10:05 PM

Wow! Scandalous, indeed...on so many levels. It's time for an external investigation.

http://www.examiner.com/article/are-scsu-student-transcripts-disappearing

Intelligent people don't trust Spinmeister-In-Chief

Intelligent people who've viewed this video of President Obama don't trust what the spinmeister-in-chief is saying:

That President Obama would characterize the budget cuts currently heading in our direction as draconian is insulting. They aren't draconian. Honest, intelligent people would characterize them as barely visible. If the sequestration isn't averted for this year, they'll represent $85,000,000,000 in a budget of $3,600,000,000,000.

Sequestration represents 2.4% of this year's budget.

This video exposes President Obama, with Charles Krauthammer landing the harshest criticism of President Obama :

Here's what Charles said:

In terms of the gross domestic product of our economy this is .03, it's a third of 1% of our domestic economy. On the domestic side, overall, it's 2.5 cents on the dollar. And overall, on the non-defense side, it's a penny-and-a-half on the dollar of reductions. Here we are with a debt of $16 trillion and the argument today is if we cut a penny-and-a-half on non-defense spending in one year it's the end of the world. If so, we are hopelessly in debt and we're going to end up like Greece.

It's important that we put this into perspective. The stiumulus passed in 2009 spent $850,000,000,000. There wasn't a cent of that that wasn't pork. At least 80% of the stimulus spending was added to the FY2009 deficit.

Here's another important thing to keep in perspective. In 2011, President Obama opposed the Republicans' plan to cut spending. Their plan was built on the principles laid out by the Simpson-Bowles Commission. This winter, President Obama is proposing a faux deficit reduction plan that's equal parts spending cuts and tax increases.

Putting it politely, that's insulting. President Obama's already presided over 2 tax increases this winter, one from fiscal cliff deal, the other from the ACA. Does President Obama think that a trio of tax increases in 3 months will strengthen the economy? If he does, then it's a perfect illustration why he's the worst economic president in US history not named FDR or Hoover.

President Obama doesn't want to cut spending. I'm not even certain he cares about the national debt or the annual deficit.

Tags: Sequestration , Barack Obama , Tax Increases , Fiscal Cliff , Affordable Care Act , National Debt , Deficit , Spending , Stimulus , Democrats , Deficit Reduction , Charles Krauthammer

Posted Thursday, February 21, 2013 12:38 AM

Comment 1 by Flip at 17-Jul-13 08:39 PM

LIAR LIAR LIAR......you are NOT MY Commander in Chief...you may be Alchedas ( oh geez forgive the spelling ) I am listening to your lies at this moment...Isn't it just a little disturbing that someone who can be calm as they speak...are believed...but the ones who are actually going through hard times are loud and angry....and without the support of the brotherhood...Hmmmmm.................

DFL betrays students

Last year, Gov. Dayton signed a bill into law that required teachers to pass a basic skills examination after the GOP passed it without DFL help. This year, with majorities in both parts of the legislature, the DFL appears poised to gut the GOP's reform. Rep. John Ward, (DFL- Brainerd) introduced HF0171 early this session.

The language in the bill Gov. Dayton signed into law said that "The board must adopt rules requiring a person to pass a skills examination in reading, writing, and mathematics as a requirement for initial teacher licensure. Such rules must require colleges and universities offering a board-approved teacher preparation program to provide remedial assistance to persons who did not achieve a qualifying score on the skills examination, including those for whom English is a second language." That's exceptionally straightforward. Compare that language with the language proposed by Rep. Ward:

The board must adopt rules to approve teacher preparation programs. The board, upon the request of a postsecondary student preparing for teacher licensure or a licensed graduate of a teacher preparation program, shall assist in resolving a dispute between the person and a postsecondary institution providing a teacher preparation program when the dispute involves an institution's recommendation for licensure affecting the person or the person's credentials. At the board's discretion, assistance may include the application of chapter 14.

That's language only a special interest group leader would propose. (Think Tom Dooher, licensed lobbyist and president of Education Minnesota.) That language could mean anything to anyone. The language in Rep. Ward's legislation doesn't require that people teaching high school calculus have a masters in math and a minor in education. That'd be heading teacher qualifications in the right direction.

What's worse is that Rep. Ward's legislation doesn't include the same requirements as Sen. Bonoff's legislation . Here's what's different in Sen. Bonoff's legislation:

The board must adopt rules requiring a person to pass a skills examination in reading, writing, and mathematics as a requirement for initial teacher licensure, except that a person who is a nonnative English language speaker as verified by qualified Minnesota school district personnel or Minnesota higher education institution faculty and who directly instructs in that other language or provides world language instruction under section 120B.022, subdivision 1, in that other language may take and pass the skills examination at any time up to 36 months after becoming otherwise eligible for an initial teaching license and may hold a temporary teaching license during that time. Such rules must require college and universities offering a board-approved teacher preparation program to provide remedial assistance to persons who did not achieve a qualifying score on the skills examination, including those for whom English is a second language.

The important question Rep. Ward's constituents should ask is whether his vote is for his constituents or for Tom Dooher.

Tags: Education Minnesota , Special Interests , Tom Dooher , K-12 Education , Teacher Licensure , Basic Skills Test , John Ward , Terry Bonoff , Mark Dayton , DFL , Reforms , MNGOP

Posted Thursday, February 21, 2013 2:03 AM

No comments.

Rep. Ward isn't looking out for students, parents, taxpayers

I wrote here that Rep. Ward's bill went too far in eliminating the basic skills test for teacher licensure. In that post, I highlighted the difference between SF547 and HF171. Rep. Ward's bill eliminates testing for reading, writing and math skills. Sen. Bonoff's bill keeps that requirement.

This morning, this PiPress editorial has a simple message:

[M]inimum standards for all teachers are a common-sense expectation for our schools. Lawmakers should insist on them.

The PiPress editorial notes that the minimum standards test isn't perfect. They note, however, that lawmakers are insisting on accountability:

Rep. Andrea Kieffer, a Woodbury Republican who sponsored the 2012 teacher-testing bill, said she has added her name to a House bill to address some of the issues, but as far as repeal is concerned, "I have to ask, 'Why?' " she told us.

"Teacher effectiveness is the No. 1 factor in academic success," Kieffer said. If a teacher has trouble with basic grammar, spelling or math, "should they be teaching our kids in the classroom?"

Based on Rep. Ward's legislation, it's apparent that Tom Dooher, the president of Education Minnesota, thinks passing the test isn't important. Rep. Kieffer isn't the only legislator who's pushing for teacher accountability:

The public "expects accountability," said Sen. Dave Thompson, a Republican from Lakeville, who said he would be very disturbed "if this ends up being repealed and all of a sudden the whole concept of a basic skills test goes away."

Rep. Ward's legislation would repeal the basic skills test. That isn't the right direction. That's taking Minnesota students, parents and other taxpayers in the wrong direction.

If Rep. Ward is going to be Tom Dooher's puppet, then his constituents in Brainerd need to send him the message that he isn't representing their views.

Tags: Minimum Skills Test , Repeal , Tom Dooher , Education Minnesota , John Ward , DFL , Accountability , Andrea Kieffer , Dave Thompson , Reforms , MNGOP

Posted Thursday, February 21, 2013 10:02 AM

No comments.

McCollum, Ellison push for Iranian nukes

Betty McCollum and Keith Ellison haven't been accused recently of being national security hawks. After reading this statement , I'm pretty certain they'll never be considered serious about national security:

Today, Congresswoman Barbara Lee introduced the 'Prevent Iran from Acquiring Nuclear Weapons and Stop War Through Diplomacy Act,' which would create a high level Special Envoy to Iran. The act pushes diplomacy as a vital route to preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, and directs the President to appoint a Special Envoy to pursue direct, sustained, bilateral and multilateral negotiations with the Government of Iran in order to prevent war, and support human rights.

'The darkening clouds surrounding Iran's nuclear program are troubling. We must use all diplomatic tools available, including engaging in direct bilateral and multilateral diplomacy. To do that, we must lift the 'no contact policy and begin negotiations,' Congresswoman Lee said.

The bill calls for eliminating the State Department's 'no contact' policy that prevents State Department officers and employees from making any direct contact with Iranian counterparts. The bill outlines measures to pursue opportunities to build mutual trust and to foster sustained negotiations in good faith with Iran.

Original cosponsors include Representatives Earl Blumenauer, John Conyers, John Dingell, Keith Ellison, Rush Holt, Hank Johnson, James McGovern, Jim Moran, Betty McCollum, and Bobby Rush.

That's quite a list of doves. Barbara Lee was the only member of Congress to vote against going to war with Afghanistan after 9/11. (It takes divine intervention to get to the left of Dennis Kucinich on national security.)

Hank Johnson is famous for saying that he thought Guam would capsize if troops then stationed in Iraq were redeployed to Guam:

Rather than focus on the goofy people that signed onto this legislation as co-sponsors, though, it's important to notice that the policy that's being espoused sends a terrible signal of weakness to the terrorists. What's more is this policy is most likely to embolden terrorists. If the terrorists think that they can threaten the West, why wouldn't they think that they can get away with much more than threats?

Follow this link for more on this topic.

Posted Friday, February 22, 2013 1:58 AM

Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 22-Feb-13 04:36 AM

Congresswoman Barbara Lee along with Representatives Earl Blumenauer, John Conyers, John Dingell, Keith Ellison, Rush Holt, Hank Johnson, James McGovern, Jim Moran, Betty McCollum and Bobby Rush are today's Neville Chamberlain.

...and history tells us the whole Chamberlain situation didn't work out very well for humanity.

Comment 2 by Organically Black at 22-Feb-13 09:41 AM

Whenever some cites Chamberlain you know #1 they are a chicken hawk and/or # 2 they make money directly or indirectly on the war (not defense) machine.

To say this gives nukes to Iran is at best a long stretch of the imagination and at worst among the cynicism that is purely based on emotional dislike.

Frankly, I am tired of political think-bots and talking heads who know little about the intelligence community and less about terrorism giving their thoughts; they should stick to interpreting polls and calling each other names. You know something where people do not get killed for stupid actions.

Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Feb-13 02:45 PM
Whenever someone cites Chamberlain you know #1 they are a chicken hawk and/or # 2 they make money directly or indirectly on the war (not defense) machine.Actually, I don't know that about Pat. And I know him more than a little.

Frankly, I'm tired of people making sweeping categorizations without doing the research first. Broad brushes smear innocent people. I'd recommend you learn from this mistake.

Comment 3 by Bob J. at 22-Feb-13 11:30 AM

Rational argument will not stop these people. "Oh ho, we gotcha" will not work with these people. Their argument must be extended to its inevitable conclusion and the question posed to them publicly:

Mr. Ellison, Ms. McCollum, why do you support a policy that will foster a nuclear Iran and, by extension, nuclear conflict? I'd like to know why you support making the world a more dangerous place through a nuclear-armed Iran?

"The world is safer through diplomacy" is not a valid argument. Please elaborate.

Comment 4 by Chad Q at 22-Feb-13 02:05 PM

When have McCollum or Ellison ever, ever, done anything or signed onto any bill that is in the best interests of their constituents let alone the US? Sadly, the democrats continue to vote these two imbeciles into office even though more qualified cadidates have run against them.

Yes, Chris Matthews said that

What's frightening about Chris Matthews' latest declaration is the stunning stupidity displayed in it:

Chris Matthews: "It's a down and dirty world when you decide chopping down the government and hurting the economy is the smart move. But bring it all down is now the hard right battle cry. Slash spending, short the pentagon, screw up traffic control, whatever raises the noise level, bashes Democrats and lowers hope. Is this the tea party dream? Is this John Boehner's version of feeding time at the zoo, giving the crazies what they want so they will sit in their seats and behave? Is this final payment to insanity the last vestige of what calm Republicanism is ready to cough up? But how else can you explain the readiness of the GOP leadership to let this Frankenstein's monster, this doomsday machine, this sequestration go all out berserk? How else can we understand the party of Lincoln doing such economic damage to the Republic, such damage and moral to the people?"

This is utter stupidity. Since when did lightly trimming $85,000,000,000 from a $3,600,000,000,000 budget constitute "chopping down government"? Since when did that constitute slashing spending?

There's a reason why MSNBC is a laughingstock. Chris Matthews is a significant contributor to that reputation. Incoherent diatribes like this make Matthews and MSNBC look infantile.

As for Matthews' question about sequestration being a "doomsday machine", that's the hysteria featured at MSNBC on a seemingly daily basis. People didn't hear Matthews complain when spending jumped from $3,000,000,000,000 to $3,500,000,000,000 in a single year. That's before factoring in the $850,000,000,000 stimulus bill.

Matthews can't justify trillion dollar deficit after trillion dollar deficit. Perhaps MSNBC sent out the directive that, rather than defending President Obama's history of trillion dollar deficits, which are indefensible, they'd mindlessly attack Republicans instead. By doing that, MSNBC and Matthews are cementing their reputation as buffoons.

Just like MSNBC isn't a news organization, Chris Matthews isn't a pundit. MSNBC is a media outlet, not a news organization. Chris Matthews is a court jester, not a serious news analyst.

Tags: Chris Matthews , Court Jester , Agenda Media , MSNBC , Barack Obama , Stimulus , Deficits , Sequestration , Democrats , Demagogues

Originally posted Friday, February 22, 2013, revised 23-Feb 1:28 PM

Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 22-Feb-13 10:37 AM

me thinks Chris Mathews is the poster boy for Liberalism is a mental disorder".

Comment 2 by Organica Black at 22-Feb-13 01:56 PM

Three items:

1. The only people who take Chris Matthews seriously are people who dislikes what he states. Most sane people try to ignore him. The same can be said for Sean Hannity. They are people who do not let facts or truth get in front of them.

2. Over the past few months I have posted about a 6-8 times yet only two have shown up. Is this blog only for people who 95+% agree? If it is, I understand and will move on. I would have sent this via your mail form - but it does not exist.

3.I liked reading this blog when it is was committed to being an advocate for making decisions using logic & intelligence & verifiable facts. Now it is less about "making decisions using logic & intelligence & verifiable facts" and more about how can we embarrass people we do not like.

Read what was stated in 2009 and read what you published the last 6 months.

Guns and gay marriage

According to ProgressNow's Denise Cardinal, Gov. Dayton is doing a great job of focusing the conversation on his budget. Friday night on Almanac, here's what Ms. Cardinal said:

MS. CARDINAL: Let's get real. Guns and gay rights is something that's also getting talked about nationally so I don't think there's anything we could've done that would've avoided talking about those things. And I would actually disagree. I think the Governor's done a great job of talking the pillars of his budget. I noticed that they're talking about the relief it would give working families who have kids that are about to go to college.

Ms. Cardinal is a prefessional spinmeister. She didn't say a thing that's accurate. The nation isn't having a major discussion on gay rights. A few highly funded special interest groups are pushing to start the conversation but the DFL, after saying "who are we to say no to these couples?", is now doing their best to ignore these couples.

There was a brief moment in the immediate aftermath of the Newtown, CT, shootings that the nation attempted to have a conversation about stopping school violence. Unfortunately, that conversation got hijacked by anti-Second Amendment activists.

As for Gov. Dayton doing a great job "talking about the pillars of his budget," that's laughable. What he's done thus far is talk rather defensively about his tax increases on Minnesotans. His sales tax proposal will hit everyone. Cities will be especially hard hit. When a city like Sauk Rapids remodels their downtown, they'd need an attorney, an architect and an engineer to turn Sauk Rapids' vision into a reality.

The Dayton/DFL/Lenczewski sales tax increase could cost a city like Sauk Rapids $500,000 or more for a significant-sized project. Cities wanting to remodel their city that aren't getting LGA would be faced with the option of either not doing their project or getting hit with a massive property tax increase to pay for the project.

When the bill got a hearing in committee, a Plymouth city official testified that Plymouth would pay an additional $690,000 thanks to the Dayton/DFL/Lenczewski sales tax increase.

Plymouth isn't the only local government that would be negatively affected by the Dayton/DFL/Lenczewski sales tax increase. Beltrami County would be negatively affected by the sales tax increase, too. The truth is that there won't be any cities or counties that won't get hit with this sales tax increase.

The Dayton administration, including Ms. Cardinal, haven't talked about the negative effects the Dayton/DFL/Lenczewski sales tax increase will have because their primary goal is to raise taxes to pay for more spending on their political allies. This isn't about tax fairness. This isn't about creating jobs or tax reform.

What's saddest about this tax increase is that it's cutting into people's buying power because government won't take an inventory of what it's supposed to do, then implement a plan that accomplishes the things it's required to do at the most reasonable price.

It's time that the DFL admitted that they aren't about putting Minnesota on a path of prosperity. They're about paying off their special interest allies even if it means hurting job creation.

Tags: Tax Increases , Sales Tax , Mark Dayton , Ann Lenczewski , Denise Cardinal , Special Interests , ABM , Sales Tax , Property Tax , LGA , DFL , Guns , Gay Marriage

Posted Saturday, February 23, 2013 4:28 AM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 23-Feb-13 09:20 AM

I understand what you are saying about Dayton's tax plan killing the economy and with the DFL in control it means we are all screwed. But when you have republicans signing onto some of these bills (Sen. Ortman on the gun control bill which she has since removed her name) or even authoring some (Sen. Peterson gay marriage bill, Sen. Hann and Senjem's wolf hunting moratorium, Sen. Rosen's red light cameras, etc.), the party loses a lot of credibility in my opinion. With people like this representing the party, who needs the DFL because they (GOP) are doing their bidding for the DFL? Just because the republicans lost control of both houses does not mean they need to stoop to the DFL's level of pandering to obtain votes. I'd rather have a party in the minority that stands on principle than one in majority that passes horrible bills that spend more and reduces our freedoms.

Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Feb-13 01:05 PM

Chad, why be that stupid? Being permanently in the minority is totally counterproductive.

Why haven't you opted for contacting these legislators & telling them what you expect of them? Why haven't you opted for cutting them a little slack?

What's worse is that you apparently expect perfection from each GOP legislator. If that's your expectation, it isn't surprising that you're constantly disappointed.

Comment 3 by Chad Q at 24-Feb-13 01:34 PM

Gary-

So you're of the mindset that it is better to have a GOP majority that votes like the DFL than it is to have the DFL in total control? What good does that do for the state let alone the party? I think it is more counterproductive to act like the DFL than it is standing on principle.

I have talked to a few of these legislators in the past and they spew some of the same crap the DFL spews so why should I cut them any slack? I don't cut my rep, Rep. Lesch any slack when he votes the way he does so why should a GOP rep or sen get any slack when they vote the same way? Again, why vote for the GOP when the GOP is doing the bidding of the DFL in hopes of getting votes?! You can't out DFL the DFL.

I don't expect perfection from the GOP, I just expect them not to be the same or worse than the DFL when it comes to authoring bills. I expect legislators who run as republicans to act like republicans, not freedom limiting, tax loving DFLer's and sadly, that is what we are seeing this session from some of the GOP. Just because a legislator has an R behind their name does not mean they are excused from being criticized when they author bills that we expect from the DFL.

Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 24-Feb-13 08:48 PM
First, it's apparent you're pissed when you don't get perfection. Your statement notwithstanding, I ain't buying what you're selling. Second, this isn't about letting RINOs be RINOs. I've had a history of looking at a legislator's total record. Without exception, each of them have disappointed me at one point or another. Third, I've seen Republican legislators who've sounded like DFL legislators. In fact, I've told some of these legislators that I strongly disagreed with them & why. I told them, privately, that they needed to change because of the underlying principles.

Fourth, I've yet to see any GOP legislators jump on the DFL's tax increase bandwagon.

Franken & Klobuchar: MIA on sequestration

In less than a week, the federal government will start cutting defense spending across the board rather than setting intelligent priorities.

Sequestration is the Obama administration's faux solution to the Obama administration's reckless spending. Cutting the Pentagon's budget is a major part of sequestration. Senate Democrats have helped paint the administration into this corner.

On top of the $500 billion Defense Department that's already been cut, sequestration would cut another $500 billion from the Pentagon's budget. The F-35 program offers the perfect illustration of the foolishness of sequestration. Under sequestration, the Defense Department budget would be automatically cut across the board by 10% every year for 10 years. That's on top of the $487 billion that's already been cut from the Defense Department budget.

If the full sequestration were to take effect, "we're going to have to look completely at the [F-35] programme," US Air Force chief of staff Gen Mark Welsh told the Senate Armed Services Committee on February 12. "It's going to be impossible to modernize." Under sequestration, it's likely that our young pilots will fly fighters older than they are while our potential enemies continued to build their 5th generation capabilities.

The bottom line is simple. Sequestration will hurt the military. If sequestration is implemented, the US Air Force will be more vulnerable than it should be.

Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar have been invisible in this fight. Similarly, the US Senate has been completely absent in the budget debate. Real people are about to get hurt by these indiscriminate cuts. True American patriots will needlessly be put in harms way if these are fully implemented.

Cutting the F-35 program would cost Minnesota high paying jobs at a time when creating high paying jobs should be Sen. Franken's and Sen. Klobuchar's highest priority. Minnesota suppliers would be directly affected. Suppliers aren't the only Minnesota companies that would be affected, either.

It's important that people remember that these cuts come on top of other cuts to the military. Those cuts affect both jobs and the military's ability to protect our nation.

It's time for Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar to fight for Minnesota jobs. It's time for Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar to demand the Senate do its job and put together budget cuts that don't kill Minnesota jobs or weaken military readiness. It's time that Sen. Franken and Sen. Klobuchar actually made decisions based on doing what's right for America.

Tags: Al Franken , Amy Klobuchar , Harry Reid , Sequestration , Air Force , Job Cuts , Minnesota , National Security , DFL

Posted Sunday, February 24, 2013 11:16 AM

Comment 1 by Chad Q at 24-Feb-13 01:01 PM

I'm as conservative as they come and believe in a strong military but if the military can't absorb a 10% cut, then there is something wrong with our military. My family has had to deal with more than a 10% cut since 2007 and we have survived. Maybe we need to stop being the world's policeman, close a lot of bases around the world, tell these freeloading country's to defend themselves, and start defending our own boarders.

Our biggest threat to national security is our debt. If we can't cut the debt, who cares how big our military is?

Search This Blog

LFR 15 YEARS!