February 4-5, 2011
Feb 04 09:16 Breaking the Back of the Recession? Feb 04 10:55 The DFL's Dishonesty Is Showing Feb 05 00:09 Department of Corruption? Feb 05 10:18 DFL Talking Disclosure? Feb 05 18:00 Berglin vs. Gottwalt-Abeler Feb 05 21:29 Almanac Roundtable Notes
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Department of Corruption?
After reading these articles from the American Spectator's Quin Hillyer , the Washington Post's Jennifer Rubin and this Washington Times editorial , I'm wondering if Eric Holder is in charge of the Department of Justice or the Department of Corruption. Here's some statistics from the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights' investigation:
The statements indicate several points: 1) the New Black Panther Party case brought by career Justice Department employees was meritorious on the law and the facts; 2) there is voluminous evidence of the Obama administration's political interference in the prosecution of the New Black Panther Party case; 3) there is ample evidence that the Obama administration directed Justice Department employees not to bring cases against minority defendants who violated voting rights laws or to enforce a provision requiring that states and localities clean up their voting rolls to prevent fraud; 4) the Justice Department stonewalled efforts to investigate the case; and 5) vice chairman Abigail Thernstrom has, for reasons not entirely clear, ignored the evidence and tried to undermine the commission's work.
Let's take these one at a time. That the case against the NBPP "was meritorious" isn't surprising. It's just nice that a formal investigation confirmed that.
More importantly, the bombshells are that the administration told the DOJ not to prosecute alleged lawbreakers and that the Obama administration ran interference for the NBPP. There should be a zero tolerance level for this type of corruption. There should be an independent investigator named ASAP to prosecute anyone who ran interference.
That's a must because we've seen that the Obama-Holder DOJ isn't willing to take this seriously, perhaps as a result of reverse discrimination.
All along, therefore, the question was if the Obama-Holder Justice Department was giving support to the internal Civil Rights Division belief that civil rights laws should not be enforced against black perpetrators who abused the rights of white victims. This is explosive stuff. It cuts to the very heart of equal rights under the law. It's also straight out of Orwell's Animal Farm, where some animals were "more equal than others."
Holder isn't interested in justice for all. It's apparent that he's interested only in justice for the perceived aggrieved, only in justice for those who are more wrthy of his protection.
Holder obviously doesn't agree that the law must protect everyone or it doesn't protect anyone. Shame on him for that. That type of corruption must be eliminated. If President Obama won't terminate Holder, then we'll terminate President Obama through the ballot box in November, 2012.
When it comes to racial corruption, the United States must have a zero tolerance policy. When thugs like the NBPP are allowed to threaten white voters outside a polling station, the Justice Department is obligated to prosecute and imprison the criminals who committed that heinous crime.
On Wednesday, Judicial Watch, a private watchdog, filed a brief in its case seeking release of official memoranda, arguing that government stonewalling, 'is about political interference in [Justice's] decision-making process and [the department's] efforts to avoid public scrutiny of that interference.' Most abused is the 'deliberative process' privilege, which is intended for discussions made before and during litigation but is being claimed for documents created after the Black Panther case was concluded.
I know a person who works for Judicial Watch. If there's anything I can predict with total certainty, it's that Judicial Watch will torment Holder's DOJ persistently until they're voted out of office or until the DOJ hands over the specified documents. It's that simple.
There's no chance that the judge won't rule in Judicial Watch's favor, either. They don't make frivolous challenges.
Here's something that should be filed in the 'What Could Possibly Go Wrong' File:
The final internal review into Justice's seemingly race-based decision-making also lies in question. In September, Justice Inspector General Glenn A. Fine announced he would examine 'whether the Voting Section has enforced the civil rights laws in a non-discriminatory manner; and whether any Voting Section employees have been harassed for participating in the investigation or prosecution of particular matters.' Today, Mr. Fine retires from his post with that examination not even close to being finished. His successor will be appointed by President Obama based on Mr. Holder's recommendation. That's hardly a recipe for investigatory independence.
This is the most shameful behavior imaginable. The reality is that this type of corruption can't be weeded out through investigations. The corruption must be rooted out by electing a new president who will nominate someone to be America's Attorney General who is a profile in integrity.
In other words, the new president would eliminate corruption from the DOJ by doing the opposite of what President Obama and Gen. Holder have done. Their political demise can't come soon enough.
Posted Saturday, February 5, 2011 12:09 AM
No comments.
Breaking the Back of the Recession?
The latest employment figures are disappointing, to say the least:
The unemployment rate dropped sharply last month to 9 percent, based on a government survey that found that more than a half-million people found work.
A separate survey of company payrolls showed a scant increase of 36,000 net jobs as snowstorms likely hampered hiring. That survey doesn't count the self-employed.
During his SOTU speech, President Obama bragged that they'd broken the back of the recession. A gain of 36,000 jobs isn't breaking the back of anything. That isn't even keeping up with population. That's falling just a bit short of that mark, like by 100,000 jobs.
I'm initially inclined to think that the government survey is wildly inaccurate. When the economy was taking off under President Reagan and then under President Clinton, I don't recall any months where a half million jobs were created.
Let's be clear. This economy isn't taking off. At best, it's treading water in very choppy seas. During the Clinton and the Reagan administrations, the total amount of new jobs gained was roughly 22,000,000 in eight years. That's an average of 230,000 jobs created a month.
Obamanomics isn't creating jobs at nearly that fast a pace. President Obama is likely worried about these dismal figures. His health care bill suffered another devastating defeat this week. The stimulus is a massive failure. The job figures are pathetic to dismal.
At this rate, the GOP presidential nominee could run against the got-nothing-done president. That's hardly a position of strength from which to run a re-election campaign. That's more of a position of climbing uphill.
If this economy doesn't start pumping out 200,000-250,000 jobs a month, President Obama will serve just one term. People loved him in 2008 when his great oratory inspired them. Now that they've seen that's all he had going for him, they're not as inspired.
Why am I not shocked?
Posted Friday, February 4, 2011 9:16 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 04-Feb-11 09:55 AM
Yeah, Bush, Bernanke and Paulson sure did leave a lingering stench of a mess on the way out. And Obama, in a way hard to forgive, kept Bernanke. It's unfortunate.
With the Reagan centenial coming up, it's time to wonder whether Mubarak uses the same hair dye the Gip used.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Feb-11 10:33 AM
Eric, there's no question that Bush, Bernanke & Paulson left a mess. Still, Obama's policies have made things worse.
Comment 2 by Dan Frick at 05-Feb-11 05:13 PM
Just a quick rule of thumb:
Given the normal productivity increase since the second world war, the economy has to produce 93,000 job for employment to stay the same.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Feb-11 05:43 PM
There's a caveat to that which King Banaian spoke to this morning on his radio program, namely people stopping looking for work. Your point is well-taken, though, since you were talking about rules of thumbs.
The DFL's Dishonesty Is Showing
If there's anything that we can learn from Jeff Rosenberg's post , it's that we know with certainty that DFL activists are skilled at repeating discredited DFL talking points.
We know this because he cited "the $6.2 deficit" in his post. That figure is as fictitious as Gov. Dayton calling himself a jobs governor. Rather than going through why this figure is fictitious, I'll do something different this time.
Why does the DFL think that they should be entitled to increase spending from $30.7 billion this biennium to $almost $39 billion for the next biennium? That's an outlandish increase in the best of times. As I just highlighted, these aren't the best of times .
The only way we have a $6.2 billion deficit is if the legislature thinks it's going to spend $39 billion this biennium. They know that isn't happening. They know that because they'd have to raise taxes on everyone far beyond Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme would've raised revenues.
Let's remember that then-Candidate Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme was scored by the Department of Revenue as generating $1.9 billion. Adding $1.9 billion to the $30.7 and the expected revenue increase of $1.5 billion gets you to $34.1 billion. That's still $4.7 billion short of the $39 billion figure.
To gain that other $4.7 billion, Gov. Dayton would have to propose and the GOP legislature would have to pass tax increases that would hit people hard, even those in the middle of the middle class.
Does anyone think that Dayton would propose a massive middle class tax increase? Of course not. If he raised taxes on the middle class, he'd be fortunate to reach 35 percent of the vote in 2014. Does anyone think that the legislature that's promising to not raise taxes would approve such a measure? Don't be ridiculous.
It's time to retire the $6.2 deficit figure. It's a laughable figure. That's being polite. It's a downright dishonest figure.
Before I wrap this post up, I'll address the argument that we have to repay the education shift and make up for the stimulus spending. While I'm sympathetic to repaying the education shift, I'm not at all sympathetic to replacing the stimulus money.
Minnesota, specifically the DFL, has a spending addiction that's caused a massive structural deficit. Continuing with the reckless spending habits of 2007 only makes things worse. At some point, we need to get spending under control so that businesses don't have to worry about an endless string of tax increases.
Businesses need costs that are both stable and reasonable. They didn't get either thing from the DFL legislature, which is why they got rid of the DFL legislature.
Spending discipline must start ASAP. We don't have another option. Thanks to the new GOP leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, there won't be any bailouts for the states. Fiscal discipline will be imposed.
The GOP leadership of the Minnesota legislature is committed to not raising taxes. PERIOD.
The DFL is always talking about Minnesotans' innovation in industry. I can't argue that Minnesotans are innovative. Unfortunately, the DFL legislature refused to be innovative the past 4 years. They refused to let go of the 1980s-style government.
Minnesota deserves better. That's why they elected GOP majorities in the Legislature. The GOP campaigned on reforming government and on exercising fiscal restraint. That message obviously appealed to people because the Senate went from a 46-21 DFL majority to a 37-30 GOP majority while the House went from an 87-47 DFL majority to a 72-62 GOP majority.
That's a net pickup of 41 seats for the GOP.
More than the number, though, these voters want the deceptiveness and the status quo thinking and the unsustainable spending to stop.
Posted Friday, February 4, 2011 10:55 AM
Comment 1 by WKWizard at 04-Feb-11 11:32 AM
I'm an independent who attempts to understand each issue on it's own merits. However, I have yet to hear the GOP address anything in an honest way.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Feb-11 02:38 PM
That's extremely puzzling because they've been extremely straightforward. They said they wouldn't raise taxes. They haven't even considered raising taxes. They said they would create business-friendly atmosphere. They're working on true health care reform, regulatory reform, permitting reform & they're working to keep spending under control so taxes don't need to be increased. These things all contribute to creating a business-friendly atmosphere.
Frankly, I'm wondering if you're basing your opinion on the DFL's misinformation rather than on what's happening. It's time you ignored the DFL's chanting points & focused on the truth.
DFL Talking Disclosure?
With the election behind them, the DFL is making an issue of campaign disclosures . The Strib's Rachel Stassen-Berger and Brad Schrade did their best not to question ABM's questionable ethics. The post's title shows how fair-minded they were:
GOP leaders: Won't commit to Dayton's call for disclosure
Their opening paragraph set the tone, too:
Republican House leaders today dodged questions about Gov. Mark Dayton's call for more disclosure and transparency of money flowing into the state's political campaigns.
DODGED??? That's a rather provocative term, especially in an opening paragraph. Why did the subject even come up? It isn't like that was a hot topic during the week.
During the week, extensive work was done in Chairman Steve Gottwalt's HHS Reform Committee. Alternative teacher licensure made steps in the House, too. These are meaty, substantive issues.
How does this subject rate as anything more than a passing mention in an article on page 11C? That Schrade and Stassen-Berger turned it into a post in the Strib's Hot Dish Politics blog shows their misplaced priorities.
When will Schrade do an in-depth article about ABM and their dishonest, unethical campaign against Tom Emmer? Or is that offlimits? Shame on the Strib for not devoting any resources to that hot topic.
Another campaign issue is Alida Messinger's running out Brian Melendez as DFL Chairman. Why hasn't Gov. Dayton been asked about his ex-wife's crowning Ken Martin to be DFL chairman? It's certainly as relevant to Minnesota politics as the disclosure question.
This is an example of SOS- Shiny Object Syndrome. Gov. Dayton pretends to care about disclosure and his willing accomplices in the media do their best to turn it into a real issue.
On the policy side, are the reporting requirements for candidates and PACs insufficient? If they're sufficient, what's the big deal? Don't we have truly important things to talk about?
The bottom line is that this is a hit piece on a truly minor issue that Mr. Schrade is trying to turn into a real issue. That's bound to happen when dealing with the Shiny Object Media.
Posted Saturday, February 5, 2011 10:18 AM
No comments.
Berglin vs. Gottwalt-Abeler
When Sen. Berglin wrote in the Strib that Republicans were going to ruin health care, it was just a matter of time before the House GOP chairmen of the HHS-related committee replied. First, here's Sen. Berglin's playing the 'GOP hate children' card:
They're proposing to take away nearly one-quarter of all state funding that helps counties pay for child protection services and support for families with children facing developmental disabilities and mental illness.
The proposed cuts are aimed at the state's Child and Community Services grant program. Funding for this program supports key services to several vulnerable populations.
What Sen. Berglin wouldn't touch is that, while she chaired the Senate Health Committee, she blocked one health care reform after another. Had she not been such an obstructionist towards progress, Minnesota's budget wouldn't have suffered through the fluctuations that it's gone through the past 2 cycles.
During this past election cycle, I wrote about the DFL obstructionist majorities. Similarly, I wrote about them trying to fund a 1980s government model. Sen. Berglin was the face of the DFL majority's obstructionism. She didn't embrace changes. She shot them down. Now she's complaining because people are taking a new approach. Shame on her.
Chairman Abeler and Chairman Gottwalt have a different take, which they outlined in this Strib op-ed :
It is disingenuous to label programs as key services and yet not provide a stable, reliable funding stream. Unfortunately that is exactly what past Legislatures have done.
We are now in the position of reckoning with those consequences. But as much as it is a challenge, this is also an opportunity to reform the way we deliver services.
We're working to develop sustainable solutions that allow us to provide care not just today, but 10 years from now. We can do more than just give counties a hearing and then have the state make decisions for them.
That's the model of the past, the same unsustainable model that has led to skyrocketing costs and unending deficits.
The DFL insisted on using one-time stimulus money to artificially prop up spending rather than considering reforms that would've put the general fund budget on a more sustainable path. Much of that had to do with Sen. Berglin's repeated obstructionism.
Minnesotans are looking for solutions that stabilize Minnesota's general fund budget and make the best use of the taxpayers' money. They weren't getting that from the DFL, which is why the DFL is now the minority in the Legislature.
Think about the contrasts between Hennepin County and Lyon County. Why should the state be making choices for them and imposing mandates?
Decisions over where money is best spent must be made at the local level.
Community-based care and local control can maximize the use of scarce resources, and allow the very people who deliver and receive services to determine what needs exist and how to best meet them.
The DFL has always thought that they knew better than the people did. The people reached a substantially different conclusion last November. Now they'll benefit by having more control of their tax dollars.
What a revolutionary concept.
Posted Saturday, February 5, 2011 6:00 PM
No comments.
Almanac Roundtable Notes
Friday night's Almanac roundtable was composed of Sen. Claire Robling, Peter Bell, a Republican who formerly served on the Met Council, Wy Spano and Karla Bigham. I watch so you won't have to be tortured like this.
One of the outrageous things Spano said is that we've finally got an adult as governor. Oh really? Would that adult be the man who closed his DC office over an imagined impending terrorist attack? Or would it be the man who said his tax-the-rich scheme would raise $4 billion, only to be told his tax-the-rich scheme would raise $1.9 billion? Or would it be the "jobs governor" who appoints a proven job-killer to be the next commissioner of the MPCA, an agency his organization used to sue repeatedly?
If Spano is going to make these types of statements, he'll really need to identify the adult behavior. Better yet, if he's talking about Gov. Dayton, he'll offer Minnesotans an apology because Gov. Dayton isn't an adult. He's a spoiled brat who's had everything handed to him, including this election.
Another outlandish statement that Spano made was that the stimulus wasn't big enough. HINT FOR WY: It isn't the size that mattered. It's that the stimulus was just pork for President Obama's special interest allies, especially in the public service unions and state governments. HINT FOR WY: While that money will keep employees employed, it doesn't jumpstart an economy. Only the private sector can create long-lasting, dynamic jobs.
Karla Bigham said that Gov. Dayton had a good week because he "was the only one who talked about jobs." HINT TO KARLA: Adding $1,000,000,000 to the debt the next generation will have to pay off for 28,000 jobs isn't the type of jobs Minnesota can afford.
SPECIAL POINT: It seems lost on the DFL that the key to creating real jobs that don't need an annual injection of taxpayers' money to sustain them. It's better to lower the cost of doing business in the state, then getting the hell out of the way. It really works. Just ask Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan. PS- Not the Hillarycare Clinton but the triangulating Clinton.
Rep. Bigham also tried talking up the DFL's talking point about the GOP chairmen who wouldn't answer Sen. Cohen's questions. Sen. Robling shut that talking point down in a heartbeat, saying that Sen. Cohen was clearly taunting the senators so they chose not to sink to his level. OUCH!!!
Before anyone thinks that this is typical of Sen. Robling, think again. She's always had the ability, and reputation, of being a thoughtful fair-minded legislator. If she said that Sen. Cohen was taunting GOP senators, then that's as good as Gospel truth to me.
In fact, Sen. Robling was the only panelist who made any sense all night. When Cathy Wurzer asked Sen. Robling why they're moving the budget cuts bill through the House and Senate so fast over the objections of Gov. Dayton, here's how Sen. Robling responded:
Well, two things. We've never had a deficit this large and we don't want to wait and pile everything up at the end, which has been the custom. And the other thing is, we thought, perhaps, if we could get this budget bill passed and signed into law, it could impact the February forecast.
Wurzer then asked Spano what the Republicans' motivation was. He said that they wanted him to veto it so they could "beat him up" and "say he isn't serious" about the deficit. Sen. Robling was having none of that, saying "That's not true." Spano then said that "We finally have a real adult as governor."
It's easy to not take Spano seriously because he's a former lobbyist who's now moved onto teaching at the UMD Center for Advocacy and Political Leadership which "houses the Master of Advocacy and Political Leadership (MAPL) program." Anytime a liberal arts program talks about "advocacy and political leadership", they're teaching how to become a community organizer. It's nothing more complicated than that.
This isn't the resume of a centrist who tries to play nice with conservatives. It's the resume of someone who doesn't think highly of conservatives.
Anyone that teaches students how to be community organizers isn't in Minnesota's political mainstream. Anyone that thinks that Gov. Dayton is an adult but Tim Pawlenty wasn't isn't in Minnesota's political mainstream. Frankly, Spano came across on the panel as a bitter, hyperpartisan man. It's almost sad to see that type of demeanor.
Another thing that Rep. Bigham needs to be taken to task over is her criticism of the spending cuts. She immediately trotted out the line that the cuts would raise tuition and property taxes. That's BS. Local spending decisions raise property taxes. I know because I live in a city that's kept property taxes stable even though it's had its LGA cut substantially.
During the 2007 session, the legislature passed a $296,000,000 spending increase for higher ed. Sandy Pappas whined that that we were "starving higher ed." At the time, that represented approximately a 10 percent spending increase.
It wasn't surprising to me that tuitions went up anyway. Rep. Bigham, just like the other members of the Chanting Points Choir, can't prove their accusations. The good news for them is that, from their perspective, they don't need to. They just need the Chanting Points Choir singing from the same hymnal.
The bad news for them is that people are catching on. They're rejecting the Chanting Points Choir's 'hymns.'
That's why the DFL will have a difficult session this time. The people are fed up with the DFL's reckless spending and irresponsible prioritizing. Most importantly, they're sick of the DFL's inability to create a dynamic, prospering economy.
The truth is that people tolerated the spending when the economy was thriving. They didn't like it but they tolerated it. Now that things are tight, they're demanding that the legislature set the right priorities. They've noticed that the DFL's priorities aren't their priorities and they're voting accordingly. It's just that simple.
Posted Saturday, February 5, 2011 9:31 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-Feb-11 08:47 AM
Suddenly you've made something very clear for me. Government cannot possibly create a job, because every nickel they pay somebody, even a private-enterprise worker doing government construction, because every nickel they pay out they first had to confiscate from somebody in a "real" job. Or from a real business trying to offer real jobs. It would be a zero-sum game except for all the bureaucrats in the middle doing absolutely nothing, and for the resultant product (say like light rail) never, ever repaying the investment made in it.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Feb-11 12:09 PM
Jerry, Wait until you read my post about this am's @Issue. Entenza was hyping how important it'd be to heap another $1,000,000,000 of debt onto the next generation to create, supposedly, 28,000. (Personally, I'm not at all convinced that Dayton's debt bill will create that many jobs but that's another story.)
The question to keep putting in front of Minnesotans is whether they'd prefer an economy that relies on an annual stimulus bill & the debt that comes with it or whether we'd prefer a dynamic, entrepreneur-based economy that doesn't let the DFL pick winners & losers. The more we frame things that way, the more we win the debate on the economy.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 06-Feb-11 09:03 AM
I've emailed TPT several times complaining about Wy Spano. What the public doesn't know is that for all his public TV notoriety, Wy Spano is not a good lobbyist, mostly because he's a lazy lobbyist, and less than honest with those who hire him. Facts don't interest him, lying comes naturally, ad hominem condescension his specialty.
Ember R-Y is an comparable source of misinformation, but without the barbs and the pretense.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Feb-11 12:04 PM
Rex, I agree with you about E-R-Y but I've gotta tell you Karla Bigham has a shot at being almost as obnoxious & uninformed at E-R-Y. It's scary. It isn't surprising to see that they got their backsides kicked this past November.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 06-Feb-11 03:00 PM
The only way that government "capital investment" even borders on other than a waste is if government invests in something that the public, individually or collectively, would choose to buy if they were allowed to spend their own money on it. Somehow I am hard pressed to find ANYTHING in Dayton's bonding bill that comes close. And I haven't even seen it yet.
