February 4-8, 2012
Feb 04 07:42 Mitt's campaign assails Newt's history of conservative accomplishments Feb 04 09:13 Larry Kudlow questions Mitt's class warfare gambit Feb 04 15:23 By Election Day, unemployment will be 7.5% Feb 06 06:27 Anderson v. Rosen Feb 06 08:42 Free markets vs. government intervention Feb 07 05:45 Great policy, terrible timing Feb 08 06:12 Santorum clobbers Romney, TPaw Feb 08 14:56 Precinct Caucus Night in Minnesota
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mitt's campaign assails Newt's history of conservative accomplishments
Mitt Romney's campaign isn't in a position to talk about another candidate's record of failure. Still, that's exactly what his press secretary did today :
The former Georgia congressman vowed to fight for the nomination all the way to Tampa, called Romney "Obama-lite," and challenged him to another debate.
"It isn't good enough for the Republican Party to nominate Obama-lite," Gingrich told hundreds of cheering supporters at Stoney's Rockin' Country, a country music nightclub in Las Vegas.
Romney campaign spokeswoman Amanda Henneberg responded to Gingrich's comments in an email Friday.
'Newt Gingrich's flailing attacks are the sign of a candidate trying to distract from his own record to save his sinking campaign," she said. "Newt Gingrich would rather make misleading statements about Mitt Romney's record than tell Nevada voters suffering from the housing crisis why he took $1.6 million from Freddie Mac or why he filmed a climate change ad with Nancy Pelosi that was funded by George Soros.'
Newt didn't raise fees and taxes to the tune of $700,000,000. Mitt did. Newt didn't approve of expensive CO2 emissions regulations that cost Massachusetts power plants tens of millions of dollars a year. Mitt did. Newt teamed with John Kasich and President Obama in balancing the budget and paying $405,000,000,000. Mitt didn't.
The other thing that's apparent is that Mitt's spokesperson didn't say a thing about anything positive conservative accomplishments of Mitt's. That's because his list of positive conservative accomplishments is tiny. Newt's list of positive conservative accomplishments is substantial and lengthy.
Like paying $405,000,000,000 off the debt in 5 years. Like putting the plan in place that helped Republicans win a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives in 40 years. Like passing the biggest Capital Gains tax cut in U.S. history. Like passing Welfare reform, the only entitlement reform of the last half century.
If little Miss Sassypants wants to pick a fight, let's have that fight. Mitt can't explain capitalism. Mitt thinks that the minimum wage should be indexed to inflation. Mitt thinks that Romneycare is working fine but that Obamacare is a disaster. Romneycare is bankrupting Massachusetts but Mitt thinks it's doing ok.
Mitt's spokespeople are trained in deflection. Notice that they didn't say a word about Mitt. It was all about dishonestly attacking Newt. Mitt's plan is timid and won't move the country forward. At best, it'll give people a better view of the iceberg before it sinks the Titanic.
It's worth noting that an intellectual heavyweight like Art Laffer endorsed Newt's economic revitalization plan . Thomas Sowell, another intellectual heavyweight, endorsed Newt's economic revitalization plan . They didn't endorse Mitt's timid plan.
In other words, Ms. Henneberg's statement that Newt's attempting to deflect attention away from his record is BS through and through. Why would Newt run from his lengthy history of major conservative accomplishments? I know why Mitt would attempt to deflect attention away from himself if the subject of major conservative accomplishments came up.
If the subject of impressive conservative accomplishments came up, I'd be surprised if Mitt didn't flee the stage with the urgency of a vampire fleeing a wooden stake. The Mitt-Romney-is-a-conservative myth has been exposed.
The Romneybots on Twitter talk about how he was pro-enforcement against illegal immigration. They talk about how he's anti-cap and trade. Their answers are more than a little slippery. They're downright deceptive. This post is proof of that deceitfulness:
Romney: As governor, I authorized the state police to enforce immigration laws.
Here's FactCheck's response:
Well, yes. But, as we noted in August, he didn't do so until he had less than a month left in his term. He was already considering running for president, and the new governor-elect was expected to rescind the arrangement.
Mitt, the hardliner is a myth. So is Mitt, the anti-cap and trade guy. While it's technically true, this post exposes that Mitt myth:
Governor Mitt Romney today announced that Massachusetts will take another major step in meeting its commitment to protecting air quality when strict state limitations on carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions from power plants take effect on January 1, 2006.
Massachusetts is the first and only state to set CO2 emissions limits on power plants. The limits, which target the six largest and oldest power plants in the state, are the toughest in the nation.
In addition to reaffirming existing stringent CO2 limits, the draft regulations announced today, which will be filed next week, contain protections against excessive price increases for businesses and consumers. They allow power generation companies to implement CO2 reductions at their own facilities or fund other reduction projects off-site through a greenhouse gas offset and credits program.
The key features of Mitt's CO2 emissions limits regulations are a) limiting CO2 emissions, b) establishing price controls on power plants so they have to eat the cost of Mitt's expensive regulations and c) a "greenhouse gas offset and credits program."
The Cap and Trade bill that was defeated in Congress is different in that it controlled all greenhouse gas emissions. It, too, featured a system of offsets and credits. Like Mitt's regulations, it will drive coal-fired power plants to the brink of extinction.
It's noteworthy that the federal cap and trade legislation doesn't include price caps. In that sense, Mitt's MMGW regulations are more restrictive than the federal cap and trade system would've been.
When Newt was rising, Newt was inspiring people to join the conservative cause. Bold programs that had succeeded in the recent past were the centerpiece of his program. More importantly, Newt kept the promises made in the Contract With America. Meanwhile, Mitt was running from the Contract With America like he ran from Reagan that same year.
Suddenly, Mitt's the conservative and Newt's the liberal? That's something only a liberal from an alternative universe could believe.
Tags: Politics of Personal Destruction , Mitt Romney , Romneycare , Cap and Trade , Price Controls , GHG , Immmigration , Tax Increases , RINO , Newt Gingrich , Contract With America , Tax Cuts , Thomas Sowell , Art Laffer , Endorsements , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, February 4, 2012 7:42 AM
No comments.
Larry Kudlow questions Mitt's class warfare gambit
Another Reaganite economist unloads on Mitt. This time, Larry Kudlow took Mitt to task for his class warfare rhetoric:
Message to Mitt: A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats
That great phrase was coined by the late Jack Kemp, who believed that growth and opportunity for all is the answer to poverty. In fact, Kemp believed it was the answer to all things economic. And he was right. The best anti-poverty program is the one that creates jobs. The answer to large budget deficits? Grow the economy, create jobs , watch incomes rise, and let the tax revenues come rolling in.
Partly from Jack Kemp's work, and partly from his own experience, Ronald Reagan believed the same thing. He knew that growth is the single best solution for our economic ailments. And neither Reagan nor Kemp saw the world in terms of specific income classes or categories. They looked at the whole economy and realized that everyone is tied together. Dragging down the top earners will not help the middle class . And providing an ever larger safety net will not solve poverty. Reagan believed in the safety net, and maintained it. But he knew it was a stop-gap, not a solution.
Mitt's shown no proof that he knows how, as the government's CEO, to create jobs. There's ample proof he knows how to both kill and create jobs as a corporate CEO. Massachusetts is proof that being a successful corporate CEO doesn't automatically translate into being a successful governor. These sentences hurt Mitt with conservatives:
And neither Reagan nor Kemp saw the world in terms of specific income classes or categories. They looked at the whole economy and realized that everyone is tied together.
Here's the question that Mr. Kudlow poses for Mitt:
Does Mitt Romney understand this?
Perhaps he does but I wouldn't bet the ranch on that. What I'd guarantee is that he's playing the Bill Clinton gambit of appealing to the biggest bloc of voters possible. Mitt's economic plan is about political appeal, not time-tested conservative principles.
Incidentally, the safety net has been expanding at an alarming pace. Transfer-program spending has been soaring. It's up $600 billion, or about 35 percent, in the last three years. Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment insurance have seen benefit levels rise and eligibility expand. This is a huge drag on the economy. We are paying too much to not work, and rewarding too little to work.
Welfarism is not compassionate. Opportunity is.
This is the meat and potatoes of Reaganite conservatism. Despite all of his team's spin that he's a conservative, Mitt hasn't shown a grasp of Reaganite conservatism.
Newt's shown an overabundance of understanding of Reaganite conservatism. That's why he's proposed eliminating Capital Gains tax. That's why Newt's proposing to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 12.5%. That's why Newt's tax plan has been approved by conservative heavyweights like Thomas Sowell and Art Laffer .
Mssrs. Laffer, Kudlow and Sowell are heavyweights who've fought for more time-tested conservative economic policies than the next generation of supply-siders will. They've seen their initiatives build one of the most prosperous economies of the last century.
Mitt would do well to read, then internalize and trust, this op-ed of the greatest conservative thinkers of our lifetime. He'd benefit because he'd finally start connecting with conservatives. We The People would benefit because Mitt would implement policies that would cause the next great GDP explosion while running surpluses and paying off the debt.
Tags: Reagan , Jack Kemp , Larry Kudlow , Art Laffer , Thomas Sowell , Tax Cuts , Newt Gingrich , Supply Side Economics , Class Warfare , Mitt Romney , Bill Clinton , Liberalism , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, February 4, 2012 9:13 AM
No comments.
By Election Day, unemployment will be 7.5%
I'm predicting that, by Election Day, 2012, the unemployment rate will be in the mid-7's but that thoughtful people will look at that as a negative. Yes, there's a hint of sarcasm with that statement but it's based on the fact that part of Friday's job report isn't getting the attention it should. Rick Santelli's got it right with this report:
Here's CNBC's transcript of the video:
CNBC's Rick Santelli: You know what I said at 8:30 Eastern? We want a million jobs an hour. That's what we want. What we got looked like a good report. I said, 'Let's get the calculator out,' and I did. And so did a boatload of my sources and big blogs that many people read like Zero Hedge. The labor force participation rate, if you look at non-seasonally adjusted, a fresh low going back to April of '83. If you look at seasonally adjusted, a fresh low participation rate going back to December of '81. What does that mean in English? Shrinkage. Shrinkage. 1.2 million people are now not considered unemployed anymore. They just have left the system. So, we need to concentrate on the internals, and eventually we want to watch the fixed income market to see if some of this sets in as people do their ciphering.
Listen, if I talk about a stock that had a great report, but I don't point out the fact that there was a one-time tax credit that did it, am I doing my viewers a service or a disservice? Listen, when you look at the body counts on the establishment survey, we created jobs. That's a good thing. There's my perk. But I'm sorry, if you look at the other side, you look at the household survey, yes, we had this big seasonal adjustment. You can go to the BLS, you can see their economic release, you can see their situation summary. And we can see that 'not in labor force' moved from about 86.6 million to 87.8. There's your 1.2 million. And we do see the asterisk, there's been an adjustment on population. That's the way it goes. We make an adjustment. The last 12 months needed to be adjusted. It is what it is.
Creating 243,000 jobs is a positive thing that can't be spun as anything but positive. For those families, it's a good day. Here's hoping they can pay off their debts and start setting their financial house in order. Here's hoping that they start laying the foundation for a prosperous life.
Another thing that can't be spun, albeit this time as a negative, is the fact that 1,200,000 people quit looking for work. That's anything but a positive. For those 1,200,000 people, they're still facing terrible times. Their mortgages are still under water and they're facing foreclosure. Their debts are still stacking up. They're having difficulty making ends meet.
They're no way to spin that as positive. Still, that's precisely what this administration is attempting to do:
The unemployment rate fell 0.2 percentage point to 8.3%, from a high of 10% in October 2009. The drop in unemployment over the month was entirely due to employment growth, as the labor force participation rate remained constant, once new population weights are taken into account. The unemployment rate has fallen by 0.8 percentage point in the last 12 months. Private sector payrolls increased by 257,000 jobs and overall payroll employment rose by 243,000 jobs in January. Despite adverse shocks that have created headwinds for economic growth, the economy has added private sector jobs for 23 straight months, for a total of 3.7 million payroll jobs over that period. In the last 12 months, 2.2 million private sector jobs were added on net. Nonetheless, we need faster growth to put more Americans back to work.
Before I get to the statistics, can't the White House find someone capable of putting out their message without using that big of paragraphs? They should start a new paragraph with "Despite adverse shocks..."
As for the "unemployment rate [falling] by 0.8 percentage point in the last 12 months", much of that has to do with the fact that people know that there aren't jobs out there for them. As a result, they've quit looking for work. This is the key part of Santelli's analysis:
The labor force participation rate, if you look at non-seasonally adjusted, a fresh low going back to April of '83. If you look at seasonally adjusted, a fresh low participation rate going back to December of '81. What does that mean in English? Shrinkage. Shrinkage. 1.2 million people are now not considered unemployed anymore. They just have left the system.
I haven't done the math but I'm betting that the unemployment rate would be north of 10% if they measured the rate by using the January, 2009 labor participation rate. In fact, it might be substantially more than 10%.
If you factor in the people who've quit looking for work, it's quite possible that the unemployment rate hasn't moved noticeably since the stimulus was passed. With that type of 'performance', what's the logic behind staying the course with this administration?
This administration's policies have been disastrous. They keep touting how many private sector jobs have been created since the recovery started. What's interesting is that that number is consistently more than the total number of jobs created.
That's because we're running trillion dollar deficits. Those deficits are a direct result of the real unemployment, the one that's driven by the 2009 participation rate, not today's participation rate.
Until the participation rate starts improving and job growth starts increasing, the U.S. economy will be stuck in neutral. That's hardly anything to smile about.
Tags: Labor Participation Rate , Unemployment , Job Growth , White House , Spin , Stimulus , Democrats , Rick Santelli , CNBC , TEA Party
Posted Saturday, February 4, 2012 3:23 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Feb-12 08:45 PM
I complained to someone today about the fact that most people "only notice the 'official' number" (and not the fact that a net 1 million jobs were LOST FOREVER last month). The response was that "people don't care what the official numbers are, they go by whether they or their neighbors are still out of work, and that's getting worse. Everybody knows somebody that's been out of work for a long time and that's how they're going to vote." It's a hopeful interpretation and I like it.
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Feb-12 12:46 PM
Obama = Better than Bush.
You guys had your chance.
Horsed it up big time.
Look what you guys handed to Obama-Biden. You offer more of the same? No thanks.
What were all those Bush tax cut "job creators" doing?
Leveraging, and investing in China.
Taking working companies down, Romney-style.
Give me a break.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 05-Feb-12 09:42 PM
Eric, Obama is the worst president ever. He inherited a recession, then turned it into the Great Recession. He's worse than Carter & that takes some doing.
If Obama is that great, why is it that he's constantly bailing out local governments? Hint: Because this administration's policies suck.
Comment 4 by eric z at 06-Feb-12 06:44 AM
Obama inherited the greatest depression since Roosevelt had to clean up after Hoover. And has had the Republicans stymieing every effort to fix things, or at least institute improvements. They bellow. They rage. They impede. They posture. They are not part of any solution. I grant you he inherited Bernanke, and should have not given him any additional term, but did. That was an error. The Fed is not helping fix things either.
Obama is not great. But Gary, to say he is worse than Bush is pure fantasy. Denial. Abject partisanship for its own purposes. The only way Obama can get anything useful done is by executive order and recess appointments.
I grant you, on attempting to do something positive about healthcare the end result was/is inadaquate, but Obama is not responsible for the Montana senator, Lieberman, or the Blue Dogs. Had there been more progressives to assist, some of the best options would not have been off the table at the start.
Public option, single payer, and strong bargaining with Big Pharma were off the table, because of opposition politics. With that, of course Romney's approach was all that was left - a half-assed attempt at addressing something Canada and all of Europe sanely manage one way or another.
On the economy, the bleating faction, postured about deficit; not jobs, not exchange rate impacts, not how prices of everyting but labor in the US would rise.
And, it was Bush that made the too big to fail shysters bigger, via merger/takeover. Obama inherited that.
He's been a big disappointment for those who believed him saying "change" but being the same as Clinton and Bush, little different, is no cause to say that corporate raider answers or those of the ethically challenged are anything but a worse bad joke.
Were he have delivered change, I would be better able to defend him. But he's been identical to Clinton and both of the Bush residents.
What's needed is a president who will push to reform Wall Street, reintroduce banking regulation as it was before Phil Gramm, and who will consider some of the things Ron Paul is saying about the Fed and about sabre rattling as a default foreign policy, and its outrageous costs. And one who will go back to taxing the rich as was done during the prosperous 1950's.
Before the Reagan mess-up, before Bush making it worse.
Reagan ran record deficits, only exceeded by the Bush presidents' war adventuring by borrowing, and Obama has inherited that mess along with the messed up minds that will not admit Reagan was an awful president who made the lives of the 99% worse and made income disparity and wealth as we see it today possible. With collusion from both parties of the two party system, Reagan did this, he did not do it alone, but times were better economically during the Eisenhower and Kennedy years, then Johnson impoverished us to spend on Vietnam, Nixon-Ford handed Carter a basket case that Carter got blamed for; and your guys are doing the same thing again with Obama.
I have no defense of Obama, who is a big time disappointment to progressives; other than your people offer worse "solutions" so that Obama will be reelected despite his inadequacies - much as with Clinton when the Doles were the alternative the GOP had. Bottom line - Obama is mediocre, your guys much more so.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 06-Feb-12 09:00 AM
Excuse me? TARP was ill-conceived but it eliminated the financial crisis. That was the only structural thing wrong with the economy. This myth that the 8 years of the Bush administration were destitute years of poverty that progressives have peddled is BS.
It stops here now.
Simply put, the unemployment rates, the GDP growth and the size of the deficits are proof that the progressives' mantra of "the failed policies of the last 8 years" was BS, not truth.
Unemployment rates were consistently 3 points lower than they've been under President Obama.
You can blame part of the deficits on President Bush but saying that he's responsible for 4 straight years of trillion dollar deficits is BS. You should know better than that.
Bush's biggest deficit was $460,000,000,000 or about a third of what Obama's deficits are. There isn't a thoughtful economist who'd agree that Obama's deficits are Bush's fault.
President Obama's economic plan centers on paying off governments & the unions. There's nothing pro-growth about it.
The EPA's & the NLRB's heavy hands have crippled job creation. Since when did the NLRB have the authority to tell businesses where they can & can't open manufacturing plants?
That's the type of oppressive regulations that's chasing businesses to other countries. What part of that don't you understand?
As for Reagan, he took the Carter stagflation/high unemployment/high interest rates/misery index economic plan & created 20,000,000 jobs.
If creating 20,000,000 jobs while restoring prosperity & decreasing foreign dependence on foreign oil is your idea of abject failure, then sign me up for that type of 'failure'.
Both in straight dollar amounts & in percentage of GDP, this administration's deficits far outdistance the Reagan or Bush deficits. It isn't even close.
It's time you opened your eyes to these realities. I'm partisan, yes, but I'm informed by verifiable, trustworthy information, not blind ideology.
It's time you did the same.
Anderson v. Rosen
During Gov. Dayton's ill-tempered diatribe, he said that Republicans were "unfit to govern" because they didn't confirm the appointment of Ellen Anderson, a longtime DFL/environmental activist, to be the Commissioner of the Public Utilities Commission. The reality is that Gov. Dayton isn't fit to govern.
His bombastic diatribe sounded more like a spoiled 3-year-old brat who didn't get his way than it sounded like something a governor of a state.
Despite Gov. Dayton's childish accusations, Sen. Julie Rosen's explanation of why she voted against Sen. Anderson's confirmation as PUC Commissioner is perfectly reasonable.
SEN. JULIE ROSEN: I would very much like to confirm former colleagues to administration positions. It is rare that I object to their appointment. But in this case, I cannot support the nomination of this nominee. Ellen Anderson was a motivated legislator. She served with many of us and we know her to be very passionate with very strong beliefs about how energy resources should be developed.
Those same passions manifest themselves into a management style that leaved little room for open discussion and compromise and in the context of the PUC and the regulation of all of our utility industries, that deeply concerns me.
Her advocacy was well-suited for her work in this body but I do not believe that it is appropriate for the Commission and I do not think it is in the best interest of Minnesotans. Over the long-term, I do not believe that her sitting on the PUC would be beneficial to ratepayers of our state.
I look at a public career that has demonized traditional energy sources. I look at derogatory references to "dirty and dangerous fossil fuels" or energy cartels that do not reflect well on the nominee.
We all know that there is always work to be done to move things forward. Outright rejections of energy that built this country and helped foster the highest living standards in this world is irresponsible.
There isn't room for activists in the executive branch. If Gov. Dayton wants his appointees confirmed, he should stop appointing activists to regulatory positions.
Gov. Dayton should stop his temper tantrums. He looks like a spoiled brat when he does that. Gov. Dayton shouldn't expect Paul Aasen to be routinely confirmed either. Aasen is Gov. Dayton's appointee to be the Commissioner of the MPCA. He's also the environmental activist who sued the investors for the Big Stone II power plant until they gave up.
Then he bragged that he and other Big Environment groups had defeated the project. That's in addition to other city and county projects that MCEA litigated into the ground, costing taxpayers hundreds of thousands of dollars in lawsuits.
PS- That money wasn't for awards. That's just the attorney fees for fighting MCEA's frivolous lawsuits.
If Gov. Dayton's MPCA appointee gets rejected, he'd better not throw another temper tantrum or he'll get hit with a major document dump showing Minnesota that his appointees are radical activists.
Tags: Confirmation Hearings , Ellen Anderson , PUC , Mark Dayton , Paul Aasen , MPCA , MCEA , Regulators , Energy , Environment , Activists , Lawsuits , Big Stone II , DFL , Julie Rosen , MNGOP
Posted Monday, February 6, 2012 6:27 AM
No comments.
Free markets vs. government intervention
It isn't surprising that David Shuster's monthly column is a criticism of capitalism. That's because Shuster doesn't understand capitalism. Here's a sampling of Shuster's liberalism:
Many economic conservatives believe free markets are self-policing.
As an example, if consumers are disgusted by bad service or a faulty product, a company's reputation suffers and sales drop.
Accordingly, self-interest, more disparagingly known as greed, provides an incentive for ethical business behavior. The state's role is to establish and enforce general laws, while avoiding excessive regulation of commerce.
The events that led to the subprime mortgage catastrophe and near collapse of our banking system demonstrate this model has flaws.
Despite the above, the chastity of free markets is still vigorously promoted and regulatory efforts demonized, while the importance of personal ethics is, in a relative sense, ignored.
It isn't that the free market caused the subprime mortgage crisis by itself. It didn't help that Congress passed laws that gave banks the incentive to write mortgages to people who didn't have a chance of paying off mortgages.
There's no mention of that in Shuster's column because, being the progressive that he is, he thinks that government is virtuous, that it only acts with the people's best interests at heart. It's telling that Shuster's vision of government is fiction.
Enter Milton Friedman with a dose of reality:
Donahue: When you see around the globe the maldistribution of wealth, the desperate plight of millions of people in underdeveloped countries, when you see so few haves and so many have nots, when you see the greed and the concentration of power with it, didn't you ever have a moment of doubt about capitalism and whether greed is a good idea to run on?
Friedman: Well, first of all, tell me, is there some society that doesn't run on greed. You think Russia doesn't run on greed? You think China doesn't run on greed? What is greed? Of course, none of us are greedy. It's only the other guy that's greedy.
The world runs on individuals pursuing their seperate interests. The greatest accomplishments have not come from government bureaus. Einstein didn't construct his theory under order from a bureaucrat. Henry Ford didn't revolutionize the automobile industry that way.
In the only cases in which the masses have escaped from the grinding poverty you're talking about, the only cases in recorded history is where they've had capitalism and largely free trade.
If you want to know where the masses are worse off, it's exactly in the societies that depart from that. So that the record of history is absolutely crystal clear, that there is no alternative way so far discovered that will improve the lot of ordinary people that can hold a candle to the productive activities that are unleashed by the free enterprise system.
DONAHUE: But it seems to me that it rewards not virtue but the ability to manipulate the system.
FRIEDMAN: And what does reward virtue? Do you think that communist commissary rewards virtue? Do you think that a Hitler rewards virtue? Do you think, pardon me, if you'll excuse the expression, do you think that American presidents reward virtue? Do they choose their appointees on the basis of the virtue of the people or on the basis of their political clout?
Is it really true that political self-interest is nobler somehow than economic self-interest?
You know, I think you're taking alot of things for granted. Just where in the world do you find these angels who are going to organize society for us? I don't even trust you to do that.
Let's be clear about something. I'm not foolish enough to think that all capitalists are virtuous people. They aren't.
Shuster's column is premised on the notions that regulations are virtuous, capitalists are automatically corrupt and that capitalists ignore corruption.
Such is the thinking of out-of-touch progressives.
First, regulations shouldn't tell what innovators what they should do or how they should do it. Straightforward laws should be written that establishes a clear framework for what's permitted and what isn't. Those straightfoward laws should be strictly enforced based on the laws, not whether the criminal or civil offender is a friend or crony of the regulator or law enforcement official.
Next, Shuster and other progressives should note the difference between regulation and law enforcement. They're often lumped together but they aren't. They're entirely different creatures.
The solution: Make laws straightforward. Enforce them vigorously if they're violated. Apart from that, let open markets and capitalism work.
Tags: St. Cloud Times , Times Writers Group , Opinion , Progressives , Regulations , Poverty , 1 Percenters , Democrats , Milton Friedman , Capitalism , Free Markets , Prosperity
Posted Monday, February 6, 2012 8:42 AM
Comment 1 by Gary Gross at 06-Feb-12 11:03 AM
Frank, Thanks for the compliment. It's my mission. Here's the question that keeps me grounded: What type of America do I want to live in? Actually, there's a second, related, question: What type of Minnesota do I want to live in?
If you appreciate my work & research, please consider making a small contribution to keep LFR operating. If you think this cause is worth fighting for, spread the word about LFR & encourage them to contribute to this research/movement.
Comment 2 by G Leisen at 06-Feb-12 04:25 PM
Thanks, Gary, for this response to David Schuster. Every time I see his name next to a column I cringe as I know it will be full of a lot of liberal gobbledy-gook. I know he is a true believer, but I suffer when I make myself read this nonsense.
Thanks to bloggers like yourself who make the necessary corrections to all the errors in Schuster's writings.
Great policy, terrible timing
Recently, Rep. Drazkowski joined Sen. Thompson in introducing legislation that would put a right to work constitutional amendment on November's ballot. The thought of giving workers the opportunity to say no to unionization is initially appealing. After additional thought, though, it's apparent that first impressions aren't right impressions.
First, adding a right to work constitutional amendment to the ballot will attract alot of special interest money to Minnesota. Why would we want to add another lightning rod to the ballot to drive DFL turnout?
Policywise, I get what's appealing about right to work. It shrinks unions' political power, something that's badly needed considering the rash of nasty behavior by SEIU and AFSCME.
It's plain wrong to force people into a union and to pay union dues. That's why I opposed Gov. Dayton's attempt to force child care small businesses into unions.
The marriage amendment is a lightning rod already. Millions of dollars of special interest money will be spent to defeat it. Millions more will be spent to justify it.
Do we really need this election decided by the left's special interest money?
The best way to do this is to bide the time until 2014, when we'll defeat or scare Gov. Dayton into not running again. Then the legislature can pass a right to work bill without flooding the election with millions of special interest influence.
It's important that legislative consesrvatives make wise strategic and tactical decisions this election cycle. With their majorities hinging on turnout, GOP legislators need to pick their fights wisely.
In this instance, it's important to choose not to fight this fight.
Tags: Special Interests , Marriage Amendment , Right to Work , Ballot Question , GOTV , Unions , Turnout , DFL , Dave Thompson , Steve Drazkowski , MNGOP , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, February 7, 2012 5:45 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Feb-12 10:43 AM
Courage! There is only so much turnout that special interest money can "drive," and with the marriage amendment on the ballot (a 70% issue) and the voter ID amendment likely on the ballot (an 80% issue) likely there as well, adding a third 80% issue will accomplish two things: Drive lots of CONSERVATIVES to the polls, and drain the coffers of the special interests in futile opposition. Besides, surrender just because you might lose the battle is hardly the principled position.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 07-Feb-12 11:28 AM
Jerry, It's foolish thinking that right to work won't dramatically increase DFL turnout.
Also, characterizing my suggestion as surrender is intellectually dishonest. I'm not suggesting surrender. I'm just suggesting we win the debate first.
We haven't laid the foundation for this susbject but we expect millions of people to just agree with us after a hard-fought campaign? I don't think so.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing, at 07-Feb-12 03:43 PM
Apparently millions of folks already agree with us-- it's another of those "80% issues." Yes, we will have to win the "debate," meaning we will have to counter all of the lies put out by union money, and the intimidation tactics put out by union goons, but it is a fight worth having. Sorry for my verbiage, but I really do believe this is a positive for the forces of good and niceness.
Comment 4 by Thorley Winston at 07-Feb-12 03:53 PM
I have to agree with Gary and would just add something to consider - a lot of the people who are going to be voting for the marriage amendment are going to be to be socially conservative union members who will fight like hades against anything that they think might threaten their benefits. They could just as easily split their votes for the amendments while they continue to vote for the DFL candidate(s) on the ballot.
Comment 5 by Chad Q at 07-Feb-12 07:51 PM
Hummm, maybe the GOP shouldn't have pushed the marriage amendment so hard and spent more time getting the voter ID and Right to Work on the ballot if you don't believe they can take on the DFL with three amendments. The latter amendments will actually affect the state whereas the marriage amendment will only make us feel good. Kind of hard being the party of morality considering recent events.
If the GOP can get a coherent message out there to combat the misinformation the DFL is spreading, it should be a piece of cake to pass all 3 amendments. But the GOP being what they are will squander any chance they have due to lack of a coherent message and will probably end up with only the voter ID to pass.
Also, if not now, when? The GOP could easily get voted out of power in 2012 and the chance to do any of this could go out the door. Strike while the iron is hot!
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Feb-12 11:26 PM
With all due respect, there's gonna be a ton of DFL special interest money spent on the marriage amendment. There's going to be twice that spent on R to W. Getting the message out against that flood of money is almost impossible.
If not now, when? How about 2015, when we'll have the House, Senate & governor's office.
In terms of message, in this instance, money is message.
Comment 6 by eric z at 08-Feb-12 06:41 AM
What's Santorum's position on labor unions?
Santorum clobbers Romney, TPaw
Monday, Gov. Pawlenty launched the Romney campaign's attacks against Sen. Santorum. Tuesday night, Sen. Santorum hit back against both Mitt and TPaw:
The Romney campaign is going after the former Pennsylvania senator following a poll that shows him edging Romney in Minnesota, which holds its contest Tuesday. Santorum is also expected to be a contender in the non-binding Missouri primary that same day.
A Santorum press release following the call labeled Romney 'Proud defender and author of 'Obamneycare,' a term coined by Pawlenty himself when he was a presidential contender and meant to suggest that Romneycare and Obamacare were one and the same.
'As Governor Tim Pawlenty so aptly said, RomneyCare should be called ObamneyCare,' wrote Hogan Gidley, national communications director for the Santorum campaign, in the press release. 'Everyone knows that Governor Romney's top-down, government-run, mandated health insurance plan was the basis of ObamaCare.'
'Oddly enough, the only accomplishment that Gov. Romney points to, and actually defends during his tenure as governor, is the most liberal, the most intrusive and unconstitutional,' Gidley continued. 'In fact, the only area conservatives would appreciate Romney flip-flopping on would be RomneyCare. So why he doubles down on this liberal accomplishment instead of just flip-flopping as usual is beyond me. We're all looking for Gov. Romney to finally have firm conviction on something, but it's pretty telling that he picks RomneyCare.'
It's telling that TPaw endorsesd Mitt but Mitt got clobbered in Minnesota. It's telling that South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley endorsed Mitt but Mitt got clobbered in South Carolina.
The problem, it seems, isn't totally with Haley or TPaw. The problem is mostly with Mitt. Mitt got crushed in both states. It's apparent that Mitt's having difficulty, especially considering that the press was touting his inevitability.
After Tuesday's 'Super Caucuses', Mitt's in need of desperately retooling his campaign. After losing Minnesota, Missouri and Colorado, it's apparent that Mitt doesn't own the Heartland or the Mountain West. That doesn't bode well for him.
As for TPaw, this is just plain embarassing. In 2008, he endorsed John McCain. McCain lost the state by 19 points that year. He endorsed Mitt this time, then Mitt proceeded to lose the state by 28 points.
Tags: TPaw , Mitt Romney , Minnesota , Missouri , Colorado , Caucuses , Straw Poll , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, February 8, 2012 6:12 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-Feb-12 06:39 AM
Are you still favoring Gigrich?
Have you made the Santorum Switch?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Feb-12 10:51 AM
No I haven't, though I'd prefer him over RP or Mitt. I'm still firmly in Newt's camp.
Precinct Caucus Night in Minnesota
Last night was caucus night in Minnesota. Though conservatives are dispirited elsewhere across the nation, there was no lack of enthusiasm at the Benton County precinct caucuses.
Four years ago, 230 people attended the precinct caucuses. This year, 284 attended, almost a 25% increase.
In addition to the increased attendance, there were other big stories. For instance, Mitt slipped from winning the Benton County straw poll in 2008 with 107 votes to finishing last this year with a paltry 19 votes. That's a drop of 80%.
Ron Paul won with 147 votes, up from 90 just 4 short years ago. Sen. Rick Santorum finished second with 89 votes, followed by Newt with 26 votes.
I'm told that Ron Paul won the SD-15 straw poll, too, this time with 40% of the vote, with Sen. Santorum getting 37% of the vote, followed by Newt, then Mitt well down the list.
This isn't good news for Mitt. If he can't win in the reddest part of Minnesota, he'll get crushed this November. Couple that with Mitt's devastating loss in Missouri and you've got the start of a 'Mitt can't win in the Heartland' storyline gaining credibility.
The other message sent last night is that Mitt isn't popular with the Roman Catholics or evangelical voters that comprise most of the voters in central Minnesota. Having Mitt Romney at the top of the ticket in Minnesota won't make life easier for GOP legislative candidates though it wouldn't be a fatal blow.
Having Sen. Santorum at the top of the ticket, though, would be a fantastic fit for GOP legislators' campaigns in central Minnesota because of his blue collar background and his staunch pro-life stance.
This information isn't directly related to the Benton County precinct caucuses but it's still relevant because, in what feels like centuries ago, Tarryl Clark was my state senator. Apparently, Tarryl doesn't 'travel' well :
Former DFL Congressman Rick Nolan won a straw poll of DFL caucus-goers in Minnesota's 8th Congressional District.
Districts are still reporting results, but Nolan has so far picked up 1,381 votes, 500 more than Duluth City Council member Jeff Anderson (875 votes). Former state Sen. Tarryl Clark received 365 votes. At least 231 voters said they were uncommitted.
Tarryl collected 365 votes from a pool of 2,852 voters. That's 12.8% or 1 of 8 CD-8 voters. Rick Nolan, who was my congressman from 1975-1981, won with 48.4% of CD-8 DFL attendees.
There's no arguing that Tarryl has the CoH to compete in a primary. Still, this straw poll confirms the rumors that've floated for the last 2-3 months: that CD-8 doesn't like Tarryl because she's seen as a carpetbagger. This straw poll won't do anything to change that opinion.
Tags: Straw Polls , Benton County , Rick Santorum , Ron Paul , Newt Gingrich , Mitt Romney , Precinct Caucuses , GOP , Tarryl Clark , Rick Nolan , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, February 8, 2012 2:56 PM
No comments.
