February 9-11, 2014
Feb 09 08:22 IRS to conservatives: shut up Feb 09 10:48 Air service returns to St. Cloud Feb 09 12:10 Joe Soucheray', the Senate Office Building and 2014 Feb 10 05:40 Will Franken listen? Feb 10 06:01 SCSU money making scheme? Feb 11 05:35 St. Cloud air service a year from now Feb 11 10:42 Rewriting the RNC statement Feb 11 15:19 President Obama's lawless administration Feb 11 23:34 Franken's paranoid rantings
Prior Months: Jan
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
IRS to conservatives: shut up
Hans Spakovsky's post on the Heritage Foundation's blog is a fantastic one-stop-shopping-center for what the IRS's proposed rules mean:
On Wednesday, the House Ways and Means Committee questioned IRS Commissioner John Koskinen. The Committee released an email it had obtained from inside the Treasury Department showing that back in 2012 when it appears that the IRS was in the middle of trying to prevent conservative organizations from being granted tax exempt status, the administration was already planning to draft new regulations restricting the political activity of the same organizations. The email was sent by Ruth Madrigal of the Office of Tax Policy at Treasury to Lois Lerner, the IRS official who refused to answer questions from Congress about the scandal by asserting her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
That June 14, 2012, email indicated that Madrigal and Lerner would be devising the new rules 'off-plan,' which is federal government-speak meaning that their plan would not be published on the public schedule of the IRS. What is significant about this email is that it flatly contradicts prior assertions by the Obama administration that the proposed new regulations defining 'candidate-related political activity' were planned only after the IRS scandal was made public in order to 'clarify' the regulations. Instead, it appears the administration not only tried to delay and prevent conservative organizations from receiving their tax-exempt status prior to the 2012 election, but was also already planning new regulations that would stifle their political speech and potential criticism of the administration.
In short, the Obama administration intended to silence its critics while violating Americans' constitutional rights. The Obama administration didn't hesitate in crushing TEA Party organizations' First Amendment rights.
If we had an attorney general that was interested in justice, Lois Lerner would've been prosecuted and convicted already. That's because she lied to Congress about the IRS scandal was restricted to a couple rogue IRS agents in their Cincinnati office. That's before finding out that she knew about the proposed new rules that would intentionally trample TEA Party organizations' First Amendment rights.
What's most important is that Chuck Schumer and Al Franken think it's a good idea for the IRS to redouble their efforts of improperly investigating and harassing these TEA Party organizations.
This is just the continuation of the Democrats' assault against the Citizens United ruling. That's the ruling which said that it's better to have more political speech. Democrats disagree, insisting that less political speech, especially that which happens close to an election or primary, is desirable.
When the Citizens United ruling took away the FEC's ability to limit speech in 2010, the administration switched to Plan B. That meant the IRS would replace the FEC as the federal government's agency in charge of limiting political speech. John Hinderaker's post highlights what the Obama administration thinks of political speech. Here's part of a speech Lois Lerner gave on the subject:
What happened last year was the Supreme Court-the law kept getting chipped away, chipped away, in the federal election arena. The Supreme Court dealt a huge blow, overturning a 100-year-old precedent that basically corporations couldn't give directly to political campaigns. And everyone is up in arms because they don't like it. The Federal Election Commission can't do anything about it.
They want the IRS to fix the problem. The IRS laws are not set up to fix the problem: (c)(4)s can do straight political activity. They can go out and pay for an ad that says 'Vote for Joe Blow.' That's something they can do as long as their primary activity is their (c)(4) activity, which is social welfare.
Q: When did political speech become a problem to be fixed? A: When this administration took over. It's been their habit to eliminate political speech that doesn't sing from their hymnal.
The telling line in Ms. Lerner's speech is "The IRS Laws aren't set up to fix the problem : c4s can do straight political activity." Corporations still can't contribute to candidates' campaigns. That shouldn't mean they can't spend money campaigning on issues important to them. If unions have the right to campaign on issues important to them, then corporations have the right to do the same.
This article does an excellent job explaining the IRS's proposed new rules:
But under the proposed rules, which would remove a 501(c)(4)'s tax exemption if it engages in virtually any political activity, if they choose to do so collectively, rather than individually, the organization will be subject to income tax on the amount it collects. If an individual spends $1,000 on posters, he will get $1,000 worth; but if he donates $1,000 to the organization, it will have to pay $350 to the IRS and will be left with only $650 to purchase posters.
That's the Obama administration's 'fix' to the free speech 'problem'.
Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 8:22 AM
Comment 1 by SWOhio at 09-Feb-14 09:09 AM
Lois Lerner's demand for immunity is starting to make a lot of sense - as is Issa's refusal (so far) to grant it.
She probably knows she doesn't look good in orange.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Feb-14 10:00 AM
I'd grant conditional immunity if she can supply documentation showing the West Wing or the Treasury Dept. was involved in the targeting of conservative organizations.
Air service returns to St. Cloud
This St. Cloud Times article trumpets the return of regional air service to the St. Cloud Regional Airport. While this is a worthwhile accomplishment, it comes with some worries. First, let's learn what St. Cloud is 'getting':
How much are tickets, when are the flights and how do you book them?
The initial flights cost $206 round-trip, according to www.united.com. You can also find a reservation link at www.skywest.com. There will be two flights from O'Hare to St. Cloud on May 6 and one flight from St. Cloud to O'Hare. That's because the plane will originate from Chicago the first day but thereafter will sit overnight at the St. Cloud Regional Airport. Beginning May 7, typical departure times from St. Cloud will be 6:30 a.m. and 1:54 p.m. Those flights are scheduled to arrive at O'Hare at 7:56 a.m. and 3:20 p.m., respectively. Typical departures from Chicago will be at 11:55 a.m. and 8:30 p.m., with arrivals in St. Cloud at 1:22 p.m. and 9:57 p.m. United is in the process of making a limited-time offer for a loyalty program status match to get frequent fliers to switch from other carriers.
How big are the planes?
The CRJ 200s are 88 feet long, 21 feet high and have a wingspan of 70 feet. They can fly to a height of 41,000 feet and cruise at 488 mph. They carry two flight crew members, one flight attendant and 50 passengers in rows of two on each side of the cabin, which is 8-feet-5-inches wide and 6-feet-1-inch tall.
It's a good thing these jets are only flying to Chicago. They'd be torture for tall people if it were a longer flight. Now let's talk about important things:
What is the risk that the $1 million guarantee fund, made up mostly of a federal grant but including local public and private donations, will be used?
Studies by Forecast indicate these flights will be profitable for the air carrier with a 70 percent load factor. With an average round-trip ticket cost of about $200, that would require between 25,000 and 30,000 passengers per year to be successful. By comparison, there were 28,767 people on the Allegiant flights to Mesa in the first year of that service, which began in December 2012. That being said, Towle cautions that the airport enters the relationship with SkyWest and United Express on the understanding that it is possible the air carrier could use the guarantee.
Pat Mattson, a retired professor in St. Cloud State's aviation program, has done some research into these figures. This figure should startle people:
Eau Claire, WI which is a similar market, has a load factor of about 42%.
While I hope SkyWest is profitable, I'm skeptical that they'll achieve that 70% load factor. Next, these statistics should frighten people:
$206 RT is high for STC-ORD when you consider Spirit Airlines lowest fare for service MSP to ORD for $72 RT. (June 16, one day RT) STC-ORD is $266; MSP to ORD Spirit is $108.
(July 7, return July 14) STC-ORD is $326; MSP to ORD Delta is $180.
(Aug 22 return Sept 6) STC-ORD is $226 or $296; MSP to ORD Spirit is $128 and American $190.
Put succinctly, flying from St. Cloud is substantially more expensive than flying from MSP. Let's connect the dots. SkyWest needs to hit 70% load capacity to be profitable. That will be difficult considering how expensive it is to fly from STC as opposed to flying out of MSP. Again, I wish them the best but I'm not confident in predicting success.
UPDATE : Here's another tidbit of information worth considering:
In some of the most remote communities, such as tiny Ely, Nevada, those subsidies have paid for empty seats on flights with hardly a passenger, making EAS a prime target for those looking to eliminate waste in Washington. In Eau Claire, a city of more than 70,000 residents, the planes are more than half full, many of them business travelers, like Brady Foust.
'I fly two or three times a month. My wife flies two or three times a month,' Foust said. 'There are lots and lots of business people who fly out of Eau Claire every week.'
'If you start taking away those transportation options from them, boy, those companies in a heartbeat have the ability to move and move somewhere else,' Rep. Kind said. But there still aren't enough passengers for the airline to turn a profit .
In other words, the EAS subsidy provides Sky West their profit.
Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 10:48 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 09-Feb-14 02:07 PM
So Skywest Airlines gets paid $1.7 million to fly two jets a day from Chicago to Eau Claire by the taxpayers through essential air service federal monies? I wonder what the total percentage of the Eau Claire flights are running at these days. Unless St. Cloud gets 70% of its flights full, it seems to me the million dollar grant at St. Cloud could run out quickly and is not competitive with an ongoing federal subsidy. Both Eau Claire and St. Cloud are less than two hours drive time from the Minneapolis airport so this factors in as well.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 09-Feb-14 02:18 PM
Eau Claire has a load factor of about 42% according to Prof. Mattson. Sorry I wasn't paying closer attention. Oh my!
Joe Soucheray', the Senate Office Building and 2014
I didn't know about Joe Soucheray's column from the Jan. 11, 2014 edition of the Pioneer Press. It's a fascinating read. Here's part of Mr. Soucheray's column:
Not only is a new state Senate office building unnecessary, but the effort to bring it about was, essentially, crooked. In the final minutes of the last legislative session, the lodge tucked into a massive tax bill language that authorized a new edifice for themselves. They might as well have been throwing candy from a parade float.
They didn't even know what it would cost, and they apparently didn't care. They didn't even seem to care that their action might very well have been unconstitutional. Former state Rep. Jim Knoblach, R-St. Cloud, filed a lawsuit in October. We should be cheering for this guy. He contends in the suit that authorizing the project in a tax bill, instead of the usual bonding bill, violates a state constitutional requirement that a law embrace only one subject. A hearing is scheduled this month in Ramsey County District Court.
Mr. Soucheray is right. Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk, Speaker Thissen and the DFL didn't care how much this building cost. They didn't care that the building wasn't needed or that there were cheaper 'solutions' to this non-problem. The Minnesota Senate needed that building like this ship needed more ice near Antarctica:
The Minnesota Senate needed that office building like Olympic athletes need this type of drinking water:
Let's get serious about this. If we do, then we'll be more considerate of the taxpayers' plight than the DFL was. The DFL Tax Bill is a disaster. First, it raised taxes on the middle class and on small retailers. Next, it's spending money we don't have on things we don't need, aka the Senate Office Building. Third, the DFL is already admitting that they raised taxes too much because they're already preparing to repeal some of the taxes they created less than a year ago.
All of these things are major mistakes. Building the SOB is the biggest of those mistakes because, potentially, it'll exist a generation or more. Hopefully, the middle class tax hikes will be repealed. (The sooner the better, right?) Repealing the B2B sales taxes will happen this session.
Unfortunately, if it's approved by the DFL House Rules Committee, the SOB will be with us for a generation or more.
The biggest question Minnesotans need to ask themselves is whether they want inconsiderate, thoughtless people running state government. The DFL did what conservatives predicted they'd do. They raised taxes on the middle class and working poor. They foolishly spent money on things like the Senate Office Building. They built a collosal monument to their warped ideology when they passed MNsure.
I'd argue that the DFL is the 'gang that couldn't shoot straight' if I thought that were true. Unfortunately, this DFL governor and this DFL legislature has aimed their taxing and spending guns at every Minnesotan. Every Minnesota taxpayer will pay for this monstrosity.
Mostly, the SOB is a testimony to the DFL's appetite for spending money foolishly. That alone should get them fired this November.
Posted Sunday, February 9, 2014 12:10 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 10-Feb-14 09:07 AM
It is so frustrating to read and listen to the crap the DFL "passed" last session and no one other than conservative media is reporting on it! What's worse is that DFL sympathizers i.e. DFL voters, will give the DFL a pass and vote for them again and wonder why nothing ever gets better for them. I wish DFL voters would wake up and realize the DFL legislators don't care about their constituents, they only care about themselves.
Comment 2 by Jethro at 10-Feb-14 09:47 AM
What was the judge thinking? Was this case that hard? What part of unconstitutional does the judge not understand when this boondoggle found itself in the tax bill?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 10-Feb-14 01:11 PM
The frustrating thing for me is that the judge used misguided tests to essentially gut the Single Subject Clause of the Constitution. That's inexcusable.
Will Franken listen?
Yesterday, I wrote this article about a devastating ad that Americans for Prosperity is running against Sen. Mark Pryor, (D-AR). It just as easily could've been run against Sen. Stuart Smalley, aka Al Franken. First, here's the ad:
Next, here's the transcript from the ad:
People don't like political ads. I don't like them either. But health care isn't about politics. It's about people. It's not about a website that doesn't work. It's not about poll numbers or approval ratings. It's about people. And millions of people have lost their health insurance. Millions of people can't see their own doctors and millions are paying more and getting less. Obamacare doesn't work. It just doesn't work. Tell Sen. Pryor to stop thinking about politics and start thinking about people.
Sen. Franken can't hide on this subject. In November, he met with President Obama. Here's what he said :
Franken said he expressed his displeasure at the meeting.
'I, along with the Senators at the meeting, expressed frustration with the performance of the federal website," he said in a statement released from his office.
"I also made it clear that, while MNsure.org appears to be running more smoothly than the federal website, I want to make certain that the pieces of the federal system that interface with MNsure are working as well as possible," said Franken, who was among 16 senators who met with Obama.
Although Franken has been a supporter of ObamaCare, according to one report, he was 'visibly agitated' last month when meeting with Obama's chief of staff to discuss the problem with the roll out.
On Wednesday he said: "I will continue to hold the Administration accountable as it fixes the federal site."
That's just political theater. It isn't a solution to the underlying problem. Like the woman in the ad said, this "isn't about a website that doesn't work." Apparently, Franken is intent on not listening to this woman's statements. That's because he's intent on weathering a political storm rather than focusing on fixing problems.
Further, it's obvious that Franken wasn't paying attention to Minnesota. It's obvious that he was reading from the DFL's script about MNsure. Saying that it appeared as though "MNsure.org appears to be running more smoothly than the federal website" is proof that he wasn't in touch with reality.
Minnesota needs legislators who a) listen to their constituents, b) pays attention to what's actually happening in his state and c) provide real solutions to their problems. They don't need politicians whose first priority is to tapdance their way through a political minefield that the politician created.
Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 5:40 AM
Comment 1 by Sean at 10-Feb-14 04:14 PM
According to the numbers on the Kaiser Foundation website, which is tracking national enrollment figures, MnSure has enrolled 8.7% of the eligible population versus an average of 5.7% in the states participating in the federal exchange.
So, for all of its problems, MnSure is still getting people through the process better than the federal exchange.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Feb-14 05:18 PM
That's hardly a ringing endorsement of MNsure. Saying that it's doing better than HealthCare.gov isn't exactly a high hurdle to clear.
Comment 3 by Sean at 11-Feb-14 09:17 AM
But you're the one who just said: "Saying that it appeared as though 'MNsure.org appears to be running more smoothly than the federal website' is proof that he wasn't in touch with reality."
It is reality to say that MNSure is performing better than the federal exchange, as you just admitted.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 11-Feb-14 11:26 AM
Wow, liberals sure have a low threshold for success. Woo hoo, MnSure is 3% better at getting no one to sign up. Kind of like saying more people on foodstamps is a good thing or that unemployment payments are good for the economy.
Franken was the deciding vote for this piece of crap legislation and he makes excuses every day for its failures and complains about the language in the bill creating the problems. Obamacare should be hung around his neck like a 50 pound stone.
Comment 5 by Sean at 11-Feb-14 11:41 AM
Didn't say it was a "success". Just that it's performing better than the federal exchange. Which is important to consider when looking at our options in the upcoming legislative session.
SCSU money making scheme?
Let's Make Money and Students Happy
(Tongue in Cheek)
by Silence Dogood
Several faculty members have argued strongly that removing the record of a student's registration and/or grade in a course amounts to a violation of academic integrity. Let's get over this whole integrity thing and see if we can "kill two birds with one stone" - make some money and make students happy at the same time.
Let's start a process that allows a student to remove any record of their registration in a course for a fee. Not to sell ourselves short, let's charge $999 per course (it sounds so much less expensive than $1,000). So if a student is not happy with a D- in college algebra, $999 will remove the grade and the record of registration from the student's transcript. Similarly, if they are not happy with their F in psychology, some cash solves the problem. This has the potential not only of making the university some needed cash. It will also make the students happy. Just think, students can buy their way to a 4.00 gpa!
If this policy had been in place in FY07, from FY07 through FY12, there were a total of 996 grades that were removed from transcripts this could have generated more than $995,000. Not bad, nearly a cool million in cash and happy students at the same time! In FY12 alone, with 368 customers, it would have made an impressive $367,632. For some reason, back in FY07 there were only 14 grades removed from transcripts so it would have only made a measly $13,986. Looking at the data it's easy to see that, back in FY07, it was a lot harder to get a grade removed from a transcript than it is now.
So it's good that now with this integrity thing forgotten, we can get down to making some money and making students happy at the same time!
The data for the number of "drops," which comes from the SCSU Business Office, provides a nice visual and provides an idea of the growth potential for cash and happiness.
It's not possible to report the data for FY13 but if the trend were to continue and considering since the data for FY12 only represents 9 months of drops, it's clear that not only would it have brought in more for FY12, it would have been a tidy $600,000 or more for FY13.
So let's change our policy about transcript integrity and at least cash in on it. Certainly, with advertising we should expect the rate of growth to increase substantially from what the data already demonstrates.
If you have integrity, nothing else matters.
If you don't have integrity, nothing else matters.
Alan K. Simpson
Integrity matters (or at least it should)!
Posted Monday, February 10, 2014 1:09 PM
No comments.
St. Cloud air service a year from now
When I wrote this post about St. Cloud getting daily air service, I intentionally highlighted the fact that this is a one-year agreement, that fares aren't exactly cheap and that profitability is more than a bit questionable at this point. A year from now, we'll have a better picture of whether the air service is profitable. We'll know that because we'll have hard numbers to crunch.
As informational as the Times article was, they didn't talk about other air carriers undercutting SkyWest's prices and they certainly didn't talk about workforce issues. I just googled pilot shortages. According to Google, there are over 19,000,000 articles on the subject. Workforce issues are dragging the airline industry down. This WSJ article highlights the how severe the pilot shortage is:
A decade of restructuring in the U.S. airline industry has produced a sharp reduction in air service that is curtailing traveler choice and some local economies even as it improves the industry's health, new research shows.
The study , by Massachusetts Institute of Technology, shows that from 2007 through last year, U.S. airlines cut the number of scheduled domestic flights by 14%. The number of seats offered fell by slightly less, as airlines pushed passengers onto bigger planes, says the study, which was prepared by MIT's International Center for Air Transportation and is expected to be made public Wednesday.
If airlines are cutting flights to Memphis and Pittsburgh, cities that have large customer bases, shouldn't St. Cloud wondering if they're being unrealistic? I'm an optimist but I can't ignore the fact that the supply of qualified pilots is deteriorating rapidly. Wishing and hoping is nice for birthdays and Christmas but it isn't the way to set public policy. Public policy should be put together by crunching numbers and fitting policies with reality.
At this point, what's needed is a discussion about increasing the number of pilots and other airline support personnel. That necessarily means talking with President Potter and Chancellor Rosenstone about the foolishness of shutting the SCSU aviation program. That means talking with Chancellor Rosenstone and SCTCC President Helens about starting a program that trains air maintenance personnel. (Pilots aren't the only things that airlines are in short supply of.)
While it'll take time to start graduating pilots from schools, the reality is that we'll be in worse shape 5 years from now if nothing is done. That isn't wise. As the supply of pilots deteriorates, we should understand that airlines will staff flights from places like Memphis and Pittsburgh first while pilots flying for regional airlines will be cut.
President Potter made a major mistake in shutting the aviation program. Unfortunately, he won't admit what's obvious. Chancellor Rosenstone hasn't shown leadership in this matter, either. A leader would've told President Potter that he made a mistake and that it's time to correct that mistake.
If society wants fewer flights staffed with fewer experienced pilots, we're on the right path. If society doesn't want that, then it's time that leaders to step forward and correct this mistake. That means local politicians and state legislators pressuring people like President Potter and Chancellor Rosenstone.
It's time for Mayor Kleis to step up and put pressure on President Potter. Scheduled air service to Chicago depends on the availability of flight crews and flight maintenance people.
It's that simple.
Posted Tuesday, February 11, 2014 5:35 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 13-Feb-14 09:17 AM
Becker and Cunningham said in an earlier report. The reason: 'We continue to believe the regional airlines including Republic Airways and SkyWest Airlines (SKYW) will be used as the Farm Team for the major US airlines,' they wrote. 'We believe these [Delta Air Lines, United Airlines and Southwest Airlines] will have no difficulty finding and retaining experienced pilots.'
So Skywest is a training ground for pilots who want to go on to the majors? This is not good news for smaller markets like St. Cloud that will be served by Skywest this May. Are any political leaders paying attention?
Comment 2 by Nick at 13-Feb-14 03:57 PM
Mechanics are eligible for overtime pay while pilots are not. There are people at ExpressJet that have all of their pilot's licenses and their airframe and powerplant licenses. These people would rather work as mechanics since there is more money to be made.
Rewriting the RNC statement
After the Obama administration's announcement that they were postponing the employer mandate another time, RNC Chairman Reince Priebus issued this statement :
The Obama Administration is failing to deal with ObamaCare because it is simply bad law. After refusing to accept bipartisan changes to the law, the administration is unilaterally making it up as they go along. Whether you are an American worker, employer, a union member or healthcare provider, you've had enough. What's the remedy? Elections matter. Democrats may try hiding from President Obama on the campaign trail, but when it comes to his signature accomplishment, ObamaCare, each Democrat Senator up for reelection this year helped make it a reality.
That statement is forgettable. It represents a lost opportunity to pound a big nail in Obamacare's coffin. Here's the statement I would've written if I was in charge of the RNC's messaging:
Rather than admitting that his signature issue is a failure, President Obama announced he was delaying the employer mandate. Again. The American people know that the Affordable Care Act isn't affordable. People are paying more and getting less. Families' premiums and deductibles are higher. Their networks are smaller. All too often, they're being told that they can't continue seeing the doctors that they've trustded for years.
Obamacare is the wrong perscription for a difficult situation. Dr. Tom Coburn, working with his Senate colleagues, has put together a plan that does what Obamacare was supposed to do. It addresses the problem of insuring people with pre-existing conditions. It lets families buy insurance across state lines. It lowers health care costs. Unlike Obamacare, it does all this without raising taxes.
Obamacare is killing jobs. The Patient CARE Act will create jobs and unleash the awesome job-creating power of American entrepreneurs. Families need good-paying full-time jobs. Families can't wait through another delay to a failed bill.
This morning, Mark Halperin said what others hadn't said:
At some point, we'll reach a tipping point. I suspect we're fast approaching that point. Charles Krauthammer is more skeptical of the bill than I am:
Mssrs. Halperin and Krauthammer are right that Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, is killing jobs and the decision to delay another part of the employer mandate screams of survival politics at its worst.
Posted Tuesday, February 11, 2014 10:42 AM
No comments.
President Obama's lawless administration
This exchange between overmatched Ron Fournier and Charles Krauthammer is the stuff that President Obama's nightmares are made of:
Here's a partial transcript of the segment:
KRAUTHAMMER: But generally speaking you get past the next election by changing your policies, by announcing new initiatives, but not by wantonly changing the law lawlessly. This is stuff you do in a banana republic. It's as if the law is simply a blackboard on which Obama writes any number he wants, any delay he wants, and any provision.
It's now reached a point where it is so endemic that nobody even notices or complains. I think if the complaints had started with the first arbitrary changes, and these are are not adjustments or transitions. These are political decisions to minimize the impact leading up to an election. And it's changing the law in a way that you are not allowed to do.
Fournier didn't have a rejoinder when Charles said "It isn't incompetence. It's the willful breaking of the constitutional order. Where in the Constitution is the president allowed to alter the law 27 times after it has been passed?" Fournier did write something approaching intellectual honesty when he wrote this article . Unfortunately, he's still bitterly clinging to the thought that the ACA might still work. Here's is the opening of the article:
It's getting difficult and slinking toward impossible to defend the Affordable Care Act. The latest blow to Democratic candidates, liberal activists, and naive columnists like me came Monday from the White House, which announced yet another delay in the Obamacare implementation.
For the second time in a year, certain businesses were given more time before being forced to offer health insurance to most of their full-time workers. Employers with 50 to 99 workers were given until 2016 to comply, two years longer than required by law. During a yearlong grace period, larger companies will be required to insure fewer employees than spelled out in the law.
Not coincidentally, the delays punt implementation beyond congressional elections in November, which raises the first problem with defending Obamacare: The White House has politicized its signature policy.
The win-at-all-cost mentality helped create a culture in which a partisan-line vote was deemed sufficient for passing transcendent legislation. It spurred advisers to develop a dishonest talking point - "If you like your health plan, you'll be able to keep your health plan." And political expediency led Obama to repeat the line, over and over and over again, when he knew, or should have known, it was false.
Mr. Fournier and other journalists shouldn't have been that intellectually incurious. They should've questioned the ACA while it was being written. Furthermore, he shouldn't still cling to the notion that it'll work. Unfortunately, that's what he's doing for all the wrong reasons:
Put me in the frustrated category. I want the ACA to work because I want health insurance provided to the millions without it, for both the moral and economic benefits. I want the ACA to work because, as Charles Lane wrote for The Washington Post, the link between work and insurance needs to be broken. I want the ACA to work because the GOP has not offered a serious alternative that can pass Congress.
Fournier's anti-conservative blind spot still exists. Saying that "the GOP hasn't offered a serious plan that can pass Congress" is giving Harry Reid a pass. The Patient CARE Act will do the things that the ACA was supposed to do without raising taxes. It isn't the Republicans' fault that Sen. Reid is so intransigent that he'll do anything to sabotage plans that might help families. It isn't the Republicans' fault that Sen. Reid is willing to do anything to keep President Obama's signature legislation from getting declared a total failure before he leaves office.
Why won't Fournier take Sen. Reid to task for being intransigent? Why won't he ask him tough questions about why he won't consider legislation that's a serious attempt to fix what's broken in the ACA? When Mr. Fournier is willing to take off his ideological blinders, then I'll pay attention to him.
At this point, he isn't a serious man because he isn't willing to take those blinders off.
Posted Tuesday, February 11, 2014 3:19 PM
No comments.
Franken's paranoid rantings
A loyal reader of LFR has sent me some hilarious fundraising emails from the Franken campaign. Here's Sen. Franken's latest fundraising appeal:
Can you hear that ominous buzzing sound? That's Washington Republicans, planning their next attempt to hold our economic recovery hostage by playing political games with the debt ceiling.
In case you don't remember the last manufactured crisis, Republicans threatened to refuse to raise the debt ceiling unless we agreed to their demands, meaning we could have defaulted on our national debt for the first time ever -- causing a terrible economic crisis.
It was irresponsible. It was reckless. And now many seem willing to do it again.
Don't let them. Click here to help me tell Republicans in Washington not to play games with the debt ceiling and threaten our economic recovery.
We don't know what demands Republicans will come up with this time. And we only have one demand of our own: Do your job.
After all, Minnesotans are doing their part to bring our economy back from the recession. They're working hard every day, opening small businesses, doing the things the middle class has always done to make our country stronger.
Now Washington has a job to do: make sure the full faith and credit of the United States remains strong. And refusing to do that job -- playing political games with the debt ceiling -- is downright dangerous.
We need to send a clear message to Washington Republicans: Don't play games with the debt ceiling. Click here to sign my open letter.
Right now, Republicans in Washington are debating exactly which demands they want to make before they agree to do their job. And the buzz about another manufactured crisis is getting louder. That's bad news for our economy.
So let's drown out that buzz with a clear message of our own: Don't play games. Do your job.
Click here to add your name!
Thanks for your help,
Al
P.S.: Defaulting on our debt may sound like a boring bookkeeping term, but it would be an enormous economic disaster, one that economists say would cost us jobs and could put us into another recession. Don't let Washington Republicans play games with this -- it's too important. Click here to sign my open letter!
This afternoon, the House passed a clean debt ceiling bill. Only 28 Republicans voted for it, including soon-to-be-former Speaker Boehner. It's worth paying attention to the fact that Sen. Franken insists that the floundering economy is coming back.
That's stunning because President Obama delayed the employer mandate a second time because he's seen that it's a job-killer that will cost lots of Democrats their jobs in the Senate next year.
Here's another paranoid ranting from the Franken campaign:
In his recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Karl Rove called me out personally and pointed to Minnesota as a possible pickup for Republicans this fall.
Karl Rove's the puppet master of a few of those Citizens United-spawned special interest groups. In the 2012 elections, his Crossroads groups spent more than $176 million -- mostly attacking candidates.
So you might understand why this shout out isn't really a good thing in an election year.
If Karl Rove has Minnesota on his radar, we don't have time to waste. We've got to be geared up and ready to fight back. This month, we need to hit $200,000 to fuel our grassroots efforts. Can you contribute $5?
It's not like Karl Rove would be praising me for my work for Minnesota -- protecting net neutrality, reversing the effects of Citizens United, fighting for Minnesota families.
I don't work for the Karl Rove, special interest agenda. They'd rather see someone in this seat that's more friendly to them. So they will attack and smear, lie and spend, to get one of their friends to replace me.
And that's why I have you -- my fantastic grassroots supporters -- fighting back to make sure that strategy doesn't work.
Help us hit our $200,000 goal this month. Be one of the first to give $5 now.
Thank you for your support.
Al
P.S.: We need to show Karl Rove and all of the special interests that if you target Minnesota, you have to face us. Give $5 or more right now toward our $200,000 February goal.
This part was especially hilarious:
It's not like Karl Rove would be praising me for my work for Minnesota, protecting net neutrality, reversing the effects of Citizens United, fighting for Minnesota families.
How many Minnesotans will head into the voting booth next November and exclaim 'I'm voting for Al Franken because he protected net neutrality'? How many people will say 'I'm voting for Franken because he's for reversing the effects of Citizens United'?
Here's another line worth laughing at:
I don't work for the Karl Rove special interest agenda. They'd rather see someone in this seat that's more friendly to them. So they will attack and smear, lie and spend, to get one of their friends to replace me.
I can't deny that Franken doesn't work for Karl Rove. I can't deny that Franken works for the DFL's anti-jobs special interests either. Notice how Franken hasn't said a word about the Keystone XL Pipeline project. He hasn't said a thing about the proposed PolyMet precious metals mining project in northeastern Minnesota either.
That's because Sen. Franken is doing everything possible to say he's a friend of union rank-and-file (he isn't) without alienating the hardline environmentalists. He's trying to maintain his support amongst these groups that hate each other. If Sen. Franken truly cared about the union rank-and-file, he'd fight to make PolyMet a reality. He isn't doing that.
People know that I'm Karl Rove's biggest fan. However, if given the choice between trusting Rove or Franken, that isn't a difficult choice. Franken hasn't done a thing to strengthen Minnesota's economy. Franken's focus has been on silencing President Obama's opposition by having the IRS target conservative organizations that applied for tax exempt status. That's what he meant when he said he'd worked on reversing the effects of Citizens United :
WASHINGTON, D.C. - A group of seven Senate Democrats urged the Internal Revenue Service on Monday to impose a strict cap on the amount of political spending by tax-exempt, nonprofit groups.
The senators said the lack of clarity in the IRS rules has allowed political groups to improperly claim 501(c)4 status and may even be allowing donors to these groups to wrongly claim tax deductions for their contributions. The senators promised legislation if the IRS failed to act to fix these problems.
'We urge the IRS to take these steps immediately to prevent abuse of the tax code by political groups focused on federal election activities. But if the IRS is unable to issue administrative guidance in this area then we plan to introduce legislation to accomplish these important changes,' the senators wrote.
The letter was signed by Senators Charles E. Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall, Jeanne Shaheen and Al Franken. It follows an earlier letter, sent to the IRS by the same of group of senators last month, that also urged the IRS to better enforce rules pertaining to 501(c)4 organizations.
Sen. Franken teamed with Chuck Schumer, Michael Bennet, Sheldon Whitehouse, Jeff Merkley, Tom Udall and Jeanne Shaheen in encouraging the IRS to intimidate the Democrats' opponents.
There's little question that the IRS targeted TEA Party activists and other conservative organizations. There's no question that these senators intended conservative organization to be singled out for additional scrutiny.
Sen. Schumer is one of the nastiest partisans to ever serve in DC. He certainly isn't calling for the targeting of hardline progressive organizations. That means Sen. Franken willfully signed onto silencing political speech he didn't like.
Rather than supporting Sen. Franken, thoughtful Democrats who still believe in the First Amendment and the Bill of Rights should help boot him from office. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights is more important than electing a partisan for the long-term health of this great nation.
Posted Tuesday, February 11, 2014 11:34 PM
No comments.
