January 16-24, 2013
Jan 16 02:40 Tax reform, DFL style, Part II Jan 17 05:29 MnSCU, SCSU and a culture of unaccountability Jan 18 04:09 DFL's first priority: Spending Jan 21 04:03 I told you so Jan 23 03:50 Taxes, Taxes, Taxes Jan 24 07:44 Note to John Dickerson: It's time to put America first Jan 24 11:01 Mrs. Clinton, here's why it matters
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Tax reform, DFL style, Part II
In 2009, Ann Lenczewski proposed tax reform while she chaired the House Taxes Committee. Here's what she said then:
'This bill proposes the most significant tax overhaul in 20 years,' said the bill's chief author Rep. Ann Lenczeswki, DFL-Bloomington.
In addition to the tax hikes, Lenczewski's bill removes a variety of tax breaks for homeowners and businesses. Charitable contributions, the mortgage interest tax deduction and the property tax deduction for homeowners are eliminated and replaced with a tax credit based on income. The bill also eliminates several business tax breaks, like the Research and Development credit and parts of the governor's JOBZ program.
Lenczewski said she wants to clean up the state's tax code.
'Which is to sweep the tax code clean of all of the preferential treatment and subsidies and things we can't afford anymore and instead bring a fairer, more progressive income tax to Minnesotans based on the ability to pay,' she said.
That information is important context to the DFL's 'tax reforms' this year. Gov. Dayton and Sen. Bakk have announced that tax reform is a high priority this year. One of the first tax bills is from Sen. Rest, in which she'd change the sales tax to apply to clothing. This isn't a new idea by any stretch. Still, combined with higher taxes on "the rich who aren't paying their fair share", the DFL's tax reform will hurt lots of people.
Is Sen. Rest balancing the budget on the backs of the middle class and working poor? Is it that she thinks the middle class and the working poor aren't paying their fair share?
GOP legislators should ridicule Sen. Rest's proposal until it's dropped from committee consideration.
Posted Wednesday, January 16, 2013 2:40 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 16-Jan-13 08:04 AM
Why is a more progressive tax code desirable? Why should things like the charitable contribution, written into the tax code to encourage such, be abandoned for a one-size-fits-all credit? What happens to charitable giving if it is NOT deductible? How many people will lose their homes because they can no longer deduct mortgage interest, a factor in their having bought the home in the first place? Let's label this what it is-- the "Wacky Tax." Tax reform simplifies the tax code and LOWERS RATES. The DFL never met a tax it didn't like.
Comment 2 by Nancy at 16-Jan-13 08:05 AM
Hey Gary, I think this should be part III. I cross-posted at True North.
I wrote my Senator Ann Rest Tuesday asking her to remove her proposals (writing it hurts the working class and business), and she replied,
"Dear Nancy,
Broadening the base and lowering the rate is good conservative tax policy.
Ann"
Really?!
Contact Sen. Rest here: http://www.senate.mn/senatorrest
Comment 3 by Speed Gibson at 16-Jan-13 02:18 PM
Careful, Democrats! This one actually could backfire on you. Even DFL taxpayers are not going to appreciate having to add back in the money they gave to church or charity. And taxing clothing? Wait until the wives come home from the mall and give their "progressive" husbands "the look."
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 16-Jan-13 08:38 PM
I got an idea when Scott Walker announces his proposed tax cuts the Republicans should introduce tax cuts to match Walker's to keep Minnesota competitive with Wisconsin.
That will make a lot of DFL house members scared. With one act we can show that the DFL don't want to help the people of Minnesota.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
MnSCU, SCSU and a culture of unaccountability
One of the airlines St. Cloud is believed to have talked with about providing air service is American Eagle. Last week, Eagle announced that it was offering a $5,000 signing bonus to newly hired pilots :
In an email to prospective job seekers on Friday, American Eagle Airlines announced that it is offering a $5,000 signing bonus for newly hired pilots. At present, Eagle plans to hire 600 new pilots in 2013. New FAA rules require that new airline pilots meet Airline Transport Pilot license standards.
American Eagle notes that American Airlines, its parent company, is planning to hire 2,500 pilots over the next five years. Approximately half of the current list of Eagle pilots is expected to be hired by American or other major airlines.
The $5,000 bonus is paid at the beginning of training and requires a two year commitment to Eagle. According to Airline Pilot Central, American Eagle's first year pay is $25 per hour with a 75 hour reserve guarantee. This works out to about $22,500 for the first year, not including the bonus. Pay is relatively flat for turboprop first officers, but FOs on jets, the majority of the fleet, will see an increase to $34 per hour and about $30,600 annually for the second year. Currently, the most junior captain has a hire date of May 2006, but as the major airlines ramp up their hiring, upgrades could potentially move much faster.
This is noteworthy because airlines rarely offer signing bonuses to new pilots. In years past, there's been an oversupply of pilots. The only time hiring bonuses make sense is when the demand for pilots is significantly higher than the supply of pilots.
That calls into question the wisdom of President Potter's decision to shut SCSU's Aviation Department. At a time when resources to universities are scarce and high-paying careers aren't exactly at all-time highs, why is President Potter insisting on shutting down a program that's capable of becoming a career factory?
That's like a company stopping manufacturing of a popular product. If a company's mid-level management team decided to stop manufacturing a popular product whose demand is increasing, the CEO would be justified in firing that mid-level management team on the spot.
Why should Minnesota's taxpayers expect anything less of a return on their investment? To have the taxpayers' money misspent the way that SCSU is misspending their money is disgusting.
This shouldn't just be hung around President Potter's neck either. It's time that Chancellor Rosenstone be held accountable for this stupidity, too. If he's sitting by while decisions are being mishandled, then he's to blame, too.
Simply put, Minnesota's taxpayers deserve better leadership than what they're getting from President Potter and Chancellor Rosenstone.
Tags: Workforce Development , Employment , SCSU , Earl Potter , Steven Rosenstone , MnSCU , Aviation , Careers , Pilot Shortage , American Eagle , Signing Bonuses , Air Service , St. Cloud
Posted Thursday, January 17, 2013 5:29 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 17-Jan-13 03:41 PM
According to this website, trustees represent different congressional districts. Don't they have town hall meetings to represent constituents?
Comment 2 by Kurtis Goldenstein at 18-Jan-13 07:55 AM
I am not affiliated with MnSCU in any way so I don't have an axe to grind. I read you blog. Your "argument", if we can call it that, is not at all persuasive. If it is to be persuasive you need to provide additional data. a) how much did it cost SCSU, and therefore the tax payers, to maintain the program? b) how many jobs are available or likely to be available. Until you have at least those two data points you can't claim it's a "stupid decision."
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Jan-13 08:57 AM
Mr. Goldenstein, This isn't meant as a criticism of you but I need to highlight some things that you brought up. In past writings, I've highlighted the fact that the Aviation program was exceptionally inexpensive. The professors' salaries for the 2010-11 school year was a combined $275,500. That's a pittance to what it costs for Chemistry or Biology.
I've written about how SCSU didn't think twice about eliminating the Masters Degree program for Social Responsibility. In 2010-2011, there were 31 students enrolled in that program. According to SCSU's official reports, 17 professors taught that program. Their combined salaries came to $1,218,000. A graduate from the Social Responsibility program, again according to SCSU's information, would be qualified to become "a government worker or a community organizer."
Further, students paid for their flight lessons. Student fees paid for the purchase of flight simulators.
Had you been reading this blog since the summer of 2011, you would've known these facts. My 'failure', if it can be called that, was that I took for granted that people had read my previous articles on the subject.
As to the number of jobs that are available or likely to be available, the airline industry projects that they'll need 30,000 new pilots per year for the next 25 years. Shutting down a program when there's an historic shortage of pilots is stupid that doesn't require extensive research.
Comment 3 by Nick at 18-Jan-13 06:03 PM
The pilot shortage is already happening as we speak in the Asia-Pacific and Middle-East regions, and soon North America. The Centre for Asia Pacific Aviation has an in-depth analysis on this.
Comment 4 by Jethro at 18-Jan-13 11:08 PM
Kurtis might enjoy hot cocoa, a warm fire, and the aviation gospel according to president Potter.
http://www.letfreedomringblog.com/?p=12549
It's an old time favorite.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 20-Jan-13 02:01 PM
Kurtis:
I don't remember you posting before. It seems to me that if you have a guarenteed job market (one of the few that seem to be growing) you don't cut it out. Now if this program doesn't seem qualfied to keep going what do you call a program that is qualified. After all you've created the impression that you're qualified.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
DFL's first priority: Spending
Gov. Dayton has made it clear that creating a higher income tax bracket will happen, supposedly because "the rich aren't paying their fair share." Sen. Rest submitted a bill to charge sales tax on clothing, which I wrote about here .
Putting that information, it's clear that the DFL's first priority isn't a balanced approach to budgeting. It isn't about structural deficits. The DFL's first priority is increasing spending on wasteful government.
It's impossible to say that MnSCU and the U of M are they're models of efficiency. It isn't difficult to make the case that they're institutions badly in need of revamping. Where in the private sector would you find a company stopping production of a great product that's in high demand ? That's what they're doing at SCSU.
The sad part is that that's just the tip of the iceberg. The saddest part is that the DFL is the defender of outsized goverment.
Most departments, agencies, commissions, panels, institutions and boards either have directors of government affairs or legislative liaisons. That's governmentspeak for lobbyists. In other words, the DFL is demanding that taxpayers pay for people whose job it is to spend more of the taxpayers' money on things that might or might not be needed.
Recently, the Wall Street Journal wrote an article exposing the waste at the U of M. Here's the IFO's (the college professors' union, aka the Inter-Faculty Organization) reaction to the article :
The focus on administrative bloat could not have come at a more unfortunate time. Over the last year we have made great progress in educating legislators about the underfunding of higher education. Last fall we helped elect some talented new legislators who are strong advocates for better funding for higher education, and several of these new legislators managed to get on the higher education funding committees. House Speaker Paul Thissen has frequently mentioned the need to fund early childhood and higher education as caucus priorities. The focus on administrative growth in higher education is likely to create ongoing negative press over the next several months, at a time when we are competing with the constituencies of other segments of the budget for limited state dollars. This looked like the session we would turn things around - but unfortunately, we are already on the defensive.
The faculty union's first reaction wasn't that it's disgusting to have money being spent foolishly. The IFO's first reaction was that the publicity might hurt their request for additional spending.
I strongly recommend that you read the IFO newsletter. It reads like an internal DFL communication. The reality is that this is typical DFL thinking. The only conclusion a thinking person can draw is that the DFL isn't interested in efficient government that's right-sized.
The DFL's highest priority is spending money. If some of that money is spent foolishly, then they're fine with that.
Tags: Spending , Special Interests , Pork , MnSCU , U of M , IFO , Mark Dayton , Ann Rest , Tax Increases , Lobbyists , DFL
Posted Friday, January 18, 2013 4:09 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 18-Jan-13 07:32 AM
To some extent you are correct, however I've always found it troubling that the DFL usually passes tax increases first, and THEN goes to find those absolutely can't-do-without things to spend the new money on. That isn't budgeting, that's making a list for Santa. They shouldn't be allowed to get away with it. For that matter, we ought to try to hold them to zero-based budgeting, if we can find the right words to sell that idea to those paying only casual attention.
Comment 2 by eric z at 19-Jan-13 01:17 PM
Taxing should be first priority.
Aside from that, reflecting back, changing LFR's layout, look and feel - how long ago was it, and how many readers without going to Internet Archive recall it?
Nothing special in today's post caused the thought. It is something I noticed a week or so ago, how used to the new look I bacame. I do like it better, Gary.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 19-Jan-13 04:23 PM
Eric, We finally agree. Cutting taxes & attracting businesses should be Minnesota's first priority. The states that raise taxes are struggling. States that either cut taxes or don't have an income tax are doing significantly better.
That's why President Obama will be recorded by history as being a terrible economic president. It's why Gov. Dayton will be recorded as one of the worst governors in Minnesota history, right with Jesse 'the Conspiracy Theory Clown' Ventura.
As for the website's new look, the credit goes to AJ Kern & Chris Kellett. They both said that a guy with a blog called Let Freedom Ring has to have red, white & blue on the page somewhere, especially when he's a 4th of July baby. I totally agree with them about that.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 20-Jan-13 02:09 PM
Gary:
Did I read something that you wrote in the post correctly. In the box from the article you highlighted professors went out and got new members on the committee while educating members to get money they think they are on the defensive.
WHY? You have a democrat governor ready to sign your bill. You have a democrat senate and democrat house to pass your bill. So why are they on the defensive? The only solution is every spending group that wants money is going to come up and ask for money. Preschool, health care, cities, etc. I guess where that is defensive comes from to fight off people taking money you want.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 20-Jan-13 02:13 PM
Eric:
Just what exactly do you mean that taxes should be the first priority?
Do you mean cutting taxes?
Do you mean making sure Minnesota doesn't have a higher tax rate than Wisconsin?
Do you mean making Minnesotas pay less sales taxes like pop?
Do you mean lowering the cost of car tabs?
Or do you mean raise taxes on the rich! The rich already pay their fair share. If you didn't hear more than 96% of the federal income tax is paid by the top 50%. That sounds like they are paying their fair share.
The easiest way to have a balance budget is to spend as little as possible. Oh I forgot Democrats don't understand that concept.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
I told you so
When people were fighting over the Vikings Stadium, I wrote extensively that the funding mechanism wouldn't work. Here's one of the first things I wrote for Examiner on the subject:
'Financially speaking, it's important to note that charitable gambling profits are falling off a cliff. In 2000, the after tax profits from charitable gambling was $1,500,000,000. In 2008, that figure dropped to $1,032,000,000. The figures haven't stopped dropping:
More than $893 million was spent on the game in Minnesota in fiscal year 2010, according to Minnesota Gambling Control Board figures released Friday.
That represents a 40% drop in a decade with no end in sight.
This week, MPR reported that e-tab revenues are lagging :
Revenues since pull-tabs started on Sept. 18 have fallen far short of the $100 million monthly target experts initially set for the games. Last month, disappointing revenues prompted state finance officials to cut the expected stadium cash they'd have on hand by half.
The most current data from the Minnesota Gambling Control Board show Minnesotans only played a total of $4.1 million worth of the games through the end of 2012.
By New Year's Eve, there were just 386 machines up and running, a fraction of the 15,400 electronic pull-tab devices projected to be eventually in play.
The existing machines each are grossing $180 a day, again short of the projected $225 daily take, grossing less per day than the experts' projection made when the stadium financing plan was being worked on last spring.
"The critical point is just the lack of sites," said Tom Barrett, executive director of the Minnesota Gambling Control Board, which approves the games. "And again, we have a potential pool of 2,500 sites, and as of today, we're in about 120, 118 sites.
This week, the House Commerce and Consumer Protection Finance and Policy Committee heard testimony on the shortfall. During his testimony, Allen Lund, the executive director of Allied Charities of Minnesota, tried his best of painting the most dishonest picture of this oncoming disaster :
'Those numbers are going to go up exponentially very quickly, said Allen Lund, executive director of Allied Charities of Minnesota, of the number of charitable gaming sites offering the electronic alternative to paper pull-tabs.
Lund's and other gaming officials' appearance before the House Commerce and Consumer Protection Finance and Policy Committee on Wednesday (Jan. 16) might not have drawn television cameras but for the tie to the new $975 million Vikings stadium.
The state's contribution towards the stadium hedges in part on the success of electronic pull-tabs.
The reality is that King Wilson predicted that revenues from e-tabs would fall short. That's why he quit as executive director of the Allied Charities of Minnesota. Lund's declarations run contrary to King Wilson's stated worries.
It's only logical that people would worry that revenues would fall short considering the fact that the stadium bill included multiple backup funding mechanisms should e-tabs fall short of the revenue required.
Predictably, the flaws in Gov. Dayton's and Sen. Bakk's plan are getting exposed. This isn't surprising to anyone who paid attention last year.
Tags: Vikings Stadium , Tom Bakk , Mark Dayton , Gimmicks , Allen Lund , Tom Barrett , Allied Charities of Minnesota , E-Tabs , King Wilson
Posted Monday, January 21, 2013 4:03 AM
Comment 1 by Joseph at 21-Jan-13 11:46 AM
Gary,
Do you know what the backup funding mechanisms are? Of course, this was not reported in the MSM at all. Do we have any Republicans on record stating that e-tab revenue would fall short?
Comment 2 by Dave Thul at 21-Jan-13 05:26 PM
The VFW has a convention this weekend that includes a mandatory gambling training seminar Friday afternoon for every post that does pull tabs. I will be asking around, but so far I haven't found more than about 1 in 20 that are doing E-pulltabs or has any intention to.
Comment 3 by eric z at 22-Jan-13 08:20 AM
Gary, it was bipartisan. Stupidly so. Pulltab gambling being sufficient for anything was a lie from the start.
Who controlled, by nose count, MN House, Mn Senate, when it was done?
It stunk. All the way from Zygi in his $18 million Park Ave. penthouse [perhaps not penthouse, but apartment, where he was begging Minnesota money for his investment in the NFL]. It still stinks, and will stink years after the thing is built and is being paid off.
Zygi liked the deal. Dayton pushed it after winning the three way contest for Guv. Go figure how the IP candidate influenced things, Zygi-wise. The moderate Republican running against the uber-right Republican, Emmer.
And he has yet to tax the rich. A disappointment? So far, largely so. After Pawlenty the bar was set so low that by comparison he looks fine. And Emmer. That choice handed things to Dayton on a platter.
And there was Janecek writing on the web about the gambling issues within the GOP. Fault both sides Gary. It was bipartisan, anti-citizens.
Comment 4 by Ross Lane at 22-Jan-13 10:07 AM
Why in the heck didn't the legislature just put it to a statewide vote? Win or lose, let the voters choose. After voting republican for 30 years I was happy to see them lose. No way in the world that gambling scheme will be enough and everyone of those slimeballs knew it. Now the taxpayers pay for the next 30 years to some billionaire.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-13 11:54 AM
Both sides figured into this but it was Bakk's & Dayton's plan.
I wrote frequently about how this was a disaster waiting to happen. Now it's coming to fruition.
Comment 6 by Bob J. at 22-Jan-13 11:57 AM
Eric, I'm thunderstruck. I actually agree with you about something.
More Democrats than Republicans voted for this monstrosity in both houses of the Legislature, but Republican control of both houses and the votes needed to get this anti-taxpayer boondoggle over the top (are you listening, Morrie Lanning?) means there's plenty of blame to go around.
Wilf could have, and should have, built his playground himself. I'd have celebrated that as a triumph of free enterprise and capitalism. What we got, on the other hand, stinks to high heaven.
Comment 7 by walter hanson at 23-Jan-13 05:04 PM
Gary:
The fun part here is the same people who gave us this plan which isn't working are the same ones that are telling us the proposed tax increases won't harm the economy and we will get the revenues projected!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Taxes, Taxes, Taxes
Gov. Dayton's budget is mostly about radically increasing taxes on every Minnesotan:
Gov. Dayton's budget will raise taxes on everyone. Sen. Hann chided Gov. Dayton, saying that he'd raise taxes on the wealthy when, in fact, he's raising taxes on everyone with a major sales tax increase. Rep. Daudt noted that Gov. Dayton's math and logic are flawed, saying that his budget "includes $3.7 billion in new taxes and $225 million in spending cuts."
Throughout the campaign, Gov. Dayton said that "the rich" weren't "paying their fair share" and that he'd take a balanced approach to the budget in terms of spending cuts and new taxes. It doesn't take a genius to understand that "$3.7 billion in tax increases" is significantly more than the "$225 million" in spending cuts.
The reality is that Gov. Dayton lied about taxes in his stump speech. He knew that he was proposing a massive sales tax increase.
Rep. Daudt highlighted the fact that unemployment dropped from 7% to 5.5% during GOP control of the legislature. It isn't likely that the DFL legislature and Gov. Dayton will create many more new jobs.
Sen. Hann asked a great question when he asked how raising taxes on a person will benefit that person. That's the question that the DFL can't answer. Then again, they aren't worried about doing what's right. They're worried about paying off their special interest allies with our money.
Posted Wednesday, January 23, 2013 6:37 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 23-Jan-13 10:51 AM
It is the GOP that is frustrating taxing the rich.
Somebody is going to have to pay taxes. The gimmicks of the past were offensive.
The Taxpayer League has much blame in things.
So, if the GOP wants to be the party of the people it must oppose the sales tax changes, which means having to yield on taxing the rich. Money has to come from somewhere. States cannot print it, only the Fed can.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 23-Jan-13 12:13 PM
Eric, Get a grip. Taxing the rich is a social policy argument. It isn't an economic argument. States that have low taxes or no taxes have surging economies. States like California, Illinois & New York are faltering because they're following the same playbook that President Obama & Gov. Dayton are working from.
As for "money has to come from somewhere", I've argued that much of the money that's getting spent is getting spent foolishly. I've cited specific examples of those foolish expenditures in past posts. MnSCU is expert at pissing money away. If you're willing to argue that there's only $225 million worth of spending that's wasteful in a $38 billion budget, then we don't even have a starting point.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 23-Jan-13 05:07 PM
Eric:
Um the way the Republicans have setup up the tax tables the rich pay basically all the income taxes while the poor doesn't.
Example federal wise where Obama said the Rich don't pay their fair share the top 50% pay over 96% of the income taxes. Wow I guess they pay their fair share and Obama lied!!!!!
That means you're a liar Eric
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Nick at 23-Jan-13 11:56 PM
How would a sales tax on clothing ever pass in MN especially when the MOA is heavily lobbying against it?
Why can't grocery stores sell beer and wine where all of the groceries are? Why does it have to be in a separate part of the store?
Why won't the MN politicians just repeal all of the so-called blue laws (sunday liquor sales and car sales bans)?
Now Dayton wants to tax services such as getting a haircut, hiring a lawyer, or even taxing personal training? If so, he is nuts.
Comment 4 by Nick at 24-Jan-13 12:01 AM
I will not be surprised if alcohol and tobacco taxes increase, along with income taxes.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 24-Jan-13 12:49 PM
Dayton proposed a 57% ( I think) increase in the cigarette tax. Hello to the tribes: I see a new booming business for you.
Every time some dummy says that "the money has to come from somewhere" I always want to ask "WHY?" When your personal wish list exceeds your personal income, do you command your employer to give you a raise? Doesn't the money have to come from somewhere? Well, no, it doesn't have to come from somewhere if you don't have to waste it somewhere else.
Comment 6 by Speed Gibson at 24-Jan-13 01:02 PM
Why can't the MN GOP speak this plainly, this effectively before the election?
Comment 7 by Speed Gibson at 24-Jan-13 01:05 PM
Regarding tobacco, I thought the state stipulated in the original tax "settlement" that the amount paid wholly paid us back for whatever health care etc costs smokers cost the state? Haven't we as a State been reneging on this deal, starting with Pawlenty's infamous Health Impact Fee? This is dirty money.
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 24-Jan-13 01:55 PM
Jerry & Rex, check back tomorrow for more on the cigarette tax. You won't be surprised but I'm betting you'll be pissed when you read what I've found on the cigarette tax increase.
Comment 9 by Nick at 24-Jan-13 03:18 PM
Gary,
Have you heard of anything regarding an increase in alcohol taxes?
Do you remember the last time the DFL controlled the legislature they tried to increase alcohol taxes?
Note to John Dickerson: It's time to put America first
When John Dickerson wrote that President Obama should crush Republicans , I'm betting he didn't expect the firestorm he's getting. I'm betting that's why he wrote this defensive-sounding article . First, here's what Dickerson wrote in his first Slate article:
Washington's partisan rancor, the size of the problems facing government, and the limited amount of time before Obama is a lame duck all point to a single conclusion: The president who came into office speaking in lofty terms about bipartisanship and cooperation can only cement his legacy if he destroys the GOP. If he wants to transform American politics, he must go for the throat.
This afternoon, he published this:
On the eve of the president's inauguration, I wrote a piece about what President Obama needs to do to be a transformational rather than caretaker president. I was using a very specific definition of transformational presidencies based on my reading of a theory of political science and the president's own words about transformational presidencies from the 2008 campaign. It was also based on these givens: the president is ambitious, has picked politically controversial goals, has little time to operate before he is dubbed a lame-duck president, and has written off working with Republicans. "Bloodier-minded when it comes to beating Republicans," is how Jodi Kantor put it in the New York Times. Given these facts, there is only one logical conclusion for a president who wants to transform American politics: he must take on Republicans--aggressively.
It's worth noting that Mr. Dickerson is CBS's chief political correspondent. It's also worth noting that Mr. Dickerson didn't ask the right questions or give responsible advice to President.
It's shameful that a network political director/correspondent would think only about gaining a political advantage instead of doing what's right for America. It's apparent that Mr. Dickerson hasn't figured it out that truly transformative presidents make life better for the people they serve.
Crushing political opponents while pursuing a failed policy agenda might get an administration through a fight but that isn't what transformative presidents do. That's why history will record President Obama's administration as a failure, especially economically.
At this point, the only thing that will make President Obama an historical figure is his being the first black president. Sadly, his signature political accomplishment has hurt the American economy while leading to many people losing hope.
That's the definition of a failure. Mr. Dickerson would be well advised to note that failures aren't transformative figures.
Tags: Media Bias , John Dickerson , President Obama , Partisanship , Inauguration , CBS , Slate Magazine , Abraham Lincoln , Ronald Reagan , Thatcher , Churchill , Leadership
Posted Thursday, January 24, 2013 7:44 AM
No comments.
Mrs. Clinton, here's why it matters
The most explosive, hotly-contested part of yesterday's Benghazi cover-up hearing came when Hillary lost it. When Sen. Ron Johnson questioned her on why the State Department didn't investigate what happened in Benghazi, Hillary asked why it mattered. Today, Sen. Johnson's op-ed in USA Today explains why this collossal failure shouldn't have happened. This part cuts to the heart of why it matters:
When I questioned her about the misinformation disseminated for days by the administration, most notably by Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice on Sunday news programs five days after the attack, she asked, "What difference does it make?"
If you don't expeditiously debrief the people who witnessed the attack, how can you understand who initiated it, what weapons they used and who may have been involved? How do you initiate a proper response if you don't know what transpired? How do you move properly to protect other American assets and people in the region? How do you know what failures occurred, so that you can immediately correct them, if you have not debriefed the very victims of those failures? And lastly, how do you tell the truth to the American people if you don't know the facts?
Our diplomatic forces in Benghazi were denied the security they repeatedly requested for many months before Sept. 11, 2012. Secretary Clinton stated that she was not told of those desperate requests in the most dangerous region in the world. As a result, our people in Benghazi were ill-prepared to repel or avoid that attack, and four Americans were murdered. For many days after the event, the American people were also misinformed as to the nature and perpetrators of that attack.
Hillary's faux outrage about being questioned about her failure wasn't convincing. She helped cover up the murder of 4 American patriots who deserved better from the nation they loved.
Yesterday's hearings weren't about learning lessons so we don't repeat them. It should've been about exposing this administration's lies about what happened in Benghazi. It should've been about highlighting for the American people the fact that this administration was more worried about maintaining their political viability than about doing the right thing.
Sen. Johnson's crossexamination of Hillary went a long ways towards that goal. Sen. Johnson's op-ed takes it a few steps further.
Thank God for patriots like Sen. Johnson.
Tags: Benghazi , Oversight Hearing , Cover-up , Hillary , Obama Administration , Democrats , Cross-Examination , Investigation , Ron Johnson , GOP
Posted Thursday, January 24, 2013 11:01 AM
No comments.
