January 18-19, 2018
Jan 18 03:32 Democrats' DACA dishonesty Jan 18 14:31 Gov. Dayton's pork parade Jan 18 15:25 Flake's folly, McCain's mutiny Jan 18 20:33 The DFL supports these dirtbags Jan 19 06:34 Managing St. Cloud State's decline Jan 19 07:16 Dems own this shutdown Jan 19 18:55 #SchumerShutdown approaching
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
Democrats' DACA dishonesty
The biggest problem that the Democrats have is that they can't tell the truth about the Graham-Durbin disgrace. White House Chief of Staff John Kelly explained that the Graham-Durbin legislation was bipartisan . That's the only criteria President Trump established that the legislation met, according to Kelly, who said "According to Kelly, while the bill was bipartisan in the sense it was crafted by lawmakers of both parties in the Senate, members of the House and Republican Sens. David Perdue of Georgia, Tom Cotton of Arkansas and Thom Tillis of North Carolina should have been included in the discussions. 'It did not include all of the senators that had been involved in the discussions about DACA, and certainly did not involve the House,' he said. 'And the president has said from the beginning, this has got to be bipartisan, and unless it involves the House as well as the Senate, it's going to go down as a bill that is not going to pass into law.'"
Sen. Graham knew that including Sen. Cotton in the negotiations would produce a different outcome, either in the form of Sen. Cotton rejecting Sen. Graham's and Sen. Durbin's proposal or in the form of Sen. Durbin rejecting Sen. Cotton's demands. Knowing this, Sen. Graham knew that he had to exclude any immigration hawks.
Kelly laid things out perfectly in this article :
The President that I work for wants 700,000 or so DACA recipients, the vast majority of whom are now adults, to have a way to stay in the United States legally. He wants that. That's a given. But what we cannot have is a unprotected, unsecured southwest border that five, six, seven years from now, we have another group of 600 or 700,000 DACA people.
The Graham-Durbin bill contains $1,500,000,000 of funding for the wall, whereas President Trump requested $21,600,000,000 for funding the wall. The Graham-Durbin travesty fell 90+ percent short of the amount President Trump requested. No wonder President Trump was upset. It isn't surprising that President Trump has lost all trust in Sen. Durbin .
The deal would have been 'horrible' for security, Trump said, according to the wire service, and would not have allowed enough funding for construction of a U.S.-Mexico border wall. Trump also said the Durbin-Graham proposal would have been weak in terms of curbing visas for immigrants' extended family members and did not end a lottery program, both things he wanted to see in an immigration deal.
After watching this video, I understand why President Trump wouldn't trust Sen. Durbin:
[Video no longer available]
Less than 30 seconds into the press conference, Sen. Durbin said that Republicans hadn't put together a proposal dealing with DACA. That's a lie. In the House, Bob Goodlatte, Martha McSally, Michael McCaul and Raul Labrador introduced a bill that meets all 4 of President Trump's criteria. When they submitted the bill, they issued this statement .
I'd expect that Sen. Durbin wouldn't agree with much in the bill. That's different, though, than saying a Republican proposal doesn't exist. Rep. McSally said this about the bill:
Our unsecure border and broken immigration system threaten our country's safety and prosperity; no one knows this better than Arizona. As if the most recent terrorist attacks don't stand as reason enough, sophisticated drug cartels, human traffickers, and an opioid crisis all point to the need for action. Now is the time.
Our legislation finally strengthens America's borders. It moves us towards a merit-based immigration system. It includes funds for necessary infrastructure, interior law enforcement, a biometric exit-entry system, and an e-verify system for employers so that our immigration laws are enforced. It cracks down on sanctuary cities and focuses on public safety of our citizens like Kate Steinle who was killed by a man deported 5 times. And it also puts more boots on the border and supports our Border Patrol Agents and CBP officers on the frontlines. America is the most generous and welcoming nation in the world, and that will continue. But we won't be taken advantage of any longer. This bill delivers on what the American people want and what our President has requested, and I urge my colleagues to join us and support it.
Democrats won't support this bill because they aren't serious about enforcing the Tex-Mex border.
What's needed to pass this bill are about 5-6 more Republicans in the Senate and a significant Republican majority in the House.
Posted Thursday, January 18, 2018 3:32 AM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton's pork parade
Anyone who's seen Gov. Dayton's proposed bonding bill know it's filled with pork. Fortunately, passing it is an uphill fight . The legislature should scrutinize Gov. Dayton's proposal for the pork that's in it. A perfect example of this pork is that Gov. Dayton "recommends $19.901 million in general obligation bonds to make mechanical, architectural, and electrical improvements to correct safety, energy, and operational efficiency issues at the joint Minnesota Department of Agriculture (MDA) and Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) Laboratory." The question should be asked why the building needs $20,000,000 to correct safety issues and improve energy and operational efficiencies. That's a ton of money on something that frivolous.
Another part of Gov. Dayton's proposal is to spend "$2.5 million to demolish and reconstruct a maintenance building at the National Sports Center in Blaine" and to spend an additional $1,500,000 "for asset preservation for projects at the National Sports Center (NSC) in Blaine. These projects are intended to ensure the safety and health of participants and staff using the stadium and indoor ice arena."
These are just a couple examples of the pork thrown into the DFL's pork bill.
Rep. Dean Urdahl, the House Capital Investment Committee chairman, issued a statement Tuesday, saying "(The governor's) proposal (calls for spending) $600 million more than we have planned for in the budget forecast. Last session, the Legislature passed a $1 billion, geographically balanced bonding bill which focused heavily on infrastructure and transportation needs. Any bill that takes shape this year will need to follow that same blueprint."
In other words, Republicans are insisting on tilting the Bonding Bill as much towards transportation infrastructure that will help improve Minnesota's economy. Gov. Dayton and the DFL want to borrow money for government buildings. There's money in the Dayton/DFL bill for fixing Como Park, university campuses and bike trails.
Here's the question the DFL needs to be asked: Why isn't your proposal focused on Minnesota's priorities instead of on feel-good pork projects? Republicans are serious about what Minnesota spends money on. The DFL isn't.
Posted Thursday, January 18, 2018 2:31 PM
No comments.
Flake's folly, McCain's mutiny
Saying that Jeff Flake is a legislative lightweight is to demean lightweights. It's insulting that Sen. Flake compared President Trump with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin. What's worse is that he made the comparison on the Senate floor.
Sen. Flake is a wimp and an airhead. Anyone that thinks that a combative president should be compared with a brutal dictator who killed millions of people isn't intellectually qualified to be a U.S. senator. Further, Sen. Flake essentially capitulated to the Democrats on border enforcement. Thankfully, that'll make it easier for Arizonans who worry about border security and preventing cartel-related human trafficking to elect a serious senator who won't cave like Sen. Flake just did.
Sen. McCain wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post (naturally) that criticized President Trump. In that op-ed, "Mr. McCain joined his fellow Arizonan in calling for the president to stop attacking the news media." In the op-ed, Sen. McCain said "We cannot afford to abdicate America's longstanding role as the defender of human rights and democratic principles throughout the world. Without strong leadership in the White House, Congress must commit to protecting independent journalism, preserving an open and free media environment, and defending the fundamental right to freedom of opinion and expression."
Coming from the man who wanted to gut the First Amendment, that's rich. Further, Sen. McCain should know that the U.S. form of government isn't a democracy. The Founding Fathers created a constitutional republic that said our rights come from "Nature's God", not from government. The difference between the 2 types of government is gigantic.
As President Reagan said in his farewell address, "'We the People' tell the government what to do; it doesn't tell us. 'We the People' are the driver; the government is the car. And we decide where it should go, and by what route, and how fast. Almost all the world's constitutions are documents in which governments tell the people what their privileges are. Our Constitution is a document in which 'We the People' tell the government what it is allowed to do."
When Sen. McCain collaborated with Russ Feingold to write their campaign finance law, they wrote a law that told citizens involved in the political process when they could criticize politicians and what times were off-limits. Anyone who didn't hesitate in telling 'We The People' how they can react is someone who isn't morally fit to instruct presidents about right and wrong.
Posted Thursday, January 18, 2018 3:25 PM
No comments.
The DFL supports these dirtbags
The DFL hasn't hidden their support for public employee unions like AFSCME, SEIU and MAPE. That means they've supported the things described in this article . What's outlined in this article, though, seems more like highway robbery than representation.
For instance, "Labor unions in a handful of states have been able to take a portion of [Medicaid payments paid to PCAs] by organizing all the personal caregivers as one bargaining unit. Lawmakers in those states have allowed the practice by implementing policies that classify the caregivers as public employees - but only for the purpose of collective bargaining."
The previous paragraph describes who these PCAs are, saying "Medicaid funds can be provided to personal caregivers who care for an elderly and disabled individual. The caregiver in most cases is related to their client. It's a system that allows for personalized treatment and oftentimes it allows families to care for loved ones. But it's also a system that has enriched unions."
The unions have enriched themselves to the tune of "$200 million annually from Medicaid funds through personal caregivers." These aren't public employees. They're relatives. The union collects their dues but the relatives don't get the benefits that the unions bargain for. What part of that sounds justifiable?
Here's what happened in Minnesota:
The union practice exists in states like California, Washington, Oregon, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Vermont, and Connecticut Minnesota lawmakers, for instance, allowed a state union to organize Personal Care Providers (PCA) as a single bargaining unit by passing a law dictating they are state employees simply because they collect Medicaid funds. Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton tried to do the same in 2011 through an executive order, but it failed in the courts.
The same bill that allowed unionization of in-home child care providers also authorized the unionization of family-based PCAs. Here's part of the committee debate on that legislation:
[Video no longer available]
Rep. Mahoney didn't tell the truth. The union dues get taken out of money paid by government to in-home child care providers and PCAs. With PCAs, that money comes from Medicaid. These aren't wages. They're support payments paid to help families provide care for family members who otherwise might be housed in nursing homes or mental institutions. The state is actually saving money as a direct result of this program.
The family member is subsidized to care for family members because they've given up their jobs. That's essentially a reimbursement paid in exchange for helping the state save money. That isn't a wage.
"Medicaid will pay for homecare services for the elderly and disabled,' Nelsen told InsideSources. "The SEIU and AFSCME, back in the late 90s, when union membership was generally declining saw these workers, and this pool of Medicaid dollars, as a potential organizing opportunity."
The U.S. Supreme Court addressed the issue to an extent during the 2014 case, Harris v. Quinn. The justices ruled that Illinois home care providers couldn't be forced to pay dues because they weren't technically state employees. Nelsen argues that unions and state leaders have found ways around those restrictions. "The states and unions have worked hand and glove to design a series of workarounds to the Harris v. Quinn decision, and to keep people paying dues whether they want to or not," Nelsen said. "There are literally hundreds and thousands of these care providers around the country paying union dues to the SEIU and AFSCME against their will."
In Minnesota, PCAs have petitioned the government to hold a decertification vote. If it's held, the largest unionized bargaining unit will be decertified. The vote won't be close.
When the unionization vote happened for in-home child care providers, it was rejected by a 1,014-392 margin . There's no reason to think this vote won't be similarly lopsided.
Posted Thursday, January 18, 2018 8:33 PM
No comments.
Managing St. Cloud State's decline
It's safe to say that, from a statistical standpoint, St. Cloud State has been in decline since the 2010 academic year. At the end of AY2010 FYE enrollment was 15,096. Without a change of direction, it won't take more than 3 additional years before FYE enrollment will dip below 10,000. Community leaders and politicians that aren't working to fix this crisis are part of the problem.
While they're part of the problem, they aren't the heart of the problem. They're merely enablers. The decision-makers are the heart of the problem. What's required is leadership and commitment to a rebuilding plan. The past 2 administrations, including the soon-to-be former administration, have managed St. Cloud State's decline. Too much time was spent on rebranding. Not enough time was spent rebuilding. The University needs a culture change. This post is about identifying the leader that will bring about that change and his plan.
The leader's name is John Palmer and this is part of his plan:
Place the top priority on teaching by having all Minnesota State Administrators and Minnesota State University Administrative & Academic Support Faculty teach at least one three credit class during the academic year, thus reducing the use of overload assignments and adjunct faculty. Minimize the use of reassignment for IFO Faculty to reflect teaching as the top priority of the University. Use the salary and fringe benefit savings from the two previous actions to close the gap between revenue and expense.
Closing the gap between revenue and expense is an important action but more import to the reversal of declining enrollment is the visible and promoted top priority effort on teaching and course availability. Actions will speak louder than words but it will be important to let prospective students know that SCSU has changed course and that teaching and learning is the University's highest priority.
Use the occasion of the 150th anniversary of SCSU's founding as the launch of the next decade of service and grow for the Normal School (emphasis on teaching) that grew up to be a University. Show the Red and Black at every High School and Community College within a 90 mile radius of St. Cloud by having the President and Provost visit each school and college twice a year. These visits will include interaction with students, teachers, staff and administrators. The visits will be in addition to regular recruiting activities of the office of Admissions staff.
Reduce international travel by faculty, staff and administrators. Reduce in and out of state travel by faculty, staff and administrators, too. Substitute electronic communication and smaller delegations for international travel. This should be done consistent with the priority given to teaching. This is another example where actions will speak louder than words.
Finally and most importantly, the new president deserves the opportunity to put their team in place. They shouldn't have to worry about a collection of people who may not have primary allegiance to the University. To operationalize the creation of a team of leaders with primary allegiance to the future of the University, each at will employee will tender their resignation effective the day the new president begins employment thus allowing the new president the opportunity to pick their team.
This is what leadership looks like. Dr. Palmer isn't interested in managing St. Cloud State's financial and educational decline. Instead, he's interested in rebuilding the University he invested 39 years of his life to.
In the past, administrations spent too much money on rebranding the University. That's just putting lipstick on the same ugly pig. Rebuilding the University is required so students and parents know that St. Cloud State places a higher priority on teaching and educating than it puts on diversity.
It isn't that diversity is a bad thing. It's that touting the University's diversity while enrollment declines is a bad thing.
The search committee can shut down. That's partially because it isn't likely that they'll find anyone qualified that's interested in this job. Dr. Palmer isn't just qualified. He's interested, too.
It's time to turn this ship around.
Posted Friday, January 19, 2018 6:34 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 20-Jan-18 12:20 AM
A very well written article. John Palmer would be an excellent choice.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jan-18 10:38 AM
Thanks for the compliment. Dr. Palmer is the personification of principled leadership, something that's been missing from the SCSU campus for almost a decade.
Dems own this shutdown
All doubt has been removed as to who's to blame for the upcoming government shutdown. Democrats aren't hiding the fact that they'll do what their special interests want. NBC is reporting that Democrats aren't hiding the fact that they're shutting down the government .
In an exchange with Chuck Todd, Kasie Hunt said "But, Chuck, the big problem for this bill is in the Senate. And Chuck Schumer and Democrats appear to have the votes and are broadcasting that pretty openly. Their base -- progressives want them to do this, they want them to take a public stand against President Trump. They are united. There is only a handful of red state Democrats, their party certainly not as strong as it used to be in rural areas, and instead, winning the day are the progressives, who say, 'We don't care. We want you to shut this down.'"
Now that the mystery has been removed, it's time to question the Democrats' motives for sabotaging the military. This article offers the explanation:
Republicans don't have a great track record with government shutdowns. In the past, no matter whose fault it is, the GOP gets blamed by the opposition Democrats and their allies in the mainstream media for any budget shutdown. This time will be no different.
The GOP is once again engaged in a game of chicken with the Democrats over the budget. They have until Friday to either extend their budget deadline, or to solve an impasse over the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, also known as the "Dreamers" bill. If not, Democrats have threatened to shut down the government.
What's obvious is that a shutdown looms not because of Republican intransigence or "obstruction," but because Democrats know they can always pin the blame on their opponents.
If I was advising the Republicans, I'd circulate this video far and wide:
[Video no longer available]
This article proves that the vast majority of Democrats oppose keeping the government open. It's still possible that the MSM will blame Republicans for shutting down the government despite the Democrats' announcement that they're shutting government down because that's what their special interest allies want.
Posted Friday, January 19, 2018 7:16 AM
No comments.
#SchumerShutdown approaching
If the shutdown hits, Republicans should criticize Democrats for being opposed to virtually everything that Republicans have proposed. While it's totally justifiable to call this the #SchumerShutdown, because he's encouraged Democrats to vote against funding the government, it's also a Democrat shutdown because a bunch of so-called Democratic moderates haven't developed a spine to stand up to Sen. Schumer or the Democrats' special interests.
I have a theory on why we're staring at another possible shutdown. It's called a base election. How often have we heard that term the last 5 years? On the Democrats' side, base elections are driven by identity politics. In that situation, Democrats have a checklist of things that they always vote for and another list that Democrats wouldn't vote for if their lives depended on it. Whatever happened to senators actually voting to do the right thing?
In that respect, Lindsay Graham is most like Democrats because he won't vote legislation that's serious about border security.
This afternoon, Sen. Mitch McConnell delivered this speech on the Senate floor. It won't be a wakeup call but it should be. Here's something that he said in his speech:
The deadline to fund the government is nearly upon us. The Senate is now just hours away from an entirely avoidable government shutdown. At midnight tonight, funding for programs that millions of Americans rely on - like veterans' services, opioid treatment centers, death benefits for the families of fallen soldiers, and health insurance for nine million vulnerable children - would be thrown in chaos.
Last night, the Senate began consideration of a bill passed by the House which would erase these threats. The bill keeps the federal government open. And it extends the State Children's Health Insurance Program, which provides coverage for nine million children in low-income families, for six years. This vote should be a 'no-brainer.'
And it would be, except that the Democratic Leader has convinced his members to filibuster any funding bill that doesn't include legislation they are demanding for people who came to the United States illegally. What has been shoehorned into this discussion is an insistence that we deal with an illegal immigration issue. He's insisted that he won't support any legislation at all for the American people - no matter how noncontroversial or how bipartisan - unless we pass a bill on illegal immigration first.
Watch the entire speech here:
[Video no longer available]
Let's be exceptionally clear about this. Sen. Schumer is insisting on protecting illegal immigrants but he isn't insisting on funding increases to our military. What type of wretched person has priorities like that? It's immoral that a U.S. senator fights harder for protecting illegal immigrants than he's fought for our military.
Any dirtbag that puts a higher priority on protecting illegal immigrants than he puts on properly funding for the military isn't worthy of elected office. Other Democrats supporting that dirtbag are complicit in his hideous actions.
If Democrats want to vote for the #SchumerShutdown, then they should pay the price this November. This isn't just the Democrats failing a policy decision. It's Democrats failing a moral decision, too.
Posted Friday, January 19, 2018 6:55 PM
No comments.
