January 20-22, 2011
Jan 20 01:32 Dayton's Flimsy Excuse Jan 20 03:04 White House Geared Up For HC Fight Jan 20 04:07 Collin Still Confused, Tim Walz Still Following Pelosi Jan 20 13:28 Adversarial Gov't At Its Finest Jan 20 15:14 Dayton's Defense of the Indefensible Jan 20 20:18 Berglin Defends Status Quo Jan 20 23:36 Thugs R Us, DC Edition Jan 21 10:07 Creating Jobs vs. Building a Dynamic Economy Jan 22 10:32 Much Sound & Fury, Signifying BS
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Dayton's Flimsy Excuse
Tuesday afternoon, Gov. Dayton issued a statement saying that he thought the GOP legislature's Phase I Plan was a piecemeal plan:
Governor Mark Dayton says he doesn't support any plan that doesn't address the full $6.2 billion budget deficit. He characterized the GOP plan as 'piecemeal.'
'I want to deal with this as a complete package.' Dayton told MPR News. 'To look at it as one side of cuts in the areas of higher education which will mean higher tuition for students and cuts to local government aid which means higher property taxes is taking too narrow a perspective on it.'
Gov. Dayton's statement displays a logic deficit of incredible proportions. He's rejecting this plan because the cutting of potential wasteful spending isn't part of a comprehensive budget plan? That's plain silly.
Giving the MMB commissioner the authority to police potential spending abuses at the end of the biennium makes tons of sense. It's a great way of protecting the taxpayers from bureaucrats spending leftover money just so they can get the same amount the next budget cycle.
That thinking is exactly what my representative, King Banaian, hopes to eliminate with HF2 . If King's bill is signed into law, one of the things that will happen is that departments and agencies will be required to explain why they need the amount of money that they're requesting from legislators. Each department's budget will start at $0. Every penny of spending must be justified.
Gov. Dayton's refusal to give the MMB commissioner this authority indicates that he isn't committed to cutting wasteful spending from this state's operating budget. This isn't complicated. I'm betting that most Minnesotans would agree that, if wasteful spending is located, it should be eliminated ASAP, whether it's part of a comprehensive budget or whether it's something the OLA or MMB just noticed.
Gov. Dayton says that there's a need for 'new revenue', that the legislature needs to take a "balanced approach" to eliminating this deficit. How does he know if he isn't interested in cutting spending wherever it's found?
Let's remember two important budgeting principles: when tax rates are raised, that doesn't guarantee that the projected revenue increase will become reality. Each time that spending is cut, that part of deficit reduction or surplus increase is realized.
BTW, to those in the lefty blogosphere who argue that priority-based budgeting isn't used in the private sector, I'll simply point you to a modestly successful company that's been using it the past 4 years: Anheuser-Busch and their distributors. They aren't alone, either.
Cities are using priority-based budgeting. St. Cloud, in fact, has used it the last 4 years. Their top 100 list is famous amongst city residents that pay attention to local issues.
Posted Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:32 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 20-Jan-11 04:26 PM
Hey Mark where's your proposal to get $6.2 billion in one scoop. It looks like the lawmakers will do it one bill at time (which is propoer) and without tax increases.
I don't see a problem with that.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by P OLSON at 25-Jan-11 12:21 PM
AM I CORRECT - MARK DAYTON WAS NOT AND MAY NOT BE AT THIS MOMENT A CITIZEN OF MINNESOTA?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Jan-11 12:54 PM
I don't know.
White House Geared Up For HC Fight
If the Republicans' agenda of repealing and replacing health care is a joke, then why is the White House fiercely fighting that agenda on Twitter? That's where I found this link , directing me to the White House's website where they just conveniently had statements from 'consumer groups'. Here's an example:
American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network:
'Repeal of the law without a meaningful alternative that includes critical patient protections would resurrect the broken 'sick care' system that denied lifesaving care to people with cancer and their families. The evidence is clear that lack of access to meaningful health care is linked to later stage cancer diagnoses, which are more expensive to treat and harder to survive.'
Here's another example:
Easter Seals:
'The goal of the health care reform law is to assure that all people have access to quality, affordable health care and long term services and supports that meet their individual needs. It is through these types of changes to the health care system that we can hope to enable all Americans, including people with disabilities and chronic conditions, to be healthy, functional, live as independently as possible and participate in their communities. Please vote NO on HR 2.'
And yet another example:
American Heart Association:
'Patients have already benefited from the reforms that have been implemented in the last 10 months. We believe these reforms and the additional forthcoming patient protection provisions were long overdue and need to be given an opportunity to work and if necessary, improved upon. Repeal of ACA will have devastating consequences for patients and their families.'
The common thread running through these statements is that repealing O'Care will unnecessarily imperil countless thousands of people. My question to these organizations is simple. What proof do these organizations have that verify their statements?
I'd pose another question to these organizations. What proof do these organizations have that the Republicans' replacement bill wouldn't provide the essential services they're worried about? I'd love asking the AHA what specific provisions "patients have already benefited from the reforms that have been implemented in the last 10 months."
Color me skeptical that these statements reflect anything more than these organizations' political preferences or their desire to not get on President Obama's wrong side.
Posted Thursday, January 20, 2011 3:04 AM
No comments.
Collin Still Confused, Tim Walz Still Following Pelosi
Wednesday, Tim Walz and Collin Peterson voted against repealing O'Care. While their votes didn't surprise political activists, it's still telling that they voted the way Minority Leader Pelosi wanted them to vote.
Peterson's vote is most puzzling because he voted against final passage of O'Care, then said he wouldn't vote to repeal the bill when posed with the question.
Peterson's logic, or lack thereof, suggests that Peterson either thinks he needs more help from extremist activists or that he's planning on retiring. Personally, I think it's the latter. Peterson had spent 12 years in the minority prior to the 112th Congress.
This past election was a tight election by Peterson's standards, defeating a definitely underfunded Lee Byberg by a 55-38 percent margin. It's a safe bet that Byberg will have sufficient funding this cycle should he choose to run again.
If I'm Collin Peterson, I'm asking why I'd want to run against a well-funded candidate in a race that the NRCC will put special emphasis on. I'm also asking why I'd want to return to the House to be in the minority for the rest of my career.
The equation is likely different for Walz. He's just entering his third term, with this being his first time in the minority. I suspect he won't like it that much. I don't doubt that he'll still enjoy voting with Pelosi 97 percent of the time but that's another story.
With more of Minnesota turning red, this might be a difficult environment for DFL candidates to run in, especially Peterson. Peterson's gone from winning by a 70-30 margin in 2006 to 72-28 in 2008 to winning by 55-38 in 2010. Getting only 55 percent of the vote against a previously unknown candidate who was vastly underfunded should have Peterson worried.
Don't be surprised if Peterson decides that lobbying is better than valor.
Posted Thursday, January 20, 2011 4:07 AM
No comments.
Adversarial Gov't At Its Finest
This morning, Gov. Dayton announced that the Early MA system would be essentially in place by March . Meanwhile, State Sen. David Hann, one of the smartest policy men in state government, announced that he'll be holding hearings into whether Early MA is constitutional.
Anyone who knows anything about the budget process knows that legislatures can't tie the hands of future legislatures. For instance, the legislature elected in November, 2008, can't pass budget bills that fund government for the biennia starting July 1, 2009 AND July 1, 2011. It's obligated to pass the budget for the July 1, 2009 biennium. It can't pass omnibus spending bills taking effect on July 1, 2011.
I don't know whether the Early MA agreement is constitutional or not but it's murky at best. I wouldn't be surprised if this gets settled in a lawsuit.
One thing this underscores is that this legislature will do something the last 2 legislatures didn't do, which is conduct oversight hearings. Sen. Hann will hold hearings into the pitfalls and shortcomings of Early MA. I'm betting he'll find out how much money this 'free lunch' program costs the state.
This legislature won't conduct any witch hunts. They'll just find out what works and what's a waste of the taxpayers' money. The DFL's committee hearings that I watched were pretty much an exercise of letting their special interest allies testify. That isn't oversight. It's just another way to get their talking points repeated and amplified.
I remember the 'hearing' at which LOBBYIST Tom Dooher sat between Senate Education Chairman Leroy Stumpf and House Education Chairlady Mindy Greiling while they discussed putting a proposal together for Race to the Top funds.
This legislature will ask tough questions, including asking department chairs about their budgets. They'll also take time to set priorities, something the previous legislatures were allergic to. (That's why they put together spending bills first before figuring out how much they had to raise taxes to pay for their spending sprees.)
This year will be a lesson in adversarial government done right. In 2009, Speaker Kelliher and Leader Pogemiller didn't put a budget blueprint together , instead saying that they'd "work off of Gov. Pawlenty's budget."
This GOP legislature will put a budget together, complete with an explanation of what their priorities are. They've already started an aggressive reform campaign that will make government run smoother and save taxpayers millions of dollars.
Gov. Dayton will have the opportunity to sign onto this pro-common sense agenda or get called out for opposing them. If there's one thing that came through loud and clear in the midterms, it's that Minnesotans want state spending brought under control, the deficit eliminated, jobs created and no new taxes.
People, governors included, will be trampled under foot if they don't learn these lessons. If Gov. Dayton wants to fight for major tax increases and big spending increases, he'll quickly find his approval ratings tanking. It's his choice.
Posted Thursday, January 20, 2011 1:28 PM
No comments.
Dayton's Defense of the Indefensible
OMG. I've thought from the beginning that Gov. Dayton's decisionmaking and ability to champion liberal causes was limited. After reading this post , which is essentially his defense of bloated government, though, I'm beginning to question his priorities.
The Democratic governor said the proposals "exploit the opportunity" to drive wedges between Minnesotans, demonize public employees and suggested they show a lack of understanding and care.
"Most state employees, most public employees, most teachers are extraordinarily dedicated, hard working people, who are striving to make ends meet for their families...just as people in the private sector are," Dayton said.
The governor addressed a bill that would freeze teacher pay and limit teachers' ability to strike as well as a measure to cut 15 percent of the state workforce.
"The myth that there's been this explosion of (the numbers of) public employees in Minnesota is just that," Dayton said. "In a difficult economic time, some people exploit the opportunity to try to drive wedges between Minnesotans."
He said: "I wish the legislators would take the time and the care to really understand these issues and the complexity and to hold public hearings and allow for public input on all sides of the question and then present something that really reflects a caring and concern for the well being of all Minnesotans."
I wish Gov. Dayton would quit thinking that government doesn't need major reformation. I wish he'd stop thinking that Minnesota's priorities are great and don't need major changes.
The GOP legislature isn't attempting to villainize unions as much as it's just trying to set sensible priorities for state spending. Meanwhile, Gov. Dayton is obviously playing to his political base while driving away independents.
Those Minnesotans who haven't gotten laid off during this current recession have either had their pay cut, their hours cut or had their insurance premiums increased substantially. Rep. Downey's legislation simply says that the public sector must share in the sacrifice.
The House and Senate leadership started with trimming their budgets. They've refused to adopt a Cuts for Thee but not for Me attitude . They've adopted a me first attitude.
In light of that attitude, Gov. Dayton appears to be saying he'll continue then-Speaker Kelliher's and then-Leader Pogemiller's plan to exempt public sector employees while demanding tax increases. If Gov. Dayton intends on continuing down that path, he'd best be prepared to take alot of lumps.
He's defending the indefensible.
Rep. Banaian's budgeting reform and sunset bill does away with the assumption that government's current structure fits the 21st Century. HINT: It doesn't. Government's current structure might've been justified in the 1980s but it's outdated for the 21st Century.
The governor condemned Rep. Keith Downey's words that he wanted to strangle the beast " of public worker rolls. Downey, R-Edina, proposed the state workforce cut, which breezed through a House committee Wednesday.
"I'm really shocked," Dayton said. "Government is not a beast. Public servants are not beasts. They are fellow citizens...To demonize people who are,in most respects. hard working committed people is very unfair and unnecessarily divisive."
Perhaps Gov. Dayton should contemplate the possibility that Rep. Downey wasn't attacking individual workers but rather the current structure of government. If Gov. Dayton wasn't so trained in practicing victimhood politics, he might've noticed that Rep. Downey was talking about reforming government.
Instead of asking Rep. Downey what he was talking about, Gov. Dayton flew into a temper tantrum, thinking that Rep. Downey was being personal. Had Gov. Dayton looked at the totality of what was said, he might've noticed that government reform, spread across many departments, was the target.
If Gov. Dayton wants to keep having these childish temper tantrums while playing exclusively to his base, that's his right. Nonetheless, that's a great recipe for losing legislative fights and elections.
Each week, Gov. Dayton is getting exposed as a puppet for the DFL's special interest group masters. They're either controlling him or he's a true believer that what's best for these special interest groups is what's best for Minnesota.
Thankfully, Rep. Downey, Rep. Banaian and others are in touch with Main Street Minnesota's priorities. Thankfully, they'll set the right priorities.
Posted Thursday, January 20, 2011 3:14 PM
No comments.
Berglin Defends Status Quo
State Sen. Linda Berglin has throttled health care reform legislation many times before. The committee she used to chair (God, that sounds great!!!) was said to be "the place where good reforms went to die." It's in that light that she's issued this statement supporting the expansion of another status quo program, Medicaid, that does nothing to fix the real problems within the health care/health insurance system.
Because of the Dayton Administration's action to expedite the early Medicaid Opt-In, many Minnesotans receiving these services will benefit, as will health care providers who will finally receive fair compensation for the services they are rendering. By working together, we were able to help the Department of Human Services to find a way to administer the expedited program.'
Early Medicaid expansion will have an immediate effect on Minnesota, providing new and improved health care coverage to more than 95,000 Minnesotans, and creating or retaining 20,000 health care jobs. Benefits under the early Medicaid are more comprehensive than state-run programs; reimbursements to providers and hospitals will help them to provide better care at a fairer price.
This move will ease the burden of growing uncompensated care and charity care, which happens when uninsured individuals access health care in hospital emergency rooms and those costs get passed on to Minnesotans through higher health care costs.
Under the current system, the average family pays a hidden tax in the form of higher premiums and cost of care amounting to $1,017 per year to cover the cost of the uninsured. Early Medicaid will provide the funding necessary to drive market-wide payment reform, the best way to reduce future health care costs.
That last sentence doesn't make sense, which isn't surprising. I'd love hearing Sen. Berglin's explanation on how expanding a government program that underpays clinics, doctors and hospitals will "reduce health care costs."
In polite society, people would say that statement is fiction. On Mainstreet, we'd call that statement a lie.
Sen. Berglin's statement omits the fact that there's nothing in O'Care that drives costs down. In fact, there are multiple provisions that force higher premiums, starting with the provision that says insurance companies can't charge higher premiums for people with PEC's than they charge for healthy patients.
I'm betting that the goal was to keep insurance for patients with PECs affordable. That's a noble thought but it's a foolish policy. By telling insurance companies that they can't charge more for high risk patients than for healthy patients, they're essentially telling everyone that their premiums will be going up...alot.
Imposing the type of price controls that HHS Secretary Sebelius is proposing doesn't control costs, either. It just causes more cost-shifting, which is the biggest villain in all of this.
Medicaid causes cost-shifting, which is why Early MA will financially bankrupt states. It isn't that Early MA is devoid of any worthwhile qualities. It's that the bad outweighs the good...by alot.
Sen. Berglin needs to stop drinking the DFL's Kool-Aid and start consistently thinking things through. That's the only way she'll understand that O'Care is built on a series of faulty premises.
Another statement in Sen. Berglin's press release that's provably false is her statement that the Medicaid Opt-In will give "health care providers who will finally receive fair compensation for the services they are rendering."
That's bullshit!!!
Medicare and Medicaid vastly underpay clinics, doctors and hospitals. That's why there's a growing number of clinics and hospitals nationwide who are refusing to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients. This opt-in is short-changing clinics, doctors and hospitals.
Posted Thursday, January 20, 2011 8:18 PM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 20-Jan-11 08:26 PM
Have I ever told you how much I love your writing style. The place where all your opinions are facts and facts may or may not be opinions.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 20-Jan-11 08:42 PM
Coming from you, Eric, that's high praise.
The facts that I cited come from a friend who is a hospital administrator & from reports citing the refusal of hospitals, doctors & clinics to treat Medicare & Medicaid patients. DEAL WITH IT.
Thugs R Us, DC Edition
If there's anything that gets my blood boiling, it's hearing about the progressive left's mob tactics. Last May, I wrote about the SEIU invading Greg Baer's private property . I thought it was thuggish behavior then. I'm more certain of it now, especially after watching Megyn Kelly's interview of Nina Easton .
Now a new progressive protest is being planned at the developer's private home . The protest is being organized by an organization called WalmartfreeDC . When they protested in December, they had a flier put together, complete with the developer's name and address. (I won't link to the flier because I won't highlight this organization's thuggish, threatening behavior.)
Thursday afternoon, during Megyn Kelly's interview with Nina Easton, Ms. Kelly used the term protest in connection with the Montgomery County event. Ms. Easton stopped her, saying that it isn't a protest when 14 busloads of SEIU workers pile out of the buses, step onto the front steps of the home with their bullhorns, saying things that scared the family's teenage son who was home alone.
When the Baer family came home, the mob was still there saying threatening things to the point that the Baer's younger son who walked through the mob is still having nightmares 8 months later.
If people want to peacefully protest at the developer's office, that's one thing. Bringing a large group of angry people to a person's private property isn't a protest. It's an act of intimidation and it's tresspassing.
Walmart Free DC stepped over the line, and then some, when they protested at the developer's private property. The DC police better stop this organization dead in its tracks before they go up on the developer's property again.
People need to tell Walmart Free DC and similar thuggish organizations that their misbehavior won't be tolerated. Check out the incendiary language that's used on WFDC's website:
'We are not interested in negotiating the terms of Wal-Mart's arrival,' Wal-Mart Free DC says on its site's 'about' section . 'We know the harmful impact that Wal-Mart always has, from thousands of case studies around the country, and around the world. We believe in our hearts, and in our minds, that DC must continue to be Wal-Mart Free.'
Thankfully, the Blaze throws this important tidbit of information into their post:
Despite claims that Walmart destroys communities, however, the group cites no specific studies or examples. And the group spokesperson did not respond to a request for such material.
The left's thuggish behavior must be exposed and, when appropriate, prosecuted. This can't be swept under the proverbial rug. It's something that must be fought aggressively from a law enforcement standpoint, from a lawsuit standpoint and from a political standpoint.
If President Obama wants us to take him seriously, then he needs to aggressively speak out against the left's thuggish organizations like SEIU and WFDC. Making a passing comment about misbehavior won't cut it. These organizations must be called out by name and, when they break the law, they must be aggressively prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
I'm not opposed to passing laws classifying these specific thuggish actions as felonies. In fact, I'd applaud the passing of those types of laws. The truth is that the Thugs R Us wing of the Democratic Party must be criticized and prosecuted when it's warranted.
Posted Thursday, January 20, 2011 11:36 PM
No comments.
Creating Jobs vs. Building a Dynamic Economy
This STrib article highlights the different approaches taken to creating jobs between the GOP and the DFL. The DFL approach requires a yearly injection of government stimulus funding. The GOP approach is a more entrepreneur-based approach. Gov. Dayton will apparently fight for the antiquated, ineffective DFL way:
Gov. Mark Dayton and Republican legislators appear headed for yet another showdown: Whether to run up $1 billion in state borrowing to build everything from civic centers to campgrounds as a way to create jobs in a sputtering economy.
Sen. Dave Senjem and freshman Rep. Kurt Bills offer a differing approach:
Sen. David Senjem, R-Rochester, who heads the Senate's capital investment panel, said he has no immediate plans to even convene the committee.
"The idea of doing bonding to create jobs is not our way of thinking," Senjem said.
Rep. Kurt Bills, one of the Republican newcomers who has brought a noticeably different philosophy to the Capitol, said yearly state bonding bills reach "a law of diminishing returns" that crowds out private investment . A high school economics teacher from Rosemount who now sits on the influential House Capital Investment Committee, Bills acknowledges that "I am a big, I have to say, anti-debt guy."
Based on the poor job creation and return on investment numbers we've seen the past 5 years, I'd say that Rep. Bills' argument for the the law of diminishing returns is reality, not theory.
Why Gov. Dayton would fight to borrow money to create a tiny trickle of jobs when streamlining the permitting process and eliminating job-killing litigation opportunities for MCEA and other environmental extremists would provide a gusher of new jobs without government interference or taxpayer resources doesn't make sense.
While Gov. Dayton is pushing for the DFL's annual stimulus bill, freshmen legislators like Rep. Dan Fabian and Sen. John Pederson are pushing for streamlining the permitting process with Rep. Fabian chief authoring HF1 and Sen. Pederson co-sponsoring SF1 , the Senate's companion bill to HF1.
Unlike Gov. Dayton's bill, Pederson's and Fabian's bill will create an a business-friendly environment that encourages increased entrepreneurial activity.
This isn't a difficult choice.
Supporting a bill that brings a gusher of jobs makes infinitely more sense than supporting a bill that creates a trickle of jobs while burdening future generations with unnecessary debts shouldn't be a difficult decision.
Unfortunately, we're saddled with a governor who thinks it's the most difficult decision imaginable. Still, I'm optimistic because the GOP legislature will prevent most of Gov. Dayton's crazy ideas from becoming law.
Another reason that I'm optimistic is because Rep. King Banaian will play an influential role as my legislator. Here's an example of his economic thinking:
St. Cloud's newly elected Republican state Rep. King Banaian said he is not closing the door to a state borrowing proposal, but has his own idea of what might be included: Money for a science building at St. Cloud State University, where Banaian teaches. "I think it meets the criteria I have in mind," he said.
But Banaian said the state's deficit remains the top task. "If the bonding bill's going to get in the way of us doing our job with the budget, I'd rather not do any bonding," he said.
Funding a project like I-SILF is a legitimate bonding project. It will create great learning opportunities that will translate into high-tech jobs for the state.
The DFL often speaks about the bonding bill as a "jobs bill" while touting only the construction jobs it creates. King's criteria is different in that it also asks the question: what will we have once the construction ends? Will it be another special interest shrine (my terminology) or will we have something that strengthens Minnesota's infrastructure and economy?
The DFL has stifled Minnesota's economy for a couple decades. They've relied too often on bonding bills. They've tried raising taxes too often. They've added too many job-killing regulations.
Thankfully, the GOP legislature is quickly streamlining the permitting process, keeping spending at sane levels and eliminating the need to raise taxes. By doing these things, they're eliminating Minnesota's structural deficit, too.
It's about time.
Posted Friday, January 21, 2011 10:07 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 22-Jan-11 08:03 AM
I love it, especially since Bills is My Guy.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 22-Jan-11 10:39 AM
Kewl!!! That means your guy is ALMOSST as good as MY GUY King Banaian.
Think of the havoc they'll bring on the DFL. They both serve on Cap Inv. Committee.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 23-Jan-11 05:27 PM
If you are putting money into science research, do it in the twin cities campus where the first rate minds work.
Much Sound & Fury, Signifying BS
The message from this article is that the DCCC is alot about bluster and little about reality:
House Democrats on Friday launched what they dubbed a 'Drive for 25' to recapture the majority they lost last November.
The chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, Rep. Steve Israel (N.Y.), unveiled the new slogan at the caucus's annual retreat in Maryland. The phrase refers to the 25 seats the party needs to take back the House in 2012.
'My central job is to help us make it back to the majority, because when we make it back to the majority we can help the middle class make it here,' Israel told reporters at a press conference, where he appeared alongside Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the rest of the caucus's high command.
He laid out a two-pronged strategy for Democrats in the minority.
'We're going to offer constructive, thoughtful, economic proposals to grow jobs like 'Make It in America,' ' Israel said, 'and two, we are going to hold Republicans accountable when they do not support the interests of middle-class and working families in this country.'
I'd wish Rep. Israel good luck but I'm hoping he fails miserably. This is alot of bluster about what he hopes will happen, not what he thinks will happen. Democrats will be on the defensive most of the next 2 years because of health care reform and over spending and regulation.
Also, it's laughable to me to hear them say that they'll "offer constructive, thoughtful, economic proposals to grow jobs" after two years spent destroying the economy.
The job they're stuck with is defending their votes, and President Obama's agenda, over the next 2 years. Chairman Ryan will spend alot of time over the next 2 years exposing the major flaws in O'Care, from the serial double-counting of dollars to the ways that Democrats gamed the CBO into producing misleading deficit numbers.
Chairman Camp will take time to expose the massive tax increases in O'Care. That's $670,000,000,000 worth of projected exposing. That means talking about the medical device manufacturing excise tax, which has hurt medical device manufacturers.
When Chairman Issa holds hearings on the various boondoggles in the stimulus bill, it won't be a positive moment for Democrats, which means it won't be a great time for the DCCC.
The reality is that Democrats have been exposed as utterly unprincipled. Despite all the different classifications and caucuses. The reality is that their votes are available anytime Pelosi needs them. The reality is that there's no such thing as a principled Democrat. They'll all cave because they're Democrats first.
That fact will drive them to having another miserable election cycle in 2012. The Drive for 25 is a nice slogan but it isn't reality.
Posted Saturday, January 22, 2011 10:32 AM
No comments.
