January 23-24, 2017
Jan 23 00:36 Open letter to Dr. Larry Jacobs Jan 23 04:51 President Trump: Obama's opposite Jan 23 11:27 Democrats hoping for disaster Jan 23 12:17 MnSCU's mismanagement issues Jan 23 18:23 The Schumer Option Jan 24 00:32 Gov. Dayton collapses Jan 24 10:15 MnSCU's leadership failure Jan 24 11:15 Ellison from La-La-Land
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Open letter to Dr. Larry Jacobs
To: Larry Jacobs, Walter F. Mondale Chair for Political Studies at the University of Minnesota
From: Gary Gross, Uppity Peasant
Subject: The US Constitution
Dr. Jacobs, during your appearance on Almanac this past Friday night, you said that conservatives should be "on high alert" because President Trump didn't mention the Constitution in President Trump's Inaugural Speech . While that's technically true in a narrowly defined way, it isn't reality.
Early in President Trump's Inaugural Speech, he stated "Today's ceremony, however, has very special meaning because today, we are not merely transferring power from one administration to another or from one party to another, but we are transferring power from Washington, D.C. and giving it back to you, the people." Perhaps you didn't recognize this constitutional principle but I definitely noticed it. I wasn't alone, either, because that constitutional principle is called federalism.
The Tenth Amendment says "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." In other words, the things that aren't affirmative responsibilities of the federal government are sent to the states or the people by the Tenth Amendment of the US Constitution.
Dr. Jacobs, it's time you started reading the US Constitution so you don't miss obvious constitutional principles like federalism.
Frankly, Dr. Jacobs, I'll be thrilled if President Trump moves power out of Washington, DC. Based on the articles I've read, I think that's quite possible.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2017 12:36 AM
No comments.
President Trump: Obama's opposite
Nobody who isn't comatose thinks President Trump and former President Obama are similar. The only thing that they have in common is that they've both been called Mr. President. I wrote this post because Rachel Maddow actually said something worthwhile when she said President Trump's inaugural speech "was militant and it was dark. The crime, the gangs, the drugs, this 'American carnage,' disrepair, decay. You can't imagine the outgoing president giving a speech like that.'"
She's right. Former President Obama would've papered over the problems. Let's correct that. For 8 years, he papered over the nation's problems. Obamacare wasn't the solution to a problem. It was the Democrats' holy grail, the thing that no other Democrat had achieved.
President Obama left office personally popular. President Trump enters office being personally unpopular. That isn't the only difference. President Obama's policies were rejected each time President Obama's name wasn't on the ballot. By contrast, many of President Trump's policy initiatives are highly popular. Tax reform is one of those initiatives. Another thing that's popular, except with Democrats, is enforcing existing immigration laws. Still another Trump initiative that's popular where it's applicable is reining in the EPA and other environmental regulatory agencies.
President Trump isn't the great orator that President Obama was. The thing about Obama, though, was that he never moved the needle in terms of support for his policies. In the weeks ahead, President Trump will move votes on his initiatives because they're solutions to things that are broken.
Though this isn't entirely on point, another major difference between these presidents is that President Trump has actually run big things before taking office. When his VA secretary is confirmed and sworn in, rest assured that VA administrators' heads will roll. Trump is a man of action. Obama was a talker who didn't get things done.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2017 4:51 AM
No comments.
Democrats hoping for disaster
By not confirming President Trump's national security team the first day in office, Democrats are signaling that their resistance, aka their political stunt, takes precedence over national security. That's a disgusting signal to send.
It's one thing to not confirm Rex Tillerson immediately. There were legitimate questions about him. It's quite another to not confirm Jeff Sessions as AG or Mike Pompeo as the director of the CIA. There weren't any questions about whether Mssrs. Sessions and Pompeo were qualified.
Michelle Goldberg of Slate Magazine insists that "The Trump Resistance will be led by angry women." That's possible, though I'm a bit skeptical of that prediction. Right now, it's being run by idiots like Chuck Schumer, Keith Ellison and Hollywood 'stars' like Madonna and Ashley Judd.
Why would anyone think that (I'm stealing a phrase from Rush Limbaugh) this "endless parade of human debris" is the Democrats' ticket back into America's hearts? Salena Zito's column says that President Trump needs to start healing this nation's divisions. I'd love to see it, though I can't picture Democrats being a willing partner anytime soon. I can't picture that after watching this video:
It's time for Sen. Schumer, House Minority Leader Pelosi, Rep. Ellison and their legion of parasites to stop with the PR stunts and start putting America's needs first. They can start by telling Sen. Schumer to stop resisting and start confirming President Trump's nominees to lead his national security team:
To Sen. Schumer: Enough with the shenanigans. Start putting America first for a change.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2017 11:27 AM
No comments.
MnSCU's mismanagement issues
This article highlights MnSCU's mismanagement under Chancellor Steve Rosenstone's 'leadership'. It's stunning how wasteful they are.
Laura King, chief finance officer with Minnesota State, said "We are a substantial provider of trained citizens into the economies all across Minnesota. Those citizens are increasingly diverse, the communities are growing increasingly diverse and our colleges and universities stand to provide a tremendous service to the communities in years ahead, but we need to be financially healthy to do that." What's needed, according King, is a paltry "$178 million in additional state funding over two years."
That's only part of their spending increase story. A loyal reader of LFR sent me information on Minnesota State's Plan B . According to the report, the state of Minnesota should partner "with Minnesota State colleges and universities to identify additional sources of public revenue beyond the general revenue fund (e.g., dedicated lottery funds; local sales or property tax options; other dedicated state or local revenue streams) that could support our colleges and universities across the state."
That's a Hail Mary attempt worthy of Aaron Rodgers. "Minnesota State", which is what MnSCU is now officially called, knows that there isn't even a slight chance of this happening with a Republican legislature. Republicans are looking at tax relief, not tax increases.
Minnesota State isn't the only place where mismanagement is the rule, not the exception. This fossil needs to be replaced ASAP:
House Higher Education Chairman Bud Nornes, R-Fergus Falls, said serious decisions regarding higher education allocations will have to wait for the February economic and budget report. However, he said, he believes most representatives would see the new funding as a good investment.
"Between the University of Minnesota and (Minnesota State), it adds up to a pretty sizeable request," he said. "But we trust it's all needed. I don't think anybody comes here and asks for more than we need."
That's stunning. Rep. Nornes needs to be removed from that committee ASAP. Clearly, he isn't interested in investigating whether the universities spend the state allocation wisely.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2017 12:17 PM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 23-Jan-17 12:38 PM
MnSCU wants local taxes and other property tax options like voter approved higher education referendums in a time of declining enrollments? I am sure glad to know that Minnesota's public school referendums have been so well received and non-controversial that taxpayers will be more than happy to open their wallets yet again. So Nornes said "we trust it's all needed" by Minnesota Higher Ed? What was he thinking? Seemingly almost every organization looking to pony up at the public trough asks for more that what they need hoping to get what they need. Even children learn at an early age how this works. Mommy, can I have 8 cookies please?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 23-Jan-17 12:53 PM
Thinking isn't Bud's strong suit. It isn't the MnSCU Board of Trustees' strong suit, either.
Comment 3 by John Palmer at 23-Jan-17 09:59 PM
In the K-12 world, the answer to every problem is more money. Higher education has followed the same path. What Nornes and the legislators need to do is fully investigate how the current allocation and tuition dollars are being spent and then make sure students, parents and taxpayers are getting high value from higher education. If SCSU is typical of how money is spent (millions on empty and or under-utilized spaces) no increases are in order.
The Schumer Option
When I wrote this post , I hadn't read Stephen Hayes' devastating article about Sen. Chuck Schumer's dishonesty. In the post, I wrote that Democrats put a higher priority on their PR stunt, aka "the Resistance", than they put on protecting national security.
I wasn't as cynical as I should've been. According to Hayes' article, according "to six sources familiar with the negotiations over Pompeo's confirmation, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer told Republican leaders that he would allow Pompeo to be confirmed by voice vote on Inauguration Day, along with two other Trump nominees who have national security responsibilities. But Schumer broke his promise, these sources say, and offered an insulting excuse for having done so."
Later in the article, Hayes wrote "McConnell consulted Senate Intelligence Committee Chairman Richard Burr, Intel committee member Tom Cotton, and the incoming Trump administration. Republicans agreed to delay Pompeo, whose team was happy to have an extra day to prepare. But the Republicans had a condition. If we agree to push back Pompeo's hearing for a day, they told Schumer, you must agree to include him in the group of national security officials who will be confirmed by a voice vote on Inauguration Day, January 20. According to these sources, Schumer agreed, with alacrity, having secured the delay he'd sought."
That didn't happen:
But on January 19, one day before Trump's inauguration, Ron Wyden said he'd seek to delay Pompeo's confirmation when the Senate convened late Friday afternoon. That evening Cotton, who is close to Pompeo from their time together in the House of Representatives, began calling his colleagues on the Senate Intelligence Committee, including Wyden, seeking to avoid the delay. Some of the calls were cordial. Others were testy.
The Senate reconvened after the inaugural ceremonies on Friday, with Pompeo's nomination set to come up at 4:50pm. Cotton angrily confronted Schumer about his broken promise. According to witnesses, Schumer told Cotton to lower his voice and asked him move off of the Senate floor to an adjacent hallway for a private discussion. "We need to take this out into the hallway," Schumer said. Cotton walked with Schumer but loudly rejected his first request. "Don't tell me to lower my voice!" he shouted, with an additional salty admonition tacked on for emphasis. Burr and Cornyn were present, as was Senator Mark Warner, ranking member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, and several aides.
Schumer told Cotton that the Senate had never previously confirmed a CIA director on Inauguration Day and if Cotton had been around eight years earlier, he'd know that Republicans didn't extend that courtesy for incoming president Barack Obama. " Eight years ago, I was getting my ass shot at in Afghanistan ," Cotton snapped. " So don't talk to me about where I was 8 years ago . "
Sen. Schumer shouldn't be trusted. He's always been a snake whose word was worthless. Sen. McConnell should try to work with trustworthy Democrats while avoiding dealing with Sen. Schumer as often as possible.
Sen. Schumer is a liar. I don't trust him whatsoever. If he tries filibustering President Trump's SCOTUS nominees, I'd blow up the filibuster, then name it the Schumer Option. I'd explain that name by saying Sen. Schumer's dishonesty forced the rule change.
Posted Monday, January 23, 2017 6:23 PM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton collapses
Gov. Dayton collapsed during the opening minutes of his State of the State Address. Don Davis has written that "Gov. Mark Dayton collapsed during his State of the State speech Monday night, Jan. 23, but after a few minutes walked away with help. An hour later, he was playing a puzzle with his grandson at his official state residence. 'He quickly recovered, walked out of the Capitol, and returned home,' his chief of staff, Jaime Tincher, said an hour and a half after the incident. 'EMTs joined the governor there and performed a routine check. He is now spending time with his son and grandson.'"
House Speaker Kurt Daudt issued a statement, saying "Governor Dayton is in my thoughts and prayers tonight. I was encouraged to see him walk from the House Chamber on his own and I join Minnesotans in wishing him a speedy recovery."
I didn't watch the State of the State tonight but I saw the video. Saying that it was frightening is understatement. As you'll see in the video, Gov. Dayton took a sip of water before resuming talking. When he returned to his speech, Gov. Dayton slurred his words before leaning forward in pain, then collapsing:
Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka said "when things like this happen, we're really all here just praying for the governor. We're all one Minnesota in things like this. We care for each other. That's our whole focus right now, period, is praying for our governor."
Here's wishing Gov. Dayton a full and speedy recovery.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2017 12:32 AM
No comments.
MnSCU's leadership failure
Yesterday, I wrote this post to highlight how unimaginative MnSCU leadership is, adding that the legislature isn't doing its job in pushing much-needed reforms on MnSCU's Central Office.
The chief culprit at MnSCU is Dr. Rosenstone, though he's abetted by MnSCU's Board of Trustees. As I said in Monday's post, MnSCU's Board of Trustees is meeting today. One of the big things that they're thinking about is a permanent funding mechanism fund the universities. According to the Trustees' information packet , the big thing that they'll consider is identifying "additional sources of public revenue beyond the general revenue fund (e.g., dedicated lottery funds; local sales or property tax options ; other dedicated state or local revenue streams) that could support our colleges and universities across the state."
One of the things that's led MnSCU into this situation is their declining enrollments. The problem is virtually system-wide. That points directly at Chancellor Rosenstone's failed decision-making, MnSCU's Board of Trustees' lack of leadership and the Legislature's invisible oversight.
The Board of Trustees failed Minnesota's parents and students when they picked Dr. Rosenstone. Putting it bluntly, he was a political pick. The other candidate at the time had run a university, had legislative experience and was overqualified for the job. Dr. Rosenstone had none of those qualities. That didn't matter to the Board of Trustees. They picked Dr. Rosenstone anyway. It wasn't difficult to predict that Dr. Rosenstone wouldn't succeed.
Throw in the GOP chairs of the Higher Education committees (Bud Nornes and Michelle Fischbach) and you've got a recipe for disaster. Which thoughtful person can read this and think these committee chairs are serious?
House Higher Education Chairman Bud Nornes, R-Fergus Falls, said serious decisions regarding higher education allocations will have to wait for the February economic and budget report. However, he said, he believes most representatives would see the new funding as a good investment.
"Between the University of Minnesota and (Minnesota State), it adds up to a pretty sizeable request," he said. "But we trust it's all needed. I don't think anybody comes here and asks for more than we need."
That's disgraceful. It's pretty obvious Chairman Nornes doesn't know the first thing about negotiating. That funding request is, essentially, an opening bid.
Rosenstone's administration hasn't stopped North Dakota and Wisconsin from winning the recruiting wars the past 5+ years. That's a leadership failure. MnSCU's Board of Trustees hasn't required Dr. Rosenstone to put together a plan to stop the outmigration of students from our state. That's a failure of leadership, too. The House and Senate Higher Education committees haven't brought in members of MnSCU's trustees to grill them over what they're doing to stop the outmigration of students from Minnesota to North Dakota and Wisconsin. That's a failure of leadership.
It's one thing when this happens 1-2 years. It's another when it happens year after year. MnSCU's declining enrollment and their financial predicament stem from their financial mismanagement and their lack of clear-sighted leadership.
This is what happens when cronyism is valued more than clear-sighted leadership. It's something that shouldn't be tolerated.
Posted Tuesday, January 24, 2017 10:15 AM
No comments.
Ellison from La-La-Land
In his campaign to become the next chair of the DNC, Rep. Keith Ellison wrote this op-ed , which Time Magazine published. It's a publication from La-La-Land.
For instance, Rep. Ellison wrote "Take labor protection and environmentalism, two core Democratic values. Republicans claim you can't both have clean air and grow jobs. This too is a false choice.
Unions and environmental groups recognized this ten years ago when they formed the Blue-Green Alliance to build a clean, fair economy for all. You don't often think 'environmentalist' when you hear 'steelworker.' But David Foster, their first Executive Director, left his post with United Steelworkers District 11 in Minnesota to take on the task of bridging the divides he often saw with environmental advocates. In fact, the two current co-chairs are Leo W. Gerard, the International President of the United Steelworkers, and Michael Brune, the Executive Director of the Sierra Club. The Democratic Party needs to follow the lead of folks like David, Leo and Michael by showing where we can find common ground and standing up to attempts to drive us apart."
While it's true that union leadership signed off on this coalition, the rank-and-file didn't. That's why President Trump won the votes of tons of white working class voters. There are a handful of union leaders, compared with hundreds of thousands of union workers. It isn't difficult to do the math.
Rep. Ellison didn't help the Democrats' cause when he wrote "We are the party that fights to raise the minimum wage, guarantee high-quality education, and provide affordable health care." Blue collar workers are infinitely more worried about creating high-paying job than they're worried about raising the minimum wage. The minimum wage simply isn't a rallying cry.
This is coming from the party that's shouted down dissenting voices like Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter and other conservatives. This is coming from the party whose activists blocked traffic (multiple times) on major Minnesota highways. That's rich.
What we need is a Democratic Party that is willing to listen to everyone and organize conversations that bring people together.
It's who we are. And it's how we take our country back.
Here's the truth: It isn't the Democrats' country anymore. Their contamination is pretty much restricted to areas of urban blight and college campuses. Finding Democrats in rural areas is as easy as finding capitalists in Vermont and Massachusetts.
Originally posted Tuesday, January 24, 2017, revised 26-Jan 10:08 AM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 24-Jan-17 11:18 PM
We need to remember that "blue collar" does not mean union member. You have correctly pointed out that union leaders often do not represent members views but the power to attract workers to join unions is at an all time low. While union leaders were cozying up to social progressives and supporting extremist views on social issues (e.g. gun control, animal rights, LGBTQ and deep ecology), the rank and file have been using the secret ballot and voting their values and ignoring their nominal leader's directives. With the emergence of enlightened management, workers in large numbers have rejected having a third party come between their employer and themselves.
As long as workers are treated fairly by their employer, they don't need a union and they will vote their self interest knowing that jobs are created by business, not by government fiat. The blue collar workers of today know what's best for them and know that the so called progressives stand in the way of job security and freedom.
Keith Ellison's prescription to what ails the Democratic Party might have worked in the 1900s but won't fly in the 21st Century.
Comment 2 by eric z at 25-Jan-17 01:55 PM
Rip 'em up tiger?
Have they created a high paying job for you?
Policy, like charity, begins at home.
Those home repairs you wrote of needing ... has Trump fixed the paycheck problem so others need not participate?
Come on, Gary. You are launching a boat Trump will sink; high paying jobs will not be coming from his administration, nor from Republican majorities in St. Paul.
So go for the jugular on jobs, consistently, up to four years from now; policy beginning at home and all.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Jan-17 10:13 AM
The environmentalists have killed jobs. That's a verifiable statement, Eric, because saving the environment isn't what they're about.
As for Trump fixing things, let's remember that he hasn't been in office a full week yet. Your grading curve seems a little unrealistic. He's president, not a magician. As for the jobs, they're coming. This president, unlike the last one, knows how to get the economy humming.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 27-Jan-17 06:52 PM
What Eric (and all progressives for that matter) seems to forget or not understand is that government doesn't create jobs. It creates policies that either allows business to thrive and the economy to grow or it creates policies that strangles business and kills the economy i.e. the Obama years.
