January 25-29, 2013
Jan 25 03:27 Cigarette taxes, revenue shortfalls and big tax increases Jan 25 09:57 How Gov. Dayton's cigarette tax undermines retailers Jan 25 12:47 President Obama's constitutional crisis Jan 27 17:49 Feinstein's liberal elitism vs. the Contract With America Jan 27 23:57 Dayton on KSTP: GOP wouldn't tell me what spending they'd cut Jan 28 22:35 Making sense of Gov. Dayton's tax proposals Jan 29 06:51 Gov. Dayton, Rep. Lenczewski vs. Sen. Bakk Jan 29 13:12 Why Kirsten Powers is my favorite liberal Jan 29 14:02 Fair share: the entrepreneurs' definition vs. the ABM/DFL definition
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Cigarette taxes, revenue shortfalls and big tax increases
Gov. Dayton didn't tell Minnesotans the truth when he said "These are just common-sense changes that are going to benefit the vast majority of people" in talking about his tax proposals. They don't bear any resemblance to reality.
For instance, Gov. Dayton's plan to raise cigarette taxes by 94 cents a pack won't generate the revenues he's predicting. In fact, it's likely to be a big bonus to Indian reservations and towns bordering Minnesota.
Why does Gov. Dayton think that a smmoker living in Chanhassen wouldn't drive to Mystic Lake and buy their cigarettes?
There's even imperical evidence that this doesn't work :
In 2009, Washington, D.C. raised its cigarette tax from $2.00 to $2.50 per pack. The District projected the new tax would generate $45 million in revenue, about 20 percent above 2009 levels. Instead, revenues came in $12 million below projections and $4.2 million lower than before the tax was imposed. Similarly, New Jersey reported a $52 million shortfall in tobacco tax revenues after it raised its cigarette tax by 17.5 cents in 2007. Due to these declining revenues, states often turn to broad-based tax increases to pay for an overspending problem. A recent NTU study also showed that 41 of 59 state tobacco tax increases from 2001-2006 were followed by more expansive tax increases within two years, as states attempted to make up for tobacco revenue that never appeared.
Based on these statistics, it's pretty apparent that cigarette tax increases fail, which leads to higher tax rates later to make up for the increased spending that the cigarette taxes were proposed to pay for. That isn't the only proof that cigarette tax increases don't work. Here's more proof :
A 2009 study commissioned by the Minnesota Department of Revenue pointed out significant evidence of tobacco tax evasion after the state's last cigarette tax increases in 2005 and 2006. Should Gov. Mark Dayton's proposed 94 cent per pack cigarette tax increase succeed, it is likely that the state will see a large revenue shortfall due to smokers shifting their consumption across state lines, to the Internet, or to illicit black market tobacco.
It's totally predictable that changes in taxation rates changes behavior. Though Gov. Dayton and Speaker Thissen won't willingly admit it, that's a verifiable fact. That Minnesota Department of Revenue study is proof of that.
What's worst about Gov. Dayton's proposal is that he's a hypocrite :
Mark Dayton: Well, I'd say most of what we've talked about today in terms of you know much of what we've talked about today in terms of DNR, in terms of what we've just talked about of preventing the invasion of invasive species, and what we talked about in terms of resource management, public acquisition and the like, involves a commitment of public resources. And I've talked about specifically how to raise those revenues, Mr. Horner, by making the richest Minnesotans, people individuals with income over $150,000, and joint filers with income of almost $175,000 pay a little more in taxes, and millionaires paying more in taxes which you said last night on Almanac you're opposed, millionaires paying more in taxes in this state. And you're instead in favor of you know extending the sales tax to clothing, extremely regressive. And also in response to Almanac, you're in favor of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, another regressive tax. So the difference between us is I want to raise taxes on the rich, and you want to raise taxes on sportsmen and women and and middle income working families.
That's interesting. In 2010, Gov. Dayton criticized Tom Horner for supporting the same regressive tax that he's proposing in his budget.
In addition to not being particularly astute on tax policy, Gov. Dayton apparently isn't particularly honest about his taxation policies, either.
Gov. Dayton needs to put aside his counterproductive tax policies and focus on things that actually work.
Tags: Minnesota Department of Revenue , Underground Economy , Mark Dayton , Paul Thissen , Tax Increases , Cigarette Tax , Jordan , Mystic Lake , Hastings , Hudson, WI , Moorhead , Fargo, ND
Posted Friday, January 25, 2013 8:34 AM
Comment 1 by Nick at 25-Jan-13 11:07 AM
The state of NY has an astonishing $4.35 tax on a pack of cigarettes while Missouri has a mere $0.17 tax on pack of cigarettes. Price of a pack of cigarettes in NYC is an outrageous $11.00 per pack. There is a huge black market in NY since the price of cigarettes are really high.
Remember that the infamous Health Impact Fee that Pawlenty signed into law was supposed to raise an extra $178 million in tax revenue, yet it fell way short of projections, raising only a paltry $4 million more in tax revenue. So why does Dayton want to do the same especially when the extra revenues from the tax increase fall way short of projections?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Jan-13 12:11 PM
Nick, You're looking at this through the wrong lens. It isn't about raising revenues. It isn't about economic principles. It's about being wedded to a failed ideology.
The ACA will fail fairly quickly. That didn't matter to Obama, Reid & Pelosi because progressives had practically been peeing in their pants for a century to pass universal health care. They wanted that that badly because they craved the control over people's lives through the most fundamental things.
It's all about the control.
How Gov. Dayton's cigarette tax undermines retailers
I referenced this study in my post about Gov. Dayton's proposed cigarette tax increase because it illustrates how counterproductive Gov. Dayton's proposed cigarette tax increase is:
A 2009 study commissioned by the Minnesota Department of Revenue pointed out significant evidence of tobacco tax evasion after the state's last cigarette tax increases in 2005 and 2006. Should Gov. Mark Dayton's proposed 94 cent per pack cigarette tax increase succeed, it is likely that the state will see a large revenue shortfall due to smokers shifting their consumption across state lines, to the Internet, or to illicit black market tobacco.
That's just the tip of the iceberg. These bullet points should get your attention immediately:
- After an effective 31.25 cent per pack increase from 2004 to 2005, the state's foregone revenue increased 66 percent , from $9.3 million to $15.5 million.
- After an effective 46.75 cent per pack increase from 2005 to 2006, the state's foregone revenue increased 103 percent , from $15.5 million to $31.5 million.
- The $31.5 million in revenue lost due to tax evasion in 2006 represented nearly 8 percent of Minnesota's total cigarette tax revenue.
- Gov. Dayton's proposed tax increase would be more than double the 2006 tax increase.
- The propensity to evade the cigarette tax was highest in areas bordering North Dakota, which currently has a significantly lower cigarette tax rate than Minnesota. Should Gov. Dayton's plan pass, South Dakota and Iowa will also have a lower rate than Minnesota.
Notice that increasing the cigarette tax doesn't trigger more people to quit smoking. It triggers them to avoid places that charge the higher tax rate. People living in Hastings, MN will simply drive across the river to Hudson, WI. People living in Duluth, MN, will drive to Superior, WI. People living in Jordan will drive to Mystic Lake to buy their cigarettes tax free.
The inescapable truth is that a proposed cigarette tax increase will hurt retailers like SuperAmerica and Holiday gas stations. It'll hurt licquor stores, too. It'll help Wisconsin retailers. It'll help the casinos, too.
Is that really the path Gov. Dayton wants to take Minnesota? Let's hope it isn't but let's admit that it's impossible to predict what's going on inside Gov. Dayton's brain.
This is important information, too:
Tobacco tax revenue is already declining; it will drop even more precipitously when consumers are given the incentive to buy outside the state. The Mackinac Institute has already noted that nearly 20 percent of cigarettes smoked in Minnesota are purchased elsewhere .
It appears as though the DFL budget is getting built on the premise that the cigarette tax will increase general fund revenues. The DFL is basing their spending on revenue that likely won't happen. What will the DFL do when (not if) the additional revenues aren't realized?
It's time for Gov. Dayton to stop hurting Minnesota retailers. It's time for him and the DFL to stop budgeting based on wishful thinking, not solid priorities.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Tax Increases , Cigarette Tax , Casinos , Wisconsin , North Dakota , Regressive Tax , Underground Economy , Foregone Revenues , Spending , Deficits , DFL
Posted Friday, January 25, 2013 9:57 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 25-Jan-13 04:13 PM
Gary:
Your post ignores the fact that Dayton and the Democrats don't see evidence like this. They think if they raise taxes 94 cents they will get lots of revenue, cause people to stop smoking, and harm no one economically.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 25-Jan-13 07:03 PM
Walter, regarding the taxes: they aren't that stupid. They're that driven by their failed ideology.
Comment 2 by Matt at 15-Jul-13 12:10 AM
Mystic Lake amazingly charges MORE than Mpls area convenience stores for Tobacco.
A pack of camels that cost you $5.25 on average pre-tax hike was $6 at Mystic. Now that $7 pack of Camels costs $8.50 at Mystic. They're completely shameless in their price gouging. Do NOT go to the Native Americans expecting to save money.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Jul-13 12:45 AM
If that's true, then they're the outlier. Grand Casino doesn't charge a cigarette tax.
President Obama's constitutional crisis
This morning, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a number of President Obama's recess appointments violated the US Constitution :
In a case freighted with major constitutional implications, a federal appeals court on Friday overturned President Obama's controversial recess appointments from last year, ruling he abused his powers and acted when the Senate was not actually in a recess.
The three-judge panel's ruling is a major blow to Mr. Obama. The judges ruled that the appointments Mr. Obama made to the National Labor Relations Board are illegal, and the board no longer has a quorum to operate.
But the ruling has even broader constitutional significance, with the judges arguing that the president's recess appointment powers don't apply to 'intrasession' appointments, those made when Congress has left town for a few days or weeks.
This wasn't a split decision. It was unanimous. President Obama's recess appointments to the NLRB aren't legitimate, thereby depriving that board of the quorum needed to make rulings.
The question now is whether President Obama will act as defiant as he usually acts. My bet is that he'll act defiant because he doesn't know any other way of acting. Another question left unanswered is whether the American people will express outrage over this president's indignation towards the US Constitution. Finally, will Democrats defend President Obama's extraconstitutional actions in their attempt to appease Big Labor?
I'm betting that President Obama will remain defiant. I'm betting that the American people won't express outrage that President Obama thinks that the Constitution and the laws don't apply to him. Finally, I'm betting that Democrats will defend President Obama's appointments because they're afraid of incurring Big Labor's wrath.
This is significant, too:
The judges signaled the power only applies after Congress has adjourned sine die, which is a legislative term of art that signals the end to a long work period. In modern times, it means the president could only use his powers when Congress quits business at the end of a year.
'The dearth of intrasession appointments in the years and decades following the ratification of the Constitution speaks far more impressively than the history of recent presidential exercise of a supposed power to make such appointments,' the judges wrote.
TRANSLATION: The patriots that crafted the Constitution had more respect for the Constitution than do today's politicians. I heartily agree.
Tags: Constitutional Crisis , President Obama , DC Circuit Court of Appeals , NLRB , Recess Appointments , Quorum , Sine Die , Big Labor , Politicians , Democrats , Founding Fathers , Patriots
Posted Friday, January 25, 2013 12:47 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 25-Jan-13 04:07 PM
I heard Jay Carney scream bloodly murder on the radio a couple of minutes ago about how this broke over 150 years of bi-partisan rule. Really? I thought the Democrats made sure when they controlled the Senate kept it from being in recess so Bush couldn't do any recess appointments.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 25-Jan-13 04:09 PM
Gary:
There won't be outrage because the media won't make it an issue. If it was a Republican who did this it will be major news and the Senate Democrats will highlight it the way they talked about six US attorneys being fired.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 26-Jan-13 08:29 AM
Question: Did the NLRB take any actions that must now be set aside because the body was illegal?
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 26-Jan-13 10:12 AM
A: 128 actions that will likely be thrown out, including some major 'victories' for Big Labor.
Feinstein's liberal elitism vs. the Contract With America
According to this Weekly Standard article , Dianne Feinstein's anti-Second Amendment bill would exempt government officials:
Not everyone will have to abide by Senator Dianne Feinstein's gun control bill. If the proposed legislation becomes law, government officials and others will be exempt.
"Mrs. Feinstein's measure would exempt more than 2,200 types of hunting and sporting rifles; guns manually operated by bolt, pump, lever or slide action; and weapons used by government officials, law enforcement and retired law enforcement personnel," the Washington Times reports.
In other words, the elitists have a right to protection but Main Street doesn't have the right to self-protection. That's typical elitist behavior. Compare that with 'evil' Newt Gingrich's Contract With America :
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress ;
Liberal elitists villify Speaker Gingrich and sing praises to Sen. Feinstein, which is odd considering the fact that Sen. Feinstein apparently thinks elitists like her are entitled to special treatment.
Why shouldn't Main Street Americans be entitled to self-protection with the weapons Sen. Feinstein wants to ban? Don't Main Street Americans contribute mightily to the health of this nation? Shouldn't they be entitled to the same protection as elitists like Sen. Feinstein?
I'd love hearing Sen. Feinstein argue against that argument.
Tags: Second Amendment , Dianne Feinstein , Assault Weapons Ban , Liberal Elitists , Do As I Say, Not As I Do , Liberalism , Contract With America , Newt Gingrich , TEA Party , Main Street
Posted Sunday, January 27, 2013 5:49 PM
No comments.
Dayton on KSTP: GOP wouldn't tell me what spending they'd cut
Sunday morning, I DVR'ed At Issue With Tom Hauser for the first time since the election. I'm glad I did, though not because I agreed with what I heard. The majority of the show was Hauser's interview of Gov. Dayton on his budget.
The dishonest things that Gov. Dayton said were insulting to thinking people. About 6 minutes into the show, Gov. Dayton said that "The GOP wouldn't tell me what spending I should cut."
First, I highlighted here how Gov. Dayton is cutting spending by $225,000,000 but raising taxes by $3,700,000,000. It's apparent that Gov. Dayton isn't interested in cutting spending. Neither is the DFL legislature. They can't afford it because they've got too many political allies to repay with taxpayers' money.
Next, it's insulting that Gov. Dayton would lie like that. The GOP legislature passed a budget complete with spending cuts and spending priorities. Gov. Dayton and the DFL didn't like that budget, which led to Gov. Dayton's veto of the legislature's budget.
If Gov. Dayton said that he disagreed with the GOP budget, everyone who paid attention to the budget fight would agree. Saying that Republicans didn't offer specific cuts in their omnibus bills is exceptionally dishonest.
Unfortunately, Gov. Dayton telling whoppers isn't surprising. It's disappointing but it isn't surprising.
Later in the interview, Hauser asked Gov. Dayton how he'd reconcile his sales tax and cigarette tax proposals with what he said on the campaign trail in 2010. Here's what Gov. Dayton said:
GOV. DAYTON: Well, if my tax proposal in 2011, which was no tax increase for sales or property or individuals, which would've raised taxes on the wealthiest 2% by 2 points, if that would've been adopted, we would have no deficit going into the next biennium. We would be able to pay off the school shift entirely.
That's nonsense. First, Gov. Dayton's initial tax increase proposal called for creating a top tax bracket of 10.95%, compared with the top tax bracket today of 7.85%. Next, Gov. Dayton's initial tax increase proposal included a 3% surcharge on income over $1,000,000 a year.
Most importantly, Gov. Dayton didn't explain why raising the sales and cigarette taxes were taxes against workers in 2010 but it's ok to raise them now.
The truth is that Gov. Dayton, like DFL legislators, loves all tax increases. He just loves confiscatory income tax increases on "the rich" most of all.
Finally, the GOP legislature passed a bill that would've paid off the school shift last year. Gov. Dayton vetoed it. This year, Dr. Cassellius, his Education commissioner, admitted in testimony that Gov. Dayton's education budget wouldn't pay off the school shift until 2017.
I repeat. Gov. Dayton will raise the income tax and the cigarette tax while applying the sales tax to dozens of things it doesn't apply to now but he won't pay off the school shift until 2017. That's several political lifetimes from now.
That's why Gov. Dayton's policies are totally unacceptable for Main Street Minnesota.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Tax Increases , Budget , Deficits , School Shift , Tax The Rich , Sales Tax , Cigarette Tax , DFL
Originally posted Sunday, January 27, 2013, revised 28-Jan 12:01 AM
Comment 1 by Speed Gibson at 28-Jan-13 01:37 PM
I saw this and Almanac's interview, just recitation (regurgitation?) of the same few talking points, no substance, just some crap about fairness and a lot of false information as you noted. What he proposes is actually even more "regressive" than current law. Worse, it takes dead aim at jobs, draining capital from job creators (4th bracket), raising costs with new taxes, and don't forget the minimum wage increase. Meanwhile, we as customers will have less to spend in those businesses.
George Draper Dayton must be spinning in his grave.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 28-Jan-13 06:58 PM
Gary:
The fact that the man doesn't want to do spending cuts (after all in the last budget he proposed more spending) shows he doesn't care. How about we spent $36 billion last year lets try to spend just $36 billion.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 28-Jan-13 09:51 PM
Rex, the worst part of Gov. Dayton's chanting points regurgitation is that it isn't about economic principles, which I'm writing about Tuesday am. It's about fairness, as you noted. That's drivel trying to pass as policy.
Walter, here's something frightening to think about. The last budget that TPaw signed was for $30.171 billion. When Gov. Dayton signs this budget, it'll spend almost $40 billion.
That's frightening because it means Gov. Dayton will have increased spending by 33% in 4 years.
Here's something else that's frightening: if the budget passed during Perpich's last term in office was adjusted for population growth & inflation, the budget this legislature would pass would be less than $25 billion.
Comment 4 by Nick at 28-Jan-13 10:50 PM
When will the legislature stand up to the higher education bureaucrats and freeze all the cost of tuition that students have to pay to the universities?
Making sense of Gov. Dayton's tax proposals
During his interview with KSTP political director Tom Hauser, Gov. Dayton made an interesting statement that offers insight into how the DFL thinks of the tax system. Here's what Gov. Dayton said that caught my attention:
GOV. DAYTON: Well, I campaigned on making our tax system fairer, raising taxes on the wealthiest who aren't paying their fair share and the Republican-led legislature rejected that so we're still back at square zero.
Hauser had questioned Gov. Dayton about his changing opinion on raising the cigarette tax, considering the fact that he'd criticized Tom Horner for proposing a change in the sales tax. Here's what Candidate Dayton said about Horner's proposed tax increases :
...you're in favor of raising taxes on alcohol and cigarettes, another regressive tax. So the difference between us is I want to raise taxes on the rich, and you want to raise taxes on sportsmen and women and and middle income working families.
That's an accurate appraisal of what Horner's tax would do. Whether it's a sales tax or it's a sin tax, it's regressive, hitting "middle income working families."
Apparently, Gov. Dayton thinks it's ok to raise regressive taxes that hit "middle income working families" when he proposes it. He's only critical of others raising regressive taxes.
That isn't logic. That's anti-logical, which fits with Gov. Dayton's type of thinking.
Later, Gov. Dayton had this exchange with Tom Hauser:
HAUSER: The new income tax increase is for singles making more than $150,000 a year and couples making more than $250,000. Do you consider that rich?
GOV. DAYTON: Well, it would put those individuals and couples into the top 2% of wage earners in Minnesota. Whether that's wealthy or not, it's up to their individual circumstances. A family with 4 children and elderly parents to take care of, those dollars are real. Everyone's money is real.
HIGHLIGHT: It's interesting that Gov. Dayton immediately repeated the DFL/ABM/media praetorian guard's (pardon the repetition) chanting point of the rich not paying their fair share.
Later, when Hauser questioned him if some families making $250,000 a year weren't rich, Gov. Dayton admitted that "a family with 4 kids and elderly parents to take care of" might fit into the DFL's definition of middle class.
The explanation for that is simple. DFL-think is conditioned on the notion that people doing well must've stiffed "working families." Only when caught in these types of situations does the DFL admit that people who make 6-figure salaries are part of the middle class. That's the only time they'll admit that these aren't greedy people who won't "pay their fair share." That's just their reflexive spin.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Chanting Points , ABM , Agenda Media , Tax The Rich , Tax Increases , Middle Class , Working Families , Middle Class Squeeze , Deficits , DFL
Posted Monday, January 28, 2013 10:35 PM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton, Rep. Lenczewski vs. Sen. Bakk
In 2009, Rep. Ann Lenczewski, then as now the House Tax Committee Chair, introduced sweeping tax reform . Here's what she told MPR about her proposal:
'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.
Here's an itemized list of the tax increases included in Rep. Lenczewski's bill:
- Cigarette Tax: $204 million tax increase
- Alcohol Taxes: $209.1 million tax increase
- Boats, ATVs & Snowmobiles: $10.5 million tax increase
- iTunes Tax: $3.17 million tax increase
- Gift Tax: $20.6 million tax increase
Compare that with Gov. Dayton's tax proposal. Gov. Dayton is proposing a major cigarette tax increase and a major change in the sales tax system. Here's what Sen. Bakk said about the alcohol tax increase at the time:
Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said eliminating the current mortgage interest deduction could hurt Minnesota's high rate of home ownership and higher alcohol taxes would drive some liquor shoppers across the Wisconsin border.
Whether we're talking about raising the alcohol tax or the cigarette tax, the outcome is predictable. People will change their shopping habits to avoid the additional tax. That isn't opinion. That's verifiable fact. In state after state where the cigarette tax was increased, revenues dropped because people drove to a state where the tax was cheaper.
What's telling is that Sen. Bakk, who thinks he represents the metro suburbs instead of the official district he was elected to, isn't saying a thing about Gov. Dayton's tax increases. Presumably, he knows better than to cross the ABM wing of the DFL.
Sen. Bakk was right in 2009. That's what makes his silence this year that much more deafening.
Posted Tuesday, January 29, 2013 6:51 AM
Comment 1 by Nick at 29-Jan-13 01:00 PM
The DFLers should legalize sunday alcohol sales (only up to 3.2 Alcohol By Weight is currently allowed on Sunday) instead of raising taxes on alcohol. And yes, I'm sick of those liquor store owners that want a day off on Sunday. No one is going to force those liquor store owners to open on Sunday. By the way, Minnesota is only of one of 12 states in the country to ban hard liquor sales and one of only five to ban wine sales on Sunday. Sunday Alcohol Sales bans are a relic of when Prohibition just ended and it just doesn't make sense in the 21st century economy.
"Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said eliminating the current mortgage interest deduction could hurt Minnesota's high rate of home ownership and higher alcohol taxes would drive some liquor shoppers across the Wisconsin border."
For the second part of the sentence, it won't be just some, but many! Most of MN's population lives in the Minneapolis-St. Paul and Duluth Metropolitan Statistical Areas. Each area in both MSA's are an hour or less away driving to Wisconsin. This means that if the people that live in these areas want to buy alcohol on Sunday and will also do so if the alcohol taxes are raised. They will drive to Wisconsin not just to buy alcohol, but also gasoline and groceries. An increase in the alcohol taxes will affect everyone except for the alcoholics, since alcoholics will drink no matter what the price of alcohol is.
Why Kirsten Powers is my favorite liberal
Kirsten Powers' op-ed exemplifies why she's my favorite liberal:
In a recent interview with The New Republic, President Obama was back to his grousing about the one television news outlet in America that won't fall in line and treat him as emperor. Discussing breaking Washington's partisan gridlock, the president told TNR,"If a Republican member of Congress is not punished on Fox News...for working with a Democrat on a bill of common interest, then you'll see more of them doing it."
Alas, the president loves to whine about the media meanies at Fox News. To him, these are not people trying to do their jobs. No, they are out to get him. What other motive could a journalist have in holding a president accountable? Why oh why do Ed Henry and Chris Wallace insist on asking hard questions? Make them stop!
President Obama has gotten adulation from the Agenda Media since before he'd been elected to the Senate. Books have been written about the media's slobbering love affair with President Obama. Still, that isn't enough for the messiah.
Anything less than constant adoration isn't acceptable with this administration.
Here's a warning from Ms. Powers that liberals should pay attention to:
Whether you are liberal or conservative, libertarian, moderate or politically agnostic, everyone should be concerned when leaders of our government believe they can intentionally try to delegitimize a news organization they don't like.
In fact, if you are a liberal, as I am, you should be the most offended, as liberalism is founded on the idea of cherishing dissent and an inviolable right to freedom of expression.
That more liberals aren't calling out the White House for this outrageous behavior tells you something about the state of liberalism in America today.
That's the same message being sent by FIRE President Greg Lukianoff. Mr. Lukianoff is a proud liberal who's fought the good fight against campus censorship. Whether it's fascists implementing 'speech codes' or whether it's the fascist staff in the White House, the result is the same: censorship.
There's no such thing as acceptable censorship.
This is particularly appalling information:
What the Obama administration is doing, and what liberals are funding at MMFA is beyond chilling - it's a deep freeze.
On the heels of Dunn's attack on Fox, Brock wrote a letter to progressive organizations bragging about the U.S. government trashing a news organization: 'In recent days, a new level of scrutiny has been directed toward Fox News, in no small part due to statements from the White House, and from Media Matters, challenging its standing as a news organization.'Point of order: who put Media Matters in charge of determining what is and isn't a news operation?
A Media Matters memo found its way into the public domain and if you care at all about decency and freedom of the press, it will make you throw up. If you like McCarthyism, it's right up your alley. It details to liberal donors how they have plans to assemble opposition research on Fox News employees.
It complains of the 'pervasive unwillingness among members of the media to officially kick Fox News to the curb of the press club' and outlines how they are going to change that through targeting elite media figures and turning them against Fox. They say they want to set up a legal fund to sue (harass) conservatives for any 'slanderous' comments they make about progressives on air. They actually cite one of the best journalists around, Jake Tapper, as a problem because he questioned the White House about calling a news outlet 'illegitimate.' Tapper can see the obvious: if the White House can call one news outlet illegitimate for asking tough questions, then guess who is next? Anyone.
Whether it's this administration, MMFA or other hardline fascist/progressive organizations (think ABM in Minnesota or ProgressNow nationally), the goal is the same: to stop informed debate.
That's why I'll proudly join with Kirsten Powers and Greg Lukianoff in fighting against the tyranny of censorship.
Posted Tuesday, January 29, 2013 1:12 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 30-Jan-13 04:52 PM
Gary:
Is there one mainstream reporter who will ever ask Obama, Mr. President a financial expert will tell a family spending $37,000 a year with income of just $25,000 to cut their expenses by $12,000 a year. So why won't you admit that we have to cut spending $1.20 trillion a year to get the budget balanced?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Fair share: the entrepreneurs' definition vs. the ABM/DFL definition
When KSTP Political Director Tom Hauser asked Gov. Dayton about Gov. Dayton's tax increase proposal, Gov. Dayton reflexively regurgitated the ABM/DFL Chanting Point that the rich weren't paying their fair share. It isn't acceptable any more to have the fascists within the DFL and ABM to define fair share. It's time to challenge their chanting points on this.
First, it's insulting to think that the DFL thinks some members of the MAPE or AFSCME are paying their fair share. They're sucking taxes from productive members of the private sector. In far too many instances, these people are political cronies of high-ranking officials at a university or department commissioner or do-nothing council. They often are put in do-nothing jobs like PR director of a tiny office that nobody's heard of before. Sometimes they're hired to be a "legislative liaison" in the MPCA or the BCA. Legislative liaison is a euphemism for taxpayer-funded pro-big-government lobbyist .
People in these position frequently draw salaries of $75,000-$150,000 but the DFL thinks that they're actually contributing something meaningful to Minnesota's taxpayers. I'm still waiting to hear the DFL's/ABM's explanation as to what these millstones contribute to Minnesota's GDP or competitiveness.
Compare that with entrepreneurs. The first 5-10 years they're in business, they frequently work from sunrise until midnight, sometimes later. They employ anywhere from 10-40 people if it's a small business. If it's a mid-size business like Quad Graphics, they employ 250+ people, all of whom have been offered quality health insurance. With Quad Graphics, the company pays a significant portion of the health insurance premium.
It's easy to quantify these companies' contributions towards a fiscally healthy Minnesota.
Next, the ABM/DFL definition of paying their fair share is based solely on the government's take of these entrepreneurs' profits. It's never defined by anything other than contributing to bigger government. The entrepreneurs' definition of paying their fair share is frequently measured by how families' lives are improved through lower-priced goods and services, inventions and innovations that make like easier or through improving profits because they're producing things of value.
If a pollster were to ask which is the more sensible definition of paying their fair share, there's little question that the people would pick the entrepreneurs' definition over the ABM/DFL definition of fair share.
Posted Tuesday, January 29, 2013 2:02 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 30-Jan-13 04:48 PM
Gary:
I'm remembered one complaint I made to the Star Tribune a couple of years ago when Lou Gelfand was their reader rep. The Tribune put out a poll showing support for a tax increase and they quoted a person who said they were Republican supporting it because the rich should pay their fair share. The person happen to say that a rich person should be paying 25% maximum in taxes.
I called up and pointed out that the reporter should've already caught and talked about how that person pays more then 30% federal taxes, something like 7% state taxes, sales tax, social security taxes, etc.
Lou Gelfand I gave lots of grief to Star Tribune management because he used his column that week to talk about a dog being rescued.
The point is during all of this talk in 2012 and 2013 about the rich paying their fair share do you see that talked about the way I just did.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
