January 29-31, 2011
Jan 29 19:20 It's Impossible!!! Jan 29 23:27 DFL, Media vs. Mainstreet Minnesota...AGAIN Jan 30 11:56 INDICTMENT: Voter Fraud Jan 30 16:11 King's Vote: What's With the Uproar??? Jan 31 00:15 Words Don't Mean Anything Jan 31 09:42 I Didn't Expect the Lefties to Grasp This Jan 31 16:51 Will Joint Committee Hearing Have Desired Impact? Jan 31 22:16 Dead Man Walking?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
It's Impossible!!!
The message coming from the DFL is that cutting spending is impossible. Take this article /spin piece in the WCTrib. The entire things feels like a giant public 'we can't cut because those cuts will have impacts.'
Rep. Andrew Falk, DFL-Murdock, said in a written statement that the bill 'hop-scotched through the committee process with little opportunity for public input' and was passed 'even though legislators didn't fully understand the impact it will have on our schools, communities and economy.'
Let's remember the Misery Tour of 2009 . Back then, we were told one endless tale of woe after another. We also know that alot of these tales of woe were manufactured at the request of DFL leadership:
We would ask you to focus your comments on the impact of the Governor's budget including what is the harm to your area of government or program. Please be as precise as possible using facts such as number of lay offs, increases in property taxes, cuts in services, increases in tuition, elimination of programs.
Testimony isn't worth much if it's people repeating what their lobbyist told them to say. Anyone that thinks EdMinn isn't coaching the testifiers at Sondra Erickson's Education Reform committee is kidding themselves. Look what they did when Sen. Thompson tried contacting teachers in his district. Don Sinner sent each of the teachers scripted answers so they'd be singing from the approved EdMinn hymnal rather than letting the teachers speak for themselves.
This budget session will be painful. Some difficult decisions will have to be made. Thanks to the screwed up economy, which President Obama hasn't fixed with his trillion dollar stimulus, some difficult decisions will have to be made.
Thankfully, my representative King Banaian is advocating for, and is finding substantial support for, intelligent budgeting in the form of priority-based budgeting. Thanks to King's priority-based budgeting system, people will have to explain why the money they're requesting is essential.
Legislators like Rep. Falk have operated under the premise of government is entitled to full funding. Legislators like Rep. Banaian approach funding from the standpoint that people must prove why the money shouldn't stay with the taxpayers who earned it in the first place.
There will be a substantial fight this session over the competing philosophies. It's a fight the DFL should expect to lose. They'll lose the fight because, despite their massive media arsenal and their willingness to spin reality, their position isn't the majority opinion.
That's why the DFL's veto-proof majority in the Senate turned into a GOP majority and why the DFL's supermajority in the House turned into a GOP majority.
Let's hope the DFL, led by Gov. Dayton, doesn't unnecessarily plunge us into a special session or government shutdown. Let's hope, instead, that they come to their senses and side with the majority of Minnesotans in cutting spending in a rational way.
Posted Saturday, January 29, 2011 7:20 PM
No comments.
DFL, Media vs. Mainstreet Minnesota...AGAIN
I can repeat the DFL's mantra in my sleep. In fact, I might've without knowing. To the beginning political activists reading this, just beware that the DFL has a ready-made set of chanting points for each issue each session. What's really interesting is that their chanting points have suddenly drifted into the media's vocabulary. In this case, they've infiltrated the WCTrib's vocabulary :
Some legislators sponsoring a voter identification bill appear to be promoting a solution that is looking for a problem, as well as attempting to create another expensive state mandate.
Republican legislators Wednesday introduced a bill that would require Minnesotans to show a driver's photo ID, state-issued photo ID or a tribal-issued ID that would be instantly scanned to determine if the voter was eligible to vote and was attempting to vote in the correct precinct.
The DFL and their accomplices in the media have been lying to people by saying that Photo ID is "a solution that is looking for a problem." Had they done their research, they'd know that voter fraud exists and that it's been attempted in the state as recently as this October :
On Friday, October 30, 2010, a member of the Minnesota Freedom Council witnessed apparent voter fraud occurring at the Crow Wing County Courthouse in Brainerd, Minnesota. Upwards of 100 residents from a local group home for mentally disadvantaged individuals were brought into the County Courthouse to cast absentee ballots. The witness reported that supervisors were telling voters to cast a straight Democratic ticket. There was even a report of a voter prematurely leaving the voting both and a supervisor casting the ballot for the voter. Essentially, the people in-charge were taking advantage of the mentally disabled in order to bolster the vote for their candidates of choice. These individuals involved can be charged with a felony under Minnesota election laws.
The DFL insists that, because Minnesota's election laws are clearly written, there can be no fraud. That's a non sequitur argument; one has nothing to do with the other.
It's true that Minnesota's election laws are clearly written. I've written that they're the gold standard that every state's election laws should be modeled. Saying, though, that that guarantees clean elections doesn't fit.
- Will clearly written election laws prevent felons from voting? They didn't in 2008.
- Will clearly written election laws prevent a national organization from putting together a plan to have out-of-state 'volunteers' meet up with Minnesotans who would vouch for them? It didn't in 2004.
- Will clearly written election laws guarantee that a corrupt SecState will clean the registered voter lists? It didn't in 2008.
That isn't the only chanting point the DFL trots out when talking about Photo ID. Here's another part of their chanting points:
In addition, this proposal would simply make it harder for Minnesotans to vote, especially elderly, disabled, young and minority voters.
Only liberals would argue that getting a photo ID card is a terrible burden on anyone. By that argument, having to travel 6 blocks on a snowy day to vote would be a terrible imposition according to the DFL. Yes, there will be a minimal effort required to get these photo ID's but can we say it's a terrible, insurmountable burden which will lead to lower voter turnout? Based on real evidence from Indiana, the answer is a resounding NO!!!
This statement is particularly irritating:
Minnesota should be encouraging voters to participate in the voting process, not making it harder and more difficult to vote.
That statement implies that Minnesota's current system is difficult. It isn't . This year, I voted midmorning at my precinct. From the time I left the house, walked 5 blocks to the polling station and cast my vote, I'd consumed all of about 10 minutes. Let's remember that I'm not a fast walker.
This statement must be smacked down ASAP:
The bill sponsors Wednesday would not estimate the cost of this bill. Some media reports indicate the cost would be between $20 million and $40 million. Even at the lower estimate, the cost would be significant to local government.
I contacted Rep. Kiffmeyer's office about that specific provision. Here's Rep. Kiffmeyer's reply :
Kiffmeyer said there are few drawbacks to using an electronic system. She said it is a 'cost-neutral' system. While there is an upfront cost for the equipment, it is offset by money saved by counties in postal verification and data entry costs.
What's more, election officials like the system:
The city of Minnetonka used this kind of system in the 2010 election in a pilot program that was hailed as success.
'Election workers at all levels responded favorably. It truly made everyone's job easier and it resulted in improved voter satisfaction ,' said David Maeda, city clerk for Minnetonka, said at the time. 'This pilot proved to us that we can process voters easily and accurately on Election Day.'
The WCTrib then trotted out the 'Republicans are hypocrites" mantra:
Many members of the Legislature's Republican majority campaigned on a promise to reduce state mandates and lower the cost of government in Minnesota. However, one of their first steps is to propose a new state mandate where the cost is more than $500,000 per case of voter fraud.
I stayed tuned to alot of races this cycle but I don't recall any candidates who campaigned on the rallying cry of reducing state mandates. That said, I know most candidates like reducing mandates. This paragraph is just false:
The worst part of this proposal is it would make the voting process harder and discourage many voters from voting. Minnesota has traditionally had high voter participation and this proposal would only decrease voter participation.
According to Mr. Maeda, things went smoother in Minnetonka. It made the election officials' jobs easier and it made voting a breeze. In other words, the WCTrib's editorial is BS . If the DFL and their media accomplices want to argue that we shouldn't make voting easier and make it more difficult for voter fraud, I'll welcome them making that argument.
It's important to remember that this wasn't written by a named DFL activist. It was written by the WCTrib editorial staff. While it's apparent that they're DFL activists, it isn't accurate to say that they attached their names to this flimsy, poorly researched document. Finally, let's finish with this misstatement:
This Republican proposal is a high-cost solution looking to address a minimal problem solely for the political purpose of preventing Minnesotans from voting.
While it's true that the initial cost is substantial, it's for something that should be one of Minnesota's highest priorities, namely election integrity. If it prevents voter fraud, which it will, while making the process smoother for election officials while getting high grades from voters, I'd argue that it's a system worth implementing.
If the DFL wants to argue in a post-ACORN world that voter registration fraud and voter fraud don't exist, that's their option. If Gov. Dayton wants to stick up for his corrupt allies by vetoing this bill, that's his option.
Just don't expect Minnesota voters to not take those decisions out on DFL legislators in 2012 or on Gov. Dayton in 2014.
Finally, this is another instance of the DFL siding with their special interest allies instead of siding with Minnesotans. The DFL shouldn't think Minnesotans won't notice. They'll notice because I'll remind them that the DFL sided with the special interests instead of with 70+ percent of Minnesotans. (That's how popular Photo ID is.)
Posted Saturday, January 29, 2011 11:27 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 30-Jan-11 07:11 AM
I think I've found the problem:
"...a new state mandate where the cost is more than $500,000 per case of voter fraud."
That should read REPORTED voter fraud. Actual voter fraud probably numbered in the tens of thousands of cases, and the cost of fixing it pales in comparison to the cost of allowing voter fraud to succeed and putting fraudsters in office. In one executive order, Mark Dayton has spent 20 times the cost of this bill.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-11 11:39 AM
I agree.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 30-Jan-11 07:44 AM
And whenever the DFL says we want to "make it harder for people to vote" we should say "Of COURSE we want to make it harder for felons, non-citizens, dead people, double-voters and non-existent people to vote. Don't you?"
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-11 11:38 AM
WRONG. We should say that we're all about making it easy for legal voters to vote. Some might consider that semantics but it's important because this wording has a more positive tone to it.
Once you've opened with that positive-sounding message, THEN you can go into the less positive aspects.
Comment 3 by Mary at 30-Jan-11 01:30 PM
I have my doubts about certain segments of the population not having a photo ID card since now you are told by Minute Clinic you must present one before you can get a flu shot and also by other medical facilities when you call to schedule appointments for tests or procedures. My guess is that because of this, most legal residents of MN and the U.S. have photo ID. The tricky part is, does it indicate citizenship? And does it indicate whether they are allowed to vote (i.e. felons or others who have had voting priviledges removed)?
INDICTMENT: Voter Fraud
Earlier tonight, I wrote about the WCTrib's DFL Chanting Points editorial . In their in-kind campaign contribution to the DFL (just kidding...sorta), they said that voter fraud isn't a problem:
Some legislators sponsoring a voter identification bill appear to be promoting a solution that is looking for a problem, as well as attempting to create another expensive state mandate.
Solution, meet problem :
After being brought into a Rensselaer County courtroom in handcuffs, Councilman Michael LoPorto and Democratic Election Commissioner Edward McDonough pleaded not guilty Friday to a combined 116 felony counts alleging they falsified dozens of absentee votes.
The men were released on their own recognizance after being arraigned on an indictment handed up Friday morning. It charges McDonough, 47, with 38 counts of second-degree forgery and 36 counts of second-degree possession of a forged instrument; LoPorto, 58, faces 13 second-degree forgery counts and 29 counts of second-degree possession of a forged instrument.
The DFL chanting points will undoubtedly change to 'That's got nothing to do with Minnesota.' They're right, it doesn't...yet. With voter fraud indictments popping up all over the United States, do we really want to wait until after there's a major voter fraud scandal? I'd also ask the DFL if they think corrupt organizations wouldn't attempt to take advantage of Minnesota's vouching system to tip the scales in close races.
The charges against them surround some 50 voters who were allegedly deprived of their vote in the Sept. 15, 2009 Working Families Party primary election in Troy. Many were residents of the city's housing projects.
In case the name Working Families Party doesn't ring a bell, Here's a little refresher :
The Working Families Party (WFP) is a minor political party in the United States founded in New York in 1998. There are "sister" parties to the New York WFP in Connecticut, Massachusetts, South Carolina, Delaware, Vermont and Oregon, but there is as yet no national WFP. It seems likely that the state WFPs will form a federation of sorts before 2012, but nothing definitive has been announced.
New York's Working Families Party was first organized in 1998 by a coalition of labor unions, ACORN and other community organizations, members of the now-inactive national New Party, and a variety of public interest groups such as Citizen Action of New York. The party blends a culture of political organizing with unionism, 1960s idealism, and tactical pragmatism. The party's main issue concerns are jobs, health care, education and energy/environment. It has usually cross-endorsed Democratic or Republican candidates through fusion voting, but has occasionally run its own candidates.
In other words, whether you call them ACORN or something else, whether they're operating in New York or Nevada, Seattle or St. Louis, the script remains the same. The playbook doesn't change.
Corruption is corruption and these guys are experts at it.
If the WCTrib and the DFL (PTR) want to argue that this couldn't happen in Minnesota, I welcome them making that argument. That's a fight I'll take anytime.
Frankly, I'm betting that most nonideological people wouldn't buy into the DFL's 'Minnesotans aren't corrupt' argument. Everyone breathing is corruptible. I'll grant the DFL that most of their members aren't this corrupt:
At a press conference later Friday, Special Prosecutor Trey Smith said many of the alleged victims are the county's 'less fortunate.' Many do not speak English well, he said, while one is deaf and can communicate only in sign language.
'Those who believed that the victims would never complain about the misappropriation of their voting rights were wrong,' Smith said. 'The victims spoke, and now the grand jury has spoken with this indictment.'
At least 16 of those voters testified before the grand jury, which was terminated Friday by Pulver.
That's pretty despicable. Disenfranchising "the county's 'less fortunate'" is beyond contemptible. If these officials are convicted, I'd hope they'd get sent to prison for the maximum. And I'd hope the maximum was 20+ years.
This also shows that the far left doesn't give a damn about the least fortunate in society. If they cared, they wouldn't have disenfranchised them just to win a primary election. By disenfranchising the downtrodden, the machine sent a clear signal that corruption is part of their handbook if it's done 'for the greater good'.
Smith brought the State Police into the case on Oct. 14, 2009 and worked closely with investigators John Ogden and Albro Fancher to interview voters, witnesses and suspects before eventually taking that evidence to a grand jury beginning on Dec. 7.
Smith secured a court order to obtain DNA samples from LoPorto, McDonough and seven others: Council President Clement Campana; Councilmen Gary Galuski, Kevin McGrath and John Brown City Clerk William McInerney; former Troy Housing Authority clerk Anthony DeFiglio and operative Daniel Brown, the councilman's brother.
This is pretty widespread corruption. If the DFL wants to argue that ABM is willing to lie without hesitating but isn't willing to engage in other forms of corruption, good luck with that.
This isn't an indictment against the average rank-and-file DFL activist. It's just an indictment against the corrupt machine wing of the DFL.
Posted Sunday, January 30, 2011 11:56 AM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 30-Jan-11 12:12 PM
What a sad life it must be to sit in ones pajamas and hatch conspiracy theories about opposition boogeymen!
WATCH OUT, their coming to get you... BOO!
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-11 01:59 PM
What a sad life it is for a government school teacher to be totally devoid of critical thinking skills. They should fire your ass & get a real teacher in there. I feel sorry for the kids.
Comment 2 by Mary at 30-Jan-11 01:13 PM
Conspiracy theories? I had a former co-worker who is a legal resident of the U.S. here on a green card who just after the Nov., 2008 election told me there is voter fraud going on in MN. At a party in Sept., 2008, he overheard 6 people talking about the up coming presidential election. He knew them to all be non-citizens of the U.S. They were telling another immigrant how "easy it is" to same day register to vote in MN and encouraged that person to do so and vote for Barack Obama. When he interjected himself into the conversation and told them this was wrong, he was told "they don't do anything about it here" and some of them had already voted in several MN elections. Now you tell me, if my friend ran into 6 illegal voters in one location, HOW MANY MORE ARE OUT THERE DOING THE SAME THING!!??
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-11 02:19 PM
In 2009, KSTP investigative reporter Mark Alvarez interviewed SecState Ritchie after finding a number of absentee ballots that didn't have signatures on the them. Some of the ballots were accepted, others were rejected.
Minnesota Elecgtion 203B.121 subd 2. part b1-3 states:
The members of the ballot board shall mark the return envelope 'Accepted' and initial or sign
the return envelope below the word 'Accepted' if a majority of the members of the ballot board
examining the envelope are satisfied that:
(1) the voter's name and address on the return envelope are the same as the information provided
on the absentee ballot application;
(2) the voter signed the certification on the envelope;
(3) the voter's Minnesota driver's license, state identification number, or the last four digits of the
voter's Social Security number are the same as the number provided on the voter's application for ballots.
If the number does not match the number as submitted on the applicationMr. Ritchie wasn't the least bit interested in this information. That's why I've said from the outset that Mr. Ritchie was corrupt. I further said that it's impossible to find things that you refuse to look for. Mr. Ritchie is caught on film showing that he isn't the least bit interested in finding corruption. Why should thinking people trust him when he's shown this level of indifference?
Comment 3 by Mary at 30-Jan-11 07:31 PM
I had SOOOO hoped people would wise up in November and vote in Dan Severson for Sec. of State. He was committed to dealing with the voter integrity issue.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 31-Jan-11 08:37 AM
Well maybe the fraud is wider than we thought. After all if Ritchie and Swanson won their statewide races when the entire state DFL lost races they normally won isn't it logical to believe in fraud. After all there were six illegal Obama voters (who I assumed voted for Franken) in one place. It takes just one illegal vote in each precint to genereate over 4000 votes for a state race.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by Eric Austin at 31-Jan-11 05:15 PM
Control your temper Gary. You really should save it for when the evil ACORN monster attacks you in the night.
Btw, I suggested to my principal today that perhaps a pajama blogger knows more than she does about evaluating me as a teacher and I ought to be fired. She giggled...
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Jan-11 05:39 PM
Of course she did. Birds of a feather don't argue when they're challenged by common sense.
Comment 6 by freddymac at 31-Jan-11 10:55 PM
There is a group called True the Vote that specializes in training grassroots acitivist to fight election fraud, http://bit.ly/hICuJm
They are also rolling out software to help find fraudulent names and addresses on voter rolls ect. Pass this on to any patriot group that you know of. Thanks
King's Vote: What's With the Uproar???
This weekend, my representative and friend King Banaian has been taken to the proverbial woodshed for a vote he cast on HF130. I've carefully weighed whether to write something about this or not but with people spewing their opinions, it's now apparent that some conservative allies won't let this issue die.
Shame on them.
The reality is that King voted the right way on this bill. SCSU has helped strengthen St. Cloud's economy to the point that we've grown from a population of 12,000 when I entered high school to our present population of almost 70,000 people. That's before counting the massive growth in the Greater St. Cloud area. In some cities, populations have tripled or quadrupled.
What does that have to do with King's vote? EVERYTHING!!! SCSU's funding has already gotten slashed to the point where SCSU had to close 3 departments, including the Aviation department. Meanwhile, other community colleges are still getting funding while not contributing a lick to Minnesota's economy.
How stupid is that? That type of prioritizing certainly wouldn't fit with King's priority-based budgeting system in HF2. Damaging universities that contribute to Minnesota's economic health while colleges that produce little or nothing are held harmless is boneheaded.
Meanwhile, there's this little thing about King representing his district while setting smart priorities. King's vote did both. For that, he's getting raked over the coals??? What are these allies' priorities? Are they solely tied to ideological purity? It appears so.
As King's most vocal constituent, I'll praise King's vote. I'll also praise King for being a great conservative. PERIOD. THERE'S NO DISPUTING THAT!!!
Does anyone think that King will now start voting for excessive spending increases? Of course they won't if they've got a lick of common sense. (At this point, it's still debatable whether some of these whiner have a lick of common sense but that's another story for another day.)
So some people disagree with King's vote. Whatever. I couldn't care less at this point. The complaints are coming from 50 or more miles away. What do they know about what it takes to strengthen St. Cloud's economy? I suspect little or nothing.
It's important to remind peole King didn't oppose cutting budget. King simply fought for cutting things that brought less value to the state. After all, he's the guy who authored the priority-based budgeting bill. Why cut something that adds value to St. Cloud's and Minnesota's economy when you can cut things that add little to nothing to Minnesota's economy?
That leads to another important consideration, which is credibility. If King supported a budget plan that cut high value things but kept harmless things that weren't high value, how could he then credibly argue on the House floor or in conference committee for legislation that potentially, if passed, would change Minnesota budgeting for a decade to a generation?
I'd rather have King's credibility intact for important fights like that rather than worrying about what his critics say. It's time to understand, and prioritize, the fights that we'll be having during this legislative session. I'm betting that the vast majority of conservatives would rate putting in place a system that all but eliminates budgeting abuses as a higher priority than a single vote on a bill that passed and that, unfortunately, will likely be vetoed by Gov. Dayton.
This is really two stories. One story is about setting smart priorities that strengthen Minnesota's economy for a decade. The other is about voting to represent the district. Serious people can't argue that King didn't accomplish both things this week.
At this point, people that want to play the ideological purity card are a waste of my time. As I've explained, we've got bigger fish to fry and bigger goals to accomplish.
Posted Sunday, January 30, 2011 4:11 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 30-Jan-11 06:31 PM
We both know King, enough to know that if King votes no, the problem is most likely the bill, not him.
The intent was good, but I think the time has come for Republicans to lead the way out of retroactive measures like this. As one very involved in my city's finances, it's frustrating to cut back as we've done on the best guesses we can get from St. Paul, set a levy, then have the State renege.
I imagine King saw the same thing as SCSU. Mind you, I would cut MnScu / higher ed in future years, convinced there is still significant over-capacity we can jettison. But retroactively, no.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-11 10:11 PM
Rex, I'm simply arguing that SCSU has helped St. Cloud's economy because it adds value & that there's alot of other schools that are adding nothing to their communities' or the state's economy. If you're cutting, cut fat first. SCSU is muscle, not fat.
Comment 2 by Eric at 30-Jan-11 09:13 PM
This seems more like "Cuts for thee, but not for me." It's time for everybody to take a hit. Government is way too big and needs to be cut, including higher education.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Jan-11 10:15 PM
You should've done your homework. SCSU's gone through the cuts before to the point that they shut 3 departments in 2010. It's more a case of 'I've done my time. It's someone else's turn for a change.'
Comment 3 by Rex Newman at 31-Jan-11 01:14 PM
Rep. Banaian is certainly entitled to think SCSU is a "keeper" as opposed to another MnSCU campus.
The state is entitled to decide how many and which campuses should offer a given discipline. Often, those become political food fights so all's fair. (Remember Wadena?)
But this notion that campuses are materially involved in the local economy is so overused. Offering degrees in basket weaving does not spur nearby investment in weaving baskets. Or aviation, where national market forces are also at work.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Jan-11 03:30 PM
I'll give a qualified I agree to that. The thing is that SCSU has a highly acclaimed business school. I know from talking with St. Cloud entrepreneurs that these graduates have strengthened their businesses.
Comment 4 by Eric Austin at 31-Jan-11 05:00 PM
I love it when we agree Gary.
That Steve Gottwalt really needs to stop voting against the local economy. His credibility is totally shot with his no vote...
Words Don't Mean Anything
If you're a progressive protected by the vast majority of Twin Cities reporters, it's likely that you'll never get challenged for saying some of the most assinine things imaginable.
Gov. Dayton calling himself the "jobs governor" is proof that words don't mean things anymore. For instance, he's called for raising the top tax bracket from 7.85 percent to 11 percent, a 40 percent increase in the top tax bracket. I've yet to talk with a businessman who thinks that's going to do anything except kill jobs.
He's appointed Paul Aasen, the biggest job killer in recent Minnesota history, to be his MPCA commissioner. Gov. Dayton said that he wants to work with the GOP majorities to streamline the permitting process. After a couple committee hearings on Rep. Fabian's bill, Gov. Dayton issued an EO that conspicuously omitted litigation reform and that watered down the key provisions in Rep. Fabian's reform legislation.
Without litigation reform, the administrative reforms to the permitting process are miniscule.
Another example of words not meaning anything with the DFL came Sunday morning when Minneapolis Mayor R.T. Rybak appeared on Esme Murphy's show. R.T. said that Gov. Dayton had campaigned on tax fairness, that Gov. Dayton said that we'd have to "raise taxes on the richest Minnesotans only a little bit" and "the state overwhelmingly supported him."
That's insulting. Gov. Dayton's latest proposal during the campaign was to raise the top income tax bracket from 7.85 percent to 11 percent. That's a 40 percent increase in the top income tax bracket. I'd love hearing Mayor Rybak give me a list of people who think that raising the top income tax bracket 40 percent is "a little bit."
I'd bet the proverbial ranch that he couldn't name 5 people who would agree with that characterization.
Is it any wonder why, in a TEA Party world, people opted for GOP majorities in the legislature? These activists don't fall for the DFL's latest smooth-sounding slogans. They're looking for straightforward people with solutions.
At the moment, the DFL appears to be out of problem-solvers. The bad news for the DFL is that, at the moment, they've got an overabundance of people who only appeal to their shrinking base.
People have lost faith in them because they don't live up to their focus-grouped mantras. Their words lost their impact because We The People started insisting on solutions-oriented people.
President Obama is at the heart of the DFL's problem. He's talked and talked and talked and talked about health care, pivoting to jobs, back to passing health care, then pivoting back to jobs, etc., ad infinitum.
Long before the time President Obama delivered his 3,859th speach on passing health care, people had tuned him out. It's like the story of the little kid who cried wolf 2,759 times too often: when the wolf arrived, people reacted by saying 'yeah, so what'?
In 2007, then-Speaker Kelliher told the Strib that her's was a " fiscally moderate caucus ." Prior to that DFL gubernatorial candidate Mike Hatch said that they could increase spending without raising taxes . I said then that nobody believed they wouldn't attempt to raise taxes.
By the time the summer of 2010 rolled around, most people had stopped believing the things the DFL said because they'd heard the focus-grouped chanting points a gazillion times before.
The only thing that will change the DFL's election luck is by ridding their party of the mindless mantra-chanting activists that seem to have overrun the party lately. I don't see that happening anytime soon.
Posted Monday, January 31, 2011 12:15 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 31-Jan-11 03:39 AM
I wish I could be as optimistic, but I think the only way the DFL becomes the preserve of the endangered liberal wacko is if the GOP remains the land of the free and the home of the brave, doing what needs to be done to set the ship of state aright and then loudly using the right "words" so the public hears it above the din and clatter of the major media's DFL "bull"horn.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 31-Jan-11 08:04 AM
My 'job' as a blogger, such as it is, is to first inform, then next to persuade. An integral part of persuading is highlighting that the DFL's smooth-sounding words don't mean anything since they're subject to change if the words they're using sound moderate. They don't change when they're proposing massive tax increases & gigantic spending increases.
In other words, it's my responsibility to tell my readers what's actually going on & why, in this instance, the DFL's policies are counterproductive. Unfortunately these days, that isn't difficult.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 31-Jan-11 09:35 AM
Gary:
Chris Coleman, John Marty, Mark Ritchie, MAK, and Larry Pog.
That's five people who might agee with Minneapolis Mayor.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by NJO IzOPnYDe at 31-Jan-11 09:45 AM
MN HF130 is nothing short of legislated murder for those who are the MOST VULNERABLE I've contacted Gov Dayton to express my dissatisfaction and the guy wouldn't even take my e-mail. His silence on this has been strangely silent. Like the song says ". . . We won't be fooled again". IzOPnYDe
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 31-Jan-11 10:06 AM
More "bull." If you feel that strongly that somebody is going to be starving barefoot in the snow, then go find the poor bloke and take him home; your arm's not broken. Chances are that the people most affected by this are making more money than you are, and will CONTINUE to make more money than you are after the bill is passed. Beyond that, it's just pure delusion to believe that the State can spend more money than it has, regardless of how "noble" the cause may be, and it doesn't make sense unless, if these things being "cut" are the State's highest priorities, then something else must logically be lower priority and must be cut. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to identify those spending items that are lower priority and ask, nay, DEMAND that they be eliminated.
I Didn't Expect the Lefties to Grasp This
When I learned of King's vote on HF130, I figured it a fait accompli that lefties like Dave Mindeman and Doug Grow wouldn't grasp the principle behind King's vote. I was right that they don't. The best commentary on Grow's post was written by Mitch. Check his post out on that. Meanwhile, I'll gladly respond to Mr. Mindeman's post . Check out this commentary from Mr. Mindeman:
Banaian works at St. Cloud State as an economics professor and represents St. Cloud and the surrounding area. The kicker here is that he won his legislative race by a 10 vote margin. Which means that, unlike Senator Newman and his selective constituent recognition, Mr. Banaian is probably wise to consider all comers.
Except I had assumed that Banaian was one of those true believer, first principle guys. He generally talks of government spending with utter disdain and one would think that this particular bill would certainly meet those first principle ideals.
After all, it hits that unnecessary Local Government Aid and outrageously out of control Higher Ed spending...as well as all of the Commission offices in the executive branch. Would have assumed that to be a no-brainer for Banaian.
The best thing I can say about Mr. Mindeman's post is that he spelled King's last name right all the time. After that, it gets pretty dicey.
I'll now attempt to explain why King's vote was the right vote, not just for his district, which I'm privileged to be a resident of, but for the state.
1) Back in the last century, a goal was made that there should be a technical school, junior college, community college or university within 30 miles of every Minnesotan. The goal was questionable then. It's foolish now, especially with the growing popularity of online schools that don't need a campus, just a server and some teachers.
Why are we funding schools whose impact is minimal or questionable? Furthermore, why would the chief author of the priority-based budgeting bill vote for legislation that funds questionable priorities?
I'd argue that that's a far more compelling priority than all others combined.
2) Let's remember that SCSU has already taken a number of budget hits, which has forced SCSU to close some departments. Let's remember that SCSU has contributed mightily to the economic expansion to the Greater St. Cloud area.
Why on God's green earth would King vote to kill an engine of economic growth at a time when Minnesota needs all the engines of economic growth it can find while funding schools that have had minimal economic impact? I'd argue that that'd be the definition of foolish.
3) King's vote against this legislation doesn't mean he's any less of a budget hawk. Without speaking for him, I wouldn't be surprised if King votes for the conference report if this bill's priorities get straightened out in conference.
4) King's vote is a vote for reforming the MnSCU system. God bless him for that. King isn't there to be a reliable vote. He's there to have an impact. He's there to make the case for setting the smartest priorities possible.
King's vote was a principled vote as were the votes cast by other Republicans. They were voting to reduce spending, which is absolutely needed. The question isn't whether we need to live within our means; it's a question of what cuts make the most sense, both in terms of balancing the budget while still ensuring economic growth.
Hopefully this helps the Mindemans of the world make sense of the world of setting intelligent spending priorities. If it doesn't, however, that's his problem.
Posted Monday, January 31, 2011 9:42 AM
No comments.
Will Joint Committee Hearing Have Desired Impact?
After Friday's joint Senate hearing at Hibbing Junior College , the next question is whether this will motivate senators to reform the permitting process, including litigation reform.
Without reforming the litigation system, all the administrative reforms won't have much impact. Organizations like MCEA will still be able to tie important projects up in courts for years.
Gov. Dayton's PR stunt last Monday wasn't a serious proposal because of what wasn't in his EO.
One of the issues talked on by several of the speakers was the need to speed up the permitting process in the state of Minnesota.
"If we have an organization that wants to hire people and they're waiting five years for answers; that is too long. We need to find a way to shorten that. That doesn't mean we always say yes; that means let's get the answers that we can on a more consistent basis," said Vice Chair of the Jobs and Economic Growth Committee, Ted Lillie.
Polymet has been in the environmental review process for their proposed open pit mine for several years now.
Once open it looks to bring several hundred jobs to the range area.
"We don't just have a budget deficit, we have a jobs deficit so we need to get this part of Minnesota thriving and growing again; this could be a great economic engine," said Michel.
Environmental groups are determined to prevent job creation anywhere they deem pristine. They're famous for making wild claims about the destruction that surely will happen if projects are approved.
To be certain, many of their claims are valid. The unfortunate part is weeding through the tons of wild allegations contained in their lawsuits. It's much like the story of the kid who cried wolf 2,859 times too often. After awhile, you just tune those cries out.
The bad part is that families are hurt while environmental organizations like MCEA file lawsuit after lawsuit. MCEA has tacitly admitted that their lawsuits are frivolous :
We kept losing , but a funny thing happened. With each passing year, it became clearer that we were right. In 2007, two of the Minnesota utilities dropped out, citing some of the same points we had been making. The remaining utilities had to go through the process again with a scaled-down 580-megawatt plant.
Even though MCEA kept losing, their attrition litigation kept hundreds of construction workers unemployed. Had MCEA not kept filing frivolous lawsuits, Big Stone II would've provided a year's worth of work for construction workers. It also would've created a couple hundred high paying permanent jobs for people running the plant. Those jobs, which MCEA prevented through its attrition litigation, would've stabilized Minnesota's economy.
Because Paul Aasen spearheaded MCEA's attrition litigation agenda, he's personally responsible for killing hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. Mr. Aasen hasn't shown any concern for jobs, nor has MCEA. The good news is that Rangers, like Tony Sertich, are fighting for jobs:
As the hearing began, former state Rep. Tony Sertich, now commissioner of Iron Range Resources, asked those in the room to raise their hands if they, their spouses, parents or grandparents worked in the mines. Nearly everyone in the audience had an arm raised.
'This is our life up here,' Sertich said, as he thanked the legislators for moving the hearing north for the day. 'We're a resource-based economy.'
Saying that their economy is "a resource-based economy" lays things out for MCEA. They're either sympathetic to the plight of Iron Rangers or they're more inclined to damage the Range's economy. It doesn't help that Aasen hasn't publicly disagreed with his former organization.
Should senators who have the responsibility of either confirming or rejecting his nomination take that to mean that he won't be a neutral arbiter of Minnesota environmental law? We haven't seen proof that he isn't still a strong-willed environmental activist.
That likely means he won't faithfully fulfill his responsibilities as commissioner of the MPCA.
If Gov. Dayton wants to be a jobs governor, then he must get everyone moving quickly in the right direction. Mr. Aasen doesn't fit that mold. In his position, he can thwart all the great work these legislators might accomplish. That isn't acceptable.
The Red Wing Republican-Eagle knows what's at stake :
The goal is to speed up a business's ability to expand or build a new facility. Dayton rightly states: "Time is money."
And that's not just money for businesses. Ask around in any community, especially border cities like ours, and you'll hear stories about lost opportunities and therefore lost jobs because a manufacturer or business found expansion easier and quicker elsewhere.
Gov. Dayton has said a number of things about creating jobs. Now let's see if he lives up to what he's said. The jury is still out on that, just like it's still out on a possible Commissioner Aasen.
Posted Monday, January 31, 2011 4:51 PM
No comments.
Dead Man Walking?
Now that Florida Judge Vinson has declared O'Care unconstitutional, is O'Care essentially a 'dead man walking'? At minimum, it's bringing confusion to the health insurance industry. OTR's Greta van Susteren encapsulates the situation perfectly in this post :
The states and insurance companies and individuals have begun making plans about health care in light of the national health care law...so now that the law is declared unconstitutional in Florida, should they stop? reverse? what if the US Supreme Court reverses the trial court? or upholds it???
BOTTOM LINE: THE SUPREME COURT, PURSUANT TO ITS RULE 11, HAS THE ABILITY TO DECIDE THIS CASE NOW (AND BYPASS THE DELAY OF THE APPEALS COURT.) IT WOULD BE EFFICIENT, CHEAPER, RIGHT AND JUST.
Let's get this decided ASAP!!! Everyone's known for months that this will be settled in the Supreme Court. If President Obama's Justice Department decides to string this out, it's essentially saying it thinks its case is weak, at least with the current configuration of the Roberts court.
Here's a key portion of Judge Vinson's opinion :
"Because the individual mandate is unconstitutional and not severable, the entire act must be declared void. This has been a difficult decision to reach, and I am aware that it will have indeterminable implications," Vinson wrote.
He was referring to a key provision in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and sided with governors and attorneys general from 26 U.S. states, almost all of whom are Republicans, in declaring it unconstitutional. The issue will likely end up at the U.S. Supreme Court.
"Regardless of how laudable its attempts may have been to accomplish these goals in passing the Act, Congress must operate within the bounds established by the Constitution," the judge ruled.
What's especially harsh about this ruling is that Judge Vinson used President Obama's words against him :
'I note that in 2008, then-Senator Obama supported a health care reform proposal that did not include an individual mandate because he was at that time strongly opposed to the idea, stating that 'if a mandate was the solution, we can try that to solve homelessness by mandating everybody to buy a house,' Judge Vinson wrote in a footnote toward the end of the 78-page ruling Monday.
This is harsh but it isn't the first time this type of thing has happened. In the Virginia ruling, Judge Hudson talked about how Obama administration officials argued on the Sunday morning talk shows that the penalty wasn't a tax. President Obama even argued that with George Stephanopoulos. The Justice Department then argued in front of Judge Hudson that it was a tax.
Today's opinion didn't just weaken the Obama administration's case. It cited President Obama's opinion that mandates like what are in the O'Care legislation are unconstitutional.
The other key finding in this opinion is that the entire bill is unconstitutional:
Judge Vinson, a federal judge in the northern district of Florida, struck down the entire health care law as unconstitutional on Monday, though he is allowing the Obama administration to continue to implement and enforce it while the government appeals his ruling.
Predictably, the administration's allies lashed out angrily at the ruling:
Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA, an influential national advocacy group that pushed for the healthcare overhaul, called Vinson's decision an example of "radical judicial activism run amok" and predicted it would be reversed on appeal.
"The decision flies in the face of three other decisions, contradicts decades of legal precedent, and could jeopardize families' health care security," he said in a statement.
Pollack's statement is predictable but nonsense. In his ruling, Judge Hudson noted that he couldn't find any precedents to base his ruling on, just his understanding of the Constitution. Pollack's statement indicates that he's willing to argue with Judge Hudson and his law clerks who've researched the case history on these types of issue before issuing his opinion.
Does Pollack really think that's a fight he can win? Or is this just the best he can do while tap-dancing as fast as he can? I suspect it's the latter.
Powerline's John Hinderaker's post is quite instructive:
It would be a radical departure from existing case law to hold that Congress can regulate inactivity under the Commerce Clause. If it has the power to compel an otherwise passive individual into a commercial transaction with a third party merely by asserting, as was done in the Act, that compelling the actual transaction is itself ?"commercial and economic in nature, and substantially affects interstate commerce?" [see Act § 1501(a)(1)], it is not hyperbolizing to suggest that Congress could do almost anything it wanted...If Congress can penalize a passive individual for failing to engage in commerce, the enumeration of powers in the Constitution would have been in vain for it would be "difficult to perceive any limitation on federal power" [Lopez, supra, 514 U.S. at 564], and we would have a Constitution in name only.
The key sentence in this part of the ruling is the part that says the government could compel individuals to do anything. The part that says "the enumeration of powers in the Constitution" would essentially say that the powers of the federal government are unlimited.
Again, I can't state this emphatically enough: This isn't just another ruling, one that evens the score at 2-2. This is setting the stage for ruling O'Care unconstitutional.
Obama's allies' claims notwithstanding, this isn't judicial activism. This is about the proper application of the Constitution.
Posted Monday, January 31, 2011 10:16 PM
No comments.
