January 4-5, 2011
Jan 04 00:27 Mindeman Watch Jan 04 14:14 Dayton's Speech Irony-Filled Jan 04 15:13 A Carefully Scripted PR Stunt? Jan 04 17:45 The Mighty Have Fallen Jan 04 21:18 John Lesch: Tax Cuts Is Throwing Gov't Money Away Jan 04 22:19 Today's Teachable Moment Jan 05 02:20 Obama's Embarrassment Jan 05 14:15 It's Official!!!
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mindeman Watch
Dave Mindeman is one of the most depressing irrationalists on the leftosphere. This post is a classic example of why Mindeman is vastly overrated.
Tough decisions will need to be made....yes, that is true. But the decision process implies that we will have all the choices on the table. In Rep. Zellers world, this is not true. We are being asked to make a choice as to who will feel the most pain, not who will help resolve the problems.
When Minnesota families make those changes in spending habits they do not make changes based on cut backs alone. Some of them have changed jobs. Some have worked with small raises. Still others have looked for second jobs or to families and friends for help.
Nobody assumes that their choices are limited to deprivation alone. Sure, the first thing you do is cut back on the items that you can live without for now. But what have we been doing in state government for 8 years?
In a recession our needs have increased....yet Rep. Zellers chooses to ignore that fact and tells us that revenue options are simply not available.
Based on that last paragraph, the reader is led to believe that this is the first time that the DFL has proposed a tax increase. I wrote in June, 2006 that proposing tax increases is what the DFL does almost reflexively :
Hatch gave his task an initial shot in a rambling acceptance speech that punched some of the right buttons. He cast Pawlenty as too stingy with education, responsible for large class sizes and rising college tuition. He tagged him for an inadequate response to soaring health care costs and the emerging biosciences industry. He promised more state investment in those things. Significantly, he said, 'we can do this without raising taxes.'
Hatch didn't win the election but the DFL-dominated legislature tried raising taxes by $7,500,000,000 at a time when Minnesota had a $2,200,000,000 surplus.
The DFL's only answers to budget problems is to increase spending and raising taxes. More money has to be spent to help the poor. More taxes on the rich, the middle class and low income people must be collected. That's their history.
The other foolish premise offered by Mindeman is that punishing Minnesota's job creators will improve Minnesotans' lives. President Reagan wisely said that you can't be for jobs but hate the job creators. Shame on Mr. Mindeman for not learning that lesson.
I wish I could say I'm surprised. Unfortunately, this is all too predictable.
Posted Tuesday, January 4, 2011 12:27 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Jan-11 05:40 PM
"irrationalist" I love it.
Dayton's Speech Irony-Filled
After reading this Strib article about Gov. Dayton's inauguration speech, I'm sensing more than a tiny bit of hypocrisy about him. Here's what got me thinking this through:
Facing a Republican-led Legislature that has pledged to block any tax increases, Dayton said that "I will insist that any final solution make Minnesota's overall tax burden more progressive, not more regressive. I respect that no one likes paying taxes, and almost everyone would like to pay less, which is why it's essential that everyone paying taxes knows everyone else is paying their fair share."
I won't argue that he respects as fact that "no one likes paying taxes" because his family's trust is protected in a tax shelter, free of the obligations of paying taxes on what the trust fund earns each year.
Maybe it's just me but that sounds like he's being a hypocrite. He's insisting that "the rich" pay their fair share while the rich Dayton family is hiding their fortune away from paying their fair share of Minnesota's state taxes.
Another irony is that the lion's share of the money in that trust was made in Minnesota. I'm betting that it isn't coincidence that the money was protected from the obligation of paying taxes on the trust's earnings because the Dayton family's financial planners saw Minnesota's income taxes as being too high.
The quotes in the Strib's article suggest that Gov. Dayton was being fairly combative. This is one such quote:
To those who believe the state's $6.2 billion deficit can be balanced without a tax increase, Dayton said, "if you can do it without destroying our schools, hospitals and public safety, please send me your bill so I can sign it immediately."
The GOP should take him up on that and send him that budget by mid-March. Seriously, what's Gov. Dayton's definition of destroying "schools, hospitals and public safety"? It's sounding more like he wants to be Minnesota's highest-profile drama queen than Minnesota's governor.
I'd further argue that the best thing Gov. Dayton could do to improve Minnesota's public safety is to lecture Chris Coleman and R.T. Rybak on their reckless spending on questionable priorities that's led to the laying off of police and firefighters.
Their refusal to set serious spending priorities has played a significant role in the misallocation of funds. Mayors Coleman and Rybak should be ashamed of themselves for how they've mishandled their budgets.
Once you get past that, let's watch how many reforms the GOP will put forward that will save taxpayers' money while not diminishing the delivery of the things that state government is responsible for providing.
That isn't to say that there won't be difficult votes to cast. Speaker Zellers said there would be in his op-ed, which I wrote about here. Some of their votes will pose difficult choices.
It's disengenuous to think that a Dayton budget with its tax increases won't pose equally difficult decisions. That means that, whether they raise taxes or whether taxes aren't raised, difficult decisions will be faced.
If that's the case, what's the argument for raising taxes? Does Gov. Dayton want to chase more of Minnesota's entrepreneurial base to the Dakotas? Surely he knows that the number he gets from the Department of Revenue will be higher than the amount actually collected.
The good news is that the GOP legislature will stand with the vast majority of Minnesotans and refuse to raise taxes. If Gov. Dayton wants to shut the state government down because he didn't get his way, that's certainly within his authority. Just a word of caution on that: that's the surest way of guaranteeing a 1-term administration.
One other thing about that strategy: it'll require DFL legislators to vote to sustain Gov. Dayton's veto. That won't sit well with voters in 2012. Following that path will lead to bigger GOP majorities in the House and Senate.
Here's another part of Gov. Dayton's speech that needs to be criticized:
"The past decade has left our country, our state and many of our citizens worse off than before, with lower standards of living, larger debts and deficits, and less assured of future success," Dayton said.
With more special interest groups preventing worthwhile projects from happening, there's little wonder why we're in the mess we're in. On the national level, environmentalist groups and Presidents Clinton and Obama have prevented the drilling of oil and natural gas in ANWR and the OCS, the building of nuclear power plants and the building of more refinery capacity.
On a local level, MCEA, whose chairman stands to become commissioner of the MPCA, has prevented numerous high-profile projects from becoming reality that would've produced reasonably priced energy, high paying construction jobs and high paying permanent jobs.
In other words, litigious special interest groups are preventing the free market from working. They're preventing the cheap production of energy, which is killing our economy. They're preventing the building of new businesses which will employ hundreds of new employees in the state at a time when creating jobs should be our top priority.
Special interest organizations like MCEA, especially under the 'leadership' of Paul Aasen, have been the enemies of Minnesota's economy. It's time that the legislators that do their bidding got defeated. We can't afford legislators that put the bidding of the special interests ahead of the well-being of their constituents.
Jobs come first. If special interest groups stand in the way, then they need to be chastened and criticized.
Posted Tuesday, January 4, 2011 2:14 PM
No comments.
A Carefully Scripted PR Stunt?
After reading this statement from Rep. Winkler's office, I'm left with 2 questions. First, here's the text of Rep. Winkler's statement:
Minnesota is facing historic economic and fiscal challenges. State lawmakers have just a few months to solve a gaping $6.2 billion deficit while preserving essential public services.
But Republicans in the legislature would rather focus their attention on a divisive social agenda that denies some Minnesotans the right to marriage, denies women the right to choose, and denies seniors the right to vote.
Minnesotans expect more of their legislature. They expect us to work together to solve the deficit responsibly and improve Minnesota's economy.
Speaker Zellers said it best himself in a recent interview with the Associated Press:
Caucus leader Kurt Zellers, who is positioned to become the House speaker, said social issues such as a gay marriage ban, a photo identification requirement for voters and an expansion of gambling will have to wait.
If it does something to bring jobs back from Austin, Texas, that's what we're focused on," he said at a news conference with newly elected and returning GOP representatives.
But actions speak louder than words. And by their actions here today, Minnesotans know the real Republican agenda for Minnesota.
What triggered Rep. Winkler's response? Minority Leader Thissen offered an amendment to the temporary House rules "that would have made balancing Minnesota's budget the House's top priority this session."
Rep. Winkler's statement isn't just a childish temper tantrum. It isn't remotely tied to the truth. Newly-elected Majority Leader Matt Dean moved that Rep. Thissen's amendment be moved to the House Rules Committee, saying that the large incoming class of freshmen should have time to consider the rule.
Majority Leader Dean didn't say this amendment wouldn't be given serious consideration when the permanent House rules are debated. Quite the contrary.
What in that exchange between Rep. Dean and Rep. Thissen would lead Rep. winkler to conclude that this is proof of the House GOP's intention to pursue a "divisive social agenda that denies some Minnesotans the right to marriage, denies women the right to choose, and denies seniors the right to vote"?
The first question I have from Rep. Winkler's childing tantrum is whether he's the Minnesota equivalent of Rep. Anthony Weiner, (D-NY). The other question is whether Rep. Winkler be tested for smoking pot? (Yes, I'm kidding about the second question.)
When Rep. Winkler tweeted that the House GOP majority planned on pursuing a "divisive social agenda", I challenged him to offer his proof for his accusation. That's been 2 hours ago. His only response was the issuing of this statement.
What's apparent is that this was a carefully scripted stunt planned and executed by the DFL. Issuing this relatively lengthy statement minutes after the vote after Rep. Thissen's silly motion isn't coincidence.
This is the first hint that the DFL will rely on dishonest PR stunts to distract attention from their total lack of a serious policy agenda, at least one that appeals to a majority of Minnesotans.
Rep. Winkler has shown that he isn't a trustworthy representative. This isn't the first time he's either issued dishonest statements or posted dishonest tweets.
That's why I'm convinced he's Minnesota's version of Rep. Anthony Weiner, (D-NY).
UPDATE: It's officially a meme now. BigMoney4Shelly is repeating the lie started by Rep. Winkler:
Not what MN voters want RT @johnlesch On partisan vote 74-60, GOP shoots down effort 2 balance budget b4 rehash social issues.
Actually, BigMoney4Shelly is repeating John Lesch's repeat of Rep. Winkler's lie .
Not only that but SD56DFL is repeating Rep. Winkler's initial lie.
What's interesting is that Rep. Lesch is characterizing this vote as the GOP shooting down Rep. Thissen's proposed amendment. Reality is that 2 DFL legislators joined with all 72 GOP legislators in voting against Rep. Thissen's amendment.
Posted Tuesday, January 4, 2011 4:25 PM
Comment 1 by Eric Austin at 04-Jan-11 06:15 PM
HYPOCRISY ALERT:
http://www.outstatepolitics.com/?p=663
The Mighty Have Fallen
According to Scott Rasmussen's polling , there are more Republicans now than Democrats:
The number of American adults calling themselves Republicans in December increased by one percentage point from November to 37.0%.
Also in December, the number calling themselves Democrats fell by a point to 33.7%.
Those figures reflect the largest number of Republicans in the nation since December 2004 and the lowest number of Democrats ever recorded in tracking since November 2002.
This isn't surprising to anyone who paid attention to the TEA Party movement the past 20 months or November's election. The thing that should scare Democrats is that they've gone from 41.8 percent of voters identifying themselves as Democrats in December, 2008 to a mere 33.7 percent identifying themselves as Democrats now.
That's a 20 percent erosion in 25 months.
I'm not sure erosion is emphatic enough to fit that drop. It wouldn't be too emphatic to say that the Democrats' ranks have been gutted. Either way, this isn't the type of news that the Democrats hoped for. With their ranks down, the TEA Party movement's priorities gaining in popularity and independents preferring the conservatives' priorities, this isn't shaping up to be a good 2012 election cycle for Democrats.
Couple that with the Democrats' being on the wrong side of the most important issues and you're looking at a miserable time defending President Obama's agenda that's already passed.
How will Senate Democrats defend their votes on Obamacare? How will any Democrat defend their votes to significantly cut spending? Obamacare and the Democrats' reckless spending aren't gaining in popularity. They're more accurately characterized as albatrosses around the Democrats' necks than the wind beneath their wings.
Posted Tuesday, January 4, 2011 5:45 PM
No comments.
John Lesch: Tax Cuts Is Throwing Gov't Money Away
Earlier tonight, I watched Marty Owings' livestream interview of Rep. John Lesch and Rep. Mike Beard.
I couldn't believe it when Rep. Lesch said that targeted tax cuts to Minnesota's job creators was "throwing the government's money" at those who don't need it.
Rep. Beard's laughter at that line said everything. When did money that people make turn into the government's money? I'm betting that the vast majority of Minnesotans would argue that the money they earn isn't the government's money.
I'm hearing from some of my Capitol contacts that Rep. Lesch is trying to grow into one of the House DFL's bombthrowers, along with Ryan Winkler. That'd explain alot about this statement. It might be that Rep. Lesch doesn't actually think letting people keep the money they earn is robbing government. It might just be that it's a way to move up the DFL's leadership structure.
Another possibility is that he's playing to the DFL's base so he keeps the campaign contributions coming his direction. The DFL's special interest allies probably wouldn't care if he's a true believer, just that he says the right things and votes the way they want him to.
Posted Tuesday, January 4, 2011 9:18 PM
Comment 1 by Chad A Quigley at 04-Jan-11 10:47 PM
I have had a few go rounds with Rep. Lesch and he absolutely does not believe that your hard earned money is yours but the governments to spend how they see fit. He along with a bunch of other loony lefties' are just trying to stay relevant now that they are in the minority.
Today's Teachable Moment
It isn't often that I respond to liberal bloggers' posts about me but I'll make an exception this time since this post presents a teaching opportunity. Eric Austin is accusing me of being a hypocrite. I'll quote him as he lays out his case against me:
One of the interesting things about this session will be to find out what were once horrible no good activities by a horrible no good DFL majority but are now just standard operating procedures with a Republican majority. In fact, it took less than 24 hours to come up with our first example. Gary Gross, whose views of right and wrong governing are strictly dependent upon that little letter behind your name, comes in with the first example of the season.
Mr. Austin didn't notice several noteworthy things that impacted my thinking but I digress. Here's the heart of Austin's 'case' against me. Here's what I said in 2007:
The biggest thing I came away with was that Tony Sertich, though knew he had the votes to defeat the measures, which they did time and time again, he chose to defeat them procedurally by referring them to his committee, where they'll likely never see the light of day again. The reason he's doing this is because (a) he wants the GOP to know who's in charge and (b) because he doesn't want DFL legislators being held accountable for voting against governmental transparency.
This is what I said today:
Newly-elected Majority Leader Matt Dean moved that Rep. Thissen's amendment be moved to the House Rules Committee, saying that the large incoming class of freshmen should have time to consider the rule.
Based on those things, Austin asserts that I'm being hypocritical. Actually, there's a number of noteworthy differences that Austin didn't take into account. Here's what I see as major differences:
1. Today's amendment by Rep. Thissen was to the House Temporary Rules. They're the rules they'll use until the Rules Committee can meet to debate what should or shouldn't be part of the House Permanent Rules debate.
Rep. Thissen's rule will be debated in committee and it will be part of the debate on the House Permanent Rules.
2. What I said in 2007 is entirely different because Sertich's referring the GOP's frequent amendments happened during the debate on the House's Permanent Rules. It was an attempt to eliminate the GOP's common sense amendments without the DFL's freshmen having to vote against them.
3. Then Majority Leader Sertich made these motions before there was debate or discussion on the GOP's amendments. They weren't discussed in committee, which, BTW, he chaired. They vanished into a black hole essentially. (I'd consider that a significant difference. Hopefully Mr. Austin will, too, now that he's got the additional information.)
I can't emphasize the key distinction between what happened in today's debate and what happened in 2007. In 2007, debate on the GOP's amendments ended with Rep. Sertich's tactic. They ended without discussion, without the entire body voting on the amendments.
This year, Rep. Thissen's amendment will get a hearing in the Rules Committee and an up or down vote during the House Permanent Rules debate.
Perhaps that isn't significant to Austin but I'm betting most level-headed people will notice the distinction. That's who I'm writing this for, not for lefty bloggers.
Posted Tuesday, January 4, 2011 10:19 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 04-Jan-11 11:50 PM
Gary:
Forgive me for asking a silly question, but don't we have that rule already. It's called the state constitution. Why do we need a legislative rule if lawmakers are suppose to obey the constitution.
Oh that's right the Democrats didn't care about doing it. They waited until May to pass the budget. I think this House will pass a budget on time. It's just that governor Dayton and the Democrats won't like it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-11 02:10 AM
Walter, I don't understand what you're referring to. The House rules deal with the process through which they pass laws that comply with the U.S. & Minnesota state constitutions.
Perhaps you can explain things better but I find this incomprehensible.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 05-Jan-11 12:48 PM
Gary:
The state constitution requires a balanced budget! The point of the amendment was to focus 50% of the time on balancing the state budget. since the lawmakers has just sworn to uphold the state constitution they have sworn to have a balance budget.
Thus there is no need to have in the legislative rules about working to balance the budget since they have already said they will.
The democrats though these last couple of years didn't take that oath seriously.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis< MN
Comment 3 by Eric Austin at 05-Jan-11 04:10 PM
"I can't emphasize the key distinction between what happened in today's debate and what happened in 2007. In 2007, debate on the GOP's amendments ended with Rep. Sertich's tactic. They ended without discussion, without the entire body voting on the amendments."
And HERE is exactly why you are a hypocrite! When you wrote that post in 2007 you ASSUMED that those amendments were being sent to the rules committee to be killed as a "tactic". They hadn't made it there yet when you wrote that post. It was unacceptable to you ONLY because it was a DFLer doing it. Now you ASSUME that this amendment will be heard and voted on ONLY because a Republican is doing it. You are willing to play by a different set of standards depending on whether your "team" is in power or out of power. THAT is hypocrisy!
The reality is that this amendment will be sent off to the rules committee and never heard from just like those amendments in 2007. The reality is that then you were outraged and now you will find it perfectly acceptable. It goes back to what I said earlier when I stated that you automatically believe the worst of a Democrat and the best of a Republican.
In fact, I would be willing to bet you money that this amendment will NOT get an up or down vote in the rules committee.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Jan-11 10:13 PM
REALITY: Those amendments were never debated in 2007. I WAS RIGHT.
REALITY II: I've talked with a Twin Cities legislator who sits on the Rules Committee. Unlike that jerk Sertich, the GOP Rules Committee will debate the Thissen amendment & they won't kill it with a stunt like Sertich did. It'll get an up or down vote.
You can't stand being wrong but wrong you are. GET OVER IT!!!
Response 3.2 by Gary Gross at 06-Jan-11 01:41 PM
The reality is that this amendment will be sent off to the rules committee and never heard from just like those amendments in 2007.Your proof of this is what? When did you become omniscient?
The reality is that then you were outraged and now you will find it perfectly acceptable.I was upset then because Sertich did this to avoid debate on the GOP's amendments. Thissen's amendment will be debated in the Rules Committee & it will get an up-or-down vote when the House Permanent Rules are debated. PS- When that happens, I'll write an 'I told you so' post ridiculing your 'omniscience'.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 06-Jan-11 01:24 AM
Hey Eric instead of attacking Gary since the state constitution requires use to have a balanced budget why do we need that stupid rule?
More important why didn't the Democrats over the last four years seriously work to balance the state budget?
I can't hear you!
That's the proof right there that you're wrong.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Obama's Embarrassment
Based on what's being reported in this article , I'd say that President Obama will have lots of crow to dine on:
The State Duma plans to confirm the link between the reduction of the strategic offensive arms and the restriction of antimissile defense systems' deployment in the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START), signed between the US and Russia, Konstantin Kosachev, chairman of the Duma Committee on International Affairs says.
"During the ratification of START in the US Congress the American lawmakers noted that the link between strategic offensive armed forces and antimissile defense systems is not juridically binding for the parties. They referred to the fact that this link was fixed only in the preamble of the document. Such an approach can be regarded as the US' attempt to find an option to build up its strategic potential and the Russian lawmakers cannot agree with this," Kosachev says.
We will deal with these interpretations. The first thing is that our American colleagues do not recognize the legal force of the treaty's preamble. The preamble sets a link between strategic offensive arms and defensive arms. The second thing is an attempt to interpret certain provisions of the treaty unilaterally.
The Russian lawmakers insist that all the chapters of the treaty including the preamble are legally binding, which is a common norm of international law. It is not lawful to take certain provisions and to give them unilateral interpretations like the American senators do, Alexei Arbatov, a member of the Carnegie Scientific Council, says.
When President Obama convinced 13 foolish Republicans to vote for the START Treaty, he told them that there wouldn't be a link between missile defense and reducing nuclear arms. Now that the Russian Duma is insisting on a direct link between missile defense and arms reduction, rest assured that the new Senate won't ratify the renegotiated START Treaty.
First, I'm not giving the Republicans a free pass. What they did was foolish, irresponsible and, frankly, potentially dangerous. Here are the Republicans that cast foolish votes:
Thad Cochran, Mississippi
Bob Corker, Tennessee
Mike Crapo, Idaho
Tom Coburn, Oklahoma
Lamar Alexander, Tennessee
Johnny Isakson, Georgia
Alexander, Corker, Cochran and Isakson are the worst of the bunch. Their votes put the southeast United States in danger because of the missiles Iran is selling to Chavez. These senators' votes literally put their constituents' lives in danger. That's unforgiveable.
Still, President Obama wanted this victory so bad that he didn't hesitate in pressuring the Senate to ratify the treaty. That their votes undermined the United States' national security wasn't his highest priority. Shame on him for setting such terrible national security priorities.
Posted Wednesday, January 5, 2011 2:20 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 05-Jan-11 08:57 AM
Seems to me that Obama's letter to the Senate assuring them that there was no such provision, then, constitutes grounds for reconsideration of the treaty, or for unilateral abrogation of it by the Senate. Both interpretations-- Obama's and the Duma's-- cannot be simultaneously correct.
It's Official!!!
Yes, yes, yes. John Boehner is the new Speaker. Congratulations. Now for the important stuff: Rikalbert Bert Blyleven is finally & officially a member of the most elite fraternity in sports: the Baseball Hall of Fame.
This ends what's been the longest ongoing travesty in modern sports history. That Bert wasn't picked a decade ago tells me that too many baseball writers don't have a flipping clue about Bert's greatness.
I was reminded today that people used to criticize him for tipping his curve by sticking his tongue out. On FSN, Roy Smalley summed it up perfectly, saying "That's like saying Nolan Ryan tipped his fastball by grunting." Mr. Smalley, you're exactly right. It wasn't like a hitter was going to hit Ryan's fastball or Bert's curve when they had it working.
I can recite Bert's impressive numbers from memory: 287 wins, 3,701 strikeouts, 60 shutouts, 242 complete games during a 23 year career. That only tells part of Bert's story.
Bert was a great teammate, possibly the greatest prankster in MLB history. He also took alot of pressure off Frankie 'Sweet Music' Viola, which allowed Mr. Viola to relax and blossom into the Twins' co-ace in their first Twins' World Championship season.
TK will tell you that he was a better manager anytime he handed the ball to Bert, which is typical of TK. What TK, Kent Hrbek and Tim Laudner will tell you is that Bert was as great a competitor as has ever played the game. How great a competitor?
In Bert's last season with the Texas Rangers, Bert was out for different parts of the season with a groin injury. In September, he pitched a game against the Angels. (Back then, they were known as the California Angels.
Late in the game, the eighth inning, Bert reinjured himself, prompting a visit by the pitching coach. The coach asked Bert how he was. Bert's simple reply was "Look at the scoreboard." Bert carried a no-hitter into the eighth. The message was sent. That's the night Bert threw his only no-hitter.
I remember watching the 87 World Series. ABC assigned Al Michaels, Tim McCarver & Jim Palmer to cover the Series. In Game Two, Bert's curve was really working. I remember Palmer ridiculing the Cards for "sitting on Bert's curve." Palmer added that "It's not like they're going to hit it anyway."
At the end of this, I'm still left with this thought: How the BBWAA didn't elect him to the Hall of Fame a decade ago is one of life's biggest misteries, one of life's greatest injustices.
Congratulations, Bert. You've been a Hall of Famer in my mind for years. It's great that the BBWAA finally noticed and gave you this richly deserved honor.
Posted Wednesday, January 5, 2011 2:15 PM
No comments.
