July 1-9, 2013
Jul 01 00:38 DFL's Amazon tax is killing jobs Jul 01 04:11 David Schultz bemoans lack of House GOP fools Jul 01 13:09 I'm rich? And you are, too? Jul 02 14:08 What's missing from this picture? Jul 06 10:07 Economic spin vs. economic facts Jul 07 12:07 St. Cloud Times misses FBI visit Jul 08 00:57 University transcript-keeping explained Jul 09 02:22 Potter's disinterest in transcripts is frightening Jul 09 10:35 President Obama, Scofflaw-in-Chief
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
DFL's Amazon tax is killing jobs
When the DFL passed the internet tax, people predicted that it wouldn't raise revenues. These same experts predicted that jobs would be lost as a direct result of that tax. According to this article , the experts were right:
In the last Minnesota legislative session, area state Sens. Tom Bakk, Tony Lourey, Roger Reinert and David Tomassoni, as well as area state Reps. David Dill, Tom Huntley, Jason Metsa, Mary Murphy, Erik Simonson and Mike Sundin, voted for the Affiliate Nexus Tax, also known as the 'Amazon Tax.' Gov. Mark Dayton signed it into law. The law was an attempt to force big Internet retailers, such as Amazon.com, to collect sales taxes in the state of Minnesota. The law says if online retailers do business with Internet marketers in the state the online retailers must collect sales taxes.
But because of this new tax, online retailers are ending their business relationships with Minnesota Internet marketers, estimated at more than 5,200 businesses and individuals who paid more than an estimated $35 million in yearly Minnesota income taxes.
I own an Internet magazine called PaddlingLight.com, which has online retailer marketing clients that have decided to no longer do business with me and other Minnesota marketers. My only choices are moving out of Minnesota, selling my business to an out-of-state buyer or shutting it down. One of my clients was Amazon.com, which ended its relationships with Minnesota's Internet marketing businesses, effective today.
Anyone who mistook Tom Bakk, Roger Reinert or David Tomassoni for tax experts isn't too bright. It was totally predictable that Amazon and other online retailers would cut ties with online marketers in Minnesota. It's astonishing to think that the DFL, Gov. Dayton included, thought they'd collect a penny from this new tax increase.
In fact, it's frightening to think that these are the people putting the budget together.
This isn't surprising to conservative bloggers, though. I wrote here about how the DFL proposed tax increases without thinking things through:
REP. ZELLERS: But if I pay him every month $20 or $100, is that going to be or is he going to have to start collecting sales tax and remitting it to the State of Minnesota?
COMMISSIONER FRANS: ...He probably would. If it was a monthly charge, then there likely would be a sales tax charge.
REP. ZELLERS: So then someone mowing my lawn, someone shovelling snow for me during the winter time or a babysitter?
COMMISSIONER FRANS: Those services would generally all be covered by the sales tax.
The DFL's initial business-to-business sales tax proposal would've required babysitters to collect sales tax from parents. It would've required young people mowing a widow's lawn each week to collect sales tax from the widow, too.
The DFL's tax policies are patterned after the old saying of Ready. Fire. Aim.
With the DFL, raising taxes is a given. Figuring out whether they're needed is just an afterthought. Thinking things through to the point of implementation, apparently, is a luxury to the DFL. Thanks to the DFL, 5,200 business owners will make significantly less money than they did in 2012.
Check back with LFR later this week for more information on the DFL's tax disaster.
Posted Monday, July 1, 2013 12:38 AM
Comment 1 by PoliPresence at 03-Jul-13 10:55 AM
While Gov Dayton hides his fortune in South Dakota to evade MN taxes, online retailers are ending relationships with 5,200 businesses and individuals who paid more than an estimated $35 million in yearly Minnesota income taxes. The relationships are ending due to the Democrats new Internet sales tax.
David Schultz bemoans lack of House GOP fools
Friday night, the trio of David Schultz, Kathryn Pearson & Stacey Hunter-Hecht were guest panelists on Almanac. Predictably, Dr. Schultz bemoaned the fact that Republican moderates were nowhere to be found in the House on immigration.
This isn't a big thing because Dr. Schultz hasn't had a new idea in years, possibly decades. Further, Dr. Schultz has been a shill for the DFL for nearly all that time.
The problem with the Senate amnesty bill isn't that there aren't enough GOP moderates in the House. The problem with the Senate amnesty bill is that conservatives know it isn't a solution to the problem it's meant to fix. I wrote here about the gaping hole in the 'Border Trickle' in the Senate Amnesty Bill:
On page 35, line 24 of the new bill, a provision was inserted that says Napolitano-who already believes the border is secure-can decide against building a fence if she chooses not to erect one:
Notwithstanding paragraph (1), nothing in this subsection shall require the Secretary to install fencing, or infrastructure that directly results from the installation of such fencing, in a particular location along the Southern border, if the Secretary determines that the use or placement of such resources is not the most appropriate means to achieve and maintain effective control over the Southern border at such location.
In other words, House conservatives see this as a sham provision. It doesn't secure the border. It doesn't fix the problem. Its only purpose was to provide political cover for weak-kneed Senate Republicans.
House Republicans shouldn't budge from their demand for a real solution to immigration. That means a border fence. That means 5 straight years of enforcing current immigration laws. That means no catch and release. That means implementing E-Verify.
Dr. Schultz's lamentations about the lack of House GOP moderates is silliness parading as thoughtful policymaking. The Senate Amnesty Bill has a gaping hole in it. Milton Friedman, the late, great economist, was fond of asking where the halfway point between right and wrong was.
When the gap between House conservatives and the Senate Amnesty Bill are this immense, Dr. Friedman's question should be modified to ask what the halfway point is between a solution and a disaster.
The Senate Amnesty Bill is a disaster. The CBO says that it doesn't stop illegal immigration, meaning that the Republicans who voted for the Senate bill voted for a bill that will cause us to revisit the issue 5-7 years from now.
If I were advising House Republicans on this issue, I'd advise them to highlight the failure of the Senate bill to fix the problem. I'd send Speaker Boehner and Rep. Trey Gowdy out daily to any TV news program to talk about the need for a real solution. I'd have them pick a fight with Chuck Schumer, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. I'd have them ask why they support a bill that doesn't fix the problem.
It's really that simple.
Posted Monday, July 1, 2013 4:11 AM
No comments.
I'm rich? And you are, too?
This Our View editorial highlights the DFL's tax hikes on the not-so-rich with a tone of disdain that's perfectly in order. Here's an example of the DNT's snarkiness:
Tomorrow is when a host of new taxes takes effect, as approved this past session by the Minnesota Legislature. And of course, DFL lawmakers and DFL Gov. Mark Dayton were all about taxing the rich - so we all must be rich because many of the new taxes will be paid by every one of us, regardless of our income level.
Everything from ringtones and pay-per-view movies to computer repairs and books downloaded to Kindles, Nooks and other devices will now carry a Minnesota sales tax. Even e-greeting cards and individual songs for our iPods are subject to the 6.875 percent sales tax.
All things only the wealthy buy, right?
Hardly.
Yesterday, I wrote this post highlighting the fact that the Dayton/DFL Amazon Tax has already killed jobs. I wrote frequently this winter about how the DFL's tax-the-rich chanting was an outright lie. I've written about how the DFL's alleged property tax relief is a myth. Frankly, it's time to tell the DFL to stop with their lies. They're frequently divorced from the truth, especially when it comes to taxes.
Here's some hard-hitting facts from the DNT's editorial:
And let's not forget all those 'new fees and fee increases : scattered throughout the budget bills,' as Minnesota Public Radio reported during the session's final moments. 'The list includes $3 more for a driver's license, a $5 surcharge on homeowners and auto insurance policies, a new fee on prepaid cell phones and a $15 surcharge on traffic violations.' Those'll nick all of us, too: some who can least afford it.
The next time the DFL campaigns, saying that they're moderates, We The People should throw these statistics in their face. At a time when people's trust in the federal government is dropping faster than a meteor, the DFL is giving us additional proof that the federal government isn't the only liberal institution that shouldn't be trusted.
Any increased fee or tax demands detailed explanations and justifications. Lawmakers and the governor can be ready with answers for angry constituents, and this time they can spare us their 'tax the rich' - suggesting 'only the rich' - mantra. That's clearly not the case.
ABM should change to ABL, aka the Alliance for Big Lies. The DFL should change from Democratic-Farmer-Labor to Democrats Frequently Lie.
The frightening thought is that the DFL raises taxes almost as frequently as it lies.
Posted Monday, July 1, 2013 1:09 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 02-Jul-13 08:21 AM
Someplace there is a breakdown of the "tax incidence" of just the new taxes. Surprise, the rich and poor are hardest hit, and the middle class gets hit just a bit less. What angers me second most, after the lying, is that taxes did not NEED to be raised. It was pure political theater, which the DFL vastly prefers over doing their jobs-- setting priorities and creating a sensible budget.
What's missing from this picture?
Anyone who's paid attention to St. Cloud's transportation priorities list knows that getting regional air service to Chicago, IL is St. Cloud's highest priority. The fact that the Greater St. Cloud Development Corporation, the Central Minnesota Transportation Alliance, the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce and the APO are each working this issue is testimony to the fact that this is St. Cloud's top transportation priority.
The only institution that isn't helping in this process is St. Cloud State. If SCSU won't help with workforce training, St. Cloud will face a difficult, uphill fight to get air service to St. Cloud.
President Potter is a member of the GSDC . What's interesting is this information from the Let's Go St. Cloud website :
Regional air service is a critical building block for Central Minnesota's business and economic growth. That's why securing scheduled commercial air service at the St. Cloud Regional Airport is the Greater St. Cloud Development Corporation's first initiative, in it's efforts to lead economic development for the benefit of the Greater St. Cloud community.
President Potter belongs to an organization that's put a high priority on getting a regional carrier into the airport. What's he done lately to make that a reality?
Further down the page, this bullet-pointed case for air service is made:
The City of St. Cloud, the St. Cloud Regional Airport and the Greater St. Cloud Development Corporation have made air service to Chicago O'Hare (ORD) a top priority due to the critical impact it will have on the region by:
- Providing $17+ million in economic impact annually
- Helping the greater St. Cloud community more easily connect with the global business community
- Creating a gateway to and from the region
- Attracting talented individuals and national and multinational companies
- Offering more domestic and international connections than MSP
- Decreasing auto and travel costs with less driving mileage, free parking and free Wi-Fi
- Providing convenience with local proximity, shorter lines, quick check in and accessible parking.
Finally, it's fitting that President Potter hasn't stepped forward on this:
We're waiting for you. It's time for you to get on board and partner with us today. Let's Go .
I couldn't agree more. It's time for President Potter's institution to get on board.
Posted Tuesday, July 2, 2013 2:08 PM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 02-Jul-13 11:44 PM
A well written article. And an embarrassment to the organizations trying to get air service to St. Cloud.
St. Cloud Times misses FBI visit
Recently, the FBI paid a visit to the St. Cloud State campus to check into the transcript scandal. While MPR filed an article about the visit, the St. Cloud Times couldn't be bothered with assigning a reporter to the story. Instead, they ran the MPR article .
I first wrote about this scandal in t his article . MPR's first article ran a month ago. I'm still waiting for the first article by the St. Cloud Times. Let me rephrase that. I'm still waiting for a St. Cloud Times reporter to write about this scandal. I'm not holding my breath on that.
It's stunning that the Times assigned Dave Aikens to write about President Potter's proposal to cut energy usage by 20% but they didn't assign a reporter to write about a serious issue like transcript fraud.
To date, I'm the only journalist questioning whether taxpayers got ripped off when SCSU hired the Earthbound Marketing Group to help with SCSU's rebranding. I'm the only journalist questioning President Potter's spending decisions .
We've seen how reckless and biased the Times Editorial Board is with their opinions. The fact that they didn't investigate this issue is proof they're mostly disinterested in investigating St. Cloud State. The fact is they haven't written anything about this transcript scandal since it bubbled up over a year ago.
It's one thing to have another news organization find a story first. It happens. That isn't what's happening here. MPR wrote their first article about the transcripts a month ago. The Times could've investigated this in that time. They couldn't have been unaware of the transcript discrepancies after MPR's first article because they monitor MPR's wires. That's confirmed by their running MPR's article on the FBI visit.
Unless the Times can prove that their education reporters are working on an investigative piece that'll run later, the Times' editors will have egg on their face. Let's be clear about this. This post isn't about criticizing the education beat reporters. They're given assignments on what to write about. It's about the editors apparently not taking an interest in a major local issue.
On something this big, that isn't acceptable.
Posted Sunday, July 7, 2013 12:07 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Jul-13 12:43 PM
Gary:
Of course this is the organization that thinks Michelle Bachmannn wastes her time and doesn't do anything good for Saint Cloud.
A suggestion I know we lost King as state rep, but doesn't he have a role at teaching in Saint Cloud. Maybe you can talk to King and ask him to make a statement. They sort of can't ignore a professor in the school.
So they aren't going to look for bad where bad is. Mind you if everyone of your Saint Cloud readers sends them a letter to the editor that might get their attention.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 07-Jul-13 07:17 PM
How the $&@? can the Times miss an FBI visit on campus? What does their investigative watch dog do?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Jul-13 01:03 AM
What makes you think the Times' watchdog does anything?
Economic spin vs. economic facts
Minutes after yesterday's jobs report came out, the White House started the spin cycle with this post by Alan Krueger. Here's the key paragraph in the article:
While more work remains to be done, today's employment report provides further confirmation that the U.S. economy is continuing to recover from the worst downturn since the Great Depression. It is critical that we remain focused on pursuing policies to speed job creation and expand the middle class, as we continue to dig our way out of the deep hole that was caused by the severe recession that began in December 2007.
Here's what ZeroHedge's Tyler Durden wrote in deciphering the meaning of yesterday's jobs report:
As a reminder: jobs have quantity and quality components. The quantity component was good enough to convince the 10 Year the taper is imminent (if not stocks, which continue to trade dislocated from any and all fundamentals). But how about the quality? In a word: not good. In June, the household survey reported that part-time jobs soared by 360,000 to 28,059,000 - an all time record high. Full time jobs? Down 240,000. And looking back at the entire year, so far in 2013, just 130K Full-Time Jobs have been added, offset by a whopping 557K Part-Time jobs. And there is your jobs "quality" leading to today's market euphoria (if only for now).
That's a stunning piece of information. It ties inperfectly with this article :
Of the 144 million Americans employed last month, only 116 million were working full-time. Friday's report showed that 58.7% of the civilian adult population of 245 million was working last month. Only 47% of Americans, however, had a full-time job.
Other people can write about the complexities of President Obama's and the Democrats' economic policies. I'll just quickly sum it by saying that Obama's and the Democrats' policies have failed miserably. Here's the title to Durden's post:
Obamacare Strikes: Part-Time Jobs Surge To All Time High; Full-Time Jobs Plunge By 240,000
Until the PPACA is repealed in its entirety, the US economy will struggle. (During yesterday's Lightning Round, Charles Krauthammer used the term of treading water. Both terms fit.)
As for Krueger's happy talk about building the middle class, that's nothing but spin. It's impossible to build the middle class when his boss's policies are killing full-time jobs and creating record amounts of part-time jobs. More and more companies are hiring part-time workers to avoid the penalties included in the PPACA. This isn't surprising. In fact, it's rather predictable.
As long as the PPACA is intact, this type of job report will be the rule, not the exception.
Posted Saturday, July 6, 2013 10:07 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 07-Jul-13 07:34 AM
Saw an article explaining the data in the UK Mail yesterday (July 6) http://tinyurl.com/muz77az Then I checked the BLS data http://tinyurl.com/lduzee and sure enough I find that the U-3 number is misleading at 7.6%; if you want a true picture of unemployment see the U-6 data which rose from 13.8% to 14.3%.
Wonder when the people will wake up and realize the "emperor has no clothes on"?
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 07-Jul-13 09:44 AM
I'm curious as to what the unlawful delay of the employer mandate will mean to jobs. My guess is that it won't change. Nobody is going to hire a full-time employee if there is ANY chance they will get socked with an onerous ACA mandate. Businesses plan ahead further than that. Of course, Obama and his henchmen have no idea how business works, so...
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 07-Jul-13 12:47 PM
Gary:
I'll like to thank you. I go to at least one national website which does a lot of reporting on the jobs rate. Your post was the first one I remember seeing that finally made a number connection to what I suspected was employers hiring or shifting their employment to part time so they didn't have to pay health care costs for their employees.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by eric z. at 07-Jul-13 07:51 PM
It has been going on for years - the abuse of the workforce via "temp" employment practices. It needs regulation. Or is that not your point, Gary?
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Jul-13 01:12 AM
My point, Eric, is that the PPACA, a government policy, is incenting businesses who want to still make a profit to reduce workforces & work hours. I joined with other conservative bloggers in predicting that this would trigger hiring freezes & feeble job creation figures.
BTW, a single-payer plan wouldn't be better because we'd still have major doctor shortages, hospitals' & clinics' costs wouldn't go down & we'd have to borrow trillions of dollars from China to pay for the same inefficient health care system that we've got now.
University transcript-keeping explained
Rochelle Olson's article includes an interesting quote from SCSU spokesman Adam Hammer. In response to a question about grades disappearing from students' transcripts, Hammer offered this explanation:
A St. Cloud State University faculty member who raised concerns about discrepancies between awarded and recorded grades said Friday that he's not convinced administrators took them seriously, despite a recent visit by federal investigators.
'Academic integrity is something you can't mess around with,' said chemistry Prof. Jack McKenna.
But university spokesman Adam Hammer said that nothing 'scandalous' occurred and that there was no 'wrongdoing,' despite the weeklong visit from federal investigators in late June.
The problem was an administrative issue that has been addressed with stepped-up internal communication emphasizing that 'faculty needs to be consulted' if students are granted late withdrawals from courses or are allowed to drop courses after grades have already been awarded, Hammer said.
Either Hammer isn't familiar with SCSU's procedures or he's lying. There isn't a procedure for making a student's participation in a class disappear.
Late withdrawals
A student can apply for a late drop or withdrawal well into the semester. When a late drop or withdrawal is granted, a student's transcript shows which class was dropped. It might include the date it was dropped, too. If the student is granted a late withdrawal, the student's transcript will list the class and a W for the withdrawal.
If the withdrawal is granted after the semester, the administration has to make the change. That's because the professor can't change a grade once it's input into SCSU's official transcript database.
Questionable behavior
Chemistry Professor Tamara Leenay explained a different situation :
Faculty members' concerns were first reported about a month ago, after Professor Tamara Leenay came across the transcript of a student who failed an organic chemistry class she taught a few years earlier. She said the course had completely disappeared from the transcript, even though she had a record of giving him an F. She said she was never notified of a change.
If a student withdraws from a class, a W is put onto that student's transcript next to the class that he/she withdrew from. That isn't what Prof. Leenay is talking about here. She's talking about a student participating in her organic chemistry class, getting an F in organic chemistry, then asking the administration to delete the documentation that he'd participated in Prof. Leenay's class .
In essence, he asked the administration to look the other way on the class. What's most troubling is that the administration apparently agreed to grant this student's request .
At this point, there's no indication that the administration has documentation showing the student who failed organic chemistry deserved special treatment. In fact, there's no mention of any documentation showing why the student shouldn't have gotten an F for the class.
What we know is that the professor gave the student an F for a final grade. Further, we know that the professor didn't note any special circumstances for this student. Implicit in this situation is that Prof. Leenay didn't see any special circumstances that warranted special consideration. If she'd seen something out of the ordinary, it isn't likely that she would've given the student an F.
The question that the University hasn't answered is why they deleted proof of this student's participation in Prof. Leenay's organic chemistry class from his transcript. What was the special reason for granting this student special treatment? If SCSU can't produce the documentation showing why they deleted this student's grade from his transcript, they'll have lots of explaining to do. They might not have to explain their actions to the FBI or the USDoE but they'll be held accountable if the MnSCU Board of Trustees and/or the Minnesota legislature do their jobs.
The University's explanation fits for routine cases. Their explanation doesn't fit for students who failed a class, then asked for special treatment from the University's administration.
UPDATE: Earlier tonight, I got an email from a professor at St. Cloud State regarding what I wrote in this post. Here's the text of the email:
You write: If the withdrawal is granted after the semester, the administration has to make the change. That's because the professor can't change a grade once it's input into SCSU's official transcript database.
They now can do so online. There can be a change made with a slip signed by the professor. Indeed, that should be the only way it's changed after semester end. The problem is that it's not happening.
The form for late withdrawals is here . Online grade change can be done through an online system that requires a name and password . The name/password is a substitute for the slip we used to use.
I stand corrected.
Originally posted Monday, July 8, 2013, revised 09-Jul 2:09 AM
No comments.
Potter's disinterest in transcripts is frightening
As the investigation into the disappearing SCSU transcripts widens, one thing that's apparent is President Potter's public disinterest in the subject:
Chemistry Prof. Tamara Leenay also noticed discrepancies in 2012 and gave the documentation to McKenna. 'It was just odd, all of the sudden, these grades are being changed,' she said.
Leenay said she has been out of state on vacation and did not meet with federal investigators. She also said that since she discovered the discrepancies and shared them with McKenna, no one from the administration has talked to her about the issue or asked for her records.
That's a rather odd reaction to a potentially explosive situation. It's been over a year since Prof. Leenay gave Prof. McKenna this documentation. Why wouldn't the University contact her?
Since this began, the administration's position has been that this is just a bureaucratic mix-up. The administration won't even admit that this is worthy of being an investigation :
Admin: Sure so then we have as to what kind of data is relevant and we go there and we can collect the information so that it makes sense for you. The other thing is I won't call it an investigation I would call analysis. So it's a data analysis to understand if there is a spike and then understand whether it is due to factors outside our control or if it is factors of the band of discretion becoming wider.
How can the SCSU administration think this is just data analysis when professors have told them that students' participation in specific classes have disappeared from their transcripts? How can President Potter and other members of his administration attend the monthly Meet and Confer meetings, then tell the Faculty Association that they're looking into the transcript issue?
It's dishonest for the administration to say that they're looking into this issue, then find out that they haven't talked with the professor who's questioned the integrity of a specific student's transcript?
This is another major red flag:
Under Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system policies, students who drop out after 80 percent of the semester is completed must get special permission from the administration and faculty. Legitimate reasons for withdrawal or dropping would be military service, or medical or financial issues, according to McKenna and Hammer.
The chemistry professors said the students at issue did not fit into that category. Instead, they had completed the work, taken final exams and scored poorly, earning Ds and Fs. But later they were allowed to withdraw , leaving a 'W' on a transcript, or to drop the course entirely from their transcript, leaving no evidence that they had ever taken it, according to McKenna.
Let's repeat that. "The chemistry professors said the students at issue" weren't eligible for legitimate revisions to their transcripts. They weren't eligible because students "had completed the work, taken final exams and scored poorly, earning Ds and Fs."
First, what rationale can the administration offer that justifies entirely deleting grades from a student's transcripts after he's failed the class? Second, why did the administration consider changing a student's transcript after he failed a class without the professor's input?
This isn't a game. Professors take note of attendance. They grade tests, term papers and final exams. That makes them the expert on the student. When they issue a final grade, that grade shouldn't be changed without the student providing a compelling reason why it should be changed. Included with that reason should be documentation that says why they deserve special treatment. Failing a class isn't justification for deleting grades.
The fact that President Potter hasn't talked with Dr. Leenay since she first brought this forward is proof that he either isn't interested in this grade inflation or because he's afraid of admitting there's a serious problem with the University's transcript system.
This is a major jolt to SCSU's academic integrity. Unfortunately, it isn't the last shoe to drop in this matter. It's merely the tip of a gigantic iceberg.
Posted Tuesday, July 9, 2013 2:22 AM
No comments.
President Obama, Scofflaw-in-Chief
President Obama's disdain for laws he doesn't like has earned him the title of Scofflaw-in-Chief. Michael McConnell's op-ed in today's WSJ is a lesson in why Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution is vital to the health of our nation. Article II, Section 3 of the Constitution says that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed."
The Obama administration is the most willing to ignore the Constitution and the laws of the United States since the Nixon administration. Within months of taking office, President Obama ignored federal law regarding secured bonds during the Chrysler bailout. Secured bondholders accept a lower interest rate on their bonds with the stipulation that they're the first to get paid in a bankruptcy proceeding. President Obama threatened the bondholds into submitting, then giving the UAW first dibs on getting paid.
Judge McConnell is exactly right in this paragraph:
Of all the stretches of executive power Americans have seen in the past few years, the president's unilateral suspension of statutes may have the most disturbing long-term effects. As the Supreme Court said long ago (Kendall v. United States, 1838), allowing the president to refuse to enforce statutes passed by Congress "would be clothing the president with a power to control the legislation of congress, and paralyze the administration of justice."
The Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution in such a way that presidents can't become imperialists. President Obama, on the other hand, seems rather fond of acting like Supreme Leader of the United States.
This is telling, too:
Article II, Section 3, of the Constitution states that the president "shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." This is a duty, not a discretionary power. While the president does have substantial discretion about how to enforce a law, he has no discretion about whether to do so.
President Obama is a world-class tyrant. He hasn't hesitated in not enforcing laws he doesn't like. His spin to justify not enforcing the law is disgusting. His actions have resembled a Third World dictator more than they've resembled the President of the United States.
When historians write President Obama's legacy, it should include how disinterested he's been in following the law. In fact, I'd argue that he thinks he's above the law.
Posted Tuesday, July 9, 2013 10:35 AM
No comments.
