July 17-20, 2017
Jul 17 08:18 A tax by any other name? Jul 17 17:21 Dignity in Dying's conflict Jul 18 12:54 Charlie Gard vs. Alan Grayson Jul 18 23:27 Torpedoing health care reform Jul 19 22:40 Kleis's regional airport fiasco Jul 20 00:02 Guthmann rejects Dayton's veto Jul 20 19:38 The 'moderate' left's bias
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
A tax by any other name?
A Taxing Thought on the Minimum Wage
By Speed Gibson
July 14, 2017
You may remember how a Stillwater restaurant added a 'minimum wage fee' to their tabs in 2014, in response to a 75 cent increase in the Minnesota minimum wage. Liberals, amazed that the owners didn't just draw on their assumed millions stashed under the floorboards, said they should just raise prices if need be, not play politics. Conservatives like me cheered for a business willing to push back with what liberals hate most: the truth. And then I realized that there was a greater point being made here, intended or not. As an added, involuntary, cost to a business, the requirement to pay above market minimum wages is a tax.
Albert Einstein's two great theories largely sprang from his ideas of equivalence. An astronaut in a rocket accelerating at 1 G in free space experiences the same effects as another still sitting on the launch pad on Earth. Gravity, he thought, must also be some form of acceleration, hence his General Theory of Relativity.
So, is there an equivalent tax to mandated minimum wages? Let's take some full-time employees making $10 an hour. Assuming none are subsequently laid off, the new law takes effect and now they make $15 an hour. Each makes an additional $200 a week, or equivalently $200 a week now leaves the owner's cash register. No additional work was performed. The money simply moved from the owner to the employee.
But a tax law could equivalently demand that the $200 'shortfall' be sent to St. Paul, then distributed to the employee via a refundable income tax credit based on the $400 paid and reported. Either way, the owner, employee and State checking account balances all read the same afterward.
I therefore conclude, if the minimum wage looks like a tax and acts like a tax and is compulsory like a tax - it's a tax, with one remaining difference to now resolve: display that tax on the receipt like the courageous Stillwater restaurant owners did.
Posted Monday, July 17, 2017 8:18 AM
No comments.
Dignity in Dying's conflict
One of the underreported facets of the Charlie Gard story is the potential conflict of interest the Gards' attorney might have . According to the article "Victoria Butler-Cole, who speaks on Charlie's behalf in court, is chairman of Compassion in Dying, a sister organisation to Dignity in Dying. The charity campaigns for a change in the law to make assisted dying legal in the UK. Dignity in Dying used to be called the Voluntary Euthanasia Society."
Victoria Butler-Cole essentially lost the initial lawsuit. It's certainly reasonable to question whether Butler-Cole's heart was in it. It's one thing for an American lawyer to represent a client with whom he disagrees with. It's quite another when that attorney takes on a life-and-death issue like this when they're an activist for euthanasia. Thank God Connie Yates and Chris Gard weren't willing to stop fighting for their son.
It was appalling to hear the British court say that it was the government's responsibility to look out for Charlie Gard. That's a perfect example for why the United States shouldn't want to be anything like Europe.
Posted Monday, July 17, 2017 5:21 PM
No comments.
Charlie Gard vs. Alan Grayson
For those thinking that single-payer health care is the perfect health care system, thoughtful people quickly offer proof that it isn't. We highlight Charlie Gard's case. The opening paragraphs of this article is filled with the same smugness as the British Supreme Court. It says "A baby in Britain has become the centre of an international political and legal battle. Eleven-month-old Charlie Gard has a terminal medical condition, mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, a progressive disease that causes muscle weakness, leaving sufferers unable to eat, walk, talk and eventually breathe. Numerous doctors have said that death will come soon and that as any further treatment will be pointless and cause the child great suffering, they think it best to discontinue life support ."
In 2009, when debate of the ACA was just starting, Rep. Alan Grayson, (D-FL), criticized Republicans, saying that their health care plan consisted of 2 parts. The first part, Rep. Grayson said, was to "not get sick." The other part, Rep. Grayson said was "if you get sick, die quickly." Initially, though, Democrats like Rep. Grayson fought for a public option , which essentially was single-payer.
First, here's Rep. Grayson's presentation:
It isn't a stretch to say that Rep. Grayson is one of the meanest, most dishonest politicians in congressional history. Isn't it ironic that the system that Rep. Grayson supports is like the system he says the Republicans supported in 2009? Isn't it ironic that single-payer, which closely resembles 'the Grayson plan', is essentially what's endangering Charlie Gard's life? I guess the Grayson Plan isn't so compassionate after all.
Posted Tuesday, July 18, 2017 12:54 PM
No comments.
Torpedoing health care reform
Susan Collins, Rand Paul, Mike Lee and Rob Portman torpedoed health care reform. Rather than working constructively, this quartet told us what they objected to without telling us what they were for. Oh, they had a laundry list of demands. Yes, they threw around phrases like free market principles. Unfortunately, they didn't put those principles into legislative language.
Of this quartet, only Sen. Lee has a bright future -- as a Supreme Court justice. Sen. Paul is virtually worthless. Jonah Goldberg's article highlights Sen. Paul's duplicitousness. Recently, he told Chris Wallace why the Senate bill wasn't good enough. Jonah explained it, saying "Every time healthcare proceedings move one step in Paul's direction, he seems to move one step back. Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas offered an amendment that would open up the market for more flexible and affordable plans, like Paul wants. No good, he told Fox's Chris Wallace. Those plans are still in the 'context' of the Obamacare mandates. 'My idea always was to replace it with freedom, legalize choice, legalize inexpensive insurance, allow people to join associations to buy their insurance.' Sounds good. Except a provision for exempting associations from Obamacare mandates is already in the bill."
Susan Collins and Shelly Moore-Capito aren't helping, either:
GOP Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia said Tuesday they will vote to block repeal without an adequate replacement. Opposition from one more Republican senator would be enough to sink the measure.
Sen. Collins hasn't put forward a single substantive proposal yet. It's time she stopped being an obstructionist. It's time she started solving problem.
I don't want Collins and Capito thrown out. I just want them to start being more solutions-oriented. Add Lisa Murkowski to that list, too. At this point, I consider Sen. Murkowski and Sen. Collins as representing the special interests rather than the people living in their states. If you don't believe me, think of it this way. They announced that they'd vote against slowing down rising health insurance premiums if they didn't get promised that Planned Parenthood got fully funded.
At some point, don't Republicans have the right to insist that Republicans act like Republicans at least half the time? At this point, Collins and Murkowski aren't meeting that minimal threshold. Reagan used to say that your 80% friend isn't your 20% enemy. That's right. Still, your 50% friend isn't a reliable friend. They're people I wouldn't trust.
Posted Tuesday, July 18, 2017 11:27 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 19-Jul-17 05:11 PM
Not sure why the 3 women opposed a complete repeal of Obamacare with the 2 year window to get something else in place. Obamacare needs to be completely repealed, not just trimmed here and there and given a tuck to make it look likes something new. Getting government out of healthcare would be the best solution but we know there are 50%+ of the people that depend on government for their every need so that won't ever happen.
Kleis's regional airport fiasco
One of the things that stuck out like a sore thumb at Monday night's St. Cloud City Council's Study Session was Mayor Dave Kleis's evasiveness. Let's start by saying the study session focused lots of time on a study on the future viability of St. Cloud Airport, the building of a regional airport authority and whether it's necessary for there to be council representation on the airport task force. Mayor Kleis explained that the City Council was "the conduit" for the study. Mayor Kleis explained that the St. Cloud area county commissioners will read the study, then decide whether they'd want to form a regional airport authority.
Initially, Councilman Hontos questioned whether the City Council would be represented on the task force that conducts the study. The airport task force must get it right when it comes to hiring a specialized airport consultant. When Des Moines become a regional airport authority, they hired Don Smithey.
At this point, St. Cloud doesn't have a plan, much less a set of goals it wants to achieve. Certainly, St. Cloud wants daily air service to Chicago but that's pretty much its only goal. It's indisputable that airports can have a significant economic impact. It's equally indisputable that, at this point, the economic impact runs in the red for the St. Cloud taxpayers. It's questionable whether Mayor Kleis has provided specific details as to how a regional airport authority will impact St. Cloud's economy. At this point, I don't know that this task force has developed a detailed business plan for the airport.
Until this task force receives that type of input and until the business community and the counties start working together, there's ample reason to question whether another study will produce better results. It's difficult to know whether the City of St. Cloud, the Greater St. Cloud Development Corporation, the St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce, the County Commissioners, the educational community (SCSU) and our legislative delegation have started working together.
What's disturbing is that almost $75,000,000 worth of local, state and federal monies have gone for improvements to the St. Cloud airport. In addition to that, St. Cloud has frequently gotten grants to conduct studies to get daily air service to St. Cloud.
It's more than disappointing that, in over 10 years, St. Cloud hasn't put together a solid business plan that's attractive to airlines. That leads me to question St. Cloud's viability or whether they haven't put the right personnel in the right positions.
Mayor Kleis's argument that St. Cloud shouldn't have to shoulder the cost of putting a regional airport authority together is accurate but it isn't persuasive. What incentive do other mayors and county commissioners have in sharing those costs? St. Cloud essentially volunteered to pay for putting the airport association together. Further, the city hasn't put a viable business plan together for their airport. Why shouldn't the other cities let him foot the bill?
The first 75 minutes of this video [no longer available] are sickening. Of particular note is Mayor Kleis's evasiveness on the issue of representation on the board. Is that because Kleis knows this study doesn't have much of a chance of producing different results than previous studies have produced? Mayor Kleis has used taxpayer-funded grants for other studies. Thus far, the studies have been portraits in futility.
I'd love to see St. Cloud develop its airport. At this point, though, I don't have much confidence in that happening.
Originally posted Wednesday, July 19, 2017, revised 20-Jul 3:05 AM
No comments.
Guthmann rejects Dayton's veto
Wednesday afternoon, Judge John Guthmann ruled that Gov. Dayton's veto of funding for the legislature was unconstitutional . In his ruling, Judge Guthmann said "The court concludes that the Governor's vetoes violated the Separation of Powers clause of the Minnesota Constitution because they both nullified a branch of government and refashioned the line-item veto as a tool to secure the repeal or modification of policy legislation unrelated to the vetoed appropriation."
Judge Guthmann continued, saying "Absent emergency court funding, the effective abolition will exist as long as the Governor decides to veto legislative funding bills submitted to him, which the Governor's counsel conceded could occur through the remainder of the Governor's term. The Governor argues that the vetoes abolished or defunded the legislature. However emergency funding is at most a temporary measure to preserve the constitutional rights of the people while the Executive and Legislative Branches resolve their differences. Emergency funding is not a remedy for arguably unconstitutional actions by one branch of government against another."
Unfortunately, Gov. Dayton immediately announced that he was appealing the ruling within minutes of hearing the ruling:
"Today's District Court ruling is only a preliminary step in this case's judicial process. The Stipulation, which the House, Senate, and I filed with the District Court Judge in June, states, 'The parties agree to jointly seek accelerated review by the Minnesota Supreme Court of the District Court's order or judgment.' Accordingly, I have asked Sam Hanson, my legal counsel, to appeal this decision to the Minnesota Supreme Court."
It isn't required that Gov. Dayton appeal Judge Guthmann's ruling. Gov. Dayton could simply announce that he isn't appealing the ruling. Instead, Gov. Dayton has chosen to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a lawsuit he doesn't have a chance of winning.
Speaker Daudt weighed in:
What's particularly hurtful to Gov. Dayton was his attorney admitting that this "could occur through the remainder of the Governor's term." To be fair, Hanson was put in a difficult, near-impossible situation. That's what happens when your client is a jackass. Hanson's argument was weak , though, too:
But Dayton's attorney says the governor has broad authority to veto appropriations.
I can't deny that governors have "broad authority to veto appropriations." That isn't what Gov. Dayton did in this instance. When he line-item vetoed the legislature's operating budget, he didn't just veto an ordinary appropriation. Gov. Dayton also vetoed funding for an entire branch of government. That type of chutzpah can't be tolerated.
Posted Thursday, July 20, 2017 12:02 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 20-Jul-17 06:20 PM
And this a-hole is going to appeal the decision to the supreme court. If democrats would stop wasting taxpayer money on frivolous lawsuits (Dayton, Otto), there might be more money for their pet projects and income re-distribution schemes.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 20-Jul-17 08:38 PM
I hope the Court rebukes Dayton, both for the Veto and for wasting time and money on this frivolity.
Comment 3 by Rex Newman at 20-Jul-17 08:46 PM
It's official: Lieutenant Governor Yvonne Prettner Solon was the best of the Minnesota State-wide officers elected in 2010, the only one to have competently performed her Constitutional duties.
The 'moderate' left's bias
Anyone who's watched Amy Walters on Special Report's All-Star Panel knows that she's a lefty. Wednesday night, Walters' leftism came out in a surprising way. The topic of discussion was President Trump's 'secret' second meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin. CNN's and MSNBC's hosts were scandalized by Trump's and Putin's second meeting. While she didn't show it, Ms. Walters said that any meeting between Trump and Putin wouldn't go well for Trump because Russia interfered in our election.
By admitting that, Ms. Walters essentially said that this event wouldn't be judged fairly because the media is pushing a hateful, anti-Trump narrative. Apparently, Ms. Walters either doesn't notice that she isn't impartial or she's admitting that she isn't interested in being impartial. Personally, I'm betting on the latter. She's already admitted that the MSM's narrative isn't fair. Next, Ms. Walters essentially says that the MSM's partiality is something that the GOP will just have to deal with.
In 2004, Evan Thomas infamously said "There's one other base here, the media. Let's talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win and I think they're going to portray Kerry and Edwards I'm talking about the establishment media, not Fox. They're going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and there's going to be this glow about them, collective glow, the two of them, that's going to be worth maybe 15 points ."
Since then, the MSM, aka the Agenda Media, has gotten more anti-Republican each election cycle. After talkin about how unfair media coverage is on Trump/Russia, Ms. Walters compared Trump/Russia with FNC's coverage of Hillary/Benghazi as though they were equal. Seriously?
With Trump/Russia, there's speculation that Trump colluded with Putin in rigging the election. With Hillary/Benghazi, there's indisputable proof that Hillary's decisions got the U.S. Ambassador to Libya and three others killed. Thanks to Hillary's congressional testimony, we also have proof that she lied about a video causing the attack:
Ms. Walters' comparison isn't just intellectually dishonest. It's incoherent.
Posted Thursday, July 20, 2017 7:38 PM
No comments.
