June 11, 2015
Jun 11 05:24 Wolgamott visits Ox in the Afternoon Jun 11 10:41 Jeb's staff in disarray Jun 11 11:42 Stupidity running wild in St. Paul Jun 11 12:37 Gov. Dayton, victim? Jun 11 13:45 King v. Burwell, preview edition Jun 11 15:51 The safest restaurant in the US Jun 11 17:08 Carly Fiorina: Let's reclaim feminism
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Wolgamott visits Ox in the Afternoon
Dan Wolgamott visited with KNSI's Dan Ochsner Wednesday afternoon. Wolgamott was the DFL-endorsed candidate against Rep. Tama Theis in 2014. Here's a little historical information on that race. Rep. Theis won that election by 1,300 votes while garnering 55% of the vote.
One of the topics discussed during the interview was transportation. Wolgamott lamented the fact that a compromise wasn't reached to fix Minnesota's potholed roads. I wrote this post after the St. Cloud Times published Wolgamott's op-ed. Here's part of what Mr. Wolgamott said in that op-ed:
Our roads are aging, the congestion is getting worse and our state is falling behind on delivering the vibrant transportation options we need. We feel the bumps in our pothole-filled roads and the hit in our wallets with vehicle repairs.
It's time for us to invest in our roads and bridges, which is why St. Cloud needs better leadership than State Sen. John Pederson. As made clear in two recent articles in the St. Cloud Times, Pederson has some thoughts on the state's transportation network. As the Republican lead on the Senate Transportation and Public Safety Committee, he could play a vital role in providing St. Cloud the comprehensive transportation investment we need.
Instead, Sen. Pederson backs a plan that not only shifts money away from our schools and services for our most vulnerable residents, but relies heavily on borrowing for our roads and bridges, putting the costs on the state's credit card. This plan depends on action to be taken by future legislatures. However, there is no guarantee future legislatures will make those decisions. Instead of stability, this is another example of politicians promising something in the future to justify ducking their responsibilities now.
TRANSLATION: Minnesota's roads need fixing.
That's long on complaining but short on solutions. That's typical Wolgamott. This is, too:
We need an honest, comprehensive approach that creates a dedicated source of new funding for our roads and bridges, one that will meet the demands of our growing state.
TRANSLATION: I support the Dayton-Bakk-Move MN gas tax increase plan.
The tip-off is Mr. Wolgamott's use of the phrase "comprehensive approach." Whenever you hear that phrase, grab your wallets. It means that the DFL intends to raid your wallets again. As I've repeatedly said, the public supports the GOP plan because it a) doesn't raise taxes and b) isn't comprehensive. I've repeatedly said that 75% of Minnesotans support the GOP plan.
When 75% of Minnesotans support the GOP plan, why shouldn't the GOP plan pass with overwhelming support? Further, I'd love hearing Mr. Wolgamott explain what a compromise looks like. Is a smaller but still unpopular gas tax increase the compromise Wolgamott would support? If yes, that means he still supports a failed policy. In 2008, the legislature raised the gas tax with the promise that that tax increase would provide the revenues needed to cut down on Minnesota's backlog for a generation. It's a short 7 years later and the DFL is back insisting that this gas tax increase will be the last gas tax increase...until the next gas tax increase.
Wolgamott is a polished speaker but he's still an empty suit who will support the DFL's agenda if elected.
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2015 5:24 AM
No comments.
Jeb's staff in disarray
When Jeb Bush surprisingly announced his candidacy for president, pundits of all political stripes said it was a political masterstroke because it caught his rivals off-guard. Fast forward to today. Those pundits are singing a different tune :
'We've learned that the prospect of a big financial advantage is not going to keep people out of the race and that the notion of a new face is stronger than we might have thought,' Vin Weber, an outside Bush adviser, said in an interview. 'That requires modest adjustments in strategy, not wholesale changes.' After weeks of bad press, 'donors were getting a little edgy,' Weber said. 'No one is ready to jump ship. Nobody has lost heart. But they have watched other candidates rise in the polls.'
At first, pundits said that Jeb's team was seasoned. The reality is that Jeb's team is all but fossilized. Vin Weber is to GOP politics what Bob Shrum is to Democratic politics. He's got a great reputation and a lengthy losing streak. Jeb's problem is that he hired guys with great reputations rather than picking the best and the brightest.
Washington's pundits didn't think things through. They thought that hiring people with lengthy resumes equated to hiring the best people. They're seeing now that that isn't the truth. The bad news is that that's the least of Team Jeb's worries:
On the stump, Bush has stuck to his pledge not to shift to the right to win the nomination, but his middle-of-the-road positions on immigration and education have come off more as out of step with the base of his party than shrewdly pragmatic. His wonky question-and-answer exchanges with voters sometimes resemble college lectures rather than a disarming appeal for votes.
Jeb's biggest problem is Jeb. He's robotic. He's interested in antagonizing conservatives. There isn't a mindset of 'let's win this together'. It's mostly about Jeb.
That's harmed other parts of Jeb's campaign:
His operation's ability to rake in large checks also fueled inflated expectations. Supporters acknowledged this week that an allied super PAC was likely to fall short - perhaps substantially - of predictions that it would bring in $100 million in the first half of the year.
If Jeb isn't able to carpet-bomb the rest of the GOP field into submission, he won't win the nomination. He simply isn't a top tier candidate otherwise. Otherwise, he's just another legacy candidate living off past headlines.
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2015 10:41 AM
No comments.
Stupidity running wild in St. Paul
If stupidity was worth its weight in gold, St. Paul, MN would be the richest city in the world today. Here's what's happening :
ST. PAUL - A shaky coalition that put together a package of environmental and agricultural programs may not hold up in a coming special session, putting a final piece of the state budget in question.
Just 10 Senate Democrats, a quarter of the majority caucus, voted for that bill, requiring all but one GOP senator to get behind the budget to pass it in late May. Gov. Mark Dayton's veto gave environmental advocates and urban Democrats a second chance to address concerns that range from eliminating a citizen oversight board at the state's pollution agency to cracking open funds dedicated for landfill cleanup.
But several Senate Democrats say the changes in the final product don't go far enough to win their votes. And the Senate's top Republican said the 25 votes his caucus put up in May could dwindle to just 10 in June as GOP members take issue with the growing size of the state's total budget.
Republicans are on the verge of eliminating one of the most obstructionist, counterproductive agencies in state government. That, apparently, isn't enough for these perfectionists. They're on the verge of voting against a good bill that eliminates the Citizens Review Board. If the bill is defeated, that will give the DFL another opportunity to pass a bill that's far less friendly. That's the definition of stupidity.
Let's hope that these DFL senators are bluffing. If they aren't, they should be ridiculed mercilessly.
The DFL, meanwhile, is acting almost as foolishly. They're willing to torpedo a bill that would prevent a government shutdown. If it fails, the DFL will be to blame for a government shutdown. Period. Gov. Dayton vetoed the environment bill initially. Then he agreed to a bill that's virtually identical only to have the DFL legislature cut his legs out from under him. Republicans will have voted for the bill twice.
On second thought, it's clear that the DFL is thinking just as foolishly as this handful of GOP senators.
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2015 11:42 AM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton, victim?
Poor Gov. Dayton. He got taken to the cleaners by a used car salesman named Kurt Daudt. At least, that's the impression Doug Grow wants you to believe after reading this article :
If you want to understand the negotiations leading up to the upcoming special session, it might be helpful to remember that House Speaker Kurt Daudt once worked at a car dealership.
Daudt's counterpart in the negotiations, DFL Gov. Mark Dayton, started the process by saying he'd call the special session only after Daudt agreed to give him money for universal pre-K for 4-year-olds. 'That's my No. 1 priority,' he governor said. It was the legislative equivalent of walking into a car dealer and demanding the premium package, moon roof and all.
But then the governor said he needed a few other 'must have' items, like the removal of language undermining the state auditor position, even after Dayton signed the budget bill that included that provision. In other words, the governor was now demanding leather seats - after he'd already signed a check to buy a car with cloth ones.
If you're feeling sorry for Gov. Dayton, check this out:
The governor's one great bargaining chip was his ability to say when a special session would be held, and doing so only after he got an agreement on what exactly will be considered there. But even if he knew exactly what he wanted from the session, Dayton had little leverage beyond the power of the bully pulpit. After all, he had made it clear from the get-go that he was going to do just about anything to avoid a government shutdown. 'I have no intention to see this go to June 30th and a possible shutdown,' he said. 'I'm just not going to subject people to that.'
Gov. Dayton didn't have the power of the bully pulpit because he kept insisting on terrible policies that were rejected by Republicans and major DFL constituencies alike. (Think universal pre-K.)
Good policies make for great politicking. Gov. Dayton tried pushing a universal pre-K plan that wasn't as popular as a heart attack.
Couple that with the DFL's insistence on a gas tax increase and you've got a recipe for disaster.
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2015 12:37 PM
No comments.
King v. Burwell, preview edition
Earlier this week, I wrote this post about Greta van Susteren's prediction of the King v. Burwell ruling. She predicted that the Supreme Court would rule against continuing the subsidies because the plain language is clear that only people who bought insurance through exchanges established by the state were eligible for subsidies. Let's assume for the sake of this discussion that that's what happens.
Then what?
Republicans fear that they'll get blamed for the collapse of Obamacare. They shouldn't. They should rejoice that the Supreme Court has struck down the heart of Obamacare. After a minute of rejoicing, they should then announce that they're submitting a bill that includes the following features:
- The policies that people liked but couldn't keep will again be considered QHPs, aka Qualified Health Plans.
- States would be given the option of either a) staying with Obamacare as it's currently written, b) crafting their own version of a health care exchange or c) creating a hybrid that combines the best features that aren't part of Obamacare with the best features of Obamacare.
- The new GOP bill would temporarily extend the subsidies 120 days so that states and the federal government can put something to replace Obamacare with.
Just saying that people can return to buying the policies that they were forced out of by Obamacare is reason for celebrating. Remember how upset people were when they got kicked off their policies that they liked? I do. They weren't upset. They were furious and/or worried sick. Some saw it as a matter of life or death ... because it was:
Everyone now is clamoring about Affordable Care Act winners and losers. I am one of the losers.
My grievance is not political; all my energies are directed to enjoying life and staying alive, and I have no time for politics. For almost seven years I have fought and survived stage-4 gallbladder cancer, with a five-year survival rate of less than 2% after diagnosis. I am a determined fighter and extremely lucky. But this luck may have just run out: My affordable, lifesaving medical insurance policy has been canceled effective Dec. 31.
My choice is to get coverage through the government health exchange and lose access to my cancer doctors, or pay much more for insurance outside the exchange (the quotes average 40% to 50% more) for the privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits.
It's time to parade victims of Obamacare in front of the cameras. Let's start with Edie Littlefield Sundby, who sarcastically wrote that she had the "privilege of starting over with an unfamiliar insurance company and impaired benefits." Next, let's put Jim Hoft in front of the camera to tell his story about how his supposedly substandard policy saved his life.
President Obama will undoubtedly tell Congress that he won't re-litigate the ACA. The RNC should start the ads described earlier in this post the minute President Obama essentially says it's his way or the highway. Here's what the first ad should say:
NARRATOR: President Obama says he won't re-litigate the Affordable Care Act.
EDIE LITTLEFIELD-SUNDBY: Where do I go to get my old policy that I loved dearly and that literally saved my life? President Obama, will you really stand in the way of me getting my old policy back? Sign the Republicans' bill that would let me buy my old policy again.
That ad alone would get Democrats wobbly. Even if President Obama would veto the bill, how many Democrats in the House and Senate that are up for re-election would vote to sustain President Obama's veto?
It's time that Republicans grew a pair. They're playing 3 aces like a pair of deuces.
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2015 1:45 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 11-Jun-15 07:39 PM
The trick is to name whatever they come up with as the "Keeping Obamacare's Promises Act." Then let the Dems try to demagogue it. It should include letting people keep (or regain) policies they liked (including legally subsidized Obamacare plans), plan to save the $2500 per family, and get rid of those mandates that were costing people jobs or at least hours at work.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-Jun-15 08:32 PM
The biggest worry I've got is the storyline that's working its way around that significantly changing the ACA's major provisions in implicit approval of the ACA. That's an actual storyline in GOP circles.
I suspect that that's coming from the people that insist that the only acceptable reform is full repeal. I'm fine with full repeal if we had a Republican in the White House.
There's a Democrat in the White House who might get forced into doing what he doesn't want to do -- gut the ACA.
Republican legislation should include expanding consumer choices in terms types of coverage. It should make tax credits available to people so they can afford to buy their own insurance.
Further, states should be encouraged, not ordered, to deal with high risk patients. They're far better equipped to deal with that than insurance companies. That alone would drop insurance premiums dramatically.
Finally, we should eliminate the policies that are loaded with mandated coverages that we don't need.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 12-Jun-15 05:16 PM
You know it has been the position of many Republicans that the best way to help on medical care is to offer refund tax credits for medical expenses (John McCain's position in 2008 if I remember right).
I see this as an opprotunity to pass the tax credit (basically equal to the subisdy). the great thing about it is one it helps people with deductibles that have been going up and expenses not covered. Not to mention if people see the real price (caused by all the extra things being forced into plans) it could help remove the restrictions. I see that as a major win.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 12-Jun-15 05:42 PM
It can't be that simplistic because that isn't a solution. Period.
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 13-Jun-15 08:35 AM
Gary:
Keep in mind what Obama and the Democrats will say is that Republicans are cold hearted because they will take away thousands of dollars you need. So as long as we have a plan that will let the thousands get the money not to mention help the other victims that is a solution. Not to mention it's easy to enforce since the IRS will write the checks and have the legal method to do it already. Not to mention we avoid the issue of making the states that were trying to avoid being involved with an official state exchange from having to form one.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The safest restaurant in the US
If you're looking for a heaping helping of in-your-face Second Amendment activism, you've come to the right place. Enjoy:
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2015 3:51 PM
No comments.
Carly Fiorina: Let's reclaim feminism
Carly Fiorina's speech tonight has the potential to be a tide-shifting event. During the speech, she'll lay out a plan to redefine feminism in more conservative terms:
In a call with supporters previewing her speech on the state of women in America tonight at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, Carly Fiorina said, 'It is important to have this conversation as conservatives. It is important to have this conversation as Republicans.' She invited her followers to acknowledge, yes, women's potential is still being underutilized. In the S&P 500, she said, only 23 chief executives are women; fewer than the number of CEOs named John. But rather than buy into the liberals' terms of the debate, feminism means supporting abortion on demand, feminists support a big welfare state, she declared, 'We need to redefine feminism. We need to reclaim the word 'feminism.'' Rather, she says a feminist is anyone who chooses the life she lives.
This is why it's vitally important to have Carly on the debate stage. Whether she wins the nomination or not, her hanging around as one of the finalists has the potential to positively change the GOP's perspective for a generation. Jennifer Rubin's post offers a stunning contrast between Ms. Fiorina and Mrs. Clinton:
Fiorina also offers the experience of someone who, as she likes to remind her audiences, went from secretary to CEO. (Clinton went from Yale Law School to the governor's mansion and Rose Law Firm and then to the White House.)
At times, Hillary has played the victim card. At other times, she's ridden her husband's coattails. She got hired at the Rose Law Firm because her husband was governor of Arkansas at the time.
Carly Fiorina didn't get hired to any of her positions because she's the wife of a famous man. She didn't work her way up the corporate ladder because of cronyism or nepotism. She became the CEO of HP because she earned it without anyone's help.
Let's be blunt. If Hillary's last name was Schneider or Olson, she wouldn't be taken seriously, especially considering all of her mistakes and her lack of accomplishments. This video does a devastating job of highlighting Hillary's lack of accomplishments:
The more I watch her, the more impressed with Ms. Fiorina.
Posted Thursday, June 11, 2015 5:08 PM
No comments.
