March 14-17, 2014
Mar 14 02:54 Will Erin Murphy call Tom Bakk's bluff? Mar 14 03:43 Going backwards with Obamacare Mar 14 12:31 The Expensive Train That Couldn't Mar 15 15:02 Repealing the "law of the land" Mar 16 08:21 DFL only cares about their politicians Mar 16 16:17 Begala to Democrats: Go on offense Mar 17 02:13 Great Place to Work Institute survey results Mar 17 07:47 Nolan vs. Nolan vs. Nolan? Mar 17 10:00 Hillary distancing herself from her disaster
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Will Erin Murphy call Tom Bakk's bluff?
Thursday, I wrote this post about how Sen. Bakk is playing hardball over the Senate Office Building, which I've affectionately renamed Bakk's Palace for Politicians. In that post, I included Erin Murphy's quote about the SOB:
'We're doing our due diligence,' said Murphy of her plans for the bill.
Since the House Rules Committee hasn't scheduled a hearing to take citizens' testimony and since they haven't scheduled a vote on the matter, it isn't a stretch to think Rep. Murphy is waiting for the spotlight to disappear before they vote to approve construction of Bakk's Palace. That isn't too bright.
If Rep. Murphy a) cared about taxpayers and b) was a smart strategist, Rep. Murphy would call Sen. Bakk's bluff. She'd tell Sen. Bakk that his project was a loser and that it wasn't happening.
The conventional wisdom is that Sen. Bakk is holding the cards. Technically, that's true. In reality, he isn't. If the House Rules Committee torpedoed Bakk's Palace, what would Sen. Bakk do? Does anyone seriously think he'd torpedo the tax fix bill? I can't imagine Sen. Bakk would torpedo a bill to raise the minimum wage, either. That's because that'd be political suicide for Sen. Bakk.
Every DFL special interest group in the state would want to hang Sen. Bakk by his short and curlies if he torpedoed the minimum wage bill. Sen. Bakk might talk tough but he doesn't have the cajones required to do that.
If the House DFL was smart, they'd call Sen. Bakk's bluff. I don't think they're bright, though, so they'll continue thinking that Sen. Bakk's holding a straight flush when he's really holding a small pair.
The dirty little secret is that the DFL, despite their protestations otherwise, isn't the party of the little guy. They're the Special Interests Party. The DFL isn't the taxpayers' watchdog. There's no question but that they spend money foolishly.
I'd love seeing Sen. Bakk say no to the Chamber of Commerce on not repealing the B2B sales taxes that he pushed last spring. The Chamber would undoubtedly lobby the Senate right to the last day of the session if needed. Rest assured that they'd remember that the Senate a) passed those B2B tax increases, and b) didn't repeal these taxes.
Finally, does anyone think that Sen. Bakk would be the Senate Majority Leader if he doesn't pass the minimum wage increase bill? He'd be lucky if the DFL's special interest groups didn't string him up, proverbially speaking, of course.
Posted Friday, March 14, 2014 2:54 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 15-Mar-14 07:45 PM
I got a great way for the House to call the bluff. This is a bonding project in the middle of a tax bill. They are talking about doing a bonding bill. Why doesn't the House get a list of $90 million in projects I heard there were a lot more and say the $90 million in funding will come from the $90 million that the Senate office building came from. If the Senate wants it so bad just but it back into the bonding bill that is going to be passed.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Going backwards with Obamacare
This article lays out the statistics that Colorado is actually going backwards thanks directly to Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act:
Quite apart from the issue of premium increases, the 84,881 enrollees is far below the number of people who lost their insurance plans because of Obamacare. "Cancellation notices affected 249,199 people," Jo Donlin, director of external affairs for the state insurance division, wrote in a Nov. 14 email.
That's the worst of the news on the Obamacare front for Colorado but it isn't the only bad news on that front. Here's more:
"With less than a month to go before the enrollment period ends for this year, fewer than 85,000 Coloradans have signed up for health insurance," The Colorado Observer's Mark Stricherz reports, noting that state officials projected that they would need 125,000 to 140,000 enrollees.
'Even in the worst-case scenario, insurers would still be expected to earn profits, and would then likely raise premiums in 2015 to make up the difference,' Stricherz quotes Kaiser Family Foundation analyst Larry Leavitt as predicting.
In other words, people aren't buying what the administration is selling. In fact, they're getting disgusted by Obamacare's options.
Based on these statistics, more people in Colorado are uninsured under Obamacare than were uninsured prior to the ACA. That's called going backwards, which isn't what President Obama promised.
These statistics shouldn't be viewed in a vacuum, either, because they're affecting the Senate race in Colorado:
Udall is clearly worried about how Obamacare affects his re-election prospects. Donlin accused him, in that email, of trying to "trash" the state's cancellation figures. When CNN's Dana Bash asked him in January (before Gardner entered the race) if he would campaign with President Obama, Udall repeatedly refused to give a direct answer to the question. "Coloradans are going to re-elect me based on my record, not the president's record," Udall told Bash.
That's rich. I can't imagine Sen. Udall has voted differently than Harry Reid many times since arriving. Voting with Harry Reid is the same as voting with President Obama.
Most importantly, Sen. Udall voted for Obamacare, aka the ACA, which has led to Colorado's disaster of having more people uninsured under Obamacare than there were prior to the ACA. That's a political disaster waiting to happen for Sen. Udall. He's got to be sweating his decision to vote for the ACA.
Posted Friday, March 14, 2014 3:43 AM
No comments.
The Expensive Train That Couldn't
If people are interested in facts, this article should suffice in putting to rest the notion of expanding the Northstar Rail:
Last month, in an effort to tamp down customers' anger, Metro Transit launched its new alert service that allows passengers to get notices by e-mail or text message. Callie Bird is one of 975 people who have signed up for the free service, a small number of users on a line that averages 2,783 boardings each weekday.
I'd love hearing a transportation lobbyist explain how spending millions of dollars on something that's used by 2,800 people per week is spending money wisely. Simply put, there's no justification for expanding it.
What's worse is that it isn't running on time lately. That's why they've created this "alert service."
Riders have had lots to say about the frequent delays that have occurred on the Northstar Commuter line over the past two months. Their latest beef is about the agency's electronic alerts, which they say are as unreliable as the trains.
Imagine that. The government takes tens of millions of dollars to build a train that only activists want. Then they build the train that nobody except activists want. Then the people who didn't want the train in the first place don't use the train they didn't want.
That's terrible. Unfortunately, that's just part of this story of ineptitude. Now the train nobody except activists wanted isn't running on time with any regularity.
How much ineptitude do people have to experience before people tell the politicians to stop spending their money on things we don't need or want? Apparently, it's too much to ask the government to be competent with the things it runs:
'After standing at a train station for 10 to 15 minutes, alerts may arrive. They may arrive 20 to 30 minutes into the 'situation,' or they do not alert at all,' she said. 'I like that Metro has the text alert system and I am receiving such messages. However, the alerts are usually so much after the fact that I find myself shaking my head and feeling somewhat embarrassed for Metro Transit's late alerts.'
At this rate, Northstar's reputation will soon be in the same range as the IRS or NSA.
Hopefully, Minnesotans will step forward and tell the activists and politicians that Northstar isn't transportation, that only roads and bridges and urban transit systems constitute transportation systems. Northstar and other similar projects are just politicians' boondoggles aimed at securing campaign contributions from lobbyists.
Posted Friday, March 14, 2014 12:31 PM
Comment 1 by Sean at 14-Mar-14 01:23 PM
Northstar's problems, though, say next to nothing about the merits, of say, the SWLRT line. (It should also be pointed out that there were some lonely voices in the transit "activist" community who were pointing out the problems with Northstar from the beginning -- shared tracks, limited schedule, etc.)
LRT and commuter rail are different animals, and each corridor should be analyzed independently to determine what the best solution is -- roads, buses, LRT, or something else.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 14-Mar-14 06:16 PM
GOP should publish an itemized bill of these boondoogles per capita and per household.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 15-Mar-14 07:38 PM
You know they say the train is great to use yet there is no train by my office where I work and after work today I had to run a bunch of errands. No train went to those spots. I guess those trains are worthless and we don't need to spend money for those useless toys.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Repealing the "law of the land"
Jay Sekulow's op-ed mockingly questions how the administration can enforce the Affordable Care Act's provisions:
Does 'ObamaCare' truly exist? Are we actually living with the law that was passed with so much fanfare four years ago?
I had to ask myself that question while reviewing the New York Times list of unilateral ObamaCare changes, a list that chronicles ObamaCare's utter failure. Some highlights:
- A one year delay to the employer mandate.
- An additional year delay for medium-sized businesses.
- A one year grace period (no, make that three years) for non-compliant plans.
- Partial exemptions from the individual mandate.
The list can (and does) go on, and it doesn't even include the recent, significant change to the Individual Mandate that the Wall Street Journal says 'quietly repeals the individual purchase rules for two more years.'Why should people refer to the ACA as "the law of the land" when President Obama has unilaterally decided (through presidential fiat) the biggest parts of the law won't be enforced? In fact, it's entirely proper to ask if the law isn't just a shadow of the document President Obama signed in March, 2010:
Further, what proof do we have that President Obama, or any other president for that matter, will ever be able to enforce the ACA's provisions? Why shouldn't we think that the Affordable Care Act, aka the ACA, is just a phrase that the administration is desparately clinging to as its only 'accomplishment'? This week, we found out that the administration did what it refuses to let Congress do -- gut the ACA:
How? By broadening the 'hardship' exemptions significantly and then requiring proof of hardship by documentation only 'if possible.' In other words, if you claim hardship, it looks like the Obama administration is planning to take your word for it.
It's annoying to hear President Obama's apologists claim that these delays had to be made because Republicans aren't working with Democrats to fix the bill. Nevermind the fact that the bill isn't fixable. Nevermind the fact that Democrats haven't put forth legislation that fixes the ACA.
Here's a question for the administration that it doesn't want to be asked. At what point will the entire ACA be enforced? Another cynical question might be 'will any administration enforce each of the provisions in the ACA?' I'm betting that the ACA will never be enforced. I'm betting that because I don't think it's enforceable.
I'm betting that that's the dirty little truth that the administration doesn't want exposed.
Posted Saturday, March 15, 2014 3:02 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 15-Mar-14 06:52 PM
It's probably a good thing (at least politically for Democrats) that the ACA is being subverted. Unfortunately the damage it has done continues on unabated, while the supposed "solution" to these problems-- Obamacare itself-- remains unavailable or unusable. I've been urging Republicans to add full Obamacare funding to the next budget, contingent on its full and complete implementation, as written!
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 15-Mar-14 07:35 PM
You know if they are going to make all of these changes to what an individual needs why don't they go to Congress and ask for:
One, a plan that allows you to buy a plan across state lines. After all if Wisconsin insurance companies can put out a better plan than Minnesota shouldn't I be allowed to buy it?
Two, the President talks about choices. How about I pick what I want to be on the plan or not. The President likes to compare health care to cell phones. Don't I pick the color, the ring message, I argue the price with the merchant, etc. It seems like for it to truly be just like a cell phone I need all of those choices.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Mar-14 07:42 AM
Walter, Democrats are all about choices...as long as you choose from their options. Real choice isn't allowed. The illusion of choice is what the Democrats are offering.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 17-Mar-14 04:54 PM
Gary:
I know that, but we have to have the Republicans who want to argue with those hopeless liberals interesting questions to ask to show how phony their claims are on healthcare.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
DFL only cares about their politicians
Rachel Stassen-Berger's article shows what's wrong with the legislature:
Unlike House members and Dayton, the Senate is not up for election this year, which may give senators a little less reason to speed measures through their chamber. And as the House is slow-walking its approval of the office building, the Senate is taking its time to approve a politically popular tax cut bill that the House passed and Dayton says is urgently needed.
That's BS. Whether the Senate is up for re-election or not, passing the bill that repeals the B2B tax increases is important. What's appalling is the thought that political tactics are more important than doing what's right to the DFL. Unfortunately, this isn't that surprising.
While some at the Capitol think the House blockade of the Senate building is at the root of the tension between the two chambers, Bakk shrugged off that idea last week. He said he hadn't even thought of holding out on other issues to get the building approved. 'Everyone knows how I feel. The new building is critical to keeping the renovations of our State Capitol on schedule,' Bakk said.
Again, it's all about what the politicians want. If a poll was taken of Minnesotans on their priorities for this legislature, building Bakk's Palace wouldn't rank in the top 100 of Minnesotans' priorities. I don't think it would rank in the top 250 of Minnesotans' priorities.
In fact, if Minnesotans were asked what's more important between finishing the Capitol renovation on time ahead or not spending $90,000,000 foolishly, I'm betting they'd pick not spending $90,000,000 foolishly as more important.
If Bakk's Palace becomes reality, it'll become a millstone around the DFL's necks. All of the DFL legislators that voted for the Tax Bill will have voted for B2B tax increases, income tax increases on job creators and Bakk's Palace. What verdict will voters render on people who raised taxes first, then worried whether raising taxes was good policy later, if at all?
People work hard for their money. The DFL has given taxpayers tons of proof that that isn't important to them by pissing away money on utterly foolish things. Like Bakk's Palace.
In 2011, Democrats criticized Republicans for spending $34,000,000,000 on their budget. This year, the DFL passed a budget of $38,400,000,000. That's $4,400,000,000 more than the GOP budget that they criticized.
Simply put, the DFL's priorities aren't Minnesota's priorities. The DFL's priorities are determined by what their special interest allies want.
Posted Sunday, March 16, 2014 8:21 AM
No comments.
Begala to Democrats: Go on offense
Former Clinton advisor Paul Begala has some advice for Democrats on dealing with the Obamacare issue. According to Greg Sargent's post , Begala's advice is to go on offense:
Dems now debating how to talk about Obamacare seem to be leading defensively with their willingness to fix the law. Instead, Begala says, they should lead with an attack on Republicans that is framed as a medical rights issue before pivoting to fixing the law and then wrap it all up in a larger message about how Republicans have no answers to people's health care or economic problems.
'We should open by saying, 'my opponent wants to repeal your rights,' Begala said. 'He wants to take away your right to be protected against discrimination because you have a preexisting condition. He wants to take away your right to be protected against discrimination for being older or being a woman. He wants to take away the closing of the Medicare donut hole for seniors.'
I wish it was surprising that Begala is telling Democrats to lie about Republicans. That isn't surprising, just disappointing. Facts don't matter with pathetic little liars like Begala. It isn't important to him that the Patients CARE Act includes a provision that prohibits insurance companies from not insuring people with pre-existing conditions.
As for treating people differently because they're a greater health risk, that's fair. People that need the most health care should pay the most for health insurance. I'd love hearing Mr. Begala's explanation to young people why they're getting ripped off by Obamacare, aka the ACA. Why shouldn't their parents pay more expensive premiums? They're the ones with the more frequent, most expensive claims.
'That's point one,' he continued. 'Then you say, 'look, I'm open to working with everybody to fix the law. But I'll never let them go back to the days where insurance companies could send letters saying your coverage has been canceled because you have a preexisting condition.'
This is another strawman argument. It's indisputable that the Republican plan that would replace the Affordable Care Act would require insurance companies to offer policies to people with pre-existing conditions.
As for the line about being "open to working with everybody to fix the law", that's BS. Harry Reid isn't willing to work with anyone on any issue. He's the my-way-or-the-highway guy.
'We can win on Obamacare, but we have to fight,' Begala concluded. 'You cannot win if you do not fight.'
Begala is partially right. He's right that it's impossible to win if you won't fight. He's wrong that Democrats can win on Obamacare. It's impossible to win when the president keeps postponing key parts of his signature accomplishment. What's the attack line going to be? 'Obamacare is fantastic. That's why he's delayed implementation of every major part of the law.'
It's impossible to fight for a law that's fatally flawed like the ACA. That's the fatal flaw with Begala's fatally flawed strategy. It isn't that Obamacare, aka the Affordable Care Act, needs some tweaking. It's that the ACA is totally unworkable.
It's that it's expensive. It's that the ACA is so unappealing the people are refusing to buy policies in droves. It's that the ACA is limiting people's network options. In short, the Affordable Care Act is awful law that was passed because it was the Democrats' wet dream, not because it made people's lives better.
If Begala wants to fight on that battlefield, he'd better bring lots of body bags because there will be tons of political casualties in November.
Posted Sunday, March 16, 2014 4:17 PM
No comments.
Great Place to Work Institute survey results
SCSU's A Great Place To Work. The Data Says Apparently NOT!
by Silence Dogood
Last summer, without consulting the faculty, the administration decided to contract with the Great Place to Work Institute (GPTWI) to perform a "Trust Survey" of the faculty and staff at SCSU. The GPTWI has only worked with one university in the past (Vanderbilt), so they clearly have little experience with academic institutions. Upon investigation, the GPTWI seems a lot like the Who's Who books where you pay a fee and you get your name listed - more of a feel good exercise than anything else. In reviewing the organization of the survey and the survey's questions, their lack of experience with academic institutions was clearly apparent. The term patient appeared in several of the sample questions; the term student did not appear in any of the sample questions!
However, the contract was already signed so the survey was going to be done.
The survey was completed late last fall and the results were announced in a forum on February 20th, 2014. The survey had a response rate of 40% (634 out of 1,582 invited). The slides from the PowerPoint presentation, the raw data and redacted comments to the two open ended questions were released on March 5th, 2014.
In the survey, each question was to be answered in terms of the employee's "Workgroup" and "Organization."
"Workgroup: refers to all people in your immediate unit or department. Management of your work group refers to your immediate supervisor. (Note: if you are the supervisor of your workgroup, then Management refers to yourself.)"
"Organization: refers to the University as a whole. Management of the organization refers to the senior level members of the administration, including the President, Provost, and vice presidents."
Some of the confusion about the survey resulted from the confusion about the term "Workgroup" which can be interpreted differently by each of the different groups of employees on campus. Does "Workgroup" mean office, unit, department, school or college? As a result, the answer might be different depending upon on how each person interpreted the term "Workgroup." However, there was no confusion about the term "Organization." It clearly meant the whole "University". It is also clear, that despite the numerous issues about the organization of the survey and the appropriateness of some of the questions, the evaluation relating to the "Management of the Organization" was a clear vote as to President Potter's leadership and that of his leadership team. Essentially, the results relating to the "Management" would be a vote of confidence/no confidence.
On February 20, 2014, a PowerPoint presentation summarizing the results of the "Trust Survey" were presented in an open forum. Since all of the slides are labeled with "Copyright 2013 Great Place to Work" Institute, Inc. All rights reserved," all of the questions and results have been reformatted rather than simply copied. All of the data from the PowerPoint is presented here - noting has been edited. The numbers given come directly from the PowerPoint presentation.
The survey consisted of 57 core "Trust Index statement," 10 organization statements and 2 open-ended questions.
For all of the data, the red bar represents the average value for the 100 best companies in the 2013 or 2014 survey. It seems that some of the data refers to the "100 Best 2013" and in other places "100 Best 2014." All of blue bars represent those completing the survey at SCSU. Where there are no red bars, the question was generated locally so the number must be interpreted without a comparison.
This first analysis of the data only looks only at the data for the "Organization." Since the direction of any organization (i.e., University) begins at the top, it is probably an appropriate place to begin an analysis.
The first data reported is a summary of the "Great Place to Work Statement" and an "Average of All Model Statements." Clearly, since the responses to both questions fall well short of even reaching half of the value of a "Great Place to Work," one can only surmise that SCSU is NOT a Great Place to Work!
According to the GPTWI, "Any workplace can be measured through five dimensions: credibility, respect, fairness (which are attributes of trust), as well as pride and camaraderie." The data for the "five dimensions" also falls well short of reaching even half of the value of a "Great Place to Work."
One significant flaw in the presentation of the results of the survey is that the numbers of each of the groups is not given. The data of the summary of the results by "Collective Bargaining Unit or Plan" shows the highest rating came from the Administrator's Plan and the Comissioner's Plan. However, if the overall score for all of the groups is 36, then there can't be a whole lot of members in any of the groups other than IFO where the overall value was 30. Evaluation of the data without the size of the group, potentially makes 12 members of the Administrator's plan "equal" to 400 plus faculty. This doesn't make sense in any kind of statistical presentation. However, having the highest response for the smallest two groups being 57 can hardly be considered a ringing endorsement!
Again, the same issue about the value of the sample size can be raised for the table of the demographic trends by tenure status. There are many times more tenured faculty members than there are non-tenured/probationary track faculty. The highest support is among the faculty who have been at SCSU the least amount of time. Clearly, the tenured faculty, with an average of 26, see problems with the university.
The data for the table on the demographic trends based on the length of service for "Great Places to work" shows a set of values for the Great Places to Work that is almost independent of the length of service (range from a high of 90 to a low of 84). The trend at SCSU is for the opinion of the university to decrease significantly with their length of service. Once again, interpreting the results without knowing the size of the sample is problematic - the size of the pool for employees with less than 2 years of service is probably very small.
The sense of pride employees feel is one of the highest scoring categories with an average of 49.7. However, scoring just over half of the value for a "Great Place to Work" probably isn't proof that SCSU is a "Great Place to Work." In fact, it might be proof of the contrary position.
One of the lowest scoring categories with an average of 30.6 basically demonstrates that by comparison with the supposed Great Places to Work, SCSU is not among them. The average on the question: 'Family' or 'team' feeling here only scored at 21, which is substantially less than even one-fourth of a supposed Great Place to Work.
The relationship with leadership section demonstrates a complete disconnect with the workers and the administration. A score of 29 compares to a GPTW value of 86 for "Management is approachable." It gets even worse for "Management shows a sincere interest in me" with a score of 24 comparing to a GPTW value of 83.
Even the consultant from the GPTWI highlighted: "Employees lack a relationship with leadership, especially senior leadership. They also lack a clarity on or are critical of leader's roles."
The demographic trends by collective bargaining unit/employment plan shows that the administrator's seem to think things are pretty good at the university with the highest score in the survey at 62. This seems to demonstrate more clearly that the administration is simply out of touch with the reality of the people who work at SCSU. Clearly, the faculty, with a score of 17, indicates that there are serious problems!
Clearly, the results for the workload and resource category demonstrate that people have a fair amount of responsibility but do not have the resources to do their job and at the same time they feel completely overworked. As one administrator remarked: "Welcome to the new normal."
In the category of appreciation, which scored the second lowest of all categories at 22.3 demonstrates that the workers at the university feel unappreciated and unrecognized.
It's hardly surprising that communication shows up as an issue. A score of 31 compares to a GPTW value of 83 for "Management keeps me informed." What's even more telling is the question about management shares information openly and transparently because this is one of the key phrases from President Potter and Provost Malhotra that they are "open and transparent." Hopefully, the score of 20 will indicate that there is a big difference between saying that you are open and transparent and actually being open and transparent.
Favoritism, with an average score of 21, is the category with the lowest average score. Clearly, there is a perception that the administration has some work to be done here. Some might even say that it can't be done.
With a score of 24 compared to a GPTW value of 82 for "Management's actions match its words" is a clear indication that the people who took the survey do not believe what the administration is telling them. When the people doing the work see this kind of disconnect between the words and actions of its leaders, it is a very serious issue.
Scoring just better than one-third of the GPTW value of 90, a 32 on "Management is competent" is hardly a ringing endorsement of the current leadership. Well less than one-third believe the "Management has a clear view" (a value of 25 compared to the GPTW value of 85).
Even the consultant from the GPTWI highlighted: "The absence of a strong relationship with leadership, limited communication and challenging financial times all contribute to employees questioning leadership's effectiveness."
As the consultant from the GPTWI highlighted: "Employees request even greater opportunity to be heard, with specific mentions around Participatory Decision Making." The average scores under 30 in this category clearly indicate that people feel unable to influence the course of the university. The last category on listening shows that there is a significant disconnect between the people rowing the boat and the captain of the ship. The only problem is that just because someone may appear to listen, it doesn't mean that they are hearing what is being said.
A wise person once said that actions speak louder than words. At the end of the open presentation on February 20th and in an interview with the editorial board of the SCTimes, President Potter said: "We've got a lot of work to do."
Unfortunately, the president fails to realize that much of the discontent expressed in this survey is a direct result of HIS actions. The royal "WE" just isn't going to cut it.
'Walk the walk...talk ain't necessary'
- George Akomas Jr
Posted Monday, March 17, 2014 1:02 PM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 18-Mar-14 10:38 PM
Almost all of the favorable scores are in the 19 to 25 range. Where is the chancellor and the trustees?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 18-Mar-14 11:46 PM
They're sitting in their ivory tower sneering down at the people they're supposed to work for.
Nolan vs. Nolan vs. Nolan?
According to this article , Rick Nolan understands that siding with the environmentalists is political poison for him:
'While the environmental review process for the project is still ongoing, I am convinced the plan put forward for the NorthMet Mining Project and Land Exchange will result in a productive mining operation that will produce minimal environmental impacts and will advance the technology of mining. It will set a high standard for additional mining proposals that may follow,' Nolan wrote.
The congressman went on to urge all agencies involved in the project to get it moving on permitting.
'I urge the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, the United States Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Forest Service as the primary lead co-agencies, the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency as a prime contributing agency, together with the major cooperating agencies including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the Tribal Cooperating Agencies at Bois Forte, Grand Portage and Fond du Lac, together with all other responsible agencies to move forward with final modifications and to adoption of the Final EIS in a timely manner.
'I also urge all responsible agencies to issue the Permit to Mine, complete the land transfers proposed, issue the necessary supplemental permits, and permit the NorthMet Project to proceed at the earliest possible,' Nolan wrote.
That's quite the contrast with this edition of Rick Nolan :
Northern Minnesota is known for its great fishing, so perhaps it's fitting that tracking 8th District Congressman Rick Nolan's position on a bill that deregulates the mining industry and fast tracks the permitting process for PolyMet is a bit like watching a fish flopping around on a dock: first he's against it, then he's for it and now he once again opposes it, this time promising to vote against the legislation if it 'comes anywhere near close to becoming law.'
Now that the DNR has announced that they're holding things up while they supposedly study the impact sulfate has on wild rice, Nolan knows the permitting process won't proceed. Isn't it interesting that he wrote a strongly worded letter the day after the DNR's announcement that they're delaying the PolyMet permitting process?
Nolan's support for PolyMet had always been conditional prior to this letter. Suddenly, he's pedal-to-the-metal Nolan on mining? Here's what Jesse Peterson thinks of Nolan's flexibility:
The reaction of the those who gathered in Bohannon Hall on that Saturday afternoon is perhaps best summed up by 32-year-old Jesse Peterson, who characterized Nolan's responses and actions with respect to HR 761 as 'incredibly deceptive and reflecting a willingness to be phony.'
The truth is that Rick Nolan isn't a friend of the miners. His allegiance is with the environmentalists. The environmentalists' goal is to prevent sulfide mining :
- This kind of mining has never happened in Minnesota before, but in other states, it is associated with long-lasting water pollution.
- No sulfide mine has ever operated without polluting its nearby waters.
- The EPA identifies the hardrock mining industry (sulfide mining is a type of hardrock mining) as the largest toxic-waste producing industry in the U.S.
Admittedly, I don't know Jesse Peterson. What's apparent, though, is that he isn't a fan of mining. It'll be interesting to see whether the Arrowhead envirornmentalists turn out for Nolan now that he's sabotaged their anti-mining efforts.
Posted Monday, March 17, 2014 7:47 AM
No comments.
Hillary distancing herself from her disaster
This article is proof that Hillary Clinton is worried that her incompetence on foreign policy and national security matters will cost her the White House:
In recent weeks, as the standoff over Ukraine escalated, Hillary Clinton did something that she never did as secretary of State: She put considerable distance between herself and the president she served loyally for four years. While Barack Obama cautiously warned Vladimir Putin to back off his claims on Ukraine, Clinton rolled out a rhetorical cannon, comparing the Russian president's moves to the seizure of territory by Adolf Hitler that set off World War II. Her comments were so harsh and controversial that she was forced to walk them back a bit, saying, "I'm not making a comparison, certainly, but I am recommending that we perhaps can learn from this tactic that has been used before."
Clinton's remarks appeared to be an indication of two things. One, she's concerned enough about shoring up her reputation for toughness that she may indeed be thinking about running for president in 2016. Clinton offered up, in other words, a rare and enticing hint about the question that everyone in the politics game is asking these days. Undoubtedly she knows that the effort she led as secretary of State in 2009, an attempted "reset" of relations with Russia that included a new arms treaty, now looks naive in the face of Putin's repudiation of Obama over Ukraine and his lack of cooperation on other issues, such as resolution of the Syrian civil war. Two, Clinton could be worried that by the time the next presidential season rolls around, what was once seen as one of Obama's stronger points - foreign policy - could easily become a liability to whomever is seeking the Democratic nomination.
Hillary's tough-as-nails image is just that -- an image. It doesn't have anything to do with reality. She played the fool on the world stage by handing Russia the now-infamous Reset Button:
She's the one that announced the United States was reneging on its commitment to their allies in Poland and the Czech Republic. There's no doubt that President Obama agreed with these policies. Still, there's little doubt that Hillary thought these were the right decisions at the time.
Hillary is nothing if not a shrewd politician. She isn't hesitating in throwing President Obama under the bus for being a pacifist. It's apparent she thinks she has to look tough on the international stage. The best thing that Republican presidential candidates can do is question Hillary's competence, highlighting her appeasement-first attitude with regards to Benghazi, her dovishness towards Iran and her naivete towards Putin's Russia.
For all her supposed foreign policy expertise, she's been wrong on almost as many national security issues as John Kerry, which is frightening considering he's been making national security mistakes for almost 30 years.
Posted Monday, March 17, 2014 10:00 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 17-Mar-14 04:48 PM
Gary:
If you want to take the Hitler comment that Hillary made to the right line of thinking then she was acting like Neville Chamberlain giving in to Hitler time after time so Hitler thought that England and France wouldn't declare war if he went into Poland.
So Hillary are you ready to compare yourself to Neville?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 17-Mar-14 08:12 PM
As Rush often observes, she's yet to be successful at anything in politics, has had to have everything handed to her.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 17-Mar-14 09:22 PM
When her State Department employees were recently asked about Hillary's accomplishments, the most frequently cited 'accomplishment' was that she racked up the most air miles of any secretary of state in history. That's the definition of underwhelming.
