March 18-19, 2014
Mar 18 00:55 Potter gets devastating news in survey Mar 18 13:15 How did the Times miss this? Mar 18 00:40 Julianne Ortman, taxaholic? Mar 18 14:23 Bobby Jindal's school choice mission Mar 19 04:08 SCSU's questionable budget cuts Mar 19 00:09 Gov. Dayton criticizes Senate Mar 19 09:02 EPA: The face of weaponized government
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Potter gets devastating news in survey
If SCSU's Not A Great Place To Work, Is It A Vote Of No Confidence?
by Silence Dogood
Last fall, there were serious discussions about holding a vote of no confidence in the administration at SCSU. A host of issues about the university have come to light in the past three years that call into question the effectiveness and suitability of President Potter's leadership at the university. It was argued that since there was going to be this Great Place to Work "Trust Survey," a vote of no confidence by the Faculty Association was not necessary.
The decision not to proceed with a vote eliminated some of the contentiousness within the faculty over simply discussing a possible vote of no confidence. Believe it or not, there are some faculty who think President Potter and his leadership team are doing a good job. Some faculty questioned whether or not the results of the Great Place to Work Institute's survey would show a significant enough level of dissatisfaction to have the President removed. Others argued that, even if it did, Chancellor Rosenstone would be reluctant to remove a university president.
So, we are left with the so-called Great Place to Work Survey. Before the survey came out, many individuals expressed concerns about confidentiality while others expressed concerns about having access to the raw data. Several faculty even doubted that the data would ever be released - especially if it was not glowingly positive to the President.
President Potter deserves credit for not dumping the entire project after he saw the results. It would have been easy to say that there were "problems" with the survey - the GPTW survey wasn't really appropriate for a university, or there wasn't a large enough response. But he didn't.
However, in a very selfish way he probably should have dumped the project since the findings of the 'Trust Survey' demonstrates quite conclusively that the university community (faculty, administration, and staff) has serious concerns about his leadership at the university. They certainly lack trust in his administrative team. The survey results were presented in a university forum on February 20th, 2014 and released on March 5th, 2014. With a response rate of 40% (634 out of 1,582 employees) that included every employee group at SCSU, it may not be a representative sample of SCSU employees but it is a sample diverse enough to support the conclusion that SCSU is not even close to being in the same league as the 100 Best Places to Work.
It's true there wasn't a single question on the survey that asked "Do you have confidence in President Potter's leadership?" It's equally true that a number of questions asked in the survey help answer the question.
Questions were answered in reference to the employee's "Workgroup" and "Organization." All of the questions presented focus on the response to the "Organization." According to the Great Place To Work Institute (GPTWI), "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."
All fifteen questions in the survey from the PowerPoint slides released on March 5th, 2014, which begin "Management: " are presented in what follows. The cumulative effect of these fifteen survey items serves as a surrogate for a simple vote of confidence or no confidence. These fifteen questions are a direct evaluation of the President and his management team. The data presented have not been edited except in the format used in presentation.
For all of the data, the red bar represents the average value for the "100 Best Companies." All of the blue bars represent the derived values from those who completed the survey at SCSU. Where there are no red bars, the question was generated locally so the number must be interpreted without a comparison.
The average score of the survey respondents on these fifteen questions is 28.6 as compared to the average score of the so called Great Place to Work "100 Best Companies" at 84.0. This demonstrates a rate that is just barely over one-third of the value of a "Great Place to Work" (28.6/84.0 = 0.34.0).
Cleary, these might not have been the same questions asked in a vote of no confidence. However, the scores to questions like Management shares information openly and transparently (20), Management involves people in decisions (23), Management delivers on its promises (26), Management makes sound financial decisions (28), and, last but not least, Management is competent (32) demonstrate a complete lace of trust in the administration on the part of those who took the survey.
Pretty soon, we'll probably hear that 60% didn't take the survey and this "Silent Majority" supports the administration. Also, we'll probably hear that 40% is not significant enough of a response rate to be meaningful. In the last non-presidential election year (2010), the voter turnout in the District of Columbia was only 26.2% of eligible voters. Texas was a close second at 26.9% of eligible voters voting. In 2010, 26 out of 50 states had a lower than 40% voter turnout. I don't remember hearing anyone calling those elections not valid. The winners are called mayor, representative, governor and senator. A response rate of 40% for this type of survey is actually quite good. The administration just doesn't like the results.
Analysis of the results show that the faculty had the lowest level of support for the administration. If this had been a faculty vote of no confidence, the results would likely have been much worse for the administration. However, the fact that the results include faculty, staff and administrators demonstrates the results consider the administration's performance from a wide perspective - and the data is consistently negative independent of employee group.
I've given a lot of tests over the years and I can't recall a single incidence of someone receiving one-third of the points of the "A" students in the class and receiving a passing grade. The results are in and the people have spoken. You can spin it whichever way you'd like. SCSU is not a "Great Place to Work". It's time for EP3 to move on.
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:55 AM
No comments.
How did the Times miss this?
I've had tons of justification for being hypercritical of the St. Cloud Times over the years. What I'm about to share with you is proof that the Times isn't just unprofessional. It's proof that they're either corrupt or totally clueless. This graphic contains the results of the Great Place to Work Institute's survey conducted at St. Cloud State:
Look at that. When asked if "management's words match its actions", only 24% of respondents said yes. When asked if "management is competent", only 32% said yes. When asked if "management makes sound financial decisions", only 28% said they did.
I've been writing about these issues for over a year. These results aren't surprising to me. They're what I expected. What's disheartening is that the St. Cloud Times, the supposedly professional journalists in town, hasn't seen fit to write a single critical article about the University.
The reality is that they opened a recent Our View editorial with this quote:
" The level of trust that exists between the faculty, staff and administration is not what it needs to be to be among the very best .'
That the Times didn't even think about challenging President Potter's statement indicates that the Times either sees itself as SCSU's off-campus PR staff or they're totally unaware of what's happening on campus. Newspapers have an affirmative responsibility to inform their readers. The Times has repeatedly failed in that responsibility when it comes to SCSU.
At best, they're unreliable because they aren't interested in the truth. At worst, they're unreliable because they've been corrupted by President Potter's charms.
I've proudly published Silence Dogood's articles on LFR. In all that time, the Times didn't attempt to identify Silence. That's disturbing because Silence's articles have brought to light unpleasant truths about President Potter's questionable financial decisions or grade corruption by improperly removing students' participation in classes they failed.
A professional newsgathering organization should get interested in these corrupt activities. That the Times wasn't interested in these thoroughly documented scandals is the journalistic equivalent of indicting the Times of a series of A-level felonies. How can you serve the public good when you aren't interested in getting even basic facts published?
If you get your information from the Times, I hope you're satisfied with getting a tiny bit of what's important to you. If you'd like more than just bits and pieces of news, please consider dropping money in my tip jar . Better yet, consider making a monthly contribution so this important reporting can continue. Rest assured that any contributions are appreciated.
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 1:15 PM
Comment 1 by Jarrett at 18-Mar-14 07:59 PM
You do a GREAT JOB... The only thing I got from the Times was lies last Fall.
Any ideas ...from ANYONE...What in the world the possible motive could be here or what's the end game?
Can't still be the "diversity is good" tune...can it?
Julianne Ortman, taxaholic?
The more I find out about Julianne Ortman, the more I realize that she's addicted to raising taxes. For the record, I won't be supporting Sen. Ortman if I'm seated at the GOP State Convention this spring. Here's some of the taxes Sen. Ortman's proposed raising:
'A bill before the Minnesota Senate, for example, would force any online retailer to collect state sales tax on purchases Minnesota residents make though Minnesota-based websites that refer traffic to those retailers.: The Senate bill was authored by Taxes Committee Chairwoman Julianne Ortman, a Republican, and it has won the support of the Minnesota Business Partnership, the Metro Independent Business Alliance, Target and Best Buy.' (Eric Wieffering, 'Push to tax online sales gains strength,' Minneapolis Star Tribune, March 15, 2011)
Last year, a version of Sen. Ortman's bill passed . Its results have been devastating:
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.
While it seems fair to have internet retailers pay their fair share in sales taxes, the reality is that they'll never pay their fair share. That's just the tip of the Ortman tax increase iceberg. Here's more:
Here's the transcript from the hearing:
Sen. Tom Bakk: 'Senator Ortman.'
Sen. Ortman: 'Good morning Mr. Chair and members. Thank you for hearing this bill. This bill proposes a new tax. It's the first time I've ever proposed a new tax, and so-'
Sen. Bakk: 'How's it feel?'
[LAUGHTER]
Sen. Ortman: 'I definitely feel like I'm in the hot seat, but that's alright. I've been a lightning rod before and I probably will be again. I'm back in a zone of comfort.'
In her own words, raising taxes puts Sen. Ortman in her comfort zone. This tax increase sounds awfully familiar:
In the last Legislative Digest, we highlighted Senator Ann Rest's (DFL-New Hope) proposal to extend sales tax to accounting services. The Senate Tax Committee held a hearing on April 2 and held Senator Rest's proposal over for possible consideration in the large Omnibus Tax bill they will consider at the end of session.
In addition to this activity other proposals have been introduced.
Senator Julianne Ortman (R-Chanhassen) has introduced an additional bill that includes extending the sales tax to accounting services.
That sounds like Sen. Ortman proposed a B2B sales tax before Gov. Dayton did. Last year, the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce lobbied against B2B sales tax increases, which initially got dropped for Gov. Dayton's tax bill, only to get re-inserted in the Tax Committee Conference Committee minutes before the end of the 2013 session. While the House has passed a bill repealing those tax increases, the Senate is still hasn't passed that bill repealing the B2B sales tax increases.
How many tax increases does a legislator have to propose or support before they're known as a tax raiser? I'd argue that Sen. Hortman has reached that threshold with room to spare.
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 12:40 AM
No comments.
SCSU's questionable budget cuts
More on State Appropriations
by Silence Dogood
While tuition is the largest source of revenue for a public university, the state appropriation cannot be neglected. The plot in Figure 1 shows the State Appropriation for SCSU from FY04 through FY14. The data for this graph is from the MnSCU website.
Figure 1. Plot of SCSU's state appropriation by fiscal year.
The data clearly shows from FY04 through FY09, SCSU's state appropriation grew by $10,473,505, which equates to a 19.3% increase. From FY09 through FY14, SCSU's state appropriation declined by $12,317,630, which equates to a drop of 19.1%
A bit of historical background is in order. The 'Great Recession' that occurred in the USA during 2008-2011 impacted funding for higher education in Minnesota. The state faced multi-billion dollar budget shortfalls that resulted in reductions in state appropriations for higher education and significant tuition increases for students. The federal government provided some temporary relief in the form of so called "stimulus dollars" for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 to help buy down the tuition increases. The stimulus dollars were not available for fiscal year 2012 so SCSU received a smaller state appropriation (-$4,982,889) and students paid an even higher tuition to help offset the lowered state appropriation.
The following excerpts are offered to provide a snapshot of the time period of the 'Great Recession' and some of the events that impacted planning for the revenue challenges faced by institutions of higher education in Minnesota.
MnSCU approves tuition hike, job cuts
Article by: JENNA ROSS, Star Tribune Updated: July 23, 2009 - 12:05 AM
Tuition will go up about 5 percent at schools in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system this fall. But students will pay just 3 percent more.
For now.
The system's Board of Trustees unanimously approved an operating budget Wednesday that uses one-time federal stimulus dollars to shave about 2 percentage points off tuition increases.
But future tuition increases will be based on the full bump.
Likewise, federal dollars have filled most of a 7.3 percent reduction in state funding. But future operating budgets will be hit by the full cut.
Session Daily Higher Education Layoffs loom for university, MnSCU faculty published 4/6/2010
Laura King, MnSCU vice chancellor and chief financial officer, said schools within the system are being asked to plan for a $100 million cut to MnSCU's state funding base in the next biennium. She said the number is based on MnSCU's possible share of a projected $5.8 billion state budget deficit for those years.
King added that tuition increases will also likely be a part of MnSCU's total budget solution.
It is important to recognize that SCSU is responsible for approximately 10% of the MnSCU budget, so a $100 million dollar cut would mean a $10 million dollar cut to SCSU over the biennium ($5 million dollars per year).
Excerpts from the minutes of the:
MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES BOARD OF TRUSTEES
FINANCE AND FACILITIES COMMITTEE MEETING MINUTES
September 14, 2010
7. MINNESOTA STATE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES SYSTEM AND STATE ECONOMIC OUTLOOK FOR FY2012-2013
Vice Chancellor King asked for committee feedback about biennial budget planning in order to shape the upcoming legislative and gubernatorial request. Associate Vice Chancellor Judy Borgen and Karen Kedrowski made the presentation.
The state is still estimating a $5.766B deficit. General expense inflation estimates are not included in the state's estimate which would increase the deficit by $1.2B.
In January a framework was provided to the colleges and universities which guided their budget planning for FY2012-2013. The budget planning framework included a conservative starting point regarding appropriation. There were multiple appropriation numbers that could have been chosen but the governor's supplemental budget recommendation of $594.4M was selected. The financial planning assumptions include no cap on tuition rate increases but an expectation of reasonableness. Expense inflation was modeled at the current CPI estimate of 1.2% for FY2012 and 1.4% for FY2013. No federal stimulus funds are expected to be available for the 2012-2013 biennium.
The other part of budget planning for the colleges and universities was to include new revenue from an assumed five percent tuition rate increase in FY2012 and FY2013. The tuition rate increase is estimated to provide $120.5M of new revenue.
Fixed compensation costs are estimated to increase $55M. The fixed costs are 'tails' from FY2011 step increases for classified employees and mid-year employer health insurance rate increase of 6.7 percent. The fixed compensation increase also includes projected employer health insurance rate increases of 16.5 percent in January 2012 and 8 percent in January 2013 under the current state health insurance program.
Inflationary cost increases were modeled using the CPI at 1.5 percent each year which included compensation inflation of $49.9M and other operating cost inflation of $18.6M.
The use of the preceding assumptions results in a system budget gap of $130M.
Plan would keep MnSCU colleges and universities open during state government shutdown
By Chris Williams
Associated Press
POSTED: 06/16/2011 12:01:00 AM CDT
The MnSCU trustees considered a proposed budget for the next fiscal year that includes a $65 million cut in state funding from the $605.5 million it received last year. That's the amount of state aid contained in the bill the Legislature passed and Dayton later vetoed. Dayton wants more money for higher education.
To make up for the loss of state money - and $26 million in federal stimulus money - the proposed MnSCU budget includes an increase of $28.7 million in tuition and $67 million in expense cuts.
When the Legislature and Governor final agreed on a higher education budget for the 2012-13 biennial budget SCSU's FY 2012 allocation was just under $5,000,000 less than the previous year's appropriation (http://www.finance.mnscu.edu/budget/allocations/index.html).
The drop in appropriation had three components:
Federal Stimulus Elimination $2,803,266
Decline in Enrollment $ 650,000
Tuition Mitigation $1,573,592
Since the 5% tuition increase starting in FY 2010 was mitigated with federal stimulus funds and when those funds were not available, students paid the equivalent of the tuition mitigation dollars in the FY 2011 appropriation in FY 2012 reducing the impact of the allocation reduction to about $3,200,000 not nearly $5,000,000. The reduction was further offset by a 3% tuition increase or about $2,800,000 leaving a budget reduction of about $400,000 prior to consideration of inflation related cost increases.
In the documentation provided for closing the aviation program, the assertion is made for budget cutting (copied from the document released in the fall of 2010). Unfortunately, it is not the best copy because it is a copy of a copy of a copy.
As the Strategic Program Appraisal was going on, the administration repeatedly stated that because of a loss of federal stimulus funds, draconian cuts to the budget were necessary. Hopefully, the St. Cloud Times will be able to file a DPAR to obtain the financial documents listing the state appropriations that appear in Figure 1 and the closure document for the aviation program so that the accusations being made are not "unfounded."
From the data, it is clear that there was no $14,000,000 drop in the state appropriation from FY11 to FY12. The data shows that the state appropriation dropped nearly $5,000,000 and when the factors outlined earlier in this piece the net pre inflation cut needed was about $400,000. Where did the $14 million budget cut need come from?
It is true that in the fall of 2010 MnSCU was advising campuses to plan for a $130 million expenditure reduction and that could translate into $13 million in SCSU cuts. It is also true that the nearly all of that anticipated cut was related to projections of how much higher education would be hit with appropriation reductions associated with balancing the state's budget. By the spring of 2011 it became apparent higher education would not be hit with appropriation reductions as large as feared and by July of 2011, it became known the need reductions on campuses would be considerably less ($60 million v. $130). The Omnibus Higher Education bill passed and signed in July of 2011 directed cuts to the board office and resulted in the need to cut about $50 million. SCSU's share of that reduction would be about $5 million, not $14 million.
So in looking at this data, one might come to the conclusion that the administration was not entirely forthcoming and that there really was no need for a $14,000,000 budget reduction. So why didn't the SCSU administration acknowledge the reduced need for budget reduction? Why was there not consideration of reversal of some of the pending program closures? At best, this may reflect that the administration had no clue as to the effect on the budget of the loss of the stimulus funds and cut much more than they needed to. At worst, they knew what they were doing and targeted departments they didn't like and pocketed a bunch of cash. The truth probably lies in between the two extreme positions but neither position exudes confidence in the leadership of the institution.
Many times since the reorganization, the administration has talked about how much money the university saved through reorganization. Now it looks like the incompetence of the administration to budget and plan effectively has turned out to have been a godsend because the money they 'saved' through reorganization and excessive budget cuts has been able to cover the lost tuition from an enrollment decline of 6.92% in FY12, a 6.35% decline in FY13, and a 5.27% decline in FY14, plus the multimillion dollar losses on the Coborn's Plaza Apartments in each of those years.
Again, for the benefit of the St. Cloud Times, you can find SCSU's FY 2014 Budget on the website for the Office of Finance and Administration, which is reproduced below.
If the budget information that the administration has made available on its website is correct and the budget for FY14 is exactly balanced to the dollar, a projected enrollment decline for FY15 of 3% plus continued losses for the Coborn's Plaza Apartments may no longer be able to be covered by reserves making budget cuts going forward necessary.
Perhaps SCSU's administration wants to be like the almighty Wizard of Oz and they will cry out 'Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!' ? L. Frank Baum, The Wonderful Wizard of Oz- when the curtain is pulled back.
The truth will be evident as enrollment numbers come in for next fall and budget cuts are announced.
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:08 AM
Comment 1 by Patrick-M at 19-Mar-14 09:32 AM
So essentially the Aviation program was targeted for closure by the Dean, Provost and President under the ruse that "retrenchments were needed to save $14 million". All three should immediately tender their resignation or be fired!
The real reason the Aviation Department was closed: the Dean was hell-bent on not dealing with a messy personnel issue. For this he got rewarded with a cushy do-nothing job at a six figure salary plus benefits and the Provost was rewarded with a new job at a different MNSCU university. Good luck to Metro State with this guy!
Bobby Jindal's school choice mission
Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal's passion for school choice is eloquently laid out in Gov. Jindal's op-ed . First, Gov. Jindal makes the case against the status quo:
In New York, Mayor Bill de Blasio has embarked on a systematic campaign to destroy the city's burgeoning charter school movement. He's diverting more than $200 million in funding marked for charter schools, and has also thrown hundreds of students out of their promised school buildings. He has also declared his intent to nullify arrangements that allow charters to locate in existing public schools rent-free.
The mayor's open warfare against Eva Moskowitz, who founded a network of 22 charter schools, has all the markings of a petulant tyrant holding low-income students hostage. De Blasio has said, 'There's no way in hell Eva Moskowitz should get free rent' - as if the 6,700 students in the charter schools she runs were a mere afterthought in his personal vendetta against a fellow Democrat.
Last May, he told a teachers-union forum that Moskowitz 'has to stop being tolerated, enabled, supported.' Yes, by all means, let's not 'tolerate' someone behind a movement to empower parents and students with more - and better - education choices. This woman who is making it possible for low-income kids to have an equal opportunity for a quality education must be stopped.
Gov. Jindal gets it. He's consistently talked about school choice in the context of giving students a shot at the American Dream. He's even got a history of fighting for his policies:
In Louisiana, we know a thing or two about government authorities meddling in parents' right to choose the schools that are best for their children. President Obama's Justice Department filed a lawsuit trying to impede our program that gives parents of low-income students in failing schools an opportunity to attend a better school. Fully nine in 10 students participating in the program are minorities, yet the Justice Department seeks to block the program on the grounds that it would lead to racial segregation. The lawsuit would be funny if it weren't so sad - and if the lives of so many young African-American children weren't at stake.
President Obama's Justice Department filed their lawsuit to placate their allies in the teachers union. That's the same reason why Mayor de Blasio is implementing his anti-choice policies in NYC. It's shameful that President Obama and Mayor de Blasio worry more about placating their special interest allies than they worry about doing what's right for the nation.
In that respect, President Obama and Mayor de Blasio are showing their anti-American stripes. If they cared about making life better for everyone, they wouldn't be attempting to implement these misguided policies.
Thankfully, people are standing up for themselves and their families rather than just caving in the face of the Left's peer pressure.
Gov. Jindal understands this, which is why I think he's the favorite to be the GOP presidential nominee. It isn't thatI haven't notice that other polls show Christie or Bush or Rand Paul leading or near the top. It's that Gov. Jindal has a lengthy history of domestic policy successes without angering the GOP's conservative base.
Gov. Jindal has championed school choice. He's pushed tax reform. Those are definitely issues conservatives will positively respond to. Most importantly, he hasn't hugged President Obama like Gov. Christie and he hasn't been a foreign policy pacifist like Sen. Paul.
Posted Tuesday, March 18, 2014 2:23 PM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton criticizes Senate
This video is stunning in that Gov. Dayton actually criticized DFL legislators, saying that their inaction is unacceptable:
Here's the transcript from Gov. Dayton's speech:
I'm very disappointed that we have not been able to reach a bill and frankly, we've got a meeting this afternoon with House and Senate leaders. I just have to say that the impasse isn't around the tax bill. It's about the Legislative Office Building and the Senate's insistence that they have the building and they aren't willing to let a reasonable tax bill proceed on a timely basis until they get the building and the House's unwillingness at this point to agree to that. So I hope that Minnesotans will communicate with their legislators, and these are Democrat legislators, I'm sorry to say, that this is inexcusable and unacceptable.
It's time the House simply stood up to Sen. Bakk and voted to reject the plans for the Legislative Office Building. The House Rules Committee could do that the next time they meet. Saying that there's no justification for Bakk's Palace is understatement.
If Rep. Murphy's committee rejects Sen. Bakk's Palace, there's no way Sen. Bakk can legitimately hold up the Tax Repair bill. If he stops that bill from getting a vote, his time as Senate DFL Leader will be history because his fellow DFL senators will drop him right after the 2014 election. That type of humiliation will essentially end Sen. Bakk's chances at becoming governor some day.
Before we focus too much on Sen. Bakk's behavior, it's worth noting that the DFL voted to raise taxes on the middle class when they voted for last year's tax bill. Additionally, they voted for funding Bakk's Palace. If they wouldn't have voted for the B2B tax increases and Bakk's Palace, Sen. Bakk couldn't hold this tax increase repeal bill hostage to get his palace.
Zach Dorholt, for instance, recently said that he voted for the Tax Bill because it had more good than bad in it. That's an odd statement considering the fact that the Tax Bill included the B2B tax increases and the funding for Bakk's Palace. I'd love hearing Dorholt explain which of those provisions he found appealing.
Let's not let Gov. Dayton off the hook either. He signed the bill with Sen. Bakk's Palace in it. He could've vetoed it. He didn't. Apparently, he thought that extending the sales tax to farm equipment repairs and to warehousing services was smart policy. Apparently, he thought that funding Bakk's Palace wasn't worth mentioning at the time.
It's only now that it's become a political hot potato that it's worth him criticizing Sen. Bakk. That isn't leadership. That's a CYA decision that's being done for his campaign's sake. His criticism is about protecting his campaign. It isn't about criticizing the DFL's counterproductive tax policies.
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2014 12:09 AM
No comments.
EPA: The face of weaponized government
Charles Hurt's article documents how the EPA has become the embodiment of weaponized government:
[Andy Johnson] and his wife built a small pond on their rural property using the stream flowing through it. They stocked the pond with trout so that their three small children could fish. The pond is an oasis for wildlife such as ducks and geese passing through.
It is precisely the sort of industriousness that reasonable people and zealous stewards of the environment applaud. But the EPA is made up of neither reasonable people nor zealous stewards of the environment.
They are crazed hypocrites greedy for unchecked power and hellbent on destroying the passions that connect people to the nature surrounding them. Like the Food and Drug Administration in the movie 'Dallas Buyers Club,' the EPA has become the face of absolute power in the hands of blind government bureaucrats.
That is why the faceless henchmen of the EPA have come after Mr. Johnson and his family, charging them with violating federal law and threatening to bankrupt them. These EPA thugs ordered the Johnsons to destroy the pond they built and threatened to fine them $75,000 a day for being in violation of the Clean Water Act.
This is Gina McCarthy, the EPA administrator:
Ms. McCarthy isn't fit for being a high-ranking official in the federal government. That's because she's a liar. Here's proof of her 'skill':
Environmental Protection Agency administrator Gina McCarthy said Friday cries that the Obama Administration is moving to wipe out the coal industry are hollow.'We are trying to do everything we can to make sure that we are listening to the president when he says this is an all of the above administration,' McCarthy said. 'That is not rhetoric - that is a policy. The EPA is staying in its lane and looking at carbon as a pollutant. We are applying the Clean Air Act, hopefully as flexibly as we can, but we also recognize that carbon is a pollutant that contributes to perhaps the most significant public health challenge of our time, which is climate change.'
Saying that the EPA is attempting to apply the Clean Air Act "as flexibly as we can" isn't the truth. They're imposing the most draconian regulations imaginable with the hopes of killing the coal-mining industry. That's per her boss's orders.
Now that we've established that the EPA isn't trustworthy, let's establish that they're attempting to destroy private property owners who thought they were doing the right thing. That shouldn't be difficult. Let's just remember what Andy Johnson and his wife are being vilified for:
He and his wife built a small pond on their rural property using the stream flowing through it. They stocked the pond with trout so that their three small children could fish. The pond is an oasis for wildlife such as ducks and geese passing through.
The EPA's claim that they're trying to apply the laws with great flexibility isn't the truth. If the EPA was interested in giving private property owners flexibility to make the most of their land while being good stewards of the land, they'd ignore the Johnsons. In fact, they should congratulate the Johnsons for enhancing the environment.
What's worst is that the EPA vilifies private property owners while they're major polluters:
Whenever any of those bossy bureaucrats at the EPA takes a bowel movement at work on a rainy day, all the excrement floats right out into the Potomac River and on down to the Chesapeake Bay, helping destroy one of the most important and compromised ecosystems in the U.S. today.
Forget about practicing what they preach. I'd settle for the EPA not destroying Chesapeake Bay. The EPA is one of the most corrupt agencies in government. In fact, I'd argue that they're significantly more corrupt than Lois Lerner's IRS. It's long past time to rein in the EPA's authority. They aren't enforcers of environmental laws anymore. They're the enforcement mechanism that militant environmentalists turn to to strip landowners of their private property rights.
That's why the EPA is the face of weaponized government.
Posted Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:02 AM
No comments.
