March 23-25, 2011
Mar 23 09:47 Ellison's Liberty Speech: Strawman Arguments Forever Mar 23 13:43 Common Cause MN, DFL Opposes Verifying Voter Eligibility Mar 23 17:47 GOP Fantasy Budget vs. DFL's Chanting Points Mar 24 09:15 BeLABORING a Point Mar 24 10:12 Social Responsibility Mar 24 12:27 Reclaiming the Vocabulary: Anti-City Edition Mar 25 08:12 Cost/Benefit Analysis Urgently Needed In Academia Mar 25 09:49 Dayton's Diatribe Mar 25 12:51 Photo ID Myths
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Ellison's Liberty Speech: Strawman Arguments Forever
If I was assigned the responsibility of titling Keith Ellison's liberty speech , I'd title it "Strawman Arguments Forever." It's appropriate because his speech is filled with strawman arguments like this:
Now see, the conservatives in this body, they like to talk about liberty. And then when they're talking about liberty they're not talking about a woman's right to choose, 'cause that's liberty. They're not talking about the freedom of worship, to be Muslim, Christian, Jewish, Bahai, no religion at all, they don't believe in that. They believe in only one way to seek the divine and they get more radical with it every single day. They don't believe in liberties like that. They don't believe you should be able to say whatever you want to say, they don't necessarily believe in the liberties that I'm talking about.
That's total BS!!! The conservatives I know and that I've known the last 25+ years fiercely defend the right of people to worship in the manner they choose. That's part of the First Amendment to the Constitution. As such, those rights will be fiercely defended.
As for the part about not defending "a woman's right to choose", Rep. Ellison is intentionally blurring the line between defending Roe v. Wade and arguing against abortion. He's intentionally ignoring the fact that Roe v. Wade is terrible constitutional law from a jurist's standpoint. Emanations of penumbras isn't a solid basis for a landmark legal decision. It arrived at a decision that Rep. Ellison obviously agrees with. That's different than being solid constitutional reasoning.
I haven't seen numbers on this but I'm betting that a supermajority of Republicans are pro-life. Rep. Ellison clearly doesn't put as high a priority on life as the rank-and-file Republican does. If he did, he couldn't defend Kathleen Soliah like he did in this speech :
In 2000 he spoke at a fundraiser for longtime fugitive Kathleen Soliah, aka Sara Jane Olson. The text of his speech was posted on a website, www.soliah.com, by Minneapolis resident Greg Lang.
Ellison praised Soliah for 'fighting for freedom.' At the time, she faced charges of planting pipe bombs under two Los Angeles police cars as a member of the Symbionese Liberation Army, a paramilitary organization whose slogan was 'Death to the fascist insect that preys on the life of the people.' Soliah pleaded guilty in 2001. In 2002 she also pleaded guilty to the murder of Myrna Opsahl, a bank customer shot by another SLA member during a holdup. She's now serving a long prison sentence.
But Ellison's call to the crowd was broader than a plea to aid Soliah. 'We need to come together and free all the Saras,' he proclaimed.
Saying that a confessed cop-killer is "fighting for freedom" isn't absurd. It's a bald-faced lie. No life-loving individual could take that position. A person who selectively values life could, however. I'm betting that Rep. Ellison's positions represent the fringe of the DFL on life issues, not the mainstream.
Rep. Ellison couldn't be more wrong than when he said "They don't believe you should be able to say whatever you want to say..." When fringe elements of the DFL spew nutty things like Kathleen Soliah, a confessed cop-killer, is "fighting for freedom", my first reaction is 'Get him a bigger megaphone.'
I want people to hear how fringe the Rep. Ellisons of the world are. Then there's this:
Now, this last part in some ways is the best part. For all. For every one. Last week we had some hearings in the Homeland Security Committee where one particular religious group was pointed out for persecution, actually. That was a sad day.
Dr. Zuhdi Jasser emphatically disagreed. Here's how he was treated by the fringe Muslim press:
During the first of Peter King's planned hearings 'The Extent of Radicalization in the American Muslim Community and that Community's Response', Zuhdi Jasser was the star witness. Why was he put in this position as the face of American Muslims? He is not a scholar of Islam. He is not part of the leadership of any national Muslim organization.
TAM has had a number of articles over the years about a neo-con strategy called Religion Building and on the devious process of labeling and identifying 'moderate' Muslims. (type religion building or moderate Muslims in the TAM search for many of these articles) It seems as if this religion building strategy has entered a new phase, actively attempting to set up an individual and/or organization as the authorized spokesman for the American Muslim community. Enter Zuhdi Jasser and AIFD.
Zuhdi Jasser's biography from his AIFD (American Islamic Forum for Democracy) site ** doesn't cite any real qualifications for his 'expertise' on the American Muslim Community nationally.
Let's s if I've got this straight. Zuhdi Jasser isn't qualified to speak on Muslim issues becaus he isn't "part of the leadership of any national Muslim organization"? Being a Muslim no longer is good enough to speak on Muslim issues?
Doesn't that sound alot like shutting down or ridiculing people who don't think like Rep. Ellison thinks? Isn't that doing what he's accused the right wing of doing? Isn't that alot like not letting people worship in the way that they choose? That sounds like Muslim publications would impose a litmus test on Muslims to be considered a 'real Muslim'.
Let's hear whether Rep. Ellison speaks out against The American Muslim for imposing litmus tests on rank-and-file Muslims. This seems like a form of intimidation against Muslims that don't think like TAM. That's certainly going to have a chilling effect on Muslims.
Applying Rep. Ellison's principles to the situation, he certainly should decry this type of religious intimidation from the left.
Rep. Ellison's arguments are filled with strawman arguments and hypocrisy. That's what I expected from him because that's what he's done in the past. If anything, Rep. Ellison is predictable in his hypocrisy.
And an intellectual waste of time.
Posted Wednesday, March 23, 2011 9:47 AM
No comments.
Common Cause MN, DFL Opposes Verifying Voter Eligibility
If anything has gotten clarified during the Photo ID vote, it's that Common Cause and the DFL don't put a priority on identifying whether the people voting are eligible to vote.
The fact is that it's impossible to know if a person getting vouched for is who they claim to be. Photo ID would eliminate that gaping loophole. Common Cause MN and Citizens for Election Integrity MN understand this. I suspect that that's why they're arguing on a variety of fronts , none of which are particularly relevant to election integrity.
Restoring election integrity will give people confidence that their votes won't be canceled out by voter fraud.
Rep. Kiffmeyer is right in saying that the DFL's argument is weak because they focus solely on recounts. That's a non sequitur argument. The only thing a recount proves is that people can count. It doesn't prove that the people who voted were eligible voters.
Without Photo ID, all that the voter logs can prove is that the people who signed the sheet were allowed to vote. It can't identify whether the people who voted should've voted. Until that gaping loophole is closed, we don't know the extent that voter fraud has been committed in Minnesota.
Anyone who says that voter fraud doesn't exist in Minnesota can't know that with any certainty because they can't prove that the people who voted are eligible to vote.
Certainly, there are examples of voter fraud in Minnesota. Thanks to Mitch Berg's great investigating and Monty Jensen's, Ron Kaus's and Jim Stene's courage, we now know that staffers at the Clark Lake Group Home a) filled out ballots for patients and b) filled out at least one ballot for a person who'd been ruled ineligible to vote.
Because of their partisan agenda, Mark Ritchie, the DFL and Common Cause MN won't admit that voter fraud exists in Minnesota. I suspect that that's largely because their only priority is making voting easy. It's worth noting that voter turnout is down since Ritchie made voting 'easier'.
The 'study' released by Common Cause MN and Citizens for Election Integrity MN is filled with costs for various things. It's the only time I've ever seen the DFL's allies worried about costs. They certainly don't hesitate in bringing their Misery Parade at hearings describing why even the tiniest cut might start the end of Western civilization.
Surely liberals will label me a hypocrite for being willing to spend money on Photo ID. To them, I'll just say BRING IT ON!!! In their minds, conservatives are opposed to all spending and all government. If they want to stick with that perspective, that's their right. It's just that their opinion isn't based in truth. NOT EVEN REMOTELY.
My defense is simple: Because voting integrity is such a high priority, we should fund it. PERIOD. If that means spending less on lower priority items, I'm fine with that.
People do this all the time. Their budgets are a reflection of their priorities. Election integrity is one of the conservatives' priorities. It isn't conservatives' fault that the DFL doesn't put a high priority on election integrity.
Posted Wednesday, March 23, 2011 1:43 PM
Comment 1 by Dan McGrath at 24-Mar-11 10:43 AM
This common cause brief is flat-out laughable. They claim to be analyzing the fiscal notes, but come up with figures that are not even close to what the fiscal notes say. Further, the fiscal notes they are using for HF210 are woefully outdated (perhaps deliberately in order to mislead). A new fiscal note on HF210/SF509 (21st Century Voter ID) should be released this week. In FY2012, the bill will cost $213,000. Over a 5-year span, it's expected to come in under $5 million.
They are really reaching with some of this stuff, too.
The brief is nonsense, barely worthy of notice, unless you want a small chuckle.
GOP Fantasy Budget vs. DFL's Chanting Points
I just caught a bit of Tom Bakk's and John Marty's press conference on th GOP tax bill. Frankly, it sounded more like the attack of a pair of whiners. I didn't watch long because it was that whiney.
This morning, the DFL's twitter brigade started a new chanting point: the GOP's fantasy budget. According to Sen. Bakk and other DFL spinmeisters, the GOP budget isn't serious, that it should be ridiculed.
First, the GOP budget is based on anticipated economic growth as a result of getting spending under control thanks to important reforms like Rep. Dan Fabian's HF1. Spending is finally under control after the DFL didn't set budget targets during their time in the majority.
In 2009, then-Speaker Kelliher brushed aside questions about putting a budget together:
Emmer's question has become the mantra of state Republicans. In every public forum, at least one or two Republican legislators raise the question: If DFL legislators don't like Gov. Tim Pawlenty's proposed budget, why don't they come up with one of their own?
'It's strategic,' said House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, DFL-Minneapolis, of the Republican cry. 'It's designed to freak people out on our side, and it takes attention off the governor's budget.'
I totally understand why Kelliher slipped the question. The DFL's budget tactics always include whining about the GOP's budget while not talking about their budgets. They want nothing to do with budgets because, at heart, they're spending addicts. Spending addicts don't like restrictions like budgets.
The DFL doesn't even like their own governor's proposal. That's why it didn't attract a sponsor earlier.
What's standing in the way most of all is the DFL's insistence on maintaining the status quo in government. That's plain wrong. For instance, the Higher Ed budget will get cut. Both the Dayton budget and the GOP cut the Higher Ed budget :
Both the House and Senate bills would cut $411 million in projected state spending for higher education, more than double the reductions included in Dayton's budget, as part of GOP lawmakers' solution to Minnesota's $5 billion shortfall.
Within the next decade, the current higher ed system won't be able to sustain itself in its current form. The number of young people coming through the system simply isn't enough. Having a glut of community colleges, technical colleges and jucos simply isn't sustainable. That's before considering the number of classes that should be taught statewide online.
In the context of the Airport Commission meeting, I talked with one of the board members afterwards. I told this person that we should shoot for more online classes, more than we even have now. I then said that the next step should be to move to an online version of Wisconsin's Centers of Excellence system if it's possible.
I'm not expecting those changes to be passed, signed into law and implemented within this biennium. That'd be actual fantasy. Still, it's a safe bet that the DFL didn't think of this because the unions would have a total fit.
This fits the DFL's status quo mindset. If they don't change anything, then their union allies won't see major changes. That means they'll be able to rake in the unions' campaign contributions.
If the DFL ever proposed that type of reforms, they'd be primaried and run out of the union hall. That's if they wouldn't be tarred and feathered.
That's why it's predictable that the DFL attacked the GOP's budget. If they didn't, their union allies would question the DFL's commitment to the status quo, which the unions prefer.
The GOP budget will require some tough votes. It'll include a number of cost-saving reforms, too. The GOP's reforms have been part of their agenda since literally the first week of the session.
The GOP's grasp of reality is strong. Their budget deals with the reality that nobody is doing that well financially, not even the so-called rich. Gov. Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme wouldn't net the money that's forecast.
I suspect that this information is what's really troubling to the DFL:
The House state government bill also:
- Requires a 12 percent reduction in the state work force by 2013 and immediate hiring and pay freezes.
- Sets up a pilot program to study whether it is feasible to pay state workers based on performance.
- Appropriates $322,000 to reimburse counties for costs incurred in the 2010 governor's race recount.
- Cuts executive agency spending nearly $95 million.
- Establishes a commission to review whether state agencies should continue to exist.
I'm betting that that last sentence is the one that's bothering the DFL the most. To a DFL status quo activist, nothing bothers them more than eliminating bureaucracies.
Bureaucracies aren't a way to measure man's compassion. Increasing their budgets isn't proof of wisdom. Never questioning these agencies' existence is testimony to the DFL's status quo mindset and their obedience to the unions.
Posted Wednesday, March 23, 2011 5:47 PM
No comments.
BeLABORING a Point
This editorial criticizes Gov. Scott Walker's signing a bill limiting public unions' collective bargaining rights, saying that the employees had already agreed to concessions that would balance this year's deficit.
That's missing the point entirely.
The reality is that the biggest reason why the reform was needed was because of the pension funds' unfunded long-term liability. The PEUs say that Wisconsin's pension funds are in great shape. According to this post , that claim is more myth than truth:
The state bases its claim of full funding on the assumption that the program will average an annual return of 7.8 percent, well above what private pensions generally figure. Lower the projection, and the long-run picture gets very dark.
This is similar to the claim made by Elliot Seide :
'We do not have a pension crisis,' said Eliot Seide, executive director of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, Council 5. 'This is, simply put, an attack on public workers.' Seide said at least a dozen legislative bills had been introduced at the State Capitol this year aimed at cutting public employee benefits.
In that post, I cited a Civic Caucus report saying that Minnesota's PEU unfunded liability was $24.3 B if the funds received an average of 8.5% per year for the next 30 years. In Wisconsin, the projection is based on the fund investment getting a 7.8% ROI.
Both ROIs are wildly unrealistic. Forget ROIs of 8.5% or 7.8%. Think more like 5-6%.
In Minnesota, that change in ROI adds $7.29B to the unfunded liability over the next 30 years. In total, a realistic appraisal of Minnesota's unfunded liability for PEUs amounts to $1,000,000,000 per year on average. That's $1,000,000,000 per year that can't go towards public safety, education or returned to the taxpayers.
The biggest point behind the Wisconsin protests was who controlled the state budget. The next biggest point behind the fight was to get Wisconsin's unfunded pension liability under control.
The unions did their best to sell the short-term budget fix as THE REASON for the fight. It never was. It was about fixing a long-term problem that the previous administration and the previous legislature refused to fix.
Posted Thursday, March 24, 2011 9:15 AM
No comments.
Social Responsibility
The more I dig into schools, the more I understand about them being an indoctrination location. The most recent example I found was this program . Here's a partial description for the course found on their own website:
The Department of Human Relations and Multicultural Education provides education in self-awareness and skills essential for living and working in a pluralistic, democratic society. Human relations is a multi/interdisciplinary applied field in the study and practice of social responsibility within western and non-western cultures. The department is committed to addressing the serious questions of survival, equity and quality of life facing people around the world. The curriculum presents the voices and perspectives of groups which have historically been excluded from the western canon. Investigative and critical thinking skills are taught in which mainstream and alternative viewpoints are examined for values and veracity.
Human relations graduate courses examine the impact of power, resources, cultural standards, and institutional policies and practices on various groups in our society and develop active citizenship skills for participatory democracy. Specifically, the department addresses issues of social and environmental justice within a global context related to race, gender, class, age, religion, disability, physical appearance, sexual/affectional orientation, nationality/culture, and species.
This isn't a subject that students minor in. It's a Master's degree program.
With the budget being this tight, shouldn't We The People question a university's priorities? Next, shouldn't we question which programs add to the economic development of the community they serve? In this instance, what type of job is the graduate likely to get with this degree?
Perhaps these questions can be answered satisfactorily. If there's a way to prove that this program is useful beyond addressing issues "of social and environmental justice within a global context", then perhaps this program is justified.
I'm just not holding my breath waiting for an explanation that justifies this program's existence.
Until I hear that justification, I'll operate from the premise that this is just another training course for expanding liberalism.
Posted Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:12 AM
Comment 1 by G Leisen at 24-Mar-11 11:05 PM
There are a lot of courses of study which are highly questionable, in my opinion. Furthermore, even in more tradiitonal areas of study, many courses are a waste of time, and seem to exist to raise the cost of tuition and employ more liberal professors. If that sounds cynical, so be it. Students in public universities usually need 5-6 years of study to get a bachelor's degree. The inefficiencies in public education are a scandal.
Reclaiming the Vocabulary: Anti-City Edition
One of the latest DFL Chanting Points is that the GOP legislature is anti-city. They've started this Chanting Point after it was announced that the GOP budget wanted to zero out the LGA for St. Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth in the near future.
TRANSLATION: St. Paul, Minneapolis and Duluth are howling because their mayors have been overspending state taxpayer's money for so long that they've developed an entitlement mentality.
In the summer of 2008, I read through St. Paul's operating budget. At the time, I thought that it wouldn't be difficult to cut one-third of their operating budget without anyone noticing. After they've spent Minnesota's taxpayers' money foolishly for at least 5 years, they're screaming because they don't like being told they have to change.
These cities' whining is empty. They didn't express one iota of guilt in foolishly spending outstate Minnesota's taxpayers money. Now they're doing their best to make us feel guilty for saying 'NO MORE!!!' Guess what? It isn't working. The Twin Cities have to feel the pain for Chris Coleman's and R.T. Rybak's and their city councils' foolish decisions.
That's the only way they'll understand that spending money foolishly on things they don't need is counterproductive and unsustainable.
The era of status quo stupidity is over. Deal with it.
Posted Thursday, March 24, 2011 12:27 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 24-Mar-11 03:45 PM
I live in Minneapolis. Good idea! Lets do it!!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 24-Mar-11 09:06 PM
So if DFL wants to raise taxes, that makes them anti-taxpayer, dare I say anti-Minnesotan since we'd all pay directly or indirectly.
Comment 3 by Lew Coffey at 24-Mar-11 09:16 PM
Always remember the "Golden Rule"; He who has the gold makes the rules! If your city is funded by the state of Mn, who do you suppose they're going to be responsive to, the citizens of the city or the bureaucrats who pass out the gold?
LGA needs to be constitutionally banned!
Cost/Benefit Analysis Urgently Needed In Academia
After reading this on the U of M website, I'd say that the need for a cost/benefit analysis study is urgently needed:
Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies B.A.
In addition to the faculty in gender, women, and sexuality studies, several departments and centers lend their interdisciplinary teaching and advisory expertise. Among these are the Departments of African American and African Studies; American Studies; American Indian Studies; Anthropology; Chicano Studies; Communication Studies; Comparative Studies in Discourse and Society; English; French and Italian; German, Scandinavian, and Dutch; History; Philosophy; Sociology; and Spanish and Portuguese. Affiliated programs include the School of Nursing; the Hubert H. Humphrey Institute of Public Affairs Center on Women and Public Policy; the Institute for Global Studies; the Interdisciplinary Program on Global Change, Sustainability, and Justice; Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture; and the Tucker Center for Research on Girls and Women in Sport.
Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies B.A. isn't a class. It's a program. In fact, it's more about indoctrination than it's a study of the issues in the title. What does "advisory expertise" from the Minnesota Institute for Sustainable Agriculture or the Interdisciplinary Program on Global Change, Sustainability, and Justice have to do with Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies? (I REALLY can't wait to hear that explanation.)
More importantly, what type of a job will someone with a B.A. degree in Gender, Women and Sexuality Studies be able to get? What type of salary might a graduate start at? Would a graduate be more likely to get a job in the public or private sector?
Putting this simply, is the U of M wasting the taxpayers' money offering this program? It'll take some salesmanship to prove they aren't.
After briefly skimming through some higher ed offerings at various universities, it's imperative that these universities stop wasting our money on marginal subjects. That's our money that universities are throwing away, money we can't afford in this struggling economy.
The common denominator in these programs is that, if you just do a routine search, you'll find far left political, PC agendas driving at least part of these programs.
Here's a part of the description for the Masters Degree program for Social Responsibility:
Human Relations 1) collaboratively offers an interdisciplinary Master's of Science in Social Responsibility with sociology, and women's studies; 2) provides quality courses that fulfill the human relations requirement for teacher licensure in the state of Minnesota; 3) provides courses, resources, and leadership in meeting the SCSU mission and various accreditation standards on multicultural, gender-fair, disability-aware, GLBT-sensitive education. The graduate courses develop and enhance personal and professional skills in individuals, organizations, and global social responsibility for a wide range of non-profit, public and private sector positions in advocacy, education, communications, health, government, social services, business, and international careers.
That's absurd!!! You can't be licensed as a teacher in Minnesota if you haven't been indoctrinated in multicultural, gender-fair, disability-aware, GLBT-sensitive education? Let's stipulated that NOBODY should be discriminated against. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION. I'll repeat myself in asking whether we need a Masters Degree college program to live by the Golden Rule.
This is the type of thing that, in the private sector, can be addressed in a corporate training course. That training course might take the entire morning but it's possible it'd only take 2 hrs.
Academia has misspent fistsful of our money over the past quarter century. NO MORE!!! We can't afford to pay for more of their foolishness. More importantly, even if we could, THERE'S NO SUCH THING AS ACCEPTABLE WASTEFUL GOVERNMENT SPENDING.
If the universities whine about getting funding stopped for offering programs that serve no useful purpose other than a) keeping far left professors employed and b) indoctrinating students, then I'm fine with that. People whining that we aren't supporting their colleg cronyism is music to my ears.
Posted Friday, March 25, 2011 8:12 AM
Comment 1 by Alan at 25-Mar-11 08:54 AM
The writer brings up very valid points. According to this website, I see the social responsibility program uses 17 faculty. Isn't that a bit overkill? If businesses and every day working citizens had a say in what programs and courses were offered in public higher education, I think programs and the curriculum would look "day and night" different than what we see now. For far too long, public higher education has been doing its own thing without being accountable to the taxpayers. If the day comes when they receive NO money from the taxpayers, then I would agree they could offer a master's in underwater basketweaving or whatever they want without public input. I think it is a reach to say that a vast majority of Minnesotan's feel that a Master's in Social Responsibility is truly needed. However, I am open to hear any logical, reasonable argument in keeping this program at taxpayer's expense.
Comment 2 by G Leisen at 26-Mar-11 11:54 AM
I have stated to many of my friends that the Education Establishment is just as guilty of fraud and over-spending as any other institution that the liberals are always attacking, such as the Military - Industrial complex.
By being in control of the vocabulary and having a friendly media in their back pocket, the education lobby gets away with robbing the tax payers in every instance. Somehow "it's for the children" gets them a shield against any criticism.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Mar-11 04:52 PM
Somehow 'it's for the children' gets them a shield against any criticism.It doesn't here!!! That's a guarantee.
Comment 3 by James Rugg at 12-Mar-13 07:29 PM
The college education system has morphed into a social training system with a little academics thrown in on the side. I submit that until a serious public discussion to determine the meaning of the word "education" takes place and a full audit of the operations of the current higher education system has been completed, high costs and low educational outcomes will prevail.
Since higher education trains K-12 teachers, the same condition will occur at that level. The money and time is spent. Graduates are not prepared to be productive members of society.
Comment 4 by Jethro at 13-Mar-13 10:16 AM
Well stated, James! It was also interesting watching the U of M president defend the multiple span and layers of administrators. Hang on to your wallet.
Dayton's Diatribe
Acting more like a little child throwing a temper tantrum than governor of a state, Gov. Dayton threw a hissy fit yesterday . Actually he threw 2. Both were about the GOP budget:
Speaking to reporters, Dayton said committee chairs have been "very disrespectful" to his commissioners, particularly noting the treatment of the Human Services, Education and Human Rights agency heads. He said chairmen have provided very limited time for them to speak, allowing only 3 to 3 1/2 minutes, if that.
I think Gov. Dayton needs to reconnect with reality. Here's a healthy dose of reality:
Garofalo said he gave Education Commissioner Brenda Cassellius as much time as she requested to testify. " In our committee we stopped the presentation and allowed the commissioner to testify ," Garofalo said. He said he has a "great working relationship" with her.
Here's another dose of reality. Rep. Steve Gottwalt was just on Hot Talk With the Ox. He said that they just finished a day and a half of hearings on the HHS omnibus bill. According to Rep. Gottwalt, they heard testimony from over 90 people during the hearings . Does that sound like committees are being disrespectful? Does that sound like they don't want to hear from people?
BTW, I'll bet the proverbial ranch that at least 80 of those 90 people defended Gov. Dayton's HHS budget, a budget that was scheduled for a 44% increase.
If Gov. Dayton wants to throw a temper tantrum, that's his right. It's our right, though, to ridicule him when his statements don't connect with reality.
Dayton said Republican lawmakers have attempted to "minimize the public awareness of the consequences" of their budget decisions through limiting testimony and public access to their actions.
That's plain fiction. As stated earlier, the HHS committee held a day and a half worth of hearing. They heard from 90+ citizens, most of whom talked about how state programs affected them.
This is shaping up to be a difficult close to the session. You've got a governor who is either grandstanding or who isn't in command of reality. How do you negotiate with such a person?
Further complicating matters is Gov. Dayton's insistence that we spend more money than we have by raising taxes on Minnesota's job creators. If this reaches a special session or, God forbid, a government shutdown, Gov. Dayton's rationalization will essentially be that government a) isn't stealing enough from John Q Taxpayer and b) isn't spending enough on the DFL's special interest allies.
If that's what Gov. Dayton does, I wish him luck peddling that message. That messag won't appeal to Minnesota's taxpayers, with the exception to the Dane Smiths of the state.
Gov. Dayton and the DFL minorities are defending status quo stupidity at a time when we need government to make wise decisions with our money. Don't be surprised if the vast majority of people say that the era of status quo stupidity must stop ASAP.
Posted Friday, March 25, 2011 9:49 AM
No comments.
Photo ID Myths
With Photo ID back on the legislature's front burner, the DFL apologists have returned with their list of myths. Jay Weiner's post highlights one of those myths:
Now, Minnesota Common Cause and Citizens for Election Integrity Minnesota have compiled a detailed review (PDF) of the costs of House File 210, which requires Voter ID and institutes the electronic voter check-in system statewide, and House File 89, which simply requires photo ID for voters.
That PDF contains some wretched spin. Minnesota Majority's Dan McGrath posted this on True North:
St. Paul - Minnesota Majority president Jeff Davis today issued the following statement regarding the Common Cause/Citizens for Election Integrity policy brief, 'The High Cost of Voter ID Mandates,' which concludes that the voter ID bills will cost $25-84 million dollars over 3 years:
'This brief is high fantasy. It purports to analyze official fiscal notes, but is far removed from even the most overblown fiscal note produced by the secretary of state's office. Secretary Ritchie is no supporter of Voter ID and has no reason to downplay the fiscal impact. If anything, those fiscal notes are probably unreasonably high estimates but the brief Common Cause and Citizens for Election Integrity produced suggests that the costs will be 2-3 times higher than even the secretary of state determined.
When SecState Ritchie disagrees with Common Cause MN's figures, it's a safe bet that CC's figures are totally worthless. I just looked at the fiscal note CCMn cites. The expense is $58,000,000 in 2012, then drops to $649,000 in 2014. That's a pretty dramatic drop, almost 99%.
I'd love hearing CCMn's explanation for that 98.8% cut in cost in just 2 years. I'm betting that the initial figure is the implementation cost. I'm further betting that that's a one-time cost. If that's the case, then it's proper to think of that initial expense over a lengthy period of time. It's best to amortize that initial expense because the hardware and software would likely be used for a decade or more.
Thee DFL is using all of its discredited arguments to defeat Photo ID legislation, including this myth :
Last fall, the Minnesota County Attorneys Association called allegations of voter fraud in Minnesota 'frivolous' and stated that only 26 people had been convicted of voting as a felon in the last two years, a miniscule percent of the 2.9 million votes cast in the election.
Teresa Nelson, legal counsel for the ACLU of Minnesota told the committee that two close elections, in 2008 and 2010, 'have not led to a single conviction for voter impersonation fraud, the only type of voter fraud that photo ID requirements could possibly address'.
First, the felons voting argument is subjective in that county attorneys might dismiss charges at their discretion. Next, the ACLU's argument that there hasn't been "a single conviction for voter impersonation fraud" is frivolous. How could you detect that without Photo ID?
I'd also argue that voter impersonation fraud isn't the only type of voter fraud that Photo ID would prevent. Photo ID would eliminate voter fraud that vouching can't detect.
People can't prove that Minnesota's election system is fraud-proof because we don't identify eligible voters before giving them a ballot. Once you've given an ineligible voter a ballot, their vote will count. Once that ballot is run through the scanner, it's impossible to tell the difference between the ballot cast by an eligible voter and one cast by someone committing voter fraud.
I've previously argued that, even if there's a cost attached to implementing Photo ID, it's worth it. Election integrity, subject to real scrutiny, not subjective reports and statements, is a high priority line item in the budget.
Whichever way you slice it, CCMn's arguments are losing arguments. Photo ID is an idea who's time has arrived.
Posted Friday, March 25, 2011 12:51 PM
Comment 1 by Pat at 25-Mar-11 04:07 PM
I have heard that a photo ID will not prevent a felon from voting in Minnesota. Stop wasting your time attacking other peoples opinions and come up with your own, (supported with evidence), facts that voter fraud is a legitimate concern and go from there.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 26-Mar-11 08:34 AM
come up with your own, (supported with evidence), facts that voter fraud is a legitimate concern and go from there.It's next-to-impossible to provide proof of voter fraud since the current system & the current SecState isn't looking for voter fraud.
The felons voting wasn't discovered by election judges or the SecState's office audit. It was found by Minnesota Majority after receiving tips of the problem. They met with SecState Ritchie BEFORE THE 2008 ELECTION, telling him about this potential problem. Their report fell on deaf ears. Ritchie wasn't interested.
During the campaign & after the election, Ritchie argued that he didn't have the authority to remove those felons. He was either ill-informed or lying about that. Th HAVA Act of 2002 gave secstates the affirmative responsibility to keep the registered voter lists free of people who weren't eligible to vote.
Photo ID won't solve ALL of the voter fraud problems. I never said it would. Still, it's a giant step in the right direction.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 26-Mar-11 04:33 PM
How about this. Prove to me (and everybody) that lots of felons did NOT vote in the election. Prove to me that hundreds of non-citizens didn't vote. Prove to me that NOBODY, not one single person, voted twice. Prove to me that non-existent persons, some of those 23,000 who registered same-day but whose names and addresses the US Post Office couldn't find, didn't vote. Of course they did, because that is what triggered the SOS to try to send mail to them.
Why not just tell the truth, here, that Democrats can't win elections if they don't cheat? Why not support voter ID and prove us wrong about that?
Comment 3 by Dan McGrath at 28-Mar-11 10:28 AM
The county attorneys have acknowledged that of Minnesota Majority's list of 2,803 ineligible felon voters in the 2008 election (there are actually more than that - this was the initial list), upwards of 80% of them were not charged simply because they claimed not to know they were ineligible to vote. It wasn't that they were incorrectly identified, nor was it that they were eligible, nor was it that they didn't vote. Simply, they said, "I didn't know."
200 ineligible felon voters have been charged from the 2008 election, with hundreds more still being investigated, though.
21st Century Voter ID would stop felons from voting by cross-checking electronic databases right at the polling place. It would also detect non-citizens as well as forged ID cards.
