March 26-30, 2011
Mar 26 16:49 Higher Ed Cost/Benefit Analysis, Part II Mar 27 09:36 Otto Spin Cycle: "I'm Being Muzzled" Mar 27 13:01 Fixing Problems Requires IDENTIFYING Problems Mar 28 11:56 Single-Payer: MNA's Mission Mar 28 13:31 Messaging 101 Mar 29 06:38 Tax Bill Debate Notes Mar 30 00:41 Another Gov. Dayton Temper Tantrum? Mar 30 03:00 Schumer: Cutting Spending from $3.73T to $3.69T Is EXTREME!!! Mar 30 14:55 Gov. Dayton's Orphaned Budget
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Higher Ed Cost/Benefit Analysis, Part II
A couple days ago, MNPublius blogger Jeff Rosenberg highlighted my post about Monday's Airport Commission meeting . After I commented on his post, it seems I stirred a hornet's nest. I mentioned the Masters Degree program for Social Responsibility that SCSU offers. Specifically, I said that SCSU was wasting money on a program of questionable importance vs. keeping Aviation open.
The reply I enjoyed most was the one saying, essentially, that it's all about the money and that the Aviation program probably cost more than the Social Responsibility Masters program.
Momentarily setting aside the importance of the two departments, let's look at the costs of the two departments. There are 192 students enrolled at SCSU majoring in Aviation. I don't know the salaries for the 4 fulltime Aviation professors and the parttime instructor but I'm certain it's less than $300,000.
By comparison, there are 31 graduate students enrolled in the Social Responsibility Masters Degree program. They're taught by 17 instructors. Those instructors' salaries have a combined payroll of $1,163,832.
The biggest question I have is this: If SCSU was looking to save money, why didn't SCSU close the Social Responsibility Masters Degree program instead of the Aviation Department?
Graduates earning their Masters degree in Social Responsibility have a bright future teaching classes at a university or possibly going into community organizing. Graduates earning their degree from the Aviation Department are only qualified to be airline pilots, air traffic controllers, airport managers or military pilots.
They'd also be positioned nicely to return to school, get their teaching degree and train the next generation of pilots, air traffic controllers or airport managers.
Perhaps there is a sensible answer why you'd shut the Aviation Department down instead of the Social Responsibility program. Perhaps but I wouldn't bet on it.
The time for answers and accountability is now. SCSU doesn't directly report to the people of St. Cloud. Still, one of the goals included in their Strategic Action Plan is to "institutionalize our commitment to civic and community engagement." I'm betting that this series of decisions doesn't meet that goal.
At a time when money is tight, we can't afford universities offering junk programs. Instead, we need them training people to be productive employees in the private sector or the next generation of journalists.
If they're doing that, then we'll know that they're passing the cost/benefit analysis test. Until then, I'll remain skeptical.
Posted Saturday, March 26, 2011 4:49 PM
Comment 1 by Darlene Thompson at 28-Mar-11 02:57 PM
Thanks for your insightful, informative article. We need people like you to inform the public and you certainly deserve credit for doing that. I've always known you to be fair and honest in your opinions, conversations and reporting. Thanks! I have one question...who DOES SCSU answer to?! If it's not the people of St. Cloud who pay the taxes to keep SCSU open, I'd like to know whom to contact concerning this matter.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Mar-11 03:27 PM
Darlene, Thanks for the compliments. SCSU doesn't directly answer to anyone in St. Cloud. They answer to the MnSCU board in St. Paul.
Stay tuned to LFR. I'll have alot more on this general subject.
Otto Spin Cycle: "I'm Being Muzzled"
This morning on At Issue With Tom Hauser, a clip was played showing State Auditor Rebecca Otto saying that a 12 percent cut in her budget was the equivalent of the EVIL GOP legislature muzzling her.
Expect more of these dramatic declarations as the end of the legislative session nears. First, don't buy into this spin. Next,expect me to shoot these silly statements down when I hear about them. This one is actually rather simple.
Since the auditor's office doesn't finish their audits of the state's biggest cities on time, I'd argue that Minnesota would be better off if Ms. Otto hired private auditing firms to perform a larger percentage of audits. (I say a larger percentage because cities are already hiring private firms to do these audits.) The audits still require Ms. Otto's oversight and signature so there's little chance that these audits wouldn't meet state standards.
What's great about private audits is that they're substantially less expensive than those performed by Ms. Otto's office. We know this because they're already happening.
If that's what qualifies as muzzling the auditor, then I'm for not hearing a word from Ms. Otto the next 3 years.
These budget cuts won't cut Ms. Otto's staff, though an argument can be made that they should be cut from her staff and hired by the private sector auditing first. Because the audits could be awarded after the bidding process, there'd be a competition incentive to these companies' bids.
This isn't a difficult decision if you aren't wedded to status quo thinking. It's only difficult if you're wedded to maintaining the pro-union status quo. It's actually an opportunity for reform, both in terms of cutting costs and in increasing the speed with which the audits are completed.
Shouldn't Minnesota's taxpayers want state government to jump at similar opportunities? Let's hope the legislature jumps at more opportunities like this.
Let's hope, too, that Minnesotans will be spared these drama queen moments. This much hyperbolizing isn't productive. It's counterproductive.
Minnesota shouldn't put up with the people that work for them not telling them the whole truth. If Ms. Otto wants to use hyperbole to maintain the status quo, then she should be held accountable for her statements.
Posted Sunday, March 27, 2011 9:36 AM
Comment 1 by Tbone at 28-Mar-11 02:39 PM
You do realize that the cost of the audits do not come out of the general fund? So moving the audit function from The Office of The State Auditor to private firms does not save The State of Minnesota any money. The auditors bill the cities and counties for there work. So any cuts to the State Auditors budget will cut into the rest of the office. So if you are trying to balance the state budget you will not even make a dent by privatizing the audits because they are not paid out of the general fund. You may want to check your facts before you start throwing mud.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 28-Mar-11 03:21 PM
Saving money auditing Minnesota's biggest cities has an impact on the state budget. Minnesota's biggest cities get LGA. Saving money on these audits, which privatizing would do, reduces these cities' need for LGA.
Reducing the need for LGA will impact the state budget. BTW, privatizing these audits gives these cities more financial flexibility. That will help solve a wide range of problems; most importantly, it'll solve the structural deficit crisis.
Before you accuse me of "throwing mud", you might want to consider things that you didn't pay attention to prior to shooting your mouth off.
Comment 2 by Rex Newman at 28-Mar-11 03:08 PM
I stand by what I said during the election: any job Rebecca Otto can do should be eliminated.
Fixing Problems Requires IDENTIFYING Problems
While reading Giancarlo Casale's op-ed in this morning's Strib, one thing is painfully obvious: that he isn't qualified to comment on his own university's frugality or lack thereof. Here's what Casale said that I reject:
But as a member of the U faculty, I do know something about my own institution, and at least this much I am prepared to state with certainty: If the state does have a "spending problem" and not a "revenue problem," it is certainly not because of the U.
I'm intrigued by this claim after writing about this in this post . Here's why I'm questioning Casale's credibility:
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.
I asked then what I'll repeat asking now:
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 get it that not every program at a university will directly contribute to Minnesota's GDP. Still, this program sounds like its goal is political correctness and progressive indoctrination. Sustainable agriculture is something Mark Ritchie was involved with :
Selling 'fair-trade' coffee (and the 'sustainable agriculture' rhetoric that promotes the product), Mark Ritchie runs the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy from the same building where he operates Peace Coffee. The latter, a for-profit company operating out of IATP's nonprofit offices, sells 'fair trade, organic, shade-grown coffees' for $9.50 per pound.
Niel Ritchie, Mark Ritchie's brother, participated in a strategy session on how to get the most glowing press possible on the subject of sustainable agriculture. Here's the report's title:
Telling Our Story: Partnering with the Media
Further into the report, we find this meeting's conclusions:
We also need to encourage the public to support politicians who are willing to work for change in the existing agricultural/food system. Furthermore, we need to imagine how we can make the media/politics/corporate relationship work for us.
I'd love hearing Casale's explanation on the importance of a program that purports to be about gender and sexuality issues but is tied to political issues like sustainable agriculture.
What's the benefit society derive from such a program? Why should Minnesota taxpayers pay a nickel for this program? If sustainable agriculture advocates think their program is important, shouldn't that stand on their own, as apparently they do? Why should programs with so little in common be linked together?
I'd argue that Prof. Casale's credibility is lacking. If he can't identify wasteful spending at his university, why shouldn't we think of this op-ed as discredited?
Universities used to be about a relentless pursuit of the truth. It's apparent that they're more focused on extending their political agenda through indoctrination programs like Gender, Women and Sexuality.
Nevertheless, the U now finds itself on the chopping block for yet another round of cuts, cuts that are not only disproportionate when compared to the overall state deficit, but on such a drastic scale that, if enacted as proposed by the Legislature last week, will bring public support for higher education to the lowest level in living memory.
There's a lovely non sequitur argument buried in Prof. Casale's op-ed:
cuts that are not only disproportionate when compared to the overall state deficit
There's only one question I want answered: Are the cuts dispoportionate to the amount of money wasted on programs like Gender, Women and Sexuality. If the university is wasting tens of millions of dollars of dollars on these types of programs, then it's time a) Minnesota taxpayers stopped paying for them, b) that Minnesota's taxpayers stopped seeing double-digit tuition increases or c) both.
NO MORE!!! is the beleagured taxpayers' cry. NO MORE!!! are we willing to pay for these professors' salaries, health care and exhorbitant pensions. NO MORE!!! are we willing to pay these professors' salaries so they indoctrinate young people. NO MORE!!! are Minnesota's taxpayers willing to see PEU pensions accumulate more unfunded liabilities, especially when we aren't getting a decent ROI.
NO MORE!!!
So before we actually go down this road, I would like to make sure we understand what these reductions will really mean: vast increases in class size; massive tuition hikes; crippling furloughs; closed labs; the permanent loss of core teaching and research faculty; the elimination of departments and perhaps entire colleges, and untold damage to the economy of our state for decades to come, perhaps forever.
I don't doubt that these things will happen. I'm equally certain that they shouldn't happen. If the University insists on this level of status quo stupidity, then there's no doubt that Prof. Casale's predictions will happen. However, if the University embraces the opportunity to transform itself by eliminating programs that serve no useful purpose, we'll soon have a healthy higher education program.
Pofessor Casale isn't admitting that questionable programs devour revenue, triggering "crippling furloughs", "massive tuition hikes" and "closed labs."
How, exactly, have we gotten to this point? Is it really the case that we Minnesotans now value college education less than the rest of the country? Have we really drifted so far from the values that once made us the most educated state in the union?
It's interesting to see Prof. Casale equate Minnesota taxpayers' refusal to fund questionable programs as unwillingness to "value college education." It's nothing of the sort. It's a sign of health that Minnesota's taxpayers are saying NO MORE!!! Perhaps now it's possible to right Minnesota's free-spending habits.
Posted Sunday, March 27, 2011 1:01 PM
No comments.
Single-Payer: MNA's Mission
While doing a little light reading tonight, I learned what one of the Minnesota Nurses' Association's highest priorities for 2010 was. Here's their stated goals for 2010 :
Member and staff time, as well as substantial financial resources, will be committed to advancing the following areas of priority.
- Position MNA for negotiations from strength across Minnesota
- Organize to increase MNA membership and participation and promote MNA mission and strategic goals through political activism and collective action.
- Educate and mobilize members around health care reform, and pursue short and long-term strategies to achieve a single-payer health care system with guaranteed health care for all.
- Ensure the integrity of nursing practice and advance safe patient staffing standards and principles through collective action, collective bargaining, legislative initiative, grassroots organizing, political action and education consistent with the MNA Strategic Plan and the objectives of National Nurses United (NNU).
If anyone thinks that these progressives have quit fighting for their dream (our nightmare) of a single-payer healthcare system, they'd better rethink things. That's been the progressives' goal for three-fourth's of a century. Insinuated in the MNA's goals is that these nurses know what's best in terms of what's a viable economic model. There's no question that nurses ar professionals in terms of providing care. Likewise, there's no question that they're totally wrong about single-payer. In 2008, I studied single-payer. The most damning statements about single-payer, ironically, came from single-payer advocates. Here's was AMSA said at the time :
Although there are some advantages and some disadvantages to each system, universal health care confers the greatest number of advantages. They include:
- Every individual would receive necessary medical coverage, regardless of age, health, employment, or socio-economic status.
- Health care spending would decline because centralized billing procedures would reduce administrative overhead. Consequently, a larger percentage of the cost of health care would actually be spent on patient treatment.
- Increased access to preventive care and the ability of government to purchase prescription medications in bulk would also help drive down health care costs. However, the corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement.
- Patients can choose their physician and physicians can choose the most appropriate treatment for their patients.
- There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
This sentence should scare anyone whose family a) has a history of heart problems, b) has aging parents or c) is prone to cancer:
"The corresponding drop in revenue for pharmaceutical companies could lead to a reduction in overall research and development, slowing down technological advancement."
Single-payer advocates admit that the explosion of wonder drugs from the 80s and 90s would slow to the trickle of the single-payer system. This sentence essentially admits that this advocacy group is delusional:
There would be a removal of profit-motive in health care. The driving force behind the health industry would be patient care and not profit maximization.
Without "a profit-motive in health care", there won't be high quality health care from border to border or from coast to coast. Removing the incentive removes the product. Yes, I'll state that categorically. Free market capitalism at its finest is simply betting on human nature. Socialism is betting that central planners can hoodwink people into betting against human nature.
That might work for brief periods of time but those lapses quickly get corrected. It appears that the MNA is almost as interested in driving the progressives' political agenda as it's interested in caring for patients or advocating for sane health care policies. If the MNA doesn't want their credibility tarnished, they'd better return to caring for people rather than being another wing of the DFL. Blindly carrying the DFL's water won't help that union's image.
Posted Monday, March 28, 2011 11:56 AM
Comment 1 by Mary at 30-Mar-11 11:09 PM
The MNA has been blindly carrying the DFL's water for decades. One of the many reasons I left a really good job that I really liked as a nurse in one of the Twin Cities contract hospitals in 1995. I needed to get away from the MNA once I realized they were spending my dues money on political campaigns, and NOT for candidates I would choose. That money was also paying lobbyists who supported tax payer funded abortions and anti-second amendment rights legislation. My what you find out when you belong to a "bargaining unit" (MNA euphamism for UNION) and finally take the time to read the newsletter carefully and figure out what they are up to. Of course, when the bios are printed for those running for office for the organization, there was never any information given about political philosophy. It was always just what each person would do to help promote nursing and safe patient care.
You will recall that last summer the MNA was promoting nurses salaries, pensions, and safe staffing patterns during their intense bargaining with the hospitals. I was very disappointed to see that when they settled the contract, the MNA dropped one of their demands -- the demand for safe staffing patterns. I was however not surprised. Nurses better watch what they wish for with single payer system. Too many patients and too few nurses. There is already a shortage. Job satisfaction will plummet. Just as in the 1990's -- the good ones will leave, and others will not go into the field. Patient care will deteriotate. I am sad to see what the MNA has done to nursing. I am glad to no longer be associated with them.
Comment 2 by Mary at 30-Mar-11 11:21 PM
Oh, and one more thing. In a single payer system, what will happen to the nice salary and benefits that nurses now receive? As a retired nurse, I believe nurses should get a good salary and benefits. I do not believe that will remain in a single payer system as hospitals will be reimbursed less for care of patients and care will be rationed. I heard this multiple times from patients who came from countries that had single payer systems to the unit on which I worked. They all spoke of the salaries, the poor care, and the rationing.
Messaging 101
Sheila Kihne's post got me thinking about the GOP's messaging. For the most part, I'll say that it's been pretty decent, thanks in large part to Speaker Zellers' and Majority Leader Koch's work. A special thanks to RPM Chairman Tony Sutton for this well-written, thoughtful op-ed .
Still, Sheila has a point with this:
One note though to the GOP: Can we PLEASE, PLEASE get rid of this talking point "Government should live within its means." The government, via its power to tax, has unlimted means. If I were a Dem, I'd throw that back so easily and argue for tax hikes. They're doing just that by the way. I'm on the Organizing for America email list and Obama issued a message today about "government living within its means." STOP. Educate people about the conservative worldview which takes things much farther down the path than year to year, biennium to biennium budget cycles. When we explain how we think to people, we can change minds. When we play the Dem game of coordinated talking points, then let's at least ensure they're a bit more bulletproof.
In this light, I'm confident that my representative, King Banaian, is onto something in this post :
What we want is to start with an amount of government we want to pay for. I would like there to be money to pay the police and court officials and corrections officers, man the firehouse, pave the roads, and educate our kids (maybe privately, but again that's besides the point.) We then figure out what's the best way to collect that money. How can we get it without changing how people behave to avoid paying?
Sheila, your request is hidden in King's post. I've done a fair amount of messaging in my lifetime. King's explanation is a persuasive explanation for the fence-sitters in our lives, whether they're co-workers, neighbors, friends or relatives.
It's important that we remember that we're heading into crunch time at the legislature. Things will move at warp speed for the rest of the session. Those conditions aren't conducive to catchy phrasing. That's why our support is vital. Doing our own messaging will help shape public opinion. Passing along our best ideas to the good guys matters, too.
While King's explanation is a great explanation of the GOP's goal, it isn't great bumper sticker material. Here's my attempt at it:
The MNGOP: Paying for the government we need, not the goverment that the special interests want.
On a tangentially different subject, the DFL continues to insist that things continue to be done the same way they've always been done. If I had $10 for each time I've heard that not increasing income taxes leads to property tax hikes, I'd have enough to live the rest of the year on. That's led me to this bumper sticker-style phrase:
The era of status quo stupidity is over.
Simply put, we can't afford more autopilot budgeting because 'that's the way we've always done it.' New paradigms are constantly being created. New tools accomplishing more are popping up almost daily. Why on God's green earth should we stick with the status quo if it isn't working?
It'll take great messaging to persuade people to support our conservative goals. It also means reminding our conservative legislators that we're supporting them. That's important because it reminds them that they aren't alone.
If we get those 2 things right, we'll have alot to smile about at the end of this session.
Posted Monday, March 28, 2011 1:31 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 29-Mar-11 08:35 AM
"The era of status quo stupidity is over."
I don't know if that can be said. Gates is still the carryover Secretary of War, and the Bush Wars continue, unchanged, with the Obama foreign policy.
Has Ron Paul had anything to say about Libya? We can guess what he'd say if he has not spoken already, but I am surprised by some of the GOP criticism of Obama's limited war, vs. the Cheney-Rummy-Bushco invade and then deal with the wisdom of it.
Is there a consistent GOP policy view about North African events? It seems more as if the GOP is in a sniping war posture, than a strategic one.
And on the national level, the war budget is the lion's share, so snarking over the remainder is hiding from the truth. The military spending is breaking the nation. Even Bachmann realizes that, but seems to have backed down from saying much about it.
Has the GOP a position on the high end brass-heavy retirement benefits; while dumping on school teachers, or is it sacrosanct?
Just wondering. Teachers build civil knowledge capital, armed forces use armed force. Who are we, really, as a nation? Is there a charade going on including both parties of the two party system?
Tax Bill Debate Notes
This afternoon, Rep. Thissen persisted in stating that refusing to raise income taxes on Minnesota's job creators raised property taxes. In fact, he insisted that not raising income taxes on Minnesota's job creators raised property taxes on Minnesota's middle class. In fact, he insisted that there is abundant proof of such a direct connection.
In fact, Rep. Thissen criticized Republicans for questioning his questionable statements.
Rep. Thissen's mantra is routine by now. Thus far, sadly, the Twin Cities chapter of the Agenda Media haven't challenged him on his misstatements. Unfortunately, that's predictable.
The thing that bothers me is that Rep. Thissen made the declaration that raising income taxes on Minnesota's job creators created jobs but raising property taxes killed jobs.
Rep. Thissen's statements are provocative, at minimum. More than likely, they're fabrications.
I'd love hearing Rep. Thissen's proof for his statements. I'd refute him by simply pointing to St. Cloud. We've had our LGA cut the past 3 years. Property taxes would've dropped if not for the public voting to raise taxes for a new library.
Then there's Prior Lake. They've had their LGA zeroed out. Still, their property taxes haven't gone up. What's more is that they're running a $2,000,000 surplus .
That's what I'd call total refutation of Rep. Thissen's statements.
In the end, the House Tax Bill passed. After the vote, Rep. Steve Gottwalt issued this statement:
We're funding priorities while living within our means and without jacking up taxes. On the other hand, the Dems favor increasing state spending 22% and jacking up taxes more than $4 billion, but they don't even have the courage of their convictions: They have not offered a tax increase or even brought forward Gov. Dayton's so-called budget proposal! After leaving us $5 billion in the hole, they aren't doing anything to help curb the spending spree. It's up to the GOP majority to mend the breech and make the tough decisions.
Rep. King Banaian said that "our tax bill provides lower- and middle-class relief through individual income tax cuts. It encourages a 21st Century economy by expanding the R&D tax credit and finally updating the way we handle sales tax for business equipment purchases. It funds the priorities of our government in a way that allows for the growth of private sector jobs and the well-being of Minnesota families."
It's apparent that the DFL is the Party of No Solutions and Focus Group-Tested Mantras. They aren't a party with serious solutions.
Posted Tuesday, March 29, 2011 8:21 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 29-Mar-11 08:25 AM
That opening sentence, "job creators" is your wording, Gary, and not Thissen's?
If you start by dragging a red herring across the path of an argument it is harder to sniff the path through the rest.
What I do not see in that argument is an answer to pet project Republicans. They are the ones that want belt tightening, but also their Northstar stops with locales subsidized with state money.
The consultancy in Ramsey where I live, in promoting the failed Ramsey Town Center during these bad market times, wants that stop, and the SD 48 Senator with Ramsey in his district wants it too; so, will the GOP hang true to views about waste, or will there be exceptions for stuff?
Will local funding for local wants, vs needs, be enforced uniformly, as a principle, or will there be exceptions for the right people?
Just wondering. But that's exactly the kind of question that has Dayton rightly saying, I gave you a budget, in a single package; and if you do not like mine, then give me your version, in a single package.
The piecemeal posturing is good for the local district backing, but it's going to have to go as a package. If that package is full of perks that are insufficiently funded, but for GOP regulars, what would a responsible governor do?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Mar-11 01:03 PM
Yes, "job creators" are my words. I'll use the words that accurately describe the people who Gov. Dayton & his lackey Rep. Thissen, are villifying as "the rich." Job creators are the people who employ people, who contribute to their employees' health insurance & 401(k)s. The same people who quietly donate to their communities' charities & their schools' scholarships.
Those are the people that Dayton & Thissen are constantly villifying. They're the villains in Dayton's & Thissen's eyes. Shame on them for not appreciating the things that Minnesota's job creators contribute to the health of our economy. Instead, they insist that "the rich" are bums that suck the lifeblood out of Minnesota's economy.
Yes, there are some Republicans who act too much like the DFL in terms of spending. That said, they're the exception, not the norm. What you'll see from this legislature this term is serious belt-tightening. It's apparent in every bill I've seen debated thus far.
.
Plus you'll see something that I've never seen from the DFL: reforms that eliminate the DFL's antiquated thinking on issue after issue. Reforms that save the state tens of millions of dollars while providing better products.
The GOP leigslature passed their budget targets, something that Sen. Pogmiller & Speaker Kelliher refused to do. That's the state equivalent of the federal budget blueprint. In other words, it's a real budget.
Gov. Dayton knows that but won't say it because he'd rather spin to gain a political advantage than work constructively to build a prosperous Minnesota. In short, Gov. Dayton & Rep. Thissen are weasels who are spinning because they're being outclassed by the Republicans' legislation.
BTW, Dayton's budget is the one that the DFL refuses to propose. Isn't that the equivalent of Rep. Thissen & co. telling him his budget is worthless? Dayton is a joke, a GINO-- Governor In Name Only.
Comment 2 by Lassie at 30-Mar-11 11:32 AM
I watched the rebroadcast & cheered with Rep. Steve Gottwalt's retort to Thissen, copied from your post:
We're funding priorities while living within our means and without jacking up taxes. On the other hand, the Dems favor increasing state spending 22% and jacking up taxes more than $4 billion, but they don't even have the courage of their convictions: They have not offered a tax increase or even brought forward Gov. Dayton's so-called budget proposal! After leaving us $5 billion in the hole, they aren't doing anything to help curb the spending spree. It's up to the GOP majority to mend the breech and make the tough decisions.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Mar-11 11:52 AM
Lassie, isn't it amazing how the DFL is vilifying Republicans for doing the responsible thing while treating Dayton's budget, especially his tax increases like toxic waste from Three Mile Island?
Comment 3 by eric z at 30-Mar-11 11:33 AM
I would hope that when the Republicans are finished with the divisive rhetoric they realize a single composite bill is all they can present. And if there's a bunch of GOP christmas tree ornaments in the bill without the tree, the line item veto has a purpose.
That "job creator" thing, haven't we been waiting since Reagan times for the wealth to magically trickle down, and since it's not happened over a quarter of a decade or more; doesn't that suggest there's a fault in the position?
And Dayton is not wanting to "vilify" anyone. He simply wants to see fair taxing, for a change.
It would be refreshing to see responsible government for a change. Eight years of Pawlenty, and Bush, and an economic disaster is what happened. Nothing but grief and hardship, no manna trickling down.
Sorry, it's a big propaganda lie.
It's what's in the Koolaid the Tea Party's substituted for tea.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Mar-11 11:49 AM
1) The GOP is putting together a budget in the same way that budgets always get done: with omnibus spending bills for each department.
2) This is a NEEDS BUDGET. There aren't any Christmas ornaments on it. We can't afford them, thanks in large part to the DFL's budgeting the past 4 years.
3) Job creator is accurate. President Reagan created 18,000,000 new jobs & put in place policies that helped people like Bill Gates, Michael Dell & others create businesses that are still thriving. These aren't people who inherited their wealth, like Gov. Dayton. They're people who created their wealth from their garages.
4) Gov. Dayton hasn't stopped vilifying people since he took the oath.
5) Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme will kill employment. That's why it won't even get majority support amongst DFL legislators. They want nothing to do with it.
Comment 4 by eric z at 30-Mar-11 11:34 AM
I wrote "quarter of a decade," in error; meaning instead, "quarter of a century." Sorry about the error.
Another Gov. Dayton Temper Tantrum?
Gov. Dayton has built a reputation of throwing temper tantrums. Now he's building a reputation of throwing hand grenades while he's throwing his temper tantrums. Yesterday, he threw another hand grenade:
Gov. Mark Dayton rolled a political hand grenade into Republican leaders' piecemeal budget solution Monday, informing them he will reject all bills until they present a complete, balanced financial package.
Dayton issued a sternly worded, three-page letter hours before the GOP-controlled House passed a tax bill that would gut aid for the state's largest cities, a signature Republican initiative designed to kick off a week's worth of votes on budget bills that cut most state agencies.
GOP reaction to Gov. Dayton's ultimatum wasn't positive:
The letter "was probably a step backward," House Majority Leader Matt Dean said Monday.
Deputy Senate Majority Leader Geoff Michel, R-Edina, took more pointed aim at the governor. "Leadership is not writing letters," he said. "Leadership is not drawing lines in the sand."
Gov. Temper Tantrum can veto the GOP's budget bills if he likes. It's important that he understands that his veto, and the DFL legislature's sustaining them, will come with a political price in 2012. I'd love watching the DFL campaign on being the party that wanted to raise taxes and spending more. That didn't work in 2010. It'll fail in 2012, too.
Dayton also wants the GOP to do what other Legislatures have done, abide by Revenue Department estimates for what each proposal will save or cost the state. He said he won't negotiate with them until they do so. Republicans last week revealed that they were basing their estimates on numbers from private business and other states.
If Gov. Temper Tantrum wants to stomp his feet or hold his breath till his face turns blue, that's his right. The only thing that John Q. Public cares about is whether MMB says that the GOP's budget balances. When John Q. Public finds out that it balances without raising taxes, Main Street Minnesota will side with the GOP. PERIOD.
If Gov. Dayton refuses to negotiate with the MNGOP after they've balanced the budget, Main Street Minnesota will demand Gov. Dayton provide a better explanation than what he's offered thus far.
It's important that we're clear about something else, namely that the DFL, whether we're talking about Gov. Dayton or the DFL legislature of the past 4 years, doesn't have credibility on putting balanced budgets together.
Then-Candidate Dayton put forth a supposedly detailed balanced budget proposal early in the election cycle. The cornerstone of the budget was a $4,000,000,000 tax-the-rich increase.
Then it met reality.
MMB said that his tax-the-rich scheme would only generate $1,900,000,000, meaning his supposedly detailed budget still had a $2,000,000,000 deficit.
Dayton 2.0 didn't turn out substantially better, finishing with a $1,000,000,000 deficit.
Dayton 3.0 dropped his promise of raising education funding every year without exceptions, without excuses and added more taxes. Finally, it balanced.
Then there's the 2009 budget session. That's the year when DFL legislative leadership didn't offer their own budget. That's the year they tried raising taxes only to see its members reject the DFL's tax increase proposals. That's the year when the only balanced budget proposal was their final proposal. That's the budget that passed the House with 9 minutes left in the session. Even then, that 'budget' had a paltry $36,000 estimated surplus at the end of the 2010-11 biennium.
That surplus disappeared before Labor Day, 2009.
Throughout all their machinations, the DFL hasn't put together a reform-minded, pro-growth budget in ages. That they're afforded any credibility on budgetary issues is astonishing.
They've been abetted by their media allies who've covered 'reported' about the DFL's witnesses rather than seriously questioning the DFL's policies.
Does anyone with real gravitas think that Gov. Dayton, Rep. Thissen and the DFL will produce a real balanced budget that appeals to Main Street Minnesotans? I'm betting against it.
Today's DFL is expert at appealing to their special interest puppeteers. They're substantially less than expert at putting together a reform-minded, pro-growth budget that leads Minnesota into the state's next generation of sustained prosperity.
Posted Wednesday, March 30, 2011 12:41 AM
Comment 1 by John Shannon at 30-Mar-11 06:56 AM
Keep dreaming... This little hiccup will be nothing but a bad memory come 2012.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Mar-11 11:40 AM
Losing control of the House & Senate when the DFL had a veto-proof majority in the Senate & a supermajority in the House is a hiccup? Lord Oberstar losing in the 8th is a hiccup? Tarryl's trouncing in the 6th is part of the hiccup?
Dayton is governor for 1 reason. Actually, about 20,000,000 reasons. That's the money his ex-wife & the trade unions shoveled into ABM's smear campaign against Tom Emmer. They told lie after lie after lie. Didn't hesitate in doing it, either. Come 2014, they'll get their comeuppance. Then we'll see how much of a hiccup this is.
Comment 2 by eric z at 30-Mar-11 11:26 AM
Good governing by a good governor.
After eight years in the wasteland, it is refreshing.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Mar-11 11:34 AM
If he's such a good governor, why won't even a single DFL legislator sponsor his budget or his bonding bill? The reality is that Gov. Dayton is a GINO-- Governor In Name Only. He's utterly clueless. He's advocating for a 4.5% cut in long-term reimbursement rates. He's nominated a militant environmentalist whose previous employment was working for MCEA, whose mission was to kill great-paying middle class jobs in the name of 'saving the environment' one job at a time.
Yeah, that's great governance. Great if you define it as destructive & counterproductive.
Schumer: Cutting Spending from $3.73T to $3.69T Is EXTREME!!!
I don't know what idiot is giving Democrats advice these days but if they're paying him more than $1 a day, they're getting ripped off. If strategists are telling Sen. Schumer they should use the words extreme or extremists, they're giving Democrats bad advice.
Thanks to Sen. Schumer telling that to his Senate colleagues , and some reporters, we now know that the Democrats can't wait to shut the federal government down.
We don't have to just take Sen. Schumer's word for it, either. Former RNC Chairman Howard Dean said that a government shutdown would be a great thing :
"From a partisan point of view, I think it would be the best thing in the world to have a shutdown," Sen. Howard Dean said Tuesday at a National Journal Insider Conference's panel.
That's because, Dean said, Republicans would be blamed for it.
"If I was head of DNC, I would be quietly rooting for it," Dean said. "I know who's going to get blamed. We've been down this road before."
In 1995, Bill Clinton wasn't faced with exploding deficits, high unemployment or a national debt closing in on 100% of GDP. Two other things working against today's Democrats is that they weren't fighting against the TEA Party and they weren't led by Harry Reid and Chuck Schumer.
Sen. Schumer, though, thinks that tying the TEA Party around Speaker Boehner's neck will be the death knell for Republicans. That's total nonsense.
As Congress tries to pass a spending plan before April 8, the date of a possible government shutdown, Democrats repeatedly blamed their inability to reach a compromise on House Speaker John Boehner by saying he is caving to the Tea Party members of his Republican Party.
Earlier Tuesday, New York's Schumer said Tea Party representatives were "breathing down the back" of Boehner. After the discussion with Schumer, Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-CT, said the "relatively small, extreme group of ideologues" was an anchor around the neck of the negotiations.
Prior to the 2010 election, DNC Chair Tim Kaine said that TEA Party participation would likely hurt Republicans. Based on the fact that Republicans gained 63 House seats, 7 Senate seats, 5 governorships and 680 state legislative seats. This was the deepest, strongest, top-to-bottom drubbing of the Democrats in a century. It was fueled primarily by the TEA Party movement.
TEA Party principles resonate with a diverse demographic group, too. To use Michele Bachmann's words on Greta's show tonight, when informed by Greta, with tongue planted firmly in cheek, that she alone was to blame for the imminent government shutdown, Michele responded saying that TEA Party activists just want government "to not raise taxes, to not spend more than it takes in and to live within the boundaries of the Constitution."
Even to a progressive like Sen. Schumer, that isn't extreme. It's just what he says when he's near a microphone.
Michele and Paul Ryan both highlighted the fact that the reason why we're even in this position is because Democrats didn't pass a budget last year when they held a 50+ seat majority in the House, held a 59-41 seat majority in the Senate and held the White House. They didn't pass a budget because they didn't want to give Republicans the opportunity to run against another budget that showed their spending, and the resulting deficits, were out of control.
This was the first time since the early 70's that the House and Senate didn't pass a budget bill or the 13 appropriations bills. For that matter, the Democrats didn't even consider budget bills or appropriation bills in committee.
Literally, they did nothing with regard to the budget. They didn't touch the budget purely out of political considerations.
Now they're telling their allies in the media that a government shutdown would be the Republicans' fault. That's total BS. It's nothing of the sort. In fact, based on the overwhelming election results, I'd argue that Republicans are the only people listening to the will of the people.
When voters ran out 63 more Democrats than Republicans in the U.S. House, when the U.S. Senate goes from 59-41 Democrat margin to a 53-47 Democrat margin, something seismic is happening. When Minnesota Republicans go from a 46-21 minority in the State Senate to a 37-30 seat majority and from an 87-47 seat minority in the House to a 72-62 seat majority, something seismic is happening.
Sen. Schummer is betting that tying the Republican Party to the TEA Party is good for Democrats. I'll bet that Sen. Schumer won't like how that bet turns out.
Americans know that spending $3.69T instead of spending $3.73T isn't a radical change. If anything, I'd bet that people would argue that trimming the budget by that little isn't sharp enough.
If that's the battlefield Democrats want to fight on, that's certain to put a smile on alot of Republicans' faces. Now that their plans have been exposed, I'm totally confident that Republicans will win if they continue listening to the will of the people.
Posted Wednesday, March 30, 2011 3:00 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 30-Mar-11 04:11 PM
Gary:
If Senator Schummer was paying attention he'll realize that the tea party is trying to get Bohener and the Republicans kicking and screaming to reduce spending. right now we're spending 3.69 Trillion. We need to cut it down to something like 2,89 trillion or lower. Now that might be an extreme spending cut.
Howard Dean was a former RNC chair. That might explain why the party went down hill.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Gov. Dayton's Orphaned Budget
This week, Rep. Paul Thissen did his best Woodie Allen impression of the whining, snivelling wimp Allen often played in movies. Rep. Thissen did that in the hopes that people wouldn't notice that they've orphaned Gov. Dayton's budget.
Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk must've orphaned Gov. Dayton's budget because they've apparently left it without protection or care. It's to the point that I'm looking for it on milk cartons and billboards.
I can't blame them, though, considering what Gov. Dayton packed into it. I remember the crickets chirping when Gov. Dayton announced his tax-the-rich scheme. I remember hearing those crickets return when he talked about his $1,000,000,000 bonding bill. I remember Rachel Stassen-Berger asking Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk THREE TIMES whether they'd support Gov. Dayton's tax increases :
One exchange:
Question: 'Do you support the tax increases in this bill?'
Thissen: 'The governor is delivering on what he promised. We have always been in our DFL caucus in favor of a solution that is going to be fair: We need to look at the details of it. I think the most important thing now to look at is asking the Republicans, okay, what's your answer.'
Question: 'That didn't answer the question: Do you support these tax increases?'
Bakk: 'If you look at the tax incidence study, it will show you that more well to do Minnesotans, especially those over $500,000 in income pay a little bit over eight percent of their income in taxes and the rest of us, in the middle class and lower income Minnesotans, pay about 12.3 percent. And I think from a policy standpoint, the governor is right that everyone should be expect to pay about the same percentage of their income in state and local taxes.'
A third:
Question: 'So yes or no. Do you two support the tax package in the governor's proposal? Yes or no.'
Bakk: 'Well, I certainly want to see the budget pages and I'm not going to tell you if they offer a vote on it I'm going to vote yes or no on it because we are actually having a hearing in the tax committee (to delve into the budget) either tomorrow or Thursday...After Thursday I can probably give you an answer.'
Stassen-Berger asked that question on Feb. 15th. It's now March 30. Sen. Bakk certainly has had time to read Gov. Dayton's budget by now.
You'd think that Gov. Dayton would be more worried about his orphaned budget. He isn't. He isn't because he's too busy issuing ultimatums about what shouldn't be in the legislation that the GOP has written and worked through the committee/amendment process.
It seems that Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen don't care about Gov. Dayton's budget. Further, we haven't seen it since Gov. Dayton submitted it 44 days ago. Given the lack of attention that this trio has paid to Gov. Dayton's budget, I think it's appropriate to classify Gov. Dayton's budget as orphaned.
Here's one of the definitions of orphaned according to Dictionary.com:
a person or thing that is without protective affiliation, sponsorship, etc.: The committee is an orphan of the previous administration.
I'd argue that that definition fits Gov. Dayton's budget to a T. Gov. Dayton's budget certainly is missing sponsorship. Gov. Dayton's budget "is without protective affiliation."
Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen portray themselves as the protectors of the poor, the downtrodden. I won't buy that characterization until they show they care about Gov. Dayton's orphaned budget.
Posted Wednesday, March 30, 2011 2:55 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 30-Mar-11 04:05 PM
Gary:
No offense, but shouldn't we be more descriptive like aborted or killed!
Dayton seems to be in campaign mode because that might be the only thing that gets him excited. it certainly doesn't sound like he's trying to govern.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 30-Mar-11 04:51 PM
There's no corpse. Ergo, there's no proof of abortion or homicide.
Comment 3 by eric z at 01-Apr-11 11:06 AM
The GOP had better watch out.
The more they disadvantage teachers in Minnesota, the more they will drive them out of state.
To North Dakota or some such place.
We will lose those who educate the young, and the young will grow up illiterate and ill-prepared for adult life. That is bad because we already have too many Republicans, and don't need the increase.
