March 28-29, 2016
Mar 28 09:24 Garland's moderation questioned Mar 28 11:41 Questioning Trump's trade deals Mar 28 16:26 The price of supporting Trump Mar 28 21:17 ABM, DFL, Bakk, driving jobs out Mar 29 05:20 Did Trump hurt himself in California? Mar 29 06:25 Trump, Carson and disenfranchisement Mar 29 07:15 IRRRB, accountability & failure Mar 29 19:42 Another useful idiot supports Trump
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Garland's moderation questioned
When KSTP's Tom Hauser interviewed Sen. Klobuchar, (DFL-MN), Sunday morning, they discussed President Obama's nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to replace Antonin Scalia on the Supreme Court. Like an actress reading from a script, Sen. Klobuchar said that Judge Garland is a moderate. That term is interesting because it's empty. Being the inquisitive type, I sent Sen. Klobuchar a message for clarification. It read "Sen. Klobuchar, you told Tom Hauser that Judge Garland is a moderate. I understand what a political moderate is but I don't know what a judicial moderate is. I'd appreciate it if you'd explain what your definition of a judicial moderate is. Further, if Judge Garland is a moderate, does that mean Justice Sotomayor and Justice Kagan are radicals or ideologues? I'd appreciate a quick, substantive reply."
Sen. Klobuchar's auto-response said "Thank you for taking the time to e-mail me. This is a confirmation that we have received your message. One of the most important parts of my job is listening to what the people of Minnesota have to say to me. I am here in our nation's capital to do the public's business on behalf of the people of our state. Please continue to visit my website at http://www.klobuchar.senate.gov to follow what I am working on, both in Washington and Minnesota. It is frequently updated with current news and events regarding my work in the U.S. Senate. Additionally, many constituents ask about tracking the progress of legislation. One useful tool is to regularly check my website. Another resource I recommend is the Library of Congress legislative information website, http://thomas.loc.gov. I hope you find this information helpful. - Amy"
Since Sen. Klobuchar hasn't explained what a judicial moderate is yet, I'll rely on something that Dennis Prager wrote about Judge Garland :
In a column in The Wall Street Journal, Juanita Duggan, President and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, wrote that Garland is so anti-small business and so pro-big labor, that "This is the first time in the NFIB's 73-year-history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee."
What worries the NFIB, she explains, is that "in 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garland's that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB (National Labor Relations Board)."
Apparently, a judicial moderate sides with Big Labor 100% of the time. Forgive me if I don't agree that that's the definition of a moderate. Forgive me if I think that sounds more like a hardline leftist ideologue. Then there's this:
Tom Goldstein wrote in the SCOTUSblog that Garland favors deferring to the decision-makers in agencies. "In a dozen close cases in which the court divided, he sided with the agency every time."
Again, that sounds more like the definition of a leftist ideologue. It doesn't sound like a centrist/moderate. This is worth checking out, too:
Posted Monday, March 28, 2016 9:24 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Mar-16 09:41 AM
How is upholding an NLRB decision anything but upholding an administrative body under norms of procedural due process administrative law if that body made no procedural error? You want an activist judge who will flim-flam around with substantive due process, your way or the highway? That's a briar patch. Some lady at an organization does not like NLRB decisions? So? Am I impressed?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 28-Mar-16 11:50 AM
Let's turn that around. Wouldn't you be upset if a judge always sided with big business?
Further, shouldn't you question this judge's independence since Garland's rulings with gov't agencies is just as unanimous. Those cases were split decisions yet Garland sided with gov't agencies all the time.
Again, you'd be upset if a judge had ruled against a big gov't agency. There's nothing in your statements that the constitution is that important. Why is that?
Questioning Trump's trade deals
Jim Tankersley's article doesn't pull its punches. According to an economic model prepared by Moody's Analytics shows that a Trump trade war would hurt China and Mexico but that "4 million American workers would lose their jobs. Another 3 million jobs would not be created that otherwise would have been, had the country not fallen into a trade-induced downturn."
First, I won't tell people that the trade deals that the U.S. has negotiated recently are good deals. I won't hesitate, though, in telling people that the difference between negotiating great trade deals and negotiating mediocre trade deals isn't as important as fixing the economic mess that the Obama administration has created.
Fixing the Obama administration's mess requires eliminating most of the administration's nastiest regulations, starting with Obamacare. It's also important that the administration's war on fossil fuels be stopped ASAP. Most manufacturing jobs require cheap energy. That eliminates the energy that comes from solar panels and wind farms.
To rebuild our national manufacturing economy, we need a capital gains tax cut. In 1980, the federal government " approved nearly $1.5 billion in loan guarantees ." Ford, Chevy and Chrysler were hurting. People were talking about their best days being behind them. Then Reagan took over. He started with implementing a major capital gains tax cut, which helped modernize Ford, Chevy and Chrysler. Talk about Japan replacing the United States as car manufacturing superpower quickly disappeared.
Obamacare and Obama's tax increase on small businesses drove businesses out of the United States. Trump might be a good negotiator but he definitely isn't smart at policymaking. His policy prescriptions won't make America great again. They might make America ok again but they won't make it great.
Posted Monday, March 28, 2016 11:41 AM
No comments.
The price of supporting Trump
Thus far, politicians endorsing Donald Trump haven't paid a price. It isn't a stretch to think it might hurt them in the future. Sen. Ben Sasse, (R-NE), is a rising star in the Republican Party. He's a freshman who isn't afraid to criticize Mr. Trump or other politicians.
This weekend, Sen. Sasse criticized Trump, saying "This is sad and everyone who has a sister or wife or daughter or mom should reconsider supporting this tiny little man." Then Sen. Sasse finished the criticism of Trump, saying "@RealDonaldTrump loves bullying women on Twitter. But he'd never have the guts to talk like this abt a guy's wife to his face. #fakeToughGuy"
Trump's disgusting statements about women (think Megyn Kelly and Carly Fiorina ) and his denying his campaign team's physical mishandling of women (think Michelle Fields ) are creating a problem that there isn't a solution to.
Trump can't call women ugly or accuse them of mistreating him because they're menstruating or have his campaign manager physically manhandle a reporter without creating a general election problem that he can't dig himself out from.
Some of the things Trump's said are fixable. Frequently insulting women isn't fixable. Just because Ann Coulter and Laura Ingraham support Mr. Trump doesn't mean women will support him in the general election. They won't. Polls consistently show Trump with a 25-30 point favorability gap with women. That can't be swept aside by saying that you " cherish women ."
Here are Sen. Sasse's tweets:
Thanks to conservatives with character, Republicans that endorse Donald Trump will have some explaining to do in the years to come. They'll have to explain why they supported a man "devoid of honor, integrity or manliness." When Trump loses, whether at the convention or in the general election, people will get criticized for supporting him without questioning Trump's lack of integrity.
When that day of reckoning comes, it won't be a good day for Fox News, Breitbart hacks or Sean Hannity.
Posted Monday, March 28, 2016 4:26 PM
No comments.
ABM, DFL, Bakk, driving jobs out
This article highlights another instance in which the DFL is trying to drive companies out of Minnesota. They shouldn't be blamed, though. Democrats in Washington, DC, are attempting to drive companies out of the U.S.
Specifically, "Senate DFLers are pushing a more generous paid family leave than the three states that require it, mandating up to 12 weeks of paid time off for new parents or people caring for sick family members. That's double what is required in New Jersey and California; Rhode Island offers eight weeks." Additionally, the "fight is gaining attention at the national level as Democratic presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders have proposed leave policies."
This is just another thing ton the DFL's agenda that's driving employment costs up for Minnesota businesses. (It isn't like they aren't already leaving for lower tax states .) The executive summary of Peter Nelson's report doesn't paint a positive picture for Minnesota.
This information is especially troubling to Minnesota's long-term health:
Most of the taxpayers who leave Minnesota for lower-tax states are in their prime earning years. One might think that most high-earning families who leave Minnesota are retirees moving to Florida or Arizona, but this is not the case. Working-age people between 35 and 54 account for nearly 40 percent of Minnesota's net loss of tax filers for the 2013-2014 period.
In other words, Minnesota isn't losing people at the end of their prime earning years. If they were, they could recover from that fairly quickly. It's more difficult to recover long-term income loss because you have to attract people who are entering or in their prime earning years.
Further factoring into this difficult situation is the fact that people in their prime earning years aren't likely to be as loyal to Minnesota as someone in the last part of their prime earning years. Someone that's 60 and still earning significant dollars likely has a family here. They've established their lifestyle and are comfortable with it. Their friends are likely here, too.
It's understatement that government-mandated business costs don't incentivize companies to stay loyal to Minnesota. Their first priority is to maximize their company's profits, which contributes to their family's security.
This says it all:
Doug Seaton said he believes that politicians have no business telling employers to offer paid family and medical leave.
When politicians start putting their capital at risk and start signing the front of the paycheck, they can choose to offer paid family and medical leave. Then there's this:
"Politicians, most of whom have no experience signing paychecks for employees of any kind, are not in a good position to make these decisions," Seaton said. "It restricts the ability of the business to tailor its benefits to all employees in a way that makes sense." He added that it came on top of 'what employers already perceive as a very extensive and expansive set of entitlements in Minnesota."
That's a polite way of telling politicians to stop imposing their will on companies that they don't own. It's a polite way of telling politicians to shut up.
Posted Monday, March 28, 2016 9:17 PM
No comments.
Did Trump hurt himself in California?
Last night, Newt Gingrich was on Hannity's TV show after Hannity interviewed Sen. Cruz. Newt's words should serve as a wake-up call to Trump. Among the things that Gingrich said was that Trump getting down in the mud over Sen. Cruz's wife, Heidi, would hurt Trump in California.
Gingrich said that Trump's ratings were already bad with women, that Trump can't afford further erosion of support with women and that women make up a "huge" part of the GOP electorate in California. According to this LA Times poll , Trump leads Sen. Cruz with likely primary voters by a 36%-35% margin.
According to Gingrich, Trump will be in trouble if Trump doesn't start acting more stable and being more of a gentleman. The odds of that happening are roughly equivalent to the odds that Hillary Clinton will walk into FBI headquarters this week and signing a confession that she lied to FBI investigators. In other words, there's no chance of Trump starting to act like a gentleman.
Newt said that he thinks Sen. Cruz will do pretty well in Wisconsin and that "this ought to be a wake-up call to Trump, that he'd better rethink some of the underlying patterns of his campaign." I think that's the right advice. I don't think, though, that Trump will pay much attention to Newt's advice. If we've learned anything, it's that Trump's ego is bigger than the Grand Canyon and that it might be as big as the state of Texas.
Rethinking things isn't Trump's strength.
Newt explains things perfectly here:
Look, Donald Trump had a very easy answer to that truly stupid -- I think it was actually a Facebook ad that was sent out. The answer was simple. Melania was a supermodel on a professional shoot for a very famous magazine. He's very proud of her and she'll be a very beautiful first lady. Now, if he had just said that and moved on, then the Cruz campaign would've looked stupid. The issue would've been over. He would've seemed more disciplined and more pleasant and a gentleman. Instead, he gets down into this mud that I really think has hurt him. I'm not sure that anyone in the Trump campaign understands yet what a big mistake this is and they can't keep doing this stuff and expect to win this nomination.
Gingrich thinks that Trump's threatening Heidi Cruz will hurt him with women, especially in California. I'll simplify this for the Trump campaign. If Trump doesn't win California, he won't be the GOP nominee. Sen. Cruz has outhustled him in too many states. If Trump isn't the nominee on the first ballot, he's history.
Posted Tuesday, March 29, 2016 5:20 AM
No comments.
Trump, Carson and disenfranchisement
Leon Wolf's post over at RedState highlights Donald Trump's pampered mentality. The newest argument that they're making is that their voters will have been disenfranchised if he's the leading vote-getter in the primaries and caucuses but doesn't get the nomination.
Trump's argument, as stated on CNN , is that "I think we'll win before getting to the convention, but if we didn't and we're 20 votes short, or we're, you know, a hundred short, and we're at 1,100 and somebody else is at 500 or 400, 'cause we're way ahead of everybody, I don't think you can say we don't get it automatically. I think you'd have riots", adding "if you disenfranchise those people ... I think you would have problems like you've never seen before."
RedState states things exceptionally clearly, stating "this is very simple; the RNC's rules very clearly state - as they have from the beginning - that you have to have a majority of delegates in order to win the nomination. If no candidate gets that majority on the first ballot, then there's a process for selecting a nominee that leaves the ballot results behind. There's no rule that says that the top delegate-getter in the first ballot has to be the choice; if there were such a rule, then whoever got a plurality of the delegates would just automatically win per the rules."
It isn't like Trump hasn't known this from the start. He's known it. What's happening is that Trump thought he didn't have to build a campaign organization, that his fame would carry him to the nomination. That still might happen but Trump's definitely discovering some challenges now that the field has finally narrowed.
Imagine that Hillary gets 230 electoral votes, Trump gets 170, and Perry gets 140. The election would then go to the House of Representatives. If they chose Trump, then Hillary's voters haven't been 'disenfranchised.' There just weren't enough of them for her to win the election per the clearly stated rules.
Without question, Hillary's people would complain but that's life. The Constitution spells things out clearly. For someone to be elected president, they need a majority of electoral votes. If nobody gets a majority, then the House of Representatives decides the election.
Posted Tuesday, March 29, 2016 6:25 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Mar-16 08:06 AM
Each party has jiggered procedure to disenfranchise the public. It's no secret. Obscene, yes it is that. But secret, no, since the chutzpah of those controlling each of the two inner parties knows no rational bounds.
How it is, is not how it should be - as with your analyses of the IRRRB. Crooks and evil ones, or lesser simple well-intentioned control freaks with limitations between the ears while thinking they know best, if in control of levers of power, wealth, or constraints can really create mega mess-ups. And do. All too regularly.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Mar-16 09:48 AM
The disenfranchisement that the Trump campaign is talking about isn't true disenfranchisement. What Trump's complaining about is the fact that he's run a sloppy campaign that likely won't win enough delegates to win a first ballot nomination.
The rules were fair. Most importantly, they've been known throughout the process and they haven't changed. Everyone who wanted to vote got to vote. Excuse me if I don't see the injustice in letting people vote for the candidate of their choice, then watching those voters find out that their candidate didn't win the nomination.
Finally, should a person win their party's nomination without getting 50% of their party's delegates? I don't see that as nefarious. It's a fairly modest threshold to meet.
Comment 2 by Teddy R at 29-Mar-16 01:48 PM
The only thing Trump said that is a bit disingenuous is that there would be riots. Much of his support comes from people who've already felt disenfranchised by the same GOP they've faithfully supported, all their lives in many cases. They are the silent majority who have waited for decades for someone to speak bluntly about the elephant in the living room, illegal immigration, and along comes the unlikeliest of GOP candidates who speaks out. And with wonderment, the insiders cannot figure out how to stop him.
If Trump does not get the nomination, there will be no riots. The silent majority will simply go silent and not vote at all.
Leon Wolf's highlighting Trump's "pampered mentality" is in itself a bit ironic given that this condition seems to afflict the vast majority of the oligarchs in DC. At least Trump has not been pampered directly from the public trough.
Trump symbolizes change for a very good reason. We can see it happen before our eyes. No platitudes needed. We see how the GOP has already changed. We see how upset the insiders are. This is not some hipster con man. He will change things. Oh, it may not go down like in classic conservative fashion but at least the pretense and hypocrisy of "conservatism" in DC will be exposed for what it is and that in itself is a good reason to support Trump.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Mar-16 04:13 AM
Read Trump's laundry list of things Trump thinks the government is supposed to provide. Then explain a) how Trump's a conservative and b) how Trump's laundry list of government goodies is different than Hillary's wish list.
If Trump is the cure for the GOP Establishment, then the 'cure' is worse than the disease.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 30-Mar-16 07:58 AM
Trump symbolizes another 4 years of Obama because he is the same guy but even more thin skinned. Trump has no real solutions to the problems in America today other than use slogans like "Make America Great Again" and "I'll bring Jobs Back To America" or my favorite " I'll Build A Wall And Make Mexico Pay For It". Obama used slogans to whip up the uninformed masses and he has done nothing to make America better for anyone, especially those he said he was going to help.
There is no good reason to be supporting Trump.
IRRRB, accountability & failure
This SC Times editorial is frightening in its naivete. When the Times says that "The IRRRB hasn't properly overseen the use and impacts of its loans and grants", that's a polite way of saying the IRRRB's loans haven't created jobs like they were supposed to.
When I wrote this article, I was a little sad but mostly pissed as hell that these DFL politicians put political considerations ahead of creating jobs. It's said that it's possible to lie with statistics. That's true sometimes. This isn't one of those times, though. According to US Census Bureau statistics, Minnesota's statewide poverty rate is 11.5% while its Median Household Income is $60,828.
Hibbing's poverty take is an obscene 20.6%, which is respectable compared with Virginia's poverty rate, which is a ghastly 26.5%. Hibbing's MHI is $38,112. Virginia's is $33,143. It's easier to just state the truth. There isn't a middle class on the Iron Range. Period.
Meanwhile, accountability is a 4-letter word in the IRRRB's dictionary. The IRRRB was literally started before the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor. The fact that the Iron Range's poverty rate is double the statewide average and the fact that the Iron Range's MHI is lower than in Appalachia shouts that the IRRRB has failed miserably. It doesn't need a few reforms. It's that somebody needs to bring a few sticks of dynamite and a slow-burning long fuse to IRRRB headquarters when nobody's around, then light the fuse.
It's a failure. Fixing it is a waste of time.
Posted Tuesday, March 29, 2016 7:15 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Mar-16 07:57 AM
Easily said.
So tell us - disclose the secret sauce known only to GOP bloggers - how would the same money have been spent to employ thousands of Rangers?
The information, if disclosed, might have value.
Sure, cronyism is inefficient. That part is easy. What's efficient is the question, and what's the evidence to back up such a disclosure of efficient spending? Simple enough questions, easily asked.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Mar-16 09:43 AM
Thanks for missing the obvious point. It's time to not just abolish the IRRRB. It's time to change policies that have strangled robust, sustained economic growth in Minnesota & especially on the Iron Range. The Twin Cities DFL has gone too far with their environmental absolutism. They've opposed every project if there's even the slightest hint of a possibility for pollution.
You can't build things that last a long time without mining. Period. It's impossible. The environmental activist wing of the DFL live hundreds of miles from the Iron Range, yet they've opposed every project, even those that have gotten the MPCA's & MnDNR's seal of approval.
The Citizens Board that was abolished last year is a nice step in the right direction. They were there to obstruct projects that had gotten permitted to build. They literally killed jobs. They weren't a 'citizen' board. One of the spots on the board could only be filled by someone in a union. Please explain to me why someone in a union, whether a public employee union or a private sector union, had any expertise that would have a positive impact on the environment. You can't.
It's time for the DFL's environmental absolutists to stop wrecking the Iron Range's economy. Most importantly, it's time for Minnesota to embrace sound economic principles so that there's prosperity in every county in Minnesota.
Another useful idiot supports Trump
Lou Dobbs isn't usually prone to being a bonehead. Still, there's no disputing the fact that this retweet isn't one of Dobbs's finer examples of thinking clearly. The original tweet said "Via @NPR: Trump Gains Support From Teamsters, Who Normally Vote For Democrats http://n.pr/1p1CyTC #Wisconsin #PA" It was posted by someone with a screen name of Tahquamenon. Dobbs's baffling reply was "Lou Dobbs Retweeted Tahquamenon Great News for @realDonaldTrump supporters in Wisconsin. It's #Trump2016 against Wisconsin GOP Establishment."
First, it's worth noting that Dobb's tweet came minutes after Scott Walker announced on the Charlie Sykes Show that he'd endorsed Ted Cruz. Clearly, this was intended to compete with the positive news that Gov. Walker, one of the best reform governors in the United States, had endorsed Sen. Cruz. Next, it's worth noting that the Teamsters leadership aren't Republicans. Trump is clearly making a play for Democrats to vote in the GOP primary, which is an open primary. The Teamsters hate Gov. Walker with a passion. He's hoping this will attract union voters to his campaign.
Let's understand something important here. Lou Dobbs is either foolish or he's totally in the tank for Trump. I'm betting the latter. Calling Scott Walker part of the GOP Establishment is a bit like saying that Bill Clinton is as liberal as Bill Ayers. Put bluntly, it's absurd to think of Scott Walker as establishment. Couple that with Ted Cruz's reputation of fighting "the Washington Cartel" in both parties and it's utterly absurd to call Cruz and Walker the GOP Establishment.
It's stunning to see how stupid otherwise intelligent people have become after they've interviewed Trump.
This is the chief takeaway from today's announcements: Ted Cruz was endorsed by Scott Walker, a man who dealt with death threats against himself and his wife to pass union reforms. Donald Trump announced that he's being supported by the people who protested against Gov. Walker's reforms. Walker is a conservative's conservative with a lengthy list of conservative accomplishments. The Teamsters are part of the Democrats' base that tried to destroy Gov. Walker.
By those facts, there's no question who the conservative in this race is and who the liberal is. Lou Dobbs should be ashamed of himself.
Posted Tuesday, March 29, 2016 7:42 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 30-Mar-16 11:41 AM
Scott Walker endorsing Cruz is news.
One thinks highly of the other.
Next it will be Rick Perry. The Paul and Bush and Cheney families.
Then Mitch McConnell, Christine O'Donnell, Eric Cantor, a list that could prove endless.
We await, breathless.
