March 3-4, 2011
Mar 03 00:35 AUFC Campaign Strategy Remains Unchanged Mar 03 07:37 Militant Environmentalists Hurting Minnesota Mar 03 11:33 Ohio Strikes Blow Against Democrats' Campaign Slush Fund Mar 03 13:34 Dayton Calls His Tax Increases 'A Charade' Mar 04 05:56 Rep. Thissen, Gov. Dayton avoid central budget issues Mar 04 08:08 Cheap Political Theater Question: When Will DFL Support Dayton Budget? Mar 04 13:19 Sen. Koch: What leadership looks like
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
AUFC Campaign Strategy Remains Unchanged
Americans United for Change, aka AUFC, is already attacking Chip Cravaack. This isn't surprising to me since they pulled the same stunt with Michele Bachmann in 2008. Their M.O. is straightforward: They'll allege something that they know isn't true in the hopes of getting the candidate to get defensive about an issue.
This post exposes AUFC's deceitful tactics:
In its statement about the billboards, Tom McMahon, executive director, Americans United for Change says:
'Congressman [Chip] Cravaack owes Minnesota's seniors a straight [answer] on where he stands on this misguided privatization scheme for Medicare that will leave them paying more and more out of pocket for their care. If he does support it, he must explain why he is seeking to dismantle Medicare as we know it and slash benefits for seniors at the same time he is protecting billions of dollars in needless subsidies for the oil industry. If he doesn't support privatizing Medicare, is he doing everything in his power to discourage his Republican Party bosses from pursuing it?'
First, Chip Cravaack doesn't owe senior citizens an explanation on Medicare privatization because Republicans don't want to privatize Medicare. Mr. McMahon knows that. Frankly, Medicaid is a much more urgent problem than Medicare because it's bankrupting states.
This is another of the Democrats' time-tested tricks they utilize. In the past, they've implied that Republicans didn't care about senior citizens, that they'd make them choose between eating dogfood or paying for their medications, etc.
AUFC needs a new playbook. This is another instance where AUFC hasn't figured it out that you can't cry wolf a few hundred times and expect people to take you seriously.
Frankly, if I were advising Chip, which I'm not, I'd tell him to first state what he's for, then ask why Democrats voted for a $500,000,000,000 Medicare cut when they voted for Obamacare. That's right. They voted for a HALF TRILLION DOLLAR Medicare cut.
If anyone should be on the defensive about Medicare, it's the Democrats.
AUFC's playbook should be discarded ASAP. It's been discredited. It's written for a different paradigm. It worked when people couldn't respond.
Posted Thursday, March 3, 2011 12:35 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 03-Mar-11 07:59 AM
I must confess to a bit of confusion. I thought Republicans DID want to privatize Medicare and Medicaid, and I would be highly supportive of such an intelligent initiative. But the predicted results of such a change are totally bogus. What needs to be said is that people like the AUFC need to be told that THEY are the ones who will destroy Medicare, by insisting that the same unsustainable and unworkable approach be continued until collapse. We already have doctors refusing to accept Medicare patients. How well does that protect the health of senior citizens?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Mar-11 08:23 AM
Back in a different century, they did. The program would still be administered by the federal gov't, meaning that they're essentially a gov't-run program.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 03-Mar-11 10:35 AM
as far as I know, the only proposal on the table is to "voucherize" Medicare and Medicaid, meaning that the government would provide a fixed amount with which people would buy private health insurance. We know for a fact that this could cut health care costs in half, with greater quality and satisfaction. It would be government-funded, but government would no longer be distorting the market, which would inevitably lead to positive changes.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Mar-11 11:07 AM
Medicaid is being worked on at the state level, not the federal. There is no single proposal.
Militant Environmentalists Hurting Minnesota
Rep. Dan Fabian's bill has landed on Gov. Dayton's desk, just waiting for his signature. According to this Strib article , a number of militant environmentalist organizations are still fighting the bill:
A coalition representing 80 conservation groups will call on Dayton at a Thursday news conference to urge a veto.
Republicans who sponsored the bill say the state's lengthy permitting and review process costs the state jobs. A legislative auditor's report released on Tuesday concluded that reviews indeed often are inefficient and riddled with delays.
The handful of impact statements written every year can run 700 pages or more and cover only those proposals with the largest environmental footprints. The Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA), which now draft such statements, would still review, modify and approve the final versions.
Rep. Dan Fabian, R-Roseau, the House freshman who sponsored the bill, said that allowing companies to write their own drafts would speed the process. Businesses, he said, "are not going to tolerate [their consultants] putting together an [environmental impact statement] that's not complete, that's not thorough."
I've written extensively about Minnesota's environmentalist movement. It's a movement filled with militant environmentalists. While their websites don't say that their goal is to kill jobs, their actions do.
For instance, here's a picture of the "pristine wilderness" the PolyMet mining project would destroy:
MCEA and other militant environmentalist organization have led us to believe that this is pristine wilderness that must be preserved at all costs. I'd argue that this picture is worth a thousand jobs, some in the construction industry, the other 400 in the permanent mining operations.
Knowing that MCEA and other militant environmentalist organizations will stop at nothing to prevent the creation of high-paying jobs calls into question their credibility.
The title to Eric Roper's article is "Who should guard the hen house?" The clear intent of the title is to question the corporations' integrity and honesty. The reality is that these militant environmentalist organizations have an agenda that seeks to undermine the mining industry.
Their actions show that they're perfectly willing to lie and mislead to get their way. Let's remember that many of their activists have gone to work in the MPCA and the MnDNR. Considering the adversarial nature of their views, why should we trust their work?
What these militant environmentalist organizations don't want people to know is that the state's environmental agencies will still review the EIS's, meaning that there still is a substantial check to the mining industry's projects.
In other words, today's press conference is militant environmentalist organizations' way of raising their profile. It's a way to start their next fundraising drive.
In reality, it's much ado about nothing.
If Gov. Dayton vetoes this bill, it's proof that he's in the pocket of these militant environmentalist organizations. That would mean that he couldn't be taken seriously when he calls himself the "jobs governor."
Posted Thursday, March 3, 2011 7:37 AM
Comment 1 by Jamie at 03-Mar-11 10:31 AM
Your arguments are flawed. For instance, you write "if Gov. Dayton vetoes this bill, it's proof that he's in the pocket of these militant environmentalist organizations." If that is true than so must be the opposite; that if he doesn't veto than he is "in the pocket" of corporations.
Making statements in absolutes is reckless and lowers your credibility.
Lets debate the facts not call names (i.e. "militant).
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Mar-11 11:08 AM
Actually, I can prove otherwise. First, though, let's introduce the definition of militant:
a person engaged in warfare or combat; belligerent, combative, contentiousI don't think using an adjective in its proper context is calling people names, at least not in a malicious way. Granted, it isn't a flattering adjective but it's entirely accurate. DEAL WITH IT!!!
Now to the substance of the argument. When Gov. Dayton signed EO-04, he made a big deal of it, supposedly to prove he was a reformer. It was high profile stuff. If he now quietly vetoes HF1, which contains everything that EO-04 had, people will wonder why. The major difference between EO-04 & HF1 is that HF1 includes litigation reform.
These militant environmentalist organizations, especially the MCEA, vehemently oppose litigation reform because that's how they block projects that would create jobs.
CASE CLOSED. YOU LOSE.
Comment 2 by Daryl at 06-May-11 11:19 AM
So how big was that check you got for the dirty coal lobby anyway?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 06-May-11 11:30 AM
Daryl, it was so big that I could almost pay for a month of Al Gore's electric bill at his 'energy efficient' mansion.
Ohio Strikes Blow Against Democrats' Campaign Slush Fund
Jeff Rosenberg insists that Ohio's passing a reform that prohibits "public-employee unions representing 400,000 state and local workers from bargaining over health benefits and pensions" is " penalizing the greedy, entitled people who caused the Great Recession: middle-class workers ."
Mr. Rosenberg, like other progressives, thinks that the middle class can't exist without unions. Obviously, that's wrongheaded thinking.
Wait, that's not middle-class workers? It's Wall Street bankers who took excessive risks on subprime loans? That can't be right. After all, we've been rewarding them with billions of dollars in giveaways since the recession began.
It's obvious who's at fault here. Since it's middle-class public employees we're punishing by reducing their pay and eliminating their rights, they clearly must be to blame for the economic and budget crises. And since we're cutting taxes and handing out billions to the rich and corporations, they must be the victims. After all, it would be pretty screwed up if we were punishing the victims.
Mr. Rosenberg's view is a bit simplistic. It's also wrong. Unions, both private- and public-sector, have added to the financial crisis with unrealistic defined benefits pensions and lavish health insurance plans.
This fight in Wisconsin is also about ending the Democrats' campaign slush fund. The unions contribute literally hundreds of millions of dollars to Democratic candidates.
Democrats frequently whine about crony capitalism. It's a legitimate beef. It's also legitimate for conservatives to criticize crony unionism. (See the growing list of unions getting O'Care waivers for proof.)
Posted Thursday, March 3, 2011 11:33 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Quigley at 03-Mar-11 12:12 PM
Union workers (both public and private)kept getting their yearly increases in wages and benefits while the rest of us were getting pay cuts and lay offs. Why shouldn't union employees have to take some responsibility for what is going on in the economy?
Dayton Calls His Tax Increases 'A Charade'
According to this tweet , Gov. Dayton is saying that voting on his tax increases is a charade:
#mDayton letter to Bakk urges Dems to vote against his tax proposal "as a way to reject this charade." GOP forcing floor votes today #mnleg
I couldn't agree more. In fact, I'd argue that voting for the Dayton tax increases isn't just a charade but a travesty, too. The vote is now closed. It failed by a 63-1 margin, with Sen. Thomassoni casting the lone vote in favor of Dayton's tax increases.
Now that we've got it on the record that the DFL doesn't like Gov. Dayton's tax increases, it's time the DFL got serious about setting sensible spending priorities and reforming the structure of government.
The DFL will undoubtedly spin their votes as a way to reject the GOP's process. That's nonsense. When Gov. Dayton delivered his SOS speech, the DFL sat on their hands when he talked about raising taxes. It's all there on film. There was less enthusiasm for Gov. Dayton's tax increases than there was for Gov. Dayton's bonding bill, which is saying alot.
Let's also remember the fact that Rep. Thissen and Sen. Bakk, when questioned by Rachel Stassen-Berger about the tax increases , avoided supporting 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.'
Let's remember that that happened 2 weeks ago. Bakk still hasn't given Ms. Stassen-Berger a reply.
The DFL is deathly afraid of Gov. Dayton's Disaster. It's that atrocious of a budget. Gov. Dayton himself calls it "a starting point." It's so awful that it fails even at that minimum threshhold.
The DFL will attempt to spin this in a variety of ways but reality is that they hate Dayton's Disaster. They don't want anything to do with it.
Posted Thursday, March 3, 2011 1:34 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 03-Mar-11 02:05 PM
It seems as if we have consensus, then, that Dayton's budget is DOA. Now we can get to work, maybe, without all the howling about how Republicans simply MUST raise taxes to balance the budget? Nah, they won't even admit what they voted for if it gets in the way of a good, slimy political attack line.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Mar-11 06:03 AM
Jerry, It's an insult to past governors to call that pile of paper Dayton dumped on the legislature a budget. It's incoherent. It's more a statement of the DFL's ideological creed than governing document.
Rep. Thissen, Gov. Dayton avoid central budget issues
After reading the transcript of Rep. Thissen's speech today, there's one thing that comes through: DFL leaders don't want to talk about Gov. Dayton's budget:
The Majority has had the luxury of sitting on the sidelines criticizing the Governor's budget for several weeks now, acting as armchair quarterbacks in what you seem to think is a political game.
In this game, you play around with gotcha votes, piecemeal budgets, and even the facts, all while standing off the field criticizing those who are actually doing the work. If this is a game, then it is time for you to get off the bench and get on the field.
That's what today's vote is about. It's about objecting, once again, to a partial fix and urge us to find a complete solution. This vote is about objecting to the illusion that you are trying to present, the political theatre that has a magician snap his fingers up here while he steals your watch out of your pocket.
And it is about objecting to the very idea that all of this is a political game or theatrical event. More than anything, Minnesotans went to the polls last November and said to us 'knock it off!' They asked us to candidly, openly put our plans out so that they could see them and make a choice, based on their values, about what is best for our state. They asked us to be honest with them, keep our promises, and do what we said we would do; pretty basic and fundamental Minnesota things, when you think about it.
Governor Dayton has laid out his plan, he has said that it is far from perfect since we face difficult times, and he and the people of Minnesota have asked you to do the same. We will not vote on any partial budget until you do.
When people entered the voting booth last November, they didn't say "Put your plans on the table." Their message was straightforward: Don't raise my taxes. Don't spend money we don't already have. Live within our means.
As for the notion that Gov. Dayton laid out a coherent plan, that's mostly myth. If it's so coherent, why were DFL legislators totally unenthusiastic in their response to his SOS speech? Why were DFL legislators unimpressed with the budget when it was released?
Gov. Dayton is sounding a similar-sounding theme :
"We've had a respectful relationship up until now," Gov. Dayton told reporters at an impromptu news conference in the hallway outside his office at the State Capitol.
"But this is juvenile. And it's a distraction from the real responsibility of making hard budget decisions and governing. They should stop and they should get to work."
It's difficult to take this budget seriously. It's that awful. It includes a 40 percent increase in the top tax bracket, which will surely drive companies away. It includes a 4.5 percent cut in reimbursement rates for long-term care facilities. It is neither friendly to businesses nor compassionate to the least amongst us.
That's why Sen. Bakk's and Rep. Thissen's support for Gov. Dayton's budget has been so tepid. That's why there still isn't a DFL sponsor for Gov. Dayton's budget. Not even the most partisan, biggest Kool-Aid drinking DFL, legislator wants to be associated with it.
It's as if Gov. Dayton threw some things together to meet his constitutional duty, then said 'Ignore this document. Start from scratch. Why should anyone think that that's a serious attempt at budgeting?
Gov. Dayton and Rep. Thissen can complain all they want about the Republicans' tactics but the truth is that Gov. Dayton's budget, not the Republicans' tactics, is the problem.
If Gov. Dayton puts a serious budget together, he'll be taken seriously. If not, he'll quickly become a laughingstock, even within the DFL.
UPDATE: I should've read the KARE11 article better. Also included in it were these quotes:
"It's their responsibility to hold hearings, to bring their proposals forward, then listen to people who are going to be affected by those decisions, pass a budget and, and then we'll negotiate," he said.
"That's how responsible adults deal with the challenging situation we face today, not with playing these kinds of political games."
Gov. Dayton has the audacity of putting together this budget and he's chiding politicians about being "responsible adults"? The Dayton Disaster isn't respected by either party's legislators but it's Republicans who are being irresponsible?
How is putting this shoddy of a budget document acting responsibly? Gov. Dayton acting like he's a responsible adult is laughable. When he signs the final budget bill, I'll bet that the vast majority of his budget will have been rejected on a bipartisan basis in committee.
That isn't responsible governance. That's show-and-tell governance.
Posted Friday, March 4, 2011 6:16 AM
No comments.
Cheap Political Theater Question: When Will DFL Support Dayton Budget?
The DFL competing storylines that've emerged from yesterday's vote is that the GOP's maneuver was " cheap political theater ", that the GOP isn't serious about solving problems. Here's how Sen. Bakk phrased it:
'Today's vote was just cheap political theater," said Bakk. 'To date, Republicans have offered no answers, no solutions and no ideas for tackling the state's historic budget deficit. Instead, they've just given us political games and 'gotcha' votes...At the end of the day, we are where we started. The party holding the gavels opposes the governor's plan, but has yet to put their own plan on the table."
I don't take Sen. Bakk's diatribe seriously because he isn't serious. The reason why Republicans brought Gov. Dayton's tax increases up for a vote is because the DFL won't sponsor his budget. The highlight from yesterday isn't that the DFL wouldn't play political games yesterday.
It's that the DFL hasn't stopped playing political games since the session started.
They want nothing to do with Gov. Dayton's budget. They're treating it like toxic waste :
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.'
That exchange happened on Feb. 15. Sen. Bakk still hasn't given a reply to Rachel Stassen-Berger. The bottom line is this: the DFL want to criticize Republicans like they do every budget year. They just don't want their fingerprints on anything that Gov. Dayton has put together.
That's the one inescapable truth of yesterday's votes.
Gov. Dayton called it cheap political theater , too:
Dayton called the episode political theater designed to generate distorted partisan headlines. He said Republican lawmakers have an obligation to show how they will close the projected $5 billion budget gap without raising any new revenue.
"It's their responsibility to hold hearings, to bring their proposals forward, then listen to people who are going to be affected by those decisions, pass a budget and, and then we'll negotiate," he said.
"That's how responsible adults deal with the challenging situation we face today, not with playing these kinds of political games."
I'd respectfully instruct Gov. Dayton to refrain from such petty statements until he puts forward a serious budget document. What he submitted isn't a serious budget document by any stretch of the imagination.
There's a reason why Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen won't sponsor Gov. Dayton's budget. They don't want their fingerprints on it. They know that submitting Gov. Dayton's budget in committee will expose the plethora of fatal flaws in Gov. Dayton's budget.
Pehaps the reason why they want nothing to do with Gov. Dayton's budget is because he's thinking about changing his tax increases...again :
DFL Sen. Tom Bakk said today that Governor Dayton told him that Dayton was planning on revising who could be impacted on his income tax increase. Bakk, the DFL Senate Minority Leader, says Dayton told him he wanted to change his tax plan so fewer single filers would be taxed under his income tax hike. Dayton is proposing to increase income taxes on single filers who have an annual after tax income of $85,000 or more.
"He did indicate that he was going to do more on the income tax," Bakk said. "He is not going to raise any more taxes than he absolutely has to to balance the budget."
Dayton's spokeswoman said it's premature to talk specifics on what could change in Dayton's budget plan. She said Dayton is waiting for the analysis from the Department of Revenue on the repricing of his tax plan.
This wouldn't be the first time Dayton revises his budget plan. He dropped his income tax surcharge on those making more than $500,000 a year after the state's projected budget deficit was lowered from $6.2 billion to $5.03 billion.
Gov. Dayton dropped the 3 percent surcharge within minutes of the improved budget forecast. To say that Gov. Dayton's budget is fluid is understatement. Saying that his budget is without principles is probably more accurate.
Gov. Dayton's budget is changing because it's unpopular. It isn't just unpopular with Republicans either. I can't imagine that it's playing well within the small business community either. I'm betting that it isn't even playing well with conservative DFLers.
Gov. Dayton's and Sen. Bakk's complaints about cheap political theater would be more credible if Gov. Dayton's budget didn't undergo major changes on a bi-weekly basis.
Posted Friday, March 4, 2011 8:08 AM
Comment 1 by Colin at 04-Mar-11 10:25 AM
The reason it's cheap political theater is because everyone knows what's going to happen with the vote results. It's cheap and it's pathetic. If today's Republican party wrote an attack ad against Ronald Reagan, it would say, "This out-of-touch liberal voted to raise taxes eleven times and grew spending to an all-time record." Nevermind the fact that almost every sitting Republican legislator already voted to cut property tax refunds this session! That's a tax hike. Should Democrats run attack ads blasting your politicians for failing to keep their tax promises?
Comment 2 by Chad Quigley at 04-Mar-11 10:30 AM
Huh, Bakk says the republicans haven't put together a budget. sounds like the democrats from last session and the democrats at the federal level.
Gov. Goofy is changing his mind on how much to tax and who to tax? Sounds like he went to the Barry O school of leadership.
By the way Colin, if local politicians held spend down, there would be no need to have a proerty tax refund. Quit your crying.
Sen. Koch: What leadership looks like
God bless Amy Koch. Whether they know it or not, Minnesotans were given a huge gift when Republicans won the Senate majority for the first time in Minnesota history. Yesterday, Sen. Koch showed why we're fortunate to have her as a leader.
Here's the transcript of Sen. Koch's speech:
SEN. KOCH: I would like to just take a few moments. There were a few comments made by the Senate Minorty Leader Tom Bakk yesterday in his response. I think they could be interpreted as out of touch. I think he had an Oberstar moment and I would like to address it.
First of all, I would just say that the DFL has created a system of government so convoluted that even they would say that, unless you're a career politician, you could not navigate it successfully.
Second of all, I was surprised to hear him dismiss the value of private sector experience. He seemed to indicate that, unless you had spent 38 years like Sen. Berglin or 36 years like Sen. Langseth or 34 years like Sen. Cohen; unless you'd spent that kind of time in St. Paul, that you could not fulfill the job of citizen legislator. And we are a citizen legislature.
And here, Sen. Bakk seemed to contradict himself a little. He expressed, on one hand, the need for public input and then turned around and criticized the Republican Caucus for not having government experience. We are the public.
Twenty of my members were private citizens just 11 weeks ago today and I think that's a huge advantage. And I intend to put their real world experience to work for the people of Minnesota in conference committees. I think it can be valuable.
The freshmen are not the problem. They're just the folks that put their families and their jobs and their businesses on hold to come in and be the cleanup crew.
I guess if career politicians were the answer, we wouldn't be in this mess.
If Sen. Bakk thought he could intimidate Sen. Koch, I'm confident that he just found out he's wrong.
Simply put, that speech, though brief, put Sen. Bakk and the entire DFL Senate caucus in their proper places. They're the minority. Republicans are the majority.
The other message that came through with unmistakeable clarity was that Sen. Koch understands that government experience isn't what it's cracked up to be. When Sen. Koch said that "if career politicians were the answer, we wouldn't be in this mess", she identified her caucus as the party that values Main Street.
HINT TO THE DFL: I wouldn't suggest picking fights with Sen. Koch. If you do, you'll consistently get your ass kicked.
That's what real leadership looks like.
Posted Friday, March 4, 2011 1:19 PM
Comment 1 by The Lady Logician at 05-Mar-11 10:36 AM
Heh - you don't mess with a Mama Kodiak....you'll get bit!
LL
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Mar-11 12:30 PM
Getting bit would be the least of my worries with a Kodiak...Getting slapped silly with their big meaty paws would scare me.
