March 5-7, 2015
Mar 05 03:00 President Obama's questionable leadership Mar 05 12:43 Where's the SCTimes? Mar 05 13:01 Hillary's shamelessness Mar 05 16:06 The picture of federalism Mar 06 03:25 Dayton's, DFL's faulty math Mar 07 03:50 Bakk-Dayton transportation plan Mar 07 09:18 The problem with campus fascism
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
President Obama's questionable leadership
The latest polling measuring President Obama's national security leadership isn't the much-needed good news that this administration needs:
Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Congressional leaders invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to address a joint meeting of Congress?
Good thing 56%, bad thing 27%
Do you think the Obama administration is too supportive of Israel, not supportive enough, or are the administration's policies about right?
Too supportive 14%, not supportive enough 41%, about right 35%
Democrats that complained about Speaker Boehner's invitation to Prime Minister Netanyahu are on the wrong side of that fight by a 2:1 margin. That isn't the bad news from the poll, though. This is definitely worse news for President Obama, Hillary Clinton and the Democrats:
Do you think the United States has been too aggressive, not aggressive enough or about right in trying to get Iran to stop building a nuclear weapons program?
Too aggressive 7%, not aggressive enough 57%, about right 27%
Do you favor or oppose the United States taking military action against Iran if that were the only way to keep Iran from getting nuclear weapons?
Favor 65%, Oppose 28%
When 3 in 5 voters think you aren't pushing Iran hard enough to prevent them from getting a nuclear weapon, you're in a bad position. When 1 in 4 voters thinks you're being about right, then most voters think you're a wimp. When two-thirds of people think we should use military force to prevent "Iran from getting nuclear weapons" and you're an anti-war president, you're in trouble.
President Obama's leadership on national security matters, if it can be called that, is pathetic. And yes, President Obama is anti-war. He's lost 2 wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) thus far. He's on the path to losing another war to ISIS. His coalition of 60 nations that are fighting ISIS is fiction. His policies towards Russia are helping Putin rebuild the former Soviet empire.
Other than those things, President Obama is a picture in foreign policy leadership.
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2015 7:58 AM
No comments.
Where's the SCTimes?
The SCTimes: Community Watchdog?
by Silence Dogood
On February 22, 2015 John Bodette, in an article in the SCTimes entitled "Ethical principles guide our journalism," listed the principles to which the SCTimes is committed. In part,
Serving the public interestIt sounds great, but does the SCTimes actually "walk the walk?" Last spring, the SCTimes was given a slide from a public presentation by the administration detailing SCSU's losses for the first four years of operation of the Coborn's Plaza Apartments.
"We will be vigilant watchdogs of government and institutions that affect the public, fighting to ensure that the public's business is conducted in public."
In a subsequent public presentation last November, the administration reported the occupancy of Coborn's Plaza by "Student Composition."
When you total the numbers for each of the years you obtain the following figure:
NOTE: The capacity of Coborn's Plaza Apartments is 453.
The numbers for FY15 are only 7 more than in FY13 (when SCSU lost $1,300,000) and 14 less than in FY14 (when it lost $1,200,000). Clearly, it looks like the University will lose close to another $1,300,000 in FY15. The number for FY15 is also 40 less than the occupancy projection of 364 last Spring as the occupancy percentage dropped to 71.5% from 74%.
Based on the contract with the Wedum Foundation, SCSU is stuck in a lease of the Coborn's Plaza Apartments for an additional five years. The following table shows, as was described as "conservative" enrollment projections, the enrollment that SCSU has submitted to the MnSCU system office:
Clearly, with declining enrollments, it is unlikely to see an increase in the occupancy of the Coborn's Plaza Apartments during the next five years. As a result, in the second five years of the minimum ten-year lease, SCSU is likely to lose at least (remember the lease agreement calls for a 2% increase in SCSU's cost each year) an additional $6,500,000 on top of the $7,700,000 lost in the first five years. In ten years, SCSU will have lost a staggering $14,200,000.
The question to be asked of the SCTimes: Is the loss of $7,700,000 in the first five years of operation of the Coborn's Plaza Apartments with the potential of a loss totaling $14,200,000 over ten years something that would be of interest to the St. Cloud community? Apparently not, because information about SCSU's losses on the Coborn's Plaza Apartments has yet to make it into print in the SCTimes. A somewhat related question: Just how much would SCSU have to lose before the community watchdog determines that this is newsworthy? The answer will be known, if and when the SCTimes watchdogs smell all that money being burned in and on empty dorms.
I'm not holding my breath.
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2015 12:43 PM
Comment 1 by Mystique at 05-Mar-15 02:13 PM
In an interview with the Times editorial board last year, Potter said that Coborn's Apartments was "a success" even though it lost $6.4 million since it opened in 2010.
http://archive.sctimes.com/VideoNetwork/3242410283001/Times-Editorial-Board-interview-with-SCSU-President-Potter
How the editorial board didn't break down with laughter or even crack a smile is one of life's most profound mysteries. It gets better. In this ON YOUR SIDE article, David Unze's Watchdog Team also consists of two other Times reporters. "They want to put their collective experience to work for you." Doesn't the buck stop with the captain of the ship? Perhaps it's time for the Times Publisher to let the watchdogs off their leashes? For now, it should be: ON PRESIDENT POTTER'S SIDE.
http://www.sctimes.com/story/watchdog/2015/01/14/on-your-side-with-the-courts-cops-environment/21768659/
In yet another article, this Watchdog said: "As the government and tax watchdog reporter, I'll be keeping en eye on how your tax dollars are being spend and investigating examples of waste." How about taking the nest step and actually REPORTING the waste? This part is brilliant:
"I'll be part of a three-member watchdog team that will dig deeper into community problems and bring you stories you won't find anywhere else. We have more than 50 years of collective experience in journalism, and we want to put that to work for you."
Bring us stories that won't find anywhere else? What color is the sky in the Times' world? Gary has written more in depth investigative stories in one week than the Times has in several years about SCSU, MnSCU and higher education waste.
Hillary's shamelessness
Ron Fournier's article on Hillary's email scandal is titled Hillary Clinton still doesn't get it . Stealing a line that Charles Krauthammer might say, Mr. Fournier isn't cynical enough.
A cornered Clinton is a craven Clinton, which is why we should view Hillary Rodham Clinton's latest public relations trick with practiced skepticism. "I want the public to see my email," she tweeted Wednesday night. "I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible."
I want the public to see my email. I asked State to release them. They said they will review them for release as soon as possible.
- Hillary Clinton (@HillaryClinton) March 5, 2015
If she wants us to see her email, why did she create a secret account stored on a dark server registered at her home?
Hillary doesn't want the public to know what's in her emails. What's happening is that Hillary is doing as little as possible. She's doing that to make it look like she's being transparent without actually being transparent.
If she wants us to see her email, Clinton should turn over every word written on her dark account(s) for independent vetting. Let somebody the public trusts decide which emails are truly private and which ones belong to the public.
Like everything else about the response to this controversy, Clinton's tweet is reminiscent of the 1990s, when her husband's White House overcame its wrongdoing by denying the truth, blaming Republicans, and demonizing and bullying the media. It's a shameless script, unbecoming of a historic figure who could be our next president, and jarringly inappropriate for these times.
It's a shameless script that's being deployed by a shameless person. It's impossible to shame a Clinton. It's as possible to shame a Clinton as it is to get a pig to feel guilty for rolling around in mud.
My former employer, The Associated Press said Wednesday that it was considering legal action over years of stonewalling its requests for government documents covering Clinton's tenure as secretary of state. The AP has sought her full schedules and calendars and for details on the State Department's decision to grant a special position to a longtime Clinton aide, Huma Abedin, among other documents, the New York Times, reported. The oldest AP request was made in March 2010.
"We believe it's critically important that government officials and agencies be held accountable to the voters," said AP's general counsel, Karen Kaiser. "In this instance, we've exhausted our administrative remedies in pursuit of important documents and are considering legal action."
I can recite the Clinton script in my sleep. First, they'll insist that they're "cooperating fully" with the investigation. Later, they'll insist that they've turned over tens of thousands of documents while essentially arguing that that should be good enough for the investigators. Mixed in along the way will be attempts to intimidate the investigators with smears.
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2015 1:01 PM
No comments.
The picture of federalism
Scott Pruitt, Oklahoma's attorney general, distinguished himself in writing this op-ed in the Wall Street Journal. This paragraph is especially inspirational to this federalist:
Declining to establish a state exchange allowed Oklahoma to voice its strong political opposition to the Affordable Care Act as a whole, as well as to make a statement that it wanted neither the large-employer mandate nor the individual mandate to have effect within its borders. That was the trade-off. Oklahoma declined the premium tax credits, but freed itself of those mandates, and that was a choice the state was happy to make.
The states aren't imbeciles that need the federal government's protection from themselves. They're co-equal sovereign governments quite capable of making decisions for themselves. In the early 1990s, the federal welfare programs were out of control. States like Arkansas, Massachusetts, Michigan and Wisconsin started experimenting on welfare. First, they got waivers from HHS giving them the authority to experiment.
Thanks to their experimentation, they improved millions of people's lives.
Another point worth making is that the ACA, aka Obamacare, is an experiment in anti-federalism. Rather than letting states experiment, President Obama pushed a one-size-fits-all plan down our throats. Scott Pruitt and Oklahoma asserted their rights to make their own decision as allowed by the ACA. It might be that Oklahoma made the wrong decision but it's their decision to make. The fact that they made an informed choice is proof that they weren't coerced.
In the original Obamacare lawsuit NFIB vs. Sebelius, the Supreme Court ruled that Medicaid expansion was unconstitutional because the ACA didn't give the states of opting out of Medicaid expansion. The fact that Oklahoma said no, according to Pruitt, made their decision based on the trade-off of not getting IRS subsidies in exchange for not dealing with the individual and employer mandates. That's a rational choice, something that wasn't there with Medicaid expansion.
Third, this sort of federal program isn't antithetical to federalism, it is federalism. As we explained in our amicus brief to the court, this carrot-and-stick approach is found in dozens of federal programs sprinkled throughout the United States Code. The states are not children that the federal government must paternalistically 'protect' from the consequences of their choices by rewriting statutes. In our constitutional system, states are free to make decisions and bear the political consequences, good or bad, of those choices.
Frankly, I'd rather trust decisions made at the state level than decisions made by a DC politician or bureaucrat. In fact, it wouldn't take more than a nanosecond or 2 to make that decision for me.
Posted Thursday, March 5, 2015 4:06 PM
No comments.
Dayton's, DFL's faulty math
Thursday afternoon, Gov. Dayton sent out an email highlighting their transportation plan. Saying that their math is questionable is being charitable in the extreme. Here's what I'm talking about:
In January, Governor Dayton introduced a straight-forward, honest proposal to make long-overdue investments in our aging, under-funded transportation system. The Governor's proposal would honestly address our state's $6 billion road and bridge deficit over the next ten years, fix 2,200 miles of state roadways and 330 bridges, provide nearly $2.4 billion for local road and bridge improvements, and invest $2.9 billion in Greater Minnesota and Metro Area transit improvements.
By contrast, the transportation proposal introduced by Republicans in the House of Representatives would fix just 40 miles of local roads over the next four years.
That's BS. First off, the Dayton-DFL plan would raise taxes by $6,000,000,000 over the next 10 years. The Dayton-DFL plan doesn't focus on just roads and bridges, though. A significant portion of that tax increase comes in the form of a sales tax for the 7-county metro area which is dedicated to transit projects.
That means the Dayton-DFL plan raises taxes dedicated to roads and bridges by $450,000,000 a year for 10 years. The initial Republican plan called for spending $750,000,000 over the next 2 years. All of that money is dedicated to fixing roads and bridges. The final GOP plan will likely jump to $1,250,000,000 for the next 2 years. If that's what the GOP plan calls for, that means Republicans will spend $400,000,000 more on fixing roads and bridges over the next 2 years than the Dayton-DFL plan will spend.
I'd love hearing the DFL's explanation on how they'll spend less money fixing roads and bridges over the next 2 years than Republicans but they'll fix 55 times as many miles of roads as Republicans. That's with an asterisk, too. According to the Dayton-DFL email, the DFL allegedly will fix 2,200 miles of state roadways and 330 bridges. According to the Dayton-DFL email, Republicans will only fix 40 miles of roads.
I might've been born at night but it wasn't last night . This chart is pure fiction or it's proof that the Dayton-DFL transportation plan is a massive middle class tax increase:
Check out this statement:
Would invest $785 million per year over the next 10 years to repair and replace state and local roads and bridges.
If that's accurate, that's $7,850,000,000 worth of middle class tax increases over the next 10 years. Earlier in the email, Gov. Dayton said that his proposal "would honestly address our state's $6 billion road and bridge deficit over the next ten years." According to the chart, they'd spend nearly $8,000,000,000 on fixing Minnesota's roads. Which is it?
The $7,850,000,000 figure is 31% bigger than the $6,000,000,000 figure. They can't both be right.
The difference, I suspect, is a significantly bigger middle class tax increase.
Originally posted Friday, March 6, 2015, revised 17-Mar 1:02 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 06-Mar-15 01:49 PM
Gary:
Too bad that there isn't a real reporter asking, "Governor Dayton how about for three years you don't do any new transit projects and devote every single dollar to new brigdges and roads?"
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Bakk-Dayton transportation plan
The only thing missing from the Bakk-Dayton transportation press conference was a picture of them kissing after making up. True to form, Gov. Dayton said at least one thing that's utterly laughable :
Gov. Mark Dayton didn't mince words Thursday when it came to the House Republican transportation plan, calling it "fiction."
"All we get from House Republicans and even Senate Republicans is whack at this and whack at that, and rant about this and rant about that," Dayton told reporters. "There's nothing coming forward except a slice of the surplus and a double dose of make-believe."
This coming from the buffoon who published this side-by-side comparison of his plan vs. the Republicans' plan:
Check out this BS from the table:
In January, Governor Dayton introduced a straight-forward, honest proposal to make long-overdue investments in our aging, under-funded transportation system. The Governor's proposal would honestly address our state's $6 billion road and bridge deficit over the next ten years, fix 2,200 miles of state roadways and 330 bridges, provide nearly $2.4 billion for local road and bridge improvements, and invest $2.9 billion in Greater Minnesota and Metro Area transit improvements.
By contrast, the transportation proposal introduced by Republicans in the House of Representatives would fix just 40 miles of local roads over the next four years.
According to Gov. Dayton's own document, his tax increase, most of which will be paid for by the middle class, will be $13,150,000,000. By comparison, his tax increase from 2013 was $2,100,000,000 for the current biennium.
For all of his "tax the rich" rhetoric, Gov. Dayton's history is that he's raised taxes on the middle class far more than he's raised taxes on "the rich." The numbers that he's published verify that statement. Gov. Dayton's transportation taxes (roads, bridges and transit) are a bigger tax increase than his 2013 tax increase. His 2013 tax increase increased revenues by $1,050,000,000 per year. The Dayton-DFL transportation tax increase is projected to raise transportation taxes by $1,315,000,000 per year.
With a $2,000,000,000 surplus and over $1,000,000,000 in the state's rainy day fund, there's no justification for a middle class tax increase, especially a middle class tax increase of this size.
Republican House Speaker Kurt Daudt said last week that the expanding budget surplus should mean a gas tax hike is off the table. After Dayton's Thursday news conference, House Transportation Chair Tim Kelly, R-Red Wing, said he plans to release the details of the House GOP proposal this month.
Kelly declined to say how much it will spend but said it will likely include money from the surplus, some borrowing and dedicating existing tax revenues from auto parts, rental cars and leased vehicles. "These are real dollars," Kelly said. "This does mean investment into transportation and it does not mean a tax increase."
Dedicating existing tax revenues from "auto parts, rental cars and leased vehicles" makes more sense than raising taxes on the middle class. Redirecting existing taxes to pay for fixing Minnesota's roads and bridges is infinitely better than raising taxes on the middle class.
Posted Saturday, March 7, 2015 3:50 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 07-Mar-15 12:04 PM
Gary:
You might want to keep in mind for your future posts so readers who might only see the current post what is driving the gas tax increase more than anything else from the Democrats is that they want to keep spending millions let alone billions on mass transit projects. An easy way to get money to fix the road is to stop for a couple years doing new mass transit projects and spend all of the money on roads.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The problem with campus fascism
I wish this article surprised me but it doesn't. Another faction of fascists has exposed itself by voting to ban all flags on their campus:
The Associated Students of University of California, Irvine (ASUCI) voted Tuesday to remove all flags, including American flags, from an inclusive space on campus because of their offensive nature. The bill, R50-70, was authored by Social Ecology Representative Matthew Guevara, and accuses all flags, especially, the American flag, of being 'symbols of patriotism or weapons for nationalism.'
'[F]lags construct paradigms of conformity and sets [sic] homogenized standards for others to obtain which in this country typically are idolized as freedom, equality, and democracy,' the bill reads. The legislation argues that flags may be interpreted differently; the American flag, for example, can represent 'American exceptionalism and superiority,' as well as oppression. '[T]he American flag has been flown in instances of colonialism and imperialism,' the bill continues, arguing that 'symbolism has negative and positive aspects that are interpreted differently by individuals.'
Thankfully, the courts will step in and correct these fascists. The sad part is that these fascists think that the First Amendment should essentially be abolished:
The anti-flag hanging bill adds that free speech, such as flags in inclusive spaces, can be interpreted as hate speech. '[F]reedom of speech, in a space that aims to be as inclusive as possible[,] can be interpreted as hate speech,' the bill reads.
The bad news is that the Associated Students of University of California, Irvine they are the University's legislative body:
The legislation resolved that any decoration that a student finds offensive will be removed from the Associate Student main lobby if the request is made. ASUCI is the undergraduate governing body of UC-Irvine. According to its website, it's student-led by those who are elected into their positions.
The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, aka FIRE, will certainly assist students if the students file a lawsuit against U-Cal, Irvine. Ditto with the ACLJ.
Banning 'offensive speech' would turn the world into a silent place because the term offensive speech is utterly subjective. It's impossible to define it in a comprehensive way. These reactionary fascists would know that if they'd thought this through. Instead, they passed this bill without much thought.
Posted Saturday, March 7, 2015 9:18 AM
No comments.
