March 7-12, 2013
Mar 07 02:04 Phyllis Kahn authors pension double-dipping legislation Mar 07 02:53 Kirsten Powers kicks Bill O'Reilly's butt Mar 08 00:46 Franken, Ellison: Sequestration MIAs Mar 10 14:04 Misreading the Rand Paul filibuster Mar 10 16:50 Dayton's mulligan budget Mar 11 07:52 Putting budgets together Mar 12 00:46 I thought high taxes didn't matter Mar 12 01:47 Football punditry at its illogical worst
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Phyllis Kahn authors pension double-dipping legislation
It isn't surprising that Rep. Phyllis Kahn would sponsor a bill that will allow MnSCU retirees to continue double dipping. Here's the key provision in HF0870 :
Subd. 4. Exemption limit. For a person eligible under this section whoearns more than $46,000is employed in excess of two-thirds of a full-time basis in a calendar year
fromthrough reemployment in the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system following retirement, the annuity reduction provisions of section 352.115, subdivision 10, apply only to income
over $46,000for employment in excess of two-thirds of a full-time basis.
I'm betting most Minnesotans don't know that MnSCU faculty and administrators are eligible for early retirement and are able to collect their pensions. I'm confident few Minnesotans would knkow that these administrators and faculty are then are able to be rehired as consultants within MnSCU while still collecting their defined benefit pensions.
In other words, an administrator who retired at age 55 could start collecting their defined benefit pension essentially immediately. BONUS QUESTION: How many Minnesotans can retire early these days? BONUS QUESTION 2: How many Minnesotans working in the private sector have a defined benefit pension plan? The answer to the first question is 'perhaps 1%'. The answer to the second question is none.
Only public employee union members fit into both categories. I'll be clear about this important point. Not all members of PEUs have defined benefit pension plans. That said, only members of PEUs have defined benefit plans. That means, in a sense, PEUs are part of a different 1%.
Here's the kicker. People who are hired for less than one-third of full-time basis but less than a two-third full-time basis won't have any mony deducted from their pension:
354.445 NO ANNUITY REDUCTION.
2.6(a) The annuity reduction provisions of section 354.44, subdivision 5, do not apply
2.7to a person who:
2.8(1) retires from the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system with at least
2.9ten years of combined service credit in a system under the jurisdiction of the Board of
2.10Trustees of the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities;
2.11(2) was employed on a full-time basis immediately preceding retirement as a faculty
2.12member or as an unclassified administrator in that system;
2.13(3) begins drawing an annuity from the teachers retirement association; and
2.14(4) returns to work on not less than a one-third time basis and not more than a
2.15two-thirds time basis in the system from which the person retired under an agreement in
2.16which the person may not
earn a salary of more than $46,000be employed for more
2.17than two-thirds of a full-time basis in a calendar year
fromthrough employment after
2.18retirement in the system from which the person retired.
2.19(b) Initial participation, the amount of time worked, and the duration of participation
2.20under this section must be mutually agreed upon by the president of the institution where
2.21the person returns to work and the employee. The president may require up to one-year
2.22notice of intent to participate in the program as a condition of participation under this
2.23section. The president shall determine the time of year the employee shall work. The
2.24employer or the president may not require a person to waive any rights under a collective
2.25bargaining agreement as a condition of participation under this section.
2.26(c) Notwithstanding any law to the contrary, a person eligible under paragraphs (a)
2.27and (b) may not, based on employment to which the waiver in this section applies, earn
2.28further service credit in a Minnesota public defined benefit plan and is not eligible to
2.29participate in a Minnesota public defined contribution plan, other than a volunteer fire plan
2.30governed by chapter 424A. No employer or employee contribution to any of these plans
2.31may be made on behalf of such a person.
2.32(d) For a person eligible under paragraphs (a) and (b) who
earns more than $46,0002.33 is employed in excess of two-thirds of a full-time basis in a calendar year
fromthrough
2.34 employment after retirement due to employment by the Minnesota state colleges and
3.1universities system, the annuity reduction provisions of section 354.44, subdivision 5, apply
3.2only to income over $46,000 for employment in excess of two-thirds of a full-time basis.
3.3(e) A person who returns to work under this section is a member of the appropriate
3.4bargaining unit and is covered by the appropriate collective bargaining contract. Except
3.5as provided in this section, the person's coverage is subject to any part of the contract
3.6limiting rights of part-time employees.
This isn't justifiable. MnSCU employees who retire early shouldn't be able to get paid for consulting while collecting their pension. What's just is to give MnSCU employees the choice of working until they're 65, the normal private sector retirement age, or they're allowed to retire early but not collect their pension until they're 65. That way, the legislature won't have to worry about writing legislation like this. More importantly, taxpayers won't get ripped off like what's happening now.
Tags: MnSCU , Defined Benefit Pensions , Double-Dipping , Early Retirement , Unfunded Liabilities , Phyllis Kahn , DFL
Posted Thursday, March 7, 2013 2:04 AM
Comment 1 by MinnetonkaMoose at 09-Mar-13 10:43 PM
On the bright side, MnSCU can avoid the 7% pension match and the health insurance on these retired employees so they may actually be saving the system money overall!
Kirsten Powers kicks Bill O'Reilly's butt
This video is proof that Kirsten Powers kicked Bill O'Reilly's butt in a debate about sequestration:
Don't mistake this as saying President Obama has consistently laid out specific proposals about sequestration. He certainly hasn't. That said, O'Reilly lost the fight when Kirsten Powers talked specifics about Medicare savings. Powers said that President Obama proposed saving money for Medicare by negotiating with the pharmaceutical companies for perscription medications. That fired up O'Reilly, who asked which companies the administration would negotiate with for these savings.
When Powers said that it would be the same companies that Medicaid negotiates with, O'Reilly said that that wasn't specific enough, that President Obama had to state specifically in legislation which companies they'd negotiate with. O'Reilly's counterargument was a non sequitur counterargument, saying that the proposal wouldn't be effective.
I agree with Mr. O'Reilly that the proposal wouldn't be effective in cutting the deficit. That isn't what he was arguing with Ms. Powers about. He started the argument talking about whether President Obama hadn't offered specific proposals to cut the deficit. The sad thing is that he would've won the argument had he done his research.
President Obama has frequently spoken in generalities. Had O'Reilly started with that argument, Ms. Powers likely would've agreed with him. Had O'Reilly not insisted that President Obama list the drug companies that HHS would negotiate in legislation, he could've won the debate.
It's important to note that President Obama has ignored the GAO report that Sen. Coburn has been talking about. Had Mr. O'Reilly asked Ms. Powers why President Obama hadn't adopted the savings from the GAO report, she likely wouldn't have put up a fight. There might've been consensus reached.
Follow this link to watch part of Sen. Coburn's speech titled "Sequester This." Follow this link to watch another part of Sen. Coburn's "Sequester This" speech.
If you haven't watched it yet, it's imporant that you watch it ASAP. Rather than talking about cutting spending in general terms, the GAO report lists hundreds of duplicative programs spread across the federal government and how much money is getting spent on those programs. If conservatives want to win this fight, and they'd better, they need to be authoritative. Bloviating from an obnoxious TV host won't cut it.
Tags: President Obama , Sequestration , Prescription Drugs , Negotiations , Kirsten Powers , Bill O'Reilly , Deficit Reduction
Posted Thursday, March 7, 2013 2:53 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Mar-13 07:53 AM
The whole problem with this argument is that the federal government does not "negotiate" at all. They dictate what prices can be charged by doctors and hospitals, because they own 50% of the health care marketplace in this country. The only effect of such negotiations is to decrease the supply of health care (including drugs). The only cure for this is free market competition, which would result in higher quality, greater availability, and lower costs for everybody! Maybe O'Reilly should have argued THAT.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Mar-13 08:25 AM
This post isn't about the merits of the policies. It's about whether President Obama had made a proposal. O'Reilly said he hadn't. That isn't factually accurate. It had to have been specific because it's part of US law.
Comment 2 by eric z. at 12-Mar-13 09:08 AM
One FOX talking head paid a regular paycheck, the other paid by the appearance. Yawn.
Franken, Ellison: Sequestration MIAs
Rep. Keith Ellison has fought a 'valiant' fight to protect wasteful government spending :
"If we can't find a solution before these cuts hit, we should eliminate it altogether," said Jeremy Slevin, a spokesman for Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), a co-chair of the progressive caucus.
"Our preference is to have a balanced approach to get [a] one-to-one" ratio of program cuts to revenue raising, Slevin went on. "But short of that we don't think under any circumstances that the American people should lose their jobs because of Congress."
The Goverment Accountability Office, aka the GAO, has identified 1,362 duplicative programs in the federal budget. According to GAO, $364.5 billion are spent on these duplicative programs. I transcribed part of Sen. Coburn's "Sequester This" speech for this Examiner article . Here's the key paragraph from that article:
SEN. COBURN: Next one, housing assistance. We have 160 programs, separate programs. Nobody knows if they're working . Nobody in the administration knows all the programs. I'm probably the only person in Congress that does because nobody else has looked at it. Twenty different agencies. We're spending $170 billion. If we're really interested in housing assistance, why would we have 20 sets of overhead, 20 sets of administration ? And what would it cost to accomplish the same thing?
That's insane. It's impossible to justify 160 duplicate programs. It's totally impossible to justify intentionally establishing "20 sets of overhead, 20 sets of administration."
Despite this stunning fact, Rep. Ellison's spokesman insists on raising taxes or repealing the sequester.
Sen. Franken isn't exactly a profile in courage when it comes to putting a budget together or cutting spending without gimmicks. Here's part of Sen. Franken's letter to Sen. Patty Murray :
Meaningful deficit reduction is critical and necessary, and our budget resolution must reflect tough choices and tough cuts. Deficit reduction must be achieved in a commonsense way that doesn't just shift costs to our seniors, or parents raising children with disabilities. That's why deficit reduction efforts should maintain a balance between targeted spending cuts and new revenues from closing tax loopholes that benefit corporations and wealthy individuals.
Sen. Franken, like Rep. Ellison, voted to raise taxes when he voted for the PPACA. That dynamic duo voted for raising tax rates on small businesses when they voted for the Obama 'Fiscal Cliff' tax increases. The payroll tax holiday tax increase went into effect the same day the PPACA tax increases went into effect. Now they're demanding another (fourth) tax increase to hit the American people in less than 3 months.
Nowhere do they mention the duplicate programs and wasteful spending from the GAO report. That's the definition of being MIA during the sequestration fight. Unfortunately, this isn't surprising for either 'public servant'. Neither has voted in committee for a budget since early in President Obama's first term.
What's most disappointing is the fact that Twin Cities media outlets haven't asked why Sen. Franken and Rep. Ellison have fought tirelessly to protect government bureaucrats while they waste taxpayers' money.
By comparison, Sen. Coburn has been persistent in highlighting the ways government wastes money:
I wish we could trade in Sen. Franken and Rep. Ellison for a real public servant like Sen. Coburn.
Tags: Deficit Reduction , Tax Increases , Payroll Tax Holiday , Fiscal Cliff , PPACA , Al Franken , Keith Ellison , DFL , Tom Coburn , GAO Report , Government Bureaucrats , Duplication Nation , Public Servant , GOP
Posted Friday, March 8, 2013 12:46 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 12-Mar-13 09:05 AM
Those thinking like the post concluded can always relocate to Texas.
Misreading the Rand Paul filibuster
Bill Kristol's article misses the point of Rand Paul's filibuster. First, here's part of what Kristol wrote about Paul's filibuster:
On the other hand, Paul's political genius strikes us as very much of the short-term variety. Will it ultimately serve him well to be the spokesman for the Code Pink faction of the Republican party? How much staying power is there in a political stance that requires waxing semihysterical about the imminent threat of Obama-ordered drone strikes against Americans sitting in cafes? And as for the other Republican senators who rushed to the floor to cheer Paul on, won't they soon be entertaining second thoughts? Is patting Rand Paul on the back for his fearmongering a plausible path to the presidency for Marco Rubio or Ted Cruz? Is embracing kookiness a winning strategy for the Republican party? We doubt it.
This totally misreads what Rand Paul did. Sen. Paul's filibuster was about defending the Constitution, nothing more, nothing less. Had Eric Holder said that presidents don't have the constitutional authority to use a drone-fired missile on a US citizen on US soil, the filibuster never would've happened. If Mr. Kristol thinks that that qualifies Sen. Paul for the "Code Pink faction of the Republican Party", he'd better quickly rethink that opinion.
The rest of Kristol's paragraph is based on his misreading of Sen. Paul's filibuster. Actually, it isn't implausible to think that playing to the TEA Party "faction of the Republican Party" is a smart tactic for winning in 2016. That's what Sen. Paul's filibuster was about. Finally, there's someone willing to stand up for the Constitution. Finally, there's a Republican who's willing to cut spending.
The past 2 weeks have been horrific weeks for President Obama. He tried intimidating the Republicans into another tax increase. He tried peddling the notion that reducing the size of the increase by $44,000,000,000 would cause poor children to starve, airplanes to drop from the sky and meat inspections to end until further notice.
And that's before he cancelled White House tours that he said were the result of sequestration's draconian cuts. Sen. Coburn and Sen. Lee have done a masterful job of highlighting the billions of dollars of wasteful spending in this year's budget. While they were challenging President Obama on sequestration, Sen. Paul was challenging the Obama administration on the commander-in-chief's authorities granted by the US Constitution.
As a result of these senators' challenges, President Obama looks weaker than he did a month ago. His job approval ratine shows it, having dropped from 55% to 46%.
As for Sens. Cruz, Lee, Rubio, Toomey, Paul and Johnson, I'd argue that they're part of the 'picking smart fights faction of the GOP'. That's the wing of the GOP that I'll enthusiastically associate with.
Tags: Drone Strikes , President Obama , Eric Holder , Code Pink , Democrats , US Constitution , Rand Paul , Tom Coburn , Mike Lee , Ted Cruz , Pat Toomey , Sequester This, Not That , TEA Party , GOP , Election 2016
Posted Sunday, March 10, 2013 2:04 PM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 12-Mar-13 09:02 AM
Kristol is a neocon, with more con than neo, not very neo at all these days after Iraq and such, and always a con. Kristol has had his fifteen minutes of fame and deserves to be pitched onto the same scrap heap as James Dobson and Rick Santorum. What Rand Paul did, is unique in our day and age. He really stood up and filibustered. No BS about you need 60% for passage because I might, but he did the deed. More of those obstreperous idiots like McConnell should be made to stand and deliver. (In one sense of that term, though not the common one.)
Dayton's mulligan budget
During this morning's @Issue With Tom Hauser, DFL strategist Darin Broton admitted what savvy people had been thinking. There isn't a political appetite for Gov. Dayton's budget. Specifically, there's a revolt against his sales tax increase, especially Gov. Dayton's B2B sales tax increases and Gov. Dayton's sales tax on services.
Once the budget deficit projection shrunk from $1,100,000,000 to $627,000,000, a 43% drop, DFL legislators couldn't justify Gov. Dayton's sales tax increases. After Gov. Dayton admitted that his sales tax initiative didn't have the public's support, it was just a matter of time before Gov. Dayton would be forced to admit that his entire budget would have to be scrapped.
Gov. Dayton's budgetting abilities are questionable at best. During the 2010 campaign, he submitted his "detailed budget plan" to the Minnesota Department of Revenue 3 times. Each time, the Department of Revenue said his plan didn't balance Minnesota's budget. His last proposal came closest to balancing. The Department of Revenue said that plan 'only' had a $1,000,000,000 deficit.
In 2011, Gov. Dayton proposed massive tax increases, including a top income tax bracket of 10.95% and a 3% surcharge for people making $1,000,000 or more. When the deficit forecast was revised down from $6,200,000,000 to $5,030,000,000, Gov. Dayton immediately dropped the income tax surcharge. Eventually, the GOP majority forced him to drop his tax increases.
When Gov. Dayton submitted this biennium's budget, it included the aforementioned sales tax increases on babysitters and lawnmowers as well as on business services. It also included a cigarette tax increase that will create an underground economy that hurts retailers. Gov. Dayton's budget also includes raising the top individual income tax rates.
By the time Gov. Dayton delivered his State of the State address, he inadvertantly admitted that the GOP budget and reforms were working. He said that 72,000 jobs had been created under his watch, though he didn't admit that they weren't created as a result of his budget.
In his State of the State Address, Gov. Dayton was distancing himself from his budget faster than a man his age should be able to move. Here's where the backpedalling started :
My proposals have already aroused considerable controversy. Such debate is healthy in our democracy.The genius of our system of governance is that no one gets to have it all her or his way. Starting with the governor. Some will characterize any legislative changes in my budget as my loss. I don't see it that way, at all.
The winners I care about are the people of Minnesota, whose collective best interests I was elected to represent. As were you in the legislature. Whatever outcome does the most to improve the lives of the most Minnesotans makes winners of us all.
That sounds nice but it's the prelude to Gov. Dayton caving on the sales tax increases. All that's left from Gov. Dayton's first budget is Gov. Dayton's income tax and cigarette tax increases. Warming up in the bullpen is a liquor tax increase to replace Gov. Dayton's ill-advised sales tax increase proposal.
It won't take long to kill the cigarette tax increase. It's virtually on life support. If history is an indicator, Sen. Bakk will help kill the liquor tax. Here's what he said about raising the liquor tax in 2009 :
Senate Taxes Committee Chairman Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook, said eliminating the current mortgage interest deduction could hurt Minnesota's high rate of home ownership and higher alcohol taxes would drive some liquor shoppers across the Wisconsin border.
It'll be interesting to see if this Sen. Bakk will agree with the 2009 version of Sen. Bakk. I think it's more likely that this Sen. Bakk will do whatever Alida Messinger tells him to do.
At the end of the day, the Dayton/Messinger/DFL budget will include massive tax increases because they're needed to pay off their political allies with taxpayers money. That said, the budget that will pass won't look much like Gov. Dayton's first budget.
That's what happens with mulligan budgets.
Follow this link for more on Gov. Dayton's mulligan budget.
Additional suggested readings:
Gov. Dayton tells babysitters they aren't paying their fair share
Gov. Dayton uses tragedy to sell his tax increase
Tags: Mark Dayton , State of the State Address , Minnesota Department of Revenue , Tax Increases , Income Tax , Sales Tax , Cigarette Tax , Liquor Tax , Deficits , State Government Shutdown , Mulligan Budget , Alida Messinger , Tom Bakk , DFL , Reforms , Job Creation , MNGOP
Originally posted Sunday, March 10, 2013, revised 11-Mar 6:34 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 10-Mar-13 06:35 PM
"Sin" taxes aren't as easy to raise anymore. A, they're plenty high already. B. Alcohol taxes hit municipal liquor stores. C. Most smokers are Democrats. D. Both reduce convenience store traffic, lowering sales tax receipts and selling fewer lottery tickets.
But that doesn't mean Dayton won't try, I suppose.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-Mar-13 01:22 AM
Rex, Those are logical arguments, which the DFL appear to be immune to.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 11-Mar-13 12:27 PM
Ah, but Rex ... people are going to flock to electronic pull tabs instead of the lottery. That's how Zygi Wilf's new playground is going to be paid for.
...oh, wait. Nobody's got disposable income anymore thanks to the O-conomy.
Goodness, wherever DID we leave all those DFL chanting points?
Putting budgets together
A basic requirement of governors and presidents is their ability to put budgets together. President Obama seems incapable of putting a budget together, at least one that people don't laugh at. Gov. Dayton's proposed budgets have been disasters by any measurement.
President Obama's budgets haven't gotten a single vote in the House or Senate since the 2010 midterm elections. Democrats treated them like toxic waste. When a president can't get a single vote from his party on his budgets in more than 2 years, that's a pretty good indicator he didn't put a serious budget together.
Similarly, Gov. Dayton's budgets haven't been taken seriously, probably because they've both been radically modified after their initial submission. In 2011, Gov. Dayton insisted on creating one of the top tax rates in the nation at 10.95%. Not only that but he insisted on a 3% income tax surcharge for people making $1,000,000 a year.
When the February forecast dropped the projected deficit from $6,200,000,000 to $5,030,000,000, Gov. Dayton immediately dropped the 3% income tax surcharge. After Gov. Dayton shut down the state government during a temper tantrum, he finally agreed to a budget that didn't raise taxes but did reform government while creating tens of thousands of jobs.
This year, Gov. Dayton submitted a budget that included another income tax increase, this time to 9.85%. Gov. Dayton's budget also included a cigarette tax increase that will hurt retailers and a sales tax increase that would've drained $2,100,000,000 from Minnesotans' wallets, including teenage babysitters and kids mowing lawns. Gov. Dayton reportedly thought that kids weren't paying their fair share .
Now that the deficit projection dropped from $1,100,000,000 in December to $627,000,000 at the end of February, proof that the GOP's budget was working, Gov. Dayton dropped his regressive sales tax increases. (Perhaps someone explained that taxing babysitters was a disastrous political move?) Instead, Gov. Dayton is rumored to be thinking about raising the tax on liquor sales.
Whether that's true or not, it's apparent that Gov. Dayton's budget will need major revisions. Think of it as Gov. Dayton's second mulligan budget . There's little doubt that the DFL, ABM and the Twin Cities media will spin this as Gov. Dayton being flexible and listening to 'the people'.
Don't be fooled with that BS. Myron Frans spent 18 months travelling the state, allegedly talking with small businesses about their concerns with Minnesota's tax policies. This Dayton budget was supposedly the result of all that travel and those consultations.
If that's the case, then only two conclusions can be reached. Either Frans didn't listen to businesses or the entrepreneurs he allegedly met with lied to him about their biggest worries about tax policy. It's unlikely that the entrepreneurs lied to Frans. Likewise, it isn't likely these entrepreneurs told him that cigarette and sales tax increases would strengthen their businesses or Minnesota's economy.
Thus, the only logical conclusion people should draw from Gov. Dayton's tax proposals were predetermined before Frans set out on his listening tour.
That isn't the way to reform Minnesota's tax system. It isn't the way to put a serious budget together.
Tags: President Obama , Federal Budget , Mark Dayton , All-Tax Budget , Tax Increases , Income Tax Surcharge , Income Tax , Cigarette Tax , Sales Tax , Babysitters , Deficits , ABM , DFL , Reforms , Job Creation , Surplus , MNGOP
Posted Monday, March 11, 2013 7:52 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 12-Mar-13 08:51 AM
Legislatures control the purse strings. And individual legislators do their pork trading, and it has been that way all along. Presidents and governors can only suggest, then they can sign or veto. But legislatures call the shots on what is funded and how much. Chief executives court trouble if after the budget legislation is passed and signed into law, they shift money around in too high-handed a way. Money gets shifted, programs get cancelled with reallocations, but still, the legislatures call the shots. With the federal House in disarray - i.e., controlled by Republicans - the worries are far greater than in-state.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 12-Mar-13 12:12 PM
Re: budgetting -- Governors & presidents have put serious budgets together before. These two clowns haven't. It isn't that the legislative branch have changed the budgets. It's that Gov. Dayton did a total rewrite of both of his budgets before a vote was cast in committee. Obama's budgets weren't just unserious. Nobody, Democrat or Republican would vote for them.
I thought high taxes didn't matter
During his 2013 State of the State Address, Gov. Dayton talked about how states with higher tax rates also had higher incomes. During the 2010 campaign, Gov. Dayton said that Minnesotans he knew were better people, that they wouldn't object to higher tax rates. According to this article , buried in the Strib's praise for Gov. Dayton, is information that businesses care about taxes:
Dayton endured battering criticism as business leaders weighed his proposal to tax business services. Several of the state's largest companies said they were exploring options to relocate their headquarters to low-tax states .
It's time for the DFL to admit that high tax rates matter, that Minnesota Miracle was a once-in-a-lifetime thing. The Minnesota Miracle didn't happen because people didn't care that they paid higher taxes. It happened because other states didn't have a well-trained workforce. Once other states put a stronger emphasis on building a well-trained workforce, competitive tax rates became more important in a state's economic viability.
It's time, too, to say what progressives won't admit. With higher taxes comes a higher cost of living. That higher cost of living is the result of artificially inflating the price of products to offset the cost of high taxes.
This isn't good news for the DFL or Gov. Dayton:
More than 800 business leaders are expected at the Capitol Wednesday to press legislators to reject tax increases. David Olson, president of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, said tax hikes would force companies to scale back, not grow. 'I want them to look [legislators] in the eye and say, these are the kind of decisions you are forcing me to make.'
This isn't what the DFL wants to hear. In 2010, the DFL, led by union thugs and ABM's money, intimidated businesses to the sidelines for the election. There's no chance businesses will be intimidated this time. This time, businesses will enthusiastically support pro-growth GOP candidates for the House and governor.
Freshmen DFL legislators from swing districts will face a series of difficult votes. Will they represent their constituents'? Or will they represent Alida Messinger, Mark Dayton and Paul Thissen? If they vote against Messinger, Dayton and Thissen, it's likely Gov. Dayton's budget would fail, weakening him for his re-election bid. That's why it isn't likely they'll let Gov. Dayton's budget fail.
Voting for a tax-filled Dayton budget presents a different set of difficulties for swing district DFL legislators. Specifically, they'll be voting against their constituents while angering small businesses. That's a difficult position to put yourself into but it's what's likely to happen.
Gov. Dayton's budget proposals have been disasters. He's dramatically modified both of his proposals before they ever got committee votes. Then he engineered a state government shutdown in an attempt to force GOP legislators into a tax increase. When the public sided with the GOP, Gov. Dayton caved.
Now he's back proposing higher tax rates again. It's apparent Gov. Dayton won't learn from his biggest mistakes. If he won't learn, the business community will teach him a rather harsh lesson in 2014.
Tags: Tax Increases , Alida Messinger , Mark Dayton , Paul Thissen , Competitiveness , Special Interests , DFL , Entrepreneurs , Job Creation , Minnesota Chamber of Commerce , David Olson , Minnesota Jobs Coalition , Tax Reform , MNGOP , Election 2014
Posted Tuesday, March 12, 2013 12:46 AM
No comments.
Football punditry at its illogical worst
The Pi-Press' Tom Powers is an annoying columnist that I read only when the title of his column sounds interesting. In the aftermath of the Vikings trade of Percy Harvin to the Seattle Seahawks, Powers wrote a column titled Vikings trading Percy Harvin is logical - and wrong . That piqued my curiosity. Here's part of Powers' illogic:
Whether they had no choice but to trade him is up for debate. What we know for sure is that they 1) wouldn't pay him; and 2) couldn't get along with him. So they are sending him to Seattle for draft choices.
Actually, the debate over whether the Vikings should keep Harvin ended when the Strib's Vikings beat writers broke the story that Harvin contemplated walking out on his teammates at midseason last year.
While it would be unfair to call him the Vikings version of J.R. Rider, it isn't unfair to say that he's a temperamental, talented football player. Anyone that's willing to stage a walkout on his teammates while they're making a playoff run is cancer.
In this case, Harvin was a cancer with an expiring contract.
This might be Rick Spielman's best trade yet. First, he essentially told Harvin to not let the door hit him where the Good Lord split him, thereby ridding the Vikings of a talent-filled cancer. Next, he essentially extorted a king's ransom from Pete Carroll and the Seattle Seahawks. Now Harvin is their problem on a short contract.
Here's what the Vikings got in exchange for an oft-injured, though talented, playmaker:
Vikings get: First- and seventh-round selections in next month's draft, plus a third-round pick in 2014. That first-rounder is the 25th overall pick (the Vikings already own the 23rd pick).
Seahawks get: Percy Harvin, the moody but multitalented wide receiver who scored 29 touchdowns in four seasons (54 games) with the Vikings (20 receiving, four rushing, five on kick returns).
This gets better when you put this in context. The Vikings own the 23rd and 25th picks in this year's draft. According to Scout.com , they'll have their own picks in the second, third, fifth and sixth rounds in addition to having 2 picks in the fourth round and 3 picks in the 7th round.
To put that in perspective, here's a little of Spielman's draft history in the later rounds: Spielman paired his second round pick last year with a fourth round pick to trade back into the first round. That pick turned into Harrison Smith. Smith looks like he'll be in the Vikings secondary for the next 8-10 years. The fourth round has been especially productive for Spielman. That's where he drafted USC DE Everson Griffen and Texas DE Brian Robison. It's also where he drafted WR Jarius Wright in last year's draft.
It's best not to overlook the fact that the Vikings used a sixth round pick in last year's draft to pick All Pro placekicker Blair Walsh. All Walsh did as a rookie was make the All Pro team while setting an NFL record by hitting all 10 of his kicks beyond 50 yards.
Now that the Vikings have two first round picks, they can take a run at NY Giants WR Victor Cruz. The Giants tendered him as a first round pick, meaning a team signing Cruz would have to give the Giants a first round pick if the Giants don't match the offer sheet.
If that's what happens, the Vikings will have traded Harvin for Cruz, a Pro Bowl WR, a third round pick in next year's draft and a seventh round pick. That isn't just a good deal. That's close to highway robbery.
If the Vikings can't sign Cruz, they can take a shot at Mike Wallace or Greg Jennnings, then console themselves knowing that they've got the 23rd and 25th picks to strengthen their wide receivers, their defensive line, their secondary or a combination thereof.
According to Scott Wright's mock draft , the Vikings will have their choice of WRs Deandre Hopkins and Keenan Allen, defensive linemen like Sylvester Williams or a corner like Desmond Trufant. Each of these players wouild help the Vikings immediately.
Those are some pretty positive options created by a trade that makes sense but that shouldn't have happened.
Tags: Percy Harvin , Seattle Seahawks , NFL Free Agency , Minnesota Vikings , Greg Jennings , Mike Wallace , Unrestricted Free Agents , Victor Cruz , Restricted Free Agents , NFL Draft , Draft Countdown , Mock Drafts
Posted Tuesday, March 12, 2013 1:47 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 12-Mar-13 08:45 AM
With the absolutely strong and uber-reliable receiving corps already in place Harvin was redundant, and expendable. Yes, no? Whatever the thinking about somebody who did not get along with the coaching staff and team decision making, they kept the coaching staff. Paul Allen is a Microsoft co-founder and hence a filthy rich billionaire who will pay what Harvin/agent want, and this may be the final piece to get them - the Seahawks - to the top of the heap. As long as Russell Wilson stays healthy and the talent in the trenches and defensive backfield stays well above average there, they got a steal. Harvin for possibilities. And never forget Zygi got what he wanted - a stadium without having to pay for it, so really Harvin-stuff is window dressing one way or the other and the stadium play's the real story. Still. Pohlad family serviced as first in line, as locals with their hand out, then the New Jersey guy got his turn -- because Minnesota is so nice.
