March 7-8, 2011
Mar 07 06:21 Mansky Defends Failed Status Quo Mar 07 08:33 Bakk's insulting op-ed Mar 07 15:27 DFL Highlighting DFL Legislature's Failure Mar 07 17:00 Greta Demolishes Wisconsin Senate Democrat Mar 08 10:28 Will the American Enery Act Return? Mar 08 04:34 Obama Administration Sets Another Deficit Record Mar 08 06:16 Wisconsin Senate Minority Leader Isn't In Control Mar 08 07:08 Irrefutable Logic Mar 08 13:22 Manchin, McCaskill = Spineless Triangulators
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mansky Defends Failed Status Quo
Sunday morning, Esme Murphy interviewed Rep. Mary Kiffmeyer, who is the chief author of the House Photo ID legislation and Joe Mansky, the Ramsey County elections manager. I've transcribed Mansky's interview:
ESME: We just heard from Rep. Kiffmeyer, who said the system needs voter ID. How do you feel about that?
JOE MANSKY: I don't think that's the case. If you just look at the numbers and the business of the people under felony sentences voting that's been in the news. But let's take a look at that a minute. Our compliance rate, the rate at which voters comply with our law, is 99.99 percent. In Ramsey County, we had 28 people charged out of 278,000 people voting. I don't think that there is a problem. There will always be a small number of people who won't comply with the law. But again, 99.99 percent is probably not a bad place to be at.
ESME: Polls show that people support voter ID. If we did have voter ID's, would it leave...would it result in fewer people voting?
MANSKY: I think that's absolutely clear. There are a number of people who don't have photo IDs of any kind, about 4 percent of our eligible voters have neither a drivers license of a state ID. And of course, to get those documents, you have to pay the state for a birth certificate or something similar to that so it's very clear that the number of people voting would go down. And remember that the results of our last 2 statewide races, you had one race decided by 312 votes, one race decided by a little less than 8,000 votes so even a small number of votes makes a huge difference.
ESME: Suppporters of those two races, the last governors race and, of course, the Coleman-Franken race, that that's why we need voter ID. That shows that the system isn't working. Do you agree with that?
MANSKY: I don't. Frankly, especially going back to the Coleman-Franken, having been under intense scrutiny, we came through this very well. Now, if there had been anything wrong, and remember that it's not just the candidates that are looking for it, so are we, that's what we're getting paid for. We are actively looking through our voter records to see if people are not complying with the law.
And what alot of people don't understand is that every time you fill out a voter registration card, we compare all the data you give us with the data from the drivers license office or with your social security record so if there's any question about who you are or where you live, we challenge you the next time you come to vote.
Almost immediately, Mansky said something that I questioned. He said that their "compliance rate", the "rate at which voters comply with our law, is 99.99 percent." That's a phony statistic because he doesn't know if the people who signed the login sheets are who they say they are.
Rep. Kiffmeyer is right. For the most part, the problem isn't on the back end. That part is highly scrutinized. The problem is that there are so many problems on the front end. The biggest thing that needs to be cleaned up on the back end is the absentee ballot problem.
KSTP's Mark Albert once did an investigation into that problem. What his investigation found was disturbing:
In the last election Ramsey county, Minneapolis and St. Louis county (the county I did my investigation in) had a combined rejection of only 7 absentee ballots. Carver county officials (a county much smaller than any one of the above named counties) had 188 rejected absentee ballots.
In South Minneapolis, Margaret Dolan told Alvarez that they didn't reject any absentee ballots because they weren't told what the criteria was for accepting or rejecting absentee ballots.
If a photo ID was required before absentee ballots were handed out, part of this problem would've been solved. The other part of the problem is that the training was inadequate. That's something that Photo ID wouldn't have caught.
Without the requisite signatures on the absentee ballot and without the requisite signature on the absentee ballot application, there isn't a method of verifying the identity of the person filling out the ballot.
I'm certain that Mr. Mansky is a dedicated public servant. I'm equally certain that he's wrong about this subject. His trust of reports without questioning their validity is most disturbing.
There was a time when we could accept the premise that people were honest, trustworthy people. That time has passed. With ACORN committing voter registration fraud, with ACT attempting to commit voter fraud through the vouching system, people have the right to question election integrity.
It's worth noting that Minnesota led the nation in voter turnout during Rep. Kiffmeyer's time as Secretary of State but that it's tumbled a few spots during the Ritchie administration. It's also worth noting that Rep. Kiffmeyer focused alot of attention on election integrity and that Mr. Ritchie has focused almost exclusively on ease of casting a ballot.
In his quest for making voting easy, Mr. Ritchie cast aside the need for election integrity. That's clearly displayed in his interview with Mr. Alvarez. Alvarez showed him some envelopes that contained absentee ballots. None of the envelopes had signatures on them. Some were accepted, others were rejected.
All should've been rejected without hesitation.
Mr. Ritchie's reaction? He told Mr. Alvarez that he should've told him to bring his reading glasses if he'd "planned to ambush" Mr. Ritchie "like that."
Ambushed? By asking why there wasn't uniformity in compliance to the law? Mr. Ritchie didn't like getting questioned. There was no ambush. There was just a reporter doing his job.
Mr. Mansky needs to stop defending the status quo. He needs to think through the questions that citizens have raised. If he did, I'd bet he wouldn't defend the failed status quo this vigorously.
Originally posted Monday, March 7, 2011, revised 13-Feb 9:15 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Mar-11 09:04 AM
It's easy not to see a problem if you don't ever look for it. I'm fairly certain that there were at least 100,000 invalid votes cast in the last election. I defy Mr. Mansky to prove otherwise. With Photo ID, he could.
Bakk's insulting op-ed
The first thought that comes to mind in reading Sen. Bakk's op-ed is that it's alot like the content from last Thursday's diatribe : full of DFL chanting points and light on logic. Here's a prime example of the DFL talking points:
The letter from their party boss prompted all 37 members of the Republican Senate caucus to send Dayton a "no tax" pledge, a move that left them little room to compromise from their promised all-cuts budget proposal.
First, it's obvious that the DFL will repeatedly use the chanting point of all-cuts budget the rest of this session. They'll do this without regard for the truth. Let me state this clearly:
Anytime Sen. Bakk or Rep. Thissen or Gov. Dayton uses this phrase, they're lying through their teeth and they know it. This is unacceptable behavior and I won't tolerate their intellectual dishonesty a minute longer.
The GOP budget is what a balanced approach really is. One part of the GOP's plan focuses on growing Minnesota's economy. Another part of the GOP's plan reforms government by streamlining permitting, taking advantage of talented professionals by giving them a pathway into classrooms while putting in place a better system for MinnesotaCare.
Another part of the GOP's plan is to actually set sensible spending priorities, something that's a foreign concept to the DFL. Finally, after doing all that, the GOP realizes that there will be a need for some difficult cuts.
Notice the order, though. They start with putting in place policies that grow the economy. Next, they identify ways of delivering the same vital services at a cheaper price. After that, they establish their final spending priorities. Finally, after all that, they get to cutting budgets.
The Dayton/Bakk/Thissen budget starts with tax increases, proceeds to spending increases (LGA, K-12), then cuts things like the reimbursement rates for long-term care facilities. If that's the budget that Sen. Bakk wants to defend, he hasn't shown any enthusiasm for supporting it thus far.
In fact, his support, like Rep. Thissen's support, has essentially been nonexistent. In fact, the Dayton budget is an orphan that the DFL doesn't want to adopt.
Here's another of the tried-and-true DFL talking points:
Without their own proposal to defend, Republicans' attacks have rung hollow. They've chastised the governor for raising income taxes on top earners, ignoring the fact that their own budget solution would likely include dramatic property tax increases on middle-class families.
Actually that paragraph contains 3 DFL chanting points: all-cuts budget, their budget isn't out yet & "dramatic property tax increases."
First, when the DFL was in the majority, they never set budget targets and never produced a budget before April. The Republicans' budget will be out within the next 2 weeks, possibly less. That will eliminate one DFL chanting point.
Next, the notion that state budgets automatically, and dramatically, increases property taxes is provably false. Cities like St. Cloud and Willmar prove that chanting point false. Spending decisions made by mayors and city councils drive up property taxes.
If you want to argue that unfunded mandates from the state or federal governments, that's something I'll agree with. Unfunded and underfunded mandates should be eliminated so mayors and city councils have full control over their budgets.
It's time for Republican leaders to set aside their campaign rhetoric and get to work putting their all-cuts budget on the table. Minnesotans expect us to balance the state's budget, and to do so without an expensive special session or, even worse, a government shutdown.
If I could turn Sen. Bakk's rhetoric into energy for my home, I wouldn't have had a utility bill this winter. His intentional mischaracterization of the GOP budget indicates that Sen. Bakk isn't a man of integrity. He certainly isn't a statesman. He's more party hack who'll say anything that the focus groups tell him is popular than anything else.
The GOP will put together a balanced budget that doesn't raise people's taxes but funds Minnesota's priorities. If Gov. Dayton wants to veto a balanced budget that funds Minnesota's priorities, that's his right as governor. If Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen want to sustain that veto and throw us into a special session, that's their right, too.
They should be aware, though, that voters will have a final say in 2012. If Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen want their people campaigning on the notion that Minnesotans aren't taxed enough and that we don't spend enough, that's their right.
It just isn't a bright decision on their behalf. Then again, I didn't expect alot from this bunch. Thus far, the DFL hasn't let me down in that respect.
Posted Monday, March 7, 2011 8:33 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Quigley at 07-Mar-11 01:06 PM
Captain Caveman er I mean Sen. Bakk is a dope who doesn't seem to remember his own parties failure to produce a budget until the 23 hour of the last day. Worse yet is the MSM refuses to remind him of that failure. The DFL is crying like babies while the adults fix the mess they put us in.
Will the American Enery Act Return?
During the days of $4/gallon gas in the summer of 2008, then-Speaker Pelosi tried faking out the American people with a series of 'drilling bills' that really weren't about expanding drilling. The bills were really about opening a tiny fraction of the OCS while putting the rest of the OCS offlimits forever.
At the height of the high gas prices, House Republicans put together an all-of-the-above energy plan. They named it the American Energy Act . It didn't take long before it was getting great ratings with Main Street America. Here's what Rep. Thad McCotter wrote about it then:
Leaving by example, Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi jetted off on her summer vacation under the assumption energy squeezed Americans would throng to buy her book, Know Your Power.
But Americans weren't buying it literally.
Economically maimed by the pain at the pump, citizens demanded vacationing Speaker Pelosi and the Democrats get back to work and pass an 'all of the above' energy bill to lower gas prices.
Unmoved by these working families' sufferings, Speaker Pelosi conjured up another so-called 'energy proposal' one that is already acclaimed by none other than the anti-energy zealots at the Sierra Club. Yes, this is the same Sierra Club that pronounced: 'We're better off without cheap gas.'
Unfortunately, the Sierra Club's collective 'we' included us.
Not surprisingly, then, the Speaker's latest lethargy proposal apes other energy schemes she's brought to the House floor without amendment and under a super-majority vote requirement. Desperate to guarantee these bills' defeats and blame Republicans, the Speaker orchestrated the nauseating spectacle of 'Don't Care' Democrats, who a few months ago wouldn't vote to drill a tooth, now hugging derricks instead of trees.
This time, though, with a month of vacation under her Beltway, Pelosi's ploy has a new wrinkle. In the media she is floating specious reasons why Republicans will vote against her radical cornucopia of energy insecurity.
What she still fails to grasp, as with all her energy scams, is that the public will not be misled.
Americans understand House Republicans' bi-partisan 'all of the above' energy plan provides maximum American energy and, so doing, ensures lower gas prices and energy security.
While the American Energy Act called for a robust increase in drilling for domestic oil, it truly took an all-of-the-above approach. Also included in the AEA was a plan for investing in energy-saving technologies, a heightened awareness for the need for conservation and alternative energies.
With gas prices skyrocketing, I recently posed a question to a senior member of the House Republican Conference if we'd see a return of the AEA. This senior member assured me that the AEA's return was inevitable.
This is reassuring for a variety of reasons. First, we can't continue to rely on foreign sources of oil. Shipping $400,000,000,000 a year to Middle Eastern governments is foolish and counterproductive.
Second, drilling on the OCS and on the Bakken will create possibly a million great paying jobs at a time when our unemployment is unacceptably high. Creating a million jobs in the next year would shrink the deficit to almost sane levels almost instantly.
Third, a significant investment by private companies into profit-producing technologies that would save energy would shrink demand for energy products while creating new manufacturing opportunities.
Fourth, the Republicans' all-of-the-above plan would significantly shrink our dependance on foreign energy sources, which would strengthen the U.S. from a national security standpoint.
Fifth, getting the manufacturing sector of our economy growing is what the economy desperately needs. Manufacturing state-of-the-art conservation products would also automatically increase R & D budgets.
The bad news is that militant environmentalist organizations like the Sierra Club would lobby Senate Democrats hard to defeat the bill or filibuster it to death. There's a silver lining to that, though. A vote to continue a filibuster would be seen as a vote for higher gas prices.
With 23 Democrats up for re-election, rest assured that that type of vote would put most of them on a hot seat.
The other thing it does is it forces President Obama to take a position on increasing energy production. If he doesn't pressure the Democratic Senate to pass the AEA ASAP, then Republicans will argue that he did nothing while gas and grocery prices skyrocketed.
Good luck selling that in 2012.
When the AEA is submitted, it's important that House Republicans pass the AEA ASAP. I suspect that it would get alot of Democrat support, especially in states like Oklahoma, Colorado, Louisiana and Virginia. If there's substantial bipartisan support in the House, which is likely, then Senate Democrats will have little political cover in not approving the legislation.
It would put President Obama in a most precarious electoral position, too.
For all these reasons, I hope the AEA will be submitted soon and quickly enacted.
Posted Tuesday, March 8, 2011 10:28 AM
No comments.
DFL Highlighting DFL Legislature's Failure
I didn't think I'd say this but the DFL isn't as bright as I thought. I'm basing that opinion on the DFL's highlighting the failures of the Pogemiller/Kelliher legislature . The Minnesota DFL retweeted this message:
RT @epmurphy: Former Gov. left @GovMarkDayton a mess.
Actually, the DFL legislature produced one balanced budget that the media treated like a joke. When the media treats a DFL budget like it's a joke, you know it's noteworthy.
Not only did the DFL retweet this message but they attached a new button that the GOP is circulating:
The DFL hasn't presented a serious budget in at least 6 years, possibly longer. In 2007, when they took over the House, there was a $2,163,000,000 surplus. By the time the 2008 election rolled around, that surplus had essentially disappeared.
In September, 2007, Rep. Steve Gottwalt, Rep. Larry Haws and Sen. Tarryl Clark participated in the St. Cloud League of Women Voters Education Forum, which I wrote about in this post . The most stunning part of that event was this exchange:
Steve Gottwalt had just said that we needed to do a better job prioritizing education spending, prompting Larry Haws to say 'Maybe we do need to prioritize."
This is instructive for multiple reasons. First, the situation Minnesota was faced with was that of a significant surplus and a slowing economy. That's the worst combination imaginable if you aren't paying attention.
With that big a surplus, it isn't difficult to get complacent. That's obviously what happened with Rep. Haws.
Rep. Gottwalt had talked about the slowing economy and had urged restraint during the previous spring's budget negotiations. He wasn't alarmist. He was just exercising justified caution.
By the time 2009 rolled around, Minnesota faced "a $6.4 billion deficit", a fact Rep. Buesgens reminded people of almost daily. Despite the reminders, the DFL submitted one balanced budget the entire session. That budget came with less than 10 minutes left in the session.
Two months into the biennium, the budget was in deficit. That's how big a joke the DFL's 2009 budget was. In a $33,000,000,000 budget, MMB projected a surplus at the end of the biennium of less than $35,000.
That the DFL is now accusing Gov. Pawlenty of ruining the state is utterly laughable. Let's remember Cy Thao's infamous quote, which I broke in this post :
"When you win, you get to keep your money. When we win, we take your money."
Does that sound like a legislator who views himself as the taxpayers' watchdog? Or does it sound like someone who's intent on spending like a drunken sailor?
That the DFL has the audacity to be that reckless with spending is terrifying enough. That they'd then accuse Gov. Pawlenty of ruining the state is proof that the DFL isn't in touch with reality.
Thank God Minnesota had the sense to elect GOP majorities in the House and Senate to be the taxpayers' clean-up crew.
Posted Monday, March 7, 2011 3:27 PM
No comments.
Greta Demolishes Wisconsin Senate Democrat
I've said for a VERY LONG TIME that the last thing thinking people should look forward to is debating Greta van Susteren or Megyn Kelly. In the realm of debate, they're playing grand masters chess while their guests are often playing tiddly-winks. That's the case in this interview Greta conducted with Lena Taylor , one of the Fleebagger 14. Here's where Greta demolishes Sen. Taylor's arguments:
VAN SUSTEREN: OK, here's the problem, is that, OK, if I accept your argument that you had to leave because it was being rammed down your throat and the citizens', that has now passed. You've had plenty of time to look at it, and so have the citizens. In fact, we outside of the state of Wisconsin know an awful lot about the bill, more about this bill than any other bill I think that's pending in any state legislature. So you've lost that argument. Now you're got the argument that your job is to vote...
TAYLOR: Actually, not...
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, let me finish. You've lost the argument...
TAYLOR: Actually...
(CROSSTALK)
TAYLOR: I was just going to say not lost it.
VAN SUSTEREN: Well, I mean, it's over. The time has run. You've had a chance to look at it. Now the second thing is say learn about the governor's agenda. He won in November! There's just, you know, there's no doubt about it! You lost that! And your job is to vote! So I don't...I don't know how you justify being gone now, except for the fact you don't like the bill! And that's just a lousy argument at this point!
Greta is right. Taylor is recycling talking points at this point. This isn't a debate. It's Greta debating, Taylor reciting talking points. If there's anything that's annoying to John and Jane Q. Public, it's when a person is talking talking points when they're demanding real answers to real questions.
Here's where Greta finishes Taylor off:
VAN SUSTEREN: I think you might be one of the few that's surprised by his agenda. When I was following the election, I always follow these elections because I love Wisconsin. I followed this election. I'm not surprised by his agenda, so I find it a little bit hard that you're surprised when he's elected, what his agenda was. I think it was pretty plain right from the get-go. If you say...
TAYLOR: I don't...
VAN SUSTEREN: And in terms of campaign, let me just tell you, in terms of the campaign, I have yet to hear one candidate for office who doesn't say, I'm going to Washington and I'm going to handle waste and fraud. They get here to Washington, they do none of that! So I mean, it's, like, I'm a little bit perplexed, you know, as to why, you know, why you're using that now as a reason not to go back because you were elected to do your job, which was to vote!
At that point, Sen. Taylor doesn't have a leg to stand on. She's dead in the water. Get out the butter because she's toast. Whichever cliche or metaphor you prefer, go for it. Either way, it's over.
The thing that helped Republicans win in 2010 was their clear, appealing message. Whether we're talking Wisconsin, Minnesota, Ohio or Michigan, the message was clear: we're going to clean up the messes of the past 4-6 years by cutting spending, living within our means and giving municipalities, school boards, etc., the tools they need to get their budgets straightened out.
That's precisely what Scott Walker is doing.
Anyone that's surprised at what he's doing is surprised only because he's doing what he promised he'd do. His agenda is the worst-kept secret of the Midwest.
Posted Monday, March 7, 2011 5:00 PM
No comments.
Obama Administration Sets Another Deficit Record
Americans are getting tired of hearing about record deficits. That's why it isn't likely they'll like this news :
The federal government posted its largest monthly deficit in history in February at $223 billion, according to preliminary numbers the Congressional Budget Office released Monday morning.
That figure tops last February's record of $220.9 billion, and marks the 29th straight month the government has run in the red, a modern record. The last time the federal government posted even a monthly surplus was September 2008, just before the financial collapse.
The last time Republicans controlled the House, Senate and the House, the deficit for the entire year was $161,000,000,000. At the time, people thought Republicans were spending too much.
With the Obama administration struggling to find $10,000,000,000 to cut from FY2011's budget, combined with their owning all of the biggest deficits records, whether it's monthly or annual, it's apparent that this administration is the worst administration in terms of the economy.
It'll take a generation to undo all the damage that this administration has caused. We literally can't afford another 4 years of the Obama administration.
UPDATE: Ed has a great perspective on the monthly deficit record .
Posted Tuesday, March 8, 2011 4:40 AM
No comments.
Wisconsin Senate Minority Leader Isn't In Control
If there's anything that's apparent in the video in this post , it's that State Sen. Miller, the Minority Leader, isn't in control of his caucus. Here's a transcript of the video:
GOV. WALKER: It would be nice if we could say today that we have an agreement with the 14 state senators but instead we have this letter from Senate Minority Leader Miller saying that "I would ask you or your authorized representative would agree to meet with us near the Illinois-Wisconsin border.
Now it's interesting. It's addressed to myself and Sen. Fitzgerald and we're both going to touch on this but we need to walk through why this letter is so ridiculous. I think it's important because, for the past several weeks, Sen. Fitzgerald and my administration have been reaching out to reasonable senators, many of whom are very interested and willing to come back to the state of Wisconsin. And time and time again, the person standing in the way of making that possible is Sen. Miller.
Even as late as this weekend, yesterday, I authorized two members of my administration to travel to South Beloit to travel across state lines to do exactly what Sen. Miller is asking for in this letter to be done in the future, we did yesterday. We did this.
Again, we didn't put out a letter. We actually did this. We didn't put out a press release because we're actually serious about getting this done for the people of Wisconsin. People talk about negotiate. We've been doing that for days.
Time and time again, we think we have progress, where we've heard "we think we're at a point where we can come back in a day, the day comes and goes. I think people give us a question about why that is and the answer always seems to be that Sen. Miller seems more intent on listening to his union bosses in Washington than to his own caucus.
This is a stunning revelation. Thus far, Democrats have portrayed Gov. Walker as being totally unwilling to negotiate with them. We now know that that isn't accurate, that it's the Democrats' spin.
What I really like about Gov. Walker is that he didn't let the Democrats' spin continue forever. He reached a tipping point, at which time he exposed the Democrats' spin. He didn't let Sen. Miller's letter, which was meant to dominate Monday's news cycle be the news.
Instead, he set the record straight, thus making his administration's ongoing negotiations with "reasonable Democrats" the news. This informs the public that a group of less-than-reasonable Democrats control their caucus.
Still, the question must be asked why these supposedly reasonable Democrats haven't put more pressure on Sen. Miller to return home. Is it that they're willing to put party allegiance ahead of their official responsibilities?
There are alot of things that Wisconsin state laws already address that don't need to be negotiated each time a contract is negotiated. This article in the American Spectator does a great job outlining them.
The people spoke with a clear, emphatic voice last November. Now Senate Democrats are saying that they're willing to ignore November's election results. That can't happen without them paying a price for their obstinance.
Posted Tuesday, March 8, 2011 6:16 AM
No comments.
Irrefutable Logic
If you take logic seriously, then you need to take this masterful piece of logic most seriously:
There's no arguing with logic this irrefutable.
Posted Tuesday, March 8, 2011 7:08 AM
No comments.
Manchin, McCaskill = Spineless Triangulators
When Joe Manchin's campaign produced the Cap And Tax commercial, it provided him with enough political cover to get elected. Manchin's triangulating again in an attempt to make himself sound reasonable. Unfortunately for him, he's equivocating too much:
The Democratic bill includes $6.5 billion in cuts and 'utterly ignores our fiscal reality; our nation is badly in debt and spending at absolutely unsustainable and out-of-control levels,' he says. 'We must turn our financial ship around, but the Senate proposal continues to sail forward as if there's no storm on the horizon.'
But Republicans' spending plan for the rest of the year is 'an even more flawed measure,' he says. The GOP bill 'blindly hacks the budget with no sense of our priorities or of our values as a country.'
The both-sides-are-wrong approach doesn't work. It's difficult to say that Republicans shouldn't be cutting indiscriminately when discretionary spending skyrocketed thanks to the stimulus and the omnibus spending bill.
It didn't just increase a few of the Democrats' pet projects. Basically, those 2 bills paid for everything on the Democrats' wish list with a little Christmas bonus attached besides.
The notion that cutting education spending by a few billion dollars is going to hurt education is difficult to sell when the education budget has doubled since President Obama took office. Getting out a scalpel to cut spending now is foolish under these circumstances. It's time for a meat clever because there's alot of fat to cut.
What Manchin is essentially proposing is cutting an amount somewhere between the Republicans' $61,000,000,000 and the Democrats' $6,500,000,000 at a time when the starting point should be Rand Paul's or Paul Ryan's figure. Anything less is just an attempt to look fiscally responsible in time for his re-election bid in 2012. The same could be said about Claire McCaskill:
In language not nearly as bold as Manchin's, McCaskill, who also faces a tough reelection battle in 2012, said Monday she was unsure of whether she'd vote for her party's bill.
'I feel the cuts are not large enough, but there are some cuts, so I don't know whether I'll be for it or against it,' she said. 'But I know it doesn't go as far as we need to go.'
Asked whether she's looking for a middle option between the Republican and Democratic plans, McCaskill quipped: 'I'm the Mama Bear,' a reference to the 'Three Bears' children's story.
In other words, she's more worried about sounding reasonable than she's worried about doing what's needed to stop the reckless spending, all of which she's voted for.
She's trying to sound centrist after voting for the stimulus twice, O'Care twice and the omnibus spending bill. She's also trying to hide the fact that she isn't showing any leadership on the issue. She isn't satisfied but she isn't proposing her own set of cuts.
Sen. McCaskill isn't a leader. She's a preener, a laughingstock. If she were serious about getting spending under control, she would've proposed a set of real spending cuts. She wouldn't just say the equivalent of 'a pox on both their houses.'
The three pieces of legislation that Sen. McCaskill voted for piled hundreds of billions of dollars onto the national debt and exploded the annual deficits. The Obama administration has rung up the 3 biggest annual deficits in U.S. history and the 2 biggest monthly deficits in U.S. history.
As astonishing as that is, it's worth highlighting the fact that the 2 biggest monthly deficits in U.S. history are both bigger than the final annual deficit when Republicans held majorities in the House and Senate and President Bush was still in the White House.
The final Bush/McConnell/Hastert deficit was $161,000,000,000. The biggest Obama/Reid/Pelosi monthly deficits were $223,000,000,000 and $220,900,000,000. Those are the direct result of Sen. McCaskill's votes.
The Democrats' unseriousness about spending cuts is illustrated perfectly in this quote:
'I'm willing to see more deficit reduction, but not out of domestic discretionary spending. I think we've pushed this to the limit,' Majority Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois, the No. 2 Democrat in the Senate, said during an appearance on 'Fox News Sunday.'
Durbin is serious. he thinks that cutting $6,500,000,000 out of a $3,700,000,000,000 budget is stretching it to the max.
Voters need to not just look at the votes of individual senators. They need to put their votes into the context of doing what the leadership tells them to do AND in understanding the leadership's agenda.
Sen. Manchin is a spineless triangulator at a time when we need a leader. Sen. McCaskill is spineless, too, but she's the type that won't fight against leadership because she's a party-first type of politician.
We've got too many of those types already. It's time to clear the Senate of those spineless triangulators.
Posted Tuesday, March 8, 2011 1:22 PM
No comments.
