March 8-11, 2015
Mar 08 00:29 Let's shut down the EPA Mar 08 01:21 Minnesota's transportation hustle Mar 08 09:47 DFL Culture of Corruption Mar 08 20:07 Hillary Rodham-Orwell? Mar 10 03:33 Playing hardball with hardliners Mar 10 10:13 Egypt, Jordan vs. Tehran? Mar 11 05:54 Real MnSCU reform? Mar 11 09:15 Hillary's twisted logic Mar 11 14:07 The AP vs. the State Department
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Let's shut down the EPA
When I say 'let's shut down the EPA', I'm partially kidding. Honestly, I'm in favor of stripping much of the EPA's authority away from them. After reading this , I've reached the conclusion that it's time to pick a fight. Check this out:
"Let me ask you this," said Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-AL, inquired of McCarthy. "There was an article from Mr. (Bjorn) Lomborg ... from the Copenhagen Institute. He says, along with Dr. (Roger) Pielke from Colorado, that we've had fewer droughts in recent years. Do you dispute that?" The seemingly clueless McCarthy pathetically responded that she didn't "know in what context he's making statements like that."
It's pretty straightforward stuff. Sen. Sessions simply asked Ms. McCarthy whether she believed simple mathematical statements. Ms. McCarthy's reply was unresponsive. She either was stumped or she didn't want to answer honestly.
Sessions also asked McCarthy if we've had more or fewer hurricanes in the last decade. It was another question she said she couldn't answer because "it's a very complicated issue." Well, no, not unless basic math is a complicated issue. Sessions noted that we have in fact gone nearly a decade without a Category 3 storm or higher making landfall in the U.S.
The last hurricane to hit America as a Category 3 or higher was Wilma, which struck Florida on Oct. 24, 2005. Superstorm Sandy had wind speeds barely reaching Category 1 status when it slammed into New Jersey in 2012 and wreaked havoc.
Let's be clear. This isn't complicated. The answers to these questions are binary, not multiple choice. That's what happens when people are asked questions that have verifiable, objective answers.
Sessions inquired of the global temperatures that have virtually flatlined for two decades:
"Would you acknowledge that over the last 18 years, that the increase in temperatures has been very little, matter of fact 90% below most of the environmental models that showed how fast temperature would increase?" McCarthy replied that she didn't know "what the models actually are predicting that you are referring to."
I don't think Ms. McCarthy is stupid. I think she's secretive. It's clear that she didn't expect to have to answer any substantive questions at this hearing.
The EPA is a government agency run by activists who think imposing stringent regulations that cripple blue collar jobs is a step in the right direction. The EPA, the Endangered Species Act and the Clean Water Act need a major revamping.
Posted Sunday, March 8, 2015 12:29 AM
No comments.
Minnesota's transportation hustle
The DFL's full court press for "transportation" is nothing more than the DFL's attempt to increase spending on transit projects. There's no question whether the DFL wants another middle class tax increase. This article highlights how the DFL's transportation activists push for transit funding:
Someone asked why the draft update of the state's rail plan seems to put extending Northstar commuter rail to St. Cloud on the back burner behind other rail corridors that wouldn't have as high of ridership. Zelle said that while Dayton supports Northstar and thinks it should have been built to St. Cloud in the first place, he is skeptical there will be any federal funding for intercity rail projects.
That's relatively mild compared with this in-your-face LTE about the 'need' to expand Northstar:
Now is the time to push again for Northstar for the following reasons:
- The economy is on the upswing.
- We have a new member of Congress, Tom Emmer.
- The transportation bill is up for renewal this spring in the U.S. Congress.
- The Homeland Security bill is up for discussion.
- Minnesota has a budget surplus of a billion or more dollars.
- The sequestration law and review will likely increase defense spending, i.e. troop transportation.
- Northstar creates economic development, especially housing.
I believe Northstar should come to St. Cloud and go beyond, heading north to Little Falls, Camp Ripley and end at Brainerd - Camp Ripley because of military needs and Homeland Security issues and Brainerd as an entry point for the lake and resort industries.
The Brainerd area could see the development of a privately owned shuttle service to get visitors and lake residents off the Northstar on Friday afternoons and evenings. What a blessing to the environment if we could reduce the thousands of automobiles on U.S. Highway 10, Minnesota Highway 25 and on Interstate Highway 94 on Friday and Sunday afternoons.Northstar isn't what's needed. In fact, it's a hindrance, not a benefit. What's needed is money to fix Minnesota's roads and bridges. That means cutting funding for things like Northstar and the Southwest Light Rail project. Those projects won't help goods get to markets. They'll help implement the Met Council's goal of a transit-driven state transportation system.
Several years ago, before Northstar came to Big Lake, we had a grassroots group called "All Aboard" that lobbied for Northstar at the Minnesota Legislature. "All Aboard" had great community support including the veterans hospital; St. Cloud Hospital; colleges and universities including St. Cloud State University, St. John's University and the College of St. Benedict; trades and labor; chambers of commerce; and other local businesses.
Now, with the establishment of the "Greater St. Cloud Community Priorities" we have the broad support to get the ball rolling or the "train rolling."
The thought that there's a groundswell of support for Northstar is BS. There's a handful of go-along-to-get-along people who support expanding Northstar. Finding a transit activist in Brainerd, Little Falls or Rice is virtually impossible. Finding a dozen Northstar activists in St. Cloud is difficult at best.
Posted Sunday, March 8, 2015 1:21 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 08-Mar-15 12:35 PM
Gary:
Forgive me for sounding like a broken record, but why can't anybody ask these people "Hey while mass transit might be important roads are more important. So why don't you put on hold for one year all the mass transit projects so we can focus on roads?"
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 08-Mar-15 12:58 PM
Shut down the North Star line and scrap the locomotives for whatever you can get for them. Stick that money along with all the future money that the North Star would have lost, into roads and bridges. Mass transit of any kind in MN except for buses is a waste of money, especially gas tax money that should not be spent on mass transit projects in the first place.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 08-Mar-15 02:13 PM
Actually, Chad, gas taxes can only be used on roads & bridges. Transit is paid for by the 7-county metro sales tax, by wheelage fees & other dedicated funds.
As for Northstar, I'm with you 100%. It's worthless & it shouldn't be funded anymore.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 09-Mar-15 05:07 AM
Gas tax money at the federal level is used to fund mass transit projects nation wide. It is also used to pave pathways and other crap not related to roads and bridges.
Gas taxes at the state level also pay for parts of our rest stops, MnDOT maintenance buildings and the like. They can argue those are road related but private business can handle the rest stops and there can be a line item in the budget for MnDOT like there is for other expenditures.
Politicians need to stop spending money obtained from fuel taxes, vehicle taxes, wheelage taxes, etc. on anything non road and bridge building and maintenance related. Let those who use mass transit pay for it like drivers pay for the roads.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 09-Mar-15 07:34 AM
Chad, I'm talking about at the state level.
DFL Culture of Corruption
Senate Minority Leader David Hann's op-ed highlights the DFL's culture of corruption and incestuousness. First, there's this pattern of DFL corruption:
- The DFL Senate campaign committee was fined $100,000 last year for cheating with 13 DFL Senate candidates during the 2012 election.
- The DFL Legislature, with Dayton's signature, spent $90 million on an unnecessary new office building, bypassing the normal process and allowing no public hearings.
- DFL Sens. Jeff Hayden and Bobby Joe Champion were accused of bullying the Minneapolis school board into funding a program run by their friends and associates. Hayden is also the subject of an ongoing ethics complaint that he received free trips and other inappropriate perks while serving as a board member for Community Action of Minneapolis, a government-funded nonprofit.
- DFL Sen. David Tomassoni attempted to take a job as a lobbyist for the Iron Range city association, even though he is a sitting senator representing part of the Iron Range.
- The Iron Range Resources and Rehabilitation Board (IRRRB) was exposed for underwriting a business whose main client was Dollars for Democrats, an organization set up to help Democratic politicians win elections.
- Department of Commerce Commissioner Mike Rothman refused to investigate the misuse of public funds at Community Action of Minneapolis because of 'political' concerns surrounding the executive director of the organization and his financial support for Dayton. By the way, Rothman used to be the treasurer of the DFL Party.
Apparently, there's no definition for conflict-of-interest in the DFL's dictionaries. Then there's the incestuous nature of the Dayton administration:
Dayton recently awarded his commissioners salary increases as large as $30,000 each. He gave the chair of the Met Council an $86,000 increase - and the beneficiary just happens to be married to the governor's chief of staff. One of Dayton's deputy chiefs is married to a top official at Education Minnesota, the teachers union. Another Dayton staffer is married to the chair of the DFL Party.
Apparently, the DFL in Minnesota doesn't think government of, by and for the people is worthwhile. It's clear from the Dayton administration's incestuousness that the DFL believes in government of, by and for their special interest allies. Why should Minnesotans living in Lindstrom, Little Falls and Litchfield think that the Dayton administration's budget prioritizes their needs. Minnesotans living in Wadena, Willmar and Winona shouldn't think that the Dayton-DFL budget puts a priority on their needs.
There's plenty of proof that there's plenty of plundering happening in St. Paul and Minneapolis. With the exception of David Tomassoni, all the other corrupt DFLers are from the Twin Cities. That's because they're the metrocentric party of corruption.
Posted Sunday, March 8, 2015 9:47 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 09-Mar-15 06:19 PM
Which is the greater surprise, that a Republican leader actually said the C(orruption) word, or that the Star Tribune printed it?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Mar-15 03:34 AM
It's a tie.
Hillary Rodham-Orwell?
George Will's commentary sliced through Lanny Davis's Orwellian spin:
Here's part of Will's exchange with Chris Wallace:
CHRIS WALLACE: How big a deal is this? And given the fact that we're in March of 2015, how big a deal is this when we're talking about an election that isn't until November of 2016?
GEORGE WILL: It's big because it is axiomatic that the worst political scandals are those that reinforce a pre-existing negative perception, which Kim [Strassel] has documented at length. The Clintons come trailing clouds of entitlement and concealment and legalistic, jesuitical reasonings, the kind of people who could find a loophole in a stop sign. Her obvious motive was to conceal. You conceal in order to control, and that's what makes this literally, strictly speaking, Orwellian. In George Orwell's novel "1984," Oceania's regime, the totalitarian regime, had an axiom: 'He who controls the past controls the future, and he who controls the present controls the past.' This is a way of controlling what we will know about the history of our country, and it is deeply sinister.
How much am I bid for another " It all depends on what the meaning of is is "?
Seriously, this begs the question of whether we'd like another 8 years of the Clintons and their endless supply of defenders, aka Clintonistas, appearing nightly on our news programs. Do we want another 8 years of a president who thinks that this nation's laws don't apply to her?
There's no questioning the fact that Hillary doesn't think the rules apply to her. Defenders like Lanny Davis will insist that the Clintons haven't broken any laws. That's probably true. It's also irrelevant. The reason why people hate Washington, DC is because Washington writes the rules that we have to live by. Then it carves out the exceptions that exempt themselves from the laws they've forced us into obeying.
It shouldn't be up to Hillary Clinton to determine which emails she turns over. It should be required that all communications, both hardcopy and electronic, be kept by the national archivist. Using a private email account should be dramatically restricted and frequently monitored. Further, there should be monthly audits of all political appointees' email accounts. Finally, there should be stiff fines and/or jail times for political appointees who don't comply with the new law.
Finally, it's time for the American people to reject Hillary Clinton as the next president. She's disgustingly dishonest, opposed to transparency and utterly lacking in accomplishments while in office. To paraphrase Carly Fiorina, flying is an activity, not an accomplishment.
Originally posted Sunday, March 8, 2015, revised 09-Mar 11:56 AM
No comments.
Playing hardball with hardliners
President Obama is complaining about the Senate Republicans sending a letter to Iran's mullahs . Like the petty man he is, he threw in a dig at Republicans while criticizing them.
President Obama assailed 47 Republican senators Monday for writing an open letter to the leaders of Iran while the country is in the middle of nuclear negotiations with the United States and allied nations, arguing the communication made 'common cause with the hardliners in Iran.'
The letter , released publicly Monday, advised Iran's leaders that any pact negotiated by the Obama administration and signed by Iran, and not ratified by Congress, could be voided by future presidents or modified by future Congresses. It was drafted as a lesson in the workings of the Constitution, and framed as a rebuke to the president's executive authority.
The mullahs aren't negotiating with this administration. They're toying with this administration. Any treaty negotiated with the mullahs won't be worth the parchment it'll be written on. It certainly won't be worth ratifying.
And yes, it's a treaty.
Speaking in the Oval Office, Obama said the American people would assess the merits of any finalized agreement with Iran. If a deal is reached, 'I'm confident we'll be able to implement it,' he added. 'I think it's somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran. It's an unusual coalition,' the president observed.
First, we don't need to wait until the details of the treaty are revealed to "assess the merits" of the proposed treaty. We shouldn't negotiate with terrorist-sponsoring nations like Iran until they stop sponsoring terrorists. Period. Negotiating with them gives them legitimacy. That's the last thing we should do.
Next, blowing up a bad deal with some of the nastiest people on earth isn't making common cause with them. As usual, President Obama has things bassackwards. His negotiating a treaty with them while pushing Israel under the bus is making common cause with the terrorists. That's the "unusual coalition."
Egypt, Jordan and Saudi Arabia have signaled to Israel that working together to take out Iran's nuclear weapons is acceptable. Meanwhile, President Obama has continued his policy of appeasement towards Iran. While Republican senators align themselves with Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sissi, President Obama continues his policy of appeasement with Iran's mullahs.
That's "an unusual coalition."
Watching this video will show that el-Sissi is more pro-traditional American than President Obama:
Thankfully, these 47 Republicans are playing hardball with the hardliners in Tehran.
Posted Tuesday, March 10, 2015 3:33 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 10-Mar-15 09:27 AM
Well, as Bryon York pointed out Obama brought this on himself because he keeps trying to ignore Congress and not respect their constitutional powers. If this is what it takes to get the attention of a constitutional scholar who is acting like a King instead of a President, I'm for it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Egypt, Jordan vs. Tehran?
When US. Secretary of State John Kerry meets with Egyptian officials, the question will be whether the Obama administration will side with Tehran or whether they'll side with traditional U.S. allies like Egypt and Jordan.
Egypt's president called for increased U.S. military aid and creation of a regional coalition to fight Islamic State in an interview with Fox News that aired on Monday, just days before the United States sends its top diplomat to the country.
"It is very important for the United States to understand that our need for the weapons and for the equipment is dire, especially at the time when the Egyptians feel they are fighting terrorism and they would like to feel the United States is standing by them in that fight against terrorism," said President Abdel Fattah al-Sissi.
The Obama administration has shown its hand. They haven't sent military supplies to Jordan, Egypt or the Iraqi Kurds. It's highly unlikely that they'll arm Egypt or Jordan because the administration doesn't want to do anything to upset the mullahs. Strengthening the Arabs' hands is a nonstarter with Iran's mullahs.
In that sense, President Obama and John Kerry are setting US-Arab relations at least a decade. They've already set back the US-Israeli relationship a decade.
As the region grapples with the rise of Islamic State, which has seized parts of Syria and Iraq, political leaders of the five Gulf Arab states, Jordan, Egypt and Turkey have been meeting to forge unity and work together.
"The region is facing very tough circumstances now," Sissi said through a translator. "The public opinion wants to see a big response from capable countries - countries that are able to provide assistance to it."
el-Sissi has shown himself to be an incredible statesman. He's reached out to Coptic Christians at great risk to his life. He's willing to work with the Israelis -- on a limited basis -- to stop Iran's agenda.
Meanwhile, King Abdullah of Jordan wants to accelerate Jordan's war with ISIS, mostly because of ISIS' torching the Jordanian pilot in a cage. Whatever their motivation, this is the type of coalition that US diplomats should welcome. According to el-Sissi, this administration has dragged its feet. Though that's disappointing, it's totally predictable.
I just wish our commander-in-chief was the heroic statesmen that el-Sissi and Abdullah are.
Posted Tuesday, March 10, 2015 10:13 AM
No comments.
Real MnSCU reform?
The question isn't whether MnSCU's Central Office should be reined in. The question isn't even whether consulting contracts should be disclosed within a month . The question isn't whether the Board of Trustees should be a better watchdog of the taxpayers' money. The question is whether MnSCU's Central Office serves a necessary function. The question is whether MnSCU should be totally overhauled.
A proposal by state Rep. Ben Lien, DFL-Moorhead, would require MnSCU leaders to disclose the contracts they've signed with outside consultants. Within 30 days of signing a contract, MnSCU would have to post on its website the identity of the consultant, terms of the contract, and the nature of advice or analysis. The governing board of trustees would also discuss the contract at its next public meeting.
Here's the text of Rep. Lien's legislation :
(a) The board shall have the authority needed to operate and govern the state colleges and universities unless otherwise directed or prohibited by law. The board is responsible for its operations and necessary decisions unless these are specifically delegated by law to a state department or agency.
(b) To the extent that the board retains a professional consultant to provide advice or to analyze matters related to system operations or governance, the following information must be publicly disclosed:
(1) the identity of the consultant;
(2) the terms and conditions of any contract or agreement with the consultant; and
(3) the nature of any advice or analysis the consultant provides to the board.
The disclosure must occur at an official meeting of the board, or no later than 30 days after a contract or agreement with the consultant is entered, whichever is earlier. This paragraph applies regardless of whether the board provides payment for the consultant's services.
That's a nice first step but it's just a first step. The MnSCU Trustees should put in place a policy that requires a) the Trustees to determine whether someone already employed within MnSCU can do the job, b) a bidding process for the contract if it's determined that MnSCU isn't capable of fulfilling the requirements for the specified project in-house and c) the signed contract to be posted the day it's signed.
That's the only way to prevent another McKinsey contract from getting signed. It's the only way that taxpayers can be certain that consultants like McKinsey can't hide in the shadows. Further, it isn't enough to review things after the fact. That's playing catch-up. Putting in place procedures that prevent the spending of $2,000,000 unnecessarily is distinctly better than criticizing someone for spending $2,000,000 after the check is cashed.
This proposal is worth considering:
Miller acknowledged that MnSCU leaders could write a report supporting heavy centralization, but said, "We'll see what the report says, and if we need to change [the reporting requirement], we can consider doing so." He also would also give campuses more of a say in the selection of their presidents. His proposal would establish a local advisory committee that includes faculty, students and alumni.
After MnSCU central authorities recruited candidates and drafted an initial list of presidential prospects, the campus committee would meet to narrow the field. It would submit a list of finalists from which system leaders could then choose a president. The committee could forward its own nominees as well, Miller said.
I'd modify that to include a publicly-elected board that conducts oversight on leadership decisions. Right now, the presidential search committees don't look beyond their cronies. They don't seriously consider people who aren't part of their clique. The chancellor search committee operates the same way. That's how we got stuck with Rosenstone instead of William Sederburg. Check out the side-by-side comparison of Dr. Rosenstone vs. Dr. Sederburg in this post for proof.
This is just the first part of this series. Check back later today for another post on MnSCU reform.
Posted Wednesday, March 11, 2015 5:54 AM
Comment 1 by Mystique at 11-Mar-15 08:50 AM
Perhaps the chancellor should be elected by Minnesota voters?
Hillary's twisted logic
Judge Napolitano highlighted Hillary's twisted (corrupt?) logic in this interview with Megyn Kelly :
This question from the Clintons' talking points is a reminder of the dreaded 1990s:
Q: Were any work items deleted in the process of producing the printed copies?
A: No
The tip is that the question uses the limiting term of "in the process of producing the printed copies." Judge Napolitano rightly highlights the possibility that emails were deleted before producing "the printed copies."
Further, printed copies of the emails aren't the emails. Hillary doesn't own the electronic communications because they're government work product. Also, registry recording the emails sent or received by Hillary Clinton are owned by the federal government. Like the emails themselves, they have to be turned over to the federal government and maintained, too. The list of emails sent and received by Hillary Clinton is part of the electronic record.
Did Hillary give the State Department printed copies of her emails because the list of work-related emails stored on the hard drive doesn't match the printed copies of the emails? At this point, we don't know because we don't have access to the Clintons' server. Without that, we can't prove if anything is missing. That is, unless one of Hillary's confidantes steps forward and says that some emails are missing.
There's only one way to know whether Hillary did everything that the Federal Records Act requires. Without looking through the server's email register, it's impossible to prove whether Hillary complied with federal law. It's time to deploy a favorite Reaganism: Trust but verify.
UPDATE: Check out Ron Fournier's article on Hillary's news conference.
Posted Wednesday, March 11, 2015 9:15 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 11-Mar-15 01:36 PM
Gary:
Once again I was thinking if there were real reporters wanting to be reporters that there are plenty of questions to ask.
One, if this was approved by the State Department who approved it besides Hillary?
Two, is there a copy of the agreement?
Three, assuming it was going to be approved by the State Department did a tech person check the setup to make sure it was okay.
Four, um if you sent lets say an email to the King of Saudi Arabia since the King isn't a US employee how do we know we have a copy of that email?
Five, if this agreement was okay back in 2009 how come the State Department couldn't tell the investigating committees in the year 2013 or 2014 about this problem? We're suddenly being told in 2015.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
The AP vs. the State Department
This article isn't the type of thing Hillary wanted to read a day after she tried putting her email controversy behind her:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Associated Press filed a lawsuit Wednesday against the State Department to force the release of email correspondence and government documents from Hillary Rodham Clinton's tenure as secretary of state.
The legal action comes after repeated requests filed under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act have gone unfulfilled. They include one request AP made five years ago and others pending since the summer of 2013.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, comes a day after Clinton broke her silence about her use of a private email account while secretary of state. The FOIA requests and lawsuit seek materials related to her public and private calendars, correspondence involving longtime aides likely to play key roles in her expected campaign for president, and Clinton-related emails about the Osama bin Laden raid and National Security Agency surveillance practices.
First, the AP's lawsuit is substantive. They first filed a FOIA request 5 years ago to find out about the Osama bin Laden raid and the NSA surveillance program. Next, it's impossible for the Clintons to convince serious people that the AP is a card-carrying member of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
The worst part about this for the Clintons is that a judge might demand to view her server. At that point, Hillary's options are to surrender the server or to file an appeal. Anyone familiar with the Clintons knows that surrendering isn't part of their DNA. Filing an appeal, though, is fraught with negatives. One definite downside filing an appeal is that it re-opens the wound. That automatically means more TV time for James Carville and Lanny Davis saying that this is old news and that Hillary followed the rules.
A court ruling that Hillary needs to turn over her server, though, isn't the same as accusing a political enemy of waging political war against the Clintons. People don't think that courts are partisan. They think of them as essentially being impartial.
The AP had sought Clinton-related correspondence before her use of a personal email account was publicly known, although Wednesday's court filing alleges that the State Department is responsible for including emails from that account in any public records request.
"State's failure to ensure that Secretary Clinton's governmental emails were retained and preserved by the agency, and its failure timely to seek out and search those emails in response to AP's requests, indicate at the very least that State has not engaged in the diligent, good-faith search that FOIA requires," says AP's legal filing.
Hillary's unspoken response essentially was "Trust me. There's nothing there." Though younger voters aren't familiar with an old Reaganism from the Soviet era, it's still applicable:
"Trust but verify" seems like the perfect axiom for Hillary's plea for us to trust her.
Thomas Blanton, director of the National Security Archive, predicted the State Department would speed up its review facing legal action, particularly given that Clinton has said that her email correspondence doesn't include classified material. "When the government is under a court deadline, or really wants to review, they can whip through thousands of pages in a matter of weeks, which they should do here," Blanton said.
The State Department will soon be motivated, thanks in large part to the AP's lawsuit.
Posted Wednesday, March 11, 2015 2:07 PM
No comments.
