May 12-16, 2013
May 12 01:12 Gov. Dayton on honesty, Kluwe May 12 11:49 A most disturbing thought process May 12 22:01 Dayton, Bakk, Thissen raise taxes May 13 12:59 President Obama: "There's no there there" May 13 17:15 President Obama's scandals multiply May 14 10:21 Bureaucratic infighting? May 15 02:05 Barbara Boxer's BS May 15 03:40 Red Eye identifies a problem May 16 05:19 Bachmann: IRS scandal a "stunning abuse of power"
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Gov. Dayton on honesty, Kluwe
This post on the Strib's Access Vikings blog is particularly amusing. Here's what I thought was amusing:
This morning at the Capitol, Governor Mark Dayton became the latest to question the Vikings on the Kluwe topic.
'I don't feel good about it,' Dayton said. 'I mean I'm not in position to evaluate the role and their punting abilities. But it seems to me the general manager said right after the draft that they were going to have competition. Well, then he brings the one guy [Locke] in, he kicks for a weekend and that's the competition? I mean, I just think sports officials ought to be honest about what the heck is going on. Same way I think public officials should be honest about what's going on. So that bothers me probably as much if not more than the actual decision.'
I agree that it's important for public officials to be honest. Where was Gov. Dayton's insistence on honesty when told politicians that the revenues from e-tabs would cover the state share of the Vikings stadium? Tons of people from across the political spectrum questioned whether they'd generate the revenue they needed. They criticized the funding mechanism loudly and persistently.
It's now known by anyone who's read a newspaper the last month that the e-tabs funding mechanism is a terrible failure. Needing $35,000,000 this year for the Vikings stadium, e-tabs generated $1,700,000, a $33,300,000 shortfall. That isn't falling a little short. It isn't even falling well short. That's falling laughably short.
If you fall short by $300,000 or $400,000, people can reasonably say that it was just a tough year. You can't say that when you fall short by 90+ percent.
As for the Vikings cutting Kluwe, his activism on the gay marriage issue caused the Vikings to rethink him as their punter. I didn't read where they disagreed with Kluwe's position on the issue. I did read where Kluwe's punting suffered in terms of consistency in September and October, which they attributed to Kluwe's advocacy.
The Vikings had the right, in fact the affirmative responsibility, to insist on Kluwe doing the job he was making $1,500,000 for last year.
In other words, the Vikings determined that Kluwe put a higher priority on his advocacy than on his profession. When a player is making $1,500,000 a year, that player's team has a right to expect professionalism.
Kluwe didn't live up to that expectation.
Posted Sunday, May 12, 2013 1:12 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 12-May-13 12:20 PM
Gary:
Maybe Dayton missed what happened because the Vikings are trying to manage their money carefully. After all they have to obey a salary cap and want to save $500,000 or more by having a punter who might do a better job, get the state to pay for their new stadium (which the state messes it up), take into account that they might have a drop in revenue over the next couple of years (TCF stadium sits thousands of less then the Mall of America field).
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
A most disturbing thought process
This op-ed exposes a disturbing thought process:
For a long time, it seemed like the idea of a coverup was just a Republican obsession. But now there is something to it.
On Friday, ABC News's Jonathan Karl revealed the details of the editing process for the C.I.A.'s talking points about the attack, including the edits themselves and some of the reasons a State Department spokeswoman gave for requesting those edits. It's striking to see the twelve different iterations that the talking points went through before they were released to Congress and to United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice, who used them in Sunday show appearances that became a central focus of Republicans' criticism of the Administration's public response to the attacks. Over the course of about twenty-four hours, the remarks evolved from something specific and fairly detailed into a bland, vague mush.
Why the media thought that the Republicans' investigation into Benghazi is a matter of the media's bias. Common sense always said that the administration wasn't telling the truth on what happened in Benghazi. That and Libyan president Mugariaf telling Face the Nation host Bob Schieffer that it was a planned terrorist attack that took the lives of Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods.
The hearings have identified who ordered the rewriting of the State Department's CYA document. What the hearings haven't done yet is identify who told Lt. Col. Gibson not to attempt to rescue the diplomats stationed in Benghazi. The hearings haven't identified who eliminated the FEST option. YET.
When President Mugariaf told Schieffer that terrorists had killed Christopher Stevens, most thinking people bought into that because presidents of countries know what's happening in their countries. When Susan Rice started with the administration's 'the video made them do it' lie, most people knew that was BS. A video that'd been seen by 100 people worldwide didn't start the uprising.
We now know that the Petraeus-led CIA got it right the first time with their report on what happened that night. Similarly, we know that the State Department , with help from the NSC's Ben Rhodes, turned the CIA intelligence report into a political talking points document .
What's most disturbing, though, is the media's intellectual curiosity was essentially nonexistent. The notable exception to that is Sharyl Attkisson. She dug into the administration's spin and uncovered important facts. The good news is that the media finally appears to be getting curious. Jonathan Karl's article is a step in that direction, though Steve Hayes' article opened the floodgates on the subject.
The initial draft revealed by Karl mentions 'at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi' before the one in which four Americans were killed. That's not in the final version. Nor is this: 'we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack.'
Omitting the "five other attacks" and the "we do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al-Qa'ida participated in the attack" is like omitting the hijackers names from the initial 9/11 report. The ARB's 'investigation' is filled with the same omissions.
Question: Are people in DC incapable of asking straightforward questions?
Posted Sunday, May 12, 2013 11:49 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 12-May-13 12:16 PM
Gary:
The crazy part when you have a news organization that seems to be getting it right CBS what is their reaction. It is to attack Sheryl so much that she is thinking of leaving CBS.
What happened to that CBS that in 2004 wanted to go after a sitting President that they didn't care that they lied?
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Dayton, Bakk, Thissen raise taxes
This article is the article everyone's expected since Election Night. Unfortunately, it isn't the article we'd been hoping for.
Thissen, Gov. Mark Dayton and Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk of Cook said they agreed on spending targets and will give conference committees a few other guidelines, such as:
- The sales tax would not rise on consumer goods, including clothing, but businesses could pay sales tax on goods sold to other businesses.
- Income taxes would go up on people in the top 2 percent of Minnesota earners, couples with $250,000 or more taxable income.
- An income tax surcharge would be added for Minnesota's richest of the rich, with proceeds going to help repay money the state has borrowed from school districts.
- Cigarette taxes would rise.
- Some business tax breaks would disappear.
- All-day kindergarten would be funded.
- The state would spend $400 million in property tax relief, such as by increasing aid sent to local governments.
Thanks to this agreement, companies will leave Minnesota. Businesses staying will get with multiple tax increases. Businesses will get charged sales taxes on services. Additionally, they'll get hit with higher income tax rates. That's bad enough but that isn't all. Current deductions will get eliminated, too.
Why would a business stay in Minnesota and absorb all those tax increases in a single year? The simple answer is many won't.
The supposed property tax relief is a mirage. When liberal mayors get their increased LGA checks, it won't go towards property tax relief. It'll go towards increased spending. That isn't a prediction. It's noting what's happened in the past without fail. Anyone that thinks Chris Coleman won't increase spending on things that aren't necessities isn't paying attention. He's done it in the past. He's a creature of habit. He'll do it again.
The three Democrats said middle-income Minnesotans would not pay more taxes other than for cigarettes. But when reporters pushed him on the subject, Dayton said that some of the business taxes could trickle down to consumers in higher prices.
Whether it's in the form of a direct tax increase or it's in the form of higher prices charged by businesses who've gotten hit with a tax increase, the net effect is that the middle class will get hit with higher prices, leaving people with less money to spend on the things of their choosing.
Most importantly, this budget won't strengthen Minnesota's economy. The best outcome we should expect from this budget and these policies is that it won't hurt the economy too much. Fewer jobs will be created as a result of the tax bill. Company profits will be significantly smaller. People will have less disposable income thanks to the energy bill that's about to get signed .
Gov. Dayton has sent out emails touting a "better budget for Minnesota." That's what we deserve. Unfortunately, the DFL has seen to it to give us this budget, which doesn't strengthen Minnesota's economy.
Posted Sunday, May 12, 2013 10:01 PM
Comment 1 by Speed Gibson at 13-May-13 01:06 AM
More interesting to me was House Speaker Thissen's follow up assertion that this would stabilize revenues. Only if you stabilize spending, which the DFL has never done.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 13-May-13 01:49 AM
It doesn't happen even then because Thissen's assuming that businesses won't leave, which they will.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 13-May-13 10:53 AM
"The three Democrats said middle-income Minnesotans would not pay more taxes other than for cigarettes. But when reporters pushed him on the subject, Dayton said that some of the business taxes could trickle down to consumers in higher prices."
That's because there really is no such thing as a business tax. The higher costs to the business are passed on to consumers who either pay them, in which case they are personally disadvantaged, or they don't, in which case the business folds up or moves away. Businesses exist to make a profit and as such will pass on the Dayton-induced costs to consumers.
So yes, middle-income Minnesotans will see a tax increase, on far too many items they use simply to live their lives.
Elections have consequences. Brought to you by your friendly neighborhood Democrat Party.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 13-May-13 03:59 PM
You know if Wisconsin is in such bad shape that the Democrats are making it out to be why are they cutting taxes and not dramatically increasing spending.
As Gary showed with the aide to cities giving a government agency more money like the cities or schools only encourage them to spend more money instead of cutting their costs.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
President Obama: "There's no there there"
In a stunning statement this morning, President Obama insisted that the Benghazi investigation is much ado about nothing :
"And suddenly three days ago this gets spun up as if there's something new to the story," Obama said in response to a question about Benghazi. "There's no there there."
The president continued, "Keep in mind, by the way, these so-called talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice, five, six days after the event occurred, pretty much matched the assessments that I was receiving at that time in my presidential daily briefing."
There's plenty that's new here. Prior to Wednesday, I didn't know that Hillary Clinton talked with Gregory Hicks while the Benghazi attacks were happening. Prior to Hicks' testimony, I didn't know that Hicks told Hillary that there was an attack going on.
In addition to new information from the testimony, there's also tons of new questions to get answers to. First, who eliminated the FEST option? Next, why was the FEST option eliminated? Third, who gave the orders to Lt. Col. Gibson to not rescue Glenn Doherty and Tyrone Woods? Fourth, why was this order given? Fifth, why did the State Department's objections to the CIA's report take precedence over the truth? After all, the CIA got it right the first time. Sixth, why did Beth Jones send out an email calling the Benghazi attack a terrorist attack? Seventh, why was the truth the final casualty of the terrorists' attack?
As for President Obama saying that the "talking points that were prepared for Susan Rice" "pretty much the assessments" he was receiving during his PDBs, that's BS. It's insulting. The CIA's initial report talked about a terrorist attack, with members of Ansar al-Shariah participating in the attack. The CIA's initial report also talked multiple warnings from the CIA of mounting terrorist threats to foreign interests in Benghazi. That was deleted from the State Department's talking points. Make no mistake, either, about the talking points. What started as a CIA intelligence report was eventually turned into a State Department CYA talking points memo.
Posted Monday, May 13, 2013 12:59 PM
No comments.
President Obama's scandals multiply
Last week, Benghazi erupted when Gregory Hicks testified that a) Hillary Clinton called him during the terrorist attack and b) he told her that they were in the midst of a terrorist attack. Later that week, the IRS admitted that they had targeted TEA Party organizations in an investigation. This afternoon, this headline will rock the White House to its core:
WASHINGTON (AP) - The Justice Department secretly obtained two months of telephone records of reporters and editors for The Associated Press in what the news cooperative's top executive called a "massive and unprecedented intrusion" into how news organizations gather the news.
The records obtained by the Justice Department listed incoming and outgoing calls, and the duration of each call, for the work and personal phone numbers of individual reporters, general AP office numbers in New York, Washington and Hartford, CT, and the main number for AP reporters in the House of Representatives press gallery, according to attorneys for the AP.
In all, the government seized those records for more than 20 separate telephone lines assigned to AP and its journalists in April and May of 2012. The exact number of journalists who used the phone lines during that period is unknown but more than 100 journalists work in the offices whose phone records were targeted on a wide array of stories about government and other matters.
Benghazi is about this administration's decision not to protect its diplomats. The IRS scandal is about this administration's use of the IRS' investigative authority to target political opponents. This AP scandal is about having a chilling effect on the gathering of news.
If a government knows who the AP or any other media organization is talking to, that's certain to have a chilling effect on people who might otherwise become whistleblowers. This is a good summarization:
In a letter of protest sent to Attorney General Eric Holder on Monday, AP President and Chief Executive Officer Gary Pruitt said the government sought and obtained information far beyond anything that could be justified by any specific investigation. He demanded the return of the phone records and destruction of all copies.
"There can be no possible justification for such an overbroad collection of the telephone communications of The Associated Press and its reporters. These records potentially reveal communications with confidential sources across all of the newsgathering activities undertaken by the AP during a two-month period, provide a road map to AP's newsgathering operations, and disclose information about AP's activities and operations that the government has no conceivable right to know," Pruitt said.
That's chilling. This is worse:
The government would not say why it sought the records. U.S. officials have previously said in public testimony that the U.S. attorney in Washington is conducting a criminal investigation into who may have leaked information contained in a May 7, 2012, AP story about a foiled terror plot. The story disclosed details of a CIA operation in Yemen that stopped an al-Qa'ida plot in the spring of 2012 to detonate a bomb on an airplane bound for the United States.
This isn't a conspiracy theory. An integral part of a conspiracy theory is a theory. It stops being a conspiracy when facts and proof are added into the equation.
Apparently, when it comes to Obama administration scandals, when it rains, it pours.
Posted Monday, May 13, 2013 5:16 PM
No comments.
Bureaucratic infighting?
President Obama and his apologists have insisted that the changes in the CIA's intelligence community's report on the Benghazi terrorist attack were the result of bureaucratic infighting. We've been told that that's typical. This morning, Jim Geraghty wrote this in his morning e-letter:
If there was evidence that everyone within the State Department, military, and White House were doing everything they could to rescue our guys on that awful night, we would have heard about it long ago. If there was a good reason for the "talking points" to get edited down from a false premise (a demonstration) but at least serious information (previous CIA warnings about terrorist activity) to false pabulum, we would have heard it by now; the latest lame excuse is that the 14 edits merely reflect "bureaucratic infighting between the CIA and State."It's time to return to Realityville, people. Bureaucratic infighting is typical when people are putting a plan together or figuring out a long-term strategy. Bureaucratic infighting isn't supposed to happen when people are trying to determine the truth about events.
Bureaucratic infighting might happen when deciding whether to beef us security for diplomats. Bureaucratic infighting might happen when deciding whether to attempt a rescue of diplomats during a terrorist attack. Bureaucratic infighting might happen when people try to determine the proper response to repeated terrorist attacks on foreign missions.
Once the attacks have happened, however, the infighting stops. To determine the truth, the experts on the ground must be talked to. At that point, the only exercise left is determining whether the CIA's report was accurate. If it was, then their report should be given to the proper people.
The BS that this administration has been spreading since the caskets returned to the United States has been insulting. It's time this administration puts to rest their 'the video made them do it' storyline.
Finally, it's time to utterly discredit James Clapper's statement that he felt sorry for Susan Rice for telling the truth. Nothing she said on those Sunday morning talk shows was the truth. Clapper's insistence that the talking points are accurate indicates that he's a political appointee, not an intelligence officer.
Posted Tuesday, May 14, 2013 10:21 AM
No comments.
Barbara Boxer's BS
When Sen. Boxer talks, I start looking for my waders because the BS is about to fly. This op-ed is proof that the BS flies when Sen. Boxer speaks:
The facts are clear: The day after the attack, President Obama appeared in the White House Rose Garden and called the events in Benghazi an "act of terror." And within eight days of the attack, Matthew Olsen, the director of the National Counterterrorism Center, appeared before the Senate Homeland Security Committee and said that the "attack on our diplomatic post in Benghazi" is "proof" that "acts of terror and violence continue to threaten our citizens and our interests around the world."
It's true that Matthew Olsen said that during the hearing. It's equally true that he said it in response to a question. It's equally true that Olsen got chewed out for admitting that in committee. Most importantly, President Obama repeatedly talked about an offensive video being the thing that triggered the terrorists' attack. President Obama either referred to the offensive video or said it was too early to say anything, that his administration was still investigating.
The administration sought to relay the best information it had at the time. When Ambassador Susan Rice appeared on Face the Nation, sharing information that was prepared and signed off on by multiple government agencies, she made clear that the information was preliminary and warned that "we'll want to see the results of that investigation to draw any definitive conclusions."
That's a bald-faced lie. This administration, specifically Victoria Nuland, insisted that most of the CIA's initial intelligence report be deleted because she worried that "members of Congress would use the talking points to criticize the State Department for 'not paying attention to Agency warnings.'"
Furthermore, Gregory Hicks testified that there was never a mention of a protest by Christopher Stevens or any other diplomats in Benghazi. Finally, the CIA, the US diplomats and the Libyan president all knew within hours that this was a terrorist attack. The intelligence didn't "evolve." The only thing that evolved is the Obama administration's story.
As a senior member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, I well remember Secretary Clinton's testimony following the Benghazi attack. She took responsibility and pledged to do everything in her power to put corrective measures in place. And she didn't gloss over the profound pain and suffering this tragedy caused for the families of Ambassador Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty.
Pat Smith, the mother of slain diplomat Sean Smith, said Sec. Clinton talked to her and promised to stay in touch. Last week, Pat Smith said that Hillary never called her after the ceremony on Sept. 14. Hillary's faux empathy apparently only lasted a couple hours.
Finally, Sen. Boxer glosses over the fact that Hillary's State Department turned down Ambassador Stevens' request for more security. In fact, the State Department cut the security team instead.
Posted Wednesday, May 15, 2013 2:05 AM
No comments.
Red Eye identifies a problem
Last night on Red Eye, Greg Gutfeld and John Bolton got into talking about what's wrong with government. Here's their brief exchange that highlights their frustrations:
GUTFELD: This title -- senior technical advisor to acting tax exempt and government entities division commissioner -- is that title what's wrong with government?
BOLTON: How about the administrative assistant to the assistant administrator of administration
GUTFELD: That's a real title.
I know that Red Eye is mostly about sarcastic humor and that they don't take themselves seriously but they've hit on something here. Governments that have employees with titles like these are too big by orders of magnitude. It's impossible to manage something that size. Further, I'm wondering what these people's salaries are. How many other people are employed by the federal government with equally appalling titles? If we eliminated these positions, would anyone notice? This goes back to Sen. Coburn's Sequester This Youtube videos. I'm betting that Mssrs. Gutfeld and Bolton would agree with this video:
How much money is pissed away on employees with titles like the administrative assistant to the assistant administrator of administration or the senior technical advisor to the acting tax exempt and government entities division commissioner? I've written tons of articles about how bloated the federal government is. This article was the first I wrote about Sen. Coburn's Sequester This series. This article highlights more of the federal government's spending stupidity.
Thanks to Ambassador Bolton and Greg Gutfeld, we now have something concrete to grasp in terms of the federal government's spending stupidity.
Posted Wednesday, May 15, 2013 3:40 AM
No comments.
Bachmann: IRS scandal a "stunning abuse of power"
Wednesday night, Michele Bachmann was interviewed by Greta van Susteren about the IRS scandal. What she said is quite pertinent to the scandal:
Here's the first exchange between Greta and Michele:
GRETA : And, of course, we're all chewing on the news that Bret Baier sent me that he was at the end of his term at the end of the month and President Obama making the announcement that he'd resigned just a month early.
BACHMANN : Well, he was the perfect scapegoat. He was exiting the stage anyway and so they might as well make it look like they're chopping his head off on the way out because it wasn't going to happen anyway.
By the time Jay Carney gives the daily press briefing, people will be criticizing President Obama for attempting to pull a fast one on people. This scandal will hurt the administration because the IRS has a history of intimidating people and because of the fear IRS audits have caused.
Later in the interview, Ms. Bachmann talked about a major TEA Party press conference:
BACHMANN: This is a major press conference where all of the major TEA Party organizations from across the United States are coming together. We are having a major press conference at the Capital. Joining us will be Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee. There'll be many members of the House of Representatives. But it's to give a voice to the TEA Party because they are livid as you can imagine and these leaders want to react and tell their story publicly.
People have asked where the TEA Party has been. Frankly, they've been hiding after the left successfully vilified them. Rest assured, though, that they'll be fired up after they've been targeted by the IRS. Rest assured, people will sympathize with them because people hate and fear the IRS.
Later, Rep. Bachmann dispatched with the notion that a couple agents went rogue:
GRETA : So I'm curious with the IRS, doing this, what is the usual time period for people to get their tax exempt status from the IRS?
BACHMANN : Well, within a reasonable amount of time. Certainly within 2 years. It certainly doesn't take the IRS to do it. But I knew this was a phony story last Friday, when the story came out because when I was a federal tax attorney and did this work, we had very strict jurisdictional limits within the IRS because we were handling people's tax data. We had to act within that tax zone. We had very strict procedures where we check a lot of boxes. Our supervisors up the food chain check them. It's impossible for them to go rogue.
In short, President Obama and his handlers are attempting to sell a BS story to the American people. The thing that's going to trip them up are little details like this. If people "up the food chain" are checking these applications off, then this must be a cultural systemic problem, not a couple rogue agents acting irresponsibly. If you read the type of intrusive questions that the IRS asked some conservative applicants , you'll realize that it's ideological and possibly systemic.
Posted Thursday, May 16, 2013 5:19 AM
No comments.
