May 17-20, 2014
May 17 14:17 Tom Bakk's end of session spin May 18 09:19 Tom Bakk's end of session spin, Part II May 19 05:01 Iron Range DFL vs. the Metrocrats May 19 05:35 Mr. McDonough, talk is cheap May 19 06:40 Juan Williams' education reform fight May 19 07:05 Does SCSU = UMD? May 20 07:29 Republicans' justifiable skepticism May 20 13:22 Are Georgia and Kentucky GOP holds?
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Tom Bakk's end of session spin
If Minnesota voters need proof that the DFL is either delusional or exceptionally skilled liars, this video provides that proof:
Starting at the 2:30 mark, Sen. Bakk made this incredible statement:
BAKK: It's been a remarkable 2 year run in this biennium and I think what we showed, as Democrats in control of the governor's office and both branches of the legislature, first time since 1990, that we could be responsible, not overreach, invest in the things that Minnesotans support and get it done, not only on time but ahead of schedule.
That's breathtakingly dishonest. First, increasing spending by $5,000,000,000 isn't and act of responsibility, especially in light of the fact that the budget from the previous biennium was the biggest in Minnesota history.
During Gov. Dayton's time in office, the budget soared from $30,171,000,000 to $39,500,000,000. That's a spending increase of almost 33%. That isn't acting responsibly. That's the picture of irresponsibility.
During Gov. Dayton's time in office, the DFL legislature raised taxes and fees by $2,400,000,000 initially before repealing $400,000,000 of those tax increases because the political heat was too hot.
Raising spending by 33% over 4 years while raising taxes by $2,000,000,000 is the definition of overreach. That's before talking about the DFL's broken promises of property tax relief and only raising taxes on the richest 2%. That's before taking into consideration the fact that the DFL's priorities were misplaced. Time was spent talking about medical marijuana instead of appropriating the money needed to fix Minnesota's roads and bridges.
This was billed as the unsession. Unfortunately, what happened was that legislation was passed that took away the ability to test teachers' capabilities. That's the ultimate in irresponsibility.
This is the best the DFL can offer. They can't talk about Minnesota's booming economy because Minnesota's economy isn't booming. We know that because Minnesota's economy doesn't look anything like North Dakota's, which is booming. North Dakota has explosive economic growth and a microscopic unemployment rate. Minnesota's unemployment rate is better than many states but it isn't great. Economic growth isn't strong, evidenced by 3 straight months of lower than expected tax revenues.
Booming economies don't have 3 straight months of lower than expected revenue growth.
Parts of Minnesota's economy are doing so-so, though no part of Minnesota's economy is doing well. Nobody's tax situation is better than it was 4 years ago, whether we're talking about property taxes, sales taxes, cigarette taxes or income taxes.
Businesses are already making plans to leave the state if Gov. Dayton is re-elected. That isn't a state heading in the right direction. That's a state that took a wrong turn in giving Democrats total control of government.
Posted Saturday, May 17, 2014 2:17 PM
No comments.
Tom Bakk's end of session spin, Part II
I wrote this post to highlight part of Sen. Bakk's end-of-session spin. I wouldn't be telling the entire story if I didn't write about something Sen. Bakk said at the end of his interview. Here's what he said on the subject of medical marijuana:
SEN. BAKK: I think when this session started, there were probably few lawmakers that thought medical marijuana would likely be the marquee issue of this session. Not many of us, myself included, were thinking about it rising to such a level of that intensity and emotion in the legislature. And it happened because a group of families with their largely disabled children came to the Capitol and they visited legislators and they put the breath under that issue and made legislators 'look at the plight of my kids and want them to have a better quality of life'.
It was a remarkable example of how a small group of people can come to their state capitol and advocate for a change and, even though nobody was thinking about it, it ends up happening.
It's true that these parents succeeded in getting this legislation passed but it comes with an asterisk.
The asterisk is that these parents got this legislation passed because the DFL's special interests didn't oppose it. We needn't look any further than last year, when hundreds of parents and in-home child care providers visited their state capitol to tell legislators that they opposed the unionization of in-home child care providers.
They told DFL legislators how unionization would drive up the cost of child care. They told DFL legislators how that legislation would force in-home child care providers to reject children from families getting government assistance because these child care providers didn't want to be part of a union.
How did the DFL react in that situation? They repeatedly recited AFSCME's and SEIU's talking points, ignoring the parents and the children's care providers.
In that instance, the DFL didn't care about the children's quality of life. The DFL didn't care that their legislation made life miserable for parents receiving government assistance. For all the DFL's talk about standing with 'the little guy', last year, the DFL ignored the little guy while siding with their well-funded special interest allies.
Sen. Bakk might fool some people with his spin but the reality is that the DFL routinely ignores parents and families when the DFL's special interest allies oppose the parents' initiatives. In the DFL's world, special interest activists outrank parents and the average Joe.
This November, people of all political stripes have the opportunity to reject the DFL's politics of, by and for their special interest organizations.
Another thing that just popped into my head is how people lobbied against the B2B sales taxes. Initially, they were removed from the DFL's tax bill, only to be put back in by Sen. Bakk during the conference committee.
Then things hit the fan politically.
Gov. Dayton told FarmFest he didn't know that Sen. Bakk had included the Farm Equipment Repair Sales tax in the tax bill. Then talk started about repealing them during last summer's special session. When that fell through, pressure built until the B2B taxes were repealed this session.
Now, Sen. Bakk, Gov. Dayton and the DFL are bragging about cutting taxes this session. That's Clinton-worthy spin on steroids. Raising taxes by $2.4 billion, then reducing the size of the tax increase by $400,000,000 still equals a tax increase, albeit a smaller tax increase.
Here's the question the DFL won't want to answer: If cutting taxes was a priority to them, why weren't they in the 2013 tax bill? Let's remember, too, that Sen. Bakk insisted prior to the special session that he didn't think the B2B taxes should be repealed. That's why they weren't part of the special session agenda.
In 2013, the DFL showed its true colors by raising taxes. That isn't surprising. What's stunning, though, is the fact that they didn't even know how their tax increases would impact people .
Finally, any party that presides over a 33% spending increase over 4 years isn't fiscally responsible. The DFL can spin all they want but raising taxes and fees by $2 billion and increasing spending by $5 billion are the net results of total DFL control.
That's a ton of money to take out of the private sector, which, unlike the DFL, actually uses the money efficiently on the things people need most.
Posted Sunday, May 18, 2014 9:19 AM
No comments.
Iron Range DFL vs. the Metrocrats
This article highlights the friction building within the DFL. Friday night, DFL Party Chairman Ken Martin said that his party would emerge from their state convention in Duluth "united and energized." That's happy talk, putting it politely. Put bluntly, I'd call it BS. Here's what's causing the friction:
Some special interest groups want a far-reaching environmental impact statement done by the U.S. Forest Service on the effects of mining done in all of northern Minnesota, specifically in the Superior National Forest.
But Democratic elected officials are basically saying in unison - enough is enough. Some of them, however, are using more direct and unequivocal wording.
They all say the proposal would be providing an unnecessary layer of environmental review on top of stringent processes already in place.
The environmental groups, such as Friends of the Boundary Waters, want the Forest Service to prepare something called a programmatic environmental impact statement (PEIS) on mining in the region, with a focus on the Superior National Forest.
According to their website , Friends of the Boundary Waters Board of Directors are from the Twin Cities. Simply put, the metro DFL wants to shut down mining while the Iron Range DFL wants to put people back to work in the mining industry. Actually, let's be clarify things a bit.
Rank-and-file Iron Range Democrats are pushing Iron Range DFL legislators into supporting mining. Rank-and-file Democrats have found that they have to push Democrat legislators into supporting mining. That's illustrated perfectly in this article :
Northern Minnesota is known for its great fishing, so perhaps it's fitting that tracking 8th District Congressman Rick Nolan's position on a bill that deregulates the mining industry and fast tracks the permitting process for PolyMet is a bit like watching a fish flopping around on a dock: first he's against it, then he's for it and now he once again opposes it, this time promising to vote against the legislation if it 'comes anywhere near close to becoming law.'
The reaction of the those who gathered in Bohannon Hall on that Saturday afternoon is perhaps best summed up by 32-year-old Jesse Peterson, who characterized Nolan's responses and actions with respect to HR 761 as 'incredibly deceptive and reflecting a willingness to be phony.'
Incredibly deceptive is what Democrats do on the subject of mining. Here's what Sen. Franken said on the subject:
'Mining is a great Minnesota tradition, and so is protection of our environment and natural resources.
'There's no question that we need to take into account the environmental impact of any proposed project, but Minnesota and the federal government already have rigorous processes in place to make sure that happens. There's no reason to have an overly burdensome process.
'I've been talking with the Forest Service about this issue and I will continue to be in touch with them,' Franken said.
Notice what Sen. Franken didn't say. He didn't say that he's pushing the USFS and the EPA to make PolyMet a reality. Sen. Franken's statement sounds identical to Jim Oberstar's statement that he was "working behind the scenes" on PolyMet.
The Democrats' lip service to miners is insulting. When something's important to them, they organize big public displays to show their unswerving commitment to the cause. While Nolan and Franken make the right noises about mining, their actions stop far short of showing that unswerving commitment to mining.
It's almost as if it's an afterthought to them.
Check back later today for more on that topic. Technorati: Al Franken , Rick Nolan , Environmental Activists , Friends of the Boundary Waters , Metrocrats vs. Iron Rangers , Mining , PolyMet , DFL Civil War , Tom Anzelc , Tommy Rukavina , DFL , Election 2014
Posted Monday, May 19, 2014 5:01 AM
No comments.
Mr. McDonough, talk is cheap
The first thing that comes to mind while watching this video is that Mr. McDonough's talk is cheap:
President Obama's chief of staff played the role of dutiful soldier taking the hits from CBS reporter Major Garrett, repeatedly insisting that President Obama is fighting for veterans, reforming the VA system, talking repeatedly about the need to improve the VA system.
That doesn't explain why the waiting lists started during President Obama's administration. It doesn't explain the veterans' deaths related to the Phoenix VA.
President Obama's approach to problem-solving is to make a speech, then go into hiding on the subject. His approach hasn't included firing people. It hasn't included picking technocrats to implement the fixes. President Obama's approach hasn't focused on after-the-fact monitoring to make sure the fixes implemented actually work.
Happy talk about increasing resources sounds nice but it isn't fixing the crisis that's afflicting the VA hospital system. Fixing the crisis is what's needed. The longer term goals are fine but fixing the crisis is essential.
On that count, President Obama gets a failing grade.
Posted Monday, May 19, 2014 5:35 AM
No comments.
Juan Williams' education reform fight
Lord knows I've criticized Juan Williams for his beliefs that the Benghazi and IRS scandals are all about politics. I stand by those criticisms. Just about the time that I'm ready to dismiss Williams, he writes an article like this one that makes me realize that there's more to Juan Williams than the political creature we see on TV.
If there's a place where conservatives should join forces with Juan Williams, it's on the subject of education. Here's why:
Last week, 60 years after the Supreme Court ruled racial segregation in public schools unconstitutional with its 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision, a group called 'Journey for Justice Alliance' sent civil rights complaints to the Justice and Education departments. The group argued that too many failing public schools in black neighborhoods are being closed and replaced with charter schools.
You read that right.
When it comes to reforming the education system, Juan Williams sounds like the staunchest conservative imaginable. Here's proof:
This attack on charter schools comes a week after the House, in a rare bipartisan vote, approved a bill to put more federal dollars into expanding charter schools. The House Education and the Workforce Committee bill was written by its Republican chairman, John Kline of Minnesota, and supported by its ranking Democrat, George Miller of California.
Kline told reporters that Arne Duncan, the Secretary of Education, supports the bill and will urge Senate Democrats to pass it. In a Congress politically paralyzed over efforts to update the Bush administration's plan for improving public school performance, No Child Left Behind, the charter school bill is the first sign of a breakthrough.
It's time for conservatives to start highlighting their commitment to beefing up funding for alternatives to government schools.
It's been said that education is the civil rights movement of the 21st Century. Whether it is or isn't is something I'll let others decide. I'll just highlight another part of Juan's article:
Thurgood Marshall, the lawyer who won the Brown case and later became a Supreme Court justice, told me as I was writing his biography that the case was not really about having black and white children sitting next to each other. Its true purpose was to make sure that predominantly white and segregationist school officials would put maximum resources into giving every child, black or white, a chance to get a good education.
But now people described as liberal 'activists' are filing complaints against closing bad neighborhood schools. They put more value on having a bad neighborhood school than getting a child into an excellent school. The charge that some charter schools are no better than the neighborhood schools being closed ignores the truth that some charter schools have produced better results. Also, parents have the choice to pull their children out of charter schools that do not help their children.
In the 1950s, white-hot bigotry existed on a widespread basis. Racism still exists but nothing like what existed in the 1950s. Conservatives should join forces with thoughtful liberals like Juan Williams in making charter schools the education movement of the 21st Century.
First and most importantly, it's the morally right thing to do. Second, creating competition will force the teachers' unions to decide whether they'd rather become irrelevant or whether they'd prefer becoming part of the solution. When Juan Williams criticizes the teachers unions, it's time for conservatives to join with him in creating an alternative to government schools.
There are now minority parents and civil right groups being used as props by teachers' unions to oppose school choice by calling efforts to close failing neighborhood schools the 'new Jim Crow.'
It's time to expose the race hustlers as not being interested in improving people's lives. They're in it to make a fast buck for themselves. Race hustlers like Mssrs. Sharpton and Jackson should be put out of business ASAP.
Posted Monday, May 19, 2014 6:40 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 19-May-14 11:39 AM
Here's a crazy idea. Let's let neighborhood schools (or the district school board) act as the contractor for education services, and contract out the use of their building. The union could bid for each of the class offerings, and one or more charter schools or private schools could bid for those they had the resources to offer. That's the best of both worlds. If Charter A has the resources to put a bang-up Spanish teacher in place, let the union teacher who barely knows "Hola" to say "Adios." If the charter doesn't have a good basketball coach or music teacher, the union teacher gets the job. Best of both worlds, and the competition would be immediate and beneficial.
Does SCSU = UMD?
Is SCSU Another U of M--Duluth?
by Silence Dogood
Maura Lerner, the higher education reporter for the StarTribune, wrote an article that appeared on May 18, 2014. Lerner's article focuses on a budget crisis at the University of Minnesota-Duluth (UMD): "a budget crisis that was triggered, in part, by plunging student enrollment."
Apparently, in 2010 the university was "riding an enrollment high of nearly 12,000 students." Maura quotes the president of the faculty union as stating 'We had so many students we couldn't fit them in the dorms.' And he continued: 'We were flush with students. That meant we were flush with tuition money.'
According to the article "That school year, the campus took in nearly $110 million in tuition, more than ever before." For comparison, for FY14 SCSU took in a little more than $84.5 million in tuition.
Over the next two years, the enrollment at UMD plunged to 11,000 students, which, according to the article, represented a "net loss of nearly 5 percent of its student body." The loss of the tuition and state allocation dollars and "a series of missteps" led to a "$12 million budget hole - about 8 percent of its operating funds."
In FY10, SCSU like UMD had its largest FYE enrollment. SCSU had 15,096 FYE. Dorm occupancy was 96%. Four years later, enrollment has dropped 17.9% and dorm occupancy is hovering just over 70%. In fact, next fall's plans include mothballing a dormitory with a capacity of 400 students!
A financial crisis has occurred at the Duluth campus over a loss of 5% in enrollment. At SCSU, enrollment dropped 0.8% in FY 11, 6.9% in FY12, 6.4% in FY13 and 5.0% in FY14. As a result, in three successive years SCSU's enrollment dropped equal to or more than the total enrollment drop at UMD. On top of this, the administration just released data showing the Coborn's Plaza Apartments lost $6,400,000 in the first four years of operations!
It's truly amazing that SCSU has not sounded an alarm. However, back in 2010, the university underwent reorganization as part of a plan to save money and become more efficient. Its been reported numerous times that $14,000,000 was cut from the annual budget. It's clear now is that the university cut much more than necessary for the anticipated shortfall that did not materialize and this has allowed the university to continue to balance the budget despite this huge drop in enrollment. In fact, the budget "emergency" due to the supposed loss of federal stimulus funds (that's where the $14 million number came from) turned out to be a 'chicken little' experience or some might say big lie since the students ended up picking up the bill for all of the lost federal stimulus funds through increased tuition!
Unfortunately for SCSU, a day of reckoning is coming. The surplus from the cuts in 2010 can't last forever, especially if you lose more than a million a year on the Coborn's Plaza Apartments, as much as $3,000,000 in lost tuition each of the years enrollment dropped 5% or more. That has happened three times already, translating into a loss of over $9 million dollars next year and the lost revenue from having an empty dorm on campus.
Furthermore, if the administration's Data Analytics projections are correct and the enrollment drops 3.2% next year followed by declines of 2.3% and 1.3% the mext two years, as certain as the sun rises in the east, expenditure cuts will have to occur at SCSU to avoid being in UMD's place. Financially, it simply isn't possible to have the same level of staffing with an enrollment decline that will exceed 20% in five years--unless, of course, you can print your own money!
SCSU recently invested $4,500,000 of that surplus from the excess budget cuts in upgrading the television broadcasting equipment to HD. Perhaps they invested some of the surplus in some high quality digital copiers and are going to attempt to solve the coming budget shortfalls by printing money. You might not believe it unless you happen to be at SCSU but around here, stranger things than that have happened!
Posted Monday, May 19, 2014 7:05 AM
Comment 1 by Yeager at 20-May-14 07:06 AM
So, the chicken little is the SCSU reorg, which by your own account resulted in a much stronger financial foundation than UMD, Winona, Southwest, Mankato, or Moorhead?
Sorry, but it seems very much like these postings are becoming more and more straightforward attempts to take any crisis at any institution and apply it to SCSU.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 20-May-14 07:37 AM
It seems like you're attempting to downplay everything that's been reported about SCSU and turn it into a 'nothing to see here folks...move along' episode.
Perhaps if you stopped being a Potter apologist for a moment, you'd see that there's lots of problems at SCSU.
If things are running so smoothly at SCSU, why did President Potter get the miserable ratings from the GPTWI Trust Index Survey?
Hint: That didn't happen because faculty trusts and adores him.
Comment 3 by Patrick-M at 20-May-14 12:32 PM
Yeager
Take your 'rose colored' glasses off and see reality for a change. I did not gather from Gary's writings that the "reorganization resulted in a much stronger financial foundation than..." If you would take some time away from your position behind Potter you might be able to see what has really happened at SCSU. I have never seen things so bad in my 27 year affiliation with the school as they are now.
Comment 4 by Rex Newman at 20-May-14 05:12 PM
As a board member of a local public access cable channel that is migrating to HD, this $4.5 million for SCSU leaps off the page. Are the SCSU studios like TPT, where sputtering alien spacecraft can get spare parts? Does this include significant brick and mortar also? New HVAC? New administrators and technicians? Local performance artists and complimentary fair trade coffee? I'm having a hard time seeing an HD conversion for what I think would be a reasonable SCSU configuration even reaching $1 million.
Republicans' justifiable skepticism
Byron York's article explains in wonderful detail why Republicans are skeptical of Hillary Clinton's Benghazi obfuscations. Here's the key part of Hillary's testimony from York's article:
But some lawmakers on Capitol Hill got the chance. In an appearance before the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January 2013, Clinton testified under oath that she did not see the cable.
"That cable did not come to my attention," Clinton said. "I have made it very clear that the security cables did not come to my attention or above the assistant-secretary level, where the Accountability Review Board placed responsibility."
What struck some Republicans as odd, and still does, is that Clinton nonetheless knew about the conditions that prompted the Aug. 16 cable. "I was aware of certain incidents at our facility and the attack on the British diplomat," she testified. "I was briefed on steps taken to repair the breach in the perimeter wall after the June bombing. : "
Clinton also testified she was "engaged" in what she called the "issues related to the deteriorating threat environment, particularly in Libya."
It's implausible for Hillary to say that she got detailed security briefings on the Benghazi facility, then say she didn't know about Christopher Stevens' August 16th cable. This testimony makes Hillary's testimony totally implausible:
In an appearance before the Senate Armed Services Committee, both former Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Gen. Martin Dempsey testified they knew about it.
"You were aware that Ambassador Stevens -- of his cable that said that the consulate could not withstand a coordinated attack, is that right?" asked Republican Sen. Kelly Ayotte.
"Correct," said Panetta.
Turning to Dempsey, Ayotte said, "General, you had said that you previously were aware of that?" "Yes, I was aware of the communication back to the State Department," Dempsey answered.
Hillary cited the fact that "1.43 million cables a year come to the State Department" and that they're "all addressed to me" before saying that they don't all make it to her desk.
I don't doubt that there's a screening process involved with these cables. Undoubtedly, they're prioritized so she isn't deluged with cables. It's inconceivable, though, that a cable from the US ambassador in Libya talking about the deteriorating security conditions and increasing terrorist threats wouldn't have gotten Hillary's attention.
That's the type of communication that should've screamed 'Urgent...highest priority.'
The ARB affixed blame on mid-level State Department officials for not bringing this cable to Hillary's attention. That's either BS or it's proof that Hillary ran the most disfunctional State Department operation in recent history.
Neither speaks well of her qualifications to be the next commander-in-chief.
Finally, it's one thing to have mid-level State Department personnel to hire security teams for the various diplomatic outposts. It's quite another to have mid-level State Department personnel to make security policy decisions for those diplomatic installations.
Either way, Hillary's story doesn't add up. That's why the investigation must continue.
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2014 7:29 AM
No comments.
Are Georgia and Kentucky GOP holds?
Based on Ed Morrissey's post on Michelle Nunn's missteps in Georgia and Ed's post about today's Kentucky primary , I'm thinking that the Democrats' best chances at flipping Republican-held seats in the US Senate isn't looking good. Here's Michelle Nunn's problem:
HUNT: But you're not sure if you would have voted yes or no?
NUNN: When I look back at what they were doing when this was passed, I think, I wish that we had more people who had tried to architect a bipartisan legislation. And who had worked together across the aisle.
HUNT: So, yes or no?
NUNN: I think it's impossible to look back retrospectively and say, 'What would you have done if you were there?' Because I wasn't there, and we now have hindsight. What I can do is say: Here's where we are today, and here's what we should do, which is move forward.
HUNT: So do you think it should be repealed?
NUNN: I do not.
That's a major unforced mistake by Nunn. Saying that you don't support repealing Obamacare in Georgia is political suicide. Ed notes that Nunn's campaign totally avoids Obamacare as an issue. The GOP candidate will certainly pound Ms. Nunn for avoiding questions about Obamacare. They'll extract more than several pounds of flesh on that issue.
Then there's Allison Lundergan-Grimes' problem:
By coming out against the 20-week aboriton limit, Grimes is at odds with at least two-thirds of Kentucky voters. According to a Marist poll released last week, '67% of Kentucky residents think abortion should be illegal. This includes 21% who say it should be illegal without exceptions and 46% who say it should be illegal except in cases of rape, incest, and to save the mother's life. 28%, however, report abortion should be legal. Included here are 18% who say abortion should always be legal and 10% who think it should be legal most of the time.'
Grimes's opposition to the 20-week abortion limit on the grounds that it doesn't put the 'health, life, and safety of the mother first' doesn't make sense. The text of the bill explicitly contains an exceptionfor when 'in reasonable medical judgment, the abortion is necessary to save the life of a pregnant woman whose life is endangered by a physical disorder, physical illness, or physical injury, including a life-endangering physical condition caused by or arising from the pregnancy itself, but not including psychological or emotional conditions.' (Medical experts have testified before Congress that if a serious medical issue should arise late in pregnancy, delivering a child alive is actually much safer than aborting her: A live delivery of the baby can be performed in an hour, but a late-term abortion can take three days.)
Politicians saying that they support abortion-on-demand in Bible Belt states is political suicide, too. While Lundergan-Grimes currently leads McConnell by 1 point, that'll flip once Sen. McConnell highlights Lundergan-Grimes' position on abortion-on-demand.
Those are really the Democrats' only opportunities to flip Republican-held seats. Right now, the odds facing Lundergan-Grimes and Nunn look steep.
Posted Tuesday, May 20, 2014 1:22 PM
No comments.
