May 3-5, 2012
May 03 09:28 Are Wisconsin Democrats kidding themselves? May 03 22:50 More on the Saints Cripple-For-Pay Scandal May 04 02:32 Michele endorses Mitt in Virginia speech May 04 03:06 Gov. Dayton sides with unions...again May 04 10:03 Economy adds 115,000 jobs, 522,000 leave workforce May 05 02:46 Spoken like a socialist May 05 12:25 Why? May 05 23:22 Spoken like a true socialist, Part II
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Are Wisconsin Democrats kidding themselves?
Earlier today, a Democratic strategist jumped the shark with this statement :
Sachin Chheda, a Democratic strategist who hasn't endorsed any candidate, said Democrats are not worried about matching Walker's spending. "The question is not whether they have as much as Walker. It's do they have enough to get their message out," Chheda said. "I think they do."
The question isn't whether they've got the money to get their message out. Big Labor just dumped $7,000,000 into the race:
Just released campaign finance documents show Big Labor both inside and outside of Wisconsin pouring just over $7 million into the effort to recall Governor Scott Walker and four GOP state senators. In the 2011 recall campaign combined total spending by unions and progressive groups reached $14.7 million, or just over twice what labor unions alone have managed to raise or spend in what is the opening round of the effort to knock out Governor Walker less than two years into his term.
The question that's most important is whether people will agree with Gov. Walker's message of lower property taxes and getting spending under control. It isn't likely that the unions' message of union rights will appeal to voters.
Supposedly, that's why the unions are switching to jobs as a topic. It isn't likely that they'll gain traction with that message because cutting, then stabilizing, property taxes is an appealing message.
That's a message that Gov. Walker positively owns. It's also a message that's apparently already sunk in with Wisconsin voters.
There's no question that the enthusiasm gap has diminished. There's no question, too, that the Democrats' messaging and behavior haven't appealed to people beyond their base.
After this is over, Wisconsin needs to change the recall elections laws. It's highly destabilizing for there to be recall elections based solely on political differences of opinion. Recalls shouldn't happen without the legislature or the governor causing a crisis for the citizens of Wisconsin.
Causing political problems for special interest organizations shouldn't qualify as a legitimate crisis triggering a recall.
What Wisconites have to determine is whether the PEUs' tactics are dirty and whether the PEUs care about Wisconsinites more than they care about their own special interests. I'd argue the PEUs don't care about anything except their own special interests.
In the end, that's why Gov. Walker will win his recall election.
Tags: Taxes , Property Tax , Tax Cuts , Scott Walker , Reforms , Recall Election , GOP , Unions , Corruption
Posted Thursday, May 3, 2012 9:28 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 03-May-12 11:16 AM
We hope differently on that, don't we Gary?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 03-May-12 04:59 PM
Eric:
Since you're in a universe where you don't think that mother's work hard you don't want to admit the realities that the democrats face.
If Walker is as unpopular as you and the Wisconsin Democrats think they are they shouldn't have to spend a cent at all to have a ten or fifteen point lead.
They're only as close as they are because of the millions of spent by labor unions telling lies.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 3 by Jethro at 03-May-12 06:38 PM
Good luck convincing mainstream cheese heads that a pro union, higher tax message is the way to go by recalling Walker.
More on the Saints Cripple-For-Pay Scandal
ESPN's Ed Werder is reporting from the Saints headquarters today. Here's what he's reporting today :
Ed Werder was just on SportsCenter. He is at the Saints facility today. He said a Saints source he spoke to said 'The leagues findings are exaggerated. In contrast to the leagues contention the Saints bounty program existed for 3 years: It was limited to playoff games in the Superdome against Arizona and Minnesota.' The source then went to say, 'This whole thing is one big joke. Except for the 2 games in 2009, the rest is a joke. No one has stood up and told the truth.'
As long as the Saints' spokesters insist that this is all a big conspiracy theory that "was limited to playoff games in the Superdome against Arizona and Minnesota", I'll keep throwing this audio in the Saints' face:
That audiotape was from this postseason and it was from a road game against the 49ers. This was a speech given by then-Saints defensive coordinator Gregg Williams to the Saints defensive team.
While there wasn't specific talk about bounties in the audiotape, there's certainly thinly-disguised talk about tearing Frank Gore's ACL and giving Michael Crabtree another concussion. Both are potential career-ending injuries with additional long-term health implications.
I'd also point out that Mary Jo White is a skilled prosecutor. When she says that the NFL's decisions were made, at least in part, on the 18,000 documents generated during the NFL's investigation, that's a ton of potential evidence.
The players and/or management that stepped forward to testify about this scandal should be praised for their actions. These players might have done something that will essentially end their football careers.
It isn't a stretch to think that the whistleblowers' teammates will attempt to retaliate against them. If that's what happens, the whistleblowers' need to be praised for saying it isn't ok to attempt to end other players' careers.
Tags: New Orleans Saints , Jonathan Vilma , Darren Sharper , NFLPA , Suspensions , Spin , Kurt Warner , Brett Favre , Mary Jo White , NFL , Documentation
Posted Thursday, May 3, 2012 10:50 PM
No comments.
Michele endorses Mitt in Virginia speech
Making good on her promise to support the GOP presidential nominee, Michele Bachmann endorsed Mitt Romney for president in a speech in Tidewater, VA:
Bachmann offered a full-throated endorsement, saying she was excited "to lend my voice and my endorsement to Mitt Romney as our president to take the country back."
"Mr. President, you're fired, and instead we will soundly stand for somebody who believes in America, who believes in our children, who believes in hope and opportunities for our next generation," Bachmann continued.
During an interview with KNSI's Dan Ochsner Thursday afternoon, Michele said that she was supporting Mitt because he now embraces a full repeal of Obamacare, noting that he started the campaign saying he'd sign waivers to blunt the effect of Obamacare.
Prior to Thursday, Ohio Sen. Rob Portman and Gov. Chris Christie, (R-NJ), were put on Mitt's list of potential VP picks. During his campaign stop in the Tidewater area, another man who's sure to get mentioned by the press took his shots at President Obama:
At the rally Thursday, McDonnell blasted President Obama for "a surplus of rhetoric but a deficit of results." "Mitt Romney understands the American Dream because he's lived the American Dream," McDonnell continued.
McDonnell, like Bachmann before him, took time for special criticism of the Obama administration's environmental policies, arguing excessive regulations have prohibited Virginia companies from opening new coal mines and natural gas refineries. McDonnell said Romney would enable Americans "to use all of our God-given natural resources to reduce our dependence on foreign nations."
This is great messaging on Mitt's behalf. First, having Michele Bachmann endorse Mitt because he's for the full repeal of Obamacare gives Mitt credibility when Team Obama's attacks come. Next, having Gov. McDonnell highlight President Obama's war on fossil fuels and high gas prices will put the Obama administration on the defensive on high gas prices.
If I was directing Mitt's messaging, I'd highlight President Obama's hostility towards fossil fuels, especially coal, in states like Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio and Indiana. I'd highlight President Obama's siding with the environmentalists on the Keystone XL Pipeline project. I'd certainly highlight the doubling of gas prices during this administration.
Then I'd make an issue out of the NLRB, HHS and the EPA. I'd point out how they cost people jobs and how they slowed economic growth.
In pushing those messages, I'd take full advantage of surrogates like Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Michele Bachmann and Bob McDonnell.
Now that Mitt's the nominee, you'll see a pro-Mitt shift in the polls. With the GOP in-party sniping in the past, people will be able to focus on this administration's failed economic policies vs. the pro-growth policies of the GOP.
Tags: Michele Bachmann , Bob McDonnell , Mitt Romney , Chris Christie , Scott Walker , Endorsements , Gas Prices , EPA , Obamacare , NLRB , Unions , HHS , GOP , President Obama , Recession , Deficits , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Friday, May 4, 2012 2:32 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 04-May-12 08:12 AM
Bachmann allowed Romney off the hook, by not having to bring in Gingrich or Santorum. At a guess, Romney's money men are paying off Bachmann's campaign debt.
Why would she not endorse that?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-May-12 08:36 AM
There are more important questions than that Eric. How fast can Mitt Romney repeal what's left of Obamacare? (SCOTUS will rule individual & employer mandates unconstitutional.) How fast can Mitt undo the economic mess this administration has left? Will Mitt rein in the NLRB & the EPA? How fast will Mitt undo the EPA's MACT rules, which will drive up the cost of electricity?
Why wouldn't Michele endorse that?
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 04-May-12 04:38 PM
Gary, the question conservatives should be asking about Romney is whether he even wants to repeal what's left of Zerocare, given that it's well known his advisers helped 0bama's people write that abomination in the first place.
And given Mitt's support for bailouts it's also fair to ask whether he wants to give the economy the hard right turn it so desperately needs.
It's also fair to ask whether there's anyone in Washington, especially in the Congress, with the stones to hold his feet to the fire. But that's what you get when elites control the nominating process.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 04-May-12 10:10 PM
1. Mitt opposed the UAW bailout.
2. It's a fair question about whether Mitt's all in with O'Care. If he wants to get his agenda through a GOP House & Senate, he'll have to play ball on O'Care.
3. Contrary to what the RP purists are whining about, there's enough true conservatives in the House that will hold Mitt's feet to the fire. The Senate is still wimpy but it's improving.
Comment 3 by Bob J. at 05-May-12 07:05 AM
Gary:
1) From one week ago today, in "The Hill":
"One of Mitt Romney's top advisers said Saturday that President Obama's decision to bailout Chrysler and General Motors was actually Romney's idea.
"[Romney's] position on the bailout was exactly what President Obama followed. I know it infuriates them to hear that," Eric Fehrnstrom, senior adviser to the Romney campaign, said.
"The only economic success that President Obama has had is because he followed Mitt Romney's advice."
Mitt also supported TARP. So yes, I consider him a bailout Republican.
2) I also fail to see how a Republican House that hasn't opposed 0bama in any significant way on spending will somehow hold Romney's feet to any kind of fire.
3) Full disclosure: my Presidential preference went, in order, from Palin to Cain to Bachmann to Santorum. I'm a conservative who has had it up to his back teeth with the GOP elite and is seriously thinking Constitution Party for this fall. Romney is not the answer, even if he's not 0bama.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 05-May-12 11:59 AM
Bob, I remember Sept. 2008. I recall Mitt supporting TARP. I also remember him getting a ton of grief from the UAW for not supporting the UAW bailout, aka the GM bailout.
If one of Mitt's people says otherwise, then he's wrong. PERIOD.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 07-May-12 07:24 AM
Fair enough. But will you really be surprised if Mitt wipes his Etch-A-Sketch clean in the coming weeks? He's done so many times in the past.
I'd like to see him repudiate Fehrnstrom then. As every conservative should.
Gov. Dayton sides with unions...again
It isn't surprising that Gov. Dayton has sided with the PEUs each time he's had the chance to side with working class people. That's why it's disappointing, not surprising to read about this:
St. Paul - Republican Party of Minnesota Chairman Pat Shortridge issued the following statement regarding Governor Dayton's veto of the Last In, First Out (LIFO) legislation that would have allowed schools to make teacher employment decisions based on more than just seniority, including teacher effectiveness.
If we thought it was all about our children and providing them with the best possible education, we were wrong. Governor Dayton has once again sided with the teacher unions over our children. Minnesota children deserve the best possible education, and eliminating the Last In, First Out policy is an important reform that would improve our schools.
LIFO keeps ineffective teachers in the classroom because of their seniority, while pushing away younger and more effective teachers. This decision is a disservice to the children and parents of our state and there is no way to justify this veto or claim that it is in the best interest of our schoolchildren.
This has always been about appeasing the teachers unions. It's never been about listening to parents or helping students. Gov. Dayton has sided with unions each chance he's gotten. He's the best governor the PEUs' money could buy.
Gov. Dayton sided with AFSCME when they told him to attempt to unionize child care small businesses. Fortunately, Judge Lindman stopped Gov. Dayton and AFSCME with his ruling.
Vetoing a bill that would've given schools the option of keeping the most qualified teachers in school instead of the longest tenured teachers would've been what's right for students. Gov. Dayton opted to obey Tom Dooher, Education Minnesota's president and a registered lobbyist.
When Gov. Dayton, AFSCME and the SEIU tried unionizing small business owners, the child care providers stood up to the PEUs and Gov. Dayton. Now it's time for parents to stand up for their children. Parents must insist that only the best teachers are put in the classrooms.
That's the only way to rip education policy out of Tom Dooher's and Education Minnesota's hands.
Tags: Education Minnesota , Tom Dooher , Lobbyist , Child Care , AFSCME , Mark Dayton , LIFO , Veto , Cronyism , DFL , Small Businesses , MNGOP
Posted Friday, May 4, 2012 3:06 AM
No comments.
Economy adds 115,000 jobs, 522,000 leave workforce
It isn't surprising to find out that the economy only created 115,000 last month :
The nation's employers added 115,000 positions on net, after adding 154,000 in March. April's job growth was less than what economists had been predicting. The unemployment rate ticked down to 8.1 percent in April, from 8.2 percent, but that was because workers dropped out of the labor force.
The share of working-age Americans who are in the labor force, either by working or actively looking for a job, is now at its lowest level since 1981, when far fewer women were doing paid work.
This sentence jumped out at me:
The unemployment rate ticked down to 8.1 percent in April, from 8.2 percent, but that was because workers dropped out of the labor force.
If the economy was catching fire, people would increase their efforts at finding a job. They wouldn't be quitting in despair as they are now.
'It's a pretty sluggish report over all,' said Andrew Tilton, a senior economist at Goldman Sachs, noting that economists had expected more younger workers to join the labor force as the economy improved. 'There were a lot of younger people who had gone back to school to get more education and training, and we thought we'd see more of them joining the work force now. May, June and July, the months when people are typically coming out of schooling, will be the big test.'
This graph does a nice job of highlighting the LFPR problems:
ZeroHedge offers this perspective :
In April, the number of people not in the labor force rose by a whopping 522,000 from 87,897,000 to 88,419,000. This is the highest on record. The flip side, and the reason why the unemployment dropped to 8.1% is that the labor force participation rate just dipped to a new 30 year low of 64.3%.
In short, people are indicating what they think of Obamanomics with their refusal to look for employment. The unemployment rate is almost irrelevant because people dropping out of the workforce will likely continue its decling. That won't strengthen consumer confidence. The unemployment rate doesn't mean anything to people who've quit looking for work.
Ed nails it with this commentary :
That weakness will keep jobs and the economy at the top of the list for voter concerns, and keep Obama and his campaign on their mission to talk about any other distraction they can find from it.
This report won't help President Obama make the case that he knows what he's doing in building a strong economy. AxelPlouffe better buy more Maalox. They'll need it.
Tags: Unemployment Rate , Job Growth , LFPR , Obamanomics , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Friday, May 4, 2012 10:32 AM
No comments.
Spoken like a socialist
During Friday night's political roundtable on Almanac, Dayton administation advisor Ellen Anderson was asked about the tax bill Gov. Dayton vetoed. Here's what she said:
The Governor was clear from the beginning that he wasn't going to support this proposal. He wasn't going to support something that was all about corporate tax cuts and very little, tiny bit of help for average people in the form of property taxes but most of it in the form of tax breaks for corporations. Never, ever work to create jobs and adding to the budget deficit.Sen. Anderson clearly didn't take any economic classes, either during her high school or collegiate careers. To say that the Reagan tax cuts, the JFK tax cuts, the Bush Tax cuts and the Clinton/Gingrich/Kasich tax cuts didn't create jobs is stupid. It's to deny reality.
North Dakota is dramatically changing their tax system, cutting tax rates and thinking about eliminating property taxes altogether. While it's true that the Bakken boom is bringing prosperity to the state in the short term, it's equally true that the tax cuts that the legislature has passed and tax reforms that the legislature is contemplating are setting the foundation for future prosperity.
Despite all this proof, Sen. Anderson is denying that tax cuts create jobs. That's spoken like a true socialist, which is what this administration is made of.
It's amazing what's gotten accomplished with this many socialists opposing the GOP's reform agenda. Despite the DFL's socialist economic policies and the DFL's steadfast support of the PEUs, the GOP has gotten a significant amount of their pro-growth reform agenda passed and signed into law.
It'd be amazing what could get accomplished if we had a pro-growth, capitalist governor. Hopefully, that'll change in 2014. Until then, we'll have to push the socialists running the executive branch.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Ellen Anderson , Socialists , Tax the Rich , DFL , Capitalists , Tax Cuts , Reagan , JFK , Bush Tax Cuts , Jobs , North Dakota , Bakken Oil Field , Tax Reform , Prosperity
Posted Saturday, May 5, 2012 2:46 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 05-May-12 06:58 AM
What a great legacy Dayton is building. A state government shutdown and now this veto of the GOP's top legislative priority may cost him his precious Vikings stadium.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 05-May-12 08:25 AM
One can only hope. The GOP will get blamed regardless, even for things they had nothing to do with, so they may as well do the right thing. In this case, standing up to the Vikings' extortion scheme.
Comment 3 by Chad Q at 05-May-12 07:33 PM
Ellen Anderson, worthless as a state senator and clueless as a Dayton advisor. One can only pray this veto has awakened the GOP up and they vote against the stadium.
Comment 4 by eric z at 06-May-12 12:46 PM
What's a socialist?
It seems there is a tad of argument by tautology here.
If a socialist is somebody who disagrees with you, then wnat's a fascist?
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 06-May-12 01:00 PM
Eric, I based my opinion on Dictionary.com's definition of the word socialist. This isn't complicated.
Comment 6 by Rick Mons aka Prominent DFL Activist at 06-May-12 06:40 PM
If Barrack Obama were a socialist, he would have
permitted GM and Chrysler to fail and nationalized them;
nationalized the failing banks after Bush propped them up with TARP funding and prior to any paybacks;
gone to a single-payer health care system and merged local health systems into a national system; and, etc.
After all, your esteemed source defines socialism as "theory or system of social organization based on government or community ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods."
Of course that hasn't happened nor did President Obama advance it in terms of legislation. But it's always fun to paint your political opponents as negatively as possible and let the truth be damned.
It's not complicated ... just disingenuous.
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 06-May-12 07:10 PM
First, tax cuts have helped create millions of jobs over the past 30 years. Just because Ellen Anderson won't admit it doesn't mean it didn't happen. I know you won't admit it but it's documented fact. Your arguments, silly though they may be, were a worthwhile effort.
Second, the government doesn't have to own GM since the UAW is running it according to this administration's wishes. Then again, you knew that, didn't you?
Third, nationalize health care doesn't mean the nation owns the hospitals & clinics. None of the European countries that have socialized medicine own the hospitals & clinics. They just overregulate them to the point where the government is essentially telling health care professionals what they should do. Again, there's no need to own the mechanism if you can just tell it what to do.
Finally, it's shameful that you won't talk about how the Reagan Tax Cuts, especially the Capital Gains cuts, & the Clinton/Gingrich/Kasich tax cuts were the catalyst for their impressive job creation records. In both instances, job creation spiked after the tax cuts. Spin it all you'd like but your spin is BS.
Comment 7 by eric z at 07-May-12 02:25 PM
Yeah, Bush, the dog went and overregulated Wall Street. If only he'd allowed the invisible hand of the market to hold sway, Lehman Brothers would not have been the only collapse, and the market would have healed itself and Goldman would still rule. But he went and regulated things to where all that cash was given away, and that's the problem with Socialism for the benefit of the wealthy only. It does not work. Is that your point, Gary? I don't understand. It was Phil Gramm who deregulated the bastards, with Enron and the meltdown as proof of his policy wisdom.
Response 7.1 by Gary Gross at 07-May-12 03:00 PM
Eric, You should really learn that there's a difference between law enforcement & regulation. The free market didn't have anything to do with the Wall Street collapse. It had to do with corrupt people breaking the law. It isn't that complicated.
Why?
President Obama has spent a significant amount of time telling Americans that increasing domestic energy production won't lower energy prices. The lone exception to that is this administration's touting the benefits of green energy and the jobs it creates.
Militant environmentalists insist that conservation is the key to energy independence. What's interesting is that they don't argue that conservation is the key to lower energy prices. Right now, we need cheaper energy to strengthen the U.S. economy.
A couple weeks ago, this administration begged the Saudis to produce more oil. After they implored the Saudis to produce more oil, Anti-Energy Secretary Steven Chu committed a gaffe by saying that increased Saudi production might lead to lower gas prices.
He's right. It might. That's the definition of a gaffe: accidentally telling the truth at an inopportune time.
Why would increasing Saudi oil production lower gas prices but increasing U.S. oil production have little effect on gas prices? This administration hates fossil fuels and the people manufacturing it.
- Why didn't President Obama greenlight the Keystone XL Pipeline? It was a no-brainer decision that every industry expert supported.
- Why didn't President Obama increased permitting to increase domestic energy production?
- Why hasn't this administration offered proof that bigger margins between oil production vs. oil use resulted in higher gas prices? A: Because every time oil production outdistances oil use, gas prices drop, then stabilize.
- Why hasn't this administration implemented policies that will drop energy prices? Doesn't this administration care how much their policies hurt families, especially people whose wages have gotten cut or who are underemployed?
It's shameful that President Obama's energy policies have hurt the working poor and the underemployed, especially when President Obama's stump speech includes the line "Everyone does better when everyone does better." That's in the speech to rationalize income redistribution.
Unfortunately, President Obama's policies haven't helped people find employment or achieve prosperity. They never will because President Obama's policies are geared more toward rewarding political allies than creating prosperity.
That's why President Obama needs to be fired this November. We can't afford 4 more years of economic disaster. We need a return to free market capitalism.
Tags: President Obama , Keystone XL Pipeline , Jobs , Energy , Gas Prices , Militant Environmentalists , Unions , Pipefitters , Engineers , Welders , Recession , Democrats
Posted Saturday, May 5, 2012 12:25 PM
No comments.
Spoken like a true socialist, Part II
Saturday, I wrote this post to highlight Sen. Anderson's statements about how tax cuts don't create jobs. Here's what Sen. Anderson said early in the roundtable:
The Governor was clear from the beginning that he wasn't going to support this proposal. He wasn't going to support something that was all about corporate tax cuts and very little, tiny bit of help for average people in the form of property taxes but most of it in the form of tax breaks for corporations. Never, ever work to create jobs and adding to the budget deficit.
As foolish as that statement is, Sen. Anderson wasn't finished. Later, she got into this fight with Andy Brehm:
BREHM: The biggest problem we have in Minnesota right now is jobs and I wish this was as obvious as you guys are making it. But Minnesota is ranked 47th out of 50 states by the National Taxpayers Association, 47th out of 50 in terms of business climate. The governor himself has admitted that we need major, major reform. This was a step in the right direction...
SEN. ANDERSON: People have cut taxes for decades and it's never, ever, worked to create jobs. It's not a job-creating strategy and the governor has been really, really clear that that's what the stadium bill is about. That's what the bonding bill is about. And the fact is that when we were in the majority in the Senate, we knew that we would pass some tax bills that Gov. Pawlenty would veto. It was clear that he didn't agree with us on everything on taxes. There's really big, deep philosophical differences...You can't just come in and get your ideology.
I can't say that I'm shocked that Sen. Anderson would make such stupid statements. Unfortunately, after hearing her socialist diatribes on the Senate floor, this the rule, not the exception. It's what I expect.
First, saying that cutting taxes has "never, ever, worked to create jobs" isn't just stupid. It's an outright lie. When Congress passed President Reagan's capital gains tax cuts, Detroit's Big Three automakers were falling behind Japanese automakers for almost 3-4 years.
With the cost of capital dramatically cut, Ford, GM and Chrysler upgraded the equipment for their assembly lines, making them more efficient and productive. Within 5 years, the Big Three had passed Japan. They'd resumed being the Big Three again.
The Reagan tax cuts encouraged businesses to create 16,000,000 jobs during the last 6 years of Reagan's administration.
Liberals have argued that the big deficits were the reason for President Reagan's success. Consider the oppressive debt run up by President Obama's administration, then argue that big deficits are the key to robust economic growth.
Let's examine another of Sen. Anderson's foolish statements:
You can't just come in and get your ideology.
Gov. Dayton, Rep. Thissen and Sen. Anderson are nothing if not ideological creatures. They're also failures economically. They've failed Minnesotans miserably in terms of eliminating the DFL's deficit. They've failed Minnesotans in terms of creating dynamic private sector jobs. They've failed because they didn't do a single thing during the past 2 years.
Thanks to Rep. Thissen's obstructionism, they didn't submit a budget. They only submitted tax increases. The budget didn't get balanced because of anything the DFL legislature did.
Meanwhile, GOP legislators can point to the permitting reforms authored by freshman Rep. Dan Fabian, which was the first House bill submitted in 2011. When the legislature returned from their recess, the GOP leadership passed another permitting reform bill, which further assisted businesses in getting the permits they need to expand their companies.
It isn't coincidence that the $6,200,000,000 deficit that the GOP majorities inherited in 2010 has turned into a $1,200,000,000 surplus. That's a $7,400,000,000 swing in 18 months.
It isn't credible for the DFL to take credit for that swing because they didn't contribute anything meaningful to the budget process. They didn't contribute, for the most part, anything meaningful to the reform process. They literally didn't contribute anything meaningful to the redistricting process.
Finally, I can't let this statement go unchallenged:
And the fact is that when we were in the majority in the Senate, we knew that we would pass some tax bills that Gov. Pawlenty would veto. It was clear that he didn't agree with us on everything on taxes.
That's spin and then some. Saying that TPaw didn't agree with all of the DFL's tax policies is like saying that the Catholic church doesn't totally agree with capital punishment.
Tags: Tax Cuts , Tax Reform , Jobs , Dan Fabian , Permitting , Business Climate , TPaw , Reagan Tax Cuts , MNGOP , Ellen Anderson , Paul Thissen , Mark Dayton , Tax Increases , Deficits , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Saturday, May 5, 2012 11:22 PM
No comments.
