May 6-11, 2013
May 06 00:48 President Potter unhinged, part II May 06 06:20 Jeff Johnson announces gubernatorial campaign May 06 11:34 Whistleblowers to expose administration's Benghazi spin May 06 18:19 Explosive testimony undermines administration's Benghazi spin May 07 01:17 As the facade crumbles May 09 01:50 President Potter's failed apartment initiative May 10 08:45 Why did they lie & how many times did they do it? May 11 11:12 DFL passes home electric bill increase
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
President Potter unhinged, part II
Earlier this week, I wrote about how President Potter had gotten a bit unhinged . That time, it was his attempting to intimidate students. This afternoon, the minutes to the last Meet & Confer meeting were posted. This time, President Potter lost his temper with members of the faculty:
FA: It's probably pointless for us to continue this but I don't think that the enrollment decline was a monotonic decline. I don't think that it would continue to decline to zero, that's the implication I am saying that it was declining for five years. I think in fact they had a step function reduction in enrollment that had been stabilized.
Admin: I don't believe that the assertion that the assumption was that it would decline to zero makes any sense and it certainly not what I would have made. I think that's a straw horse that's clearly provocative and it's a stupid position to take and I won't take that position. It was declining at a time when lots of other programs were growing; you cannot claim that the recession and 911 were the sole causes for that decline. Other programs grew. International programs grew. They could say people were scared to fly and that's why they didn't enroll in the program; I don't believe that's true. A decision was made, it was made through an inclusive, deliberate processes and I am going to stand on those. Not because I am the President and I made the decision, I will not overturn a process that was legitimate, well considered and I think in the end in the best interest of the University.
It's pretty insulting for a university president to say that the faculty's arguments are "stupid." The faculty in that room each have PhDs. It's one thing to say that you disagree with their argument. That's how a statesman would've handled the situation. Instead, President Potter chose to insult members of his faculty. Rather than showing calm leadership, President Potter resorted to hurling insults.
That isn't a portrait in statesmanship or leadership. Unfortunately, that isn't the only time President Potter lost his temper at the March Meet & Confer meeting:
We cut the budget $20 million; we had to do that, if it were not that program that we closed it would be another several programs that we closed. The position has not changed and Mr. Johnson raised the question to the governor Monday night in a public forum; the governor said it's a MnSCU decision I will not intervene. Professor Johnson takes the question regularly to the legislature, he has gone from people to General Larry Shellito to David Olson the chair of the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, he's been told no by every office to which he as gone. David Olson from the MN Chamber said he would not take action on just the most recent request. The case is put forward again and again. I want to be very careful and respectful of your good faith because I believe you are doing what you are required to do representing issues brought to you by the faculty. But I am deeply disturbed that students are employed in this ongoing campaign and given misinformation and put up before the public to represent a position they don't understand. The program was referred to by Dr. Johnson as a viable program last Monday night. A program with declining enrollments that is losing $600,000 a year is not viable.
Focus on this statement:
I am deeply disturbed that students are employed in this ongoing campaign and given misinformation and put up before the public to represent a position they don't understand.
The inference is clear. President Potter thinks Professor Johnson is willfully feeding his students misinformation, then telling them to use public forums to advance Professor Johnson's agenda. What's President Potter's proof that substantiates his accusation?
Having attended quite a few public forums myself, I've met many of these students. They're self-informed. They think for themselves. With them, the closing of the program is personal. They aren't mind-numbed robots doing what they've been told to do by Professor Johnson.
They're also the people that President Potter has repeatedly denigrated.
UPDATE: I just got an email from a faithful reader of this blog. This person participated in the meeting. According to this person, the minutes are a paraphrase. According to this person, President Potter said that Professor Johnson "colluded with" his students and given misinformation.
Saying that a professor had colluded with people is a provocative term for a university president to use, especially when that president doesn't have proof backing up that allegation.
Tags: Earl Potter , St. Cloud State , Faculty , Administration , Meet and Confer , Aviation Program , Allegations , Collusion Scandal
Posted Monday, May 6, 2013 12:48 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 06-May-13 07:04 AM
The aviation program lost $600,000 is not believable. According to the President Potter Smoking Gun video, it lost less than $160,000 while nursing lost close to a million dollars. Looks like fuzzy math to me.
Comment 2 by Jethro at 06-May-13 07:37 AM
Less than $200,000 not 160. Sorry http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=jahbg9HH17A&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3Djahbg9HH17A
Jeff Johnson announces gubernatorial campaign
This weekend, RNC National Committeeman Jeff Johnson announced his candidacy to be the next governor of Minnesota. The DFL's response was predictable:
DFL Chairman Ken Martin said Minnesotans will notice his ambition.
'Jeff Johnson is a classic politician trying to climb the ladder. He left the Minnesota House of Representatives to run for Attorney General and failed," Martin said. "Now after a short time as a Hennepin County Commissioner, he wants to run for another statewide seat. Minnesotans will recognize this personal, restless ambition for what it is.'
The Alliance for a Better Minnesota released a statement from Executive Director Carrie Lucking in response to Johnson's campaign.
"Jeff Johnson will ask Minnesotans to forget his record o extreme votes at the expense of the middle class during his time at the legislature," Lucking said. "Amnesia is not a winning platform for Minnesotans in 2014."
Ken Martin's response is feeble. If he thinks winning election to more than one office is a bad thing, then he'd better apologize for One-and-Done-Dayton. Gov. Dayton served a single term as State Auditor. Later, he served a single term as U.S. senator. Now, he's Minnesota's governor.
While both men have held more than one elected office, that's where the similarity ends. Jeff Johnson hasn't had to rewrite his entire budget like Gov. Dayton has. In fact, Gov. Dayton has rewritten his budget twice, once in 2011, once this year. Jeff Johnson hasn't been rated one of America's "Five Worst Senators"[11] by Time magazine. Likewise, Jeff Johnson wasn't nicknamed "The Blunderer" for temporarily closing his DC Senate office in 2004 because of an imagined terrorist threat.
Another dissimilarity between Jeff Johnson and Gov. Dayton is Commissioner Johnson's Golden Hydrant award :
The latest Golden Fire Hydrant award goes to the Property Tax Study Project, an endeavor Hennepin County has funded on and off for the past decade.
Bottom line (and pardon my crudeness): Government is giving the finger to the taxpayers of Hennepin County as it spends taxpayer money to lobby the legislature for increased taxes on those same taxpayers.
The Project began several years ago and is funded jointly by the counties of Hennepin, Ramsey and St. Louis, the cities of Minneapolis, St. Paul and Duluth and the school districts of those same three cities. Each entity allocates approximately $10,000 each year to the Project.
The Project essentially funds one 'consultant' (who happens to work for Matt Entenza's liberal Minnesota 2020 think tank) year after year to prepare a report that pretty consistently says the same thing: Minnesotans are not taxed enough. That report is then used to lobby the legislature for increased taxes, apparently in hopes of obtaining more money for cities, counties and school districts in Minnesota.
Isn't it great that taxpayers funds a consultant for a progressive think tank? If you think, like most people think, that think tanks should be funded privately, then you'll agree with Jeff Johnson, not Gov. Dayton.
Ms. Lucking, is highlighting the metro slush fund for MN2020 one of those "extreme votes at the expense of the middle class" that you're referring to? I'm betting that protecting taxpayers' wallets is better than ignoring liberal local government contributes to a liberal slush fund.
Gov. Dayton needlessly shut down state government two years ago. Now, with a dysfunctional DFL legislature, he's wasting the taxpayers' money while chasing businesses from Minnesota . It's time Minnesota dumps Gov. Dayton once and for all. We can't afford 4 more years of his counterproductive policies.
Posted Monday, May 6, 2013 6:20 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 06-May-13 01:11 PM
Gary:
In one sense I hope that Ken Martin is right. Jeff wants to balance the budget without raising taxes (hopefully cut taxes instead) and trying to stop outrageous and bad spending.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-May-13 08:22 PM
Walter, that isn't the important thing Jeff needs to communicate. The thing that Jeff needs to communicate is that the best economic years came when the mining industry was going strong, that the best economic years came when manufacturing was going strong. Minnesota's economy wasn't strongest when we passed the biggest bonding bills. Talking about strengthening & growing the economy is appealing. Limiting the size of government is just the vehicle, not the destination.
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-May-13 07:55 PM
The best economic years came during Truman - Eisenhower years. It has been downhill since, given competitive decline, and costly unproductive wars - Vietnam, the anti-jihadi jihads, etc., all that. Bin Laden was Reagan's numero uno "holy warrior" don't forget. History exists and is ignored by fools or sophists.
Whistleblowers to expose administration's Benghazi spin
This video of Bob Schieffer's interview of Chairman Darrell Issa, (R-Calif.) is explosive. What makes it explosive is that it includes quotes from people on the ground in Benghazi.
This article contains some of the explosive quotes. Here's the first shocking quote:
"I think everybody in the mission thought it was a terrorist attack from the beginning," Greg Hicks, a 22-year foreign service diplomat who was the highest-ranking U.S. official in Libya after the strike, told investigators under authority of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Hicks, the former U.S. Embassy Tripoli deputy chief of mission, was not in Benghazi at the time of the attack, which killed Chris Stevens, then the U.S. ambassador to Libya, and three other Americans.
That quote didn't come from a political appointee. It came from a career diplomat. This verifies Stephen Hayes' article :
Later, Hicks said this:
"...I've never been as embarrassed in my life, in my career, as on that day," Hicks continued in his interview with investigators. "The net impact of what has transpired is, [Rice,] the spokesperson of the most powerful country in the world, has basically said that the president of Libya is either a liar of doesn't know what he's talking about. My jaw hit the floor as I watched this."
These quotes guarantee that Wednesday's hearing will be the most explosive hearings on Benghazi yet. The administration is walking a tightrope on this. If they label Hicks and other whistleblowers as disgruntled employees, they risk having more whistleblowers step forward. If they portray Hicks as being misinformed, the administration should expect a backlash. People tend to believe the career diplomat, not the political appointee with an administration to protect.
Posted Monday, May 6, 2013 11:34 AM
No comments.
Explosive testimony undermines administration's Benghazi spin
This morning, I wrote that Wednesday's hearing on Benghazi will be explosive . This article assures us that President Obama, Secretary Clinton and Ambassador Rice will be feeling the heat. Here's some information that's certain to increase the heat on the administration:
The account from Gregory Hicks is in stark contrast to assertions from the Obama administration, which insisted that nobody was ever told to stand down and that all available resources were utilized. Hicks gave private testimony to congressional investigators last month in advance of his upcoming appearance at a congressional hearing Wednesday.
According to excerpts released Monday, Hicks told investigators that SOCAFRICA commander Lt. Col. Gibson and his team were on their way to board a C-130 from Tripoli for Benghazi prior to an attack on a second U.S. compound "when [Col. Gibson] got a phone call from SOCAFRICA which said, 'you can't go now, you don't have the authority to go now.' And so they missed the flight ... They were told not to board the flight, so they missed it."
The Obama administration has insisted that there weren't military assets that could've reached Benghazi. Gregory Hicks' testimony contradicts the administration's spin. Hicks' testimony also demolishes the credibility of the ARB's report on Benghazi. That report didn't point the finger at anyone. Instead, it spoke of the systemic failures that happened that day.
If Hicks' testimony is that Lt. Col. Gibson was prevented from putting together a rescue operation, then someone had to have given that order. We know that because a special operator told Fox News' Adam Housley that special operators were prepared to respond quickly.
It's impossible to predict with any certainty whether other networks will start covering this scandal. What's totally predictable, though, is that Hicks' testimony will put a big hit on the Obama administration's credibility on Benghazi. It will also hurt the ARB's report, which cited "systemic failures" for the poor response for Benghazi.
This wasn't a systemic failure. This was about Hillary Clinton failing to do her job. It's about Leon Panetta failing in his responsibility to have troops prepared for the anniversary of 9/11. It's about President Obama ignoring the needs of the diplomats in Benghazi.
In short, it was a human failure.
Posted Monday, May 6, 2013 6:19 PM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 07-May-13 02:31 PM
"In short, it was a human failure."
fail-ure/noun
1. an act or instance of failing or proving unsuccessful; lack of success: "His effort ended in failure. The campaign was a failure."
2. nonperformance of something due, required, or expected: a failure to do what one has promised; a failure to appear.
In short, to fail, one must first have had to TRY. This was not failure. Benghazi went exactly as someone intended for it to go. When that person is found, consequences must ensue.
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-May-13 07:33 PM
They fired the guy who was heading up the CIA and was responsible for the CIA operations there, and how they might be protected or hung out to dry. Why no finger pointing at Bush's favorite general, Gen. Surge? Putting boffing a junior officer aside for the moment, he was in charge. He called the shots, didn't he? He fed info to the State Department and President, and had them rely, did he not? Gen. Surge is at fault, start there, and then where you go may be more credible.
Comment 3 by eric z at 09-May-13 07:35 PM
Quick, have you evidence on what this Gibson fellow has to say? It seems first person trumps hearsay everytime, especially, who the f... is Hicks anyway?
Comment 4 by eric z at 09-May-13 07:50 PM
http://www.state.gov/courses/rs401/page_24.htm
The Hicks guy was not in any CIA loop, from what this link says of the job description. And the spooks, Gen. Surge, him and team, were running the Benghazi detention center, paying the mercs, etc. And the propper disinformation head got chopped, promptly, cleanly. Give it up.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 10-May-13 08:57 AM
First, Petraeus didn't drop the ball on the talking points. The first version of the talking points were accurate. Ergo, there isn't a justification for criticizing him, unless you're criticizing him for drafting an accurate appraisal of the talking points.
Second, I'm certain that the next hearing on Benghazi will include testimony from Lt. Col. Gibson. I'm certain of that because he'll be able to tell the committee who told him he couldn't rescue these trapped patriots.
Third, considering the attacks against Gregory Hicks, including a demotion for telling the truth to Congress, it isn't surprising that the State Department is attempting to marginalize Mr. Hicks.
It's important to remember that a) Mr. Hicks was in Libya on the night of the terrorist attack and b) Mr. Hicks spoke with Amb. Stevens right before the terrorists assassinated Stevens.
No State Department memo will change that fact.
As the facade crumbles
This is my third post on Benghazi in the past 24 hours. My first post on the subject highlighted the whistleblowers coming forward. The second post highlights how the whistleblowers are destroying the administration's credibility. This post deals with the fact that the media wall is crumbling . Here's what CNN is reporting:
In an interview with congressional investigators, the former top diplomat in Libya expressed concern that more could have been done by the military on the night of September 11, 2012 and morning of September 12, 2012, to protect those being attacked at the U.S. compound and annex in Benghazi, Libya. Specifically, he wondered why the military did not send a plane as a show of force into Libyan airspace, and why four U.S. Special Operations soldiers were not permitted to travel to Benghazi on a Libyan plane the morning of September 12.
'The Libyans that I talked to and the Libyans and other Americans who were involved in the war have told me also that Libyan revolutionaries were very cognizant of the impact that American and NATO airpower had with respect to their victory,' Greg Hicks, then the US deputy chief of mission in Libya, told investigators on April 11 of this year. 'They are under no illusions that American and NATO airpower won that war for them. And so, in my personal opinion, a fast mover flying over Benghazi at some point, you know, as soon as possible might very well have prevented some of the bad things that happened that night.'
Hicks went on to say he believes 'if we had been able to scramble a fighter or aircraft or two over Benghazi as quickly as possible after the attack commenced', around 9:30 p.m. that night, 'I believe there would not have been a mortar attack on the annex in the morning because I believe the Libyans would have split. They would have been scared to death that we would have gotten a laser on them and killed them.'
Prior to this article, most of the reporting on Benghazi had been done by Sharyl Attkisson and Lara Logan from CBS and Catherine Herridge and Jennifer Griffin of Fox News. With this article, CNN is now jumping into the issue. With that, the media freeze-out is almost over.
Brit Hume has as good of instincts on the DC media as anyone. Here's his observations on the Benghazi coverage:
The media didn't cover this properly for the longest time, mostly because they wanted President Obama to win re-election. Had the DC media investigated the Obama administration's decision to leave Christopher Stevens and his diplomatic team to die going into the debates, it isn't a stretch to think it might've changed the election landscape.
Posted Tuesday, May 7, 2013 1:17 AM
Comment 1 by Ryan Hill at 07-May-13 04:26 PM
Even though the mainstream media has neglected this issue, the new media (and the American people) haven't let it drop. Maybe we will get some sort of answer or explanation on this, even though it's a little late.
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-May-13 07:13 PM
Cause, clearly, to run Romney yet one more time ...
Emmer ...
I don't mind Benghazi as much as I mind some idiot's travel to Bibi stunts; where adults simply should know better. On the Bibi side. On the vulture-voucher side.
Kissing one of Bibi's body parts will not make anything such as future Benghazis less likely.
Next Bibi is planning settlements in Benghazi? No surprise, if so.
President Potter's failed apartment initiative
A loyal reader of this blog has stepped forward with firsthand information on President Potter's agreement with the J.A. Wedum Foundation. Here is this person's account:
First, what is a university doing getting into the rental property business? Next, it's astonishing to hear of a university president signing a contract that essentially guarantees a private rental property company a profit. Third, it isn't unreasonable to question whether these annual losses have necessitated the closing of academic programs. Losing $1,125,000 a year for 3 years doesn't come out of SCSU's petty cash fund.
A Modest Proposal (with apologies to Jonathan Swift)
by Silence Dogood
Coborn's Plaza apartments have been a well-kept secret since they opened in the fall of 2010. Even getting accurate occupancy numbers during the first two years was difficult and only given in whispers with those hearing the secrets being sworn to secrecy. Some of that secrecy ended November 13, 2012 when Len Sippel, Interim Vice President for Finance and Administration, released the list of approved funding for permanent investments that included $2,250,000 for the "Coborn's Welcome Center."
This eye-popping number actually covers the deficit for Coborn's Plaza for the last two years so the loss only averages $1,125,000 per year. The amount of the loss for the first year for Coborn's Plaza has never been shared with the Faculty Association or made public. As a result, one is left to imagine that it is even larger than the annual loss for the last two years. What has apparently been a tremendous deal for the Coborn's Corporation and the J. A. Wedum Foundation has, without a doubt, been and will continue to be a financial boondoggle for SCSU.
The initial year (2010-2011) of the 20-year Coborn's Plaza lease cost SCSU $3,408,360, which divided by the number of rooms (453) means that the annual rent per room (including parking) is $7,524. Because of the escalator clause in the contract, the rent for fall semester 2013 (including parking) works out to $7,828 (or $652 per month for 12 months a year). Rents for two semesters for the least expensive 4 bedroom unit is $7,274 and $7,874 for the most expensive studio apartment. So if there is a mixture of a lot more of the more expensive studio apartments and less of the 4 Bedroom Units and they are all occupied, SCSU will about break even.
Some lawyers who work in real estate law have informed me that no one would ever sign a contract guaranteeing 100% occupancy; this is simply "insane" (their word not mine). In the apartment rental business an occupancy somewhere about 91% is the level that is generally accepted as being 'full' since there are always rooms that need paint, carpet that needs replacing, roofs that are leaking, as well as a whole host of other reasons that prevent 100% occupancy [NOTE: SCSU's dormitory occupancy averages 95%, which is close to the national median.]. So unless SCSU charges more than the actual cost of the room, for each empty room the university is on the hook for the rent and, as a result, will always lose money.
This spring there are 317 of 453 rooms occupied for an occupancy rate of 70.0%. The administration predicts that next fall 334 rooms will be occupied, increasing the occupancy percentage to 73.7%. At this rate of growth, Coborn's Plaza will be filled to capacity in 7 years. However, when the increase of 17 students for next year is broken down, 10 of the 17 is due to an expected expansion of the inebriate housing section. This is a unique housing opportunity for students with prior abuse problems that allow them to return to college. The question is, can the expansion of the inebriate housing continue into the future because if the occupancy increases by only seven students per year, it will take 17 years to get to 100% occupancy (just about the time the twenty-year lease ends).
At the April 30, 2013 meeting of the Budget Advisory Group, Patrick Jacobson-Schulte, Associate Vice President for Financial Management and Budget, informed the committee that even under the best scenario of 100% occupancy, Coborn's Plaza would lose $50,000 annually (the high range was to lose over $100,000 annually). This is disturbing because the chance of Coborn's Plaza having 100% occupancy is probably in the same range of winning the Powerball lottery (in case you didn't know, the current odds of winning are 1 out 175,223,510).
MnSCU Board Policy 7.3.5 Revenue Fund Management states that Revenue Fund Facilities (i.e., dormitories) are required to be self-sustaining, which means that they can't lose money. So in order for the university not to lose money on Coborn's Plaza, the rents would have to increase significantly since the occupancy rate is only 73.7%. In order to just break even, at the current rate of occupancy, the rent needs to increase by 35.7% to $885 per month (for 12 months a year). The rent is significantly larger if you only want to stay for the two academic semesters.
The 'good news,' however, is that since Coborn's Plaza is not considered a 'Revenue Fund Facility' the university rather than the students living in the dorms are on the hook for the extra cash needed to pay the lease. This is probably a very good thing because if the students in the dorms on campus were paying higher rents to fund the people staying in Coborn's Plaza as well as for the empty rooms in Coborn's Plaza, there just might be a rebellion on campus.
Originally, Coborn's Plaza was intended only for upper-level undergraduate students. However, this restriction was quickly eliminated by the need to put bodies into the rooms and first-year students are housed there if they are willing to part with the necessary cash. It is even rumored that St. Cloud Technical and Community College students are being housed there but since it is not easy to get information from the administration, I had difficulty getting confirmation.
St. Cloud State is pretty well known as a kind of 'blue collar' university; there are more Hyundai's and Hondas in the student parking lots than BMWs and Acura's. So it is logical to ask who made the decision that the university needed luxury off-campus housing where each room has an individual bathroom?
It always seems that administrators are ready to appear at groundbreaking ceremonies and ribbon cutting ceremonies where they can slap each other on the back and congratulate themselves. ,However, has anyone stood up and taken responsibility for what appears to be a horrible financial decision? President Potter's signature is on the contact.
The original contract called for a 3% per year increase in the lease payments for years 3 through 20. Personally, I wish some of my current investments would do so well. Is there any chance I can still get in on the action? The original contract was apparently 'renegotiated' reducing the annual increase to only 2%. Additionally, it looks like the university can get out of the contract after ten years - IF it makes a decision to do so before the end of year five of the lease.
At first glance, the revision of the contract seems like a victory for the University. However, until I can review the entire contract, I am reserving final judgment. But it must be understood that even under the new lease agreement, as it was previously mentioned, with even 100% occupancy, the annual loss will be at least $50,000 and possibly upwards of $100,000. Right now at 73.7% occupancy the university is losing over $1,100,000 per year!
At Meet and Confer on March 28, 2013 between the Administration and Faculty Association, President Potter said that "to admit a mistake would make his leadership team look weak." He was referring to the closure of SCSU's accredited Aviation Program and not Coborn's Plaza. Most of us expect that our leaders continuously rethink their decisions in light of new information and, when warranted make a correction - even if it means admitting a mistake. I kind of like the idea of a leader who admits that they just might be wrong every now and then. To me, it doesn't make them look weak; it makes them look like a true leader.
So for the 'Modest Proposal,' let's sign an agreement with CentraCare and convert Coborn's Plaza from dormitory apartments into a secure chemical treatment facility. With Lindsay Lohan as well as other Hollywood personalities available for treatment every few months, we could turn Coborn's Plaza into a profit center and President Potter could 'declare victory.' Perhaps this 'Modest Proposal' is too reasonable to be rejected outright so my apologies to Jonathan Swift.
However, the original idea behind Coborn's Plaza has certainly not been successful and it looks as if the administration has even admitted that it will never be financially successful. Unless, of course, you consider that with even 100% occupancy losing a minimum of $50,000-$100,000 per year is successful. All in all, with an estimated loss over $3,000,000 in the first three years of operation, Coborn's Plaza could cost SCSU well over $20,000,000 over the twenty-year lease. Many people have lost their jobs over less.
This is only the first shoe to drop at SCSU. It's a pretty big shoe to drop but it isn't the only big shoe that'll drop in the coming days.
Originally posted Thursday, May 9, 2013, revised 18-Oct 6:53 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 09-May-13 07:05 PM
Ah, Grasshopper. You make progress. ultimately you shall comprehend the entire yin-yang of developers are crabgrass. It is more than a saying. It is an anthem. Dedicated to stupid officials, and private sector fellow travelers (calling themselves "job creators" - a theme as untrue as it is just more propaganda from hired propagandists, paid to say, "Yes, that is one fine idea and always will be"). Developers are Crabgrass. Consultants are sandburs. My bet is you might next look at key consultancies, arrangements, forecasts, and smoke and mirrors. Remember, Minnesota's public data laws are in your favor, even if recalcitrant disclosure happens vs none at all.
Comment 2 by Crimson Trace at 10-May-13 02:20 AM
Next to impossible to refute the letter writer with a straight face. Looks like the taxpayers are being taken for a ride. Where was the oversight for this financial boondoggle? How was MNSCU involved or were they AWOL? Like the idea for a secured inebriated center for CentraCare. We could invite Lindsay Lohan and people who are recovering from doctoring transcripts to stay.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 10-May-13 08:59 AM
MnSCU was AWOL except for rubberstamping the project.
Why did they lie & how many times did they do it?
From the start, the Obama administration insisted that the Benghazi talking points that UN Ambassador Susan Rice relied on were written almost exclusively by the CIA. According to this article , that story was pure fiction. What's more is that the White House and the State Department knew it was fiction:
State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland raised specific objections to this paragraph drafted by the CIA in its earlier versions of the talking points:
'The Agency has produced numerous pieces on the threat of extremists linked to al-Qa'ida in Benghazi and eastern Libya. These noted that, since April, there have been at least five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi by unidentified assailants, including the June attack against the British Ambassador's convoy. We cannot rule out the individuals has previously surveilled the U.S. facilities, also contributing to the efficacy of the attacks.'
In an email to officials at the White House and the intelligence agencies, State Department spokesman Victoria Nuland took issue with including that information because it ' could be abused by members [of Congress] to beat up the State Department for not paying attention to warnings , so why would we want to feed that either? Concerned ?
In other words, Victoria Nuland knew that the initial talking points from the "IC" included references to al-Qa'ida and the "five other attacks against foreign interests in Benghazi." Ms. Nuland knew that those references were damaging to the State Department and this administration. That's why she insisted that that information be deleted from the talking points.
Ms. Nuland was right. Members of Congress likely would've used the information to expose President Obama and Hillary Clinton for being inattentive about terrorism in general and Benghazi in specific.
It's difficult to say that President Obama and Hillary Clinton paid attention to terrorism when they're defending their decision to cut security forces in the aftermath of the previous terrorist attacks in Benghazi. It's especially difficult to defend their decisions in light of the multiple frantic requests for more security troops.
These paragraphs are particularly disturbing:
In an email dated 9/14/12 at 9:34 p.m. - three days after the attack and two days before Ambassador Rice appeared on the Sunday shows, Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes wrote an email saying the State Department's concerns needed to be addressed.
'We must make sure that the talking points reflect all agency equities, including those of the State Department, and we don't want to undermine the FBI investigation. We thus will work through the talking points tomorrow morning at the Deputies Committee meeting.'
"The State Department's concerns need to be addressed" is just a fancy way of saying the talking points must be rewritten to eliminate the information that makes this administration look bad.
Finally, this speaks for itself:
ABC News has obtained 12 different versions of the talking points that show they were extensively edited as they evolved from the drafts first written entirely by the CIA to the final version distributed to Congress and to U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice before she appeared on five talk shows the Sunday after that attack.
It isn't accurate to say that the talking points weren't "the best analysis of the IC" as Jay Carney and Hillary Clinton insisted. The talking points were the product of a massive State Department rewrite.
Posted Friday, May 10, 2013 8:45 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 10-May-13 09:33 AM
"Why did they lie..."
Because getting Baraq I re-elected was more important than telling the truth.
"& how many times did they do it?"
They lie when their lips move. So we may never know.
DFL passes home electric bill increase
When the House DFL voted to artificially increase the use of solar power, they voted to raise the price of electricity on every Minnesotan. Almost. The DFL bill includes a carve-out for companies in northern Minnesota. Rep. Mike Beard has been the expert on energy issues in the House for years. Rep. Beard isn't known as someone given to making wild statements. When he talks about energy issues, I listen because I'm about to learn something. Here's what Rep. Beard wrote about the DFL's energy bill:
House Democrats passed their hugely controversial Energy Policy omnibus bill this week that increases even more aggressive, unfunded renewable and solar mandates on utility companies.This bill is a positive step forward except for a few things. First, it raises the price of electricity on everyone in the state. Except for the people of northern Minnesota. Second, it mandates the use of a form of energy that can't compete with other forms of energy without massive government subsidies. Third, it mandates the use of a form of energy that isn't reliable.
hat
Besides huge technological difficulties implementing the new law, it will increase electric costs for all ratepayers (homeowners, businesses, hospitals, you name it) and decrease the reliability of our state's energy sources.
This bill benefits, to the best of my knowledge, a few Minnesota solar companies that rely on a mandated pool of government money to survive, even though they have over three decades of federal mandates throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at their industry.
This video does a fantastic job of explaining why subsidizing solar power is a waste of the taxpayers' money:
This partial transcript summarizes things:
REP. BEARD: I still have a picture of a poster in my office that Jimmy Carter's administration put out in 1978, thirty-five years ago, that by the year 2000, fully 20% of our power would come from solar PB. He dropped $12,000,000,000 on that adventure. And what do we have to show for it? Nothing. One tenth of 1% today, thirty-five years later, is solar PB. And so we're going to take another run at that windmill, and I'm not talking about the ones on Buffalo Ridge. We're picking winners and losers and we're desperately hoping that these are winners this time.Last night on Almanac, Michael Noble pushed the DFL mantras that renewables were the way of the future, that we're falling behind other nations so we have to invest now. That's BS. Rep. Beard's statistical summarization shows that Noble's statements are spin. Thirty-five years and tens of billions of dollars later, not to mention stories like Solyndra and other failed solar power companies, have produced negligible results.
Some people will insist that that's a good investment. People who don't have a vested interest in that will insist that that's the definition of pissing the taxpayers' money away to support people with the 'right' political connections. Here's another observation from Rep. Beard:
Unfortunately, this Energy Policy bill picks winners and losers. The winners are politically connected 'green' energy groups that are being given a government guaranteed market, while utility companies, electric co-ops, municipals and all ratepayers pay the price.This DFL legislature is intent on pissing away the taxpayers' money on things that are proven failures. They're intent on doing this because these initiatives support their special interest allies.
Posted Saturday, May 11, 2013 11:12 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 11-May-13 12:47 PM
Doesn't anybody ever ask WHY this is such a good idea? If somebody comes along with an energy source that is cheaper and better, more available and reliable, and perhaps even less polluting (even counting Co2 as a pollutant, which it is NOT), we will all jump to use it. Simple as that, free market solves the problem just as it always does. Now, if the gummint wants to spend a few bucks on research that could make solar or wind into such an energy source, that might make sense, but it ought to be done strictly as research, and let private industry commercialize any breakthroughs. That, of course, is not acceptable to the socialists in the DFL.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 11-May-13 11:44 PM
Jerry, that's the question I ask practically daily on this blog. I ask the same thing with LRT. 'It's the wave of the future', the liberals tell us. We're falling behind.
It's never about 'this is the solution to our problems' or 'this is cheaper' or anything like that.
Interesting that they just repeat the mantra like it's article of faith, isn't it?
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 12-May-13 12:24 PM
The trouble is the wave of the future can't keep my monthly electric bill at $100. It will make it $200 or more.
Just what exactly is wrong with American coal and nuclear which is cheaper than solar and wind not to mention more reliable. Oh they aren't environmentally friendly.
I got an idea. Have an option on your bill. Xcel will give you one figure if you only use coal and nuclear. Xcel will give you a different figure if you use just solar and wind. I bet solar and wind's prices will end the debate.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
