May 6-8, 2012
May 06 03:01 Buy this guy a dictionary May 06 06:31 Supply & Demand matters May 06 08:25 President Obama's failure by the numbers May 06 22:19 Introducing the Spinmeister-in-Chief May 07 12:39 Trumka supports building Keystone XL Pipeline May 08 00:51 Is Pat Anderson that indespensible? May 08 23:25 Three blind mice (Bakk, Thissen & Winkler) won't find jobs in tax bill May 08 00:47 House passes Vikings stadium bill
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Buy this guy a dictionary
The first thing I though after reading this editorial was "Thank God this guy isn't a professor. The next thing I thought was "This guy needs a dictionary." Here's the first thing Alan Davis said in his editorial that caught my attention:
Lately, many of my Fargo-Moorhead neighbors of all political persuasions have expressed outrage because radical GOP socialists from out of state are spending millions of dollars to attack moderates like Heidi Heitkamp, Amy Klobuchar and President Barack Obama. (See 'National conservative group launches anti-Heitkamp ad,' Forum, April 29.)
Patriots like Heitkamp, Klobuchar and Obama have the backs of all of us who are conservative. Why are they under attack?
The GOP socialists have an agenda, of course. They want to gut Social Security and Medicare, weaken the rights of workers, let air and water quality deteriorate, blur the constitutional line between church and state, and keep women down so that they can give yet another tax cut (No. 143) to those who need it least. They are determined to redistribute wealth by taking benefits from the middle class, from women and from the poor.
To achieve this agenda, they are happy to disenfranchise voters, pass socialist laws that make it difficult for workers to organize, and rebuke women (unless they're rich, and then it's OK) who stay at home to raise their kids.
This clown must think people reading this op-ed are stupid. Saying that think Sen. Klobuchar and President Obama are moderates demolishes Mr. Davis's credibility. If Mr. Davis had any credibility left after saying that, it's gone after he wrote this:
Like tens of thousands of other true conservatives in the Upper Midwest, I'm disgusted with these unethical actions and will vote straight Democrat this year. It's the right thing to do. President Obama is the Ronald Reagan of our times. He has our backs.
What conservative thinks that President Obama hasn't marched in lockstep with the PEUs? It's hysterical to hear an adult say that President Obama "is the Ronald Reagan of our times." There's another sentence in the editorial that's more hysterical:
The Bush years of GOP socialism destroyed our economy and our confidence, but Obama has heroically brought us back. All conservatives owe him a debt of gratitude.
Mr. Davis should consult a dictionary before writing something again. For instance, he used the word socialism 3 times. Here's the Dictionary.com definition of socialism :
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
Here's Davis's closing paragraph:
[President Obama] wants to do the greatest good for the largest number of Americans, while Mitt Romney and his fellow GOP socialists work 24/7 for the 400 wealthiest Americans.
That's how collectivists talk.
It's interesting that Mr. Davis called "the 400 wealthiest Americans" socialists. I'd love hearing him explain how socialists got to being the wealthiest of the wealthy . That's the explanation I'd pay money to hear.
Seriously, Mr. Davis isn't in touch with reality. He's either a spinmeister or he's totally delusional. Either way, his statements aren't rooted in reality.
Tags: President Obama , Amy Klobuchar , Socialists , Alan Davis , Editorial , Progressives , Democrats , Reagan , George W. Bush , Capitalists , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, May 6, 2012 3:01 AM
No comments.
Supply & Demand matters
For months, administration officials have tried selling the notion that increasing domestic energy production wouldn't drop gas prices. According to this CNBC article , commodities experts aren't buying their spin:
Traders also said the recent quiet surrounding Iran has punctured some of the geopolitical risk built into oil prices. As rhetoric around Iran's nuclear program and the sanctions against it created concerns that world oil supplies would be tightened, Saudi Arabia and other producers increased production.
'The physical market loosened up several weeks ago, thanks to increased Saudi production and seasonal refinery maintenance, but the futures market has been slow to respond. The jobs numbers out this morning appear to have catalyzed a change in market sentiment with concerns about demand weakness in the West outweighing fears of Iran-related disruptions,' said Trevor Houser, partner with the Rhodium Group.
I'll trust commodities experts more than I'll trust this administration's spinmeisters. I don't think people took the administration's spin seriously.
The administration should get too happy about dropping gas prices. Gas prices are dropping because the European and U.S. economies are weakening. The administration can't tout dropping gas prices because they'd have to admit that they're dropping because the economy isn't doing well.
This week, Mitt started hitting President Obama on the economy, especially in this Cleveland Plain Dealer op-ed :
I recognize, of course, as do all Americans, that you inherited an economic crisis. But you've now had three years to turn things around. The record of those three years is clear. Your policies have failed, not only in Ohio, but across the nation.
The results are a continuing tragedy for millions upon millions of people. Everywhere I go, I meet Americans who are tired of being tired, and many of those who are fortunate enough to have a job are working harder for less. This is not the way it is supposed to be in America. This is not the way it needs to be.
Mr. President, forgive me for being blunt, but when it comes to economic affairs, you're out of your depth. Unlike you, I am not a career politician. Unlike you, I've spent more than two decades working in the private sector, starting new businesses and turning around failing ones. Undoing the damage you've done will be a daunting challenge. But I've learned a thing or two about how government policies can kill private investment and stifle job creation and I have a plan to get government out of the way.
Mr. President, while campaigning for the presidency nearly four years ago, you declared that you were "absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."
Mr. President, the American people are tired of the grandiose promises. And they are even more tired of the paltry results.
Simply put, gas prices are high for the same reason this economy has dramatically underperformed. It's because this administration's policies have failed. It isn't just that this administration's policies haven't helped the economy hit its stride. It's that this administration's policies have led to consistently lackluster results.
Mitt's right in saying that the American people won't tolerate a continuation of failed economic results. This is the last thing that the Obama administration wants to read:
Our taxes are too high, and our government is too big. I will cut individual tax rates by 20 percent across the board to jump-start job creation, grow the economy and help Americans keep more of their hard-earned dollars. I will reform a corporate tax system that drives American jobs overseas. I will slash the needless regulations that crimp our energy supply and inhibit so many different kinds of businesses. In the year I was born, unemployment was 3.9 percent. When I turned 21, it was 3.6 percent. We can do so much better than we have been doing
This administration doesn't want Mitt laying out a plausible plan because that's the missing piece to the puzzle. The American people have soured on this administration's stewardship of the economy. Still, they can survive if the people don't think the alternative is as good or better.
If Mitt consistently communicates an economic rationale that's plausible, this administration will be east of the proverbial rock and west of the proverbial hard place.
President Obama's only hope is actually beyond his control. I can't imagine that's a comfortable spot to find yourself in.
Tags: President Obama , Gas Prices , Recession , Europe , China , Iran , EPA , Democrats , Mitt Romney , Economy , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, May 6, 2012 6:31 AM
No comments.
President Obama's failure by the numbers
If ever an article highlighted the failure of Obamanomics, James Pethokoukis' article would get my vote. Pethokoukis' observations refute this administration's spin with these statistics:
1. If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office - 65.7% then vs. 63.6% today - the U-3 unemployment rate would be 11.1%.
Now, this doesn't take into account the aging of the Baby Boomers, which should lower the participation due to rising retirements. But is that still a valid assumption given the drop in wealth since 2006?
2. If you take into account the aging of the Baby Boomers, the participation rate should be trending lower. Indeed, it has been doing just that since 2000. Before the Great Recession, the Congressional Budget Office predicted what the partipation rate would be in 2012, assuming such demographic changes. Using that number, the real unemployment rate would be 10.7%.
3. Of course, the participation rate usually falls during recessions. Yet even if you discount for that and the aging issue, the real unemployment rate would be 9.3%.
4. If the participation rate just stayed where it was last month, the unemployment rate would have risen to 8.4%.
As dreadful as those statistics are, this statistic dwarfs them:
And given that real disposable income has been flat the past two years, it stands to reason that many of the jobs being created are in low-wage sectors. Indeed, hiring in sectors such as retail and leisure has accounted for a whopping 40 percent of the jobs added over the past two years.
I'm confident that there hasn't been a real recovery where half of the jobs being created were in retail and leisure. Previous recoveries were either based in manufacturing jobs, high tech jobs or a combination of the two.
This is the opposite. A significant number of the jobs being created in the Obama 'recovery' are lower wage jobs. Even then, many of the people working aren't working full-time hours.
This isn't what recoveries look like. That's because President Obama hasn't applied capitalist policies to our economic problems. Until that happens, these dismal statistics will continue.
Tags: Labor Force Participation Rate , Unemployment Rate , President Obama , Recession , Great Recession , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, May 6, 2012 8:25 AM
Comment 1 by Jethro at 06-May-12 05:11 PM
Obamanomics is one big colossal failure. Period.
Comment 2 by eric z at 07-May-12 07:43 AM
Jethro - He's been denied the opportunity to do things right. He has a bozo-dominated house, Paul Ryan, Cantor, the bunch. He cannot legislate. That duty, as failed as meeting it has been, is for Congress. I would agree, both houses of Congress are to blame for so little of any good happening, but that's the fault of the electorate in part while more the fault of the two party system and special interests controlling each party, even with each having its little spites and fits. But do not blame Obama for Congressional mediocrity. The single digit percentage approvals are correct. They are, collectively and across party lines, not to be believed when talking, not to be trusted when promising. And Obama IS to be faulted for promising more than he can deliver - likely more than he ever intended or expected to be allowed to deliver.
But Congress and austerity in hard times vs. pump priming is to be blamed for the mess we face. That and Wall Street, and an inequitable tax system that favors the wealthy and powerful at the expense of the 99%.
And that is bipartisan, with the Tea Party discontent reflected in the Occupy discontent, both disliking an unfair status quo. Go figure it out, but leave the simplistic homilies alone.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 07-May-12 10:05 AM
Jethro - He's been denied the opportunity to do things right.That's revisionist history. He had total domination of the legislative process the first 2 years with supermajorities in the House & Senate. He even had a filibuster-proof Senate. He could pass everything on the Democrats/progressives' wishlist. The reality is that everything they passed during those first 2 years failed miserably. The only people to blame for those failures were Democrats. In 2010, the American people rejected the Democrats' agenda. They didn't just help Republicans win a net gain of 63 seats in the House. They rejected the Democrats to the tune of 680 state legislators across the nation that once were Democrats were replaced by Republicans.
The overall approval rating of Congress is BS. It's proof that people want solutions. What's telling is that people prefer conservative solutions on the issues, starting with the economy, job creation, the deficit. They've rejected O'Care & want it repealed.
The Do-Nothing Senate is where the blame lies. The last 3 years, they've refused to do what they're required to do. They've refused to pass a budget. For that act of high-handed arrogance, they'll be bounced from the majority this November. Progressives won't let Democrats do what's right for this nation's economy or energy supplies.
Until those hair-brained progressives are stripped of their influence in DC, we won't have real economic growth. The states where the TEA Party agenda has been implemented are doing well financially. That isn't coincidence. It's proof that the TEA Party have the solutions that this nation needs.
Comment 3 by Jethro at 07-May-12 09:18 AM
A simplistic homily describes the failure of Obamanomics beautifully, Eric z.
Comment 4 by Patrick at 07-May-12 09:33 AM
Eric Z are you familiar with the saying: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
Go back to moderate President Hoover's term and and then move forward through to President Truman's time. You will see the same policies and dynamics playing out in 2012 as they did in the early 1930s to the early 1950s.
More government intervention is NEVER the answer!
Comment 5 by eric z at 07-May-12 02:19 PM
Good to see you read the comments Gary.
Name one progressive in DC, besides Kucinich, Sanders, and McDermott. Three. That's it. Of them, only Sanders is in the Senate, yes/no?
The Senate has been a failure, and I can blame a few Democrats; the one alleged Democrat from Montana, the one alleged Democrat from Nebraska; blue dogs on point. And Lieberman, who votes with the Dems on organizing, but otherwise has his own drummer, playing secure homeland tunes, regardless.
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 07-May-12 02:57 PM
Only three? You're kidding right? Barney Frank, Bernie Sanders, Barbara Lee, Barbara Boxer, John Conyer, Keith Ellison, Raul Grijalva, Sheila Jackson-Lee, Hank Johnson (he's the loon that replaced Cynthia McKinney), Elijah Cummings, Rosa DeLauro, Chakka Fattah, Maurice Hinchey, Bobby Rush, Jan Schakowsky, Maxine Waters & Pete Stark. These are the Who's Who of the progressives in DC.
Introducing the Spinmeister-in-Chief
President Obama has honed spin into an art form. It's amazing that he doesn't hesitate in saying the BS things that he says. Here's a perfect example of his BS schtick :
President Barack Obama said Saturday the United States had climbed too far out of an economic abyss to take a chance on Republican Mitt Romney, firing up his reelection bid at his debut rallies.
That's pure BS. The reason why President Obama's re-election hangs by a thread is because people are frustrated with the lack of economic progress made during President Obama's administration. There's a growing belief that it's riskier to keep President Obama than replace him this November.
"We are not turning back the clock, we are moving forward," Obama said, seeking to revive the political magic that swept him to power in 2008, and unleashing his most strident attack so far on the man who wants his job.
Moving forward would be a nice change from the economy we're currently dealing with. It's putting it mildly when to say that economic growth has been lackluster under President Obama's stewardship. It's understatement to say that inflation, stagnating wages and shrinking work weeks are hallmarks of this administration.
Month after month, the job creation numbers are paltry. Month after month, gas prices, electric bills and grocery prices stay high as a direct result of this administration's hostility towards fossil fuels manifests itself through the EPA's regulations. Month after month, economic growth is all but nonexistent.
He said Romney, a multi-millionaire former venture capitalist, wanted to reward himself and rich friends with tax reductions and "rubber stamp" slashing spending cuts on education, clean energy and health care for the elderly.
President Obama's hostility towards coal has driven electric rates through the roof. His wasting of taxpayers' money on Solyndra and other green energy debacles are legendary disasters, both in terms of fiscal mismanagement and in terms of energy policy.
What's the benefit of continuing with those failed policies another 5 years?
President Obama likes villainizing venture capitalists, characterizing them as unethical and greedy. When the Obama administration plays the role of venture capitalist with the taxpayers' money, he's sending the taxpayers' money to his political allies. It's crony capitalism, the government edition.
Based on the results of President Obama's history as a venture capitalist, I'd argue that his record is significantly worse than Mitt's record at Bain. To my knowledge, President Obama can't point to any successes in his career as venture capitalist .
"We have been through too much to turn back now," he said, striking the central theme of his drive for a second White House term, six months before the November 6 vote.
Mr. President, we've been through too much failure during your term in office. Gas prices and grocery bills have jumped in prices. Job creation is stagnating. As a result of the anemic economic growth during this administration, more mortgages are underwater, more people have been forced into part time jobs. Consumer confidence has dropped through the floor, too.
President Obama's political ambition is clouding his judgment. His thirst for a second term in office is standing in the way of him doing what's right for the American people. He's right in saying that we've been through too much. Unfortunately, he isn't willing to admit that much of the pain we've suffered is a result of his failed policies.
During the 1992 debates, Bill Clinton reminded us that expecting different results while doing the same thing over and over again was the definition of insanity. President Obama's policies have failed. He's shown that he isn't going to change directions.
What's the sense of continuing the fail policies that have stunted job growth and creating prosperity? Shouldn't we pursue the path that's most likely to help people first dig out of their holes, then create a path to prosperity?
Tags: President Obama , Unemployment , Underemployment , Inflation , Gas Prices , Groceries , Electric Bill , Underwater Mortgages , Solyndra , Bankruptcies , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Sunday, May 6, 2012 10:19 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 07-May-12 07:35 AM
A few short months ago, if that long, it was spinmeister and mudslinger Mitt Romney, disadvantaging poor Newt Gingrich the one with the hair helmet woman in tow.
That was then. This is now. Is an etch-a-sketch a required tool of everyone in the party out of the White House during a second term run?
Just wondering.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-May-12 10:12 AM
Newt's still my preference. IMHO, he would've been a spectacular president. I lost that fight. While Mitt isn't my first or second choice, it's easy to argue that his economic agenda will get the economy growing again.
President Obama got his way the first 2 years on literally everything on the progressives' wish list. History now proves that those wish list items have failed. What's worse is that President Obama thinks they're helping the economy grow. That's BS. Economic growth has been anemic, which is why job creation has been erratic at best.
Life has many choices. Right now, it's a binary choice. We can stick with the failed policies of the last 3 years or we can chart a new course. IMHO, that's an easy decision.
Is Pat Anderson that indespensible?
This weekend, supporters of Pat Anderson sent out this email endorsing Pat Anderson to be re-elected as RNC Committeewoman:
As members of your State Executive Committee who served over the past year, we write in support of the re-election of Pat Anderson for National Committeewoman.
While the main focus of her position is to serve as your representative to the RNC and to help elect a Republican President, Congressmen and Senators from Minnesota, Pat also serves with us on the State Executive Committee of the Republican Party.
We have worked closely with Pat. She is an excellent leader with valuable insight and varied experience as an elected official in local and statewide office. This is an exceptional asset for our Party. But most importantly, she is honest and fair in the way she approaches both the opportunities and difficulties facing the MNGOP.
Over the last 12 months, we have seen dramatic changes in leadership at the state party. The Chair, Deputy Chair, Secretary/Treasurer, and half of the CD Chairs are new. We need someone like Pat who has historic knowledge of the ins and outs of the MNGOP and can mentor the new leadership as we chart a course for our Party.
Without Pat Anderson on the Executive Board of the Republican Party of Minnesota, it would have taken much, much longer to uncover the party's serious financial mismanagement. Pat did her homework and asked tough, pointed questions last May and June about the financial health of the party. She was asking those questions when few other people were and she was doing it while being attacked by party leadership determined to hide their financial misdeeds.
Pat's investigation of the party's FEC and State Campaign Finance reports led to the establishment of a Financial Review Committee in October which eventually led to the full exposure of the party's financial problems. Without Pat Anderson's work and determination, we may still be operating in the dark today. Playing "auditor" was not in Pat's job description as your National Committeewoman, but we are grateful that she and others took on that role to relentlessly pursue the answers and the truth.
As we continue to recover from our past leadership's mismanagement, we must also look to the future. We need to support our US Senate Candidate, our Presidential Nominee, as well as our local endorsed candidates. As a former Mayor and State Auditor, Pat is uniquely qualified to understand what it takes to win a statewide race as well as a local election. Pat's experience and knowledge is a valuable resource for the State Executive Team, and at the National level where she is doing an excellent job in representing Minnesota's concerns at the RNC.
We are supporting Pat Anderson for re-election at the State Central Committee meeting in St. Cloud, because she is one of the most valuable assets this party has. We urge you to support her as well.
I don't have a vote in this election but I've certainly got an opinion into this endorsement letter. Here's something that I question:
Without Pat Anderson on the Executive Board of the Republican Party of Minnesota, it would have taken much, much longer to uncover the party's serious financial mismanagement.
First, it's been reported by more than a few people that RNC Committeeman Jeff Johnson did the initial digging into the RPM's financial mismanagement. Until I hear otherwise, that's who I'll give credit to.
Second, it's impossible to think that Janet Beihoffer would've tolerated the financial mismanagement within the state party. It's impossible to think that Janet Beihoffer wouldn't have tried getting to the bottom of this serious issue.
It's equally impossible to think that she wouldn't have gotten to the bottom of that mess, especially considering the fact that Janet Beihoffer was a CPA with years of experience working for KPMG. At the time, KPMG was the second biggest auditing firm in the United States.
Anyone who's known Janet Beihoffer knows that she's a no-nonsense person who knows how to get important things done. For proof of that, look at the work she's done on training election workers. That's a major project. It required dedication, discipline and skill putting the program together, then recruiting and training the people to man the polling stations.
While I'm not reflexively opposed to lobbyists, I will always oppose lobbyists that support giving government the tools needed to expand government. In lobbying for Racino, that's what Pat Anderson supported.
I won't trash Pat Anderson. I'll just vehemently disagree with her on that decision.
Tags: Republican Party of Minnesota , Pat Anderson , Racino , Lobbyist , FEC , Jeff Johnson , Janet Beihoffer , KPMG , CPA , Training , RNC
Posted Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:51 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-May-12 07:01 AM
The graveyards are full of indispensable people. Not to wish that upon Anderson, but it is how it is. As to the serious mismanagement, how long can the landlord be stalled? The timing of the Sutton/Brodkorb party purge, and the Senate's move at roughly the same time, (independent of the inept way the Republicans in the Senate operated), all suggests coordination yet to be publicly disclosed. Michel waiting months to dump on Koch until after the party purged first is yet to be publicly justified, the sitting on info ostensibly later as the key motivation for moving. And if the party being broke, in hock, with all the questionable disbursements and unpaid claims pending had been an event of breaking news closer to the November election, half the state, the DFL half, would have been happier. But for a bottom line, if Pat Anderson were an indispensable person, she'd still be state auditor.
Finally, Gary, you omit who the signators of the endorsement were. Don't you view that as information readers should have, (if not recipients or privy to things otherwise), in weighing your premise?
"Supporters of Pat Anderson" tells me zippo, since the tenor of the item says as much. Who?
Comment 2 by eric z at 08-May-12 09:56 AM
A quick follow-up question: Anderson, if my understanding is correct, was a Racino booster, yes/no?
And if so, the Indian gambling - Racino compromise, the casinos can take horse race bets while the track gets its slots; how is that kiss-and-make-up thing, and Dayton signing off on it, the timing, to be related to the Pat Anderson advertisement, and the names and allegiances of its perpetrators?
Comment 3 by Scott Dutcher at 08-May-12 10:54 AM
As one of the authors on this letter, I want to address your criticisms. Your posting diminishes the role Pat played in drawing attention to the MNGOP financial problems -- claiming that Jeff Johnson was the first to look into the situation. Your skepticism on that point is entirely misplaced. During Pat's first meeting on the Executive Committee in May 2011, she was asking very difficult and very pointed questions about the financial status of the party. As a new member on the committee, her questions -- and the regime's inability to answer them -- clarified for me that there was, indeed, a problem. Pat worked for months after that May meeting to prove her concerns to be correct. In retrospect, she was right all along and she deserves credit for being one of the first to recognize where we stood.
As a member of the Financial Review Committee, I believe that Jeff Johnson has also been an indispensable asset to our party. His work since October has been tremendous. However, it was Pat and a small group of allies that worked to convince me and other members of the Executive Committee of the problem. Her persistence was essential throughout the past year.
Kind Regards,
Scott Dutcher
Previous Executive Comm. Member -- CD 7
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 08-May-12 12:48 PM
Scott, Let's go through what you said vs. my reply.
First, you said "Without Pat Anderson on the Executive Board of the Republican Party of Minnesota, it would have taken much, much longer to uncover the party's serious financial mismanagement."
Here's my reply:
Second, it's impossible to think that Janet Beihoffer would've tolerated the financial mismanagement within the state party. It's impossible to think that Janet Beihoffer wouldn't have tried getting to the bottom of this serious issue.
It's equally impossible to think that she wouldn't have gotten to the bottom of that mess, especially considering the fact that Janet Beihoffer was a CPA with years of experience working for KPMG. At the time, KPMG was the second biggest auditing firm in the United States.Notice what I didn't say. I didn't say that Pat didn't make a positive contribution. I simply argued that Janet Beihoffer was at least as likely to get to the bottom of the financial mismanagement because she was a successful CPA with lots of auditing experience.
Later, I said that "I won't trash Pat Anderson." I stand by that. I didn't trash Pat Anderson. I merely highlighted that Janet Beihoffer brought at least as many skills to the table as Pat Anderson.
Before closing this out, there is something that you didn't mention, specifically, the issue of Pat being a lobbyist for Racino. It's impossible to say you're a limited government conservative while lobbying for giving government the tools to expand government. That's the key difference between Janet Beihoffer & Pat Anderson. I never have to worry that Janet Beihoffer will lobby for expanding government with Racino revenues.
Comment 4 by Bill Jungbauer at 08-May-12 03:51 PM
I too am an author of this letter. I've served on the state exec committee for three years. During that time, up until Pat Anderson came on board, the committee was nothing but a rubber stamp for what ever Tony Sutton wanted. I asked plenty of tough questions during that time only to be met with defensive behavior from both Sutton and Sturrock. But during my first two years on the committee, I stood alone in asking them. I must point out that Janet Beihoffer was a member of the committee while serving as chair of the 2nd CD. I have to ask, Was Janet, as a member of the state exec committee, aware of the Campaign Finance Board's activity looking into the 2006 complaint which resulted in a $170,000 fine? I don't know. I do know I was the only one asking back then and no one was listening. As soon as Pat became a member, she dove right into the party's money problems. Pat Anderson, Joe Westrup, and myself were the only "No" votes against Tony Sutton's 100K salary.
Comment 5 by Bill Jungbauer at 08-May-12 04:10 PM
I must also point out that Jeff Johnson did not get on board til later. He has done great work on the financial review committee, but it was Pat's ground work early on that needs to be recognized.
Comment 6 by Jamie Delton at 09-May-12 07:46 AM
I'm not an author of the letter but I support Bill's comment. An exec member candidly reported to a small group that it was Pat Anderson who ensured the completion of the non-BS spreadsheet in part with info extracted late from Sturrock at the December State Central meeting at the Bloomington Hilton. There wouldn't have been the info at all were it not for Pat's wonderful ability to summarize in a spreadsheet a variety of obscure anomalies. Donors, members and prospects contribute knowing we have a legitimate base now.
Comment 7 by Jeff Johnson at 09-May-12 07:56 AM
Since my name has come up, I wanted to give my take. First, though, I want to point out that I'm not supporting one candidate over the other in the Committeewoman race. I like, respect and have worked with both Pat and Janet.
Gary, you state in your post that you've heard from others that 'Jeff Johnson did the initial digging into the RPM's financial management.' I appreciate that credit, but it's probably misplaced. There were many of us on the Exec Committee who were asking questions last summer after we were elected, but Pat was the most aggressive and pushed the hardest. She received some criticism for that aggressiveness at the time, so she probably should also get some credit for it now.
I took over the process in September when we created the RPM Financial Oversight Cmte, but Pat was 'digging' well before that.
Just not comfortable taking more credit than I deserve:
Comment 8 by Gary Gross at 09-May-12 11:29 AM
After reading the comments, I decided to check Janet's actual tenure on the State Executive Committee.
Reviewing these documents: the FEC complaint and conciliation agreement (settlement) my response to Bill Jungbauer is:
Bill Jungbauer,
Janet Beihoffer was not on the State Executive Committee when either of the two episodes of financial mismanagement occurred.
The $170,000 fine arose from the Party's failure to disclose debts from the 2006 election cycle. The formal complaint in that matter was filed with the Federal Elections Commission on July 16, 2007, six months before Janet Beihoffer became a member of the State Executive Committee in February of 2008.
Janet's term on the State Executive Committee ended in October of 2009. All of the allegations of serious financial mismanagement described by the current Financial Review Committee occurred after she left.
Comment 9 by Bill Jungbauer at 09-May-12 04:23 PM
I agree with your timeline 100 percent Gary. It is important to note that I was the only person on the committee for a long time who ever asked a question concerning the treasurer's report we received along with any contradictions with CFB reports. The committee was for the most part a rubber stamp for Tony until the party elections of 2011 when Pat was elected.
Trumka supports building Keystone XL Pipeline
There's a rift between President Obama and AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka on the building of the Keystone XL Pipeline:
AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka is backing construction of the Keystone XL oil sands pipeline in comments that downplay divisions among unions in the labor federation over the controversial project.
'They are not divided on the pipeline itself,' Trumka said in a C-SPAN interview when asked about differences among unions over Keystone. 'They are divided on how the pipeline is done.'
'I think we are all unanimous by saying we should build the pipeline, but we have to do it consistent with all environmental standards, and I think we can work that out, I really do, and we are for that happening,' Trumka said in the interview that aired Sunday.
That's politicspeak for "Yes, I'm upset with President Obama siding with the environutters but I can't be that blunt in public."
What's important is that this administration's hostility towards fossil fuels is hurting families' budgets and hurting job creation.
Trumka can spin this all he'd like but it's indisputable that President Obama won't approve this pipeline after the election or anytime. His hostility towards domestic energy production is apparent to anyone with an ounce of objectivity.
When hasn't President Obama not sided with the militant environmentalists over the unions on a major issue? That's the benchmark by which President Obama should be measured.
The pipeline has been a thorny issue for the labor federation and harmed at least one major union's relationship with environmentalists.
Many unions including the Laborers' International Union, the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, the Teamsters, the Building and Construction Trades Department of the AFL-CIO and others strongly back construction of Keystone, calling it a way to create jobs.
But the Amalgamated Transit Union and the Transport Workers Union have opposed Keystone due to environmental concerns about the oil sands and potential pipeline spills.
And the United Steelworkers, the United Autoworkers, the Communications Workers of America and the Service Employees International Union joined those two unions and two big green groups in a statement that backed Obama's January decision to reject a permit for Keystone.
The important thing to take from this is that the unions won't be united for President Obama. This disunity won't be displayed by those unions' leadership. It'll be exposed within the rank-and-file members of the unions.
More importantly, this is a statement that most of these unions serve the Democratic Party's needs first, the people's needs last. The Steelworkers, the UAW, the CWA and the SEIU have sided with the environutters for higher gas prices. They've said with their actions that they don't care how much high gas prices hurt families.
If that's their attitude towards families' budgets, then families should reject their political agenda outright. Families should reject the politicians that support the unions' agenda, too.
This weekend, President Obama said that we shouldn't return to the policies of the Bush administration. I'd argue that we can't continue with his failed policies because this administration's policies hurt families from all income groups.
That isn't how to rebuild America. That's the blueprint for destroying the American Dream.
Tags: President Obama , Richard Trumka , Keystone XL Pipeline , Unions , Steelworkers , UAW , SEIU , Militant Environmentalists , Unemployment , AFL-CIO , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Monday, May 7, 2012 12:39 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-May-12 07:16 AM
Is this a pro-union post, Gary?
Or enemies of my enemy stuff?
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 09-May-12 05:19 PM
Eric:
It's a post showing that even union leadership know isn't supporting Obama on every issue. No wonder his support from the members is slipping since they don't care about the junk that the leadership cares about.
Walter hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Three blind mice (Bakk, Thissen & Winkler) won't find jobs in tax bill
It isn't surprising that Rep. Winkler's tax bill is a jobkiller. What's surprising is that he got Reps. Thissen, Hortman, Greiling, Hornstein, Anzelc and Ward to sign onto the bill as co-sponsors. This op-ed does a great job of explaining why this bill is a jobkiller:
So why is Rep. Ryan Winkler, D-Golden Valley, supporting a 900-percent increase in taxes on corporations for increasing a firm's payroll as the chief author of H.F. 2480?
Minnesota taxes its corporations on an average of three items: sales; property value; and payroll. It has wisely relied mostly on the sales factor, and indeed had planned to use it alone in 2014. Thus, adding another worker would not add a dime to the corporation's tax bill. Rep. Winkler's tax increase is a job killer because it puts a firm that hires many workers at a higher effective tax rate than a corporate tax relying only on the sales factor.
A medical device firm doing additional research and development has to hire workers, but doesn't increase its sales. Rep. Winkler's plan would still increase the company's tax liability.
It isn't surprising that the DFL would support a bill that puts a tax on hiring people. Nonetheless, it's still appalling that the DFL supports a true jobkilling tax bill.
It's noteworthy that House Minority Leader Thissen and many senior DFL legislators are co-sponsoring HF2480 . The DFL legislators co-sponsoring HF2480 are like Representatives Greiling, Hornstein, Hortman, Anzelc, Ward, Davnie, Slocum, Hausman, Falk and Loeffler.
It isn't just House DFL legislators that support killing jobs. The Senate companion bill to HF2480 is SF2029 . The DFL senators listed as co-sponsors reads as follows: Bakk, Sieben, Marty, Dibble and McGuire.
These DFL legislators should be asked why they support killing Minnesota jobs, especially jobs that are tied to manufacturing or research and development.
Most importantly, this isn't a partisan issue. Austan Goolsbee, formerly President Obama's economist, helped prepare this study . Here's the important information from Goolsbee's study:
The results suggest that the payroll weight is a significant determinant of state employment, although there may be other unobserved policy changes contributing to the result.
We find that for the average state, reducing the payroll weight from one-third to one-quarter increases manufacturing employment by approximately 1.1%. Further, we show that these significant employment effects imply that although increasing the sales weight in a state may lead to corporate income tax revenue losses (see Pomp, 1987), the increased employment generates an indirect source of additional personal income tax revenue.
This isn't speculation. It's verifiable.
What's important is that Rep. Winkler, Minority Leader Thissen, Minority Leader Bakk and other senior DFL legislators support a bill that conservative and liberal economists say kills jobs.
Tags: Taxes , Tax Increases , Mark Dayton , Tom Bakk , Paul Thissen , Ryan Winkler , DFL , Tax Reform , Commission , Prosperity , Jobs , Competitiveness
Originally posted Tuesday, May 8, 2012, revised 09-May 12:34 AM
No comments.
House passes Vikings stadium bill
The House passed a Vikings stadium bill Monday night:
The Minnesota House has approved a plan to build a $975 million stadium for the Vikings, but with a big boost in what the team would pay.
The amended plan that passed 73-58 Monday night would raise the Vikings' share to $532 million, or about 55 percent of construction costs. That knocks about $105 million off the state's contribution. The team has said it wouldn't pay more than $427 million.
The House bill won't make it out of the conference committee intact. People that think the Vikings will willingly agree to paying $105,000,000 more than the price they negotiated with Gov. Dayton and legislative leaders isn't realistic.
That said, it's a worthwhile amendment to the stadium bill because the worst that can happen is that it's dropped in conference committee deliberations. Legislators that pushed the amendment can simply reply that they were just attempting to get the best deal possible for taxpayers.
The NFL reacted quickly to the contribution change :
Eric Grubman, the league's executive vice president of venture and business operations, cautioned Monday that amending the bill to require the Vikings to pay more to help finance the state's contribution are deal breakers as far as the NFL is concerned.
"After months of negotiation and compromise and the building of a legislative coalition, albeit a fragile one, any meaningful change of the bill drastically changes the probability of success," Grubman told the Pioneer Press. "You can't change the deal at the last minute."
Rep. Steve Gottwalt posted these notes on Facebook after the bill passed the House:
Tough vote. Some good points made about financing, revenue and priorities, but this needs to move forward. Made the bill better by adopting an amendment increasing the Vikings share of the cost by capturing naming rights revenues for the state. Senate takes up the bill next.
Vikings stadium bill is now in the hands of the Senate. If they concur with the House version and pass it, it goes to the Governor for signing. If not, there will be a conference committee to hash out differences between the House and Senate versions, and then it will go back to both bodies for final passage, and then (if it passes both) it would go to the Governor for his signature.
I'm still not a huge fan of the bill but I'd be lying if I didn't say that the bill hasn't improved in favor of the taxpayers over the past 2-3 weeks. Like I said before, the bill will get changed in conference committee negotiations. The final bill will look quite different than the bill that the House passed tonight.
Tags: NFL , Minnesota Vikings , Stadium , Steve Gottwalt , House of Representatives , Conference Committee , Senate , Negotiations
Posted Tuesday, May 8, 2012 12:47 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 08-May-12 07:12 AM
Senator John Marty has been an anchor of reason and an advocate of proper governance throughout this circus.
It is an insult to every voter in the state that all this, and the Twins, were done to us without any referendum.
While backing Dayton on many other things, still, and while skeptically waiting for him to deliver one single thing on "tax the rich;" for this particular issue - I must admit Tom Emmer would have been better.
I think.
With Emmer now into healthcare issue lobbying for a paycheck, perhaps he'd have been pliant for reasons different from Dayton/Mondale, who in this were serving the building trade unions.
And this "We forced a better deal" stuff is pure excuse making, straight from the horse's hindquarters. It is nothing but that. It offends or should offend every reasonable opponent of Wilfare. It offends or should offend every reasonable advocate of having a referendum.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 08-May-12 10:00 AM
I'm left wondering what else might have been "snuck in" to the bill, besides the paltry $100 million slap at Zygi? Personally, I still think the bonding bill should have been reduced by the whole of the Vikings stadium, AND/OR the taxpayer "contribution" should have given the taxpayers ownership of the stadium and about half the proceeds. THAT'S and investment. What we've got here is paying the extortionist and not ever getting those pictures.
Comment 3 by Thorley Winston at 08-May-12 10:24 AM
I predict that the increase in the amount of the Vikings' 'share' of the cost of building their own stadium will be dropped or scaled back in conference committee. Ditto on the naming rights, the 40 year lease, and the claw back if the owners sell before a certain time period.
Right now this is political cover/theater by the House but unless they're willing to publicly say 'take it or leave' or better still 'don't let the door hit you on the arse on the way out,' they've already conceded on the most important issue and are just now haggling over the price.
Comment 4 by Bob J. at 08-May-12 10:24 AM
Good Lord. I agree with eric. Well stated, sir.
Comment 5 by IndyJones at 08-May-12 11:57 AM
The bottom line is that taxpayers need to know who voted for and who voted against in the final bill. It is doubtful that this economy has bottomed out and when taxpayers get ripped for additional money to support this fiasco they will know who to punish and replace. Off with their heads!!!
Comment 6 by Doug J at 08-May-12 01:25 PM
I for one would not shed a tear if the Vike's left for L.A. Yes it means a lot of lost revenue, taxes, jobs and the like, but the state obviously (IMO) doesn't care if they leave since they changed the deal at the last minute. If they had truly cared, we wouldn't be sitting here in the death throes of this legislative session hashing out another bail out for millionaire playboys to have a place to play a game. The Twins took us for a good chunk of $420 million. I forget the numbers on the Wild and the Wolves. This one will more than likely cross the $1 billion barrier by the time it is said and done.
Comment 7 by Jethro at 08-May-12 03:58 PM
The state can shell out millions for a Viking stadium however we cannot afford one accredited aviation program the helps civilian and military aviation students. Glad our priorities are straight.
Comment 8 by Brian at 08-May-12 07:36 PM
Dayton wants to tax MN. millionares to give the money to NY millionare. Billion dollar trains with no riders hundred millions in stadium that house horrible teams.
Comment 9 by eric z at 09-May-12 03:58 PM
The Senate passed its version. Now there is a conference.
The biggest thing to me was John Howe, how he got flim-flammed by the done-deal faction, came back, won a user fee amendment, then had the hallway jockeys take it away. Was I drawn into a good acting job, or is Howe a good guy and more reasonable and intelligent than some?
It's not anything but a sincere question. He had Marty and Kruse both speaking for his amendment, and I thought Sheriff Bill, Ingebrigtsen, flat out admitted it had to have the pull tab stuff for his rural bar owner constituency, then Bakk chimed in with his "forces at work" stuff, and the one Republican who stood to ask for a revote having been in the majority, all that theatre, and it's pull-tab gambling, like it, love it.
Gambling barflies make the difference? To Sheriff Bill? That should be a wake-up call for Sheriff Bill fans. Then at the end, the GOP quitters, Jungbauer, Michel and Koch - for it on the way out the door. Life outside of the legislature may be more promising, with such a vote. Not that anyone sold out, just expectations could have been at play, a factor.
I hope Zellers has courage to bury it until next session. Perhaps then it will end up worse than this thing, it is possible, but this thing smells a bit off.
Zeller is getting beaten up on from all directions. I do not see him getting support, not publicly. Do you think they could sell user fee financing to the public, (but not to the tavern league or Mr. Zygi Wilf)? That's my guess. GOP folks, does the name Maryann Campo ring any bells?
I found the entire televised thing shameful.
I hope the Republicans kill it. User fee financing was something I think would have gone down better with voters. Those turkeys in jerseys paraded around the hilltop, that was NOT grassroots. That was buy Zygi and me a stadium, your dime, my stadium. Hired props. Pretty awful stuff.
