November 1-2, 2017
Nov 01 06:50 Refugee resettlement, Masters' question Nov 01 08:07 Why Ed Gillespie will win Nov 01 13:27 The refugee resettlement racket Nov 02 08:07 Civility at a City Council meeting? Nov 02 08:45 Why Ed Gillespie will win, Part II Nov 02 09:32 Donna Brazile vs. Hillary Clinton, DWS Nov 02 10:48 Newt: the experts are wrong Nov 02 17:35 Let the tax battle begin
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Refugee resettlement, Masters' question
Much has been written about the controversial finish to the Oct. 23 St. Cloud City Council meeting. One thing that's been the topic of discussion is that the Goerger resolution felt like an ambush. That's certainly the position most of Councilman Johnson's supporters have. After Councilman Goerger's introduction of his resolution and after it was seconded, Councilman Johnson rightfully complained that he'd had less than 2 minutes to read Goerger's resolution before voting on it. Noticeably silent was Councilman Masters.
That's odd because of what happened at the Oct. 9 City Council meeting. Near the end of that meeting, Councilman Johnson told the Council that he would be introducing a resolution at a future City Council meeting. At that point, City Councilman Masters said to Councilman Johnson "If you would please provide both the Council and to the administration this proposal so we could look at it ahead of time and have diligent time to look it over and so forth." Councilman Johnson quickly replied that he'd get his proposed resolution at least a week in advance of the Oct. 23 meeting. [Video no longer available.]
About a week in advance, Councilman Johnson announced that he wouldn't bring forth his resolution until the Nov. 6 meeting, most likely because Councilman Hontos was out of town for the Oct. 23 meeting.
When Councilman Goerger brought up his resolution, Councilman Johnson complained about having insufficient time to read through the resolution and to do proper diligence on it. At the first opening after Councilman Johnson spoke, Masters made a motion to end discussion on the motion. The question I'd ask Councilman Masters is straightforward. It's obvious that he wanted to do his diligence with Councilman Johnson's resolution. Why didn't he want to take the same amount of time to do his due diligence with Councilman Goerger's resolution? Was it because he'd already read the resolution prior to the Oct. 23 meeting? But I digress.
My question for Councilman Masters is this: Why didn't he make a motion to table discussion on Goerger's resolution rather than making his motion to shut down discussion? Doing the proper due diligence is certainly appropriate. Why didn't he apply the same seriousness to both resolutions?
Posted Wednesday, November 1, 2017 6:50 AM
Comment 1 by Dave Steckling at 01-Nov-17 05:11 PM
Masters was so quick on the draw I think he shot himself in the foot!
Why Ed Gillespie will win
A month+ ago, Ed Gillespie didn't seem to have much of a chance of becoming Virginia's next governor. This morning, I'm predicting that he'll win next Tuesday's election. This article explains why he's likely to win. The article opens by saying "A television ad depicting supporters of Virginia gubernatorial hopeful Ed Gillespie as Confederates who attack children of color has been pulled in the wake of the terror attack in New York City. The Democratic group Latino Victory Fund removed the controversial ad, which showed a pickup truck driver chasing down children of color on Tuesday, Oct. 31."
This close to an election, polling isn't reliable because things are fluid. At this point in the campaign, it's all about Get Out The Vote (GOTV) operations, capitalizing on backlashes and momentum swings. I'd bet the proverbial ranch that the pulled ad is creating an anti-Northam backlash. Cristobal J. Alex, the "president of the LVF," posted a tweet saying "We knew our ad would ruffle feathers. We held a mirror up to the Republican Party, and they don't like what they see. We have decided to pull our ad at this time. Given recent events, we will be placing other powerful ads into rotation that highlight the reasons we need to elect progressive leaders in Virginia."
Alex apparently didn't learn the first rule of holes, which is that "if you're in one, stop digging." This Washington Post editorial states "Ralph Northam would not have run this ad and believes Virginians deserve civility, not escalation," a spokesman for Mr. Northam emailed us." Northam didn't criticize this ad immediately: [Video no longer available.]
Northam's silence says everything that voters need to know about Northam's lack of character. Ben Shapiro's article details the ad, saying "Monday, just days ahead of Virginia's hotly contested gubernatorial election, the Latino Victory Fund released an ad opposing Republican Ed Gillespie. The ad is uniquely horrifying. It features four minority children, Latino, Asian, Muslim, African-American, running for their lives from a white man driving a pick-up truck. The truck is festooned with a giant Confederate Flag, a 'Don't Tread on Me' license plate, and a prominent 'Gillespie for Governor' bumper sticker. It runs the children into a dead end, its lights washing out their terrified faces. The children wake up in their beds. We then flash to video of the Charlottesville white-supremacist march, as a voice asks, 'Is this what Donald Trump and Ed Gillespie mean by the American dream'"
Don't be surprised if this causes an anti-Democrat backlash that swamps Northam. In fact, I'd argue that the backlash has already started.
Posted Wednesday, November 1, 2017 8:07 AM
No comments.
The refugee resettlement racket
When Jeff Goerger introduced his resolution advocating for a "just and welcoming community" towards refugees, he either didn't know that Lutheran Social Services, aka LSS, and the business communities welcomed refugees with open arms or he knew that and pretended that refugees weren't welcome in St. Cloud. Let's examine those premises' credibility.
First, let's examine the fact that LSS gets paid $2,125 per refugee that they settle. Of that $2,125, LSS (or whatever Volag that settles refugees) is required to spend $1,125 on the refugee (s). The Volag is allowed to keep the other $1,000. Let's not forget that LSS is a charity. On that part of their charity, they send 53% of their money to their client while keeping 47% of the money for other expenses.
Next, let's consider the fact that LSS gets a fresh batch of new clients each year. This year, 225 refugees were settled in St. Cloud. That means that LSS might potentially earn $225,000 for resettling refugees this year . Next year, they'll get another batch of refugees to settle. That will put another pile of money into their coffers. That sounds like a pretty reliable racket to pay LSS salaries.
That's just part of the racket, though. This article highlights why businesses want to keep this racket running. According to the article, employers "are eligible for a maximum tax credit of $9,600" if they hire people from well-defined groups. FYI- Refugees are one of the well-defined groups. From an employer's standpoint, this is like playing Russian Roulette with an empty gun whose firing pin has been removed. Those willing to 'play' this game hit the jackpot...twice. [Video no longer available.]
The other face of resettlement hasn't been shown. That's the face of businesses getting taxpayer subsidies on top of cheap labor. Saying that employers hiring refugees aren't paying them upper middle class wages is understatement. Adding this federal tax credit into the equation just makes it virtually irresistible to employers. Cheap labor gets even cheaper thanks to these tax credits.
The best part for employers and the Volags is that the supply doesn't end. That isn't the end, though. This article ought to get everyone's attention:
After the 90-day reception period is over, the resettlement agencies discontinue those support services, with the expectation that refugees become self-sufficient and secure employment within that period. At this point, the refugees also start receiving notifications from IOM, asking them to pay back the cost of their plane tickets, payments the agency uses to reimburse the U.S. government for covering refugee transportation.
If refugees aren't able to stand on their own feet after that period, they're eligible to access some public benefits, including food, cash and medical assistance, for which all low-income legal residents can qualify. (There are some forms of assistance, however, including housing programs, that new arrivals don't qualify for unless they've lived in the U.S. for a certain period of time.)
As St. Cloud City Council Member Jeff Goerger pointed out at Monday's meeting, though, none of costs for any of the resettlement services are borne by the city. As he noted, the federal, state and county governments "are responsible for the funding, management, and relocation of refugees."
Goerger's statement is pretty flippant. Just because those costs don't show up in St. Cloud's budget doesn't mean the costs are nonexistent. As Bill Clinton once famously said, there's no such thing as a free lunch. Whether these programs are paid through the state budget, the federal budget, the county budget, the city budget or the school board's budget, they're still expensive.
When the school district pays for programs to help children of refugees get up to speed with English, the school district's property tax levy is displayed on the same form as my city property tax form. Why should I think of them as being from different budgets? As the cliche goes, it's a distinction without a difference.
While it's apparent that the City of St. Cloud budget isn't impacted by the initial act of resettlement, it's pretty apparent that the city, the counties and the state budgets are greatly impacted. Apparently, that doesn't matter to Councilman Goerger or Mayor Kleis. Is that because it isn't their ox that's getting gored directly?
Posted Wednesday, November 1, 2017 1:27 PM
Comment 1 by John Palmer at 01-Nov-17 10:06 PM
The parent organization for St. Cloud's LSS reported in their 2015 federal tax filing that 95% of their budget came from federal funds and their CEO was paid over $310000. Nine other employees made over $100000 with annual salaries averaging over $150000. Total compensation for the ten employees with salaries over $100,000 comes to over $200,000.(source 990 filed by Lutheran VOLAG for FY 2015).
Something is wrong with a so called non profit charity with high overhead and highly compensated employees when the average wage earned by refugees placed is around $11 an hour. Highly rated charities have overhead in the single digits percentage-wise and receive the vast majority of their funds from gifts. It is clear LSS operates more like a for profit business, a very lucrative one, than a charity and has a good racket going at the expense of both their clients and taxpayers.
Civility at a City Council meeting?
This LTE made me laugh hysterically. The heart of the LTE says "There is a relatively new organization, the National Institute for Civil Discourse, that might welcome the debate/discussion that will take place on Nov. 6 at the St. Cloud City Council meeting, when Johnson plans to introduce his proposed ban. Rather than calling names, let us have the free speech discussion on an issue that divides many of us. "Civil discourse, wherein we actually listen and hear one another, is key to a democratic republic, which our Founding Fathers gave us!"
If you watch the video of that portion of the Oct. 23 City Council meeting, you'd see that those that voted for the Goerger resolution shut down debate the minute Councilman Johnson started speaking. Councilman Masters made the motion to stop discussion after only a few minutes of hearing from the opposition. While it's wrong to call that censorship, it isn't wrong to accuse the City Council 5 afraid of having a full-throated discussion of the issues. [Video no longer available.]
Mayor Kleis has been flippant, too, frequently stating that a) it's a federal matter and b) no money comes out of the city budget. Frankly, that's insulting. I'll stipulate that there isn't a line item in St. Cloud's operating budget titled 'Law Enforcement- refugees' or 'City health inspections of Somali restaurants', that doesn't mean there isn't a cost.
Further, St. Cloud taxpayers in Benton, Sherburne and Stearns counties live in ISD742. Everyone of those home owners pay property taxes that pay for the school levy that helps refugee students get up to speed on reading English. St. Cloud taxpayers pay taxes to the state, too, which funds many of the health insurance programs or other human services like housing assistance. Whether it's technically part of St. Cloud's operating budget or not, it's still a tax paid by St. Cloud taxpayers.
Playing coy word games isn't leadership. It's insulting. Mayor Kleis, if you aren't willing to be a leader, find a different job. St. Cloud has gone downhill the last 5+ years. Downtown businesses are doing poorly. The University that you provided political cover for is in a financial and enrollment tailspin. That's hurting St. Cloud's economy.
While it would be nice to see some civility and professionalism at next week's City Council meeting, I don't have high expectations for that.
Posted Thursday, November 2, 2017 8:07 AM
No comments.
Why Ed Gillespie will win, Part II
Yesterday, I wrote this post , which I titled "Why Ed Gillespie will win", I wrote "Don't be surprised if this causes an anti-Democrat backlash that swamps Northam. In fact, I'd argue that the backlash has already started." This NRO article examines the Latino Victory Fund's offensive ad.
Ben Shapiro wrote "Monday, just days ahead of Virginia's hotly contested gubernatorial election, the Latino Victory Fund released an ad opposing Republican Ed Gillespie. The ad is uniquely horrifying. It features four minority children, Latino, Asian, Muslim, African-American, running for their lives from a white man driving a pick-up truck. The truck is festooned with a giant Confederate Flag, a 'Don't Tread on Me' license plate, and a prominent 'Gillespie for Governor' bumper sticker. It runs the children into a dead end, its lights washing out their terrified faces. The children wake up in their beds. We then flash to video of the Charlottesville white-supremacist march, as a voice asks, 'Is this what Donald Trump and Ed Gillespie mean by the American dream?' This sort of thing is insane, and it divides the country beyond any reconciliation. Alexander Hamilton recognized the danger of impugning the motives of political opponents in Federalist No. 1: 'In politics, as in religion, it is equally absurd to aim at making proselytes by fire and sword. Heresies in either can rarely be cured by persecution. . . . And yet . . . a torrent of angry and malignant passions will be let loose.'"
Shapiro calls LVF's anti-Gillespie ad "the worst in political history." He's right. What the LVF did was stupid. This close to election day, GOTV operations are super-important. This ad will create a turnout higher than any GOTV operation Ed Gillespie could've put together. [Video no longer available.]
That's why Ed Gillespie will win.
Posted Thursday, November 2, 2017 8:45 AM
Comment 1 by shad rolfe at 10-Nov-17 05:14 PM
HE LOST
Donna Brazile vs. Hillary Clinton, DWS
This op-ed is this morning's water cooler conversation in DC. That's because Donna Brazile wrote it to criticize Hillary Clinton and Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Ms. Brazile even took a swipe at President Obama, saying "My predecessor, Florida Rep. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, had not been the most active chair in fundraising at a time when President Barack Obama's neglect had left the party in significant debt." But that's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
The op-ed continues, saying "The Saturday morning after the convention in July, I called Gary Gensler, the chief financial officer of Hillary's campaign. He wasted no words. He told me the Democratic Party was broke and $2 million in debt. 'What?' I screamed. 'I am an officer of the party and they've been telling us everything is fine and they were raising money with no problems.' That wasn't true, he said. Officials from Hillary's campaign had taken a look at the DNC's books. Obama left the party $24 million in debt - $15 million in bank debt and more than $8 million owed to vendors after the 2012 campaign and had been paying that off very slowly. Obama's campaign was not scheduled to pay it off until 2016."
That isn't the worst of it. Here's some additional important details:
On the phone Gary told me the DNC had needed a $2 million loan, which the campaign had arranged. "No! That can't be true!" I said. "The party cannot take out a loan without the unanimous agreement of all of the officers. Gary, how did they do this without me knowing?" I asked. "I don't know how Debbie relates to the officers," Gary said. He described the party as fully under the control of Hillary's campaign , which seemed to confirm the suspicions of the Bernie camp. The campaign had the DNC on life support, giving it money every month to meet its basic expenses, while the campaign was using the party as a fund-raising clearing house. Under FEC law, an individual can contribute a maximum of $2,700 directly to a presidential campaign. But the limits are much higher for contributions to state parties and a party's national committee.
Individuals who had maxed out their $2,700 contribution limit to the campaign could write an additional check for $353,400 to the Hillary Victory Fund - that figure represented $10,000 to each of the thirty-two states' parties who were part of the Victory Fund agreement - $320,000 - and $33,400 to the DNC. The money would be deposited in the states first, and transferred to the DNC shortly after that. Money in the battleground states usually stayed in that state, but all the other states funneled that money directly to the DNC, which quickly transferred the money to Brooklyn.
I can't understand why Ms. Brazile is surprised. I published this post last October. According to an article in UK Daily Mail, "The Democratic National Committee is 'clearing a path' for Hillary Clinton to be its presidential nominee because its upper power echelons are populated with women, according to a female committee member who was in Las Vegas for Tuesday's primary debate. Speaking on the condition that she isn't identified, she told Daily Mail Online that the party is in the tank for Clinton, and the women who run the organization decided it 'early on.'"
The woman that helped rig the Democratic Party's nomination in favor of her friend is surprised that her friend is controlling the DNC? Isn't that rich? Who's the culprit? Is this woman the culprit?
If not her, who?
Her?
Personally, I'd choose 'All of the above.'
Posted Thursday, November 2, 2017 9:32 AM
No comments.
Newt: the experts are wrong
Saying that Newt Gingrich took so-called experts to the proverbial woodshed is understatement. Gingrich started his op-ed by saying "The left-wing media and the elites never seem to tire of being wrong. Remember in May when President Trump said his policies would spur the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP) to grow at a rate of 3 percent or higher? The so-called experts insisted that it was unrealistic , highly unlikely , and probably impossible ."
Newt continued, saying "Some of these experts suggested 3 percent growth could only happen if our immigrant population doubled over a decade or the nation went to a six-day work week . They said even if unemployment fell to zero, we still wouldn't get close. Imagine their surprise then when the Commerce Department announced on Friday that the GDP has grown at 3 percent - for the second quarter in a row."
Though it's unrealistic to think there's nothing but smooth sailing ahead for the economy, it's totally realistic to think Trump's policies are working. Democrats are fond of saying that President Trump hasn't achieved any major policy accomplishments. What they aren't saying, though, is that the unpublicized legislative accomplishments concerning regulatory relief have helped unleash economic growth.
Then Newt throws this information into the public's eye:
A recent report by the nonpartisan Tax Foundation estimated the GOP plan, "would boost long-run GDP by 9.1 percent. The larger economy would translate into 7.7 percent higher wages and result in 1.7 million more full-time equivalent jobs."
At the end of this interview, Newt offers his advice to Congress and to the American people. [Video no longer available.]
This has been Newt's philosophy since before he became speaker. Pass the biggest tax cuts you can pass. If you don't get everything you want, still pass the biggest tax cuts that can get 218 votes in the House, 50 votes in the Senate (and the Vice President's tie-breaking vote) and President Trump's signature. If economic growth continues, Republicans will have a great year at the ballot box in 2018. If that happens, then they can revisit the tax cuts and pass bigger, more permanent, tax cuts in 2019.
The Democrats and the liberal media will no doubt continue to try to find so-called experts who oppose the Republican tax cut plan. Americans should consider how often these supposed experts have been wrong about President Trump and his policies.
Conservative activists should remind people that a) Republican policies are working and b) the Democrats' predictions are wildly inaccurate. People already think we're heading in the right direction. That's why consumer confidence is soaring .
Posted Thursday, November 2, 2017 10:48 AM
No comments.
Let the tax battle begin
Within minutes of the GOP rollout of their tax reform and simplification plan, Democrats like Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and Chris van Hollen were criticizing the plan that they hadn't seen. Ms. Pelosi called it a Ponzi Scheme , saying "Even after ransacking all the middle-class benefits, Republicans are still adding trillions to the deficit,' she said, adding that the plan is a 'scheme to use the debt they pile up today to obliterate Medicare and Medicaid tomorrow.'" Then she said "This is a shell game, a Ponzi scheme that corporate America will perpetrate on the American people. But if you're the wealthiest 1 percent, Republicans will give you the sun, the moon, and the stars - all of that at the expense of the great middle class."
Meanwhile, Sen. Schumer wrote this op-ed earlier this week, insisting that "Trump's plan, by contrast, would slash taxes for the top tax bracket, repeal the estate tax, and create a huge new loophole..."
Sen. van Hollen issued a statement , saying "Ending the state income tax deduction for hardworking families in order to give a massive tax giveaway to big corporations and the very wealthy is sadly par for the course in this Republican tax plan. We will fight it tooth and nail."
Meanwhile, this plan that the Democrats are criticizing without reading the bill (they have a habit of that, don't they?) will likely get some Democrats' votes :
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on "The Daily Briefing" today that he expects to have some Senate Democrats support tax reform. He told Dana Perino that there are "at least three" Democrats in the Senate who have signaled they're likely to be a "yes" on tax reform.
It's clear that Sen. McConnell relishes the thought of blasting Ms. Pelosi's statements. That's the highlight of this video:
McConnell chuckled when Perino played House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's (D-Ca.) criticism of the proposal. Pelosi called it "deficit-exploding" and cast it as a "multi-trillion dollar giveaway to the wealthiest and corporations" at the expense of children, seniors and workers. McConnell said the Washington Post rated the claim as "four Pinocchios," calling it "almost entirely inaccurate."
McConnell said the bill unveiled today would reduce middle-class taxes and business taxes "to prevent our jobs from being exported to other countries. That's the core of the bill."
Let's set something straight. Democrats are too invested in the Resistance to do the right thing. Telling the truth isn't part of their action plan. With today's Democratic Party, ideology trumps doing what's right.
Later on the show, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), a member of the budget and appropriations committees, said the plan is a $2 trillion "windfall" for big corporations, insisting that middle-class families will see higher taxes. "There are millions of middle-class taxpayers who will see their taxes increase in order to provide tax breaks for multinational corporations," said Van Hollen. He said there are a number of proposals from the Democratic caucus to help working and middle-class families, specifically with child care costs.
Notice van Hollen's trickery? He isn't interested in across-the-board tax cuts nor is he interested in tax simplification. He wants specific carve-outs for voting groups he wants to keep voting for Democrats. Further, van Hollen's idea of tax policy keeps lawyers, lobbyists and accountants fully employed. The GOP plan hopes to limit complexities in the tax code, thereby reducing the cost of tax compliance.
Reducing the cost of tax compliance is a major reduction in expenses to small businesses. To entrepreneurs, cutting compliance costs is just as welcome as cutting tax rates. Either way, it's more money in their pockets.
Posted Thursday, November 2, 2017 5:35 PM
No comments.
