November 13-15, 2012
Nov 13 02:16 A glimpse into Minnesota's not-distant-enough future Nov 13 08:19 Tomasky insists Reaganomics died last Tuesday Nov 13 22:15 Sports blogger schools Gov. Dayton Nov 14 08:49 Tomasky vs. Benko Nov 14 16:51 Bureacratic troublemakers, the environment and diminishing freedoms Nov 15 04:10 Let's eliminate the EQB Nov 15 07:50 President Obama's off-prompter admission Nov 15 11:47 Lindsey Graham nails President Obama, Ambassador Rice Nov 15 21:00 Juan Williams: Dupe or Obama apologist
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
A glimpse into Minnesota's not-distant-enough future
For people looking for, or badly in need of, a good laugh, John van Hecke's op-ed is a fine place to start, starting with his opening paragraph:
Minnesotans voted for compromise and common sense. They rejected divisive conservative policies and focused on Minnesota's future.
Actually, what people did last Tuesday was they bought into ABM's smear campaign and outright lies. They also voted for higher taxes, more wasteful government spending (think more LGA), more power for public employee unions and less prosperity for Main Street small businesses.
Rest assured of this: fewer jobs will be created over the next 2 years under the DFL's leadership than were created while there was a GOP majority. There's another thing that's certain: billions more will be spent on the state budget, possibly as much as an additional $5,000,000,000 this biennium. That will necessitate a major tax increase, possibly the biggest in Minnesota's history.
Conservatives lost their policymaking seats because they supported an extreme right-wing agenda that shut down state government, dumped bigger property tax burdens on local communities, forced severe cuts to critical Minnesota services, threatened to strip many worker protections and divided the state over a discriminatory social issue.
Conservatives lost their seats because of the marriage amendment increased DFL turnout and because Alida Messinger, ABM and the DFL lied about who shut the government down in 2011. If Mr. van Hecke can't be honest about that, then the rest of his op-ed is questionable, if not outright BS.
We still need to pair progressive revenue increases with cuts to close the budget gap and pay back the education shifts. Restoring fiscal fairness and reversing more than a decade of property tax increases will require an honest and open dialogue with Minnesotans and among legislators.
The DFL insists on a progressive tax system in op-eds like this. What's insulting is that the last DFL legislature voted for the biggest regressive tax increase in Minnesota's history. What's insulting is that Sen. Klobuchar and Sen. Franken voted for the biggest regressive tax increase in U.S. history when they voted for the ACA.
Tax fairness isn't important to progressives. Raising taxes, whether they're progressive or regressive, is what's important with the DFL.
Notice, too, that nowhere in Mr. van Hecke's op-ed does he talk about prosperity. As with Gov. Dayton and President Obama, van Hecke's motivation, possibly inspiration, is fairness. Nowhere are prosperity and rising incomes mentioned.
Another thing that's clearly troubling van Hecke is his view that conservatism equates with extremism, especially on social issues. That's getting pretty far afield from this description :
John Van Hecke is Minnesota 2020's Executive Director and MN2020 Fellow. He grew up on hog, cattle, corn and soybean farm south of Walnut Grove, Minnesota. He graduated from Macalester College, served as a Minnesota 4-H Foundation Fellow at the National 4-H Center, worked for the late Congressman Bruce F. Vento and presently serves on the Saint Paul Charter Commission. He and his family live in Saint Paul.
How is traditional marriage an extremist position? Fifty+ centuries of civilization defined marriage as between 1 man and 1 woman. Only in the last 30 years has anyone sought to expand that definition. Case closed.
Next, van Hecke thinks spending the taxpayers' money responsibly is an extremist position. When a big city mayor terminates firefighters , then mentions that they had enough money to retain the city's bike path coordinator. In R.T. Rybak's statements, though, evil Republicans are the fault, not his foolish spending decisions.
There are other ways in which DFL legislators and mayors spend money foolishly. Why didn't van Hecke specifically state where the spending cuts would come from? I suspect it's because he didn't want to be on record as opposing one of his special interest allies.
Rest assured that extending light rail far and wide will be part of the DFL's spending package. They'll argue that it's part of the solution to our transportation problems. It isn't. It's insane to think that's the future of transportation in Minnesota when it would cost hundreds of millions of dollars annually between rail maintenance and ridership subsidies?
I wrote frequently about the waste in MNSCU. Will the DFL spend money on trimming their administrative budget? Of course they won't. I'm betting that they'll increase the Higher Ed budget by $350,000,000 this biennium. Minimum. They won't question whether the money's being spent on a Social Responsibility Masters Degree program with a 2011 pricetag of $1,218,000 in teachers salaries, or a certificate in Ecotourism from Central Lakes Community College or whether it's being spent on hard sciences.
That's because they don't care how the money is spent.
That isn't the definition of extremism. That's the definition of irresponsibility. That's the definition of a mindless progressive.
Tags: MN2020 , John van Hecke , Higher Ed , Light Rail , Tax Increases , Subsidies , Bonding , Fairness , Progressive Taxation , Income Taxes , Regressive Taxation , Taxes , Spending Irresponsibility , Mark Dayton , R.T. Rybak , Unemployment , Deficits , DFL
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 2:16 AM
Comment 1 by Holger Awakens at 13-Nov-12 06:12 AM
Excellent post and take on the recent election.
Interesting isn't it how Minnesotans (actually let me revise that to read "Twin Citiesans") willing submit to the Progressive overlords and are okay with becoming California, Illinois or New York.
When every Minnesotan is saddled with taxes so steep they can't make ends meet, when they couldn't find a job with a compass...well, let's hope they have a clear image of Tom Dooher of Education Minnesota cuz he's going to be laughing his ass off at each and every one of us as he docks his cabin cruiser out on Lake Minnetonka.
Comment 2 by Patrick-M at 13-Nov-12 09:51 AM
Prosperity is a dirty word to progressives and liberals because it is synonymous with personal liberty. I would like to remind Minnesota residents and politicians that Wisconsin, North Dakota and South Dakota are all open for business.
Comment 3 by Nick at 13-Nov-12 04:36 PM
Patrick-M, if you haven't already heard, North Carolina voters voted the pro-business Pat McCrory (GOP) into office, so North Carolina is also open for business (with a GOP-controlled House and Senate). The one thing that I like about Pat McCrory is that he wants bipartisan solutions as a governor, just like he wanted and received bipartisan support when he was Charlotte, NC's mayor!
Comment 4 by Nick at 13-Nov-12 04:43 PM
My prediction for what's going to happen in MN: First, the DFL raise taxes on the top 1 or 2%(to 10.95%? If that's the case, yikes. MN will suffer big time) . Then they will realize that won't cut the deficit enough, so they'll raise the other groups' income taxes(bad)+increase and expand the sales tax(bad)+allow sunday alcohol sales (this is the only good thing though)+increase alcohol and cigarette taxes+hospital provider tax+increase the already very high corporate taxt rate, which is currently at 9.8% for all businesses+etc. Second, they will likely increase spending(yikes) and probably ignore reforms. Third, same-sex marriage will most likely become legal in MN+possibly medical cannabis+every state worker will receive a pay raise at the taxpayers' expense.
In California, the voters decided approve an increase in sales and income taxes, and end a tax break for multistate businesses. California's top tax rate will be at 13.3% (Ouch!). Here's the information for Proposition 30:
-Raises California's sales tax to 7.5% from 7.25%, a 3.45% percentage increase over current law. (Under the Brown Tax Hike, the sales tax would have increased to 7.75%)[3][4]
-Creates four high-income tax brackets for taxpayers with taxable incomes exceeding $250,000, $300,000, $500,000 and $1,000,000. This increased tax will be in effect for 7 years.[3][5][6]
-Imposes a 10.3% tax rate on taxable income over $250,000 but less than $300,000--a percentage increase of 10.6% over current policy of 9.3%. The 10.3% income tax rate is currently only paid by taxpayers with over $1,000,000 in taxable income.[7].
-Imposes an 11.3% tax rate on taxable income over $300,000 but less than $500,000--a percentage increase of 21.5% over current policy of 9.3%.
Imposes a 12.3% tax rate on taxable income over $500,000 up to $1,000,000--a percentage increase of 32.26% over current policy of 9.3%.
-Imposes a 13.3% tax rate on taxable income over $1,000,000--a percentage increase of 29.13% over current "millionaires tax" policy of 10.3%.
If this proposition is passed in November, 2012, the income tax will apply retroactively to all income earned or received since the first of the year (1 January, 2012).
-Based on California Franchise Tax Board data for 2009[8], the additional income tax is imposed on the top 3% of California taxpayers.
Estimated revenue from Proposition 30 vary from Jerry Brown's $9 billion estimate to the $6.8 billion estimated by the non-partisan Legislative Analysts Office (LAO).[9]. The difference stem for the volatility caused by capital gains income from high-income earners, an issue in California's tax system previously identified by the Legislative Analysts Office (LAO).[10]
And Proposition 39:
-Requires out-of-state businesses to calculate their California income tax liability based on the percentage of their sales in California.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]
-Repeals an existing law that gives out-of-state businesses an option to choose a tax liability formula that provides favorable tax treatment for businesses with property and payroll outside California.
-Dedicates $550 million annually for five years from the initiative's anticipated increase in revenue in order to fund projects that "create energy efficiency and clean energy jobs" in California.[10][3][4][11] Initially, this extra revenue will go to fund "green" energy projects.[7][5]
For more information on these Propositions, go to http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_2012_ballot_propositions
Comment 5 by John Van Hecke at 15-Nov-12 11:56 AM
Gary,
The "V" in "Van Hecke" is capitalized.
Your pal,
John
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-12 12:03 PM
I'll make a note of that. Thanks for that correction.
Tomasky insists Reaganomics died last Tuesday
Hardline progressive columnist Michael Tomasky used his latest column to declare that last Tuesday's election meant the death of Reaganomics. Like other progressive fools before him, he sounds silly. Reaganomics didn't die last Tuesday night because it wasn't on the ballot.
Along came Ronald Reagan to assure everyone that the rising tide would lift all boats. It's never happened quite the way conservatives said it would. Even during the general prosperity of the second Reagan term, income inequality began to expand dramatically, wage stagnation became a permanent feature of American life, and the immiseration of the poor worsened.
That's odd. I lived through the Reagan Revolution. My 401(k) grew exponentially during the 80s. Q3 of 1983 was particularly good, earning an astonishing 44.59% return that quarter. Yes, you read that right: 44.59% in Q3 of 1983. It isn't coincidence that September, 1983 was when the economy created 1,100,000 jobs. It isn't coincidence that GDP growth that quarter was 7.1%.
If Mr. Tomasky wants to argue against Reganomics' GDP coming out of a recession, let's have that fight. The GDP rate of Q3, 1982 was over 9%, followed by GDP rates of 8.1%, 8.5%, 7.9% in that order. If Mr. Tomasky wants to argue that this type of explosive economic growth, coupled with a strong dollar, explosive job growth and an abundant, inexpensive and stable domestic energy supply is a bad thing, let's have that fight.
It isn't that Reaganomics is a failure. It's that we need the right person to cut through the progressives' lies about the alleged failures of Reaganomics. It's important we remember that progressives insist voter fraud doesn't exist and that President Obama's policies worked while cutting the deficit.
The plain, simple truth is that people like Mr. Tomasky and John van Hecke are liars. They peddle lies because arguing policies on the merits is how they're defeated. They don't think Reaganomics dies. They're praying that people believe them so they don't have to fight Reagan's policies.
When hsi second term finally ends, President Obama will have created fewer jobs in 8 years in office than what President Reagan created in a single quarter of 1983. That's before comparing economic growth, inflation and deficits.
Tags: Reaganomics , Job Growth , Strong Dollar , Inflation , GDP , GOP , President Obama , Recession , Deficits , Mike Tomasky , John van Hecke , Propagandists , Progressives
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 8:19 AM
No comments.
Sports blogger schools Gov. Dayton
Serious people don't think Gov. Dayton is the brightest bulb in the DFL's chandelier. They might think he's a decent politician but they don't think he's that bright. That point is illustrated when former Vikings beat writer Kevin Seifert took Gov. Dayton to task on PSLs:
Gov. Mark Dayton fired off an angry letter to team owners Tuesday that, among other things, threatened to scuttle the team's $975 million stadium deal if the team institutes PSLs, a plan that is under consideration but has not been finalized. PSL revenue would go to the Vikings, and therefore help offset their $477 million share of the deal, and Dayton wrote: "I strongly oppose shifting any part of the team's responsibility for those costs onto Minnesota Vikings fans. This Private Contribution is your responsibility, not theirs."
First, what idiot proofread this letter? It isn't "This Private Contribution." It's "This private contribution." Had Gov. Dayton insisted that the $477,000,000 come out of the Wilfs' pockets, he shouldn't have signed the bill. Here's what Seifert wrote about that:
But there are some major holes in what is really just a sloppy political maneuver. The first: The stadium legislation Dayton signed last spring explicitly gave the Vikings clearance to sell PSLs through the Minnesota Sports Facilities Authority. Further, it allows them to count the revenues toward its share of construction costs.
Don't believe me? I dug up the legislation itself online and found the relevant passages. Here you go:
On the topic of what the bill refers to as "stadium builder's licenses," the legislation says: "The authority shall own and retain the exclusive right to sell stadium builder's licenses in the stadium. The authority will retain the NFL team to act as the authority's agent in marketing and selling such licenses."
In a subsection on the Vikings' contribution, the bill reads: "The NFL team/private contribution, including stadium builder's license proceeds, for stadium costs must be made in cash in the amount of $477,000,000."
It's apparent Gov. Dayton doesn't have a clue about capitalism. Why wouldn't Gov. Dayton think the Vikings would attempt to pay their portion with every revenue stream that's available? Besides that, is Gov. Dayton saying that the PSL revenue can only go towards the Wilfs' profits, not to pay off their mortgage? Is Gov. Dayton saying the Vikings shouldn't raise revenues through something that's specifically allowed in the legislation he signed?
If Gov. Dayton is this clueless about whether a sports franchise owner will take the opportunity to maximize his revenues, why should we think Gov. Dayton has a clue about the impact his economic policies will have on Minnesota's economy?
With Minnesota's political leadership resting in the hands of Bakk, Dayton and Thissen, these are frightening days indeed.
Tags: Mark Dayton , Vikings Stadium , PSLs , Tom Bakk , Paul Thissen , Anti-Capitalists , DFL , Bloggers , Kevin Seifert , Minnesota Vikings , Zygi Wilf , Mark Wilf , NFL
Posted Tuesday, November 13, 2012 10:15 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 14-Nov-12 09:20 AM
So another case of "We have to pass the bill so we know what's in it" eh? What a dope Dayton is. So what would be his response if the Queens raised all ticket prices 100% to pay their share of the stadium? While I am 100% against any public money going to finance the stadium, I have no qualms what so ever with season ticket holders or just ticket buyers footing the bill for the new stadium. Kind of the way things are supposed to work anyway, right?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-12 09:41 AM
Chad, I agree with everything you said.
The bigger point to all this is that this stadium bill is just an example of Gov. Dayton being in over his head in this job. If he can't understand something in a stadium bill, why should we think he'll understand the ramifications of tax policy legislation? Why should we think he's capable of putting Minnesota on a path to prosperity?
Comment 3 by Dave S. at 14-Nov-12 09:56 AM
I don't know what it is, but there is something behind this feigned outrage. I hope somebody in the loop can ferret out the underlying issue which must be political.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-12 11:53 AM
Dayton is clueless. He spent a ton of time hyping this as "The People's Stadium", which everyone knew was BS. Now the Wilfs are doing what I thought they'd do. Now he's outraged? I wouldn't bet on it.
Comment 4 by eric z at 14-Nov-12 02:04 PM
If you watched the televised stadium debating, seat licenses were proposed in the legislature deliberations, as a part of generating the public amounts, but the legislature disdained the suggestion.
It made all the sense in the world to me that the boosters who would benefit from attending games should flavor the pot, vs all the other taxpayers paying for and subdizing their entertainment.
What I do not recall, is who floated the idea back then, and who dissed it. Whether it ever got a vote. I recall it being voted down, as an amendment. That could be wrong, it might never have gone that far.
Any help, Gary, or readers? Is there any collective or individual memory of detail?
And Gary, do not forget which party was in the majority in each house, in that awful thing being passed against taxpayer interests.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-12 02:57 PM
Gov. Dayton & Sen. Bakk led the drive on the Vikings Stadium. I know because I wrote extensively about Sen. Bakk's idiotic tax proposal that ripped off Minnesota charities.
I know firsthand about it because I interviewed King Wilson, the former executive director who was hurt most by Sen. Bakk's proposal.
I said frequently that the Vikings Stadium bill was the worst piece of legislation for building sports stadiums in U.S. history. Most importantly, I said it 2 months before the bill was passed. I said it right after the bill was resurrected. I said it consistently.
The PSL-enabling language was always in the final version of the legislation. Sen. Bakk & Gov. Dayton should be flogged for their selling Minnesotans that bill of goods.
Comment 6 by Nick at 14-Nov-12 08:49 PM
What is a PSL? I am not really familiar with the term. I agree with Chad Q here. I didn't want the Vikings Stadium to pass earlier in the year, especially with the taxpayers having to foot 40-80% of the bill. In my opinion, not a SINGLE taxpayer should have to fund a sports stadium!
Comment 7 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-12 04:13 AM
PSL = Personal Seat License.
Tomasky vs. Benko
Ralph Benko's op-ed is the perfect counterargument to Michael Tomasky's silly column, which I wrote about here . Benko didn't waste time in highlighting the flaw in Tomasky's logic:
Liberals do not grasp the distinction between Ronald Reagan and (either) George Bush. This blind spot creates a massive confusion and hazard to their ambitions. Obama defeated neither the Reagan Narrative nor Team Reagan. Team Bush appropriated, and then marginalized, both. Obama beat Team Bush, not Team Reagan. The implications are huge.
This post isn't about trashing Karl Rove or the Bush family. Frankly, that's a waste of time when there's important things to be done. Instead, it's about identifying underlying principles undergirded President Reagan's policies. Mr. Benko is spot on with this analysis:
Real conservatives saw Reaganomics as a way of creating broad-based opportunity, not as catering to the rich. It worked out exactly that way in America and throughout the world. The blossoming of free market principles, especially low tax rates and good money, brought billions of souls out of poverty, from subsistence to affluence.
Several things worked together to make America infinitely more prosperous during Reagan's time than during President Obama's time in office. First, the dollar was much stronger than during President Obama's time in office. That's partially because President Reagan's domestic energy policy was infinitely more robust than President Obama's. The less money we needlessly ship money overseas for oil, the stronger the dollar is. Our trade deficit shrunk, too.
The new conservative Republican leaders are strikingly formidable. The leaders of the new generation, like Reagan, and Kemp, before them (and Kennedy still earlier), all recognize the power of the 'rising tide lifts all boats'.
It isn't a stretch to think that conservatives like John Kasich, Paul Ryan, Scott Walker and Marco Rubio will re-ignite the Reagan Revolution. Each of these men have spotless conservative credentials, which is why they fire up the base in ways Mitt Romney and John McCain couldn't.
When President Bush won in 2004, he got 62,000,000 votes. McCain got fewer votes than President Bush. Mitt got fewer votes than Sen. McCain. Had Paul Ryan been at the top of the ticket, however, it isn't a stretch to think he would've topped President Bush's vote total.
That's because he's the spitting image of Reagan. The Reagan Revolution was fueled by a glut of great ideas. A Ryan Revolution would be powered by the same thing. Most importantly, he'd talk conservatism like his native language. This isn't an attempt to trash Mitt. It's simply stating the obvious. He just didn't prosecute the case against President Obama the way Ryan would have.
President Bush's spending turned conservatives off because he had a Republican House and Senate much of the time. President Reagan's spending was done, in part, because he had to rebuild the military after President Carter gutted it, partly because Tip O'Neill controlled the House.
Everything President Reagan fought for was targeted towards creating prosperity. He didn't back away from a fight, either. When PATCO went on strike, he fired them because they broke federal law. When Tip O'Neill accused him of not caring about the average working Joe, Reagan responded mightily. His temper flaring, he marched back to the podium, then said, essentially, that he'd made his money because he'd worked hard, then adding that it wasn't given to him.
It's a fight Mitt Romney backed away from too often in his attempt to win over women voters or independents. It's a fight the next generation of conservatives will fight with vigor.
Tags: Reagan Revolution , Ronald Reagan , Jack Kemp , Prosperity , Pro-Growth Policies , Strong Dollar , Oil , Job Growth , GDP , Paul Ryan , Scott Walker , Marco Rubio , Conservatism , President Bush , Karl Rove , Mitt Romney , GOP Establishment
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2012 8:49 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 14-Nov-12 02:07 PM
Reagan was a disaster, and wasn't it GHW Bush calling the shots as Cheney called shots for GW Bush?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-12 03:05 PM
Eric, Reagan was a Mount Rushmore worthy president. He destroyed the Soviet Union. He took over the economy at a time when unemployment was in double digits, interest rates were 13%-15% & inflation was 10+ percent.
Three years later, in Sept., 1983, the economy responded to his signature legislation by creating 1,100,000 that month alone. That's just 4 times as many jobs that were created in President Obama's best month.
Please think before making a foolish statement that GHW Bush ran things during Reagan. Look at the dramatically different agendas they had. All I ask, Eric, is that you apply a little common sense & a little due diligence.
Bureacratic troublemakers, the environment and diminishing freedoms
One way the left has quietly, insidiously, killed the American economy is through the dirty tricks it plays with unelected bureaucrats. This op-ed by private property rights attorney Karen Budd-Falen shows how the federal government ignores laws while destroying what's left of people's private property rights:
Private landowner Andrew VanDenBerg is at the center of the controversy, including now being vilified by a press release issued by the Colorado U.S. Attorney's Office (part of the U.S. Justice Department).
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) guarantees access to private property across federal lands. Although the private landowner is required to file an application explaining the location of such access, that application cannot be denied under ANILCA. According to the Senate Committee reports regarding ANILCA, Congress intended to eliminate the federal government's discretion in allowing adequate and feasible access to inholdings by 'direct(ing) the Secretary to grant the owner of an inholding such rights as are necessary to assure adequate access to the inholding and is intended to assure a permanent right of access to the concerned land across, through or over these Federal lands by such State or private owners or occupiers and their successors in interest.'
The problem with the application system however is that the BLM routinely, and many times intentionally and unreasonably, delays processing such applications, thereby denying access to the private property during the processing. It is more common than not to have an application for access delayed for years, all the while denying access to private property.
Why have laws if the federal government routinely ignores those laws with impunity? Unfortunately, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Here's what should frighten people:
Private landowner Andrew VanDenBerg is at the center of the controversy, including now being vilified by a press release issued by the Colorado U.S. Attorney's Office (part of the U.S. Justice Department).
The Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) guarantees access to private property across federal lands. Although the private landowner is required to file an application explaining the location of such access, that application cannot be denied under ANILCA. According to the Senate Committee reports regarding ANILCA, Congress intended to eliminate the federal government's discretion in allowing adequate and feasible access to inholdings by 'direct(ing) the Secretary to grant the owner of an inholding such rights as are necessary to assure adequate access to the inholding and is intended to assure a permanent right of access to the concerned land across, through or over these Federal lands by such State or private owners or occupiers and their successors in interest.'
The problem with the application system however is that the BLM routinely, and many times intentionally and unreasonably, delays processing such applications, thereby denying access to the private property during the processing. It is more common than not to have an application for access delayed for years, all the while denying access to private property.
Why have federal laws if the federal government routinely ignores those laws, then bullies landowners in their attempt to restrict private property rights? That's just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. After having BLM bureaucrats ignore him, Mr. VanDenBerg decided to apply a little common sense to the situation:
In complete frustration at the bureaucratic delays and denials, VanDenBerg decided to use an existing road to get to his property. This road, noted as an existing road on the 2005 San Juan National Forest map and known as County Road 33A, has been in existence since 1886. The road was clearly visible on the ground as well as noted on the federal government's maps. VanDenBerg cut dead fall timber from the roadway and moved it out of the way. Although he followed the tracks of the road and he did not get out of the roadway that has existed for over 125 years, the BLM charged him with civil trespass charges in federal district court.
This seems pretty straightforward. The road is visible from the ground. It's highlighted on federal maps. Mr. VanDenBerg removed some dead fall timber from the road because the federal government hadn't maintained the road like they were obligated to do. In most citizens' eyes, he should get a good citizens award for his efforts. That isn't what happened, though:
Not wanting to expend the money on a huge and expensive trial, VanDenBerg decided to settle with the BLM. The settlement agreement states that VanDenBerg does not admit to ANY of the claims or assertions put forward by the government and that he is simply reimbursing the federal government for the reclamation of the dead trees he cut. Although he did not want to settle with the federal government, he recognized that the largest law firm in the world, the U.S. Justice Department, represents the federal government and that he would be buried in litigation costs. He thought a settlement agreement would end the matter and that the BLM would process his application so that he could have the access to his private property that he was promised by Congress.
Before the ink on the agreement was barely dry, the U.S. Attorney's Office issued a 'press release' that incorrectly labels VanDenBerg as a 'trespasser' and claiming his attempt to access his own private property is 'unauthorized.' The release also states that VanDenBerg's actions occurred in a 'wilderness.' VanDenBerg had disputed all of those statements. Even the settlement agreement itself noted that these statements are only allegations by the U.S., yet their press release states them as fact.
When asked about the false and misleading statements in the press release (in addition to noting that VanDenBerg denied all of the allegations in the settlement agreement), the U.S. Attorney noted in an e-mail to VanDenBerg's attorney, 'While I realize that you and your client were disappointed in the press release,...it is routine for this office to issue press releases on these kinds of settlements, especially in cases where the conduct is of the kind that we hope to deter in the future.'
At this point, you're thinking 'that stinks but at least that isn't happening in my state', right? Though the specifics in this article are changed, the goal remains the same :
The report recommends a revitalized EQB, with up to 10 staffers, more than double the current level.
Agriculture Commissioner Dave Fredrickson, chair of the EQB, said the environment will benefit if the board can plan ahead.
"They can look into the future and anticipate problems that we may hit head-on, so rather than react, we can as a board act on some of those important issues," Fredrickson said.
He cited silica sand mining; the board has been asked to do a broad review called a Generic Environmental Impact Statement on that subject. If the board had more staff, it could proceed.
Why must the EQB exist? Here's what the EQB is:
The Environmental Quality Board includes the heads of nine state agencies and four citizens.
Does Minnesota government need 9 different agencies to protect the environment? That isn't likely. In fact, it's exceptionally likely that most of those oversight agencies were created to placate environmentalists.
Whether the federal or state government is involved in the environment, the goal isn't to protect the environment. It's to limit people's private property rights.
Tags: Private Property Rights , Obama Administration , BLM , EPA , DOJ , Lawsuits , U.S. Attorney , Mark Dayton , Minnesota , Special Interests , Environmentalists , Bureaucrats , EQB , Regulations , DFL
Posted Wednesday, November 14, 2012 4:51 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-Nov-12 02:45 PM
Have your people in control of the budget process not allocated enough money for the job to be done. The BLM has many other things to do. Did your legislation provide processing deadlines? It looks like another one of the Republican unfunded mandates. As with No Child Left Behind.
Fund it first before complaining.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-12 03:24 PM
There shouldn't be this type of BS. The waiver should be granted reflexively.
Let's eliminate the EQB
The DFL isn't wasting time in spending money we don't have. This MPR article is about a report that says we should "bolster the Environmental Quality Board." First, let's start with the basics. Let's start with who the EQB is:
The EQB consists of the commissioners of nine state agencies and four citizens. It was created in 1972, but over the years its staff has shrunk and it seldom has the resources to fulfill its original mandate of studying and coordinating on issues that go beyond the purview of a single state agency.
The first question I have is simple. Is the EQB necessary? The second question is simple, too. What official responsibilities does the EQB have? Third, are the EQB's official responsibilities counterproductive? Fourth, since this agency was created in 1972, has anyone thought about how the EQB's official responsibilities might be streamlined or eliminated?
This part is exceptionally telling:
...over the years its staff has shrunk...
Simply put, the DFL, now that they're in full control, wants to start growing government, spending money recklessly and increasing government intrusion into our lives. Does anyone think that they aren't itching to start raising taxes? Does anyone think they can't wait to 'make departments whole'?
Before I leave this part, this is a sign of what's to come. Alida Messinger is a strident militant environmentalist. She'll insist that the environment be give a high priority. Since she essentially owns the DFL, ABM and an environmental organization (Conservation Minnesota), she'll surely get what she's demanding.
The budget Gov. Dayton signed in 2011 was for $34,350,000,000. If anyone thinks this budget will be less than $39,000,000,000, they're kidding themselves. It isn't a stretch to think Gov. Dayton's next budget won't be more than $40,000,000,000.
That means he'll need to sign the biggest tax increase in Minnesota history. That's doomed for failure because the economy is shrinking. That means the estimates he'll get from the Department of Revenue won't come close to the revenues he'll actually collect.
That means oversized deficits, likely the biggest in Minnesota history. Job growth, at least the jobs that aren't tied to the DFL's annual debt bill, will disappear. Within 2 years, Minnesota's economy will be worse as a direct result of Gov. Dayton's and the DFL's policies, budgets and tax increases.
Faced with the choice of paying excessive taxes while the economy shrinks or paying lower taxes into a growing economy in North Dakota, many businesses will migrate to North Dakota.
The DFL won't have anyone to blame for impending financial disaster that they're about to embark on. Republicans can't filibuster and they certainly don't have the votes to prevent this disaster.
That means the $7,000,000,000-$10,000,000,000 biennial deficit heading our direction will be the millstone tied around their necks alone.
Tags: Environmental Quality Board , Militant Environmentalists , Conservation Minnesota , Alida Messinger , Mark Dayton , ABM , Tax Increases , Recession , Deficits , Big Government , Tom Bakk , Paul Thissen , Pork , DFL
Posted Thursday, November 15, 2012 4:10 AM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 15-Nov-12 07:03 AM
While I'm not in the top 1 or 2% of incomes in MN, I'm not hanging around to get eaten by the DFL tax and spend machine. If liberals really believe that taxing those who "don't pay their fair share" is going to be good for MN or even raise enough revenue for their spending orgy, I guess they can own the economy that will result when those people, and people like me leave the state. I guess we'll see if those rich liberals are really happy to pay more. I bet not.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-12 07:17 AM
Chad, you've forgotten that many of the I'm-happy-to-pay-more-crowd are trust fund babies with their money hidden in exotic places like the Caymans or in a bank in South Dakota.
They don't pay taxes on their net worth. They pay taxes on the interest from their trust funds.
Meanwhile, the people who get hit with Gov. Dayton's & Sen. Bakk's tax increase are people who hire people, put their money at risk & grow the economy.
In short, entrepreneurs get slapped with Bakk's & Dayton's tax increases. Trust fund babies pay a mere pittance.
Comment 3 by eric z at 15-Nov-12 02:41 PM
"What official responsibilities does the EQB have?"
What journalistic inquiry effort did you take to find out?
Chad Q - Watch out for the doorknob.
President Obama's off-prompter admission
During Wednesday's presidential press conference, President Obama made a statement that hasn't gotten the scrutiny it deserves. Here's what President Obama said that's got me curious:
Jonathan Karl?
QUESTION: Thank you Mr. President. Senator John McCain, and Senator Lindsey Graham both said today that they want to have Watergate-style hearings on the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, and said that if you nominate Susan Rice to be secretary of State, they will do everything in their power to block her nomination. Senator Graham said, he simply doesn't trust Ambassador Rice after what she said about Benghazi. I'd like your reaction to that? And would those threats deter you from making a nomination like that?
OBAMA: Well first of all I'm not going to comment on various nominations that I'll put forward to fill out my cabinet for the second term. Those are things that are still being discussed. But let me say specifically about Susan Rice, she has done exemplary work. She has represented the United States and our interests in the United Nations with skill, and professionalism, and toughness, and grace. As I've said before, she made an appearance at the request of the White House in which she gave her best understanding of the intelligence that had been provided to her.
If Senator McCain and Senator Graham, and others want to go after somebody, they should go after me. And I'm happy to have that discussion with them. But for them to go after the U.N. ambassador who had nothing to do with Benghazi? And was simply making a presentation based on intelligence that she had received? And to besmirch her reputation is outrageous. And, you know, we're after an election now.
It's interesting that President Obama said that the purpose behind Susan Rice's appearances on the Sunday morning talk shows on Sept. 16, 2012 was to "make a presentation" based on the intelligence briefing she'd received from the CIA. Making a presentation to the nation seems rather one-sided. Then again, President Obama has made it clear that he isn't interested in getting all the facts out to the public, his statements about making everything available notwithstanding.
The last thing he wants is to face difficult questions like why the military, of which he's the commander-in-chief, failed to respond to Christopher Stevens' desparate pleas for help during the pre-planned and well-executed terrorist attack on Benghazi. It's a safe bet that President Obama doesn't want to talk about why he sent Ambassador Rice to the Sunday morning shows.
After all, by his admission, Ambassador Rice "had nothing to do with Benghazi." If she didn't know anything about the Benghazi terrorist attack prior to her CIA briefing, why didn't President Obama send someone from the CIA to the Sept. 16 talk shows? If not someone from the CIA, why not send someone from the DoD? Those people wouldn't have needed a CIA briefing because they were watching the terrorist attack live on their video screens.
The only explanation that fits President Obama's purpose is to have a black woman go on the talk shows so she wouldn't be questioned by the hosts and who could plausibly say 'I'm only repeating what the CIA told me'.
This established without doubt that President Obama a) didn't want an expert talking about what really happened that night in Benghazi and b) doesn't want to answer any questions about Benghazi.
Let's be straightforward about this: President Obama's political priorities got 4 American patriots killed. He knows that. What's worse is that he's hiding behind the oldest dodge in the book, aka the I-can't-talk-because-there's-an-investigation-underway line.
The other difficult question that President Obama doesn't want to answer is why there's such a huge discrepancy between the DoD's timeline of events and the CIA's and State Department's timeline. He would've gotten pressed on those if we'd had real White House reporters instead of off the books Democrat stenographers.
The bright side for those of us who genuinely care about the truth is that President Obama's biggest admissions happen when he's off prompter.
Tags: Susan Rice , Plausible Deniability , CIA Briefing , Talk Shows , Benghazi , Terrorist Attack , President Obama , Christopher Stevens , DOD , Special Forces , Leon Panetta , State Department , Hillary Clinton , National Security , Democrats
Posted Thursday, November 15, 2012 7:50 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 15-Nov-12 02:39 PM
Huff and puff, and blow his house down. It is not made of straw, the election was not a straw poll.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-12 03:23 PM
The election is over but President Obama's governing difficulties are just starting.
Lindsey Graham nails President Obama, Ambassador Rice
Sen. Lindsey Graham, (R-SC), asked the right questions of President Obama, Ambassador Rice and the State Department during this interview:
Sen. Graham is spot on when he said that President Obama "failed before, during and after the [terrorist] attack." That's indisputable. He failed to insist that the State Department didn't provide proper protection to our diplomats, especially considering the fact that Christopher Stevens and the CIA had identified 10 different al-Qa'ida-related militias in Benghazi.
President Obama failed, apparently, to check with Secretary Panetta about what steps he was taking to kill the attacking terrorists. There's no excuse for why an American president wouldn't be in the Situation Room, monitoring the video feed from the unarmed drone with his national security team. That's a total failure on President Obama's part.
At that point, all other appointments must be rescheduled. Orders must be given to the CIA and the Pentagon that they send President Obama's national security team updates every half hour on the situation on the ground and where the military is in deploying troops to protect Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Glen Doherty and Ty Woods.
Anything short of that is sloppy behavior that can't be tolerated during a crisis of this proportion.
As for Ambassador Rice, why did she rely solely on the CIA's briefing? It's sloppy for her not to have checked with Charlene Lamb, the State Department career woman who was maintaining live, real time communications with the diplomatic staff. She's the woman that sent timely updates to the White House Situation Room, too. Didn't she think that information might've been helpful in connecting the dots of what happened that tragic night?
Perhaps that was her goal all along. Perhaps Ambassador Rice didn't want to know what had happened. Perhaps she thought that finding out what really happened in Benghazi would hurt her boss. Perhaps she thought that knowing the truth would end her opportunity to be the next Secretary of State.
Put in that context, Ambassador Rice's actions are perfectly understandable.
Finally, President Obama's repeated statements that his national security team did everything they could to rescue Christopher Stevens and the other American patriots doesn't square with the facts. It's a great-sounding statement in terms of PR value but it doesn't have anything to do with the truth.
Tags: Lindsey Graham , Benghazi , Investigation , National Security , President Obama , Susan Rice , Situation Room , CIA Briefing , Charlene Lamb , Live Feed , State Department , Pentagon , Joint Chiefs of Staff , Military , Christopher Stevens , Diplomats , Patriots
Posted Thursday, November 15, 2012 11:47 AM
Comment 1 by #6 at 15-Nov-12 05:37 PM
Amazing how Sen. Graham moves to the right when he's worried about re-election. Well, the 2014 primary, at least.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-12 05:55 PM
I agree. It isn't that I think he's reliably conservative. It's that I believe in being intellectually honest. Graham did a good job.
Juan Williams: Dupe or Obama apologist
During tonight's roundtable, Sen. Saxby Chambliss told Chris Wallace that he had seen video during today's closed door hearing that "clearly showed" the terrorist attack on the Benghazi Consulate was a terrorist attack.
Later, the panel discussed what Sen. Chambliss said. Here's what Juan Williams said:
WILLIAMS: Well, he said clearly that, you know what, events in Egypt were triggered by the video and it could mean that some of the things that happened in Benghazi could have been in response but it could have been used as a pretext for people who wanted to engage in a terrorist attack. The second thing he talked about was throwing Susan Rice under the bus and then he said it was a political statement and then he defended his comrades in the Senate, Sen. McCain and Sen. Graham. But clearly, he didn't respond to the notion that there was intelligence as you pointed out earlier in the show, the Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, who said that that's the intelligence that Susan Rice had. There's no question about that. There's nothing political about that. She said that she was responding to the intelligence community's assessment that said, and by the way, the fragmentary stuff that they may pick up, the guy in Tripoli sent in this report, that's not what the community based their assessment on. That was fragmentary stuff at the time.
Unfortunately for Juan, Steve Hayes actually paid attention to what Sen. Chambliss said. Here's Steve's response:
HAYES: It's not at all fragmentary. The takeaway from what Saxby Chambliss said is that, after reviewing this information all afternoon, "It was clear from Day One that this was a terrorist attack." Now we're two months out. We've seen all of this intelligence and that's his assessment. It's also the assessment of everyone who's looked at the intelligence. Even the State Department has acknowledged that there was no protest. You had Democrats coming out on Sept. 13 saying, in effect, that this was a terrorist attack. It was pre-planned. It was sophisticated. The question is why did we know all of this information the first three days and why did David Petraeus say on Sept. 14 that all of this was possibly triggered by the video?
It's impossible to say with intellectual integrity that a video that might or might not have triggered the Cairo riots might also have triggered the terrorist attack in Benghazi. After all, the distance between Cairo and Benghazi is 800+ miles.
Unfortunately, Juan Williams is letting party loyalty, not facts and logic, shape his opinions. An attack can't both be a sophisticated, pre-planned attack and something that developed out of a spontaneous protest. The fact that the attack was pre-planned necessarily eliminates the terrorist-attack-grew-out-of-a-spontaneous-protest meme.
There's another question that's left hanging there, namely, why didn't Susan Rice take into consideration the footage that was livestreaming from the overhead drone? It's a scary thought to think that she totally relies on James Clappers' briefings for her information.
Let's remember who James Clapper is and what he's 'famous' for , then explain why anyone would trust his briefings.
Finally, here's the video of the SR Roundtable discussion:
Tags: Special Report , Saxby Chambliss , Stephen Hayes , Juan Williams , Roundtable , Intelligence Hearing , Benghazi , Terrorist Attack , Susan Rice , James Clapper , David Petraeus , Politics , Democrats
Posted Thursday, November 15, 2012 9:00 PM
Comment 1 by Marty Cholewa at 14-Mar-13 02:05 PM
Marty Cholewa says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 14, 2013 at 2:02 pm
It bothers me that Fox cable gives Juan Williams a platform and pays him handsomely to dispense his intellectually dishonest and partisan lies.
this dishonest denizen of democratic orthodoxy is even rewarded with guest host priveleges in lieu of responsible commentators/analysts. it saddens me that fox promotes such obvious dissembling
