November 14-15, 2011
Nov 14 06:11 MPCA's absent administration Nov 14 23:32 DFL will finally draw redistricting maps Nov 14 14:01 Administration's Day of Reckoning? Nov 14 14:45 Gingrich the new leader? Nov 14 18:05 Crony 'capitalism' corruption exposed Nov 14 18:44 Pelosi: "I am not corrupt" Nov 15 08:23 Obamacare's legal history Nov 15 09:04 Why the Washington Post should stick to reporting
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
MPCA's absent administration
I wrote extensively about Gov. Dayton's pick of Paul Aasen as MPCA commissioner. See here , here , here , here , here , here and here .
Unfortunately for Minnesotans, those posts are just the tip of the proverbial iceberg. The information from this audit report is frightening. This information is frightening:
The agency did not adequately safeguard its receipts. The agency did not prepare a daily log of incoming receipts. Also, employees did not restrictively endorse checks until they prepared the deposit. Without preparing a log of the checks received and restrictively endorsing the checks, checks could be lost or stolen prior to preparing the deposit without the agency's knowledge.
The thought that MPCA employees could pilfer checks and not be detected is frightening. Yes, the MPCA's primary responsibility is to make sure Minnesota's environmental laws are enforced. Mr. Aasen apparently didn't figure out that he has administrative responsibilities, too.
While stealing checks is frightening, identity theft is potentially much more devastating:
The agency was not securing not public data. The agency photocopied checks for certain divisions. However, it did not redact not public information, such as bank routing and account numbers. Employees without a business need had access to these copies that contained the account information. Employees could use this information to commit fraud against the check writer.
Giving people the opportunity to gather this information is giving people the opportunity to commit identity theft. Simply put, that's unforgivable.
These administrative lapses are enough justification to terminate Aasen's state employment. Being a militant environmentalist who's bragged about destroying energy projects is bad enough. Being so incompetent that you invite identity theft and internal fraud is all the justification needed to terminate Aasen's employment.
It can't happen soon enough.
Posted Monday, November 14, 2011 6:11 AM
Comment 1 by Aaron Klemz at 14-Nov-11 09:39 AM
Gary, did you notice the dates of the audit? It was for conduct from July 2008 to December 2010. In other words, before Mark Dayton was inaugurated as Governor, and before Paul Aasen was appointed as Commissioner.
These failings are all on the Pawlenty administration. I trust that Governor Dayton and Commissioner Aasen will rectify the problems in process and policy left them by their predecessors.
Comment 2 by Kristi Rosenquist at 14-Nov-11 09:40 AM
You may be interested in a conversation I had with Paul Aasen on September 22, 2011. We were talking about the MPCA noise standard that is used by the MPUC to determine the distance between an industrial wind turbine and a residence. Aasen confirmed exactly one of the ongoing complaints citizens have posed to the MPUC (and been ignored).
Aasen: 'The fact of the matter is that today we don't have a noise standard that's designed to work for turbines." Also, according to Aasen, internal conversations at the MPCA included 'the difficulty in actually measuring ['regular'wind turbine]noise in a reliable way...let alone low frequency noise. Because that's a piece of the standing question we have around some of the Bent Tree [wind project] work because technically it doesn't meet the testing criteria."
The MN Department of Health recomended to the MPUC in May 2009 that the state needed to figure out how to measure and assess low frequency noise from wind turbines.
Aasen said he would talk to Commissioner Rathman at Commerce and Commissioner Ehrlinger at Health and get back to me. That was 7 weeks ago. Nothing.
DFL will finally draw redistricting maps
After months of not drawing their set of redistricting maps, the DFL will finally draw a set of redistricting maps. Their maps must be turned in by Friday:
By the end of this week, Minnesota's political parties must show what they want the state's congressional and districts to look like.
They have until Friday to present a special court panel with their ideal maps. The court is overseeing the politically charged process because there hasn't been consensus within state government.
Redistricting happens once a decade as a way to account for population shifts. The goal is to come up with eight congressional districts with roughly the same number of people and 201 like-sized legislative districts.
Until now, Democrats haven't publicly put on paper their preferred outcome.
Republicans offered maps during the 2010 legislative session. They were vetoed by Democratic Gov. Mark Dayton.
DFL legislators didn't do what they were obligated to do during session. Now they're being forced into doing their responsibilities. What I want to know is whether the DFL legislature is putting the congressional and legislative maps or if the DFL party is putting the redistricting maps together.
It matters because, if the DFL is using the equipment that Minnesota taxpayers paid for to draw the maps, then the DFL should have to reimburse the legislature for the analysts, the workstations, other hardware and the software. The reimbursement cost for that list is definitely north of $200,000.
If the DFL states that they're submitting the maps and that they drew those maps on their computers, then they should provide proof that they didn't use the DFL legislators' equipment. Receipts showing that they bought their own equipment would suffice as proof.
The DFL is in a difficult position on the redistricting issue. They argued that communities of interest should be the primary consideration in drawing the new redistricting maps. The panel ruled that keeping cities and counties intact should be the primary consideration .
That ruling puts a gun to the DFL's head. A favorable ruling would've given the DFL the opportunity to create alot of mischief. Now that that's been shot down, the DFL will have to come up with a serious map or be laughed out of court.
Therein lies their difficulties. If they're forced to put population shifts ahead of other considerations, then they're essentially admitting that the map passed by the legislature and vetoed by Gov. Dayton was a solid map that shouldn't have been vetoed.
Everyone knows that the population shifts favored the GOP. The redistricting maps will help the GOP. It's that simple.
Posted Monday, November 14, 2011 11:32 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing, at 15-Nov-11 08:52 AM
Your point on reimbursement is well taken, but I suspect would be perceived by the public as petty politics if raised by the GOP. I'm wondering how the DFL can even begin to put together serious maps by Friday and, if they trot out the maps they developed earlier, won't they be rejected because they had that crazy idea that DFL advantage was more important than following the rules?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-11 09:10 AM
Jerry, The GOP shouldn't bring the subject up about reimbursing the state for using the legislators' equipment. That's something I'm perfectly content with doing.
Second, you've just nailed it with regards to why the DFL didn't put a set of maps together. They simply can't help themselves. They must do things that tip elections in their direction. That's the nature of the beast.
Administration's Day of Reckoning?
Now that the Supremes have agreed to hear the arguments for Obamacare , the biggest questions left to be answered are abundant. Will this be this administration's day of reckoning? Or will the Supremes rule that the federal government's authority is unlimited? This ruling will be the most controversial ruling since Roe v. Wade and Kelo v. New London.
The Supreme Court said Monday it will hear arguments next March over President Barack Obama's health care overhaul, a case that could shake the political landscape as voters are deciding if Obama deserves another term.
This decision to hear arguments in the spring sets up an election-year showdown over the White House's main domestic policy achievement. And it allows plenty of time for a decision in late June, just over four months before Election Day.
If the Supremes rule that O'Care is unconstitutional, I'll predict that Democrats will criticize the justices as being judicial activists who hate the average person. That's what they did after the Citizens United ruling.
In fact, that's what they did following Judge Vinson's ruling in the Florida case :
The ruling out of Florida is unsurprising in one respect: the judge, a conservative Republican appointee, had already signaled his hostility to the law in hearings a few months ago. So people who follow the health care litigation have been waiting for him to issue the ruling that came down Monday.
It was anticipation over this ruling, and real concern about how the judge would likely distort longstanding case law to reach it, that led over one hundred law professors to sign a statement last week expressing their view that the ACA is constitutional. Their statement pointedly observed that the 'current challenges to the constitutionality of this legislation seek to jettison nearly two centuries of settled constitutional law.'
What Democrats won't like hearing is that Judge Vinson cited both the Constitution and the Federalist Papers in his ruling. These are the foundational writings of what is and isn't constitutional. The U.S. Constitution states the what, the Federalist Papers explains the why.
There's nothing activist about applying foundational principles when making this ruling. Here's what President Obama said during his State of the Union Address following the Citizens United ruling:
'I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.' Last week's Supreme Court Citizen's United decision opens the floodgates to special interests and foreign countries and companies bankrolling national campaigns. The President called for bipartisan support for legislation that will remedy the Supreme Court's unprecedented and troubling decision.
President Obama's statement doesn't have anything to do with reality. It had everything to do with his hatred of this correct ruling because it levels the playing field. Democrats and President Obama love the fact that unions pump tens of millions of dollars into political campaigns for Democrats.
Here's something else that's noteworthy about the appeal:
The justices announced they will hear an extraordinary five-and-a-half hours of arguments from lawyers on the constitutionality of a provision at the heart of the law and three other related questions about the act. The central provision in question is the requirement that individuals buy health insurance starting in 2014 or pay a penalty.
In the modern era, the last time the court allotted anywhere near this much time for arguments was in 2003 for consideration of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. That case consumed four hours of argument. This argument may spread over two days, as the justices rarely hear more than two or three hours a day.
This law should be overturned because not overturning it means that the federal government's authority is essentially unlimited. That's unacceptable.
UPDATE: Welcome Powerline readers. Take the time to read my post of the most recent presidential polling. If you appreciate my analysis, feel free to drop some coins in the tip jar, too.
Posted Monday, November 14, 2011 5:18 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 14-Nov-11 04:38 PM
piece of advice for the lawyers who are trying to get it overturned. show a picture of the empty lot that was suppose to be a commercial tax base in the New London area to remind the court doing what they think is right because it's good doesn't result in good results.
walter hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Whitehall at 14-Nov-11 05:31 PM
I wonder at Thomas' opinion on the 5+ hours of oral argument.
Think that sometime during that 5+ hours he'll ask a question?
I've also know that there is political posturing about one or the other justices removing themself's from the case. How does that happen and who has the authority to make it involuntary?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 14-Nov-11 05:39 PM
First, I'm not an attorney but I'm pretty certain that Supreme Court justices can't be forced to recuse themselves from a case. I'd appreciate the opinions of any attorneys stopping past. Second, yes, there's lots of political posturing but this case, I'm certain, will be decided on what the justices decide on the issue of whether there's a limit to the federal government's authority or whether there isn't.
Comment 3 by ARay at 14-Nov-11 05:37 PM
The court will find it constitutional but allow the severing of the individual mandate. The Act itself is tyrannical, but the modern court has case law history(Roe v Wade, McCain-Feingold, Kelo, several Interstate commerce cases) on which to build upon. This is only one more stone in the edifice of the new 'Constituitonality'. This Act, in all its thousands of pages,also has no language in it that protects it from severability but one will be found in its 'penumbra'. Another eclipse is coming for liberty, the Constitution and the Republic.
Gingrich the new leader?
According to PPP's latest polling , Newt Gingrich is the new frontrunner in the GOP presidential primary race:
Newt Gingrich has taken the lead in PPP's national polling. He's at 28% to 25% for Herman Cain and 18% for Mitt Romney. The rest of the Republican field is increasingly looking like a bunch of also rans: Rick Perry is at 6%, Michele Bachmann and Ron Paul at 5%, Jon Huntsman at 3%, and Gary Johnson and Rick Santorum each at 1%.
Compared to a month ago Gingrich is up 13 points, while Cain has dropped by 5 points and Romney has gone down by 4. Although a fair amount of skepticism remains about the recent allegations against Cain there is no doubt they are taking a toll on his image, his net favorability is down 25 points over the last month from +51 (66/15) to only +26 (57/31). What is perhaps a little more surprising is that Romney's favorability is at a 6 month low in our polling too with only 48% of voters seeing him favorably to 39% with a negative opinion.
That polling information can't help but strengthen Speaker Gingrich's fundraising operation. If Newt starts raising money like Mitt and Rick Perry, he'll be difficult to beat.
Herman Cain's difficulties continue. This information isn't helpful to Mr. Cain's cause:
There's reason to think that if Cain continues to fade, Gingrich will continue to gain. Among Cain's supporters 73% have a favorable opinion of Gingrich to only 21% with a negative one. That compares to a 33/55 spread for Romney with Cain voters and a 32/53 one for Perry. They like Gingrich a whole lot more than they do the other serious candidates in the race.
Cain's base of strength continues to be with Tea Party voters, where he gets 33% to 31% for Gingrich, and only 11% for Romney. This is where you can really see that Gingrich will be the beneficiary if Cain continues to implode, Gingrich's favorability with Tea Partiers is 81/14. Romney's is 43/45. There's a lot of room for Gingrich to build up support with that key group of Republican voters.
We've speculated that, if Mr. Cain fades, Newt would benefit. This information tells us that Newt would benefit from a Cain collapse.
Though Newt isn't leading the latest CNN/ORC poll , Mitt's lead is tiny:
A new national survey of Republicans indicates that it's basically all tied up between Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich in the race for the GOP presidential nomination, with Gingrich on the rise and businessman Herman Cain falling due to the sexual harassment allegations he's been facing the past two weeks.
According to a CNN/ORC International Poll released Monday, 24% of Republicans and independents who lean towards the GOP say Romney is their most likely choice for their party's presidential nominee with Gingrich at 22%. Romney's two-point advantage is well within the survey's sampling error.
This clearly sets Newt up as the pinatta at the next GOP debate. Ed's right, though, in saying that it'll be difficult to go hard after Newt :
We'll see now that the other candidates have an incentive to go after him, but Gingrich has played very graciously with everyone else in this race, and going negative on Newt might have a high risk of backfire.
The next few debates will be interesting, partially to see if the other top-tier candidates attack Newt, partially to see if Newt can solidify his lead. If Newt can solidify his lead, that could lead to wins in Iowa, South Carolina and Florida.
The other thing that I'll be watching is to see if Mitt starts attacking Newt. Mitt isn't well-liked by conservatives. Attacking Newt the minute he's the frontrunner won't help him:
As for Romney he has not shown any ability to take advantage of the trouble his fellow candidates keep getting themselves into. In July Romney was at 20%, in August at 20%, in September at 18%, October at 22%, and now in November at 18%. He's been at 20 +/-2% for the last five months in our polling. While the flavor of the month has gone from Trump to Bachmann to Perry to Cain to Gingrich, Romney hasn't had a turn in that seat- he can only hope that his chance in that role will come in January, which is certainly the best time to have it.
The media's flavor of the month meme isn't helping Mitt. It's much more likely that there's a strong Anybody-But-Mitt sentiment amongst the activists.
That won't change anytime soon. In fact, the only thing likely to change is the size of Newt's lead.
Posted Monday, November 14, 2011 2:45 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing, at 15-Nov-11 03:39 AM
I wonder how much of Mr. Cain's support, at this point, is BECAUSE of the allegations against him? GOP activists have gotten tired of having the MSM tell us who our candidate should be, and should not be. I welcome that resistance. But with the meteoric rise and fall of so many front-runners, I can't help but wonder if we aren't letting the MSM pick off our contenders one by one. And if Newt isn't just the next one to be savaged by the MSM and left dangling in the wind, undefended by the GOP.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-11 07:47 AM
The MSM isn't picking our candidate. The GOP establishment isn't, either, though not for lack of trying. Cain's fall is triggered by the fact that he isn't qualified to be president. His answer to the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on Libya was brutal. Again, he showed he's totally out of his element on national security issues.
Couple that with his lack of understanding of the complexities of health care & Cain's saying that he'd take the military option off the table with Iran. People are noticing that he's got nothing except his "bold 9-9-9 plan."
As for Newt, the savaging is starting. This isn't something I'm worried about. Let's remember that Newt was the target of the Clinton War Room during most of his time as Speaker. He was "the Gingrich who stole Christmas." The media asked how much the poor would get hurt by him. Through it all, he negotiated with President Clinton. Together, they put in place policies that brought us 4 straight surpluses while entrepreneurs were creating 11,000,000 jobs.
Yes, some of the MSM's attacks will hurt his poll ratings a bit but that won't keep his ratings down long. People are seeing that he's the smartest man on the debating stage & that he's got tons of fresh-sounding solutions.
When voters go to the polls, that's what they'll remember.
Comment 2 by J. Ewing, at 15-Nov-11 09:00 AM
Hmmm, you are correct. All of the MSM's likely "prick points" are things in the distant past or personal things like his Tiffany shopping trip or his 3rd wife (by all accounts a more estimable lady that Michelle O). People will gravitate more, I think, to Mr. Gingrich's calm demeanor and Obama's hectoring arrogance. They will appreciate proposed real solutions ("the same size as our problems" to quote Gingrich), compared with Obama's proven failures. And if there is ever a debate between the two the election is over.
Comment 3 by eric z at 15-Nov-11 12:16 PM
If it were me, I would not call the race over at the quarter pole. If it were me I would wait for the home stretch.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 16-Nov-11 07:21 AM
J.Ewing, and Gary - You guys are chasing ghosts. You each refuse to say that the media picks up the scent of the GOP entrenched leadership. Do you suppose that, just perhaps, Norm Coleman and Pawlenty (who owes Bachmann in kind for how she "helped" his effort) picking Romney might lead rather than trail what some reporter or editor at WaPo thinks? Bill Cooper and his money will not bet the race based on what rank-and-file such as you two say. He bets the race on advice of his friends. Gingrich rises in the "who besides Romney" question - as when Secretariat was running - because the likes of Coleman, Pawlenty, and Cooper's money could live with either Gingrich or Romney. Perry fades for the same reason, ditto for Cain who has the Koch brothers interested but not committed, but the Koch brothers are not your GOP's mainstream. All the kingmakers are scared shitless of Ron Paul - and whether he'll be pissed off enough to run as an independent. They've all decided Paul's a candidate they cannot live with. This latest Bachmann whining about being marginalized by the press - she's been marginalized by Coleman, Cooper and Pawlenty who besides other things has a payback motive.
However, Bachmann's point, she, Santorum, Ron Paul, none of them get the "debate" time that's been given Romney and more recently Gingrich. It's like basketball. All the players on the team want more minutes but the coach is deciding who's on the floor in crunch time and getting the most minutes.
The question in your "debate" side show - it is not a debate but an allocation of soundbite minutes where any candidate does have the chance to make a flub but basically gets more or less minutes to try to insinuate soundbite momentum. Cain always saying 9.9.9 got a bit tiring, regardless of his history with ladies. Bachmann's little to say to capture soundbite moments.
So Romney is like Secretariat or Buckpasser. Who's the best back-up bet being the question. And Gingrich, not having that much money or fund-raising appeal, is somebody the deciders within your tent can live with.
Nobody in their right mind would think Santorum, Bachmann or Cain has a ghost's chance of defeating Obama in a general election. Ditto Perry. He's shown himself shallow and a loud buffoon. As has Bachmann.
Huntsman says things that have your guys, J. Ewing and Gary, raising you hands in disbelief and denial saying "On, my; or RINO ya betcha." But Cooper, Coleman and Pawlenty could live with him and know he's like every other politician, not what he says but what "we" can foresee if he gets into the driver's seat. Huntsman is far, far less a worry that way to Bill Cooper than Bachmann or Ron Paul. Huntsman will remember who his friends were, and they will remember earlier symbiosis together - friends helping friends. Huntsman is no threat to Bill Cooper's money. That's why he's still having a seat at the table.
And unlike Bachmann, Santorum, Perry, or Cain, Huntsman would have a chance to win a general election.
But I believe you are right Gary, in a contest of "who besides Romney" there might be a coalescence toward Gingrich rather than Huntsman. All the while, Ron Paul, who clearly has the best chance of being a true challenge to Obama, is ignored because he's gotten nothing already so far from the likes of Bill Cooper, hence owes them nothing, and hence is a less desirable choice to Cooper who wants continued prosperity and a continued king-making voice. Coleman and Pawlenty, if Romney wins they'll get some nice paycheck out of the spoils, and ditto if Gingrich wins. So -- go figure.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Nov-11 10:48 AM
So Romney is like Secretariat or Buckpasser.Don't look now but 'Secretariat' can't hit 30% anywhere outside of New Hampshire. Romney's ceiling is 25-35%. TEA Party & conservative activists don't trust him & won't support him.
As for Ron Paul, get off that dead horse. His replies to foreign policy questions are downright scary. Conservatives want someone who can a) win & b) govern. After winning the election, we have a big shitpile to clean up that this administration has created. We have to start a) creating jobs, b) running surpluses again & c) paying down the debt. That can't happen if we don't repeal Obamacare, the Dodd-Frank 'Too big to Fail' bill & by undoing a significant amount of the EPA's & NLRB's decisions.
We also have to clean up the green jobs cronyism inside the Energy Department. In fact, that's a great reason why we should eliminate the DoE.
Crony 'capitalism' corruption exposed
Marc Thiessen's Washington Post article on the crony capitalism in DC will hurt people in both parties. Still, it appears that it will hurt Democrats more than it'll hurt Republicans:
On Sunday night, CBS News' '60 Minutes' looked into this form of 'lawful graft.'The '60 Minutes' story exposed, among others, then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi for participating in a lucrative initial public offering from Visa in 2008 that was not available to the general public, just as a troublesome piece of legislation that would have hurt credit card companies began making its way through the House (the bill never made it to the floor). And it showed how during the 2008 financial crisis, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-Ala.), then-ranking Republican on the House Financial Services Committee, aggressively bought stock options based on apocalyptic briefings he had received the day before from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson.
The report was based on an explosive new book by Peter Schweizer that will hit stores on Tuesday. It's called 'Throw Them All Out: How Politicians and Their Friends Get Rich off Insider Stock Tips, Land Deals, and Cronyism That Would Send the Rest of Us to Prison.' (Full disclosure: Schweizer is a close friend, a former White House colleague and my business partner in a speechwriting firm, Oval Office Writers.
The '60 Minutes' story only scratches the surface of what Schweizer has uncovered. For example, Bachus was not the only member of Congress trading on nonpublic information during the financial crisis. On Sept. 16, 2008, Schweizer writes, Paulson and Bernanke held a 'terrifying' closed-door meeting with congressional leaders. 'The next day Congressman Jim Moran , Democrat of Virginia, a member of the Appropriations Committee, dumped his shares in ninety different companies...[his] most active trading day of the year.'
Rep. Shelley Capito (R-W.Va.) and her husband 'dumped between $100,000 and $250,000 in Citigroup stock the day after the briefing,' Schweizer writes, and 'at least ten U.S. senators, including John Kerry, Sheldon Whitehouse, and Dick Durbin , traded stock or mutual funds related to the financial industry the following day.' Durbin, Schweizer says, 'attended that September 16 briefing with Paulson and Bernanke. He sold off $73,715 in stock funds the next day. Following the next terrifying closed-door briefing, on September 18, he dumped another $42,000 in stock. By doing so, Durbin joined some colleagues in saving themselves from the sizable losses that less-connected investors would experience.' Some members even made gains on their trades, at a time when ordinary Americans without insider knowledge were seeing their life savings evaporate.
As Thiessen states, this is just the tip of the proverbial iceberg:
Perhaps the most disturbing revelations come from Schweizer's investigation into the Obama Energy Department and its infamous 'green energy' loan guarantee and grant programs, a program Schweizer calls 'the greatest, and most expensive, example of crony capitalism in American history.' The scandal surrounding Solyndra, the now-bankrupt, Obama-connected solar power company that received a federally guaranteed loan of $573 million, is well known. But Solyndra, Schweizer says, is only the tip of the iceberg.
According to his research, at least 10 members of President Obama's campaign finance committee and more than a dozen of his campaign bundlers were big winners in getting tax dollars from these programs. One chart in the book details how the 10 finance committee members collectively raised $457,834, and were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.4 billion , quite a return on their investment.
In the loan-guarantee program alone, Schweizer writes, '$16.4 billion of the $20.5 billion in loans granted went to companies either run by or primarily owned by Obama financial backers individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama's National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.' That is a staggering 71 percent of the loan money.
In all likelihood, this crony capitalism scandal will hurt President Obama most of all. The ads are already getting printed for the general election campaign showing the stats of how Obama bundlers benefited wildly beyond the money they raised for President Obama.
With the American people in a distrustful mood of Washington, DC, and with people aleady having soured on President Obama's stimulus package, people will be irate when they hear that President Obama's bundlers disproportionately benefited from the stimulus. When they hear that President Obama's bundlers' companies made hundreds of millions of dollars off of the stimulus, there won't be anything that'll prevent President Obama from being shown the exit door next November.
This will get ugly, with both parties' incumbents getting defeated and rightfully so. That said, Democrats are significantly more exposed on this than Republicans are.
God might forgive these crooks. The voters won't.
Posted Monday, November 14, 2011 6:05 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing, at 15-Nov-11 03:30 AM
For the Republicans, fortunately, this will out with sufficient time that caucus and primary challengers can be found, if the charges are sufficiently disqualifying. For Democrats, expect the MSM to do a lot of damage control, and it will be up to rightwing or objective media like FOX to make the case. What I am wondering is if the heat of these revelations might dry up much of Obama's expected "billion dollar campaign"?
Pelosi: "I am not corrupt"
Nancy Pelosi's protestations notwithstanding, yes, she is corrupt :
Pelosi and her husband participated in an initial public offering of Visa in 2008, according to CBS. They bought 5,000 shares at the initial price of $44; two days later, shares were trading at $64, CBS said.
The network reported the investment came at the same time a piece of legislation that was opposed by credit-card companies was making its way through the House.
"Congress has never done more for consumers nor has the Congress passed more critical reforms of the credit card industry than under the Speakership of Nancy Pelosi," Pelosi spokesman, Drew Hammill, said in a statement soon after the report aired Sunday night.
"It is very troubling that 60 Minutes would base their reporting off of an already-discredited conservative author who has made a career of out attacking Democrats," he added.
The facts speak for themselves. Ms. Pelosi and others benefited in private stock market transactions based solely on the information they received from official briefings. The benefits weren't tiny either. They were substantial.
While it's probably true that it isn't illegal for congresscritters to participate in these transactions, it's equally true that that's the real crime in all this. Public servants shouldn't benefit financially from information that John Q. Public doesn't have access to. Period.
This is a failed attempt at obfuscation, albeit a world class case of obfuscation:
CBS said it used as a starting point for its story the research of Peter Schweizer, a fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University.
About a year ago, he began work on a book about "soft corruption" in Washington, CBS reported. The network said it had independently verified the material it used.
Pelosi's spokesman criticized the CBS story for failing to note that the "legislation in question was reported out of the Judiciary Committee on October 3, 2008, the day the House was consumed in passing TARP and also the last day the House was in session before the November election."
It also failed to note that in September 2008, the House passed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights, Hammill said.
"In the next Congress, the House and Senate passed and President Obama signed the Credit Cardholders' Bill of Rights and the Dodd-Frank legislation, which included a stronger, more direct approach to addressing swipe fees," the spokesman said.
If the House was "consumed in passing TARP", how did then-Speaker Pelosi find time to give her approval on a $200,000 investment?
As for passing the Cardholders' Bill of Rights and Dodd-Frank, these are examples of the Democrats' meddling where they shouldn't be meddling. Dodd-Frank was praised at ending too big to fail. It didn't do anything of the sort. It codified into law too big to fail.
Besides, passing the Cardholders' Bill of Rights has nothing to do with the soft corruption Ms. Pelosi engaged in.
This is another strike against Washington, DC. Still, the initial information is hurting Democrats alot worse than it's hurting Republicans.
Posted Monday, November 14, 2011 6:44 PM
No comments.
Obamacare's legal history
David Rivkin and Lee Casey wrote this must-read op-ed that gives a detailed history of the health care lawsuit in its path to the Supreme Court. Erwin Chemerinsky's op-ed , unfortunately, is predictable but typically liberal thinking.
Here's part of Rivkin's and Casey's op-ed:
The Constitution limits federal power by granting Congress authority in certain defined areas, such as the regulation of interstate and foreign commerce. Those powers not specifically vested in the federal government by the Constitution or, as stated in the 10th Amendment, "prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." The court will now determine whether those words still have meaning.
As we argued two years ago in these pages, the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (aka ObamaCare) is unconstitutional. First and foremost, the law requires virtually every American to have health insurance. Congress purported to impose this unprecedented "individual mandate" pursuant to its constitutional power to regulate interstate commerce, but the requirement is not limited to those who engage in any particular commercial or economic activity (or any activity at all). Rather, the mandate applies to everyone lawfully present in the United States who does not fall within one of the law's narrow exclusions.
Under our Constitution's system of dual sovereignty, only states have the authority to impose health and safety regulations on individuals simply because they are present. The Supreme Court has ruled many times that the Constitution denies to the federal government this type of "general police power." Federal legislation must be grounded in one of the "enumerated" powers the Constitution grants to Congress - such as the power to regulate interstate commerce. Although the Supreme Court has interpreted that power broadly (especially since the 1940s), it has consistently held that the Commerce Clause has limits.
Rivkin and Casey are basing their arguments on what the Constitution says. They clearly understand the thinking of the Founding Fathers. If they didn't, they couldn't have grasped the concept of dual sovereignty. That's a clear distinction from Prof. Chemerinsky's op-ed:
Not surprisingly, the Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide the constitutionality of the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, the healthcare reform package passed in 2010. Under current constitutional law, this should be an easy case to predict, the law is clearly constitutional. But what complicates the decision and makes the result unpredictable is whether the justices will see the issue in terms of precedent or through the partisanship that has so dominated the public debate and most of the court decisions so far.
The primary issue before the Supreme Court is whether Congress' power to regulate commerce among the states gives it the authority to require that individuals either purchase health insurance or pay a penalty. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that under the commerce clause, Congress may regulate economic activity that, taken cumulatively across the country, has a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
Prof. Chemerinsky's argument essentially is that precedent, not the clearly written text of the Constitution, should determine the outcome. That's a well-established legal tactic. It's also wrong. When precedents don't reflect the content of the Constitution, those precedents must be struck down. The Constitution, not 5 justices with a political preference, should determine whether something's constitutional.
Here's another argument from Prof. Chemerinsky:
Thus, under current law, there are two questions: First, is Congress regulating economic activity? Second, if so, looked at in the aggregate, is there a substantial effect on interstate commerce?
The answer to the first question is no, Congress wasn't regulating economic activity. They were imposing their will without the consent of the governed. The Supreme Court has given wide latitude to cases involving the Interstate Commerce Clause in the past. That's led to this moment.
Had the justices not bought into clever lawyerly arguments but instead stuck with the Constitution, the long list of precedents that Prof. Chemerinsky now cites wouldn't exist.
Prof. Chemerinsky argues that politics will determine the Supreme Court's final ruling. That argument is flimsy at best. The reality is that Prof. Chemerinsky doesn't like the fact that the ruling will be based on the Constitution, not on precedent.
It's time to start scrapping precedents when they conflict with the Constitution. It's time to put limits on the things that the federal government is allowed to do.
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2011 8:23 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing, at 15-Nov-11 08:38 AM
I take some hope that is the Judge Vinson decision that the court will be hearing. With that as precedent, O'care should be struck down in its entirety, unless politics interferes. That's contrary to Chemerinsky's opinion, but when has a leftist ever been right? And leftists are well known to project.
Why the Washington Post should stick to reporting
After reading the Washington Post's editorial board editorial , I've reached the conclusion that they should stick with reporting and leave national security issues to experts.
IMAGINE THAT a U.S. soldier is captured and subjected to waterboarding. Would Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann consider that torture?
Maybe not, given their disappointing responses to a question about waterboarding posed during Saturday's Republican debate. And if they did object to the soldier's treatment, they've lost the moral authority to argue against it.
Both Mr. Cain, who is leading the field of GOP contenders, and Ms. Bachmann, a congresswoman from Minnesota, expressed approval of the controversial technique, which has been considered torture since at least the Spanish Inquisition.
'I don't see it as torture. I see it as an enhanced-interrogation technique,' Mr. Cain answered, adding that he 'will trust the judgment of our military leaders to determine what is torture and what is not torture. That is the critical consideration.'
Is Mr. Cain not aware that military leaders have emphatically rejected waterboarding and other forms of torture? Did he not know that active and retired military leaders have said that the use of such abhorrent techniques makes it much more likely that U.S. service members would be subjected to such brutality?
What BS. The Washington Post is suggesting that terrorists wouldn't waterboard our soldiers if we stopped waterboarding their jihadists. That's the type of stupidity I'd expect to hear from President Obama, Nancy Pelosi or Ron Paul.
Their arguments don't have anything to do with reality. Terrorists do nasty things because they're evil, not because of something we did. Admittedly, terrorists will use these arguments to win favor with the press. That doesn't mean that they're telling the truth.
The U.S. got tons of actionable information from KSM after he was waterboarded. That intelligence haul included information that they used to prevent a major terrorist attack in LA. It included information that was used to roll up an entire segment of the al-Qa'ida network.
A president that doesn't sanction the waterboarding of HVT's isn't living up to his responsibility of doing everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks.
As I wrote earlier, the Washington Post should stick to journalism before they act like they're national security experts. The reality is that they're nothing but a bunch of liberal blowhards.
Posted Tuesday, November 15, 2011 9:04 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 15-Nov-11 10:18 AM
Well said, Gary.
Truth be told, terrorists or irregulars captured out of uniform are not subject to the protections of the Geneva Convention, which none of these terrorists groups have signed. We are within our rights under international law and agreement to shoot them outright if we so choose.
The fact that we choose not to do so, and instead interrogate them through methods that are NOT torture, speaks well of our national ethos.
Comment 2 by eric z at 15-Nov-11 12:13 PM
The Washington Post is suggesting waterboarding is inhumane and against all civilized norms.
Do you really want to argue the opposite?
Think about it.
Remember Jesse's, "Give me a waterboard and an hour with Cheney and I'll have him confessing to the Manson murders." I.e., it is not effective in getting anything other than what the victim thinks will get the torture to stop. A guess and say it's so to make the bastard stop. That's not reliable. Aside from being inhumane.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 15-Nov-11 02:23 PM
I'd love arguing the opposite. When it comes to protecting American lives, it's the commander-in-chief's affirmative responsibility to do everything it takes to prevent terrorist attacks. Waterboarding KSM produced actionable intelligence that prevented terrorist attacks:
Rumsfeld said three former CIA directors, George Tenet, Porter Gross and retired general Michael Hayden, say suspects subjected to waterboarding during CIA interrogations provided a "major fraction of all our knowledge about al-Qaeda."
"I think that it's clear that those techniques that the CIA used worked. And to have taken them away and ruled them out I think may be a mistake," he told CBS television's "Face the Nation."As far as treating terrorists humanely, you can't be serious. This is war. War is brutal. I don't care if we're treating terrorists with kid gloves. I don't want them treated humanely.
As for Jesse, the guy's an idiot. Anything he says, I reflexively reject because he's lied throughout his life & because he's the biggest conspiracy theory kook out there.
Question: If the technique is unreliable, how did we get such a massive amount of actionable intel out of it? Three former heads of the CIA say it produced substantial information into the terrorist networks.
Comment 3 by Jack M. at 16-Nov-11 09:21 AM
Interesting discussion. In an effort to keep up with Gary's spin, I shall spin a bit myself.
"A president that doesn't sanction the waterboarding of HVT's isn't living up to his responsibility of doing everything possible to prevent terrorist attacks."
So what about home-grown terrorism? Timothy McVie and Bill Ayers types? How can we stop them? Should the president consider waterboarding Americans? Should congress approve (re-approve...) monitoring of all US citizen's cell-phones? Home phones? email exchanges? bank accounts? gun purchases (rifles included)? Fertilizer purchases?
Are you comfortable with these tactics? This invasion of privacy?
I argue there is a hell of a lot more Obama and his cronies in the CIA/FBI could do to stop terrorism, manufactured at home or abroad. But where do we draw the line?
I think you're half-way there Gary, but your spin just doesn't cover the whole picture. Better luck next time.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 16-Nov-11 10:35 AM
If you want to stop home grown terrorists living in the United States, you must gather evidence that they're doing something illegal. Had the government wanted to listen to Bill Ayers' conversations, they would've needed a warrant.
The myth that Bush was wiretapping U.S. citizens' phones is just that: a myth. The truth is that the NSA only intercepted calls originating in dark places like Afghanistan, Pakistan & Iraq. Warrants aren't needed to gather foreign intel during times of war. PERIOD. The Fourth Amendment protects American citizens against unreasonable searches. The courts have repeatedly ruled that intelligence gathering on people living outside the United States, especially in times of war, is a reasonable search.
The only thing I'm for is what the Constitution allows. PERIOD.
Next time, I'd appreciate it if you didn't hear what I didn't say.
