November 24-28, 2010
Nov 24 00:05 McLatchy's Mythmaking Exposed Nov 24 18:35 19 Censors/Senators Nov 26 05:59 CNN Interviews Oberstar Nov 26 13:43 Dems' Election Explanation Doesn't Add Up Nov 27 08:06 The Case For The Bush Tax Cuts Nov 28 00:46 Obamacare's Weak Link Exposed Nov 28 05:20 Exposing the Global Warming Myth? Nov 28 09:25 Legacy Act Project Tracking: Easy As Tracking a Greased Pig Nov 28 15:10 Judges Aren't Infallible
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
McLatchy's Mythmaking Exposed
This morning, progressives tweeted that a new McLatchy poll indicates that the GOP doesn't really have a mandate. That McLatchy poll is the McLatchy's attempt at mythmaking:
METHODLOGY
This survey of 1,020 adults was conducted Nov. 15-18. Adults 18 and older residing in the continental U.S. were interviewed by telephone. Telephone numbers were selected based upon a list of telephone exchanges from throughout the nation. The exchanges were selected to ensure that each region was represented in proportion to its population. To increase coverage, this land-line sample was supplemented by respondents reached through random dialing of cell phone numbers. The two samples were then combined. The margin of error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.
There are 810 registered voters. The results for this subset have a margin of error of plus or minus 3.5 percentage points. There are 371 Democrats and Democratic leaning independents and 337 Republicans and Republican leaning independents. The results for these subsets have margins of error of plus or minus 5 percentage points and plus or minus 5.5 percentage points, respectively.
First, the methodology is questionable. I'd rather have McLatchy telling me how many independents there were in the sample, then telling me what percentage of each cohort leaned which direction.
I suspect that doing things this way is a way to hide the extreme oversampling of Democrats. I'd also argue that the sampling was significantly off for this cycle. In 2010, there were significantly more Republicans who showed up, just like more independents voted Republican than voted Democrat.
Things haven't significantly changed in terms of people's opinion since the midterm elections either, most likely because there hasn't been any difference-making events since the election.
It's worth noting that multiple polls, from companies that got the numbers right on the midterm election results, still show a majority of people polled prefer repealing Obamacare. That highlights the possibility that the McLatchy poll is an outlier.
This highlights the probability that Democrats have had such a difficult time the last 12-18 months that they're willing to cling to a dubious poll as reason for optimism. That's hardly dealing from a position of strength.
It's really time for the Democrats to start listening to the American people on their highest priorities. If Democrats don't start with that fundamental adjustment, they'll experience alot of difficulty the next 2-3 election cycles at minimum.
Posted Wednesday, November 24, 2010 12:05 AM
No comments.
19 Censors/Senators
Based on TechDirt's post , these 19 senators need to be defeated the next time they're up for re-election:
- Patrick J. Leahy -- Vermont
- Herb Kohl -- Wisconsin
- Jeff Sessions -- Alabama
- Dianne Feinstein -- California
- Orrin G. Hatch -- Utah
- Russ Feingold -- Wisconsin
- Chuck Grassley -- Iowa
- Arlen Specter -- Pennsylvania
- Jon Kyl -- Arizona
- Chuck Schumer -- New York
- Lindsey Graham -- South Carolina
- Dick Durbin -- Illinois
- John Cornyn -- Texas
- Benjamin L. Cardin -- Maryland
- Tom Coburn -- Oklahoma
- Sheldon Whitehouse -- Rhode Island
- Amy Klobuchar -- Minnesota
- Al Franken -- Minnesota
- Chris Coons -- Delaware
Actually, Sen. Specter and Feingold were defeated this cycle so we only need to defeat the others. Here's Mike Masnick's commentary leading up to that list:
This is hardly a surprise but, this morning (as previously announced), the lame duck Senate Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to move forward with censoring the internet via the COICA bill, despite a bunch of law professors explaining to them how this law is a clear violation of the First Amendment . What's really amazing is that many of the same Senators have been speaking out against internet censorship in other countries, yet they happily vote to approve it here because it's seen as a way to make many of their largest campaign contributors happy.
These senators voted for a not-so-sneaky attempt at internet censorship. What's most disturbing is that these senators comprise the Judiciary Committee. They're supposed to be one of the layers of protection for the Constitution, especially the First Amendment. If these people won't even defend the most foundational of our civil rights, they don't belong in the Senate. This is sad for a variety of reasons. First, it's sad that Republicans like Orrin Hatch, John Cornyn, Tom Coburn, Jeff Sessions and Jon Kyl voted to censor the internet. It's sad that Constitution-haters like Lindsey Graham were ever elected to the Senate as a Republican. He won't survive his next re-election bid. Finally, it's sad that the Democratic Party isn't the protector of the First Amendment like it used to be. This group, including Minnesota senators Klobuchar and Franken, should be ashamed of themselves. Here's some objections from a group of law professors who testified before the Senate Justice Committee:
To begin with, the Act is an unconstitutional abridgment of the freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment. It directs courts to impose "prior restraints" on speech ; the "most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights," Nebraska Press Ass'n v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976), which are constitutionally permissible only in the narrowest range of circumstances. See Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931).; see also Center For Democracy & Technology v. Pappert, 337 F. Supp. 2d 606, 651 (E.D. Pa. 2004) (statute blocking access to particular domain names and IP addresses an unconstitutional prior restraint). The Supreme Court has made it abundantly clear that the category of "prior restraints," while traditionally applied to "orders forbidding certain communications when issued in advance of the time that such communications are to occur," Alexander v. United States, 509 U.S. 544, 550 (1993) (emphasis added), also encompasses any governmental action suppressing speech taken prior to "a prompt final judicial decision...in an adversary proceeding" that the speech is unlawful. Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U.S. 51, 58-60 (U.S. 1965) (statute requiring theater owner to receive a license before exhibiting allegedly obscene film was unconstitutional because the statute did not "assure a prompt final judicial decision" that the film was obscene); see also Bantam Books v. Sullivan, 372 U.S. 58 (1962) (State Commission's letters suggesting removal of books already in circulation is a "prior administrative restraint" and unconstitutional because there was no procedure for "an almost immediate judicial determination of the validity of the restraint"); Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 51-63 (1989) (procedure allowing courts to order pre-trial seizure of allegedly obscene films based upon a finding of probable cause was an unconstitutional prior restraint; publications "may not be taken out of circulation completely until there has been a determination of obscenity after an adversary hearing.")
Even though these professors cited legal precedents to the senators that their legislation was unconstitutional, the senators voted for the legislation anyway. If these senators don't recognize their vote as a total disregard for the First Amendment, then they aren't living up to their oath of office. Failing to live up to that oath is grounds enough for We The People to remove these men and women from office. Here's another TechDirt article , this one explaining in detail why the legislation is censorship:
First off, the bill would allow the Justice Department to take down an entire website, effectively creating a blacklist , akin to just about every internet censoring regime out there. Now, it is true that there is a judicial process involved. The original bill had two lists, one that involved the judicial review, and one that did not (it was a "watch list," which "encouraged" ISPs and registrars to block, meaning they would block them). However, everyone seems sure that the second list will not be included in any final bill. Even so, there are serious problems with the way the bill works. Case law around the First Amendment is pretty clear that you cannot block a much wider variety of speech, just because you are trying to stop some specific speech. Because of the respect we have for the First Amendment in the US, the law has been pretty clear that anything preventing speech, due to it being illegal, must narrowly target just that kind of speech. Doing otherwise is what's known as prior restraint.
The thought of shutting down an entire website should be a major red flag for each of these senators. That it wasn't speaks volumes about the principles that guide their votes. Frankly, it says that they don't have guiding principles, at least not principles attached to the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.
Two very relevant cases on this front are Near vs. Minnesota and CDT vs. Pappert. Near vs. Minnesota involved striking down a state law that barred "malicious" or "scandalous" newspapers from publishing -- allowing the state to get a permanent injunction against the publications of such works. In most cases, what was being published in these newspapers was pure defamation. Defamation, of course, is very much against the law (as is copyright infringement). But the court found that barring the entire publication of a newspaper because of some specific libelous statements barred other types of legitimate speech as well. The court clearly noted that those who were libeled still have libel law to sue the publisher of libel, but that does not allow for the government to completely bar the publication of the newspaper. The Pappert case, a much more recent case, involved a state law in Pennsylvania that had the state Attorney General put together a blacklist of websites that were believed to host child pornography, which ISPs were required to block access to. Again, child pornography is very much illegal (and, many would argue, much worse than copyright infringement). Yet, once again, here, the courts tossed out the law as undue prior restraint, in that it took down lots of non-illegal content as well as illegal content.
Taking a scattergun approach in banning entire websites would inevitably silence protected speech. Painting with broad brushes will smear innocent people. Thankfully, this legislation has little chance of passing this session, which means it doesn't stand a chance next year with a GOP majority in the House. That means our highest priority the next 24 months is to defeat these senators/censors.
Posted Wednesday, November 24, 2010 6:35 PM
No comments.
CNN Interviews Oberstar
After reading this article , it can't be said that CNN doesn't give defeated Democratic incumbents the kid glove treatment. If you check this out, you'll know what I'm talking about:
While Oberstar's seat was not one of the ones political experts had considered as a key toss-up race, he said he was not shocked. He lost to a political novice, former Navy pilot Chip Cravaack, by 4,400 votes in a district that was known as strongly Democratic.
"I was surprised I didn't prevail, but I knew from the beginning of this session of the Congress that this was going to be an extremely difficult year," he said. "I told the staff that shortly after the Obama inaugural, and we began working on the stimulus legislation and laying the groundwork for the health insurance reform legislation, that this was a transformational year. And when you transform, you cut across the grain and that we have to be prepared for a vigorous opposition, and I was prepared for it."
Oberstar blamed some of the advertising regarding the health care bill that ran in parts of his district as one reason for his defeat. Oberstar had previously supported a single-payer system and said he had no regrets even if the issue cost his party politically.
He said it was the right thing to do.
"It was, and shame on us for not having messaged that legislation better and more effectively. That was a shortcoming of this election, that the Democratic Party didn't carry that message nationally to the people of this country to show the costs savings, the changes that will result, the long-term health benefits for all Americans," he said.
The reason they couldn't carry the message on health care is because it made health insurance more expensive, it cut Medicare too much and it expanded Medicaid far too much. To pay for a new entitlement program, Democrats cut $500,000,000,000 from Medicare.
As a result of that gigantic cut in Medicare, hospitals, clinics and doctors will be shortchanged, which will lead to additional cost-shifting, which is what got us in trouble initially.
CNN should've questioned Rep. Oberstar when he talked about "the cost savings" by pointing out the fact that health insurance premiums are still rising quickly. Rep. Oberstar hasn't figured it out that the people have seen too much evidence that Obamacare legislation hasn't done anything except add to the federal bureaucracy.
That isn't reform.
It isn't about the messaging, either. It's about trying to hoodwink the American people with an inferior product. You can put the best marketeers on the job but if you're selling an Edsel, people will still refuse to buy the product.
The other thing that Rep. Oberstar hasn't been gracious enough to admit is that Chip Cravaack ran a great campaign. Chip turned into a great campaigner who connected with people throughout the Eighth District. Most importantly, he was genuine and trustworthy.
At the end of the day, people decided they couldn't trust Oberstar because his vote for Cap and Tax was a vote to kill the mining industry. That vote hurt him more than his vote for Obamacare.
The sad thing is Oberstar still hasn't figured that out.
Posted Friday, November 26, 2010 5:59 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 27-Nov-10 05:28 PM
Lets not forget Gary he had the nerve to say that the people who thought global warming is a hoax he called them flat earthers. That probably put Chip over the top.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Dems' Election Explanation Doesn't Add Up
James Taranto's op-ed is wonderful mockery of the Democrats' explanation for their election defeat. Here's one of the explanations cited in Taranto's column:
Graydon Carter , editor of Vanity Fair, attributes the election outcome to "general anti-Obama rage...this being America, there's an attendant hatred for Obama that has more to do with race than anything else...angry right-wing extremists tend to carry guns...the wiggy mood of the nation [is like] a hormonal teenager...an electorate that seems prone to acting out irrationally, is full of inchoate rage, and is constantly throwing fits and tantrums...deranged Tea Party...the Angry Majority...seething blogosphere...Fox News marshaling forces...the fringe...anti-immigrant sentiment."
This is further proof that a little paranoia goes a long ways. The reality is that a fair amount of the TEA Party activists once voted for Bill Clinton. What proof does Mr. Carter have that shows they're part of a fringe political group? Better yet, does he have any proof that TEA Party activists are fringe anything?
I'm betting he doesn't.
Here's another quote Taranto cites:
Franklin admitted that emotions sometimes play a larger role in political elections than facts and logic. "I'm not endorsing the American voter," said Franklin. "They're pretty damn stupid."
Franklin said emotions ran visibly high in the November midterm elections, where anger against Democratic incumbents in general resulted in a Republican sweep of several offices both statewide and nationwide. One casualty of the conservative wave was longtime Democratic incumbent U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold, who lost his seat to Republican newcomer Ron Johnson.
Franklin said despite Feingold's independent voting record in the Senate, he remains quite liberal as compared to Johnson's fiscally conservative platform. "If he acts the way he did on the campaign trail, Johnson is going to be far more willing to vote for cuts in federal spending than Feingold," Franklin said. "You can argue about whether they're smart or really stupid cuts, but there are going to be cuts."
Professor Franklin is kidding people if he thinks Sen. Feingold has an "independent voting record in the Senate." He voted twice for Obamacare, twice for the stimulus. If that's Professor Franklin's idea of an "independent voting record", then he's a lefty and not by just a little bit.
During this morning's Fox and Friends' political roundtable, Robert Zimmerman, a Democrat strategist, essentially followed the Democrat playbook to a T. He tried arguing that Speaker Pelosi was a moderate because she got alot done. He then said that soon-to-be-Speaker Boehner faced a huge challenge moving to the middle because he argued that the TEA Party was pulling the Republican Party to the far right.
To his credit, Doug Schoen disagreed with Zimmerman, saying that this election proved that most people wanted less government spending and lower taxes. While there's no questioning that Schoen has solid liberal bona fides, it's equally true that he's fairly close to being a true centrist than most Democrat strategists.
For what it's worth, Jedediah Bila of Human Events did a great job highlighting the fact that the thing that'll help Republicans are common sense solutions and by respecting the Tenth Amendment. Those were two things that the American people emphasized in their exit polling.
If this interview is indicative of the level of common sense in the GOP, conservatives are in great shape in 2012:
Noem: It's a pretty broad statement to make, but I can only speak on my behalf. I haven't met everybody who is newly elected to Congress, but certainly well-educated people, people that have the support of their areas and their districts, that are going to come there and help make some tough decisions that the previous Congress didn't make. So we're looking forward to getting to work.
Varney: You know, Congresswoman, I don't want to be harsh, but, you know, Congresswoman, that was a flat-out insult from the elites of New York City. Don't you take it like that?
Noem: Well, you know, I got a lot of those during my campaign as well. And we can pick up offenses every day if we want to, but what we really need is people to sit down at a table and get to work and start having adult conversations. We can't afford to focus on those kind of comments. We've got too much work to do and too many things to accomplish.
In saying that there's too much work to do, Rep.-elect Noem is showing a great deal of maturity, which is a welcome thing.
To show how ineffective President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's policies have failed, check out these statistics :
In November 2006, the "official" U.S. unemployment rate was 4.5 percent . Today, the "official" U.S. unemployment rate has been at 9.5 percent or greater for more than a year .
If that isn't depressing enough, check this statistic out:
The Democrats frequently argue that the stimulus has worked and that things are getting significantly better. These statistics argue that the stimulus has been a huge waste of money. Democrats need to admit that their economic policies are like their explanation on the election: neither add up.
At the end of the third quarter in 2006, 47 banks were on the FDIC "problem list". At the end of the third quarter in 2010, 860 banks were on the FDIC "problem list".
Originally posted Friday, November 26, 2010, revised 27-Nov 6:58 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 26-Nov-10 05:18 PM
The luke-warm DFL faction stayed home. The GOP has traditionally been better at mobilizing core group voter turnout and discipline. As with jumping Jim Abeler with a primary nuisance challenger in a snit over his veto override vote. Boss says "Jump," they all say, "How high," on the way up. Or that's an outsider's view of the GOP core, at least.
DFL base, of the more progressive kind, was unhappy with the middle of the road fence straddling Obama showed, after promising change.
Warmed over Clinton, aka Eisenhower Republicans dressing up as Democrats, would not have gone over well with Harry Truman and some are around still who remember all that.
It's the out-of-the-Whitehouse off election strong showing effect. DFL in 2006, GOP in 1994.
Gary, run Palin and see how the 2012 vote turns out.
The Case For The Bush Tax Cuts
When Congress returns to session next week, the Bush tax cuts will be one of only three things likely to get done during the lame duck session, with the continuing resolution and defense reauthorization bills being the likely other bills to get passed.
Democrats argue that Bill Clinton didn't need to cut taxes on the wealthy so we don't need tax cuts "for the wealthy" now. While it's true that there weren't "tax cuts for the rich, it's also ignoring some important things, not the least of which is that President Clinton inherited a growing economy, the other thing being that the capital gains tax rate was cut.
The case for keeping the current tax rate in place another 3-4 years is as much political as it is economic. If soon-to-be former Speaker Pelosi kills the current tax rates, the economy will tank, which will turn President Obama into a 1-term president. The 9+ percent unemployment rate will jump into double digits for at least another year.
If that happens, the best unemployment rate President Obama could hope for at that point would be where it's currently at. That'll put President Obama on the wrong end of a thrashing.
People are already noticing that President Obama's and Speaker Pelosi's policies have failed. I cited some miserable statistics in this post:
In November 2006, the "official" U.S. unemployment rate was 4.5 percent . Today, the "official" U.S. unemployment rate has been at 9.5 percent or greater for more than a year .
I also cited these depressing statistics in that post:
At the end of the third quarter in 2006, 47 banks were on the FDIC "problem list". At the end of the third quarter in 2010, 860 banks were on the FDIC "problem list".
If the economy is doing that poorly already, they'll positively tank with higher tax rates. PERIOD. There's already a ton of capital sitting on the sidelines, thanks in large part to the additional expenses that will be triggered by Obamacare. There will be alot more capital sitting on the sidelines if Pelosi and President Obama raise the marginal tax rate on America's job creators.
The truth is, though, that President Bush's tax policies aren't the only thing holding the economy back. They're a part of what's holding the economy back but the lingering effects of the housing bubble and the regulatory difficulties brought on by Obamacare, especially with regard to the expansion of Medicaid, all are like pouring icy cold water on a raging fire.
There's a reason why House Democrats got their backsides handed to them this election and that reason is because the American people turned against their economic policies. In fact, Speaker Pelosi's and President Obama's economic policies created the wave that helped Republicans gain 63 congressional seats this election and that helped them win 682 state legislative seats.
If Democrats want to lose a ton more state legislative seats, more House seats and lose control of the U.S. Senate while not giving President Obama a chance of winning a second term, they should keep doing what they're doing.
Posted Saturday, November 27, 2010 8:06 AM
No comments.
Obamacare's Weak Link Exposed
Thanks to this Washington Post article , we now know that Obamacare isn't just flawed, it's fatally flawed. Here's what I'm talking about:
Want an appointment with kidney specialist Adam Weinstein of Easton, Md.? If you're a senior covered by Medicare, the wait is eight weeks.
How about a checkup from geriatric specialist Michael Trahos? Expect to see him every six months: The Alexandria-based doctor has been limiting most of his Medicare patients to twice yearly rather than the quarterly checkups he considers ideal for the elderly. Still, at least he'll see you. Top-ranked primary care doctor Linda Yau is one of three physicians with the District's Foxhall Internists group who recently announced they will no longer be accepting Medicare patients.
"It's not easy. But you realize you either do this or you don't stay in business," she said.
Doctors across the country describe similar decisions, complaining that they've been forced to shift away from Medicare toward higher-paying, privately insured or self-paying patients in response to years of penny-pinching by Congress.
And that's not even taking into account a long-postponed rate-setting method that is on track to slash Medicare's payment rates to doctors by 23 percent Dec. 1. Known as the Sustainable Growth Rate and adopted by Congress in 1997, it was intended to keep Medicare spending on doctors in line with the economy's overall growth rate. But after the SGR formula led to a 4.8 percent cut in doctors' pay rates in 2002, Congress has chosen to put off the ever steeper cuts called for by the formula ever since.
One of the things touted by Democrats during the Obamacare debate was their cutting $500,000,000,000 from Medicare. They said that this cut would increase Medicare solvency, which they knew was a bald-faced lie. (They knew it because they were using this money to pay for another entitlement.)
If this 1997 provision is implemented, which I'm not certain it will be, Medicare will essentially be crippled.
That's before talking about the constitutionality of the Medicaid expansion :
The administration argues that other key provisions do not depend on the insurance mandate. Those provisions include establishing health insurance exchanges, subsidizing premiums through tax credits and expanding Medicaid eligibility, all scheduled for 2014.
The federal government doesn't have the right to demand a state fund federal programs. That's beyond their authority. A respectable argument might be made that if a state accepts federal money, then the federal government can impose restrictions on the use of that money.
That's different than telling a state they have to implement a program. Putting a state budget together is the state's responsibility and that state's responsibility alone. Imposing spending on a state also affects a state's tax policy, too, which is likewise beyond the federal government's authority.
First, it isn't certain that Obamacare won't get struck down by SCOTUS. The government spent a ton of time on TV saying that the individual mandate wasn't a tax. Now that they're arguing the case in court, they're arguing they have the authority because of the government's taxation authority.
That's an uphill fight, especially considering the fact that taxes are levied on economic activity. It's difficult to argue that existing is a form of economic activity.
Speaker Pelosi said that we'd have to pass Obamacare to find out all the positive things contained in the bill. Nor surprisingly, the more we find out about the legislation, the more there is to be disgusted with. I wrote months ago about the $670 billion in tax increases in the bill . I wrote here that seniors aren't happy with the Medicare cuts:
Most senior citizens (59%) also favor repeal. Earlier, voters over 65 had been more opposed to the health care plan than younger adults. Seniors use the health care system more than anyone else. But 58% of those 18 to 29 also support repeal of the plan which requires all Americans to have health insurance.
Now we're finding out that doctors and hospitals are deciding to drop coverage of Medicare patients. Things won't get better with time for Obamacare.
In fact, Pelosi's quote about having to pass the bill to appreciate it will be her epitaph and possibly the most embarassing quote from any House Speaker in history.
Posted Sunday, November 28, 2010 12:46 AM
No comments.
Exposing the Global Warming Myth?
Let's be clear from the outset that when I question the UN's IPCC report, I'm questioning the agenda behind the headlines. This post by Newsbusters' Noel Sheppard includes a transcript that's both enlightening and infuriating. Here's what I'm talking about:
NZZ AM SONNTAG: The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.
OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL: That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.
NZZ: That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.
EDENHOFER: Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet, and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11,000 to 400, there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.
NZZ: De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.
EDENHOFER: First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore , with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.
Clearly, in Edehoffer's thinking, the highest priority of the IPCC is wealth redistribution. Climate control is just a secondary priority.
In fact, the key word in that phrase is control. With that control comes the opportunity for third world corruptocrat enrichment. Notice how Edenhoffer says that "Africa will be the big winner" if "global emission rights are distributed" "on a per capita basis"?
Notice, too, that "the climate summit" isn't "a climate conference", that it's "one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War." Let's take the blinders off and understand that the IPCC is about redistributing wealth and exercising control over superpower nations like the United States.
The only way to stop these corruptocrats is by defeating Obama in 2012, replacing him with someone who'll fight for our sovereignty. This crisis isn't going away just by wishing. It'll take a serious commitment to the principles laid out in our founding documents.
If other nations make bad decisions, that's their problem. It isn't like other nations help us out when we make bad decisions. And we make more than enough mistakes.
The bottom line is this: one of the leaders of the IPCC has admitted that their report isn't based on the desire to limit pollution. It's based mostly on wealth redistribution. It's now our responsibility to expose the UN and the IPCC for being in the wealth redistribution business.
Posted Sunday, November 28, 2010 5:20 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 28-Nov-10 02:19 PM
The problem with the IPCC agenda, apparently, is that they haven't read their own report. They say that following their own Kyoto treaty-- reducing CO2 by 10% or so, not the 95% being discussed here-- only holds temperatures down by 0.05 degrees over 100 years. And that the cost is somewhere north of $50 Trillion to do just that. It's silliness on meth.
Legacy Act Project Tracking: Easy As Tracking a Greased Pig
Mark Sommerhauser's article does a good job outlining how difficult it is to track the revenues raised by the Legacy Act Amendment. The inadvertent result of the article is to highlight the lax oversight that existed during the DFL's time in the majority:
Voters amended their state Constitution to impose a three-eighths-cent sales tax to fund such projects. State legislators quickly divvied up revenues from the Clean Water, Land and Legacy Amendment, appropriating about $400 million for projects in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
But it's tough for taxpayers to determine where their dollars are being put to work, two years after they endorsed the Legacy Amendment. The public can learn, in broad terms, how Legacy Amendment funds are being used by public agencies and other groups.
But try to link Legacy dollars to the specific projects throughout the state, and tracking your tax dollar gets a lot tougher.
At teh urging of their political allies, the DFL quickly got their amendment on the ballot. Unfortunately, they didn't think alot about tracking how the money got spent:
Linking Legacy Amendment dollars to projects is complicated by the sheer number of public agencies administering the projects. Seventeen public agencies are expending Legacy funds, according to the Office of the Legislative Auditor. Legislators allocate the Legacy money to the agencies.
I'd bet that most of the projects are being done by the DFL's political allies. At this point, that's just a hunch but it isn't a stretch. There's no way to know at this point because the DFL didn't establish a tracking system for Legacy Act projects.
Within 2 years, we'll know, though, because we'll be able to track the projects by organization, then see if people employed by those organizations contributed to the DFL.
The bottom line is this: the DFL didn't worry how our taxes were being spent. Oversight wasn't a priority. It's never been a priority. I know because I asked Tarryl Clark about whether they'd conduct oversight hearings during the 2007 regular session after a January, 2007 townhall meeting:
After the meeting, Sen. Clark stopped to talk with Leo & I. I asked Sen. Clark if adopting a zero-based budget was a possibility. Sen. Clark said that that's something they were looking into and that it might happen for the 08 legislative session but that there wasn't enough time to adopt it for the 07 session. Not willing to let it go at that, I asked if they would at least schedule oversight hearings that would identify the wasteful spending that's already there. I was assured that they would be holding vigorous oversight hearings. (I phrased the question specifically to establish the fact that waste existed & that it was just a matter of determining how big the amount was.)
Pressing forward, I then asked Sen. Clark why six tax increase bills were introduced the first week . She said that "there were really only 2 tax bills, one to lower property taxes, the other to raise them." She assured us that the other bills weren't going anywhere and that they "were introduced by individual" legislators and 'weren't part of the leadership's agenda."
Let's consider the fact that one of those proposals is a constitutional amendment to raise the Minnesota sales tax 3/8ths of a cent. That type of legislation isn't something that just happens. That's something that is carefully planned.
I'd forgotten that the Legacy Act amendment was mentioned at the meeting. That matters because the DFL tried getting it passed in 2006 but it failed because it didn't have the support of the arts community. Before it passed the House and Senate for the 2008 ballot, the DFL added the arts to the bill to guarantee support from that special interest group.
This matters because the DFL knew this, not just months ago, but years ago. There's no excuse for them not to have established a tracking system for Legacy Act projects with that generous timetable.
After Congress passed the American Recovery and Reinvestment, or stimulus, Act, federal officials created a website where taxpayers could look up stimulus projects nationwide. They also posted signs at stimulus project sites so taxpayers could see the federal funds at work.
But in Minnesota, it's even been slow going for the state to develop a logo for Legacy Amendment projects.
Legislators in 2009 charged the state arts board with designing a logo that could be posted at project sites. Nearly 18 months later, the DNR is now responsible for the project, and is running a statewide contest for the public to design a Legacy Amendment logo.
Before anyone criticizes Gov. Pawlenty for not getting the logos designed, it's apparent that the agencies were told what to do but that they simply didn't complete their assignment. If Gov. Pawlenty wasn't paying attention, how did the logo assignment get shifted from the State Arts Board to the DNR?
Let's remember that the ARRA website wasn't a great success either . This transcript shows why:
SULLIVAN: Your next guest has just announced his run for Congress from the phantom Double-Zero district of New Hampshire, one of those mentioned in the stimulus plan that don't actually exist. Grant Bosse says that if it's good enough to be cited as creating jobs, it ought to have a congressman.
Grant Bosse, Brian Sullivan in for Neil today. Forgive the tongue in cheek.
BOSSE: Oh, of course.
SULLIVAN: The Fighting Double-Zero, isn't that what you're calling it up there?
BOSSE: The Fighting Double-Zero. It's about time we had representation in Congress. Just because we don't exist doesn't mean we shouldn't count. We're just as serious, we're just as real as the jobs that were created under the stimulus plan.
SULLIVAN: What is your phantom platform?
BOSSE: Well, to keep the jobs here that the stimulus bill created.
SULLIVAN: Real jobs, though, right? Double-Zero would be happy to push them out to a real New Hampshire district, I assume?
BOSSE: We supposedly found out this week, through the Franklin Center's report on 440 fake congressional districts nationwide, that New Hampshire's Double-Zero District got about 2,800 jobs from the stimulus plan, which was quite a shock to the people who don't live there because it doesn't exist. And then when they changed the website, they took those 2,800 jobs away, so I'm gonna fight to bring them back and I think we need the type of fake jobs that, ---
SULLIVAN: If I was a fake member of that fake district, I'd be really upset because I was being discounted as being fake.
BOSSE: And that's why I'm asking you to pretend to vote for me.
SULLIVAN: You know, you've got my pretend vote. Now the problem is that it's in real reports. So it's not a fake report. That's the problem. It's a fake district with fake jobs but it's a real report.
BOSSE: Yeah, we spent $84,000,000 as part of this stimulus plan for the recovery.gov website and what we got is a very nice website with a great interactive map and the data on it is complete garbage. And in fact, the people that run that website now admit that they can't tell how many jobs the stimulus bill created because the data, they never bothered to check if the data was any good or not.
SULLIVAN: Listen, if I get up to the Phantom Fighting Double-Zero District, we'll go out for a fake burger, a fake beer and a real conversation.
BOSSE: No, the beer will be real.
SULLIVAN: That's the best part. Grant Bosse, thank you very much and good luck with your campaign.
BOSSE: We'll need it.
Obviously, DC's Democrats and Minnesota's DFL don't have a good track record of keeping track of how our money is spent. That's the main reason why they were run out of the majority in the Minnesota legislature and the U.S. House of Representatives. Simply put, people saw how irresponsible they were with the taxpayers' money.
The DFL should rest assured that I'll remind people between now and the 2012 election that the DFL championed taxation on autopilot and nonexistent oversight. I'm betting that voters won't approve of that.
If they don't tighten their ship considerably, the DFL, President Obama and DC's Democrats will suffer another bloodbath 24 months from now. Taxpayers don't like having this much of their money taken. They certainly don't like having this much of their money taken and being spent this irresponsibly.
Rest assured, if Democrats don't tighten things up, the TEA Party will take it out on them for being this irresponsible.
Originally posted Sunday, November 28, 2010, revised 07-May 5:09 AM
No comments.
Judges Aren't Infallible
If the DFL has developed a mantra regarding the gubernatorial recount, and they have, it's that a Gov. Dayton is inevitable. Their inference is that judges are infallible.
This morning on @Issue With Tom Hauser, Ember Reichgott-Junge, Denise Cardinal and Matt Entenza essentially said, each in different wording, that there must've been a good reason why the Minnesota Supreme Court dismissed Tom Emmer's case this quickly.
While I'll agree that the Minnesota Supreme Court had a reason, I won't agree, at least at this point, that their reason is an intellectually solid reason. First, I'd possibly give them the benefit of the doubt had they published their opinion. They didn't, leaving their ruling open to scrutiny.
Next, let's admit the obvious: that judges aren't infallible. In their recount ruling, there is a clear statute that the Minnesota Supreme Court apparently ignored. I wrote here how that statute reads:
Subd. 2. Excess ballots. If two or more ballots are found folded together like a single ballot, the election judges shall lay them aside until all the ballots in the box have been counted. If it is evident from the number of ballots to be counted that the ballots folded together were cast by one voter, the election judges shall preserve but not count them. If the number of ballots in one box exceeds the number to be counted, the election judges shall examine all the ballots in the box to ascertain that all are properly marked with the initials of the election judges. If any ballots are not properly marked with the initials of the election judges, the election judges shall preserve but not count them; however, if the number of ballots does not exceed the number to be counted, the absence of either or both sets of initials of the election judges does not, by itself, disqualify the vote from being counted and must not be the basis of a challenge in a recount. If there is still an excess of properly marked ballots, the election judges shall replace them in the box, and one election judge, without looking, shall withdraw from the box a number of ballots equal to the excess. The withdrawn ballots shall not be counted but shall be preserved as provided in subdivision 4.
Again, this is what's written in Statute 204C.20. The language is straightforward and easy to follow. If there are more ballots cast than there are signatures on the sign-in sheet, ballots must be removed until the number of ballots is equal to the numbers of signatures on the sign-in sheets.
During her panel time with Michael Brodkorb, Miss Cardinal implied that the judges' ruling was beyond question. Until we've read their opinion and seen how they voted, that's farther than I'm willing to go. I'm perfectly willing to say that it's possible that the judges got their ruling wrong.
If the justices don't issue their opinion explaining their ruling, then I won't be alone in thinking that they haven't been totally transparent in their ruling. In my opinion, that's reason enough to question their opinion.
Another reason why I'd question their ruling is because their ruling runs totally contrary to well-established Minnesota election law. As far as I know, the Supreme Court might've ignored the statute entirely. I'm not saying that's what happened but I can't prove otherwise at this point.
That isn't the way to bring transparency and credibility to the election process. In fact, that's the argument Dan Severson made in his campaign against Mark Ritchie. It appears Rep. Severson's argument was accurate.
At this point, I can't prove that the courts or the canvassing board followed the law. I know that they've made the argument that, in their eyes, it's ok to use receipts to do reconcilliation. According to the law, which hasn't been changed, only sign-in sheets can be used for reconcilliation.
Until it's proven that that's what's happened, the courts and the canvassing board can't prove that they've obeyed the law. Until they've obeyed the law, Minnesotans shouldn't buy the DFL's hype that our election system is the gold standard.
Frankly, that myth needs to be dispelled. I won't hesitate in admitting that our election laws are the gold standard in the nation. I'll do more than hesitate in admitting that our election officials have done what the law tells them to do.
Finally, let's dispel another myth, namely that things must be right if both sides complain about the end result. If clearly written law isn't followed, then something is wrong. Telling me that another method is just as good, which is what the DFL is implying, doesn't tell me anything except that the DFL is willing to cut corners on something that should be done right 100 percent of the time.
Posted Sunday, November 28, 2010 3:10 PM
No comments.
