November 4-7, 2011
Nov 04 10:57 Identifying Mitt's biggest difficulties Nov 04 16:19 GOP Presidential race in a nutshell Nov 04 19:49 True Believers vs. Thoughtful People Nov 05 11:27 Common Cause MN's big defeat Nov 06 10:22 Obama administration puts itself in can't win situation Nov 06 16:33 Startling news from Iowa Nov 07 12:00 Video Whodunnit Nov 07 15:16 Twins fire GM Billy Smith Nov 07 19:10 The media's K-12 blindspot
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Identifying Mitt's biggest difficulties
When he was Massachusetts' governor, Mitt Romney grew government. When Mitt submitted his 59-point, 160-page economic plan, he devoted much of it to complaining about President Obama. He didn't, however, talk much about changing the influence or reach of the federal government.
Now that Newt's plan to transform Washington is gaining traction and people approve of Gov. Perry's plan of bringing a wrecking ball to Washington, Mitt's shapeshifting again to join the fray . This time, he really means it. Nevermind that allegedly comprehensive budget blueprint offered the day after Labor Day. That didn't catch on. That's why Mitt's adding a chapter to his sales pitch.
It isn't because he's committed to cutting government. It's because his initial sales pitch didn't work so he's switching to Plan B. If this plan doesn't work, then he'll likely introduce Plan C.
Mitt's biggest problem isn't his plan, though his plan is vague and timid. The biggest problem that Mitt's having is convincing others that he is't a flip-flopping politician who'll say anything to get elected.
In other words, it isn't the product. It's the corporation that's failing.
Like his initial plan, today's op-ed is generalized and timid. Here's a sampling from today's op-ed:
First, eliminate every government program that is not absolutely essential. There are many things government does that we may like but that we do not need. The test should be this: "Is this program so critical that it is worth borrowing money to pay for it?" The federal government should stop doing things we don't need or can't afford. For example:
- Repeal ObamaCare, which would save $95 billion in 2016.
- Eliminate subsidies for the unprofitable Amtrak, saving $1.6 billion a year.
- Enact deep reductions in the subsidies for the National Endowment for the Arts, the National Endowment for the Humanities, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the Legal Services Corporation.
- Eliminate Title X family planning programs benefiting abortion groups like Planned Parenthood.
- End foreign aid to countries that oppose America's interests.
Second, return federal programs to the states where innovation, cost management and reduction of fraud and abuse can far exceed what Washington achieves. I will block grant Medicaid and workforce training, saving well over $100 billion in 2016. Third, sharply improve the productivity and efficiency of the federal government itself. Where we do want the federal government to act, it must do a better job. For instance:
- Reduce the federal workforce through attrition and align compensation with the private sector, saving over $40 billion by 2016.
- Repeal the Davis-Bacon Act, a union giveaway that artificially raises costs for government projects, and save taxpayers more than $10 billion a year in the process.
- Attack rampant fraud in government programs by enacting far stiffer penalties for those who steal from taxpayers. Cutting improper payments in half could save more than $60 billion a year.
- Consolidate, eliminate and streamline federal departments, agencies and offices following a stem-to-stern review.
Mitt's plan is timid by Newt's standards, the GAO's standards and Tom Coburn's standards. Most importantly, Mitt's op-ed doesn't say a thing about regulatory reform. Mitt's post-Labor Day plan mentions regulatory reform only in passing. Reducing a small business's compliance costs would be huge. Reducing coal-mining and oil exploration regulations would be huge. They'd have almost as big an economic impact as repealing Obamacare.
After Mitt's enacting liberals' wish list items as governor, then defending his actions during this year's debates, conservatives don't trust Mitt. I don't think he can correct that situation. If he can't correct that situation, rolling out new plans won't help him. That's because Mitt's biggest difficulty is the guy in the mirror.
Posted Friday, November 4, 2011 4:08 PM
No comments.
GOP Presidential race in a nutshell
The closing of this article summarizes the GOP presidential race perfectly:
Ron McGill, 48, an insurance salesman from Florence, illustrates Gingrich's opportunity and his challenge. A pragmatic fiscal conservative, McGill appreciates that Gingrich came off as knowledgeable and seasoned. He conceded that there's no perfect candidate, but the current top two contenders, Cain and Romney, just aren't doing it for him.
Romney? 'Well, he sure looks presidential but I'm not sure that's enough,' McGill said.
Cain? 'I like him, but I'm not sure he's thought through all his policies,' he said.
And Gingrich? 'I just don't know about his electability,' McGill said. 'I like what he's saying though.'
I think there's alot of people out there that, after they've viewed things through an objective lens, would agree that there isn't much proof that Mr. Cain has thought things through.
His replies about swapping Gitmo prisoners for American hostages was scary. His admitting that he's pro-choice while arguing that he's pro-life was incomprehensible. His saying that he'd park the US Navy off Iran's coast to prevent the next terrorist attack was foolish and ill-advised.
The 'looks presidential' chanting point isn't pushing Mitt over the top. Looking presidential isn't tremendously difficult with a substantial wardrobe budget. People won't vote for people wearing pretty suits if they aren't principled.
People are putting too much emphasis on the electability issue. The electability issue solves itself if the candidate runs a positive campaign while offering intelligent, thoughtful solutions. That's the script that Newt's followed since he started campaigning.
People appreciate the fact that he hasn't gotten into the sniping that others have. (Think Tim Pawlenty vs. Michele Bachmann in Iowa or Romney vs. Perry or Santorum vs. Cain in Las Vegas.)
People are starting to appreciate Newt's complimenting other candidates. I think they're also noticing his statesman's demeanor.
Let's inject a little history lesson into this discussion. The last time we suffered through a Democratic president as awful as President Obama, Jimmy Carter, the nation turned to a grandfatherly type named Ronald Reagan.
Reagan's gift to the nation was that of a confident, reassuring presence. People didn't know that much about him initially but he earned their trust by having an adult conversation with the American people.
In the 70's, 80's and 90's, Newt was a bombthrower and out of control. Now, he's matured substantially. He's the statesman on the stage. Still, he's the smartest man, the biggest futurist, on stage, too.
The man with the best solutions will be the most electable candidate. Right now, that's Newt or Rick Perry. It isn't Mitt. Based on what people are telling me, people are thirsting for a principled leader with solid solutions.
Mitt Romney is alot of things but principled isn't one of them.
Posted Friday, November 4, 2011 4:19 PM
Comment 1 by LadyLogician at 04-Nov-11 11:51 PM
The fact that Mitt Romney endorsed Rocky Anderson for Mayor of Salt Lake City is enough for me....
http://www.ladieslogic.com/component/content/article/20-president/718-mitt-hearts-rocky.html
LL
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 05-Nov-11 11:56 AM
"The man with the best solutions will be the most electable candidate."
Oh, I only WISH that were true. It should be, but look at who sits in the WH now.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 05-Nov-11 01:01 PM
That happened pre-TEA Party, Jerry. The world has changed.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 05-Nov-11 03:24 PM
Gary:
Can you be a little honest with your readers. I started off reading a post about a piece called "GOP Presidential Race In A Nut Shell" and then you went and turned it into another one of your pro Newt Presidential posts.
If you're going to do this at least put a bracket after the first mention Newt (the man who I support for President) so your readers can honestly evaluate the information that you're putting out.
I'm considering Newt, but the man who blows the fastball question on do you support the Ryan plan and even sat down to do a commercial with Nancy Pelosi stating global warming is real obviously doesn't think things through. Your criteria of candidate who has thought things through at best doesn't seem to apply to Newt.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
True Believers vs. Thoughtful People
Much is being written about how Herman Cain hasn't suffered in the polls since the start of his mishandling of the sexual harassment article. There's a simple explanation for that phenomenon: Cain's base is willing to overlook his shortcomings. And he has a sizable base.
The thing is, though, that this week has damaged Mr. Cain in ways that will be exposed in the weeks ahead.
First, Cain's at his best when he's talked about his great American story, how he grew up in the South at the height of the Civil Rights Movement, how he'd gotten a good education, then embarked on a successful business career.
It's particularly unattractive to play the Clarence Thomas Card after talking about how he overcame true racism and bigotry. Mr. Cain can't have it both ways. He can't first say that he's overcome bigotry and racism, then whine about high tech lynchings.
Like it or not, politics is a contact sport. If you can't handle getting scuffed up a bit, you aren't tough enough to be the future leader of the free world.
Second, Cain knew enough about the sexual harassment charges to brief his campaign staff about them in 2004. Now we're supposed to think that he didn't recall any of the details until pushed by Greta van Susteren.
Mr. Cain apparently thinks that we'll take his word that he forgot that multiple women filed sexual harassment charges against him. His true believers might give him a pass but thoughtful people won't.
Mr. Cain's base of true believers might think he's pro-life but thoughtful people don't. Saying that the "government shouldn't be involved in the decision" of whether to have an abortion is the 'go-to euphemism' for pro-choice people.
I'm betting that alot of the people who've hung with him now won't hang with him a month from now. They might be sitting tight until the crisis passes.
Third, GOP activists won't appreciate the Cain campaign's accusation that Gov. Perry leaked this story to Politico without verifiable documentation supporting their accusation. That's a tactic I'd expect from the DNC, not from a GOP presidential candidate.
Fourth, Cain's policy misstatements continue to build. At some point, clear-thinking conservatives will question his qualifications to be president. If the president just dealt with the economy, Cain would be qualified. Since the president is the leader of the free world, his misstatements are more than a little frightening.
It's time for thoughtful people to set aside the petty considerations and settle on the candidate who's the total package: a movement conservative, a reformer, someone who knows what being pro-life means, a national security conservative and a leader.
It's time to stop the flirtations with Cain. It's time to pick someone with a lengthy list of accomplishments in conservative government.
Posted Friday, November 4, 2011 7:49 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 05-Nov-11 11:45 AM
I like to think of myself as a thoughtful person, and that means giving Cain a thoughtful and ongoing look as part of a limited field of other candidates. I'm not convinced he is the best of the lot by any stretch, but I will be darned if I am going to let some scurrilous media hit job tell me that I must drop him from such thoughtful consideration.
And your piece begs the question. If it isn't to be Cain, who is the "someone" that is so clearly superior and free of MSM prick-points?
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 05-Nov-11 01:07 PM
That isn't the question. No candidates are "free of MSM prick-points" so there's no sense searching for that candidate.
The right question is whether there's someone who's clearly superior. I believe there is & his name is Newt Gingrich. He's got the history of radically changing Washington. He's led the fight to "end welfare as we know it", create 11,000,000 jobs and trigger 5 straight budget surpluses.
Cain can't claim that. Romney can't. Neither can Gov. Perry.
How long of a look do you need to decide that Cain is solid on the economy, not great but solid, but totally unqualified on national security?
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 06-Nov-11 01:59 PM
If I had to pick one today to come out on top, it would be Newt, hands down. I want him to do well enough to stay in the race to the convention, rather than have Romney run away with it by February, as has happened in the past. The reason is a purely political one. I want Obama and the MSM to have to run negative against multiple GOP targets for as long as possible. Once we have a single candidate, they can concentrate their fire and try to destroy him, just as they're now doing with Cain. And if Romney is the choice, they will destroy him from BOTH directions, saying he's too liberal for conservatives, and too conservative for liberals. That's why I don't want Romney. I think he's unelectable.
Comment 4 by edthurston at 07-Nov-11 12:11 AM
If there is a strong alternative for Romney it should be Cain, the man has set goals and is determined to improve America. His 999 tax plan (http://HermanCainsTaxPlan.com)is a solid plan and no candidate has a more concrete plan than this.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Nov-11 07:22 AM
no candidate has a more concrete plan than this.Newt's plan is more comprehensive. Cain's plan is a tax plan. PERIOD. While that's important, it isn't comprenhensive. He doesn't provide specifics about regulation reform, increasing energy production or dealing with health care.
Cain's plan mentions these things in passing but that's it. Newt's plans are extensive, intelligent & well thought out.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 07-Nov-11 09:04 AM
Agreed. As with the Cain-Gingrich debate, though, Cain was a master of the philosophy and principles, while Newt was master of the details and arguments. Not entirely a one-sided affair, and I don't know that a Cain-Gingrich ticket isn't in the offing. I know two guys from Georgia isn't classic ticket-balancing, but we seem to have come a long way since such considerations were high up on the list.
Common Cause MN's big defeat
Friday, the Special Redistricting Panel handed Common Cause MN and the DFL a major defeat .
Common Cause MN submitted this letter to the Special Redistricting Panel to argue that communities of interest be redefined. Here's their proposed redefinition:
First, we would like to propose a slightly different definition of communities of interest. This new definition rests with the idea of people that self identify within the community of interest. The definition would read: Communities of interest are defined as a (1) geographically defined group of people who (2) share similar social, ethnic, cultural, and economic interests and (3) believe they are part of the same coherent entity.
Mike Dean, Common Cause MN's executive director, closes his letter out with this paragraph:
As we know, communities do not come in populations sizes of 39,582, the size of a Minnesota House district. Therefore, some degree of community disruption is inevitable whenever districts are drawn. You can minimize this disruption by combining small communities with similar interests and affiliations in order to form sufficiently populous districts. In addition, when a larger community must be divided into multiple districts, these districts should either correspond to more specific sub-communities, if they exist, or else mirror the characteristics of the broader community.
In other words, Common Cause MN and the DFL thought that keeping communities of interest intact as much as possible should be the primary criteria in drawing the redistricting map. Friday, the Special Redistricting Panel disagreed:
Political subdivisions shall not be divided more than necessary to meet constitutional requirements. Minn. Stat. 2.91, subd. 2.
Political subdivisions are defined as cities and counties. Keeping political subdivisions intact will be the primary consideration if the courts draw the redistricting maps.
This is a major blow to the DFL. That means population shifts, not creating competitive districts, will be a major consideration. That means keeping cities and counties, not communities of interest, intact as much as possible will be the other primary consideration.
The Panel's ruling gives the DFL alot more incentive to negotiate in good faith between now and January. The DFL had been hoping for a DFL-friendly ruling. Friday's ruling eliminated that hope. Now the DFL is staring down the gun barrel at a redistricting outcome that's certain to favor the GOP.
Common Cause MN and the DFL lost a major decision Friday. That doesn't mean Republicans will like everything about the redistricting maps. It just means that they'll like most of what they see.
Posted Saturday, November 5, 2011 11:27 AM
No comments.
Obama administration puts itself in can't win situation
When President Obama was inaugurated, progressives were telling the American people that President Obama was substantially smarter than President Bush. Many breathed a huge sigh of relief to have replaced the inarticulate Bush with the superarticulate Obama.
Progressives talked about President Obama being a superior communicator than President Reagan. President Obama isn't smarter than President Bush, though he's a better orator than President Bush. As for President Obama being a superior communicator than President Reagan, that's a joke.
How does someone supposedly so smart catch himself in this self-created crisis ?
Republican lawmakers and conservative activists are expressing outrage after the Obama administration announced its objection to adding President Franklin Roosevelt's D-Day prayer to the World War II Memorial in Washington, D.C.
The objection was noted during a congressional hearing on Rep. Bill Johnson's, R-Ohio, bill, the "World War II Memorial Prayer Act of 2011."
"It is unconscionable that the Obama administration would stand in the way of honoring our nation's distinguished World War II veterans," Johnson said. "President Roosevelt's prayer gave solace, comfort and strength to our nation and our brave warriors as we fought against tyranny and oppression."
Roosevelt asked the nation to join him in prayer as U.S. and allied troops launched the invasion that led to the defeat of Nazi Germany. He asked God to give the allied troops courage and faith, saying, "With thy blessing we shall prevail over the unholy forces of our enemy."
But Robert Abbey, the director of the Bureau of Land Management, said any plaque or inscription of the prayer would "dilute" the memorial's central message and therefore "should not be altered ."
"It is not a judgment as to the merit of this new commemoration, simply that altering the Memorial in this way, as proposed in HR 2070, will necessarily dilute this elegant memorial's central message and its ability to clearly convey that message to move, educate, and inspire its many visitors," Abbey said in written testimony.
Abbey explained to lawmakers that altering the memorial would be contrary to the Commemorative Works Act, a law that prohibits "encroachment by a new commemoration on a existing one." It also respects the design of the "completed work of civic art without alteration or addition of new elements."
Since when did this administration start paying attention to the laws? President Obama didn't care about the law when he was dealing with the secured bondholders of Chrysler. He bullied them into accepting pennies on the dollar for secured debt instruments. Here's what Third Base Politics wrote about this administration's total disregard for the laws governing secured bondholders:
The group of investment firms and hedge funds happen to own secured bonds of Chrysler. In other words, they were smart enough to invest in debt instruments issued by Chrysler that were secured by hard assets (buildings, inventory, etc). Due to their secured status, they are more likely to collect on their debts than unsecured creditors and equity holders. These investors were being strong-armed by our Federal Government and the TARP-drunk zombie banks to forego their contractual rights as secured debtholders and accept pennies on the dollar. They refused and I salute them. The President, however, is clearly miffed that these investors didn't forfeit their contractual rights for the "greater good" (read: UAW).
Now we're supposed to think that this administration is interested in following the law? That's insulting. Let's remember that this administration has praised the arsonists , Marxists , rapists and union thugs of the OWS crowd.
This administration's citing of following the law to prevent the display of FDR's prayer before declaring war would be laughable if they hadn't a) praised the union thugs in Wisconsin, b) praised the Marxists, vandals and rapists of the OWS movement and c) bullied secured bondholders into accepting pennies on the dollar for their bonds with Chrysler.
This administration is a blight from a multitude of perspectives. It's time to fire them. Most importantly, it's time to restore American exceptionalism.
Posted Sunday, November 6, 2011 10:22 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 06-Nov-11 07:15 PM
I suppose we shouldn't hold our breath for the prayer that Patton asked the Champlin to make for good weather to win the Battle of the Bulge.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Startling news from Iowa
What would you say if someone predicted that Herman Cain would crater in Iowa? Moe Lane's post stops short of that but it doesn't stop that short of it. First, here's what ABC News is reporting :
During a lunchtime visit this week to Cain's headquarters, located in a shopping center in the Des Moines suburb of Urbandale, reporters from ABC News found about a dozen volunteers telephoning potential supporters, many of them older Iowans. When ABC returned in the evening, a time when local campaign offices would usually be packed with an after-work crowd, only two volunteers remained in the office. They said that others were at home making placards for Friday night's Iowa Republican Party Dinner, which Cain does not plan to attend.
ABC News visited the same campaign headquarters last month and found the office quiet and empty.
Here's Moe's commentary on that information:
That passage represents a kindly ABC News writer/editor team; yes, they do exist, coming as close as they dare to frantically waving off the campaign while screaming 'DANGER! DANGER, HERMAN CAIN!' Because you can talk about national campaigns and moneybombs and heck, even polling all you like: but if you're not currently being forced to squeeze volunteers into your campaign offices any which way then you're doing it wrong .
If Cain's organization is in this shoddy of shape this late in the process, he's in deep trouble. Cain's campaign might be on the verge of collapse.
That alone is newsworthy. Couple that with this information and the potential for a major shift is possible:
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich is shaping up to be the 'anti-Romney' in the Republican presidential race, according to a new Newsmax/InsiderAdvantage poll of Iowa caucus voters.
Although the survey showed scandal-plagued Herman Cain still enjoying a substantial lead, InsiderAdvantage head Matt Towery says that will almost certainly not last.
'We found most Republican voters in Iowa were unaware of the latest developments in the Cain case,' Towery said after Thursday night's poll. 'There is a great likelihood that his vote will fall off.'
The poll put Cain at 30% with former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney at 15%. Gingrich was third with 12%, followed by Texas Rep. Ron Paul at 9%, Minnesota Rep. Michele Bachmann at 8%, Texas Gov. Rick Perry at 6% and former Utah Gov. Jon Huntsman at 2%.
If Cain's campaign craters, it isn't likely that his voters will go to Gov. Romney. They'll go to either Gov. Perry or Speaker Gingrich. If Gov. Perry or Speaker Gingrich wins Iowa, that's trouble for Gov. Romney because it gives the conservative winner the momentum of winning South Carolina. If Gov. Perry or Speaker Gingrich win 2 of the first 3 states, that candidate's chances of winning the election skyrocket because Gov. Romney can't compete in the South. For that matter, Wisconsin and Minnesota likely would tip in Gov. Perry's or Speaker Gingrich's favor because the GOP in both states are more significantly more conservative than Gov. Romney.
I disagree slightly with pollster Matt Towery on this:
'There are only three real candidates now,' said Towery. 'There's Cain who I believe will begin to drop, Romney who has been squeezed down by the whole Cain surge and is holding on but not gaining traction, and Gingrich who is the next in line.'
I agree it's down to 3 candidates. It's just that I think the third candidate is Gov. Perry, not Mr. Cain. Gov. Perry's op-ed will resonate with conservatives in Iowa and South Carolina. This information will especially appeal to Iowa's and South Carolina's conservatives:
First, I will issue an executive order prohibiting the Department of Health and Human Services from any further implementation of Obamacare until we can fully repeal this unconstitutional government mandate, which, if it stands, will diminish our health care and kill jobs.
Second, I will order federal agencies to begin opening American energy fields for exploration and development, which will kick-start economic growth, reduce our dependence on energy from hostile foreign sources and eventually create 1.2 million jobs across every sector of the economy. I also will work with Congress to ensure that new revenue generated from energy production on federal lands is used to pay down the national debt.
Third, I will impose an immediate moratorium on all pending federal regulations, during which government agencies must audit every measure passed since 2008 to determine its necessity and impact on job creation. Those measures that kill jobs will be repealed.
And fourth, I will deploy thousands of National Guard personnel to secure our southern border until we can provide the permanent increase in manpower, technology and fencing needed to protect the American homeland in the long run. If I am elected, Washington will no longer abdicate its constitutional responsibility to secure the border or force states to fend for themselves.
In addition to exercising executive authority during the first 100 days of my presidency, I also will lay out a sweeping legislative agenda that will fundamentally change the way Washington works.
My Cut, Balance and Grow plan will jolt our economy back to life by cutting taxes and spending, balancing the budget by 2020 and growing private-sector jobs.
Gov. Perry's message of economic growth, cutting spending and balancing the budget is a message that appeals to GOP voters. He's looked more relaxed during his interviews and public appearances since releasing his economic plan. With his bank account, Perry is a serious contender. It's a mistake to write him off.
Still, the startling news is that Mr. Cain doesn't have a GOTV operation. If ABC's reporting is accurate, then he's poised to take a major hit in the Iowa Caucuses.
If he drops, Gov. Perry and Speaker Gingrich stand to gain the most.
Posted Sunday, November 6, 2011 4:33 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 07-Nov-11 09:00 AM
I hadn't thought that much about Gov. Perry since HE cratered in the polls, but if his proposals are solid and he talks of them consistently and cogently, he could certainly move up past Gov. Romney, and that's good by me. Conservatives have had problems with Perry in the past, one of the reasons for his drop, but hopefully they (=we) can get past the minor flaws in all of these candidates. Cain may not be running an effective campaign, and may not even be able to defend his policy ideas that well, but I'm not counting him out, yet. I don't mind a 4-man race and would like to see a "rotating front-runner" situation develop. Cain takes Iowa, Newt takes SC, Romney wins NH, maybe Perry picks up Nevada (it won't be Huntsman).
Comment 2 by Bob J. at 07-Nov-11 09:16 AM
Insider Advantage has a new poll out that shows Cain with 30 percent of the Iowa vote. They've correctly predicted the winner of the caucus in 2004 and 2008. The poll was done last Thursday among likely caucus attendees.
For a look at some recent Iowa polls, here's an interesting site. It also contains polling from New Hampshire.
http://race42012.com/category/iowa-caucuses/
The polls I've seen show that, in the main, most Republicans and especially Tea Partiers don't care about unsubstantiated and anonymous charges against Herman Cain. Not all, of course -- since you appear to be one.
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 07-Nov-11 10:41 AM
I'm not as worried about the allegations as I am with the fact that Mr. Cain apparently hasn't taken building an organization seriously.
Mr. Cain apparently hasn't taken thinking economic policy through other than tax policy. His debate performance Saturday night was, at best, adequate. Newt was the policy master, Cain was the student.
Comment 4 by J. Ewing at 07-Nov-11 03:35 PM
Well, again, I've said that Newt would be one heck of a VP in charge of presiding over the Senate, or a senior policy adviser to the President. The President needs only a firm grasp of basic conservative principles, the ability to pick strong managers and advisers to work in the administration, and the ability to communicate the choices and decisions he makes. What would Newt do for advisers? He knows it all already, and that in some ways is dangerous. I would love for him to be Speaker again, driving the agenda, though I know that's not going to happen.
Comment 5 by Gary Gross at 07-Nov-11 06:47 PM
I couldn't disagree more vehemently. What's more is that Cain hasn't shown the ability to pick strong managers during this campaign.
It's time that people figured out that this isn't a serious campaign. Having 6 people on staff in Iowa & New Hampshire combined isn't a serious campaign. Having a candidate that isn't versed in basic policies like the definition of pro-life, the Palestinian right of return & whether he'd set free a Gitmo terrorist in exchange for an American hostage isn't someone who's prepared to govern.
We'd be trading in someone who isn't qualified for the job for another person who isn't qualified for the job. That isn't progress. That's a sideways step at best.
Jerry, your argument is essentially that we shouldn't pick someone with a terrific history of great governmental accomplishments & who has the best grasp of policies in favor of someone who isn't qualified.
NO THANKS.
Video Whodunnit
Ed's posted this video that nobody seems to have claimed ownership of. Here's the video:
Forty-five seconds into the video, a caption appears on the screen. The caption says "One year from now, all our progress could be erased." I'm with Ed in saying "Sign me up!" That sounds great. There isn't a disclaimer saying that this video was paid for by the DNC, the Obama campaign or a liberal independent expenditure group. Still, it's apparent that it's written by liberals to scare people into activation.
To turn it into a fantastic NRCC advertisement, I'd just add the 'Forgotten 15' bills that Harry Reid won't vote on, then finish with Gerald Ford's words upon being sworn in as President after Nixon's resignation. Here are President Ford's famous words :
"Our long national nightmare is over."
Though President Ford made that statement on Aug. 9, 1974, there's no questioning whether they'd still resonate with alot of people in November, 2011. Every homeowner whose mortgage is underwater, every person who's unemployed and every person who's getting government assistance of some sort or another would relate to President Ford's quote.
Posted Monday, November 7, 2011 12:00 PM
No comments.
Twins fire GM Billy Smith
WCCO is reporting that the Minnesota Twins fired GM Billy Smith . Terry Ryan will take over as the interim GM effective immediately.
I've been a Twins fan since attending my first game at Metropolitan Stadium in Bloomington in August, 1966. I didn't see this coming at all. I doubt anyone did. That isn't to say the Pohlad family liked the results from Smith's trades. Obviously, in retrospect, they thought he did a lousy job.
Terry Ryan will step in and not miss a beat. He's a better talent evaluator than Smith was, which is important going forward. The Twins' farm system, long the envy of baseball, is depleted & in desperate need of a talent infusion.
The good news for TR is that the Twins will have 4 of the top 50 picks, including the 2nd overall, in next summer's entry draft. Drafting 2nd in each round of the draft won't hurt either.
That can't a minute too soon.
Originally posted Monday, November 7, 2011, revised 08-Nov 1:43 AM
Comment 1 by eric z. at 08-Nov-11 12:29 PM
They got their stadium. Now they are cutting payroll. Fans might feel deceived by such tactics. But nobody should feel surprised. After all, it's the Pohlads.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Nov-11 02:15 PM
You're missing the point. The Twins have always operated from the standpoint of percentage of revenues drives their payroll. Last year, their revenues dropped significantly. If the team performs well next year, the revenues will return & the team will spend more if it's needed.
The media's K-12 blindspot
The DFL must be pleased. Their well-trained media allies are spewing multiple new pro-levy editorials a day. Some are in the SCTimes . The SCTimes didn't just run an Our View editorial. The SCTimes ran this pro-levy editorial , too, written by SRR Superintendent Dan Bittman. Today's status quo editorial is this editorial published in the New Ulm newspaper. Their editorial goes after House K-12 Education Finance Chairman Pat Garofalo. They didn't question the school district.
According to Garofalo, districts are doing this to take advantage of low voter turnout and lack of interest. "The irony is at the same time we're seeing so much press about a $300-million state subsidy for a Vikings stadium, there's going to be $900 million in tax revenue on the ballot next Tuesday, and there's been very little coverage of it," Garofalo said.
Garofalo is wrong if he thinks districts are holding referendums now to get some easy money while no one's paying attention. They are holding referendums now because the state government, including the chairman of the House Education Finance Committee, has been shortchanging school districts for years. They need the money, and they need it now.
Garofalo should stop trying to make villains out of hard-pressed school board members and school administrators, and consider his own culpability for the record number of referendums this year.
Please explain why the Minneapolis Public Schools terminated 52 teachers , then gave do-nothing administrators a $270,000 retroactive pay raise:
The story revealed Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson's decision to award $270,000 in retroactive raises to central office administrators at the same time the district cut more than 100 jobs including 52 teaching positions.
'A lot of people were concerned about this,' said Jodi Boyne, director of public affairs for the GOP Caucus. 'We want to make sure this money is being spent on education.'
This isn't isolated. Lots of school districts have too many administrators. They don't have enough teachers. The New Ulm newspaper says that schools "need the money, and they need it now." Why haven't they asked whether the school district's staffing is overbloated with administrators? Have they asked whether they're paying too much for their health insurance?
These are the questions that New Ulm didn't ask. To be fair, the SCTimes asked some worthwhile questions:
- What specifically will the money be spent on? And what will happen if questions do not pass?
- What specifically has the district done in the past three years to address or reduce operating expenses? To increase revenues?
- Will academic accountability be linked to any increase in funding? If so, describe the measures.
- What was the average percentage increase in pay and benefits provided to nonadministrative positions the past two contracts? What about administrative positions?
- Finally, please explain the basic costs on the average homeowner.
It's time that citizen journalists started weren't the only people digging into the school districts' spending habits. It's time we had company digging into the school districts' cronyism. That's the only way taxpayers will be confident that their money isn't being spent foolishly.
Posted Monday, November 7, 2011 7:10 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 08-Nov-11 10:31 AM
Gary:
I've asked this question to a school board member years ago and I bet none of these papers ask it.
Assuming we pay $10,000 per student and a class room has 16 students in it and the teacher is paid $65,000 what happens to other $100,000?
Until school districts start thinking of lets change the schoolroom from $65,000 to $100,000 and the other from $100,000 to $65,000 we won't make any progress on controlling education spending.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by J. Ewing at 08-Nov-11 10:36 AM
I think the basic problem of public school funding is even bigger than what you describe, in that many of the very sensible questions that you ask cannot, in fact, be actually answered by the school district! Here are two examples:
At one point we were told we needed to approve an operating levy to give teachers a raise in pay, because we were "losing too many good teachers." I asked a) how many teachers left the district in the previous year, b) how many left to teach elsewhere, versus retirement or leaving the profession, C) how many of those left to teach elsewhere left for reasons of pay, and D) how did we know whether these were "good" teachers or not. To all FOUR questions the answer was "we don't know."
At another point we were told that if the levy did not pass, that average class size in the district would increase from 21.5 to 22.5 students. I did a little quick math and determined that the number of teachers required to hold class for every student in the district, if the classes were split evenly, was 600 teachers LESS than the number of teachers shown in the district budget! Now either the district has no clue as to what they are actually funding, so far as the number of teachers is concerned, or they are incompetent in so far, at least, as doing the basic math justification for their funding requests. Or it could be both. :-(
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Nov-11 11:17 AM
The teacher numbers is a game played by corrupt school districts. Counting people as teachers while they're actually working on special assignments helps the district sell the notion that they're putting as many teachers in classrooms as possible. That way, when a question comes up at a school board meeting on the subject, they can trot out the artificial teacher figures.
This isn't a hypothetical question. I know of a person who worked on curriculum full-time but was still listed as a full-time teacher. The person wasn't bashful about it.
What the districts won't tell is is substantial. Beyond the questions that I cited in my post, beyond the questions you asked, there are tons of other questions that school districts don't like talking about. That's their habit & it's gotta stop ASAP.
Comment 3 by eric z. at 08-Nov-11 12:23 PM
The military is brass heavy. Far too brass heavy. All those generals marching through the Joint Chiefs, to up as far as feasible the top earning years during service, to reap stupendous pensions, by civilian standards.
That is a bigger federal expenditure than any education costs. Jump all over that too, please.
The academies keep churning out new ones too. Scaling back the personnel costs in the military, withdrawing many of the overseas troops, closing marginal bases stateside, all as options before cutting weapons programs might make more sense. And always, if you have combat troops deployed, equiping them should be first and foremost. Ex-generals employed at Lockheed or Boeing are a lower priority, and their pensions are not sacrosanct.
Comment 4 by eric z. at 08-Nov-11 12:27 PM
One point in your favor, Gary. If the schools were really effective in educating young people, there'd be far, far fewer Republicans. The big numbers of them in CD6 are clearly indicative of failures in K-12 education. Proof positive that efforts to educate fail.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Nov-11 02:16 PM
Eric, you should know better than to believe the DFL's characterizations.
Comment 5 by J. Ewing at 08-Nov-11 10:23 PM
Actually, the amount spent on education in this country vastly outspends the DOD, and arguably produces a lot less. In Minnesota alone, there are schools which produce twice the educational achievement for half the cost. I can prove, mathematically, that a 20% reduction in state spending on education should make educational achievement go UP. Of course, that's only a couple Billion dollars every year...
