October 1-2, 2010
Oct 01 07:58 SD-15 Debate Notes Oct 01 11:43 Kudos to GRRL Oct 01 12:13 WOW!!! Oct 01 14:31 Horner's Troubles Beginning Oct 02 03:55 Al Junhke's Spin Oct 02 08:54 Almanac Roundtable Notes Oct 02 14:30 Another Seat Lost? Oct 02 16:13 Cantor, Ryan, Fiscal Conservatism Will Play Well
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
SD-15 Debate Notes
Tonight, I attended the St. Cloud Times/League of Women Voters forum for the candidates from SD-15, HD-15A and HD-15B. Rex Newman of Speed Gibson made a roadtrip to watch the debate, too. Make sure you check Rex's blog for his notes. He was taking notes as fast as I was.
After the candidates' opening statements, they went directly to audience questions. The first question was about the budget deficit. Each of the DFL candidates, Bruce Hentges, Ann Nolan and Carol Lewis, said that "we need to take a balanced approach" to solving the problem, meaning tax increases were required.
Bruce Hentges said that we had to redesign government, then asked whether we "needed 87 counties and 341 school districts." That's a great sounding answser but it misses the point. It isn't that county and city governments can't be reformed. It's that Hentges didn't identify anything in the state government that should be reformed.
John Pederson made the point that there isn't a deficit yet because the money hasn't been appropriated yet, that the deficit is just a projection based on what the outgoing legislature wanted to spend. King followed by saying the people who say that we need to take a balanced approach are really saying that "they want you to throw YOUR WALLET in to PAY FOR THEIR SPENDING."
Q2. What parts of the budget can be cut?
Bruce Hentges, the DFL endorsed candidate for SD-15, said that "denying that we have a problem prevents us from solving the problem." He then started criticizing John Pederson, his opponent. Mostly, he slipped the question without saying what parts of the budget could be cut.
John Pederson highlighted Hentges' reply, saying that he'd "actually answer the question", saying that nothing in the budget should be off the table.
King said that he'd prefer using Zero-based budgeting because he'd want each agency to explain why the money they spent the last biennium needs to be spent again this biennium. King then noted that overregulation, overspending and overtaxation are costing Minnesota jobs.
King's opponent, Carol Lewis, said that it wasn't the legislature's job to put a budget together, that it's the governor's responsibility to put it together. King later noted that the governor's budget "has no more weight to it than if I submitted a budget from my office."
Steve Gottwalt said that the most important thing needed in St. Paul are legislators who will say no to the special interests. He then said that "if you don't think regulations and taxes aren't driving businesses from the state, then you aren't talking with employers."
Bruce Hentges and Ann Nolan talked briefly about closing tax loopholes for people making $250,000+, which led to the next question from a small business owner. She asked that they identify the loophole that's supposedly letting "the rich" get away without paying their fair share.
The woman then said that it sure didn't feel like they weren't paying their fair share. Finally, she asked how taking money from the private sector would help grow jobs.
Bruce Hentges dodged that question, too, saying that "those who propose not raising taxes are really proposing raising property taxes." He also talked about sustainable budgeting. Carol Lewis repeated her "balanced approach" answer.
Q7: Hentges was asked about "accepting the $1.4 billion for Early MA". He was then asked what we'd do when the federal money disappeared.
True to form, Hentges ignored the question, saying only that we should take the money before saying that St. Cloud doesn't get its fair share returned from the state. John Pederson, his opponent, said that keeping more of the money here in the first place would mean St. Cloud would get its fair share.
Steve Gottwalt said that Early MA is just emblematic of the problem, saying that "we're making promises we can't keep with money we don't have."
The final question of the night dealt with education funding. King said he couldn't understand how the DFL (my words, not his) could brag about the high ACT scores in one sentence, then say that education is underfunded the next sentence.
Steve Gottwalt said that parental involvement, good teachers and smaller class sizes were the key to better educational outcomes, noting that you can't legislate parental involvement. Ann Nolan then replied that you can legislate parental involvement through the right type of legislation.
Frankly, Nolan's answer stunned me because legislating parental involvement in students' lives, no matter how well-intentioned, is government overstepping its bounds. By alot.
FINAL THOUGHTS:
Bruce Hentges' answers were evasive more often than not. He came across as having too high an opinion of himself.
John Pederson cited his work on the St. Cloud City Council and how he made a point of talking with people from both sides of the issues before making a decision. His demeanor was that of a reasonable, informed person.
Steve Gottwalt emphasized living within our means as the way to growing jobs. He reminded people of the "common sense solutions" that he'd offered his first 4 years in office before reminding people that (a) most of his proposals still haven't been adopted and (b) they'd "save Minnesota's taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars."
King had a strong performance, proving he has a detailed understanding of public policy on issues like the economy, health care and education. His ability to think on his feet was also in full view.
Carol Lewis' answers were predictable. I came away thinking that she's a cookie cutter EdMinn politician.
Finally, if tonight's audience was an indicator, then the surging enthusiasm that Larry Jacobs talked about in his MPR-Humphrey Institute poll doesn't exist.
UPDATE: Rex from Speed Gibson has a great post about last night's debate. You'll definitely want to read it.
Posted Friday, October 1, 2010 12:56 PM
Comment 1 by Miles Rost at 30-Oct-10 10:50 AM
I'm not surprised Hentges would have a high opinion of himself and would be evasive.
I happened to be a student at Tech High School when he was the Assistant Principal. He was mostly ineffective, highly stuck up, and a complete opening in the posterior. While he was not the worst, he also was not the best.
I hope the people of the 15th district go with John Pederson. It would behoove them to do so.
Kudos to GRRL
The Great River Regional Library should be applauded for digitizing part of their library system . It's only fair that they get praised after I criticized them when the DFL brought its Misery Tour to St. Cloud in February, 2009. At the time, here's what I wrote about them:
The low point of the testimony was the Great River Regional Library's representative, quite possibly given by Kirsty Smith, told the legislators that they should raise taxes so that GRRL could continue providing the services it currently provides. It was bad enough that GRRL's representative argued for raising taxes. What made it worse was that GRRL's representative didn't mention anything in terms of providing the same services at a cheaper cost or in a more efficient manner.
At the time, it bothered me that GRRL wasn't giving any indications that they'd thought about modernizing. The only thing that I could gather from her testimony was that she thought the old-fashioned system was just fine and that the GRRL shouldn't have to change.
GRRL is now finding new ways to serve the community. Any entity getting government funding should be constantly looking into whether it's possible to serve people better. That's what Tom Emmer's redesigning government is about. He's the only gubernatorial candidate who's shown a seriousness and thoughtfulness to anticipate restructuring government.
I'm sure there's an initial cost to GRRL transitioning from the old to the new. More often than not, there's a cost of improving.
Much like GRRL has started working on improving their library system to meet the needs of the 21st Century, Tom and Annette are committed to changing the structure and performance of state government. At a time when state budgets are stretched thin, reforming government isn't just a nice thing. It's essential.
Posted Friday, October 1, 2010 11:43 AM
Comment 1 by geekguy at 01-Oct-10 09:48 PM
The library is absolutely modernizing. They are always looking for new ways to offer existing services and for new services as demand arises.
In addition, they are attempting to do more with existing resources (this year) or less (next year). However, those changes aren't coming without significant resistance.
Hopefully you'll be just as supportive of the direction the library is moving in when the next bit of news comes out.
For now, checkout their latest newsletter: http://www.griver.org/support-library/currents-newsletter
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 02-Oct-10 12:58 AM
When the GRRL representative testified at the hearing, I was appalled that she didn't talk about reforms that they were working on. The highlight of her testimony was to say she hoped they'd "have the courage to raise taxes." I welcome the change.
Response 1.2 by Gary Gross at 03-Oct-10 11:36 AM
I read that article & have a number of questions about the restructuring. I'm putting a post together literally as we speak.
Comment 2 by geekguy at 03-Oct-10 11:33 AM
And now for that next bit of news...
http://www.sctimes.com/article/20101003/NEWS01/110030052/Library-restructuring-plan-meets-opposition
WOW!!!
There's just one word that aptly describes Michele Bachmann's fundraising efforts. That word is WOW!!! Here's what Politico is reporting :
Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) has raised more than $3.4 million in the third quarter of the year, doubling her haul from the previous quarter, POLITICO has learned.
Exact fundraising numbers will not be available for a few days. But as the filing deadline approached Thursday night, Bachmann spokesman Sergio Gor told POLITICO that the campaign's cash on hand has increased by $1 million over the quarter.
We are proud to announce that we have doubled our political contributions from the last cycle," Gor said. "We appreciate the vast support we have gotten and are not taking this race for granted. Over 100,000 contributions have been made in the 3rd quarter cycle. We thank all of our supporters for their faith in Michele Bachmann."
There are Senate candidates that are running competitive races that aren't raising this much money. As impressive as that is, I'm blown away by the fact that 100,000 people contributed to Michele's campaign.
Posted Friday, October 1, 2010 12:13 PM
Comment 1 by Ric at 02-Oct-10 04:10 AM
I will have to say she hardly needs it. But she is the best thing we have here in MN
Horner's Troubles Beginning
If there's anything that will get a politician in trouble, it's lying. Based on MPR's reporting , it's safe to consider Tom Horner in deep trouble:
Officials at the Minnesota Department of Revenue are saying Independence Party gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner has not submitted his budget plan for review, but that Horner's campaign contacted them to see if the tax plan would work.
At the most recent debate last week, Horner said he submitted his budget plan for a review...
Horner: "We're going to take medical services off of the table. We won't tax those. We won't tax prescription drugs or medical devices and the numbers do add up.
Republican Tom Emmer: No they don't.
Horner: The Revenue Department says they did.
Emmer: They have not and you have to be honest about it.
Horner: I'm just curious as to where your information is that the Department of Revenue has said my numbers don't add up because the Department of Revenue told me that the numbers do add up.
Emmer: Well put it out there. We've asked and haven't been given anything that supports that.
Horner: Tom, That's just not true, you know that's not true.
Emmer: What we have been shown is that you have to make much broader attempt.
Horner: That's just a blatant lie."
It's a safe bet that Horner isn't submitting his plan because he knows that it'll be met with the same fate as Sen. Dayton's plans. I'll bet the proverbial ranch that Horner's budget plan won't balance either.
Horner's credibility just took a major hit. In this election, that's fatal. Minnesotans are willing to forgive people when they misspeak or when they're wrong but they won't tolerate liars.
UPDATE: Horner just issued a statement on this breaking news:
Horner also said that he won't expand the sales tax to business to business services, food, medical services and medical purchases and equipment. Horner said he's open to expanding the sales tax to all other consumer services.
"What the Department of Revenue has said is 'Consumer services, clothing, reduce the rate by one percent, is there a potential of $1.3 billion there? Yes.' And so, yes, I do acknowledge that everything is on the table. It doesn't mean we're going to end up with everything on the table it does mean we do have to evaluate everything to reach a final judgement. That's going to take more people involved. It's going to take more resources. It's going to economic modeling. We want to make sure that we're doing this in a way that build the economy of Minnesota not in a way that gets us to November 2nd (Election Day)."
Horner's statement is almost incomprehensible. Horner thinks that he's got to thread the needle perfectly to attract votes from Sen. Dayton and Rep. Emmer. The reality is that he won't compete seriously with Dayton after this major mistake.
Tom Emmer issued this statement:
"Today we learned that Tom Horner has not in fact had his massive sales tax increase analyzed by the Minnesota Department of Revenue, contradicting what he stated only days ago. As a result, Minnesotans must ask themselves, what else is Tom Horner hiding from us?
"Tom Horner has clearly shown his intentions to grow government spending in an irresponsible way. He has no way to pay for that unsustainable growth except through massive sales tax increases. Those sales tax increases will crush Minnesota families by taxing everything from clothing and garage sales to baby formula. At least Senator Dayton had the intellectual honesty to admit that he can't balance the budget even with enormous income tax increases.
"My two opponents are fighting for the bragging right of who will tax Minnesotans more and who can promise more with no way to pay for it. In contrast, I am the only candidate proposing an honest, balanced budget and calling for government to live within its means."
I've said before that people can disagree with Tom's policies but you can't argue that his is the only budget that balances at the moment.
Horner's tax increase only nets him $1,300,000,000, meaning he'll have to find $4,500,000,000 in spending cuts just to balance the budget. He'll need more than that if he wants to increase spending.
Rep. Emmer is right in that his opponents are fighting amongst themselves on who will raise taxes more. I'd add that they're also fighting to see who will put a budget plan together that actually balances.
At this point, Rep. Emmer is the only candidate that isn't raising taxes and whose budget balances.
The contrast between the two Toms couldn't be more stark. Tom Horner's budget doesn't balance even with a massive tax increase. Tom Emmer's budget balances without raising taxes.
That means Horner's troubles are just beginning.
Posted Friday, October 1, 2010 2:31 PM
No comments.
Al Junhke's Spin
Earlier this week, I criticized the MPR-Humphrey Institute poll because its findings didn't match with well-documented information.
Earlier this evening, Rep. Al Junhke posted this tweet:
Wow...I learned tonight on Almanac from the GOP'ers on the couch, if polls don't support your candidate, they are bad. Who knew?
Rep. Junhke, I didn't complain when other polls showed Sen. Dayton leading, with the exception of the Minnesota Poll/Humphrey Institute poll. I've scanned Minnesota's Right Blogosphere and seen nothing in terms of criticizing polls on the basis of who's leading.
I've criticized the polling when people say that Tom Emmer is supported by less than 60 percent of Republicans. All the other polling I've seen shows that Emmer gets between 72 percent to 88 percent of Republicans' support.
I've criticized Larry Jacobs' statement that there's greater enthusiasm amongst Democrats than with Republicans. I've attended a number of local events, including last night's League of Women Voters/St. Cloud Times candidate forum. What I saw was that the usual group of DFL activists were there. I saw that they essentially sat on their hands, asking only 1 of the 9 audience questions.
Compare that with the GOP 'delegation', which outnumbered the DFL delegation. Included in the GOP delegation were a number of first time activists, probably comprising a third of our group. That's the sign of a thriving, growing local party.
I can deal with polls that show Republicans trailing Democrats. I won't tolerate polling that makes unsubstantiated statements like that. The MPR-Humphrey Institute poll is an outlier.
I understand Rep. Junhke's need to spin things. It's what politicians do when they're embarassed by their party's legislative agenda. If I had to defend an agenda that starts with raising taxes on Minnesota's job creators, I'd probably be spinning, too.
The bigger message should be that Willmar voters should get rid of Rep. Junhke because Willmar's job creators can't afford Sen. Dayton's tax increases.
Posted Saturday, October 2, 2010 3:55 AM
No comments.
Almanac Roundtable Notes
As I do every week, I watched Almanac's Roundtable. This week, Brian Sullivan and Laura Brod represented the good guys, Brian Haas represented the forces of evil like, aka the IP, while Rep. Karla Brigham and Mike Hatch represented the forces of evil, the real stuff.
The two people who didn't belong on the panel were Rep. Brigham and Brian Haas. Rep. Brigham kept referring to the discredited MPR-Humphrey Institute poll even after Hatch agreed that it's findings weren't accurate. The other thing that was evident was that she couldn't tout the DFL's positions on the issues while looking people in the eye.
I'm not as skilled at reading body language as Tanya Reiman but even I know that people that can't look people in the eye aren't confident in the validity of their positions.
Haas was little more than a space filler. The best he did was one time saying that the DFL's and the GOP's bickering proves that Horner was the right pick for Minnesotans.
Brian Sullivan demolished the MPR poll, citing the poll's findings that there'd been a 15 point swing in the enthusiasm gap in a single month. Sullivan noted that Laura had walked in tons of parades helping legislative candidates this summer and that there was plenty of volunteers for walking in those parades.
I'd add that I've talked with GOP state legislative candidates and congressional candidates from every part of the state. They're finding more than enough volunteers to drop lit, knock on doors and march in parades.
The only place where a GOP enthusiasm deficit can be found is in the MPR poll's report. It doesn't exist in reality.
The other thing that shows that there's an enthusiasm gap favoring Republicans is that I've heard of more than a few DFL candidates who are, at best, running 'going through the motions' campaigns.
Hatch clearly didn't want to talk about the issues that matter most to the people. He steered clear of issues like taxes, growing jobs and balancing the budget.
The closest Hatch came to talking the issues was done in platitudes, saying that Dayton was "the only candidate who will protect the middle class" and that Minnesota knows Mark Dayton and that he can be trusted.
Each time Hatch trotted those arguments out, Laura immediately turned the debate back to not raising taxes and how Tom was the only candidate who wouldn't raise taxes.
Hatch's response was the DFL's typical 'if you don't raise income taxes, you're just pushing the tax increases onto the local government' argument. Laura rightly stated that raising property taxes was what happens when local governments continue their spending habits.
This post highlighted the cities' refusal to tighten their belts when revenues dropped:
Emmer has stated that when it comes to LGA, government should restrain itself and only provide for what he deems "core" needs, including public safety and drivable roads. Those are undeniable core city services, but as the mayor of a small town, I know my residents would say that list falls short. Minnesotans want to live in an educated community where the public library attracts both young and old. They want recreation centers where youth can find positive and safe ways to occupy their time. They want senior centers so our elderly can socialize instead of feeling abandoned. For decades, Minnesotans have viewed government as a partner, not an enemy, in achieving a quality of life that other states envy, and this has only been possible through LGA.
Saying that recreation centers and public libraries are core needs that the state must fund when revenues are tight is silly. It's proof that mayors are addicted to spending and that they aren't willing to say no when revenues shrink.
With all due respect to Hatch and Mayor Wolff, unwise spending piorities are the biggest driver of property tax increases, not LGA cuts. A simple postponing of projects often would stave off property tax increases.
As for Hatch's claim that Minnesotans can trust Mark Dayton, Laura rightly highlighted the fact that Minnesotans do indeed know him and that they were set to kick him out of office in 2006. That's why he 'retired' and let A-Klo run.
I'd further add that anyone who'd have his family run the most dishonest ads savaging his opponent isn't a trustworthy person. That's before I start talking about Dayton's whining that "the rich don't pay their fair share" of the taxes while his riches are hidden in tax-free shelters away from where his tax increases would eat into his family's wealth.
That sounds more like a person who thinks he should be exempted from the rules that he's imposing on others. That sounds like an elitist's attitude, not the attitude of someone who lives by the same rules he imposes on others.
What was clear is that Rep. Brigham and the IP spokesman aren't ready for primetime. They might never be. Hatch was definitely better prepared but Brian Sullivan and Laura Brod pretty much refuted his arguments.
The election will be decided by who outworks the other side.
Posted Saturday, October 2, 2010 8:54 AM
Comment 1 by Sally Paul at 04-Oct-10 06:22 PM
It's Faas. Brian Faas. If you're going to cut someone down, at least have the courtesy to report their name correctly. As to contributing to the conversation, the moderators need to do a much better job of actually moderating a civil discussion. I grow very tired of watching the same old cat fight week in and week out.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Oct-10 06:42 PM
The moderators did a decent job. It isn't their fault that Faas didn't have anything to say.
Another Seat Lost?
I've never seen a political environment like the one we're seeing this year. According to the Tarrance Group's polling , Gene Taylor is now in trouble:
A memo from The Tarrance Group, one of the country's top Republican polling firms who conducted polling for Haley Barbour's 2003 and 2007 gubernatorial elections, suggests Republican state Representative Steven Palazzo has a real chance to defeat twenty-year incumbent Democratic Congressman Gene Taylor.The Tarrance Group is a well-respected polling firm run by longtime GOP pollster Ed Goeas. Mr. Goeas has been one of the most respected pollsters since the late 1980s.
The poll of likely voters in Mississippi's Fourth District conducted September 21-22 shows Taylor below 50% and only 4 points ahead of Palazzo (45% to 41%). Two percent of voters support 3rd party candidates and 12 percent are undecided. The poll has a 5.8% margin of error.
Palazzo leads by 11 points among voters "extremely" likely to vote and by 13 points among those who know both candidates (66% of all voters). According to polling memo, "Nearly half (47%) of voters have already made up their mind that it is time for a new person in office, while only 40% say Taylor deserves re-election. Intensity is clearly on the side of Palazzo. While 73% of his likely voters are 'extremely' likely to vote in November, only 51% of Taylor voters are 'extremely" likely.'" The poll reports 64 percent of Fourth District voters disapprove of Democratic President Barack Obama's job performance.
The most troubling information in the article is that 47% of likely voters have decided to not vote for Rep. Taylor. That's an astonishingly high number, especially for someone who wasn't supposed to be in any difficulty.
With voter intensity favoring Republicans, it appears as though Taylor is facing an uphill fight.
Republican National Chairman Michael Steele rode his Fire Pelosi Bus into Southaven last week as 200 Republicans cheered with every expectation that Republican state Senator Alan Nunnelee would defeat incumbent Democratic Congressman Travis Childers in November and contribute a vote toward "firing" House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. Nunnelee's polls have him in the lead, the district is conservative and disapproving of national Democrats, the incumbent Childers is on the attack, and the wind of the national anti-incumbent mood is at Nunnelee's back.The Fire Pelosi Express is firing people up wherever it's stopping. That's scary for Democrats because Republicans weren't lacking enthusiasm prior to this.
Steele is traveling the country in a bus emblazed with "Need A Job? Fire Pelosi." Steele said the GOP has established 330 victory centers across the country and is competing in all 50 states with 100 targeted congressional districts.
What's even scarier is that, though Republicans will gain seats in the south, the south won't be where they'll gain the most seats. States like Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, Indiana and Michigan will all be better states for Republicans this November.
Things will deteriorate as Republicans start campaigning on the Democrats' inability to pass a budget or extend the Bush tax cuts. The fact that they left DC earlier than in past election years just compounds their problems.
Voters want to know that Congress is doing everything it can to put pro-growth policies in place so people can return to work. Pelosi's congress has been better at putting people on food stamps than on returning them to employment.
Taylor isn't the only incumbent who's in trouble. John Salazar, brother of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar, is in trouble , too:
Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National Committee, rolled in on a red bus with "Fire Pelosi" painted on the side, a reference to U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi. Steele gave a pep talk to a group of 60 enthusiastic Republicans at the GOP campaign office in a strip mall in this Democratic stronghold.This Tarrance Group memo shouldn't comfort Democrats, especially this part:
"You have been tired, ticked off, fed up, frustrated and ready to act, ready to do something, because you have witnessed a government that has stopped listening to you," Steele said.
Tipton, of Cortez, is running against U.S. Rep. John Salazar, D-Manassa, for the 3rd Congressional District seat, and about a dozen Salazar supporters protested outside the GOP office.
While the impact of the "angry independents" has been a complicating factor in some Republican primaries, with those primaries being fairly close to an end, look for their focus to become even more focused on Washington and the Democrats in control of the White House, Senate, and the U.S. House of Representatives. Yes, this political environment has been strongly anti-incumbent, but look for it to become much more anti-Washington and anti-Democratic over the next seven weeks. Fully sixty-two percent (62%) of voters think the country is on the wrong track, including eighty-one percent (81%) of Republicans and sixty-two percent (62%) of ticket splitters. Voters who are dissatisfied with the direction of the country tend to blame the party in power for this condition. With the Democrats in control of both Congress and the White House, they will be absorbing much of the blame for this high level of voter dissatisfaction.The most troubling part of this paragraph is that, when factoring in the turnout model, the generic ballot advantage is 8 points. Couple that with the fact that many of the Democrats' seats are in areas where they win with 65-75 percent of the vote and you have some insight into the disaster awaiting Democrats this year.
In addition, this survey finds the generic Congressional ballot tied (43%-43%). On this generic ballot, Republicans hold significant advantages with key demographic groups like seniors (52%-33%), those who disapprove of the work of both parties in Congress (55%-25%), and those who are extremely likely to vote (46%-40%). Most importantly, when looking at the turnout model of likely 2010 voters, the generic ballot moves to 50% Republican and 42% Democratic, an eight-point advantage. All of this is reinforced by the fact that when asked who will control the House and the Senate after the election, by a nine-point margin on both questions voters feel the Republicans will control those chambers.
This information should scare Democrats:
Congressional Republicans also have strong advantages over Congressional Democrats on critical fiscal issues like holding down taxes (53%-26%) and controlling wasteful spending (42%-28%).In most people's minds, taxes equals job creation. In other words, Republicans hold an overwhelming edge on the 2 most important issues of this election.
Nothing says domination like that.
Posted Saturday, October 2, 2010 2:40 PM
Comment 1 by Jeff at 02-Oct-10 08:37 PM
I don't know why some good democrats haven't left the party,there must be some...
Cantor, Ryan, Fiscal Conservatism Will Play Well
Paul Ryan has become the face of fiscal conservatism to Americans who know him. Eric Cantor, Dave Camp and Jeb Hensarling are others fitting nicely into that wing of the Republican Party. According to Scott Rasmussen's polling on the subject , a large majority believe that's the path back to prosperity:
Most U.S. voters still feel lower taxes, and less government spending, are part of the solution to the nation's economic problems. But they also tend to think taxes and spending will rise instead during the Obama years.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely U.S. Voters finds that 58% think tax cuts help the economy. Fifty-three percent (53%) also think decreases in government spending are good for the economy.
It isn't surprising that people feel this way. They've felt beseiged by the Democrats' spending barrage for almost 19 months. Though people still don't trust Republicans on the issue of spending, Cantor told the WSJ's Stephen Moore that this conservative majority would be different:
'Look, we know we screwed up when we were in the majority. We fell in love with power. We spent way too much money-especially on earmarks. There was too much corruption when we ran this place. We were guilty. And that's why we lost."
That's the confession of Eric Cantor, the 47-year old congressman from Richmond, Va. If Republicans win back the House in November's elections, Mr. Cantor would be the next majority leader-the second most powerful post in that chamber behind the speaker. And he could be Barack Obama's worst nightmare.
His mea culpa for Republican sins when they ran Congress pre-2007 is part of his unorthodox pitch for why voters should give the GOP another chance at power. They appreciate Mr. Cantor's honesty. And he assures them that the changing of the guard, evident by his own rise since his first election in 2000, and the ascent of others like Paul Ryan of Wisconsin, Jeff Flake of Arizona and Jeb Hensarling of Texas, signifies a new direction for the party.
The congressman seems confident that the "young guns", the title of a new book he coauthored with Mr. Ryan and Rep. Kevin McCarthy, will have the gumption to restrain the old bulls of the party, most of whom still believe in the virtue of backroom deals and bringing home the bacon.
Mr. Cantor has just arrived back in town after five weeks criss-crossing the country stumping for scores of Republican challengers. "I've met almost all of these candidates who are likely to win in November," he says. "Believe me, this is one of the most reformist groups I've ever seen."
From not through Election Day, this should be the Republicans' message. Then it should become their governing philosophy. We'll be the minority party in a hurry if we become the same old, same old party that inhabited DC after Kasich's retirement. However, if Republicans stay true to their fiscally conservative roots, they'll be well positioned to be the majority party for a generation.
The Republicans have released their "Pledge to America" policy agenda, so I ask the congressman what comes first if the Republicans become the majority in November. Mr. Cantor says if Democrats allow the income and investment tax rates to rise in January, "I promise you, H.R. 1 will be to retroactively restore the lower rates so no one has a tax increase in 2011."
Step two will be "cutting spending as much as we can." House Republicans hope to "take a cue" from Republican Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and Bob McDonnell of Virginia, who made steep spending cuts in their first year in office. "We will cut programs, we will try to rein in the size of the bureaucracy. We will bring federal pay scales that have become so exaggerated into line with market rates," the congressman says.
Mr. Cantor also hopes to eliminate whole programs and departments by putting sunset provisions into law. "Why would you want a federal program to exist, if number one, it's not executing its mission and, number two,...if the mission is not valid anymore?" He cites 17 duplicative education programs, and federal technology grants.
I think things will be different this time, mostly because TEA Party activists will hold politicians accountable for their spending habits. If old bulls like Jerry Lewis try revving up the spending engine, they'll face primary challenges.
The nucleus of the new GOP majority in the House have proven that they're fiscal conservatives. Senate GOP candidate like Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Dino Rossi and Pat Toomey will bring a new fiscal conservative message to the Senate.
The thought of putting sunset provisions on every program is appealing. I'll bet that would gain majority approval from the public. It would be a great show of faith to the people.
Posted Saturday, October 2, 2010 4:15 PM
No comments.
