October 3-5, 2010
Oct 03 12:19 Restructuring Gone Bad? Oct 03 18:36 What Changed? The Bills Came Due Oct 04 07:14 Dayton, Morillo Destroy Their Credibility Oct 04 17:57 BREAKING NEWS: Oberstar 45, Cravaack 42 Oct 04 14:38 Walz Tows the Pelosi Line Oct 05 11:45 Dayton, Horner Owe Minnesota Apologies Oct 05 17:40 Tarryl's Tall Tales, The Trilogy Oct 05 18:39 Barone Weighs In On Cravaack Race
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009
Restructuring Gone Bad?
Friday, I congratulated the GRRL for undertaking a major reform of their system. Today, the first article I read in the SCTimes talks about how the changes are being met with opposition, even lawsuits. Here's what's being reported:
The changes, unveiled more than a year ago and since revamped, involve clustering some of the 32 branch libraries that serve communities in six counties. The move means some branch library managers must split their time between two locations.
Great River administrators say clustering will improve service to patrons. However, a St. Cloud Times investigation found:
Although initially proposed as a cost-saving measure, the restructuring will not save money. In fact, it has resulted in significantly higher legal fees and unemployment costs.
The restructuring led to the layoffs of five employees, one of whom was rehired. Two of those who lost their jobs filed age discrimination complaints with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. A sixth worker retired.
Library managers say they felt pressure to support the restructuring plan or face discipline.
First, I won't pretend to know whether the EEOC complaints have merit. The EEOC can investigate and make that determination. What I will say is that reforms often, in fact almost automatically, involve transition costs. What I see here involves a transition cost, after which the GRRL will, theoretically, operate more efficiently.
In short, it sounds like a reasonable plan that's worth trying.
This part jumped off the page at me:
Each library has a branch manager as well as an assistant and aides. Aides can't serve the public, so their main tasks are shelving books and working behind the scenes.
I'd question whether tiny rural libraries need both a branch manager and an assistant. I'd also question why aides can't serve the public. Perhaps there's a reason. I'm just not willing to accept as Gospel fact without investigating that this is the right management structure.
Some librarians have been supportive of the changes. Gretchen Vork, branch manager of the Paynesville Public Library, wrote in a survey that "this is the help we've been needing and requesting since 2001."
"I'm very excited about the future possibilities for the Paynesville branch under this restructure," Vork wrote. "We finally will get the staffing we need to perform at our very best."
Libraries are, at their core, customer service organizations. How well they help put the materials into their 'shoppers' hands should be the only criteria by which they're judged. The staff is there to serve people. Management is there to resolve disputes and make planning decisions.
If I was making the decisions on reforming GRRL, those would be the most important criteria I'd use. These decisions would be made within existing employment laws. PERIOD.
However, there was enough concern about the changes to lead branch managers to form the first union in Great River's 40-year history.
"The union feels it's going to be a reduction to public service," said Shannon Schroeder, staff representative for the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
Schroeder said branch librarians are "very protective of ensuring the public gets the services they feel the public deserves," she said.
Schroeder said the majority of branch managers will see a reduction of four to eight hours a week. The plan increases the hours of aides, but they can't help the public, she noted.
Schroeder said branch managers offered last summer to freeze their own s
alaries and benefits to help cut costs, but those recommendations were not taken.
The first thing I'd do is find out what the aides' responsibilities are. Can their responsibilities be shifted to focus more on customer service? If not, why not? Another thing I'd want to know is whether the aides are essential to GRRL's operation or whether it's a 'jobs for cronies' program.
When the Great River administrators and board began discussing restructuring more than a year ago, the changes were described as a way to make the organization more efficient and save money.
"My impression of this to begin with was it was going to be a cost-saving measure, but it is not that," Schaefer said. "It is going to cost us more.
Great River leaders say cutting costs was never their objective.
"It's going to be close to a break-even. It's just a better use of staff time," Ruda said. "...It was never stated as a purely budget-saving move."
Smith said the goal was to allocate the right staffing level for each library. The restructuring buys Great River more staff and better service for the same amount of money, she said.
Again, I return to the most important criteria in this restructuring. Will the changes improve customer service? Will management still be able to resolve disputes and plan for the future? If that answer is yes, then it's a reasonable plan.
GeekGuy posted a comment to my previous post that included the link to GRRL's monthly newsletter . I've just started reading it. This seems reasonable:
In 2008, two full-time vacancies at the St. Cloud Library, led GRRL to examine whether replacing those two positions as-is made sense in light of growing demand for services and tighter budgets. An administrative workgroup was formed to devise a course of action that would use the available dollars wisely. The focus of the group soon moved to organizational culture analysis. Information was gathered through interviews with staff throughout the region, teams and focus groups.
The feedback from staff showed a strong dissatisfaction with the current GRRL structure. It seemed top heavy, inflexible, and failed to put the staffing dollars where they were most needed: on the front line. Our staffing had been based on historical activity that no longer reflects the current need. An outside consultant was hired to look at the positions and not the person in the position and make an independent restructure recommendation.
Organizations frequently get top-heavy. That's why management housecleanings are anything but rare. Questioning structures is a healthy thing in the overall scheme of things. Is there sometimes pain involved? Yes. Does that mean we shouldn't make changes? Definitely not.
Here's what the end result should be:
As restructure occurs throughout the region, patrons will notice the improvements to service that were seen in our pilot projects. Books will be on shelves, and not on carts. Materials will be processed in back work areas, and not at the front desk. This will allow public service staff to provide more focused service to our patrons.
That's a worthy set of goals. I'm perfectly willing to give it a chance to work. If there are flaws in the system, which should be anticipated, then adjustments should be made to optimize performance.
It's important to note that this process happens every day in the private sector. It's time that this dynamic got introduced to the public sector.
Tom Emmer's restructuring of government would necessarily ask many of these questions. That's a healthy thing, thought it's guaranteed to produce hard feelings and lots of complaining.
Government agencies should work for us. They should be restructured, thoughtfully, to produce the best customer service product possible. What isn't needed should be eliminated. What needs improving should be dealt with expeditiously.
That's how reform works.
Posted Sunday, October 3, 2010 12:19 PM
Comment 1 by Wendy at 03-Oct-10 12:44 PM
I have worked at a library in Henn. Co. years ago, and at a library on a military base in Germany (as a DoD employee).
Big difference in how the two were run - here, job responsibilities are much more heavy on credentials, to do even basic tasks, whereas in Germany, we ran the entire library without even having a librarian there - we had one available to us, if needed. Library clerks did the book ordering, cataloging, created and led programming, helped people find the things they needed - you name it, we did it.
In Henn. Co., all I was allowed to do was check in returned books and shelve them. Once in a blue moon, they might let me work the checkout desk. With a computerized system (which we didn't have in Germany), cataloging is easier, and requires LESS knowledge - but for some reason, we require higher credentials.
Comment 2 by geekguy at 04-Oct-10 12:15 AM
The Aide position is an entry level position requiring no particular experience with teens as young as 14 years of age filling the role (although many of the positions are filled by adults). It is pretty much clerical work and not paid at a level commensurate with offering direct public service.
See the job description: http://www.griver.org/sites/default/files/Human_Resources/PD/DESC-lib-aide.doc
What Changed? The Bills Came Due
In Lori Sturdevant's op-ed , Walter Mondale wonders what happened to the Minnesota he knew and loved:
"I came of age in an optimistic America, a society that believed in opportunity and the value of common endeavor. Today, two generations have grown up in a flinty and anxious America," Mondale wrote, citing the ills of increasing poverty, unaffordable health care, ineffective schools and widening inequality. "I wonder what happened to that other America, a place of empathy and hope."
The day of reckoning for these programs has finally arrived. Unfortunately, the designers of the bills didn't mix cost containment with their compassion. Unfortunately, we elected a radical who thinks he can spend unprecedented and unsustainable amounts of money without consequence.
Now the thoughtful people of the TEA Party are telling government what they already know: that you can't keep putting expensive item after expensive item on the credit card without it catching up with you. You don't have to be the brightest bulb in the chandelier to figure that out.
The other thing that happened is that, in Minnesota at least, the DFL said yes to their special interest allies so often that they came to think of our wallets as their ATM. It's difficult for people to be magnanimous when they're either unemployed, underemployed or worried if they'll have a job next week.
At Thursday night's SD-15 debate, the DFL candidates consistently said that we needed to raise taxes because of what government needed. There wasn't a hint of concern for families except in the context of what government program was needed to help them after the DFL had taxed them out of prosperity.
The TEA Party activists are simply telling government to live within its means and to not think of us as ATM's. That isn't too much to ask. If Mondale and others have a problem with respecting that, then they'll have serious problems with the TEA Party.
The other thing that's happened that's fueling the TEA Party is that politicians stopped listening to We The People. Obamacare is Exhibit A, stimulus Exhibit B and Cap and Trade Exhibit C. We the People said we hated each of these things. Speaker Pelosi rammed them through anyway. We The People's opinions weren't given serious consideration.
Vice President Mondale would be wise to remember what Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence :
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with inherent and inalienable rights; that among these, are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed; that whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles, and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness." --Declaration of Independence as originally written by Thomas Jefferson
Democrats especially but also amongst Republicans forgot that lesson that governments derive "their just powers from the consent of the governed" and that if government that forgets that "it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it."
In other words, Democrats, over the last 19 months, forgot that they work for We The People, not vice versa. This November, We The People will jog their memories.
Posted Sunday, October 3, 2010 6:36 PM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 03-Oct-10 07:29 PM
A few years ago I heard a couple of presumably young married with children women lamenting how things were somehow different when they were growing up. They observed that "you used to be able to get by on one income somehow. I don't know what's changed, why it seems both have to work now." I remember shouting at the radio: "Taxes! Taxes! Taxes!"
I lost track of it, but I had an old 1959 computer programming manual that showed how to calculate FICA, that the maximum was under $100 back then, 2 digits. I later found we had to change my employer's payroll system. The designer thought $999 (3 digits) would be more than enough!
But to your point, now even 4 digit FICA is woefully inadequate: the bills have come due.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 03-Oct-10 08:59 PM
Rex, everyone knows that it's simple demographics working its inexorable will on things. In the 60's, you had alot more people working paying seniors' social security. Now we're quickly heading towards a 2:1 ratio of people paying in vs. those collecting. That's before factoring in the part of people collecting benefits than ever before.
We've moved beyong the myth that Social Security was ever stable. We now know that Social Security, in its current form, isn't sustainable.
Dayton, Morillo Destroy Their Credibility
After watching Javier Morillo-Alicea and Mark Dayton try spinning their policies on TV, it's apparent that they're disinterested in the truth if it gets in the way of getting Dayton elected.
Let's start with Morillo's pathetic performance during the Face-Off segment of @Issue With Tom Hauser. Morillo said the words middle class and jobs so often, it was like he was trying to win a repitition competition. He repeatedly argued that Mark Dayton was "the only candidate who would protect the middle class." How will Dayton help the middle class by chasing employers from Minnesota with the 2nd-highest income tax rate in the nation?
It's painfully obvious that the DFL got the news that their message isn't working and that their message has to shift from their tax-the-rich scheme to creating jobs. People's first priority is getting the economy humming, not whether the rich are paying their fair share.
It's important to tell people that the DFL's jobs plan is another expensive bonding bill, which is nothing more than the DFL's annual stimulus bill. Dayton's jobs plan is almost identical to President Obama's jobs plan. We all know how miserably that failed. That's because, whether we're talking about President Obama's or Sen. Dayton's stimulus plans, they're designed to spend money, not create sustainable private sector jobs.
Why should we trust the people that took a bad economy and made it substantially worse?
The other thing I'd ask Mr. Morillo is why I should think that the man who said initially that he'd balance Minnesota's budget with his tax-the-rich scheme, the man that said he'd increase education spending each year "without exception, without excuses", is capable of balancing a budget. Sen. Dayton saying that it's "a work in progress" proves that he's incapable of doing even the most basic function of the office.
It isn't that he couldn't balance the budget his first or second time. It's that he vastly overestimated the money his tax-the-rich scheme would take in.
Sen. Dayton started the campaign criticizing Rep. Emmer for saying that the education shifts shouldn't be repaid this biennium. Now that Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme has been shown to be a failure, he's making excuses about why he isn't increasing education spending each year.
Mr. Morillo should be embarrassed arguing that he's fighting for a man as incompetent as Sen. Dayton. It's telling that Morillo doesn't feel ashamed telling whoppers about Dayton's plan.
BTW, if putting balanced budgets together is a work in progress, how did Tom Emmer put one together his first try?
As for the content of Dayton's interview this morning, it's impossible to think that this man is considered a credible candidate. He's travelled the state saying that he'd tax the wealthy.
That's BS and he knows it.
He'd tax high wage-earners, which isn't the same. The wealthy are people like the Daytons. They're identified by their South Dakota or offshore holdings where they hide their wealth.
Sen. Dayton's tax increase will tax people who put their money at risk. Think in terms of companies that make money but aren't wealthy.
Because the Dayton family isn't putting their money at risk, their tax liability is limited to the point of being almost insignificant.
The people getting hit with Dayton's tax increases are the capitalists who've put their capital at risk and who've created jobs. Minnesota can't afford a governor that thinks people who create jobs or makes a profit aren't doing their fair share.
If he did nothing else, Dayton's tax-the-rich scheme would demolish Minnesota's economy.
That's before talking about his unwillingness to consider restructuring government agencies. Minnesotans need to ask Sen. Dayton why he didn't put together a specific set of reforms that highlights what parts of the state government need reforming and how he'd reform them.
The fact that his budget doesn't include that type of agenda indicates that he isn't interested in reforming government. In fact, I'm not convinced that he'd believe that government needs restructuring.
That last statement isn't said out of bitterness. It's said because of what he said in the Almanac debate. At that debate, he was asked how he'd reform education. Dayton's answer was that he'd restore the education shifts from the previous legislative session. That isn't reform. That's pandering to his special interest allies.
Posted Monday, October 4, 2010 7:14 AM
No comments.
BREAKING NEWS: Oberstar 45, Cravaack 42
I just finished participating in a blogger conference call with Chip Cravaack, the GOP-endorsed candidate to defeat Rep. Jim Right now, Oberstar only garners 45 percent of the vote to Cravaack's 42 percent.
Even more stunning, in my opinion, is this information: More voters prefer a new person (48%) than think Oberstar deserves re-election (40%). Another tidbit of information from the poll shows that independents prefer a new person by 49%-35%.
Chip's name recognition still needs to grow but the good news is that he's got a great approve-disapprove rating; in St. Louis County, 28 percent of voters have a positive image compared to 10 percent of likely voters have a negative opinion of Chip.
There are 2 issues hurting Rep. Oberstar: Cap and Trade and the PolyMet mining project. In the past week, I've gotten emails from steelworkers who've told me that they're upset with Rep. Oberstar for voting yes for Cap and Trade. The steelworkers told me that, if Cap and Trade is implemented, that would mean the end of mining.
Chip told us that electrical costs at the mines would skyrocket, which would lead to U.S. mining companies losing the competitiveness fight to foreign ore mining companies. Chip said that the steelworkers understand that and are worried about Oberstar's voting in the best interest of Speaker Pelosi, not in the best interest of the 8th District.
The other thing that's hurting Oberstar is his indifference to PolyMet Mining's concerns. I wrote here about Rep. Oberstar's apparent indifference to PolyMet's needs:
It's been in the works for more than four years, but when the environmental review came out last fall, the federal government blasted the report as inadequate.
Oberstar says he wants a thorough review, but it shouldn't take so long.
"The red tape, the slowdown, the lack of full attention by federal and state permitting agencies has dragged this process out much too long," said Oberstar.
Oberstar said the No. 1 issue people talk about in northeastern Minnesota is jobs. And the Polymet mine promises 400 jobs.
"I've heard some concerns, 'Be careful about our environment. We love this land, we don't want our waters to be adversely affected.' And I've assured people that corners will not be cut, there will be no exceptions made, but we have to do this in an expeditious manner," he said.
Where was Rep. Oberstar prior to his realizing that he's finally facing a serious opponent? Apparently, he was putting a higher priority on larding up the transportation bill with pork than on cutting through the red tape that's preventing PolyMet from creating 400 well-paying jobs on the iron range.
Public Opinion Strategies, the polling company that did this poll, found that "Voters have soured on Obama (he won this district with 53% of the vote, but his job approval is now 40%), they don't like Nancy Pelosi (her image here is 27% favorable-53% unfavorable)."
Prior to this year, when I've thought about the Iron Range, I've thought "liberal Democrats." One of the people who emailed me last week identified himself as a conservative Democrat. This steelworker said he was upset with Rep. Oberstar's voting for Cap and Trade.
An incumbent who's only getting 45 percent of the vote is in trouble. The other news from today's conference call is that the horserace number changes when people are told about Rep. Oberstar's votes. When they've been rescreened, the numbers switch to Cravaack leading Rep. Oberstar by a 47-41 margin.
Finally, Chip's got an army of volunteers who are working diligently to get the word out. They've been doing a great job thus far. Now that Rep. Oberstar knows he's in the fight of his life, he'll start spending his warchest. Follow this link to contribute to Chip's campaign. If you help fund Chip's finishing kick, principled change will come to Minnesota's 8th District.
UPDATE: Ed's posted about the Cravaack polling, too:
The survey shows Cravaack trailing Oberstar just three points, 42/45, within the poll's margin of error. Furthermore, the 45% showing for a long-term and heretofore popular incumbent is a big red flag for Democrats. Oberstar has been a fixture in the Iron Range for decades and a towering political figure. A failure to get to 50% four weeks before the election is a sign that those who know him best have lost confidence in his ability to represent them properly. Even more stunning, Cravaack has an outright majority among those who show the highest enthusiasm for this election (52%).UPDATE II: Mitch posted about this, too:
Even if it's only partly true ; that Cravaack is even close ; that's going to be a huge kick in the head for the DFL.
But it gets better: with messaging thrown in at the end of the poll ; Cap and Trade (which will devastate mining in the range), regulation (which has kept a couple of big precious metals mining projects from starting digging) and Obamacare, the numbers switch to 47-41 Cravaack. And the "re-elect" number ; "would you reelect Oberstar" ; is 40%, versus 48 for "someone new".
Posted Monday, October 4, 2010 6:16 PM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 04-Oct-10 11:04 PM
Just took a big swing through there last weekend, and saw a lot more Cravaack signs than Oberstar signs. And the name recognition swings in Cravaack's direction. Who can forget that moniker?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Oct-10 01:55 AM
The comparison term that's being use, including in some articles is that it's a race between "The Billboard Guy vs. the Sign Guy." Let's be clear about this. Jim Oberstar voted to kill the mining industry when he voted for Cap & Tax. If implemented, C & T would jump the mining companies' electrical bills by 40%. For some mines, that's an increase of $640,000 a month.
FYI- The steelworkers are pissed with Oberstar for voting for C & T. They're taking it personally because Oberstar's voting the way Pelosi wants him to, not the way his constituents want him to.
Walz Tows the Pelosi Line
Randy Demmer's op-ed highlights the fact that Tim Walz is voting Speaker Pelosi's line on taxes. In fact, Walz voted to not even take up the issue of the Bush tax cuts:
When Congress returned to Washington last week for one more round of votes before the preelection sprint, hardworking families and small businesses had high hopes that their representatives would take action to renew these tax cuts.Pelosi is opposed to extending the top bracket of the Bush tax cuts. She'd rather have the top bracket at 39.6 percent than 35 percent. Unfortunately for her, enough Democrats were prepared to vote for extending all of the Bush tax cuts.
Sadly, they did not. When a bipartisan push was made to keep the House in session, presenting U.S. Rep. Tim Walz of Minnesota's First District with an opportunity to bring the issue up for a vote, he chose instead to follow Speaker Nancy Pelosi's instructions and voted to quit. Getting home to campaign for another term was more important than staying and doing his job on behalf of his constituents.
Faced with being defeated or shutting the place down, Speaker Pelosi, with Rep. Walz's help, shut the House down. Rather than being an independent voice for Southern Minnesota, Rep. Walz is a reliable vote for Speaker Pelosi whenever she needs it.
Southern Minnesota voters need to know that Rep. Walz puts a higher priority in representing Speaker Pelosi than in serving his southern Minnesota constituents. It's safe to say that he's voted more often with Speaker Pelosi than he's voted with his southern Minnesota constituents.
I'd doubt that his constituents wanted Rep. Walz to vote for Cap and Trade, Obamacare or the stimulus. Walz didn't just vote for one of these bills. He voted for all 3 of those bills.
Rep. Walz has proven with his actions that he's more interested in voting with Nancy Pelosi than with his constituents. What a sad story that is to tell.
Posted Monday, October 4, 2010 2:38 PM
No comments.
Dayton, Horner Owe Minnesota Apologies
Mark Dayton and Tom Horner owe Minnesotans an apology for campaigning on political myths. Dayton's tax plan is based on fairness rather than on sound economic principles. Horner's appeal is essentially based on saying I'm not either of my opponents.
Let's start with Dayton. Most Minnesotans think of taxes as a way of providing revenues so government can meet its constitutional responsibilities. Mark Dayton doesn't see things that way. He sees tax policy as a vehicle to redistribute wealth (except his own, of course) while paying for things on his political allies' wish lists.
With Dayton, having "the rich" pay "their fair share" is substantially more important than sound economic principles. That's the same thinking that drives President Obama's economic policies.
We've all seen what a disaster that's given us.
It's apparent that Dayton doesn't understand economics. If he did, he wouldn't have proposed passing the second-highest income tax rate in the United States.
That's economic suicide, especially considering the fact that North and South Dakota have substantially better regulatory and taxation regimes in place and with them both actively, and successfully, recruiting businesses to their states.
Dayton operates under the delusion that Minnesota is a special place and that North and South Dakota don't have any appeal to people.
That's foolishness rooted in living in the past when other states didn't care about education and infrastructure. That explains why Dayton's economic plans include successful plans... from the 1970s and 1980s :
As Minnesota's Commissioner of Economic Development in 1978, I implemented the state's new tourism initiatives. As Commissioner of the expanded Department of Energy and Economic Development from 1983 through 1986, I led the new jobs programs that encouraged businesses to locate or expand here and to create thousands of new jobs for Minnesotans.
Planet Earth to Mr. Dayton: Things have changed somewhat since that time. The economic model that worked then doesn't work now because North and South Dakota are competitive now. In fact, they're probably positioned better for the 21st Century than Minnesota is.
Horner's schtick is that he isn't his opponents. I don't agree with that. He's just as careless and just as economically clueless as Dayton. If you listen to Dayton and Horner, the only substantial difference is how they'd raise taxes. To the average Minnesotan, that won't cut it. They aren't interested in tax increases.
Both accept the "$5.8 billion deficit", meaning that they don't dispute the desire to spend $39 billion this biennium. They aren't planning on spending that but that's only because Minnesota's revenues won't allow them to.
Let's put that in context. The budget passed in the 2007 session called for spending $34.5 billion. The original DFL budget passed that session called for spending much more but that's another story for another day.
When the recession hit and revenues dropped through the floor, the decision was made to spend $30.7 billion this biennium. The budget that Dayton and Horner essentially agree to would raise spending from $30.7 billion to almost $39 billion this biennium.
Even after factoring in the stimulus money that was used to fill some budget gaps, that's still a 15 percent spending increase in the middle of the worst recession since FDR's times.
While Dayton and Horner would spend money on different things, they'd still love spending that money.
Horner's appeal to voters isn't based on a great vision for restructuring Minnesota's government or retooling Minnesota's economy. That's why his economic plan is more about spending money in the hopes that it'll produce something acceptable than it has to do with time-tested principles that have produced prosperity.
The only man with a plan to restructure and reprioritize Minnesota's budget, government, thereby strengthening Minnesota's economy, is Tom Emmer. He's the only candidate who took the budgeting process seriously.
While it's true he didn't provide a detailed, line-item budget together, Tom at least put a budget together that (a) balances, (b) talks briefly about reforms and (c) puts Minnesota on a pathway to prosperity.
Many of my conservative blogger brethren have characterized this, correctly, as 2 liberals vs. a true conservative. I'll frame it differently by saying that it's a race between 2 unserious people vs. a serious man with a vision.
It's just that simple.
Posted Tuesday, October 5, 2010 11:45 AM
Comment 1 by Rex Newman at 05-Oct-10 11:27 PM
Personally, I think far too much is being made of whose budget is detailed and/or balances. King's opponent might think the Governor does all this. But to recast King's correction, the Governor's budget is little more than a ceremonial first pitch at a baseball game.
Let's keep it simple. We don't need to raise taxes given the forecast. We don't want to raise taxes in a recession, particularly on job creators, those nice people who sign the front of the checks. The Governor can veto tax increases. And only one candidate will, Tom Emmer.
Tarryl's Tall Tales, The Trilogy
I'm not in the habit of linking to lefty blogs but I'll link to MPP's post because it has a transcript of Tarryl's latest dishonest ad. Here's the transcript:
Noone does more for special interests in Washington than Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.That's stunning. There isn't an honest statement in Tarryl's ad.
She stood up for BP when noone else would.
She has a 100% record when it comes to supporting Wall Street.
She even stood with the big insurance companies and voted against reform.
Michele Bachmann, not doing @#%! for the people of the Sixth district, but doing more than her share for the special interests in Washington.
First, Michele didn't stand up for BP. She stood up for having the court system distribute the money that BP had agreed to pay rather than letting this corrupt administration hand out the money to their political cronies.
Second, the fact that Michele voted against the Wall Street bailouts hardly suggests that Michele has an unblemished history of supporting Wall Street.
It's true that Michele stood with "Big Insurance", whatever that means. It isn't true that Michele voted against reform. The legislation that President signed into law isn't reform. If Tarryl's talking about insuring people with PEC's and other minor items, those could've been seperated and passed with 90+ percent of the House and Senate.
As for the financial regulations law, Michele voted against that legislation because it gives too much authority to the Fed Reserve and the Treasury Secretary. It all but officially gives them permanent bailout authority.
If you actually pay attention to the details of the legislation, it's painfully obvious that Michele doesn't side with Wall Street or BP. It's painfully obvious, too, that she'll fight against giving unelected federal officials the authority to continue the bailouts.
Meanwhile, Tarryl's website is filled with endorsements from union thugs like SEIU and the Teamsters and special interest groups like EMILY's List. I'd argue that it's Tarryl that's the puppet to the special interests, not Michele.
Posted Tuesday, October 5, 2010 5:40 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Oct-10 11:34 PM
" ... this corrupt administration ... "
Gary, after Bush.
You can disagree, but what's corrupt? Zippo. Not liking policy is different from having justification to say "corrupt."
And Bachmann is owned by special interests. They have filled her campaign coffers. They like what they buy.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Oct-10 06:29 AM
What's corrupt???
1. His deals with unions that gave them control of GM instead of to the secured bondholders who, according to law, should've had first dibbs.
2. His ignoring the will of the people to cram Obamacare & the stimulus down our throats without giving Congress time to read either bill.
3. His ignoring the BP oil spill in the hopes of scoring political gains. That's utterly shameful. President Obama is more interested in political gain than in doing what's right.
As for Michele, she's stood up for capitalism. That's it. I can't help it that you want to prevent free enterprise to bring prosperity to the people. Most people, at this point, would prefer the unleashing of America's entrepreneurial spirit rather than continuing in this suspended state of economic mediocrity.
The first few days after Tarryl's website came up, the website filled up quickly with endorsement from thug organizations like SEIU & the Teamsters & parasites like EdMinn & AFSCME & radical groups like the abortion-on-demand organization EMILY's List.
Barone Weighs In On Cravaack Race
The lefty trolls of the Twittersphere have been criticizing the private polling released yesterday by the Cravaack Campaign. Oberstar's campaign characterized the poll as a push poll, something that POS has refuted. Others in the lefty Twittersphere said that POS wasn't a reputable polling company.
That can now be put to rest because Michael Barone has weighed in on the race :
Now Ed Morrissey directs our attention to a poll by Public Opinion Strategies, a highly respected Republican firm, in Minnesota 8 showing 36-year incumbent James Oberstar leading Republican challenger Chip Cravaacke by only 45%-42%, within the margin of error.
First, it's worth noting that Michael Barone says that POS is a "highly respected Republican firm." Highly respected polling companies don't do push polling. PERIOD. Second, Barone seems to take seriously the possibility that Oberstar is in trouble:
Oberstar was first elected in 1974, he is Chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee and has brought public dollars to an economically chronically ailing district. He was reelected in 2008 with 68% of the vote. But this is also a district that, despite containing the Democratic strongholds of Duluth and much of the Iron Range (both in St. Louis County) that voted only 53% for John Kerry in 2004 and Barack Obama in 2008. However, at its southern end it includes Isanti and Chisago Counties, exurban counties in the Twin Cities metro area, which despite a Democratic heritage have trended away from Democrats in recent elections-toward Jesse Ventura in 1998 and toward Republicans between 2000 and 2008, when they both voted for John McCain.
The lefty trolls who've spent the last 24 hours dismissing Chip Cravaack's candidacy haven't studied the 8th District and they haven't studied Chip's organization. Dismissing Chip's campaign is foolish.
Another reason it's foolish to write Chip off is because Rep. Oberstar voted for Cap and Tax, which, if implemented, would end mining on Minnesota's Iron Range. The steelworkers didn't need to be told that Cap and Tax would be a disaster for them. All they needed, in many instances, was to be pointed to the candidate opposing Cap and Tax and Rep. Oberstar.
I'm not predicting a Chip victory but I'm not foolish to dismiss Chip. He's definitely outworked Oberstar. He's definitely connected with voters.
Finally, Chip's doing a great job of outlining a positive agenda for creating jobs in the district.
There's a month left but victory is definitely possible for Chip.
Posted Tuesday, October 5, 2010 6:39 PM
Comment 1 by Gina Spear at 07-Oct-10 02:20 PM
If only the voters in the 8th would pay attention, they would know that Oberstar's votes on Cap and Trade, Health Care, and the disastrous Clear Act (Consolidated Land, Energy & Resources Act - gives away U.S. sovereignty) are not in their best interests. They would run away from this guy so fast if they knew, if only they knew.
