October 31, 2011
Oct 31 09:11 Mitt Romney: Setting new records in spinelessness? Oct 31 10:23 Comparing Newt's tax plan with Mitt's tax plan Oct 31 12:12 Taxpayers punished for school board's epic failures? Oct 31 15:44 Pelosi: NLRB should shut down Boeing's SC plant Oct 31 17:28 Common Cause MN decries secrecy in redistricting
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Mitt Romney: Setting new records in spinelessness?
Mitt Romney might be reading too many of the 'Romney is inevitable' articles popping up everywhere. It's entirely possible that Mitt think he's just got to stay away from making mistakes and he's the nominee. Certainly, he's stayed away from reporters:
At 10:15 a.m., the Detroit-born Romney arrives, appropriately enough, in a silver Chevrolet Suburban. He's in blue slacks and a white shirt, sleeves rolled up, with a light blue tie. His hair is somewhere between casually ruffled and exquisitely coiffed. He shakes hands with supporters as he walks the makeshift rope line.
'How are you?' Romney says. 'Good to see you. Thank you for being here this morning.'
I've blended into the crowd a bit, and when he reaches me, I try to ask him a question.
'Governor, do you support the? - ?'
He notices the pen and pad, pivoting away before I can finish. Back to the handshakes.
Mitt's actions are quite understandable considering the Ohio/SB5 disaster last week. Mitt is nothing if not ultracautious. The people writing maximum checks like cautious. The activists that get things done don't want calculating, finger-in-the-wind politicians.
They want politicians who speak from the heart, politicians that aren't afraid to make a mistake, politicians who don't change tactics and policies when the situation warrants.
Last week, alot of stories were written about the possibility of Gov. Perry not participating in all of the debates. That's a legitimate topic worthy of coverage. People want to know that our nominee will be able to stand opposite President Obama and deliver the performances that make President Obama a one-term president.
Will the media start asking why Gov. Romney won't appear on the Sunday talk shows? The LATimes published such an article this morning. My question is this: would they have published it if Chris Wallace hadn't singled Gov. Romney out for not coming on for an interview.
Four GOP hopefuls hit the Sunday talk shows this week, a roster that did not include ostensible front-runner Mitt Romney.
The absence was pointedly noted by "Fox News Sunday's" Chris Wallace, who concluded his one-on-one interview with Texas Gov. Rick Perry with a not particularly subtle shot at the former Massachusetts governor.
"With Gov. Perry's appearance, we have now interviewed all the major Republican candidates in our 2012 one-on-one series except Mitt Romney. He has not appeared on any Sunday talk show since March of 2010 ," Wallace said.
"We invited Gov. Romney, but his campaign says he's still not ready to sit down for an interview," he added.
Blogger Moe Lane of the conservative site RedState said Wallce's dig should be taken seriously by the Romney camp, lest he appear as lacking the confidence to submit to an in-depth interview.
After getting called out like that, first by a prominent Sunday morning talk show host, then by a conservative blogger, I'm betting that Mitt will soon appear on Fox News Sunday.
That said, his running from the media isn't helping. People now have reason to question whether he's got the spine needed to be POTUS. People are curious if Mitt's spooked by his Ohio gaffe. Most importantly, people have the right to question whether he's avoiding tough interviews because of the tough questions he'll be asked.
People are questioning if he's dodging questions about his flip-flops, his job creation record while he was the governor of Massachusetts and his positions on global warming. (Yes, I meant plural.)
Moe asks some great questions in his post:
I imagine that the temptation is strong for Romney, or his supporters, to shrug this one off, but I'd recommend against that, for a couple of reasons. First off, it's a bad idea for a candidate to start acting as if he or she is above the petty considerations and/or obligations of campaigning; even if the media lets you get away with it in the primary they're unlikely to let you get away with it in the general*. Second, specifically: Mitt Romney already has no reputation for bravery. Being perceived as hiding from the Sunday shows won't help him erase that problem. Third, finally, and to draw off from the first reason: who the heck told Mitt Romney that he was entitled to act like the nomination was merely a formality, anyway? He's a former governor and a mortal being, not some sort of mythological figure.
Mitt's the weakest former frontrunner in recent GOP history. If he starts playing things cautious, it'll cement people's belief that he's spineless. That's the perfect way to cement in the activists' minds that you don't have the mental toughness to be POTUS.
If Mitt doesn't have the spine to face tough questions from Chris Wallace, why should voters think he's tough enough when the Obama campaign throws the kitchen sink at him?
Posted Monday, October 31, 2011 9:11 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 31-Oct-11 09:47 AM
Great piece, Gary. This should tell any reader all he or she needs to know about both our supine national press and about Myth Romney. The media establishment desperately wants him to be the nominee because he's the one Chairman Zero has the best chance of beating.
Comparing Newt's tax plan with Mitt's tax plan
This morning, there's a side-by-side comparison on Newt's website comparing his tax plan with Mitt's plan. Predictably, the "verdict" in each of the categories is that Newt's plan is better than Mitt's. I don't care about the "verdict." I care about the information.
Personal Income Tax Rates
Newt's plan offers people a "choice of current system or 15% flat tax with personal, homeowner, and charitable deductions."
Mitt's plan keeps tax rates the same as they are now.
Newt would eliminate the personal and corporate capital gains taxes. Mitt's plan is complicated:
Depends how much money the taxpayer makes. Romney's plan eliminates capital gains taxes for those making less than $200,000/year, but maintains the current system, with rates of up to 35%, for the rest.
Mitt's defense of his policy is pure class warfare. He said that "the rich are doing just fine" before saying that he's looking out for the middle class. Small businesses making $250,000 a year aren't rolling in the dough. Many are struggling, often staying afloat by cutting employees.
That means Newt's plan keeps more money in the entrepreneur's hands, which means he can afford to keep the workers he's currently got. Mitt's class warfare tax code won't give job creators the capital to invest in workers.
Mitt's corporate capital gains "maintains the current system." That's better than President Obama's preference but it's hardly dynamic.
The corporate tax rates offers the starkest contrast. Newt's proposed corporate tax rate is 12.5%; Mitt's is 25%.
Newt would "eventually replace payroll tax with personal accounts." On Medicare reform, Newt would "offer a choice between the traditional system or opportunity to purchase private insurance with premium support."
Mitt's 59-point, 160-page plan doesn't provide information on the payroll tax or Medicare reform. Is that because Mitt's plan is essentially a status quo plan that assumes the US tax system is functioning properly?
Now isn't the time for the status quo. If we don't change things dramatically, the US will lose a decade's worth of prosperity. That isn't what I want from the GOP nominee.
Posted Monday, October 31, 2011 10:23 AM
Comment 1 by Jeff at 01-Nov-11 03:57 PM
Every way you slice these proposals, 9-9-9 continues to be the best one.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Nov-11 04:08 PM
Is it the fact that it gives the federal government an additional revenue stream? Or is it that it's really just a step on the way to the Fair Tax? BTW, if the Fair Tax is the final goal, which it is, has anyone thought about the possibility that repealing the Sixteenth Amendment will be impossible? Do you think that Congress won't make any changes to 9-9-9? If you do, what galaxy do you live in?
Newt's plan features low marginal tax rates, eliminates capital gains & estate taxes without giving the federal pigs an additional revenue stream to grow government with. The other great thing about Newt's economic plan is that it isn't just about taxes. He's serious about eliminating the EPA, the NLRB & the Department of Energy while creating millions of new jobs tapping into America's treasure trove of natural resources.
Newt's plan is the only one that's truly comprehensive.
Taxpayers punished for school board's epic failures?
Yesterday, the SC Times editorial board wrote this Our View editorial on the upcoming school levy elections. To say that it's biased is understatement. Here's the title of the editorial:
Our View: Local levies cover state's epic failure
I'm thankful that the Times editorial board didn't take a partisan approach to the issue. Here's the editorial's opening paragraphs:
Residents in nine area school districts have about a week left to decide how they will vote on requests to raise local property taxes to help their districts, Sauk Rapids-Rice, Sartell-St. Stephen, Rocori, Foley, Royalton, Melrose, Milaca, Upsala and Princeton.
All essentially need the funds to maintain operating budgets. One, Sartell-St. Stephen, also needs help for repairs. This board urges approval of all questions, largely because of the state's epic failure to meet its constitutional obligation to adequately fund education.
Yes, epic. Look no further than how legislators and the governor the past four years have chosen to withhold about 40 percent of the education funds the state promised. Add in that these elected officials continue to use a baseline funding formula developed 35 years ago while routinely letting partisan politics trump serious reform efforts and 'epic' is a deserved descriptor.
What's worse is this section of the editorial:
These districts' residents should recognize levy requests are made because districts have little choice. Without more local help, most districts' consequences will include some or all of these: reducing student services and programming, increasing class sizes, and not updating technology and curriculum.
Admittedly, some extra funds will compensate staff. However, it's naive, even misleading, to claim staff will get rich off it when an average raise is about 2 percent.
That's a strawman argument if ever I saw one. Whether "staff will get rich" isn't the question. The real question is whether the "staff", a euphemism for high paid administrators, are adding anything to the quality of the students' education.
Over the weekend, a loyal reader of this blog told me that staff at his old high school had jumped sevenfold over the past 25 years. That despite the fact that graduating classes had dropped by 20%.
Apparently the Times editorial board hasn't asked the superintendents how many administrators are needed to run a school district. considering the fact that House Majority Leader Matt Dean is investigating what's happening in Minneapolis :
House Majority Leader Matt Dean (R-Dellwood) is doing his own inquiry into how the Minneapolis Public Schools spends it money after reading this Star Tribune report . 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.
The Times' editorial assumes that there isn't mismanagement of the taxpayers' money within the school districts. Clearly, Majority Leader Dean thinks there's, at minimum, the possibility of mismanagement within the Minneapolis public schools.
Reflexively thinking that everything's the legislature's fault might make for snappy headlines but it might not be an accurate depiction of what's wrong with the school district.
The Times is right about this:
Rocori: The district basically seeks to combine two existing operating levies into one that will last for 10 years. Passage means district taxes will remain the same. Similarly, district programming will be continued. Worth noting: Even with existing levies, the district has cut its budget for 12 straight years.
Rocori has been underfunded for years. Voting to combine operating levies while putting them in place for a decade is what's needed. Stability is essential anywhere. Stability is especially essential at Rocori.
Full disclosure: I have a friend who teaches at Rocori. My opinion, however, is based on the fact that the school has been underfunded for years. That's the worst kept secret in central Minnesota.
I'm not reflexively saying that all levies should be voted down. I'm saying that the school districts should detail how the taxpayers' money is spent. This information should be shared at an open meeting where the public is able to ask questions or make comments with the full board and the superintendent there taking questions.
Posted Monday, October 31, 2011 12:12 PM
No comments.
Pelosi: NLRB should shut down Boeing's SC plant
When I watched this video of CNBC's Maria Bartiromo's interview of Nancy Pelosi, I was stunned by Ms. Pelosi's strident liberalism:
Here's the question from Ms. Bartiromo, followed by Ms. Pelosi's reply:
CNBC's Maria Bartiromo: 'How important are concessions about the regulatory environment? This is the final question here on this murky environment that we're seeing. CEOs tell me all the time that they don't know the details of Dodd Frank. It's the law of the land and we're still writing the rules. We've got the EPA making decisions and legislations. Supposed to come from Congress and it seems like we're going around things and the EPA is coming out with its own rules. You've got the labor relations board, the situation with Boeing. I mean, for starters, do you think it's right that Boeing has to close down that plant in South Carolina because it's non-union?'
Pelosi: 'Yes. I don't think they close it down. I would hope they would make it union.'
Bartiromo: 'But this is a corporate decision. Should government be getting involved in corporate decisions like that?'
Pelosi: "You asked me what I thought."
That's right. Ms. Bartiromo asked what Ms. Pelosi thought. It's interesting that Ms. Pelosi thinks the plant should be unionized, though it isn't surprising. Ms. Pelosi's reply is informative, too.
Democrats frequently talk about creating jobs as their top priority. Nonetheless, right-to-work states have significantly better job creation statistics than forced-dues states :
Between 1995 and 2005, private-sector jobs in Right to Work states increased by a net 20.2%. That's a 79% greater increase than the relatively small increase in private-sector jobs experienced by non-Right to Work states over this period. (See the tables on pages three and four for details. Oklahoma, which adopted its Right to Work law in 2001, is excluded from this calculation.)
The Right to Work job-growth advantage becomes even more critical in times when the national economy is in a recession or struggling to recover from one. Over the 1995-2000 period, the crest of the 'roaring nineties,' private-sector jobs in Right to Work states increased by 16.3%, 34% more than the concurrent increase in non-Right to Work states.
It's inevitable that people question whether right-to-work laws were the reason behind the rapid job creation in right-to-work states. Compared with their neighboring states, there appears to be a significant difference.
What's most bothersome about Pelosi's answer is that she's advocating for the government to have final say in where corporations build manufacturing plants. That decision isn't in the federal government's jurisdiction nor should it ever be in the federal government's jurisdiction.
They've screwed up enough things, especially in this administration. We can't afford to have them screw up the manufacturing economy more than they already have.
Posted Monday, October 31, 2011 3:44 PM
No comments.
Common Cause MN decries secrecy in redistricting
Common Cause MN has more than their fair share of chutzpah. They've preached the Gospel of transparency and nonpartisanship with the best of them. They've done that despite the fact that they're a bitterly partisan organization committed to hiding facts from the public. They embargoed the redistricting map drawn by an Obama organizer rather than let the public offer improvements to their map:
Based on my experiences with Draw the Line over the past several months, I urge the Panel to reject the map submitted to the Panel by Draw the Line because the map drawing process was secretive and flawed and ultimately resulted in a partisan map that fails to reflect the objective demographic shifts that have occurred in Minnesota over the past decade.
I think that because of its high number of incumbent legislator pairings and because it pairs only Republican members of Congress, the map is too likely to benefit the Democratic Party. I am especially concerned that we commission members were not allowed sufficient time or access to the map to critique it objectively or to determine its implications before we were led to approve it.
In addition, the mapping specialist who was hired at the last minute (Linden Weiswerda) and whom we originally thought was independent and nonpartisan turns out to have worked for President Obama's campaign in 2008.
Wieswerda was hired after a last minute grant came in. After that, the testimony and collaboration pretty much went out the window.
That's why it's highly ironic that Common Cause MN is complaining about the redistricting process in Arizona :
At just about every meeting of the Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, at least one of several attorneys representing a group called FAIR Trust sits among the audience.
They take notes, make public recommendations to the commission and occasionally talk privately with commissioners.
FAIR Trust's attorneys say they want to help the commission adhere to the legal requirements that govern the high-stakes, once-in-a-decade political remapping process, and the group's name suggests it is interested in fairness.
But what FAIR Trust's attorneys refuse to say is that they're actually representing a group of incumbent Republicans from Arizona's congressional delegation and the state Legislature.
I'm shocked to find partisanship going on in redistricting. Who would've thunk it?
This is infuriating and nauseating. Mike Dean and Common Cause MN didn't like it when Republicans were included in the Citizens Commission. During the roundtable debate on Late Debate with Jack and Ben, Dean certainly tried hiding the fact that the most corrupt organizations were the driving forces behind DTL-Minnesota.
That night, Dean insisted that DTL-Minnesota was only interested in "increasing public participation" and "increase transparency" into the redistricting process.
Mitch Berg nailed Dean on that, saying that it was interesting what wasn't getting talked about. Mitch specifically cited the fact that the organizations that ran the biggest smear campaign in Minnesota gubernatorial history were the behind-the-scenes forces for DTL-Minnesota. (If Mitch hadn't said it, I would've.)
It's shameful that Common Cause MN would hook up with the most corrupt political organization in the state. It's even more shameful when that corrupt political organization is largely funded by our governor's first ex-wife.
Any attempt by Mike Dean to portray himself as anything other than as a political hack, any attempt by Common Cause MN to act like a nonpartisan organization should be met with ridicule.
They're hyperpartisan and they're committed to secrecy when that's what's needed.
The author of the Arizona article isn't too bright:
And if the incumbent politicians behind FAIR Trust decide the final maps don't meet their desires, the group's role will likely shift from lobbying to litigating. Led by a team of high-powered attorneys, a lawsuit by the group would take months or years, costing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees.
Redistricting for congressional seats must be done by a date-certain. That's federal law. The reporter either isn't too bright or he's lying through his teeth.
TakeAction Minnesota is the umbrella organization for the DFL's staunchest political allies: the poverty industry, unions, gay rights activists and militant environmentalists.
It isn't overstatement to say that Common Cause MN and their corrupt allies at TakeAction Minnesota are consumed with drawing the most DFL-friendly map possible. For them to complain that Republicans are behaving like Common Cause MN and TakeAction Minnesota are behaving here isn't just disgusting. It's laughable.
Posted Monday, October 31, 2011 5:28 PM
Comment 1 by Evan W at 15-Nov-11 05:47 PM
I wrote "the Arizona article."
I think you should get in touch with me, so that we can clear up the misunderstanding that leads you to question the veracity of my piece.
