October 5-6, 2017
Oct 05 02:32 Unions, Chamber vs. Environmentalists? Oct 05 05:35 Lynx win WNBA championship Oct 05 07:42 The 'We must do something' activists Oct 05 16:13 Hillary's scorched earth book tour Oct 05 16:48 The NRA speaks out on bump stocks Oct 06 00:13 OLA vs. Mark Dayton, Part I Oct 06 02:58 OLA vs. Mark Dayton, Part II Oct 06 04:24 Consider this: outlaw foolish editorials Oct 06 23:32 Gov. Dayton, bad faith negotiator
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Unions, Chamber vs. Environmentalists?
Anyone thinking that this isn't proof that politics doesn't make for strange bedfellows doesn't have much of an imagination. Tom Steward reports that "The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Minnesota Building and Construction Trades Council joined forces to make the case for the vital Enbridge infrastructure and thousands of well-paying jobs to build it." Steward quotes this Minneapolis Star-Tribune op-ed , written by Harry Melander and Bill Blazar.
Steward quotes Melander and Blazar as saying "But in Minnesota we're fortunate to have a well-advanced alternative, an entirely private infrastructure project that would put 6,500 Minnesotans to work over two years, with an economic impact of more than $2 billion for the state, including outstate areas that sorely need it. We're talking about Enbridge Energy's 1,097-mile, Line 3 crude oil pipeline replacement from Alberta stretching southeast across central Minnesota from the North Dakota border near Hallock to a terminal in Superior, Wis."
Later in their op-ed, Melander and Blazar write " Contrary to recent testimony from the Minnesota Department of Commerce, the project is necessary and prudent. Last month, the American Petroleum Institute reported that total domestic petroleum deliveries, a measure of U.S. petroleum demand, showed the highest July demand since 2007. Enbridge says its project is the safest alternative for replacing the 50-year-old existing line that operates at approximately 50 percent capacity and faces increasing maintenance requirements."
This isn't a fight the DFL wants to fight. Even if they win, they'll lose, meaning the DFL loses more rural voters in 2018 to the GOP. That virtually guarantees Republicans maintaining or increasing their majority in the House in 2018. It puts pressure on the DFL to pick a moderate for their gubernatorial candidate that their base won't be excited about, too. If they pick a Metrocrat (think Paul Thissen or Erin Murphy), they'll lose the governor's mansion, too.
Bit by bit, the DFL is losing unions and farmers, the F and L in DFL, because the DFL consistently sides with environmental activists. If that continues, Minnesota's chances of becoming a red state get better.
Posted Thursday, October 5, 2017 2:32 AM
No comments.
Lynx win WNBA championship
Last night, the Minnesota Lynx played their hearts out in winning their 4th WNBA title in 7 years. The Lynx lead wire-to-wire, though there were more tense moments sprinkled throughout the game than Coach Cheryl Reeve would've liked.
Early in the first quarter, Rebekkah Brunson led the Lynx in scoring with 8 points in the first quarter. While Brunson scored early, regular season and Playoff Finals MVP Sylvia Fowles went to work on the defensive glass. The Lynx backcourt of Lindsey Whalen and Seimone Augustus played stellar ball, with Augustus scoring frequently and Whalen quarterbacking the team each time it went on a run.
The Lynx bench didn't play well in the first half, letting the Sparks back into the game virtually each time Whalen sat down for a breather. That being said, each time Whalen returned to the court, the Lynx rebuilt their lead. That had to be a special thing for Whalen because she was playing in Williams Arena, where she played her college hoops at.
Sports Illustrated's article insists that "Wednesday's win solidified the Lynx as the league's greatest-ever franchise. Minnesota has now won titles in 2011, 2013 and 2015 and 2017. That run also includes Finals losses in 2012 and 2016." I'd be hard-pressed to disagree with that opinion. Lynx Coach Cheryl Reeve wouldn't argue that, either:
The Lynx led 79-67 with 2 minutes left when LA went on a 9-0 run. Despite the craziness, the Lynx didn't fold. Instead, they turned the ball over to Maya Moore, who hit this shot to finish off the Sparks:
During ESPN's telecast of the game, the play-by-play announcer got startled by the noisiness of the Lynx fans when the Lynx went on one of their runs. The Barn was rocking, he said. That it was because the Lynx gave them plenty of reasons to get loud.
Posted Thursday, October 5, 2017 5:35 AM
No comments.
The 'We must do something' activists
I have to compliment Leah Libresco because she's willing to look past the Democrats' talking points on gun control . I compliment her for saying "As for silencers - they deserve that name only in movies, where they reduce gunfire to a soft puick puick. In real life, silencers limit hearing damage for shooters but don't make gunfire dangerously quiet. An AR-15 with a silencer is about as loud as a jackhammer. Magazine limits were a little more promising, but a practiced shooter could still change magazines so fast as to make the limit meaningless."
I've finally found a 'gun control expert' who admits that she didn't know as much as she pretended to know about guns. Good for her. It isn't easy admitting that you aren't the expert you've always considered yourself to be. Stephen L. Miller's op-ed highlights the celebrities who lecture gun owners about the virtues of gun control without knowing what they need to know:
Column after column is fired off about how much the National Rifle Association donates to congressional candidates (spoiler: it's not much, about 200K a year). For every breathless declaration that the NRA has blood on their hands, it's worth noting more journalists have committed mass shootings in this country than NRA members.
Firearm experts in media such as Washington Free Beacon's Stephen Gutowski (also an NRA-certified instructor), National Review Online Editor Charles Cooke and Federalist co-founder Sean Davis are sidelined from national cable news and Sunday show appearances in favor of guests who suggest suppressors are used by hunters to prevent deer from hearing a fired shot. Gutowski, Cooke and Davis will never be invited on Jimmy Kimmel or Stephen Colbert's shows to clear up the falsehoods being spread to mass audiences or to defend the second amendment of the United States Constitution.
In the past, Democrats have insisted that Congress pass gun control legislation without knowing if it would prevent mass homicides. At least this time, Sen. Feinstein has proposed legislation to ban bump-stocks. I'm the first to admit that I'm not an expert on bump-stocks so I'll quote this man , who seems to be an expert:
In the wake of the Las Vegas mass shooting, lawmakers introduced a bill that would ban bump stocks, the tool investigators said gunman Stephen Paddock used to make his weapons fire like machine guns. Bump stocks are currently legal in the U.S., though some in the gun industry questioned their intended use. "Some people really enjoy watching a lot of bullets fly,' said Warren Lacasse. "It's not my cup of tea: I like to learn how to put them accurately in one spot."
Lacasse owns The Gun Room in Southeast Portland, and no longer sells bump stocks. The device enables many semi-automatic weapons to fire like a near-fully automatic one using the gun's natural recoil to make it fire faster.
"Let's just say this, it's a legal loophole," said Lacasse describing bump stocks. "Somebody figured out a way to make a stock that would slide back and forth on its own."
I won't render a final opinion on bump-stocks but I will admit that they sound like something that at least sounds like it might make theoretical sense. In the past, Democrats have insisted on background checks, which is already law, or closing the nonexistent gun show loophole or not letting people with mental health issues buy weapons.
Most Second Amendment activists know that there are laws on the books that cover those things.
Posted Thursday, October 5, 2017 7:42 AM
No comments.
Hillary's scorched earth book tour
Last night, Hillary Clinton stopped past the Tonight Show with Jimmy Kimmel , seemingly to remind people why they rejected her. During her interview, Hillary threw one insult at President Trump after another. When Kimmel "asked if Clinton would have felt differently about losing the election if her opponent had been someone other than Trump", Hillary replied "I would have. Yeah, I've thought about that a lot. If I had lost to another Republican, somebody who I disagreed with, but who I thought was temperamentally capable of being president, who would take the job, and the awesome responsibility seriously, of course I'd be disappointed, but I wouldn't be so worried about my country and the world as I am now."
What a sore loser. It isn't just that she's a sore loser, either. It's that she hasn't said anything gracious about President Trump. President Trump and his administration did a fantastic job dealing with Hurricane Harvey in Houston and Hurricane Irma in Florida. Why didn't she compliment him on that? Is she that into running a scorched earth book tour? Apparently, that's Hillary's plan.
On Puerto Rico, Hillary said "It's hard to figure out. What are the priorities if 3.5 million Americans, and Puerto Ricans are Americans, let's make sure people remember that, if they aren't the highest priority of your government in responding to such a terrible natural disaster. What are you people spending your time doing? Golfing? Tweeting? Watching cable TV? I mean, find some time to tell the Navy to get down there and rescue people and provide food and provisions and medical care."
First, Hillary's dishonesty is breathtaking. Send the Navy in to rescue people, she whines. You mean like Hillary sent troops to Benghazi to protect Ambassador Christopher Stevens? Hillary's had the opportunity to save lives. Hillary failed at that responsibility. That's part of why people rejected her.
Next, it's disappointing to see Hillary imply that President Trump doesn't care about Puerto Ricans. The reason why the Navy and Coast Guard weren't dispatched is because President Obama shrunk the size of the military . Hillary didn't mention that these assets are getting stretched thin thanks to the previous hurricanes. Finally, Hillary didn't admit that Puerto Rico got hit with back-to-back Cat-5 hurricanes in back-to-back weeks.
Apparently, Hillary doesn't like reading newspapers any more than she likes reading cables from ambassadors serving in hotspots in northern Africa. Then there's this:
"I can't believe that one whole political party in the greatest country on Earth is totally sold to the gun lobby and will do whatever they are ordered to do, despite the loss of life," she said. "One of the first things that Trump signed as president was to reverse President Obama's order that people with serious mental health problems should not be able to buy guns.
"And so he signed it, and aren't you happy that people we already know who have mental health problems can now buy guns?" she added. "This makes no sense, and the vast majority of Americans, and the vast majority of gun owners know we need common-sense gun safety measures, so I'm going to keep fighting for it."
What dishonesty. People who have mental health problems haven't been able to buy guns for decades. That's just a fact. That's one of the reasons why we do federal background checks on everyone buying a gun.
Hillary's weekly diatribes aren't just annoying. They're hurting our nation. At a time when we need cool heads to prevail, Hillary's approach is similar to that of the proverbial bull in a china shop. After you watch this video, let's hear whether you think she's a thoughtful politician who's passionate about the issues or just a sore loser:
Posted Thursday, October 5, 2017 4:13 PM
No comments.
The NRA speaks out on bump stocks
I can't imagine how Hillary Clinton and Jimmy Kimmel will respond to this article . While Kimmel all but officially accused the NRA of not caring if guns killed people, Hillary insisted that a) the NRA owns the GOP and b) the GOP will never vote to protect Americans.
According to the article, "The National Rifle Association, in its first statement on the Las Vegas shooting and in a rare break from its traditional opposition to gun-related regulations, called Thursday for a federal review of so-called bump stocks and suggested new rules might be needed for the device apparently used by the shooter in Sunday's massacre. 'The NRA believes that devices designed to allow semi-automatic rifles to function like fully-automatic rifles should be subject to additional regulations,' the NRA said in a written statement."
What Hillary didn't mention during her interview with Kimmel last night was that the "Obama administration's ATF gave its seal of approval to selling the devices in 2010 after concluding that they did not violate federal law." The NRA "called on the ATF to review that assessment. 'In Las Vegas, reports indicate that certain devices were used to modify the firearms involved,' the NRA said. 'Despite the fact that the Obama administration approved the sale of bump fire stocks on at least two occasions, the National Rifle Association is calling on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) to immediately review whether these devices comply with federal law.'"
Democrats have insisted, dishonestly, that Republicans hate gun regulations. Actually, that's fairly true, mostly because most of the Democrats' gun control legislation wouldn't fix problems. Mostly, though, what's true is that Republicans understand the importance of protecting their families. This video explains what a bump-stock is:
The difference between possible legislation outlawing bump stocks and gun control legislation offered by Democrats in the past is that this legislation might potentially fix a problem. That's why the NRA is willing to join the discussion.
Posted Thursday, October 5, 2017 4:48 PM
No comments.
OLA vs. Mark Dayton, Part I
The battle between Gov. Dayton and the Legislature took another turn today when the Legislature's attorney filed this brief with Minnesota's Supreme Court. This brief was filed because the Supreme Court required the Legislature to tell the Court how much money it had available to operate.
Last week, Gov. Dayton accused the Legislature of lying to him, the people of Minnesota and to Minnesota's Supreme Court because they allegedly didn't disclose money allocated to the Legislative Coordinating Commission, aka the LCC. In his filing, Douglas A. Kelley, the attorney representing the Legislature, said " There are two sources of funding the Legislature may use: the House and Senate carryforward funds, and funds appropriated to the Legislative Coordinating Commission ('LCC'). The use of these funds lies solely within the discretion of the Legislature, and no branch may force the Legislature, directly or indirectly, to exercise that discretion."
Kelley continued, saying "Contrary to the Governor's public assertions, the Legislature has been candid with this Court and the district court about funding available to support the operation of the House and Senate. The existence of the LCC funds is not news to the Governor or the courts. The Governor has argued throughout this case that his line-item vetoes were constitutional because the Legislature can access LCC funds. The district court rejected this argument, and ultimately concluded that the elimination of the Legislature's appropriations prevented the Legislature from performing its constitutionally-mandated duties."
This is another important part:
The Governor attempts to shift the blame for his actions to the victims. The Governor intentionally eliminated the funding for both the House and Senate for the entire 2018-2019 fiscal biennium. He intentionally did not eliminate the funding for the LCC. His stated aim was to coerce the Legislature into bending to his will by threatening their existence as a functioning body. Now, the Governor contends the House and Senate should ignore the appropriations process and victimize the very agencies he allowed to be funded. The Governor now suggests that the LCC voluntarily join the Legislature in plotting its own demise.
The Governor also argues that his line-item vetoes did not harm the Legislature because the Legislature had access to temporary injunction funding from July 1 to October 1, 2017. The premise underlying the Governor's argument is false. The district court's judgment unambiguously restored these appropriations to the Omnibus State Government Appropriations bill. That judgment was not stayed. The appropriations to the Legislature for the 2018-2019 fiscal biennium therefore passed into law and became effective July 1, 2017. The Governor and Commissioner Frans have simply decided to ignore the authority and judgment of the district court.
The Legislature has sole discretion on how it wants to use money appropriated to the LCC. The judicial and executive branches don't have the constitutional authority to tell the other how it will utilize moneys properly appropriated to specific functions, especially since some of the money is required by statute to be spent on the Office of Legislative Auditor and the Revisor of statutes:
The LCC oversees legislative agencies that perform services supporting House and Senate operations. These agencies include the Revisor of Statutes, the Legislative Auditor, and the Legislative Reference Library, which provide essential services to the state. For example, the Revisor publishes the statutes, and drafts and publishes administrative rules. The Legislative Auditor conducts oversight of executive branch agency activities, and prepares comprehensive annual financial reports (audits) for all of state government. The Legislative Auditor's functions are critical to the Legislature's oversight of the executive branch, which is an essential component of the checks and balances system of government provided under the Minnesota Constitution.
I can't picture the Supreme Court having the authority to tell the legislature to ignore statutorily-required spending. It's one thing to make a ruling on a gray area. There's nothing gray about maintaining the OLA and the Revisor of Statutes' office.
If the Court rules in Gov. Dayton's favor this time, they'll risk their credibility as an institution. In their initial punt, they ruled that a) the line-item veto was constitutional, b) the people had a constitutional right to 3 fully functioning branches of government and c) constitutional provisions couldn't be used "to achieve an unconstitutional result." I'd argue that the Court doesn't have the constitutional authority to ignore well-established state statutes.
Posted Friday, October 6, 2017 12:13 AM
No comments.
OLA vs. Mark Dayton, Part II
In this post , I wrote about Douglas Kelley's filing with the Minnesota Supreme Court. First, I'll admit that I'm not a lawyer. That being said, I'm capable of connecting dots, which is what this lawsuit is about. It's important to remember what the Court said in their initial ruling. They said that a) the line-item veto was constitutional, b) Minnesotans had the constitutional right to 3 fully-functioning branches of government and c) constitutional provisions can't be used to accomplish an unconstitutional result.
The Legislature's attorney, Douglas Kelley, wrote in his filing that "most of the LCC's funds are encumbered or are needed for other purposes. If the House and the Senate use the LCC's money for their operations, the LCC will not meet its obligations. Second, procedural requirements must be met to access the funds. Third, the LCC maintains discretion over whether to transfer the LCC's funds to the House and the Senate." Using the Supreme Court's own benchmark that Minnesotans have the right to 3 fully-functioning branches of government, stripping money from LCC operations to the Legislature's operations necessarily means that the LCC's operations won't function as required by Minnesota statutes.
Hypothetically speaking, if the Court rules in Gov. Dayton's favor, the Office of Legislative Auditor, aka OLA, might get shut down, thereby meaning that there wouldn't be anyone conducting oversight on the Executive Branch. It's also true, hypothetically speaking, that if Gov. Dayton decides that he won't sign a bill funding legislative operations, the office of Revisor of Statutes would close.
If the Court rules in Gov. Dayton's favor this time, they will have given the executive branch a tool that the governor could use each budget session to get everything they want. All the governor has to do is line-item veto the operational budget for the Legislature and they'd be put into a compromised negotiating position.
Mr. Kelley also notes this in his filing:
By statute, the LCC may transfer a portion of its appropriation to the House and Senate. However, that authority is limited to transfers of "unobligated balances among general fund appropriations to the Legislature."
That's important because of this information:
The executive director originally designated $14,072,000 of the LCC's general fund appropriation of $17,383,000 for fiscal year 2018 as "encumbered," because it is anticipated to be needed for compensation in fiscal year 2018. A significant portion of the appropriations to the LCC for fiscal years 2018 and 2019 have a dedicated purpose in law:
- Office of the Legislative Auditor: $6,744,000 the first year and $6,564,000 the second year, with $130,000 the first year being for a transit financial activity review;
- Revisor of Statutes: $6,430,000 the first year, and $6,093,000 the second year, with $250,000 of this amount the first year for upgrades and repairs to the information technology data center; and
- Legislative Reference Library: $1,622,000 the first year and $1,445,000 the second year, with $177,000 in the first year being for a digital preservation project.
It's difficult imagining the Supreme Court essentially wiping out these specific appropriations. Anything's possible because Gov. Dayton has done his best to stack the Supreme Court with DFL political operatives. Still, the Court painted itself into a corner with its initial ruling.
Finally, it's important to remember that this Court hasn't been a portrait in courage. They've tap-danced on the head of a pin to avoid making a ruling on the constitutionality of Gov. Dayton's actions. Let's hope I'm right in saying that the DFL will always do the right thing ... when it's the only option left.
Posted Friday, October 6, 2017 2:58 AM
No comments.
Consider this: outlaw foolish editorials
In the Times latest Our View editorial , titled "Consider this: Just outlaw cigarettes", the Times talks about the fact that the "city of St. Cloud is considering whether to increase the age to buy tobacco in the city to 21." Put differently, the geniuses on the St. Cloud City Council are thinking about hurting St. Cloud convenience stores.
Despite the fact that this doesn't make any economic sense, the Times wrote "Really, though, if elected and professional officials of any government wanted to do what's best for their constituents, they would simply outlaw tobacco." Though the Times has denied the fact that it's biased against conservative, this is proof that the Times Editorial Board displays progressive traits. Specifically, they show that they're control freaks, which is the first trait to look for with progressives.
In this post , I cited statistics verifying that raising the cigarette tax hurts revenues. The article I cited said "In 2009, Washington, D.C. raised its cigarette tax from $2.00 to $2.50 per pack. The District projected the new tax would generate $45 million in revenue, about 20 percent above 2009 levels. Instead, revenues came in $12 million below projections and $4.2 million lower than before the tax was imposed. Similarly, New Jersey reported a $52 million shortfall in tobacco tax revenues after it raised its cigarette tax by 17.5 cents in 2007."
Do the city council members think that raising the legal smoking age from 18 to 21 will cause 18-20 year-olds to quit smoking? If that's what they think, they're too stupid to represent me. That isn't what will happen:
Should Gov. Mark Dayton's proposed 94 cent per pack cigarette tax increase succeed, it is likely that the state will see a large revenue shortfall due to smokers shifting their consumption across state lines, to the Internet, or to illicit black market tobacco .
Young people won't quit. They'll just find out different places to buy cigarettes. The thought that the other cities will follow suit is foolish. They won't.
Crave the Change, a Central Minnesota organization that's spent the past decade fighting tobacco use, offers an array of statistics on why boosting the age to 21 makes sense.
CtC might have some decent ideas but it's irrelevant. Kids simply find other ways of buying things they want.
Finally, as the St. Cloud City Council approaches a Nov. 9 public hearing on the matter, residents of neighboring cities Sartell, Sauk Rapids, St. Joseph, Waite Park and St. Augusta should urge their elected leaders to act, too.
Posted Friday, October 6, 2017 4:24 AM
No comments.
Gov. Dayton, bad faith negotiator
Regardless of how the Supreme Court rules in the lawsuit, one thing is abundantly clear. Gov. Dayton didn't (and hasn't) negotiated in good faith during the so-called budget session. When Republicans finished their budget targets ahead of schedule, they did that so Gov. Dayton's administration could participate in final negotiations. Gov. Dayton refused to participate until the 11th hour, virtually assuring a special session. Now that the lawsuit is heading towards a final resolution (hopefully), Gov. Dayton is pretending like he's fought fair . He hasn't.
In fact, he's made statements that only a dishonest politician could make, saying "Anybody who is going to try to sabotage somebody else's initiatives, and it goes both ways, because of spite from previous altercations is really doing a disservice to Minnesota and should be called out for doing so."
First, sabotaging other people's initiatives doesn't go both ways. It points in one direction only. Hint: it doesn't point in the Legislature's or the Judiciary's direction. Gov. Dayton signed the GOP tax bill that he'd agreed to. If he hadn't agreed to that specific language, Gov. Dayton wouldn't have called the special session. That's the most leverage a governor has during negotiations.
Further, Gov. Dayton hasn't attempted to reduce the regulatory jungle, especially with regard to pipeline construction or mining. Had he done what President Trump's been doing, Minnesota's economy would be flourishing instead of treading water. If Minnesota's economy was flourishing, we could 'afford' a bigger tax relief package with ease.
Finally, Gov. Dayton has really only been the governor of the Twin Cities and Duluth. He hasn't been a pro-Iron Range governor. He definitely hasn't been a pro-rural Minnesota governor. (If he had, the DFL wouldn't be virtually extinct in places like Alexandria, Brainerd, Crookston and Detroit Lakes. Gov. Dayton has sided with the Metrocrat wing of the DFL so often that the DFL might qualify as an endangered specie in rural Minnesota after the 2018 election.
This fight isn't helping the DFL's gubernatorial candidates. First, it isn't that the Twin Cities media will ask them about Gov. Dayton's bad faith negotiating tactics. It's that voters will wonder whether the DFL will resort to these tactics if they're elected. Hint: They definitely would. Each day that it's out there, people will question whether the DFL is committed to bringing people together.
As he's done before, Gov. Dayton reneged on a promise he'd made to GOP leadership. That's why, if anyone is guilty of sabotaging "somebody else's initiatives," it's Gov. Dayton. Gov. Dayton created this crisis by not negotiating in good faith. Now he expects Republicans to trust him? I don't think so.
Posted Friday, October 6, 2017 11:32 PM
No comments.
