October 6-9, 2011
Oct 06 04:19 Gov. Dayton postpones mining projects Oct 06 08:49 Exposing Romney's Electability Myth Oct 07 06:17 Unemployment Governor Strikes Again Oct 07 15:45 President Obama's Plan Oct 07 16:24 Protesting Evil Corporations Oct 08 13:58 Dayton the Demagogue Oct 09 05:25 Republicans Against Check the Right Boxes Candidates Oct 09 06:21 Euphemism Princess Strikes Again Oct 09 09:46 Robert Reich's Intellectually Bankrupt Column
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Gov. Dayton postpones mining projects
When Gov. Dayton agreed to postpone consideration of mining leases , he essentially caved to militant environmental activists. He's now forfeited the right to call himself a jobs governor. Here's what happened:
Residents and cabin owners in the Ely and Isabella areas won another reprieve Wednesday from any mining company exploration under their lands.
The state's Executive Council voted unanimously to wait six more months before reconsidering a proposal to lease state-owned mineral rights to mining companies to explore in Northeastern Minnesota, including under private property.
Gov. Mark Dayton and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie led the effort to delay the vote, saying too many people are unaware of state laws and regulations, some written in the 1870's, that allowed the state to own the mineral rights under people's homes and cabins. Dayton said the state's entire mining lease procedures may need updating.
"It's a pause to get it right," Dayton said of the delay, adding that he'll ask the Department of Natural Resources mining division to look at all laws and regulations on mineral leases. 'This is a new era in Minnesota mining" that many Minnesotans aren't aware of.
This isn't "a new era in Minnesota mining." It's a new low for Minnesota's Unemployment Governor . The line that this is "a pause to get it right" is pure spin.
This is the postponing of the leasing of this land, which would start the process of approving new mining operations. Though I don't have proof of it, this has Paul Aasen's fingerprints all over it. This is Gov. Dayton's most public capitulation to Minnesota's militant environmental activists.
I'd love hearing Gov. Dayton explain this to the miners who'll attend Gov. Dayton's Friday jobs summit in Duluth. This is a slap in the face of the miners who'll have to wait, at minimum, 6 months longer for new mines to open up.
DNR officials and Dayton said they believed the delay won't affect major copper mining projects already in the works, such as PolyMet and Twin Metals, which have mostly defined where the copper is they would mine. But Frank Ongaro, president of Mining Minnesota, the copper mining industry trade group, said the action could delay future copper mining projects.
'This is changing the rules of the game in the last inning," Ongaro said. 'There are companies waiting to go forward" with focused exploration once the state leases are approved.
Ongaro warned that the delay could send a chilling message to companies considering major investments in Minnesota mining operations that the state isn't open for business.
Gov. Dayton's actions are directly leading to another major delay in mining exploration. As Mr. Ongaro said, there are companies waiting to start the permitting process so they can start employing people in those mines. I can't imagine they anticipated Gov. Dayton caving into the militant environmentalists.
Sadly, the erstwhile jobs governor is proving himself to be the unemployment governor. It's a sad commentary when this state's governor cares more about the opinions of the militant environmentalists than he cares about creating high-paying mining jobs.
Posted Thursday, October 6, 2011 4:19 AM
Comment 1 by Terry Stone at 06-Oct-11 10:50 AM
This State Executive Council in the hands of the political party married to global warming and environmental preservationism is now willing to use property owners (for whom they have shown previous contempt) as pawns in a bigger game.
It is laughable that property owners in the Vermillion Iron Range would not be acutely aware of mineral rights under their property. If a small number of private property owners failed at due diligence during their purchase, it is not the role of state government to mitigate the consequences of personal choices.
The idea that capitalist drilling rigs will descend upon private property like a hungry horde of locust, drive through the garden and set up loud, 24-hour, over-lighted, test drilling operations behind the guest cabin is absurd. The governor is clearly making a thinly disguised play for enviro votes for 2012 at the expense of the working man.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Oct-11 11:24 AM
Terry, Gov. Dayton should be protested in Duluth tomorrow. Signs calling him the "Unemployment Governor" should dot the landscape. Miners from the Range should be there en masse. They should be telling people that he's killing mining on the Iron Range. They should be telling people that he's pounding the final nails in the Range's economic coffin.
How is this less damaging to miners than Cap & Trade would've been? Gov. Dayton is as big an economic disaster to the Range and Lord Oberstar was.
Comment 2 by Janet at 06-Oct-11 10:51 AM
Maybe the Strib ought to think twice about backing any no-growth, no-jobs officials. Their readership is already tanking and with fewer people working, there will be even fewer people able to buy their paper.
Didn't any lefties learn anything in Econ 001 (yes, intentionally 001 - no jobs = no money = lower population).
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Oct-11 11:19 AM
Janet, Thanks for clarifying that spelling. I thought you might've meant Econ 000 as in no jobs, no economic growth & no prospect of creating a prospering, thriving economy.
Exposing Romney's Electability Myth
Ben Shapiro's Townhall Magazine column exposes the myth behind Mitt Romney's electability. In fact, this paragraph frames the subject perfectly:
Mitt Romney suffers from an enthusiasm gap. He seems to be everybody's second choice. He is few people's first choice. And that is a major problem for him. People pound the pavement for their favorite candidates. They work phone banks for their favorite candidates. They vote for their second favorite candidates, but they don't work for them.
Mitt's supporters have repeated the line about "slow and steady wins the race." That might or might not be true of the GOP nomination process but it ins't true about the general election.
Having Mitt Romney at the top of the ticket will be a drag on Republicans, too. Anyone thinking that the GOP's conservative base will get excited to support Mitt's milquetoast agenda is kidding themselves. Mitt's agenda is a play-it-safe agenda. It isn't a bold agenda that'll jumpstart the economy like Newt's plan will.
I wrote about the differences here . You'll notice the difference instantly:
Mitt Romney will approach regulation from a completely different angle. He sees the need or basic change. Regulatory costs must be treated like other costs: that is, firm limits must be established for them. An agency may be able to conceive of ten diferent regulations, each imposing costs of $10 billion while producing at least as much in social benefit. Moving forward might sound likea great idea to the typical regulator. But imposing those regulations, no matter what the social benefits, has a similar effect to raising taxes by $100 billion.
Regulatory costs need to be treated like the very real costs they are. A Romney administration will act swiftly to tear down the vast edifice of regulations the Obama administration has imposed on the economy. It will also seek to make structural changes to the federal bureaucracy that ensure economic growth remains front and center when regulatory decisions are made.
Compare that with Newt's plans for the EPA:
We must also replace the EPA, which pursues an anti-jobs agenda the economy simply cannot sustain. A pro-growth Environmental Solutions Agency in its place will operate on the premise that most environmental problems can and should be solved by states and local communities. Rather than emphasizing centralization and regulation, it would emphasize coordination with states and local communities, the sharing of best practices, and focus on incentives for new solutions, research and technologies.
The translation is simple: Mitt thinks we have to do something about regulations. Newt has specific, bold plans for regulation reform. He's made the abolishment of the EPA his highest priority, followed by the creation of an Environmental Solutions Agency.
Then there's tax reform:
Mitt's plan:
As president, Romney will press for an immediate reduction of the corporate tax rate from 35 to 25 percent . He will also explore the possibility of coupling further rate reductions with measures that broaden the income base and simplify the rules to ensure that American businesses will always be competitive in the global economy.
Newt's plan:
Reduce the Corporate Tax to 12.5% . Reducing the corporate income tax, currently the second highest in the developed world, will make America the number one destination in the world for foreign investment and the millions of jobs that will accompany this designation. Most of the $1.4 trillion in profits locked up overseas by the current 35% tax rate will come home to be reinvested and distributed at a 12.5% rate.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a corporate tax rate of 12.5% will get the economy sprinting while a 25% rate will get the economy walking.
The problem, of course, is that the establishment GOP philosophy results not in victory but in tremendous losses. When conservatism is politically inconvenient, it sometimes wins (see Reagan) and it sometimes loses (see Goldwater). But when conservatism embraces the politics of convenience, it always loses. If the establishment GOP succeeds in nominating Mitt Romney, it will be able to add another black mark to its long record of failure, and, even worse, it will have co-opted the greatest Constitutionalist movement in a century for its own pathetic purposes.
DC's pundits have started talking about the nation's Anybody But Obama mood. Meanwhile, I've been on an Anybody But Mitt kick lately. It's completely apparent that Mitt's flip-flops, his liberalism and his play-it-safe attitude are the tactics of a man who wants the nomination badly.
We don't need that, especially right now. We need a leader with bold plans that will inspire people. Herman Cain can inspire. Ditto with Michele Bachmann. Newt can especially inspire with his agenda and his lengthy list of accomplishments.
Mitt Romney can talk fatcats into writing checks. He did that in 2008, when he outspent Mike Huckabee in Iowa by a 9:1 margin only to lose handily. Mitt isn't toxic like President Obama. It's just that he's got the appeal of a rotting fish .
That alone should be reason enough to dump him.
Posted Thursday, October 6, 2011 8:49 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 06-Oct-11 09:37 AM
You seem to be looking past the election, however. I'm finding it a lot easier to overlook the few things I dislike about Newt and his aggressive, highly specific agenda and think he would be a great President after the election. But you cannot overlook the fact that Mitt /might/ have the better chance of actually being elected, especially in an "anybody but Obama" election. Not a guarantee by any means, and I agree Mitt might not help downslate candidates as much, but I'm not ready to dump him out of the field, either. Give him a GOP Senate and House, and he would be fine.
BTW, I had a call from the Romney campaign a day or two ago. They told me that Norm Coleman had endorsed Mitt. I told them they weren't helping themselves a bit.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 06-Oct-11 10:29 AM
Let's put something to rest immediately. Mitt doesn't appeal to the base. They'll hold their nose & vote for him but they won't work for him. He's Milquetoast John McCain & Milquetoast Bob Dole without the military heroism.
Settling for a lying weasel at any stage is stupid. It's time to tell the idiots in DC that they can take a long walk off a short plank.
Comment 3 by eric z at 06-Oct-11 12:29 PM
Why, Gary, some might accuse you of insulting rotting fish.
How about "Dangerous class warfare," as the Mittster's characterization of the Wall Street protests? Might the man, just possibly, have the same instinctive elitist-schooled reaction to those in his party who are Tea Party?
Just asking --- just wondering.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Oct-11 12:33 PM
Eric, There's little question that TEA Party activists don't trust Mitt. At the heart of TEA Party activism is the demand that politicians say what they mean & mean what they say. A serial flip-flopper who praises President Obama's Race to the Top education program on Wednesday, then denies it the next night at the Florida debate, isn't likely to garner enthusiastic TEA Party support.
Comment 4 by eric z at 06-Oct-11 12:34 PM
J. Ewing - While I don't share the view of Newt being presidential, not at all, getting there would certainly help him sell many more copies of his book.
And - How about a third wife, as first lady? If he were to divorce again, would the new wife then be "second lady?"
Stick a fork in Newt.
I don't think "the base" would buy, even with the Salamander saying he's now gotten religion. Easy to say. All that.
Comment 5 by eric z at 06-Oct-11 01:23 PM
Now we see Norm says he's electable. Any thoughts, Gary?
Printable thoughts?
Norm's being something of a suck-up isn't he, on this?
Response 5.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Oct-11 01:56 PM
Eric, I don't think Norm's sucking up in this instance. I think it's that that's what he thinks.
Comment 6 by J. Ewing at 06-Oct-11 03:49 PM
While I admit that Mitt doesn't appeal to the base, he must appeal to somebody because he keeps coming out at the top of the opinion polls; those pollsters are talking to SOMEBODY. Now, since it is mostly the base that votes in caucuses and early primaries, we shall see what his electability among that select group may or may not be. I would be perfectly happy with a result other than having Mitt at the top of the ticket, but I sure wish we would start talking up the positives of our other candidates rather than trying to find reasons why we can't vote for the current front-runner. I think I should point out that John McCain and Norm Coleman didn't lose because they couldn't attract moderates and independents. They lost because conservatives refuse to hold their noses and vote for a candidate they considered insufficiently conservative, thereby helping to elect candidates who are the absolute antithesis of conservatism.
I'm glad to hear you say that you would vote for Mitt if he gets the nomination. (You did, didn't you?) But pointing out to conservatives his many flaws is liable to have the net effect of getting Obama reelected. There are too many people that seem to believe that "none of the above" is a real person, ideologically pure and electable. All that really does is let somebody else make the decision, and have you talked to some of the "real" voters out there?
Comment 7 by Rex Newman at 06-Oct-11 07:47 PM
Pretty strong words. Gingrich tops my list of the unelectables, and not just because of his personal baggage which is considerable. When he became Speaker of the House in 1995 he melted down, a great talker but lacking the leadership skills Christie is talking about.
Comment 8 by Rex Newman at 06-Oct-11 07:58 PM
In case you haven't seen Sack's cartoon of Romney: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/10/the-eternal-cluelessness-of-the-romney-mind.php
Comment 9 by walter hanson at 08-Oct-11 11:41 AM
Rex:
Actually in 1995-1996 he didn't really melt down. What caused the meltdown that you refer to is that he never sat down and wrote a new contract after they basically implemented the first contract. With all the problems we have that won't be a problem.
Though I wonder what your definition of personal baggage is. If it's the affairs and multiple marriages I can dismiss that since at least one previous President had been divorced before (Reagan) and he has seen the light. That's not baggage!
If you define baggage as having been dumb enough to make a commercial with Nancy Pelosi talking about global warming being real that's baggage!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Unemployment Governor Strikes Again
Thanks to the DFL's braintrust, mining companies will spend 6 additional months waiting for the mining leases to be approved:
Non-ferrous mining companies will need to wait six months to explore the availability of metallic minerals on private lands in northeastern Minnesota.
With interest in copper-nickel mining on the rise, many private land owners in Northern Minnesota fear they will get the short end of the stick.
A group of state leaders voted unanimously to postpone for six months the sale of 77 non-ferrous mineral leases to mining companies in northeastern Minnesota.
It's a decision Governor Mark Dayton says will give time for questions and concerns to be discussed between land owners and the state.
"Respectively yes, if no one is going to go explore for six months, I guess that would cause a six month delay." Governor Dayton said. "The minerals aren't going to go anywhere in my judgment. That opportunity will present itself."
Let's bring some truth to the Unemployment Governor's statement. He said "if no one is going to explore for six months, I guess that would cause a six month delay." That's spin for "if companies have to wait six additional months to explore, that's an additional six months before they start hiring people."
This is a payoff to his environmentalist allies. It's the type of thing that MPCA Commissioner Paul Aasen smiles about. This isn't about the land owners. They knew what they were getting into when they bought land in a mining region:
In most cases when you buy a house you own the land on which your home sits, but not the rights to any minerals in the soil. Those mineral rights are owned by the state.
This is the Dayton administration's attempt to stall mining projects. This has Commissioner Aasen's fingerprints all over it. Let's remember he's the person who bragged about suing the Big Stone II project into the ground :
The demise of Big Stone II is a big victory in the fight against global warming. We are running out of time if we are going to stop ice caps from melting, sea levels from rising, and droughts and temperatures from increasing and hurting Minnesota farmers. The first order of business is to do no more harm. By stopping construction of a coal-fired power plant in our back yard, we have accomplished this.
Finally, this is Exhibit A on why U.S. senators must pass the global warming bill before them. We kept telling the utilities that a cap-and-trade system, which will require large cuts in carbon dioxide, was coming and that they were underestimating the cost to their customers. Once the Waxman-Markey bill passed the U.S. House earlier this year, the utilities could no longer ignore or downplay the shifting marketplace.
That sounds like the type of person who'd smile while stopping mining in its tracks. Commissioner Aasen is a militant environmentalist. That excerpt from his op-ed is proof that he doesn't care about jobs. That op-ed is proof that his agenda is stopping global warming. If that means killing jobs, then that's the sacrifice that he'll subject others to.
What's galling is that, 2 days after killing a couple hundred jobs through this delay, Gov. Dayton is visiting Duluth today to talk about jobs. Gov. Dayton is the governor who unnecessarily laid off 23,000 state employees this summer. Now he's telling miners that they'll have to wait 6 additional months before they're employed again.
Gov. Dayton isn't the jobs governor he called himself on the campaign trail. He's the unemployment governor.
Posted Friday, October 7, 2011 12:47 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 07-Oct-11 11:56 AM
How many jobs are you talking?
A lot of talk.
No reliable numbers.
I suggest there'd be more jobs if the Range could entice a wind turbine factory.
Have you any good evidence I am wrong?
AND they'd be clean jobs.
With power line construction jobs, to get the power from wind farms to consumers.
It is akin to the rare earths shortage. There is less a shortage of deposits than of national governments willing to whore their environments, with rare earth extraction and separation being environmentally disasterous. So far it's the Chinese, and they want to keep their output away from export, preferring to restrict supply and entice valued added high tech users to open operations where the stuff is mined.
Your Republicans are not saying anything like that about Iron Range copper, or I should say I have not heard it from either Perry or Romney, nor have I seen any reporting that way. Each of them is a globalizer, as I understand it. (Gary, if I am wrong on that, please, please put up a correcting comment.)
Even with Coleman (who has run in Minnesota) aboard the Romney train, I still do not expect Mitt to say, "use the ore but be certain to attract the full range of business in return."
Any thoughts?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Oct-11 12:22 PM
According to numbers I reported on in December, 2010, at least 1,000 construction jobs would be created to build the mine. Another 400 full-time employees would operate the plant once it's open.
Eric, You apparently don't know much about the Range. It's mostly lakes, forests & mines. A wind turbine factory uses electricity & creates pollution just like other manufacturing facilities. If you're thinking about an actual wind farm, you can't be serious. There's huge stands of trees, which serve as a windbreak. In some places, those windbreaks run 50 miles or more.If you want wind farms, think southern Minnesota, not the range.
Actually, alot of the metals that would be mined by PolyMet would be used to improve the batteries used by electric cars. They'd improve the miles per charge . In fact, they'd double the miles per charge. Standing in the way of non-ferrous mining stands in the way of making hybrid cars affordable.
Actually, Newt's 21st Century Contract With America deals with eliminating the EPA. The EPA doesn't care about jobs. It only cares about doing everything possible to thwart job creation. It's a myth that companies can get away with polluting huge tracts of land or big bodies of water. A thorough study of environmental reports shows steady progress being made each year. As an outdoorsman, I can tell you that lakes are significantly cleaner than they were 15 years ago. When I started fishing Clearwater Lake by Annandale, a brightly colored lure used disappear perhaps 2' beneath the surface. Today, a natural colored lure is visible in 8-9' of water.
Militant environmental organizations like MCEA won't admit that because they'd lose tons of funding if they admitted that substantial improvements were being made. Picture a fundraising letter from the Sierra Club saying "We urgently need your support to make sure that companies & the state keep doing a good job cleaning up the environment." That doesn't happen. Instead, their fundraising letter is more likely to read "We urgently need your support. At no time in recent history has our environment been under attack more than it is today. Greedy corporations don't care about pollution. They don't care about the children. They care only about profits. Your contribution can make the difference in the fight against greedy corporations."
It's time to wake up & realize that you're being played.
Comment 2 by walter hanson at 08-Oct-11 11:34 AM
Gary:
The problem with the environmental movement is they worship earth not God. They don't understand if truely implemented their plans will send us back to the 1700's for life style choices. Something that Eric apparently endorses.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
President Obama's Plan
At this afternoon's WH briefing, WH Press Secretary Jay Carney said that President Obama had a plan for getting teachers back to work:
CARNEY: The man has been laid off 3 times in 4 years. It is indicative of a problem, and in fact, the fact that he got, as I think was reported in the Herald story, he got hired again after the story as a result of the assistance that this administration has provided through the Recovery Act.
That's topnotch spin. This administration's policies have kept the economy from recovering, which is why states have suffered through annual deficits.
Rather than bailing out schools, states and cities, shouldn't this administration think about getting the economy growing instead? When the economy grew like wildfire during the Reagan and Clinton administrations, there wasn't talk about bailing out school districts.
That's because the economy was generating huge amounts of local revenues. Even during the less-than-stellar economies of Bush the Elder and Bush 43, the revenues came in. There wasn't a need to bail out school districts. During the past 32 years, the only time when states ran annual deficits, the only time when all 50 states needed bailing out annually is during the past 3 years.
President Obama's plan is for the federal government to keep bailing state governments and school teachers out each year. That isn't a plan. That's a picture of total failure.
The thing that the Washington press corps hasn't talked about is the fact that most of this nation's ills would disappear with a real economy.
If the economy started consistently growing at 3-4% annually, jobs would be created. That'd help most people stay current with their mortgages. If the economy started growing again, how many of these states' annual deficits would disappear? I suspect 48 of them, with California being the lone screwed up state left and with North Dakota running annual surpluses.
It isn't noble to doom the economy with terrible policies, then claim credit for bailing out school districts. That's like starting a building on fire, then bragging that you were the first one there with a fire hose.
This recession didn't start on President Obama's watch but he certainly hasn't installed pro-growth policies, either. It isn't likely that the economy will improve anytime soon. It won't improve with this administration in office.
Throwing this failure out next November is the best hope of straightening this economy out and setting the country on the path to prosperity.
Posted Friday, October 7, 2011 3:45 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 08-Oct-11 11:31 AM
Gary:
The problem is they put out that second jobs bill which is worse than the first since the first wasn't tied to any deadly tax increases. They think that will get the economy growing.
They don't want to admit that regulations are killing the economy. Besides these are good and needed regulations.
They don't want to admit that the health care bill is causing jobs to go to China and causing employers to keep their employment as low as possible.
They don't want to admit that because they care so much about solar energy you can get thousands of well paying jobs by drilling for oil, mining for coal, and building nuclear power plants.
It's more accurate to say that they have a plan which they know doesn't work and they want to stick to it!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Protesting Evil Corporations
This picture sends the most coherent message I've heard yet out of the Occupy Wall Street Protests:
If that sarcastic humor doesn't make you laugh on a Friday afternoon, then you've got issues.
Posted Friday, October 7, 2011 4:24 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 08-Oct-11 11:27 AM
Gary:
I went down to Minneapolis's version last night and they had a rally going on so there wasn't much I could check out. I noticed a table setup that had two ladies there and a sign asking for supplies. I asked them so if you ban corporations where are you going to get the products you want? They quickly denied that they were for banning corporations.
On their table was a sign that showed how income inequality was growing. I pointed out that if you taxed every single cent of income from the rich you wouldn't have enough money to run the government. They quickly pointed out that they weren't in favor of taxing every dollar, but just wanted more equality. I didn't bother to get into a debate about how their only other possible solution was to cap income.
Then a guy walked up who said our biggest problem was how the Repubicans gave us the Federal Reserve Board in 1913. I pointed out that the President was Woodrow Wilson was a democrat. I was polite enough not to point out if you don't know who gave us the Federal Reserve Board how do you know the damage they might be causing.
I pointed out that if they wanted real change that they weren't going to get it unless they voted out Obama. Not one of three immediately said they weren't voting for Obama. The hedging ladies of course said they were waiting to see who was running.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Dayton the Demagogue
Gov. Dayton, sometimes known on this blog as "the Unemployment Governor", participated in a jobs summit Friday in Duluth. Based on this article , it sounds like Gov. Dayton was a demagogue:
The governor heard a lot about incentives to spur jobs from audience members and business managers on the panel. Bill Ulland said his Ikonics Corp. couldn't have built on the former Atlas Cement site between Gary and Morgan Park without some help from government incentives, namely the state JOBZ program that allows tax breaks so companies can invest in expansion. 'It was made possible by the actions of state and local government,' Ulland said.
Dayton later said he hears a lot about the state staying out of private business. 'Some say there's no role for government,' he said, but he found out through seven economic summits across the state that the 'public sector does have a role.'
What a pile of crap. Gov. Dayton, identify those who "say there's no role for government" in economic development. If Gov. Dayton meant that there are people who want government doing only those things that the Constitution allows, then yes, there are lots of those people. That group is growing, thanks partially to the DFL but especially thanks to President Obama.
Conservatives oppose Gov. Dayton's and obstructionist DFL legislators' perspective that government must play a robust, though not necessarily a constitutionally supported, role. Conservatives oppose, too, the DFL's patchwork approach to economics. The DFL hasn't been about putting the fundamentals right in ages.
They can't do that because that approach doesn't appeal to the DFL's many special interest puppeteers. These organizations demand payback for their loyalty:
UMD Chancellor Lynn Black said continuing cuts in the University of Minnesota system have led to more than 50 positions lost at the school since 2009. In that same time, UMD has had record enrollments, 500 more students today than in 2009. Black started a conversation about continuing to invest in education to keep a quality employee pool in the region.
A quick scan of UMD's website indicates that they don't want the taxpayers investing in higher ed as much as they want them writing blank checks so they can spend money on things that the public wouldn't support. Things like this :
Bridges to Education through Science and Technology Programs
Services provided:
Bridges to the Baccalaureate Degree...Minority Access to Research Careers...Bridges to the Doctoral Degree...Minority International Research Training...American Indian Engineering and Science Society Chapter
People get paid for providing these services? That's ripping the taxpayers off. It's galling to think that universities demand more money without pruning or eliminating departments. University presidents need to learn that people aren't willing to write blank checks in the name of "Higher Education."
Universities need to justify to people where the funding will go. They need to tell people how spending money on the itemized list will strengthen Minnesota's economy. Whining that universities aren't getting the funding they wanted won't play with the people. The people aren't getting the raises that they've needed.
Posted Saturday, October 8, 2011 1:58 PM
No comments.
Republicans Against Check the Right Boxes Candidates
After reading Andy McCarthy's column , it's time to start a movement. Call it a movement to run presidential candidates who've checked the 'right boxes' off the stage. It's time to support candidates with a vision for a prosperous America.
This week, I compared Mitt Romney's 59-point, 160 page plan with Newt's 21st Century Contract With America in this post . The first thing that jumped out at me was Mitt Romney's plan to cut the corporate tax from 35% to 25%. Meanwhile, Newt's plan calls for cutting the rate from 35% to 12.5%.
Why support the play-it-safe candidate when we can support the bold candidate? This information from Peter Ferrara's article threw me:
Gingrich pledges in his new contract to "Return to robust job creation with a bold set of tax cuts and regulatory reforms that will free American entrepreneurs to invest and hire, as well as by reforming the Federal Reserve."
That includes a proposal for corporate tax reform, closing loopholes and reducing the federal rate from 35%, second highest in the developed world, all the way down to 12.5%. Ireland, long a poor, economically backward nation, adopted that rate in 1988 when it suffered the second lowest per capita income in the EU. The Irish rode the resulting boom over the next 20 years to the second highest per capita income in the EU. Jack Kemp used to advance this policy for America as well, noting that our own Treasury Department issued a study showing that Ireland raises more corporate tax revenues as a percent of GDP with this low rate than we do with our rate nearly 3 times as high.
Shouldn't we support the guy with the best solution to our tax problems? If the Irish can go from economic laughingstock to economically secure by changing their corporate tax rates, then it'll work in the United States.
Playing it safe is the fast track to a humiliating defeat. Playing it safe is backing down from a fight when a fight is badly needed. This fight is about whether to maintain the corporate status quo, seek a middle ground or to unleash industry and create jobs.
People have been out of work too long to settle for the status quo or a 'reasonable' middle ground. Isn't the humane thing to do to put in place policies that'll strengthen the economy the most in the shortest amount of time?
President Obama represents the status quo. Mitt offers a timid middle ground. Newt's plan is bold. It'll get America's economy roaring again. That's the only way to get back to running surpluses, paying off the debt and strengthen our dollar.
Can we afford not to hire the boldest, most well-informed presidential candidate?
Let's understand something: the GOP presidential nominee, whoever that is, will face a withering, non-stop attack. Newt Gingrich has faced that type of attack when the Clinton administration deployed a full frontal assault against him. Despite their attacks, his policy perscriptions prevailed while Republicans maintained their majorities.
There's nothing in Mitt's background that suggests he won't wilt in the face of those attacks. If the Obama administration wants a fight, let's nominate a warrior. Newt's cut-to-the-chase debating style, honed throughout the years, will take many bites out of President Obama's hide.
We're at a crossroads. What's needed is a fighter like Mr. Gingrich, not a milquetoast candidate like Mitt. We don't need someone whose elbows aren't sharp and whose arguments are feeble.
Posted Sunday, October 9, 2011 5:25 AM
Comment 1 by Joseph at 10-Oct-11 01:14 PM
Why stop at Gingrich's 12.5%? Cain is at 9%.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 10-Oct-11 01:47 PM
Because Cain's plan includes a national sales tax, too. That's a recipe for growing gov't.
Having a national sales tax makes sense. Having a federal income tax makes sense. Having both simultaneously doesn't make a lick of sense. The minutes Democrats win the White House, House & Senate, it's a 100% guarantee that they'll increase all 3 tax rates.
Are those enough reasons to not implement Cain's 9-9-9 plan?
Comment 3 by Joseph at 11-Oct-11 01:25 PM
That is why the moral thing to do is to abolish all taxes. Not lower them so they can be raised at a later date.
Comment 4 by Gary Gross at 11-Oct-11 01:34 PM
Joseph, Don't be so stupid. Abolishing all taxes means abolishing government. Personally, I'm not a fan of anarchy.
Comment 5 by Joseph at 12-Oct-11 01:12 PM
How did they government raise money prior to 1913 and the 16th amendment? Any income tax, corporate or private, and sales taxes need to be abolished.
Euphemism Princess Strikes Again
Sen. Klobuchar is an expert at making reasonable-sounding comments that don't pass the smell test when scrutinized. Deploying pleasant-sounding euphemisms are Sen. Klobuchar's specialty. This statement is typical:
'I have heard from countless Minnesotans who want Congress to put politics aside and come together to craft policies that encourage economic growth and increase America's competitiveness globally,'Klobuchar said. 'We must take a balanced approach to deficit reduction and give businesses the certainty they need to create jobs. The time has come to break through the partisan stalemate and move our economy forward.'
On an initial glance, Sen. Klobuchar's statement sounds reasonable, doesn't it? A little scrutiny, though, exposes it for being a bunch of BS.
A "balanced approach" is the Democrats' euphemism for raising taxes. I'd love hearing Sen. Klobuchar what part of the current budget crisis is caused by taxes not being high enough. Saying that "the rich should pay their fair share" is another euphemism that's all about advancing the Democrats' agenda. It doesn't have anything to do with strengthening America's economy.
If we followed Sen. Klobuchar's perscription by raising taxes, it wouldn't strengthen America's economy one iota. It'd weaken it further.
If Sen. Klobuchar is sincerely interested in cost certainty for businesses, which I doubt, she can offer a bill to repeal Obamacare and Dodd-Frank. Then she can apologize for voting for Obamacare, Dodd-Frank and the stimulus.
If Sen. Klobuchar is serious about "putting politics aside and coming together", then it's time for her to criticize President Obama's declarations from the taxpayer-funded campaign trail to pass Son of Stimulus now. She could prove her seriousness by moving right on the biggest issues.
This president's policies, all of which Sen. Klobuchar voted for, are failing the American people. In addition to Obamacare being an unconstitutional power grab, it's a disaster that takes decisions out of the people's hands. Instead, it puts life and death decisions in the hands of IPAB, a board of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats.
Dodd-Frank is banking regulation legislation that enshrines forever Too Big to Fail while crippling smaller banks. It's written by 2 of the most corrupt, partisan politicians of the last half century.
The stimulus is a failure. It didn't create jobs. It helped governments ignore the structural difficulties that'd accumulated over the years. What's positive about that?
It's time Sen. Klobuchar set aside the euphemisms, rolled up her sleeves and started offering solutions to the biggest problems facing this nation.
Posted Sunday, October 9, 2011 6:21 AM
Comment 1 by J. Ewing at 09-Oct-11 08:49 AM
Mmmmm. You know what a stickler for language I am. May I suggest that the proper word for Ms. Klobuchar's "euphemisms" is, in fact, "lies"? Her statements are an attempt to deceive the listener by telling a known untruth or concealing a known truth. And if she DOESN'T know the truth she is a consummate fool and not qualified for the office she holds. That won't prevent her re-election, but it should be considered.
Comment 2 by Gary Gross at 09-Oct-11 09:05 AM
No thanks, Jerry. Euphemism fits the purpose perfectly.
Robert Reich's Intellectually Bankrupt Column
This morning, Clinton's first Labor Secretary Robert Reich wrote this op-ed that's intellectually bankrupt. The title of his op-ed is "Poor bear brunt of GOP's morally bankrupt plans." Here's his argument:
Among other items, Republicans are demanding major cuts in a nutrition program for low-income women and children. The appropriation bill the House passed June 16 would deny benefits to more than 700,000 eligible low-income women and young children next year.
What kind of country are we living in?
More than 1 in 3 families with young children now live in poverty (37 percent, to be exact), according to a recent analysis of census data by Northeastern University's Center for Labor Market Studies. That's the highest percent on record.
Medicaid is also under assault. Congressional Republicans want to reduce the federal contribution to Medicaid by $771 billion over the next decade and shift more costs to states and low-income Americans.
Federal non-defense discretionary spending increased by 84% during the first 2 years of this administration. Does Mr. Reich think that tons of women and children suddenly were cut off from federal assistance during that spending explosion? Mr. Reich is either spinning things, he's lost what little left he had of sanity or he's accusing the Democrat Senate and House and this administration of hurting poor people.
Mr. Reich is right about this, though, at least the first 9 words:
We're in the worst economy since the Great Depression, lower-income families and kids are bearing the worst of it, and we're debating whether to cut programs that people desperately need to get through it.
Thanks to the Democrats' policies, a recession was transformed into the Great Recession. Thanks to the EPA's attempt to implement Cap and Trade through regulations, the economy is weaker now than it was a month after the credit crisis. Thanks to the NLRB's ruling that Boeing couldn't build a manufacturing plant wherever they wanted, capital is on strike until President Obama is run out of office.
The recession started during President Bush's administration. This administration's policies, regulations, bailouts & exploding debt have turned this recession into a crisis. This administration's policies haven't created jobs at an appreciable clip. They've bailed out their union allies with outrageous spending. They've given loans to companies that were going bankrupt just to keep their bundlers raising money for them.
Throwing billions of our taxes at President Obama's bundlers is immoral. Don't think the American people will forget this administration's spending our money on his cronies.
Instead, expect this to fuel one of the biggest election nightmares in decades. Expect another 2010, in fact, in terms of Democrats losing governorships, legislative majorities, more House and Senate seats in DC and the White House.
For the most part, the American people believe in second chances. They won't with this bunch.
Posted Sunday, October 9, 2011 9:46 AM
No comments.
