October 7-9, 2016
Oct 07 01:42 Tim Kaine's missed opportunity Oct 07 05:33 Dorholt vs. the First Amendment Oct 08 12:54 Raunchy talk vs. bimbo eruptions Oct 09 05:51 John Palmer's voice of sanity Oct 09 05:56 MNsure's tipping point? Oct 09 11:21 St. Cloud Times: Drop MNsure
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Tim Kaine's missed opportunity
This is my first post since getting out of the hospital today but it isn't the first chance I've had to talk about the Pence-Kaine. It's indisputable that Hillary is leading in most of the polls. What's disputable, though, is whether Mrs. Clinton's lead is that solid.
I'm betting Mrs. Clinton's lead is shakier than they'll publicly admit. I'm betting that because Tim Kaine's performance was the most pathetic debate performance I've ever watched. I'm betting that because Sen. Kaine came across as mean-spirited and phony. Sen. Kaine came across as a puppet with bad lines. Politically speaking, Sen. Kaine didn't have the benefit of touting a positive case. 70% of the nation thinks that we're heading in the wrong direction. Sen. Kaine's job was to take that information, then tell people that life was positive and getting better. Check this exchange out:
PENCE: Well, first, let me say, I appreciated the "you're hired," "you're fired" thing, Senator. You use that a whole lot. And I think your running mate used a lot of pre-done lines.
Look, what -- what you all just heard out there is more taxes, $2 trillion in more spending, more deficits, more debt, more government. And if you think that's all working, then you look at the other side of the table. I mean, the truth of the matter is, the policies of this administration, which Hillary Clinton and Senator Kaine want to continue, have run this economy into a ditch. We're in the...
KAINE: Fifteen million new jobs?
PENCE: ... slowest economic recovery since the Great Depression.
KAINE: Fifteen million new jobs?
QUIJANO: Governor... (CROSSTALK)
PENCE: There are millions more people living in poverty today than the day that Barack Obama with Hillary Clinton at his side...
KAINE: And the poverty level and the median income...
PENCE: ... stepped into the Oval Office.
KAINE: ... improved dramatically between 2014 and 2015.
PENCE: You -- honestly, Senator, you can roll out the numbers and the sunny side, but I got to tell you, people in Scranton know different . People in Fort Wayne, Indiana, know different. I mean, this economy is struggling. The answer to this economy is not more taxes.
That's the problem that the Clinton-Kaine ticket can't escape. Their spin can't eliminate the truth that the Obama economy stinks. It stinks because it's trying to bankrupt entire industries like coal-mining and fracking for oil and natural gas. It stinks because Obamacare is the craziest thing in the world:
If Donald Trump takes the fight to Hillary on the economy and how the Obama economy is built on how well-connected people are, he'll win this election. Mrs. Clinton and Sen. Kaine can't point to the pathetic economic growth as proof that they're on the right side of that issue.
Sen. Kaine's first attempt to make a first impression fell flat. It's long past time to worry about Mrs. Clinton's first impression on the nation. Saying that she's a polarizing figure is understatement.
Posted Friday, October 7, 2016 1:42 AM
No comments.
Dorholt vs. the First Amendment
I won't pretend that Zach Dorholt loves the Constitution. He doesn't. That isn't surprising considering the fact that he's a progressive. Progressives, whether we're talking about President Obama, Mrs. Clinton, Rick Nolan or Zach Dorholt, prefer limiting speech. Specifically, they prefer limiting speech that's critical of them. This LTE highlights the DFL's pathetic arguments for limiting political speech.
The LTE starts by saying "Are you as sick of all of the campaign ads in our mailboxes and airwaves as I am? Something needs to change. But it will only happen if we elect legislators who are prepared to take tough votes to get big money out of politics. That's why I support Zach Dorholt. Zach supports campaign finance reform that would get dark money out of politics. He supports legislation that would make every special interests group - whether they support Democrats or Republicans - disclose to voters who is paying for the ads."
My initial reaction is that the fascist that wrote this LTE is a whiny liberal who can't take criticism. I get as many mailers as anyone in St. Cloud. I'll admit that they're annoying at times. I'll argue, though, that I prefer getting annoyed vs. the thought of other people's opinions not getting expressed.
IMPORTANT TAKEAWAY: I'll fight for everyone's right to express their opinions, even if I vehemently disagree with their opinions.
This LTE, much like Mr. Dorholt, puts a high priority on limiting free speech, not on funding the basic functions of government. What's appalling is that Dorholt's campaign website's priorities page doesn't mention his solution for fixing Minnesota's highways. Dorholt's priorities page specializes in talking in circles:
Minnesota needs an economy:
where businesses are competitive and innovation is encouraged.
where the permitting process is streamlined and compliance review is straightforward.
where workers are protected in and out of the workplace and receive livable wages.
where companies are rewarded for keeping jobs from going overseas.
Mr. Dorholt, how can you be for streamlining the permitting process for PolyMet, then say that we need more regulations to protect workers and mandate "livable wages"?
The DFL has an agenda. It's an agenda of killing middle class jobs, raising taxes on everyone via the gas tax and funding the Southwest Light Rail project that does nothing to reduce congestion on Twin Cities highways. They just can't talk about that agenda. That's why they're stuck talking about limiting people's First Amendment rights and violating our constitutional rights.
Posted Friday, October 7, 2016 5:33 AM
Comment 1 by Crimson Trace at 07-Oct-16 11:18 AM
Zach has never offered any substantive solutions to hard problems. As vice chair of higher education, he and his fellow DFLers refused to hold oversight hearings when it came to higher education corruption and waste. His chanting point pat answer is that he will simply fully fund education. Are we laughing yet?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 07-Oct-16 12:59 PM
More money isn't the solution to corruption. That makes matters worse because it gives corrupt people more of the productive people's money to play around with.
Comment 2 by eric z at 08-Oct-16 01:53 PM
Get your facts straight. The Clintons and Obama are not progressives. No progressive would ever make that kind of mistake.
It is as if I were to say Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller was a Republican conservative. Error. He was a Republican POLITICIAN.
A CAREER POLITICIAN.
Ditto, the Clintons and Obama. None of the three are/were progressives. Next thing, you'll be calling Rand Paul a "progressive."
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 08-Oct-16 07:05 PM
First, saying that Obama isn't a progressive is absurd. He's distinctly to the left of most independents. Comparing him to Nelson Rockefeller is absurd, too. Rockefeller was a liberal. His niece is Alida Messenger. Her brother is Jay Rockefeller.
Second, the only thing I'll be calling Rand & Ron Paul anytime soon is libertarian.
Raunchy talk vs. bimbo eruptions
Much is being said about Donald Trump's raunchy comments from a decade ago. That's a perfectly legitimate article. Trump's comments were disgusting and should be consistently criticized. Let's not pretend, though, that Hillary is pure as the driven snow. Trump is right in saying that "Bill Clinton has actually abused women, and Hillary has bullied, attacked, shamed and intimidated his victims."
Hillary led the Clinton campaign's 'Bimbo Eruptions' team in the 1990s. She didn't hesitate in threatening Paula Jones, Jennifer Flowers and Kathleen Willey. During an interview with Matt Lauer, Mrs. Clinton said "If all that were proven true, that would be a very serious offense. That is not going to be proven true. We're going to find some other things and I think that when all of this is put into context and we read about other people's motivations, look at their backgrounds, look at their past behavior, some folks are going to have a lot to answer for."
It's indisputable that Hillary Clinton is a disgusting individual. She hasn't hesitated in threatening anyone who might derail her presidential ambitions. If that person is a woman, Mrs. Clinton hasn't hesitated in utterly demolishing that woman.
That being said, that's only part of Mrs. Clinton's problems. Potentially, this might be a bigger problem than Mrs. Clinton's Bimbo Eruptions problem:
Hillary Clinton Said Her Dream Is A Hemispheric Common Market, With Open Trade And Open Markets.
"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders , some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere." [05162013 Remarks to Banco Itau.doc, p. 28]
This is manna from Heaven for the Trump campaign. We already knew that he wasn't a moral person. Trump's disgusting remarks just remind us of that. This transcript, however, shows that Mrs. Clinton will work towards a new world order with open borders and globalization.
Now that their worries have been confirmed, Bernie's voters are justified in not voting. Mrs. Clinton is the embodiment of the rigged establishment that's out of touch with reality.
Posted Saturday, October 8, 2016 12:54 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 08-Oct-16 05:24 PM
If conservative voters are concerned/care about this latest Trump "scandal" then they can choose not to vote for him. The problem is that the progressives are making a big stink about this when as you wrote, their idol, Mr. Clinton is a sexual abuser of the worst kind and has gotten away with it for years, his wife has been more than happy to be the attack dog against the accusers so she can stay in the circle of power, and then there's Stuart Smally aka Al Franken's little article in Playboy that progressives wrote off too. It all proves that the ends justify the means for progressives and they will give a pass to anyone as long as they can either get or retain power.
Comment 2 by eric z at 09-Oct-16 09:55 AM
So why has MSM seized upon Trump's boastfulness, instead of the more troubling Clinton bought/owned issue? Gary, I don't believe you are beating enough upon the anti-regulatory capture drum that needs to be beaten against Wall Street abuses. Do you approve of how Wall Street operates? As the key and leading force pushing "globalization" as a way for them to own and manipulate more for their own personal betterment and not for the best outcomes for our nation? If the invisible hand of the market will make their greed somehow morph into a benefit of scale, when is that supposed to happen. Enough rope's been paid out. With that new Mercer affiliated team of former Cruz people now heading the Trump campaign, are they there as saboteurs? Agents of the GOP mainstream there to kill an insurgency?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 09-Oct-16 11:33 AM
Eric, I don't hate Wall Street if they're playing by the rules. I praise those that create wealth. My problem with Wall Street is that they've gotten preferential treatment the past 10 years. Bernie & Warren are right. Especially under Obama, the game is rigged.
Fewer regulations, coupled with better law enforcement, limits lawbreaking & encourages innovation. Small businesses & Main Street flourish. How can't people support that approach?
Comment 3 by eric z at 09-Oct-16 10:00 AM
As to "Hillary Clinton" being "a disgusting individual," have you thought about Ted Cruz lately? The Clintons and the Cruz spouses have resemblances, as political teams, from different team benches. A lot of CFR to the foursome, Clintons and Cruz spouses. Love of Goldman Sachs being foundational.
John Palmer's voice of sanity
I don't know if the St. Cloud Times realizes that it gave School Board candidate John Palmer a boost when it published this article on the front cover of Friday's paper.
The Times' reporter identified Dr. Palmer as the only candidate left in the race for the ISD 742 School Board who has announced that he's voting against the Tech HS bonding referendum. When asked if he'd vote Yes, Yes on the bonding referendum, Dr. Palmer said "I have not been convinced that we have a capacity need for a second, comprehensive large high school ... so I'll be voting no." Dr. Palmer is right. There simply isn't a need to build another high school.
In the interest of full disclosure, I've counted John as a friend for the past 10 years. He's one of the most intelligent people I've ever met, too.
It's important to know that Apollo is capable of accommodating 2,400 students. They don't have that many students there now because the district offices are housed in their building. It's important to know that the high school enrollment in ISD 742 is less than 2,700 students and shrinking. Renovating Apollo would give the District the room to house all of the District's high school students if the District also moved their offices into a renovated Tech facility.
It's foolish to have 2 buildings that could have capacity for 4,000 students when enrollment will be less than 2,500 students 5 years from now. It's the definition of insanity when the School Board would pay $140,000,000 for those buildings.
In fact, it's important to ask what they're thinking when they're willing to spend that much money on buildings that aren't needed. It's foolish for the Board to spend 5%-10% more than they should. This isn't that. This Board is willing to spend 250%-300% more than they should. That isn't foolish. It's virtually criminal. There's something more to this than just building a new school.
If you live in ISD 742 but aren't familiar with John, follow this link to get to know him better. If you have any questions for him, feel free to contact him. John's contact information is at the bottom of the page.
It's time to tell the elitists on the Board that their arrogance isn't needed. What's needed is someone who will challenge the elitists' views. That's John.
Originally posted Sunday, October 9, 2016, revised 10-Oct 10:19 AM
No comments.
MNsure's tipping point?
As usual, Rep. Paul Thissen is criticizing Republicans for the DFL's mistakes . The DFL created MNsure without a vote from Republicans. Republicans offered amendments to the MNsure bill but those amendments were rejected by the DFL because Rep. Thissen wasn't interested in doing what's right. Rep. Thissen was just interested in winning partisan victories.
Now that MNsure is an unmitigated disaster, Rep. Thissen is blaming Republicans for the DFL's mistakes, saying "Republicans have a pattern of waiting until the last minute and then trying to say 'Oh man, we have an emergency and we need to solve it.' That's what they're doing again. Where have you been for two years?"
That's what I expect from Rep. Thissen. The DFL created a disaster while he was Speaker, Tom Bakk was the Senate Majority Leader and Mark Dayton was the governor because they wanted the big victory for President Obama. It blew up from the start. In Rep. Thissen's thinking, it's Republicans' fault for not saving the DFL from the DFL's policy disasters. Harold Hamilton sized things up perfectly with this:
Recall that Governor Dayton and DFL own this debacle lock, stock, and barrel. They created this mess without a single GOP vote. Of course, that hasn't stopped DFL politicians from trying to pin blame on Republicans. This finger pointing comes in the form of demanding that the GOP help the DFL get out of the mess and find solutions to their problem. This is typical, expected, and emblematic of the shameless nature of their politics.
DFLers set fire to some issue, and then jump up and down demanding that the GOP play fireman (fire person?) and douse the flames. It's all part of the deflection of the issue. This all follows a familiar pattern:
- First, DFL identifies some issue as being in need of a government solution.
- Two, DFL creates policy that makes situation worse.
- Three, DFL blames some boogie man (e.g. Big Insurance Companies) and demands GOP fix problem.
- Four, DFL uses the we-care-about-people-so-our-results-don't-matter excuse.
- Five, GOP fixes problem. Or if they don't, DFL blames GOP for not caring and not having a solution.
Needless to say, the GOP has solutions, and has had solutions. The House and Senate GOP should go through the record and tally the number of amendments that were offered by their members in all committees and on both floors. Amendments were offered by the GOP. The DFL rejected them. Now, the DFL wants GOP ownership of their problem.This video highlights the MNsure disaster:
Pay particular attention to Sen. Julie Rosen's presentation 10 minutes into the presentation. It's totally infuriating. If you aren't upset with the DFL after watching that, then you don't have a pulse.
Putting this bluntly, the DFL is the party of failure. The DFL didn't support the Sandpiper Pipeline project. Instead of providing high-paying jobs to Minnesotans, the DFL pushed those high-paying jobs away to North and South Dakota, Iowa and Illinois. Three years ago, the DFL created MNsure. Now it's a disaster. That's the same year that they made an historic investment in K-12 education that would keep property taxes low. I've written frequently how that historic investment failed, too. Property taxes are still going up.
If you want failed policies in the future, vote DFL this year. That's the DFL's specialty. If you want things fixed or done right the first time, then voting for Republicans is the taxpayers' only option.
Posted Sunday, October 9, 2016 5:56 AM
No comments.
St. Cloud Times: Drop MNsure
When I read the headline to this Our View editorial , I almost had another heart attack. In this morning's St. Cloud Times, the Editorial Board wrote that "It's time to move away from MNsure." Of course, the subtitle said "Do NOT scrap the entire Affordable Care Act. The truth is it has brought many good things to health insurance and access to care. But parts need to be revamped at the federal level."
Actually, part of the problem is that the ACA, aka Obamacare, is administered from the federal government. I wrote here that Minnesota's system was working beautifully until we created MNsure. It was doomed from the start.
For instance, the Times' editorial says "Business Insider last month noted arguably the biggest reason for increases: Federal statistics show about 15 percent of adults ages 25-44 do not have insurance. Remember, a key component of the ACA was getting these mostly healthy people to buy in or at least pay a fine through their taxes. Clearly, that's not working."
Any system that requires the federal government to put a gun to people's heads is stupid. It's rational, though not always prudent, for young people to choose not to buy insurance. That's why the penalty was implemented. When the government takes actions that limit people's abilities to make their own decisions, things go wrong quickly.
Then the Times said this:
Perhaps a more stringent penalty is needed or a carrot, not a stick. Regardless, federal lawmakers need to find ways to get more of these people swimming in the pool of insured Americans.
Prior to Minnesota getting stuck with MNsure, 93%-94% of Minnesotans were already insured. That's the highest percentage in the nation. Of those who didn't have insurance, more than 50% of them were eligible for taxpayer-subsidized insurance. Why wouldn't we want to stick with that?
Nearly 100% of Minnesotans were insured. We weren't getting hit with 50%-67% annual premium increases. We didn't have to subsidize a website that didn't work. I'd love hearing the Times explain why we shouldn't ditch MNsure and the ACA, then return to the system we had.
Again, it's time to move away from MNsure and transition to the federal exchange. Quite simply, the state exchange's costs continue to outweigh its benefits.
This is stupid. The fix is to abandon the ACA and replace it with the system we had that was working. That system must include a high risk pool that's subsidized to lower the cost for healthy people.
Posted Sunday, October 9, 2016 11:21 AM
No comments.
