September 1-5, 2011
Sep 01 07:07 Anzelc and Saxhaug: 'Two Toms' Two Too Many Sep 01 08:29 President Obama 'Frustrated'? Sep 02 03:08 Is St. Cloud State against great careers? Sep 02 08:40 What jobs? Sep 04 08:18 The "Failed Policies of the Last Eight Years" vs. Obamanomics Sep 04 21:21 Ed Schultz furious with Sen. Franken Sep 05 05:08 Speaker Boehner vs. President Obama: the Times View Sep 05 12:54 Gov. Perry to fed gov't: Keep your curriculum out of Texas schools Sep 05 19:13 This isn't how to win independents
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Anzelc and Saxhaug: 'Two Toms' Two Too Many
Before I get started, I'd like to offer my condolences to the people who are, at least theoretically, represented by Rep. Tom Anzelc and Sen. Tom Saxhaug. After reading this article , it's apparent that the "Two Toms" are two Toms too many. Here's a major clue that these legislators shouldn't be allowed to represent people in the state legislature:
In Minnesota, lawmakers must take responsibility for implementing the above mentioned block grants that serve the poor and need to admit that 'what was done in the special session of the past year was not enough,' he said. 'We need to admit that the borrowing off future revenues from the tobacco settlement will not be enough and exacerbating the school shift whereby 40 cents on the dollar that the superintendents and school board here in International Falls are receiving from the state government is not forthcoming and therefore they need to borrow or utilize reserves to make up for the difference; we need to admit that that was not a good solution.'
'Lastly, we need a lot of luck in this country, because we are in a global, nationwide recession of catastrophic proportions,' he said, adding that, in Minnesota 100,000 residents have been unemployed for six consecutive months or more.
The first requirement for a legislator should be his ability to communicate clearly. Putting together a 74-word sentence isn't communicating clearly, especially when the sentence is that incoherent.
Another requirement to be a legislator should be the ability to inspire confidence that the plans implemented will benefit the people. Saying that "we need alot of luck" to get the economy jumpstarted won't inspire confidence. Whether Rep. Anzelc likes the GOP budget or not, he shouldn't be making statements that discourage unemployed workers.
Rep. Anzelc is being overly dramatic, too. The recession that we're now recovering from wasn't worse than the one President Reagan inherited from Jimmy Carter.
Further, there's always something to worry about with economies. When the economy was growing during the last Clinton term, the worry was about "the Asian Flu" financial crisis :
The Asian financial crisis was a period of financial crisis that gripped much of Asia beginning in July 1997, and raised fears of a worldwide economic meltdown due to financial contagion.
The crisis started in Thailand with the financial collapse of the Thai baht caused by the decision of the Thai government to float the baht, cutting its peg to the USD, after exhaustive efforts to support it in the face of a severe financial overextension that was in part real estate driven. At the time, Thailand had acquired a burden of foreign debt that made the country effectively bankrupt even before the collapse of its currency. As the crisis spread, most of Southeast Asia and Japan saw slumping currencies, devalued stock markets and other asset prices, and a precipitous rise in private debt.
People worried whether the Asian Flu would take down the U.S. economy. Instead of crashing the American economy, America started a string of 5 consecutive balanced budgets.
Minnesota must redesign and streamline its government to make government in the 87 counties and 435 school districts, as well as townships and municipalities, more efficient, he said.
'We need to deliver government services at a cheaper price and that will require huge sacrifice and a lot of pain, but it's coming,' he said. 'We all need to be part of the solution.'
The two Toms had the opportunity to vote for Rep. Keith Downey's 15 by 15 legislation that would've reduced the state workforce by 15% by 2015. Additionally, they had the opportunity to introduce legislation that would've redesigned and streamlined government.
They could've offered amendments to King Banaian's HF2 legislation that included provisions for priority-based budgeting and the Sunset Commission. In fact, they could've offered legislation to reform state and local government.
After all, there's no law that prevents legislators from writing that type of legislation. The good news is that the two Toms will be able to sign onto those bills starting in January, 2012.
Posted Thursday, September 1, 2011 7:07 AM
Comment 1 by John at 01-Sep-11 04:24 PM
"The two Toms had the opportunity to vote for Rep. Keith Downey's 15 by 15 legislation that would've reduced the state workforce by 15% by 2015."
Someone needs to go back to high school civics. Senator Saxhaug did not have the opportunity to vote on Rep. Downey's legislation since Senators only vote on Senate proposals. Rep. Anzelc could vote for Rep. Downey's proposal. Senator Saxhaug could vote for or against a Senate proposal. It's hard to take a blogger seriously when they don't understand the basic processes of the Legislature.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Sep-11 04:34 PM
John, It's customary for senators to vote on House legislation if it's passed in the House. Rep. Downey's bill passed the House.
It's impossible to take commenters seriously when they don't take the time to get all the facts.
President Obama 'Frustrated'?
This article says President Obama is frustrated with Congress. Speaking on behalf of the majority of the American people, We The People are frustrated that President Obama ignored the economy during the first half of his term in office.
President Barack Obama's reelection campaign sent an email to campaign supporters under his name Wednesday with the subject line "frustrated", critiquing Congress for failing to focus on the critical issues facing the country.
"It's been a long time since Congress was focused on what the American people need them to be focused on. I know that you're frustrated by that. I am, too," the message said, adding that Obama will lay out his own proposals in a speech to Congress next week.
The standoffish email says Obama will push Congress to act, but "whether they will do the job they were elected to do is ultimately up to them."
President Obama's whining is getting tiring. He's whining that Republicans aren't focusing on creating jobs. That's insulting.
President Obama spent his first 2 years in office essentially ignoring the economy. Congress passed a stimulus bill right after President Obama's inauguration. The next thing he tackled was health care. He didn't return to creating jobs after that.
He's talked about pivoting to jobs so many times that people are tired of the speeches.
We've reached the point where we need him to stop implementing policies that hurt robust job growth. He's unleashed the EPA to essentially destroy the coal-mining industry. He's unleashed the NLRB to destroy Boeing's attempt to build luxury jetliners in right-to-work South Carolina.
They're still writing the regulations for Dodd-Frank, which isn't helping create jobs. Obamacare is a regulatory and tax increase nightmare.
What's worst is that President Obama thinks people still trust in his ability to create jobs. We don't to the tune of 26% approve, 71% don't approve. He either thinks people still trust him or he's pretending to think we still trust him.
Thankfully, the Republican House of Representatives will pass a competing set of job-creating economic legislation :
Cantor vowed to pursue a "steady repeal" of select regulations to empower businesses to kick up hiring. He listed 10 in particular, many dealing with Environmental Protection Agency policies, including new requirements on employers using boilers, and regulations affecting cement plants.
The EPA has absolutely killed jobs. If they hadn't pursued such a radical agenda, we'd be consistently creating jobs. What's more is that we'd be creating alot of jobs this month.
President Obama's tanking job approval ratings are the direct result of the American people's rejection of his economic agenda.
Another thing that's galling is that President Obama says he'll present a list of bipartisan measures in next week's 'Pivot to jobs' speech. (I think that's PTJ 9.0) As usual, President Obama thinks that he's the arbiter of all things extreme and mainstream.
We The People don't trust his judgment on what's extreme and what's mainstream. We'll trust our judgment on what's mainstream and what isn't.
Posted Thursday, September 1, 2011 8:29 AM
Comment 1 by Bob J. at 01-Sep-11 10:27 AM
But Barack didn't ignore the economy, Gary. That's the problem. If he had, and simply let the free enterprise system work, we wouldn't be where we are now.
Barack paid too much attention to the economy -- and as a result, his disastrous policies are destroying it brick by brick. The only remaining question is whether his malfeasance is intentional.
And as for Cantor, item number one for repeal is, of course, DeathCare. They should pass repeal measures ad nauseum until someone finally asks the obvious questions regarding why it's the job-killer everyone knows it to be.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Sep-11 12:51 PM
President Obama did ignore the economy in the sense that he didn't put in place policies that improved the foundations of the economy. Instead, he insisted on getting a health care bill passed that people hated.
Is St. Cloud State against great careers?
First, yes, the title is dripping in sarcasm.
Still, if there's anything that's more difficult to explain than a university shutting down a program that's training students for a great career, I don't know what it is. Based on this article , that's precisely what St. Cloud State is preparing to do.
The 50 Best Careers of 2011
Creative and Service Jobs:
Commercial pilot
Curator
Film and video editor
Gaming manager
Heating, air conditioning and refrigeration technician
Interpreter/Translator
Multimedia artist
Technical writer
Considering that information, it isn't surprising that MPR had this headline for an article:
Is St. Cloud State ending its program for one of America's best careers?
The answer to that question is exceptionally straightforward: Yes, that's their intent, though God knows why they've made that decision.
Why would a university shut down a program that has a strong graduation rate and a solid record of graduates getting jobs after graduation? Why would said university shut down a program that a) trains people for important jobs that affect national security and b) is relatively inexpensive?
That's before questioning why a university wouldn't stop a program that isn't equipping its students for a prosperous career in the private sector. Forget about the program's cost. Let's just think of it from a return-on-investment standpoint.
Such is the state of the current higher education system in Minnesota.
Here's part of the criteria U.S. News and World Report used in picking their top 50 careers:
Our list of 50 Best Careers answers those questions. We've highlighted dozens of high-opportunity professions, careers you may want to consider as you decide where to look for your next paycheck. Based on job-growth projections, salary data, and other factors like job satisfaction, these occupations span a variety of industries, so you can find the right position for you no matter what your interests.
In other words, St. Cloud State chose to close a program that's rated highly in terms of "job-growth projection, salary data and job satisfaction." That begs the question of what criteria St. Cloud State used in shutting down the Aviation Department.
Posted Friday, September 2, 2011 3:08 AM
Comment 1 by Alan at 02-Sep-11 02:04 PM
David Beckham studies - Staffordshire University, UK
http://www.toptenz.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/11/beckham.jpg
It might sound like a joke, but the squeaky-voiced soccer star actually has a degree course dedicated to him. The course, which is technically classed as 'Football Culture', has been defended by its founder, who argues that degree courses must keep with the times. Celeb-style degrees can also be found in the US, with Madonna studies injected into the Gender course at Harvard (no less) and Oprah Winfrey studies at Illinois.
What jobs?
President Obama's jobs speech just got bumped from important to critical thanks to the information in this morning's jobs report :
Nonfarm payrolls were unchanged, the Labor Department said on Friday, the weakest reading since September. Nonfarm employment for June and July was revised to show 58,000 fewer jobs.
This jobs report is the Obama administration's worst nightmare going into next week's overhyped jobs speech. The only thing that could make things worse is having a green energy company that got government loans file Chapter 11 bankruptcy the same week as this jobs report.
Private payrolls increased only 17,000 after rising 156,000 in July. Government employment fell 17,000, contracting for a 10th straight month. The decline in government payrolls was tempered by the return of 23,000 state workers in Minnesota after a partial government shutdown in July.
Don't be surprised if this morning's jobs report gets revised downward. That's been the trend this summer, with jobs reports and the GDP numbers both getting revised downward this summer.
This report puts additional pressure on President Obama's jobs speech in a joint session of Congress Thursday night. President Obama didn't need that type of pressure. He'd already upped expectations by attracting attention to his speech.
Jobs reports like this remind people that it isn't about his giving a speech, that it's about the monthly jobs report and the quarterly GDP report. President Obama can give all the speeches his vocal chords can withstand. Those speeches are irrelevant as long as the GDP and jobs reports stink like this summer's have.
I told a friend of mine in early January, 2009 that then-President-Elect Obama was entering the scariest time in his life. I said that from Inauguration Day forward, he'd be judged on his accomplishments, not on his ability to deliver a great sounding speech.
As the negative jobs and GDP reports accumulate, that prediction is coming true. Those statistics have triggered President Obama's freefall in the polls.
According to CNBC's reporting , this month's jobs report is unprecented in a bad way:
The US economy created no jobs and the unemployment rate held steadily higher at 9.1 percent in August, fueling concerns that the US is heading for another recession.
It was the first time since World War II that the economy had a net zero jobs created for a month.
If things don't change dramatically soon, President Obama will be a one-term president. This isn't the record of accomplishment that presidents want to run on. It's the type of record a sitting president would be wise to run away from.
Posted Friday, September 2, 2011 8:40 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 03-Sep-11 07:17 PM
Jobs, in Minnesota. The Viking Stadium. It appears part of Dayton's attraction to it is mutual support between him and the construction trade unions. Where do you stand on whether there is a referendum? So far, I have only heard about Ramsey County and a sales tax referendum. To the extend Wright, Benton, other counties will see road tax money go there in large amounts if it is done, it seems a statewide referendum would be best, but would it be a precedent? And should it have been one for the Pohlad stadium?
I know it is a digression, and I do not mean to hijack the thread. But it is immediate and controversial.
Any thoughts, Gary?
The "Failed Policies of the Last Eight Years" vs. Obamanomics
Democrats spent the first 2 years of the Obama administration complaining about the "failed policies of the last eight years." After digging through past unemployment statistics, it's apparent that the Democrats were telling whoppers in their attempt to pass President Obama's agenda.
Their complaints weren't based on reality.
First, let's put this in the context of Friday's jobs report, or, to put it more accurately, Friday's jobless report.
Friday morning, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, aka BLS, announced that the economy didn't create any jobs in August. The previous week, the Commerce Department announced that economic growth slowed to a near standstill :
Real gross domestic product, the output of goods and services produced by labor and property located in the United States, increased at an annual rate of 1.0 percent in the second quarter of 2011, (that is, from the first quarter to the second quarter), according to the 'second' estimate released by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. In the first quarter, real GDP increased 0.4 percent.
Now let's look at "the failed policies of the last eight years". This information from the BLS website puts things in perspective:
Unemployment by year:
2001 -- 4.7
2002 -- 5.8
2003 -- 6.0
2004 -- 5.5
2005 -- 5.1
2006 -- 4.6
2007 -- 4.6
2008 -- 5.8
During the last month of the campaign, Republicans should highlight these statistics as a way to ask voters whether they're better off now than they were 4 years ago.
I'd also highlight the fact that the unemployment rate in 2009 and 2010 was 9.3% and 9.6% respectively.
Democrats should be made to pay each time they attempt to insinuate that the Bush economy created a mess that the nation is still climbing out of. The unemployment and deficit figures say the exact opposite.
What happened that soured everything was the collapse of Fannie and Freddie and other financial institutions in September, 2008. Prior to that, the economy was slowing down but it wasn't ominous looking.
Then-Sen. Obama joined with all of the Senate Democrats to filibuster a bill that would've staved off the Fannie/Freddie crisis. If not for the Democrats' intransigence on fixing the mortgage crisis, the economy wouldn't have sunk to this level.
Once that crisis hit, though, President Obama's administration started waging war on the private sector. The EPA immediately went to work on waging war against the private sector, especially against the shipping, coal mining and oil drilling industries.
I'll expand on the EPA's overregulation of the shipping industry in another post.
The bottom line is straightforward. President Obama's jobs speech du jour won't be taken seriously. It will lack seriousness on regulatory and tax reform.
Until those issues are taken seriously, unemployment under Obama will lag 3-4 points higher than it was during the Bush administration.
Posted Sunday, September 4, 2011 8:18 AM
Comment 1 by Alan at 04-Sep-11 03:42 PM
Isn't it still Bush's fault that Obama "plan" hasn't worked?
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Sep-11 09:24 PM
No it isn't. There's a difference between Democratic chanting points & reality.
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Sep-11 11:31 AM
Not Obamnyomics? Mr. Timmy Obamnycare would want you to say it that way. And he might NOT like reference to the failed policies of the last eight years.
Ed Schultz furious with Sen. Franken
Sen. Franken just had an awful week. First, he supported the DOJ's lawsuit against the AT&T/T-Mobile merger. The unions are livid with Sen. Franken for not supporting a project that they really wanted.
It isn't that he's just alienated a major part of his political base. It's that he's drawn the ire of a progressive firebrand like Ed Schultz:
That's where we are! That's why I said the other day (pause), the country's sick. Our political system is sick. And the Democrats are just as bad as the Republicans. And I'll tell you why. I'll give you proof positive! I don't care how many friends I have and I think you have to get into this business realizing that you only have a very few people that you can really count on.
I will never count on Al Franken from Minnesota! He voted for the Bush tax cuts! And now he has motivated the Justice Department to block a sale of T-Mobile by AT&T which would mean thousands of jobs, jobs back to America. But, of course, he's against mergers. And there's a few other Democrats who are against mergers. The union wants this deal to go through! So I would like to know, I realize that Stuart Smalley's office doesn't do national interviews, but maybe they can provide us with the pro forma that they used to come to the conclusion that this was a bad deal and it was going to hurt jobs when the union says it will create jobs!
Having Ed Schultz say that he'll "never count on Al Franken" again isn't a little ripple in the pond. This is the political equivalent of having Sean Hannity say that Susan Collins has to go. For the record, Hannity hasn't said anything like that about Sen. Collins.
This is a big deal, especially seeing the discontent on the left towards President Obama .
If President Obama is defeated in 2012, which is looking more likely, then it's a good possibility that 2014 will be another difficult election cycle for Democrats.
Sen. Franken will be pitted against a top candidate who'll raise fists full of money. If Sen. Franken's staunchest allies are still upset with him, he's history. Even if Sen. Franken has mended the rift between his campaign and his staunchest allies, he'll still face an uphill fight. If the media isn't surrounding him with a Klobuchar-like cocoon, he'll be in difficult shape.
Sen. Franken is making alot of mistakes that he can't afford to make. Having a leader of the progressive media say he doesn't trust you is something that isn't easily dismissed. Making decisions that your political base is furious with you about is foolish.
Those are the types of mistakes that wind up costing incumbents elections.
Posted Sunday, September 4, 2011 9:21 PM
Comment 1 by Steve at 06-Sep-11 09:59 AM
'Making decisions that your political base is furious with you about is foolish.'
The political base should never control a politician's decision making! We elect politicians to make tough decisions, not to float along on the whim of the party. I don't want a robot pressing yes or no buttons based on the popular opinion of an extremist base. I want somebody who thinks for himself. That sort of idea is why good people like Jim Ramstad and Tim Penny had to leave congress.
Speaker Boehner vs. President Obama: the Times View
First, I'll say that I expect editorial pages to have a political slant to them. That's why they're called editorial pages. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that they should be devoid of logic. The Times Editorial Board editorial on President Obama's jobs speech accuses both President Obama and Speaker Boehner of playing games:
Yet amid such grim news the president and House speaker seem more intent on playing games with speech times and dates instead of talking details and potential compromises. They just don't get it, do they?
Actually, Speaker Boehner isn't playing games. It was President Obama's intent to walk all over the Republican presidential debate. WH Press Secretary Jay Carney's insistence that it was coincidental doesn't pass the laugh test. In fact, it's insulting.
It's also insulting that the Times pretends that the Republican majority in the House hasn't passed a number of initiatives that will put life into President Obama's stagnant economy. It isn't Speaker Boehner's fault that Sen. Reid has refused to take action on the House Republicans' initiatives.
The House Republicans' initiatives would've turned around an economy that President Obama's administration has taken from bad to horrific. The EPA is applauding New York's attempt to essentially shut down the Great Lakes shipping industry :
During the hearing, the subcommittees received testimony from Dr. Deborah Swackhamer, chair of the EPA's Science Advisory Board. Dr. Swackhamer testified that a recently completed EPA study concluded that no ballast water management system could currently meet a water quality standard 100 or 1000 times more stringent than the IMO standard.
In effect, Dr. Swackhamer was indicating that the EPA's own review had concluded that no technology exists to enable the maritime industry to meet New York's ballast water treatment standards.
Given the EPA's own conclusions, the unworkable nature of New York's ballast water regulations and the threat they pose to maritime commerce and related jobs in my district, I was surprised to read the attached news article in which EPA Region 2 Administrator Judith Enck publicly praises the New York regulations and commends New York's regulators for "sticking with the regulations they have."
The Times Editorial Board is accusing Speaker Boehner of playing games at a time when the Obama administration is applauding a state's abusive regulations on the shipping industry. That takes some nerve. The Times should be ashamed of themselves for playing their time-tested pox-on-both-their-houses card.
President Obama tried playing games with his nothing-new-under-the-sun jobs rehash speech. He tried by trying to bully Republicans into cancelling or postponing their Reagan Library presidential debate. Speaker Boehner stood his ground.
As to the bigger picture, President Obama's failed economic policies won't be eliminated until January, 2013. At this point, there's no sense in compromising with him because his economic policies are worthless. Put another way, it's impossible to compromise with him because there isn't a halfway point between right and worthless.
In what some historians are labeling a first, Congress rejected that request, with Boehner citing security concerns.
I have a short question for the Times Editorial staff. Which historians?
Obviously, these historians didn't do their research. The WSJ's James Freeman did :
Much of the media has been running with the claim that a president's request to speak to Congress has never been rejected until this week. Various Capitol Hill "historians" have been quoted saying that House Speaker John Boehner took unprecedented action when he cited the difficulty of hosting President Obama on the president's requested date of Sept. 7. We're not so sure.
The truth is that you don't have to go back that far in the nation's history to find a similar circumstance. And unlike the current speaker, who quickly agreed to host the president on the following day, Sept. 8, a previous holder of the gavel refused to grant the White House request, regardless of the date and time.
The June 24, 1986, edition of The Wall Street Journal featured a story headlined, "President's Bid to Address the House On Nicaragua Is Rejected by Speaker." That's right, no quibbling over the date and time, just a flat-out rejection. In that case, President Ronald Reagan wanted to address the House before its critical vote on funding for the anti-communist "Contra" rebels in Nicaragua.
Then-Speaker Thomas "Tip" O'Neil said that he was willing to host a Reagan speech if it was expanded to include the Senate in a joint session, or he would allow the President to speak to the House alone if the President would also agree to take questions from lawmakers. Otherwise, there would be no Reagan speech in the House chamber. Reagan already had the votes to prevail in the Senate, and Mr. O'Neil wanted to avoid having the spotlight turned on the House, which would make him and his colleagues accountable to the public if Contra aid were rejected.
The next time the Times tries playing their pox-on-both-their-houses card, they should do their homework first.
Posted Monday, September 5, 2011 5:08 AM
Comment 1 by don mitchel at 05-Sep-11 06:47 AM
Most of the ships in American waters are foreign, paying foreign tax as they bring foreign manufactured goods into America. President Obama is definitely not trying to change from a policy of foreign economic globalization with a communist country, to promote American manufacturing jobs instead. This is evident by:
The following report for Congress in DEC 2009 that explains that national ballast water legislation would do the same thing as tariffs, plus protect our environment from pathogens being dumped into our water and air by foreign ships bringing foreign manufactured imports into our country, stealing jobs from Americans. 'Although estimates of the costs of ballast treatment may be imprecise and vary from vessel to
vessel, there is some general agreement on average costs.14 For example, it may cost an estimated $400,000 per vessel for modification of container/bulk vessels to use onshore ballast water treatment facilities at California ports. More generally, the cost of retrofitting vessels to treat
ballast water has been estimated at between $200,000 and $310,000 per vessel for mechanical
treatment and around $300,000 for chemical treatment.15 MOST OF THE EXPENSE WILL BE BORNE BY
FOREIGN SHIPPING COMPANIES, AS THE U.S. FLAG FLEET IS A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE GLOBAL FLEET,16 and
likely PASSED ALONG TO CONSUMERS OF PRODUCTS IMPORTED ON THESE SHIPS.'
So what if foreign ships have a cost or logistic problem retrofitting with the technology needed to protect Americas health and environment, manufacturing jobs are created where it is cheap and easy to deliver goods to consumers. Currently because of the Federal governments failure to create uniform protection to protect all Americans equally, foreign ships are receiving a free pass to destroy America's environment while taking jobs away from Americans with the foreign manufactured goods imported on foreign ships. Failure to quickly enact a strong policy to protect our country from foreign economic interest destroying our environment will, forever be throwing away this chance for American manufacturing to again be competitive. The problem facing America an jobs is our politicians are bent on supporting economic globalization. Unfortunately our political leaders follow the advice from leaders of global companies that depend on foreign investments, as they supply money for our leaders political careers. Sadly American industries are regulated to the max, as foreign industries are allowed to trash the American environment and get away with it. (Gulf oil spill) We need politicians that will worry more about the dangers and destruction foreign economic interest create before going after American manufacturing pollution.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 05-Sep-11 11:02 AM
Don, The treaty has been signed & ratified. If you want to negotiate a different treaty, then get it ratified, knock yourself out. Ignoring treaties is breaking the law & it's forbidden.
Also, you said that most of the ships in American waters are foreign. That means you're admitting that some of the ships affected by this are American ships. That means you're admitting that New York's ballast regulations impose a financial burden, aka tariff, on American ships attempting to commit commerce with other states. That's forbidden by the Interstate Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
That means the Obama administration is applauding regulations that violate an international treaty and the U.S. Constitution.
That says what lengths they're willing to go to kill the economy, doesn't it?
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Sep-11 11:36 AM
Just focusing on the headline, what about Speaker Boehner vs. Govs. Romney and Perry? Is it too late to throw another hat in the ring, to raise the money, to make that kind of decision?
Comment 3 by Gary Gross at 05-Sep-11 12:50 PM
Boehner isn't interested. Besides, he wouldn't stand a chance.
PS- Romney is running on fumes electorally. "Looks presidential" only gets you so far. After that, you have to persuade people that you won't stab them in the back if elected. Romney can't make that sale.
Comment 4 by don mitchel at 06-Sep-11 07:03 AM
what treaty? The US has the right to establish soveriegn laws for our countries environment and states have the rights to protect themselves when the Federal government fails perhaps if you research ballast water you would be better informed as to the legal decissions that have been made regarding state rights to regulate ballast water and the congressional talks currently taking place regarding establishment of national legislation to protect all American waters equally.
Response 4.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Sep-11 07:10 AM
First, I might take you seriously if you didn't have tons of misspelled words & a bunch of errors in grammar.
Second, you're right that the United States has the right to establish laws for our natural resources. The Treaty of 1909, however, supercedes New York's right to write regulations that violate terms of the treaty between Great Britain and the United States.
Finally, the merits of the regulatory policy are irrelevant until the treaty is repealed or updated.
Comment 5 by don mitchel at 06-Sep-11 07:40 AM
There is the IMO ballast water convention which has yet to be completed.
Comment 6 by don mitchel at 06-Sep-11 07:48 AM
like I said in the previous post if you researched the recent legal decissions on states rights you would see that the courts seem to disagree with your opinions. sorry you are not worth the time to spell check
Response 6.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Sep-11 09:00 AM
Your mistake is thinking that this is a states' rights issue. It isn't. Once an international treaty is signed dealing with boat/ship traffic on an international waterway, states' rights are irrelevant.
However, if states' rights did apply, the Interstate Commerce Clause prevents one state from blocking another state's ability to conduct commerce. On this instance, that means that New York can't apply regulations that prevent Minnesota from fulfilling its contracts signed with foreign nations.
Finally, I don't believe you when you say that court decisions (yes, 1 s, not 2, in decisions) disagree with my opinions. I don't think you're competent enough to tell what's on point & what isn't. Go away.
Gov. Perry to fed gov't: Keep your curriculum out of Texas schools
You've got to applaud Gov. Perry's stand against the federal government's intrusion into Texas schools :
When Secretary of Education Arne Duncan jabbed Perry on public schools in mid-August, it was only the latest skirmish between the governor and the Obama administration since late 2009, when Perry announced that the state would not sign onto common core-curriculum standards. Those criteria, though endorsed by the Obama administration, were developed by a consortium of 48 states and the National Governors Association.
The announcement was quickly followed by news that Texas would not participate in the administration's signature education program, a competition among states for $4.35 billion in grants, because of its emphasis on the adoption of the common curriculum. Texas public schools were eligible for $700 million through the grants.
'I am not prepared to sell control of our state's education system for any price,' Perry said in January 2010. The common curriculum, he said, could lead to the 'dumbing down' of the state's standards.
Perry's disdain for the federal government's role in public education, along with legal challenges to the Environmental Protection Agency and the federal heath care overhaul, fit neatly into his anti-Washington primary campaign against U.S. Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison, who challenged him for the 2010 Republican nomination for governor. It can now also be seen as a preamble to his presidential run.
If anything's becoming clear, it's that Gov. Perry isn't President Bush with regard to expanding the reach of the federal government.
A number of the principles in NCLB were admirable. There's no denying that accountability in education is important. Nonetheless, the strings attached to NCLB have earned NCLB poor grades on a bipartisan basis.
There's little argument amongst serious constitutional scholars that this administration has tried to expand the federal government's influence at the state, local and personal level far beyond the limits of the U.S. Constitution and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments.
I applaud Gov. Perry for saying no to the federal government's curriculum. Further, I applaud him for implicitly saying that his state education department will do a better job of developing curriculum than the federal government has done.
I'd look forward to seeing the federal government's influence into state, local and personal decisions shrink during the next Republican presidential administration. With President Obama's job approval rating shrinking each week, the next Republican administration is less than 500 days away.
Posted Monday, September 5, 2011 12:54 PM
No comments.
This isn't how to win independents
Teamsters President Jimmy Hoffa didn't give a perfect example of how to win over independents. In fact, he did pretty much everything wrong in erupting into this exhortation :
"We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the workers of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war," Jimmy Hoffa Jr. said to a heavily union crowd.
"President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of bitches out and give America back to an America where we belong," Hoffa added.
First, I don't know that Hoffa's statement to "take these son of bitches out" is just colorful language. I don't know that because SEIU thugs beat Kenneth Gladney to a pulp in St. Louis . I don't know that because SEIU thugs threatened a teenage boy in Montgomery County, MD , for the unforgiveable sin of having a dad work at Bank of America.
If Frank Luntz were to play the video of this introduction fora focus group, I'd bet that it'd stink in the dials ratings. I'd bet that because Hoffa did everything wrong that he could do wrong in that setting.
Next, saying that they'll "take these son of bitches out" isn't the way to appeal to independents. First, independents don't often like in-your-face confrontation. Hoffa's exhortation and promise is too testosterone-filled for most independents.
Second, Hoffa is on the wrong side of the issue. If there was a genuine groundswell of support for unions, union drives would be in the news nightly. The fact that they aren't speaks to the unions' popularity. Simply put, they aren't popular.
Hoffa made certain to work the TEA Party into the speech, too, because he thinks that they're wildly unpopular. They aren't. They aren't wildly popular, either. What's certain is that, generally speaking, they're more popular than unions. TEA Party principles, in fact, are wildly popular with anyone that isn't part of the hard line wing of the Democratic Party.
The other mistake that Hoffa made was talking about waging war. At this point, in a game of word association, the first word tied to union is thug. They've seen the protests in Madison, WI. They've heard the AFSCME Michigan thug threaten Michigan :
If necessary, we will use the valuable public service jobs that we perform as a weapon and shut this state down.
Anyone thinking that this plays well with mainstreet voters is either delusional or stupid. At this point, it's impossible to tell which it is.
Posted Monday, September 5, 2011 7:13 PM
Comment 1 by Sandra DiPalermo at 06-Sep-11 09:04 AM
As long as people only listen to news soundbites demonization of the opposite Party will continue to be very successful. Fighting back through the same demonization is sad, bit unfortunately necessary.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 06-Sep-11 09:08 AM
Actually, people don't need in-depth reporting to understand that Hoffa & his thugs put themselves first & everyone else a distant second. I don't disagree with you, though I think Republicans have alot more weapons in the arsenal than you might think.
Comment 2 by eric z at 06-Sep-11 12:46 PM
DiPlaermo has a point. Gary, where is the full context? This is a chicken-little, the sky is being pulled down by a union leader's speaking thing.
Grow legs to it if you can, but the tempest is in a tea pot.
And, people do need in-depth reporting of real things, not sensationalism with no productive analysis of things such as Romney releasing an economic proposal set, and other GOP wannabes yet to take that step.
Emmer diddled on releasing a set of economic proposals, and when he did, it was clear he was fairly far from the mainstream, but at least he closed the gap to make it a contest by abandoning the restaurant server hundred grand kind of bunk, and articulating something amenable to polite discourse.
Will Santorum and Bachmann be specific about anything concrete, soon, or only after Romney and Perry do it?
Think about it. There's plenty of time between now and next November, but the election will be about economic considerations, and the GOP hopefuls will have to do what Emmer was finally run into having to do - enunciate a cogent plan of some kind and consistency. BS only goes as far as South Carolina, then ...
