September 1-5, 2012
Sep 01 13:00 Mr. Samuelson, let's settle this Sep 03 08:06 Obama's problem Sep 03 18:49 Ben LaBolt's bold lies Sep 04 01:17 King Banaian's influential first term Sep 04 10:25 Democrats' platform filled with misinformation Sep 04 13:29 Cravaack fights EPA regulatory abuse Sep 05 14:06 LaBolt lies, Cutter swears to it
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011
Mr. Samuelson, let's settle this
Chuck Samuelson, the executive director of the ACLU-MN, is predicting lots of lawsuits being brought in federal court if Minnesotans approve the Photo ID constitutional amendment:
Chuck Samuelson, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, said he thinks there could still be a federal lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Minnesota's voter ID amendment once an election is held under the new requirements and once a voter gets turned away.
Mr. Samuelson's explanation of the SCOTUS ruling in the Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is tortured:
"Their argument in the Indiana case was quite simple: 'If you want to sue, bring us somebody who's damaged, who's been injured by this. They can sue. But if you haven't been injured by this bill, you can't sue,'" Samuelson said. "That's the federal position in the Crawford case. So, that's going to require the election to be held and somebody to be disenfranchised."
Actually, that isn't the standard set, though it's close. Retired Justice John Paul Stevens, in his majority opinion, said that states have a compelling reason for Photo ID because they have the right to protect election integrity.
In the original testimony in District Court, Judge Barker ruled that the Democratic Party of Indiana hadn't proven that anyone would be unable to get a state-issued photo ID.
That means the burden for the ACLU-MN to overturn Crawford v. Marion County Election Board is to prove that a person isn't able to get a photo ID. That means proving the DMV was unwilling to supply photographic identification.
The litigant would have to show that they tried obtaining photographic identification and had their application rejected. That isn't likely to happen.
If Mr. Samuelson wants to file a lawsuit, that's his right. It's just that he should prepare to lose. That's because it's almost impossible to not get a photo ID.
It's time to dispel the myth that photo ID disenfranchises legal voters. A lawsuit in federal court will settle this.
Tags: Chuck Samuelson , ACLU-MN , Photo ID , Lawsuit , Voter Fraud , SCOTUS , Election Integrity , John Paul Steven , Crawford v. Marion County Election Board , Elections
Posted Saturday, September 1, 2012 1:00 PM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 01-Sep-12 02:28 PM
Gary:
Keep in mind what the state does for ID purposes:
* If you have an ID card or drivers license already and keep it current you don't have to do anything. FYI on this point a senior citizen years ago could've gotten a permanent ID which had no expiration.
* The state if you're new or expired more than five years asks for two documents one of which is a primary document. This is a document issued in the US such as a birth certificate, US passport, or if you're from another country one of many documents from INS.
* Even if you can't supply the documents you still have the right to explain to the state give me an ID card and why you couldn't get the documents they are asking for.
In short it is a lot easier to get an ID card than to show you couldn't get it.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 2 by Patrick at 01-Sep-12 02:45 PM
Why don't more states. like Wisconsin and Texas use this argument... "bring me one, real. live, breathing person who has been harmed".
On a related note I wonder if one needs government issued photo ID to get into the 2012 Democratic National Convention? ...inquiring minds want to know.
Comment 3 by J. Ewing at 02-Sep-12 07:56 AM
But... but.. Didn't SOS Ritchie publish, on his official website, the exact count of the hundreds of thousands of people who could not get a photo ID? Oh, that's right, it was a list of how many "might" not have had such ID at the moment. So I guess he didn't lie, exactly. He just massively cheats. Malfeasance, anyone?
Obama's problem
The biggest problem facing President Obama is the one that the national media won't report on. The biggest problem facing President Obama is reality. Though the national media hasn't paid attention to it, reality is President Obama's biggest trouble.
President Obama's chanting point that they've created 4.5 million jobs in the last 29 months. That isn't an accomplishment. In 1984, the first full year of the Reagan Revolution, the economy created 4.5 million jobs. In September, 1983, the economy created 1.1 million new jobs.
President Obama's economic policies are pathetic. During President Obama's administration, he's presided over the biggest explosion of regulations in modern history. President Obama's EPA caused the planned closure of almost 100 coal-fired power plants nationwide .
The ACA is the biggest job-killing legislation in our nation's history. Small businesses with fewer than 50 employees are choosing not to expand because the compliance costs for the ACA's regulations are more than what the companies are willing to take on.
Another bit of reality that isn't working in President Obama's favor with the middle class is how much more everything costs. Gas prices have doubled since President Obama took office. Electric bills are more expensive. Grocery prices have increased.
Everyone who's quit looking for work out of frustration should be furious with the Obama administration when the administration says the unemployment rate in 8.3%. The LFPR is at a 30 year high, meaning the 8.3% figure is BS. It's closer to 11%.
President Obama's disgust with fossil fuels is killing construction jobs while preventing the US from becoming energy independent within the next 15 years.
As it pertains to personal income loss, President Obama's recovery is more painful than the recession :
Three years into the Obama recovery, median family income had declined nearly 5% by June, 2012 as compared to June, 2009. That is nearly twice the decline of 2.6% that occurred during the recession from December, 2007 until June, 2009.
This proves that the Obama recovery was more painful than the Bush recession.
One ugly truth after another explains why President Obama hasn't talked about the Obama recovery. If the Romney campaign is paying attention, they'd be wise to parrot these statistics.
Tags: President Obama , Unemployment , Recession , Regulations , EPA , ACA , Median Family Income , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Monday, September 3, 2012 8:06 AM
Comment 1 by walter hanson at 03-Sep-12 11:13 AM
Gary:
I think you could've summarized the problem faster by saying, "President Obama is in trouble because he doesn't have an achievement to brag about"
He can't talk about the economy as you show.
He reads his poll numbers enough to know that he can't brag about Obamacare.
He tries to brag about killing Bin Laden, but there he has veterans hitting him for leaking intelligence and some leaks have shown that Obama didn't make the decision to go the first time like a Romney would.
And to top it off he's going to use Bill Clinton to try to say he's doing a good job when we can point to things that Clinton wouldn't have done that Obama is trying to do.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
King Banaian's influential first term
My representative, King Banaian, was named one of the elite freshman legislators the past 2 years. King issued this statement in response:
ST. PAUL - State Rep. King Banaian, R-St. Cloud, recently was named to a list of the Top 10 'Best of the Freshman Legislators,' as compiled by the Politics in Minnesota publication.
Banaian entered the Legislature in 2011 as one of 60 freshmen (36 representatives and 24 senators), one of the largest freshman classes since 1970.
'I am honored by this recognition,' said Banaian, a professor at St. Cloud State University. 'It is humbling to see things I've worked on at the Capitol produce results. I am pleased to share my perspective as an economist to put Minnesota on a more sustainable course.'
Banaian remains influential in improving the state's budgeting process. He played an integral role in establishing the Sunset Commission to bring greater efficiency to state operations and make better use of revenue. Banaian also successfully authored a bill which promotes financial literacy, helping people in poverty achieve financial stability.
According to Politics in Minnesota, the Top 10 list is based on facts that are compiled from publicly available data and subjective input from Capitol insiders.
PIM's Best of the Freshman Legislators list
1. Rep. Kurt Daudt, R, Crown-Stanford Township
2. Sen. Michelle Benson, R, Ham Lake
3. Rep. Carly Melin, D, Hibbing
4. Sen. Ted Daley, R, Eagan
5. Rep. Dan Fabian, R, Roseau
6. Rep. Deb Kiel, R, Crookston
7. Sen. John Pederson, R, St. Cloud
8. Rep. King Banaian, R, St. Cloud
9. Sen. Roger Reinert, D, Duluth
10. Sen. Kari Dziedzic, D, Minneapolis
King is being modest in the sense that he didn't mention his bill to lower the price of textbooks for students. That legislation was signed into law by Gov. Dayton.
One of the important provisions in HF2213 is the creation of the MnSCU Textbook Task Force, which contains this important language:
The board of trustees shall establish a task force to study methods that result in lower textbook costs for students. The task force must examine and evaluate the effectiveness of existing state and federal textbook legislation that increases the amount of information on textbooks provided to faculty, bookstores, and students and limits bundling of textbooks and course materials, including how this legislation has impacted textbook costs for students. The task force must also explore alternative textbook delivery methods, including a cross-campus shared delivery system for textbooks, the expansion of electronic text books with an assessment of effective methods for delivering e-books to students, and other technology-based, innovative, or best practices methods to bring real cost-savings to students.
This isn't like the infamous blue ribbon commissions of the past. This task force is given specific instructions on what they're instructed to do. The words shall or must are used 3 times in that section of the legislation, each time in assigning the task force an important responsibility.
The winners are the students and/or parents in the form of less expensive textbooks. It essentially forces universities to make things less expensive for their students.
King's impact in the legislature has been significant. He's definitely one of the freshman who hit the ground running in 2011.
Tags: King Banaian , Higher Ed , Reforms , Textbooks , Legislator , Freshman , GOP
Posted Tuesday, September 4, 2012 1:17 AM
Comment 1 by Charlie Quimby at 04-Sep-12 08:42 AM
Gary, we don't often agree, but I'd agree with you here. King focused on serious legislation, stayed away from the rest of the circus acts and represented his constituents.
Perhaps this also shows what happens when a legislator is smart enough not to take a 10-vote margin as a god-given mandate.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Sep-12 09:13 AM
Charlie, This is what happens when a smart man focuses on what's important rather than focusing in on trendy things. That's why King's a great representative.
Comment 2 by eric z at 04-Sep-12 09:08 AM
Is the district in play or regarded as a safe one for incumbent reelection?
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Sep-12 09:15 AM
Eric, the district is anything but a safe district for either side. Still, it got slightly friendlier to Republicans through redistricting.
Comment 3 by Jethro at 05-Sep-12 07:53 PM
Congratulations to King. This is a great accomplishment. Perhaps there should be a MnSCU taskforce to study why SCSU aviation was closed and why collegiate aviation is an endangered species in Minnesota with a pilot shortage.
Ben LaBolt's bold lies
During his interview with Martha MacCallum, Obama campaign spokesman Ben Labolt was asked about disenchanted Obama voters. She cited the fact that unemployment is higher today than it was when President Obama took office, that the debt is higher and that gas prices have more than doubled since President Obama took office.
Labolt's immediate response was an outright lie. He said that it's important to look at then-Candidate Obama's campaign promises, starting with President Obama's promise to make the US less reliant on foreign oil:
He promised to begin to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. He's done that.
That statement is so dishonest, it's soon to be a laughingstock.
This March, President Obama begged the Saudis to increase oil production .
The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) says that oil permits are down 36% compared with the Bush administration.
It's unthinkable that we're becoming less dependent on foreign oil if we aren't increasing domestic oil production.
Increasing world oil supply will lead to lower gas prices. That hasn't happened, with gas prices at $1.84 a gallon the day President Obama was inaugurated compared with today's price at $3.82 a gallon.
Under President Obama's (lack of) leadership, gas prices have more than doubled.
Only in the Obama administration (and in 1984 Orwellianspeak) could permits get cut by 36%, gas prices double and President Obama's spokesman say that President Obama "has reduced our dependence on foreign oil."
Later in the interview, LaBolt criticized Paul Ryan for lying about "$716 billion worth of Medicare savings." That's another LaBolt lie. Medicare actuaries said that the Medicare cuts can't be used to make Medicare more solvent at the same time as it's being used to fund the Affordable Care Act, aka the ACA.
Based on these actuaries' testimony, LaBolt's statement is an outright lie. Based on the BLM's statistics, LaBolt's statement about oil independence is an outright lie.
That's what campaigns do when they don't have any accomplishments to point to.
Tags: President Obama , Affordable Care Act , Energy Independence , Ben LaBolt , Mediscare , Gas Prices , Oil Permits , Bureau of Land Management , Medicare Actuaries , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Monday, September 3, 2012 6:49 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 04-Sep-12 09:14 AM
I doubt disenchanted Obama voters will move in droves to embrace Paul Ryan. Romney made that choice, and because he was so circumspect in general, choosing Ryan was his defining moment. While not a Palin, Ryan will be a factor in voter decision making. Present GOP leadership is happy with the decision. Others perhaps not. The choice of Ryan will probably be analyzed more after the election than before. Hindsight is always 20/20.
Comment 2 by eric z at 04-Sep-12 09:22 AM
You link to a Fox thing, so many take that with a grain of salt. Gary, do you know, how many existing permits are presently going unexploited? That seems a key fact the Fox folks cared little about mentioning. There likely is a reason. My understanding, permits have been taken, but in many instances no oil's been pumped, so what purpose would there be in endangering both the West Coast and the East Coast, where offshore expoloitation, per that map on the link you gave, shows as preserved environmentally sensitive areas, which is wise if existing permits go untapped. So, have you data on degree of usage of existing permits? If not, it's speculation in the dark, which is unwise.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Sep-12 10:09 AM
Eric, do you know what percentage of those existing permits aren't being exploited because they can't produce oil at an affordable price? I didn't think so.
Companies are in business to make money. Suggesting that corporations don't want to please shareholders is ignorant.
As for your "endangering both the West Coast and the East Coast" comment, please dial that back to reality. The BP oil spill was more hype than anything else. The environutters claimed it'd take a decade or two to clean up the damage it did. That was BS from the start. More oil leaks out of the ocean floor than was 'gushing' out of the BP deepwater well.
Finally, it's tiresome to read the left's latest jibber-jabber about increasing supply doesn't change gas prices. I've heard those arguments throughout my adult lifetime. In the 70's, the Sierra Club was certain that the Alaskan Pipeline would forever change "the migration routes of the Barrows caribou" for "mayby 5 years worth of oil." Thirty-five years later, it's still pumping oil to Valdez.
I heard the doom & gloom message throughout the 90's, when Clinton argued that it'd take 10 years to bring wells online. A decade later, it would've been nice to have a new set of wells coming online rather than having $3.50-$3.75 a gallon gas.
Comment 3 by eric z at 04-Sep-12 09:29 AM
One last thought. Inland permits, as in NoDak, result in more likely refining and marketing Stateside, which should in an unmanipulated marked mean lower pump prices. If those inland existing permits were fully exploited I agree it would have the potential to help at the gas station. Offshore, load a tanker and market US oil to Europe or China, which would be a clear blessing for Europe and China, but of little beneficial consequence to your gas station visits.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 04-Sep-12 10:10 AM
The Bakken still wouldn't be permitted if it wasn't on private property.
Comment 4 by walter hanson at 04-Sep-12 03:58 PM
Erik:
Keep in mind one reason why those permits go unused is after businesses get the permits and the environment groups or epa will file a lawsuit saying it is unsafe to drill and stops before drilling can take place.
Or as Keystone shows you don't allow a pipeline or refinery to get permitted to be built.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Comment 5 by walter hanson at 04-Sep-12 03:59 PM
Erik:
By your logic since the President has no credibility than quit quoting his talking points. Oh I forgot that is all you and other democrats know.
Talking points! No facts here!! Ignore the lack of facts!!!
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Democrats' platform filled with misinformation
The Democrats' platform is filled with misinformation. This misinformation is worth examining:
The Republican Party has turned its back on the middle class Americans who built this country.
President Obama shut down the Keystone XL pipeline, preventing the creation of thousands of high paying jobs at a time when unemployment in the construction industry is near 15%. Here in Minnesota, Alida Rockefeller-Messinger, Gov. Dayton's first ex-wife, is putting her influence behind the movement to kill taconite mining.
Meanwhile, Mitt Romney is fighting to prevent the Obama administration from shutting down the coal industry. He's promised that one of his first actions as president will be to approve the Keystone XL pipeline project.
The Democrats talk a great game. Unfortunately, the Democrats' actions fall far short of their words.
This part of their platform is BS, too:
They think that if we simply eliminate protections for families and consumers, let Wall Street write its own rules again, and cut taxes for the wealthiest, the market will solve all our problems on its own.
Over 980,000 small businesses file their taxes as individuals. If President Obama's tax policies were implemented, these entrepreneurs would get hit with one of the biggest tax increases in US history.
What's more intellectually dishonest is the fact that the Romney-Ryan tax plan calls for eliminating lobbyist-inspired deductions while lowering tax rates. Middle class families don't hire lobbyists to get preferential treatment. Corporations do. That means that the Romney-Ryan tax reform plan will shut down preferential treatment for corporations.
The ACA piles tons of compliance costs on small businesses. That's on top of the massive tax increase President Obama wants.
Is it any wonder why jobs aren't getting created?
This isn't pure rhetoric but it's close:
They would repeal health reform, turn Medicare into a voucher program, and follow the same path of fiscal irresponsibility of the past administration, giving trillions of dollars in tax cuts weighted towards millionaires and billionaires while sticking the middle class with the bill.
Democrats are right. Republicans won't ignore the people who didn't want the ACA in the first place. These are the same people who want it repealed. As for the part about "giving trillions of dollars in tax cuts" to "millionaires and billionaires", corporations will be the ones who will have their deductions removed in exchange for lower marginal rates.
As for "sticking the middle class with the bill", that's supposition. There isn't proof of that supposition anywhere.
Saying Paul Ryan will "follow the same path of fiscal irresponsibility" that President Bush took isn't credible. It's as foolish as claiming that President Obama created as many jobs as President Reagan .
This paragraph is almost devoid of facts:
They're why we rescued the auto industry and revived our manufacturing supply chain. They're why we helped American families who are working multiple jobs and struggling to pay the bills save a little extra money through tax cuts, lower health care costs, and affordable student
loans.
First, it's almost guaranteed that GM will return for another bailout. So much for rescuing the auto industry. Second, people aren't saving money through lower health care costs. In fact, having government dictate how much money clinics, doctors and hospitals can make is creating a doctor shortage.
Finally, if there's a choice between less expensive schools and less expensive loans to more expensive schools, I'll take the former, not the latter.
Student loans don't automatically make for a more skilled workforce. They just make it easier to make decisions based on projection rather than on what's best for the HS graduate.
I don't see the usefullness in that.
Tags: Democratic Platform , GM Bailout , Doctor Shortage , ACA , Gas Prices , Middle Class , Jobs , Democrats , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, September 4, 2012 10:25 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 05-Sep-12 04:12 PM
And the Republican Platform, wine and roses?
I think the Dems are ahead on abortion rights and on anti-gay bigotry. Ain't nobody's business but their own.
Comment 2 by eric z at 05-Sep-12 06:36 PM
Gary, I have to tell you. This is honest and no BS. I respect your approach far more than that of the banal and stupid but confrontational.
http://crooksandliars.com/john-amato/greta-van-susteren-asks-why-democrats-r
Some people, just by being themselves can make you look exceptionally good by comparison. Gary, I know it is where the money is, but you stand too bright and real-issue-oriented for ever being a paid Fox talking head. Where do they find their bozos?
Now, I will ask you and more importantly, the readers - do any of you really care a rip what either platform says; and do you spend more than a few channel-hopping minutes watching either of those dog-pony shows? It must take a special kind of person to want to attend one of those conventions - booze and partying and gossiping aside, why go? And I am lumping both parties together in that question. Neither Romney nor Obama is in the suite sweating, "I win or lose on what that platform says. It defines me as nothing else can." I expect neither knows his own platform, much less the opposition's.
Comment 3 by walter hanson at 05-Sep-12 09:45 PM
Eric:
Just curious what version of the Democrat platform do you want to defend?
Is it the one that passed on Tuesday night and apparently approved by President Obama or is it the one the Democrats approved apparently illegally since it's obvious the motion didn't have two thirds support needed on the voice vote.
Lets see:
Republicans want the Xcel Pipeline while Obama and Democrats don't!
Republicans call for helping the coal industry grow and create jobs while Obama and Democrats don't!
Republicans want spending to stop growing so the budget can be balanced while Obama and Democrats don't!
Republicans want to repeal Obamacare which is destroying the economy while Obama and the Democrats don't!
Seems the Democrats aren't offering a single thing Eric.
I support the substance that the Republicans are offering, but you're pretending Obama and the Democrats have substance.
Walter Hanson
Minneapolis, MN
Cravaack fights EPA regulatory abuse
Chip Cravaack has consistently fought for mining jobs. Unfortunately, this administration's EPA has made that fight a daily battle. Here's the latest from the EPA regulatory abuse front:
Mesabi Nugget officials recently had a one-way conversation with the Environmental Protection Agency, which the general manager of the plant near Hoyt Lakes said is all too familiar and all too burdensome to all mining operations on the Range.
At a gathering of local officials Friday afternoon in Hoyt Lakes where concerns and frustrations over federal and state environmental regulations were aired, Jeff Hansen said Mesabi Nugget just recently received a Section 114 EPA demand to return information in 26 different areas, which includes internal memos.
No reason or reasons were given for seeking the information, Hansen said. 'We have the authority to request information,' was the wording of the document sent the Mesabi Nugget.
The Obama administration's EPA has harassed miners nationwide, whether it's coal miners or taconite mining interests. I haven't seen proof that the EPA gives any consideration to creating jobs. The only thing I have proof of is that they side with militant environmentalists the vast majority of the time.
This is a fishing expedition in addition to being a perfect example of harassing businesses. It isn't a good sign when a company asks the EPA why they're asking for information and the EPA replies "We have the authority to request information."
All government employees work for We The People. Having a rogue agency harass businesses just because it can is despicable. In addition to wasting the company's time, it adds to businesses' compliance costs. That doesn't help job creation.
Republican 8th District U.S. Rep. Chip Cravaack said the EPA is just 'playing gotcha' with the Mesabi Nugget request, who added that agency workers 'have nothing better to do than harass business and workers.'
I just dropped past the Nolan for Congress news site . The last entry on the page was August 15. I can't find anything from the various news sites that Rick Nolan is even slightly interested in the EPA's renegade behavior.
That should tell Eighth District voters all they need to know about where Mr. Nolan's priorities are. It tells Eighth District voters what he'd do to prevent the EPA from harassing mining companies, too.
The EPA's actions are despicable but what's worse is having a congressional candidate who won't fight for his constituents. That description fits Rick Nolan perfectly.
Follow this link for more on the EPA's fishing expedition.
Tags: Regulations , Chip Cravaack , Mining , EPA , Rick Nolan , Hoyt Lakes , Virginia , Hibbing , DFL , Election 2012
Posted Tuesday, September 4, 2012 1:29 PM
No comments.
LaBolt lies, Cutter swears to it
It's getting tiresome to write that the Democrats' spokespeople are lying in their attempt to criticize Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Still, it's important to highlight their attempts to dishonestly smear the Romney-Ryan ticket.
Jake Tapper's interview of Ben LaBolt and Stephanie Cutter is enlightening how hard they're selling the "Paul Ryan lied" meme:
CUTTER: Well, I mean, Jake, I understand the conversation that we're having about whether campaigns sometimes bend the truth. And we try very hard to get it right. As opposed to the Romney campaign, who've said they're not going to run their campaign based on fact checks, which means facts don't matter to them. We do care about fact checks. We do care about the honesty of our ads. I just want to, you know, on your own network this morning, Paul Ryan was at it again. And it wasn't our headlines last Thursday morning. It was the news media headlines about all of the lies in Paul Ryan's speech.
So I think we do have to acknowledge that there's a difference between running a campaign and prosecuting a case against your opponent and flat-out lying. You know, once again this morning, Paul Ryan said that the president was responsible for the closing of the Janesville plant, a G.M. plan that closed. The announcement was made in December of 2008, but production stopped, do I have that right?, before the president took the oath of office.
Paul Ryan never said that President Obama was responsible for shutting down the Janesville GM plant. Here's what he said in his acceptance speech :
My home state voted for President Obama. When he talked about change, many people liked the sound of it, especially in Janesville, where we were about to lose a major factory.
A lot of guys I went to high school with worked at that GM plant. Right there at that plant, candidate Obama said: "I believe that if our government is there to support you...this plant will be here for another hundred years." That's what he said in 2008.
Well, as it turned out, that plant didn't last another year. It is locked up and empty to this day. And that's how it is in so many towns today, where the recovery that was promised is nowhere in sight.
There are 3 important points to make about what Paul Ryan said in his acceptance speech.
The first important point was that then-Candidate Obama made it sound like an Obama administration would support keeping the Janesville GM plant open "for another hundred years."
Another important point to talk about this plant's closing is to highlight the fact that the recovery President Obama promised hasn't happened. As Paul Ryan said later in his speech, many of his friends who worked at that plant still are unemployed.
Hope and change has morphed into disappointment and despair as a direct result of President Obama's policies. LaBolt and Cutter will undoubtedly attempt to spin that but that's what the statistics show.
Here's the obligatory Cutter-LaBolt spin:
LABOLT: They've actually put Congressman Ryan in the position of attacking $716 billion in Medicare savings that he preserved in his own budget.
CUTTER: And this is the man that was chosen because he was the intellectual leader of the Republican Party.
There's a gigantic difference between the Ryan plan and the effects of the Affordable Care Act. I wrote here about Mr. LaBolt's deception about Medicare:
Medicare actuaries said that the Medicare cuts can't be used to make Medicare more solvent at the same time as it's being used to fund the Affordable Care Act, aka the ACA.
The funds generated from the Medicare payroll tax are supposed to be dedicated to Medicare. Using that trust fund money to pay some of the expenses of the ACA can't save Medicare because they're paying down the ACA's expenses.
It isn't surprising that LaBolt and Cutter aren't telling us the truth. They're in a difficult, impossible position of trying to tell the American people that President Obama's Medicare actuaries didn't testify to the things they testified to.
It isn't that LaBolt and Cutter said these things once, then abandoned them the minute that they were discredited. They're still repeating them:
LABOLT: But the entire premise of the Republican convention last week was based on a set of lies and they were a replacement for Governor Romney talking at all about his policies. You didn't hear about those $5 trillion tax cuts for the wealthiest. You didn't hear about his budget proposal and the fact that if we pass it it will be harder for students to get a loan. It would turn Medicare into a voucher program and cost seniors thousands of dollars out of pocket. Instead, you heard the president's remarks ripped out of Congress - out of context. You heard Congressman Ryan attack Medicare savings in his own budget and blame the president for the closure of a G.M. plant that was slated for closure before the president took office. That was the entire premise of their three-day convention.
First, there is no $5,000,000,000,000 tax cut for the wealthiest Americans. Next, Paul Ryan didn't blame President Obama "for the closure of a G.M. plant." Ryan blamed him for not keeping his promise of keeping the plant open for the next 100 years and for not putting in place policies that produced a real economic recovery.
Cutter and LaBolt: One lies. The other swears to it.
Tags: President Obama , Affordable Care Act , Stephanie Cutter , Ben LaBolt , Mediscare , GM Plant , Lies , Democrat , Paul Ryan , Medicare , GOP , Election 2012
Posted Wednesday, September 5, 2012 2:06 PM
No comments.
