September 14-15, 2017
Sep 14 00:32 DFL anti-pipeline protests increase Sep 14 09:08 Mediation, Thissen & transparency Sep 14 16:14 Poor analysis, shoddy predictions Sep 14 21:02 Dayton admits defeat with Amazon Sep 15 02:08 DFL, Betsy Hodges & property taxes Sep 15 11:54 Fabian, Johnson criticize Dayton Sep 15 21:51 Medicare for All's facade
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
DFL anti-pipeline protests increase
According to this article , Minnesotans should expect DFL anti-pipeline protests to increase. According to the AP's reporting, "Protests are ratcheting up against Enbridge Energy's plan to replace its Line 3 crude oil pipeline from Canada to Wisconsin, and against a separate aging Enbridge pipeline under the waterway linking Michigan's upper and lower peninsulas. Six protesters were arrested this week near Superior, Wisconsin, where Enbridge began work in June on a 12.5-mile (20-kilometer) segment amid plans to eventually replace Line 3, which carries Canadian tar sands crude from Alberta across North Dakota and northern Minnesota to its terminal in Superior. The protesters briefly shut down construction Tuesday. Opponents of both pipelines plan Labor Day weekend actions in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan."
Later in the article, the AP quotes Tara Houska of Honor the Earth as saying "I think we're seeing things coming to a head, with Enbridge proceeding to construction in Wisconsin and Canada despite lacking approval of the major segment that runs through Minnesota."
The truth is that the DFL's anti-pipeline protesters are setting the foundation for a Republican governor in 2018. By attempting to kill the Line 3 pipeline, these DFL protesters are telling construction unions that they aren't welcome in the DFL anymore. Couple that with Gov. Dayton's Department of Commerce announcement "that Enbridge hadn't proved the necessity for replacing Enbridge's Line 3 pipeline" and it's pretty apparent that the DFL opposes energy infrastructure at a time when the US is becoming a net exporter of energy.
It's important for union voters to ask a simple question. Why does the political party with Laborer in its name reflexively reject major union construction projects? When the Keystone XL Pipeline project was being proposed, did the Democratic Party fight for those union jobs? Get serious. When the Dakota Access Pipeline, aka DAPL, project was being proposed, where was the DFL? A: They hid. They chose to have Native Americans protest in the hopes of turning public opinion against these pipeline projects. They failed:
As a Republican, I don't want the protests to end. Each time that the protesters appear on TV, it's a winning day for the GOP. It's a winning day because construction unions are realizing that the Democratic party wants their votes, not their agenda.
Posted Thursday, September 14, 2017 7:43 AM
No comments.
Mediation, Thissen & transparency
This article provides some interesting insights into the Minnesota Supreme Court's line-item ruling. It's worth reading just for the plethora of quotes from lawmakers. One of the more interesting quotes was from former Speaker and former House Minority Leader Paul Thissen.
Rep. Thissen's habit of never missing an opportunity to miss a golden opportunity is fun to watch. According to the article, "Echoing that point, former House Speaker Paul Thissen, DFL-Minneapolis, called for transparent mediation. 'We work for Minnesotans, and they deserve a process that is open to the public,' Thissen said. 'They deserve to know who is in the room, and they have the right to know what is being said.'"
Let's dissect that quote. First, Rep. Thissen is right that the legislature works for the people. Rep. Thissen didn't do that. In 2013, in payback to their public employee union special interests, the DFL passed a bill that Gov. Dayton signed that gave SEIU and AFSCME the right to organize in-home child care providers. The thing is that those in-home child care providers, led by Hollee Saville, showed up en masse at the Capitol that day. They lobbied against the bill. They told DFL legislators that they didn't want to be part of a union. The DFL ignored them.
As I said, the bill passed. Then it was signed into law. When the organizing vote happened, the people that the DFL supposedly work for rejected the union by a vote of 1,014-392 . Over 72% of voters rejected unionization. This wasn't a nail-biter. It was more like Reagan vs. Mondale in 1984, Nixon vs. McGovern in 1972 or LBJ vs. Goldwater in 1964.
Q: Why didn't then-Speaker Thissen listen to the people instead of the special interests?
Another part of the quote has Rep. Thissen saying "They deserve to know who is in the room, and they have the right to know what is being said." I don't remember then-Speaker Thissen insisting that negotiations between him, Sen. Bakk and Gov. Dayton be transparent. In fact, what we got from the DFL leadership was a statement saying that they'd agreed to raise taxes after negotiations had theoretically concluded. They we found out that one of those DFL leaders didn't like the tax bill. That led to further negotiations and another statement.
At no point in 2013 did then-Speaker Thissen insist on transparent negotiations.
Watch this speech from Rep. Thissen:
In the speech, Rep. Thissen accuses Republicans of raising property taxes. That's a lie. Republicans don't propose raising taxes. That's what the DFL did in 2013-14. During those years, property taxes in Princeton and St. Cloud skyrocketed.
Rep. Thissen talks a great game. Rep. Thissen's problem is that his actions don't match his statements. That's why he's one of the least-liked legislators in Minnesota. (If you don't believe me, ask the GOP staffers Thissen attacked .)
Posted Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:08 AM
No comments.
Poor analysis, shoddy predictions
This article starts from a faulty premise, then goes downhill from there. The first hint that the article was built on a faulty premise came when it said "I found that Democrats might be able to win by running a 2010 strategy while getting 2006 numbers in the battleground districts. By that I mean that Democrats could win the House by grabbing swing and light-red districts without reclaiming the conservative, ancestrally Democratic areas that padded their numbers in the not-so-distant past."
The faulty premise is that Democrats are still taken seriously. The fact is that they aren't taken seriously anymore. They've abandoned construction unions. They've essentially told farmers that they aren't welcome in the Democratic Party. Thomas Perez, the chair of the DNC, announced that pro-life voters weren't welcome in the Democratic Party.
Let's remember why 2010 was a great year for Republicans. It was great because Democrats refused to listen to voters who told them they didn't want universal health care. In 2010, people across America were upset and then some. There's no sense running a wave election campaign if the passion isn't there.
Another faulty premise is the thought that Democrats could win as many battleground districts in 2018 as they won in 2006. Anyone that thinks that's possible is kidding themselves. With Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren pulling the Democratic Party farther to the left each day, there are fewer battleground districts.
I'm not saying that because Republicans are doing a great job. They aren't. It's that Democrats are alienating lots of groups that used to form their base. You'd think people would notice that blue collar districts went for President Trump but apparently, they haven't. The question we should be asking is this: how many districts that President Trump won will Democrats have to flip in 2018? Another important consideration that isn't getting talked about is simple, too. Why isn't anyone remembering that there's a different group of voters that turn out for midterm election than turn out in presidential elections?
But there are some signs that could help election watchers gauge if we're in 2006 again. Incumbency is a real advantage in congressional elections, so more GOP retirements would be a good sign for Democrats. A continued low job approval rating for Trump, coupled with poor GOP showings in generic ballot polls would also signal trouble for the GOP. Additionally, if races that we don't currently expect to become competitive start to look that way (i.e. district-by-district polling shows tight races, parties unexpectedly start spending resources there, etc.) that might be a sign that it's 2006 again.
I'll save you the trouble of determining whether this election will be like 2006. It won't be. In 2006, voters were mad as hell about the war. Democrats recruited lots of moderates that year, too. These were good fits for their districts. This year, Democrats are going " full socialist ". Redistricting eliminated lots of swing districts. DCCC recruitment chairman Denny Heck has his work cut out for him.
Posted Thursday, September 14, 2017 4:14 PM
No comments.
Dayton admits defeat with Amazon
This isn't exactly shocking but Gov. Dayton is promising that his administration won't put together a package that would attract Amazon to Minnesota.
The article says "Gov. Mark Dayton says any attempt to use state tax dollars to convince Amazon to build a $5 billion headquarters in Minnesota would be "restrained" because of the importance of homegrown competitors Best Buy and Target. Dayton says he called the CEOs at Target and Best Buy last week to reassure them of their companies' importance to Minnesota. The Star Tribune says the DFL governor says both companies have expressed concern about using tax dollars to lure a competitor to Minnesota. Dayton has asked the Department of Employment and Economic Development to put together a proposal for Amazon."
In other words, Minnesota likely wasn't in the running for attracting Amazon so the Dayton administration decided to not put an attractive offer together. Let's be blunt about something. Yes, Minnesota has a well-trained workforce. So do lots of other states. There was a time when that set Minnesota apart. As often happens, other states studied Minnesota's blueprint and copied it. Later, they coupled their well-trained workforce with lower taxes and more sensible regulations.
Gov. Dayton and the DFL have used that same playbook literally for decades. They haven't figured it out that other states have put together better blueprints.
Posted Thursday, September 14, 2017 9:02 PM
Comment 1 by Chad Q at 17-Sep-17 07:35 AM
I'm actually glad Gov. Goofy won't be putting together a give away tax package to a billionaire lefty who uses the money to attack conservatives. Bezos can go build his headquarters in some other state that isn't smart enough to see what Amazon is doing.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 18-Sep-17 05:18 AM
I don't like the mega-packages that states put together, either. My point was that it's foolish to think that a state with high taxes and unreasonable regulations could be competitive in luring companies to the state. Texas doesn't have to put packages like this together because their taxes and regulations are reasonable.
DFL, Betsy Hodges & property taxes
We know that there's two things in life that are guaranteed: death and taxes. Actually, based on this article , there's apparently a third certainty: that DFL mayors can't resist raising property taxes.
Preya Samsundar's article starts by saying "Minneapolis Mayor Betsy Hodges finally revealed her budget plan for 2018 on Tuesday including a proposal for a 5.5 percent property tax levy increase for the upcoming year. Hodges' budget and the address she gave in presenting it covered a laundry list of progressive talking points and policy plans. The budget has a total price tag of $1.8 billion. Almost $6 million in total will be spent on efforts to use non-fossil fuel sources of energy, improve businesses' climate effects, and increase energy efficiency in commercial and residential areas of Minneapolis. This is roughly a 60 percent increase compared with the 2014 budget the year Hodges assumed office."
Hodges knows that she's in a fight for re-election. That's likely why she criticized President Trump in presenting her budget:
"Minneapolis is facing a challenge that we couldn't have conceived of a year ago," Mayor Hodges said. "Though we are shocked by the damage he does every day of his presidency, we have to anticipate that Donald Trump will remain in the White House through 2020. In the next three and a half years he can wreak untold damage to our country with his authoritarian tactics and his policies of oppression and suppression. Once he was elected, we knew it would be a disaster for our country, but even just six months in, it's already far more disastrous than we anticipated." Hodges believes that Trump is coming after "our diversity, our right to vote, our artists, our independent media, our workers" with his policies.
That criticism is just a distraction. Hodges knows that she'll lose if voters focus on the uptick in violence during her administration. She's been a disaster since taking over for the equally disastrous R.T. Rybak.
It isn't that I think Mayor Hodges will lose because she raised property taxes. My point is that the DFL annually promises property tax relief, then falls far short of their promises.
Posted Friday, September 15, 2017 2:08 AM
No comments.
Fabian, Johnson criticize Dayton
Rep. Dan Fabian and Sen. Mark Johnson didn't mince words in their criticism of Gov. Dayton on his administration's ruling that the pipeline isn't needed.
In the opening paragraph of the article, it says the "Department of Commerce's recent analysis that an Enbridge pipeline project is unnecessary defies common sense, northwest Minnesota legislators said this week." Then it gets into specifics, saying "Gov. Mark Dayton's administration is 'siding with environmental extremism instead of common sense.' 'Shutting down this pipeline will have a substantial impact on rural Minnesota', Fabian said in the statement. 'Our local counties, school districts and townships will lose critical property tax revenue, and what's more, jobs will be affected and there will be fewer workers patronizing local businesses like our grocery stores and motels. Plain and simple, bureaucrats in St. Paul are advancing policies that hurt Greater Minnesota.'"
That's the heart of the matter. The DFL is ruled by environmental extremists who want to totally eliminate the use of fossil fuels. I know that sounds paranoid but it's based on what the Sierra Club has said publicly. The Sierra Club is even opposed to natural gas :
If drillers can't extract natural gas without destroying landscapes and endangering the health of families, then we should not drill for natural gas.
There isn't much difference between the Dayton administration saying that we don't need pipelines because our need for oil "isn't likely to increase over the long-term" and the Sierra Club insisting that natural gas isn't clean. Neither statement is credible.
The Sierra Club's hands aren't clean, either:
Then there's this:
"I am frustrated the Dayton administration and Department of Commerce are once again dragging their feet on this project and throwing roadblock after roadblock in the way of this critical pipeline replacement," Johnson said in the statement. "It seems they are more interested in working for special interests instead of supporting citizens, industry and good-paying jobs."
In late August, Johnson, Fabian, Rep. Deb Kiel, R-Crookston, and 50 other state legislators signed a letter of support for the project. "The Department of Commerce's recommendation to shut down and not replace Enbridge Line 3 is another example of policymakers in St. Paul ignoring common sense and the priorities of Greater Minnesota," Kiel said in a statement Thursday. "It's time the Dayton Administration put the people of Minnesota first instead of special interests."
If the DFL wants to know why they lost the rural vote and is losing ground on the labor vote, this article explains it pretty well. You can't be pro-laborer while opposing the projects that employ those unionists. The DFL has done a masterful job -- if their goal was to alienate construction unions.
Posted Friday, September 15, 2017 11:54 AM
No comments.
Medicare for All's facade
There's no denying the fact that Bernie Sanders doesn't believe in timidity. That doesn't mean he believes in total transparency. It just means that he's prone to proposing wild ideas.
Proposing the Medicare for All Act of 2017 fits into that category. Intelligent people don't propose legislation like that. Intelligent people don't co-sponsor legislation like that, either. Matthew Continetti's article highlights how far left the Democratic Party has drifted.
According to the article, "'Mr. Sanders did not say how he would pay for his bill,' writes Robert Pear of the New York Times. 'Aides said he would issue a list of financing options.' The 'options' are not included in the bill - but they are enough to raise the hair on the back of one's neck."
Sen. Sanders didn't include his financing preferences because his bill is unaffordable. According to this LA Times article , "A single-payer healthcare system in California -- a galvanizing cause among the state's progressive flank - would cost $400 billion annually, according to a legislative analysis released on Monday." Later, the article states:
The analysis, released in advance of the proposal's hearing in a key fiscal committee, fills in what has so far been the biggest unanswered question concerning the plan to dramatically overhaul California's healthcare coverage. The analysis found that the proposal would require:
A total cost of $400 billion per year to cover all healthcare and administrative costs. Of that, $200 billion of existing federal, state and local funds could be repurposed to go toward the single-payer system. The additional $200 billion would need to be raised from new taxes.
California's population represents approximately one-eighth of the US population. Multiply that $400,000,000,000 times 8 to get to the approximate annual cost of Sen. Sanders' hoax. This isn't a plan because Sen. Sanders all but officially admits that it's impossible to fund his fantasy :
The Sanders bill would add hundreds of millions of people into an already financially-strapped program while making it more generous -- within four years. At no point in the legislation does he describe how he would expect to pay for this ambitious idea or deal with massive disruption it would mean for businesses, workers, and those trying to access care.
Not dealing with a massive spending increase is like declaring war but forgetting to name who you've declared war on. That's utter insanity. Here's Bernie and his politically suicidal friends touting Bernie's Medicare for All Act of 2017:
Posted Friday, September 15, 2017 9:51 PM
Comment 1 by JerryE9 at 16-Sep-17 11:09 AM
Maybe we should ask some people who had "insurance they liked" before going on Medicare? Trust me, it is a real downgrade in service and increase in price. Maybe if it was free it would be worth every penny.
