September 20-21, 2017
Sep 20 03:56 Dayton's anti-commerce Commerce Department, Part V Sep 20 18:37 Planned Parenthood & DACA Sep 20 19:40 Defeat these phonies in 2018 Sep 20 20:14 Larry O'Donnell's on-air meltdown Sep 21 00:59 DACA's dishonest spinmeisters Sep 21 09:05 To Minnesota's Supreme Court Sep 21 16:45 Rebecca Otto & corporate welfare
Prior Months: Jan Feb ~ May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Dayton's anti-commerce Commerce Department, Part V
In the first 4 parts of this series (found here , here , here and here ), I focused on different facets of the inadequacies of the Dayton-Rothman Commerce Department. I categorized each of the shortcomings and culprits. Most importantly, I identified the opportunities that the Dayton-Rothman Commerce Department missed and why.
This article will pull everything together so we can put together a less hostile, more business-friendly set of policies that doesn't sacrifice the environment. First, we'll need to streamline the regulatory review process so hostile environmental activists don't have multiple opportunities to throttle key infrastructure projects. Whether we're talking about killing the Sandpiper Pipeline project, the constant attempts by the Sierra Club, Conservation Minnesota and Northeastern Minnesotans for Wilderness to kill both the Twin Metals and the PolyMet projects or the Public Utilities Commission and the Dayton-Rothman Commerce Department, it's clear that the DFL is openly hostile to major infrastructure projects.
It's long past time to get the PUC out of the public safety/transportation business. Similarly, it's time to get the Commerce Department out of the environmental regulatory industry. Public safety and transportation belong in MnDOT's purview, not the PUC's. Environmental regulations need to be significantly streamlined, then shipped over to the DNR. There should be a period for fact-finding and public comment. There should be the submitting and approval/disapproval of an Environmental Impact Statement and the submitting and approval/disapproval of an Economic Impact Statement.
Further, laws should be changed so that there's no longer a requirement to submit an application for a "certificate of need." In effect, that's a bureaucratic regulatory veto of major infrastructure projects. That isn't acceptable. There should be a time limit placed on the bureaucrats, too. They should have to accept or reject applications within a reasonable period of time. That's because regulators have sometimes used delaying tactics to throttle projects without leaving a paper trail. It's also been used to deny companies the right to appeal rulings. (If there isn't a ruling, there isn't an appeal.)
Third, streamlining the review process limits the opportunities for environmental activists to kill projects like those mentioned above. There's a reason why it's called the Commerce Department, not the Department of Endless Delays and Excessive Costs, which is what it's become. Eliminating the PUC's oversight responsibilities, especially in terms of approving certificates of need, will eliminate the impact that environmental activists serving on that Board can have in killing or at least delaying major infrastructure projects.
Fourth, it's important that we bring clarity and consistency to this state's regulatory regime. The system Minnesota has now breeds uncertainty. That steals jobs from Minnesota because companies attempt to avoid Minnesota entirely whenever possible. While we want to preserve our lakes, rivers and streams, we want to preserve our middle class, too. The environment shouldn't be put on a pedestal while communities die thanks to a dying middle class.
I've seen too often how once-proud parts of Minnesota that have a heavy regulatory burden have seen their middle class essentially disappear. Cities like Virginia and Eveleth come to mind. It's immoral to give a Twin Cities agency the authority to kill Iron Range communities. That's literally what's happening right now.
For the last 7 years, Gov. Dayton has run an administration that's of, by and for the environmental activist wing of the DFL. If you work in a construction union, you haven't had a great run. That isn't right. People who work hard and play by the rules should be able to put a roof over their family's head, set money aside for their kids' college education and save for their retirement. For far too many people, that hasn't happened recently.
The next Republican governor should implement these changes ASAP. It's time to destroy the Dayton 'Hostile to business' sign and replace it with an 'Open for business' sign. It's time to get Minnesota government working for everyone once again.
Posted Wednesday, September 20, 2017 3:56 AM
No comments.
Planned Parenthood & DACA
When Jeff Sessions announced that the Trump administration was ending DACA, Planned Parenthood threw a world-class hissy fit . Cecille Richards said "here at Planned Parenthood, we firmly believe that every person has the right to live , work, and raise a family freely and without the threat of deportation or separation." Within minutes, the Twitterverse reacted. Erielle Davidson replied "Irony is dead." Cameron Gray tweeted "And PETA just endorsed bacon." Steve Ahlers replied, saying "Sounds like PP is making a strong case against PP."
The point is that Planned Parenthood, or more precisely, Cecille Richards, is a Democratic operative more than she's an pro-abortion zealot. That isn't to say Ms. Richards is a disinterested bystander on abortions. She isn't. The point is that she's a willing 'soldier' for the progressive cause. I suspect that she's a climate change believer. Further, I suspect that she's an anti-war activist that would fit perfectly with CODEPINK.
This isn't uncommon with progressives. Groupthink isn't just a byword with them. It's who they are.
Richards continued, saying "I'm infuriated. I'm heartbroken. But I'm sure about one thing: Planned Parenthood stands with DREAMers, the young people in this community who are the future of this country, then adding that DACA has "helped so many young DREAMers access health care, get driver's licenses, receive an education, and work to provide for their families - and without DACA, their fate and ability to remain in this country is unknown."
Thanks to the flood of illegal immigrants into the US during the Obama administration, wages dropped in factories. The white working class got the message. The Democratic Party that fought for them had disappeared. The DNCC was mostly interested in attracting Hispanics, the newest growing demographic group. Democrats got so infatuated with Hispanics that they forgot (ignored?) the white working class.
Ben Shapiro criticized and mocked Richards' statements in this interview:
Suffice it to say that Shapiro ripped Richards' statement to shreds.
Posted Wednesday, September 20, 2017 6:37 PM
No comments.
Defeat these phonies in 2018
Joe Donnelly, Joe Manchin and Heidi Heitkamp are 3 of the most vulnerable Democrats in the US Senate that are up for re-election in 2018. They've tried portraying themselves as moderates. The importance of Paul Mirengoff's post is that it provides proof that this trio are phonies.
According to Mirengoff's post, "President Trump chose Noel Francisco for Solicitor General. Francisco has a distinguished background. He clerked for Judge Luttig of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit and then for Justice Scalia." Judge Luttig is J. Michael Luttig, one of the most distinguished conservative jurists of the last century or 2. Mirengoff then noted that "the Senate confirmed Francisco" by a vote of 50-47. Mirengoff noted that the vote "was strictly along party lines", with Donnelly, Manchin and Heitkamp voting with Chuck Schumer, Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren.
Mirengoff then wondered whether this trio of so-called moderates would vote for a more moderate candidate for President Trump's administration. This time, he talked about Rachel Brand, the Associate Attorney General. Mirengoff described her as "a center-right figure and thus, decidedly less conservative than Francisco." Mirengoff then noted Brand's confirmation vote, which was "52-46," with "Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp all [voting] no." Finally, Mirengoff compared these 'moderates' votes for Neil Gorsuch, the conservative jurist and the newest member of the Supreme Court. Here's what he wrote:
Manchin, Donnelly, and Heitkamp all voted to confirm Justice Gorsuch. What does this tell us? It tells us that in a high profile vote that might affect their reelection chances, these three Red State Democrats won't oppose a very conservative nominee. On an under-the-radar vote, they will oppose not only a very conservative nominee, but also a center-right one.
It tells me they are phonies.
At one point, there was talk that Manchin would switch parties. It's pretty apparent that won't happen. The only way to get rid of these phonies is by defeating them in the 2018 midterm elections. It doesn't bother me that they're moderates. It's that they're dishonest. If people pretend that they're moderates but then they vote with Bernie Sanders, Chuck Schumer and Elizabeth Warren, then they can't be trusted. It's time to throw them out if they aren't trustworthy.
Posted Wednesday, September 20, 2017 7:40 PM
No comments.
Larry O'Donnell's on-air meltdown
I could write some commentary on what happens during this video but it wouldn't have the same impact as the video itself. Without further adieu, this video is worth thousands of words:
Posted Wednesday, September 20, 2017 8:14 PM
No comments.
DACA's dishonest spinmeisters
Michael Starr-Hopkins is an attorney. He's also a world-class Democratic spinmeister and a frequent contributor to the Hill magazine. In this op-ed , Starr-Hopkins verifies as fact that he's a world-class Democratic spinmeister, saying "What happened to any semblance of political consistency? Republicans shouldn't have to add falsities into their arguments, but they choose to. Republicans shouldn't have to play to insecurities and fears to drive their party's agenda, but they choose to. Republicans shouldn't be willing to trick and misinform voters to win a political battle, but they choose to. Republicans are making a choice."
Hopkins' op-ed opens by talking about Sheriff Joe Arpaio's pardon. Hopkins' opening paragraph says "Instead of acknowledging facts, Republicans continue to perpetuate the racially-tinged myths that have gridlocked our government. Instead of acknowledging facts, Republicans choose to pontificate about the illegality of Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), while simultaneously defending the unconstitutional racial profiling by Sheriff Joseph Arpaio and the unconstitutional Muslim ban by President Trump."
First, let's introduce some facts into this dispute. The Supreme Court has halted all other courts from issuing an injunction on President Trump's travel ban because they'll hear arguments on whether it's constitutional when their term opens in a couple of weeks. Until then, it isn't proper to say that President Trump's travel ban is unconstitutional. Generally speaking, the Supreme Court has rightfully deferred to the President on issues of national security. It isn't a stretch to think that's what they'll do this time. Next, racial profiling isn't unconstitutional. Depending on the state, it might be illegal but it isn't unconstitutional. (Shouldn't an attorney know the difference between statutes and constitutional principles?)
Check out this paragraph:
Rewriting our political and racial history using identity politics isn't just immoral and dangerous, it's a desperate choice. Identity politics are destroying our ability to have honest conversations. Identity politics are destroying our ability to govern. Identity politics are a tool for distracting away from actual policy debates.
That's pretty stunning. Democrats, not Republicans, have used identity politics for at least the last dozen years. When Mark Udall ran for re-election to the US Senate against Cory Gardner, Udall talked about getting out the women vote so often that the Denver Post nicknamed him Mark Uterus . Then there's Hillary Clinton surrogate Madeleine Albright, who famously told female voters that "There's a special place in hell for women don't help each other":
But I digress. During his interview with Tucker Carlson, Starr-Hopkins was asked why Nancy Pelosi said that people that had broken the law (DACA-protected illegal immigrants) had done a great thing for this nation. Starr-Hopkins said that that wasn't what Ms. Pelosi said. Starr-Hopkins insisted that Ms. Pelosi said that these illegal immigrants had done a great thing for their families. The tape verifies that Starr-Hopkins didn't get it right:
Approximately 3:25 into the video, Ms. Pelosi said "Their families did a great thing for our country, bringing these kids here, who are working..." Ms. Pelosi wasn't praising the parents for their heroism towards their families. She spoke specifically about how illegal immigrants had helped the United States.
My exhortation is to question everything that Starr-Hopkins says. I'd start with a disposition of distrust because he's given me tons of reason for not trusting him. That's just the truth.
Posted Thursday, September 21, 2017 12:59 AM
No comments.
To Minnesota's Supreme Court
To: Minnesota Supreme Court
From: Gary Gross, President, Uppity Peasants Brigade
Subject: Do your damned jobs, aka Gov. Dayton's line-item veto
Several weeks ago, you had the opportunity to settle a pretty straightforward case. You blew it by stating the obvious without doing anything. This can't continue. At issue were 2 constitutional provisions. First was the line-item veto. The other was whether Minnesotans had the constitutional right to 3 fully-functioning branches of government.
Since nobody disputed whether the line-item veto was part of Minnesota's constitution, the only question was whether there were limits on its usage. Gov. Dayton's attorney insisted that there weren't any limitations on how or when he could use it. He was paid to say that. I'd question whether he believed that. It appears as though you don't think that a governor has the right to use the line-item veto. The problem is that you didn't state that emphatically. Instead, you punted, hoping that the political branches would work things out.
They won't and they shouldn't. It's your job to determine constitutional questions. That isn't a political question. It has political ramifications but it isn't a political question.
The other issue you had to determine was whether the people of the state of Minnesota had the constitutional right to 3 fully-functioning branches of government. You said in your ruling that they have that constitutional right. You also said that Gov. Dayton didn't have the right to use a constitutional tool to obtain "an unconstitutional result", presumably referring to the shutting down the legislative branch.
This is where you blew it. It's like a math question. It's like the teacher asked you what 2+2 is. It's like you replied 2+2 equals insufficient information to give an answer. It's clear that you'd rather invite a colony of ants to your picnic than resolve this straightforward case. That's tough. You accepted the job. Now it's time to fulfill your responsibility.
When the Legislature and Gov. Dayton don't resolve this issue, it's time for you to decide this lawsuit in the only logical manner possible. Rule that governors can't disable other branches government with their line-item veto authority.
Finally, in your ruling, you questioned whether the judicial branch had the authority to appropriate money. That isn't relevant. It isn't important to decide that question because Gov. Dayton signed the bill that appropriated money to operate the legislature. By ruling that Gov. Dayton couldn't use his line-item veto to disable another branch of government, you could then legitimately rule that the entire bill appropriated the money to run the legislature. You'd solve 2 constitutional questions with 1 ruling plus you'd fund the legislature.
If you don't get this right, understand that I will lead a campaign to defeat each of you cowards the next time you're up for re-election. That's a threat you can take seriously.
Posted Thursday, September 21, 2017 9:05 AM
No comments.
Rebecca Otto & corporate welfare
State Auditor Rebecca Otto just proposed a state "price on carbon", becoming the first gubernatorial candidate to propose a tax increase this campaign season. According to Ms. Otto, all "of the revenue from the tax would be returned to residents, both in direct payments and rebates, the campaign noted, so there's no net cost to residents or the state's economy."
What Ms. Otto didn't say is that she'd first steal the money from somewhere. It isn't like a person can snap their fingers and make that money instantly appear. Instead, the "plan would charge fossil fuel companies a price for the carbon their products put into the atmosphere." That isn't the infuriating part, though. That comes when Ms. Otto says "Otto said her plans allows residents to make their own free market decisions about whether they want to pay for a product that pollutes the atmosphere or if they want to switch to clean energy. The plan calls for "quarterly clean energy cash dividends," direct payments to residents of about $600 per year for each Minnesota resident. Some 25 percent of the revenue would fund 'clean energy tax credits' offering 30 percent back on the costs of electric cars, solar panels, heat pumps, home weatherization and other energy-saving devices."
That isn't how free markets work. Free markets don't need to put a gun to a person's head to get them to buy a product. What Ms. Otto describes is what I'd call crony capitalism, which is corporate welfare by a different name. It's possible that that's how a socialist might envision free market capitalism working.
Minnesotans will reject Otto the minute they hear this:
According to a 2013 report paid for by the National Association of Manufacturers, a Minnesota carbon tax would force state residents to pay up to 40 percent more for natural gas, 5 percent more for electricity and 20 cents more per gallon of gas. "The increased costs of these critical fuels will impact every person and business in Minnesota. ... "Many Minnesota companies that compete internationally will be placed at a disadvantage as their foreign competitors operate without similar costs."
This proposal is clearly meant to excite the DFL base. The good news for Republicans is that this decision essentially paints a bull's-eye in the middle of Ms. Otto's chest in terms of other voters.
Ms. Otto is fighting an uphill fight. That explains why she made this Hail Mary attempt. Finally, let's take time to realize that Ms. Otto, like Gov. Dayton, isn't a free market capitalist. She's a socialist who has voted against a return to prosperity on the Iron Range. Then she tried leveraging that no vote with a fundraising appeal .
Posted Thursday, September 21, 2017 4:45 PM
No comments.
