September 25-30, 2015
Sep 25 01:25 School board spins polling stations Sep 25 08:17 Special election update Sep 25 08:44 Today's bombshell announcement Sep 26 10:41 Clueless CNN, McConnell, Boehner Sep 26 13:59 Pelosi and Planned Parenthood Sep 27 08:39 Worked up Willie's whining Sep 29 01:55 Bonding referendum forums Sep 29 08:20 Paying for Trump's tax cuts Sep 30 08:48 Putin attacks Assad's enemies
Prior Months: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug
Prior Years: 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
School board spins polling stations
In midterm elections and presidential elections, 65 polling stations are open in St. Cloud. In this year's off-off-year election, the St. Cloud ISD742 School Board will only open 13 polling stations. According to this St. Cloud Times article , Kevin Januszewski, executive director of business services for the St. Cloud school district, said this move is designed save on the cost of the election. What Mr. Januszewski isn't saying is that having the election next year would eliminate the school board's cost of the bonding referendum vote entirely. That's because there's a presidential election next year.
Voter participation is at its highest during presidential elections. Further, the cost to the school district drop dramatically because they don't pay for the entire election. If costs are significantly less and voter participation is at its highest, that's the sweet spot. Public officials are always saying that they want high voter participation rates. Here's the opportunity to guarantee that. Why didn't the ISD742 School Board pick 2016 for this gigantic bonding referendum vote?
Is it because they want low turnout? Apparently so. I noted in this post that voter participation from within the education community was sure to be close to 100% while voter participation from the average taxpayer will at its lowest. It's historically been that way for decades.
To the taxpayers:
- Has the school district asked you for your input into this important decision?
- Has the school board informed you about the bonding referendum beyond vague generalities?
- Has the school district been upfront with you about the property tax implications for you personally?
- Have they explained the ramifications of this property tax increase on St. Cloud's tax base?
- Has the school board explained why they're holding this vote when voter participation is at its lowest?
Personally, the answer to those questions are no, no, no, no and no. Without answers to these important questions, I can't support this referendum at this time. Vote no on November 3.
Posted Friday, September 25, 2015 1:25 AM
No comments.
Special election update
Few people south of Brainerd know that there's a special election that's going to be held in the next month. People living in International Falls, Grand Portage and Grand Marais know it well because their representative in the 2015 session, David Dill, passed away this summer after a tough fight with cancer. The DFL hoped to avoid lots of bloodshed by not holding an endorsing convention, which I wrote about here .
I wrote then that "Paul Fish, the DFL chairman of the district, issued a statement on why they chose not to hold an endorsing convention, saying 'The residents of House District 3A lost a true champion with the passing of Rep. David Dill. The voters of 3A deserve the opportunity to select the DFL candidate who best represents their interests. Therefore, a DFL endorsing convention for the 3A seat will not be held. Participation in the September 29th primary is encouraged.'"
Fish won't get his wish of not having a food fight after Bill Hansen's unhinged moment. When talking about PolyMet, Hansen, a hardline environmental activist, flamed out, saying "We need the jobs. Jobs are important. But those aren't the jobs we want . In this modern age, these projects are going to be man camps ... that clear out the community, create a lot of crime, prostitution, gambling . All kinds of community problems and tend to drive out other sustainable jobs."
That's stunning. Saying that in a mining district right before a special election can't be good. Labor's response was predictable:
"Mr. Hansen has degraded our members for his own personal and political gains. He clearly has a delusional and skewed view of current-day construction workers and the value they bring to their families and community." -- Mike Syversrud, President of the Iron Range Building and Construction Trades Council
I won't predict the outcome of this special election. I'll just say that this special election has the potential for some serious fireworks.
Posted Friday, September 25, 2015 8:17 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Sep-15 06:00 PM
fyi - The latest is Branden Petersen will not only decline to run again, but is resigning; so there will be another special election, SD35; GOP side so far filed, (per a report where I lack a link so Gary, please check it out), alphabetical order - Jim Abeler, Andy Aplikowski, Wayne Huizenga. I hope that's correct and spellings are right. But look into it. I am unaware of any DFL action about the seat, where folks might have previously been waiting on a different timetable.
Detail on timing etc. re a special election is not something I have seen reported online. You might ask Andy.
Today's bombshell announcement
This NYTimes article is this week's political bombshell:
WASHINGTON - Speaker John A. Boehner will resign from Congress and give up his House seat at the end of October, according to aides in his office.
Mr. Boehner was under extreme pressure from the right wing of his conference over whether or not to defund Planned Parenthood in a bill to keep the government open.
The race for the next speaker is essentially open.
Posted Friday, September 25, 2015 8:44 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Sep-15 05:53 PM
K Street?
Clueless CNN, McConnell, Boehner
This article by CNN's Maeve Reston and Stephen Collinson is a worthwhile read. That doesn't mean they don't get some important things wrong, though.
It's apparent that they think anyone calling themselves a TEA Party conservative agrees with Ted Cruz's strategies 100% of the time. That's apparent when they said "Despite the constitutional constraints on action in Washington and the presence of a Democratic President with a veto in the White House, they are furious that the GOP has failed to overturn Obamacare."
Actually, I'm not upset with the GOP Congress for "fail[ing] to overturn Obamacare." I'm furious with Mitch McConnell and John Boehner for not pushing the conservatives' reform agenda. There's no excuse for why they haven't pushed Tom Price's health care reforms. It's filled with popular features that are infinitely more popular than the mandates in the ACA. There's no excuse for not pushing Paul Ryan's tax simplification legislation. Republicans and Democrats alike support tax simplification. Most importantly, it's supported enthusiastically by small business entrepreneurs.
There's no excuse for Mssrs. Boehner and McConnell haven't pushed cutting government based on the GAO's reports of duplicative programs. I'd love hearing Democrats defend programmatic duplication that runs into the tens of billions of dollars. (That isn't a typo. It's billions with a B.)
Finally, and I'm especially passionate about this, there's no justification for not pushing Ron Johnson's regulation reform. Sen. Johnson's reforms aim to neuter something he calls "weaponized government." When the EPA insists that a couple in Idaho can't build their dream home on land they purchased because there's a low spot somewhere on the property, that's weaponized government. There's nothing about that that lives up to "of, by and for the people."
Though I'm upset with CNN, that's nothing compared with how pissed off I am with Mssrs. Boehner and McConnell.
Posted Saturday, September 26, 2015 10:41 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Sep-15 05:52 PM
We agree, Gary. I am not fond of either of that pair either.
Pelosi and Planned Parenthood
Nancy Pelosi's statement about the House Republicans' plan to vote to defund Planned Parenthood is typical Democratic spin. Ms. Pelosi's statement that "House Republicans are planning yet another taxpayer-funded Select Committee to burn more of the millions of taxpayer dollars they've already spent playing politics - this time with the goal of taking lifesaving preventative care away from millions of American women" is particularly offensive.
It's offensive because the alternative to investigating Planned Parenthood's activities is to turn a blind eye towards Planned Parenthood's activities. That's the Democrats' pattern. If anyone wants to scrutinize one of their 'sacred cow' institutions, the Democrats' reflexive reaction is to accuse the people who want to examine that institution's activities as being haters.
Kirsten Powers' USA Today article on the Gosnell murder trial provides a powerful picture of what happens when people stop paying attention. In April, 2013, Ms. Powers wrote that "Since the murder trial of Pennsylvania abortion doctor Kermit Gosnell began March 18, there has been precious little coverage of the case that should be on every news show and front page."
After whining about Republicans establishing "another taxpayer-funded Select Committee" to investigate Planned Parenthood's activities, Ms. Pelosi wrote that "there must be a thorough investigation of the blatant wrongdoing of the group that clandestinely filmed and selectively edited these videos, likely in violation of numerous state and federal laws."
Ms. Pelosi lives in an alternative universe where it's unfair to investigate organizations that get taxpayer funding but it's imperative to investigate people who uncovered that taxpayer-funded organization's questionable activities.
Posted Saturday, September 26, 2015 1:59 PM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Sep-15 05:50 PM
The problem is it represents a frontal attack by big government interference regimentation inclined people to deny freedom of choice to families wanting to run their private lives, including abortion decision making - whether to have a child or not once a pregnancy has happened. As such it is a pack of hypocrites if also saying get government off our backs. Get the fundies off people's backs is a big time part of the full story, and shutting down the government to make it more intrusive does not make sense and will cause hardship - because they can.
Response 1.1 by Gary Gross at 29-Sep-15 06:35 AM
There isn't a right, fundamental or otherwise, to infanticide. There's eyewitness testimony that babies totally outside the mother's womb had the connection to their brains snipped, ending their lives. I know you don't believe that that type of butchery happens but it does. See Gosnell, Kermit.
Comment 2 by eric z at 29-Sep-15 08:38 AM
1. Google "infant." Compare, "embryo." 2. Discern differences between "eyewitness testimony" and "reliable eyewitnes testimony." There is a difference. Yes there are videos bandied about, but Triumph of Will was better filmed and better directed and better edited propaganda. But propaganda, nonetheless.
Response 2.1 by Gary Gross at 30-Sep-15 09:07 AM
Eric, the videos have been audited, not that you'll believe the conclusion. It's a shame that you think this is just propaganda. Explain how it's propaganda when Deborah Nucatola sipped wine while telling CMP how Planned Parenthood 'doctors' used a different technique when 'harvesting' baby body parts. I'll agree that it's using Dr. Nucatola's own words to expose her but that isn't propaganda. Propaganda is "information, ideas, or rumors deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person", with the key word being rumors. This isn't a rumor since it's captured on videotape.
To steal Al Gore's phrase, it's an "inconvenient truth" that Planned Parenthood doesn't want to deal with.
I'll finish with something Daniel Patrick Moynihan said years ago. He said that people "are entitled to their own opinions. They just aren't entitled to their own truth." Just because you don't like this truth doesn't mean it isn't the truth. Deal with it.
Comment 3 by eric z at 01-Oct-15 10:22 AM
Gary - Deal with the fact the McCarthyism against Planned Parenthood will fail, and boomerang against those peddling the assault against women's health issues and against families who want the government out of their reproductive decision making.
People don't want fundie prejudices ruining their lives. The fundies can do what they want with their own life choices. Nobody is trying to intervene there. Just stay out of my face, so to speak, and why want a big government bootheel footprint trampled upon choice? It makes no "conservative" sense.
Roe v. Wade is the law, and rats are chewing wherever they think they can at its foundation, and dumping on Planned Parenthood is but one rat chew.
I say politics that will boomerang, you say bedrock truth and such, so why don't we wait and see?
The Behghazi fig-leaf has just been dropped by the Speaker-to-be, unless his truthfulness on motive ends up scuttling his ascendance, so I suggest we wait and see how the people, in November 2016 feel.
Response 3.1 by Gary Gross at 01-Oct-15 05:08 PM
Eric, it's shameful to hear the term McCarthyism used in this situation. The fact is that even pro choice people have said that they've been repulsed by what they saw on those videos. Trying to turn this into a religious fundamentalist minority vs. an enlightened majority issue isn't supported by polling. Three-fourths of the people of this nation don't support late-term abortion, which is what's happening in CMP's videos.
I don't care if you don't like that but facts are stubborn things. Deal with it.
Comment 4 by Chad Q at 01-Oct-15 12:26 PM
Oh the metal gymnastics a progressive has to do to justify the slaughter of babies.
Worked up Willie's whining
When Bill Clinton first appeared on the national stage, he brought a nickname with him -- Slick Willie. It wasn't used affectionately. Twenty five years later, Slick Willie has disappeared. Bill Clinton isn't slick anymore. Based on this article , Worked Up Willie is a better fit.
In an interview that's scheduled to air today on CNN, Worked Up Willie does his best to take pressure off Hillary, saying "I have never seen so much expended on so little. She said she was sorry that her personal email caused all this confusion. And she'd like to give the election back to the American people. I think it will be all right. But it's obvious what happened.' The problem Bill has, that Hillary has really, is what they can't say.
Hillary can't say that she's sorry for compromising the United States' national security by exposing the United States' sources and methods to hacking invasions by China and Russia. Hillary can't really say that she's done everything possible to keep United States' satellite imagery out of Chinese and Russians' hands.
President Clinton knows these things. That's why he's attempting to deflect attention away from those questions. He's doing for Hillary what Hillary did for Bill during Monicagate. The problem is that she isn't the skilled politician he was. People don't trust her. They don't like her, either.
That's because Hillary hit the trifecta of negativity. She isn't likable. She isn't trustworthy. She's definitely a terrible politician. You can do much worse than that.
Posted Sunday, September 27, 2015 8:39 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 28-Sep-15 05:45 PM
Bernie does not have any rattling skeletons.
Just saying ---
Bonding referendum forums
According to Bruce Mohs' editorial , the St. Cloud School District will host 2 informational meetings to inform citizens what their property tax increases will pay for. Unfortunately, these informational meetings won't give citizens the opportunity to provide input into what their property tax increases will pay for.
According to Mohs' editorial, this is informational only. Given how much effort has been put into keeping this vote secret and given how much effort has gone into limiting taxpayers' options, it isn't surprising that citizen participation is being limited.
According to Mohs' editorial, "The first forum will be from 6:30-8:30 p.m. Oct. 5 at Whitney Senior Center. This session will be facilitated by Jay Caldwell from WJON-AM and will include a formal presentation from Neighbors For School Excellence, breakout group discussions, and a question-and-answer period."
Notice that it doesn't say that taxpayers will have the opportunity to explore other, less costly, options that would cost less than this Taj Mahal of a project. Mohs and other school board members apparently think that this project is too important to their legacy to give citizens the opportunity to have a real say in the matter.
Here's a hint to Mohs and his cohorts. School board members don't have legacies. Presidents and secretaries of state have legacies. School board members, if they're lucky, are footnotes in history. Unfortunately, taxpayers foot the bill for these people's egos.
Posted Tuesday, September 29, 2015 1:55 AM
No comments.
Paying for Trump's tax cuts
Last night on the Kelly File, Roger Stone tried explaining how Trump's tax plan would be paid for. Unfortunately for him, he talked himself into a corner that there's no getting out of. Stone insisted that Trump is a fiscal conservative, saying that Mr. Trump would offset the cost of his tax plan by cutting spending. At that point, Guy Benson highlighted Mr. Stone's spin, saying that we should be skeptical of spending cuts coming from a guy who's "proposing Obamacare on steroids."
Sunday night on 60 Minutes, Trump was asked about his health care plan, at which point Mr. Trump said "I'm going to take care of everybody. I don't care if it costs me votes. Everybody's going to be taken care of much better than they're taken care of now." When Pelley pressed Mr. Trump further about who would pay for this coverage, Mr. Trump said "the government's gonna pay for it. But we're going to save so much money on the other side."
The question Mr. Stone left unanswered is how a man that wants government to pay for everyone's health care is a fiscal conservative. It's unanswered because it isn't possible. That's like saying a company's intellectual property is safe because they hired an IT guy away from the Chinese government to secure their intellectual property.
Posted Tuesday, September 29, 2015 8:20 AM
Comment 1 by eric z at 29-Sep-15 08:33 AM
How does the trump plan differ from the bush family's 2016 tax cuts for wealth proposals?
Or is that not a question of interest here? The Bush family's candidate has stated a "plan."
What differences, if any, are there?
Is either different from standard discredited trickle down - magic growth will happen unlike the earlier times, time and again?
Comment 2 by Chad Q at 29-Sep-15 06:13 PM
Yeah because that rocket up poverty the progressives have been peddling for the last 60 years has helped so many people. I mean with 7 years of no growth, losses in wages and wealth, record numbers of people in poverty, record numbers on food stamps, record numbers renouncing citizenship, etc., progressives must be pretty proud of themselves. That's right, it's all Bush's' fault.
But I digress. It's just more platitudes from Trump with no real answers for the questions. He wants to be everything to everyone but he doesn't understand you can't out give a progressive. Hillary, Sanders, or Biden will promise free whatever to the sheep and they will be led to slaughter just like they have for 60 years and nothing will change.
Comment 3 by eric z at 01-Oct-15 10:09 AM
Great response, Chad.
Now, how does the Trump plan differ from the Bush family's candidate's proposals?
I see congruence, so explain, Trump is wrong, Bush is correct? Or are they both wrong, and why?
And how do you see old-fashioned trickle down differing from either Trump or Bush top end tax cutting, yet again.
The past sixty years include Reagan-Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, and then W tax cuts of the same nature, so what in the argument am I missing?
What have those fabled job creators been doing with their windfalls? Creating Chinese jobs? Jobs for industrial robots? What? You want a third strike before scoring an out?
Putin attacks Assad's enemies
Almost 18 months ago, President Obama announced that the United State would start an air campaign to degrade and destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. Thus far, President Obama's military strategy has been virtually nonexistent. This morning, Russia told the US military to stay out of Syria so it could conduct the airstrikes. Surprisingly, President Obama didn't agree to Russia's order.
According to reports, "Russian warplanes have begun bombarding Syrian opposition targets in the war torn nation's north, working on behalf of dictator Bashar al Assad, according to a senior military official. The official said airstrikes targeted fighters in the vicinity of Homs, located roughly 60 miles east of a Russian naval facility in Tartus, and were carried out by a "couple" of Russian bombers."
It's worth noting that Russia isn't targeting ISIS. Yesterday, Donald Trump said that we should let Russia take out ISIS first, then the United States can take out Assad. I wrote here that Trump's policy is as weak as President Obama's.
Letting Russia reassert itself in Syria gives them a foothold from which they can destabilize the region. Certainly, Russia is attempting to prop up Syria and Iran. That isn't in the United States' interests economically or in the fight to eliminate global jihadists. A protected Iran isn't in our allies' interests. It certainly isn't in Israel's interests if Iran is protected by Putin.
It's time for President Obama to stop his appeasement policies. It's time, too, for Mr. Trump to start learning the players in the Middle East. Either that or it's time for him to drop out. At this point, Trump's grasp of the Middle East, or lack thereof, is frightening our allies.
Posted Wednesday, September 30, 2015 8:48 AM
No comments.
