Archive for the ‘Michele Bachmann’ Category

When Michele Bachmann officially becomes a private citizen again, the St. Cloud Times will need to find a new villain. Their hatred of all things Michele has been documented throughout the years. I’m not sure I ever read them praise her. If they did, it was buried in their avalanche of criticism of Michele. The Times’ hatred of her stems mostly from Randy Krebs. His op-ed is filled with incredible criticism. This one is most ironic:

I find the most stunning aspect of Bachmann’s political style is her refusal to admit she makes mistakes. It’s like she’s perfect, like she walks on water.

This coming from a man who isn’t capable of admitting he’s ever made a mistake. Last year, when Michele and 4 other conservative Republicans worried about the State Department’s pro-Muslim Brotherhood slant, I tried submitting a YTE editorial. Randy Krebs rejected the YTE, calling my statements “unsubstantiated allegations.” I explained in this post how Krebs wasn’t just a little bit wrong:

This week, I attempted to submit an LTE defending Michele Bachmann. I tried highlighting the fact that the questions Michele Bachmann, Louie Gohmert, Trent Franks, Lynn Westmoreland and Tom Rooney asked were both legitimate and substantive. I used information from Andrew McCarthy’s article to show that Huma Abedin’s parents had significant ties to radical Islam, including to the Wahhabist movement that produced 15 of the 19 9/11 terrorists.

Despite quoting Mr. McCarthy’s impeccable documentation for the LTE, Mr. Krebs told me that they wouldn’t publish an LTE based on “unsubstantiated allegations.” It’s insulting that Mr. Krebs would argue about “unsubstantiated allegations,” especially considering this research by Walid Shoebat. Shoebat’s research is detailed, on topic and damning. Mr. Shoebat was a “radicalized Muslim willing to die for the cause of Jihad” until his conversion to Christianity.

Here’s the subtitle to Mr. McCarthy’s article:

Michele Bachmann has every right to ask questions.

Krebs’ blind hatred of Michele Bachmann wouldn’t permit him to admit that his criticism of Michele wasn’t right. He’d excoriated her for her calling for an investigation. The lead prosecutor in the trial against the Blind Sheikh said this about Michele’s claims:

Representative Bachmann is one of five House conservatives who have raised concerns about Muslim Brotherhood infiltration of our government. Glenn Beck reported Tuesday that GOP leadership is trying to extort an apology out of Bachmann by threatening to boot her from the House Intelligence Committee if she fails to submit.

That got me to wondering: Any chance Speaker Boehner might take just a couple of minutes out of his busy jihad against Bachmann to focus on how the State Department, during Ms. Abedin’s tenure, has cozied up to Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the Muslim Brotherhood’s chief sharia jurist?

I suspect that the man who led the successful prosecution and conviction of the Blind Sheikh might know more about the Muslim Brotherhood than Mr. Krebs. When I pointed out that Mr. McCarthy was a respected expert on terrorism, I got an email from Krebs saying that my YTE was based on “unsubstantiated allegations.”

Isn’t it a bit ironic that Krebs now whines that Michele can’t admit when she’s wrong? First, shouldn’t Krebs practice what he preaches before criticizing others for what he won’t do? Mr. Krebs, if you aren’t willing to admit your verifiable mistakes, why should we listen to anything you say?

Finally, it’s long past time for Mr. Krebs to admit that Michele’s positives exist and that they’re important. Perhaps that isn’t possible because he’s approved far too many I-hate-Michele LTEs. The common trait of those LTEs is that they’re filled with emotion-filled, fact-free anti-Michele rants.

Witness her 2012 campaign. She agreed to only three debates with challenger Jim Graves, all within the last two weeks of the election. Only one of those was in a public setting, here in St. Cloud. But even it was moderated by the deep-red St. Cloud Area Chamber of Commerce.

The St. Cloud Chamber of Commerce is filled with people who believe in capitalism and who do good work. Saying that they’re “deep-red” isn’t just a stretch. It’s an exaggeration of epic proportions. That statement by Mr. Krebs shows just how liberal he is.

The Times is running a loose shop. If they don’t get their act together quickly, they’ll fade into irrelevance. That said, Mr. Krebs is in danger of that already.

When it comes to intellectual foolishness, it’s difficult to beat the St. Cloud Times Editorial Board. This editorial is laced with that intellectual foolishness. Here’s a prime example:

Sure, his desire to beat Bachmann is implied in most every speech, news release and public appearance. However, the words he speaks (and writes) literally list priorities that go well beyond who isn’t in office. Here are two very recent examples:

“… I’m running to work with both sides to find ways to balance the budget, keep our promises to seniors, create jobs and strengthen the middle class,” closes out a “Why I’m Running” explanation on his website.

“… As a businessman who has balanced budgets and created jobs, I’m running to work with both sides to find ways to balance the budget, keep our promises to seniors, create jobs and strengthen the middle class,” is the final quote he issued in announcing April 12 his candidacy for the 6th District seat in the 2014 elections.

So was that all just lip service?

It’s amazing that a supposedly high profile newspaper didn’t notice that Jim Graves’ platform was all about him not being Michele Bachmann. Either they didn’t notice or they’re pretending that they didn’t notice that that’s Graves’ motivation.

The foolishness continues:

Another big reason for disappointment is the stark reality that, contrary to Graves’ belief, Minnesota’s Republican Party, foundering amid an internal ideological war and massive debt, could very well end up nominating a candidate similar to Bachmann.

And to be even more honest, who is to say the DFL Party, emboldened by its dominance at the state level, might not just find an extreme DFLer to put on its ticket?

First, there isn’t another person who is as steadfast in her belief in the right things as Michele Bachmann. Her charisma, her policy chops and her love of limited government gave people a reason to vote for her.

Next, the DFL has nominated extremists before to run against Michele. Graves’ talk about being a new Democrat was a fallacy. Barney Frank, one of the most extremist, hateful Democrats in DC, hosted a fundraiser for him. Graves told me that the PPACA was a free market solution to the health care crisis. The truth is that it’s a government-centered program.

As this board noted last fall, the appeal of Graves is his moderate viewpoints. He was an island of common sense and potential compromise amid a sea of political extremism.

On the issues, Graves sounded more moderate than he really was. More importantly, his policies wouldn’t solve America’s problems. The PPACA won’t lower health care costs. In fact, health insurance premiums are rising rapidly. There will be almost as many uninsured with the PPACA in place as before. Graves the politician didn’t see the need for uprooting the PPACA.

Graves the politician never talked about the crippling effects of the federal government’s overregulation. Michele Bachmann fought against the federal government’s overregulation every minute she was in DC. America’s economy can’t grow with the regulators running wild. Graves didn’t have a plan for that. That’s because it wasn’t a priority for him.

If you don’t reduce the federal government’s overregulation, we can’t achieve energy independence. Jim Graves didn’t speak about the need for achieving energy independence. Michele frequently spoke about reducing regulations and achieving energy independence.

For all the Times talk about Graves the moderate, they’ve never spoken about his policies or his problem-solving abilities. They seemed to think that being a compromiser was the chief qualification for being a congressman. That type of wrong-headed thinking is what’s gotten America in the trouble it’s in.

We don’t need compromisers as much as we need people who get policies right. Michele Bachmann made some indefensible statements. That said, she’s been right on the issues, from energy independence to health care to taxes to regulations. I’d love it if the Times got rid of their irrational hatred of Michele. If they’d paid attention to the issues, they might’ve appreciated what Michele brought to the table.

Instead, they got a tingle up their leg for any DFL politician who criticized Michele. What a pathetic excuse for a newspaper.

Tom Steward’s article contains some spot-on analysis of the impact Michele Bachmann’s announcement will have on the DFL and the DCCC:

Strategists say it’s not a good day, however, for Graves’ chances to wrestle the seat out of the Republican column.

“Graves doesn’t have Bachmann to run against and partly I think he was benefiting by her being a lightning rod,” said political analyst David Schultz of Hamline University. “So now he’s got to worry about perhaps now there may be another Republican running who’s less of a lightning rod and doesn’t come with all the baggage Bachmann has.”

“Jim Graves’ candidacy is based on the fact he’s not Michelle Bachmann,” said Ben Golnik, a Republican consultant. “Graves went from a slight shot to virtually little chance of winning against a Republican candidate with a fresh slate.”

Jim Graves shouldn’t be underestimated. He’s got tons of money he can spend on his campaign. The media will take every opportunity to pretend that he’s a “new Democrat.” The DCCC will dump tons of money into the race.

That said, Graves’ only shot at winning in 2014 hinged on his ability to remind voters that he isn’t Michele Bachmann. That strategy disappeared this morning about 3:00 am. Whether it was Pelosi vilifying her or Bill Clinton vilifying Newt Gingrich, the reality is that Democrats need to a) run as something they’re not and b) run against a boogeyman.

When Michele’s video got noticed, the DFL’s and the DCCC’s biggest boogeywoman disappeared.

The loss of Bachmann also complicates Democratic messaging and fundraising well beyond the borders of her district. “Bachmann has been a great boon for Democratic fundraising and MSNBC has loved her,” Schultz said. “She’s become basically the person they get to rail against for ratings and to fund raise against and in the state of Minnesota she has been part of the face of the Republican party in Minnesota for the last eight to ten years. Her leaving just makes it harder for people to identify a boogeyman to run against.”

John Hinderaker’s post highlights just how foolish Democrats sound in their messaging with this commentary:

This morning the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out an email commenting on Michele Bachmann’s announcement that she will not run again in 2014. The email employed the breezy, low-rent tone that the Democrats have perfected. You wonder who writes these things; is it a 22-year-old slacker, or is there some middle-aged guy who gets paid millions to impersonate one?

In their email fundraising appeal, they talked themselves into a circle. They started with this:

THIS IS HUGE! Now that the Tea Party’s ringleader has called it quits, Boehner has to be wondering who’s next to go. If we can sweep up 17 Republican seats, we can take Boehner’s Speaker’s gavel and win a Democratic House for President Obama!

Then they say this:

Bachmann’s announcement is a huge blow to vulnerable House Republicans, so we need to put the pressure on them while they’re still reeling.

The DCCC essentially said that she’s a crazy nutjob who is the key to the Republicans keeping their House majority. That’s as credible as saying that Jim Graves is a policy heavyweight. Now Graves is a man without a boogeyman to run against.

Randy Krebs, the Editorial Page editor at the St. Cloud Times, has repeatedly shown a willingness to apply a double standard to the LTEs he approves. It’s appalling that he’d approve this LTE. Look at this assertion of fact:

Because Bachmann is a tax attorney and once worked for the IRS, I find it ironic that she wants a deeper probe toward the actions that the IRS took. Nobody raised this kind of fuss when the IRS took similar action toward Democratic groups when Republicans were in the White House.

Claudette Moran is the idiot that wrote this LTE. Her accusations should be highlighted because they’re baseless. What proof does Claudette Moran have that the Bush administration used the IRS as a weapon against its political opponents? What proof does Krebs have of the Bush administration using the IRS as a weapon against their political opponents?

It’s guaranteed that the NY Times would’ve written a series of articles criticizing the Bush administration had the IRS been used as a weapon against their political opponents.

Krebs’ penchant for approving LTEs that make baseless accusations against Republicans is well-documented. This isn’t the first time he’s let a Republican hater make wild accusations. He’s especially notorious for approving this viled crap if Michele Bachmann is the person being accused.

It’s time for Mr. Krebs to show us proof that the Bush administration used the IRS as a political weapon. If he doesn’t produce that proof in a timely fashion, then people should think of him as being an unprofessional editor who’s willing to use a lenient standard for LTEs criticizing Republicans but who uses a tight standard for LTEs written by conservatives.

When Michele Bachmann joined with 4 other conservatives in calling for an IG investigation into whether the Muslim Brotherhood, I wrote an LTE that cited Andrew McCarthy, the man that prosecuted, then convicted, the Blind Sheikh and Walid Phares, a former member of the Muslim Brotherhood. These terrorism experts said that the “National Security Five” were justified in asking for this investigation.

Pretending to be a terrorism expert, Krebs said that these men’s information and opinions were tenuous. That’s the explanation he gave for why he wouldn’t approve my LTE. Krebs couldn’t permit an LTE that supported Michele Bachmann even though national experts verified the accuracy of her statements. Meanwhile, Krebs didn’t hesitate in publishing an LTE that made wild, baseless accusations that can’t be verified.

That certainly isn’t the picture of professionalism. Unfortunately, that isn’t surprising.

Wednesday night, Michele Bachmann was interviewed by Greta van Susteren about the IRS scandal. What she said is quite pertinent to the scandal:

Here’s the first exchange between Greta and Michele:

GRETA: And, of course, we’re all chewing on the news that Bret Baier sent me that he was at the end of his term at the end of the month and President Obama making the announcement that he’d resigned just a month early.
BACHMANN: Well, he was the perfect scapegoat. He was exiting the stage anyway and so they might as well make it look like they’re chopping his head off on the way out because it wasn’t going to happen anyway.

By the time Jay Carney gives the daily press briefing, people will be criticizing President Obama for attempting to pull a fast one on people. This scandal will hurt the administration because the IRS has a history of intimidating people and because of the fear IRS audits have caused.

Later in the interview, Ms. Bachmann talked about a major TEA Party press conference:

BACHMANN: This is a major press conference where all of the major TEA Party organizations from across the United States are coming together. We are having a major press conference at the Capital. Joining us will be Sen. Mitch McConnell, Sen. Rand Paul, Sen. Mike Lee. There’ll be many members of the House of Representatives. But it’s to give a voice to the TEA Party because they are livid as you can imagine and these leaders want to react and tell their story publicly.

People have asked where the TEA Party has been. Frankly, they’ve been hiding after the left successfully vilified them. Rest assured, though, that they’ll be fired up after they’ve been targeted by the IRS. Rest assured, people will sympathize with them because people hate and fear the IRS.

Later, Rep. Bachmann dispatched with the notion that a couple agents went rogue:

GRETA: So I’m curious with the IRS, doing this, what is the usual time period for people to get their tax exempt status from the IRS?
BACHMANN: Well, within a reasonable amount of time. Certainly within 2 years. It certainly doesn’t take the IRS to do it. But I knew this was a phony story last Friday, when the story came out because when I was a federal tax attorney and did this work, we had very strict jurisdictional limits within the IRS because we were handling people’s tax data. We had to act within that tax zone. We had very strict procedures where we check a lot of boxes. Our supervisors up the food chain check them. It’s impossible for them to go rogue.

In short, President Obama and his handlers are attempting to sell a BS story to the American people. The thing that’s going to trip them up are little details like this. If people “up the food chain” are checking these applications off, then this must be a cultural systemic problem, not a couple rogue agents acting irresponsibly. If you read the type of intrusive questions that the IRS asked some conservative applicants, you’ll realize that it’s ideological and possibly systemic.

Now that Jim Graves has officially announced that he’s running against Michele Bachmann, people wonder if he can defeat her. John Stossel’s article highlights Graves’ weakness:

Most Americans, even those who are legislators, know very little about the details of President Obama’s Affordable Care Act, so-called Obamacare. Next year, when it goes into effect, we will learn the hard way.

Many people lazily assume that the law will do roughly what it promises: give insurance to the uninsured and lower the cost of health care by limiting spending on dubious procedures.

Don’t count on it.

Consider just the complexity: The act itself is more than 906 pages long, and again and again in those 906 pages are the words, “the Secretary shall promulgate regulations …”

“Secretary” refers to Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius. Her minions have been busy. They’ve already added 20,000 pages of rules. They form a stack 7 feet high, and more are to come.

A couple of weeks after announcing his candidacy last time, Graves made an appearance at a weekly gathering at a St. Cloud bar to visit with conservatives. During that visit, he stopped past my table, at which time I asked him if he supported the PPACA. Though he stopped short of endorsing that specific legislation, he did attempt to sell the ACA as market-driven health insurance reform. More on that later.

The thing is that legislators don’t vote on sweeping principles. Legislators vote on specific legislation. Since there’s no chance that Graves would’ve been one of the legislators shaping the legislation, he would’ve been forced to vote yea or nay on the ACA.

Thanks to Graves’ insistence on not getting pinned down to anything, we don’t know if he would’ve voted for the PPACA. What we know, though, is that he’s attempting to not talk about the ACA. His issues page includes this line:

But today, too many Minnesotan families are struggling under the weight of rising home mortgage payments, skyrocketing health care costs and increasing college tuition.

The only other reference to health care on Jim Graves’ issues page is about the Medicare Part D doughnut hole. I don’t blame Graves for evading the issue. If I were a Democrat, I’d want to evade talking about health care. Stossel’s article provides the reason why the PPACA is a touchy subject for Democrats:

Government likes to think regulations can account for every possibility. Injured at a chicken coop? The code for that will be Y9272. Fall at an art gallery? That means you are a Y92250. There are three different codes for walking into a lamppost — depending on how often you’ve walked into lampposts. This is supposed to give government a more precise way to reimburse doctors for treating people and alert us to surges in injuries that might inspire further regulation.

On Government-Planned World, this makes sense. But it will be no more successful than Soviet central planning.

Compare all that to a tiny part of American medicine that is still free-market: Lasik eye surgery.

Its quality has improved, while costs dropped 25 percent. Lasik (and cosmetic surgery) are specialties that provide a better consumer experience because they are a market. Patients pay directly, so doctors innovate constantly to please them. Lasik doctors even give patients their cellphone numbers.

Mr. Graves isn’t foolish. He knows what constitutes a free market. He knows that the ACA is the opposite of a free market solution.

Michele Bachmann has been right about this issue from the outset. She submitted the first bill to repeal the ACA and replace it with a specific plan. Michele’s plan included eliminating the preferential tax treatment for corporations buying health insurance by giving individuals the same tax treatment that multinational corporations get. As a result of that provision, Michele’s plan made health care portable, which is a huge liberating force for employees.

While we don’t know what Graves’ solution to health care is, we know with certainty that Michele got it right with health insurance reform the first time. When Democrats are in the minority, talk immediately focuses on compromise. Minnesotans in the Sixth District have the choice of voting for an evasive man or voting for someone who got health care reform right the first time.

With health insurance premiums skyrocketing since enacting the PPACA, why would Minnesotans vote for someone who dodges the issue? Why wouldn’t they vote for the candidate who got it right the first time?

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Today, Jim Graves made it official today by announcing that he’s running against Michele Bachmann again:

In a statement, the AmericInn Hotel chain founder took a veiled jab at his opponent’s national reputation as a lightning rod. “These days, Congress is all about scoring political points rather than actually solving problems, and Minnesota’s 6th District, my home, is losing out because of that more than anywhere,” he said. ”I’m not interested in celebrity, only in solutions.”

That last statement is rather rich considering the fact that Graves told me that he thinks the PPACA is a free market solution to our health care problem. The PPACA is a one-size-fits-all disaster. First, it isn’t a solution. Second, it’s an expensive disaster that’s getting worse with each new onslaught of regulations.

If Graves can’t even identify a disastrous policy like the PPACA, then he’s worthless. Getting the biggest things badly wrong isn’t a virtue. His happy talk about being a new Democrat is BS. New Democrats don’t attend fundraisers hosted by Barney Frank, one of the men who caused the housing bubble to burst. New Democrats don’t defend the PPACA, which Graves tried doing with me.

Graves’ schtick is spin. That doesn’t mean people should take him lightly. He came close to defeating Michele in 2012. Then again, that’s largely because of high voter turnout durning a presidential election and because Michele focused a bunch of attention on her presidential campaign.

Since getting re-elected, Michele Bachmann has focused on solving major problems in the district, including working on widening the I-94 and Highway 10 corridors, not to mention her work in getting the Stillwater Bridge rebuilt.

Another big question awaiting is whether Nancy Pelosi will let Jim Graves be a centrist. She’ll let him talk like a centrist during the campaign. The question is how long that’d last if he’s elected. If he’s elected, Pelosi would likely have a slim majority in the House, meaning she’ll need every Democrat’s vote on the big issue.

Graves will run another dishonest campaign this cycle because that’s his only shot at winning. Make no mistake: Jim Graves won’t hesitate in hitting below the belt if that’s what’s needed. We know that because it’s what he’s done in the past. Graves got a bunch of union workers to lie for him during a campaign ad. These displaced union workers accused Michele of political grandstanding and not giving a damn about them. KSTP ran Graves’ ad through their Truth Test:

Bachmann was in the district on Memorial Day weekend in Stillwater attending events when the explosion happened but didn’t go to the scene. However, a Bachmann staff member was there within an hour.

I know the Bachmann staffer who got to the Verson site within an hour of the explosion happening. Jim Graves didn’t care about this extraordinary performance. He had his sights set on winning an election. If he had to accuse Michele of not giving a damn, that’s what he’d do. If that meant ignoring the facts on the ground, New Democrat Jim Graves wasn’t about to hesitate in putting that disgusting, dishonest ad together.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Most of the pundits on local TV shouldn’t be on TV. Former state senator Don Betzold is one of those pundits. While criticizing Michele Bachmann for not supporting expansion of the North Star Corridor to St. Cloud, he insisted that extending the corridor would solve I-94’s congestion problems. He hinted that expanding I-94 wasn’t a priority.

That last part parrots a line from MnDOT Spokesman Kevin Gutknecht:

But Minnesota Department of Transportation spokesman Kevin Gutknecht said the I-94 widening doesn’t rank high on the agency’s long-term list of priority projects. “There are projects like this all across the state — really good projects, really important projects, projects that have tremendous support like this,” he said. “It all really boils down to the funding piece.”

Anyone that thinks fixing I-94’s congestion problems isn’t an important problem worthy of solution isn’t qualified for a MnDOT job. Either that or he’s a political hack attempting to undercut a sitting US congressperson.

But I digress.

Betzold’s commentary suggested that expanding North Star was a solution. It isn’t. In fact, it’s a death trap that should be avoided at all costs. In addition to the construction costs, the taxpayers’ subsidies that help bring the cost to riders down total tens of millions of dollars over the next decade. Without those subsidies, the cost per rider would be wildly expensive.

Then there’s the consideration that people don’t like transit that much. The DFL frequently insists that transit is the wave of the future. It isn’t. Americans love the freedom of driving. We love being in control of our lives. That includes the ability to go where we want to go when we want to go there. Transit doesn’t give us that option.

What transit lacks in mobility, it makes up for in subsidies. We shouldn’t be in the business of subsidizing private industries. If they can’t make it without subsidies, that’s proof they aren’t viable. A key economic principle is that if something isn’t sustainable, it can’t be sustained indefinitely. I’d take that a step further. If something can’t be sustained, it’s likely heading for a quick collapse.

The only thing as painful as listening to Betzold was hearing Tom Hauser call the I-94 project an earmark. Earmarks typically are dropped into a conference committee report in the dead of night. They don’t go through the scrutiny of a committee mark-up. The I-94 project Michele Bachmann proposed went through the committee process. It was done in the light of day. Most importantly, the I-94 project isn’t pork designed mostly to prove she’s ‘bringing home the bacon.’ The I-94 project Michele proposed is actually a solution to a major problem.

Contrary to what Mssrs. Gutknecht and Betzold said, anyone who’s been trapped at the bottlenecks where I-94, 694 and 494 connect knows that that’s been a major problem for a generation. Anyone who’s tried getting on I-94 near Bass Lake Road or Highway 101 knows that those have been problem areas for a decade.

If that isn’t worthy of prioritizing, then nothing is. Mr. Hauser is usually a pretty good reporter. This time, though, he slipped.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This recent LTE is titled “We all want the same things.” It’s possible that the LTE was written by someone wanting to be polite and professional. It’s possible that it’s accurate most of the time. It’s impossible to say, though, that it’s right the vast majority of the time.

This part of the LTE shouldn’t be underexamined:

When he came into the room to speak to the Chamber of Commerce, all the members stood up and applauded. He could have owned that room if he would have said a few things: Thank you for all the jobs you provide in Minnesota; thank you for being the economic engine that drives this state; thank you for taking out time in your schedule to talk about the issues today that are important to Minnesota; and we can work together to make some difficult decisions and compromises to make Minnesota the greatest state to do business in.

It’s true that Gov. Dayton would’ve been a hero had he said those things. Likewise, it’s true that that isn’t in his, or the DFL’s, nature. Gov. Dayton and the DFL have repeatedly stated that funding K-12 and higher education was the cornerstone to a thriving economy. At other times, they’ve said that funding transportation was integral to prosperity. While it’s true that those things contribute to economic growth, there’s no question that they’re only part of the equation that delivers economic prosperity.

Based on the DFL’s actions and the actions of their political allies, the DFL apparently thinks that crippling regulations, especially on precious metals mining and frack-sand harvest, won’t hurt Minnesota’s economic growth. The frack-sand moratorium will hurt job and income growth. North Dakota has a booming need for this sand. Minnesota’s environmentalists’ response has been disdain or outrage. They want to prevent this industry from getting started.

That’s hardly the picture of “everyone wanting the same things.”

Conservation Minnesota (with special emphasis on the CON) is doing everything possible to prevent Iron Rangers from providing for their families. Though other states have proven that it’s quite possible to harvest copper, gold, nickel and other precious metals in an environmentally friendly way, Conservation Minnesota has fought hard to prevent the PolyMet and Twin Metals projects from starting.

That isn’t the picture of “everyone wanting the same things.”

I’d agree that everyone professes to wanting the same things. President Reagan was right, though, in saying you can’t love jobs but hate the employer. Though that was said 30 years ago, President Reagan’s statement accurately depicts the DFL/ABM/Mark Dayton/Paul Thissen/Tom Bakk mindset perfectly.

Gov. Dayton and other likeminded politicians think that businesses aren’t contributing “their fair share” to Minnesota’s economic health. They’ve taken the jobs these companies have created for granted. The thought of actually appreciating the benefits these companies provide Minnesota’s families and communities doesn’t cross the DFL’s mind.

The truth is that the DFL doesn’t consistently want what Minnesota wants. The DFL frequently talks about using a “balanced approach” to balancing Minnesota’s budget. That’s a nice-sounding thing but it doesn’t make sense. That implies that Minnesota’s problem is revenue-based, not spending-based.

For instance, Don Betzold was on At Issue With Tom Hauser. He was discussing Michele Bachmann’s plan to expand I-94 and Highway 10. He said “She (Bachmann) can’t have it both ways. I wish she had supported extending the North Star Corridor to St. Cloud.”

Betzold’s argument is fatally flawed, starting with the undeniable fact that all transit lines, North Star included, require massive taxpayer subsidies. Betzold also ignored the fact that, without the taxpayers’ massive annual bailout, North Star ridership wouldn’t put a significant dent in the I-94 traffic.

I’m not alone in thinking that North Star shouldn’t be extended to St. Cloud. I’m not alone in thinking that the taxpayers’ subsidies, aka the taxpayers’ annual bailout of transit, is a good investment. By definition, that means the DFL doesn’t want what Minnesotans want on this issue.

It’s time Minnesota’s taxpayers stopped pretending that the DFL pretty much wants what they want. The facts don’t bear that out.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

In the past, demented Michele Bachmann haters argued that she didn’t care about her district. While it’s true she took time to run for president, it isn’t true that she doesn’t care about what’s best for her district. Her getting a new Stillwater Bridge built is proof she cares about the Sixth District. This Pi-Press article offers more proof that Rep. Bachmann cares about the Sixth District:

Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann sought Monday to muster support in Minnesota and Washington for money to add a new Interstate 94 lane in each direction between the western Twin Cities suburbs and St. Cloud.

The congresswoman came to the state Capitol along with supporters from local government and businesses to talk about the project, as well as a related push to upgrade U.S. 10 that runs parallel to the heavily traveled interstate. Backers of the I-94 project are trying to amass $25 million for the first construction phase of an expansion that could reach $100 million when fully complete. The improvements to U.S. 10 are priced at $300 million.

Of course, the Dayton administration sought to diminish the importance of the I-94 project:

But Minnesota Department of Transportation spokesman Kevin Gutknecht said the I-94 widening doesn’t rank high on the agency’s long-term list of priority projects. “There are projects like this all across the state — really good projects, really important projects, projects that have tremendous support like this,” he said. “It all really boils down to the funding piece.”

It’s interesting that MnDOT spokesman Kevin Gutknecht hints that widening I-94 isn’t a good project or an important project. The notion that one of the two busiest highways in the state doesn’t qualify as an important project is utter nonsense.

This stinks of political gamesmanship on behalf of the Dayton Administration. Sixth District voters will remember that when Gov. Dayton asks for their support in 2014. I’m betting they won’t like it that his administration prefered playing political games rather than doing what’s right for economic development in central Minnesota.

The other thing that’s worth noting is that Michele didn’t airdrop an earmark into a transportation bill conference committee report. She’s putting the project through the committee where it can be researched in the light of day. Michele’s projects, including the Stillwater Bridge project and this project, both went through the committee process. The Stillwater Bridge project was signed by President Obama because it withstood the scrutiny of the House and Senate transportation committees.

Years ago, Rep. Bachmann pledged not to be a porkmeister like the late Jack Murtha or Minnesota’s Jim ‘Bike Path’ Oberstar. She’s kept that promise while still looking out for what’s best for her district. Minnesota needs more politicians who are committed to doing things in the light of day rather than away from the people’s scrutiny.

I expect this post to get tons of comments from Michele’s left wing haters. Their comments will expose them for the partisan haters that they are. Remember their hate-filled comments the next time you enter a voting booth.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,