Archive for the ‘We The People’ Category
This presidential election is a choice between the failed policies of the Obama administration vs. the proven excellence of the Romney-Ryan plan. We don’t need 3 years in office to know that the Romney-Ryan plan will work because it’s based in large part on Reagan’s plan of streamlining taxes (1986 TEFRA), loosening regulations and applauding the achievements of America’s innovators.
The other choice is to keep the failed policies of the past 42 months in office. Does the nation want another 4 years of umnprecedented levels of strangling regulations, governance through executive orders, disdain for the rule of law, disgust with wealth creation, paltry job growth and anemic GDP growth?
Do we want to hear Jay Carney and other administration mouthpieces yapping about “29 consecutive months of private sector job growth”? Or do we prefer a labor secretary who steps to the podium and announces a third straight jobs report where America’s entrepreneurs created 300,000 jobs?
Not only are economists confident that President Obama’s economic policies won’t consistently create that type of job growth. They’re confident President Obama’s economic policies prevent that type of job growth.
Do We The People want another 4 years of hearing about an endless litany of excuses (President Obama blaming ATMs is my favorite) for why the economy isn’t growing? Or do we want an administration that gets America’s fiscal house in order?
Do people want to hear Ben Bernanke announce another round of quantitative easing? Would people prefer hearing about eliminating deficits, restoring longterm fiscal health and stabilizing, then strengthening, the dollar?
Those aren’t the subjects President Obama wants on this year’s political battlefield. President Obama hates those subjects on this year’s political battlefield as much as vampires hate wooden stakes.
This isn’t the choice debate President Obama and his minions prepared for. That’s why their first response to Romney picking Paul Ryan was utterly lame.
There’s no question that President Obama and his minions will do their best to continue the small, fear-inciting, campaign they’ve run thus far.
There’s another thing to consider. Paul Ryan utterly dismantled President Obama’s arguments for the ACA. President Obama vs. Paul Ryan isn’t a fair fight. In fact, if you watch the video of Ryan demolishing the ACA, you’ll see President Obama initially looking stunned. That quickly changed. It wasn’t long before President Obama looked upset, then irate.
That’s because President Obama thinks of himself as the smartest man in the room whereas Paul Ryan is the smartest man in the room on budget and economic policy.
Finally, Paul Ryan’s acceptance speech has the potential to set the stage for a wild fall campaign. Mitt Romney is energized. Paul Ryan is electrifying.
This isn’t the campaign President Obama wanted to fight. Don’t think that won’t become apparent.
If there’s anything that people ay about Alida Messinger’s organizations, it’s that they’re fighting to prevent fresh ideas into the debate of solving Minnesota’s problems. This op-ed is the perfect example of that:
The “better option” would have been to close tax loopholes that let big corporations hide profits overseas.
The “better option” would have been to ask the richest of the rich to pay the same in taxes as middle-class St. Cloud families.
The “better option” would have been to provide sustainable funding to schools to plan for the future, not force them to constantly wonder where the next dollar or job will be cut.
The “better option” would have been to put kids first, not corporations, special interests, which means middle class families lose.
It’s interesting that nowhere in ABM’s list of “better options” did they include finding that taxpayers’ hard-earned money being misspent. For instance, ABM didn’t talk about this:
House Majority Leader Matt Dean (R-Dellwood) is doing his own inquiry into how the Minneapolis Public Schools spends it money after reading this Star Tribune report. The story revealed Superintendent Bernadeia Johnson’s decision to award $270,000 in retroactive raises to central office administrators at the same time the district cut more than 100 jobs, including 52 teaching positions.
Wouldn’t reining in this type of abuse be a better option than just pouring money into EdMinn’s black hole? Who can justify the termination of 52 teachers to pay for a $270,000 retroactive pay raise “to central office administrators”?
The reality is that Matt Dean and the GOP were the only legislators that highlighted this abuse of the taxpayers’ money.
ABM certainly won’t highlight that because part of their funding comes from EdMinn. EdMinn won’t highlight that because ABM provides them with political cover.
ABM certainly didn’t highlight the fact that Gov. Dayton proposed borrowing more money from the K-12 budget than the GOP budget called for:
MBD offer 6/30/11
- Shift school aid payments from 70:30 to 50:50 (-$1.4 Billion)
- Increase per student formula by $50 per student to pay for the cost of additional borrowing costs (+ $128 million)
It’s interesting speculating why ABM didn’t highlight Gov. Dayton’s proposal to borrow $1.4 billion more from cash-strapped school districts than the GOP plan proposed. The last thing the DFL wants highlighted is their proposal that would’ve put schools in a more difficult financial situation than the GOP plan. That’s because DFL matriarch Alida Rockefeller-Messinger essentially has operational control of both the DFL and ABM. She’s pledged to spend lots of money to buy Gov. Dayton a DFL legislature. This is the description of ABM at the bottom of their op-ed:
The alliance is an online advocacy and communications organization focused on securing major advances in progressive public policy for Minnesota.
First, the Times published that disclaimer in bold print. Next, ABM isn’t “an online advocacy and communications organization.” They’re a propaganda factory that’s disinterested in the truth. Here’s proof of that:
Settle in high flying corporate executives, because Tom Emmer’s Minnesota is going to be more fun than your last trip in a golden parachute. Here in Tom Emmer’s Minnesota, we believe that paying for good schools and hospitals is the job of the unwashed masses. That’s why the slightly regressive taxes of the past have been replaced by a massively regressive tax code in Tom Emmer’s Minnesota. In Tom Emmer’s Minnesota, we don’t even care if you have your interns set up post office boxes all over the world to avoid paying your taxes. Even if those funds would go to fund nursing homes and other medical facilities, in Tom Emmer’s Minnesota we want nothing to get in the way of the gobs and gobs of money coming your way, not even fair play. Rest assured, my very rich friend. This isn’t just a one-time deal. You can trust that in Tom Emmer’s Minnesota, solid investment in good schools, nursing home facilities, clean lakes, fixing roads or health care for “regular folk” will never get in the way of your extreme wealth and stealthy tax maneuvering.
That’s typical ABM work product. It’s the rule, not the exception. That’s before talking about the outright lies propagated by ABM’s affiliate, the Alliance for a Better legislature. Here’s a lie from ABM Executive Director Carrie Lucking:
“We must remember the extremism that caused legislative Republicans to reject fair compromises on the road to the state shutdown,” Carrie Lucking, Executive Director of the Alliance for a Better Minnesota said. “Now, Republicans are threatening another shutdown, even as our schools borrow millions of dollars just to stay afloat and homeowners and renters pay higher and higher property taxes.”
The GOP isn’t threatening another shutdown. They’re committed to keeping the promises they made to the people in 2010. The GOP proposed a balanced budget that didn’t raise taxes. When asked if the DFL legislature would propose a budget, Sen. Bakk replied “I don’t know why we would.” Further, the communications between the GOP leadership and Gov. Dayton shows that Sen. Bakk and Rep. Thissen rejected agreements between Gov. Dayton and the GOP leadership that would’ve prevented a government shutdown.
Finally, these communications verify that Gov. Dayton rejected a GOP lights-on bill that would’ve kept the government operating until a final agreement was reached. ABM and their partners in propaganda specialize in lying. The documentation proves that.
The notion that they’re just simple citizen activists is disgusting. Denise Cardinal and Carrie Lucking are paid to spin the DFL’s agenda in the most positive light possible. Why doesn’t ABM admit that they’re funded by the Dayton family, PEUs like the SEIU, AFSCME, EdMinn, AFT and MAPE, and militant environmentalist organizations like the MCEA, MEP and Friends of the Boundary Waters Wilderness?
Shouldn’t ABM admit that they oppose changes to a government model that was antiquated in the 1990′s? The past 2 years, they’ve fought against K-12 education reform, permitting reform, budget reform and downsizing government. ABM insists on fighting against changes that would save taxpayers money if it means saving PEU jobs. ABM won’t hesitate in fighting against changes in government if it means their special interest allies will lose leverage in the courts.
That’s because MCEA and other like-minded organizations can’t win in the court of public opinion. They can only win through the courts. ABM’s diatribe is highly publicized propaganda. They won’t admit the truth because the truth is their enemy. That’s irrefutable because their quotes betray them. It’s that simple.
Tags: Alida Messinger, Carrie Lucking, Denise Cardinal, ABM, EdMinn, AFT, AFSCME, SEIU, Mark Dayton, Paul Thissen, Tom Bakk, DFL, King Banaian, Tom Emmer, John Pederson, Reforms, K12 Education, Permitting, MNGOP, Election 2012
The myths about the Affordable Care Act are multiplying on editorial pages. This SCTimes editorial is a good picture of those myths being amplified:
Too many partisan politicians are (again) being allowed to frame a key part of federal health care reform in a misleading, even irrelevant ideological perspective.
These folks proclaim the U.S. Supreme Court’s mandate to carry health insurance is an erosion of our personal freedoms. Then they couple it with a dead-end conversation about whether it’s a tax or fine on all people. It’s not all people; just those who don’t choose (but can afford) insurance.
President Obama has gotten into the habit of calling people freeloaders if they’ll be affected by the individual mandate. That’s a disgusting, dishonest characterization. Since when has the government had the authority to tell car owners that their car insurance had to have specific coverages?
Here’s a little dose of reality. The government doesn’t have the authority to tell people that they have to buy a policy that includes collision, theft, fire, liability and comprehensive coverages.
Yet that’s exactly what the individual mandate does. It says that people who don’t buy the health insurance policy that the government dictates will pay the individual mandate tax.
Imagine this: as a result of the Affordable Care Act, a couple that bought a high-deductible policy, then pays for routine checkups and doctor visits, is subject to the individual mandate tax because their policy didn’t meet the federal government’s minimum coverages.
In other words, people that did the right thing in buying their own health insurance are a) being called freeloaders by President Obama and b) subject to a hefty tax because they didn’t do exactly what President Obama dictated to them to do.
If that doesn’t sound like the actions of an autocratic government, then it’s time people read the definition of autocrat:
- an absolute ruler, especially a monarch who holds and exercises the powers of government as by inherent right, not subject to restrictions.
- a person invested with or claiming to exercise absolute authority.
- a person who behaves in an authoritarian manner; a domineering person.
This statement is particularly irritating:
These folks proclaim the U.S. Supreme Court’s mandate to carry health insurance is an erosion of our personal freedoms.
First, the Supreme Court’s ruling carries with it an erosion of each person’s liberty. If people want to argue that we’re burdened whether we purchase the health insurance the government tells us to purchase or pay a massive tax, that’s an intellectually honest argument. It’s disgusting but it’s intellectually honest.
Second, who appointed the Supreme Court to be the arbiters of personal liberties? They have the right to tell us if something’s constitutional. They don’t have the authority to ignore the Constitution even when an administration attempts to ignore it.
Regardless of Chief Justice Roberts’ opinion, the Tenth Amendment says that the things that the federal government isn’t responsible for are the responsibility of the states and the people. Here’s another BS section from the editorial:
If your core objection is all about choice vs. force, you really only have to answer two questions before you propose your alternative plan. First, if people are allowed to choose no insurance, how are they going to pay their medical bills, especially when those bills exceed their savings account?
Will they turn over their cars, homes and even assets of other relatives to pay bills? And when that’s not enough (which it won’t be in many cases), how will they cover the remainder? Last I checked, indentured servitude wasn’t exactly legal, which brings us to paying the ultimate price, shall we say, human foreclosure?
The first question doesn’t think about liberty because it accepts a faulty premise. It’s bad enough when government tells people they have to buy health insurance. It’s worse when government tells people that that health insurance policy is subject to a massive tax if it doesn’t include the coverages that they insist people buy.
Minnesota state statutes include 68 mandates for health insurance, each one adding costs to the insurance policy. If government didn’t initially impose 68 mandates to be included in each health insurance policy, more people would buy health insurance because it wouldn’t be too expensive. If people were allowed to buy high-deductible policies that included coverage for catastrophic health events, the premise for the first question disintegrates. Ditto with the second, sarcastic argument.
The problem with this type of editorial is that it deals with what is rather than what should be. Saying that we have to comply with a fatally flawed law is technically true as a matter of law. It’s downright stupid to say that we shouldn’t try repealing a law that a) doesn’t contain health care costs, b) doesn’t control increases in health insurance premiums, c) doesn’t give people sensible health insurance options and d) limits people’s freedom.
Questions like that probably limit the number of invites I get to dinner parties. But they get to the cold-hearted realities about the “mandated coverage” debate, which many see as the center of this health reform act.
It’s disappointing that educated people wouldn’t think this issue through better than this. The Affordable Care Act is a solution at financial gunpoint. It isn’t a solution. It’s a way to bankrupt this nation.
It’s disgusting that a government thinks it can impose unconstitutional, stupid laws on people who’ve tried to do the right thing. It’s more disgusting to think that people start from the default positions that a) liberty is a frivolous thing and b) money is more important than liberty. People who are more worried about money than liberty soon won’t have either.
Congressman Ellison, Last week, you joined with Congressman Grijalva in issuing this statement:
“This ruling is a significant victory for the American people. After a two-year legal battle, the Supreme Court confirmed today that the Affordable Care Act will continue to provide millions of Americans with health coverage. The health care reform act provides that children will not be denied coverage due to a preexisting condition, young adults will be able to stay on their family health plan, and that Americans can keep their health care insurance if they get a major illness. The Affordable Care Act will now take its rightful place with Social Security and Medicare as powerful examples of what we can do together to improve the lives of every American.
“Despite today’s victory, Republicans in Congress will continue their assault on universal health care for the American people. Throughout this year, GOP lawmakers have tried to repeal and cut back health care benefits, including Medicare and Medicaid. We must continue to work together to protect vital reforms that will improve the health of every American.
“Today’s decision is a turning point for the American people. Let’s remember that millions of American families suffered without health care coverage for decades. The health care law has already benefited millions of families. The Court’s decision to uphold this law President Obama proposed and Congress enacted is a sign that dramatic change can happen when the American people demand change. We have made an important step forward toward our goal of affordable universal coverage. Now we need to be vigilant to implement the law so that American families have the health care they need and deserve.”
Congressman Ellison, didn’t the Affordable Care Act cut $575,000,000,000 from Medicare to pay for the CLASS Act? How dare you say that Republicans tried to repeal Medicare and Medicaid. You’ve voted to cut half a trillion dollars from Medicare yet you accuse Republicans of trying to repeal Medicare? It’s pretty apparent that there’s nothing you won’t say to win a political fight.
You implied that the American people demanded the Affordable Care Act. Yet poll after poll shows the American people demanding that the Affordable Care Act be repealed. One of those statements must be false. Since August, 2009, people vehemently protested the Affordable Care Act at TEA Party rallies and townhall meetings.
In November, 2010, millions of voters fired tons of politicians that voted for the ACA. Those results prove that the polls showing the American people wanted to repeal the ACA were spot on accurate.
Saying that the Affordable Care Act “will now take its rightful place with Social Security and Medicare as powerful examples of what we can do together” is laughable. Democrats worked together to shove legislation down the American people’s throats that a) doesn’t insure everyone, b) explodes the deficits far beyond the deficits you’ve already run up, c)raises taxes on the middle class by hundreds of billions of dollars and d) doesn’t cut health care or health insurance costs like President Obama promised.
On top of all that, people that bought their own insurance will pay the penalty because the policy they bought doesn’t qualify as a government-approved health insurance policy. These people are getting penalized for doing the right thing.
Is that your way of representing the people? Dictating what We The People are required to do isn’t liberty. It’s what tyrants do.
You aren’t a public servant. You’re just a cheap politician who does what he wants. You’re a disgrace.
I’ve written frequently about Gov. Dayton’s collaboration with AFSCME in their attempt to force small businesses to join a union or make fair share payments.
This article wasn’t the first article I wrote about the subject but it was the first article that attracted attention to the subject. Shortly after that, I wrote about Judge Lindman’s ruling that scuttled Gov. Dayton’s attempt to force unionization. This article, though, is about the federal lawsuit, which trumps all other actions.
Despite the federal lawsuit, though, child care small businesses still worry:
Despite prevailing against politically powerful unions and Minnesota’s top elected official, however, they aren’t taking anything for granted, other than the reality that home-based private providers remain more vulnerable than ever to the same forces and tactics.
“Governor Dayton made it clear that it is his intent to make this a legislative issue next session. The fight to remain independent is far from over,” warns a recent coalition email sent to thousands of Minnesota licensed family child care providers.
The Coalition of Child Care Providers is right to worry. CCPT isn’t giving up just because a court ruled against them:
One of the unions behind the organizing drive, AFSCME Child Care Providers Together, has already signaled its intention to continue the to pursue unionization.
“Governor Dayton respects our democratic right to decide for ourselves whether or not we want a union. Every day we wait makes us one day stronger,” said Lisa Thompson of AFSCME Council 5 in a statement. “We’ve already united to increase the qualilty of child care, to improve access for working parents, and to stabilize our profession. Any judge or legislator who tries to stop that is hurting the families who depend on us to keep their kids healthy, learning and safe.”
Lisa Thompson is pro-union shill who’ll say anything. The things she said in this statement aren’t worth the paper they’re printed on.
First, Gov. Dayton doesn’t respect democracy because he wanted only a handful of child care small businesses to have a vote in a matter that affects every child care small businesses. He wanted only 4,300 child care small businesses to have a vote, not 11,300.
Limiting the vote to 40% of the people affected by Gov. Dayton’s executive order isn’t respecting democracy. It’s rigging an election.
Second, AFSCME’s contribution to quality child care is negligible. It isn’t verifiable, though it’s nice-sounding.
Third, Thompson’s statement that “Any judge or legislator who tries to stop that is hurting the families who depend on us to keep their kids healthy, learning and safe” is spin through and through. It’s based on the belief that these child care small businesses can’t “keep kids healthy, learning and safe” without unions helping them.
Simply put, that’s BS.
The thing that these unions aren’t taking into account is the fact that the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, gives individuals the right to petition government and to pick the person or organization that they want to represent them.
That means child care small businesses alone have the right to pick a trade organization or a lobbying firm to lobby the legislature. It even gives them the right to lobby the legislature personally if they choose that option.
In this fight between the CCPT and the Coalition of Child Care Providers, I’m betting that the CCPT will lose because the Constitution isn’t on their side.
During last night’s Senate debate on Photo ID, DFL Sen. Patricia Torres Ray highlighted the DFL’s most often-used argument, that there isn’t a problem with voter fraud. Here’s how Sen. Torres-Ray highlighted it:
DFLers contended there’s no need for photo IDs. Before the debate, Sen. Patricia Torres Ray, DFL-Minneapolis, said the proponents produced no evidence of voter impersonation in Minnesota.
Only 113 of the 2.9 million Minnesotans who voted in 2008 were convicted of voter fraud, Torres Ray said, and the vast majority of them were felons with valid driver’s licenses who mistakenly assumed their voting rights had been restored when they were released on parole or probation.
First, voter impersonation isn’t the only type of voter fraud that Photo ID will stop. The DFL’s myth that Photo ID will only stop voter impersonation voter fraud must be shot down ASAP because it’s a bald-faced lie.
At a March 8 House hearing, election judge Rick Smithson testified to how voter fraud was committed in the small town where he’s a veteran election judge:
RICK SMITHSON: We had an incident. I live in a small town of about 900 people and we had — I’m not sure. I called one of the city council members to ask him. It was between 10 and 13 people came into the same day registration table. And by the way, I election judge all the time so I’ve seen situations like this, not necessarily exactly like this but very similar ones.
On this particular night, between 10 and 13 people showed up for same day registration. They all claimed the local laundromat address as their residence. When we challenged it, we called the State Auditors Office and we were told that there was nothing we could do about it. We were told that we couldn’t interfere with their right to vote but we could make note of it.
Is Sen. Torres-Ray going to argue that these 13 people weren’t committing voter fraud? Is Sen. Torres-Ray willing to argue that 13 people listing a small town laundromat as their address isn’t highly suspicious? Is the DFL willing to fight with Sen. Torres-Ray in saying that this wasn’t voter fraud?
If they’re willing to do that, what does that say about Sen. Torres-Ray’s and the DFL’s willingness to either lie or willfully ignore the truth? If they’re willing to do those things, doesn’t that demolish their credibility on this issue? Doesn’t their dishonesty discredit their arguments?
Let’s dip into what impersonation is.
It isn’t just when Frank Wilson of Lake Wobegon goes into the town of Garage Logic and asks for a ballot as Joe Soucheray. Voter impersonation happens when a group of people from Wisconsin comes into Minnesota and asks to do same day registration, especially if the people insist that the town’s laundromat is their home address.
A great way to detect voter impersonation is when the PVCs for same day registrants are sent to the laundromat, then are returned as undeliverable or the peeople don’t live at that address.
When the Cuyahoga River caught fire, people didn’t need a detector to know that the river was polluted. It was self-evident. When the MnDNR says that a river, lake, stream or pond is polluted, it doesn’t wait until the lake, river, stream or pond catches fire.
The MnDNR usually finds out that the water is polluted because they’ve taken water samples, then had the samples analyzed. These tests test for any number of elements, from mercury to phosphorous.
The point is that it’s impossible to detect subtle types of pollution without testing it.
As straightforward as that is, the DFL is insisting that it knows that voter fraud isn’t happening without testing for voter fraud. That’s like me arguing my favorite fishing lake isn’t polluted because it doesn’t look polluted.
When Sen. Patricia Torres-Ray says that voter fraud isn’t happening because there’s few convictions of voter fraud, it’s the same as me arguing that my favorite fishing lake is pollution-free because nobody’s fished it besides me in years.
Finally, We The People don’t work for the Patricia Torres-Rays and her special interest allies. The Patricia Torres-Rays of the world work for We The People.
It’s time that We The People told PTR and her special interest allies that we insist on election integrity that’s verified through Photo ID, not the honor system.
John Hinderaker has been a stalwart supporter of Mitt Romney’s for quite some time. That’s why it isn’t surprising that John wrote this post this weekend.
The gist of John’s post, if I read it right, is that Rick Santorum won’t get the time from the national media to talk about economic policy. That’s probably true but, honestly, that’s trivial.
If Mitt’s the nominee, he’ll be bombarded with questions about his flip-flopping and his support of O’Romneycare. If Newt’s the nominee, he’ll be bombarded with questions about his ethics nonscandal and his marriages.
The point is, whether it’s Mitt, Newt or Santorum, The Barrage is coming.
Scott Johnson, John’s partner at Powerline, wrote this post this morning in response to John’s post:
Mitt is an inspirational candidate. The problem is that what he inspires is intense apathy among a substantial number of conservatives and Republicans. They (we) resist him. Santorum is the recycled non-Romney who now benefits from this resistance. He may be the last non-Romney standing. Among the previous beneficiaries of the resistance to Romney are Michele Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich, Santorum, Gingrich and now Santorum again. The logic of a Romney candidacy has been insufficient so far to wear down the resistance of a large share of conservatives and Republicans.
I understand the resistance, but I am lukewarm on the non-Romneys as well. If I had to choose a candidate among them, I would choose Romney. I think he is the least bad of the lot.
The resistance to Romney among a large part of the base of the Republican Party, however, suggests to me that Romney himself would be less than a stellar candidate against Obama. He’s got problems that the non-Romneys have successfully exploited. Romney’s defense of Romneycare in the debates has been a recurrent thumb in the eye to the not inconsiderable number of Republicans for whom repeal of Obamacare is a priority along with with fiscal and economic issues.
I actually agree with John and Scott on their central themes. I part ways with them, however, in a very important respect.
Mitt inspires intense apathy, making him unelectable. You can’t win if people don’t commit to getting out the vote, writing checks or voting. That’s reality.
Rick Santorum is too easily caught up in life/religious issues. I appreciate his commitment to life issues. I applaud him for living out what he says in public. Simply put, he isn’t equipped to turn off that subject. That makes him unelectable.
People know that Newt comes with a ton of baggage. They know that the media will hit him hard on his personal life. The key difference between Newt, Mitt and Santorum is that he’s fully equipped to disarm the media while presenting his appealing solutions to America.
Of the three serious candidates left, Newt’s the only one who gives TEA Party activists and other conservative something to fight for. When surging gas prices became the hot topic, Newt started campaigning on his Drill Here, Drill Now, Pay Less theme. He talked about increasing domestic oil production. He started talking abou dropping the price of gas to $2.50 a gallon.
That’s appealing and it’ll cut through the media’s BS like a hot knife through butter.
When this administration announced that it was imposing contraception mandates that “would require most religious institutions to pay for coverage they find morally objectionable”, Newt said correctly that this was the administration’s attempt to ignore the First Amendment protections for religious institutions.
Newt didn’t talk about contraception. Newt didn’t get caught up in the life issue. Newt simply said that the Obama administration didn’t respect the Bill of Rights’ protections of our basic liberties from government.
Again, this statement of principle got strong support across political and religious lines. It cut through the media’s filter. It cut through the media’s established storylines.
During the debates, it’s easy to picture Newt criticizing President Obama for his willingness to ignore our Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
The bottom line is this: people will be excited to vote for the man who’s committed to cutting gas prices to $2.50 a gallon by making a robust domestic energy production program a high priority.
The key to doing this is by letting the Agenda Media and the political establishment in both parties prattle on about ‘realistic’ goals. We The People will focus on the things that make America great, that truly restore prosperity for all Americans, not just for President Obama’s cronies. We The People will focus on slashing entitlement spending by creating so many new jobs that HR departments will be flooded with work hiring new workers for high paying jobs.
Newt is the guy with the plan. Newt’s the guy with the vision to make America great again. Newt’s the guy who’ll change the status quo in DC. In the end, Newt’s the only candidate who’ll balance the budget and start paying off our debt.
We don’t need timid candidates. We don’t need candidates that get bogged down in the minutiae. We simply need Newt to help build the America we love.
Another Reaganite economist unloads on Mitt. This time, Larry Kudlow took Mitt to task for his class warfare rhetoric:
Message to Mitt: A Rising Tide Lifts All Boats
That great phrase was coined by the late Jack Kemp, who believed that growth and opportunity for all is the answer to poverty. In fact, Kemp believed it was the answer to all things economic. And he was right. The best anti-poverty program is the one that creates jobs. The answer to large budget deficits? Grow the economy, create jobs, watch incomes rise, and let the tax revenues come rolling in.
Partly from Jack Kemp’s work, and partly from his own experience, Ronald Reagan believed the same thing. He knew that growth is the single best solution for our economic ailments. And neither Reagan nor Kemp saw the world in terms of specific income classes or categories. They looked at the whole economy and realized that everyone is tied together. Dragging down the top earners will not help the middle class. And providing an ever larger safety net will not solve poverty. Reagan believed in the safety net, and maintained it. But he knew it was a stop-gap, not a solution.
Mitt’s shown no proof that he knows how, as the government’s CEO, to create jobs. There’s ample proof he knows how to both kill and create jobs as a corporate CEO. Massachusetts is proof that being a successful corporate CEO doesn’t automatically translate into being a successful governor. These sentences hurt Mitt with conservatives:
And neither Reagan nor Kemp saw the world in terms of specific income classes or categories. They looked at the whole economy and realized that everyone is tied together.
Here’s the question that Mr. Kudlow poses for Mitt:
Does Mitt Romney understand this?
Perhaps he does but I wouldn’t bet the ranch on that. What I’d guarantee is that he’s playing the Bill Clinton gambit of appealing to the biggest bloc of voters possible. Mitt’s economic plan is about political appeal, not time-tested conservative principles.
Incidentally, the safety net has been expanding at an alarming pace. Transfer-program spending has been soaring. It’s up $600 billion, or about 35 percent, in the last three years. Medicaid, food stamps, and unemployment insurance have seen benefit levels rise and eligibility expand. This is a huge drag on the economy. We are paying too much to not work, and rewarding too little to work.
Welfarism is not compassionate. Opportunity is.
This is the meat and potatoes of Reaganite conservatism. Despite all of his team’s spin that he’s a conservative, Mitt hasn’t shown a grasp of Reaganite conservatism.
Newt’s shown an overabundance of understanding of Reaganite conservatism. That’s why he’s proposed eliminating Capital Gains tax. That’s why Newt’s proposing to cut the corporate tax rate from 35% to 12.5%. That’s why Newt’s tax plan has been approved by conservative heavyweights like Thomas Sowell and Art Laffer.
Mssrs. Laffer, Kudlow and Sowell are heavyweights who’ve fought for more time-tested conservative economic policies than the next generation of supply-siders will. They’ve seen their initiatives build one of the most prosperous economies of the last century.
Mitt would do well to read, then internalize and trust, this op-ed of the greatest conservative thinkers of our lifetime. He’d benefit because he’d finally start connecting with conservatives. We The People would benefit because Mitt would implement policies that would cause the next great GDP explosion while running surpluses and paying off the debt.
Mitt Romney’s troops in the media, starting with Charles Krauthammer, have warned Newt Gingrich about attacking Mitt’s time at Bain Capital, saying that they’re just giving Team Obama ammunition. Thankfully, Newt’s figured out a better way to defeat Mitt: put him on defense on his policies vs. his statements.
Newt’s strategy must be working because Mitt’s returning to his Newt’s-too-unstable-to-be-president strategy:
Here’s details about the event:
Boston, MA – On Wednesday, Romney adviser and former Missouri Senator Jim Talent and former Congresswoman Susan Molinari will hold a press conference call to discuss Speaker Newt Gingrich’s record as an unreliable leader. Details are as follows:
Wednesday, January 18, 2012:
Event: Sen. Jim Talent And Rep. Susan Molinari Hold A Press Conference Call On Speaker Gingrich’s Record As An Unreliable Leader
When: 10:00 AM EST
Call-In Number: (866) 578-1005
Call Name: Unreliable Leader
I plan on calling in and asking Mitt’s hacks this simple question: If Newt was such an unreliable leader, how did he get so many things done that people thought were impossible?
If Talent and Molinari want to attack Newt for ruffling feathers, I’ll join their chorus because he certainly ruffled feathers. That’s how so many revolutionary accomplishments happened during his tenure. Accomplishments like:
- Welfare Reform
- balancing the budget
- Congress living by the rules they pass
- creating 11,000,000 jobs in 4 years
- devising a plan that created the first GOP majority in 40 years
Here’s what’s contained in the Contract With America:
REPUBLICAN CONTRACT WITH AMERICA As Republican Members of the House of Representatives and as citizens seeking to join that body we propose not just to change its policies, but even more important, to restore the bonds of trust between the people and their elected representatives. That is why, in this era of official evasion and posturing, we offer instead a detailed agenda for national renewal, a written commitment with no fine print.
This year’s election offers the chance, after four decades of one-party control, to bring to the House a new majority that will transform the way Congress works. That historic change would be the end of government that is too big, too intrusive, and too easy with the public’s money. It can be the beginning of a Congress that respects the values and shares the faith of the American family. Like Lincoln, our first Republican president, we intend to act “with firmness in the right, as God gives us to see the right.” To restore accountability to Congress. To end its cycle of scandal and disgrace. To make us all proud again of the way free people govern themselves. On the first day of the 104th Congress, the new Republican majority will immediately pass the following major reforms, aimed at restoring the faith and trust of the American people in their government:
FIRST, require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply equally to the Congress
SECOND, select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;
THIRD, cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;
FOURTH, limit the terms of all committee chairs;
FIFTH, ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;
SIXTH, require committee meetings to be open to the public;
SEVENTH, require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase; EIGHTH, guarantee an honest accounting of our Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting. Thereafter, within the first 100 days of the 104th Congress, we shall bring to the House Floor the following bills, each to be given full and open debate, each to be given a clear and fair vote and each to be immediately available this day for public inspection and scrutiny.
1. THE FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.
2. THE TAKING BACK OUR STREETS ACT: An anti-crime package including stronger truth-in- sentencing, “good faith” exclusionary rule exemptions, effective death penalty provisions, and cuts in social spending from this summer’s “crime” bill to fund prison construction and additional law enforcement to keep people secure in their neighborhoods and kids safe in their schools.
3. THE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY ACT: Discourage illegitimacy and teen pregnancy by prohibiting welfare to minor mothers and denying increased AFDC for additional children while on welfare, cut spending for welfare programs, and enact a tough two-years-and-out provision with work requirements to promote individual responsibility.
4. THE FAMILY REINFORCEMENT ACT: Child support enforcement, tax incentives for adoption, strengthening rights of parents in their children’s education, stronger child pornography laws, and an elderly dependent care tax credit to reinforce the central role of families in American society.
5. THE AMERICAN DREAM RESTORATION ACT: A S500 per child tax credit, begin repeal of the marriage tax penalty, and creation of American Dream Savings Accounts to provide middle class tax relief.
6. THE NATIONAL SECURITY RESTORATION ACT: No U.S. troops under U.N. command and restoration of the essential parts of our national security funding to strengthen our national defense and maintain our credibility around the world.
7. THE SENIOR CITIZENS FAIRNESS ACT: Raise the Social Security earnings limit which currently forces seniors out of the work force, repeal the 1993 tax hikes on Social Security benefits and provide tax incentives for private long-term care insurance to let Older Americans keep more of what they have earned over the years.
8. THE JOB CREATION AND WAGE ENHANCEMENT ACT: Small business incentives, capital gains cut and indexation, neutral cost recovery, risk assessment/cost-benefit analysis, strengthening the Regulatory Flexibility Act and unfunded mandate reform to create jobs and raise worker wages.
9. THE COMMON SENSE LEGAL REFORM ACT: “Loser pays” laws, reasonable limits on punitive damages and reform of product liability laws to stem the endless tide of litigation.
10. THE CITIZEN LEGISLATURE ACT: A first-ever vote on term limits to replace career politicians with citizen legislators.
Further, we will instruct the House Budget Committee to report to the floor and we will work to enact additional budget savings, beyond the budget cuts specifically included in the legislation described above, to ensure that the Federal budget deficit will be less than it would have been without the enactment of these bills.
While Newt was proposing these measures, ‘Stable’ Mitt Romney was distancing himself from Ronald Reagan and Newt’s Contract with America:
The key words from this video are stunning:
MITT ROMNEY: If you want to get things done in Washington, you don’t end up picking teams, with Republicans on one side and Democrats on the other, and entering into a contract, saying “We’re all going to do this” and if that works, then the other side feels like they’re the loser…I don’t like winners and losers in Washington. I’d rather just say ‘Let’s get things done.’
Mitt was too busy distancing himself from Newt’s Contract With America to read the sensible things in Newt’s Contract With America. There wasn’t a single thing in the Contract With America that didn’t enjoy 70% support across America. That’s why 8 of the 10 legislative items from the Contract were signed into law.
The 2 items that didn’t pass were the term limits and balanced budget constitutional amendments. The key question this election is whether we want someone timid like Mitt, caving on every great idea conservatives come up with or if we want someone who’s a visionary, a leader with a spine and the willingness to ruffle feathers in DC.
Right now, DC needs its feathers ruffled and then some. Timid half-measures won’t change things in DC. They’ll just change the hand on the rudder of the sinking ship known as our nation’s capital. ‘Stable Mitt Romney’ is more likely to fight conservatives than progressives. No thanks. I’ll pick ‘Unreliable Newt’ and his lengthy and impressive conservative accomplishments over Mitt’s timidity every time.
Last night, I wrote this post about the CCAP’s study showing how overbloated America’s public universities have an overabundance of administrators.
It’s time to start exposing specific local examples of those excesses. The first example I’ll cite is the MnSCU HQ staff. According to the organizational chart, 80 people are employed in MnSCU’s Academic and Student Affairs Division. According to the organizational chart, there are 7 associate vice chancellors and 22 directors. These are senior management positions, with salaries easily north of $150,000 each.
That isn’t surprising considering the fact that CCAP’s report notes that it’s part of a systemic problem:
A few decades ago, few universities had more than a small centralized public relations staff. The typical mid- to large-sized school today has PR people in units throughout the university. Similarly, the number of people involved in affirmative action, diversity coordination, or serving as multi-cultural specialists has soared. As the nation shows continued and often spectacular progress in eliminating the vestiges of discrimination, is it still necessary to have all of these people? Do campuses really need to hire sustainability coordinators? Do they need associate provosts or vice presidents for international affairs? All of these types of jobs simply did not exist 40 years ago.
A related problem is the explosion in salaries, particularly for senior administrators. Even five years ago, $500,000 was considered an extremely high salary for a university president, whereas today a growing number make $1 million or more. Chief financial officers of universities that made $175,000 five years ago often make $300,000 or more today.
With information like that, it isn’t difficult to picture administrators’ salaries as being the primary driver of tuition increases.
I wrote here about UC-Berkeley’s “Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion.” I’d love to write about the outrageous titles given to SCSU administrators but, according to this webpage, SCSU doesn’t have a webpage for their administrators. Here’s what is on their website instead:
Events & Dates
If faculty are listed, why aren’t administrators listed? In fact, parents, students and other taxpayers should have greater access to financial information. They deserve to know how their money is getting spent.
There’s no excuse why SCSU’s website doesn’t list the administrators’ job titles. There’s no excuse why universities shouldn’t have an organizational chart, showing who’s in administration and what they’re responsible for. I don’t mean the euphemism-filled blurbs that the universities use to hide what people do. These descriptions should be detailed in terms of assignment.
In fact, all of the universities, community colleges and tech colleges in MnSCU should list this information on their websites.
Parents, students and other taxpayers should know what their money is buying. Most importantly, Minnesota’s taxpayers are right in demanding greater transparency and accountability from MnSCU’s executives. If MnSCU’s executives won’t voluntarily improve in terms of transparency and accountability, then We The People will demand it legislatively.