Archive for the ‘Accountability’ Category

The SC Times editorial board apparently didn’t learn from President Trump’s impeachment. At least, that’s the impression I got from this Our View Editorial. The editorial starts by lecturing its readership, saying “The scariest aspect of the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump is how both sides of the aisle dramatically weakened the tools the Founding Fathers provided to allow the three branches of government to hold each other accountable.”

This isn’t that complicated. Jonathan Turley, a far wiser man than anyone sitting on the Editorial Board, made an important point when he made an emphatic point when he said this:

I can’t emphasize this enough and I’ll say it just one more time: If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts; it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power.

It isn’t surprising that the Editorial Board didn’t notice their intellectual stupidity was showing.

This is how the Editorial Board expressed their foolishness:

Had that been the case, the Democrat-led House impeachment team would have used the full force of the courts to enforce subpoenas issued to key witnesses, hear their testimony and gain access to key documents the Trump White House refused to release. Instead, with eyes clearly focused on the next election, they rushed through their process, apparently hoping the Senate trial would do that hard work for them. Or perhaps they realized their case was not going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders.

The Republican-led Senate proved even more pathetic. When confronted with overwhelming proof that the House did not provide all the evidence, a majority of senators chose blind allegiance to party and voted in favor of the president instead of pursuit of the truth. Among the tools at their disposal, but not used, are hearing witness testimony and cross-examining those witnesses.

I’d love hearing the Times’ explanation for them saying that House Democrats probably “realized their case wasn’t going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders”, then have them say that Republicans, “when confronted with overwhelming proof that the House didn’t provide all the evidence” … “chose blind allegiance to party” rather than pursuing the truth. The case can’t have overwhelming proof and not rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office.”

The Constitution gives the House “sole authority for impeachment.” That means the House receives the report from the special counsel or their own investigation, then the House Judiciary Committee writes up the articles of impeachment. This isn’t a joint responsibility shared between the House and Senate. That’s because the Constitution gives the Senate “sole authority” to try impeachments. They aren’t investigators. They are, literally, both judges and jury. The Senate determines what comes in as evidence. The Senate can overrule the Chief Justice of the United States. They are also the jury.

The Senate sent the message that they wouldn’t accept House Democrats’ shoddy investigation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called these articles of impeachment “a half-baked censure resolution.” That’s being charitable. They also sent the message that they wouldn’t accept a flimsy case because articles of impeachment are considered a privileged resolution. That means, literally, that everything stops in the Senate until the verdict is reached.

Finally, this paragraph is downright stupid:

Rather read this for what it is: a commentary about elected officials from both parties who put their partisan allegiances above the constitutional oaths they took after you elected them.

The Founding Fathers were reluctant to put impeachment into the Constitution. When they finally agreed that such a provision was required, they established 2 important requirements. They required a) a two-thirds majority to convict and remove and b) that people could only be impeached for “Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

They wanted to guarantee that impeachment was only used as a tool of last resort. That didn’t happen here. The Founding Fathers wanted impeachment used only when it was clear that something so egregious had happened that a bipartisan majority agreed that such a high crime had been committed. House Democrats impeached knowing that there wasn’t a chance of conviction and removal.

The simple fact is this: House Democrats screwed things up badly. Senate Republicans rendered the only just verdict allowed by the Constitution.

With more information coming out about Tomeka Hart, the foreperson on the Roger Stone trial, it’s time to question Democrats like Sen. Schumer and Nancy Pelosi. It’s another classic case of Democrats jumping to conclusions before gathering facts. Doesn’t that sound familiar? Hint: YES! But I digress.

Before illustrating just how two-faced Pelosi is, let’s play a clip of her from this morning’s press conference:

Next, let’s play a short game of Alan Dershowitz’s shoe-on-the-other-foot game. Let’s swap out Roger Stone’s name and swap in Peter Strzok’s name. Next, let’s swap out President Trump’s name and swap in President Obama’s name. I’m betting that the odds of Democrats complaining about President Obama making comments about reducing the prison sentence for Peter Strzok is virtually nonexistent.

I’m not basing this entirely on theory. I’m basing that opinion at least partially on President Obama’s statements prior to the infamous Beer Summit with President Obama, Harvard University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and Cambridge police Sgt. James Crowley. Shortly thereafter, President Obama was asked what he thought of the confrontation. Here’s what he said:

For Pelosi to call for Bill Barr’s resignation is ridiculous. For these DOJ lawyers to make such a harsh recommendation is ridiculous, too. If these attorneys hadn’t quit, they should’ve been fired. Period. Today on Dana Perino’s program, Trey Gowdy, a former U.S. Attorney who never lost a case, said that he never made a sentence recommendation. When asked if he thought the sentence was too much, Gowdy explained the sentencing guidelines before telling Dana Perino that he knew violent criminals who got less than the 7-to-9 years.

In recent days, pundits have started speculating whether Joe Biden’s cheese has slid totally off the cracker. That’s a fair question. It’s equally fair, in my opinion, to ask if the cheese is sliding off of Nancy Pelosi’s cracker. In my estimation, she’s starting to lose it.

FNC is reporting that Devin Nunes and Chris Stewart, the ranking members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the House Intelligence Subcommittee on Strategic Technologies and Advance Research respectively, wrote a letter to Adam Schiff criticizing the Democrats “for not holding hearings on FISA in the wake of the IG report.”

In their letter, Nunes and Stewart wrote “Under your chairmanship, the House Intelligence Committee has strayed far from its mandate of overseeing the Intelligence Community. In fact, we have gone months at a time in which we’ve hardly held any oversight-related briefings or hearings at all.”

“During this period of inadequate oversight, numerous critical issues pertinent to this Committee’s jurisdiction were ignored,” they continued, noting that DOJ Inspector General Michael Horowitz issued his FISA report on Dec. 9 which identified “seventeen serious shortcomings related to the conduct” of the surveillance of former Trump campaign foreign policy aide Carter Page.

“The IG Report was followed by the release of a declassified assessment by the Department of Justice acknowledging that at least two of the four FISA applications lacked probable cause,” they continued. “Despite the seriousness of these issues and our clear jurisdiction, you have failed to hold a single briefing or hearing on this matter.”

It’s obvious that Chairman Schiff isn’t serious about the Committee’s responsibilities. He’s likely the worst chairman in the history of HPSCI, aka the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.

It’s been 2 months since the Horowitz Report was published on Dec. 9, 2019. Chairman Schiff hasn’t lifted a finger to find out why the FBI used the discredited Steele Dossier in their FISA warrant application to surveil Carter Page. Chairman Schiff didn’t lift a finger to find out why US intelligence agencies were weaponized to take down President Trump.

Further, the Horowitz report established as fact that the Nunes Memo was virtually 100% correct. The Horowitz Report discredited the Schiff Memo. The Schiff Memo took the opposite position on FISA warrant abuse, whether the Steele Dossier was relied on to obtain the FISA warrant and whether the FBI included exculpatory evidence as the Nunes Memo.

That’s likely why Chairman Schiff isn’t interested in conducting hearings into FISA abuse. If he held a hearing into FISA abuses, Republicans would certainly question the Schiff Memo’s fictional assertions.

It’s clear that Democrats are on the defensive. Republicans serving on HPSCI signed this blistering letter. Today, Republicans criticized Jerry Nadler’s mishandling of the House Judiciary Committee. Nadler passed a bill to prevent President Trump from implementing a “Muslim ban”. Republicans fought back, saying “This has nothing to do with religion. This has to do with securing our country,” said Rep. Debbie Lesko, R-Ariz., taking on Democrats for calling it a Muslim ban. “…If it really was, as you call it, a Muslim ban, why wouldn’t Indonesia be on this ban? I mean they have a lot of Muslims. This is just inaccurate. You are just spreading this falsity.”

Nadler and Schiff undoubtedly got stung by impeachment. Now, they’re just a pair of losers who didn’t hesitate to impeach a president while ignoring tons of exculpatory evidence. They’ve been exposed as partisans who put partisan politics ahead of patriotism.

Back when this first got started, CNN ridiculed then-Chairman Nunes, suggesting that he was President Trump’s hatchetman:

The Horowitz Report didn’t just dismantle Schiff’s spin. The Horowitz Report utterly demolished Schiff’s spin. Democrats are verifiably dishonest. Putting them in charge of protecting our liberties is beyond foolish. Chairmen Schiff and Nadler shouldn’t be entrusted to run a lemonade stand, much less the HPSCI and the Judiciary Committee.

On the day voting happens in Vermont, we still don’t have the final vote totals from Iowa. That’s because the Sanders campaign and Buttigieg campaign have each asked for partial recanvasses of the results. At this rate, we might have Iowa’s totals verified before the Convention in Milwaukee. I’m not betting the ranch on that but it might happen.

With that crisis still unresolved, Democrats are facing a somewhat similar crisis in Nevada:

Frustrated. Concerned. Nervous. Those are some of the words aides are using to describe the mood within some of the top Democratic presidential campaigns in Nevada with only five days until early voting is set to begin for the state’s first in the West presidential caucus and still no details on how exactly it’s supposed to work.
Campaigns here in the Silver State have been told that the Nevada State Democratic Party won’t be using the same app and vendor that were in part responsible for bungling the results of Iowa’s caucus last week, that the party won’t be using any app at all, and that what the party does plan to use is best described as a “tool” or “calculator.” Beyond that, aides aren’t really sure what’s in store for the state’s Feb. 22 Democratic caucus.

Have Democrats run anything beyond a lemonade stand? Here in Minnesota, examples of DFL competence in running things are rarities. MNLARS will (hopefully) be a distant memory soon after being a nightmare for 2+ years. MNsure was a disaster for a year. The Minnesota Human Services fiascoes happened over a period of years before being discovered. People remember the disaster that Healthcare.gov was.

“It’s a little bit of a damper for our volunteers who are more hesitant to step up and say, ‘Yes, I will confirm I will be precinct leadership on Feb. 22,’ when they don’t feel entirely certain about what’s going to happen,” one aide said. “Never mind the campaign, but with four days until early voting begins, the people who are going to participate feel like they need to have a credible explanation of how the early voting and caucus process are going to work.”

Here we go again? Only a Democrat could turn simple arithmetic into this convoluted mess. This isn’t how this should work. The only top-tier Democrats who’ve run anything are Pete Buttigieg and Mike Bloomberg. Everyone else is a senator. They talk for a living.

Both mayors are far outside the mainstream on the issues, which is why few people outside the Democratic Party take either of them seriously. Meanwhile, the nation keeps humming along under President Trump’s leadership. He’s actually run something and holds mainstream views. The economy is strong. We’re safer than we were under President Obama. Emergencies are handled efficiently.

That’s quite the contrast from the Party that can’t even do basic math, aka the Democrats. Bernie hasn’t run anything. Ditto with Biden, Klobuchar, Warren or what’s his name that still hasn’t dropped out (Michael Bennet).

Things are running well. People are making money. Income inequality is shrinking. People’s 401(k)s are getting healthier. If it isn’t broke, don’t tinker with it. That’s what Democrats did with the Iowa Caucuses. How’d that turn out? This is how that worked:

The KISS method (Keep It Simple Stupid) still works best. I’m a huge fan of trailing edge technology. I love things that work and that have worked for years. There’s nothing wrong with the Iowa Caucuses that a little uncomplicating can’t fix.

On a national scale, the lesson to be learned is that Democrats don’t run things. It isn’t part of their DNA. Bill Clinton is the lone exception. Berniecrats think that he’s too conservative. I guess they didn’t like the prosperity.

We’ve all heard the cliché “too clever by half.” That applies to people who overthink things. What happens when people are too stupid to realize that they’re destroying themselves? There aren’t any clichés to fall back on so I created one. Democrats are too stupid by three-fourths.

Fresh off their thumping at the hands of President Trump’s legal team, Democrats Jerry Nadler, Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff are thinking about the self-immolation option by subpoenaing John Bolton to testify. What smart person thinks that’s a good idea? Apparently, there aren’t any smart Democrats in the House.

Let’s be blunt about something obvious. It’s been a terrible week for Democrats. Democrats failed at basic math when they couldn’t count after wrapping up the Iowa Caucuses. (They still haven’t gotten it right and it’s Friday.) During President Trump’s SOTU Address, Democrats couldn’t cheer for unprecedented prosperity for women and minority communities. What’s worst is that Ms. Pelosi thought it’d play well to rip up her copy of President Trump’s SOTU speech in front of the cameras:

I introduce you to the personification of too stupid by three-fourths. Her name is Nancy Pelosi. It could’ve just as easily have been Adam Schiff. Why think that Pelosi’s Democrats or Sen. Schumer’s shills are capable of anything beyond 2+2 = 4?

Senate Democrats aren’t any better. There wasn’t a Senate Democrat who voted against Article 2. Here’s what Article 2 says:

“In the history of the republic,” it reads, “no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.'”

The first set of compulsory subpoenas were sent out without House authorization. That’s why they were contested in court. President Trump doesn’t lose his right to contest subpoenas just because the House is intent on impeaching him. In other words, Senate Democrats, including many who are lawyers, think that following the Constitution’s path is unconstitutional. How stupid is that? These Democrats aren’t too bright. That’s why we need to throw them out en masse this November.

Of all the decisions that St. Cloud State has made in the past decade, closing the Aviation program is the worst. While St. Cloud State suffers through another year of enrollment decline, United Airlines bought a flight training academy to build a pipeline for the 10,000 new pilots they’ll need.

According to the Chicago Tribune article, “United Airlines is buying an Arizona flight training academy to help train the more than 10,000 pilots the airline expects to hire within a decade. The academy, currently operating as Westwind School of Aeronautics in Phoenix, will be part of a recruiting program United announced last year, called Aviate, that lets pilots join a pipeline to United with a conditional job offer early in their careers rather than waiting until they rise through the ranks at regional carriers or complete military service.”

Had St. Cloud State kept its Aviation program open, it likely would’ve gotten approached by Delta or some other airline to supply pilots to the airline. It’s fairly common for these airlines to offer bonuses to graduates from these flight academies if they stay with the company 2-3 years. It’s even more common for these airlines to fast-track these pilots through the regional airlines to the major airlines.

That’s before talking about expanding the Aviation program to train people in aerial firefighting for the western states. That’s before expanding the program to train students on drone operations. I’d guarantee that each of these program expansions would increase SCSU enrollment dramatically. That means a new energy for the University. That means a reinvigoration of SCSU, which is essential to the school’s survival.

What’s required is leadership from our local politicians, starting with Dan Wolgamott. Rep. Wolgamott is a member of the House Higher Education Finance and Policy Division. Wolgamott and Sen. Relph are working together on extending NorthStar to St. Cloud, which might create a dozen jobs while costing the state millions of dollars in operational subsidies over the next decade. (Yes, I’m being slightly sarcastic about the jobs number. I’m not sarcastic about the subsidies.) Why can’t they work on something that revitalizes St. Cloud’s economy?

Building a world-class aviation training center in St. Cloud as part of a new and improved SCSU Aviation program would reinvigorate the University and the city of St. Cloud. After losing major employers like Electrolux and Herbergers, St. Cloud needs an industrial-strength shot in the arm economically.

Without legislative leadership, this vision won’t happen. It won’t happen if left up to Gov. Walz. I’m being polite in say that his economic growth vision for Minnesota is lackluster. Thus far, the jury is still out on the St. Cloud legislative delegation. As for our mayor, he’s had the opportunities to reinvigorate the city and failed. Companies are leaving town or going out of business. The University has shrunk during his time in office.

Professor Emeritus John Palmer noted this:

United said last year it expects nearly half of its 12,500 pilots to retire within a decade. Over the next 20 years, Boeing estimates that airlines will need to recruit about 131,000 commercial pilots in North America and 514,000 more throughout the rest of the world.

It is not just United that will need pilots in the next 20 years. After subtracting the 10,000, a 1,000 a year on average, 55,000 new pilots will be needed for the rest of domestic airlines. Worldwide, 240,000 will be needed. Why would SCSU not want to explore how it could re-enter the aviation training market?

Even if it could only attract .25% of the annual market for new pilots that would be over 130 new entering freshman a year and in four years would result in an increase of 500 FTE each year. When the aviation program closed during the Great Recession 100 entering freshman intended to major in aviation and over 180 were admitted to an aviation major. With the strong recovery in the aviation industry, SCSU could serve a societal need and help address it’s enrollment decline by re-entering the aviation training market.

This is from later in the article:

United said the academy, which will be renamed United Aviate Academy in September, will initially produce about 300 graduates each year, but it hopes to expand that to 500. Graduates would be able to work as instructors at flight schools United has partnered with to rack up hours of flying time required to qualify for entry-level jobs with regional carriers, such as ExpressJet, Air Wisconsin or Mesa Airlines. Pilots in the Aviate program hired by the regional carriers would be then eligible for jobs with United.

With industrial demands like this, why isn’t SCSU interested in supplying these needs while rebuilding the University? Better yet, why aren’t our legislators (Relph, Theis and especially Wolgamott) pushing this blueprint?

After reading this statement, I’d argue that it’s time for Republicans to go on the offensive against the Democrats’ corruption. Specifically, it’s time Senate Republicans exposed just how corrupt the Obama administration was.

The key part of the statement said “According to Andrii Telizhenko, a political officer in the Ukraine Embassy in Washington, D.C. who participated in a January 2016 meeting, ‘U.S. officials volunteered … that they had an interest in reviving a closed investigation into payments to U.S. figures from Ukraine’s Russia-backed Party of Regions,’ which refers to the investigation that involved Paul Manafort.” It doesn’t stop there. Here’s what it says when it continues:

“During that same meeting, U.S. officials also reportedly brought up investigations relating to Burisma Holdings, the Ukrainian gas company that had hired then-Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, to serve as a board member. According to Telizhenko, ‘U.S. officials told the Ukrainians they would prefer that Kiev drop the Burisma probe and allow the FBI to take it over.”

Doesn’t that sound like “U.S. officials” saying that they planned on making the Burisma-Biden scandal disappear? What better way to make it disappear than to give it to Jim Comey’s FBI? Why did “U.S. officials” want to restart the Manafort investigation, too? Schiff said that the Ukraine election interference story had been debunked. With official WH records showing these meetings happened, that takes this from being a conspiracy theory to being investigation-worthy.

This isn’t surprising. Democrats, starting with Schiff, have said that the Biden fiasco has been debunked. They’ve never said who debunked the story or who conducted the investigation that exonerated Hunter. This will give the Democrats some indigestion:

According to Telizhenko:

[Chalupa] said the DNC wanted to collect evidence that Trump, his organization and Manafort were Russian assets, working to hurt the U.S. and working with [Russian President Vladimir] Putin against the U.S. interests. She indicated if we could find the evidence they would introduce it in Congress in September and try to build a case that Trump should be removed from the ballot, from the election.

Democrats pretend to care about Russian interference in our elections. Democrats did this while they cultivated foreign contacts with the goal of getting President Trump kicked off the ballot. Apparently, Democrats don’t want the American people to decide who their president is. Apparently, Democrats are happy to spread propaganda on hide the truth about their corrupt intentions with Ukraine through Ms. Chalupa.

Saying that Alan Dershowitz unloaded both barrels of the Constitution on the Democrats’ impeachment managers is understatement. They deserved it. The highlight of Professor Dershowitz’s speech came when he said “I’m sorry, House managers, you just picked the wrong criteria. You picked the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as a precedent for how we supervise and oversee future presidents.”

Perhaps the most controversial part of Professor Dershowitz’s presentation was when he said that “Nothing in the Bolton revelations, even if true, would rise to the level of an abuse of power, or an impeachable offense. That is clear from the history. That is clear from the language of the Constitution. You cannot turn conduct that is not impeachable into impeachable conduct simply by using terms like ‘quid pro quo’ and ‘personal benefit.'”


Then there’s this:


My question is this: since I watched every minute of Professor Dershowitz’s presentation, does that count towards certifying me as a credentialed legal bloviator? I know that doesn’t make me a lawyer but I’d appreciate getting a certificate from Professor Dershowitz saying that I’m now qualified to talk about the Constitution and impeachment.

Seriously, the Trump legal team did a great job in putting out the ‘Bolton Bombshell.’ Attorney after attorney dismantled the key components of the Democrats’ case for impeachment. Michael Purpura addressed, for the second time, the justification for not complying with the initial set of compulsory subpoenas, highlighting that the House hadn’t voted to authorize a committee to initiate an impeachment inquiry.

The House didn’t vote on an impeachment resolution until Halloween. The compulsory subpoenas were sent out in early October. Speaker Pelosi held a press conference on Sept. 24, announcing that the House had started an impeachment inquiry. Nixon Judiciary Committee Chairman on impeachment, Peter Rodino, stated that his House Judiciary Committee didn’t have the authority to start the impeachment inquiry until there was a vote of the whole House authorizing that inquiry.

This situation requires a Peter Rodino or a Henry Hyde. Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff are partisan Democrat hacks. Rodino and Hyde were gentlemen, statesmen and patriots who felt comfortable working in a bipartisan situations.

Michelle Benson, the chairwoman of the Senate Health and Human Services Finance and Policy Committee, issued this statement on the crisis at the Department of Human Services:

When the legislature reconvenes in about one month, health and human services will once again be at the forefront. Two of the issues that will be on our agenda are the dysfunction at the Department of Human Services and the rising cost of prescription drugs.

90-day review of DHS: On December 10, I convened a meeting of the Health and Human Services Committee for the purpose of reviewing new DHS Commissioner Jodi Harpstead’s first 90 days on the job.

Commissioner Harpstead has a difficult task in front of her, but her appearance did little to reassure me that she grasps the severity of the problems at her agency. Instead, she said that DHS is “not in free fall, in crisis, in total chaos.”

Evidence does not support that tone, nor am I convinced that changes are imminent. There have been more than a dozen reports of mismanagement and corruption since session ended. Most recently, we learned an assistant commissioner approved $1 million in payments to a nonprofit while serving on that nonprofit’s board. These payments doubled the group’s revenue.

The nonpartisan think tank Center of the American Experiment is tracking government abuses and mismanagement, so you can keep tabs on state government easier. You can view it their scandal tracker at bit.ly/MNScandalTracker.

We did get some good news on the DHS front. Gov. Walz announced he is hiring an independent consultant to look at breaking up DHS. It’s good to see the governor finally engaging this issue, and it is encouraging that it appears he is taking a small step toward reforms that Republicans have proposed for a while now. But we have to remember this is only a start, and conducting a review is not a substitute for action on the Governor’s part.

It is my sincere hope that Gov. Walz won’t try to reshape the agency alone. The only way this overhaul will be successful is if Republicans and Democrats, the Senate and House have a seat at the table. The “go it alone” approach brought us the failure of MNsure. Let’s not make that mistake again. Together we can figure out an approach that will benefit the entire state.

It’s been my contention that Commissioner Harpstead was a terrible pick to lead DHS. From the start, I thought that she was too prone to being secretive with information. Nothing in this update suggests that she’s changed her ways.

Denying that DHS isn’t in crisis is likely done to rebuild morale within the department. That’s the wrong goal. The first order of business should be restoring competence within DHS. If that means ruffling some feathers, then that’s what has to happen. Morale can be rebuilt after expectations are raised.

As the CEO of a major non-profit, cash-flow for Lutheran Social Services, aka LSS, wasn’t a problem. Money kept flowing in from the federal government. The minute President Trump clamped down on the Refugee Resettlement program, the cash-flow for LSS tightened exponentially. It didn’t take long for Ms. Harpstead to get this job as Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Human Services. She even talked about how she had led them to being in great shape for the foreseeable future.

In that initial testimony, Harpstead talked about being trustworthy in her opening statement. Denying that DHS has a problem won’t build trust. I’ve said this before but it’s worth repeating. The Senate should vote to reject her as the nominee to be the Commissioner of DHS. It’s time to find someone who will run DHS properly. People that think DHS isn’t embroiled in a crisis don’t have a grasp of reality. While that might fit the profile of a typical government bureaucrat, that isn’t the portrait of a trustworthy public servant.

A consistent part of Elizabeth Warren’s stump speech is when she criticizes the current system as being rigged against the little guy. She who wields the sword shouldn’t be surprised when they get sliced by that sword. That’s what happened while campaigning in Grimes, IA.

While campaigning in Iowa, Sen. Warren was approached by a man about her student loan proposal. It didn’t finish well. In fact, it was pretty harsh medicine throughout:

“I just wanted to ask one question. My daughter is getting out of school. I’ve saved all my money. She doesn’t have any student loans. Am I going to get my money back?” the father asked Warren. “Of course not,” Warren said.

“So you’re going to pay for people who didn’t save any money and those of us who did the right thing get screwed?” he responded. The man went on to say he had a friend who “bought a car and went on all the vacations,” while he worked a double shift. “You’re laughing at me,” the man said, which Warren denied. “Yeah, that’s exactly what you’re doing. We did the right thing and we get screwed.”

A great economist said that “if you rob Peter to pay Paul, you’ll always have Paul as an ally.” Obviously, Sen. Warren’s proposal requires a little ‘Robbing Peter to pay Paul’ action. That isn’t the greatest sin, though.

The problem with Sen. Warren’s proposal is that it doesn’t fix the problem. Ten years after the student loan debt is forgiven, we’ll be right back into the same situation. That’s because people’s behaviors won’t change. That’s because the universities’ behavior won’t change. What incentive do universities have to start being fiscally responsible? After all, it isn’t their money that they’re spending.

The problem is OPM, aka Other People’s Money. In the hands of a bureaucrat or a politician, OPM is as addictive as opium. That’s the simple, indisputable truth. The conversation is a little difficult to hear but here’s the confrontation: