Archive for the ‘Liberalism’ Category
This LTE is mostly BS, starting with the first paragraph:
Why I, a fiscal conservative, vote Democrat:
Opposition to minimum wage: I believe that prior to passing the increase in the minimum wage, it was frozen for 10 years. This means that every year an employee stuck with a minimum-wage job, that person received a reduction in purchasing power equal to the rise in the consumer price index.
This clown isn’t a fiscal conservative anymore than I’m a social moderate. The assumption that people are stuck “with a minimum-wage job” year after year is preposterous. I’ve lived 58 years and I’ve yet to meet a single person that’s been stuck with a minimum-wage job for more than 2 years. The thought that a person would be stuck with a minimum wage job for 10 straight years is a dishonest construct, not a bit of reality.
That isn’t the only evidence that this gentleman is a liberal. Here’s another bit of proof:
Wanting to shrink government employment to nothing. I have worked in both the public and private sector. If the function being performed is necessary, why is it so terrible if government employees are paid more generously for the same type of work? Some people dislike this because they are simply jealous.
It might be worth questioning whether this gentleman went to the Barack Hussein Obama School of Strawman Arguments. That’s a distinct possibility. I’ve yet to hear of a single TEA Party activist, much less an establishment Republican, who wanted to eliminate government.
The fact that he’s putting this dishonest argument into an LTE makes me question whether he’s stupid or if he’s just dishonest. I’m betting on him being dishonest.
Opposition to Obamacare: While I would have chosen a system like Canada’s, I find the total opposition to Obamacare to be misguided. A friend of mine had a daughter who took a clerical job paying $14 per hour with a private-sector employer. That employer gave her an insurance policy requiring her to pay out $7,000 before insurance would kick in. How many $14-per-hour employees have $7,000 lying around? She applied for Obamacare and although she has co-pays, her insurance payments are triggered immediately.
If this young lady doesn’t have a deductible, then she bought a gold- or platinum-level plan. Bronze- and silver-level plans have high deductibles. I wrote this post to highlight this problem. Here’s what Robert Laszewski said about the Affordable Care Act:
If an entrepreneur had crafted Obamacare he would’ve gone to a middle class family. A family of four make(s) $54,000 a year has to pay $400 in premiums net of subsidy and for that the standard silver plan has an average deductible around $2,500 and a narrow network. They’re going to pay almost $5,000 for that? So the entrepreneur would say I’ve got $5,000 in premium and all this deductible, what do they want for that? And they probably would’ve said we want office visits and lab tests because the kids need to go in occasionally and then we want catastrophic care. The problem with Obamacare is it’s product driven, not market driven. They didn’t ask the customer what they wanted.
The ACA’s bronze- and silver-level plans have high deductibles. That’s statistically verifiable:
Her insurer, Kaiser Permanente, is terminating policies for 160,000 people in California and presenting them with new plans that comply with the healthcare law.
“Before I had a plan that I had a $1,500 deductible,” she said. “I paid $199 dollars a month. The most similar plan that I would have available to me would be $278 a month. My deductible would be $6,500 dollars and all of my care after that point would only be covered 70 percent.”
This self-proclaimed fiscal conservative is nothing of the sort. He’s a liberal. Period. More than anything else, this is proof that liberals can convince themselves that they’re damn near anything. Their ability to self-delude aside, the truth is that they aren’t in touch with reality.
A loyal reader of LFR sent me the text of an article in the Legal Ledger about what happened after Sen. Julianne Ortman proposed raising taxes in 2011. Here’s the key part of the article:
The letter comes after a few days’ worth of news reports and speculation about some willingness to raise taxes within the GOP Senate caucus, whether it be by broadening sales taxes, eliminating tax breaks, or other means. Taxes Chair Julianne Ortman was at the center of the speculation after she made comments calling tax expenditures government spending. Ortman has told us in the past that she fully intends to review and eliminate some tax breaks, although she disavowed any express wish to raise total revenues. She also mused favorably about how some states have been able to broaden sales taxes and lower rates.
In turn, it seems GOP communications staff kept Ortman under wraps most all day Thursday. After her Taxes hearing Thursday morning, the head of communications for the caucus, Michael Brodkorb, was seen waiting in the wings with another communications staffer to lead Ortman away. In response to a question directed at Ortman, Brodkorb simply replied: “No comment today.”
At the time, the House and Senate GOP caucuses were saying that they were committed to balancing the budget without raising taxes, which they accomplished after Gov. Dayton shut down the state government for 2 weeks.
First, Sen. Ortman’s proposal was terrible policy because it didn’t do anything to fix out-of-control DFL spending increases. Giving the DFL additional revenue is like putting out a fire with a little extra gas on the fire. Secondly, when Sen. Ortman went rogue, she did so without telling her colleagues. That’s the fastest way of stabbing her colleagues in the back.
It was her way of saying that her priorities were more important than her colleagues’ priorities, that her priorities mattered and that their policies didn’t. When Sen. Ortman went rogue, House and Senate GOP leadership were in the process of negotiating with Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk and then-Minority Leader Thissen. Her proposal cut the legs out from under the GOP leadership.
The lesson to be learned from this is that Sen. Ortman a) isn’t a team player, b) isn’t “a conservative champion” and c) can’t be relied on to do the right thing in holding down taxes.
Minnesotans don’t need someone who will fit right in with the DC Surrender Caucus right alongside John McCain and Lindsey Graham. We need someone principled who will fight for smart policies that grow the economy, create jobs and make Minnesotans’ lives better.
Technorati: Julianne Ortman, Tax Increases, Sarah Palin, Lindsey Graham, John McCain, Going Rogue, Surrender Caucus, Republicans, Principled Conservatism, Senate GOP Caucus, No New Taxes, Election 2014
I didn’t know about Joe Soucheray’s column from the Jan. 11, 2014 edition of the Pioneer Press. It’s a fascinating read. Here’s part of Mr. Soucheray’s column:
Not only is a new state Senate office building unnecessary, but the effort to bring it about was, essentially, crooked. In the final minutes of the last legislative session, the lodge tucked into a massive tax bill language that authorized a new edifice for themselves. They might as well have been throwing candy from a parade float.
They didn’t even know what it would cost, and they apparently didn’t care. They didn’t even seem to care that their action might very well have been unconstitutional. Former state Rep. Jim Knoblach, R-St. Cloud, filed a lawsuit in October. We should be cheering for this guy. He contends in the suit that authorizing the project in a tax bill, instead of the usual bonding bill, violates a state constitutional requirement that a law embrace only one subject. A hearing is scheduled this month in Ramsey County District Court.
Mr. Soucheray is right. Gov. Dayton, Sen. Bakk, Speaker Thissen and the DFL didn’t care how much this building cost. They didn’t care that the building wasn’t needed or that there were cheaper ‘solutions’ to this non-problem. The Minnesota Senate needed that building like this ship needed more ice near Antarctica:
The Minnesota Senate needed that office building like Olympic athletes need this type of drinking water:
Let’s get serious about this. If we do, then we’ll be more considerate of the taxpayers’ plight than the DFL was. The DFL Tax Bill is a disaster. First, it raised taxes on the middle class and on small retailers. Next, it’s spending money we don’t have on things we don’t need, aka the Senate Office Building. Third, the DFL is already admitting that they raised taxes too much because they’re already preparing to repeal some of the taxes they created less than a year ago.
All of these things are major mistakes. Building the SOB is the biggest of those mistakes because, potentially, it’ll exist a generation or more. Hopefully, the middle class tax hikes will be repealed. (The sooner the better, right?) Repealing the B2B sales taxes will happen this session.
Unfortunately, if it’s approved by the DFL House Rules Committee, the SOB will be with us for a generation or more.
The biggest question Minnesotans need to ask themselves is whether they want inconsiderate, thoughtless people running state government. The DFL did what conservatives predicted they’d do. They raised taxes on the middle class and working poor. They foolishly spent money on things like the Senate Office Building. They built a collosal monument to their warped ideology when they passed MNsure.
I’d argue that the DFL is the ‘gang that couldn’t shoot straight’ if I thought that were true. Unfortunately, this DFL governor and this DFL legislature has aimed their taxing and spending guns at every Minnesotan. Every Minnesota taxpayer will pay for this monstrosity.
Mostly, the SOB is a testimony to the DFL’s appetite for spending money foolishly. That alone should get them fired this November.
Yes, the title of this post uses a bit of hyperbole. Still, the case that Katherine Kersten makes in this article tells a disturbing tale:
The Met Council intends to change that in its 30-year plan for the seven-county metro area: “Thrive MSP 2040,” due out in 2014.
Some of us, of course, prefer to live in a condo above a coffee shop on a transit line. But the rest of us likely won’t enjoy lugging rock salt home on the bus, getting the kids to soccer practice on the light rail or pedaling to the dentist on our bikes. Nevertheless, the council has announced that “transit-oriented development” (TOD) will be the guiding principle for development in the metro area for the next 30 years. In its 84-page “TOD Strategic Action Plan,” released in June, it held up Portland and San Francisco as enlightened places we should emulate.
TOD will be an “enormous undertaking,” the council acknowledged. No kidding. To remake our metro area around transit, the council will do all it can to steer new jobs, homes and economic development in our region to areas within “easy walking distance” (one-half mile) of major transit stops — primarily in the urban core and inner-ring suburbs. In these favored places, tax dollars (mostly from people who live elsewhere) will be lavished on high-density housing, bike and pedestrian amenities, and subsidized retail shops.
If you think that’s hyperbole, you haven’t read this part of the TOD’s Executive Summary:
Transit-oriented development (TOD) provides the opportunity to enhance the transit investment by shaping regional development around transit. The working definition of TOD, as defined by the Metropolitan Council and partners at regional think tanks in September 2012 and February 2013, is: A moderate to higher density district/corridor located within easy walking distance of a major transit stop that typically contains a mix of uses such as housing, jobs, restaurants, shops, services and entertainment. These districts/corridors enable people of all ages, backgrounds, and incomes abundant transportation choices and the opportunity to live convenient, affordable and active lives.
In other words, the Met Council and a litany of progressive special interest organizations will do their best to establish these hubs, then, through time, force people to tolerate being told where they’ll live and how they’ll get from where the Met Council tells them to live to where the Met Council tells them to work.
There’s no denying that, theoretically, that’s efficient. Dictatorships and kingdoms are the most efficient forms of government in the history of the world. The Founding Fathers hated that type of efficiency. They established the Constitution in the way that they did to prevent autocratic boards like the Met Council from exercising this type of autocratic control over people.
The Met Council needs that type of control because their ideas run contrary to the American spirit. We love going wherever we want to go whenever we want to go there. The only way TOD becomes reality is through force. Here’s why abolishing the Met Council is imperative:
The TOD Strategic Action Plan has many parts, all emanating from the Metropolitan Council mission, goals and policies. Each component builds off the other and all lead back to the Council’s mission to “foster efficient and economic growth for a prosperous metropolitan region.”
This unaccountable council has put together a plan that forces lifestyle changes on people who are content with where they live, where they work and how they get from one to the other. That’s irrelevant to the Met Council and their progressive special interest groups allies. They know what’s best and they’ll do whatever it takes to force their vision down other people’s throats. Ms. Kersten’s article shows the foolishness of the Met Council’s vision:
The council forecasts that, by 2040, the population of Minneapolis and St. Paul will grow 24 percent and jobs there will grow a whopping 47 percent, while suburban growth on both measures will parallel each other. Such core city growth is strongly counter to historic trends both locally and nationally and seems unlikely to occur, despite TOD policies that attempt to engineer it.
The last census showed how foolish this prediction is. People voted with their mortgages to abandon the Twin Cities for the bedroom communities. They moved away from liberal mayors like R.T. Rybak and Chris Coleman. They moved away from progressive representation in DC and St. Paul. The most conservative congressional districts grew like wildfire while the most liberal districs shrunk rapidly. Thus far this census cycle, that pattern isn’t reversing.
What is TOD’s track record in Portland, the nirvana of TOD enthusiasts? Portland has poured huge sums into light rail, streetcars, and developments around transit stations. Now its streets are crumbling, and it can’t afford to repave them until at least 2017.
In other words, the Met Council’s vision is a verified failure. That figures. This part of the Executive Summary shows why TOD will be a failure:
Each strategy is ranked as high, medium or low priorities based on the impact and ease of implementation. The highest priority recommendations are collaboration strategies or relate to the creation of a TOD policy:
- Establish TOD staff capability within the Council to work with partners to deliver high-quality TOD outcomes.
- Create an internal Council TOD working group and dedicated TOD program staff to improve internal coordination and collaboration across the organizational divisions.
- Continue talking with regional partners and begin the process of creating a regional TOD Advisory Group to work with the Council on implementing the Action Plan recommendations.
Nowhere in that strategy is it mentioned that the Met Council or the TOD working group hold actual town halls to hear from businesses and other citizens. Nowhere is it mentioned that local units of government should take the lead. In fact, the only thing that’s mentioned is an unelected group of bureaucrats creating another layer of bureaucrats without the consent of the governed.
No taxation without representation and government without the consent of the governed started a revolution 200+ years ago. Under the DFL’s ‘leadership’, taxation without representation and government without the consent of the governed is apparently the norm.
Technorati: Met Council, Transit-oriented development, Thrive MSP 2040, Transit, LRT, Multi-Family Dwellings, Sustainability, Mark Dayton, DFL, No Taxation Without Representation, Revolutionary War, Founding Fathers, Individual Liberty
The latest Democratic chanting point on the Affordable Care Act has been that President Obama didn’t really break his promise that you could keep your health insurance plan if you liked it. The chanting point has become that the policies getting canceled were substandard policies that insurance companies foisted on unsuspecting dupes (you). That’s certainly the message Henry Aaron is peddling in this article:
Of late, numerous reports have told of people surprised by letters telling them that insurance plans they now have will not be renewed. Many are puzzled. Weren’t they told that if they like their insurance they could keep it? Opponents of health reform in general are seizing on the fact and asking in an accusatorial manner: “Isn’t this a betrayal of trust?”
No. To see why, imagine a new law enacted to promote food purity. As it is being debated, you are told: “If you like what you eat, you can keep on eating it.” The new law takes effect, and one day, you find that the market no longer carries certain foods you have been buying. As it happens, those products included elements found to be bad for your health. The pure food act barred their use.
There’s a huge flaw with this logic. They’re called Cadillac health insurance policies. Last night on Megyn Kelly’s show, a woman talked about how she had such a plan. When her husband got cancer that eventually killed him, the policy saved her family from huge expenses. The treatments cost over $300,000. Thanks to their health insurance policy, their out-of-pocket expenses came to $1,500. That’s in addition to the premiums they paid.
When the policy wasn’t offered anymore, this woman chose to continue this coverage, paying the premiums out of her own pocket. She did the right thing. She wasn’t putting a burden on society. She didn’t complain about not getting her policy subsidized. She just paid the premiums.
This fall, she got a notice that her policy was canceled thanks to the Affordable Care Act’s penalty on Cadillac plans. That’s right. The Affordable Care Act is making Cadillac plans obsolete. That’s why the unions are upset. All these years, they’ve settled for smaller wage increases, which are taxed, in exchange for premium quality health insurance policies, which aren’t taxed.
Thanks to the Affordable Care Act, these union workers won’t have the option of a Cadillac plan plus they’re stuck with the lower pay increases that they negotiated.
It’s difficult to see how Cadillac plans are the equivalent of “products [that] included elements found to be bad for your health.” The full name of the Affordable Care Act is actually the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. One of the Democrats’ first chanting points was the PPACA would protect families from medical bankruptcies. This lady’s Cadillac health insurance policy did that and then some.
It’s insulting that Mr. Aaron insists that the canceled policies are sub-standard policies. It’s insulting on multiple levels, starting with the fact that those policies can’t be sold if they aren’t first approved by that state’s insurance commissioner.
Early in her political career, Ms. Sebelius was Kansas’ insurance commissioner. Is she now admitting that the policies she approved were sub-standard? When President Obama called these insurance plans sub-standard, he essentially accused the 50 state insurance commissioners incompetent.
Second, in many places, competition among insurers will lower premiums. Bloomberg Government has reported that the more plans offered in an exchange, the lower the premiums.
In Minnesota, a state recognized as a leader in health insurance innovation and access, most rural cities have few options. In fact, many of these places have a single option in terms of insurance providers competing.
Third, people can hold down premiums by selecting plans with comparatively high deductibles.
That option isn’t brought to us by the Affordable Care Act. That was available to clients who had health savings accounts and a catastrophic policy, both of which are illegal under the Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.
The problem was a misdiagnosis of the situation in 2009. The US health care system needed extensive work. It didn’t need to put an incompetent administration in charge of a complex industry. Democrats didn’t need to give bureaucrats the authority of who could keep the health insurance plans they liked. Democrats didn’t need to tell people what insurance policies were “sub-standard” and which ones were government-approved.
What Democrats should’ve done is get out of the way so innovators couls’ve put together a package of real reforms.
Technorati: Henry Aaron, Media Bias, Insurance Cancellations, Individual Mandate, Cadillac Health Insurance, Medical Bankruptcies, Affordable Care Act, President Obama, Kathleen Sebelius, Democrats, Free Market Reforms, Megyn Kelly
People say it’s a challenge to get a message through via Twitter. As people know, Twitter affords people 140 characters to make a point. Despite the limits of Twitter, people still get their message across. Apparently, Joan Vincent won’t master Twitter anytime soon:
What should Minnesota voters do next in the wake of the deal to end the federal shutdown and raise the debt ceiling?
Minnesota voters should not elect a tea party member to Congress.
We’ve had experience with one, and it hasn’t been good.
It’s predictable that a DFL activist like Vincent couldn’t resist taking another shot at Michele Bachmann before she retires from Congress. Still, I’m betting Ms. Vincent doesn’t know a thing about the TEA Party. I’m betting she only knows what Democrats and the media (pardon the repetition) tell her the TEA Party is about.
First, the TEA Party insists on not spending money foolishly and in such gigantic amounts. Originally, that meant the TEA Party opposed the UAW bailouts. The bailouts saved union pensions at a time when legacy costs (pension payments) exceeded GM’s and Plymouth’s monthly payroll. In other words, the companies overpromised, the taxpayers funded the bailout and the UAW enjoyed the benefits.
Other than UAW members, who thinks that’s a great idea?
Later, foolish spending was defined as guaranteeing loans to dying companies like Solyndra. Other than the people on Solyndra’s board of directors, who thought that was smart?
TEA Party activists believe that the Founding Fathers got it right when they wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Likewise, they’re certain that the Constitution isn’t a living, breathing document. As KrisAnne Hall points out in her presentation on the geneology of the Constitution, the Constitution started as a compact between the states. They were the sovereign governments that birthed the federal government. That means the states dictated the terms under which the federal government was authoriized to operate because the sovereign states were essentially the federal government’s employer.
Ms. Hall rightly notes that a compact is just a contract between states. When was the last time that a judge ruled that the terms of a contract were living, breathing suggestions subject to change?
Had the Supreme Court been faithful to the Constitution, we wouldn’t be dealing with the Affordable Care Act.
In other words, TEA Party activists think that the Founding Fathers were especially wise in setting up a government that limited the federal government’s authority, influence and scope. The Founding Fathers were wise in establishing that type of government because they didn’t want the federal government to become the oppressive leviathan it currently is.
When it comes to highlighting liberals’ wrongheaded economic thinking, nobody’s been better at it than Milton Friedman. This video is a great example of Friedman’s wisdom:
Friedman’s wisdom on the subject of minority education is playing out in big cities daily. First, Friedman said that nothing traps young people in poverty more than underperforming “government schools.” That’s being verified by the fact that the DC Opportunity Scholarship program has far more minority applicants than scholarships. The documentary “Waiting for Superman” highlights parents as they attempt to rescue their children from government schools by getting them into charter schools. In St. Paul, a healthy portion of the families wanting their children in charter schools are minority parents.
Time after time, minorities are hurt by government schools. What’s worst is that the teacher unions and Democrat politicians protect bad schools. New York City is famous for its Rubber Room:
Educators accused of breaking rules, abusing kids, or simply failing to provide students with a decent education, will be paid a stunning $22 million by the city this year for doing absolutely nothing.
Charter schools aren’t restricted by union rules, which gives them more latitude to innovate. Charter schools can get rid of underperforming teachers quickly, something government schools can’t do.
Here in Minnesota, Republicans included a Basic Skills Test requirement in the Omnibus Education Bill that Gov. Dayton signed. This year, with the DFL running state government from A to Z, Democrats repealed the Basic Skills Test requirement. It wasn’t surprising that Gov. Dayton didn’t hesitate in signing the requirement’s repeal.
The message that sends to teachers is that competence isn’t required, that a union card is what’s important. That cheats students by telling parents, students and teachers alike that union membership is more important than high quality teachers.
Friedman also explains why increasing the minimum wage hurts minorities. Mitch Berg’s post highlights why increasing the minimum wage is actually keeping unemployment high:
The inevitable result of across-the-board minimum wage hikes? Fewer minimum wage jobs.
Case in point; as minimum wages around the country rose during the 2000s, McDonalds started pre-cooking its hamburger patties, so they’d only need to be reheated in the stores. This got rid of most of the traditional “burger-flipper” jobs, the ones that liberals sneered at but provided hundreds of thousands of opportunities for teens and others entering and re-entering the workforce to learn how to show up for work on time and do a good job at something.
Democrats will argue that increasing the minimum wage doesn’t affect hiring. They’re wrong. It’s accurate to say that increasing the minimum wage doesn’t always affect unemployment. Democrats think businesses owe it to society to hire people. That’s wrongheaded thinking. Entrepreneurs hire people if they think it’ll makes them money. Period.
If hiring a person at minimum wage will hurt profits, businesses won’t hire people. It’s that simple. The benefit must exceed the expense. If it doesn’t, unemployment is the result. It’s that simple regardless of what Rep. Winkler and other Democrats say.
The move is designed to boost efficiency and make ordering more convenient for customers. In an interview with the Financial Times, McDonald’s Europe President Steve Easterbrook notes that the new system will also open up a goldmine of data. McDonald’s could potentially track every Big Mac, McNugget, and large shake you order. A calorie account tally at the end of the year could be a real shocker.
The touch screens will only accept debit or credit cards, adding to the slow death knell of cash and coins. This all goes along with an overall revamp of McDonald’s restaurants worldwide aimed at projecting a modern image as opposed to the old-fashioned golden arches…
While it’d be pushing it to say that McDonalds is installing these touch-screen ordering kiosks because of the minimum wage, it isn’t a stretch to say that installing those kiosks will help McDonalds avoid dealing with minimum wage employees. Rep. Winkler isn’t interested in increasing the minimum wage to help the working poor. He’s interested in it because many union wages are based on the minimum wage.
Limiting government’s size and influence isn’t just an ideology. It’s a time-tested method for ushering in lengthy periods of prosperity. Capitalism is still the greatest weapon in fighting poverty and creating upward mobility.
Tags: Milton Friedman, Free Market Capitalism, Charter Schools, Upward Mobility, Prosperity, Conservatism, Minimum Wage, Ryan Winkler, Government Schools, Rubber Room, Union Protection, Waiting For Superman, DC Opportunity Scholarships, Liberalism
This op-ed starts with a hypothetical situation:
[W]hat would happen if two trillion cubic feet of natural gas were found under Eveleth this afternoon?
Next, Terry Stone speculates about the DFL’s reaction to this discovery:
Well, you can bet that the environmentalists would protest the press conference. Then they will claim that gas production, fracking, fracking sand production and pipeline construction cause haze over Voyageurs National Park. Friends of BWCA will claim that fracking water disposal will contaminate the pristine waters of the BWCA, even though it is on the other side of the continental divide. They will claim that the lights atop the drilling rigs will be seen all over the BWCA.
Labor unions will protest because the storage facilities are being built by the lowest bidder; a non-union shop from Georgia. (Congressman) Rick Nolan will claim that he wants the jobs of gas production but he can’t support the present plan because it doesn’t assure zero impact on ground water. (U.S. Sens.) Al Franken and Amy Klobuchar will introduce a bill to protect land owners from getting rich. (Minnesota Sen.) Tom Bakk will introduce a bill to place a tax on gas production in Minnesota and place it under the Taconite Taxing District of the IRRRB.
The Audubon Society, the Nature Conservancy, the Sierra Club and the Minnesota Environmental Partnership will sue to stop any gas production. They will claim that the production area is inside the buffer zone of their newly proposed International Heart of the Continent Biosphere Reserve that includes Quetico, Superior National Forest, Voyageurs and the BWCA.
The state legislature will revisit the narrowly dodged moratorium on fracking sand operations in Minnesota. The environmental front group, Save our 10,000 Lakes will hold protests at the capital during the special session to evaluate the impact of a population boom on the Iron Range. They will claim that fracking pollutes well water and that fracking chemicals cause genetic mutations and cancer.
While this is technically speculation, it’s informed speculation because it’s the DFL’s reaction to the PolyMet and Twin Metals mining projects last summer. The only difference between this speculative solution and last summer’s reaction is that last year’s response was led by Alida Messinger and Conservation Minnesota.
Either way, the DFL’s response is predictable and disastrous to Minnesota families. Stone’s op-ed then finishes with the economic reality of the DFL’s policies:
Under the sway of DFL liberal politics, Minnesota is screwed. Whether it’s pulpwood in endless supply, copper in world-class deposits, the world’s largest volume of liquid fresh water, 17,000 lakes or fracking sand in nearly unlimited quantities, Minnesota will find a way to screw the golden goose before it even hatches.
Average household income of GOP Chisago County: $67,075. Average household income of DFL International Falls: $30,094. The annual cost to your family of voting DFL: $36,981.
The median household income in Minnesota is just a bit under $60,000, meaning International Falls’ median household income is approximately half of the statewide average. That’s because the DFL’s anti-job growth policies stifle economic development.
The DFL has tried to put the Iron Range (mining and logging), Ely (precious metals mining) and Southeastern Minnesota (silica sand mining) off-limits. The effect of the DFL’s policies is exposed by the income disparity between International Falls and the statewide average.
This will forever be the case because environmentalists write the DFL’s economic development policies. That’s why families in International Falls and the Iron Range consistently get the shaft without getting the mining jobs they need to prosper.
Follow this link for more on the income disparity.
Jim Hoft has a collection of the drivel being spouted by Hollywierd’s usual suspects. While it’s appalling, it’s totally predictable. Here’s a sample of what Hollywierd’s biggest disgraces are saying:
Here’s a look at the stars who shared their thoughts on Twitter:
Ellen Page: “If u really believe racism isnt a massive problem, that the oppression of minorities is not a horrific and systemic issue. U R in denial.”
Mia Farrow: “I don’t understand this. At ALL”
Steve Harvey: “A Child is Dead & The Man that Killed Him is Free & Again The Child is Black…My Country Tis of Thee?”
Richard Dreyfuss: “It’s 2013 and an American jury just acquitted a man who admitted to stalking and killing an unarmed child.”
Judy Blume: “Not surprised. But distraught. Saw ‘Fruitvale Station’ tonight. How ironic to come home to this verdict.”
Kate Walsh: “Zimmerman verdict sickens me.”
Kat Dennings: “I can’t handle this. All that really matters are Trayvon’s parents, and making sure nothing like this ever happens again.”
Questlove: “this might be in bad taste but in light of this verdict? i really INSIST you people see Fruitvale Station not now but RIGHT NOW”
Alec Baldwin, who recently quit Twitter (again), resurfaced post-verdict: “Florida is a parallel universe. A (expletive) one.”
Richard Dreyfuss’s statement is particularly disgusting. It’s also intellectually dishonest. It’s probably intentionally dishonest, too.
Saying that George Zimmerman admitted to stalking Trayvon Martin is incendiary and dishonest. That statement doesn’t have anything to do with the truth. It isn’t connected to the evidence presented during the trial. It’s nothing more than incendiary race-baiting.
It’s easy to write it off when Al Sharpton’s saying this trash. It’s getting easier to write it off when someone from Hollywierd says this garbage.
On a more serious, more argumentative note, these actors’ attitude is appalling. The 6 women jurors sat through the trial. They heard every piece of evidence. They took copious amounts of notes. Friday afternoon, they asked the judge for the complete list of evidence presented at trial.
By all accounts, they diligently sought the truth. These sanctimonious jackasses didn’t hear the testimony but they’ve accorded themselves expert status with their statements. Their ‘We know better’ attitude is disgusting. They have an opinion, which the First Amendment allows them to express, but they aren’t experts. That status can only be given to the jurors, the judge and the lawyers.
It’s impossible to take anything David Shuster writes seriously. Shuster is part of the Times Writers Group, which means he writes a column once a month. Tons of his statements border on the ridiculous. That’s certainly the case in this month’s editorial:
Starting in the 1980s, Americans were fed a steady diet of anti-tax, anti-government propaganda. Although the folly of conservative rhetoric on other issues such as gay marriage and gun “rights” is recognized by an increasing percentage of the electorate, taxation and the notion that government can be a benevolent (rather than malevolent) institution have tougher rows to hoe.
The misconception that public institutions are, by definition, wasteful and inefficient may contribute to societal ambivalence about government.
Shuster’s writings are breathtaking. That he thinks gun rights is mythical is offensive. The fact that he thinks government waste is a “misconception” identifies his blind spot. And it’s quite the blind spot. It’s apparent that Shuster isn’t informed on the mountains of wasteful spending contained in the recent GAO Report, which Sen. Coborn spoke out against:
SEN COBURN: Next one, housing assistance. We have 160 programs, separate programs. Nobody knows if they’re working. Nobody in the administration knows all the programs. I’m probably the only person in Congress that does because nobody else has looked at it. Twenty different agencies. We’re spending $170 billion. If we’re really interested in housing assistance, why would we have 20 sets of overhead, 20 sets of administration? And what would it cost to accomplish the same thing?
All these numbers come from the Government Accountability Office, by the way. They don’t come from me.
And the other part of the report is that nobody knows if these programs are working. We have no data to say that we’re actually making a difference on housing assistance through this expenditure of money. So we’re not even asking the most basic of questions that a prudent person would ask.
When a department can’t measure where the money that’s appropriated to them is being spent, it’s impossible to argue that government isn’t wasteful. That information proves that government isn’t just wasteful. It’s proof that they don’t care whether they’re wasteful. If they cared about spending the taxpayers’ money efficiently, they would’ve installed a system to track their department’s spending.
Shuster said that it’s “anti-government propaganda” to think that government isn’t malevolent. Apparently, he didn’t read this article:
Johnson commenced his new “Victims of Government” project with a short film detailing the plight of Granite City, Ill. resident Steven Lathrop who spent more than 20 years attempting to comply with federal wetlands regulations to alleviate flooding in his neighborhood, only to end up in a mess of red tape, bureaucratic mistakes and eventual financial distress.
That doesn’t sound like a benevolent government. That’s without talking about how the Justice Department ignored reporters’ First and Fifth Amendment rights. That’s without asking Mr. Shuster whether he thinks the IRS’s targeting of conservatives and Christians was the act of a benevolent government.
Not surprisingly, Shuster’s column couldn’t have been published without Randy Krebs’ approval. It’s pretty apparent that Krebs doesn’t subject liberals’ columns to the same level of scrutiny as conservatives’ LTEs and columns. It isn’t surprising that Shuster’s propaganda isn’t scrutinized for accuracy. Krebs’ selective editing and scrutiny is well-documented.