Archive for November, 2011

I’ve written that DFL Chairman Ken Martin’s legislative redistricting map is such a blatant hatchet job that the Special Redistricting Panel likely won’t give it serious consideration.

For instance, Chairman Martin’s redistricting map for the Greater St. Cloud Area is a naked attempt to defeat John Pederson, Steve Gottwalt and King Banaian. It’s obvious because Martin chopped off Haven Township from King’s district and the towns of St. Augusta and Rockville from Steve’s district.

Haven Township was the place where King did best. Rockville and St. Augusta were the towns where Steve did best.

That alone should get Martin’s map tossed.

The thing is that it isn’t the only thing that’s corrupt about Chairman Martin’s map. Martin’s map trades Haven Township out of King’s district and swaps a liberal section of land on the other side of the Mississippi into King’s district.

Meanwhile, Larry Hosch, a vulnerable Democrat legislator from St. Joe is protected from having to face Rockville or St. Augusta. His district somehow gets safer.

Alida is certainly getting her money’s worth from Chairman Martin. He’s been an obedient little partisan puppet. Let’s remember that Alida Messinger installed Martin as DFL Party Chairman:

Most of the criticism of DFL state party chair Brian Melendez in the wake of Election Day has been confined to the liberal blogosphere. The three-term incumbent could likely survive those barbs.

But a much more important DFL supporter, wealthy donor Alida Messinger, is also apparently opposed to Melendez remaining as party chair. According to a reliable DFL source, there won’t be any checks arriving in DFL coffers from the Rockefeller heir if Melendez remains in the post.

Of course, Ken Martin, the person most often cited as a potential rival for state party chair, is closely aligned with Messinger. He chaired the Win Minnesota Political Action Fund, which played a key role in the governor’s race. The group’s largest individual donor: Messinger.

Thanks to Chairman Martin’s obedience to Mark Dayton’s first ex-wife, the Special Redistricting Panel will have to deal with Chairman Martin’s map before essentially ignoring its recommendations.

The DFL legislature didn’t put any redistricting maps together, instead apparently choosing to let the state party and their allies do the heavy lifting.

The DFL is a shell of its former self. It’s been replaced by the Dayton family’s political machine. The Dayton family’s political machine is exceptionally far left. When that’s exposed, the DFL will take a hard tumble for a decade or more.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tonight, I’ll be participating in a special redistricting panel debate with my faithful sidekick Mitch Berg. We’ll be fighting the forces of evil, aka Tony Angelo and someone from Common Cause.

I’m teaming with Mitch to expose the DFL’s willingness to ignore the purpose of redistricting, namely to redraw Minnesota’s congressional and legislative districts in a way that reflects Minnesota’s shifting population.

UPDATE: Follow this link to catch the debate on UStream. Call 1-763-412-4631 to talk live with the panelists on air or use #LateDebate to give us your opinions through Twitter.

Technorati: , , , , , , ,

Mitt Romney’s always had a higher opinion of himself as a politician than his political record warrants. That’s why I’m not surprised by Mitt’s statements during his interview with Special Report’s Bret Baier aren’t that surprising:

Asked by Fox News’s Bret Baier in an interview Tuesday whether Gingrich could beat President Obama, Romney said: “I think to get President Obama out of office, you’re going to have to bring something to the race that’s different than what he brings.”

“He’s a lifelong politician. I think you have to have the credibility of understanding how the economy works. And I do. And that’s one reason I’m in this race.”

All politicians have egos. They couldn’t survive without them. Still, Mitt’s statements smack me as being Grade A BS. Saying that the man who put in place policies that created 11,000,000 new jobs doesn’t understand how the economy works simply isn’t credible.

It’s time for Mitt to stop pretending that he’s the economic wizard and his GOP opponents don’t understand the economy.

Let’s remember that the man Mitt’s criticizing also helped create 4 straight surpluses while reforming welfare and training people so they could be productive workers in the private sector. Does that sound like a man who doesn’t understand how the economy works?

The reason why Mitt’s in this race is because he loves politics. It isn’t because he’s a great presidential candidate. In fact, he’s played at the fringes of politics most of his life.

The only reason why he wasn’t a career politician is because he’s only won 1 election in his lifetime. Had he defeated Ted Kennedy in 1994, he would’ve been a career politician by now.

It isn’t surprising that Newt didn’t let Mitt’s comments go unanswered. Here’s Newt’s reply:

Gingrich fired back in an interview following a town hall meeting tonight at the Newberry, S.C., Opera House.

“You’re talking to a guy who was dead in June. I’m now being attacked by the former frontrunner,” he exulted.

He also defended his economic experience. “I would point out as a matter of fact, having participated in the development of supply-side economics with (former Rep. Jack) Kemp, having campaigned with Reagan on it in 1980, having helped pass it in ‘81 and having gone thorugh the recovery in the ‘80s and having 11 million jobs created over four years as speaker, I may have some knowledge of the economy.”

If Mitt wants to talk about who’s put together the strongest economic record while in office, he’d best be prepared to get thumped.

It’s one thing to balance a state’s budget. Most states require that. Balancing the federal budget isn’t anything like balancing a state’s budget. During Newt’s time in office as Speaker, they balanced the budget 4 straight years.

During his time in the private sector, Mitt killed thousands of jobs. That might’ve been justified but reality is reality.

Mitt’s got a bit of a temper when challenged:

Baier peppered Romney with questions about his inconsistencies over the years on key issues like climate change, abortion rights, immigration and gay marriage. Romney rejected the premise altogether.

“Well, Bret, your list is just not accurate,” Romney said. “So, one, we’re going to have to be better informed about my views on issues. My view is you can look at what I’ve written in my book [“No Apology”]. You can look at a person who has devoted his life to his family, to his faith, to his country. And I’m running for president because of the things I believe I think I can do to help this country.”

In trustworthy contests, Bret Baier will trounce Mitt every time. That’s why telling Bret Baier that he didn’t do his homework isn’t the brightest thing Mitt’s done lately. Then again, Mitt didn’t have any promising options available at that point. Mitt was pinned down.

One thing that’s clear is that Mitt gets testy fast when challenged. Mitt lost it when Rick Perry challenged him over hiring an illegal immigrant to do his lawn care. To date, that’s the only debate where Mitt hasn’t looked placid. It’s the only debate he’s clearly lost.

Mitt’s ego won’t allow him to admit that people don’t trust him. Mitt undoubtedly will continue making tortured arguments that the archived clips don’t really mean what all of America thinks they mean. That’s his choice. It’s just that his choice will sink him.

Mitt isn’t unflappable. In fact, he’s quite easily upset. That tendency, coupled with his flip-flops, won’t help against Newt.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

There’s spin, then there’s professional spin and then there’s championship level spin that Katie Tinucci practices. Check this spin out:

Dayton spokeswoman Katharine Tinucci in a statement responded to the filing of the lawsuit. “The debate around unionization of family childcare providers started years before Governor Dayton was elected to office,” she said.

“By refusing to call for an election, his predecessors denied licensed, registered family child care providers the chance to decide for themselves whether or not they want to form a union. Governor Dayton believes they should have the right to make that decision.”

It’s worth noting that Gov. Pawlenty knew the legal definition of a public employee. More importantly, he didn’t disregard Minnesota state statutes on the matter. It’s apparent that Ms. Tinucci is doing everything except admitting that Gov. Dayton cares more about paying off his political allies than obeying the law.

Everyone who’s followed this law knows that this isn’t anything except Gov. Dayton’s paying off the people that got him elected.

Minnesota state statutes say that child care providers can’t be considered government employees. Eventually, we’ll find out whether Minnesota’s courts read the laws as written or whether they favor defining the law as they see fit.

The list of professions that qualify as public employees is exhaustive and straightforward. The law is tightly written. There isn’t any wiggle room in the definition. Still, AFSCME and SEIU thugs continue to argue otherwise:

Eric Lehto, organizing director for AFSCME Minnesota Council 5, called the lawsuit “frivolous.”

“Governor Dayton has legal authority to direct the Bureau of Mediation Services to conduct a union election and to determine appropriate bargaining units of child care providers. Voters in this election include only licensed, subsidized providers who have a direct financial relationship with the state of Minnesota,” Lehto said in a statement.

“If a majority of providers come together in a democratic process, Gov. Dayton will recognize their professional voice. Union membership will be voluntary and all providers will retain their constitutional right to participate in the policy making process.”

Mr. Lehto isn’t telling the whole truth. If telling the whole truth was important to Mr. Lehto, he would’ve mentioned that the child care providers that don’t get to vote on unionization will have to pay Fair Share fees to either AFSCME or the SEIU.

If Mr. Lehto put a priority on telling the truth, he would’ve mentioned that AFSCME and SEIU intend to negotiate regulations for child safety, educational materials and other things. He didn’t mention that these issues financially affect the child care providers’s that don’t get to vote on unionization but who will pay union dues.

If Gov. Dayton wants to blame anyone for the unionization vote, he needn’t look further than the mirror. If Gov. Dayton wasn’t the unions’ puppet, this vote wouldn’t be happening. If Gov. Dayton respected settled Minnesota law, this vote wouldn’t be happening.

Gov. Dayton’s letter to Speaker Zellers and Majority Leader Dean is the rant of an unhinged person. Check it out yourself:
Dayton Letter
Yes, Gov. Dayton, we think that the SEIU and AFSCME won’t hesitate to do anything if they think it’ll help them accumulate more political power. In fact, we have proof that they will.

When the Fleebagger 14 left Wisconsin rather than do what they were elected to do, AFSCME threatened businesses. They had the choice of either displaying the union sign in their window or have the unions boycott their store.

I’ve read about SEIU stormtroopers attempted to threaten a bank official:

Last Sunday, on a peaceful, sun-crisp afternoon, our toddler finally napping upstairs, my front yard exploded with 500 screaming, placard-waving strangers on a mission to intimidate my neighbor, Greg Baer. Baer is deputy general counsel for corporate law at Bank of America, a senior executive based in Washington, D.C. And that, in the minds of the organizers at the politically influential Service Employees International Union and a Chicago outfit called National Political Action, makes his family fair game.

Gov. Dayton, there’s substantial proof that PEUs do nefarious things in their quest to accumulate political power.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

This article by Joe Trippi is fascinating analysis of the similarities between Mondale’s campain in 1984 and Mitt’s campaign this year:

Mitt Romney has been able to coast throughout this period. But his relatively smooth ride is likely to get pretty rocky once Republicans settle on their other candidate.

Going back to 1984, Mondale won the Iowa Caucuses with 49% of the vote. Gary Hart, who had languished low in the field for the better part of two years, finished in 2nd place with 19% of the vote (someone had to take second). We beat him by 30 points, but it didn’t matter because the world had found the other candidate and we lost state after state to Hart and had to fight back all the way to the last primary to barely win the nomination.

Romney faces an even more difficult situation.

Mitt is the guy that the GOP establishment supports because he’s checked off the ‘right boxes’. It isn’t that people are ready to run through walls for him. It isn’t that Mitt’s electrifying bigger and bigger crowds. It’s that he’s the safe pick.

Or is he?

Romney’s problems are enormous. He is behind in Iowa and faces a tougher contest in New Hampshire than most analysts are predicting, largely because few are prepared for Iowa in 2012, like in 1984, to reshape the primary by deciding who is “the other candidate.”

Romney rarely polls over the high 30s or low 40’s in New Hampshire. Right now with a big field and no consensus around about who is “the other candidate” (a situation like Mondale had in Iowa in 1984), Romney looks like he will win New Hampshire big (again like Mondale won Iowa).

At minimum, last Sunday’s Union Leader endorsement of Newt solidified the race. This is now all but officially a 2 man race. With Mr. Cain on the verge of dropping out and with Michele Bachmann and Rick Perry having difficulties breaking out, this is quickly turning into Mitt’s worst nightmare.

Mitt’s hope has been that most of the ABM candidates would split the vote in the early primaries so he could build momentum. That won’t happen because the pretenders have fallen by the side.

While the comparison between 1984 and 2012 rhymes, Romney lacks the one thing that saved the nomination for Mondale: strong support and loyalty from the base of his party.

Mondale was one of the strongest frontrunners in the Democratic Party over the past few decades. Romney is arguably one of the weakest GOP frontrunners in recent memory.

Walter Mondale was a darling of the base of the Democratic Party. Mondale was regarded by the liberal base as a liberal through and through, and when he faltered, activists and party groups rallied to his cause and joined the fight to save his campaign.

If Romney falters, who in his party will fight for him? Who in the GOP will try to catch him and hold him up? Romney does not enjoy the loyalty and support of the conservative base of the GOP. If Romney stumbles he will be on his own.

While it’s true that Mitt’s supporters are loyal, it can’t be said that they’re numerous. I wrote that Mitt’s on the negative side of the enthusiasm gap against Newt:

It’s clear that they came to show their support for Speaker Gingrich. That type of enthusiasm isn’t something that Mitt Romney can brag about.

For the most part, Mitt’s supporters are faithful. For the most part, Mitt’s supporters write checks. For the most part, they don’t man phone banks or knock doors. That matters in GOTV operations.

Romney’s built an impressive-looking house of cards. His problem is that those aren’t the sturdiest of structures. They’re capable of collapsing quickly.

I’m not predicting a quick collapse by Mitt. I’m just highlighting the possibility that it might happen if cards fall the wrong way for Mitt.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

It’s been clear for quite awhile that Jennifer Rubin was the Romney campaign’s plant at the Washington Post. This post confirms it:

There a few things more distasteful about Newt Gingrich than his grotesque hypocrisy. Hypocrisy is a quality not uncommon among pols, but Gingrich takes it to new levels. The man who was for the Libya war before he was against it, was for the individual mandate before he was against it, savaged Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan before he admired it, and snuggled up to Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on global warming before he renounced her global warming fetish has no problem casting himself as the heroic, consistent conservative while criticizing his opponent Mitt Romney for his changes of mind.

And when it comes to excoriating lobbyists and special interests, no one tops the candidate from Big Pharm, Freddie Mac and the ethanol industry.

Let’s address these issues one-by-one. Ms. Rubin is deploying the myth that Gingrich was ever for attacking Libya. He wasn’t and she knows it. What happened is that the interviewer talked about President Obama’s statement that Kadhaffi “had to go.” Then the interviewer asked how a Gingrich would make that happen. Newt wasn’t asked if he’d make the same decision. He was given a hypothetical situation and asked to deal with it. He did.

As for being for the individual mandate, that was in 1994. By 1996, the Heritage Foundation and Speaker Gingrich abandoned it because it wouldn’t do the things they thought it might. Newt has since admitted that he was wrong about the individual mandate.

Why hasn’t Mitt admitted that his supporting the individual mandate is a mistake?

What’s worse: Newt shooting a commercial with Ms. Pelosi or Mitt taking John Holdren’s advice to implement stringent job-killing CO2 emission standards?

Ms. Rubin whines about the water Newt supposedly carried for Fannie and Freddie. She’s a well-connected DC journalist. Why hasn’t she told the world what water Newt allegedly carried? It’s one thing to offer policy advice. It’s quite another to help protect Fannie and Freddie.

Thus far, Ms. Rubin hasn’t shown how Newt lobbied Congress in an attempt to protect Fannie and Freddie. Perhaps that’s because he only offered policy advice to the mortgage giants?

But nothing quite tops his lecturing Herman Cain about adultery. Politico reports: “Newt Gingrich, who has been friendly with Herman Cain but who has suggested his opponent needs to deal with the drip-drip of allegations about his past, suggested the businessman needs to address the claims made by Ginger White.

I watched John King’s interview. He asked Newt if Herman Cain’s campaign was finished. Newt replied that that’s Cain’s decision, along with his family. At no point did Newt lecture Cain. If Ms. Rubin watched the interview, she’d know that. What happened was that Newt said that, from a campaign matter, Cain would have to address the situation or face daily questioning about the allegations.

The very fact that Gingrich would so blithely direct Cain to bear his soul undermines Gingrich’s canard that he’s truly repentant. If he were truly remorseful and shamed by his own conduct, would he be going into his holier-than-thou routine? I think not.

Did Ms. Rubin watch the interview? If she did, she’d know that Newt didn’t revert to “his holier-than-thou routine.” If she said that after watching the interview, then wrote this trash, I’d ask her what led her to believe that Newt went into “his holier-than-thou routine”? If she couldn’t give an explanation, I’d then ask if she’s just attacking Newt because she hates him.

If Ms. Rubin wants to frequently write hate-filled anti-Newt diatribes, which she’s doing, she shouldn’t get paid by the Washington Post. Mitt’s campaign should be paying her.

Ms. Rubin should resign because she’s writing hate-filled posts rather than writing informative articles. Her hatred for Newt is clouding her judgment.

Ms. Rubin undoubtedly complained about the media’s slobbering over President Obama. Now she’s taking things to the next level. Not only is she ignoring Mitt’s shortcomings, she’s attacking candidates that expose Mitt’s shortcomings.

Ms. Rubin, it’s time for you to resign.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

This polling indicates that Newt Gingrich is expanding his lead in South Carolina. The margin of Newt’s lead is daunting to his opponents:

Newt Gingrich has taken a commanding lead in the South Carolina Republican primary, with more than twice the support of Mitt Romney or Herman Cain, according to a poll conducted Monday evening for the Augusta Chronicle.

Gingrich, a former congressman from neighboring Georgia, has 38 percent to 15 for Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts. Cain, a Georgia native who retired from the national restaurant business to become a talk-radio host in Atlanta, had 13 percent.

No other candidate reached double digits in the telephone survey conducted Monday night among 519 registered voters who say they’re likely to vote in the state’s GOP primary. InsiderAdvantage/Majority Opinion Research conducted the poll, and it has a 4 percent margin of error.

If Newt stays disciplined, he’ll win an impressive victory. If Newt can have impressive performances in Iowa and New Hampshire, he’ll have momentum going into South Carolina. It’s possible that Herman Cain will have dropped out by then. If that happens, Newt will win with close to 50% of the vote.

That will eliminate Mitt’s aura of inevitability.

“Gingrich has consolidated a substantial lead among those who consider themselves ‘Republicans,’ which are the more long-time GOP voters,” said InsiderAdvantage CEO Matt Towery. “The independents who had supported Cain are moving to Gingrich as well.”

The pattern is repeating itself in additional early-voting states, as illustrated in other polls Towery’s organization conducted the same night for different news outfits. In Iowa, Gingrich leads with 28 percent, followed by Texas Congressman Ron Paul’s 13 and Romney’s 12. Paul only has 7 points in South Carolina.

That polling isn’t good news for Mitt. If Newt wins Iowa with a solid margin, then wins South Carolina with 40-50% of the vote, that’ll turn Florida into a must-win state for Mitt.

If that isn’t trouble enough for Team Mitt, this won’t help with Mitt’s heartburn:

In New Hampshire, a state Romney has a vacation home and where some of the Massachusetts media reaches, Gingrich has 27 points to Romney’s 31, putting them in a tie once the 4-percent margin of error is considered.

Winning in New Hampshire is still a challenge for Newt. Still, finishing within 5-6 points of Mitt would, I suspect, put a smile on Newt’s face.

The other shoe that hasn’t dropped is whether Sarah Palin will endorse Newt as rumored. If that happens, that’ll add to Newt’s fundraising. It won’t hurt him with his enthusiasm gap, either.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

If this polling is accurate, then Ben Nelson can start writing his concession speech:

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) would start his 2012 reelection race in a weak position if Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning wins the primary, according to a new poll. The survey by Republican firm Magellan Strategies put Nelson 6 points behind Bruning in a general election.

This isn’t a surprise. In fact, I’ve been predicting since Sen. Nelson negotiated the Cornhusker Kickback that he’s history the next time he’s up for re-election.

This is just verification for that prediction.

Ben isn’t the only Nelson senator in tough shape this cycle. Bill Nelson isn’t in good shape in Florida:

Congressman Connie Mack’s entrance into Florida’s moribund U.S. Senate race has propelled him into instant-frontrunner status in the Republican field and threatens incumbent Democrat Bill Nelson, according to a new poll.

Mack garners 32 percent of the theoretical vote, while his fellow Republicans are polling in the single digits, the Quinnipiac University poll shows. In a general-election matchup, Mack would get 40 percent of the vote and Nelson 42 percent.

“The entrance of Congressman Connie Mack into the Senate race changes what had been shaping up as an easy reelection for Sen. Bill Nelson into a tough fight that the incumbent could lose,” said Peter A. Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute. “The fact that Mack is essentially tied with Nelson, who has been a statewide political figure for two decades, should set off warning bells at Democratic headquarters.”

It’s one thing for a sitting senator to be getting 46-48% of the vote this far out. That’d indicate the sitting senator is in for a tough fight but it’s still winnable. Getting 42% of the vote is totally different matter. The rule of thumb is that undecideds break 2:1 against the incubent. If you’re at 48%, that’s still doable. When you’re at 42%, there’s a strong possibility that you’ll get thumped.

The Democrats have alot of open seats and weak incumbents this cycle. What’s worse is that they’re defending 23 Senate seats while the GOP is only defending 10 seats. Anyone thinking that Democrats will hold onto the Senate is doing alot of wishful thinking.

At this point, it’s really a matter of whether the GOP gains a majority or whether they crush Democrats. If I had to bet, I’d be betting that they’ll get crushed.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , , ,

According to this report, Chip Cravaack’s latest bill would restore a little common sense to the TSA’s routines:

Battle-weary members of the military who have completed tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan would face one less hassle on the trip home if legislation passes the House today rewriting the rules for airport security screening of the armed forces.

“Our soldiers who are putting their lives on the line in Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and elsewhere should be afforded extra respect when returning home to their loved ones and shouldn’t be viewed as potential terrorists in our airports,” said Rep. Chip Cravaack (R.-Minn.), the bill’s sponsor.

“This legislation would require TSA [the Transportation Security Administration?] to develop a separate screening process for military personnel flying on civilian aircraft—it is past due for so many of our nation’s heroes serving our great country,” Cravaack said.

The legislation requires the TSA to create an expedited new system within six months for all members of the U.S. armed forces as well as their families traveling on official orders.

The new protocols include screening guidelines for military uniforms and combat boots, with the goal to reduce wait times and other inconveniences.

In April of 2009, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said that vets returning from Iraq and Afghanistan would be considered as terrorist threats:

Right-wing extremists in the United States are using economic worries and the election of the first black US president as recruiting tools, the US government warns in a new report.

Fears of possible new restrictions on firearms, as well as troubled veterans returning from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, “could lead to the potential emergence of terrorist groups or lone wolf extremists capable of carrying out violence attacks,” warned the US Department of Homeland Security.

Thanks to Rep. Cravaack’s legislation, TSA will have to apply common sense when dealing with military heroes returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. Why this wasn’t done before is a testament to the TSA’s foolishness.

Rep. Cravaack has done a fantastic job thus far. In addition to this common sense legislation, he’s helped push the EPA and the MPCA in getting the permits approved for PolyMet. He’s brough sanity to a federal system that’s been out of control for far too long.

Technorati: , , , , , , , , , ,

This is too rich. When OWS protesters initially started protesting on the UC-Berkeley campus, they protested against the university’s high tuition costs. Rather than addressing the problem, the university’s “Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion” told the students that rising tuition costs were giving him heartburn:

As protesters festively (oops! I mean “heroically”) rally on college quads across California in the wake of the gratuitous macing of a dozen Occupy Wall Street wannabes at University of California–Davis last Friday, UC Berkeley’s Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion declared that the rising tuition at California’s public universities is giving him “heartburn.” It should, since Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion Gibor Basri and his fellow diversity bureaucrats are a large cause of those skyrocketing college fees, not just in California but nationally.

If UC-Berkeley’s Vice Chancellor for Equity and Inclusion disappeared, would the educational product improve or decline? It’s impossible to know at this point but it’s likely that California wouldn’t be spending money recklessly at the same rate as they’re currently spending money at.

The OWS thugs’ behavior is repulsive, possibly criminal. Still, OWS has touched on a legitimate problem in this instance. There’s alot of money that’s spent on administration that shouldn’t have been spent.

Academia’s elites, whether they’re on the UC-Berkeley campus or in MnSCU’s offices, think that the university can’t survive without them. They’re totally misinformed in their opinion. This example of how outrageous things are:

Higher Education Chairwoman Sandy Pappas, DFL-St. Paul, said college and university funding is far from enough. “We are starving higher education,” she said.

For the record, the legislature increased the higher education by $296,000,000, an 11.3% increase over the previous biennium’s higher education budget. Even with that big of an increase, tuition increased.

The vice chancellor for equity and inclusion at UC-Berkeley isn’t just a California phenomenon. A month ago, Newt spoke about a report he’d read that predicts that there’ll be 1 administrator or clerk for every college professor by 2014.

If universities don’t get their spending under control quickly, tuitions will continue increasing until the higher education bubble bursts.

Technorati: , , , , , , , ,