Archive for January, 2015
Charlie Cook’s latest article on the state of the GOP presidential race has more than a few flaws in it. He got this part right:
First there is the establishment bracket, with former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, and possibly former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney competing for that semifinal slot.
Despite the MSM’s ‘reporting’, this isn’t where the action is. It’s mostly a sideshow that’ll keep the DC pundits entertained. Think of this as the ‘vastly overrated’ part of the race.
Cook didn’t get this part right:
Then there is the conservative governor/former governor slot—with, potentially, Ohio Gov. John Kasich, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, former Texas Gov. Rick Perry, Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder, and Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker competing, all seeking to be non-Washington and non-Congress candidates, but each with more conservative, or at least better conservative, credentials than Bush, Christie, or Romney.
John Kasich lost his conservative credentials over the weekend when he fought for Common Core. That’s a deal-buster with conservatives. It isn’t likely that Rick Snyder and Mike Pence will run so they can be ignored. That leaves us with Rick Perry and Scott Walker. That’s the real bracket. Let’s call this the conservatives with credentials bracket.
The MSM is writing off Rick Perry. That’s a major mistake. He’s a much more serious candidate this time than in 2012. He’s got a lengthy list of conservative reforms under his belt. He’s definitely anti-Washington. He’s definitely pro-border enforcement, which plays well with conservative activists. He’s signed tort reform, which has led to a major influx of doctors into Texas. While most of the nation worries about doctor shortages, that isn’t a worry in Texas.
That leaves Scott Walker in this bracket. Activists see him as the giant-killer who took on the public employee unions and beat them. Then the PEUs got upset with him and tried defeating him in a recall election. The PEUs took another thumping in 2012. They didn’t have their fill so they returned for another shot in 2014. Gov. Walker’s Act 10 reforms were so popular that Mary Burke, the Democrats’ candidate, didn’t even mention the subject.
That’s one of the brackets where the excitement will be.
Then there’s the youthful senators bracket. This bracket features Ted Cruz, Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. I don’t know that any of these candidates will advance to the finals but they’ll generate lots of excitement.
At the end of the day, I suspect that the finalists will be Walker and someone else. I’d be surprised if that someone else is Jeb Bush. Bush is definitely more formidable with the media than with activists.
Steve Kornacki did his best to (somewhat) subtly accuse Republican presidential candidates as hating Hispanics in this interview:
The big takeaway from this interview is Kellyanne Conway’s statement that “Republicans aren’t afraid of running against Bill and Hillary.” Simply put, there’s more fear amongst Beltway Republicans and GOP consultants than there is with heartland governors.
At this point, Hillary will have a difficult time running as an agent of change or as the candidate of youthful vigor. Hillary has been a fixture in DC for a quarter century. She might’ve been young when she arrived but she isn’t anymore. Fair or unfair, the reality is that she can’t play the agent-of-change-card at this point. She’s reached her sell-by date.
Of course, that’s irrelevant to MSNBC. They’re fixating on Rep. Steve King and Hispanic voters. It’s predictable but it’s a fool’s errand. When the Republican National Convention is held in July, 2016, there’s a distinct possibility that the ticket will be Scott Walker as the nominee and either Marco Rubio or Susana Martinez is his running mate. It’s virtually guaranteed that Martinez, Rubio, Brian Sandoval, Mia Love and Tim Scott will deliver primetime speeches at the convention.
People won’t think “Ohmigod. Republicans are the party of Steve King. I can’t vote for Scott Walker.” Democrats will do everything to paint Republicans as the party that hates Hispanics. That’ll be a difficult task when each night, Republicans will feature a Susana Martinez or a Marco Rubio or a Brian Sandoval, who will likely be in the middle of a fight to unseat Harry Reid at that point.
The excitement in that building will be the buzz. The applause will be frequent, the emotions will be high.
If you want to know what the Republican National Convention will look like, just watch the speeches delivered by Ted Cruz, Rick Perry and Scott Walker. The enthusiasm during those speeches was noticeable and raucous.
Meanwhile, at the Democrats’ convention, the atmosphere won’t be electric. People will be able to contain their energy. The contrast between the two conventions will be stark. That contrast won’t put the Democrats in a positive light.
In the movie Rocky 3, Apollo Creed told Rocky that “When we fought, I trained hard but I didn’t have that look in my eyes. You had it and you won.”
I didn’t say that because I love the movie. I mention it because it’s a lesson between complacency and enthusiasm. There’s no question that, in 2016, the Democrats will work hard. There’s little question that Democrats will be a little complacent, too. If Republicans nominate one of their rising star governors, there’s no question that the 2016 Republican National Convention will be a great launching pad to a GOP victory.
How Good Is The Data In The Weekly Admission Reports?
by Silence Dogood
Weekly Admission Progress Reports are typically circulated by the Office of Strategy, Planning, & Effectiveness that give a picture about the ongoing admissions of New Entering First-Year Students (NEF) and New Entering Transfer Students (NET). These progress reports contain data about the number of applications (complete and incomplete), some demographic data (numbers of students of color and international students), as well as some information that might give an indication about the numbers that might actually enroll (making an advising appointment or completing a housing application). All of these numbers are compared to the data from the same date the prior year, which allows for a point of comparison.
All of this information gives a partial picture of the potential for enrollment. It’s a partial picture because the numbers of NEF and NET entering in Spring Semester is a very small percentage of the total number of students enrolled. Last spring, the enrollment was 5,294 FYE. The total number of admission offers to NEF (185) and NET (622), totaled 807 students. If all of these students enrolled at SCSU and each took 15 credits this would add 404 FYE, which would represent 7.6% of the total FYE. The average number of credits taken is typically around 12 credits so using the typical pattern of enrollment would add 323 FYE instead of 404 FYE, which reduces to 6.1% of the total FYE contributed by new entering students. However, not all of the students who are offered admission actually attend so the “yield,” which is the percentage of students admitted who actually enroll, is much less than 100%. A good average is in the range of 37% (or less). Using a 37% yield would result in, at most, an additional 120 FYE, corresponding to only 2.3% of the FYE for Spring Semester. Clearly the effect of NEF and NET on Spring semester enrollment is small.
Although small in impact, the data is useful in the sense that it can provide information relating to trends. Over winter break, the weekly reports were not forwarded but resumed on January 6, 2015 with reports for December 19th, December 26th and January 2nd all coming on the same day. Normally, the reports come each week but, in this case, all three came at the same time. As a result, it was very easy to do a simple comparison of the data contained in these reports, which were the three most current reports available at the time.
Upon examination of the reports, I noticed that the number of NEF admission offers decreased from being down 1.1% on December 19th to being down 3.2% on December 26th to finally being down 3.6% on January 2nd. For SCSU, if the goal is to increase enrollment, this trend is going in the wrong direction! However, when looking at the actual numbers, it is the difference of being down 2 students to being down 6 students to being down 7 students. These numbers are so small that the change of only a couple of students can affect the percentages significantly! Again, the data must be put into the proper context. Since the numbers themselves are small, ANY change will not be too significant overall.
A portion of the three reports for the NEF applications are reproduced below:
I don’t know why but in looking at the three reports simultaneously, I happened to notice that the total number of NEF applications for Spring 2015 on December 19th, 2014 was 376 students. On December 26th, 2014 this number decreased to 375 students and on January 2nd, 2015 decreased even further to 374 students. The total number of applications is the sum of the complete plus the incomplete applications. As applications are completed, the number of incomplete applications should decrease and the number of complete applications should increase. However, the total number of applications must remain the same OR increase.
The problem is, it is simply not possible for the total number of applications to actually decrease—unless of course, the applications were written in disappearing ink! The decrease is in the number of applications is certainly small but makes one question the accuracy of the data in the report.
Apparently, there was no Weekly Admission Progress Report for January 9th. On January 20th, the Weekly Admission Progress Report for January 16th was distributed. The good news is that the decline in the number of NEF applications for Spring semester seems to have stabilized at 374. Since this latest report comes one week AFTER the beginning of classes for Spring Semester, there won’t be too many more applications for Spring semester and the number is unlikely to change.
Everyone makes mistakes. However, BEFORE decisions are made which have significant impact, it is important to make sure that data upon which decisions are being made is absolutely the best and most accurate data possible. Anything less is simply unacceptable. Clearly, in this case, there is an error with the collection or reporting of the data. But even assuming the most recent reports have corrected the error, the trend in the number of admission offers remains in a state of decline. The BIG question is when will we finally hit ‘bottom?’
If there’s anything that Erin Murphy knows how to do, it’s spin the DFL’s BS. Here’s a perfect example of that ‘ability’ showcased:
Income inequality knows no geography. Fostering divisions regionally means less action to restore middle class. 1/2 #mnleg
— Erin Murphy (@epmurphy) January 26, 2015
#MNGOP‘s “restore balance” message can’t cover up actions to divide Minnesota. Pay attention Minne, our economic opportunity at stake. 2/2
— Erin Murphy (@epmurphy) January 26, 2015
That’s rich coming from a DFL legislator who’s voted repeatedly to shaft the Iron Range without giving them the mine to go with it. Throughout the Iron Range, income inequality is rampant. The poverty level on the Iron Range is frightening. The Iron Range’s middle class is almost nonexistent. Still, Rep. Murphy is lecturing Republicans about income inequality? She should be ashamed of herself. (She won’t be but she should be.)
The DFL’s metrocentric bent is quite noticeable. The DFL has shoveled tons of K-12 funding into the Twin Cities but they barely throw a scrap to the Iron Range. The DFL certainly doesn’t work to open mines that would help build an actual middle class in northern Minnesota.
Still, it’s difficult to feel sorry for Rangers. They’re the people that keep electing politicians that take them for granted.
Jim Geraghty’s evaluation of the GOP presidential candidates is fascinating. Rather than starting with the top tier candidates, let’s start by hearing what he said about the MSM’s top tier:
Jeb Bush: Sure, he’ll have the money, and he’ll have the name. But let’s not even get into the immigration, Common Core, business ties or family dynasty issues yet. Republican primary voters, particularly conservative ones, think that the Obama presidency is the worst calamity to hit America in their lifetimes, and fear it is doing permanent damage to the national values, identity, and standing in the world. GOP primary voters are going to want a fighter, and do they think Jeb Bush has been leading the fight against Obama?
Mitt Romney: When people tell Mitt Romney, “Governor, I really wish you had won in 2012,�? they’re not saying, “Governor, I think you would have been one of the greatest presidents in our lifetimes.�? They’re saying, “Governor, Obama is really, really, really terrible, and electing you would have spared the country a lot of pain.�? He’s a good man, but a lot of Republicans are ready to move on to new options. Plus, you know… Gruber.
Chris Christie: If Bush and Romney are both in, you have to wonder how many big donors stick by him. He did better in his Iowa appearance than some might have expected, and he’s undoubtedly going to be a dominant figure in the debates. But he’s positioned himself in opposition to the rest of the party way too often, and you can’t win the GOP nomination from the Jon Huntsman slot, as the Republican nominee most acceptable to the Acela class that can’t stand Republicans.
Rand Paul: He’ll have his dad’s network, and he’s way more compelling than his father was. But there’s a ceiling to Libertarian-minded candidates in the modern Republican Party, and it’s going to be tougher to sell quasi-isolationist non-interventionism as the world blows up and grows even more dangerous in Obama’s final two years in office.
This isn’t 2008 or 2012, when the GOP didn’t field a bunch of top tier candidates like they’re fielding this year. In 2012, Paul Ryan would’ve swamped the field, including Mitt. This year, Paul Ryan would have a respectable following but he wouldn’t be seen as the prohibitive favorite.
Jeb Bush has irritated conservatives far too often to win the nomination. Sen. McCain got away with that in 2008 because he ran against a field of weaklings. Jeb won’t get away with that this time because he’s running against a virtual team of Olympic weightlifters. Mitt’s time came and went. Whether he officially runs is almost irrelevant at this point. That’s because he’s overmatched.
First Tier:
Scott Walker: He’s serious and accomplished enough for the “Establishment,�? and indisputably conservative enough for the grassroots. The Left threw everything it had at this guy and he’s still going strong. Despite the questions about his charisma, he’s getting rave reviews for his passion in his appearance this weekend.
Marco Rubio: He’s arguably the best communicator in the Republican Party, and the Republican Party desperately needs a good communicator as its nominee.
With rave reviews from Charles Krauthammer and James Pethokoukis, he could end up being the conservative pundits’ favorite choice. Yes, there’s still irritation about the gang of “Gang of Eight�? and anti-Senator skepticism to overcome, but he’s speaking about the broad, unifying national theme of American exceptionalism since 2010. Obviously, he offers a fantastic contrast with Hillary.
Rick Perry: The former governor of Texas is likely to be the only re-running candidate who improves upon his past performance. He still has a sterling economic record to point to, he’s been going toe-to-toe with the Obama administration consistently, he’s got enough charm to work on Jimmy Kimmel. This time, he won’t be coming off back surgery, he won’t start late and we’ll see just how much the hipster glasses help.
Bobby Jindal: Yes, he needs to speak slower. Yes, it’s not clear that a style that works in Louisiana will work on the national stage. But he’s a bit like Walker in that he’s amassed an indisputably conservative record while getting things done in two terms. There’s probably not another contender who knows more detail about more policies, and he’s guided his state through some severe challenges – post-Katrina rebuilding, a pair of serious hurricanes, the Deepwater Horizon and the drilling moratorium. What’s more, he’s been fighting the administration on issues like school choice for years and he moves fast when an opportunity opens like the House GOP botching a late-term abortion bill.
After Gov. Walker’s performance at Saturday’s Freedom Summit, he’ll be one of the most formidable candidates on either side of the aisle. While Hillary has her supporters, she doesn’t have supporters that’d run through brick walls to help her win. Gov. Walker’s supporters are passionate and they’re willing to do anything to help him win. (You don’t win 3 elections in 4 years by having supporters who are indifferent.)
As for Marco Rubio, there’s no question that his participation in the Gang of Eight immigration bill will hurt him with primary voters. Still, there’s no denying that he’s a powerful communicator with a compelling personal story that shouts ‘I’m living the American dream.’
Rick Perry is being written off by the MSM. That’s a mistake. They’ve focused too much on Perry’s oops moment during the 2012 and not enough on what he’s done on securing Texas’ border during the flood of unattended children. He’s a much more serious candidate this time.
At this point, I’d argue that Republicans are likely to win the White House. People are sick of President Obama and they just aren’t excited about Hillary. She’s been on the national scene for a quarter century. It’s impossible to sell yourself as a fresh face with Hillary’s resume.
Technorati: Scott Walker, Marco Rubio, American Dream, Rick Perry, Jeb Bush, Mitt Romney, Chris Christie, GOP Presidential Nomination, Hillary Clinton, President Obama, Democrats, Election 2016
There’s only one conclusion that can be drawn after reading this article. Milwaukee will soon experience a substantial outmigration in population because the tyrants running the Milwaukee Public Schools are a) running failing schools and b) doing everything possible to prevent the opening or expansion of charter schools. First, here’s some foundational information:
In 2013, St. Marcus, a highly regarded school that accepts voucher students through the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, needed to add a second campus.
Its classrooms, from the K3 program serving 3 year olds through those for its oldest students in eighth grade, were full. The school had a waiting list of more than 300 students whose parents were eager for them to attend. There were plenty of vacant MPS school buildings available. There still are, as a new report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty documents.
The Democrats’ attempts to stifle school choice are breathtaking:
Tyson set his sights on the building that previously housed the Malcolm X Academy. The 170,000-square-foot property would provide St. Marcus with plenty of room to grow. Tyson contacted then MPS Superintendent Greg Thornton about the building. “He expressed an interest in selling and told me to write to the school board,�? Tyson said. “I did.�?
Then he waited.
After three months of waiting, Tyson finally received a response. “I got a single line response that said they weren’t willing to sell us the building,�? Tyson said.
Get yourself a cup of hot chocolate or a cup of coffee because we’re just getting started with the Democrats’ chicanery:
“Milwaukee officials have chosen to block the expansion of choice and charter schools into unused and underutilized buildings. This hostility comes in many forms: local administrative policies that ban sales of facilities to certain non-MPS schools, the failure of MPS to keep a public list of what buildings are empty and underutilized, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett’s insistence of charging a ‘school choice tax’ as a condition on selling or leasing empty buildings, and the creation of last-minute ‘deals’ done solely to thwart the sale of facilities to schools in the choice program in high demand by Milwaukee families,�? the report asserts.
First, Tom Barrett was the Democrats’ candidate against Scott Walker in the recall election in 2012. There’s more to the Democrats’ chicanery:
School board president Michael Barnes unveiled an ambitious and convoluted plan for the building. Malcolm X would be sold to a real estate developer who would convert part of it into apartments and the rest into a community resource center. MPS would then lease and eventually buy the community resource center.
The WILL report describes this deal as “a sham transaction done solely to prevent St. Marcus from obtaining the building.�? This was an opinion held by many at the time, particularly after it was revealed the developer had not secured the financing needed for the project.
Calling this a “sham transaction” is an insult to scam artists. Still, we aren’t done with the Democrats’ corruption:
Tyson continued his talks with city officials. A price of $880,000 for the building was agreed to and St. Marcus was also set to pay a PILOT — payment in lieu of taxes — for the property, since as a private school it would be exempt from property taxes. “We agreed to that because we understand that any property in the city, even one owned by a nonprofit, uses city services,�? Tyson explained.
The PILOT was expected to be $204,151.
The next obstacle appeared at what Tyson thought was going to be the final meeting with the city officials to set the terms of the sale. “This second obstacle was hilariously tragic,�? Tyson recalled with a rueful laugh. “The mayor’s assistant gave me a piece of paper with a second PILOT on it. They wanted us to pay an additional $1.3 million to cover what they said the city would lose by students using vouchers to go to our school,�? he said.
That the unions and other Democrats are doing everything possible to undermine charter schools isn’t surprising. Likewise, it won’t be surprising when people start voting with their mortgages and start leaving Milwaukee. In fact, it’s inevitable.
Frankly, I’d love to hear that the Republican majority do something to entice Milwaukee charter school parents to leave Milwaukee for cities with lots of charter schools.
Technorati: Milwaukee Public Schools, Democratic Culture of Corruption, Tom Barrett, Teachers Union, Democrats, School Choice, Charter Schools, Education Reform, Scott Walker, Republicans
Glenn Reynolds’ column proves that President Obama is waging war against the middle class:
Though millions of Americans have been putting money into “tax free” 529 plans to save for their children’s increasingly expensive college educations, President Obama would change the law so that withdrawals from the plans to fund college would be taxed as ordinary income. So while you used to be able to get a nice tax benefit by saving for college, now you’ll be shelling out to Uncle Sam every time you withdraw to pay for Junior’s dorm fees.
This doesn’t hurt the very rich, who just pay for college out of pocket, or the poor, who get financial aid, but it’s pretty rough on the middle– and upper–middle class. In a double-whammy, those withdrawals will show up as income on parents’ income tax forms, which are used to calculate financial aid, making them look richer, and hence reducing grants.
In other words, President Obama’s plan would tax middle class parents who’ve done the right thing by saving for their children’s college education. Taxing the middle class for doing the right thing sounds perfectly like a Democrats’ plan.
Giving people an incentive to do what’s right makes sense. Giving people an incentive to stop doing what’s right is either stupidity or it’s evil or it’s a little of both. People would be wise to pay attention to Dr. Reynolds’ admonition:
For the moment, Americans are safe. With both houses of Congress controlled by the GOP, Obama’s proposals are DOA. But over the long term, the appetite for government spending is effectively endless, while the sources of revenue are limited. Keep that in mind as you think about where to invest your money … and your votes.
Democrats are reflexively starving for new revenue streams, aka raising taxes. The important question for people to ask is whether the laundry list of things the Democrats want to spend the tax increases on are needs or if they’re just wish list items. Another important question voters should ask is what’s most efficient: saving for their needs or paying taxes to have government pay for what they need…after the government takes its cut of the taxes.
Finally, the most important question to ask is whether government is efficient in doing anything. That isn’t the same as asking whether government should exist. It’s just asking if government, in its current form, efficiently spends money on the most important things.
Technorati: President Obama, Higher Education, Tax Increases, Middle Class Tax Increases, Democrats, No New Taxes, Republicans, Elections
Move MN’s motivation is laid out beautifully on their agenda webpage:
In order to address the challenges in our current transportation system, new funding must:
- Be comprehensive to address, roads, bridges, transit, and bike and pedestrian infrastructure.
- Equitably balance the transportation needs of Greater Minnesota and the Twin Cities metro area.
- Be a long-term, sustainable funding solution that is gimmick-free and dedicated only to fixing transportation.
First, Move MN is part of the DFL. It has an arm’s length relationship from the DFL only because it was first put together by Darin Broton, a DFL activist/operative. This is red flag city:
We are calling on the Minnesota Legislature to pass a comprehensive transportation funding solution in 2015 that requires additional transparency and efficiency for current resources.
Anytime people talk about comprehensive anything, I break into a cold sweat. That’s because comprehensive plans automatically contain things from lobbyists’ wish lists that the public doesn’t care about.
Here’s a radical thought. Let’s focus totally on fixing roads and bridges and expanding highways. As a motorist, that’s all I care about. If the Twin Cities wants trolley cars and light rail corridors, that’s their problem.
Here’s another radical thought. If the Twin Cities or other cities want to build “bike and pedestrian infrastructure”, let them pay for it. I’m betting that building “bike and pedestrian infrastructure” isn’t a priority with people. Cities that want those things can propose tax increases to their citizens to pay for those things.
The we’re-in-this-together sales pitch doesn’t work with me. If Minneapolis wants to spend $500,000 on 10 artistic drinking fountains, that’s their right. It isn’t their right to have taxpayers across the state help pay for those drinking fountains.
Next, let’s stop using inflated numbers to make it look like there’s a funding crisis:
In 2012, the Transportation Finance Advisory Committee projected we needed $250 million a year to “maintain�? our state roads and bridges. Today, Gov. Dayton says we need $400 million. In 2012, TFAC projected we needed $210 million a year to build out the Twin Cities transit system. Today, Gov. Dayton says we need $280 million.
For those of you keeping score at home, that’s a 50% increase in costs over 2 years. Actually, it’s a 47.8% increase but what’s 2.2% amongst friends, right?
Finally, let’s stop with the we-need-sustainable-funding-that’s-dedicated-only-to-fixing-transportation’ gimmick. Let’s start with this thought. Let’s fund only those things that are priorities. Fixing roads and bridges is a priority. Expanding highways is a priority. Building the Southwest Light Rail Transit project isn’t a priority. In fact, raising taxes to fund the building of the SWLRT is theft because it’s embroiled in a major dispute at the moment. The DFL can’t decide on the project’s path. Why should we pay for something that’s a total mess with no solution in sight?
Move MN’s motivation is clear. It’s just the DFL disguising itself while attempting to raise taxes to pay for things we don’t need. Here’s hoping Kurt Daudt and the House Republican majority continue telling the DFL’s lobbyists to take a hike…on their dime.
Technorati: Mark Dayton, Tax Increases, Bike Trails, Transit, Pedestrian Infrastructure, Darin Broton, Transportation, Move MN, Artistic Drinking Fountains, Trolleys, Lobbyists, DFL, Kurt Daudt, Roads and Bridges, MNGOP
Scott Brener’s op-ed in this morning’s St. Cloud Times introduces some important questions into the transportation debate at the state legislature. Here’s an example:
In 2012, the Transportation Finance Advisory Committee projected we needed $250 million a year to “maintain�? our state roads and bridges. Today, Gov. Dayton says we need $400 million.
Gov. Dayton’s math is terrifying. What he’s saying is that the cost of maintaining Minnesota’s roads and bridges cost 60% more now than they did 2 years ago. High school math says that that’s a 30% increase per year.
That isn’t an estimate. That’s fiction. It’s insulting, too.
Here’s another piece of data that needs to be introduced into the transportation conversation:
In 2012, TFAC projected we needed $210 million a year to build out the Twin Cities transit system. Today, Gov. Dayton says we need $280 million.
That’s a 33% increase in 2 years. Forgive me if I’m skeptical of Gov. Dayton’s estimates. This is worthy of debating, too:
Someone must ask: Are other government services any less long term and in need of stable funding than transportation? If the answer is “no,�? then why is it appropriate to fund, say, health care services with those dollars but not transportation? Thirty-three states use the general fund to supplement financing for state roads and bridges. This also could force everyone to redouble efforts to redesign the delivery of all state programs and services.
There’s nothing in the state constitution that prohibits using general funds on repairing roads and bridges. Neither is there anything in Minnesota state statutes that prohibits using general funds on repairing roads and bridges.
There is something, however, in the DFL’s DNA that prohibits them from using general funds to repair roads and bridges. The DFL is reflexively opposed to using general funds to repair roads and bridges because the DFL insists that general funds be spent to pay off their special interest allies.
Each session, the DFL enters with the mindset that they need to increase spending to pay off the environmental activists, the farmers, the nonprofits and the bureaucrats that form their political base. This isn’t about fixing Minnesota’s roads and bridges. Move MN, Gov. Dayton and the DFL constantly talk about transportation. The DFL has consistently talked about raising the wholesale gas tax, the license plate fees and the metro sales tax. At this point, only the gas tax can be used for road and bridge repair projects.
Kurt Daudt has talked consistently about fixing Minnesota’s roads and bridges. He’s ruled out funding the SWLRT. Period. Move MN’s agenda includes lower priority items:
Accessible Transit Statewide
Transit is important to every community in Minnesota. Move MN supports closing a sales tax loophole by dedicating all of the sales tax from leased vehicles to suburban highways and Greater Minnesota transit.The Twin Cities metro’s sales tax would be increased by ¾ cent and extended to the seven county metro area. It would fund improved transit connections in the metro area, increasing transit service hours and coverage. Ten percent would be set aside for bike/walk connection planning and implementation.
In short, Move MN’s agenda isn’t rural Minnesota’s agenda. Hell, it isn’t event exurban Minnesota’s agenda.
Move MN’s agenda is the Twin Cities DFL’s agenda. The Twin Cities DFL’s agenda includes “bike/walk connection planning and implementation.” If that’s true, then they can take a hike on raising taxes.
Technorati: Mark Dayton, Move MN, Bike Trails, Transportation, Transit, Southwest Light Rail, Special Interests, DFL, Kurt Daudt, Roads and Bridges, MNGOP, Scott Brener, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce
Allahpundit’s post from this morning hits the nail on the head:
Makes me wonder if the team, craftily seeking a dubious advantage that they could play dumb about later, doesn’t deliberately have the footballs inflated in a very hot room before each game knowing that the temperature on the field will naturally soften them up for Brady. That way, if they’re ever caught cheating, they can claim it was an accident. We’re football players, damn it, not physicists.
So Brady surely knew, which means we’ve now reached the “What will the NFL do?�? stage of this. Do they try to make it go away by claiming there’s no hard evidence that anyone on the team deliberately tampered with the balls?
Commissioner Goodell lost tons of credibility this season, starting with his decision to suspend Ray Rice 2 games for knocking his then-fiancé out in the elevator of an Atlantic City casino. It went downhill after that.
Yesterday on NFL Insiders and this morning on Mike & Mike, both of which air on ESPN, Adam Shefter tried pushing the NFL’s chanting points, saying that we shouldn’t rush to judgment, that we don’t have all the facts. That’s shameful reporting, especially considering the fact that Shefter is the football equivalent of a gossip columnist.
While it’s true that we don’t know all of the facts, we know a majority of the most important facts. First, we know with certainty that all 12 of the Patriots’ footballs were underinflated. We know that 1 of the Patriots’ footballs was slightly underinflated and that 11 of the footballs were significantly and noticeably underinflated. We know that the Patriots’ footballs complied with league rules 2 hrs. 15 minutes before kickoff and that 11 of the 12 footballs were significantly underinflated at halftime.
Those are the most important facts involving this scandal. They’re also facts that are indisputable.
What we don’t know is who deflated the Patriots’ footballs. While we’re not 100% certain of other things, we’re 95% certain of a few things, which AP wrote about here:
Mark Brunell, a former QB himself, is especially damning in explaining how he’d always personally check and re-check the feel of the footballs before each game to make sure that they were to his liking — within the PSI parameters set by the league, of course. The odds that Brady would skip that preparation before the AFC title game are basically zero. In the end, they come back to the same point I made yesterday. To get Brady (and Belichick) off the hook, you need to believe either that the balls deflated accidentally, due to temperature effects, say, or that some random New England staffer decided on his own initiative to mess with the balls without telling the Pats’ star player. The second scenario is unimaginable.
I wrote yesterday that the Belichick press conference set thing up perfectly to essentially blame the Patriots’ equipment manager or ball boys for the deflated balls. That’s precisely the path Brady took. AP’s right, though. It’s unimaginable that a New England “staffer on his own initiative to mess with the balls without telling the Pats’ star player.” That’s intellectually insulting. The fact that the Patriots’ haven’t fired any staffers indicates that they know low-level staffers aren’t the problem.
Finally, if Goodell doesn’t get this right, if he doesn’t come down hard on the Patriots for cheating and ruining the integrity of the NFL, he’ll be the biggest laughingstock in professional sports. The sportswriters that’ve already written ‘everyone cheats’ articles aren’t worthy of being called journalists because they’re missing the point. The average fan wants to think that somewhere, people behave honorably.
If Goodell treats the Patriots gently, the NFL owners should fire him the day after the Super Bowl. The minimum punishment Goodell should levy on the Patriots should be a $1,000,000 fine against the Patriots, suspending Bill Belichick for a year and Tom Brady for 3 games and stripping the Patriots of their first and second round picks in this year’s draft.
That’s more than fair because of the fines and suspensions levied against the New Orleans Saints for BountyGate. At the time that he handed down those fines and suspensions, Goodell said that Sean Payton wasn’t absolved of guilt because he said he didn’t know about the bounties. Goodell said that ignorance wasn’t a defense. That should apply to Tom Brady, Bill Belichick and Robert Kraft. Let’s remember that Goodell also said that he’d hold coaches and owners to a higher standard than players.
It’s time to see if he’ll live up to that statement.
