Since the U.S. won tougher sanctions against North Korea at the UN Security Council this past year, the mood has been busy. The North Korean's busied themselves with building the most modern nuclear enrichment facility ever. In response, U.S. busied itself with ignoring North Korea. North Korea has not been "too terribly taken" with this approach. So earlier this week it salvoed 175 rounds of artillery at an innocent little South Korean fishing Village, killing two South Korean Marines.
Thus far North Korea continues to commit the tactic of throwing child like tantrums screaming "you can't keep ignoring us."
To which President Obama responds, "Yes we can!"
Although admittedly, we will now be ignoring you from much closer range. As we are about to park the nimitz-class super carrier U.S.S. George Washington on your front door step.
Note to North Korea "Yes We Can" ignore you. Also, you should consider us ignoring you a gift because god help you once we decide to stop ignoring you!
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
What Dayton got Right!
Dayton
- Self financed
- Spot on Political Messaging to the Exact Constituency
- Focus on Seniors
- Focus on NE MN (Iron Range)
- He even picked a "Ranger" for Lt. Governor
- 'Known Political Entity'
- High Name ID
- “Tax the Rich” Closest concept to budget solution
- Easy to understand
- Populist Msg
- Personally / Politically Expedient
- He told what he would protect…Education
- Connected tax increases to education
- A concept that works for most Minnesotan's
- "Ill gladly pay more taxes if it means a better education"
-
- This analysis presented as what Dayton got right to win a majority of DFL Primary voters and does not represent any indication as to whether Practical Politician or its authors agree with the content or viability of said arguments, philosophies, or political rhetoric.
Monday, August 9, 2010
First Lady’s Spain Vacation Draws Criticism
Plain and simple. The criticism of the First Lady taking a vacation is unwarranted from my prospective. If she wants to fly to her daughter and close friends to Spain, who am I to comment or criticize. She is a private citizen, she has every right. As to the costs, well the costs could be the same even if she did choose the some spot in the U.S. For example, when the Obama's fly from DC to Hawaii that flight is further and presumably costs more than a trip to Spain.
Give it up chronic complainers!
August 6, 2010
First Lady’s Spain Vacation Draws Criticism
By PETER BAKER and RAPHAEL MINDER
WASHINGTON — There is nothing like a little Mediterranean beach vacation to unwind. Unless you happen to travel with dozens of Secret Service agents, trailed by photographers and dogged by controversy.
Michelle Obama hoped to enjoy a quiet summer break in southern Spain with her younger daughter and a few friends. But the Andalusian getaway has gotten away from her as the European media document her every flamenco dance step and critics back home question the wisdom of such a lavish vacation, which involves at least some taxpayer money, in a time of austerity.
As Mrs. Obama and her entourage toured the picturesque southern city of Ronda on Saturday, the blogosphere has been filled with commentary about what many saw as a tone-deaf trip in the same week the United States reported the loss of 131,000 more jobs. “A modern-day Marie Antoinette,” scolded a New York Daily News columnist.
The White House was reluctant to discuss Mrs. Obama’s trip. The only official comment came from Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, at a briefing last week when he said that Mrs. Obama “is a private citizen and is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. And I think I’d leave it at that.”
Privately, officials note that the first lady is paying for her own room, food and transportation, and the friends she brought will pay for theirs as well. The government pays for security, and the Secret Service, not the first lady, determines what is needed.
Officials said some reports of the trip had been exaggerated. Mrs. Obama is not traveling with 40 friends, one official said, but with two friends and four of their daughters, as well as a couple of aides and a couple of advance staff members. The staff is with her because she will pay a courtesy call on King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía on the island of Majorca on Sunday before flying home to Washington.
Every first lady in modern times has flown on government planes with a sizable security detail, and it is hard to pinpoint the cost to taxpayers. The Air Force jet she flew costs $11,351 per hour to operate, according to several reports, meaning a 14-hour round trip would cost nearly $160,000. The first lady would reimburse only the equivalent of first-class commercial tickets for herself and her daughter Sasha, the rest of the seats being occupied mainly by Secret Service. Officials said their friends flew on separate commercial flights.
Laura Bush took vacations without her husband each year of George W. Bush’s presidency, traveling with her Secret Service detail on a government plane to meet friends for camping in national parks. But that never generated as much furor, in part because vacationing in the United States is not as politically delicate for American leaders and their families as doing so in foreign countries.
The Obama family traveled to Acadia National Park in Maine in July and plans to spend time in the Gulf of Mexico and on Martha’s Vineyard this month.
“It’s always very difficult to lead a private life when you’re a public person,” said Anita McBride, who was Mrs. Bush’s chief of staff. “No one would deny any of our hard-working public officials an opportunity for a vacation. Everybody needs that. But I think the more expensive or lavish a trip might be perceived, the more criticism you invite.”
While some Americans frown, the Spanish eagerly welcomed the Obama group, seeing it as a boost for a tourism sector severely hit by the country’s economic downturn. Since her landing at Málaga’s airport on Wednesday, Spanish media have covered the first lady’s trip almost minute by minute, from a tour of the Alhambra palace to a stop at an ice cream shop.
Their Andalusian stay was to end Saturday night with a charity dinner organized and attended by celebrities like Eva Longoria Parker and Antonio Banderas.
Mrs. Obama and friends have been staying at the five-star Hotel Villa Padierna near Marbella, where at least 30 rooms were reserved for the entourage, including those for security. The hotel is one of Spain’s more luxurious establishments, with rooms ranging from $500-a-night to a $6,600 suite with 24-hour butler service.
The Spanish excitement grew so much that the media reported one study claiming the publicity from her visit would be worth $1 billion for a country. The attention has gotten so intense that the Spanish newspaper El País chastised local authorities for showing a “puerile enthusiasm” for the visit.
Peter Baker reported from Washington, and Raphael Minder from Madrid.
Give it up chronic complainers!
August 6, 2010
First Lady’s Spain Vacation Draws Criticism
By PETER BAKER and RAPHAEL MINDER
WASHINGTON — There is nothing like a little Mediterranean beach vacation to unwind. Unless you happen to travel with dozens of Secret Service agents, trailed by photographers and dogged by controversy.
Michelle Obama hoped to enjoy a quiet summer break in southern Spain with her younger daughter and a few friends. But the Andalusian getaway has gotten away from her as the European media document her every flamenco dance step and critics back home question the wisdom of such a lavish vacation, which involves at least some taxpayer money, in a time of austerity.
As Mrs. Obama and her entourage toured the picturesque southern city of Ronda on Saturday, the blogosphere has been filled with commentary about what many saw as a tone-deaf trip in the same week the United States reported the loss of 131,000 more jobs. “A modern-day Marie Antoinette,” scolded a New York Daily News columnist.
The White House was reluctant to discuss Mrs. Obama’s trip. The only official comment came from Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, at a briefing last week when he said that Mrs. Obama “is a private citizen and is the mother of a daughter on a private trip. And I think I’d leave it at that.”
Privately, officials note that the first lady is paying for her own room, food and transportation, and the friends she brought will pay for theirs as well. The government pays for security, and the Secret Service, not the first lady, determines what is needed.
Officials said some reports of the trip had been exaggerated. Mrs. Obama is not traveling with 40 friends, one official said, but with two friends and four of their daughters, as well as a couple of aides and a couple of advance staff members. The staff is with her because she will pay a courtesy call on King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofía on the island of Majorca on Sunday before flying home to Washington.
Every first lady in modern times has flown on government planes with a sizable security detail, and it is hard to pinpoint the cost to taxpayers. The Air Force jet she flew costs $11,351 per hour to operate, according to several reports, meaning a 14-hour round trip would cost nearly $160,000. The first lady would reimburse only the equivalent of first-class commercial tickets for herself and her daughter Sasha, the rest of the seats being occupied mainly by Secret Service. Officials said their friends flew on separate commercial flights.
Laura Bush took vacations without her husband each year of George W. Bush’s presidency, traveling with her Secret Service detail on a government plane to meet friends for camping in national parks. But that never generated as much furor, in part because vacationing in the United States is not as politically delicate for American leaders and their families as doing so in foreign countries.
The Obama family traveled to Acadia National Park in Maine in July and plans to spend time in the Gulf of Mexico and on Martha’s Vineyard this month.
“It’s always very difficult to lead a private life when you’re a public person,” said Anita McBride, who was Mrs. Bush’s chief of staff. “No one would deny any of our hard-working public officials an opportunity for a vacation. Everybody needs that. But I think the more expensive or lavish a trip might be perceived, the more criticism you invite.”
While some Americans frown, the Spanish eagerly welcomed the Obama group, seeing it as a boost for a tourism sector severely hit by the country’s economic downturn. Since her landing at Málaga’s airport on Wednesday, Spanish media have covered the first lady’s trip almost minute by minute, from a tour of the Alhambra palace to a stop at an ice cream shop.
Their Andalusian stay was to end Saturday night with a charity dinner organized and attended by celebrities like Eva Longoria Parker and Antonio Banderas.
Mrs. Obama and friends have been staying at the five-star Hotel Villa Padierna near Marbella, where at least 30 rooms were reserved for the entourage, including those for security. The hotel is one of Spain’s more luxurious establishments, with rooms ranging from $500-a-night to a $6,600 suite with 24-hour butler service.
The Spanish excitement grew so much that the media reported one study claiming the publicity from her visit would be worth $1 billion for a country. The attention has gotten so intense that the Spanish newspaper El País chastised local authorities for showing a “puerile enthusiasm” for the visit.
Peter Baker reported from Washington, and Raphael Minder from Madrid.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Simple Politics of Citizen's United
Union Dues Dollars and Corporate Revenues, What's the difference?
Lost in the objections to Citizen's United is the fact that the unions have long since been able to raise PAC money directly from union dues which comes directly from union members paycheck without any choice. Citizens United argues that corporations should be given the same right to free speech through contributions. Arguing, that unions and corporations alike are really just organized individuals! Hard to argue with that kind of logic, unless you are a Democrat and are facing losing your long held competitive advantage!
Democrats want to squash the decision, striking tones of the tryanny of large corporate evils, reinforce any residual pangs of populism, and paint the Republicans as purveyors of excessive corporate influence pedaling. Meanwhile simultaneously reserving the right to use union raised dues dollars for both hard and soft money purposes.
Republicans want the opinion affirmed, striking tones of fairness, evoking the constitution and widely applying what would otherwise be an individual right to that of the many.
Q. If Unions are a collection of Individuals than how are Corporations different?
Q. How would you decide?
Lost in the objections to Citizen's United is the fact that the unions have long since been able to raise PAC money directly from union dues which comes directly from union members paycheck without any choice. Citizens United argues that corporations should be given the same right to free speech through contributions. Arguing, that unions and corporations alike are really just organized individuals! Hard to argue with that kind of logic, unless you are a Democrat and are facing losing your long held competitive advantage!
Democrats want to squash the decision, striking tones of the tryanny of large corporate evils, reinforce any residual pangs of populism, and paint the Republicans as purveyors of excessive corporate influence pedaling. Meanwhile simultaneously reserving the right to use union raised dues dollars for both hard and soft money purposes.
Republicans want the opinion affirmed, striking tones of fairness, evoking the constitution and widely applying what would otherwise be an individual right to that of the many.
Q. If Unions are a collection of Individuals than how are Corporations different?
Q. How would you decide?
Sunday, March 21, 2010
Health Care Reform Passes -- What's in the Bill?
Cost:
* $940 billion over ten years.
Deficit:
*
Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 billion dollars in the second ten years.
Read more on the CBO Report
Coverage:
* Would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.
Health Insurance Exchanges:
* The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level.
* Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014.
* Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015.
Subsidies:
* Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.
Federal Poverty Level for family of four is $22,050
Paying for the Plan:
* Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
* Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
* Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.
Medicare:
* Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. Seniors who hit the donut hole by 2010 will receive a $250 rebate.
* Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap will receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs. The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.
Medicaid:
* Expands Medicaid to include 133 percent of federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.
* Requires states to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.
* Federal Government pays 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.
* Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.
Insurance Reforms:
* Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.
* Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.
* Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans through age 26.
Abortion:
* The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.
* No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.
**Separately, anti-abortion Democrats worked out language with the White House on an executive order that would state that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother. (Read more here)
Individual Mandate:
* In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.
Employer Mandate:
* Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.
Immigration:
* Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money.
* $940 billion over ten years.
Deficit:
*
Would reduce the deficit by $143 billion over the first ten years. That is an updated CBO estimate. Their first preliminary estimate said it would reduce the deficit by $130 billion over ten years. Would reduce the deficit by $1.2 billion dollars in the second ten years.
Read more on the CBO Report
Coverage:
* Would expand coverage to 32 million Americans who are currently uninsured.
Health Insurance Exchanges:
* The uninsured and self-employed would be able to purchase insurance through state-based exchanges with subsidies available to individuals and families with income between the 133 percent and 400 percent of poverty level.
* Separate exchanges would be created for small businesses to purchase coverage -- effective 2014.
* Funding available to states to establish exchanges within one year of enactment and until January 1, 2015.
Subsidies:
* Individuals and families who make between 100 percent - 400 percent of the Federal Poverty Level (FPL) and want to purchase their own health insurance on an exchange are eligible for subsidies. They cannot be eligible for Medicare, Medicaid and cannot be covered by an employer. Eligible buyers receive premium credits and there is a cap for how much they have to contribute to their premiums on a sliding scale.
Federal Poverty Level for family of four is $22,050
Paying for the Plan:
* Medicare Payroll tax on investment income -- Starting in 2012, the Medicare Payroll Tax will be expanded to include unearned income. That will be a 3.8 percent tax on investment income for families making more than $250,000 per year ($200,000 for individuals).
* Excise Tax -- Beginning in 2018, insurance companies will pay a 40 percent excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" high-end insurance plans worth over $27,500 for families ($10,200 for individuals). Dental and vision plans are exempt and will not be counted in the total cost of a family's plan.
* Tanning Tax -- 10 percent excise tax on indoor tanning services.
Medicare:
* Closes the Medicare prescription drug "donut hole" by 2020. Seniors who hit the donut hole by 2010 will receive a $250 rebate.
* Beginning in 2011, seniors in the gap will receive a 50 percent discount on brand name drugs. The bill also includes $500 billion in Medicare cuts over the next decade.
Medicaid:
* Expands Medicaid to include 133 percent of federal poverty level which is $29,327 for a family of four.
* Requires states to expand Medicaid to include childless adults starting in 2014.
* Federal Government pays 100 percent of costs for covering newly eligible individuals through 2016.
* Illegal immigrants are not eligible for Medicaid.
Insurance Reforms:
* Six months after enactment, insurance companies could no longer denying children coverage based on a preexisting condition.
* Starting in 2014, insurance companies cannot deny coverage to anyone with preexisting conditions.
* Insurance companies must allow children to stay on their parent's insurance plans through age 26.
Abortion:
* The bill segregates private insurance premium funds from taxpayer funds. Individuals would have to pay for abortion coverage by making two separate payments, private funds would have to be kept in a separate account from federal and taxpayer funds.
* No health care plan would be required to offer abortion coverage. States could pass legislation choosing to opt out of offering abortion coverage through the exchange.
**Separately, anti-abortion Democrats worked out language with the White House on an executive order that would state that no federal funds can be used to pay for abortions except in the case of rape, incest or health of the mother. (Read more here)
Individual Mandate:
* In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.
Employer Mandate:
* Technically, there is no employer mandate. Employers with more than 50 employees must provide health insurance or pay a fine of $2000 per worker each year if any worker receives federal subsidies to purchase health insurance. Fines applied to entire number of employees minus some allowances.
Immigration:
* Illegal immigrants will not be allowed to buy health insurance in the exchanges -- even if they pay completely with their own money.
Monday, March 15, 2010
Governor Pawlenty ‘Line Item Vetoes’ Bonding Bill
Perspective
The governor originally called for a bonding bill not to exceed $725 million. The DFL legislature passed two bonding bills this session but through procedural maneuvering only sent the most recent on for presentment, the process that allows a Governor to formally act on legislation.
Governor Pawlenty delivered, as expected, on a promise to cut back the bonding bill by exercising his ‘line-item veto’ authority. As an aside, this is one gubernatorial authority that nobody questions as opposed to another battle that begins today—unallotment authority. But I digress, as this is an issue for another day. The bill as presented was larger than $1 Billion and the Governor has paired the bill down to $680, below even his threshold limit. The Governor cut from infrastructure projects in areas such as Community Colleges, Coon Rapids Dam, Public Housing, Trails, and other projects of regional significance. Not to be missed was the Governor’s ability to successfully implore the legislature to re-insert some of his own priorities including funding for sex offender lock-up facilities.
Proponents of each project will likely decry the lack of commitment to certain priorities by offering the proverbial “This is the time to bond and build,” indicating a preference for spending while the cost of borrowed money is cheapest. Additionally, expect post line item veto rhetoric to include quips about “lost opportunities on shovel ready projects.” Meanwhile, the republican responsorial will be “living within your means” and having the fiscal discipline to say no. The often invoked mantra is “it’s like charging up your credit cards, when you are flat broke.” Democrats will contend the Governor unfairly retaliated on projects in key Democratic strongholds. Though, Republicans will point out that Democrats loaded the bill with “Christmas presents” for those same constituencies.
As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between. No one can deny that bonding is relatively inexpensive in today’s economic environment. Yet, fiscal prudence requires restraint and an eye towards maintaining Minnesota’s bonding rating and not burdening future budgets with excess debt service obligations. So ultimately it comes down to balancing these competing priorities. Might I suggest that despite all the maneuvering, grandstanding, and political showmanship, an unfortunate side effect much like any modern era legend drug, the process actually worked as intended? How refreshing?
For a complete listing of vetoed items SEE LINK
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/Vetoes/veto_results.asp?veto_id=529
The governor originally called for a bonding bill not to exceed $725 million. The DFL legislature passed two bonding bills this session but through procedural maneuvering only sent the most recent on for presentment, the process that allows a Governor to formally act on legislation.
Governor Pawlenty delivered, as expected, on a promise to cut back the bonding bill by exercising his ‘line-item veto’ authority. As an aside, this is one gubernatorial authority that nobody questions as opposed to another battle that begins today—unallotment authority. But I digress, as this is an issue for another day. The bill as presented was larger than $1 Billion and the Governor has paired the bill down to $680, below even his threshold limit. The Governor cut from infrastructure projects in areas such as Community Colleges, Coon Rapids Dam, Public Housing, Trails, and other projects of regional significance. Not to be missed was the Governor’s ability to successfully implore the legislature to re-insert some of his own priorities including funding for sex offender lock-up facilities.
Proponents of each project will likely decry the lack of commitment to certain priorities by offering the proverbial “This is the time to bond and build,” indicating a preference for spending while the cost of borrowed money is cheapest. Additionally, expect post line item veto rhetoric to include quips about “lost opportunities on shovel ready projects.” Meanwhile, the republican responsorial will be “living within your means” and having the fiscal discipline to say no. The often invoked mantra is “it’s like charging up your credit cards, when you are flat broke.” Democrats will contend the Governor unfairly retaliated on projects in key Democratic strongholds. Though, Republicans will point out that Democrats loaded the bill with “Christmas presents” for those same constituencies.
As is often the case, the truth lies somewhere in between. No one can deny that bonding is relatively inexpensive in today’s economic environment. Yet, fiscal prudence requires restraint and an eye towards maintaining Minnesota’s bonding rating and not burdening future budgets with excess debt service obligations. So ultimately it comes down to balancing these competing priorities. Might I suggest that despite all the maneuvering, grandstanding, and political showmanship, an unfortunate side effect much like any modern era legend drug, the process actually worked as intended? How refreshing?
For a complete listing of vetoed items SEE LINK
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/lrl/Vetoes/veto_results.asp?veto_id=529
Tuesday, March 2, 2010
The Ultimate Bailout!
So let me get this straight Congressman Hoyer. Congress and the Administration dig themselves a 12 trillion hole and then want the American Taxpayer to fill the gap?
Talk about the ultimate bailout!
Is there any wonder why Congress has the lowest approval rating of all time?
Talk about the ultimate bailout!
Is there any wonder why Congress has the lowest approval rating of all time?
Friday, January 15, 2010
Best Job Creating Ideas (MN)
Here is a short list of the best ideas for creating jobs that I have heard so far:
1. Promote or publicize Minnesota business and their products.
2. Establish a forgivable loan program for small manufacturers to purchase capital equipment , if the purchase will expand Minnesota Employment.
3. Increase the size of the state bonding bill and focus as much money as possible on planned retrofitting, rehabilitation, and the remodeling projects at can be undertake very quickly.
4. Streamline project and environmental permitting processes, including allowing extensions of existing permits or alternatively reform the environmental permitting process.
5. Avoid energy mandates that would increase the price of electricity.
6. Make the capital equipment sales tax refund an up-front exemption.
7. Repeal the corporate income tax.
8. Reduce or eliminate the state general tax on business property.
9. Provide personal income tax relief for business income.
10. Take away tax credits and reductions for companies that "off-shore" their employees or that lay off large numbers of workers.
11. Increase the research and development credit.
12. Reduce regulatory and permitting burden.
13. Require or incent local governments to enter into service sharing arrangements.
1. Promote or publicize Minnesota business and their products.
2. Establish a forgivable loan program for small manufacturers to purchase capital equipment , if the purchase will expand Minnesota Employment.
3. Increase the size of the state bonding bill and focus as much money as possible on planned retrofitting, rehabilitation, and the remodeling projects at can be undertake very quickly.
4. Streamline project and environmental permitting processes, including allowing extensions of existing permits or alternatively reform the environmental permitting process.
5. Avoid energy mandates that would increase the price of electricity.
6. Make the capital equipment sales tax refund an up-front exemption.
7. Repeal the corporate income tax.
8. Reduce or eliminate the state general tax on business property.
9. Provide personal income tax relief for business income.
10. Take away tax credits and reductions for companies that "off-shore" their employees or that lay off large numbers of workers.
11. Increase the research and development credit.
12. Reduce regulatory and permitting burden.
13. Require or incent local governments to enter into service sharing arrangements.
Tuesday, December 8, 2009
Desperate to Say Something...
As a new feature to my blog, I plan on posting the wacky and ridiculous comments uttered by elected officials and other public figures. In an attempt at fairness if the statement is actually (politically) arguable, from either side, it will not be posted. If however, the statement is so far removed in scope from any practical sense of reality it will be posted. Fair? I thought so.
First up, Senator Harry Reid's comments about the current opposition to the Health Care debate as somehow akin to opposition of the civil rights movement. Really, Senator Reid? Really?
First up, Senator Harry Reid's comments about the current opposition to the Health Care debate as somehow akin to opposition of the civil rights movement. Really, Senator Reid? Really?
Wednesday, December 2, 2009
My Predictions for MN's Budget
Predictions: My guess is the deficit will be $1.6 billion, corporate, personal, and consumption as the worst revenue areas. I support Pawlenty. I think the unallotments will prove legal. Once they do I expect an hard attempt to change this executive power at the legislature which I am fine with the legislature discussing. At that point, I call on everyone who believes he exceeded his authority to step up and admit they were wrong.
Tuesday, December 1, 2009
Build It Without Taxpayers Dollars
I'm all for it if it can be done by private investors, the NFL, businesses, or individual shares ala Green Bay or some combination thereof. But 'just say no' needs to be the answer to more tax payer burden for a stadium. Sorry, but when our own interests and desires get in the way of our principles, we have to be honest with ourselves.
The new session is coming up on February 4th, I hope the allure of a star-studded winning season will not cloud the judgment of the few common sense players remaining in the legislature.
Options:
1) Z. Wilf opens his checkbook and builds a new stadium
2) Some form of public ownership
Not an option:
1) Any un-related tax dollars dedicated to subsidizing large private businesses (i.e. don't charge me sales tax on a vacuum to pay for the Vikings Stadium, that just plan sucks!)
What about?
The economic boom to the community by keeping the Vikings here, construction jobs, the positives on community economic development? Yes, but at what cost? Will the those dollars ever be recaptured in increased economic activity? If you can prove to me it will than, I'll go for it.
Being true?
Yes, being true to ourselves. We can't go around talking about the evils of increasing taxes all the time, if when push comes to shove on a new Vikings Stadium, our go-to position is to raise taxes immediately 'just to keep the team here.' If that's your refrain than you might as well be one of those tax raising levy supporters that says, "it's for the kids," please...give me a break!
The new session is coming up on February 4th, I hope the allure of a star-studded winning season will not cloud the judgment of the few common sense players remaining in the legislature.
Options:
1) Z. Wilf opens his checkbook and builds a new stadium
2) Some form of public ownership
Not an option:
1) Any un-related tax dollars dedicated to subsidizing large private businesses (i.e. don't charge me sales tax on a vacuum to pay for the Vikings Stadium, that just plan sucks!)
What about?
The economic boom to the community by keeping the Vikings here, construction jobs, the positives on community economic development? Yes, but at what cost? Will the those dollars ever be recaptured in increased economic activity? If you can prove to me it will than, I'll go for it.
Being true?
Yes, being true to ourselves. We can't go around talking about the evils of increasing taxes all the time, if when push comes to shove on a new Vikings Stadium, our go-to position is to raise taxes immediately 'just to keep the team here.' If that's your refrain than you might as well be one of those tax raising levy supporters that says, "it's for the kids," please...give me a break!
Monday, November 9, 2009
Coon Rapids: Down payment Assistance Program Passes
Coon Rapids: Down payment Assistance Program Passes
The Coon Rapids City Council voted unanimously to approve a Coon Rapids Mortgage Assistance Foundation recommendation for a new down payment assistance loan program.
Hats off to Coon Rapids Mortgage Assistance Foundation Board of Directors: Lyle Haney, Donna Naeve, Brad Crandall, Scott Schulte, Lonni McCauley, Tim Howe, and our own James Stanton, Shamrock Development and current President of North Metro REALTORS® Association. This program will rehabilitate housing stock and provide incentives for homebuyers to purchase and occupy a home in Coon Rapids as their principal residence.
So what are the details? Coon Rapids Mortgage Assistance Foundation (CRMAF) has allocated a total pool of $300,000 to be available for down payment assistance loans. The funds will be administered directly by Cheryl Bennett, CRMAF staff. The funds are provided in the form of a second mortgage. No payments are required; no interest is assessed unless the loan is repaid within the first three years after closing. The repayment is prorated between years 4-10 and is forgiven after 10 years. Loans are reserved for down payment assistance only at 3.5% of acquisition costs up to $6,000. Funds must be used in conjunction with an FHA 203K mortgage to purchase a single family detached property (within the city of Coon Rapids) with at least $10,000 in repairs. Rehab or renovation work must be completed by a state licensed contractor and work completed within six months of closing. The borrower must occupy the property as their principal homesteaded residence. There are no income requirements. Buyers need not be first time homebuyers. The loan is available for all properties and not foreclosures only.
REALTORS® are encouraged to learn more about this program and utilize it. More information including public announcements, public forums, and a REALTORS® forum to roll out program details are forthcoming.
More information contact, Eric J Myers, Government Affairs Director, NMRA
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Conservatives Can't Win without Moderates
Well, after reviewing some of the 2009 wins. What do I think about the chance of Republicans picking up seats in 2010 Midterms? Or better yet, what is one piece of advice I would give to the RNC, if given the chance, that would help them increase their chance of success in more races in the future.
Republican's can't continue to be a narrow 'Conservatives-only party.' They need to hold tight to fiscal conservatism but grab the middle of the electorate with the moderates. Unfortunately, the diehards that show up for endorsing conventions, prompted by Glen Beck and Rush (whom I enjoy as well), can't see the wood for the trees. They continue to endorse only the most ideologically extreme candidate whom too often ends up being seen as too far from the mainstream. Bottomline, Conservative Republicans are their own worst enemy. Conservative Republicans are going to have to realize that in most districts they are going to have to embrace the moderate candidate in order to give them a chance at success. Otherwise, they will continue to be marginalized from the Left and a larger majority of the middle will favor the D's.
Those are the risks.
Might I suggest that someone like Senator Olympia Snowe actually has a point to make with Conservative Republicans. So next time you want to win a 'leans conservative,' 'toss-up,' or even a 'leans Democrat' district, try pulling a candidate from the moderate part of your party and see if you can sell them to the general public as the most reasonable, likable, centrist, and dare I say it mainstream candidate in the race.
Or you can keep 'sticking to your principles' that's all well and good but I submit you aren't really winning the hearts and minds of too many people too often. At least not often enough to keep reversing your losses.
Give up on the idea that a Newt Gingrich or Ronald Regan style body politic will ever rise again. Step up to re-design the future of the party, reinvent yourself, and behold the power of political innovation. It's not just for the Democrats anymore.
- BE MORE BIG TENT,
- EXPAND THE BASE,
- DON'T LET ONLY THE NARROWEST VERSIONS OF CONSERVATISM BE THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE ANSWER
Republican's can't continue to be a narrow 'Conservatives-only party.' They need to hold tight to fiscal conservatism but grab the middle of the electorate with the moderates. Unfortunately, the diehards that show up for endorsing conventions, prompted by Glen Beck and Rush (whom I enjoy as well), can't see the wood for the trees. They continue to endorse only the most ideologically extreme candidate whom too often ends up being seen as too far from the mainstream. Bottomline, Conservative Republicans are their own worst enemy. Conservative Republicans are going to have to realize that in most districts they are going to have to embrace the moderate candidate in order to give them a chance at success. Otherwise, they will continue to be marginalized from the Left and a larger majority of the middle will favor the D's.
Those are the risks.
Might I suggest that someone like Senator Olympia Snowe actually has a point to make with Conservative Republicans. So next time you want to win a 'leans conservative,' 'toss-up,' or even a 'leans Democrat' district, try pulling a candidate from the moderate part of your party and see if you can sell them to the general public as the most reasonable, likable, centrist, and dare I say it mainstream candidate in the race.
Or you can keep 'sticking to your principles' that's all well and good but I submit you aren't really winning the hearts and minds of too many people too often. At least not often enough to keep reversing your losses.
Give up on the idea that a Newt Gingrich or Ronald Regan style body politic will ever rise again. Step up to re-design the future of the party, reinvent yourself, and behold the power of political innovation. It's not just for the Democrats anymore.
Friday, October 30, 2009
Thank You Governor Tim Pawlenty
Dear Governor Tim Pawlenty,
I want to thank you for your personal leadership in resolving the budget deficit. DFL leaders proposed $2B in tax increases in the worst recession since the Great Depression. I really don't know how they can look at themselves in the mirror everyday. It takes courage to stand up to 'tax and spend' liberals in this great progressive state we call Minnesota.
It is truly my belief that you acted within your authority to unallot. That doens't mean the other side has to like it or that it should go without a legal challenge but those are issues for the legislature not the courts. My only hope now is that the courts don't legislate from the bench. Should the opposition wish to attempt to change MN law than they should do so in session.
Hopefully, Lori Swanson, Attorney General, for the State of Minnesota can divest herself enough from her party to actually defend the Chief Executive's Authority under Minnesota law. If not, I would advise the State of Minnesota to seek outside council.
Good luck Governor Pawlenty, we're with you!
I want to thank you for your personal leadership in resolving the budget deficit. DFL leaders proposed $2B in tax increases in the worst recession since the Great Depression. I really don't know how they can look at themselves in the mirror everyday. It takes courage to stand up to 'tax and spend' liberals in this great progressive state we call Minnesota.
It is truly my belief that you acted within your authority to unallot. That doens't mean the other side has to like it or that it should go without a legal challenge but those are issues for the legislature not the courts. My only hope now is that the courts don't legislate from the bench. Should the opposition wish to attempt to change MN law than they should do so in session.
Hopefully, Lori Swanson, Attorney General, for the State of Minnesota can divest herself enough from her party to actually defend the Chief Executive's Authority under Minnesota law. If not, I would advise the State of Minnesota to seek outside council.
Good luck Governor Pawlenty, we're with you!
Friday, September 11, 2009
My Suggestions for Health Care Compromise
(Here is what I believe a true compromise should look like)
KEEP
1) Guarantees Coverage for existing conditions
2) Prohibited from denying coverage because of a person's medical history
3) They will not be able to drop your coverage if you get sick
4) Focuses on prevention
5) Helps Seniors live independently
MAKE CERTAIN
1) No federal dollars for Abortion Services (per Obama)
2) Medical Mal Reform to keep Dr.'s practicing medicine not defensive medicine (per R's & Obama)
ADD
2) Allow buying insurance across state lines
3) Allow private insurance pooling for individuals who are otherwise uncovered
4) Allow for private health insurance portability
5) Encourage HSA's
6) Recognize and encourage high deductible catastrophic coverage for some insureds (i.e. young adults)
7.) Allow private insurance companies to pool the (47) million Americans without coverage and have them compete for that business
REMOVE
1) Drop the public option in its entirety
2) Drop basic medical insurance mandate or allow opt out for some individuals and or #6/#7 above.
Finally pass this bill by October 1st or set it aside and re-focus on job creation and the economy!
KEEP
1) Guarantees Coverage for existing conditions
2) Prohibited from denying coverage because of a person's medical history
3) They will not be able to drop your coverage if you get sick
4) Focuses on prevention
5) Helps Seniors live independently
MAKE CERTAIN
1) No federal dollars for Abortion Services (per Obama)
2) Medical Mal Reform to keep Dr.'s practicing medicine not defensive medicine (per R's & Obama)
ADD
2) Allow buying insurance across state lines
3) Allow private insurance pooling for individuals who are otherwise uncovered
4) Allow for private health insurance portability
5) Encourage HSA's
6) Recognize and encourage high deductible catastrophic coverage for some insureds (i.e. young adults)
7.) Allow private insurance companies to pool the (47) million Americans without coverage and have them compete for that business
REMOVE
1) Drop the public option in its entirety
2) Drop basic medical insurance mandate or allow opt out for some individuals and or #6/#7 above.
Finally pass this bill by October 1st or set it aside and re-focus on job creation and the economy!
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Cash For Clunkers--Cash Out, Now What?
Cash for Clunkers program ended yesterday at 8p.m. EDT. Dealerships have until 12 noon today for finalize all paperwork inputs into a government website for claims repayment.
While it certainly was a novel idea (depending on you POV)to get gas guzzlers off the road, promote a more carbon friendly trend, and feed those starving car salesman, it is lacking in a few areas.
Scope: With only $3 billion in rebate funds available there was always going to be a limit to the impact the program could provide. Estimates are that 456,000 cars were traded and sold. However, that's 456,000 out an estimated 136 million gas guzzlers still on the road today. I am no math wiz but my windows based calculator says that's just more than 1/3rd of one percent.
Temporary: There seems to be a phenomena in sales and marketing that I have resigned myself to never understanding. The temporary nature of on-sale, incentives, and rebates. Some major companies have setup a system by which they move from sale to sale. They go by various names. Biggest sale of the year, biggest sale of the season, etc. What I don't understand from these companies is why they are incenting their customers to forgo a purchase today and 'wait for a sale.' Now I know the idea about 'making the sale an event' thereby cajoling even more than a customer would have spent and so on. However, I have also been in a store on a Friday night and the sale doesn't start until Saturday. I find myself asking. "You really don't want me to buy this now?" These same stores can't understand why a store like Wal-mart is raking in profits even in a rough economy. Well Wal-Mart operates on an everyday savings philosophy rather than a 'wait until I decide to have a sale' philosophy. Which do you think people are going to respond to in a tough economy. Additionally, when people's individual economic situation improves do you think they will flood back into your stores? Or go the fiscally prudent route and remind themselves of the valuable lessons espoused during the 'great recession.' Hint even the tv commercial about 'unused' minutes that ends 'these days we can't afford to be wasteful,' are reinforcing a mantra of frugality that will likley linger far into a recovery. Now how does all this fit into 'cash for clunkers?' Well C4C was extremely temporary. Yes, it sold 456,000 cars but all based on temporary incentives. Remove the incentives and all you have left is a sputtering economy, nearly 10% unemployment, and another two years of nearly zero sales in the auto industry. The only one buying a car in the next two years is someone who's car dies and 'has no other choice.' Of course, their is always the exception that proves the rule. Brett Favre is reported to have recently bought a new F250 after receiving his $12 million contract.
Artificial demand: The law of artificial demand is certainly in play for C4C. The government gave away $3,500-$4,500 in cash if you bought a new fuel efficient car right? Doing so prompted 456,000 sales. Think about it. That should scare the heck out of the auto industry. That's 456,000 sales otherwise 'would be sales' from 2-5 years from now. So slice these new car buyers out of your pool of 'would be buyers' from 2-5 years from now or longer. Moreover, if it takes $4,500 in free money from the government to prompt you to buy that's one otherwise purchase adverse buyer. Even further, think about those who need a new car were offered the same incentives and still decided not to purchase. That's an extremely purchase adverse buyer. Who can blame them, real or perceived this is one tough economy to be making medium term financial decisions. The problem with artificial demand is just that. It's artificial its not organic growth but is dependent on some outside variable like a temporary incentive and once removed it falls flat or worse.
Subsidy: Dare we wander into the throws of partisan bickering and a classic debate about tax policy, there is no dispute that the federal government funds expended for this program are from the taxpayers. So the only question left is how do you see it?
Potential View Point:
One may argue that the federal government has a role in regulating markets including interventions for ailing markets like the auto industry and thereby extending a rebate program to provide an extra boost is just what the doctor ordered, even if for just a little while.
Potential View Point:
Government should have no role or a very limited role in market forces. Trends and innovations should be based on responses to market demands. Taxpayer money should not be utilized to incentivize purchasing behavior in preference of one product over another.
Make Your Own View Point:
C4C was: 1) Extremely Successful 2) Successful 3) Below Expectaions 4) Extremely Wasteful
What should the Government Role be in Regulating Markets?
What is your personal tax policy?
While it certainly was a novel idea (depending on you POV)to get gas guzzlers off the road, promote a more carbon friendly trend, and feed those starving car salesman, it is lacking in a few areas.
Scope: With only $3 billion in rebate funds available there was always going to be a limit to the impact the program could provide. Estimates are that 456,000 cars were traded and sold. However, that's 456,000 out an estimated 136 million gas guzzlers still on the road today. I am no math wiz but my windows based calculator says that's just more than 1/3rd of one percent.
Temporary: There seems to be a phenomena in sales and marketing that I have resigned myself to never understanding. The temporary nature of on-sale, incentives, and rebates. Some major companies have setup a system by which they move from sale to sale. They go by various names. Biggest sale of the year, biggest sale of the season, etc. What I don't understand from these companies is why they are incenting their customers to forgo a purchase today and 'wait for a sale.' Now I know the idea about 'making the sale an event' thereby cajoling even more than a customer would have spent and so on. However, I have also been in a store on a Friday night and the sale doesn't start until Saturday. I find myself asking. "You really don't want me to buy this now?" These same stores can't understand why a store like Wal-mart is raking in profits even in a rough economy. Well Wal-Mart operates on an everyday savings philosophy rather than a 'wait until I decide to have a sale' philosophy. Which do you think people are going to respond to in a tough economy. Additionally, when people's individual economic situation improves do you think they will flood back into your stores? Or go the fiscally prudent route and remind themselves of the valuable lessons espoused during the 'great recession.' Hint even the tv commercial about 'unused' minutes that ends 'these days we can't afford to be wasteful,' are reinforcing a mantra of frugality that will likley linger far into a recovery. Now how does all this fit into 'cash for clunkers?' Well C4C was extremely temporary. Yes, it sold 456,000 cars but all based on temporary incentives. Remove the incentives and all you have left is a sputtering economy, nearly 10% unemployment, and another two years of nearly zero sales in the auto industry. The only one buying a car in the next two years is someone who's car dies and 'has no other choice.' Of course, their is always the exception that proves the rule. Brett Favre is reported to have recently bought a new F250 after receiving his $12 million contract.
Artificial demand: The law of artificial demand is certainly in play for C4C. The government gave away $3,500-$4,500 in cash if you bought a new fuel efficient car right? Doing so prompted 456,000 sales. Think about it. That should scare the heck out of the auto industry. That's 456,000 sales otherwise 'would be sales' from 2-5 years from now. So slice these new car buyers out of your pool of 'would be buyers' from 2-5 years from now or longer. Moreover, if it takes $4,500 in free money from the government to prompt you to buy that's one otherwise purchase adverse buyer. Even further, think about those who need a new car were offered the same incentives and still decided not to purchase. That's an extremely purchase adverse buyer. Who can blame them, real or perceived this is one tough economy to be making medium term financial decisions. The problem with artificial demand is just that. It's artificial its not organic growth but is dependent on some outside variable like a temporary incentive and once removed it falls flat or worse.
Subsidy: Dare we wander into the throws of partisan bickering and a classic debate about tax policy, there is no dispute that the federal government funds expended for this program are from the taxpayers. So the only question left is how do you see it?
Potential View Point:
One may argue that the federal government has a role in regulating markets including interventions for ailing markets like the auto industry and thereby extending a rebate program to provide an extra boost is just what the doctor ordered, even if for just a little while.
Potential View Point:
Government should have no role or a very limited role in market forces. Trends and innovations should be based on responses to market demands. Taxpayer money should not be utilized to incentivize purchasing behavior in preference of one product over another.
Make Your Own View Point:
C4C was: 1) Extremely Successful 2) Successful 3) Below Expectaions 4) Extremely Wasteful
What should the Government Role be in Regulating Markets?
What is your personal tax policy?
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Obama's Health Care Plan--What do I agree with?
The YEA and Nay on Health Care -- My Prospective
YEA
+ Guarantees Coverage for existing conditions
+ Prohibited from denying coverage because of a person's medical history
+ They will not be able to drop your coverage if you get sick
+ Focuses on prevention
+ Helps Seniors live independently
NAY
- Government Run
- Steps towards universal payer system
- Could lead to rationing care
- Government Involved in your health care decisions
- Focuses on covering everyone rather than Quality and Patient Results
- Costs savings are based on projections of savings from ER visits and more costly forms of health care delivery. It's very difficult to book those savings.
- Tends to usurp the private market
- Yes, fine I can keep my coverage if I "like it" but who's going to like it when the government plan prices the private market out of the market.
- Current world class health care could become second rate.
- There is a reason why people from all over the world come the U.S. for Health Care
- Health Care when delivered is excellent, it's the payment system we need to address. Let's incent insurers to achieve payment reform rather than create new mandates and re-invent the wheel by creating an entirely new government run plan.
The simply not true:
- Death Panels
- Elderly being put out to pasture
YEA
+ Guarantees Coverage for existing conditions
+ Prohibited from denying coverage because of a person's medical history
+ They will not be able to drop your coverage if you get sick
+ Focuses on prevention
+ Helps Seniors live independently
NAY
- Government Run
- Steps towards universal payer system
- Could lead to rationing care
- Government Involved in your health care decisions
- Focuses on covering everyone rather than Quality and Patient Results
- Costs savings are based on projections of savings from ER visits and more costly forms of health care delivery. It's very difficult to book those savings.
- Tends to usurp the private market
- Yes, fine I can keep my coverage if I "like it" but who's going to like it when the government plan prices the private market out of the market.
- Current world class health care could become second rate.
- There is a reason why people from all over the world come the U.S. for Health Care
- Health Care when delivered is excellent, it's the payment system we need to address. Let's incent insurers to achieve payment reform rather than create new mandates and re-invent the wheel by creating an entirely new government run plan.
The simply not true:
- Death Panels
- Elderly being put out to pasture
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)