Thursday, December 17, 2015

My Question for a Presidential Forum

What question would you want to pose for a Presidential forum? As I wait to attend and video record the Ted Cruz event tonight I was thinking about what question I would ask, were I chosen to ask a question during the media press conference, and this came to mind:

After 7 years without a Federal Budget, where the government funding is decided basically by omnibus continuing appropriation bills that carry everyones favorite expenditure, which they could not get passed by any other vehicle, is there a way to get back to "regular order"? And what steps can a President actually take to help that? Or has the coalition of Obama-Reid-Pelosi so destroyed the system that constitutional process cannot be restored?

Or after having ruled the country essentially by Presidential executive order fiat (it could certainly be read as "dictatorship" or "totalitarian", by the above mentioned cabal) for 7 years does it simply reassert because the liberals will see it as the best way to continue to force their agenda? Because regular order helps representation of the minority, and their agenda continues with each bill increasing government and regulation. The current "executive order" process simply does it ever at a much faster pace.  That is one reason why progressives like MN Rep Betty McCollum have been so strongly supportive of Barack Obama executive orders and regulation (bypassing Congress). While it diminishes the power and authority of Congress, where she serves, it achieves the progressive goals much more quickly and can much more easily ignore the rights and desires of even a majority, let alone a minority.

Saturday, May 30, 2015

The Case for a Dayton Shutdown Blame Game

During the 2011 shutdown, Governor Dayton made certain that the most egregious shutdown actions possible were conducted. Essential services were cut and pain was exacted so that he could have good talking points for later use.

Is the DFL Senate majority and Governor Mark Dayton trying to force another shutdown on Minnesota? There is significant evidence to indicate that they may be working towards that. Here are the reasons.

After the 2011 shutdown in an interview Governor Dayton was asked about it:
Dayton:  And this was not apparent to me or other of our negotiators at that time of June 30, but the Republicans said subsequently [it was stated in a letter PRIOR to the shutdown] publicly that they would take all these policy items everything from banning stem cell research to abolishing teacher tenure to abrogating contractual bargaining rights to uh of employees, all that was going to be taken off of the negotiating tables so we would be able to focus just on the budget. That was not at all clear to us at all on the night of June 30th and so it really put it in a different context, and it also uh they have agreed to my $500 million bonding bill which would go a long way to putting more people to work in Minnesota [not borne out in results subsequently] .

Interviewer: Its sounds like governor, without putting words in your mouth, that it sounds like this could have been worked out on June 30th without a shutdown, except for miscommunication.

Dayton: Well uh, eh, ya, you know we were in constant communication [except for reading negotiating letters], but uh I don't know whether there was miscommunication or subsequent revision [misdirection?], I don't know, but anyway you know what's done is done and the important thing now is to get an agreement very quickly where you have our groups working very quickly on that today, we've got 10 o'clock today deadlines…

Sounds similar to Hillary's "what difference does it make" comment about the dead in Benghazi and blaming it on a youtube video no one had seen?

The 2011 interview is at 91 seconds...

So this year there were some rather banal leading questions by the media, at a Governor Mark Dayton press conference in March (full conference where Mark Dayton decried the 2011 shutdown and said he hopes other people remember it, he certainly does. See the shutdown questions from the beginning of the link above
Dayton: Compromise means you agree to things you don't agree with, obviously I'm going to have to compromise if we are going to get a resolution and avoid the serious consequences of 2011
But what he appears to remember, is how to set up the conditions for a shutdown.  In 2011 he vetoed all the bills

And he is repeating that strategy again this year!

Rather than actually working through it, he simply vetoes clearly bi-partisan compromise bills, since they had to pass both a DFL controlled Senate and GOP majority house.

Where Mark Dayton demands concession and compromise, he is far from inclined to offer any such on his part to avoid a shutdown.

While GOP House leader Daudt said:
“With his vetoes, he is rejecting bipartisan efforts to put more than $17 billion toward students in every classroom, provide resources to help farmers devastated by avian flu, send relief to miners facing unemployment on the Iron Range,” Daudt’s statement said. Daudt added while the legislature, including the DFL-majority Senate, finished its work, “the governor wants more time. We will continue to work with him for Minnesotans.”
Dayton has used inflammatory rhetoric to vilify the GOP and further draw back from any potential compromise.
They hate the public schools, some of the Republican legislators," the governor said. "They're loathe to provide any additional money for public schools and for public school teachers because all of the good programs I've seen around this state for pre-K and all-day kindergarten..
Dayton said his previous budget offers are now off the table and he intends to push for even more school funding. But he wouldn't say if he'll insist universal pre-K be a part of the final deal

And then there is the question of the blame game, because of course the DFL and Mark Dayton must ultimately be seen as blameless in the failure to negotiate and compromise

By J. Patrick Coolican MAY 12, 2015 — 1:25PM
[Senate Majority Leader Tom Bakk, DFL-Cook] said he'd seen seeing polling data that would place blame for a shutdown on Republicans, but said it's not his intention.
On Mitch Berg's radio show it was revealed that no one in the Republican caucus has seen or heard of such a poll. Which means its almost certain that early during the Legislative session the DFL has had a poll taken that gives them both comfort that they will not be blamed if they bring about a shutdown, and the clear freedom to go beyond brinksmanship. All punishment for their actions will be meted out to their political opponents. That is smoking gun evidence of underhanded dealing and negotiating in poor faith by the DFL.

Sen. Tom Bakk has stated that he is not going to negotiate with House Republicans. As Senate Majority Leader, doesn't he have an inherent responsibility to make sure that the Senate has a seat at the table? Of course we know that by deferring the responsibility, he's essentially siding with Dayton in the negotiations. So with Senator Bakk abrogating his responsibilities and Dayton's radical brinksmanship approach, the evidence suggests are they simply pushing us into a shutdown deliberately?

Hopefully voters and state workers threatened with layoff notices will remember next year what transpired, and who really caused the pain that the state will go through. It was not the media's favorite piƱata, it was the Democrat Party!

Monday, March 2, 2015

Betty McCollums Dangerous Naivety

In an article written by Betty McCollum, she states her rationale for not going to the speech by Benjamin Netanyahu
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is in the midst of a heated re-election campaign. Yet he is traveling 5,900 miles to give a speech before a joint meeting of Congress on Tuesday--just two weeks before Israelis go to the polls.

In her analysis, the only motivation is political gain in an election.

There  are just too many holes in such naive, and very dangerous, logic. It ignores the main issue of a nuclear Iran poised to destroy the tiny nation of Israel, our best ally in a very dangerous region, with a looming acceptance of its nuclear ambitions coming from a treaty in the immediate works with Barack Obama. With Betty McCollum's almost certain support.
But some US administration allies are puzzled that what they consider a soft deadline for a framework agreement for a final Iran nuclear deal has seemingly become the de facto deadline, rather than the June 30 deadline that Iran and the six world powers agreed to in November.

The US administration has “bought two months, but sold three,” a Western diplomat, speaking not for attribution, told Al-Monitor.

Some Democratic Senators who have signed onto a letter from Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., to President Barack Obama have told interlocutors that the Obama administration asked them to give it until the end of March to see if a framework deal could be reached, before voting on new Iran sanctions legislation.

Read more:

Lest anyone think that this is not an issue of immediate importance to all the people of Israel, and our own National security, not merely a "political stunt" as she prefers to think of it, one needs go no further than today's article of the Jerusalem Post
JPOST.COM STAFF \ 03/03/2015 04:50
US Rep. Ed Royce (R-CA), Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, and US Rep. Eliot Engel (D-NY), the Committee’s Ranking Member, released a bipartisan letter on Monday, to be sent to President Barack Obama, highlighting concerns over ongoing nuclear negotiations with Iran.
Royce and Engel circulated the letter to other House members, in hopes of garnering support and signatures.
With a looming deadline for a comprehensive nuclear agreement with Iran, the letter outlines a series of "difficult issues" which have surfaced during negotiations and have yet to be resolved. These “grave and urgent issues" pertain to the size of Iran’s uranium enrichment program, its lack of cooperation with international inspectors, and the need for an intrusive inspection regime.

And in case there is any question about "one ups man ship", this all comes on the heels of Barack Obama telling Congress to get lost on attempting to weigh in on the treaty
(Reuters) - President Barack Obama would veto a bill recently introduced in the U.S. Senate allowing Congress to weigh in on any deal the United States and other negotiating countries reach with Iran on its nuclear capabilities, the White House said on Saturday.

"The president has been clear that now is not the time for Congress to pass additional legislation on Iran.  If this bill is sent to the president, he will veto it," said Bernadette Meehan, a spokeswoman for the White House's National Security Council.
more here and here

So in terms of rude treatment, I think the prize goes to President Obama and his ardent supporter Betty McCollum.

Regardless of the outcome of the upcoming elections, March 17, there will be a significant delay in furthering the case for change to the proposed treaty. A new government will have to form and begin negations with Barack Obama. Negotiations that have met with pointed resistance and dismissal in the past.  So the time is now for presenting any message that has a hope of making an impact in the thinking behind this treaty. Since President Obama seems dedicated to making the decision this March, almost during the Israeli elections, rather than even the agreed upon June deadline. It would be difficult for the Israeli elections to be able to do anything but prevent their voice being heard.

Thus I believe it is very evident that Betty McCollum's arguments are wholly specious!