MN-03 : Guest Blogger Erik Paulsen Misses Free Trade Opportunity

Using old data, Representative Erik Paulsen becomes a guest blogger on The Heritage Foundation website to advocate for free trade agreements.
Why, he didn’t included a copy on his personal blog is for others to question (but my guess would be that your collection basket will grow when you preach to the choir.)

Reading his piece, there are three immediate observations.

First, he cites “a Peterson Institute study, the average American household is about $9,000 per year richer as a result of the country’s integration with the world economy since World War II."
Call me skeptical, but why does Paulsen go back to WWII as his starting point ? First, Representative Paulsen fails to mention that the report was written in 2004 … which begs the question, is that comment still current today. The report was criticized for its selective use of data … and if the time frame was from ”1982 to the present (a time that saw the passage of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), the creation of the World Trade Organization (WTO), and the passage of permanent normal trading relations with China) added only $9 per U.S. household, not $9,000.” Reading the study cited, speaks significantly about the impact of China … somewhat making the WWII reference point inappropriate when the focus should be on the future and not the past. Also, Paulsen fails to acknowledge other comments cited in the Peterson study related to job and/or wage losses : “Manufacturing workers dislocated in trade-impacted industries also experience average wage declines of about 13 percent in their new jobs, losses that may be offset only partially by the lower prices they pay for imports.”
Representative Paulsen should be embarrassed for using a report that misleads the reader.

Second, Representative Paulsen promotes the benefits of free trade on “countless businesses, small and large, ” mentioning ONLY one company in his district -- ”Bloomington-based Donaldson Incorporated, a leading manufacturer of air filtration systems and other industrial products.” No doubt that Donaldson is a great company … as testified by its global reach with 40 manufacturing facilities worldwide and an employee base in the 10,000 range …. hardly a small business. Paulsen fails to mention that one of business segments of Donaldson that was hit hard … “Sales decreased in the United States by 56.6 percent primarily as a result of a 50 percent decrease in Class 8 truck build rates and a 53 percent decrease in medium duty truck build rates by the Company's Customers over the prior year quarter.” … somehow the necessity to stabilize the automotive industry was not deemed appropriate to be acknowledged.

Third, Representative Paulsen calls for “Opening the South Korean market.” It’s not open ? --- Look around your house for items that are currently imported into America and no doubt you find some Korean built products. Year to date, South Korea has exported $25,747 million while American producers have sent $17,700 million to South Korea … repeatedly over time, America has been on the unfavorable side of the trade balance.

Summing it up, free trade is not necessarily fair trade.

All that stated, Representative Paulsen goal of generating jobs through foreign trade makes sense … but he has not identified a clear opportunity that would directly benefit Minnesota --- Cuba !

Opening export opportunities to Cuba is not a subject that Representative Paulsen should be unfamiliar. Prior to being elected to Congress, then State Representative Paulsen had the opportunity to vote on resolution in 2008 to that effect. The opportunity was stated that “under an ideal trade scenario, Minnesota farmers could enjoy at least $45 million in new exports annually; the state's total economic benefit would be nearly $92 million, including 900 new jobs.” These are opportunity dollars …. as “Minnesota is ideally positioned to benefit from the market opportunities that free trade with Cuba would provide, as trade restrictions succeed only in driving sales to competitors in other countries that have no such restrictions”.
When it came down to the vote, it was passed in the House by a vote of 86-9 … but State Representative Paulsen declined to state his opinion and abstained.
It must be noted that not only did Paulsen not want to confront this issue, but Governor Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) vetoed despite having met with representatives of the Cuban government in Minnesota’s state capital and expressing to them that "he supported free trade and friendship with Cuba." …. Ah, that was before Presidential politics came in to Pawlenty’s mindset.

Today, the opportunity is more desperate for Minnesota’s agricultural industry. Minnesota Congressmen John Kline (R), Jim Oberstar(D), Collin Peterson (D) and Tim Walz (D) along with 60 other representatives have requested that the US Trade Representative to open export markets closed to US pork producers.

Additionally, Representative Paulsen has not joined 179 other co-sponsors of Representatives Bill Delahunt (D-MA) and Jeff Flake (R-AZ) to support HR 874. The legislation would lift travel restrictions to Cuba for all Americans, restoring our right as citizens of the United States to travel freely.

Representative Paulsen, if you want to create new jobs in Minnesota, start with supporting your fellow Congressmen’s efforts to open Cuba for American business opportunities. Cuba could be a rare opportunity for America to actually have a trade surplus with net job gains.

MN-03 : Paulsen Joins Minority to Oppose Workers

Country First !
That was the message at the Republican National Convention held in Erik Paulsen’s back yard … yet, he seems to have rejected that idea.
The concept was simply expressed as putting the good of the Country ahead of personal ideology, state, or partisan interests.

No doubt that there many stark difference between the political parties and those differences are on display when roll call votes reflect party line votes.
But it’s the measure of “Country First” when a majority of both parties approve legislation.
But what stands out is when somebody stays in the minority to their party.
Increasingly, that is where voters will find Erik Paulsen.

Case in point … on Roll Call Vote 722 : Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2009 a majority of Republicans (104) voted in favor of the legislation while sitting in the minority was Erik Paulsen.
A year earlier, when similar legislation was being considered (Roll Call 683 :Unemployment Compensation Extension Act of 2008) , Minnesota’s Third District was represented by someone else … Republican Jim Ramstad … who joined with 141 other Republicans to approve it.

Representative Paulsen is well aware of the national employment situation as he wrote on his 10/2/09 blog entry : “U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics report of an increase in the unemployment rate to 9.8 percent – a 26-year high – is bad news for American workers and their families. The U.S. lost another 263,000 jobs in September and 5.4 million workers have now been unemployed for 27 weeks or longer.”

Looking at our state, about 120,300 Minnesotans lost jobs and went on unemployment from Jan. 1 to Aug. 31 while an estimated 1,000 people currently exhaust unemployment benefits each week, said Dan McElroy, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Employment and Economic Development (DEED). State figures show that for every job vacancy, there are 7.7 people looking for work.

Representative Paulsen knows the problem exists.
Representative Paulsen believes that jobs must be created.
Representative Paulsen misses the point that to create jobs, demand … customer demand must be there … but too many people are curtailing demands because they are working less hours, are in fear of losing their jobs, or do not have jobs. The simple fact is that businesses want customers ... and after they get customers, then they will rehire.
The need is now … people want to work … but if there is an oversupply of workers, does the Country want to encourage more foreclosures, more people scrimping on healthcare needs, and draining food shelves ?


When the question of extended unemployment benefits was being voted on in 2008, it was cited that “Extending unemployment benefits has the potential to help the entire American economy. According to the Congressional Budget Office, it is one of the most cost-effective and fast-acting ways to stimulate the economy because the money is spent quickly. For every $1 spent on unemployment benefits generates $1.64 in new economic demand.”
Denying extension of benefits actually hurts the country.
At that time, the complaint was about Republicans John Kline (MN-02) and Michelle Bachmann (MN-06)] and their failure to support this increase … now Erik Paulsen has joined the minority.
As pointed out in that commentary, the Federal Unemployment Tax Trust Fund is over-funded … these funds were saved for this rainy day. Business paid into the fund, so that if there would be a downturn, that their workers could get some money to pay for basic needs … and keep local businesses going.

In the past, Representative John Kline has said federal unemployment benefits are needed only when there are desperate economic conditions … well, Represenative Kline acknowledged on February 13, 2009 that “our nation facing economic distress” as evident by Le Sueur County unemployment rising to 10.1 percent. Yep, in case you were wondering, Representatives Kline and Bachmann voted again against this extension.

Why ?

Let’s look at what Country First is supposed to preclude : personal ideology, state, or partisan interests.

First, Representative Paulsen voices a personal ideology of government spending needs to be curtailed … okay, but these funds are coming from an overfunded FUT Trust Fund. Representative Paulson can fall on the old line that “such assistance threatens to stem the economic upturn” if businesses have to pay higher taxes, but since the monies are already in the FUT Trust Fund, that argument is invalid. Representative Paulsen’s opposition may please a segment of the Republican faithful, thus his opposition may be more to ensure that he does not have a primary challenger from within his party.
Representative Paulsen fails on this test putting his personal ideology (and self-interest) over Country First.

Second, it is true that “today”, only 22 states will benefit from this extension and Minnesota is not one. And that is why this is good legislation … there is a high threshold … helping only those states that really need it now … but the forecast is that Minnesota will soon be in that group. Also, when Federal benefits cease, there is an impact on state resources.
Representative Paulsen fails on this test putting his state over Country First.

Third, partisan interests does not apply as a majority of Republicans supported these extensions.
Representative Paulsen fails on this test.


In my view, Representative Paulsen is not putting Country First … much less his constituents and makes me appreciate more how great a Congressman Jim Ramstad was.

MN-02 : Why Isn’t Kline Condemning Increased Federal Role in Education ?

From MinnPost, Representative John Kline (R-MN) speaks about his new legislation : “The Teacher Incentive Fund puts states and local communities firmly in control of efforts to improve teacher quality. This is precisely the type of reform we should be embracing - models that allow parents, teachers, and local school leaders to work together to develop systems that meet each community’s unique needs.

Does it do that ?

My reading of HR 3683 doesn’t indicate that.
Parents are not mentioned in the legislation but the Secretary of Education is given the authority to distribute the funds as deemed worthy. There is a requirement for matching funds from “State, local, or philanthropic funds which should be sufficient to “sustain the activities at the end of the grant period”. Those eligible to apply for the grants include charter schools and depending upon the interpretation possibly religious-based schools … not necessarily the theoretical “troubled inner city school”. Funding is not required to be spent and may not exceed 3% of the budget.

IF Representative Kline really wanted to enact legislation, then where are the co-sponsors ? Where is the companion bill in the Senate. 96 members (82 Representatives and 14 Senators) have worked as educators, as a teacher, professor, and/or school administrator … but do the legislation’s prime authors, Representatives Kline and Tom Price M.D. (R-GA) have any real world experience teaching in elementary or secondary schools ?

Most surprising is that the legislation is being offered by two Representatives that warn of the “takeover by the federal government”.
The question should be coming straight from the Heritage Foundation playbook : Only the federal government can handle national defense, international relations, and the administration of federal laws. But why should politicians in Washington decide how education dollars are spent in Lakeville, Minnesota or Marietta, Georgia ?
Typically, the message from Conservatives is to shutdown the Department of Education and allow states flexibility and control over their own education programs, but this gives more authority to the federal government !

So why is Representative Kline offering a bill that gives greater authority to the federal government while creating an unfunded program that states would be stuck with the bill if the program ends ?
I don’t know, but I do know if a Democrat offered the same plan, Representative Kline would be the first to condemn it.

MN-01 GOP Blind to NICE

In The Republican Party of Minnesota's First Congressional District blog, Bruce Kaskubar warns about Eye Care in the UK.

I don’t know if Mr. Kaskubar is an ophthalmologist and I do not think that his intention was to scare us, but instead was to express concerns about healthcare legislation – specifically a “rationing board”.

Mr. Kaskubar cites an OpEd that was printed in the Wall Street Journal concerning the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) – the UK board that promotes "best practices" in medicine.

One might think that if it is printed in the WSJ, that it is current and factually correct, but be warned it can also be misleading and ill-informed.

Mr. Kaskubar accurately cites “In 2007, the board restricted access to two drugs for macular degeneration, a cause of blindness. The drug Macugen was blocked outright. The other, Lucentis, was limited to a particular category of individuals with the disease, restricting it to about one in five sufferers."

OK, blindness is scary … but shouldn’t the question be asked : Why did NICE restrict use of these drugs?

On January 2, 2007, Genentech Inc., the manufacturer of Avastin™ (bevacizumab) and Lucentis™ (ranibizumab), informed ophthalmologists that the ongoing SAILOR clinical study revealed a higher incidence of stroke in the 0.5-mg Lucentis™ dose group. When Lucentis™ was initially approved for use, the warning label expressed concerns of the theoretical risk of thromboembolic events with intravitreal inhibitors of VEgf,3 a drug class that also includes Macugen™ and Avastin™.

Ah, that poses an interesting question --- is the risk of a stroke worth preserving the patient’s vision ?


There is also the question of cost. In the US, Lucentis™ runs close to $2,000 per monthly shot (and if the coverage is through Medicare, the co-pay is $400). By contrast, Avastin™ — a close biochemical cousin to Lucentis™ — is priced for use in far larger doses as a cancer treatment, so the tiny amount needed for injections into the eye costs only about $40 a shot. Genentech makes both medicines and has been under pressure for the pricing of Lucentis™ when Avastin™ is apparently effective in treating wet age-related macular degeneration (AMD) … as it is in treating colon, lung and breast cancer.

Those two reasons would seem to be valid justification for NICE to restrict usage while it studies the drug.

In the US, the FDA is involved in the CATT Study which has the primary aim to evaluate the relative safety and efficacy of treatment of subfoveal AMD with both Avastin™ and Lucentis™, determine an appropriate dosing schedule and, to see if there is any clinical difference between the two drugs.
I wonder if the FDA had issued the same ruling as NICE did, would Mr. Kaskubar or the WSJ writer complain that the motivation was due to rationing ?

Incidentally, Mr. Kaskubar and the WSJ writer failed to update the status from NICE’s 2007 instructions. NICE in August 2008 issued a report authorizing the use of Lucentis™ with the UK government paying for the first 14 injections in each eye being treated. If people need more than 14 injections per eye, the manufacturer has agreed to provide the drug at no additional cost.

The obvious question is : What is the price of Lucentis™ in the US versus what it is in the UK ?



Now, I am not an ophthalmologist … and that’s the point … the concept of a second opinion is always beneficial … and NICE seems to be contributing to that goal.

Common folks, like me, rely on the medical community to know what to do … but that may be idyllic.

Governor Tim Pawlenty has complained about direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising resulting in increased number of patients asking physicians for treatments because they heard about it on TV or a friend told them about it. Additionally, the pharmaceutical industry pays physicians to give “educational” seminars on their products creating a potential conflict of interests. Eli Lilly was fined $1.4 billion dollars in January to settle a lawsuit by the federal government that it illegally promoted drugs while Pfizer paid $2.3 billion fine in September for the same activity. Recently, Schering-Plough offered a variety of psychiatrists around the country up to $1,600 a day and $170,000 total to talk about Saphris, a new psychiatric drug.
Clearly, costs are being impacted ... and that's where the issue should be --- not "rationing".

Let’s not be blind to misleading stories … it is a fact that “rationing” occurs today when insurance companies decide if they will cover a drug or procedure.

Let’s not promote fear.

Mr. Kaskubar is concerned about a “rationing board” but fails to acknowledge that the Obama Administration's proposal for a Council for Comparative Effectiveness Research does not have the same authority as NICE does.
IMO, that is a mistake.

Let’s enact reforms that promote “best practices”. Controlling costs and ensuring best practices can best be achieved when government is involved protecting consumers and patients.

Walz Calls for Town Hall Meetings - So should Kline

Being honest with the public is the best policy. Sometimes the subject can be contentious and the public ill-informed … that’s why members of Congress need to reach out to their constituents and educate them.

First District Congressman Tim Walz (D-MN) has never shied away from engaging with his constituents … long before this summer’s Town Hall hysterics, Representative Walz had open forums discussing Veterans issues, Senior issues, Agriculture issues, etc. … issues that directly affected his constituents. During the current health care debate, Representative Walz has held private meetings with interested groups as well as tele-town hall meetings and open meetings in Mankato and Rochester.

Second District Congressman John Kline (R-MN) has shied away from open meetings only holding one during his first three terms and finally after the August recess, Representative Kline held his only public meeting to present his opposition to the HR 3200 healthcare legislation at Lakeville South High School on September 18th.

Healthcare reform is not the only critical question facing the country … and not the only one that has long-term financial impacts.

Representative Walz appeared on MPR’s Midday program stating that Americans should be as engaged in the discussion about the war in Afghanistan as they are in health care reform.
Further Representative Walz put it in perspective of dollars, families and our future : “We spent $900 billion in the last eight years, we've sent over 4,000 of our warriors that didn't return, we've got another 20,000 severely wounded and this is a choice that this nation's going to have to think very carefully about."

Representative Walz wants to hold a Town Hall meeting to discuss Afghanistan … possibly in Winona in October.
That’s why I like Congressman Walz. He wants our input.

Representative Walz will not be coming into the meeting as a partisian blind supporter of the Department of Defense’s viewpoint. Walz has had on-the-ground vantage of seeing operations in action (and without a kelvar vest). At the invitation of the House Armed Services Committee, Representative Walz, who sits on the Veterans Affairs Committee, inspected Special Forces training operations in Mali, Kenya, Djibouti, and Afghanistan, from August 27 to September 3rd.
Representative Walz will be able to educate us and also be able to react to our concerns.

Regardless of the party of the President, this time it is not going to be a partisain issue. Now that Bush’s War has turned into Obama’s War, I suspect that some of the fiscal conservatives that opposed the military involvement in Kosova during the Clinton Administration, will take a harder look today. Former Congressman Gil Gutknecht opposed Kosova and after his visit to Iraq expressed concern of that mission. Columnist George Will has called to pull out of Afghanistan. (On that suggestion, I agree with Representative Walz who has expressed doubt that anti-terrorist operations can be conducted solely by remote controlled Predator drones and spy planes.)

Let’s commend Congressman Walz … but he is not the only member of the Minnesota delegation that has responsibility for military oversight.

According to his bio, Representative Kline considers himself to have “established himself as one of Congress’s foremost experts on defense and veterans issues.” Representative Kline serves on the House Armed Services Committee and in April, 2009, he made his third trip to Afghanistan.

While Representative Walz has maintained an open mind, Representative Kline, in a radio interview on the AM 1170 KOWZ, expressed his staunch commitment for the engagement in Afghanistan. But Representative Kline has failed to address the financial impacts of the ongoing war. On a previous program, Representative Kline defended his support for an earmark for funding additional F-22A planes as a “jobs program” … without acknowledging that the plane has not been used in the Iraq or Afghanistan conflict … and that the Department of Defense does not feel any more need to be built.
Representative Kline has been a vocal critic of earmarks … but his words do not match his vote. The DOD authorization is chockfull of projects that DOD does not want … including VH-71 presidential helicopter, an alternative engine program for the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, extra C-17 transport planes and F-18 jets, as well as the Kinetic Energy Interceptor, a missile defense program.

It’s time that Representative Kline holds a Town Hall meeting to discuss Afghanistan and why he voted for these earmarks. Kline needs to educate the voters and get his constituents’ input.

Tim Pawlenty Heeds Advice from Don Draper

” If you don’t like what is being said, change the conversation.”
~ Don Draper - Mad Men- Episode 29 “Love Among the Ruins”

The tide has turned in the emails that I get from people outside of Minnesota asking about Minnesota politicians.

No longer do I have to explain that nothing Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN-06) says surprises me. From her days in the Minnesota State Legislature when she effectively shutdown the Senate by inciting people to demonstrate at Senators’ legislative offices until there would be a vote on same-sex legislation, to her caucus packing to get the Republican nomination for Congress and her election victories with the assistance of Minnesota’s Independence Party, Bachmann’s history is well known.

No, the current questions are about our Minnesota Governor. Typically, they want to know what happened to him with such comments as “he seemed to be someone that seemed normal”.
The latest questions are a result of Pawlenty’s comments about President Obama’s address to students which Pawlenty states that it could be disruptive and raises concerns "about the content and the motive." The Republican governor also said on his WCCO radio program that the speech is "uninvited."

While some may view Pawlenty’s remarks as just another Republican politician taking a potshot at the President, my view is that Pawlenty is listening to Don Draper. Draper has worked on behalf of Republican candidates for President before (pro bono work with Nixon. Draper says: "Kennedy? Nouveau riche, a recent immigrant who bought his way into Harvard. Nixon is from nothing. Abe Lincoln of California, a self-made man. Kennedy, I see a silver spoon. Nixon, I see myself.")
Draper’s 2012 campaign would pit Harvard Obama versus Pawlenty "the son of a truck driver and a housewife from a meatpacking town who wants to provide a better quality of life for ordinary folks without growing government." … a PR dream candidate … and Pawlenty plays hockey !

Draper knows PR.
When a prospective client from Madison Square Garden expressed concerns of what is termed a “vocal minority” opposed to tearing down Penn Station to build the new arena, Draper’s advice was to ”change the conversation”.

Pawlenty’s goal is to promote a national profile for himself while hiding his Minnesota performance. It’s the Minnesota problems that ”If you don’t like what is being said, change the conversation” lead to his attack on Obama for speaking to children.

On Tuesday, when Obama is addressing schoolchildren, Pawlenty will be facing a “leadership” question.
On that day, three former governors, nine former leaders of the state House and Senate, the state economist and state demographer will hold a Leadership Summit. The meeting was a suggested by former Governor Arne Carlson, a Republican, and former Congressman Tim Penny (D-MN) to consider balanced-budget solutions which will be necessary after Pawlenty unilaterally cut important state programs and pushed a $6-7 billion budget deficit off onto the next period.

Pawlenty’s radio attack on Obama was less than 48 hours after Carlson was on Minnesota Public Radio previewing the Summit. Carlson was blunt in his comments – Pawlenty has reduced reserves and relied on borrowing to push the problems beyond his term. Carlson faulted Pawlenty on his leadership.

And as far as the summit goes, Pawlenty has declined to participate. Instead he will join other Republicans at Eaton Corp. in Eden Prairie to discuss GOP strategy.

Carlson comments are not new … similar concerns have been expressed by former Republican Governor Al Quie … both who experienced significant budget problems during their tenures. But both engaged with the legislature and showed leadership … leadership that they still exhibit today.

Too much commentary will be made about Pawlenty’s comments that parents don’t have to submit their children to Obama’s message, but the parents should be more concerned about Pawlenty’s message to schools … telling them “see ya next year” … as he is shifting school payments from one year to the next --- a move that Pawlenty says will save $1.8 billion on the current budget. This “accounting shift” will result in school boards having to take unwise financial actions … such as the Bemidji School Board which has authorized the borrowing of $9 million to cover the funding shift. The School District will also have to pay interest fees from the borrowed money.

Don Draper is a fictional character; Tim Pawlenty is playing with our real money and leaving Minnesota in a financial mess.
So, I will respond to those emails telling them that Pawlenty may make a nice appearance on television, but he is not a leader. Rather Pawlenty is someone, like Bachmann, who can attribute his election victories to the impact of the three party system in Minnesota where minority rules.

In closing, another quote from Don Draper may be appropriate for the wannabe Presidential candidate Pawlenty. Followers of Mad Men know that Don Draper is the persona assumed by Dick Whitman ... who throughout his new life preaches that whatever failings that may be attributed with the past, can be ignored ... so Governor Pawlenty wants to ignore the financial implications of his tenure.

"Get out of here and move forward. This never happened. It will shock you how much it never happened."

What would Thomas Jefferson think of Bachmann and Coburn comments ?

Revolution talk is in the air.

Last week, the Tulsa Beacon reported that Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) said “I like the idea of tea parties and a real revolution.”
During the same interview, Coburn was asked about The Freedom of Choice Act and how people should react if it was enacted.
Dr. Coburn’s answer? "Civil disobedience.”
Coburn went on to say “The battle in Washington, D.C. is real. Every day in the Senate without Al Franken is a great day. ”

Saturday, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann (R-MN:06) told WWTC 1280 AM, "I want people in Minnesota armed and dangerous on this issue of the energy tax because we need to fight back. Thomas Jefferson told us 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,' and the people -- we the people -- are going to have to fight back hard if we're not going to lose our country.

Would the Founding Father recognize – Revolution, Civil disobedience, Battles, Armed and Dangerous – as the political discourse prevalent in our nation 220 years after the Constution was approved ? Hardly.

Thomas Jefferson would not appreciate having his words mangled and taken out of context. Jefferson never said or wrote 'having a revolution every now and then is a good thing,'; Jefferson did write to Abigail Adams in 1787 (Note : Jefferson was in France during 1787) “The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive. It will often be exercised when wrong, but better so than not to be exercised at all. I like a little rebellion now and then. It is like a storm in the atmosphere."
So a number of thoughts.
First, it was written before the US Constitution was approved, and the Congress or President elected. America was still in its development.
Second, he clearly stated that “resistance” is based on “certain occasions” … in other words, a limited application. A “little rebellion” which is a vast difference from a “revolution” to overthrow the government. Today, peace protest marches have replaced armed rebellions.
Third, Jefferson eventually saw that the elective form of government was working and in 1806 wrote “In a country whose constitution is derived from the will of the people directly expressed by their free suffrages, where the principal executive functionaries and those of the legislature are renewed by them at short periods, where under the character of jurors they exercise in person the greatest portion of the judiciary powers, where the laws are consequently so formed and administered as to bear with equal weight and favor on all, restraining no man in the pursuits of honest industry and securing to every one the property which that acquires, it would not be supposed that any safeguards could be needed against insurrection or enterprise on the public peace or authority.”
In other words, voters should use the ballot box for protest … not insurrection.

The common denominator for Coburn and Bachmann is their opposition to abortion and a proposed “cap and trade” legislation.
Jefferson may have an opinion here also. After his presidency was over, Jefferson wrote in 1816 “Each generation is as independent as the one preceding, as that was of all which had gone before. It has then, like them, a right to choose for itself the form of government it believes most promotive of its own happiness; consequently, to accommodate to the circumstances in which it finds itself that received from its predecessors; and it is for the peace and good of mankind that a solemn opportunity of doing this every nineteen or twenty years should be provided by the constitution; so that it may be handed on, with periodical repairs, from generation to generation, to the end of time, if anything human can so long endure."
So Jefferson was in essence suggestion that the Constitution was not a fixed document, but that new generations may look at issues differently.
A March 2009, Zogby Poll found that nearly 42 percent of the respondents said they "strongly agree" while another 16.5 percent who reported that they "somewhat agree" with the president’s proposal "that places a market-based cap on carbon pollution and drives the production of more renewable energy in America."
A January 2009, ABCNews/Washington Post Poll found that over 80% approved of abortion which involved saving a woman’s life, health or in the case of rape or incest. Further, 57% considered it should be legal in most cases.
My point is not to debate “cap and trade” or abortion, but just to point out that if Jefferson’s concept of a new constitution every generation may produce – over time – a country that addresses gay rights, health care reform, gun restrictions, etc in an entirely different approach than today … and that Coburn and Bachmann may not like what the “people” would enact a new constitution.

Using terms like Revolution, Civil disobedience, Battles, Armed and Dangerous is totally inappropriate by someone elected and sworn to uphold the Constitution.
The words inspire Anarchy.
According to a Bachmann spokesman, her remarks about Revolution were Metaphorical.
That response is insufficient.
These comments could easily be denounced by Democrats, but it really must come from Republicans. No doubt that “Cap and Trade” is a contentious issue … after all, Bachmann was unable to get the RNC Platform Committee to included any amendments to oppose cap-and-trade. This is understandable considering that Senator John McCain was a proponent of the legislation. McCain was not alone. Norm Coleman was a co-sponsor of John Warner and Joe Liebermann legislation. Although Coleman is not presently a member of the Senate, he could exercise great leadership by denouncing both Coburn’s and Bachmann’s choice of words.
Another Minnesota Republican that should denounce these words is Governor Tim Pawlenty. Pawlenty approved the Next Generation Energy Act of 2007 which addresses a multi-sector cap-and-trade program.

The country has too many problems that need addressing that require reasoned discussions, not rhetoric that is designed to incite a radical emotion.