Just over a year ago -- March 14th to be precise -- Norm Coleman gave President Bush a little push.
As GOPWingman reported in his blog :
Saying the White House has been afflicted by a political "tin ear," Sen. Norm Coleman on Tuesday called on President Bush to bring in a new team.
"I have some concerns about the team that's around the president," said Coleman, a Minnesota Republican with close ties to Bush. "I think you need to take a look at it."
[snip]
“All of a sudden we’re hearing the phrase ‘tin ear,’” Coleman said in a telephone interview. “That’s a phrase you shouldn’t hear. The fact that you’re hearing it says that the kind of political sensitivity, the ear-to-the-ground that you need in the White House, isn’t there at the level that it needs to be.”
Coleman declined to specify which staff members should be replaced, or what new people should be brought in. He said he hadn’t talked to Bush or anyone at the White House about his concerns. “Ultimately the president has to make a decision about his team,” Coleman said. “And the president knows what he needs. I think it’s obvious to those on the Hill - and it’s got to be obvious to those at the White House - that we’re skipping too many beats nowadays. We’re not operating at the highest level of political sensitivity that you need.”
Emphasis added.
Since Coleman did not specify who he was referring, the conjecture could be that he was referring to someone who is now gone or the individual(s) could still be there.
Scott McClellan (announced resignation 4/20/06), Andy Card (announced resignation 4/28/06), and Don Rumsfeld (announced resignation 11/8/06) are gone, but Karl Rove, Alberto Gonzales, Condi Rice and many others are still there.
It’s time that Coleman re-evaluates the situation of March, 2006 versus today, and asks if the changes that have occurred have made improvements and if further changes are needed.
First let’s acknowledge that Bob Gates has been a breath of fresh air.
He was the guest on today’s Face the Nation. While he is staunchly implementing Bush’s Iraq policy, yet he seems to be concerned with military readiness as he cited concerns about Afghanistan, Iran and Korea. Further, his response to the Walter Reed situation and sending handwritten notes to families of the fallen soldiers is a far cry from the Rumsfeld era. Gates is also reviewing the intelligence gathering mission of the military.
So, Gates proves that change can be good.
But Bush is still being plagued by “ political sensitivity” from his leadership team and the root of the problem is Rove. From Plame-Gate to the Gonzales-Eight, Rove has been at the instrumental in furthering problems and not resolving them. Rove did see a demotion of sorts when McClellan was replaced as reported by USAToday “Rove remains a deputy chief of staff, but sheds his policy development role to focus on strategic and tactical planning, including the November congressional elections, the White House said.”
We know how those November elections turned out and the other major issues such as Social Security reform and simplifying the tax code do not appear to be any closer today than they did in November 2004.
If Rove’s “expertise” is campaign strategy, why does he need to be in the White House today? Don’t worry about Rove finding a job once he resigns … I’m sure that fellow-Texan Bob Perry of Swift Boat fame would find a job for him in Mitt Romney’s campaign.
But then again, if Romney is smart he’ll be mindful of Ron Suskind story of what other Republican operatives think of Rove : “Where’s Karl? we’d wonder. The line was always ‘Oh, he’s out ruining careers.’ "
Some may think that Gonzales should resign … I would not object … but the question should be: did Gonzales initiate the Firing Fiasco or was he just the “unwitting bystander” from Rove’s action plan to create an everlasting Republican majority?
Discussing the US Attorney dismissals, Coleman has commented that he was "deeply concerned about how this whole process has been handled."
If he wants Minnesotans to support him in the next election, he needs to be more than just “concerned”.
He also needs to understand that his election will be for six years … long after Bush, Rove, Gonzales, etc are gone.
Cut your losses now, Norm … speak up now as there is still 21 months left in your (and Bush’s) terms to address the issues that need action.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Monday, March 12, 2007
Why is John Kline pushing Gutknecht’s agenda ?
The November elections should have sent a message to John Kline, but apparently he does not realize why so many voters turned away from his party’s message. No, I am not talking about Iraq, but instead fiscal discipline.
The Republican Study Group, whose members advocated a fiscal and social conservative agenda and included John Kline as a member, has seen their membership dwindle. What do Chocola (IN), Beuprez(CO), Northrup(KY), Pombo(CA), Hayworth(AZ), Hostettler(IN), Sodrel(IN), Ryan(KS), Taylor(NC) and of course, our own Gil Gutknecht have in common … all defeated Congressmen who were members of the RSG. And on the Senate side, when Mark Kennedy, Rick Santorum(PA), Mike DeWine(OH) and Conrad Burns(WY) were in the House, they also were members of the RSG. These people were not rookies, but candidates that had principally ran campaigns that promised fiscal discipline.
The Republican Party advertised itself as advocating smaller government and market-based responses -- not mandates. The voters see the rising deficit, earmark spending and corruption and realized that accountability belonged to those that promised to address our fiscal future.
Now, Kline has introduced HR 349 [Title: To amend the Clean Air Act to require all gasoline sold for use in motor vehicles to contain 10 percent renewable fuel in the year 2010 and thereafter, and for other purposes.]
To those of us in the First District, we’ve heard of this legislation before … essentially it is the same as H.R.4357 which Gil Gutknecht talked about ad nausea over the past two years. Gutknecht’s bill had 44 co-sponsors (plenty of those Representatives are now longer in Congress) and was issued during a Republican controlled Congress. Kline’s bill has seven cosponsors and will need plenty of support from the Democrats if it has any chance of being turned into law.
So the first question is, is this legislation necessary ? Or, are market-based actions not working such that mandates are required ?
US News and World Reports did a Special Report “Overselling Ethanol” in their February 12 edition.
Consider the following statements from that report.
“Even though the ethanol industry profited handsomely last year, it continued to benefit from billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.
… in 2005, when, with gasoline prices ratcheting higher, Congress wrote into its big energy bill a renewable fuel standard, an unprecedented mandate requiring refiners to double the amount of ethanol they blend into the nation's gasoline by 2012.
… ethanol tax breaks—now at 51 cents per gallon—the government sent $2.5 billion last year to the flush oil industry to blend ethanol it would have needed anyway.
Nearly half of the gasoline being sold in the United States now contains 10 percent ethanol. But that leaves half the market open to conquest. Some 76 ethanol refineries are now under construction, including in such unlikely states as New York and Oregon, adding to the 112 already squeezing fuel from corn. By some counts, 200 more have been proposed.
… growth in ethanol gobbled up 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop. That surpasses all the corn Americans consumed last year—whether in cereal, corn-syrup-sweetened soda, or on the cob. And the strain has become severe on the nation's primary use of corn—as feed for dairy and beef cattle, pigs, and chickens. Meat, dairy, and egg producers are reeling from corn prices that have doubled in one year—now trading above $4 a bushel for the first time in more than a decade.
Because of its lower energy content, it takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to drive as far as 1 gallon of gasoline. Consumer Reports calculates E-85 ended up costing motorists about a dollar extra per gallon last year because of the need to buy more fuel.”
So, in summary, Congress has already mandated a 2012 date, half the goal has already been met, and the industry is building refineries in response to market needs. In the end, consumers may pay more for other corn-based products and yet not realize a reduction in fuel consumed.
For the fiscal conservatives, this appears to be another tax break -- that at one time was a necessary inducement to start the industry -- but now is costing the taxpayers.
So now to the second question, why would Kline offer this legislation? If you read his press release that announced the legislation, there is a picture of Kline with representatives of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association.
Ah, huh … so is it all about campaign donations?
The US News and World Reports also states : “The Renewable Fuels Association have increased its lobbying spending 60 percent in the past seven years. The 10 largest ethanol producers and their trade groups have handed out $4.7 million in federal campaign contributions since 2000, says the Center for Responsive Politics.
Com’n Kline … stand up for responsible government spending that does not require mandates to reward your political cronies with tax breaks.
The US News and World Reports concludes with an assessment from Lee Lynd, Dartmouth College engineering professor and cellulosic pioneer. “Ethanol would make its greatest dent if Americans drove less and highly efficient cars were deployed widely.”
Improving CAFÉ standards and advancing fuel cell technology would do more to address our energy needs than hyping ethanol production.
The Republican Study Group, whose members advocated a fiscal and social conservative agenda and included John Kline as a member, has seen their membership dwindle. What do Chocola (IN), Beuprez(CO), Northrup(KY), Pombo(CA), Hayworth(AZ), Hostettler(IN), Sodrel(IN), Ryan(KS), Taylor(NC) and of course, our own Gil Gutknecht have in common … all defeated Congressmen who were members of the RSG. And on the Senate side, when Mark Kennedy, Rick Santorum(PA), Mike DeWine(OH) and Conrad Burns(WY) were in the House, they also were members of the RSG. These people were not rookies, but candidates that had principally ran campaigns that promised fiscal discipline.
The Republican Party advertised itself as advocating smaller government and market-based responses -- not mandates. The voters see the rising deficit, earmark spending and corruption and realized that accountability belonged to those that promised to address our fiscal future.
Now, Kline has introduced HR 349 [Title: To amend the Clean Air Act to require all gasoline sold for use in motor vehicles to contain 10 percent renewable fuel in the year 2010 and thereafter, and for other purposes.]
To those of us in the First District, we’ve heard of this legislation before … essentially it is the same as H.R.4357 which Gil Gutknecht talked about ad nausea over the past two years. Gutknecht’s bill had 44 co-sponsors (plenty of those Representatives are now longer in Congress) and was issued during a Republican controlled Congress. Kline’s bill has seven cosponsors and will need plenty of support from the Democrats if it has any chance of being turned into law.
So the first question is, is this legislation necessary ? Or, are market-based actions not working such that mandates are required ?
US News and World Reports did a Special Report “Overselling Ethanol” in their February 12 edition.
Consider the following statements from that report.
“Even though the ethanol industry profited handsomely last year, it continued to benefit from billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies.
… in 2005, when, with gasoline prices ratcheting higher, Congress wrote into its big energy bill a renewable fuel standard, an unprecedented mandate requiring refiners to double the amount of ethanol they blend into the nation's gasoline by 2012.
… ethanol tax breaks—now at 51 cents per gallon—the government sent $2.5 billion last year to the flush oil industry to blend ethanol it would have needed anyway.
Nearly half of the gasoline being sold in the United States now contains 10 percent ethanol. But that leaves half the market open to conquest. Some 76 ethanol refineries are now under construction, including in such unlikely states as New York and Oregon, adding to the 112 already squeezing fuel from corn. By some counts, 200 more have been proposed.
… growth in ethanol gobbled up 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop. That surpasses all the corn Americans consumed last year—whether in cereal, corn-syrup-sweetened soda, or on the cob. And the strain has become severe on the nation's primary use of corn—as feed for dairy and beef cattle, pigs, and chickens. Meat, dairy, and egg producers are reeling from corn prices that have doubled in one year—now trading above $4 a bushel for the first time in more than a decade.
Because of its lower energy content, it takes 1.5 gallons of ethanol to drive as far as 1 gallon of gasoline. Consumer Reports calculates E-85 ended up costing motorists about a dollar extra per gallon last year because of the need to buy more fuel.”
So, in summary, Congress has already mandated a 2012 date, half the goal has already been met, and the industry is building refineries in response to market needs. In the end, consumers may pay more for other corn-based products and yet not realize a reduction in fuel consumed.
For the fiscal conservatives, this appears to be another tax break -- that at one time was a necessary inducement to start the industry -- but now is costing the taxpayers.
So now to the second question, why would Kline offer this legislation? If you read his press release that announced the legislation, there is a picture of Kline with representatives of the Minnesota Corn Growers Association.
Ah, huh … so is it all about campaign donations?
The US News and World Reports also states : “The Renewable Fuels Association have increased its lobbying spending 60 percent in the past seven years. The 10 largest ethanol producers and their trade groups have handed out $4.7 million in federal campaign contributions since 2000, says the Center for Responsive Politics.
Com’n Kline … stand up for responsible government spending that does not require mandates to reward your political cronies with tax breaks.
The US News and World Reports concludes with an assessment from Lee Lynd, Dartmouth College engineering professor and cellulosic pioneer. “Ethanol would make its greatest dent if Americans drove less and highly efficient cars were deployed widely.”
Improving CAFÉ standards and advancing fuel cell technology would do more to address our energy needs than hyping ethanol production.
Thursday, March 01, 2007
Is Norm Coleman going Gutknecht or Wellstone on the Health Care Issue ?
I am an independent voter with no allegiance to any political party. I vote on the issues and the number one issue to me is Health Care. So when Norm Coleman issued a number of press releases in February announcing new proposals that he touts as a “comprehensive rural health legislative agenda”, I am naturally interested.
Coleman states “The quality of your healthcare should not be a reflection your zipcode, and my rural healthcare agenda seeks to efficiently enhance the quality, affordability, and accessibility of healthcare in rural Minnesota.”
His comment sounds more like a campaign speech then an actionable comprehensive solution to the health care problem. His attention to this issue admirable, yet somehow I sense that these are the issues that Paul Wellstone would have been pushing harder and longer than in the year prior to re-election. I thought that based on Coleman complaints about Wellstone's performance, that Coleman would have been pushing these legislative ideas earlier. Coleman said "People should be angry and they should be angry that nothing's been done. The senator's been on the health committee for 12 years and you know I think people are tired of pointing fingers and saying we didn't get it done because of this and because of this."
Well, it's only been four years, but Norm, why has it taken so long for you address this issue ? ? ? Remember, that for the first four years of your term, the Republican Party had both chambers of Congress and the Presidency.
Hence, I ask the question is Coleman, “Gutkencht-ing” the issue ? What is “Gutkencht-ing”?
Simple stated it is when a politician realizes that there is an issue that will appeal to his constituents and that he can talk endlessly, while realizing that the full Congress will not adopt it. I coined the term based former Congressman Gil Gutknecht’s 10/10 Ethanol plan (10 % ethanol by 2010). Gutknecht pandered to rural voters about his proposal, yet failed to get even get a hearing in Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. At every farm event, Gutknecht talked ad nauseam about the 10/10 plan while he should have been working his colleagues for legislative action. The 10/10 plan was an attempt to address America’s oil dependence problem, but it was ten years late and by itself would not solve the problem.
Reading the press release, Coleman is offering baby steps that address a portion of the health care problem. In some ways, it mirrors a standard mission statement from an insurance company :
Improve access,
Simplify the health care experience;
Promote quality;
and Make health care more affordable.
The cynic in me makes me wonder how much these proposals were created in concert with some of his political contributors, such as UnitedHealth Group which is the number 2 contributor to his campaign fund.
Health care is an important issue that affects every voter … heck, America spends more on health care than food. But the debate is being controlled by the insurance companies and pharmaceutical/medical device companies, with input from the medical community. The access and influence that those industry lobbyists have on legislation clearly impact politicians (and hence the government) in undertaking action, or inaction.
Last month, McKinsey and Company issued a report on the cost of Health Care in the United States. The analysis attributed some of the cost problems in that we spend $98 billion a year in excess administrative costs ( such as marketing – think of those commercials for Restless Leg Syndrome.) Further, McKinsey estimates excess drug costs to be $66 billion a year. Interestingly, the report estimates the cost of providing full medical care to all of America’s uninsured at $77 billion a year. Thus, if the Healthcare Industry could be squeezed of waste and excess spending, the uninsured problem could be solved. Resolving this issue is critical to all of us, as even Wal-Mart is forming a coalition dubbed "Better Health Care Together," pledged to convene a national summit by the end of May to recruit other leaders from business, labor, government and non-profits with the objective of providing universal health-care coverage for "every person in America.”
Since Coleman is the Ranking Republican on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations it would seem logical that he would want to review the claims reported by the McKinsey report.
So, while I applaud Coleman addressing the subject, it is with some skeptism. The most intrigueing legislation is to increase the nursing workforce. There is a simple supply-demand solution to this … provide free education to every person that passes a qualifying enterance exam … if our tax dollars can provide K-12 education, why not provide additional training for selected and needed occupations? On the other hand, his proposal for a hospital in Cass County is an example of earmark spending that if it was for any other state other than his home state would be riducled by fiscal conservatives.
Where will Coleman get the money for funding his legislation? How about CEO compensation … for example former UnitedHealth Group CEO William McGuire received a total compensation of $124.8 million last year. This outlandish amount is enough to fund many Rural Hospitals. Note : McGuire may seem to be a unique example, but consider others in the industry Wellpoint’s CEO Larry Glassrock received $25 million, Aetna’s CEO John Rowe received $22.2 million and Cigna’s CEO Edward Hanway received $13.3 million.
If Coleman is to be successful in taking this from a campaign speech to enacted legislation, we should see co-sponsors signing on and hearings being held. By this summer, if there is no action, then we’ll know it was a hallow effort.
As I recall in his 2002 campaign, a focal point was his little daughter telling us that when he promises Diary Queen, he keeps his promises. Well, Norm were waiting.
REFERENCE :
S.628 : A bill to provide grants for rural health information technology development activities.
S.629 : A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to provide direct and guaranteed loans, loan guarantees, and grants to complete the construction and rehabilitation of rural critical access hospitals.
S.630 : A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a minimum payment rate by Medicare Advantage organizations for services furnished by a critical access hospital and a rural health clinic under the Medicare program.
S.631 : A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage of remote patient management services for chronic health care conditions under the Medicare Program.
S.632 : A bill to provide for a hospital in Cass County, Minnesota.
S.633 : A bill to provide assistance to rural schools, hospitals, and communities for the conduct of collaborative efforts to secure a progressive and innovative system to improve access to mental health care for youth, seniors and families.
S.646 : A bill to increase the nursing workforce.
S.716 : A bill to establish a Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Aging Health Services.
Coleman states “The quality of your healthcare should not be a reflection your zipcode, and my rural healthcare agenda seeks to efficiently enhance the quality, affordability, and accessibility of healthcare in rural Minnesota.”
His comment sounds more like a campaign speech then an actionable comprehensive solution to the health care problem. His attention to this issue admirable, yet somehow I sense that these are the issues that Paul Wellstone would have been pushing harder and longer than in the year prior to re-election. I thought that based on Coleman complaints about Wellstone's performance, that Coleman would have been pushing these legislative ideas earlier. Coleman said "People should be angry and they should be angry that nothing's been done. The senator's been on the health committee for 12 years and you know I think people are tired of pointing fingers and saying we didn't get it done because of this and because of this."
Well, it's only been four years, but Norm, why has it taken so long for you address this issue ? ? ? Remember, that for the first four years of your term, the Republican Party had both chambers of Congress and the Presidency.
Hence, I ask the question is Coleman, “Gutkencht-ing” the issue ? What is “Gutkencht-ing”?
Simple stated it is when a politician realizes that there is an issue that will appeal to his constituents and that he can talk endlessly, while realizing that the full Congress will not adopt it. I coined the term based former Congressman Gil Gutknecht’s 10/10 Ethanol plan (10 % ethanol by 2010). Gutknecht pandered to rural voters about his proposal, yet failed to get even get a hearing in Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality. At every farm event, Gutknecht talked ad nauseam about the 10/10 plan while he should have been working his colleagues for legislative action. The 10/10 plan was an attempt to address America’s oil dependence problem, but it was ten years late and by itself would not solve the problem.
Reading the press release, Coleman is offering baby steps that address a portion of the health care problem. In some ways, it mirrors a standard mission statement from an insurance company :
Improve access,
Simplify the health care experience;
Promote quality;
and Make health care more affordable.
The cynic in me makes me wonder how much these proposals were created in concert with some of his political contributors, such as UnitedHealth Group which is the number 2 contributor to his campaign fund.
Health care is an important issue that affects every voter … heck, America spends more on health care than food. But the debate is being controlled by the insurance companies and pharmaceutical/medical device companies, with input from the medical community. The access and influence that those industry lobbyists have on legislation clearly impact politicians (and hence the government) in undertaking action, or inaction.
Last month, McKinsey and Company issued a report on the cost of Health Care in the United States. The analysis attributed some of the cost problems in that we spend $98 billion a year in excess administrative costs ( such as marketing – think of those commercials for Restless Leg Syndrome.) Further, McKinsey estimates excess drug costs to be $66 billion a year. Interestingly, the report estimates the cost of providing full medical care to all of America’s uninsured at $77 billion a year. Thus, if the Healthcare Industry could be squeezed of waste and excess spending, the uninsured problem could be solved. Resolving this issue is critical to all of us, as even Wal-Mart is forming a coalition dubbed "Better Health Care Together," pledged to convene a national summit by the end of May to recruit other leaders from business, labor, government and non-profits with the objective of providing universal health-care coverage for "every person in America.”
Since Coleman is the Ranking Republican on the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations it would seem logical that he would want to review the claims reported by the McKinsey report.
So, while I applaud Coleman addressing the subject, it is with some skeptism. The most intrigueing legislation is to increase the nursing workforce. There is a simple supply-demand solution to this … provide free education to every person that passes a qualifying enterance exam … if our tax dollars can provide K-12 education, why not provide additional training for selected and needed occupations? On the other hand, his proposal for a hospital in Cass County is an example of earmark spending that if it was for any other state other than his home state would be riducled by fiscal conservatives.
Where will Coleman get the money for funding his legislation? How about CEO compensation … for example former UnitedHealth Group CEO William McGuire received a total compensation of $124.8 million last year. This outlandish amount is enough to fund many Rural Hospitals. Note : McGuire may seem to be a unique example, but consider others in the industry Wellpoint’s CEO Larry Glassrock received $25 million, Aetna’s CEO John Rowe received $22.2 million and Cigna’s CEO Edward Hanway received $13.3 million.
If Coleman is to be successful in taking this from a campaign speech to enacted legislation, we should see co-sponsors signing on and hearings being held. By this summer, if there is no action, then we’ll know it was a hallow effort.
As I recall in his 2002 campaign, a focal point was his little daughter telling us that when he promises Diary Queen, he keeps his promises. Well, Norm were waiting.
REFERENCE :
S.628 : A bill to provide grants for rural health information technology development activities.
S.629 : A bill to amend the Consolidated Farm and Rural Development Act to provide direct and guaranteed loans, loan guarantees, and grants to complete the construction and rehabilitation of rural critical access hospitals.
S.630 : A bill to amend part C of title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for a minimum payment rate by Medicare Advantage organizations for services furnished by a critical access hospital and a rural health clinic under the Medicare program.
S.631 : A bill to amend title XVIII of the Social Security Act to provide for coverage of remote patient management services for chronic health care conditions under the Medicare Program.
S.632 : A bill to provide for a hospital in Cass County, Minnesota.
S.633 : A bill to provide assistance to rural schools, hospitals, and communities for the conduct of collaborative efforts to secure a progressive and innovative system to improve access to mental health care for youth, seniors and families.
S.646 : A bill to increase the nursing workforce.
S.716 : A bill to establish a Consortium on the Impact of Technology in Aging Health Services.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
DME Problems Exposed Infrastructure Needs
The FRA decision to reject DM&E’s loan request should be applauded in that they made a merit-based decision as opposed to the back door efforts to fund this project by Senator Thune.
The DM&E loan proposal highlighted a number of issues that need to be addressed. What is the future of rail in the US? And, what responsibility does the government have to provide funding for railroads?
The magnitude of this loan and the viability of the carrier concerned many fiscally responsible people. Yet, historically government has supported rail … and there is no reason that it should not in the future. But what is needed is a rational plan that does not favor one company over all others.
The railroads were built for the 19th Century; Congress needs a comprehensive plan for the 21st Century. Congressman Oberstar proposed legislation last session entitled the Railroad Track Modernization Act of 2006 and Transit Rail Accommodation Improvement and Needs Act. It would promote Transit Use & Develop a Rail Infrastructure Program that would create a stimulus package of infrastructure investment that upgrades the pipeline for biofuels – the freight rail system – in order to get an affordable and reliable supply of biofuels to market.
DM&E is in trouble as reflected in yesterday’s stock performance by LB Foster, which owns 13.4% of the DM&E diluted stock and saw its stock value drop 21 %. DM&E currently serves a market and it needs to address its safety record and operation.
Before Thune attempted to hijack the Federal Railroad Authority's program in the 2006 Transporation bill with provisions to "alleviate rail capacity problems" and removed any prohibition on the size of any single loan, it was designed to help railroads fix existing track with impetuous that small railroads would need the monies. That is still true today.
As a fiscal conservative, I opposed a loan that would create a market imbalance while rewarding one company while other railroads are investing in their businesses. However, I do support the orginal provisions of the FRA program. But any Congressional action should be done in a transparent manner that is based on merit and not lobbyists influence.
The DM&E loan proposal highlighted a number of issues that need to be addressed. What is the future of rail in the US? And, what responsibility does the government have to provide funding for railroads?
The magnitude of this loan and the viability of the carrier concerned many fiscally responsible people. Yet, historically government has supported rail … and there is no reason that it should not in the future. But what is needed is a rational plan that does not favor one company over all others.
The railroads were built for the 19th Century; Congress needs a comprehensive plan for the 21st Century. Congressman Oberstar proposed legislation last session entitled the Railroad Track Modernization Act of 2006 and Transit Rail Accommodation Improvement and Needs Act. It would promote Transit Use & Develop a Rail Infrastructure Program that would create a stimulus package of infrastructure investment that upgrades the pipeline for biofuels – the freight rail system – in order to get an affordable and reliable supply of biofuels to market.
DM&E is in trouble as reflected in yesterday’s stock performance by LB Foster, which owns 13.4% of the DM&E diluted stock and saw its stock value drop 21 %. DM&E currently serves a market and it needs to address its safety record and operation.
Before Thune attempted to hijack the Federal Railroad Authority's program in the 2006 Transporation bill with provisions to "alleviate rail capacity problems" and removed any prohibition on the size of any single loan, it was designed to help railroads fix existing track with impetuous that small railroads would need the monies. That is still true today.
As a fiscal conservative, I opposed a loan that would create a market imbalance while rewarding one company while other railroads are investing in their businesses. However, I do support the orginal provisions of the FRA program. But any Congressional action should be done in a transparent manner that is based on merit and not lobbyists influence.
Who’s on McCain's Minnesota Team ? And Who’s Not ?
John McCain has just released his Team Minnesota.
During the Congressional campaign of 2006, I made issued a commentary noting that McCain was coming to the First District in behalf of Gil Gutknecht.
At that time, I noted a number of differences on major issues between McCain and Gutknecht.
So I am not surprised that Gutknecht is not on the Team … but Tony Cornish ? ? ?
Yep, Gun-Toting Tony is on McCain’s Leadership Team.
Wasn’t John McCain the author of the McCain-Lieberman gun-show bill, which would have given the federal government the administrative power to prohibit all gun shows, and to register everyone who attends a gun show? The Gun Owners of America gave McCain a rating of F- for his 2004 re-election campaign.
And what about McCain authoring the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill which affected that ability of the NRA and other groups to donate monies?
Other issues that I would like to hear Cornish’s assessment include :
Guest Workers & Amnesty for illegal immigrants
- McCain authored bill to approve
Same Sex Marriage Constitutional Amendment
- McCain opposed
2002 Farm Bill
- McCain opposed
I don't know who is moving on the issues -- McCain trying to appeal to the Republican Conservative base ... or Cornish selling out on his principles. Maybe Tony is angling for a spot in a McCain administration … as a 24-B constituent, I would be glad to see Tony go.
During the Congressional campaign of 2006, I made issued a commentary noting that McCain was coming to the First District in behalf of Gil Gutknecht.
At that time, I noted a number of differences on major issues between McCain and Gutknecht.
So I am not surprised that Gutknecht is not on the Team … but Tony Cornish ? ? ?
Yep, Gun-Toting Tony is on McCain’s Leadership Team.
Wasn’t John McCain the author of the McCain-Lieberman gun-show bill, which would have given the federal government the administrative power to prohibit all gun shows, and to register everyone who attends a gun show? The Gun Owners of America gave McCain a rating of F- for his 2004 re-election campaign.
And what about McCain authoring the McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Bill which affected that ability of the NRA and other groups to donate monies?
Other issues that I would like to hear Cornish’s assessment include :
Guest Workers & Amnesty for illegal immigrants
- McCain authored bill to approve
Same Sex Marriage Constitutional Amendment
- McCain opposed
2002 Farm Bill
- McCain opposed
I don't know who is moving on the issues -- McCain trying to appeal to the Republican Conservative base ... or Cornish selling out on his principles. Maybe Tony is angling for a spot in a McCain administration … as a 24-B constituent, I would be glad to see Tony go.
Sunday, February 11, 2007
MN Voters Need Joe Atkins in US Senate Race
It’s Hot Stove League time for baseball fans. That time of the season when you sit around the stove talking about the next season … optimism abounds as your team has not lost a single game and the next season always looks promising … young players are expected to emerge and veterans can only get better.
Talking baseball isn’t the only game that can be discussed among friends on a chilly winter day. In fact, although the Federal Election isn’t for another 21 months, now is the time to look at the potential candidates. It is my belief that Minnesotans will not play a role in selecting the next president. By the time, Minnesota holds its caucus and primaries; the nominees will have been long been determined. Since the Presidency is based on the Electoral College, a very few states will really matter. Minnesota may not be a fly-over state, but with only ten votes, once again Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida will get the maximum attention.
That stated, elections do matter. This past November saw a sea change in the Congress. Committees determine legislative action or inaction. Cases in point, let’s consider the issue of global warming. Under the Republican controlled Senate, James Inhofe (R-OK), was the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a major foe of mandating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The November election not only brought the Democrats the Committee control but also allowed for changes in the Republican committee structure. John Warner, who is known as a moderate on environmental issues, is now the ranking Republican. An issue that was dormant under the prior Congress will now be actively debated and addressed. So, having the best representation in Congress might be the best that Minnesotans can do to influence national policy.
Although the November 2008 may seem like a long time from now - to compete against an incumbent, that is about the time that is required. Tim Walz’s successful campaign to challenge Gil Gutknecht was first reported by Mankato’s Free Press on a cold winter day in 2005. At that time, it seemed odd that someone would be thinking that far ahead, but countless county fairs, and meet-and-greets later, the First District has a new Congressman.
To me, the most interesting race will be the US Senate race. Personally, I would not be surprised if Norm Coleman got more than token competition for the Republican nomination. The former DFLer, may be too moderate for many social and fiscal conservatives. But with his campaign war-chest and incubency may be too much for Republicans to turn their backs on Coleman … if Rhode Island Republicans wouldn’t turn on Lincoln Chaffee, Norm’s got the nomination.
On the Democratic side, there is the perrienial talk about Mike Ciresi and would Ford Bell try again? Al Franken has proven to be a good fundraiser and motivator for DFL candidates. And then there are the others that are largely unknown.
Competition is good as ideas are debated, positions formulated, electability considered and best of all, voters get to meet the candidates. Amy Klobuchar was helped by the process and the competition from Patty Wetterling and Bell. Klobuchar spent time traversing the state visiting every county. Conversely, the annoitting of Mark Kennedy was a determent – he gained nothing and the voters knew only of his bio and Congressional voting record.
Ciresi, Franken and Bell may be viable candidates, but I favor those that have previous legislative experience. I am reminded of Molly Ivins’ book Shrub in which she chided why it is that so many people only want the top job … her case in point, George Bush. If Bush wanted to be in government, why start at the Governor slot? And, I agree. This past November, the Mankato area saw the retirement of three state legislators. The voters elected three people with experience on school boards or the city council. It’s those community service functions that the art of being a good legislator is learned. As one County Commissioner told me the first thing that he learned upon his election was how to count to three …. with a five seat commission, if he wanted anything, he had to get cooperation from at least two others. That on-the-job experience teaches how to listen to other’s concerns, compromise and resolve issues.
As I look at the afore mentioned candidates, that legislative experience is missing. Based on ideology, Franken might satisfy many in his party, but I need someone who can be operate within the system to advance legislation that will improve America.
If Betty McCollum wants to move up from the House, she meets my requirements.
From the Minnesota Legislature, Representative Joe Atkins of Inner Grove Heights has indicated that he is interested. I don’t know anything about Atkins – his philosophies or motivations. His bio states that he is an attorney who graduated Magna Cum Laude … impressive. His legislative website lists his press releases. First off, I noticed that he recognizes the role of our military. Specifically, his legislation that he offered in 2006 to provide body armor for the troops being deployed overseas.
Just last week, Reuters quoted the Department of Defense's inspector-general reported "Service members were not always equipped to effectively complete their missions," and here is Atkins recognizing that we have a duty to provide body armor. Once again, I am impressed.
Politicians are great at issuing press releases, but the real test is when that time of compromise is at hand … how they voted on the issues that matter. Using MPR’s Votetracker program, I find myself in agreement with him on issues that matter to me … abortion, government spending, voter ID, definition of marriage, etc. The only area that I was disappointed in was his support for stadiums, but considering that he is a U of M alumnus and represents the Twin Cities, that may have been a motivation.
As I stated, I did not know Joe Atkins before, but he is now on my radar as someone to watch. There are others that have been mentioned, such as State Senators Mee Moua and Tarryl Clark and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner; and all should be given consideration. Remember, this is not for homecoming queen, but for who can advance the philosophies of government that you desire.
For a meaningful election, the parties need an aggressive debate on the issues with the party membership deciding the nominees, not a backdoor anointing by State and national party officials.
Talking baseball isn’t the only game that can be discussed among friends on a chilly winter day. In fact, although the Federal Election isn’t for another 21 months, now is the time to look at the potential candidates. It is my belief that Minnesotans will not play a role in selecting the next president. By the time, Minnesota holds its caucus and primaries; the nominees will have been long been determined. Since the Presidency is based on the Electoral College, a very few states will really matter. Minnesota may not be a fly-over state, but with only ten votes, once again Ohio, Pennsylvania and Florida will get the maximum attention.
That stated, elections do matter. This past November saw a sea change in the Congress. Committees determine legislative action or inaction. Cases in point, let’s consider the issue of global warming. Under the Republican controlled Senate, James Inhofe (R-OK), was the ranking member of the Environment and Public Works Committee and a major foe of mandating reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. The November election not only brought the Democrats the Committee control but also allowed for changes in the Republican committee structure. John Warner, who is known as a moderate on environmental issues, is now the ranking Republican. An issue that was dormant under the prior Congress will now be actively debated and addressed. So, having the best representation in Congress might be the best that Minnesotans can do to influence national policy.
Although the November 2008 may seem like a long time from now - to compete against an incumbent, that is about the time that is required. Tim Walz’s successful campaign to challenge Gil Gutknecht was first reported by Mankato’s Free Press on a cold winter day in 2005. At that time, it seemed odd that someone would be thinking that far ahead, but countless county fairs, and meet-and-greets later, the First District has a new Congressman.
To me, the most interesting race will be the US Senate race. Personally, I would not be surprised if Norm Coleman got more than token competition for the Republican nomination. The former DFLer, may be too moderate for many social and fiscal conservatives. But with his campaign war-chest and incubency may be too much for Republicans to turn their backs on Coleman … if Rhode Island Republicans wouldn’t turn on Lincoln Chaffee, Norm’s got the nomination.
On the Democratic side, there is the perrienial talk about Mike Ciresi and would Ford Bell try again? Al Franken has proven to be a good fundraiser and motivator for DFL candidates. And then there are the others that are largely unknown.
Competition is good as ideas are debated, positions formulated, electability considered and best of all, voters get to meet the candidates. Amy Klobuchar was helped by the process and the competition from Patty Wetterling and Bell. Klobuchar spent time traversing the state visiting every county. Conversely, the annoitting of Mark Kennedy was a determent – he gained nothing and the voters knew only of his bio and Congressional voting record.
Ciresi, Franken and Bell may be viable candidates, but I favor those that have previous legislative experience. I am reminded of Molly Ivins’ book Shrub in which she chided why it is that so many people only want the top job … her case in point, George Bush. If Bush wanted to be in government, why start at the Governor slot? And, I agree. This past November, the Mankato area saw the retirement of three state legislators. The voters elected three people with experience on school boards or the city council. It’s those community service functions that the art of being a good legislator is learned. As one County Commissioner told me the first thing that he learned upon his election was how to count to three …. with a five seat commission, if he wanted anything, he had to get cooperation from at least two others. That on-the-job experience teaches how to listen to other’s concerns, compromise and resolve issues.
As I look at the afore mentioned candidates, that legislative experience is missing. Based on ideology, Franken might satisfy many in his party, but I need someone who can be operate within the system to advance legislation that will improve America.
If Betty McCollum wants to move up from the House, she meets my requirements.
From the Minnesota Legislature, Representative Joe Atkins of Inner Grove Heights has indicated that he is interested. I don’t know anything about Atkins – his philosophies or motivations. His bio states that he is an attorney who graduated Magna Cum Laude … impressive. His legislative website lists his press releases. First off, I noticed that he recognizes the role of our military. Specifically, his legislation that he offered in 2006 to provide body armor for the troops being deployed overseas.
Just last week, Reuters quoted the Department of Defense's inspector-general reported "Service members were not always equipped to effectively complete their missions," and here is Atkins recognizing that we have a duty to provide body armor. Once again, I am impressed.
Politicians are great at issuing press releases, but the real test is when that time of compromise is at hand … how they voted on the issues that matter. Using MPR’s Votetracker program, I find myself in agreement with him on issues that matter to me … abortion, government spending, voter ID, definition of marriage, etc. The only area that I was disappointed in was his support for stadiums, but considering that he is a U of M alumnus and represents the Twin Cities, that may have been a motivation.
As I stated, I did not know Joe Atkins before, but he is now on my radar as someone to watch. There are others that have been mentioned, such as State Senators Mee Moua and Tarryl Clark and Ramsey County Attorney Susan Gaertner; and all should be given consideration. Remember, this is not for homecoming queen, but for who can advance the philosophies of government that you desire.
For a meaningful election, the parties need an aggressive debate on the issues with the party membership deciding the nominees, not a backdoor anointing by State and national party officials.
Saturday, February 10, 2007
Does Dick Day really want to be a Congressman ?
SPECULATION : Dick Day is not running for Congress but just fundraising for Congress.
Generally people have an overriding motivation when they seek an office …it maybe issue or philosophy driven, such as : to end a war, to end abortion, to end poverty, to end same-sex marriage, to improve schools, to change an unfair law, to change taxes, etc. Heck, didn’t Jesse Ventura run for mayor for something as mundane as a traffic light?
Some may do it as civic responsibility.
Or for power.
Or to exert influence.
Or for ego.
There are lots of reasons.
Dick Day says he’s running because Tim Walz is a liberal.
OK, so that’s a reason … maybe not a unique or compelling reason. Day is a seasoned politician having spent time in the trenches – city council up to Minority Leader in the Minnesota Senate. Those are local jobs where you represent hundreds to thousands of citizens. Those are technically part-time jobs. Technically, the legislature should be in session for five months … lately with the inability to resolve issues, it has been the norm that special sessions are required since they failed to get their jobs done in the required time. Besides, the session workload, there are also meetings with constituents, community leaders, and governmental agencies. Yes, these are part of the job, but they may be scheduled based on your convenience. As a leader in the state Senate, Day can exert influence on legislation.
Compare that to a US Congressman who is in Washington for generally nine to ten months a year … and in the 110th Congress, they are scheduled to be in session Monday through Friday. The weekends are open for in district activities. In the House, you are just one of 435 Representatives with most of the power belonging to Party Leaders and Committee Chairmen. A new Representative may take a long time to move up the chain such as Michelle Bachmann who has been appointed as the 32 ranking member (out of 33 Republicans) to the Financial Services Committee.
If Day is elected, he would be 71 years old when 111th Congress convenes in January 2009. Somehow, I cannot comprehend that the rigors of being a freshman Congressman is what I would want to do when I turn 71.
So, is there another underline story here?
How about fundraising?
The Star-Tribune reported “Unseating an incumbent could take more than $1.5 million, and beginning an aggressive campaign after a spring 2008 endorsing convention would be impractical, Day said. He noted that he had raised $780,000 for his caucus last year, evidence of his fundraising skill.”
Ah, so is Day actually campaigning for fundraising purposes ? If the Republicans want to keep pressure on Walz and attract funds, Day is an ideal candidate. So for the next year, he schmoozes contributors and then when the nominating convention happens, there are a number of other candidates for the party to select. They select a younger, highly Conservative candidate and Day concedes that that candidate would be great nominee, closes his campaign, and sends his warchest to the nominee.
Pure speculation on my part, but I will revisit this commentary in the fall of 2008 and see if I am right. If I am wrong, at 71, I think it will be easy for Day to take the term limit pledge.
Generally people have an overriding motivation when they seek an office …it maybe issue or philosophy driven, such as : to end a war, to end abortion, to end poverty, to end same-sex marriage, to improve schools, to change an unfair law, to change taxes, etc. Heck, didn’t Jesse Ventura run for mayor for something as mundane as a traffic light?
Some may do it as civic responsibility.
Or for power.
Or to exert influence.
Or for ego.
There are lots of reasons.
Dick Day says he’s running because Tim Walz is a liberal.
OK, so that’s a reason … maybe not a unique or compelling reason. Day is a seasoned politician having spent time in the trenches – city council up to Minority Leader in the Minnesota Senate. Those are local jobs where you represent hundreds to thousands of citizens. Those are technically part-time jobs. Technically, the legislature should be in session for five months … lately with the inability to resolve issues, it has been the norm that special sessions are required since they failed to get their jobs done in the required time. Besides, the session workload, there are also meetings with constituents, community leaders, and governmental agencies. Yes, these are part of the job, but they may be scheduled based on your convenience. As a leader in the state Senate, Day can exert influence on legislation.
Compare that to a US Congressman who is in Washington for generally nine to ten months a year … and in the 110th Congress, they are scheduled to be in session Monday through Friday. The weekends are open for in district activities. In the House, you are just one of 435 Representatives with most of the power belonging to Party Leaders and Committee Chairmen. A new Representative may take a long time to move up the chain such as Michelle Bachmann who has been appointed as the 32 ranking member (out of 33 Republicans) to the Financial Services Committee.
If Day is elected, he would be 71 years old when 111th Congress convenes in January 2009. Somehow, I cannot comprehend that the rigors of being a freshman Congressman is what I would want to do when I turn 71.
So, is there another underline story here?
How about fundraising?
The Star-Tribune reported “Unseating an incumbent could take more than $1.5 million, and beginning an aggressive campaign after a spring 2008 endorsing convention would be impractical, Day said. He noted that he had raised $780,000 for his caucus last year, evidence of his fundraising skill.”
Ah, so is Day actually campaigning for fundraising purposes ? If the Republicans want to keep pressure on Walz and attract funds, Day is an ideal candidate. So for the next year, he schmoozes contributors and then when the nominating convention happens, there are a number of other candidates for the party to select. They select a younger, highly Conservative candidate and Day concedes that that candidate would be great nominee, closes his campaign, and sends his warchest to the nominee.
Pure speculation on my part, but I will revisit this commentary in the fall of 2008 and see if I am right. If I am wrong, at 71, I think it will be easy for Day to take the term limit pledge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
![Vote 60](http://img%20src=http://img.inkfrog.com/pix/ravendog/clic.gif%20border=”0"){kind=link}