Don’t tell Ron Carey, but Norm Coleman leads Earmarks race

The Taxpayers for Common Sense (TCS) has evaluated the FY2008 appropriations bills and determined that Congress inserted 12,881 earmarks worth $18.3 billion into FY2008 spending bills. Congress also documented more than $20 billion in presidential earmarks.

Evaluating the Minnesota Congressional Delegation, Norm Coleman leads the list with $10,780,000 solo earmarks while Keith Ellison and John Kline have requested zero earmarks.

Solo earmarks may not tell the total story, since funding can also cross-district needs. Kline for example did not assign his name to any project while all of Ellison earmarks were ones that the President wanted. Looking at the delegation in this manner, Kline would be first followed by Bachmann at $3,787,600; Walz in third at $9,562,500, then Ramstad at $12,472,300, and on.

Not all earmarks are pork-barrel spending.
They can be good projects that “promote the general Welfare” for the citizens. Article I Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution is clear … Congress controls the purse .. (No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law).

Bush’s FY2009 budget is a sham.
Yet as TCS documents above, presidential earmarks outnumber Congressional earmarks.
For example, Bush knows that the continuation of the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System (and other similar projects) will be funded by Congress. By not including these dollars in his request, he understates what funding is required to make the fiscal imbalance not as large as it is. Water and other related projects requests totaling about $1.8 billion -- some date back to 2000 (or essentially throughout Mr. Bush's presidency) -- are awaiting funds.

South Dakota Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin [D], Iowa Congressman Steve King [R] and Minnesota Congressman Tim Walz [D] have issued a joint statement of support for the Lewis & Clark Regional Water System project that would serve the three states.

The Lewis & Clark Regional Water System will deliver safe drinking water from aquifers near Vermillion, S.D., to roughly 300,000 people in a 5,000 square mile area.
Lewis & Clark will be funded … and it will be an earmark in the budget … and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. This is not “pork-barrel” wasteful project.

It’s a game. And part of the game may be who will sign their name to the earmark ?

I question how John Kline can say that he serves the people when he does not support any earmarks. I am proud that Tim Walz is fighting for our well being.

Why do I mention Ron Carey ? When The Club For Growth issued their RePork Card on House of Representatives votes on earmarks, Carey was quick to issue a press release condemning Walz. Will he be so quick now to acknowledge Coleman’s use of earmarks ? (More on the RePork Card in a future commentary.)

We can debate about what is wasteful spending … I question $97,000 to continue the "Lighten Up, Iowa" anti-obesity initiative, but believe that is in the country’s best interest to have a clean water supply. It will be easy for people to denounce earmarks, but we need a serious discussion about what the projects are.

Vote 60 : Norm Coleman Endorses McCain ( and Torture )

If Norm Coleman will support John McCain for President, why won’t he support McCain’s position on torture ?

During a Republican presidential primary debate, Fox News moderator Brit Hume asked the candidates about the use of waterboarding as an acceptable interrogation technique.
John McCain was the first to answer "We could never gain as much we would gain from that torture as we lose in world opinion. We do not torture people, " he said. "It's not about the terrorists, it's about us. It's about what kind of country we are. And a fact: The more physical pain you inflict on someone, the more they're going to tell you what they think you want to know."
When Rudy Giuliani was given a chance to responded, he offered a different view “I would — and I would — well, I’d say every method they could think of. ”

Two different views … yet Coleman was able to make a decision whom to endorse as the Republican Party nominee.

In announcing Coleman’s endorsement of Giuliani for President, the Star-Tribune reported that Coleman thought about the endorsement for awhile and based it on “Giuliani's strong stance on national security."
How could anyone endorse a candidate for President that has absolutely no foreign affairs or defense experience and state that it was based on national security ?
The President is The Decider and the duties are fairly well defined in Article II of the Constitution. As Commander in Chief, the President sets the tone for what is an acceptable interrogation technique.

Douglas A. Johnson, executive director of the Center for Victims of Torture in Minneapolis, wrote a powerful OpEd chastising Coleman for his announced opposition to an amendment to the Intelligence Authorization Act of 2008 would hold the CIA to the rules of the U.S. Army Field Manual on Interrogation (Section 327 of the Conference Report).

Perhaps, Coleman should read the letter Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, sent May 10 to all U.S. troops there: “Some may argue that we would be more effective if we sanctioned torture or other expedient methods to obtain information…. They would be wrong. Beyond the basic fact that such actions are illegal, history shows that they also are frequently neither useful nor necessary…. What sets us apart from our enemies in this fight … is how we behave. In everything we do, we must … treat noncombatants and detainees with dignity and respect.”
The following 30 military leaders who have endorsed this policy:
General Joseph Hoar, USMC (Ret.)
General Paul J. Kern, USA (Ret.)
General Charles Krulak, USMC (Ret.)
General David M. Maddox, USA (Ret.)
General Merrill A. McPeak, USAF (Ret.)
Admiral Stansfield Turner, USN (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Lee F. Gunn, USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Claudia J. Kennedy, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Donald L. Kerrick, USA (Ret.)
Vice Admiral Albert H. Konetzni Jr., USN (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Charles Otstott, USA (Ret.)
Lieutenant General Harry E. Soyster, USA (Ret.)
Major General Paul Eaton, USA (Ret.)
Major General Eugene Fox, USA (Ret.)
Major General John L. Fugh, USA (Ret.)
Rear Admiral Don Guter, USN (Ret.)
Major General Fred E. Haynes, USMC (Ret.)
Rear Admiral John D. Hutson, USN (Ret.)
Major General Melvyn Montano, ANG (Ret.)
Major General Gerald T. Sajer, USA (Ret.)
Major General Antonio 'Tony' M. Taguba, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David M. Brahms, USMC (Ret.)
Brigadier General James P. Cullen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Evelyn P. Foote, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General David R. Irvine, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General John H. Johns, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Richard O'Meara, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Murray G. Sagsveen, USA (Ret.)
Brigadier General Anthony Verrengia, USAF (Ret.)
Brigadier General Stephen N. Xenakis, USA (Ret.)

Johnson’s Op-Ed concludes "Minnesotans should be able to count on Coleman's leadership to help restore America as a global leader."

Coleman needs to listen to McCain.
They may have had different experiences during their youths. It has been well documented that McCain, a Navy pilot, was shot down in 1967 and spent 5 1/2 years in a North Vietnamese prison while Coleman was roadie for 10 Years After and attended the Woodstock Music Festival in 1969.

Now McCain may be busy on the campaign trail, so Coleman should have a direct conversation with a fellow member of the Foreign Relations Committee – Chuck Hagel – a Vietnam veteran who is championing the legislation.

I am one independent voter who could invision a scenerio where I would vote for John McCain for President and against Norm Coleman’s re-election … and that decision would not be tortureous.

Norm, do the right thing. Endorsing a candidate is easy … show some leadership and denounce torture !

NOTE : VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future Senate-related commentaries.

VOTE 60 : Minnesota loses out on Clinton and Coleman policy choice

Hillary Clinton and Norm Coleman seem to agree that an embargo is good foreign policy tool even if it is ineffective and Minnesota suffers.


This week’s Fareed Zakaria Newsweek column, declares that “America's approach toward Cuba is brain dead. No one even remembers why we've imposed a total embargo on the country. A policy that was put into place at the height of the cold war, when fears of Soviet missiles and communist penetration were at their peak, has been maintained even though the threat that prompted it has collapsed. What exactly are we afraid this moth-eaten island will do to America today? ”

Barak Obama’s Op-Ed of August 2007 described his position. Zakaria writes “Clinton immediately disagreed, firmly supporting the current policy. This places her in the strange position of arguing, in effect, that her husband's Cuba policy was not hard-line enough”.

Clinton is battling for a Presidential nomination and may be affected by the desire to garner potential Florida Cuban voters.


Candidates may say something to get elected, but then once elected, their positions may be different.

That appears to be the case for Coleman.

In 2002, when he was campaigning for Senate, Candidate Coleman distinguished himself from Bush’s policy stating “disagree with him [the President] on trade with Cuba.”

Coleman had to react to Governor Jesse Ventura's (as part of the U.S. Food and Agribusiness Exhibition) visit to Cuba. The trade group included St. Charles, Minnesota farmer Ralph Kaehler who was excited about new business opportunties.

Less than a year later, things changed as Kaehler complained "The difficult part, has been for the most part working with our government -- getting visas for Cuban livestock inspectors and veterinarians to come up and inspect the animals, like every other country does. That took forever. It's just fighting the politics side of doing business."

Further, Kaehler says Coleman is helping undermine the success of the Ventura trade mission.


On March 21,2003, Coleman was appointed to the Senate Working Group on Cuba . The mission acknowledged that the sanction policy has been ineffective and places America at an international competitive disadvantage and to address the issue of restricting travel to Cuba.

Cuba is the only country in the world to which the U.S. government forbids its citizens to travel. Republican Senator Michael Enzi has proposed Freedom to Travel to Cuba Act of 2007 . Interestingly, fellow members of the Working Group, (Baucus, Bingaman, Cantwell, Dorgan, Hagel and Lincoln are co-sponsors,) but Clinton and Coleman have not. Travel restrictions allow governments to shield their actions from public view … look at how people reacted after visiting to South Africa to see what Apartheid was all about. The best commentary comes from Congressman Jeff Flake (R-AZ) who sponsored similar legislation ”If my travel which I think is my human right is going to be restricted, then it seems to me that a Communist government ought to be the one doing the restricting -- not my own government of the United States of America.”

Yet another bill Promoting American Agricultural and Medical Exports to Cuba Act of 2007 also has widespread bi-partisan support from the Working Group (Baucus, Bingaman, Cantwell, Dorgan, Lincoln and Roberts are co-sponsors), but Clinton and Coleman are not.


So how did Coleman go so far astray?

Could it from Coleman’s battle with the United Nations and his allegiance to John Bolton ?

For 16 years the United Nations has passed a resolution condemning the US embargo, most recently in October, 2007 by a vote of 184-4 (the US, Israel, Marshall Islands and Palau against while the UK, Australia, Canada, etc denounced the US.)

On May 6, 2002 , Bolton alleged that Cuba had a biological weapons program and his confirmation hearing was highlighted by accusations that he tried to shape intelligence conclusions and punish intelligence professionals who worked on Cuba .

Coleman believes Bolton "was the best" of Bush's U.N. ambassadors

And what is the business opportunity cost for America ?

Cuban agricultural imports that America missed is $663 million in 2006Dollars based on US International Trade Commission analysis. It is not unreasonable to project that Minnesota’s ag-business could benefit $100 million directly and additional downstream dollars for other related businesses.

Coleman and Clinton are wrong. It’s time for the Cuba embargo to end.

FYI – The VOTE 60 in the title of this commentary refers to my effort to promote the importance of the US Senate races in 2008. VOTE 60 will be the headline of future Senate-related commentaries.

The Norm Coleman Challenge : Walk and chew gum at the same time

Norm Coleman said "We're a great nation and we should be able to, you know, walk and chew gum at the same time. We have to do both right."

That was his assessment after two days of hearings discussing one aspect of the Global War on Terror; but the real question is not whether America can wage war on multiple fronts on the GWOT, but will American leaders promote peace at the same time ?

Last week, Coleman in a lead role along with his Foreign Relations committee received reports from the Afghanistan Study Group [ASG] report sponsored by the Center for the Study of the Presidency (co-chaired by General Jones and Ambassador Pickering), the Atlantic Council report (co-chaired by General Jones) and a paper written by Dr. Harlan Ullman and others, “Winning the Invisible War: An Agricultural Pilot Plan for Afghanistan.”

The Taliban, which two years ago was largely viewed as a defeated movement, has been able to infiltrate and control sizable parts of southern and southeastern Afghanistan, leading to widespread disillusionment among Afghans with the mission.

"The prospect of again losing significant parts of Afghanistan to the forces of Islamic extremists has moved from the improbable to the possible," the ASG study says, warning that Afghanistan could revert to a "failed state."

Further Coleman said, "I think it's an indisputable fact that we have missed opportunities in Afghanistan because of what is happening in Iraq. We cannot afford to fail in Afghanistan. The mission is faltering. "

The ASG report is online and it includes a number of recommendations … one of which is the similar to a recommendation from the Iraq Study Group … namely “ Initiate a regional process to engage Afghanistan’s neighbors including Iran and other potential regional partners in the future sustainable development of Afghanistan.”

After the overthrow of the Taliban in 2001, Iran's relations with Afghanistan improved, their trade grew and Iran helped build roads and power lines in Afghanistan. Similarly, Iran continues to play a role in Iraq's economy, supplying Iraqis with electricity, household goods and food. Iraqi leaders from the Shiite bloc that are now in power have strong ties with Iran's governing Shiite Persians. Zalmay Khalilzad, U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, stated on Friday that Iran is stronger today because of the U.S.-led invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.

The reality is that engagement with Iran is the best chance for peace … from Iraq to Afghanistan and even to Palestine … Iran is the key. The longer America waits, the more entrenched, demonized and alone we become. If President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has accepted an invitation to visit Baghdad, why won’t the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee pressure the State Department to engage directly with Iran. The nuclear crisis with North Korea was at a standstill until the State Department started direct talks. The Russians are not going to support the US against Iran. The Senate cannot afford to wait until Bush leaves office … and the best ones to lead the charge are the Republicans …. i.e. Norm Coleman.

This plea has been made before and before. It’s time for Coleman to assume leadership not just occupy a chair on the committee. He needs to hold to the pledge that he made when he accepted the responsibilities the he would seek“ an even-handed approach to Middle East peace and an end to terror.”

“Walk and chew gum at the same time” is just the start of our challenges as Chairman Joe Biden lists Afghanistan as number one on his list but quickly includes Pakistan, Darfur, the Balkans, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, HIV-AIDS, non-proliferation and arms control, China, India, Russia, energy security and climate change.

Obviously, the order must mean something. Afghanistan has just been discussed and Pakistan is easy to understand but Durfur? Actually, if you read the news today, it is clear. The Taliban of Chad have moved from its Eastern frontiers have scored a strategic victory not only against the Government of the Chad but to establish Islamist-rule. Militants involved in the Darfur conflict have been attacking villages and towns in eastern Chad. It is estimated that 200,000 refugees from the Darfur region of northwestern Sudan currently claim asylum in eastern Chad. The GWOT is not Iraq but all over the Middle East and Africa. Overemphasis that Iraq may become a safe haven is shortsighted propaganda ... al Qaeda and the Taliban are spreading in other areas.

Coleman has an opportunity to do his job on the Foreign Relations Committee or look at a legacy of failure. Thus far his performance has been disappointing. While other Republicans on the Foreign Relations committee have spoken out, Coleman has been Blinded-by-Bush in his support for John Bolton, his attacks on the UN mission, and his failure to investigate fraud and abuse. The Defense Contract Audit Agency has reported that $10 billion of about $57 billion in contracts for services and reconstruction in Iraq "is either questionable or cannot be supported because of a lack of contractor information needed to assess costs."

Coleman wants to be re-elected.
Although I am critical of his performance, I am one independent voter who still has an open mind.
His best course for re-election is better performance … and it’s now or never time.
Don't do it to be re-elected, do it for the 28,000 troops that are assigned to Afghanistan and the 482 soldiers that have been killed.

Survey of Republicans supports Walz AMT position

Tim Walz expressed concern about his vote against HR 3996 – the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007 -- "It's an ad made in heaven for them".
My response was that the First District finally had a Fiscally Responsible Congressman.

Congressman Walz may be at ease … Republicans and Democrats support his position.

A survey of 1,527 likely voters conducted December 10-13, 2007 of the most competitive 65 congressional districts – 25 held by Democrats and 40 by Republicans - (which I presume included Minnesota’s First District) revealed an interesting response …. Not from supports of Democrats, but from Republican supporters.

Although Sleaze and Smear will be his opponent in next November’s election, his job will be to educate the voters on what the vote really concerned. The newspaper headlines were that millions of middle class taxpayers would be affected by the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).
Fear was working overtime.
But the question was not should the AMT be changed, but what about the lost revenues ?
The House Democrats had one idea … a fiscally responsible idea. In the end, Walz could have caved to re-election concerns and joined the Republicans or he could do --- what he did do – the right thing.

Read the following questions and you will see the real debate and how people responded.

Q.49 As you may know, last month the House of Representatives passed a tax cut bill. It protects 23 million middle income taxpayers from paying the Alternative Minimum Tax, saving them up to $2,000 in taxes. It also makes more families eligible for the child tax credit and makes combat pay tax deductible. And it allows those using the short form to deduct their local property taxes. To pay for the lost revenue, the bill increases taxes on hedge fund managers and investors who currently pay a tax rate half that applied to ordinary income. Do you favor or oppose this bill?

Democrats favored this bill 64 to 23; while Republicans favored it 61 to 21.

Q.50 Now let me read you some statements about this bill passed by the House of Representatives. After I read them, please tell me whether you agree more with the first statement or the second statement, even if neither is exactly right.
The Democratic candidate says, this bill provides critical tax relief for 55 million middle class and working class taxpayers at a time of a weakening economy and growing financial pressures on families. I support it because the bill does not increase the deficit. It is paid for by closing tax loopholes and asking wealthy hedge fund managers to pay the same tax rate as those with ordinary income.
OR
The Republican candidate says, this bill abuses the legitimate goal of protecting those about to be hit by the AMT, but it is packed with special interest goodies and raises taxes on investors that will hurt our economy at a time of uncertainty. I am opposed to any tax increases at this time. This country can't afford politically motivated tax increases that could push us into recession.

Democrats supported the Democratic position 63 % and the Republican position 33 %.
Republicans supported the Democratic position 54 % and the Republican position 40 %.

The Senate took a different approach, so the survey asked this question :

Q.52 As you may know, recently the Senate passed a tax cut bill. It protects 23 million middle income taxpayers from paying the Alternative Minimum Tax, saving them up to $2,000 in taxes. To avoid raising any taxes to pay for the lost revenue, the bill will increase the deficit by $50 billion next year. Do you favor or oppose this bill?

Democrats narrowly favored this bill 45 to 44 while the Republicans opposed the bill 44 to 52.

That’s right, people especially Republicans are concerned about the deficit.
If Walz was concerned about questions for re-election, the question need to addressed to Norm Coleman, Michele Bachmann, and John Kline -- “Why are you voting to run up the deficit against the wishes of Republicans?”

Two points.
First, the AMT problem has not gone away. The bill that was passed fixed 2007 but not 2008. Now is the time to address it. There is no doubt that some of the stock market concern relates to the uncertainty of the AMT. A quick resolution will stabilize the situation. PAYGO is the only way that makes sense. Walz is right.
Second, as Congress considers a stimulus package, attention must be given to the deficit. Federal Reserve Board Chairman Ben Bernanke, who is a Republican appointed by President Bush, said longer-run tax measures could actually hurt the economy. "A fiscal program that increased the structural budget deficit would only make confronting those challenges more difficult." Foolish suggestions like Michele Bachmann’s misleading titled Middle Class Job Protection Act HR 4995 that uses the current economic climate to push the long standing objective of lower corporate tax rates makes no sense.

Dick Day for Congress Campaign theme : “Smile and Wave While We Ignore the Real Problems”

Dick Day has penned an interesting commentary in the Mankato Free Press : “I’d like nothing better than for voters to speak up, to voice their toughest criticisms and their most honest frustrations without fear that they’ll be judged, silenced or ignored.”

Great … here’s my criticism … you are hiding from the REAL ISSUES by focusing on illegal immigration.

I thought you knew what the REAL ISSUES are based on the Day’s campaign website , “I want to hear what you really think about the war in Iraq and the troop surge. I want to know if you support traditional Social Security or are intrigued by new options. Where should our tax dollars be targeted? How are health care plans and school systems meeting your needs?

Please explain why you focus on illegal immigration when the Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll (released the same day your commentary was published) stated that the top priorities that Congress needs to address are :
#1, The war in Iraq;
#2, Health care; and
#3. Job creation and economic growth.

Your assertion that "I understand why Congress is nervous about the illegal immigration debate — they’ve chosen not to address the problem" … is not completely factual.
It has been addressed --but not resolved -- due to the obstructionist control provided by the Senate’s filibuster procedure.
Comprehensive immigration reform was debated as part of S 1639 but when a number of Senators including Minnesota’s Norm Coleman voted NOT to allow the bill to go forward, it stopped. So blaming “Congress” is too broad of a statement … blame the Senate … and if you feel so strongly, then as I outlined previously, run for the US Senate. Further, the border fence is being built and additional border patrol agents are being hired. (Read about it here.) Lastly, President Bush has spoken passionately about this issue and made it a top priority link . Bush has promoted this issue throughout his presidency, and while the Democrats are currently being blamed, the fault lies with the obstructionists.

Your obsession with the immigration issue has successfully produced campaign publicity, however, it has more importantly been a diversion for you not to discuss the REAL ISSUES.

Voters know how current First District Congressman Tim Walz voted on every roll call vote taken, but can you tell the voters how you would have voted ?

Let’s just look at some of the BIG ISSUES.

HR 6 - Energy Independence and Security Act was signed by the President with Congressman Walz affirmative votes. Do you side with Republicans Bachmann and Kline who voted against the bill (in preliminary form Roll Call 40 and in final form Roll Call 1177 ?)

HR 2419 - Farm, Nutrition, and Bioenergy Act of 2007 (aka Farm Bill) which has been passed by the Senate and the House. 35 Republican Senators (including Coleman) voted in favor of this legislation. Does this legislation coincide with your question of "subsidies for millionaire corporate farmers".

HR 3963 - Children’s Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act (aka SCHIP) 12 Republican Senators (including Coleman) voted in favor of this legislation while House members Bachmann and Kline voted against the bill. Bush vetoed the legislation. The underlying question is at what level of poverty should this program be capped? Bush limits it to 200 % above the poverty line, but some states – which may have more poverty than the national average – want it higher. For example, the Republican-controlled legislature in Ohio approved legislation for a 300% cap.
It is important for voters to know your opinion and not just assume that you would be against this based on your vote in the Minnesota legislature this past session [SF2171] and against expansion of Minnesota Care in 2005 [SF2278].

HR 3648 - Mortgage Debt Relief Forgiveness Act of 2007 was signed by the President. Do you side with Republican Bachmann who voted against the legislation or the 165 other Republicans who supported this bill ?
In some ways, this legislation is a death knell for the FAIR Tax (or FLAT Tax) agenda as it raises the value of the home mortgage deduction thus eliminating any chance of Income Tax Reform.

HR 3996 - Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2007 (known largely for side-stepping the Alternative Minimum Tax [ATM] question). Initially, the legislation provided for fair tax assessment for Hedge Fund Managers and Corporate Executive Deferred Compensation which was opposed by the Republicans (Bachmann, Kline, Ramstad, and Coleman) but once that provision was withdrawn it was approved over the exception of Democrats McCollum, Peterson and Walz.
If you are concerned about Social Security funding implications, the ATM question is more pressing as the Republicans in Congress for the past six years have extend the problem out one year at a time without addressing the long term impacts. And it will have to be addressed again as the president's five-year budget plan would permit the number of AMT taxpayers to explode again in 2008. This problem is a true example of your comment - “We deserve better than status quo politics — today’s “Smile and Wave While We Ignore the Real Problems” brand of government that ignores any issue that can’t be solved in a sound bite.” Since McCollum, Peterson and Walz wanted to balance the ATM tax cuts with equitable tax revenue generation, I would state that they are not ignoring the problem.

HR 3074 - Departments of Transportation, and Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies Appropriations for FY 2008 which Coleman and Ramstad approved but Bachmann and Kline voted against . This bill will approve projects that directly impact the First District (which may meet your question of pork barrel projects), but also prohibits the use of federal funds to implement the Administration's cross-border pilot program to allow Mexican-domiciled trucks into the U.S.


Obviously, the first session of the 110th Congress addressed many other issues, but these are just some of the key issues that relate to the questions that your website implied that you wanted to discuss - how tax dollars should be spent.

The voters in the First District need to know if Dick Day is a Michelle Bachmann, Norm Coleman, John Kline or Jim Ramstad –type Republican. Since you are concerned about “massive social service programs, subsidies for millionaire corporate farmers, pork barrel projects, and schooling, health care”, these pieces of legislation should tell us how you really feel.

From these issues, voters can decide … Will Dick Day be part of the Solution or part of the Obstruction ?

After all, we certainly don’t want a “Smile and Wave While We Ignore the Real Problems” Congressman.

Winners and Loser : Farm Bill, Death Tax, Politicians versus Me, the taxpayer

Gil Gutknecht aptly called the US Senate “the graveyard of all good ideas” and this week the Senate applied a lethal Double Dose to two good pieces of legislation. Gutknecht was part of the 109th Do-Nothing Congress and the Senate seems to be acting to ensure that the 110th does no better.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Tom Harkin said Thursday that "If we can't get a farm bill through the Senate that came out of the committee without one dissenting vote ... If we can't do that then what's the use trying to do it next year with the same Senate?" and effectively postponing the legislation until after the 2008 election And Republican House members seem to be in agreement. So lobbyists will continue to make contributions until the legislation is resolved. And that’s why there will not be any legislation this term … the politicians win.

We may – or may not – like the Farm Bill, but to pass it along to the next Congress and President is not only shameful but woefully irresponsible.

On Wednesday, the Senate held hearings entitled “The Federal Estate Tax: Uncertainty in Planning Under the Current Law.” What is at stake is potentially $24 Billion in revenues, but the statements by Senators Max Baucus and Chuck Grassley indicate a strong opinion that this tax loophole be continued. Ironically, Warren Buffet appeared at the hearing and spoke of continuing the tax. The argument is full of dramatic misinformation that these taxes are largely unfair inheritance taxes paid by hard-working owners of small and medium companies. In reality most estates don't owe any estate tax at all. Gutknecht like to talk how people like Buffett would create trusts and nonprofit groups to avoid paying inheritance taxes. That’s true and a separate argument … (why isn’t the same argument made when nonprofit groups are created to avoid paying ordinary income which is commonplace with sports stars? Yes, those monies can support a number of great charities (for example, the Pohlad Family Foundation)
and we thank them … but we helped created their wealth by our support) There are a number of tax planning strategies (generation skipping trusts, etc.) and a number of significant exemptions that apply such that the number of estates that actually are taxed are relatively small in number. The tax only applies to the amount over the exemption (for example in 2009, the provision is for a $3.5 million exemption).
The people who potentially may pay it are the super-rich. For example, here is a list of 24 individuals from anti-estate-tax families on the Forbes 400 list, 20 owe their good fortune to their forbearers, since only four represent the first generation of family wealth. In fact, since they inherited their wealth, they received step-up tax cost basis thereby reducing the capital gains tax (talk about double-dipping on the taxpayers !) These people are lobbying Congress hard (i.e. making contributions to their "favorite" candidates ... fyi - Mitt Romney's first TV commercial was about the unfair death tax.) And that’s why there will not be any legislation this term … the politicians win.

So this week, the politicians have won twice … by doing nothing … delaying and denying good legislation. So who lost … that would be the taxpayers. As long as the politicians don’t act, the unfair tax system remains in effect and working Americans pay while good programs are not enacted. The national debt rises and the US dollars loses value.

The House has done a good job getting a Farm Bill passed as well as the Temporary Tax Relief Act of 2007 (H R 3996) that would do a number of things including revising the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT) that impacts working middle class families. But that Senate's inaction proves the axiom is correct : “the graveyard of all good ideas”.
How will Norm Coleman explain how he sat on the Agriculture Committee that passed the Farm Bill, yet he could not get it passed by the entire Senate ?

Minnesota Loses while Pawlenty Backs Bush’s Ineffective Sanctions

Today’s Star-Tribune reports that “A deal with Indian company Essar Global to build a $1.6 billion taconite mill on the Iron Range may be on the rocks, just three days after it was announced, because of the company's developing ties with Iran.”

Earlier, the Star-Tribune reported : BANGALORE, INDIA - Gov. Tim Pawlenty's trade trip took a welcome turn Thursday as the governor learned that Indian firm Essar Global has closed on its acquisition of Minnesota Steel Industries and will proceed with plans to build a $1.6 billion taconite-to-steel mill on the Iron Range.[SNIP] "We are talking to them about timetables and about their expectations about what they expect from the county, the Iron Range Resources Board, and the state," Pawlenty said of Essar, adding he is hopeful that construction can begin early next year.

Yet, just a day before Reuters described the Iran project: “The facility, estimated to cost $8-$10 billion and which would be the first foreign-invested downstream project in sanctions-hit Iran, will boost the OPEC member's stagnant refining sector that is struggling with petrol shortages.” [SNIP] “Essar, owned by the Mumbai-based Ruias family, will take a 60 percent equity stake in the project with Iran taking the rest, said the Tehran-based and India-based sources.
"The priority of the new refinery will be to meet domestic gasoline and diesel requirements, and we will export the surplus products," said an India-based source familiar with the deal. ”

TIME OUT !

Pawlenty should be personally embarrassed by this episode.

Why wasn’t Pawlenty briefed by the US State Department prior to his visit to India ?
Pawlenty was previously scheduled to dine privately with the company's controlling Ruia family prior to the announcement of the MSI deal. He should have known about the company's Iran plans as Reuters reported in January that an Essar official stated the company wanted to strengthen its relations with Iran and was looking to buy into Iranian exploration and production blocks to help meet electricity needs for its planned steel plant.

This should have been a RED FLAG.

As mentioned in my previous commentary Coalition of the Only there is a 1996 US law which mandated action against any foreign company that prop up Iranian Government by investing more than $40 million there.

DUH. 60% of $8 Billion is more than $40 million. This was going to be a problem regardless of Bush’s ineffective sanctions.

What Pawlenty and residents of the Iron Range are learning is that sanctions hurt America.
Does anyone think that Iran will not be able to get foreign investment ?
America tried and failed to get pipeline project terminated between Iran and India. It is possible that Krupp-Thyssen may not pursue a steel production project with Iran, but that just opens the door for Essar. Read my commentary cited above for Russia's and India's plans. America has had a variety of sanctions against Iran since the 1980’s and even supported Saddam Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war. And we don’t seem to be able to get compliance … even from ourselves as The New York Times reported in September : officials acknowledge that the United States has not carried out existing Security Council penalties on several companies linked to Iran’s nuclear and missile programs

It’s time to end these ineffective sanctions.

Candidate George Bush spoke how he would act as President I view free trade as an important ally in what Ronald Reagan called ''a forward strategy for freedom.'' The case for trade is not just monetary, but moral, not just a matter of commerce, but a matter of conviction. Economic freedom creates habits of liberty. And habits of liberty create expectations of democracy. There are no guarantees, but there are good examples, from Chile to Taiwan.

As Baron de Montesquieu wrote in his 1748 work, The Spirit of the Laws, “Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who traffic with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling: and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities.”

Democratic candidate for President, Senator Chris Dodd recently observed “ the United States' most potent weapon against totalitarianism is the influence of ordinary American citizens. They are some of the best ambassadors we have.

Simply stated -- Trade is a building block for peace.
Yet Bush’s sanctions strategy is depriving Minnesotans of being the Ambassadors of Peace that we could be. If only President Bush would remember the words of Candidate Bush Freedom is not easily contained. Once a measure of economic freedom is permitted, a measure of political freedom will follow.

Governor Pawlenty should work with Senator Coleman and the other Republican leaders to change this ineffective stategy.

Coleman, Dems wrong on Iraq Federation Vote

On Wednesday, September 26th, Senator Norm Coleman broke with the majority of his Republican collogues to vote on Senate Amendment 2997 to express the sense of Congress on federalism in Iraq.

The Democrats who supported this were wrong and so is Senator Coleman.

First, if Iraq is to be a sovereign nation, it should decide how it should be structured. How would America feel if a foreign country recommended that the United States be broken up ? Based on GDP, California and Texas would be in the top ten in the world, so what if they wanted to be there own country? Oh, don’t worry, we in Minnesota, being the equivalent of Norway, could be number 56 in world rankings. Should we disband and each become our own entity ? No more Red State –v- Blue State ?

Iraq’s political leaders have not appreciated the Senate’s vote. In fact, The Associated Press reports “U.S. Embassy rips Senate plan on Iraq”
In a highly unusual statement, the U.S. Embassy said resolution would seriously hamper Iraq's future stability. "Our goal in Iraq remains the same: a united, democratic, federal Iraq that can govern, defend, and sustain itself," the unsigned statement said. "Iraq's leaders must and will take the lead in determining how to achieve these national aspirations. ... attempts to partition or divide Iraq by intimidation, force or other means into three separate states would produce extraordinary suffering and bloodshed," it said. The statement came just hours after representatives of Iraq's major political parties denounced the Senate proposal. The Kurds in three northern Iraqi provinces are running a virtually independent country within Iraq while nominally maintaining relations with Baghdad. They support a formal division, but both Sunni and Shiite Muslims have denounced the proposal. At a news conference earlier in the day, at least nine Iraqi political parties and party blocs — both Shiite and Sunni — said the Senate resolution would diminish Iraq's sovereignty and said they would try to pass a law to ban any division of the country. "This proposal was based on the incorrect reading and unrealistic estimations of Iraq's past, present and future," according to a statement read at a news conference by Izzat al-Shahbandar, a representative of the secular Iraqi National List.
On Friday, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki told The Associated Press that "dividing Iraq is a problem, and a decision like that would be a catastrophe."

Second, breaking up the country made actually lead increases in the Iraqi Civil War.
The national government needs Senate support … not interference.
Al Qaeda is the “poster boy” enemy, but the real problem is corruption and division within the country.
LA Times reports : BAGHDAD -- Iraqi and U.S. special forces have arrested at least 59 army officers and enlisted men accused in killings, bombings and kidnappings in the latest case linking elements of the Iraqi army to sectarian militias and criminal gangs, authorities announced Wednesday. [SNIP] The U.S.-Iraqi raid Tuesday on the Defense Ministry's military academy in the east Baghdad neighborhood of Rustamiya provided the latest evidence of the Iraqi army's continuing struggle to weed out lawless elements. Authorities said the academic dean was the ringleader of a criminal gang on campus. The group was wanted in connection with killings, bombings and kidnappings, including the slaying two years ago of the school's director, U.S. and Iraqi officials said. [SNIP] This month, the U.S. military arrested an Iraqi commander suspected of expelling Sunnis from neighborhoods and ordering attacks on American soldiers. The officer had led the Baha Araji battalion, a special unit created by the Defense Ministry under pressure from Sadr loyalists in government.[SNIP] The leadership of one of the top-rated units in the Iraqi military, the 2-2 battalion, was arrested on charges of homicide and kidnapping in the spring. Its members were accused of working in tandem with the Mahdi Army in east Baghdad.

Earlier A/P reported on the killing by Al Qaeda of Sheik Abu Risha, the leader of the new Sunni alliance in Al Anbar: Lt. Col. Jubeir Rashid, an Iraqi police officer in Anbar, said Friday that “Abu Risha's security chief, Capt. Karim al-Barghothi, confessed al-Qaida in Iraq had offered him $1.5 million for the slaying but that he was arrested before he could collect the money.”

Based on these examples, if Iraq was broken up, these "gangs" would become mini-military powers.

Third, if Iraq is broken up, it will cause more havoc for the neighboring countries … notably the Sunnis in Saudi Arab, the Shiites in Iran, as well as Jordan and Syria (which are already overrun with refugees/immigrants).

IF the US Senate wants a stable Iraq, it needs to support engagement with Iraq’s neighbors and not enragement with Iraq’s Parliament.

Norm Coleman : ChickenHawk Iraq Re- Solution

News Alert :
Minnesota Senator Norm Coleman has become a Co-Sponsor of legislation ( Senate Amendment 3096 ) that would require that President Bush change the mission of U.S. troops and set a goal of completing such a mission. link

Why is this a ChickenHawk resolution ?
Generally a ChickenHawk is someone who advocates that others go to war while they are not directly involved.
So, what is the “mission compeletion date” ?
If it were enacted today, the date would be just after Coleman’s Senate term expires !

Mike Ciresi penned an editorial chastising Coleman for using General David Petraeus patriotism instead of debating ”policies that affect people's lives and our nation's future -- not advertisements. ”
Ciresi advocates the right policy : ”Support a comprehensive surge in diplomacy and the convening of an international peace conference under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council that should involve all regional governments.”
Ciresi seems to be embracing a key recommendation of the bi-partisian Iraq Study Group which called upon the United States to “embark on a robust diplomatic effort to establish an international support structure intended to stabilize Iraq and ease tensions in other countries in the region.”

Sadly, while Coleman is hiding behind an exclusively Republican sponsored amendment 3096, he should become a co-sponsor of Senate Amendment 2931 which is a bi-partisian effort being advanced by three of his fellow members on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. This amendment is consistent with Ciresi’s outline.

I am not a supporter of Al Franken, yet somehow, he must be wondering if it’s time for an update on the chapter "Operation Chickenhawk" from his 1996 book Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot. The story details the exploits of a fictional Vietnam War squad made up of Pat Buchanan, Newt Gingrich, Phil Gramm, Dan Quayle, Clarence Thomas, George Will and of course, Rush Limbaugh (all who were of draft age during the Vietnam era yet did not serve in the conflict.) In the story, the cowardly and incompetent squad ultimately extricates itself from the battle by killing its gung-ho lieutenant, Oliver North (a Vietnam war veteran). In the update, those Republican Senators such as Coleman who are now refusing to enact policy changes during their term, will no doubt blame Bush after he leaves office for the mismanagement of the Iraq Civil War.

Does Jim Oberstar Know Best ?

Quick, how many of you recall the 50’s television program Father Knows Best ?

Well, not only is that a question but the series was actually based on the question: Does Father really know what is best ? Yes, Jim Anderson could not only lose his temper, but occasionally be wrong.

If Jim Anderson could be wrong, could Jim Oberstar also be wrong ? Not according to Oberstar when it comes to who knows best about transportation funding.

On Sunday, CSPAN Newsmaker program, link , Rep. James Oberstar (D-MN), Transportation Committee, Chairman was interviewed by John Hughes, Bloomberg News, Transportation Reporter & Kevin Diaz, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Washington Correspondent.

Diaz had previously reported that Oberstar plans to offer a temporary 5-cent-a-gallon gas tax for a national reconstruction program. Diaz speculates that this could be a campaign issue that some such as freshman Democrat Tim Walz may not want to have to vote on due to the higher taxes. (Personally, I find that speculation unprofessional … either get a quote as Diaz did from Ramsted but don’t take a quote from the executive director Club for Growth and imply that is Walz’s position.)

Oberstar correctly argued that the gas tax is a pure user tax. Yet, Norm (TaxCut and Spend) Coleman says ”I'm not yet prepared to accept a gas tax increase as the solution" and backs Bush’s assertion that it is a matter of priority.

In this case, both Oberstar’s user fee and Coleman’s prioritization makes sense.
Many Republicans embrace the idea of a Consumption-Based Taxes, so is Coleman’s reluctance that he does not want to actually vote for a tax increase … especially in a pre-election year ?
Where Oberstar fails is his impassioned defense of earmarks. He stated that Congress has a better idea on where the monies should be spent than individual state's Department of Transportation. That is a problem. A Congressman should consult with the state’s DOT and ensure that their needs are addressed. When the Congressman and the DOT disagree, there needs to be input from the state Legislature. The SAFETEA-LU 2005 legislation includes funding that Minnesota’s DOT did not rate as a high priority …that’s wrong. The complaints concerning the Alaska Bridge to Nowhere were expressed loud and clear by fiscal conservatives and the Main Stream Media … but they still got in the final bill. But that doesn’t mean that the monies are being spent … just last week officials of Lee County Florida turned down $10million for a project they did not want.


Recent polls indicate that Congressional performance is unsatisfactory in the voters mind. There were a number of reasons why Democrats defeated Republicans in 2006 … and corruption and earmarks were at the top of the list.

Congressman Oberstar, in this instance, you don’t know best. Blindly accepting the earmark system does not make sense. Yes, earmarks can be purposeful. They need to be discussed with state DOT and represent fairness in allocating the monies based on the America’s needs.

Bush defies Constitution and Senate, AGAIN !

Maybe Mark Kennedy was right when he said that the Senate does not need another attorney. But I don’t think a Doctorate in Jurisprudence (or for that matter a Doctorate in Remedial Reading) is required to see that President Bush has misread the Constitution.

Once again, Bush is exerting Executive Authority when the Constitution clearly intended that the Senate participate in their “Advice and Consent” responsibility. There was a reason for the length of the terms … House is two years so that Congressmen would be responsive to the immediate needs of the people … the President for four years … and the Senate for six staggering terms so that they would extend longer than the President’s term.

Bush’s latest excursion beyond his scope is in Article II, Section 2.2 of the US Constitution:
He shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur; and he shall nominate, and by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, shall appoint ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, judges of the Supreme Court, and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.
The President shall have power to fill up all vacancies that may happen during the recess of the Senate, by granting commissions which shall expire at the end of their next session.

The process is clear. The President nominates and the Senate confirms.

Originally Congress was thought to be a citizen legislature and it was not uncommon for it to be in session for only half the year and the other half as citizens attending to their personal businesses. The Founding Fathers recognized the necessity for continuation of government and included a provision to allow appointments that occurred during the recess period to be filled until the end of the Congressional term. Since the 20th Century, Congress is essentially in year-round session. The Senate declares a “recess” but in actuality it is a time period when they are just not voting on legislation. John McCain was certainly not “vacationing” in Iraq last weekend … more likely he was “fact-finding”. Senator John Thune held a field hearing of the Energy Subcommittee of the Senate Ag Committee on April 4th in Brookings while other Senators had informative sessions with their constituents such as Amy Klobuchar who participated in Connecting with Government: Public Forums with Minnesota's Elected Officials.

Yesterday, while the Senate was in recess until April 10th, Bush made a number of recess appointments. One has gotten a lot of publicity – Sam Fox as Ambassador to Belgium. Fox was nominated by Bush on January 9 but pulled March 28th, Bush withdrew his nomination. During the White House new briefing, Bush’s spokesperson was asked about it.

“Did senators threaten to put holds on him…

PERINO: I don’t know. I do know that they were — his nomination would not have passed today if the vote had been called up.

And why not let the vote go ahead?

PERINO: We just decided to withdraw his name.”

So, when the Senate Foreign Relations Committee (which Norm Coleman sits) was scheduling a vote, Bush pulls the nomination and waits until the lights go out in the Senate to make a recess appointment.

The Fox nomination is a clear example of Bush’s rejection of the Senate’s Constitutional duty … yet, technically since his nomination was pulled, one could argue that the vacancy became open during the “recess” period and Bush was within the guidelines.


But that is not the only recess appointment that Bush made. On November 13, 2006, Andrew Biggs was nominated to be Deputy Commissioner of Social Security, however the Republican-controlled Senate under Senate Rule XXXI did not approve his nomination. On January 9, 2007, Bush re-nominated Biggs.

In February, Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus announced that “ It’s time to move on to a real discussion about the long-term finances of Social Security and the Federal budget. ” Further, Baucus stated “Mr. Biggs has championed Social Security privatization in the past, and he continues to think it’s a good idea today. It’s a bad idea to give the number-two position at the Social Security Administration to someone who still supports this failed proposal. Baucus concluded that the Biggs nomination would not be addressed by the committee.

Besides Baucus philosophical concerns of how Biggs would lead the department, there was also allegations Biggs violated a federal ban on congressional lobbying by federal employees when he edited the prepared testimony for a lobbyist [named Derrick Max] appearing before Democratic Policy Committee Social Security hearing.

This is not the first time that Bush has used recess appointments – most significantly, John Bolton to be the United Nations Ambassador. And Bush is not unique … Clinton did the same thing.
Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, who also sits on the Foreign Relations Committee with Coleman, thinks the appointment may have violated Senate rules. "I seriously question the legality of the president's use of the recess appointment authority in this instance. I intend to seek an opinion on the legality of this appointment.


The motivation for the replacement of the Gonzales-8 US Attorneys was to be able to utilize a provision in the Patriot Act that allowed the Attorney General to make appointments without Senate confirmation. Once again, another example of the Executive Branch assuming powers from the Legislative Branch.


It’s time for Norm Coleman and Amy Klobuchar to address this issue … it should not matter if the President is a Republican or Democrat. Everything may change as a result of the 2008 election, so now is the time for the Senate to exert is responsibility. Two actions should be taken :
1. A Sense of the Senate Resolution needs to be passed informing the President that this is a violation of his authority.
2. A lawsuit should be intiated to have the Judicial Branch interpret the Constitution once and for all.


Link to news story

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.

Biden schools Coleman but will the student learn ?

Elections have consequences but can provide opportunities even for those that are not involved.

Case in point, last November’s elections saw the defeat of incumbent Republican Senators Lincoln Chaffee and George Allen who had served on the Foreign Relations Committee. With the new Congress, the composition of the committees, and sub-committees, has changed. Now with the realignment in the committee, Coleman has been named the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Near East and South and Central Asian Affairs. This Subcommitte is the big one as illustrated by Coleman’s comments : “I intend to use this Subcommittee to bolster the full Committee’s oversight of our Iraq policy. I also want to focus attention on the destabilizing effect of Iran and its nuclear program and support for terrorism. Additionally, I will use this position to continue to articulate my strong support for our allies as well as the need for an even-handed approach to Middle East peace and an end to terror.”

During Coleman’s first four years on the Foreign Relations Committee, the Bush Administration dominated foreign affairs as the Republican leadership allowed Bush to operate with minimal oversight.

Now, Joe Biden has started hearings that have featured an array of experienced and knowledgeable experts on international relations. The participants so far have ranged from military generals to former Secretaries of State. Although the impetuous may be Iraq, the general assessment is that is a regional problem.

For example, Lt. Gen. William E. Odom (Ret.) in his testimony stated : “Any new strategy that does realistically promise to achieve regional stability at a cost we can prudently bear, and does not regain the confidence and support of our allies, is doomed to failure. To date, I have seen no awareness that any political leader in this country has gone beyond tactical proposals to offer a different strategic approach to limiting the damage in a war that is turning out to be the greatest strategic disaster in our history.”

Zbigniew Brzezinski in his testimony encouraged the United States and the Iraqi leadership to engage Iraq's neighbors in serious discussion regarding the region's security problems, stating “It is ironic, however, that both Iran and Syria have lately called for a regional dialogue, exploiting thereby the self-defeating character of the largely passive -- and mainly sloganeering -- U.S. diplomacy.”

But most insightful were comments came from the Iraq Study Group Co-Chairmen, James A. Baker and Lee Hamilton. It was reported that Baker stated that the single biggest failing of the Bush’s current foreign policy strategy is a failure to deal with Syria and draw that country away from Iran.
“The diplomatic effort has not been full enough,” said Mr. Hamilton. And he added, “We don’t have the time to wait.” Secretary Baker said, “At the president’s approval, I spoke directly with the Foreign Minister of Syria.” Baker told a silent and stunned committee room, “I think we can get Syria back. I think Syria is ready to embrace a new direction.”

With all these experts focusing the attention on diplomacy, it’s time for the student to take a road trip to Syria. Coleman’s view of Iraq changed after his visit … and it’s time for him to meet Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

ABC’s Good Morning program visited with President al-Assad yesterday.
The Syrian leader insisted that “we can stop the violence." Al-Assad felt that Syria could help because "we have a good relation with all the parties, including the ones participating in this government, and the one that opposed this process.” He added that the US has "to stop looking for scapegoats and whipping boys. (If) you cannot start the fire and put it out if you start it, it will burn you." "This chaos in Iraq will spill over into Syria and other countries."

The Senate’s obsessive focus on Iraq resolutions has fogged them from pursuing actions that will resolve the crisis. I’m optimistic that Biden will lead an effort to improve relations with other countries in the region. It is in Coleman’s duty to actively participate in actions and not just in press releases.

Coleman & Klobuchar Need to Correct Funding Cut

"Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." -George Santayana The Life of Reason, Volume 1, 1905

According to George Bush, September 11 had changed everything, yet I have to wonder.

Although all of us will remember 9/11, I remember 9/10.
On September 10th , John Ashcroft submitted his first budget which although he sought increases in funding for sixty-eight Department of Justice programs, none were related to counterterrorism. In fact, he rejected the FBI’s request for $58 million for 149 new counterterrorism field agents, 200 additional analysts and 54 extra translators.
On the same day, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff informed Senator Dianne Feinstein that the draft legislation on counterterrorism and homeland defense would require another six months to study.

The consequences of the terrorist’s attacks were rooted in America’s negligence to repeated warnings ( the most recent being on January 31, 2001 when former Senators Gary Hart and Warren Rudman issued their report on the U. S. Commission on National Security/21st Century.)
[ NOTE : I am not a 9/11 theory conspiracist that believe the government purposely ignored warnings, or allowed this tragedy to happen to allow a rational to attack Iraq; rather the incompetence of the Bush Administration is to blame.]

America was unprepared before, but what about now ?

The Do-Nothing 109th Congress ended their session with nine of the 13 appropriations bills unresolved. The government has operated under Continuing Resolutions to fund operations through February. Last week, the House approved another Continuing Resolution valued at $463.5 billion to keep the government going through the rest of this year. Due to the need to fund High Priority Programs, other programs are being under funded.

What are some of the High Priority Programs?
Although the Iraq/Afghanistan War has largely been funded through Supplemental Budget Requests, which are forecasted to be $163 billion this year, the Defense Department has real needs. The House has included an additional $6.3 billion in increase funding for Veterans Health Care raising the total to $32.3 billion. Also, The existing Defense Department Health provision is increased by $1.2 billion to $21.2 billion. Weigh those costs against the FBI which includes an increase of $216.6 million to $6 Billion. A fraction of the cost of the budget goes to detection/prevention ($6 Billion for the FBI) while the Department of Defense budget is $432 Billion plus the costs of the war. And in FY2008, the Bush administration is seeking a record military budget of $622 Billion.

If some programs are classified as High Priority Programs, then logically there must be Low Priority Programs.
Last year, Congress approved $122 Million for the State Department’s Antiterrorism Training Assistance (ATA) Program and related smaller programs. These programs provide funding for airport security and bomb detection, coping with weapons of mass destruction and countering terrorism funding. The Bush Administration had requested $135.6 Million for the ATA program for FY 2007.
That’s a problem --the House doesn’t classify Antiterrorism Training as a High Priority.
That’s a mistake.
Words are nice but dollars matter. The House passed legislation on January 9th to bolster terrorism-fighting efforts by endorsing the 9/11 Commission’s recommendations, but the dollars are needed now and in the future.

You know the adage, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure … and I have no problem having my taxes raised to pay for detection and prevention … it’s a better investment than sending our soldiers to battle. Somehow the idea of cutting Millions when spending Billions does not make sense.

The Senate will next consider the Continuing Resolution. Senators Coleman and Klobuchar need to get the monies added to wage a Smart War on Terror. And if they don't want to raise taxes, then I suggest they cut the funding for DM&E. After all, the Federal Transit Administration budget is being increased $470 million.

Senators Coleman & Hagel debate Iraq Resolution

Watching the debate in the Foreign Relations Committee over Senate Concurrent Resolution # 2 (essentially stating that it is not in the national interest of the United States to deepen its military involvement in Iraq, particularly by escalating the United States military force presence in Iraq), I had to wonder what was discussed between the two Republican Senators seated next to each other. Both came from their home states to Minnesota and now find themselves in the US Senate. No doubt, their backgrounds and life experiences – and even their time in Minnesota – had to shape their viewpoints.

The sound bite that made the evening news, was Chuck Hagel imploring his fellow Senators to take a stand :
“This is a very real, responsible addressing of the most divisive issue in this country since Vietnam.
Yes, sure, it’s tough. Absolutely. And I think all 100 senators ought to be on the line on this. What do you believe? What are you willing to support? What do you think? Why were you elected?
If you wanted a safe job, go sell shoes.
This is a tough business. But is it any tougher, us having to take a tough vote, express ourselves and have the courage to step up on what we’re asking our young men and women to do? I don’t think so. When I hear, on both sides of this argument, impugning motives and patriotism to our country, not only is it offensive and disgusting but it debases the whole system of our country and who we are.”

Selling shoes may be something that Chuck Hagel knows about … as well as Vietnam. As I recall during his student days at Brown Institute in Minneapolis, he worked selling men’s clothes. After graduating Brown, Hagel returned to Lincoln, Nebraska to work for a radio station only to find out that Uncle Sam wanted him. He faced the draft, applying for a college deferment, or enlistment. He volunteered knowing that Vietnam was where he would most likely end up. Going over as a private, he returned as a squad leader with two Purple Hearts for battle wounds.

No doubt those experiences shaped Hagel’s viewpoints of America’s role in Foreign Relations.

Sitting next to Senator Hagel was Norm Coleman. The days of Vietnam were a little different for Senator Coleman as documented by City Pages which published photos of a “long-haired radical protesting the draft at Hofstra University” in 1970.


Those that served in battle seem to have a different vantage point than those that have not. Bush and Cheney have been criticized for where they spent their time during the Vietnam conflict. Meanwhile, John Abizaid, George Casey, and Army Chief of Staff Peter Schoomaker have made no secret of their strong reservations about sending large numbers of additional troops.

But this battle for Hagel did not start yesterday. Anyone who watched the Sunday talk shows before the liberation began will remember the concerns of Dick Lugar, Joe Biden, and Hagel. In their mind, there was never a doubt of America’s ability to depose Saddam Hussein, but the concern was also about the exit strategy. How many troops? What would be the mission? How long would we be there? What would be the costs? These are the same questions that all Americans are asking today.

Previously Coleman stated that he opposes the troop escalation in Baghdad (but would allow more troops in other areas.) After the State of the Union Address, Coleman said he was swayed by the President’s plea. His vote against the SR 2
was wrong. In the weeks to come, a resolution will be passed – maybe not Biden’s, maybe Warner’s – but a message will be sent to the President. Coleman will eventually fall in line, but in his first test in battle, he failed to heed the wisdom of a seasoned veteran.

Some may see the Senate Resolution as a rebuke of Bush’s decision to escalate the military action, but it has other important recommendations. Reading the resolution it encourages other nations in the Middle East to work toward peace and a reconciliation process for Iraq.

Engaging other countries is the crux of the solution. This week, Henry Kissinger writes :
“Diplomacy must mediate between Iraqi sects which, though in many respects mortal enemies, are assembled in a common governmental structure. It needs to relate that process to an international concept involving both Iraq's neighbors and countries further away that have a significant interest in the outcome.
Two levels of diplomatic effort are necessary:
(1) The creation of a contact group, assembling neighboring countries whose interests are directly affected and which rely on American support. This group should include Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Jordan. Its function should be to advise on ending the internal conflict and to create a united front against outside domination.
(2) Parallel negotiations should be conducted with Syria and Iran, which now appear as adversaries, to give them an opportunity to participate in a peaceful regional order.”

Coleman has just been named the ranking Republican on the Senate Foreign Relations Subcommittee on Near Eastern and South and Central Asian Affairs. In his press release discussing Iraq, he states “the need for an even-handed approach to Middle East peace and an end to terror.” I hope that Coleman heeds the Kissinger’s advise including a personal visit to Syria. This is not the time for partisan politics – mindless attacking or supporting the President – it’s a time for Congress to be involved in Foreign Relations.

Is Norm Coleman repeating Kennedy's mistakes ?

November’s election was not only an opportunity for voters to elect members for the 110th Congress, but also send a message to those that were not up for election this term.

A lot will be written that voters sent a message concerning Iraq that President Bush is ignoring, but was there also a message that Norm Coleman is not hearing ?

A main issue in the Klobuchar-Kennedy race was Medicare Part-D Prescription Drug program. Kennedy proudly defended his vote and ran alarmist commercials that "Klobuchar's plan would ration prescription drugs, increase wait times for medicines, limit choices and take drugs like Prevacid and Lipitor completely away." Klobuchar issued a quick and dramatic response stating that she would never do anything that would impact the medications that Minnesotans including those that her Mother uses. Klobuchar’s plan cited the Veterans Administration as a good example of the government negotiating for lower drug prices.

Tuesday, Coleman said “We’ve got a system now that’s working” and that he would continue to oppose government involvement in Medicare drug prices as he is concerned that price negotiation would “add another layer of bureaucracy.”

Coleman doesn’t get it. The question is not whether the system is “working”, but is it working in a cost effective manner? "Working" does not mean efficient. "Working" doesn't mean that it should not be improved.

On July 18, 2006, The New York Times reported :
The pharmaceutical industry is beginning to reap a windfall from a surprisingly lucrative niche market: drugs for poor people. The windfall, which by some estimates could be $2 billion or more this year, is a result of the transfer of millions of low-income people into the new Medicare Part D drug program that went into effect in January. Under that program, as it turns out, the prices paid by insurers, and eventually the taxpayer, for the medications given to those transferred are likely to be higher than what was paid under the federal-state Medicaid programs for the poor.

Fiscal conservatives like myself have long complained about the cost effectiveness of this program. During the last session, the Senate passed legislation that would have improved the program, but the Republican House leadership would not bring the legislation forward. The Democrat-lead 110th Congress has already moved HR4 to the Ways and Means Committee. The bill has 196 co-sponsors including Minnesotans Elison, McCollum, Oberstar and Walz. Senators Snowe (R-Maine) and Wyden (D-Oregon) re-introduce their legislation on January 10 - S250. Snowe and Wyden count 58 Senators as supporting their legislation.

Some form of this legislation will pass. Why Coleman does not see that he is not serving his constituents is beyond me. Alas, since the 2008 election will cost millions, he may be valueing donations and support from the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America greater than an improved and cost effective program that users and taxpayers will like better.