Congressman and presidential candidate Ron Paul ruffled feathers last month when he invited a US Army reservist to appear on stage with him while in uniform, while on live TV.
From This Ain't Hell, a march on Washington by military members who support Paul is apparently being organized for Monday in Washington DC. This raises two specific problems. First, members of the active duty military, or Reserve and National Guard an active duty orders, are prohibited by regulation from marching in or riding on floats in a partisan political parade. Second, one of the organizers of the event, Adam Kokesh, has a troubled history of wearing his uniform during partisan political events (among other things) and is a virulent anti war protester.
On the first issue, Congressman Paul has already caused a kerfuffle in the military by not only allowing but encouraging a Reserve soldier in military uniform to not just attend a political rally, but to speak on stage while on live TV. While the soldier is likely facing judicial punishment, Congressman Paul bears some responsibility for the mess as well. As a sitting Congressman, former member of the military, and perennial presidential candidate, I can't reasonably see how he could claim to have not known it was wrong.
If members of the active duty military appear at the event on Monday in the nation's capital, there is a good chance that they will be identified by photo or video, and Congressman Paul's campaign will have another mess to explain. Reportedly, an email from within the Judge Advocate General (JAG) office of the Navy has warned active duty members of the consequences of participation in a partisan event.
On the second issue, Adam Kokesh is a former member of IVAW, Iraq Veterans Against the War, a group notable for two things-the lack of actual Iraq service by its members, and their history of cheap political stunts, to include burning the American flag. Michelle Malkin has weighed in on Kokesh, as has CBS news, as well as mil-bloggers Blackfive and This Ain't Hell.
The comments running through the Facebook site for the event are full of Paul supporters who opine that they are morally right to disregard military regulations because of the political situation in our country today. While that may or may not be correct, it is important to note that the United States is a republic, patterned in large part on the other great republic in world history; the Republic of Rome. One of the principal causes of the downfall of that republic was the ability of individual politicians to sway the military to be loyal to them as individuals, rather than to the republic as a whole.
The extremists within Congressman Paul's campaign are toeing the line between loyalty to an individual and to the Constitution, and every time a member of the military violates regulations and orders to show their support for Paul, they motivate others to do the same. It is entirely possible to serve in the military and support political candidates, but the professional ethic of our volunteer military demands that we do so according to a set of rules that assure the public that individuals support a candidate, not the military as a whole.
Serious Ron Paul supporters, the large majority who support him because of his principles rather than as a cult of personality, should reach out now and stop this movement before it embarrasses Congressman Paul and the military.
Friday, February 17, 2012
Monday, February 06, 2012
In defense of the president
Bush Derangement Syndrome was (and still is) the tendency of those who dislike President Bush to blame everything on him, regardless of logic. That's how some liberals came by the notion that not only did Bush cause hurricane Katrina, but he delayed help to the affected because he hates black people.
Today some conservative pundits are coming close to Obama derangement syndrome by attacking President Obama for 'cutting hazard pay for soldiers'. This is flat out wrong, and here's why.
Hostile fire pay and imminent danger pay are two special stipends given to servicemembers in harm's way. It used to be known as combat pay. Currently, there are three major areas of the globe that qualify as hostile fire zones; Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Persian Gulf including areas of Africa. The financial benefit of hostile fire pay is two fold-soldiers get an extra $225 a month in their paychecks, and they qualify for the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion, which is a tax break that exempts all pay and allowances from federal income taxes. Starting this month, these special stipends are being prorated on a daily basis, a long overdue change.
The rule for the last two decades with hostile fire pay has been that you qualify or the benefit with as little as one day of actually being in a combat zone. For instance, when my unit flew into Kuwait on our way to Iraq, we landed at 10pm local time on March 31st, 2006. That two hours was enough to get us the $225 pay plus the tax exemption for the whole month of March. Does that really make a lot of sense?
But the real problem with the one day/whole month rule has been the abuse by senior officers. There are dozens of reasons for stateside soldiers to fly over to Iraq, Kuwait or Afghanistan for a few days; senior officers who are conferring with units under their command, soldiers who are staffers for VIP's, even mid level officers and NCO's who do short recon trips in advance of an upcoming deployment. But every time a soldier enters a hostile fire zone for any length of time they are paid as though they had been there the whole month. What's worse, it became routine for these trips to be scheduled so that stateside soldiers would be in the hostile fire zone on the last day of one month and the first day of the next, thus getting two months of benefit for two days of time in country.
The military's change to a prorated pay is a long overdue change that will not only save money, it will remove a thorn from the side of the men and women who are on the front lines by reserving full hostile fire pay for those who are actually in harm's way.
Conservatives have plenty of reasons to dislike President Obama. But going down the road of blaming everything on him is as wrong now as it was when liberals did it to Bush. No one is 'cutting combat pay' or screwing the troops by making this change, and those who are saying so should be embarrassed and apologize. In fact, they should be happy to see money not being wasted.
By the way, if you read that list of hostile fire zones above and said 'Kosovo?', you didn't mis-read. The US military still pays soldiers hostile fire pay for serving in Kosovo, even though the war ended more than a decade ago. As I've said before, it's a great example of the fat that can legitimately be cut from the defense budget.
Today some conservative pundits are coming close to Obama derangement syndrome by attacking President Obama for 'cutting hazard pay for soldiers'. This is flat out wrong, and here's why.
Hostile fire pay and imminent danger pay are two special stipends given to servicemembers in harm's way. It used to be known as combat pay. Currently, there are three major areas of the globe that qualify as hostile fire zones; Afghanistan, Kosovo and the Persian Gulf including areas of Africa. The financial benefit of hostile fire pay is two fold-soldiers get an extra $225 a month in their paychecks, and they qualify for the Combat Zone Tax Exclusion, which is a tax break that exempts all pay and allowances from federal income taxes. Starting this month, these special stipends are being prorated on a daily basis, a long overdue change.
The rule for the last two decades with hostile fire pay has been that you qualify or the benefit with as little as one day of actually being in a combat zone. For instance, when my unit flew into Kuwait on our way to Iraq, we landed at 10pm local time on March 31st, 2006. That two hours was enough to get us the $225 pay plus the tax exemption for the whole month of March. Does that really make a lot of sense?
But the real problem with the one day/whole month rule has been the abuse by senior officers. There are dozens of reasons for stateside soldiers to fly over to Iraq, Kuwait or Afghanistan for a few days; senior officers who are conferring with units under their command, soldiers who are staffers for VIP's, even mid level officers and NCO's who do short recon trips in advance of an upcoming deployment. But every time a soldier enters a hostile fire zone for any length of time they are paid as though they had been there the whole month. What's worse, it became routine for these trips to be scheduled so that stateside soldiers would be in the hostile fire zone on the last day of one month and the first day of the next, thus getting two months of benefit for two days of time in country.
The military's change to a prorated pay is a long overdue change that will not only save money, it will remove a thorn from the side of the men and women who are on the front lines by reserving full hostile fire pay for those who are actually in harm's way.
Conservatives have plenty of reasons to dislike President Obama. But going down the road of blaming everything on him is as wrong now as it was when liberals did it to Bush. No one is 'cutting combat pay' or screwing the troops by making this change, and those who are saying so should be embarrassed and apologize. In fact, they should be happy to see money not being wasted.
By the way, if you read that list of hostile fire zones above and said 'Kosovo?', you didn't mis-read. The US military still pays soldiers hostile fire pay for serving in Kosovo, even though the war ended more than a decade ago. As I've said before, it's a great example of the fat that can legitimately be cut from the defense budget.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
Tuesday, January 17, 2012
Judicial paragons
Walter Hudson wrote last week about the big debate of the week at The Late Debate-judicial retention elections. It was an excellent piece, and I can't think of a better compliment to Walter's integrity than this-he presented both sides so fairly that it was hard to tell what his own opinion is on the subject. I'm not as eloquent, so I will say up front that I fully support judicial retention elections, and here are the three reasons why.
1) I want impartial judges
2) Political parties fighting judicial elections leads to hyper-partisan madness
3) Conservatives cannot compete financially on judicial elections
As a brief review, here is what the proposal for judicial retention election would do; stop the almost always futile practice of running non judges against sitting incumbent judges in general elections, give judges a formal review based on input from their peers and those who do business in their court, and make it easier to get rid of judges who are out of touch with their communities.
Point one, impartial judges.
Call me a naive idealist, but I want judges who follow the law and the Constitution, not a party platform. Aside from the fact that the founding fathers never intended for our politics to be ruled by political parties, they certainly never intended for the judicial branch to be dominated by partisan politics. The judicial branch should be the wise elders who dispense wisdom and justice from an unbiased position. Is that naive? Probably, but if we give up on this simple tenet of the system of government our founders envisioned, we are making a dynamic shift away from their vision. Article 3, section 1 of the US Constitution says
But how can judges ever be deemed to have 'good behavior' if they are simple partisan activists, where at any given time at least 1/3 of the population will disagree with them simply because they are of the opposite party? See also Wisconsin Supreme Court Recall election, where the public confidence in the courts has dropped to historic lows after a hyper partisan election.
Point two, hyper partisan madness in the courts.
Outside of political activists of either stripe, how many people in US society today simply drone out a political ad on TV? How many people see partisan lit in the mail and throw it away as soon as they see a prominent 'D' or 'R'? A recent Gallup poll says that the majority of respondents don't identify with either the Democrat or Republican parties-they call themselves independent. Surely that is a backlash to the hyper partisan name calling displayed on the nightly news and on the front page of every newspaper. Whether that name calling is justified or not is irrelevant-the discouragement of the average voter is what matters here.
We already have partisan battles in 2 of the 3 branches of government-why would we possibly want to extend that partisanship to the third branch? Both political parties run the risk of either turning voters off from party politics and voting in general, or turning voters away and into a genuine third party movement. And for all those of you who say a third party will never happen in MN or the US, I'd remind you that both Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura led independent movements that would have been lasting had they both not been such fundamentally goofy individuals. American political history has a sad procession of political parties that lost touch with the people they claimed to represent and faded into the textbooks.
Retention elections would remove an unpopular judge and replace them with-wait for it-the next qualified candidate. Political parties would have no vested interest in mounting hyper partisan election campaigns against judges when they can't select the replacement. They could spend thousands to get rid of one judge only to have a judge with similar positions put in their place.
Point three, conservatives can't compete.
Have you seen the headlines? MNGOP 2 million in debt. Conservatives in Minnesota are in no position to try to go head to head with liberal special interest groups on judicial races. That didn't even work in 2010, when all three GOP endorsed supreme and appellate court nominees came up short, and who can forget how much special interest money went into opposing Tom Emmer. 2010 was a banner year for conservatives and the MN GOP in terms of money raised and dollars spent-and it was still not enough to win any major judicial election in Minnesota.
When you can finally admit that conservatives will be outspent if they engage in partisan judicial elections, then you have to remember the most sage advice on deploying your resources for battle-
Conservatives cannot win in a head to head battle for judicial elections. But there is a win-win solution; take politics out of the judicial equation and let the judicial branch remain impartial. The proposed amendment would create a selection board composed of members selected 1/3 by the governor's office, 1/3 by the legislature (equally by each party in both the house and senate) and 1/3 by the MN Supreme Court. There is little chance of a partisan gerrymandering of this selection board against conservative values, so why not call a truce in judicial elections.
We conservatives have a decision to make. Most in Minnesota already feel that they are locked in a battle for the direction of the state, and we fight that battle on two fronts; the governorship and the legislature. Those who advocate partisan judicial elections are in effect asking the MNGOP to open a third front in the war-the judicial branch front. While I am no anti war type, whether it is actual combat or political war, you can't commit to a new front if you don't have the resources available to fight it. Did the US open a second front in 1942 or 1943, when the Russians and English begged us for it? No, we wisely used our available resources where they could do the most good.
Judicial retention elections are not only a sound idea on their merits-removing partisan politics from the judicial branch-but they are a prudent path forward for a conservative base that cannot fill the coffers or man the defenses in a new partisan battleground.
I would encourage every Minnesotan, conservative or otherwise, to get more information about the proposed idea before rejecting it out of hand.
1) I want impartial judges
2) Political parties fighting judicial elections leads to hyper-partisan madness
3) Conservatives cannot compete financially on judicial elections
As a brief review, here is what the proposal for judicial retention election would do; stop the almost always futile practice of running non judges against sitting incumbent judges in general elections, give judges a formal review based on input from their peers and those who do business in their court, and make it easier to get rid of judges who are out of touch with their communities.
Point one, impartial judges.
Call me a naive idealist, but I want judges who follow the law and the Constitution, not a party platform. Aside from the fact that the founding fathers never intended for our politics to be ruled by political parties, they certainly never intended for the judicial branch to be dominated by partisan politics. The judicial branch should be the wise elders who dispense wisdom and justice from an unbiased position. Is that naive? Probably, but if we give up on this simple tenet of the system of government our founders envisioned, we are making a dynamic shift away from their vision. Article 3, section 1 of the US Constitution says
The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour
But how can judges ever be deemed to have 'good behavior' if they are simple partisan activists, where at any given time at least 1/3 of the population will disagree with them simply because they are of the opposite party? See also Wisconsin Supreme Court Recall election, where the public confidence in the courts has dropped to historic lows after a hyper partisan election.
Point two, hyper partisan madness in the courts.
Outside of political activists of either stripe, how many people in US society today simply drone out a political ad on TV? How many people see partisan lit in the mail and throw it away as soon as they see a prominent 'D' or 'R'? A recent Gallup poll says that the majority of respondents don't identify with either the Democrat or Republican parties-they call themselves independent. Surely that is a backlash to the hyper partisan name calling displayed on the nightly news and on the front page of every newspaper. Whether that name calling is justified or not is irrelevant-the discouragement of the average voter is what matters here.
We already have partisan battles in 2 of the 3 branches of government-why would we possibly want to extend that partisanship to the third branch? Both political parties run the risk of either turning voters off from party politics and voting in general, or turning voters away and into a genuine third party movement. And for all those of you who say a third party will never happen in MN or the US, I'd remind you that both Ross Perot and Jesse Ventura led independent movements that would have been lasting had they both not been such fundamentally goofy individuals. American political history has a sad procession of political parties that lost touch with the people they claimed to represent and faded into the textbooks.
Retention elections would remove an unpopular judge and replace them with-wait for it-the next qualified candidate. Political parties would have no vested interest in mounting hyper partisan election campaigns against judges when they can't select the replacement. They could spend thousands to get rid of one judge only to have a judge with similar positions put in their place.
Point three, conservatives can't compete.
Have you seen the headlines? MNGOP 2 million in debt. Conservatives in Minnesota are in no position to try to go head to head with liberal special interest groups on judicial races. That didn't even work in 2010, when all three GOP endorsed supreme and appellate court nominees came up short, and who can forget how much special interest money went into opposing Tom Emmer. 2010 was a banner year for conservatives and the MN GOP in terms of money raised and dollars spent-and it was still not enough to win any major judicial election in Minnesota.
When you can finally admit that conservatives will be outspent if they engage in partisan judicial elections, then you have to remember the most sage advice on deploying your resources for battle-
Consequently, the art of using troops is this: When ten to the enemy's one, surround him. When five times his strength, attack him. If double his strength, divide him. If equally matched, you may engage him with some good plan. If weaker numerically, be capable of withdrawing. And if in all respects unequal, be capable of eluding him, for a small force is but booty for one more powerful if it fights recklessly.
Conservatives cannot win in a head to head battle for judicial elections. But there is a win-win solution; take politics out of the judicial equation and let the judicial branch remain impartial. The proposed amendment would create a selection board composed of members selected 1/3 by the governor's office, 1/3 by the legislature (equally by each party in both the house and senate) and 1/3 by the MN Supreme Court. There is little chance of a partisan gerrymandering of this selection board against conservative values, so why not call a truce in judicial elections.
We conservatives have a decision to make. Most in Minnesota already feel that they are locked in a battle for the direction of the state, and we fight that battle on two fronts; the governorship and the legislature. Those who advocate partisan judicial elections are in effect asking the MNGOP to open a third front in the war-the judicial branch front. While I am no anti war type, whether it is actual combat or political war, you can't commit to a new front if you don't have the resources available to fight it. Did the US open a second front in 1942 or 1943, when the Russians and English begged us for it? No, we wisely used our available resources where they could do the most good.
Judicial retention elections are not only a sound idea on their merits-removing partisan politics from the judicial branch-but they are a prudent path forward for a conservative base that cannot fill the coffers or man the defenses in a new partisan battleground.
I would encourage every Minnesotan, conservative or otherwise, to get more information about the proposed idea before rejecting it out of hand.
Wednesday, January 04, 2012
The story from last night that no one is talking about
Update 3- The Army moves fast when you piss them off. Stars and Stripes reports that the Army has already opened an investigation into CPL PV1 Thorsen.
Update 2-I wrote below that he is probably in line for an Article 15, but since his conduct was beyond dumb. He showed up at a political rally in uniform, which is bad. Then he did an interview in uniform, which is worse. And to prove that he wasn't having any doubts about his actions, he went up on stage at a political rally and spoke on behalf or a partisan political candidate. This is a clear example of when a court martial is appropriate.
Update-the CNN video identifies the soldier as Corporal Jesse Thorsen, and AKO lists Thorsen as a member of the Army Reserve with the 402nd Sapper Co out of Des Moines. I think CPL Thorsen has some explaining to do today.
Why did a soldier in uniform stand on stage last night with Ron Paul, in a clear violation of military regulations? Why is no one talking about it? And why did some networks alter the video?
Here is a photo from the Daily Mail, showing a young man is US Army ACU's-
Paul identifies the man as Jesse Thorson, a 10 year soldier who has deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan, and the uniform would seem to bear that out. His rank is hard to see, but looks like either two stripes of a corporal, or possibly three stripes of a sergeant. Either one makes him a non commissioned officer who should know military regs on uniforms and politics. On the top right of the uniform (as you see it in the photo) is a skill badge that appears to be a CIB (Combat Infantry Badge) Combat Action Badge given for direct combat with the enemy. On his right sleeve is the US flag, and what looks like a unit patch below it, indicating service in a combat zone.
All of the above is bad enough-whether Thorson is a corporal or sergeant, he is likely to be a private very soon, and a bit lighter in the wallet. Most people would assume he will be court martialled, but more likely will be an Article 15 punishment-loss of rank and forfeiture of 1/2 base pay for up to three months.
But then the plot thickens-CNN video of the event available on a Ron Paul website blurs out the soldiers name and US Army patches (left and right chest) as well as the US flag patch and combat patch on the right sleeve. (Shown clearly at the 1 minute 10 second mark). it looks like an attempt was made to blur the unit patch as well but failed. So the question is did CNN edit the video or did the website?
I've embedded the video below, in case it disappears from the Paul site.
Ron Paul and conspiracy theories go hand in hand, but this?d
Update 2-I wrote below that he is probably in line for an Article 15, but since his conduct was beyond dumb. He showed up at a political rally in uniform, which is bad. Then he did an interview in uniform, which is worse. And to prove that he wasn't having any doubts about his actions, he went up on stage at a political rally and spoke on behalf or a partisan political candidate. This is a clear example of when a court martial is appropriate.
Update-the CNN video identifies the soldier as Corporal Jesse Thorsen, and AKO lists Thorsen as a member of the Army Reserve with the 402nd Sapper Co out of Des Moines. I think CPL Thorsen has some explaining to do today.
Why did a soldier in uniform stand on stage last night with Ron Paul, in a clear violation of military regulations? Why is no one talking about it? And why did some networks alter the video?
Here is a photo from the Daily Mail, showing a young man is US Army ACU's-
All of the above is bad enough-whether Thorson is a corporal or sergeant, he is likely to be a private very soon, and a bit lighter in the wallet. Most people would assume he will be court martialled, but more likely will be an Article 15 punishment-loss of rank and forfeiture of 1/2 base pay for up to three months.
But then the plot thickens-CNN video of the event available on a Ron Paul website blurs out the soldiers name and US Army patches (left and right chest) as well as the US flag patch and combat patch on the right sleeve. (Shown clearly at the 1 minute 10 second mark). it looks like an attempt was made to blur the unit patch as well but failed. So the question is did CNN edit the video or did the website?
I've embedded the video below, in case it disappears from the Paul site.
Ron Paul and conspiracy theories go hand in hand, but this?d
Monday, November 14, 2011
Winning photo
Beyond the Yellow Ribbon ran a photo contest in honor of Veteran's Day. The photo posted on their Facebook page with the most likes would win a stay at the Edgewater Resort in Duluth. Tons of great photos were submitted, but here is the winner-
Congratulations to SPC Brian Meeks, his wife Alicia, and of course little Thomas, 10 days old in this photo.
You can get more info and updates on the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon program at their website.
Congratulations to SPC Brian Meeks, his wife Alicia, and of course little Thomas, 10 days old in this photo.
You can get more info and updates on the Beyond the Yellow Ribbon program at their website.
Tuesday, November 01, 2011
Wrong on principle
The latest twist in the Vikings stadium debate involves Republicans in the legislature talking about using funds from the 2009 Legacy Amendment for the state portion of the proposed costs. On the face of it, this seems like a clever way to use an existing tax stream that conservatives generally opposed to solve the perennial problem of paying for a stadium. But it is really just wrong on principle.
While almost everyone in the state supports the idea that we should
With the GOP majority in the legislature last session, conservatives realized that they had the ability to ask the voters to repeal the legacy amendment directly, something that hadn't been fully considered when the DFL dominated both houses. Repealing the legacy amendment would be perfectly in keeping with the principles of conservatism-lower taxes, smaller government, and more accountability of elected officials by the voters.
Now, someone in the last few weeks had what they thought was a clever idea-instead of reducing taxes by repealing the legacy amendment, let's just use that tax stream to fund the stadium, therefore being able to say with a straight face that we didn't raise taxes for a stadium. The problem of course, is that two wrongs don't make a right. But what is worse, is that we are confusing conservative principles with conservative populism.
First, there is no need to repeal the Legacy Amendment. By passing the Legacy Amendment, Minnesotans emphatically stated that funding for the arts, outdoors and culture should be high priorities when the government decides how to spend our tax dollars. And the amendment will sunset by law in 2034, so it will not be permanent. So rather than fight the battle of repealing the amendment, which involves placing a repeal question on the ballot and convincing voters to vote down what they just voted for a few years ago, the legislature has a simple solution-lower the state sales tax rate by .375 percent. What was a tax increase to fund the outdoors and arts simply becomes a dedicated funding source. The sales tax rate in Minnesota has always gone up, never down, so this would be a simple and very visible tax to lower that the average voter would see and understand.
Second, conservatives need to see past their own rhetoric on stadium funding. While no true conservative should ever agree to raise taxes for a stadium for a private business such as the Minnesota Vikings, the state can easily contribute 300 million dollars while spending little or nothing. Consider it in terms of the mortgage most people have on their house-the state bonds $300 million for the stadium, and then charges the the team rent of 10 million per year, with a guaranteed lease of 30 years. The Vikings will have repaid every dollar of principle, and even with the state's downgraded credit rating the interest rate will be incredibly low. This very scenario is part of the Vikings current stadium plan.
The Republican party fell out of favor with many conservatives in the last 20 years when it let principle fade to the background in favor of populism and getting reelected. Redirecting legacy money to a Vikings stadium is exactly the type of cheap gimmick that got the party in trouble and out of power. Conversely, refusing to let the state be involved at all, even when a fiscally conservative plan is proposed, is little more than cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Common sense adherence to conservative principles should be the mantra of every Republican.
While almost everyone in the state supports the idea that we should
protect our drinking water sources; to protect, enhance, and restore our wetlands, prairies, forests, and fish, game, and wildlife habitat; to preserve our arts and cultural heritage; to support our parks and trails; and to protect, enhance, and restore our lakes, rivers, streams, and groundwaterthe debate was over mandating a new tax to pay for it. Everything listed in the amendment falls just outside of the core services the state should provide; infrastructure, public safety and education, but they are all mostly in the second tier of services that most residents feel is reasonable and justified for the government to spend money on. But instead of trusting to our elected legislators to provide funding for items covered in the legacy amendment, we the people went over the legislature's heads to require that money be spent. Not that we required money to be spent wisely, mind you, but we required it to be taxed, collected, and spent.
With the GOP majority in the legislature last session, conservatives realized that they had the ability to ask the voters to repeal the legacy amendment directly, something that hadn't been fully considered when the DFL dominated both houses. Repealing the legacy amendment would be perfectly in keeping with the principles of conservatism-lower taxes, smaller government, and more accountability of elected officials by the voters.
Now, someone in the last few weeks had what they thought was a clever idea-instead of reducing taxes by repealing the legacy amendment, let's just use that tax stream to fund the stadium, therefore being able to say with a straight face that we didn't raise taxes for a stadium. The problem of course, is that two wrongs don't make a right. But what is worse, is that we are confusing conservative principles with conservative populism.
First, there is no need to repeal the Legacy Amendment. By passing the Legacy Amendment, Minnesotans emphatically stated that funding for the arts, outdoors and culture should be high priorities when the government decides how to spend our tax dollars. And the amendment will sunset by law in 2034, so it will not be permanent. So rather than fight the battle of repealing the amendment, which involves placing a repeal question on the ballot and convincing voters to vote down what they just voted for a few years ago, the legislature has a simple solution-lower the state sales tax rate by .375 percent. What was a tax increase to fund the outdoors and arts simply becomes a dedicated funding source. The sales tax rate in Minnesota has always gone up, never down, so this would be a simple and very visible tax to lower that the average voter would see and understand.
Second, conservatives need to see past their own rhetoric on stadium funding. While no true conservative should ever agree to raise taxes for a stadium for a private business such as the Minnesota Vikings, the state can easily contribute 300 million dollars while spending little or nothing. Consider it in terms of the mortgage most people have on their house-the state bonds $300 million for the stadium, and then charges the the team rent of 10 million per year, with a guaranteed lease of 30 years. The Vikings will have repaid every dollar of principle, and even with the state's downgraded credit rating the interest rate will be incredibly low. This very scenario is part of the Vikings current stadium plan.
The Republican party fell out of favor with many conservatives in the last 20 years when it let principle fade to the background in favor of populism and getting reelected. Redirecting legacy money to a Vikings stadium is exactly the type of cheap gimmick that got the party in trouble and out of power. Conversely, refusing to let the state be involved at all, even when a fiscally conservative plan is proposed, is little more than cutting off your nose to spite your face.
Common sense adherence to conservative principles should be the mantra of every Republican.
Tuesday, September 06, 2011
What color is the sky in your world?
The Winona Daily News editorial board pens an editorial today that starts out by decrying half truths, and then proceeds to tell a couple of full lies to try to make its point.
Responding to Rep Steve Drazkowski's skepticism of the rash of school funding referendums on the ballot this fall, WDN says Drazkowski is telling a half truth when he mentions the per pupil increase in funding, because of the funding shift that ended up in the budget deal.
But the next sentence shows the WDN editorial board is either partisan to the core, or unable to recall the details of the legislative session and resulting budget deal;
This isn't a half truth, a simple mis-characterization, or a bit of rhetorical exaggeration. It is a flat out lie, in fact it is two lies for the price of one.
First, the GOP legislature passed a balanced budget that had no school funding shift included during the regular session. That budget was vetoed by Governor Dayton, and K-12 funding was not the reason for the veto according to the governor. Saying the funding shift 'was the only way' the GOP could pass a budget is a flat out lie, and the editors owe their readers an apology.
Second, the school funding shift was an idea presented by the DFL and the governor's office. It was not proposed by the GOP, as evidenced by the offer sheet from the governor's office on June 30th. It introduced the idea of increasing the previous funding shift of 70:30 (70% of budget this year, 30% next fiscal year) to 50:50.
I have yet to meet anyone in Minnesota who is happy with the school funding shift solution, either the previous 30 percent delay or the current 50 percent. But for the Winona Daily News to state (not even subtly imply) that the GOP did not pass a education budget without the shift, or that the shift was a GOP idea has no basis in reality.
Editorial boards are expected to express their opinions on controversial issues-but they cannot create their own facts. The Winona Daily News owes Steve Drazkowski an apology and a correction.
Responding to Rep Steve Drazkowski's skepticism of the rash of school funding referendums on the ballot this fall, WDN says Drazkowski is telling a half truth when he mentions the per pupil increase in funding, because of the funding shift that ended up in the budget deal.
Drazkowski is half right: The Legislature actually gave a per-pupil funding increase, the first in a long time. That means every student is worth more to a school district than they were last year or the year before.
Yet that ignores what the Legislature did to those same schools. Instead of paying school districts the full amount, the state will now defer a larger percentage of those funds, causing districts to dip into reserves or, if they don’t have any, to borrow against the state’s promise of paying later.
But the next sentence shows the WDN editorial board is either partisan to the core, or unable to recall the details of the legislative session and resulting budget deal;
It’s called a funding shift and it was the only way the GOP-controlled Legislature, packed with more politicians than statesmen, could pass a budget.
This isn't a half truth, a simple mis-characterization, or a bit of rhetorical exaggeration. It is a flat out lie, in fact it is two lies for the price of one.
First, the GOP legislature passed a balanced budget that had no school funding shift included during the regular session. That budget was vetoed by Governor Dayton, and K-12 funding was not the reason for the veto according to the governor. Saying the funding shift 'was the only way' the GOP could pass a budget is a flat out lie, and the editors owe their readers an apology.
Second, the school funding shift was an idea presented by the DFL and the governor's office. It was not proposed by the GOP, as evidenced by the offer sheet from the governor's office on June 30th. It introduced the idea of increasing the previous funding shift of 70:30 (70% of budget this year, 30% next fiscal year) to 50:50.
I have yet to meet anyone in Minnesota who is happy with the school funding shift solution, either the previous 30 percent delay or the current 50 percent. But for the Winona Daily News to state (not even subtly imply) that the GOP did not pass a education budget without the shift, or that the shift was a GOP idea has no basis in reality.
Editorial boards are expected to express their opinions on controversial issues-but they cannot create their own facts. The Winona Daily News owes Steve Drazkowski an apology and a correction.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
