My dear friend and co-founder of True North Andy What's-his-name had a post up yesterday about the National Taxpayers Union Congressional Report Card. In it he (and the NTU) were down on Senator Coleman - giving him a grade of C-. I just have one problem with the National Taxpayers Union Report Card. It only records votes. It does not record things like this from ABC News.

Talk about eating at the government trough. Some $13,000 of your tax money was spent on steak, crab and 40 bottles of wine at one high-end steakhouse chain for 81 postal service workers — a $160 per person meal — and it was all charged to government purchase cards.
A National Science Foundation worker used her card to spend $1,800 for manicures and cosmetics at a nail salon chain. One NASA employee spent $800 on two video iPods for so-called data storage, when he was actually storing his personal songs and videos.
"If you don't watch the pennies, they become millions, and if you don't watch the hundreds and thousands, they become billions," Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., said.
But who is watching? Forest Service employee Debra Durfey, 50, of Echo, Ore., used the program to write checks to her live-in boyfriend amounting to $640,000, over six years spent on gambling and mortgage payments. But no one ever noticed.
"It took a whistleblower to find out that she had written 180 checks to her boyfriend — it's the kind of problem that gets recognized immediately in the private sector," said Tom Schatz of Citizens Against Government Waste.
"Unfortunately, with our tax dollars at stake, it takes a lot more time to find out what's going on."
The government cards actually streamline the purchasing process, saving Uncle Sam about $2 billion a year. But the abuse and poor accounting cost millions, as in the case of four defense department workers who spent $77,000 on clothes and custom-made Brooks Brothers suits for service members. The suits were charged to their cards and cost three times the government allowance.

 Senator Coleman has used his bully pulpit in the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations to go after waste and fraud like this. As chairman, he was the one that finally started any investigations into the UN's Oil for Food Program scandal! Why does he do this? Because unlike our Junior Senator, he understands...

Coleman said, "Average people, regular businesses, take a look at expenses and purchases like this and have, in place, systems. Government should not be held to a lesser standard, if anything, the same or higher standard because it's not our money, it's your money."

 
The NTU would be wise to keep these kinds of taxpayer friendly actions in mind for their next report card.
 

Rep. Phyllis Kahn (DFL-59B) has once again put forward a piece of legislation guaranteed to pander to university students.

Representative Phyllis Kahn of Minneapolis says lowering the drinking age could decrease binge drinking among young adults because it would make alcohol less forbidden.
Kahn admits her House bill has little chance of becoming law.
 The bill would allow people ages 18 to 20 to drink alcohol at places that carry liquor licenses, but it wouldn't allow them to buy alcohol at stores. A similar bill is in the Senate.

 
The reason I call it pandering is that the University of Minnesota just happens to be in Phyllis' district and her endorsed challenger, Ole Hvode, just happens to be a student at the U.
 
There are a number of reasons why HF 3495 is bad legislation. One is that many 18 year olds are still in High School and they don't just don't have the sense of responsibility to keep from drinking and driving. We simply do not instill that sense into our children. Instead we put them through "zero tolerance" training via D.A.R.E. We teach them that alcohol is "forbidden" and you know what happens when young people get their hands on things that are "forbidden" don't you? Another is that this bill actually encourages drinking and driving in young people! The bill states that 18-20 year olds are allowed to drink in restaurants and bars only - no buying liquor and taking it back to your dorm where you stay off the roads...oh no - you have to get behind the wheel and go to the liquor and then drive home!

Rep. Kahn says that the bill will decrease binge drinking....that goes back to my second point. Americans have a rather unhealthy view of alcohol. What I am about to say will probably make my more social conservative friends cringe, but this is one place where the Europeans are right! They grow up with the thinking that a glass of wine or beer with dinner is ok - even healthy. However we seem to think that any kind of consumption is bad. As we have seen all too often, just because a child reaches a magic chronological point in time, it does not mean that they will know how to handle alcohol (or any of lifes other challenges) without a lot of good healthy interference from Mom and Dad and even then.....

 

 

Seriously, folks.  The Governor does not "hate" any of the cities.  He just did the hard work that the Legislature refused to do.  They were warned not to go over the 3% limit.  They were TOLD that if they did the Governor would veto.  They CHOSE to challenge the Governor and they lost.  It's politics and if you are going to play the game, you have to be prepared to lose as well as win.  The DFL legislature "won" on the Transportation bill and they "lost" on this one.  When our side "lost" on the Transportation bill we were told to "suck it up".  Well, it's turn about time kids....

 

OK - so I have had a wealth of material to work with today and then Mitch hands me yet one more piece that begs to be written.

 

How uncanny that exactly 40 years after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated during the Vietnam War (and some think possibly because of his opposition to the Vietnam War), we would turn on our radios to hear a Twin Cities radio host re-applying the principles of Hermann Goering to plans for the upcoming anti-war march on the Republican National Convention (RNC). If you listen (here), you won't hear anything resembling "Minnesota Nice" on Chris Baker's show yesterday, the program that comes on before Rush Limbaugh's. His vitriolic, denouncing rants came in bursts between interviews with a Minneapolis Assistant Police Chief and Minneapolis Police Federation President John Delmonico as to how the right-wing radio host "can't stand these protesting varmints", "these spitting, frothing at the mouth lunatics", including his opinion that "protesting is an industry funded by billionaires and communist organizations (and) they are well coordinated and incredibly dangerous."

 

 

Seriously folks, Ms. Rowley....take a chill.  I listened to the program in question.  Yes, Mr. Baker was over the top however, if you take a look at what some of the websites that are organizing the anarchists activities in both MN and Colorado, you would understand his concern!  All of these organizations are already advocating violence against the police and the convention or have a history of doing so!

 

The absolutely worst tirade, however, comes towards the end of the program after the interviews with the police, when KTLK host Chris Baker lets go with this ostensible incitement to violence: "So we've been talking about police protection during the upcoming convention when all those stinky protesters are coming. There seems to be a big debate over whether or not police officers will be able to wear helmets, carry shields, use pepper spray and tasers on this crowd. You know, I'll tell you what works on a crowd like this--a machine gun, that always works very well." "Mow 'em down, baby!" excitedly adds Baker's co-host "Jordan".

 

 

It doesn't take an expert on the First Amendment to recognize that suggesting the "good ole boy network" hand out ax handles and machine guns be used to mow a crowd down comes close to inciting violence. This inflammatory rhetoric looks no different than the reason we are not allowed to falsely yell "fire" in a crowded theatre. I can also speak from personal experience--having worked almost 24 years as an FBI agent--that such remarks would almost certainly elicit investigative concern if the tables were turned and such speech came out of the mouth of someone critical of the government.

 

I'm just curious what Ms. Rowley's remarks were when "progressive" talk radio host Mike Malloy called for the "physical torture of the Bush crime family" or if she waxed poetic in outrage when Randi Rhodes of Air America suggested that someone "Like Fredo, somebody ought to take him out fishing and phuw. ”Rhodes then imitated the sound of a gunshot."   Or maybe she spoke out against Sen. Dick Durbin's quip "Judge Marovitz used to say that his mother believed that President Lincoln was Jewish, Durbin said. After all, his first name was Abraham, and then, to confirm it, she learned that John Wilkes Booth shot him in the temple."?  Somehow I suspect not.

 

 

I have, in my virtual fingers, a copy of Governor Pawlenty's response back to the Legislature on his signature of the line item vetoed Bonding bill!

Dear Speaker Kelliher,

 

I have signed into law, with a number of line-item vetoes, the Capital Investment Bill, Chapter 170, House File 380.

I am very disappointed that the legislature ignored an understanding between my office and legislative leadership and my repeated warnings to abide by the state's longstanding debt limit.  It is irresponsible to exceed the "credit card limit" that has been maintained by governors and legislators from both parties for the past 30 years.  Doing so could jeopardize our state's strong credit rating and low interest rates.  The overall limit is $855 million, invlufinh $60 million already allocated in the transportation bill.  The legislature spent well behond this figure.

In addition, this bill reflects misplaced priorities.  As just one example, I find it inconceivable that legislators would fund a brass band music lending library and yet provide no funding for a much needed new nursing facility at the Minneapolis Veterans Home.
 
As a result, I have exercised my line-item veto authority to remedy the situation to the best of my ability under the constraints of the bill as presented.  These vetoes reduce the overall amount of general obligation bonding in the bill from $925 million to $717 million.
Reducing the bill to this level reflects my commitment to fiscal discipline and an attempt to prioritize important state projects.

The legislature should keep in mind that upholding the state's three percent debt service limit guideline is important to oir ovall fiscal well-being.  Debt service is one of the fastest growing items in the general fund.  Based on previously enacted bonding bills, the state's debt is projected to increast $239 million from the 2006-07 budge to the 2010-11 budget.
 
He then goes on to summarize the line-item vetoes and his recommendations.  I will cover those in other posts.
 

Oh is the backside story (of the AG Swanson investigation) getting interesting! Minnpost has a story today of an email that was sent by DFL Rep Debra Hillstrom (Duluth) to her some of colleagues in the DFL caucus (HT MDE)

 

Now MinnPost has obtained an email sent Monday by Rep. Debra Hilstrom, DFL-Brooklyn Center, doubting the motives of Simon's efforts.
 
Simon, in turn, is defending himself and said — without naming names — people are "engaging in character assassination."
 
Hilstrom's email was sent to a number of House members, and carried the subject line "In the interest of full disclosure."

The disclosure was simple and quite telling...

Hilstrom, a fourth-term lawmaker, notes that she is an intern in the law office of former Attorney General Mike Hatch, Swanson's predecessor and ally.

"I have talked to Mike Hatch," Hilstrom wrote. "I think that as long as Representative Simon spends his time talking about his time working down the
hall from Lori Swanson, he ought to disclose to people the facts and circumstances under which he was transferred without his consent from the consumer division to the education division by Lori Swanson."

So Rep. Hillstrom, under the guise of "full disclosure" is infering that a fellow caucus member is being less than honest about his tenure in the AG office.

As I said before...this is not an matter of left and right...it is a matter of right and wrong. Apparently there are some people in the DFL that don't appreciate the fact that Rep. Simon was just trying to do the right thing and they are making it political. That's fine by me, because it just goes to show everyone that they are only about attaining power...not about doing what is right for the people of Minnesota.

Neal Boortz has a column up today that needs to be read.

Jeff Jacoby hits on an unintended consequence of abortions that my feminist sisters are curiously silent on.

 

THE UNFETTERED "right to choose" is a progressive value, we are instructed by the abortion lobby - one indispensable to the empowerment of women. But a new study in PNAS (the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) prompts an awkward question: How exactly are American women empowered when abortion is
deployed to prevent the existence of American girls?

 

This something that conservatives have long been concerned about.  Our concerns have also been long pooh-poohed by our feminist sisters..."oh abortion will never be used for that..." they tell us. 

 

Population experts have documented for years the use of abortion for sex selection in regions of the world where sons are more highly prized than daughters.

 

But is that really happening here in the US (as Jacoby claims)?  A pro-life organization says "yes".

 

The practice of sex-selection abortions is most commonly associated with the cultural mores of Asian nations like China or India. But a new report indicates the influx of immigrants to the United States has brought the grisly practice here and census data is beginning to show a slight gender imbalance as a result.
Asian culture values sons as they are looked to for carrying on the family name and inheriting property and possessions. In India, girls are seen as an expense that poor and middle class families can't afford due to costly dowries.

 

 

The Speaker of the Minnesota House decided to play economics professor in yesterdays Star Tribune.

 

An interesting thing happened April Fools' Day at many gas stations: The price at the pump actually dropped, locally and across the state. Keep in mind that this was the day Minnesota actually added to the gas tax for the first time in 20 years.

 

 

By now, we are all too well aware of the volatile nature of global energy markets. Threats from world leaders made thousands of miles away or a hurricane closer to home can cause the price of oil to reach new records. More recently, the weakening dollar has pushed it up over $100 a barrel.

 

While this continues year after year, states are struggling to find money to keep roads from crumbling. Borrowing has become a popular alternative to the gas tax, which is constitutionally dedicated to pay for roads and bridges. Here in Minnesota, the debt on the highway fund has grown by 650 percent in just the past five years. Our tax dollars are being diverted to pay off that debt instead of being used to fix roads and bridges.

 

Well I can think of one way to correct that.....how about we quit diverting transportation dollars (dollars that are supposed to go to roads and bridges) to things like transportation and bike trails? As has been discussed in the past, the majority of the $6.6 million dollars in the last "transportation" bill goes to transit and other non-road projects! 

 

This spring, Minnesotans will see highway crews finally going to work on
long-neglected stretches of road.

 

 

Our tax dollars are being diverted to pay off that debt instead of being used to fix roads and bridges.

 

Um, no....our tax dollars that should be going to roads are going to things like bike trails and fighting obesity....how do those projects fix our "long-neglected roads"?

 

Republicans and Democrats now seem to agree that Minnesotans voted for change in
2006. They voted to invest in our schools, not for more cuts. They want affordable health care to become a reality and not just a slogan.

 

Actually what the people did not vote for was going from a $2.2 billion surplus to a $925 million deficit!  What we did not vote for was the government taking over every single aspect of our lives and we did NOT vote for a failing economy.  What the people voted on were candidates that "claimed" to be more fiscally moderate than the Republicans who were in office.  As we have seen in the last 12 months, thi DFL caucus is anything BUT fiscally moderate....contrary to the Speaker's claims. 

We've all seen the bumper stickers...."Better a Bleeding Heart Than None At All" and "Republicans Are People Too....Mean, Selfish, Greedy People" but how accurate are those statements?

Sixteen months ago, Arthur C. Brooks, a professor at Syracuse University, published "Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism." The surprise is that liberals are markedly less charitable than conservatives.If many conservatives are liberals who have been mugged by reality, Brooks, a registered independent, is, as a reviewer of his book said, a social scientist who has been mugged by data. They include these findings:Although liberal families' incomes average 6 percent higher than those of conservative families, conservative-headed households give, on average, 30 percent more to charity than the average liberal-headed household ($1,600 per year vs. $1,227).

Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.

Residents of the states that voted for John Kerry in 2004 gave smaller percentages of their incomes to charity than did residents of states that voted for George Bush.Bush carried 24 of the 25 states where charitable giving was above average.

 
The Logical Household is not "rich" by any stretch of the imagination but we do faithfully give to charity.  Last year, we gave almost 14% of our total income to church and charity (Lupus Foundation, DAV and others).  I don't say this to brag - I say it as confirmation of the thesis of the article.   I also know from conversations past that there are many liberals here whose actions blow this thesis apart....however, in general the thesis is valid.  Which leads us to...Barack "We Can Be Better" Obama.
 
Recently Sen. Obama released his tax records for the last 1o years.  For a man who bitterly complains about how poorly certain portions of the country are treated...who exhorts us to do better, the records are another example of a politician who couldn't "walk the talk" if their lives (or careers) depended on it.   

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas
reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income.

 That amount increased when Senator Obama hit the financial "lottery" by signing two book deals.

Their giving rose to a laudable five percent in 2005 and six percent in 2006, with the explosion of their annual income to near $1 million, and the advent of Mr. Obama’s national political aspirations (representing a rare case in which political ambition apparently led to social benefit).

What is so laughable (and hypocritical) about this is how the campaign tries to excuse this miserly giving...
 

According to an Obama spokesman, the couple’s miserly charity until 2005 “was as generous as they could be at the time,” given their personal expenses. In other words, despite an annual average income over the period of about $244,000, they simply could not afford to give anything meaningful.
Before we dismiss this explanation, it is worth noting that this is not an uncommon upper-income excuse for not giving. According to 2000 data from the Independent Sector (a trade group for nonprofit organizations), among people with above-average incomes who do not give charitably, a majority actually say it is because they don’t have enough money.

Well if I may be so bold as to borrow a piece of advice you give all of us poor working stiffs when we dare to complain about or tax burdens "maybe you should find somewhere to cut back".
 
The release of this data can backfire on the candidate as the Chicago Tribune (a REAL newspaper) points out...

It is especially dangerous for a candidate like Barack Obama who has made the inequity of America the lynchpin of his political career and his Presidential run.

My new friend and neighbor The Free Savage (man what is it with the rabble rousers in the Savage Lands anyway) has a post up on a story that will curl your hair....literally.

 

There are two kinds of people in the world: the kind who think it's perfectly reasonable to strip-search a 13-year-old girl suspected of bringing ibuprofen to school, and the kind who think those people should be kept as far away from children as possible. The first group includes officials at Safford Middle School in Safford, Arizona, who in 2003 forced eighth-grader Savana Redding to prove she was not concealing Advil in her crotch or cleavage.

It also includes two judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, who last fall ruled that the strip search did not violate Savana's Fourth Amendment rights. The full court, which recently heard oral arguments in the case, now has an opportunity to overturn that decision and vote against a legal environment in which schoolchildren are conditioned to believe government agents have the authority to subject people to invasive, humiliating searches on the slightest pretext.

 

 

 

One of the things that I did not get a chance to post on last week (thanks to the breaking Lori Swanson scandal) was an under reported story out of Tibet.

 

The Tibetan government in exile says the death toll from the demonstrations in Tibet is about 140.
"While we have confirmed information on the death toll from the demonstrations so far, it has been extremely difficult to get the details," the Dalai Lama's exile government said in a message posted on its Web site Monday.
The group said the overall toll was "around 140," and it listed the names of 40 Tibetans killed in protests that started March 10.
Previously, the Dalai Lama's government said 99 protesters died. China has put the death toll at 22.

 

CNN Asia, quoting the Chinese government (who has a vested interest in keeping the death toll as minimal as possible) said that 10 died in the clashes.  Meanwhile, the Hindustan Times, One India and Ireland On Line all report that at least 100 died.  With the exception of Yahoo, no US news entities reported on this.