I’m angry about it to, but in this case, I don’t believe it was specifically Michele Bachmann’s fault. Whatever I may think about Bachmann, I do understand that while she organized the rally, she certainly did not ask her supporters to bring posters like that.

I don’t believe Bachmann owes us an apology. I do believe, though, that she should condemn the rhetoric of her supporters who have compared Maybe some of you won’t see much of a distinction there, but I do. Rep. Israel finds fault with Bachmann for not condemning the posters during the rally; I’m willing to give her the benefit of the doubt that she was caught up in the event and didn’t notice. At this point, though, she’s aware. She needs to make it clear that she doesn’t support this sort of rhetoric, and that it does not represent her views. That doesn’t seem like much to ask.

Let me finish with a quick message to the protesters who brought these signs. You’re entitled to be opposed to health care. I disagree with you, but that happens. In fact, you even have the right to display disgusting posters comparing health care reform to the Holocaust — I will never claim that you don’t have the right of free speech. But if you really believe that an effort to reform our nation’s health care system is in any way similar to the malicious, premeditated slaughter of millions of innocent people, you are beyond vile.

I won’t claim that liberals have never engaged in this sort of rhetoric — I know for sure that it has happened. Just like liberals as a group didn’t deserve to take the rap for a few bad seeds, neither do conservatives as a group deserve to take the rap for those who were out of line at the health care protest. But those who did engage in it should be condemned in the strongest possible terms — by Republicans as well as Democrats.

 marriedtothesea.com

…I want you to know that today we filed the paperwork to create the R.T. Rybak for Governor Committee.

Obviously, this isn’t a surprise. Everybody knew it was coming, and I think Rybak will make a strong candidate. All the same, my very first reaction was that he ought to have at least waited for the ink to dry on the ballots that re-elected him as mayor.

UPDATE: The timing probably has something to do with this.

Rybak’s full announcement is below the break:

 — -

Dear Friend:

As one of my good friends and supporters, I want you to know that today we filed the paperwork to create the R.T. Rybak for Governor Committee.

I’ve been open with people as I’ve considered this important step, so I doubt this will be a surprise. But it is an important step, and I want you to know why I’m taking it.

Over the last two years I’ve travelled across Minnesota to talk and listen about the future of our state. Lots of people are discouraged by our state government’s failure to take action and find solutions to today’s tough challenges. They are looking for leadership focused on more jobs, better schools and affordable health care. They want to build a world-class transportation system and a clean energy economy.

I know that there’s a better way. We’ve shown in Minneapolis that we can make progress, create jobs, and get action to create real change. We’ve strengthened our economy, improved public safety, and streamlined city government. Most importantly, we’ve restored a sense of hope and shown that even in the toughest times we can do great things when we come together.

I know that together we can build a better and more prosperous Minnesota for now and for the future. But I also know that this won’t happen unless we work to make it happen. I am ready to go to work, and I hope you’re ready to join me.

Filing these papers is the first step in the process of setting up the Rybak for Governor campaign. In the weeks ahead, we will be building a grassroots campaign to take our message to every corner of the state. I will be in touch about how you can get more involved, and to ask for your help.

My favorite part of Pawlenty’s announcement was his pronouncement that he “believe[s] it will make the budget forecasting process more stable and predictable and reliable.” If he wanted a more stable budget forecasting process, he wouldn’t have vetoed a responsible forecasting law that would have required budget forecasts to take inflation into account. Every biennium, Pawlenty pretends that our budget situation is about a billion dollars rosier than it really is — how’s that for a “stable” budget forecasting process?

The funny thing about Pawlenty’s timing with this proposal is that it comes right on the heels of an election in which voters from two different states — Washington and Maine — rejected similar proposals to cap state spending and property taxes. These so-called “Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights” (TABOR) laws have done a lot of damage to states that have passed them, and voters have realized that these policies are not in their best interests.

Colorado is just one example. After adopting TABOR in 1992, Colorado citizens voted to suspend in for five years in 2005 because of the damage it was doing to the state. Pawlenty apparently has not heeded these Lessons from Colorado:

TABOR Has Contributed to Declines in Colorado K-12 Education Funding

• Under TABOR, Colorado declined from 35^th to 49^th in the nation in K-12 spending as a percentage of personal income.
• Colorado’s average per-pupil funding fell by more than $400 relative to the national average.
• Colorado’s average teacher salary compared to average pay in other occupations declined from 30^th to 50^th in the nation.

TABOR Has Played a Major Role in the Significant Cuts Made in Higher Education Funding

• Under TABOR, higher education funding per resident student dropped by 31 percent after adjusting for inflation.
• College and university funding as a share of personal income declined from 35^th to 48^th in the nation.
• Tuitions have risen as a result. In the last four years, system-wide resident tuition increased by 21 percent (adjusting for inflation).

TABOR Has Led to Drops in Funding for Public Health Programs

• Under TABOR, Colorado declined from 23^rd to 48^th in the nation in the percentage of pregnant women receiving adequate access to prenatal care, as defined by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• Colorado plummeted from 24^th to 50^th in the nation in the share of children receiving their full vaccinations. Only by investing additional funds in immunization programs was Colorado able to improve its ranking to 43^rd in 2004.
• At one point, from April 2001 to October 2002, funding got so low that the state suspended its requirement that school children be fully vaccinated against diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis (whooping cough) because Colorado, unlike other states, could not afford to buy the vaccine.

TABOR Has Hindered Colorado’s Ability to Address the Lack of Medical Insurance Coverage for Many Children and Adults in the State

• Under TABOR, the share of low-income children lacking health insurance has doubled in Colorado, even as it has fallen in the nation as a whole. Colorado now ranks last among the 50 states on this measure.
• TABOR has also affected healthcare for adults. Colorado has fallen from 20^th to 48^th for the percentage of low-income non-elderly adults covered under health insurance.
• In 2002, Colorado ranked 49^th in the nation in the percentage of both low-income non-elderly adults and low-income children covered by Medicaid.

Colorado Business and Community Leaders View TABOR as Deeply Flawed

A wide range of Coloradoans — business leaders, higher education officials, children’s advocates, legislators of both parties, and Governor Bill Owens (R), among others — recognize that TABOR has limited the state’s ability to fund critical services.

• “Coloradoans were told in 1992 … that [TABOR] guaranteed them a right to vote on any and all tax increases… . What the public didn’t realize was that it would contain the strictest tax and spending limitation of any state in the country, and long-term would hobble us economically.” — Tom Clark, Executive Vice President, Metro Denver Economic Development Corporation
• “The [TABOR] formula … has an insidious effect where it shrinks government every year, year after year after year after year; it’s never small enough… . That is not the best way to form public policy.” — Brad Young, former Colorado state representative (R) and Chair of the Joint Budget Committee
• “[Business leaders] have figured out that no business would survive if it were run like the TABOR faithful say Colorado should be run — with withering tax support for college and universities, underfunded public schools and a future of crumbling roads and bridges.” — Neil Westergaard, Editor of the Denver Business Journal

Read even more from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Is that really what we want for Minnesota?

President Obama has promised that “We will make sure that we get answers to every single question about this horrible incident,” and there are certainly a lot of questions to be answered. According to the New York Times, the shooter was “mortified” about deploying, and even reports that he hired a lawyer to try to get out of the military. The FBI was monitoring web postings by a person of the same name that defended suicide bombers.

It’s too early to know the full story, and I’m not really interested in a lot of speculation right now. I trust Obama when he says the incident will be fully investigated, and I have a feeling it’s going to pose a couple of tough questions for our military.

I’m going to hold the rest of today’s posts until mid-afternoon. At the moment, it seems to me that political squabbling can wait a while.

I’ll have more to say on this — in my own words — in the morning.

 — -

Pawlenty’s Proposed Parting Gift to Minnesota: Instability

Governor proposes constitutional amendment that would leave Minnesota unable to provide for its citizens

St. Paul (November 5, 2009) — The DFL Party released this statement from Chair Brian Melendez on Governor Pawlenty’s proposed changes to the Minnesota Constitution to cap the state budget at the level of revenue received during previous budget period:

“If a budget cap is such a good idea, why did Governor Pawlenty wait until he was nearly out the door before proposing it? The answer is simple: so that he wouldn’t actually have to govern under it, because he has no plans to follow through with what is really just a political stunt aimed at boosting his national notoriety; and because he needed yet another public demonstration of how far to the right he will go in his campaign for the White House.

“Similar constitutional amendments, like the Taxpayers Bill of Rights in Colorado and Proposition 13 in California, have been disastrous for the states that have adopted them. Governor Pawlenty has even called California ‘America’s first failed state.’ Yet his proposed budget cap would take Minnesota down the same disastrous road.

“Minnesota already has a sound budgeting process that has worked for 151 years: it’s called the Minnesota Constitution, and it provides for responsible budgeting and lawmaking through executive and legislative branches that check and balance each other. Governor Pawlenty has already shown his contempt for the Minnesota Constitution when he nullified the legislatively enacted state budget and began governing by unilateral unallotment. And now, having shown his contempt for the state constitution, he is showing his contempt for the state’s future by proposing this dangerous folly in order to advance his own personal ambition.”

1. Endorsed an independent conservative candidate over a Repubican candidate in the NY-23 special election.
2. Questioned whether Sen. Olympia Snowe belongs in the Republican party (because the best thing for a tiny minority caucus to do is start expelling its members - maybe the Minnesota Senate GOP should try that).
3. Proposed a constitutional amendment that would cap state spending.

What does all of this portend for the 2010 session of the Minnesota Legislature?  Disfunction with a capital D.  I expect Pawlenty to take extreme positions in order to pacify the right flank of the national GOP.  As a result nothing will get done.  I wouldn’t even be shocked if a bonding bill fails to pass (for the second time in the history of the Pawlenty Administration).

Here’s the Congressional Budget Office’s summary of its findings on the Republican health care plan:

CBO and the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimate that the amendment would reduce federal deficits by $68 billion over the 2010-2019 period
…
[The bill would reduce] the number of nonelderly people without health insurance by about 3 million in 2019 and leaving about 52 million nonelderly. The share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage in 2019—83 percent—would be roughly in line with the current share.
…
CBO anticipates that the combination of provisions in the amendment would reduce average private health insurance premiums per enrollee in the United States, relative to what they would be under current law-by 7 percent to 10 percent in the small group market, by 5 percent to 8 percent for individually purchased insurance, and by zero to 3 percent in the large group market.

Well, it appears to meet one of the goals for health care reform; it will reduce our spending on health care per person. As far as extending insurance coverage to all Americans, well, not so much.

Let’s compare that analysis to the CBO’s analysis of the Democratic bill:

According to CBO and JCT’s assessment, enacting H.R. 3962 would result in a net reduction in federal budget deficits of $104 billion over the 2010–2019 period.
…
By 2019, CBO and JCT estimate, the number of nonelderly people who are uninsured would be reduced by about 36 million, leaving about 18 million nonelderly residents uninsured (about one-third of whom would be unauthorized immigrants). Under H.R. 3962, the share of legal nonelderly residents with insurance coverage would rise from about 83 percent currently to about 96 percent.

That’s actually a bit disappointing, as we’re not quite hitting universal coverage. But the comparison between the two is a no-brainer. The Democratic bill will reduce deficits further and coverage many, many more Americans. Unfortunately, the CBO doesn’t seem to have anything to say about the impacts of the Democrats’ bill on premiums, so we can’t compare on that measure (I’m not sure why; I would think that even if there were no effect, the report would want to discuss that, but I checked through the report and there appears to be nothing).

Now, of course there’s more to the equation than just these few measures. I understand that some Republicans — and by some, I apparently mean every single Republican in both houses of Congress — are opposed to the Democrats’ health care bill on principle, because it would expand the role of government.

Personally, I’m more interested in the results than exactly how we get there. If the CBO could show us that a conservative plan would actually reduce deficits further, cover more people, and reduce individual costs further, I’d be all for it. But we’ve seen what I can only assume is the Republicans’ best attempt — it just doesn’t get the job done.

I think this quote gets to the heart of the issue. Here’s Berg on whether Republican legislators should compromise with Democrats:

Um, Jeff?  If the GOP has a bad year in 2010, building on our almost-negligible position today, then why is our cooperation even an issue?

I suppose it’s not an issue from the standpoint of whether the Democrats can pass bills. But it’s certainly a major issue for our policymaking process, the tone of American politics, and ultimately the quality of the policy made in Washington. The Dems can do it alone, and I think they should if they can’t get any cooperation from the GOP — but the results would be much better if lawmakers of both parties were involved.

A related point — and one I covered in my original post — is the ideological makeup of a party’s nominees. One of the reasons for the Democrats’ recent success has been their willingness to embrace more conservative candidates in more conservative districts. Conservative activists have been pushing the GOP in the opposite direction lately with aggressive challenges from the right. That’s certainly their right, but I think in the long run it will damage the Republican party.

There’s at least one Republican out there that agrees with me, and that’s Lindsay Graham:

The morning after Republicans lost an upstate New York House seat, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) warned that conservative activists will bring destruction to the Republican Party if they drive out moderate candidates across the country.

“To those people who are pursuing purity, you’ll become a club not a party,” Graham told POLITICO in the Capitol Wednesday. “Those people who are trying to embrace conservatism in a thoughtful way that fits the region and the state and the district are going to do well. Conservativism is an asset. Blind ideology is not.”

Graham is right on — it’s blind ideology that’s the problem. I’m not saying that Republicans should nominate candidates whose views match Barack Obama’s, or  that their votes should be indistinguishable from Democrats’. But when you have candidates who are more concerned with fitting into a national movement than they are with the result they’re providing for their district, that’s a problem.

Now, Berg would say that I shouldn’t be concerned about the direction the GOP moves. After all, if I’m right, then we’ll just have more Democrats, and how could I have a problem with that, right? But in a way, I do have a problem with that. My primary interest isn’t the success of the Democratic party, it’s the success of the country. That sounds cheesy, but it’s true — and it can’t happen without some give and take. Neither party has a monopoly on good ideas, and both need to be involved in the legislative process.

don’t tell me, “If you don’t like it change the channel.”  There are no channels left! It’s everywhere. Just last week I had Obama’s service and volunteerism promoted on every single major network, including Disney and Nickelodeon.

Wow, what a horrible commie conspiracy. The “liberal media” is encouraging “service and volunteerism.”

Didn’t this used to fall under the category of non-partisan stuff that nobody complains about? What’s next? Is Big Hollywood going to start complaining that the “state-run media” is devoting too much time to covering Michelle Obama urging kids to eat healthy?