More of the same from T-Paw

Governor Pawlenty has unveiled his "plan" to deal with Minnesota's projected $4.8 billion budget deficit. I have to use the quotes around plan, because it's just more of the same "loot everything you can" philosophy that has gotten this country into the mess it is in.

Pawlenty would boot 85,000 working Minnesotans from state supported health care. But business taxes - those he wants to cut by half.

Cutting business taxes in half during a time of state government crisis is silly.

"Oh, but it will keep jobs in Minnesota." I can hear the refrain now. Unfortunately, it's wrong. See, when we cut our taxes in an attempt to lure companies here, other states cut theirs as well, trying to lure them there. We get engaged in a 50-state race to the bottom. And the shame of it all is that corporations have the nerve to complain that American schools don't produce the type of knowledge workers that they need.

Back to T-Paw and his silly "plan" - He relies on stimulus money from the federal government (better get on the horn Tim and let your GOP buddies know that you really are hard up for cash.)

He also proposes over $1 Billion in accounting shifts (I guess that's like when you transfer your credit card balance from one card to another and say it's paid off?) And the kicker is that he wants to sell bonds that are to be covered by the state's annual infusion of tobacco settlement money.

What this means is that things have gotten so out of control under Pawlenty's "no new taxes" administration that his only resort is to use up accounting gimmicks, trade future recurring income for a much lower amount of one-time income today.

I think Pawlenty ought to have the guts to simply cover the deficit 100% with spending cuts, since he's so adamantly opposed to increasing state revenues in any sort of meaningful or stable way. OWN the decision, Pawlenty. Let everyone know just how many people you're willing to throw under the bus so that the CEOs get nice fat bonuses again. Don't hide behind one time money and act like you're a nice guy. Because you're not, and you're leaving a mess for the next Governor to clean up.

House Republicans - aka whiny babies that won't play nice

Today the US House passed their $819 billion dollar version of the economic stimulus plan. The vote was strictly on party lines - no Republicans voted for the bill.

President Obama bent over backwards meeting with Congressional Republicans to hear their concerns. He leaned on Democrats to get things like family planning money removed from the bill ('cuz remember, the Republican God hates family planning). And yet, they still snubbed the bill.

Can anyone say sour grapes?

I wonder if this is what the next two years will be like. Republicans voting in a bloc to be as obstructionist as possible.

I seriously cannot understand how it is that they do not realize that their slanted views of economics, and the result of putting those slanted views into action, is the reason why they are the minority party. And if they continue on this path, they will be an even smaller minority party for some time now.

Tax cuts for workers (note, I said workers, i.e., the poor and middle class, not trust fund babies, CEOs, and corporations) are a good thing. And that's why the package has $212 billion dollars in tax cuts.

However - a tax cut doesn't do you any good if you don't have a job.

And that's why the bill contains $607 billion in other government spending. Money for the states, which can use those funds to:
a)pay government workers, as opposed to laying them off
b)give money to the university system, which can them employ education professionals, as opposed to laying them off
c)repair roads and bridges, and strangely enough, employ people to actually do those repairs, etc.

And strangely enough, when the government workers and professors and construction workers have income, they are better able to buy cars and cappacinos and insurance policies and other goods and services. So then other people will have jobs.

Conversely, if you gave that money to large corporations, they would use it to gobble up other companies (resulting in layoffs) or hoard it. They won't use it to hire more workers. Why? Because there's no one that can afford to buy the "stuff" that more workers would produce. They don't act altruistically, and therefore, why would they spend money to employ unnecessary workers? They wouldn't.

Hopefully some moderate Senate Republicans will be less petty when this bill comes to the US Senate. Otherwise, a really bad situation will just get worse. If you want a nightmare tonight, just imagine what the Dow and other world markets will do if we fail to pass a stimulus plan due to petty partisan idiocy.

Bye bye, what's left of my 401k. And sadly, probably bye bye my job. But hey, at least I'll have LOTS of company.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is on its way to the White House!

Today the US House passed the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. (Here's a Q&A on the Act for your reading enjoyment.) The Senate passed the Act last Thursday, and the legislation is on its way to the White House for President Obama's signature.

I am thrilled that this is finally happening. This common sense piece of legislation gives workers the ability to sue for pay discrimination within 180 days of the last paycheck impacted by illegal pay discrimination. In contrast, the US Supreme Court previously handed down a decision that could only make sense on Mars (or maybe if you run a large sexist corporation) and said that any suit must be filed within 180 days of the first discriminatory paycheck - whether or not the person discriminated against is aware of the discrimination at the time.

Think about it. Let's say we have a serial killer. Do we allow him or her to get off scot free if we don't manage to catch and file charges within 180 days of the first murder?

Why, then, should we allow employers to get away with financial murder if they can hide their wrongdoing for a mere 6 months?

Make no mistake: this Act does not solve all equal pay problems. After all, if they were solved, there would be no need for the Act. Proving pay discrimination is not easy, and pay discrimination is shockingly commonplace if you look at the statistics.

Recount woes

Alas for me - when will I learn that bragging is a cosmic invitation for a good ol' fashioned smack in the face?

During the Bush v. Gore/Florida recount debacle of 2000, I smugly remarked to my husband, more than once "That nonsense would never happen here. Everyone ought to just vote like we do here in Minnesota. It's not hard, and everyone that's taken a standardized test in school knows how to do it."

Alas - cruel fate has left me wincing at the mess that is the Minnesota Senate recount/legal battle.

I do have to say this - at least we did a full recount. And the winner of that recount was Al Franken. You'd think, given his statement just after election day, Norm Coleman would have the grace to withdraw and go off to lick his wounds in private.

What's that? You don't remember what he said? Oh, I can help you with that. He said:

"If you ask me what I would do, I would step back. I just think the need for the healing process is so important."

Rather than step back, Coleman has decided to contest the results of the painstaking recount in court. Of course, that shouldn't be a surprise for anyone who's watched our litigation-happy (and hopefully soon-to-be-former) Senator Coleman in action. He has a history of filing lawsuits against his opponents during campaigns, all the while decrying frivolous litigation.

Now Coleman's lawyers want the court to review 5,000 or so ballots, one by one. And I'm sure the Coleman camp is very sad that the three justices insist that they need to review the original ballots in question, as opposed to the ones that Coleman campaign staffers altered. The alterations, in some cases, cut off or otherwise hide the reason the ballots were rejected in the first place.

Norm, you're embarrassing us. Please just go gracefully. Go now. Minnesota needs two senators, and by a slim margin, we didn't choose you.

I'm back!

The newborn baby, the toddler, health issues, and other woes left me with no energy to really pay attention to politics, much less blog about them.

But now the baby is sleeping through the night (woohoo!), my health issues seem to be resolved (knock on wood) and the toddler....well, he's still a toddler. Anyhow, I'm back! I hope you'll join me.