I've moved to a bigger and better blog! Please visit me at http://tcdailyliberal.com/blog
| Like this post? | ||
|---|---|---|
 |
 Subscribe by RSS |
 Subscribe by Email |
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Twin Cities Daily Liberal has moved!
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Coleman's out-of-touch record: the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill
This is the sixth in a series of weekly articles exposing Norm Coleman's record on the issues. All data in this series comes from CQ Weekly.
First, I need to start with an admission: I said we were going to be looking at Norm's record on agriculture. But when I looked into it, there were not many interesting floor votes available on agricultural topics. And what's more, I have to admit, his record was really not terrible. In fact, I was almost feeling downright positive about Norm until I stumbled upon the 2005 Bankruptcy Overhaul bill.
The bill, with Coleman's support, create a means test tied to the median incomes of individual states to determine whether personal bankruptcy filers were able to repay some or all of their debts. That doesn't sound too bad. What's mind-boggling, as always, is some of the stuff Norm voted against.
Norm voted FOR passage of the Bankruptcy Overhaul bill (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 44). But that's not the whole story. Because while the bill was on the floor, he made some mean-spirited votes against consumers and victims of credit fraud.
For instance, he voted AGAINST an amendment that would require credit card companies to issue a warning notification on monthly statements stating that a minimum payment will increase the amount of interest paid and the time it will take to repay the outstanding balance. The amendment would also require companies to disclose the amount required for the consumer to pay off the outstanding balance in three years, if no further advances are made (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 15). This bill would have helped educate Americans about getting out of debt at no cost to the government. Does Coleman want us to stay in debt to the credit card companies?
He voted AGAINST an amendment that would provide a homestead exemption of at least $150,000 of the equity in the property the debtor uses as a primary residence if the bankruptcy stems from medical expenses (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 17).
He voted AGAINST Sen. Mark Dayton's amendment that would set a 30 percent ceiling on interest rates for loans or credit cards. I can appreciate "letting the free market work," but 30 percent interest is usury. Of course, you know who interest rates that high hurt: the same people Norm has been sticking it to the whole time he's been in the Senate, those who can't afford it. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 20).
The votes I mentioned above are bad, but the next two votes are just sickening. Norm voted AGAINST an amendment that would prohibit high cost mortgage lenders from collecting on their claims in bankruptcy court if they extend credit in violation of the Truth in Lending Act (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 22). You read that correctly -- Norm voted to allow predatory lenders engaging in mortgage fraud to collect on their illegal loans.
He also voted AGAINST an amendment that would increase from one to four years the period of time a bankruptcy court can recapture assets of corporate executives who make fraudulent transfers. That amendment would give employees and retirees a priority unsecured claim in bankruptcy for the value of company stock held for their benefit in an employee pension plan. (SENATE ROLL CALL VOTE 25). So not only did he vote against victims of predatory lending, he voted to protect white-collar criminals instead of protecting the employees they defrauded.
The bottom line: on this bill, Norm voted the same way he always has: for wealthy CEOs, and against everyone who's struggling to get by. Is that who you want representing you in the Senate?
| Like this post? | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Subscribe by RSS |
Subscribe by Email |
TC Daily Liberal will be down for the rest of the day
The Daily Liberal is going down for maintenance in about an hour, and will be back tomorrow morning.
Operating this blog through Google's Blogger has been pretty limiting, not to mention pretty ugly. So I'm relaunching with a new format tomorrow, but I need some time to do the technical stuff.
See you back here tomorrow!
| Like this post? | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Subscribe by RSS |
Subscribe by Email |
Coleman has a plan to run up Federal deficit
At the FarmFest debate yesterday, Dean Barkley said that putting our roads and bridges on a credit card was harmful to our children. I couldn't agree more: to fund Coleman and Pawlenty's "no new taxes" gimmick, we've been putting off paying for our infrastructure until later. When is later? It's when Pawlenty and Coleman are long gone, and our children are left holding the bill.
Norm Coleman doesn't seem to have a problem with that. Just as long as we don't have a tax increase now, he's totally fine mortgaging our government to the hilt. Here's the exchange, via Doug Grow at MinnPost:
When the subject was infrastructure — roads, railways and barges are big issues in rural Minnesota — Barkley gave the most honest answer of any of the candidates.That's Norm Coleman for you. He has no idea how we'll actually pay for it. But he also doesn't seem to care. There's probably another way, he says. Oh, and by the way, plan on mortgaging your farm in 20 years to pay for it.
"There is no free lunch,'' he said. "If we're going to fix the bridges and the roads, somebody is going to have to pay for it. Bonding. That's the Republican approach. Let our children pay for it. That's financial child abuse. We ought to be ashamed of ourselves.''
That response seemed to bring about a collective gulp from the crowd. Was he hinting at a tax increase?
Coleman put people at ease.
"I support bonding for transportation,'' he said. "I disagree with a gas tax increase. There are other ways to fund infrastructure.''
He didn't specify what those ways might be, but the crowd loved him and his build-now, pay-later approach.
Once again, I ask my readers: would you treat your own personal finances this way? Let's say your roof was starting to sag, and was going to need to be replaced in a few years. Would you start saving up for it, and maybe try to earn a bit of extra money, so you could pay for it up front? Or would you cut back your hours to work part-time, put the roof on the credit card, and let it accumulate interest for ten years?
Something tells me you'd choose the first option. So why does Norm choose the credit card? Because he doesn't have to pay for it. He gets to move on, probably to a high-paying gig as a lobbyist, and you get stuck with his credit card bills.
| Like this post? | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Subscribe by RSS |
Subscribe by Email |
Daily Liberal Mapping Project: CD4 could be better with McCollum's help
This is the fifth of nine articles in the Daily Liberal Mapping Project. These articles examine Minnesota's voting patterns precinct by precinct, with data from the 2006 election. Perhaps you missed my analysis of CD7, CD6, and CD5?
In this edition of the Daily Liberal Mapping Project, we look at the other central-city Congressional District, CD4. CD4 is the home of Betty McCollum, who has served the district since 2001. The district is pretty much a guaranteed Democratic vote, and it has a lot of similarities to CD5, which we discussed on Monday. However, because the 4th also encompasses a handful of suburbs to the north, it is less overwhelmingly Democratic. It still has a high Cook Partisan Voting Index of D+13.
The 4th not only has a very strong Democratic vote, it generally has party-line voters. Volatility is a measure of variation across races. Precincts with high volatility are those that see a lot of ticket-splitters. As the map below shows, there are only a few districts with volatility higher than the state median.
However, like CD5, CD4 has poor turnout throughout the district, with only a handful of precincts where over 75 percent of eligible voters actually voted. This low turnout seriously harms the DFL's chances in statewide races. The final map illustrates the above point clearly. This map combines voting percentages and turnout into a single measure, the percent of eligible voters that voted for the winning party. Looking at this measure, it is clear how Democrats' majority in CD4 is diluted: only a smattering of precincts had a Democratic vote of over 55 percent of eligible voters, despite the fact that over 85 percent of votes cast were for Democrats. Fixing this problem could provide a huge boost for Al Franken in November.
Unlike in CD5, however, the problem may be less easily fixed in CD4. Keith Ellison is running a major voter registratraion drive in the 5th. In the 4th, not only is there no such thing, but McCollum has not showed any particular desire to help Franken. Without help from McCollum to increase turnout in CD4, Franken will need to launch his own Get-Out-The-Vote campaign there.
| Like this post? | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Subscribe by RSS |
Subscribe by Email |
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Rothenberg: Tim Pawlenty won't help McCain
John McCain doesn't have any useful choices for VP. Yes, that includes our very own T-Paw. Despite the fact that he's run this state like his own personal vice-presidential campaign for the last 6 years, political handicapper Stuart Rothenberg doesn't believe he'll add much to the ticket. Here's what he had to say about the VP choices:
Each of the three Democrats mentioned most often -- Virginia Gov. Tim Kaine, Sen. Joseph Biden (Del.) and Sen. Evan Bayh (Ind.) -- has very real assets. Any of them would be a good pick for Obama.I couldn't agree more that Pawlenty won't do anything to change the dynamic of the race. It'll be Grandpa McSame and Junior McSame running on the same ticket. Pawlenty's already been reciting McCain's talking points for months now; so who cares if he's the VP choice or not?
...The Republicans widely regarded as the most likely to be picked by McCain -- former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty -- bring much less to the table than do the three Democrats.
Pawlenty, 47, is a personable two-term governor who barely won re-election two years ago. An early McCain supporter, he is conservative enough to make the GOP base happy. But he likely wouldn't bring Minnesota over into the Republican electoral vote column, and he certainly wouldn't change the dynamic of the presidential race.
Sorry, Junior. I know you've done a lot of damage to this state to help shore up your conservative credentials, but that won't be a substitute for actual achievements if you're running for VP.
| Like this post? | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Subscribe by RSS |
Subscribe by Email |
What Tim Walz has been up to
Holy cow, Tim Walz has been busy. If any one of our elected representatives deserves to be re-elected, it's him. Walz has been working his butt of for the people of the 1st district, and for all Minnesotans.
Of course, Ollie Ox over at Bluestem Prairie has also been working hard trying to keep up with him. Here are some of the things he's been up to, courtesy of Bluestem Prairie:
- authored the Middle Class Tax Fairness Act;
- wrote a bill increasing reimbursement to veterans for travel to and from VA facilities;
- veterans' pain care management legislation (PASSED by the House);
- wrote an amendment to the bridge bill requiring the Secretary of Transportation to report to Congress whether a federal-aid bridge is closed because of a critical inspection finding;
- joined the bipartisan House Energy Working Group in developing a comprehensive energy solution; and
- co-sponsored a bill to improve and expand geographic literacy among kindergarten through grade 12 students.
| Like this post? | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Subscribe by RSS |
Subscribe by Email |
For Bachmann, truth won't interfere with drilling crusade
Michele Bachmann has made it clear that she wants to drill for oil anywhere and everywhere she possibly can. She doesn't seem to care that it will save us only $1 per barrel by 2030. And she'll say anything she has to in order to win her crusade. You'd think someone who often campaigns on "moral issues" would have a bigger problem with outright lies, but I guess as long as you're lying for the oil companies, it's okay.
Think Progress has the story:
During an interview with Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-MN) today, right-wing radio host Laura Ingraham asserted that Congressional Democrats “are acting as the ultimate obstructionists” on energy policy. Bachmann agreed, saying that “this is mission accomplished for them” because they don’t want to “increase American energy resources.”Gee, that's funny. Because the Republican plan will cost us billions without providing an increase in energy resources for another 22 years. This is the most classic conservative ploy in the playbook: you do something horrible, and then you accuse the other side of doing it instead of yourself. So we shouldn't be surprised about this:
...Bachmann’s claim about who blocked “the tax credit for solar and wind” is flatly false. Just yesterday, the AP reported that “for the fourth time this summer” Senate conservatives blocked action on legislation that would provide “tax credits to an array of renewable energy entrepreneurs”Maybe Bachmann didn't have time to pay close attention to the goings-on in the Senate, because she was busy campaigning in places like Dallas, TX. I'd love for her to have some excuse for statements like this. Sadly, we've come to expect these lies from her, but the fact that she lies often is hardly an excuse. But, it gets even worse:
...In fact, when the House passed the Renewable Energy and Job Creation Act of 2008 in May, Bachmann voted against it, along with the majority of House Republicans. The bill was then filibustered by Senate Republicans in June.If this doesn't make your blood boil, it should. Bachmann can't run on the truth, so she's just not bothering. What's crazy is that nobody even bats an eye at this sort of behavior anymore. In fact, Bachmann is using a conservative campaign strategy that has proved immensely successful over the past decade: if you lie loudly enough and for long enough, people will accept what you say as truth. We shouldn't just accept her behavior. We need to hold our politicians to a certain standard of decency, and we should start with Bachmann.
| Like this post? | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Subscribe by RSS |
Subscribe by Email |
Monday, August 4, 2008
Note to Obama: Don't shirk debates
Via Taegan Goddard's Political Wire:
Sen. Barack Obama "backed away from rival John McCain's challenge for a series of joint appearances, agreeing only to the standard three debates in the fall," the AP reports.I'm sorry, but I have to call out Obama's campaign on this. These joint appearances, as I wrote back in June, would be good for our nation's electoral process and its political mood. I also can't help but wonder why Obama would not welcome these debates. Is he really concerned that he would not win them? McCain has been stumbling over his own tongue for weeks now.
Wrote campaign manager David Plouffe: "Due to the late date of the two parties' nominating conventions, and the relatively short period between the end of the conventions and the first proposed debate, it is likely that the four Commission debates will be the sole series of debates in the fall campaign."
I know that, as the front-runner, all Obama's campaign really needs to do is minimize potential mistakes. But he's got to start taking a few more chances or risk losing the "post-partisan" label he's worked so hard for.
| Like this post? | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Subscribe by RSS |
Subscribe by Email |
McCain and Pawlenty think conserving gas just a joke
John McCain, desperately trying to seize upon the one topic he has some leverage on, derided an aside of Barack Obama's regarding gas conservation. He and Tim Pawlenty seized on a comment Obama made that maintaining proper tire pressure could help save gas. Radio Iowa reports on Pawlenty's comments:
"Barack Obama stood up at a speech recently and said that one of the things that is really important from energy policy from his standpoint is to check the pressure in our tires...".Clearly, this is a pretty lame statement. Pawlenty and McCain are taking a single line from Obama's comments out of context. That's pretty typical political hack work, but no big deal.
But David Brauer at MinnPost pointed out something amazing:
According to fueleconomy.gov, gas use drops 3.3 percent when tire pressure is right, offering a bigger savings than, say, offshore drilling.Brauer has a fantastic point here. I've already shown that the conservative energy plan would save us $1 per barrel of oil in 2030. John McCain should avoid taking Obama's comments out of context when even Obama's small ideas pack more of a punch than McCain's major policy initiatives.
| Like this post? | ||
|---|---|---|
|
Subscribe by RSS |
Subscribe by Email |
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
