I have certainly spent my time defending Governor Tim Pawlenty and Senator Norm Coleman in hundreds of letters, columns and editorials I have written over the years but that was then and this is now.  I will not continue to defend those that only pay lip service to Conservatives and think it is more important to try and get the endorsement of the Sierra Club than stand up for Minnesota families and taxpayers.

It is rumored that Senator Coleman has sent out a letter recently that sounds like it was written by the John McCain Energy Advisor.  Consensus on Global Warming, 7 ot 8 of the top ten warmest years were in the last decade.....yada, yada, yada.  Perhaps Norm Coleman needs some education or is making his statement that his mind is made up and he won't be persuaded by actual science and real debate much like our Governor.  Then stop calling yourself Conservative or saying you support anything Conservative because that simply is not true!  You can NOT be Conservative and support the Global Warming lies that are set to destroy the American Middle Class as we now know it through backdoor tax increases, higher energy costs and job losses that will make America a loser in the Global Market Place.

One thing is for sure don't count on me to have your backs when you have let all of us Conservatives down for the sake of populism and junk science. And the liberals and mainstream media claim that this issue has split Conservatives.  I beg to differ.  Conservatives truly have the truth and information on their side and do not support the global warming scare tactics and hype.  Those on the other side are simply not Conservative and that is a fact.  If you are Conservative you simply can not pick and choose to be Conservative - you either are or you are not!  You can not say you support Taxpayers and Families out one side of your mouth and then out the other spout off like Coleman, Pawlenty and McCain that you support Cap and Trade, Unattainable Renewable Energy Standards that the GAO, Heritage Foundation and many others state will have a $1.7 Trillion economic loss and cost Taxpayers billions of dollars in increased energy costs.

The impact on the overall economy is even more alarming. The current U.S. economic output of $14 trillion would sharply decline by 2018 because of higher energy prices. Even under the most generous assumptions, the Heritage study estimates cumulative losses to gross domestic product (GDP) would be $1.7 trillion by 2030 after adjusting for inflation. The total could be as high as $4.8 trillion.

Europe’s experience with cap and trade offers the clearest example that it can have a harmful impact on the economy while offering little benefit to the environment. Emissions are growing at a faster rate on the continent since the European Union implemented its program in 2005 to comply with the Kyoto Protocol.

In order to implement the McCain, Pawlenty, Coleman style proposal government would do more by telling the taxpayer what size car they are going to drive; when they are going to drive it; what size house you will live in; and how much electricity you will use.  This is simply not acceptable and with this nonsense I put my foot down and will not contribute, support, or defend these candidates for election.  My yard will be void of Republican signs except for candidates that truly support Conservative ideals.  The GOP and Candidates like these seem to think that we need them more than they need us.  We shall see.  I feel the shift in leadership coming from the local level on up and if that means a few losses to get there so be it.  What is the difference anyways if the Republican that is on the ticket supports the same big government, big spending proposals that will hurt families, taxpayers and our economy?

To make some sense of this garbage flowing from the mouths of GOP leadership I return to the words of Reagan:

"As your nominee, I pledge to restore to the federal government the capacity to do the people's work without dominating their lives. I pledge to you a government that will not only work well, but wisely; its ability to act tempered by prudence and its willingness to do good balanced by the knowledge that government is never more dangerous than when our desire to have it help us blinds us to its great power to harm us......

Those who preside over the worst energy shortage in our history tell us to use less, so that we will run out of oil, gasoline, and natural gas a little more slowly. Conservation is desirable, of course, for we must not waste energy. But conservation is not the sole answer to our energy needs.

America must get to work producing more energy. The Republican program for solving economic problems is based on growth and productivity.

Large amounts of oil and natural gas lay beneath our land and off our shores, untouched because the present administration seems to believe the American people would rather see more regulation, taxes and controls than more energy.

Coal offers great potential. So does nuclear energy produced under rigorous safety standards. It could supply electricity for thousands of industries and millions of jobs and homes. It must not be thwarted by a tiny minority opposed to economic growth which often finds friendly ears in regulatory agencies for its obstructionist campaigns.

Make no mistake. We will not permit the safety of our people or our environment heritage to be jeopardized, but we are going to reaffirm that the economic prosperity of our people is a fundamental part of our environment.

Our problems are both acute and chronic, yet all we hear from those in positions of leadership are the same tired proposals for more government tinkering, more meddling and more control -- all of which led us to this state in the first place."  - Ronald Reagan - Acceptance of Republican Nomination for President at the 1980 Republican National Convention in Detroit, Michigan, July 17, 1980.

Now that is what I call the words of leadership not the lesser of two evil garbage we get from party leaders today.

Finally a column about two local meterologists that are not willing to just go along with the Global Warming crowd which includes WCCO's own Don Shelby and the DFL in St. Paul.  But there are others that are skepitical in Minnesota including those at the University of Minnesota who must be under political pressure to keep their mouths shut.  Scare tactics and squishy science bring these groups new money so why not squash any attempts to even the debate.  But as many know the debate has not been settled, there is no consensus and yes it is not just squish science but junk science that has gotten us to where we are today.  Anybody care to bring these two and other real scientists to the Legislature to tell the off the deep end looney DFL that they are passing legislation out of unfounded fears and scare tactics that has more to do with politics and an attempt to redesign socio-economic outcomes than it ever did about science.

Here is a must read from http://www.startribune.com/nation/19095579.html

WCCO meteorologist: Global warming 'extremism' uses 'squishy science'
By PAUL WALSH, Star Tribune

May 20, 2008

Longtime WCCO-TV meteorologist Mike Fairbourne says that the environmental movement is practicing "squishy science" when it ties human activity to global warming.

Fairbourne's assessment Monday came on the same day that the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine appeared before the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., and announced that it has the signatures of more than 31,000 scientists -- including Fairbourne's -- who agree that the human impact on global warming is overblown.

Fairbourne, who joined WCCO in 1977 and has been a meteorologist for 40 years, said that while there is no doubt that "there has been some warming" of global temperatures in recent years ... there is still a pretty big question mark" about how much of that warming is from human activity.

"Do we need to be wise stewards [of the Earth]? Absolutely," Fairbourne said. "Do we have to pin everything that happens on global warming? No, we need to have cooler heads."

Fairbourne said he signed the institute's petition about five years ago. The group said that hundreds of meteorologists are among the signees.

The petition says:

"We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto ... and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate.

"Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth."

The institute and its petition have been widely challenged over the years by numerous mainstream scientific voices. For example, the National Academy of Sciences has rejected the petition's contentions, saying that "greenhouse warming poses a potential threat sufficient to merit prompt responses. Investment in mitigation measures acts as insurance protection against the great uncertainties and the possibility of dramatic surprises."

Fairbourne, a University of Utah graduate, said he has talked "to a number of meteorologists who have similar opinions" as his, adding that he is concerned about "the extremism that is attached to the global warming."

He noted that in the 1970s "we were screaming about global cooling. It makes me nervous when we pin a few warm years on squishy science."

As for the melting polar ice caps, Fairbourne said there are "other things going on -- ocean currents, changes in salinity -- other things not related to carbon dioxide going into the atmosphere."

Asked why there has been so much momentum toward connecting human activity and global warming, Fairbourne said, "They're doing it for a lot of reasons; some may be scientific, but most of them are political. We need to be calm and look at scientific evidence and evaluate it."

Paul Douglas, Dave Dahl

Fairbourne is at odds with the American Meteorological Society's position. In a paper issued last year, the society said, "Strong observational evidence and results from modeling studies indicate that, at least over the last 50 years, human activities are a major contributor to climate change."

Also, recent writings by Paul Douglas, Fairbourne's WCCO colleague for many years until Douglas was let go earlier this year, appear to have the two on opposite sides.

In his daily Star Tribune weather report on March 16, Douglas scoffed at the notion that global warming is a hoax, as labeled recently by San Diego TV meteorologist and Weather Channel founder John Coleman. Douglas wrote that while he has "great respect for Mr. Coleman as a visionary and entrepreneur ... his business skills do not necessarily make him a good arbiter of climate science."

Another Twin Cities meteorologist, Dave Dahl of KSTP-TV, Channel 5, shares a kindred global warming spirit with Fairbourne.

Dahl, in his regular afternoon weather spots on KSTP Radio (AM 1500), reads the record high and low for the day, illustrating extreme temperatures that are often many decades old. "More proof of global warming,'' radio host Joe Soucheray typically responds with sarcasm. Then Dahl chimes in with an affirming comment, such as "crazy" or "you got it, Joe."

Meanwhile, the presidential campaign finds little difference among the three candidates on the "yes there is, no there isn't debate" regarding humans and global warming. All three agree that mandatory restrictions on greenhouse gases are needed. Also, an increasing number of businesses and religious leaders are acknowledging the need to address global warming.

For those that want more information on this subject and the lies the liberal media and the environmentalists are spreading please see the following:
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org
http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/newyork08.cfm

Here is another article about Paul Douglas and Mike Fairbourne and their distinct different views on global warming.
http://www.startribune.com/lifestyle/19162269.html?location_refer=Golf

But what is most disturbing is the fact that Fairbourne is a scientist and does have credibility and find this on the less than slanted Brian Lambert Blog which states the following:  "Libin emphasizes that WCCO employs Fairbourne as a meteorologist—three- and five-day forecasts—not as a climatologist, and "We haven't asked Mike to report on this topic. And if we did, I would counsel him to reflect the scientific consensus as well as the critics."  Lambert questions the Oregon Petition that Fairbourne signed as political in nature.  So Mr. Lambert is the United Nations group that pushed a report with signatures that did not support the findings any less political?  Absolutely not!  But I am sure that the tens of thousand s of scientists that are not willing to go along with the hype and scare tactics are all a bunch of political hacks too?  I don't think so.  You Mr. Lambert are a political hack !

While Governor Pawlenty and the DFL both are claiming victory only a little review of the session end budget agreement needs to be done to see that taxpayers and families got no deal in the end.

i am not sure spending up to the 3% cap to bring in a boondoggle light rail project, a new state park, a new veterans facility, a tax cap with loopholes and exceptions I can drive a oceanliner through and more money in local government aid is in any shape of a win for taxpayers and families.  We could have passed this lackluster deal in the second week of session and not wasted taxpayers time along with the $6.6 billion transportation tax increases.

Let's see a new state park taking property off the tax rolls in an area of the state already saturated with National Forest Land and the Boundary Waters Canoe Area.  A Tax cap that will do nothing to keep down property taxes at the local level.  More local government aid that will lead to increase spending and not a reduction in taxes at the local level and will actual make things worse as that aid was indexed to increase in future years.  Another boondoggle transit project on top of the millions of money that will be used for transit in the $6.6 billion tax increase earlier in session.  And a new Minnesota Veterans Home on top of the one a local community said it would build with no tax dollars from the state.

Can somebody tell me where the deal for taxpayers was?  If you like tax and spend and bigger government then yes you got a deal but taxpayers and families didnt get a deal.  Schools got more funding but that will not stop new levies or the call for more money like my local school is pushing.  The cash reserves were spent down 80% to the tune of $500 million.  But new people will be added to Minnesota sponsored government health care, illegals and non-citizens still get benefits, welfare reform rollbacks are still in place, we still have sanctuary cities..... I could go on.  What did Minnesota families and taxpayers get?  I still can not find anything in the end of session budget agreement.

Governor Pawlenty called the budget deal a keeper.  I am not so sure. 

But there were property tax cap increases right?  The deal imposed a 3.9 percent cap on city and county property tax levy increases for the next three years. To prevent cuts in essential local services, they provided an additional $64 million in local government aid and credits. The deal also offer $20 million in property tax refunds to the neediest homeowners. 

$70 million for the Central Corridor light-rail project. That's the state's share of the $909 million train between St. Paul and Minneapolis.  That will cost taxpayers millions in subsidies in the out years and is likely to cost Minnesota taxpayers more that the $70 million just as other experiments with rail have been understated in Minnesota.

$20 million to buy land for a state park on Lake Vermilion in northeastern Minnesota.  Enough said.... 20 million for a state park we did not need.

Health care changes that will provide coverage for an estimated 12,000 uninsured Minnesotans while reducing health costs by an estimated 15 percent and improving the quality of some services.  Those 15% cost savings are over stated and likely not be reduced at all while the state picks up the tabs for more and more.

Governor Pawlenty had called the property tax provisions the key to the budget deal. He said the levy limits on cities and counties will save taxpayers $78.5 million in 2009 and $450 million over the next three years. That doesn't mean property tax cuts for homeowners, Pawlenty said. But property tax increases will be about 30 percent lower than they would have been without the tax caps.  Now hold on a second.  Cities and counties can not control their spending so the state has too by bribing them with more money and artificial caps.  Why don't taxpayers get off their lazy butts and tell their local governments NO!  Maybe they should not be trying to build new community centers, liquor stores, city offices, county offices, parks and a host of other unneeded spending and concentrate on core government services or is that not governments job and responsibility anymore.

But that is not the whole story.... wait there is more.  Cities would be allowed to exceed the tax caps to prevent cuts in essential police and fire protection, and local governments "overburdened" by home mortgage foreclosures also would be exempted from the limits.  The bill also will provide a 2 percent increase in local government aid in 2011 and a 4 percent boost in 2012.  So if I wanted to spend money on other things I can then say I don't have enough to pay for fire and police and be able to exempt myself from the cap.  Sounds like the DFL priority and budget planning of a year ago all over again.  Spend everything and then say I don't have enough for priorities and exempt myself from the cap - who is going to enforce this?

The simple fact is that this budget deal did not solve the DFL appetite to spend.  It only made next years budget picture and the out years worse because the deal spent more and more.  It did not make enough cuts to the over $3 billion in new spending the Legislature made last year and left the healthcare access fund surplus - a slush fund paid for by taxing healthcare intact.

This deal was no keeper and taxpayers and families should know it helped them very little in the terms of the impact of taxes and the costs of government on them and their families.  Minnesota taxpayers, families and businesses are still hurting and this budget deal give little relief to anything but the government itself.  There are a couple of things that taxpayers can do in the meantime - vote NO on the Constitutional Amendment for more tax and spend in November and vote only for candidates at all levels who are willing to fight for you in cutting spending and reducing the burden of government on you and your family.  If they are not willing to prioritize funding, cut first before turning to taxpayers close your door and vote for the candidate that will.  If no candidate will get one that will.  It is time to make government accountable, responsive and frugal with your tax dollars and that starts with you and every layer of government!

Don't get me wrong I supported Norm Coleman and have written many letters defending him on certain positions but when you look at putting these three up against each other is there any wonder why people hear I am from Minnesota, scratch their heads and exclaim are you nuts? 

We all know of the colorful past of Mr. Ventura.  We all know of Franken's temper tantrums and tax issues.  And Colemane didn't know good energy policy if it got up in bit him in the ANWAR.  Gone are the days of politicians who stand for real issues, who are looking out for the taxpayers and families!  We now have Senate races based on a popularity contest, campaigns done by 503B Special Interests and the media picking apart candidates on their biased persectives.  Issues comes in a distant 4th if not farther down the list.

I have a candidate that would be a better candiate for office.  I was going to pick Mickey Mouse as he would be fitting next to the other Looney Tune we have as the other Senator for Minnesota.  I found it more fitting if we introduce a more fitting candidate to run with the goofballs announced in Minnesota.......

GOOFY FOR MINNESOTA SENATE 2008

 

Posted in Politics, Election 2008, Current Events, Tax Increases | Send comments to the Minnesota Editor | Recommend to Friend

>> Subscribe to GOPUSA's free news and commentary updates!