Caffeinated Thoughts

---

• Donald Trump: We Know His Name, But What Do We Really Know?
• Should Iowa Do Annual or Biennial Budgeting?
• Rand Paul Shakes Up Senate

Donald Trump: We Know His Name, But What Do We Really Know? Posted: 06 Apr 2011 10:15 PM PDT The business magnate and TV reality star, Donald Trump, seems to be making a splash looking at recent polls.  One primary reason why – name recognition.  In The Wall St. Journal/NBC poll he had 96% name recognition. We know his name.  We know that he's outspoken.  We know of his straight talk in the boardroom of his show The Apprentice.  What do we really know about Donald Trump? We're sure he's got good business acumen.  He caught some people's attention with his speech at CPAC.  We know he questions President Obama's place of birth. But again what do we really know about Donald Trump that we'd want to make him our President?  On abortion for instance do most people understand where he lands?  One quote I found back in 2000 in his book, The America We Deserve, he says he is pro-choice, but he was in favor of the partial birth abortion ban. I support a woman's right to choose, but I am uncomfortable with the procedures. When Tim Russert asked me on Meet the Press if I would ban partial-birth abortion, my pro-choice instincts led me to say no. After the show, I consulted two doctors I respect and, upon learning more about this procedure, I have concluded that I would support a ban, (pg. 31-32). He supported a progressive tax on the rich back in 1999, do people today know that?  Has his position changed? What about his position on "civil rights,"again from his book, The America We Deserve, we read. One of our next president's most important goals must be to induce a greater tolerance for diversity. The senseless murder of Matthew Shepard in Wyoming-where an innocent boy was killed because of his sexual orientation- turned my stomach. We must work towards an America where these kinds of hate crimes are unthinkable, (pg. 31). So apparently Trump supports a thought police.  I always figured that murder was a crime of hate, but apparently it is only hateful when it is a certain class of person.  How many people are supportive of his position on gay rights? On school choice, at least from his position in 2000 shared in The America We Deserve, I can resonate with.  He said… Our public schools have grown up in a competition-free zone, surrounded by a very high union wall. Why aren't we shocked at the results? After all, teachers' unions are motivated by the same desires that move the rest of us. With more than 85% of their soft-money donations going to Democrats, teachers' unions know they can count on the politician they back to take a strong stand against school choice. Our public schools are capable of providing a more competitive product than they do today. Look at some of the high school tests from earlier in this century and you'll wonder if they weren't college-level tests. And we've got to bring on the competition -open the schoolhouse doors and let parents choose the best school for their children. Education reformers call this school choice, charter schools, vouchers, even opportunity scholarships. I call it competition-the American way, (pg. 80-81). Do people realize that he supported universal health care in 2000?  Again from The America We Deserve… I'm a conservative on most issues but a liberal on health. It is an unacceptable but accurate fact that the number of uninsured Americans has risen to 42 million. Working out detailed plans will take time. But the goal should be clear: Our people are our greatest asset. We must take care of our own. We must have universal healthcare. Our objective [should be] to make reforms for the moment and, longer term, to find an equivalent of the single-payer plan that is affordable, well-administered, and provides freedom of choice. Possible? The good news is, yes. There is already a system in place-the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program-that can act as a guide for all healthcare reform. It operates through a centralized agency that offers considerable range of choice. While this is a government program, it is also very much market-based. It allows 620 private insurance companies to compete for this market. Once a year participants can choose from plans which vary in benefits and costs, (pg. 206-208, 218). Has his position changed? Then there is the fact that like Newt Gingrich he's been married three times.  That should be a stumbling block for him in states like Iowa and South Carolina. There is much about Donald Trump that voters really don't know, while we know his name, we really need to get to take time to know him.  I would hope that Iowa Caucus goers would be more discerning before deciding to throw their support to him. Share and Enjoy:

Should Iowa Do Annual or Biennial Budgeting? Posted: 06 Apr 2011 05:45 PM PDT Ok, admittedly this isn't a sexy topic, but disagreement on this topic provides a showdown between the Iowa Legislature and Governor Terry Branstad.  The Legislature just passed a one-year budget today.  Last Saturday Governor Branstad promised to veto any budget sent to him that isn't a two year one. Why should Iowa switch to a biennial budget?  Tim Albrecht, communications director for Governor Branstad, makes the case: Two year budgets will put Iowa on a path toward predictability and sustainability. In the past, the Legislature has used one-time sources of revenue to plug budget gaps. This included the so-called federal "stimulus," and robbing other funds such as the Snowmobile Fund and the Senior Living Trust Fund – 89 funds in all were used not for their intended purpose, but instead to fill holes in the General Fund. This allowed legislators and the governor to spend more than the state took in, circumventing our 99% law with "notwithstanding" language. By looking at a budget over the next two years, it will be clear that those funds used to fill gaps truly are ONE-TIME monies, and helps legislators and the governor identify this early, rather than being surprised by it the next year. Democrats say a two-year budget will make it difficult to adjust upcoming budgets to changes in revenue.  But that seems to be precisely the reason that the Branstad administration wants to switch to a biennial budget – to avoid writing a budget based on one-time monies that won't be there the previous year.  This is something that the Culver administration and Legislative Democrats were infamous for.  Albrecht explained… When Gov. Branstad took office, he discovered approximately $770 million in one-time funds were diverted to the state's General Fund, and he put a stop to this by funding the state's obligations out of the true General Fund budget, where it belongs. That is the budget gap the state is facing. In fact, the state's Medicaid program alone faced a $540 million budget gap next year. Why? Because that $540 million was paid for from federal bailout money that won't be there this year. (As an aside, Obama's health care plan would add 100,000 more people to our Medicaid roles – imagine the additional hole that would create.) Two-year budgeting ends the gimmicks, it ends the surprises, and it restores honest, transparent, predictable and sustainable budgeting. Gov. Branstad talked about this at every stop during his campaign, and now nobody should be surprised that he is making good on his promise. Which budget is the best?  It really depends on the state officials.  If they are committed to good implementation that seems to bee the key rather than the actual method of budgeting, (Public Affairs Research Council of Louisiana, "Results of PAR Survey on Annual vs. Biennial State Budgeting," Baton Rouge, LA., 1982). Some stated benefits of a biennial budget: 1.  It is more conducive to long-term planning.  But many states along with the Federal government do long-term planning independent of their budgeting… so there isn't really any evidence that a biennial budget really aides with that.  Ronald Snell in an article at the National Council of State Legislatures website says that Connecticut has reported improvement in this area with a switch to biennial budgeting, "Analysts in Connecticut, however, emphasize that the governor and legislature have greatly increased their long-term budget forecasting and analysis since the state adopted a biennial budget in 1991." 2. It helps with program review and evaluation – a turn to outcome based budgeting.  Albrecht noted this as an advantage, "it gives the Legislature more time in that second year to really dig into the various programs within state government, and offer further scrutiny of resources as to where we can find efficiencies or eliminate duplication."  Snell reports that Connecticut hasn't noticed greater improvement in this area, but want to maintain a biennial budgeting process because of the potential that does exist, but two other states have seen this benefit, "Analysts in two other biennial budget states–Ohio and Oregon–emphasize that their budget cycles facilitate policy consideration and reflection. Oregon's biennial legislative schedule provides time for interim study committees to undertake major projects in the absence of a legislative session." 3. Biennial budgeting reduces executive branch costs of preparing budgets.  Snell notes that state's experiences do bear this out, "Annual budgets certainly create greater pressures on all budget staff and policy makers than biennial budgets, since in many states preliminary work on the next fiscal year's budget is simultaneous with beginning the implementation of the current budget and wrapping up the previous fiscal year's budget." Stated consequences of a biennial budget: 1. Accurate forecasting of revenue – which Iowa Legislative Democrats say is a problem with a switch.  Snell notes however, "Between 60 percent and 70 percent of most states’ general fund appropriations are for elementary, secondary and higher education, health care programs, other entitlement programs, and corrections. Such programs are not susceptible to sweeping changes in funding levels or program redesign. Predictability and stability characterize them regardless of the budget cycle." He also notes that no budget cycle can isolate a state government from economic cycles that can cause instability.  He also noted that states have adopted mechanisms to deal with unexpected fiscal and policy events. Iowa can do the same. Again ultimately sound fiscal policy in Iowa will have more to do with the Governor and the Legislature's commitment to it than the budgeting cycle.  Looking at the pros and cons… I do believe the potential benefits really do outweigh any possible consequences. Share and Enjoy:

Rand Paul Shakes Up Senate Posted: 06 Apr 2011 10:35 AM PDT Last week Kentucky Senator Rand Paul took on Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid head on.  Paul proposed a “Sense of the Senate” amendment to a pre-existing bill.  It would force the Senate to vote on which Obama they agreed with.  Our current president who went to war with Libya without going to congress for a declaration of war or even an authorization for military action, or candidate Obama who said this about the war powers of the President: "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." The amendment was non-binding and really would change nothing, at the same time, it meant everything.  It was a chance to expose hypocrisy on both sides of the isle.   Fearing that his fellow Democrats would be required to vote on the amendment, even a vote to table the amendment to get rid of it without debate, Harry Reid adjourned the Senate early on Thursday and would not reconvene until Monday. In response, on Friday, Senators Paul and Mike Lee of Utah sent a Dear Colleague letter to Reid stating in part: Voting for whether or not to send our sons and daughters to war is the most important and most difficult decision we should ever make as a nation and as senators. We do not take this responsibility lightly, and we believe the Senate is abdicating its responsibility at this very moment. The bombing and military action against the Libyan government will be two weeks old by the time we return to session next week. That means congressional debate on this war is two weeks overdue. Establishing whether the President has the constitutional power to attack another country without congressional authority is the most important issue we can discuss given the President's recent actions.  I implore our Senate leadership to make this a priority before we continue work on other matters in the chamber. Eventually on Tuesday, Reid called for a vote for a procedural maneuver to table the bill, to essentially get rid of it without debate or direct vote.  Reid’s motion passed overwhelmingly 90-10.  Those voting with Paul were: Susan Collins (Maine), Jim DeMint (S.C.), John Ensign(Nev.), Ron Johnson (Wis.), Mike Lee (Utah), Jerry Moran (Kan.), Jeff Sessions (Ala.), Olympia Snowe (Maine) and Pat Toomey (Pa.). What amazes me is what that means our Iowa Senators Grassley and Harkin and 88 other Senators have essentially voted for.  They have voted to not debate our war in Libya, to allow President Obama to continue to make war without authority, and to continue to put our nation’s sons and daughters in harms way without input from their representatives. This reveals the hypocrisy on both sides of the isle.  Anti-war Democrats voted to continue to allow a President to unilaterally take this nation to war, to expand our empire, as long as it is their “team” doing it.  And Constitution-loving Republicans voted to continue to abdicate their constitutional responsibility and allow a President to go to war without authority as long as their military industrial complex donors are satisfied.  Remember this as you see those same members speaking against the Libyan war in the media, it is all a joke, when it is time to get down to business they are hypocrites. It is no wonder Rand Paul is considered a “tea party favorite”, he is certainly taking on the establishment in Washington.  It is then not surprising when many begin to look to him as a possible candidate for President, to bring some real change to the white house. Share and Enjoy:

You are subscribed to email updates from Caffeinated Thoughts To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now.	Email delivery powered by Google
Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610