|
|
|
Author: |
Dan McGrath |
Created: |
3/10/2008 |
 |
|
Dan is a Minneapolis resident. Living in the heart of the beast, he brings an urban perspective to Minnesota conservatism. |
|
On Bonding Bill, Some State Legislators Repent |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
2/23/2010
|
|
|
 Some Representatives and Senators Change Bonding Bill Vote – Despite Veto Threat, Bonding Bill Not Dead Yet
The governor has announced that he will veto the bonding bill in it’s entirety, but House Speaker Kelliher may have one last trick up her sleeve. She said she intends to send the bill back to the Senate for “further consideration.” This is simply a stalling tactic to buy time to pressure the governor into negotiations.
After a conference committee reached agreement on the $1 billion bonding bill, reconciling minor differences between the House and Senate versions, the House took up the final bill for a vote after 7:30 last night, passing it 85-46. Eight Republicans who’d voted to pass the initial bill withdrew their support.
Republican Representatives Bud Nornes (10A), Paul Anderson (13A), Greg Davids (31B), Jim Abeler (48B), Tony Cornish (24B), Tom Hackbarth (48A), Mary Liz Holberg (36A) and Torrey Westrom (11A) changed their votes on the bonding bill to no. Democrats Bill Hilty (8A) and Al Juhnke (13B) also had a change of heart, withdrawing their support for the bill.
Representative Paul Kohls (34A) was home recovering from a concussion when the bonding bill first passed. When he returned to work, he added another "no" vote to repassage of the bonding bill.
The Senate took up the amended bill after 9:00 PM and also passed it, but again, some Republicans changed their votes from yes to no. The final vote in the Senate was 47-19.
Republican senators Bill Ingebrigtsen (11), Joe Gimse (13), Gen Olson (33), Pat Pariseau (36), Mike Jungbbauer (48), and Julie Rosen (24) changed their votes from yes to no. Democrat Tony Lourey (8) also changed his vote to no.
It looks like the bonding bill debate isn’t over yet. How long Speaker Kelliher can keep the bonding bill from the governor’s awaiting veto pen is uncertain. The best case scenario for the taxpayers is no bonding bill at all, but Governor Pawlenty has indicated willingness to sign a bonding bill in the $750 million-range if it includes certain items he considers priorities, like the Moose Lake Sex Offender facility and Vermillion State Park. If legislators rework the bill toward those ends, the governor may still approve more borrowing this session.
Minnesota Majority rejects the idea of any further borrowing until the deficit is solved. Until then, there isn't even money to service the debt we now have. No sane person would take a maxed out credit card they already can't afford the payments on and ask for an increase in the credit limit to borrow more. Why would we allow our state government to do so? In addition, when the deficit is solved, any bonding should only be for genuine, necessary public purpose projects.
Update: Senator John Doll had been erroneously listed as having voted "yes" on repassage. This was an error and we apologize to the senator, who has in fact voted against the bonding bill three times.
Take Action:
- Contact your elected officials and express your opinion on the billion-dollar bonding bill.
- Call the Governor's Office Toll Free at 1-877-37-VETO-IT (877-378-3864). Tell the governor there should be no bonding bill this session unless the deficit is solved first.
|
 |
|
Comments (2)
|
|
|
|
Stop Growing the State's Debt |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
2/22/2010
|
|
|
|
Minnesota Can't Afford Current Debt Payments, but Will Borrow Another $1 Billion
Both the Minnesota House and the Senate have passed similar versions of a bonding bill equaling about $1 billion in general obligation bonding. In the House, Speaker Kelliher pushed the bill through without allowing debate.
Right now, minor differences between the two bills are being reconciled in a conference committee.
Minnesota is already in debt over $7 billion. Making the payments on that borrowed money consumes over 3% of the state’s biennial budget, and we’re running a deficit of over $1.2 billion this year, with deficits projected to be over $5.4 billion in the next biennium. This means we can’t afford to make the debt payments we are already obligated to make. Taking on more debt in a financial crisis like this, one might think the money must be for something pretty important. Some of the money is for worthy projects like improvements to public facilities, but these improvements can wait and there is absolutely no excuse for some of the appropriations. Legislators in the conference committee have decided a criminal sex offender facility in Moose Lake isn’t important enough to borrow money for this year, but they will use the taxpayer’s maxed-out credit card for:
- The Perpich Center for the Arts ($1.2 million)
- The Minnesota Zoo ($32.5 million)
- Amateur sports ($4 million)
- The Metropolitan Council ($74.5 million)
- The Minnesota Historical Society ($14 million)
- New hiking and ATV trails connections ($31 million)
- Expanding a campground facility ($1 million)
This bill will probably emerge from conference committee today. The governor will have three days to veto or sign the bill.
Take Action: Call Governor Pawlenty right now at (toll free) 1-877-378-3864 to urge him to veto the bonding bill. Tell him we have to solve our current budget crisis before we borrow any more money.
Update: Governor Pawlenty has issued a statement, saying he intends to veto the entire bonding bill.
|
|
|
|
Comments (6)
|
|
|
|
GAMC Bill DOA |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
2/19/2010
|
|
|
 Governor Pawlenty Vetoed a bill to restore General Assistance Medical Care funding the instant it passed the House - Override Looms.
Citing the state’s current $1.2 billion biennial budget deficit (not even mentioning the looming deficit of over $5 billion in the next biennium), Pawlenty told legislators that the state can’t afford the $170 million appropriated by the GAMC bill. “This legislation utilizes $170 million that I previously identified in my supplemental budget to help resolve the current $1.2 billion deficit. Those same dollars cannot be used twice,” he explained in his veto letter.
Indeed, legislators seem to have failed to consider where the money was going to come from and according to the governor, they did not address GAMC’s fundamental cost structure problems.
The bill initially passed 45-20 in the Senate, but after conference committee, the vote was 47-16. The House passed it by a huge margin, the vote being 125-9. All 87 DFL representatives voted in the affirmative and only 9 Republicans voted no. Dissenting votes were cast by Representatives Bruce Anderson, Mark Buesgens, Steve Drazkowski, Tom Emmer, Tom Hackbarth, Mary Liz Holberg, Paul Kohls, Dan Severson and Ron Shimanski.
With these margins, a veto override looks like a distinct possibility. If Republicans who voted for the bill will now stand with the governor’s veto, the override will not happen. Democrats in the House will need the support of at least three Republicans to prevail.
House Minority Leader, Kurt Zellers is confident that the Republicans will stick together and sustain the veto. Zellers said he thinks any GAMC solution should be part of a comprehensive budget solution package that addresses the current deficit as a whole. “This should be a part of it, the GAMC fix or a new program should be a part of that fix. We're going to work together again, just like we did with this version of it to find a solution that not only the governor can agree to but the house and senate can agree to as well,” he explained.
It should be noted that recipients of GAMC are not being thrown off of public medical assistance. Current GAMC enrollees are scheduled to be moved onto the more cost-effective Minnesota Care program on April 1st. It's not as generous, but it will provide medical insurance on par with the private plans most Minnesotans utilize - at a far lower cost to the taxpayers.
Click here to read an excellent Op-Ed by Senator Julianne Ortman: The State Can't Afford GAMC.
|
|
|
|
Comments (32)
|
|
|
|
Early Voting is Back in the Legislature |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
2/19/2010
|
|
|
 Some people find voting on Election Day to inconvenient to make the effort - How much should we accommodate everyone's individual whim, at what price?
Last year, Governor Pawlenty vetoed an omnibus elections provision bill that would have made some pretty radical changes in the way elections are conducted in Minnesota. Our system is in need of an overhaul, but the bill passed on an entirely party line vote by Democrats in the legislature last year was the opposite of what’s needed.
There were some good points in the bill, but it’s overall effect was to loosen up an already very liberal and trusting election system.
One element of the bill was early voting. The proposal would have opened up elections to a one-week window instead of holding elections on a single day. Minnesota Majority objected to the plan for several reasons.
While we think voting is a civic duty and want to encourage every eligible voter to get informed and exercise their right, we also don’t believe that the integrity of our elections should take a back seat to convenience. Convenience is really the only argument in favor of early voting, but there are many compelling reasons to reject it.
On Election Day, citizen oversight is a critical process to instilling confidence in the fairness of the process. Trained citizen election judges administer the ballots and report results, while volunteers from the political parties are permitted to observe the process. With early voting, both of these safeguards and guarantees of transparency are impossible. We could never find and pay enough citizen election judges to take a week off work to administer 7 days of voting, so we would have to rely entirely on election bureaucrats to collect and count ballots. Likewise, volunteer poll watchers from the political parties would no longer be viable. Who can afford to take a week off work to watch municipal election offices all day, day in and day out?
Right now, the potential for abuse of our permissive election system is somewhat minimized by time constraints. A person intent on fraud could only do so much damage, traveling from precinct to precinct attempting to cast multiple ballots, because of the time constraints. Allowing in-person ballots with no ID requirement for an entire week opens the window for fraud alarmingly wide.
On Monday, the state Senate Committee on State and Local Government Operations and Oversight held a discussion on early voting. Senator Katie Sieben arranged for four people to testify in favor of enacting early voting in Minnesota. Two were citizens who had received a phone call from either the Franken or Coleman campaign informing them that their absentee ballot had been rejected.
Tami Carpenter of Plymouth was told her ballot was rejected because the signature on her absentee ballot didn’t match her application. Dennis Hansen of Woodbury wasn’t given a reason. They said their absentee ballots were wrongly rejected. Without examining the absentee ballots in question, it’s impossible to know why election judges rejected the ballots, but rejected ballots were gone over with a fine-tooth comb during the Coleman-Franken recount.
They asserted early voting would reduce the number of absentee ballots, save time money and prevent confusion. Mr. Hansen noted that had he been able to vote early in person instead of mailing in his absentee ballot, any errors would have been caught and corrected right away, thereby ensuring his vote was counted.
What Mr. Hansen apparently doesn’t know, and Senator Sieben failed to mention is that Absentee ballots can already be cast in person at municipal election offices, with help from election staff. The solution being sought already exists.
Laura Fredrick-Wang of the League of Women Voters also testified before the committee. She said that current absentee voting laws “compel people to misstate their reason for voting absentee,” because some people who want to vote absentee don’t fall under one of the 4 legally defined acceptable reasons. Essentially, this argument is that the laws established to prevent abuse of the absentee voting privilege force people to commit voter fraud.
Fredrick-Wang went on to say that the requirement to state one of four reasons to vote absentee create a “necessary barrier” to voting. She cited examples of people who may not know for sure whether they’d be in, or pregnant women who could wind up in the hospital delivering a baby on Election Day.
Senator Gerlach countered by reading the statute on absentee ballots, pointing out that those circumstances are already provided for in the law, under the “reasonable expectation” language.
Fredrick-Wang responded that it doesn’t matter if those situations are covered by the acceptable excuses for absentee voting, saying, “it’s just easier to vote early than to vote absentee.”
At that point, Senator Gerlach had an “ah-ha” moment. “So this isn’t really about barriers to voting. I’m disappointed. You stared out talking about absolute barriers but now you are saying it’s really just about convenience. While I’m all for making things convenient – we shouldn’t erect needless obstacles to voting – we have to balance convenience with confidence in the outcome of elections. Confidence, in my view has to take precedence.”
Senator Gerlach is right. Minnesota already enjoys the nation’s highest level of voter participation. There’s no need to further simplify voting at the potential expense of integrity.
While all citizens have the right to vote, there is not necessarily a right to absentee ballots, but our society has decided to create the privilege as a convenience. We are already taking the step of accommodating people who choose to be out of the country on Election Day, the obvious exception being military service, where a person could be deployed overseas and have no other choice but to be absent on Election Day. We certainly have no obligation to change the date of an election to accommodate certain individuals preferences.
Early voting creates a host of potential issues, like the afore mentioned larger window for abuse and the elimination of citizen oversight of voting. In addition, circumstances change. When Senator Wellstone was unexpectedly killed in a plane crash during the campaign, new ballots had to be hastily created for Election Day. If early voting had been allowed, the people who cast votes for Wellstone in advance of the election would have wasted their ballots in the Senate race. With everyone voting on the same day, we all have access to the same information before casting a ballot and in the case of Absentee ballots, they can be overridden by a subsequent absentee or in-person ballot. Early voting would not accommodate that circumstance.
Take Action: Contact your elected officials and tell them you oppose early voting because confidence in the integrity of our elections is more important than accommodating the whims of people who find exercising their civic responsibility to vote on Election Day too inconvenient to make the effort.
|
|
|
|
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
House Passes $1.1 Billion Bonding Bill |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
2/16/2010
|
|
|
|
Time for another bonding bill: How much are those gorilla cages going to set me back?
Without allowing any debate or minority party input, Speaker Kelliher pushed through HF2700, essentially a carbon copy of the Senate bonding bill, but with 4 amendments adopted in the House. It passed by a vote of 92-37, mostly along party lines. Republican representatives Abeler, Davids, Howes, Nornes, Lanning and Paul Anderson broke ranks and voted for the bill.
Representative Emmer had introduced an amendment to undo previous legislation that set state-level climate change goals based on a paper produced in part by the controversial Center for Climate Strategies. The amendment failed on a party line vote.
Representative Seifert decried the lack of opportunity for debate on the bonding bill, saying “What we’ve just witnessed was the passage of a bill without any opportunity to represent our constituents.”
The bonding bill is headed for a conference committee to work out the minor differences between SF2360 and HF2700 and will be heading for the Governor’s desk in short order.
Governor Pawlenty has three options:
- Sign the bill (not at all likely)
- Line-item veto some items to prioritize and reduce the size of the bonding bill
- Veto the entire bonding bill
We’re encouraging the governor to veto the entire bill. The spending projects in this year’s bonding bill can wait until Minnesota’s fiscal house is back in order. We have already exceeded the traditional state debt limit and currently owe over $7 billion and have a general fund deficit next biennium projected to be over $5.4 billion.
Like the Senate bill, the House bonding bill aims to borrow half-a-billion to renovate and buy new buildings for the U of M and state colleges as well as:
-
$1.2 million for the Perpich Center for the Arts
-
$32.5 million for the Minnesota Zoo
-
$4 million for amateur sports
-
$74.5 million for the Metropolitan Council
-
$14 million for the Minnesota Historical Society
Take Action:
|
|
|
|
Comments (0)
|
|
|
|
State Blows By Credit Limit |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
2/9/2010
|
|
|
 Bonding Bill Exceeds Debt Limit
The most pressing matter before the state legislature this year is closing a budget shortfall of over $5.4 billion, but that doesn’t seem to be the priority. Instead of reigning in spending, many legislators want to whip out the state’s credit card, but it’s already maxed out.
Our state legislature has historically held debt service to no more than 3% of general fund revenues. Last year the legislature voted to ignore that debt limit and borrow another $300 million, on top of the previous year’s nearly $1 billion bonding spending spree.
Minnesota is now in debt to the tune of $5,033,950,000, with another $2.3 billion authorized bonding that hasn’t been issued yet (but it will be), bringing our total debt to over $7 billion.
The payments and interest on that enormous debt add up to $452 million a year.
We’ve exceeded the 3% credit limit. In 2012, the debt service is projected to be nearly 4% of the general fund budget and still the legislature can’t put away the credit cards. Another bonding bill is set for a vote in the Senate as early as today. This time they want to borrow another $1.2 billion for such immediate necessities as:
-
New and upgraded exhibits at the Minnesota Zoo - $21 million
-
New trails, paving and connecting existing trails – over $31 million
-
A new volleyball court in Rochester - $5 million
-
A new women’s hockey center in Blaine - $1 million
-
Four new ice rinks in Big Lake, Cokato, Fergus falls and New Hope - $2 million
-
Regional amateur sports facilities in Marshall and Moorhead - $5 million
-
Campground expansion in Two Harbors $1 million
Read the Entire Bonding Bill here
Do we really need to spend money on these amenities during an economic recession? Are new jogging and ATV trails a high priority when the state budget is in the red by billions of dollars and when 10% or more of the workforce can’t find employment?
They’re spending our money. They have an obligation to do so prudently.
Update: The Senate passed the bonding bill by a vote of 52-14.
|
|
|
|
Comments (5)
|
|
|
|
A Declaration of Health Care Independence |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
1/29/2010
|
|
|
|
 Demand Real Health Care Reform
In his state of the union address, President Barack Obama tried to assure us that he had the right plan for America's future. He asked members of Congress to support his political agenda, including a government takeover of health care reform.
The American people spoke last summer when thousands attended town hall meetings across our nation. They spoke out again in the fall when nearly a million people marched on Washington. Most recently, the voters of Massachusetts spoke by electing a Republican to the US Senate for the first time in 60 years. But President Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi STILL don't seem to be getting the message (see here).
Minnesota Representative Michele Bachmann, together with other members of Congress, has unveiled the Declaration of Health Care Independence. The Declaration is a commitment to protect the rights of the American people to make their own health decisions, reduce bureaucratic red-tape, decrease intergenerational debt, and includes 10 common-sense principles that must be included in any future health care reforms.
Bachmann is calling on all concerned Americans to sign the Declaration and encourage their elected officials in Congress to do the same. Hopefully, Congressional leaders will finally get the message that it's time to start over and develop a set of common-sense health care reforms that have the support of the American people.
TAKE ACTION:
|
|
|
|
Comments (4)
|
|
|
|
Majority Report: Election Integrity Part 2 |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
1/18/2010
|
|
|
|
Conclusion of Davis Elections Interview
Drew Emmer concludes his interview of Minnesota Majority's president, Jeff Davis about the integrity of Minnesota's elections in this second installment.
The supreme court elections lawsuits is explained and Drew and Jeff break down all the research, findings and evidence.
Are the dead voting? What do we do about non-existent voter registration addresses and felons registering to vote? Are they voting and is anybody investigating? Find out the answers to these questions and learn more than anyone else will teach you about Minnesota's election system on the Minnesota Majority Report.
Additional resources:
Take Action:
|
|
|
|
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
2010 Legislative Session Outlook |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
1/12/2010
|
|
|
Legislative Outlook Holds Few Surprises. Budget Deficit and Jobs Top Priority Lists
Politics in Minnesota hosted a “Legislative Outlook,” panel this morning, featuring House Speaker Margaret Anderson Kelliher, Senate Majority Leader Larry Pogemiller, Senate Minority Leader David Senjem and House Minority Leader Kurt Zellers. The event was moderated by TPT Channel 2’s Mary Lahammer. Representative Zellers suffered a flat tire on the way to the Sheraton but arrived in time to fully participate in the discussions.
It wasn’t much of a surprise that legislative leaders are in agreement on what the legislative session has in store and what the priority issues will be. Anyone who’s paying attention knows the state’s projected $1.2 billion budget deficit coming on the heels of last session’s even bigger shortfall has to be a top priority. The state’s structural budget problems and Minnesota’s economy are going to be front and center. Everyone talked about jobs, which is (in a somewhat rare convergence) exactly what these illustrious leaders’ constituents are talking about.
That the budget and jobs are top items to address is where the consensus ends, though. How best to deal with them, not surprisingly, broke down along party lines.
Moderator Mary Lahammer observed, “The old tax and spend argument.” Senator Poegamiller took exception to the remark, but as the discussion unfolded, it was apparent that Lahammer’s observation was apt. Some things never change. Democratic legislators argued that revenues (legislative code for taxes) have to be raised and resisted the idea that budget cuts are necessarily productive while the Republican leaders insisted that taxes shouldn’t be raised in our current economic environment. They advocated spending cuts. Representative Zellers noted that workers in the private sector are facing layoffs and wage cuts while state employees are getting raises. He said there has to be some shared sacrifice.
Speaker Kelliher stated that her legislative priorities this session will be #1 Jobs, #2 Restoring GAMC (General Assistance Medical Care) funding, #3 the Budget, though education cuts are off the table in her mind. There was general agreement among the panelists on these priorities.
As to ideas, Rep. Zellers and Rep. Kelliher made statements as to what they weren’t going to do. Kelliher said cuts to services were the same as a tax increase on the “most vulnerable” and families earning less than $40,000. Zellers, while advocating “growing” our way out of the deficit said we can’t give up-front equipment exemptions to businesses or cut corporate tax rates, because the money isn’t there.
Senator Senjem said his priorities were to protect K-12 spending, nursing homes, veterans and public safety budgets. "Everything else," he said, "is open to cuts."
For jobs creation, Speaker Kelliher suggested following the example of a Wisconsin government program called “The Network,” which provides step by step assistance to start-up businesses. She said it could cost as little as $200,000.
Senator Senjem suggested more public support for bio-sciences at the U of M and Mayo clinic as ways to stimulate the state’s economy. He said more U of M research would create a new stronger economy for Minnesota. Senjem also suggested that the legislature needed to focus on investing in areas he says Minnesota is strong in like renewable energy, citing biomass, wind and solar power as examples.
Senator Pogemiller said tax hikes wouldn’t hurt the jobs market or revenues, citing Delta Airlines’ recent move to increase bag-handling fees as an example of his reasoning. “Obviously, they wouldn’t do that unless the market could bear it,” he said.
Kelliher echoed Pogemiller’s philosophy, saying “budget cuts don’t keep jobs in Minnesota – History shows that the opposite is true.”
Nobody wanted to talk about funding a new Vikings stadium. When the question was raised, each of the four panelists said it wasn’t likely to be a priority and kept their answers short and vague. Senator Senjem and Rep. Zellers both mentioned a “Racino” as a possible funding source, but acknowledged such a plan wasn’t likely to pass or be signed by the governor.
Another issue briefly addressed by Speaker Kelliher was election reform. She said a bill would probably advance to move the state’s primary election up a month to comport with new federal legislation.
The one bright spot that stood out from the forum was a sense of general agreement that Minnesota's budget was structurally flawed and that a more permanent budget solution was needed, one that fundamentally reformed the way the state spends money. Senator Pogemiller summed up the notion saying, "We're in a state of denial about the budget. It's factual that we have to bring the cost structure down."
|
|
|
|
Comments (4)
|
|
|
|
Balanced Budget Amendment Will Do Just That |
|
|
By Dan McGrath on
1/12/2010
|
|
|
|
By Governor Tim Pawlenty
As we begin a new year and Congress reconvenes, an unpleasant reality is increasingly hitting home with ordinary Americans: Leaders in both parties have irresponsibly run up debt. And, since President Obama took office, the debt crisis has grown exponentially worse. The only way to solve the problem in the long run is with a Constitutional amendment.
The facts tell the story. The average American household now carries over half-a-million dollars in Federal debt. And it’s growing quickly: The Obama administration is now predicting that the federal budget deficit will exceed $10 trillion through 2019. Meanwhile, some economists are predicting that in about 15 years, our public debt will be more than 100 percent of gross domestic product (GDP). And that figure is just the tip of the iceberg: If you look at all of the unfunded liabilities of the Federal government, the national debt right now is already at least $65 trillion.
With the Federal government taking in about $2 trillion a year, this runaway spending is not sustainable. If we continue down the current path of runaway deficits, we’re going to have the Federal government creating a public-finances-equivalent to the subprime mortgage meltdown in the not too distant future.
When a family or business faces the sort of revenue gap we are facing as a nation, they have to drastically tighten their belts. Government must do the same.
States across the country are making difficult choices to balance their books. In Minnesota, we’ve prioritized veterans, public safety and schools, while making difficult cuts to almost everything else in order to avoid even higher taxes. Most other states are making similar tough choices – choices that could grow even harder depending on the changes to Medicaid being proposed by Congressional Democrats.
Cutting spending is necessary because our nation’s fiscal imbalance threatens our future prosperity, our national security, and the heart of the American dream. Without change, sooner or later massive Federal debt will force painful spending cuts, higher taxes, a weaker dollar and runaway inflation.
Fortunately, it’s not too late to turn things around. By reining in our spending now, we can right our fiscal ship. We can extend freedom and opportunity by making government live within its means. We can safeguard our prospects for long-term, future prosperity that will make this country an even greater place for future generations to grow up, live, work and raise a family than it already is—but we must act.
Balancing the budget will require some tough decisions. Congress must reduce discretionary spending in real terms, with exceptions for key programs such as military, veterans, and public safety. The Congress must also reject costly new spending initiatives, like new health care entitlements.
In the long run, sending different politicians to Washington will not be enough. We need a mechanism in place to enforce balanced budgets, because regardless of which party is in power, they have not done a good job of getting budgets to balance over time. That’s why I’m calling for a Constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget, with exceptions for war, natural disasters, and other emergencies.
That won’t be easy; it will require a lot of hard work; and it will be a hard agenda to sell. That’s what leadership is about, though. My wish, as we begin this year, is for us to see much more of that from this administration and Congress.
Take Action: Sign the Balanced Budget Amendment Petition.
|
|
|
|
Comments (1)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|