Minnesota State Rep. Introduces Bill To Halt Public Financing Of Football Stadium Until Revenue Is Secure

Artist's rendering of new Vikings stadium

The Minnesota state legislature last year approved a financing plan for a new stadium for the National Football League’s Minnesota Vikings. In doing so, it exploited a legal loophole to provide $348 million in taxpayer money for the project.

The revenues were supposed to come from revenues from new electronic pull-tab machines, but by January, it was already clear that those revenues weren’t keeping up with projections, meaning the new stadium was already turning into a financial nightmare before construction even began. Now, a Minnesota state representative is preparing to introduce legislation that would halt construction — and the bond sale meant to pay for it — until the state can guarantee that the pull-tabs will generate enough revenue to pay for it, the St. Paul Pioneer Press reports:

Republican state Sen. Sean Nienow of Cambridge says he’ll introduce a bill that would delay the sale of bonds for a new Vikings stadium until a revenue stream to pay them off is secured.

Additional tax revenue from newly authorized electronic forms of charitable gaming, which was supposed to pay the state’s share of the stadium, is coming in much slower than anticipated, and the backup sources aren’t expected to be able to produce more than a few million dollars per year.

Nienow says he and Rep. Mary Franson, R-Alexandria, plan to introduce the bill next week.

As we have documented here, stadiums consistently turn out as bad deals for taxpayers, as the promised revenue streams almost always come up short of projections and leave cities and states footing the bill, whether through increased debt, higher taxes, or cuts to public programs.

What makes Minnesota’s stadium different is that it became clear even before construction began that revenues meant to pay for the stadium aren’t going to come close to covering the cost. While Nienow’s legislation wouldn’t abandon the stadium plan altogether, it would still force the state to find actual revenue to pay for the stadium, though that will still leave taxpayers footing the bill so the Vikings’ wealthy owner can make more money from a stadium than he could have made from the old one. (HT Field of Schemes)

View the original article here

User talk:Aschlafly

(Difference between revisions)::On the contrary, I have been called a dick, a parodist, a "smarmy little prefect", among other things. I do my best to present Conservapedia in a positive light, and frankly, are doing a lot more good than Markman, going there to deliberately spread a false impression of a surly, confrontational Conservapedia. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT)::On the contrary, I have been called a dick, a parodist, a "smarmy little prefect", among other things. I do my best to present Conservapedia in a positive light, and frankly, are doing a lot more good than Markman, going there to deliberately spread a false impression of a surly, confrontational Conservapedia. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT):::I think that I made my case and I don't need to elaborate any further. I don't only enforce the 90/10 rule but also try to comply with it, so I'll refrain from any further replies until Mr. Schlafly says his word. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:09, 6 June 2013 (EDT):::I think that I made my case and I don't need to elaborate any further. I don't only enforce the 90/10 rule but also try to comply with it, so I'll refrain from any further replies until Mr. Schlafly says his word. - [[User:Markman|Markman]] 16:09, 6 June 2013 (EDT)::::I think that you shouldn't jump the gun, and instead, should wait for Mr. Schlafly's word on this matter. [[User:Brenden|brenden]] 16:05, 7 June 2013 (EDT)A sock of Mr. Mason has recently posted some vile attacks on that page. Although I have undid them, someone may want to block that sock and/or take other remedial measures.  Thanks,  [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 12:43, 7 June 2013 (EDT)A sock of Mr. Mason has recently posted some vile attacks on that page. Although I have undid them, someone may want to block that sock and/or take other remedial measures.  Thanks,  [[User:WilliamWB|WilliamWB]] 12:43, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

Comment here

Hi! Thank for for creating this website.

Archive Index

if (window.showTocToggle) { var tocShowText = "show"; var tocHideText = "hide"; showTocToggle(); }

I was a little bit disappointed that Pentecost didn't make the Main Page, even after I had mentioned it: see Talk:Main_Page#Pentecost....

I'd like to see the Christian Feasts being honored on the Main Page, be it by a masterpiece, a link to an article, etc.: the next will be Trinity Sunday. Any ideas?

Thanks, --AugustO 08:42, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Good suggestions. Often this will depend on what else is in the news, or what other entries editors are spending their time on at a particularly moment. Other websites on the internet are purely religious sites.--Andy Schlafly 10:48, 21 May 2013 (EDT)

Mr. Schlafly,
I wanted to apologize if my past edit offended you or damaged the project. It was never my intent to remove information from the table, but only to enhance the layout and supplement the content through additional citations. I have also apologized on the talk page of the article, but I thought I owed you a direct apology as well.

Additionally, I still have a desire to improve the article. I have posted a proposed plan on the talk page, and I would be very grateful for your input. I eagerly await your suggestions.

Sincerely, WilliamWB 11:27, 23 May 2013 (EDT)

Andrew Schlafly, you claimed that „Jesus prayed, often publicly, for people”. I'm still interested in an example for this - as you said that this happened often, you should be able to provide us with one. To be more precise: I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks ( e?????? - like in Matthew 14:19) or laying hands upon someone (?p?t???µ? ?e??a? - like in Matthew 19:15), I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people.

Could you please give us a verse? Thank you. --AugustO 15:40, 24 May 2013 (EDT)

For example, Jesus routinely prayed in public before each meal.--Andy Schlafly 21:32, 24 May 2013 (EDT) „I don't want examples of Jesus blessing or giving thanks” „I'd like to see an example of Jesus praying (p??se???µa?) publicly for people” „Could you please give us a verse?” As you can see, your answer doesn't match the question. --AugustO 22:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) Try John 8-14 (Translated)#11:41 - when Jesus very publicly prays to and thanks God prior to raising Lazarus from the dead.--Andy Schlafly 23:45, 24 May 2013 (EDT) I wonder if he'd be satisfied with John 17:11-17: Holy Father, keep them in your name, which you have given me, that they may be one, even as we are one. 12 While I was with them, I kept them in your name, which you have given me. I have guarded them, and not one of them has been lost except the son of destruction, that the Scripture might be fulfilled. 13 But now I am coming to you, and these things I speak in the world, that they may have my joy fulfilled in themselves. 14 I have given them your word, and the world has hated them because they are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 15 I do not ask that you take them out of the world, but that you keep them from the evil one. 16 They are not of the world, just as I am not of the world. 17 Sanctify them in the truth; your word is truth. [1] Perhaps there aren't as many transcripts of our Lord's specific prayers as we'd all like. --Ed Poor Talk 19:46, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

I may be a "liberal" Christian but I am devout, but some articles (guess by who?) suggest I am more associated with Satan them I am Jesus. I will not stand for it any longer--Patmac 09:34, 26 May 2013 (EDT)

Dear Mr. Schlafly,

Can you please unprotect this page? I would like to update it with information about VY and Shock's chatroom that has come to light at Talk:Main Page. If this is not desirable, then I would suggest unprotecting the page (which is currently sourced only to a single page on an anonymous blog) so that a more verifiable article can be written in its place (and perhaps if I can get a hold of Conservative, he can point me to reliable sources). Thanks, GregG 21:28, 31 May 2013 (EDT)

Can you do anything with this: Template:Dead link? --JoeyJ 14:02, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

What is wrong with it?--Andy Schlafly 16:20, 1 June 2013 (EDT) Maybe you can expand it. In Wikipedia there is a category for articles with dead links --JoeyJ 09:00, 2 June 2013 (EDT) I've done it. If Mr. Schlafly or someone else wants to change the exact name of the category, they can go ahead. Onward 09:25, 2 June 2013 (EDT)

Could you restore my talk page, actually? A nice little memento from the hoopla. :) Onward 20:24, 1 June 2013 (EDT)

Conservative still goes on with his hatred, I will get blocked for this but here is my promise, I will wait 3 days and if after that time this users hatred is not completely removed from this site I am going to report Conservapedia to the Southern Poverty Law Center and request it is designated a hate group.--Patmac 11:28, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

I would have preferred to send these messages to you in person but I cannot find an email for you so it has to be done here, I have requested you do something before but have been constantly ignored. Lets face it Andy, despite not holding office you are very much a politician, and what does a politician do when a subordinate constantly jeopardizes his position? He gits rid.--Patmac 11:41, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Conservapedia supports and defends the full right to free speech, and urges liberal groups to do likewise.--Andy Schlafly 12:16, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is not free speech, this is hate speech. When i read that Jesus eats and spits out moderate Christians that is hate speech, and it also brings the name of our saviour into disrepute. He does not just attack evolutionists and atheists, he attacks Christians, to the extent that we are not Christians at all. "Liberal" Christianity and marital infidelity, "Liberal" Christianity and whore mongering, "Liberal" Christianity and bestiality, need i say more? But if someone dare challenge his position, he blocks them, how is that free speech? I think you personally have some pretty strange ideas but you do allow them to be challenged without going on a hate spree, and you are to be respected for that. But constantly allowing Conservative to post his vile tirade, however free it may be, just undermines Conservatives and by extension your image.--Patmac 12:32, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This user Pacmac is blocked indefinitely. Apparently, he thinks he can define what hatred is, even so far as to saying that the above reference concerning Jesus constitutes "hate speech". This is the place in the Bible where it comes from, Revelation, Chapter 2: 14 And unto the angel of the church of the Laodiceans write; These things saith the Amen, the faithful and true witness, the beginning of the creation of God; 15 I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot. 16 So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth. 17 Because thou sayest, I am rich, and increased with goods, and have need of nothing; and knowest not that thou art wretched, and miserable, and poor, and blind, and naked: 18 I counsel thee to buy of me gold tried in the fire, that thou mayest be rich; and white raiment, that thou mayest be clothed, and that the shame of thy nakedness do not appear; and anoint thine eyes with eyesalve, that thou mayest see. What it means is that this user is trying his best to stop any mention of the Bible unless this mention is done in accordance with his liberal philosophy; which means that the above Revelation verses are null and void. He further threatens to call the SPLC on us if we don't behave in according to his whims, i.e. one hate filled individual calling a hate-filled organization to complain about our alleged hate against his own hate-filled ideas. Patmac had also forgotten about our First Amendment RIGHTS to FREE SPEECH, FREEDOM OF RELIGION, and FREEDOM TO ASSEMBLE. He's so filled with hate himself that he would demand the SPLC to try to stop us from enjoying those rights. As far as I'm concerned, he failed. And he can continue failing somewhere else. Karajou 13:12, 3 June 2013 (EDT) Firstly, let me say that I do not endorse user:Patmac`s tactics of legal threats. They have no place on a wiki, and should instead be sent to the site's owner (Mr. Schlafly) by email. However, as per hate speech and the Bible, it is clear that the Bible condemns churches who do not uphold the tenets of Christianity, but on the other hand, who is User:C to decide which churches are not upholding these tenets? brenden 13:43, 3 June 2013 (EDT)

This is an opportunity for Andy to show some leadership in setting a path that de-escallates the conflict here. On the one hand, Patmac is absolutely right about the intemperate nature of User:C's comments. On the other hand, Patmac's frustration with the failure to address that problem led him to make intemperate remarks as well. I suggest that we forgive Patmac for his transgression, and address whether User:C's edits are consistent with the fundamental commandments of Conservapedia. This is not a "Free Speech" issue. User:C is free to express his views on his private blog. Our question is whether CP should endorse and republish some sharp comments as the views of the entire project. Wschact 07:22, 4 June 2013 (EDT)

ReymeDneK's contributions? Thanks, GregG 10:15, 5 June 2013 (EDT)

There is a dispute between myself and user:Markman regarding User:Rafael's block. Could you please provide some guidance? Thanks, brenden 15:34, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

See this edit. Clear case of incivility. Considering his previous record I'd say he should be banned for at least a week if not more. I would have given him a lifetime ban but unfortunately there are too many editors with blocking rights who seem to be determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules. Interestingly enough, many of those editors are also in cordial relations with the RW userbase. - Markman 15:42, 6 June 2013 (EDT) You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist. As per "determined to subvert Conservapedia's rules", I would suggest that you re-read the rules. I still haven't forgotten your bullying of AlanE. brenden 15:48, 6 June 2013 (EDT) "You should also point out that, aside from you, the only other person who has given Rafael a block, was DamianJohn, and a now outed parodist." Come on darling, don't be afraid to call the parodist by his name - Dvergne. The same Dvergne who sided with you and with AlanE against me. So you're basically admitting to both associating with a liberal website and with parodists. - Markman 15:54, 6 June 2013 (EDT) As far as I understand, User:Dvergne, Karajou, and myself were chastising you for spamming {{uncited}} specifically on AlanE's contributions. Are you insinuating that Karajou is "associating with a parodist"?? Furthermore, once again, you have shown yourself unwilling to read that userpage, that explains my goals on that website specifically. In case you can't see that website, I have the words reproduced below:

==Wat?== *Why are you here? :I'd rather not be impersonated, and I would like a word in this place. *What are you doing at Conservapedia? :I do enjoy thought exercises. While Conservapedia does go in a little overboard at times, I still have faith in it. I feel that the only reason that Conservapedia's problems are so famous, are because of the inordinate amount of trolls and parodists, trying their best to write something so ridiculous, that their comrades might congratulate them. That, and the continued threats by [[user:naca|certain]] [[user:Umichcynic|people]] [[user:Proxima Centauri|at]] [[Liberapedia|certain websites]], to (blocked by spam filter), and harrass the precarious community at Conservapedia, have not helped the situation. One of my goals there is to rectify that. brenden 16:00, 6 June 2013 (EDT)

Your other edits on that website reveal a different story. Your cordial relations with the RW userbase shows that you're one of them. - Markman 16:04, 6 June 2013 (EDT) In the days of TK your admiting you are even reading that site would have earnt you a ban. Davidspencer 16:05, 6 June 2013 (EDT) On the contrary, I have been called a dick, a parodist, a "smarmy little prefect", among other things. I do my best to present Conservapedia in a positive light, and frankly, are doing a lot more good than Markman, going there to deliberately spread a false impression of a surly, confrontational Conservapedia. brenden 16:06, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that I made my case and I don't need to elaborate any further. I don't only enforce the 90/10 rule but also try to comply with it, so I'll refrain from any further replies until Mr. Schlafly says his word. - Markman 16:09, 6 June 2013 (EDT) I think that you shouldn't jump the gun, and instead, should wait for Mr. Schlafly's word on this matter. brenden 16:05, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

A sock of Mr. Mason has recently posted some vile attacks on that page. Although I have undid them, someone may want to block that sock and/or take other remedial measures. Thanks, WilliamWB 12:43, 7 June 2013 (EDT)

View the original article here

For Small Biz, Health Care Top Concern: Survey

 Highlight transcript below to create clipTranscript:  Print  |  Email Go  Click text to jump within videoFri 05 Apr 13 | 07:15 PM ET Grace-Marie Turner, Galen Institute president reveals the results of a new survey from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce that indicates health care reform is the top economic concern for small businesses. Rana Foroohar, Time Magazine; Jim Pethokoukis, American Enterprise Institute; and Matt Swift, Legacy Management Group CEO, weigh in.

View the original article here

Principle of uniformity

(Difference between revisions)

Principle of uniformity is the idea that whatever caused some effect in the past will cause the same effect in the present.[1]

View the original article here

Report: Ohio Is Illegally Throwing Poor People In Jail For Owing Money

The Americans Civil Liberties Union on Friday revealed that courts in Ohio are illegally throwing poor people in jail for being unable to pay off a debt.

In a report titled, “The Outskirts of Hope,” (PDF) the ACLU shines a light on a harrowing “debtors’ prison” system in Ohio — one that violates both the United States’ and the Ohio constitution. Ohioans are being jailed for “as small as a few hundred dollars,” despite the constitutional violation, and the economic evidence that it costs the state more to pay for their jail sentence than the amount of the debt.

In its report, the ACLU details the stories of several people sent to debtors’ prison. Jack Dawley owed $1,500 in “fines and costs in the Norwalk Municipal Court,” and was behind on child support payments, leading the Ohio courts to send him to prison in Wisconsin for 3 and a half years. He still struggles with trying to repay the fines. Another victim of the system, single mother Tricia Metcalf, was taken to jail each and every time she wasn’t able to make her $50-a-month payments on fines for writing bad checks. Megan Sharp, whose husband is currently in jail on overdue fines, was unable to pay $300 in fines for driving on a suspended license and went to jail for 10 days. When she got out, she owed $200 more on top of the original amount. Both she and her husband are unemployed.

The AP has a round up of the charges that the ACLU levels against Ohio, writ large:

— In the second half of last year, more than one in every five of all bookings in the Huron County jail — originating from Norwalk Municipal Court cases — involved a failure to pay fines.

— In suburban Cleveland, Parma Municipal Court jailed at least 45 defendants for failure to pay fines and costs between July 15 and August 31, 2012.

— During the same period, Sandusky Municipal Court jailed at least 75 people for similar charges.

Court officials have pledged to look into the accusations.

In 2011, ThinkProgress reported on how the deep recession and loss of employment had led to a return of debtor’s prisons. People were reportedly put in jail for something as small as missing a single furniture payment.

View the original article here

ObamaCare Bait and Switch

Liberals have spent years claiming that "rate shock" under the Affordable Care Act—the 20% to 30% average spike in insurance premiums that every independent analyst projects—is merely the political imagination of Republicans and the insurance industry. So they immediately claimed victory when California reported last month that the plans that will be available on the state's new insurance exchange next year would be cheaper than they are today.

Except now it emerges that California goosed the data to make it appear as if ObamaCare won't send costs aloft as the law's regulations and mandates kick in. It will, by a lot. And now liberals have suddenly switched to arguing that, sure, insurance will be more expensive but the new costs are justified. Needless to say that was not how Democrats sold health-care reform.

California reported that the rates would range from 2% above to 29% below the current market. "This is a home run for consumers in every region of California," said Peter Lee, the director of the state exchange. "These rates are way below the worst-case gloom-and-doom scenarios we have heard."

But Mr. Lee and his fellow regulators were making a false comparison. They weren't looking at California's lightly regulated individual insurance market that functions surprisingly well. They were comparing ObamaCare insurance to the state's current small-business market where regulations similar to ObamaCare have already been imposed.

In other words, California wasn't comparing apples to apples. It wasn't even comparing apples to oranges. It was comparing apples to ostriches. The conservative analyst Avik Roy consulted current rates on the eHealthInsurance website and discovered that the cheapest ObamaCare plan for a typical 25-year-old man is roughly 64% to 117% more expensive than the five cheapest policies sold today. For a 40 year old, it's 73% to 146%. Stanford economist Dan Kessler adds his observations nearby.

We wouldn't be shocked if California deliberately abused statistics in the hopes that no one would notice that in some cases premiums would more than double. In any case, the turn among the liberals who touted the fake results has been educational.

They now concede that individual costs will rise but claim that it is unfair to compare today's market to ObamaCare because ObamaCare mandates much richer benefits. Another liberal rationalization is that the cost-increasing regulations are meant to help people with pre-existing conditions, so they're worth it.

So they're finally admitting what some of us predicted from the start, but that's also the policy point. Americans are being forced to buy more expensive coverage than what they willingly buy today. Liberals also argue that some of the new costs will be offset by subsidies, which is great news unless you happen to be a taxpayer or aren't eligible for ObamaCare dollars and wake up to find your current coverage is illegal.

The Affordable Care Act was sold as a tool to lower health costs. In case you missed it, the claim is right there in the law's title. The new Democratic position is that the entitlement will do the opposite but never mind, which is at least more honest.

But we wonder how long this new candor will last. If the public reacts badly to these higher premiums, the authors of ObamaCare will soon be back to blaming insurance companies and Republicans.

A version of this article appeared June 4, 2013, on page A14 in the U.S. edition of The Wall Street Journal, with the headline: ObamaCare Bait and Switch.

View the original article here

Executive Order -- Adjustments of Certain Rates of Pay

The White House

Office of the Press Secretary

EXECUTIVE ORDER

- - - - - - -

ADJUSTMENTS OF CERTAIN RATES OF PAY

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-322), as extended by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), which requires certain pay schedules for civilian Federal employees to remain at 2010 levels through 2013, it is hereby ordered as follows:

Section 1. Statutory Pay Systems. Pursuant to the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), the rates of basic pay or salaries of the statutory pay systems (as defined in 5 U.S.C. 5302(1)) are set forth on the schedules attached hereto and made a part hereof:

(a) The General Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5332(a)) at Schedule 1;

(b) The Foreign Service Schedule (22 U.S.C. 3963) at Schedule 2; and

(c) The schedules for the Veterans Health Administration of the Department of Veterans Affairs (38 U.S.C. 7306, 7404; section 301(a) of Public Law 102-40) at Schedule 3.

Sec. 2. Senior Executive Service. The ranges of rates of basic pay for senior executives in the Senior Executive Service, as established pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 5382, are set forth on Schedule 4 attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Sec. 3. Certain Executive, Legislative, and Judicial Salaries. The rates of basic pay or salaries for the following offices and positions are set forth on the schedules attached hereto and made a part hereof:

(a) The Executive Schedule (5 U.S.C. 5312-5318) at Schedule 5;

(b) The Vice President (3 U.S.C. 104) and the Congress (2 U.S.C. 31) at Schedule 6; and

(c) Justices and judges (28 U.S.C. 5, 44(d), 135, 252, and 461(a), and section 140 of Public Law 97-92) at Schedule

Sec. 4. Uniformed Services. The rates of monthly basic pay (37 U.S.C. 203(a)) for members of the uniformed services, as adjusted under 37 U.S.C. 1009, and the rate of monthly cadet or midshipman pay (37 U.S.C. 203(c)) are set forth on Schedule 8 attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Sec. 5. Locality-Based Comparability Payments. (a) Pursuant to sections 5304 and 5304a of title 5, United States Code, and the Continuing Appropriations and Surface Transportation Extensions Act, 2011 (Public Law 111-322), as extended by the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2013 (Public Law 113-6), locality-based comparability payments shall be paid in accordance with Schedule 9 attached hereto and made a part hereof.

(b) The Director of the Office of Personnel Management shall take such actions as may be necessary to implement these payments and to publish appropriate notice of such payments in the Federal Register.

Sec. 6. Administrative Law Judges. Pursuant to section 5372 of title 5, United States Code, the rates of basic pay for administrative law judges are set forth on Schedule 10 attached hereto and made a part hereof.

Sec. 7. Effective Dates. Schedule 8 is effective January 1, 2013. The other schedules contained herein are effective on the first day of the first applicable pay period beginning on or after January 1, 2013.

Sec. 8. Prior Order Superseded. Executive Order 13635 of December 27, 2012, is superseded as of the effective dates specified in section 7 of this order.

BARACK OBAMA

President Obama tell the American people about the budget he is sending to Congress, which makes the tough choices required to grow our economy and shrink our deficits

Here’s a quick glimpse at what happened this week on WhiteHouse.gov.

President Obama marks the end of the Easter season with a prayer breakfast at the White House.

view all related blog posts

View the original article here