Mike Tate Hearts Dave VanderLeest

OR:  How to make a WisDems press release:  Just add hominy.

DPW Chariman Mike Tate comes in for no small amount of abuse from the right, and from what I've seen most of it deserved.  Tate's not quite a Steve Kagen-esque gaffe generator, but he can bring the stupid with the best of them.

While many of us in NE WI are still scratching our heads over John Nygren's nearly inexplicable ability to get enough signatures to get on the ballot, the WisDems have wasted no time in attacking the only guy who had the wherewithal to get on the ballot, Dave VanderLeest.

WisDems communications director Graeme Zielinski has been all a-Twitter attacking VanderLeest today.  His insights, such as they are, range from the bizarre (does VanderLeest really have an affinity for a now defunct malt beverage Zima?) to the potentially slanderous when he describes VanderLeest as Governor Walker's "wife-beating lieutenant" (if only VanderLeest had retained Tom Foley, Esquire, as council, the certified mail would go out tomorrow).

In fact, Zielinski has been so prolific tonight, I can't help but wonder if it isn't easy to produce non-substantive juvenile attacks on one's political opponents:  Zielinski's Twitter profile says he is a former writer for The Onion, now I know why every WisDems press release headline sounds like a joke.

Oh it was really easy after all.

Michelle's Litjens' Bad Water Bill

The Northwestern ran a recent editorial taking Representative Michelle Litjens to task for sponsoring a bill, "which would prohibit municipal utilities from placing tenants' unpaid utility bills on a landlord's property tax bill at the end of each year."  The problem as they see it is that that Litjens is also a landlord, so this bill could potentially benefit her directly.  While a good point, it is really a minor one.  The problem with this bill is that it is just bad policy.

The monopoly on force that citizens grant to their government should be used to establish the rule of law and a system for enforcing that law.  Beyond this, using the power of government to protect the profits of private business is always and everywhere a bad idea.

In the case of a landlord, the governments of the United States and the state of Wisconsin have clearly provided an environment where contracts are legally enforceable and mechanisms exist for compelling compliance with the terms of a contract.  Landlords have a duty to insure their renters are a good credit risk and are likely to pay their bills.  When those bills are unpaid, landlords should seek redress through the courts. Protecting landlords from tenants that don't pay their water bills is the job of the courts. Pursuing such claims is a cost of doing business when you are a landlord.  Making such protections an automatic feature of the law is the definition of privatizing profits and socializing losses.  It is not conservative and it is not representative of good governance.

I know that Representative Litjens is well though of by many conservatives, especially in the Fox Vallley. No doubt her star shines brightly on many occasions, this just isn't one of them.

Senator Ron Johnson votes with the Kochs (and the rest of us too!)

Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson was the only Midwestern (OK, is not the Midwest, is it?) senator to vote against ethanol subsidies this week.  He actually did it twice (first the Coburn then the Feinstein version).

Good news for taxpayers, right?  Why should they have to support major agribusiness.  Perhaps RoJo was just doing the bidding of the Koch brother.  As Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center reports:

Even the powerful Koch brothers, who have bankrolled many GOP candidates and whose firms benefit from the subsidies, endorsed repeal.

For Wisconsin Democrats, the Kochs have come to embody everything that they believe is wrong in the world.  In this case, that's too bad since the ethanol subsidy is a bad deal both for taxpayers and for the global poor.  As Gleckman points out:

The subsidy itself is one of the least defensible in the tax code and it benefits a handful of corn farmers and producers in just a few states.

And in 2009 Gleckman reported this subsidy has contributed to increase in food prices of possibly as much as 15%. Seems like a perfect target for a party that professes to care about the hungry people of the world.  And yet it was our GOP senator (and supposed dupe of the nefarious Kochs) who voted to end the subsidy while our senior senator, Democrat Herb Kohl, voted to keep sending taxpayer money to Archer Daniels Midland and keep corn prices higher than they would otherwise be for the food consumers of the world (that is, everybody).

So to my Democratic/progressive friends in Wisconsin, I say don't get all strung out on Koch.  Sometimes the interests of American taxpayers, hungry people the world over, and billionaire GOP donors align.  And when they do, we shouldn't let partisan considerations prevent us from acting on them.

The School Choice Marriage Penalty

Senate OK'd budget goes to Walker - JSOnline

Walker had proposed eliminating the income limits for those who can receive school vouchers. Republicans in the Legislature decided to raise it from 175% to 300% of the federal poverty level. Married couples would have a higher limit - $7,000 above 300% of the poverty level.

The current limit is $39,113 for a family of four. That would rise to $67,050 for a family of four headed by a single parent, and $74,050 for a family of four headed by a married couple.

It's as if we don't understand incentives and have learned nothing from the history of welfare in this country.  I suspect that if you polled every GOP legislator they would say they believe they are standing up for the institution of marriage and that they value it highly. This provision casts doubt on such a stance.

WI Recalls Get the Gonzo Treatment

Abe Sauer, writing at The Awl, files a dispatch from La Crosse covering the recalls, fake Democrats, and what he sees as a new strain of the GOP taking hold right here in Wisconsin.  Tom Foley has on occasion mentioned Mr. Sauer approvingly, so it is clear his coverage of Wisconsin doesn't go unnoticed.  This latest piece, although well written to be sure, isn't likely to change many minds.  If you are the type of person that likes having your biases confirmed though, this might be just what you are looking for.  Here's a taste:

This new strain of Republican is not one Wisconsin, nor the United States, has ever seen.... The new Republicans are corporate wrecking crews, given a sledgehammer, a piece of legislation and a command to "make it fit."

I hate to break it Sauer and everyone in Dane county, but I live in Wisconsin, am firmly middle-class and yet I don't feel assaulted by any of Governor Walker's policies.  Like a lot of people in this state, I believe we've spent money we don't have for too long and am sick of budgets that use gimmicks and one time money to paper over our profligate ways.

If we are going to balance the budget, like the Governor and the legislature are poised to do, we have to go to where the spending is.  Education spending is a large portion of our state budget, so naturally that is where spending can be reduced.  As I've explained before, reducing per pupil spending from about $10,000 to about $9,000 isn't "gutting" public education, no matter how many times WEAC says it is.

Sauer also concludes that a proposal to relax the rules governing the work hours of teenagers will result in a generation of Wisconsin youth qualified for no job other than bagging groceries.  I'd call that hyperbole, but in Sauer's vision of our future no one will know what that means.

WI Dems won't run fake candidates. They have enough trouble finding real ones.

Democrats to force primaries - JSOnline

Michael Tate, chairman of the state Democratic Party, said in a statement that his party won't match the GOP's strategy. But he said his party intends to force primaries in the six recalls of Republicans by running two Democrats in each of them - one legitimate and the other a "placeholder" who will not actively campaign.

Wisconsin Democrats haven't been "actively campaigning" in the 2nd senate district for years, it shouldn't be too hard to double that effort.

The 2nd senate district includes De Pere, Ashwaubenon, Kaukauna, Shawano, & Oconto Falls, amongst other places.  It has been representated by Senator Robert Cowles since 1987.  It has been more than 10 years since the Democrats have bothered to even run anyone against him.  If the Wisconsin GOP runs a fake Democrat to force a primary, that will be a 100% increase in the number of candidates that the Democrats have managed to muster in a decade.

I realize that Mike Tate is relatively young and not personally responsible for a decade of neglect, but it's almost like the Democrats just figured out that there is a senate district up here and that the representation of said district can be contested.  Snark aside, the fact the remains that the Democrats in Madison and Milwaukee have neglected this district for years.  Their interest now is driven only by their dislike for Governor Walker. 

Voters in the second senate district should be wary of the new interest that Democrats at the state level are demonstrating.  Not bothering to even contest a seat for ten years and then suddenly being interested just because you don't like the Governor is most assuredly not what democracy looks like.

Tammy Baldwin on raising the debt ceiling: For it before she was against it

On April 18th Wisconsin Democratic Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin signed a letter to Democratic leaders in the house requesting a vote on a "clean" bill to raise the debt ceiling.  Clean in this case meaning a bill that didn't include spending cuts as part of a deal to increase the debt ceiling.  The letter was written by Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT) and read in part:

We ask you to convene a caucus to discuss and establish a Democratic position in favor of a clean extension of the debt ceiling.

The debt ceiling vote is about one thing: affirming that America pays its bills. It does not authorize new taxpayer obligations; it affirms to the world our commitment to pay obligations already incurred.

To do otherwise, or to threaten to do so, or to leverage our duty to pay our bills to achieve a partisan advantage in budget disputes, jeopardizes the full faith and credit of the United States of America.

On Tuesday, Tammy Baldwin, and the other signers of Welch's letter, got their wish when the House considered an increase in the debt ceiling without any spending cuts as part of the bill.  Baldwin took the opportunity to vote against the debt ceiling increase.

To recap:  In late April Tammy Baldwin signed a letter calling for a clean bill raising the debt ceiling.  When she got that bill at the end of May, she voted against raising the debt ceiling.

No one would believe it was Baldwin's plan to oppose the increase all along, so what changed?  Obviously it was the decision by Senator Herb Kohl to not seek re-election to the Senate in 2012.  I don't actually know why Baldwin has changed her tune, but it doesn't take a cheesehead Machiavelli to surmise that she might not want to campaign statewide having just voted to raise the debt ceiling without any reductions in spending.

Democrats keep telling us that we've been reading too much into the results of 2010, but it appears Ms. Baldwin still believes the anti-spending sentiment of that season is alive and well.

Representative Ron Kind seems to have had the political sense to avoid signing the Welch letter in the first place.  Representative Gwen Moore voted for the debt ceiling increase.  Since taxing future generations to fund current entitlements seems to be the current Democratic party platform, Moore appears to be the only Wisconsin Democrat in line on this vote.

In his letter, the one that Baldwin signed, Welch argues that the debt ceiling vote should not be used for partisan advantage.  That appears to be just what Tammy Baldwin has done with her changing position on raising the debt ceiling.