tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-74003903365235916852024-03-13T23:57:53.464-05:00Rhymes With ClownJeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.comBlogger831125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-22352530273695770112011-10-23T14:52:00.000-05:002011-10-23T14:52:55.413-05:00ForwardWell Wisconsin, we've had a good run. <br />
<br />
I don't actually know if all good things must come to an end, but it is true that this particular good thing is coming to an end. A job opportunity has come up that will take me away from my adopted hometown of De Pere, WI and back to my actual hometown of Mesa, AZ. Since the opportunity involves a promotion, it's a bit much to ask anyone to feel to sorry for me, but over the last eleven years I really have come to think of Wisconsin as my home and I will be sad to leave.<br />
<br />
The sun shines 350 days a year in Arizona, but not one of them will compare with those mid-summer Wisconsin days that seem to last forever. The days when the sun seems to linger just a bit longer than it should, everything is green, and the air is thick and warm. On these days the frozen landscapes of winter hardly seem real.<br />
<br />
They are real of course, and in due time summer's green is replaced by the bold reds and golds of fall, and then eventually by the gray and white of winter. Winter has its own special beauty that too many Wisconsin natives are quick to dismiss. Perhaps that is understandable given the harshness of winter temperatures.<br />
<br />
Absence of winter will certainly be noticeable after this move, but I fear that something even more important will be lacking. The people of the upper Midwest, to my mind, are some of the most genuine you will find anywhere in the country. I don't mean they represent the only real Americans, I mean they are just real. They let their yea be a yea and their no, a no. This straightforward nature is in too short of supply in too much of the rest of this country, and we are the worse for it.<br />
<br />
When I tell people in Arizona I spent the last eleven years in Green Bay its certain that I will be asked either about the winters or about the Packers. My answer will be that I miss both. Many people outside of Green Bay know the Packer name, and that is a good thing. What they don't understand though, is that the team reflects the city just as much as the city reflects the team. It is true too much of Green Bay's identity is wrapped up in the Packers, it is also the case that much of the Packer's identity is drawn from the city.<br />
<br />
I could go on and on about my adopted state, about how they give directions and their curious use of prepositions. I won't, except to say that I'm already looking forward to some strange looks when I use the expression "horse a piece."<br />
<br />
When I'm back in Arizona it will be tempting to introduce myself as being from Green Bay. Since I didn't grow up here it's not true. Pretending that it is would be thoroughly un-Midwestern. Instead, I'll just say that I was born in Mesa, but spent the last eleven years in the great state of Wisconsin.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com9tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-77793059583655649512011-08-29T21:01:00.000-05:002011-08-29T21:01:31.947-05:00Newest RWC arrives!It's a girl!<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7gr5YZ4i_hQ/TlxEMGESyqI/AAAAAAAAAI8/nWdpEFJuhaA/s1600/Baby+RWC.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="400" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-7gr5YZ4i_hQ/TlxEMGESyqI/AAAAAAAAAI8/nWdpEFJuhaA/s400/Baby+RWC.jpg" width="300" /></a></div><br />
Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-5903118649068945542011-08-15T21:41:00.000-05:002011-08-15T21:41:12.735-05:00Privatization vs. CompetitionThey are not the same thing.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2011/08/privatization-is-bad-for-wisconsins.html">Capper</a> points us to the case of LogistiCare, a private contractor hired to arrange non-emergency rides for Medicaid patients. The various failures by LogistiCare, he concludes, provide proof that privatization, "costs a lot more money and provides a lot less service," than the government systems that are supplanted by private entities. Capper may be correct that he is looking at a case of too few services supplied at too high a price, but it is the monopoly power that is the problem, not the privatization.<br />
<br />
Let's not get bogged down in the particulars of this case, maybe LogistiCare is totally incompetent, maybe not. What I can say with confidence is that the LogistiCare case is just another example of how <i>competition</i> is what is important, not <i>privatization</i>. That is a lesson that both the left and the right could stand to learn again.<br />
<br />
For another example, look at the recent moves by school districts to save money on insurance, some by dropping WEA Trust and some by switching to WEA Trust. When WEA Trust had to compete, sometimes they won and sometimes they lost, but school districts were able to insure they were getting a good price. A great outcome for school districts and further proof of the power of competition to reduce costs.<br />
<br />
Making a public monopoly private does nothing to reduce the inefficiencies associated with monopolies. Competition is the key.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-74908733375770586102011-08-08T18:15:00.000-05:002011-08-08T18:15:43.678-05:00Vote For Rob Cowles TomorowIf you live in the 2nd Senate District of Wisconsin, I urge you to get out to the polls and vote for Senator Rob Cowles tomorrow.<br />
<br />
Not sure if you are in the 2nd? Check out this link to <a href="http://legis.wisconsin.gov/w3asp/waml/waml.aspx">find your legislators</a>.<br />
<br />
Not sure where to vote? Check out this link for <a href="http://www.vote411.org/pollfinder.php">your polling place</a>.<br />
<br />
As I wrote in April:<br />
<br />
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white; color: #191919; font-family: Georgia, Times, serif; font-size: 15px; line-height: 20px;">This is <i>not</i> what democracy looks like. This is not even undoing the results of last November's elections, since the Democrats haven't bothered to run anyone against Cowles for a decade or so.</span>Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-49923546946374495152011-08-03T22:12:00.002-05:002011-08-03T22:15:57.740-05:00How Conservatives Lost on the Debt DealThe real problem is not that we raised the debt limit. It's that we did so while giving a lot of people the impression that this deal reduces the size of government. It does not. <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/03/us/politics/03spend.html?_r=1&hp">The New York Times</a>:<br />
<blockquote>WASHINGTON — There is something you should know about the deal to cut federal spending that <a class="meta-per" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per" title="More articles about Barack Obama.">President Obama</a> signed into law on Tuesday: It does not actually reduce federal spending<br />
<br />
By the end of the 10-year deal, the federal debt would be much larger than it is today....<br />
<br />
“It does nothing to address the real drivers of our debt,” said Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma, explaining his decision to vote against the bill. “It eliminates no program, consolidates no duplicative programs, cuts no tax earmarks and reforms no entitlement program.” </blockquote>Here's economist <a href="http://cafehayek.com/2011/08/shame-on-you-joe-nocera.html">Russ Roberts</a>:<br />
<blockquote>According to the CBO baseline spending (go <a href="http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/01-26_FY2011Outlook.pdf">here</a>, page 18), which I understand is the baseline for the cuts of $2.4 trillion, the Federal government will spend $46.1 trillion over the next ten years. So we’re going to go from 46.1 trillion over the next ten years to a mere $43.7 trillion?... For further perspective, in the ten years between 2002 and 2011, the Federal government spent $28.1 trillion dollars. </blockquote>I agree that not defaulting on our past obligations is a good thing, but do either of these descriptions make this deal sound like a win for champions of small government? Not a single program eliminated and spending reduced from $46 trillion to $44 trillion. What's left for Republican, but to declare victory and go home. The only thing missing from this deal was a 'Mission Accomplished' banner.<br />
<br />
To those on the right who are mad at Speaker John Boehner because he cut this deal to raise the debt ceiling, I can only say the problem with Boehner is not <i>this</i> deal. It's that he's been in Congress since 1990, and since then the federal government has continued to expand. This is not to say that this is all Boehner's <i>fault</i>, but why would anyone believe that this time around John Boehner is willing and able to reduce the size and scope of federal government in any meaningful way. (To those on the left who think Boehner's deal "slashes" government spending, please see above.)<br />
<br />
As part of Boehner's campaign to round up votes for the deal, he apparently sent around this slide show (<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/content/dam/dailybeast/2011/07/31/3-7-31-11-Debt-Framework-Boehner.pdf">pdf</a>). I hope this was actually a joke and I just never figured it out because one of the slides includes this:<br />
<blockquote>Failure to remain below these caps triggers automatic across-the-board cuts ("sequestration"). Same mechanism used in 1997 Balanced Budget Agreement.</blockquote>The national debt outstanding in <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo4.htm">1997</a> was bout $5.5 trillion. By <a href="http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/pd/histdebt/histdebt_histo5.htm">2010</a> it was $13.5 trillion.<br />
<br />
Wisconsin's Paul Ryan voted for this deal and so did my Congressman, Reid Ribble, whom I respect a great deal. In fairness to them, my preferred solution would have been to raise the debt limit with absolutely no strings attached and then work as hard as possible to actually reduce the size and scope of the federal government. This position is probably less politically viable than the agreement they ultimately reached, unpopular though it is.<br />
<br />
I believe the debt ceiling had to be raised, I just wish it could have been done without giving so many people the utterly mistaken impression that this deal made the government smaller in the process.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-84113814671219793972011-07-21T18:08:00.000-05:002011-07-21T18:08:58.654-05:00Rep. Barca should remember "big interests" are a bipartisan affair<div>Democratic Representative Peter Barca is up at <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/20/996847/-Fitzmandering-used-to-cover-up-another-cynical-assault-on-Wisconsin%E2%80%99s-struggling-families?via=blog_798399" target="_blank">Kos</a> (via <a href="http://cognidissidence.blogspot.com/2011/07/barca-on-fitzmandering-by-gop.html">Capper</a>) with a post that includes this:</div><div> </div><div> <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: #ccc 1px solid; margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">A recent poll by the University of Wisconsin shows not only that a vast majority of Wisconsinites disapprove of Gov. Walker and his fellow Republicans in the state legislature, but also that 65% of Wisconsinites now believe that our state government is run for a few big interests rather than for all the people.</blockquote></div><div> </div><div>He thinks that 65% line is such a winner, he repeats it a few paragraphs later and by that time the "big interests" have become "big, special interests." Who these big, special interests are, he doesn't say explicitly, but his meaning couldn't be any clearer if he hadn't actually written wink, wink, nudge, nudge. He is, of course, counting on you the reader to read "big interest" and think "big business" or "corporations" or better yet "Koch brothers."</div><div> </div><div>While this makes for great rhetoric, it's a lousy way to depict reality since Democrats in Wisconsin and beyond also have their own "big, special interests." Labor unions, both public and private, and trial lawyers are known as solid Democratic constituencies with deep pockets and a willingness to fund candidates and PAC's. Make no mistake, these interests are just as "big" and "special" as any that exist on the right. It was only partially tongue-in-cheek when the right side of the cheddarsphere referred to former Governor Jim Doyle as a "wholly owned subsidiary of WEAC."</div><div> </div><div>I believe the 65% figure Barca cites comes from this <a href="http://www.uwsc.wisc.edu/BP32PressRelease1_WIpols_FINAL.pdf" target="_blank">UW Badger Poll</a> conducted by the University of Wisconsin Survey Center, but the relevant question doesn't distinguish between big interests that back Republicans and those that back Democrats. If I had been asked if government was run for a few big interests, I also would have said yes. The only difference being that I would have been thinking about AFSCME & WEAC rather than the Chamber of Commerce.</div>Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-27727279489734135942011-07-18T20:39:00.001-05:002011-07-18T20:39:33.821-05:00Why a balanced budget amendment is a bad idea<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'>Robert Samuelson:<br/><br/><a href='http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/a-balanced-budget-amendment-bad-idea-for-many-reasons/2011/07/18/gIQAZ8nNMI_blog.html'>A balanced-budget amendment: Bad idea, for many reasons - PostPartisan - The Washington Post</a><br/><blockquote>The Constitution is the repository of the nation’s basic political principles. This is why it commands public respect. What the Constitution is not (and should not become) is a handbook for the day-to-day operations of government. The fatal flaw of the BBA is that it would take the Constitution in precisely this direction. It not only says the budget should be balanced, but one Republican version says it should be balanced at 18 percent of the economy (gross domestic product). That’s not a principle; it’s an instruction. Why not 17 percent or 22 percent of GDP? What happens in a national emergency?</blockquote>Samuelson also notes that such an amendment would also "inspire evasion" which is a nice way of saying people will find ways to NOT follow the rules. The problem with complex systems (like government rules) is that they create opportunities for creative people to find ways to bend them.<br/><br/>Additionally, I worry that these types of proposals give citizens the idea that there is some set of magic rules out there, just waiting to be discovered. If only we could find them, we could give up the hard work of paying attention to politicians and their positions on the issues and take it easy for a while. I hate to be the one to tell you this, but the government is not a Showtime Rotisserie; we can't just set it and forget it.<br/><br/>As the party of smaller government (at least in theory) Republicans ought to be looking for ways to simplify government, reduce regulation, and eliminate, not enact, rules wherever possible. This includes eliminating the debt ceiling. <br/><br/>It is then up to us to hold our elected officials accountable for the votes they make, including votes to keep spending money we don't have.<br/></div>Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com5tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-43370327691079064002011-07-14T21:58:00.000-05:002011-07-14T21:58:44.604-05:00What a Dave Hansen Vicotry Won't Tell UsWe may be living in an age when all politics is national, but reality remains very much a local phenomenon. The reality in Wisconsin's 30th Senate district is that Democratic incumbent Dave Hansen is likely to defeat Republican challenger David VanderLeest in Tuesday's election.<br />
<br />
This will be the first of the actual recall elections and a Hansen victory will likely be heralded as a sign that the tide in Wisconsin is firmly behind the Democrats, and pushing against Governor Scott Walker. All I can say to this is don't believe it. The only thing that a Hansen victory will tell us is that the voters of the 30th don't want to be represented by VanderLeest. <br />
<br />
While many voters in the district appreciate VanderLeest's efforts in the Hansen recall effort, the problems in his personal life are simply too numerous, too troubling, and too recent for many voters to consider sending him to Madison.<br />
<br />
Does this mean that Wisconsin voters approve of the fact that Hansen and his Democratic colleagues in the Senate fled to Illinois in order to block the Governor's collective bargaining bill? I doubt it. The plural of anecdote is not data, but many people I talk to are still quite upset at what they see as this ridiculous ploy which literally shut down the legislature of this state, at least on fiscal matters. These days, such complaints are almost always immediately followed by another about Republican John Nygren, and his failure to get on the ballot to challenge Hansen.<br />
<br />
The WisGOP has turned grassroots anger over Hansen's flight into a $243,000 mistake. That is how much Hansen reported in <a href="http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110712/GPG0101/107120458/Wisconsin-state-Sen-Dave-Hansen-Green-Bay-has-243K-campaign-funds">cash on hand</a> recently. Compare that to VanderLeest's $2000 raised. As the <a href="http://playgroundpolitics.blogspot.com/2011/07/dancing-on-grave.html">Recess Supervisor</a> notes:<br />
<blockquote>But what I suspect is happening here is that the Democrats, who are already winning the fundraising war, are going to try and use this race as an exclamation point to get their donors pumped for the real races next month.</blockquote>Right on cue, <a href="http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/13/994404/-As-recalls-loom,-Scott-Walkers-approval-rating-drops-to-37">Chris Bowers</a> is up at Kos with a post that ends in an appeal to contribute to the Democrats in the Wisconsin recalls. The link he provides is to ActBlue, the fundraising clearinghouse where donors from all over the country can make small contributions to elections that do not even affect them. I can imagine Democrats from Florida to Oregon heeding the call and then watching the results come in on Tuesday. At that distance, they will be apt to read all sorts of things into a Hansen victory that simply aren't there. <br />
<br />
If I could send a message to these donors it would be this: Democrats in Wisconsin and at the national level are happy for you to misread Tuesday's results. This confusion sustains a flood of campaign cash unleashed initially by your anger over Scott Walker's policies, but don't kid yourself. A sizable portion of Dave Hansen's constituents approve of the Governor's policies and were infuriated when Hansen fled to Illinois. The state GOP failed spectacularly to capitalize on this sentiment, leaving Hansen to fend off a challenge from a flawed opponent.<br />
<br />
That's the local reality. Too bad it will be totally eclipsed by the national politics of Tuesday's election.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-64648443932400172722011-07-12T22:35:00.001-05:002011-07-13T06:37:56.650-05:00Comparing Brown County Returns for 2 SD Primary & WI Supreme Court<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iNw-shXeMwk/Th0MxiQwRdI/AAAAAAAAAHk/_nKTLIvV6hk/s1600/Screen+shot+2011-07-12+at+10.06.49+PM.png" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" height="173" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-iNw-shXeMwk/Th0MxiQwRdI/AAAAAAAAAHk/_nKTLIvV6hk/s400/Screen+shot+2011-07-12+at+10.06.49+PM.png" width="400" /></a></div>Click to enlarge.<br />
<br />
Obviously Nancy Nusbaum won easily against fake Democrat Junkermann tonight, but do the Brown County results point to a Nusbaum victory over Senator Cowles next month? The spreadsheet above compares tonight's vote with the vote totals from the Supreme Court recount in May.<br />
<br />
As you can see Justice Prosser got 3,400 more votes than Nusbaum could muster in the areas of Brown County that are in the 2nd SD. Prosser, of course, is not a perfect substitute for Cowles. But every vote since last November has been a referendum on Govenor Walker, so the Prosser vote seems like a good proxy.<br />
<br />
Also, Nusbaum got about 1,200 fewer votes than Kloppenburg did. Perhaps this is just a result of the normal drop off of intensity during primaries, but this can't be a good sign for the Democrats.<br />
<br />
Update - When I put this up last night, I meant to link to the Brown County results but forgot. Here are the results for the <a href="http://www.co.brown.wi.us/i_brown/d/county_clerk/2011julyel111.htm">2 SD Dem primary</a> and here are the <a href="http://www.co.brown.wi.us/i_brown/d/county_clerk/2011_may_recount_el111.pdf">WI Supreme Court recount results</a>.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-48943166583649248772011-07-07T21:53:00.001-05:002011-07-08T07:24:08.085-05:00David VanderLeest, Duke of Wisconsin<blockquote><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law"><b>Godwin's law</b></a> (also known as <b>Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies</b> or <b>Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies</b>)<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-GL_FAQ_0-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#cite_note-GL_FAQ-0">[1]</a></sup><sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-WiredMCM_1-0"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#cite_note-WiredMCM-1">[2]</a></sup> is a humorous observation made by <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Godwin" title="Mike Godwin">Mike Godwin</a> in 1990<sup class="reference" id="cite_ref-WiredMCM_1-1"><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin%27s_law#cite_note-WiredMCM-1">[2]</a></sup> which has become an <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_humor" title="Internet humor">Internet adage</a>. It states: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_%28mathematics%29" title="Limit (mathematics)">approaches</a> 1 (100%)."</blockquote>Elsewhere, the otherwise erudite <a href="http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/07/where-is-scott-walkers-fauxtrage-now.html">Illusory Tenant</a> compares VanderLeest to David Duke:<br />
<blockquote>Remember when <a href="http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2011/05/associated-press-wisconsin-highlights.html">Scott Walker</a> went on the teevee to "<a href="http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/2009/10/clarence-thomas-was-black-panther.html">debate</a>" the racist David Duke, arguing that the white supremacist should be banned from the Republican presidential primary ballot? ... how come Walker isn't going after the VanderLeest Dave like he went after the Duke Dave? </blockquote>Duke is the nation's most notorious politician when it comes to matters of race. Do Wisconsin Democrats really fear David VanderLeest so much that they feel the need to draw a comparison with Duke?<br />
<br />
Taken in isolation this might just be chalked up an anomaly, but on the heels of Graeme Zielinski's so-called "communications" via Twitter and the latest attack ad that can be seen over at Capper's place I can only conclude they are either worried or bored.<br />
<br />
All of this underscores the point that the Wisconsin GOP has squandered a golden opportunity. An incumbent Democratic Senator whose <a href="http://www.swingstateproject.com/diary/8405/wisconsin-presidential-results-by-state-senate-district">district went for Obama 56-42</a> is reduced to mounting a state wide coordinated campaign against an opponent who at best is a flawed candidate with ongoing personal issues.<br />
<br />
Maybe Dave Hansen couldn't have been beaten by anybody in this climate, but a serious challenge could have exposed just how weak his support is. Democrats around the country may applaud his flight to Illinois as courageous, but plenty of voters in the district see it for what it is: Hansen participating in a ridiculous conspiracy to shut down the Wisconsin legislature and deprive the citizens of this state representation in Madison.<br />
<br />
Update: The Press Gazette details <a href="http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110708/GPG0101/107080587/Recall-candidate-dismisses-legal-problems?odyssey=tab">VanderLeest's various legal troubles</a>. They cast serious doubt on whether anyone should vote for him. My favorite line though was that Senator, "Hansen shied away from questions about his opponent." Of course he did, he has people for that!Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-16025071720051054642011-07-06T22:36:00.000-05:002011-07-06T22:36:30.639-05:00Explaining Nancy Nusbaum's FundraisingThe news today is that in the second senate district Democratic challenger Nancy Nusbaum has <a href="http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/125090419.html?page=1">outraised and has more cash on hand</a> than incumbent Republican Rob Cowles. Nusbaum raised about $77,000 more and has about $70,000 more on hand in cash. Interesting to be sure, but perhaps not surprising. Here's <a href="http://www.wisconsinreporter.com/commentary-for-wisconsin-democrats-recalls-are-a-national-fight">Kevin Binversie</a>:<br />
<blockquote>For liberals nationwide, the 2012 election starts this summer with nine recall elections in Wisconsin. For liberals, these recalls aren’t just about Wisconsin; they’re about the country’s very future. It’s a national fight that won’t just set the course for Wisconsin, but the course to congressional and presidential victory in 2012 and beyond.</blockquote>I can't seem to find the detailed report of Nusbaum's contributors yet (here's the<a href="http://cfis.wi.gov/Public/Registration.aspx?page=FiledReports"> GAB3 form</a> which only has a few individuals listed), but I did notice there were lots of conduit contributions from something called <a href="https://secure.actblue.com/entity/fundraisers/16403">ActBlue</a>, which bills itself as an online clearinghouse for Democratic action. So the Wisconsin races have national prominence for a Democratic party still smarting from heavy losses last November (particularly here). Combine that with the fact that there are excellent new tools for efficiently gathering and directing small campaign contributions from lots of donors, contributions that might have gone uncollected in years past, and Nusbaum's fundraising edge isn't all that surprising.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://foxtrot-echo.blogspot.com/2011/07/recall-finance-reports.html">The Chief</a> also hits on something that is a source of Nusbaum's strength and her weakness:<br />
<blockquote>How can Bob Cowles get out-raised as badly as he's been by Nancy Nusbaum? Nusbaum is not someone the Dems plucked out of obscurity: she's a former Brown County executive who ran for congress in 2006 (and lost in the primary), so this ain't her first rodeo. </blockquote>That's exactly right, Nusbaum is well known in the area and has held office in the past. This means that she doesn't have the surprise potential of a relative unknown (unlike the Hansen challenge in district 30) but does anyone in the area really believe Nancy Nusbaum represents a bold progressive vision for NE Wisconsin's future? <br />
<br />
Nancy Nusbaum is a proven candidate with a history of public service and name recognition in the area. When the Democrats looked around for someone to challenge Cowles after taking more than a decade off of being competitive in the district, I'm not at all surprised they turned to Nusbaum. It's these very qualities though, that make her appear as little more than a placeholder to voters in the district. On the other hand, these characteristics are largely invisible to the out of state donors who are apt to use a site like ActBlue.<br />
<br />
Combine a well-known and safe Democrat in Nusbaum, with a national mood of defiance following defeat at the polls last November, and the technology to gather lots of small (and large) out of state donations quickly and efficiently and the Nusbaum fundraising edge over Cowles really isn't surprising. Whether or not it will be decisive remains to be seen.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-2639570172344888952011-06-30T21:46:00.000-05:002011-06-30T21:46:06.812-05:00Mike Tate Hearts Dave VanderLeestOR: How to make a WisDems press release: Just add <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominy">hominy</a>.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
WisDems communications director Graeme Zielinski has been all <a href="http://twitter.com/#%21/gjzielinski">a-Twitter</a> 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 <a href="http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/">Tom Foley, Esquire</a>, as council, the certified mail would go out tomorrow).<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Oh it was really easy after all.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-35641250136453574132011-06-30T21:03:00.000-05:002011-06-30T21:03:37.933-05:00Michelle's Litjens' Bad Water Bill<a href="http://www.thenorthwestern.com/article/20110629/OSH0602/106290407/Editorial-Michelle-Litjens-Legislator-lobbyist-?odyssey=nav%7Chead">The Northwestern</a> 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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-67778089580608514602011-06-18T14:23:00.000-05:002011-06-18T14:23:55.749-05:00Senator 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 <a href="http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/90">vote against ethanol subsidies</a> this week. He actually did it twice (first the Coburn then the Feinstein version).<br />
<br />
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 <a href="http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/06/15/the-gop-ethanol-and-the-no-tax-pledge/">Howard Gleckman of the Tax Policy Center reports</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Even the powerful Koch brothers, who have bankrolled many GOP candidates and whose firms benefit from the subsidies, endorsed repeal.</blockquote>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 <a href="http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2011/06/15/the-gop-ethanol-and-the-no-tax-pledge/">Gleckman points out</a>:<br />
<blockquote>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.</blockquote>And in <a href="http://taxvox.taxpolicycenter.org/2009/04/23/ethanol-subsidies-its-not-easy-being-green/">2009 Gleckman reported</a> 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,<a href="http://politics.nytimes.com/congress/votes/112/senate/1/90"> voted to keep sending taxpayer money</a> to Archer Daniels Midland and keep corn prices higher than they would otherwise be for the food consumers of the world (that is, everybody).<br />
<br />
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.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-19969052433198156422011-06-18T13:52:00.001-05:002011-06-18T13:52:12.431-05:00The School Choice Marriage Penalty<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><a href='http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/124004679.html'>Senate OK'd budget goes to Walker - JSOnline</a><br/><blockquote>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.<br/><br/>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.</blockquote>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.<br/></div>Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-48515992135687121042011-06-18T13:39:00.000-05:002011-06-18T13:39:21.194-05:00WI Recalls Get the Gonzo TreatmentAbe Sauer, writing at <a href="http://www.theawl.com/2011/06/wisconsin-inc-new-republican-politics-in-the-age-of-the-recall">The Awl</a>, 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. <a href="http://illusorytenant.blogspot.com/">Tom Foley</a> 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:<br />
<blockquote>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."</blockquote>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 <i>a lot</i> 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.<br />
<br />
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. <a href="http://rhymeswithclown.blogspot.com/2011/04/explaining-walkers-k-12-cuts-to-kids.html" target="_blank">As I've explained before</a>, 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.<br />
<br />
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.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-34283007721452851342011-06-12T21:37:00.001-05:002011-06-12T21:37:49.634-05:00WI Dems won't run fake candidates. They have enough trouble finding real ones.<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><a href='http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/123688454.html'>Democrats to force primaries - JSOnline</a><br/><blockquote>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.</blockquote>Wisconsin Democrats haven't been "actively campaigning" in the 2nd senate district for years, it shouldn't be too hard to double that effort.<br/><br/>The <a href='http://legis.wisconsin.gov/ltsb/redistricting/Maps/sd02.pdf' target='_blank'>2nd senate district</a> includes De Pere, Ashwaubenon, Kaukauna, Shawano, & Oconto Falls, amongst other places. It has been representated by Senator Robert Cowles since 1987. It has been <u>more than 10 years since the Democrats have bothered to even run anyone against him.</u> 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.<u><br/><br/></u>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. <br/><br/>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 <i>not</i> what democracy looks like.<br/><u><br/></u></div>Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-5128854323673705072011-06-01T22:37:00.000-05:002011-06-01T22:37:00.249-05:00Tammy Baldwin on raising the debt ceiling: For it before she was against itOn 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 <a href="http://welch.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1440&Itemid=32">letter</a> was written by Congressman Peter Welch (D-VT) and read in part:<br />
<br />
<div style="padding-left: 60px; text-align: justify;">We ask you to convene a caucus to discuss and establish a Democratic position in favor of a clean extension of the debt ceiling.</div><div style="padding-left: 60px; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="padding-left: 60px; text-align: justify;">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.</div><div style="padding-left: 60px; text-align: justify;"><br />
</div><div style="padding-left: 60px; text-align: justify;">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. </div><br />
<br />
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 <i>against</i> the debt ceiling increase.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
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 <i>any</i> reductions in spending.<br />
<br />
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.<br />
<br />
Representative Ron Kind seems to have had the political sense to avoid signing the Welch letter in the first place. Representative <a href="http://dc.wispolitics.com/2011/06/wis-delegation-except-moore-votes.html">Gwen Moore voted for the debt ceiling increase</a>. 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.<br />
<br />
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.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-52894897040537390932011-05-24T21:47:00.000-05:002011-05-24T21:47:59.013-05:00Cairo on the PotomacOne of the issues central to the recent Egyptian protests (are we calling it a revolution?) was an emergency law that gave the government powers to limit dissent. The Egyptian government took the broadest possible interpretation of "emergency" since the law had been in place for thirty years.<br />
<br />
I would be willing to bet that most Americans find this outrageous and that they don't believe something like that could ever happen here.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.opencongress.org/articles/view/2298-PATRIOT-Act-Extension-Get-Bipartisan-Love-in-Senate?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+OpenCongressCongressGossipBlog+%28Open+Congress+Blog%29&utm_content=Google+Reader">Open Congress reports on an extension of the PATRIOT Act</a>:<br />
<blockquote>Yesterday, the Senate voted <a href="http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=112&session=1&vote=00075">74-8</a>, with 18 senators abstaining, in favor of moving forward with legislation to extend three of the most controversial <span class="caps">PATRIOT</span> Act surveillance powers for four more years, without any modifications...<br />
<br />
<br />
And so by the end of the week, these expansions of government surveillance powers that were <a href="http://sunlightfoundation.com/blog/2009/03/02/congress-had-no-time-to-read-the-usa-patriot-act/">hastily</a> put in place following the shock of the 9/11 attacks will be extended once again. Why? Well, because, in <a href="http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/05/24/dianne-feinstein-asks-americans-to-sacrifice-liberty-for-the-sake-of-fear/">the words</a> of Intelligence Committee Chairwoman <a href="http://www.opencongress.org/people/show/300043_Dianne_Feinstein">Sen. Dianne Feinstein [D, CA]</a> on the Senate floor yesterday, “this is a time of heightened threat.” “Maybe no specific threat,” she added. “But certainly heightened threats.”</blockquote>I guess since it's only been 10 years we've still got a way to go by Egyptian standards.<br />
<br />
Perhaps all is not lost, <a href="http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?294865-Is-Rand-Filibustering-the-Patriot-Act">Rand Paul is mounting a filibuster</a> right now.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-88868873907211456472011-05-10T21:20:00.000-05:002011-05-10T21:20:50.442-05:00Brown County Dems know a little something about rubber stampsSenator Rob Cowles (R-2nd) is one of the targets of the recall. Today Rich Langan announced he would challenge Cowles in a recall election. Langan is a former police officer and worked with former Democratic Representative Steve Kagen.<br />
<br />
The <a href="http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/article/20110510/GPG0101/110510060/2-challengers-eye-local-recall-elections-Nygren-vs-Hansen-Langan-vs-Cowles?odyssey=tab%7Ctopnews%7Cimg%7CFRONTPAGE">Green Bay Press Gazette</a> reports "Langan says he will run against Cowles, whom he calls a rubber stamp for Gov. Scott Walker."<br />
<br />
The notion that any Democrat in Brown County would try to paint Cowles as a rubber stamp would be laughable if it wasn't so ridiculous. Cowles has held his seat for over twenty years and it has been over ten years since the Democrats in this area have challenged Cowles. At the very least that's an implicit rubber stamp for Cowles.<br />
<br />
As I've said before this is not what democracy looks like, this is not even undoing the results of the last election. This is the Democrats in this area waking up from a decade long nap and deciding it is time to field a candidate. I've got news for them, the time to do that was at the regularly scheduled elections.<br />
<br />
The Democrats of the 2nd Senate District have been courting apathy for so long they may crossed over into irrelevance. I guess we will know for sure once the recall election takes place.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-86213199685610954682011-05-04T21:30:00.001-05:002011-05-04T21:30:58.359-05:00Defining Conservatism DownSo I took the <a href="http://people-press.org/typology/quiz/">Pew political typology quiz</a> and got the result "Main Street Republican." I'm generally skeptical that these types of labels can adequately convey one's political outlook, but I also realize we need shorthand. As shorthand goes, this result isn't bad.<br />
<br />
On Pew's scale though, the category to the right of mine was "Staunch Conservative" which I suspect is more accurate for me. I didn't have to look hard to figure out how Pew decided I didn't belong in this category.<br />
<br />
Pew described Main Street Republicans as being, "generally less enamored of business than staunch conservatives." Being enamored of <i>business</i>, is not the same thing as preferring free markets and it is <i>not</i> conservative, regardless of what Pew and most of the major media outlets in the United States believe. Specifically, there were two questions on the quiz about business and profits where I think Pew misunderstood which answer was a conservative one.<br />
<br />
The first asked whether or not business in general makes too much profit. I answered yes. Not because profits are bad or businesses are evil, but because I believe there are many companies in the United States who earn profits that they would not earn if we had a more competitive and free marketplace. These rents are earned by employing government power to stifle competition and restrict supply. This includes things seen as innocuous by many of us, like patents on drugs, as well as the extraordinary government bailouts of private businesses that took place over the last few years. American capitalism in the 21st century is still a profit and loss system, but the profits and losses these days are too often determined by the ability to compete in Washington DC rather than in the market.<br />
<br />
Mises and Hayek wouldn't have considered themselves conservatives, but their thinking about economics and markets formed one of the pillars of American conservative thought in the 20th century. I doubt either of them would look at the current business landscape in this country and suggest we had achieved some sort of free market triumph.<br />
<br />
The second question was whether or not I thought power was concentrated in that hands of too few large companies. I answered that it was. Again, I think Pew misunderstands which is the conservative answer here. Bigness is antithetical to conservatism, which values "our little platoons" in Burke's phrase. Thinkers like Russell Kirk were wise enough to fear big business just as much as big government. Neither are conducive to maintaining "the permanent things." Conservatives do believe in a hierarchical universe, it's just not one that has Ben Bernanke and JP Morgan at the top.<br />
<br />
This sort of muddled thinking about what is and isn't conservative at times makes it difficult to have a sensible discussion about politics. The fact that a well respected organization like Pew can't seem to grasp the problem here serves as a good reminder that when dealing with received wisdom one should always consider the source.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-75509622496478994452011-04-20T22:11:00.000-05:002011-04-20T22:11:30.323-05:00Explaining Walker's K-12 Cuts to the KidsJust as the fight over Governor Scott Walkers budget repair bill centered on changes to collective bargaining for public employees, much of the attention given to his budget focuses on his cuts to school district aid for K-12 funding. The sound bites from the budget hearings have included a few supportive ones, but the majority of comments about a reduction in aid for K-12 have been quite negative, and at times bordered on hysterical.<br />
<br />
If I recall correctly, the West Allis hearing featured a woman speaker who challenged supporters of the Governor's budget to look in her daughter's eyes and explain to her what was happening, or something to that effect. OK, here goes.<br />
<br />
In Wisconsin we spent about <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/sresult.asp?mode=short&s1=55">$10 billion dollars on education</a> in 2007-2008 according to the US Department of Education. That works out to be <a href="http://nces.ed.gov/programs/stateprofiles/sresult.asp?mode=short&s1=55">around $10,500 for every student in the state</a>. There are almost 900,000 students total.<br />
<br />
Some of the money to run the schools in Wisconsin comes from the state government. The other way that schools raise money is through local property taxes. The Governor is opposed to tax increases, generally speaking, so he is also proposing to limit the amount that school districts can increase taxes to offset his aid cuts. <br />
<br />
Tony Evers is the director of schools in Wisconsin. <a href="http://www.dpi.state.wi.us/sprntdnt/pdf/dpinr2011_32.pdf">He says</a> the Governor's proposal will reduce total school spending by a little less than $1 billion dollars per year between the aid cut and the tax limit. This is about 10%. To put it another way, the spending per student could go down from around $10,500 to $9,500. <br />
<br />
The Governor has also proposed to increase the amount that teachers pay toward their pension and health insurance to help offset some of the reduced aid from the state. The Governor likes to highlight this aspect of his plan, but it most likely won't offset the entire amount of the cuts. I believe I heard Mr. Evers on Wisconsin public radio today saying this change could offset as much as 40-60% of the cuts. If so, we would be back to only a 5% reduction in education spending, rather than 10%.<br />
<br />
Whether it's 5% or 10% in the end, if you listen to some of the Governor's critics this relatively small cut in spending spells the end of education in Wisconsin and we might as well just all give up. As for me, I'm skeptical cuts of this size could really change public schools that much. Even if per student spending went all the way down to $9,500, this is still much more than it was in the late 1990's. It's probably more than was spent per student when your mom and dad went to school here in Wisconsin.<br />
<br />
The student/teacher ratio here in Wisconsin is about 15 students for every teacher. I suspect your class may have more than 15 students because this ratio probably includes teachers who specialize in small groups of students that need extra help. Regardless, a ratio of 15 is right at the national average. A political ad that is running on TV here in Green Bay alleges that the Governor's cuts to education could increase class size to "35 to 40 kids in a class." Again, this sound like it is intended to scare people into opposing the governor. It's too bad that so many people will be convinced by an accusation that is almost certainly untrue. <br />
<br />
What about his increased in spending on roads you say? I know, you can't drive so this doesn't affect you. I agree that the Governor should concentrate his efforts on reducing spending wherever possible, so maybe this is something that should be looked at very carefully by voters and the legislature. <br />
<br />
When you step back and take a look at the big picture, you will see a Governor that has proposed the first budget in a long time that addresses the gap between spending and revenues in this state. That goes for governor's of both parties. Yes it is true that education funding will be reduced by the Governor's proposal, but this does not automatically mean that the quality of the education you receive will go down dollar for dollar. Ultimately, the quality of the education you receive will likely be tied to where you live. That is the case throughout the United States and is not likely going to change as a result of a single state budget.<br />
<br />
So in the end we may spend a few less dollars on your education now, but we will still spend quite a lot, and the education you receive will be quite good. In exchange you will get a state budget that starts to put Wisconsin on sounder financial footing. That may seem unimportant now, but it may make the difference between a prosperous state and a bankrupt one by the time you are older and are starting to pay taxes. Doing this now is important to Wisconsin's future, which, after all, is your future too.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-40472273950288749462011-04-18T20:34:00.001-05:002011-04-18T20:34:44.699-05:00Everything wrong with government and education in one paragraph<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><a href='http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/18/gay-history-in-textbooks-_n_850580.html'>Gay History In Textbooks: California Debates Adding New Curriculum</a><br/><blockquote>California law already requires schools to teach about women, African Americans, Mexican Americans, entrepreneurs, Asian Americans, European Americans, American Indians and labor. The Legislature over the years also has prescribed specific lessons about the Irish potato famine and the Holocaust, among other topics</blockquote>Not from the Onion.<br/><br/>My only question is what were they actually teaching in history class prior to the legislative mandate.<br/></div>Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-61695106196116688112011-04-17T14:33:00.000-05:002011-04-17T14:33:00.267-05:00You can call Governor Walker anything except unserious<div xmlns='http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml'><a href='http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119928064.html'>Tax bills for average homes to rise less than 1% under Walker's budget - JSOnline</a><br/><blockquote>The Legislative Fiscal Bureau also said Walker's plan would put the state's finances in the best shape they've been in for more than 15 years.<br/><br/>It found the so-called structural deficit - the imbalance between spending and tax revenue as laid out in state law - for the 2013-'15 budget would be $31 million. That assumes Walker's budget passes the Legislature without new spending increases or tax cuts that would add to the deficit.<br/><br/>Under its existing form, Walker's budget leaves the state with a fraction of the structural deficits seen in the past eight budget cycles. The next lowest structural deficit in recent years was $1.5 billion, or 48 times as much as what Walker's proposing.</blockquote>You may or may not agree with every step the Governor took to propose a budget that accomplishes this kind of deficit reduction, but this is clearly a serious attempt at bridging the fiscal gap in this state. The Governor has decided to break with the approach to budgeting that was dominant in Wisconsin in recent history. This generally included one time fixes and stalling techniques which allowed politicians to avoid making the really tough decisions.<br/><br/>If the Democrats in this state have an alternative plan they prefer I would love to see it. Voters could then compare the two plans side by side and the real debate about the future of this state could take place. As the minority party though, there is little to be gained politically from setting forth their own ideas, so it is unlikely to happen.<br/><br/>As the budget debate unfolds, be sure to keep in mind that the Governor's plan may not be perfect, but it is paid for. Every time someone denounces a spending cut as "draconian" be sure to ask them which taxes they would raise in order to protect their preferred spending.<br/></div>Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7400390336523591685.post-23943207205198309262011-04-17T14:11:00.000-05:002011-04-17T14:11:27.874-05:00If Kucinich cares about politicians accurately describing their policy initiatives, he should start with healthcare reformSorry for the Althouse-esque rambling title, but I don't know what else to call it.<br />
<br />
Video of Congressman Dennis Kucinich questioning Governor Scott Walker on the repeal of collective bargaining rights for public sector workers has been shared far and wide by the Governor's opponents. They have delighted in Kucinich's attempts to get the Governor to admit the repeal of collective bargaining rights was not really a fiscal matter. This is potentially politically damaging for the Governor since he stated repeatedly that an end to these rights was necessary to address the state's budget issues.<br />
<br />
I'm all for holding politicians accountable for the statements they make, but the whole time I watched the video, I couldn't help but think of the Obama healthcare reform. A plan that was presented to the American people over and over again as addressing healthcare costs (remember "bending the curve"?). This was even better than it sounds since healthcare costs were also driving our long term deficit. Well, even though we now have the ACA, we still have a huge long term deficit problem.<br />
<br />
We may have fewer people without health insurance in the future as a result of the ACA, which is a laudable goal, it's just not the goal that the President claimed to be trying to achieve when he touted his health reform proposal. In the health reform, a bill that really addressed coverage was sold as one addressing costs.Jeremy R. Shownhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11303377672028774152noreply@blogger.com0