After a full day of anticipating who the Milwaukee Bucks were going to pick, the NBA draft is now upon us. As my friends know, I am an out of control Corey Brewer fan – he fits exactly what the Bucks need – he’s an athletic small forward who can defend and plays with a nasty streak. And he can hit a shot when you need it. It almost makes too much sense – although Conley would be a great pick too, if he’s available.

Andy Katz has already reported that if Yi is available at #6, the Bucks are going to take him. As soon as he said it, I think I swallowed my tongue. Here’s an unproven foreigner who refuses to work out for scouts against other live players, and who has said specifically that he won’t play for Milwaukee – and yet the Bucks are actually going to take him. I have to think that if they do, they’re picking him for someone else – otherwise, this will be a disastrous pick. In fact, if they take him, my wife might be behind the pick – since I probably won’t watch any Bucks games next year. Frees up a lot of time.

My buddy logged on to messenger, and here’s how our draft chat went:

Evil Grossmouth: Just saw the boston trade. And Seattle wants Green.
EG: Corey Brewer will be there at 6 now.
Christian Schneider: They’re taking Yi
Christian Schneider: Andy Katz reported it
Christian Schneider: Done deal
EG: No word on then trading him to Chicago?
Christian Schneider: Hopefully for someone else
EG: Or Minnesota?
Christian Schneider: Unless they just told Andy Katz that to freak out another team below them Christian Schneider: But that’s what he said
Christian Schneider: Sal Pal says the 76ers are trying to move up to the Bucks spot
EG: I think if they take him, there’s a 85% chance they trade him.
Christian Schneider: Then there’s a 15% chance I hang myself
EG: Yi for 12, 21 and next year’s #1.
Christian Schneider: I’d do that
Christian Schneider: That Boston trade is terrible for them.
Christian Schneider: Pierce and Allen?
EG: I agree. Ray Allen’s got maybe one good year left in him. but unlaoding Wally’s contract is good.
Christian Schneider: But you have all that talent sitting there at #5 .
EG: I like what Seattle’s doing.
Christian Schneider: Yeah, they’ll be solid
Christian Schneider: I am 3:30 from a meltdown.
EG: And maybe 8:30 from redemption.
Christian Schneider: I have a Seattle t-shirt – I’ll have to wear it more often now
EG: Better than wearing a Bucks shirt right now.
Christian Schneider: I am not optimistic
Christian Schneider: F***ing Bucks
EG: Dream scenario – KG to Phoenix, Yi, picks and contracts to Minnesota, Stoudamire to Milwaukee
Christian Schneider: Sure
EG: I will kiss Herb Kohl on the mouth if that one happens.
Christian Schneider: You just making stuff up?
EG: yes. trying to come up with distractions to avoid thining about the bucks going to war with the bad guys from 24 and wasting a lottery pick on a guy who will never play for them.
Christian Schneider: A lottery pick in a ridiculously deep draft
EG: From MJS:
Assuming Jeff Green is the pick at No. 5 as ESPN is reporting, it looks more and more like the Bucks will take Yi Jianlian with the No. 6 pick. Apparently, the Bucks are prepared to brace themselves for possible drawn-out negotiations with Yi’s camp.

As Journal Sentinel columnist Michael Hunt just said: “How do you say holdout in Chinese?”
EG: Take the biggest unknown in a draft loaded with proven, winning talent.
Christian Schneider: I am going to puke
EG: First five lottery picks played in the Final Four. And we’re taking a guy who won’t even work out against some D-II college scrub.
EG: Sorry – four of the first five picks.
EG: And a 10-year defensive stopper sitting there in Brewer.

(Bucks select Yi)

EG: It’s been nice knowing you.
EG: ESPN.com poll on who the Bucks shuld pick Brewer -49, Yi – 30, B. Wright – 20
Christian Schneider: Mother f***ers
Christian Schneider: F*** the Bucks
EG: “He’s hip-hop, he’s Fity Cent” – what the f*** is that?
Christian Schneider: Un f***ing believable
EG: Time to recall Herb Kohl.
EG: Corey Brewer will be a star in Minnesota, Chicago or Charlotte.
EG: There better be a trade involved here.
Christian Schneider: Weaknesses: Playing basketball
EG: Strengths – kicks ass against furniture
Christian Schneider: F*** this
Christian Schneider: Damn it
EG: Unless the Bucks trade him or start WWIII over this, this is an unmitigated disaster.
Christian Schneider: I am going to be sick
Christian Schneider: This isn’t a fit at all
Christian Schneider: Let’s pick a guy that will play the same position as Charlie Villanueva
EG: Look at it this way. it’s not like they were going to be good anyway. And why is Larry Harris making draft picks based on what his dad — WHO COACHES FOR ANOTHER NBA TEAM – tells him?
EG: Yi speaks better English than Stu Scott at least.
Christian Schneider: Scott is talking to Yi about the American parties he’s been to – nothing like the parties in Cudahy
EG: Steve A making the same point I made.
Christian Schneider: That scares me
EG: Our Gm just used a #6 pick in a loaded draft on a guy HE NEVER SAW PLAY.
Christian Schneider: I might miss Minnesota’s pick while I look for my cyanide pills

(Minnesota takes Corey Brewer)

Christian Schneider: Hey
Christian Schneider: Corey F***ing Brewer
Christian Schneider: That would have sucked for him to be a Buck
Christian Schneider: I mean, he only would have started right f***ing away
Christian Schneider: Brewer is smiling in his stock photo because the Bucks didn’t draft him
EG: And given exactly what we needed – shooting, defense and size on the perimeter.
Christian Schneider: Good to know the Bucks just got softer
Christian Schneider: Yi makes Villanueva look like Marques Johnson
Christian Schneider: I actually feel kind of liberated.
Christian Schneider: Now I get to pick a whole new team.
EG: Silver lining – maybe they’re trading him to Dallas, where Del works. At this point I’d do cartwheels to have Devin harris.
Christian Schneider: Yeah, if he gets us Harris, I’m fine with that.
Christian Schneider: Charlotte is about to screw up their pick
EG: I’m fine with that until Corey Brewer plays in 8 all-star games for Minnesota.
Christian Schneider: Noah’s going next
Christian Schneider: And he’s about to do something crazy in his interview
Christian Schneider: “This is your draft pick on drugs”
EG: if he does, that means Yi’s not going to Chicago.
EG: I hate him. he’s going to try and act like he’s a gangsta, instead of a millionaire’s kid who looks like a very ugly woman.
EG: There’s nobody left on the board except Acie law that the Bucks really need. I wouldn’t mind Al Thornton. he’s ready to start from Day One.
EG: So I’m hoping that Chicago take him and then trades us Thornton and Duhon for Yi.
Christian Schneider: I give up
Christian Schneider: Bucks? Who are the Bucks?
Christian Schneider: Milwaukee has a team?
EG: I’m goping to be able to read a sh**load of books and watch a ton of movies this winter.
Christian Schneider: Yeah, maybe this is good for me. I’ll be smarter and thinner – more workout time.
Christian Schneider: For Boston, they made just about the only move they could that would be worse than drafting Yi.
EG: Short term they’re better with Allen than Yi. Long term I’m not so sure.
EG: We should be on ESPN right now. We’re nailing every one of these picks.
Christian Schneider: I am pro-Noah’s suit
EG: So let’s recap the first 9 picks – 7 guys who made it to at least the Elite Eight in march, the reigning college player of the year, and a guy who only plays well against chairs.
EG: And we got the guy who plays against chairs.
Chr
istian Schneider: Who picked one team he wouldn’t play for, and it was us.
Christian Schneider: I would send him back to China in exchange for Audrey Raines
EG: That is the line of the night. You must really not like this guy if you’d rather have Audrey Raines.
Christian Schneider: That is saying a lot.
EG: is it a bad sign that I’m clicking the re-clicking the ESPN trad tracker every 30 seconds hoping to see a Bucks trade involving Yi.
Christian Schneider: Maybe Larry Harris was actually trying to order some Chinese food and accidentally dialed the wrong number.
Christian Schneider: He wanted some General Tso Chicken and ended up with a side of Yi Jianlian.
Christian Schneider: I think I would actually rather go play in China than play in Sacramento.
EG: -I am now Pro-Spencer Hawes, learning that he is a Republican. We should trade Yi and Simmons for him and Ron Artest and Mike Bibby.
Christian Schneider: I was just going to say – did they just say Hawes has a Bush bumper sticker?
EG: Trade Yi to Golden State.
Christian Schneider: Pleeeeeeease
EG: Yi for #18 a future first-rounder and That guy with the worst FT shooting in history.
Christian Schneider: Why would they say that about Hawes but not mention that Noah is a socialist?
Christian Schneider: Law
Christian Schneider: Gotta be
Christian Schneider: Bam!
EG: And Philly will take Al Thornton.
Christian Schneider: I’m good
EG: And hopefully trade him to Milwaukee.
Christian Schneider: If they were going to trade, they would have just swapped picks
EG: I would settle for Thornton, 21 and Shav randolph for Yi.
Christian Schneider: Why does Philly want Milwaukee’s trash?
EG: If a trade is made after something like 3:00 on draft day, it can’t be finalized until after the draft and the teams have to keep their picks and make them for the other team.
Christian Schneider: Yeah, but the reporters always know about them before they happen. Most of the time.
Christian Schneider: Think if I called the Bradley Center, they’d let me talk to Larry Harris?
Christian Schneider: Good thing I didn’t go to the Bucks’ draft party – there would have been a scene
Christian Schneider: Nice to see the new Hawks uniforms welcome them to the NBDL
Christian Schneider: Somewhere, Acie Laws I and II are looking down and smiling.
EG: Tell him you’re Del Harris, they’d probably put you right through.
Christian Schneider: Must be nice to root for a team that is actually trying to get better
Christian Schneider: Good thing the Bucks turned the 76ers down
EG: I just puked in my mouth.
Christian Schneider: Probably were going to give them both first rounders
EG: They could have had Thornton and Crittendon instead of a Chinese guy who will never play for them. Phillt has 12, 21, and 30.
Christian Schneider: Correct
EG: I think they would have given up two of them is what they said.
Christian Schneider: The Celtics screwed this all up with their terrible trade
EG: Billy King is one of the 5 worst execs in the league and Larry Harris couldn’t even outsmart him.
Christian Schneider: Because they would have taken Yi
EG: Correct. If they don’t make that trade, we get Jeff Green and I am happy.
Christian Schneider: We missed it
EG: Thaddeus Young?
EG: It’s a bad pick, so maybe Larry Harris told him to make it.
Christian Schneider: I don’t really care who goes from now on
Christian Schneider: This is a disaster
Christian Schneider: Go Marquette

I’m up and running at Overlawyered.com - three posts so far. Head on over there and drop a comment, pretending that you can actually stand me.

Over the weekend, the state media scrambled around to try to piece together details of the universal health plan being offered by Wisconsin Senate Democrats in the state budget.  This article from the Wisconsin State Journal on Sunday caught my eye as being particularly interesting.

While there are parts of the article that I would accuse of being too favorable to the universal health care plan (like, the first six paragraphs, for instance), I do actually have some sympathy for how difficult it is to cover your typical “liberal versus conservative” types of topics.  As a general rule, people who benefit from new government programs are pretty easy to track down.  On the other hand, the people who pay for such a program, and therefore would be in strident opposition, are the taxpayers – who are spread out and largely disinterested.

For instance, let’s say the Senate was proposing a new $2 million program to benefit the Wisconsin Society of People with No Lips.  When the bill is up on the floor, all the State Journal has to do is call someone with no lips to tell them (as best as they can, at least) how great the bill is.  The downside, of course, to passing the bill is that you couldn’t tell if it really made the lipless people all that happy – since they’d be smiling anyway.  Although they wouldn’t look quite as surprised as the Wisconsin Society of People With No Eyelids when their bill passed.

On the other hand, it would be harder to track down people who are anti-lipless and think the free market could better serve their needs.  First, the cost of the program would be minimal when spread throughout all taxpayers, so nobody really gets all that upset.  The problem is, when you stack program upon program upon program like that – each with a supposed “minimal” effect on taxpayers – you end up as the 8th highest taxed state in the nation, as Wisconsin is now.

Furthermore, plans to “help” specific groups are much easier to explain to people than market forces.  Conservatives argue that on health care, we’re not really operating in a free market with all of the state mandates on health plans and other government regulations.  If doctors and health plans had transparency in pricing, had to compete for patients, and had the flexibility to offer more specialized care, then health care costs would come down.  But try to explain this to someone who thinks their health care bills are too high, and you’ll get a glazed stare.

So reporters find someone who wants free health care (look to your left, then to your right – there’s a 90% chance both of those people fit the bill).  Then, as a counterpoint, they need someone who understands market economics.  I imagine the exchange goes something like this:

Q:  “Do you want free health care?”

A: “Yes!”

Q:  “Do you want your employer to provide you with a tax-free health savings account, which would allow you to choose your health care services, which would make health care more subject to the forces of market competition, which would eventually hold down the price of going to the doctor?”

A:  “Can I have a sandwich?”

The immediate constituency for government funds will always be more politically active than any loose arrangement of taxpayers who may dislike paying high taxes.  Sure, there are business groups that oppose higher taxes, but at a high-scale public hearing, those groups are going to be outnumbered 10 to 1.

In the case of this health care plan, the people who want free health care are easy to find.  The 8,100 minimum wage workers who are expected to lose their jobs (according to the Lewin Actuarial Analysis) are harder to track down, since none of them know if they’d be the ones on the chopping block – they’ll only know after it is too late.  The 53% of Wisconsin residents who are going to end up paying more for health care than they do now are probably equally as difficult to find – because everything is up in the air at this point.

In the end, it may end up that all this health care plan accomplished was to give Democrats a bargaining chip in the budget process.  There’s very little chance that it will pass, and its hurried introduction and sham public hearing are evidence that it’s not a serious proposal.  In that case, Senate Democrats may have ended up giving false hope to their people who really need cheaper health care.  And that would be a cruel irony.

Today, the U.S Supreme Court released its opinion in FEC vs. Wisconsin Right to Life, a case which challenged the portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law which limited the issue advocacy in which organizations could engage near the time of an election.  Justice Scalia joined with the majority in overturning a significant portion of the federal law, but also issued a concurring opinion that argues the Court didn’t go far enough.

I can’t do Scalia’s style any justice, so here’s an excerpt from his opinion:

A Moroccan cartoonist once defended his criticism of the Moroccan monarch (lèse majesté being a serious crime in Morocco) as follows: “‘I’m not a revolutionary, I’m just defending freedom of speech. . . . I never said we had to change the king—no, no, no, no! But I said that some things the king is doing, I do not like. Is that a crime?’”1 Well, in the United States (making due allowance for thefact that we have elected representatives instead of a king) it is a crime, at least if the speaker is a union or a corporation (including not-for-profit public-interest corporations) and if the representative is identified by name within a certain period before a primary or congressional election in which he is running…

The question is whether WRTL meets the standard for prevailing in an as-applied challenge to BCRA §203. Answering that question obviously requires the Court to articulate the standard. The most obvious one, and the one suggested by the Federal Election Commission (FEC)and intervenors, is the standard set forth in McConnell itself: whether the advertisement is the “functional equivalent of express advocacy.” McConnell, supra, at 206. See also Brief for Appellant FEC 18 (arguing that WRTL’s “advertisements are the functional equivalent of the sort of express advocacy that this Court has long recognized may be constitutionally regulated”); Reply Brief for Appellant Sen. John McCain et al. in No. 06–970,  p. 14 (“[C]ourts should apply the standard articulated in McConnell; Congress may constitutionally restrict corporate funding of ads that are the ‘functional equivalent of express advocacy’ for or against a candidate”). Intervenors flesh out the standard somewhat further: “[C]ourts should ask whether the ad’s audience would reasonably understand the ad, in the context of the campaign, to promote or attack the candidate. Id, at 15.

The District Court instead articulated a five-factor test that looks to whether the ad under review “(1) describes a legislative issue that is either currently the subject of legislative scrutiny orlikely to be the subject of such scrutiny in the near future; (2) refers to the prior voting record or current position of the named candidate on the issue described; (3) exhorts the listener to do anything other than contact the candidate about the described issue; (4) promotes, attacks, supports, or opposes the named candidate; and (5) refers to the upcoming election, candidacy, and/or political partyof the candidate.” 466 F. Supp. 2d 195, 207 (DC 2006). The backup definition of “electioneering communications”contained in BCRA itself, see n. 2, supra, offers another possibility. It covers any communication that “promotes or supports a candidate for that office . . . (regardless of whether the communication expressly advocates a vote for or against a candidate) and which also is suggestive of no plausible meaning other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate.” And the principal opinion inthis case offers a variation of its own (one bearing a strong likeness to BCRA’s backup definition): whether “the ad is susceptible of no reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” Ante, at 16.

There is a fundamental and inescapable problem withall of these various tests. Each of them (and every other test that is tied to the public perception, or a court’s perception, of the import, the intent, or the effect of the ad) is impermissibly vague and thus ineffective to vindicate the fundamental First Amendment rights of the large segmentof society to which §203 applies. Consider the applicationof these tests to WRTL’s ads: There is not the slightestdoubt that these ads had an issue-advocacy component.They explicitly urged lobbying on the pending legislative issue of appellate-judge filibusters. The question before usis whether something about them caused them to be the “functional equivalent” of express advocacy, and thus constitutionally subject to BCRA’s criminal penalty. Does any of the tests suggested above answer this question withthe degree of clarity necessary to avoid the chilling of fundamental political discourse? I think not.

The “functional equivalent” test does nothing more than restate the question (and make clear that the electoral advocacy need not be express). The test which asks how the ad’s audience “would reasonably understand the ad” provides ample room for debate and uncertainty. The District Court’s five-factor test does not (and could not possibly) specify how much weight is to be given to eachfactor—and includes the inherently vague factor of whether the ad “promotes, attacks, supports, or opposes the named candidate.” (Does attacking the king’s position attack the king?) The tests which look to whether the ad is “susceptible of no plausible meaning” or “susceptible of no reasonable interpretation” other than an exhortation to vote for or against a specific candidate seem tighter. They ultimately depend, however, upon a judicial judgment (or is it—worse still—a jury judgment?) concerning “reasonable” or “plausible” import that is far from certain, that rests upon consideration of innumerable surrounding circumstances which the speaker may not even be aware of, and that lends itself to distortion by reason of the decision maker’s subjective evaluation of the importance or unimportance of the challenged speech. In this critical area of political discourse, the speaker cannot be compelled to risk felony prosecution with no more assurance of impunity than his prediction that what he says will be found susceptible of some “reasonable interpretation other than as an appeal to vote for or against a specific candidate.” Under these circumstances, “[m]any persons, rather than undertake the considerable burden (and sometimes risk) of vindicating their rights through case-by-caselitigation, will choose simply to abstain from protected speech—harming not only themselves but society as a whole, which is deprived of an uninhibited marketplace of ideas.”

———————————————————————–

The opinion released today overturns portions of the law upheld only three terms ago in  McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), in which Justice Sandra Day O’Connor sided with the 5-4 majority to uphold the McCain-Feingold issue advocacy provisions. Justices Alito and Roberts both sided with the majority in today’s decision.

This being the case, special recognition for today’s decision goes to Ohio and Florida, and their electoral votes.

I’ve been a fan of the website Overlawyered.com for some time now, and I’ve been invited to guest blog there next week. It deals primarily with goofy lawsuits, and how abuse of the legal system costs us all. (On the other hand, abuse of the penal system only costs you your eternal soul. And vision.)

I believe I’ll be starting on Tuesday – So feel free to send me tips on things you want to see posted at cmschneid – at – hotmail.com.

You may recall the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign’s ridiculous report last month that purported to show that “big business” contributed 12 times as much as unions to Wisconsin candidates.  Naturally, the “study” was reported as if it were the Ten Commandments.

I examined the flaws in the report in this post.  In fact, you don’t even need to take my word for it – opensecrets.org has a listing of the largest contributors to federal candidates since 1989-90.  Here’s the top 10:

While these are federal candidates, and the WDC report deals with state candidates, does anyone actually believe somehow unions ignore Wisconsin politicians?  Of course not.

The controversy in Madison surrounding the naming of a new school after Hmong leader General Vang Pao has been beaten to death locally, but it can provide some important lessons for the future for the rest of the state.

First of all, there really isn’t anyone in this whole charade to root for. Sure, the gutless Madison school board was unwilling to stand up to the Hmong community when they were pushing for a school to be named after a questionable (and living) general. However, some citizens opposed naming the school after Vang because he had been involved in (gasp!) a military conflict.  One parent went so far as to say that if you named the school after a military leader, then you couldn’t teach children not to fight in school (As has been the case, apparently, with kids who attend schools named “Washington,” “Lincoln,” “Kennedy,” etc.)

The facts are well known: Madison is building a new elementary school on the far west side. When soliciting names for the school, the school district received 41 suggestions, ranging from Supreme Court Justice Shirley Abrahamson to Gaylord Nelson to Ronald Reagan. Amid much lobbying from the Hmong community in Madison, including Hmong board member Shwaw Vang, the Madison School Board unanimously approved naming the school after General Vang Pao, who led Hmong soldiers in defense of the United States in the Vietnam War.

There’s a problem, however. Vang Pao had been accused of some questionable activities in his past, including allegations of drug running. And since he is still living, it opened up the door for him to do something else to embarrass the school district – which is exactly what happened, when he was arrested in California on charges of building a militia to violently overthrow the government of Laos.

The lesson here is clear: Don’t name buildings after living people. They screw up. Sometimes spectacularly.

There are ways of getting around this that may be acceptable. In recent years, the state opened the Risser Justice Building in Madison. In that case, the building is named after the Risser Family, who have had a father and son both serve in the Legislature. (Fred Risser was first elected in 1956, and still serves in the Senate. There’s a decent chance that the 26^th Senate District will be represented by Fred Risser’s cryogenically frozen brain for the next 200 years).

By naming it after a family, you can deflect the actions of a bad actor – such as if Fred Risser were caught in bed with a giraffe (which, incidentally, would only be slightly less embarrassing than Tommy Thompson’s presidential campaign – and Thompson has had state buildings named after him).

It takes a person’s death for us to properly put them in the context of our history. That should be the standard by which we hand out building names.

Furthermore, for new schools, it makes sense to name them after the neighborhood in which they are built. That way, something as simple as naming a school doesn’t turn into the “racial grievance Olympics” every time one is built. If the school board is compelled to honor a minority when naming a school, there are some civil rights titans that remain underappreciated (Thurgood Marshall, for instance).

The Madison School Board has made the right decision to rename the west side school.  Let’s hope they get it right this time.

Despite their supposed “nonpartisan” affiliation, the League of Women Voters has traditionally been a solid supporter of liberal causes.  A trip to their own website reveals their positions supporting universal health care and gun control, opposing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife refuge, and on and on.

This week, the Wisconsin State Senate held a hearing on the so-called “Frankenstein Veto,” which would prohibit governors from abusing their veto power by stitching together two or more sentences to make an entirely new law that the legislature never intended. In the previous budget, 750 individual words were vetoed out of the bill to come up with a single sentence that transferred $427 million out of the transportation fund and into the general fund – something the legislature never considered in their deliberation of the budget.

Supporters of the bill tend to be the good-government types. Testifying in opposition were groups like WEAC, the state teachers’ union, who benefited the most from the aforementioned use of the Frankenstein Veto. (One wonders how they would have been testifying had the creative veto authority been used to cut their funding, rather than increasing it.)

The League of Women Voters testified “for information only,” in language that can best be described as confusing.

Their testimony said:

The League of Women Voters of Wisconsin is committed to representative government as established by the constitutions of the United States and the State of Wisconsin.  For this reason, we register our concern with AJR1 and SJR5.  While the proposed amendment purports to ban the partial veto of an appropriations bill, it fails to solve the basic problem of whether or not the Governor has the ability to change the intent of appropriations passed by the Legislature.

The current amendment continues to allow for deleting parts of a single sentence.  Furthermore, it would permit governors to delete larger portions of an enrolled bill as long as they do not “create a new sentence by combining parts of 2 or more sentences of the enrolled bill.”

Our concern about the partial veto is not a partisan one.  Governors of both parties have used the partial veto extensively.  The laws that result from the exercise of the partial veto frequently contain new taxation or new programs that have not been considered or enacted by the Legislature.  Whether or not we agree with the results of these vetoes, the fact remains that the people of the State of Wisconsin, represented in the Senate and Assembly, are denied participation in the process.This particular amendment attempts to address that failing.  However, as written it would not eliminate the Governor’s ability to create new taxation or programs through a partial veto in the final step of the budget process.

Huh?

So they are for representative government, and think the governor’s current veto authority violates that principle.  But they oppose any action to rein it in, because it doesn’t go far enough?  They say that the proposed amendment would allow governors to veto large sections of the bill – is this something they oppose?  This is similar to the item veto virtually every other state has.  Do they think the governor should only be able to veto the whole budget?

The more likely scenario is that they wanted to oppose the bill to side with the governor, but they couldn’t be on the wrong side of a good government issue.  So they used the tactic of saying the bill doesn’t go far enough – which puts them in the strange position of having to argue how Wisconsin is better off if the legislature doesn’t pass an amendment that gets closer to their stated goal of “representative government.”

My new column is up over at WPRI. It discusses the idea that somehow we can pass laws that remove the temptation for politicians to break them, which seems to be the overriding principle of campaign finance reformers in Wisconsin.

***UPDATED to include stuff I forgot at midnight last night***

My dad’s not a real emotional guy. Being a 30 year military man has probably hardened him up quite a bit. But when I told him on the phone that I was going to the Brewer game against the Giants on Tuesday night, his voice weakened a little and he said, “You boo that jerk.”

The jerk he was referring to, of course, was Barry Bonds. My dad, having grown up in Milwaukee, was always a die-hard Braves fan from his youth on. His dad was a Milwaukee cop, and would often times sneak him into day games at County Stadium. While he always claimed Eddie Matthews was “his guy,” he has since taken a hard pro-Hank Aaron stance, seeing as the all-time home run record is about to be stolen from The Hammer. (His favorite childhood story is when he rode his bike by Warren Spahn’s house and saw Spahn out mowing the lawn – a completely foreign concept these days. Imagine one of the greatest left-handed pitchers of all time waving to you from his middle-class lawn.)

Needless to say, when you go to war with my dad, you go to war with me – because that’s how we roll (we are much like the McGee family in that regard). It was with this in mind that my buddy and I drove to Milwaukee for game two of the Brewers-Giants series.

When we got to Milwaukee, my buddy showed me his super-secret parking spot by Miller Park, and it was a miracle. Honestly, I would give up the ingredients to the secret stadium sauce to al-Qaeda before I would give up the location of this parking spot.

On the way to the stadium, we walked by the Saint Vincent of Pallotte church. I imagine the “pilates” exercise routine was named after Vincent, who is best known as the Patron Saint of Rock Hard Abs.

As it turns out, my buddy got tickets to the Club Level, which is the upper level in the right field bleachers. There’s a buffet up there where you can stuff your face with brats and burgers. As I was sitting in our seats before the game started, sun shining and burger in hand, I concluded that it really didn’t get any better than this. Then I remembered that Jessica Alba is still single, so I immediately recanted. It most certainly could get better. But I still enjoyed the moment.

Before the game started, I noticed a 10 year old kid walking by me with a four-inch thick stack of all-star ballots, every one of which I’m sure he will fill out. By the time that kid is done, Prince Fielder may not only be the starting first baseman in the all-star game, he may also have won the Wisconsin Democratic Presidential primary.

The Brewers jumped out to a quick 1 to 0 lead, only having to swing the bat once (on a Corey Hart single). Tim Lincecum of the Giants walked three straight batters to force in the first run. Then back to back sacrifice flies made it 3-0, which is all the Brewers would need.

The real action on the field didn’t really have a whole lot to do with the actual game. As everyone knows, the Brewers provide a girl to go out and play catch with the left fielder, to warm him up between innings. In this case, the left fielder happened to be Barry Bonds, who can barely run after numerous knee surgeries. After the top of the first inning, the ball girl was out throwing with Bonds, and she sailed one about 10 feet over his head. Nobody else was paying attention, so he had to limp all the way to just behind second base to pick it up.

After the top of the second inning, the same thing happens. She launches one over his head, and he has to chase it down again. I don’t know who this woman is, but she deserves some kind of distinguished medal for warm-up girls.

Later in the game, with the Brewers in the field, Geoff Jenkins launched a throw to the infield, which drilled Prince Fielder directly in the stones. With Fielder doubled over in pain, Ned Yost had to call time out for a meeting on the mound while his first baseman got things sorted out. The funniest part was the reaction of the guy sitting in front of me, who thought Yost called time out because Ben Sheets was injured. I actually thought he was going to jump off the balcony (he was going over anyway if a home run ball came our way). The next inning, Fielder overcame his testicular complications and doubled off the wall.

With one out in the fourth inning, Ben Sheets still hadn’t given up a hit. I was trying to think of a way to point this out without jinxing him by saying it overtly. Instead, after the inning, I was going to say something like “there’s a zero on the scoreboard in a pretty interesting place,” or something like that. Just as I said that, my buddy says “Hey, you know what? Sheets has a no-hitter going.” Naturally, the very next hitter doubles, then Ryan Klesko hits a two-run home run. I then officially renounced him as a friend.

With the score 6 to 2 and the game on auto-pilot, I decided to stroll the concourse in search of Dippin’ Dots, frequently referred to as “the ice cream of the future.” However, as everyone knows, the Dippin’ Dots company has been making this claim literally for 15 years. How long do we have to wait before it becomes just “the ice cream?” Will we be out of Iraq by then?

Late in the game, Barry Bonds came up for the final time. The infield shift the Brewers put on for him is ridiculous. If Rickie Weeks were any further out in right field, he’d be sitting next to me in the bleachers. Which would be good for him, because I would share some of my delicious popcorn with him. Needless to say, Bonds grounds right to Weeks, who throws Bonds and his robotic knee out.

It was all smiles on the way home, as I entertained with some ridiculous German techno music in my car. We discussed the Brewers’ record, and calculated that they had gone 16-21 since starting 24-10. We then figured that even if they went 16-21 again, they’d still be 56-52 and probably still in first place in the division. Oh, and did I mention that we’re both grown men with families? I probably spent more time on that calculation than I have on my investment portfolio in the past two years.

Anyway, bottom line: Big win for the now 40-31 first place Brewers, a hitless night for Barry Bonds. Until Jessica calls, this is as good as it gets.

You won’t find anyone who hates smoking more than me. It’s a filthy habit, with no upside. It gives you bad breath, yellow teeth, irritates other people, drains your financial resources – and as a bonus, you get to die a slow, cancerous death. I’ve lost a grandfather and uncle to throat cancer due to smoking. However, recent events are forcing to joint Sir Mix-a-Lot in the “pro-butt” camp.

While I personally hate smoking, I obviously recognize individuals’ right to light up. It’s not my job or anyone else’s to make personal health decisions for anyone else. But the anti-smoking ninnies have gotten so insufferable, I’m having trouble aligning myself with them, even though – in principle – they’re right.

In fact, the only legitimate benefit of smoking is that it identifies which girls in a bar have – shall we say – lowered inhibitions. Or low self esteem, which is even better.

On the way to work today, I pulled up next to a guy that had to be 70 years old. Hair slicked back, sweatsuit, sunglasses – the real deal. Dangling precariously from his lip was a cigarette with about a 3 inch ash on it. There’s absolutely no doubt that cigarette doesn’t leave his lips when he’s drinking coffee or eating breakfast in the morning. And you know what? There’s nothing I or anyone else is going to say to that guy to get him to quit smoking. That cigarette has probably been stuck to his bottom lip for 50 years. And yet his state and local governments are crapping on him with all these new anti-smoking laws and regulations.

So while we should certainly discourage young people from smoking (even though the more we do, the cooler it gets), I say let the old people choke down their heaters. They’ve lived full, rich lives – and they don’t need young whipper-snappers telling them what’s healthy and what’s not. Here’s to you, old people – enjoy the full, rich feeling of your lungs being overtaken by delicious tar.

I just finished reading David Maraniss’ outstanding book “They Marched Into Sunlight,” which juxtaposes the anti-Vietnam War protests on the UW-Madison campus with an actual battle fought overseas. I’ll have plenty to say about the book in the next few days, given that it contains so much interesting information about Madison and Wisconsin.

There’s one story from the book that I found particularly entertaining, which involves former Madison Mayor Paul Soglin during his protest days. In May of 1966, there was a demonstration to protest the policy of the UW giving out grades to the Selective Service, which had announced that deferments would be granted based on academic performance.

According to the book, Soglin met a girl during the protest, and wanted to take her back to his apartment, as any sane young man would do. Unfortunately, he knew he had to be there for the cameras in case the cops came in to bust everything up. So he snuck outside and found the campus police chief, who assured him that the cops wouldn’t be moving in soon. Having heard what he needed, Soglin and the girl snuck out a little past midnight.

The footnotes say the story was provided by Soglin in an April 10, 2002 interview – and it’s a good one. Naturally, a sizeable portion of the book is about Soglin, as he was an active leader in the anti-war demostrations prior to his years on the city council and as mayor. In fact, it’s probably hard to pick out a more influential political figure in Madison politics over the past 40 years.

This actually illustrates how interesting Soglin is these days. When such a large political figure exits the public stage, it seems they always move on to the lecture circuit, academia, or some special emeritus position where they can stay involved, but not really work all that hard. Soglin, on the other hand, has just continued out in the workforce. Essentially, he’s a dude with a job, like everyone else. (Although he does teach a class at the UW) And he’s also a dorky blogger like the rest of us. That is actually great – although a little different than the paths taken by other political bigshots.

I follow national politics less than I do Wisconsin politics, if only because of the nature of my job. And seriously, one can only take so much.

Furthermore, I am one of the 99% of Americans who have completely tuned out the whole Scooter Libby story. Sure, Joe Wilson and Valerie Plame are self-aggrandizing dirtbags, and Libby probably got a raw deal – but who really cares at this point?

That’s why I watched in horror yesterday, as the panelists on “Meet the Press” spent a big chunk of the show discussing the “Libby pardon” controversy. As if anyone outside the beltline even cares. This is so typical of the Capitol Hill press – this story is a big deal to everyone they talk to, so people must care around the country, right?

Much talk was bandied about the table regarding what effect a pardon would have on “the base” of the Republican party. Seriously, who are these members of “the base” who are waiting breathlessly at home to make their decision on whether to support George Bush based on whether he pardons Scooter Libby? Are the hard core Republicans really going to vote for Barack Obama if Libby does hard time?

Honestly, this just shows how completely out of touch those in D.C. are. The bunny rabbit in my yard that continues to eat my shrubs has more to do with my daily life than both the Libby and Alberto Gonzalez “controversies” combined. If a meteor flew in from space and landed on Scooter Libby, it wouldn’t make any difference in the life of any American. Is there really that little to talk about?

Once again, the issue of requiring identification for cold medicine has reared its head. At least once a year, someone starts bitching and moaning about how they had to stand in line for Sudafed, and the whole airing of grievances starts all over again.

Now, I certainly am not immune to complaining about meaningless government regulations. As a legislative staffer, I worked on plenty of goofball bills that I probably wouldn’t have minded seeing go up in flames. But I also wrote the cold medicine bill – and it’s one of the proudest things I’ve done in my time working for the Senate.

So while I hate to inject actual facts into the parade of complaining, I have to do so, just so people know there actually was a reason to do this.

First, a distinction has to be made between the issue of meth labs and the issue of meth use. The law was intended to keep meth cooks from being able to purchase large amounts of pseudoephedrine to set up toxic meth labs in their homes. These are the poisonous labs where children often live, and police have to raid wearing Haz-Mat suits. Of course, the bill isn’t going to eliminate demand for meth – nobody ever said it would. To argue that the bill is ineffective because meth is coming in from Mexico is a red herring.

In fact, statistics show that the number of meth labs seized in the state has dropped by 60%. So, in fact, the bill hasn’t “done nothing.” It actually has accomplished something fairly extraordinary – which is why, if you ask anyone in law enforcement in Western Wisconsin, they’ll tell you that this is the best law enforcement bill they’ve seen in a long time.

Secondly, some of the criticisms of the bill are just factually incorrect, and not by a little bit. Here’s one, for instance:

For the last two years, the law has required that all drugs containing pseudoephedrine – an ingredient in meth — be dispensed only by pharmacists who are required to keep a record of your purchases. Buying too much cold medicine in a 30 day period is now criminal act.

Actually, the state law (to which this quote refers) actually only deals with the tablet form of pseudoephedrine products. It has nothing to do with pseudoephedrine in liquid or gel caps. Under state law, those can be sold by any store in the state, without any photo ID or signature. You could buy as much as you want. You can even hand it out for Halloween, if you wanted (the federal law which passed after the state law required liquid pseudoephedrine to be kept behind the counter).

As a side note, following passage of the bill, the easiest place to get large amounts of pseudoephedrine in tablet form was from Jim Doyle’s Canadian drug website.

Opponents of the law are fond of saying that the “99.9%” of the people who use Sudafed responsibly shouldn’t be incovenienced by the remainder that don’t. Let’s say they’re right – using their numbers, the 0.1% that don’t use the drug responsibly would amount to 5,500 meth labs in Wisconsin. It would take the combined police forces of five states to raid and clean up that many labs, and the treatment costs of the innocent people poisoned would be astronomical.

Furthermore, as the bill was being debated, stores were already moving their cold medicine behind the counter voluntarily. Wal-Mart and Target had already done so, without any new state law. Additionally, soon after the state law passed, Congress passed its own federal law that nearly mirrored the Wisconsin law (it allowed for the state law to take precedence in areas where it was more rigid). In fact, the federal law goes further than the state in requiring liquid and gel caps to be put behind the counter, which the Wisconsin legislature thought was too heavy-handed. So even had the state law not passed, there’d literally be no difference in how you buy your cold medicine today. Maybe you should send George W. Bush a letter to complain.

Also, you may recall that when Wisconsin passed its law, all of the neighboring states were passing equally or more stringent laws of their own. Minnesota and Illinois passed similar laws, and Iowa’s law is so tough, you can go to prison for saying the word “Sudafed.” Naturally, because neighboring states pass laws, it doesn’t necessarily make them good laws (see: ethanol). However, what we do know is this: if Wisconsin is the only state where you can buy unlimited amounts of pseudoephedrine, the meth labs would explode in our state. It would be a complete disaster.

Of course, nobody in southeast Wisconsin was aware at what an issue meth was in the western part of the state. Most of the resistance to the law is because nobody understands the problems that meth labs cause. I would bet that most people outside of Milwaukee are oblivious to the daily details about the violence in the inner city. Does that mean it’s not happening? Sheriffs in western Wisconsin have estimated that 65% of the crime they see is somehow meth-related, whether it be child or spousal abuse, theft, or other violent acts. It has literally become an epidemic there – and the statistics show that the meth labs were heading east. The new laws seem to have thwarted the movement of meth labs, for which everyone should be thankful.

In fact, you know where nobody complains about having to show photo ID to get come cold medicines? Places like Iowa, where law enforcement has been overrun by the presence of meth labs, and where they’ve pulled 1,000 children out of those labs since 2001. I don’t easily fall prey to the “if we can only save one child” line of argument, but we researched case after case where infants in Wisconsin were living in homes with explosive and toxic chemicals, sleeping on floors covered in feces, surrounded by the corpses of their dead house pets. There are hundreds of kids like this that are going to be sick for a long time because they lived in a home with a meth lab – not to mention the physical and sexual abuse they generally endure. So I’m sorry if I don’t exactly feel sympathy for you when you have to wait a couple extra minutes in line for certain types of cold medicine.

Naturally, this isn’t going to keep anyone from complaining. But there’s a reason the bill passed the Senate unanimously and the Assembly 95 to 4. It’s not like conservatives like Scott Jensen, Scott Fitzgerald, John Gard, Mike Huebsch, Tom Reynolds, and others were “bamboozled” into voting for it. They simply had done their homework as to the dire need for the new law.

In the end, the new law has prevented meth labs from moving eastward in Wisconsin, and has kept Wisconsin from being swamped by would-be meth cooks from neighboring states. Of course, the threat of a statewide epidemic isn’t enough to override the frustration of someone who has to wait in line at a drug store. That’s just the way it is.

Bill Christofferson misses a big point in his criticism of Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch for today’s announcement that agreement on the state budget may take some time.  However, Christofferson almost unknowingly backs into a decent point in his skepticism of delayed budgets.

 Xoff compares the prospect of a delayed budget to the federal government shutdown of 1995, saying:

Before he leads his party too far down that path, Huebsch might want to touch bases with Newt Gingrich.

Gingrich, you may recall, was the architect of the 1995 shutdown of the federal government, in a showdown with President Bill Clinton…

But Gingrich and Co. overplayed their hand, and, while achieving some of their budget objectives, paid a huge political price for losing the public relations war. Gingrich left government not too long after that disaster.

Of course, the federal and state ways of dealing with budget impasses are entirely different.  When the federal government “shuts down,” as it did in 1996, it actually stops in its tracks.  People stop working, and backlogs pile up.  In fact, Congress actually had to pass legislation ordering federal employees back to work, whether they were paid or not.

In state government, programs continue to be funded at the previous levels – nothing shuts down, but cost-to-continue increases aren’t granted until the budget is complete.

For state government operations, this is a minor problem, since departments roll along until the budgets pass.  The big problem with this strategy is the effect it has on local governments, which have to write their budgets without knowing how much funding they will receive from the state.  Since 60% of the state budget is comprised of aids to locals, this causes a great deal of uncertainty for municipalities and school districts.

Furthermore, the modest property tax caps signed into law in the last budget are now due to expire.  As a result, local governments may increase property taxes to make up for the revenue lost by a delayed budget.  This effect was described in a Legislative Fiscal Bureau memo, which predicted that property taxes would increase by $400 million over Doyle’s proposed budget in the next biennium if no budget were passed ($179 million of that would be attributable to flat aids to school districts alone).

Thus, while citizens wouldn’t see an outright shutdown of government, they could see increased property taxes as a result – which could make a delayed budget an unpopular strategy.