November 2009 – Christian Schneider

Month: November 2009

The Gay Marriage “Smoking Gun”

November 30, 2009 / Christian / 9 Comments

Back in August, we profiled Dan Mielke, who is running against Sean Duffy for the Republican nomination to take on long-time Democratic Congressman Dave Obey in 2010. When we last left Mielke, he was discussing his qualifications for office:

Mr. Duffy is “more of a polished, celebrity-style politician,” Mr. Mielke said. “I’ve got a beard, and I’ve worked my whole life.”

With the issue of whether Mielke has a beard being settled, he’s now moved on to what he believes to be the “smoking gun” that’s going to take Duffy down: the issue of gay marriage. Over the weekend, Mielke posted the following video (unironically titled “Sean Duffy Exposed), which purports to be “evidence” that Duffy supports gays settlin’ down:

UPDATE: The original video was removed from YouTube for copyright infringement, as it included video from the original movie. It has been replaced by this interesting Mielke campaign video, in which he describes the scenes himself:

Now you may watch that and say, “that just looks like a guy being supportive of one of his gay friends.” And I think you’d be right. It seems to be a stretch to expect people to watch that video and come away with the impression that Duffy is somehow the Adam Lambert of Wisconsin politics.

In fact, Mielke may be accomplishing the opposite of his intention with this video. He might actually be strengthening Duffy’s position in the general election. (And make no mistake, Duffy is going to win this primary – despite being beardless.)

First of all, it seems that public opinion is going to eventually shift over to being in favor of some sort of legal recognition of same-sex unions. A recent WPRI poll found:

“42% of people 18 to 35 favored legalizing gay marriage, compared to 24% of 36-to-64-year-olds and 15% of those 65 and older. Civil unions, but not marriage, were favored by 29% in the younger group, 33% in the middle group and 34% in the older group. But 40% of the older group opposed either possibility, compared to 36% of 36-to-64-year-olds and just 28% of adults 35 and younger.”

As the older voters move on and younger voters show up more reliably at the polls, it seems likely that policies will eventually change at is applies to gay marriage.

But even beyond that – Mielke’s message is essentially “Sean Duffy is fair and open-minded.” And that’s the kind of endorsement that Duffy couldn’t pay enough money for in the general election. It’s almost as if Mielke is on his payroll. Maybe Mielke’s next move is to accuse Duffy of being too critical of the failed stimulus plan – or to hammer Duffy for being opposed to higher taxes. (In a bizarre section of his website, Mielke actually does criticize Duffy’s position on abortion. Apparently, properly recognizing that Congress can’t just pass a bill making abortion illegal makes Duffy a “RINO.”)

I’ve always thought that this is the next step in competitive campaigns – getting paper candidates to run for office that make the frontrunner look better. If you’re running a serious campaign, why not pay some guy to run against you and serve as your foil? It would actually be good practice for Congress, where Representatives spend all night in an empty chamber having fake “debates” with each other for the benefit of the C-Span cameras. (These usually involve two members of the same party asking each other questions like “Congressman, how is it possible that you can be so insightful about health care?”)

On a final note, I think it’s pretty classless that Mielke would use clips of Duffy’s wife to attack Duffy. That is all.

“Mommy, What Does a Union Member Look Like?”

November 29, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

The stereotype of the typical union member is time-tested. Union Man is a pot-bellied factory worker or tradesman making a good living despite never having graduated college. He wears an old flannel shirt and muddy work boots. And much like the Catholic Church hierarchy, in which the bigger your hat, the greater your importance, union status is conferred on those with the largest mustaches.

Union Man believes in the strength of numbers—that the security of his job depends on the security of his colleagues’ jobs, even if he knows he works harder than they do. He’s suspicious of people who make more money than he does, and Union Man thinks “the rich” aren’t paying their “fair share.”

As such, Union Man supports Democratic candidates with both his union dues and his vote. And he isn’t afraid to vote against his best interests if it means sticking it to management.

In Wisconsin, this stereotype was most recently reinforced by the saga of Mercury Marine, a small-engine factory near Sheboygan that faced falling revenues and a beckoning suitor in Oklahoma. Mercury asked its union for concessions or suffer the closing of the plant. It took the workers three contested votes to reach a deal to save their jobs.

As this charade rolled on, the public gazed, incredulously, at the union members in their natural habitat, tempting the catastrophic closing of their plant with their obstinacy. Thus, the age-old stereotype of the union simpleton as hardhat economic illiterate gained currency.

But not so fast.

In reality, the typical union member is a very different person. A statewide poll conducted in September by the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (publisher of this magazine) found the typical union member to be female, with a college education, making more than $75,000 per year. Of the union households responding to the survey, 79% had attended college, with 14% completing graduate work.

Even more intriguing, the typical union household is much more fiscally conservative than traditional stereotypes would suggest. Among union members, 52% listed either “holding the line on taxes and government spending” or “improving the state’s economy and protecting jobs” as the top priority of the Legislature. Traditional union priorities, such as making health care and prescription drugs more affordable (12%), scored much lower than expected.

Among union households, President Obama is still popular, with a 64% approval rating. Yet Gov. Jim Doyle, who is to Wisconsin unions what Hugh Hefner is to teenage boys, actually has a high unfavorability rating, with 49.7% rating him “somewhat” or “very” unfavorably. This is even higher than the 47.4% unfavorable rating Doyle received from the public at large.

So put away the stereotype of the typical union member. Forget about the picketing goon and consider the professional woman who tends to be an economic conservative. How did our perception get so wrong?

For one, unionization in America has been changing rapidly. According to the census, 20% of workers in the U.S. were union members in 1983. Twenty-five years later, union membership has dropped to 12% of the workforce. Yet membership remains high in public-sector jobs, with government workers five times more likely to be union members than their private-sector counterparts. And within government, education and library service jobs were the most heavily unionized, at 38.7%.

As we know, “education” and “library” jobs have traditionally meant “women.” And that is why, after men held a 10-point lead nationally over women in union membership in 1983, it appears professional women may have crept ahead in Wisconsin in 2009.

And these women, despite being unionized government employees, are educated, well paid, and shell out a boatload in taxes. Which may explain, in large part, why they may be more apt to be skeptical of government.

For instance, when asked whether government should guarantee every citizen a job and a good standard of living, 67% of union households objected to the notion—even higher than the overall 65% “no” from the general public.

So when you’re out at a restaurant and commenting on the typical “union goons,” remember: Today’s union members walk among us, like chameleons adapting to their new environments. Their changed appearance has thrown our “union-dar” out of whack, so it’s much more difficult to tell who might be a card-carrying AFL-CIO member.

And today’s union members may be more reasonable than we remember. Before conservatives write them off, it might bear electoral fruit for Republicans to get to know them better.

After all, these are not your father’s unions.

Public Financing of Campaigns: Anatomy of a Failed Idea

November 19, 2009 / Christian / 2 Comments

Today, WPRI released a report by Mike Nichols (with research assistance by me) that delves into the origin of public financing for campaigns in Wisconsin.

While the intent of using taxpayer dollars to run campaigns was noble – supporters thought it would lead to more competitive elections and reduced special interest influence – the actual effect has been just the opposite. In fact, often times politicians (77% of those that take the grant are Democrats) turn right around and funnel the public money to campaign purposes that are outside the intent of the law:

(State Representative Spencer) Black, for example, received $4,155 from the public fund on Sept. 30, 1996. This is the same year he gave a total of $4,775 in cash or in-kind contributions to other politicians or committees, including $1,200 to the Dane County Conservation Alliance-a special interest committee registered with the state.

On Sept. 30, 2004, state Rep. Mark Pocan accepted $5,574 from the public fund. According to his campaign reports, on that very same day he made a $1,000 contribution to the Unity Fund-the Democratic Party of Wisconsin campaign account that was used, at least in part that year, to support Democratic candidates at the national level.

Hintz received his most recent public funding, about $6,000, on Sept. 27, 2008. In the month that followed, he gave $1,000 to the Democratic Party of Wisconsin.

There’s more:

In September of 2002, Bob Jauch accepted 11,932 from the WECF. In November, he made a $5,000 contribution to the State Senate Democratic Committee. He won with 62.1% of the vote.
In September of 2006, Jauch accepted a $2,425 contribution from WECF. In November of 2006, he made a $1,000 contribution to the SSDC, and won with 62.3% of the vote.
On September 25, 2002, Russ Decker accepted a WECF grant of $11,932. During the same election, Decker spent $6,300 for a poll – for a race he won with 68% of the vote. In December, Decker transferred $1,000 to the SSDC.
In September of 2006, Joe Parisi accepted $5,263 from the WECF. In the same election cycle, he donated $1,000 to the Democratic Party of WI, en route to winning with 75.6% of the vote.

Furthermore, public financing hasn’t done anything to improve the “competitiveness” of state campaigns.

Of the 47 winners that took the grant, 38 (81%) were incumbents. Of the 9 winners that were not incumbents, 6 of them beat incumbents (Hines, Freese, Skindrud, Loeffelholz, Weber, and Kreibich) and 3 ran in open seats.

The average vote for the 47 winners who accepted a WECF grant: 63.4%
The average vote for the 126 losers who accepted a WECF grant: 39.3%

Of the 126 losing candidates, only 11 (8.7%) came within 5% of the winner. Only 24 (19%) came within 10% of the winner.

A Stimulating Announcement

November 18, 2009 / Christian / 3 Comments

Dear Wisconsin Citizens:

An ill wind blows in America these days. People are fed up, and they want REAL CHANGE.

That is why, today, I am making it official: I am running for Congress in Wisconsin’s 10th District.

Trust me, I know the people of the 10th District. I have lived in this district every day of my life – or at least every day that I knew the district existed*. I feel the pain of the hardworking people in my district who are fed up with the job loss. The fine people of the 10th District deserve better representation than they’re getting, and I plan to knock on every door in the district over the next year.

We all remember earlier this year, when the economy was going in the toilet and George W. Bush stood by and did NOTHING. In fact, from the websites I read, he was nowhere near Washington D.C. at the time the wildly successful stimulus package was being carefully debated in April. He wasn\’t there when I fought for the $120,000 grant to the 10th Congressional District when the bill was passed. And sure, it\’s not as much as the $1.2 million the lucky bastards in Wisconsin’s 55th District got, or even the $202,000 received by the citizens of the 00th District, but I supported it all along. I should get all the credit. That’s me – kicking ass, saving jobs for the people of the 10th.

Now, I understand people will laugh. They may say things like “hey, aren’t all the things you’re running on complete and abject failures?” and “doesn’t Wisconsin only have eight congressional districts?” But I’m sick and tired of the naysayers. It’s this kind of negativity that has brought our country down, and I will not be deterred.

As esteemed Mayor of Baltimore Tommy Carcetti once said, “let me double down on that.” Not only will I reject any suggestion that the 10th District might be imaginary (when I look out my window, I see houses – are those people imaginary, too?), I will feed off that negativity and become stronger. I have the government documents to prove it.

In order to show I’m a serious candidate, I have sent my daughter’s boyfriend out to pose for Playgirl. I figure this will give me the elevated profile that I need to convince people that I’ve done my homework on foreign affairs and the economy. I have also enlisted ACORN to get my voters to the polls – their effort in getting an egg salad sandwich elected to Wisconsin’s 576th Congressional District last year shows they’re ready for the challenge.

Together, we can do this. Everyone knows that citizens of the 10th District RULE! (Especially since it’s common knowledge that people in the 3rd District kind of smell like halibut.) Go 10th!

Si se puede!,

Christian Schneider

Candidate, Wisconsin’s 10th Congressional District

*-Since yesterday.

Pickup Lines Go Green

November 17, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

Long before Early Man invented fire and hammers, he was using the most rudimentary tool of all – pretending to like the environment to pick up women. Even in college, I occasionally told girls that I belonged to Greenpeace in order to see if they’d investigate the global warming in my drawers. (It even worked from time to time – once every two years, like clockwork.)

A few weeks ago, I went to a concert and ended up at a bar with some sort-of co-workers. Immediately, a bearded greaseball standing at the bar came over and started chatting up a comely young member of our group. She asked this guy what he did for a living, and it gave him the opening he needed. He handed her one of his business cards, and he told her he “owned his own business.” When prodded further, he said this business was a “green painting business.” (I asked him why he didn’t have any other colors.)

But of course, he meant he used “green” paint, as in “environmentally conscious” paint. So what had traditionally been a pretty nondescript college job has now been turned into pious crusade by this young entrepreneur. He explained that all his paint was “green” because it didn’t have any lead in it – never mind the fact that no paint manufacturer has put lead in their paint for over 30 years. (The girl he was talking to is pretty conservative, so she jokingly told him the more lead the paint had in it, the better.)

So with this encounter, I officially declare the “green” movement to have jumped the shark. (Much like using the term “jumped the shark” has jumped the shark.) It’s now official – you can literally throw the word “green” in front of anything and make it seem like you’re a crusader for the environment. And girls eat it up.

So I’m fine with this guy trying to spin his crappy job into some booty. But he owes royalties to those of us who paved the way over the span of decades by lying to women about our environmental credentials in order to make out with them. Somewhere up in heaven, there’s some dude who chained himself to a tree in 1678, and had women doing his laundry for him for the next 30 years. A little respect, please.

(When this environmental BS finally falls out of fashion again, my recommended pickup line to girls would be, “do you like the internet?”)

UPS Versus FedEx: The Whiteboard Remix

November 10, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

You Paid for This: In Dire Economic Times, Legislators Spend Millions to Improve Their Public Images

November 9, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

Recently, WPRI issued a report on term limits (authored by yours truly) that made the point that incumbent legislators are extremely difficult to oust from office, given the advantages they grant themselves in office.

One of the most challenging aspects of running a legislative campaign as a non-incumbent is trying to get your message to the voters. Doing so takes raising money, and paying out tens of thousands of dollars in printing and mailing costs to get your literature to citizens of the district.

Fortunately for incumbents, they have no problem delivering campaign materials to the voters. Because the voters pay for it.

Every legislative session, incumbent lawmakers get to send “legislative updates” and “questionnaires” to their constituents in the form of mass mailings. Of course, nobody would argue that lawmakers shouldn’t be able to keep in touch with their constituents. Virtually any voter would agree that constituent service is a large part of the job citizens expect their lawmakers to perform.

However, a review of newsletters mailed out by legislators during the 2007-08 session shows that these taxpayer-funded fliers appear to have very little informational value to voters. They are essentially general fund-supported campaign literature, bragging incessantly about all the projects legislators were able to bring back to their home districts. They are sprinkled with photos of legislators reading to children, giving speeches on the floor, attending bill signings, and meeting with veterans in their district. They list many of the bills authored by the legislator, with flowery, hagiographic text written by that legislator’s staff.

Some newsletters are mailed out as questionnaires, allowing constituents to answer questions written by the legislator in order to get “feedback.” Of course, these questions are often heavily slanted in favor of the legislator’s personal views. Then, the incumbent can use these manufactured poll results as talking points during the campaign, perhaps even using the database with the poll results as a guide for targeting voters during the campaign. A voter that answers a questionnaire from a legislator saying they believe in the right to carry a concealed weapon is infinitely more likely to get a pro-gun literature piece from that legislator come election time.

These “questionnaires” (which are statistically invalid, since they are voluntary) contain questions such as this one, from Representative Mary Hubler’s survey:

“The governor has proposed that big oil companies be taxed 2.5% per barrel on profits from sales in Wisconsin. This tax could not be passed on to consumers at the pump. Do you agree with this?”

In 2008, WPRI released a study that invalidates nearly every portion of this question – “big oil” will not eventually pay the tax, and the tax could very well cost consumers more at the pump. Clearly, this question is meant to generate a specific answer in support of Representative Hubler’s position, not to actually gauge the opinion of her district. Furthermore, this question is representative of the hundreds of other biased questions found on these phony “surveys.”

During the 2007-08 legislative session, the Wisconsin Senate spent $568,000 printing and mailing these newsletters and questionnaires. The Assembly spent $692,000 on various forms of newsletters, questionnaires, mailing services, contact cards, newspaper inserts, and other taxpayer funded forms of constituent contacts.

In this time period, legislators sent out 152 different newsletters. Some choose to do one large newsletter, while some mail one newsletter and one questionnaire. Others, like State Senator Sheila Harsdorf and State Representative Scott Suder, choose to do multiple newsletters, but target them to smaller specific constituencies.

All total, the Legislature spent $1.26 million in 2007-08 trying to convince their constituents how well they did their jobs – enough to send 191 inner city children to private schools through the Milwaukee school choice program. This constitutes a $1.26 million taxpayer-funded head start over potential challengers vying for the public’s attention. Put simply, the Legislature takes a million dollars from voters in order to feed those same voters a line about how fiscally responsible they are.

A sampling of the 2007-08 legislative newsletters shows some of the following information that was deemed vital to constituents:

State Representative Samantha Kerkman’s newsletter includes a plug for the state’s new 24 hour hotline that allows constituents to call and report fraud, waste, and mismanagement in state government. Any constituent that didn’t immediately call the number and report her newsletter as an example simply wasn’t reading it.

State Representative Andy Jorgensen’s newsletter includes a section detailing the results of first-ever “Best of the Area” poll, conducted by local newspapers. The ballot included a question for readers about the “Best Area Politician,” which was won by… Representative Andy Jorgensen.

Numerous newsletters get directly to the point, boasting of all the money and projects that legislator has brought to the district. They include headlines such as “Hebl Brings Important Resources Back to District,”and “Hraychuck Delivers for Her District.” Disgraced State Representative Jeff Wood brags about creating $22 million in incentives for renewable energy development in his district.

State Representative Joe Parisi includes a picture of himself with the Dalai Lama. The relevance of this meeting to the citizens of the 48th Assembly District is unknown.

State Representative Steve Wieckert’s newsletter includes a picture of him hugging a puppy dog.

page_template_clip_image002

Despite having announced that she wasn’t running for office again, State Representative Barbara Gronemus mailed out a newsletter consisting of nothing but pictures of herself over the span of her 26 year legislative career. This ode to herself cost state taxpayers cost $5,683 to print and mail.

State Representative Jeff Mursau’s newsletter features a full page dedicated to images of press clippings he received in his local media. Constituents are treated to headlines like “Mursau Introduces Drunk Flying Bill.”

State Senator Jon Erpenbach’s newsletter features a picture of the Senator with a woman dressed as a giant foam rubber soybean, to commemorate a $4 million grant to build a new Evansville Soybean Crushing Plant.

page_template_clip_image003

From State Representative Steve Nass’ newsletter: “This legislative session will be remembered for years to come as the resurgence of Big Government in Wisconsin. The taxpayers were under assault from day one with numerous proposals to raise taxes and expand government power. Many of these bad ideas were bipartisan in nature, but bipartisanship didn’t change the fact that Wisconsin families would be forced to pay for Bigger Government.” Cost of Nass’ newsletter to the state’s taxpayers: $5,285.41.

State Representative Cory Mason issued a questionnaire in August of 2007, in which he asks constituents 14 questions, such as, “Racine has the highest rate of infants who die before they are a year old. Should the state invest in programming to reduce infant mortality?”

In April of 2008, Mason issued another newsletter, printing the “results” of his questionnaire. Yet he only printed the answers to five of the 14 questions he had asked six months before. Naturally, all of the answers he revealed strongly backed his viewpoint on those issues. The results of the other questions are unknown.

State Senator Mary Lazich’s newsletter attempts to fortify her law-and-order credentials by featuring a photo of Lazich in an FBI helmet and bulletproof vest. Lazich had the largest mailing budget in the Legislature, at $38,311.99.

State Senator Mark Miller’s newsletter features a picture of Miller serving his constituents from a canoe.

In many ways, these newsletters are completely indistinguishable from campaign literature mailed to constituents’ homes during election season. Many of the pictures and much of the glowing language will end up in campaign mail pieces verbatim. Yet taxpayers pay for these mailings, while challengers are left on their own to raise and spend the necessary funds to print, design, and mail their literature.

It is telling that in a time when the state is in a fiscal freefall, legislators continue to spend millions to boost their own public personas. Taxpayers get to pay for the right to be convinced of the greatness of their own legislators.

-November 9, 2009

Skhizein

November 7, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

Have a look at this award-winning French short film, entitled “Skhizein.” It stuck with me for a while.