Christian Schneider

Author, Columnist

Author: Christian (page 22 of 81)

I Rule the Road

I\’m not usually one to blow my own horn (which I don\’t think is legal in Wisconsin anymore), but I do have to admit – I am the greatest snow driver of all time.  I consider those of you who stay home because a little snow falls to be weak of spirit and onion-deficient.  My 4-wheel drive and I are like Batman and Robin.  Peanut Butter and Jelly.  Gin and Tonic.  Hall and Oates.  You get the picture.

In fact, my drive to work today was reminiscent of the opening scene of \”Undercover Brother,\” in which he spins out for 30 seconds while failing to spill a drip of his Big Gulp:

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

Enjoy your hot cocoa at home – I\’ll be here at work defending freedom.  And shopping on eBay.

Crying Out for an Answer

I was reading  some old newspaper microfilm in the State Historical Society the other day, doing some research for work.  As long as I was there, I thought I\’d look up the press account from a family tragedy that befell us in 1977.  And I have to admit it – going back and thinking about it made me a little misty.  (Although not as much as a typical episode of \”Friday Night Lights,\” which gets the water works going every episode.

This got me thinking about a question I hadn\’t really given much thought to in the past.  Why do we cry?

When you think about it, the human body is an amazingly efficient machine – virtually every human physiological process has an explanation.  When we get hot, we sweat to cool ourselves off.  When we get cold, we shiver to stay warm.  When we exercise, we breathe more deeply to get more oxygen to our blood cells.  When we exercise our muscles, they get stronger to adapt.  When our bodies think it\’s time to have sex (for me, any time I turn the DVD player on), it…ummm… reacts accordingly.  The future of humanity depends on it.

But what purpose does crying serve?  Seemingly, there is no physical challenge overcome by tears streaming from your eyes.  There\’s no cause that produces the effect.  While other animals have tear ducts (like monkeys and Michael Moore), humans are the only ones that cry.  Biologists have pretty much nailed down the physiological process – the nervous system stimulates the cranial nerve, in the brain and this sends signals to the neurotransmitters to the tear glands. The largest tear gland, the lacrimal gland produces the tears of emotion and reflex.  But that doesn\’t explain what triggers the response, or what purpose it is supposed to serve.

I suppose one could argue that tears are the body\’s way of releasing pent-up feelings.  But why would these feelings come of of the eyes?  It seems the body already has several mechanisms for expelling things – imagine if, instead of crying, we just soiled ourselves.    When Red says \”maybe I just miss my friend\” at the end of Shawshank Redemption, I\’d have to make a beeline for the can every time.

As I mentioned, animals feel pain and sadness, but they just howl.  Why are humans different?  Maybe Baby Jesus makes us cry.  St. Francis of Assisi supposedly cried until he was blind.  So when I lose my sight, that\’s what I\’ll blame it on.

So, anyway.

A Corrupt Analysis

With the drama regarding Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich still unfolding, corruption is now back in style with the news media.  The Blago scandal allows the usual cast of characters to run out and claim that because Blagojevich tried to auction off Barack Obama’s senate seat,  we need to enact whatever campaign finance reforms they prefer – regardless of whether they would actually be relevant to the current debacle in Illinois.

Take the recent ranting from Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, called “The Real Scandal.”  He believes the fact that some people do business in Illinois and Wisconsin vindicates his view that government should be able to micromanage political speech.  Or something.  Basically, his little story has the word “Blagojevich” in it, and that’s all it really needed for McCabe to pretend it was relevant:

Besides, the political crime ring that brought federal prosecutors to Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s doorstep has tentacles that reach into Wisconsin. Nick Hurtgen, a former top aide to Tommy Thompson, is a central figure in the Illinois drama. He was indicted for his alleged role in a kickback scheme, then a judge dropped him from the case before he was reindicted late last year. Hurtgen has remained active in Wisconsin, making sizable donations to Mark Green’s failed bid to become governor and maintaining close ties to another Republican known to covet the governor’s office, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker. But Hurtgen played both sides in Wisconsin, having helped organize a 2002 fundraiser in Chicago for Jim Doyle.

Wonderful.  But, of course, that story has nothing to do with what’s happening in Illinois right now.  In fact, I was actually spotted paying a highway toll in Illinois last week – perhaps I am also partly to blame for the Blagojevich scandal.  Jim McMahon played for both the Bears and the Packers – seems a little fishy, huh?

Then McCabe gives up on trying to pretend there’s any link between Blagojevich and Wisconsin and pivots to “The Real Scandal:”

It was perfectly legal for the investment bankers and insurance execs and real estate tycoons to spend over $430 million buying federal office holders in the 2008 election cycle alone. These interests have spent well over $2 billion to sew up Washington since 1990. What they bought was lax oversight and the freedom to roll the dice with other people’s life savings. And a bailout when it all went sour. Even as tanking companies like AIG and Freddie Mac and Ford Motor Company were fixing to ask the feds to rescue them from themselves, they were showering money on both major parties to pick up the tab for the national conventions.

Yeah, all those campaign contributions by Ford Motor Company are doing them a lot of good right now.  That automaker bailout bill is just flying through Congress.  Or not.

Furthermore, any time the WDC throws out a number, it should immediately be discounted.  Take, for example, their “report” that says big business gives twelve times as much to candidates as organized labor – a number immediately contradicted by a search of federal campaign contributions by political groups.  Actually the top 2 donors were AFSCME and the NEA.

So basically, the Blagojevich story merely serves as the host for whatever snake oil these campaign finance parasites are selling.  I may need to check the statutes, but I believe what Rod Blagojevich is accused of doing is already illegal. And not just a little illegal.  Does anyone believe that Blagojevich would have magically decided not to auction off a U.S. senate seat if there were tighter limits on campaign contributions, or if there were increased regulation of election advertising?  Of course not.  It’s like saying too many people are driving drunk, so we need more laws to regulate car ads on television.  In fact, the exact opposite is true – the more laws we pass, the more opportunities for corruption there are, as government encroaches more and more into our lives.

As a side note, USA Today last week conducted an analysis of the most “corrupt” states in the U.S.  Their list was topped by the state we all consider to be a hotbed of government corruption – North Dakota.

Basically, the newspaper just took a total number of elected officials who have been convicted of misdeeds in each state, added them up, and handed out a “corruption ranking.”  Wisconsin ranks in the middle somewhere, with 2.1 convictions per 100,000 residents.

But is this really an accurate measure of corruption?  It would seem that a state that arrests and convicts its elected officials that break the law is actually fighting corruption.  States that tolerate corruption don’t send their legislators to jail – and therefore would rank pretty low on the list (Illinois ranks 18th, for instance.)

So to the states high on this list, congratulations – you’re doing a good job of weeding out your bad eggs.  Not merely tolerating them.

Felons for Thee, Not for Me

Poor Rod Blagojevich. First, he gets pinched by the feds, and now – after he politely declined an offer to resign his governorship – Illinois legislators are beginning their own investigation into whether he should be impeached. Apparently, the legislature is trying to shake the impression that Illinois is to political corruption what Florida is to flamingoes.

Of course, defending Blagojevich is like defending rabies. However, while we all have a pretty good idea that he was trying to auction off Barack Obama’s U.S. Senate seat, he hasn’t yet been convicted of anything. But that hasn’t slowed the calls for his ouster from legislators looking for political cover. It’s gotten so bad, some Illinois legislators could improve their image by getting their picture taken with George Bush.

In fact, herein lies one of the true ironies of the whole Blagojevich scandal. It appears elected officials of all parties are falling over themselves demanding the Illinois governor be thrown out of his job before he’s convicted of anything, in order to disassociate themselves from him. It makes sense, given what the evidence shows to this point. (One wonders whether Democrats are going to demand that Blagojevich be spared prison time, as he is one of the “nonviolent” offenders of which they believe the prison system is overflowing.)

But while politicians are more than willing to fire colleagues that reflect poorly on them, they never extend that courtesy to private businesses. In Wisconsin, an employee cannot be fired, prevented from being hired, or otherwise have any action taken against them because of arrest or conviction record. So if Rod Blagojevich was working the drive-thru at Popeye’s Fried Chicken and charged with a felony, his coworkers would be stuck listening to his foul-mouthed tirades about f’ing biscuits and gravy in perpetuity.

In 2005, the University of Wisconsin System came under fire from legislators when it was discovered that the system employed 40 convicted felons. Most were unclassified positions, like janitors. Actually, this number seems fairly low for any organization that employs 32,000 people. Look in the cubicle next to you – chances are that little old lady next to you is either a felon or would beat you in the head with a rake if given the chance.

So what did the UW Board of Regents do as a response to this revelation? They passed a new rule saying that action could be taken against any employee that is merely charged with a felony. Forget due process – they’re a government entity and they have some face to save. Once passed, this rule completely disappeared into the ether, never to be discussed again – although it almost certainly contradicts Wisconsin’s fair employment law. But it’s state government – so they have special rights that those silly private businesses shouldn’t.

According to Wisconsin state law – passed by the Legislature, of course – felons are prohibited from serving in the state Senate or Assembly. Clearly, it is the one job that requires so much integrity that it shan’t even be held by someone convicted of a felony 20 year ago. Apparently, the Legislature was concerned that it would make them look worse if there were a felon in their midst. Yet while they forbid any of those dirty criminals from working in their place of business, they mandate that they have to work with you. Clearly, the integrity of your workplace isn’t as important as that of our elected officials. THEY HAVE A VERY HIGH PUBLIC IMAGE TO UPHOLD, YOU KNOW.

Just ask this guy.

-December 16, 2008

A Little Obvious, Don’t You Think?

New evidence has come to light that really condemns Rod Blagojevich.

***BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS BREAKING NEWS***

\”Police reports did not what type of sandwich was used in either attack.\”

Solving the iConundrum

Alright, I\’ll stop shampooing and get right to it.  My dad sent me my Christmas gift already – some gift cards to Best Buy.  A few weeks ago, I lost my iPod, and I\’ve been lost ever since.  My life is devoid of meaning.  I even accidentally ate a salad.  So clearly, I need another iPod Nano.  (Set aside, for a moment, the question of whether spending your Christmas gift cards before Christmas is actually appropriate.  I believe the Bible is silent on the issue.)

The 16 GB Nanos at Best Buy are $199.99.  (Thank God they\’re not $200 – I might not be able to swing that.)  And these gift cards will cover a big chunk of it.  Sounds like a match made in heaven, right?

Only there\’s one thing that sticks in my craw.  If you go online shopping, like at B&H, the same iPod is $174.95.  Twenty five bucks cheaper, for those of you educated in MPS.  So while I can buy from Best Buy at a cost of nearly zero to me, I know I\’ll be paying too much.  I\’d almost rather pay the full price myself, and be satisfied that I got a deal, rather than pay nothing, but at an inflated price.  It\’s crazy, I know.

Also, on a related note, I have a proposal that will kick-start the nation\’s economy.  It\’s pretty clear that putting the letters \”e\” or \”i\” in front of anything makes people 50% more likely to buy it.  Those two letters confer status on products – as if they\’re from the future.  When the iPhone came out, people stormed stores to pay whatever they had in their bank accounts for these phones, because of one letter.

So I propose putting the letters \”e\” and \”i\” in front of everything.  Housing market down?  Someone buy my \”iThreeBedroomTwo iBath.\”  Looking to sell your crappy car?  Advertise for an \”eLemon.\”  Who doesn\’t get a little more excited about paying their taxes when they know they can e-file?

This could actually apply across the board.  Just think – if your doctor sent you an e-mail telling you you had \”iCancer,\” you\’d be like \”oh, that\’s not too bad.\”  If you find out your husband is having an \”e-affair,\” you\’d say \”oooh – sounds cutting edge.\”

Patent pending.

(I\’ll get right to it after I open \”Simply Arms.\”)

A Night in the Life of Jeff Wood

You need to a flashplayer enabled browser to view this YouTube video

At least Wood was “blunt” when he decided to take the “high” road in his official statement regarding his arrest:

“I am deeply sorry for my irresponsible behavior. I apologize to my family, friends and my constituents who expect more from me. On Thursday evening I was arrested in Columbia County by the Wisconsin State Patrol for drunk driving and possession of marijuana. I cooperated fully with law enforcement and will continue to do so throughout the entire process. There is no excuse for my actions and I accept full responsibility. This is not typical behavior for me, but unfortunately I drank too much and exercised very poor judgment. I want to let my family and friends know that I regret what I did and am very sorry for the embarrassment and pain I have caused.”

Right… the first time he ever had weed in his car, and he got busted.  Amazing how that happens.

Capitol watchers remember earlier this year, when Wood quit the Republican Party, holding himself up as the paragon of virtue.  He was welcomed with open arms by the Democrats, who thought enough of him to give him a committee chairmanship when they took control of the Assembly.  Oops.

Of course, had the Assembly ended up in a 49-49 tie, Wood would essentially have been the de facto Assembly Speaker, as he would have been able to decide committee assignment, what bills get to the floor, etc.  Ladies and gentlemen, welcome to your Wisconsin State Government.

In the end, Wood’s attempt to blackmail the Republican Party now look about as convincing as some other pot-induced capers we’ve seen:

The Dude: “I dropped off the money exactly as per… look, man, I’ve got certain information, all right? Certain things have come to light. And, you know, has it ever occurred to you, that, instead of, uh, you know, running around, uh, uh, blaming me, you know, given the nature of all this new s—, you know, I-I-I-I… this could be a-a-a-a lot more, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, uh, complex, I mean, it’s not just, it might not be just such a simple… uh, you know?”

UPDATE:  I actually managed to get through this post without making a joke about Wood desperately wanting to chair a joint commitee.  Shame on me – I should be suspended for a week by the National Blogging Association for this grievous oversight.

A Load of Bull

Everyone now knows the state is facing a large budget deficit heading into the next budget cycle.  The Legislature will, without question, pass some “revenue enhancers” (otherwise known as “tax increases”) to fill in some of the hole.

In making their case for higher taxes, Democrats in the majority will reach for the easiest tax increases they can find.  They’ll pick the low-hanging fruit, usually in the form of sales tax exemptions.  (A full list of exemptions can be found in chapter 77.54 of the state statutes.)  For instance, clay pigeons are exempt from sales taxes, as are dog haircuts.  So Democrats will give the public the impression that all we have to do is extend the sales tax to your puppy’s hairstylist, and presto! – budget problem solved.

Perhaps the most entertaining of these exemptions is the tax break for the purchase of bull semen.  That’s right – semen purchased for inseminating livestock is tax-free.  So it appears I’m going to stock up on bull semen before the Legislature starts taxing it and it gets too expensive.  This actually sounds like a pretty good deal for bulls around the state – with their seed in such high demand, they’ll start getting crateloads of adult bull materials delivered to their pens.  (Insert your own “beef stroganoff” joke here.)

Unfortunately, as one of my colleagues quipped, “this budget will not be solved on clay pigeons and bull semen alone.”  Each budget, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue issues its Summary of Tax Exemption Devices, which details how much each exemption saves consumers.  According to the DOR, the semen exemption shorted the state by $2.7 million in FY 06.  The clay pigeons exemption “cost” the state $200,000.  If legislators are looking to plug a chunk of the $5.4 billion budget hole by eliminating sales tax exemptions, they’re going to have to go after the big boys.

And what are the big ticket items?  Well, physicians and dental services are currently exempt, which saved consumers $495 million in 2006.  Eliminating this exemption makes health care more expensive for everyone in the state.  Food sales tax exemptions saved consumers $550 million.  The prescription drug plan cost the state $116 million.  Eliminate this exemption, and the senior groups might burn the capitol to the ground.  Sales of items to local school districts exempted $295 million – undo this exemption, and property taxpayers will have to pick up the tab for their school districts’ higher costs.

So while we can have fun nitpicking all the goofy tax exemptions within the code, the only substantive progress can be made by eliminating the really large exemptions.  And these exemptions are large for a reason – millions of people of modest means take advantage of them.  And that’s no bull.

The Podcast Returns: My Favorite CDs of 2008

Readers of my blog know that my favorite post every year is when I comb back through all my music for the past year and list my favorite CDs.  As always, I don\’t claim to be an expert, so I wouldn\’t presume to name the \”best\” CDs – because there is no such objective thing.

I\’m excited this year to do it in podcast form, since I\’m generally terrible at describing music.  So you can listen for yourself to see if you like any of it – and I think I picked some pretty good stuff.

Joining me on the podcast is my friend Barrett Kilmer, owner (along with his lovely wife J.J.) of Indie Coffee on Regent Street in Madison.  Clearly, the best place in Madison to get an independent cup of coffee, or a sandwich.  (He bought me pizza tonight, so there\’s his plug.)

In any event, have a listen.  (I apologize for the echo – lesson learned not to sit in the same room.)

[audio:/podcasts/Top-Ten-List-Final.mp3]

(Or you can download the file by right clicking here and choosing \”Save As.\”)

Chris\’ Top 10:

10:  Gentleman Jesse / Introducing Gentleman Jesse

9.  Flight of the Conchords / Flight of the Conchords

8.  Horse Feathers / House With No Name

7.  Fleet Foxes / Fleet Foxes

6.  Dead Confederate / Wrecking Ball

5.  Army Navy / Army Navy

4.  Blind Pilot / 3 Rounds and a Sound

3.  Vampire Weekend / Vampire Weekend

2.  British Sea Power / Do You Like Rock Music?

1.  Bon Iver / For Emma, Forever Ago

Barrett\’s Top 10:

10.  Department of Eagles / In Ear Park

9.  Spiritualized / Songs in A & E

8.  Girl Talk / Feed the Animals

7.  My Morning Jacket / Evil Urges

6.  Explorers Club / Freedom Wind

5.  Okkervil River / The Stand Ins

4.  Blitzen Trapper / Furr

3.  Bon Iver / For Emma, Forever Ago

2.  MGMT / Oracular Spectacular

1.  The Hold Steady / Stay Positive

A Truncated Clip Job

As I settled in to my office this morning and started looking at my keyboard, I noticed something troubling.  It appears at some point this morning, I had started clipping my fingernails, and I missed two fingers.  I just stopped cold, midway through my right hand.  (See attached photo, which will be entered into evidence as exhibit B-4:)

\"\"

This is most troubling.  What the  hell happened that caused me to just forget those last two fingers?  If I blacked out, anything could have happened during that time.  I could have lost consciousness and become the ruthless overlord of a developing nation, committing genocide and refusing to recycle.  I may have spent months trying to quell an insurrection of freedom fighters who were rebelling against my regime\’s official stated position that Chef Boyardee products all taste identical.  Then I could have been transported back to my bathroom, where I regained consciousness.  The chances of this happening currently stand at around 8%.

Or I may have had to pee.

Outsourcing State Government

In the 2008 presidential election, the economy featured prominently among the issues debated by the two candidates. The collapse of the housing sector interjected itself into the campaign, and swung the electorate solidly in favor of eventual winner Barack Obama. Obama was able to sell his message on the economy more ably than John McCain, capably reassuring American workers that their jobs were safe.

One of Obama’s primary economic talking points dealt with the outsourcing of American jobs, and what could be done to prevent it. One of the cornerstones of his economic plan was repealing “tax breaks” to “companies that shipped our jobs overseas.” Naturally, workers who already fear for their jobs want to do everything to make sure that job stays on American soil – and in an economy in collapse, that message resonates even more strongly.

Yet, as is the case in most campaigns, the truth became a casualty amid lofty rhetoric, shifting plans, and political charges. In reality, this campaign rhetoric is already light years behind the times – in an age of digital information and instantaneous delivery of data worldwide, jobs can be created in places like India and China at a fraction of the cost. Armies of Indian college students graduate every year, anxious to shed their native accents and join the global economy. They staff call centers helping Americans fix their computers, get credit cards, and order pay per view movies. They read ultrasounds sent to them digitally by American doctors and do legal research for American attorneys.

And, in many cases, they make American business more viable by holding down costs. Outsourcing allows many American companies to stay in business here in the U.S. by making profit possible. So while their customer service call center may be in Bangalore, their headquarters may employ hundreds of Americans here at home. And the cheaper they can run one arm of the company, the more they can offer the domestic employees. Furthermore, outsourcing allows companies to sell their goods cheaper, which benefits American consumers. Without it, we would pay more for virtually every good and service – as a result, American companies would sell fewer products and be able to hire fewer workers. This is why, even as jobs have been fleeing to other countries en masse, the unemployment rate in America has remained low.

While outsourcing is a worldwide issue, it has deep roots right here in Wisconsin. With an economy heavily dependent on manufacturing, Wisconsin workers are especially sensitive to the threat of their jobs being outsourced to a foreign country. As such, it has become a viable talking point for state politicians.

For the past two legislative sessions, Wisconsin State Representative Mark Pocan and State Senator Judy Robson have introduced what they have named the “American Jobs Act.” This proposed legislation would prevent state government from contracting for services performed outside the United States. For example, the State of Wisconsin contracts with JP Morgan Chase to provide food stamp recipients with electronic bank transfer cards (the Wisconsin QUEST card). When a recipient has a problem with their QUEST Card and they need to call a service center, they are not speaking to somebody in Wisconsin or the United States, but rather somebody from India or Mexico, whose wages are paid by Wisconsin taxpayers.

According to the bill’s authors, when state government outsources work, “we lose the income from those jobs, which support families and communities, pay for government services through taxes, and fuel the American economy. It is especially egregious when taxpayer dollars pay for those jobs in other countries.”

The Pocan/Robson jobs bill is illustrative, but perhaps not in the way the authors intended. It is clear state government contracts with businesses that outsource jobs, in order to keep costs down. If Wisconsin were to limit contracts to businesses that operate wholly in the U.S., it would likely substantially increase the cost of running the state programs those contracts support.

As has been shown in previous WPRI reports, Wisconsin currently has an imbalance between the taxes it collects and spending it conducts. For years, the state has had to use damaging budget gimmicks and schemes to keep state government afloat, as elected officials haven’t had the fortitude to scale back programs – in fact, at times when Wisconsin carried large deficits, the Governor and Legislature actually created expensive new state programs.

This brings up a provocative, and somewhat uncomfortable question. Would it be in Wisconsin’s best interest to outsource more of its services? If the Legislature isn’t willing to control costs by reining in spending, can the state follow the example of the private sector and utilize cheap labor to control costs?

The following points come to mind:

  • Outsourcing more state government work wouldn’t necessarily affect Wisconsin jobs – much of the work is likely done in other states, anyway.
  • Holding costs down in some areas through more extensive use of outsourcing allows the state to reallocate funds to programs with a higher priority. For example, money saved by shifting a call center overseas may allow the state to fund Medicaid or public schools without having to raise taxes on citizens.
  • When developing countries get American jobs, it creates new markets for American products. As India and China expand, so do the potential consumers of Miller Beer, Harley-Davidson, and Fox Valley paper companies – which helps retain Wisconsin jobs.
  • Wisconsin currently participates in the World Trade Organization Government Procurement Agreement. Under the agreement, preferences in favor of the United States over a certain dollar amount are forbidden. Limiting outsourcing would actually put the state in violation of this trade agreement.

When the Legislature convenes to begin addressing the current $5.4 billion budget shortfall faced by the state, it will debate whether to cut spending or, more likely, which taxes to raise. One thing that likely won’t be discussed at length is how to stretch our tax dollars further to avoid tax increases or service cuts – which could be accomplished by finding cheaper ways to pay for routine state operations. If we can stop pretending there are such things as “American jobs” anymore, we can help keep money in the pockets of Wisconsin workers and help the state’s economy get moving again.

-December 3, 2008

The College Affordability Myth

Today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel features a blaring headline warning that some group has given Wisconsin an “F” in helping students with college financial aid.  Sounds pretty serious  – we must really be falling behind other states in offering financial aid, huh?

Well, actually, no.  Forty-nine of the fifty states got grades of “F” for affordability, which might make one think this bogus “study” might just be a crass ploy by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education to push for more taxpayer money.  And one would be right.  Couldn’t the Journal Sentinel just as easily have written the headline “Wisconsin Keeping Up With College Affordability?”

You may notice that college “affordability” to university bureaucrats always means “more taxpayer money,” never “keeping tuition down.”  Universities never like to keep college affordable by charging less for their services – they only consider college attainable when they can jack up tuition, then get the state to pump more taxpayer money in to subsidize the college educations of the poor.  This allows them to continue paying their armies of administrators their lavish salaries.  They get you coming and going.

In fact, in terms of “affordability” in the sense normal people would define the word, Wisconsin is doing extremely well.  Wisconsin ranks second to last in the Big Ten in tuition, even after Governor Jim Doyle proposed significant increases in the 2004 and 2005 school years.  Here’s the list of resident undergraduate tuition at Midwestern Big Ten schools, courtesy of the Legislative Fiscal Bureau:

Michigan $9,798
Illinois 8,634
Michigan State 8,262
Minnesota 8,599
Ohio State 8,082
Indiana 7,652
Purdue 6,458
UW-Madison 6,280
Iowa 5,612

Ah, but you see, Wisconsin is not “affordable,” since we’re not spending enough taxpayer money on financial aid.  Or are we?

In the 1998-99 fiscal year, the state spent $17.5 million on the Wisconsin Higher Education Grant (WHEG) for UW students.  By 2006-07, that number had more than doubled, to $39.2 million.  (Although, admittedly, it dipped slightly in 06-07 after an immense 22% one-year increase in 2005-06.)  Much of that WHEG increase was implemented to make up for the aforementioned tuition increases meant to offset a general purpose revenue cut to the UW in the 03-05 biennium.

The Measuring Up “study” on which the Journal Sentinel breathlessly reports takes none of this into account.  Nor does it take into account the quality of a university.  Let’s say, for argument’s sake, the University of Mississippi funds a slightly higher percentage of pell grant recipients than Wisconsin.  Does that mean Mississippi is a more desirable school to attend?  Does the fact that (to their credit) the UW-Madison offers a world class education so cheaply factor in at all?

If Wisconsin is serious about keeping school “affordable,” it should look at holding down tuition – not raising tuition, then turning to the taxpayers for even more money to allow lower income students access.  In fact, some studies suggest that increased financial aid has the effect of increasing tuition – if universities know so many government loans and grants are available, they can raise tuition to take advantage of the inflation.

UPDATE:  John Hood at the National Review adds some worthwhile observations.

The Mystery is Gone

So tonight I finally got around to watching the last episode of \”The Pickup Artist 2\” on TiVo.  (Unsolicited side note: TiVo is perfect for hipsters who want to show that they\’re into a TV series, but not so into it that they actually rush to the TV when it is on.  It\’s a perfect way to appear to remain detatched, since caring strongly about anything other than Barack Obama is frowned upon.)

For the uninitiated, The Pickup Artist series airs on VH1 – it is a reality show where some gangly Canadian bozo who dresses like a space pirate deems himself the \”Master Pickup Artist,\” and teaches a house full of dorks all the tips to pick up women.  This man goes only by the sobriquet \”Mystery,\” and molds twitchy little freaks into sleazy douchebags who get spray-on tans and wear their headware askance.

For some reason, I can\’t look away from this show.  (Unsolicited side note #2: I subscribe to the Chuck Klosterman theory that there is no such thing as a \”guilty pleasure.\”  Either something gives you pleasure, or it doesn\’t – and if it does, there is absolutely no reason to apologize for it just because some hipster jackass might look down on you for it.)

Every week, the contestants go on \”field tests,\” in which Mystery sends them into a local bar to use whatever invaluable tips he taught them that week to pick up chicks.  The show goes to great lengths to point out that the entire field test exercises are done via hidden camera in real bars with real people.  In many cases, these aspiring lotharios strike out in such spectacular fashion that you actually have to shield your eyes from the painful awkwardness exuding from your television.  But in some instances, the contestants get a phone number, or even a brief makeout session based on their newfound skillzzzz.

But in the real world (in which I sometimes live), these \”field tests\” raise some questions.  At some point, the show\’s producers have to convince the targeted women in that bar to sign a waiver to use their image and voice on television.  This would have to be done after their encounter with the twitchy, freakish contestant.  At this point, the woman would know that she has essentially fallen prey to a scam, which for 98% of human history may have actually embarrassed her a little bit.  But apparently, the desire to be on television at all costs is so strong, they go ahead and sign a waiver saying \”I agree to be on television to show my parents that I am willing to get drunk and play tonsil hockey with a nerdy stranger who just duped me with some pickup ruse.\”

The series finale was interesting, as well.  For one of the field tests (see below) the final two contestants were released into the wild, and the first one to kiss a girl won the contest.  The flaw in this game is obvious: it doesn\’t take into account quality.  One of the contestants could make a bee line for the first ugly woman in the bar, throw out their standard pickup line, and be having a tongue fight within minutes.  What exactly does that prove?

This year\’s winner was the large-lipped Simien, and there\’s an 80% chance he\’s gay.  (One of the previous episodes, in which one of each of the contestants\’ \”friends\” was brought to the house from back home,  heavily alluded to this fact.)  And he really had the lamest pickup line, (or \”opener,\” as Mystery calls it) and he beat it to death.  (\”What movie is \’nobody puts baby in a corner\’ from?  DIRTY DANCING!\”)  His pickup line almost made \”I like pickle juice\” (which was actually used to great effect by a contestant) seem erudite.

Finally, in the last episode, Mystery stocks the house with \”perfect 10s,\” of which the two remaining contestants must choose one to successfully seduce.  (In some cases, the only \”10\” in that house could be achieved by standing three hoochies together.)  Mystery claims that these women are his \”friends.\”  Yet all of the techniques the two romeos use are methods taught by Mystery in Season One of the show.  So if these women were really Mystery\’s friends, wouldn\’t they have watched the show last year and been able to recognize the dopey tricks being played on them?

The real star of the show, however, is Mystery, who treats the entire affair as an infomercial, getting people to sign up and pay thousands of dollars for his traveling seminar on picking up women.  And if you\’d like, you can also fork over some cash for a book detailing his methods called \”The Game.\” The seriousness with which Mystery takes his instruction simply has to be a put-on.  There\’s just nobody that can be that earnestly ridiculous without it being an act.

To get a flavor of the show, click below and see our last two contestants work the room.

How About Media Reform?

A couple weeks ago, I explained how a Democratic Legislature could begin to micromanage political speech to their advantage by passing a partisan version of campaign finance “reform.”  Today, the Wisconsin State Journal interviews all the usual suspects cheerleading for these new laws.

The article, which identifies some potential roadblocks to passing “reform,” includes quotes from five proponents of new laws regulating political speech (Sheridan, Erpenbach, Ellis, Heck and McCabe), and one quote from an opponent, attorney Mike Wittenwyler.  Wittenwyler’s quote mostly deals with the issue of taxpayer financing for campaigns, which is really more of an ancillary issue.  To his credit, Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker’s spokeswoman dodges the issue, saying they want to work on a bill that will “pick up support from Republicans.”  In Capitol-speak, that means they don’t really want to do anything, because they can pass whatever they want without a single damn Republican – they just want to be able to blame the GOP when nothing passes.

But given the imbalance in quotes, you’d think hardly anyone opposes campaign finance “reform.”  This isn’t a surprise, given the cheerleading newspapers all over the state constantly do in an effort to shut down political speech during election time.  If groups can’t spend money to disseminate their speech, then newspapers think they will become more relevant.

Of course newspapers, who should be the staunchest defenders of free speech, are all for shutting down speech that isn’t theirs.  Imagine the Legislature passing a bill saying the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel or the Wisconsin State Journal had to report the names of all their subscribers and sources of income to the state before they could write a political editorial or endorse a candidate.  Think they’d approve of that restriction on their free speech rights?

Of course not.  But that is exactly what they argue should be imposed on any group that doesn’t happen to be a newspaper.  Unless you have been blessed by the all-knowing editorial boards of this state, they argue you shouldn’t have the First Amendment right to criticize your government.  Instead, you’d be silenced unless you run through a mountain of red tape, reviewed by the very government you’d be trying to criticize, and subjected to the same retribution by those government officials.  There’s a reason we vote anonymously – and that anonymity should apply to political speech.

In case after case, courts have rejected the government’s attempts to micromanage the political speech of its citizens.  Most of these cases stem from the federal McCain-Feingold law, which purported to eliminate money from the political system.  In fact, it has done nothing but drive it down into these 527 groups, where it is harder to trace.  And large portions of the law have been struck down by the courts as undue restrictions on political speech.  There are terrorists who have a better won/loss record in the U.S. Supreme Court than senators Russ Feingold and John McCain.

Yet, given reporting on the issue, you’d never know how often these laws are struck down by the courts.  This article only makes mention that if a law were enacted, then those “shady” groups would file a lawsuit.  But then again, you can file a lawsuit against your coworker for having excessive nose hair – it doesn’t mention that those lawsuits actually have a solid track record of succeeding.

Just once, it would be interesting to see a newspaper report on the issue of campaign finance reform without treating it as if it were some necessary “reform.”  Imagine a story in the State Journal with a headline “Democrats Push for Campaign Speech Restrictions,” which, incidentally, is an entirely fair way of portraying the issue.  Don’t hold your breath.

« Older posts Newer posts »