There’s an old saying: Republicans get elected saying big government doesn’t work, then go about proving it.

In recent years, America has become a breeding ground for liberals. The Left has used their universal distaste for George W. Bush to recruit new footsoldiers all over America. They’ve been voting in Democratic primaries at twice the rate of the GOP primaries. They deride the President as a smirking, right-wing buffoon. And that’s probably what it says on his fan mail.

Naturally, much of liberal distaste for President Bush stems from the Iraq war. But war in itself doesn’t necessarily fall anywhere on the liberal-conservative continuum. The reason more Democrats don’t start more wars is because only one Democrat has been elected in the last 28 years. As everyone can recall, the modern-day liberal gold standard, John F. Kennedy, got us into Vietnam – and it was LBJ in 1965 who escalated our presence there. Clearly, misguided wars are a bipartisan problem.

What’s most interesting, however, is that when Bush has blundered badly with regard to domestic policy, it’s because he’s moved over to the liberal side. Dabbling in big-government solutions has delivered Bush some puzzling embarrassments, especially since much of the criticism he gets comes from the left wing. In effect, Bush has shown how ineffective, wasteful, and sometimes scary, big government can be – a lesson Bush haters should take to heart.

Take, for example, Bush’s most public embarrassment – the Hurricane Katrina rescue effort. We all remember the mass of humanity outside the Superdome without food or water, and people trapped on top of their homes waiting to be rescued. While Bush made some symbolic tactical mistakes, such as not visiting the disaster site in time, it was actually FEMA that proved to be disorganized and ineffective. Layer after layer of bureaucracy crippled the department, with few people in charge knowing what was going on. As a result, Democrats hammered away at Bush for the confusion, scoring political points along the way.

In the meantime, conservatives weren’t surprised at all at the atrocious response to the hurricane. This is the federal government, they pointed out. This is what happens when we pump money into a disorganized bureaucracy with no real accountability. The only difference between FEMA and other federal programs is that Medicaid hasn’t been underwater yet. Of course, the hush money taxpayers have shelled out to displaced victims of the hurricane has been exposed as a fraud time and time again. Who could have seen that coming?

Bush was also heavily criticized by the Left for another foray into big government: his Medicare Part D prescription drug program. While the President thought pumping hundreds of billions of dollars into helping senior citizens pay for prescription drugs would keep them off his back during the 2004 election, they hung it around his neck like a cold fish. The program actually ended up being a political liability, as Democrats successfully portrayed it as a “giveaway to big drug companies.”

Apparently, Democrats were surprised to find out that when you buy prescription drugs, it actually involves purchasing them from pharmaceutical companies. Liberals were likely confused when they found out you can’t buy bulk prescription drugs from Ben and Jerry’s. Yet if it were Barack Obama that proposed the program, Democrats would be building monuments to him in every city in America.

Bush repeatedly failed conservatives during his tenure. His plan to grant expedited citizenship to illegal immigrants flopped badly. He never pushed for his plan for personal retirement accounts, instead allowing Democrats to scare and confuse seniors by labeling it “privatization” of Social Security. (Democrats’ Plan B to confuse seniors was to explain to them what a “stop sign” is.) Ironically, liberals savage Bush’s attempts to expand wiretapping of terrorists. Of course, wiretapping isn’t necessarily a “liberal” ideal, but let’s be honest – electronic surveillance of citizens is much more often associated with oppressive socialist regimes, not capitalist, free market societies.

So I’d like to welcome our liberal friends over to our side. Their repudiation of George W. Bush is proof that they, in their hearts, know that big government doesn’t work. In many ways, to reject Bush is to reject the notion that government can solve our problems for us. Until, of course, President Obama magically transforms the federal government into a finely-tuned bureaucratic machine.

-March 13, 2008

Here’s what we know about Barack Obama: He wants change, and he wants hope. The only question seems to be in what order.

Both of these promises are somewhat perplexing. How is being for “change” really a serious position in a presidential campaign? News reports actually refer to some voters as “change” voters – as in, “Barack Obama is winning the ‘change’ voters two to one over Hillary Clinton.” One would think merely voting for a new Commander in Chief qualifies one as a “change” voter. There’s probably one guy sitting at home in Nebraska that goes to the polls hoping his vote will keep things exactly the way they are. So when they say Obama is winning the “change” voters, they’re basically saying he’s leading among voters who don’t go into the booth and accidentally vote for George W. Bush.

After all, who can forget the famous “status quo” marches on the White House in the 1960s?:

“WHAT DO WE WANT?!”

“PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE’VE ALWAYS HAD!”

“WHEN DO WE WANT IT?”

“NOW!!!!”

The “hope” talking point is even stranger. “Hope,” by definition, is a desire for something that hasn’t happened yet. So promising people “hope” isn’t promising them any substantive action – it’s merely promising them the expectation that something will. I currently harbor a hope that Charlize Theron will come to my house and play Guitar Hero with me. If two years from now, I’m still hoping for that to happen, I will still be hopelessly disappointed. Promising someone “hope” is like promising them hunger – you won’t get to eat, but boy, you’ll enjoy your time thinking about those nachos bellgrande.

Of course, nobody wants to be on the wrong side of either the “hope” or “change” issues. By making these themes the lynchpins of his campaign, Obama has all but accused Hillary Clinton and John McCain of accepting contributions from big money, “anti-hope” organizations. During the general election, we’ll probably see heavy independent expenditures for John McCain by Citizens for a Hopeless America.

(Side note: can you think of any more depressing job than being a fundraiser for “Citizens for a Hopeless America?” Why even make any fundraising calls – there’s probably no hope of anyone contributing, right?)

Recently, Obama has tried to move past the accusations that he lacks substance.* This includes attacking Hillary Clinton for not sufficiently wanting to destroy the health care industry in the United States. The two candidates are taking turns ripping each other on health care, accusing each other of lacking the guts to implement a full government takeover of doctors and hospitals. Hillary Clinton’s plan calls for a mandate requiring individuals to purchase insurance, while Obama’s plan involves larger subsidies for making health care more affordable.

Since there’s little chance of either of these plans ever making it through Congress, it seems reasonable to wonder why the two candidates even limit their plans in any way. You have a better chance of seeing a unicorn drinking a Slurpee than either plans have of becoming law – so what really limits the promises they can make? This is akin to daydreaming about Katherine Heigl wearing a Hazmat suit. Once the orgy of big government promises is on the table, there’s no sense in not going all the way. Both candidates should promise each American free health care, no reduction in service, lower gas prices, and a Cinnabon.

I think that would be change we call all believe in.

* – Or, he’s “all mustache and no flowered shirt,” as fans of Magnum P.I. often say.

-February 25, 2008

In 2005, the Monster was born. Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle had just used his powerful budget bill veto pen to turn a proposed stoplight in the Village of Oregon into “The Department of Administration can spend $427 million any way they want.”

Immediately, state legislators began to realize how the Governor’s partial veto power upset the balance of power between the branches of government. The Governor’s ability to cherry pick parts of sentences to create laws never intended by the legislature usurped their ability to speak for their constituents.

In July of 2005, senate staffers met to figure out how to pitch a constitutional amendment to correct this veto practice by the governor. I was among them. I had already been over to the Legislative Reference Bureau library and researched the legislative history of proposals to rein in the governor’s partial veto. We decided we should re-introduce a 1991 joint resolution authored by Democrats during the Tommy Thompson administration – many of whom were still in the legislature. This would pressure Democrats into passing it. If we changed a word of the resolution, Democrats could argue we were changing the intent of what they originally proposed for a Republican governor. The resolution, as written fourteen years earlier by Democrats, prohibited the governor from using parts of sentences to form a completely new sentence – exactly what Doyle had done in the most recent budget.

The next step was coming up with a hook – something that the press and constituents could understand. As noted, efforts had been made in the past to do what we were trying to do – to little avail. Somehow, “altering the governor’s partial veto authority” hadn’t exactly set the public’s imagination on fire. After a brief brainstorming session, we settled on calling it “The Frankenstein Veto,” as the practice created monstrous new laws by stitching together old sentences. We shopped the idea around to other senate offices, and they agreed to use it (although Senator Scott Fitzgerald demanded the ability to pronounce it “Fron – ken –shteen,” as they do in the Mel Brooks movie.)

My boss at the time, Senator Harsdorf, was very hesitant to use the term. She’s a wonderful legislator, but also very serious about her work. She was justifiably wary of this serious bill becoming too cartoonish. I jokingly offered her a dollar for every time she used the term. Slowly, she started to come around.

On July 30th, a column by Mike Nichols appeared in the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that used the term publicly for the first time. A Lexis-Nexis search shows that the term has been used in the Journal-Sentinel and the Wisconsin State Journal 178 times since then, in large part due to a crusade by the State Journal to outlaw the practice. The “Frankenstein Veto” has been featured in editorial cartoons and news reports for the past two years. Somebody showed up at the public hearing on the amendment dressed as Frankenstein’s monster – I actually went to a Halloween party where someone went as the “Frankenstein Veto.” Wisconsinites from Amery to Wyocena were starting to understand the concept of the partial veto. As a result, the amendment is poised to pass the State Senate early next year and go to the voters for approval – something that was incomprehensible just two years ago.

The lesson in all this is the following: If you want a bill passed, give it a mascot. People may be slow to understand the intricacies of the governor’s veto authority, but they certainly understand how Dr. Frankenstein breathed life into his monster.

Perhaps the most telling indication of the success of the “Frankenstein” term is how it is now being misused. As noted, the amendment applies to a very specific use of veto authority – stitching together words to form a new sentence. There are still options for the governor to use, such as vetoing words within a sentence to change the meaning of the sentence. Yet because the current proposed amendment doesn’t change that practice, some have said that it doesn’t “kill Frankenstein.” Interesting that they would presume to tell the authors of the bill what their own term means.

In fact, when the legislature gets around to prohibiting the governor from punching holes within sentences by vetoing individual words, I have a few suggestions:

The “swiss cheese” veto

The “donut hole” veto

The “Mike Tyson Punch Out” veto

In fact, the whole mascot trend could help both parties, if they took a cue from Smokey the Bear, Mr. Yuk, and the AFLAC Duck. Who could say no to funding the “domestic partner benefits kangaroo,” or supporting the “end partial birth abortion lemur?” You think the legislature could have turned down the Taxpayers Bill of Rights had it been represented by an alligator wearing sunglasses? Think again. Of course, once every cause has its own mascot, the good government groups will demand legislation seeking to lessen the influence of cartoon beavers on the legislative process.

In last November’s elections, Democrats swept into state and national offices on a wave of public discontent with Republicans. Yet nearly a year later, the approval rating of the Democrat-controlled Congress is hovering somewhere between “George W. Bush” and “murder.” Even Russ Feingold, Wisconsin’s liberal golden boy, is saddled with an 18% approval rating.

This would signal that Democrats have some work to do to in the 2008 elections to attract new voters. In order to help them do so, I have put together a simple guide they can use to teach prospective voters how to talk like a Wisconsin liberal. Kind of a dictionary of Democrat vernacular. Democrats can either thank me via e-mail or just send me a check for aiding their recruitment effort.

Here goes:

“Choice:” The concept of “choice” is a cornerstone of Wisconsin liberal thought. In fact, it helps to constantly discuss how important “choice” is to the fundamental freedoms we enjoy. Choice is crucial to democracy – except, of course, in the following relatively insignificant areas: Where you send your kids to school, how high your taxes are, what type of health care you want, what kind of gas you put in your car, what size house you can build, what kind of contraception your kids get, how much food what you can eat, what kind of car you can drive, and where you can smoke, to name a few.

“Special Interest:” The extent to which an entity in Wisconsin is a “special interest” is directly proportional to the amount that group advocates for lower taxes and private sector job stimulation. “Special interests” in Wisconsin include Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, the National Rifle Association, oil companies, restaurants, farms, and insurance companies. Not included on the list of special interests are teachers unions, labor unions, universal health care advocates, trial lawyers, environmental groups, or Indian tribes.

“Karl Rove:” Like human Tabasco sauce, Karl Rove’s name can be sprinkled on any normal conversation to spice it up to your liking. Generally, the state of your life is the result of Rove’s political machinations – and it’s your duty to alert everyone else in the restaurant of this fact. Just the mention of Rove’s name makes whatever you’re talking about controversial. Other options: Dick Cheney, Halliburton, WMC, incest.

“Cut:” If you think “cutting” funding for something means “spending less than you did before,” then you’re a slave to that “old math” they probably taught when students had to go out and kill their own lunches. In fact, any time you increase funding for something, but not as much as someone wants, you can call it a cut. Similarly, if your internet blind date says she looks like Eva Longoria but turns up looking like Natalie Portman, you are obligated to complain bitterly. It sounds strange, but you’ll thank me for it. It is better to be consistent than sensical.

“La Follette:” Regardless of what topic you’re covering, you can drop the name of famous progressive “Fighting Bob” La Follette into your discussion, and it suddenly makes perfect sense to Wisconsin liberals. You can say things like “this banana smoothie is definitely within the La Follette tradition,” and liberals will nod as if they know exactly what you mean. Usually used as an excuse for a complete government takeover of something. The fact that La Follette used to be a Republican is more fodder for people who refuse to concede differences between vernacular between centuries (La Follette was also probably fairly gay, but in the 1909 sense.)

In fact, the name “La Follette” is still so powerful in Wisconsin, it can still get you elected statewide if you’re a nut job who advocates for things like limiting the number of children families can have.

“Lifelong Republican:” “Lifelong Republican” is a status given to old men who may have at one point voted for Ronald Reagan, but now advocate for liberal causes like gay marriage or universal health care. Spending your entire life contributing money to Democrats does not prevent you from being identified as a “lifelong Republican.” Being this kind of “lifelong Republican” gets you free and unfettered access to the media, as reporters are really only interested in Republicans who criticize other Republicans. Popular quotes tend to be “what happened to the Republican party I once knew?” followed by “where am I, and who ate my oatmeal?”

“Domestic Partner Benefits:” Lack of domestic partner benefits is now the only reason people leave the State of Wisconsin for other employment, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise. When Prince Fielder is playing for the Yankees in three years, it will most likely because of the Brewers’ domestic partner policy. Even if your new job is paying you twice as much, you just issue a press release saying you’re leaving because of the lack of domestic partner benefits in Wisconsin (even though any employer can offer them), and you can sit back and watch the newspapers hyperventilate. In fact, you should use this tactic as much as possible – if you want to take a three-hour lunch today, just stand up and tell your boss that you are protesting the lack of domestic partner benefits at your company. He will likely just nod and say “oh…. Okay.” There’s absolutely no downside to this strategy, other than the fact that you may start to get Valentine’s Day cards from the quiet guy in the copy room.

“Medicinal Marijuana:” Marijuana.

“Global Economy:” This is a term generally used by people who have no idea how the “global economy” actually works, but want to sound like they do. Often used as an excuse to fund the University of Wisconsin System at higher levels, so the students who manage not to drink themselves out of school can compete in the “global economy.” (To most, this means being able to bong both German and Mexican beers at equal speed.) People who use this term don’t realize that for students to truly compete in the “global economy,” they would have to be willing to sew underwear together for 15 cents an hour and eat dirt sandwiches during their 30-second breaks.

“Religion:” Despite the fact that religious people often oppose the Iraq War, spend hours helping the poor and unfortunate, and often advocate for expanded health care, you shouldn’t let these positive stereotypes get in the way of your disdain for these Jesus-Smoochers. Acknowledging these facts almost makes religious people seem like complex individuals. After all, thousands of them get together every Sunday to teach their blind followers lessons like: only have kids when you’re married, don’t steal, lie, or cheat, and treat others with respect and dignity. Clearly they must be stopped – otherwise, it’s just a matter of time before you lose your constitutional right to watch BoobPatrol.com at work.

“Campaign Finance Reform:” Being an advocate of Campaign Finance Reform in Wisconsin means never having a thought go unpublished in the state’s newspapers. It also means believing that candidates calling each other “crapweasels” will somehow cease doing so when their campaigns are financed with taxpayer money. Furthermore, you must believe that it is good for “democracy” for campaign spending to be cut to the point where none of the voters have actually heard of any of the candidates.

“Property Tax Relief:” At first blush, “property tax relief” may sound similar to “holding down property taxes.” But that’s just silly, and you should be ashamed of yourself for being so naive. In actuality, the only way we can reduce the property tax burden is to raise income taxes and send them back to local governments, which is supposed to “buy down” property tax increases – even though the total level of taxation goes up. This is what happened in the mid ‘90s, when the state spent $1 billion to buy down school property taxes. Fortunately, property taxes have remained low and nobody ever complains about them any more.

“Prison:” Beware of prison, as it may come and get you, without you having done anything wrong. Prison is full of peaceful, nonviolent individuals who find themselves behind bars due to Karl Rove’s master plan (see above). It is important to complain about how prison spending has “exploded” in the last few years, without recognizing that the corrections budget is only about 6% of state general purpose spending. Make sure you use as many obnoxious analogies as possible to make it seem like prison spending is out of control, such as how the state spends more per prisoner than per UW student. (Of course, if we spend less on prisons, your chances of being stabbed in the head go up dramatically.) It is important to decry the racial disparity of prisoners in Wisconsin without acknowledging that often times when an African-American criminal goes to prison, a predominantly black neighborhood gets safer.

Oh, and one last thing – despite increased government being the oldest idea in the history of mankind, liberals now like to be called “progressives.” This linguistic sleight-of-hand will last just long enough until they have to change their name again in 10 years.

-August 16, 2007

Every now and then, an issue comes along that pits different factions within the same political philosophy against one another. Friends become combatants, neighbors become enemies, dogs refuse to sniff each other – on and on it goes.

In Wisconsin, school choice has traditionally been such an issue. Democrats that represent inner city Milwaukee largely support the program, as it benefits their constituents the most. Democrats from the rest of Wisconsin continually attempt to undermine or eliminate the program, which often causes a good deal of internecine tension within the Democratic ranks.

Such an issue has developed this legislative session pertaining to state investment in companies that contribute to genocide in Sudan. Three years ago, the Sudanese government, backed by a militant Arab militia, moved to crush opposition to state control of the Darfur region’s rich agricultural resources. The conflict has left 450,000 people dead and has driven an estimated 2 million people from their homes. The genocide practiced by the Sudanese government has yielded reports of human mutilation, maiming, rape, and widespread property destruction.

In response to the Darfur genocide, thirteen U.S. states have passed laws that eliminate state investment in companies who do business in Sudan. Another eighteen states are currently debating bills to do so, and Wisconsin is among them. (Full disclosure: The Wisconsin Senate Bill’s author is my former boss.) Currently, Wisconsin has about $110 million invested in companies identified as contributors to the genocide in Sudan. The legislation targets companies, primarily Chinese contractors, which aid the Sudanese government directly – companies who actually attempt to aid the refugees aren’t affected.

Political liberals have taken the Darfur genocide on as a primary international human rights issue. Wisconsin Democratic Senator Russ Feingold has been a leader in Congress pushing for divestment of funds in Sudan, as has presidential candidate Barack Obama. Celebrities such as George Clooney and Don Cheadle have pushed for divestment bills all across the country. Some of popular music’s biggest names recently contributed songs to a Save Darfur album, sponsored by Amnesty International.

Supporters of divestment rightfully argue that there should be a higher standard under which we invest public money. Taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to fund genocide, and attempts can be made to find alternate investments that may bring equal returns. One can question how effective the legislation will be, but supporters of the bill argue that just because divestment in Wisconsin may not solve all the problems in Darfur, that’s not an excuse to do nothing.

However, there’s a problem – genocide actually happens to be wildly profitable. When Wisconsin invests in companies that aid the Sudanese government, it yields lucrative returns for the state’s pension fund. WEAC, the state’s largest teachers’ union, has lobbied vigorously against the bill, fearing diminishing returns for their members’ pensions. Suddenly, an organization whose primary mission is to insulate its own members from free market forces sounds downright Friedman-esque in its defense of international investment strategy.

It’s fascinating to see the same people who complain about “excessive” oil company profits turn around and justify profit derived from genocide, as long as it boosts their own pensions. Suddenly, Democrats who spend their political lives railing against “obscene” pharmaceutical profits become champions of the free market when it pads their own wallets. Apparently, drug companies investing their revenue in more research and development to keep grandma alive is more objectionable than taxpayer money buying guns and machetes to kill thousands of Sudanese.

Of course, the state could pull its pension investments out of oil and pharmaceutical companies if their outrage was sincere, but since the game is mostly about scoring political points, state employees will continue to share in these “record profits.”

WEAC’s lobbying appears to have ground the Wisconsin legislation to a halt. A public hearing was held in the Democrat-controlled Senate on March 28th of 2007, but no vote has been taken. It appears that the liberals dependent on state government paychecks are winning over the liberals whose consciences won’t allow them to aid in the ethnic cleansing of non-Arab Africans.

Whether divestment of Wisconsin government funds will make any real difference in Sudan is up for debate. However, one thing is sure – if government unions have their say, we will never know.