Christian Schneider

Author, Columnist

Category: WPRI Blog (page 2 of 6)

Why a Lame Duck Session Could be Good For Unions, but Bad for Taxpayers

duckFor the first time in ages, Wisconsin is going to have a new governor that did not rise to the state’s top job from the ranks of state government. Yet the specter of one of the current candidates is already affecting how the current state government does business.

The polls may be close, but Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker has held a consistent lead in the gubernatorial race against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. This fact is not lost on the elected officials and bureaucrats in Madison, who have been bracing state government for a win by the conservative Walker.

For instance, Walker has said that if elected, he would make it his mission to stop construction of a federally-funded $810 million rail line between Madison and Milwaukee. As a response, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (DOT) reacted by shoveling as much money out the door as possible, to make it more difficult for a potential Governor Walker to stop its construction. According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, $300 million will be committed to the project by the end of 2010, up from the $50 million previously estimated.

Other legislative actions attempted to buttress state government against Walker’s potential victory. In its waning session days, the Wisconsin Legislature entertained proposals to extend the tenure of existing cabinet secretaries (making sure they stay in office well into Walker’s first term), and further restricting the Wisconsin governor’s veto authority – a move Democrats resisted during Jim Doyle’s tenure.

And while the session has ended and legislators are strewn throughout the state trying to get themselves re-elected, legislative Democrats still have one large pre-emptive chip to play: state employee union contracts.

Every two years, the Legislature sets aside funds to pay for unionized state employee raises. For the 2010-11 fiscal years, $351 million was budgeted for this compensation reserve fund.

Once the money is set aside, the state Department of Employment Relations (DER) is charged with negotiating contracts with the state’s 19 professional unions. Currently, all 19 units are actively negotiating with the state. Once agreement is reached with the state, each bargaining unit must go back to their members and ratify the contracts before they are voted on by the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Employee Relations.

Normally, this is a fairly lengthy process. But with a new governor entering office in three months, this isn’t a normal year.

Consider the fact that union-friendly Democrats hold control of the State Legislature all the way up until the new session begins on January 3rd of 2011 (the heads of both legislative houses are former labor leaders). Also, consider that former state senator and Democratic Party of Wisconsin chair Joe Wineke is the DER representative negotiating on the state’s behalf. Wineke, currently the Administrator of the DER’s Division of Compensation and Labor Relations, has a long history of supporting union-friendly legislation, including “card check” proposals that would allow greater intimidation of workers hesitant to unionize.

The calculus isn’t difficult. There’s a large pot of money waiting to be handed out to unionized state employees, and the process is controlled by the legislators most likely to reward those employees with pay raises. And with a fiscal conservative like Scott Walker poised to take control of the governorship, this might be their last chance to reap the largesse of the state’s compensation fund.

If settlements are reached with the unions soon, it could only be a matter of weeks before the contracts are ratified and sent to the Legislature for approval. Democrats would have to bless the contracts during their lame duck session, which to this point would be unprecedented. But they’re two years away from another election, and many of them will be leaving the chambers for good when the new session begins.

The unions themselves have noticed. On their website, the Wisconsin State Employees Union has specifically called for a legislative special session in November or December, so they can get Governor Doyle’s signature on their contracts by January 1st:

“Our window of opportunity gets narrower if we decide to settle, we would want to gain legislative approval and the governor’s signature before January 1, meaning we only have November and part of December to have a special session called for ratification.”

What’s stopping them?

-October 20, 2010

2010: The Year America Chose… An Ideology

america_choosesBy 10:00 PM on the night of November 7, 2006, every drop of blood had run from my head. A sickly pallor had fallen over me. The look of shock on my face resembled one of the teenage boys in “Sixteen Candles” who had just gotten a first look at Molly Ringwald’s underwear.

During the 2006 election cycle, I served as a lead staffer for the Committee to Elect a Republican Senate (CERS.) We were charged, obviously, with retaining the 18-15 Republican advantage in the Wisconsin State Senate – and, until the results came pouring in from all over the state, fully expected to do so.

But election night was a bloodbath. Republicans all over the state were being violently cast from office. It was as if the entire state had just come home to find the Republican Party in bed with its wife.

All of our preliminary polling said GOP candidates would be just fine. The public wildly supported many of the initiatives our candidates were pitching – spending more money in classrooms and less on bureaucracy; eliminating income taxes on Social Security income; freezing property taxes. Our head-to-head polls showed us ahead in each of our close races.*

But in losing four previously-Republican seats, it became clear that they were caught up in a national tidal wave – one that swept the GOP out of office in the U.S. House and Senate. (At least that’s what I tell myself in order to sleep soundly. As Mark Twain said, “no one is willing to acknowledge a fault in himself when a more agreeable motive can be found for the estrangement of his acquaintances.”)

In retrospect, it appears that there really wasn’t anything local Republicans could have done. By 2006, the American public was tired of seeing daily reports of American casualties in Iraq. The one GOP legislative achievement of note was expanding Medicare prescription drug coverage, a plan that even senior citizens met with a collective “meh.” By election time in 2006, George W. Bush’s approval rating was slightly below “slamming your head repeatedly in a car door.”

In 2010, polls strongly suggest that Democrats are facing the same national tidal wave. In many cases, incumbent Democrats may just have to board up their windows and hope for the best.

But there is one fundamental difference between the previous two election cycles, in which Democrats swept the nation, and the election of 2010. In 2006 and 2008, voters rejected a person; in 2010, they are poised to reject an ideology.

Just think – in 2006, it was the war. In 2008, it was the economy. In both cases, George W. Bush was at the helm. Bush’s unpopularity made John Edwards look like “Sully” Sullenberger by comparison.

(Ironically, it can be argued Bush was elected based on President Clinton’s priapic misadventures, not necessarily on any ideological basis.)

But in both the 2006 and 2008 elections, voters weren’t reacting to phenomena that were necessarily “conservative.” There was nothing inherently “conservative” about the War in Iraq – it was simply a noble war fought execrably in its pre-surge years. It was completely untethered to the fundamental principles of smaller government, individual liberty, and free markets. (If anything, the GOP strayed so far from those principles, they rendered themselves indistinguishable from Democrats.)

And such was the case with the 2008 election, where Republicans were actually humming along comfortably until the economy collapsed. Again, while many people retroactively blame Bush for the collapse, nobody can really name a single thing Bush actually did to send the economy into a tailspin. He just happened to be President when the nation’s largest banks decided it was a good bet to push all their chips into the middle of the mortgage table while holding a two-six off-suit.

On the other hand, 2010 is a direct rejection of the incumbent ideology. Voters are going to punish liberal politicians for carrying through on what they actually believe.

Voters are tired of paying higher taxes for lower quality government. They’re fed up with the underhanded way in which policy is made by buying votes with pork projects.
They strongly reject the notion that government has the wherewithal to manage their health care. (In a Rasmussen poll out this week, 61% of Americans believe ObamaCare should be repealed.) Voters recognize that putting government in charge of making something cheaper is a little like putting Roger Clemens in charge of baseball’s steroid policy.

The upcoming voter revolt isn’t going to happen because of superfluous issues. It’s not going to happen because people think Barack Obama was born in Stankonia. Or because Nancy Pelosi has had enough skin removed from her lips to create a spare Justin Bieber. It’s going to happen because liberals did exactly what they said they were going to do; and the results, as predicted by conservatives, have been disastrous.

Someday, Republicans are going to re-take the presidency and perhaps even both houses of Congress. They will then forget the conservative stances they took to regain the voters’ trust and be cast aside once again in favor of a liberal politician promising “change.”

And when that happens, you will find me at the same place I was in November of 2006. On a barstool, attempting to explain what went wrong to the congregation of empty Heineken bottles in front of me.

-September 22, 2010

(* – Unrelated Side Note: The high point of the 2006 elections was when one of our competitors issued a press release claiming that the “Winds of Change” were upon us. We countered with a release claiming that our candidate would “Rock You Like a Hurricane.” Amazing we lost, huh?)

Thinking Outside the Box: Ten Ways for Wisconsin Government to Raise More Revenue

box_mainSo, as you know, the state has a $2.7 billion deficit to fill.

Republican gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker says he’s going to make state employees pay for a part of their own pensions as part of his deficit reduction plan. Democrat Tom Barrett’s plan to make up the deficit amounts to forcing people to ask for their health care benefits more politely. And Republican Mark Neumann’s budget plan is to have super-intelligent dolphins invent a time machine, travel back in history, and befriend the Founding Fathers. Having learned the ways and customs of Madison and Hamilton, the Founding Dolphins would return to modern time and take full control of state government based on the original framers’ intent.

(Okay, so I admit I only skimmed his press release – but honestly, his plan is only slightly less plausible than the dolphin one.)

Everyone likes “thinking outside the box” when it comes to budget remedies. Here at WPRI, we tend to favor thinking inside the box to fix what ails the state – spend less, set money aside for budget downturns, don’t violate the Constitution by raiding poor, defenseless trust funds to plug the budget, don’t issue debt to fund ongoing commitments, etc. Somehow, those ideas have become the radical ones.

const

Certainly, nobody wants to raise taxes to make up any portion of the deficit. In the past few budgets, the state has already jacked up all the politically “popular” taxes – the only people who can afford a carton of cigarettes in Wisconsin are now Herb Kohl, Danny Gokey, and Prince Fielder. (Fielder, knowing he won’t be on the Brewers after next year, will likely play the season in slippers and a bathrobe, with a Lucky Strike hanging from his bottom lip.)

But in the absence of any serious attempt to balance the budget, here are a few revenue enhancers the state could adopt to start to fill in the structural hole. As you can see below, the state has been missing out on some good revenue opportunities – and don’t be surprised to see these end up as part of a gubernatorial platform.

The “Deluxe Package” driver’s license

The mere process of getting a driver’s license is one of the things we all understand to be a horrifying experience. But what if you could pay for deluxe service at the DMV? Here’s how it would work:

For an extra $20 on the cost of your driver’s license, you get a free pass to go up to nine miles per hour over any posted speed limit. This is, of course, the de facto rule anyway – why not codify it and soak people for a little more cash? (A cop once told me “nine you’re fine, but ten, you’re mine.”) You get a little special sticker on your license plates so police officers know you’ve purchased “speeding insurance.”

Also, speaking of license plates, the Deluxe Package would get you the right to put whatever you want on your car tags. If you want to put “BOHUNK,” or “HALNAS,” or “JLBAIT,” (all currently banned, incidentally), then go right ahead. You are welcome to pay extra to explain to the world what a moron you are.

Finally, from now on, everyone gets weighed to determine their real weight for their driver’s license. For an extra $10, you get to knock ten pounds off the weight that shows up on your license. If it’s between that and sit-ups, which one do you think people are going to pick? (Drivers that choose the full deluxe package – speeding insurance, personalized license plates, and the vanity driver’s license, get to knock five bucks off for buying in bulk.)

Revenue Projection: $50 million

The Vengeance Pass

We all go through our lives building up grudges against people who have wronged us. The “Vengeance Pass” would finally allow people to settle their scores, without having to go to the grave with grudges outstanding.

When you turn 90 years old, you will be able to purchase a state-issued license to kill ONE person of your choosing. The only catch is, you would have to do it with your bare hands. (And, as comedian Patton Oswalt suggests, if a 90-year old guy can kill you with his bare hands, you probably deserve it anyway.)

The number of Vengeance Passes available would be limited to five per year, and would be auctioned off by the state on eBay. That way, the guys with only the most intense thirst for revenge would get the passes, and the state would squeeze them for the maximum amount of cash.

The Vengeance Pass also has the added benefit of encouraging people to want to live to be 90 years old. For instance – if I really wanted to strangle the guy who slept with my wife at the Christmas party in 1987, you bet your life I’d stay in tip-top shape in anticipation of my 90th birthday. I wouldn’t need any crappy Medicare – I’d be power juicing all my own food and doing a thousand jumping jacks a day like Jack Lalanne. There’s no way I’d drink and smoke and miss out on my Edmond Dantes moment.

Revenue: $1 million (not counting Medicare/Medicaid savings.)

The Drinking License

The tyranny has gone on long enough. At age 18, we expect young people to be adults in every aspect except one – enjoying an alcoholic beverage. It’s disgraceful that at 18 years old, you can own a shotgun but not shotgun a Pabst Blue Ribbon.

For the cost of a $300 license, an 18 year old would be able to purchase and consume alcohol. Receipt of the license would be incumbent on passing a short course on the dangers of alcohol. Absolute sobriety would still be required of those 18 to 21 who are pulled over driving – with severe penalties for violators.

Of course, some of the revenue generated by the state would have to offset the loss in federal transportation aid that would result by lowering the drinking age, as the feds continue to blackmail us to keep the drinking age at 21.

Revenue: 40,000 licenses at $500 apiece – $20 million
The UW Professor “Fantasy Camp” Program

Remember the Seinfeld episode where Kramer needs $2000 to go to fantasy camp? George observes, “His whole life is a fantasy camp. People should plunk down two-thousand dollars to live like him for a week.”

A few months ago, University of Wisconsin professors were complaining that they only made an average of $110,000 per year. This is for a job where they work on a beautiful campus, have their teaching assistants teach all their classes, take year-long sabbaticals, and hang out with 21-year old girls all day. And they complain they are underpaid.

Under the new plan, professors would actually have to pay the state to work at the UW. If their life isn’t a fantasy camp for academics, I don’t know what is. From now on, if you want to stroke your beard while eating lunch out on Bascom Hill all day, it’ll cost you $30,000 per year.

(And if we can’t find enough professors to pay to teach courses, we’ll just have the super-intelligent time traveling dolphins teach them. They work for tuna.)

Revenue: 6,622 professors, $30,000 apiece = $198 million

The “Visiting Legislator” Program

All the goofball “Good Government” groups are constantly telling us legislative seats are for sale. So as long as everyone buys that line, why not actually have one seat each in the Senate and Assembly that’s actually for sale?

For $10,000 – the cost of entry into the World Series of Poker in Vegas – you can be a state legislator for a day. Introduce a bill making it illegal to dress your dog like Abraham Lincoln. Stand up on the floor of the Assembly and pour oysters down your pants if you want. I might actually pay the cash just so I can wear a superhero costume on the floor and force the Senate President to refer to me as “Senator Spiderman.”

(Incidentally, doing any of the above would make the “Visiting Legislator” indistinguishable from half of our current lawmakers.)

Revenue: $10,000 times 365 days, times two legislative houses – $7.3 million.

Naming Rights

People long ago got used to our sacred institutions being named for corporations. Even some buildings funded with public money, like Miller Park in Milwaukee, don a business name for advertising purposes.

Are we going to pretend this shouldn’t apply to the rest of our public infrastructure? Miller Brewing pays a scant $2.1 million a year to have a stadium named after their business. Think a business wouldn’t pony up twice as much to have people refer to the State Capitol as the Arby’s Dome? Would any die hard outdoorsman refuse to go hiking in Google State Park? (Assuming they could find it in the first place, as Google maps would give them the wrong directions.)

No need to stop with buildings and highways, either. Last week, the Wisconsin Supreme Court handed down a landmark case called Wisconsin Medical Society, Inc. vs. Michael Morgan. SNOOZER. I almost just fell asleep typing it.

You’re telling me more people wouldn’t check in with the Supreme Court if their decisions spiced up their names and included coupons for a free Netflix movie? And it’s all in the interest of public education. Read about the governor stealing $200 million from the state’s malpractice fund, get a free rental of Herbie: Fully Loaded.

Revenue: $100 million.

Allowing Individuals to Protect Themselves and Exercise Their Second Amendment Rights By Purchasing a $200 license to Carry a Concealed Weapon, as 48 Other States Do.

Hah – just kidding. Now I’m just being silly.

The Violent Offender Telethon

Most of the items on this list involve allowing individuals the right to pay to do something they want. But this one makes people pay to prevent something they don’t want to happen.

Each year, Wisconsin releases hundreds of violent criminals back into society. That problem will only be expedited with Governor Jim Doyle’s plan to release many of these offenders early.

There’s always a problem placing these criminals back in society – but where many see a problem, I see an opportunity.

Once a month, Wisconsin Public Television should hold a telethon, where they parade out all of the violent offenders that will be released that month. Then each community in Wisconsin gets to call and pledge money in order to avoid having each criminal relocated in their town. The community that forks over the most cash is exempt from prisoners being dropped off on their streets for one month, until the next telethon.

I already know your first question – “Wouldn’t this system benefit wealthy, white communities, who could afford to pony up the cash?” The answer is: Yes. Of course it will. But right now, all these felons are dropped off in Milwaukee, anyway – why not make the rich folks pay a little for it, instead of avoiding sex offenders for free?

Revenue: $100 million.

Daughter Insurance

Every summer in Madison, prospective students go through the campus orientation process, where they walk around the UW and see all the buildings. Daughters are accompanied by their poor, horrified fathers, who know that as soon as they leave their little girl’s side, it’s open season. Dropping your daughter off at the UW is like dropping a $100 bill on the floor of Congress – there will be a bloody pileup of guys diving to get their hands on it.

With tuition at the UW being so cheap (second to last in the Big Ten, or Big Thirteen, or whatever it is), plenty of fathers can probably afford to kick in for “Daughter Insurance.” Under this plan, your daughter will be accompanied at all times by an ex-Navy SEAL, trained in the ancient arts of Kung Fu, Jujitsu, and General Tso’s Chicken. If any young man attempts to approach your daughter, he will instantly be struck down by a swift karate chop to the larynx.

But here’s the true beauty of the program – potential suitors for your daughter could submit an application in order to speak to her. They would be required to submit a writing sample, blood test, geneology report, resume, and a $20 processing fee in order to see your daughter socially. More revenue for the state, and you will be able to avoid any accusations that you are being completely unreasonable.

Revenue: $60 million, not counting the salaries for the Navy SEALS. If they won’t work for cheap, we can use actual seals, whose bite apparently packs a wallop. (They are also rumored to be efficient at processing paperwork.)

Prisoner Deportation

The Wisconsin Department of Corrections spends about $55,000 per inmate per year to house 22,000 prisoners. This is too much.

The technology of today has rendered prisons obsolete. Instead of forking over $55,000 per inmate, we simply equip each one of them with a GPS ankle bracelet, and buy them each a $500 one-way plane ticket to Mississippi. If the ankle bracelet senses the inmate has left Mississippi for any reason, a compartment opens up, and a small scorpion jumps out and stings the inmate to death.

If the scorpion is himself a felon, then it will have to wear an ankle bracelet with an even smaller scorpion inside.

Revenue / savings: $1 billion per year.

So there you have it: $1.536 billion per year in revenue, without anyone in the state really noticing any difference in their lifestyle. (Unless, of course, you are one of the unfortunate ones who gets strangled to death by a 90-year old or karate chopped by a seal.) The state is missing out on opportunities to use the market for some serious revenue opportunities – and the gubernatorial candidates didn’t even have to pay me all their lavish consulting fees to come up with these. I do it for the kids.

Or they could just stop spending more than they take in. Either way.

Consider the Humble Candidates: Who cares if they grew up eating dirt sandwiches?

dirt_sandwichIn an online ad, Republican congressional candidate Dan Kapanke wants you to know he’s a real guy. “Having been born and raised on a dairy farm, I have a pretty good idea of what Wisconsin people value,” says Democrat Ron Kind’s challenger for the 3rd District seat.

While it’s a nice sentiment, it’s meaningless. Growing up on a dairy farm doesn’t teach anyone anything I value. It teaches a person to milk cows and shovel manure.

This is perhaps the most annoying aspect of campaign commercials by candidates of both parties — the “I’m from humble beginnings” talking point.

Of course, the second most annoying campaign commercial stunt is the “candidate walking through a factory wearing goggles and a hard hat” shot. It’s meant to convey the candidate’s connection to the hard-working commoner — as if the only jobs that really mean anything are jobs in factories.

But you know what a really hard job is? Being a stripper. Just once, I’d like to see a Russ Feingold for Senate commercial where an adult dancer on a pole works out her frustration with the bad economy to Mötley Crüe’s “Kickstart My Heart,” while Feingold stands nearby, looking concerned (and wearing a hard hat and goggles, of course).

Even more ridiculous than the “I feel the pain of the working man” candidates are the ones who pretend they grew up poor. You know, their parents took them to McDonald’s, and all they could order was a large napkin and a small straw.

Now it’s true that there are things to be admired in coming from humble beginnings. It teaches some people to value simple pleasures, and it gives them a sense of what manual labor is really like.

But let’s face it, among people who grow up in trailer parks, the number who end up taking paternity tests on the “Maury Povich Show” outstrips congressmen by about 1.2 million to one. Yet voters seem to associate growing up poor as evidence of character and accomplishment.

I, for one, don’t really care about a candidate’s life story. I care what’s in his or her future. If a rich kid goes to really great schools, takes advantage of learning from the best teachers, and emerges a bright and energetic adult, that’s a thing to be admired.

Yet you never see a campaign ad that begins with the words, “I overcame growing up rich….”

Should we discount Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin because she was raised in a well-educated household with two UW-Madison faculty grandparents? Should we think any less of Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner because his great-grandfather founded Kimberly-Clark? Is Sen. Russ Feingold any less electable because his father was a big-shot attorney?

Of course, the answer is no. In fact, the inverse is true, as well. When I drive by a house with a car up on blocks in the front yard, it doesn’t compel me to walk up to the guy in the wife-beater t-shirt on the front porch, hand him my wallet, and trust him to spend my money wisely.

Here’s a message to candidates: We don’t care if you grew up eating dirt sandwiches. We do, however, care if you understand economics, foreign policy and the limits of do-goodism.

If all else fails, candidates should consider the fearsome lesson of John Edwards, whose treacly claim of moral and political goodness because he grew up poor as “the son of a mill worker” was not exactly convincing.

The millionaire trial attorney proved himself to be a world-class scumbag when he fathered a child out of wedlock while his wife, Elizabeth, was battling breast cancer.

Maybe someday his fatherless two-year-old daughter can use her story of overcoming adversity to run for Congress herself. Or she could end up in a Russ Feingold stripper commercial. Let’s hope she chooses the more admirable career path — and decides to strap on the heels and work the pole.

Stabbed by a Poll

A few weeknights ago, I was sitting comfortably at home, enjoying some commercials for the A-Team movie, which were occasionally interrupted by some NBA playoff basketball. The phone rang, and I do what I normally do – swear for 30 seconds, then I got off the couch to answer it. (It is never for me.)

At the other end of the line was a pleasant young Indian woman telling me she was conducting a poll. For some reason, I’m on a giant master polling list, because I get calls like these at least once a week. I asked her who commissioned the poll, and she said if she told me, she’d have to cancel the call, as it would bias the results.

Seeing as how our group does polling for a living, I decided to go through with it, to see if I could guess who was conducting the poll. Plus, whenever I answer a telephone poll, I feel like I’m doing my civic duty. Like I should receive some sort of cash award. (Now that I mention it, public, you owe me $13.24 for my time. An invoice is on the way.)

But here’s the thing about polls – often times, complicated issues are boiled down to “yes” or “no” answers – and I feel an obligation to give an answer, so I might be a little more… shall we say… forthcoming in my answers. It’s for science, right?

For example, one of the questions in this poll was, “Do you support or oppose gay marriage?” This is an issue on which I’m genuinely conflicted. I don’t buy that gay and lesbian couples getting married affects my own marriage in any way. (In fact, the 6 month-long NBA playoffs has done far more damage to my marriage than “the gays” ever will. If Kobe Bryant married another man, I might have to get divorced on the spot.)

But this wasn’t the only question I was supposed to boil down into a one word answer. Imagine getting a question like, “do you support deporting all the illegal immigrants in America?” Obviously, it’s a complicated issue. And answering either “yes” or “no” can’t possibly reflect any complicated underlying issues.

About halfway in, I was asked some questions about my congressional representative, Tammy Baldwin. “Do you think Tammy Baldwin spends too much time on gay and lesbian issues?” was one of them. “Do you think Tammy Baldwin has done enough to keep and create jobs in America?” was another.

It was at this point that I realized it was Baldwin’s campaign that was conducting the poll. (And don’t think the irony was lost on me that a woman on a headset in India, hired by the Tammy Baldwin campaign, was asking me if Baldwin has done enough to keep jobs in America.)

Conservative candidates don’t waste valuable poll questions asking about gay and lesbian issues – generally, because they’re not really a vote mover. (In 2006, the constitutional amendment passed 60-40, but Republicans were trounced in elections all across Wisconsin.) It’s only a liberal fantasy that conservative voters sit around their house, wringing their hands about the gay conspiracy taking over the world. We’re actually too busy going to work and watching Glenn Beck.

But then it occurred to me – here I was, trying to be a stand-up citizen and give one-word answers to all these complicated questions, and now Tammy Baldwin has all my answers at the tip of her fingers. I was trying to be as honest as possible, but clearly some of my answers to the questions as they were asked would need further explanation to be publicly palatable.

Let’s say, for the sake of argument, I wanted to enter a life of crime – and run for Congress. (This will not happen, incidentally, as I plan to marry Kobe Bryant and move to the Bahamas.) Now Baldwin has all my simple answers to her questions – asked the way her campaign wanted to ask them – which she could use to make me look like an idiot. (More so than I normally do myself.)

This is an awesome strategy future campaigns should use. Once you get yourself elected, pick out who your most likely challengers will be in your next election. Then do some phony poll that only calls those people, and get them on the record with “yes” and “no” answers on some controversial issues. You’ll probably find that they’ll give you more honest answers, as they feel like they’re doing their civic duty. Then, when they run, you can hammer them with their own positions. As Gill the Fish says in Finding Nemo, IT’S FOOLPROOF.

\"\"

(Incidentally, if your campaign does use this strategy, you are violating my intellectual property. I accept payment in Jamba Juice.)

How Eric Davis can Save America

davis1987 was a big year for the Cincinnati Reds’ athletic young star Eric Davis. The graceful, lithe outfielder was coming off a breakout season in which he hit 27 home runs and stole 80 bases. He was a combination of power and speed the league hadn’t seen in some time (and wouldn’t see for at least one more year, when a skinny rookie named Barry Bonds would make his debut.) In their 1987 season preview, Sports Illustrated called Davis “the Michael Jordan of baseball.”

It just so happened that Eric Davis’ emergence coincided with the explosion of the baseball card industry in the late 1980s. Baseball cards had been around in some form for over a century; but a variety of factors (most notably the loosening of the Topps card company’s monopoly on card production) propelled baseball card trading into a lucrative investment opportunity for kids and adults alike. By 1987, a Don Mattingly rookie card, issued only three years earlier, could fetch $90. After his historic 49 home run rookie season, Mark McGwire’s 1985 Topps Olympic rookie card shot up to 30 bucks apiece.

This is why, in 1987, I went to a baseball card show and shelled out $13 for a 1985 Topps Eric Davis rookie card. I checked the card’s value religiously from month to month. The value continued to climb as Davis hit 37 home runs and drove in 100 runs in 1987 – MVP-type numbers in the pre-steroid era. I felt I was sitting on a gold mine. I was already planning what type of Porsche I would buy on my 30th birthday and Davis was on his way to the Hall of Fame.

Full of pride at my purchase, I sought out my Dad, in order to brag. I told him I had a card that was worth twenty bucks. It was then he said something that would remain with me for the rest of my life:

“It’s only a piece of cardboard until someone’s willing to pay you 20 bucks for it.”

And there you have it – market economics summed up in one sentence. You can spend a lifetime reading Friedman, Hayek, or Von Mises; but if you want to save yourself days off your life, just heed my Dad’s advice. Nothing has an economic value beyond what someone is willing to pay for it. “Value” is simply an implicit contract between the buyer and seller. The same holds true for employment – nobody is really “underpaid.” You either work for what your boss is willing to pay you, or you don’t. That’s your “value.”

(Comedian George Carlin summed this up nicely when he observed that most people “do just enough work so they don’t get fired, and get paid just enough so they don’t quit.”)

I suppose it could be argued that everything I know about markets and economics came from baseball card collecting. At age 14, I had a massive collection, complete with card value spreadsheets and the like. My card trading negotiations with my friends likely resembled the Iranian hostage negotiations. They often dragged on for days, and involved insults, flattery, and every other negotiating tactic one can invoke. Thank God I hadn’t heard of waterboarding.

I bought Mike Greenwell rookie cards in the way Warren Buffett snatches up undervalued stocks. I tucked them all away, waiting for them to appreciate in value, as they almost certainly had to. When I finally took a class in college on investing in stocks, I just said “ooooh, it’s just like baseball cards.” Only a little less cutthroat.
In the late 1980s, major newspapers noticed the link between stocks and baseball cards. As documented in Dave Jamieson’s excellent book Mint Condition: How Baseball Cards Became an American Obsession, newspapers ran stories like “Turning Cardboard into Cash: These are Boom Days for Baseball Cards (The Washington Post), “A Grand Slam Profit May Be in the Cards” (The New York Times), and “Cards Put Gold, Stocks to Shame as Investment” (The Orange County Register).

Unfortunately, as happens in the stock market, baseball cards in the 1980s were riding a wave of irrational exuberance. The values were inflated well beyond a level that could be sustained – by 1991, an industry researcher estimated that $1.4 billion was spent on wholesale sports cards for the year ending in June.

But soon, it all came crashing down. The number of new card companies that flooded the market severely depressed the value of existing cards. The cost of card packs soared from around fifty cents per pack to over four dollars a pack in many cases, leaving young boys in the cold. Plus, as Jamieson notes, the 1994 Major League Baseball strike left a lot of uncertainty in the card market, and a lot of animosity towards baseball in general.

As unthinkable as it was just five years before, baseball card dealers couldn’t move any of their product. Card stores went out of business en masse – they are exceedingly difficult to find to this day, and when they exist, they deal primarily in memorabilia. Stock in the Topps company quickly dropped from its high of over $20 per share in 1992 to $4.25 in 1996.

As it turns out, the cards were just cardboard – when the desire of purchasers to pay $50 for a 1987 Fleer Barry Bonds rookie card (which I own) disappeared, the industry came crashing down, leaving many investors broke. (Current listed value of the Bonds card: $12.00)

This is not at all unlike the crashes suffered by the U.S. stock market in 2001 when the tech bubble burst, or in 2008 when the U.S. housing market deflated. In each instance, a crippling downturn was preceded by the same kind of irrational short-term thinking. Greed and myopic thinking caused investors to be overextended and caused them to expose themselves to an inordinate amount of risk. If only Wall Street bankers had collected baseball cards as children – they’d have learned their lessons.

A quick eBay check shows me that my Eric Davis card is selling these days for a cool $2.00. But the lesson Eric Davis taught me in investing is worth at least an extra fifty cents. Maybe one of these days, Congress will get around to having a hearing.

So go ahead, make an offer.

Wisconsin: The Repeal Deal

prohibitionThe ink had not yet dried on the final letter “a” of “Barack Obama” before Republicans began calling for repeal of the massive national health care reorganization bill the president had just signed into law. This seems to be a politically shrewd move for the national GOP, as public opinion polls routinely show widespread opposition to the bill.

Leading the call for repeal is someone who had been one of the bill’s fiercest critics in the months leading up to its passage – newly minted national star Congressman Paul Ryan of Wisconsin. In 2010, only Lady Gaga has rivaled Ryan in terms of national media exposure (and it appears that her only talent is her uncanny ability to avoid wearing pants in public.)

Ryan has smartly re-framed the health care repeal movement, urging lawmakers to “repeal and replace” the recently enacted law. He rightly recognizes the need for Republicans to push actual ideas, rather than being cast in their usual role as nattering nabobs of negativity. In fact, Ryan can be credited as the single reason the GOP at the national level is no longer seen merely as the “party of no.” (Although just saying no to this health care bill may prove to be a political gold mine for Republicans.)

While Ryan’s visage may be new to political observers nationwide, his willingness to fight for repeal of an unpopular law isn’t new to Wisconsin at all. In fact, the Dairy State was the driving force behind one of the most famous repeal efforts in U.S. history. In 1932, it was Wisconsin senator John J. Blaine who drafted the resolution to repeal prohibition, ending over a decade of despair for thirsty Wisconsinites.

In retrospect, it seems crazy that Wisconsin – of all places – would agree to adopt a prohibition on alcohol. Yet on January 17, 1919, Wisconsin became the 40th state to ratify the 18th Amendment. (This came well after the 36th state, Nebraska, ratified the amendment, making it official.)

It is well documented that Milwaukee is very much a city founded on the strength beer industry. In the 1840s, German immigrants flooded to the city, making it the beer brewing capital of the United States. But soon, many immigrants from New England, a stronghold of temperance, began moving to Wisconsin. These new Puritan immigrants, coupled with a World War I-related anti-German backlash that swept through America, gave the temperance movement strong influence over public policy – even when that influence threatened Wisconsin’s most popular industry.

Even when the Volstead Act (the 18th Amendment’s enabling legislation) took effect, Wisconsinites didn’t actually believe the law would stand. In 1922, The Milwaukee Telegram predicted the law would never stand, even as it was going into effect. Ninety year-old Jeremiah Quin wrote the following in opposition to the imposition of prohibition, in language that may be familiar to opponents of the recent health care bill:

blaine“The manner in which attempts are made to enforce this law is offensive to me as it must be to every man of spirit. From the observations of political movements for more than half a century, I conclude that this form of prohibition will not continue; it is producing a daily increasing reaction against the policies in force. It is the manner, not the morals, that is offensive.”

Naturally, once enacted, prohibition became wildly unpopular in Wisconsin. It virtually killed the breweries in Milwaukee, some of which began to make “near beer,” while others shifted over to making ice cream, soda, and cheese. When Schlitz Gardens closed in 1921, the Milwaukee Journal yearned for the days when the entertainment venue attracted such luminaries as New Jersey Governor Woodrow Wilson (who was running for president at the time, and reportedly refused to actually drink a beer.)

In the pages of the Milwaukee Sentinel in February of 1932, Gunnar Mickelsen offered up this erudite defense of drinking, and why Wisconsin was a miserable place without it:

“Now, it is our theory that Milwaukee was happy because it talked. The urge to hold conversation, to communicate ideas and experiences is one of man’s major motivations. It is behind most of his endeavors and his works. Deprive him of the privilege to talk and you rob him in no small measure of his ambition to do.

What use are actions if he can’t talk about them later? The man’s ego who is satisfied at the mere doing, without telling others or hearing their praise or criticism, is a rare fellow. The happiest persons are those who have something to say, know how to say it, and are given the opportunity to do so.

Beer and wine make for conversation. There is in liquors of mild alcoholic persuasion that which quickens the flow of the thoughts in a man’s cranium, loosens a notch the belt about his reticence, and releases upon his tongue the fruits of his meditations. It is for precisely this reason that men have resorted to alcoholic drinks as a means to make their companionship more vivid and happy.”

Mickelsen, no matter how specious and entertaining his logic, had some important people in his corner. One of these individuals was Republican U.S. Senator John J. Blaine of Wisconsin, who made the repeal of prohibition his personal mission.

Modern Progressives would bristle at any comparison between the conservative Paul Ryan and John Blaine, despite their shared desire for repeal of unpopular federal laws. Blaine, while a Republican, was a steadfast Progressive and a loyal follower of Robert LaFollette, Sr. Born to a farmer with egalitarian beliefs, Blaine’s disabled left arm forced him into professions other than the family farming business. After attending college, he went on to law school, becoming involved in the Progressive wing of the Republican Party. By 1902, he was in Robert LaFollette’s inner “Madison ring” of Progressive confidantes.

Blaine was elected Wisconsin attorney general in 1918 before serving three terms as governor. When his hero, LaFollette, died in 1925, a fight broke out to replace the legend in the U.S. Senate. Blaine struck a deal to support Robert LaFollette Jr. for his father’s U.S. Senate seat, in exchange for campaign help against incumbent Senator Irvine Lenroot in 1926. Blaine defeated Lenroot, and quickly became a thorn in the sides of both Presidents Calvin Coolidge and Herbert Hoover. (In his first session, Blaine voted with the Republican majority in the senate only 35% of the time, or less than any other Republican.)

While Blaine was a forceful advocate for the use of the federal government to overcome the hardships of the Great Depression, it was his opposition to prohibition that finally forged his name in the history books. His fierce opposition to the 18th Amendment grew out of his progressivism – he saw prohibition as a recipe for public corruption and didn’t believe it was enforceable. He also didn’t believe it was the government’s role to enforce morality, saying, “I am opposed to prohibition as a matter of principle. I think it is wrong. I think any legislation that undertakes to regulate purely personal habits of individuals is wrong.” He believed that prohibition fostered “an orgy of official corruption in national affairs never before equaled in this country.”

In every session he served in the Senate, Blaine introduced a resolution to repeal prohibition. It wasn’t until the 1931-32 session (his last, incidentally) that his resolution was adopted and sent to the states for ratification. He lost his seat in a Republican primary in 1932, and died two years later at the age of 58.

While Paul Ryan is the face of the modern “repeal” movement, he isn’t the first Wisconsin elected official to face down the federal government in opposition to an unpopular law. American society changed forever because of John Blaine’s willingess to fight for your right to party. (College students all over Wisconsin can be seen honoring Blaine’s memory every weekend by getting hammered and singing “Sweet Caroline” at the top of their lungs at bars.)

Even with Blaine’s tireless work and public opinion at his back, it still took over a decade to repeal the 18th Amendment. (Furthermore, prohibition prevented individuals from doing something they wanted to do – drink – while the current health care bill forces many people to do something they don’t want to do – purchase health insurance.) It remains to be seen whether Ryan can effectively channel public sentiment in the same way.

Youthful Indiscretions: Our Politicians are Both Juvenile and Delinquent

babyThe ubiquitous television commercial plays nonstop, making it the aural wallpaper of our lives: Bob Dylan’s “Forever Young” remixed over modern beats, reminds us that the fountain of youth can be found in a sweet carbonated beverage.

It’s not the first marketing campaign to promise us eternal youth, and it won’t be the last. In fact, as we get older, commercials sell us on being even younger-in 10 years, Pepsi is probably going to promise me I can enjoy life once again as a fetus.

But these marketing campaigns bring up an interesting question that filters beyond culture, into the way we’re governed: Is the world really short on people who are acting too grown-up?

When I was a kid, it used to be that we were always in a rush to grow up. Someone’s older brother always had an awesome new R.E.M. tape that gave us a window into what college life was like-and we’d do anything to get a piece of it. At age 16, my friends and I sneaked into a Washington, D.C., bar, and I sat stunned, enjoying poetry readings next to a guy with a beard.

Today, our feelings on age seem to be the exact opposite. People my age are now obsessed with youth culture. Grown men measure their cultural status based on whether they’re beating 16-year-olds in online Xbox games. Women in their 30s and 40s giggle about the Jonas Brothers and seek refuge from real life in tales written for teenage girls about nubile young vampires.

Ask any woman, and she’ll tell you she’d rather be Megan Fox than Margaret Thatcher. (Although in college, I found out you can quickly turn the latter into the former with a bottle of Bacardi and a light switch.)

Our government leaders have caught on to the juvenalization of the American public. If there are any two personality traits that characterize young people, it is their avarice and their inability to think long term. And there is no better way to describe today’s elected leaders.

Politicians on the national level promise us universal health care while ignoring how they’re going to pay for it. They run up trillions of dollars of debt, selling our future to China. They spend billions of dollars on farcical economic “stimulus” efforts that seem to only benefit political cronies, while America continues to hemorrhage jobs. As if children on a playground, they hurl puerile epithets like “racist” and “teabagger” to impugn their ideological opponents.

Wisconsin’s leaders on the state level aren’t any better. Despite being required to pass a balanced budget, the state currently faces a $2.7 billion deficit. Wisconsin’s governor and Legislature simply can’t resist the urge to buy more government than it can pay for. This isn’t at all unlike what would happen if I let my 6-year-old daughter loose in Toys R’ Us with a credit card.

All of this, of course, reflects a society that doesn’t mind being lectured on the environment by the likes of Leonardo DiCaprio. Or having Jessica Alba tell them who to vote for in a presidential election. Or being told not to wear fur by Pamela Anderson.

I, for one, have come to grips with getting older. I wouldn’t trade the life experiences I’ve had, people I’ve met, books I’ve read, food I’ve tasted, for anything. Sure, I could do without my belly button sagging sadly over my belt, and I’d prefer it if my nose hair didn’t look like two hamsters were having a boxing match in my nostrils.

But with age comes experience, and I’m hopeful I’ve translated what I’ve learned into being a more responsible adult.

This is a lesson our political leaders need to take to heart. As Flannery O’Connor implored, we need to start “pushing as hard as the age that pushes against you.” On both the national and state level, we need adult supervision. The issues of our day will remain intractable until the people we choose to represent us just…grow up.

Why Congress is Wigging Out

wiggingWhen men start to go bald, they basically have two options: they can man up, accept their fate and buy an expensive car, or they can try wearing a ridiculous toupee.

(I guess a third option is to get hair plugs – like they do in the Hair Club for Men. I love their ads, because they promise that I can go jet-skiing with my new hair – which is awesome, because I didn’t know how to jet ski before.)*

The thought process behind men wearing wigs is fascinating. They recognize that it looks ridiculous – there isn’t a person they pass on the street that doesn’t go “whoa – look at that rug!” But they do the internal calculus and determine that the fact they’re obviously wearing a toupee is preferable to the horrors of seeing the top of their scalp.

The examples of this are myriad. Everyone knows Elton John is a member of the Bald Brotherhood; yet he still shows up in concert wearing wigs that look like they formerly belonged to a cast member of “High School Musical.” Everyone seems to have forgotten that Jeremy Piven had less hair at age 28 than he does at age 43. And John Travolta’s ridiculous hairline goes up and down more often than John Edwards’ zipper. Yet all of them have determined that this is a better look than going natural.

(Incidentally, this is comparable to women who think having obvious plastic surgery is preferable to the horrors of aging naturally. Poor Meg Ryan, formerly as beautiful as the Mona Lisa, now looks like a Picasso.)

Members of Congress seem to be picking up on this meme. Congress’ favorability ratings barely hover above “having your lips stapled to a gorilla.” The American public is now fully aware Congress is incapable of creating jobs. Voters know that the House and Senate are going to raise their taxes and at the same time create government deficits as far as the eye can see, at the same time unemployment is in the double digits. (The chance that we all speak Chinese in 20 years currently stands at about 35%.)

And yet they have taken this dead animal carcass known as “health care” and stapled it securely to their heads. They think ramming through a government takeover of sixteen percent of the American economy is preferable to the way the public sees them now. Democrats in Congress honestly believe passing a partisan bill crafted in secret will give them the image makeover they need to maintain their large margins come election time.

When the health care takeover bill passes, your congressperson is going to come back to you brandishing their vote as if they’re a co-worker who magically gained a full head of hair overnight. They’re going to tell you that doing something was better than letting nature take its course. Yet unbeknownst to them, they will become even more of a laughingstock than when they started. Sadly, the cover Steve in human resources seeks only hurts him; the cover Congress is looking for could bring down the American economy.

So say it loud, my bald brothers – it’s nobody’s first choice to lose your hair, but trying to rectify it can make it worse. A lesson Congress should learn before they creep out voters for good.

NOTE: Be looking for the second portion of this series, “Why global warming is like a mustache.”

(Incidentally, when Congress does decide to purchase their toupee, I demand they do it at Morrie’s Wigs.)

* – Other popular strategies include “bald guy who grows a beard,” “bald guy who works out a lot,” “bald guy who wears sunglasses on the top of his head,” “bald guy who wears stylish hats,” “bald guy with lots of tattoos,” and “Michael Stipe.”

Are All “Special Interests” Created Equal?

“There are no political phenomena except group phenomena.”

-Arthur F. Bentley, 1908

Americans all agree – there is no more vulgar term in politics than the label “special interest.” “Special interests” are blamed for all the worst government failures – the economy, health care costs, rising fuel prices, Joe Biden’s hair plugs.

So what is a “special interest?” Generally speaking, it’s a group of people to which we don’t belong, lobbying government to do something that we don’t like. (Groups that we are members of and with which we are aligned are generally glowingly referred to as “grassroots organizations,” or “advocacy groups.”)

As it turns out, it appears Americans have a constitutional right to form groups to lobby their government. It’s not like one of the phony “rights” people claim these days (like the right to be told that Froot Loops doesn’t actually contain fruit) – it’s actually right there in the First Amendment, which grants the “right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

This is essentially the U.S. Government’s customer service policy – if you don’t like what they’re doing, you have a right to convince them to change it. (This is far superior to the customer service policy at Sears, where you will not be allowed to redress your grievances if you try to return an opened pack of men’s underwear.)

In fact, special interests are vital to democracy. Government has gotten so large and expansive, individuals simply can’t affect change on their own. Many of the most important political movements of the past century have been led by groups such as the NAACP, anti-war interests, and groups representing the disabled. Political scientist James Q. Wilson once compared government to a human body – where individuals are the atoms that form organs (special interests) that allow the body to function. (In this metaphor, Congress is most likely the colon.)

So special interests are necessary to secure the interests of their members – without them, the only power would be that of the government. Elected officials could run roughshod over the public, without any checks and balances. But are all special interests created equal?

Without question, interests exist to further agendas that benefit their own agendas (hence the term “interest.”) But the actual interests of these groups vary wildly. At their most basic level, special interests can be broken down into two categories: interests who want government to recede, and interests that want government to expand.

When you hear “good government” groups denouncing special interests, they are virtually always criticizing groups that represent business interests. Business groups almost universally want government to recede. They want lower taxes, so people can keep more of their hard earned money – then spend that money on all the junk they sell, like the preposterous “Hoodie Footie.” (The hug you can wear.)

Several major groups in Wisconsin fall into this category. At the forefront is Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, which is constantly vilified for their advocacy on behalf of the business community. But they are not alone – the Wisconsin Realtors Association and Wisconsin Builders Association both love lower property taxes, as it makes it cheaper for people to own homes. The Wisconsin Restaurant Association recognizes that more money in peoples’ pockets equals more trips to Qdoba.

On the other hand, there are special interests that seek to expand government’s influence. To these groups, higher taxes and more government regulation is in their members’ interest, as they feel the services they provide are meaningful and necessary.

At the forefront of these groups is WEAC, the state’s teachers’ union. Any attempt to scale back education funding increases is portrayed by the teachers’ union as akin to poisoning children with arsenic, then setting them on fire, then taking a “meat axe” to them, then poisoning them with arsenic again. They lobby for higher taxes in the name of funding “adequacy” and “fairness.”

Right behind WEAC are other government-related unions, which advocate for things like “prevailing wage” laws, which funnel more money to their members. Trial lawyer organizations seek government action allowing them to reap greater amounts via lawsuit. Native American tribes need new laws granting them expanded gaming at their casinos, and lobby to make it happen.

(If there is anything positive to be said about environmental special interests, it is that their members appear to be motivated by things other than financial interests. They just want to be able to listen to Fairport Convention on their iPods while minnows swim through their toes. However, this doesn’t make them any less annoying.)

So here we have two distinct types of “special interests:” one type that advocates lower taxes and less regulation so citizens can keep more of their income, and one type that advocates higher taxes and more regulation so they can divert more of that income to their members. They are as ideologically as different as can be – and yet they are both always derided by the broad “special interest” tag.

In fact, as mentioned, it is almost always businesses – who are the ones lobbying for lower taxes and more liberty – that bear the brunt of anti-special interest sentiment (see addendum below.) And sure, businesses are looking out for their own interests – but only because it benefits them to let me make my own decisions with my income. Somehow, business interests that want me to keep my own income are “greedy,” while the teachers’ union’s attempts to pad their own nest egg at my expense are just “looking out for the kids.”

(SIDE NOTE: Of course, WPRI is often derided as being a shill for big business and what not. In order to disprove this charge, I have waited until the very end of this column to mention that this commentary is brought to you by EGGO WAFFLES.)

MMMMM, EGGOS!

EggoWaffles

ADDENDUM

In 2003, the anti-business government “watchdog” Wisconsin Democracy Campaign thought they had found evidence of corruption in state government that “cost” Wisconsin taxpayers $4.6 billion. Sounds pretty serious.

To prove all this corruption, the WDC looked at business tax receipts from 1979 – when they were at an all time high – and saw that business taxes comprised 11.3 percent of general fund revenues. Then they compared those revenues to 2002 – when the U.S. was in the midst of a recession – and found that taxes accounted for 4.2 percent of general fund taxes. They then calculated what business tax receipts would have been in 2002 had they been at the same level in 1979, and deduced that “corruption” was costing taxpayers $1.34 billion per year.

This is like saying that since Prince Fielder hit 50 home runs for the Milwaukee Brewers in 2007, he should be expected to do it every year. And since he only hit 34 in 2008, “costing” Brewers fans 16 home runs, he must be taking bribes from the Cincinnati Reds.

Let’s look at corporate taxes as a percentage of the general fund according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau:

Year

Corporate Taxes

1997-98

6.58%

1998-99

6.38

1999-00

5.89

2000-01

5.34

2001-02

5.02

2002-03

5.16

2003-04

6.06

2004-05

6.7

2005-06

6.49

2006-07

7.05

2007-08

6.42

As you can see, corporate taxes in 2001-02 comprised 5.02% of the general fund in 2001-02, not 4.2%, as the WDC claimed. Then, lo and behold, the percentage began to climb – until it reached 7.05% in 2007. But aren’t businesses corrupt? Did they decide to start paying more in taxes because they decided to somehow be less corrupt? Where was that WDC press release?

The answer, of course, is that this is a flawed measurement of businesses’ tax effort. For instance, if businesses leave the state or if their tax receipts are down, it makes it look like they’re paying less in taxes. If individual taxes go up, or the number of citizens paying taxes increases, it looks like businesses are paying less in taxes. There are literally dozens of reasons these numbers could fluctuate – and none of them can be attributed to “corruption.” (It is also obvious how ridiculous it is to compare tax receipts to the 11.3% of 1979, as the number has hovered around 6% for over a decade.)

So there you have it – any time the Legislature passes a bill creating an expensive new prescription drug benefit for seniors, it’s not “corruption.” When a school district grants new health insurance benefits to retired employees, which they don’t know how to pay for and will one day swallow up half their payroll, there’s no special favors to be found there. It’s only bogus manufactured business numbers that demonstrate “corruption.”

GOP: All Aboard the Brown Express

In his novel “Straight Man,” Pulitzer Prize winning author Richard Russo offers his key to a happy marriage: “Two people that love each other need not necessarily have the same dreams and aspirations, but they damn well ought to share the same nightmares.”

Americans still have wildly diverse dreams and aspirations. (Although, admittedly, most men have been dreaming about this since Sunday.) But former naked person Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts on Tuesday signals one thing – that we all seem to be having the same nightmares about increased government intrusion in our lives. And when we all start having the same nightmares, it’s incumbent politicians that start waking up in cold sweats.

Of course, rank and file liberals argue that it was Martha Coakley’s fault that she lost a seat held for 47 years by Edward Kennedy in a state Barack Obama won by 26 points in 2008. They willingly deceive themselves into believing that the people of Massachusetts voted against her because she mistakenly identified Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling as a Yankee fan. Yet Coakley is the state’s elected Attorney General – she’s not a proverbial tomato can candidate – she emerged victorious with 73% of the statewide vote for AG in 2006.

Clearly, something is going on greater than Coakley’s personal failings as a candidate. Generally, when political people look at seats their party can win, they scrap any seats where their candidate’s party is below, say, 44%. Yet Brown’s party lost the Presidential race by TWENTY SIX percentage points! In any other year, Martha Coakley could have campaigned wearing a Buffalo Bills football helmet and doing shots of Wild Turkey during her speeches and she would have won by 10 percentage points. And yet she lost.

And why? Because of the borderline criminal manner in which congressional Democrats have handled the health care issue. People are catching on to what would happen if the gang in DC were to get their hands on their health care. And they are recoiling at not only what would happen if the bill were to be enacted, but how it is being assembled.

In 2007, I wrote a column predicting health care could be the Wisconsin Democrats’ undoing, just as failure to pass a Taxpayer Bill of Rights unraveled the Republicans:

Secondly, if a universal-type health plan were to pass, suddenly citizens would start to recognize the downside of such an expansive new framework. The cracks in the plans would actually start to show. Long waiting lists and substandard quality of care would become major issues, as would sick people from other states flooding Wisconsin’s system. Suddenly, voters may not be giving Democrats much credit when grandma has to wait a year for hip replacement surgery.

Legislative Republicans went through a similar high-profile meltdown in recent years with the highly publicized Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) debacle. After taking control of both houses of the Legislature in 2002, a movement began to amend the Wisconsin Constitution to cap local and state taxes and spending. The bill badly fractured legislative Republicans, and led to some well-publicized and embarrassing episodes on the floor of the Senate. It even cost the sitting Senate Majority Leader her job.

(The main difference, of course, is that voters blamed the GOP for not passing something, while Democrats will most surely feel the brunt of voter discontent if they do pass a bill.)

For Republicans, however, the real guessing game starts now. A lot of “what-if” scenarios present themselves with regard to federal races.

For instance, what if a prominent ex-governor of Wisconsin decides to run for Senate against 18-year incumbent Russ Feingold, seeing as how no national Democratic senate seat seems to be safe? What if a well-liked up and coming state senator (a la Scott Brown) who has previously defeated Democratic incumbents decided he wanted to take a shot at Feingold? What if Democratic congressional stalwarts like Ron Kind and Dave Obey get serious challenges for the first time in years? (When Obey first took office, Congressmen weren’t picked by who got the most votes, they earned their seat by winning a soup eating contest.)

Point is: in 2010, Wisconsin could be looking at an entirely different landscape – it leans towards Democrats, but it is FAR less of a blue state than Massachusetts. And it would be a mistake to survey the candidates out there right now and assume that will be the final slate in November. Scott Brown just threw Wisconsin Republicans a life preserver – it’s up to them to paddle over and grab it.

Other notes from Tuesday:

I paid close attention to the on-stage handshake between former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Brown during the new Senator’s speech. If America’s love affair with outsiders running for President holds up, who’s to say that handshake won’t take place in a GOP presidential debate in two years? Romney grinned as much as he could, but it was obvious he was treating Brown like he had swine flu. I mean, here Brown won statewide in Massachusetts by running a conservative campaign, while Romney had win with the governorship by essentially selling out many of the positions he had held earlier in his career. If Massachusetts sends anyone to the national stage in two years, it could very well be Brown.

I don’t particularly feel bad for Coakley supporters or liberals in general – conservatives suffered through much worse nights in November of 2006 and 2008. But Fox News going to Sarah Palin and Karl Rove for comment right after Brown was declared the victor was really twisting the knife. It was a Brett Favre-esque running up of the score after the opponent had been beaten down. But it made me laugh, so well done, Fox News. (And it’s not like any lefties were watching anyway.)

I actually remember Scott Brown from his daughter being on American Idol. (Something I shouldn’t admit, I know.) So let’s see – how many times has this guy been famous for different things? He’s been a Cosmopolitan model, his daughter was on the most watched show in America, and now he’s pulled off one of the biggest upsets in American political history. What’s next for Scott Brown? Is he going to run against horses in the next Kentucky Derby? Is he going to cure swine flu with his tears?

Finally, a message for future politicians: I don’t care what kind of car you drive.

Rhetoric on Steroids: When Political Posturing Gets to be Too Much, We Should Look at Ourselves in the Mirror

March of 2003 was a busy time in America. The U.S. had just sent troops into Iraq to take out Saddam Hussein and his regime. Wisconsin had just elected a new governor, who had recently introduced a bill to close a $3.2 billion budget deficit. The Neverland Ranch became a crime scene.

Wisconsin State Senator Judy Robson had other things on her mind, however. Robson was figuring out a way to keep creepy, lonely men ogling women at health clubs.

Earlier in 2003, health club owner Charles Swayne of LaCrosse filed a lawsuit against Curves for Women, a health club meant exclusively for females. Swayne argued that limiting a health club to one gender was illegal sex discrimination, and should be stopped. Several Wisconsin state legislators disagreed, and introduced a bill explicitly allowing single-sex clubs. (And thereby angering the much-sought-after “swarthy, leering old man” lobby.)

Robson, herself a Curves client, objected to the bill, warning it could set into action a slippery slope that would erode civil rights and lead to discrimination based on race, religion and sexual orientation. “If we allow men to be discriminated against, we are going to allow women to be discriminated against, and that’s a huge step backward,” Robson said at the time.

The bill passed and was signed into law in May of that year. To date, there has been no word on the human rights abuses that have taken place as a result. There have been no marches on the capitol defending the rights of Rubenesque, spandex-clad women. There has been no scandal involving under-the-table political contributions from men seeking to gain membership into Curves clubs. (They would be obvious by the fact they would be crumpled, one-dollar bills that smell of desperation.)

So why would Judy Robson treat this innocuous bill as if it were the end of civil rights as we know it? Why would she feel the need to christen herself the Medgar Evers of jazzercise? The answer lies, in part, within ourselves.

Elected officials often take a beating for their overheated rhetoric. The opposition parties label everything Presidents Bush and Obama do to be the end of civilization as we know it. Often times, political discourse veers into the untoward, in order for opinion leaders to get the most bang for their verbal buck.

In many cases, these political figures are responding to a shift we have seen in the public at large. Simply put, people don’t really know – or care – as much about government and politics as they did decades ago. Despite supposed “historic” voter support for President Obama in the 2008 election, nationwide voter turnout in non-presidential years decreased by 27% between 1966 and 2006. Young people are putting off the things that plug them into political society – getting married, having kids, owning a home – until much later in life.

As a result, elected officials are trying to sell their message to an increasingly disinterested, uneducated populace. A recent study by Yale researchers demonstrated that college graduates today know less about government than high school graduates in the 1940s. Thus, political rhetoric becomes more inflammatory and apocalyptic as elected officials try to grab hold of a shrinking public attention span.

Adding fuel to the fire of intemperate political discourse is the rapid decline of newspapers and reporting. With traditional newspapers hemorrhaging money, many publications have had to purge their staffs of veteran reporters that possessed the knowledge and cynical eye necessary to cover politics. While older, more seasoned reporters would rightfully challenge elected officials on hyperbolic claims, newer reporters may not have the connections or knowledge of the legislative process to challenge this rhetoric. Consequently, politicians feel free to make more exaggerated claims, as they know there is less chance those claims will be challenged in print.

Yet until the citizens become more engaged in their government, they will continue to hear legislators compare scaling back the growth in school property taxes to “taking a meat axe to the children of this state.” (The author of that quote, Senator Bob Jauch, ended up voting for a bill that did, in fact, scale back per pupil revenue increases – someone check under his bed for an axe.) Or they’ll hear the head of the teachers’ union say a budget “returns Wisconsin to the Ice Age,” as if holding down property taxes would force kids to ride wooly mammoths to school.

Political figures that utter such nonsense clearly don’t think much of their constituents. But should they?

-January 4, 2010

Government: The Cause Of – and Solution To – All Our Problems

Last weekend, I took the kids to see the Wes Anderson animated adaptation of Roald Dahl’s “The Fantastic Mr. Fox.” (Trailer here.) Basically, the movie follows the cunning machinations of Mr. Fox (voiced by George Clooney), who ropes all the other animals into troublesome situations solely so he can save them, ultimately looking like the hero. In a speech near the end of the film, Mr. Fox explains to his wife that his plots are the one way he can feel popular and needed to the rest of the animals – so they think he’s “Fantastic.” (My kids both gave it a hearty thumbs-up, which warms my wannabe-hipster heart.)

It will surprise no one that I immediately thought about state government with regard to Mr. Fox’s schemes. In fact, they are almost mirror images of each other. No single entity creates more problems – that it then expects credit to fix – than our state government. As Homer Simpson once said, beer is the cause, and solution to all of life’s problems. The same can be said of the State of Wisconsin.

To wit:

    • State government has created a tax structure and regulatory climate that strangles business growth and entrepreneurship – but the Doyle Administration happily takes credit for bringing 17 jobs to River Falls. (Just keeping my hair look like it’s carefully messed up employs at least five people in Wisconsin.) Because of the nearly $200 million “combined reporting” tax increase passed in the last budget, businesses now need to come to the state for handouts to stay put.

 

    • The state has created a child care subsidy system in Milwaukee that is rife with fraud and criminal behavior, as it treats children simply as cash registers to be looted. As a result, many of the people working in positions of trust are, at best incompetent, and at worst, criminal. Two children die after being left alone in child care vans – including a four month old infant – and two more children survive being abandoned in hot vans. Naturally, rather than addressing the root causes of having day care workers that can’t count up to “four,” the Legislature passes a bill requiring alarms be installed in vans. Press releases bragging about passage of the bill are issued – sadly, only two children too late. Needless to say, there will be more problems in the program that have nothing to do with van alarms.

 

    • Over the span of decades, Wisconsin has become a national embarrassment, as drivers with six, seven, and eight DUI arrests continue killing citizens on our roads. For generations, the Legislature does nothing (in fact, in some areas of the state, driving with a beer cozy in one hand is part of the road test at the DMV.) Finally, shamed into doing something, the Legislature bickers for nearly two years before passing a watered-down bill that only makes drunk driving a felony on the fourth conviction. “Problem solved!” – until you’re run down by someone with three previous arrests.

 

    • The Governor cut aid to the University of Wisconsin System by $250 million in the 2003-05 budget, then increased tuition by over 30% to make up the difference. This punished low income students seeking an education on a UW campus. The state then doubled their UW financial aid program (up to $55 million) over the next five years, declaring tuition to be “affordable.” Needless to say, tuition would have remained more “affordable” had Doyle not looted the UW several years earlier and jacked up tuition to backfill to hole. Problem created, problem “solved.”

 

These examples merely scratch the surface of the problems state government creates in their zeal to spend more money to fix them. (My favorite example: the state employee retirement fund invests hundreds of millions of dollars in tobacco companies, then the state spends millions of dollars on programs trying to get people to stop smoking. Also, see: Interchange, Zoo.)

Take, for example, this article that appeared in the Wisconsin State Journal last weekend. It details the travails of Jason McGuigan, who was gunned down in 2003 over what appears to be a bad gambling debt. The answer to the scourge of gambling, according to some anti-gaming groups, is to spend $15 million in taxpayer money to treat problem gamblers.

Of course, this is the same state government that recently balanced a large chunk of its budget hole by granting Native American casinos in Wisconsin expanded Las Vegas-style gambling in perpetuity. Even lifetime anti-gambling crusader State Senator Fred Risser laid down like a sleeping dog to the Indian gaming interests as they sought complete autonomy to expand their casinos without any Legislative oversight. Somehow “problem gamblers” aren’t really that much of a concern when it means a few million extra bucks in revenue for the state.

Also, keep in mind that the state still runs a lottery, which vacuums out the pockets of Wisconsin’s underclass in order to give them false hope that they will one day strike it rich. So while the state spends billions on services to serve the poor, they have no problem picking their pocket to support increased local spending programs. (Lottery proceeds go to property taxpayers to lower their bills – which allows local governments to spend more without citizens burning down the capitol building in protest.)

(Interesting side note: State law bars the use of lottery funds for “promoting” the lottery, but advertising is allowed “only to inform potential participants of the lottery’s existence.” Basically, ads are only supposed to be educational, not entertaining. Someone should probably explain that to this dancing badger:)

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

In the past decade, the state lottery has made Wisconsin’s low-to middle class a whopping $4.5 billion poorer. Of course, that\’s never the headline – credit is only claimed by elected officials when more state spending is spent to help these very people with their money troubles. As it turns out, the state is really the one with the troubling gambling problem – clearly, state bureaucracies couldn’t run without it.

That is why thought is rarely given to preventing problems before they happen – because there’s no credit to be claimed for avoiding disasters. Legislators need us to feel that they’re taking proactive action on something. There’s no photo-op for Governor Doyle if taxes are low and small businesses are allowed to operate free of government intrusion. No newspaper is going to write a headline that says “Area Man Keeps Job He’s Held for 20 Years Because Employer Pays Less in Taxes.”

Until politicians are willing to accept that government isn’t the beginning, middle, and end of all our problems, state government will continue to be the friend that drinks too much, barfs in the back of your car, then expects credit for cleaning it up. There’s simply no incentive to get it right the first time – since there are always self-congratulatory press releases waiting on the back end.

(Double secret side note: It has come to my attention that this is the second time I’ve cited a Roald Dahl book in reference to state government. You may recall my column in which Willy Wonka explained the state budget. Next up: How Judy Blume’s “Are You There God, It\s Me, Margaret?” explains Hamid Karzai’s intransigence.)

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

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.

A Stimulating Announcement

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.

« Older posts Newer posts »