WPRI Blog – Page 6 – Christian Schneider

Category: WPRI Blog (page 6 of 6)

You, Too, Can Be a Wisconsin Liberal

August 16, 2007 / Christian / 0 Comments

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

The Government Crackdown on “Big Babysitting”

August 6, 2007 / Christian / 0 Comments

There are any number of ways individuals can come in contact with government, and very few of them are pleasant. Generally, when you have to deal with the government, it means something has gone terribly wrong. Either something in your life has gone off the rails and you seek out government help, or you’re accidentally wearing your friend’s pants with cocaine in the pockets, in which case the government seeks you out.

Despite my theory that the success of your life can be measured by the extent to which you can avoid dealing with the government, I recently had to venture into the world of government-regulated babysitting. And it wasn’t pretty.

After the birth of our children, my wife was itching to get back to work. In order to accommodate our new schedules, we decided to hire a UW-Madison student to babysit our kids for 10 hours a week. We paid well, although our costs escalated quickly when we had to buy her the riot gear necessary to deal with my children.

In high school, I babysat quite a bit – mainly to pay for my love of Air Jordan shoes. It was always strictly on a cash basis – I managed not to kill their kids, they handed me cash at the end of the night. As a kicker, they always had cinnamon pop tarts in the house for me to eat. Pretty straightforward.

Yet when it came time to hire our own babysitter, it quickly became evident there was more to it than just paying out of pocket. For tax purposes, my wife and I had to register and get both state and federal business identification numbers. Despite just being a married couple with someone watching their kids for 10 hours a week, we essentially had to become a corporation. But I was determined to do this legally (not Bernard Kerik-style), and paid dearly for it.

From there, we had to pay income taxes, social security taxes, and unemployment taxes on our babysitter (as well as some back taxes, as it took a few months to figure this all out). We had to register with the Department of Workforce development to set up quarterly unemployment insurance payments – despite the fact that if our babysitter were to quit working, she wouldn’t be collecting unemployment. We had to file all the W-2 and W-3 forms with federal and state government to report her income. If you decide to pay the babysitter’s portion of the income tax, naturally that gets taxed too, since it is considered income to the sitter. Despite my wife and I both having master’s degrees (although, admittedly, mine came with the purchase of my 20th case of Miller Lite), we had to hire a professional tax preparer to sort the whole mess out. And this was for someone watching our kids for 10 hours a week.

There have to be thousands of families that hire a babysitter so a spouse can go back to work. I would estimate that the number of parents that follow the law in Wisconsin is probably five percent. There’s just no way to figure out the morass of paperwork and red tape without professional help – and many families of modest means just don’t have the resources to do so.

Supporters of government programs often praise the ability of bureaucracies to get people back on their feet and into the workforce. Yet this is a situation where heavy-handed government regulation, if followed lawfully, actually inhibits the ability of women to return to their jobs following the birth of their children. Rather than enacting more government programs to get people into jobs, it may make more sense for government to get out of the way to allow families to hire child care without a mountain of red tape.

Our babysitter is gone now, graduating from college and receiving a purple heart for her bravery in being able to deal with my children. So any law change streamlining the in-home child care process won’t benefit me. It will, however, benefit those families looking for a second income that don’t want to be treated like they’re selling cuts of meat out the back of a truck.

-August 6, 2007

Lead our Lawmakers Not Into Temptation

June 21, 2007 / Christian / 0 Comments

“The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it.”

-Oscar Wilde

Humility certainly isn’t something found abundantly within the ranks of the so-called “good government” crowd. When pushing for campaign finance reform, they make a number of bold claims – that limiting spending on campaigns will end corruption in government, that campaign commercials will be more civil, that “the people” will be better represented[1], and on and on. Can the claim that campaign finance reform will tone down your co-worker’s awful cologne really be far behind?

However, one claim in particular stands out in its absurdity. In the wake of several Wisconsin legislative leaders going to jail for breaking campaign laws, reformers claim that public financing of campaigns is necessary because it will “remove the temptation” for politicians to break campaign finance laws to raise cash for candidates. According to Jay Heck of Common Cause of Wisconsin, “[corruption is] never going to end as long as we operate under this system.. there’s always going to be another scandal. There’s always going to be another indictment.”

You may begin scratching your head… now.

The idea that somehow we can use laws to remove the temptation of people to break them seems to be an entirely new concept in governance. There are always going to be people that break the law to gain a dishonest advantage, regardless of what “system” is in place. Ideally, the threat of imprisonment should be enough to ameliorate any lawbreaking tendencies individuals may have – all that is needed is a realistic expectation that they will be caught. Is there any question that former Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala knew that trading legislation for lobbyist cash and money laundering were illegal before he ended up in court?[2]

One wonders how would this concept would work in other areas of the law. Should we confuse poachers by dressing deer in hats and fake mustaches? Should we eliminate the temptation for people to steal cable television by requiring the Spice Channel to hire Rosie O’Donnell? Perhaps the legislature should allow me to park in handicapped spaces, just to make sure dishonest able-bodied people aren’t tempted to do so.

Furthermore, even if this concept of removing the temptation to break laws actually worked, aren’t there other areas of the law that should receive a little more priority? On the day after Kenosha businessman Dennis Troha was charged with illegally funneling money to Governor Jim Doyle’s campaign, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel took the opportunity to editorialize in favor of public funding of campaigns. The March 20th editorial implied that the Troha affair never would have happened if more rigid laws were in place. (How exactly people being caught breaking existing laws isn’t evidence that the current system actually works is, at press time, unclear.)

In the meantime, Milwaukee is suffering through one of its most violent years yet. If this concept of removing the temptation to break laws actually worked, shouldn’t we be applying it for actual important things – like keeping people from being shot? Can we use the “temptation removal” theory to keep unwed fathers from abandoning their children, which causes much of the poverty and lawlessness found in our cities? (Incidentally, if more guys looked like me, illegitimate pregnancies would drop like a rock – I’m birth control with shoes.)

Of course we can’t – because some people simply have no fear of consequences, whether they be gun-toting thugs or legislative leaders. And that fear of consequence can only be instilled with effective enforcement of existing laws, rather than giving them new laws to ignore.

The key to having effective campaign laws is twofold: First, we shouldn’t elect people that are likely to break them. Secondly, we should enforce the laws we currently have that require full disclosure of direct donations to candidates. Then, we can all make up our own minds about who is influencing the legislative process. A new financing scheme will do nothing to weaken the power struggle in the statehouse. More draconian fundraising limitations won’t eliminate the temptation to break the law – they may only enhance it.

[1] If “the people” were able to directly control legislation, without question the Capitol Building would be renamed “The Dale Earnhardt Memorial Place Where They Make Laws.”

[2] In suspending Chvala’s law license, the Wisconsin Supreme Court said the suspension was “necessary to impress on him and on the other lawyers who are licensed in Wisconsin the seriousness of the misconduct in which Attorney Chvala engaged.” Exactly how big of a pool of people is this message intended for? If you are an attorney, and one day want to be Majority Leader of the State Senate, you are now officially on notice – no extortion or money laundering! We’re watching you!

The Battle for the Liberal Conscience

June 4, 2007 / Christian / 0 Comments

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.

Two Tickets to Club Fed

May 3, 2007 / Christian / 0 Comments

Fundamental to society’s concept of “prison” is that it should generally be a place that people don’t want to go. The mere threat of going to prison is supposed to keep people from shooting, robbing, or plagiarizing you. (Or, God forbid, all three at once.)

For instance, I am afraid of going to prison. Part of it is because I am a sniveling ninny. Okay, all of it is. But so far, I have narrowly avoided killing anyone, and if I have, it tends to be softly and with love songs.

In fact, I’m not implying that prison is a pleasant experience for anyone. However, each year around 14,000 young men in Wisconsin decide that the threat of imprisonment isn’t an adequate deterrent to criminal behavior and end up behind bars. Maybe it’s because they just don’t think they’ll be caught. Maybe they’ve been to prison and are used to the lifestyle there. Maybe the last time they were in jail, they networked with other criminals that gave them a job running drugs when they were released.

Much like Corey Feldman’s acting, prison means different things to different people. Put yourself in the position of a good number of the men now sitting in the Wisconsin correctional system, and compare what they have now to the life they led outside of the joint.

Suppose I am a young male with problems. I have a crappy job that doesn’t pay me anything, and half of what I make goes to pay child support to my various children’s mothers. I’m six months behind in my rent, and I’m about to be thrown out on the street. I smoke weed every day, because it keeps me off drugs. My neighbor stole my television, so I can’t keep up with the latest technological advances in female de-humanism found in my favorite music videos. Even worse, I can’t watch “Facts of Life” reruns anymore.

Suddenly, the State of Wisconsin Correctional System comes to me with an opportunity. I get a free place to live, three meals a day, and I only have to work a few hours a week. My kids’ mothers aren’t harassing me at all hours of the night. Sure, they take all my prison job earnings for my child support, but I get cheap health care to take care of me. If I want, I can get help for my drinking problem – and it’s all paid for by the same rich people that were forcing me to drink so much in the first place.

Sure, there’s a significant downside to being locked away in prison. I like the ladies. I’ll probably end up married to a tattooed “child enthusiast,” but as long as I get to choose the wedding invitations, I’m good with that. Rumor has it that most of the people in the joint are criminals, so there’s a reasonable expectation that I could get my eyes stabbed out with a hair brush. But how, again, is that any different from the culture of violence in which I now live? (Plus, I can eat a lot of hard boiled eggs, which I assume will teach dudes not to mess with me.) There’s a small chance they could stick me with Steven Avery, which would be horribly offensive – I hear he doesn’t floss.

Thus, the decision isn’t as clear-cut as people think – prison could be a decent respite from the real world. The fact that I got to throw my landlord out a window to get myself in prison really is just icing on the cake. And when I get out, I’ll be treated like a hero returning from war – not like that nerdy cousin of mine who went to college. His inability to “keep it real” has caused more than a modicum of discord within my family.

On top of all this, I have all kinds of wimpy liberal groups arguing that prison is too hard. How great is that? Keep it up, fellas. In fact, if you can get me out of prison in time to launch my entirely plausible rap career, that would be great. Thanks.

Wisconsin actually has a history of making concessions to prisoners. We were the first state to abolish the death penalty, and to give prisoners time off for good behavior. In 1868, Wisconsin was even the first state to eliminate black and white striped prisoner uniforms. As a thank you for this kindness, criminals vowed to be more polite when they raped and murdered people for the next 140 years.

Unfortunately, our prisons are jammed with people willing to take the state up on their timeshare opportunity. Since 1987, the average daily prison population has grown by 277%. And if the state built more prisons, those will fill up, too. The state could convert Milwaukee’s Bradley Center into a penitentiary and it would be at capacity within a year – which is fitting, because watching the Bucks play often feels like incarceration.

Many people actually blame the growth in prison building with creating more prisoners – as if the prisons themselves increase crime. As the logic goes, more prisons means more prisoners, since prison actually comes to get you – it’s not something you earn. It’s as if the prisons are showing up at these poor, innocent young men’s doors disguised as insurance salesmen and snatching them from their homes.

There are myriad ways to reduce crime rates, including more aggressive policing on the front lines. On the back end, Wisconsin should examine ways to deter crime before it happens. We need to break the cycle of merely throwing criminals in prison – instead, the state should give lawbreakers a good reason not to choose the wrong path in the first place.

Dancing on a Volcano

March 26, 2007 / Christian / 0 Comments

In 1939, legendary French director Jean Renoir released “Rules of The Game,” a film that still frequently resides at the top of many “Greatest Movies in History” lists. The film was a madcap satire of French society in the late 1930s, portraying the governing class as crude, oversexed, and naïve to the realities of the world.

When the film was released, France was on the brink of entering World War II. Renoir’s portrayal of French culture as infantile and elitist clearly conveyed a message to the public that they didn’t want to hear. At the film’s debut, a riot ensued, with some patrons setting fire to newspapers in an attempt to burn the theater down. During the War, the film was placed on a government list of banned movies, as it was supposedly bad for the public’s morale.

In Renoir’s eyes, too little attention was paid to the serious issues that plagued society, such as the impending World War. In a 1966 interview, Renoir quoted a poet who said it was like they were “dancing on a volcano.”

When watching old movies, it is often jarring to realize how little things change over time. America in 2007 is still at war, yet you’re assured of a spot on the news if you’re a dead Playboy playmate, a bald pop-star slattern, or a homicidal diaper-wearing astronaut.

In Wisconsin, voters will select a Supreme Court justice on April 3rd. Thus far, none of the public debate between candidates has even approached how either of them would serve as a member of our highest court. Instead, we get charges that one justice didn’t disclose a relationship with a bank in some small claims cases, followed up by a bogus complaint filed by a special interest that purports to oppose special interests.

Then we’re treated to an equally irrelevant counterclaim that a candidate’s campaign workers lied to some cops who asked them where they were from. It’s gotten so ridiculous that one television station thinks it’s relevant that one of the candidates made some calls to a ski resort using her office phone.

Both campaigns would probably go through the usual verbal contortions to say that the above examples show their opponent’s “trustworthiness,” or “ethics.” In fact, they don’t show us anything at all.

They don’t show us what each of the candidates thinks about the constitutionality of Wisconsin’s school choice program, which gives low-income African American children a chance to escape Milwaukee’s failing schools. They don’t show us how the candidates would constitutionally justify unlimited gambling in Wisconsin, just years after citizens thought they passed a constitutional amendment banning expanded gambling.

They don’t show us how the Constitution allows someone to now sue a company in Wisconsin for actions that may have taken place 100 years ago, and that may or may not have caused their injuries. They don’t show whether the candidates read the constitutional right to “to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose,” to mean “depending on what neighborhood you live in.”

They don’t tell us how one of the candidates would decide a case on free speech restrictions being pushed by a campaign finance reform advocate who is helping her get elected. They don’t tell us what authority the Court has to write entirely new laws, such as the mandate that all juvenile interrogations be videotaped.

On April 3rd, Wisconsin voters could end up picking the swing vote on the State Supreme Court based on issues that are painfully superfluous to actually being a justice. Voters could neglect issues of historical importance to pick a justice based on whether we like her nails. And when the volcano erupts, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.

The Tail End of Conservatism

March 17, 2007 / Christian / 0 Comments

In America, thousands suffer from eating disorders—due, in large part, to their skewed self-images. Many women believe that they are fatter than they are, which leads to dangerous dieting routines and eating habits.

I, on the other hand, suffer from what could be considered the “anti-eating disorder.” I actually think that I’m a lot thinner than I am. This is a good problem to have, as I continue to eat all I want without ever sitting down to seriously contemplate my personal relationship with mayonnaise.

I continue to ignore the warning signs of getting fat. My belt loops provide me a daily news report on the state of my midsection. My belly button continues its long, slow march towards the television. And yet, I figure as long as I only gain a couple pounds a year, I’m doing okay.

As it turns out, I have kindred spirits among legislative Republicans in Wisconsin, who think the state budget looks just fine in neon spandex. The dairy state’s lawmakers continue to crow about the health of Wisconsin’s budget despite large spending increases, growing state structural imbalances, and rising taxes. They believe that holding spending to an acceptable rate of growth is enough to pacify a public who already believes their taxes are too high.

The state’s cholesterol count doesn’t look good. According to the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, Wisconsin’s taxpayer burden ranks sixth in the nation relative to income. In 2004, state and local expenditures claimed 21.9 percent of personal incomes, up from 20.2 percent in 1999. Total state and local taxes and fees have increased 47 percent in the past decade, despite a reduction in income tax revenue in 2002 due to the slumping economy. When an economic recession hits and tax revenue declines, the state still manages to spend more and more every year—even when Republicans control both houses of the Wisconsin Legislature.

Despite the best efforts of many good conservative office holders in Wisconsin, the way Wisconsin spends money is rigged to keep the cash flowing. Take, for example, our system of intra-governmental funding, which is an artery-clogging nachos grande of confusion and non-accountability. The state raises over a billion dollars per year, which they send back to local governments, presumably for property tax “relief.” When property taxes go up, a taxpayer doesn’t know who to blame—local officials complain that they don’t get enough money from the state, and state officials blame the local governments for increasing their levies. According to the Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance, Wisconsin is seventh highest in the nation for the level at which the state government funds local governments.

In the end, the finger-pointing will continue, as the funding framework has built-in excuses for both levels of government. Over 60 percent of the state budget is made up of aids to local governments. Try to reduce state spending, and property taxes go up. If a local government tries to keep spending down, they lose eligibility for state aid. Try to change the system, and you get the reward Scott McCallum received for his proposal to end aids to local municipalities: A job in the private sector.

The way Wisconsin budgets also fails to provide adequate funding oversight. During the budget process, legislators are presented with documents that merely detail changes in funding—they get papers analyzing the governor’s proposals to add three percent here, and four percent there. Rarely are base reviews conducted as to whether programs deserve new funding. Programs about which there are questions receive smaller increases as punishment; nothing is ever actually cut.

Furthermore, during the budget process, there is one phrase that allows lawmakers to brag about fighting wasteful spending without actually doing so: “than the Governor.” We are told that Republican budgets tax less “than the Governor,” spend less “than the Governor,” bond less “than the Governor,” and have smaller deficits “than the Governor.”

Thus, when a budget is put together and political talking points are needed, all the Legislature needs to do is be a little better than the Democratic governor on those key points, and the budget is considered a success. The assumption, of course, is that Wisconsin citizens will get around to giving them credit for responsible budgeting as soon as they’re done watching American Idol.

True fiscal conservatism remains the “Big Idea That’s Never Been Tried” in Wisconsin. In fact, it would be hard to point to a time at the state level when the Legislature buckled down and made tough decisions about Wisconsin’s total tax level. Instead, the budget rolls on for decades, gaining more and more weight, eventually wearing black socks, plaid shorts, and wrap-around sunglasses. Actually, wait—that’s me, again.

Wisconsin won’t die all at once, like the day that I’m found on the side of the road lying in a pool of my own Arby’s sauce. As taxes continue to rise, people will look at Wisconsin, decide the harsh winters and lack of jobs aren’t worth the trouble, and seek more fiscally friendly states. Rumor has it that trash even gets picked up in states below the Mason Dixon line, despite their lower tax burdens (we know that now because of the internet). As people flock from the state, so will businesses—leaving fewer taxpayers to pick up the ever-growing tab.

Wisconsin Republicans will continue to seek credit for holding down our government’s rate of increase, just as I give myself credit for only getting a little fatter every year. But in the end, the only thing that will save us both is to hit the treadmill and shed the extra pounds. Not a pleasant experience, but a necessary one.

So has conservatism in Wisconsin run out of gas? I’ll tell you when I’m done with this burrito.

Poor Stewardship of Tax Money

March 8, 2007 / Christian / 0 Comments

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle’s proposed 2007-09 biennial budget has a little something for everyone. If you think insuring more people with taxpayer funds is a priority, you’ll be pleased with the proposal. If you support taxing hospitals and oil companies, that’s in there for you. And if you’re one of the twelve people in Wisconsin that thinks the state should prioritize buying up a lot more land, then drop your bongos and listen up – you’re covered there, too.

Doyle’s budget proposes increasing the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program by 75% per year beginning in 2010 – adding a total of $1.6 billion in total state spending over 10 years. Surely, he’s giving in to the woodchuck lobby, who listed “more serenity” as their number one campaign issue last year (barely beating out “don’t shoot us,” and “less Rosie O’Donnell on TV”).

According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau, 18% of Wisconsin’s total land is currently being held for public conservation by various levels of government – an irony completely lost on advocates of “affordable housing,” who don’t realize that the more land government takes off the market, the more expensive the remaining land gets. It is estimated that the state will have to pay $48 million in debt service payments on Stewardship land in 2007, before any more land is even purchased.

Doyle’s love affair with the Stewardship program represents a bouillabaisse of broken state government concepts. First, the state incurs debt to purchase land. Anyone who’s taken out a mortgage knows that they can expect to pay two to three times the purchase price of their home once interest is accounted for. Despite the current dire economic straits of state government, Doyle continues to rack up the state’s credit card debt in order to pacify his environmental supporters. It’s not Wisconsin citizens who are paying to buy these parcels of land, it’s their kids – for the next twenty years. Until my one-year old son figures out a way to make eating crayons profitable, he’s already in the hole a couple million.

Secondly, it’s not as if Stewardship is the most trustworthy program with the use of state dollars. In the year 2000, the Legislative Audit Bureau conducted a study to investigate complaints that the state was overpaying for land purchased through the Stewardship program. The audit found that the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) was paying an average of 120% more per acre for properties than their assessed value reflected. In fact, on many purchases, the DNR would accept the price of a property based on an appraisal done by the property’s seller.

(Note to self: Invite the DNR to my next garage sale, as they may pay well over the current nickel that a pair of my old underwear fetches.)

For instance, the Department purchased a 1.4 acre property in Newport State Park in Brown County for $360,000, while the assessed value was $70,000 – meaning the state paid 414.3% more than the assessed value. Even on large grant purchases, the DNR wasn’t even doing their own appraisal, instead counting on the word of the seller to set the price.

In the 2002 budget adjustment bill, the Legislature changed the law to require two appraisals, although Wisconsin taxpayers continue to pay the debt service on previous purchases. However, lest anyone think the program was now on the straight and narrow, Doyle came along and used the much-publicized “Frankenstein Veto” to restore a lack of accountability in state land purchasing.

Here’s how it worked: Since the inception of the Stewardship program, the Legislature’s Joint Committee on Finance had the ability to review state purchases of land over $250,000. As a response to what they perceived as a lack of accountability in the program, the Joint Finance Committee included a provision in the 2003-05 budget to reduce the minimum land purchase amount that triggered legislative review to zero. This means all Stewardship programs would have to go through the Legislature for approval.

In crafting that budget provision, the Joint Finance Committee created a new statute. Since the existing statute that set the minimum amount of purchase at $250,000 was no longer necessary, they included a brief provision that repealed that section. This line said simply:

“SECTION 802m. 23.0917 (6) (b) of the statutes is repealed.”

Wisconsin Statute 23.0917(6) was the statute that authorized the Joint Finance Committee to have oversight, and subsection (b) was the portion that specified the minimum $250,000 amount necessary for legislative oversight.

Doyle went in with his veto pen and simply eliminated the (b) from that sentence. As a result, the budget provision read:

“SECTION 802m. 23.0917 (6) of the statutes is repealed.”

With the veto of that one letter in the sentence, Doyle was able to repeal the entire statute that granted legislative oversight.

As a result, Doyle is now proposing drastically increasing a program that plunges the state into more debt, has a shoddy history of accountability, and over which he has unilateral control. Makes perfect sense, right?

Maybe it does to the millions of Wisconsin squirrels who will now be able to move out of their parents’ basements. Of course, they’ll all move back when they realize how nasty squirrel neighborhood associations can get.

Not-So Compelling Tax Increases

February 25, 2007 / Christian / 0 Comments

“We can’t make you do anything, but we can make you wish you had.”

– Corporal Walter Gordon in the book “Band of Brothers” describing the Army’s motivational philosophy

Disgruntled taxpayers are often reminded that taxes are necessary to fund basic services; schools need to teach kids, local governments need police officers and the elderly need prescription drugs. As if that wasn’t justification enough for paying taxes, Governor Jim Doyle has a brand new one for you – you need to pay higher taxes to keep yourself from doing bad stuff.

Doyle’s biennial budget bill is chock full of tax increases whose explicitly stated purpose is to keep you from doing things your governor deems unseemly. Doyle proposes raising the cigarette tax by $1.25 per pack, citing a study from the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids that says a tax increase of $1 per pack would result in 42,000 Wisconsin adults quitting smoking. His budget raises the fee on filing taxes by paper because he wants more people to file electronically. Doyle proposes raising the fee on dumping trash to keep out of state businesses from dumping in Wisconsin (His budget also raises the fee on obtaining a copy of a death certificate – so if you’re thinking about dying, you might want to get that out of the way soon).

So begins a new era in Wisconsin – the era of the “coercive behavior tax.” We are now seeing taxes with the stated purpose of motivating people into certain behaviors the government sees fit, rather than just funding necessary programs. The government can’t make you do certain things, so they just want to make you wish you had.

The idea of using taxes to compel citizens to do things isn’t new. For years, interest groups have pitched the idea of “sin taxes” on everything from pornography to fast food to illicit drugs (making my Friday nights way more expensive). Environmental groups haven’t made any secret of the fact that they prefer higher gas taxes, to keep people from driving more. There’s even a bill in the Wisconsin Legislature that would raise the tax on liquor and beer – the authors argue that the liquor tax in neighboring states is generally three times higher, which of course means that ugly guys are 66% less likely to get any lovin’ in Minnesota.

Yet while Doyle recognizes one basic tenet of economics – if you make something more expensive, people will do less of it – he completely ignores the flip side. That is, if you make something less expensive, individuals will do more of it. We could easily compel people to file their tax returns electronically by giving them a tax credit to do so – but the first thing Doyle thinks to do is to raise the fee. This exposes the whole idea of compelling certain behaviors through tax increases as nothing more than a common cash grab.

Somehow, it’s hard to believe Doyle is as interested in keeping smoking down as he is in the $400 million the tax is expected to raise for the state. According to the U.S. Department of Agriculture, cigarette use has declined an average of 2.3% per year since 1996, in part because “not dying” has suddenly become fashionable. It appears society is already taking care of the smoking problem – unfortunately, stagnant cigarette tax revenues haven’t taken care of Jim Doyle’s spending addiction.

What’s also interesting is that Doyle openly recognizes that increased fees dissuade people from doing things. Yet he only publicly acknowledges this effect for the fee increases that have been poll tested. For instance, his budget proposes increasing the fee on applying to the University of Wisconsin. Won’t that also have the effect of suppressing applications, just like the effect the cigarette tax increase has on smoking? Won’t doubling the real estate transfer fee make it more difficult to buy a home? (Although, admittedly, if the extra couple hundred bucks puts a home out of reach for you, it’s time to ask your night manager for a raise. I mean, you have a G.E.D. – it’s time to show it off!) Is the new hospital tax going to finally rid us of the scourge of people receiving medical treatment for their illnesses?

Government already has the ability to compel certain behavior by passing laws outlawing certain acts. For instance, it is illegal for you to shoot me in the face – unless, of course, you catch me in your house using your nose hair clipper (again). If we don’t want people to smoke, we should be honest about it and pass a law outlawing it, rather than taxing a legal product to death. However, if we do that, it kills the state’s revenue stream – which is what this is really all about.

If we do want to use tax policy to coerce Wisconsin citizens to do certain things, it should be in the form of lowering taxes. For instance, a groundbreaking bill last session lowered taxes for businesses that hired disabled workers. The legislature often exempts items from the sales tax that promote sales of Wisconsin products. Better yet, coolness would reach record highs in Wisconsin if we exempted white t-shirts and hair gel from sales taxes to get more people to dress like the Fonz.

Regardless of the justification for these tax increases, they always have unintended consequences beyond simply enhancing revenue for the state. For example, raising the cigarette tax means taxing poor people, who smoke at a predominantly higher rate. Additionally, retailers who sell cigarettes will raise prices on other goods to make up for the revenue they lose when fewer people buy smokes.

For the sake of argument, let’s say Doyle is successful in getting people to quit smoking. By raising the tax so much this one time, he’s built in hundreds of millions of dollars in spending. As people kick the habit, money flowing to the state will decline, meaning that tax revenue is going to have to come from somewhere. Building in all these costs based on a program with declining revenue is a recipe for a general tax increase elsewhere.

Let’s just hope these tax increases coerce the legislature to put out this flaming bag Doyle has left at their doorstep, for the good of Wisconsin taxpayers.

Christian Schneider

Author, Columnist