Christian – Page 12 – Christian Schneider

Author: Christian (page 12 of 81)

When College Students Start to Think

December 16, 2009 / Christian / 1 Comment

University of Wisconsin campuses have a well-deserved reputation for being safe havens for liberal thought. But at the UW-Fox Valley, something odd is happening – it appears a backlash is underway.

It all began in November, when Campus Dean Dr. James Perry suggested on his blog that the campus should have more “green” parking spaces. Apparently, the campus has set aside certain choice parking spots for students with Priuses (Prii?) or other “low emitting and fuel efficient” (LEFEV) vehicles. Dr. Perry suggested expanding the number of “green” spaces, to encourage more students to buy these cars, saying:

The Fox plan includes creating a sustainable a community [sic] to the best of our ability. I would hope that the number of spaces that have the ”green vehicle restriction” would actually increase, because these the vast majority of scientists support the need to reduce our global carbon emissions, not to mention reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.

Soon after this post went up, students caught wind of the plan to expand the green parking space program. (You know, students – the ones who actually have to drive to campus and fight for a parking spot.) Dozens of them started posting comments, just destroying Dr. Perry’s rationale for more handicapped-style “green” spots. Many of them pointed out the pure folly of trying to ascribe environmental sainthood to people merely because they drive a Prius. Here are some samples:

Also, just because my hypothetical Civic GX with its ridiculous gas mileage has a higher green score, that justifies me parking closer? Am I better because of it? Hey, if I have Solar Panels on the roof of my house does that mean I get to cut in line the cafeteria? If I use only biodegradable cups, does that mean I get to register for classes before everyone else? The comment you left at the end “Not everyone at Fox has a LEFEV. Those people just need to walk a bit further.” is essentially a statement saying “Suck it up and deal with the fact that those other people are better then you.” Perhaps I should sit at the back of the bus to campus if I don’t own a Green vehicle either.

***

Ignorant can mean both. The tone of your blog implied both.

While there isn’t no Prius available for $50,000, some (myself included) live at or below poverty levels and aren’t quite in the position to cough up enough money for a new or newish car. I don’t have $22,000+ or the means to fund a new car.

I’m sure that even students that are a bit financially better off than myself aren’t quite able to buy a fuel efficient vehicle.

Thanks, though, for the snide aside. Thought you’d be more in touch with the average salary in our current political climate.

***

It defeats the purpose to provide green parking when you are in turn forcing cars who have higher emissions to drive around a lot longer searching for a parking space.

If you are looking for a way to reward those who are green, find a fair way to reward not just those who are wealthy.

***

It should also be noted that the green spots are rarely full. Why should more be added? To further aggravate those who can’t park in those stalls, and never will be able to because of the inability to afford such a vehicle? Parking gets crowded at UWFox, and there is little need for these spots already. I don’t view these spots as beneficial as is, and would be quite frustrated to see even more go up.

I challenge you, Dean Perry, to do 1 thing: Count the number of green-vehicles, and count the number of non-green vehicles. The ratio doesn’t need to be counted to be known: very few to very many. Ask yourself: are more of these green spots truly necessary? The answer, I would hope, is evident.

***

“I would hope that the number of spaces that have the ”green vehicle restriction” would actually increase, because these the vast majority of scientists support the need to reduce our global carbon emissions, not to mention reduce our dependence on fossil fuels.”

Fair enough, but when people choose to live 20+ miles from where they work, it seems a little silly to reward them with a special “green” parking perk just because they can afford a newer more fuel efficient vehicle. I can probably drive a tank from where I live and leave a smaller carbon footprint than someone driving a Prius from Larsen or Winneconne.

***

How do we measure each person’s green footprint? Maybe that’s a task that we can request the campus to work on. Maybe we will only issue GREEN parking stickers to those who have the highest green footprints?

The lesson, as always, is that environmentalism is wonderful when discussed in the abstract. It’s great for picking up girls in bars. But it means an entirely different thing when it means having to walk your butt an extra half mile in the freezing Wisconsin cold.

I Will Gladly Pay You Tuesday For an Expensive Government Program Today

December 16, 2009 / Christian / 1 Comment

Say what you will about the Wisconsin State Legislature: they stick with what works. And in the case of the looming state Medicaid deficit, they’re going right back to the same playbook that allows them to slink silently away from their problems without making any real decisions – while leaving us with larger deficits in the future.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, the state is facing a $1 billion hole in its Medicaid program. For the purposes of scale: A billion dollars is a lot of money. The $1 billion shortfall makes up about 17% of the total amount the state spends on Medicaid in a year (although $1 billion is slightly less than the amount Tiger Woods is going to have to spend on a diamond ring for his wife to keep her around.)

Certainly, the state is taking this matter very seriously. Undoubtedly, our Legislature is combing through the state budget to find efficiencies, or cost-saving measures, or other state programs than can be cut in order to fund this program.

I’m sorry, I can’t keep a straight face anymore. In fact, what they’re actually doing is taking almost $200 million in payments and just pushing them off until the next biennium, so they’re off the books in this fiscal year. Then, POOF! The money just disappears! – Until next year, when they have to figure out how to fill that $200 million hole.

This is a textbook example of how the state has been running up huge structural deficits over the past decade. The Governor and Legislature decide they want a certain level of government, but have no way to pay for it. So they just keep pushing spending off into the future, until we end up with a $6 billion deficit when tax revenues slow down. Naturally, they wash their hands of any responsibility – blaming the deficits on the bad economy. (I wrote a 40 page paper demonstrating how it actually is their fault, and I think it’ll come in handy for you, especially if you’re an insomniac.)

Perhaps most entertaining is the quote from Governor Doyle’s Medicaid Guy, Jason Helgerson, on why the state is seeing deficits:

Jason Helgerson, who oversees BadgerCare Plus and other Medicaid programs, said the potential shortfall could be offset if the federal government extends the increased payments that states are receiving for their Medicaid programs under the federal recovery act.

“Every state in the nation is facing this,” Helgerson said.

Translation: “PLEASE, BARACK! WE NEED MONEY! PLEEEEAAAASE!!!!! PLEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAASE!”

Furthermore – it’s extremely doubtful that other states are facing the problems that Wisconsin now has to solve. After all, we’re the state that increased spending 6% at a time when we faced a $6 billion deficit. And we’re the state that has no rainy day fund to use when times gets tough. And we’re the state that allows drunk Santas to drive around, terrifying kids (which isn’t really relevant, but entertaining nonetheless.)

So here’s a test – call your bank and tell them you’re a little short on cash this month, so you won’t be making any mortgage payments until July. Congratulations – you just balanced your books, Legislature-style! Then call me from jail and tell me how the experiment went.

Can the GOP Win a Statewide Election in Wisconsin?

December 4, 2009 / Christian / 8 Comments

In this week’s Isthmus, my friend and colleague Marc Eisen explores a very topical point: whether a Republican gubernatorial candidate can win in Wisconsin. After all, it has been since 1984 that Wisconsin has voted for a Republican presidential candidate, and since 1998 that it elected a GOP governor.

In his conclusion, Eisen posits that it may be ultra-liberal Dane County that decides the election. He says:

All this boils down to a curious brew in Wisconsin. Republican candidates who pull too hard to the right just can’t win a statewide election. They’re buried by the huge Democratic margin in Dane County…

Dane County’s hyper-Democratic turnout could be a dream killer for conservatives in 2010. What could counter it is a pervasive sense of economic insecurity next fall. Worried voters will look for candidates who they feel can turn things around. That alone could make conservatives triumphant.

But is that true? Do statewide democratic candidates rack up insurmountable vote totals in the City of Madison and Dane County?

When explaining statewide Wisconsin elections to people, I’ve always simplified things by arguing that liberal Dane County and Conservative Waukesha County cancel each other out. Then, it becomes an electoral battle between the City of Milwaukee and the State of Wisconsin. But am I right?

Let’s take a look at Dane vs. Waukesha Counties in the 2006 gubernatorial election, between Jim Doyle and Mark Green:

	Doyle	Green	Difference	GOP %
Dane	149,661	58,302	91,359	28.0%
Waukesha	61,402	112,243	-50,841	64.6%
			40,518

		Total votes	2,161,700
		% of total	1.9%

As can be seen above, Doyle out-polled Green by 40,518 votes in the two counties. (Doyle won Dane County by 91,359, and Green won Waukesha by 50,841.) That margin accounts for 1.9% of the total statewide vote. Doyle eventually won statewide head-to-head with Green with 53.7% of the vote.

Yet there’s an important point to be made here: 2006 was a heavily democratic year. With the War in Iraq still on the minds of voters in the state, Doyle beat Green handily, Republicans in the Wisconsin Senate lost 4 seats (and their majority), and the State Assembly, in which the GOP had once held a double-digit lead in seats, came within a hair of switching to the Democrats. (It eventually did in 2008.)

If the polling that we’re seeing now is correct, 2010 looks to be more ideologically balanced than the last two elections. Perhaps Republicans may even have an edge, with the economy still in bad shape and voters turning against sweeping health care reform.

So let’s look at a more balanced election, and how the two counties match up in non-Democratic avalanche years. Take the last Attorney General election, in which Republican J.B. Van Hollen narrowly edged Kathleen Falk:

	Falk	Van Hollen		GOP %
Dane	138,507	72,348	66,159	34.3%
Waukesha	55,609	118,343	-62,734	68.0%
			3,425

		Total Votes	2,124,467
		% of total	0.2%

In this more balanced matchup, it is clear that the two counties essentially did cancel each other out. Between them, Falk ended up with a net gain of a scant 3,425 votes – or less than .2% of the statewide vote.

So if we do see a more ideologically balanced election, this seems to be more representative of what we’d be looking at. Dane and Waukesha Counties duel to a draw, and Milwaukee and Wisconsin face off to pick the victor.

In the 2010 gubernatorial election, this is made even more interesting by the fact that the two most likely candidates are both local government officeholders in Milwaukee (Scott Walker and Tom Barrett.) So, depending on how they split the vote in their home territory (and Walker should do much better than GOP candidates of years past, seeing as how he’s won 3 countywide elections there as a conservative), it will most likely come down to that last fish fry in Osceola.

(And yes, I am aware that Mark Neumann is still in the GOP field for governor, but there’s a better chance of Liberace showing up and playing at my next birthday party than there is of Neumann winning the GOP nomination.)

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

December 2, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

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:)

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.)

The Gay Marriage “Smoking Gun”

November 30, 2009 / Christian / 9 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

November 29, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

But not so fast.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Public Financing of Campaigns: Anatomy of a Failed Idea

November 19, 2009 / Christian / 2 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

There’s more:

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

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

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

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

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

A Stimulating Announcement

November 18, 2009 / Christian / 3 Comments

Dear Wisconsin Citizens:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Si se puede!,

Christian Schneider

Candidate, Wisconsin’s 10th Congressional District

*-Since yesterday.

Pickup Lines Go Green

November 17, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPS Versus FedEx: The Whiteboard Remix

November 10, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

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

November 9, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

page_template_clip_image002

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

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

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

page_template_clip_image003

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-November 9, 2009

Skhizein

November 7, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

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

Courting Politics

October 28, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

The Wisconsin Supreme Court is disgusted with how political the institution has become. In fact, they are so repulsed by the political tone the Court has taken, they are trying to fix it by using the most powerful tool they have:

POLITICS.

Generally, we think of “politics” as the act of trying to get someone elected. But three liberals on the Wisconsin Supreme Court are doing the opposite – essentially trying to get one of their colleagues un-elected. Their shady effort to force Justice Mike Gableman to recuse himself from criminal cases is merely a veiled attempt by his ideological opponents on the Court to nullify the election in which the conservative Gableman beat liberal Justice Louis Butler in 2008.

It’s not as if liberals exactly take any hints from the voters, anyway. In 2000, Butler lost to conservative Diane Sykes in a race for the Supreme Court. Shortly thereafter, when a seat opened up, Democratic Governor Jim Doyle appointed Butler to the Court, ignoring the previous popular vote. When the voters threw Butler off the Court in 2008 in favor of Gableman, the Obama administration appointed Butler to a federal judgeship. (Maybe if Butler loses one more time, he’ll be ready for a U.S. Supreme Court nomination.)

Clearly, elections are of minimal importance to liberal jurists. And we’re seeing that phenomenon in action with the Court’s actions to essentially overturn Gableman’s victory over Butler.

During the Butler/Gableman campaign, Gableman ran an ill-advised ad that accused Butler of being soft on crime. The ad dealt with Butler’s time as child molester Reuben Lee Mitchell’s defense attorney, accusing Butler of freeing his client so he could then go on to molest another child. In fact, Mitchell served out his entire term and only molested another child after his initial term was over.

The discretion in airing the ad was questionable – especially since the candidate himself ran it. (We normally associate those types of ads with third parties, which will be discussed shortly.) But Gableman didn’t show any bias against criminal defendants, and he didn’t break the cardinal rule of judicial elections by commenting on any future issues that may come before the Court. He was merely doing what Supreme Court candidates do these days, by painting himself as a jurist who upholds the criminal laws as written. (It should also be noted that Butler himself ran ads bragging that he’s “protected the public from criminals” and saying “if you rob someone, you should be punished.”* Chances of recusal motions being filed from criminal defendants if Butler had won: zero point zero.)

In fact, just a year later, Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson ran her own campaign, having clearly learned the lessons of modern judicial campaigns. Abrahamson’s television ads featured Dane County Sheriff Dave Mahoney driving around in his squad car, informing the viewer of Abrahamson’s work “protecting Wisconsin families.” While much more vague than Gableman’s appeal, it was clearly meant to send a similar message: Shirley’s on the side of law enforcement. (See the ad here.)

However, nobody seems to care what legally intemperate statements Abrahamson made during her campaign – including her claim that she’s “helping homeowners work out solutions to home foreclosure” and “protecting consumers from abuse.” One would imagine any bank or business interest appearing before the Court might object to Abrahamson’s depiction of their industry as predatory. (Furthermore, even ex-gubernatorial candidate Barb Lawton – BARB LAWTON! – has pointed out that a quarter of Abrahamson’s donors will come before the court in some fashion. If you’re a lefty and Barb Lawton calls you out, you have done something historically objectionable.**)

Yet it’s the Gableman campaign’s TV ads that are now keeping defense attorneys up late at night, filing motions for him to recuse himself in criminal cases. Such was the case last week when Assistant State Public Defender Ellen Henak filed a motion attempting to force Gableman from participating in a case dealing with how sentencing credits are counted in Wisconsin versus other states. While standing in front of the Court, Henak nailed herself to a cross of fabrication, arguing that the Court was “forcing” her to move ahead with oral arguments against her will.

While the substance of the case is fairly run-of-the-mill procedural stuff, the Court’s public reaction to it has been unprecedented. The tumult began the week prior to oral arguments, when three of the Court’s liberal justices issued a public statement urging postponement of the case until Gableman’s situation was rectified. This is the first time many long-time Court observers can remember justices serving as their own press secretaries and discussing a case openly before it even hits their chamber. Three conservative justices then responded via the media themselves, saying Gableman’s case before a three-member panel has been taking too long.

Of course, Gableman took part in the oral arguments for the case last week. He simply has no choice – if he recuses himself from a criminal case just once, then defense attorneys across the state will smell blood in the water and grab hold of that loophole as long as he’s on the court. The legal toothpaste will then be out of the tube. In fact, it is rumored that some notable defense attorneys are already urging criminals to automatically file recusal requests as soon as their case gets to the Supreme Court, simply to tighten Gableman’s briefs (so to speak).

In the mean time, all the usual suspects arguing for public funding of Court elections have been coming out of the woodwork, saying that all this unrest is somehow the result of too much money in Supreme Court elections. In fact, this argument has exactly nothing to do with the Court’s current conundrum. Gableman’s ad was run by the candidate himself, not the “shady” third parties that taxpayer financed elections are supposed to thwart. If Gableman had been handed a $200,000 check by the taxpayers of Wisconsin, he likely would have run the same ad. Abrahamson would probably have used the money to continue to paint herself as tough on crime. Using the Gableman brouhaha to argue for public financing is like a doctor removing your pancreas if you’re complaining of an ear ache.

So it is clear that politics has taken hold of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. But it has nothing to do with elections. Instead, it has to do with the desire of three of the Court’s justices to nullify the results of a popular election when it comes to criminal matters before the court. And there’s no amount of campaign finance reform that can undo the desire of individual justices to politicize the institution by trumping up phony ethics charges.

***

*-Butler’s harsh “anti-robbing people” stance clearly lost him the much-sought-after “Flamboyant French Safe Cracker” demographic.

**-Lawton also claims that special interests spent less on the Abrahamson/Koschnick race than the Butler/Gableman race because of the “diminishing of the stature of the court.” This is Olympic-level goofballery. Special interests spent less because Abrahamson has been on the Court for 30 years, and her race with Koschnick was never close.

In other news, WPRI has obtained a behind-the-scenes video of the justices settling their battle behind closed doors:

Charitable Hypocrisy

October 27, 2009 / Christian / 3 Comments

I like charity. You like charity. Liberals like charity because it helps assuage their heavy consciences. Conservatives like charity because it shows people will contribute to the betterment of society without being forced to do so by government.

It makes sense, then, that the tax code reflects this inter-political-species hand holding. Many non-profit organizations are tax-exempt, in an effort to provide incentive for people to donate. (In fact, I can think of one such tax-exempt nonprofit… ahem… that provides, a safe, cozy, and warm home for your hard earned dollar.)

In the Wisconsin State Legislature, the powers that be go all out in getting people to donate to a select few of these nonprofits. Each year, they conduct the “Partners in Giving” campaign, with each employee receiving a book containing a list of charities seeking donations. According to the guide book, the Secretary of the Department of Administration (a.k.a., the governor’s right hand man) “gives final authorization to all participating umbrellas and charities.”

When looking through the eligible charities, one cannot help but notice that the book contains a laundry list of liberal causes – many of which who turn right around and lobby the State Legislature to pass their pet bills, and some of which actually spend money during campaigns to support and oppose candidates. For instance, state employees can give to:

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin
1000 Friends of Wisconsin
ACLU of Wisconsin
Citizen Action of Wisconsin
Coalition of Wisconsin Aging Groups
Fair Wisconsin
League of Women Voters
The Progressive Magazine
Sierra Club, John Muir Chapter
Wisconsin Democracy Campaign
PETA
NARAL Pro-Choice America

All of these groups are liberal, most of them advocate for specific legislation, and many of them try to alter the outcomes of elections. (Many of them, such as the Wisconsin Democracy campaign, have both 501(c)3 and 501(c)4 status – if you’re a (c)3, you are not permitted to advocate for candidates or elections. If you’re a (c)4, you are permitted to speak out on legislation, but contributions to you are not tax deductible. If you’re BOTH, then it muddies the picture quite a bit.)

(See the complete list of charities here – the only one I saw that could reasonably be considered “conservative” would be Right to Life.)

Of course, the fact that these organizations are seeking donors isn’t at all controversial. People can give as much money as they want to whatever ideological group they want. But consider the fact that each of these groups goes out of their way to advocate for higher taxes on the Wisconsin public, yet they each seem more than happy to benefit from the tax breaks they get by having nonprofit status. They think high taxes are a wonderful thing – until it’s time to bankroll their own organizations.

Take, for example, the buffoonery that occurs at the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign, a lefty front group that criticizes 3rd party organizations that advocate for legislation, while their Executive Director, Mike McCabe, travels the state advocating for a $15.2 billion tax increase to fund a single payer health plan. McCabe is more than willing to deprive the government funds in order to bait people into giving him money, but thinks we should all pay MORE in taxes to fund his prized legislative agenda.

In fact, the best thing these liberal groups can do to help their own cause is to forgo their own tax exemptions. Take, for, example, the League of Women Voters, who are spending all their time advocating for an expensive “public option” for health care on the federal level. Here’s a portion of their official position on “tax structure:”

The League: supports income as the major tax base for federal revenues; believes that the federal income tax should be broad-based with minimal tax preferences and a progressive rate structure;

See there? They’re against tax preferences… unless those preferences benefit their ability to lobby for a deficit-busting health care bill.

For the record (in case you’re at home scribbling all of this into a note pad), my position isn’t that these groups shouldn’t be given tax exempt status. (Although the interplay between (c)3 and (c)4 status should be examined more closely, as it’s clear some groups take advantage of this distinction.) Taxes should be lower for everyone, nonprofits included.

However, it says a lot about these groups that they essentially admit the benefit to their organizations by making money tax free; then they turn around and advocate higher taxes for other businesses seeking the same relief.

Finally, it should be noted that 95% of the charities on the state’s list seem to be worthwhile – so feel free to make a contribution here.

Guest Spot: Will’s Band of the Week

October 20, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

I lent my amateur music criticism skills to my friend Will’s “Band of the Week” podcast this week. We talk about concerts, CD collections, and the band “Girls” that I would recommend everyone check out.

You can listen here:

[audio:http://media.libsyn.com/media/willsband/Girls.mp3]