Christian – Page 13 – Christian Schneider

Author: Christian (page 13 of 81)

A Term Limits Retort

October 20, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

Last week, my report recommending term limits for Wisconsin legislators was released. Reaction both for and against term limits has been rolling in, and it cuts across ideological lines. Conservative blogger Owen Robinson opposes them. Conservative radio talk show host Charlie Sykes supports them.

Liberal Ed Garvey’s position is, as usual, incomprehensible. He claims I have a “hidden agenda” to have “well financed opponents” take over the Legislature. But when he ran a failed campaign for governor against Tommy Thompson in 1998, Garvey said:

Thompson has amassed so much influence during his record span in the governor’s post that it’s time to enact term limits, Garvey said.

”He’s been in there so long that every agency of government has been dominated by his intellectual playmates,” Garvey said. ”And not only that, he’s built up the kind of campaign war chest that makes it impossible for him to be challenged.”

This is pretty much par for the course with Garvey. The next time he orders a pizza and it doesn’t have enough pepperoni on it, he’ll probably angrily blog about how it’s WPRI’s fault.

Perhaps the most interesting voice in opposition is that of the Capital Times’ John Nichols, who surprisingly gives me credit for “diagnosing” the Legislature’s problems correctly, but labels term limits a “lame” remedy. His editorial is even-handed (which is nice, since I have occasionally – and for good reason – been harshly critical of him), but still contains some questionable assertions.

For instance, Nichols says my “proposal would mirror the failed schemes enacted in other states, such as California, where legislatures have been rendered almost dysfunctional.” This is one of the reasons the effects of term limits are so difficult to measure – because states’ laws and situations are so disparate – and why I specifically cite California in my report.

First of all California is a Banana Republic not because of term limits – its main problem is the statewide referendum process, in which citizens directly enact laws, many of which directly contradict one another. No such process exists in Wisconsin. Furthermore, in order to pass a budget in California, the Legislature needs a 2/3rds vote – which leads to some disastrous remedies for their fiscal problems. Most notably, their state debt is off the charts, as Democrats try to buy Republican votes. None of these, of course, have to do with term limits.

Nichols goes on:

Wisconsinites have historically said “no thanks” to term limits because we are too smart to be suckered by political gimmicks – and because we have a taste for democracy.

Not exactly. “Wisconsinites” haven’t said “no thanks” to term limits – Wisconsin legislators have shunned them, for obvious reasons – they like the job security. Polls consistently show public support for term limits – two years ago, 72% of Wisconsin residents said they support them. In fact, in 20 of the 21 states that have enacted term limits, they have been imposed via citizen initiative – not by the Legislature. So “Wisconsinites” support them – it’s only the legislators who do not.

Nichols makes a pitch for public funding of campaigns, commonly referred to as campaign finance “reform.” He adds that “(t)hese changes would also reduce the ability of special-interest groups to influence the process in a manner that is far more destructive than aging and unproductive legislators.”

Actually, term limits could drastically reduce the influence of special interests over legislators. When elected officials sit in office for decades, they have plenty of time to cozy up to special interests, becoming inextricably linked to their agendas. Term limits breaks that never-ending link. And while it doesn’t guarantee any elected official won’t be corrupt (no law ever will), it means special interests will have to work a lot harder to maintain their foothold within the Wisconsin Legislature.

Finally, Nichols makes a point good enough to reproduce in its entirety here:

And here’s one more reform proposal: If you want legislators to write more bills, clean up the budget process. In recent years, the budget has become a catch-all that is jammed with policy initiatives. When the budget drafting process is the be-all and end-all of the legislative session, a handful of lawmakers on the Joint Finance Committee become the definitional players, while everyone else sits on the sidelines. And debates are scrapped in favor of back-room bargaining.

There is one final criticism of the report that I have been hearing primarily from conservatives. In the report, I point out that the typical legislator is getting older, staying in office longer, and working less. As evidence of their lack of work, I point out that legislators are introducing fewer bills than ever. To which many conservatives say, “GOOD!”

While I am sympathetic with the idea that fewer bills means fewer bad laws, there are couple points to make here. First of all, there are a lot of bad laws on the books that should be repealed. And it takes a bill to repeal a bad law.

For instance, a couple of years ago, lawmakers realized that church potlucks might be illegal under state law. It took a bill to allow granny to bring her peach cobbler to help raise money for the church. More seriously, we recently found out via a Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigative report that up to 12,000 DNA samples may never have been collected from felons, thereby posing a significant safety risk. Now legislators are proposing a more rigid DNA collection process. It takes a bill to do that. Not all bills are bad.

Furthermore, there are at least a dozen ways listed in the report that show how the Legislature has changed – the lack of bills introduced is merely one. When put together, all the evidence paints a picture of a typical legislator as being older, less active, and much less likely to lose. The issue of bills introduced is but one aspect of a broad report.

Plane Old Jokes

October 5, 2009 / Christian / 1 Comment

I spent last weekend in Washington, D.C. at the Defending the American Dream Summit put on every year by the national chapter of Americans for Prosperity. Which means I was on planes a lot. Fortunately for me, I was able to catch a direct flight back to Madison from Reagan National Airport – a flight which I didn’t even know existed. But there were glitches.

It was one of these shuttle planes, which are smaller than the big 747s, or whatever. It turns out that I had the aisle seat in the front row of the plane. As one old woman walked through the door to get on the plane, she turned to the flight attendant and said, loudly, “THIS LITTLE PLANE IS GOING ALL THE WAY TO MADISON?”

Later in the flight, I joked with Courtney, the flight attendant, about that lady getting on the plane – as if this old woman expected the plane to have a lawn mower engine in it or something. Courtney said “yeah, I should totally have said ‘I’m always SO surprised when we make it there!'”

(Side note: The first seat on the plane is really awkward, since the flight attendant is sitting two feet in front of you, facing you. You really have to go out of your way to not look at her. So I decided to chat with her a little. And that’s my excuse.)

When everyone was on board, my girl Courtney came over and asked me if I would do her a favor. I said “sure,” without knowing what this “favor” would be. She said she needed me to go sit in the back of the plane TO BALANCE THE PLANE OUT. This was not reassuring. How could my body weight balance out a plane with 50 people on it?

I said I’d do it, so I stood up and said “are you calling me fat?” Laughs were had by the people at the front of the plane at my joke. Then, I realized this was a captive audience. They couldn’t go anywhere. I should totally start hijacking planes just to get people to listen to my bad jokes. I’d be arrested for bombing on a plane without actually having any explosives on me.

For my cooperation, Courtney actually gave me an extra bag of peanuts. This was meaningful to me, for an episode that occurred on the way to D.C.

On my flight from Cincinnati to D.C., I sat behind Mike Huckabee. (I tweeted that I hoped Huckabee being on the plane didn\’t mean that God was our co-pilot. I much prefer a licensed human being steering the plane.) When it came time to get our peanuts, the flight attendant gave Huckabee THREE BAGS of peanuts. I only got one. I was outraged.

So, apparently, all you have to do to get the star treatment on a Delta flight is to run for President. I might begin my candidacy for 2012 right now if it means I can get the whole can of Coke instead of those little 3 ounce cups they give you. So I know Huckabee gives of this “regular guy” vibe, but h\’s clearly soaking in all the accoutrements of stardom, including bonus snacks.

(SIDE NOTE: While waiting for my flight back out to Madison, I saw Rahm Emanuel de-plane, flanked by a parade of secret service guys. Which made me think that if I’m ever important, I would much rather choose to be accompanied by Victoria’s Secret Service.

If It’s Broken, Let’s Break it More

October 5, 2009 / Christian / 3 Comments

Last week, I wrote a commentary detailing how, rather than keeping health care costs down, government programs usually grow much more rapidly than expected. As an example, I used the BadgerCare program, which, after implementation in 1997, grew much faster than anyone anticipated. Within several years, the Legislature had to start scaling back benefits in order to keep the program going after membership in the program doubled in the span of 6 years.

Today, we get news that Governor Doyle’s new “BadgerCare Plus” program is suddenly short on cash. As a result, new registrants to the program will be suspended, leading to waiting lists of up to 20,000 people, by Doyle’s own estimate.

Ironically, this rationing of government health care leads Doyle to the head-scratching conclusion that somehow what we need is MORE government health care:

The heavy demand for the program over the last 3½ months highlights the need for national health care reform, Doyle said.

“I believe we must make sure that people have health insurance,” Doyle said. “We have done everything we can in Wisconsin. We have stretched all boundaries and still there are people falling through the cracks.”

So on the SAME DAY he announces his own health care rationing, Doyle calls for even more of the same, only at the federal level. As if this new federal program would contradict the evidence that his own state program has provided us – that such a program would do nothing to keep costs down, and only serve to drain citizens of their tax dollars. This is like arguing that the problem with the corrupt Wisconsin Shares program is that it isn’t adequately funded.

Wisconsin’s Own “Public Option”

September 28, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

cross It’s a given that both sides of the health care debate feel that they have the high road when it comes to compassion. But the goal shouldn’t be to confuse mere action with progress. Lawmakers would be best to heed Robert Frost’s admonition that it is more important to “do good well.”

At the center of the debate is the idea of a “public option:” a government-run health program that liberals say would merely compete with private plans for customers.

Conservatives counter that historically, when a generous government plan is instituted, private businesses tend to scale back or even drop their health plans, so their employees can save them money by going on the public plan. As a result, taxpayer funded health programs grow much faster than originally anticipated, quickly driving governments into the red.

History is replete with examples of how government health care programs have escalated quickly, devouring public funds as fast as taxpayers can write their checks. As pointed out by Michael Tanner of the CATO Institute:

In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that Medicare would cost $12 billion in 1990. In reality, the program cost over $110 billion that year. In 1987, Congress estimated that the Medicaid Special Hospitals Subsidy would reach $100 million in 1992. The actual cost exceeded $11 billion.

Wisconsin, where 45% of individuals who have health care receive it through some sort of government source, has its own example of a health care program run wild. Wisconsin’s BadgerCare program, enacted in 1997, should serve as a warning to those who believe costs can easily be contained within a tidy public program.

Since its inception, BadgerCare has proven to be a difficult program for which to accurately estimate costs and has now grown into a much more costly program than originally envisioned. Enacted in 1997, BadgerCare was intended to provide health insurance for individuals below 185% of the federal poverty level (FPL), but above the 133% cutoff for MA eligibility. The thinking was that people in the gap between 133% and 185% would pay a premium for health care, while those under the 133% level would continue to receive cost-free benefits. Once in the program, people could stay in the program until their income reached above 200% of the FPL.

At the time the Legislature began considering the new program, their Fiscal Bureau was warning them of the possibility that employers may respond to such a generous new program by dropping coverage for their employees. A September, 1997 Fiscal Bureau memo seems prescient in retrospect:

“It should be noted that without sufficient regulation, over time, the cost of expanding MA coverage under Badgercare could increase if under BadgerCare, employers with significant numbers of low-wage employes choose to no longer offer employer-subsidized health benefits or to lower employer subsidization to a level below 80%.”

The first drafts of BadgerCare legislation had enrollees paying 7% of their income in premiums to participate in the program. Charging premiums for this group was thought to “encourage personal responsibility and move individuals from government support toward self sufficiency.”

In the final bill, the Legislature reduced the premium to 3% of an eligible family’s income. Additionally, families with incomes up to 143% of the FPL were eligible for free care; up from the initial 133%. The program was funded through a mixture of general purpose revenue, expected premiums paid by enrollees, and federal matching funds. The LFB estimated that at the 3% premium level, the program would serve 19,600 children and 22,800 adults, for a total of 42,400 enrollees.

When the program went into effect in 2000, the results were somewhat of a surprise, given the expectation that cost sharing made people “self sufficient” and low premiums saved money in the long-term. In the first quarter of enrollment, the program welcomed 23,151 new enrollees (6,298 children and 16,853 adults). By the end of 2003, that number had grown to 114,237 enrollees (37,839 children and 76,383 adults).

The cost of BadgerCare increased commensurately. In Fiscal Year 2001, the first full year of the program’s operation, the Legislature spent $129 million in all-funds revenue on BadgerCare. By Fiscal Year 2004, merely three years later, that number had nearly doubled to $205.6 million.

The introduction of a new, high cost program like BadgerCare couldn’t have come at a more stressful time for the Governor and the Legislature. In 2003 they were dealing with the aftereffects of the 2001 recession and, as was the case in nearly every state, tax revenue plummeted leaving the state budget with a $3.2 billion budget shortfall. Every program, including BadgerCare was put under the microscope in search of savings.

In response to both the fiscal challenges and policy concerns, the Legislature began to make changes that trimmed the BadgerCare program. In the 2003-05 budget, new requirements were added that:

Increased premiums for enrollees over 150% FPL from 3% to 5% of family income;
Required each member of a family who is employed to verify his or her earnings;
Required enrollees to provide documentation as to whether their employer provides family health coverage; and
Required participants to provide documentation as to how much their employer pays towards their health care premiums.

It was clear to the Legislature that BadgerCare costs were unsustainable given the fiscal condition of the state. The action taken by the Legislature worked. Enrollment in BadgerCare began to fall in 2004. The program had reached a high water mark of 114,237 enrollees in March 2004; by September 2006, that number had dropped to 94,034. Accordingly, the cost of the program also fell. As noted, in Fiscal Year 2004, $205.6 million was appropriated for BadgerCare. The next year, appropriations for the program fell to $188.6 million, before climbing to $194.4 million in fiscal year 2006 – likely due to the rapidly rising cost of health care.

Proponents of an extensive new federal program argue that government health care doesn’t necessarily mean “rationing” care. Yet within six years of enacting the BadgerCare program, Wisconsin had to do exactly that. The arguments that somehow health care would cost less if people got more care clearly didn’t ring true in Wisconsin, which has one of the highest rate of insured citizens in the nation. Instead, health cost ballooned quickly until they were reined in. In fact, BadgerCare was so unsuccessful at making health care more affordable, legislative Democrats have been pushing a statewide single-payer program for several years.

It is often said that states are the “laboratories of democracy.” Here in Wisconsin, we’ve gotten out our lab coats and Bunsen burners and tried massive government health care programs, to no avail. The federal government would do well to heed the lessons we’ve learned here.

The Legislature’s Disorder of Succession

September 22, 2009 / Christian / 3 Comments

Having already solved all the state’s problems, the Wisconsin Legislature this week turns to the difficult chore of making up imaginary problems to fix.

The Wisconsin Senate is slated to take up a bill that would allow legislators to designate between three and seven “secret successors,” in the event all hell breaks loose and an “enemy attack” leaves the state with nine Senate vacancies or 25 open Assembly seats. One could argue that the most serious threat to the state is actually the Legislature itself, but it’s more fun to think about the state in total chaos. Come to think of it, would anyone really notice?

As long as we’re going to take a few hours on the floor coming up with possible scenarios, the Senate might as well amend the bill to capture all possibilities. What would be the protocol if the Capitol building suddenly became immersed in lime jello? What if jetpack-equipped alligators learned to type and seized control of state government via cyber-attack? What if Brett Favre throws four touchdowns against the Packers on October 5th? Half the state will have a heart attack, the rest will be set ablaze.

Fortunately, WisconsinEye was able to put together a training video on what to do in the event of the most likely threat to the State Capitol of all:

[flv:http://www.wpri.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/multimedia/videos/Godzilla.flv 480 360]

And how exactly does this secret “successor list” work? It’s supposed to be private, but does the person on the list even know they’re on it? They just get a call one day telling them they’ve been called up to duty to serve in the State Senate? More importantly, why does the list of successors go all the way up to seven? – what happens when Dawn Marie Sass runs out of family members?

I’m just laying down the marker here – I am entering my name into consideration for any elected official that wants to make me as one of their successors. Then I, along with the jetpack wearing alligators, will plot the destruction of state government, install myself as leader, then pass a law granting myself immunity from prosecution when everyone finds out my plot. It’s FOOLPROOF.

In all seriousness, nobody has confidence in the Legislature’s ability to solve the problems it can actually see. Does anyone believe they can fix the problems it can’t?

Redefining “The Public”

September 21, 2009 / Christian / 1 Comment

In July, having completed the Herculean task of driving the state deeper into deficit, Wisconsin lawmakers sought respite in their home districts for the summer. Now they have returned, to take up much weightier issues, most notably figuring out who gets the run the Department of Natural Resources.

Currently, the DNR secretary is picked by the Governor to oversee the state’s environmental policy. This wasn’t always the case, as the DNR Board of Supervisors used to pick the secretary (George Meyer was the last board-appointed leader, until Governor Tommy Thompson signed a law giving himself the authority to pick.)

Now, with Democrats in full control of all branches of state government, environmentalists are applying a full court press to have the law changed back to board-controlled appointment power. They believe that if the board picks the secretary, somehow they will be less “political” than if the governor picks. Because, as we all know, the Sierra Club (who would essentially then control the board) is above politics.

Today, several environmental groups (Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, Wisconsin Conservation Congress) issued a press release which proves the “public” supports granting the DNR board appointment authority. The list contains the names of 270 various conservation groups across the state who are supposedly on board with the law change (and as we know, the Legislature generally does whatever the Wisconsin Muzzleloaders Association asks.)

Of course, some would consider these groups attempting to influence state legislation to be “special interest groups.” But not campaign finance watchdog Mike McCabe of the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign – who has already come out in favor of the legislation. You see, the the WDC, “special interests” are merely “groups that push conservative legislation.” Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce is a special interest – the Sierra Club is “the public.”

McCabe has spent years railing against groups who conceal their campaign donors and attempt to influence state legislation. Yet here we have a list of 270 such groups attempting to gain control of the DNR secretary, and you’ll hear deafening silence from the so-called “good government” groups. (It has been pointed out time and again on this blog that McCabe’s group itself is a special interest that conceals its donors and attempts to push state legislation – such as a single payer health program.)

So I anxiously await the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign press release decrying this special interest influence, and calling on the Wisconsin Sharptailed Grouse Society to open their books for public scrutiny. Holding my breath.

It just goes to show that this bill has nothing to do with saving the air, water, and fish, and has everything to do with which humans get to order us around. There’s a long way between appointment authority and cleaner water.

Because No American Should Have to Choose Between Health Care and Getting Their Drink On

September 15, 2009 / Christian / 2 Comments

Can the Government Ban Books?

September 11, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

From the CATO Institute:

Be Ron Kind, Rewind

September 2, 2009 / Christian / 3 Comments

It appears the Rod Kindler for Governor campaign has begun.

A couple of weeks ago, after Governor Doyle announced he wouldn’t be seeking a third term, I wrote a column handicapping the potential Democratic candidates. (A column, incidentally, in which all my observations were verified by Democrat friends of mine – their only complaint was that I wasn’t hard enough on Lt. Gov Barb Lawton.) In the column, I joked that Congressman Ron Kind is going to go the extra mile to make Wisconsinites forget that he ever served in Congress – including changing the name on his Congressional website to “Rod Kindler.”

Yesterday, Kind began his Don-Draper-style image makeover by releasing a statement almost as comical – although it’s unlikely it was intended to elicit laughs. From Wispolitics:

U.S. Rep. Ron Kind said the fact he hasn’t been part of the political process in Madison could be a strength for his potential guv run.

[…]

“Having a fresh perspective, a fresh pair of eyes taking a look at some of these issues can be very, very helpful I think in many instances,” he said.

Unless that “fresh perspective” happens to be voting for blowing trillions of taxpayer dollars on bank bailouts, auto takeovers, bogus stimulus funds, new cap and trade taxes…and the list goes on. Kind will likely answer questions about his tenure in Congress in much the same way that Black Bush answers questions about Iraq – by knocking over some pitchers of water and running out of the room. (Video NSFW, incidentally.)

Regardless of one’s physical proximity to Madison, doesn’t it actually matter what they’ve done while they’ve been nowhere near the city? The further you are from Madison, the fresher perspective you have?

By this logic, Kind would be even more qualified to be governor had he spent the last decade in a shack in Montana wrestling grizzly bears. Fishing salmon out of fresh water streams with his teeth would certainly give him a unique perspective on the Wisconsin state budget. But is it what we need?

It’s a nice try to change the subject away from his voting record in Congress, but will likely yield bitter fruit. Kind goes on, saying:

Gov. Jim Doyle’s decision not to run gives candidates the chance to run a “look forward campaign, not a look back campaign. A campaign that’s truly about the future of Wisconsin.”

(This is in stark contrast to the race I will run for governor one day, in which I will promise “a stronger five years ago.”)

Oh really? A politician wants to run a race talking about “the future?” How novel. I imagine if Eliot Spitzer ever runs another political campaign, he’ll probably insist on a similar standard.

I still maintain that Kind is the Democrats’ best shot. And it’s not like he has any option other than to pretend that this mystical, wonderous place known as “Congress” doesn’t exist. (I always thought that if Representatives rode unicorns to the U.S. Capitol, it would be pretty cool. And more likely than the stimulus turning the economy around.)

Oh, and by the way, if you want to see an actual video of a guy wrestling a grizzly bear, here it is. My favorite line is when the announcer accuses the bear of applying an “illegal” choke hold on the Destroyer – like the bear’s supposed to know the rules. And the bear puts him in a “bear hug.” Is there any other kind? Fortunately, he gets a coke at the end for his trouble. Take that, PETA.

(This video precipitated a lengthy discussion between me and my friend Jack, who claims he could wrestle a bear if it was muzzled and de-clawed. I told him he wasn’t accounting for Victor the Bear’s “swiping power,” which might end up being the name of my fantasy football team.)

The Lobbying Class in Madison Just Got Bigger

September 1, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

Here in Wisconsin, we have dozens of laws regulating lobbyists. If you regularly lobby legislators, you have to register with the state as a lobbyist, report the bills and issues on which you lobby, how much time you spend on each, and how much money you spend lobbying legislators on individual issues. This all makes sense, as it helps the public’s right to know how much influence certain groups have on specific legislation that makes it through the process.

(All the lobbying data can be found here.)

Of course, if you’re a regular citizen, you have a constitutional right to petition your government for the redress of grievances. Any individual constituent can call their legislator at any time and tell them what they think about certain topics, without having to register with the state or jump through bureaucratic hoops.

It appears, however, that one municipality has just figured out a way to circumvent the state lobbying law by signing up their entire city workforce as their team of lobbyists – none of which will be subject to the reporting requirements.

A few weeks ago, I wrote about the tension between the state and local governments when it comes to funding. My solution was to give locals more power to raise revenue and set their own budgets, while reducing the state program that sends nearly $1 billion back to local governments per year (called “shared revenue.”) The shared revenue program has been a constant fight between the state and locals, especially as the level of aid has essentially been frozen for 12 years.

Rather than do what some municipalities do, which is to hire a lobbyist to plead for more money from Madison (you get the irony here – local governments spend taxpayer money on a lobbyist to go to the State Legislature to beg for more taxpayer money), the City of West Allis has gone one step further – they are proposing hiring their entire city workforce to serve as lobbyists.

According to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, West Allis is proposing tying employee raises to, in part, increases in shared revenue from the state. This oddball arrangement immediately makes every state employee an instant lobbyist for their cause to pull down more money from Madison. One can imagine the phone lines between West Allis city employees and legislative offices in the Capitol are going to be burning up, demanding more money for raises. And it won’t cost city taxpayers a dime – it merely shifts city workers’ incentives.

Imagine if a private company offered its workers a contract that stipulated raises were based on how much aid that company could get from the state. Would anyone see this as a legitimate strategy? Having all their employees on their knees, begging for taxpayer money to get raises? Yet this is exactly what West Allis is proposing – having their employees becoming their lobbyists, as they haven’t been able to make their case for increased funding on their own.

In the Journal Sentinel article, a clueless political science professor at UW-Madison is quoted:

Donald Moynihan, associate professor of public affairs at the La Follette School of Public Affairs at UW-Madison, said employees might not like the proposal because their pay would be tied to factors they cannot control.

That’s the whole idea of the proposal. To get the employees to try to control the factors which will lead to increased wages. They are a built in lobbying corps – might as well use them.

Seems Like as Good a Reason as Any

August 27, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

The other day, an article showed up in the Washington Times that argued the GOP is going to mount a serious challenge to long-time Democratic Northern Wisconsin Congressman David Obey. They mentioned the frontrunner as District Attorney and one-time MTV “Real World” star Sean Duffy. The article says “it is thought” that Duffy would be the first reality show participant to join Congress – obviously oblivious to Flavor Flav’s two terms in the U.S. Senate.

But the highlight of the story comes at the very end, when the article dutifully mentions the GOP longshot candidate, Daniel Mielke. Mielke gives his rationale for why voters should support him:

While the state party is not taking sides in the Republican primary, the tension between the two Republicans is evident.

“I think we need a candidate who is electable. I believe I’m that candidate,” Mr. Duffy said.

Mr. Mielke countered that his unpolished style would play better with voters disillusioned by Mr. Obey’s work on the stimulus bill.

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.”

You hear that voters? HE HAS A BEARD.

Certainly a good enough reason to support Mielke’s hirsute candidacy. Although if Mielke wins the primary, he’d have to go against Dave Obey, who…ALSO HAS A BEARD. It would be a Old-timey Northern Wisconsin Beard-Off.

Although clearly, Obey’s beard isn’t good enough to earn him a spot in the Wisconsin Historical Society’s “Great Beards of Wisconsin” online exhibit. (That’s not a joke – it actually exists.)

Eat your heart out, Edward Thomas Owen!

(Full disclosure: I am an occasional beard wearer myself, although I have not accepted any campaign contributions from my beard.)

This Involves Me… How?

August 26, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

As I mentioned a couple of posts ago, my almost-4 year old son is still pretty little. The doctor did a “bone scan” or something on him, and it said he had 2 year-old bones. (Which sounds like what you get if you overdose on Viagra.) Our pediatrician, who is a really nice woman, said this was pretty normal for a late bloomer. She thinks he’ll grow to normal size (he’s three apples high, like a smurf) by the time he’s in high school.

But we took him in for a checkup today, and the discussion about his height took a bizarre turn. Somehow, she started asking questions of me, and whether I was a late bloomer. It went something like this:

Doctor: “So Chris, were you a late bloomer?”

Me: “Yeah, I was always pretty small for my age.”

Doctor: “So, in the early years of high school, you got picked on a lot, teased quite a bit for being small?”

Me: “Uhhhhh….”

Doctor: “So puberty was a little late for you, you didn’t start seeing changes in your privates until 13 or 14?”

Me (squirming): “Uhhhhh….”

Doctor: “So, you started shaving late, maybe your voice didn’t change until junior year or so? It’s harder for boys to tell, because they don’t have a period.”

Me: “Let’s just say I would consider myself to be a late bloomer. And that’s pretty much it.”

I mean seriously, WTF? How did this checkup for my kid somehow become about me? Should I have started asking her about when she grew into womanhood? This seemed to be a little too much of a one-way conversation. Now, having to re-live being picked on in high school is going to force me to see a completely different doctor. ObamaCare better pay for my f’ing therapy.

(Side note: As it turns out, I was always the smallest kid in my class. In 3rd grade, I was constantly beat up by a roving gang of older girls in my elementary school. My entire life has been devoted to showing those girls that they didn’t get the best of me. And that I don’t smell like poop, as they claimed without having any evidence.)

Mission: Extermination

August 26, 2009 / Christian / 1 Comment

We’re getting our house painted. But on the west side of the house, it appears there was an underground beehive, so the bees were terrorizing the guy doing the painting. I tried spraying down into the hole with bee killer, but they all just came back in force. So my wife called a bee exterminator. (And trust me, there is nothing more emasculating than your wife having to call a specialist to remove a bee hive. If there were a list of “reasons women continue to talk to men,” beehive removal would be on it. Right behind “making babies.”)

Anyway, I had to run home during work to greet the bee guy. He went on for 20 minutes about this super special potion he had that would kill the bees, or at least insult them to the point that they wouldn’t return. (I imagined him standing next to the hive and telling “yo momma” jokes for an hour.)

He said the hive was pretty easily accessible, so he wouldn’t charge me much. He said he’d have to charge me full price if he had to put on the bee suit and dig around to get the hive out.

I admit, this made me chuckle a little bit, since I pictured the “bee suit” as an actual bee costume. Like if he were the Georgia Tech Yellowjacket mascot or something. But I realized why going this route would be more expensive.

First, upon putting on the bee suit, it would take him a while to get to know them – infiltrate their bee society. Get to know their traditions and customs. Befriend enough of them to be trusted.

Then, at Thanksgiving dinner, having earned their trust, he turns on them and sprays them all. Someone yells “I knew it was you – you broke my heart!” Then he grabs the yams and takes off running. Then I pay him $75.

But instead, he just sprayed the hive. Seems like it worked.

I Never Had a Chance

August 24, 2009 / Christian / 1 Comment

A brief moment of self-indulgence, if I may…

My wife asked me to look through some of my old medical records, to see if my growth pattern matched that of my son. (I was always little, as is he.) When I started digging through my old records, I found a gold mine of old test scores, report cards, and teacher comments from when I was between seven and twelve years old. And it’s unbelievable.

I always knew I aggravated my parents – nary a weekend was spent without being grounded in high school. But I was always smart – I destroyed every standardized test they put in my way from the age of five until I took my SATs (we didn’t take the ACT in Virginia, where I went to high school.) In 5th grade, I made it to the state spelling bee (competing against kids that were, in some cases, two years older), and almost made it to the national bee in Washington, D.C. (When I missed a word, it resulted in me ripping my contestant number card in half, throwing it on the stage, and storming off in tears. I think my parents let me get all the way to the parking lot before they finally got out of their seats to come get me, thinking people wouldn’t know I was their kid if they waited a couple of minutes.)

But my grades were another matter. Let’s just say… I was a little disinterested in schoolwork. And reading first hand accounts about exactly how lazy I was is chilling. And gives me a new perspective on how frustrated my parents must have been. For instance, I was seven years old when a teacher wrote this about me:

“Chris has an inquiring mind. He is extremely verbal and can communicate on an adult level. Though he is an avid reader, he becomes impatient with tasks that require him to do research. He enjoys assignments which challenge his creative abilities in the arts. I believe with maturation, he will be able to attend to tasks which require academic input at a higher level of thinking.” – Mrs. Toma, 1980

Even spookier is how teachers essentially foretold what I would be doing now, at age 36. It\’s almost as if my life were pre-programmed at age 8:

“Christian is an extraordinarily witty and creative child. His abilities of elaboration, fluency, and flexibility apply to his performances in figural tasks and in verbal tasks. Christian however does not work up to his ability because he lacks self-discipline. Frequent incomplete assignments result from his inability to concentrate and persist on tasks that do not interest him. Christian\’s behavior is also very dependent on the reaction of others. Christian needs regular stimulation of his creative abilities and positive structuring of his intellectual program.” – Nancy Gerke. June 1981

In 5th grade, my favorite teacher was Mr. Kliener. He was a cool guy – yet secretly, that bastard was stabbing me in the back with his letters to my parents. I was 9 years old when he wrote this:

“Chris is extremely bright, creative, and energetic. He is in the ACE (gifted) program. He constantly needs to be challenged and channeled. In writing, he is inventive, creative, but unsound mechanically. He is outstanding on the computer and has one at home. He enjoys creative dramatics as he enjoys having an audience for his antics. Any B’s on his record probably would have been A’s were it not for unproductive behavior. Chris loves brain teasers, puzzles, and word play. He is excellent in Art. Please consider for placement in any enrichment programs available. Thank you.” – David Kleiner, March 1983

Exhuming my childhood may not have been such a good idea. For one, it makes me want to call my parents immediately and apologize for what a disappointment I was for them. I can’t imagine how frustrating it would be to have a kid who clearly has a high intellectual ceiling, but throws it all away. (If I were an 8 year old today, chances of me being diagnosed as ADD are about 98%.) They saw a future doctor or a lawyer, while I clearly had other options in mind.

Plus, there’s the whole issue about whether my life has been predestined all along. In my life, have the decisions that I’ve made actually made any difference? Or was I always going to end up right where I am now, writing goofball blog posts and political commentary? It’s a little harrowing to think that somehow, your life just followed a blueprint, rather than your choices making it what it is. Given what was written about me, I have a hard time distinguishing 8 year old Chris from 36 year old Chris. Have all my life’s experiences meant nothing?

(Boobs.)

What Happened to Good ol’ Arrogance?

August 20, 2009 / Christian / 1 Comment

By now, the routine is familiar. Big name office holder leaves. Big name office opens up. A variety of characters of disparate seriousness crop up to announce they’re “thinking ” about running for the vacant spot. The public goes back to watching “The Bachelorette.”

We saw this in action this week, when Governor Doyle announced he wouldn’t be seeking a third term. Immediately, presumptive Democratic replacements began leaking their names to the press as possibilities to run. Lieutenant Governor Barb Lawton. Congressman Ron Kind. Milwaukee Mayor (and amateur pugilist) Tom Barrett. Even State Senator Jon Erpenbach jumped in the pool of Democratic possibilities.

Now is the time where politicians start throwing out my favorite phony campaign line – the famous “I’m running because a bunch of people are calling me to tell me to” schtick.

Take Ron Kind, who in his statement on Monday said:

Since Governor Doyle’s decision has become public, people from around the state have contacted me and urged me to run for Governor. I thank them for their support and I am considering it. In the weeks to come I will make my decision.

Erpenbach followed up by telling the Wisconsin State Journal that “he was being urged to consider a run for governor but would have to talk with his family and friends before deciding.” Democratic Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan said he’s “heard from some people around the state,” encouraging him to consider a run. Potential Republican hopeful Bill McCoshen said “”I’ve gotten a lot of calls in the last 24 hours, I’ll tell you that,” when commenting on his run. GOP Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen said he is being encouraged by supporters to run but, “as of today, his focus is on re-election.”

Somehow, this phony humility has crept into our politics – as if these guys are going to make their decision to run for the state’s highest office based on a couple people’s phone calls. Why is it that candidates can’t just say “look, I think I have a lot of good ideas, and I’d like to see them affect as many people as possible?” Do we really want someone running that plays the “I really didn’t want to run, but more than six people called me!” card?

Obviously, if you’re even thinking of running for governor, you believe you have something to offer. (Or in some cases, you are delusional.) So why couch it in this bogus “depends on how many people call me” nonsense? And do we really want a governor that makes big decisions based on whether a couple of sycophants that will probably benefit from his decision give him or her a call?

While nobody will ever confuse supermodels with Wisconsin candidates for governor, the same false humility applies in that profession. Mark it down – any time someone asks a super hot model how she got into modeling, the answer is always something like “my aunt forced me to go to this magazine cover shoot tryout against my will,” or “I was always an ugly duckling, and somehow lucked into a modeling gig,” or some such nonsense.

You’ll never hear a model say “Well, one day I woke up, looked at myself in the mirror, and realized that the person staring back at me was incredibly hot, so I hired an agent, stopped eating, and hit the modeling circuit.” While that would be honest, it violates some sort of basic level of self-effacing false humility that we require our celebrities to have.

I, for one, subscribe to the Frank Lloyd Wright school of false humility:

Early in life I had to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility. I chose the former and have seen no reason to change.

Christian Schneider

Author, Columnist