Christian – Page 20 – Christian Schneider

Author: Christian (page 20 of 81)

An Apology from the Distant Past

February 23, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

Dear Person in the Future:

Greetings from the year 2009. As a gesture of goodwill, there are some things we need to discuss.

First, congratulations on the Brewers winning their 3rd World Series in a row, beating the Prince Fielder-led Yankees in seven games. A big atta-boy to Keanu Reeves for winning his first Oscar, playing a gay washed up ex-wrestler who ages backwards. It certainly was the role of a lifetime. I understand that, due to a federal mandate, General Motors is close to developing a car that runs on sunshine and dreams – here’s hoping the technology works out for you. And it’s nice to see that the prophecy is true – everyone actually does eat Dippin’ Dots.

The main purpose of this letter, however, is to issue an apology. Certainly, people in the future are still talking about the economic downturn of 2009, and the effect it had on the state’s finances. Believe it or not, when the economy went bad in 2009, we actually cared more about how government was hurting than how regular people were coping with losing their jobs. (Then again, the most famous woman in America in 2009 was a crazy Angelina Jolie look-a-like who had octuplets, so that might explain some things.)

You see, in 2009, we found out the state had a $5.9 billion budget deficit. In other words, the state was committed to spending $5.9 billion more than it was taking from working people of Wisconsin. Naturally, government sprung into action and did what government knows how to do best – it figured out new ways to spend more money and further micromanage our lives.

In fact, Future Person, at a time when Wisconsin state government could have restructured itself in a way to prevent future crises, it instead kicked the can down the road, preserving itself over the interests of the citizens. In his 2009-11 proposed budget, Governor Jim Doyle raised taxes by $2.2 billion, claiming that he was making the tax system more progressive by raising taxes on the top 1% of wage earners. Fortunately for him, nobody in the media pointed out that he was raising the cigarette tax, the most regressive tax that exists (and paid for by the poorest citizens in Wisconsin), by $257 million.

Actually, while Doyle promised “major” cuts to make up the deficit, his proposed budget spends 8% more in 2010 than it did in 2009. His increases are funded largely by swapping out general fund spending for federal “stimulus” aid, which constitutes a one-time budget plug. In the most egregious example, Doyle cut school equalization aid by $498 million, then replaced it with $498 million in temporary federal funds. Additionally, there are hundreds of millions of dollars Doyle plans to sprinkle over the budget like fiscal oregano, seasoning his budget to the government workers’ tastes.

Of course, since the teachers’ unions have undoubtedly improved financial education in the future, you already know what this means: funding ongoing programs with temporary funds leads to large budget deficits. And that is why, according to Doyle’s own budget document, his plan leaves structural deficits of $2.5 billion in 2010 and $2.3 billion in 2011 – barely less than the $5.9 billion he claims to have “balanced” this time around. By now, you have figured out what that meant – billions of dollars in tax increases to feed the state’s insatiable spending appetite.

So, dear Person of the Future, I apologize for waking you out of your hyperbaric slumber to deliver this apology. I know it’s enough to knock you right out of your Snuggie. We had our chance back here in 2009, we knew exactly what was going to happen, and we blew it. Not even President Miley Cyrus can bail you out of this predicament now. So when you send a killer cyborg in a time machine back to correct all our wrongs, make sure he has a good calculator.

Sincerely,

Christian Schneider

-February 23, 2009

Your Packer Draft Preview

February 21, 2009 / Christian / 3 Comments

Saturday\’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel speculates that the Green Bay Packers may take Ole Miss left tackle Michael Oher with the #9 pick in the first round. I am now kicking myself, as I was going to do a post last week suggesting they take Oher, which would have made me look a lot smarter than I actually am.

Fans of the author Michael Lewis may remember Michael Oher as the subject of his outstanding 2007 book \”The Blind Side.\” The book traces the recent history of the left tackle in football, and why left tackles have become among the highest paid positions on the football field. The book begins with a chapter about Lawrence Taylor breaking Joe Theismann\’s leg, and how Taylor\’s ability to devastate quarterbacks revolutionized the game. Due to a combination of LT killing quarterbacks and Bill Walsh inventing more pass-happy offenses, protecting the quarterback\’s blind side has become the key to having an effective offense.

Oher grew up in Memphis, in the third poorest zip code in America. He had 12 brothers and sisters, who were barely attended to by his crack-addicted mother. (His father had been murdered.) He had been in and out of foster homes, and rarely attended school – yet the Memphis public schools continued to move him through with the minimum GPA necessary. At age 15, the father of a friend drove him out to East Memphis to try to get him into a virtually all-white Evangelical school, inhabited by Memphis\’ most wealthy families. When he showed up, he didn\’t speak, and couldn\’t read or write – but his sophomore year, he was 6 foot 5, 350 pounds, as nimble as a cat. Naturally, his prowess in sports gave him a chance at this school that he may not normally have had.

A wealthy white family in Memphis took him in and made him their foster son. They pushed him to excel in school, and eventually he began to open up. He also became the most sought after high school offensive lineman in the country, with college coaches flooding to his school to marvel at his athletic ability. By the time he graduated, he had overcome his 0.4 GPA to make the honor roll, and he committed to play at the alma mater of his foster parents, Ole Miss.

As is the case with any of Lewis\’ books, Oher\’s story is only partially about football. It posits some difficult societal questions – how many black kids are we letting rot in the inner cities without an education simply because they don\’t have any athletic ability? How many kids do we mistakenly give up on because we think they have no capacity to learn, when their emotional problems are mainly a result of their horrific upbringing? Oher walked into East Memphis a severely emotionally damaged 15 year-old that society had given up on – yet through the love and care of this Evangelical family, he grew into a fully-formed, mature young man. How many other kids are out there, just like him?

In any event, it would be great if the Packers could draft him and serve as the final chapter in this astounding success story. It also happens that he\’s an amazing left tackle.

Here\’s a video that runs through some of Oher\’s travails:

This Week in Unnecessary Censorship

February 17, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

These are always funny.

The Democrats’ Anti-Constitutional Power Grab

February 17, 2009 / Christian / 2 Comments

The spending bill introduced by Democrats last week is either a “stimulus” bill or a “budget adjustment” bill, depending on what purpose they need it to serve based on the conversation they are having at the time. (Ironically, the bill is neither, as it won’t stimulate anything and only fills in a fraction of the 2008-09 deficit.) But one portion of the bill deserves extra scrutiny, as it turns our representative form of government completely on its head in order to facilitate the most naked of power grabs.

With hundreds of millions of dollars of federal stimulus funds headed Wisconsin’s way, Democrats want to spend it as quickly as possible, with minimal oversight. In order to make this happen, they have included a provision that virtually gives sole stimulus fund spending authority to three people: Governor Jim Doyle, and Represenative Mark Pocan and Senator Mark Miller, who chair the Joint Finance Committee for their respective houses. (Had Miller not stabbed Senator Judy Robson in the back and voted to remove her as Majority Leader last session, it would be someone else spending the money on behalf of the Senate. To the victor goes the spoils.)

Article VIII of the Wisconsin Constitution specifically states that “no money shall be paid out of the treasury except in pursuance of an appropriation by law.” In other words, when money is spent, it must be approved by the full legislature in the form of a law that is debated in an open and transparent way. The Constitution goes on to require that appropriation bills receive a roll call vote, rather than a voice vote.

Yet this new bill destroys that process as laid out by our state’s founders. Instead, the new bill gives two legislators the ability to decide how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent in Wisconsin. Since this authority will be granted to these two legislative leaders by a full vote of the Legislature, it appears that it is certainly a constitutional arrogation of authority. But the end result – consolidating such major spending decisions in the hands of so few people – while not “unconstitutional,” can certainly be classified as “anti-constitutional.” It goes against the entire principle of open government that the Constitution prescribes.

There’s a good reason appropriation bills must go through the full legislative process. They get a committee hearing, complete with testimony, and a committee vote. In committee, there’s an opportunity to amend the bill if necessary. Then the bill goes to the full floor of the legislative house for a vote, where it is debated, and can once again be amended by the full Senate or Assembly. Then, after it makes it through one house, it begins the process anew in the other house, where it gets even more debate and tweaking.

Not only does this process allow for public input and bill correction, it spreads the responsibility for the bill over the entire legislature. Each elected official has buy-in, and can say the interests of their constituents was represented. Yet under this new consolidation plan, only two legislators are accountable to anyone. As a result, the new scheme is replete with opportunities for mismanagement and corruption.

Ask the people of Illinois what happens when immense governmental decisions are consolidated in the hands of a few people. The alleged Blagojevich swap meet for Barack Obama’s senate seat happens. Favors are handed out with no transparency, no debate, and no public involvement. If we were to write a recipe that virtually guaranteed as much corruption as possible in the “stimulus” process, we couldn’t do any better than the Democrats’ plan before us today. A teaspoon of closed government here, a dash of undue campaign contributor influence there, and a heaping helping of hundreds of millions of dollars in federal money all make for a toxic casserole taxpayers are going to have to swallow. And like it.

Naturally, Wisconsin’s “good government” groups like the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and Common Cause will be highly critical of Democrats for this pro-corruption, anti-transparency power grab. And on the same day, a tap-dancing dolphin will be elected to the governorship.

It is often said that the only thing worse than a government that acts too slow is a government that acts too fast. And we’re all about to learn that lesson the hard way.

Should We Be Thankful For Our “Low” Taxes?

February 16, 2009 / Christian / 1 Comment

Yesterday, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel ran a column I wrote about the disastrous state of Wisconsin’s finances, and how both parties were to blame for our fiscal collapse. This piece was intended to be a counter-argument to another column, written from the liberal perspective, which attempted to explain that our taxes really aren’t very high, after all.

This editorial, which apparently it took seven people to write, made a couple claims that popped out:

However, some argue for reduced spending, falsely claiming that profligate public outlay is the cause of today’s economic crisis. This analysis is wrong. Wisconsin has been careful in its overall taxing and spending. Between 2000 and 2006, total state taxes per person decreased from $2,740 to $2,475, when adjusted for inflation. In fact, there have been $12 billion in state tax cuts since 1999, more than twice the current deficit.

Apparently, in arriving at the fact that “total state taxes per person” have decreased, the authors used a Brookings Institution website that draws on census bureau data. When you look at the “total state taxes” numbers they use, it contradicts the state’s own data as reported on the Department of Administration’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFR). According to the Brookings Institution, the state brought in $14.7 billion in “total state taxes,” in 2000, and $13.8 billion in 2006 – thus, the drop in the per capita number. There is no explanation as to what “total taxes” includes. Furthermore, the population in Wisconsin grew by 3.7% between 2000 and 2006, which alone would have contributed to the appearance that per capita taxes were dropping.

Yet when the state reports its General Fund taxes, the numbers are drastically different. The state CAFR says that in 2000, sales, income, corporate, and other taxes collected $10.9 billion. Due to a combination of tax cuts signed into law by Governor Thompson in 1999 and the 2001 recession, tax receipts dropped to $10.2 billion in 2001 and 2002, steadily climbing back to 10.4 billion in 2003. By 2006, tax receipts had climbed to 12.4 billion, or a 9.9% increase over taxes collected in 2000. And keep in mind, this is in the midst of a recession in 2001 that it took the state several years from which to recover. The shrinking revenue was due, in large part, to people losing their jobs and buying fewer goods, not necessarily because the Legislature was being “careful” in our taxing and spending.

In fact, if you bypass the Brookings Institution website (which purports to use Census Bureau data) and go straight to the Census Bureau, the numbers look much different. In 2000, the Census Bureau reported Wisconsin taxes at $2,344.51 per capita. In 2005 (the most recent number available,) per capita taxes had increased to $2,375.77. And again, this is after the state suffered a 4-year lag in collections due to the 2001 recession (which may be why they only chose these specific years to make their point.)

But let’s say, for the sake of argument, they’re right. Let’s concede their point (that seems to be flatly incorrect) that somehow taxes are falling. According to the CAFR, state general fund spending increased 13.3% percent (from $11.3 billion to $12.8 billion) during this time that our taxes were supposedly dropping. This is exactly the point of my last report and subsequent column. The state is spending more money than it is taking in.

So how did we increase spending by 13.3% while our revenue was supposedly dropping by $1 billion (according to their numbers)? Our governor and legislators dumped in $2.4 billion in one-time money to balance the budget, blowing a hole in future budgets. They artificially made it look like we were spending less by offloading general fund expenses to program and segregated revenue. (Think cutting general fund aid to the UW by $250 million and replacing it with increased tuition – which makes it look like we’re cutting general fund taxes, while instead, we’re just offloading those expenses to students.) They issued debt to plug holes in the budget, committing taxpayers to decades of paying those bonds off.

As for the $12 billion in tax cuts they claim we’ve had since 1999, I have no idea where they came up with the number. But I can assure them of one thing – had the state collected this mythical $12 billion and spent it, the budget deficit would be much worse than it is now, as the spending base would be much higher. If there’s something the state has proved, none of that money would have gone to a “rainy day” fund to ameliorate recessionary budget downturns.

As an aside, it should also be noted that almost all of the authors of this column are frequent contributors to Democratic campaigns, including UW-Madison economist Andrew Reschovsky, who has contributed $7,850 to Democrats since 2000 – including Governor Jim Doyle. At one point (2002), Reschovsky was a vocal critic of structural deficits, yet now he says nothing about the current imbalance. I wonder why?

Thank You, ABC

February 16, 2009 / Christian / 1 Comment

My 3 year-old son has become a mama\’s boy, and I have to admit, sometimes it\’s kind of irritating. If I try to put him to bed, or help him zip up his jacket, or get him a snack, he always yells, \”no, I want mommy!\” I try to do fun things with him, like play catch or chase him around the house, but nothing seems to break the attachment he has to his mom.

But, thanks to a television show, that may be starting to change. Yesterday afternoon, my wife got home from a walk, and gazed at a horrific sight – me and the boy, laying on the couch, hands in pants, bag of pretzels, laughing uproariously at the show \”Wipeout!\” You may know it as the show where people run an obstacle course to win cash, and usually end up covered in mud or smacking their head on a giant rubber ball. But clearly, my 3 year-old and I find it equally amusing, and spent a good amount of time doing a little man bonding yesterday. He couldn\’t stop talking about the show all night, which means I think we\’re going to be watching a lot of it online. Here\’s a clip:

Also in family news, my boy has now decided he wants to pee \”like a big boy,\” which means, standing up. He had been sitting on the toilet. I think my wife showed him how to do it standing up the first time. But, understandably, she left out the most important part – the \”shake\” at the end. (Had she known about this, I would be more than a little concerned.) So I showed him how to give it the shake – and he looked at me and started laughing uncontrollably. It was as if the city had just given him a license to rob banks. He then proceeded to run around the house, pants off, doing the \”shake\” maneuver, while I chased him. On the plus side, I think he just qualified for half the fraternities in the U.S.

Overstated Importance

February 10, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

Last week, I got a couple notices that Congressman Paul Ryan was having a conference call today dealing with the stimulus package passed by the Senate. At first, I was somewhat honored that I was invited to participate. But then, I quickly realized that technology has fooled me into a false sense of importance. It used to be that back in the day, if you were on a conference call with CONGRESSMAN PAUL RYAN, you actually were SOMEBODY. But these days, with 1,000 way calling, it just means you\’re one of a thousand people listening in. Being on a conference call is meaningless – I could pick up the phone to order a Russian mail-order bride and accidentally end up on a Paul Ryan conference call.

It\’s like business cards back in the day. Remember when someone whipped out a business card, and you were like \”WHOA – that guy must be important! He has a business card!\” These days, those idiots who fly toy helicopters around the mall probably have business cards. It\’s meaningless.

This illustrated one of my fundamental rules of working in the Capitol: Any meeting to which I am invited probably isn\’t important enough for me to attend.

In any event, I misread the invite, and it was 1:00 PM EASTERN TIME, not Central. So I completely whiffed.

The 11-ish Rules For Covering State Government

February 9, 2009 / Christian / 1 Comment

Last week, during my podcast with Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel investigative reporter Dan Bice, he mentioned a letter he put together for a friend that listed the “11 Rules for Covering State Government.” I thought it might be helpful for bloggers or anyone looking to do some original reporting. Here’s the list:

1. Avoid doing puffy profiles. Nobody inside respects them, and nobody outside reads them.

2. Get to know campaign consultants, political aides and the other wizards who really run the show.

3. Yes, most lobbyists are hacks, but talk to them off the record. Nobody knows better what is really happening.

4. Do lots of off-the-record lunches and dinners.

5. Let both sides know, through your stories, that you’re not partisan.

6. Behind many, many Capitol stories are slights from years ago. Know who hates whom and why.

7. Don’t worry about writing a gotcha/negative story on a source. These guys are pros; they’ll be back.

8. Keep your nose clean. They’re watching you as closely as you’re watching them. (And there are more of them.)

9. Don’t give up on a good story quickly. Some of the best government stories are follows.

10. Do lots of open records requests, especially for e-mails, cell phone records and office expenditures.

11. Find something that interests you – and you think will interest readers – and go for it. State government is bigger than you ever imagined; if you can’t find something interesting and new to write about, you’re in the wrong business.

Upon further reflection, he then added these four:

1. Covering government is a two-way street. If you give information, you are more likely to get information in return.

2. Understand that the best people in government equal the best investigative reporters (often they once were). They too are trying to gather facts and put together a complete story. The only difference is that theirs doesn’t go to print.

3. If a flak calls and yells at you about coverage, it’s rarely personal. Their boss is yelling at them.

4. Assholes get called back. Assholes don’t get tips or exclusives.

The Big Chill on Political Speech

February 9, 2009 / Christian / 2 Comments

It’s become a common theme on this blog – why the Wisconsin Government Accountability Board’s unilateral attempt to seize regulation of political speech during campaigns is an affront to the First Amendment. Their goal is to regulate advertisements during election time by forcing third-party groups to disclose their donors – whether these donors actually knew their money was going to be used for these ads or not. In any event, most people likely think more disclosure is a good thing – why wouldn’t we want to know who is paying for these ads?

Well, here’s why. Even as distasteful as many of these TV and print ads are, these groups have First Amendment rights, too. Anonymous political speech has been a cornerstone of our system since our nation’s founding. The Federalist Papers were written anonymously. We vote anonymously. Allowing people to speak their mind without fear of retribution encourages the “marketplace of ideas” of which Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. was so fond. Outing the identity of people with unpopular political opinions only serves as prior restraint on political speech.

While this all sounds wonderful in theory, we have a recent case that exposes what problems these transparency laws cause. This weekend, the New York Times began to notice what is happening to people in California that contributed to pro-Proposition 8 causes:

FOR the backers of Proposition 8, the state ballot measure to stop single-sex couples from marrying in California, victory has been soured by the ugly specter of intimidation.

A Web site takes names and ZIP codes of donors supporting the measure and overlays data on a map.
Some donors to groups supporting the measure have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance, and their businesses have been boycotted.

The targets of this harassment blame a controversial and provocative Web site, eightmaps.com.

The site takes the names and ZIP codes of people who donated to the ballot measure – information that California collects and makes public under state campaign finance disclosure laws – and overlays the data on a Google map.

Visitors can see markers indicating a contributor’s name, approximate location, amount donated and, if the donor listed it, employer. That is often enough information for interested parties to find the rest – like an e-mail or home address. The identity of the site’s creators, meanwhile, is unknown; they have maintained their anonymity.

Eightmaps.com is the latest, most striking example of how information collected through disclosure laws intended to increase the transparency of the political process, magnified by the powerful lens of the Web, may be undermining the same democratic values that the regulations were to promote.

[…]

Joseph Clare, a San Francisco accountant who donated $500 to supporters of Proposition 8, said he had received several e-mail messages accusing him of “donating to hate.” Mr. Clare said the site perverts the meaning of disclosure laws that were originally intended to expose large corporate donors who might be seeking to influence big state projects.

“I don’t think the law was designed to identify people for direct feedback to them from others on the other side,” Mr. Clare said. “I think it’s been misused.”

Many civil liberties advocates, including those who disagree with his views on marriage, say he has a point. They wonder if open-government rules intended to protect political influence of the individual voter, combined with the power of the Internet, might be having the opposite effect on citizens.

“These are very small donations given by individuals, and now they are subject to harassment that ultimately makes them less able to engage in democratic decision making,” said Chris Jay Hoofnagle, senior fellow at the Berkeley Center for Law and Technology at the University of California.

Imagine if people who gave to anti-Proposition 8 causes were being harassed in such a way. The pro-Prop 8 people would be hung in effigy.

But whether you gave 5 bucks or $500 to either cause, your privacy should be protected. Subjecting people to this type of intimidation only ensures that none of them will ever take part in the political process again. As such, the public debate forum will be closed for business, which only opens the door for even shadier characters to hijack the election process.

Who Could Have Predicted This GAB Meltdown?

February 4, 2009 / Christian / 2 Comments

Back in September of last year, I went on television and called the Government Accountability Board the most “bumbling bureaucracy” possible. As it turns out, I may have been giving them too much credit.

Perhaps you remember the love letter the GAB sent to themselves in the form of a self-congratulatory press release in December. In this letter, they patted themselves on the back for the great job they’ve done in spending $1 million to put together a state finance website.

What they didn’t mention, and what I pointed out at the time, is that the Elections Division is nearly a decade late in delivering an electronic campaign finance system that works. They have spent millions since 1999 in trying to come up with a program that a first-year computer science student at the UW could develop.

In the last couple of days, campaigns have begun to use the new system, and have found it to be incomprehensible. It runs extremely slow, is replete with bugs and broken links, and doesn’t work properly with the Firefox browser. On top of that, the system has crashed, so reports cannot be filed on time. In response, GAB Elections Division director Kevin Kennedy issued this CYA letter today:

A number of Legislators have raised concerns about the Government Accountability Board’s new Campaign Finance Information System and the staff’s responsiveness to problems that you or your campaign treasurers have encountered. Although we anticipated that there would be problems and concerns with any new system, we have been surprised by the number. We apologize for the anxiety this has created.

We want to assure you that we are committed to having a user-friendly, intuitive reporting system that will, at the same time, bring to the citizens of this State enhanced transparency and unprecedented accessibility to information about the financing of political campaigns in Wisconsin.

Translation: remember that expensive new system we were bragging about a month ago? Well, it’s completely hosed.

In the release, Kennedy throws out more excuses, like “there really is no good time to introduce a new reporting system.” Perhaps he has forgotten this press release he issued in November that brags about the system being tested and ready to go:

“The new system will be ready for public use at the beginning of 2009,” said Kevin Kennedy, Director of the Government Accountability Board. “This will be a giant step forward for public information about campaign spending in Wisconsin.”

“Development of the new system has gone well,” said Jonathan Becker, Ethics and Accountability Division Administrator. “We expect all candidates and committees registered with the State to use the CFIS to report for the period ending December 31, 2008.”

Yep, nothing to see here – the thing’s running smooth as a gravy sandwich. Until people actually had to start using it.

And if that’s not enough, blogger Dan Cody did the Lord’s work and actually started looking through the bids made by businesses to get the contract with the GAB. As it turns out, the bungled system cost twice as much as we were originally told:

To say $2 million for a web site that has less functionality than my weblog is an understatement. After spending a considerable amount of time going over the documents I got from the GAB in response to my open records request, it became clear to me that PCC Technology Group was, to put it mildly, fleecing the people of Wisconsin.

Boy, if only someone could have seen this coming. The lesson here is simple: Every dollar sent to the GAB is akin to lighting that dollar on fire. Amazingly, this is the bureaucracy we charge with running clean and orderly elections. Doesn’t exactly inspire confidence, does it?

Oh, and one last thing – if they could get the campaign finance reports from NOVEMBER up on their website, that would be great. You know, those things that are supposed to provide us with transparency in elections.

Podcast: Dan Bice from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel

February 3, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

$\"\"$ In this podcast, I talk to investigative reporter and columnist Dan Bice from the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel about the secrets behind investigative reporting, whether family members are fair game, how he comes up with story ideas, why he\’s the resident music expert at the Journal-Sentinel, and why Footloose may actually be based on his life.

[audio:/podcasts/Bice020309.mp3]

Stimulating a Heart Attack

February 2, 2009 / Christian / 2 Comments

Seeing as how we are a think tank, I sat down today to think about the stimulus package as passed by the House last week. Quickly, as it is wont to do, my mind wandered to the subject of food. I tried thinking about the trillion dollar stimulus package again. Then more food. Stimulus… hot dog… stimulus… hot dog.

Then it came to me – my brain was reminding me of something. A while ago, I read about the “hot dog rollup,” an attempt by some college kids to come up with the most unhealthy food of all time. This coronary delight (to which was ascribed the name “The Last Supper” by my wife) included a hot dog rolled in bacon, then rolled in egg-soaked ground beef and topped with butter and cheese. For a full play-by-play account of the creation of this Frankenweiner, go here. (Those who lived after eating it give at a thumbs-up.)

In effect, the stimulus bill is the legal equivalent of the hot dog rollup. To call the bill “pork” does a disservice to swine across the nation. It is comprised of special interest favors, heaped on top of contributor paybacks, slathered with a healthy dose of social engineering, all on a buttery roll. Charles Krauthammer has called it “the largest earmark bill – earmark, but without stealth, just out in the open-of special interests, favors, parochial interests, in American history.”

Take, for instance, the “Buy America” provisions of the bill that require steel paid for by stimulus funds to come from American sources. As people who actually do business in these areas have pointed out, this provision is almost certain to spark a trade war that could depress the economy even further. Most members of Congress probably think “Smoot-Hawley” is a company that makes canned apricots. We’ve been down this road before, with disastrous results.

Yet the “Buy America” provision is merely a giveaway to union workers, the overwhelming majority of whom vote for and contribute money to Democrats. The bill sends billions of dollars to states to prop up their government programs – which special interest groups like the teachers’ union and human service advocates spend generously during campaigns to protect.

As a result, I will be here at my computer waiting, patiently, for “good government” groups like the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign and Common Cause to condemn this bill for all its special interest giveaways. The Democracy Campaign keeps trying to convince us that our corrupt government for sale to the highest bidder – no better chance to point that out than when Congress passes the largest lard-laden bill in American history.

Of course, this is a joke – because these “good government” groups are merely a front for liberals to push their ideology under the guise of cleaning up campaign finance. If they truly wished to clean up the system, they’d be cranking out press release after press release condemning the stimulus package. But since it was passed by their Democratic brethren, you will hear nothing but crickets from their phony outrage factories.

In fact, for the Democracy Campaign, corruption only apparently exists when the Legislature passes tax cuts, rather than new spending. Their evidence that the Wisconsin Legislature is corrupt is based almost solely on how many tax exemptions we have – not on how much spending we do to appease their big-government tastes. So, if you’re scoring at home:

Letting you keep more of your own money = “corrupt”

Using government to distribute your money to a select group of campaign contributors = “stimulus.”

Perhaps I’m being too negative. I’m sure their criticism of the biggest special interest spending spree in American history is forthcoming. If you see it, let me know – I’ll be out riding on my unicorn with Natalie Portman.

The Plummeting Standards of the Media

February 2, 2009 / Christian / 0 Comments

Jason Stein at the Wisconsin State Journal wrote an excellent series of articles for Sunday detailing the shabby state of state finances. And by “excellent,” I mean “I am quoted:”

“People get all upset because (politicians) don’t show bipartisanship any more. But they’re certainly bipartisan in the way that they budget poorly,” said Christian Schneider, a conservative commentator with the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute who has criticized the state’s use of borrowing.

These articles come at the same time I released a WPRI study demonstrating how the current budget deficit was made primarily by the governor and state legislature, not necessarily the recession. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported on my study thusly:

“Wisconsin’s addiction to spending is what has gotten the state’s finances out of whack – not necessarily the economic downturn,” said Christian Schneider of the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.

Also, Schneider warned, without change, Wisconsin’s elected officials will spend one-time federal stimulus money – estimated at $2 billion to $3.5 billion – and then “be back to running deficits as soon as that money is spent.”

The Sliding Scale

January 28, 2009 / Christian / 1 Comment

If you happened to be in the West Side Madison Best Buy last night, I was the crazy person over in the TV section laughing to himself. You see, I still have a TV in my kitchen that just runs on an antenna – and I broke the rabbit ears on the old one, so I needed to get a new one. As I scanned RCA\’s selection of antennas (they come in all shapes and sizes now, apparently) I noticed they had a quality rating system on each box, to tell you how good that particular antenna was. And the system they use to rate the quality of their antennas is thus:

Standard

Good

Great

Excellent

Superior

and finally, Ultimate.

Aside from \”Standard,\” how are any of these any different? Is \”Superior\” really better than \”Great?\” Shouldn\’t they be more honest and move the scale down, so the lowest one is \”Really Crappy,\” the next lowest one is \”Not as Junky,\” and the middle one is \”Standard?\” I mean, they\’re trying to say each one of their products is good, while saying some are better than others.

This reminded me of the report cards my daughter gets from her pre-school. If they\’re really good, they get an \”O\” for \”outstanding,\” but if they\’re horrible, they get a \”D\” for \”developing.\” As in, \”Your child has not developed out of being a knucklehead.\” I, for one, would welcome a more honest grading system – I think five year olds can handle it. Except when my daughter came home with all \”K\’s\” – for \”knuckleheaded.\”

The Huckleberry Conundrum

January 25, 2009 / Christian / 3 Comments

$\"\"$ One of my fondest memories from childhood is when my dad sat down with me and read Mark Twain\’s Adventures of Huckleberry Finn to me. That\’s right, every night we dutifully sat down, and my pops read the whole thing to me, word for word. I believe this occurred around 1981.

Naturally, with Huck Finn being one of the seminal American novels, I have considered doing the same thing for my kids. In preparation, I sat down and re-read it this weekend. And it is as good as I (and most American literary historians) remember it. It\’s fascinating that when written, that book was meant for children – yet when compared to today\’s literature, it is more complex and verbally advanced than 90% of the books meant for adults in modern times.

But, of course, there is \”the problem.\” The book contains dozens of instances of the \”n\” word. Of course, the book is told from the perspective of a 14 year-old uneducated boy, who in 1884 probably would have used the word liberally. (Shakespeare has received similar criticism for his unflattering portrayal of Shylock the Jew in Merchant of Venice – although, again, that\’s how Jews would have been portrayed at the time it was written.) Further, one of the main themes of the book is exposing how de-humanizing slavery is. But that really doesn\’t matter now, when I am faced with reading that word to my kids a couple hundred times. There are passages of the book that are really difficult to read, given how ugly the language is in the contemporary context.

Clearly, I\’m not the only one who has figured this out. The American Library Association actually keeps statistics on the most objected to books in American libraries, and between 1990 and 2000, Adventures of Huckleberry Finn ranks fifth – 124 years after its original publication. Presumably, the main objection is the continued inclusion of a racial slur. (Although the same people who make this objection are probably the same ones willing to fillet Sarah Palin for her supposed desire to ban books in the Wasilla library.) Most of the other books in the list deal in touchy cultural issues, like \”Daddy\’s Roommate,\” \”Heather Has Two Mommies,\” and \”Little Hitler Learns to Love Gays.\” (Okay, I made that last one up.)

Maybe I\’m being too touchy – after all, kids have heard the word in this book for a century and a quarter, and it doesn\’t seem to have sparked a revival. Maybe I\’m not giving my kids enough credit for being able to understand context. But reading the book aloud is probably enough to get me elected into the Klan hall of fame. (They can put my bust right next to Marge Schott\’s.)

So what do I do? Just forge ahead and hope they understand enough not to use that word? Wait until they\’re older and understand the context better? Read it and do some self-editing, thereby desecrating an American work of art?