The Public vs. The Private

Oh, how I wish progressives/liberals/Democrats would heed George Lakoff!

In his piece, "The Wisconsin Blues," he says, "The Wisconsin recall vote should be put in a larger context. What happened in Wisconsin started well before Scott Walker became governor and will continue as long as progressives let it continue."

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2/277-75/11880-focus-the-wisconsin-blues

In brief, Lakoff's premise is that the issue boils down to The Public vs. The Private and who's willing to put up the most dough to prevail.

Progressives believe that The Public is the mechanism "through which the government provides resources that make private life and private enterprise possible: roads, bridges and sewers, public education, a justice system, clean water and air, pure food, systems for information, energy and transportation, and protection both for and from the corporate world. No one makes it on his or her own. Private life and private enterprise are not possible without The Public. Freedom does not exist without The Public."

Regressives believe the role of democracy is to provide "maximal liberty to seek one’s self-interest without being responsible for the interests of others. The best people are those who are disciplined enough to be successful. Lack of success implies lack of discipline and character, which means you deserve your poverty. From this perspective, The Public is immoral, taking away incentives for greater discipline and personal success, and even standing in the way of maximizing private success. The truth that The Private depends upon The Public is hidden from this perspective. The Public is to be minimized or eliminated."

So, why does the regressive point of view prevail?

According to Lakoff (and I've read/heard this many times before) decades ago, wealthy regressives and corporate interests developed and financed "an extensive communication system of think tanks, framing specialists, training institutes, booking agencies and media, funded by wealthy conservatives."

Progressive counterparts, according to Lakoff, "have not funded progressive communication in the same way to bring progressive moral values into everyday public discourse." (Evoking the name of George Soros does not equate.)

"The result is that conservatives have managed to get their moral frames to dominate public discourse on virtually every issue."

According to another article I just read, "Jesus, the Radical Economist," 

http://consortiumnews.com/2012/06/11/jesus-the-radical-economist/

 in today's regressive/TPer/conservative world, Jesus, who was financially poor, would not be one of "the best people" but would "lack discipline and character" and deserve his poverty.

That is not conservatism. It's a Teflon, self-comforting rationalization of non-Christian me-ism posturing as conservatism, which to me is regressive rather than conservative principles.

Luring the Best and the Brightest

A Facebook Friend who lives in New Mexico asked the day after Tuesday's recall election in Wisconsin, "Why do so many people hate unions, teachers and public servants in general?" 

That was in response to this cartoon: 

My answer was,  "Because they're easy targets and the Repubs have been working on this for decades. They way to defund the Democrats (noun) is to get rid of or defang their funders. Unions have long been big donors to the Democratic (adjective) Party. It's all about money, control and power."


Another Facebook Friend said,  "...all three have done a miserable job in selling themselves and their roles to the public. They need to study the GOP playbook on the utility of lying, cheating and deception. Only way to succeed in these partisan days. A sad commentary on America.


Yet another Facebook Friend commented:  "They hate Unions because unions make corporations follow the laws and uphold the rights of workers. They hate teachers because they help to inform individuals, spread the information about all sides of the issue (good, bad and ugly), because we force people to express themselves and make the THINK instead of being drones. They hate public servants in general because they think of them as leaches of their tax dollars. What they fail to remember is ALL ELECTED OFFICIALS are PUBLIC SERVANTS TOO! And Elected Officials and Administrative position salaries, benefits, and retirement packages far exceed those of your average union trade worker, average teachers ( whole salary with a Masters degree and 5 yrs of experience is about $40,000 yr.), and your police, fire, and other emergency services. The outcome only indicates how uninformed society really is -- These groups want drones and to turn America into a for-profit society."


This brings to mind a conundrum that has long vexed me. 

Corporations and their Boards of Directors -- which are generally composed of other corporations' CEOs -- justify CEOs' obscenely bloated compensation packages by saying it's necessary to pay them that much so they can attract the brightest and the best.

I've heard the same about university chancellors and top administrators, most recently in Wisconsin where the University of Wisconsin Board of Regents rationalized a 10 percent raise for that system's chancellors, while faculty has gone for three years with no raises.

I also keep reading and hearing that state and local elected officials and parents say schools want only the best and the brightest teachers for their children and that schools need to weed out bad and mediocre teachers. Yet their idea -- which a growing majority of the public is embracing -- is to cut teachers' already modest pay (I have yet to see any public school teacher living in a McMansion, driving a Mercedez or owning a yacht), their healthcare and pension benefits.

So the incentive to hire the best and the brightest corporation CEO and university chancellor is money, money and more money, plus expensive perks (which we consumers and taxpayers pay for), but the incentive to attract the best and the brightest teachers is to pay them mediocre salaries, provide a swiss-cheese type of benefits package, make the pay out of pocket for many classroom necessities because school budgets have been slashed, and demonize them.

What kind of thinking is that? And yet voters fall for it.

Job Creators and Not

Private sector says government can't create jobs.

Private sector criticizes President Obama for not creating more jobs.

What?

Obama IS the government or at least the highest ranking person in government. How can he be blamed for not creating jobs if the private sector says government can't create jobs?

Willard "Thurston Howell III" Romney is stumping around the country deploying the lack of job creation.

His Republican-governor partners seem to be in opposition to him.

Romney spoke to Ohio college students recent college grads about the dearth of jobs -- 50 percent of whom are able to find jobs. Next to Romney sat a fidgeting, squirming, sour-looking Ohio Gov. John Kasich, who jumped in on Romney's conversation to say that 80,000 jobs were listed on the state's website. Romney looked a bit nonplussed.

"There are?" Romney said, his eyebrows shooting up.

Yes, Kasich said, and they're good quality jobs that match college grads' skill and training.

Romney looked a bit nonplussed, and was left with nothing to say.

Are the jobs listed on Ohio's website among those jobs that government can't create?

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker said during his 2010 campaign that he would create 250,000 new jobs during his (first) four years in office. How, if government can't create jobs. (Apparently, this is one case in which he's proving the private sector right. Wisconsin is dead last in job creation this year.

Corporate execs and the politicians carry on about the need to cut taxes on the rich because they are the job creators. If that's so, why did this country lose jobs at a near record rate and the country plunge into the worst recession since the great Depression of the 1930s after Bush's two major tax cuts and eight years of his presidency?

Where are the Democrats? Why isn't that their mantra for the 2012 presidential campaign?

What Qualifies Wisconsin's Junior Senator?

Wisconsin’s junior senator has been on my mind lately—not because I think he’s doing a great job as one of this state’s two U.S. senators or that I’ve initiated any thoughts about him at all. It’s that his name has appeared a couple of times in the news and he was the subject of an email exchange someone I know had with Ron Johnson’s office staff.

First, the email exchange. My acquaintance contacted Johnson’s office about the debt ceiling/national debt and the need for a balanced solution of spending cuts and increasing revenue.

After seven paragraphs of explaining that the country was in dire fiscal straits, denigrating the President and Democrats for being irresponsible and not being serious, his staff email responder finally wrote, “I agree that we need a balanced approach which includes spending controls and increased revenue. But we need to increase revenue the old fashioned way, by growing our economy.”

That really set my friend off.

“After reading that,” she said, “I had to contact his office again. I asked how the heck were we to raise much needed revenue "the old fashioned way" when all of the policies he is pursuing put a stranglehold on economic growth. The policies he is pursuing cut public sector jobs, so those folks don't have money to spend to grow the economy. He pursues limits to social security, unemployment benefits and other social safety nets, so those people don't have money to spend to grow the economy. He pursues policies that undermine private sector wages, so those people have less money to spend to grow the economy. He is all for putting money in the pockets of people who already have more money than they need, and for ensuring those who would increase their spending of possible don't have enough to even cover the basics. 70% of our economy comes from consumer spending, yet he consistently pursues policies that guarantee consumers have less to spend. Then he turns around and makes a comment in his email to explain why he's against raising revenue by closing loopholes and letting the Bush tax cuts expire. From where, in God's name, does he expect the revenue our country needs to come??? Companies have plenty of capital with which to expand...they are sitting on mounds of revenue...but there is no demand for their goods and services 'cause none of us have any money to spend. It's all fine and good that Ron Johnson wants to raise revenue "the old fashioned way," but it's disingenuous (at best) to make such a statement in light of his concerted effort to take money out of the hands of those who actually can grow the economy and redistributed upward to those who are already hoarding significant ill-gotten gains.”

The first news mention. Johnson's name appeared on an opinion piece in Sunday’s Journal Sentinel Crossroads section. His was the anti position opposing President Obama’s judicial appointments, with U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl of Wisconsin saying that long-vacant federal judgeships in Wisconsin need to be filled. The headline on the Johnson column was, “These nominees aren’t qualified.”

Whether they are or aren’t, all I could think was, here’s a plastics man who achieved his position as company CEO after marrying into the family that owned it before becoming a U.S. senator only six months ago. So what the heck would he know from who would be qualified to be a federal judge? Does he even know what a federal judge does?

The second news mention was the subject of a Wisconsin PolitiFact Check in which Johnson was rated him almost off the meter “True” to his statement that, “The federal government is spending 25% of our entire economy vs. 100 years ago we spent only 2%.”

I could only think, who would want to turn the clock back to those days?

A guy who posts at Toritto's blog gives a hint of what that might have been like, although he goes back only 70 or 80 years. His post about that was picked up by Salon.com, which can be seen here: http://open.salon.com/blog/toritto/2011/07/25/life_before_social_security

The truth of Johnson's statement is like saying the sky is always blue. That's true. It always is -- even on the cloudiest days. Above the thickest cloud layer, the sky is perpetually blue. That, like the virtures of an unfunded federal government, all depends on a person's point of view -- and access to government resources any way.

The Real "Me" and Gov't Handouts

Wisconsin resident Daniel Vitek complained in a letter to Milwaukee Journal Sentinel that the country "is being turned into a socialist state with the people and weak-kneed political hacks giving into the big labor unions demanding more and more handouts."

The country Mr. Vitek grew up, he wrote, "put self reliance and hard work first. ... Today it's all 'me' and handouts from big government."

There was more, but I'll stick with these excerpts.

(1) The handouts I'm aware of that union have demanded were for the most part benefits tradeoffs companies, pleading poverty, offered in lieu of payraises. Mr. Vitek, as a Wisconsin resident and presumptive newspaper reader, should know that those benefits are being rolled back, wholesale. Not only are union members' benefits shrinking, the politicians currently running this state have essentially stripped public-worker unions of collective bargaining rights and, thus, greatly diminished the union-initiated worker protections, higher pay and better workplace conditions that benefited all working Americans, whether union members or not. The decimation of private-sector unions began more than 30 years ago. Thus, those "big labor unions" Mr. Vitek so dispises and villifies are about as yesteryear as the cold war's communist scourge.

(2) The 'handouts' Mr. Vitek so resents laid the foundation for better pay, working conditions, and safer working conditions that resulted in better pay and safer working conditions for all Americans, including Mr. Vitek.

(3) The roads and highways Mr. Vitek drives on, the clean air, safe water and food supply he benefits from and so much more that contribute to Mr. Vitek's healthier life and good standard of living -- and the Social Security and Medicare I would bet anything Mr. Vitek receives -- are all parts of a social-sharing system that help stitch our country together. So too are the law enforcement, legal system, fire protection and myriad other "socialistic" benefits Mr. Vitek receives, thanks to his membershp in this democracy. That memberhip does have dues. They're called taxes.

(4) I'm flummoxed that Mr. Vitek is so resentful of self-reliant, hard-working Americans who band together to pressure employers to provide living wages for their labor, yet has no problem with the government's socialistic policies of this giving handouts the size of Jupiter to corporations that are pulling in record profits.

(5) The stunner though, was Mr. Vitek equating union actions with today's "all about me" narcissism. What could be more narcissistic and "all me" than American-style capitalism?

Tin Ears and Bad Policy

(The headline on this post I really wanted to use is "After 10 Years of Temporary Tax Cuts Where Are the Jobs?" But I'll save that for another post.)

A friend recently tried to communicate with one of his U.S. senators about the country's debt situation and ended up as frustrated as I am about the tin ear of the current crop of tp pols and the total absurdity of their ideology.

Part of that absurdity is tpers' thinking that reducing revenue increases economic prosperity. That has never been the case historically and certainly isn't true for families or individuals. Ditto the business world and just about every other aspect of society.

People and companies traditionally seek ways to increase their income as a means of achieving economic viability, stability and security. Of course, they have to be fiscally responsible, but after cutting expenses down to necessities, the consequences become pretty dire.

So how does reducing government revenue work any differently? The major cause of the fix the U.S. is in is the Bush administration eight-year spending binge that, because they took a cut in pay, they charged on the nation's credit card. So now, tpers rationalize that the secret to getting out of this hole is to shrink the size of government, which means slashing benefits and services.

But what they mean is to cut government benefits and services for other people and for programs that don't affect them.

Remember tper signs during the summer of tp rage? "No socialized healthcare" but "Keep your hands off my Medicare."

Even as newly elected tp pols took office in January, some were outraged that their  GOVERNMENT-FUNDED healthcare didn't kick in immediately, but involved a short waiting period before they became effective.

Even tp governors who are slashing state government and government-funded services jump immediately to request federally funded emergency help when their states or areas in their states are devastated by natural disasters. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker applied for federal funds in the wake of a winter blizzard, Alabama and Missouri governors sought federal aid after tornados tore up regions of those states.

Then there is pathetic Texas Gov. Rick Perry who talked possible session last year then whined pitifully that Pres. Barack Obama had ignored his state when wildfires plagued it yet visited Alabama when tornados flattened parts of that state.

All the while, thanks to these same tpers, multinational corporations that are pulling in record profits (while much of America is losing wealth) are not only not paying their way -- i.e. they're getting a free ride -- we, the people who've lost jobs, homes, pensions and wages, are paying these fat cats subsidies and funding their tax credits.

Below is a letter my friend sent to novice Ohio Sen. Rob Portman followed by Portman's "reply," which really is stretching the meaning of that word.

But first, an observation: It is obvious from my friend's letter that he is (1) a senior citizen,  (2) a retired decorated military officer, (3) never indicated that he goes by anything other than his given name, which is Richard. Yet, this elected official cavalierly addresses him as "Dick."

As another aside, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof points to the long-term consequences of a tp ideology in his column in today's Times, which is at http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/opinion/05kristof.html?

Here is my friend's letter:

Dear Senator Portman

As a preface, let me tell you who I am. I am a Centerville, Oh resident. I am a veteran of 28 years service in the USAF. I served as a combat aircrew member during what is now being called the Southeast Asia war and have been decorated for valor during that war only to be spat upon on my arrival back in the country. I am retired on a fixed income and my wife and I depend on Medicare, Wright-Patterson Medical Center, and Tricare for Life for our medical needs. Our income comes from Social Security and my Air Force pension. We live comfortably but not ostentatiously. I am an Independent voter.

The time has come to balance our National Budget and begin to reduce our debt. I get the sense that the Congress and leadership of the country believes that we can do this by reducing spending alone. To me, this is an absurd conclusion. I am sick and tired of listening to the mantra, "We don't have a revenue problem. We have a spending problem." Sir, we have a revenue problem and should admit to it.

Throughout history nations have funded wars through tax increases. With the advent of 9/11 we seemed to have decided to do the opposite. We have entered into two Wars of Convenience that have, and continue to, severely strain our funds, yet we instituted a "temporary" tax reduction in 2002 which continues to this day. This reduction in taxes has further strained our budget but seems to have had no positive impact other than to satisfy the obscenely rich. I hear reports on the news of families with incomes of over $250K who say they cannot make ends meet without the temporary tax cut. They clearly do not have a revenue problem but rather a spending problem. The tax levels during the late 1990s were not oppressive and allowed us to balance the budget. I keep hearing Washington pundits say that this temporary tax cut will enable small businesses to create new jobs. After 10 years of temporary reductions where are the jobs? Compare unemployment rates in 2001 to what we have today. It is time to admit we have a revenue problem.

A return to the tax levels of the 1990s will be a great step forward toward balancing the budget. That, coupled with intelligent reductions across the entire spectrum, will put us on the proper path. I and many of my colleagues, believe that a return to the 1990s level will not overly strain our financial position. Those making less will see a minuscule increase. Those making more will see a proportional increase and should be able to meet their tax demands. Now, remember, I am not calling for a tax increase but rather the end of a temporary tax reduction. I am convinced that this should delay, or eliminate the need for, a much greater tax increase in the future.

I hope that you, and your colleagues, will open your minds to the need for abolishing the temporary tax cuts of 2002.

I also subscribe to the need to reform Social Security and Medicare. This can be done by an increase in age eligibility, a substantial increase in the wage ceiling, and a reasonable increase in medicare monthly premiums. We also need to look toward cost reductions and delivery of care options. A move toward "privatization" is not the answer.

Please consider proposing reasonable modifications to our social programs. Let's improve Medicare and not proliferate "mediscare".

Sincerely,

Richard L. Brice
LT. Col USAF (ret)

Portman Responded:

Dear Dick,

Thank you for contacting me regarding your concerns about TRICARE. I understand your displeasure with the changes in TRICARE proposed in President Obama's budget for fiscal year 2012. It is good to hear from you.

I have a great appreciation for our men and women in uniform who have sacrificed so much for our nation. I am committed to supporting our troops in their retirement years. In order to do this effectively, we must get our fiscal house in order. As Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, noted, the national debt is the single biggest threat to national security.

As you may be aware, the TRICARE fee increases proposed in the President's budget only impact retirees under 65 enrolled in TRICARE Prime, the managed care network. Retirees who use TRICARE Standard or TRICARE for Life would not see higher fees. Retirees' annual enrollment fee for TRICARE Prime would climb by $60, to $520, for families and by $30, to $260, for singles. This fee would be indexed to Medicare cost increases. These changes would result in a five-year savings of $430 million for the Department of Defense.

The President's budget also makes changes to copays for drugs for TRICARE beneficiaries in order to encourage greater use of generic and mail order prescription drugs. These changes could save TRICARE $2.6 billion over five years.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff; the vice chairman; and the four services' chiefs of staff sent a letter to the Senate Armed Services Committee supporting the TRICARE proposals. They stated, "We understand that any changes to health care benefits create concern among the people we serve and the communities from which we receive care. . . . Our approach is careful, gradual, and responsible."

Thank you for taking the time to contact my office. As a member of the Armed Services Committee, I will keep your views on TRICARE in mind. For more information, I encourage you to visit my website at www.portman.senate.gov. Please keep in touch.

Sincerely,

Rob Portman

I responded:

I don't believe you read my letter completely. I merely stated that I receive my medical care through Tricare. I said nothing regarding the proposed increase in premiums. Currently Tricare for Life costs me nothing. I would not be averse to a small premium. What I did say in my letter was that I believe that the 2002 TEMPORARY tax cuts should be terminated. I also said that Medicare must be revamped but not in the way the Republican Part is advocating.
It is most discouraging to see one of my Senators replying to a letter with "Stock Reply XXX" just because I used the term "TriCare". I hope you attention to matters in the Senate is more focused. We need to let tax cuts expire in order to build our revenue stream. Simply cutting programs will not solve our national problems

Sincerely Disappointed,

Richard L Brice, Lt. Col. USAF, Ret.

The REAL "Best and Brightest"

While thousands of Americans lost their jobs this past year and millions more took pay cuts, some in the form of forced unpaid days off, Glen Tellock got a 141% pay raise.

Total compensation gifted to Tellock, the 40-something president, CEO and chairman of the crane and food services equipment manufacturer/supplier Manitowoc Company, is now a cool $4.9 million, according to a little item on the March 26, 2011, Milwaukee (WI) Journal Sentinel's business page. http://www.jsonline.com/business/118652089.html

A similar news tidbit surfaced just one day earlier about another flush corporate exec, the CEO of M&I bank in Wisconsin.

Wisconsin, you know, that "broke" state whose new (R) governor and (R)-dominated legislature are fixing with a "budget repair" still-bill or law (depending on which constitutional lawyers suit you) that eviscerates (i.e. the blood-and-guts part of dressing a deer) just about every service that benefits Wisconsin residents, i.e. babies, children, students, poverty-level folks, library users, the not-so-well-off oldsters, oh the list is long, but it includes nary an "I-got-mine-screw-you" grubber, like the paltry few who are benefiting from the $143 million no-strings attached business tax breaks said (R) governor and (R)-dominated legislature gifted to them just a couple of weeks before popping the cork on their "budget-repair" bill.

The $18 million lavished on M&I CEO Mark Furlong was just one of the "golden parachutes" totaling $70 million that have been slopped on M&I execs. Golden parachutes because M&I got sold, which pulled the ripcord on those 'chutes.

In a hand-washing re-enactment that would have done Pontius Pilate proud, M&I buyer Canadian-based Bank of Montreal eschewed any responsibility.

“It’s not our affair,” BOM President and CEO Bill Downe is quoted as saying. http://www.milwaukeenewsbuzz.com/?p=532394

How so? The reason is that 24k parachutes are part of the contract when execs are hired. What they'll get if and (much more likely) when they leave is determined before they ever set foot in their corner office or executive suite. Lucrative serverences are among the carrots along with obscenely high salaries, stock options and other "incentives" that are dangled in front of prospective execs in order to attract the "best and brightest."

The "best and brightest." I'm sure you've heard that expression before.

It's that red herring that gets dragged out whenever anyone dares criticize or question gaggingly high CEO compensation, particularly when most other Americans (you know, those who are not among the richest 1% among us) are "sharing the pain."

So, um, Mr. Tellock is among the "best and brightest," an absolute wunderkind who at the tender age of 47 or thereabouts is Chairman, President and CEO of a multibillion-dollar, multinational corporation, so much so that he deserves a 141% raise in an economy struggling to recover from the worse recession in 75 years in which 9% of its workforce -- or wannabe workforce -- nationally is unemployed.

You think so?

Buried down in the part of the Journal Sentinel news item that few readers would have gotten to is this: "In 2010, Manitowoc Co. narrowed its loss to $74.4 million, or 55 cents a share, from $704 million, or $5.41, in 2009."

'Scuse me, but wouldn't that be a losing performance?. And wouldn't a losing performance be more likely to result getting fired than rewarded with a nearly 50% raise?

But 24k parachutes guarantee easy street for life, no matter how incompetent the exec or how badly he takes down a company. Take former Chrysler Chairman and CEO and before that, before he wrecked it, Home Depot Chairman and CEO Bob Nardelli for instance. When Home Depot's board realized how close Nardelli was to killing that company and showed him the door, he waltzed away with $210,000 million -- that's right, nearly a quarter of a BILLION smackeroos -- thanks to the severance-pay provision in his pre-nup contract.

How he got a job doing anything getting fired from Home Deport that is a true mystery to me, much less be taken on as fearless leader of another corporation. But Chrylser did just that. Guess that helps explain the near demise of that company.

CNBC has named Nardelli one of the "Worst American CEOs of All Time" but he's still filthy rich -- unless he has managed screw up his personal business as abysmally as he did the corporations he headed.

So, could it be that the mega bucks that are thrown at corporate execs to ensure that companies get the "best and brightest" is just a crock? Might that be just a ruse so us regular folks don't catch on to the good ol' clubbers' incestuous game of sitting on each others' boards of directors and voting each other increasingly astronomical compensation packages?

Do you suppose it's possible that if you were to take a close look at all of those emperors, you would see that except for their trappings there really isn't anything a bit special about them?

Rather than the best and brightest, they are really just some of the privileged in this land of great and increasing inequality. You know, the ones with filthy rich daddies, those born or invited into the club or who were dealt hands with the "right" cards and whose real talents lay with just being able to swim with sharks and are slippery enough to keep from being eaten alive.

Does that mean that the whole idea of the "best and brightest" is a crock? I don't think so. I think this country is filled with the best and brightest. But rather than living and operating in ivory towers, they are living and walking amongst us. A lot of them are teaching our kids in public school classrooms.

Rather than being lured with big pay and other incentives, though, they are being denigrated, disrespected and rewarded with shrinking compensation because, we are told, everyone has to "share the pain."

Now saying that everyone must share the pain is a crock unless and until "everyone" includes the highly compensated corner-office, executive-suite club.

I am truly conservative about who should be called the "best and the brightest" and paying people what they are really  worth. And I'm even more conservative about demonizing those who really are the best and brightest, but instead in these topsy-turvey, inside-out times are treated like they're just selfish, greedy, lazy louts.

 Here's a short video of one of them. https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=10150099422543827&comments

 

My email to WI Sen. Chris Larson

... because I'm truly conservative about politicans who get bumped into a position of what is supposed to be leadership thinking he's the boss of everyone.

Dear Sen. Larson,

On what authority does one Wisconsin senator order the arrest of another senator for not attending a senate session even if the first senator is senate majority leader Scott Fitzgerald? You, Sen. Larson, are MY senator. I and other voters who live in your senatorial district elected you to represent US. You don't work for Fitzgerald or the governor. You work for your constituents, which is what you are doing.

On what authority does one Wisconsin senator withhold the pay of other senators? Sen. Erpenbach and his 13 fellow DemocratIC WI senators work for their constituents, not for Sen. Scott Fitzgerald. Sen. Scott Fitzgerald is not Sen. Jon Erpenbach's or your employer, Sen. Larson. We, The People, are. Sen. Fitzgerald does not represent your or any of the other 13 DemocratIC senators' constituents.

 

I salute you all and congratulate Sen. Erpenbach's action: http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_077a4972-4609-11e0-aa20-001cc4c03286.html 

What Wisconsin Didn't Elect

Billionaire Brothers’ Money Plays Role in Wisconsin Dispute

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/22/us/22koch.html?nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha24

Koch heads David and Charles: Who's in their wallets?

David Koch (AP)                                                                  Charles Koch (AP)

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker complained the other day about people from other states joining rallies of demonstrators in Madison who oppose Walker's consolidation-of-power and union-busting bill, saying these "outsiders" should stay out of Wisconsin's business.

Yet, I have heard not a word of protest out of him about outsiders, like multi-billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, neither of whom live in Wisconsin and whose Koch Industries is based in Kansas, who poured mega-bucks in campaign contributions to get him elected Wisconsin governor, and are funding pro-Walker demonstrations in Wisconsin, Wisconsin union-busting efforts, and tea party and other partisan organizations that are active in Wisconsin politics.

I am truly conservative when it comes to what's good for one goose should be equally applied to another.

Walker Riding a Koch Brothers Wisconsin Monopoly?

I keep hearing that Wisconsin Gov. Walker's agenda with his "budget recovery" bill isn't about money, it's about power. That might be, but if this article, "The Kock Brothers' End Game in Wisconsin  http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/02/21/947947/-The-Koch-Brothers-End-Game-in-Wisconsin, is correct (despite the snarky rhetoric), Wisconsinites have a whole lot more to worry about than public service workers losing bargaining rights and nonpublic-sector residents thinking public employees are getting a free ride.

It might be a good idea for everyone, not just Walker's political foes/critics/watchdogs, to keep an eye on Walker's moves to sell off state utilities, plants and other assets.

Could it be that this is what the real power play is all about, the supposedly "conservative" Gov. Scott Walker very liberally turning over Wisconsin's assets to someone who absolutely does not have us and our state's best interest in mind?

Here's the section of Walker's "budget repair" bill that would enable him to do that:

State of Wisconsin
SENATE BILL 11
http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/JR1SB-11.pdf
Google Quick View of PDF:
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:X1ujH_yii54J:legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf+http://legis.wisconsin.gov/2011/data/JR1SB-11.pdf&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESg_-8S4nJy1wdVtSXPifvtqoK0qYIX3QIlLBjfmF3DCStDLLkW4SyU2nE7ZzbcH6-6Kr68EcaJtVBPJnjeNmoHSilshxOmaS4zX-1DSEWe8YK-_sK-Rc1k9fkZMe8PUnd3uEJRi&sig=AHIEtbRM0fgayS-yCr_rhGR0bo_RNfSGuQ
Bottom of Page 23:

SECTION 44. 16.896 of the statutes is created to read:
16.896 Sale or contractual operation of state−owned heating, cooling, and power plants. (1) Notwithstanding ss. 13.48 (14) (am) and 16.705 (1), the
department may sell any state−owned heating, cooling, and power plant or may
contract with a private entity for the operation of any such plant, with or without
solicitation of bids, for any amount that the department determines to be in the best
interest of the state. Notwithstanding ss. 196.49 and 196.80, no approval or
certification of the public service commission is necessary for a public utility to
purchase, or contract for the operation of, such a plant, and any such purchase is
considered to be in the public interest and to comply with the criteria for certification
of a project under s. 196.49 (3) (b).

Here's a list of Koch properties/subsidiaries/operations already in Wisconsin:
http://www.kochind.com/factsSheets/WisconsinFacts.aspx

• # Flint Hills Resources, LLC, through its subsidiaries, is a leading refining and chemicals company. Its subsidiaries market products such as gasoline, diesel, jet fuel, ethanol, olefins, polymers and intermediate chemicals, as well as base oils and asphalt. A subsidiary distributes refined fuel through its strategically located pipelines and terminals in Junction City, Waupun, Madison and Milwaukee. Another subsidiary manufactures asphalt that is distributed to terminals in Green Bay and Stevens Point.
• # Koch Pipeline Company, L.P. operates a pipeline system that crosses Wisconsin, part of the nearly 4,000 miles of pipelines owned or operated by the company.
• # The C. Reiss Coal Company is a leading supplier of coal used to generate power. The company has locations in Green Bay, Manitowoc, Ashland and Sheboygan. 

Walker's actions could end up giving the Koch brothers a ownership of resources, distribution and generation of energy monopoly in Wisconsin.

How "conservative" is that?

What Wisconsin Elected, Part 3

Rachel Maddow ties recently elected Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker to disgraced defense contractor Wackenhut, caught in a disgusting scandal on the job in Kabul, Afghanistan, and Walker's attempts to contract out courthouse security guard duty, with convicted felon in charge, and the waste of nearly $500,000 of taxpayer money in the process. Here's a link to Maddow's clip. (Sorry for the brief ad that proceeds it.)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#41710135

I'm way too conservative to think this very liberal waste of tax dollars is good for the people of Wisconsin.

Weak Tea

Most news reports of Saturday's rally in Madison, Wisconsin, put the number of Gov. Scott Walker's anti-labor bill protesters at several times (one said possibly as much as 10 times) greater than tea party/Walker supporters.

Some people I know who attended the rally that day said they saw very few Walker supporters compared to pro-union demonstrators. Milwaukee public radio said a small group of anti-demonstrator demonstrators (translation: pro-Walkerites) chanting slogans was surrounded by a large circle of pro-union demonstators that was 10 people deep.

But you would never have known that from Milwaukee's newspaper on Sunday. Anyone looking at that paper would have been led to believe that it was pretty much of a draw, a stand off between evenly matched sides.

In fact, the inch-tall banner headline on Page 1 called it just that: "STANDOFF ON SQUARE". Two photographs of equal size were lined up side-by-side beneath that headline. One shows Walker supporters, the other union supporters. At first glance, the crowds look to be about the same size. But they weren't. The pro-Walker photo is a closer shot than the pro-union picture, so the people appear larger and more individual, and also so the group might look larger than it really is. Also signs obscure the back edge of the group, so it isn't possible to see how far back it goes.

The Page 1 story continues on Page 20 where a large photograph at the top depicts a line of police officers facing a group of Walker supporters holding professionally made signs. On the other side of the officers is a lone union supporter holding a handmade sign.

In a smaller photo beneath that picture is a woman standing alone and holding a handmade sign that says, "Silent Vigil for Workers' Rights."

In other words, the photos show what looks like many Walker supporters, but only two union supporters who are seen separately in different pictures.

That makes an impression, however subliminally, that Walker supporters outnumbered union supporters and that they were more well organized because of the quality of their signs. The rest of Page 20 is all text, except for a small map of Madison's Capitol Square.

The facing page is a full photo spread. No text, just pictures with captions. The two largest and another smaller one, dominate the center of the page and are unmistakably of Walker supporters. Huge signs say, "Support Walker," "Thank you God for Scott" (their incorrect punctuation, not mine), "Vote for Freedom, sponsored by: Mayville T.E.A. Party" and "I Stand with Walker and Wynn" (whoever that is). The caption says a sign holder at the edge of the smaller photo is a union supporter, but the sign is unreadable. Two small photos at the top and bottom of the page appear to be neutral, although a caption says one is of pro-union demonstrators. The only photo that can be easily and clearly identified as showing union supporters is the smallest at the very bottom of the page. 

Aside from a Page 1 subhead mentioning the "larger union crowd," little is said until the jump on Page 20 about crowd sizes or the lopsidedness of the huge pro-union crowd compared to the 1,000-to-4,000 tea party/Walkerite estimate in other news reports. In the second column near the bottom of Page 20 is a single sentence that says, "The number of protesters opposed to Walker's bill, however, outnumbered by far the groups representing tea party organizations and other groups backing the governor."

The pro-Walker picture on Page 1 includes five readable pro-Walker signs--all but one professionally made--and a billowing American flag in the background. In the pro-union photo, one and part of another sign are visible, both handmade. No flags in sight. Again, subliminal impressions.

So were there no flags among the pro-union demonstrators? Well, there sure were when I was there on Friday, all over the place, large and small, and hard to miss by anyone taking pictures or not. And contrary to the dominance of handmade pro-union signs in the photos Milwaukee editors selected to publish in their paper, most of the union-supporter signs I saw on Friday were professionally made.

The Milwaukee paper did report that pro-union rallies had been going on at the capitol all week, so perhaps its editors thought the news was that the tea party had finally shown up. But after tea partiers overflowing and disrupting town halls across the country during the 2009 summer of healthcare reform, and turning out in numbers large enough to determine many 2010 mid-term elections, it seems to me that the real news on Saturday was the pitifully weak tea party and Walker supporter turnout in Madison.

So what does any of this have to do with being truly conservative? Well, as a former newspaper journalist, I consider myself truly conservative about the news media being objective and not misrepresenting the reality of an event or going overboard in trying to "balance" something that isn't balanced at all.

At the Rally

I am somewhere in this crowd:
http://www.jsonline.com/multimedia/photos/116479938.html#id_46774588

Yep, I was one of 60,000 or so who went to the "kill the bill" rally in Madison, WI, on Friday, and I was so impressed.

The "captain" of the bus I rode on from Milwaukee to Madison prepped us with a little speech that included instructions on how to conduct ourselves. No hostility, no name calling, no incivility. Be peaceful, be respectful and clean up after ourselves. She told us the capitol police wouldn't allow "sticks" or backpacks inside the building, so to leave them outside. The no backpacks I got, but no sticks? I didn't understand that until someone else asked. We could take signs inside the capitol, but only if they we're not attached to sticks. Oh.

Well, I didn't have sign, attached to a stick or otherwise. I just had me. I don't have union affiliation or any specific dog in this fight. But I do support those who do and that's mainly because I am so truly conservative.

I'm way too conservative to think it's OK for goverment to tell its workers that there's no money for pay increases like private sector workers got for years, so to compenstate, their benefits contributions would remain low, and then renig when the folks in charge have maxed out the credit card on other expenditures. And that's on top of the equivilent of a pay cut for at least two years, thanks to furlough days they were forced to take off without pay every month.

Even worse is government intrusion into telling employees they can have no say in their work situation. Yet, that's what Wisconsin's supposed "small-government" administration and legislative majority are doing with what is being called a "Budget Recovery" bill.  Nevermind that workers being able to negotiate for safe working conditions and humane treatment have nothing to do with a governor needing to balance his budget.

While I was cheering and clapping with demonstrators in the capitol rotunda on Friday, I was thinking about my recently retired sister-in-law who was an elementary school teacher in that great right-to-work (NOT) state of Virginia.

Contrary to popular belief that teachers work only nine months a year and six hours a day, my sister-in-law, like the vast majority of her colleagues, worked through much of the summer vacation while the kids were off. And during the school year, her work day began before the kids arrived and ended long after the official school day was over. She got half-an-hour for lunch, which she often really didn't get because the noon hour was often when parents wanted to meet with her about their children. She got no bathroom breaks, so had to make mutual arrangements with other teachers to watch her class--in addition to their own--so she could go to the restroom. And, like so many other teachers I know, she spent a not insignificant amount of money on supplies, often essential supplies, that the school either couldn't or wouldn't provide.

Then I started thinking about the child-labor laws and unsafe conditions in which people worked before unions came along and began to negotiate with employers and lobby Congress for safer and more humane conditions and realized that I'm much too conservative for employers -- public or private -- to be able to so liberally exploit their workers.

Then came the disturbing news on Friday that Wisconsin Gov. Walker was apparently using the ruse that he's facing a budget crisis to justify his draconian "Budget Repair" proposal. Last month, Wisconsin's equivalent of the feds' non-partisan Congressional Budget Office had projected a budget surplus for this year. I say "had" because that projected surplus has been gobbled up by tax breaks and other gifts Walker has bestowed on the business community on the premise that doing so would generate jobs.

I covered just how likely that is to happen in a previous blog post, titled "What Wisconsin Elected 2."

So back to Friday's rally. While there, I heard talk that tea partiers would be showing up on Saturday. So the word went around that instead of trying to take them on, kill-the-billers should try to engage them and chat them up. Bill opponents might not win any tea partiers over, but they could at least show that they can be civil and friendly.

From what I heard today, that seemed to be working.

What Wisconsin Elected, Part 2

Hot on the heels of the very generous corporate-friendly lawsuit-limitations legislation that flew through Wisconsin's now-Republican-controlled Legislature and was even more quickly signed by the new GOP governor, the state's new Republican triumvirate has enacted another law that gives tax breaks to companies that "create" jobs in Wisconsin. This law gives companies thousands of dollars in tax deductions for each job they create.

 

Aside from why avowed small-government/free-market advocates would get their pro-small government involved in private-enterprise matters such as this, I wondered what kinds of safe guards this law might contain that would prevent some enterprising company or companies from engaging in a grab-the-tax-breaks-and-run scheme. So, when I learned that this bill was whip-lashing through the Legislature, I contacted the senator who represents my district to ask that he try to protect Wisconsin taxpayers who get stuck with the bill for these tax breaks by including some taxpayer safe guards. Some of the conditions I hoped the law would contain are: 

 

--  In order to receive the deduction, a company would be required to guarantee that the newly created job is permanent -- or at least that it exist for some specified time, such as two years or longer. If the job is eliminated, merged with another position or disappears by any other means before the specified time limit, the employer not only loses the deduction, but must repay the state whatever deduction it received for creating the job.

 

--  Only full-time jobs with benefits would qualify for a deduction. No part-time jobs would qualify.

 

--  The job must exist in the state of Wisconsin and employ a Wisconsin resident. No outsourced jobs or positions created by a Wisconsin employer that are based in other states (i.e. director of sales for the western United States who is based in or has an office in Phoenix or any city other than a Wisconsin city) qualify.

 

-- The employer must be based in -- that is, have its primary operational and administrative headquarters -- Wisconsin. No Old Dominion Energy Corporation of Virginia that opens an office in Wisconsin as part of an expansion plan, or that gets a post office box in Wisconsin as a ruse that it is based in Wisconsin.

 

One more provision I would love for the bill to have contained is that whenever a company eliminates a job in Wisconsin, it loses a tax credit equal to a deduction it would get for creating a job.

 

 "Create jobs" is certainly the catch phase du jour. Many politicians who ran for office last November expounded at length about how, if elected, they will create jobs. At the same time, these "small-government" advocates say governments shouldn't be in the business of creating jobs, or that government can't create jobs at all. I get vertigo trying to follow such double-speak.

 

Wisconsin's new Republican governor says the state is now open for business -- and he even spent Wisconsin taxpayer money to erect signs at Wisconsin state lines saying so. What he really means and what those signs should say is that Wisconsin is open season on the people of Wisconsin, the regular folks who don't have the mega-bucks clout that the well-heeled corporate "people" do to buy laws that result in little to no accountability, that will shift even more taxpayer dollars into corporate coffers, and leave increasingly disenfranchised individuals with fewer and fewer options for redress when harmed. 

 

These laws -- the lawsuit-limiting law and the create-a-job-tax-break law -- are two great examples of how Alice-in-Wonderland the English language in the U.S. has become when it comes to the terms "conservative" and "liberal." "Conservative" in today's parlance is really uber-liberal, particularly in the context of Republican-created laws that favor corporations over real people. You know, The People who are mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

 

http://www.anatomyofatrial.com/