Have we all forgotten Reagan's 11th Commandment?

Official portrait, 1981

Having grown weary of internecine clashes within the Republican Party, I recently had an exchange with a local GOP leader.  Here's what I wrote....

"Thanks for your response.  You mention I should share my thoughts with the State GOP.  Fair point. Reagan’s “Eleventh Commandment” applies to all Republicans. 

I’m approaching retirement which will free up my time to learn, but right now, I won’t pretend to be steeped in state politics.  I know Vos is controversial to say the least and I have much to learn about the influences of the lobbies in your message.  I have no reason to doubt the veracity of your claims about who’s ruling the roost and those special interests concern me. 

Now, for added context on where I’m coming from, bear with me…. 

I’m a lifelong Wisconsinite who’s voted Republican at state and federal levels for 42 years.  That’s right.  I’ve not cast a single vote for a Democrat and never regretted it -- but these days -- my party is at war with itself and we’re fighting Dems with one arm tied behind our backs.  Two Republicans at odds with each other often forget they both have more in common with each other, than either person will ever have with Democrats. 

I’m a pragmatist because without victory in key elections, we improve little.  You write about good quality candidates vs. establishment types.  I’m not sure what constitutes an establishment candidate, but I’ve seen GOP candidates, who say the right things, but prove to be ineffective campaigners:  Tim Michels for Governor (Rebecca Kleefisch would’ve been better), Tommy Thompson (as much as I admire all that he did in his prime as Governor, his effort for a US Senate seat against Baldwin was miserable), Sarah Palin (she almost single-handedly sunk McCain) etc.  Were these candidates establishment, or non-establishment types?  I’m not sure the label matters.  They all lost. 

Either way, we need to allow room for debate within the GOP without destroying each other.  For example, I’ve long admired Paul Ryan for his fiscal sanity and unflappable temperament in the DC cesspool, but I totally disagree with him about his choice to not vote for Trump.  It’s a binary choice in November.  If one does NOT vote for Trump, one is by definition helping Harris. 

On the other hand, Trump’s ridiculous remarks about Ryan being the worst Speaker of the House in American history and all the compost Trump hurls at other decent Republicans needs to be countered and freely debated within the party.  If it isn’t, then Ryan becomes correct about Trump being a Non-Conservative Populist requiring total fealty from the rest of us. 

There’s a common theme here--I see few conservative voices on college campuses, little balance in the mainstream media, and little to no tolerance for disagreement within Republican caucuses whenever Trump comes up.  Conservatives must get together, allow reasoned debate among us and run GOP candidates who can win in Madison and up ballot.

 Respectfully,

John J. Maddente"

Baseball is (already) for everyone

Image by Racool_studio on Freepik

To attend a major league baseball game, is to participate in a thoroughly American experience.  It's a classic sport with something to delight everyone.  As spectators, we usually can forget about life's problems for a few innings.  Or, at least we could.

Now, the MLB, its franchise owners, the players union, or some combination thereof, have joined the ranks of those in the NFL who thought it was a great idea to radiate political messages in giant letters in the endzone.  (And even allow messaging on the back of player helmets).

I hadn't noticed anything similar in professional baseball until recently.  Just beyond the center field wall at Target Field in Minneapolis, one can see, one actually must see, a large sign blaring two words: "END RACISM". 

Who are proponents of the Target Field signage going to influence?  Put another way, who besides actual racists, would advocate for preserving racism?  This practice of adorning stadiums with political messages could beckon all comers for equal expression.  One day will we see a large "END WOKEISM" or "BACK THE BADGE" sign in the right field bleachers?  I hope not, because overt political posturing -- whether Conservative or Progressive in nature -- does not belong at sporting events.

All forms of injustice, including racism, are abhorrent.  We all salute those who fight injustice, but every citizen has a right to pay for and receive the pleasurable escapism of attendance at a sporting event (or a "Hamilton" performance) without intrusive political messaging.  

Now, other recent changes to the game of baseball have been welcome and they involve no political expression whatever, so let's go there....  

Many games were simply too long, but by adding the pitch clock, limiting trips to the mound for pitcher chats and implementing other measures for extra inning play, the MLB has effectively shortened average game time, while preserving the experience for fans.  Many unnecessary delays involve the pitcher in some way, shape, or form.  

Relief pitchers warm up in the bullpen, so why not reduce the amount of time they can burn after taking the mound before they face their first batter?  

If the manager is going to call for that relief pitcher, why can't he just signal that from the dugout.  His walk to the mound followed by on field discussion with the manager, catcher and a friendly pat on the back of the outgoing pitcher--is followed by more mound chat.  Just zip Joe Reliever in a golf cart directly to the mound and play ball! 

Finally, a personal wish.  Let's keep home plate umpires, but use technology to perfectly call balls and strikes.  

Way too many strikes are called balls and vise versa.  Allowing technology to decide what an umpire calls a pitch, would avoid disputes over poor calls and limit fan and player aggravation over all of those truly God awful calls that follow so many pitches. 

Traditionalists may bristle, but the technology could be implemented without removing home plate umpires from the sport. Aside from the benefits of accurate officiating and stress reduction, the change would equate to another timesaver.

Baseball fans vigorously debate changes like these, but they do so in the context of what's good for this sport that's lasted over 180 years.  Such debates don't involve political ideology today.  I hope they never do. 

Cum On Feel the Noize

Slade was a 1970s British band that could wake up any audience.  As a teen, I was mesmerized by Noddy Holder's raspy voice, his onstage penguin steps with mirrored stove pipe hat and the sound of Slades' instruments.  One track called, "Cum On Feel the Noize" (yes, they had a penchant for deliberate misspellings with song titles like, "Look Wot You Dun") still warms my nostalgic heart.  I thought of that song today while listening to an NPR podcast about Trump's recent NATO comments.

There were two parts to Trump's NATO invective.  The first should be ignored as "noise" and the other should be heeded as a "signal".  First, the ridiculous assertion that he'd invite Putin to invade NATO countries that don't pay their bills should be ignored, but the second one about NATO members not paying their "bills" requires closer examination as a signal.

One problem with the American Left, is that they fail to understand why Trump was elected in 2016 and instead they focus on Trump's hyperbolic noise which, to be fair, is often preposterous or dangerous.  However, I believe that most Trump barbs and threats are designed to agitate others, fire up the base and keep him in the headlines.  

In this case, I heard a podcast commentator -- obsessed with Trump's use of the noun "bills" --  remind listeners that NATO "is not a country club" with its members getting billed.  That observation is noise.  Of course, no administrative entity issues annual dues invoices to 31 member nations, but members have agreed to fund a minimum of 2% of their GDP to pay for their own defense.  

In the last report by the NATO Secretary General  (the 2022 report was issued before Finland became a member in 2023) just 7 of the 30 NATO member nations met their minimum 2% of GDP military spend commitment.  That's the signal.  

Most NATO countries are not paying their share.  The rest is just noise.

(Image Above By freepik)

Biden family transactions revisited

"Moral clarity" is a phrase I heard recently and it comes to mind when sorting out these troubling times and who's done what for whom and why.  In the case of the $200,000 (or $240,000) sum(s) transferred between the Biden brothers, there is absolute clarity someplace.  We just don't know where it is yet.

The money transfers under scrutiny, either represent a legitimate extension and repayment of a loan, or they don't.  Much seems to hinge upon a trust account established by a Delaware law firm used to transact business on behalf of ___________ and that's the question....who?  

Rep. Comer and company seek to prove that the trust fund was used to launder money for the benefit of Hunter Biden, his Uncle and partners -- and ultimately to compensate the elder Joe Biden.  

The White House and their acolytes seek to prove that the trust account in question was controlled exclusively by Joe Biden and simply used as a conduit for the funds extended by Joe Biden to his brother, in the form of a personal, interest-free loan.

Neither side has definitively proven its case.  Only one side can be correct and that's the missing clarity.

Image by wirestock on Freepik

A real estate CEO moves to TX

.  

rex.com

Last Saturday, a CEO named Peter Rex published an opinion piece in the WSJ that attracted a fair amount of attention on LinkedIn.  The article is entitled, "I'm Leaving Seattle for Texas So My Employees Can Be Free"  . 

I believe you'll find the views expressed in this piece reasonable and factual -- but unfortunately -- not widely promulgated by traditional media.  

Read more about Mr. Rex here.  

The public courtesy award goes to Ricky Gervais

A few winners at the Golden Globe Awards on January 5th decided to espouse their personal political views to the public, even after host Ricky Gervais admonished them not to do so.

Freepik image 

The majority of us don't tune in to the Golden Globes to watch Stars advocate for a cause celebre.  It's not a free speech issue; it's a public courtesy issue.  Want to speak out about Abortion?  How about Gun Rights or Gun Control?  OK; but please choose an appropriate forum.  Actor Charlton Heston spoke out about protecting Second Amendment rights in 2012 but he made his Gun Rights remarks at an NRA convention, not the Golden Globe Awards.  Big difference.

There's no shortage of outlets to express one's political opinions on one's own time.  Golden Globe Award viewers deserve to hear from invited artists about their art and not by using that forum as polarizing crusaders.

Mr. Gervais is an intellectually honest Progressive who was speaking to his peers that evening because some of them insist on pontificating about matters having nothing to do with why they are being recognized.  He told them...

"So, if you do win an award tonight; don't use it as a platform to make a political speech."  

Then Mr. Gervais added....

"You’re in no position to lecture the public about anything," 

Bravo Ricky! 

  

**********************************************************************

On 2/4/2025 Ricky Gervais posted this picture on X with a caption, "They're still not listening".  How right he is.

The Fed's listening session

The Fed always inspires debates among stakeholders like institutional investors, economists, politicians, financial journalists and industry leaders.

Now the Fed has received an activist group at its annual Jackson Hole symposium to hear their views on monetary policy.  This week, a movement called “Fed Up” sponsored by The Center for Popular Democracy met with Federal Reserve officials including Bill Dudley, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 

The Fed Up team merits an A grade for inventiveness.  Such groups often petition the legislative and executive branches of government that control spending and tax policy, but now one has successfully lobbied the The Federal Reserve within spitting distance.  To be fair, the group had some trained economists in their midst and they did nothing disruptive; but do political organizations belong at this annual forum?

http://whatrecovery.org/ website 

Yes, economics and politics are inextricably linked, but Fed actions are logically debated on the long view of what’s good for the economy as a whole.  

The Fed's annual meeting shouldn't become a town hall with listening sessions like one conducted by your local Congressman.  

I haven't seen any reporting of the Fed Up attendees causing problems at Jackson Hole, but Fed officials' willingness to receive them in the first place is unsettling.  

After all, if Fed "independence" is advanced by the number of constituencies it receives in public, they must receive all comers.  Ultra low interest rates and massive bond buying by the Fed have juiced the stock market, but also crushed returns for elderly people living on payments from fixed income investments and cash.  Therefore, should the AARP or another group representing retirees have been granted equal time at Jackson Hole to advocate for monetary tightening?  

"We're all on a journey in this life"

Interesting people and teachable moments are often nearby.  I'm more open some days than others, but at conference in Chicago some three years ago, I made an unlikely acquaintance whose words resonate with me this morning.

The subject is an industrial psychologist who practices in the financial services space.  Before his clients extend lucrative offers to hire C-level executives, candidates must pass his curated assessment.

So I plied this man, named Grant, with questions to learn what he looks for and who ultimately receives his endorsement.  Grant told me a little about his trade at a technical level, but when he got to the part about who fails his assessments, I was struck by his answer.  

It turned out that an outsized ego is the kiss of death for candidates seeking his seal of approval.  He explained that an executive that pretends to have all the answers often has a high probability of sub-par performance at his clients' businesses.  

To summarize his point, he said, 

"We're all on a journey in this life and those who don't understand that..." are going to fail.  

He suggested that humility and intellectual openness are key attributes of senior executives with sustainable records of success.  Maybe his principle doesn't apply to all interviewers, but his filter works for him and his clients.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inspired by Dr. Grant, it is with humble hat in hand that I recite my incorrect 2015 Halloween projection.  I believed Sen. Rubio would become our GOP presidential nominee.  Did I know his campaign was over after he collapsed under pressure from Chris Christie?  No, but it was clearly downhill from there.  He'll try again and probably be stronger the next time he encounters smash mouth moments at a debate.  

Carly_Fiorina_by_Gage_Skidmore_3

At present, I'm sticking with my dark-horse Halloween projection for the VP running mate -- Carly Fiorina -- if either Ted Cruz or John Kasich should capture the nomination. Either ticket would make a formidable team and one infinitely preferable to the prospect of a Clinton or Sanders presidency. 

Pol update & remembering Justice Scalia

On Halloween night I wrote,  "Donald Trump and Ben Carson will decompose in the coming months and try to trade whatever political capital they have in the form of an endorsement, for something they can use to remain relevant".  I also wrote Marco Rubio would become the GOP nominee.   (More fun paring back the candidates, October 31, 2015).  

I stand by these predictions although I now believe Trump may withhold his endorsement of another candidate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Millions of Americans are mourning the loss of Justice Antonin Scalia.  He was a colorful, principled and brilliant American jurist.


Justice Antonin Scalia
Wikipedia image

Much has been discussed about his near obsessive attention to originalism (which I learned today he sometimes called textualism).  It means a focus on the intent of the Founders and a dedication to their wording embedded in the U.S. Constitution.  Justice Scalia would often admonish anyone with a desire to understand the Framers intent to read the Federalist Papers.  In fact he was aghast that some law school students haven't read them.  

He was true to those principles as exemplified by this passage from a Wikipedia page...

"Scalia responded to his critics that his originalism `...has occasionally led him to decisions he deplores, like his upholding the constitutionality of flag burning', which according to Scalia is an expression protected by the First Amendment." 

Vive la France!

I sympathize with the great nation and people of America's oldest ally FRANCE.  May God soothe their anguish at this difficult time following the deaths of 130 French citizens at the hands of jihadist murderers.  Our President is mistaken about the national security challenges we face.  Unfortunately, he proclaims that evil abroad is "contained".  All the while, the national debt has grown more under his tenure than it has under all previous US presidents combined.  Perhaps that's why a former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff famously quipped that the biggest "...threat to our national security is our debt."

How slander goes unpunished

As a teen, I once scraped together enough money to buy a hamburger at a diner, then sat down at a table and waited and waited.  I watched waitresses serving customers around me and after a long period, I caught the attention of one waitress.  I asked her if someone could take my order.  She replied that another waitress had seen me steal a tip and that's why nobody would wait on me.  The charge was bogus.  I had taken nothing.  I protested the charge and left the diner with emotions that affected me decades later and even as I write these words.  I never learned the identity of my accuser.

The point of the story is that if one is going to charge another of being a thief, one must be able to back up the accusation, or there ought to be consequences for the accuser.  

Slanderous or libelous commentary is allowed in America's political environment because it's accepted as free speech and there are no rules for fair play

freepik image

when public policy fights occur.  

Unfortunately, class warfare is one avenue that works well for the accuser to smear someone.  Frequently, the one doing the smearing advocates for a populist cause.  Too often, without evidence, one can accuse another of holding depraved motives like "voter suppression" or "racism" and get away with it.  Want examples?   

Do you recall when Sen. Harry Reid likened the GOP to slavery sympathizers because he couldn't handle Obamacare criticisms?  (See my Examiner column published here).  His disgraceful comparison is largely forgotten today.  

Consider Vice President Joe Biden's spoken gem on the campaign trail, telling an African American audience that Republicans are "...going to put y'all back in chains."  Many pundits dismissed the remark as just one more bone-headed comment by Biden.  Now contrast that sorry episode with how Mitt Romney got crucified for citing an accurate statistic about the extent of government transfer payments. 

Romney's utterance wasn't populist, so the opposition could vilify him as a contemptible elitist, yet Biden's reprehensible remarks about the GOP left him unscathed.  

Political slander often occurs after Conservatives disclose ideas to reform the welfare state, curtail federal spending, or simplify the tax system.  Some ideas are better than others, but there's always a number of character assassins that will cry "Racism!"  And advocates trying to reduce voter fraud often attract a full-scale tar job, replete with charges of "voter suppression".    

freepik image

Most Conservatives encounter this sort of thing sooner or later.  What if it happens to you?  My advice is to expose your character assassins fully, fairly and early.  Fight with facts, but fight no less.  

If you have a better remedy; please let me know.

Fast food and class warfare

CAUTION: The fast food wage debate is heating up.  Consider recent actions undertaken by labor unions and community organizers against McDonald's and then...

Big Mac
Wikipedia image

read Al Lewis' WSJ column, ("Let Them Eat Burgers" September 1, 2013).  Mr. Lewis concludes that a super-sized minimum wage increase is justified on the basis of a single data point (average age of minimum wage workers has increased) and comparison to an Australian business model.  

Mr. Lewis' account of a recent protest demonstration reminds me of the danger I've been talking about since 2008.  Here's the story...

A vocal group is demanding a doubling of the minimum wage to $15 an hour in front of a Denver-area McDonald's which had to shut down because of the ruckus.  Lewis interviews a twenty-six year old man working at McDonald's who's protesting and had this to say about his employer, 

"They'd rather line their own pockets, than take care of us." 

A little perspective is in order.  According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), there are over four million workers employed at fast food establishments in the U.S. and half of them work part time. Turnover is high and this job pool is expected to narrow as new technologies become cost efficient alternatives to tasks currently performed by humans.

The education level required to perform most of these jobs is less than a high-school education.  Such jobs were not conceived as self-sustaining careers.  They are typically temporary positions for which the market pays a correspondingly low wage.  Nothing wrong with the work of course.  Many of us have performed such jobs -- I have -- and I take Lewis' point that if the average age of minimum wage workers is increasing, it says something troubling about our employment picture.  I never said that no wage increase is warranted or that all is sunny.  

However, should McDonald’s have a primary responsibility to "take care of us" or instead should they strive to satisfy customers, franchisees and shareholders?  What are the implications to our system if a corporation like McDonald's is pressured to act less like a business and more like a social safety net that also sells fast food?

Why is the implication that employees are "owed" more by McDonald's Corporation?  Most McDonald's restaurants are not even owned by McDonald's Corporation -- they are franchised to individuals or small businesses that pay royalties and franchise fees to McDonald's. This fact might not matter to one protester that Lewis interviewed who added,

"The corporation makes billions of dollars every year -- they can afford to pay us $15".

Piling on, Mr. Lewis writes, "Companies have paid the lowest wages they could, for as many years as they could".  Of course.  We call that a market economy.  Either way, can't we dial back the shame-mongering and instead focus upon additional training and education of the workforce? 

Microsoft Clip Art

The yoke of two Americas

It became clearer after President Obama’s re-election that we're two Americas.  Has our country been this divided since the Vietnam War, or perhaps the Civil War?  Mr. Obama captured just fifty-one percent of the popular vote.  

Last November, I anticipated more reaction from voters in the Center, due in part to the now infamous, “You didn’t build that” quip.  I believed it validated deep concerns held by many Americans that President Obama remains anti-business and anti-free market.  I also believed there was no way to take such a gaffe out of context (as claimed by the President and his defenders) and that the ripple effect would devastate the President's campaign.  I was obviously wrong about the fallout as far fewer swing voters in the Center cared about the issue than I'd imagined.  Setting aside the unpredictable American Center, the two Americas of Blue and Red remain far apart in their belief systems.

Icon by Flat-icons-com at freepik

Much of Blue America believes that since car tires rolled on public pavement while building businesses, or since career success came after attending public universities --- government funding enabled positive economic outcomes.   

Red America concedes that of course, some large scale public works projects and excellent public universities influenced America's growth and as our population grew, a corresponding increase in the size of federal government was necessary.  

However, Red America doesn't believe our nation flourished exclusively, or even principally, for these reasons.  Red America believes, it was limited government, free markets and personal freedom that enabled growth and prosperity in the first place coupled with initiative, smart risk-taking and hard work. Red America points to history that suggests the inevitable outcome of unchecked deficit-spending and taxation courts disaster and that we're already witnessing our decline.

Red America remains convinced that one of the most perilous problems faced by our nation today is federal spending and that added taxation, by any other name or game, is more of an enabler to the fiscal problem, than a cure.  For this view, Red America is often labeled by Blue as extremists.

Leaders of Blue America welcome new tax increases like the 2% payroll hike on all taxable wages up to $113,700 (which Blue dismisses as end of a tax "holiday") and the new Medicare adder of 0.9%.  

Class warfare and the politics of envy are often used to justify tax increases.  This historically has been Blue America's mantra to increase taxes.  Paying one's "fair share" is whatever they want it to mean.

And on the spending side, a reduction in the rate of increase to any budget item, is still decried as a spending cut by Blue America.  By contrast, Red America welcomes the prospect of a nominal $85 billion spending reduction from a government that spent over $3.5 trillion last year. 

Sadly, the yoke of two Americas remains firmly in place.

White House Fiscal Adviser?
Wikimedia Commons

The historical cycle that rings true today

A friend* trying to console me after Mr. Obama's re-election, shared a timeless quote:

"Again and again after freedom has brought opportunity and some degree of plenty, the competent become selfish, luxury-loving and complacent, the incompetent and the unfortunate grow envious and covetous, and all three groups turn aside from the hard road of freedom to worship the Golden Calf of economic security.  The historical cycle seems to be: from bondage to spiritual faith; from spiritual faith to courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to apathy; from apathy to dependency; and from dependency back to bondage once more."

Icon by Arfianta at freepik

These prophetic words came from the leader of a Pennsylvania cork company during a speech he delivered on March 18, 1943.  The speech was delivered by Henning Prentis.  Mr. Prentis also wrote this:

"At the stage between apathy and dependency, men always turn in fear to economic and political panaceas." (Industrial Management in a Republic, p. 22.).  

The concept rings true today.  

*Thanks, Kevin.

Quick hits for combative times

Super committee fails - or did they?
So, across the board (1/2 defense, 1/2 non-defense) federal spending cuts of $1.2T will begin January, 2013 without tax increases.  That's the plan, but there is plenty of time for Congress to derail progress.  Thankfully, President Obama says he'll veto any bill that attempts to overturn the sequester.  Republicans or Dems who try to do it to protect whatever it is they purport to be protecting -- will do so at their peril.  This is the 2012 issue to watch.

GOP nomination and a narrowing field
I felt many of the same hopeful moments and (ultimately) profound disappointments from Herman Cain's candidacy as I felt during the Sarah Palin VP run in 2008.  My view has less to do with Mr. Cain's alleged personal indiscretions than his performance on the campaign trail which has become as painful to watch as Ms. Palin's was during the 2008 election.  

Cameron weighs in on income redistribution
In May of 2010, I began an interesting exchange with my old pal Cameron. 
More recently Cameron sent me the CBO report that has garnered so much attention, "Trends in the Distribution of Household Income Between 1979 and 2007.  CBO says, "... the population with income in the lowest 20 percent (quintile) in 2007 was not necessarily the same population group in that category in 1979."  That point seems lost on some who believe this 20% is the exact same control group tracked during the period of study and thus the one still mired in poverty.  By definition, there always has been and always will be a lowest quintile, ipso facto.  CBO also mentions that the lowest 20 percent actually experienced income "18 percent higher in 2007 than it had been in 1979."  This data point suggests that a rising tide has lifted their boats too, though admittedly, not to the same degree as boat owners in higher quintiles. 

OWS and that "evil" one percent
Debate centers on the top 1% of income earners where the income share has increased dramatically in recent years.  Why?  Because if one looks at the income share by quintile, going back to the late 1960s, one sees that the share percentage of income earned by the top quintile has gone up (and down) in  percentages of total income between roughly 43 percent to 50 percent.  When I looked back further to the 1940s, the data for this quintile was still bouncing around in the mid 40s share percentage.  Thus, the share of total income going to the top quintile, hasn't changed much in relative terms. 

We all like to trot out statistics that support our own worldview.  I just did.  Don't want to talk about who pays the most income taxes?  Talk about income disparities.  Don't want to talk about higher living standards, or increased consumption by all Americans?  Yes, focus on the income.  Don't want to talk about anemic economic growth or continuing growth in government employment levels?  You got it -- single out the income issue.  One can always make a case and a counter case with quantitatively-supported talking points.  

As these wobbly debates continue, what's troubling is the class envy and resentment boiling over on to our streets.  For additional perspective, check out David Malpass' article in the current issue of Forbes Magazine ("Class Warfare Hurts Growth").  

Image by krakenimages.com on Freepik

What I saw on Feb. 11 in Madison, Wisconsin

It was a clear day at the Capitol.

What wasn't reported quite as clearly, among other things, was the composition of the Pro-Walker forces, which were outnumbered I'm guessing, by about 20 to 1 -- thanks in large part to throngs of out-of-state demonstrators.  One problem with the media characterization, was that they consistently reported the Pro-Walker group only as a "Tea Party" rally.  

Obviously, Tea Party members were out in force but the group contained a broader cross-section of voters including mainstream GOP members and even a few Blue Dog Dems including one courageous soul holding a sign labeled, "I'm A Teacher For Walker."  I believe that man has more company than most people realize, particularly among private school teachers that are non-unionized and paid significantly less in wages and benefits than their public school counterparts.  

But back to the afternoon event.  It was non-violent, but press accounts labeling it as "peaceful" stretch the adjective.  The government union faithful were deployed in a circle, perhaps a dozen members wide, that encircled the entire capitol building so that Pro-Walker supporters had to walk through them, and their insults, in order to get to the muddy basin of the capitol steps where Walker supporters gathered.  There were three times protesters tried to engage me in dialogue which I ignored to avoid a fruitless, heated debate -- or worse.  Remember, I said nothing before or afterward to these people.  That sort of provocation occurred repeatedly -- but you probably didn't read about it.  

Another unreported, or at least under-reported development, occurred near the lectern of the pro-Walker gathering.  Suddenly, the speaker's booming voice went silent.  Turning to a friend, I said, "That was no accident."  Seconds later, an opposition mole was ushered away by Sheriffs and the sound system began to work after someone plugged it in again.

Union members marching around the capitol circle chanted, beat drums and hoisted signs -- most of which contained civil inscriptions -- but others with words or images of Governor Walker that are unrepeatable on this site.  Again, I saw no press coverage of these signs, though they were hard to miss.  I hoped that the owners of those particular signs are not teaching children.  I'm not sure they should be near children.  

To be fair, I saw a couple signs in the pro-Walker camp that I also found objectionable, but they were less numerous than vile ones paraded by the other side. 

In yesterday's Wall Street Journal, columnist John Fund distills all this clamor into one question.  Mr. Fund asks, "Who's in charge of our political system -- voters or government unions?"  For decades, of course, the answer in the Badger State has been government unions.  That's about to end.  The objective is not to bust them, it's about requiring them to pay a reasonable share of their lucrative benefit packages and maintaining more future control with voters.

John Maddente photo

Fortunately, legislators do not need the 14 absent Dems to vote on the collective bargaining provision of the bill. 

Collective bargaining is a mechanism many want scaled back because such "bargaining" over the decades is what led to the out sized, budget-busting wage and benefit packages for many public employees. Pushing decisions down to the local levels makes sense.  Instead of allowing the Left to spin this as destruction of "rights" -- it's more accurate and less emotional -- to characterize the legislation as a move toward distributed bargaining.  

Claiming that collective bargaining is some divine "right" doesn't make it so either.  If you're a public teacher and you disagree, try looking at the issue in the following terms.  Most of us cannot "bargain" for higher pay or benefits.  Instead we receive a market-based pay package and a defined benefit plan, not a guarantee of retirement income and virtually free health care plans.  If we feel that our benefits or pay packages are unacceptable -- we find work elsewhere.  We do not have, nor do we seek, any collective means to hold employers (or taxpayers) hostage. 

Another notion advanced by some on the Left, is that this legislation is a surprise hijacking that nobody talked about before the election.  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC)  speaking this morning on Meet The Press explained how measures in the bill causing such a stir, are a well documented facet of candidate Walker's campaign before he took office.  Informed voters knew as much when they elected him.  Arguably, it is a one reason that they did elect him.  

What is unprecedented, of course, are the fourteen fugitive Democrat state senators.  It's a disgraceful signal to young people or anyone considering a career in public service.  When things get tough, flee the state -- just take your ball and leave.  That way, no one can play.  

I hope that this stalemate doesn't turn violent.  We can all disagree without throwing punches, but what I saw yesterday worried me. 

 

(Image above taken in Madison, WI 2/19/2011.  John Maddente photo)

Blessed again!

Wikipedia image

Another Progressive I've known as long as Mortimer (since childhood) read my last post - I'll call him "Cameron" - and he takes issue with my claim, "Wealth re-distribution is the Excalibur sword of most Progressives."  Cameron feels it is only reconciliation for "30 to 40 years" of growing disparity between the wealthy and the less fortunate.  Cameron's beef is summed up thus: "So John, I have a question for everyone out there that talks about this so called wealth redistribution. Based upon the facts I have cited, why was it okay for that wealth redistribution to go on during the 80's, 90's and into the 2000's, but now it's not when it goes the other way around?"

"Cameron,

Thanks for taking the time to read my last post and share your views.  I appreciate it.

Regarding CEO pay at the S&P 500; I don't feel it's a useful benchmark for a public policy discussion, because by definition, you are citing 500 companies to represent a national employment landscape that comprises over six million private employer companies.  That's hardly a reasonable sample, but let's talk about it anyway. 

(On a side note, I hear large public company CEO criticism often and find it interesting that few care about celebrity compensation like that paid to Oprah Winfrey or Alex Rodriguez - even though their pay dwarfs the average CEO paycheck and they don't create many jobs). 

Vastly undeserved executive compensation occurs to be sure, but it's really a matter for shareholders to deal with, isn't it?  After all, they own the company.  They can sell their shares, vote out the board, start a proxy fight, file lawsuits and do any number of things - and many do. 

Similar to any employee that just can't stand his/her Boss; vote with your feet, sue the bastard, etc. but again, let's not make policy for 300 million people based upon a handful of public company executives, lax boards, or apathetic stockholders.

I want to comment on two other items related to prosperity: housing and taxes.

More of our discretionary dollar goes to housing than anywhere else.  We were hardly raised in wealthy homesteads, Cam.  Our parents worked hard, but lived modestly by today's standards.  Perhaps a 1500 square foot bungalow on a postage stamp-sized lot, with two bedrooms, maybe three.  Can we agree on this description?  How do we live today?  More importantly, what has happened to American home sizes over this period you are pointing to? 

Researcher Moya Mason notes in a recent paper that while family sizes have decreased almost 25% over the last 30 years, the size of new houses actually increased over 50%.  This is consistent with my view of Americans in general.  Few of us are able to consume too little and the living standard has improved among all groups, since our childhood.

America has grown primarily through free markets, hard work and innovation - not government intervention.  I recognize this is traditional conservative orthodoxy and some don't like it, but it goes to the core of our disagreement.  You sound as though lower and middle third America have actually been exploited by the "top third."  How so, Cameron?  Think about income taxes (we can talk about taxes on property and consumption another day).

A column in the Wall Street Journal (April 14, 2010, `Spreading The Wealth Isn't Fair') by Arthur C. Brooks of the American Enterprise Institute alerts readers that last year, 38% of all Americans were expected to have zero tax liability.  They paid nothing in federal income taxes.  Under Mr. Obama's budget and other expected tax changes, this group of Americans that pay zip to federal coffers, is expected to grow to 46% in 2011 while the federal government continues to expand. 

Dr. Brooks also notes that according to the nonpartisan Tax Foundation, a full 60% of all Americans "consume more in government services than they pay in taxes."  And what about that top 5% of Americans earning more than the other 95%? These are the folks everyone loves to hate.  Well, they pay over half of all federal income taxes paid.  Yes, 5% of the tax paying public, pays over 50% of all federal income tax collected.

I understand the worry over a concentration of assets, but whether we advocate for the top third, bottom third, or middle third of America - we cannot tax our way to prosperity, or make transfer payments to reverse perceived inequities, unless we want to unwind the very system that facilitated America's rise. 

I'm going to close with part of that Arthur Brooks column:

"...our system is the envy of the world and should be a source of pride.  Generation after generation, it has rewarded hard work and good values, education and street smarts.  It has offered the world's most disadvantaged not government redistribution but a chance to earn their success."   (Words in bold my emphasis, not Brooks'). 

I can't improve on that statement, so I'll leave it there. 

Cam, I know we haven't resolved our debate, but I am excited about your visit this summer after not having seen you for so many years.  Please let me know your expected day(s) in town, so we can block the time and I can make the sauce.

Best,

John"