The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports today that a judge has allowed the furloughs (days off without pay) of some public union workers to commence in accordance with Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker's order -- starting Monday.
It's unfortunate, that instead of supporting his fiscal responsibility, the County Board continues to jawbone the County Executive and the unions, of course, continue to file lawsuits. All of this for five hours off a week.
I never understood why organized labor behaves as though pay (and benefits most of us dream of) ought to be guaranteed. I cannot fathom any responsible authority agreeing on behalf of county taxpayers to anything more than the rest of us live with AKA an "at will" employment arrangement. The concept is quite simple. Either party (employer or employee) can sever their relationship with the other, for any reason, at any time.
This morning I recalled former President Ronald Reagan's decision to fire striking air traffic controllers in 1981. The union organization, known as PATCO, sought to express its grievances with a strike and jeopardize the safety of American travelers. After the President warned PATCO members that if they did not show up for work they would be fired, they tested him and he kept his word.
It was something of a milestone. Organized labor has continued its decline since. Baseless threats, lawsuits and strikes are not part of an effective strategy.
Now flash forward to modern day Milwaukee County and consider its fiscal challenges. We see all the labor vitriol we had on a national level back in 1981. . . over five hours a week.
Somehow I think that if Mr. Walker's furlough order was twice as stringent, the sun would still come up the next day. I commend Governor Doyle's plan for limited furloughs and wish only that he and the Democrat-controlled legislature, went further to reduce state spending and lower taxes.
This Blog, MIDWESTERN CLARITY" is an archive of writings published between July 1996 and the present day. My latest work is on Substack https://substack.com/@maddente | © 1994-2026 John J. Maddente. All rights reserved.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Taxes, polls and pols
Yesterday morning at the beautiful Discovery World facility at Pier Wisconsin, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett participated in a panel discussion on Wisconsin's transportation needs and how to fund them. The event was also attended by Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, who had some decidedly different ideas than the Mayor.
 |
| Tom Barrett, Wikipedia |
At one point, Mr. Barrett cited two separate polls to conclude: few citizens want services cut (one poll), yet few want to pay for them in the form of higher taxes (a second poll).
Of course, but if you require people to choose between them (think one poll question), perhaps many would choose to hang on to more of their own money, even if the service pool shrinks. Leadership often requires one to make unpopular choices.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
My dowdy prediction
A week has elapsed since I wrote about Maureen Dowd. I thought by now she would have acknowledged an intentional 43-word copy job, followed by a sorry-I-forgot-to-attribute apology. I think that's all it would have taken to make this saga go away.
Ms. Dowd points out that she had indeed given proper credit to two other writers and so by her reckoning, she could not have planned to copy from a third. Two out of three isn't bad.
I'd have preferred to hear her say she was working too quickly, or she was distracted when a bird smacked into her office window, or whatever, but that after she used the work of another writer, she simply forgot to credit the author, but had meant to do so. I would have bought that, but it isn't what we are asked to believe.
The essence of her account is this: After communicating with a friend about another person's work, she plopped some sentences in her column and then discovered she was using the same 43 words after bloggers told her. Here's what she wrote to explain her actions (repeated from Michael Calderone's space at Politico.com): "i was talking to a friend of mine Friday about what I was writing who suggested I make this point, expressing it in a cogent -- and I assumed spontaneous -- way and I wanted to weave the idea into my column. but, clearly, my friend must have read josh marshall without mentioning that to me. we're fixing it on the web, to give josh credit, and will include a note, as well as a formal correction tomorrow."
My prediction that within a week Ms. Dowd would be finished if still bereft of a plausible explanation, was completely wrong. I misjudged how serious the matter would be taken by the New York Times. I see reader and writer outrage and some scorn, but little objection from the Times itself.
I think Ms. Dowd made a mistake, got rattled during the firestorm and then made more mistakes by blaming her quotable friend. My reasoning is that she didn't need to take risks deliberately, so it probably wasn't theft. She's already a famous, award-winning columnist in little danger of losing her space, so she doesn't need to lift other people's work including the unremarkable 43 words at issue.
I rarely agree with her (save for the attention she aptly paid to Bill Clinton's peccadilloes in the 90s). So I admit that my antennae went up easily when I learned about her ordeal. However, I'd like to think that if a columnist I normally agree with like Noonan, Krauthammer, or Goldberg, had inserted 43 words written by another writer and then proffered such a lame excuse, that I'd have been equally critical. When and if something like that happens, we'll see if I rise to the task.
Ms. Dowd points out that she had indeed given proper credit to two other writers and so by her reckoning, she could not have planned to copy from a third. Two out of three isn't bad.
I'd have preferred to hear her say she was working too quickly, or she was distracted when a bird smacked into her office window, or whatever, but that after she used the work of another writer, she simply forgot to credit the author, but had meant to do so. I would have bought that, but it isn't what we are asked to believe.
 |
| Maureen Dowd, Wikipedia |
My prediction that within a week Ms. Dowd would be finished if still bereft of a plausible explanation, was completely wrong. I misjudged how serious the matter would be taken by the New York Times. I see reader and writer outrage and some scorn, but little objection from the Times itself.
I think Ms. Dowd made a mistake, got rattled during the firestorm and then made more mistakes by blaming her quotable friend. My reasoning is that she didn't need to take risks deliberately, so it probably wasn't theft. She's already a famous, award-winning columnist in little danger of losing her space, so she doesn't need to lift other people's work including the unremarkable 43 words at issue.
I rarely agree with her (save for the attention she aptly paid to Bill Clinton's peccadilloes in the 90s). So I admit that my antennae went up easily when I learned about her ordeal. However, I'd like to think that if a columnist I normally agree with like Noonan, Krauthammer, or Goldberg, had inserted 43 words written by another writer and then proffered such a lame excuse, that I'd have been equally critical. When and if something like that happens, we'll see if I rise to the task.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Is Maureen Dowd in trouble?
The answer is yes.
Forty-three words without attribution, a poor excuse and by now, I suspect, a truth audit of her work is well underway.
Had Ann Coulter done this, the New York Times (and perhaps Ms. Dowd herself) would have hung her from the highest limb. My prediction is that Ms. Dowd will either come out and declare she knew what she was doing after all and apologize profusely within the next week, or she's finished as a nationally-syndicated columnist.
Friday, April 24, 2009
French lessons
We are fortunate to have a young student from France living with us these days. It is her first visit to the US and we are learning as much (or more) from her, as she is learning from us.
Here's an example. After attending high school classes with my younger daughter for a week or so, we prompted our guest to share her honest impressions of class here in America. She told us that students here strike her as more disrespectful to their teachers than what she is accustomed to in her native France.
Where are our children learning how to behave this way? Oh, that's right -- it's us.
Here's an example. After attending high school classes with my younger daughter for a week or so, we prompted our guest to share her honest impressions of class here in America. She told us that students here strike her as more disrespectful to their teachers than what she is accustomed to in her native France.
Where are our children learning how to behave this way? Oh, that's right -- it's us.
Sunday, March 15, 2009
Saved or created? That is the question.
It hit me while driving someplace and listening to the radio, maybe a month ago. The President was talking about the outcome of his stimulus package while using the now oft-repeated phrase about three and half million jobs being, "saved or created."
I'm hearing it again as I watch one of President Obama's acolytes on "Meet The Press" and so I'll ask you dear reader...
How does one measure a job saved? How can one record a job loss that didn't occur, but might have occurred under the circumstances?
Data on new jobs created are obviously available and broadly examined -- but jobs saved? It seems like a clever mechanism to avoid any rigorous assessment of the relative success or failure of the stimulus plan.
What's actually been created, is a new rhetorical device called "jobs saved". That phrase is designed to portray an anemic employment picture as something more robust, even if the jobs created metric can't be measured.
 |
| (Freepik image) |
I'm hearing it again as I watch one of President Obama's acolytes on "Meet The Press" and so I'll ask you dear reader...
How does one measure a job saved? How can one record a job loss that didn't occur, but might have occurred under the circumstances?
Data on new jobs created are obviously available and broadly examined -- but jobs saved? It seems like a clever mechanism to avoid any rigorous assessment of the relative success or failure of the stimulus plan.
What's actually been created, is a new rhetorical device called "jobs saved". That phrase is designed to portray an anemic employment picture as something more robust, even if the jobs created metric can't be measured.
_________________________________________________________
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
Submitted to US Senator Herb Kohl moments ago...
"Dear Senator Kohl,
I am writing as a private citizen to voice my strong opposition to the bill misleadingly labeled as the `Employee Free Choice Act' also known as Card Check.
The coercive leadership of organized labor does not need additional tools to intimidate ordinary men and women who prefer to remain outside the union. I would urge you to speak out against this legislation and expose it for what it is -- a catalyst for union demagoguery.
I am not against organized labor per se, but I am against bullies and thugs gaining ground with sanction from Congress.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente"
I am writing as a private citizen to voice my strong opposition to the bill misleadingly labeled as the `Employee Free Choice Act' also known as Card Check.
The coercive leadership of organized labor does not need additional tools to intimidate ordinary men and women who prefer to remain outside the union. I would urge you to speak out against this legislation and expose it for what it is -- a catalyst for union demagoguery.
I am not against organized labor per se, but I am against bullies and thugs gaining ground with sanction from Congress.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente"
Saturday, February 28, 2009
The individual and our economic crisis
If you had never met Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, you'd be hard pressed to spot him in a crowded room. Mr. Walker is an average-looking man, with plain features and an unassuming demeanor. Even his name is common. He looks like millions of other guys. I made his acquaintance last year after he introduced himself to me moments before a debate with his election opponent, Ms. Lena Taylor.
Yes, a common guy he is, but don't be fooled -- Mr. Walker packs a wallop and his piece in this morning's Wall Street Journal, "Why I'm Not Lining Up for Stimulus Handouts" defines his fiscal moorings and shows why he has drawn acclaim among conservatives and scorn from progressives.
Mr. Walker mentioned what other politicians know but often fail to highlight -- which is that our current fiscal calamities, were abetted by individuals -- not just banks, not just regulators, not just mortgage brokers, not just government. Those were all culpable parties to be sure, but what Walker reminds us today, is that our current turmoil began,
"...when millions of people were allowed (or encouraged) to spend borrowed money on homes they couldn't afford and were later forced into foreclosure."
Amen. I've been dismayed by the lack of discussion about individual responsibility and reckless borrowing. In due course, we'll see more acrimony coming from the public, or at least the part of it that still believes in living within one's means.
There are two arguments currently offered to defend bailouts for homeowners who bought too much house, or who should have remained renters until their income and assets warranted otherwise, or who foolishly sucked all the equity out of their homes to buy stuff they couldn't afford. Here are those arguments:
Argument #1) "This is no time to teach people a lesson."
Who said anything about teaching? This isn't about vengeance either. Those who advocate for mortgage bailouts are appropriating money from responsible Americans to pay for the mistakes of others. Bailouts simply perpetuate that pattern.
The only way to help a heroin addict is to take away his opiate (in this case easy money), then encourage him or her to live healthfully. I see no reason why the responsible many should pay the freight of the irresponsible few, simply because the irresponsible few no longer meet their obligations. We're discussing a self-induced foreclosure on a house, not a death sentence visited upon the falsely accused.
Many foreclosure "victims" are personally responsible for their circumstances. There was too much predatory borrowing going on that is now being characterized, as predatory lending. Yes, I know there were exceptions, people who were truly duped, lost their jobs, became seriously ill, or were improperly foreclosed upon -- but do you think that those cases constitute the majority of borrowers who suffered a foreclosure?
Argument #2) "If we don't have mortgage bailouts to stem foreclosures, housing prices will continue to fall precipitously, including yours, so you should support this plan."
Markets work if we let them work. If housing prices continue to fall, they'll only be receding to a current level of value. The continuing collapse of our financial system and our way of life, which appears to be careening toward Euro-Socialism, is as disturbing as the trajectory of home values.
However, if we allow the eggs to break, the values of our homes could appreciate again one day. Things get better after the hangover. The reality that too few wish to acknowledge is this: we can't have a painless hangover.
Although the thrust of Mr. Walker's piece today is not about individual responsibility, it's about government's financial stewardship -- he gets it. We cannot, individually, or as a society, continue to kick the debt can down the road. It's immoral and stupid.
Our current state Governor, unfortunately, wants to leverage our future, reward his supporters like public teachers' unions and expand government programs we don't need and can ill-afford. It's widely speculated that Mr. Walker will run for Governor in the next election. If he does run, I intend to support him. I hope like-minded voters in this state will do the same, unless a stronger candidate emerges.
Right now, I don't see a stronger one.
 |
| Scott Walker Wikipedia image |
Mr. Walker mentioned what other politicians know but often fail to highlight -- which is that our current fiscal calamities, were abetted by individuals -- not just banks, not just regulators, not just mortgage brokers, not just government. Those were all culpable parties to be sure, but what Walker reminds us today, is that our current turmoil began,
"...when millions of people were allowed (or encouraged) to spend borrowed money on homes they couldn't afford and were later forced into foreclosure."
Amen. I've been dismayed by the lack of discussion about individual responsibility and reckless borrowing. In due course, we'll see more acrimony coming from the public, or at least the part of it that still believes in living within one's means.
There are two arguments currently offered to defend bailouts for homeowners who bought too much house, or who should have remained renters until their income and assets warranted otherwise, or who foolishly sucked all the equity out of their homes to buy stuff they couldn't afford. Here are those arguments:
Argument #1) "This is no time to teach people a lesson."
Who said anything about teaching? This isn't about vengeance either. Those who advocate for mortgage bailouts are appropriating money from responsible Americans to pay for the mistakes of others. Bailouts simply perpetuate that pattern.
The only way to help a heroin addict is to take away his opiate (in this case easy money), then encourage him or her to live healthfully. I see no reason why the responsible many should pay the freight of the irresponsible few, simply because the irresponsible few no longer meet their obligations. We're discussing a self-induced foreclosure on a house, not a death sentence visited upon the falsely accused.
Many foreclosure "victims" are personally responsible for their circumstances. There was too much predatory borrowing going on that is now being characterized, as predatory lending. Yes, I know there were exceptions, people who were truly duped, lost their jobs, became seriously ill, or were improperly foreclosed upon -- but do you think that those cases constitute the majority of borrowers who suffered a foreclosure?
Argument #2) "If we don't have mortgage bailouts to stem foreclosures, housing prices will continue to fall precipitously, including yours, so you should support this plan."
Markets work if we let them work. If housing prices continue to fall, they'll only be receding to a current level of value. The continuing collapse of our financial system and our way of life, which appears to be careening toward Euro-Socialism, is as disturbing as the trajectory of home values.
However, if we allow the eggs to break, the values of our homes could appreciate again one day. Things get better after the hangover. The reality that too few wish to acknowledge is this: we can't have a painless hangover.
Although the thrust of Mr. Walker's piece today is not about individual responsibility, it's about government's financial stewardship -- he gets it. We cannot, individually, or as a society, continue to kick the debt can down the road. It's immoral and stupid.
Our current state Governor, unfortunately, wants to leverage our future, reward his supporters like public teachers' unions and expand government programs we don't need and can ill-afford. It's widely speculated that Mr. Walker will run for Governor in the next election. If he does run, I intend to support him. I hope like-minded voters in this state will do the same, unless a stronger candidate emerges.
Right now, I don't see a stronger one.
Saturday, January 17, 2009
What sequence of events caused the mess?
Hedge fund executive Oscar Schafer in a Barron's interview (January 12, 2009, "Hang on Tight!") described our current economic condition thus: "The world is experiencing a giant margin call."
Yes, a giant margin call enabled by easy credit extended to millions of people who couldn't afford as much home as they purchased, or as much cashed out equity to finance a lifestyle they couldn't afford, before defaulting on their mortgages.
Yes, a giant margin call enabled by easy credit extended to millions of people who couldn't afford as much home as they purchased, or as much cashed out equity to finance a lifestyle they couldn't afford, before defaulting on their mortgages.
These mortgages would be bundled into what equated to securitized time bombs gobbled up by over-leveraged financial institutions.
How did it all happen?
Policy makers in Washington wanted to guarantee home ownership for anyone with a pulse. Then the Fed left open the spigot of cheap money by keeping rates too low for too long and America became intoxicated by illusory home price appreciation. 
Money center moguls and central bankers made enormous bets upon this whole sorry misuse of credit, until the system collapsed.
How did it all happen?
Money center moguls and central bankers made enormous bets upon this whole sorry misuse of credit, until the system collapsed. Millions of people, who either ought to have remained renters until their income and assets could justify their mortgage, or who should have purchased more modest homes and received loans at fixed rates, were enabled by government-coddled institutions like Fannie and Freddie and populist legislation to "invest in our communities".
The risks they took (policy makers, investment banks...and millions of Americans), have poisoned the well that the rest of us must drink from -- perhaps for decades. Now we hear that the other shoe to drop will come from commercial credit busts, or the next highest risk level of mortgages above subprime.
Grandma warned us when we were children. If you can't afford it -- don't buy it. If you can't afford to lose it -- don't risk it. In short, live within your means. Greed is the same thing that destroyed Rome. How will we get treatment and beat our addiction to debt before we all go down in flames?
The risks they took (policy makers, investment banks...and millions of Americans), have poisoned the well that the rest of us must drink from -- perhaps for decades. Now we hear that the other shoe to drop will come from commercial credit busts, or the next highest risk level of mortgages above subprime.
Grandma warned us when we were children. If you can't afford it -- don't buy it. If you can't afford to lose it -- don't risk it. In short, live within your means. Greed is the same thing that destroyed Rome. How will we get treatment and beat our addiction to debt before we all go down in flames?
Thursday, January 15, 2009
A president's farewell
As Kissinger reminded Nixon, history will treat him better than his contemporaries. His policies precluded another attack since 9/11. To conclude otherwise is to posit that the other side simply stopped trying to harm us after 9/11. The President deserves credit and at least grudging acknowledgement from his political opponents for his stalwart efforts to fight terrorism and protect Americans.
I'm reminded of another parallel with Nixon. Richard Nixon asked readers this question in one of his later books: if America does not lead in this world -- who will?
I repeated the question in one of my columns and a rebuttal came from a letter writer who declared that the correct answer to this question is -- the "leaders" of other countries. Unfortunately, the world has always been replete with national 'leaders' like Stalin, Hitler and Hussein that refuse to back down.
This President did not have the luxury of presiding over a relatively peaceful world and the safety of American citizens has been his overriding concern. That fact will endure as a positive part of his legacy, even if the Iraq invasion does not.
Finally, his administration failed to stem the profligate federal spending we have seen during the last eight years -- punctuated with a new drug program we can ill afford; but that's a trend the new administration appears destined to continue.
I'm reminded of another parallel with Nixon. Richard Nixon asked readers this question in one of his later books: if America does not lead in this world -- who will?
I repeated the question in one of my columns and a rebuttal came from a letter writer who declared that the correct answer to this question is -- the "leaders" of other countries. Unfortunately, the world has always been replete with national 'leaders' like Stalin, Hitler and Hussein that refuse to back down.
This President did not have the luxury of presiding over a relatively peaceful world and the safety of American citizens has been his overriding concern. That fact will endure as a positive part of his legacy, even if the Iraq invasion does not.
 |
| George W. Bush |
Saturday, November 08, 2008
Monday morning quarterbacking
If the economy, the war, an
opponent with more cash and an unpopular President in office, all were not
enough to doom his campaign -- any chance of victory went irretrievably
south after Senator McCain selected Governor Palin as his running
mate. Bold choice? You betcha.
I was hopeful after Ms. Palin's rousing convention speech, but still worried that Joe Biden would wipe the floor with her at the debates. He did not and I kept hoping, but my heart sank after those Katy Couric interviews.
Katy Couric's interview revealed a vacuous performance from a candidate who is supposed to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Ms. Palin will have a future in national politics, but she was not at all ready for this experience. Don't blame her, blame McCain's advisers. Having the "right views" and no skeletons, is not enough.
Yes, Ms. Palin has a fine record as Governor, yes she appeals to my Midwestern values and yes I was invigorated by selection of a conservative woman on the ticket, but she simply doesn't know enough and she is not yet equipped to think fast enough on the national stage.
As Peggy Noonan aptly put it in her October 17 Wall Street Journal column (Palin's Failin') -- "She just. . . says things."
I was hopeful after Ms. Palin's rousing convention speech, but still worried that Joe Biden would wipe the floor with her at the debates. He did not and I kept hoping, but my heart sank after those Katy Couric interviews.
Katy Couric's interview revealed a vacuous performance from a candidate who is supposed to be a heartbeat away from the Oval Office. Ms. Palin will have a future in national politics, but she was not at all ready for this experience. Don't blame her, blame McCain's advisers. Having the "right views" and no skeletons, is not enough.
Yes, Ms. Palin has a fine record as Governor, yes she appeals to my Midwestern values and yes I was invigorated by selection of a conservative woman on the ticket, but she simply doesn't know enough and she is not yet equipped to think fast enough on the national stage.
As Peggy Noonan aptly put it in her October 17 Wall Street Journal column (Palin's Failin') -- "She just. . . says things."
One thought for future GOP campaign strategists: even if the research does suggest that your candidate's running mate should be a female-outside the
Beltway-gun toting-strident Pro-Lifer; you must look harder than your predecessors did in
2008.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
The infamous AIG party
 |
| AIG logo |
Any large insurance company selling through independent reps holds a similar conference to reward and motivate top performers. These events are planned years in advance. They are simply a cost of doing business. Should AIG shut down incentives like this one for independent sales agents? If so, there's no incentive for them to sell AIG products, ipso facto. I own shares of AIG, but even if I did not, my reaction to this storm would be the same.
Hillary Clinton, Peggy Noonan (and me)
I owe Wall Street Journal columnist, Ms. Peggy Noonan. My infatuation with the tenacious campaign of Hillary Clinton almost made me lose my senses. Sometimes Peggy Noonan's work brings me back to earth, other times not so much, but always....she intrigues me. First, my minor quibbles with her work...
For me, one of the most memorable parts of the disastrous Dukakis campaign in 1988, was when Dukakis mocked the famous Noonan line written for George Bush, about "a thousand points of light." Mr. Dukakis asked derisively, "What does that mean?" A question fairly asked, in my opinion.
For me, one of the most memorable parts of the disastrous Dukakis campaign in 1988, was when Dukakis mocked the famous Noonan line written for George Bush, about "a thousand points of light." Mr. Dukakis asked derisively, "What does that mean?" A question fairly asked, in my opinion.
Similarly, I was baffled by all of the recognition Ms. Noonan received for a vanilla phrase she crafted for President Reagan to describe Washington D.C., "that shining city on a hill."
On TV she's occasionally a little cheeky, leaving the impression that she is trying to hide some nervousness. Stage fright (if that is indeed the culprit here) breeds gaffes. Case in point, I spotted Ms. Noonan on a TV program years ago expressing doubts that Lyndon Johnson was a humorous man. Presidential historians and anyone who's read enough about our 36th President will warrant that Johnson was often hilarious. (He was a brilliant mimic and story teller for starters). It wasn't a difference she needed to have with her TV co-panelists.
However, as a regular Op-ed reader, I look forward to Peggy Noonan's Saturday column in the Wall Street Journal. She incisively expressed her views about the actions and character of Hillary Clinton in several columns and today's piece, "Recoil Election" is an example.
However, as a regular Op-ed reader, I look forward to Peggy Noonan's Saturday column in the Wall Street Journal. She incisively expressed her views about the actions and character of Hillary Clinton in several columns and today's piece, "Recoil Election" is an example.
Ms. Noonan understands how both Clintons are brilliant, cunning and hopelessly deceptive. I remain impressed by Ms. Clinton's durability, but playing the gender card as a reason for losing, does not burnish her image.
In her piece this morning, Ms. Noonan makes comparisons to the character of an equally tenacious Golda Meir. (I might add Margaret Thatcher to that list). The point is this: other high profile women in politics face equally daunting gender challenges without falling prey to so much excuse-making.
Monday, May 19, 2008--- True grit
I've been hard on the Clintons for a long time. A sample of my dissatisfaction with Mrs. Clinton's persona can be found in this post and an equally frank assessment of Mr. Clinton can be found here.
Even if I set aside their policy positions, it's their pathological dishonesty and smugness that leaves me cold again and again. I see Bill and Hillary Clinton as one person who has never stopped disappointing me. With all that as the backdrop for this post, I am about to go positive on one of them...
Yes, I began to feel something inspiring while contemplating Hillary Clinton recently. I find it redemptive to have had so much disdain for a person and then find something to admire. Strange feeling. My positive revelation is this: she's stronger than I ever realized.
It's not Mrs. Clinton's usual pluck that I am referring to -- the in-your-face type of retort she is both admired and reviled for. I'm talking about her tenacity. The type of thing that reveals itself after one is knocked down again and again. Some people get hit harder each time and still manage to rise. Think of Richard Nixon in his teens as the tackling dummy on the football team. Yes Mr. Nixon had tenacity too.
Monday, May 19, 2008--- True grit
I've been hard on the Clintons for a long time. A sample of my dissatisfaction with Mrs. Clinton's persona can be found in this post and an equally frank assessment of Mr. Clinton can be found here.
Even if I set aside their policy positions, it's their pathological dishonesty and smugness that leaves me cold again and again. I see Bill and Hillary Clinton as one person who has never stopped disappointing me. With all that as the backdrop for this post, I am about to go positive on one of them...
Yes, I began to feel something inspiring while contemplating Hillary Clinton recently. I find it redemptive to have had so much disdain for a person and then find something to admire. Strange feeling. My positive revelation is this: she's stronger than I ever realized.
It's not Mrs. Clinton's usual pluck that I am referring to -- the in-your-face type of retort she is both admired and reviled for. I'm talking about her tenacity. The type of thing that reveals itself after one is knocked down again and again. Some people get hit harder each time and still manage to rise. Think of Richard Nixon in his teens as the tackling dummy on the football team. Yes Mr. Nixon had tenacity too.
One must respect another person who has taken so many punches and keeps coming back. It would be intellectually dishonest to ignore it, no matter how much contempt one has for her attitudes, ethical deficits and woke policies. I called the Democratic race over almost exactly 3 months ago - Mrs. Clinton will not be her party's nominee for president, but the lady has courage.
What I didn't predict and never expected, was that she'd stay in the race this long, after so much bombardment, and still credibly come back for more. It's fascinating to watch. Iran has cause to be afraid...very afraid.
What I didn't predict and never expected, was that she'd stay in the race this long, after so much bombardment, and still credibly come back for more. It's fascinating to watch. Iran has cause to be afraid...very afraid.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Vinegar in your morning cup of coffee
When I was first learning to write essays, our teacher stressed the importance of grabbing your readers' attention early on, like a compelling "lead" to a news story. Consider columnist Jessie Eisinger's recent piece in the latest edition of Portfolio magazine in which his very first sentence will challenge the reader harboring any sense of financial security...
"The worst Wall Street turmoil in a generation is going to wipe every other issue off the table for the next president."
Mr. Eisinger predicts calamity:
"There will be blood."
Common sense dictates that one can only cop a dangerously free ride for so long. At the end of that ride there is an inexorable crash that brings great pain to the free-riderers. Unfortunately, there will also be pain felt by those who paid for others' free rides because paid passengers are tethered to the free-riders.
"The worst Wall Street turmoil in a generation is going to wipe every other issue off the table for the next president."
Mr. Eisinger predicts calamity:
"There will be blood."
Common sense dictates that one can only cop a dangerously free ride for so long. At the end of that ride there is an inexorable crash that brings great pain to the free-riderers. Unfortunately, there will also be pain felt by those who paid for others' free rides because paid passengers are tethered to the free-riders.
We will pay for the free-riders' avarice, their lack of discipline, their recklessness.
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Obama travel files is breaking news?
Apparently, Senator Obama's passport file has been reviewed.
OK, logical questions are by whom and why? Also, how did the story breakers learn about it? But I'm also trying to understand -- where is the story?
Is there some profound secret associated with Mr. Obama's public travels? What is the conspiracy they are tripping over themselves to report upon? Moreover, why is a presidential candidate's foreign travel history somehow more privileged than a review of his tax returns?
OK, logical questions are by whom and why? Also, how did the story breakers learn about it? But I'm also trying to understand -- where is the story?
 |
| Keith Olbermann, Wikipedia |
Is there some profound secret associated with Mr. Obama's public travels? What is the conspiracy they are tripping over themselves to report upon? Moreover, why is a presidential candidate's foreign travel history somehow more privileged than a review of his tax returns?
The media is reacting as though someone has broken into the office of Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist again. Keith Olbermann at MSNBC has actually referred to this story as "jaw dropping." Please. We need much more. For the moment, my jaw is motionless.
Friday, March 07, 2008
Hello Earth to Google! Anyone there?
A small, almost unnoticeable news brief on the page B4 of The Wall Street Journal today, contained a disturbing AP report. Apparently, the Pentagon had to intercede in order to thwart Google from proceeding with its plans to have "Google Earth teams" make detailed, panoramic maps of U.S. military bases.
I suspect that authorized military personnel know how to get around on those bases very well without using Google Earth.
To Google, I say: Your earth technology is magnificent, but don't you think that you might be compromising national security by plastering that content out on the Internet? (Sorry Google, I feel strongly about these things; but please don't shut down my blog).
To Google, I say: Your earth technology is magnificent, but don't you think that you might be compromising national security by plastering that content out on the Internet? (Sorry Google, I feel strongly about these things; but please don't shut down my blog).
Thursday, February 28, 2008
R.I.P. WFB
Yesterday at the age of 82, while working in his study, we lost William F. Buckley. Mr. Buckley captivated millions of us with his columns, speeches, debates, appearances on TV talk shows, authoring of 50+ books, harpsichord-playing, creation of National Review and a seminal television program for serious discourse called, "Firing Line."
 |
| WFB, Wikipedia |
In my twenties, I'd watch television debates with awe and amusement as Mr. Buckley gracefully routed his opponents. He had no equal then and I'm not sure he has one today.
Many Americans, I'm guessing under the age of 35, have little awareness of this man's enormous gifts and contributions to contemporary conservative thought. He was simply America's most charming intellectual with a legendary command of language, politics, economics, history and music.
He advocated for free markets and limited government before it was widely embraced. He warned about secularism before it reached current proportions.
He advocated for free markets and limited government before it was widely embraced. He warned about secularism before it reached current proportions.
Sometimes subtle characteristics endure. I'll not forget that sparkle in his eyes flashing as his expansive smile emerged. Mr. Buckley's radiant face revealed something more than the intellectual gifts for which he is often parodied.
 |
| WFB with Ronald Reagan, Wikipedia |
Those signature facial expressions revealed an abundant joyfulness and love of life beaming straight through the camera lens and into American homes.
Monday, February 25, 2008
Does Mr. Rivera know something pivotal about Candidate McCain?
 |
| Geraldo Rivera, Wikipedia |
No we didn't miss anything like that because there has been zero evidence to support such a "smoking gun". Why would Geraldo Rivera be interviewing these women about the McCain story in the New York Times?
Unless Mr. Rivera knows something that the rest of us do not, linking the stories of these women and their affairs with Bill Clinton to the current McCain story, is poor journalism. And if Mr. Rivera does know something more, he ought to report it.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
It's over for Hillary Clinton
It's over for Sen. Hillary Clinton.
It doesn't matter what happens in Texas, Ohio, or elsewhere. Her presidential bid is finished. Forget your delegate counts (pledged or not) and your polling data.
Consider instead the NY Times blog today and posts under the story, "Clinton Sharpens Her Attack on Obama"
Try to find authors supporting Mrs. Clinton. Instead, overwhelmingly, you'll find items from Democrats, that sound like this one...
"I went to an ivy league college with a lot of people who remind me of Mrs. Clinton. Bright, articulate, driven, but with an off-putting sense of entitlement. A know-it-all attitude that brooks no dissent."
It's as if scores of the party faithful are now emboldened to express heretofore repressed criticisms of Ms. Clinton, because they no longer fear retribution. Maybe this is cathartic for them. In any event, it is over.
It doesn't matter what happens in Texas, Ohio, or elsewhere. Her presidential bid is finished. Forget your delegate counts (pledged or not) and your polling data.
Consider instead the NY Times blog today and posts under the story, "Clinton Sharpens Her Attack on Obama"
Try to find authors supporting Mrs. Clinton. Instead, overwhelmingly, you'll find items from Democrats, that sound like this one...
"I went to an ivy league college with a lot of people who remind me of Mrs. Clinton. Bright, articulate, driven, but with an off-putting sense of entitlement. A know-it-all attitude that brooks no dissent."
It's as if scores of the party faithful are now emboldened to express heretofore repressed criticisms of Ms. Clinton, because they no longer fear retribution. Maybe this is cathartic for them. In any event, it is over.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Ann Coulter looks at the bright side
 |
| Ann Coulter, Wikipedia |
In any case, after contemplating a question from an audience member as to whether there could be any positive aspect associated with both Clintons returning to the White House, Ms. Coulter replied with a smile and offered this gem,
"At least we'd get the silverware back."
Hilarious!
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Notes from a summit for prosperity
Yesterday on a snowy, wet Saturday, the Wisconsin Chapter of Americans For Prosperity (AFP) held its "Defending the American Dream Summit" in Pewaukee and attendees listened to speeches from Dinesh D'Souza, Steve Moore and county Sheriff David Clark.
Attendees also witnessed a color guard, a stirring video of the late Ray Charles singing "America The Beautiful" and a film that celebrated the life and legacy of President Ronald Reagan. There was much more. If AFP hadn't delivered quality, I wouldn't have stuck around for 8 hours. Other items from my notepad:
Wisconsin Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen made a notable observation about Thomas Jefferson's seminal phrase in the Declaration of Independence "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Mr. Van Hollen noted that unfortunately, many people in our nation have misconstrued Jefferson's intent to justify an expectation for government entitlements. Van Hollen notes, that Jefferson never envisioned life, liberty and the guarantee of happiness. Rather, the founding idea was to help people by removing obstacles, by protecting them and by giving them a fair chance, but not through guaranteed taxpayer sponsorship.
Todd Berry of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance gave a sober, tightly-constructed review of Wisconsin's fiscal mess and the accounting chicanery used to screen out our "structural deficit." Republicans are not without blame as significant red ink extends back to the Thompson administration.
Perhaps because Mr. Berry's group is nonpartisan, he chose not to identify more recent causes of our fiscal morass. Mr. Berry said "we" created off-the-books debt by issuing bonds to fund transportation projects. Yet, the last mega-hit to the transportation account was delivered two budget cycles ago -- compliments of Governor Jim Doyle and his "Frankenstein veto" when he transferred $400 million to public education funding. That move was not authorized by the legislature and of course it was not a "we" -- it was a "him".
Attendees also witnessed a color guard, a stirring video of the late Ray Charles singing "America The Beautiful" and a film that celebrated the life and legacy of President Ronald Reagan. There was much more. If AFP hadn't delivered quality, I wouldn't have stuck around for 8 hours. Other items from my notepad:
Wisconsin Attorney General, J.B. Van Hollen made a notable observation about Thomas Jefferson's seminal phrase in the Declaration of Independence "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". Mr. Van Hollen noted that unfortunately, many people in our nation have misconstrued Jefferson's intent to justify an expectation for government entitlements. Van Hollen notes, that Jefferson never envisioned life, liberty and the guarantee of happiness. Rather, the founding idea was to help people by removing obstacles, by protecting them and by giving them a fair chance, but not through guaranteed taxpayer sponsorship.
Todd Berry of the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance gave a sober, tightly-constructed review of Wisconsin's fiscal mess and the accounting chicanery used to screen out our "structural deficit." Republicans are not without blame as significant red ink extends back to the Thompson administration.
Perhaps because Mr. Berry's group is nonpartisan, he chose not to identify more recent causes of our fiscal morass. Mr. Berry said "we" created off-the-books debt by issuing bonds to fund transportation projects. Yet, the last mega-hit to the transportation account was delivered two budget cycles ago -- compliments of Governor Jim Doyle and his "Frankenstein veto" when he transferred $400 million to public education funding. That move was not authorized by the legislature and of course it was not a "we" -- it was a "him".
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
NOW, that's an outrage
A press release from The New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) has attacked Senator Ted Kennedy for endorsing Barack Obama.
The chapter has called the Senator's action, the "ultimate betrayal" since apparently, a vote for anyone but Hillary is beyond their sensibilities.
In fairness, the NOW national organization has officially disavowed this insipid press release, but even that might not blunt the near-term damage to its reputation-- compliments of the New York chapter.
 |
| National Organization For Women, public logo |
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Choosing mud to sling
Why does Senator Obama highlight aspects of Hillary Clinton's history like service on Walmart's board (is that a crime?) when there is so much else to choose from.
In 1992 Ms. Clinton insulted many American women who choose to stay home and raise their children (remember the "bake cookies" comment?). Then we learned about her involvement in FileGate and TravelGate. Later Ms. Clinton made preposterous statements to the press about a "vast right wing conspiracy" when asked about her husband's peccadilloes which were already chronicled. One could go on and on.
Now, she criticizes Senator Obama for the quality of clients he represented while he was in private practice. Ms. Clinton would likely prefer to discuss her board memberships, as opposed to other issues that stained her dossier.
In 1992 Ms. Clinton insulted many American women who choose to stay home and raise their children (remember the "bake cookies" comment?). Then we learned about her involvement in FileGate and TravelGate. Later Ms. Clinton made preposterous statements to the press about a "vast right wing conspiracy" when asked about her husband's peccadilloes which were already chronicled. One could go on and on.
Now, she criticizes Senator Obama for the quality of clients he represented while he was in private practice. Ms. Clinton would likely prefer to discuss her board memberships, as opposed to other issues that stained her dossier.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Behaving un-presidential?
There's much disapproval of former President Bill Clinton's recent speech-making. When Senator Ted Kennedy is unhappy with the Clintons, it's an unusual time.
Some criticized Mr. Clinton's bare-knuckled comments to promote his wife's candidacy as "un-presidential". It is true that there used to be an ex-Presidents tradition of leading a more muted life after leaving office.
Some criticized Mr. Clinton's bare-knuckled comments to promote his wife's candidacy as "un-presidential". It is true that there used to be an ex-Presidents tradition of leading a more muted life after leaving office.
I'm enamored with Mr. Clinton's intelligence, his command of complex issues and I believe he cares about the average citizen. He's also a fine speaker, gifted politician and a Democrat with some fiscal moorings. After all, we haven't seen a budget surplus since Bill Clinton left the White House. His peccadilloes aside, one must give him some credit for those balanced budgets.
On the other hand, he used the Oval Office like a sex parlor, deceived the American people about it, lied under oath, rented out the Lincoln bedroom, pardoned billionaire tax cheat Mark Rich and one could go on. So, he did not always behave in a "presidential" manner while in office.
On the other hand, he used the Oval Office like a sex parlor, deceived the American people about it, lied under oath, rented out the Lincoln bedroom, pardoned billionaire tax cheat Mark Rich and one could go on. So, he did not always behave in a "presidential" manner while in office.
One could say the same about many other presidents, so the word requires added defintion.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
A toast to South Carolina
The Palmetto state makes me proud tonight. I love its motto: Dum Spiro Spero (while I breathe, I hope).
Consider the beginning to tonight's Republican debate in Myrtle Beach -- a chorus of men in suits and women in lovely white dresses all singing the Star Spangled Banner. It was a perfect start to the debate.
 |
| South Carolina state flag |
Wednesday, January 09, 2008
State of Wisconsin flubs identity handling (redux)
The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported today that a state mailing may have compromised the identities of thousands of Wisconsinites because of Social Security numbers that were inadvertently printed on mailing labels.
I published a column last year in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel after approximately 171,000 taxpayer social security numbers adorned the front of tax booklets. I also mentioned in that column, another breach (not cited in today's Journal Sentinel story) by a human resources aide who mishandled social security numbers of state assembly members.
In the midst of this carelessness, the State Department of Health and Family Services and Governor Doyle's spokesman, Matt Canter, are placing the blame squarely on the vendor, EDS. I remember the Mea Culpa letter last year from the printer that accompanied a similar letter from the Department of Revenue to explain and take responsibility for that debacle. At least, there was a semblance of accountability.
In today's JS story, the Governor's spokesman Matt Canter, suggests that there is a big difference between last year's data goof and this new one because last year the printer had no use for the compromised data, but EDS needed the data to do it's processing this year. OK, but in both cases, state government provided the data files containing our social security numbers to a vendor. That's not where its responsibility ends.
The state can acknowledge the problem without placing 100% of the blame on the vendor. An independent examination of its processes and controls to determine what went wrong, is warranted.
I published a column last year in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel after approximately 171,000 taxpayer social security numbers adorned the front of tax booklets. I also mentioned in that column, another breach (not cited in today's Journal Sentinel story) by a human resources aide who mishandled social security numbers of state assembly members.
In the midst of this carelessness, the State Department of Health and Family Services and Governor Doyle's spokesman, Matt Canter, are placing the blame squarely on the vendor, EDS. I remember the Mea Culpa letter last year from the printer that accompanied a similar letter from the Department of Revenue to explain and take responsibility for that debacle. At least, there was a semblance of accountability.
In today's JS story, the Governor's spokesman Matt Canter, suggests that there is a big difference between last year's data goof and this new one because last year the printer had no use for the compromised data, but EDS needed the data to do it's processing this year. OK, but in both cases, state government provided the data files containing our social security numbers to a vendor. That's not where its responsibility ends.
The state can acknowledge the problem without placing 100% of the blame on the vendor. An independent examination of its processes and controls to determine what went wrong, is warranted.
Saturday, January 05, 2008
Public education and "choice"
Some public education voices extol a right to choice that includes free-from-faith learning environments. Public teachers unions have also historically chosen to fight performance standards intended to hold their members accountable.
Yesterday’s blog post from Patrick McIlheran is spot on. Mr. McIlheran makes the point that when parents choose alternatives to public education for their children, the principle of free choice often vanishes from teacher unions' consciousness and they behave as though they are the victims.
I'll always support a strong public education system, but I also reject the views of those who are antagonistic, if not hostile toward alternative private education.
 |
| Office.com clip art |
Yesterday’s blog post from Patrick McIlheran is spot on. Mr. McIlheran makes the point that when parents choose alternatives to public education for their children, the principle of free choice often vanishes from teacher unions' consciousness and they behave as though they are the victims.
I'll always support a strong public education system, but I also reject the views of those who are antagonistic, if not hostile toward alternative private education.
Sunday, December 30, 2007
Hillary Clinton declares cause of US debt
 |
| freepik image |
Stumping yesterday in Maquoketa, Iowa in town hall style, Ms. Clinton addressed the causes of America's political, social and economic woes and explained them with one word - "Republicans."
During Ms. Clinton's diatribe against all things Republican, she said...
"They have driven us into nine trillion dollars of debt."
Note: She didn't say "Congress" nor did she cite any spending complicity on the other side of the aisle - she said "they" i.e. Republicans. At the conclusion of the event, Ms. Clinton listened intently to one admirer and then enthusiastically replied...
"Absolutely, absolutely, absolutely...totally partisan, totally ideological, that is not the way to get things done in America."
Friday, December 28, 2007
A movie: The Kite Runner
I like very few new films, however, I make an exception for The Kite Runner. If it doesn't capture your attention, enlighten you about the Middle East in some way, or stir your emotions -- I'll be surprised.
This film is based upon Khaled Hosseini's popular novel of the same title that tells a terrifying but ultimately redemptive tale set in Kabul, Afghanistan. The timeline takes us from Afghan life in the late 1970s under corrupt, albeit relatively stable rule, to the awful horrors of the Taliban in 2000.
As credits were rolling, the stylish opening of the film suggested this would be no ordinary production, but I didn't expect how effectively the creators would portray elements of evil and good in the Middle East. Perhaps a "Best Picture" nomination is in the offing and other nominations including: best cinematography, best actor and best supporting actor.
This film is based upon Khaled Hosseini's popular novel of the same title that tells a terrifying but ultimately redemptive tale set in Kabul, Afghanistan. The timeline takes us from Afghan life in the late 1970s under corrupt, albeit relatively stable rule, to the awful horrors of the Taliban in 2000.
As credits were rolling, the stylish opening of the film suggested this would be no ordinary production, but I didn't expect how effectively the creators would portray elements of evil and good in the Middle East. Perhaps a "Best Picture" nomination is in the offing and other nominations including: best cinematography, best actor and best supporting actor.
Monday, December 24, 2007
Anti-Hillary sentiment (real and imagined)
A contributor named Lisa (Posted: lisa December 8, 2007 11:29 PM ) doubts the veracity of my remarks concerning popular opposition to Hillary Clinton (see my post on Bill Moyers' blog.)
The distrust and polarizing features of Ms. Clinton's candidacy I mentioned, are not only consistent with my own views (and those of a camp referred to these days as "A.B.H." (Anyone But Hillary) they are also supported by some non-partisan research. This report from USA Today and Gallup may help others see Ms. Clinton's baggage.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102907/What-Behind-AntiHillary-Sentiment.aspx#2
Note how analyst Jeffrey M. Jones asserts in his subtitle, reasons for Ms. Clinton's negatives...
"
Basic dislike, policy disagreements, character concerns commonly mentioned"
Jones also contends that...
"...few candidates have ever begun the campaign with such polarized ratings."
Want more? Consider this Harris Poll:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744
What's unfortunate about some Hillary Supporters (HS), is that they'll routinely attribute criticism of Ms. Clinton to misogyny. What a slap in the face to all women in public affairs or women with alternative views on Ms. Clinton.
Millions of Conservative men will enthusiastically vote for a woman presidential candidate who shares their views. Unfortunately, such women are not available in this race.
Yet, some HS maintain American men will only support women if we don't feel "threatened" by them and by extension women we do admire are only sycophants - shrinking violets without pollen.
The distrust and polarizing features of Ms. Clinton's candidacy I mentioned, are not only consistent with my own views (and those of a camp referred to these days as "A.B.H." (Anyone But Hillary) they are also supported by some non-partisan research. This report from USA Today and Gallup may help others see Ms. Clinton's baggage.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/102907/What-Behind-AntiHillary-Sentiment.aspx#2
Note how analyst Jeffrey M. Jones asserts in his subtitle, reasons for Ms. Clinton's negatives...
"
 |
| Hillary Clinton, official public photo |
Jones also contends that...
"...few candidates have ever begun the campaign with such polarized ratings."
Want more? Consider this Harris Poll:
http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=744
What's unfortunate about some Hillary Supporters (HS), is that they'll routinely attribute criticism of Ms. Clinton to misogyny. What a slap in the face to all women in public affairs or women with alternative views on Ms. Clinton.
Millions of Conservative men will enthusiastically vote for a woman presidential candidate who shares their views. Unfortunately, such women are not available in this race.
Yet, some HS maintain American men will only support women if we don't feel "threatened" by them and by extension women we do admire are only sycophants - shrinking violets without pollen.
Sadly, some people on the Left can't fathom how an African-American like Justice Clarence Thomas holds beliefs at odds with their own. Some even suggest he is an "Uncle Tom". After hearing that explanation, one might ask - who is bigoted?
Similarly, for gender card-playing HS who continue to make excuses and stereotype reasons for male opposition to Ms. Clinton, one might ask - who is sexist?
Similarly, for gender card-playing HS who continue to make excuses and stereotype reasons for male opposition to Ms. Clinton, one might ask - who is sexist?
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Ron Paul on Glenn Beck's TV program tonight
We now know that Dr. Paul's supporters include those who accused TV host Glenn Beck of treason, those who threatened Glenn Beck's life and those claiming that the US Government perpetrated the horrors of 9/11.
People holding those views do not represent a plurality of Dr. Paul's supporters and he did indeed distance himself from these angry voices on Mr. Beck's program, but the question remains -- why is this particular group attracted to the Paul candidacy?
 |
| Glenn Beck, Wikipedia |
People holding those views do not represent a plurality of Dr. Paul's supporters and he did indeed distance himself from these angry voices on Mr. Beck's program, but the question remains -- why is this particular group attracted to the Paul candidacy?
 |
| Ron Paul, official public photo |
Sunday, December 16, 2007
MEET THE LESS
 |
| Meet The Press, Wikipedia |
Mr. Russert spent the first 13 minutes discussing Romney's Mormonism and then the next 11 minutes on abortion. Here are issues, that could have dominated the interview: National Security, Healthcare Reform, Illegal Immigration, the Iraq War, Education, Tax Reform, Energy Policy, or Federal Spending Reform.
Saturday, December 08, 2007
After watching Bill Moyers I posted on his blog...
"Mr. Moyers,
Your dialogue with Ms. Jamieson suggests that you are genuinely astonished at all of the vitriol surrounding Hillary Clinton. While I do not approve of all of it - I understand where much of it comes from.
It's not related to gender or politics. Men and women, Republican and Democrat, draw such fire in campaigns.
A more intriguing question is - why is Mrs. Clinton such a polarizing figure? I believe the answer goes to the heart of who she is - many believe she has a deep integrity problem and that she is purely craven for power. It's easy to see into her soul.
If we must have a Democrat winning the White House in 2008, many Republicans including this writer would find Mrs. Clinton by far, the most objectionable of all candidates in her party.
Respectfully,
JJM"
Your dialogue with Ms. Jamieson suggests that you are genuinely astonished at all of the vitriol surrounding Hillary Clinton. While I do not approve of all of it - I understand where much of it comes from.
It's not related to gender or politics. Men and women, Republican and Democrat, draw such fire in campaigns.
A more intriguing question is - why is Mrs. Clinton such a polarizing figure? I believe the answer goes to the heart of who she is - many believe she has a deep integrity problem and that she is purely craven for power. It's easy to see into her soul.
If we must have a Democrat winning the White House in 2008, many Republicans including this writer would find Mrs. Clinton by far, the most objectionable of all candidates in her party.
Respectfully,
JJM"
Sunday, November 25, 2007
Does party affiliation matter?
Representative Ron Paul hedged recently when asked whether he'd support the Republican nominee, regardless of who it might be. It's a safe bet it won't be him.
In essence, Dr. Paul replied that his support would depend upon the candidate's willingness to end the war and other positions about which Dr. Paul feels strongly. I respect his core principles but I'm not clear why Dr. Paul remains a Republican except perhaps out of political expediency. Several of his views are out of touch with the party mainstream which begs the question -- does party affiliation matter anymore?
Growing up in fiercely independent and purple Wisconsin, I recall hearing a familiar line from adults, "I vote for the man, not the party." (And in those days, with few exceptions, like Shirley Chisholm, it was overwhelmingly men).
As an impressionable kid, I respected adults who publicly affirmed beliefs in something higher than party politics. A sincere allegiance to core principles will always trump those screaming people wearing funny hats at the party convention, or so I believed.
Now in my late forties, I'm often skeptical of the "I-vote-for-the-person-not-the-party person." Why? Unless one has a record of voting for both Republicans and Democrats, or a history of supporting third party candidates, it is hard to believe. True Independents and Centrists might be the most noble voters, but nobility is by definition....a rare attribute.
In essence, Dr. Paul replied that his support would depend upon the candidate's willingness to end the war and other positions about which Dr. Paul feels strongly. I respect his core principles but I'm not clear why Dr. Paul remains a Republican except perhaps out of political expediency. Several of his views are out of touch with the party mainstream which begs the question -- does party affiliation matter anymore?
 |
| Shirley Chisholm: Wikipedia |
Growing up in fiercely independent and purple Wisconsin, I recall hearing a familiar line from adults, "I vote for the man, not the party." (And in those days, with few exceptions, like Shirley Chisholm, it was overwhelmingly men).
As an impressionable kid, I respected adults who publicly affirmed beliefs in something higher than party politics. A sincere allegiance to core principles will always trump those screaming people wearing funny hats at the party convention, or so I believed.
Now in my late forties, I'm often skeptical of the "I-vote-for-the-person-not-the-party person." Why? Unless one has a record of voting for both Republicans and Democrats, or a history of supporting third party candidates, it is hard to believe. True Independents and Centrists might be the most noble voters, but nobility is by definition....a rare attribute.
Monday, November 05, 2007
Lending humor
Please check out this month's "back story" from the November issue of Conde Nast Portfolio magazine. The piece I refer to is called the "2005 SUBPRIME-MORTGAGE APPLICATION". Note the free bank check at the bottom of the page with inscription:
"DUPLICATE AS NEEDED".
Portfolio is a new and inspired business periodical. I give its creators plaudits not only because I cackled after reading the aforementioned spoof on lax mortgage underwriting practices, but also because this magazine contains incisive stories, fine writing and an attractive layout. It is likely to succeed in an already crowded space.
**********************************
A HUMBLE UPDATE -- FEBRUARY 1, 2015
The magazine announced its closing back on April 27, 2009. So much for my prediction. -- JJM
Portfolio is a new and inspired business periodical. I give its creators plaudits not only because I cackled after reading the aforementioned spoof on lax mortgage underwriting practices, but also because this magazine contains incisive stories, fine writing and an attractive layout. It is likely to succeed in an already crowded space.
**********************************
A HUMBLE UPDATE -- FEBRUARY 1, 2015
The magazine announced its closing back on April 27, 2009. So much for my prediction. -- JJM
**********************************
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Sad irony
I heard from an American Muslim troubled by my September 20, 2007 column, "National security vs. civil liberty in America" My reply to him follows...
"I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I apologize for the length of time it has taken me to respond.
Before I address the points you make below, I should like to make clear that I fully recognize that the overwhelming majority of Muslims (American and otherwise) are peaceful, decent, people of faith. Radical Islam represents only a small fraction of the one billion-plus Muslims in the world. Unfortunately that small fraction still equates to a large number of people that we must monitor and defend ourselves from, in order to preserve our freedoms.
As for the incident that took place at the Minneapolis airport in 2006, it is obvious that you are troubled by my use of the word “suspicious.” If the 6 clerics involved were simply and quietly praying as you maintain, the flurry of events that made their presence so newsworthy, would not have developed. After all, thousands of Muslims travel through American airports every day without the same type of fallout. Your benign characterization of their actions during the whole ordeal does not at all comport with statements from eye witnesses, the gate agent, or excerpts that I read from the police report.
Whether one chooses to describe the activities of the clerics as suspicious or merely provocative, misses the point.
In this day and age, after what we have all been through, greater sensitivity on the part of the clerics would have been highly advisable. People are understandably on edge, particularly in airports. By saying that, I do not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that anyone should refrain from public prayer and again, I do not share your view that all that occurred that day was harmless prayer misunderstood by ignorant Americans. I am fully aware of and greatly respect your practice of praying five times a day. I am also a person of faith and most Americans are not as woefully ignorant of Islam, as you believe.
After this whole sad episode, the clerics elected to sue not only the airline, but also the passengers that shared their concerns with authorities. Therefore, in the future, some who would be inclined to alert authorities to potential danger, will have to weigh the possibility of being incorrect and then becoming the recipient of a fresh lawsuit. I find that conundrum more than a little troubling.
Should you receive this message in time, I’d invite you to watch a local television program called 4th Street Forum, tomorrow afternoon @ 3PM, on Channel 36. The topic of my last column (that you take issue with) is explored during a panel discussion and I was privileged to participate. Within hours of taping that program, I learned that bombs exploded in Pakistan killing 134 people. The latest reports indicate that it was more death coming from the evil hand of al Qaida.
The timing of that tragedy and the taping of the aforementioned TV program was sad irony for me, but I draw no comparison between decent people like you and people who celebrate the murder of Western children, so please do not paint me with such a broad brush. I argue to preserve freedoms not just for myself, but for people like you as well.
That is why I sometimes get discouraged by reactions like yours. Yet I become encouraged when I read and hear other American Muslims like Muqtedar Khan who fully recognize where to place their energy and advocacy. If you are not familiar with Dr. Khan’s work, you may wish to read one essay in particular called “Memo To Mr. Bin Laden: Go to Hell! It can be found at http://www.ijtihad.org/BinladenII.htm
All of this notwithstanding, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write to me. I wish you well.
- John J. Maddente"
"I appreciate your thoughtful reply and I apologize for the length of time it has taken me to respond.
Before I address the points you make below, I should like to make clear that I fully recognize that the overwhelming majority of Muslims (American and otherwise) are peaceful, decent, people of faith. Radical Islam represents only a small fraction of the one billion-plus Muslims in the world. Unfortunately that small fraction still equates to a large number of people that we must monitor and defend ourselves from, in order to preserve our freedoms.
As for the incident that took place at the Minneapolis airport in 2006, it is obvious that you are troubled by my use of the word “suspicious.” If the 6 clerics involved were simply and quietly praying as you maintain, the flurry of events that made their presence so newsworthy, would not have developed. After all, thousands of Muslims travel through American airports every day without the same type of fallout. Your benign characterization of their actions during the whole ordeal does not at all comport with statements from eye witnesses, the gate agent, or excerpts that I read from the police report.
Whether one chooses to describe the activities of the clerics as suspicious or merely provocative, misses the point.
In this day and age, after what we have all been through, greater sensitivity on the part of the clerics would have been highly advisable. People are understandably on edge, particularly in airports. By saying that, I do not in any way, shape, or form, suggest that anyone should refrain from public prayer and again, I do not share your view that all that occurred that day was harmless prayer misunderstood by ignorant Americans. I am fully aware of and greatly respect your practice of praying five times a day. I am also a person of faith and most Americans are not as woefully ignorant of Islam, as you believe.
After this whole sad episode, the clerics elected to sue not only the airline, but also the passengers that shared their concerns with authorities. Therefore, in the future, some who would be inclined to alert authorities to potential danger, will have to weigh the possibility of being incorrect and then becoming the recipient of a fresh lawsuit. I find that conundrum more than a little troubling.
Should you receive this message in time, I’d invite you to watch a local television program called 4th Street Forum, tomorrow afternoon @ 3PM, on Channel 36. The topic of my last column (that you take issue with) is explored during a panel discussion and I was privileged to participate. Within hours of taping that program, I learned that bombs exploded in Pakistan killing 134 people. The latest reports indicate that it was more death coming from the evil hand of al Qaida.
The timing of that tragedy and the taping of the aforementioned TV program was sad irony for me, but I draw no comparison between decent people like you and people who celebrate the murder of Western children, so please do not paint me with such a broad brush. I argue to preserve freedoms not just for myself, but for people like you as well.
That is why I sometimes get discouraged by reactions like yours. Yet I become encouraged when I read and hear other American Muslims like Muqtedar Khan who fully recognize where to place their energy and advocacy. If you are not familiar with Dr. Khan’s work, you may wish to read one essay in particular called “Memo To Mr. Bin Laden: Go to Hell! It can be found at http://www.ijtihad.org/BinladenII.htm
All of this notwithstanding, I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write to me. I wish you well.
- John J. Maddente"
Thursday, September 20, 2007
National security vs. civil liberty in America
Published: Sept. 20, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
It is a solemn anniversary each year, the kind where you hold your breath hoping that you won't hear a news report about a terrorist bombing or some other horrific act. I'm talking, of course, about Sept. 11, a date that will remain seared into our consciousnesses for the rest of our lives.
Understandably, the date also has devolved into a ritualistic debate regarding the competing ideals of national security and civil liberties. Here's my take.
Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in any free society. The ability to express myself through this column is an obvious example. However, civil liberties should not in and of themselves supersede national security. And some of the clamor about domestic surveillance has gone from making my eyes roll to making my blood boil.
Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, enacted in 1996, the government reserved for itself the right to comb through your medical records without court approval if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation.
I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that law have been documented in the past 11 years? Consider the entire domestic surveillance hubbub we hear today and ask: Do you really think the CIA cares about phone calls you have made or books you have checked out from the library?
Of course not, and I don't want to hamper its efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans. Vice President Dick Cheney can pore over my phone logs whenever he pleases. If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.
So frisk me! If it makes us all safer, it's worth it. Blame terrorists and their supporters for the circumstances that gave rise to these extraordinary precautions; don't blame policy-makers trying to keep us safe.
A related concept in the civil liberties controversy is the notion of racial profiling. The idea that added scrutiny is given to some purely on the basis of ethnicity is not new, and, in practice, it arguably can be quite troubling.
During World War II, for example, many Japanese-Americans and some German-Americans underwent humiliating treatment in this country to ensure that they possessed no loyalties to the Emperor or to the Führer.
That's a sad chapter for us, but it's not at all what I am advocating. There are no internment camps today for Muslim-Americans. No reasonable person would support such measures.
On the other hand, our country was not attacked by radical fundamentalist Norwegians. I doubt you'll find many Nordic sleeper cells operating around the world. So if I am acting suspiciously in an airport like the six Muslim men in the Minneapolis airport last fall, the fact that I am drawing comparatively more attention than some platinum blond named Sven makes sense to me.
Letter writer Patrick Collentine put it thus in the Sept. 16 Journal Sentinel:
"Since there have been countless attacks thwarted and none executed in six years, I think it is obvious we are more safe today because of the USA Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, aggressive interrogation and holding suspected detainees until we are sure they pose no threat to America."
He added, "There has been one case in six years that the Justice Department has prosecuted for the infringement on civil liberties. I'll take that trade-off any day."
So will I.
It is a solemn anniversary each year, the kind where you hold your breath hoping that you won't hear a news report about a terrorist bombing or some other horrific act. I'm talking, of course, about Sept. 11, a date that will remain seared into our consciousnesses for the rest of our lives.
Understandably, the date also has devolved into a ritualistic debate regarding the competing ideals of national security and civil liberties. Here's my take.
Civil liberties, including the right to privacy, are critically necessary in any free society. The ability to express myself through this column is an obvious example. However, civil liberties should not in and of themselves supersede national security. And some of the clamor about domestic surveillance has gone from making my eyes roll to making my blood boil.
Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA, enacted in 1996, the government reserved for itself the right to comb through your medical records without court approval if such an action is deemed potentially useful to a federal investigation.
I wasn't particularly concerned about that in 1996, nor am I now. How many abuses of that law have been documented in the past 11 years? Consider the entire domestic surveillance hubbub we hear today and ask: Do you really think the CIA cares about phone calls you have made or books you have checked out from the library?
Of course not, and I don't want to hamper its efforts to locate people who would hurt innocent Americans. Vice President Dick Cheney can pore over my phone logs whenever he pleases. If I have nothing to hide, I have nothing to fear.
So frisk me! If it makes us all safer, it's worth it. Blame terrorists and their supporters for the circumstances that gave rise to these extraordinary precautions; don't blame policy-makers trying to keep us safe.
A related concept in the civil liberties controversy is the notion of racial profiling. The idea that added scrutiny is given to some purely on the basis of ethnicity is not new, and, in practice, it arguably can be quite troubling.
During World War II, for example, many Japanese-Americans and some German-Americans underwent humiliating treatment in this country to ensure that they possessed no loyalties to the Emperor or to the Führer.
That's a sad chapter for us, but it's not at all what I am advocating. There are no internment camps today for Muslim-Americans. No reasonable person would support such measures.
On the other hand, our country was not attacked by radical fundamentalist Norwegians. I doubt you'll find many Nordic sleeper cells operating around the world. So if I am acting suspiciously in an airport like the six Muslim men in the Minneapolis airport last fall, the fact that I am drawing comparatively more attention than some platinum blond named Sven makes sense to me.
Letter writer Patrick Collentine put it thus in the Sept. 16 Journal Sentinel:
"Since there have been countless attacks thwarted and none executed in six years, I think it is obvious we are more safe today because of the USA Patriot Act, domestic wiretapping, aggressive interrogation and holding suspected detainees until we are sure they pose no threat to America."
He added, "There has been one case in six years that the Justice Department has prosecuted for the infringement on civil liberties. I'll take that trade-off any day."
So will I.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
To: Editorial board at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Their question to readers:
Would you be willing to pay a higher sales tax on gasoline to pay for bridge maintenance and replacement?
My reply...
Dear Editorial board,
My answer is no I would not and it’s the phrasing of your question that might draw scrutiny from other like-minded readers. That is, why do you presuppose that the only way to fund such infrastructure improvement is through an increase in the gas tax- or an increase in any tax for that matter? We already pay among the highest sales tax rates at the pump.
During the previous budget cycle, Governor Doyle, like a modern day Cesar Augustus, used his famous “Frankenstein veto” to instantly transfer over $400 million dollars from the highway fund to K-12 education. The magnitude of his audacity surprised pols on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps some of those funds might have remained better invested in infrastructure like that suggested by your query to readers in today’s paper.
In any event - why not ask a follow up question to JS readers?
“In order to fund such bridge work, would you allow the consolidation of school districts where enrollment no longer justifies operating such schools, or through asset sales of state owned property and land used by a paucity of our population, or through cancellation of marginally-necessary pet projects?”
OK, I understand space limitations -- but you get my point.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente
Would you be willing to pay a higher sales tax on gasoline to pay for bridge maintenance and replacement?
My reply...
Dear Editorial board,
My answer is no I would not and it’s the phrasing of your question that might draw scrutiny from other like-minded readers. That is, why do you presuppose that the only way to fund such infrastructure improvement is through an increase in the gas tax- or an increase in any tax for that matter? We already pay among the highest sales tax rates at the pump.
During the previous budget cycle, Governor Doyle, like a modern day Cesar Augustus, used his famous “Frankenstein veto” to instantly transfer over $400 million dollars from the highway fund to K-12 education. The magnitude of his audacity surprised pols on both sides of the aisle. Perhaps some of those funds might have remained better invested in infrastructure like that suggested by your query to readers in today’s paper.
In any event - why not ask a follow up question to JS readers?
“In order to fund such bridge work, would you allow the consolidation of school districts where enrollment no longer justifies operating such schools, or through asset sales of state owned property and land used by a paucity of our population, or through cancellation of marginally-necessary pet projects?”
OK, I understand space limitations -- but you get my point.
Respectfully,
John J. Maddente
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Don't believe the doomsday predictions about newspapers
Published July 29, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Here's hoping that some things never change. The Civil War memorial statues on Wisconsin Ave. in Milwaukee, no stadium naming rights to Lambeau Field and the Menomonee River Parkway in Wauwatosa will all, with God's good grace, remain unaltered in my lifetime.
What you're reading at the moment is a local newspaper that has existed in various incarnations since 1837. Different names, different mastheads and different owners, but, nonetheless, this paper has been a part of our consciousness for a long time.
Some of us are old enough to recall a time when we'd pluck out The Green Sheet from The Milwaukee Journal and read Mrs. Griggs' advice column. For some, the memories go back even further. Many have heard prognostications about a trend away from newspapers as consumers demand more information via computer and the Internet. Some maintain that since more people than ever obtain their news and entertainment online the inexorable death of the old fish wrapper is just a matter of time.
Nonsense! I doubt that the printed newspaper will ever become extinct - and not just because I want to doubt its demise. My reasoning is more practical.
A newspaper enables one to consume information with so much ease and so little dexterity that it cannot be duplicated. You just can't argue with good design. That is to say, is it conceivably easier or more satisfying to hold some wafer-thin (albeit newspaper-sized) screen and scroll through your daily pixels of news and pictures? Not for me. I'll never give up my pulp-based reading. Information technology can be a great enhancement to slake our thirst for information - and also a great waste of time.
For example, I've used two different handheld devices to support all of my phone, calendar, Internet and e-mail needs. The first device I loved because it was intuitive to learn and easy to use. I have a different device now that I detest for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is the most over-engineered contraption I have ever encountered. It was made by geeks for geeks who love the thing because it's state of the art, whatever that is.
But information technology and its beguiling ecosystem - the Internet - can't be judged so simply. It's a blessing, it's evil and it's a waste of time all at once. Creeps use the Internet to prey on children, but it also helps parents stay close to their children when separated by great distances. Porn sites proliferate, but so does some exceptional blogging and grass-roots reporting that help to equalize and make more transparent a very complex world.
Journalists are becoming increasingly reliant upon and held more accountable by just about any serious person with a modem and a hankering to share something important. Teens and adults fritter away countless hours playing games, but on the other hand . . . well, you get it.
It's the content that remains important - the digital and paper platforms will remain only as catalysts to slake our thirst for information, and they will continue to coexist. Whether you want news electronically or prefer to rattle those pages between your fingertips as I do, what's important is the quality of what we pull off of the platform.
Is it fair? Is it accurate? Is it useful? So don't write off the newspaper. It may be an aged medium, but it's one as comfortable as those trusty pair of shoes you'll never part with.
Here's hoping that some things never change. The Civil War memorial statues on Wisconsin Ave. in Milwaukee, no stadium naming rights to Lambeau Field and the Menomonee River Parkway in Wauwatosa will all, with God's good grace, remain unaltered in my lifetime.
What you're reading at the moment is a local newspaper that has existed in various incarnations since 1837. Different names, different mastheads and different owners, but, nonetheless, this paper has been a part of our consciousness for a long time.
Some of us are old enough to recall a time when we'd pluck out The Green Sheet from The Milwaukee Journal and read Mrs. Griggs' advice column. For some, the memories go back even further. Many have heard prognostications about a trend away from newspapers as consumers demand more information via computer and the Internet. Some maintain that since more people than ever obtain their news and entertainment online the inexorable death of the old fish wrapper is just a matter of time.
Nonsense! I doubt that the printed newspaper will ever become extinct - and not just because I want to doubt its demise. My reasoning is more practical.
A newspaper enables one to consume information with so much ease and so little dexterity that it cannot be duplicated. You just can't argue with good design. That is to say, is it conceivably easier or more satisfying to hold some wafer-thin (albeit newspaper-sized) screen and scroll through your daily pixels of news and pictures? Not for me. I'll never give up my pulp-based reading. Information technology can be a great enhancement to slake our thirst for information - and also a great waste of time.
For example, I've used two different handheld devices to support all of my phone, calendar, Internet and e-mail needs. The first device I loved because it was intuitive to learn and easy to use. I have a different device now that I detest for several reasons, not the least of which is that it is the most over-engineered contraption I have ever encountered. It was made by geeks for geeks who love the thing because it's state of the art, whatever that is.
But information technology and its beguiling ecosystem - the Internet - can't be judged so simply. It's a blessing, it's evil and it's a waste of time all at once. Creeps use the Internet to prey on children, but it also helps parents stay close to their children when separated by great distances. Porn sites proliferate, but so does some exceptional blogging and grass-roots reporting that help to equalize and make more transparent a very complex world.
Journalists are becoming increasingly reliant upon and held more accountable by just about any serious person with a modem and a hankering to share something important. Teens and adults fritter away countless hours playing games, but on the other hand . . . well, you get it.
It's the content that remains important - the digital and paper platforms will remain only as catalysts to slake our thirst for information, and they will continue to coexist. Whether you want news electronically or prefer to rattle those pages between your fingertips as I do, what's important is the quality of what we pull off of the platform.
Is it fair? Is it accurate? Is it useful? So don't write off the newspaper. It may be an aged medium, but it's one as comfortable as those trusty pair of shoes you'll never part with.
Tuesday, July 17, 2007
Still weary about our punitive state tax burden
Published July 5, 2007 Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Watching our state's political budget process is not easy. There are so many additional taxes - and some with such vast implications - all under discussion at once. One billion, 2 billion, 3 billion, 15 billion: all numbers I have seen to describe potential tax increases.
The characters involved mirror stereotypes of both political parties: Democrats are seeking a broader governmental role in fixing our problems through tax increases and government spending. The GOP is digging in its heels, wanting to hold the line on taxes and government spending and government's increased involvement in our affairs.
Reminiscent of the high stakes budget showdown that occurred between President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995, Republican Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch stated he would block the process if the budget delivered to him contains tax increases. By any credible measure, we live in a high-tax state, and this budget season reminds me of the myriad ways government can tax us and how far Gov. Jim Doyle and his coterie of party faithful are prepared to go in order to exercise their views about what government ought to do. But what about the long-term picture beyond the current two-year budget cycle?
I was troubled by a June 24 column by John Tornius that referenced a credible third-party analysis of our state's annual "structural deficit" of $2.2 billion ("State's accounting doesn't pass muster"). The analysis revealed that relative to population, Wisconsin is at the top of all deficit-running states in the nation.
That's more than a little disconcerting if you or your children care about life in Wisconsin more than a couple years from now. Many of us grouse about the need to reduce taxes. That's personal income taxes, real estate taxes, corporate personal property taxes, gas taxes, home-selling taxes and they-don't-give-me-enough-space-to-list-all-the taxes. Others counter with, "That's not realistic; our needs have increased." Or my personal favorite, "But look at our fine educational system and park system and whatever system."
Even if I agreed that we derived an equivalent value from the punitive tax burden we've paid through the decades, we cannot afford everything any longer. As opposed to making more hard choices, I read about things like the governor's proposal to increase by some $55 million annually the cost of state-owned lands in "far-flung natural areas" beginning in 2011. What percentage of us has a desire, let alone need, to traverse additional land already owned by the state in the wilds of Douglas County when our long-term fiscal condition is so bleak?
Other troubling budgetary facts:
• The $15 billion universal health care plan is an 11th-hour power play, and whether you believe such a plan is the answer to our health care conundrum or not, the issues and implications are too complex, too far-reaching, too everything to contemplate now. That patient is dead.
• The new gas tax on oil companies that ostensibly would be borne by oil companies and not passed on to you and me has zero chance of success. If it makes its way into law, it will fail in practice or the courts.
• Lifting any real estate property tax cap will diminish any hope I have left in government.
What we will wind up with this budget season is anyone's guess. The only safe prediction is that if any tax increases get out of the Assembly, there will be a run on bumper stickers that read, "Don't blame me; I voted for Green."
Watching our state's political budget process is not easy. There are so many additional taxes - and some with such vast implications - all under discussion at once. One billion, 2 billion, 3 billion, 15 billion: all numbers I have seen to describe potential tax increases.
The characters involved mirror stereotypes of both political parties: Democrats are seeking a broader governmental role in fixing our problems through tax increases and government spending. The GOP is digging in its heels, wanting to hold the line on taxes and government spending and government's increased involvement in our affairs.
Reminiscent of the high stakes budget showdown that occurred between President Clinton and House Speaker Newt Gingrich in 1995, Republican Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch stated he would block the process if the budget delivered to him contains tax increases. By any credible measure, we live in a high-tax state, and this budget season reminds me of the myriad ways government can tax us and how far Gov. Jim Doyle and his coterie of party faithful are prepared to go in order to exercise their views about what government ought to do. But what about the long-term picture beyond the current two-year budget cycle?
I was troubled by a June 24 column by John Tornius that referenced a credible third-party analysis of our state's annual "structural deficit" of $2.2 billion ("State's accounting doesn't pass muster"). The analysis revealed that relative to population, Wisconsin is at the top of all deficit-running states in the nation.
That's more than a little disconcerting if you or your children care about life in Wisconsin more than a couple years from now. Many of us grouse about the need to reduce taxes. That's personal income taxes, real estate taxes, corporate personal property taxes, gas taxes, home-selling taxes and they-don't-give-me-enough-space-to-list-all-the taxes. Others counter with, "That's not realistic; our needs have increased." Or my personal favorite, "But look at our fine educational system and park system and whatever system."
Even if I agreed that we derived an equivalent value from the punitive tax burden we've paid through the decades, we cannot afford everything any longer. As opposed to making more hard choices, I read about things like the governor's proposal to increase by some $55 million annually the cost of state-owned lands in "far-flung natural areas" beginning in 2011. What percentage of us has a desire, let alone need, to traverse additional land already owned by the state in the wilds of Douglas County when our long-term fiscal condition is so bleak?
Other troubling budgetary facts:
• The $15 billion universal health care plan is an 11th-hour power play, and whether you believe such a plan is the answer to our health care conundrum or not, the issues and implications are too complex, too far-reaching, too everything to contemplate now. That patient is dead.
• The new gas tax on oil companies that ostensibly would be borne by oil companies and not passed on to you and me has zero chance of success. If it makes its way into law, it will fail in practice or the courts.
• Lifting any real estate property tax cap will diminish any hope I have left in government.
What we will wind up with this budget season is anyone's guess. The only safe prediction is that if any tax increases get out of the Assembly, there will be a run on bumper stickers that read, "Don't blame me; I voted for Green."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
The Overpriced Fiduciary. Revisiting How We Pay for Financial Advice (first published 3/20/2026 on Substack)
The Overpriced Fiduciary. Revisiting How We Pay for Financial Advice The practice of paying a financial advisor a percentage of assets...
-
By George Webb Corporation - http://www.georgewebb.com 1. For three consecutive mornings, I've happily eaten breakfast at George Webb , ... -
L ast week before leaving Thailand (more about that trip shortly), I learned that my brief reader's comment about financial advisory ser... -
Pointed, brilliant drifts of snow pierce the evening of winter. Curving upward they arch to a luminous, cyclopean moon. A guest, humble, I s...