Milwaukee's fiscal woes won't be solved by Dems' press releases

Published 1.15.2010 at Examiner.com

The primary reason I decided to support Scott Walker's bid for Governor last year is that he is one of the few state pols who "gets it." The "it" in this case -- is fiscal sanity.

I make no claim of neutrality, so when a Web article from the state Democratic machine came into view yesterday, I was naturally skeptical. The title alone was hair-raising, "Inmates Released, Public Safety Plans Cut: "Patchwork" Walker's Latest Hypocrisy Exposed by Political Ally"

The "Political Ally" referred to is Milwaukee County Sheriff, David A. Clarke Jr. -- another leader who also understands how to operate within his means.  My word, I wondered, what had County Executive Scott Walker done? The piece issued by the Democratic Party of Wisconsin, references, "...a scathing letter to Walker" from Sheriff Clarke.

In the first place, the Sheriff's letter was addressed to several County supervisors and Mr. Walker, not solely to Mr. Walker, as the article implies.

Secondly, when the sum and substance of this piece didn't square with my own understanding of Mr. Walker's views, I looked to his Communications Director for Mr. Walker's official positions, which were described thus:

"The budget Scott presented for 2010 DID NOT include furlough days for Sheriff's deputies."

An amendment passed by the members of the County Board applied floating furlough days to everyone and it could not be line-item vetoed. The County Board are the ones that put this into Scott's budget.  

Now, the Sheriff has a series of actions he wants to take as an alternative to furlough days for deputies. Scott supports an alternative and has been working with his office for past few weeks.

Scott Walker WILL NOT and DOES NOT support the early release of inmates as part of an alternative plan. In fact, he would veto such a plan if approved by the County Board.

Instead, Scott will continue to work with the Sheriff's office to avoid the release of inmates - as well as furlough days"

Finally, I contacted Sheriff Clarke's office seeking comment on the "scathing" letter as described in the article in question, and the Sheriff responded through a representative that Sheriff Clarke,

“...is not going to politicize his budget and these conversations should definitely take place between himself, the County Board and the County Executive.”

Perhaps someone forgot to tell the Dems.

A Christmas greeting and a new domain...

I'd like to wish (all seven) readers of this blog, a safe and joyous Christmas season.  This site can now also be accessed at another domain: maddente.com 

God bless you and here's to a healthy and prosperous 2010!

Wikipedia image

Rick Santelli is right

Rick Santelli, CNBC

This morning I watched CNBC's Rick Santelli talking from the Chicago Board Of Trade.  His so-called, "Santelli Rant" has been watched on YouTube over a million times and his sentiments today, once again, represent the views of many Americans who believe in living within one's means -- it's how we were raised -- but we lack a microphone.

Rick Santelli was in fine form this morning while debating Steve Liesman.  The topic was banking reform and Mr. Santelli made a case for an elegantly simple cure -- raise the banks' capital requirements. 

Another CNBC commentator astutely chimed in that this is the same risk premium banks require when a homeowner has a marginal credit history -- the bank looks for more cash in the deal -- a bigger down payment to compensate for the risk of default.

Why can't we use the same mechanism to minimize chances of another banking meltdown?  Do we need new federal agencies, reams of new regulations, congressional hearings, class warfare speeches and on and on?  I realize that raising the amount of capital that banks must hold affects their profitability, but maybe it's a reasonable way to manage systemic risk.

Medellín, Columbia and Nixon

I've heard from friends with ties to Columbia, that conditions have dramatically improved across the country, although impressions of that nation's difficult past still linger around the world.  Tonight during Anthony Bourdain's show about Columbia, I watch as he visits Medellín and interviews locals - many of whom suffered enormously during the Pablo Escobar period of the 1980s.  The people appear proud, hopeful, even happy.  Mr. Bourdain says something to a local that reminds me of a rueful Richard Nixon speaking to White House staff in the final hours of his presidency:

"Only if you have been in the deepest valley, can you ever know how magnificent it is to be on the highest mountain." 

S/he who frames the healthcare debate...wins.

When the topic of healthcare reform took center stage this summer, I felt that "healthcare reform" had suddenly become code for "let's change health insurance." 

I was certain that I was missing something like the "3.5M jobs saved or created" metric I wrote about last March.  I thought I was the only one disturbed by how stimulus programs would be "measured" and conveyed by this administration because I wasn't witnessing views similar to my own. 

Surgeons, Wikipedia

In my opinion, the healthcare reform yardstick that counts, is the one that actually lowers healthcare costs for the greatest number of patients.  But that isn't how we frame the national debate and measure success or failure.  Is an expanded insurance pool run by the government going to achieve this goal?  I don't know, but uniformly lowering the cost of that pill, that surgery, that MRI, whatever it is -- would benefit us all.  I do not see how the House bill will lower health care costs.  

President Obama, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Reid, etc. have successfully shifted the narrative from lowering healthcare costs, to demonizing the health insurance industry and expanding government control.  All this of course, delights their base.  If their bill passes, everyone will be 'covered' by virtue of a new mechanism.  That new mechanism is government-mandated, taxpayer funded, healthcare which is not reform at all -- unless one successfully frames the debate that way.

When will we reward the savers?

This week, the author of a Barron's cover story posits that it's time for the Fed to raise interest rates.  The macro debate for and against doing so, I'll leave for economists.  The argument in favor of raising rates, however has advocates at Barron's.  The Barron's article titled, "C'mon Ben!" is accompanied by a reminder that keeping rates so low "hurts savers." 

The policy notion of incenting savers to save more, seems to fall on deaf ears.  The Fed keeps the cheap money flowing, but they also hamper returns from savings accounts, money markets, CDs, etc. to remain at paltry levels.  When will we reward citizens who save and invest conservatively, instead of the masses who borrow only to consume?

freepik image

Of nuts and acorns

Contrast two recent cases that received national media focus: the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. and video tape of ACORN employees giving advice to individuals posing as operators of an under-aged prostitution business.

In the first case, the President declares that law enforcement officers in the Gates case, "acted stupidly" then he hosts an awkward reconciliation meeting over beers on the White House lawn. 

In the second case, the President demurs when asked to share his opinion about the ACORN workers and Congressional action to stop federal funding for their organization. President Obama did say that actions he viewed on the ACORN videotape were "inappropriate" and deserved to be investigated, but then he added...

"This is not the biggest issue facing the country. It is not something I'm paying a lot of attention to."

Nor should he have paid much attention to a civil disturbance involving one man in Cambridge, Massachusetts...but he did.  Mr. Gates, for his part, could have had the last laugh and made buffoons of the Cambridge police, by maintaining his cool. Instead while being questioned, he ranted as though he had been robbed of his human dignity and got himself arrested.  That was the whole "news" story.

Back to the President.  At the time he uttered the "acted stupidly" remark, I had the feeling he was reacting as a man who had felt the sting of racism himself, possibly conjured by painful episodes from his past.

Let's say hypothetically that 25 years ago, citizen Barack Obama attracted the suspicions of some dim-witted person for no other reason than he was black and in the wrong place at the wrong time. Arousing suspicion for these reasons alone is completely unfair, but it happens and I bet it hurts like hell and leaves one justifiably angry.  

I get it, but candidate Obama ran his campaign as the "post-racial" choice.  Some people who've grown weary of bitter and endless racial debates are also attracted to a person of color that espouses a color-blind agenda. However, acting with complete indifference to race is much easier said than done.  

The President would have been well-advised to say as little about the Gates matter as he said about ACORN.  To be fair, Mr. Obama wisely distanced himself from the race mongering recently exhibited by former President Jimmy Carter.  Sometimes, even racism -- or reverse racism -- is colorblind.