Questions linger over Walker's call for bipartisanship

After 10 months of chicanery, can we really take the governor at his word?

After ridding state workers of their rights to collectively bargain their contracts, a practice that has been respected for over five decades;

After cutting hundreds of millions of dollars in taxes for corporations, yet raising taxes through the elimination of a tax credit for working families in the state;

After dismal unemployment numbers over the course of past two months, including figures that demonstrate less Wisconsinites are working than when he took office;

And after all of this, after a series of bills that have nothing to do with job creation (voter ID, concealed carry, etc.), and after it has been revealed that Walker's own cronies have seen wage increases in their government-appointed jobs --

-- Governor Walker has finally decided to make jobs a priority.

Calling the legislature back into session (after a month in which they, too, tried to refuse to work more than a single day), Walker has called on Republicans and Democrats to work together to pass sweeping legislation designed to make Wisconsin a more employable state.

Of course, the last time Walker called a special session on jobs (back in January), we saw huge corporate tax cuts of over $140 million and a bill designed to end the rights of state workers.

Still, the call for bipartisanship is welcomed, and the need for more jobs in our state a serious issue to tackle. Even if we may disagree with the guy, the fact that he wants to shift the focus towards positive action in increasing jobs is something all politicians should aspire towards as well.

But exactly how serious can we take Walker? How can we take his word as sincere, after campaigning all of 2010 on jobs yet doing close to nothing on it for 10 whole months? And how can we expect him to contribute in a bipartisan manner after he worked in a dictatorial way those first 10 months, going so far as to threaten his political opponents in private with a Louisville Slugger?

I truly hope I am wrong on all of this, that the questions I bring up here are simply a mild case of paranoid skepticism. But given Walker's track record and limited commitment to both jobs and cooperation, can you really blame me?

We should encourage calls for cooperation whenever and wherever they come from. But we should avoid being naive as well, save ourselves from being duped and keep a wary eye on those whose record, like Walker's, has been anything but cooperative.

Moves to change recall election misguided

Amendment for recalls would have allowed for no legislative recalls in prior years

There's been a strong push as of late, by Republican legislators in the state and news media alike, to restrict the terms under which recall elections can occur. This call has come after an historic nine recall elections occurred this year alone, more than doubling the number of recalls that had previously been seen at the state legislative level.

I have written extensively on the subject, on why recalls strengthen our democracy rather than hinder it (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). The ability of the people to have a check on their legislators isn't something we should try to restrict -- indeed, the process itself is much harder to initiate than people give it credit for.

18 state senators were eligible for recall this year; of those, only nine faced election, and only two of those were successfully removed from office. The idea that recalls don't respect democratic preference is hogwash, not only because it requires a democratic election in order to succeed, but also because it requires a strict timeline, allowing tempers to cool down, ensuring that the change in personnel is a change that's really desired.

To alter the conditions of recalls would also ignore the intent of what recalls were all about. Our state constitution doesn't limit why recalls can happen -- in fact, no recall election at the legislative level has ever occurred on the bases or merits that the proposed constitutional amendment would restrict them under.

Only four recall elections of state legislators had occurred before this year. Only two of those were successful. Of those four, one occurred over constituents' disagreements with that representative's views on Indian treaty rights, another over a vote on a regional sales tax, and another over a legislator's overly-compromising behavior, having crossed the partisan divide too many times and seemingly "selling out" his constituents.

The only reasonably close instance that may merit a recall under the new conditions being proposed was in 1932, when Sen. Otto Mueller refused to present himself at a roll call vote that then-Gov. Philip La Follette had ordered the legislature to convene on. But even that instance (which resulted in Mueller staving off a recall challenge) wouldn't fit the terms of the proposal by Rep. Robin Vos:

His amendment would mean state officials, including the governor and legislators, could face recalls only for one of three reasons:

- If they are charged or convicted of a felony.

- If they are convicted of a misdemeanor.

- If they are found guilty of an ethics violation.

Otto Mueller was never found to have violated any ethics violation, nor convicted of any crime for his refusal to comply with La Follette's wishes.

So under Vos's terms, none of the legislative recalls in Wisconsin state history would have been justified, including the four before this year's slew of recall elections.

This anti-democratic measure deserves to be defeated. There is no reason that Vos or any legislator for that matter should propose an amendment that would lessen the democratic ability of the people in this state. Such a move is radical, even for Vos's standards.

Journal Sentinel still wrong on the issue of recalls

Recall elections should be based on the people's desire to have one

When a representative fails to adhere to the values or ideals of their constituents, they no longer serve a productive purpose within the office they hold. The interests of the people fail to be represented, are essentially ignored for the remainder of that person's tenure.

Some have contended that recalls should be limited, should only be initiated after a legislator, mayor, etc. acts in a criminal or disrespectful way within that office. But should constituents have to wait for this person to "slip up," for them to make a personal judgment error, in order to remove them from office? Isn't this person's refusal to represent the people in a way they deem acceptable reason enough to warrant removal?

It makes no sense to advocate for a change in the recall process that makes it MORE difficult for the people to be respected by their lawmakers. The threat of recall makes officeholders more receptive to their constituents' wishes and less likely to perform a "bait and switch" from campaign season to the actual time they begin public service.

Being receptive is, after all, the entire point of representative democracy. And while legislators shouldn't be bound to support everything that their voters desire, shouldn't continously poll the people they work for on every single issue, they should be held to account for the choices they make that their residents disagree with.

It's irresponsible for lawmakers to be introducing proposals to limit this democratic right of the people; it's even more irresponsible for news media, which serves as a purveyor of democratic discourse in the community, to urge for the elimination of that right as well.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel has previously advocated that recalls be limited to instances of "egregious behavior." Now, with Rep. Robin Vos (and others) pushing for a constitutional amendment limiting when and how the people can initiate a recall, the Journal Sentinel editorial team has endorsed the plan.

"The recalls were unwarranted," they wrote. "A vote or stance on one issue is not sufficient in our view to justify the expense of a recall election."

But how is that beneficial to democracy? The purpose of having representatives in office is to have an individual who reflects the values and views of the community at-large. It's impossible to have that individual reflect the views of everyone; but while that's an unachievable goal, a more realistic possibility is having a majority of people lose faith in your ability to represent them, whether that's through your actions or your votes.

Politicians aren't elected on the basis of whether we believe they will act nobly -- it's expected that they will, but that isn't the crux of their campaign rhetoric, what will get them the endorsement of their constituents. Rather, politicians are elected based upon what policies they will support, what positions they will take on hot-button issues, and in what direction they plan to move their district. These are what matter most to constituents. As such, our leaders should be held accountable for the votes they make or the positions they take after they enter office.

The Journal Sentinel has been wrong on this issue before, and it's still wrong for endorsing Vos's plan. The right of the people to select their representatives in the first place is based on the right to have someone share their voice in the office they serve. When that voice of the people is ignored in an extraordinary way, that lawmaker no longer respects his role as "representative."

For that reason, recall elections, as they exist in their current form, should remain preserved.

Abolish the death penalty

Too many problems, both practical and moral, plague the practice

It took me a few days to come up what I wanted to say on the topic of the death penalty. The issue has been in the news on three separate fronts -- it seems fitting to talk about it now.

Up until now, I had been a wary supporter of the death penalty in some cases. The attacks of 9/11 led me to that conclusion. Had we caught Osama bin Laden, I would have wanted him to go on trial and to be put to death. But in recent years, I’ve realized that this sentiment, though something I may want for one individual, shouldn’t be implemented in this way. Our emotional response, though justified, doesn’t override the rights of others, even those convicted of heinous crimes.

I understand the death penalty -- the seemingly “equal” justice of it (a “death for a death”), the satisfaction of seeing a killer be taken from this life into the next to see their maker, exterminated for the crimes they’ve committed. I “get” that emotion, that need for vengeance, and (what seems like) ultimate justice under both the court of law as well as the court of the victims’ families’ minds.

But its mark on society, its troubled implementation, its costs, and its overall effectiveness, all point to one singular conclusion: the death penalty has got to go. It simply isn’t good to hold onto any longer, to carry it on in spite of its significant problems.

Practically speaking, the death penalty simply doesn’t “work.” Let’s first define what “working” would look like. For the death penalty to function properly, we’d expect the process to be quick and relatively cost efficient; we’d expect it to be a proper punishment for those destined to face it; and it’d have to be an effective deterrent for future crimes.

But for states that implement it, the death penalty is none of those things. The costs for states with death row inmates are, on average, substantially higher than the costs to house a prisoner serving a life sentence. One study shows that the costs are more than $10 million per state that implements it. California alone spends $130 million on its death penalty system, a significant cost for a state that has had huge budget problems.

It’s effectiveness is put into question, too, especially since states that implement tend to have higher rates of murder than the 12 states that don’t. That fact isn’t based solely on averages either, but also geographically: in most cases, death penalty states that border non-death penalty states have higher rates of murder. West Virginia has a lower rate than Virginia; North Dakota has a lower rate than South Dakota; Rhode Island has a lower rate than Connecticut; and Wisconsin has a lower rate than Illinois. In each case, the first state mentioned doesn’t have a death penalty; the other state does, or in the last example, did.

That last comparison, however, comes with a caveat: in 2000, Illinois initiated a moratorium on the death penalty. In July of this year, the death penalty was officially abolished. In 2010, the state’s murder rate was 5.5 per 100,000 people. In 1998, two years before the moratorium, the rate was 8.4 per 100,000, indicating a sharp decline following the institution of its moratorium. For comparison’s sake, Wisconsin’s murder rate in 2010 2.7 per 100,000; it was 3.6 in 1998.

These stats (and others like them) indicate that there isn’t a correlation between deterrence and lower rates of murder; in fact, if anything they show the opposite, though there are misnomers for both pro- and non-death penalty states. Still, the evidence seems to show that states with the death penalty, on average, have higher rates of murder than states without it, indicating deterrence is failing in those states.

There’s also the question of whether death serves as a proper punishment for the crimes committed, though this is less empirical and more substantial thought than anything else. Regardless, the question still begs to be asked: is death too “good” of a punishment for these offenders? For me personally, I’d hate to spend my entire life in a prison cell, removed from society and forced to live the life of a prisoner. Death may be a salvation rather than a punishment for many of these offenders. Does the death penalty serve as an easy way out for these violent offenders?

Those are just the practical arguments against the death penalty, and they form a pretty good case against the practice on their own. But there is more to be said, from a moral point of view, that should cause us to rethink this method of punishment in our legal system.

Firstly, the death penalty turns the state into a hypocrite. We tell citizens that the act of murder is a terrible thing, that it’s unacceptable in our society to kill another unless it’s in self defense. The punishment for this crime? We will ourselves kill a defenseless individual. It doesn’t make any sense to say that all killings are wrong, except those killings that we carry out. It also provides justification to those without a conscience that the idea of SOME killing as a path towards justice outside of the law is acceptable, a notion that should not be disseminated.

Second, the death penalty is absolute -- that is, there isn’t any going back once it’s carried out. New evidence or technological advances in forensic investigation techniques may determine an individual who was executed was actually innocent -- yet, nothing can be done about it. The system of punishment that claims to be just leaves no room for justice for those struggling to prove their innocence. Justice under the law shouldn’t have a time frame like this; it should be indefinite.

A jury of your peers won’t ever be considered infallible; they can be wrong, can render a judgment that implicates you in a crime you didn’t commit. Should they be particularly disgusted with your crime, they will submit to the court that you should be put to death. This happens more often than people like to admit -- and yet, we just let it slide, pretend it’s no big deal?

A jury’s mistakes shouldn’t result in an innocent’s death. We should recognize this infallibility as possible, err on the side of caution rather than on the side of preferred vengeance. Support for a system that has been shown time and again to have made mistakes puts the entire idea of justice under the law on its head. Both the practical and moral reasons behind abolishing the death penalty make more sense than keeping the flawed practice in place.

Van Hollen refused to help in John Doe investigation

Refusal to assist raises more questions within "Walkergate"

The John Doe investigation into whether Scott Walker's administrative staff (back when he was Milwaukee County Executive) used public resources to do political work is gaining steam. Cognitive Dissidence has a great explanation on what is fast-becoming known as "Walkergate" throughout the Wisconsin blogosphere.

A new aspect into that investigation was revealed yesterday. State Attorney General JB Van Hollen was asked to assist in the investigation last November -- but Van Hollen refused to lend his assistance and that of the highest legal office in the state.

Now, with the seizure of evidence from Walker's employees' homes, it's clear that there's substantial merit to the claims within "Walkergate." At least, the FBI seems to think so.

You would think that Van Hollen would have wanted to take part -- he is, after all, the "top cop" in the state of Wisconsin. But the mere fact that he won’t even look into the matter in a joint investigation with the feds sounds the alarm of concern over whether Van Hollen, himself a Republican, refused to take part due to his political allegiances rather than his constitutional oaths.

Admittedly, there isn't any evidence to substantiate this notion. But it warrants asking, if simply to point out the irony of it all, whether JB Van Hollen refused to involve himself in an investigation on improper political use of country resources BASED upon political pressures or preferences.

At the very least, Van Hollen did a disservice to the people of Wisconsin for refusing to take part in the investigation. These are pretty serious (and apparently legitimate) allegations against Walker and his administrative staff, many of whom followed the governor to Madison when he assumed office.

Unfortunately, doing a "disservice" to the state is the best-case scenario in this situation. At worst, it would appear that our state AG is engaging in the very behavior that is under investigation in the first place.

Let's hope for the "best-case" option, that we’re dealing with an incompetent, lazy AG, rather than a corrupt one. The state can’t bear another controversy -- or the leaders behind them, it seems.

What's the answer to Obama's poor polling? Move further left

Americans support progressive policies of president, want him to challenge the GOP

Political strategist James Carville said last week that President Barack Obama needs to start getting into "panic" mode when it comes to his re-election bid next year.

Carville is wrong -- the president need not panic. He simply needs to be more bold, act as the progressive candidate Americans elected in 2008.

I've pointed this out in the past, and it stands to reason that it's still true: Obama's polling numbers aren't dismal because he's too liberal, but rather because he's not liberal enough.

There's proof of this in the latest polling data available to us. The CBS/New York Times poll released just last week shows that President Obama has the lowest approval rating he's ever received from that poll -- just 43 percent of Americans approve of his job performance, while 50 percent disapprove.

But that doesn't mean that Americans are turning to conservatism to fix the country. Only 19 percent of Americans approve of the job performance of Republicans in Congress. What's more, the major initiatives that Obama has been pushing in the past week -- namely increases in tax rates for the wealthiest of Americans -- receive strong support as well.

In fact, a poll last month (PDF) shows that a plurality of Americans don't consider Obama "too liberal" at all. 48 percent of Americans don't feel Obama is too liberal or too conservative. Only 36 percent felt he was too far to the left.

In that same poll 42 percent of Americans felt that Democrats in Congress were too liberal. But a larger number, 48 percent of Americans, felt that Congressional Democrats were either "on the mark" (36 percent) or "too conservative" (12 percent).

What does this all mean? We need to look into what's driving Obama's approval numbers, or rather what's driving them down. If the president wants more Americans to approve of him, he needs to move more to the left, not to the right. And if he's to win in 2012, he needs to distance himself from Republican priorities -- in short, he needs to stop placating the GOP and start working with Americans' interests at heart.

More Americans, in fact, want him to challenge Republicans than to work with them. That is perhaps the most important stat to take away from this poll.

Walker admin struggling to employ the state

Employment numbers from Doyle years match those from last month

I just felt like adding some more evaluation to the Wisconsin jobs numbers from last August, which were released just last week.

As I pointed out this past weekend, the job numbers from last month aren't impressive. Indeed, while the Walker administration may be able to claim that more jobs have been created this year, overall employment has decreased -- more Wisconsinites were employed in January, when Scott Walker assumed office, than were employed in August (by a margin of 3,300).

But the number of Wisconsinites who are currently employed in the state in August is also lower than a different time in our state's history. For instance, Walker's job numbers from August (2,816,003) are actually lower than the last month that former Gov. Jim Doyle was in office, by 1,039 (Doyle's last month total was 2,817,042).

But that's not the only bad news. In July of 2009, in the midst of the economic meltdown, the nation's unemployment rate was 9.5 percent while Wisconsin's rate was 9.2 percent. Yet in spite of those numbers, the state still had more individuals employed than was had in August of this year. 2,820,395 people were employed in the state of Wisconsin at that time.

In other words, 4,392 more people were employed at that time than were last month.

Wisconsin is headed in the wrong direction. After eight months of Walker's rule, his tax cuts to supposed "job creators" has failed to employ more Wisconsinites. A change is drastically needed, a departure from the current policy required, to put our state back on track towards recovery.