Abolish the Death Penalty

Questions linger over Walker's call for bipartisanship

2011-09-29T18:37:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-26T11:10:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-25T13:14:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-23T19:47:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-21T14:35:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-20T14:10:00.000-07:00

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

2011-09-19T20:08:00.000-07:00

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.

Assessing August's -- and Walker's -- job numbers

2011-09-17T09:34:00.000-07:00

Still think Walker's "reforms" are adding jobs? Think again.

The latest employment numbers are out, and it's not good news. Wisconsin saw a drop in employment, which the Department of Workforce Development addressed this week.

However, despite a loss in jobs and a growth in our unemployment rate (from 7.8 in July to 7.9 in August), the DWD tried to keep things positive (PDF):

Even during these challenging times for our nation’s economy, Wisconsin has added manufacturing jobs over the month and, since December 2010, has outpaced the nation’s rate of manufacturing job growth by more than double,” Secretary Baumbach said. “And while Wisconsin showed a slight drop in private-sector job totals during August, we’ve created a net 29,600 private sector jobs this year, reflecting a rate of growth that is stronger than the nation’s. Overall, we are on a positive path and we expect to see continued improvement over the long term.

The important part about that statement is that it's not comparing the total number of jobs created so far during the Walker administration. That statement is based on jobs created in the year from the current date to 365 days ago -- so, from August 2010 to August 2011.

It's also comparing the total number of jobs in the private sector alone, not jobs altogether. Let's compare those numbers, using the same data DWD is looking at. From August 2010 to August 2011, total number of jobs (both public and private sectors) went up by 24,700.

So what about during Walker's term? Using the data that DWD uses, total jobs, both public and private, went up by 22,400, which would seem to imply most of the job gains from the past year (again, August to August) were due to reforms passed by Walker.

However, the numbers that DWD are using aren't entirely honest.

DWD uses numbers from the Current Employment Statistics (CES) survey, which measures the number of jobs created based on payrolls provided. There's a significant problem, however, with using that data set:

The headline jobs number from the CES survey (also know as the establishment or payroll survey), counts the number of employees on employer payrolls...

Imagine an individual already working part-time takes a second part-time job to increase his income. On the CES survey, one more job has been added.

A more accurate jobs survey, and the one primarily used to measure unemployment, is the Current Population Survey (CPS):

The CPS employment number comes from a survey of households for employed individuals (thus its alternative name -- the household survey). The CPS is also where the unemployment rate data comes from...

The CPS, however, does not count [a combination of two jobs for one person as two] in its employment number because the person was already employed and they're counting employed individuals not unique jobs. So while the CES employment number would go up when this person takes the new part-time job, the CPS employment number would remain the same.

This changes things drastically.

Earlier this week, I wrote a post that addressed the number of jobs created this year by the Walker administration. The data I looked at for that post used numbers from the CPS, not the CES survey.

Wisconsin's job numbers since Walker took office haven't been stellar. When Walker became governor, Wisconsin had 2,819,301 citizens with a job, and a 7.4 percent unemployment rate. In July, Wisconsin had a higher unemployment rate (7.8 percent) and a lower number of Wisconsinites with jobs (2,818,998). (Jobs data obtained at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, bls.gov.)

Those numbers were comparing January of this year to July's employment assessment using CPS numbers. Let's now compare August's employment report to the beginning of this year.

August saw a fall in employment numbers. The CES numbers show a drop of about 2,300 jobs. But remember, CES is total number of jobs lost, not the total number of people who became unemployed. The CPS numbers, which reflect that standard, show that 2,969 people actually lost their job status of being employed.

The year-to-date totals are even worse to mention: The total number of employed Wisconsinites in August was 2,816,003. In January, the total number of employed persons was 2,819,301, a difference of 3,298 individuals losing employment status since Walker took office.

Interestingly enough, looking again from the August 2010 to August 2011 numbers, Wisconsin actually gained jobs overall (10,982). But net gains from that time period were mainly from the Doyle administration, not Walker's. Between August 2010 and December 2010, Wisconsin added 12,021 more individuals to the status of "employed."

To be fair to Walker, jobs continued to increase during the first half of this year -- from January to May, Wisconsin saw an increase of more than 24,903 individuals employed. But from May to August, that number was eliminated entirely (plus some), with the total amount of employed Wisconsinites in the state lessened by 28,201 in just 3 months' time.

That short upward blip could be from a number of factors -- including conditions that may still have carried over from when Doyle was governor.

That can't be definitively concluded, but this statement can be: that blip was part of an upward trend in job increases that began while Doyle was governor, uninterrupted from August 2010 by any loss in job numbers; the sudden decrease in the number of employed individuals, however, was during Walker's term alone.

Protester douses Rep. Vos with beer

2011-09-16T09:35:00.000-07:00

Speech rights aren't protected when actions become harassment

I recently wrote a post regarding Rep. Robin Vos’s distaste with Madison police, and how his consideration (alongside that of Glenn Grothman’s) to stiff the city of Madison of reimbursement for the officers’ service (which these lawmakers deemed inadequate) was inappropriate. More on that in a later post as well.

For right now, I feel it's also necessary for me to comment on another event involving Vos, one in which he was the victim this time around.

A Racine-area protester who has frequently protested against Rep. Vos turned himself in last night for pouring beer on the Republican legislator in a Madison bar earlier this week. He was charged with disorderly conduct, and was issued a citation by Madison police.

You'd be hard-pressed to find me telling anyone that their form of protest is inappropriate -- even those I disagree with politically have the right to confront their lawmakers about issues they feel passionately about. But when your version of protest becomes harassment, a line has been crossed. When your actions interfere with another person's life (through threats, direct violence, and yes, even beer) you cross that line and your speech rights are no longer protected.

Furthermore, these actions become fodder for conservative foes, who see these acts as justifying their warped views of the protesters in Madison, who have for the most part been peaceful. It's hard enough to defend the movement's goals to someone already so hard-headed -- it makes it nearly impossible to do so when someone from "our side" does something as foolish as what Miles Kristan did to Rep. Vos.

We should continue to find creative was to protest the mess that Walker & Co. have put us into. But harassment of individual lawmakers is not the way to carry out our goals.

Pat Robertson encourages divorce for Alzheimer's couples

2011-09-16T09:20:00.000-07:00

Inconsistencies in marriage vows, rights for others, within troubling comments

Who Would Jesus Divorce? For Pat Robertson, the answer is obvious: people with Alzheimer's.

When asked a question regarding a cheating husband whose wife was suffering from the debilitating disease, the Christian leader had a very unorthodox answer -- he actually suggested that the husband divorce his wife, comparing the disease to already being dead.

"I know it sounds cruel," Robertson explains, "but if he's going to do something, he should divorce her and start all over again."

Robertson's answer is bizarre for a plethora of reasons. For starters, most marriage vows (certainly close to all in Christian marriages) ask couples to remain faithful and supportive of one another, "in sickness and in health, till death do [they] part." But Robertson suggests otherwise, that a partner with a terminal illness grants the other partner the "religious right" (pun not intended) to depart from those vows.

So if they've got the sniffles, stick with them. If their prognosis is bad, hey, there are plenty of fish in the sea. Why not start "fishing" now?

Sarcasm aside, the comments are troubling for yet another reason: for a man who spends a lot of his time railing on and on about the sanctity of marriage (usually as a justification for barring state-sanctioned marriages to gay and lesbian couples), Robertson sure doesn't find much fault with straight couples who abuse the privilege.

Now, I don't claim to be a theologist of any kind, nor am I saying that there ought to be restrictions on when divorce can occur. What is important to note here, however, are the inconsistencies between Pat Robertson's beliefs on marriage. Either the practice is sacrosanct, or it's not. Excluding a group of people in a state marriage based on rules you make in your own religious beliefs is wrong on its own; but giving those you permit to partake in the practice free reign and even encouragement to break those rules, while still excluding others who'd happily live by them, is even worse.

Robertson needs to reassess his stances on marriage, both politically and from a religious point of view. His inconsistencies with the issue do a disservice to those who are unfortunate enough to consider him a leader.

Grothman and Vos show disrespect to Madison police

2011-09-15T12:52:00.000-07:00

Republican Joint Finance Committee members consider stiffing the city of Madison

Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee are having a difficult time figuring out what to do about the expenses for law enforcement during the Capitol protests earlier this year...likely due to how hostile they want to be towards Madison police.

Sen. Glenn Grothman and Rep. Robin Vos, both Republicans, decided to let their tempers flare over the events from earlier this year. Grothman had particularly unkind words for former Mayor Dave Cieslewicz.

"I hope you're aware that the mayor of Madison clearly would have preferred his police officers to stay on the other side of the (Capitol) Square," Grothman said.

Ironically, Grothman's words, typically the most outlandish in other instances, paled in comparison to Vos's, who claimed that there were "legitimate concerns about actions of individual officers" during the protests.

There seems to be a bit of confusion on the part of Vos and Grothman -- first, the mayor never directed his officers to do anything but uphold the rule of law and protect others within the crowds; and second, the people who benefited from this protection the most were Republican legislators, such as Grothman and Vos themselves.

That the two legislators would suggest otherwise, questioning the integrity of law enforcement personnel who served them nobly, is "almost a slap in the face," to borrow the words of Chief Noble Wray. But these two, in considering stiffing the city reimbursement of funds on that fabricated basis, go beyond even a slap in the face, and demonstrate the way these Republicans wish to legislate, employing pettiness and revenge towards a city that's merely politically unaligned with their own personal beliefs.

It's astonishing that people like Grothman and Vos choose to govern this way, especially at a supposed time of bipartisanship. It's a shameful display of the arrogance these legislators have, a perverted version of the elitism they claim to abhor.

Well, isn't THAT convenient: Reid Ribble moves out of Congressional district

2011-09-13T18:07:00.000-07:00

Redrawn districts to include old home of freshman Congressman

Reid Ribble really wanted to run for Congress.

He wanted to run so badly, in fact, that he put his house up for sale last year because it was outside of the district he wanted to run in.

He leased an apartment in the town of Lawrence, officially becoming a citizen of the 8th Congressional district of Wisconsin. This allowed him to run, successfully, against Democratic incumbent Steve Kagen.

But now, Ribble is doing something, well, unorthodox. He's moving back to his old home, outside of the 8th Congressional district.

Don't worry, though: this isn't a major problem. Legislative Republicans redrew the district maps, thus changing the landscape of the Congressional districts all across the state.

And wouldn't you know it! Reid Ribble's old home is now in the 8th Congressional district!

Old District 8 map (District 8 in purple)

New District 8 map (District 8 in green)

If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Scott Walker cautions state on his jobs pledge

2011-09-12T14:22:00.000-07:00

Governor now says 250,000 jobs goal will be tough to reach

This past weekend Gov. Scott Walker spoke with WISN's Mike Gousha about the state of jobs in Wisconsin. Walker admitted that maintaining his campaign pledge of 250,000 new jobs in Wisconsin will be tough.

Gousha: Do you have to revise your expectations for what you can do in Wisconsin? You promised 250,000 new jobs, 10,000 new businesses, do you have to look at those numbers and say maybe that’s just not realistic?

Walker: Well, there are certainly some who may look at the numbers and suggest that may be the case. My goal is to still get there -- my goal is to actually exceed that amount. We’re still going to keep pushing.

Gousha: Is it going to be tough to reach that?

Walker: Oh, I think without a doubt.

This is especially true given that Wisconsin's job numbers since Walker took office haven't been stellar. When Walker became governor, Wisconsin had 2,819,301 citizens with a job, and a 7.4 percent unemployment rate. In July, Wisconsin had a higher unemployment rate (7.8 percent) and a lower number of Wisconsinites with jobs (2,818,998). (Jobs data obtained at the Bureau of Labor Statistics, bls.gov.)

In other words, we've netted a slight loss in the first seven months since Walker took office.

But Walker, in the face of this realization, doesn't miss a beat. Rather than take responsibility for the drop in job numbers, he deflects blame to the national government:

Walker: You look at the national economy, the meltdown in Washington between both Democrats and Republicans over the debt, what that did to the financial market...we need to find ways to break through that.

That argument might work for Walker...if it weren't for the fact that the recent market stumble and the fallout from the clash between Republicans and Democrats over the debt ceiling had actually happened in August, and not in July.

We've seen this spin before: Walker is placing blame where it doesn't belong, at least in the last month where data is available. But let's examine his argument further, compare job losses nationally to Wisconsin.

In June of this year, Wisconsin's unemployment rate was at 7.6 percent. The U.S. overall unemployment rate was 9.2 percent. From June to July, both Wisconsin and the U.S. saw changes in their rates -- but in different directions. The U.S. unemployment rate went down .1 percent, to 9.1 percent, while the state of Wisconsin's unemployment rate went up .2 percent, to 7.8 percent.

It seems that Walker's idea that Wisconsin's job troubles are tied to the nation's at-large is wrong.

Now, there are many reasons why this may occur. If a larger labor force (the number of workers plus the number of unemployed) enters the market, unemployment can go up even with an increase in jobs. However, in Wisconsin the number of those in the labor force actually went down between June and July by more than 8,000 workers, and the number of workers employed went down by more than 12,000. In short, the jobs problem in Wisconsin is Walker's, not Washington's, to deal with.

Walker is wrong to pass the buck onto the national government for the state of Wisconsin's jobs outlook. He's also wrong to believe that the policies he's enacted (and has yet to enact) will benefit us. Wisconsin, and the workers within it, cannot afford to have Walker its governor much longer.

Ten years

2011-09-11T13:47:00.000-07:00

Never forget

The events of September 11, 2001 will forever be etched into the memories of those who were alive to witness them. We must never forget that day -- the people who lost their lives, the heroes who sacrificed their own that day (and beyond), and the lessons of the past ten years that we have had to learn.

DOT memo encourages trickery with new voter ID law

2011-09-10T07:30:00.000-07:00

New policy tells employees to refrain from letting patrons know IDs are free

"While you should certainly help customers who come in asking for a free ID to check the appropriate box, you should refrain from offering the free version to customers who do not ask for it."

This is the new policy, put out by the state Department of Transportation, for the issuance of free IDs for the new voter ID bill. Rather than help people that come into the DMV to receive IDs for voting purposes, employees are now directed to refrain from mentioning those IDs are free, unless prompted from the patron themselves.

The move by the DOT is being criticized by many who see it as a poll tax -- and that criticism is entirely warranted. If the law is to issue free ID cards, then every effort to let people be aware of that policy should be made. Otherwise, some people will end up paying a fee simply to vote -- an unconstitutional practice.

Defenders of the move to suppress this information argue that it isn't exactly hidden -- indeed, signs at DMVs across the state will explain the ID card people need for election purposes is available to those who ask for it, at no charge. If people want free IDs for voting, all they have to do is ask.

But this isn't how we should run things. The DMV is a government-run institution, not an underground rave party. "Secret codewords" shouldn't be needed to take part in democracy, even if it's advertised openly. No one should have to pay any fee or tax in order to vote, and anyone who already has should be reimbursed for being misled by this new policy.

State employees shouldn't be encouraged or required to engage in acts of trickery. Government officials should instead push forward a policy of openness and honesty, especially when it involves democratic rights of the people.

GAB seeks clarification for recall of governor, lieutenant governor

2011-09-08T12:58:00.000-07:00

Recalls should require two petitions, one for each office

The Government Accountability Board is seeking an opinion from the office of the State Attorney General regarding the outcome of a potential gubernatorial recall. At issue is whether such a recall would remove the lieutenant governor as well, or if that officeholder would stay in place if the governor himself were to be successfully voted out.

For Democrats, the hope is that one recall petition/election would remove both Gov. Scott Walker and Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch. If the opinion is otherwise, it means that two recall petitions -- and possibly two separate elections -- would be necessary to remove both Walker and Kleefisch.

Is that fair? Both the governor and lieutenant governor are elected within the same ticket (similar to the president and vice president), so it's reasonable to argue that both should be removed if the governor gets recalled.

But this is one instance where I must disagree with the Democrats, not because I want Kleefisch to stay in power, but because of a matter of principle. Even though this goes against my best interests, it's my belief that the lieutenant governor must be recalled separate from the governor.

Remove the politicians from the offices in question for a moment. The two are separate offices, separate people with separate responsibilities that are both subject to recall. Even though they are elected together, they perform different tasks within the executive branch of government.

If you still disagree, consider a different situation: suppose we were ONLY trying to recall the LIEUTENANT governor, not the governor himself. If that were the case, would we argue that both have to be recalled in order to remove the undesired lieutenant governor? That wouldn't make much sense -- and neither does removing the lieutenant governor in cases of gubernatorial recalls.

We could have a lieutenant governor that people felt was doing a great job, in spite of the governor's problems. People may wish to keep that person in office, while at the same time removing the governor. To preserve that possibility for the future, it's imperative that we recognize that the two should not be recalled as one. (With that said, I wholeheartedly support a Rebecca Kleefisch recall, too.)

We cannot tie two officeholders to one recall petition, and yet separate them in a scenario that is entirely different. Either they're together or they're not; and my rationale above shows that there could come a time when constituents would want to keep one and not the other.

Despite my wish to remove both Walker and Kleefisch simultaneously, recalls of both the governor and the lieutenant governor should require two separate petitions.

How to stop a train wreck: what Obama needs to tell the American people

2011-09-06T15:03:00.000-07:00

Stimulus worked, but more bold action is needed to fix economy, unemployment in the U.S.

President Barack Obama is set to give a speech on the need for revitalizing our nation's jobs situation. The Nation's John Nichols suggests it could become the most important speech of Obama's presidency. I have to agree with that assessment -- if the president is hoping to turn things around, to throw a Hail Mary to jump-start his re-election campaign, it will all depend on how the people view him on jobs.

So far in his presidency, however, most Americans are unimpressed.

To be sure, Obama has accomplished a lot. When you look at what he's done on paper, it's nothing short of remarkable. Obama faced an economic meltdown the way one might face a train barreling down the tracks toward them. Indeed, when it comes to stopping economic train wrecks, Obama might be the go-to guy to explain how best to do it.

That analogy is no exaggeration: when Obama took office, jobs were being lost at a rate of more than three quarters of a million per month; people were losing retirement plans, not to mention economic security; the auto industry was failing, banks too were failing, and Main Street was disappearing.

So how does one stop a train wreck? You throw everything you possibly can at it. Stimulus projects, tax cuts, aid to states -- Obama was criticized early and often by his GOP rivals over the costs of the stimulus, but few had any alternative plans as to how to fix the mess.

Despite the criticism, despite all that you might have heard, the stimulus worked. Our unemployment rate, which was dipping deeper and deeper as a result of the economic situation Obama's predecessor left us, slowed down, eventually halting and reversing course until it plateaued to where it stands today. Our economy is recovering, albeit at a slower rate than desired. Even Wall Street is doing better than when Bush left office, indicating that Obama's policies haven't hurt (perhaps even helped) the DOW Jones Industrial average gain by 4,000 points during the span of his presidency thus far.

None of this matters, of course, because Americans are still struggling. The basic measurement of how a president performs in office isn't shown in numbers or statistics, but how people are "feeling" during his tenure. And the people aren't "feeling" good right now.

Americans don't FEEL a better market. They don't FEEL a slowdown in layoffs when so many are still without work (though again, through no fault of Obama's policies). What the people feel is an economy still in shambles, still in ruin after the Bush administration left to Obama the task of stopping this train wreck. But Americans can't FEEL that Obama stopped the wreck; they feel only the effects of it, its aftermath and what it left behind.

It isn't enough for Obama to stop an economic train wreck; he has to fix the train itself, get it running right on the tracks again. Only then could Americans truly FEEL any accomplishment by Obama, even though he's already accomplished a great deal through the emergency policies his administration has enacted.

Obama faces several challenges -- along with this economic disaster, he also is having trouble with a dissatisfied base, which I believe is responsible for his dwindling poll numbers. If he can play his cards right, Obama can tackle both of these problems simultaneously, ahead of his 2012 presidential re-election bid.

Whatever he does, placating the middle -- or even the right -- won't help much. Another bold plan of action is needed. What's more, this time, unlike the original stimulus which was largely unpopular, the American people may actually desire it.

No matter how you look at it, Gableman unfit to serve

2011-09-04T11:02:00.000-07:00

Whether through insufficient memory or outright lies, Justice Gableman fails to serve Wisconsin

Illusory tenant has a brilliant post that digs deeper into the storytelling that State Supreme Court Justice Michael Gableman has been up to lately.

Gableman made the claim that Justice Ann Walsh Bradley slapped him in the back of the head in front of other justices. But a few problems arose from his claim, including the date on which it happened as well as the fact that none of the other justices remember the event ever happening.

Both Justices David Prosser and Annette Ziegler told investigators (during the questioning involving Prosser's alleged neck-wrangling of Bradley) that they had heard of Gableman's fairy tale, but neither could say that they were present for it or actually witnessed anything like what Gableman described.

When previously confronted with a slip-up in his story, Gableman changed the facts of his story to fit the situation better. Will he do the same now, since no other justice is coming forward to corroborate his claims? It's rather odd that, according to Gableman's tale, out of a room full of his own colleagues none of the justices can confirm his account of what happened. So far, three have said it never happened, two have said that they've basically only heard the story from him, and one has had no comment on it. With this in mind, should we expect to hear a new explanation from Gableman next week?

Either way this pans out, there's a problem with Gableman. Either he has difficulties with his memory, in which case he may be mentally unfit to serve; or he has problems telling the truth, of fabricating a story to damage a fellow justice's reputation for political reasons, in which case he's ethically unfit. In both scenarios, the Wisconsin State Supreme Court is worse off for having Justice Gableman in its midst.

Justice Gableman's account of 2nd altercation has serious holes in it

2011-09-01T15:29:00.000-07:00

Conservative justice claims Bradley "smacked him" on a date when the Court wasn't present

The recent spat (if you can call it as simple as that) between State Supreme Court Justices Ann Walsh Bradley and David Prosser brought about a lot of questions regarding the integrity of one of the members of our state's highest court. But new allegations -- this time levied by a conservative member against the liberal Bradley -- highlights how others on the Court may have integrity problems as well.

During the investigations against Prosser, Justice Michael Gableman told investigators that Bradley wasn't as innocent in the whole matter as she let on, describing an altercation between Bradley and himself involving a slap on the back of his head in response to disrespect Gableman allegedly showed towards Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson:

According to the sheriff's reports, Gableman said he was in a meeting with other justices, including Justice Patrick Crooks, who he said was "reading the horoscopes." Gableman said he made a joking comment to Abrahamson, calling her by her first name.

In response, Gableman said, "Justice Bradley came over to him, hit him on the back of the head and told him that he needed to show respect to the chief," according to sheriff's reports. He said he believed Bradley wasn't being playful because no one was laughing at the time.

Such allegations, if true, warrant an investigation against Bradley. However, it seems that the allegations made by Gableman can't possibly be true because there was no record of the Court even being in session at that time.

In fact, Gableman is the only justice on the Court that can corroborate this story. The only other justice who says she remembers hearing anything of it, Justice Annette Zeigler, can only do so because she remembers hearing the story from Gableman.

When confronted with this evidence against his claim, Gableman did something even more profound -- he changed the date of when the incident happened! According to his revised statement, the incident occurred in 2009, a year later than when he sad it had happened.

That doesn't stand by other aspects of his story, however, as Gableman told investigators it was a date he remembered "because it was his birthday and just weeks after he joined the court.

If that's how Gableman remembered the date, then it could only have occurred in 2008. If it occurred in 2009, then it was well after he had joined the Court. He either remembered the date that way, through remembering that he had just joined the Court, or he's full of BS.

If Gableman was a witness in his own courtroom, his testimony would have serious holes in it. He'd likely be dismissed by any court, Supreme or otherwise, for changing his story to fix the missing pieces within it. The fact that no other justice on the Court, even those aligned with him ideologically, hasn't come forward defending his story, is further proof that he's likely making it up.

It seems we can't trust many of the Court's sitting justices, namely those on the right, based upon both their behavior and their lying to investigators. It's a sad sight when one of the most respected State Supreme Courts in the country is now one of the most abhorred.

Speech promoting fear near school-zone not protected

2011-08-30T20:22:00.000-07:00

A Madison man recently got arrested for mooning his neighbors, allegedly "gyrating" his rear-end towards them from his window. When he was arrested, he told cops his neighbors were lying, that what actually happened was he was having sex in his house.

None of this is relevant, except perhaps only to paint a picture of this man's typical behavior, because police ended up finding a sign outside his home with a disturbing message. It read, "Euthanize Welfare Kids."

Paul Olson has a history of placing such signs near his property. According to WISC, he's placed similar signage near his home before:

Police said he once painted his car with words suggesting that illegal immigrants be deported. Police said he also hung a flag displaying a swastika.

In fact, police have been to Olson's home fifteen times this year alone.

Besides their obvious offensiveness, Olson's signs present a difficult question: to what extent do our free speech rights protect such blatant hate, such disregard for human life? Obviously everyone is entitled to freedom of speech, but does Olson's case present a different take on it?

The sign in question is nearby a school, so plenty of children, including some on welfare, would be subjected to Olson's terrifying notion. Given Olson's history, his neighbors are also concerned that he might do something harmful -- indeed, many of them refused to give out their names for the story WISC conducted.

Olson's behavior is eccentric, to say the least. But his signage is decidedly political as well, which means his speech is protected by the First Amendment.

Yet, there ARE limits to that protection. If the speech in question causes harm to others, it can be restricted. You can't erroneously yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, for example, nor make threatening phone calls to members of the community and claim you are protected under the law to do so. Harassment, too, is not protected under the Constitution. It stands to reason, then, that Olson's speech, harassing in nature, isn't protected by his First Amendment rights -- they may cause severe psychological harm to both students walking nearby as well as their parents who are concerned for their safety.

For now, Olson has been forced to remove the sign because it violates city ordinances based on its size. It's a temporary solution to a larger problem. While people like Paul Olson are entitled to their rights, we must also be mindful of the rights others have, among them the right to feel safe in their community. Olson, by placing the signs that he owns within a school-zone, violates those rights.

In short, Olson can exercise his First Amendment rights in more productive ways than through fear.

Michele Bachmann believes God attacked the East Coast

2011-08-29T13:07:00.000-07:00

GOP presidential candidate believes Hurricane Irene, earthquake, both the result of God's wrath

Republican Presidential candidate Michele Bachmann believes that God played a hand in the recent hurricane and earthquake that hit the eastern seaboard this past week.

"I don't know how much God has to do to get the attention of the politicians," Bachmann told a crowd of supporters recently. "We've had an earthquake; we've had a hurricane. He said, 'Are you going to start listening to me here?' Listen to the American people because the American people are roaring right now. They know government is on a morbid obesity diet and we've got to rein in the spending."

Yes folks, God is upset at America because of our finances. He could get past American abuses, overlooking slavery and racism, prejudice and suppression of speech rights, even wars that have been waged and have killed thousands of people. None of that matters because, as Michele Bachmann has pointed out, God is simply focused on our financial problems.

(Of course, Bachmann probably didn't even think to worry over past abuses this country may have perpetrated that God could be angry over -- she once erroneously believed our founding fathers eradicated slavery.)

Sarcasm aside, the fact that a leading contender for the GOP nomination for president believes that God is worried about our budgets shows just how off Bachmann's own beliefs really are. This is a woman, in fact, who has already prayed for the end of the world to come, believing that the end times are nigh.

Now I don't claim to be all-knowing; the end times could in fact be near, and I could be completely wrong on this whole thing -- maybe God really IS a right-wing economist, maybe Milton Friedman sits beside him in the Kingdom of Heaven. But to live out our lives expecting the end to be near is a dangerous way to be, especially with this view of God in mind.

Believing that the world could end in a year, a month, a week, or whenever you like gives you full clearance to live your life in a dangerous manner. It gives you permission to live in a selfish way, in a way that requires some politicians, like Bachmann, to pre-judge others, even in their capacity as secular lawmakers.

Our government requires us to treat each other with respect, to be neutral in terms of religious belief. If people want to believe the end times are near, that's fine -- let them believe it. But if their actions, through the takeover of American governance, brings forth an obstruction of rights for others, or otherwise impedes their ability to live fulfilling lives, the line between church and state is clearly crossed...which is precisely why a candidate like Bachmann would make a terribly frightening president.

Republicans barred from Wausau Labor Day Parade

2011-08-28T07:00:00.000-07:00

Participation in parade should be contingent on support of workers' rights

Parades can be a joyous occasion, significant to the day that they are meant to represent. For example, Memorial Day parades remind us of the significant sacrifices that previous veterans gave to us defending our country; Independence Day parades remind us of our national historical lineage.

So it stands to reason that any Labor Day parade should symbolize workers from the past who fought for reforms that made working conditions more hospitable for people today, reforms that many take for granted -- things like the eight-hour workday, the two-day weekend, and child labor laws.

With that in mind, the Marathon County Central Labor Council, which sponsors the Labor Day parade in Wausau, has determined that no elected official that is Republican should be involved in their festivities:

Council President Randy Radtke said they choose not to invite elected officials who have "openly attacked workers' rights" or did nothing when state public workers lost most of their powers to collectively bargain.

Republican Rep. Sean Duffy's office received notice from parade organizers this week that no Republicans would be invited to walk in the parade. Duffy's chief of staff, Brandon Moody, told WAOW-TV the congressman was hoping differences could be set aside for the family-friendly event.

Many people may be wondering, "why the hostility towards Republicans?" A parade is meant to be fun, and since the event is open to the public (who elected the officials in question), some may argue that the people should be able to see those officials.

But if those officials' beliefs run counter to the parade in question, do they really deserve a place in the lineup? If a LGBT parade takes place, should event organizers permit an elected official to take part if their politics run against gay and lesbian couples' goals? Should a parade on Independence Day allow other countries who are hostile to American interests to be recognized?

Ultimately, it's up to those running the parade to determine who should take part. If the Republican Party wants to have its officials recognized in pro-labor events, they shouldn't govern in a way that's anti-labor. Furthermore, they shouldn't expect their appearances in parades to be automatic, to be a given -- their positions on issues that are important to labor make a difference, help organizers decide whether their appearances are appropriate or not.

People may see the Council's moves as vindictive or mean-spirited. But it makes no sense to have people taking part in a celebration of Labor rights when those same people are working to dismantle them. Republicans shouldn't cry foul when they're the ones committing the larger infractions, against workers.

Justice Prosser escapes criminal action

2011-08-27T11:36:00.000-07:00

But dismissal of criminal complaint doesn't justify his psychological abuse

This week Special Prosecutor Patricia Barrett determined that no charges would be filed against Justice David Prosser with regards to the incident involving alleged violence against fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley.

The incident in question occurred just before the State Supreme Court was set to release its ruling on the controversial budget repair bill, in which the majority opinion held that the State Senate acted accordingly when it violated open meeting laws.

Accounts of what exactly went down vary, but what is known is that Prosser put his hands on Bradley's neck, enough to "feel the warmth" of it (his own words) but did not squeeze or cause any physical harm to her.

However, with Prosser's history of losing control -- he once called Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson a "bitch" and vowed to destroy Abrahamson -- it's clear that psychological harm has been done. After the incident, Bradley had to leave, distraught over what had happened.

As with most instances of abuse, it's not always about the physical but the mental control one has over another. Prosser may not have harmed Bradley in any noticeable way, but he's definitely made the Court a very worrisome place for any justice to be, especially the female members of the liberal bloc.

Another aspect that most abusers share is that they don't ever feel like they've done anything wrong. Following his leaving his office, by Prosser's own admission he refused to apologize because he didn't feel like he needed to. He also refused to apologize to Abrahamson for his calling her a bitch, saying that it was "entirely warranted."

This type of behavior isn't right, for anyone in any workplace, but especially for someone who serves as a member of a court. That Prosser refuses to apologize for his actions demonstrates serious character flaws for one of our State Supreme Court justices.

Remorse isn't only required when you cause physical harm but psychological harm as well. Prosser's actions may not warrant a criminal complaint, but they're certainly not excusable either.

Recalls serve democratic purpose

2011-08-23T19:28:00.000-07:00

Proposal to amend State Constitution unwarranted

Following the tumultuous recall election season Wisconsin just experienced, it's understandable that many citizens may be ready for a break from the need for more challenges -- at least until the governor's time comes. But Republican legislators want to do more than take a break: they want to restrict the conditions under which recalls can be initiated.

Republicans are busy crafting legislation to amend the State Constitution to limit recall elections solely to instances of misconduct on the part of the official in question. In other words, lawmakers wouldn't need to fear a recall based upon their political decision-making or policies.

The move would definitely make recall elections more difficult to initiate -- but for a process that's already rarer than a constitutional amendment itself, do we really need to make it tougher to recall elected officials? Consider the rationale behind each side.

Why make recalls more restrictive? Because it's annoying? Because people are tired of the process? A similar argument could be made that democracy itself is annoying, bothersome, intrusive in the lives of others. Yet it's also the best thing we have, the best form of government available, allowing the people themselves to bear the responsibility and privilege of selecting its leaders.

I don't believe that people who are advocating added restrictions of recall elections are anti-democratic; but if successful, their move to restrain the process will limit the power of the people to have direct influence in their government. It's not necessarily anti-democratic, but it's certainly not empowering democracy either.

Conservatives are arguing that lawmakers, if so elected, deserve to serve their terms to their fullest extent. But where is the justification for that? If a politician loses the confidence of his people, how is it that he can justly govern them in a way that they clearly unsatisfactory? Conversely, there is plenty of justification for the preservation of recalls as they stand now. For one, they're still incredibly difficult to get started. Of the 16 senators eligible for recall this year, only 9 actually made it to the election stage, and of those only two were successfully recalled.

But more importantly than that, recalls are justified because they serve a democratic purpose. A leader who no longer rules under the conditions that his constituents deem proper should be subject to removal by them because he no longer serves their interests.

By making politicians subject to recalls only if they conduct themselves in an egregious way, we limit the power of the people. Political leaders can remove the rights of people, can curtail their privileges, and yet would still be acting within the parameters that Republicans are proposing. Recalls serve a purpose -- they allow a people, acting democratically, to remove a public figure from office who no longer serves their needs.

2011-08-23T06:29:00.000-07:00

Should the process to recall political leaders be more restrictive? The answer is no. Find out why, tonight on Political Heat.

Republicans want to raise taxes -- on the poor

2011-08-21T12:11:00.000-07:00

Debate on payroll taxes set to center around hikes for the middle class and poor

Having nearly collapsed our economy due to their stubborn, unwavering defiance towards raising taxes, it's pretty clear to most people that the Republican Party is opposed to new ways of raising revenue for our nation. Tax hikes aren't an option, it seems, for the party that wants to cut as many social services as possible.

So it's surprising, then, to see the GOP now advocating raising taxes.

President Barack Obama is fighting for a renewal of the tax cut to payroll taxes, which was put in place late December of last year in the bargain with Republicans that helped keep the Bush-era tax cuts in place. Payroll taxes, unlike income taxes, largely affect lower-income wage earners. Republicans are hoping that the previous tax rates for Social Security will go into place next year, a move that would technically be a rise in taxes. The tax cut is set to expire January 1 if no action is taken.

The tax to fund Social Security was lowered by two percentage points in the deal, from 6.2 percent of a worker's paycheck to 4.2 percent. However, Social Security taxes only affect the first $106,000 you earn. So while a person who is earning $50,000 would pay that full 4.2 percent (about $2,100), a person earning $500,000 would only pay 4.2 percent on $106,000 of their income, the rest of it being untaxed as far as Social Security goes. That amounts to about $4,452, or roughly 0.9 percent of their income.

Any rise in payroll taxes, then, amounts to a regressive tax (that is, a tax that hits the poor harder). Let's examine those same income levels once again, with the proposed 6.2 percent the Republicans are insisting upon: the person earning $50,000 would pay $3,100, the full 6.2 percent; the person making half of a million dollars would pay $6,572, or just over 1.3 percent of their income.

The way that Social Security taxes work is that the wealthier you are the less you pay -- thus, the Republicans are proposing a tax increase on a group of people who already pay more proportionally than the rich do.

Republicans argue that this hike is needed to stave off reductions in revenue for Social Security. But there's a better way to do that: raise the cap on Social Security taxes, or better yet remove it completely. If we did that, we could even lower the tax, to somewhere between the 2-4 percent range, and still keep Social Security solvent for generations to come.

That's not a scenario that seems very likely, however. It appears that the GOP just doesn't want to raise any taxes at all -- at least when it comes to the rich.

Today's Daily Stat: Creationism in TX schools

2011-08-19T20:09:00.000-07:00

Rick Perry claims schools in Texas teach both evolution and creationism

Texas governor and presidential candidate Rick Perry recently told a boy in New Hampshire about his views on evolution and creationism.

"Evolution is a theory that's out there," Perry says crouching down and staring into the eyes of an elementary-school-age child, who stands with his mother's hands on his shoulders.

"It's got some gaps in it," Perry continues, "but in Texas we teach both creationism and evolution..."

Science requires us to reject as fact things that cannot be falsified -- that is, that have no way of being definitively proven true OR false. We are free to believe these things as individuals, but a belief in supernatural forces serves no scientific purpose if it cannot be proven one way or another. How do you provide proof of an invisible being, much less justify teaching it as fact in a school setting?

Conversely, ideas known as theories in science are oftentimes wrongly rejected by many people simply due to their name. A person may hear the word "theory" and assume it's just a made up concept. In fact, theories are well-grounded ideas that are based upon observable evidence that may be alterable from time to time, but the overall idea endures, and is accepted by the scientific community at-large. Other examples of "theories" include Einstein's theory of Relativity and Quantum theory, the latter being utilized in much of the technology that powers your cell phone. Theories, in short, shouldn't be so readily dismissed, unless Rick Perry has some kind of fossil evidence that throws the whole idea out the window.

Aside from Perry's ludicrous notions on scientific theories, he is wrong on another front -- Texas schools don't teach creationism. If the topic comes up in discussions, teachers are permitted to talk about it, but they're not teaching the subject matter as scientific fact or even as an alternative to evolution. And that's today's Daily Stat.

Number of public schools in Texas that teach creationism alongside evolution: zero.

Feingold bows out: no to Governor, Senator in 2012

2011-08-19T15:00:00.000-07:00

Ex-senator's departure means more opportunities for other Dems

Earlier today, former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold announced via email to his supporters that he wouldn't seek any elected office next year, neither for Senator again (to replace retiring Sen. Herb Kohl) or in the case of a recall against Gov. Scott Walker.

After 28 continuous years as an elected official, however, I have found the past eight months to be an opportunity to look at things from a different perspective.

The absence of Feingold is a huge setback, as he was polling better than any other Democratic candidate seen as viable in either race.

But his stepping aside also opens up doors for other potential Democratic candidates. Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin hasn't been shy about her wanting to enter the race, making it very clear that if Feingold were to step out she'd be stepping in. As far as the race against Gov. Walker goes, if it happens, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has made it clear that he'd be interested in making another run, too. Barrett lost to Walker in the general election last year but a poll conducted earlier this year shows that many voters suffered buyer's remorse following Walker's collective bargaining bill.

Feingold's choice to sit out in 2012 is disappointing, but it's nothing to fret over. Plenty of viable, electable Democrats (beyond even Baldwin and Barrett) are out there, worthy of the U.S. Senate seat up for grabs as well as the governorship should that come into play.

Russ Feingold won't seek office in 2012

2011-08-19T06:21:00.000-07:00

Won't run for senator, governor

Former U.S. Sen. Russ Feingold has decided not to seek office in 2012, either to replace fellow Democratic Sen. Herb Kohl who is retiring or in a recall contest against Gov. Scott Walker:

In an email that supporters will receive when Friday morning, Feingold writes: "I have decided not to run for public office during 2012."

"This was a difficult decision, as I thoroughly enjoyed my tenure in both the State Senate and the U.S. Senate, and I know that progressives are eager to reverse some of the outrageous policies being pursued by corporate interests at both the state and federal levels. I am also well aware that I have a very strong standing in the polls should I choose to run again for the U.S. Senate or in a recall election for governor," the former three-term senator who was defeated in the "Republican wave" election but then quickly rebounded to become a popular prospect for the marquee races of next year: as the Democratic nominee to fill the seat that will be vacated by U.S. Senator Herb Kohl, D-Wisconsin, or the party's candidate in an effort to oust the controversial governor. "After twenty-eight continuous years as an elected official, however, I have found the past eight months to be an opportunity to look at things from a different perspective."

More commentary on this tonight.

Walker admin. spins July unemployment numbers

2011-08-18T15:03:00.000-07:00

Market fluctuations in August to blame for jobs lost in July

After the June jobs report for Wisconsin came out last month, Gov. Walker was quick to point out the improvements to the state, citing it as evidence that Wisconsin was on the fast track to gaining the 250,000 jobs he promised during his campaign. That goal, by the way, would eliminate unemployment completely, to 0.0 percent.

The state GOP also made the (false) claim that the number of jobs created in Wisconsin numbered half of the jobs created in the entire United States. The net number of jobs created across the country in June numbered more than 18,000. Wisconsin had a net increase of 9,500, but other states also had net increases that made the party's claim a foolish one to make (it didn't take into account the gross number of jobs created, without the number of lost jobs subtracted).

But even with an increase in jobs, the unemployment rate still went up...which meant more people were trying to get jobs in our state, those who had previously given up. This didn't matter...in fact, the governor's office tried to spin a positive on the higher number!

Wisconsin’s unemployment rate did rise two-tenths of a percent to 7.6% [in June].

Walker’s labor chief, Scott Baumbach, said it was due to more job seekers entering the workforce with optimism for finding something.

But news from July that came out today doesn't bode well with the optimism Walker has tried to employ previously.

Wisconsin lost 12,500 private sector jobs last month, equaling the total number of those same jobs gained in June.

I don't celebrate those numbers; I abhor them. I'd LIKE for Gov. Walker's plans to work, would LOVE if someway we were able to get employment back on track in Wisconsin. The fact is, however, Walker's policies haven't saved us the way the governor pretended they had in June.

So our losses last month erase our gains from the month before. Our unemployment rate has jumped to 7.8 percent, up from 7.4 percent from when Walker took office.

The Walker administration, of course, has made a major decision upon reviewing this evidence: they've decided to blame Washington.

“The wild market fluctuations during the debt ceiling negotiations, the European debt crisis and other factors contributed to a great deal of uncertainty, which may very well have affected Wisconsin’s jobs numbers given our state’s ties to the national economy,” DWD Secretary Scott Baumbach said in a written statement released Thursday.

Except the jobless rate across the country actually went down, not up, in July, from 9.2 percent to 9.1 percent. The uncertainty of the debt ceiling didn't occur until late July, hardly affecting that month's employment outlook. And those "market fluctuations" that really did a number on Wisconsin in July didn't even start happening until after the month was over!

In fact, between July 1 and August 1, the Dow Jones Industrial fluctuated very little. It started the month at 12,582 points, reached a peak of 12,724, and ended at its lowest point of 12,143. As of today, it sits at 10,990.

It's no surprise that Gov. Walker and his administration are trying to put the blame elsewhere for the jobs lost in July; governors from every state, from every political party, do that all the time. But the Walker administration does itself no favor, nor the people of Wisconsin, by casting blame where it's nonexistent. Fairy tales about the fluctuations of markets being the reason behind our negative job numbers won't rest well with unemployed Wisconsinites trying to find work in our state.

Results of recall elections show shift in voter attitudes

2011-08-17T17:54:00.000-07:00

Wisconsin voters reject overreach of Walker administration

A quick thought occurred to me last night as I watched the recall returns come in (both Jim Holperin and Bob Wirch, Democrats, fended off recall challenges). After Democrats picked up two state senate seats last week, conservative commentators across the state declared it as a "loss," a rejection from voters overall of the opposition to Gov. Walker's agenda, all because they failed to pick up the required third win in order to take back the legislative body.

The "loss" left the chamber in a 17-16 split, with the Republicans still in control. With Wirch and Holperin both winning last night, those numbers are secured, at least for now, within the State Senate.

However, it's hard to understand how a "loss" of two pickups can be seen as a "win" for Republicans -- especially when it makes a moderate senator the most powerful man in the Senate. But what about the losses for Republicans last night? What did they represent, if anything?

Conservatives launched recall drives in response to Democrats leaving the state in order to stall Walker's controversial budget repair bill. Democrats' efforts failed, but only three of the eight eligible Democrats were served recall challenges (as opposed to six of the eight Republicans who received one due to their support of the bill).

Yet all three Democrats defeated their challengers. So with a record of 0-3 (and again, a loss of two seats picked up by Dems), it's clear that these results show us something...but what, exactly, is it that Wisconsin voters are trying to tell us?

I have one theory in mind. Wisconsin voters are acknowledging a gradual shift -- not a huge change, mind you, but a shift nonetheless -- away from the far-right policies of Gov. Walker and his allies. This shift was indicative in the election for Supreme Court, where Justice Prosser, a sitting incumbent (and ally to Walker), nearly lost his seat to an unknown challenger. The shift happened then, and it's continuing to happen now.

The people of Wisconsin want responsible governance, they want balanced budgets...but they also see the enormous overreach that Walker has performed as bad for the state, as running counter to Wisconsin's values. The shift is happening, slow as it is...but it IS happening.

Today's Daily Stat (8/17/2011)

2011-08-17T17:26:00.000-07:00

Obama's vacation roughly one-third of Bush's at this time in his presidency

President Barack Obama is getting a lot of heat from some Republicans regarding his plans to meet up with his family in Martha's Vineyard for ten whole days. Following the economy in peril (due mostly to Republican stubbornness), the president took a three-day tour across the Midwest, after which he will go to his much-needed vacation.

But some in the GOP are not too thrilled about this time off:

“Don't go,” veteran Republican media strategist Mike Murphy emailed Thursday when I asked about Obama’s plan to vacation on the elite Massachusetts resort island from August 18 through August 27. “It’s not a good time to start acting like the rich guys he wants to raise taxes on.”

...

“I’m a strong believer in the president getting away from the White House and doing whatever he can for his mental state to run the country,” [Joe Scarborough] the host of MSNBC’s Morning Joe told me. “That’s not only good for the president, it’s good for America. But In this case, I just believe that politically, the image of the president vacationing in Martha’s Vineyard, while world markets are teetering on the brink of collapse, would send a horrific message—-not only to the market but to Middle America.”

But the president deserves the vacation. The headache that Congress is giving him is reason enough to warrant a few days away. And the president won't really be away from his business -- as with any vacation, the president brings his work with him (well, maybe with the exception of President Bush during Hurricane Katrina).

Yet there exists another reason why Obama is deserving of a vacation: he's taken far less time off than previous presidents have at this point in their tenure. In his first 31 months in office, Barack Obama has taken only 61 days of vacation time, compared to 112 taken off by Ronald Reagan 31 months in, and a whopping 180 days of vacation taken by George W. Bush at this time. And that's today's Daily Stat.

At this time in their tenures, President Obama has taken three times less vacation time than President George W. Bush had.

Today's Daily Stat

2011-08-16T15:26:00.000-07:00

Health coverage in Texas at abysmal levels

Perhaps a new feature to the site? I'd like to have this become a recurring thing, but for now, here's a daily stat to keep in mind.

Rick Perry is bragging about how his state, Texas, has seen a drastic rise in the number of jobs created in the country. While the number is remarkable -- reportedly 300,000 -- how he created the "Texas Miracle" is something to worry about.

In fact, the jobs situation in Texas isn't something most people in that state are celebrating. Texas ranks first in the nation for states with the highest percentages of minimum wage workers, with more than half a million workers at or below the national minimum wage pay of $7.25 per hour.

That's important because those jobs generally don't provide much in terms of insurance or other benefits for the people. In fact, Texas has a higher percentage of people without health insurance than any other state in the nation, with more than 1-in-4 residents without coverage. And that's today's Daily Stat.

One in Four Texans are without health coverage

Corporations aren't people

2011-08-14T16:57:00.000-07:00

Revisiting the notion that is re-shaping the political landscape of our nation

Are corporations people? Mitt Romney recently argued that they were on a campaign stop. The Supreme Court also ruled, in its Citizens United decision, that corporations were people, too. The argument certainly can be made that corporations are people based upon the fact that they are made up of many individuals with a similar goal in mind: profit for their corporation.

Yet, if you asked the average person, it's clear that there are reasonable distinctions between people and corporations. Corporations, for example, don't bleed, don't breathe, and don't eat; however, that's taking the argument to a simplistic level, one that's warranted for sure but still worth looking into the subject at greater depth.

People and corporations each face different pressures, different challenges when it comes to survival. Both can, in theory, "die;" but while we're well aware of how a person dies, a corporation only dies when it fails to make a profit and goes into the red. People also face the pressures of keeping themselves healthy, of paying the rent, of taking care of their families, etc. while the comparative versions of these for corporations focus solely on that entity making money. Corporations worry about staying healthy (by being profitable), paying rent (by making enough money to survive), and taking care of its families (by ensuring its subsidiaries are profitable, too).

These are very important things for corporations to do: however, this does not make corporations the same as people -- Wal-Mart cannot drive a car, cannot walk to the park, and perhaps most importantly cannot vote in elections.

That last distinction is the most important of all to consider: corporate entities aren't permitted to vote, aren't allowed the right to make decisions regarding the makeup of our democratic republic, because they aren't, in the end, people.

The reason that this matters is that the whole Citizens United decision existed solely to allow corporations to take part in our democratic process through influencing elections in campaign donations. That Supreme Court decision allows corporations to insert as much campaign cash as they want, since they are made up of "people," which in turn somehow make corporations people too.

But there's nothing to say that the individuals within that corporation can't make donations on their own to campaigns -- just as individuals are allowed to vote because they are "people," so too should they be the sole entities (and not corporations) allowed to donate to political causes.

In the end, it's hard to convince anyone that corporations are "people," especially since they cannot interact or behave like people do. In our political process, this is further demonstrated by the fact that corporations cannot vote. In the same way, they shouldn't be allowed to make campaign contributions the same way people can. Keeping corporate influence out of our politics is important because the only thing that should have ANY influence on our government leaders' decision-making should be REAL people, not institutions that have pseudo-personhood.

Some facts on Mitt Romney

2011-08-14T15:08:00.000-07:00

GOP frontrunner's history as governor clues us in to the type of leader he may be

Here are some thoughts on presidential contender Mitt Romney. The former Massachusetts governor is the current front-runner for the nomination from the GOP, and as such the most likely to face Obama in the general election next year. The following points are meant to diffuse any positive points Romney has made for himself while serving as governor. Much more has been said about Romney, but what follows is just a general synopsis of his ability to lead -- or rather, his ability to have done very little at all, except benefit from dumb luck, while he was governor.

---

During Romney’s tenure as governor, Massachusetts ranked third-lowest in job creation. Manufacturing jobs were a big loss for the state, declining by 14 percent between 2002 and 2006, more than double the national average.

Unemployment went down in Massachusetts, but experts believe this was largely because so many people left the state in the face of its declining economy. Only one other state, Louisiana, had a larger “out-migration” than Massachusetts during the time Romney was governor. More than 3.5 percent of the state’s population left between 2002 and 2006 according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Housing prices also went up during Romney’s tenure. By 2005, Massachusetts saw its housing prices increase by 95 percent (the national average was 40 percent).

Source: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2007/07/29/romneys_economic_record/

---

Romney touts having turned around a $3 billion deficit in his state while governor. But that deficit was more than halved by an unexpected gain in capital gains taxes. In other words, half the deficit that Romney “fixed” was due to absolutely no action on his part -- and also due to an unpopular form of taxation from Republicans, which means it’d be unlikely that Romney could utilize it if he became president. The other half was by closing corporate tax loopholes, essentially raising taxes on corporations, a move that Romney has indicated he wouldn’t do as president also.

And while Massachusetts saw a few gains in its economy during Romney’s tenure, the improvements when compared to the rest of the country were minimal. For instance, the measure of real output of goods and services grew by 9 percent between 2002 and 2006 -- but in the nation as a whole, it grew by 13 percent. The average wage of workers, too, only grew by $1 per weekly paycheck while Romney was governor.

Source: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/01/20/us-usa-politics-romney-record-idUSN2033704120080120

---

Unemployment in Massachusetts mirrored that of the national average during Romney’s tenure, being off about half a percentage point or less in either direction at any given point. This indicates that Romney’s policies didn’t improve (nor hinder really) the unemployment rate in his state. However, we must remember: more than three percent of the state’s population left Massachusetts while Romney was governor in direct response to the economic climate at that time. Had they stayed in the state, there’s no doubt that the unemployment rate would have been higher, perhaps significantly so, than that of the national average.

---

There are plenty of more examples why Mitt Romney shouldn't be president. But these short synopses offer limited proof of why anything the candidate may tout during his tenure as governor weren't as great as he lets on. Romney was a governor, a former executive office holder -- but not exactly a stellar one.

Justice Prosser doesn't worry about conflicts of interest

2011-08-14T08:25:00.000-07:00

Embattled justice plans to sit on case involving law firm he paid $75,000 to for recount

The recount for the State Supreme Court election earlier this year produced more than just a narrow win for incumbent Justice David Prosser -- it also produced hundreds of thousands of dollars in fundraising for the sitting justice.

Prosser, who raised more than $272,000 during this time beyond the actual election, saw most of it coming from out-of-state interests, "including three $50,000 donations and two $25,000 donations." Assistant Attorney General Kloppenburg, who opposed Prosser in the election, also raised vast sums of money, the largest of which was $10,000 from her mother-in-law; all other donations were under $2,500.

Prosser's donations are more concerning for two reasons: first, he ended up winning, so the effect of his donations means more than they do for Kloppenburg, who will not be serving on the Court. Second, his donations could mean a potential conflict of interest, creating a situation where his decision-making on the Court could be influenced by his monetary interests.

Take, for instance, the Troupis Law office, which received $75,000 from Prosser to help assist in the recount. Prosser and the rest of the Court are set to rule on a case involving the law office, and Prosser intends to sit in on the case despite clear biases.

Prosser has previously said he believes he can remain impartial when the case comes before the court Sept. 6. However, experts in legal ethics say it would be inappropriate for Prosser not to recuse himself from the case.

Prosser's campaign director, Brian Nemoir, said the justice planned to stay on the case and could remain impartial.

...

But legal ethicists say Prosser shouldn't sit on the case because of state ethics rules prohibiting judges from sitting on cases where a reasonable person would question their ability to remain impartial.

Prosser "has put his trust and confidence in this lawyer in retaining him," said Monroe Freedman, a professor at Hofstra Law School in New York. "The fact that the judge has had this kind of extremely close relationship with this lawyer...might well cause a reasonable person to question the judge's ability to be impartial."

Clearly, besides having a temper problem, David Prosser has a problem dealing with ethics as well. Conflicts of interest matter not to Justice Prosser, who himself is a former Republican Speaker of the Assembly.

Unemployment rising? Higher change during Bush years

2011-08-14T08:15:00.000-07:00

Numbers show gain in unemployment higher during Bush years than Obama
Many critics have come out against President Obama for his failure to address the loss of jobs. Their criticism is warranted, but oftentimes goes beyond what they reasonably can fault the president for. Consider these changes in unemployment during the last two presidents' terms:

4.2 percent in January of 2001 (Clinton leaves office)

7.8 percent in January of 2009 (Bush leaves office)

Difference: 3.6 percent

7.8 percent in January of 2009 (Bush leaves office)

9.1 percent in July of 2011 (present)

Difference: 1.3 percent

7.8 percent in January of 2009 (Bush leaves office)

10.1 percent in October of 2009 (Highest rate under Obama)

Difference: 2.3 percent

10.1 percent in October 2009 (Highest rate under Obama)

9.1 percent in July 2001 (present)

Difference: -1.0 percent

What facts we can draw from this: while Obama didn't halt the rise of unemployment during the first few months of his tenure in office, he did slow it down through the stimulus bill his administration promoted and passed through Congress. At worst, the stimulus stopped the drastic loss in jobs; at best, as indicated by the last line, it halted the loss and actually gained some jobs back.

The change to Bush from Clinton resulted in a 3.6 percent gain in unemployment, double what we have seen as a net loss during the Obama administration thus far (and thus, double the jobs lost). And while we shouldn't necessarily celebrate that fact -- a loss of employment, no matter how small, is still not a good thing -- we shouldn't fault Obama as much as conservatives as late have been doing.

Bush left Obama with a steamroller pushing against him; Obama picked up that challenge, and pushed back. It didn't lead to immediate results, and in fact couldn't be halted immediately; but in the end, President Obama showed that he could do what President Bush had neither time nor ability to do: end the rise in unemployment. Obama's next challenge, if he's to win in 2012, is to show he can now lower unemployment rather than keep its levels stagnant, as he has done over the past few months in office.

Recall fallout: Moderate Sen. Dale Schultz wins

2011-08-10T06:05:00.000-07:00

Republican Sen. who voted against collective bargaining bill now the most powerful man in the state

It's understandable why some within the progressive movement may seem deflated today. Having failed to pick up three seats in the recall contests last night, the Democratic Party won't be able to take control of the state Senate, thus ensuring the Republican Party retains control.

But last night wasn't a defeat by any means. Two seats previously held by Republicans were won by Democrats -- that's two more seats that aren't in control of people who support Scott Walker. More importantly, that tips the scales of the Senate control from 19-14 to 17-16. Why is that important? Because Sen. Dale Schultz now becomes the most powerful man in that chamber.

Schultz, a moderate Republican, was the only one within that caucus that went against his own party, voting against the controversial collective bargaining bill. For that reason, Democrats sought to keep Schultz out of the recall pandemonium, agreeing that his district wouldn't be targeted while focusing their efforts elsewhere.

Schultz has also become rather chummy with Democratic moderate Tim Cullen, Senator from Janesville. The two could form a coalition with one another that would require the Senate to court both in order to pass any meaningful legislation.

It's not the shift from the right that Democrats would prefer -- but it IS a shift in the proper direction, from extreme-right to centrist policies. At the very least, it requires that legislative body, and what's more the entire government, to make compromises in order to make laws.

Notes from canvassing: Part 2

2011-08-08T20:15:00.000-07:00

Two days of canvassing, two days of thoughts on the recall campaign
This is part two of my series on canvassing for the recall elections. You can read part one here. For the past three months I have canvassed against Gov. Walker's proposed budget as well as in favor of a recall candidate involved in one of the six contests taking place tomorrow. The following I wrote during the day on Monday, while near Baraboo.

August 8, 2011

In 24 hours' time, most of the voters that will take part in tomorrow's recall contests will have gone to the polls. It's a bittersweet end to a job I have enjoyed (for the most part) over the past couple of months. I've worked for more than 40 days to ensure that people will spend four minutes or less in their polling booths tomorrow, making a vote for a candidate I believe will make Wisconsin a better place to live in -- or, at the very least, who will stand up to the agenda of Gov. Walker and his legislative allies.

I bear the heat of discussion for this, the last day before the election begins. People are sick and tired of canvassers like me coming to their doors -- but I remind them that they ought to be sick of what Republicans have done to their state. A few grumble, but most of them agree.

These elections represent a lot of things to these constituents. Some have personal gripes with the candidate up for recall himself, some with the issues he supported (or failed to support); but more often than not these elections serve as a way for these people to show Gov. Walker that this state has not accepted his plan, has not accepted his policies, and most of all has not accepted his transformation of this state's values.

Regardless of the outcome tomorrow, win or lose, I know what I did was good work. Not because I necessarily fought for a "just" candidate over one who has neglected to listen to the people; not necessarily because I fought to create a check on a governor hellbent on destroying Wisconsin as we know it; but because I fought for a strengthening of our democracy. These recalls are representative of a direct democratic action, of a power the people deserve to have over their lawmakers in order to ensure their voices are being heard and responded to.

I have walked in support of Democratic candidate Fred Clark; I have walked in opposition to Gov. Walker's egregious budget; but most of all, I have walked to preserve a democratic right of the people of Wisconsin, a right that should never be taken for granted, by constituents or their representatives in Madison. We have walked for the past six months, whether marching around the Capitol or door-to-door. Democracy isn't a spectator sport -- it requires us to take part in it, consistently, not just through the ballot but also through making our presence known to the people who make our laws.

Tomorrow, we shall all take part in this right of the people. We shall play a hand in determining whether they deserve re-election or whether they should be removed due to a loss in confidence from us. Tomorrow, we take Wisconsin back.

MJS wrong: recalls warranted when people desire them

2011-08-07T07:56:00.000-07:00

The Journal Sentinel released an editorial yesterday, and in the first sentence alone I have two separate ideas about the opinions of the JS staff.

So not only are the recall elections ugly and unnecessary, they're expensive - and offer even more reason for campaign finance reform that requires transparency from all groups. (Emphases mine)

One of those assertions I take issue with; the other, I can agree on.

First, on what the JS gets right: campaign finance reform is sorely needed. But we knew this long before the recall elections took shape. Campaign spending in Wisconsin has been growing and growing, and with five of the Senate recalls breaking records on spending for legislative races in the state, it's clear that something has to be done. The emergence of "anonymous donors," too, has me worried.

But the Milwaukee newspaper is wholly wrong on these elections being "unnecessary." That is entirely up to the voters of those districts to decide. Recall elections shouldn't be limited "only in the cases of exceptionally egregious behavior by a politician," as the Journal Sentinel later asserts. They should also be subject to egregious legislation or policies that the citizens of districts (or the state at-large) determine to be wrong for Wisconsin.

Consider an extreme example. Gov. XYZ submits a bill for the legislature to consider that severely limits a privilege of the people, let's say speech rights. A Sedition Act pushed by state senators who are supportive of Gov. XYZ could easily pass the bill -- but they also risk the people's ability to remove them from office for passing such legislation. Their actions while in office may not have been "exceptionally egregious," but the laws they put into place go against the values of the people in their districts.

In that extreme example, it is entirely justifiable to remove those senators from office. To restrict the justification for recall elections to the requirements the Journal Sentinel suggests acceptable limits the ability of citizens to take direct control of their government, thus limiting the people in that example from protecting their own rights.

In our present-day situation, the citizens of each senate district holding a recall have determined that their legislators warrant challenges based upon their votes within the past six months, including the controversial collective bargaining bill (but certainly not limited to that). It's their right, whether they're challenging Democrats or Republicans, to make that determination.

Recall elections shouldn't be subject to "egregious behavior" alone -- they should be deemed justified when constituents lose confidence in their elected official's ability to represent their district. That loss in confidence can come from both the senator's behavior AND a disregard for the people they're meant to represent. To suggest otherwise neglects what the purpose of recall elections was in the first place -- to give a greater role of democratic influence in our state's government.

Notes from canvassing: Part 1

2011-08-05T19:35:00.000-07:00

Two days of canvassing, two days of thoughts on the recall campaigns

The following is part one of a two part series on my experiences over two days of canvassing. I have been working with different political canvassing organizations for the past three months, on the recalls as well as fighting against Gov. Walker's proposed budget. These two stories focus on my thoughts on the recall elections in the waning days of the canvass.

Part one: August 4, 2001
I'm a tired, sweaty mess. Today is August 4, and there are five days until the recall elections. The weather is humid, overcast but still hot, and you can almost taste the moisture in the air. My shoe is broken, digging into my heel, a small reminder of the pain this state is experiencing under this governor's leadership.

As a canvasser, I get sent out to cities and rural areas alike -- no potential vote is left unspoken to. Some people are pleasant, happy to see me, others are skeptical and rude. Those that fit the latter description are just as tired as I am, tired of the mess that Wisconsin has seen, even if they don't readily admit it. Government has become ineffective, they say, and so they escape despair by entering cynicism. I don't blame these people, I empathize with their feelings. But change isn't meant to come easy. And so, I walk.

It's not a thankless job by any means. Every now and again, I get a household that actually thanks me, endlessly, for what I do. It's my job, I say, and move on with a bit more hope. Still, all of the "thank yous" in the world I would gladly trade for a win on Tuesday.

I'm not a naive person -- I'm very realistic. Even if Democrats win the Senate back, they won't be able to reverse the damage of Scott Walker's agenda. But just because the fight can't be won instantaneously doesn't mean it's not worth fighting. This is one step towards restoring Wisconsin's values, towards the restoration of the state I grew up in and still love.

Walking from house to house, you have a lot to think about. I've thought about these recall elections, countless times. They aren't about collective bargaining, cuts to education, cuts to welfare, a disregard for the rule of law, or even the arrogance of the governor and his legislative allies. Those issues all matter a great deal -- but they are mere symptoms of a greater problem this state is facing.

These recalls aren't about a singular issue. Rather, they're about the destruction of values, of core beliefs that makes Wisconsin what it is, or was, or STILL CAN be. Those issues -- and others like them -- were destroyed in the wake of Walker's overall assault on our state's traditions. Bringing them back to Wisconsin will take awhile, will require patience and a constant struggle towards removal of his allies, and of him as well.

And so, I walk. I won't stop walking, not until the time comes when ALL of Wisconsin, not just the donors of Walker's campaign, receive the respect and attention they deserve from their governor.

The good news is that I'm not walking alone.

Americans For Prosperity send phony mailers, disrupt democracy

2011-08-02T15:34:00.000-07:00

Absentee ballots' return address sends ballots to conservative organization

Democracy requires equality, openness, and most importantly fairness. When people refuse to play by the rules -- when they purposely distort information for the purposes of their own political gain -- democracy suffers for it. Running political advertisements that suggest your opponent raised her own salary while in office when just the opposite was true, for example, gives voters a false vision of reality, clouding their judgment against issues that truly matter (and truly exist) within the campaign.

Such practices are rotten on their own. But when you distort information and propagate it for the purposes of disposing people's rights, it gets downright despicable.

Americans For Prosperity, a Koch brothers-funded, Tea Party-affiliated organization, sent absentee ballots to households of strongly-identified Democrats, urging them to submit their ballots on August 11 -- two days after the recall elections were set to occur.

The organization purports that it was a simple typo, and that it being sent to Democratic households was the result of these individuals trying to "keep tabs" on the organization by becoming members of it.

That would explain everything -- if it weren't for the fact that, instead of a city clerk’s office, the return address sent the ballots to Wisconsin Family Action, an organization that is most definitely as anti-Democratic Party as one can get.

Now THAT'S one hell of a typo. Had the ballots been sent there, there's no question they would never have been counted. Ballots need to be returned to a city clerk's office, not a non-profit organization, who, once in possession of them, could feasibly do whatever they wanted with them.

The "typo" cop-out is also fishy for other reasons, namely the extent to how bad a typo it would actually be, requiring the typist to type an extra number than what is needed. For instance, a typo of the number "9" (the actual election date) would result in either an "8" or a "0" -- but an "11" requires a complete opposite-side-of-the-keyboard mistake, as well as a conscious decision to type the same number twice (there are no election dates with two of the same numbers in them).

It's clear to see that AFP is trying to step in and ruin the rights of Wisconsin citizens across the state. Telling people to send an absentee ballot form 1) on the wrong date and 2) to an organization that isn't a governmental entity is as low as one can get. To put it bluntly, it's corporate dollars trying to ruin your democratic rights. It’s suppression through deception, a lie to Wisconsin voters to get them to unwillingly invalidate their own vote.

In America, and especially in Wisconsin, that shouldn't be tolerated. The Republican candidates who would benefit from such vile practices ought to come out and oppose Americans For Prosperity and Wisconsin Family Action for engaging in blatant voter suppression.

Dane Co DA steps aside in case against Prosser

2011-08-01T14:28:00.000-07:00

Citing conflicts of interest, Ozanne recommends a special prosecutor

Dane County District Attorney Ismael Ozanne has requested a special prosecutor to judge whether or not the county should pursue the case against Justice Davide Prosser, who allegedly put fellow Justice Anne Walsh Bradley in a stranglehold more than a month ago in her office.

The move is the proper one to take: Ozanne, a Democrat, was the chief prosecutor over the case Prosser and Bradley had been arguing over, the collective bargaining bill. His decision to pursue further action could be conveyed as a personal act against Prosser, who ruled with the majority opinion authorizing the bill as having passed legally.

I do not question the integrity of our county's district attorney. In fact, I have been quite pleased with him thus far during his tenure. But there is no doubt that the legitimacy of his actions could be questioned by conservatives if he were to pursue this case himself. Choosing to opt out of that decision-making process is the right move to make, to preserve the legitimacy of whatever decision is made.

For his recognition of both the potential fallout as well as the questions of conflicts of interest presented to him, Dane County is truly blessed to have such a sound legal mind and considerate public figure running its DA offices.

Taxes explained -- "effective" tax rates create different picture

2011-07-30T12:10:00.000-07:00

"Tax brackets" don't indicate true level of taxation on Americans

One of my favorite articles on the subject of effective tax rates -- the rates people actually pay on ALL taxes, not just income taxes -- is by Ezra Klein, a columnist with the Washington Post. Written in April 2010, the article is a little dated but still provides a clear picture of just what we're arguing about when we talk about raising taxes on the top 1 percent. We'll come back to that in a minute though.

First, a little background. People argue that the rich don't deserve a tax hike because they already have a tax rate of 35 percent, well above other rates available. Firstly, that tax rate is a bit deceiving -- only the richest of the rich actually pay that amount. The tax system is designed so that you are taxed a certain amount of dollars for the income you earn, and THEN all income earned after a certain amount is taxed at your respective rate. For instance, a person earning $300,000 isn't taxed at 33 percent (their supposed tax bracket), but rather 28 percent. See the brackets below for how that's computed:

Individual tax brackets for 2010
10% on income between $0 and $8,375
15% on the income between $8,375 and $34,000; plus $837.50
25% on the income between $34,000 and $82,400; plus $4,681.25
28% on the income between $82,400 and $171,850; plus $16,781.25
33% on the income between $171,850 and $373,650; plus $41,827.25
35% on the income over $373,650; plus $108,421.25

The tax rates don't represent the rates you pay if you're within a certain bracket, but rather what rate of tax you pay after a certain income is earned.

Here's another example, a more visual way of seeing how the income tax calculations are done:

400,000 - 373,650 = 26,350
26,350 x .35 = 9,222.50
9,222.50 + 108,421.25 = 117,643.75
117,643.75 / 400,000 = 0.294 or 29.4 percent

The income tax of a person earning $400,000 is 29.4 percent, much lower than the perceived 35 percent that people always cite. (The $250,000 income earners, often a point of contention for politicians, are taxed at the rate of 27 percent, not the 33 percent their bracket would suggest they be at and certainly nowhere near what millionaires would be taxed.)

Beyond that fact, however, distribution of taxes overall is significantly closer than people believe it to be. Income taxes are paid predominantly by the rich -- but the middle class and poor pay most of the payroll taxes. Since Social Security taxes are capped at $106,000 (that is, no income above that amount is taxed), those earning less than that amount pay the full tax rate, while those earning above that amount pay a significantly lower rate. For instance, a person earning $400,000 still only pays 4.2 percent (the current Social Security rate) on $106,000. So their Social Security tax rate is:

106,000 x .042 = 4,452
4,452 / 400,000 = 0.01113 or 1.113 percent

So taken together, the taxes that a person earning $400,000 per year pays is 29.4 plus 1.1, or about 30.5 percent. Again, that is almost 5 percent lower than people believe it to be (35 percent being the perceived tax rate for that income group).

Now, back to the Ezra Klein article. The argument made by many conservatives is that the rich pay all of the taxes in this country, that some people don't even pay any taxes at all. That myth is based upon the premise of income taxes, and that some people in the lower brackets are able to claim enough tax credits to offset what they owe to the government.

However, taken together, the gap between who pays taxes and who doesn't isn't as deep as you may think it is. As a proportion of the income earned, for example, the top 1 percent pays a fair share. In 2008, that group earned about 1 in every 4 dollars earned -- and similarly, they were responsible for paying about a quarter of all the taxes the U.S. took in. But that's true of nearly every income group in the country as well:

The effective tax rates reveal an even more startling picture (click the image for a larger view):

It's clear to see that the rich aren't facing as big a tax burden as conservatives portray. A large chunk of their income is going towards taxes -- but that's also true of other income levels, even those at the lowest quintiles. The top 1 percent of income earners have nearly identical effective tax rates as the next 39 percent of income earners, and the next quintile below that is barely taxed any lower. The lowest 40 percent of income earners see lower tax rates, but that's understandable seeing as they're earning less than ten percent of all income in the country.

We should keep these things in mind when we consider raising taxes on the richest Americans. They aren't paying 35 percent of all income, and raising their taxes back to pre-Bush levels won't make them pay those old "rates" either, since those rates were calculated in similar ways. Indeed, raising taxes on the wealthiest of Americans would cut the deficit by trillions of dollars in the long-run.

500 blog posts: the challenges we still face

2011-07-28T11:01:00.000-07:00

It's been a remarkable journey writing for this blog. Since 2009, I have posted 500 blog posts under the title of "Political Heat." It's been a pleasure doing so, and I look forward to writing another 500 -- or more.

I wanted to take the time on this occasion to say a few words about where we stand as a country, as a state, and as a people in general. We're living in some pretty exciting times, though they are very polarizing and upsetting as well. Whether you're a Republican, Democrat, liberal, conservative, independent, or anything else for that matter, one thing is for certain: people are upset with the way things are in our society.

Jobs remain a primary focus for many -- nearly 1 in 10 are without employment and are actively seeking it. In Wisconsin, we're fortunate that less are unemployed...yet it still is a significant problem, especially for parts of the state hit hardest by the economic downturn of 2008.

Economic disparity is also a significant issue. Within the last decade, after promises of "trickle down" from conservatives following the Bush tax cuts that mainly benefited the wealthy, the rest of the population is seeing hardly any benefits from those cuts. The top .01 percent of income earners took home 6 percent of all income earned in 2007, double what they took home in 2000; the top 10 percent took half the nation's income according to the same study. (Remember folks: that was in 2007, BEFORE the economic crash.)

The rest of the country, however, has shouldered the burden of this economic mess. While the top 1 percent has seen their incomes (adjusted for inflation) quadruple since 1980, the median income for Americans has actually shrank.

Our nation's deficits have taken center-stage as of late, and have really been more a primary focus for Republicans than jobs have been -- even though that party had campaigned incessantly on it to win their seats back in 2010. Still, the nation's debt is a topic that must be addressed, one that requires us to ask ourselves hard and important questions regarding our values. Do we lessen the debt by asking more of our downtrodden, of the poorest and less-to-do Americans? Do we ask the rich to make a sacrifice of their own, to pay more in taxes? Do we do a combination of the two? The current crisis in Washington centers around this debate. For what it's worth, the American public has already weighed in on the topic, determining that they want the rich and corporate elite to do their part in helping the nation at-large.

Social issues remain a challenge as well. As the country shifts towards one of acceptance, the fight for same-sex marriage will heat up in the coming years. States like New York, which recently legalized the practice, will face stark opposition from conservative forces within their boundaries. States like Wisconsin will face a tougher challenge: with a constitutional amendment preventing any form of recognition, and a State Supreme Court unwilling to recognize that that amendment was passed in an improper way, it will take nothing short of another constitutional amendment to rectify the matter -- a process that can take years (and two legislative terms at minimum) to carry out.

Racial issues continue to plague our nation. Specifically in Wisconsin, a voter ID bill passed that, immediately upon Gov. Walker's signature, disenfranchised thousands of Latinos and African Americans who lack a photo identification card (it also disenfranchised thousands of elderly, too). With the closure of several DMV's across the state -- not to mention the fact that a quarter of DMV's are only open one day out of the month -- access to obtaining an ID may hinder the voting process.

But as we look forward to these issues and others, we must always remember: we are equals, we are entitled to our opinions, and we are allowed to be passionate over them -- but we must never assume that our opinion alone is the sole one to take, and that any other is unworthy of debate. Some conservatives irk me to no end -- but they have a right to display their beliefs, to organize and to vote for whatever candidates they wish to field. The same holds true of the opposite: MOST conservatives would probably find my opinions to be the wrong ones to implement, but MOST of them would probably also support my right to hold them. It's the extremists on both sides, who have made debate (and more importantly compromise) impossible to carry out, that we have to concern ourselves with.

What matters most is the recognition that we are all equals in the debate, that we hold equal sway in the exchange of ideas. When we start to demonize each other, when we start to think of conservatives or liberals as "them" or "other," we start to lose focus on the foundations of our country. We weren't designed to be a single-party nation (we weren't designed to have parties at all); we were designed to incorporate, allow, and foster a multitude of ideas for the betterment of our country.

I say a lot of things about conservatives on this blog. But I've never said that conservatism needs to be banished. And I never will. In this spirit, I hope you'll read the next 500 blog posts I make with this thought in mind: we may argue, we may fight, we may even become visibly upset with one another -- but we are all one people, no matter what differences we may hold. As long as we respect each other, respect democratic rights that protect these rights for us, our nation will flourish for generations to come.

Glenn Beck compares shooting victims to Hitler Youth

2011-07-28T09:06:00.000-07:00

Beck's comments suggest shooting massacre in Norway are dismissible

I didn't have a chance to respond to this story earlier in the week, but I think it's important to get it out there still. The actions of people like Glenn Beck, who believe in their ideals so passionately, need to be addressed, condemned by as many people as possible as just plain wrong, detrimental even to our society.

Glenn Beck recently made a statement on his radio program regarding the bombing in Oslo and the shootings at a youth camp in Norway. What he said actually says so many things in just three short sentences, especially when you dig deeper into the mechanics of his statement:

[The camp] sounds a little like, you know, the Hitler Youth or whatever. Who does a camp for kids that's all about politics? Disturbing.

Let's examine this closer.

Beck is saying that the camp itself is absurd, comparing it to the Hitler Youth camps of Nazi Germany. Political organizations for the young, however, aren't uncommon -- indeed, just last month Scott Walker's own son was elected Governor at Badger Boys State. Beck's 9-12 organization has sponsored several political youth groups as well.

So it's Beck doing what he does best: acting in a hypocritical way. But what's most disturbing of all is Beck's total disregard for what prompted his statement in the first place.

These kids were SHOT AT, some of them KILLED, by a radical conservative lunatic with a vendetta against liberalism. Beck's statement, in ignoring that key point and jumping to criticism of the camp itself, says a lot more about his character than he's probably trying to reveal.

At one level, he's simply overlooking a terrible act so that he can talk about something else -- "this bad thing happened, but isn't this aspect of it weird?" If he can shift focus away from the murderous rampage, then he can point out the absurdity (in his own mind) of a camp for young progressives.

But on a more disturbing level, Beck's criticism suggests that the acts of the gunman are wholly dismissible, perhaps even justifiable, because, after all, these kids were just like the Hitler Youth (which, of course, is utterly untrue). In Beck's own mind, the true crime here wasn't the shooter's actions but rather that Labour Party kids were at a camp that promoted their progressive ideals.

Beck's lows have always been remarkable. But this is low even for him -- or perhaps indicative of just how awful a person he really is.

Another poll: Americans want reasoned approaches to solving deficit

2011-07-26T11:29:00.000-07:00

Most support raising taxes on rich, oppose cuts to Medicare

The Washington Post performed a poll recently that asked respondents how they thought we should go about fixing the deficit our country is currently facing. Not surprisingly, most Americans support fixes that call for a sacrifice from everyone, not just the working and middle classes.

Some highlights from that poll:

Only a quarter of Americans feel we should cut Medicaid spending, while more than 7-in-10 oppose such a measure.

The numbers flip when people are asked about raising taxes on those earning more than $250,000 per year: 72 percent support such a plan while 27 percent oppose it. Even more remarkable than that, more than 55 percent said they "strongly" support such a move, while only 17 percent were "strongly" opposed to it.

To fix the Social Security situation, two-thirds of Americans support "raising the amount of Social Security tax paid by people with incomes over $107 thousand a year.

So with that in mind, will the Republicans respond to the demands of Americans, raising taxes on the rich? Don't hold your breath: it seems that the Republican Party is hell-bent on holding the country's economic standing hostage in order to make drastic cuts that the people don't want.

Lacking liberals' support, Obama approval rating down

2011-07-25T06:53:00.000-07:00

Thirteen percent of Americans feel the president isn't liberal enough, driving approval down

Recent polling for President Obama reveals that a majority of Americans disapprove of his job performance.

45 percent of Americans believe the president is doing a fine job, while 54 percent believe that the president's handling of the country has been poor.

So does this mean that Obama is set to lose his re-election bid come 2012? Don't go there yet: there's reason to be concerned, but further reading into the polling data reveals something that many news outlets forget to mention.

The poll went beyond the traditional questioning and asked further of respondents WHY they disapproved of the president's job performance. A full 38 percent of the population felt that the president was "too liberal" in his decision-making process. 13 percent believed that he "wasn't liberal enough."

Combined with the number of people who believe the president is doing just fine, the number of people who like the president's policies or believe they should be more liberal jumps to 57 percent, while again 38 percent believe he's too liberal.

With numbers like those, Obama's only true concern is growing apathy from his base. If he cannot motivate that 13 percent to come out to support him at the polling booths, then he's going to face some problems, especially if the GOP fields a moderate option for voters. The more conservative the candidate that Obama faces will be, the easier it will be for the president to win re-election; but Obama also faces a challenge of keeping his base happy with his numerous compromises he's made over the years with Republican lawmakers.

It's not an overwhelming obstacle to take on, but it's one that will be necessary if the president hopes to stay in office for another term.

With Hansen recall win, will momentum continue for Dems?

2011-07-19T18:58:00.000-07:00

Democrat Dave Hansen wins in landslide, defending his seat against recall challenger VanderLeest

In the first of nine recall elections the state has to experience between now and August 9, Democratic incumbent Dave Hansen has defeated Republican challenger David VanderLeest. At this time, with 76 percent of the precincts reported, it seems Hansen has walloped VanderLeest by a margin of 2-to-1.

With Hansen's victory comes less pressure for Democrats overall to win every single recall contest out there. Those that are challenging Republican incumbents in recalls will need to flip at most five of the six Republican seats in order to take back the State Senate. That number could decrease again to four or three, depending on whether other Democratic incumbent senators are able to defend their own seats in the remaining two elections set up against Sens. Bob Wirch and Jim Holperin.

Of course, Democrats will still try to defend every seat they already have and gain as many of the six seats they are challenging. Still, every victory by Democrats takes them one step closer towards flipping the Senate, allowing a check on Gov. Scott Walker's boldly conservative agenda.

Will the momentum continue? It'd be nice of me to say to you tonight that, yes, Democrats will take this victory and run with it in all eight of the remaining contests. But the facts are that each race is uniquely different -- Hansen's challenger in this race wasn't exactly the most stellar of opponents, for instance, while other races are much closer.

Momentum for Democrats is certainly gaining (as is the case of Democratic recall candidate Sandy Pasch, who is now running even with Republican incumbent Alberta Darling), but the certainty of whether Hansen's victory tonight is indicative of the state overall is just too far unknown at this point in time. The fight will need to continue, as neither side is going to let up in light of tonight's results.

Still, tonight's victory is one worth celebrating. The count is officially 1-0 ~~in favor of Democrats~~ -- scratch that: it's 1-0 in favor of returning sanity to our state legislature, providing much needed balance in our government.

Herman Cain wrongly endorses restrictions of religious liberty

2011-07-19T10:03:00.000-07:00

GOP candidate for president believes communities have right prevent religious worship

Republican Party Presidential candidate (and pizza entrepreneur) Herman Cain believes that local communities should have the right to deny religious groups (specifically Muslims) the right to build centers of worship within their limits. He is wholly, and without a doubt of any kind, wrong.

Our founding fathers believed strongly and passionately in the individual's freedom to worship any belief they deemed proper. The state's interference in such matters, even when endorsed by a democratic majority, couldn't curtail the rights of an individual to make this choice.

The right of people to peaceably assemble, too, was also deemed infallible by our founders. It was seen as tantamount to the preservation of our democratic rights, as not only a permissive act but one that was also necessary in order to foster a free exchange of ideas.

So important were these two ideals to our founders that they incorporated them together within the First Amendment to our nation's Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Regardless of anyone's personal beliefs on Islam, the right of people to practice it peaceably and to gather together as a congregation to celebrate it cannot be infringed. It's not only recognized as a legal right, but as a natural right as well.

Cain's beef with Islam likely stems from the actions of radicals within it who don't represent the religion's true beliefs. His concern with Sharia Law is also a paranoid attempt to stir up fear among the public. There isn't any chance of Sharia Law overtaking the country for the same reason that Muslims are granted the same religious rights as anyone else -- a strict respect of the separation of church and state would prevent it from ever materializing.

Herman Cain is wrong to be so restrictive on religious beliefs that don't adhere to his idea of the "mainstream," and he's wrong to believe it is indeed Constitutional to restrict a person's or group of people's rights. That he is considered a contender at all for the GOP presidential ticket is a shameful thing.

Five ideas that can help settle the nation's debt

2011-07-18T13:22:00.000-07:00

Resolving the debt crisis needn't take away benefits to those requiring them

The current debate in Washington is centered upon ways to lower our national debt. Democrats want to raise taxes, but Republicans refuse to move forward without severe cuts to social programs designed to help the disadvantaged.

For what it's worth, I'm not an economist. I understand what people are talking about when they have these discussions, but I'm not one to sit around with a calculator by my side, endlessly figuring ways out that we can change things for the better in our country. Still, with that caveat in mind, I did want to present just a few ideas that I believe could make our country financially solvent again -- or at the very least on the path towards that goal.

1. PERMANENTLY LOWER Social Security tax rates to 4 percent, ELIMINATE the Social Security cap altogether. As it stands right now, you only pay 6.2 percent of your Social Security taxes on the first $106,000 you earn (though that’s temporarily at 4.2 percent due to a deal struck by Obama and Republicans in late 2010). That means everyone who earns under that amount pays a full tab, but millionaires and billionaires only pay 6.2 percent on the first $100K -- everything else is tax-free as far as Social Security goes. But if you want to make sure that Social Security is solvent, if you want to make sure the program doesn’t go bankrupt in the next half-century or less, you need a way to fund it. Eliminating the cap completely would do just that.

There are some who would argue that an elimination is unfair, that millionaires and billionaires shouldn’t have to pay into a retirement program they themselves won’t be taking part in. I counter that notion with this: Social Security isn’t simply a retirement program for the poor, its an investment in our nation’s elderly. It’s a moral program set up to help those who couldn’t afford luxurious retirement plans while they worked themselves hard supporting families of their own. Eliminating the Social Security cap altogether (while making the 4 percent rate permanent) is the way to keep the program funded indefinitely while still allowing the wealthiest among us to live a luxurious lifestyle by paying four percent of their paycheck annually towards this treasured pillar of the 20th century.

2. CUT FUNDING towards defense. This seems like a terrible idea on its surface. But when you consider the fact that we spend more on military spending than the next highest 14 countries COMBINED, it’s clear to anyone that our national priorities are unaligned with what challenges our country truly faces. In 2010, the entire planet spent almost $1,600,000,000,000 in military spending -- the United States accounted for 43 percent of that total. The next highest spender, China, was responsible for only 7.3 percent, and Russia held only 3.6 percent of that total. Our nation’s defense is important, critical as any other aspect to the future of America -- but is it necessary to outspend our next highest contender by nearly six times as much?

3. PUT AN END to the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The time has come for our troops to come home. The cost of human life (Americans, as well as those that reside in the countries we’re currently in) during these two wars is enough reason to put an end to the wars.

But if that’s not enough for you, consider the financial costs as well. As of right now, the two wars have cost the country more than $1.2 trillion since 2001. Iraq alone has cost us nearly $800 billion, and the cost of Afghanistan is growing too, to just under $450 billion. We should either get out of both countries altogether or present a more financially stable, internationally cooperative plan that will alleviate the costs to our nation.

4. PUT A STOP to the Bush-era Tax Cuts. Estimates for the loss in revenue for the Bush tax cuts for the rich show that more than $2.5 trillion was lost (PDF). That’s a huge chunk of change -- to put it in perspective, the plan for health care that Democrats passed during the last Congressional session was less than half that, around $1 trillion. The top 1 percent of income earners reaped nearly 40 percent of the benefits of those tax cuts, while the bottom 60 percent saw less than a quarter of the cuts (even adding the next quintile of the income-earning population does little to change things: the bottom 80 percent saw less than half of the benefits as well, while the top 20 percent saw more than 52 percent of the total benefits).

Twenty-five years ago, the top 1 percent of wage earners took in 12 percent of all income and controlled 33 percent of the nation’s wealth. Today, they earn 25 percent of all income and control 40 percent of the wealth. That income disparity is due partially (but nominally) to the Bush tax cuts -- over the past decade, the top 1 percent saw their incomes grow by 18 percent, while the middle class actually lost income. Those that will tell you that trickle-down economics work are lying to you.

5. END THE LOOPHOLES that financial giants currently take advantage of. Presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently touted the American tax rates on corporations as being the highest the industrial world has to offer. On paper, this is true: American tax rates for corporations are the highest. But when all is said and done, when these financial titans file their taxes with all of the loopholes they are offered, the effective tax rates for corporations are actually the second-lowest of all nations within the OECD. To believe that corporations have it rough in our country is a belief that is shrouded in falsehoods, an omission of information meant to delude the American public.

If we closed these loopholes, we could lower taxes on corporations and still receive more revenue. That’s a compromise that both liberals and conservatives could get behind, one that we should be giving strong consideration towards.

---

These ideas may not create a surplus, may not even break us even within a decade's time. But they are ideas that should be put to the test, alongside responsible spending that doesn't hurt the people of America, that doesn't burden the working class people who depend upon programs like Social Security.

This nation is a country of "do'ers," of people who have constantly strove for being the best in the world. But we're also a nation of helpers, of people that recognize we're ultimately judged on how strong the weakest members of our society are. We can help those looking for help realize the American dream while simultaneously raising the bar on ingenuity. If any country in the world can set out to prove it's possible, our nation, the United States of America, is precisely the place to do it.

RoJo ignorant on Obamacare, civil liberties

2011-07-16T08:10:00.000-07:00

Junior senator from Wisconsin forgets true assaults on liberties during his lifetime

Ron Johnson is a political novice, even while serving as a U.S. Senator for Wisconsin. Flashy talking points and exaggerated statements make for good campaign fodder, but it does little to solve societal ills or even accurately describe supposed "problems" within our country.

RoJo was recently on Bloomberg's "Political Capital with Al Hunt," a program that focuses on the federal government. Anyone who has followed Johnson knows the senator loves to say "Obamacare" is the single greatest assault on Americans' freedom in his lifetime. It is a Johnson classic; his "Stairway to Heaven."

For the record, in the senator's lifetime, America has endured segregation, the Cold War and the threat of terrorism (Emphasis added). That fact was not lost on Hunt, who pressed Johnson about his oft-repeated refrain and asked him specifically about the threat of communism.

"I wasn't threatened under communism," Johnson countered.

"You weren't threatened by terrorism?" Hunt asked.

RoJo paused, then said, "I'm talking about things that are imposed on me by this, by our government in America."

So Johnson believes that the health care package passed by Democrats in the previous Congressional term is worse than any other assault on people's liberties in the history of the United States.

Even throwing out the caveat that outside threats "don't count" -- a condition he conveniently adds only when confronted by it -- Johnson ignores (as was pointed out) Jim Crow laws, which undoubtedly restrained people's lives in much more direct ways than any health care law ever possibly could. It's troubling that one-half of our representation in the U.S. Senate disregards such a terribly dark chapter in our nation's past, all in order to make a great talking point.

In fact, Johnson has rarely stated, if ever at all, how this law is a restriction of liberties. For our own fun, let's run down the list of liberties that aren't affected by this new law...

* Speech
* Gun ownership
* Religion
* Assembly
* Warrantless arrests
* The right to vote
* Habeas corpus

Even property rights aren't affected by the health care law. Johnson and millionaires like him are free to pursue more capital, more income, without interference from the state. The health care law does nothing to limit that, and Johnson would be hard-pressed to provide evidence to the contrary.

Again, if Johnson wants to make statements that appear flashy and hit the gut of the American consumer, he's free to do so. But saying that Obamacare is an assault on Americans' freedoms is flagrantly untrue. The people who support Ron Johnson should consider just where his intentions lie, why it is he's so opposed to the new health care law. It surely isn't because of any assault on personal liberties.

A quick question on the rush to redistricting

2011-07-13T10:20:00.000-07:00

GOP should consider stalling redistricting process

Following the election of now-Gov. Scott Walker, then-Gov. Jim Doyle put on hold the plans to begin a high-speed rail project between Madison and Milwaukee, as well as plans to repair the rail line between Chicago and Milwaukee. Doyle cited Walker's plans to halt the project once he became governor as reason to stop before his own term expired, even though it went against his own preferences.

In December before the new legislative term was set to begin, two Democratic legislators halted a vote that would extend the contracts of state government workers. Citing that "one of the worst things you can do is poke a sharp stick in the eye of a new employer," then-Sen. Majority Leader Russ Decker, a Democrat, voted against the bill (alongside fellow Democrat Jeff Plale and the entire Republican Senate caucus) because he felt union contracts would be best negotiated with the new governor rather than rushing it through the last weeks of a lame duck session.

Fast forward to the present: Gov. Walker and his legislative Republican majorities are set to vote on state redistricting plans, rushing them through passage, before a set of recall elections could potentially change party control within the state Senate (thus making it impossible to pass any more of their "ambitious" agenda). Whether or not the recall elections will be successful is unknown at this point -- Republicans could continue to hold majorities in both houses following the elections.

Still, this question requires serious consideration: should Republicans pay Democrats the same courtesy, respecting the eventual outcomes of the recall elections rather than rushing through legislation that the people themselves may not support? It would seem to be the proper thing to do. Then again, being "proper" seems to be the antithesis of the Republican Party these days.

Recall primaries serve political purpose for GOP

2011-07-12T11:04:00.000-07:00

Delay tactic by Republicans posing as Democrats allow GOP agenda to carry on

Recall primary elections for the Democratic Party are being held today...but in my opinion, they are a total sham.

Don't take this the wrong way...I love democracy. Any opportunity to vote should be taken, should be granted for the people to help determine who they want to legislate on their behalf. And if I lived in a district where such Democratic primaries were taking place, I'd proudly cast my vote today for someone like Sandy Pasch or Jessica King.

The reason for the recalls is evident: Republican legislators are taking our state in a direction not appreciated by their constituents. The reason behind the primary elections for Democrats, however, is what makes today a sham.

Republicans posing as Democrats forced these elections being held today. They are unnecessary and serve just one purpose: to grant Republicans facing the threat of removal more time to carry out their agenda in Madison.

Indeed, Republicans are planning to pass sweeping changes to the state's legislative districts before the general recall elections, changes that could preserve their seats within the state legislature itself come 2012.

If not for the need for these primaries -- again, prompted because Republicans-in-Democrats' clothing forced them to occur -- the general elections would be held today rather than August 9. The Senate could have changed hands, and this egregious redistricting plan could have been prevented, could have been replaced by a compromise plan developed by the Republican-led Assembly and what may have been a Democratic-led Senate.

I encourage everyone to go out today to vote, if you're in a district that has a Democratic recall primary or another important election going on. But aside from the special election in the 48th Assembly district, today's elections will be somewhat bittersweet to me. In the end, these recall primaries serve no purpose except a political one, were only necessary to stall a process Republican legislators wanted to stretch to the fullest extent possible.

That's not democracy; that's dastardly politics, the kind the people of Wisconsin don't appreciate, nor deserve from their leaders.

Helping a friend with a rare opportunity

2011-07-12T07:25:00.000-07:00

Local Madisonian has chance to work with Bear (Double Rainbow guy)

A friend of mine who I worked with (canvassing various neighborhoods throughout Wisconsin, promoting progressive causes) has accepted an internship with Bear, better known as the Double Rainbow guy. During her internship, she will be learning techniques in farming, including managing chickens, fruit plants, and legal marijuana, as well as learning how to use social media to its fullest extent, video blogging her exploits alongside Bear during the duration of her time there.

But Lisa Erin Brown needs a little bit of help as well. The internship will provide for her lodging and other forms of hospitality, but it cannot pay for her transportation. So to help get her out there, Lisa has set up a donations page via PayPal. You can find that page here.

Here is a video of Lisa that explains more about her opportunity:

And here is a link to the blog she manages: Escaping Fate

This would be a great opportunity for Lisa, who since her arrival to Madison just this year has become an integral part of the progressive scene in the area. She protested inside the Capitol over several nights; she's worked against Scott Walker's budget, going door-to-door in several communities within Wisconsin; she did the same thing in support of Democratic recall candidate Fred Clark; and she's continued to be a vocal presence within the Capitol, standing up for what she believes in, letting our state representatives know that real people are affected by the bills passed in this legislative session.

So if you can, be sure to help Lisa out. She's someone who is truly deserving of this internship.

Bachmann, Santorum sign marriage pledge, disregard history of slavery

2011-07-11T13:05:00.000-07:00

Pledge asserted slave families better-off than present-day African-Americans
Two Republican presidential contenders are heeding some warranted criticism after recently signing a marriage pledge.

Michele Bachmann from Minnesota and Rick Santorum from Pennsylvania both signed "The Marriage Vow - A Declaration of Dependence upon Marriage and Family." The vow encourages candidates who have signed it to "defend" marriage (in a conservative view), supporting among other things the overall aim to dismantle the same-sex marriage movement.

There's no surprise that both Bachmann and Santorum were fast to sign the pledge -- both have been steadfast opponents of same-sex marriage for quite some time. But controversy beyond their stances seeped into this whole event when, apparently unbeknownst to the pledge signers themselves, the vow included commentary on slavery.

One line in the preamble of the pledge stated quite unequivocally that:

Slavery had a disastrous impact on African-American families, yet sadly a child born into slavery in 1860 was more likely to be raised by his mother and father in a two-parent household than was an African-American baby born after the election of the USA's first African-American President.

That line, however, is completely untrue: African-American slaves in most cases weren't allowed to marry, and oftentimes were separated from their children, where both parent and child were sold at auction to the highest bidders.

It's a historical omission that is nothing short of disgusting. To forget that slaves were refused the right to marry, much less the right to keep their families intact, in a pledge that is about preservation of families is a disgraceful action. It's disrespectful that the clause was even fathomed as legitimate enough to have been considered placed within the pledge; that it passed the supposedly scrupulous hands of several members within the organization sponsoring it is even more disheartening, maddening even.

The organization itself, the Family Leader, has since apologized for the inclusion of the monstrous statement in its pledge. But the candidates themselves have sullied their names in signing it. It was there, plain to see without any obstruction.

Having signed the original pledge, Bachmann and Santorum put themselves in a terrible position. Either they weren't thinking and just decided to sign any pledge that included barring rights to gay and lesbian couples, or they read the troubling clause and figured it must have been true, glossing over a disgraceful piece of our nation's history with rose-colored glasses they seemingly don't mind wearing. In both cases, it's troubling that these two contenders for the presidency are actually being given serious consideration by conservatives within the Republican Party.

Bachmann and Santorum ought to do one thing truly beneficial for the future of our country, to the future of their own party even -- they ought to totally remove themselves from politics altogether.

Republican leaders release redistricting maps

2011-07-08T12:18:00.000-07:00

Potential for gerrymandering, lawsuits seen as inevitable

Republicans in the state legislature have released the redistricting maps that will redraw the legislative boundaries within the state.

The process, which is performed every 10 years in accordance to both U.S. and State Constitutional mandates, oftentimes benefits the party that gets to draw the maps. Gerrymandering, the art of politically drawing legislative districts in favor of your party, is likely to become a topic of great discussion within the next couple of weeks, perhaps entering the every-day vernacular of Wisconsinites across the Badger State.

It will be interesting to see what will come out of these maps. Northern Wisconsin and Milwaukee both lost a number of residents since 2000, but the Fox Valley and Dane County also saw gains. (Fun fact: The state as a whole grew by 320,000)

It's my hope that the maps will be drawn fairly and proportionally, not in a way that could benefit either party. But with the Republican leadership we've seen thus far in 2011, it wouldn't be surprising to see another political battle brew up over the entire process. In fact, for many it's expected.

Sen. Majority leader Scott Fitzgerald (R) isn't holding his breath either. Aware of the historic arguments created both within the state and nationally, Fitzgerald has already predicted that Democrats will likely sue over the proposed maps:

"Most of the times the courts have drawn the maps," Jeff Fitzgerald told the State Journal last month. "I'm sure (Democrats will) sue on this."

That in itself says a lot about how Fitzgerald feels things will go down. Rather than having confidence in the maps he has prepared, Fitzgerald is certain that they will be seen negatively by the opposition.

Which means the maps weren't drawn with Democrats in mind.

Which means they'll be great for Republicans.

Like I said before, I'm hoping I'm wrong on this. But "hope" doesn't change the fact that we have one divisive legislative body right now, due in large part to the leadership of the Fitzgerald brothers. It wouldn't surprise me any to see one helluva politically-drawn map. What would surprise me at this point would be seeing something done fairly and accurately, benefiting the people of this state rather than Republicans and their special interests.

A message from the U.S. Senate...IT GETS BETTER.

2011-07-05T12:26:00.000-07:00

Independence Day

2011-07-04T06:42:00.000-07:00

Independence Day -- a day of celebration, of remembrance, of reflection and patriotism. A day when we recognize the birth of America, the foundations of our country and the beliefs that our founding fathers held when they determined that tyrannical rule would no longer be acceptable on this continent.

But what does that mean exactly? They’re pretty words -- they conjure up emotions of pride for many. Yet, to two different people (or 300 million) they can mean totally different things.

“Patriotism” to one person can mean something completely different to another. One person may view patriotism as an unyielding respect for the nation you reside in; another may see it as reason why you must never yield complete respect, must always strive for improvement within your homeland. This wide range of definitions, derived just from a single word, is why the Fourth of July is perhaps more meaningful than any one ideology can come up with.

For it isn’t the definition of Independence Day that matters most: the day is more symbolic than that, more uniting than any political belief can be. It means the same to a Democrat that it does to a Republican, is important to both liberals and conservatives.

We may be divisive a good portion of our political lives. We may disagree on most everything that comes our way. But for this one day, this recognition of the American idea of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness -- even if that means totally different things to different people -- that's what this day stands for. We’re one people even when we’re not; E Pluribus Unum, out of many we are one.

On this Independence Day, we should keep that in mind, use it to further our nation, our state, our communities forward. It has been through that sentiment that our nation has lasted for over 230 years. And it’s through that sentiment our nation, our people, will continue to persist.

Sen. Kapanke, facing recall pressure, perpetuates long-debunked myth

2011-06-30T08:26:00.000-07:00

GOP senator wrongly claims protests caused millions in damages

Republican State Sen. Dan Kapanke recently sent an email to Tea Party followers in hopes of gaining financial support for his upcoming recall campaign against Democratic challenger Jennifer Shilling, who currently leads Kapanke by 14 points in the latest polling data available.

Kapanke took to the offensive in his email, blasting protesters who occupied the Capitol earlier this year for damaging the building. In a political campaign where issues should matter above what protesters did, this tactic is clearly about associating Shilling with "vandals," something the protesters certainly were not.

Besides trying to push aside the issues facing his campaign, however, Kapanke also exaggerated the amount of damage done to the Capitol, using figures released earlier by Department of Administration head (and Gov. Walker ally) Mike Huebsch. The damage, Kapanke claimed, was over $7.5 million dollars.

But in reality, the damage was much smaller than that -- only about $260,000.

To put Kapanke's claim against that pesky thing called "reality," it may help to provide a visual. Let's suppose one "|" character is equivalent to $250,000 in state government spending. With that in mind, the actual costs of cleaning up the Capitol building would be as follows:

|

Now consider the claim that Dan Kapanke's email to Tea Party supporters is making regarding costs for repairs:

||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||

I'm no statistician, but I can tell you this: making a claim that is 30 times greater than what it really is -- a claim that was refuted nearly four months ago -- is bad politics.

In response to their carelessness, the Kapanke campaign stated that they had referenced an incorrect estimate that had been published previously, but that "any costs to the taxpayers that are unnecessary such as damages to public property or recall elections hurt Wisconsin."

That, too, is troubling for Kapanke and the Republican Party in general. Criticizing the protests is one thing: stating that recall campaigns are unnecessary is totally wrong. When constituents -- real-life citizens from Kapanke's own senate district -- desire a recall, it's not up to the candidate involved to scoff them off and state that they're "unnecessary." Rather, it's up to that candidate to plead his case, to convince his constituents that he is indeed the right man for the job after all. If he can't do that, then surely the recall was warranted.

Republican candidates like Kapanke can't even make the fiscal conservative argument anymore without being complete hypocrites -- by running "zombie" candidates against Democrats, Republicans are costing taxpayers more than $428,000 through prolonging the recall process.

Again, I'm no statistician -- but last time I checked, $260,000 was a lot less than $428,000.

Kapanke was wrong to make the assertion to supporters that protesters caused millions of dollars in damage, months after that claim was completely debunked. It's great of his campaign to have retracted that statement, but they're still wrong to assume that the recalls are unnecessarily placing financial burdens on the taxpayers, especially since Republicans are making the process more costly. His own constituents wanted a recall -- and on August 9, they'll get their chance to let him know how they really feel about him.

How we will "win" Wisconsin back

2011-06-28T10:17:00.000-07:00

New vision for the state needs to be more than anti-Walker

Wisconsin is headed in a disastrous direction. This isn't just an individual view either, not simply the "musings from the mind of a Madison liberal": most in the state have determined that Republicans, led by Gov. Scott Walker, are pushing us toward policies and initiatives that will make Wisconsin less hospitable to working families, the elderly, and the young.

In fact, a majority in the state are now hoping that the recall campaigns result in a Democratic-led Senate, effectively stalling Walker's plans to subsidize his corporate donors at the expense of the people. More than half the state also disapproves of the governor's job performance, and half want him to be recalled next year.

The people want some serious changes. Bully tactics in the legislature, arrogance in the governor's office, and violence in the state's highest court -- these are not the ideals that Wisconsinites espouse, not the vision people had in mind when they elected Walker as governor last November. In six short months of Scott Walker in office, Wisconsin has done a complete 180. Buyer's remorse has set in, and Gov. Walker is no longer seen as the leader he once was.

It's clear that the citizens of our state want new management, desire a Wisconsin that reflects a positive direction for our people in the 21st century. Fixing the problems that Walker & co. have created won't be easy -- it will take a lot of hard work. But in order to take Wisconsin back from corporate thugs and the "cronyistic" practices of the Walker administration, we need a balanced approach that explains not only how much further Scott Walker can destroy our state if left in office but also what we can do to make Wisconsin even better.

Telling someone that Scott Walker is bad for Wisconsin is one thing. When the time for his recall comes, however, we will also need to explain why his opponent (whomever that may be) is not only better for the state, but also great for it as well.

Walker's slogan against his Democratic opponent in 2010 was very negative -- he described Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett as "Worse than Doyle," alluding to comparisons of policy between Barrett and then-Gov. Jim Doyle, who became very unpopular during the last years of his tenure. It turned out that it was Walker who best fit that moniker -- but it was missed by the voters due to his nice-guy persona, the belief by many that he was truly looking out for Wisconsin's best interests.

Calling Walker worse than anybody, even the worst the state has possibly seen, would help whoever runs against him. And yet, it won't help that person win any more than Walker's slogan could have helped him on its own. Walker won by comparing his opponent to an unpopular officeholder (as well as having the luck of anti-Obama hysteria sweep the nation), but he also won by making himself look positive while doing so.

We need to highlight the negatives from Walker's first year in office, but we also need to create a vision for Wisconsinites to see that will push our state forward. This vision needs to involve those that have been scorned most by the Walker administration -- and right now, that list is pretty long. Working families, the elderly, union households, students (K-12 and beyond), local breweries, farmers, the cognitively and physically disabled...this is just the short list of those who have a score to settle against Gov. Scott Walker.

There needs to be a strong, articulated vision promoted by progressives if we are to take our state back, in both 2011 and 2012. That vision needs to include things most everyone can get behind, including: adequate care for seniors and the disabled; education attainable to all who seek it; health coverage to those that can't normally afford it; and a tax code that addresses the growing gap in wealth between the impoverished and the extremely wealthy. This is a vision ordinary Wisconsinites can get behind because it is a vision that corresponds to our state's traditional values.

And that's precisely what needs to be won if we're to "win" our state back -- not a battle of policy positions, or of one ideology over another, but rather of values, of whether we are to preserve a Wisconsin that has existed for several generations. Compare our values to those of present-day conservatism, which includes an unregulated market intended to benefit large corporate interests while leaving working families and consumer protections out of the picture entirely.

It shouldn't be too difficult to compete with the values of greed, but progressives need to define their vision for the state better than they did in 2010 if they hope to make things right. Without a clear vision, without a candidate that's able to not only "speak" that vision but also "be" it as well, we will lose the fight to keep the Wisconsin we grew up with intact.

We win when we tell people precisely what they want to hear (and follow through on it once we're elected): we're not going to stand on the sidelines when the elderly, the sick, the poor, our students, our workers, and others are struggling. When we fail to help those in need, when our government fails to adhere to our traditional state morals, Wisconsin itself ceases to be. In short, we win when we tell the people we won't allow the Wisconsin we all love to disappear.

Recalls are not a "problem" for Wisconsin

2011-06-27T12:49:00.000-07:00

Movement to discourage "process of the people" misses the point entirely

Originally posted at Dane101.com:

The Wisconsin State Journal editorial board this week wrote a piece on recall elections in Wisconsin and the toll that they're taking on the citizens of this state.

Titled "The gall of recalls," the article posits that, unless we slow down the tide of threats against one another through electoral recalls, the state will not recover from the political messes that have come about in the past six or seven months.

"At some point," the article states, "after regular elections are held, the will of the people must be respected. They have chosen their leaders, for better or for worse."

It's touching that the State Journal wants to return to normalcy, wants there to be less hostility in our governing process during a tumultuous time for our state. For offering a solution to a perceived problem, the right-leaning (but often level-headed) paper should be given a "kudos" of some kind or some level.

However, to state that the recalls are what's driving our state bonkers ignores the true problems that lie behind their necessity. The State Journal cannot see the forest for the trees; or, to use another metaphor, prescribes a remedy for the symptoms of a virus but not for the cure to the disease itself.

Will Wisconsinites tire of the recalls this state is facing? Having personally spoken to constituents from several targeted communities, I can tell you that a good handful of people are already tired of them. But these same people are also tired of the politics of partisanship, weary of the bullying from the current incarnation of Republican legislators (and from the governor himself, Scott Walker). And yes, some are tired of the Democrats, too, for taking hard blows at the current party in power and taking drastic steps to prevent them from carrying out their "duties."

But the people are also upset with the direction our state is taking. For the most part, the people can't understand how defunding programs for seniors, the cognitively and physically disabled, students from kindergarten to college, and those living well below decent standards of living will help the state in the long run. Making Wisconsin "open for business" is one thing, one goal that most people can get behind; but "closing" it to working families is something the people of this state can't begin to fathom as morally sound.

Which is precisely why we should reject the entire notion of these recalls being based on "just one vote," as the Wisconsin State Journal and other publications and pundits have asserted it being. The people have signed recall petitions for much more than the issue of collective bargaining -- they have signed them based on the character of those who currently serve them, based on the positions senators have taken on education and social program cuts, and on the overall direction our governor and his legislative allies are hoping to take this state in.

The recalls aren't just about union rights -- though those, too, are important -- but they're about preserving the values of Wisconsin itself.

Publications like the State Journal believe that the recall process is too damaging, that the mass call for the ousting of senators will do too much damage to the state overall. I, alongside others in Wisconsin, argue a different point: the recalls don't hurt the levels of civic engagement within Wisconsin, but rather encourage people to become more vigilant in their observations of state politics.

Yes, it can be annoying to have a recall every time a 25 percent voter threshold is met. But it also is a way for the people themselves to have a direct "check" on their representatives. We can argue till we're blue in the face about the merits of recalls, about whether a person's values or votes truly do represent the direction their constituents want Wisconsin to go. But we must never believe that recalls themselves, the process of keeping our state legislators, governors, even judges in line with our values, is in itself "wrong."

The people must have some power left to their disposal, to exercise their control over the government which supposedly represents their interests. Being a part of a democracy doesn't mean simply voting every few years, or even being satisfied with the results of those elections (even when your "side" wins). Being a part of a democracy means doing those things while also holding your representatives accountable for the actions and votes they take part in between electoral seasons.

The process of recall elections, while annoying to some, is one way that the people, not the politicians, remain in power of their own governments. By encouraging readers to scoff at the process, to view it in a cynical fashion, is troublesome for a paper like the Wisconsin State Journal, which usually encourages higher levels of civic engagement and open governance.

Justice Prosser grabs Justice Walsh's neck

2011-06-25T13:25:00.000-07:00

Violent confrontation not uncommon for conservative justice

Revealed this weekend were allegations that State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser, fresh off of his re-election campaign in April, became involved in a physical altercation with one of the Court's other female justices.

According to several accounts, Prosser met with fellow Justice Ann Walsh Bradley (whom he once described as a "master at deliberately goading people into perhaps incautious statements") in her office. After a few verbal spats regarding the collective bargaining case that the justices were set to rule on, Prosser grabbed Bradley's neck with his hands.

This isn't the first time that Prosser has had an issue with his temper. As a state legislator, Prosser had a tantrum because a film crew was documenting him within the State Assembly during debate on a health bill.

Prosser's temperamental attitude followed him into the Supreme Court. Earlier this year, for example, Prosser had called Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson a "bitch" and that he'd "destroy" her politically. At the time, Prosser believed he was justified in doing so -- "I probably overreacted, but I think it was entirely warranted,” Prosser said.

Regarding his wrapping his hands around the neck of a female justice, Prosser has remained mum. "I have nothing to say about it," he said.

Prosser can remain silent for as long as he'd like; but he would better serve our state by coming forward and apologizing for his actions. It's unthinkable that anyone would do this to their fellow "coworker." That a person in such a distinguished position of power (a member of their state's high court) would conduct himself in such a way is unconscionable, especially since physical violence (or even the threat of it) towards any judge is considered a criminal act.

Prosser's very presence on the Court will continue to tarnish its reputation, and perhaps create an unfit working environment for his fellow justices. The proper thing to come from this incident is for Prosser himself to resign. It's doubtful, however, that a man so sure of his own righteousness could be humble enough to recognize his own limitations as well...and that's why I won't be holding my breath waiting for Justice Prosser to do the right thing.

UPDATE (Sunday June 26): Both Justices Prosser and Bradley have since come out with comments regarding the situation. Prosser denies the allegations placed against him, while Bradley confirms that she was indeed choked by the conservative justice. Conflicting opinions on the incident at hand...stay tuned for more information as it comes.

"SOLIDARITY FOREV--" PUNCH!

2011-06-22T09:30:00.000-07:00

Fringe conservative activists attack peaceful protesters in Capitol
What I'm about to write isn't a characterization of every conservative. I have plenty of right-wing friends whom I have much respect for, whom I consider outstanding citizens despite our disagreements.

But there is a growing fringe element within the conservative wing of American politics that believes itself above the law, and justifies violent actions through their righteous believes in their supposed "superiority." Sadly, this fringe element isn't just happening in places far away, but in our own backyard as well.

On June 21, the Wisconsin Network for Peace and Justice organized its Solidarity Sing-Along, as it had done every day since February when the protests against Gov. Walker began. Emphasizing citizen activism through peaceful means, the group had never caused any harm to anyone, aside from annoying a few legislators within the Capitol.

But some gun rights activists, there that day in support of the State Assembly's passage of concealed carry, apparently didn't appreciate the group's peaceful message. Instead, they took it upon themselves to disturb the singers.

The conservative demonstrators draped their "Don't Tread On Me" flag over the heads of singers, "[hiting] several of the singers in the head as they attempted to raise the banner over their backs." Former State Sen. Dave Zien (who had his leg amputated earlier this year due to a motorcycle accident) used his wheelchair to roll over the personal belongings of the singers, yelling "WALKER FOR PRESIDENT!" while doing so.

But perhaps most disturbing was what happened next. When one peaceful protester attempted to removed the "Don't Tread On Me" flag from his person, pulling it away from the flag-bearer while doing so, the response of the gun rights protester was incredibly vile: he punched the peaceful singer in the face, chipping a tooth in the process.

These conservative activists, who acted in violent ways within the People's House (in response to people singing, for Pete's sake!), are also the most ardent supporters of allowing concealed carry within the Capitol. Heaven only knows what would have happened had they had their guns on them during this event. I personally hope that the character of these people, in spite of their lewd behavior, is better than that, that they wouldn't have resorted to such violent intimidation -- but I also never expected anything like the events of yesterday to have occurred either.

Violence or intimidation through the threat of violence is never acceptable in political discourse. But the fringe elements of the conservative movement are proving that they disagree with that sentiment, that they have a right to intimidate and even cause bodily harm to others.

Such bully tactics should be rejected, both in our Capitol Building and elsewhere. These actions aren't simply immoral, but un-American as well, seeing as their main goal is the suppression of ideas. A free exchange of beliefs -- even those we may vehemently disagree with -- should never be suppressed, in this or any other fashion.

"Fighting" Bob La Follete's legacy in danger

2011-06-21T13:35:00.000-07:00

Current Gov. Scott Walker's vision destroying "Fighting" Bob's ideals

Last week, June 14, was “Fighting” Bob La Follette’s birthday, arguably Wisconsin’s most celebrated governor. Living at a time when robber barons and corporate bosses ruled the political landscape, La Follette broke the mold and governed on behalf of real people. But if he had been alive to witness the events of his birth-week he’d likely have had some choice words for the direction his state decided to take through the votes on the current biennial budget and other issues affecting the Dairy Land.

The vision that “Fighting” Bob had for Wisconsin was a state by the people, for the people. He’d likely disapprove of the move to rid state workers of their bargaining rights -- he was an ardent supporter of worker protections and liberties. He’d surely be opposed to cuts in education, FamilyCare and other social service programs designed to help Wisconsinites facing difficult times. And there’s no doubt he’d be appalled at the actions of Republicans for their sneaky tactics to prolong the recall process (the very process he helped bring to Wisconsin).

The state that La Follette envisioned Wisconsin to become was meant to be the envy of the nation -- and for a time, it was. We’ve topped the country in sciences for countless years, we recently were named the best state in the nation in terms of graduation rates, and our cities are constantly named the best to live in across the country.

But the legacy of our state’s greatest governor is in grave danger of being overshadowed and destroyed by a man who’s making a compelling case to become our state’s worst.

Scott Walker’s vision for Wisconsin is the antithesis of Robert La Follette’s. Rather than putting trust in the people themselves, Walker is putting our state in the hands of the corporate elite. Rather than investing in our children’s educational progress, Walker is investing this state’s tax dollars into the pocketbooks of his personal campaign donors and giving cushy jobs to his administration’s cronies. And rather than placing care towards the elderly, disabled, or downtrodden in Wisconsin, Walker is instead raising taxes on them and cutting their services drastically -- all while giving hundreds of millions of dollars in tax BREAKS to the state’s wealthiest corporations.

La Follette fought against corporate influence at a time when it was the norm in American politics. It’s clear to even the most novice of political observers that our current governor, Scott Walker, is quite alright with these practices, even encouraging such influence over the will of the people.

The citizens of this state aren’t supportive of this governor’s vision. When you look at the wage gap between the wealthy and the poor, when you examine the value of education within Wisconsin across several generations, and when you consider the consequences of defunding social programs designed to bring help to those in need during a time of economic duress, it’s clear that the Wisconsin we know and love cannot survive under the governorship of Scott Walker.

This state is in desperate need of another “Fighting” Bob La Follette. The question is, is there anyone who is prepared to take on the role? Wisconsin might not be able to preserve its integrity without someone stepping up to the task soon. Gov. Walker and his legislative allies must be stopped if we’re to keep Wisconsin moving “forward.”

State GOP hypocritical in move to change recall process

2011-06-21T07:52:00.000-07:00

Moves to restrain democratic privileges completely political, partisan

If you're still not convinced that Republicans in our state are hypocrites, just look at what they're doing now as proof positive of what so many of us already knew.

In an effort perhaps to stop future occurrences, Republicans are mulling around ideas designed to stall or hamper the recall process in Wisconsin. Their rationale to the people? The recall process is forcing senators into campaign mode during a time when they should be working, thus stalling and/or sidetracking work that must be done within the legislature.

To any educated observer, however, it's clear that the recalls haven't really stalled anything: Gov. Scott Walker's radically conservative budget was passed, as were voter ID, concealed carry, and a plethora of other Republican agenda items.

But besides being flat-out wrong about the effects of the recall process, Republicans are also being hypocritical. If their true concerns are about the potential delays caused by the recall process, you would think they'd try to streamline the current recalls as quickly as possible.

Instead, Republicans are doing just the opposite, running "zombie" conservative candidates in Democrats' clothing to force recall challengers into primary contests. Doing so pushes the recall elections from July 12 to August 9.

Not only does this move prolong the very process Republicans complain takes too much time to carry out, but it also costs taxpayers more money to implement, in some senate districts doubling the costs of what a standard recall would be.

This whole fiasco makes the Republicans in our state hypocrites two times over: first, in delaying a process they claim is far too distracting; and second, in increasing electoral costs to the taxpayer, a move they had been all-too critical of during the State Supreme Court recount.

Their agenda being completely political in the first place, it's really not a big surprise to see the GOP acting political when it comes to "reforming" the recall process. It's just a shame that it's the citizens of this state who have to deal with both the costs and the potential setbacks to their democratic privileges if Republicans get their way.

McCain says immigrants caused fire, but lacks evidence

2011-06-20T12:29:00.000-07:00

Republican Senator tries to make political issues where none yet exist

On Saturday, June 18, U.S. Sen. John McCain made a hefty claim about the role that "illegal" immigrants played in Arizona wildfires.

"There is substantial evidence that some of these fires are caused by people who have crossed our border illegally," McCain said at his press conference over the weekend. "The answer to that part of the problem is to get a secure border."

McCain's comments came in the wake of the Wallow wildfire in his home state, which has burned hundreds of thousands of acres thus far. Though not stating directly that the Wallow fire was the result of undocumented immigrants, McCain's statements heavily insinuated that they may have played a hand in it.

But McCain's assertions carry no weight to them. In fact, Tom Berglund, a U.S. Forest Service spokesman, says he "isn't aware" of any evidence that suggests undocumented immigrants played any role in the Wallow fire.

"There's no evidence that I'm aware, no evidence that's been public, indicating such a thing," Berglund said.

McCain's handlers later said that he had meant that SOME wildfires had been caused by immigrants in the past, and that he wasn't referring specifically to Wallow. But why bring it up if not to make that insinuation? McCain is clearly trying to make an issue out of a tragic event using evidence that is complete rubbish.

It's shameful that McCain feels the need to make his point about a border fence during this event. With so many people being affected by the wildfires in Arizona, it's ridiculous to turn the thing into a political talking point, especially when that talking point played no role that we know of in the tragedy at hand. McCain ought to retract his statement, or at the very least apologize for bringing it up during a moment when it was inappropriate to do so.

A rant in defense of progressive taxation

2011-06-18T12:16:00.000-07:00

Best way to fund government, benefit society, through progressive model

This could be described as a rant of sorts. I'm doing something I never really do on Political Heat -- going into a blog post with no coherent plan.

The reason I'm doing this is because I have a general feeling I want to express, a feeling of discontent that needs to be addressed. The best way for me to personally do this is to simply write-it-out, get my thoughts out there in written word.

I'm upset with the current state of the world, specifically our nation and our state. We're the most affluent country in the world, and yet so many continue to struggle. We're home to the most billionaires on earth (we have a full third of the total), yet almost 15 percent of our population is living in poverty, including more than 12 million children.

Despite these conditions, despite the enormous gap in wealth between the rich and the poor, there are some who think it's not enough, that the rich deserve to control even more. But when the top one percent of wage earners control more than 40 percent of the wealth in this country -- or when the bottom 80 percent of wage earners control only 7 percent of it -- something is wrong.

The common meme among conservatives is that any raise in taxes or new social program to help those in need is an assault on a person's livelihood, that it's somehow a socialist redistribution of wealth. But with the distribution of wealth as it is described above, with the reality of a system that is killing off the middle class and the American dream, isn't it the duty of governments to determine what is and isn't an obscene distribution of wealth? On the one hand, yes, forcing rich people to hand over a large chunk of their paychecks is wrong. But is it wrong to ask of them to give a certain percentage of their paychecks after a certain amount is earned? If we say "If you earn more than $200,000, we believe you should pay X percent of every dollar after that," is it an unfair redistribution of wealth?

A vast majority (two-thirds) of Americans believe we should raise taxes on income earned above $250,000. This isn't some socialist plot we're talking about -- the majority of Americans don't consider themselves socialists, but a majority of people do believe in a progressive form of taxation, that the rich ought to pay more than the poor.

It isn't about equality of wealth (because most people would tell you that wouldn't work anyway) but rather equality of opportunity. A child born today to a poor family has little chance of succeeding completely on their own. But through generous programs (food stamps, health care assistance, etc.) the family that is unable to fend for itself suddenly sees some burdens alleviated slightly. Through continued governmental help (student loans), the child is able to gain an education that can push him to realize his full potential.

These programs can be funded through taxes, with more being paid by the rich. But how can we justify a tax system which expects more to be paid by the wealthiest? Simple: an extravagant life diminished by a higher percentage of taxes is still extravagant. Taxing the rich a higher amount proportionally than everyone else still leaves that group of people rich. If we were to tax them out of their income bracket, that'd be another thing altogether -- it'd be an unfair hindrance upon their lifestyles, a way of life that they had earned having. But telling a billionaire that he might only be a multimillionaire after his taxes are paid isn't something that should be of heavy concern -- that single person is still able to live the life of several thousand Americans living in poverty pooling their economic resources together.

It comes down to this for me personally, and I believe that many feel the same way that I do: at some point a certain amount of wealth and extravagance becomes grotesque. And the free market would have the wealth gap grow even more if it could have its way. Consider this: between 1990-2005, the average pay (using 2005 dollar figures) for CEOs went up nearly 300 percent. Profits for corporations went up more than 106 percent. But how much did the average worker gain? A mere 4 percent. And minimum wage actually went down (again, in terms of 2005 dollars) by nearly 10 percent.

How is that fair? I'm not going to say that we need to tie CEO and workers' pay together proportionally. But perhaps moves can be made to ensure that workers who are clearly being left behind have mechanisms and institutions available to them to help in their needs. If a family struggles between buying groceries and paying the rent, food stamps should be an option. If health costs are out of reach, or a pre-existing condition prevents a family member (or members) from being treated fairly, affordable health options need to be made accessible. If a student that is academically gifted wants to further their education, they should be given the tools and resources needed to enter a college or university.

Our country is great for a myriad or reasons, none of them strictly of one ideology or the other. We pride ourselves on our individualism; but we also are strong because of our collectivism. Capitalism has made us strong, but so too has our ability to help others in dire times. We needn't be fearful of a little influence from each side of the economics debate -- but extremes in either direction can be dangerous. A stifling of capitalism can be very detrimental to the American way of life -- but so too can an absolute adherence to free market principles that can cause harm to both consumers and workers.

A balance can be achieved. It's a balance that may need constant correction as time dictates it, but like the Mayflower traveling across the Atlantic Ocean towards the New World, constant correction is required of government. We cannot say that a strict percentage of this amount is good twenty years down the road. The Bush tax cuts may have been good policy for about two years, but right now they're killing our country. As the needs of certain times dictate it, government should be empowered to correct society's ills as they come along.

Certainly people should be allowed to shoot for certain objectives in their lives, including the obtaining of wealth. But at a certain point, extreme wealth comes at the expense of society overall. Taxing a proportion of extreme wealth can benefit society while still causing no harm to the rich in the end. We needn't unnecessarily fear a progressive form of taxation.

WI Sup Ct issues a ruling of injustice

2011-06-16T12:15:00.000-07:00

State Sup. Ct. ruling allows legislature to enforce its own rules

A quick statement about the recent State Supreme Court ruling.

As it was two days ago, I know it's old news; still, the implications of the ruling that the anti-collective bargaining bill was passed legally are too staggering to ignore.

What the State Supreme Court essentially said in its majority opinion is that the rules of the legislature (even when passed as law) are subject to that body's own interpretations, that no other institution has the right to determine whether violations occur. That may seem like a healthy dose of autonomy between branches of government -- but in reality, the judgment has serious consequences.

If a violation of a law that affects legislative rules occurs, who will step in to remedy it? Like the fox watching the hen-house, the legislature cannot fairly police itself. Through the common practice of checks and balances, the judiciary must involve itself within the disputes of the legislature. Who else but the interpreters of the law are best equipped to determine whether or not our elected representatives are acting within it?

The legislature, too, is empowered with certain privileges, including the right to change or modify laws that it deems improper. But to grant this body the power to enforce its own rules (as this ruling now does) borders on Nixonian. Indeed, in the same way as the embattled president once insisted "when the president does it, that means it's not illegal," the state legislature can now assume that when it breaks the rules, it's really not that big a deal.

We shouldn't allow the players of our democracy to also be the referees. It's also not the time for the people to become mere spectators to this atrocity.

2011-06-14T09:43:00.000-07:00

I have so much I want to write today, but no time to do it. Look for comments on today's events tonight or tomorrow. Solidarity forever...

Rules on ending collective bargaining to be included in state budget

2011-06-13T10:58:00.000-07:00

Republicans will place item in budget if not ruled on by Supreme Court by tomorrow

Just posted minutes ago at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

The Legislature will put Gov. Scott Walker’s limits on collective bargaining into the state budget Tuesday if the state Supreme Court hasn’t ruled on the matter by then, Assembly Speaker Jeff Fitzgerald (R-Horicon) said Monday.

“If need be, we are going to have to pass collective bargaining again,” Fitzgerald said at a Capitol news conference. “My caucus is more solid on that collective bargaining vote than they ever have been.”

What's worse, the state legislature is set to enter an "extraordinary session," which means that meetings don't have to be announced under the rules they're normally run by.

And oh, hey, remember when non-fiscal matters in a budget were considered a sinful act? Yeah, neither does the state GOP.

Disgraceful. But not shocking.

Recall election dates moved to August 9

2011-06-13T09:08:00.000-07:00

Democratic "placeholder" candidates ensure uniform election date
Republicans have made it clear: they don't want to give their constituents a fair shot at determining their futures.

By attempting to run "zombie" candidates against Democrats in the recall campaigns facing them, Republican senators are spoiling the democratic process by which our state has adhered to for generations. The right to issue recalls against your representatives -- be they at the state, local, or even national levels -- is one that has been a part of our state since the Progressive era.

Rather than standing behind the rules already set in place, Republicans have sought to spoil the process by running Republican-aligned candidates in Democratic primaries. Doing so will force Democrats to raise more money and give Republicans time to stall the recall process until August 9.

Not all of the Democrats would face such primaries, however, which would also make things complicated as far as a uniform date for all the recall elections within the entire state...some could be on the July 12 date while others would have a primary on that day and a general election a month later.

The potential confusion led the Democratic Party of Wisconsin to come up with a new plan. Rather than having separate election days, the DPW determined it would be best to have one single general election day. In order to do that, of course, every Democrat would have to have a primary election.

Running "placeholder" candidates -- candidates who are actually aligned with Democrats -- up against those trying to run in the recalls was the only option the party truly had. It ensures a single general election date for all the recalls of August 9.

Though the date is set later, the strategy for recall requires that voters understand the day their votes will be counted. August 9 is much too late for a lot of us (the damage Republicans can do with an extra month in power could be great) -- but it will help ensure that all six Republicans up for recall will be replaced.

Vicki McKenna wants zombie protesters silenced

2011-06-10T15:20:00.000-07:00

Talk-show host encourages suppression of zombie speech rights

When zombie protesters came to the Capitol earlier this week, they took a lot of heat from people believing that their actions interfered with an event taking place there.

Gov. Walker was speaking to a group of Special Olympians when the zombies (students from the United Council) decided to stage a silent protest. (Sidenote: though the zombies were from the UC, the UC was actually trying to stage an event inside the Capitol; the protest before the Special Olympics event was the result of "rogue zombies.") They stood before the governor, their backs to his face, without uttering a single word while he spoke (not even a grunt). Afterwards, the zombies even shook the hands of the Olympians when they left.

Some on the right believed that their protest crossed a line -- it was a non-partisan event, after all, that the governor had participated in, honoring those with special needs and the accomplishments they had performed. Others supported the protest as a sign of grave importance -- the governor was advocating a budget that would cut many vital services for the very Olympians that were now in his midst. The irony of his support of these athletes during a photo op shouldn’t have been lost on anyone.

Both points of view make sense, and I certainly understand both the importance of the protests as well as the respect of those who aren’t involved in them one way or the other. Arguments could be made for both sides, which is why when the event occurred (I was actually at the Capitol that day) I didn’t take a position on the issue. Frankly, I empathize with both sides.

One thing that should be noted was that these protesters, even if engaging in a questionable demonstration, were respectful. Even the coordinators of the event honoring the Special Olympians went on record saying that the student zombies didn’t detract much from the athletes, that they were there protesting the governor but respecting the importance of the event they were attending as well.

"We were all a little bit on edge, but it turned out for the best," [spokeswoman for the Special Olympics Rachel] Grant said. "Nothing was disruptive at all."

Kelly Kloepping, another Special Olympics official, said the protesters were respectful and did not diminish the excitement the Special Olympians felt about being in Madison to meet Walker and other leaders.

"We feel it's really about the athletes," Kloepping said. "We knew the protesters were there, but they were respectful of our athletes."

Which is why it’s incredibly disheartening to hear someone like local talk show host Vicki McKenna advocate for violence against said protesters.

H/T to Sly in the Morning:

[These protesters were] so soulless and filthy and immorral, that honestly, I mean, if somebody would have piled on them and started throwing punches...I would have looked at that and said ‘Dirtbags deserved it.'

Vicki McKenna isn’t exactly a classy lady. She has definitely made a name for herself by being outspoken. But this is low even for her own standards.

First things first: the zombie protesters have the right to protest any public event, especially one at the grounds of the Capitol. Whether their actions were tasteless or not is irrelevant (though obviously worth debating): Gov. Walker still deserves to face his constituents wherever he goes, whether that’s support or dissent. It’s a First Amendment protection guaranteed to all citizens of this country that, so long as their speech doesn’t interfere with the rights of others, their rights are protected.

But what McKenna said on the air was appalling. She actually encourages a suppression of the right to free speech, would like for others to “pile on” these zombies and start “throwing punches.”

Our society is one celebrated for its openness, believed to be great the world over because of its protection of rights, including those of speech. To have someone like McKenna suggest that some forms of speech should be shut out, even if they’re not appreciated by most, shows definitively her own disrespect for the rights guaranteed to all, notions that have been protected since the early years of our nation’s history.

When we ignore these rights, even in zombie protests, we ignore the very foundation of our country. McKenna is welcome to be critical of the protesters -- as I said before, there certainly is a case to make that their actions were inappropriate -- but she’s wrong to advocate or encourage violent means to suppress their speech rights.

Republican "spoiler" candidates spoil democracy

2011-06-07T10:18:00.000-07:00

GOP encourages fake candidates to run against Democratic recall challengers

Republican senators facing recall elections have come up with a cunning plan: force their Democratic challengers into primary elections in order to delay their inevitable dismissal. In doing so, Democrats will have to raise more money in order to win the primary election within their respective districts (and possibly fend off discrediting remarks that their pseudo-Democratic opponents will bring about).

Wisconsin's Republican leaders (including Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald) are justifying the use of fake elections as necessary to give GOP Senators the chance to campaign fairly. Says GOP executive director Stephan Thompson:

'The Republican Party of Wisconsin has advocated that protest candidates run in Democratic primaries to ensure that Republican legislators have ample time to communicate with voters throughout their districts after the state budget is approved,' Thompson said in his statement.

In considering Thompson's assertions, a valid question comes about: did the Democrats do a similar thing in running off to Illinois in order to prevent passage of the collective bargaining bill? Certainly the Wisconsin 14 tried to bring the subject to the forefront by prolonging the length of time required to pass the bill. Are the Republican senators doing the same thing now?

Let's think about this for a bit. In fleeing the state, the Democrats were trying to prevent passage of a bill that most of the state had opposed. What they did wasn't even illegal, though it was frowned upon. But their intentions were to preserve the rights of workers, rights that a majority of the state supported keeping intact.

The Republicans, on the other hand, are trying to use underhanded tactics to help them win an electoral campaign. They're encouraging people to challenge their opponents in primary elections they have no business meddling in -- these pseudo-candidates support conservative policies and the Republican candidates for office. What point is there in having them run in Democratic primaries then? The answer is that they're simply there to make things more difficult for the recall process.

Whether you support the Wisconsin 14 that went to Illinois or not is up to you -- regardless of your feelings on it, however, they were attempting to adhere to their constituents' wishes and in fact the wishes of the entire state. What the Republicans are doing here, however, isn't similar in that goal, doesn't come close to adhering to constituents' wishes. The Republicans are attempting to preserve their seats through these disgraceful means simply to keep themselves in power. By extending and interfering with the electoral process, the state GOP is acting in a way that not only is disrespectful of their constituents but also further justifies exactly why these recall elections are necessary.

It's not illegal, of course, which means it's OK for them to encourage "spoiler" candidates. But what the Republicans in this state are advocating is simply disgusting, for both Wisconsin and the ideals of democracy. There is no shame left within the Republican Party -- as long as they remain in power, we're left in the hands of vile and despicable leaders.

WI Dems to announce Gov. Walker recall intentions

2011-06-03T13:19:00.000-07:00

Chairman to make announcement at DPW convention in Milwaukee tonight

Tonight, after Chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin Mike Tate makes the announcement we've all been waiting for, it will officially be "on."

In a speech set to be delivered this evening, Tate will formally announce the DPW's decision to go after Scott Walker, to officially declare that the party intends to recall the governor for his many attacks upon working men and women, seniors and students, across the state.

In prepared remarks, Tate will tell a crowd full of Democratic delegates that, "We will begin to repair the damage done to this state and we will begin anew with a Democratic Governor who will fight for our children, who will fight for our families, our teachers and our firefighters. We will fight for the people -- not the powerful."

It isn't surprising that the Democrats would want to recall Walker. But the announcement is the most outspoken to be made in the months following the path of destruction that has been the Walker administration. Through destroying rights for workers in the state; changing the tax code to benefit the rich and punish the poor; promoting cronies within his administration while overlooking qualified candidates; cutting education across the state by hundreds of millions of dollars; and ruining social services for seniors, the disabled, and those in dire need -- in short, the utter destruction of Wisconsin values -- Gov. Walker has proven in the first six months of his tenure that his leadership isn't what Wisconsin voted for last November. Through his bait-and-switch tactics of governing, Walker's actions warrant his removal from office.

Wisconsin is ready for such a recall. All across the state, even in communities where conservatives have traditionally done well, "Recall Walker" bumper stickers are appearing everywhere. This governor hasn't just woken up the progressive movement in Wisconsin -- he's woken up the state itself, to the dangers and pitfalls of conservative extremism.

Gov. Walker has shown that he has no shame when it comes to throwing the people of this state under the bus. The people, through the coming recalls of both state legislators as well as the governor himself, will show Walker that such reprehensible behavior, such blatant disrespect for the wishes and well-being of the citizens of Wisconsin, isn't acceptable.

Bring on the recalls for July 12. And bring on the recall of Gov. Walker. A change in how things are done, how our state is run, is desperately needed.

Taxes for the poor, relief for the rich in state GOP budget scheme

2011-06-01T09:28:00.000-07:00

GOP-controlled Budget committee raises taxes on working families

The war on the poor continues in Wisconsin.

Republicans on the Joint Finance Committee approved of Gov. Scott Walker's proposals to raise taxes on low-wage working families with two or more children. Under the provisions that passed the committee, these families would see their state earned income tax credit diminished by more than 20 percent of its current levels.

Within the same budget meeting, Republicans also decided to cut taxes on capital gains, a cut that means more breaks for the wealthiest in Wisconsin. Interestingly enough, a proposal to allow movie theaters to obtain liquor licenses also passed through committee.

It's good to know that Wisconsin Republicans have the people's interests in mind: booze at the movies, tax breaks for the rich, and tax increases for the working population of the state.

The diminishing tax credit for working families comes at a terrible time, where many are still struggling with the lingering effects of the economic recession. But what are the priorities of Republican lawmakers? Build up the pocketbooks of those who are already well-to-do.

Wisconsin families are getting left behind by the GOP's call for more greed, for the belief that the millionaires in our state are the ones facing hardships. Meanwhile, working Wisconsin families continue to face TRUE struggles, living paycheck to paycheck with the hopes that their leaders will make things right, restoring the American dream within the Badger state.

But the people's hopes are falling on deaf ears. Republican leaders will not restore the vision of Wisconsin that the citizens of this state are demanding. Instead, they are destroying our traditions, replacing them with corporate rule and preference for the wealthy elite over the working class.

That's not the Wisconsin we the people deserve. That's a vision of Wisconsin that ultimately fails its citizens. Republicans in the legislature will ruin this state if this budget bill comes to pass.

Gov. Walker's approval ratings slip deeper

2011-05-27T09:39:00.000-07:00

Shift in opinion over job approval due to rejection of initiatives

Gov. Scott Walker’s approval ratings have tanked significantly.

His latest approval numbers (43 percent) are dwarfed by those in the state that disapprove of his job performance (54 percent). What’s more, one-in-two Wisconsinites now believe Walker should face a recall election, a step up from February.

Walker doesn’t fare well if it comes to potential challengers either. In a hypothetical match-up, former U.S. Senator Russ Feingold beats Walker by a ten-point margin (52-42). The man Walker defeated last November, Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, also defeats Walker in a hypothetical election (50-43).

Walker’s dwindling poll numbers are significant for a number of reasons. They indicate that Wisconsin voters are rejecting his proposals for this state, especially those that hurt workers and their families. Cutting and altering social programs like FoodShare and FamilyCare as well as education by a billion dollars doesn’t bode well with the average Wisconsinite. People in our state have determined that the vision Walker is trying to realize isn’t acceptable to the rest of us.

And that’s going to be important coming into these recall elections. If the tide continues to shift like this, the State Senate could change hands (to Democratic control) with relative ease -- a shift that the people of Wisconsin also currently support.

Judge Sumi strikes down anti-worker bill

2011-05-26T09:33:00.000-07:00

Bill passed in illegal manner, violated open meetings law

Judge Maryann Sumi ruled yesterday that the budget repair bill rushed in March through the Republican-controlled state legislature was passed in an illegal manner, violating open meetings law meant to keep the people of Wisconsin informed about legislation up for debate. Her ruling invalidates the law, which was signed by Gov. Walker earlier this year but never implemented.

The controversial bill included provisions that removed collective bargaining rights of state and local workers, a move that Walker has even admitted while under oath saves the state absolutely nothing in terms of the budget.

Before claims of judicial “activism” dominate the right-wing critics of this ruling, let’s examine the issue of this law very carefully, for the facts are very clear. The legislative committee that approved the bill alerted the public less than two hours before they held the meeting. Even under emergency circumstances, the public has the right to be informed at least two hours ahead of time when a piece of legislation is up for discussion. But the passage of this bill wasn’t an emergency -- which means the public was entitled to notice 24 hours ahead of time.

Judge Sumi’s decision to strike down Walker’s anti-worker bill is consistent in keeping with the rule of law. The law itself was an abomination -- indeed, hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites came to Madison to show their dissatisfaction with the law. But despite our ill-feelings towards the bill, it would have still been law had it been passed properly. In this case, our personal feelings on the law (whether supportive or against it) don’t matter -- the law itself was passed in an illegal way, violating the trust of the people of Wisconsin who expect better from their legislative representatives. Anyone who argues differently overlooks long-established rules that were put in place to ensure the people are better able to understand and keep up with proposals in the legislature.

This terrible law was invalidated for the right reasons. If we ignore the rule of law, if we go about passing legislation in this manner, we do a terrible disservice to the people of Wisconsin. Judge Sumi’s ruling preserves our tradition of openness within our lawmaking.

Gingrich ignorant on voting rights

2011-05-24T08:22:00.000-07:00

Fmr House Speaker wants voters disenfranchised based on Jim Crow traditions

Former House Speaker and current presidential candidate New Gingrich is proposing a radical idea -- one that has its origins in the Jim Crow south.

Gingrich is proposing that there ought to be a requirement in place that all voters pass a history exam before they are able to take part in the democratic process.

The proposal certainly has its appeal -- putting this requirement in place would undoubtedly disenfranchise Gingrich's own base, the Tea Partiers, who have a warped and ultra-right wing view of American history that would disqualify them from voting. Under such circumstances, someone with an equally warped view of history (such as Gingrich himself) would be prevented from holding office.

But stripping the people of the right to vote if they fail an examination is a troubling condition towards what should be a universal right. Nothing, not skin color, age, religion, economic status, or even historical perspective, should restrain any individual of the right to take part in their own democracy.

Gingrich's proposal ignores decades of struggle, of the right of those who may not always know the answers (whether through lack of education or deliberate manipulation by the test-givers) to still have a voice in choosing their government leaders. Gingrich is also insensitive to the history of setting conditions towards voting, a history he should be all-too familiar with being a native of the American South. These conditions have been notably racist, purposely favoring white males over people of color during the time of Jim Crow.

In the end, it all boils down to one simply question: Do we really want a guy like this, who would probably fail his own history requirement (if it were indeed administered fairly), to be running the country? Say what you will about President Obama -- at least he has a comprehensive knowledge of American history that is greater than a ninth grade level. Gingrich, it seems, can't make the same claim.

Prosser victorious, but win isn't mandate for Walker

2011-05-23T08:47:00.000-07:00

Election results indicate a shifting attitude among Wisconsin electorate

The Government Accountability Board certified its recount results within the State Supreme Court race today, confirming that sitting Justice David Prosser won the bout by a margin of 7,000 votes -- or less than one-half of one percent of the total ballots cast.

Congratulations are due to Prosser -- he won the election, after all, and despite my frustration with the results they must be respected. The recount was about ensuring the integrity and openness within the election, especially in Waukesha County where County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus discovered 14,000 uncounted ballots days after the election ended, miraculously giving her former boss Prosser a victory. With those results now confirmed after a lengthy recount process, we must respect what they indicate -- that Prosser was the preferred candidate for voters between himself and JoAnne Kloppenburg.

Many on the right will undoubtedly try to say that this election was a referendum on Walker's policies, that the majority of the state, in supporting Walker's preferred judicial candidate, also prefer Walker himself, alongside his anti-worker initiatives.

But that couldn't be more wrong. Firstly, Walker himself, when it looked like Prosser was going to lose, stated that this election wasn't such a referendum. Polls also indicate that Walker's proposals are largely unpopular, particularly those that dealt with workers' rights.

Consider this as well -- if this Supreme Court race was indeed a referendum on Walker, then a sitting incumbent aligned with Walker's policies nearly lost to an unknown candidate, someone whom the state had never heard of before this election took place. A court race to determine who should be placed within a separate branch of government, especially when its outcome is so close, is hardly a call of support across the state to continue these policies...and it's certainly no mandate for Walker.

If anything, these election results indicate a tide of change within Wisconsin, as more people across the state moved left of what the 2010 elections produced in the electorate. Walker is right in telling his disciples this past week that they ought to take the senate recall elections very seriously. But the right also needs to acknowledge the fact that the state made a major swing this past spring, a shift that possibly hasn't yet finished materializing.

Voter ID bill destroys Wisconsin traditions, values

2011-05-20T09:06:00.000-07:00

Access to vote for all severely limited by newly passed legislation

The right to vote, to have a hand in selecting the leadership responsible for managing our government, is a tantamount right deservedly granted to everyone within a democracy (who has attained the proper age to do so, of course). Creating undue restrictions toward this privilege, thereby limiting the ability of citizens to take part in the democratic process, is rightly seen as an injustice, a sin beyond reproach within our society.

But with a single stroke of the pen next week, Gov. Scott Walker and his legislative allies will commit such a sin.

The voter ID bill that passed this week does so much damage to our voting process that some are touting it as the most restrictive in the country -- a stark change for our state as formerly being one of the most respected. Previously, all that was needed to vote was proof of address, such as a utility bill or lease with your name on it. Now, only certain forms of photo ID (with your current address printed on them) will suffice.

The changes will likely affect hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites, and not just those who have a difficult time obtaining an ID. Renters will also be denied access to the ballot box, as many of their valid ID's won't have their current addresses on them either.

This bill goes further than the ID requirement, however. Participation in early absentee voting, a relatively new trend for those seeking to vote before an election day, is also severely curtailed. Prior to this bill, you could submit an absentee ballot up to 30 days before an election -- but that has been shortened significantly, down to a mere seven days. For the elderly especially, as well as those that may have to work on an election day, this is a disheartening departure from a respected practice of allowing those that wish to do so to vote early.

This bill solves a problem that doesn't exist in Wisconsin. Voter fraud, when it happens, gets caught. It's prevalence in our state is minute, lower than levels acceptable to even describe it as a "nuisance."

It seems that the true motivations of this law is to suppress the rights and privileges of people that typically vote against Republicans. It's a shameful display of arrogance, of dismissive attitudes toward established traditions within our state. Wisconsin has celebrated the right to vote, as well as the limited restrictions we've placed on voting, for several generations. It's a sad, sad day when we say "to hell with these traditions!" in favor of restricting access to the vote, a right that so many have fought for, countless have died for, in order to protect.

---

In some ways, it's fitting that Gov. Walker, who is actively working to destroy other valued Wisconsin traditions, will proudly sign the bill that destroys this tradition as well. However, that observation, that little anecdote, however precise it may be, will provide little comfort to those who are set to be turned away at the polls on election days in our state's future. Lawmakers like Walker, as well as Republicans in the legislature, need to lose their power to govern. Support the recall efforts.

Gov. Walker, state Republicans, de-fund women's health grants

2011-05-19T21:23:00.000-07:00

'Love' -- or lack thereof -- for women apparent within GOP proposals

Wisconsin Republicans are making it crystal clear to women in our state: as far as their reproductive health goes, they’re on their own.

Two major aspects within Gov. Walker’s budget bill would limit the abilities of women with low incomes to receive adequate health care. The first was proposed initially by the Walker administration, as a $267,000 cut towards a program designed to give lower income women pelvic examinations to prevent cervical cancer. These screenings have been in place for decades -- and if removed could mean potential death sentences for many young women facing poverty.

The second bit within the budget bill that will affect women’s reproductive health was approved just this week. $1.7 million in grants to women health clinics will be stripped if this bill passes, affecting thousands that depend upon these organizations’ low costs to receive medical care.

Those cuts came in response to Republicans hoping to de-fund organizations that supported or performed abortion services. But the government grants that were funding these groups were tailored specifically to ensure that no taxpayer dollars would fund any abortion whatsoever. Without these grants, major aspects of these clinics’ services unrelated to abortion (free or low-cost contraception, inexpensive examinations, etc.) will be de-funded, in some cases possibly eradicating their availability within certain areas of the state.

These services in fact make up a vast majority of what family planning clinics do for their patients. An organization like Planned Parenthood, for instance, performs far less abortions than what people are led to believe. In fact, non-abortion related services accounted for more than 97 percent of all services performed at Planned Parenthood in 2009, including contraception, STD/STI treatment, cancer screenings and preventions, mammograms, and adoption referrals. Abortion procedures accounted for less than 3 percent of all services.

You may not agree with what these clinics do some of the time -- but grants given to them by the state provide a myriad of services that most WOULD agree are helpful to women facing financial difficulties. Taking away these grants will hurt thousands of women across Wisconsin, limiting their ability to test for diseases or prevent breast, cervical, or other forms of cancer.

Because of these two aspects of the budget bill, one could feasibly come to the conclusion that our state’s leaders just don’t care. The Republicans in the legislature, as well as the one currently occupying the office of the governor, don’t give a damn about the health of our state’s women, particularly those with meager incomes. It’s a shameful fact that, because of this lack of empathy within the GOP, Walker's budget will likely force many women in Wisconsin to suffer dire consequences related to their reproductive health.

Wisconsin’s women deserve better than this, deserve to be treated with respect and dignity -- but mostly, they deserve to be granted the chance to live healthy lives.

Tommy Thompson faces challenges in Senate run

2011-05-17T22:05:00.000-07:00

Former governor may not have 'cakewalk' some may expect

Tommy Thompson is set to become a major contender in the race to replace sitting U.S. Sen. Herb Kohl, who will not seek re-election come 2012. As a multi-term former governor as well as a former secretary head within the Bush administration, Thompson brings a breadth of experience unparalleled by any other potential candidate for office.

But conservatives across the state needn’t celebrate quite yet -- a Republican victory in 2012 isn’t a sure thing, and if Tommy is to stand any chance of winning he’ll need to conquer some pretty intimidating obstacles to do it.

First, he’ll have to deal with the fact that it’s a presidential election year, and that President Obama is sitting pretty comfortably (for now) as an incumbent likely to win re-election. Though their respective elections are separate, the senate race’s outcome may depend heavily on the tide of the national attitudes within the presidential race as well. In short, many Congressional races in 2012 will depend on the outcome of Obama-vs.-whoever the Republicans choose to pick; thus, it’s possible that within a close senatorial race the presidential election will play a pivotal role in determining what kind of voters go to the polls.

Thompson will have to distance himself from the presidential election if the pendulum does indeed swing back into Obama’s and the Democrats’ favor. But he’ll also have to push himself away from statewide political leaders as well, namely Scott Walker. As both men have served or are currently serving as governor of Wisconsin, Tommy may inevitably be asked what he would have done in Walker’s situation -- that is, with regards to the removal of rights for state workers. If he distances himself from Walker’s position, he’ll push away his base that he’ll desperately need in what could become a close race. If he sides with Walker, however, he’ll sink his chances with independents across the state who found Walker’s actions repugnant.

Then there’s the problem of Thompson’s image beyond his political career. As the Democratic Party of Wisconsin pointed out on Tuesday, Thompson spent the better part of the past decade working as a lobbyist to some powerful organizations. The question posed to Wisconsin voters becomes, “To what extent will Thompson be working for us rather than powerful lobbies in Washington?” As a former lobbyist himself, Thompson will have a hard time quelling the concerns of state voters who want someone looking out for them.

These are just a few of the concerns Tommy Thompson will face as a candidate. Beyond them, Thompson will also have to face the ordinary challenges that any candidate for office has to overcome. Though Thompson may seem like a frontrunner right now, these issues and others could stifle his candidacy more than he’d like to admit. With the right challenger, the former governor who never lost a statewide race may lose his first come 2012.

Concealed carry legislation needs more regulation

2011-05-17T11:31:00.000-07:00

Bills lack control, restriction of irresponsible gun owners

Originally posted at Dane101.com

The conceal carry bills, as they stand right now, are irresponsible pieces of legislation, allowing gun owners to carry weapons practically whenever and wherever they'd like. Only one proposed bill (of three) would require any training of any kind (two hours' worth), while the other bills lack even that basic need.

In this age of increased paranoia run amok, there's no telling what someone could be capable of under such circumstances. By allowing citizens this right without proper training, we risk a situation where an ill-informed individual may take advantage of a law that could cause potential harm to many around them.

What irks me most about these proposals is the lack of training necessary to carry a concealed weapon. Even state law enforcement agree that more training is necessary to make these bills safer for Wisconsin.

An argument often made in the gun debate is that more guns make people safer. While the evidence suggests that, at the very least, gun ownership doesn't equate violence, it's tough to assume guns necessarily make us safer on their own. These guns are heavily regulated, whether concealed or not, tracked to ensure that the people who use them are found immediately following their use. Guns are safer, it seems, with stronger regulations attached to them.

These bills deregulate guns, making it legal for anyone to conceal their weapon in public places. Any move towards the deregulation of weapons, however, deserves more care than these bills provide, more attention towards what will keep people (and law enforcement) safer rather than what will make gun enthusiasts happy.

If concealed carry is going to become legal in Wisconsin, it should be implemented with more regulation to ensure it's done right. A two hour session on the issue (or no training session at all) isn't enough to keep families safe in our state. Our Republican legislators fail us by disregarding the importance of this matter.

Senate updates

2011-05-17T09:20:00.000-07:00

Paul Ryan announces that he won't run for U.S. Senate; former Gov. Tommy Thompson is expected to announce he will seek the seat that will be left vacant by sitting Sen. Herb Kohl.

Paul Ryan's own "class warfare"

2011-05-16T22:43:00.000-07:00

Republican representative fails to see hypocrisy in accusation against Obama

It isn't a "class war" to expand basic health coverage to those unable to afford it, nor to attempt to fix the budget through a modest tax increase on the wealthy, who control more than 40 percent of the wealth in this country.

But U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Janesville) seems to think differently. Ryan recently accused President Barack Obama of engaging in "class warfare" through his domestic priorities, including Obama's insistence that the top 2 percent pay more in taxes to help cover the country's debts and fund important programs.

"The president says that only the richest people in America would be affected by his plan," Ryan said, arguing that "class warfare may be clever politics, but it is terrible economics."

...

"Sowing social unrest and class envy makes America weaker, not stronger," the Wisconsin Republican argued.

Mr. Ryan seems to have his priorities backward -- or rather, the priorities of the American people. Most don't care to continue the subsidies for the top 2 percent of income earners, and no one with a sound mind believes in the tired mantra that these people are "job creators" and therefore need more wealth than those actually struggling to find work.

But people DO believe in the importance of helping those in need. Programs designed to help those without, if administered properly, remain popular -- and for good reason: they work, at least when funded properly.

Again, Paul Ryan disagrees with the American people. Unveiling the GOP's proposed budget, Ryan's plan calls drastic for changes to Social Security as well as Medicare, turning the celebrated program into a voucher system.

Doing this will make purchasing insurance more difficult for seniors, who rely on the universal care dispensed by Medicare in their golden years and can't otherwise afford to make up the difference under the proposed voucher program.

It seems that the real culprits of "class warfare" aren't the lawmakers trying to make improvements for a number of people's lives but rather those that blatantly attack an entire segment of the population's ability to seek better opportunities. Call Obama's proposed tax increases what you will -- in the end, the lifestyle of the rich remains intact. Conversely, Ryan's proposal for the poor, the sick, the elderly, etc., makes life more difficult, makes living conditions for the middle- and poorer classes more strained in a time of economic duress.

A common talking point among conservatives is that a "shared sacrifice" is needed among the American people. To balance the budget, fix our economy, and increase the number of jobs in our nation, a shared sacrifice may indeed be required of us -- but the Republican Party's plans for shared sacrifice only includes the working classes, those that are facing the brunt of the crisis our nation is dealing with.

If Paul Ryan wants to talk class warfare, he should consider for a moment which classes are getting hit hardest by his economic vision, and then consider how rich the wealthy will remain under Obama's plan as well. Obama doesn't hit the wealthy too hard with his proposal; Ryan's plan, on the other hand, hits the poorest Americans beyond what is acceptable.

The benefits (yes, benefits) of a Paul Ryan Senate run

2011-05-15T22:10:00.000-07:00

A Ryan campaign for Senate could result in dual wins for Dems

Would a Paul Ryan Senate-run turn out to be a good thing?

Consider this scenario: if the political "pendulum" swings back in favor of liberals and progressives in 2012 (a real possibility at this point), President Obama will coast back to a second term to the White House with a wave of Democratic candidates joining him in Congress. If Ryan runs against a formidable Democratic challenger -- someone who could win an open election on their own merit but may have even better chances within this possible "pendulum swing" -- Democrats not only retain a seat in the Senate but remove Ryan from his position in Congress within the House as well, as he wouldn't be able to run for both seats at the same time. And if the Dems can run a formidable candidate in CD-1 they may be able to pick that seat up too.

In short, if Ryan decides to chase senatorial aspirations, Democrats have an opportunity to pick up two seats in Congress, one of which has been a challenge to take for well over a decade (again, contingent in part on a change in voters' attitudes both nationally and locally).

With that in mind, however, we should think realistically -- would Ryan lose? At the very least, it'd be a close race for sure...to0 close for comfort for far too many.

It may be too soon to "hope" Ryan runs for the seat that will be left vacant by Sen. Herb Kohl. But should he toss his hat into the ring, Democrats will have an incredible opportunity to take charge of things Congressionally in Wisconsin -- so long as the right set of circumstances are helping them as well.

2011-05-14T19:50:00.000-07:00

Madison Police Department estimate 7,000-10,000 attended rally against Gov. Walker's budget today.

Walker's proposed budget a reversal of Wisconsin values

2011-05-13T11:26:00.000-07:00

Governor seeks to undo ideals valued by the people

Gov. Scott Walker's actions have proven he's not a man of the people, that he's governing purely for his ideological beliefs as well as his campaign donors. His budget is the icing on the proverbial cake that demonstrates it further, and without a doubt, that Walker isn't interested in helping the people of Wisconsin during these dire times.

His plans to privatize FoodShare, Medicaid, and other assistance programs vital to Wisconsinites ignores federal mandates as well as failed initiatives by other states that have wandered down similar paths. The budget also centralizes these programs, meaning many services at the county level will no longer be available to people in various localities across the state. Privatization would save the state about $8 million annually -- while federal funds lost due to the ignored mandates would number in the tens of millions of dollars.

Walker's budget also makes substantial cuts to education, the largest the state has ever seen. The governor is proposing nearly $900 million in cuts to schools across the state, from kindergarten to college, averaging a loss in funding of more than $800 per student. But the budget goes beyond cuts alone and severely limits local school districts' abilities to raise the funds they need on their own. On that fact alone, schools will lose the opportunity to raise $400 million in revenue, meaning that education in Wisconsin faces more than a billion-dollar shortfall due to Scott Walker's budget plans.

The tax scheme in Walker's budget bill is warped as well. The governor prioritizes the wealthy elites' "needs," giving corporations and the rich huge tax cuts (in addition to the cuts they've already received in January). Meanwhile, the poorest of the poor not only get left behind, but blindsided as well -- by the removal of tax credits designed to help the most downtrodden, resulting in what's essentially a higher tax rate for the poor in our state. (Talk about kicking a group of people when they're already down!)

Don't believe for one minute that seniors are left out of this bill either -- Walker's budget would make substantial cuts to SeniorCare as well, affecting most if not all of the 90,000 Wisconsin seniors that take advantage of the program. A significant portion of those within SeniorCare will be forced into Medicare Part D, a solution that, in many instances, means our state seniors may have to choose between prescription medications and groceries.

These are just the basics, the things that stand out easiest, within Walker's proposed budget. There are many more aspects to it, items that go beyond what is mentioned here that hurt the average citizen even more. To say that Walker has a different idea in mind for Wisconsin is an understatement -- Walker isn't just proposing a new vision, but rather a complete reversal of Wisconsin values.

Wisconsinites have always treasured a strong education, have always thought that caring for our seniors isn't a nicety but a necessity, and that those with economic hardships deserve consolation and assistance until they get back up on their feet. Corporatist attitudes aren't valued as much as fair treatment of our neighbors, a common belief that we must treat those around us with respect and care when needed.

Scott Walker and his Republican allies ignored our Wisconsin ideals, and as a result many of the Republican state senators are facing recall. It's likely that, if Walker continues to ignore these ideals, that he too could face recall, even more than he's facing it now. Trampling on workers' rights is enough to sicken a large segment of the state's population; trampling on Wisconsin's values is enough to sicken the entire state itself.

2011-05-10T08:53:00.000-07:00

Within any transition between jobs, life always gets a little more hectic while you try to figure out your new routine. New blogs will be coming soon...

Osama bin Laden dead

2011-05-01T19:53:00.000-07:00

President Obama to announce terrorist leader's death

UPDATE: President Obama delivers speech confirming Osama bin Laden's death. "His demise should be welcomed by all who believe in peace and human dignity." (Original post below made before Obama's speech)

I don't want to celebrate the death of any human being. It's against my morals, against my upbringing, to believe that the death of any person, even an evil man or woman, is a good thing.

With that said, I'm more than comfortable with saying that the world is a much better place without Osama bin Laden.

The president will announce tonight that bin Laden, the most wanted man in the world, is dead. The biggest enemy of our country, the man who was responsible for an unprecedented attack on us, is no longer around to do his part to try and defeat our great country.

September 11, 2001, was a day that will never be forgotten, one that is forever etched in the memories of millions of Americans. We will never forget the details of that day, where we were, what we were doing, and how our lives changed afterward.

Tonight and into tomorrow, we will also remember where we were when the man responsible for that event was announced to have been killed.

This isn't the end, of course. Terrorism will remain a threat; al Qaeda will continue to make attacks upon our people, upon our country. But with bin Laden gone, the world becomes a better place for sure. The face of terror for our country is gone.

Tonight is a victory for our country in the fight against terrorism. Again, I don't like to celebrate any death as doing so doesn't bode well with my religious views. But a world without Osama bin Laden is definitely a world that is better off.

Dead names show up on recall petitions

2011-04-30T12:13:00.000-07:00

Deceased father of Democrat signs petition for Democratic Senator

Though some recall petitioners on the right have acted in an admirable fashion, some have done just the opposite, engaging in fraud in order to add names to their numbers.

Within the recall effort against Bob Wirch, a Democrat from Kenosha, it's been discovered that the names of deceased Wisconsinites have been appearing in a blatant attempt by petitioners to buoy up their signature numbers. One of the names included is particularly disturbing -- the deceased father of Mark Pocan, a Democratic representative from Madison, was on the petition against Wirch as well.

There seems to be no decency left within the conservative movement (save for one individual). Whether they're trying to justify violating open meetings law, removing the rights of workers to bargain collectively, or even considering placing trouble-makers within peaceful protests, conservatives in Wisconsin this year have engaged in a disturbing trend of working against the people, against the treasured institutions of democracy within our state.

This latest fiasco further demonstrates to what lengths conservatives are willing to go to in order to reach their devious ends.

Conservative recall effort fails, but does so with integrity

2011-04-30T12:03:00.000-07:00

Local committee against Mark Miller won't merge with Utah group

You won't hear me complimenting many conservatives often on this site. As a progressive liberal, there aren't many things I find terribly humbling about the conservative movement or its propositions for our state's and country's futures.

But organizers for the Committee to Recall Mark Miller, though against one of the state senators I personally support, acted in a very classy way this week.

As reported in the Wisconsin State Journal, Jeff Horn, lead organizer heading up Miller's recall efforts, was shy of getting the necessary signatures for Miller by about 260 names. Even if he had attained that amount, it's likely that Horn's petitions would have been challenged.

So Horn had two options: admit defeat and hope for Miller's electoral loss next year when he's up for re-election, or merge his recall petitions with another group going after Miller, the American Recall Coalition. That group is run by an outsider, Dan Baltes, who is from Utah and leading recall efforts across our state.

Baltes is a controversial figure who has recently been accused by a Tea Party group in Tuscon, Arizona, for promising to bring Glenn Beck to their area, selling them all tickets, and then failing to deliver the FOX News commentator to them.

Many are also critical of Baltes for trying to recall state legislators in a state that's in an entirely different region than his own. What business does Baltes have in trying to recall Wisconsin state senators? The answer: none at all.

Horn had the opportunity to add his signatures with Baltes's. Doing so would have given both the necessary number of signatures needed to create a recall election for Miller.

But that didn't seem right to Horn. Aware of Baltes's troubled past (he's been involved in a plethora of other controversies), the State Journal reported that Horn told them that the "ends wouldn't justify the means."

That judgment cal deserves a salute from everyone, liberal, conservative, or otherwise. It takes a lot of courage to stick up for your principles, especially when disregarding them would help you in your larger goals. At a time when so many other conservatives in our country are willing to compromise their principles, to act in a hypocritical way that goes against what they once stood for, it's humbling to see someone like Jeff Horn act in this positive manner. Had he made the opposite decision, had he enjoined his petitions with Baltes's, no one would have blamed him. Instead, Horn stuck up for what he felt was right.

An accomplishment like that deserves recognition. Jeff Horn, though politically unaligned with my personal beliefs, is a class act.

2011-04-30T11:19:00.000-07:00

In a disgusting attempt to get names on their recall petitions, Republicans place the names of the dead on them, including Mark Pocan's deceased father.

Donald Trump: American Hero political annoyance

2011-04-28T20:50:00.000-07:00

Billionaire reality TV star "proud" of his escapades

Donald Trump is not a hero.

Not one to exercise an ounce of modesty or humility, Trump made a spectacle of himself earlier this week upon the release of President Barack Obama's long-form birth certificate.

Trump had previously demanded that Obama release the document, joining a fray of "birthers" who were dissatisfied with the short-form certificate Obama had released during his campaign for president in 2008. The short-form version is suitable for applying for a driver's license or using to verify your identity when applying for a job -- but it's apparently not good enough for birthers, at least when the president has a funny-sounding name.

Rather than admitting fault, however, and instead of taking an honorable approach towards recognizing he was wrong, Trump congratulated himself for helping settle the matter.

"Today I am very proud of myself because I have accomplished something that nobody else has been able to accomplish," Trump said.

Well, let me be the first to congratulate him as well.

Congratulations, Mr. Trump, for demanding our president jump over hurdles similar in many ways to what was demanded of African Americans during the time of Jim Crow laws.

Congratulations, Mr. Trump, for re-introducing conspiratorial accusations against the president that have long been refuted.

Congratulations, Mr. Trump, for causing a media uproar over an issue that should have died years ago.

And lastly, congratulations, Mr. Trump, for winning a popularity contest within the Republican Party by appealing to the lowest common denominator.

You've really outdone yourself, Mr. Trump. Now go away.

State GOP lawmakers to propose voter ID bill

2011-04-27T17:23:00.000-07:00

Republicans eye-up changing registration, absentee ballot rules

A legislative proposal by Wisconsin Republicans would make drastic changes to several election laws within our state.

Under current law, you’re able to register on the same day as the election so long as you have proof of residency (a lease or a utility bill, for example). You may register at your current address if you’ve lived there for 10 days or more, and you may even vote absentee without giving any reason for doing so up to 30 days before the election.

But a new bill introduced by Rep. Jeff Stone (R-Greendale) would change nearly everything listed above, making harsher restrictions for voters in Wisconsin. Stone’s bill leaves in place same-day voter registration – a provision that Republicans had previously wanted to abolish – but requires that registration to be supplemented with a photo ID. You could only register your current address if you’ve lived there for a month, and you’d have to supply a reason for why you were voting absentee – you could no longer vote absentee, for example, for the convenience of it. The amount of time you could vote absentee would also be curtailed tremendously – from 30 days to one week.

Though Stone’s bill does have some notable changes worth touting – same-day registration is preserved as is the right of those older than 70 to request absentee ballots due to age – it does more harm than good for the voters of this state. Requiring IDs to vote makes registering more difficult for those that are older or poorer, who may not have the time or ability to obtain an ID on their own. Allowing only seven days to submit an absentee ballot also does little good for those who may need more time than that to cast their votes.

To anyone who pays attention to voter ID laws, it’s clear what the true motivations of the Republican Party are: to suppress Democratic voters. The poor and elderly, as well as those that vote with early absentee ballots, are typically Democratic voters, supporting progressive candidates that typically promote helpful programs for the less-to-do in our state. By limiting their ability to access the voting booth, Republicans ensure that the voter turnout for Democrats will be lower in the coming years.

The prevention of voter fraud is an important thing – but the problem is much smaller than Republicans make it out to be, and doesn’t require the drastic measures they’re proposing within Jeff Stone’s bill (most of the “fraud” taking place is ineligible felons trying to vote, not voting as someone whom you aren’t). What’s more, the measures that Republicans ARE proposing are going to cost the state almost $3 million per year, as well as an additional $2 million in computer upgrades. As some conservatives rail on about the unnecessary (but actually necessary) Supreme Court election recount’s costs (about half a million dollars total), they’re proposing to spend nearly six times as much on elections down the road.

The call for election reform is unnecessary, costly, and detrimental to the voting process overall. Republicans are wrong to attack celebrated norms within our state's elections process.

Obama releases birth certificate

2011-04-27T17:01:00.000-07:00

Document released in an attempt to end "birther" debate

“We do not have time for this silliness,” President Barack Obama stated today. “I am confident that the American people and America's political leaders can come together in a bipartisan way and solve [our] problems... [But] we're not going to be able to solve our problems if we get distracted by sideshows and carnival barkers.”

Obama’s statement regarding rumors of his non-citizenship, and his subsequent releasing of his official birth certificate this week, shows a man who is ready to work but frustrated with the bipartisan clamor from critics who don’t believe he was born in the U.S.

It was, in fact, a non-issue to begin with: Obama had already proven his citizenship long ago, before he had even won the office of the presidency. Apparently not satisfied with the certificate of live birth, however, so-called “birthers” required nothing short than an actual birth certificate to prove Obama’s citizenship.

Nevermind that other presidential contenders from that year – such as Republican candidate John McCain – were actually born outside of the U.S. as well. And nevermind that Obama, whose mother was an American, was qualified as a “naturally born” citizen even if he was birthed outside of the country. None of these facts mattered, none of them were convincing enough to the birthers who knew that Obama was fabricating his citizenship (a “fact” that they undoubtedly will continue to push, despite it being disproven).

Even “somehow-presidential-contender” Donald Trump got into the mix. He, too, demanded that Obama release his birth certificate. Trump also “knew” that Obama was born in Kenya, from sources he had obtained where Obama’s grandmother allegedly made the claim.

Those assertions, however, have been long-debunked as well.

Obama is right: this “silliness” needed to stop. There are far more important issues affecting the country right now than trying to prove Obama’s already-proven citizenship. It’d be different if there was a shred of evidence left that hadn’t already been dismissed as erroneous – if that were the case, there’d be reason to bring up the issue. But despite lacking any credible evidence, the birther-conspiracy continued on, certain that the president was perpetrating the largest caper in American political history.

What’s distressing is that, after all of the Tea Party/Republican accusations that Obama was hiding something, Republicans are now blaming Obama for the distraction to the national debate. GOP Chairman (and Wisconsin native) Reince Priebus made a statement following the release of Obama’s certificate that made it clear it was Obama’s fault that real issues weren’t being talked about:

“The president ought to spend his time getting serious about repairing our economy,” Priebus said. “Unfortunately his campaign politics and talk about birth certificates is distracting him from our number one priority – our economy.”

By creating the problem in the first place, the Tea Party and Republican Party are both to blame for the distraction. But now, in totally denying that it’s their responsibility at all, and shifting that responsibility wrongly to the president, Priebus and the GOP are just downright shameful in their actions, lying directly to the American people over an issue they themselves formed.

2011-04-27T09:11:00.000-07:00

GOP Chair Reince Priebus blames Obama for birth certificate distraction. A comment on that, plus the new voter ID bill, tonight on Political Heat.

FOX News claims of "media bias" unfounded

2011-04-25T16:52:00.000-07:00

"Liberal bias" meme a tired excuse for conservative lies and mistruths
Last Friday, FOX News aired a special hosted by Sean Hannity alleging a radical liberal bias within American media. The special, however, was riddled with errors. For example, Hannity brought up a long-debunked claim that Katie Couric had called Ronald Reagan an "airhead" in 1999.

Couric was, in fact, quoting someone else who had written a book on "the Gipper," who had made that claim himself. At no point during the segment did Couric make any reference to her own personal opinions of Reagan.

Hannity's program was, by all accounts, a complete fabrication, hardly a "report" by any stretch of the imagination.

The problem with the "media bias" meme that conservatives constantly push is that there isn't a media problem at all, but rather that conservatives today make wild and blanket accusations based on little, skewed, or non-existent facts. It's as Stephen Colbert put it: reality has a pesky liberal bias.

Consider for a moment the criticisms conservatives level against liberals: that "death panels" are within the health care bill that Democrats passed; that President Obama isn't actually a naturally born citizen; that Democrats in general are trying to raise YOUR taxes (not just the top 2 percent); and so forth. Each of these assumptions are simply false, hold no weight of truth to them -- and yet, conservatives carry on their use, whether through their own ignorance or through their purposeful attempts to push forth ignorance in others. It's a disturbing trend and a vile attempt of conservatives trying to discredit their liberal counterparts through the dissemination of lies and mistruths.

If conservatives like Hannity want to debate liberals on the issues, if they want to bring about facts and opinions that are based upon sound research, then that would be acceptable. But instead of facts, Hannity and FOX presented their viewers with "facts" -- which aren't really facts at all, just spliced together sound bytes and videos taken out of context.

Sadly, this sort of thing works for them -- their viewers remain dumbfounded, uninformed about the events of the real world outside of their favorite "news" channel. But for the rest of the world, it's clear to anyone with a fourth grade education that conservatives, whether in the media or in the political spotlight, are losing their minds.

This doesn't mean ALL conservatives necessarily -- there are still rational-thinking people who happen to adhere to conservative principles, who also don't stoop to the levels FOX is going to. But the conservatives that matter, the ones who are running for office and disseminating the talking points, are taking part in a collective dumbing-down of our culture, in hopes of appealing to the lowest common denominator.

Conservatives' use of the "liberal media" meme is nothing more than a red herring, a distracting force that hides the fact that their own bias within their own media clouds their ability to reason sufficiently.

State recalls, recount strengthen our democratic rights

2011-04-23T11:47:00.000-07:00

Two events mark importance of protecting state's democratic fixtures
It is indeed an exciting time for Wisconsin politics.

Eight recall elections submitted thus far -- five for Republican officeholders and three for Democrats -- could potentially change the leadership roles for the state Senate. If Democrats net three additional seats, they will control one-half of the legislature, providing a much-needed check on Gov. Scott Walker's policy initiatives. More recall elections could also be on their way, though the deadline dates for filing them are fast approaching.

Meanwhile, a statewide election recount is set to start that will determine whether sitting justice David Prosser, a judicial ally of Walker's, will remain on the state Supreme Court. Prosser won the election by more than 7,000 votes, but only after tens of thousands of "missing" ballots in Waukesha County were discovered. Other voting irregularities have also been spotted within Waukesha, including in 2006 when there were 20,000 more votes than ballots cast.

The recount is unlikely to net a victory for JoAnne Kloppenburg, Prosser's opponent in the Supreme Court race. Seven thousand votes is seen as an insurmountable lead even if it's within one-half of one percent of the total votes cast. Still, with how close this race was, and with Waukesha County Clerk Kathy Nickolaus's terrible track record to consider, it makes perfect sense to let this recount take affect.

---

These two events in Wisconsin, though separate and affecting different branches of government, symbolize all that is RIGHT with our state at a time when so many things are going wrong. When a governor's aims are the destruction of workers' rights within the state he represents; when that same governor appoints government agents based on their relationship to Republican campaigns (or his campaign funds) rather than qualifications they may or may not possess; when legislators deliberately ignore open meetings law, desecrating decades of respect for the people's right to know the business of their legislature; or when taxes are raised on the poorest of our state's wage earners (at a time when $140 million in tax breaks are given to the state's wealthiest businesses); when corruption and misplaced priorities rule our state's government, its policies and its enacted law, it's reassuring to know that SOME semblance of the rule of law, including the right to recall elected officials as well as the ability to request an electoral recount in the face of questionable discrepancies, remain celebrated fixtures in our state's democratic process.

We shouldn't overlook the significance that these two events present to us, especially at this critical juncture in our state's political history. We are witnessing a direct attack on worker and family values, a pitting of the wealthy and elite class against working Wisconsinites who are simply trying to stay afloat during a tumultuous economic period. It is a debate well worth having, but not at the expense of our democratic traditions, an expense that Gov. Walker is apparently happy to expend.

Support the recall efforts, if only in principle, as well as the recount of the state's Supreme Court race. Wisconsin is better off for having these processes available in order to preserve our democratic rights.