Folks in favor of building expensive, new trains frequently claim that we have far too many roads already and it’s high time we focused on other modes of transportation.  So how would we figure out the ‘right’ number of roads?  Actually it turns out to be quite elementary.

First and foremost, we need to consider why we have a given road in the first place.  No rocket science here.  We have a road because people need to get from place ‘A’ to place ‘B’.  Places ‘A’ and ‘B’ are your home, school, work, gym, shopping, the movies, or just anyplace you want to go.  Therefore we can safely say that all the roads we’re talking about have some purpose or they would not have been built. 

Of course a truly progressive mind would maintain that we wouldn’t need all those roads in the first place if we had other means of mass transit.  So let’s run with that argument.  Similar to cars, buses and even bikes would make use of the aforementioned roads.  Therefore a vast majority of the existing roads would also exist to support current mass or alternative transit options.  Case in point: our lovely new red bicycle boxes being built on Madison roads.  

So then what roads can we get rid of?  If buses, cars, and bikes all make use of the same roads then it would seem logical that the only roads we could get rid of are those that a train can theoretically replace.  The key word is ‘replace’.  If the train can’t replace the road then we’ve just doubled our investment for a route from ‘A’ to ‘B’. 

What routes could a train replace then?  It would seem that would only be inter-city or inter-state routes.  Routes like Madison to Milwaukee where then we would could rip up I-94 and force you to take that train.  Or if you wanted to go to Chicago (oops, no I-90 anymore!) the train would be your option.  Imagine the profound impact on our mobility that this “road-less” Wisconsin would look like.  More like a trip to the distant past than progressing to the future.

So there you have it.  The next time someone tells you that we have too many roads you can simply explain that isn’t the case.  In fact, it would seem that we have the exact right number of roads.

Apparently it is considered ‘progressive’ in Madison to believe that anyone and everyone who wants to come to the United States should be allowed to. No requirements, no exceptions, no questions asked. We are all one big, happy family of the world and who are the citizens of the United States of America to deny anyone the ‘right’ to come here? Furthermore any semblance of applying a process for legal immigration is backwards, and, dare I say, crazy, conservative talk. Who are the citizens of the United States of America to have a process for legal immigration? Oh, the inhumanity of it all!

Seriously, what is all the fuss about really? While I’m not an expert on immigration, and I would be first to say that the current process could stand some streamlining, the basic requirements to our current immigration seem to me to be the following:

Immigrants should have the ability or means to provide and support themselves financially. The simple fact is that are realities to life. Money doesn’t grow on trees. I’m sorry but our parents were right about that. How can any nation survive if it blindly lets anyone come without proven means to support themselves? This doesn’t mean they’re independently wealthy, just that they are willing and able to work. The alternative is that they come and go immediately on government welfare. I have personally signed to be financially responsible for more than one immigrant. This actually leads to a third way to meet this requirement – have a sponsor which will vouch for you financially.

Immigrants should have or get current on immunizations. Do you like the fact that many diseases of previous generations have all but been eradicated in the United States? This wasn’t by accident. It was by diligent effort and brilliance of the generations before us that they systematically improved our quality of life and eliminated these threats to our health and the health of our children. Again this doesn’t mean automatic barrier to entry. It simply means that a potential immigrant needs to have due diligence done on their health and immunizations current before coming into the United States. Again, everyone I have sponsored to come to the United States has also had their physicals and immunizations brought current. Conversely, every time I’ve traveled internationally, I’ve been asked to make sure my own immunizations are current. There is nothing sinister to promoting good, public health policy.

Immigrants should have background checks that screen for criminal and terrorist behavior or ties. This is just common sense. How many folks just leave their front doors wide open through the night to allow anyone who wants to come into their house to come in? How many times do we tell our kids to not open the door to strangers? It is a dangerous world and it boggles my mind why anyone would object to allowing dangerous criminals enter our country.  Just look at the recent shooting in Madison to see the results of what we're inviting into our community. 

You see the world gets a lot more complicated when you need to come up with real world solutions to real world problems. The rhetoric that anyone and everyone should be allowed to live wherever they want just doesn’t pass the smell test. Unfortunately the debate on immigration usually turns into the left saying that anyone opposed to illegal immigration hates immigrants. That simply isn’t true. What is true is that some conservatives, me included, believe that we should have some process for properly admitting people to this country. It’s not evil, nor draconian, nor the creation of police state. It’s just plain, simple, common sense.

There has been a lot of misinformation being spread about what it really means to be a legal immigrant to the United States versus an illegal alien lately.  In today’s Wisconsin State Journal we learn that “Local officials concerned that Hispanic immigrants will avoid census”.    Read beyond the headline though and we learn it’s really not ‘Hispanic immigrants’ they’re concerned about counting, its illegal aliens.  There is an interesting angle in this story where they say that our local political power will be determined by the number of illegal aliens.  You read that correctly.   It is true that the distribution of United States political power depends on the results of the census, that is true.  In turn this article is bemoaning that the number of illegal aliens won’t be counted correctly in the census.  Therefore the assumption is that our representation in the political system will be determined by the number of illegal, non-voting aliens in our community.  While a fascinating angle in its own right, what I find most interesting are the stories about individual illegal aliens that are intended to make their plight ‘personal’.

Time after time we’re treated with stories about how poorly our system treats illegal aliens or that enforcing immigration laws is twisted into a generic (and non-existent) hatred of immigrants.  For example, in this article we get to read about a young woman who married an illegal immigrant.  Hooray, good for the happy couple, right?  After all, they’re a happily married couple, and he has a path to citizenship now… but… wait… that would involve a fine and perhaps going back to Mexico for a year to become legal.  That’s just way too hard to expect a married man to go through.  He’d rather stay here illegally.  Would we see the same understanding for someone who, for example, embezzled money from his employer years ago, evaded the law, and now was too happily married to be arrested or that being arrested was too inconvenient?  We’re supposed to absolve this criminal of that crime because… well, I’m not sure exactly why we’re supposed to absolve him of the past crime. I think it’s ‘just because’ it would be nice thing to do.

Suppose instead we read about another couple (you won’t find this story in print) where the husband is a citizen and it’s his Hispanic wife who was a legal immigrant.  They also got married and then found she needed to go home for a year to meet a requirement on her original student visa (you see she came here legally).  They spoke to lawyers asking if anything could be done since they were legally married.  No luck there.  They also considered the implications of ignoring the law like the first couple.  That just didn’t sit right with them though.  So ten years ago she went to live with her family in Central America for a year and they put their life together on hold.  He stayed in Madison and worked to support his now divided family and visited her as frequently as his job and budget would allow (remember these two were a young, married couple, just out of college, not ‘rich’ by any stretch of the imagination).  This story has a happy ending though as they completed the immigration process legally and she is now a naturalized citizen with a wonderful family out here in rural Dane County.

Which story highlights the American dream more?  Illegal alien comes to United States, gets married, and then avoids becoming legal because it’s a hassle or foreign student comes to United States, gets married, preservers through INS and now is a citizen with the means to provide for her family here and abroad?  What does is say as a society when the main stream media highlight the first story and not the second?

Consider how the Tea Partiers are often stereotyped (via our local CapTimes):

 “An angry bunch of Americans have taken to the streets to protest government spending and the direction of the nation.  And judging from the massive media coverage, it’s as if we have been invaded by a foreign entity…”

It’s also not uncommon to read or hear them referred to as ‘racist’.  Perhaps the single, most damning piece of evidence I can offer to the contrary is the fact that there was such a movement on the left to plant folks into the Tea Party rallies in order to discredit the events.  If the Tea Party is so completely racist, angry, and uneducated then why plant folks within the rally to act racist, angry, and stupid?  It would seem if the former were true then there would be no need to do the latter. 

Now contrast this to the actual actions of protestors during and after the passage of a new law enforcing existing immigration laws in Arizona.   One example: 

“...opponents used refried beans to smear swastikas on the state Capitol, civil rights leaders and other demanded a boycott of the state, a petition drive began to put the measure to a public vote and the Obama administration weighed a possible legal challenge.”

Nowhere have I found any credible coverage of Tea Partiers defacing public property.  In fact, I’ve found more information suggesting they left the grounds generally clean and in more or less the same condition it was when they arrived.  Would it be fair to say we have an angry bunch of Arizonans or perhaps illegal immigrants protesting in Arizona?  Ironically in this case it would seem to be much more accurate to suggest there is a foreign entity invading - I wonder if we’ll see that on CNN or in the CapTimes?

In her most recent newsletter, Rep. Sondy Pope-Roberts touts the passage of Operating While Intoxicated (OWI) reform and laments:

“Unfortunately, alcohol use seems to be an ingrained part of the Wisconsin culture, and until this culture changes, strengthening Wisconsin’s operating while intoxicated (OWI) laws will not be easy”

If you just read her newsletter, perhaps you would be struck by her tough stance on drunk driving and her bold, resolute determination to make a difference.  She can talk the talk but when it comes to walking the walk…well that’s another matter entirely.

Rep. Pope-Roberts had the opportunity to make a real stand on principles this last week with the vote on the expulsion of Rep. Wood.  Rep. Wood as you may recall is the representative currently facing multiple (three in just the last year alone) counts of OWI and was facing expulsion for those charges.  However, instead of standing on principle, Sondy chose to flip-flop and stand on party line.  This amounted to giving Woods a simple slap on the wrist, called censure, which carries no practical penalties.

I’m left with one of two conclusions:

1) She feels that OWI laws and that whole ‘culture of alcohol use’ thing applies to just us mere mortals but not for members of the political class like her and her colleague. 

2) She’s a career politician who will say whatever she feels she needs to say to look good in front of her constituents but do the opposite when it suits her or her party leadership tells her.

Either way, it’s time for a change. 

Representative Brett Davis put forth legislation recently to simply require that before the state spends millions on ‘car-speed’ rail from Milwaukee to Madison that the State Legislature sign off on the expense.  Also, in a novel twist sure to drive Madison progressives up the wall, the legislation further asks for the approval before the money is spent.    

Why is this important?  For me personally the biggest issue is that we simply don’t have the money to spend on this boondoggle.  Folks that want trains at any cost will claim “hey, this is federal money!” – never mind the fact that federal money is still our money and the feds aren’t in any shape to be giving money to anyone either.  Remember your parents telling you that money doesn’t grow on trees?  I guess some people never learned that lesson.

The other argument you’ll hear is that if we don’t take the money then some other state will.  The problem with that is two-fold.  First of all, the money we get covers only a portion of the construction and doesn’t cover the ongoing operating expenses to keep this train moving (and by moving we mean just barely moving faster that your car, hardly ‘high-speed’ moving).  Second, remember your mom also asking you ‘if Jimmy jumped off a bridge would you too?’  Just because someone else might take the money doesn’t make it right for Wisconsin to take the money and all the strings attached.  That’s called standing on principle.   

If you want to learn more about this legislation, sign the petition, or e-mail your own representative about this bill then check out the web site www.stopthetrainwisconsin.org. 

Much like their counterparts in Washington D.C. the Dems in Madison are fast at work to pass as much as they can while they still hold control.  After all, come November chances are very good they won’t hold the majority they now hold or the governorship. 

So what do you do when think you may not win the coming elections?  If you’re the Dems, change the rules of course – and fast!  So fast in fact that AB 895/SB 640 were made public on March 24th, had public hearings on April 1st (that should tell you something) and immediately passed out of committee on a party line vote.  Floor votes could be as early as next week.

So what’s in these bills?  Here’s just a sampling:

Please call or write your representatives to know that they need to slow down and not ram this legislation down our throats. 

As it turns out, it was a huge night for incumbents and not so good of a night for challengers.  Voter turnout overall was horrible which is sad since local elections can have such a direct impact on our lives in terms of taxes, transportation, and public safety.  Moderate and/or conservative voters picked up two seats on the board though – short of what we had hoped to accomplish but still something to build upon.

It is no secret that I’ve spent a fair amount of time in the last several months helping candidates with their races so I was invested in the outcome on a personal level too.  Did all that work pay off?  I think so.  Could it have paid off a bit better?  Certainly.  I’m not complaining though, for two reasons.

The first is that two seats were won on the County Board!  That is important and don’t let Kathleen ‘people like my 7.9% tax increase and I still have a majority’ Falk mislead you.  These seats were won because of those particular candidates as well as the strong group that ran as a whole this time.   Consider if there hadn’t been as many strong candidates spread over the entire district.  Where would the money and resources gone from the Dane Dems and Progressive Dane as they openly supported candidates in this non-partisan race?  Without the entire ‘team’ of candidates it’s quite possible none of the seats would changed and seats could have been lost. 

The second reason is that I had the opportunity to meet a large number of great people in the process – both inside and outside of the campaign.  I will miss the weekly campaign meetings and the energy at them.   For me, it was fantastic to be able to meet so many new people both in my little corner of the county and from across the county as a whole.   

So what’s next?  It’s time to take stock of what worked, what didn’t, and what we can do better the next time.  This is most definitely something to build upon.

I had the privilege of attending the 2^nd Congressional District Caucus for the Republican Party of Wisconsin earlier today.  It was wonderful to see and hear from so many fine candidates in one location.  The caucus was well done – candidates for Governor gave their platforms and answered a couple questions, candidates for Lt. Governor participated in a ‘Lightening Round’ where each answered a the same question, and then candidates for Federal offices had a town hall/debate where they each had a chance to speak.  In addition several candidates who have unopposed primaries were given a chance to speak and introduce themselves to the group.

One interesting thing from the morning is that I learned a lot about the candidates for Lt. Governor.  The race for Governor gets a lot of press and with all that is going on in Washington it seems I’ve heard a lot about the Federal candidates also.  Lt. Governor on the other hand is an often overlooked office in the state and this was the first time I personally had the opportunity to hear from all the Republican candidates for that office.  My impressions of them (alphabetical order, along with their websites):

Ben Collins (www.votebencollins.com) – Ben is a veteran and former Special Forces officer.  Like the others, he handled himself well and made some good points.  He spoke especially eloquently about leadership and the role of a leader in not necessarily being the expert but rather as someone who makes the most out of the experts he has.     

State Rep. Brett Davis (www.votebrettdavis.com) – Brett is the current representative for District 80 in the State Assembly.  That experience and knowledge of current issues was evident.  Brett also has experience in the private sector that I don’t mean to downplay but where the other candidates spoke of what they might do or would like to do, in many cases Brett was able to quote specific legislation or similar efforts he’s already spearheading in the State Assembly.

Rebecca Kleefisch (www.rebeccaforreal.com) – As a former newswoman, Rebecca was clearly at ease in front of a group (although to be fair no one looked uncomfortable).  In fact it was this experience that she seemed to particularly emphasize as key to her candidacy.  She emphasized that the Lt. Governor should promote and market the state and that as a former member of the media she was particularly well suited to handle that role.  That however seems at odds with a recent article I read regarding her in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel which doesn’t bode well for her relationship with the media (particularly since information on the Lt. Governor race is so sparse).

Mayor Dave Ross (www.friendsofdaveross.com) – Dave has been the Mayor of Superior since 2003.  The theme he drove home was the fact that he has kept campaign promises as Mayor and would keep his campaign promises as Lt. Governor.  One thing that impressed me about Dave was that through a fluke in seating he answered every question thrown to the group first and didn’t look the least bit worse for it. 

Fascinating little tidbit about Progressive Dane – apparently they are not responsible for the content posted on their website.  Recently I made some comments regarding “An Ambitious Plan” which was posted (the plan that is, not my comments) on the front page of the Progressive Dane website.  As a quick recap, this is a plan for the RTA in Dane County with a major emphasis on building a train.  While rational people can debate whether those points represent an ordered list (most important to least) or just a list of equally important points, the conversation took a turn for the weird when I was informed that the content on their site doesn’t truly represent PD’s views.

So I’m in a quandary.  Do I accept the information posted on the PD site as representative of their group?  After all it is quite clearly written as a statement of Progressive Dane’s beliefs.  Do I accept the folks that post here as representatives of PD?  They certainly sound like they were involved in the aforementioned piece.  What about the individual that claims he has the inside scope to the ‘real’ PD people?  What a dilemma.  And they say the Democrat Party is in disarray…

You can view the website in its original form here, which I’ve saved for the historical record, and make your own call.  This is not a Facebook-like site where just anyone can post to your wall or Madison.com where you can comment freely on articles but rather what appears to a rather locked down web site representing a political party here in the county (thier website claims they are a political party in Dane County anyway, I feel like I can't trust anything I read on the internet now).  Bummer if we can’t count on the information posted on their site as being an accurate representation of their beliefs.     

Time will tell if there are some updates to the PD site to suppress all this talk about the train.  Regardless of the outcome of that, I wish them luck in figuring out how to manage their web site.  Perhaps they could look to the Dane County Republicans (www.danegop.org), recently of Isthmus front page fame, for some website pointers.*

*Disclaimer: Until someone from the Dane County Republicans informs me otherwise, I will assume that the material and information posted on their website belongs to them.