Taxation without representation? Many on our County Board want to vote YES! There is a resolution in front of the board now to create a ‘Regional’ Transit Authority will cover Dane County only and will be un-elected with the all the powers of government to raise taxes. The board won’t even bring this issue to referendum for fear the people of Dane County won’t support this. Once the RTA is created it’s too late. The County Board is abdicating their responsibility to the people they represent plain and simple.

Regional? This ‘Regional’ Transit Authority will cover only Dane County and is being pursued for the primary purpose of building a train to run from one end of Madison to the other. We all are going to be on the hook to pay for this Madison boondoggle. Is this considered progressive to create an un-elected body to raise taxes on exactly the same geographic area where we already have elected representation? This is nothing more than a sleight of hand political trick that takes power away from the voters and gives it to an elite, appointed body.

But we’re saving the planet! Not really. Even if you believe Al Gore, creating a train ‘system’ to run (and stop and start and stop…) on diesel across Madison and the subsequent idling traffic doesn’t bode well for decreasing carbon emissions. True regional, high speed transportation might be another matter but that’s not what they’re selling here.

If you believe that Dane County needs neither a “Regional” Transit Authority to raise our taxes nor a train for downtown Madison then the time to act is now. Come on Thursday, November 5th to the City County building (2nd Floor, 210 Martin Luther King Jr. Dr., Madison) to voice your opinion.

If you can’t make the meeting, write or call your County Board representative and share your opinion. A list of all Dane County Supervisors can be found at http://www.countyofdane.com/board/supervisors.aspx.

When times are tough, they’re tackling the tough, important issues in Madison. Tough issues like ensuring our kids not only learn “knowledge of state, national, and world history” but specifically “knowledge of state, national, and world history, including knowledge of the history of organized labor in America and the collective bargaining process.” That’s right! We will need to make sure we carve out time in our schools to ensure that our kids are properly taught about the importance of unions. I can’t imagine having to enter the workforce in this economic climate without being armed with such critical information - reading, writing, arithmetic, and collective bargaining.  I have nothing against unions but it seems odd to me to carve out of all of state, national, and world history (that’s a lot of stuff) that we need to specifically ensure kids get instructed on the important topic of organized labor. Why are they spending time legislating this?  Is this really for our kids or if someone is pulling the strings here?

Other important educational issues that they’re tackling? Sex education! This one is co-sponsored by our own District 79 representative, Sondy Pope-Roberts. Where previously such education only needed cover the following four areas:

1. Self−esteem, responsible decision making, and personal responsibility
2. Interpersonal relationships
3. Discouragement of adolescent sexual activity
4. Family life and skills required of a parent

Those sound pretty good and rounded to me.  But apparently it's not enough to make Madison happy.  They are proposing that it MUST cover:

1. Communication between the pupil and the pupil’s parents or guardians about sexuality
2. Reproductive and sexual anatomy and physiology
3. Puberty, pregnancy, parenting, body image, and gender stereotypes
4. Skills to make responsible decisions about sexuality and sexual behavior throughout the pupil’s life span
5. The benefits of and reasons for abstaining from sexual activity
6. The health benefits, side effects, and proper use of contraceptives and barrier methods approved by the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to prevent pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections
7. Methods for developing healthy life skills, including setting goals, responsible decision making, communication, and stress management
8. How alcohol or drug use affects responsible decision making
9. The impact of media and peer messages on thoughts, feelings, and behaviors related to sexuality.

But, wait, there's more!  Act now and they'll make sure that the following MUST be included also:

1. Use instructional methods and materials that do not promote bias against pupils of any race, gender, sexual orientation, or ethnic or cultural background or against sexually active pupils or children with disabilities
2. Promote self−esteem and positive interpersonal skills, with an emphasis on healthy relationships
3. Identify counseling, medical, and legal resources for survivors of sexual abuse and assault, including resources for escaping violent relationships.

Whatever happened to local communities (or better yet, parents) deciding when, where, and what they wanted to teach their children about sex education? Clearly the crowd in Madison, including our own ‘representative’, feels they know better than parents what our kids need to know. The text above comes from the Assembly version of the bill (AB 458) but if you’d like to comment or speak about the Senate version, there is a public hearing coming up this Thursday:

Senate Education Committee - Public Hearing Notice

Thursday, October 29, 2009 9:30 AM 201 Southeast in the State Capitol

As I recently wrote, I am energized by meeting and talking with so many people around Dane County that believe in many of the same conservative principles as I do.  It has not escaped me though that we are being painted by the media and others as ‘right-wing extremists’, ‘fringe’, and other, generally unflattering names.  Furthermore, we are stereotyped as racist, hateful, and backwards-looking folks who are out of touch.  I can’t speak for others, but my desires are pretty simple and not at all hateful nor racist.

I believe in smaller government.  I want less government in my life.  I don’t want to pay more taxes every year for things the government should not be doing in the first place.  While politicians pat themselves on the back for ‘making the tough choices’ in the budget, every year they need more money.  Not only do they need more money, they seem to need more money for essential services – the very services I thought I was paying for in the first place!  Where does all our money go? 

I know our Founders created a nation that includes God.  Contrary to popular belief, separation of church and state wasn’t meant to exclude God.  God is intertwined throughout our founding documents and the framework of America.  The only thing our Founders intended to prevent was the establishment of a single, state religion as was the norm in many European countries at that time.  They really meant freedom of religion, not from religion as some groups in Madison would lead us to believe.

I believe that the United States is exceptional.  The creation of the Constitution was such a fantastic gift to us from our forefathers.  The government, the rights, and the protections it granted to us created the society we live in today.  The prosperity and freedom we each enjoy started with that simple document.   

I think charity starts at home.  It is not the government’s role to provide for every want or desire.  However, it is our government and the free market it protects that provides us the opportunity to create and share wealth.  It should enable us to be charitable to our neighbors (down the street or around the world) and to those less fortunate.  I find it unacceptable that some politicians define charity as the government spending our money for their cause but can’t find it within themselves to spend their own money on that same cause.  Before the government can spend money, it must first take it from someone else.  That’s not charity; it is government-forced redistribution.

I believe in personal responsibility.  I believe strongly that we each have the responsibility first and foremost to take care of ourselves and provide for our families.  This is not say that there isn’t a role for the government to play as a temporary ‘safety net’ in times of crisis, but rather that the safety net should be temporary.  Too often policies are being enacted that create permanent, long term entitlements that discourage personal responsibility and ultimately create a disincentive for people to better themselves.

This is just some of what I believe; you can make the call as to how far 'out there' I am.  I think we all benefit from smaller government taking less of our money.  I don’t want to force my religion on anyone else but don’t attack me for having my beliefs or try to rewrite history.  The United States is exceptional; it’s just too bad some of us have forgotten that.  Charity and personal responsibility, well I would hope those speak for themselves.  It blows my mind to think having views such as this would make me extremist and fringe in America today.  I shudder to contemplate what views would make me less ‘extreme’ or more ‘progressive’.

I respectfully disagree with Buzz Davis and Paul Caravella.  Writing in the Capital Times, they claim that what Wisconsin needs is “public service jobs, community meetings, [and] job clubs”.  Wisconsin definitely needs jobs but we need them in the private sector.   Temporary, government WPA-like jobs that are based solely on government handouts is not the solution, nor are meetings and clubs.  These are short term band-aids at best.  How many private-sector jobs has the Democratic leadership in this state run out in the last year?  How many more do they want to run out with future legislation such as Cap n’ Tax?   Wait, we’re going to replace those with “Green” jobs - or at least a couple of them anyway.   Perhaps a topic at a future meeting could be “How losing your job is saving the environment”.

This is the fundamental difference between conservative (there’s that ugly word) thinking and progressive, liberal thinking.  Conservatives would look at this situation and say “what can we do to bring more employers to Wisconsin?”  or, perhaps, “what can we do to encourage business growth?”.   Those questions address the underlying problem and create a positive situation for long term success.  If you’re asking those questions, you don’t pass combined reporting or consider the atrocious liability changes proposed in the last state budget. 

Conversely, liberal-think says “let’s have the government should hire everyone” or “let’s have more community meetings to discuss how unemployment feels”.  Neither lays a foundation for a health, long-term job situation in this state.  Government might be able to hire people short term, but what happens when the state can’t afford (can we afford it now?) to continue to employ people on ‘public works’ projects?  We go back to the meetings about how that feels?  I can save them a trip.  Worrying about your family’s future when the Democrats are doing everything they can to kill good jobs is awful.

Lest I be accused of being cold-hearted, I do agree that there is a real problem here and it is difficult for families.  Letting people know about the programs that already exist to help them through this difficult time is not a bad idea by itself.   However, unless we address the underlying problem then we are just setting families up for longer term struggles and longer term anxiety – that is the bigger crime.

So what does this have to do with flies?  Another way to think about this problem is whether or not we’re swatting at flies.  If you have a problem with flies in your house, you can either keep swatting at them or close the window (PETA-approved method*).  We need to close the window here, look at the root cause of the job problem, and then focus on creating an environment in this state where jobs are plentiful.  Sooner or later we’re going to run out of money for fly swatters if we don’t. 

*For the record, PETA has nothing to do with the current job situation that I am aware of.  It just occurred to me that I might be venturing into a politically-sensitive area when I started talking about killing flies.  I have no defense for this.  It’s just the way I’ve always heard that saying. 

The CapTimes has an interesting and reasonably-balanced article (the lead article no less) called ‘The cost of clean air’ today.  Once you get past the opening premise that customers of MG &E are ‘voting with their pocketbooks’ for cleaner energy (10% opting in is not what I consider a vote for something), the article accurately portrays what is coming down the road for Wisconsin if the Cap ‘n Tax bill is passed in Washington.

Getting right to the point, the chair of Gov. Doyle’s own ‘Global Warming Task Force’, Roy Thilly, clearly and accurately points out that such a bill would be a ‘huge wealth transfer’ from states like Wisconsin to the states on the coasts.  Similarly, the National Association of Manufacturers is also saying that the bill could cost the state of Wisconsin another 50,000 jobs.  These are some of the most accurate and telling statement I can remember reading from the local media on what this really means for our state.   The only thing I can think to add is to remind everyone that Tammy Baldwin, our Representative, helped pass this bill. 

So what are we going to do?  Rep. Spencer Black (D-Madison) is going to sponsor a ‘Clean Energy Jobs Act’ bill!  That’s right, in other words, the federal government, with Tammy’s help, is passing legislation to kill jobs in Wisconsin so the state government would like to pass legislation to try and replace those jobs – but only if they’re the ‘right’ kind of jobs. 

The bright spot in all of this is that there is a small nod to nuclear energy.  Lifting our state’s moratorium on nuclear power plants would provide cheap, abundant energy to our state.  One nuclear plant alone would provide as much or more energy than if we committed the entire state to wind energy.  That’s a lot of windmills to make up for a single nuclear power plant (side note: what’s the environmental impact of all those windmills compared to a single nuclear power plant? Just asking).  In addition, wind power only works when the wind is blowing.  Last time I checked nuclear power plants can work round the clock, with or without wind, with or without sun (since solar is on the list too).  Lastly, after fully committing to wind, there is no room to grow.  With nuclear power, we could add a second plant or third plant as needed. 

The drawback to nuclear power?  Some democrats have said they won’t support lifting a ban until the long-term storage problem is figured out, environmentalists will fight nuclear power, and the process takes too long.  First of all, while they’re not named in the article but I’m guessing they’re likely the same democrats suggesting we are in the midst of a climate change crisis and we need to act yesterday.  The fact is we can deal with the storage; it’s not ideal but compared to alternatives nuclear power is the most attractive, realistic solution on the table.  The second and third points go together.  Environmentalists are a huge part of why the process to create a new plant is so cumbersome and time consuming.  Again, like those democrats, environmentalists that warn of global catastrophe with no time to spare want us to gamble on ‘green power’ that is not proven or reliable at this stage.  Wouldn’t it make sense to allow nuclear power to fill that gap until such a time when green power is ready for prime time?  Or does ideology trump reality?

The CapTimes made an interesting (read: lacking any basis in reality) observation this last week. The gist of the whole article is that Conservative media, like Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck, only have 1% of the US in their listening audience therefore only 1% of the US would vote Republican. As hard as it may be to argue with that kind of logic, I’ll give it the old college try.

First of all, where does 1% come from exactly? It looks like the 1% claim is based on Larry King’s statement that its 2% - close enough for CapTimes work I suppose. Mid-article, the author reluctantly admits that Rush might exceed 5% (only 500% difference from the article’s headline, again close enough for certain types of work I suppose). Contrast this to the pinnacles of liberal talk radio used for comparison, oh wait, no percentages are ever given for what their audience might be. If I had their numbers, I wouldn’t want to advertise them either.

Secondly, their liberal counterparts are praised for ‘breaking out of the echo chamber’ and challenging conservative listeners whereas conservative media screens out all liberal callers. I don’t see any reference from where this assertion comes from, I can only guess it comes from the writer listening to those liberal shows exclusively and not to conservative media – or maybe he found it on the internet somewhere (that always makes for great research). This same type of in depth journalism led to the atrocious reporting of false quotes attributed to Rush Limbaugh over the last week. Unlike the author, having listened to both, I would argue that the notion that one has a better record or monopoly on engaging hostile listeners is ludicrous. Frankly, engaging opposition views is some of the most engaging radio and either side would be stupid to screen calls for the ratings alone – not to mention the most extreme callers from either side probably make great propaganda for the other.

Lastly, in the rush to attempt to take cheap shots at conservative media, the author fails to realize is that no single show accounts for an overwhelming percentage of the American viewing public today. It is the fact that conservative programming is robust and well that speaks highly for its appeal among the general population. Furthermore to make the connection that the percentage of any shows audience equates in some way to the entire body of any political party is asinine. If that were the case, Democratic candidates would consistently be pulling significantly less than 1% in every election based on the record of failed, liberal media like Air America.

Governor Doyle is out there today trumpeting the 8,284 jobs created or saved in State of Wisconsin due to the Federal Stimulus. I’m not exactly sure about how you measure ‘saved’ jobs but I’m sure there is some solid fuzzy math behind that number. Of course nearly all of those are in the public sector and paid for by dumping a larger deficit on future generations yet to be born – talk about passing the buck!

On the hand, consider the 31,000 manufacturing jobs and 413 manufacturers the State of Wisconsin lost in the last year. This was reported just two months ago. By my math that would mean we’ve lost at least a net of 22,716 jobs and 412 employers (kept big, massive state government here, at least we dodged that bullet!). Of course this the way it always is – report the jobs we think we saved or hope we might created and ignore the other side of the balance sheet. This is no different than every time they talk about creating all those ‘green jobs’ to save our economy. Just never mind those ‘other jobs’ we lose in the process.

So is there a way to figure out the real cost of those 8,284 jobs created or saved? The easy math would say we just spent $680 million on those jobs which comes out to be about $82,000 per job. I’m guessing not every job we saved has an $82,000/year salary attached though. I wonder where the rest of it went then? Just a bit of overhead for the privilege of saving all those jobs I guess. What happens next year though? Are we hoping for another $680 million to fall from the Federal government? We haven’t even balanced our own state budget this year so it’s not like we’ve got money lying around to pick up the slack either. The only way we’re going to really rescue our jobs and save our state economy is if we get serious about cutting taxes and taking other steps to encourage sustainable, private industry. Till then we’re just buying time and time isn’t cheap.

In case you missed it, global warming enthusiast and former-Vice President Al Gore graced Madison last week to “preach to the choir” and if you weren’t in his choir then you were “asked” to leave (see the video below). When you truly believe in a cause and you know the facts support your point of view then you aren’t afraid of the debate. In fact, often times even when truly speaking from a position of strength, the debate is a golden opportunity to truly further your point of view. Even in the absence of hard facts, which sometimes in life is the reality of the situation, to truly be a leader means having the courage of your convictions to face your naysayers. Unfortunately for Al Gore, he appears to have neither hard facts nor the courage to face debate. Far too often he falls back on the tired “debate is over” line without any serious discussion when his “facts” are questioned. It was old when we all knew the earth was flat and the center of the universe and it is still old now.

Another all too familiar tactic is to rely on your notes or a teleprompter to tell the speaker what to say. Our current President is famous for this. Doing this though falls into one of two categories in my opinion. The first category is that the speaker just doesn’t know the subject matter. While giving some leeway for folks that have to speak on topics they may not have the time to full explore, it’s not unreasonable to expect a minimal level of understanding if they are projecting themselves as experts or as a leader. The second category is that the speaker doesn’t believe what he is saying and needs to be kept “on message” or he might otherwise say what he really thinks. Unfortunately our current President falls into one of these two categories far too often. Which category he falls into I will leave to the reader.

Lastly, consider a priest giving his weekly sermon. As I listened in church this last weekend it occurred to me that the Priest was walking around the congregation, no notes, no teleprompter, and speaking without hesitation. He clearly was in command of what he wanted to speak about that morning. Furthermore, I know to sit and speak with him about the sermon I would not have been told to just keep quiet or asked to leave because I asked a question. He truly would have engaged me and explained the meaning behind his sermon – perhaps we might even argue on a point. Regardless how the point was debated, I trust he speaks from a position of authority on the subject because he knows the subject. To watch someone speak who has the conviction of their beliefs and who can articulate their message is truly engaging and time well spent. Clearly there are times when a priest though will ask you to take something on faith. That’s why religion is considered a faith. It is not intended to be a scientific discussion nor a lecture on economic policy nor a serious discussion on the finer points of healthcare reform. Climate-change enthusiast Al Gore is asking us to believe in him, in theory based on the science of his arguments. When considered in this light, perhaps this explains his need to declare the debate over. Is what Gore presents really science? Is it backed up by peer-reviewed, solid facts and repeatable experiments or is it an environmental religion he expects to be taken on faith? His actions provide the answer to that.

Whether in Church, attending an Al Gore sermon, or watching the President giving one of his famous speeches, take a minute to consider the message and how it is being presented. Are they engaging you with honest and sincere facts? Does the speaker truly know his material or is he reciting ‘talking points’? Is the speaker willing to debate some of those points or are you dismissed out of hand if you question him? Right or left, these are fair and, frankly, necessary demands to make of anyone asking you for your support and your belief.

In the midst of the ongoing national debate on healthcare reform (Tammy’s issue, remember?), wonder what Tammy has been working on lately? She introduced a bill this last week to protect “public, education, and government” channels. It’s good to have priorities.

Consider that the reason these channels are hurting for funding is because we decided on a state level to change how the funding is done. In comes big brother, or big sister in this case, to come fix everything. It’s ironic that Tammy, representing the people of Wisconsin feels the need to bring the federal government down to ‘fix’ what the people of Wisconsin decided to do in the first place. Shouldn’t what television we support and subsidize be determined on a local level?  If people want to watch this then they will pay for it, that's how the free market works. 

It seems to work for football when the Packers are featured on Sundays over other games. Being a Bear fan myself (I know, that's not a popular thing to admit, but it's true) I would love to see the Bears featured more locally but I won’t begrudge the Packers trumping them for TV rights – it’s what the majority of folks here want to see. Imagine if the Washington crowd decided we all should be watching the Redskins. Clearly, whether these stations have the local support to stay on the air should purely be a local issue.

While admittedly not a huge issue in the grand scheme of things, it does highlight another instance where the people in Washington, including Tammy, think they know better than the people of Wisconsin what's best for the people of Wisconsin.

It’s not surprising the Capital Times is rushing in to support Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla) after his recent remarks saying Republicans want sick Americans to die quickly. As they eloquently put it, we have a “healthcare holocaust” in the United States.  I guess Tammy wasn't available for comment - this is her issue after all isn't it?

Unfortunately, the rhetoric doesn’t quite match up with the facts. Republicans have indeed offered up numerous plans for healthcare – for whatever that is worth, after all they don’t control the House, the Senate, or the Presidency. It is laughable to blame the lack of real healthcare reform on the Republicans when the Democrats can pass anything they like at any time.

Republicans have offered up real alternatives – things like tort reform that cut the costs introduced in healthcare by out of control lawsuits or allowing portability of insurance across state lines and true competition in the private sector. We can solve the problems in our healthcare system without socializing the whole system – unfortunately the Democrats are too beholden to their special interests to do what is needed.

Even as the CapTimes quotes a Harvard study that says 44,000 Americans die annually because of a lack of healthcare coverage, how does the Democrat plan help this? Far too often we look at the situation as if it’s static. In other words, if we can somehow spend trillions of dollars to cover those people then everything will be right with the world, right? Unfortunately the world we live in is not static and when we rearrange our healthcare system to cover those folks, someone else has to give something up. Just look to England and Canada. When everyone has coverage, everyone’s coverage is rationed. It’s like trying to stretch a blanket that just isn’t big enough. When you cover your toes, your shoulders aren’t covered. Pull it up and your toes pop out. That’s just reality.