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. 

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.

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. 

Would the Isthmus call Code Pink ‘anti-victory’? Does the Capital Times writing about Fair Wisconsin protesting a legal amendment to the Wisconsin constitution call them ‘anarchists’? If the Wisconsin State Journal covers the Sierra Club protesting nuclear energy are they ‘anti-electricity’? I don’t think so and those labels would be inflammatory and distorting. On the other hand, if a group protests out of control government policies? Then they’re obviously ‘anti-government’, ‘militias’, or ‘racist’ to just name a few choice labels that are used.

Earlier this week in the Wisconsin State Journal they ran a couple articles on those ‘anti-government militias’. Recall also that for this week’s paper the Isthmus was there first to label candidate for governor Scott Walker as anti-government because he spoke at a Tea Party rally. However in the State Journal one story was from the AP about the rise of militias in the US in general and then there was a companion article about Wisconsin specifically. I’m not going to comment on the AP story other than to say it fits the pattern that anyone with a dissenting opinion of the current administration is racist. That doesn’t even deserve a response. I am familiar though with one of the groups highlighted in Wisconsin.

This group is called ‘We the People’ and they have been very active in participating in the local Tea Party events, shedding light on the healthcare debate, and generally just encouraging people to get involved in a number of current, national issues. In the spirit of full disclosure, I am not a member of this group but I do know several people in this group. They are definitely not an armed militia or a militia of any kind. Every protest, every rally they have participated in has been completely peaceful and they are not quasi-military in any way. The attempt here to paint them as ‘anti-government’ and label them a ‘militia’ is misinformed at best. The sad part is that a vast majority of people who read this article won’t know any better.

The Isthmus has an interesting article on Scott Walker this week.  While it’s obvious the overall tone is intended to paint the candidate for governor in a negative light, it seems to me that it actually highlights a lot of the good work he has done in Milwaukee County and that he has a strong vision for the state.  I think most of the perceived negatives come from the author’s lack of understanding rather than being true negatives.

For example, the opening salvo is to paint Walker as ‘anti-government’.  As this is explained, this perception comes from the fact that Walker stated he wants to ‘put our faith in the people and employers who make this country great’.  This is the crux of the problem (as the author sees it) and I can only assume the author would rather a candidate who asks us to put all our faith in the government.  What makes that position odd though is that the author then goes on to cite the extremely poor position Doyle and the current, Democrat-led, government has put our state in.  Given that fact, anyone who believes the people and, yes, employers (the people who create jobs for the aforementioned people) of the state of the Wisconsin should come first looks pretty darn good to me!  Score one for Walker.

It’s not that Walker hates government; it’s just that he states his belief that the government should be serving a different role than it has been.  That’s not ‘anti-government’, that’s just plain smart.  Clearly where the current leadership has been leading isn’t working and Walker simply is providing a strong vision for an alternative approach.

Another example given is how Walker apparently has done such a poor job with Milwaukee County parks that they’re ranked among the best in the nation (that's not a typo, yes the parks are ranked among the best). And this happened while he was reducing spending!  Smaller budget with as good or better results?  Sounds like a good deal to me.  Even if this is a testament to the park director’s leadership, clearly she found a way to be the best in the nation without a bottomless budget.  That sounds like a leader raising the bar to me. 

And so it goes.  There seems to be sort of a reluctant appreciation for Walker but an intense desire to find something that will ‘stick’ to him.  While I won’t comment on everything, I couldn’t let this next comment pass without commenting myself.  Shifting to more general policy later in the article the author writes:

“The obvious problem with Walker's logic is that no amount of tax cuts will encourage employers to hire workers to make products when already-produced inventory is sitting on shelves in stores and warehouses. The problem is lack of spending power among ordinary Americans. And the solution, some economists say, requires government intervention to put people back to work, restore spending power and get the economy rolling again.”

What the author conveniently ‘forgets’ is that tax cuts help everyone, not just employers, and that makes a huge difference.  Tax cuts would increase the spending power of ordinary Wisconsinites.  Tax cuts leave more money with the people that earned the money in the first place.  Those same people would now have money to spend on that inventory sitting on the shelves.  Government spending is just someone sitting in Madison (or Washington) taking our money, adding a little government-processing overhead (when does the middle-man not a take a little something for the 'effort'?), and then sending it back to where they want to spend it – like their politically connected projects and not necessarily where it’s most needed. 

You have to look no further than the failure of the current ‘stimulus’ to see how well government intervention works.  Walker is on the right track to suggest a different solution is in order.   

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.