Minor Thoughts from me to you

Actually, I'm not sure that understanding Russ Feingold is completely possible. But I would like to understand how he got reelected by such a wide margin in 2004. Levnik Lad recently said "I cannot help but think that there are a whole bunch of people out there scratching there heads wondering how on God's green earth Russ Feingold continues to get re-elected". Well, I've been wondering the same thing.

I'm a recent transplant to Madison, WI. I've now been here a little over 10 months. Feingold is a perfect fit -- if he was the Senator from Madison. From what I've seen of the rest of the state, however, Wisconsin is much more moderate than its junior Senator. So, those of you who've been here longer than me, how does he do it? How does Feingold keep getting reelected? Incompetent opposition? Election day 2004 was opposite day in Wisconsin?

I'd love to hear any ideas, thoughts, or wild speculations ya'll have.

Local radio personality John Peterson wrote a blog post yesterday called The Voucher Wedge. In it, he talked about his displeasure with the voucher program that allows students to leave the Milwaukee Public Schools and enroll in various types of private schools. He has two specific complaints about giving families vouchers to use at non-public schools:

First, the choice program is sending taxpayer dollars into private schools that are not accountable to people of this state. I had heard Republicans were the party of accountability. Not only is there is no standardized test to compare private and public schools ability educate children, but choice supporters have blocked an honest evaluation to support their contention that private schools are better.

Second, public schools could not budget accurately for the next year without knowing enrollment numbers. Suggesting that there be no cap demonstrates a lack of business savvy.

As a supporter of vouchers, I'd like to respond to John's complaints. Now, I'm definitely not an "educational expert". I'm a guy with a blog that likes to ask questions and raise concerns. I'm probably overlooking some subtleties of the educational system. I'm not an expert on the Milwaukee Choice Program or on the private schools that are currently accepting vouchers. These are simply my reactions to John's assertions.

I must admit that I'm a bit surprised by his first complaint. He claims that private schools are not accountable to "people of this state". Well, as I see it, the private schools are accountable to one very important group of people: the parents who are sending their children to these schools. The vouchers, that the parents receive, are usable at many different schools. If the parents see that their children are doing worse in a voucher school than they were in a public school, it's a simple matter to move the children to a new voucher school or back into the MPS (Milwaukee Public Schools).

That's why I think this complaint is a bit of a red herring. WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state teachers union) would love to keep Milwaukee's children in their schools. To that end, WEAC moans about a lack of oversight and a lack of standardized testing. What they really mean, is that WEAC is not able to oversee the schools or determine if Milwaukee's children are measuring up to WEAC's standards. (Now it's true that John only mentioned state oversight of the private schools. But really, which group has the most influence over Wisconsin's educational policy? WEAC does. Therefore, it seems to me, that any state oversight of eduction really boils down to WEAC oversight of education.)

I don't think a teacher's union should be the final arbiters of whether teachers are doing a good job. I don't think teachers should be determining which school system does the best job of teaching children. I think doing so creates an inherent conflict of interest for the teachers. I believe parents are the best judge of school effectiveness. I think parents are the best judge of which school does the best job of teaching their children. I think parents will do a better job of providing school oversight than other "people of this state" ever would. I may be wrong. I'd love to hear from anyone who can point me to widespread examples of parents making poor educational choices for their children.

John's other complaint revolves around the budgeting process for MPS. Specifically that with vouchers public schools could not budget accurately for the next year without knowing enrollment numbers. Again, I'm not an expert at this, and I may be wrong. It seems to me that, with an expanded voucher program in place, public school enrollment will only be going down, not up. If that's case, what's so hard about budgeting? Stick to the same budget that was used in the previous year. It should be more than adequate to cover expenses for the current year. It will probably even have money left over. Am I wrong? Am I missing something obvious that would make the budget process something truly worrisome?

Owen reminds us about today's hearing on the Taxpayer Protection Amendment:

I'll be there to speak up for myself and my family. Will you be there to speak up for yours?

I'd love to be there. Unfortunately, we're still a one car family and my wife needs the car this afternoon. I'll be stuck in Madison, but my thoughts will be in Pewaukee. Owen, make sure the legislators know about the people who aren't there, as well as the people who are.

Boots and Sabers has been all over the Wisconsin Taxpayer Protection Amendment. Yesterday, Owen reported on a conference call, concerning TAPA, sponsored by American's for Prosperity. Dr. Milton Friedman participated in the call. This is important because:

Milton Friedman, for those of you who may not know, is a Nobel Prize winning economist who has been fighting for tax and spend restrictions on government since Proposition 1 in California in 1973, when Governor Ronald Reagan began trying to bring our governments back to fiscal sanity. Proposition 1 failed to pass, but it helped start a revolution. He has seen measures like the TPA written and tried across the country for 30 years and knows what works and what doesn't.

He came out strongly in favor of the amendment. Good enough for me.

Earlier in the week, Owen relayed information about a public hearing on TAPA. The hearing is Wednesday afternoon. Pending approval from my boss, I plan to leave work early so that I can attend. I support this amendment and I want to make sure that Wisconsin's Republicans know that.

I saw this article earlier in the day and wanted to blog on it. Unfortunately, getting my wisdom teeth pulled and being on pain meds made blogging a risky proposition. Owen (of Boots and Sabers) wrote that the study mentioned in the article confirms the need for the Tax Protection Amendment. He said exactly what I wanted to say:

I read this study and said, "huh"¦ $5,200,000,000 less in government spending"¦ that would be nice.... $5,200,000,000 additional money in the economy.... that sure would help create jobs and raise our standard of living..." 3.8% growth is STILL faster than the rate of inflation. Most Wisconsinites haven't been getting a 3.8% raise every year for the last 20 years. In fact, personal income only went up by about 4.5% since 1990, so to increase government by 5.3% just seems criminal. Government has been increasing in size faster than the ability of the citizens to pay for it.

It must be an election year. Wisconsin Republicans indicated that they would work with Governor Doyle on a heating bill. Quick recap: Republicans hold a majority in both the state Assembly and the state Senate. Governor Doyle peremptorily summoned the legislature into session after the Republicans had previously refused to increase state heating aid. I have a few questions I'd like to ask about this plan.

Doyle wants to set aside $6 million from an environmental cleanup fund to offer one-time heating assistance to people who do not currently qualify for aid. Some 30,000 families would qualify for $200 to $300 dollars apiece, Doyle's office estimates. The Republicans agreed to work with Doyle after the governor last week called for a special session of the Legislature on Tuesday to take up his plan, which would expand eligibility to a family of four with an income lower than $40,000.

How were these numbers arrived at? How many people four-member families with an income lower than $40,000 are there? How many of them desperately need this aid? How much heat does the Governor want to pay for? A passable 68 degrees or a balmy 75 degrees? One is necessary, one is simply extravagant. Does the Governor's plan take this into account? Is this a true necessity or simply a vote-buying effort by a Governor desperate for good news? Will this money really be taken from the environmental cleanup fund or will Doyle later use the environmental cleanup fund as an excuse to raise taxes further?

Families "are left to worry for another week about how to pay the bills and whether they'll have to choose between heating and eating," [Governor Doyle] said at a news conference.

This statement is extremely misleading. Wisconsin law prohibits heating companies from cutting off the heat if citizens are unable to pay their bills. People can catch up on their bills during the cheaper summer months. If paying large bills during the winter is a worry, most utility companies allow people to pay on a "budget plan" that distributes the payments evenly throughout the entire year. No citizen of Wisconsin need to choose between heating and eating. If money is tight, the state allows them to choose eating now and worry about the heating bills later.

The eligibility expansion could help people such as Deanna Topper of Mount Horeb, a single working mother who was denied heating assistance last year. Topper, a case manager for a social services agency, said her heating bill had doubled since that time and any state aid "would be a huge relief."

I am sure it would be huge relief if the state would help. I would consider it a huge relief if the state of Wisconsin would help pay for my cable bill. That doesn't mean that the state needs to pay for Ms. Topper's bills.

Actually, I wonder if Ms. Topper has cable television? I don't know if she does or not, but let's hypothesize that she does -- just as a thought experiment. If so, I would argue that the state is subsidizing her cable bills. By helping to pay for her heat, they would be allowing her to spend her own money on a cable subscription. I'm not sure what the rates in Mount Horeb are, but here in Madison I would have to spend $45 a month to get cable television. Over the course of a winter, that would be a cool $225. If Wisconsin is determined to give people another $200-300 a month, they should force people to choose between cable television and heating, to pinpoint just one luxury that 62% of all Americans enjoy.

Fitzgerald, co-chairman of the Legislature's budget committee, said he also questioned spending $6 million more because the state and federal government are already spending a record $80 million to help the poor in Wisconsin pay their heating bills this year.

This has been one of the mildest winters on record for Wisconsin. We're already spending a record amount of money to pay for heating bills. A record amount of money in a year that has been very mild. Why do we need to spend even more money on heating? Keep in mind that no one will have their heat cut off this winter. No one will freeze to death if we don't spend this money. Why is it so urgent that we spend it now? Why are Wisconsin's Republicans so eager to help the governor spend even more money?

The Wisconsin Taxpayer Protection Amendment is an amendent to the Wisconsin Constitution that limits the amount of taxes that the state and local governments can raise. If successful, it will protect Wisconsin residents from taxes that seem to rise endlessly. As someone who thinks Wisconsin is already grossly over-taxed, I am very supportive of this bill.

Owen from Boots and Sabers posted a detailed analysis of the Wisconsin Taxpayer Protection Amendment (full text).

Rather than focusing on the amendment itself (I couldn't possibly come close to Owen's efforts), I'd like to focus on the opposition to the amendment. The Wisconsin State Journal ran a story about it this morning.

[Opponents] said the latest proposal still ties the hands of local officials and limits government spending to a formula that doesn't match the needs of government or students, the poor, the sick and the old.

Wisconsin's $1.7 billion in programs for doctors and drugs for the poor, uninsured children and their parents and seniors has grown by an average 7.9 percent a year since 1989, nearly three times the 2.7 percent increase in overall inflation over the same period, according to the state Department of Health and Family Services.

Economist Andrew Reschovsky of UW-Madison's La Follette School of Public Affairs said the measure would likely substantially downsize government over time. If the proposal had been put in place 20 years ago, and without passing any referendum, the $15.5 billion the state collects in annual taxes and fees today would be about 20 percent lower, he said.

"We could eliminate the UW System completely and we would still have to cut more. It's a big number," he said.

The fact is, Wisconsin's taxes don't match the needs of Wisconsin's citizens. No one is helped by having their government help itself to a large portion of their income. These paragraphs are a classic example of FUD: Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt. Government big spenders are trying to frighten everyone into believing that society's weakest members will be shoved out into the snow if taxes are raised more slowly. You can't get any more bleeding heart than mentioning students, grandmothers, and invalids in the same paragraph. Reschovsky would like to create the fear that Wisconsin will have to kill the UW if this bill passes. Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is, the amendment would still allow governments to raises taxes by 4% annually. I'd hardly consider that a hardship. My own income increases at a rate of 2-5% per year. My spending increases at a slightly slower rate. (I do have to set aside money for the lean years, after all.) Wisconsin's spending has increased by almost 8% per year. I have a hard time understanding why government should get to take my money faster than I can earn it. And that is exactly what they are doing. If I get a 3% raise and Wisconsin raises my taxes by 6%, the state is now taking 3% more of my money than they used to.

Carefully monitoring income and expenses is something that most Americans do every month. I have to carefully budget all of my income. I look at what I absolutely need to spend money on: housing, food, student loan debt, etc. Then, with the money left over, I have to make some hard decisions: should I help my brother with his college expenses? Should I take my wife out to dinner? Should I buy a new book or CD? Should I put more into my 401(k) or mortgage savings? I only have a limited slice of income to go around. As much as I would like to, I can't dictate my own income and spend whatever I want to.

Why should the Wisconsin legislature, the Dane County Control Board, and the city of Madison be any different? Why should they be allowed to take more and more of my money every year? I'm not trying to cripple the government or destroy it. I'm merely asking (requiring) it to live by the same rules and limitations I do. Prioritize spending. Focus on the most important needs first. Make some hard decisions every once in a while instead of trying to make everyone happy.

Most of the time, the Midwest is a peaceable place to live. Every so often, however, the wheels come off. When a Midwesterner (or worse, a Wisconsinite) goes on the warpath, things can get ugly very quickly. Observe the Seething Midwest:

Like a pot of bratwurst left unattended at a Lambeau Field pregame party, simmering tensions in the strife-torn Midwest boiled over once again today as rioting mobs of green-and-gold clad youth and plump farm wives rampaged through Wisconsin Denny's and IHOPs, burning Texas toast and demanding apologies and extra half-and-half.

The spark igniting the latest tailgate hibachi of unrest: a Texas newsletter's publication of caricatures of legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi.

Protestors demonstrated against the images throughout the Badger State yesterday, with violent egging and cow-tipping incidents reported in Oconomowac, Pewaukee, Sheboygan, Ozaukee, Antigo, Oshkosh, Waubeno, Wauwautosa, Waunewoc, Wyocena, Waubeka, and Washawonamowackapeepee.