Tuesday, March 31
By Lucas at 9:34 PM
Wild Wisconsin DPI coverage:
Tony Evers Bashes Homeschoolers
DPI Letter to the editor
Personal Interview with Rose Fernandez
So Who is Funding Tony Evers?
Wild Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Coverage:
Judge Abrahamson and Planned Barrenhood
CapTimes Seeks Religious Litmus of Koschnick
Why Rose Fernandez? Well first off, when the teachers unions spend more than parents for both candidates combined you gotta wonder what Evers will be giving to them. But that is only the smell test. The real test is who they see as the primary agents of control. Rose Fernandez = Parents. Tony Evers = WEAC and Madison. (Not to mention that his campaign promised me an interview but never could find a time or get back to me.)
Abrahamson also has a long and biased history in manipulating the constitution to fit her own agenda. Koschnick has promised that “The role of a justice is to apply the law; not make it. I pledge to not legislate from the bench."
Wild Wisconsin endorses parents in education and the law in justice.
By Lucas at 8:59 PM
You can also send an envelope online for $1 each here.
By Lucas at 8:38 PM
Monday, March 30
Saturday, March 28
In 10 years, taxes are expected to fall to around 19% of GDP, a lower level than the late 1990s. Spending is expected to drop to around 22.5% of GDP, about where it was under Ronald Reagan -- including nondefense discretionary spending at about 3.6% of GDP, its lowest since data on this were first collected in 1962.
Reich's caveat that this might be "wildly optimistic" is probably closer to the truth than the dreamland of
[Caption]Obama plans. Even look at Bush, or almost any president. It is easy to promise hard decisions down the road to make your budget in the end look conservative. We should expect the same in two years not ten.
Those tax increases [2% on the rich] will fund more Pell grants allowing lower-income children to attend college, better pay for teachers that show they're worth it, broader access to health care, improved infrastructure, and more basic research. These and related expenditures are designed to help Americans become more productive. You might think of it as "trickle up" economics.
These expenditures might be designed to make American's more productive but there is no guarantee that they will. Unfortunately, this logic assumes that the government will do a more efficient job teaching, healing, researching and deciding who gets that money. Look at your city construction crews vs. your home business lawn and garden care and try telling me that government does a more efficient job. But I compliment Reich on asking "will this make America more productive?"
Finally, Reich ignores several crucial parts of Obama's plan. Bank bailouts. No indication on how those make us more productive. What about the energy tax of cap and trade. If Obama gets his way your electric prices could double as the country and economy suffers from over a $1 trillion dollar tax on energy. How will this help the economy?
By Lucas at 9:12 PM
Friday, March 27
Being homeschooled myself, I am offended by this remark. While homeschoolers are saving the state $198 million per year with better educational results, he knocks them for having an "agenda".
Tony Evers must appologize to the homeschoolers of Wisconsin.
By Lucas at 8:14 AM
Thursday, March 26
By Lucas at 8:47 PM
As families across western Wisconsin know, a budget is about priorities. They also know that responsible budgeting means adhering to some simple principles: don’t spend more than you take in and make smart investments that will help you down the road. Congress must start following the lead of ordinary American families by reversing years of record deficits and making key investments to grow our economy. Our country must return to the days of fiscal responsibility with a realistic, workable plan to put America back on a path to fiscal security. We need to start making decisions that will leave our children a better country to inherit.
The chart to the left is the deficit estimate under Obama's budget compared to Bush(HT: power line). Kind, if you talked about fiscal responsibility under Bush, you should be screaming about fiscal responsibility today. Kind???
By Lucas at 9:24 AM
Tuesday, March 24
By Lucas at 9:41 AM
By Lucas at 9:27 AM
By Lucas at 8:25 AM
Monday, March 23
In many ways this is beside the point. Those responsible should be the parents. State bureaucrats are not to be ramming any position that parents oppose. Parents want evolution taught. So be it. They want creation taught. So be it. When it comes to education I will back the parents every time.
By Lucas at 11:43 AM
Friday, March 20
This law is unconstitutional in two ways: 1. It is an ex post facto law (law making something criminalizing something retroactively). 2. It is a bill of attainder (a law made against an individual or specific group, in this case bailout business employees and punishing them without a trial).
I truly hope someone sues over this law.
I share the outrage over the bonuses. Government run businesses should never be doling out those sort of bonuses. At the same time the real outrage is the hundreds of billions the government has given to AIG.
By Lucas at 10:25 PM
Thursday, March 19
"This was a huge bill," Baucus said. "We agreed on structure. Then when
staffs and Treasury get in the room and actually write it, that's where
it got dropped. And frankly, it was such a rush, talking about the
stimulus bill right now, to get it passed, I did not have time, other
conferees did not have time to address many of the provisions that were
modified significantly. We do the best we can, but we missed that stuff
as a result."
By Lucas at 9:42 PM
By Lucas at 4:00 PM
This is the Vanderbilt Axiom. In the 1800s Vanderbilt took on government granted ferry and train monopolies. In almost every instance he beat them by offering better service for less cost. He was a strong supporter of the free market and would often start business initiatives just to prove his point that individuals work better than the government in running businesses.
The reason for this is evident in the recent outrage over AIG bonuses. The company is probably right in needing to give out large bonuses to keep many of its talented employees, but once you are a government business (AIG is 80% owned by the government) or even get large government funds, you have to follow the rules of government bureaucracy. Government bureaucrats are not paid according to ability, but by rules of equality. The objectives are driven by polls. The difference is GM vs. Ford today.
By Lucas at 8:19 AM
His best idea: "Rather than raise the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6%, it should be dropped to 25%. The lower tax brackets should be collapsed to one 10% rate on the first $100,000 for couples. And the top corporate tax rate should be lowered to 25%. This modest reform would put American companies' tax liability more in line with the prevailing rates of our competitors."
His best line: "Democrats oppose this, playing on emotions of fear and envy. But while class warfare may make good short-term politics, it produces terrible economics."
By Lucas at 7:28 AM
Wednesday, March 18
Gibbs said Monday, "Based on what I read in the newspaper,"
the administration learned about the bonuses last week. He declined to offer a timeline on Tuesday.
By Lucas at 8:44 AM
Tuesday, March 17
Let those who believe pay. That is something I think we all can believe in.
By Lucas at 9:32 AM
All in favor click here.
By Lucas at 8:14 AM
Monday, March 16
WW remembers Whittacker Chambers in a special way this week for his comitment to this principle and exposing communism in America.
By Lucas at 6:42 PM
"There are more people seeking out lobbyists now because they're trying to deal with the big-government mentality,"
By Lucas at 7:49 AM
Saturday, March 14
Friday, March 13
Update: The Stinnett Family wins by figuring out what the picture on the right represents (See comments). Although I did not say I would to begin with, I have awarded them a free phone card for being the first to answer the question. In the future, similar answered questions will be similarly rewarded at my discression. (Sorry, all family are exempt). Feeling like you missed out? Phone Shark has some free 6 minute cards to try.
By Lucas at 11:10 PM
To the Editor:
In the race for State Superintendent of Public Instruction on April 7th you have two choices. Rose Fernandez wants to put control and responsibility first in the hands of parents, teachers and local communities; state bureaucracies should play a supportive but subservient role. Tony Evers wants it the other way around: state bureaucracies and teacher union presidents control; parents, local communities and teachers should be quite and follow.
Their background describes why: Evers has spent decades in state education bureaucracy. Fernandez has worked as a private business administrator and parental advocate to keep the DPI from shutting her charter school. I contacted both (see more information at my blog http:wildwisconsin.blogspot.com). From private and homeschools to educational curriculum and standards Fernandez wants to put Menomonie, Spring Valley, and Downsville parents not the state at the helm.
Not Evers. Evers would like more taxes and control funneled through the Madison bureaucracy he knows so well to manipulate. From failure in Milwaukee (that drains all district budgets) to squashing innovations like online public schools and merit pay (that even Obama supports) he will continue the worst of Madison’s status quo. If you are a parent, teacher or believe in local accountability, don’t count on Evers representing you. You need the over $200,000 spent so far by special interest on Evers to get him to represent you.
A vote for Rose Fernadez is a vote to empower Menomonie parents and teachers: our local community. A vote for Tony Evers is a vote for more Washington/Madison mandates with little interest for our schools in Dunn County. It’s a nonpartisan choice, but there is only one good choice.
Vote Rose Fernadez April 7th.
By Lucas at 11:13 AM
By Lucas at 11:03 AM
By Lucas at 10:49 AM
Thursday, March 12
Collectively, the top three billionaires lost $68 billion in the year to February 13, when Forbes took a snapshot of wealth around the world to compile its annual list of billionaires.
By Lucas at 8:11 PM
Congressman Rob Bishop (R–UT) and Senator David Vitter (R–LA) recently introduced legislation that would create an estimated 2 million jobs, increase gross domestic product $10 trillion over the next 30 years, and lower energy costs—all without a huge expense to the taxpayer.
The No Cost Stimulus Act of 2009 would do this by expanding domestic energy supply and streamlining burdensome, unnecessary environmental review processes that have placed a stranglehold on access to reliable U.S. energy sources for decades.
By Lucas at 4:19 PM
Wednesday, March 11
Allow workers and wages to realign.
One of the most interesting comparisons between quick recovery (e.g. 1907 1921) from economic downturns and long recovery (1930s 1970s) is that in the quick recoveries wages and prices have been allowed to adjust--yes that means fall--even if it hurts so that reality can settle in and the economy can recover again. In the immediate months after the 1929 crash most wages stayed the same and many others even rose. But so did unemployment--very high. Many companies would have been happy (today too) to cut wages and higher more people.
So what can the government do to allow wages to fall to their proper market level? A few things:
1. Cut minimum wage laws.
By allowing the bottom wages to fall, this causes most wages to fall, since many wages are tied to the lowest amount.
2. Evaluate Government Wages
Instead of letting Congressional and other government wages to rise, the government could reevaluate what it is paying it own workers. Hey, would it be that bad if we could hire twice as many people for the same cost?
3. Monitor Unions
As we have seen from the $50+/hr wages that unions created in the car industry, government should give no added incentive or bartering power to unions to push wages above their natural level.
4. Don't Ever Run for Office.
At least with the popularity of these ideas. But hey, would you rather have no job or a job that pays a bit less because we are in a recession?
By Lucas at 4:25 PM
First they continue to tag Hoover as a free market tight fist who did nothing while the economy tanked.
"There is inherent virtue in action. Hoover never understood this." John Farrell says.
Truth: Hoover believed in the "Efficiency Movement (which comes from the Progressive era) that a technical solution existed for every social and economic problem." In other words the government could fix it. Also it is interesting to note, before the Wall Street crash it was the Democrats espeically Wodrow Wilson and FDR who courted Hoover to run as a Democrat. Indeed after he lost to FDR New Dealer Rexford Tugwell said that "practically the whole New Deal was extrapolated from programs that Hoover started." No one would have said that Hoover was a man of inaction one year into the Depression. Ineffective action yes, but not inaction. And FDR continued that action...and kept us in a Depression for ten years.
So if we want to copy the 1930s, too much flailing action on the part of the government appears to lead us right down the line to give us a decade of depression debt.
Your happy thought for the day.
By Lucas at 3:54 PM
1. Evangelicals have identified their movement with the culture war and with political conservatism. This will prove to be a very costly mistake. Evangelicals will increasingly be seen as a threat to cultural progress. Public leaders will consider us bad for America, bad for education, bad for children, and bad for society.
By Lucas at 10:31 AM
Tuesday, March 10
By Lucas at 8:05 AM
Monday, March 9
By Lucas at 11:40 AM
Image by purpleslog via Flickr
A decade ago, best-selling author Stephen Ambrose donated $250,000 to the University of Wisconsin, his alma mater, to endow a professorship in American military history. A few months later, he gave another $250,000. Until his death in 2002, he badgered friends and others to contribute additional funds. Today, more than $1 million sits in a special university account for the Ambrose-Heseltine Chair in American History, named after its main benefactor and the long-dead professor who trained him.
The chair remains vacant, however, and Wisconsin is not currently trying to fill it. “We won’t search for a candidate this school year,” says John Cooper, a history professor. “But we’re committed to doing it eventually.” The ostensible reason for the delay is that the university wants to raise even more money, so that it can attract a top-notch senior scholar. There may be another factor as well: Wisconsin doesn’t actually want a military historian on its faculty. It hasn’t had one since 1992, when Edward M. Coffman retired. “His survey course on U.S. military history used to overflow with students,” says Richard Zeitlin, one of Coffman’s former graduate teaching assistants. “It was one of the most popular courses on campus.” Since Coffman left, however, it has been taught only a couple of times, and never by a member of the permanent faculty.
So in the spirit of not forgetting history, a link to one of my favorite battles: Trafalgar.
The battle has all the quintessential elements of a great battle. An underdog with superior training and leadership totally decimates the enemy through novel tactics and stunning personal bravery. Lord Nelson is an amazing hero.
By Lucas at 9:28 AM
Saturday, March 7
By Lucas at 12:54 AM
Friday, March 6
By Lucas at 11:30 AM
By Lucas at 11:28 AM
By Lucas at 9:35 AM
Thursday, March 5
It is really wrong for anyone to say that a liberal or conservative is more anti-business or more in the pocket of business. The divide of small business vs. big business doesn't really explain the divide either. The best way to understand the difference between how a liberal and conservative in government relate to business is conservatives adhere to opportunity while liberals want end results equality.
Just take the recent bailouts. The increasing trend is that conservatives have fought against the bailouts of businesses and against the stimulus package that building associations and commerce departments lobbied strongly for. The change was abrupt and noticeable. Normally it is the conservatives who are standing against "wind-fall taxes" on corporation and strangling red tape.
Conservatives are not afraid to let people succeed and fail. If I make $2 million dollars tomorrow or $30 billion over the span of my life, that does not make me evil or mean that I have taken advantage of someone to get there. I have no governmental obligation to society (personal: everyone does!) Indeed, most likely it was by honest hard work supplying a community need that I achieved this success. Success does not make me suspect or guilty of wrong; failure does not qualify me for governmental assistance. According to a conservative, the coercive power of the government can only be employed in a blind and impartial way to protect defined and eternal rights. If I make a billion dollars legally tomorrow on gas futures, even if gas goes up tomorrow I am not punished with "wind-fall taxes". Only if you could prove I stole them could you. But if I lose my home tomorrow because I bet on gas futures with it, I also don't get my mortgage paid off by the government either. And if I stole I still could be brought to justice even if I am in the dumps. I have a liberty to succeed and fail.
Liberals are more concerned that businesses have an equal result. When car manufactures are rolling in the dough and the economy is high, they are all too happy to mandate costly vehicle fleet requirements and dealership protection--they can handle it. Then they suffer threatened bankruptcy and liberals again are happy to bail them out with a billion or thirteen. Hey, they fail, we all fail. Disparity causing success is suspect if not outright wrong. The means to an end is not as important as equality in the end. Are you a small shoe company that made bad shoes and is just about going under? You are a ripe example for a liberal to prop up. Just made over $250,000 plumbing? You're in their targets. The following of the rules is less important to a liberal than that we all end up floating at the same level.
It is the difference between a level playing field and a level ending field.
It is the difference between equal rights and the right to be equal.
It is the difference between blind justice and blind compassion.
By Lucas at 10:13 PM
Notice they believe it is the "livestock industry" not too many elephants or whitetail deer burping too much. But we all know the truth. Too many deer and elk belching in the world! Shoot a deer; save the planet!
On a typical day, researchers in this college town coax hungry sheep into metal carts. They wheel the fluffy beasts into sealed chambers and feed them grass, then wait for them to burp.
The exercise is part of a global effort to keep sheep, deer, cows and other livestock from belching methane when they eat and regurgitate grass. Methane is among the most potent greenhouse gases, and researchers now believe livestock industries are a major contributor to climate change, responsible for more greenhouse-gas emissions than cars are, according to the United Nations.
By Lucas at 7:54 AM
Wednesday, March 4
In the meantime, we have learned some important things. On defense policy, the peace candidate is not a radical. On economic policy, the post-partisan could hardly be more partisan. Obama does not want to cultivate conservatives; he wants to crush them. And that is a revelation.
By Lucas at 12:40 PM
The Obama administration’s unprecedented intrusion into the private sector betrays its underlying philosophy. In his speech before a joint session of Congress last week, the president declared that he doesn’t believe in bigger government. Oh yes he does, in ways we have never quite seen before.
By Lucas at 12:28 PM
Tuesday, March 3
Monday, March 2
On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it [slavery] as not being wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not mean to say that every man who stands within that range positively asserts that it is right. That class will include all who positively assert that it is right, and all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as indifferent and do not say it is either right or wrong. These two classes of men fall within the general class of those who do not look upon it as a wrong. And if there be among you anybody who supposes that he, as a Democrat, can consider himself “as much opposed to slavery as anybody,” I would like to reason with him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that you consider as a wrong do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps you say it is wrong, but your leader never does, and you quarrel with anybody who says it is wrong. Although you pretend to say to yourself, you can find no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You must not say anything about it in the Free States, because it is not here.because it is there. You must not say anything about it in the pulpit, because that is religion, and has nothing to do with it. You must not say anything about it in politics, because that will disturb the security of “my place.” There is no place to talk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. You must not say anything about it in the Slave States, But, finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the people of the Slave States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on the slavery question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor of it. You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be glad to see it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself. You all know that Frank Blair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook to introduce that system in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as they could for the system of gradual emancipation which you pretend you would be glad to see succeed. Now, I will bring you to the test. After a hard fight they were beaten, and when the news came over here, you threw up your hats and hurrahed for Democracy. More than that, take all the argument made in favor of the system you have proposed, and it carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in the institution of slavery. The arguments to sustain that policy carefully excluded it. Even here to-day you heard Judge Douglas quarrel with me because I uttered a wish that it might sometime come to an end. Although Henry Clay could say he wished every slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors, I am denounced by those pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering a wish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. The Democratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate the merest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong about it. Try it by some of Judge Douglas’s arguments. He says he “don’t care whether it is voted up or voted down” in the Territories. I do not care myself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to be expressive of his individual sentiments on the subject, or only of the national policy he desires to have established. It is alike valuable for my purpose. Any man can say that who does not see anything wrong in slavery; but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can logically say he don’t care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. He may say he don’t care whether an indifferent thing is voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a right thing and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaves has a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it is a wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He says that upon the score of equality, slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no difference between it and other property. If it and other property are equal, his argument is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and the other right, there is no use to institute a comparison between right and wrong. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy from beginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, in the shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes in conversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments,—it everywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it.
By Lucas at 2:16 PM
Of course, no discussion of life and dignity of the human person can be complete without discussing the important issue of abortion. My Catholic faith teaches me that all life is sacred, and personally I believe abortion is wrong. However, I disagree with the suggestion that criminalizing women and their doctors is an effective means of achieving the goal of reducing the number of abortions in our nation. There is another way. By working in support of the common good we can better protect human life and the dignity of all people.
But it seems they said the same thing about slavery. Can I personally believe that slavery is wrong but wouldn't EVER criminalize slave traders and slave owners let alone touch them with humane regulation?
Memo to Senate: Reject.
By Lucas at 11:42 AM
Sebelius has earned the label of being viciously pro-abortion by her voting record and campaign and political associations/contributions within the state. She's not even in the "safe, legal, and rare" Clinton type category and her Catholic faith has only gotten her rebuke.
Voting Record: In 2003 and 2005 very similar bills were introduced to regulate abortion clinics within the state. Kansas does not inspect nor have any clinical standards for their abortion clinics. This was common sense legislation that even many Democrats should agree with in the cause to make abortions "safe" (at least for the mothers). However, Sebelius twice vetoed this bill to protect her abortionist friends in the state (see below).
In 2008 she again vetoed a bill that would have offered women an ultrasound of their preborn child and tightened restrictions on late-term abortions.
Probably the most infamous abortionist in the United States, George Tiller has donated more than $38,000 directly to Sebelius with a $100,000 more being directed at the Democratic Governor's Association during the middle of Sebelius' campaign (and never before or since). This is only the easily traceable funds. George Tiller has also created numerous PAC that have funneled money to Sebelius and her supporters.
Not to be outdone, Sebelius invited Tiller and over a dozen of the staff from his abortion clinic to a lavish party at the governor's mansion (see pictures here.)
Tiller is being charged with violating the state restrictions on late-term abortions and on the medicinally unsound practices found at his clinic.
It has been estimated that Tiller has done over 60,000 abortions many of them late term ones in which he shoots the babies heart with poison or pulls the baby apart limb by limb.
The question is then, does Obama want this sort of women with such close ties to one of the most violent, negligent, and vicious abortionists in the country?
Of course those who accept the scientific evidence of life beginning at conception see this sort of voting record and association with abortion akin to the worst found in the Holocaust. If this is life, this is really the only way to view this. The association and voting is clear; the actions depraved and sickening.
But even those who have yet to catch up to the scientific proof for preborn life must at some point recoil. Can't we at least agree that abortion businesses should be regulated by the state so at least they are safe for the mothers? That babies are not born in hotels, or with shoddy or nonexistent follow-up?
We are all suppose to agree on reducing abortions yet Sebelius has hindered and not help advance parental consent laws, waiting periods, and sonograms laws that help women see every side of the issue before making their decision. At the minimum can Sebelius let women make an informed choice? She will not.
Violating her Catholic Faith:
(Catholic News Agency) According to the Catholic League, Archbishop Naumann hasn’t been the only Kansas City prelate to speak out against her actions. "Sebelius’ support for abortion is so far off-the-charts that she has been publicly criticized by the last three archbishops of Kansas City," the organization remarked. "In 1992, when Sebelius was a state legislator, Archbishop Ignatius Strecker rebuked her for leading what he dubbed a ‘death-march of the unborn.’ When Sebelius became governor in 2003, Archbishop James Keleher, citing her abortion record, asked her to move her inauguration interfaith service from Topeka’s Assumption Catholic Church. She refused. The current archbishop, Joseph Naumann, called her out on the issue: he challenged her to name one instance in her long legislative career where she supported limiting abortion rights. She could not. He subsequently asked her not to go to Communion."
If our proposed HHS nominee thought it was ok to shoot poisonous drugs into 4 year old hearts, we would not consider them qualified no matter what their ideas on universal healthcare, or administrative qualifications.
Simply, that is Sebelius: unable to recognize and protect life.
The Senate must reject her confirmation.
By Lucas at 8:59 AM