Posted in Big Government

Strengthen our Safety Net to Strengthen our Economy

Congress has missed their first deadline in the budget negotiations that were constructed after the government shutdown.  Paul Ryan and Pat Murray are co-chairing the committee, and Ryan is peddling his usual cuts to entitlement programs.  Republicans persistently talk about cutting entitlement benefits under the guise of cutting the deficit and encouraging people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.  That mentality might work in a booming economy, but it has quite the opposite effect in a depressed economy.

Earlier this week, President Obama made a comment referencing the fact that America has installed societal ladders for our people to climb to success, and spread safety nets beneath.  We did this so that if we fall, we don’t fall quite so far and we can bounce back.

This is a strong argument to strengthen the safety net programs instead of cutting or even simply maintaining them. Stronger safety nets, properly administered, would actually encourage people to start new businesses and make new investments.  An economy that provides easy access to health insurance and less chance of going bankrupt or losing your home, will enable many people to take risks and start new ventures.

So many Americans have a great talent or idea that they would like to pursue, but are too afraid because if their business doesn’t succeed, they will have a hard time finding new work.  A failed venture could cost them their homes, their health insurance, and even the ability to put food on the table.  High unemployment, fragile safety nets, and monopolized industries are killing job and business growth because it creates an atmosphere where the average person doesn’t have the equity to survive if they fail at a new endeavor.  A society that provides for its citizens, while they get back on their feet, would provide the peace of mind for new business ventures to be started.  This would create more businesses, which creates more jobs, which would also create more options for individuals who are looking for work.

The GOP says they want to cut entitlements because they feel the safety net “has become a hammock”, in the words of Paul Ryan.  This is a ploy.  They don’t want people to have the freedom to start new businesses because new businesses mean competition and the loss of power. This also why they are so against Obamacare.  The Republican Caucus isn’t worried about middle class individuals losing their health insurance.  If that was their worry, they would vote for universal healthcare, tomorrow.  The real reason, outside of campaign donations from the health insurance industry, is that they know that Obamacare will give people the freedom to find affordable healthcare without needing a job at one of their corporate donors.

Furthermore, the GOP continues to cut unemployment insurance because it allows less time for someone to go ahead and start a new venture.  Granted, they don’t want anyone to have to pay taxes either, but even that is just a talking point.  The longer someone is out of work and receiving unemployment, the longer they have to actually start up their own business.  Maybe they fix cars on the side, repair roofing, paint houses, fix computers; whatever the trade may be, Republicans and corporations do not want new competition popping up in their communities.

The government is not the answer to every problem, but in this case it is for the short-term.  A strong safety net would provide the certainty that people need to feel comfortable in taking a risk.  Of those risks, new and prosperous businesses will be developed.  This will provide more jobs and opportunity while bringing down the unemployment rate.  As more of these business take shape, more jobs create a long-term, market-based solution; lessening the need for the safety net.

The Democratic Party needs to go on the offensive in this fight.  They must stop talking about preserving what we have and start screaming about strengthening these programs.

Listen to our full program on Civil Discourse podcast, right here:

http://civildiscourse.podomatic.com/entry/2013-12-08T18_36_56-08_00

 

2014 Will Mould 2016 for Scott Walker

Many Wisconsin Progressives are extremely unhappy with the candidacy of Trek Executive, Mary Burke.  Nary a day goes by without Facebook posts about Burke’s lack of a progressive outlook and Vinehout’s expected announcement.

Most recently a member of the Solidarity Sing-A-Long put up a post stating that “Burke is among the one percent” and “she spent $100,000.00 to defeat ‘candidate XYZ’ for Madison School Board.”  He then appeared to insult Burke for not taking part in the Solidarity Sing-A-Long or other protests.  Perhaps Burke is not partaking in these activities because she is busy running a credible, state-wide campaign against a highly funded, well-known, incumbent governor?

Burke has been criticized for not taking part in other activities such as Fighting Bob Fest.  These allegations are more worthy of ridicule considering that Bob Fest is a great platform for her to reach out to like-minded individuals and voters, yet she neglected to us it.  It is less relevant, though, that she is not taking the time to sing songs in the Capitol Rotunda.

The Solidarity Singers have every constitutional right to do what they do.  It was wrong for Walker to have them arrested and they have proven that they have the organizational skills and the perseverance to be a credible group.  However, a question to pose to them is: Are you using your time effectively?

If the singers want to bring about change in Wisconsin, would it not be more effective if they spent their hour-a-day time slot registering voters?  Writing blogs?  Writing letters to the editor?  Campaigning for progressive candidates?  If these types of actions were used during the spring elections, perhaps Ed Fallone would be sitting on the State Supreme Court listening to such arguments as Act 10, Voter ID, and Anti-choice legislation.

The outbursts against Burke may or may not be justified, that will certainly be determined in the coming months; but right now, she is the only person in the state who has stepped up to bat for us.  There are other candidates who are lesser known, but Mary Burke is the one who has put herself out there for the state to see and judge.  Also, as the polling from Marquette shows, she is appealing to everyday “centrist” voters.  Voters that will decide the election in 2014.

More often than not, progressives will point to Kathleen Vinehout as their candidate.  Senator Vinehout is a great progressive who has proven to be a fighter for the people of her district and the people of our great state.  If I sat in a room with Burke and Vinehout, I have little doubt that my ideologies would align with Vinehout more often than Burke.  Given the choice (which will most likely be presented), Vinehout would most likely be my personal choice.

However, in the case that Vinehout loses the primary, or decides not to run at all, the question that needs to be asked of Wisconsin progressives is as follows:  What can a progressive governor accomplish without the State Assembly?

The Republicans have gerrymandered our State Assembly into a right-wing stronghold.  In 2012,  nearly 200,000 more Wisconsinites pulled the lever for a Democrat than a Republican, but the GOP stills holds nearly two-thirds of the seats in the Assembly.  A mid-term election will generally pull in less voters, so that margin will shrink at best and reverse at worst.  The sad reality is that in 2014, Wisconsin’s best hope could be to simply plug the leak by ousting Scott Walker, which will result in stopping the GOP’s railroading of the state, as well as Walker’s Presidential ambitions.

If you are angry with what Walker has done to Wisconsin, just imagine what would happen if he were able to get into the Oval Office.  2014 will help form 2016.  Do you really want to mould it to Walker’s liking because “Burke is not progressive enough for you,” so you didn’t show up?

Note: This is not an endorsement for Burke, nor meant to bash the Solidarity Singers.  It is simply meant to spark a conversation that I don’t hear anywhere else.  If you believe that a progressive governor can be effective without the State Assembly, or if you believe that we can take back the Assembly: Convince me!  (but be professional in doing so)

 

Latest Job Numbers Are a Boost for the Democrats in 2014, But Not for the People of Wisconsin

Scott Walker had a bad week. Or course he is too self-absorbed to admit or possibly even acknowledge that things are not looking very good for the state of Wisconsin.

The latest jobs numbers are out from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics, and they look pretty good…for the Democratic candidate for Governor.  From June 2012 to June 2013, job creation in Wisconsin slowed by 37% compared to the results from the previous 12 month period.  This equates to the slowest rate of growth in 3 years.  While the rest of the country is accelerating their recovery, especially other mid-western states, Wisconsin added less than 24,000 jobs, compared to nearly 38,000 the previous year.

Democratic Spokeswoman, Melissa Baldauff commented:  “Far from the ‘unbelievable amounts’ of new jobs Scott Walker promised after the recall, these numbers are the worst we’ve seen in the past three years. Wisconsinites are sick of hearing excuses for why we aren’t growing jobs like our neighbors in the Midwest and most of the rest of the nation.” -

Although,the unemployment rate of 6.5 percent here remains lower than the nation’s average of 7.3%, we have fallen off the pace considerably.

What is even more interesting is that the “job killing, tax and spend, hippie liberals of Madison” (of whom I am a proud member, thank you very much!) make up less than 10% of the state’s population, but have added 38% of the jobs.  That means that throughout the rest of the state, job creation is nearly non-existent.

Walker’s infamous pledge to create 250,000 jobs in the state during his first term, could result in his undoing.  In 2010, he stated that if he didn’t create 250,000, then he didn’t deserve a second term.  With only 13 months left in Walker’s first term, he is barely one-third of the way to creating 250k.  The state has only added 88,000 jobs, and remember, over a third of those jobs are in Madison alone. Wisconsin lost nearly 150,000 jobs during the downturn in 2009.  Walker has not even gotten us back to that level, let alone kept up with population growth, meaning that he has not created a single net new job.  In other words, if Walker were governor from the founding of Wisconsin until now, not one person would have ever held a job.  (I stole that line from Michael Moore who said it about the Bush’s)

Another failed promise of Scott Walker is that he would create 10,000 new businesses in the state in his first term.  Walker has recently come out and stated that he has now created 11,000 new businesses.  The truth of the matter is that the Quarterly Census of Employment and Wages (which Walker touts as the “gold-standard”) has found that only 4,024 new businesses have been created.  Where did walker come up with 11,000?  He found a new way of calculating the number.  The problem is that this new measuring-stick includes “non-stock corporations” which consists of clubs, little league teams, and girl scouts.

Scott Walker has been nothing short of a failure as governor of this state.  When he crushed the unions, he had the support of the hard-right-wing, but the truth is that his stunt took $1,000,000,000.00 out of our state economy.  That is money that could have been used at the mall, a local restaurant, Wisconsin Dells trips, new computers, or other non-essential activities/goods.  Wisconsin needs to wake up and boot him out of office in 2014, or he is going to make a serious run for President.

That is to say if he actually runs in 2014.

Walker still has not declared his campaign, but he has certainly seen his falling poll numbers.  Perhaps Walker will anoint J.B. Van Hollen to run in his place, so that Scott doesn’t have to go into 2016 having either just lost, or only won by a hair.  When that decision is made and announced, we will finally see just how “Unintimidated” Walker truly is.

Hear our full thoughts right here:

http://civildiscourse.podomatic.com

When MPS Government Bureaucrats Attack The First Amendment

BACKGROUND

I’m a parent of a Milwaukee Public School child.  This is a choice that I made because I believe in the city of Milwaukee and I believe in public education.  This year, I am also an officer at my school’s PTA.  For those who aren’t familiar with how a PTA works, they are an advocacy group for children.  They’re traditionally established at a school, but they’re an outside organization, just like a scouting troupe or other organization that meets in a school.  They are typically registered as a 501(c)3 tax exempt entity.  They provide programming for children and families, and function under their bylaws, which are recognized by the school.

A public school is a government unit filled with government employees and overseen by a number of standards–but most policy decisions come from the elected School Board.

In the mid 1990s, the School Board passed a policy regarding fundraising of outside parent groups, Administrative Policy 7.22.  The policy is very vague, and there are multiple interpretations of how it should be applied, and different school principals have read it in different ways.  (Also, keep in mind, it wasn’t until this year that some bureaucrat decided this policy needed to be enforced.)  In some schools, the principal is saying it limits parent groups to 2 fundraisers per school year.

ISSUES

This policy raises two important Constitutional issues:  Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Association.

The PTA is an outside association.  Its own policies frown upon using children as entrepreneurs–which would seem to be the intent of the policy.  But if a parent group sells hotdogs at an open house, and sells t-shirts with school logos on it, even though no child is doing anything–the school will count that as two fundraisers and prohibit any further fundraising.  So, if I wanted to have a restaurant night fundraiser (where typically they donate a percentage of the receipts to the PTA), even if I don’t use any school resources, it would violate the policy.  The new enforcement of this policy by the district could cut some PTA budgets by 75%–severely impacting their ability to get their message out, while at the same time interfering in the legal activities of a private association.

It is very clear that the solution is the the School Board to address this policy and ensure that the policy does not run afoul of the first amendment.  Protecting children from having to do fundraising is a worthwhile goal, but the current enforcement of the policy is harmful to children.  It shows disregard for our laws, and it inhibits the parents from doing their job as part of an advocacy organization.  In a district that already has so many budgetary shortfalls, it is absurd to push a policy that takes away resources from an organization that funds student activities, scholarships, and is the front line in one of the pro-ported goals of the district–getting parents and families involved with education.

 

Ron Johnson’s Approval Rating at 28%

The latest Marquette Poll shows that Ron Johnson’s approval rating is at a meager 28%.  Johnson rode into office on a wave of anti-incumbent, anti-progress Tea Party voters in 2010.  He defeated three-term Senator and progressive icon Russ Feingold in a stunning upset.  Although Johnson was leading in the polls, many progressives and media figures found it hard to believe that Russ Feingold could be defeated by an unknown millionaire who denied climate change, enjoyed exploiting campaign finance reform, and wanted to repeal the only step forward in our healthcare system that this country has taken since Lyndon Johnson was president.

Since taking office, Ron Johnson has refused to exit campaign mode and actually legislate like a true statesman.  Johnson has been one of the most reliable party line votes in the Senate.  He refuses to give an inch on anything that could possibly help President Obama pass his agenda, and answers any questions with, “We need to repeal Obamacare.”  Johnson was on the radio for an interview this week, and when asked about his vote against ENDA, his answer was, “I am here to repeal Obamacare.”

Since taking office, Ron Johnson has voted against the Violence Against Women Act, Gun Control Legislation, Immigration reform, Re-opening the Government, and most recently against the Employee Non-Discrimination Act.

Not surprisingly, this partisan attitude and constant campaigning has cost Johnson a lot of political capital with the people of Wisconsin.

Johnson’s latest idea is to propose the “If You Like Your Insurance, You Can Keep It Act.”  The name alone gives way to the prospect that Johnson is not taking his job seriously.  However, once we get past this detail, we see just how ridiculous Johnson operates. This law would force insurance companies to continue offering plans that do not meet the minimum requirements of the Affordable Care Act, and even keep offering plans that are not profitable for the company.  Yet Johnson has been preaching against the ACA since day one of his candidacy because, “it is a government takeover of the healthcare industry and puts in way to many regulations on private corporations.”

Johnson is up for reelection in 2016.  Considering that 2016 is a presidential year, it should only take a modest candidate to defeat someone who clearly has only one vision for his position:  obstruction.  Although Johnson should be easily defeated, don’t forget that was also said about Ronald Reagan–and look how that turned out.

Hear our complete thoughts on this subject and more at:

http://civildiscourse.podomatic.com/entry/2013-11-16T10_07_42-08_00