Pedantic Political Ponderings: Democrats

Showing posts with label Democrats. Show all posts

08 July 2012

Pondering Healthcare

There have been lots of articles in the news and blogosphere lately about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), more commonly known as ObamaCare. It has been controversial for some time, but I would like to take a different type of look at some of the history leading up to the ACA and then at what I consider to be significant flaws.

A Little of the History of Health Care

The idea for something like the ACA is neither new nor the product of just one political party. One President who called for healthcare reform in a similar format to the ACA was Richard Milhouse Nixon in his budget address to the Congress in 1974:

I am once again proposing a comprehensive plan for national health insurance that would make adequate insurance against the costs of health care available to all Americans. This far-reaching reform is long overdue. I urge early congressional action on it. The budget proposes measures to prepare for this program.

President Nixon included a few more details in that address.

The national health insurance plan I am proposing represents another major step toward improving the lives of individual Americans. My proposal calls for basic reform in the financing of medical care. It would bring comprehensive insurance protection against medical expenses within reach of all Americans, including millions of people who cannot now obtain adequate insurance coverage. Costs of coverage for low-income families would be federally supported, with payments scaled according to family income.

It will take several years for this reform to become fully operational. In the interim, the 1975 budget provides $26.3 billion for existing health programs. Under this budget, the momentum of cancer, heart, and other research initiatives would be sustained, and total funding for biomedical research would exceed $2 billion in 1975, almost double the 1969 level. To support continued reform of our medical care system, the budget proposes a total of $125 million in 1974 and 1975 to demonstrate health maintenance organization concepts throughout the Nation. I am also proposing a Health Resources Planning Act to enhance State and regional capabilities and responsibilities for planning and regulating health services.

Congress did not act on Nixon's request. Nor was there action under Presidents Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush (41), Clinton, or Bush (43). This is despite repeated calls for health care in their various messages to Congress. (The following are examples and should not been seen as exhaustive or complete).

President Gerald Ford

America needs to improve the way it pays for medical care. We should begin plans for a comprehensive national health insurance system. However, in view of the economic developments and the measures I have proposed to combat recession and inflation, I cannot now propose costly new programs. Once our current economic problems are behind us, the development of an adequate national medical insurance system should have high national priority. I urge the Congress to work with my Administration in order to devise a system that we will be able to afford.

President James Earl Carter

about a comprehensive national health insurance program, which can extend health care coverage to millions of needy Americans while controlling health care costs; and about the need for a human rights policy, which I believe is essential in the pursuit of our foreign policy.

President Ronald Wilson Reagan

I am asking Congress to help give Americans that last full measure of security, to provide a health insurance plan that fights the fear of catastrophic illness. My plan would provide acute care for those over 65 by restructuring the Medicare program. Under my proposal, the elderly would receive catastrophic health care coverage under Medicare, while limiting out-of-pocket expenses to $2,000. This coverage will be made available for an additional monthly Medicare premium of $4.92. The plan also aims to improve protection for the general population and for the long-term care of the elderly. For too long, many of our senior citizens have been faced with making an intolerable choice—a choice between bankruptcy and death. This proposed legislation would go a long way to help solve that dilemma.

President George Herbert Walker Bush

Infant and maternal health is an area where we must invest in the future. It is also an area where we must all be committed to improvement. I am particularly disturbed by the fact that the infant mortality rate for black infants is nearly twice that for whites.

This legislation does not do all that we want to do, but it does do what we can do at this time.

President William Jefferson Clinton

Today is an historic day. The Senate Labor and Human Resources Committee has become the first full congressional committee to report out a health care reform bill. The action of Chairman Kennedy's committee gives me great confidence that Congress will pass legislation this year that meets the expectation of the American people: guaranteed private insurance for every American that can never be taken away. Once again, Chairman Kennedy has demonstrated the leadership that has made him a driving force in the fight for quality health care for the last three decades.

Under the leadership of Chairman Moynihan, the Senate Finance Committee is moving. Chairman Moynihan is committed to achieving universal coverage and bringing legislation to the American people this year.

For the first time in our history, committees in both the Senate and the House are seriously moving forward on health care reform. While much work remains, today's actions prove that the job will be done. The momentum demonstrated in the House and Senate this week is heartening to me and all Americans who want and deserve real health security.

President George Walker Bush

This bipartisan Patients' Bill of Rights reflects the principles I laid out earlier this year. It provides strong patient protections for all Americans, ensures that doctors and patients make medical decisions, and holds health plans accountable by providing patients with meaningful remedies when they have been wrongly denied medical care. The bill also protects employers and their employees from unnecessary litigation that would increase health care premiums and force too many Americans to do without health insurance.

While the details vary, all of these Presidents of the United States attempted to get some form of additional healthcare for average Americans. They all failed. President Obama is the first to get legislation passed, but it doesn't quite make sense.

My complaint is not with the individual mandate which the GOP and Fox News have inaccurately called the largest tax ever. As a penalty or a tax, the concept is necessary if we are going to have private health insurers managing our health care. That last bit is my personal biggest problem with the ACA and should be the second biggest problem for Republicans.

First Concern with the ACA

Despite the cries of fear that the government is taking over your healthcare. Despite the silliness that the government is getting between your doctor and you. The reality is that private companies are in charge of your healthcare and are getting between your doctor and you. That might be reasonable, but those companies have a bottom line goal of spending as little as possible. Their goal is not to keep you as healthy as possible. Their goal is not to ease the hassles of getting the care you need to survive. Their goal, as is the goal of every other private corporation, is to earn money.

The ACA is good in that someone with a preexisting condition can now get health insurance. One cannot be thrown off of health insurance completely because one's care is starting to become expensive. The insurers are now required to spend eighty percent of their income on health care (that part is dramatic reform). Those are all good points.

But, that does not change the insurer's goal of making money. Their only reason to take reasonable care of you is if there is competition and you might change insurers. The state exchanges that have so many Republican governors concerned might help with this, but it is an idea that has not be tried yet.

Second Concern with the ACA

If a concern is cost to business, why are we perpetuating an employer based health insurance system?

Many who complain about the ACA are complaining that it will cost jobs because it will cost small businesses too much. The reason it is costing businesses anything at all is because after World War II some businesses added health care as a benefit to attract employees. This was not mandated by the government. It was a business choice.

Since that time, we have gone from having a primarily domestic economy to having a global economy. The businesses which are competition for American businesses are mostly in countries with single payer health care systems. Businesses in Europe and Asia do not pay for health care at all (well, they do pay taxes which in turn fund the health care but that is generally in the form of income and value added taxes that are not based on the employees). It is not a level playing field.

Before someone jumps on me for lauding single payer systems, I will note that not all single payer systems are created equally. One of the best systems, that of Taiwan, is supposed to be in fiscal trouble. It is not my purpose to present any panacea for health care in this blog, just to ponder what is happening.

Third Concern with the ACA

The gimmick of pushing most of the costs out ten years is as annoying when done by Democrats as when done by Republicans. Partly because of this, the Republicans can claim that ObamaCare is a failed system when most of it has not been put into effect yet. Both the Democratic gimmick and the Republican attacks are lies. Disgusting politics.

Final Thoughts for This Post

Given the Republican rejection of Republican ideas, such as the individual mandate, it is likely that nothing better than the ACA could have been accomplished during President Obama's first term in office. While political parties are always rooting for replacement of members of the other party, they usual put country first. The Republicans stopped doing so with the goal of replacing President Obama. Perhaps it is racism. Perhaps it is continued fallout from the near-impeachment and resignation of President Nixon. Whatever the reason, the loss of the GOP as a political party that places the United States first was a huge loss. I don't know how this can be repaired.

25 June 2012

Praise: Montana Stands for People

It is unusual in this divisive decade to see Democrats and Republicans on the same side of any issue. The Republican Lt. Governor and Democratic Governor of Montana are doing so. Knock me over with a feather.

Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer (D) and Lieutenant Governor John Bohlinger (R) respond to the Supreme Court's action invalidating Montana's 100-year-old Corrupt Practices Act.

ElectionsAreForUs.org makes sense to me. Considering a corporation to be the same as a voter does not.

18 June 2012

18 June 2012: Marriage News Watch

04 June 2012

FollowUp 35: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

Voting begins in Wisconsin recall election in the morning. Today's Fox News Opinion page featured a column by Arthur Herman of the American Enterprise Institute. You won't be surprised that I disagree with much of what Mr. Herman has to say.

A lot hinges on whether Wisconsin voters decide to keep Gov. Scott Walker, or put a Democrat in his place who’s heavily backed by public-sector unions, who’ve been fighting a bitter 18-month battle with Walker. What’s happening in Wisconsin is really a battle for everyone’s future -- and whether government employees are our servants or our masters.

Recent polls suggest Walker may survive the recall effort. Certainly Democrat Tom Barrett’s campaign has largely downplayed the issues that led to the recall in the first place, namely raising the contribution Wisconsin public employees make to their health benefits and pensions, and ending compulsory collective bargaining. Everyone is realizing that Walker’s prediction that passing these two provisions would save the Badger State from insolvency, and return power over their government to voters, is coming true.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett has not been downplaying the issues that led to the recall. Mr. Herman is not addressing those issues in a way that makes this clear. The question of health benefits and pensions is not the problem. When Governor Walker asked for concessions from the unions, he got them. The immediate response was not to agree to every request but to sit down at the negotiating table and discuss them. There were no absolute negatives at first.

The problem comes in that the Governor did not simply ask for financial concessions from every public sector union in Wisconsin (most of which do not affect the state budget), he demanded that the unions give up the right to negotiate for the restoration of these concessions in the future. That is where the unions said no.

Legislating the end to collective bargaining did not affect the budget as Mr. Herman, parroting Governor Walker, suggests, did not "save the Badger State from insolvency", and did not "return power over government to voters". Those are all lies. They are big lies and those lies are at the heart of why Mr. Walker is facing this recall election.

Wisconsinites are funny. They love their individuality and their freedom -- which is why Wisconsin is big on the right to bear arms. But they also pride themselves on being progressive-minded. Wisconsin was the first state to allow public sector unions back in 1959. Wisconsin residents never have been instinctive foes of big government -- that is, until big government began to drain them dry.

While it is certainly true that Wisconsinites love both their individuality and their freedom, Mr. Herman is confusing ideas here again. The right to bear arms is not under threat by Mayor Barrett, but by Governor Walker's "deer czar". Wisconsinites are upset because Governor Walker has proposed legislation that is intrusive into the doctor's office. That kind of government is not welcome.

In 2010 they elected Walker to deal with the issue. Facing a massive $137 million deficit, Walker asked workers like teachers and firefighters to make a tiny increase in the amount they had to pay for their health and future benefits -- less than half what government workers pay on average elsewhere- -- and allow local communities to decide for themselves how much to pay their municipal employees. Otherwise, he said, some 5,500 Wisconsin public jobs would have to go.

Teachers' health benefits had zero effect on the state budget. Mr. Herman is lying. Most of what Governor Walker requested was granted by the unions, but the GOP proceeded to kill collective bargaining anyway. But the big issue is buried here. Balancing the Wisconsin budget, something that Governor Doyle managed to do after being left with a huge mess by Governors Thompson and McCallum, did not require cutting back on public sector employee costs. It was only because Governor Walker and the GOP majority legislature gave huge tax cuts to big businesses that cuts in expenditures were needed. This was a problem that Governor Walker created, not one that he inherited.

The unions screamed no, and pushed back hard. Americans remember the scenes last February, with pro-union demonstrators camping out in the State Capitol, shouting obscenities, scrawling graffiti and trying to intimidate legislators into rejecting any reform that would save their state from fiscal collapse, no matter how tiny. Not very Wisconsin-like behavior. It was, in fact, a preview of Occupy Wall Street -- and, like Occupy Wall Street, it woke up people to what can happen when you hand over power to people who have no stake in your posterity.

Mr. Herman is implying that the unions rejecting cutting back on health benefits and pension benefits. That is a lie. The unions "pushed back hard" to the proposal to eliminate collective bargaining. They did shout and they did occupy the Wisconsin State Capitol building. But after occupying the Capitol for weeks they did far less damage than Mr. Herman, again parroting Governor Walker, alleges. But he is correct that this was the real start of the Occupy Movement.

The real problem with unions is that they lock employer and employed in a status quo based on the present. They say to their members, “you’ll be able work at this job for this employer, for these wages -- wages we will fight to raise year after year for every employee, regardless of who’s better at his or her job later on, or whether the company is doing well or not.”

Wrong. Collective bargaining is about negotiating. The "status quo" is the starting point for those negotiations, not necessarily the final product. Of course unions fight for the best pay and benefit package that they can negotiate, but it is a negotiation. Unions typically don't get all of the benefits that they request and businesses or governments don't get all of the concessions that they request. If a company isn't negotiating based upon how well they are doing, then they do not have effective negotiators.

The dynamic of economic growth and capitalism, by contrast, is built around the future: anticipating and adapting to changes in the marketplace, incorporating new inventions and technologies to produce more at a lower cost, finding workers who are willing to leave work in an industry that’s unprofitable to go to one that is (just as millions of Americans left dirt poor farms in the 20th century to work in factories and plants).

That is not a contrast to the reality of businesses and unions, only to the caricature that Mr. Herman and the folks at the American Enterprise Institute portray it to be. Unions negotiate. I have been part of a union negotiating team where we got most of what we wanted. Later, in worse economic conditions, I was part of a group advising a union negotiating team where we got far less of what we wanted. Reality does play a big part in the negotiations and both sides always have to give a little.

Mr. Herman hints here at one of the myths that his organization likes to tell. "You can't fire a teacher who is not teaching well." It is a myth. When a teacher has tenure, that means that the teacher cannot be fired without showing cause. It is a system that prevents a teacher from approaching retirement and being fired to save money on pension expenses, unless that teacher is failing to do her or his job.

Families, like capitalism, look to the future. How will we pay the mortgage next month and next year? How can we help our kids to get to college? Will they have a better life than their parents? In 2010 Wisconsin families realized that future was about to be crushed under an avalanche of debts and rising taxes. They asked Scott Walker to find a solution, and he did. The unions fought a brighter future for the sake of a disastrous present -- one that even doomed their own jobs -- and lost.

Scott Walker is on tape campaigning and saying that he was not going to go after the unions. He lied. Wisconsin was not "about to be crushed under and avalanche of debts and rising taxes" except that Mr. Walker gave tax breaks to those who needed them least. Unions didn't doom their jobs, the GOP did.

If Wisconsin families win again now in the recall fight, it will send a clear message to state capitals across the country and Washington: The future is important to us. Step up and save it, as Scott Walker did, and we will reward you by keeping you in office. It will also send a clear message to America’s unions: help us to move this country forward or get out of the way. This Tuesday, we are all from Wisconsin.

Wisconsin families win if Governor Walker is removed from office. Wisconsin has always been a purple state, with give and take between the Republicans and the Democrats. Under Governor Walker, there was no give and take, he just took. The balance needs to be restored.

As I write, it is less than twenty-four hours before the polls close in Wisconsin and we learn whether the Republicans or the Democrats did a better job at turning out their voters. Less than twenty-four hours before we learn whether balance is restored to the Dairy State. I agree with Mr. Herman that this Tuesday, we are all from Wisconsin.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.

5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

02 June 2012

FollowUp 34: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

This is mostly a guest post. My commentary is in the last four paragraphs. Friends of mine in Wisconsin received mail today. They put the following into e-mail to me:

The front page of the 8.5x11 mailer displayed a simple enuf message:

********[Begin Quote]**********************
ELECTION DAY IS TUESDAY, JUNE 5TH
SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION
********[End Quote]*************************

And then there is the back (I have removed the name):

********[Begin Quote]**********************
Greater Wisconsin Political Fund
P.O. Box 861
Madison, WI 53701

UNITED STEEL WORKERS
UNION MADE LOCAL 318
WAW12078_BNR

[Our Address, addressed to my wife, NAME REMOVED]

Authorized and Paid for by Greater Wisconsin Political
Fund, Jane Gellman, Treasurer. Not Authorized by Any
Candidate, Candidate's Agent or Committee

Dear Registered Voter:

Scott Walker won in 2010 because too many people stayed home!

Two years ago, more than half a million Wisconsinites who supported Obama failed to vote in the 2010 election. And that's how Governor Scott Walker got elected. This year, we're taking a new approach. We're sending this mailing to you and your neighbors to publicize who does and who does not vote. [Italics and bold face, mine]

We need to all pull together. The chart shows the names of some of your neighbors, showing which have voted in the past.

After the June 5th election, public records will tell everyone who voted and who didn't

Do your civic duty - vote.
********[End Quote]*************************

They offer the following commentary:

With the exception of what I emphasized in Italics... If the add had stopped at this point I would not have had an issue with its message. Granted, the message in a sense is using straight-arm tactics to essentially shame and/or harass voters (specifically those who have not fulfilled their civic duty) into voting on June 5. Unfortunately, the flyer then prints the first and last names of each and every man and woman along with the physical address of where they live. The flyer also specifically lists which of these individuals had voted and who had not voted in prior elections, on November 8, and November 10 of preceding years.

Let me be clear on this point. I personally feel (and believe) everyone in this country should fulfill their civic duty and vote. However, that's just my personal opinion. Unfortunately, this flyer's straight-arm tactic of specifically listing the names and addresses of those who voted and DIDN'T vote was blatantly inappropriate. Reading this flyer felt like a violation of my right to privacy - to everyone's right to privacy. But it's far worse than that. The pubic distribution of a flyer of this nature potentially endangers the lives of those who specifically don't want their first and last names PUBLICLY listed alongside their physical address. This was information that was presumably distributed throughout local neighborhoods. God only knows where else this information has also now been distributed. Did it ever occur to those who created this flyer that there are individuals who are specifically trying to avoid publicly advertising their physical address. Did it ever occur to them that some of these individuals may be trying to avoid an abusive spouse or x-spouse, a stalker, or someone with ill-intent?

It gets worse. The message and strategic political intent is more likely to backfire. Setting the potential life-endangerment issue aside, if I, Joe Schmoe, was nothing more than an undecided voter, and individual still waffling on whether to vote for Walker or Barrett, does any political strategist with two working brain cells in their head really believe such straight-arm tactics would influence me to vote for Tom Barrett? Quite the opposite is more likely to happen. I would have felt personally violated. I would have assumed that liberal-minded democrats are once again being inappropriately intrusive, that a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals are once again trying to run my life. Those are precisely the kinds of issues conservative right-wing Republicans are most concerned about. This flyer will most certainly give them added incentive to go out and vote - for the other guy.

One last comment: It's possible, however ever remote that possibility might be, that this disgusting flyer is actually the work of another republican funded dirty trick operation... The objective: to "conquer and divide" liberal democrats and independent voters amongst each other, and to help nudge undecided voters to vote for Scott Walker. Yeah, it's still possible, and if so, it needs to be documented for the record so that those who were responsible for creating this crap are eventually prosecuted to the full extent of the law - after all the political campaigning is over and done with. But quite frankly, I don't think the "opposition" is that smart. Devious??? Most certainly. But smart???? NO. This is too sophisticated a scenario to have been thought out by the opposition, IMHO. I think it was our own damned fault.

Quite frankly, it seems to me that a more likely scenario was that a group of individuals (democrats and/or liberal minded individuals) terrified of the possibility that Scott Walker will once again get re-elected felt that the means justified the ends. Yes, I too am terrified of the thought that Walker could get re-elected. However, I don't want it on my head that my personal fears caused me to violate the rights, privacy, AND SAFETY of those who specifically didn't want their voting record and address publicly exposed in such a manner. That's not the kind of karma I want listed on my grave stone.

Back to comments from Some Teacher.

I then learned from another friend that e-mail address that is on the card is NOT valid. Yet another friend who received the same card had a person listed as being on the voting rolls who has not lived in his house for a decade. So, some information is out of date, but it does appear to be real information. Four friends have sent me information so far. This is reaching a wide area.

Time for a little searching. The Wisconsin Democratic Underground has a thread discussing this card. They included a link for the Greater Wisconsin Political Fund, a site that appears to be anti-Walker. Attempts to contact the organization are unanswered so far and probably won't be answered until Monday at the soonest. This is a last minute stunt that is either an inept effort at what it claims to be or a dirty trick.

There have been so many examples of Dirty Tricks since Mr. Walker took office that it would be easy to just accuse him of more. Unlike my friend, I don't think that people need to fear for their safety if their voting record (that is the record of when, not for whom, they voted) is made public. I share his concern that this card may act as a disincentive for voting on Tuesday.

Voting is incredibly important. The election on Tuesday is too close to call. If those who are frustrated with the lies and divisive policies of Governor Walker stay home, then Mr. Walker will remain as Governor. Wisconsin is tired. Half are tired of dirty tricks by the GOP and the other half are tired of being accused of dirty tricks. Divide and conquer has worked to a large degree.

4 June 2012, afternoon update: The Cap Times has the story on the card that so many received. The Greater Wisconsin Political Fund is a real, left-leaning super-pac. They paid a lot of money to the Government Accountability Board and got the full voting history of the state for 2008 and 2010, information that is public and expensive to pay for. They did it because, as annoying as many of my friends found this card, studies at Harvard and Yale show that it is effective to shame people into voting. So amidst the various dirty tricks, this one wasn't.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.

4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

24 May 2012

FollowUp 32: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

Governor Scott Walker sent me an e-mail today, 24 May 2012. Here we go again.

Patriot,

Well, that is how I view myself. I didn't expect Mr. Walker to be so astute.

This is it. The Wisconsin Recall election is less than three weeks away.

Um, no. Less than two weeks away, but it's okay by me if Mr. Walker's supporters turn out a week late.

The liberal special interests and Washington insiders have sworn to spend tens of millions of dollars to defeat me. I need your help right now to beat back this senseless Recall. Will you stand with me today?

No. Again, he claims that outside money is pouring in to his opponents. The truth is that Governor Walker has tens of millions more than do Wisconsin Democrats, much of his money coming from outside of Wisconsin.

For more than a generation in Wisconsin, the power of special interests and the liberal elite have gone largely unchecked. My Administration finally stood up to them, and we changed the way we do things in government in Wisconsin.

No. Mr. Walker wants to pretend that the last generation did not include Republican Tommy Thompson as Wisconsin's longest serving governor ever. Is he really calling Mr. Thompson a liberal? If you look at the recent history of governors of Wisconsin, it is fairly balanced between Democrats and Republicans. Neither side has "gone largely unchecked." Liar.

That’s why my opponents are so desperate to defeat me in this Recall. They want to roll back the clock and take us back to the days of skyrocketing taxes, bloated budgets, and unchecked and unaccountable spending. We cannot let that happen.

No. While Governor Walker has cut taxes on businesses, it is not true for the average Wisconsinite. He is spending money beyond Wisconsin's tax revenue, something that was not true of his immediate predecessor.

The moment I became Governor, I set about the work that the people of Wisconsin sent me to do. We eliminated the deficit left by my Democrat predecessor. We gave the freedom of choice to public employees. Our reforms have allowed public employees to decide if they would like to spend (in some cases more than a thousand dollars a year in dues) or keep their hard earned money. We finally put the control of state government back where it belongs, in the hands of the people.

No. This is a lie. Mr. Walker was not left a mess. His reforms took away collective bargaining from public employees; which is not an increase of choice. That was after lying during the 2010 campaign and stating that he was not going after unions. Mr. Walker is a proven liar on this.

I kept my promises to the voters here in Wisconsin. I didn’t raise taxes. We have not had massive lay offs of state workers. Our reforms have balanced the budget and lowered the unemployment rate to a level unseen since 2008.

No. Mr. Walker is using fake employment figures. The Bureau of Labor Statistics shows Wisconsin losing jobs in April. Mr. Walker is a liar.

Now I need you to help me tell the out-of-state special interests that we do not want another tax-and-spend liberal in charge here in Wisconsin.

No. Again, Mr. Walker is the one who has cornered the out-of-state special interests, CrossRoads GPS and the Koch brothers to name two of the biggest funders of his bid to keep his seat.

This Recall is not just about Wisconsin, it is about the cause of reform across this country. It is about deciding what kind of country we are going to be for generations to come. We must send a message that we can and will live within our means. We must not hand power back to a small group of special interests and let them run state governments into the ground across this great nation.

The recall is about deciding what kind of country we want. Do we want balance between labor and business? Do we want a viable middle class? Do we want women to have control of their healthcare and bodies? Do we want fully funded schools and strong education for our children? Do we want fair taxes for everyone including businesses? Or do we want Governor Walker's radical reform?

When we defeat this baseless Recall, it will send a powerful statement across our country about the kind of government we want to have and the bold reforms that will get us there.

The recall is not baseless. It is based on the actions of Mr. Walker; actions in contradiction to the promises that he made when he sought the office of governor.

We have less than a month to go. I need your help – not tomorrow, not next week, but right now.

Okay. Less than two weeks is also less than a month.

Today, I ask you to stand with me so I can continue to stand up for hard working taxpayers. Together, we can defeat this Recall and make history – in Wisconsin and across the country.

Keeping Governor Walker in office increases the burden on "hard working taxpayers" and relieves the burden on big business. Mr. Walker is a liar.

Sincerely,

Scott Walker
Governor

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.

30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

13 May 2012

FollowUp 30: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

For over a year the Democratic Party of Wisconsin has been saying that Governor Scott Walker was lying about his goal to destroy unions. Here's the letter that they released on Friday.

To: Interested Reporters
Date: Friday, May 11, 2012
From: Melissa Baldauff, WisDems Research Director
Re: Memo to Reporters: Divide and Conquer: Scott Walker’s Agenda Revealed

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel is out with a breaking video, obtained by a documentary filmmaker in January 2011, which shows Scott Walker’s “bomb” was just the beginning of his “Right-to-Work-For-Less” agenda.

In the damning video, Walker talks about his plan to employ a secret "divide and conquer" strategy against unions, despite publicly stating that he would not push so-called “right-to-work” legislation.

Even more damaging for what remains of Scott Walker’s credibility with Wisconsinites, his confession came in response to a request from Diane Hendricks, a billionaire Koch Brothers strategist with a long history of supporting "right-to-work-for-less" legislation and financing ultra-conservative Wisconsin Republicans, who is Walker’s top campaign donor with $510,000 in contributions.

Scott Walker tells his corporate benefactor, “The first step is we're going to deal with collective bargaining for all public employee unions, because you use divide and conquer.”

The bargaining bill, Walker said, would “open the door” for “Right-to-Work-For-Less” legislation.

This video exchange, like Scott Walker’s call with whom he believed to be David Koch, highlights Scott Walker’s propensity for saying one thing in public and doing another in private. Walker’s call with the phony Koch brother revealed that after he dropped “the bomb” on Wisconsin with his elimination of collective bargaining for public employees, he even considered inciting acts of violence in a peaceful crowd, all to divide the people and advance his special interest agenda.

Despite pursuing “Right-to-Work-For-Less” legislation while serving in the state legislature, and his history of opposing prevailing wage laws, Walker has repeatedly denied in public his present intent to turn Wisconsin into a low-wage, low-benefit state.

Speaking to Wisconsin Public Radio in April 2012, Walker said, "I have no interest in a Right to Work law in the state. We're not going to pursue that in the remainder of our term and we're not going to pursue it in the future." [“Walker denies wanting to make Wisconsin a right to work state,” Wisconsin Public Radio, April 26, 2012]

As reported in February 2012, by The Atlantic, "In our case, we've opted to address [unions] on the public sector level," Walker said. "You look at private sector unions by and large have been our partner in economic development. They haven't been an obstacle to that. So that's not anything we're pursuing." I asked if that meant he would oppose a right-to-work law for Wisconsin. "Not oppose it, it's just not something we're pursuing right now," he said. "When I was in the legislature, I supported it. It's not something I'm pursuing right now, nor have any plan of pursuing. Again, private-sector unions have been our partner in the economic revival we've had in this state. A bigger issue is the impact the public-sector unions have had on the taxpayers. And that's essentially what we have in Wisconsin -- right-to-work in the public sector." [“Wisconsin, One Year Later,” The Atlantic, February 24, 2012]

As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in January 2012, “Cullen Werwie, Walker's spokesman, said the governor would not be introducing any right-to-work legislation in Wisconsin.” [“Walker won’t push right-to-work legislation,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, January 25, 2012]

As reported by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in March 2011, “The bill does not apply to unions in the private sector. Walker called those unions partners in improving the state's economy and indicated he was not seeking "right-to-work" legislation that would let private-sector employees opt not to join unions and pay dues. Asked Friday if that meant he would veto such legislation, he said no, without elaborating.” [“Walker signs budget bill, legal challenges mount - Democrats immediately file suit to halt changes,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, March 11, 2011]

As reported by the Sawyer County Record in February 2011, “Gov. Walker was asked specifically about charges by some labor leaders that he wants to turn Wisconsin into a right to work state, where no one could be required to join a union as a condition of employment. When asked by a reporter if the ultimate goal is to turn Wisconsin into a right to work state, Walker said it wasn’t.” [“Wausau labor leaders believe governor is targeting all labor unions,” Sawyer County Record, February 18, 2011]

Wisconsin is upset because of Governor Walker's bait and switch tactics. Wisconsin is upset because Governor Walker is undermining protections for middle class laborers across the state. Wisconsin is upset because Governor Walker is giving the impression, if not the reality, that those who support him will get special deals (as was the case with several unions). Wisconsin is upset because Governor Walker is limiting aid to women and to poor families. Wisconsin is upset. Governor Walker is shown to be a liar.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.
30 March 2012, FollowUp 18.
31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.

23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

10 May 2012

10 May 2012: Marriage News Watch, 2012's Biggest Marriage Milestones So Far

24 April 2012

Repudiation: Republican Opposition to the Violence Against Women Act

Yet another annoying rant by Eugene Delgaudio caught my attention. Sometimes (rarely) he is almost correct.

Some,

I need you to forward this to as many friends as you can.

We don’t have much time to act and it will take the support of every possible pro-Family American if we are going to make a difference.

You see, right now the U.S. Senate is debating the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) -- but with pro-homosexual amendments.

The Radical Homosexual Lobby wants to create a special law for homosexuals and transgendered using VAWA as cover.

Okay, let's stop here for a moment. The Senate Bill to reauthorize the Violence Against Women Act of 1994 has sixty co-sponsors and is being considered by the Senate. I have tried searching through the three hundred and eighty-eight pages of the reauthorization for gay, lesbian, homo, and sexuality and there are zero matches for each of these. Expanding my earlier search to include all instances of trans did have matches. The matches were for transitional housing, transportation, and transfer from one home or shelter to another. I finally got somewhere will a search for gender.

The answer begins on page 199 of the bill:

3 ‘‘(39) UNDERSERVED POPULATIONS.—The term
4 ‘underserved populations’ means populations who face
5 barriers in accessing and using victim services, and
6 includes populations underserved because of geo-
7 graphic location, religion, sexual orientation, gender
8 identity, underserved racial and ethnic populations,
9 populations underserved because of special needs (such
10 as language barriers, disabilities, alienage status, or
11 age), and any other population determined to be un-
12 derserved by the Attorney General or by the Secretary
13 of Health and Human Services, as appropriate.’’;

So the definition of who may be protected from violence in the Violence Against Women Act is being expanded. It does not seem to me that protection against violence is "pro-homosexual" as much as pro-human.

In reality this altered VAWA is just a back-door attempt to create a special class of federally-protected citizens.

An excellent idea, but it just isn't true. Federal protections are a legal designation that is not included in this legislation. Further, since the reauthorization includes illegal aliens, it is not only about citizens. It is about protecting human beings from domestic and sexual abuse.

Something closer to Mr. Delgaudio's concerns can be found on pages 205 and 206.

13 ‘‘(13) CIVIL RIGHTS.—
14 ‘‘(A) NONDISCRIMINATION.—No person in
15 the United States shall, on the basis of actual or
16 perceived race, color, religion, national origin,
17 sex, gender identity (as defined in paragraph
18 249(c)(4) of title 18, United States Code), sexual
19 orientation, or disability, be excluded from par-
20 ticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be sub-
21 jected to discrimination under any program or
22 activity funded in whole or in part with funds
23 made available under the Violence Against
24 Women Act of 1994 (title IV of Public Law 103–
25 322; 108 Stat. 1902), the Violence Against

1 Women Act of 2000 (division B of Public Law
2 106–386; 114 Stat. 1491), the Violence Against
3 Women and Department of Justice Reauthoriza-
4 tion Act of 2005 (title IX of Public Law 109–
5 162; 119 Stat. 3080), the Violence Against
6 Women Reauthorization Act of 2011, and any
7 other program or activity funded in whole or in
8 part with funds appropriated for grants, cooper-
9 ative agreements, and other assistance adminis-
10 tered by the Office on Violence Against Women.

Unlike Mr. Delgaudio's allegation, the nondiscrimination designation for gender identity and sexual orientation is limited to programs funded by the Violence Against Women Act. There is no change outside of it.

An excellent explanation can be found in an article in the Washington Post.

Enacted in 1994, VAWA has twice been reauthorized by Congress with unanimous Senate support. This year Senate Republicans opposed the bill in the Judiciary Committee because of provisions that extend protections to gays, lesbians, transgendered people, Native Americans and battered immigrant women. They essentially accused Democrats of using the cloak of battered women to force approval on what they see as controversial social issues. “Maybe then they could accuse you of not being supportive of fighting violence against women?” Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-Ala.) told the New York Times. Mr. Sessions and other Republicans on the committee voted for an alternative version that they characterized as a clean reauthorization without unnecessarily political provisions.

A comprehensive committee report convincingly details gaps in current programs as identified by law enforcement officers, victim-service providers, judges and health-care professions. No one — gay or straight, man or woman, legal or undocumented — should be denied protections against domestic abuse or sexual violence. The proposed changes are by no means radical. They include a provision that would bar a shelter from turning away a lesbian who has been beaten by her female partner and adjustments in funding formulas to better address the needs of male victims of domestic and sexual violence.

Some changes, such as increasing the number of temporary visas for battered immigrant women, are supported by law enforcement. And the need to do more to protect Native American women is supported by a regional survey by University of Oklahoma researchers that showed that three out of five Native American women had been assaulted by their spouses or partners and a nationwide survey that found that one-third of all Native American women will be raped in their lifetime.

It will be good to reach a time when such legislation is not needed. But we do have groups of people, most notably women, who have not received adequate protection when attacked. The Violence Against Women Act is needed for them and other groups who are correctly identified in the proposed reauthorization.

According to the Hill, the Democrats and Republicans might reach some consensus, although it might be for a short term bill instead of something that would stand for several years. Republican Senator Kay Bailey Hutchinson introduced an alternative reauthorization yesterday. The Republican alternative is not likely to get far.

Links to my repudiations of Eugene Delgaudio and his lies about various legislation:
19 December 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
11 January 2012, FollowUp 1.
14 January 2012, FollowUp 2.
16 February 2012, FollowUp 3.
15 March 2012, FollowUp 4.

15 April 2012

Pondering: Tax Day

Unless you are in Nebraska, the 15th of April isn't Tax Day this year. All of the other states that have income tax and the federal government are on 17 April 2012 or later. The political season is already going crazy with Republicans accusing the Democrats of being the party of Tax and Spend and Democrats accusing the Republicans of being the party of Spend and Don't Pay For. Let's take a little step back and talk about taxes.

I like paying my taxes.

Sure, I want to save my money and spend it on things that I want. But I also want to pay taxes. I don't want to pay more than my fair share, but I do want to pay my fair share of taxes. This isn't an altruistic point. Taxes are spent, in part, on things with tangible benefits for me and for all of society.

It is cheaper to pay taxes and have the government maintain the roads than to buy new axles when neighbors forget to maintain the parts of the road that are in front of their houses.

This example is a little controversial, not in terms of the concept but in terms of implementation. When we talk about road maintenance, there are questions of whether government should directly hire road crews and equipment or hire private contractors. There are questions of the quality of the work and verification of that quality. There are questions of potential fraud. None of these questions change the need for road maintenance or the need for taxes to pay for that.

But some of my tax dollars pay for things I don't like.

Yes. I was quite upset when we started a second war, the first being the response to being attacked on 11 September 2001 by going after the Taliban and Usama Bin Laden in Afghanistan, sending troops and resources to Iraq. Of course, that was not the fault of taxes, but the fault of the electorate in choosing the wrong Commander in Chief.

We can, and should, have a strong debate on what is important for the government to fund and what should be left entirely in the private sector. Important questions. We can also find waste and fraud that should be rooted out and eliminated from government spending (both parties tend to include a huge amount of waste and fraud that they claim that they, and not the other party's candidate, can eliminate as part of balancing the budget).

So, what should tax dollars cover? In making such decisions, politicians and those who elect them should think about the concept of the Commons. Transportation infrastructure is part of our modern Commons and should be created and maintained by society via tax dollars. There are debates as to whether airports and train stations should be included in that transportation infrastructure ... I believe that the answer should be in the affirmative to both.

Air, land, and water need to be clean and safe. Even private property needs to be maintained in a fashion such that our health and well being are not jeopardized by waste and pollution. The idea that corporations should be free to desecrate our environment in the spirit of free enterprise is ridiculous. So, tax dollars need to go to enforcement agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission to protect us.

We also need protection in other venues. This is why agencies like the Consumer Product Safety Commission are needed. Individual citizens should not have to fight for reasonable safety from big corporations on their own. The list of agencies goes on and tax dollars are necessary.

To be clear, I do believe that we need our taxes to pay for our military to protect our shores and our interests around the world. We can debate which interests should be protected and at what cost. Being a member of organizations like NATO helps keep us safe. This means that we sometimes enter into conflicts as a result of our treaties. We do need to negotiate our treaties very carefully.

Wouldn't a Flat Tax be fairer?

No. While a flat tax sounds good, a flat tax has a tremendously larger impact on the poorest people compared with the wealthiest. While I do not favor taxation with the purpose of income redistribution, the poor should not be expected to pay a proportionate amount to the wealthy. A progressive income tax is far more fair. If you will pardon the pun, to the flat tax I say, "nein, nein, nein." (I don't speak German, but I do understand that much).

How about Sales Tax instead of Income Tax?

No. A sales tax is paid by all, despite their means or lack thereof. An income tax is paid by those who can afford to pay. Particularly, when sales tax is applied to necessities, like food, it is a bad idea.

We can debate various taxation schemes. A progressive income tax may not be the best system, but it is better than most of those floated as alternatives. I do think that our list of possible deductions should be critically and regularly reconsidered. Simplifying the tax code while keeping appropriate incentives (not those that were appropriate twenty years ago but no longer) is a good idea. Congress tends to have trouble letting any deduction go, so an independent panel should be convened every five years or so to make recommendations as to which deductions can be removed.

You won't find detailed answers from me as I am neither an Accountant nor an Attorney, just a taxpayer with a few, perhaps controversial, ideas and a strong belief in the United States of America.

Happy Tax Day!

30 March 2012

FollowUp 18: Wisconsin Republican Dirty Tricks

It is now official. There will be a gubernatorial recall election in Wisconsin on 5 June 2012. The Democratic primary election will be 8 May 2012.

As we discussed previously here, there were many allegations of fraud in signing the petitions. It turns out that the petitions were almost pristine according to Channel 3000.

According to a GAB news release on Thursday, staff struck 26,114 signatures and found 4,001 duplicate signatures of the 931,053 originally submitted by recall organizers on the Walker petition.

Despite widespread accusations of fraud on petitions to recall Walker, elections officials said they found only five fakes names.

Of the more than 930,000 signatures submitted, the Government Accountability Board said Thursday that only 30,115 were struck. That is just over 3 percent.

Of those struck, there were 4,001 duplicates and just five fictitious names. Those were Adolf Hitler, Mick E. Mous, Donald L. Duck, Fungky Van Den Elzen, and I Love Scott Walker Thanks.

The big problem for the Wisconsin Democrats is getting a candidate. The Democrat most likely to beat Scott Walker on 5 June, former Senator Russ Feingold, says that he will not run. Madison.Com has a two minute clip on the problem (which I tried to embed, but can't seem to get right). Former Dane County Executive Kathleen Falk and Wisconsin Attorney General Doug LaFollette are both seeking to unseat Scott Walker. As the clip on that site indicates, voters aren't thrilled, but would prefer the Mayor of Milwaukee.

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett is not in the race at this time, but is considered by many to be the best hope for ousting Governor Walker. It is time for the Democrats to get their act together and quickly. The 5th of June is coming up fast and the 8th of May even faster.

That Tom Barrett lost in 2010 to Scott Walker does not predetermine a rematch. However, if Wisconsinites believe the propaganda that Mr. Walker and the Koch brothers are spreading, then Mr. Walker can continue to lie to the people of Wisconsin from the Governor's office.

16 November 2011, Original Pedantic Political Ponderings post.
30 November 2011, FollowUp 1.
4 December 2011, FollowUp 2.
11 December 2011, FollowUp 3.
14 December 2011, FollowUp 4.
15 December 2011, FollowUp 5.
30 December 2011, FollowUp 6.
13 January 2012, FollowUp 7.
17 January 2012, FollowUp 8.
25 January 2012, FollowUp 9.
2 February 2012, FollowUp 10.
9 February 2012, FollowUp 11.
12 February 2012, FollowUp 12.
18 February 2012, FollowUp 13.
22 February 2012, FollowUp 14.
6 March 2012, FollowUp 15.
12 March 2012, FollowUp 16.
16 March 2012, FollowUp 17.

31 March 2012, FollowUp 19.
3 April 2012, FollowUp 20.
4 April 2012, FollowUp 21.
11 April 2012, FollowUp 22.
14 April 2012, FollowUp 23.
17 April 2012, FollowUp 24.
21 April 2012, FollowUp 25.
29 April 2012, FollowUp 26.
2 May 2012, FollowUp 27.
6 May 2012, FollowUp 28.
10 May 2012, FollowUp 29.
13 May 2012, FollowUp 30.
23 May 2012, FollowUp 31.
24 May 2012, FollowUp 32.
30 May 2012, FollowUp 33.
2 June 2012, FollowUp 34.
4 June 2012, FollowUp 35.
5 June 2012, FollowUp 36.

Various Direct Links