Minor Thoughts from me to you

In "The Music Man", con-man "Professor" Harold Hill was nearly run out of town on a rail for trying to sell the town members on a non-existent boys band. He was saved by a good singing voice, the love of a librarian, and the unexpected appearance of a real boys band -- put together by someone other than Hill.

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle is trying to accomplish the same feat. Instead of a boys band, Governor Doyle is attempting to sell a non-existent college scholarship program. I'm not kidding about the non-existent part. The Wisconsin Covenant program exists only in Governor Doyle's fevered imagination -- it hasn't even been introduced as a bill in the state legislature. Sadly, the governor has conned nearly 10,000 high school students into signing up for this pretend program.

With just days left before the Friday sign-up deadline, nearly 10,000 ninth-graders have committed to the proposed Wisconsin Covenant, which promises a route to college if they fulfill a pledge.

A spokesman for Gov. Jim Doyle's office said the Democratic governor's new program is succeeding in getting thousands of students to start thinking early about college. But Republican lawmakers point out that thousands of students have now signed up for a supposed guarantee that hasn't been approved by, or even introduced in, the Legislature.

"Thousands of students across the state now have a clear road map for what they need to do to go to college, and in addition, the state has committed to ensure there's a place for these students in higher education," Doyle spokesman Matt Canter said of the program, which Doyle hopes will boost the number of low-income students in college.

Doyle and first lady Jessica Doyle have been crisscrossing the state in recent days touting the covenant program and urging students to participate.

Doyle first proposed a year ago that the state guarantee a place in a college and adequate financial aid to any eighth-grader who pledges to do well in school and keep out of trouble. The first class of students started making the pledge last spring. Those eighth-graders are now ninth-graders and the program would apply to their first year in college in 2011, Canter said.

It's like something out of a farce. Only, sadly, true.

Local Oregon homeowners were flooded out last month. Six properties, worth about $1 million total, were significantly damaged. Now the homeowners want the village government to buy their properties -- at their pre-flood value -- so they can start over in a new house.

What?

Johnson said he'll be happy if the village makes him an offer that comes close to what he could get if he sold his house under normal circumstances.

"We know that's a problem area," Staton said of the low-lying section where the homes were built in the mid-1960s. "If I lived there, or if my kids lived there, I'd want to be bought out and be able to live someplace else, " he said.

Mark Below, Oregon 's director of public works, said the developers who put up the homes evidently felt the area was dry enough to build on. "There was no floodplain mapping done at that time, " he said.

Village Trustee Jon Lourigan said if federal and state funding falls through, the village should use taxpayer dollars to buy the homes.

...buying the properties without outside assistance would be an enormous purchase for a village whose operating budget this year is $4.8 million.

This is what flood insurance is supposed to cover. Apparently, none of these homeowners had flood insurance. They gambled that their homes would never flood. They lost that bet. Now they want someone else to cover their losses.

These homeowners want to potentially increase the village budget by 25%, so that they can get out of their existing homes and into new ones with zero financial loss? What selfishness! Taxes would have to go up for the entire rest of the village in order to accomplish this.

At least have the guts to walk through the village door by door demanding $125 from each person in the house. Because that's what you're doing here, Mr. Johnson. And if you'd be too ashamed, embarrassed, or scared to that, you should be too embarrassed and ashamed to ask for tax handouts.

Every politician has a pet charity. Unfortunately, politicians fund their pet charities through my income. In case you've wondered, this is why I love politicians so much.

State Rep. Gary Bies is just the latest politician to make my "dead to me" list. Dentists urge 2-cent tax on soda.

When state Rep. Garey Bies was growing up poor in a large family, he was thankful for a program in Oshkosh that made it financially possible for him to see a dentist.

That is why the Sister Bay Republican has authored AB 237, a bill that would impose a tax on soft drinks -- which dentists say increase risk of tooth decay -- to subsidize dental access for low-income people and to pay for dental education.

Come on. If Rep Bies really wanted to do something useful, he could travel the state talking about the value of dentistry and asking private donors to contribute. Trying to force Wisconsin's taxpayers to contribute is just tacky.

For once, however, an industry trade group actually offers robust opposition to a stupid idea.

"No one will argue that people need dental care and education. They also need vision care and obesity care. Should we tax certain products to pay for that type of help?" asked Brandon Scholz, president and chief executive of the Grocers Association.

"Say people need reading glasses, should we impose a tax of 10 cents on each newspaper? How would your publisher like that? You would say that's not fair to us or our customers, and we view the soda tax the same way."

Scholz added that if sugar causes tooth decay, why just pick on soda? How about ice cream or a bag of sugar?

"Once they go down that road, they will tax everything else," he warned. "And all that money won't go for the program. It would be diverted elsewhere."

So very true.

If you're in the capitol today, and you see Rep. Bies, grab his wallet and pull $10 out of it. I have a few charities I'd like to help. He should approve.

While I'm on the subject of trade-offs, I'd like to mention a recent article from the Wisconsin State Journal. Bridge repairs could cost Wisconsin over $2 billion

Wisconsin's bridges are considered safer than the national average, but the state still has more than 2,100 bridges that fall short of federal standards for carrying loads and providing wide lanes for cars, according to a Wisconsin State Journal review of state and federal records.

The civil engineers report noted Wisconsin needs some $1.75 billion for state and local bridge projects between 2000 and 2020 as outlined in a state plan. That doesn't include another $2.8 billion in road and bridge projects planned for the Milwaukee area and the southeastern part of the state.

I'm glad the Wisconsin section of the American Society of Civil Engineers is looking into this. With the collapse of the bridge of the Minnesota, every politician in America is focused on bridge maintenance and repair. If that money needs to be spent on bridge repair, then spend it.

But first, take it out of another section of the budget. Delay spending increases on other projects. Cut spending on redundant areas of the budget. Prioritize spending in all areas of the budget.

I know what Wisconsin's politicians would like to do: raise taxes by $2 billion to cover this spending. I'd like to do that to -- I'd like to just increase my own income whenever I have something new I want to spend money. Unfortunately, I can't. And neither can Wisconsin's politicians. Every time they raise taxes, I get a pay cut. It's impossible to tax and spend a state into prosperity and safety.

By all means, maintain the bridges. But focus on the trade-offs inherent in doing that and make tough decisions about the budget.

A band and its 'forced march'

Starting in mid-June, members of the Oregon Marching Band and the Sound of Sun Prairie begin what they call "everydays": 12-hour practices, sometimes six days a week, often in sweltering conditions.

"I would say I probably put in 16 hours a day a good six days a week until the season's over," said Rachel Lisius, 16, Oregon's drum major.

And we need child labor laws, why? These 96 students are voluntarily "working" 72-96 hours a week. Of course, they're doing it for fun and hoping for a future career. State labor law says that these teenagers can only work a maximum of 50 hours a week. They're allowed to sweat, march, and practice for as many hours as they want, playing in a band. But try to work at McDonald's or a construction site for that many hours and the State will get you.

How does that make sense?

Wisconsin Congressman Ron Kind wants to reform the farm subsidy program.

Mr. Kind, a six-term congressman, has introduced legislation that would drastically reduce farm subsidies while pouring more money into land conservation programs and rural development. He gathered 200 votes for a similar bill in 2002 and says he believes he has additional momentum this time around.

To no one's surprise, Mr. Kind's crusade has raised the hackles of the powerful farm lobby and its supporters in Congress, who describe his proposal as naïve, ill conceived and even dangerous.

He argues that if Congress is going to overhaul the farm program, it has to do it across all commodities, including the dairy industry. Mr. Kind said his farmers realized that change was inevitable and would welcome more money and programs for beginning farmers.

Under Mr. Kind's proposal, subsidies would be reduced and replaced with "revenue management accounts" that would function like an individual retirement account, with the difference being that farmers could tap into it to pay for small losses that are not covered by crop insurance.

Over the next five years, Mr. Kind's proposal would increase spending on conservation by $6 billion, anti-hunger programs by $5 billion, renewable energy by $1 billion and rural development, $700 million.

I'm intrigued by this proposal. I'm somewhat surprised that a Wisconsin democrat would propose changing the farm subsidy program. (This state practically worships at the altar of farm subsidies.) I'd also like to know more about these "revenue management accounts". Are they funded by farmers or by the federal government? What kind of conservation spending is being increased? What do the anti-hunger programs do? Is renewable energy just a codeword for increased ethanol production? If so, how is that different from the existing subsidy programs that give money to corn growers?

These are just a few of the questions that I'd like to have answered. As soon as I find out more, I'll tell you.

The Wisconsin State Journal published a few local reactions to the Wisconsin's ongoing budget debates. One reaction caught my eye.

Christa Decker of Madison said she depends on Medicaid programs for everything from her wheelchair to doctor's visits to long-term care. Decker, 51, who has both physical and cognitive disabilities, said that cuts to those services would have a direct impact on her life.

"You cannot cut out part of my life. This is too important to me," Decker said.

I'd like to pick on Ms. Decker just a little bit, on my way to illustrating a point. Ms. Decker is supported by money that comes from every taxpayer in Wisconsin and taxpayers from around the nation. Ms. Decker's life is sustained by the work of everyone around her. She's making a fairly common blanket statement: "If you cut taxes, you'll cut the money I depend on and throw my life into chaos."

That is a legitimate worry. Many people have come to depend on the money and services they receive from local, state, and federal governments. But there is another worry too, one that's expressed far less often. "What is the real cost of giving all of this money away?" Let me give you an example, straight out of my own budget. First, here's a breakdown of where our income goes.

Mortgage

25.84%

Taxes

21.42%

Tithe

10.37%

Student Loans

8.65%

Groceries

3.17%

Gasoline

3.04%

The remaining 30% goes into a large variety of small expenses and savings. Notice that $1 out of every $5 dollars we earn, goes straight into taxes. $0.20 out of every $1.00. $21 out of every $100. Gone. Straight off the top. That's a significant fraction of our income. We're a young married couple, just 2 years out of college. There are a lot of things we could be spending that money on. Here's a short list.

• Paying down student loans
• Paying down our mortgage
• Replacing the old roof on our house
• Replacing the ancient windows in our house
• Finishing our basement to increase the living space in our house
• Saving for a new laptop, to replace my wife's rapidly aging one
• Saving for a new car, so we won't have to take out a car loan next time around
• Saving for retirement
• Saving for our children's college education
• Saving to visit my parents, in Papua New Guinea

As you can see, paying down loans and increasing savings is a large part of our financial goals. We'd love to be free of our debt. There are times that it seems almost achievable. For instance, if we weren't paying taxes the past three months we could have either paid of 68% of one of our student loans or 20% of our home equity loan. And that's just in a three month period.

That's the cost of those "free" government services that so many people enjoy. Ms. Decker's life is financed by my family's increased debt and decreased savings. Oddly enough, those are the costs that are most likely to make me need a government handout later in life. Ironic, isn't it?

I don't know where the dividing line between necessary and unnecessary taxes is. And I don't have a plan for weaning the public off of the dole. I'm still thinking about that. But just remember that government services aren't free. And that the money I'm spending on taxes is money that I'm not spending on goods and services -- money that could be used to create jobs and wealth.

Wisconsin's finances are in worse shape than I thought.

According to Wisconsin's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, or CAFR, the state ended the most recent fiscal year with a $2.15 billion deficit. Unlike state budgets that do not account for all future commitments, thus masking our true financial condition, the CAFR prepared by the state controller's office must follow generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) from the nation's Governmental Accounting Standards Board and recognize these obligations.

This explains why state budget officials said the 2006 general fund balance was $49.6 million, while the controller put the deficit at $2.15 billion. Last year, Wisconsin was one of only three states with a GAAP deficit and, relative to population, it had the largest deficit in the nation.

Wisconsin has a population of around 5.5 million people. That works out to a deficit of around $400 per person.

It gets worse.

The state controller reported a second figure regarding the state's net assets that also merits attention. Accounting lingo can be confusing; but, in household terms, net assets are simply savings and investments, plus the value of cars, housing, and other property, less any loan debt.

According to the controller, the state's unrestricted net assets for governmental purposes were -$8.23 billion. According to the CAFR, "a positive balance in unrestricted net assets would represent the amount available to be used to meet a government's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors." Wisconsin cannot now do that without selling roads, buildings, parks, and campuses.

Maybe we should show some restaint in our spending. I'm wondering if the legislators in Madison have considered that? Nah, that'd actually be demonstrating some responsibility -- can't have that in politics.

Today's Capital Times had a heartwarming little article about homeless activists and their endless crusade to wring money out of everyone else.

Members of the Tenant Advocacy Group, or TAG, already know about homelessness. Each was once homeless, or narrowly escaped being out on the street. "We learned these things from the inside out," said Cynthia Travis, coordinator for the group.

That's good. These people are uniquely situated to help the poor and the homeless. Their goals are absolutely praiseworthy. Unfortunately, their methods are not.

The group entered the fray of state legislative politics this year by sending a letter to Secretary of Commerce Mary Burke requesting a $1 million-a-year increase in state funding for homeless shelter and transitional housing services grants. The Commerce department administers the grant program, funding for which has been $1.5 million a year for some 15 years.

They even saw some initial success as Governor Doyle put an additional $1 million into his budget, for their cause. Then action stalled in the Joint Finance Committee:

As Joint Finance Committee actions on other issues proceeded, it unfolded that any additional funds for homelessness services would need to be funded through an increase in the real estate transfer tax. That didn't fly.

They decided to use an appeal to pity as leverage for their demands:

"I slept in a Ford station wagon for six months," Morris King recalled. The way to help unsympathetic legislators get their priorities in order, he said, is to ask them: "Do you want potholes? Or do you want people sleeping on the street?"

Here's the thing. The legislature doesn't hand out free money. Every penny that the legislature hands out has to come from somewhere and someone else. Increasing the real estate transfer tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to buy a home. Increasing the gas tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to drive. Increasing the sales tax would make it more expensive for Wisconsin residents to purchase everything. Increasing the ... well, you get the idea.

Every time the government increases taxes, it becomes more expensive for poorer people to survive on their own. For those living the closest to the financial edge, a tax increase may be the difference between survival and failure. Ultimately, these crusades are counter-productive.

It will ultimately prove fruitless to use the government to confiscate the resources of others and redistribute them to your group. You will merely drive up the cost of living in the State leading to an endless cycle of increases in government aid and increases in the cost of living. Focus on creating wealth that you can use to help others, rather than confiscating wealth.

Three months ago, I reported that Jim Doyle wanted to hike the hospital tax in order to give hospitals more money. Well, he still wants to. Only now we know that the amounts the hospitals will supposedly receive, is less than Diamond Jim hoped for:

UW Hospital had been projected to gain $23.3 million in Medicaid reimbursements over two years under the original proposal. Under the new calculations, it would receive about $11 million. Meriter, which had been projected to get almost $22 million, would receive about $14 million. The projected reimbursement for St. Mary's Hospital's increased by half a million dollars, to $4.8 million.

Oops. Of course, people not affiliated with the Doyle administration think that hospitals will actually lose money by being taxed, not gain it:

In March, the Wisconsin Hospital Association released an analysis showing hospitals would lose money in the next two years if the hospital tax is approved, not gain $283 million, as Doyle claimed. The group is still analyzing the new data, but remains skeptical.

Of course, it's not even a given that the hospitals will receive all of the money from the tax scheme:

"A large portion is diverted to other programs. ... It's difficult to say where the funds will ultimately be used," Quinn said.

Government efficiency, marching onward. Roll Wisconsin!

I don't always agree with Capital Times columnist Mike Ivey, but I do today. He writes about WalMart's appetite for corporate welfare:

Wisconsin's largest employer draws more in corporate welfare than it pays in state taxes. Wal-Mart pocketed $852 million in net profits in Wisconsin off value-hungry consumers between 2000 and 2003. Over that same period, Wal-Mart paid only $3 million in corporate income tax here. That's a tax rate of 0.35 percent, a fraction of the 7.9 percent rate corporations doing business in our fair state are supposed to pay.

Pardon my West High math, but if Wal-Mart paid the going tax rate here it would have owed closer to $67 million. The Arkansas-based retailer has benefited from more than $20 million in public economic benefits in Wisconsin, according to one national study. Good Jobs First reported in 2004 that Wal-Mart stores and distribution centers in Baraboo, Beaver Dam, Menomonie, Milwaukee and Tomah received at least $21.75 million in local tax subsidies, the report says.

I'm a fan of WalMart and I applaud their efforts to bring lower prices to shoppers. But what they're doing in Wisconsin is neither "capitalism" nor "free enterprise". It's looting, pure and simple. The local governments that decided to give tax money -- taken from individuals -- to a big business should be vilified, demonized, and run out off office on a rail.

Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle has a plan to give more money to hospitals. It's very simple -- in order to pay them more, he first has to tax them more. The Wisconsin State Journal gave a breakdown of the plan:

It works like this: The state imposes the tax on hospitals, leading to an increase in the cost of providing health services. The state returns the money raised by the tax to hospitals to help cover the costs of providing care to Medicaid patients. Then the state reports the increased costs of Medicaid to the federal government, which in turn increases its reimbursement to the state.

The state can then use the extra money for health care or other programs.

I'm reasonably certain that any private doctor, trying to increase Medicaid reimbursements this way, would be prosecuted for Medicaid fraud. Why are states are allowed to get away with such blatant fraud? Wisconsin isn't the only state doing this, but it might be one of the last:

"We have, as a state, been much less aggressive than other states in the use of these assessments," said Jason Helgerson, executive assistant and policy director for the Department of Health and Family Services.

Hospital executives say they understand why states are imposing such taxes. But they said the federal government is catching on to what states are doing and federal rules changes could limit Medicaid reimbursements and render the taxation strategy ineffective for states.

This whole scenario is a perfect example of government inefficiency and waste. Whatever faults private insurance might have, this kind of chicanery isn't it.

It looks like the State is getting behind the Wisconsin goat industry:

State officials are putting their support behind Wisconsin's growing goat industry.

About 260 farmers, processors, state officials and lenders are expected to attend a conference - "Focus on Goats: Milk and Meat Production in Wisconsin" - on Thursday in Barneveld.

... The program is an extension of the Grow Wisconsin Dairy project, which has put an emphasis on high-quality dairy products. "Goat cheeses and other goat products are really becoming more popular," [Jeanne Meier, a spokeswoman for the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and a leader in the dairy goat initiative] said. "There's great demand in the U.S."

Based on the article, it sounds like the goat industry is really taking off. Lots of farmers have already made big money with goat cheese, goat millk, and goat meat. Many more farmers are eager to get into the industry. Here are the questions that the article raises in my mind: why does the State need to help out the goat industry? Why do Wisconsin tax payers need to pay for an already successful industry to become even more successful? At a time when Governor Doyle wants to tax the oil industry for being too successful, why is his administration paying for another industry to become more successful than it already is? At a time when the state faces a $1.6 billion deficit, why are we spending scarce tax dollars to help businessman who apparently don't need help?

Several weeks ago, the Isthmus interviewed my pastor, Chris Dolson, about the Wisconsin Marriage Amendment. The Amendment reads:

"Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as marriage in this state and a legal status identical or substantially similar to that of marriage for unmarried individuals shall not be valid or recognized in this state."

Here is the portion of the article that referenced him:

What about the evangelicals?

A survey released last month by Baylor University shows that evangelical Christians are far more likely than Catholics or mainline Protestants to have politically conservative views. But not all evangelicals lean to the right.

On one end of the evangelical spectrum is Ron Dobie, pastor of Stoughton's Christ the King Community Church and president of the Dane County Association of Evangelicals. With Appling, he serves on the advisory council of the Wisconsin Coalition for Traditional Marriage, a group of religious, community and business leaders working to promote the amendment.

"I support marriage," he says. "When we went to no-fault divorce, we saw the divorce rate go up and the marriage rate go down, because it devalued marriage. This is another thing that says marriage is not important."

Dobie also condemns homosexuality. "The homosexual lifestyle is not a healthy lifestyle," he says. "Homosexuality has never been accepted by any society that I know of. [Gay marriage] would be a huge step away from what traditionally has been true. If we do that, I don't think we have any basis to say polygamy is wrong, or bestiality is wrong."

In principal, Dobie agrees it is healthier for gay people to be in committed relationships, as opposed to not, but says society benefits from the traditional definition of marriage. "Emphasizing marriage between one man and one woman is the best way to go," he says. "We should be promoting that, not doing anything to diminish it."

On the other end of the spectrum is Chris Dolson, senior pastor of Blackhawk Church, a west-side "mega-church" that packs in more than 3,000 worshippers each week. While he affirms that the Bible says the only appropriate sexual relationships are between married men and women, he says the amendment has not come up in his conversations, and he will not preach about it.

Like a growing number of evangelical preachers, Dolson believes church is not an appropriate place to discuss politics. "It's not an issue of this or that amendment," he says. "What's more important, following Christ, or following our Legislature?"

But Dolson encourages churchgoers to consider Christian ethics as they ponder the amendment's possible effects on the gay community. "Put yourselves in their shoes," he says. "Do you think it would be beneficial to them? The whole thing about people not being able to see their dying spouse because they're not married, to me that's not fair."

Republicans in the Assembly and the Senate failed to pass the Taxpayer Protection Amendment. Owen looks at what went wrong.

The bottom line is, the Republican leadership in Madison failed to step up, fight hard, and actually promote conservatism. If we want to pass this thing, we'll have to keep fighting at the grassroots. The only way our "representatives" will pass this is if we force them to.

From today's Wisconsin State Journal (Federal health insurance bill draws wide opposition):

Senate Bill 1955 would let small businesses and trade associations band together and offer group health coverage on a national or regional basis. No law precludes them from doing that now, but a patchwork of state insurance mandates makes it cost-prohibitive and logistically impractical, said Craig Orfield, spokesman for Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., the bill's lead sponsor.

Currently, each state decides which benefits insurance companies must offer. In Wisconsin, the mandates include mammograms, alcoholism treatment, child wellness services and chiropractic care.

Some people are opposed to the bill:

The cancerous tumor in Nancy Restivo's breast was no bigger than a grain of salt when a routine mammogram discovered it in 1994. She credits the mammogram - paid for by her insurance company - with saving her life.

"I'd want that kind of coverage for as many people as possible," said Restivo, 59, a retired Janesville teacher.

I have a question for Ms Restivo. Your health insurance is more expensive because it covers all routine mammograms. For some people, that extra coverage makes their health insurance too expensive to afford. Do you want that kind of coverage mandated for everyone with health insurance if it means that some people will not be able to afford health insurance? Would you prefer that more people have basic health insurance or that fewer people have comprehensive health insurance?

I'm not sure yet whether or not I support this bill. On the whole, I'd prefer that the Federal government stick its fingers into as few pies as possible. I think regulation is best done by the states, not by Washington. On the other hand, this may be one of the few Senate bills that is actually permitted under the Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause.

Two weeks ago, I e-mailed Representative Parisi to ask his opinion of the proposed Taxpayer Protection Amendment:

Representative Parisi:

As a constituent, I am interested in your position on the Taxpayers Protection Amendment. Do you think this is a good idea? As currently written, do you plan to vote for it or against it?

~joe

This morning, I received a response from Representative Parisi:

Dear Mr. Martin:

Thank you for your email regarding Senate Joint Resolution 63/Assembly Joint Resolution 77, the so called "Taxpayer Protection Amendment" (TPA).

While I support government spending controls at the federal, state and local levels, I believe the proposed "Taxpayer Protection Amendment" will have a devastating effect on our state and local government with regard to the disabled, the elderly, University and K-12 education, the unemployed and our prison system. It will remove control from our local governments and restrict essential services from keeping pace with need and growth. And, most importantly, this proposed constitutional amendment will impair Wisconsin's ability to invest in the future.

I understand the need to reduce the state's property taxes. As a co-sponsor of the Democratic proposal to establish a "Homeowner's Tax Credit" we would eliminate school taxes on the first $60,000 of assessed value of the taxpayer's residence. This would cut the property tax bill for the average homeowner by $400. I think it is much better to change the current system and reduce people's property taxes than to freeze the unfair system into place.

Again, I appreciate your email on this issue. Please don't hesitate to keep in touch with my office on any issues of concern.

Sincerely,

JOE PARISI

State Representative

48th Assembly District

I appreciate his answer, but I do see a few things that raise further questions. I'll be composing a response later today.

On Friday night, Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker dropped out of the Republican primary race against Representative Mark Green. You can read the Wisconsin State Journal story on the event.

Owen Robinson, of Boots & Sabers, was at the 5th Congressional District Republican Caucus where Walker announced his decision. He uploaded a copy of Walker's speech. He also provided a copy of Representative Green's response (with audio) and an audio copy of Walker's speech.

This announcement makes things simpler for me. I had been leaning towards supporting Scott Walker, but hadn't made up my mind yet. Now I can focus on campaigning for one candidate and know exactly where to send my money. I back Representative Green 100% and look forward to having a governor that will require photo ID to vote, that will sign a concealed-carry bill into law, and that will work towards lowering Wisconsin's tax burden. As of this morning, I'm a member of "the Green Team".

Two side notes. Walker wins my award for best political soundbite of the month: In the end, I love this state too much to see Jim Doyle elected to another term.

Democratic Party Chairman Joe Wineke won the award for "Cutest Attempt at a Political Attack: The good news for Wisconsin voters is that Scott Walker is out of the race. The bad news is that extreme Mark Green is still in it. Wineke gets bonus points for clever use of assonance -- glad to see he was paying attention when his English teacher covered clever uses of rhyming.

Owen reported on two form letters that were sent to the state legislature, criticizing the Taxpayer Protection Amendment. One form letter was signed by leaders of city governments, the other was signed by leaders of county governments. Fortunately, my neither my alderman nor my County Board Supervisor signed it.

The more interesting part of this entire deal is that form letters were drafted by AFT-Wisconsin.

AFT-Wisconsin is a labor organization representing 17,000 public and private employees in the state of Wisconsin. Formerly called the Wisconsin Federation of Teachers (WFT), AFT-Wisconsin is the Wisconsin chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. Started primarily as a teachers' union with 1,400 members in 1933, AFT-Wisconsin has grown exponentially and today represents many diverse professionals with over 500 job classifications

In other words, people who work for the government are writing letters for other people who work for the government to sign. These letters say that the government should be able to raise taxes whenever it wants by however much it wants. That sounds to me like they're probably more interested in protection their jobs and their easy access to my pocketbook than they are in actually governing responsibly.

Furthermore, I think their worries about the TPA rolling back our basic services are a load of hooey. The TPA, sad to say, won't roll back any spending. It will just limit the rate at which spending can increase in the future. And, yes, it will allow spending increases. Just not huge ones. Unless you ask the taxpayers first. If they approve it, then it's all right. So why the long faces? Are they afraid to actually ask the taxpayers before increasing taxes? No, the TPA will not impose spending cuts. No, the TPA will not stop spending increases. All the TPA will do is slow down spending increases. Is that such a bad thing?

For the convenience of anyone else reading from Madison or Dane County, I've included the full list of Madison / Dane County signatories. If your alderman or county supervisor is on the list, I'd highly recommend giving them a call and expressing your displeasure. As Owen says, these are people are worthless local officials who are so terrified of having to ask the taxpayers when they want to blow the taxpayers' money. On the other hand, you might want to thank them all for providing such a handy list of people to vote against in the next election.

Representing Madison:

Dave Cieslewicz, Lauren Cnare, Austin King, Mike Verveer, Tim Gruber, Brenda Konkel, Ken Golden, Paul Van Rooy, Noel Radomski.

Representing Dane County:

Jane Licht (Register of Deeds), David Gawenda (Treasurer), Brett Hulsey, Robert Fyrst, Barbara Vedder, Kyle Richmond, John Hendrick, Don Eggert, Dave de Felice, Duane Gau, David Worzala, County Supervisor, Mark Opitz.

Madison, along with many other cities in Wisconsin, will be sporting a shiny-new anti-war referendum in the April election. The referendum is simple: Should the United States bring all military personnel home from Iraq now?. Simply vote "yes" or "no".

Recently members of the cheddarsphere have been opposing similiar referendums. Owen Robinson opposed it in Whitefish Bay and Lance Burri opposed it in Baraboo.

I fully support the views expressed in their remarks. They're both far more eloquent than I am, on this subject, so, please, go read their remarks. Then vote "No" on April 4.