Saturday, June 12, 2010
Friday, June 11, 2010
BP Stock Plummets - Congressman Throws Tarballs
As reported in the Journel Sentinel, Congressman James Sensenbrenner took some shots at President Obama over the government's handling of the BP oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico.
JS Online Excerpt:Sensenbrenner owns 3,604 shares of BP.
In a strongly worded letter to the president Wednesday, Sensenbrenner called the federal government's response to the crisis "erratic" and suggested that the administration's "apparent lack of regulatory oversight" allowed safety problems within BP to go undetected.
CBS News Excerpt:Ever wonder how a BP shareholder would vote on some key energy issues in Congress?
"Before the spill happened, this stock, BP, was trading at more than $60 a share," said CBS News business and economics correspondent Rebecca Jarvis. "That was back before April 20. Now it is below $30 a share. That free fall has halved the company's stock. And just to put the value into perspective, the company's stock itself has lost $90 billion for shareholders."
Sensenbrenner On The Issues
Voted NO on tax incentives for renewable energy.
Voted NO on investing in homegrown biofuel.
Voted NO on removing oil & gas exploration subsidies.
Voted NO on keeping moratorium on drilling for oil offshore.
Voted NO on raising CAFE standards; incentives for alternative fuels.
Voted NO on $9.7B for Amtrak improvements and operation thru 2013. (Jun 2008)
Voted NO on increasing AMTRAK funding by adding $214M to $900M. (Jun 2006)
Thursday, June 10, 2010
Walker Commits To Deficit Spend Interstate Expansion
Scott Walker's #1 rule at his Brown Bag site is, "Don't spend more than you have."
So while Walker recently made the full commitment to deficit spend nearly a billion dollars or more on the I39/90 interstate expansion (Fed kicking in half?), he's going to pay for it with his Number #1 rule on job creation - lower taxes. Strictly Bush economics, but on a state level.
But if you read Walker's ideas on spending reform, nearly all of his positions on his version of spending reform collides head-on with his endorsement of the interstate expansion. Even the infamously deceptive GOP establishment belly-ache, "End the practice of raiding segregated state funds to pay for other programs" is built on the false premise that tax revenue collections are constitutionally segregated. They're not. It's a nice campaign talking point, anyone can use it. But in real time under the real duress of a looming budget hole and changing priorities, a governor would have to be a fool to let a baby starve while others are lushing down filet mignon and Petrus.
So while Democratic candidate Tom Barrett has offered a plan that could save state government more than a billion dollars a year, Scott Walker makes a commitment to spend nearly a billion upfront on something he believes is obviously important to Rock, Dane, and the Wisconsin Dells. Yet rule #3 of Walker's spending reform says, "The budget process should be about funding essential government services based on the taxpayers’ ability to pay. It should not be about horse trading for special interest groups or establishing talking points for the next campaign." Okay, forget the obvious that Walker is running a campaign right now and appears to be horse trading with at least a hundred individual interests (loyal Paul Ryan supporters) led by the politically active business lobby "Forward Janesville" on the interstate expansion. You'd think Walker would at least connect with the lunch bagging tax payer, right?
I'll give one thing to government-doesn't-create-jobs Walker, by unwaveringly supporting deficit spending on the interstate expansion, at least we know where he stands. I have yet to hear where Brett Davis (running for Lt. Governor) or Paul Ryan stand on the deficit built expansion.
Open up fellas, we're all ears.
NPR Excerpt:It's no secret that beginning with the days of Republican Governor Tommy Thompson, the state of Wisconsin has suffered through a string of consecutive structural deficits. Through boom, bust, republican or democratically led legislatures, the state has been unable to pull out of the red ink. So chances are high that the next governor, like Doyle when he was elected, will inherit a structural deficit. The deficit for 2010 is projected to land around $2 billion.
Titled - "Interstate expansion may hinge on governor’s race"
Of all the gubernatorial candidates, only Republican Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker will say—without hesitation—that he'd support the project if elected. He says “it’s obviously important” to Rock and Dane County, and the Wisconsin Dells, and adds “there’s no doubt it should happen.”
So while Walker recently made the full commitment to deficit spend nearly a billion dollars or more on the I39/90 interstate expansion (Fed kicking in half?), he's going to pay for it with his Number #1 rule on job creation - lower taxes. Strictly Bush economics, but on a state level.
But if you read Walker's ideas on spending reform, nearly all of his positions on his version of spending reform collides head-on with his endorsement of the interstate expansion. Even the infamously deceptive GOP establishment belly-ache, "End the practice of raiding segregated state funds to pay for other programs" is built on the false premise that tax revenue collections are constitutionally segregated. They're not. It's a nice campaign talking point, anyone can use it. But in real time under the real duress of a looming budget hole and changing priorities, a governor would have to be a fool to let a baby starve while others are lushing down filet mignon and Petrus.
So while Democratic candidate Tom Barrett has offered a plan that could save state government more than a billion dollars a year, Scott Walker makes a commitment to spend nearly a billion upfront on something he believes is obviously important to Rock, Dane, and the Wisconsin Dells. Yet rule #3 of Walker's spending reform says, "The budget process should be about funding essential government services based on the taxpayers’ ability to pay. It should not be about horse trading for special interest groups or establishing talking points for the next campaign." Okay, forget the obvious that Walker is running a campaign right now and appears to be horse trading with at least a hundred individual interests (loyal Paul Ryan supporters) led by the politically active business lobby "Forward Janesville" on the interstate expansion. You'd think Walker would at least connect with the lunch bagging tax payer, right?
I'll give one thing to government-doesn't-create-jobs Walker, by unwaveringly supporting deficit spending on the interstate expansion, at least we know where he stands. I have yet to hear where Brett Davis (running for Lt. Governor) or Paul Ryan stand on the deficit built expansion.
Open up fellas, we're all ears.
Tuesday, June 08, 2010
Local Newspapers Continue Negative Campaign Against Coroner's Office
Over the past week, the two largest newspapers in Rock County editorialized their position regarding the county board's decision to referendum whether voters are willing to relinquish their right to elect a coroner and turn over political control of the office to the county board.
Speaking of the Gazette, their editorial this past Sunday was not much different than the BDN's.
According to the Gazette editors, their opposition to the coroner's office is not about politics (on their behalf) or the current coroner’s job performance. Even though the coroner's office is just one of several partisan elective county offices, that the Gazette claims politics has no bearing on their opposition to it is a good thing - if you can believe them. And it certainly can’t be personal right? That would make the newspaper editors and certain county board members prime candidates for a series of anger management and diversity classes. So, what exactly is their problem?
Well, according to Sundays’ editorial, the Gazette editors now feel its about ineffective county supervisors not asserting enough hubris or authoritarian power to wrestle the office away from the people and its democratically elected office holder. Strangely, the newspaper appears unwilling to fathom the possibility that some county supervisors actually respect the power of the ballot box and their constituents, so the paper rallies against the majority will again - the county board majority that is. The board voted 17 - 11 to place a non-binding referendum on the medical examiner/coroner question.
The Gazette editor(s) also wrote as if county residents won’t rest comfortably (no pun intended) until we know what it’s like to have a medical examiner instead of a coroner.
With that said, I agree with the title of their editorial, “Referendum on coroner is wrong choice,” because there is no point or reason to be entertaining any of this in the first place. Proponents on both sides of the debate admit there’s nothing broken to fix, while some board members actually admitted they want more control (power) over the office. But if they feel the absolute need for a referendum, it should be initiated and petitioned by the people and not the county board, and it should be a referendum on all elected county offices – not just target the coroner’s. This would once and for all settle any arguments about intent and questions over what the “people” really want. I certainly can’t speak for everyone, but I’ll prefer a ballot box “appointee” over a political crony appointment every day of the week.
The Gazette deserves further honorable mention here because they felt the public meeting about the county board's resolution to abolish the elective coroner's office wasn't important enough to inform their readers about beforehand, but the county board's decision regarding the final action made front-page headlines the next day and picked up an editorial dedicated to changing the course. Still think it's not political?
It's unfortunate for democracy that we live in an era of taking the easy way out. That we'd rather get rid of democracy than bother to get rid of the forces that are constantly at work to corrupt it. Both newspapers, the Gazette and the BDN, come off sounding as if we have too much democracy in Wisconsin – and as if it’s a bad thing.
Note: This posting is the independent perspective of its author.
Beloit Daily News Editorial Excerpt:Depends on what your definition of "housekeeping" is. If it means we elect county supervisors or any other office holder to unilaterally act as part of a collective to fundamentally change the form of government - I'd say absolutely not. It's like as if the legislative branch of government decided to abolish the administrative branch simply because of a personal vendetta or God forbid ...politics. But if it means we elected supervisors to make informed decisions on our everyday changing circumstances by interacting with elected officials, local governmental agencies and the general public respectively mutual of the powers granted to those offices by the voters - well, you can count me in. That - I can agree with.
(Titled: Who’s to decide, voters, or board?)
Excuse us, but didn’t the voters elect the supervisors with the expectation that the board would make county government’s housekeeping decisions?
Beloit Daily News Editorial Excerpt:It's not useful and in all actuality - it's irrelevant. The Janesville Gazette also seems to enjoy bringing up the previous coroner's problems in nearly every recent article about the current coroner's office. That's like bringing up the allegations of sexual harassment that eventually engulfed the previous Rock County sheriff every time the paper writes about the office or job performance of the current sheriff. It's not only a totally absurd talking point - it's a deliberately mean spirited juxtaposition meant only to smear the current office holder.
RETURNING TO THE supervisors’ inability or unwillingness to decide to keep electing a coroner or switch to appointing a medical examiner, it might be useful to recall the case of a former coroner’s theft of prescription drugs from death scenes. In that 2005 episode, the then-coroner admitted misconduct in public office. She was forced from office by the criminal scandal and died not long afterward.
Speaking of the Gazette, their editorial this past Sunday was not much different than the BDN's.
According to the Gazette editors, their opposition to the coroner's office is not about politics (on their behalf) or the current coroner’s job performance. Even though the coroner's office is just one of several partisan elective county offices, that the Gazette claims politics has no bearing on their opposition to it is a good thing - if you can believe them. And it certainly can’t be personal right? That would make the newspaper editors and certain county board members prime candidates for a series of anger management and diversity classes. So, what exactly is their problem?
Well, according to Sundays’ editorial, the Gazette editors now feel its about ineffective county supervisors not asserting enough hubris or authoritarian power to wrestle the office away from the people and its democratically elected office holder. Strangely, the newspaper appears unwilling to fathom the possibility that some county supervisors actually respect the power of the ballot box and their constituents, so the paper rallies against the majority will again - the county board majority that is. The board voted 17 - 11 to place a non-binding referendum on the medical examiner/coroner question.
The Gazette editor(s) also wrote as if county residents won’t rest comfortably (no pun intended) until we know what it’s like to have a medical examiner instead of a coroner.
JG Editorial:How will we know that a banana republic is any better than a democratic republic? Until we try it, huh? How do we know if an appointed certified CPA is any better than an elected county clerk? Or, how do we know if an appointed Financial Security Officer is any better than the elected county treasurer? Or how do we know if an appointed Deputy Commissioner of Finance is any better than an elected sheriff? Or whether an appointed medical examiner is any better than an elected coroner? We don’t, and since it’s not about performance or politics – why bother? But they bother because it's personal for some and a power play for others. And it's political.
(Titled: Referendum on Coroner is wrong Choice)
How will the average voter know whether a coroner or medical examiner would best serve residents?
JG Editorial:We trust them all except the coroner I suppose. For some reason I don’t envision a city council, a county board or congress when I think about “representative democracy.” They’re a mere panel of people just like the rest of us. The first thing I see when I hear the words “representative democracy” is the ballot box. Maybe it's just me, but it all flows from the ballot box and no matter how they spin it, that is exactly what authoritarians want to abolish.
(Titled: Referendum on Coroner is wrong Choice)
First, we live in a representative democracy, and we elect officials to represent us. We trust them to study the issues and see the big picture.
With that said, I agree with the title of their editorial, “Referendum on coroner is wrong choice,” because there is no point or reason to be entertaining any of this in the first place. Proponents on both sides of the debate admit there’s nothing broken to fix, while some board members actually admitted they want more control (power) over the office. But if they feel the absolute need for a referendum, it should be initiated and petitioned by the people and not the county board, and it should be a referendum on all elected county offices – not just target the coroner’s. This would once and for all settle any arguments about intent and questions over what the “people” really want. I certainly can’t speak for everyone, but I’ll prefer a ballot box “appointee” over a political crony appointment every day of the week.
The Gazette deserves further honorable mention here because they felt the public meeting about the county board's resolution to abolish the elective coroner's office wasn't important enough to inform their readers about beforehand, but the county board's decision regarding the final action made front-page headlines the next day and picked up an editorial dedicated to changing the course. Still think it's not political?
It's unfortunate for democracy that we live in an era of taking the easy way out. That we'd rather get rid of democracy than bother to get rid of the forces that are constantly at work to corrupt it. Both newspapers, the Gazette and the BDN, come off sounding as if we have too much democracy in Wisconsin – and as if it’s a bad thing.
Note: This posting is the independent perspective of its author.
Saturday, June 05, 2010
Video: Ron Johnson At Janesville Tea Party Rally
I wasn't sure whether to post this video or not but I promised a good friend I would if he would do the legwork. Nevertheless, it was uneventful.
Will a rich guy willing to spend $10 million be able to buy his way into a U.S. Senate seat?
Joe McNally The Tea party's Mad Hatters
Blogging Blue Ron Johnson on “Producers vs. Parasitic Non-Producers”
Will a rich guy willing to spend $10 million be able to buy his way into a U.S. Senate seat?
Joe McNally The Tea party's Mad Hatters
Blogging Blue Ron Johnson on “Producers vs. Parasitic Non-Producers”
Friday, June 04, 2010
Campaign Donors - One Collective Paul Ryan Ain't Rand With
Ryan pretty much had his way Thursday evening with the group of about 80 hometown residents sitting in the auditorium of Craig High School on the east side of Janesville. For the sake of not rehashing through Ryan's yawning presentation, most of his rehearsed talking points and respun disinformation can be read here.
All seemingly went as planned for the Congressman until one member of the audience threw him off his game explaining how Big Business and lobbyists have bought much of Congress and asked Ryan if he would propose or support campaign finance reform. In response, Ryan at first joked about the apparent and widespread dissatisfaction in McCain - Feingold, but then explained how limiting government is ultimately the answer because limited government means less government to influence, and less government means less money will be spent to buy influence - really!
From there he offers his ideologically damaged assessment of Fannie and Freddie before attempting to move on to another question.
But Ryan never answered the question and his inquisitor knew it. Before Ryan had a chance to move on, the same citizen stood up (unannounced) and asked Ryan again if he would support campaign finance reform. Ryan snapped back demanding that he sit back down. After settling down, Ryan then twisted the citizen's question and concern into an affront against free speech and spoke as if he didn't know what the questioner meant by campaign finance reform. The congressman also slyly equated individual's rights to the rights of collectives including corporations, a la corporate personhood and the controversial Supreme Court ruling. He also repeatedly said he would not vote for anything that would take away from an individual, a group of individuals or a business's right to express themselves. Strangely, the audience mostly applauded.
In other words, the current state of campaign finance is just about right for Paul Ryan. Why fix something that ain't broke?
All seemingly went as planned for the Congressman until one member of the audience threw him off his game explaining how Big Business and lobbyists have bought much of Congress and asked Ryan if he would propose or support campaign finance reform. In response, Ryan at first joked about the apparent and widespread dissatisfaction in McCain - Feingold, but then explained how limiting government is ultimately the answer because limited government means less government to influence, and less government means less money will be spent to buy influence - really!
From there he offers his ideologically damaged assessment of Fannie and Freddie before attempting to move on to another question.
But Ryan never answered the question and his inquisitor knew it. Before Ryan had a chance to move on, the same citizen stood up (unannounced) and asked Ryan again if he would support campaign finance reform. Ryan snapped back demanding that he sit back down. After settling down, Ryan then twisted the citizen's question and concern into an affront against free speech and spoke as if he didn't know what the questioner meant by campaign finance reform. The congressman also slyly equated individual's rights to the rights of collectives including corporations, a la corporate personhood and the controversial Supreme Court ruling. He also repeatedly said he would not vote for anything that would take away from an individual, a group of individuals or a business's right to express themselves. Strangely, the audience mostly applauded.
In other words, the current state of campaign finance is just about right for Paul Ryan. Why fix something that ain't broke?
Wednesday, June 02, 2010
To Retain Jobs, Wisconsin Should Be More Like Mexico
FDL Reporter Excerpt:Apologist.
Under the title - Creating jobs must be our top priority
"If it’s easier for companies like Polaris to make snowmobiles in Mexico than it is in Wisconsin, clearly our state is doing something wrong." -- Wisconsin State Senator Scott Fitzgerald (R)
Tuesday, June 01, 2010
Here and Now Dissects Walker's "Results" Ad
In this video, "Here and Now" dissected several dubious claims in Scott Walker's "Results" campaign ad.
I find it highly contradictory and self-ingratiating for anyone to pontificate over returning part of their salary back to the taxpayers only to spin around and complain about brown bagging their lunch. What's up with that?
I find it highly contradictory and self-ingratiating for anyone to pontificate over returning part of their salary back to the taxpayers only to spin around and complain about brown bagging their lunch. What's up with that?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)