TABOR - In Colorado

We here in Wisconsin are debating our own Tax Payer Bill Of Rights (TABOR) amendment. The Colorado experience has been used most vocally by the opponents. This editorial from the WSJ seems to make a pretty strong case for TABOR measures and hits on a number of issues we find ourselves facing with our own RINOs (Republicans In Name Only):

"One measure of how far Mr. Owens has shifted fiscally is the local media coverage, which was quick to note that his proposals are very similar to what tax-and-spend Democratic Legislators have been pushing for years. Mr. Owens has been at politics long enough to know that if you're a Republican being praised in the press for having grown in office, then you've probably surrendered some principle."

Twenty seven states have some spending cap measures. Wisconsin is not one of them. I have said in the past that Wisconsin's problem is not high taxes - it is high spending.

"Not that we think Tabor needs tinkering; the dread ratchet effect is its most important feature and one of the reasons that states like California, Maine, Kansas and Ohio are considering their own version of Tabor. By forcing lawmakers to put the brakes on spending, even after a downturn in the economy, Tabor gives government an incentive to take on self-correcting tasks that aren't in its nature. Selling off excess assets and reforming procedures for procurement and competitive contracting aren't high on a state's list of priorities unless there's a fiscal squeeze. Tabor helps state governments find these efficiencies. Bill Owens used to know that."

Another impact of declining birthrates...

At some point, we must face facts. As is the case with Social Security, a smaller population than previous generations, has future impacts and requires less infrastructure, as illustrated in this statement:

"But he was a solo voice among the couple hundred people at Tuesday's meeting talking about how to deal with a school system that has about 90,000 students (depending on whom you count) and capacity for about 122,000. He says MPS has $20 million a year tied up in excess building space."

No one wants to give up what they already have (and, in some cases, feel they are entitled to). But the reality is, nothing is free. I have addressed the choice of reduced birthrates here and here. In addition, population trends and shifts occur all the time. We need a public infrastructure that is capable of responding far faster that our current practices allow.

Illegitimate use of statistics

I am always amazed and troubled by the use of impossible statistical references by some organizations to make their point. While driving back to the office from a meeting today, I noticed a billboard with this startling "fact":

Every 14 seconds...Another child is orphaned due to AIDS. (Google search identified this site, among others, as a source for this "factoid")

A quick math check [60 seconds in a minute X 60 minutes in an hour X 24 hours in a day = 86,400 seconds in a day] tells you that 6,171 [86,400 / 14] parents are dying each day and leaving behind at least one orphaned child. More math reveals that nearly 2.25 million parents are dying on an annual basis - based on this "factoid".

Wow. Those are seriously troubling numbers. Since this "fact" refers to orphaned children, the "actual" number of deaths caused by HIV/AIDS must be much higher since people without children - and even children themselves - die from this disease as well - right.

When I returned to the office, I quickly checked, to verify these "facts", and found this from the CDC and the National Center for Health Statistics:

"Mortality Number of deaths: 14,095 (2002)
Deaths per 100,000 population: 4.9 (2002)
Source: Deaths: Final Data for 2002"

Wait a minute. That can't be right. The billboard said "Every 14 seconds..." and I did the math. It's over 2 million people. Oh, the numbers on the CDC were only in the US. That explains it. Here in the US we have only 14,095 of the 2 million deaths. The rest of the world has the 2,211,000 incidents of death, caused by HIV/AIDS, to parents (assuming all US deaths were to parents) of at least one child that makes the "fact" true.

My point isn't to diminish the impact of HIV/AIDS. It is a devastating disease that we need to find a cure for. Just like heart disease, cancer, Alzheimers, diabetes, etc. The problem is, when you use completely misleading statistics as facts, you run the risk of alienating a great many people who are offended by message on principle.

You, as the messenger, may think that the ad was a success because it made me do the research and think about the impact of HIV/AIDS. Not entirely true. My quick research showed me that HIV/AIDS isn't even in the top 15 of leading causes of death in the US behind those mentioned above as well as accidents, suicides and homicides. Those are the diseases that will impact my life and those I know based purely on actual statistical facts. That's where my efforts and dollars will be invested first.

The bottom line? Tell people the actual facts. As soon as you over-hype a problem, you lose a portion of your audience. The more you do it and the greater the hype - the less credibility you have. Unfortunately, that has the opposite affect you desire - even when the actual facts are still troubling.

George seeks early release

To use a phrase from James Tarranto's "Best of the Web" this qualifies for the "Smallest Violin" category (JS Online):

"In his letter to Randa, George says his family needs him for financial and emotional support. He is missing important events in the lives of his four children, who need a father present 'to keep them out of trouble,' George wrote.

'I plead with you to help me return to them,' he said."

Excuse me, former Senator George. I'm not sure your past actions demonstrate a stellar track record of providing a good example of how to mange your life and stay out of trouble! Sorry.

Thomas Sowell: 'Academic freedom'?

As per usual with Sowell, read the whole thing. He frames the Ward Churchill controversy within the bigger picture as well as anyone:

"Too many people -- some of them judges -- seem to think that freedom of speech means freedom from consequences for what you have said. If you believe that, try insulting your boss when you go to work tomorrow. Better yet, try insulting your spouse before going to bed tonight."

Lawyer Is Guilty of Aiding Terror

This story in the NYT's contains the typical slant they are famous for. It's evident here, in this out take:

"In a startlingly sweeping verdict, Ms. Stewart was convicted on all five counts of providing material aid to terrorism and of lying to the government when she pledged to obey federal rules that barred her client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, from communicating with his followers. Her co-defendants, Ahmed Abdel Sattar and Mohamed Yousry, were also convicted of all the charges against them."

"Startlingly sweeping verdict...?" Come on. The trial lasted seven months with twelve days over four weeks of jury deliberation. Do you really think they got it wrong? (I suppose there is precedent - since the OJ jurors blew it.)

Ms. Stewart goes on to make her case in public opinion after the verdict:

"'I see myself as being a symbol of what people rail against when they say our civil liberties are eroded,' she said to a small cluster of her supporters outside the federal district courthouse. 'I hope this will be a wake-up call to all the citizens of this country, that you can't lock up the lawyers, you can't tell the lawyers how to do their jobs.'"

Since when? Why is a lawyer any different than any other citizen who breaks the law? If they break the law while doing their job, they deserve to be punished for it. The law is the law. A lawyer should understand that fact. If they disagree with the law, work to change it - don't break it and claim professional immunity.

This woman seems to deserve what she got. By the following statement, she admits her actions were intentional:

"Testifying on her own behalf, Ms. Stewart said the press release was part of a legal strategy that involved provoking the government if necessary in order to keep the sheik in the public eye. Ms. Stewart said she was acting within an unwritten lawyer's "bubble" in the prison rules that allowed her to defend her client as she thought best."

She is not above the law - especially when her premeditated actions directly impacted the lives of others that she helped place in jeopardy! For the entire time she represented these clients, her goal was to stay "in the public eye". Was this for publicity for herself, or her client? Was it to raise awareness of the cause her clients believed in and she supported? The killing of innocent people. Good riddance!

FAA Warned about increased hi-jacking - but not about specific threat

Monday Morning Quarterbacking meets Chicken Little in this Newsday report:

"If they knew about it, why the hell didn't they do something?" said Elaine Moccia of Hauppauge, whose husband, Frank, died in Tower Two.

The problem is, they didn't know about the specific threat! Had there been a precedent, I'd have a different opinion. The WTC bombing in 1993 is not relevant to hi-jacking planes and using them as weapons. In fact, the story reports:

"The commission was clear on one point: It found no evidence that the FAA had any information that terrorists planned to hijack airplanes in the United States and use them as weapons."

The report's main findings (listed below) give clarity to what went wrong - but don't suggest that anything more could have been done in the environment this tragedy took place. If you think civil libertarians are upset about the Patriot Act, think about how loud they'd have screamed if the FAA had tried to impose higher screening practices based on unsupported evidence. Were we complacent? Yes. Was it intentional or criminal? No. That's how tragedies occur.

Red flags in the report:

• In the months before Sept. 11, the FAA issued 52 intelligence reports that mentioned Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida. Five mentioned hijacking.
• "False sense of security." After a decade without a hijacking, officials were more concerned with congestion, delays and airline financial woes.
• It was unthinkable. Officials largely assumed that a terror attack would take place overseas.
• Communication breakdown. Two Sept. 11 hijackers were on a government terrorist watchlist, but the FAA was not privy to that information.
• Loose rules. Small knives, such as ones used by the hijackers, were not explicitly banned aboard aircraft.
• Spotty security. Airport screeners often failed to hand-search carry-on luggage, reducing the chance of finding a well-hidden banned item.
  

Churchill can speak at UW-Whitewater

But should anyone listen? While his comments regarding the victims at the WTC are absolutely unfathomable, what would be more disheartening is if he found an audience that agrees with him. The talk he's scheduled to deliver is not focused on his WTC remarks (the topic is aimed at Native Pride Week) but it will be difficult for him and those in the audience to distance themselves from his opinion. I find it hard to believe that Ward Churchill is the only speaker capable of delivering a message focused on Native American pride. I agree with the regent quoted here at JS Online:

"And regent Gerard Randall said, 'I'm hopeful that while he's allowed to speak, he may be speaking to empty chairs.'"

WI Budget: Begging and borrowing

The office chatter today included our satisfaction that the JS Online is finally starting to act like a newspaper. They have handled the news in a much more balanced manner over the last few weeks, especially as it relates to programs and politicians they have traditionally been blinded by:

"In his budget address Tuesday, Doyle said he planned to move $250 million in gas tax and license fee dollars from transportation to the state's deficit-plagued general fund, then borrow $250 million to replenish the transportation fund."

I'm not a math major, but it sure sounds like all that's being proposed in this plan is spending an additional $250 million dollars ~ with interest!

"Doyle could not wipe out the structural deficit without cutting funds for top priorities such as education, health care and transportation or raising taxes - something the governor was never going to do, Marotta said.

'We'd love to eliminate the structural balance, but we've got a lot of competing factors,' Marotta said. 'The key for us is to keep going in the right direction. I think we're going in the right direction."

The "competing factors" are what will keep our taxes higher than they need to be. Everyone has their pet programs and constituency they need to take care of.

Fix Social Security?

I'm not sure if I read this comment or heard it on the news or radio. It came from a younger person (younger is relative when you're in your early 40's!).

For the most part, this person was happy with the Bush proposal to allow workers to opt in to a plan similar to the Federal employee's Thrift Savings Plan and contribute up to 4% of their pre-tax income, normally withheld for social security, to other investment funds. The comment I found interesting was something like this: "How does this save Social Security?"

The simple answer is, it doesn't. It should not be designed to save a failing program - it should be, and is, designed to replace it with a better plan, where we as individual citizens have better control of our personal retirements without the need to rely on future generations to fund it for us.

An interesting tangent in this discussion needs to focus on the child bearing practices of those on the "Social Security must stay" left. There are a number of articles and studies done that show that more liberal couples tend to have fewer, if any, children because of certain liberal beliefs: over-population, scarce resources, impact on the environment, fairness to the child, etc. In addition, the number of abortions tends to be higher in this group as well.

This group then demands that Social Security - as it now operates - must not be tampered with. (With the exception of some now suggesting that the "wealthy" should pay more - typical 'transfer of wealth' ideology)

The problem is actuarial. As the program currently operates, workers today are not paying into a personal account for the future. They are paying the benefits of those who are retired today (and a multitude of other recipients who the Democrats have added over the years). As the baby-boom retires, there will not be enough workers to pay for the benefits the boomers expect without large increase in withholding (You know, that FICA guy who keeps taking money from your paycheck).

So, I'll wait for someone on the left to propose more children. But rather than hold my breath, I'll support the better option: Bush's plan.

More on the WI budget from WI State Journal

This story from the Madison paper: Wisconsin State Journal, continues to question the Governor's budget:

"Added Fitzgerald, 'It would be a refreshing change of pace if just once Governor Doyle would propose a real solution to our state's budget woes,' said Fitzgerald. 'Instead he continues to take money from other programs to pay his bills. Continuing to rob Peter to pay Paul is not a good way to spend the taxpayers money.'"

I'll ask the Republican legislature to do the same when it's their turn. I seem to recall their own shift in the last budget (about $17M from energy conservation to patients compensation fund? Remember?)

Ruth Conniff's Blog: Bush should help the poor...

From The Progressive magazine:

"Surely there are conservative, pro-lifer Christians who respond to Bush's Biblical allusions, and who honestly believe in helping the poor.

Bush's budget should turn their stomachs."

Excuse me! Where's the separation of church and state crowd heading now? Shouldn't these Biblical teachings be handled by the private and religious sectors, rather than a secular government?

More seriously, who are they on the left who believe that only government can help the poor? Who are they that require the government tax them, so they can help the poor? It's pretty easy. Find a poor person or a charity you like, open your checkbook, and write a check!!!

Oil for Food Facts

Ultimately, the Oil for Food Facts presented in the WSJ Opinion page paint the bigger picture. Most bureaucratic organizations established for the greater good of mankind - including most government bodies - usually descend to 'self-preservation' mode. Once there, the participants begin taking care of each other and those that support them (i.e. lobbyists, etc). Budgets become bloated, as a defense mechanism. They become ineffective and vulnerable to others who have ulterior motives:

"But the larger scandal is that Saddam was able to use every legitimate dollar of the program to reward friends and allies and undermine support for sanctions. The total value of contracts under Oil for Food was more than $100 billion -- or $64.2 billion in oil sales and $38.7 billion in humanitarian purchases. Subtract a few billion dollars the U.N. spent in Kurdish-controlled northern Iraq, and you have some $100 billion worth of business that Saddam was able to steer wherever he wanted."

Term limits for representatives are a good thing to reduce this effect. Perhaps we should also consider term limits for bureaucrats and diplomats.

WSJ.com - 'Easongate'

Here's a defense of Eason Jordan by someone who attended the World Economic Forum's panel discussion where Mr. Jordan spoke. He believes the comments have been taken out of context and flames of an awkward statement were fanned by others in attendance:

"By this point, one could almost see the wheels of Mr. Jordan's mind spinning, slowly: 'How am I going to get out of this one?' But Mr. Frank and others kept demanding specifics. Mr. Jordan replied that 'there are people who believe there are people in the military' who have it out for journalists. He also recounted a story of a reporter who'd been sent to the back of the line at a checkpoint outside of Baghdad's Green Zone, apparently because the soldier had been unhappy with the reporter's dispatches."

I guess my only comment is, perhaps 'there are people in journalism' who have it out for the military as well.

A little perspective...

...Varifrank has done a good job (simple task by his own admission) of collecting historical quotes from General Mattis' peers. My two-cents for the offended: get over it and grow up!

Not quite solid 'freezes'

This story from JS Online calls the Governor out on his claim that his budget plan includes a tax freeze:

"'The numbers of this freeze meet all of the Republican standards,' Doyle told Journal Sentinel editors Wednesday, a day after he presented his budget to the Republican-controlled Legislature. 'It will reduce property taxes even more' than the Republican version."

While he's technically correct - the first year of his budget does lower local taxes by $11 more than the Republican plan - the second year his plan is higher and his plan has no provisions for future years. The Republican plan is not that much better, but it does extend to three years which would make it difficult to adjust in the next budget biennium.

Once again folks - we don't have a tax problem in Wisconsin, we have a spending problem. Let's fix that!

You're Biased, I'm Not

I agree with this story from CBS News:

"In everyday life in schools, companies and bars, meaningful, two-way conversation is constricted by the trump card of bias: gender bias, race bias, political bias, class bias, religious bias or cultural bias. Bias is not the same as prejudice. Prejudice should be argued with and outed. But next time you're about to accuse someone of being biased, try to come up with a more clever retort. Or better yet, try to understand their point of view. "

As a white male, there is little audience for anything we have to say. I can honestly say though, I'm more than willing to hear all sides and opinions. Just don't expect me to change my mind ALL the time and agree with everything you do. I'll expect the same of you.

Doyle would dip into energy funds again

As someone familiar with the Focus on Energy program, this is now the second time in two budget periods that Governor Doyle has chosen to turn ratepayer public benefits dollars into general taxes. In the last biennium, the Governor shifted $47M. Since he didn't pay a price, I guess he feels he can take more. This budget, he plans on taking $53M.

"This is bad energy policy and bad fiscal policy," said Nino Amato, president of Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, a coalition of manufacturers concerned about rising energy prices. "It's clearly a double tax on industry and on residential customers who are paying for this, and the money is being diverted in a shell game to the general fund."

In addition, the combined Focus on Energy program (Residential and Business Programs) delivers results and is cost effective. In the latest evaluation report, the program's cost benefit ratio is above 5:1. This is since the program began in 2001. That means for every dollar the program spends, the state receives five dollars in energy savings. These savings help residents and business' reduce their utility bills and add to their bottom-line. This helps make Wisconsin business more competitive.

WI State Budget: Here we go again!

Once again, we get a budget proposal from our Governor that lacks any semblance of a backbone. He touts what he calls a 'freeze' in property taxes, but turns around and robs from non-related programs to make up the differences. The problem in this state is not that our taxes are too high. The problem is our SPENDING is too high!

There are a number of programs besides transportation that the Governor is planning to raid - again. Some of these programs are funded through other means than taxes. These programs are often funded through fees by participants or mandated collections by public utilities for specific purposes:

"But Doyle's plan would continue the controversial shift of hundreds of millions of gas tax and license fee dollars to pay for schools and other programs, a move guaranteed to touch off fireworks in the Legislature."

Shifting and borrowing is NOT balancing. It is a shell game to "hide" the problem for another two-years. Rather than actually making difficult choices, the Governor (and I presume the legislature, based on last budget process) will play the game, boast about how well they did and hope we all forget when we have to do it again in another two years.

Art for Art's sake?

Never having been an artist myself, I can't thoroughly relate to this from Althouse. I do, however, agree with her conclusions.

The left reacts to the elections in Iraq:

The following is a list of op-ed pieces from traditionally left-leaning columnists. I will add too as needed:

• EJ Dionne in the Houston Chronicle, January 31, 2005: "But not all Iraqis, and here is why euphoria should be held in check. The Sunni Muslim minority that has ruled over the Shiite majority and the Kurds concentrated in the north did not, on the whole, take to these elections."
• Arianna Huffington in the LA Times, February 2, 2005: "But this moment, however moving, should not be allowed to erase all that came before it, leaving us unprepared for all that may come after it. The triumphalist fog rolling across the land has all the makings of another "Mission Accomplished" moment."
• Thomas Friedman in the NY Times, February 3, 2005 (actually gets it right!): "It's about time, because whatever you thought about this war, it's not about Mr. Bush any more. It's about the aspirations of the Iraqi majority to build an alternative to Saddamism. By voting the way they did, in the face of real danger, Iraqis have earned the right to ask everyone now to put aside their squabbles and focus on what is no longer just a pipe dream but a real opportunity to implant decent, consensual government in the heart of the Arab-Muslim world."

Update: Thomas Friedman continues to impress me with his acknowledgement that the elections and a democracy in Iraq are good things. Of course his last comment is debatable:

"Here's the truth: There is no single action we could undertake anywhere in the world to reduce the threat of terrorism that would have a bigger impact today than a decent outcome in Iraq. It is that important. And precisely because it is so important, it should not be left to Donald Rumsfeld."

Self-indulgence: Why the Left Protests

Once again, Thomas Sowell calls it like he sees it - and gets it right:

"The media dignify these outbursts by calling them 'protests' but what are they protesting?

That they lost the election? Doesn't somebody always lose an election? Did the Republicans take to the streets when Bill Clinton was elected?

Are the shouters and the rioters protesting that they disagree with President Bush's policies? Isn't that why we hold elections in the first place -- because people disagree? "

I have seen too many scowl faced citizens emerge from their cars, mini-vans and, yes, even SUV's that still carry the Kerry/Edwards bumber stickers. These people not only look sad, they look angry. They look mad.

In addition, we have one citizen who has taken to protesting the Bush administration and, more specifically, the war on terror, with '60's type banners and symbolic signs in her front yard. This started with the "Defend America, Defeat Bush!" hand painted banner draped across the 2nd story porch rail prior to the election and has evolved to a banner(s) representing the number of dead American soldiers in Iraq. This unilateral representation of the struggle echoes another Sowell piece about the media - but more about the other battle we face: ourselves.

I've often thought about knocking on the door of this person to ask if we could have a discussion about each other's views. I've never acted on this thought and, given the description of the others I've seen noted above - the "scowlers" - I don't think it wise. I see little if any opportunity to have a calm, reasonable discussion with these people. I fear that it would too quickly descend to a yelling match with little accomplished.

I don't see these people as being willing to hear another's point of view - exactly what they claim is THE PROBLEM with the Bush Administration. I can empathize with them. I wasn't exactly thrilled with our country's previous administration. I was worried about the damaging effects that policy and appointments made during that time were having and would have in the future. But I, as well as many others, chose a different path - not one of public protest or civil disobedience.

Therefore, we do have differences. There is a right and a left. There are red states and blue states, conservative and liberal perspectives. But there is also a broad middle area where some of us can agree to disagree and be okay with it.

So, come on everyone. Take off the Kerry/Edwards stickers (I had my Bush/Quayle and Dole/Kemp signs and stickers gone in a week!) Open your minds - not change them. And let's get back to being civil.