I saw these great info graphics from Forbes earlier today and had to share. All the red lines below are people moving out. Lot’s of people headed to low tax, concealed carry, business friendly Texas, hmmm…. There are more examples from Forbes here.
How about Milwaukee, WI ? (Get away from some of the worst property taxes in the country!)
HT: Big Picture
Today the Barrett for Governor campaign released its second television ad, which pledges to end “Cadillac health care for convicted felons.” The accompanying plan from the campaign includes this detail on savings in this regard:
Cut Prison Health Care Costs. One way to cut costs is simply by reducing spending for inmate medical services, which are notoriously inefficient – not to mention outrageous. Taxpayers having trouble paying their own health insurance shouldn’t be paying for Cadillac coverage for criminals. We should eliminate elective procedures – such as sex-change operations – consolidate services, reduce the number of contracts, improve efficiency, and cut costs.
A writer at the Isthmus Daily Page criticizes him for picking on prisoners as a particularly easy, politically vulnerable population. That’s true enough, although I think we should cut all kinds of spending.
What I want to focus in on, though, is the sex-change operations mention. First, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, through Judge Charles Clevert, recently ruled that sexual identity disorder is a “serious health condition” and that a state statute banning taxpayer-funded sex-change operations is unconstitutional. The Wisconsin Department of Justice is appealing the decision. So I’m not sure how Barrett plans to save money on this one – there’s already a state statute banning sex-change operations, but a Clinton-appointed federal judge has held it unconstitutional, something that Gov. Barrett couldn’t just change.
Second, I wonder how Barrett’s friends in the LGBT community feel about this. Fair Wisconsin, the leading LGBT rights group in Wisconsin, has endorsed his campaign for the governorship. FW followed up its endorsement with a fundraiser to benefit Barrett’s campaign. Cong. Tammy Baldwin said that Barrett “unabashedly” stood forward for gay rights as a member of congress. Is he going to stand now “unabashedly” for the proposition that gender identity disorder is a “serious health condition”? Or will he abandon the LGBT community on some of these tougher political stances (by which I mean, something that is easy in the eyes of the vast majority of Wisconsinites, but does not align with the LGBT agenda)?
We are live at the convention using a new event technology called Hot Potato for pictures, Tweets and video! The best part? You can contribute as well with an iPhone or Android phone or computer. Check it out here: http://hotpotato.com/events/republican-party-of-wisconsin-2010-qk2cp
Tag your tweets with #rpw2010 and they will appear on the site as well!
Tags: convention, GOP, RPW
Fellow Gop3.com blogger Daniel Suhr and I will be at portions of the RPW convention in Milwaukee this year including the kickoff this evening at the Harley Davidson Museum. We won’t be live blogging this year but, will post our thoughts throughout the weekend. Hope to see you there if you are attending.
Click here for more information on the Republican Party of Wisconsin State Convention 2010.
Tags: convention, GOP, Republican Party of Wisconsin, RPW
I have been a bit critical in the past of FUELMilwaukee, the re branded Young Professionals of Milwaukee. They have a good goal, to improve the professional environment in Milwaukee. However, they tend to focus on superficial issues like social activism and beautification that result in more spending rather than really solving any problems. They ignore the core issues that are killing businesses in Milwaukee:
1. The 7th highest property taxes in the country
2. One of the heaviest overall state tax burdens in the country
3. Over-regulation.
Liberal Government 101
It appears that the group has not changed it’s approach at all. I was intrigued by their recent announcement that they were going to help young professionals like myself learn about how government works and effects our lives. Here is a portion of their notice:
“Join FUEL Milwaukee for Government 101, an interactive presentation and discussion about Milwaukee’s legislative structure. First, an expert presenter will explain the structure of local government, identify the decision makers and tell you how to get involved. Next, you’ll engage in informative round table discussions with local government experts, community leaders, and fellow members of the FUEL network.”
Seemed like a pretty good effort to educate citizens about their local government. Just today though, they sent out an update with the name of their “government expert”, Mordecai Lee.
Mordecai Lee
Moordecai’s site is a good place to review his record/beliefs. He was a former Democratic state legislator in the House and Senate and his site is heavily government/policy focused, as you would hope a government policy professor would be but, it does show a lack of private industry work and cites his time with the liberal Brookings Institute.
Evidently, he also believes government needs secrecy as well, bringing up the question of how much he wants to reveal in his presentation:
“Former Democratic lawmaker Mordecai Lee argues that secrecy is needed to forge compromises.
“A lot of legislators don’t feel they can speak openly of compromise, because they would lose face with some special-interest group,” said Lee, a professor of governmental affairs at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.”
Daniel Suhr, who blogs right here on Gop3.com even mentioned Mordecai Lee as someone who might write a liberal legal whitepaper on the supreme court.
FUELMilwaukee has every right to bring in whoever they want to teach their members about government-industry interaction. However, I really don’t understand why a group of young professionals would bring in a liberal lawmaker who doesn’t cite a single private sector job on his site. He doesn’t represent the business perspective nor would he advocate to change any of the core Milwaukee Business issues mentioned above.
Why not bring in a conservative as well, maybe even have a true discussion about small government, low tax, pro-business policy vs government attempts to solve problems with big, expensive, inefficient programs? It certainly would be better than one sided, biased discourse.
For an alternative, conservative approach to business and government in Milwaukee (disclosure: I help out with this group), check out the Conservative Young Professionals of Milwaukee.
Tags: FUELMilwaukee, Mordecai Lee, YPM
WKOW News in Madison carries a story with comments from Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson of the Wisconsin Supreme Court on the retirement of Justice John Paul Stevens of the U.S. Supreme Court. Allow me a few comments:
“He realized over the years, conditions change, the law progresses,” Abrahamson told WKOW27 News. “He will make a decision on each case, even if it means that it differs from a decision that he might have made in the past.”
Two thoughts. First, this tells us just as much about C.J. Abrahamson as it does Justice Stevens. Clearly SHE believes it’s a good thing for judges to recognize that “conditions change” and to play their role so “the law progresses.” This is a decidedly liberal approach to the role of judges in our system of government (conversely, a conservative would say that if social conditions change, it should be the legislature’s job to update the law. If the law “progresses,” it should be because the legislature changes it).
Second, her comment is very “off message” for the Stevens fan club. Justice Stevens and many of his admirers in the legal journalist clique have been pushing a line that the court has moved to the right, but he’s been consistent all along. Typical is the ABA Journal, which ran a retirement profile headlined, “As the Court Shifted Right, Stevens Kept His Place.” Prof. Justin Driver of the Univ. of Texas School of Law has offered a significant critique of this contention in the pages of the New Republic, agreeing with C.J. Abrahamson that he moved left over time. But the dominant narrative, and one pushed significantly by Stevens himself, is that he’s stayed the same. In a rare moment of agreement with the Chief, I believe he’s actually lurched left (the WKOW story mentions his stance on the death penalty).
Like Stevens, Abrahamson has served on a high court for over three decades. She has a national reputation.
True enough, the Chief has been on the Wisconsin Supreme Court for over three decades. This seems to me an argument for term limits – no one should be able to reshape the jurisprudence of an entire state simply by staying around the longest. And admittedly, she does have a national reputation, though for her leadership of the liberal legal cause in numerous ways in which I disagree strongly as a matter of jurisprudence. But as a factual matter it’s probably a stretch to place her reputation alongside that of a long-time justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.
Abrahamson demurred when asked about the prospect of President Obama extending her a nomination to replace Stevens on the U.S. Supreme Court. “I’m very happy where I am.” “I never speculate, and I don’t accept or reject offers until made.”
In short, oh come on. The Chief is 76 – a little old for a Supreme Court nomination. Her number came up in 1993, when she was considered for the seat that eventually went to Justice Ginsburg. The Milwaukee Journal reported at the time, “The sources said Abrahamson was under serious consideration, but in the end was viewed as too liberal . . .” Rejected as too liberal for Bill Clinton.
Abrahamson said President Obama will have a good number of qualified people to pick from, including some in Wisconsin, but did not specify who the in-state possibilities are.
I think this can only be a reference to the Chief’s number two, Justice Ann Walsh Bradley. Liberal opinion magazine The Nation ran a web story mentioning AWB for the Souter seat, linking to a Wikipedia page listing Supreme Court possibilities. Incidentally, AWB is no longer listed on that Wiki page. Moreover, The Nation’s post was written by John Nichols, who is associate editor of the Madison-based Capital Times. The Cap Times ran an editorial pushing AWB for the Souter seat, calling her “an ideal addition to the U.S. Supreme Court.” Though liberals may find it flattering to see their name mentioned on the websites of the Nation and Capital Times, the White House would find quite the fight on its hands if this darkest of dark horse nominations were actually made. Can you imagine AWB before the Senate Judicial Committee discussing the 2004-2005 term cases? That’d be a sight to see.
Justice Stevens has rendered a lifetime of service to this country. From his days in uniform and his corruption-busting work as a front-line prosecutor in Chicago to his long tenure on the Supreme Court, we can applaud his commitment to public service. Readers of this blog can take special note of his Midwestern roots and his long-time dedication to the Seventh Circuit. But his record on the Court, particularly in the later years, was that of a liberal activist, and it says much about CJ Abrahamson’s own judicial philosophy that this is what she chooses to praise from his career.
Graphic Source: Gateway Pundit
Original Article: The Washington Post
President Obama’s fiscal 2011 budget will generate nearly $10 trillion in cumulative budget deficits over the next 10 years, $1.2 trillion more than the administration projected, and raise the federal debt to 90 percent of the nation’s economic output by 2020, the Congressional Budget Office reported Thursday.
Tags: Barack Obama, Budget Deficits, Socialism
Another week, another post about recent ongoings at the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Last week, I discussed on the MULS Faculty Blog a recent decision that contained strong language on judicial restraint. This week, I want to discuss the story in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel this morning regarding Justice Gableman’s motion to recuse Justice Crooks from the pending Judicial Commission proceeding.
Prof. Esenberg and I have both previously criticized the Capital Times’ reporting on the Supreme Court. Regarding one story the CT ran, I complained that the only sources they quoted were critical of the Court’s conservatives: the exec. dir. of the League of Women Voters of Wisc. and retired justices Bill Bablitch and Janine Geske.
In the MJS’s story on Justice Gableman’s motion to recuse Justice Crooks, retired Justice Bablitch is the only commentator quoted, and he is predictably critical of Justice Gableman:
“It’s not a good way to win friends and influence people,” said former Justice Bill Bablitch. “It exacerbates an already tenuous group of relationships.” Bablitch called Crooks “the most gentle, fairest guy on that court.”
Bablitch is able to offer that opinion because he served with Crooks on the Court from 1996 to 2003. Moreover, he endorsed Justice Gableman’s opponent, Justice Butler, in the 2008 election. And he’s a lifelong liberal Democrat. When Pat Marley called, he knew what kind of quote he’d be getting.
Which is not to say that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel shouldn’t call the good justice for commentary on the state of the Court from time to time. But it feels like every single story about the Court in the last few years has included a quote from Bablitch, often with Justice Geske close behind.
But where in the story is the outside expert taking the other side? Where’s the quote saying “Justice Crooks’ opinion in Allen was not about the law but rather was him up on a soap box scolding Gableman and his attorney”? Where’s the quote from the other retired justices, Wilcox or Steinmetz, who would bring a conservative perspective to things? This is why we complain that MJS coverage of state politics isn’t always “fair and balanced.”
And for those who are interested, you heard it here first, folks: the WICourts.gov case feed announces and the Court’s oral argument calendar confirms: the Wisconsin Supreme Court will hear oral argument in the case of Wisconsin Judicial Commission v. Michael Gableman on Friday, April 16. This will come at the end of a long week of argument (most notably, I think, also including Wis. Medical Society v. Morgan, the patients compensation fund raid).
Today the New Nixon Blog, a project of the Richard Nixon Library & Birthplace Foundation, ran an op-ed from me regarding President Nixon’s approach to health care. Liberals have claimed Nixon’s imprimatur for ObamaCare, and I point out that in 1994 he was staunchly opposed to Clinton Care.
Thanks to the New Nixonites for posting it and National Review’s The Corner for linking to it.
Recent Comments