Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News earlier this week:

After lengthy, private discussions with legislative Democrats and local leaders, including the Democratic leaders of Milwaukee, the Republican leaders of the Legislature have released a comprehensive and intricate plan to reshape the state’s shared revenue program for decades to come. While the reasons for the effort are laudable, it perpetuates a political arrangement in which everybody wins except the taxpayers. It is a bill with fundamental flaws that should be rejected.

 

Shared revenue is a rather ridiculous Wisconsin state scheme where the state collects a bunch of sales and income taxes and then distributes much of it back to local governments with an archaic formula that nobody likes. This column has long advocated the abolishment of shared revenue in exchange for something far simpler, but there is too much power wrapped up in the distribution of shared revenue for its abolishment to be considered. This bill is a good example of that power being wielded.

 

The primary objectives of the Republicans’ bill, Assembly Bill 245, are threefold. First, it would provide the largest increase in shared revenue in decades in exchange for municipalities spending that money on law enforcement and first responders.

 

Second, it would allow the city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County to ask the voters to raise the sales tax to pay for their unfunded pension liabilities in exchange for making all future employees join the well-managed state retirement system. Third, it would provide a huge incentive program for local governments who innovate by consolidating or combining services.

 

There are some other things in the bill that are good, like barring local health officials from closing businesses for more than 14 days without approval by elected governments, and allowing local governments a say when the state Stewardship Program decides to buy a slew of land and remove it from the tax rolls, but the grand bargain is more money if local governments do what elected state leaders want them to do.

 

The first bargain is that local government can get more money if they spend that money on law enforcement and first responders.

 

The problem with that bargain is that not every community needs more law enforcement. Some communities are declining in population or have overstaffed law enforcement agencies. The goal of this provision is to push back on the defund-the-police movement that has infected our liberal communities, but the solution in this bill would just have state taxpayers pumping money into local communities to pay for services that they have rejected.

 

The second bargain would allow Milwaukee city and County to ask the taxpayers to jack up sales taxes to pay for their unfunded pension liabilities. The problem the state legislators are trying to fix is that the city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County have grossly mismanaged their pension obligations to the point that they are underfunded by $1.14 billion and $331 million, respectively. These pension obligations are malignant and starving the rest of their budgets of funding for vital services. The bargain would force these governments to stop making the problem worse by having new employees join the Wisconsin Retirement System and raise sales taxes to pay for the pensions.

 

The problem is that it is already within these local officials’ power to fix the problem by having new employees join the WRS. They have chosen not to do so. The proposed solution would result in a huge tax increase on city and county residents with absolutely no increased benefit to them. Once again, the taxpayers would bear the burden of decades of political mismanagement.

 

The third bargain would create a $300 million slush fund for local governments to do what they should already be doing — looking for ways to consolidate and economize services for the benefit of their citizens. Some local governments have already been progressive in this regard, but the additional money would only go to the laggards. Furthermore, if consolidating and economizing a government service results in efficiencies, why would the taxpayers pay more money for it?

 

Republican legislators are attempting to force local government leaders to do the things that they should already be doing by incentivizing them with more money to spend. This is a government solution, for government, by government. Experience tells us that the restrictions and covenants will eventually be eroded or circumvented, but the spending will remain forevermore. There is nothing so eternal as a government spending program.

 

Necessity is the mother of invention. As long as the state taxpayers keep bailing out the bad decisions of local government leaders, they will continue to make bad decisions.

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

After lengthy, private discussions with legislative Democrats and local leaders, including the Democratic leaders of Milwaukee, the Republican leaders of the Legislature have released a comprehensive and intricate plan to reshape the state’s shared revenue program for decades to come. While the reasons for the effort are laudable, it perpetuates a political arrangement in which everybody wins except the taxpayers. It is a bill with fundamental flaws that should be rejected.

 

Shared revenue is a rather ridiculous Wisconsin state scheme where the state collects a bunch of sales and income taxes and then distributes much of it back to local governments with an archaic formula that nobody likes. This column has long advocated the abolishment of shared revenue in exchange for something far simpler, but there is too much power wrapped up in the distribution of shared revenue for its abolishment to be considered. This bill is a good example of that power being wielded.

 

The primary objectives of the Republicans’ bill, Assembly Bill 245, are threefold. First, it would provide the largest increase in shared revenue in decades in exchange for municipalities spending that money on law enforcement and first responders.

 

Second, it would allow the city of Milwaukee and Milwaukee County to ask the voters to raise the sales tax to pay for their unfunded pension liabilities in exchange for making all future employees join the well-managed state retirement system. Third, it would provide a huge incentive program for local governments who innovate by consolidating or combining services.

 

There are some other things in the bill that are good, like barring local health officials from closing businesses for more than 14 days without approval by elected governments, and allowing local governments a say when the state Stewardship Program decides to buy a slew of land and remove it from the tax rolls, but the grand bargain is more money if local governments do what elected state leaders want them to do.

 

[…]

 

Republican legislators are attempting to force local government leaders to do the things that they should already be doing by incentivizing them with more money to spend. This is a government solution, for government, by government. Experience tells us that the restrictions and covenants will eventually be eroded or circumvented, but the spending will remain forevermore. There is nothing so eternal as a government spending program.

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News earlier this week.

There’s no need to sugarcoat it. The Supreme Court election result last week will have terrible consequences that are generational in scale. It has been 15 years since the Wisconsin Supreme Court had a leftist majority, and the leftists of today are far, far more radical than those of the past. We knew that this election was important, which is why it became the most expensive judicial campaign ever waged in the history of our nation. While the consequences will surely be the subject of future columns, we should first understand the past.

 

Although Supreme Court races are officially nonpartisan, they are really completely partisan. The increasing polarization of the two major parties has made the battleground for judicial races a bloody mess of ideological carnage instead of the staid legal philosophical debates of the past. Furthermore, the more leftist forces in our nation have put a concerted effort into electing radicals in judicial and prosecutor races in the last few years as a means to advance their ideology through the judicial branch when they fail in the legislative branch. Against this backdrop, Wisconsin’s Democrats were vocal and unapologetic about supporting Janet Protasiewicz. On the other side, the state Republicans were vocal and unapologetic about supporting Daniel Kelly. There was the faintest whisper to acknowledge the official nonpartisan nature of the race, but it was drowned out by the shouts of partisanship. As campaigners, Protasiewicz ran a campaign appealing to the political issues that strike an emotional chord with leftist voters. She continually implied, and sometimes outright stated, that she would be the deciding vote on issues like abortion, Act 10, political redistricting, and the like. Lost was any indication that she would respect the separation of powers and the role of the court. That was purposeful and it worked. Emotional political issues drive enthusiasm and turnout far more than a dry discussion of constitutional niceties. I wish that it were not so, but it is.

 

Daniel Kelly, on the other hand, ran a campaign that would have worked in the previous decade. It focused on a dry discussion of constitutional niceties and the appropriate role of a justice of the Supreme Court. While correct, it left his supporters in a rear-guard action trying to generate excitement with cries of what will be lost with an activist leftist court.

 

Beyond the candidates and their individual campaign strategies, the respective political parties waged entirely different battles. Truly, hats off to Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. He is an organizational, messaging, and fundraising powerhouse. He has a knack for nationalizing state races to attract national money and for maintaining intramural discipline during primaries.

 

The Democrats also have an electoral structural advantage in that their voters are more concentrated. This makes it easier to concentrate resources to drive turnout. For example, the turnout in Dane County in recent years — a county whose voters vote 80% or more for leftists — has been phenomenal. Only 36% of Protasiewicz’s vote total came from Dane and Milwaukee Counties. By contrast, the top two counties for Kelly were just 19.3% of his vote total.

 

The Democrats have also been tremendous at turning out their key voting groups like college students. For example, the dorms at the University of Wisconsin- La Crosse are in two wards. Turnout was over 54% in those wards last week compared to less than 20% in the previous spring election.

 

The Democrats have also taken full advantage of campaign finance and election laws. They funneled over $10 million to Protasiewicz’s campaign through the Democratic Party while Kelly eschewed any Republican Party money. The Democrats push hard for mail-in voting, early voting, ballot harvesting, and any other means to get people to vote who otherwise would not. Meanwhile, Republicans bicker over the appropriateness of these means and continue to lose elections.

 

Anecdotally, I also saw a marked difference in how each side was reaching out to voters. I received at least five texts from leftists for every one from righties urging me to vote or pushing an issue. Online, the ads were 10 to one in favor of leftists. Meanwhile, I received several mailers from righty groups and none from leftists. Democrats are putting their resources into reaching voters where they are while Republicans are spending their money and time on the campaign tactics of 2004.

 

Republicans have lost 14 of the last 17 statewide elections. On the issues, Wisconsin remains very evenly divided as evidenced by statewide referendum results, national election results, and general polling. But Republicans are getting blown out in statewide elections because of antiquated campaign strategies, bad candidates, intraparty squabbling, and terrible leadership. Wisconsin will continue to trend toward Illinois until the Republicans figure out how to match the Democrats’ campaigning prowess.

I suppose that I’ll pile on in the aftermath of the election last week. My column in the Washington County Daily News not only highlights some of the Righties’ failures, but also the phenomenal machine that the Democrats have built. Republicans are still fighting the last war as the Democrats are winning this one. Here’s a part:

Beyond the candidates and their individual campaign strategies, the respective political parties waged entirely different battles. Truly, hats off to Ben Wikler, the chairman of the Democratic Party of Wisconsin. He is an organizational, messaging, and fundraising powerhouse. He has a knack for nationalizing state races to attract national money and for maintaining intramural discipline during primaries.

 

The Democrats also have an electoral structural advantage in that their voters are more concentrated. This makes it easier to concentrate resources to drive turnout. For example, the turnout in Dane County in recent years — a county whose voters vote 80% or more for leftists — has been phenomenal. Only 36% of Protasiewicz’s vote total came from Dane and Milwaukee Counties. By contrast, the top two counties for Kelly were just 19.3% of his vote total.

 

The Democrats have also been tremendous at turning out their key voting groups like college students. For example, the dorms at the University of Wisconsin- La Crosse are in two wards. Turnout was over 54% in those wards last week compared to less than 20% in the previous spring election.

 

The Democrats have also taken full advantage of campaign finance and election laws. They funneled over $10 million to Protasiewicz’s campaign through the Democratic Party while Kelly eschewed any Republican Party money. The Democrats push hard for mail-in voting, early voting, ballot harvesting, and any other means to get people to vote who otherwise would not. Meanwhile, Republicans bicker over the appropriateness of these means and continue to lose elections.

Anecdotally, I also saw a marked difference in how each side was reaching out to voters. I received at least five texts from leftists for every one from righties urging me to vote or pushing an issue. Online, the ads were 10 to one in favor of leftists. Meanwhile, I received several mailers from righty groups and none from leftists. Democrats are putting their resources into reaching voters where they are while Republicans are spending their money and time on the campaign tactics of 2004.