Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...

M
Category: Politics – Wisconsin

Protasiewicz Slaps the Wrist of Another Violent Criminal

by | 2010, 6 Mar 23 | , | 0 Comments

You know when people say that a judge is soft on crime? This is what they mean.

Alton Anthony Ithier was convicted on two counts of Child Abuse-Recklessly Cause Harm, a Class I felony. A Child Abuse-Intentionally Cause Harm charge was also read in. But Protasiewicz, who has a history of soft sentences, stayed any prison time for Ithier, meaning he would not have to serve it unless he messed up again. She gave him nine months in work-release jail and probation, court records show.

 

He has already reoffended, being convicted of second-offense OWI, court records show.

 

Read the criminal complaint here: Protasiewicz 2015CF2596(1)

According to the criminal complaint, a mother reported to City of Milwaukee Police that the father of her three children struck each child with a dog leash. The children were ages 10, 8, and 5.

Government Stewardship Programs Are Choking Wisconsin Communities

by | 1455, 5 Mar 23 | , , | 1 Comment

Again we find that, too often, environmental causes are used as the excuse to obliterate private property and individual rights – the underpinnings of a free society. This is a very good piece by Richard Moore about how government stewardship programs are choking the North Woods to death. Here’s a part:

The reason is pretty simple and straightforward: These purchases of land and easements have reached the point where they pose an existential threat to life in the Northwoods. This purchase alone would place more than 80 percent of the land in the town of Monico under government ownership and/or control, obliterating any chance the town would have to develop economically in the future. Just over 30 percent of all of Oneida County is owned by government—state, county, federal—and as the number of privately-held or controlled acres dwindles, so does any realistic chance to diversify and grow vibrant economies and robust, cohesive communities.

 

Speaking to the Oneida County board of supervisors this past week, Felzkowski put it this way:

 

The purchase of land north of Hwy. 64 has got to stop if we are ever going to see economic vitality up here. The towns can’t afford EMS services. Our schools have declining enrollment.

 

The senator offered up some shocking statistics to underscore how extensive and far-reaching these land control schemes have become. All totaled, Felzkowski said, about 5.9 million acres of land in Wisconsin are publicly held:

 

Those 5.9 million acres of land are larger than the state of Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island and is equal to the state of Vermont.

 

The counties of Forest, Florence, Langlade, Lincoln, Oneida and Vilas—some of the poorest counties in the state—have 1.3 million acres of public land, Felzkowski said:

 

Florence County is 45.7 percent publicly owned, or 32 acres per resident. Forest County is 59.7 percent publicly owned, or 42 acres per resident. Langlade County is 32.6 percent publicly owned, or 9 acres per resident. Oneida County is 30 percent publicly owned, which equates out to 6 acres per resident.

 

By contrast, Dane County is 3.8 percent public land, which is less than one half of 1 percent per resident, Felzkowski said.

 

[…]

 

When 80 percent of a town is owned by government, it’s effectively a government town. The private sector withers and dies, and the town withers and dies with it. The Northwoods would become a pristine but empty wilderness devoted entirely to wildlife and elite humans—the affluent bureaucrats and progressives who will, and have, used this as their private playgrounds.

 

For average families, there would be housing, no jobs, no schools, no room for them..

 

Rule of Law on ballot this April

by | 0916, 28 Feb 23 | , | 0 Comments

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

The Rule of Law is the critical foundation of a free society and underpins Western civilization. The Rule of Law is the principle that all people, from prices to paupers, are subject to the same laws. As John Locke put it in his Second Treatise on Government, “freedom of men under government is, to have a standing rule to live by, common to every one of that society, and made by the legislative power erected in it; a liberty to follow my own will in all things, where the rule prescribes not; and not to be subject to the inconstant, uncertain, unknown, arbitrary will of another man.”

 

It is the Rule of Law that protects people from arbitrary tyrannical rule. In a society where the Rule of Law is in force, the role of a judge is simply to enforce the law as it is written. If the judge thinks that the law is wrong, a judicial conservative is bound by duty to apply the law anyway because it is the role of the legislature to change the law – not the judge.

 

Janet Protasiewicz has a very different approach to the law. Protasiewicz is proudly embracing the “progressive” (read: socialist) label and is sharing her opinion on all sorts of issues that may come before the court. She has said that the state’s electoral maps are “rigged,” that a woman’s right to abort her baby is a decision that should “be made solely by her,” that Act 10 is “unconstitutional,” and she has a long record as a Milwaukee County Judge of coddling hardened violent criminals – including child sex offenders. Protasiewicz’s approach to the law is to use her position as a means to reach outcomes that align with her personal values and convictions irrespective of what the law actually says. It is the kind of judicial activism that obliterates the Rule of Law.

 

As if to try to assuage concerns about her vocal activism, Protasiewicz said on “Capital City Sunday,” “What I will tell you is that [for] the bulk of issues there’s no thumb on the scale, but I will also tell you that I’ll call them as I see them. and I’ll tell you what my values are in regards to [the abortion] issue, because this issue is so critically important.” In other words, Protasiewicz is telling us that when she considers the case before her to be critically important, as measured against her values, she is more than willing to put her thumb on the scales of justice.

 

This is the definition of judicial activism. This is not only grossly unethical, but also antithetical to the Rule of Law.

Upgrading Brewers’ stadium attracts bipartisan support

by | 1334, 25 Feb 23 | | 0 Comments

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

As this column discussed last week, Gov. Tony Evers’ budget proposal is an unserious carnival of leftist fantasy policies and indecent spending. Legislative Republicans have already dismissed Evers’ proposal and are starting from scratch. One spending idea, however, appears to have bipartisan support: spending hundreds of millions of tax dollars to upgrade American Family Field.

 

The battle over tax funding to build a new stadium for the Milwaukee Brewers was a brawl that left deep scars in the electorate. The five-county sales tax to fund the stadium collected $605 million — about $342 per person — until it finally ended in 2020. While the Brewers have an undeniably positive economic impact, it remains disconcerting for some people to be forced to pay for a place for millionaires to play a game. Such funding, however, may be required.

 

American Family Field is owned by a state-created public agency named the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District and leased to the Brewers. The current lease runs out in 2030 and requires that the district pay for improvements to the stadium. While there is a contractual obligation for the district to pay for improvements, there is also a business development incentive for the district to make the improvements necessary to convince the Brewers to renew the lease for another couple of decades. If the Brewers do not renew the lease, the taxpayers will be stuck with having to do something with an unused baseball stadium. It is difficult to believe that any other professional baseball team would relocate to Milwaukee if the Brewers leave. The Brewers organization conducted a study and determined that the stadium needs an estimated $428 million in upgrades through 2043. The Wisconsin Department of Administration also conducted a study and estimated the upgrade costs at between $540 million and $604 million. The district currently has about $70 million in a reserve fund that was financed by the excess sales taxes collected before the stadium tax was ended. Governor Evers proposed to use $290 million in cash from the current projected budget surplus. This would give the district $360 million in cash that could be invested to raise sufficient funds for upgrades for the next two decades. His argument is that state taxpayers should pay for the upgrades and that using cash is more economical than financing it with debt.

 

Republican Speaker Robin Vos seems to agree with Evers that the taxpayers should pay for the improvement, but he has not said how much, what mechanism, or what other conditions may apply. Whereby Evers looks to shovel $290 million in taxpayer dollars into the district with no strings attached, Vos appears to want to structure a more comprehensive deal with the Brewers.

 

Either way, it is clear that there is bipartisan support, from the politicians, at least, to have the taxpayers upgrade the Brewers’ home field. Should we?

 

When it comes to spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, we must set sentimentality aside. Wisconsinites love their Brewers, but that does not mean that we should use the violent coercive power of government to extract money from all state citizens to pay for it. Outside of the contractual obligations for the district to pay for upgrades required by Major League Baseball, any further taxpayer funding must be evaluated according to firm financial principles and projections.

 

Will the taxpayers’ investment provide a return to the people that makes it worthwhile? Are there other options? Could the district sell the stadium to the Brewers or another private group? What is the cost of doing nothing and the Brewers leave? Who is responsible if there are expenses not uncovered by the various studies? At the end of the day, even if the financial projections justify an investment by the taxpayers, can the people really afford it in this economic climate? Sometimes even good investments must be passed over because there are better ways to spend the money.

 

The taxpayers deserve a transparent, rigorous, detailed financial discussion before lawmakers spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a baseball stadium and obligate them to yet more decades of obligation to a private, for-profit company. The fact that Evers and Vos seem to agree on the need for funding the stadium should not be viewed as a bipartisan breakthrough. It should be viewed with skepticism and suspicion.

Wisconsin Primary Election Results

by | 2107, 22 Feb 23 | | 1 Comment

Good for the people who went out to vote in Wisconsin yesterday (and early). Some thoughts…

First, turnout. According to the WEC, statewide turnout for the Supreme Court race was 20.5%. Spot checking some county results, Milwaukee County came in at 26%. Dane County came in at 36.7%. Meanwhile, Washington County came in at 30.8% with a contested State Senate District in part of the county. Ozaukee County came in at 34.28%. Sheboygan County was 28%. Outagamie County was 24.89%. For the life of me, I can’t figure out Waukesha County’s turnout from their website.

What does this tell us? It’s odd that the county turnouts are so high when the state average is 20.5%. I’m sure that someone will dig into each county, but most of the larger counties that drive results turned out well – well above historic averages for a Spring primary. Once again, Dane County is leading the turnout charge. If Dane County had turned out at the state average of 20.5%, it would have meant 63,762 fewer votes – of which, 82.5% went to a liberal (52,604 votes).

Looking at the Supreme Court results, the liberal candidates got 75,595 more votes than the conservative candidates. Dane County makes up 70% of the gap. Milwaukee County stepped up their turnout game too compared to historic averages. Once again, the liberals are going to get virtually all of their votes from two counties and will concentrate their efforts on turnout, turnout, turnout. Conservatives have to match or exceed that turnout in the other 70 counties. Conservatives have a structural disadvantage in statewide races that will be difficult to overcome for many years to come.

Then again… Ron Johnson did it. He was blessed with a uniquely terrible candidate, but he still had the organization and did the work to win. Handily. It can be done.

Congratulations to Dan Kelly for winning the primary. Personally, I was very torn between the candidates, which is why I avoided weighing in during the primary. I did not want to contribute to friendly fire. Dan Kelly is an excellent conservative mind and has already proven to be a solid Supreme Court Justice. Every conservative should turn out and vote for him without reservation.

Like Johnson, Kelly is also blessed with a uniquely terrible opponent. Janet Protasiewicz is a terrible judge who is telling anyone who will listen how she will use her position on the court to be an activist for her personal causes. When people tell you who they are, listen to them. While terrible, she will also have unlimited money to tell whatever story she wants. The Liberals have successfully nationalized this race and Conservatives are playing from behind.

 

The Republican Primary race for the special election to replace Senator Alberta Darling was also interesting. Janel Brantjen has broken with Republican leadership and ran on an election integrity agenda. Van Mobley ran on the Trump agenda even though Trump supported Brantjen. Dan Knodl was the Republican establishment’s pick and had their broad support. Knodl won handily with 56.8% of the vote. That is a massive result given that the other two candidates are well-known in the district and have their own bases of support.

What does this tell us? First, it tells us that Trump’s king-maker power in Wisconsin is completely gone. He has no power here. Wisconsin’s Republicans have largely moved on. Second, the 8th District is not as solidly Republican as it once was. Of the three, Knodl has the best chance of winning the general election. This bodes well for the Republicans maintaining their two-thirds majority in the Senate.

Upgrading Brewers’ stadium attracts bipartisan support

by | 0653, 21 Feb 23 | | 32 Comments

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

Either way, it is clear that there is bipartisan support, from the politicians, at least, to have the taxpayers upgrade the Brewers’ home field. Should we?

 

When it comes to spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, we must set sentimentality aside. Wisconsinites love their Brewers, but that does not mean that we should use the violent coercive power of government to extract money from all state citizens to pay for it. Outside of the contractual obligations for the district to pay for upgrades required by Major League Baseball, any further taxpayer funding must be evaluated according to firm financial principles and projections.

 

Will the taxpayers’ investment provide a return to the people that makes it worthwhile? Are there other options? Could the district sell the stadium to the Brewers or another private group? What is the cost of doing nothing and the Brewers leave? Who is responsible if there are expenses not uncovered by the various studies? At the end of the day, even if the financial projections justify an investment by the taxpayers, can the people really afford it in this economic climate? Sometimes even good investments must be passed over because there are better ways to spend the money.

 

The taxpayers deserve a transparent, rigorous, detailed financial discussion before lawmakers spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a baseball stadium and obligate them to yet more decades of obligation to a private, for-profit company. The fact that Evers and Vos seem to agree on the need for funding the stadium should not be viewed as a bipartisan breakthrough. It should be viewed with skepticism and suspicion.

Evers’ budget comes into focus

by | 2044, 17 Feb 23 | | 0 Comments

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News this week. Of course, Evers’ budget is in full focus now and the legislature has already, rightly, discarded it.

Gov. Tony Evers will release his executive budget this week as the first step in the state’s biennial budget process. This is Evers’ third executive budget. The previous two were mostly ignored by the legislature as unserious. Judging by the budget highlights that Evers is slowly dribbling out before the unveiling, the governor is remaining true to form.

 

Let us begin with the annoying and useless. In his continued quest to make driving a car more inconvenient in Wisconsin, Governor Evers wants to spend $60 million to “construct traffic circles, pedestrian islands, bump-outs at crosswalks, and other treatments that slow vehicle traffic.” Yes, the goal is to make traffic slower. He also wants to increase the fine for not wearing a seat belt from $10 to $25. Clearly the governor has his finger on the pulse of Wisconsin’s major problems.

 

Not to limit himself to being annoying, the governor is also proposing to undermine Wisconsin’s election system under the guise of safer streets. The governor’s budget will propose “Driver’s Licenses for All” to include illegal aliens. Not only would this devalue citizenship by effectively giving noncitizens the ability to vote, but it would fuel the devastating humanitarian disaster at our border.

 

The governor is also proposing a multipronged plan designed to jack up taxes and fuel the growth of local governments. Step one is to dramatically increase the money that the state gives to local governments by funneling 20% of all state sales tax collections to them through the shared revenue program. In the first year, this would total about $576 million and then fluctuate with sales tax collections thereafter. What will happen to those state government programs currently funded by that sales tax? Presumably, that gap will have to be filled with other state taxes.

 

Step two is a provision that mandates that no local government will ever receive less than 95% of the prior year’s allocation under the new shared revenue plan. The sales tax is a consumption tax that fluctuates with consumer spending. Under Evers’ proposal, however, governments would be protected if there is a downturn. How will that funding be made up if sales tax collections drop? With other state taxes, of course.

 

The final step is that the governor would allow all counties and any municipality with a population over 30,000 to impose their own sales tax on top of the state sales tax. Taken together, the governor’s proposals would fuel the growth of local governments with state taxpayer largesse, and then allow local government to increase taxes and spending even further with their own sales taxes. If there is anything that we have learned in Washington County, it is that a government will always find a way to spend sales taxes and then complain that they are broke.

 

The governor is also vexed that the Legislature occasionally (not often enough) exercises legislative oversight over his spending. This normal function of checks and balances in government that was designed by our founders to curtail the worst abuses of concentrated power has become too burdensome for the governor. That is why he is proposing to eliminate legislative review of stewardship projects north of Highway 64 and for any stewardship grant or purchase under $500,000. If you think that allowing the governor to have sole authority to give away money and make purchases is a recipe for corruption, waste, and graft, you are correct. If you think that Governor Evers is trustworthy, remember that there will be other governors.

 

Good government assumes bad people.

 

If there is a theme to Governor Evers’ budget, it is that government is living large in a time of plenty.

 

Even if the taxpayers are suffering under the yoke of taxation and inflation, no government program or employee will be left wanting. Every time there is a mention of “investing” or “supporting” or “addressing” or “improving,” there is an increase in government spending at the end of that sentence.

 

If the rest of Governor Evers’ budget looks anything like the parts of it that he has released to date, legislative leaders would do well to file it in the circular file and start anew.

Mr. McSpendy Strikes Again

by | 2124, 16 Feb 23 | | 0 Comments

Geez.

Gov. Evers’ 2023-2025 budget would spend $103.8 over the biennium, a nearly 18% increase in spending for the first year and 0.8% during the second year. His proposal comes as the state is financially healthy with a projected seven billion state surplus, but some Republicans have warned that pot of cash could dwindle with a looming recession.

 

“As we balance this historic opportunity with our historic responsibility, let’s give these priorities deliberation and debate that’s worthy of the traditions and the people of this state,” Evers said during his primetime budget address Wednesday evening.

 

Within minutes after presenting his budget to the GOP-controlled Legislature, top Republicans said they would scrap his two-year spending plan and start from scratch.

As I said in my column, Evers is true to form. This is an unserious budget from an unserious man. The legislature is right to ignore it and just start from scratch.

Evers’ budget comes into focus

by | 0636, 14 Feb 23 | | 6 Comments

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

The governor is also proposing a multipronged plan designed to jack up taxes and fuel the growth of local governments. Step one is to dramatically increase the money that the state gives to local governments by funneling 20% of all state sales tax collections to them through the shared revenue program. In the first year, this would total about $576 million and then fluctuate with sales tax collections thereafter. What will happen to those state government programs currently funded by that sales tax? Presumably, that gap will have to be filled with other state taxes.

Step two is a provision that mandates that no local government will ever receive less than 95% of the prior year’s allocation under the new shared revenue plan. The sales tax is a consumption tax that fluctuates with consumer spending. Under Evers’ proposal, however, governments would be protected if there is a downturn. How will that funding be made up if sales tax collections drop? With other state taxes, of course.

The final step is that the governor would allow all counties and any municipality with a population over 30,000 to impose their own sales tax on top of the state sales tax. Taken together, the governor’s proposals would fuel the growth of local governments with state taxpayer largesse, and then allow local government to increase taxes and spending even further with their own sales taxes. If there is anything that we have learned in Washington County, it is that a government will always find a way to spend sales taxes and then complain that they are broke.

 

 

Government mandates another vaccine

by | 0835, 9 Feb 23 | | 0 Comments

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

The Wisconsin Department of Human Resources has released new vaccine requirements for children who attend child care centers and schools next year. In a previous era, perhaps a more innocent era, such an announcement would pass unnoticed and unscrutinized as a sensible precaution being enacted by government officials motivated by goodwill and informed by science. However, we live in a post-pandemic world where such trust in our government is no longer warranted — if it ever was.

 

The new requirements from the DHS make some minor changes to the timing of vaccinations that are already required and introduce a new requirement for children to be immunized against meningococcal disease, a leading cause of bacterial meningitis and sepsis, in the seventh grade with the meningococcal vaccine followed by a booster in the twelfth grade. Vaccine requirements are the rage nowadays.

 

The meningococcal vaccine was introduced in 2005 and has seemingly worked well. Although rare, meningococcal disease can cause devastating life-altering damage and death. Before the vaccine, there were usually between 30 and 50 cases per year in Wisconsin with several deaths, according to DHS data. Between 2012 and 2022, there were rarely more than 10 cases with just four deaths in a decade. In 2022, there was a single reported case.

 

Despite the rarity of the disease and the demonstrably effectiveness of recommending the vaccine, state government officials have mandated the vaccine for children. Why?

 

The short answer is that some unelected government health bureaucrat thinks that the vaccine is a good idea, so it should be mandated instead of allowing families to make their own informed health care decisions. It might be a good idea. Indeed, the data seems to show that the vaccine is a good idea for a lot of people. But is a mandate necessary?

 

Part of what is driving the new mandate is that state health bureaucrats are concerned about the drop in overall vaccinations. According to state date, the number of students who were compliant with required immunizations dropped by 3.2% last year as compared to the prior year. 88.7% of students complied with immunization mandates, but state officials are concerned about the increasing resistance to compliance.

 

A more reflective government health bureaucracy might recognize the underlying cause of the drop.

 

They have nobody to blame but themselves. We remember their behavior during the COVID pandemic. We remember the lockdowns that devastated lives.

 

We remember the public shaming. We remember the idiotic mask mandates. We remember forcing children to get unproven vaccines despite the infinitesimal risks of COVID for healthy kids. We remember being forced to stand in the snow to see loved ones in nursing homes through a window. We remember being forbidden to attend funerals to comfort the bereaved.

 

We remember it all. And we remember that it was all for naught. All of the physical, emotional, mental health, economic, and educational pain and suffering inflicted by these same government health bureaucrats far outweighed the negligible, if any, impact on mitigating the spread and effects of COVID. Yet their failures have not dampened their hubris.

 

The COVID pandemic unmasked the government health bureaucracies as often incompetent, sometimes corrupt, occasionally untruthful, unjustifiably arrogant, and heavily influenced by monied special interests like the pharmaceutical companies. In other words, they are subject to all of the same human failings as any other human institution.

 

The realization that our government health officials are human and may not be acting in our best interests has engendered a healthy skepticism of their recommendations and mandates. If you have a child entering the seventh grade, should you comply with the government mandate to get the meningococcal vaccine? Don’t trust your government. They have not earned your trust. Do your own homework and take responsibility for your child’s health care.

Government mandates another vaccine

by | 0747, 7 Feb 23 | , | 1 Comment

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

The Wisconsin Department of Human Resources has released new vaccine requirements for children who attend child care centers and schools next year. In a previous era, perhaps a more innocent era, such an announcement would pass unnoticed and unscrutinized as a sensible precaution being enacted by government officials motivated by goodwill and informed by science. However, we live in a post-pandemic world where such trust in our government is no longer warranted — if it ever was.

 

[…]

 

Part of what is driving the new mandate is that state health bureaucrats are concerned about the drop in overall vaccinations. According to state date, the number of students who were compliant with required immunizations dropped by 3.2% last year as compared to the prior year. 88.7% of students complied with immunization mandates, but state officials are concerned about the increasing resistance to compliance.

 

A more reflective government health bureaucracy might recognize the underlying cause of the drop.

 

They have nobody to blame but themselves. We remember their behavior during the COVID pandemic. We remember the lockdowns that devastated lives.

 

We remember the public shaming. We remember the idiotic mask mandates. We remember forcing children to get unproven vaccines despite the infinitesimal risks of COVID for healthy kids. We remember being forced to stand in the snow to see loved ones in nursing homes through a window. We remember being forbidden to attend funerals to comfort the bereaved.

 

We remember it all. And we remember that it was all for naught. All of the physical, emotional, mental health, economic, and educational pain and suffering inflicted by these same government health bureaucrats far outweighed the negligible, if any, impact on mitigating the spread and effects of COVID. Yet their failures have not dampened their hubris.

 

The COVID pandemic unmasked the government health bureaucracies as often incompetent, sometimes corrupt, occasionally untruthful, unjustifiably arrogant, and heavily influenced by monied special interests like the pharmaceutical companies. In other words, they are subject to all of the same human failings as any other human institution.

 

The realization that our government health officials are human and may not be acting in our best interests has engendered a healthy skepticism of their recommendations and mandates. If you have a child entering the seventh grade, should you comply with the government mandate to get the meningococcal vaccine? Don’t trust your government. They have not earned your trust. Do your own homework and take responsibility for your child’s health care.

The Education Reformation sweeps America

by | 0800, 4 Feb 23 | , | 21 Comments

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

Frustrated by chronically poorly performing government schools and a well-heeled government education aristocracy that has an agenda far removed from the priorities of parents, education advocates have ignited an education reformation that is sweeping across America. Once a pioneer in education, Wisconsin looks like it will be watching from the sidelines due to unrequited loyalty to a failing bureaucracy.

 

The education reformation is manifesting in several forms that are being lumped into the moniker of “universal school choice.” While the mechanisms differ, the concept is the same. Reformers are decoupling education funding from the government education industrial complex and crafting programs that fund education for children irrespective of their race, creed, religion, socioeconomic background, or school of choice. They are programs that fund students and not systems.

 

Last year, Arizona became the first state to pass universal school choice. West Virginia got close, passing a broad plan that provides educational choice to about 93% of their children. Already this year, Iowa has passed universal school choice. The states of Florida, Texas, Utah, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Indiana are all advancing universal school choice and likely to pass some form by the end of 2023. Several other states are in earlier stages of considering universal school choice. It is conceivable that half of the United States will have universal school choice by 2025. Disastrously for Wisconsin’s children, our state is unlikely to be one of them. Gov. Tony Evers is a lifelong creature of the government education establishment and is vehemently loyal to defending the bureaucracy irrespective of its performance. He has demonstrated his willingness to veto any educational reform that threatens the entrenched power structure and is unlikely to shift his loyalty to children any time soon.

 

While the Republican majorities in the Legislature are strong, they lack the votes to overcome Evers’ vetoes without some legislative Democrats shifting their support to children. When Governor Tommy Thompson pioneered the original school choice program in Wisconsin, there was bipartisan support, and bipartisan opposition, for it. In today’s political landscape, it is unlikely that enough Democrats are willing to cross the yawning political divide to support kids.

 

The benefits of school choice have never been clearer. Dr. Will Flanders from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty has released his fifth annual “Apples to Apples” research study which evaluates student outcomes across government, charter, and choice schools while controlling for student demographics. This statistical methodology controls for the fact that government, charter, and choice schools have dissimilar student demographics to provide a clear comparison of performance. Notably, this year’s study uses public data from the 2021-2022 school year report cards from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and is the first post-pandemic look at school performance.

 

The results are clear. According to the study, students in the Milwaukee Choice program are significantly more proficient in English Language Arts and math than their peers in government schools. Students in Milwaukee charter schools (still government schools that have been somewhat liberated from the crushing educational bureaucracy) also perform better than their government school peers, but only about half as much as their peers in choice schools.

 

In the statewide choice program, students in choice school also have better outcomes, but the benefit is not quite as pronounced as it is for kids in Milwaukee.

 

Tellingly, the data also bears out the well-known, if patently ignored, fact that spending has very little to do with performance in government or choice schools. This tells us two things. First, it tells us that once spending has reached a level that provides an adequate level of support for good teachers and a safe physical space, all of the additional spending is just waste. Wisconsin already funds education at a level where each additional dollar spent does not have any positive impact on student outcomes. That being the case, policymakers must ask themselves why they would force taxpayers to pay more when there is no measurable benefit to kids.

 

The second thing this data tells us is that it is the government school system that is retarding student performance. Choice schools operate with less money and produce better outcomes even after accounting for demographic differences in the student body. If the system is the problem, then why should taxpayers and parents be forced to continue to lavishly fund a failed system when demonstrably better systems exist?

 

I am well aware that such arguments rooted in data and genuine passion for educating children do not hold sway in the intellectually sclerotic mind of Governor Evers, but his term will eventually end and we cannot afford to lose another generation of kids to a failed government system.

Dem Leaders Plan Spending Spree

by | 2124, 1 Feb 23 | | 0 Comments

This is precisely why you never want to leave a pot of money near a politician. People who want to be good stewards of the people’s money would ALWAYS be choosy.

 

 

 

“I do think that there is room for bipartisan agreement in getting that robust surplus back into the hands of our communities,” the Madison Dem said. “And we don’t need to be choosy; $7 billion is a lot of money.”

The Education Reformation sweeps America

by | 1743, 31 Jan 23 | , | 3 Comments

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

 

While the Republican majorities in the Legislature are strong, they lack the votes to overcome Evers’ vetoes without some legislative Democrats shifting their support to children. When Governor Tommy Thompson pioneered the original school choice program in Wisconsin, there was bipartisan support, and bipartisan opposition, for it. In today’s political landscape, it is unlikely that enough Democrats are willing to cross the yawning political divide to support kids.

 

The benefits of school choice have never been clearer. Dr. Will Flanders from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty has released his fifth annual “Apples to Apples” research study which evaluates student outcomes across government, charter, and choice schools while controlling for student demographics. This statistical methodology controls for the fact that government, charter, and choice schools have dissimilar student demographics to provide a clear comparison of performance. Notably, this year’s study uses public data from the 2021-2022 school year report cards from the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction and is the first post-pandemic look at school performance.

 

The results are clear. According to the study, students in the Milwaukee Choice program are significantly more proficient in English Language Arts and math than their peers in government schools. Students in Milwaukee charter schools (still government schools that have been somewhat liberated from the crushing educational bureaucracy) also perform better than their government school peers, but only about half as much as their peers in choice schools.

 

In the statewide choice program, students in choice school also have better outcomes, but the benefit is not quite as pronounced as it is for kids in Milwaukee.

 

Tellingly, the data also bears out the well-known, if patently ignored, fact that spending has very little to do with performance in government or choice schools. This tells us two things. First, it tells us that once spending has reached a level that provides an adequate level of support for good teachers and a safe physical space, all of the additional spending is just waste. Wisconsin already funds education at a level where each additional dollar spent does not have any positive impact on student outcomes. That being the case, policymakers must ask themselves why they would force taxpayers to pay more when there is no measurable benefit to kids.

 

The second thing this data tells us is that it is the government school system that is retarding student performance. Choice schools operate with less money and produce better outcomes even after accounting for demographic differences in the student body. If the system is the problem, then why should taxpayers and parents be forced to continue to lavishly fund a failed system when demonstrably better systems exist?

 

I am well aware that such arguments rooted in data and genuine passion for educating children do not hold sway in the intellectually sclerotic mind of Governor Evers, but his term will eventually end and we cannot afford to lose another generation of kids to a failed government system.

 

 

 

 

 

April ballot gets even more important

by | 0803, 27 Jan 23 | , | 0 Comments

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

Wisconsin’s April election is shaping up to be one of the most important spring elections in decades. Not only is there an election for the state Supreme Court that will decide whether the court retains its majority of constitutional conservatives or flip to an activist tool of leftists ideologues, but the Legislature has placed two important referendums on the ballot for the voters’ consideration.

 

The first referendum is an advisory referendum regarding work requirements for welfare recipients.

 

The question put to voters is simply, “Shall able-bodied, childless adults be required to look for work in order to receive taxpayer-funded welfare benefits?”

 

The referendum is only advisory, so it is more akin to a broad opinion poll of Wisconsin’s voters. The impetus for the referendum is to bolster support for planned Republican efforts to enforce welfare work requirements. Since Gov. Tommy Thompson implemented Wisconsin Works in 1996 which required welfare recipients to work or seek work and broke the cycle of dependency for thousands of Wisconsinites, the enforcement of the work requirement has eroded.

 

Gov. Tony Evers has used the pandemic to waive work requirements for some welfare programs despite continued low unemployment and Wisconsin businesses being unable to fill open jobs. There are ample opportunities to work for those who are willing, but Evers is using the pandemic as an excuse to stop enforcing a law that he opposes. As Republicans prepare legislation to reinstate work requirements for welfare recipients, they are hoping, probably in vain, that a strong show of public support will encourage Evers to agree.

 

The second statewide referendum on the April ballot is far more important. Article 1, Section 8(2) of Wisconsin’s Constitution currently prohibits judges from considering anything other than what it will take to ensure that a defendant will appear in court when setting a bail amount. The result of this prohibition has been that judges are hamstrung into granting low bail to defendants even when there is a glaring risk that the defendant will commit more carnage before their court date.

 

Way too many Wisconsinites have been victimized by criminals who were out of jail because of grossly low bail.

 

The referendum on the ballot asks the voters to amend the Constitution to allow judges to consider, “the totality of the circumstances, including the accused’s previous convictions for a violent crime, the probability that the accused will fail to appear, the need to protect the community from serious harm and prevent witness intimidation, and potential affirmative defenses” when setting bail for someone accused of a violent crime.

 

This is the final step in the process to amend the state Constitution. The identical question has been passed by two successive sessions of the Legislature and now the question goes to the voters for final approval. The governor does not have any role in the constitutional amendment process. Noteworthy is the fact that the question passed with bipartisan support in both houses of the Legislature in both legislative sessions.

 

If the amendment passes, it does not mean that Wisconsin judges will use their newly granted latitude to impose appropriately high bail for defendants who have a history of habitual thuggery. There are far too many leftist judges on the bench who will continue to coddle crooks with low bail. If Wisconsinites want to keep more violent offenders off the streets for longer, they will have to get to the polls and elect better judges. But the good judges will use their new power to protect Wisconsinites with higher bail for violent criminals and Wisconsin will be better for their diligence.

 

Wisconsinites who want a safer Wisconsin that takes crime seriously should vote “yes” to amend the state Constitution. Then they should vote for the conservative Supreme Court candidate to affirm their anticrime convictions.

Dorows Eye Gun Range

by | 1938, 26 Jan 23 | , , | 2 Comments

This makes me like her more. Entreprenurial and firmly rooted in our American rights and heritage.

According to local news reports, Waukesha County Judge Jennifer Dorow, a conservative candidate, and her husband Brian, are developing an indoor gun range that would not only host weddings and other events, but would also serve alcohol. The couple requested a Class B liquor license to sell beer and wine to members and guests in the “clubhouse.” The range would also sell firearms and accessories on-site. The Dorows said in city documents that they devised an “alcohol safety policy” consisting of hand stamps to prevent members from entering the shooting range after drinking and a breathalyzer to be used on “suspicious individuals.”

April ballot gets even more important

by | 0756, 24 Jan 23 | , | 0 Comments

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

Wisconsin’s April election is shaping up to be one of the most important spring elections in decades. Not only is there an election for the state Supreme Court that will decide whether the court retains its majority of constitutional conservatives or flip to an activist tool of leftists ideologues, but the Legislature has placed two important referendums on the ballot for the voters’ consideration.

 

[…]

 

The second statewide referendum on the April ballot is far more important. Article 1, Section 8(2) of Wisconsin’s Constitution currently prohibits judges from considering anything other than what it will take to ensure that a defendant will appear in court when setting a bail amount. The result of this prohibition has been that judges are hamstrung into granting low bail to defendants even when there is a glaring risk that the defendant will commit more carnage before their court date.

 

Way too many Wisconsinites have been victimized by criminals who were out of jail because of grossly low bail.

 

The referendum on the ballot asks the voters to amend the Constitution to allow judges to consider, “the totality of the circumstances, including the accused’s previous convictions for a violent crime, the probability that the accused will fail to appear, the need to protect the community from serious harm and prevent witness intimidation, and potential affirmative defenses” when setting bail for someone accused of a violent crime.

 

If the amendment passes, it does not mean that Wisconsin judges will use their newly granted latitude to impose appropriately high bail for defendants who have a history of habitual thuggery. There are far too many leftist judges on the bench who will continue to coddle crooks with low bail. If Wisconsinites want to keep more violent offenders off the streets for longer, they will have to get to the polls and elect better judges. But the good judges will use their new power to protect Wisconsinites with higher bail for violent criminals and Wisconsin will be better for their diligence.

What to do with Samaritan

by | 0902, 21 Jan 23 | | 2 Comments

Here is my column that ran in the Washington County Daily News last week.

Washington County’s Samaritan campus is at a crossroads. The time for tough decisions is upon us.

 

What should county taxpayers do for the people currently housed in the crumbling edifice of neglected obligations?

 

The Samaritan Campus is a senior care facility owned and operated by Washington County that provides skilled nursing, assisted living, and a residential care apartment complex for elderly citizens who cannot afford private care. It is funded through Medicare and Medicaid with shortfalls being covered by county taxpayers.

 

The problem the county is facing is severe, but not unique. The cost of operating Samaritan is far exceeding the funding provided by federal programs. Further, the facility needs a major renovation or rebuilding that will cost tens of millions of dollars.

 

Last year, Washington County taxpayers were paying nearly $50,000 per resident (about $2 million) to cover expenses and that is without the expense of a new or renovated facility. The ongoing expense for county taxpayers is projected to continue to increase exponentially.

 

Some have floated the notion that the county could use available money from one-time funds like federal COVID relief funds or opioid settlement funds to rehabilitate or reconstruct the facility. This may be feasible in the short term, but it does not fix the long-term funding problem. Using one-time funds to patch a systemic problem simply obligates future lawmakers to fix something because current lawmakers lack the courage to act.

 

What is to be done?

 

First, we must ask ourselves some hard questions. Should county taxpayers provide elder care to citizens who cannot afford it? There is no constitutional prohibition or mandate for county government to provide such a service. If the citizens of Washington County want to subsidize care for seniors, it is a policy decision. To date, county citizens have provided this service, so there is an absolute obligation to the seniors currently being cared for at Samaritan. Whether or not the citizens should carry this obligation moving forward is a separate question.

 

The second question to ask ourselves is, assuming county taxpayers are committed to providing for the county’s impoverished seniors, should the county own and operate the facility to do so? Experience should guide our answer to this question. Our collective experience is that, with exceedingly rare exception, government is terrible at running things. Government is a convenient, often abused, mechanism for the forced pooling of resources to expend on collective needs, but is pervasively inefficient, ineffective, and unresponsive when in charge of operations. We can see this in action at Samaritan itself, where decades of poor management and neglect have forced the county to this crisis point.

 

In Wisconsin, only 36 Wisconsin counties currently operate senior care facilities according to the Department of Health Services. The other counties either partner with private facilities to subsidize senior care where needed or forgo the financial obligation altogether. Washington County should transition the current residents to private facilities and support that transition with adequate funding. Using the COVID relief or opioid settlement monies to fund this transition might be necessary.

 

Whether or not county taxpayers should, or can, subsidize senior care moving forward will take some further thought. In the current arrangement, the taxpayer obligation to seniors is capped by the number of available beds at Samaritan. It is a physical cap. If the taxpayers subsidize senior care in private facilities with flexible capacity, would such a program attract seniors from outside of Washington County and become an unsustainable drain on taxpayer resources? Such potential unintended consequences will need to be mitigated should the county decide to subsidize senior care indefinitely.

 

One thing is certain. The situation at Samaritan has become intolerable and inexcusable. The caregivers are doing tremendous work but they are understaffed and under-resourced. Washington County is falling short of providing the dignity of care promised to Samaritan’s residents. This year must be a year of decisions and action — not another year of kicking the can down the road.

What to do with Samaritan

by | 0858, 17 Jan 23 | | 0 Comments

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

Washington County’s Samaritan campus is at a crossroads. The time for tough decisions is upon us.

What should county taxpayers do for the people currently housed in the crumbling edifice of neglected obligations?

[…]

The second question to ask ourselves is, assuming county taxpayers are committed to providing for the county’s impoverished seniors, should the county own and operate the facility to do so? Experience should guide our answer to this question. Our collective experience is that, with exceedingly rare exception, government is terrible at running things. Government is a convenient, often abused, mechanism for the forced pooling of resources to expend on collective needs, but is pervasively inefficient, ineffective, and unresponsive when in charge of operations. We can see this in action at Samaritan itself, where decades of poor management and neglect have forced the county to this crisis point.

In Wisconsin, only 36 Wisconsin counties currently operate senior care facilities according to the Department of Health Services. The other counties either partner with private facilities to subsidize senior care where needed or forgo the financial obligation altogether. Washington County should transition the current residents to private facilities and support that transition with adequate funding. Using the COVID relief or opioid settlement monies to fund this transition might be necessary.

Whether or not county taxpayers should, or can, subsidize senior care moving forward will take some further thought. In the current arrangement, the taxpayer obligation to seniors is capped by the number of available beds at Samaritan. It is a physical cap. If the taxpayers subsidize senior care in private facilities with flexible capacity, would such a program attract seniors from outside of Washington County and become an unsustainable drain on taxpayer resources? Such potential unintended consequences will need to be mitigated should the county decide to subsidize senior care indefinitely.

One thing is certain. The situation at Samaritan has become intolerable and inexcusable.

Wisconsin’s shifting tax burden

by | 0647, 10 Jan 23 | | 1 Comment

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

The state of Wisconsin and local governments extracted the most taxes ever from Wisconsinites in fiscal year 2022. Wisconsinites had the lowest combined state and local tax burden in at least fifty years in fiscal year 2022 (FY22). Both of those statements are true according to a report from the Wisconsin Policy Forum. What does this mean for the upcoming budget debate?

 

[…]

 

That is the data. What does it tell us? First, it tells us that the state and local government coffers are brimming with cash right now. Ignore the pleas of poverty from your favorite government entity. Many units of government have surpluses and will be using that as an excuse to increase spending in their next budgets. In state government, not even the Republican-led Legislature is talking about returning all surpluses to taxpayers.

 

Instead, they are talking about modest tax reductions combined with more spending.

 

Second, while tax burden as a percentage of personal income is decreasing slightly, personal income is still not keeping up with inflation. According to the U.S. Congress Joint Economic Committee, as of November of 2022, the annual cost of inflation for the average Wisconsin household since January of 2021, the last month we had a normal inflation rate, is $8,299. That is an 14.1% in household costs in less than two years. While personal incomes are increasing, the cruel cost of inflation is leaving Wisconsinites with less actual buying power every month.

 

Third, it could have been worse. The reason that state and local tax collections only rose 4.1% in FY22 is thanks to over a decade of relatively consistent tax policy discipline by the Republicans. Think back to the successive state budgets by the Republicans in the Governor Walker era and even in the previous budget when they kept the caps in local property tax increases, cut income tax rates, eliminated the state property tax, and dozens of other choices. These choices have resulted in slowing the rise of tax collections.

 

Thanks to Republican policies, state individual income taxes actually decreased by 0.7% in FY22 and net property taxes only grew by 0.8%. The aggregate tax collection increases were almost completely driven by an increase of 9.5% in state sales tax collections as a result of inflationary consumer prices. Corporate income tax collections were up a stunning 15.6%. Corporate income tax collections are thrice as much as they were in 2018. Interestingly, this increase is mostly due to more robust auditing of out-of-state businesses that was launched in the 2015-2017 state budget by, you guessed it, legislative Republicans and Governor Scott Walker. Corporate tax rates are not increasing, but the state is better at collecting what corporations are obligated to pay.

 

The decade-long effort by Republicans has resulted in a systemic shift of the tax burden from individual income and property taxes to consumption and corporate taxes. This has also resulted in record tax collections and annual state budget surpluses. Those surpluses are not the dividends of spending discipline, but of intelligent tax policies.

 

As state lawmakers consider the next budget, they should not take too much of the fact that the tax burden as a percentage of personal incomes is at a historic low. That metric must be understood in the context of the inflationary pressures on Wisconsin’s taxpayers from all angles and the overall cost of living in the state. Flush state coffers should be viewed as an opportunity to put more money back into the pockets of Wisconsin’s taxpayers to help them contend with the rising cost of living.

Login | Register

Archives

Categories

Pin It on Pinterest