Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...

M
Category: Politics – Wisconsin

Evers Appeals to Leftist Court to Reject Checks and Balances

by | 2039, 31 Oct 23 | , | 3 Comments

Evers is moving fast to get the high court to give the Executive Branch more unrestrained power.

MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin Democratic Gov.  on Tuesday sued the Republican-controlled Legislature, arguing that it is obstructing basic government functions, including signing off on pay raises for university employees that were previously approved.

 

Evers is asking the liberal-controlled Wisconsin Supreme Court to take the case directly, bypassing lower courts.

 

Evers said it was “a bridge too far” and “just bull s—” that Republican state lawmakers were telling 35,000 University of Wisconsin employees who were expecting pay raises to “stick it.”

Republicans amend their way to secure elections

by | 0747, 31 Oct 23 | | 1 Comment

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in printhttps://westbenddailynews-wi.newsmemory.com?selDate=20231031&goTo=A06&editionStart=West%20Bend Daily News. Here’s a part:

Wisconsin’s reputation for clean elections has suffered mortal blows in recent years thanks to the aggressive assault by leftists to undermine our election laws and procedures. Their efforts have been so successful that they are redoubling their efforts to bludgeon our electoral system into an instrument to extend leftist ideology.

 

Defending against the leftist onslaught, Republicans in the Legislature have been working to codify some key electoral protections into the state Constitution. Even constitutional protections are not safe from the activist leftist Wisconsin Supreme Court, but constitutional ramparts are stronger than statutory ones. 

 

[…]

 

The Republicans currently have three amendments concerning election integrity working their way to the voters. The first proposed amendment would prohibit governments from accepting private money to manage elections and prohibit anyone except election officials from administering anything to do with running an election.

 

This amendment is in response to the “Zuckerbucks” that polluted our 2020 presidential election. Billionaire Mark Zuckerberg spearheaded an effort to pour millions of dollars and dozens of people into Democratic cities to “help” administer elections. This amendment would prohibit such activities and keep administering our elections the exclusive responsibility and authority of elected and appointed government officials. This amendment is up for its second vote this year could be on the ballot as soon as April for the voters’ consideration.

 

The second proposed amendment would change the state Constitution to ensure that only United States citizens can vote in Wisconsin’s elections. It is already the law in Wisconsin that only U.S. citizens can vote, but the Constitution actually states that, “Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.” “Every” is the key word because it does not exclude non-citizens from voting. It simply says that every U.S. citizen can vote. It does not say that non-citizens cannot vote. Wisconsin state and local laws prohibit non-citizens from voting, but the Constitution does not.

 

Part of the leftist agenda is to get the millions of illegal aliens that the Biden administration has been helping flood into America to vote. They believe that the leftist agenda of opening the borders and providing welfare to millions of impoverished foreigners will be appreciated and reciprocated with their votes. Leftists throughout the country are pushing to allow non-citizens — illegal and otherwise — to legally vote in local elections to start. They have long winked and turned a blind eye to non-citizens voting illegally.

 

The amendment to ensure that citizenship means something and that only citizens can legally vote should be on the ballot for consideration by the voters in 2024.

 

The third proposed constitutional amendment is only on its first reading, so it will not be submitted to the voters until at least 2025. Several years ago, the Legislature and Governor Scott Walker enacted voter ID with wide public support. Protecting our elections by ensuring that people prove their identity and eligibility to vote by showing a qualified picture ID is a simple, common-sense, measure that remains very popular.

 

Like so many common-sense laws, Wisconsin’s leftists have been undermining the law and are counting on the newly minted leftist Supreme Court to throw out the law on some hogwash pretense. The leftists seem to want non-citizens and other ineligible persons to vote and voter ID puts a crimp in their agenda.

 

To try to protect voter ID, the third proposed constitutional amendment would enshrine it into the Constitution. Normally this is something that would be more appropriate for the statutes instead of the Constitution, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Hopefully the voters will have their say (again) on this issue in 2025.

 

All three proposed constitutional amendments are policies that enjoy wide public support, but nothing is ever certain in Wisconsin’s elections. Get out and vote.

Congressman Pocan Comes Out In Support of Antisemites

by | 2034, 30 Oct 23 | | 0 Comments

Good for Wisconsin Right Now for catching this.

Pocan wrote, “Apologies for my ill-informed colleague from WI… He doesn’t speak for us. @derrickvanorden’s bigoted religious rhetoric is his own. Wisconsin is better than him.” He also trashed Van Orden as not really being from Wisconsin when, actually, Van Orden lives on a farm in the La Crosse area of Wisconsin. He and his wife opened a cafe in Butternut, Wisconsin.

 

It should be noted that what the buffoonish Pocan labels “bigoted religious rhetoric” was Van Orden criticizing anti-Semitism.

 

He was responding to a tweet that Van Orden wrote that said, “There is no place in congress for antisemites. This woman is supporting a terrorist organization under the guise of humanitarianism.”

GOP to Blame for UWWC Demise?

by | 0806, 27 Oct 23 | , | 1 Comment

I was amused by this letter to the editor in the Washington County Daily News. Look, I get wanting to use events to credit/blame the party you like/don’t, but how, exactly, would more funding have for the universities have made Wisconsinites have more kids 20 years ago? The campus has less than 270 FTE students. How barren does it need to get before the taxpayers can cut it loose?

To the editor: The recent announcement of UWM Chancellor Mark A. Mone that UWWC would discontinue in-person learning after June 30, 2024, is both deplorable and predictable. It is deplorable cutting off a readily available, inexpensive window into the UW System for residents of Washington County. It is predictable because our gerrymandered state Legislature has not backed the UW System for years. It is totally disingenuous of Rep. Rick Gundrum and Sen. Duey Stroebel, who consistently voted to cut the UW System’s budget requests whenever they had a chance, to suggest, as Gundrum recently did in this newspaper, that other factors made UWWC’s mission out of date. What turned UWWC’s existence into mission impossible was systematic underfunding of the state’s stellar university system’s budget, joined with a 10-year undergraduate tuition freeze started by the Legislature in 2013. The canary in the coal mine is the apparent demise of the state’s two-year colleges.

 

I lay the floundering and ultimate sinking of UWWC directly at the feet of the Legislature, including or own Rep. Gundrum and Sen. Stroebel. The citizens of Washington County deserve better. Stop trying to sink the UW System, or we will truly be the flyover zone with little to keep people in or attract people to our state. Maybe, just maybe, it’s not too late to save what remains of the system of two-year state colleges, and indeed the UW System itself, but it looks to be too late for UWWC. That is a colossal pity. Any cobbling with Moraine Park is a fig leaf in my estimation.

 

Carol Pouros West Bend

Latest Milwaukee stadium deal is still terrible

by | 1900, 21 Oct 23 | | 0 Comments

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

The latest version of the plan for taxpayers to refurbish and upgrade American Family Field for the Milwaukee Brewers is up for a vote in the Wisconsin Assembly this week. The $546 million package looks headed for passage with support from the Republicans, Gov. Tony Evers, the Brewers, and Milwaukee Democrats. Apparently, if there is anything that unites Wisconsin’s political parties, it is to spend half a billion taxpayer dollars on baseball.

 

The issue is that the taxpayers have majority ownership of the stadium. The current deal with the Brewers is that the taxpayers are responsible for maintaining the stadium and keeping it up to date with the rest of the league. The current funding is inadequate to keep up with the upgrades that the Brewers want for the stadium. Therefore, our politicians want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade the stadium in exchange for the Brewers agreeing to stay in Wisconsin for longer.

 

The current package includes $411 million from state taxpayers and $67.5 million each from Milwaukee County and the city of Milwaukee. The contribution from Milwaukee city and County has been reduced since the last iteration in an effort to get support from Milwaukee’s local politicians. In addition, the Brewers have agreed to spend $100 million on upgrades. Several weeks ago, this column criticized the stadium funding deal currently being debated and further criticized the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, the government body that owns the majority of the stadium and manages its upkeep. I criticized the district for not monetizing the stadium on behalf of the taxpayers. I unfairly disparaged the district because the lease with the Brewers prohibits the district from using the stadium to generate revenue. For that, I apologize.

 

In the Brewers’ lease, the district (taxpayers) disclaims “all revenues generated by the operations of the Team or derived from the ownership of the Team’s Franchise, as well as from the operation of the Stadium Complex for the Permitted Uses.” In other words, even though the deal has been painted as the taxpayers acting as landlord and the Brewers as tenants, the Brewers actually get any revenue generated by the property.

 

All profit from sponsorships, concessions, concerts, restaurants, parking, or anything else goes to the Brewers. No wonder the team has ballooned in value from $225 million when the current ownership purchased it in 2004 to over $1.6 billion now according to Forbes. Will the taxpayers get any of that appreciated value if the team is sold?

 

As written, the stadium deal is terrible for taxpayers. They will spend $546 million to upgrade the stadium so that it can make even more money for the Brewers’ owners. In return, the Brewers will stay around a while longer. Unless, of course, the owners sell the team, in which case, all bets are off.

 

Before considering any funding to the stadium, conservatives should insist on the following. First, they should rewrite the lease to allow the taxpayers, though the SEWPBPD, to collect all profits generated by the stadium for non-Brewers activities. If the stadium is leased for a corporate event, concert, pro wrestling, political rally, or any other function that does not involve baseball, the taxpayers, who own the building, should receive the profits.

 

Second, the rent paid by the Brewers for the use of the stadium should be based on a revenue share arrangement for revenue generated during Brewers’ games and other baseball-related activities. These first two items will lessen, and possibly eliminate, the need for taxpayer support by making the stadium self-supporting. It will also provide reliable revenue to allow the SEWPBPD to continue to upgrade the facility for years to come.

 

Third, in the event that the Brewers are sold, the lease should require that the taxpayers are refunded the amount they have spent on the stadium. The value of the team has significantly increased in large part due to the wonderful stadium and the revenue it generates. The taxpayers deserve to have their generosity reimbursed instead of all of the net increase in value going to the owners. Alternatively, the Brewers could just grant the SEWPBPD an equity position in the team so that any proceeds from a sale would naturally flow proportionally back to the taxpayers.

 

Absent significant changes to the deal, it should be rejected. While politicians of both parties love to spend money and pose for pictures with the Brewers, someone needs to look out for the taxpayers.

Latest Milwaukee stadium deal is still terrible

by | 0622, 17 Oct 23 | | 1 Comment

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

Several weeks ago, this column criticized the stadium funding deal currently being debated and further criticized the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, the government body that owns the majority of the stadium and manages its upkeep. I criticized the district for not monetizing the stadium on behalf of the taxpayers. I unfairly disparaged the district because the lease with the Brewers prohibits the district from using the stadium to generate revenue. For that, I apologize.

 

In the Brewers’ lease, the district (taxpayers) disclaims “all revenues generated by the operations of the Team or derived from the ownership of the Team’s Franchise, as well as from the operation of the Stadium Complex for the Permitted Uses.” In other words, even though the deal has been painted as the taxpayers acting as landlord and the Brewers as tenants, the Brewers actually get any revenue generated by the property.

 

All profit from sponsorships, concessions, concerts, restaurants, parking, or anything else goes to the Brewers. No wonder the team has ballooned in value from $225 million when the current ownership purchased it in 2004 to over $1.6 billion now according to Forbes. Will the taxpayers get any of that appreciated value if the team is sold?

 

As written, the stadium deal is terrible for taxpayers. They will spend $546 million to upgrade the stadium so that it can make even more money for the Brewers’ owners. In return, the Brewers will stay around a while longer. Unless, of course, the owners sell the team, in which case, all bets are off.

 

Before considering any funding to the stadium, conservatives should insist on the following. First, they should rewrite the lease to allow the taxpayers, though the SEWPBPD, to collect all profits generated by the stadium for non-Brewers activities. If the stadium is leased for a corporate event, concert, pro wrestling, political rally, or any other function that does not involve baseball, the taxpayers, who own the building, should receive the profits.

 

Second, the rent paid by the Brewers for the use of the stadium should be based on a revenue share arrangement for revenue generated during Brewers’ games and other baseball-related activities. These first two items will lessen, and possibly eliminate, the need for taxpayer support by making the stadium self-supporting. It will also provide reliable revenue to allow the SEWPBPD to continue to upgrade the facility for years to come.

 

Third, in the event that the Brewers are sold, the lease should require that the taxpayers are refunded the amount they have spent on the stadium. The value of the team has significantly increased in large part due to the wonderful stadium and the revenue it generates. The taxpayers deserve to have their generosity reimbursed instead of all of the net increase in value going to the owners. Alternatively, the Brewers could just grant the SEWPBPD an equity position in the team so that any proceeds from a sale would naturally flow proportionally back to the taxpayers.

 

Absent significant changes to the deal, it should be rejected. While politicians of both parties love to spend money and pose for pictures with the Brewers, someone needs to look out for the taxpayers.

Wisconsin Supreme Court begins assault

by | 1719, 13 Oct 23 | , | 0 Comments

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

After the new leftists majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court launched an aggressive interbranch offensive against the legislative branch, the Legislature appears poised to return fire. It is going to get messy.

 

Our Wisconsin state government, modeled after the national government, is designed with three co-equal branches. Each branch is empowered with specific powers to check the other two branches. The structure is designed to prevent any single branch from becoming preeminent, or tyrannical, at the expense of the other two branches. The checks are designed to preserve the balance.

 

When Janet Protasiewicz was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April, she tipped the balance of the court from conservative to leftist. Normally, such changes in the past have been frustrating for the losing side, but not dramatic. Liberals dominated the court as recently as 2008 and they had held that majority for decades.

 

This time is different. Both Protasiewicz and her fellow judicial leftists made it very clear during the election that they planned to use their majority power on the court to advance their leftist political agenda. Protasiewicz campaigned at length on topics like abortion, Act 10, and legislative maps. This is a significant change from a time when judges promised to rule on the facts of cases that might come before them to overtly advocating for changing policy from the bench. It is a blunt usurpation of power for the Supreme Court to take upon itself the power of creating and changing laws. That power is reserved for the legislative branch with approval of the executive branch.

 

We see events playing out as predicted by this column. Taking the Judicial Junta up on their offer to invalidate the legislature and make law from the bench, a group of leftist special interests filed a lawsuit asking to redraw Wisconsin’s political maps. Last week, the court agreed to bypass all of the lower courts and take original action on the case.

 

The post-census decennial apportionment of legislative boundaries is exclusively a power of the legislative branch as detailed in Article IV, Section 3, of the state Constitution. Despite the fact that the maps were duly debated, passed, challenged in several courts, and affirmed as legal and constitutional by state and federal courts, this group is challenging them again. The only thing that has changed since the maps were decided is that a Judicial Junta took over the court with the election of Protasiewicz. The law has not changed. The Constitution has not changed. The facts have not changed. We have had several elections with these maps. None of that matters to this court. They have a legislative agenda to pass.

 

Furthermore, despite the fact that Protasiewicz repeatedly called the maps “rigged” while campaigning, thus prejudging any case regarding the existing maps that are coming before the court, Protasiewicz has abandoned judicial ethics and agreed to sit in judgment on the case. Given that Protasiewicz has prejudged the case and the other three members of the junta are equally excited about abandoning judicial objectivity and restraint in order to advance their Marxist agenda, the outcome is already determined. We will get some judicial theater to keep up appearances, but the final act is already written.

 

The Supreme Court’s orchestrated attack on a direct constitutional power of a co-equal branch of government is why constitutional checks were created. The legislative branch has a number of options. The Legislature could use the power of the purse to defund the Supreme Court until they cease their constitutional assault. Such a move would be vetoed by the Judicial Junta’s fellow traveler in the executive branch. Gov. Tony Evers has been cheering the destruction of constitutional government. To be fair, Evers may not fully understand the consequences of unbridled judicial rule. He wouldn’t be the first useful idiot to be consumed by his own ideology.

 

Another tool in the Legislature’s belt is impeachment. Article VII, Section 1 of the state Constitution allows the Legislature to impeach, convince, and remove from office any official, “for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors.” Is Protasiewicz corrupt for prejudging a case and refusing to recuse herself ? It is a judgment call. “Corrupt” is a vague word that covers a broad range of unsavory behaviors. I would argue that she is corrupt and pairs that corruption with the kind of bumptiousness that would make Hunter Biden raise an eyebrow.

 

Should the Legislature remove Protasiewicz from office, the actual effect may be negligible since the governor will appoint an identical replacement, but that does not mean that the Legislature should shy away from exercising their constitutional check to defend its own power. This court and its controlling junta is just getting started. They are not going to slow down. If anything, they are accelerating and will not change direction unless someone makes them.

 

In sport, checking an opponent does not always change the outcome of the game, but it does put them on notice that actions have consequences. This Supreme Court needs a supreme check.

 

 

Wisconsin Legislature Passes Bills to Protect Girls and Children

by | 1948, 12 Oct 23 | , | 1 Comment

Good for the legislative Republicans. Yes, it will be vetoed, but we have to try to protect kids and girls.

MADISON – The Wisconsin Assembly has passed three controversial pieces of legislation dealing with transgender rights, despite opposition from LGBTQ groups and Governor Evers’ promise to veto any such bills that come to his desk. The votes were along party lines.

 

Two of the bills, Assembly Bills 377 and 378, ban transgender women and girls from participating in women’s sports in high school and college. The third, Assembly Bill 465, bans gender-affirming healthcare for transgender youth under 18.

Milwaukee Politicians Go For Big Raise After Tax Increase

by | 1942, 12 Oct 23 | | 0 Comments

Hats off to Dan O’Donnell for breaking this story.

Milwaukee Mayor Cavalier Johnson wants to give himself a $20,000 raise next year and raise the pay of Common Council members and other elected officials by a whopping 15% after pushing for a 2% sales tax and huge increases in shared revenue to remedy the city’s ongoing budget problems.

 

Under Johnson’s proposal, his annual salary would jump from $147,335.76 to $169,436.12. Common Council members would see an increase from $73,222.24 to $84,205.58 and the Common Council President’s salary would be bumped from $82,749.16 to $94,310.25.

 

[…]

 

In his annual budget speech last month, Johnson highlighted a 2% raise for city employees and 3% pay increase for those with five or more years of service.

This is how socialists roll. Big tax increase on the people. Tiny pay increase for the workers. Gigantic pay increase for themselves.

I had a tiny sliver of hope for Mayor Johnson, but I see that he is just another in a long line of Milwaukee grifters.

Wisconsin Supreme Court Restricts Public Access to Eviction Records

by | 0728, 10 Oct 23 | , | 0 Comments

Two years is nothing. It is as close to useless as you can be without being completely useless. Landlords in Wisconsin are going to end up renting to a lot of bad tenants. Look for evictions to increase and rents to go up to cover the costs.

MADISON (AP) — The Wisconsin Supreme Court voted Monday in its first public administrative conference in more than a decade to reduce from 20 years to two years the time when most eviction records must be kept on the state court website.

 

The change was sought by tenant rights advocates who argued that the longer record-keeping has made it more difficult for people with lower incomes to find housing.

 

The court voted 4-3, with liberals in support and conservatives against, for shortening the recordkeeping on the state court website, commonly referred to by the acronym CCAP.

Wisconsin Supreme Court begins assault

by | 0720, 10 Oct 23 | , | 0 Comments

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

After the new leftists majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court launched an aggressive interbranch offensive against the legislative branch, the Legislature appears poised to return fire. It is going to get messy.

 

Our Wisconsin state government, modeled after the national government, is designed with three co-equal branches. Each branch is empowered with specific powers to check the other two branches. The structure is designed to prevent any single branch from becoming preeminent, or tyrannical, at the expense of the other two branches. The checks are designed to preserve the balance.

 

When Janet Protasiewicz was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April, she tipped the balance of the court from conservative to leftist. Normally, such changes in the past have been frustrating for the losing side, but not dramatic. Liberals dominated the court as recently as 2008 and they had held that majority for decades.

 

This time is different. Both Protasiewicz and her fellow judicial leftists made it very clear during the election that they planned to use their majority power on the court to advance their leftist political agenda. Protasiewicz campaigned at length on topics like abortion, Act 10, and legislative maps. This is a significant change from a time when judges promised to rule on the facts of cases that might come before them to overtly advocating for changing policy from the bench. It is a blunt usurpation of power for the Supreme Court to take upon itself the power of creating and changing laws. That power is reserved for the legislative branch with approval of the executive branch.

 

We see events playing out as predicted by this column. Taking the Judicial Junta up on their offer to invalidate the legislature and make law from the bench, a group of leftist special interests filed a lawsuit asking to redraw Wisconsin’s political maps. Last week, the court agreed to bypass all of the lower courts and take original action on the case.

 

The post-census decennial apportionment of legislative boundaries is exclusively a power of the legislative branch as detailed in Article IV, Section 3, of the state Constitution. Despite the fact that the maps were duly debated, passed, challenged in several courts, and affirmed as legal and constitutional by state and federal courts, this group is challenging them again. The only thing that has changed since the maps were decided is that a Judicial Junta took over the court with the election of Protasiewicz. The law has not changed. The Constitution has not changed. The facts have not changed. We have had several elections with these maps. None of that matters to this court. They have a legislative agenda to pass.

 

Furthermore, despite the fact that Protasiewicz repeatedly called the maps “rigged” while campaigning, thus prejudging any case regarding the existing maps that are coming before the court, Protasiewicz has abandoned judicial ethics and agreed to sit in judgment on the case. Given that Protasiewicz has prejudged the case and the other three members of the junta are equally excited about abandoning judicial objectivity and restraint in order to advance their Marxist agenda, the outcome is already determined. We will get some judicial theater to keep up appearances, but the final act is already written.

 

The Supreme Court’s orchestrated attack on a direct constitutional power of a co-equal branch of government is why constitutional checks were created.

Milwaukee’s money pit

by | 1049, 30 Sep 23 | , | 2 Comments

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

Wisconsin’s legislative Republicans have announced a new proposal to fund renovations at American Family Field in an effort to keep the Brewers in Milwaukee for another generation. The plan is a package of $600 million in state, county, and city funding coupled with $100 million from the Brewers. This is the third or fourth such proposal (I have lost count), but all of the proposals make some rather sweeping assumptions that must be challenged before the taxpayers are put on the financial hook for another couple of decades.

 

The first assumption is that having a Major League Baseball team in a particular community is a net benefit to that community. The current funding plan reflects that perceived benefit with proportionally more funding being committed by the entities that stand to benefit the most.

 

The Milwaukee Brewers are a private, for-profit business. They provide entertainment for profit. The Brewers employ local people, attract people from out of state to spend money in Wisconsin, and anchor some economic development. In this respect, they are no different than many other businesses headquartered in the state like a robust manufacturer or technology firm that generates economic benefit — most of which flows into the pockets of business owners and their employees.

 

There is also an intangible benefit to the Brewers being in Wisconsin. A major sports franchise contributes to a community by providing a shared identity and point of pride. It is a unifying force. Measuring this identifiable, but unquantifiable, benefit is difficult. We must acknowledge that there is a significant amount of vanity influencing the debate. Many lawmakers who want the taxpayers to support the Brewers do so because they like supporting the Brewers. They are fans.

 

If we take the first assumption to be true — that the Brewers are a net economic and societal benefit for Milwaukee and Wisconsin — then we must challenge a second assumption. Should the taxpayers subsidize the success of this private business?

 

Politicians are notoriously opaque about deciding when and how taxpayers should fund the success of private enterprises, but it happens all the time.

 

Through tax incremental finance districts, favorable tax incentives, direct subsidies, and other means, taxpayers are constantly supporting private businesses under the auspices of economic development.

 

Such taxpayer support is not necessarily a bad thing, but it should be done with reticence and clear expectations as to the return that the taxpayers might receive for their forced investment in a private enterprise. Too often, politicians are lax in their due diligence and weak in their demands when doling out taxpayer money. Such is the benefit of them spending other people’s money where they can take a victory lap for the spending while never being held accountable if there is no return on the investment.

 

All such investments must be prioritized in the context of all of the other demands on taxpayers. Is fixing AmFam Field more important than funding law enforcement? Road maintenance? Snow removal?

 

Other economic development like technology or manufacturing? Is AmFam Field more important than lowering taxes and reducing the size of government?

 

There is no such thing as a free lunch. In a world of scarce resources, funding AmFam Field means that something else will not make the list.

 

All things considered, having the Brewers in Wisconsin is a net benefit to the state, but it does not rise to the level of justifying hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer support. Moreover, the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, which owns and operated AmFam Field, has done a terrible job managing the facility to be self-sustaining.

 

A quick look at the SWPBPD’s 2022 financial statements shows that they are running chronic losses. The only sources of revenue are $905,000 from rent from the Brewers, $300,000 in license plate revenue from the vanity plates, $4,500 in miscellaneous, and they lost $7.1 million in investments. Add on the $10.5 million in expenses and the District lost $16.4 million. This operating loss was on top of the $9.9 million loss in 2021.

 

2022 was a brutal year for everyone’s investments thanks to Bidenomics, so we can forgive the investment loss. The financials, however, beg some questions. Why did the Brewers pay less than $1 million per year to use the facility in 2022? That is less than $12,000 per home game. Why has the SWPBPD not found other ways to bring in revenue for the facility?

 

Why have they not been renting out the facility for other events to generate more revenue? Why is the SWPBPD not getting a cut of the sponsorship and concessions money? There is a lot of money is flowing through that stadium that is not making it to the taxpayers who own it for use in its maintenance.

 

The SWPBPD did a commendable job paying off the stadium debt early, but they have not done anything in twenty years to build a self-supporting revenue structure once the five-county stadium sales tax ended.

 

They are supporting expenses by spending down the nearly $60 million in reserves that was generated by the now defunct stadium tax. It appears that the plan all along was to come back to the public trough to sustain the stadium’s operations and maintenance.

 

Taxpayers are rightfully dubious about spending more hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for a building that has been terribly managed for the benefit of one private business. Lawmakers should look to sell the facility to a private enterprise that can manage it profitably and end the taxpayers’ obligation for its upkeep. Even if the underlying assets are sold for below market value, the end of taxpayer obligations is a net benefit for taxpayers. If lawmakers cannot find a private buyer willing to make the investment, then we must ask again why taxpayers would.

A few notes on this column. First, I screwed up the acronym. The governing board actually goes by SEWPBPD instead of SWPBPD. I’m not sure that’s an improvement, but there it is.

Also, it turns out that the lease that the Brewers have with the SEWPBPD that was negotiated and put in place by lawmakers before the board was constituted prohibits the board from monetizing the stadium. Essentially, the Brewers have exclusive access and get any proceeds from renting it out, concessions, sponsorships, etc. As the lease is written, the Brewers – NOT the taxpayers – get all of the benefits of owning the stadium without having any of the obligations for its upkeep or improvements.

The taxpayers are getting hosed here. Privatize the stadium and get the taxpayers out of bearing the costs of this wealthy, private entertainment business.

Milwaukee’s money pit

by | 0721, 26 Sep 23 | | 1 Comment

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

If we take the first assumption to be true — that the Brewers are a net economic and societal benefit for Milwaukee and Wisconsin — then we must challenge a second assumption. Should the taxpayers subsidize the success of this private business?

 

Politicians are notoriously opaque about deciding when and how taxpayers should fund the success of private enterprises, but it happens all the time.

 

Through tax incremental finance districts, favorable tax incentives, direct subsidies, and other means, taxpayers are constantly supporting private businesses under the auspices of economic development.

 

Such taxpayer support is not necessarily a bad thing, but it should be done with reticence and clear expectations as to the return that the taxpayers might receive for their forced investment in a private enterprise. Too often, politicians are lax in their due diligence and weak in their demands when doling out taxpayer money. Such is the benefit of them spending other people’s money where they can take a victory lap for the spending while never being held accountable if there is no return on the investment.

 

All such investments must be prioritized in the context of all of the other demands on taxpayers. Is fixing AmFam Field more important than funding law enforcement? Road maintenance? Snow removal?

 

Other economic development like technology or manufacturing? Is AmFam Field more important than lowering taxes and reducing the size of government?

 

There is no such thing as a free lunch. In a world of scarce resources, funding AmFam Field means that something else will not make the list.

 

All things considered, having the Brewers in Wisconsin is a net benefit to the state, but it does not rise to the level of justifying hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer support. Moreover, the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, which owns and operated AmFam Field, has done a terrible job managing the facility to be self-sustaining.

 

A quick look at the SWPBPD’s 2022 financial statements shows that they are running chronic losses. The only sources of revenue are $905,000 from rent from the Brewers, $300,000 in license plate revenue from the vanity plates, $4,500 in miscellaneous, and they lost $7.1 million in investments. Add on the $10.5 million in expenses and the District lost $16.4 million. This operating loss was on top of the $9.9 million loss in 2021.

 

2022 was a brutal year for everyone’s investments thanks to Bidenomics, so we can forgive the investment loss. The financials, however, beg some questions. Why did the Brewers pay less than $1 million per year to use the facility in 2022? That is less than $12,000 per home game. Why has the SWPBPD not found other ways to bring in revenue for the facility?

 

Why have they not been renting out the facility for other events to generate more revenue? Why is the SWPBPD not getting a cut of the sponsorship and concessions money? There is a lot of money is flowing through that stadium that is not making it to the taxpayers who own it for use in its maintenance.

 

The SWPBPD did a commendable job paying off the stadium debt early, but they have not done anything in twenty years to build a self-supporting revenue structure once the five-county stadium sales tax ended.

 

They are supporting expenses by spending down the nearly $60 million in reserves that was generated by the now defunct stadium tax. It appears that the plan all along was to come back to the public trough to sustain the stadium’s operations and maintenance.

 

Taxpayers are rightfully dubious about spending more hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for a building that has been terribly managed for the benefit of one private business. Lawmakers should look to sell the facility to a private enterprise that can manage it profitably and end the taxpayers’ obligation for its upkeep. Even if the underlying assets are sold for below market value, the end of taxpayer obligations is a net benefit for taxpayers. If lawmakers cannot find a private buyer willing to make the investment, then we must ask again why taxpayers would.

Governor’s office not being run in accordance with societal norms

by | 1558, 15 Sep 23 | | 0 Comments

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

When I first entered the professional workforce long ago in the previous millennia, I recall the new employee onboarding process. Neatly pressed with my briefcase in hand, faux leather portfolio, and resume printed on crisp premium linen paper, I met with the Human Resources professional to read and physically sign all the paperwork. Included in that paperwork were the sexual harassment policies and the absolute prohibition of romantic or sexual relationships between superiors and subordinates. The existence of such a relationship was grounds for immediate termination.

 

It has been at least that long since such policies have been commonplace in the professional workforce, but Gov. Tony Evers’ office has not yet come into the previous century. His office is still one where bosses are allowed to have sexual and romantic relationships with their subordinates as long as the governor is closely monitoring the situation.

 

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel broke the story last week that Evers’ long time Chief of Staff, Maggie Gau, the power behind the throne, has been in a relationship with one of her direct subordinates for years. When confronted with the news, the governor reacted aggressively rejecting the implication that such a situation was inappropriate. He said, “I don’t think it’s anybody’s g****** business” and assured people that, “I monitor their performance on a regular basis.”

 

It was also revealed that the governor’s office does not have a policy prohibiting such relationships and that the governor patently rejects the idea that such a policy is necessary. The governor rejects that such a policy is necessary because it is a small staff of about thirty people and he can personally evaluate each member’s performance to avoid any possibility of inappropriate behavior based on who is having sex with whom.

 

Since the governor has taken personal ownership and responsibility for each member of his staff’s performance, perhaps he can explain the meteoric rise of Gau’s better half. Originally appointed as a deputy in 2019 for $62,000 per year, the employee was promoted to report directly to Gau in 2020 and given a raise to $100,006 per year. This year, that salary was increased to $112,008. That is an 80% increase in pay in just four years when other state employees are barely seeing cost of living increases in their wages.

 

Did Governor Evers conduct a competitive hiring process before signing off on the promotion? Were other candidates considered? What were the selection criteria? What experience or previous performance supported the promotion for that employee more than other employees of similar rank and tenure? If everything is above board, then surely the governor would willingly show the rigor behind his hiring and promotion methodology, no?

 

But, of course, even if everything has been done with full transparency and fairness, the mere existence of the relationship taints the office. Even the University of Wisconsin-Madison, one of the most leftist organizations in America, correctly points out the reason that they have a policy prohibiting romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates. Their policy states, “… such relationships create an environment charged with potential or perceived conflicts of interest and possible use of academic or supervisory leverage to maintain or promote the relationship. Romantic or sexual relationships that the parties view as consensual may still raise questions of favoritism, as well as of a potential abuse of trust and power.”

 

This is common sense and normal practice everywhere except in Governor Evers’ office. Furthermore, such relationships put the organization at great risk of legal liability. If the relationship goes sour, then the organization can be sued for allowing someone in a position of power to wield it over a romantic interest. Others in the office can sue the organization if they think they have been discriminated against or denied fair treatment based on the relationship. These lawsuits can result in the organization, in this case the State of Wisconsin, paying out millions of dollars in damages to the plaintiffs and their lawyers. In this case, it is just the taxpayers’ money, so we understand why Governor Evers is unbothered by the risk.

 

Governor Evers is running an office in which romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates is allowed at great risk to the taxpayers and at great consternation to others in the office who do not have exclusive access to his chief of staff’s ear in the wee hours of the morning. He has forcefully, and repeatedly, taken personal responsibility to ensure that all employment practices are appropriately followed irrespective of such relationships. It is his burden of proof to show that his office is being run in a professional way within the legal strictures and societal norms the rest of us live by every day.

Wisconsin GOP Begins Constitutional Amendment Process to Slow Tax Increases

by | 0913, 13 Sep 23 | | 0 Comments

Good. More of this, please.

The Assembly also approved along party lines a proposal that would require a two-thirds vote to pass a bill that increases states sales, income or franchise taxes.

 

Republicans who support the bill say a higher threshold would ensure tax increases are carefully considered. They cite 16 states that also require a supermajority to raise taxes.

Governor’s office not being run in accordance with societal norms

by | 0718, 12 Sep 23 | | 2 Comments

Not my favorite headline, but my column is online and in print in the Washington County Daily News today. Here’s a part:

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel broke the story last week that Evers’ long time Chief of Staff, Maggie Gau, the power behind the throne, has been in a relationship with one of her direct subordinates for years. When confronted with the news, the governor reacted aggressively rejecting the implication that such a situation was inappropriate. He said, “I don’t think it’s anybody’s g****** business” and assured people that, “I monitor their performance on a regular basis.”

 

It was also revealed that the governor’s office does not have a policy prohibiting such relationships and that the governor patently rejects the idea that such a policy is necessary. The governor rejects that such a policy is necessary because it is a small staff of about thirty people and he can personally evaluate each member’s performance to avoid any possibility of inappropriate behavior based on who is having sex with whom.

 

Since the governor has taken personal ownership and responsibility for each member of his staff’s performance, perhaps he can explain the meteoric rise of Gau’s better half. Originally appointed as a deputy in 2019 for $62,000 per year, the employee was promoted to report directly to Gau in 2020 and given a raise to $100,006 per year. This year, that salary was increased to $112,008. That is an 80% increase in pay in just four years when other state employees are barely seeing cost of living increases in their wages.

 

Did Governor Evers conduct a competitive hiring process before signing off on the promotion? Were other candidates considered? What were the selection criteria? What experience or previous performance supported the promotion for that employee more than other employees of similar rank and tenure? If everything is above board, then surely the governor would willingly show the rigor behind his hiring and promotion methodology, no?

 

[…]

 

Governor Evers is running an office in which romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates is allowed at great risk to the taxpayers and at great consternation to others in the office who do not have exclusive access to his chief of staff’s ear in the wee hours of the morning. He has forcefully, and repeatedly, taken personal responsibility to ensure that all employment practices are appropriately followed irrespective of such relationships. It is his burden of proof to show that his office is being run in a professional way within the legal strictures and societal norms the rest of us live by every day.

Wisconsin Supreme Court’s leftist majority forfeits court’s authority

by | 1853, 8 Sep 23 | , | 0 Comments

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

What do we do when high government officials act without regard to the Constitution or law? What do we do when government officials engage in a bloodless insurrection and usurp power that is not theirs? It is happening in the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the new liberal majority has moved swiftly to orchestrate a coup while running roughshod over the state Constitution, the law, and long-established court rules.

 

Even before Janet Protasiewicz was seated, the incoming liberal majority had notified the long-standing and award-winning State Courts Director, Randy Koshnick, that he was fired. The firing violated several internal court rules and simple decency toward a longstanding state employee.

 

Continuing their galumph over court rules and state law, the liberal gang appointed Milwaukee Judge Audrey Skwierawski to replace Koshnick. Not only was it not a competitive hiring process in which persons of color and others candidates were considered, but it violates state law. Wisconsin statute 757.02(2) states, “The judge of any court of record in this state shall be ineligible to hold any office of public trust, except a judicial office, during the term for which he or she was elected or appointed.”

 

Skwierawski claims to be on leave, but the statute is clear that she cannot legally serve as the State Courts Director during the term for which she was elected. The only way she could legally hold the position is if she resigned as a judge, but she has declined to do so.

 

We have quickly learned why the leftist majority rammed Skwierawski into the position. Last week, Chief Justice Annette Ziegler discovered that Skwierawski had been signing reserve judge orders with Justice Ziegler’s name without Ziegler’s knowledge or permission. It is unclear what else Skwierawski may have signed while impersonating the Chief Justice. This alleged identity theft by Skwierawski is a direct usurpation of Ziegler’s power and a violation of her person.

 

The leftist majority also violated court rules to pass new administrative rules to usurp the Chief Justice’s power. Under court rule III(A), any change to the court schedule agreed upon in the spring requires unanimous approval of all seven elected justices. These rules have been in effect since 1984 and adhered to in times of liberal and conservative majorities. Contrary to that rule, the four leftist justices met alone on August fourth to change the administrative structure of the court.

 

Not only was their meeting unauthorized and invalid, but the rule they “passed” violates the state Constitution. One of the changes was to create a three-justice committee to administer the court. The committee consists of the Chief Justice and two justices elected by the leftist majority. Of course, those two elected committee members are elected by the leftist majority and would effectively usurp all of the power of the Chief Justice.

 

The Wisconsin State Constitution Article VII Section 4(3) states, “The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of the judicial system and shall exercise this administrative authority pursuant to procedures adopted by the supreme court.” The Chief Justice’s exclusive authority to administer the Supreme Court is granted by, and protected by, the Constitution. The leftist majority’s administrative committee is a direct violation of the Constitution.

 

It has only been a month and the leftists on the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been acting with Marxist disregard for the rule of law in pursuit of overwhelming power that would make Comrade Stalin wince at their brazenness.

 

When a majority of the justices on the state’s high court are so clearly and openly violating the court’s own rules, state law, and the Constitution, they have forfeited their authority and surrendered their power to judge the affairs of the people of Wisconsin. If they do not follow the law and the Constitution, they have no authority to judge whether we do.

Evers’ Party Office

by | 1656, 6 Sep 23 | | 1 Comment

Belling’s take is spot on. I hope they keep digging.

I truly think it’s possible that Evers is so clueless about life that he didn’t know you can’t do these things anymore. For him, maybe it’s still the 1960s. Maybe his office is like the one on “Mad Men” where all the big shots were scoring with their secretaries. But Democrats who know Evers say he’s obviously aware of what contemporary rules are, having been a school superintendent and all. If so, why is Evers enabling his chief of staff’s hookup with a high-ranking underling?

 

Gau is super-powerful. Evers is an often absent and absent-minded governor. Gau runs the governor’s office and is a micromanager. She makes all decisions on everything. Evers is almost a figurehead. Maybe Evers simply delegated the decision on Gau’s link with Cudaback to Gau herself. Maybe Evers is so terrified of losing Gau that he can’t say no to her.

 

What will sure be interesting are Cudaback’s performance reviews should an open records request get them to surface. Or, state paid travel vouchers. Were the taxpayers paying for both to travel on business in which only one was needed? Bice’s report quoted other Evers staffers and Democrats as being uncomfortable with the whole situation and said they were uneasy about criticizing Cudaback because of her special role in Gau’s life.

Wisconsin Supreme Court’s leftist majority forfeits court’s authority

by | 0727, 5 Sep 23 | , | 4 Comments

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

What do we do when high government officials act without regard to the Constitution or law? What do we do when government officials engage in a bloodless insurrection and usurp power that is not theirs? It is happening in the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the new liberal majority has moved swiftly to orchestrate a coup while running roughshod over the state Constitution, the law, and long-established court rules.

 

[…]

 

Continuing their galumph over court rules and state law, the liberal gang appointed Milwaukee Judge Audrey Skwierawski to replace Koshnick. Not only was it not a competitive hiring process in which persons of color and others candidates were considered, but it violates state law. Wisconsin statute 757.02(2) states, “The judge of any court of record in this state shall be ineligible to hold any office of public trust, except a judicial office, during the term for which he or she was elected or appointed.”

 

Skwierawski claims to be on leave, but the statute is clear that she cannot legally serve as the State Courts Director during the term for which she was elected. The only way she could legally hold the position is if she resigned as a judge, but she has declined to do so.

 

We have quickly learned why the leftist majority rammed Skwierawski into the position. Last week, Chief Justice Annette Ziegler discovered that Skwierawski had been signing reserve judge orders with Justice Ziegler’s name without Ziegler’s knowledge or permission. It is unclear what else Skwierawski may have signed while impersonating the Chief Justice. This alleged identity theft by Skwierawski is a direct usurpation of Ziegler’s power and a violation of her person.

 

[…]

 

It has only been a month and the leftists on the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been acting with Marxist disregard for the rule of law in pursuit of overwhelming power that would make Comrade Stalin wince at their brazenness.

 

When a majority of the justices on the state’s high court are so clearly and openly violating the court’s own rules, state law, and the Constitution, they have forfeited their authority and surrendered their power to judge the affairs of the people of Wisconsin. If they do not follow the law and the Constitution, they have no authority to judge whether we do.

Evers Encourages Sexual Harassment in Workplace

by | 0739, 1 Sep 23 | | 12 Comments

This is sexual harassment training 101. People cannot date – much less live with – people in their direct chain of command. It is poisonous to the workplace and puts the organization at tremendous risk of legal hazard. In this case, it doesn’t even appear that Gau and her partner fell in love while working in the same team. That happens and when it does, it is the responsibility for one of them to quit or transfer. But no. In this case, it looks like Gau brought her lover to her team and gave him/her massive raises. This is clearly unethical and probably illegal.

Evers doesn’t care. He’s the shingles of state government.

Gov. Tony Evers acknowledged that his office doesn’t restrict supervisors from engaging in consensual romantic relationships with the staffers they oversee. Evers, a second-term Democrat, said he keeps a close eye on what is going on in his office, which has some 37 employees.

 

“It’s a small group of people, and I monitor their performance on a regular basis,” Evers said. “One of my jobs as governor is to monitor the performance of my staff, and I believe they are doing a good job.”

 

But a handful of Democrats have spoken to the Journal Sentinel in recent weeks to express their concerns that Maggie Gau, Evers’ powerful chief of staff, is — from all appearances — in a longtime romantic relationship with another senior employee whom she directly supervises.

 

Evers refused to discuss that particular situation on Tuesday during a stop at Greenwood Junior-Senior High School in Clark County.

 

“I don’t think it’s anybody’s goddamn business,” Evers said. “That’s the bottom line.”

 

Sources said the relationship was creating a difficult environment in Evers’ office, especially because they believe no one can raise concerns to Gau about her partner. Asked about this, the governor said, “That’s not accurate. It’s as simple as that. No way.”

 

[…]

 

The statement went on to say that the subordinate was appointed to a deputy’s position at a pay of $62,000 a year in January 2019, a position that did not report directly to Gau but was still under her chain of command. The staffer was promoted by Evers to a top-level position that does report to Gau on Nov. 8, 2020, with an annual salary of $100,006. That pay was boosted to $112,008 per year in January — an 80% pay increase in four years.

Login | Register

Archives

Categories

Pin It on Pinterest