Column | Boots & Sabers

Tag: Column

Tell the Truth

by Owen | 0849, 17 Feb 1515 | Culture | 6 Comments

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here you go:

The ongoing saga of Brian Williams’ downfall has attracted the riveted attention of voyeurs who delight in the misfortune of the rich and powerful, but his story is a troubling instance of the widespread decline in basic honesty that is pervading our culture.

Brian Williams was an unqualified American success. He worked his way up through broadcast journalism to the pinnacle of that profession as the anchor of NBC Nightly News. For over a decade, Williams built a relationship of trust with his viewers as he read the news in his baritone voice. In an increasingly diverse media market, the nightly news anchors of the major broadcast networks clung to the aura that their product was the gold standard of journalism that was above reproach.

Unfortunately, being at the pinnacle of his career and one of the most well-known people in the nation was not enough for Williams. He had to embellish his accomplishments. He lied. Williams told a story for years about being in a helicopter that was hit by enemy fire and forced to land. In fact, the story was a complete fabrication meant only, it seems, to feed Williams’ ego.

Williams had been telling this story for years in public settings that many people apparently knew was false. It is also emerging that Williams probably lied about several other stories that he has been telling for years to enhance his own biography. It is truly remarkable that someone of such a high profile as Brian Williams, whose entire stature is built upon the notion that he can be trusted to give America the “real” story, was able to spin lies for years without anyone calling him on it until now.

Or perhaps it is not that remarkable given the acceptance of dishonestly that has become commonplace in our culture. In times past, a lie of the sort Williams told would have been an immediate cause for the disgraceful permanent termination of his employment and discrediting of his entire body of work. In this instance, Williams told the lie for a decade and it was only after days of equivocating and some voluntary time off that NBC suspended Williams for six months presumably in the hope that his career can be salvaged.

Lest we here in West Bend judgmentally guffaw at the lax moral standards of those Manhattan elitists, the same sort of cultural rot is apparent right here at home.

As reported by Miranda Paikowski, a student journalist who is already more trustworthy than Brian Williams, in The West Bend Current, at least 22 students in two separate classes were caught cheating on a test in an Advanced Placement Statistics class last month.

The test was a two-day test. After the first day, some student found the test and answers online and passed around. As a result many of the students entered the second day of the test fully armed with the answers. In short, they cheated. By any normal definition of the word, these students cheated on the test.

According to the district handbook published on their website, “any student caught cheating will receive a grade of zero on the assignment or exam.” But that is not what happened. Instead, all of the students were forced to retake the exam – including those who did not cheat the first time. No punishment was meted out by the school or district.

The school district has given two explanations for the lack of punishment. In Paikowski’s story, they claimed that no punishment would be given to the students because it was their first offense. These kids are almost adults at the end of their high school careers who are in an advanced math class. They are not stupid and they knew they were cheating. The fact that it is the first time they were caught cheating is no excuse not to follow the district’s written policy to give them a zero on the exam.

The second reason given was that it was not really cheating. According to West Bend High Schools Assistant Principal David Uelmen, “As far as somebody going in there and flat out cheating we came to the determination that did not exactly happen. Nobody went into that test with the answers in hand.” Huh? So the fact that the students got the full test online and memorized it makes it not cheating, but if they had written a cheat sheet it would have been cheating? That is almost Clintonian in its parsing of events.

These kids were caught cheating. It is not the end of the world. Instead of giving them swift, fair, and just punishment from which they could learn that cheating is intolerable, the district is pampering them and teaching them that cheating is acceptable as long as you are one of the smart kids, and you can find a technicality, and it is your first time, and… and… and… By their actions, the West Bend High Schools are helping create a generation of Brian Williamses who will treat the truth as something to be discarded when it is inconvenient to one’s personal advancement.

We learn at an early age that telling the truth is important. If we still adhere to that principle and want a future where the truth is respected, we must treat it as such.

Stroebel best choice for conservative 20th District

by Owen | 0635, 10 Feb 1515 | Politics - Wisconsin | 1 Comment

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Check it out.

There is a primary election Feb. 17, that will have long-term implications for the citizens of West Bend and all of Wisconsin.

Wisconsin’s 20th Senate District is strongly conservative and has been represented by a Republican since before most of its residents were born. Because the senator from the 20th hails from the epicenter of the Republican Party in Wisconsin, he or she has necessarily been looked to as natural, and often designated, leader of the party.

For the previous 10 years, Sen. Glenn Grothman represented the 20th District as a staunch conservative conscience of the state Senate and the Republicans’ assistant majority leader since 2011. Grothman’s election to the federal government to represent the 6th Congressional District is what has prompted the spring election to replace him.

Prior to Grothman, the 20th District was represented by Mary Panzer for 12 years, rising to serve as the majority leader. Residents will remember the unprecedented event of Grothman unseating Panzer in a rare primary challenge because Panzer’s policies had moved too far to the left for the citizens of the district.

Before Panzer was Donald Stitt (eight years), David Opitz (four years), and Ernest Keppler (18 years) — all Republicans.

If there are two things that can be said about the 20th Senate District, they are that it is a safe district for conservative Republicans and that once elected, Republicans who remain conservative will have no trouble hanging on to the seat for as long as they want to serve.

With that history in mind, the citizens of the 20th District head to the polls to select their next senator. It is only the primary election, but given that there are no candidates from any other parties, the winner of the Republican primary will be elected in the general election in April. It is also with this history in mind that the rest of the state looks to the results of this election.

The new state senator from the 20th will take his or her seat in April in the midst of the state budget debate and all of the contentious issues incumbent in that debate. There are also numerous other important issues being debated in the Legislature from right-to-work legislation to taxpayer financing for a new arena for the Milwaukee Bucks.

With the Republican Party in the majority in both houses of the legislature, they are looking to the results of the election in the 20th as a bellwether for the wishes of the Republican base and another solid conservative vote in the Senate to ward off those Republican senators who have a tendency to go wobbly.

There are three Republicans vying to be the next representative of the citizens of the 20th Senate District. Once again, the voters of the district are privileged to choose between three conservatives who agree on the vast majority of the issues and differ only in background, style and electoral record.

Tiffany Koehler has been on the ballot recently as a candidate for the 58th Assembly District where she lost in the primary to the current representative, Bob Gannon. Hailing from Richfield, Koehler is a military veteran who has worked in the mental health field and promises to oppose tax increases, fight Wisconsin’s heroin epidemic, fix Wisconsin’s foster care system and fight for veterans.

Lee Schlenvogt is a fourth-generation dairy farmer who has served in local elected office for the last 25 years. Schlenvogt has most recently served on the Ozaukee County Board since 2007 and as its chairman since 2013. He touts his record on taxes in local government and promises to bring that same perspective to the state Senate, if he is elected.

Duey Stroebel was also recently on the ballot challenging Grothman in the race for the 6th Congressional District. He had represented the 60th Assembly District since 2011 before having to give up that seat to run for Congress. Prior to serving in the Assembly, Stroebel served in a number of local elected and appointed offices in his hometown of Cedarburg. Stroebel is a longtime real estate business owner and father of eight.

Of these three candidates, I will cast my vote for Stroebel. His long private-sector experience is a necessary perspective in the state senate sorely needs as it strives for ways to help the private sector create jobs in Wisconsin. Stroebel’s four years in the Assembly demonstrate a record of achievement in advancing conservative ideals. Also, Stroebel has already spoken out forcefully in favor of conservative initiatives facing the Legislature, like enacting right-to-work in Wisconsin.

I have no doubt that, if elected, Stroebel will have an immediate and long-lasting positive impact on advancing the conservative wishes of the citizens of the 20th Senate District.

(Owen Robinson is a West Bend resident. His column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Funding UW

by Owen | 0625, 3 Feb 1515 | Politics - Wisconsin | 1 Comment

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here you go:

“The Legislature finds it in the public interest to provide a system of higher education which enables students of all ages, backgrounds and levels of income to participate in the search for knowledge and individual development; which stresses undergraduate teaching as its main priority … .”

That is how chapter 36 of Wisconsin’s state statutes begins in establishing the University of Wisconsin System. The relationship between the state and UW is clear. The state founded and financed UW primarily for the purpose of educating Wisconsin’s kids. UW has many subordinate missions and is a major engine for economic development in the state, but its primary purpose is, and has always been, to provide an affordable higher education for Wisconsin’s kids.

The statute does not, however, say how much the state taxpayers should spend on UW. That is a question that is answered every budget cycle.

Many taxpayers have become frustrated with UW because its spending priorities appear to be out of alignment with its primary mission. Before Gov. Scott Walker imposed a freeze, tuition had been rising much faster than inflation.

Meanwhile, professors are regularly replaced in the classroom with graduate students or adjunct staff, students are required to pay for seemingly useless courses and the money seems to be spent on just about everything except improving education for a reasonable cost. Taxpayers rightfully wonder why they must keep spending more of their tax dollars on a system that is becoming increasingly unaffordable while skimping on actual education.

This debate over the appropriate level of taxpayer funding for UW is the backdrop for Walker’s recent proposal to substantially cut that funding.

Walker’s proposal is to cut UW taxpayer funding by $300 million, or about 13 percent, in the next budget. Walker would also continue to impose the tuition freeze for the next two years. In exchange, the state would convert the UW system into a public authority, which would give UW much more autonomy, and fund UW with a block grant that would be indexed to inflation.

All things considered, Walker’s full proposal should not be passed into law.

In the short term, Walker’s proposal to cut funding and maintain the tuition freeze is a good idea. The $300 million is not chump change, but it is only 5 percent of UW’s budget.

Given how many Wisconsin families and businesses have had to trim back at least 5 percent of their budgets, it is not too much to ask for UW to do the same. Also, the continuation of the tuition freeze is good for Wisconsin families and helps to keep higher education more affordable.

The problem with Walker’s plan is in the long term. Making UW a public authority would make it much less accountable to the taxpayers.

The Legislature would no longer have the authority over most of UW’s decisions — including setting tuition. That would mean that UW’s unelected regents would have almost complete autonomy in spending over a billion dollars of state tax dollars every year — not to mention over the massive amount of state land and resources that UW possesses. The immediate threat would be a massive tuition hike in three years, but that could be just the start for an autonomous system spending taxpayer money.

It is in the taxpayer funding that the second major flaw lies. Walker is proposing to fund UW with a block grant that would be indexed to inflation. In other words, it would be a fixed pile of spending that goes up every budget over without the legislature having the power to change it. It would set the funding for UW outside of the normal budget debates as an entitlement that forever increases.

The two provisions combined would mean a virtually independent, unelected, organization would get to spend billions of taxpayer dollars without the taxpayers having input into the level of taxpayer funding, or the management of that funding, through their elected representatives.

That is not an idea that is good for the taxpayers of Wisconsin.

The Legislature should pass the first half of Walker’s proposal and toss out the second half. They should cut spending and maintain the tuition freeze, but maintain legislative control of UW and their funding.

Yes, it will mean that elected officials will have to continue debate the relationship between UW and the citizens of Wisconsin and, yes, it will mean that tough choices will have to be made. That is what we elect them to do.

(Owen Robinson is a West Bend resident. His column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Ideas that pack some commonsense

by Owen | 0618, 27 Jan 1515 | Politics - Wisconsin | 4 Comments

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. I had to turn it in before the casino decision, else it would have been about that. Here you go.

Gov. Scott Walker has begun to disclose some of the initiatives that will be included in his upcoming budget proposal. There are dozens of initiatives and ideas from big to small, but two of them are already attracting heavy criticism from Wisconsin’s liberals even though they are perhaps two of the most common sense proposals in the list.

The first of Walker’s ideas that is causing liberals to gnash their teeth is to require that welfare recipients prove that they are not abusing illegal substances by passing a drug test. Although the details are not yet settled, Walker’s proposal would be fairly lenient and offer free treatment to people who fail the drug test multiple times. Only after multiple failures and a refusal to accept help would welfare benefits be cut off. A dozen states already have some form of drug testing for welfare recipients and several more are proposing similar measures.

The opponents to drug testing argue that it stigmatizes all welfare recipients by promulgating a negative stereotype of welfare recipients as drugaddled good-for-nothings. That argument falls flat when one considers how many working people are already subjected to drug tests as a condition of employment.

If the opponents’ argument were true, then society would view many of our truck drivers, factory workers, health care professionals, professional athletes and many other groups of people as drug addicts just because they are regularly subjected to drug tests. Furthermore, a program of weeding out drug addicts from the ranks of welfare recipients will improve their image because society will know that people receiving welfare are actually less likely to be drug addicts.

More important than stereotypes or imagery, however, is the actual purpose of a drug-testing program. The reality of our economy is that many employers require drug testing as a normal condition of employment.

Employers who do not test their employees still have a zero-tolerance stance, if a worker shows up for work stoned. If the purpose of welfare is to provide a temporary hand up for people trying to reenter the workforce and become self-sufficient, then it is incumbent on the program to help people put themselves in the best position possible to obtain and retain gainful employment. That includes maintaining a drug-free lifestyle.

The proposal to require welfare recipients to undergo drug testing as a condition of receiving benefits is an idea that is good for the recipients and good for the taxpayers who do not want to fund their neighbor’s drug habit. It warrants broad bipartisan support.

The second commonsense proposal that Walker is proposing is to provide an alternate pathway for people to become teachers that considers a person’s experience and education. Under the current system, a person can only become a licensed teacher after completing a university teaching degree.

The issue arises when a person who is a professional in a particular field wants to share his or her knowledge with students. For example, under the current system a seasoned mechanical engineer who has worked for 30 years in his profession is not allowed to teach high school shop class without first spending thousands of dollars and years of time obtaining a teaching degree. Walker’s proposal would allow school boards and administrators to consider that engineer’s experience, even if he does not have the teaching degree.

Opponents of this proposal argue that while people may have become experts in their subject matter throughout their careers, the purpose of the teaching degree is to ensure that the person can teach that subject matter to students. It is a fair point, but incomplete.

We have all experienced teachers with a shiny teaching degree who couldn’t teach a dog to lick himself. And we have all experienced brilliant professionals who have a natural gift for teaching.

A teaching degree is no guarantee of teaching skill. Conversely, having subject knowledge is no guarantee of teaching ability.

There are still many details to work out, but giving local schools the flexibility to consider the totality of a person’s experience, education, and teaching skill when making a hiring decision is a very positive step. The lack of a specific teaching degree should not be an immediate disqualifier that keeps qualified people who are passionate about their subject from teaching.

Both of these proposals will be rightfully refined through the legislative process. Both of them are sensible reforms that should pass with wide support from rational people.

(Owen Robinson is a West Bend resident. His column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

An effort to break down traditional families

by Owen | 0718, 20 Jan 1515 | Culture, Politics | 1 Comment

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. It’s and expansion of a blog post from a few days ago. Here it is.

During the his first State of the Union address after his party and ideology suffered crushing electoral defeats from state legislatures to the U.S. Senate, President Barack Obama plans to continue his leftist push by pushing for $320 billion in tax increases to fuel even more spending.

Obama wants to continue his jihad against “the rich” in favor of the middle class. He does not appear to care that his policies to date have seen the rich get far richer while the middle and lower classes stagnate, thus making the gap wider than it has been in decades. Obama is not one to be concerned with the results of his policies when he is seeking to advance his leftist ideology.

The president will propose increasing the capital gains tax to 28 percent. It was 15 percent when he took office in 2009. He also wants to impose a massive fee on certain financial institutions and closing a so-called “trust-fund loophole,” which would actually just be a huge inheritance tax that would particularly hurt people like farmers who pass on their land to their children.

The good news is that since the Republicans control Congress, most of those proposals will not go anywhere and Obama knows it. In his typical cynical way, Obama is proposing them for purely political reasons to build the political narrative for the 2016 election that the Republicans are the “party of ‘no.’” It is a crass and condescending form of politics, but it is the kind that Obama is comfortable with having come from the notorious Chicago political machine.

One of his proposals, however, is particularly troubling not only because of what it is, but because it is something that appears innocuous enough that the Republicans might actually pass it as part of a political quid pro quo. Obama is proposing a $500 tax credit for families in which both parents work.

It sounds nice enough. It is supposed to. Obama’s proposal is positioned as a way to help families with working parents to afford child care since both parents are away from the home working. The problem is that we used to be a nation that advocated policies that encouraged a stable family unit where parents could afford to, and were encouraged to, raise their children. This policy incentivizes parents to do just the opposite.

While not everyone can afford it, having a twoparent family where one parent can stay home with the children is substantially better for the children and the family than other circumstances. History and studies have shown time and again that children are better off when they are raised in an in-contact family with ample parent-child nurturing time in those first few precious years. Many of our government policies, like the Family and Medical Leave Act and subsidy programs, are specifically designed to make it easier for parents to spend more time at home — especially during a child’s early years. Obama’s proposal to subsidize parents only when both are working works counter to generations of government policy.

Much like some welfare programs incentivize parents to not marry, this tax credit would incentivize both parents to work. All such policies discourage the family unit and make it more difficult for families to afford to raise their children instead of spending thousands of dollars on child care. Instead, we should be advancing government policies that make it easier for parents to afford to stay home and raise their own children. It is better for the kids and better for society.

No parent who is unemployed is going to choose to get a job for a $500 tax credit. Nor is a $500 credit going to make much of a difference in a family’s ability to afford child care. But this is another brick in building a taxpayer-funded infrastructure that encourages every adult to work and let the “professionals” raise our kids. It is another brick in the path to being a society that turns to our government overseers for our needs and wants instead of turning to each other.

It is not a path on which we should travel.

(Owen Robinson is a West Bend resident. His column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Accountability bill misses the mark

by Owen | 0720, 13 Jan 1515 | Politics - Wisconsin | 1 Comment

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here it is:

The Wisconsin Assembly has opened for business with the introduction of Assembly Bill 1. Education reform has taken the first priority with the first bill dubbed the “School Accountability Bill.” Unfortunately, it is a deeply flawed bill for a whole host of reasons.

The objective of the accountability bill introduced by Reps. Jeremy Thiesfeldt, R-Fond du Lac, and Jessie Rodriguez, R-Franklin, is one for which education reformers from all political persuasions voice support. It is to bring some more accountability to all schools that receive taxpayer dollars including public, voucher and charter schools.

To enact this more rigorous accountability, the bill proposes to replace the existing accountability rules by creating an Academic Review Board comprised of 13 appointed members. The ARB would have the power to create the evaluation system for measuring schools, create charter schools, hand out incentive to exceptional schools, levy punishments for failing schools and, eventually, completely take over public schools that are chronically failing. That is a lot of power for an unelected board.

The first problem is the notion of a state board to oversee and manage schools to this degree of granularity. There are 424 public school districts in Wisconsin containing 2,295 schools educating almost 900,000 children. Add to that the 241 charter schools and numerous private voucher schools and it is a massive system for a single board to attempt to manage effectively.

Although some broad oversight from the state is necessary to ensure that state tax dollars are being spent efficiently and effectively to educate kids, the level of authority the bill gives to the ARB goes much too far. It would allow the ARB to undermine the power of local school boards which are best equipped to respond to the needs of their communities.

The second major flaw with the bill is in the makeup of the proposed ARB. In a typically complicated bureaucratic matrix that attempts to balance the interests of all of the major stakeholders, the 13 members of the board would be comprised of the state superintendent, six appointees of the state superintendent, two appointees of the governor, and an appointee from the leaders of both parties in both the state Senate and Assembly.

Out of the box, the makeup state superintendent would control a majority of seven of the 13 positions. In addition, the Democrats would control two to four of the remaining seats depending on whether they are in the majorities or if there is a Democratic governor. The state superintendent and the leadership of the Department of Public Instruction have historically been strongly opposed to school choice and the Democratic Party has become a wholly owned subsidiary of the teachers unions.

As proposed, the ARB would have broad discretionary authority over the school choice programs and be permanently controlled by anti-choice public school zealots. That is not a good combination for advocates of school choice in Wisconsin or the parents of kids who attend choice schools.

Unfortunately, any such board similar to the proposed ARB would have to be controlled by the DPI thanks to a 1996 court ruling by the Wisconsin Supreme Court that forbids the state from creating an education bureaucracy that would pull authority away from the constitutional office of state superintendent.

This accountability bill is a well-intentioned effort to respond to calls for more accountability of all schools in the state. However, it misses the mark by creating another onerous unelected bureaucracy with far too much power to be wielded by antichoice partisans.

State Republicans should scrap this effort at accountability and work instead on making schools more accountable through the parents of the kids in those schools. Put the money and the choice in the hands of parents. No bureaucrat in Madison will ever hold a school more accountable than an angry parent who can send their kid elsewhere.

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

What Democratic appointments say about the party

by Owen | 0717, 6 Jan 1515 | Politics - Wisconsin | 0 Comments

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here it is.

What Democratic appointments say about the party

Legislature’s minority poised to be more belligerent

The new year is upon us and Wisconsin’s politicians are about to get to back to work. Gov. Scott Walker celebrated his second term with an inaugural ball. All of the newly elected and re-elected members of the Legislature were sworn in. The pieces are being set in place in preparation for the upcoming legislative session and budget battle.

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin is truly at a critical point in its history. It is almost difficult to remember that they controlled the Assembly, Senate and governorship as recently as 2010. In the five years since then, Wisconsin has vaulted Republicans into the majority in both houses of the Legislature and elected Walker thrice. Walker is settling in for another four years in Madison and it is difficult to see how the Democrats will lead in the Assembly in the foreseeable future. Only in the Senate is there some opportunity for Democrats to regain the majority, but even that looks unlikely before the end of Walker’s term.

With the Democrats ensconced in the minority for this legislative session, and perhaps several sessions to come, it is telling to see how they will adapt to Wisconsin’s political reality. Nobody expects them to become Republicans or support Republican initiatives, nor should they. The Democrats who are in office are there because their constituents elected them to advocate for the liberal views they espoused during the campaign.

The question is how will the Democrats work with the Republicans? They could be constructive and try to advance their policy ideas on the edges of bills — really the only avenue open to the minority party. They could throw a two-year tantrum and leave the state when they don’t get their way like they did in 2011. Or they could chart a path somewhere between the extremes.

Both the incoming Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling and the Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca seem to be striking a cooperative tone. Both have expressed a desire to work with Republicans where there is common ground while still opposing the policies they completely oppose. But, as they say, actions speak louder than words.

While Shilling and Barca are using the language of moderation with the media, they are taking actions that demonstrate that they plan a far more aggressive opposition. When choosing the members who will serve on the potent Joint Finance Committee, they chose some of the most bellicose people in the Democratic caucus.

Case in point is Barca’s appointment of Gordon Hintz (D-Oshkosh). Hintz is a liberals’ liberal who was just barely re-elected in a district which included the University of Wisconsin Oshkosh and leans heavily to the left. He is known for his flamboyant and sarcastic comments and news releases. He is also known for some very poor behavior.

In the same year that Hintz was cites and fined for violating the city’s sexual misconduct ordinance as part of a prostitution sting, he was forced to apologize for threatening a fellow member of the Assembly. During a contentious debate about the budget, Hintz shouted “you’re (expletive) dead” at Republican Rep. Michelle Litjens while on the floor of the Assembly.

The fact that someone who has exhibited such low personal character is now a member of the Wisconsin Legislature’s most powerful committee indicates just how low the Democratic leadership is willing to go in the upcoming legislative session.

On the other hand, perhaps Hintz’ appointment is just an indication of just how bereft of character and talent that caucus has become after withering electoral defeats for the past few years. To think that is the case would be an insult to the other 36 Democrats in the Assembly who were not selected for the Joint Finance Committee.

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

History’s humanity lesson

by Owen | 0725, 30 Dec 1414 | Culture | 0 Comments

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Check it out.

It had been raining off and on for days, soaking everything. As the sun fell, the temperatures had begun to sink with it causing the puddles to ice over and the mud to harden. The sloshing sound of movement was replaced by the sluggish crunching of weary men in heavy boots.

One hundred years ago on Christmas Eve, British and German soldiers warily watched each other across the corpse-ridden wasteland between the cuts in the earth that have become their homes and, for some, their graves. The war to end all wars was only in its fifth month.

The Germans had failed to break through the French and British lines during the first Battle of the Marne after French soldiers were rushed into the battle in the taxis of Paris. After the battling armies repeatedly tried to outflank each other in “the Race to the Sea,” the war had settled into the static warfare for which it would become known. The next four years would result in more than 37 million casualties, with more than 16 million deaths, while the lines of battle rarely had to be redrawn on the generals’ maps. After this war, a deadlier war, would see many of the same combatants send more than 60 million people to meet their maker.

But all of that is in the future for the men warming themselves in the trenches near Ypres with cigarettes and muffled conversations while craning their ears for the sounds of the enemy. For them, the century was still young and there was hope that they would be home by next Christmas.

Even though it is Christmas Eve, the war goes on. In the British lines alone, 98 men had been killed that day — mostly by snipers — despite no active actions. A German airplane crossed the English Channel to drop a bomb on Dover, marking the first aerial bombardment of England in history. The sentries occasionally slid the bolt on their rifles to make sure they were free of ice.

In the silence and darkness of the evening, the British saw strange movement. The Germans were placing small fir trees atop their parapets. The trees were decorated with paper lanterns and candles. Across the frozen silence of No Man’s Land, like whispers from their comrades gazing at the moon with lifeless eyes, came the sound of carols. “Stille Nacht… heilige Nacht … .”

Slowly, cautiously, men looked over the top of their trenches. They shouted “Merry Christmas” to each other in a mangled version of their opponents’ native tongue. Then they stood up. They left their rifles in their trenches and extended their hands in friendship to their fellow man who was suffering the same lot of being in the business of killing during Christmas.

For the next 36 hours or so, tens of thousands of men would greet each other, exchange gifts, sing songs, play games, bury their dead, and show kindness in a place and time that called for them to shed such talismans of humanity. As the ice hardened, so did the soldiers’ hearts and they returned to their deadly profession.

Nothing like the Christmas Truce of 1914 ever occurred again in modern warfare. It was a moment in time when thousands of men set aside nationality, language and war to share their humanity and celebrate the birth of Christ.

As we close 2014, there is conflict and strife throughout our world from New York to Syria to Ukraine. The Tommies and Jerries of 1914 speak to us from history to remind us that even in the most heated of conflicts — even during the fire of war — we do not have to abandon our love for one another. Indeed, it is during those times of conflict that we must not.

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Cuban Surprise

by Owen | 0724, 23 Dec 1414 | Foreign Affairs, Politics | 1 Comment

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here it is:

Cuban surprise

Who cares about oppression when you can get a great cigar?

‘Tis the season of giving and President Barack Obama is not one to be left out of the festivities. Before heading off to his annual holiday in Hawaii with his family, he delivered a generous gift to the communists in Cuba — normalization of relations along with a promise to push Congress to lift the sanctions which have been in place for more than 50 years.

In a surprise move, Obama bypassed the State Department to negotiate directly with Cuba. The result culminated in the announcement that Cuba would release two imprisoned Americans, America would release three imprisoned Cubans, America would normalize relations for the first time with Cuba, Obama will lift many of the trade restrictions against Cuba that are within the purview of the executive branch and Obama will pressure Congress to completely lift the sanctions against Cuba.

Obama’s announcement marks a seismic shift in America’s foreign policy that is fraught with hazard.

The prisoner exchange sets a dangerous precedent. The mutual return of prisoners has been done for ages, but it is usually done with some parity of exchange. In this case, the Cubans gave up two prisoners in exchange for three of their own and a massive thaw in relations. This action will lead other totalitarian regimes to believe that they can also soften America’s stance with the capture of a few Americans. This endangers Americans around the world.

But the prisoner exchange appears to have been merely a fig leaf of cover for Obama to do something that his ideology dictates. In a worldview where America is merely one of many nations with different philosophies and not an exceptional nation, the isolation of Cuba has long been a thorn. Couple that with the American far left’s, from which Obama hails, affinity for communists, and it is clear that Obama was just waiting for an excuse and a time when he was free from domestic political responsibilities to make his move.

There have been two dominant, and competing, foreign policy philosophies of the past few decades in regards to how to deal with totalitarian regimes. The realpolitik philosophy is one that espouses engagement with totalitarian regimes as a way to influence world events and for the benefit of America. This is the philosophical foundation behind working with the numerous autocratic countries in the Middle East to keep the peace and keeps the oil flowing.

The second foreign philosophy is that promoted by the Neocons which believes that democratic institutions are a prerequisite for sustained peaceful relations and, thus, foreign policy should be directed toward regime change in totalitarian nations.

Both philosophies may support engagement with dictators. Adherents to realpolitik support engagement, if it is a way to advance our nation’s interests while the neocons support engagement, if it is a way to advance regime change along with our nation’s interests.

Obama does not seem to adhere to either philosophy. Obama is advocating engagement with Cuba for the purpose of engagement itself. The only benefits of engagement that he has espoused have been potential benefits for the Cuban people through American trade.

Usually, whether realpolitik or neocon, the opening of relations of a totalitarian regime after decades of isolation would be done for some purpose — some advancement of America’s national interests. At the very least, Obama should have only given Cuba normal relations and possibly billions of dollars from the benefit of open trade in exchange for reversing some of the multitude of systemic human rights violations by the Castro brothers. But no. Cuba has done nothing in exchange for Obama’s gift.

The result is sadly predictable. At a time when the communist government of Cuba is struggling to stay afloat after its primary benefactors — the Soviet Union and then Venezuela — are no longer able to support them, Obama has offered the communists a lifeline that will pump billions of dollars into their coffers that can be used to continue to persecute the Cuban people.

But presidents Obama and Bill Clinton will be able to share a Cuban cigar, so I suppose it is worth a few oppressed Cubans.

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Fortune hasn’t favored Wisconsin

by Owen | 0651, 16 Dec 1414 | Politics - Wisconsin | 13 Comments

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here it is.

“Wisconsin is a tax hell and we are sick of it. The Legislature has made some attempts to restrain government spending … . As I watch the budget process move forward, I am all but certain that the truth will remain: Wisconsin is a tax hell.”

I wrote those words almost 10 years ago in this space while advocating for a Taxpayers’ Bill of Rights. In the past decade, Wisconsin has turned slightly more fiscally conservative, but when it comes to taxes, the state still burns hot. A recent report from Lt. Gov. Rebecca Kleefisch and Department of Revenue Secretary Rick Chandler serves as confirmation.

Gov. Scott Walker tasked the lieutenant governor and secretary with roaming around the state to collect feedback about tax reform. Over the course of 23 roundtable discussions all over the state to which people of varying perspectives and experiences were invited to participate, the report indicates that five familiar themes bubbled to the top as critical concerns.

The first and most common concern was Wisconsin’s incredibly onerous property tax. Wisconsin’s property taxes have consistently been more than 20 percent higher than the national average for decades and accounts for 40 percent of all taxes paid by Wisconsinites. Many property owners receiving their property tax bills this month are seeing a rare decrease in their property taxes thanks mainly to an infusion of $178 million in state taxes into the technical college system and Act 10, but Wisconsin still has higher property taxes than 45 other states and is the worst in the Midwest.

Income taxes were next on the list of concerns. The Republicans have made some small gains in reforming Wisconsin’s income taxes by reducing the number of brackets and the rates, but the income tax remains a big reason why many high-earners seek employment in states without one. Wisconsin ranks in the top 10 states when it comes to the burden of income taxes.

The issue ranking third from participants in the roundtables was the complexity of the tax code. By a margin of 23:1, participants said that they would prefer lower, flatter rates in lieu of a patchwork of incentives, exemptions, credits, deductions and other devices used by politicians to manipulate behavior through the tax code.

Fourth on the list was how Wisconsin’s tax and regulatory burden adversely impacts small businesses. Small businesses are vital for job growth and entrepreneurship in any state. They can also least afford the expensive taxes and regulations that drastically increase the cost of doing business.

The fifth item on the report’s list finally gets to the root of all of the other problems with taxes in Wisconsin: spending. The roundtables’ participants voiced concerns about the efficiency and cost of government. According to the report, they acknowledged that government costs money, but want to ensure that the taxpayers are getting a good value for every dollar spent.

The report that took a year to build certainly confirmed what most Wisconsinites already knew. We live in a state that taxes, regulates and spends too much. What the report failed to do is make any recommendations as to what to do about it. Perhaps that is because the answer is obvious.

Wisconsin should tax less, regulate less and spend less. But if the Republicans really want to move the needle on these initiatives and make Wisconsin truly a leader, they need to advance some fundamental and seismic reforms.

There has already been some talk of eliminating the state income tax completely. The Republicans should do it.

The state should:

■ freeze property taxes and take a chainsaw to the regulatory structure that shackles Wisconsinites;

■ match massive tax cuts with massive spending cuts;

■ abolish shared revenue as Gov. Scott McCallum wisely advocated years ago;

■ cut funding for transportation;

■ reform the criminal code and cut prison funding;

■ cut the lavish funding for the University of Wisconsin;

■ and continue to reform and cut spending on K-12 education.

One of the reasons that Wisconsin’s government has become so bloated and expensive is because it has enough sacred cows to constitute a herd. If the Republicans hunt the entire herd at once, a few of the weaker ones will be separated.

For those who think it can’t be done — that we can’t cut that much spending — hogwash. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, Wisconsin has the highest per capita state spending in the Midwest and the 11th highest in the nation. Wisconsin’s state spending is 38 percent higher than the national average.

Somehow the vast majority of other states manage to fund their needs while spending and taxing less than Wisconsin. Many of them do it without a state income tax; without shared revenue; with lower property taxes; and with great schools, better roads and a much stronger state economy.

Walker and the Republican leadership have made a lot of consequential changes to the benefit of Wisconsin and its taxpayers. The voters rewarded them with firm control of the Legislature and the executive. Now is the time to truly transform Wisconsin into a national leader, if only they have the courage to act. Audentis fortuna iuvat (fortune favors the bold).

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Coming to a state near you

by Owen | 0644, 9 Dec 1414 | Economy, Politics - Wisconsin | 0 Comments

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here you go.

Coming to a state near you

Right-to-work bill has economics, morality on its side

It has been a topic of conversation in Wisconsin’s conservative circles for several years. The discussions turned more intense and more frequent after the passage of Act 10. Will Wisconsin pass right-to-work legislation? It appears that the answer may soon be yes.

Throughout the last election, Wisconsin’s Republican leaders consistently spurned the notion that right-to-work would be advanced in this session of the Legislature despite the strong support by the Republican base. While Democrats accused those leaders of being disingenuous, they were sincere. Gov. Scott Walker, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald all wanted to avoid another Act 10 firestorm that would distract them from their other priorities.

T hen something happened. Conservative Republicans who showed up at the polls to elect the most conservative Legislature in Wisconsin’s history and re-elect Walker had their own priorities. They want right-to-work in Wisconsin and let their representatives know that they were expected to pass it.

Conservative activists began pushing and elected Republicans began to talk openly about right-to-work. Then the dam broke when Rep. Chris Kapenga, one of the most conservative members of the Assembly, said that he would introduce right-to-work whether the leadership wanted it or not.

Fitzgerald was the first leader to break and said that he would allow a vote on right-towork legislation early in the session before the budget debate begins. Vos continues to say that it is not a priority and Walker said that it would be a distraction. Whether the Republican leaders like it or not, right-towork legislation is coming and they are going to be in a position of letting it pass or enraging their base. It would be ideal if they would lead the charge on the conservative agenda, but if they do not want to be leaders on this issue, they need to stand aside and let others get this done.

Since Wisconsin is about to be engulfed in ludicrous anti-right-to-work rhetoric, let us remember what right-to-work is and what it is not. Right-to-work is simply a law that says that people do not have to be in a union, or pay union dues, as a condition of employment. This is in contrast to what Wisconsin has now where people who want to work for companies with a unionized workforce are compelled by law to pay union dues. Workers can choose to not be a member of the union, but they still have to pay for it.

That is all right-to-work does. Right-towork does not forbid unions. People are still free to form unions and pay dues if they choose. It would only affect the 12.3 percent of workers in the private economy that still remain unionized.

There are two reasons conservatives support right-to-work. The first is a moral one. It is immoral for the government to force people to pay for an organization with which they might disagree. Period. We should not use the coercive power granted to government to compel people to pay for a church, business, charity, advocacy group, union or anything else just because they are employed.

The first reason for right-to-work is reason enough, but there is also a compelling economic justification to support it. Twenty-four states already have right-to-work. Statistically, these states enjoy a higher standard of living with people having more after-tax income and greater purchasing power, more robust economic growth and lower unemployment. It is also true that many of these states also have a litany of other pro-employment policies like lower taxes and sensible regulations, but right-to-work is part of the pro-business framework that promotes economic growth.

As Wisconsin’s Republicans work on making Wisconsin the 25th state with right-towork, they need to heed Kelly Johnson’s principle to “keep it simple stupid.”

There is already talk of exempting some unions or some industries from a right-towork law. This would surely invite legal challenges, serve to make both supporters and detractors of right-to-work very angry, and justifiably open up Republicans to criticism of political favoritism.

The Legislature just needs to keep it simple and pass right-to-work the same way 24 other states have already done. Then they can get back to the Republican leadership’s other priorities.

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Uneasy budgeting feeling

by Owen | 0635, 2 Dec 1414 | Politics - Wisconsin | 1 Comment

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. I’m not feeling very good about what I’m hearing coming out of Madison. I hope I’m worrying over nothing.

Uneasy budgeting feeling

Imperfect storm looms on 2015 legislative horizon

Do you hear those bells? Is it that season already? No; not the jingle bells harkening the Christmas season. It is getting cold before an odd-numbered year, which means it must be almost budget season in Wisconsin. Those are warning bells.

The voters made a very distinct choice in November to keep turning Wisconsin’s state government more conservative. The consequential 2011 legislative year was perhaps the most conservative year Wisconsin had ever had. The state cut taxes, enacted concealed carry and, of course, passed Act 10, which has saved Wisconsinites billions of dollars and continues to yield dividends.

The state Republicans continued to pass conservative legislation and enact more conservative policies throughout the recall election through 2012 and 2013, although at a slower pace. The voters approved and rewarded the Republicans with stronger and more conservative majorities in both houses of the Legislature. And they re-elected Gov. Scott Walker for the third time in four years.

Perhaps it is the pessimism of someone who has seen Republicans turn wobbly on the threshold of victory too many times, but the news has been troubling of late. First, Department of Transportation Secretary Mark Gottlieb put forth a proposal to increase taxes and fees to the tune of $751 million and borrow hundreds of millions more in order to pump more money into the bloated transportation budget.

While Walker made some noises about making changes to Gottlieb’s plan, he noticeably declined to rule out any of the tax or spending increases. The Republican leadership in the Legislature was also disturbingly muted.

Soon after, all of the state’s agencies submitted their budget requests for the 2015-17 budget. This is part of the normal budgeting process whereby state agencies submit their budget requests. From there, the governor winnows the agency requests down to a budget plan that is sent to the Legislature. The Legislature can then do whatever it wants with the budget. But the agency requests are the first step in the budgeting process.

When all of the agencies’ requests are added up, the spending exceeds the expected tax revenue by more than $2 billion. If the agencies get their way, the Legislature would have to find a way to fill the gap with either more taxes or more borrowing. Once again, the responses from state Republican leaders have been ominously subdued. While Walker, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, and Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald all made the appropriate statements about “priorities” and making “prudent decisions,” not one of them was forthright in rejecting spending and tax increases.

While Republican leaders have not been forceful about rejecting spending and tax increases, it is also worth pondering why the increases were submitted by the agencies in the first place. These are agencies being run by Walker appointees who know that their budget requests were being submitted to Walker and possibly the most conservative Legislature in the history of the state. Why would they submit a wish list of spending and tax increases if they did not think at least some of them had a chance of making it into the budget?

We must also be cognizant of the fact that this budget debate will take place in the shadow of Walker considering a run for president. Immediately after he was re-elected, Walker was quick to push the Legislature to pass a budget quickly — presumably to get it off his plate so he can turn his eyes to the east. It is not uncommon for Republican politicians contemplating a presidential run to actively avoid pursuing an agenda that might be labeled “controversial” by a conservative- hating media.

I hope to be proven wrong, but I have a very uneasy feeling going into this budget cycle despite what the voters chose last month.

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Freedom of the Internet

by Owen | 0657, 25 Nov 1414 | Politics, Technology | 2 Comments

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Here it is.

Freedom of the Internet

Presidential decree not needed to fix it

In the wake of the Republican sweep in the midterm elections, President Barack Obama has decided to disregard the obvious message of the voters and charge ahead with his liberal agenda on a number of fronts. One area where Obama sees the need for more government intervention is in the regulation of the Internet.

The issue of net neutrality has been percolating for several years. While many people glaze over and search desperately for their happy place at the mention of “net neutrality,” it is really a debate that transcends the specifics of the day and is just the latest manifestation of the continual struggle between liberty and government control. In this case, Obama is seeking to advance more government control under the guise of protecting liberty.

The rise of the Internet has been the most transformational development in the evolution of civilization since the institution of farming. It has broken down barriers of thought and borders. It has enabled the first truly global economy. The Internet has destroyed industries and created others. It has allowed for the greatest dissemination of knowledge in history.

There are few areas of life that the Internet has not touched and it continues to expand exponentially into the lives of everyone on earth with each passing day. And while the Internet certainly has a dark side, it has also facilitated an overwhelming expansion of good in the world.

The rise of the Internet is also a testament to what people can do when the government stands aside. It is precisely because the Internet has largely escaped regulation and that the old regulatory structures are illsuited to sink their claws into the ethereal body of the Internet that it has flourished. Those days may be coming to an end if Obama gets his way.

At the root of the issue is the same thing that is at the root of most political issues: money.

On the one hand, there are the Internet providers. These are the cable, satellite and telecom companies that provide the infrastructure to deliver the Internet to your device.

On the other side are the content providers. These are the media, news and advertising companies that provide the actual content that Internet users view through the Internet.

The Internet providers are able to throttle and block traffic however they choose. They can choose to block some websites or make access to them slower or faster. They can do this for technical reasons or they can do it for financial reasons.

One thing that the Internet providers want to be able to do is to charge content providers for consumers for premium access. For example, Time Warner or Charter can make it faster for subscribers to get to Google instead of Bing if Google pays them money for it.

The content providers do not want to have to pay the Internet providers to allow consumers access to their content. Also, since many of the content providers charge consumers for the content, they do not want their customers to be driven away by high prices if they have to pay the Internet providers for access just to pay the content providers for the content.

In the end, you have a war between companies like Time Warner and Comcast against companies like Netflix and Disney for the consumers’ dollars. What Obama is proposing is for the federal government to regulate Internet providers like utility companies and forbid them from prioritizing Internet traffic on their networks for any reason.

What the government should do, and what it has done to date, is keep its beak out of it and let the market decide. The argument for regulating the Internet providers, dubbed “net neutrality,” is that consumers may be harmed if they restrict access to valuable content. This is an argument that fails to address an actual problem.

To date, there is no widespread issue with Internet consumers not being able to reach the content they want. Even if it were, it is not the consumers’ right to access specific content and the government has no business forcing it. Still, if this was a problem, there are literally hundreds of Internet providers and consumers have the choice to take their business elsewhere and the market will correct it. If the market fails and it is deemed in the national interest to correct it, then, and only then, should we consider government regulation.

Here, again, we see Obama going about this with the power of executive action instead of through the normal legislative process. Whether or not we decide that our federal government should regulate the Internet is a massive issue that should be debated and vetted through our elected representatives. It is not something that should be enacted by decree on the authority of a single man.

Leave the Internet alone, Obama. It is doing just fine without you.

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Broken covenant

by Owen | 0350, 18 Nov 1414 | Politics - Wisconsin | 0 Comments

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. Long-time readers of this blog will remember how I railed against this program when it was created for exactly these reasons. Sometimes it is nice to be proven right in such a short time period.

If you were paying close attention to the news a few months ago, you might have seen a brief mention of something that is very rarely seen in the wild — the death of a government program. The death of this program was welcome, but also serves as a lesson and a reminder of what can happen when government runs amok.

In the waning days of winter in 2007, then-Gov. Jim Doyle championed a new creation of his called the Wisconsin Covenant. It was an ill-conceived plan designed for political advantage and sold with a wrapping of good intentions.

The Wisconsin Covenant was an agreement between eighth-graders and Wisconsin in which the state guaranteed the eighthgraders a spot in a state public university, private university or state technical college and a financial aid package to pay for said education. In order to receive this, the students were required to graduate from high school with a “B” average or higher, take some college prep courses and stay out of trouble.

The reason Doyle created the Wisconsin Covenant was to create a wedge issue in the Legislature. In the 2006 election he had defeated Mark Green to be re-elected and the Democrats took control of the state Senate. The Republicans continued to control the state Assembly.

The Wisconsin Covenant was a program that sounded great in the press. After all, getting more good kids into college is politically popular.

But the budget was already in deficit and Doyle was proposing more tax increases. There was no money for it. Doyle set up the Wisconsin Covenant as a political foil to try to make the Assembly Republicans look antieducation during the budget battle.

Furthermore, Doyle hoped to use the legions of families relying on the Wisconsin Covenant as a voting constituency to pressure his political opponents in the future. He was allowing kids to sign the Wisconsin Covenant even before it passed the Legislature to further his political agenda.

Unfortunately, it was Wisconsin’s kids who were used for Doyle’s political games.

One can tell that the Wisconsin Covenant was just a political trick because of the way it was eventually put into practice. Doyle’s budget funded an office to manage it for $360,000, but never actually funded the program itself to make good on that promise. He did not even bother to provide an estimate for what it would cost.

Eventually, 20,000 good Wisconsin teens signed up for the Wisconsin Covenant in the hope of having a pathway into higher education and a way to pay for it. What they did not count on was that Doyle made a promise he could not keep. A kid with a B average and no criminal record could already easily make it into any number of colleges or technical schools, and Doyle never budgeted to pay for any meaningful financial assistance for these kids.

In 2010, some families were notified that they would only be receiving $250 for their child’s college education. Perhaps they bought a book or two with that, but it had no meaningful impact on their ability to afford higher education.

Thankfully, when Gov. Scott Walker and the Republican legislative majorities took power in 2011, they put an end to enrollment in the Wisconsin Covenant. This year’s high school seniors were the last class allowed to sign up and the fulfillment of the state’s pledge to them in May, however meager that is, will mark the end of the Wisconsin Covenant.

If we have learned anything from the story of the Wisconsin Covenant, it is that a politician’s promise means nothing without action to back it up. And promises made that rely on future politicians to fulfill are not a promise at all. This is important to remember when considering the promises that politicians are making today.

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Riding the wave

by Owen | 0653, 13 Nov 1414 | Politics, Politics - Wisconsin | 3 Comments

My weekly column is up at the Daily News. It’s a little delayed due to Veterans’ Day falling on a Tuesday.

Riding the wave

Conservative leadership was key to widespread victory march

As I watched the election results begin to roll in last Tuesday from a hotel room in New Jersey, it quickly became apparent that we were witnessing the strongest Republican wave in a lifetime. The crest of the wave pushed Republicans into power in places thought to be forevermore the domain of liberals. The nation spoke.

On the national level, the most watched elections were for the U.S. Senate. Even as pre-election polls were indicating that the Republicans had a good chance of taking control of the Senate, pundits on both side were indicating that the Democrats might just pull it off. As it turned out, the Republicans gained firm control of the Senate.

Although the House of Representatives was already controlled by the Republicans, they strengthened their control by adding at least another 12 seats to their majority. This is the most seats that the Republican Party has held in the House in almost a century. It also means that President Barack Obama has seen his party lose 69 seats in the House since he took office.

Full Republican control of the Congress will make for an entirely new political dynamic for Obama’s final two years in office.

No longer will Sen. Harry Reid be able to bottle up legislation on Obama’s behalf. No longer will judicial appointments go through unchallenged. No longer will the president’s numerable abuses escape Congressional scrutiny.

The Republican wave was not restricted to the federal elections. It swept down the ballot.

Republican governors will now lead a majority of states, including deep blue states like Maryland, Massachusetts and even our southern neighbor, Illinois. The GOP will also control 30 state legislatures while the Democrats only control eight. The remaining legislatures have split control.

Nowhere was the Republican wave more apparent than in Wisconsin. Indeed, what happened here in Wisconsin was the current driving the wave.

The highlight of the election was Scott Walker being elected governor for the third time in four years. Walker won the election by a convincing six points.

His re-election was all that more impressive when put in context. The national Democrats and their allies had put everything into defeating Walker. Obama, Michelle Obama, Bill Clinton and other prominent Democrats came to Wisconsin to campaign for Walker’s opponent.

The unions and special interests poured in millions of dollars in negative advertising against Walker. Even the Democratic district attorney of Milwaukee successfully used the power of his office to silence Walker’s conservative allies with a sham of an investigation.

Through all of this, Walker came out on top. Not only that, but his party strengthened its control of both houses of the Legislature with a more conservative caucus. And to put a cherry on the top of the victory cake, Republican Brad Schimel handily won election to become the next attorney general of the state.

Walker and the Republicans in Wisconsin were rewarded by the voters because they actually moved the ball when in power. They pushed forward a strong conservative agenda including tax cuts, regulatory reform, concealed carry, expansion of school choice, tuition freeze, and dozens of other conservative initiatives that made Walker’s first term one of the most productive in recent history. Based on their past success, the voters expect Walker and the Wisconsin Republicans to do more of the same in another term.

The Republicans at the federal level and in other states should look to Wisconsin’s Republicans to learn how to ensure future electoral success. They need to lead. More than that, they need to lead with a conservative agenda.

The firm advancement of the conservative agenda has solidified Republican control of a state that twice voted for Obama. That was not an accident. It was an affirmation that voters will reward conservative leadership.

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Thank a vet

by Owen | 0543, 4 Nov 1414 | History, Military | 0 Comments

My column for the West Bend Daily News is online. It felt good to turn away from politics for a moment. Here it is.

Thank a vet

Election Day gives way to Veterans Day

Now that the hostilities of the election season have just about come to an end, we can turn our attention to the things that unify us as a nation and remind us of how blessed we are to be Americans. Ninety-six years ago on the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month, the booming guns of “The War to End All Wars” fell silent.

A year after the end of hostilities in The Great War, President Woodrow Wilson proclaimed the first commemoration of Armistice Day by saying, “To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations.”

Since then, a grateful nation has broadened the scope of Armistice Day to include all veterans who served either in war or peace, and renamed the day Veterans Day. Americans set aside Nov. 11 each year to look back, and look around, to thank veterans for their sacrifices in service to our liberty. It is a fitting day for such a remembrance. That Nov. 11 in 1918 was a day that began with the roar of guns and cries of the dying, but ended with the serene silence of peace. While liberty too often requires the shedding of blood in order to be preserved, it is the fervent prayer of a free people that the sun should always set upon a peaceful planet so that no more sacrifices will be needed from our brave veterans.

On Veterans Day this year, the Milwaukee Children’s Choir will perform “American Homeland: A Veterans Day Concert,” to honor veterans. The concert will be performed at the Kettle Moraine Lutheran High School Performing Arts Center in Jackson at 7 p.m. Tickets can be purchased at Jeff’s Spirits on Main in West Bend, or at the door.

Thanks to a generous sponsorship by Delta Defense LLC of West Bend, 100 percent of the proceeds from the concert will be donated to Fisher House Wisconsin, which provides a free “home away from home” for veterans’ families who are receiving treatment at the Clement J. Zablocki Veterans Administration Medical Center in Milwaukee.

Due to the high number of veterans who receive treatment in Milwaukee – including more than 8,000 veterans of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan — Fisher House is planning to build a 13,000-square-foot facility that will be able to house 128 family members of veterans so that they can be near their loved ones at no cost during their course of treatment. There are few more enjoyable ways to help veterans and their families than by listening to the renowned Milwaukee Children’s Choir sing tributes to honor our veterans.

There are more than 20 million veterans in America who served our nation with honor and pride. On the 11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month of this year, please take a moment to stop and think of the sacrifices they have made to protect and preserve the freedom that we all enjoy. And whether by thought, word, or deed, thank a vet.

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Assembly GOP releases its agenda

by Owen | 0648, 28 Oct 1414 | Politics - Wisconsin | 0 Comments

My column for the West Bend Daily News is out. It’s a look ahead past the election.

Assembly GOP releases its agenda

The Wisconsin Assembly Republicans, confident that they will retain firm control of the chamber, have released their “Forward for Wisconsin’s Future” agenda. It is an impressive list of initiatives that builds on earlier successes while also introducing some new ideas. Should the Republicans retain control of the state Senate and the governor’s chair, there is good reason that many of these proposals will make it into law.

Overall, the Assembly Republicans are committing to holding the growth of government to match projected personal income growth. It is disappointing that the goal is not actually reducing the size of state government, but it is a laudable move in the right direction. Some of the specifics in the plan are very intriguing.

While vowing to continue their trimming of government regulations, the plan also proposes to “future-proof” those regulations by writing administrative rules with an automatic sunset. This would force proactive action by future legislatures to renew regulations or they would expire. This would also have the added benefit of limiting the overall number of regulations since the Legislature can only review so many regulations each year.

In light of the recent biased action of the Government Accountability Board and a federal court ruling that the GAB has exceeded its authority and infringed on individual rights, the Assembly Republicans plan to reconstitute the GAB. This is a critical need to ensure an equal footing for all participants in the political process. This would mark the second time in a decade that the body that oversees elections has needed reform. This time around, the Legislature should cease trying to find the nonexistent “nonpartisan” mantle and instead build an adversarial process that allows for a vigorous vetting of controversial issues.

It is a relatively small thing, but the Assembly Republican’s plan also calls for providing funds for free GED exams. GED courses are already free, but the exams are not. This small item will remove one more barrier to education that is critical for people to move up the economic ladder.

A much larger proposal regarding education is the one to continue the tuition freeze for students who attend the University of Wisconsin System. This has already saved college students and their families millions of dollars. Coupled with this proposal is one to reform state schools to allow greater financial transparency and to refocus the state schools on the identified needs of Wisconsin’s economy.

The Assembly Republicans’ plan also proposes a list of measures designed to reduce fraud in the state’s welfare system to make sure that resources are only going to the people who need it. These measures include things like putting photo identification on EBT cards and limiting the number of times that a person can get a replacement card. More controversial is the proposal to require that welfare recipients undergo drug testing. It is perfectly reasonable and responsible to ensure that taxpayer money is not being spent to subsidize someone’s drug habit, but liberals take great offense at the notion.

Perhaps the heaviest lifting for the Assembly will be to find a way to stabilize the transportation fund. The plan states a goal of doing this, but fails to offer suggestions. This is a reflection of just how difficult this task will be. Watch for all sorts of goofy transportation options to be floated and for nobody to be happy with the result.

The Assembly Republicans’ plan continues on with all kinds of positive and meaningful initiatives that will improve Wisconsin. From cyber security to helping modernize the dairy industry to charitable deductions to work plans for inmates to self-employment training programs, the Assembly Republicans appear ready to get down to some serious business once the election is in the rear-view mirror. If Wisconsin sees fit to return Republicans to control in the senate and re-elect Gov. Scott Walker, the next legislative session might be almost as consequential to Wisconsin’s future as the 2011 session.

(Owen Robinson’s column runs Tuesdays in the Daily News.)

Burke supports private education for the rich, like herself

by Owen | 0620, 14 Oct 1414 | Politics - Wisconsin | 0 Comments