Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...

M
Tag: Washington County Daily News

Drawing political lines best left to Legislature

by | 0730, 25 May 2121 | | 34 Comments

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

There is something perverse about trying to supplant the people’s elected representatives with an unelected commission. First, the notion that one could assemble a group of people who could make decisions without bias or predisposition is a complete fantasy. Our nation’s founders fully recognized that every person is imperfect and incapable of governing without falling victim, even if only occasionally, to the intrinsic weaknesses of the human condition. That is why they created a system of government where power was constantly diffused, checked, and balanced. Evers’ claim to have gathered an assemblage of noble nonpartisans is either painfully naïve or a prevarication.

 

Second, the entire purpose of representative government is for citizens to elect representatives to make difficult public policy decisions. These decisions often require the balance of competing interests, spending taxpayer money, protecting individual liberties, predicting policy consequences, and dozens of other factors. We have created an entire system for making laws that is designed to study, debate, and decide on important issues. The push to abandon our system of representative government and replace it with an unelected cabal of conceited commissars is un-American.

Wisconsin is suffering an employment crisis

by | 0710, 20 May 2121 | , | 5 Comments

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

Last week I strode into a Cousins sub shop intent upon enjoying a delicious Philly steak sub and a side of cheese curds. Behind the counter was an extremely friendly, if harried, man and woman working like a whirlwind filling orders. I was fourth in line and there were seven other people in the store waiting for their food.

 

As the man called each number and gave a patron their order with a friendly smile, he repeated the same message: “If you know of anyone who is looking for work, please let them know that we are hiring.” As I ordered, he apologized for the long wait and explained that they just could not find people willing to work. They recently held a job fair to which a single person showed up. A fellow customer piped up and said that he ran a shop and was having the same problem. The owners were working 16 hours a day just to keep up.

 

While we all waited for our orders, all the customers were friendly and patient. The conversation turned to the omnipresence of “help wanted” signs and the impact on businesses and their customers all over town. Somebody offered that “it pays more to sit at home and do nothing than to get a job” to universal nods of agreement.

 

After finishing my sub, I turned to wave a thanks on my way out and was reminded to, “tell everyone you know that we are hiring!” It was a moment in time in a simple Wisconsin sub shop, but it is a scene that is being repeated all over the state. According to the National Federation of Independent Businesses, a record 44% of small businesses report having open jobs that they can not fill. This is double the 48-year average and the third consecutive month reporting a record high.

 

Wisconsin’s businesses are trying to bounce back, but unemployment policies implemented during the early days of the pandemic are now impeding their recovery. It is time to end those policies.

 

There are two primary policy culprits that need to be rescinded immediately. The first policy is that the federal government is currently funding an enhancement of $300 per week of unemployment payments. This results in unemployed Wisconsinites receiving as much as $670 per week, or the equivalent of $16.75 per hour, as Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce noted in a recent letter to Governor Evers. It is much more than that, however. That is $16.75 per hour without the hassle of commuting to work, buying work clothes, paying taxes, shaving, and actually working. $16.75 an hour for doing nothing is worth more than working for $20 per hour.

 

The second policy is that Gov. Tony Evers has waived the requirement that people receiving unemployment seek work. Recipients are not required to prove to anyone that they are looking for a job. Without the requirement to seek employment, some people receiving unemployment benefits are content to just wait until the gravy train ends.

 

Both policies result in a sizable number of Wisconsinites making the very rational and pragmatic decision to remain on unemployment unless they can find a job that pays substantially more than what they are already receiving for not working. For people who lack the job skills or work ethic to command a higher wage, the unemployment system has become a very comfortable hammock.

The numbers illustrate the problem. An economy is enjoying full employment when anyone who wants a job can have one. Most economists agree that an unemployment rate below 4% or 5% indicates than an economy is in a state of full employment. In prepandemic April of 2019, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate was 3.2%. In April of 2021, the unemployment rate is 3.8%. Wisconsin’s economy has returned to full employment.

 

Yet in April of 2019, there were about 21,000 people receiving unemployment benefits. In April of 2021, there are about 92,000 people receiving unemployment benefits. In an economic state of full employment, Wisconsin has about 70,000 people receiving unemployment payments who would not have been just two years ago. They are being paid to not work.

 

Seventeen states have already announced that they will be ending the $300-per-week federal unemployment enhancements. The enhancements are doing more harm than good. Wisconsin should immediately follow suit and end federal benefits.

 

The suspension of the requirement that people receiving unemployment payments show proof that they are seeking work should also be ended. It is not unreasonable to require that people receiving unemployment benefits actively look for gainful employment. There are plenty of available jobs.

 

There is no longer a crisis of unemployment in the state. There is a crisis of employment. Wisconsin must rescind emergency rules and reinstate normal order for the unemployment system. Returning to normal is no longer a matter for the virus anymore. It is simply a policy choice.

 

Wisconsin is suffering an employment crisis

by | 0707, 18 May 2121 | , | 0 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Below is a portion. Go out and get a copy!

The numbers illustrate the problem. An economy is enjoying full employment when anyone who wants a job can have one. Most economists agree that an unemployment rate below 4% or 5% indicates than an economy is in a state of full employment. In prepandemic April of 2019, Wisconsin’s unemployment rate was 3.2%. In April of 2021, the unemployment rate is 3.8%. Wisconsin’s economy has returned to full employment.

 

Yet in April of 2019, there were about 21,000 people receiving unemployment benefits. In April of 2021, there are about 92,000 people receiving unemployment benefits. In an economic state of full employment, Wisconsin has about 70,000 people receiving unemployment payments who would not have been just two years ago. They are being paid to not work.

As a note, my editor kicked this section back because it is a bit confusing. Remember that the number of unemployed people is not the same as the number of unemployed people who are receiving unemployment benefits. There are unemployed people who do not receive benefits. The unemployment people who are receiving unemployment benefits are a subset of the larger unemployed population.

Cultural erosion of individualism is destroying our way of life

by | 0700, 15 May 2121 | , | 1 Comment

Here is my column that appeared in the Washington County Daily News earlier this week

One of the most annoying, and damaging, aspects of our 21st-century American culture is the erosion of social boundaries. Aggravated by social media, our culture of rugged individualism and respect for independent thought is shifting into one dominated by busybodies, bullies, and wannabe tyrants. It is a culture that drives the expansion of government as busybodies find their way into power over our lives. If we want to shrink our government, we must start with our culture.

 

This cultural shift is inescapable in our government school systems where they are teaching generations of young Americans that it is appropriate for government workers to be the authority over all aspects of their lives. Gone are the days when a school’s staff was only responsible for students when they are at school. Many school administrators and teachers now think that they have the responsibility and authority to manage the lives of students outside of school. School busybodies are intent on directing students on everything from eating to birth control to race relations to religion – everything that used to be considered the private affairs of students and their families. Many parents and families were surprised by the reaction of school officials when students organized their own proms. In response to COVID-19, many schools imposed onerous restrictions on proms or canceled them altogether. Wanting to have a traditional prom experience, some families and students organized their own proms. Instead of being supportive, or, at the very least, indifferent, some school officials blasted parents and students for being irresponsible, uncaring, or stupid. School officials have no business interfering in a private event, but the fact that they felt entitled to lecture parents and students speaks to how far they feel their authority extends.

 

We are also seeing the rampage of the busybodies in the roiling public debate over the COVID-19 vaccines. Thanks to the incredible success of Operation Warp Speed, we have reached the point where vaccines are widely available. Virtually everybody who wants to be vaccinated can do so with ease. They are so readily available that a person could wake up in the morning, decide they want to be vaccinated, and have a shot in the arm by nightfall. While we will not know the long-term effects of the vaccines for many years, they have proven remarkably effective for their intended purpose of warding off COVID-19 and its variants.

 

With all the information available and the infinite complexities of people’s circumstances, people have different opinions on the necessity of getting vaccinated. Some people are passionate about getting vaccinated. Most of them have already been vaccinated which is why the vaccination rate is declining and supply is abundant. Some people are adamant that they will not be vaccinated and are willing to accept the consequences of their decisions. Then there are the throngs of people who are relatively indifferent. They may get vaccinated. They may not.

 

In a different era, people would make their own choices about getting vaccinated and everyone else would respect their decision. In this era, whether or not someone has chosen to be vaccinated has become a matter for public discussion. “Have you been vaccinated?” has become a common subject of small talk at work and in casual conversation. Woe to those who are not vaccinated or do not express the appropriate level of determination to be so. They will attract a torrent of clucking tongues and derision from the people who think that their choice is the correct one and cannot abide you making a difference choice. There is a yawning chasm between caring about your neighbor’s health out of sincere concern and chastising their choices because of how it impacts you.

 

If the busybodies and bullies were only making noise, it would be annoying, but tolerable. What makes them intolerable is when they impose their views on everyone else with the power of government. When the neighborhood bully gains power over you through government, we walk the path that ends in tyranny.

 

Somewhere along the way, “live and let live,” and its more ornery cousin, “none of your business,” stopped being part of the American culture. The cultural shift away from individual rights and responsibilities is corrosive to our way of life. The cultural rot that infects proms and vaccines is part of a larger infection that is running rampant through our society and government. We must reverse the shift by being intentional about respecting individuals, their choices, and their rights.

 

If you are wondering if I have been vaccinated, it is none of your business.

Cultural erosion of individualism is destroying our way of life

by | 0715, 11 May 2121 | , , , | 11 Comments

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

If the busybodies and bullies were only making noise, it would be annoying, but tolerable. What makes them intolerable is when they impose their views on everyone else with the power of government. When the neighborhood bully gains power over you through government, we walk the path that ends in tyranny.

 

Somewhere along the way, “live and let live,” and its more ornery cousin, “none of your business,” stopped being part of the American culture. The cultural shift away from individual rights and responsibilities is corrosive to our way of life. The cultural rot that infects proms and vaccines is part of a larger infection that is running rampant through our society and government. We must reverse the shift by being intentional about respecting individuals, their choices, and their rights.

 

If you are wondering if I have been vaccinated, it is none of your business.

Lawmakers have unique opportunity with state budget

by | 0719, 6 May 2121 | | 0 Comments

As the JFC goes to vote today, here’s my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News earlier this week.

After months of public hearings and discussion, the Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee is set to take their first votes on the state’s biennial budget this week. The budget is the single most important piece of legislation that state politicians pass. This is also the state budget that precedes the next election for governor and will set the tone for that race.

 

The budget process is always fraught with emotion and heated rhetoric. It should be. Wisconsinites work hard for their money and politicians should not be cavalier about seizing and spending it. It is going to be a raucous couple of months in state politics.

 

Wisconsin’s budget process typically begins with the governor soliciting proposals from state agencies and submitting a budget. From there, the JFC, composed of members from both parties from both houses of the Legislature, whittles down the budget to a version that is sent to each house of the Legislature. Once the Assembly and the Senate debate, amend, and pass an identical version, the budget is sent to the governor for signature. Wisconsin’s governors have the most powerful veto power in the nation and often carve up the budget with selective vetoes. Finally, the Legislature will vote to override, or not, selective vetoes and the budget becomes law. When Governor Tony Evers gave the Legislature his proposed budget in February, it was riddled with hundreds of policy items from legalizing marijuana to expanding Medicaid. Democrats and Republicans like to add policy items to the budget because the budget is the only piece of legislation that must be passed. By adding in pet policy goals, politicians can use the budget as a bargaining chip to get their pet policies into law.

 

The first vote by the JFC will be to strip the budget of nonbudgetary policy items. This is an important first step and the Republicans must be thorough in purging policy items from the budget. While it might be tempting to add Republican policy ideas as bargaining chips, Republicans must keep the budget language to the bare minimum necessary to fund state government. Evers has proven untrustworthy in negotiations and any unnecessary words in the budget bill could turned against them with his veto pen. The Republicans must minimize that risk.

 

As the JFC moves to the next step of setting budget priorities, they should wait until the governor decides where to spend the windfall from the federal government. Governor Evers is deciding where to spend billions of dollars from the COVID-19 federal spending spree on top of the billions that local and state governments have already received. Once all of the federal taxpayer money is allocated, state lawmakers will have a better idea of where to allocate state taxpayer money.

 

This is a unique opportunity for the legislature to offset state spending with federal dollars. For example, the most recent federal spending bill sends over $25 million to Wauwatosa, $405 million to Milwaukee, and $25 million to Green Bay.

Despite being closed for most of the year, Milwaukee Public Schools received almost $800 million from federal taxpayers. The state government has received $210 million in infrastructure grants. Since all of these government bodies are flush with federal taxpayer cash, state lawmakers should reduce the amount that state taxpayers fund them by comparable amounts.

 

With so much federal tax money flowing into local and state governments, state lawmakers could save state taxpayers billions of dollars and send them money back to them in the form of substantial tax relief. In effect, state lawmakers could leverage the federal windfall for economic stimulus through meaningful tax cuts. Meanwhile, all state and local government priorities are completely funded.

 

Republicans have an opportunity to pass a budget that will make a meaningful difference in the bank accounts of taxpayers and business owners throughout the state. Meanwhile, they will define Republican priorities as voters begin to think about who will lead the state in 2023 and beyond. The incredible increase in federal spending is foolish and destructive to our nation, but at least state lawmakers can salvage something good out of it.

Lawmakers have unique opportunity with state budget

by | 0657, 4 May 2121 | | 0 Comments

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

This is a unique opportunity for the legislature to offset state spending with federal dollars. For example, the most recent federal spending bill sends over $25 million to Wauwatosa, $405 million to Milwaukee, and $25 million to Green Bay. Despite being closed for most of the year, Milwaukee Public Schools received almost $800 million from federal taxpayers. The state government has received $210 million in infrastructure grants. Since all of these government bodies are flush with federal taxpayer cash, state lawmakers should reduce the amount that state taxpayers fund them by comparable amounts.

 

With so much federal tax money flowing into local and state governments, state lawmakers could save state taxpayers billions of dollars and send them money back to them in the form of substantial tax relief. In effect, state lawmakers could leverage the federal windfall for economic stimulus through meaningful tax cuts. Meanwhile, all state and local government priorities are completely funded.

Strawberry fields for never

by | 0715, 27 Apr 2121 | , | 0 Comments

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

By canceling the Strawberry Festival, the organizers are not preventing the spread of COVID-19. All they are doing is robbing their community of an influx of economic activity that is desperately needed after a year of lockdowns and business restrictions. The board is strangling their own community with the fear of a preventable and treatable virus. It is not rational or compassionate. It is stupid and cruel.

 

Wisconsin’s summers are legendary for the bevy of local festivals, fairs, concerts, and events that draw people together with the bond of humanity. Citizens must demand that their events and traditions continue. If local organizers balk, then they should be replaced with people who actually care about the health of the community beyond the virus. We could all certainly use more community and human interaction after this long, long winter of isolation.

The Warrior Rests

by | 1625, 25 Apr 2121 | , | 0 Comments

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

Doctor John McAdams passed away last week. He leaves behind a legacy as a warrior for freedom of thought and speech in an era that desperately needs more warriors like him.

 

In the spring of 2003, I received an email from an old friend asking if I wanted to start a weblog, or blog, with him. The internet was in its toddler phase. It was before Facebook and Twitter existed. Internet Explorer was the most popular browser, Yahoo was the most popular search engine, and the first iPhone was still four years in the future.

 

Blogging was just coming into its own as a way for amateurs to share their thoughts with the world. It was a revolution in media access where a pajama-wearing basement-dweller could rival media giants with the power of thoughts, well-constructed arguments, and the right mix of style and character. For a few years, the Wisconsin blogosphere was a vibrant avant-garde exploring cultural and political discussions hitherto controlled by the mainstream media or consigned to sloshy conversations at the end of the tavern bar. We were of different ages, backgrounds, circumstances, philosophies, and motivations, but were united in the celebration of this new medium of free expression. We ventured out of our homes to meet each other in person at blog summits and casual gatherings. It was at was one of these blog events that I first met the Marquette Warrior in person.

 

Doctor John McAdams was a conservative professor at Marquette University during the time of the radical leftist takeover of that once Jesuit center of learning. His blog was titled “Marquette Warrior” with the stated goal of providing “an independent, rather skeptical view of events at Marquette University,” and it certainly fulfilled that mission.

 

Doctor John McAdams passed away last week. He leaves behind a legacy as a warrior for freedom of thought and speech in an era that desperately needs more warriors like him. McAdams was jovial, witty, occasionally crass, extraordinarily intelligent, and unapologetically conservative. His professorial tone and pleasingly lax physique belied his steely spine. McAdams was not one to casually suffer affronts to liberty or what he thought was right. While he fought a long, brawling ideological battle with his employer and the leftists reshaping his beloved university with many advances and setbacks, he will be best remembered for taking that fight to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and winning a landmark ruling that will protect academic liberty for generations.

 

McAdams has been blogging about incidents at Marquette University for over a decade when, in 2014, he blogged about yet another incident of woke indoctrination that has become commonplace throughout academia. A graduate student was teaching a class when she lectured her students that gay marriage was ethically and morally correct and that any arguments against it were automatically homophobic and immoral. When a student objected that it was at least worthy of debate — especially in an ostensibly Catholic university — the instructor shut down debate as illegitimate.

 

McAdams blogged about the incident arguing that irrespective of one’s views on gay marriage, a university classroom was supposed to be a place where divergent ideas could be debated openly and honestly. That is the difference between education and indoctrination. Education invites scrutiny and debate. Indoctrination rejects all discussion as inappropriate and immoral.

 

That post by McAdams began a story that would end in his unequivocal victory. In retaliation to the blog post, Marquette University suspended McAdams and offered him the opportunity to return to the classroom only if he would prostrate himself before the university overlords and beg for forgiveness. But McAdams was made of stiffer stuff. He fought. He fought hard. And he won.

 

McAdams fought the university all the way to the Wisconsin Supreme Court. In the landmark 2018 ruling of McAdams v. Marquette University, the court ruled that the “University breached the Contract by suspending Dr. McAdams for exercising his contractually-protected right of academic freedom,” and ordered him reinstated. McAdams humbly returned to the classroom for the remainder of his life.

 

Dr. McAdams’ fight was a fight for all Wisconsinites. When others were swept away by the Legions of Woke, the lonely Marquette Warrior was the rock upon which they broke. He will be sorely missed.

The Warrior rests

by | 0731, 20 Apr 2121 | , , | 1 Comment

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. In it, I think back on the impact of the Marquette Warrior, Dr. John McAdams. The world needs more people like him.

Doctor John McAdams passed away last week. He leaves behind a legacy as a warrior for freedom of thought and speech in an era that desperately needs more warriors like him. McAdams was jovial, witty, occasionally crass, extraordinarily intelligent, and unapologetically conservative. His professorial tone and pleasingly lax physique belied his steely spine. McAdams was not one to casually suffer affronts to liberty or what he thought was right. While he fought a long, brawling ideological battle with his employer and the leftists reshaping his beloved university with many advances and setbacks, he will be best remembered for taking that fight to the Wisconsin Supreme Court and winning a landmark ruling that will protect academic liberty for generations.

Wisconsin needs fair funding for government schools

by | 0816, 15 Apr 2121 | , | 0 Comments

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

There is another wave of borrowed money gushing out of Washington. The latest round of purposefully wasteful spending ushered in by Democrats includes over $2.2 billion for Wisconsin’s government schools. The distribution of these funds illustrates the folly of government and offers state lawmakers an opportunity to prove that they are smarter and fairer than those in Washington.

 

The American Rescue Plan Act is the official name for the stimulus bill that passed in March without a single Republican vote. The bill transfers our grandchildren’s wealth into our own pockets in a variety of ways including direct payments to current citizens, more welfare, and, of course, mountains of money for state and local governments.

 

The law was sold to the American citizens as vitally important to repair the economic damage done by the pandemic and backfill the budgets of state and local governments for expenses related to the pandemic. When the Democrats wrote the bill, however, the distribution mechanisms they included bear very little relationship to the pandemic. Stimulus checks are going to prisoners and people who do not need it. Billions of dollars are being spent to incentivize unemployment. And, of course, money sent to governments irrespective of how they handled the pandemic.

 

In the case of Wisconsin’s schools, federal law dictates that 90% of the money being sent to local government school districts must be distributed according to the same formula used to distribute Title 1 Part A funds. Title 1 Part A funds are distributed according to the number of low-income students in each district. In other words, the distribution of the so-called “rescue plan” money has absolutely no relationship to the pandemic. It is being distributed based on the rules from a law passed 56 years ago.

 

The actual numbers illustrate the magnitude of the disconnect. For example, the Milwaukee Public School District is to receive a whopping $798 million, or $11,242 per student. That is nearly an entire year’s budget coming in a single windfall for the district. Meanwhile, the neighboring Waukesha Public School District, for example, is receiving about $17 million, or $1,366 per student.

 

These two school districts had very different responses to the pandemic. The Waukesha district has been providing some form of in-person instruction since October — well after the evidence was clear that it could be done safely. Meanwhile, Milwaukee Public Schools remain closed with a meager plan to partially open in the waning days of the school year.

 

It is markedly unfair that the Milwaukee Public Schools are being rewarded with a windfall for locking out their students for over a year while so many other districts, like Waukesha, are given crumbs despite working hard to educate kids. Which district incurred more real cost to educate during a pandemic? Which district chose to educate instead of agitate?

 

As the Legislature crafts the next state budget, they must consider the federal funds just allocated to school districts and other local governments. They must begin with the recognition that it is utterly implausible that government school districts throughout the state suffered an aggregate $2.2 billion budget deficit caused by the pandemic. The federal dollars being issued are far in excess of any actual damages suffered and some districts are able to use their federal money to fund their wish lists.

 

Beyond the total budget amount, the nonsensical way in which federal funds were allocated invites the Legislature to reallocate state funding to try to make it fairer. For example, the state budget could cut $500 million from the Milwaukee Public Schools and use the money to fund rural and suburban districts throughout the state. Those districts could then fund initiatives like broadband for rural students, technology upgrades, tutors to help kids who have fallen behind with distance learning, and mental health services. Even after reallocating $500 million from the Milwaukee public school district, they have almost $300 million in surplus federal funds to spend in addition to their normal budget.

 

State lawmakers have a real opportunity to ensure fairness in funding for all of Wisconsin’s government schools. This is not a time to merely pour money through the same budgetary formulas. This is a time to fight for the education of all of Wisconsin’s kids.

Wisconsin needs fair funding for government schools

by | 0814, 13 Apr 2121 | , | 3 Comments

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

In the case of Wisconsin’s schools, federal law dictates that 90% of the money being sent to local government school districts must be distributed according to the same formula used to distribute Title 1 Part A funds. Title 1 Part A funds are distributed according to the number of low-income students in each district. In other words, the distribution of the so-called “rescue plan” money has absolutely no relationship to the pandemic. It is being distributed based on the rules from a law passed 56 years ago.

 

The actual numbers illustrate the magnitude of the disconnect. For example, the Milwaukee Public School District is to receive a whopping $798 million, or $11,242 per student. That is nearly an entire year’s budget coming in a single windfall for the district. Meanwhile, the neighboring Waukesha Public School District, for example, is receiving about $17 million, or $1,366 per student.

 

These two school districts had very different responses to the pandemic. The Waukesha district has been providing some form of in-person instruction since October — well after the evidence was clear that it could be done safely. Meanwhile, Milwaukee Public Schools remain closed with a meager plan to partially open in the waning days of the school year.

 

It is markedly unfair that the Milwaukee Public Schools are being rewarded with a windfall for locking out their students for over a year while so many other districts, like Waukesha, are given crumbs despite working hard to educate kids. 

 

[…]

 

As the Legislature crafts the next state budget, they must consider the federal funds just allocated to school districts and other local governments. They must begin with the recognition that it is utterly implausible that government school districts throughout the state suffered an aggregate $2.2 billion budget deficit caused by the pandemic. The federal dollars being issued are far in excess of any actual damages suffered and some districts are able to use their federal money to fund their wish lists.

 

Beyond the total budget amount, the nonsensical way in which federal funds were allocated invites the Legislature to reallocate state funding to try to make it fairer. For example, the state budget could cut $500 million from the Milwaukee Public Schools and use the money to fund rural and suburban districts throughout the state. Those districts could then fund initiatives like broadband for rural students, technology upgrades, tutors to help kids who have fallen behind with distance learning, and mental health services. Even after reallocating $500 million from the Milwaukee public school district, they have almost $300 million in surplus federal funds to spend in addition to their normal budget.

Evers’ abuse of power stopped by state Supreme Court

by | 0740, 6 Apr 2121 | , | 5 Comments

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

The court acted with good reason, for if a governor were permitted to rule in a permanent state of emergency, then the state Constitution is meaningless, and elections no longer matter. Governor Evers disagreed with the policy decisions of the Legislature, so he resorted to continually reissuing emergency declarations to enact his policy choices. In this case, Governor Evers was acting from behind the mask of compassion and claiming that only he knows the “science” that will save us all.

 

Despots, however, never rise to power by telling the people that they will strip them of their civil liberties and crush them under the boot of oppression. Despots always rise to power with the promise to protect the people from something like a foreign aggressor, internal strife, or, in this case, a disease. Despots claim that normal government is not sufficient to respond to this unprecedented apocalyptic crisis, so normal government must be suspended in favor of the nimble and extensive power of autocratic rule.

 

[…]

 

First, the Supreme Court waited far too long to issue its ruling. The original petition happened on October 15, 2020, and oral arguments were heard on November 16, 2020. The court waited until March 31, 2021 to issue its ruling. That is almost half a year between the petition of the court and the court’s ruling. In a case in which the state Constitution has been suspended while a rogue governor issues orders from behind a permanent state of emergency, the people of Wisconsin have a right to expect more expeditious action from their elected Supreme Court justices. They are elected to make rulings on important issues facing the state and their sloth smacks of snobbery.

 

Second, the ruling was decided by a single vote with four justices voting in the majority and three in the minority. The law is crystal clear in this case and yet three of Wisconsin’s Supreme Court justices supported the governor being able to suspend normal government forever by continually issuing emergency declarations. Wisconsin is on the razor’s edge of slipping into autocracy with almost half the court cheering for it. That should keep every freedom-loving Wisconsinite up at night.

Conservatives must remain vigilant in local elections

by | 0728, 30 Mar 2121 | | 15 Comments

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

April 6 offers all legal adult Wisconsinites another opportunity to head to the polls to choose who will control thousands of school boards, city councils, courtrooms, county boards, and other important local government bodies. These elections are always important, but the performance of government during the COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted just how important they are. From our schools to our local health officials, we have seen just how incompetent, authoritarian, and heroic they can be.

 

The importance of local elections has not been lost on the state’s liberals and big-government advocates. During the Walker era, when the political left was ineffectual at the state level, they began a concerted effort to recruit candidates for local elections. There efforts have paid off all over Wisconsin with left-leaning candidates getting elected even in some of the most conservative parts of the state.

 

There is nothing wrong with recruiting, organizing, training, encouraging, and funding local candidates. It is not a conspiracy or anything untoward. In fact, it is incredibly smart and laudable. Not only have the liberals managed to advance their ideology throughout Wisconsin, but they have also created a farm league of candidates to run for state or national office.

 

Conservatives are behind the game. There have been pockets local organization, but nothing on the scale of liberals. Without conservative organizations vetting candidates, conservative voters need be extra careful when voting.

 

[…]

 

Conservatives throughout the state must follow the liberals’ lead and begin recruiting, training, encouraging, and funding fellow conservatives to run for local offices. Winning elections does not happen by accident. It happens after a lot of work. The work does not end after the election. Conservatives must then support conservative elected leaders when they govern according to their convictions.

 

Work. Determination. Grit. There is no other path to success. Get to work, conservatives. Local government matters.

Kids need state superintendent who values them more than the unions

by | 1954, 27 Mar 2121 | , | 0 Comments

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

The COVID-19 pandemic and our policy responses to it will have long-lasting effects throughout our society. Perhaps none will feel those impacts more severely than the children who were abandoned by our government-educational complex. On April 6, Wisconsin’s voters will choose the next superintendent of the Department of Public Instruction and the choice could not be clearer.

 

The two candidates to lead the DPI are similar in many respects. Both candidates have spent their careers progressing through schools to leadership positions. Both candidates are highly educated with doctorates in educational leadership. Both candidates are lifelong Democrats and believe that many of the answers to the challenges facing education can be solved with more taxpayer money.

 

While the two candidates are similar in many respects, it is where they differ that makes Deb Kerr the best choice for our children.

 

The most pressing issue confronting education right now is the fact that too many government school districts are refusing to return to in-person education despite the overwhelming evidence that it can be done safely. Many schools around the world have remained open throughout the pandemic or only closed for a short time without significant issues. The evidence is clear that COVID-19 is not a significant threat to the vast majority of those in schools — students and staff. Despite this clear evidence, some government school districts refuse to fully open under withering fire from the teachers and their unions. The damage to our kids’ education, mental health, and futures cannot be understated.

 

On this issue, Dr. Deb Kerr has made it clear that all government schools should reopen immediately. Her opponent, Dr. Jill Underly, is toeing the line of the state teachers union (which has endorsed her and poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into supporting her) in throwing up multiple conditions that must be met before those schools can open. Kerr is following the science and prioritizing kids’ lives and futures. Underly is determined to use the crisis as a political wedge to gain more concessions for the unions.

 

The second paramount issue on which the candidates differ is on school choice. Here again, Kerr is prioritizing children and their futures while Underly is defending the union’s priorities.

 

The pandemic pulled back the mask of our state’s education infrastructure to reveal some glaring inequities. Some of the government schools stepped up and responded heroically with a swift and thoughtful shift to virtual learning and an equally swift move back to hybrid and in-person education when the evidence supported it. Other government schools — particularly some of the state’s largest districts that serve economically disadvantaged communities — utterly failed at virtual education and are still resisting a return to in-person education.

 

The fact that some schools performed better than others through the pandemic is manifest. The powerlessness of some parents to make get their kids into a school that is actually providing an education is a calamity. Some families were able to support their children’s education throughout the pandemic with relative ease. They have the time and money to support a virtual learning environment or move their children to a private or parochial school that is providing a higher-quality education.

 

Many families, however, are not able to fill the gap left by their failing schools or have the means to send their children to a successful school. When schools have utterly failed at virtual education and refuse to reopen their doors, the parents are left with few choices other than to watch their children slip further into the achievement gap as kids in other districts thrive. This is precisely the problem that school choice helps remedy. School choice provides the financial means for all families to choose the best educational option for their children, whether it be the local government school or a private option. School choice prioritizes children and education over propping up failed government institutions. Deb Kerr is a vocal supporter of school choice and has worked outside of the government school system. While she supports government schools as a vitally important part of our educational system, she recognizes that families need choices when that system fails. Rich families have always had choices. School choice enables poorer families to have the same options.

 

Jill Underly is a vocal opponent of school choice. She has stated unequivocally that she opposes school choice and would advocate for more regulations of the private schools that participate. Even though Underly chose to send her own children to a local parochial school to avoid an underperforming government school, she would deny that choice to families of lesser financial means.

 

The pandemic is groaning to an end, but it has highlighted some stark gaps in our government school system. Deb Kerr is the best candidate to begin to close some of those gaps.

Kids need state superintendent who values them more than the unions

by | 0742, 23 Mar 2121 | , | 1 Comment

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

Despite this clear evidence, some government school districts refuse to fully open under withering fire from the teachers and their unions. The damage to our kids’ education, mental health, and futures cannot be understated.

 

On this issue, Dr. Deb Kerr has made it clear that all government schools should reopen immediately. Her opponent, Dr. Jill Underly, is toeing the line of the state teachers union (which has endorsed her and poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into supporting her) in throwing up multiple conditions that must be met before those schools can open. Kerr is following the science and prioritizing kids’ lives and futures. Underly is determined to use the crisis as a political wedge to gain more concessions for the unions.

 

The second paramount issue on which the candidates differ is on school choice. Here again, Kerr is prioritizing children and their futures while Underly is defending the union’s priorities.

 

The pandemic pulled back the mask of our state’s education infrastructure to reveal some glaring inequities. Some of the government schools stepped up and responded heroically with a swift and thoughtful shift to virtual learning and an equally swift move back to hybrid and in-person education when the evidence supported it. Other government schools — particularly some of the state’s largest districts that serve economically disadvantaged communities — utterly failed at virtual education and are still resisting a return to in-person education.

 

[…]

 

The pandemic is groaning to an end, but it has highlighted some stark gaps in our government school system. Deb Kerr is the best candidate to begin to close some of those gaps.

On checks and balances

by | 0713, 16 Mar 2121 | | 1 Comment

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. I continue with my ruminations on remedial Enlightenment thought with a current example of where it should apply. Here’s a part:

The very need for government is rooted in the understanding that humans are naturally flawed and need to cede individual power to a collective in order to secure the individual liberties of all. While that seems counterintuitive, the tragic arc of human experience proves the point. But ceding power to a central authority creates a different threat to individual liberties: concentrated power.

 

Because humans are flawed, they will naturally seek to concentrate power for their own purposes. Even while such efforts to concentrate power may be justified in the name of some higher good, the evolution of concentrated power is always the same. The more power is concentrated, the more it is used to quash the individual liberties of others for the benefit of the few, or the one. Without concentrated power, even the most tyrannical among us is impotent. With concentrated power, even the well-meaning can slide into tyranny.

 

Understanding the nature of power in the hands of humans, our Founders structured our government with the express purpose of dividing the collective power of the people into as many parts as possible and using the personal interests and ambitions of each individual to check the others. The goal of dividing power is not that it will enhance the greater good, but that it will restrain the bad. As Federalist 51 explains, “the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other; that the private interest of every individual, may be a centinel over the public rights.”

 

To bring this concept into 2021, we turn to the current controversy over the distribution of COVID-19 relief money being distributed to states by the federal government. In the most recent distribution of our great-grandchildren’s money, the state of Wisconsin expects to receive about $3.206 billion for the conveniently elastic purpose of “COVID relief.”

 

What the pandemic taught us about prioritizing education

by | 0845, 12 Mar 2121 | | 1 Comment

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

The COVID-19 pandemic and our collectively flawed public policy response to it have wrought incalculable harm on our nation, state, and communities. One of the top three consequences that we will be feeling for decades to come is the assault on our children’s education. The early indicators are that many of our children have lost a year or more of their educations with marginal kids being impacted the most. It will take many years to recover as this class of kids moves through the rest of their education and many of them will feel the impact well into adulthood. We know the problem. What are we going to do about it?

 

We have learned a lot about the state of our education system during this pandemic. Many people like to claim that education is a priority. The varied responses to the pandemic revealed who really believes that it is a priority. When the pandemic first emerged with cataclysmic projections a year ago, all schools rightfully sent kids home and scrambled to do the best they could. Within a few months, however, we already knew much more about the virus, the populations at most risk, and how to mitigate the spread. With this knowledge, some schools — particularly private schools, but some government schools — began opening their doors again with hybrid and in-person models. Meanwhile, all schools increased their technological capability to deliver online learning. It is worth noting that we have not seen any significant spike in COVID-19 hospitalizations or deaths from schools that opened for in-person learning. As we look to the end of the 2020-2021 school year and the beginning of the 2021-2022 school year, what are we going to do to get kids caught up? Part of the solution is for the state to allow more flexibility for local districts. For example, under the current law, government school are not permitted to open before Sept 1. This is a long-established accommodation to Wisconsin’s summer industries that rely on the young labor force and families continuing the time-honored summer holiday tradition.

 

Wisconsin should lift this restriction and allow government schools to open early. This impacts private schools too. While private schools can already open any time they choose, their access to constitutionally required school bussing is tied to the schedule of the local government schools. By opening more days for schools to operate, it provides schools with more flexibility for scheduling options to accommodate more students.

 

Wisconsin could go one step further and enable government schools to move to year-round school too. If education is important to us, then we must treat it as a continual effort and not one relegated to convenient seasons.

 

With that flexibility must come more accountability. One of the ways we show what is important to us is by where we spend our money. We have seen a great variance in the response by government school districts with some of them utterly abandoning our children. Given what we know about the virus today and the experience with schools that have
been open all year, taxpayers should question whether they should continue to fund schools that remain closed to in-person learning. Teachers are receiving vaccines today and the expectation is that every teacher who wants it will be vaccinated within the next month. There is no rational reason for schools to remain closed.

 

If we truly care about education, then we must be willing to put our money where our mouths are and defund schools that refuse to teach our children. In the same thought, we must be willing to shift funds to the schools are, and have been, faithfully educating our kids throughout this pandemic. Throwing money into schools that have been failing our kids is not caring about education. Funding failure is an affront to education.

 

Irrespective of the public policy choices we make, the primary educators of any child remain their parents. Every parent should take a long, hard look at their kids’ school and the education their kids have been receiving. Is it good? Has the school been holding up their end of the bargain in the educational partnership? Have the kids been successful? If not, why not? And if not, why would you continue to send your kids there? Prioritizing education starts at home.

What the pandemic taught us about prioritizing education

by | 0727, 9 Mar 2121 | , | 15 Comments

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

One of the ways we show what is important to us is by where we spend our money. We have seen a great variance in the response by government school districts with some of them utterly abandoning our children. Given what we know about the virus today and the experience with schools that have been open all year, taxpayers should question whether they should continue to fund schools that remain closed to in-person learning. Teachers are receiving vaccines today and the expectation is that every teacher who wants it will be vaccinated within the next month. There is no rational reason for schools to remain closed.

 

If we truly care about education, then we must be willing to put our money where our mouths are and defund schools that refuse to teach our children. In the same thought, we must be willing to shift funds to the schools are, and have been, faithfully educating our kids throughout this pandemic. Throwing money into schools that have been failing our kids is not caring about education. Funding failure is an affront to education.

 

Irrespective of the public policy choices we make, the primary educators of any child remain their parents. Every parent should take a long, hard look at their kids’ school and the education their kids have been receiving. Is it good? Has the school been holding up their end of the bargain in the educational partnership? Have the kids been successful? If not, why not? And if not, why would you continue to send your kids there? Prioritizing education starts at home.

Ranked choice voting should be the last choice

by | 0700, 4 Mar 2121 | | 0 Comments

Here is my full column on Ranked Choice Voting that ran in the Washington County Daily News earlier in the week.

A bipartisan handful of Wisconsin legislators have introduced a bill to implement a ranked-choice voting (RCV) system for the elections of federal legislative offices. RCV is also referred to as “instant runoff” or “final five,” but irrespective of what one calls it, it is bad policy that contorts our electoral process and obfuscates the will of the governed.

 

Under an RCV scheme, partisan primaries are abandoned in favor of a primary in which the top five candidates advance to the general election. For the general election, voters rank the five candidates in order of preference starting with their most favored candidate and ending with their least favored candidate.

 

When the ballots are counted, if no single candidate has a majority, then the candidate with the fewest votes is removed from consideration and that candidate’s voters’ second choices are redistributed among the remaining candidates. If there is still not a candidate with a majority, then the next candidate with the fewest votes is removed and the votes redistributed again. The process continues until a candidate has a majority of the remaining votes and is declared the winner. Complicated, eh? That is the point. This complicated process creates several problems. First, it is confusing to voters. This is the reason cited by two Democratic governors of California when they vetoed attempts to expand RCV in their state. No longer does a voter simply have to choose the candidate that they support. Instead, they must study the candidates and rank them in order of preference to make an informed ranking. To work correctly, RCV requires much more effort on behalf of the voters. This leads to the second flaw with RCV. When implemented in other states, there is a large degree of ballot fatigue. Voters walk into the voting booth knowing who their top candidate is and maybe their second choice, but after that, they are fairly indifferent. The result is that many voters only fill out their top choice, or maybe top two choices, and leave the rest blank. When the ballots are taken to be counted and candidates are eliminated from consideration, some voters are also eliminated. Remember that in this system, the winner is the candidate who has a majority of the remaining ballots — not of all the ballots cast.

 

The third flaw with RCV is that is requires voters to engage in intricate game theory instead of just voting for their favorite candidate. Imagine that your favored candidate is third in the polls and your least favorite candidate is leading. You might decide to cast your first choice for the second-place candidate in the hopes to prevent the leading candidate from gaining a clear majority and that the fifth-place candidates voters’ second choices will fall to your favored candidate. Is this really how we want to think about elections?

 

The biggest problem with RCV, however, is not about the actual mechanics of the voting process. It is that the voters are denied the opportunity to make a clear choice. Under our current voting system where the candidate with the most votes wins, each candidate attempts to clearly communicate his or her experience and position on the issues to draw a distinction with their opponents. Sometimes that communication is strident, but the voters generally cast their ballots knowing where each candidate stands.

 

With RCV, candidates are not just campaigning to be the voters’ first choice, but their second or third choice. The result is a watering down of the rhetoric and muddling of the issues where candidates are not campaigning to be the one that most people support, but the one that most people can live with. If we want a nation run by mediocre drones that people do not like but can tolerate, RCV is the way to get it.

 

The proponents of ranked-choice voting see it as a means to reduce the rancor that we see in our politics today. What they seem to forget is that acrimony, forceful rhetoric, and gridlock are not a bug in our political system. It is a feature. It shows that it is working. After all, we have imbued these politicians with the power to restrict our rights and confiscate our property. We do not want them to do that lightly where submissive agreement is a greater priority than good public policy. The process should be difficult and discordant opinions should be forcefully expressed.

 

We are a nation with an endless spectrum of political philosophies and social values. In a representative government, we want all of those philosophies and values to be vehemently advocated in the public square so that they are included in the creation of public policy. Ranked-choice voting serves to silence the philosophical diversity that makes our nation stronger.

Login | Register

Archives

Categories

Pin It on Pinterest