Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...

M
Tag: Washington County Daily News

A Year on the Move

by | 0729, 23 Aug 2222 | | 4 Comments

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

“A man who has lived in many different places is not likely to be deceived by the local errors of his native village.” – C.S. Lewis 

 

Last weekend my wife and I cruised our boat into the welcoming harbor in Port Washington. We had been gone for 379 days cruising America’s Great Loop. We traveled 6,425.9 miles through 17 states and three countries at an average speed of 9.05 miles per hour. We anchored in remote tidal creeks and behind the Statue of Liberty. We listened to the dolphins breathe as we celebrated the dawn of the new year behind Sanibel Island. We dodged the bustling tow boats in the Port of St. Louis on the Mighty Mississippi. We met thousands of people from all walks of life in hundreds of places. Along the way, I learned, or relearned, a few things.

 

Throughout our travels, we discussed politics with other people exactly zero times. It just does not come up that often in regular life. Instead, we talked about weather, family, traveling, local events, the rising price of everything, work, boats, jokes, and a hundred other things, but not politics. As someone who spends probably too much time involved with politics, it was revealing how few other people were interested. People are busy living and concerned with the things that impact their lives. Politicians would do well to remember that.

 

People are generally good. They are friendly, earnest, helpful, generous, curious, honest, and caring. In times of trouble, most people are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to help. They are tolerant and welcoming. Outside of the cities, much of the business of America is still done with a handshake. Observing America through our news and social media filters is to miss how much of real America lies beyond the horizon of those lenses. Americans work hard. Very hard. To travel the inland rivers of our nation is to see an older, more industrial side. The rivers are where great, heavy things are moved about and where the mines, quarries, and farms drain into the arteries of our economy. The knowledge economy is important, but it exists because of the muscle and sweat of hard people who do hard things.

Attorney General Josh Kaul’s terrible tenure

by | 1505, 21 Aug 2222 | , | 1 Comment

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

The races for governor and U.S. Senate are sure to dominate the attention of most voters this November, and rightfully so, but there are also other important choices for the voters including that of attorney general. Josh Kaul has used the office as a platform for activism and fallen well short of his duty to Wisconsin as the state’s top law enforcement officer. Voters would do well to ensure that he is not allowed to continue his malfeasance for a second term.

 

Josh Kaul, the son of the late disgraced former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, was narrowly elected in the blue wave election of 2018. He was elected with less than 50% of the vote and defeated his Republican opponent by a scant 0.65%. Despite his narrow plurality win, Kaul has used every tool in the attorney general’s box to advocate for his leftist causes at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile, he has failed to fulfill the basic duties of the job to fight crime.

 

Let us start with some of the things that Kaul has been spending his time on instead of prosecuting criminals. In the wake of the United States Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, Kaul announced that his office — the people’s office — would not prosecute anyone who violated Wisconsin’s abortion laws. Whatever one thinks about the law, it is a constitutional law that was passed by a duly elected legislature and signed into law by a duly elected governor (a Democrat, no less). Kaul has a sworn duty to uphold the laws of the state. Kaul has gone a step further and is suing the Republican leadership in the state Senate over Wisconsin’s abortion law arguing that it is unenforceable. Instead of spending his time and the taxpayers’ resources on fighting crime, Kaul is taking it upon himself to sue to change laws with which he does not agree. Kaul is not a participant in the law-making structure of government. The attorney general is supposed to be the people’s prosecutor and enforce the people’s laws. Instead, he is trying to usurp the power of the people to pass laws with the courts.

 

This is not the only issue on which Kaul is spending his time and the people’s resources to engage in leftist activism. Kaul has been a vocal advocate for curtailing civil rights with more restrictive gun laws. He has advocated for legalizing marijuana despite the disastrous consequences we see ravaging other states that have legalized it. Kaul has used his office to defend the bureaucratic dismantling of our elections laws that leave Wisconsin open to sloppy and fraudulent elections. Kaul is a busy guy, but he is not busy doing the things that Wisconsin needs done.

 

While Kaul has been acting as the state’s top activist, he has been failing as the state’s top cop. Under his tenure, he has left dozens of state prosecutor jobs unfilled. Fewer prosecutors leads to fewer prosecutions and Kaul has been engaging in his personal “defund the police” action.

 

The State Crime Lab, which former Attorney General Brad Schimel fixed, has fallen victim to Kaul’s neglect. The turnaround time for routine lab tests has increased by over 30% since Kaul took office. His mismanagement of the State Crime Lab means that criminals are staying on the street longer as police wait anxiously for the evidence they need to arrest them.

 

The evidence of Kaul’s dereliction is in the crime data. According to FBI crime statistics, Wisconsin’s violent crime rate in 2020 was the highest it had been in 35 years. Milwaukee has already had over 500 non-fatal shootings and over 130 homicides this year. The carnage is real. While Kaul is using his office to advocate for leftist causes, his failures in running the Department of Justice are being measured in dead bodies and ruined lives.

 

Wisconsin needs an attorney general who will work tirelessly to enforce the laws of the state and put criminals in jail. Josh Kaul has proven time and time again that he will prioritize his personal political causes over that of the people of Wisconsin every time.

Attorney General Josh Kaul’s terrible tenure

by | 0613, 16 Aug 2222 | , | 3 Comments

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

Josh Kaul, the son of the late disgraced former Attorney General Peg Lautenschlager, was narrowly elected in the blue wave election of 2018. He was elected with less than 50% of the vote and defeated his Republican opponent by a scant 0.65%. Despite his narrow plurality win, Kaul has used every tool in the attorney general’s box to advocate for his leftist causes at taxpayer expense. Meanwhile, he has failed to fulfill the basic duties of the job to fight crime.

 

[…]

 

While Kaul has been acting as the state’s top activist, he has been failing as the state’s top cop. Under his tenure, he has left dozens of state prosecutor jobs unfilled. Fewer prosecutors leads to fewer prosecutions and Kaul has been engaging in his personal “defund the police” action.

 

The State Crime Lab, which former Attorney General Brad Schimel fixed, has fallen victim to Kaul’s neglect. The turnaround time for routine lab tests has increased by over 30% since Kaul took office. His mismanagement of the State Crime Lab means that criminals are staying on the street longer as police wait anxiously for the evidence they need to arrest them.

 

The evidence of Kaul’s dereliction is in the crime data. According to FBI crime statistics, Wisconsin’s violent crime rate in 2020 was the highest it had been in 35 years. Milwaukee has already had over 500 non-fatal shootings and over 130 homicides this year. The carnage is real. While Kaul is using his office to advocate for leftist causes, his failures in running the Department of Justice are being measured in dead bodies and ruined lives.

 

Wisconsin needs an attorney general who will work tirelessly to enforce the laws of the state and put criminals in jail. Josh Kaul has proven time and time again that he will prioritize his personal political causes over that of the people of Wisconsin every time.

 

On Abortion

by | 0942, 13 Aug 2222 | | 7 Comments

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

We are already seeing some states move to change their abortion laws after the United States Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade. The Indiana legislature is on the cusp of making abortion illegal except in cases of rape, incest, or life of the mother. In Kansas, the citizens voted to keep language in their state Constitution that keeps abortion legal before twenty weeks. In Wisconsin, abortion is already illegal except in cases where the pregnancy endangers the mother’s life and there does not appear to be any legislative appetite to change the law.

 

When the federal Supreme Court usurped the power of the states to regulate abortion, the public debate devolved into a robotic caricature of a discussion. Now that we, the People, will need to put in the heavy effort of deciding what our abortion laws should be through the rigorous legislative process, that debate should be joined in good faith with respect for our fellow citizens’ perspective. Herein I give explanation for why I oppose abortion in almost every circumstance and believe it to be the duty of government to protect people irrespective of their size or dependency.

 

Our nation’s Declaration of Independence set forth that we are all created equal and, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.” Our United States Constitution went on to protect people from being deprived of life without the due process of law in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Both documents are based on a fundamental understanding of Natural Rights.

 

Natural rights are universal and inalienable. They are not dependent on government, laws, customs, traditions, or societal norms. They are rights that are embedded in the very essence of humanity and are enjoyed by each individual irrespective of age, color, creed, nationality, gender, or station. The just duty of government is to protect those rights from being infringed upon by others and to regulate the outcome of when two rights collide.

 

The most precious Natural Right is the right to live. Life is the right from which all other Natural Rights flow. The only real question regarding abortion, then, is to determine when life begins, for once we have determined that a life has begun, it is incumbent on us to protect that life through the power of government.

 

Fortunately, here in the 22nd century, the mysteries of reproduction and gestation have been largely solved. Once an egg is fertilized, a unique DNA is created and cells begin to multiply until they form a human that we would recognize. Some would pinpoint the start of life at when the heartbeat starts, or when brain activity begins, or when the baby would be viable outside of the womb. Some would allow abortion even in the moments after birth under the argument that the baby is still woefully dependent on the mother. That is the same argument that could be made for infanticide well into the toddler years.

 

For me, the most ethical and logical point at which to mark the start of life is when that unique DNA is created. That is when there is a unique life. There is clearly nothing separate from the parents before that moment and there is someone unique after it. While one could argue that life begins at a more viable state, each of those benchmarks seem arbitrary. Our moral, ethical, and legal obligation to protect life should make us err, if we are to err, on the side of prudence. It is better to accidentally protect people’s pre-lives than it is to intentionally kill them.

 

With life beginning at fertilization, we must structure our laws to protect those lives. In the case of a mother not wanting a baby, we come into a conflict of the rights of two individuals. The baby has a right to life. The mother has a right to bodily autonomy. In such cases of conflict, we make laws to decide the best, least harmful, outcome. In no other area of law do we permit the killing of one individual to protect the bodily autonomy of another. Neither should we in this case. The consequences for the mother are significant, but the consequences for the baby are cataclysmic. In such cases, we must protect the life of the baby even though its very existence imposes obligations and consequences on the mother.

 

We must also remember that creating a new life is a joyous event — even when it is unplanned. A great many of us were not planned and we, and our mothers, went on to enjoy full, wonderful lives. If the mother does not want the baby after it is born, there are families ready to welcome a new baby and the mother can move on with her life. Any social stigmas of unplanned babies are largely extinct. Also, it must be added, that in an age of DNA, there is no excuse to not identify the father and ensure that he is equally accountable for the wellbeing of the child. Some of the best dads did not plan to be one. Both parents deserve to be treated with compassion.

 

The decision to have a child or not does not happen after conception. It happens before having sex. The decision to use birth control greatly diminishes the likelihood of creating another human, but there is still a chance. One must be willing to accept the consequences of that decision. Once another person is created, it is our moral, ethical, and legal obligation to protect that person.

 

I sincerely hope that Wisconsin leaves its current abortion law alone. It is correct. But if we are to debate changing the law, let us all engage with sincerity, respect, and reasoned positions. Wisconsin’s babies deserve as much.

On Abortion

by | 0714, 9 Aug 2222 | , | 68 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. I put a taste below. I realized that as the abortion debate has moved to the state houses where we, the people, will actually have to debate the issue and come to some decisions, the rhetoric of abortion politics is still frozen in the theater of inaction in which SCOTUS froze it in 1973. This is one guy’s attempt to explain his position on the issue. Hopefully those with other opinions will offer them with the same sincerity and not resort to the crutch of “you hate women” or some such nonsense and we can have a grown-up debate about public policy. Pollyannish? Probably, but a guy can hope.

Our nation’s Declaration of Independence set forth that we are all created equal and, “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life.” Our United States Constitution went on to protect people from being deprived of life without the due process of law in the fifth and fourteenth amendments. Both documents are based on a fundamental understanding of Natural Rights.

 

Natural rights are universal and inalienable. They are not dependent on government, laws, customs, traditions, or societal norms. They are rights that are embedded in the very essence of humanity and are enjoyed by each individual irrespective of age, color, creed, nationality, gender, or station. The just duty of government is to protect those rights from being infringed upon by others and to regulate the outcome of when two rights collide.

 

The most precious Natural Right is the right to live. Life is the right from which all other Natural Rights flow. The only real question regarding abortion, then, is to determine when life begins, for once we have determined that a life has begun, it is incumbent on us to protect that life through the power of government.

 

Fortunately, here in the 22nd century, the mysteries of reproduction and gestation have been largely solved. Once an egg is fertilized, a unique DNA is created and cells begin to multiply until they form a human that we would recognize. Some would pinpoint the start of life at when the heartbeat starts, or when brain activity begins, or when the baby would be viable outside of the womb. Some would allow abortion even in the moments after birth under the argument that the baby is still woefully dependent on the mother. That is the same argument that could be made for infanticide well into the toddler years.

 

For me, the most ethical and logical point at which to mark the start of life is when that unique DNA is created. That is when there is a unique life. There is clearly nothing separate from the parents before that moment and there is someone unique after it. While one could argue that life begins at a more viable state, each of those benchmarks seem arbitrary. Our moral, ethical, and legal obligation to protect life should make us err, if we are to err, on the side of prudence. It is better to accidentally protect people’s pre-lives than it is to intentionally kill them.

 

With life beginning at fertilization, we must structure our laws to protect those lives. In the case of a mother not wanting a baby, we come into a conflict of the rights of two individuals. The baby has a right to life. The mother has a right to bodily autonomy. In such cases of conflict, we make laws to decide the best, least harmful, outcome. In no other area of law do we permit the killing of one individual to protect the bodily autonomy of another. Neither should we in this case. The consequences for the mother are significant, but the consequences for the baby are cataclysmic. In such cases, we must protect the life of the baby even though its very existence imposes obligations and consequences on the mother.

Wisconsin’s opportunity for another turn of the conservative revolution

by | 0937, 6 Aug 2222 | | 0 Comments

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

With the primary election a week away, most primary voters have made up their minds. Many of them have already cast their votes. In the Republican primary for governor, the voters are blessed with three great choices. Any of the three candidates would be a solid governor and far superior to Gov. Tony Evers. I continue to strongly think that Rebecca Kleefisch is the best choice both in terms of her ability to defeat Evers and her ability to move the conservative agenda as governor, but I can’t fault any Republican primary voter for making a different choice.

 

Whichever Republican makes it to the general election stands a good chance of winning in a red wave year. Should that occur and should the Republicans retain control of the Legislature (they should), it is another opportunity to move bold conservative ideas like the Republicans did in Governor Scott Walker’s first term. There are three big agenda items that the Republicans should pass in the first 100 days.

 

First, the Republicans must pass universal school choice. The pandemic taught us that when push comes to shove, too many of our government schools will abandon their duty to education. The educational destruction wrought upon Wisconsin’s children by negligent government school administrations will reverberate through the rest of their lives. Couple that with the pervasive Marxist indoctrination that is seeping into much of the curriculum, and it is time for change. Universal school choice will allow parents to find the best educational option for their children. Universal school choice is based on the premise that the taxpayers have a duty to educate kids — not sustain failing government institutions. The tax dollars that are spent to educate children should follow the children and trust parents to make the best choice for their own kids. A Universal school choice law should be very simple. Every child should get a voucher for the amount that would have been spent by state taxpayers on that child’s education and any accredited school the child attends can cash that voucher. Trust parents. Let us focus on funding education instead of government bureaucracies.

 

Second, Republicans should eliminate the state income tax. Instead of tinkering with the formulas and tweaking the exemptions, they should be bold and eliminate it outright. They can balance the elimination with a modest increase in the sales tax and aggressive spending reductions. This is a necessary step for Wisconsin to attract and retain the workforce of the future.

 

Nine states do not have a state income tax. It is no coincidence that five of them were in the top ten states with the largest net population growth in the last 12 months according to the U.S. Census. In an increasingly virtual workforce where high-income workers can live anywhere, they are choosing to live in states where they get to keep more of the money they earn. The sales tax, like other consumption taxes, is a tax that spreads the tax burden more evenly. Even highnet- worth people who do not currently earn an income have to pay the sales tax. For Wisconsin to attract the mobile, highincome earners to live and work in Wisconsin, they must be aggressive in making it financially attractive to them.

 

Third, Republicans must swiftly reform the state’s election apparatus. Hopefully everyone can agree that we want a state where it is easy to vote legitimately. When the people lose confidence in the integrity of our electoral process because it is riddled with inconsistent rule enforcement, obvious opportunities for fraud, and the outright illegal actions of government officials, the government loses the justification of having the consent of the governed. It is a republic-killing crisis.

 

For the most part, Wisconsin’s election laws are good. There may be a need for minor tweaks like uniform early voting laws, but as written, Wisconsin should have some of the fairest, easiest, and securest elections in the nation. Where it breaks down is that it is being administered by activist officials and a dysfunctional enforcement apparatus. Republicans should abolish the Wisconsin Elections Commission and replace it with a bicameral bipartisan legislative committee comprised completely of elected officials. Elections are how the citizens hold government officials accountable.

 

The transformative Walker administration reminded us what bold conservative leadership looks like. Whoever the Republican nominee is, conservatives’ expectations are rightfully high for them if they win a term in the big chair.

Wisconsin’s opportunity for another turn of the conservative revolution

by | 0424, 2 Aug 2222 | | 9 Comments

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

With the primary election a week away, most primary voters have made up their minds. Many of them have already cast their votes. In the Republican primary for governor, the voters are blessed with three great choices. Any of the three candidates would be a solid governor and far superior to Gov. Tony Evers. I continue to strongly think that Rebecca Kleefisch is the best choice both in terms of her ability to defeat Evers and her ability to move the conservative agenda as governor, but I can’t fault any Republican primary voter for making a different choice.

 

Whichever Republican makes it to the general election stands a good chance of winning in a red wave year. Should that occur and should the Republicans retain control of the Legislature (they should), it is another opportunity to move bold conservative ideas like the Republicans did in Governor Scott Walker’s first term. There are three big agenda items that the Republicans should pass in the first 100 days.

 

First, the Republicans must pass universal school choice.

 

[…]

 

Second, Republicans should eliminate the state income tax

 

[…]

 

Third, Republicans must swiftly reform the state’s election apparatus.

Washington County Board should reject tax increase referendum

by | 0633, 1 Aug 2222 | | 0 Comments

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

On August 10, the Washington County Board will vote on whether or not to submit to the taxpayers a referendum asking to forever raise taxes above the statutory limit to increase the size of the Sheriff’s Department. Let us hope that they come to their senses and forgo the referendum. If they do not, let us hope that the good people of Washington County have the good senses to vote it down.

 

The wording of the referendum may be tweaked by the County Board if they put it on the ballot, but the essence will be to ask the voters to increase taxes by almost 10% forevermore for the purpose of permanently increasing the staff of the Sheriff’s Department by about 15. The money would also be used to generally increase pay to attract and retain staff.

 

The increase in staffing is part of the county’s anticrime effort to combat increasing crime in the county. Is crime really increasing that much? Is the increase in crime just a reflection of the population growth? Are current resources appropriately allocated? How much of a crime reduction will the increase in staffing cause? Some of these questions were asked by supervisors on the Public Safety Committee, but answers were not forthcoming. Promising that more information would be available at the full County Board meeting, the committee unanimously approved the question to go to the full board.

 

There is no doubt that crime in this country is increasing largely thanks to intentionally lax law enforcement in our largest cities and the unending tide of illegal aliens flowing across our borders. Fighting crime is a legitimate duty of government and citizens in Washington County have always been supportive of law enforcement.

 

Budgets, however, are about priorities. Washington County spends almost $140 million per year on all functions. The Sheriff’s Department takes about $23 million, or 16.4% of the budget. If fighting crime is truly a priority, are the County Board and county executive really not able to reallocate funding from the other 83.6% of the budget? Instead, they want taxpayers to reallocate their family budgets to pay for that increase in spending?

 

County supervisors should also remember that they do not operate in a vacuum. The citizens who pay those taxes are facing a hard time financially. President Biden’s inflation economy is making prices rise faster than they have in 40 years. Unfortunately, most people’s incomes are not keeping up, so real income is dropping like a rock. Fuel prices are robbing people of mobility and everything is just getting more expensive. Families are cutting back on unnecessary expenses.

 

Meanwhile, times are good in government. After several years of money raining out of Washington from the Trump and Biden administrations to attempt to mitigate the financial impact of the pandemic, local governments have been awash in spending cash. Now they are reaping the benefits of inflation because taxes are based on percentages. As the median home price in southeast Wisconsin has risen 48% since January of 2020, according to the Wisconsin Realtors Association, property taxes have risen accordingly.

 

So, too, has the sales tax. Washington County passed a county sales tax years ago that was sold as a temporary emergency need. They have since made the tax permanent and continue to spend the proceeds. As the prices of goods and services have risen with inflation, so has the money spent on sales taxes. Washington County will likely see a record year in sales tax collections in 2022. Where will that money go? Could it be used to fund a spending increase in the Sheriff’s Department instead of asking the taxpayers to send even more money to the county?

 

Nobody questions that fighting crime is important and that Washington County deserves a properly funded Sheriff’s Department to meet the needs of the day. But using the current heightened concern about crime to call for a tax increase during a time when inflation is rampant and the economy is slipping into recession borders on the kind of cynicism we expect in Milwaukee – not Washington County.

 

The Washington County Board should decline to ask the taxpayers for more money and fund the increase in spending for the Sheriff’s Department if it is truly needed. The county has enough of our tax dollars to deliver on their obligations.

Washington County Board should reject tax increase referendum

by | 0611, 26 Jul 2222 | | 0 Comments

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

County supervisors should also remember that they do not operate in a vacuum. The citizens who pay those taxes are facing a hard time financially. President Biden’s inflation economy is making prices rise faster than they have in 40 years. Unfortunately, most people’s incomes are not keeping up, so real income is dropping like a rock. Fuel prices are robbing people of mobility and everything is just getting more expensive. Families are cutting back on unnecessary expenses.

 

Meanwhile, times are good in government. After several years of money raining out of Washington from the Trump and Biden administrations to attempt to mitigate the financial impact of the pandemic, local governments have been awash in spending cash. Now they are reaping the benefits of inflation because taxes are based on percentages. As the median home price in southeast Wisconsin has risen 48% since January of 2020, according to the Wisconsin Realtors Association, property taxes have risen accordingly.

 

So, too, has the sales tax. Washington County passed a county sales tax years ago that was sold as a temporary emergency need. They have since made the tax permanent and continue to spend the proceeds. As the prices of goods and services have risen with inflation, so has the money spent on sales taxes. Washington County will likely see a record year in sales tax collections in 2022. Where will that money go? Could it be used to fund a spending increase in the Sheriff’s Department instead of asking the taxpayers to send even more money to the county?

 

Nobody questions that fighting crime is important and that Washington County deserves a properly funded Sheriff’s Department to meet the needs of the day. But using the current heightened concern about crime to call for a tax increase during a time when inflation is rampant and the economy is slipping into recession borders on the kind of cynicism we expect in Milwaukee – not Washington County.

 

The Washington County Board should decline to ask the taxpayers for more money and fund the increase in spending for the Sheriff’s Department if it is truly needed. The county has enough of our tax dollars to deliver on their obligations.

Democrats should nominate person of substance and character

by | 0759, 24 Jul 2222 | | 2 Comments

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

Despite the projected red wave in November, control of the U.S. Senate is still very much in doubt. The electoral map is such that there are 21 Republican senators up for reelection and only 14 Democrats. The Republicans are fighting uphill to take control of the Senate. Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson is on the ballot and facing a tough reelection race in a deeply divided state. Wisconsin could determine which party controls the U.S. Senate to serve as a check on President Biden’s disastrous presidency.

 

Ron Johnson absolutely deserves to be reelected. Unlike many of Wisconsin’s previous senators (and the current junior senator for the state), Johnson has become a major player in Washington, advocating for Wisconsin at the forefront of every major issue. He is unabashedly conservative and passionate about the state. But if Wisconsin decides to replace their consequential senator and possibly hand the Senate over to Biden and the Democrats, then we must consider the Democratic primary.

 

According to the most recent Marquette poll, Lt. Gov. Mandela Barnes is leading in the primary, but he is within the margin of error to second-place Alex Lasry. State Treasurer Sarah Godlewski is a distant third place with Outagamie County Administrator Tom Nelson close behind in fourth place. There are other candidates, but none of the others are polling over 5% with two weeks remaining until the election.

 

As a conservative who wants to see Ron Johnson reelected, I would like to see Barnes win the primary. He is an unserious person with truckloads of ethical issues that make him the least electable Democrat in the group. His history of not paying his taxes on time, using the State Patrol as a car service when he did not have a license, lying about graduating from college, and myriad other issues make the job of the opposition researchers easy. As far as I can tell from his Twitter feed, the most important issues to him are legalizing marijuana and him being a senator. Wisconsin deserves better than that.

 

While I should want Barnes to win the Democratic primary because he is such a flawed candidate, I care too much about Wisconsin to advocate for that. Too many bad politicians have been elected when they shouldn’t have stood a chance. They go on to embarrass the state for years. If elected, Barnes would be Wisconsin’s Jesse Ventura. Given that there is a slight chance that the Democratic nominee might win, I implore Wisconsin’s Democrats to evaluate their choices seriously and think hard about which candidate would be a senator of quality and integrity.

 

The candidates are all from the leftist side of the political spectrum. Their differences on the issues are trivial. The differences lie in experience and personality. Lasry is a bona fide carpetbagger and almost a caricature of East Coast elitism. The son of the billionaire owner of the Milwaukee Bucks, his only accomplishment is working for his dad’s company. As a conservative, I would like to see Lasry win the nomination. Should he win the seat, he is most likely to be just another rich and ineffective warm body who vacillates between supporting radical leftist causes and corporate interests. He is an empty suit, but that is how I like my Democrats.

 

Tom Nelson is a creature of the Wisconsin Democratic swamp. The scion of a multigenerational Wisconsin family, his roots run deep, and he is knowledgeable of the state and its issues. For Wisconsin, he would probably be the best candidate. He knows the state and knows how to work in a legislative chamber. With so little time left in the primary, he stands little chance of rising to the top, but Wisconsin’s Democrats would do well to give him serious consideration if they are looking for an actual Wisconsinite who might be an effective senator.

 

Just between us, Sarah Godlewski is the candidate that worries me most in the general election. She is independently wealthy, passionate, a good communicator, and very knowledgeable about issues. She has been working in leftist activism and public policy for many years and, having worked for Hillary Clinton’s campaign, is well connected into the national Democrat power structure. Were I a leftist, I would have confidence that Godlewski would be much more effective than Sen. Tammy Baldwin in advancing the leftist agenda and would represent Wisconsin well on the national stage.

 

It is always folly for a conservative to poke his beak where it does not belong. I fervently hope that Ron Johnson wins reelection, but in the best interests of a state I love, I equally fervently hope that the Democrats nominate someone of substance and character. Should the Democrat win, I would much rather spend the next six years writing about sincere differences in public policy than the latest goat rodeo in Washington.

Democrats should nominate person of substance and character

by | 0708, 19 Jul 2222 | | 1 Comment

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

As a conservative who wants to see Ron Johnson reelected, I would like to see Barnes win the primary. He is an unserious person with truckloads of ethical issues that make him the least electable Democrat in the group. His history of not paying his taxes on time, using the State Patrol as a car service when he did not have a license, lying about graduating from college, and myriad other issues make the job of the opposition researchers easy. As far as I can tell from his Twitter feed, the most important issues to him are legalizing marijuana and him being a senator. Wisconsin deserves better than that.

 

While I should want Barnes to win the Democratic primary because he is such a flawed candidate, I care too much about Wisconsin to advocate for that. Too many bad politicians have been elected when they shouldn’t have stood a chance. They go on to embarrass the state for years. If elected, Barnes would be Wisconsin’s Jesse Ventura. Given that there is a slight chance that the Democratic nominee might win, I implore Wisconsin’s Democrats to evaluate their choices seriously and think hard about which candidate would be a senator of quality and integrity.

 

[…]

 

It is always folly for a conservative to poke his beak where it does not belong. I fervently hope that Ron Johnson wins reelection, but in the best interests of a state I love, I equally fervently hope that the Democrats nominate someone of substance and character. Should the Democrat win, I would much rather spend the next six years writing about sincere differences in public policy than the latest goat rodeo in Washington.

Republican primary race enters final stretch

by | 1728, 16 Jul 2222 | | 1 Comment

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

With three weeks to go until the primary election for governor, the Republican race just took the last turn toward the finish line and the cars are starting to swerve with melting tires and engines are smoking. I will forgo any more hackneyed race car metaphors for the remainder of the column and allow the reader to conjure their own relevant imagery.

 

In a somewhat surprising twist, Kevin Nicholson dropped out last week. Although his name will still appear on the ballot, he is no longer campaigning and has withdrawn himself from consideration. With a consistent 10% of the Republican electorate supporting him, he acknowledged that his odds of winning were slim. Also, in correctly understanding the mood of the Republican base this year, he stated that he did not want to go negative on his opponents in an effort to change the election’s dynamics.

 

Nicholson affirmed his commitment to support whichever Republican wins the nomination, which is also the mood that most Republicans are in this year. In a year when frustrated Republicans are looking for an outsider to shake up Madison, Nicholson was the only true outsider and could not attract enough support to win. His withdrawal from the race was done in a smart and classy way such that we hope to see him remain a significant figure in Wisconsin Republican politics for years to come. With Timothy Ramthun still struggling to get more than 3% support, the primary election is really down to two Republican juggernauts — Tim Michels and Rebecca Kleefisch. Up until last week, all of the candidates had been working very hard to stay positive and focused on how bad Governor Tony Evers has been for Wisconsin. After pouring money into advertising with a message that is resonating with voters, recent poling seems to indicate that Michels is pulling into the lead. This has triggered a change in the campaign with Kleefisch and her surrogates beginning to take some negative shots at Michels.

 

Negative campaigning is a necessary and important part of politics. While voters always carp about negative ads, they are also reliably swayed by them. Politics has never been pickleball. Negative campaigning also serves an important role in making sure that the voters are aware of a candidate’s bad spots before casting their votes. After all, the candidate is not going to go negative on themselves, so it is up to the candidate’s opponents to do so. It is up to the voters to decide if the negative aspects of a candidate are legitimate and important. Negative campaigning is particularly important in a primary election so that the eventual nominee has been properly vetted and considered before entering the general election. While the whole process can be unseemly, it is the best way to weed out unseemly candidates if it is done well.

 

The Kleefisch campaign is criticizing Michels for being a leader in industry trade groups that have supported increasing infrastructure spending and the increased taxes that go with it. Michels claims that while he served in leadership on behalf of his family’s company, he has never personally supported raising taxes. Both assertions may be true. Interestingly, Kleefisch is not attacking Michels for the well-documented fact that he has been a part-time resident of Wisconsin for several years with a large home on the East Coast. Evers will surely attack Michels for that if he is the nominee, but Kleefisch is keeping her fire on perceived policy differences.

 

What is really happening is a continuation of the generational and ideological clash in the Wisconsin Republican electorate. With support from the old Republican guard like Tommy Thompson and coming from the conventional Big Business-Republican symbiosis, Michels represents an older style of conservatism. With support from the new Republican guard like Scott Walker and coming from a grass roots with a sharper edge, Kleefisch represents the modern conservative mold. Both candidates come from established wings of the Wisconsin Republican Party that have been wrestling for supremacy for almost 20 years.

 

While not preordained, it is probable that whoever the Republican nominee is will oust Governor Evers and set the direction of the state Republican Party for years to come. Do Wisconsin’s Republicans want Thompson Republicanism or Walker Republicanism?

Republican primary race enters final stretch

by | 0701, 12 Jul 2222 | | 10 Comments

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

In a year when frustrated Republicans are looking for an outsider to shake up Madison, Nicholson was the only true outsider and could not attract enough support to win. His withdrawal from the race was done in a smart and classy way such that we hope to see him remain a significant figure in Wisconsin Republican politics for years to come. With Timothy Ramthun still struggling to get more than 3% support, the primary election is really down to two Republican juggernauts — Tim Michels and Rebecca Kleefisch. Up until last week, all of the candidates had been working very hard to stay positive and focused on how bad Governor Tony Evers has been for Wisconsin. After pouring money into advertising with a message that is resonating with voters, recent poling seems to indicate that Michels is pulling into the lead. This has triggered a change in the campaign with Kleefisch and her surrogates beginning to take some negative shots at Michels.

 

[…]

 

What is really happening is a continuation of the generational and ideological clash in the Wisconsin Republican electorate. With support from the old Republican guard like Tommy Thompson and coming from the conventional Big Business-Republican symbiosis, Michels represents an older style of conservatism. With support from the new Republican guard like Scott Walker and coming from a grass roots with a sharper edge, Kleefisch represents the modern conservative mold. Both candidates come from established wings of the Wisconsin Republican Party that have been wrestling for supremacy for almost 20 years.

 

While not preordained, it is probable that whoever the Republican nominee is will oust Governor Evers and set the direction of the state Republican Party for years to come. Do Wisconsin’s Republicans want Thompson Republicanism or Walker Republicanism?

Celebrating independence in 2022

by | 0851, 9 Jul 2222 | , | 2 Comments

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

As we celebrate another Independence Day and the blessings of our liberties, it is also incumbent on us to reflect on the state of the constitutional republic our Founders left us. President Ronald Reagan reminded us that, “Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction.” What time is it on the Doomsday Clock of the great American experiment?

 

The structure of our constitutional republic sits on pilings of genius sunk in a deep understanding of the human condition. Our Founders understood that any government requires some humans to hold power over other humans. They also understood that all humans are inherently flawed — sinful, in ecclesiastical parlance — and could not be trusted with power over others.

 

To square this circle, our Founders developed a constitutional framework that trifurcated power into three separate and coequal parts. Each part had distinct powers and restrictions with the other two parts serving as a check lest too much power be usurped by one part. In essence, the genius of our Founders’ construct is that it uses the worst parts of the human condition — envy, pride, bigotry, hubris, etc. — as a millstone to grind down the sharpness of concentrated power. In order for our great constitutional republic to function, it requires widespread consent of the governed in the form of mass voluntary obedience to the rule of law. We are a nation full of diverse opinions on what our laws should be and we hash that out through our elected government. Inevitably, there will be swaths of people who disagree with various laws for various reasons. For our society to function, it requires that the vast majority of the people accept and obey the laws even when they disagree with them. A small percentage of ne’er-dowells will violate laws for which we maintain a nominal police force to correct and punish, but most people must obey constrained only by their consciences and adherence to our form of government.

 

When laws are unjust, mass civil disobedience is a legitimate form of corrective action in a free society. This is when a significant percentage of citizens refuse to obey the unjust law. In response, the government can either enforce the law with increasingly aggressive tactics at the risk of enraging the larger citizenry, or forgo enforcement, thus undermining the authority of the law. We have seen that civil disobedience in response to a just law fizzles under the weight of societal indifference.

 

When we move beyond individual laws being unjust to government itself being unjust, then we venture beyond civil disobedience into the realm of uncivil disobedience. It is incumbent on a free people to throw off a government that has become tyrannical, but such action must be embarked upon with great prudence such that ”Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” But when there is a sober realization that the totality of the government has become intolerably tyrannical and it can no longer be rectified through the established constructs of our constitutional republic, then rebellion is the only recourse left to the dignity and conscience of a free people.

 

Where are we in 2022? We are in dangerous times. There are significant and growing factions in our nation that have moved well beyond protesting what they perceive as unjust laws into rejecting the very institutions of government as irrecoverably illegitimate. Groups like antifa and the Youth Liberation Front are using every societal spark to rebel and destabilize our institutions.

 

Left to their own devices, these fringe groups would rage in a vacuum where the fire quickly snuffs out. But recent years have seen mainstream leaders and elected representatives give them oxygen by echoing and validating their claims that our nation’s very institutions have become irredeemable. Calls by established and trusted leaders that the Supreme Court, Electoral College, Congress, and president are not just wrong, but illegitimate, are a manifest call to replace those institutions — even by violence. After all, what free people can tolerate living under the yoke of an illegitimate and tyrannical government? Such calls are reckless unless they are intended to be traitorous.

 

Thankfully, most Americans still respect our core government institutions and are willing to do the hard work of continuing to make our nation fairer and freer through the arduous representative process laid by the Founders. As we engage in robust debates in the public square and consider heterodox views without murdering each other, so too must we boldly engage and reform our government institutions without murdering them.

 

So what time is it on that Doomsday Clock? It’s time to get to work.

Celebrating Independence in 2022

by | 0705, 5 Jul 2222 | , | 0 Comments

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

The structure of our constitutional republic sits on pilings of genius sunk in a deep understanding of the human condition. Our Founders understood that any government requires some humans to hold power over other humans. They also understood that all humans are inherently flawed — sinful, in ecclesiastical parlance — and could not be trusted with power over others.

 

To square this circle, our Founders developed a constitutional framework that trifurcated power into three separate and coequal parts. Each part had distinct powers and restrictions with the other two parts serving as a check lest too much power be usurped by one part. In essence, the genius of our Founders’ construct is that it uses the worst parts of the human condition — envy, pride, bigotry, hubris, etc. — as a millstone to grind down the sharpness of concentrated power.

 

In order for our great constitutional republic to function, it requires widespread consent of the governed in the form of mass voluntary obedience to the rule of law. We are a nation full of diverse opinions on what our laws should be and we hash that out through our elected government. Inevitably, there will be swaths of people who disagree with various laws for various reasons. For our society to function, it requires that the vast majority of the people accept and obey the laws even when they disagree with them. A small percentage of ne’er-do-wells will violate laws for which we maintain a nominal police force to correct and punish, but most people must obey constrained only by their consciences and adherence to our form of government.

 

When laws are unjust, mass civil disobedience is a legitimate form of corrective action in a free society. This is when a significant percentage of citizens refuse to obey the unjust law. In response, the government can either enforce the law with increasingly aggressive tactics at the risk of enraging the larger citizenry, or forgo enforcement, thus undermining the authority of the law. We have seen that civil disobedience in response to a just law fizzles under the weight of societal indifference.

 

When we move beyond individual laws being unjust to government itself being unjust, then we venture beyond civil disobedience into the realm of uncivil disobedience. It is incumbent on a free people to throw off a government that has become tyrannical, but such action must be embarked upon with great prudence such that ”Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes.” But when there is a sober realization that the totality of the government has become intolerably tyrannical and it can no longer be rectified through the established constructs of our constitutional republic, then rebellion is the only recourse left to the dignity and conscience of a free people.

Power to the People

by | 1934, 2 Jul 2222 | | 7 Comments

Here is my full column that ran last week in the Washington County Daily News. I’m glad to see that the rest of the rulings continued this theme.

It was a blockbuster week of rulings from the Supreme Court of the Unites States. With a few more important rulings to be released this week, we see a positive trend emerging from the rulings. SCOTUS is stripping back the power of government and returning it to the people.

 

Arguably the two most important rulings of this session have to do with gun rights and abortion. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, the court was asked to evaluate if New York’s restrictive gun laws violated the 2nd Amendment. The law in New York prohibits people from carrying a firearm unless they obtain a permit to do so from the government. To obtain the permit, the applicant must cite a specific reason and it is up to the arbitrary judgment of the government official as to whether the given reason is good enough to get a permit. SCOTUS struck down New York’s gun restrictions. What is interesting, however, is that the court did not strike it down based on the 2nd Amendment protection of the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, the court struck it down based on the 14th Amendment’s protection for citizens being denied “life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” Taking the rights guaranteed in the 2nd Amendment as already clarified by earlier case law, Justice Clarence Thomas brilliantly sums up the ruling by saying, “We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need. That is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense.”

 

In Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, the court issued a narrower ruling that, “the Constitution does not confer a right to an abortion.” Thus, “the authority to regulate abortion is returned to the people and their elected representatives.”

 

Abortion is not mentioned in the Constitution, but in Roe v. Wade the earlier court engaged in judicial activism to thrust the power of the federal government into the regulation of abortion. In Dobbs, the court corrected that wrong and transferred the power to regulate abortion from the unelected federal court system to the elected representatives of the people. This is how it was up until Roe.

 

While the court did confirm that aborting a baby is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it did not say that the Constitution protects someone from being aborted. The Constitution does protect citizens from being deprived of life without due process, but to make such a ruling, the court would have had to define when life begins. That was not the question before the court and to rule on that issue would have been an act of judicial overreach. Perhaps a future court will have the opportunity to consider that question.

 

In both cases, we see the court reducing the power of government. In the case of Bruen, the court checked any government from restricting the 2nd Amendment without the same kind of extraordinary justifications we require of government to restrict other rights enumerated in the Constitution. This will have a cooling effect on zealous gun grabbers.

 

In the case of Dobbs, the court returned the power to regulate abortion to the people to exercise through their elected representatives. While the federal legislature could take up the issue, reaching a consensus across the broad ideological spectrum represented in the national legislature would be difficult. The state legislatures will more practically take up the arduous task of regulating such a politically contentious issue. Since the government closest to you generally governs the best (a reliable, if not unfailing, truism), the court’s ruling has empowered the people.

 

As the courts final rulings are released, we may hope to see more of this trend of limiting the power of government and returning powers heretofore usurped by government to the people.

Power to the people

by | 0734, 28 Jun 2222 | , , | 13 Comments

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

It was a blockbuster week of rulings from the Supreme Court of the Unites States. With a few more important rulings to be released this week, we see a positive trend emerging from the rulings. SCOTUS is stripping back the power of government and returning it to the people.

 

[…]

 

While the court did confirm that aborting a baby is not a right guaranteed by the Constitution, it did not say that the Constitution protects someone from being aborted. The Constitution does protect citizens from being deprived of life without due process, but to make such a ruling, the court would have had to define when life begins. That was not the question before the court and to rule on that issue would have been an act of judicial overreach. Perhaps a future court will have the opportunity to consider that question.

 

In both cases, we see the court reducing the power of government. In the case of Bruen, the court checked any government from restricting the 2nd Amendment without the same kind of extraordinary justifications we require of government to restrict other rights enumerated in the Constitution. This will have a cooling effect on zealous gun grabbers.

 

In the case of Dobbs, the court returned the power to regulate abortion to the people to exercise through their elected representatives. While the federal legislature could take up the issue, reaching a consensus across the broad ideological spectrum represented in the national legislature would be difficult. The state legislatures will more practically take up the arduous task of regulating such a politically contentious issue. Since the government closest to you generally governs the best (a reliable, if not unfailing, truism), the court’s ruling has empowered the people.

WEAC’s priorities are not Wisconsin’s, but they are Tony Evers’

by | 0856, 25 Jun 2222 | , | 14 Comments

Here is my column that ran in the Washington County Daily News last week. With all of the amazing news this week, we need to fight against Evers’ anti-education agenda so that our kids are smart enough to read and understand SCOTUS’ opinions for themselves.

Governor Tony Evers is famously opposed to using emails, having once told a reporter, “if I do one email a day, that’s an extraordinary day.” His staff, however, is not as uncomfortable with the newfangled 20th-century technology. Empower Wisconsin, a Wisconsin conservative news hub, recently acquired 256 pages of emails between Evers’ staff and the leaders of WEAC, the state teachers union. The emails reveal a familial relationship that confirms much of what we already knew, but also portends some of the disastrous policies that Evers may push if he is reelected.

 

What we have always known is that Tony Evers is a puppet of WEAC. Evers is a creature of the state’s government education bureaucracy and WEAC has been a major rhetorical and financial supporter of the governor for his entire political career. The emails confirm WEAC’s continued ownership of the governor. The emails are from the period in late 2020 when the Evers administration was bungling their way through the state government’s response to the pandemic. Several times, the emails show that Evers was making sure to keep WEAC involved and informed of the policy negotiations. WEAC’s president was invited by Evers to a live phone call to discuss policy matters. Given Evers’ continued stubborn averseness to even pick up the phone and call the Republicans in the Legislature, it is telling that Evers is willing to engage detailed policy discussions with the president of the teachers union. One wonders if Evers recorded that conversation as he did when he spoke with Republicans several years ago.

 

Evers also gave WEAC preemptive information long before he told the public. He gave WEAC a heads-up about vetoes before announcing them. When Evers was negotiating public policy with Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, Evers forwarded the draft legislation to WEAC to get their input.

 

It is clear that Governor Evers is a wholly owned subsidiary of WEAC who does not make a move without their input and direction, but the emails also tell us something about WEAC.

 

In late 2020, WEAC strongly pushed then Secretary-designee of the Department of Health Services Andrea Palm and Governor Evers to use state power to close all government schools. WEAC was flabbergasted that, “School districts across the state are caving to community pressure to remain open.” WEAC cannot stand by while local school boards listen to their constituents.

 

By this time in the pandemic, we already knew that the virus is a minimal risk to children and could already see the terrible impact school closures were having on our children’s education and mental health, but WEAC pushed for it anyway. Their concerns were, and are, not for the children. Their concerns are for money and power.

 

Given that WEAC’s motives are sordid, and they own Governor Evers, it is worth looking at WEAC’s top priorities that Evers may advance in a second term. Conveniently, Evers asked WEAC for their top five policy priorities. WEAC responded with their top four priorities. Even WEAC is failing at math and following directions.

 

WEAC’s first priority is to “remove all restriction related to compensation issues.” Currently, Act 10 limits compensation negotiations to the rate of inflation. Given that we are seeing over 8% inflation in Biden’s economy, WEAC would push for even more spending with which to burden the taxpayers of Wisconsin.

 

WEAC’s second priority is to place all government employees in the state health plan. In theory, this could be positive, but the emails also show that WEA Trust, the corrupt health insurance company owned by the teachers union, was an insurer for the state plan. Prior to Act 10, unions would negotiate into their contracts that the district was required to use WEA Trust. Then WEA Trust would charge above market rates. The union owns WEA Trust and forced school districts to use them at inflated rates. WEAC’s priority was to funnel more taxpayer money into WEAC via WEA Trust. Thankfully, Republicans in the Legislature would not support such a mandate and WEA Trust, unable to compete on a level playing field, has since exited the health insurance market.

 

WEAC’s third priority is to put a “just cause” provision in state law for government employees. Under current law, Wisconsin is an “at will” state where employers can end someone’s employment for any reason, or no reason, as long as it is not discriminatory. WEAC wants school districts to only be able to terminate teachers with just cause in order to prevent the “possibility of employee layoffs tied to budget shortfalls.” In other words, in an era of declining enrollment and people moving their kids out of government schools that failed them during the pandemic, WEAC wants to prevent school districts from reducing staff to be in line with lower enrollments. WEAC wants taxpayers to continue paying for government employees when there is not enough work to justify their jobs.

 

WEAC’s fourth priority is to eliminate the annual recertification requirement. This was a requirement from Act 10 that requires the employees of a government school district to recertify the union every year. Before Act 10, a local teachers union was perpetual even if the employees of that district had never voted for it. Under Act 10, the employees of a district must vote to have a union every year. The law holds unions accountable to ensure that they are serving their members. WEAC would rather that local unions be more accountable to WEAC than their constituent members.

 

WEAC’s Wisconsin is one of higher spending, less accountability, and more taxpayer money being funneled into WEAC to fuel their leftist activism and Tony Evers shares WEAC’s vision for Wisconsin. Wisconsin cannot afford another term of Tony Evers.

WEAC’s priorities are not Wisconsin’s, but they are Tony Evers’

by | 0736, 21 Jun 2222 | , | 8 Comments

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

Given that WEAC’s motives are sordid, and they own Governor Evers, it is worth looking at WEAC’s top priorities that Evers may advance in a second term. Conveniently, Evers asked WEAC for their top five policy priorities. WEAC responded with their top four priorities. Even WEAC is failing at math and following directions.

 

WEAC’s first priority is to “remove all restriction related to compensation issues.” Currently, Act 10 limits compensation negotiations to the rate of inflation. Given that we are seeing over 8% inflation in Biden’s economy, WEAC would push for even more spending with which to burden the taxpayers of Wisconsin.

 

WEAC’s second priority is to place all government employees in the state health plan. In theory, this could be positive, but the emails also show that WEA Trust, the corrupt health insurance company owned by the teachers union, was an insurer for the state plan. Prior to Act 10, unions would negotiate into their contracts that the district was required to use WEA Trust. Then WEA Trust would charge above market rates. The union owns WEA Trust and forced school districts to use them at inflated rates. WEAC’s priority was to funnel more taxpayer money into WEAC via WEA Trust. Thankfully, Republicans in the Legislature would not support such a mandate and WEA Trust, unable to compete on a level playing field, has since exited the health insurance market.

 

WEAC’s third priority is to put a “just cause” provision in state law for government employees. Under current law, Wisconsin is an “at will” state where employers can end someone’s employment for any reason, or no reason, as long as it is not discriminatory. WEAC wants school districts to only be able to terminate teachers with just cause in order to prevent the “possibility of employee layoffs tied to budget shortfalls.” In other words, in an era of declining enrollment and people moving their kids out of government schools that failed them during the pandemic, WEAC wants to prevent school districts from reducing staff to be in line with lower enrollments. WEAC wants taxpayers to continue paying for government employees when there is not enough work to justify their jobs.

Wisconsin’s pro-abortion governor

by | 1911, 18 Jun 2222 | | 1 Comment

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

Gov. Tony Evers has issued another executive order calling the Legislature into a special session for something that could have been proposed in the regular session. This time, Evers wants the Legislature to repeal the state law that prohibits all abortions unless the mother’s life is in danger. There are some curious aspects of Evers’ order.

 

The reason that Evers is calling for a special session is because a leaked draft of an opinion of the United States Supreme Court indicated that the high court is going to overturn the terrible Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. The court has not released the opinion and that may not be the case, but it seems likely that the court will finally correct this legal and moral abomination.

 

If that happens, it does not prohibit abortion. It would relegate the legal regulation of abortion to the states. In Wisconsin, state law still prohibits abortions except if the mother’s life is in danger. That state law would be in effect the moment the Supreme Court overrules Roe. Evers has been a longtime supporter of abortion. The only thing that seems to get his gears more than aborting babies is spending money on government education. He has a history of doing everything he can to support abortions, including giving millions of dollars of federal COVID relief money to Planned Parenthood. True to form, Evers is trying to make sure the abortion mill keeps grinding should Roe be overturned. Of course, the Republican-led Legislature is not going to repeal the state’s abortion ban. They know it. Evers knows it. Evers is calling for a special session for the sole political reason of making sure there are a few headlines from a compliant media that he can put in his re-election ads. It won’t sway any votes, but it will reaffirm his pro-abortion bona fides.

 

The language of Evers’ executive order itself is incredibly revealing. Words matter and, presumably, a lifelong educator chose his words with purpose. Let us look at a couple of excerpts. From Executive Order #168: “WHEREAS, licensed healthcare professionals should be able to provide appropriate, evidence-based medical advice to patients making reproductive healthcare decisions without fear of intimidation or criminal prosecution, and politicians should not interfere with the relationship between a patient and their doctor.”

 

Really? I seem to recall that Evers and his fellow Democrats have spent the last three years telling everyone that they must get a COVID vaccine. They have even mandated that people inject a new serum under penalty of law. They have shamed people who declined the vaccines and advocated that they should be shunned and prohibited from work. Forgive me if I roll my eyes at Evers’ protestations about politicians meddling in healthcare decisions.

 

Then there is this form the order: “without swift action, so many people — our neighbors, parents, families, and friends — could soon be unable to access the healthcare they need and deserve … .”

 

Did you notice something? In Evers’ full-throated defense of abortion, he never uses the word “woman” or that denotes that it is women who get pregnant and women who get abortions. In the new leftist orthodoxy, women are being erased with the dogma that anyone can get pregnant and have an abortion. The Democrats’ war on women is in full advance and Evers is merrily playing his fife in the vanguard.

 

Under this new convention, Evers is very specifically not defending women’s rights. He is defending abortions. Evers even calls his proposed law the “Abortion Rights Preservation Act.” Evers isn’t about women or women’s rights. He is about the abortions.

Login | Register

Archives

Categories

Pin It on Pinterest