Perhaps the most unconvincing trashing of a campaign headquarters ever took place in Viroqua on Tuesday of this week:

VIROQUA, Wis. — Police in Viroqua are investigating graffiti vandalism at the local campaign office for Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama.

Someone used red and white spray paint on the plate glass windows of the Obama office on Main Street in downtown Viroqua.

Chief Mark Rahr says someone painted a big red “X” over an Obama campaign sign and wrote “wrong kind of change” below.

Over the Obama lettering on the front window, someone wrote “McCain” in white paint and “He’s a vet” next to it.

Someone also wrote in red paint “Obama is funded by….” and the letters become illegible.

Rahr says the vandalism occurred sometime Tuesday afternoon.

Right.

McCain can barely get conservatives excited enough to vote for him - what are the chances of a few being so stoked that they’d trash Obama’s headquarters?

Plus, do the profiles of “McCain supporter” and “political vandal” really match? How did they get away so quickly in their battery-powered wheelchairs? Who at the home left them unaccounted for?

Then again, the vandalism supposedly took place in mid-afternoon. Just in time to hit the 4:00 fish fry.  And the fact that the last shot against Obama went unfinished could be evidence of a short attention span:

“MCCAIN IS THE BEST….:

…NOW WHERE DID I PUT THAT TOOTHPICK AGAIN?”

The messages they painted are also somewhat less convincing. “He’s a vet?” “The wrong kind of change?” Any conservative hard core enough to trash the Obama headquarters wouldn’t have been able to resist something like “OBAMA’S PLAN TO RAISE TAXES ON CAPITAL GAINS SUX!!!!”

Needless to say, I am not convinced these were pro-McCain forces at work here. It could very well have been Obama supporters engaging in some chicanery, knowing Republicans would get stuck with the damage. (And likely engaging in a post-vandalism terrorist fist-jab for a job well done.)  Then again, had it been Obama supporters, they wouldn’t have been able to keep themselves from writing something like “VOTE MCCAIN FOR ANOTHER 100 YEARS IN IRAQ!”

As a veteran of conservative think tank-ism for over a decade, WPRI contributor David Dodenhoff today provides a little insight as to how reports are chosen and written.  He also gives a dead-on account of the debate that takes place after a conservative report is released.

Last year, as a guest blogger at Overlawyered.com, I pointed out the case of a Virginia restaurant being banned from selling “beersicles.” The “frozen beer on a stick” offering apparently violated a state law that requires beer be sold in its original container or served immediately after it is poured.

Thankfully, steps are being taken to correct this regulatory injustice. From Overlawyered:

Now the state legislature has enacted a bill sponsored by Del. Adam Ebbin and Sen. Patsy Ticer (both D-Alexandria) re-legalizing the cooling treats, which went back on sale July 1 in such flavors as framboise, cherry kriek, cassis, plum, and chocolate stout. (Erin Zimmer, SeriousEats.com, Jun. 25; Gillian Gaynair, “Rustico brings back beer pops for summer”, Washington Business Journal, Jun. 20).

The only question that remains - why can’t I get a beersicle in Wisconsin?

Today, I happened to catch this press release by State Representative Steve Hilgenberg of Dodgeville.  In it, he bemoans the “fact” that people have lost faith in the Supreme Court, due to the influence of special interests:

MADISON - State Representative Steve Hilgenberg (D-Dodgeville) today renewed his call to pass the Impartial Judiciary Bill after the state Supreme Court ruled on a tax case heavily influenced by special interest groups.

“This Menasha case clearly shows that we have to confront the influence of big money in the elections and affairs of Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices,” said Rep. Hilgenberg. “The public’s confidence in the court will continue to wane as long as special interest groups play such a large part in electing Justices.”

Of course, Steve Hilgenberg has no idea what role special interests played in the outcome - he merely knows he doesn’t like how the Court decided.  And his press release, instead of describing how people are losing faith in the State Supreme Court, is actually trying hard to erode public faith in the court.  Hilgenberg is actually on his knees begging the public to lose faith in the Court, in order to garner support for using tax money to finance campaigns.

Of course, public financing of campaigns will do nothing to curtail the outside spending on races that Hilgenberg bemoans.  As long as justices are elected, third parties will have the freedom to publicly support or oppose candidates.  Who finances the actual campaigns of candidates is really a minor point - in fact, contributions to judicial candidates are currently public information.  It’s the independent expenditures that good government types loathe - yet these independent groups have the freedom to speak out on these races.

What we’re left with are a bunch of legislators who are desperately trying to convince everyone that the Court is corrupt, without any evidence of such.  We should keep that in mind when Hilgenberg’s teacher union money comes rolling in during the upcoming election.

Victoria’s Secret is about to be revealed. It turns out those sexy little panties that have been turning heads and nearly bringing down world leaders for decades are not only extremely uncomfortable, they’re downright dangerous.

Last month, a 52 year old Los Angeles woman filed a complaint against Victoria’s Secret for product liability claiming the company’s product marketed as that sexy little thing, low rising v-string, has a product design flaw which caused the decorative clasp to come loose, fly up and hit her in the eye.

The plaintiff who is a Los Angeles traffic officer was forced to miss a few days of work and says the injury to her eye will affect the rest of her life.

At least she won’t have to keep adjusting her underwear.

My new column is up over at the WPRI mothership. It argues for allowing people to dry their laundry outside - something banned by the majority of U.S. neighborhood associations, and a great deal of local governments. It basically makes the case that people should have the right to save money, and help the environment if they choose to do so. It also shows that I’m probably corrupt, as I have accepted a great deal of cash from “big clothespin.”

Don’t let it be said that I don’t address the burning issues on the mind of every Wisconsinite.

Yesterday, I headed down to Discovery World on Milwaukee’s lakefront to catch the Concord Coalition’s “Fiscal Wake Up Tour.” The Coalition is made up of members of both left-leaning and right-leaning national think tanks who all agree that federal entitlement programs and government debt are going to swallow us whole in the decades to come if nothing is done to rectify the situation. Their panel was joined onstage by fiscal dreamboat Congressman Paul Ryan, whose “Roadmap for America’s Future” attempts to deal with the looming budgetary apocalypse.

For some background on the issue, watch this outstanding “60 Minutes” piece on former U.S. Comptroller General David Walker, who is heading up the Coalition’s education effort:

The panelists each made their case for changing the way government handles its entitlement plans, so the programs can remain fiscally solvent for our children. Each provided powerpoint presentations to make their points. They can be viewed here:

“Saving Our Future Requires Tough Choices Today,” By David Walker, President and CEO of the Peter G. Peterson Foundation

“Fiscal Wake-Up Tour Introduction (PowerPoint Presentation),” By Robert Bixby, Executive Director, The Concord Coalition

“The Budget and Entitlements: Time to Take Action (PowerPoint Presentation),” By Stuart Butler, Vice President for Domestic and Policy Studies, The Heritage Foundation

Since members of the coalition have different ideological backgrounds, naturally they didn’t completely agree on the measures necessary to remedy the budget imbalance. Alice Rivlin of the liberal Brookings Institution advocated for some targeted tax increases to boost federal revenue. Some of the conservatives conceded that a future plan will likely see a mix of revenue increases and spending constraints. Even Paul Ryan’s plan contains some provisions to raise revenue, which drew him a sharp rebuke from a Libertarian in the crowd, who called his plan “the Communist Manifesto.” During question time, Ryan also earned a harsh rebuke from a liberal in the crowd, which had people squirming in their seats. (And me considering crying and yelling “LEAVE PAUL RYAN ALONE!”)

Each panelist agreed that Social Security was going to be a lot easier to fix than Medicaid and Medicare. Social Security, while a big program, has a straightforward formula that sends money to recipients. In order to control costs, the remedies are clear.

Health care, on the other hand, is infinitely more complex. In order to control health care costs, you have to get a handle on a number of things - most of which, lawmakers can’t agree are actually causing cost overruns. Is it too much competition (duplication of services)? Is it not enough competition? Is it people not having the incentive to take care of themselves? Is it government not spending the money wisely?

It appears that video of the event will be available on WisconsinEye at some point, and I’ll link to it when it goes up.

My only complaint of the day was that it was held right next to Summerfest, which made parking impossible. According to the panel’s estimates, by the time I parked and walked to the event, the federal debt had increased by $100 trillion. They should have just consolidated venues and put the Fiscal Wake Up Tour on one of the Summerfest stages. Then again, the tour’s groupies might have gotten out of hand, as they normally do.

ANNOUNCER: “MILWAUKEE! ARE YOU READY FOR SOME FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY?”

CROWD (TOGETHER): “WE WANT SOCIAL SECURITY SOLVENCY! AND MORE BEER! PREFERABLY MORE BEER, IF WE’RE BEING HONEST ABOUT IT!”

In June, WPRI’s George Lightbourn and Sammis White issued a report that made recommendations on moving Milwaukee’s economy forward.  Among their recommendations was a plan to attract and keep more foreign-born college degree holders to the city.  They say:

While foreign-born college graduates are a prominent element in the economies of successful cities, a 2006 Census Bureau survey showed less than 1% of the college educated workers attracted to metro Milwaukee fit this description. The surest way to attract more foreign-born college graduates is to increase the number of foreign students attending Wisconsin universities. Not only do these foreign students tend to acquire majors that are critical to a knowledge-based economy, they are less likely than native-born students to return home after graduation. Somewhere between 37% and 53% of foreign-born UW graduates do not return home. This is a talent pool that could provide a critical ingredient to Milwaukee’s future growth.

Last week, George F. Will wrote a column that agreed with this premise on a national scale.  Will wrote:

The semiconductor industry’s problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk — immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.

Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America’s folly with “blue cards” to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.

Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting — often five or more years — for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America’s competitors.

Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers’ expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.

Will points out that efforts to increase the numbers of employment-based green cards always get stuck in the mire of broader immigration reform.  Yet this small change could be a large step to turning the lagging economy around.  It’s time we start importing the world’s brain power, and keeping them here.

It appears I have kept my decades-long streak of displeasing the ladies alive.

Today, the League of Women Voters issued a release critical of my column of last week, where I argue that trying to make legislative districts “electorally competitive” actually gives Assembly Democrats an eight-seat head start come election time. Otherwise, African-American votes are diluted and civil rights litigation hilarity ensues. In effect, this gives Democrats an eight seat “handicap,” a golf metaphor that appears to be lost on Andrea Kaminski, the author of the LWV release.

In their release, the LWV argues… well… actually, I’m not exactly sure what they’re arguing. Their main talking point seems to be that I don’t have anything to write about. They’re probably right in that respect. Maybe we can set up a public debate where we argue the merits of my workload. Other than that, they don’t seem to make any point that refutes anything I said in the column. For the sake of clarity, let me boil it down:

• When you make electoral competitiveness a standard for legislative redistricting, it is impossible to make inner-city districts competitive. Doing so would require diluting the African-American vote, a strategy of segregationists.

• As a result, there are at least eight Assembly districts (and at least two Senate districts) that will be exempt from the competitiveness standard. This gives Democrats an eight-seat head start in legislative elections.

Ms. Kaminski reiterates her support for having an “independent” board drawing district lines, since the Legislature can’t be trusted to do so. In fact, the courts actually set the boundaries every decade. The Legislature generally writes their plan, then it goes to court, where judges eventually draw the lines. It has been this way in every redistricting since at least 1974.

In any event, I am honored to now be Public Enemy #1 over at the League of Women Voters. They are welcome to get in line - it forms on the left.

Last week, George Lightbourn and I released a report that demonstrated that the proposed “Healthy Wisconsin” government health plan would run a large deficit. As expected, proponents of the plan pushed back - yet without addressing any of the concerns raised in the report.

I chuckled when I saw the following quote from State Senator Jon Erpenbach in Friday’s Wispolitics REPORT, referencing the study:

I don’t know where they’re getting their numbers, and second of all I’d like to know who backs them financially on this stuff. - Healthy Wisconsin sponsor Sen. Jon Erpenbach, D-Middleton, on the WPRI report.

First of all, it’s pretty easy to figure out where we got our numbers, since we lay that all out in the report, which Erpenbach clearly didn’t read. In fact, most of our data comes from the Lewin Reports on both the Wisconsin Health Plan and Healthy Wisconsin - reports which Erpenbach himself commissioned and uses to bolster his plan. Maybe he should get around to reading those, too, since he paid for them.

In fact, the math is pretty easy - the state Department of Revenue expects incomes to rise at 4.6% per year over the next 10 years. The Lewin Group expects health care costs to rise 6.5% per year over that same time. That creates a gap that has to be funded - and the Lewin Group itself says the plan will have to raise taxes in the future to make up the deficit. If Erpenbach disagrees with that premise, perhaps he should get his money back from the Lewin folks.

The second irrelevant criticism leveled at our report is to question our funding. This is even more entertaining, since people who spend all day polluting comment threads on blogs somehow aren’t able to perform a Google search to research WPRI’s funding. But, of course, this is all just a sideshow to distract people from the actual criticisms of the plan that we level - since proponents of the plan don’t really have an answer. Regardless of our funding (and honestly, I don’t even really know much about it), the facts are the facts - just ask the group commissioned by Jon Erpenbach to research the issue.

And as long as we’re on the funding issue, it might be instructive to look at who’s funding Jon Erpenbach’s effort to get Healthy Wisconsin passed. You may remember last year, when Erpenbach may have violated state law by co-mingling lobbyist money with his campaign funds to produce a poll showing support for Healthy Wisconsin.

From the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:

Lawmakers who joined with interest groups to conduct a poll on a proposed universal health care plan might have violated campaign finance laws by taking money from groups not authorized to make political contributions.

State Elections Board Executive Director Kevin Kennedy hadn’t seen all the details of the arrangement Tuesday but said Senate Majority Leader Judy Robson (D-Beloit) and Sen. Jon Erpenbach (D-Middleton) might have benefited from special-interest funds that aren’t allowed into the electoral process.

The two senators contributed campaign funds toward a poll also bankrolled by groups that cannot give to candidates.

If the interest groups had paid for the poll themselves and simply given it to the senators, there would be no trouble, Kennedy said. Potential problems have arisen because the poll combined political and non-political money.

“Our concern would be to make sure non-political money wasn’t providing a political benefit” to the senators, Kennedy said.

Oops. Maybe Erpenbach, who thinks we should use taxpayer money to run political campaigns in order to lessen the influence of lobbyists, should start the effort by actually adhering to the law himself.