A video from Reason:

Ladies and gentlemen, we are in for a long campaign season.

It’s only March, and we’re already getting ridiculous articles like this one, which attempts to criticize gubernatorial candidate Scott Walker for buying meals using privately-raised campaign funds for himself, staffers, and supporters.  I’m not supporting any specific candidate, so let me add that this article would be preposterous if it were about Mark Neumann, if it were about Tom Barrett, if it were about Russ Feingold, or whomever. (They’re still talking about the epic roast beef sandwich Feingold ate on the campaign trail in 1992.  Turned his whole campaign around.)

Let’s just take the most obvious points first:

Walker has been running his campaign for governor for about 18 months – his competitors, Mark Neumann and Tom Barrett, have been running theirs for about six months apiece.  So it should shock no one that Walker has spent more money on food and beverages.

Secondly, Walker’s message of frugality deals with the use of public funds – the article states so right there in the first paragraph:

“Republican Scott Walker wants supporters of his campaign for governor to join his “brown bag movement” to show how serious he is about cutting government waste and spending.”

Clearly, campaign funds are privately raised from donors – so it’s a completely different type of expenditure.  How Walker spends his campaign money is really between him and the people who have donated money to his campaign.

And it appears almost all of that food and drink spending is either for his campaign workers or to hold fundraisers in order to raise even more money.  I would bet somewhere in the vicinity of 100% of Walker’s donors would be okay with his campaign using their money to hold events to raise money from even more people.  It may shock the press to know that it takes money to raise money – primarily for overhead for campaign events.

What’s perhaps even most ridiculous is the quote from “good government expert” Jay Heck, who suddenly has become an expert on how Walker should spend his privately raised funds.  It’s laughable that Heck is somehow looking out for Walker’s donors.  Keep in mind – Heck advocates for taxpayer financing of campaigns, meaning he’d be much happier if Walker was buying his staff sandwiches with your tax money, and not from private sources.

I would have loved to be in the meeting where they cooked up this idea to “expose” Walker’s “hypocrisy.”  I know newspapers are having staffing troubles, but there had to at least be someone around to do even the most cursory fact checking.

And, course, what does any of this have to do with how a candidate is going to create jobs or balance the budget?  Nothing.

Ahhh, yes – we all remember the summer of 2009 as if it were yesterday.  Politics was still full of Hope and Change.  People argued about issues, and not back-waxing or naked intimidation.  When we said Tiger Woods was “on the prowl,” we were talking about golf. (SIDE NOTE: How “Naked Intimidation” hasn’t already been used as the title for a late-night Cinemax movie is beyond me.)

In the Wisconsin Legislature, 2009 brought a new state legislature – and with it, a slew of new tax hikes.  In order to fill a $6 billion budget hole, the Senate and Assembly approved a new $300 million tax on hospitals, which was supposed to draw down more federal matching  money.  Republicans roundly condemned this much-publicized “sick tax,” as they called it – pointing out that the tax will just be passed on to consumers, at the same time the legislature was complaining about the high cost of health care.  (Under the plan, the new federal matching money would be directed to hospitals with high levels of Medicaid caseloads.)  The GOP was actually successful in having a similar plan removed from the 2007-09 budget bill, but it was finally enacted in 2009 Act 2.

One would think that would end the debate about the “sick tax” – but as observers of the legislature know, if elected officials find a tax that the public can stomach, they will bleed it dry.  (For example, a single pack of cigarettes will soon cost more than an iron lung.)

That is why a new “sick tax” is quietly working its way through the legislature.  Under the original plan, “critical access,” or mostly rural, hospitals were exempt from the tax.  Under Assembly Bill 770, that exemption would be gone – and these hospitals would have to begin paying the tax.  According to a hospital lobbyist handout sent to legislators, the tax would collect $10.5 million in taxes, $4.6 million of which would go to the MA trust fund.  The remaining roughly $6 million would be used to draw down $11 million in federal matching aid.  So, in exchange for accepting a $10.5 million tax hike (which they just pass on to patients anyway), the hospitals reap $17 million in payments.  To hospitals, it looks like free money.

On March 5th, the bill passed an Assembly committee by a 7-2 vote, with one Republican supporting it.  It now makes its way to the Joint Finance Committee.

The problem with this bill is, of course, that it does nothing to address the real problem in health care – the growing cost of care.  Instead, it merely raises taxes to fund those increasing costs.  Furthermore, it builds in additional state costs with the promise of more federal aid.  If that aid dries up, the state is on the hook for the rest.  (Someone should ask Jim Doyle how his recent attempts at getting federal funds is going.)

What’s perhaps most troublesome is that this bill, while being rushed through while no one is looking, doesn’t appear to have significant Republican opposition.  In fact, three Republican senators (Olsen, Lasee, and Schultz) and a handful of GOP representatives (Ballweg, Bies, Murtha, Spanbauer, Townsend) are actually co-authors of the bill.  These Republicans are all rural, and likely believe this new tax will be a boon for their hospitals.

But if Republicans are counting on 2010 to be a big year for the party, they should be extremely careful about lining up to support tax increases to prop up unsustainable spending levels.

At this point, nearly everyone expects 2010 to be a big Republican year at the ballot box.  The real challenge for the GOP is to temper their enthusiasm and not go completely overboard in predicting landslide wins across the board.

But it seems a lot of Democrats are bracing for a big Republican year as well – and legislating as such.  As the Wisconsin legislative session nears an end, a few curious Democrat-authored bills have been cropping up that appear to be laying the groundwork for a Republican gubernatorial administration.

Take, for instance, a new bill that would give the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance a four-year term.  Currently, the Insurance Commissioner (Sean Dilweg, a really nice guy, incidentally) serves at the pleasure of the Governor.  This new bill would take that appointment power out of the governor’s hands for at least four years.

There’s really no reason to do this other than to lock in Governor Doyle’s cabinet appointees while a Scott Walker or Mark Neumann administration takes over.  If bills like this were to become law, a Governor Walker wouldn’t be able to appoint his own people to cabinet positions – he’d have to wait until their 4-year term was over.  Basically, the ghost of Jim Doyle would live to haunt Walker during his first term.

Then there’s this proposed constitutional change, which would weaken the governor’s vetoing authority.  Just two years ago, Wisconsin outlawed the so-called “Frankenstein Veto,” which allowed governors to stitch together sentences to create completely new laws.  (Full disclosure: I actually drafted the original resolution when I worked in the State Senate.)  At the time, there was no desire to go any further than the change we proposed – Democrats certainly would have blocked any move to further limit Jim Doyle’s veto authority.

But now, with a Republican administration seeming more likely, Democrats are willing to propose more stringent restrictions on the governor’s veto pen – something they refused to do in 2005, when Doyle was still popular.

These attempts to hamstring Scott Walker couldn’t be more obvious if they put a picture of him on the bills.  They should just go all the way and make them applicable “to any governor who used to be Milwaukee County Executive and whose name rhymes with stalker.”

It’s interesting, though, why Democrats would even propose these measures so close to an election.  If a dope like me can figure out that they’re nakedly partisan, then anyone can.  And it just makes them seem that they don’t have any faith in their candidate (rhymes with “carrot”) – so much so, that they’re pushing all their chips in to cripple an inevitable Walker administration.  Not exactly the shot of confidence the Mayor of Milwaukee needs.

Look out – Jim Doyle is irate.

Word came down today that Wisconsin was passed over for $254 million in federal “Race to the Top” funds, for which Wisconsin had applied in January of this year.  You may recall that in order to qualify for the funds, Wisconsin had to change their law that specifically stated that student test scores couldn’t be used in determining teacher compensation levels.  Early in 2009, President Obama’s education secretary, Arne Duncan, criticized states that shielded teachers from their students’ test scores, and threatened to withhold TOP funds from states that continued the practice.

Of course, when the federal government is handing out “free money,” the state legislature looks at them like my dog looks at me while I’m eating popcorn.  Democrats in the Wisconsin Legislature scrambled to put together a bill that did as little as possible to make any real change, then rushed it through both houses just under the deadline to apply for federal money.  (Their bill made connecting teachers with student test scores a permissible subject of bargaining – so it could happen, but only if the teachers’ union agreed to it. I’m sure the feds were like “wow – Wisconsin just cobbled together the most tepid bill possible in a naked attempt to get their hands on our money – they mean business!)

In the mean time, Governor Doyle called for a bill mandating mayoral control of Milwaukee Public Schools.  And he wanted that bill so badly, that the subject barely crossed his lips for the next eight months.  (Chances are, the maids at the governor’s mansion will find the original copy of the bill in one of Doyle’s couch cushions.)

Of course, in the first seven years of Doyle’s administration, there was virtually no attempt to improve schools through enhanced accountability measures.  MPS slugged along, while more and more children dropped out.  But suddenly, like a dancer at a strip club, Jim Doyle is willing to strap on the high heels and take to the pole when President Obama shows up and throws dollar bills at him.

What’s most amusing, however, is that Doyle seems to want to blame everyone else for his predicament:

“The train is leaving the station. But because the Milwaukee School Board continues to cling to the status quo – and because the State Legislature has so far failed to make real reforms – Wisconsin is not on that train,” Governor Doyle said. “Today’s announcement should be a wake up call to many. U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has made it clear. The federal government will provide significant resources to states that are serious about reform. Milwaukee needs clear, consistent, accountable leadership focused on reform.”

Anyone want to guess where “Jim Doyle – Champion of Accountability” was in 2003?

2004?

2005?

2006?

2007?

2008?

Oh yeah – he was busy harassing private choice schools – trying to make them more closely resemble the public schools that he now claims are so unaccountable.

By now, everyone knows the story of State Assemblyman Jeff Wood, who has been arrested three times within the span of about a year for OWI.  This makes five OWI arrests in all for Wood. While a committee has been formed to look at expelling Wood from the Assembly, it is clear Democrats will not take any action to remove Wood until they don’t need his vote anymore.

Other lawmakers, such as Republican Representative Steve Nass, have taken matters into their own hands.  Nass authored an Assembly Resolution to have Wood expelled from the Assembly.  He was the only one to sign on to his resolution, as it appears other representatives are content to let the process play out. (By the time any action is taken, it will be too close to the Fall elections for it to mean anything, as Wood has said he is not running for his seat again.)

But here’s where it gets good.  One would think that if you were the subject of an attempt to be thrown out of the Assembly, a little humility might be your best bet.  In Wood’s case, one would be wrong.

Wood actually drafted a wildly entertaining 12-page amendment to Nass’ resolution, in which he basically states his case to stay in the Assembly.  Wood goes through virtually every case in the last 50 years in which a legislator had a run-in with the law, and points out that none of them were sanctioned by the Assembly.  (He fails to point out, however, that none of them are currently serving, and many of them were out of office shortly thereafter.  Also, if you read through the offenses, none posed a threat to human safety in the same way as three OWIs did.)

On the second to last page, he cites a poll done by his local newspaper that says 57 percent of respondents believe no action should be taken against him, then he attacks Steve Nass, and finishes with this:

Resolved by the assembly, That Representative Jeffrey Wood not be held to a different standard than partisan legislators within this institution and based on the facts of this controversy the assembly takes no further action and the special committee on ethics and standards of conduct is hereby disbanded.

It’s pretty clear that Wood is resigned to the fact that he’s not going to get his name back anytime soon.  Don’t be surprised if he shows up on the floor of the Assembly wearing no pants, smoking a cigarette, and clutching a bottle of Jim Beam.  He’s got no one left to impress, and nothing left to accomplish.  Sadly, it’s his constituents who have paid the price.

Side note: My apologies to legislative attorney Stephen R. Miller, who actually had to draft that resolution.  Your time is more valuable than that.

I know, I know – we’re all sick of hearing about Tommy Thompson and whether he’s going to run for the U.S. Senate against incumbent Russ Feingold.  I will continue to say he’s out until he’s not.

But IN THE EVENT he’s in, a friend of mine in the legislature passed on a suggestion about how he should do it:

It’s May 22, 2010, at the Republican state convention in Milwaukee.  After all the candidate speeches, Senate frontrunner Terrence Wall strides up to the podium to raucous applause.  The crowd settles to a hush, and Wall begins his speech.  He speaks softly at points, and occasionally builds to a crescendo.  Finally, at the end of his speech, he’s ready to accept the party’s nomination.  At the top of his voice, he shouts…

“AND I AM HONORED TO ACCEPT THE PARTY’S…..”

Then, in mid-sentence, some loud music starts to play, interrupting Terrence Wall’s speech.  Someone from the from the Winnebago County delegation yells “WAIT – ISN’T THAT TOMMY THOMPSON’S MUSIC?”

At the same time WPRI is releasing a study demonstrating the superiority of public pension programs over private plans, similar fights are brewing around the country.  Take Fairfax County, Virginia (my home county, incidentally), which is proposing raising taxes specifically to fund higher benefits for teachers: (Via Reason)

“The FCTA asked why the school board is urging the supervisors to raise taxes by $81.9M although only $9M is needed to pay for next year’s expected increase in student enrollment.

“The school superintendent acknowledged that the reason is the increased cost in employee benefits, especially pensions. According to the schools’ proposed FY2011 budget, employee benefits costs are increasing by $98M, of which $71M is for pensions and another $15M is for retiree medical benefits.

Reason continues:

Hard-fact time: Taxpayers everywhere are shelling out many, many, many more real dollars per student for public education than they were 30 years ago (with no clear improvements in outcomes [see this and this]). Indeed, inflation-adjusted costs per pupil have gone up over 200 percent since 1970, while student achievement is flat (at best). Can you think of any other part of your life (especially one in the private sector) where you are paying twice as much for the same freaking outcome? Say what you will about rising medical costs, but the pills that cure our ills nowadays are so much better…

As we’ve noted here, this is a story that is only going to gain in regularity as the gap between public-sector and private-sector compensation grows (public-sector already has a 70 percent advantage!) and as private-sector workers increasingly fund their own retirements via 401(k)s.

You can read the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story on the WPRI Report here.

Also, in May of last year, I wrote a column in the Journal Sentinel detailing how government pays the employee portion of the “employee contribution” to employees’ pensions.

We do a good bit of polling here at WPRI, and it’s fairly rare that we see really extreme numbers on any issue.  (The only one that comes to mind is that 6% of Wisconsin residents think their elected officials are working in the interests of the voters.  Yikes.)

So it comes as news that only 6% of respondents in a recent New York Times/CBS poll believe that the federal stimulus bill passed a year ago actually created jobs.  SIX PERCENT.  I would bet that if you took a poll right now, ten percent of Americans think Barack Obama is from Jupiter.

In fact, I looked for other parallels – take, for example, this Zogby poll from 2007, in which 4.6% of respondents said they believe certain U.S. government elements actively planned or assisted some aspects of September 11, 2001 attacks.  So about the same number of people believe the stimulus created jobs as believe Dick Cheney was on a headset barking orders to the 9-11 terrorists.

(In fact, the group that believed the U.S. was behind the attacks the most were those with only a high school education (9.6%).  Go to college, kids.)

In somewhat related news, over at Pollster.com, Charles Franklin explains how two starkly different charts can explain the same phenomena.  This is a response to a chart that had been floating around the internet purporting to show the unemployment situation getting much better under President Obama than it had been under George W. Bush.

Here are the two relevant charts:

And:

Franklin sums it up:

The OfA chart gives the impression that we have “returned” to where we were in January 2008. The sharp rise since February 2009 gives the impression that what was lost in red has now been regained in blue. But of course, that isn’t right. The rate of loss has indeed slowed tremendously in the first year of the Obama administration, something the White House has every right to crow about. But that doesn’t mean we’ve returned to previous employment levels. In fact, we’ve continued to sink lower throughout the last year, just at a slower and slower rate…

Same data, two charts, two different impressions, both fundamentally true yet also fundamentally misleading in opposite ways.  When data and politics mix beware the power of graphs to imply their own conclusions, even with the same data. And appreciate the rhetorical success of a graph that does it’s creator’s bidding.

So it seems the entirety of Wisconsin’s press corps (pronounced “core” for aspiring presidential candidates) is interested in where Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan has been privately introducing his motions.  When initially asked by reporters whether he was dating a lobbyist with pending interests before the Legislature, Sheridan denied it, saying the two were just “friends.”  A day later, Sheridan conceded that, in fact, the two were dating – but the damage had been done.  He lied to the media – and once you do that, you’re like a mouse dropped into a snake pit.  Reporters around the state are now digging around Sheridan’s campaign finance reports to see whether he was wining and dining his ladyfriend with his campaign funds.  Had he come clean at the time, this would be a two day story – instead, he’s hemorrhaging political capital.

I haven’t written anything about this yet, because I just figured Sheridan’s dating habits weren’t really my business.  Generally, these workplace rules about who two grown adults can or can’t date are nonsense.  They essentially just mean “don’t get caught.”  (Incidentally, there could have been a state law mandating someone from my workplace date me, and I wouldn’t have been able to find someone to go out with.)

Furthermore, I guess I was just willing to give the Legislature the benefit of the doubt and say they weren’t passing this payday loan bill because it’s a terrible bill.  (After all, Shanna Wycoff’s love couldn’t have been so powerful that it kept the Democrat-controlled Senate from passing a bill, too?  OR COULD IT?)

But it is interesting how the issue has been portrayed in the press since Sheridan came clean about the relationship.  Here there was a bill to regulate businesses – that actually occasionally throw a lifeline to people with credit so bad they can’t even get a checking account.  (Full disclosure: I actually used one of these payday loan places during college, when my credit was abysmal. Banks would actually send goons out front to tackle me before I even walked in the front door.)

But, of course, here comes a bill to stop people from freely engaging in contracts to which they happily agreed.  And because the bill was stopped cold, reporters and good government groups immediately blamed it on Sheridan’s conflict of interest.  Our favorite good government lefty immediately chimed in:

“There’s no way the public will ever buy his argument that his relationship will have no effect on his handling of the payday loan legislation,” said Mike McCabe, executive director of government watchdog Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

Now, however, because of Sheridan’s conflict of interest, the Assembly feels like they have to pass the bill, to counter allegations that they’re corrupt.  Assembly Democrats claim that it’s pure coincidence that this bill is now moving like a cheetah on ice skates, after being a corpse two weeks ago.  (Again, pronounced “corpse.”)  Now, suddenly, the will of the people is being served – and forget about why that may be.  Nothing to see here.

So in case you’re keeping track at home: Holding up a liberal bill because the Speaker of the Assembly has a girlfriend is corruption.  Passing the same liberal bill because the Speaker of the Assembly has a girlfriend is just GOOD GOVERNMENT.

Naturally, now that the bill is moving, you won’t hear a word from any of these co-called “corruption watchdogs,” despite the bill only seeing action for the same reason it didn’t see any action before.  Their level of outrage is directly commensurate to the amount they agree with the legislation being held up.  Today’s Milwaukee Journal Sentinel article on the bill passing through a committee is curiously lacking any good government group quotes.

So while I generally give Sheridan a pass, it is worth noting that he tends to be the kiss of death wherever he goes.  He was a union leader at the General Motors plant in Janesville, which is now defunct.  Then he took over the speakership of the Assembly, which immediately took a bad budget and made it worse.  And if he stays on as Speaker, it almost seems likely that the Assembly will flip back into Republican hands under his watch.  So while this “scandal” may not be that big of a deal to some, it could end up costing him his political career if reporters start to come back with actionable intelligence on his nationwide trysts.