For months, people around Wisconsin have been anticipating the opening of the summer blockbuster “Public Enemies.” A large chunk of the movie was shot here in the Dairy State, and our tax dollars subsidized filming it to the tune of about $5 million.

Seeing as how we are a full service free market think tank here at WPRI, I used this specious connection to go see the movie to determine whether it was tax money well spent.  I feel I am doing a public service to the taxpayers to report on the fruits of their generosity (and, I admit, I was excited to see if I knew anyone in the movie, and I have an unnatural man-crush on Christian Bale.)

I was actually surprised that they made me pay for a ticket, seeing as how my tax money has made me a co-producer of this film.  In fact, I’m still waiting for my director’s chair and bullhorn, and anticipate they will show up at my house any day now.

So here’s the quick synopsis of the movie:

It’s bad.  Really, really bad.  Closing in on awful.

It is apparent that about 20 bucks of our $5 million was spent on a script.  The movie meanders along, without any interesting dialogue or insight.  At 2 hours, 15 minutes, it’s about 45 minutes too long.  Johnny Depp, who plays John Dillinger, seems almost to be embarrassed to be in the movie at all.  Characters talk to each other with canned speeches that don’t even approach plausibility.  By the time the inevitable end came, I had checked my watch about 10 times.

Perhaps the most grating aspect of the movie is Oscar winning French actress Marion Cotillard, who’s about 15% as hot as an actress that should be playing that role.  Even worse is her attempt to speak English without a heavy French accent.  It comes and goes, which is interesting, considering she’s playing a character who’s half Indian and who grew up in Wisconsin.

In fact, isn’t there a big movement up at the Capitol to prevent the state from contracting with foreigners for government business?  There were a hundred American actresses that could have played that part - we should crack down on the OUTSOURCING OF OUR HOT ACTRESSES! (Holding hand over heart while the Star Spangled Banner plays in the background.)

For me, the only cool parts of the movie were the ones that took place in the Capitol, where I worked for 8 years.  I immediately picked out the North Hearing Room, where a lot of the partisan caucuses used to take place.  And I got the chills when the characters walk around the inside the Capitol.

I certainly don’t mean to dissuade anyone in Wisconsin from going to see the movie, especially if you recognize some of the sets in Columbus, Oshkosh and elsewhere.  But it really is a crushing disappointment.  I am amazed that big budget movies this bad can actually get made.  But who cares if Wisconsin taxpayers are out $5 million for a terrible movie?  SOME PEOPLE GOT TO WAVE TO JOHNNY DEPP!

In fact, conservatives have an opportunity here - if government-subsidized movies are this bad, imagine how bad government health care will be.  If people draw the connection, single-payer government health plans will be dead within a week.

In this most recent budget, Governor Doyle scaled back the film tax credit to $500,000.  It’s a good thing for supporters of the credit that he did so before seeing “Public Enemies.”  If had seen the movie in advance, he may have actually started charging movies to film here.

Perhaps most importantly, why didn’t anyone tell me that this guy from “Dazed and Confused” was in Wisconsin filming the movie?

Today, Governor Doyle signed the biennial budget, at the same time announcing his list of vetoes.  As anyone paying attention to the budget knows, the entire thing has been negotiated in secret, and given as little public scrutiny as possible.

As explained in his veto message, (p. 18) Doyle axes a provision of the budget that would have provided compensation for newspapers with a circulation over 40,000 in Milwaukee County (widely believed to be the Shepherd Express) for printing legal notices.

But it’s Doyle’s rationale for vetoing the provision that should draw some belly laughs:

“I am vetoing this provision because it should be subject to the full legislative process where the merits of the provision can be fully and openly debated.”

Apparently, the Governor is willing to make some exceptions to this deeply held conviction.  Like, for instance, every other portion of the budget.

Glad he’s willing to call the Legislature to task on such an important issue.

My new column is up over at the WPRI main site.  It discusses the lengths we now go to in order to block out information that’s sitting right there in front of our eyes.

The Eau Claire Leader Telegram was breathless with praise for Democratic State Senator Kathleen Vinehout a couple weeks ago, after she penned a “blistering” criticism of the state budget process.  In this column, Vinehout wrote:

The culture of the Capitol has to change. Our job as elected officials is to take what’s happening in our districts to Madison. Once in Madison, we all have to be involved in making decisions. If we agree to deals we are not party to making, we not only give up our own power, we give up the power of the voters in our district.

[...]

The culture in Madison has to change and the only way this will happen is when individual senators and representatives insist they must be included; the voices of the people in their district must be heard. We must refuse to have our arms twisted by those who make the deals behind closed doors.

Last night, Democratic leaders in the Assembly and Senate unveiled the details of their final backroom budget negotiations near midnight.  The Senate voted on the final package at about 12:30 AM, with virtually no debate, with very few legislators having actually read the contents.

Senator Vinehout?

“Aye.”

In fairness, it was over two weeks after Vinehout decried the very bill that she voted for.  Principles have expiration dates, after all.

Changing the culture of the Capitol, one hypocrite at a time.

So by now you know the themes in the Wisconsin State Budget.  It was crafted mostly in secret.  Several versions have passed in the middle of the night to avoid press scrutiny.  It contains bunches of non-fiscal policy items that have nothing to do with the actual budget, which makes Democrats’ claims about how “tough” a budget it was to pass almost laughable.  The budget raises taxes by something nearing $5 billion, which gives taxpayers about the same chance as a hot Argentinian woman has from escaping Mark Sanford.

Just because we all know these things, however, doesn’t mean it’s not worth continuing to point out the most egregious examples of special interest non-fiscal policy.  Take, for instance, a small law change inserted for the benefit of chiropractors.

Under current law, health insurance plans in Wisconsin have to cover chiropractic care. (More on this later.)  In order to be paid by the insurance company, the chiropractor charges copayment, coinsurance, or deductibles, then submits all the paperwork to the insurance company.

Under a small provision snuck into the budget (p. 29 of this document), chiropractors could waive copayment, coinsurance, or deductibles to patients, but also couldn’t be reimbursed by insurance companies for the amount that is waived.  While a small change, it could mean big business for chiropractors.

You see, doctors would not have the option to waive these fees and have them deducted from their insurance payments.  Therefore, it gives chiropractors a distinct competitive advantage over doctors - it makes their office visit cheaper to someone deciding whether to see a doctor or a chiropractor.  The chiros won’t mind being able to charge less up front, as they will be signing up a long term customer.  In essence, they can now undercut the competition, where they couldn’t before.

Now, you may be saying to yourself: “What does any of that have to do with the state budget?”  The answer, of course, is: nothing.  It has no fiscal effect whatsoever - it is merely a policy change meant to benefit one special interest group at the expense of another.

So how did that provision get in there?  Who put it there?  What effect will it have on health care?  Anyone?  Anyone?  Was there actually some legislator who heard from constituents asking them to give chiropractors a competitive advantage over doctors?  (Oh, and by the way - if you could get around to clearing up that $6.6 billion deficit, that would be great, too.)

What’s clear is this - a naked special interest giveaway of that kind probably wouldn’t pass as separate legislation, so it was buried in the budget to avoid scrutiny.  So far, so good - there appears to have been nothing written about it in the press.

What’s interesting is that chiropractors have the clout in the Capitol that they do in large part because state law granted it to them.  Years ago, the State Legislature mandated that all health insurance plans must cover chiropractic services - thereby raising the cost of insurance on everyone else.  This government protection scheme seems to have been lucrative for the chiropractors, as they have now become one of the most prominent lobbying organizations in Madison.

Several years ago, a couple state legislators began to take a hard look at removing the chiropractic mandate, in an effort to make health care more affordable.  The chiropractors began a coordinated campaign to flood legislative offices with faxes - each Capitol office got hundreds of faxes a day, jamming up their fax machines and causing legislative staffers to devote their whole day to minding the reams of faxes that flooded in.  After a few days, legislators relented and the faxes stopped coming.  The chiropractic mandate was safe.  (You may have missed the chapter on “guerilla tactics to protect your government-granted monopoly” in “How a Bill Becomes a Law.)

When this budget is passed and the autopsy is completed, it will be interesting to find out how this provision made it in.  Although we may not know for sure until the chiropractors start pumping some of their government-granted protection money back into the campaigns of legislative Democrats.  Funny how the Dems are anti-business until they run into one with a hefty campaign account.

If you’re a fan of movies (who isn’t?) and a follower of politics (who is?), I would strongly recommend you see “Please Vote For Me,” a documentary about a third grade class election in China.  (It is available via the online viewing option on Netflix, if you’re interested.)

Of course, you may wonder -  what’s so interesting about a 3rd grade class monitor election in China?  But like any good documentary, there are themes that are immediately recognizable to followers of politics in America.

The context is important - here is a country where communism still reigns, yet the teacher goes ahead with the class experiment in democracy.  So here you have people with no concept of how democracy works - yet as soon as the election starts, the kids immediately begin to utilize campaign tricks endemic to our electoral system.  They begin negative campaigning - pointing out each others’ faults, rather than emphasizing their own.  The candidates immediately start coordinating dirty tricks to embarrass each other.  One kid’s dad takes the whole class on a monorail ride to try to buy votes for his son.

There are a few scenes of their debates that are simply amazing.  One kid, Cheng Cheng, accuses the only girl running, Xiaofei, of being unable to lead because she eats her food too slowly.  She responds that it shows her to be deliberate.  Cheng Cheng tries to turn the class against the other candidate, Luo Lei, by asking how many kids in the class had been beaten by Luo Lei.  Half the class raises their hands.

There are a couple ways of looking at the movie.  It shows that these dirty tricks - negative campaigning, whispering campaigns, trying to buy votes, are simply an inextricable part of democracy.  This should be a wakeup call to all these “good government” groups that lose sleep over the fact that people actually have the right to speak out during campaigns.  There’s simply no way to micromanage campaign speech or contributions in a way that achieves some utopian vision of campaigning.

On the other hand, it shows that American candidates often behave like third graders.

Here’s the trailer - although it doesn’t do justice to how interesting of a movie it actually is.

Today, Wisconsin Governor Jim Doyle was scheduled to attend a photo-op with President Obama dealing with the issue of affordable health care.  According to Politico.com:

President Obama meets with five of the nine governors who co-hosted the Regional Forums on Health Care earlier this year. Govs. Jennifer Granholm (D-MI), Jim Douglas (R-VT), Jim Doyle (D-WI), Mike Rounds (R-SD), and Christine Gregoire (D-WA) will share the lessons learned and discuss the need to enact health reform that gets costs under control.

It seems natural that Doyle would go begging to Obama to fix health care in Wisconsin.  Virtually every move Doyle has made regarding health care has actually increased the cost to patients in the state - so it’s perfectly logical that Doyle would be batting his eyelashes at Obama in search of a bailout.

For instance:

• Doyle has proposed raising taxes on hospitals by hundreds of millions of dollars, expecting the federal government to match that revenue with more federal help.  Of course, these taxes will be passed on to health care consumers, raising the cost of their care - while the expected federal revenue will go to help patients in the Medicaid program, not to “control costs.”
• Doyle supports a bill mandating health plans cover autism services, which increases the cost of health plans for everyone in the state.
• Doyle also signed a similar bill requiring all Wisconsin health plans to carry coverage for cochlear implants and hearing aids for kids.  Again, another well-meaning piece of legislation, but one that will have the effect of raising insurance rates for health care consumers around the state.
• The current version of the state budget includes a provision that provides increased mental health coverage by insurance plans, which will be an extremely expensive new mandate.

Furthermore, Doyle’s strategy on health care hasn’t had anything to do with “controlling costs.”  He merely wants to spend more in order to get more people covered by the state - which does nothing to hold down the total cost of health care.

In fact, mere months after his BadgerCare Plus proposal went into effect, the program found itself over budget by $25 million.  There were no crafty cost control strategies or market forces at work here - the program followed the typical arc of a government health care program: Sign as many people up as you can, take political credit, and pass the buck when the program’s costs inevitably balloon out of control.  (Doyle’s proposals to raise the cigarette tax by $1.75 in the past two budgets haven’t been because he’s looking to hold down spending.)

Which brings us to today, when Governor Doyle is going to tell President Obama about all the trouble he has had holding down the cost of health care in Wisconsin.

But by buying in to Obama’s program, Wisconsin could lose a great deal of its flexibility and autonomy to deal with health care.  Instead of health programs tailored to Wisconsin’s citizens, we could easile end up with a cookie-cutter model deisgned for places like Georgia or New Mexico.  The Heritage Foundation explains the loss of state sovereignty in Obama’s plan, calling it the “demise of federalism:”

Undermining State Authority

Flexibility in Name Only: States have played a significant role in developing unique and innovative approaches to address the health care needs of their citizens. During the 08 campaign, then-candidate Obama promoted the idea of state flexibility, but as President he replaced this embrace of flexibility with an embrace of federal standards. Obama has already taken numerous steps to roll back many of the flexibilities extended to states in administering Medicaid and SCHIP.

Federal Control over Health Insurance: Currently, states regulate the health insurance available in their states. Under the Obama plan, the federal government would take over the role of regulator, leaving governors and state insurance commissioners to merely implement the new federal framework.

Unknown Costs to the States: The President’s plan is estimated to cost close to $1.6 trillion over the next 10 years. There is no easy way to pay for this reform. New taxes on businesses and individuals during a time of economic recession would only hurt a state economy. Also, don’t be surprised when the states themselves are left paying for part of the bill.

In fact, Heritage may be giving President Obama a little too much credit, seeing as he really doesn’t have a plan.  He has merely used the bully pulpit to stoke public opinion, including having photo-ops like the one Doyle is attending today.

So instead of meaningful health care reform that seeks to actually reduce health care costs, we will soon see more of the same overbudgeted programs that merely try to add as many names as possible to the government dole.  In Wisconsin, we have between 6% and 8% of individuals without health care - but because the issue has been so completely mismanaged, Governor Doyle has to go look for even more federal bailout money.

Very interesting report by Art Hackett on the “Here and Now” show on Wisconsin Public Television this weekend.  It discusses the pitfalls of gutting the W-2 program here in Wisconsin, as several versions of the budget are poised to do.

On Monday, Wisconsin Senate Majority Leader Russ said he was committed to retaining a tax on “big oil,” along with a dubious provision that prevents those oil companies from passing the tax on to drivers.  On Wednesday, the Senate unveiled their version of the budget, which completely eliminates the tax altogether.

You may say to yourself, “self, that doesn’t make any sense.”  Why would Decker so quickly abandon a lynchpin of his budget?  He really just realized on Tuesday that he couldn’t stop the oil companies from passing the tax through to consumers?  WPRI wrote our report saying exactly that in March of 2007 - it’s good to see him admit that he should have listened to us all along.

Here’s why - he merely needed to give a couple of his members a vote without the tax in it.  It’s coming back - you can bank on it.

Decker replaced the funding from the oil tax by eliminating the tax exemption for capital gains.  This is, simply put, insane.  It amounts to a $485 million tax increase on the middle class, many of whom have been waiting to cash out their retirement funds, and completely blows any argument Democrats have that this budget somehow only affects the rich.

But by replacing one unpopular tax increase with another even more unpopular tax increase, Decker will be able to argue that he’s somehow doing taxpayers a favor when he re-implements the original oil company proposal in the conference committee version of the budget as crafted by the leaders of the two houses.  Eventually, the Legislature will end up either where Governor Doyle and Decker were (with the no-pass through provision) or where the Assembly was, allowing oil companies to pass it through to consumers.

In positing this theory, I’m giving Decker a lot of credit for his political cunning.  But if I’m wrong and he’s actually serious about jacking up taxes on peoples’ retirement accounts during a recession, then he’s the most tin-eared politician alive.

Excellent article today by Steve Walters at the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel describing how last minute legislative budget votes were “bought” with pork projects.  From the article:

Madison - Facing a record deficit that forced them to raise taxes and fees by $2.1 billion to balance the budget, Assembly Democrats added millions for projects they can brag about back home - a $500,000 upgrade for an opera house; $50,000 for a shooting range; and $46,000 for a town’s recycling bins.

As they erased a $6.6 billion, two-year deficit, Assembly Democrats added $36.7 million in regional favors, according to a Legislative Fiscal Bureau summary.

The article goes on to say that Republicans have inserted pork projects in the past, so this is nothing new.  While this is true, during my four budgets working in the Capitol, I can’t remember individual projects being doled out to this extent.  (I am open to being contradicted on this, but it always seemed there were a handful of site-specific projects in each budget, not wheelbarrowloads, as there are in this bill.)

I was amused by this quote from Assembly Democratic Joint Finance Chairman Mark Pocan, in which he attempted to list past GOP pork projects:

In 2007, Pocan said, Assembly Republicans endorsed these pet projects: a soybean crusher for the district of Rep. Brett Davis of Oregon; chartreuse-colored license plates to help identify convicted sex offenders; and a tax break for trades involving gold bullion.

Exactly whose district did the colored license plates for sex offenders benefit again?  Is there some GOP representative with like 80% of the state’s pedophiles running around?

And if GOP Representative Brett Davis was so adept at getting the soybean crusher for his district, then exactly why is Democratic State Senator Jon Erpenbach (who represents the same area) bragging about it?

In 2008, Erpenbach sent out a newsletter to his constituents (designed and paid for with taxpayer funds) that features a picture of the Senator standing with a girl dressed as a giant foam rubber soybean, in honor of the new soybean crusher in his district.  Here’s the picture and Erpenbach’s description of the project:

Funny, I don’t see Erpenbach crediting Brett Davis for that pork in his district.  Maybe he should call Mark Pocan and tell him to keep quiet.