|
 |
4/30/2009
We taxpayers should be outraged
In a column in the Tomah Journal, Wisconsin Association of School Boards Executive Director John Ashley argues convincingly against major changes in labor law directed only to school employees. (It’s WEAC payback time.)
The formula is simple. Spend lots of money electing WEAC friends. Control, fair and square, the legislature and the governor’s office. Slip policy in the budget that will eliminate salary caps for school employees and force many districts into arbitration. Then cap it all off by eliminating local economic constraints as an arbitration consideration. Instantly, nearly unlimited wage and benefit increases. Couldn’t be easier. Emphases are mine in Ashley’s piece, below.
Under the current rules, when any local government -- city, county or school district -- can’t amicably resolve an employee contract with a local union, the two sides take their last best offers to an outside arbitrator. Both sides make their case and the arbitrator decides who wins. When making a decision, arbitrators must consider the local government’s state-imposed revenue limits and the local economic conditions of the community as the two most important factors. That isn’t just common sense -- it’s the law.
However, there is a provision in the proposed 2009-11 state budget to specifically exempt school district arbitrations from the requirement that arbitrators consider and give the greatest weight to revenue limits and local economic conditions. Add this to the possible repeal of the 15-year-old qualified economic offer (QEO) law and we fear the scales are tipped to favor the teachers unions at taxpayers' and students' expense.
In essence, the QEO allows school boards to avoid costly arbitrations by offering their teachers at least a 3.8 percent annual increase in compensation. If the QEO is repealed in the budget -- as the governor has proposed to do -- the effect may be to open up contract negotiations to unlimited demands, increasing the likelihood that districts will be forced into arbitration.
In these tough economic times with school district revenues not increasing and unemployment at record highs, a salary increase will be a tough sell, either to school boards who are faced with significant reductions in all areas of the local school budget or to arbitrators.
So a proposal has been made to dramatically diminish the importance of revenue constraints on schools and local job losses, which dramatically changes the rules for how school district arbitrations are conducted. It should be noted that the rules will remain the same for all other local governments -- arbitrators will continue to be required to consider and give greatest weight to the revenue limits and local economic conditions for cities, counties and others.
Proponents claim the rule change won’t matter for school districts, because ability to pay will still prevail in arbitrators' decision making. If that is the case, then why change the law? And why change it only for school districts?
Taxpayers should be very concerned -- perhaps outraged over these proposals. They hold the potential to dramatically impact the way school dollars are spent.
The real challenges facing public education today demand collective solutions. Please join us in calling on legislators to put children first and urge them to seek real school funding reform, and not to simply change the rules for school district arbitrations. Indeed, I repeat. Taxpayers should be outraged at these proposals! Let your outrage be heard.
Call your state senator and your state representative.
Object to the elimination of the QEO.
Object to changing arbitration rules for schools.
Object to both of these issues being included in the state budget, AB 75.
Call and write. It’s your right – and your responsibility.
Jo Egelhoff, FoxPolitics.net
COMMENTS
>>> "Spend lots of money electing WEAC friends."
Or the alternative, Jo, is to get the influence of WEAC (and WMC and all other) money out of the system and let politicians create budgets in the best interest of the taxpayers rather than the people that fund their elections. (Sorry, I just had to say it.)
Jack Lohman (Thu Apr 30 07:53:16 2009)
Nothing surprising here! It will be the way of the day for the next two years till Conservatives take over the houses in Madison and Washington.
John Hyland (Thu Apr 30 08:00:53 2009)
Sad to say, I doubt they (state govt) will listen...I went to one of the budget hearings, and any time anyone spoke from a conservative viewpoint, the panel practically rolled their eyes. You'd think they'd have had respect for WWII vets pushing 90 (my dad and another guy) but no such luck.
In fact Jorgenson actually DID roll his eyes while my dad was saying that after all his experiences working with govt (either via contracts or as a school bd. member), his conclusion is that govt. is one of the most inefficient entities there is, compared to private business.
I doubt this whole thing is even about money anymore; it's about power: the power to throw weight around, even if it means financial DEATH. WI is suffering a fatal disease: Doyle-ism, which causes metastatic growth of the deficit, painful taxes, and if not treated, DEATH of the economy. Fight Doyle-ism--join the recall effort, and send him a message he won't forget in a hurry!
emily matthews (Thu Apr 30 08:00:53 2009)
John, the conservatives aren't any better. Follow the money. Special interests fund elections so lawmakers spend money foolishly, and they didn't have to run for election. They are just now sending their money to the Dems.
Jack Lohman (Thu Apr 30 08:10:33 2009)
This is typical Doyle/WEAC behavior. WEAC poured MILLIONS of dollars into the Doyle campaign, and now they are calling their tab, and Doyle, like a good bought-and-paid-for lackey, is doing their bidding.
The absolute arrogance of doing this and saying it won't have any real affect on the way contracts are arbitrated is stunning. School districts need to get tough and say that, fine, if you want these types of increases, then the number of positions will need to be cut to accommodate them. And please, for the love of mike, start with the administration, not the teachers?
Simple math, something these WEAC people aren't teaching, or apparently capable of.
Steve Oswald (Thu Apr 30 08:30:28 2009)
The other point on the QEO that needs to be emphasized is that parents and teachers and kids should be outraged, too. With revenue caps still in place and compensation rising, perhaps twice as fast (see late 80's), the end result will be cuts in everything a school does, except compensation. And, ultimately, who is hurt by that? Students and the people who care about them.
"It's about the kids," right?
Tom (Thu Apr 30 09:53:45 2009)
Simple math, Steve? Why is it that conservatives don't understand that either? The problem is cash flow from special interests, and it's on both sides of the isle. The taxpayers are getting screwed by the campaign contributors.
Yes, you may get tired of hearing it and I get tired of preaching it. But one thing I learned early in life is cause and effect. And that money works as intended. It influences spending, and especially politicians. And until both conservatives and liberals learn that, we are stuck with what we have.
As many of you know, I'm a supporter of public funding of campaigns. Had we implemented the Clean Money system years ago we wouldn't be complaining about WEAC influence today.
Now, I've said my piece and you guys can continue ignoring the "cause" and complaining about the "effect." But it is getting you nowhere.
Jack Lohman (Thu Apr 30 10:25:19 2009)
Jack, just once, remove your blinders. Just once. Ok, we hear your argument about publicly funded campaigns. But here's the question Jack: How best should school costs be monitored and/or controlled? WEAC (and other public sector unions in Wisconsin), funded by employee dues which are paid for by taxpayers, maintain tremendous power over those self-same taxpayers because there is no bottom line against which to judge wage and compensation costs and increases. Just for today Jack, take off your darn blinders and deal with the specific taxpayer (and parent, grandparent, student, community, as Tom so aptly reminds us) challenge put forth here today.
Jo (Thu Apr 30 10:37:15 2009)
Jo, I am not a WEAC supporter and favor the competition that school choice would provide. And even virtual schooling. But until we get the private money out of the system we must deal with the corruption that WEAC has working for it at the moment. You must -- absolutely MUST -- get your blinders off. Until we get the corruption fixed it makes absolutely no sense fighting "today's problem."
Jack Lohman (Thu Apr 30 10:47:19 2009)
But as well, let me say how I'd start.The very first place is to install what industry used to call a "time and motion" engineer. We need a non-partisan committee to study every aspect of the state government and make recommendations on what departments to close (because they are no longer needed) and what government procedures should be eliminated. Schools and local governments would have their necks on the block.
But even that is wishful thinking under our current moneyed system. Live with it, or fix it. Our system should be driven by logic, not money.
Jack Lohman (Thu Apr 30 10:58:55 2009)
Jack says:
"Now, I've said my piece and you guys can continue ignoring the "cause" and complaining about the "effect." But it is getting you nowhere."
Would that you take your own advice. I have on numerous occasions pointed out the ILLOGIC of your assertions. But once again. Even IF we could publicly finance campaigns, how can you stop folks like WEAC from lobbying their own members? And tell me why corruption that already exists will not continue? And if we give GOVERNMENT the "duty" to support candidates, how can we be sure that all candidates will be treated equally? Would not the government directly or indirectly tilt the table in favor or pro-government candidates? And what limits (after all resources are limited) can we place on what support government gives?
And since they will take MY tax dollars for ideas and candidates that I find abhorent, is this not a violation of my right of property in my own income?
You ignore that it is not money per se that is the problem, but the power that is exercised. And one way it WILL be exercised is to use the public treasury to buy votes. Money COULD, and occasionally IS used to put good candidates into office. But with or without public financing, unless we the people elect wise and moral candidates, the corruption and abuse of power will persist, with or without public financing.
Each and every "campaign finance law reform" has created problems greater than the ones they tried to solve. "Special interests" have always found new and inventive ways around the new laws. And given the nominal right of free speech, I suspect this will ever be a "problem."
Ken Van Doren (Thu Apr 30 12:07:47 2009)
Jo;
You are right. We should be, and many of us are outraged. The unfortunate fact is that the Doyle and Obama (as well as the GB II and Tommy Thompson) regimes have given many of us way more reasons to be outraged than we have energy for. On the one hand, this is a danger. On the other, what seriously, can we do, other than recall Doyle?
Maybe I have answered my own question. Get him out, and many of the assaults on our liberties and pocketbooks, at least those originating in Madison, could be curtailed-IF we replace him with the right candidate.
Ken Van Doren (Thu Apr 30 12:12:17 2009)
Ken, you are right on one count. Convincing right-wingers to support a non-conflicted government is like spitting into the wind. They don't get it. I should give up.
>>> "... how can you stop folks like WEAC from lobbying their own members?"
WEAC can lobby their own members as much as they want, and even the state legislators. But if they don't lobby the latter with cash in hand, the politicians will think through their decisions before casting a vote.
>>> "... if we give GOVERNMENT the "duty" to support candidates, how can we be sure that all candidates will be treated equally?"
Educate yourself on the system, Ken. The government only provides the funding for the candidates once they qualify. They can't select them or favor them. They are all treated alike (even the Libertarians in Arizona that took public funding). The government provides everybody that qualifies the same amount of *money* (but zero "support").
>>> “And since they will take MY tax dollars for ideas and candidates that I find abhorent, is this not a violation of my right of property in my own income?”
Ken, you can’t be that challenged. The government ALREADY IS taking your tax money and giving it to candidates you don’t support! Follow the money. A Democrat special interest gives cash to a Democrat politician (that you don’t support) and he in turns gives your tax money back to the special interest. It’s about a 10-to-1 ratio because the special interest has to also offset the cash he gave the politician. Thus we already have public funding of campaigns, it's just through the back door.
>>> “You ignore that it is not money per se that is the problem, but the power that is exercised.”
What is it about “money” do you not understand? If “money” was not key, it wouldn’t be given. Money and power co-exist. If you have one you also have the other. Take the money out and you lose the power. Take the power out and you lose the money. So, now, you convince the politicians to write laws that reduce their power :-). We’re having enough problem convincing them to get the money out of the system.
Ask the folks in Arizona and Maine. They love their systems and continue to support them in the voting booth. Also, see http://www.wicleanelections.org for details on how the system works.
>>> “… given the nominal right of free speech, I suspect this will ever be a "problem."
It is voluntary thus passes constitutional muster. Sorry.
Jack Lohman (Thu Apr 30 12:48:57 2009)
JO:
Boy did you stir up a "hornets nest" on this topic but there was some excellent back and forth logic that was really not just nasty talk but people really thinking how it could be changed including a recall of Governor Doyle.
I can't really add much to the discussion but there is a third way to get at this problem.
Jack mentioned it in some of his comments which is to really promote school choice which is really bringing some competition to the public school system. In the private sector, competition is what keeps the costs to the customer down.
This could also be used in municipalities and counties in the form of privatizing some of their functions. You don't have to go thru arbitration to do it and it brings competition to the table when bargining.
Most officials don't want to do it because it "rocks the boat" and they do not like conflict.
Some counties like Manitowoc and Sheboygan have had strong county executives who have not tolerated the status quo and the complancency of the board and have saved the taxpayer money by privatizing their health centers.
Instead of arguing about arbitration rules and QEO we should be pushing for more school choice and pushing our county officials to look at more privatizing. Otherwise we are just discussing the position of the deck chairs on the Titanic. It is time for bold action instead of intense dialogue and it starts in your own backyard by letting your "local" elected officials know where you stand.
Of course it is very easy to respond to a blog like this but it takes real effort to get involved at the local level and put some pressure on.
I admire the people who are doing something about it like Jim Steineke with the Tea Parties and the recall Doyle effort. These people are putting their effort into concrete action to get things done and we should support them 100%
Mike
Mike Thomas (Thu Apr 30 14:59:40 2009)
Mike, I don't see school choice as driving down costs, I see it increasing quality, as one set of teachers try to be better than the other set and make sure that their segment is looked upon more favorably than the other.
Generally, privatizing is more costly than public services when you consider the need to recover profits for shareholders, high CEO salaries and even their campaign contributions that are passed on to the taxpayers. And that may happen over time with schools.
Jack Lohman (Thu Apr 30 18:04:35 2009)
Jack
Your willful ignorance is of such astounding proportions that I will not respond to most of what you have replied, except these 2 points:
On public financing, whatever scheme is used will continue to favor incumbents. They should not be allowed to spend at all, since the government already pays them a full time salary, and most of what they do-that is, spend public money on, is to insure their re-election. And I HAVE talked to folks in AZ. It seems some of my libertarian freinds out their were thanked for their $5 donations by Janet Napolitano, donations, btw, that they never made. She needed so many such minimal donations to qualify for the highest "donation" from the government, that is, the taxpayers. So again, insiders will corrupt the system, and until we muster the courage to throw the bums out, corruption-with or without public financing.
And this is especially astounding:
"Generally, privatizing is more costly than public services when you consider the need to recover profits for shareholders, high CEO salaries and even their campaign contributions that are passed on to the taxpayers. And that may happen over time with schools."
Apparently you have never been in a county shop, watching 4 men do the work of one---ON A GOOD DAY!! I have. By the time you figure in overhead, pensions, and most likely one of the best and most expensive health plans out there, you could double the private sector charges for the same work, and come out ahead.
Ken Van Doren (Fri May 01 08:27:50 2009)
Ken, if I were you I wouldn't respond either. I would not want to further show the public your total lack of knowledge on the subject.
Yes, incumbents will always have the advantage of name recognition, but they also have the disadvantage of a record to defend. But if you truly believe in muzzling them in violation of the 1st amendment, I'll let you handle that one.
As I've pointed out above, the waste in county shops clearly must be curbed, and our total government must be scrubbed.
But when I look at our private Medicare Advantage systems costing 17% more than our traditional Medicare, and private troops (Halliburtion and Blackwater) costing 5 times what our Army troops cost us, and the taxpayer-owned electric company in Los Angeles County being a fraction of what the private industry charges, with the former being unaffected by Enron.... I stand by my statement. It's hard to argue against facts.
But you continue supporting our corrupt system and I'll continue trying to clean it up. I think I have the majority on my side.
Jack Lohman (Fri May 01 09:12:32 2009)
Jack;
It is not at all that I am afraid to respond, but rather the fact that YOU are so impervious to fact and logic that the futility of same is increasingly apparent. AND I HAVE had these arguments with you before, as you will recall.
RE: first amendment. Exactly. I do not oppose it. In fact I opposed McCain Feingold PRECISELY because it is an attack on freedom of speech. YOU would limit free expression by further regulating political speech. My suggestion is that IF we have any "reform," the many ways that incumbency pays the incumbent to run, the fairest thing is to limit incumbents to NO outside contributions. But what do you think the chances of incumbents limiting their own re-electability? THAT is the problem we face-few incumbents will vote against their own self interest, but WILL vote for measures that limit the ability of challengers to pose serious challenges. The unfortunate fact is that challengers MUST spend more in most situations, just to be on an even keel with incumbents. Limiting contributions and free speech definitely favors incumbents. Or are you proposing that challengers be given more public financing?
Oh, and it is no surprise to me that at the national level especially, with no bid contracts, and with the many stipulations in contracts that contractor sometimes are more expensive than government employees. But even there, by NOT including the loaded costs of government labor,(pensions, benefits, etc,) the true price of government employees often is often not fully accounted for.
If you think a complete government takeover of medicine will reduce costs, you apparently have been inhaling. Such an assertion runs contrary to history. But stay tuned. Now that the government is going to be more involved not only in health care, but in industry and finance, we will see how well socialism works....once again. Sad that we can not learn from history.
But enough of pearls before swine...
Check back with me in 4 yrs Jack. You are likely to get your wish. Let us just see how it plays out.
Ken Van Doren (Fri May 01 10:09:28 2009)
Ken, I know what you mean. I am indeed dense, but I have the majority of the public on my side. Yes you've responded before but never stuck around long enough to have a discussion. And even here you claim "futility." Indeed, when you are not on the right side of the argument, I guess it is futile.
I opposed McCain-Feingold too, but only after McConnell and DeLay gutted it. But if it was so bad it should have been challenged at the Supreme Court, and it hasn't been to my knowledge.
But public funding of campaigns does not stifle free speech. A candidate can opt out and take all the campaign contributions he wants to. A CHALLENGER can also opt out and take all the campaign cash they want to. Nobody is locked into the system.
Public funding actually INCREASES speech, because it gives all candidates (even Libertarians) enough money to run a credible campaign. And it lets the public here from candidates other than the incumbent.
It would actually HELP Libertarian candidates, though I don't know any that are very pragmatic.
And on Medicare, get your head out in the open. Our "privatized" system costs 16% of GDP and Canada's runs just 10%. And 11% would eliminate their wait times. Even still, 80% of Canadians prefer their system to ours.
Learn from history? You mean, like a free-for-all, unregulated conservative system? Like getting George Bush back?
Jack Lohman (Fri May 01 10:39:16 2009)
why do people worry so much what public employees earn, you don't see people complaining what miller eletric, or any other private employees are making.
maybe people should pay for their children to go to school like they do for private schools or college. then no one would have to complain about what the teachers are paid.
joe jackson (Fri May 01 12:42:00 2009)
Because Joe, it's our taxpayer dollars that taxpayers must continuously be asking questions about. How does one decide what's enough and what's not overspending? At Miller Electric, wages must be competitive in the marketplace AND must allow the company to make a profit, to pay bondholders and shareholders and to make a profit so as to further invest in the growth of the business. That's the bottom line. For public sector employees, there is no bottom line. Hence the importance of some other measuring stick. If wages, health and and pension benefits increased by 5% and school property taxes increased by the same amount next year, is that too much, when many taxpayers' wages are declining? 7% - is that too much? 15%? When is it you would begin asking questions?
Jo (Fri May 1 12:52:15 2009)
I love it. Even this Canadian gets it: Click Here
The bank lobby: The banks and other big business lobbies are so powerful because politicians are dependent on them for campaign donations. And that's because running for even one Senate or House of Representatives seat is so frigging expensive.
This is why America needs campaign finance reform: so that Representatives and Senators can do things for the voters in their constituencies instead of the richest lobby group.
Jack Lohman (Fri May 01 22:05:17 2009)
Jo;
Great response to Joe.
Jack, Even IF you are correct, and a majority does favor your position, so what? When Copernicus and Galileo went against orthodoxy, they were persecuted for what came to be known as truth.
54% of voters favored Obama. One Bad A.. Mistake America. Which more and more people are finding out. (and YES, McCain was a terrible candidate too. Which probably means that a better candidate might have won.) Truth and majority are not necessarily the same thing. If you can not comprehend that simple truth, it is no surprise that you can not comprehend others.
So bankers and special interests control America!!! Believe it or not, that hardly comes as a revelation to me. The problem is, if WE keep voting for liars whores and theives, it is to a considerable extent a reflection of us as voters. UNTIL Americans become moral and informed voters, we will be subject to those who use their power to buy votes- either with private donations or with the public treasury.
RE: public financing, the system DOES discriminate against non-incumbents and third parties. Without insulting your intelligence, I can not figure out how you fail to see this. And to expect INCUMBENTS to vote against their own self interest in order to pass a "FAIR" set of campaign finance rules is like expecting the sun to rise in the west. Keep on waiting. It may yet happen. But I am not going to expect it.
AGAIN, it may be the hard way, but the surest way to have the type of candidates we need be successful is to educate the public to become better informed and more moral people. And like it or not, that takes money. Unlike you, I am not willing to sacrifice the rights of even those I disagree with in order to pursue my agenda. That is a slippery slope that leads to despotism and slavery.
Save your breath here Jack. I will catch up to you the next time I have the time and inclination to challenge your half truths and misconceptions.
Ken Van Doren (Mon May 04 10:38:03 2009)
Jack says:
"Learn from history? You mean, like a free-for-all, unregulated conservative system? Like getting George Bush back?"
How can you believe such lies?
Like it or not, Jack, the problems we now face are BECAUSE of government interference in the marketplace, NOT because of some fictional deregulation, or supposed "free market" system. A true free market would NOT bailout the failed, and neither should we.
Fannie Mae, freddie Mac, Community Reinvestment act, Federal Reserve system, fractional reserve banking, and more are artifacts of government, not a free market.
Ken Van Doren (Mon May 04 12:51:55 2009)
|
|
Blog Archives
| 2010 |
  December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Solberg: Healing After an Abortion
• Basketball fans eyeing extension of Miller Park sales tax
• Nanny sex-ed bill goes to Doyle
• A first. Village limits pension contribution for employees
• Nanny State update: Toothbrushing mandated
• Obama pushes education inflation
• WI Investment Board votes to borrow to juice up returns
• So Republicans have brought nothing to the table?
• You have got to be kidding me
• Nygren: Governor Continues Terms of Failure in State of the State
• Sen. Fitzgerald: Governor down the wrong track at high speed
• Phosphorus is the new CO2. $Billions in Wisconsin
• More Obama giveaways
• A reprimand? Would you keep him on the job?
• Burri: Sarah Palin for Prez troubles me
• Quote of the Day – Obama after the pie-eating contest
• Populism, abused and trampled
• Fitzgerald: Senate Republicans Propose Real Job Creation Agenda
• Stripped down health insurance – it’s about time
• Ok GOP, scrap the Party of NO; time to lead
• No way Feingold is a Coakley. Is Wall a Brown?
• Burri: Conservatives off the chart for a RINO?
• Paltry quid pro quo?
• Doyle says ARRA has ‘created or retained’ 44,000 WI jobs
• Does most of the public fall for this stuff?
• When you get signatures, always get a couple extra
• Blame it on the outmoded computers
• Scott Brown victory does not scuttle health bill
• 8th Congressional Candidate Forum, Jan. 25
• Scott Walker Meet-and-greet, Monday, Jan. 18
• Aren’t consumers taxpayers too?
• MORE taxes on investment income - dreadful and wrong
• Join the blaze orange army and say ‘Enough is Enough’
• The future of government-run health care
• Tax on banks is a really bad idea
• Roth, Savard on the stump, grassroots style
• Savard speaking in Appleton, 8 PM, Wed., Jan. 13.
• Rahmlow: Savard, Bies frontrunners for State Senate
• Burri: Failing Political Correctness 101
• School contracts and Race to the Top
• Senator Feingold worrisome and big red flags
• Psephological?
• This is really important. Contact Rep. Kagen. Now. Please.
• This is exactly what we need from Governor Doyle
• This guy is my hero
• Why am I not surprised?
• Talk health reform with Feingold (Th), Petri (today)
• Give the Mayor power over MPS - if he can break contracts
• Burri: Yup, Dems really are going to bypass a conference
• The $2.7 billion Wisconsin deficit no one told you about
• Walker launches county accountability website
• Rahmlow: Why is Van Hollen dodging the Nebraska deal?
|
| 2009 |
December
|
November
|
October
• The Lawton-Bader files
• Yup, it’s the TAX LEVY, not the tax RATE
• Ellis: costly automobile insurance laws must be rolled back
• If not Barrett, who?
• The subsidy game
• Burri: Bailouts, Banks, Health Care, and the Mob
• Attend Appleton Schools budget meeting tonight
• A public option WON’T increase costs? That’s delusional!
• Appleton Schools budget meeting Monday
• Wisconsin should be screaming for accountability
• Burri: If anything, we need more obstructionism around here
• WI on the leading edge - in the wrong direction
• Rep. Montgomery: Utility Customers Join State’s Crime-Fighting Efforts
• Public Conservation and Recreation Lands Total 16.5% of State
• In the crow's nest of the Titanic, shouting 'Iceberg!'
• Is Rep. Nelson a political hack?
• Health care: The road ahead will be brutal
• Kagen's pandering again
• Birthers - good stuff for you
• How much do we bend over backward for seniors?
• The trouble with health care is paying for it
• Two-parent families: The Gold Standard
• Burri: Kids... the joys and blessings
• Very, very worried about health care
• Rep. Huebsch: Wisconsin is proof government health care isn’t the answer
• School district contracts push up tax levy
• What? Obama, the Peace Prize?
• TODAY - hearing on Campaign Finance Reform
• Appleton School District tax levy up way too much
• CBO report is out - and the bill isn't even written yet?
• So, how much do YOU budget for health care?
• Burri: Copenhagen trip was amateurish
• “Sotomayor, you have blood on your hands...”
• Cap and Trade. Always follow the money
• Rep. Kagen gets (almost) free health services
• I actually agree with Rep. Kagen
• Future Wisconsin Conference for Conservatives, October 10, Wauwatosa
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
|
| 2008 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
• Important votes Tuesday, including Appleton Common Council
• Democrats are becoming supply siders??
• Further debunking Hillary myths
• WEAC has created an unsustainable monopoly
• From Mark Gundrum: One of the greatest honors an American can experience
• 'Operation Chaos' working?
• Joe Martin the best candidate in Appleton's 8th
• State programs to cut? - Volume II
• Oh the naivete of youth
• Not just disingenuous - flat wrong
• Steve - you will be missed
• Make cuts only AFTER you're elected....
• Getting serious: What programs can we cut?
• Rep. Steve Kagen joining me on Jerry Bader Show today
• Rep. Van Roy: Dental Care Pilot Program
• Has Dave Obey turned the corner on earmarks?
• Speaker Huebsch: Governor turns down Federal Aid?
• Mark Rahmlow: "We're Broke."
• As taxpayers, how do we know if it's a Chevy or a Lexus?
• This is trash talk - about a veteran
• Frank Lasee: Take time to get the Compact right
• 'The Gableman Ad' - is it racist?
• Roth thankful, Kagen shaking money tree
• Gov. Doyle's office not enamored with Freedom of Information
• Governor Doyle will never do it
• Leadership on smoking ban? Not Hanna
• Rep. Van Roy speaks out about smear ads
• You're threatening me about potholes?
• Losing the Hastert seat is NOT a trend and NOT curtians for the GOP
• First suggestion for 'slashing' programs
• Big money-saver for municipalities
• More one time fixes. Nuts.
• Any chances???
• I'm doing the Jerry Bader Show, today, the 11th
• Representative Frank Lasee: Final Waltz of the Season
• Guest Blog: It's not the county's business to be in the nursing home business
• Yup, Hillary won Texas and Ohio
• Gableman/Butler race featured - and it isn't pretty
• Lies from Planned Parenthood and NARAL
• He who sacrifices liberty.....
• Duh.
• The Troha sentencing, Doyle and that $200K
• Guns, passion and "originality"
• How hard is it anyway, to shut down a government program?
• Voting is a PRIVILEGE. And so are property taxes....
• Guest Blog: Governor Doyle, cancel your Ireland trip
|
February
|
January
|
| 2007 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Lots of ideas. No money.
• The Cigarette Tax - "Poor Policy Instrument?"
• School budget Lite?
• Frankenstein - not in the library, but in the legislature
• A librarian, a legislator, a president
• $1.25/pack - NO, NO, NO, and NO
• Kagen and Reagan in the same breath?
• Menasha: behind the 8-ball, but not biting the dust
• Any way you slice it, Wisconsin government wants (further) in on health care
• The World is Flat...what about health care?
• The PAC - too precious to fail. Day 3
• News follow-ups: Appleton West, Kagen at the White House
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail - Day 2
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail
• New Transit Tax coming your way
• Rep. Petri has his finger in the dike - I guess
• AASD Retirement Costs Burdensome
• Health care, health care, health care, health care
• Water rate increase was no slam dunk
• Education for all is just a bad dream
• New Year's resolutions from a parade snob
|
| 2006 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
| 2000 |
May
|
|
