First in Supporting Taxpayers
I have received my first response from a representative in support of the taxpayers.
Dear Owen,
As a Republican and a fellow taxpayer, I pledge to oppose any budget that increases taxes or imposes unwarranted fee increases. We must focus on cutting spending and making government affordable.
You can count on me.
State Rep. Leah Vukmir
14th Assembly District
Oh, look the same prattle the Repubs bleat out every single year in every single election for every single office regardless of circumstances.
Perhaps Leah would support less expensive alternatives to prison for many defendants. Or an end to the war? I mean, its all about smallerizing government, right?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2007 at 1429 hrs
Heck of a job Vukmir! Another government official who is anti-government! We can expect great an effective governance from people like this.
Posted by scott on May 19, 2007 at 1444 hrs
“Anti-government?”
This is the same BS that y’all pull every time. We have a MASSIVE government already. Opposing growing it more is NOT “anti-government.”
Get real.
Posted by Owen on May 19, 2007 at 1504 hrs
Way to go, Representative Vukmir!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2007 at 1505 hrs
BTW, Bob… how much of the War are Wisconsinites’ state taxes going for?
Posted by Owen on May 19, 2007 at 1509 hrs
Owen, define “MASSIVE” please. If you mean “lots larger than it was in 1873,” then sure, I’ll agree with that. (I won’t think it’s terribly relevant, but I’ll agree with it.) If on the other hand you mean “way larger than a modern democratic nation should be,” then I’m afraid I can’t agree. Surely you’ve noticed that our taxes as a percent of GDP is actually lower than pretty much every other developed nation?
Look, I don’t want to pay more taxes (with the exception of creating a national health insurance program). But saying you’re against tax increases is like saying you’re for sunshine and fresh air. Everybody wants that. But that’s not the issue at hand when it comes to sound governance. The issues are more specific than that: do we pay for this specific spending item or not?
Posted by scott on May 19, 2007 at 1528 hrs
mas·sive /?mæs?v/
–adjective
1. consisting of or forming a large mass; bulky and heavy: massive columns.
2. large and heavy-looking: a massive forehead.
3. large in scale, amount, or degree: a massive breakdown in communications; massive reductions in spending.
4. solid or substantial; great or imposing: massive erudition.
Posted by Owen on May 19, 2007 at 1531 hrs
Helpful
Posted by scott on May 19, 2007 at 1612 hrs
Look for my column next week. I’ll get specific.
Posted by Owen on May 19, 2007 at 1620 hrs
It just floors me how the liberals get up in arms as soon as somebody calls for no tax increase or no new spending. When my gasoline, heating. home repair, and food bills went up this year I could not walk over to Human Resources and demand an additional pay increase. As a family I have to live in a budget that is determined by my income/revenue, not by what I want to spend. Is it to much to ask for the governement to do the same? I received a three percent wage increase for the year, about $1800, so the government should be able to keep their spending to the same percent right??? How much of my $1800 is going to go for new spending in Doyle’s budget, we have a family of five, so what will our additional taxes be for the year? Are my kids going to have to eat Wonder Bread instead of Whole Grain bread because Madison is going to take more than their share?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2007 at 1628 hrs
Alright, here’s a suggestion.
Let’s take a good hard look at our corrections system. Minnesota has the same violent crime rate as we do, yet they spend half as much on corrections.
This, by the way is non-partisan because politicians from neither party have had the guts to stand up and say this is way out of line, let’s do something about it.
And Chris, I agree taxes on the middle class are too large. Perhaps if your boss or company owner would pay the fair share we all would not have to fork over as much. Plus you should start getting vocal about what you have to dish out for healthcare, which is going up much faster than taxes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2007 at 1828 hrs
Let’s wait and see if she can get it done before we attack. One vote is easy - it’s creating an effect that is tough.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2007 at 1833 hrs
kr,
I agree with you. No area of the budget should be off-limits. But while we look at prison funding, let’s also look at K-12 funding, transportation funding, shared revenue, UW funding, welfare, etc.
Posted by Owen on May 19, 2007 at 1840 hrs
KR:
So what EXACTLY is a fair share?
Should businesses NOT be entitled to earn a profit? Should they NOT be entitled to deduct research costs? It seems to me that is exactly what you are advocating, that business should have to pay taxes on gross profits with NO deductions for any expenses WHATSOEVER.
And would you please be so kind as to share your experiences with running a business with all of us.
Because unless you have experience running a business you really bring nothing useful to the debate.
Since I asked for qualifactions I feel its only fair to list mine:
Owner Michaels Lawn Care, 1995-2001
Owner of Michael Cheaney Trucking and Highway Run Enterprises
1997-current(And according to KR Apparent tax cheat since 1995, becaus remember business DO NOT pay enough taxes)
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on May 19, 2007 at 1902 hrs
Michael, you are obviously middle class. I am not referring to you so in no way have I pricked your thin skin.
Take John Menard for example. If you read the article about him in Milwaukee Magazine—http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/currentissue/full_feature_story.asp?newMessageID=13642—you’d find the guy is obviously a taker and adds nothing to society.
Many more like him, especially in the ranks of the WMC.
But hey, if you love overpaying taxes because wealthier members push political buttons so they don’t have to, don’t let me stand in the way. Just don’t whine abouty how high your taxes are.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2007 at 1918 hrs
Leah Vukmir is an excellent representative. I wrote to her when the Sudafed law went into effect and received a great, timely response.
If only more politicians were like that.
Posted by Amy P. on May 19, 2007 at 1942 hrs
the guy is obviously a taker and adds nothing to society.
Yeah… he just started a company that employs 27,000 employees. Adds nothing at all…
Posted by Owen on May 19, 2007 at 1958 hrs
Michael, you are obviously middle class. HA HA HA thats a good one, 21 grand hardly makes me middle class dude.
I normally have a very thick skin, and based on our past interactions I would hope you realize that, however YES I do take it personally when people decide to lump all business owners into the category of cheats.
Listen I’m not saying there are not people who use the tax code to their advantage I know it, you know it, The IRS knows it too. However you are dodging the real issue here, (which BTW is NOT whether or not businesses pay enough taxes) The real issue is that Government is raising taxes and programs faster than the ability of its citizens to pay. We as citizens are being asked to more with less. While our government is basically saying to us, Go out get a job, give us all the money we demand, and in rturn we’ll actually let you keep some of that money.
And I think now we have reached the tipping point and decided enough is enough.
Oh and what are you business qualifications again? I must have missed that in your post number 15
Posted by Michael J. Cheaney on May 19, 2007 at 2004 hrs
Amy P, you received a response, but did anything change based on your letter? I was denied decongestant last month at the pharmacy I’ve done business with for 7 years. One of the kids had dropped me off in a circle of errands and I had cash but no ID.
Patting me on the head is so different than delivering the needed change. I’d rather someone say “I have no influence, elected or not” than have them pretend.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2007 at 2031 hrs
Been in public relations for the past 14 years.
$21,000 a year and you defend the status quo? Wow!
And yeah Owen. Read the article. So it’s I give you job. Now screw you.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2007 at 2053 hrs
And yeah Owen. Read the article. So it’s I give you job. Now screw you.
I’m sorry, kr… is that a sentence? I must be missing your superior logic.
Posted by Owen on May 19, 2007 at 2222 hrs
Implied in her statement but not said is -
I pledge to do nothing about the health care problems in the state other that HSAs even though I am a nurse and understand that HSAs don’t fully address the problem.
I am satisfied with 60% of African Americans in Milwaukee not graduating high school and I see no ill effects of this on the next generation of my constituency.
etc.
Last election she got 60% of the vote against a Democrat that raised $700. Worst in Waukesha County. I don’t think that she is guessing right about how her constituency is trending.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2007 at 2247 hrs
kr is in need of his nightly Bush slam, so until he fits it in somewhere, he’s not real coherent.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 19, 2007 at 2318 hrs
“you’d find the guy is obviously a taker and adds nothing to society.” Yeah, kr - John Menard is a “taker”...I echo Owen’s comment, except I think the number was 37,000 jobs.
As to your statement, “if you love overpaying taxes because wealthier members push political buttons so they don’t have to” I point out the following from the story…you obviously missed it: In 2002, Menard owed more in personal federal income tax than any other American: $228 million on $593 million in adjusted gross income.
How many lifetimes would you have to work before contributing that much to the Federal Treasury?...not to mention that amount paid in by those 37,000 employees, as a direct result of his business acumen. Of course, I’m sure people like you think that 38.4% of someone’s income is still not enough.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2007 at 0216 hrs
Hey Vic… can all of those problems be solved by mor government spending? Show me how.
Posted by Owen on May 20, 2007 at 0608 hrs
Owen, my apologies about #20 if it came off sounding if I meant you. That was to imply Menard’s thoughts. Again, read the article. As a result of it many have stopped shopping Menards.
Wiaggie you look through the wrong end of the telescope. It’s not what Menard pays, but what he has left, and that’s a hell of a lot.
And because you guys think this way I have to explain it. No, I’m not envious with what anyone has or anyone makes. I am very happy with what I have. What is disturbing is the destabilization of wealth inequality in this country.
Case in point. The Fed a few weeks back pointed out that corporate investment in R&D and capital improvement in this country is stagnant. Why? Because too much money is being paid out in dividends to shareholders and corporate executives. I don’t have to go any further to explain why that is bad.
Yeah we have trickle down in this country from the top. It’s warm and it’s yellow. and for many of you it apparently feels good.
And tony, I guess you waiting for your Bush slam has clouded your ability to think about your own situation.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2007 at 0745 hrs
And tony, I guess you waiting for your Bush slam has clouded your ability to think about your own situation.
Tell me, kr, what you feel my own situation is, about which I am unable to think as clearly as you require.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2007 at 0800 hrs
Owen,
I am not suggesting that government spending will eliminate the problem. What I am suggesting is that government spending and taxation may be part of a comprehensive solution. If you take government spending and taxation off the table then I believe you are saying that you done see these as a problem for the government to deal with. So you are essentially saying that you are not responsible for fixing the problem.
As you can imagine I listen to a lot of NPR. Some guys over in Philidelphia said that they wanted to get rid of homelessness. So they funding housing for homeless people with government involvement. What they found is that there were cooresponding reductions in police expenditures, medical expenditure and in general cleaned up the streets but there was likely a period where government spending went up before the effects of the program were realized.
Health care likely has the same sort of senario. If the WHP program is adopted there will be a new tax on income but there is some potential that a few years from now we will see fewer overall medical expenitures because of prevention benefits built into the program.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2007 at 0933 hrs
What I am suggesting is that government spending and taxation may be part of a comprehensive solution. If you take government spending and taxation off the table then I believe you are saying that you done see these as a problem for the government to deal with.
When did I tax taxing and spending off of the table? I took additional taxing and spending off of the table. Our government already has the resources to be part of the solution.
And in many cases, these problems aren’t a problem with which government should intervene. And in still more cases, government meddling makes the problem worse.
Posted by Owen on May 20, 2007 at 1058 hrs
you look through the wrong end of the telescope. It’s not what Menard pays, but what he has left, and that’s a hell of a lot.
Yes it is a lot, but I like my end of the telescope. I aspire to be as good a businessman as he is…and if I get there, I would not want people trying to take what I’ve earned. Everyone should aspire to get there rather than settling for the scraps from the table of the wealthy…that is what has set America apart in the world. Of course, if you subscribe to the “To each according to his need and from each according to his ability” theory…
Capital improvement and R&D rely on the promise of future reward…when people like Hilary talk about confiscating corporate profits, companies aren’t sure the reward will be there, so they are taking it now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2007 at 1151 hrs
Wiaggie, can I use some of that BS to fertilize my garden in back?
As usual words are being put into my mouth. You do well in this country and it is not totally on your own, though the immature such as John Menard think so. Therefore everyone who benefits owes society. You can’t go anywhere as a civilization when you have people like Menard who has the attitude of it’s mine, mine, mine. BS.
Your last comment about R&D is nonsense and the usual foaming at the mouth Clinton hatred. Money is being pulled out of companies out of pure greed. That’s why we have to tax the crap out of capitol gains because now it is obvious company growth is not what profit is all about. Lining pockets is more like it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2007 at 1230 hrs
You can’t go anywhere as a civilization when you have people like Menard who has the attitude of it’s mine, mine, mine. BS.
How very socialist of you. What’s so great about breadlines that liberals have such a longing for them?
Posted by Jed on May 20, 2007 at 1321 hrs
kr - How have I put words in your mouth? The more you say, the more Marxist you sound.
everyone who benefits owes society - more than 38.4%? Yes, let’s return to the 90% top rates of the Carter years and declining economic growth.
Money is being pulled out of companies out of pure greed. That’s why we have to tax the crap out of capitol gains because now it is obvious company growth is not what profit is all about - This is the real BS. Why would anyone bust their ass to grow and expand a company if they can’t reap the rewards? What amount of profit is deemed acceptable before the rest should be confiscated for “the good of society”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2007 at 2121 hrs
An example of the socialist worker’s paradise…. true story….
A young lady that works for me in Germany is orginally from Poland. She lived behind the Iron Curtain until the age of twelve. Her father and brother were able to leave for Germany 4 years before the borders opened, leaving her and her mother behind. She used to go to the store with her coupon book and sometimes actually get to pick up grocery staples. At Christmas her father would send them oranges because they would last the journey. Her friends would covet them. When she was finally able to join her father in Germany there were foods - she used the banana as an example - that she simply didn’t know existed….
Letting the government take upwards of the 50%+ range that the countries of Europe charge so that they can nanny me…and for those that have never had to deal with European labor laws - they DO nanny you…
Nope - I’d prefer to keep my “taxes as a percentage of GDP lower than” other industrialized nation (as lamented by Scott) We still have the biggest economy in the world thanks, and I use plenty of the after-tax money that I am priveledged enough to keep to keep this economy humming.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 20, 2007 at 2221 hrs
I sent a copy of the pledge to RINO Sue Jeskewitz….no reply.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2007 at 1019 hrs
Any way that you could codify wealth will hinder a capitalist economy. We are the wealthiest nation in the world because we are a capitalist economy. kr or Scott or anyone that agrees with them, do you wish to change this? A national health plan, for example, would socialize the economy in the health care field.
Greatest advantage: Health care for everyone regardless of status or condition.
Greateat disadvantage: No incentive for the individual, less incentive for the corporation.The advantage sounds better than the disadvantage to me. Unfortunately, it is an illusion that is exactly how it reads. IT SOUNDS BETTER. It seems like it should work. There is no example of a nationalized health care system that works better than our current system. In fact, they all have a common theme of wait, wait, wait, and delay. No incentive to become a doctor except humanitarian reasons. That sounds good too, but it doesn’t bring the best and the brightest. Why could our Government do it any better? Because they are special in some way, less corruptible, more efficient?
The reason I think most people in this country think it will be better, is because we are in America and it seems to always work out. Aren’t we among the lowest taxed, by %, of the developed nations in the world? Don’t we come up with the widest variety of new ideas in technologies and manufacturing? Sure, other counries have their niches where they excel us, but so what?
The reason I think our country does so well is because it is the closest thing to a capitalist economy in the world. Where have we lost our leadership in the world markets? Areas where we have lost the most in capitalist thinking. Steel and auto unions are good examples. Where are we losing dangerous ground? Education has a very strong union. Where is our greatest danger of losing an edge? Health care. Were unions necessary? Yes. With today’s communications are they still necessary? I don’t think so. They should not be outlawed, by any means, but they should no longer be Government backed overtly or covertly. My non-union best friend has made a great living in construction. One thing he loved were the occasional union jobs his company would get as an outsource. His skill in masonry went from a comfortable (at age 19) 18.65/hr to 39.50 an hour. He made so little because you get paid by your years as a certified mason. A forty four year old who worked with him and made 23./hr (because he was lazy) made 54.75/hr for those jobs. Government only uses union workers.
Socialist ideals do not mix well with a capitalist economy. Too bad, they sound so good.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2007 at 1206 hrs
Tuergas, excellent comment! I don’t know why liberals have such a problem understanding incentives and disincentives in life.
I agree that unions have outlived their need and usefulness. This is why membership has fallen to just over 7% in the private sector. Unfortunately, membership is over 36% in government…where they have a “captive” employer that can be pressured.
Your example of the mason is also telling…I’m not sure how many people are familiar with the “prevailing wage rate” laws that mandate that everyone working on public projects gets paid union wages, as you pointed out. That is the reason that taxpayers have to spend 40-50% more for construction of a public building (like a school) than a comparable private entity would. Same workers…same quality…higher cost…just to appease the unions and liberal politicians.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2007 at 1300 hrs
I can take the incentive-disincentive one step further. He was ORDERED to keep a slow pace, because they were going to get paid for as long as it took to finish with a maximum of ten weeks. They took ten weeks and three days. Incentive was to work slow for maximum pay. They had finished a similar sized building in four weeks, because the Piggly Wiggly owner offered a bonus to finish in four weeks. They did it in three weeks and five days because the incentive was efficiency. This Construction Company has done quite a few Piggly Wigglys and normal con. time is 6-7 weeks.
On Government efficiency:
My job is to supply fasteners to different manufacturers. Because certifications are required for Government jobs, I sell THE SAME SCREW with a different part number to THE SAME COMPANY for anywhere from two times(never less than twice as much) to twenty times the price and we charge them for the certification(a little piece of paper) too! If we have a part failure for any company, the lot is just as traceable with or without the paper cert.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on May 21, 2007 at 1349 hrs
Total Entries: 19656
Total Comments: 129831
Most Recent Entry: 02/11/2012 09:52 pm
Most Recent Comment on: 02/11/2012 04:55 pm
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 97
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 02/12/2012 01:09 am
The most visitors ever was 538 on 12/01/2007 02:11 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).