Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...


Everything but tech support.

0816, 10 May 15

Choices, Choices

I admit, I feel very little sympathy for their plight.

Madison— GOP lawmakers want to cut Gov. Scott Walker’s borrowing plan by $300 million, but the only way to do that may be to cut highway projects.

The GOP governor proposed borrowing a record $1.3 billion for transportation over the next two years, but Republicans who control the Legislature have groused at the plan, saying they want a long-term solution to how to fund roads.

This week, they floated the idea of raising vehicle registration fees to bring down bonding levels. Walker, who is preparing to launch his presidential campaign, all but ruled out that idea.

Here’s the thing… the transportation department wants a lot more spending than the taxpayers have available for transportation projects. That is the “problem.” There are only three ways to go about solving it.

First, they can increase revenue. That means a tax increase. Walker has ruled out an increase in the registration fee and the legislature has ruled out an increase in the gas tax. Also, there does not appear to be any appetite in the legislature for new taxes for transportation like a distance tax or toll roads. So it appears that an increase in revenue is no longer an option. This is a good thing because Wisconsin’s taxes are too high and we shouldn’t be looking for ways to make them higher.

Second, they can borrow. This is essentially what Walker has proposed but the legislature is balking at the amount. Ideally, they would not borrow anything, but the debate between Walker and the legislature seems to be about the amount of borrowing – not the prospect of it. Some borrowing will be part of the equation. This is unfortunate since Wisconsin should not be adding to our debt in a time of economic prosperity. While it is true that the economy could be better, we are not in a recession and should not be borrowing to pay our bills.

Third, they can decrease spending. This is, mathematically, the easiest solution, but the most politically difficult one. The legislature could cut projects, as the story suggests, but that means that individual legislators have to go home to their districts and explain why their districts’ projects are being cut and not someone else’s. Barring cutting the number of projects, the legislature must find ways to reduce the cost of each project so that they can accomplish the same projects for less money. One way they could do this is by repealing the prevailing wage laws, thus lowering the labor cost of each project, but then the politicians anger the road builders’ lobby. Thus far, the Republican leadership in the legislature has shown little interest in angering their political benefactors in the road builders’ lobby.

So here we are. Revenue increases are off the table (hopefully and thankfully). There isn’t the will to borrow to completely fill the gap. When it comes to ways to reduce the spending, the legislators are faced with a political choice. They can anger their constituents by cutting projects, or they can anger the road builders’ lobby by repealing prevailing wage. So far, it appears that the legislature is leaning toward angering their constituents. This tells us who is closest to their hearts.


0816, 10 May 2015


  1. Jadedly Unbiased

    Really? What a surprise! Politicians pandering to big business and leaving tax payers holding the bill…unbelievable. What’s that sound? What’s that I hear? Could it be Scotty’s chances at a presidential bid getting flushed down the toilet by fellow Republicans in Madison. Yup, that’s what it is. So much for things being different here in Wisconsin.

    It’s not one party I take issue with today it’s all parties. The way we do politics needs to be reformed from gone ground up. We have to put the power back in the hands of the people and limit the power of big money. Madison will never change, Wisconsin will never change and our Nation will never change until we change this dysfunctional system. We must demand new, strong and limiting restrictions be placed on special interests and we must demand it now.

    At least some responsible Republicans are holding our governor responsible. Can’t blame this on liberals…Wait for it …wait for it…

  2. Nashotah Conservative

    Very well said Owen-

    I agree that it is disappointing that Walker and the Legislature are unwilling to stand up to the roadbuilders. We can borrow, we can cut schools, we can increase spending by billions, but we don’t dare touch funding for big transportation projects…

    I’ve always been frustrated when we’ve built “roads to nowhere”. Granted, I don’t like getting stuck in traffic up north on busy weekends, but given the taxpayer cost to avoid it (4 or 6 lane highways), I’ll tolerate the delays and learn to smell the roses.

    While I’m glad that Act 10 has taken away much of the power of the unions, what the state budget situation shows is that both Republicans and Democrats are beholden to special interests.

    As I noted before as well, until someone deals with the medical assistance spending problem in our state, i’m going to give the Governor and Legislature no higher than a “C” average.

  3. Nashotah Conservative

    Jaded- who is blaming this on liberals? I think problems like the Madison School District deficit can be blamed on liberals, and the City of Milwaukee funding when they are spending $100 million on a choo choo can be blamed on liberals…

    But to my knowledge, I haven’t seen anybody blame liberals for the increases in state spending that are causing stress for the state budget.

    Overall, I see 4 problems
    1) A budget that increases spending for 2015-16 substantially but flatlines schools = problem
    2) A budget that borrows to fund roads during decent economic times = problem
    3) A budget that fails to deal with MASSIVE increases in public assistance and medical assistance spending = problem
    4) A budget that potentially could spend hundreds of millions on a pro sports stadium when that money was available from private sources = problem

  4. Jadedly Unbiased

    I did say, wait for it.. wait for it.

  5. Jadedly Unbiased

    1) Agree
    2) Agree
    3) Agree and disagree- the massive increases need to be dealt with and those receiving assistance need to have time limits to independence imposed and enforced. However, the failure to take federal funds, which are our hard earned dollars, based on politics was a bad move. Looking at our situation now those funds would have elevated a lot of those “MASSIVE” increases.
    4) Agree

  6. dad29

    the Republican leadership in the legislature has shown little interest in angering their political benefactors in the road builders’ lobby.

    Actually, they’d rather shoot one of their own than cross the RoadBuilder mob. They did it a few years ago and they’ll do it again. Only question is who.

  7. dad29

    the failure to take federal funds, which are our hard earned dollars, based on politics was a bad move

    Oh, really?

    Better look at last week’s news on California, which already spent the “Free” Federal money and is now in deep, deep, doo-doo for health dollars.

  8. Jadedly Unbiased

    I said “elevate a lot of those”. I apologize, I meant ALLEVIATE a lot of those massive increases. I didn’t mean to imply it would solve the problem but would have helped. The money wasn’t free. It’s tax dollars we Wisconsinites have already paid into the Medicaid system and deserve to have returned without politicians trying to prove a point at our expense. Comparing the issues facing California to Wisconsin is like comparing an elephant to a mouse.

    As far as who they are going to shoot, it looks like Scotty’s gonna take a round or two. No smart politician wants to get left holding Walkers bag of dirty laundry and have to remain at home to answer for those mistakes while he is off seeking higher office. I think many conservatives see Scotty’s laundry bag as half full.

  9. dad29

    It’s tax dollars we Wisconsinites have already paid into the Medicaid system and deserve to have returned

    Unfortunately, your socialism doesn’t work that way. First off, re-distribution screws the taxpayers. You’re screwed, but you voted for it. Secondly, all you REALLY have coming is a very large chunk of National Debt. You voted for that, too.

    See? Your plan worked, almost.

    BTW, California’s numbers are bigger, yes; but only trivially so adjusted for population.

    Oh, well. Maybe MORE re-distribution will work better, eh?

  10. Jadedly Unbiased

    Okay Daddy,
    I am sorry but you are confused. I didn’t, any more then you, vote for that. If my tax dollars are collected for a specific program and they aren’t used then I want MY tax dollars back. That would actually be the opposite of socialism. I do agree it’s just another chunk of the national debt but it’s our chunk.

    To think mere adjustments for population can equalize the comparison between WI and CA is naive. California is a completely different beast.

    I’m starting to wonder about the constant character smears on this site. Apparently, when someone doesn’t agree or follow the leader, labeling them a liberal or a socialist is easier then actually debating reality. Supporting a position doesn’t have to include destroying another’s. If their position is weak it will self destruct. Just sit back and watch Walkers budget… BOOM!

  11. Kevin scheunemann


    Complaining about character smears is somewhat funny after you said these things without pointing out anything substantive, despite being asked several times:

    “…fire and brimstone crap”

    “You hide behind yours. I use my Bible to lift people up. You use yours to hold people down.”

    “He’s just another hypocritical windbag hate monger hiding behind the bible.”

    All phrase uttered by you and you consider the word “liberal” an attack to describe your positioning something?

    That’s pretty funny.

    I’m a nice guy. I’ll ask again. Point out the substance to the character attacks you made on me above. Let’s talk about it and your comment above as we’ll.

  12. Jadedly Unbiased

    Excuse me Kevin,
    After being accused of being a screaming liberal, a nonChristian and siding with evil I think any normal person would have had some choice words. Your definition of “nice guy” is completely different then mine. Your history of tempting people with libel defamation is noted. You can look elsewhere.

  13. Kevin Scheunemann


    When you want to stand in the way of people of thanking, complimenting, and defending police officers for doing the right thing in a difficult situation, what would you call it?

    I duly note your inability to back up your harsh statements. So a Christian would call another Christian a “hypocritical windbag hate monger” without pointing out the specific error that generated that statement/thought?

    I recognize the duty to correct your fellow Christian, but if you wish to correct me, and I’m willing to listen to your correction, please point to the specific error I made. Again, thank you in advance.

    Otherwise, it is an error to call your fellow Christian that without pointing to the action that needs correction. (I would say, you can point to the correction/error without using that language, but I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.)

  14. Jadedly Unbiased

    So, now I’m a Christian. Will I only be a Christian when it suits your needs? Will I only be a conservative when it suits your needs? Will I only be a defender of good when it suits your needs? Amazing, you are amazing!

  15. Kevin Scheunemann

    I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt on the Christian label.

    However, you have made some very questionable stands when it comes to the important Christian instruction to cling to what is good and hate what is evil. Also, you have used some very salty, harsh language, in your attempt to correct me over perceived errors you have alleged on my part. I’ve ask you to point out the specifics, so we can discuss it.

    I’d be willing to say you sound like a “conservative” when you take a conservative issue position.

    Fair enough?

  16. Jadedly Unbiased

    So your changing your opinions (judgements) and your position to accommodate debate. Sounds suspect. Then again being rooted firmly in ones politics (libertarian or republican) or religion (Evangelical Christian or Lutheran) has been challenging for you so maybe I should give you the benefit of the doubt.

  17. Kevin Scheunemann

    If I was unclear.

    I give you the benefit of the doubt on saying you are a Christian.

    However, using the Christian label, does not negate some the non-Christian positions and some statements you have made.

  18. Jadedly Unbiased

    Nor yours!

  19. Kevin scheunemann

    Then point the statements at issue out.

  20. Jadedly Unbiased

    If you can’t see the wrong in some of your statements me pointing them out is futile.

  21. dad29

    If my tax dollars are collected for a specific program and they aren’t used then I want MY tax dollars back.

    Good luck with your Soc Sec taxes, all of which have been squandered by the Feds since LBJ.

  22. Jadedly Unbiased

    There are definite problems with social security. If your comparing Medicaid dollars refused by Walker to social security reimbursements, again I would say it’s not a fair comparison. Obama care has its issues, nobody’s arguing that. Same with social security. The Medicare dollars would have helped. Maybe for a short time, maybe not enough but something’s better then nothing. At the time it was more political then practical.

  23. Kevin scheunemann


    “If you can’t see the wrong in some of statements me pointing them out is futile.”

    Humor me any way. You were the one to use harsh and salty language. I would like to know which one of my statements merited that treatment. If you are not willing to approach your fellow Christian with his specific error, and gently admonish him for his error, one fails the instruction by Jesus in Matthew 18.

  24. Jadedly Unbiased

    The rhetoric and propaganda only amplifies when people feed the beast. I’m not willing to play into the blogging tactics you’ve used for years and it’s clear you see no problems with what you preach. I also have been warned about your threats to sue for libel when people respond harshly to your instigating comments. So once again, it would be futile. I will reassert, I do not share your position on all Muslims, I won’t praise officers that have acted questionably, I won’t let my politics influence my spirituality nor will I let my spirituality influence my politics, I am a Christian, I am not a liberal and most of all I won’t tolerate any more of your crap. I respect your opinions but more often then not they’re used to slam others who aren’t blindly following the path that you think (KNOW) is best. As I said before, until you figure out where you stand in life, Libertarian or Republican, Evangelical Christian or Lutheran, you should keep your opinions about where I stand to yourself.

  25. Pat


    The only way to defeat a narcissist is to ignore and walk away.
    You make good well thought out points. That alone rises you above any pontificating blowhard.

  26. Jadedly Unbiased

    Thank you. I wasn’t my intention to end up in this one sided debate. I apologize to all who have had to endure it. I was referred to this site by a friend who said there is great conversations about how to solve issues and that most people acted respectfully. However, I wasn’t going to sit back and let someone question and critique my faith, politics, opinions and character.

  27. Pat

    He will and does. He can’t help himself, it’s part of his disorder. Be thankful that there are others that can see that the problems that we face today are complex and taking a strictly liberal or conservative approach to problem solving does nothing but creates bigger problems. We’ve had Republicans and Democrats attempting to do this with no success for decades. If you keep doing what you’ve always done, you get what you’ve always got.

  28. Pat

    I need to say that he may not be a narcissist, but the behavior appears to be narcissistic like, whether intentional or not. That’s just my opinion. I guess that’s like him calling someone a liberal when they’re not. It’s an opinion based on perceptions.

  29. Jadedly Unbiased

    I’m not a card carrying member of either party (never been so foolish) so when someone attempts to undermine my opinion by calling me a liberal or conservative it typically doesn’t distract me from my point. It is interesting, some people use those terms in a negative, accusing or slanderous way. It is a true reflection of the state of our nation. For a minute there I felt like I was in third grade… I know you are but what am I… I’m rubber your glue whatever you say bounces off of me and sticks to you! The dialogue between the to parties is as dysfunctional as the discussion between Kevin and I. We can do better. Roll up the sleeves, sit at the table, present an issue and grind it out. Listen, negotiate and compromise in the name of the people not the parties or special interests. I know… Way to overly optimistic. Maybe I am a screaming liberal…NO.

  30. Kevin Scheunemann

    Pat, Jade,

    You guys really do crack me up. Instead of focusing on issue it becomes an attack on me. I know that liberal playbook all too well. When one cannot focus on merits of argument, you name call…narcissist, hypocritical windbag hate monger, need for mental treatment, etc, is just a few of labels you used for me. I’ve been called worse, so that kind of thing just bounces off of me.

    But I did enjoy the “respect” issue mentioned by Jade, who used many of the harsh, personal, terms. If you look back at it all, the most controversial label I used was “liberal” to describe the issue position, not as a name call.

    So by comparison, someone who use the phrase “hypocritical windbag hate monger” wants to talk about respect?

    That’s an interesting lecture, and I’d love to listen to it.

  31. Pat

    Kevin said, “I’ve been called worse, so that kind of thing just bounces off of me.”

    By his response it’s evident it didn’t bounce off.

  32. Kevin Scheunemann


    Either way, don’t you think it will be an interesting lecture about “respect”?

  33. Pat


    No. By your behavior you bring it on yourself. And, you refuse to own it.

  34. Kevin Scheunemann


    I own anything I say, but at same time, I am not afraid to call out political correctness, which is what we have going on here now.

    It’s the liberal equivalent of “you should be quiet”, we don’t like what you have to say.

    If there is something I wrote that you do not like, or want to call out, then point to it, and let’s discuss it.

  35. Pat

    Kevin, you asked a question and I answered. No one said you had to be quite but your behavior does make you come across as a bit narcissistic. And with that, I end my conversation with you.

  36. Jadedly Unbiased

    Ask yourself WHY you’ve been called worse and why so often. If you think the worst thing you said was liberal you might take your own advise and look back at all that’s been said. I think I was right when I said the community and congregations in Kewaskum might be interested in your opinions. I’m positive they would disagree with you. As a public official, a member of a community organization, small business owner and member of a congregation I’m amazed you put so much controversial rhetoric in a public forum.

  37. Pat

    “As a public official, a member of a community organization, small business owner and member of a congregation I’m amazed you put so much controversial rhetoric in a public forum.”

    And that’s why I won’t ever step into the Kewaskum Dairy Queen.

  38. Jadedly Unbiased

    I’m glad to do the semantics of the conversation thing and with that said, let me remind you it was you who drew first blood. Your attacks on my faith, politics, opinions and character drew a response. One you didn’t like. Not to mention your opinions about ALL Muslims, supporting bigots, calling for the murder of evil doers in the name of Jesus and insulting a Kewaskum pastor and his faith. Should I go on? There is more.

  39. Jadedly Unbiased

    Can mongrels deal hate? Can windbags be hypocritical? Can pigs judge? No… And opinions about a public officials mental stability are allowed. If it’s libel your looking for your barking up the wrong tree.

  40. Jadedly Unbiased

    I forgot one… Can fools be absolute?

  41. Nashotah Conservative

    I saw 40 responses today and was excited to read through other’s viewpoints, but am disappointed that this turned into a “bickering thread”

    I’m curious Jaded- what approach would you suggest that the legislature take? Kevin?

  42. Jadedly Unbiased

    Who is that I hear? The master manipulator is back and in prime form. “Instead of focusing on issue it becomes an attack on me”. Remember…Focus…focus or try to stay focused? Sorry I already played that card. Try again.

  43. Jadedly Unbiased

    I will again apologize. This isn’t what I had in mind but I’m not giving into Kevin’s nonstop badgering. I will try to limit my responses.

    They are in a difficult position. Look at applying Act 10 to all public sector employees. Time limits and accountability for welfare recipients. As they hammer out this budget they realize debt is the only solution (unfortunately). Sometimes you have to take one on the chin, get up, shake it off and start fighting again this time for the people not special interests.

  44. Jadedly Unbiased

    This year, 2015, welfare will cost WI 4.6 billion, protection (police and fire) 4.5, transportation 4.5. State pension contributions will be 5.4 billion. Nobody pays into my 401 or my health care.

  45. Kevin Scheunemann


    Humor me. Can you point to the specific “controversial rhetoric” I made that is at issue?


  46. Pat


    I didn’t make that accusation. So my answer is no.

  47. Kevin Scheunemann


    However, you repeated it and confirmed it by taking action based on it.

    If you are not going to come into my place of business because of “controversial rhetoric”, why can’t you do me the courtesy, in specifics, by pointing out what the “controversial rhetoric” was?

  48. west bend observer

    The only reason I would not enter the Ktown DQ is because if by chance my vanilla cone was accidently served as chocolate I would have to endure hours worth of manipulation to prove I ordered wrong. I would just once like for KS to admit that maybe, just maybe his stance might be wrong. We all have opinions and each thinks they are correct, once hearing all of the arguments their is no shame in saying maybe my opinion is wrong.

  49. Pat


    Nope. I won’t humor you, or do you the curtesy of pointing out any specifics because they should be self evident to you. If you can’t understand that then maybe you should time yourself out for a while and do a little self reflect about how you address yourself in these discussions. There is nothing that I, or anyone else, is going to be able to say that will satisfy your unsatisfiable ego.

  50. Kevin Scheunemann

    I graciously offered a chance for you to point to something to back up your claim abut my “rhetoric” and you passed. If you were really upset about “rhetoric”, you should be able to come up with 1 example.

  51. Jadedly Unbiased

    RHETORIC as defined by Webster’s: elaborate language that is empty.

    Examples of Kevin’s rhetoric:

    “What I am tired of is liberal defense of felonious thugs while ripping good police officers apart”
    -Empty, couldn’t find one example of a police officer being ripped apart by liberals defending felonious thugs.

    “In communities where a back off approach is done as you suggest those cities are over ridden by violent crime. Milwaukee as prime example of this policy. Crime not civil society rule.”
    -Empty, obviously crime does not prevail over society in Milwaukee.

    “If your spirituality does not guide your politics, then you don’t have strong spirituality. Strong Christian spirituality demands one declares certain actions as evil or wrong and look for politicians that support the same.”
    -Empty, you turned out to be the best example of the emptiness of the statement.

    “This family was squarely blaming the officer. They were taking the blame off their criminal relative and placing all the blame on the officer.”
    -Empty, I quoted the statements made by the family. None support your claim.

    That’s only a few examples from one thread. Should I continue?

  52. Pat

    Three, Two, One..

  53. Kevin Scheunemann

    1.) “I don`t even think he should be on the force right now. I think he should be suspended without pay because that`s just ridiculous,” Siler’s aunt Tina Kramer said.


    There is also another great study on how back-off policy has increased violent hurt to inncoent people. I’ll post it whne I find the link.

    3.) If making a distinction, and calling for a distinction, between good and evil, as a leader, is controversial, then you are really saying no leader can ever make a distinction on anything. That makes a poor leader. If this is best example of “rhetoric” you can come up with, then I’ll plead guilty to this one all day long…oh but that would be making a distinction that I wrong for this…are you sure you want to make that distinction, and defeat your base argument by making a distinction between good and bad? I don’t want to put you in that position.

    4.) See #1


    Since I did you the courtesy of knocking down all my “alleged” rhetoric; can you do me courtesy of pointing out your back up for your “rhetoric?

    1.) “…fire and brimstone crap” Example?

    2.) “He’s just another hypocritical windbag hate monger hiding behind the bible” Example?

    3.) “You hide behind yours. I use my Bible to lift people up. You use yours to hold people down.” Example?

  54. Jadedly Unbiased

    Controversial rhetoric would include unfounded accusations and assumptions made about another’s religion that can be construed as demeaning.

Pin It on Pinterest