Boots & Sabers

The blogging will continue until morale improves...

Tag: Column

Wisconsin’s shrinking deer hunt

by | 0754, 17 Nov 2323 | , | 0 Comments

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News earlier this week:

The fallen leaves, crisp air and smell of pumpkin spice can only mean one thing — the gun deer season is almost upon us. As legions of hunters head to the woods this Saturday, the future of the hunt is increasingly concerning.

 

The gun deer hunt is a keystone Wisconsin cultural event that binds generations together. It is also a practical and necessary function to keep Wisconsin’s deer population under control.

 

Absent most of their natural predators, controlling the deer population with hunting is important for the state. The largest reason is to protect Wisconsin’s large agricultural economy. Over the last 10 years, deer have destroyed an average of 108,158 bushels of corn per year. The deer are equally destructive to soybeans, alfalfa and other key cash crops.

 

The second most important reason why the deer herd must be controlled is to reduce vehicle collisions. Over the last 10 years, Wisconsin averaged almost 19,000 deer-vehicle collisions per year.

 

Thirdly, the deer herd must be managed to prevent them from outstripping the ability of the ecosystem to feed them, resulting in disease and suffering for the deer themselves.

 

Since the peak in 2000, there has been a steady decline in the number of deer hunters and the deer population has been rapidly expanding. The reasons are mainly demographic. Wisconsin’s population is shrinking slightly and aging rapidly. As hunters age, they eventually stop hunting for myriad reasons. Some stop because of health reasons. Some stop because their hunting groups dwindle and disband. Some stop because they change their lifestyle and hunting is no longer convenient. As older hunters increasingly hang up their blaze orange for good, there are too few younger hunters to replace them.

 

I am in the latter category. I absolutely loved the deer hunt for many years, but a change in lifestyle makes it no longer practicable for the time being. A successful hunt is one that is safe, fun and harvests some meat — in that order.

 

The statistics from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) bear out the troubling trends for the hunt. Wisconsin hunters peaked in 2000 by harvesting almost 403,000 deer. Last year, they harvested just 176,476 deer and have not harvested more than 200,000 deer since 2012.

 

Consequently, the statewide deer herd has been rapidly expanding. The DNR estimated that there were 987,300 deer in 2009. Last year after the deer hunting season, they estimated the deer herd at 1.67 million. That is a 69 percent increase in the deer population in just 13 years.

 

How big should Wisconsin’s deer herd be? That is a matter of opinion. It is a balance. It depends on what one considers to be acceptable levels of agricultural loss and vehicle collisions. At the same time, the state wants to keep the herd large enough to support Wisconsin’s hunting culture while maintaining a healthy ecosystem with deer in it. The “right” size of the herd is debatable, but as the primary herd control mechanism dwindles, the ability of the DNR to control the herd at all is slowly slipping away.

 

As the number of hunters decreases, the DNR is going to need to adjust the regulations to encourage a greater harvest per hunter in order to keep up with the growing herd. Simply, the DNR will need to make it easier and cheaper for each hunter to harvest more deer.

 

For example, the DNR may consider increasing tag requirements or waiving them completely. If the goal is to harvest deer, who does it and where they do it is less important than the total harvest. The DNR may also consider making the number and types of zones and make it easier for hunters to hunt multiple zones. Rules on baiting could also be relaxed. Finally, as a last resort, the DNR may need to consider significantly lengthening the gun deer season like many other states.

 

Those considerations, however, are looming in the future. For now, be safe out there, hunters!

Wisconsin’s shrinking deer hunt

by | 0712, 14 Nov 2323 | , | 2 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

Since the peak in 2000, there has been a steady decline in the number of deer hunters and the deer population has been rapidly expanding. The reasons are mainly demographic. Wisconsin’s population is shrinking slightly and aging rapidly. As hunters age, they eventually stop hunting for myriad reasons. Some stop because of health reasons. Some stop because their hunting groups dwindle and disband. Some stop because they change their lifestyle and hunting is no longer convenient. As older hunters increasingly hang up their blaze orange for good, there are too few younger hunters to replace them.

 

I am in the latter category. I absolutely loved the deer hunt for many years, but a change in lifestyle makes it no longer practicable for the time being. A successful hunt is one that is safe, fun and harvests some meat — in that order.

 

The statistics from the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) bear out the troubling trends for the hunt. Wisconsin hunters peaked in 2000 by harvesting almost 403,000 deer. Last year, they harvested just 176,476 deer and have not harvested more than 200,000 deer since 2012.

 

Consequently, the statewide deer herd has been rapidly expanding. The DNR estimated that there were 987,300 deer in 2009. Last year after the deer hunting season, they estimated the deer herd at 1.67 million. That is a 69 percent increase in the deer population in just 13 years.

 

How big should Wisconsin’s deer herd be? That is a matter of opinion. It is a balance. It depends on what one considers to be acceptable levels of agricultural loss and vehicle collisions. At the same time, the state wants to keep the herd large enough to support Wisconsin’s hunting culture while maintaining a healthy ecosystem with deer in it. The “right” size of the herd is debatable, but as the primary herd control mechanism dwindles, the ability of the DNR to control the herd at all is slowly slipping away.

 

As the number of hunters decreases, the DNR is going to need to adjust the regulations to encourage a greater harvest per hunter in order to keep up with the growing herd. Simply, the DNR will need to make it easier and cheaper for each hunter to harvest more deer

Evers hands out your candy

by | 0741, 11 Nov 2323 | | 1 Comment

Here is my full column from the Washington County Daily News that ran earlier this week.

Gov. Tony Evers announced that he is providing over 36 million tax dollars to pay for five building projects. The announcement highlights just how broken our government has become.

 

Our government is intentionally built with divided powers and checks on those powers. The Legislature makes law. The executive executes that law. The judiciary judges the correct application of the law. The entire apparatus was built for the express purpose of avoiding the concentration of power that always precedes tyranny.

 

In this instance, last year the governor proposed a list of building projects to be funded by the taxpayers. The Legislature, which has the responsibility and power to allocate taxpayer money, passed a capital budget that agreed with the vast majority of the governor’s building proposals, but not all of them. Unlike the federal government, state governments cannot print money. The state Legislature must prioritize spending and balance the budget.

 

That is how the process works. The governor suggests how to allocate the budget. The Legislature writes the budget. The governor then checks the Legislature with his veto power. Everyone moves on. Not this time. Governor Evers announced that despite not being included in the capital budget, he is going to spend over 36 million tax dollars to pay for five projects. How? The answer illustrates our broken government. First, the money Evers is spending is slush fund money from the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act. This was the $1.9 trillion waste passed by the federal government to “change the course of the pandemic and deliver immediate relief for American workers.” This gargantuan spending boondoggle fueled our current almost $34 trillion national debt and was a key contributor to the inflation and high interest rates that Americans are suffering with today. It is borrowed dollars that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be paying taxes to pay back. The American Rescue Plan Act was a generational theft.

 

Sold as a “rescue plan,” the spending also created gigantic slush funds for state governors to spend at their personal discretion. This is the money that Evers is using to pay for building projects. Our government’s structure is supposed to prevent the concentration of power and arbitrary government, but the slush fund allows Evers to allocate money — a power expressly granted to the Legislature — without any oversight. Such arbitrary exercises of power are the stuff of dictatorships.

 

Looking past how the money got there and how the governor had the unfettered power to spend it, let us look on what it is to be spent.

 

$15 million for the Janesville Sports and Convention Center

 

$9.3 million for the Milwaukee Iron District new soccer stadium $7 million for the Green Bay National Railroad Museum expansion

 

$5 million for the Bronzeville Center for the Arts

 

$330,000 for the Door County Peninsula Players Theatre upgrades.

 

No wonder the Legislature did not agree to spend millions of dollars on these projects. Is it really the role of state government to fleece the taxpayers out of their hard-earned wages to pay for a soccer stadium in Milwaukee? Is expanding the National Railroad Museum in Green Bay worth making a young family in La Crosse cut back on groceries to afford their rent? I am sure that the Door County Peninsula Players Theatre is delightful, but it is difficult for an elderly couple in Hudson to enjoy when the cost of gas is over $3.00 a gallon. Budgets are about priorities and there was a good reason why these projects did not make the list.

 

At the end of this money train are people who will be paid to do these projects and the very few people who will make money off of the facilities. Watch where that money goes and how it is spent. Then we will all know why Evers chose these projects.

 

We see how broken our government is. The federal government shakes down future generations by borrowing money to spend on the present generation. This triggers inflation, responded to by jacking up interest rates, thus lowering the spending power and quality of life of the current generation. The money is allocated into gigantic slush funds for governors to spend at their whims, thus bypassing small-“r” republican governments at the state level and creating arbitrary government. Then the money is spent on governors’ pet projects that have little to no value for the taxpayers paying the bills.

 

The scheme is not about a better Wisconsin or a better America. It is about fleecing the many for the benefit of a few.

Evers hands out your candy

by | 0648, 7 Nov 2323 | | 1 Comment

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

Gov. Tony Evers announced that he is providing over 36 million tax dollars to pay for five building projects. The announcement highlights just how broken our government has become.

 

[…]

 

In this instance, last year the governor proposed a list of building projects to be funded by the taxpayers. The Legislature, which has the responsibility and power to allocate taxpayer money, passed a capital budget that agreed with the vast majority of the governor’s building proposals, but not all of them. Unlike the federal government, state governments cannot print money. The state Legislature must prioritize spending and balance the budget.

 

That is how the process works. The governor suggests how to allocate the budget. The Legislature writes the budget. The governor then checks the Legislature with his veto power. Everyone moves on. Not this time. Governor Evers announced that despite not being included in the capital budget, he is going to spend over 36 million tax dollars to pay for five projects. How? The answer illustrates our broken government. First, the money Evers is spending is slush fund money from the 2021 American Rescue Plan Act. This was the $1.9 trillion waste passed by the federal government to “change the course of the pandemic and deliver immediate relief for American workers.” This gargantuan spending boondoggle fueled our current almost $34 trillion national debt and was a key contributor to the inflation and high interest rates that Americans are suffering with today. It is borrowed dollars that our grandchildren’s grandchildren will be paying taxes to pay back. The American Rescue Plan Act was a generational theft.

 

[…]

 

No wonder the Legislature did not agree to spend millions of dollars on these projects. Is it really the role of state government to fleece the taxpayers out of their hard-earned wages to pay for a soccer stadium in Milwaukee? Is expanding the National Railroad Museum in Green Bay worth making a young family in La Crosse cut back on groceries to afford their rent? I am sure that the Door County Peninsula Players Theatre is delightful, but it is difficult for an elderly couple in Hudson to enjoy when the cost of gas is over $3.00 a gallon. Budgets are about priorities and there was a good reason why these projects did not make the list.

 

At the end of this money train are people who will be paid to do these projects and the very few people who will make money off of the facilities. Watch where that money goes and how it is spent. Then we will all know why Evers chose these projects.

 

We see how broken our government is. The federal government shakes down future generations by borrowing money to spend on the present generation. This triggers inflation, responded to by jacking up interest rates, thus lowering the spending power and quality of life of the current generation. The money is allocated into gigantic slush funds for governors to spend at their whims, thus bypassing small-“r” republican governments at the state level and creating arbitrary government. Then the money is spent on governors’ pet projects that have little to no value for the taxpayers paying the bills.

 

The scheme is not about a better Wisconsin or a better America. It is about fleecing the many for the benefit of a few.

Republicans amend their way to secure elections

by | 0900, 5 Nov 2323 | , | 0 Comments

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News last week:

Wisconsin’s reputation for clean elections has suffered mortal blows in recent years thanks to the aggressive assault by leftists to undermine our election laws and procedures. Their efforts have been so successful that they are redoubling their efforts to bludgeon our electoral system into an instrument to extend leftist ideology.

 

Defending against the leftist onslaught, Republicans in the Legislature have been working to codify some key electoral protections into the state Constitution. Even constitutional protections are not safe from the activist leftist Wisconsin Supreme Court, but constitutional ramparts are stronger than statutory ones. The process to amend the state Constitution is long, but simple. Both houses of the state Legislature must pass the same constitutional amendment in two successive legislatures, then the amendment is submitted to the voters of the state. If the voters pass it, then the Constitution is amended. The process intentional excludes the executive and judicial branches, relegating the text of the Constitution the sole domain of the elected Legislature and the state’s electors. The Republicans currently have three amendments concerning election integrity working their way to the voters. The first proposed amendment would prohibit governments from accepting private money to manage elections and prohibit anyone except election officials from administering anything to do with running an election.

 

This amendment is in response to the “Zuckerbucks” that polluted our 2020 presidential election. Billionaire Mark Zuckerberg spearheaded an effort to pour millions of dollars and dozens of people into Democratic cities to “help” administer elections. This amendment would prohibit such activities and keep administering our elections the exclusive responsibility and authority of elected and appointed government officials. This amendment is up for its second vote this year could be on the ballot as soon as April for the voters’ consideration.

 

The second proposed amendment would change the state Constitution to ensure that only United States citizens can vote in Wisconsin’s elections. It is already the law in Wisconsin that only U.S. citizens can vote, but the Constitution actually states that, “Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.” “Every” is the key word because it does not exclude non-citizens from voting. It simply says that every U.S. citizen can vote. It does not say that non-citizens cannot vote. Wisconsin state and local laws prohibit non-citizens from voting, but the Constitution does not.

 

Part of the leftist agenda is to get the millions of illegal aliens that the Biden administration has been helping flood into America to vote. They believe that the leftist agenda of opening the borders and providing welfare to millions of impoverished foreigners will be appreciated and reciprocated with their votes. Leftists throughout the country are pushing to allow non-citizens — illegal and otherwise — to legally vote in local elections to start. They have long winked and turned a blind eye to non-citizens voting illegally.

 

The amendment to ensure that citizenship means something and that only citizens can legally vote should be on the ballot for consideration by the voters in 2024.

 

The third proposed constitutional amendment is only on its first reading, so it will not be submitted to the voters until at least 2025. Several years ago, the Legislature and Governor Scott Walker enacted voter ID with wide public support. Protecting our elections by ensuring that people prove their identity and eligibility to vote by showing a qualified picture ID is a simple, common-sense, measure that remains very popular.

 

Like so many common-sense laws, Wisconsin’s leftists have been undermining the law and are counting on the newly minted leftist Supreme Court to throw out the law on some hogwash pretense. The leftists seem to want non-citizens and other ineligible persons to vote and voter ID puts a crimp in their agenda.

 

To try to protect voter ID, the third proposed constitutional amendment would enshrine it into the Constitution. Normally this is something that would be more appropriate for the statutes instead of the Constitution, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Hopefully the voters will have their say (again) on this issue in 2025.

 

All three proposed constitutional amendments are policies that enjoy wide public support, but nothing is ever certain in Wisconsin’s elections. Get out and vote.

Republicans amend their way to secure elections

by | 0747, 31 Oct 2323 | | 1 Comment

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in printhttps://westbenddailynews-wi.newsmemory.com?selDate=20231031&goTo=A06&editionStart=West%20Bend Daily News. Here’s a part:

Wisconsin’s reputation for clean elections has suffered mortal blows in recent years thanks to the aggressive assault by leftists to undermine our election laws and procedures. Their efforts have been so successful that they are redoubling their efforts to bludgeon our electoral system into an instrument to extend leftist ideology.

 

Defending against the leftist onslaught, Republicans in the Legislature have been working to codify some key electoral protections into the state Constitution. Even constitutional protections are not safe from the activist leftist Wisconsin Supreme Court, but constitutional ramparts are stronger than statutory ones. 

 

[…]

 

The Republicans currently have three amendments concerning election integrity working their way to the voters. The first proposed amendment would prohibit governments from accepting private money to manage elections and prohibit anyone except election officials from administering anything to do with running an election.

 

This amendment is in response to the “Zuckerbucks” that polluted our 2020 presidential election. Billionaire Mark Zuckerberg spearheaded an effort to pour millions of dollars and dozens of people into Democratic cities to “help” administer elections. This amendment would prohibit such activities and keep administering our elections the exclusive responsibility and authority of elected and appointed government officials. This amendment is up for its second vote this year could be on the ballot as soon as April for the voters’ consideration.

 

The second proposed amendment would change the state Constitution to ensure that only United States citizens can vote in Wisconsin’s elections. It is already the law in Wisconsin that only U.S. citizens can vote, but the Constitution actually states that, “Every United States citizen age 18 or older who is a resident of an election district in this state is a qualified elector of that district.” “Every” is the key word because it does not exclude non-citizens from voting. It simply says that every U.S. citizen can vote. It does not say that non-citizens cannot vote. Wisconsin state and local laws prohibit non-citizens from voting, but the Constitution does not.

 

Part of the leftist agenda is to get the millions of illegal aliens that the Biden administration has been helping flood into America to vote. They believe that the leftist agenda of opening the borders and providing welfare to millions of impoverished foreigners will be appreciated and reciprocated with their votes. Leftists throughout the country are pushing to allow non-citizens — illegal and otherwise — to legally vote in local elections to start. They have long winked and turned a blind eye to non-citizens voting illegally.

 

The amendment to ensure that citizenship means something and that only citizens can legally vote should be on the ballot for consideration by the voters in 2024.

 

The third proposed constitutional amendment is only on its first reading, so it will not be submitted to the voters until at least 2025. Several years ago, the Legislature and Governor Scott Walker enacted voter ID with wide public support. Protecting our elections by ensuring that people prove their identity and eligibility to vote by showing a qualified picture ID is a simple, common-sense, measure that remains very popular.

 

Like so many common-sense laws, Wisconsin’s leftists have been undermining the law and are counting on the newly minted leftist Supreme Court to throw out the law on some hogwash pretense. The leftists seem to want non-citizens and other ineligible persons to vote and voter ID puts a crimp in their agenda.

 

To try to protect voter ID, the third proposed constitutional amendment would enshrine it into the Constitution. Normally this is something that would be more appropriate for the statutes instead of the Constitution, but extraordinary times call for extraordinary measures. Hopefully the voters will have their say (again) on this issue in 2025.

 

All three proposed constitutional amendments are policies that enjoy wide public support, but nothing is ever certain in Wisconsin’s elections. Get out and vote.

Universities of Wisconsin finally responds to declining enrollment

by | 0659, 24 Oct 2323 | | 0 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

We see the numbers in the enrollment of the Universities of Wisconsin. Between 2012 and 2022, the universities enrolled 19,568 fewer full-time equivalent (FTE) students. That is a 12.6% decline in enrollment. The decline has not been uniform across the campuses as students increasingly show affinity for the premier campuses to the detriment of the others. UW-Milwaukee, of which UWM-WC is a part, saw a 25% decline in enrollment over the same decade. UWM-WC’s enrollment, by itself, declined 35%. It was down to just 260 FTE enrollments last year.

 

As an aside, it is worth noting that the Universities of Wisconsin decline in enrollment has been mitigated by their aggressive recruitment of non-residents. Between 2012 and 2022, the decline in resident (Wisconsin kids) FTE enrollment was 27,375 while non-resident enrollment increased by 9,981 FTEs. Over that period, non-resident enrollment increased from 15% of total enrollment to 25% of total enrollment.

 

Returning to UWM-WC, the writing has been on the wall for years. Since its peak enrollment in 2010, enrollment at the UWM-WC campus has been collapsing. The reasons for the decline have nothing to do with the quality of education provided or facilities. The reasons are strictly because of demographic shifts and student preferences for larger campuses. While the campus has been of value for the students who have attended it, it is not economically viable to maintain the campus to serve so few students.

 

Earlier this year, local leaders rallied to find a way to save the campus. A task force created by Washington County Executive Josh Schoemann drafted a high-level plan to merge UWM-WC with Moraine Park Technical College (MPTC) into a type of community college in an effort to shore up both institutions. The idea made it into the state budget that was passed by the Republican legislature with state taxpayers providing funding to facilitate the merge.

 

That part of the state budget was vetoed by Democrat Gov. Tony Evers as the institutions’ leaders clucked their tongues that the “right people” were not involved in manifesting the idea, ergo, the proposed merger was not a good idea. Frankly, I do not know that it was a good idea to prop up a failing institution by merging it with one that is doing better, but the local leaders and Republicans should be commended for trying to rescue the campus. The Democrats and leaders of UWM obstructed the rescue effort and simply wanted to continue to throw taxpayer money into propping up the status quo.

 

Ending in-person enrollment at UWM-WC, and the likelihood that it will completely close within the next couple of years, is long overdue. The Universities of Wisconsin have been slow to respond to the historic and projected decline in enrollment. Institutional inertia is a powerful force, but making small changes now helps eliminate the need for massive changes later.

Latest Milwaukee stadium deal is still terrible

by | 1900, 21 Oct 2323 | | 0 Comments

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News last week.

The latest version of the plan for taxpayers to refurbish and upgrade American Family Field for the Milwaukee Brewers is up for a vote in the Wisconsin Assembly this week. The $546 million package looks headed for passage with support from the Republicans, Gov. Tony Evers, the Brewers, and Milwaukee Democrats. Apparently, if there is anything that unites Wisconsin’s political parties, it is to spend half a billion taxpayer dollars on baseball.

 

The issue is that the taxpayers have majority ownership of the stadium. The current deal with the Brewers is that the taxpayers are responsible for maintaining the stadium and keeping it up to date with the rest of the league. The current funding is inadequate to keep up with the upgrades that the Brewers want for the stadium. Therefore, our politicians want to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade the stadium in exchange for the Brewers agreeing to stay in Wisconsin for longer.

 

The current package includes $411 million from state taxpayers and $67.5 million each from Milwaukee County and the city of Milwaukee. The contribution from Milwaukee city and County has been reduced since the last iteration in an effort to get support from Milwaukee’s local politicians. In addition, the Brewers have agreed to spend $100 million on upgrades. Several weeks ago, this column criticized the stadium funding deal currently being debated and further criticized the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, the government body that owns the majority of the stadium and manages its upkeep. I criticized the district for not monetizing the stadium on behalf of the taxpayers. I unfairly disparaged the district because the lease with the Brewers prohibits the district from using the stadium to generate revenue. For that, I apologize.

 

In the Brewers’ lease, the district (taxpayers) disclaims “all revenues generated by the operations of the Team or derived from the ownership of the Team’s Franchise, as well as from the operation of the Stadium Complex for the Permitted Uses.” In other words, even though the deal has been painted as the taxpayers acting as landlord and the Brewers as tenants, the Brewers actually get any revenue generated by the property.

 

All profit from sponsorships, concessions, concerts, restaurants, parking, or anything else goes to the Brewers. No wonder the team has ballooned in value from $225 million when the current ownership purchased it in 2004 to over $1.6 billion now according to Forbes. Will the taxpayers get any of that appreciated value if the team is sold?

 

As written, the stadium deal is terrible for taxpayers. They will spend $546 million to upgrade the stadium so that it can make even more money for the Brewers’ owners. In return, the Brewers will stay around a while longer. Unless, of course, the owners sell the team, in which case, all bets are off.

 

Before considering any funding to the stadium, conservatives should insist on the following. First, they should rewrite the lease to allow the taxpayers, though the SEWPBPD, to collect all profits generated by the stadium for non-Brewers activities. If the stadium is leased for a corporate event, concert, pro wrestling, political rally, or any other function that does not involve baseball, the taxpayers, who own the building, should receive the profits.

 

Second, the rent paid by the Brewers for the use of the stadium should be based on a revenue share arrangement for revenue generated during Brewers’ games and other baseball-related activities. These first two items will lessen, and possibly eliminate, the need for taxpayer support by making the stadium self-supporting. It will also provide reliable revenue to allow the SEWPBPD to continue to upgrade the facility for years to come.

 

Third, in the event that the Brewers are sold, the lease should require that the taxpayers are refunded the amount they have spent on the stadium. The value of the team has significantly increased in large part due to the wonderful stadium and the revenue it generates. The taxpayers deserve to have their generosity reimbursed instead of all of the net increase in value going to the owners. Alternatively, the Brewers could just grant the SEWPBPD an equity position in the team so that any proceeds from a sale would naturally flow proportionally back to the taxpayers.

 

Absent significant changes to the deal, it should be rejected. While politicians of both parties love to spend money and pose for pictures with the Brewers, someone needs to look out for the taxpayers.

Latest Milwaukee stadium deal is still terrible

by | 0622, 17 Oct 2323 | | 1 Comment

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

Several weeks ago, this column criticized the stadium funding deal currently being debated and further criticized the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, the government body that owns the majority of the stadium and manages its upkeep. I criticized the district for not monetizing the stadium on behalf of the taxpayers. I unfairly disparaged the district because the lease with the Brewers prohibits the district from using the stadium to generate revenue. For that, I apologize.

 

In the Brewers’ lease, the district (taxpayers) disclaims “all revenues generated by the operations of the Team or derived from the ownership of the Team’s Franchise, as well as from the operation of the Stadium Complex for the Permitted Uses.” In other words, even though the deal has been painted as the taxpayers acting as landlord and the Brewers as tenants, the Brewers actually get any revenue generated by the property.

 

All profit from sponsorships, concessions, concerts, restaurants, parking, or anything else goes to the Brewers. No wonder the team has ballooned in value from $225 million when the current ownership purchased it in 2004 to over $1.6 billion now according to Forbes. Will the taxpayers get any of that appreciated value if the team is sold?

 

As written, the stadium deal is terrible for taxpayers. They will spend $546 million to upgrade the stadium so that it can make even more money for the Brewers’ owners. In return, the Brewers will stay around a while longer. Unless, of course, the owners sell the team, in which case, all bets are off.

 

Before considering any funding to the stadium, conservatives should insist on the following. First, they should rewrite the lease to allow the taxpayers, though the SEWPBPD, to collect all profits generated by the stadium for non-Brewers activities. If the stadium is leased for a corporate event, concert, pro wrestling, political rally, or any other function that does not involve baseball, the taxpayers, who own the building, should receive the profits.

 

Second, the rent paid by the Brewers for the use of the stadium should be based on a revenue share arrangement for revenue generated during Brewers’ games and other baseball-related activities. These first two items will lessen, and possibly eliminate, the need for taxpayer support by making the stadium self-supporting. It will also provide reliable revenue to allow the SEWPBPD to continue to upgrade the facility for years to come.

 

Third, in the event that the Brewers are sold, the lease should require that the taxpayers are refunded the amount they have spent on the stadium. The value of the team has significantly increased in large part due to the wonderful stadium and the revenue it generates. The taxpayers deserve to have their generosity reimbursed instead of all of the net increase in value going to the owners. Alternatively, the Brewers could just grant the SEWPBPD an equity position in the team so that any proceeds from a sale would naturally flow proportionally back to the taxpayers.

 

Absent significant changes to the deal, it should be rejected. While politicians of both parties love to spend money and pose for pictures with the Brewers, someone needs to look out for the taxpayers.

Wisconsin Supreme Court begins assault

by | 1719, 13 Oct 2323 | , | 0 Comments

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News earlier this week:

After the new leftists majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court launched an aggressive interbranch offensive against the legislative branch, the Legislature appears poised to return fire. It is going to get messy.

 

Our Wisconsin state government, modeled after the national government, is designed with three co-equal branches. Each branch is empowered with specific powers to check the other two branches. The structure is designed to prevent any single branch from becoming preeminent, or tyrannical, at the expense of the other two branches. The checks are designed to preserve the balance.

 

When Janet Protasiewicz was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April, she tipped the balance of the court from conservative to leftist. Normally, such changes in the past have been frustrating for the losing side, but not dramatic. Liberals dominated the court as recently as 2008 and they had held that majority for decades.

 

This time is different. Both Protasiewicz and her fellow judicial leftists made it very clear during the election that they planned to use their majority power on the court to advance their leftist political agenda. Protasiewicz campaigned at length on topics like abortion, Act 10, and legislative maps. This is a significant change from a time when judges promised to rule on the facts of cases that might come before them to overtly advocating for changing policy from the bench. It is a blunt usurpation of power for the Supreme Court to take upon itself the power of creating and changing laws. That power is reserved for the legislative branch with approval of the executive branch.

 

We see events playing out as predicted by this column. Taking the Judicial Junta up on their offer to invalidate the legislature and make law from the bench, a group of leftist special interests filed a lawsuit asking to redraw Wisconsin’s political maps. Last week, the court agreed to bypass all of the lower courts and take original action on the case.

 

The post-census decennial apportionment of legislative boundaries is exclusively a power of the legislative branch as detailed in Article IV, Section 3, of the state Constitution. Despite the fact that the maps were duly debated, passed, challenged in several courts, and affirmed as legal and constitutional by state and federal courts, this group is challenging them again. The only thing that has changed since the maps were decided is that a Judicial Junta took over the court with the election of Protasiewicz. The law has not changed. The Constitution has not changed. The facts have not changed. We have had several elections with these maps. None of that matters to this court. They have a legislative agenda to pass.

 

Furthermore, despite the fact that Protasiewicz repeatedly called the maps “rigged” while campaigning, thus prejudging any case regarding the existing maps that are coming before the court, Protasiewicz has abandoned judicial ethics and agreed to sit in judgment on the case. Given that Protasiewicz has prejudged the case and the other three members of the junta are equally excited about abandoning judicial objectivity and restraint in order to advance their Marxist agenda, the outcome is already determined. We will get some judicial theater to keep up appearances, but the final act is already written.

 

The Supreme Court’s orchestrated attack on a direct constitutional power of a co-equal branch of government is why constitutional checks were created. The legislative branch has a number of options. The Legislature could use the power of the purse to defund the Supreme Court until they cease their constitutional assault. Such a move would be vetoed by the Judicial Junta’s fellow traveler in the executive branch. Gov. Tony Evers has been cheering the destruction of constitutional government. To be fair, Evers may not fully understand the consequences of unbridled judicial rule. He wouldn’t be the first useful idiot to be consumed by his own ideology.

 

Another tool in the Legislature’s belt is impeachment. Article VII, Section 1 of the state Constitution allows the Legislature to impeach, convince, and remove from office any official, “for corrupt conduct in office, or for crimes and misdemeanors.” Is Protasiewicz corrupt for prejudging a case and refusing to recuse herself ? It is a judgment call. “Corrupt” is a vague word that covers a broad range of unsavory behaviors. I would argue that she is corrupt and pairs that corruption with the kind of bumptiousness that would make Hunter Biden raise an eyebrow.

 

Should the Legislature remove Protasiewicz from office, the actual effect may be negligible since the governor will appoint an identical replacement, but that does not mean that the Legislature should shy away from exercising their constitutional check to defend its own power. This court and its controlling junta is just getting started. They are not going to slow down. If anything, they are accelerating and will not change direction unless someone makes them.

 

In sport, checking an opponent does not always change the outcome of the game, but it does put them on notice that actions have consequences. This Supreme Court needs a supreme check.

 

 

Wisconsin Supreme Court begins assault

by | 0720, 10 Oct 2323 | , | 0 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

After the new leftists majority on the Wisconsin Supreme Court launched an aggressive interbranch offensive against the legislative branch, the Legislature appears poised to return fire. It is going to get messy.

 

Our Wisconsin state government, modeled after the national government, is designed with three co-equal branches. Each branch is empowered with specific powers to check the other two branches. The structure is designed to prevent any single branch from becoming preeminent, or tyrannical, at the expense of the other two branches. The checks are designed to preserve the balance.

 

When Janet Protasiewicz was elected to the Wisconsin Supreme Court in April, she tipped the balance of the court from conservative to leftist. Normally, such changes in the past have been frustrating for the losing side, but not dramatic. Liberals dominated the court as recently as 2008 and they had held that majority for decades.

 

This time is different. Both Protasiewicz and her fellow judicial leftists made it very clear during the election that they planned to use their majority power on the court to advance their leftist political agenda. Protasiewicz campaigned at length on topics like abortion, Act 10, and legislative maps. This is a significant change from a time when judges promised to rule on the facts of cases that might come before them to overtly advocating for changing policy from the bench. It is a blunt usurpation of power for the Supreme Court to take upon itself the power of creating and changing laws. That power is reserved for the legislative branch with approval of the executive branch.

 

We see events playing out as predicted by this column. Taking the Judicial Junta up on their offer to invalidate the legislature and make law from the bench, a group of leftist special interests filed a lawsuit asking to redraw Wisconsin’s political maps. Last week, the court agreed to bypass all of the lower courts and take original action on the case.

 

The post-census decennial apportionment of legislative boundaries is exclusively a power of the legislative branch as detailed in Article IV, Section 3, of the state Constitution. Despite the fact that the maps were duly debated, passed, challenged in several courts, and affirmed as legal and constitutional by state and federal courts, this group is challenging them again. The only thing that has changed since the maps were decided is that a Judicial Junta took over the court with the election of Protasiewicz. The law has not changed. The Constitution has not changed. The facts have not changed. We have had several elections with these maps. None of that matters to this court. They have a legislative agenda to pass.

 

Furthermore, despite the fact that Protasiewicz repeatedly called the maps “rigged” while campaigning, thus prejudging any case regarding the existing maps that are coming before the court, Protasiewicz has abandoned judicial ethics and agreed to sit in judgment on the case. Given that Protasiewicz has prejudged the case and the other three members of the junta are equally excited about abandoning judicial objectivity and restraint in order to advance their Marxist agenda, the outcome is already determined. We will get some judicial theater to keep up appearances, but the final act is already written.

 

The Supreme Court’s orchestrated attack on a direct constitutional power of a co-equal branch of government is why constitutional checks were created.

Student loan repayments restart

by | 2028, 8 Oct 2323 | , , , | 0 Comments

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News last week:

With October upon us, the well-meaning, morally repugnant, and oft-extended moratorium on student loan repayments has finally come to an end. It is not a crisis. It is a return to normalcy.

 

According to Forbes, borrowers owe $1.75 trillion in student debt, including federal and private loans, or about $28,950 per student. Interestingly, the average debt for just federal loans is $35,210 per borrower, indicating that federal loans are granted much more liberally than private loans. In Wisconsin, the average borrower owes $30,778 in federal student loans.

 

That is a lot of money by any measurement. The problem is exacerbated by the fact that many of the people who owe tens of thousands of dollars for their education are not earning enough money to comfortably pay it back. It is difficult for a person earning $36,754 per year (the average per-capita income in Wisconsin in 2021 according to the U.S. Census Bureau) to fit student loan payments into their monthly budget — especially in Biden’s inflationary economy.

 

Student loans have been around for generations, but the issue has become acute in recent decades because of two aggravating factors. First, the cost of a college education has skyrocketed. Between 1992 and 2022, the inflation-adjusted average cost of college at a four-year public university increased by 26.7% according to College Board. A $50,000 education in 1992 now costs $129,000. Over the same period, inflation-adjusted median household income rose by only 17.6%. The price of higher education has been increasing much faster than students’ ability to pay.

 

The reasons for those increases are myriad. The federalization of student loans made for easy money for universities to tap. They took advantage of students flush with borrowed cash to bloat up their administrations and go on a building binge.

 

Meanwhile, the second aggravating factor is that demand has risen as high schools across America portray a college education as the only viable path to stave off poverty. Instead of portraying the military, the trades, entrepreneurship, or other career paths as equally viable, too many high school teachers and counselors — all college graduates themselves — have culturalized kids to think that anyone without a college degree is lesser.

 

Compounding the misleading culturalization, the abysmally wretched financial education provided in those high schools leave prospective students ill-equipped to evaluate the risk/reward of financing a college degree with debt. Ignorant of the power of compounding interest, too many kids are borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree with little market value. The result is that they are unable to get jobs after graduation that pay enough to easily pay off the debt.

 

It is true that some people are not getting the value out of their degrees that they had hoped for or were promised. It is true that college costs more than it should. It is true that student loan payments make it more difficult to afford other things and that everything is more expensive than it used to be. It is true that lenders were all too eager to dole out money without any consideration of the degree being pursued or potential future earnings of the graduate.

 

All of these things are true, but it does not absolve the borrowers from the obligation to pay off their own debt. It is not a financial question. It is a moral one. If you borrowed the money, then you must pay it back. To fail to do so makes you a shameful deadbeat and a drain on your family and community. Having a college degree does not make you any less of a loser if you renege on your obligations.

 

Furthermore, nobody wants to hear you whine about your student loans. In 2022, less than 38% of adults 25 and older had at least a bachelor’s degree. Three in five adults in the United States do not have a college degree and did not sign up to pay off the debt of people who have one. Most adults who do have a college degree have either paid off their student loans, are paying off their own student loans, or never took out a loan in the first place. They did not sign up to subsidize deadbeats who do not want to pay off their student loans.

 

The college and student loan system is terribly broken and has led far too many people into borrowing more money than they can easily afford to buy degrees of marginal value. Honor, respect, and dignity demand that the borrowers pay it back as promised.

Student loan repayments restart

by | 0731, 3 Oct 2323 | , , , | 6 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

Meanwhile, the second aggravating factor is that demand has risen as high schools across America portray a college education as the only viable path to stave off poverty. Instead of portraying the military, the trades, entrepreneurship, or other career paths as equally viable, too many high school teachers and counselors — all college graduates themselves — have culturalized kids to think that anyone without a college degree is lesser.

 

Compounding the misleading culturalization, the abysmally wretched financial education provided in those high schools leave prospective students ill-equipped to evaluate the risk/reward of financing a college degree with debt. Ignorant of the power of compounding interest, too many kids are borrowing tens of thousands of dollars to get a degree with little market value. The result is that they are unable to get jobs after graduation that pay enough to easily pay off the debt.

 

It is true that some people are not getting the value out of their degrees that they had hoped for or were promised. It is true that college costs more than it should. It is true that student loan payments make it more difficult to afford other things and that everything is more expensive than it used to be. It is true that lenders were all too eager to dole out money without any consideration of the degree being pursued or potential future earnings of the graduate.

 

All of these things are true, but it does not absolve the borrowers from the obligation to pay off their own debt. It is not a financial question. It is a moral one. If you borrowed the money, then you must pay it back. To fail to do so makes you a shameful deadbeat and a drain on your family and community. Having a college degree does not make you any less of a loser if you renege on your obligations.

 

Furthermore, nobody wants to hear you whine about your student loans. In 2022, less than 38% of adults 25 and older had at least a bachelor’s degree. Three in five adults in the United States do not have a college degree and did not sign up to pay off the debt of people who have one. Most adults who do have a college degree have either paid off their student loans, are paying off their own student loans, or never took out a loan in the first place. They did not sign up to subsidize deadbeats who do not want to pay off their student loans.

 

The college and student loan system is terribly broken and has led far too many people into borrowing more money than they can easily afford to buy degrees of marginal value. Honor, respect, and dignity demand that the borrowers pay it back as promised.

Milwaukee’s money pit

by | 1049, 30 Sep 2323 | , | 2 Comments

Here is my full column that ran earlier in the week in the Washington County Daily News

Wisconsin’s legislative Republicans have announced a new proposal to fund renovations at American Family Field in an effort to keep the Brewers in Milwaukee for another generation. The plan is a package of $600 million in state, county, and city funding coupled with $100 million from the Brewers. This is the third or fourth such proposal (I have lost count), but all of the proposals make some rather sweeping assumptions that must be challenged before the taxpayers are put on the financial hook for another couple of decades.

 

The first assumption is that having a Major League Baseball team in a particular community is a net benefit to that community. The current funding plan reflects that perceived benefit with proportionally more funding being committed by the entities that stand to benefit the most.

 

The Milwaukee Brewers are a private, for-profit business. They provide entertainment for profit. The Brewers employ local people, attract people from out of state to spend money in Wisconsin, and anchor some economic development. In this respect, they are no different than many other businesses headquartered in the state like a robust manufacturer or technology firm that generates economic benefit — most of which flows into the pockets of business owners and their employees.

 

There is also an intangible benefit to the Brewers being in Wisconsin. A major sports franchise contributes to a community by providing a shared identity and point of pride. It is a unifying force. Measuring this identifiable, but unquantifiable, benefit is difficult. We must acknowledge that there is a significant amount of vanity influencing the debate. Many lawmakers who want the taxpayers to support the Brewers do so because they like supporting the Brewers. They are fans.

 

If we take the first assumption to be true — that the Brewers are a net economic and societal benefit for Milwaukee and Wisconsin — then we must challenge a second assumption. Should the taxpayers subsidize the success of this private business?

 

Politicians are notoriously opaque about deciding when and how taxpayers should fund the success of private enterprises, but it happens all the time.

 

Through tax incremental finance districts, favorable tax incentives, direct subsidies, and other means, taxpayers are constantly supporting private businesses under the auspices of economic development.

 

Such taxpayer support is not necessarily a bad thing, but it should be done with reticence and clear expectations as to the return that the taxpayers might receive for their forced investment in a private enterprise. Too often, politicians are lax in their due diligence and weak in their demands when doling out taxpayer money. Such is the benefit of them spending other people’s money where they can take a victory lap for the spending while never being held accountable if there is no return on the investment.

 

All such investments must be prioritized in the context of all of the other demands on taxpayers. Is fixing AmFam Field more important than funding law enforcement? Road maintenance? Snow removal?

 

Other economic development like technology or manufacturing? Is AmFam Field more important than lowering taxes and reducing the size of government?

 

There is no such thing as a free lunch. In a world of scarce resources, funding AmFam Field means that something else will not make the list.

 

All things considered, having the Brewers in Wisconsin is a net benefit to the state, but it does not rise to the level of justifying hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer support. Moreover, the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, which owns and operated AmFam Field, has done a terrible job managing the facility to be self-sustaining.

 

A quick look at the SWPBPD’s 2022 financial statements shows that they are running chronic losses. The only sources of revenue are $905,000 from rent from the Brewers, $300,000 in license plate revenue from the vanity plates, $4,500 in miscellaneous, and they lost $7.1 million in investments. Add on the $10.5 million in expenses and the District lost $16.4 million. This operating loss was on top of the $9.9 million loss in 2021.

 

2022 was a brutal year for everyone’s investments thanks to Bidenomics, so we can forgive the investment loss. The financials, however, beg some questions. Why did the Brewers pay less than $1 million per year to use the facility in 2022? That is less than $12,000 per home game. Why has the SWPBPD not found other ways to bring in revenue for the facility?

 

Why have they not been renting out the facility for other events to generate more revenue? Why is the SWPBPD not getting a cut of the sponsorship and concessions money? There is a lot of money is flowing through that stadium that is not making it to the taxpayers who own it for use in its maintenance.

 

The SWPBPD did a commendable job paying off the stadium debt early, but they have not done anything in twenty years to build a self-supporting revenue structure once the five-county stadium sales tax ended.

 

They are supporting expenses by spending down the nearly $60 million in reserves that was generated by the now defunct stadium tax. It appears that the plan all along was to come back to the public trough to sustain the stadium’s operations and maintenance.

 

Taxpayers are rightfully dubious about spending more hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for a building that has been terribly managed for the benefit of one private business. Lawmakers should look to sell the facility to a private enterprise that can manage it profitably and end the taxpayers’ obligation for its upkeep. Even if the underlying assets are sold for below market value, the end of taxpayer obligations is a net benefit for taxpayers. If lawmakers cannot find a private buyer willing to make the investment, then we must ask again why taxpayers would.

A few notes on this column. First, I screwed up the acronym. The governing board actually goes by SEWPBPD instead of SWPBPD. I’m not sure that’s an improvement, but there it is.

Also, it turns out that the lease that the Brewers have with the SEWPBPD that was negotiated and put in place by lawmakers before the board was constituted prohibits the board from monetizing the stadium. Essentially, the Brewers have exclusive access and get any proceeds from renting it out, concessions, sponsorships, etc. As the lease is written, the Brewers – NOT the taxpayers – get all of the benefits of owning the stadium without having any of the obligations for its upkeep or improvements.

The taxpayers are getting hosed here. Privatize the stadium and get the taxpayers out of bearing the costs of this wealthy, private entertainment business.

Milwaukee’s money pit

by | 0721, 26 Sep 2323 | | 1 Comment

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

If we take the first assumption to be true — that the Brewers are a net economic and societal benefit for Milwaukee and Wisconsin — then we must challenge a second assumption. Should the taxpayers subsidize the success of this private business?

 

Politicians are notoriously opaque about deciding when and how taxpayers should fund the success of private enterprises, but it happens all the time.

 

Through tax incremental finance districts, favorable tax incentives, direct subsidies, and other means, taxpayers are constantly supporting private businesses under the auspices of economic development.

 

Such taxpayer support is not necessarily a bad thing, but it should be done with reticence and clear expectations as to the return that the taxpayers might receive for their forced investment in a private enterprise. Too often, politicians are lax in their due diligence and weak in their demands when doling out taxpayer money. Such is the benefit of them spending other people’s money where they can take a victory lap for the spending while never being held accountable if there is no return on the investment.

 

All such investments must be prioritized in the context of all of the other demands on taxpayers. Is fixing AmFam Field more important than funding law enforcement? Road maintenance? Snow removal?

 

Other economic development like technology or manufacturing? Is AmFam Field more important than lowering taxes and reducing the size of government?

 

There is no such thing as a free lunch. In a world of scarce resources, funding AmFam Field means that something else will not make the list.

 

All things considered, having the Brewers in Wisconsin is a net benefit to the state, but it does not rise to the level of justifying hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer support. Moreover, the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park District, which owns and operated AmFam Field, has done a terrible job managing the facility to be self-sustaining.

 

A quick look at the SWPBPD’s 2022 financial statements shows that they are running chronic losses. The only sources of revenue are $905,000 from rent from the Brewers, $300,000 in license plate revenue from the vanity plates, $4,500 in miscellaneous, and they lost $7.1 million in investments. Add on the $10.5 million in expenses and the District lost $16.4 million. This operating loss was on top of the $9.9 million loss in 2021.

 

2022 was a brutal year for everyone’s investments thanks to Bidenomics, so we can forgive the investment loss. The financials, however, beg some questions. Why did the Brewers pay less than $1 million per year to use the facility in 2022? That is less than $12,000 per home game. Why has the SWPBPD not found other ways to bring in revenue for the facility?

 

Why have they not been renting out the facility for other events to generate more revenue? Why is the SWPBPD not getting a cut of the sponsorship and concessions money? There is a lot of money is flowing through that stadium that is not making it to the taxpayers who own it for use in its maintenance.

 

The SWPBPD did a commendable job paying off the stadium debt early, but they have not done anything in twenty years to build a self-supporting revenue structure once the five-county stadium sales tax ended.

 

They are supporting expenses by spending down the nearly $60 million in reserves that was generated by the now defunct stadium tax. It appears that the plan all along was to come back to the public trough to sustain the stadium’s operations and maintenance.

 

Taxpayers are rightfully dubious about spending more hundreds of millions of dollars to pay for a building that has been terribly managed for the benefit of one private business. Lawmakers should look to sell the facility to a private enterprise that can manage it profitably and end the taxpayers’ obligation for its upkeep. Even if the underlying assets are sold for below market value, the end of taxpayer obligations is a net benefit for taxpayers. If lawmakers cannot find a private buyer willing to make the investment, then we must ask again why taxpayers would.

The rematch nobody wants

by | 0636, 19 Sep 2323 | | 16 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

C’mon, America. Are we really going to do this? In a country of over 330 million people with legions of brilliant, ethical, honest, compassionate and humble servant leaders, are we really going to be forced to choose between Joe Biden and Donald Trump? Is this the best we have to offer? If the polls are any indication, we are barreling headlong into choosing between these two terribly flawed grouchy old men.

 

The Democrats appear to be committed to nominating President Joe Biden to be considered by the voters for a second term. Biden’s cognitive decline is as obvious as it is distressing. The incidents of Biden getting confused, wandering off and rambling incoherently are increasingly frequent. His press conference in Vietnam last week was tragic. He rambled from inappropriate jokes to getting confused over questions and admitting, “I’m just following my orders here” to having his staff cut him off as he closed with, “I’m going to go to bed.”

 

As happens with many elderly people who are in cognitive decline, Biden’s unsavory personal traits have come to the surface. Unable to stop himself from wandering from a podium, he is now vacillating between strange whispering into the handheld microphone to shouting for no apparent reason. Biden has always been known for his prolific lying. He was even run off the presidential campaign trail in 1988 when he was caught plagiarizing. His sagging ability to think on his feet have him blundering into even more obvious lies. His claim last week that he was in Manhattan the day after 9/11 was disproven within minutes by video of him in Washington D.C. that day.

 

Biden’s years of rank corruption are also coming to the surface. The House Committee on Oversight and Accountability has released some of the evidence they have gathered about the Biden’s real family business. The evidence shows years of corruption where tens of millions of dollars from foreign bad actors flowed through a web aliases (Joe Biden had at least three) and shell companies controlled by Biden family members with Hunter Biden serving as the primary bag man. The product they were selling was allegedly access to one of the most powerful people on the planet — Joe Biden. The Biden family has not offered any other reasonable explanation for why foreigners have been giving them millions of dollars.

 

As if the lies, corruption, and slip into senility was not enough, Biden’s first term has been an unmitigated failure. Inflation has raged out of control eating into every American’s quality of life. People are struggling to buy groceries, cars and homes as real wages have stagnated. The Southern border is wide open with tens of thousands of illegal aliens flowing into our nation every month to eat at our overburdened social safety net. Our nation is running up our national debt to a nation-killing level. Our enemies and friends are laughing at us as the world order reorients away from a languishing lion.

 

Despite all of this, the Democrats seem dead set on propping up old Joe for another term.

 

The Republicans are not doing much better. Despite several fantastic alternatives who are younger, smarter, more conservative, more likable, and with better records in public office, the Republicans seem dead set on nominating former President Donald Trump.

 

Only three years younger than Joe Biden, Trump’s cognitive abilities are holding firm even as his stamina slumps with marathon rallies being replaced by short and infrequent campaign stops. His lifetime of lying is currently manifesting itself in a voluminous attempt to gaslight the nation as to his record and the records of his Republican opponents. His energies that were focused on the righteous populist anger of the average American in 2016 and 2020 have been redirected in 2023 to his lengthy list of personal grudges and electoral fantasies.

 

While the litany of indictments against Trump are the more the result of the Marxist weaponization of our judicial system than a true assessment of Trump’s behavior, he has always shoved past dowdy ethical to flirt with the skirts of law.

 

Trump’s record as president was decidedly mixed. He was exceptional in securing the border, deregulating, selecting conservative judges, pulling America back from bad international deals, destroying ISIS, and reigniting our economy. These remarkable successes are weighted down by his prolific spending, ballooning debt, and lethargy in adjusting government policy to the reality of the pandemic. Perhaps his greatest failure was his terrible selection of, and support of, government officials from Anthony Fauci to Christopher Wray. Instead of draining the swamp, Trump added to and protected it.

 

America deserves better than to have a presidential campaign that resembles two semi-coherent old men yelling at each other from opposite ends of the bar about the television channel. Or do we?

 

I ask again … are we really going to do this?

Governor’s office not being run in accordance with societal norms

by | 1558, 15 Sep 2323 | | 0 Comments

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News earlier this week.

When I first entered the professional workforce long ago in the previous millennia, I recall the new employee onboarding process. Neatly pressed with my briefcase in hand, faux leather portfolio, and resume printed on crisp premium linen paper, I met with the Human Resources professional to read and physically sign all the paperwork. Included in that paperwork were the sexual harassment policies and the absolute prohibition of romantic or sexual relationships between superiors and subordinates. The existence of such a relationship was grounds for immediate termination.

 

It has been at least that long since such policies have been commonplace in the professional workforce, but Gov. Tony Evers’ office has not yet come into the previous century. His office is still one where bosses are allowed to have sexual and romantic relationships with their subordinates as long as the governor is closely monitoring the situation.

 

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel broke the story last week that Evers’ long time Chief of Staff, Maggie Gau, the power behind the throne, has been in a relationship with one of her direct subordinates for years. When confronted with the news, the governor reacted aggressively rejecting the implication that such a situation was inappropriate. He said, “I don’t think it’s anybody’s g****** business” and assured people that, “I monitor their performance on a regular basis.”

 

It was also revealed that the governor’s office does not have a policy prohibiting such relationships and that the governor patently rejects the idea that such a policy is necessary. The governor rejects that such a policy is necessary because it is a small staff of about thirty people and he can personally evaluate each member’s performance to avoid any possibility of inappropriate behavior based on who is having sex with whom.

 

Since the governor has taken personal ownership and responsibility for each member of his staff’s performance, perhaps he can explain the meteoric rise of Gau’s better half. Originally appointed as a deputy in 2019 for $62,000 per year, the employee was promoted to report directly to Gau in 2020 and given a raise to $100,006 per year. This year, that salary was increased to $112,008. That is an 80% increase in pay in just four years when other state employees are barely seeing cost of living increases in their wages.

 

Did Governor Evers conduct a competitive hiring process before signing off on the promotion? Were other candidates considered? What were the selection criteria? What experience or previous performance supported the promotion for that employee more than other employees of similar rank and tenure? If everything is above board, then surely the governor would willingly show the rigor behind his hiring and promotion methodology, no?

 

But, of course, even if everything has been done with full transparency and fairness, the mere existence of the relationship taints the office. Even the University of Wisconsin-Madison, one of the most leftist organizations in America, correctly points out the reason that they have a policy prohibiting romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates. Their policy states, “… such relationships create an environment charged with potential or perceived conflicts of interest and possible use of academic or supervisory leverage to maintain or promote the relationship. Romantic or sexual relationships that the parties view as consensual may still raise questions of favoritism, as well as of a potential abuse of trust and power.”

 

This is common sense and normal practice everywhere except in Governor Evers’ office. Furthermore, such relationships put the organization at great risk of legal liability. If the relationship goes sour, then the organization can be sued for allowing someone in a position of power to wield it over a romantic interest. Others in the office can sue the organization if they think they have been discriminated against or denied fair treatment based on the relationship. These lawsuits can result in the organization, in this case the State of Wisconsin, paying out millions of dollars in damages to the plaintiffs and their lawyers. In this case, it is just the taxpayers’ money, so we understand why Governor Evers is unbothered by the risk.

 

Governor Evers is running an office in which romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates is allowed at great risk to the taxpayers and at great consternation to others in the office who do not have exclusive access to his chief of staff’s ear in the wee hours of the morning. He has forcefully, and repeatedly, taken personal responsibility to ensure that all employment practices are appropriately followed irrespective of such relationships. It is his burden of proof to show that his office is being run in a professional way within the legal strictures and societal norms the rest of us live by every day.

Governor’s office not being run in accordance with societal norms

by | 0718, 12 Sep 2323 | | 2 Comments

Not my favorite headline, but my column is online and in print in the Washington County Daily News today. Here’s a part:

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel broke the story last week that Evers’ long time Chief of Staff, Maggie Gau, the power behind the throne, has been in a relationship with one of her direct subordinates for years. When confronted with the news, the governor reacted aggressively rejecting the implication that such a situation was inappropriate. He said, “I don’t think it’s anybody’s g****** business” and assured people that, “I monitor their performance on a regular basis.”

 

It was also revealed that the governor’s office does not have a policy prohibiting such relationships and that the governor patently rejects the idea that such a policy is necessary. The governor rejects that such a policy is necessary because it is a small staff of about thirty people and he can personally evaluate each member’s performance to avoid any possibility of inappropriate behavior based on who is having sex with whom.

 

Since the governor has taken personal ownership and responsibility for each member of his staff’s performance, perhaps he can explain the meteoric rise of Gau’s better half. Originally appointed as a deputy in 2019 for $62,000 per year, the employee was promoted to report directly to Gau in 2020 and given a raise to $100,006 per year. This year, that salary was increased to $112,008. That is an 80% increase in pay in just four years when other state employees are barely seeing cost of living increases in their wages.

 

Did Governor Evers conduct a competitive hiring process before signing off on the promotion? Were other candidates considered? What were the selection criteria? What experience or previous performance supported the promotion for that employee more than other employees of similar rank and tenure? If everything is above board, then surely the governor would willingly show the rigor behind his hiring and promotion methodology, no?

 

[…]

 

Governor Evers is running an office in which romantic relationships between superiors and subordinates is allowed at great risk to the taxpayers and at great consternation to others in the office who do not have exclusive access to his chief of staff’s ear in the wee hours of the morning. He has forcefully, and repeatedly, taken personal responsibility to ensure that all employment practices are appropriately followed irrespective of such relationships. It is his burden of proof to show that his office is being run in a professional way within the legal strictures and societal norms the rest of us live by every day.

Wisconsin Supreme Court’s leftist majority forfeits court’s authority

by | 1853, 8 Sep 2323 | , | 0 Comments

Here is my full column that ran in the Washington County Daily News earlier this week.

What do we do when high government officials act without regard to the Constitution or law? What do we do when government officials engage in a bloodless insurrection and usurp power that is not theirs? It is happening in the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the new liberal majority has moved swiftly to orchestrate a coup while running roughshod over the state Constitution, the law, and long-established court rules.

 

Even before Janet Protasiewicz was seated, the incoming liberal majority had notified the long-standing and award-winning State Courts Director, Randy Koshnick, that he was fired. The firing violated several internal court rules and simple decency toward a longstanding state employee.

 

Continuing their galumph over court rules and state law, the liberal gang appointed Milwaukee Judge Audrey Skwierawski to replace Koshnick. Not only was it not a competitive hiring process in which persons of color and others candidates were considered, but it violates state law. Wisconsin statute 757.02(2) states, “The judge of any court of record in this state shall be ineligible to hold any office of public trust, except a judicial office, during the term for which he or she was elected or appointed.”

 

Skwierawski claims to be on leave, but the statute is clear that she cannot legally serve as the State Courts Director during the term for which she was elected. The only way she could legally hold the position is if she resigned as a judge, but she has declined to do so.

 

We have quickly learned why the leftist majority rammed Skwierawski into the position. Last week, Chief Justice Annette Ziegler discovered that Skwierawski had been signing reserve judge orders with Justice Ziegler’s name without Ziegler’s knowledge or permission. It is unclear what else Skwierawski may have signed while impersonating the Chief Justice. This alleged identity theft by Skwierawski is a direct usurpation of Ziegler’s power and a violation of her person.

 

The leftist majority also violated court rules to pass new administrative rules to usurp the Chief Justice’s power. Under court rule III(A), any change to the court schedule agreed upon in the spring requires unanimous approval of all seven elected justices. These rules have been in effect since 1984 and adhered to in times of liberal and conservative majorities. Contrary to that rule, the four leftist justices met alone on August fourth to change the administrative structure of the court.

 

Not only was their meeting unauthorized and invalid, but the rule they “passed” violates the state Constitution. One of the changes was to create a three-justice committee to administer the court. The committee consists of the Chief Justice and two justices elected by the leftist majority. Of course, those two elected committee members are elected by the leftist majority and would effectively usurp all of the power of the Chief Justice.

 

The Wisconsin State Constitution Article VII Section 4(3) states, “The chief justice of the supreme court shall be the administrative head of the judicial system and shall exercise this administrative authority pursuant to procedures adopted by the supreme court.” The Chief Justice’s exclusive authority to administer the Supreme Court is granted by, and protected by, the Constitution. The leftist majority’s administrative committee is a direct violation of the Constitution.

 

It has only been a month and the leftists on the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been acting with Marxist disregard for the rule of law in pursuit of overwhelming power that would make Comrade Stalin wince at their brazenness.

 

When a majority of the justices on the state’s high court are so clearly and openly violating the court’s own rules, state law, and the Constitution, they have forfeited their authority and surrendered their power to judge the affairs of the people of Wisconsin. If they do not follow the law and the Constitution, they have no authority to judge whether we do.

Wisconsin Supreme Court’s leftist majority forfeits court’s authority

by | 0727, 5 Sep 2323 | , | 4 Comments

My column for the Washington County Daily News is online and in print. Here’s a part:

What do we do when high government officials act without regard to the Constitution or law? What do we do when government officials engage in a bloodless insurrection and usurp power that is not theirs? It is happening in the Wisconsin Supreme Court as the new liberal majority has moved swiftly to orchestrate a coup while running roughshod over the state Constitution, the law, and long-established court rules.

 

[…]

 

Continuing their galumph over court rules and state law, the liberal gang appointed Milwaukee Judge Audrey Skwierawski to replace Koshnick. Not only was it not a competitive hiring process in which persons of color and others candidates were considered, but it violates state law. Wisconsin statute 757.02(2) states, “The judge of any court of record in this state shall be ineligible to hold any office of public trust, except a judicial office, during the term for which he or she was elected or appointed.”

 

Skwierawski claims to be on leave, but the statute is clear that she cannot legally serve as the State Courts Director during the term for which she was elected. The only way she could legally hold the position is if she resigned as a judge, but she has declined to do so.

 

We have quickly learned why the leftist majority rammed Skwierawski into the position. Last week, Chief Justice Annette Ziegler discovered that Skwierawski had been signing reserve judge orders with Justice Ziegler’s name without Ziegler’s knowledge or permission. It is unclear what else Skwierawski may have signed while impersonating the Chief Justice. This alleged identity theft by Skwierawski is a direct usurpation of Ziegler’s power and a violation of her person.

 

[…]

 

It has only been a month and the leftists on the Wisconsin Supreme Court has been acting with Marxist disregard for the rule of law in pursuit of overwhelming power that would make Comrade Stalin wince at their brazenness.

 

When a majority of the justices on the state’s high court are so clearly and openly violating the court’s own rules, state law, and the Constitution, they have forfeited their authority and surrendered their power to judge the affairs of the people of Wisconsin. If they do not follow the law and the Constitution, they have no authority to judge whether we do.

Login | Register

Archives

Categories

Pin It on Pinterest