A Solution In Search Of A Problem

I'm as aware as anyone of the high cost of gasoline and its affect on the wallet. I drive back and forth from Fennimore to Dubuque every day for work. And with the campaign in full swing, every weekend involves quite a bit of windshield time. I'm pretty sure I'm not going to suffer from any bulging discs in my back due to carrying an oversized wallet.

It seems every day we get at least 15 different opinions from 20 different sources as to why gas prices are so high. I don't think I need to rehash them all. We can break it down to it's simplest form.

Oil companies are donating astronomical sums of money to Republican Senators and Congressmen, who control the House, Senate, and Administration.

Oil companies are recording record smashing quarterly and yearly profits.

Gas prices are over $3.00 a gallon.

Put it all together and get back to me.

I'm fully aware of the supply/demand relationship and that it has an impact. Refinery capacity, crude production, more gas guzzlers, etc. all can share some blame.

Of course, if you ask most oil companies and their corporate lackey congressmen and even President Bush, it's all ethanol's fault. Those corn farmers are getting filthy rich from ethanol and oppressing those poor defenseless oil companies that are trying to do nothing more than look out for the public good.

Now Wisconsin Congressmen Mark Green and Paul Ryan are saddling up to come riding to our rescue with this great solution to a problem that doesn't exist.
http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-state.cfm?Id=770&yr=2006

Right in lock-step with President Bush, who blames the high price of gas on boutique fuels.

“We ... need to confront the larger problem of too many localized fuel
blends, which are called boutique fuels,” the president told a renewable fuels
conference, adding that this has produced “an uncoordinated, overly complex set
of fuel rules” that “tends to cause the price to go up.”

Fine and dandy, Mr. President. But you're wrong. And a study you asked for tells you that you're wrong, Mark Green's wrong. Paul Ryan's wrong.

“Boutique” gasoline blends to help states meet clean air rules are not a
factor in higher prices as President Bush has suggested, says a draft of a study
ordered by the White House.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13488565/

Basically, what this effort by Bush, Green, and Ryan amounts to is an effort to further lower the environmental regulations on gasoline production. It has nothing to do with making prices cheaper. I think we know by now that any price savings are going to be given to Big Oil CEOs, not passed on to consumers.

Short and to the point

It's gonna be a short entry today. I'm a busy man. I've been walking the streets of Platteville knocking on doors and talking with voters.

I did meet with a group of voters in Platteville last night for a meet and greet. Thanks to the Peckhams for their hospitality.

Catch ya later!

Very Interesting

Republicans and big business in cahoot? Couldn't be.

Or could it?

http://www.wisopinion.com/blogs/2006/06/business-climate-plot-thickensas-wmc.html

From the blog:

We must think out of the box and take bold steps. Wisconsin should strongly consider:Eliminating the corporate income tax -- That's right, not reducing it, not providing more credits, getting rid of it altogether. Not only would this send a message that Wisconsin is serious about attracting employers, but it would help Wisconsin exporters deal with WTO regulations that favor nations with no or lower corporate income taxes.

Cutting individual income taxes,especially the top rate -- Reducing taxes make jobs in Wisconsin more attractive to the "creative" or 'innovative' class. Bike trails and fun entertainment are nice, but companies need to be able to provide competitive salaries and high income taxes make that difficult.

Eliminating the personal property tax -- The personal property tax directly discourages capital investment by businesses. Wisconsin could significantly improve its business climate by eliminating the last remaining business equipment property taxes, the only personal property tax allowed.

And the CEO of the company lives happily ever after.

And we pay for this how??????

Here's an interesting bit of analysis by Paul Soglin on the real concerns of businesses in Wisconsin, versus the complaints they use during election years.

http://www.waxingamerica.com/2006/06/the_2006_wiscon.html

Kids say the darnedest things

I had to run in to Madison yesterday evening for a meeting with Russ Feingold's campaign committee. Whenever I'm in Madison, I try to work in a visit to my brother, sister-in-law, and most importantly, their two kids. (3-yr. old daughter and a son who will be 1 in late November)

They were eating dinner (nice timing by me, don't you think? Not really. I didn't like what they were having, so I just had a beer) and the 3-yr old girl was eating her dinner and informing me of everything a 3 year old could inform me of.

One of the things I love about children her age are the arbitrary blurtings of fact that come from their mouth.

During a lull in the conversation, she proclaimed, "I use a tissue for my nose. Not my finger."

Best campaign advice I got all day.

Say what you will, but the proof is in the pudding.

When I'm out on the campaign trail, I obviously encounter both democrats and republicans. When I talk to republicans, I always ask them why they are republicans. The answer most often is something along the lines of, "because I want to keep my money, taxes are too high, and the government spends too much." It sounds good and makes for a good campaign stump speech for a republican. Problem is, there ain't much truth to it. We all know of the astronomical spending by the Bush Administration and the republican controlled congress.

But what about Wisconsin? When the same republicans that complain of high taxes wax nostalgic about the days of Tommy Thompson, the great republican, and bash Jim Doyle, the "tax and spend flaming liberal democrat" I get a chuckle out of their response when I ask them to consider this.

When Tommy Thompson left office for Washington, he left Wisconsin in a financial mess. We're talking a $3.2 billion dollar deficit type of mess.

Since then, Governor Jim Doyle was able to balance that budget WITHOUT RAISING TAXES. In fact, he cut $600 million dollars in spending, while still funding schools and freezing property taxes.

Then consider the republican budget proposal. Had Doyle not been able to use his veto pen, the budget passed by the repubs would have:

Created a $1.1 billion dollar deficit in the 2 year budget ending in 2007.

Added 649 more full time state workers than Doyle recommended in his budget. (Prior to Doyle getting elected, republicans were demanding that the number of state workers be trimmed.)

Relied on $250 million more in one-time funds than Doyle's proposal.

Increased general fund spending by $1 billion in the second and final year of the budget.

Only a 1% increase in school funding.

Who's the fiscally responsible party?

Thanks!

A big thank you to all the folks that stopped by the Badger Bar in Platteville last Friday. I enjoyed the visit and the chance to let you know what I think. We will probably be doing more of these in other communities in the 49th Assembly District.

I'd also like to tip my cap to the people in Livingston for putting on a great parade and festival on Sunday. Even with the late afternoon rains, it was well worth the effort.

Campaign Finance Reform. One Beer At A Time!

This came across the AP wire this morning.

London, Ont. (AP)- Stuart Smith doesn't need any fat-cat political contributors. Smith says his campaign is "running on empties." Smith is a candidate for city council in London, Ontario. He plans on financing his campaign by returning 25-thousand beer bottles. At ten cents each, that would give him 25-hundred dollars. But he still needs donations, of a sort. Smith doesn't drink beer so he's looking for bottles. The real estate salesman hopes his "running on empties" effort will bring some attention to his campaign.

I can just see the slogans.

"Stuart Smith--good for drunks, good for the environment"

"A beer for you is a vote for Smith"

"Paid for by Smith and a bunch of beer guzzlers"


Maybe I should invite Mr. Smith to the campaign kickoff tonight in Platteville.

Speaking of the campaign kickoff; 5:30pm tonight at the Badger Bar on 2nd St.

The food, coffee, free advice, and awe inspring ideas are on me. You gotta pay for your drinks.

See ya there!

How much further will you let them go?

First it was phones. Then it was emails. Now it's your bank accounts.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22cnd-intel.html?ex=1151640000&en=6ea0fee64e216599&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

Naturally, the administration claims they need no warrant.

The program, however, is a significant departure from typical practice in how the government acquires Americans' financial records. Treasury officials did not seek individual court-approved warrants or subpoenas to examine specific transactions, instead relying on broad administrative subpoenas for millions of records from the cooperative, known as Swift.

When does it end? How far are we willing to let them go? HOW HARD IS IT TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND GET A WARRANT?

All they do when they don't follow procedure is make it easier for any real criminals they catch to be set free because of violations of the 4th Ammendment.

Are health records next?

Republicans block E85 pumps

It's one thing to say you support ethanol, or renewable fuels in general. Anybody can say that. It's another to back it up with action. Talk the talk, and walk the walk. Republicans failed to do that again.

http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-state.cfm?Id=742&yr=2006

"Republicans cited a bogus concern that the money would end up going to big oil companies--even though no gas stations in Wisconsin are owned by one of the big six oil companies," Doyle's office said in a media release. "Virtually all gas stations in Wisconsin are independently owned, and not one penny of the funding would have gone to big oil."

I suppose it's a valid concern. After all, Republicans TAKE money from big oil. It probably confused them when they thought they were going to GIVE money to big oil. Either way, they can take confort in knowing that they carried more water for big oil with this obstruction.

And I wonder why fuel prices are high while oil execs reel in record profits.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Republicans_incumbents_receive_large_majority_of_0524.html

Republicans block E85 pumps

It's one thing to say you support ethanol, or renewable fuels in general. Anybody can say that. It's another to back it up with action. Talk the talk, and walk the walk. Republicans failed to do that again.

http://www.wisconsinagconnection.com/story-state.cfm?Id=742&yr=2006

"Republicans cited a bogus concern that the money would end up going to big oil companies--even though no gas stations in Wisconsin are owned by one of the big six oil companies," Doyle's office said in a media release. "Virtually all gas stations in Wisconsin are independently owned, and not one penny of the funding would have gone to big oil."

I suppose it's a valid concern. After all, Republicans TAKE money from big oil. It probably confused them when they thought they were going to GIVE money to big oil. Either way, they can take comfort in knowing that they carried more water for big oil with this obstruction.

And I wonder why fuel prices are high while oil execs reel in record profits.
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Republicans_incumbents_receive_large_majority_of_0524.html

Time To Answer A Question

"Which shall rule, wealth or man; which shall lead - money or intellect; who shall fill public stations - educated and patriotic free men or the feudal serfs of corporate capital?"

-----Edward Ryan, Wisconsin Supreme Court Chief Justice

That question was posed to Bob La Follette in 1873 by the Chief Justice. Obviously the message hit home to Fighting Bob. We all know what he became and accomplished. Governor, Senator, Presidential Candidate, and reformer of a corrupt Wisconsin government.

I was going through the online newspapers this morning, and I caught an editorial written by Ed Garvey, who had run for governor himself and is one of the founders of FightingBob.com. His article is here:http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/column/index.php?ntid=88243&ntpid=0

As Garvey mentions, Bob La Follette answered Ryan's question for his generation. Well, now it's time for my generation to answer that question.

On the national and state level, politicians and policies are bought and sold like commoditees at the Chicago Board of Trade. The first question a politician will ask is not, "how will this affect my district, state and country?" The first question is, "how will this affect my campaign war chest?" That may be a bit blunt, but that's just the way I see it. So today's generation of politicians have answered Ryan's question. But they answered it incorrectly and we are paying the price for it.

It takes money to run a campaign. I fully acknowledge that and am asking for contributions myself. But a campaign should not be centered around raising money. And government should not be centered around corporate interests and campaign cash.

So it's easy to answer the question posed by Ryan. Getting people to act upon it is another matter. It's a sad commentary when legislation is required to get leaders to return to the ethical behavior that one should never have abandoned in the first place. But it appears we must head down that route.

Voters and elected officials both have to answer Ryan's question. But then we have to ACT upon it. If the elected officials we send to Madison don't follow along, we vote them out! If they block legislation designed to restore a sense of ethics in government, we must vote them out and put somebody in that will push for ethics. If they push for ethics, we keep voting them in.

Five elected officials were sentenced to prison in Wisconsin in the past few years. More should have been. Two candidates for Governor are accused of having dirty money. A bureaucrat convicted of bid rigging. The common denominator; campaign finance. The thirst for campaign cash is front and center. So let's get rid of it.

I need your contributions to win this election. I don't like it, but that is the playing field that we are on right now. Once I get in the game, we can go about the business of getting rid of the big money influence in our legislature. And after I'm elected, I hope to come back to you for re-election in 2008 and say, "Naw, I don't need your money. Just your vote."

Scroll down a few posts and you'll see what I have in mind for campaign finance reform.

Also check out www.wicleanelections.org

A Number??!!!

This is the Bush Administration's cavelier attitude to the soldiers who give all in Iraq.

The vote took place one day after the 2,500th American died in Iraq. White House spokesman Tony Snow, like many members of the House majority, dismissed the death toll, telling the press corps: "It's a number, and every time there's one of these 500 benchmarks people want something."

A NUMBER!!!! Unbelievable.

A week ago Sunday, my Uncle Zeke and I helped out with a fund raiser in Mt. Hope for the Gray-Wachter-Murphy American Legion Post. The money raised is going to be used to fund the construction of a Veteran's Memorial in the village park in Mt. Hope. Together, with the auction, raffle, poker run, and food and beer sales, they raised $24,000.

I had a good visit with quite a few of the Legion members that day. Louie Wachter was one of them. Louie served in Korea and, suffice to say, "saw some things." I'm betting he doesn't view his family and friends that never came home as a number.

My buddy Digger, (Dave Neis of Dickeyville) took an all expenses paid trip to Vietnam in the late 60's. And to hear him tell the story, he probably shouldn't be here today. But he is and some others aren't. I bet he views them as more than just a number.

Now I ask you, with the type of cavalier attitude the Administration has towards troop deaths, does their apathy toward the folks in the Gulf Region after Katrina really surprise you? Are these the people you want protecting you from terrorism? Are these the folks you trust to guard your civil liberties?

One more question. Who would you trust more to guard your personal, economic, and civil liberties? George W. Bush, et. al., or Russ Feingold?

I'll take Feingold

When The Past Becomes The Present

If you didn't know better, you'd swear he was talking about today's Wisconsin.

http://www.madison.com/tct/opinion/index.php?ntid=87909&ntpid=0



There is a desperate need for Wisconsin to reacquaint itself with the La Follette legacy especially at a time when legislative leaders are being jailed for corruption and the governor's office has been linked to a pay-to-play political scandal. So let us embrace this moment, recalling La Follette's last great campaign declaration:
"The progressive movement in the United States, as I see it, has for its fundamental objective the economic and political freedom of the American people and the restoration of the government to the service of the great mass of our citizens," the senator wrote in an article outlining the platform on which he sought the presidency as an independent progressive in 1924. "We are fighting for the basic principle of republican government. We are opposed to any form of class dictatorship either of the plutocracy or of the proletariat. We are organizing to meet the equally sinister and destructive influence of unprecedented wealth in the hands of a few men, which largely controls the government and threatens the mass of the people with economic servitude ... (We seek) to break the power of private monopoly and restore government to the people."

It's a pretty simple concept, isn't it? And yet we seem to stray so far away from it over periods of time. And every now and then, it takes some motivated individuals to decide that enough is enough. They step to the forefront with clear convictions and sound priniciples. It takes a while, but eventually the people take notice and realize, "we can reclaim our government. We don't have to live our lives at the direction of the wealthy few, the privileged, the corporate empires. We can speak up. We can reclaim our government. We can go to the Capitol and let our voices be heard. We don't have to accept the terms and conditions of lobbyists and special interest groups. We can reclaim our personal and economic freedoms."

Fighting Bob La Follette stepped forward. People noticed. People believed. People followed. Wisconsin politics were cleaned up and returned to the people. Now we are faced with some of the same characteristics of corrupt government that Fighting Bob faced. He showed us how. Now it's up to us to return the favor. Are you with me?

Mt. Hope June Dairy Day Parade

That's where I'll be tonight. The parade starts at 8pm. You can get there early and get something to eat and an ice cream treat courtesy of the Mt. Hope Cardinal 4-H club. Or you can wait until after the parade to eat. The 4-H club has been putting this parade on for over 30 years, and they do a great job. And the members of the community, and nearby communities, are great supporters as well. I remember well the days when my brothers, sister, and I would be a part of that parade. And usually it was under direction of Grandpa Chet and one of his goofy, yet clever creations.

Hope to see you there!

War on Drugs

Methamphetamine production and use is a huge problem in rural America. Yet, when we think of the war on drugs, it is usually with cocaine, marijauna, and heroin in mind. But the single biggest drug probelm we have in Wisconsin is the spread, or potential spread, of meth. So how do you combat it?

First, consider this question and answer submitted to U.S. Rep Gwen Moore (D-WIS.) through a question and answer forum at the website, Rawstory.

As a Wisconsin resident, I am especially curious to your stand on the War on Drugs and its effects on our society. Do you feel that with the way the drug war has been executed that it has done anything to help clean the streets of drugs? Do you feel the it is hypocritical that alcohol and tobacco are legally available yet marijuana is not?

Justin, Elkhorn, WI

Thanks--you raise a good question about the approach that’s been taken and whether it is the most effective. In the past, we have put more dollars toward jail and incarceration than we have toward treatment and toward better access to education, which we know do more to reduce recidivism and re-incarceration. As a result, we have more people who need treatment than we have funding or slots available. And instead of ensuring the educational opportunities for low-income Americans that we know could give them a better chance at a productive, drug-free life, we increase funding for the system that will lock them up when they’re caught with drugs.

Here’s an example of how treatment is more effective and more efficient than imprisonment: in 1996, the citizens of Arizona voted in favor of Proposition 200, the Drug Medicalization Prevention and Control Act of 1996, which sends first and second time non-violent drug offenders to treatment rather than incarceration. According to a report conducted by the Supreme Court of Arizona, Proposition 200 saved Arizona taxpayers over $11 million in 2005. In addition, over half (56 percent) of the probationers successfully completed the drug treatment ordered by the court. (http://www.supreme.state.az.us/apsd/dtef/2005%20DTEF%20Report%20Card.pdf)

Also, the 1994 California Drug and Alcohol Treatment Assessment General Report found that every dollar spent on addiction treatment saves taxpayers more than $7 in medical and social costs. (http://www.drugabuse.gov/NIDA_Notes/NNVol10N2/CAStudy.html) Treatment and education are a crucial part of the solution in the so-called war on drugs. An emphasis on prison only which ignores or de-emphasizes the need for well-funded treatment and educational access means we’ll just be fighting a losing battle.

A recent study was done by Justice Strategies at the request of a couple of state legislators. And the results were interesting.
http://www.justicestrategies.net/States/WI_Jan_06_Report.htm

It found that in Wisconsin, almost 3,000 non-violent drug offenders are in prison, and needing drug treatment.

Wisconsin is spending $83 million dollars a year to keep non-violent drug offenders in prison.

Almost $29,000 is spent per prisoner, per year, while a drug treatment program would cost about $8000 per year, with a better chance at preventing a relapse. You do the math.

Make no mistake about it, if you are a violent drug addict I want you doing hard time! If you are a maker of meth, you are endangering our community and our environment and you should do hard time!

But when it comes to non-violent drug users, let's look at saving money, rehabilitate them, and make them productive members of society.

The answer to everything is not more prisons.

So, where do you stand?

So where do you stand?

I bet I get asked that 100 times a day as I go out and about the campaign trail. It's a fair question, and I encourage people to ask. And I think my answers sometimes surprise people. It's human nature to try to classify people into certain groups. We all do it, consciously or subconsciously. And politics is no different.

I tell people I am a Democrat and I'm sure they immediately expect to hear that I believe in big government, unlimited welfare, hug trees in my spare time, etc. No different than if I said I was a Republican, they would assume I'm for small government, strong corporations, wanna cut taxes, carry pistols strapped to my hips, etc. Those sterotypes have been hammered into our skulls since we were old enough to comprehend.

Labeling is especially prevalent in today's political realm. You are either a liberal or a conservatve. Far-left or far right. Neo-con or socialist. And we assign characteristics to each label. I've never been one who likes to be labeled. Once a label is attached, all objectivity is voided.

I have my views on things, but sometimes they are not so easy to convey in a 15 second sound bite or with a hasty generalization. But there is only so much time in a day, and so many people. I was looking through the internet blogosphere the other day, and came across an essay (done by kos of DailyKos) on the values of a certain type of politician. And it was almost as if he were talking about me. So with that framework in mind, here is what you can expect of me for a generalized answer to the question; Where do you stand?

As Kos explains, I'm a Libertarian Democrat. Why? I'll let him explain.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/6/7/131550/7297



Traditional "libertarianism" holds that government is evil and thus must be minimized. Any and all government intrusion is bad. ..................

The problem with this form of libertarianism is that it assumes that only two forces can infringe on liberty -- the government and other individuals.
The Libertarian Democrat understands that there is a third danger to personal liberty -- the corporation. The Libertarian Dem understands that corporations, left unchecked, can be huge dangers to our personal liberties.
Libertarian Dems are not hostile to government like traditional libertarians. But unlike the liberal Democrats of old times (now all but extinct), the Libertarian Dem doesn't believe government is the solution for everything. But it sure as heck is effective in checking the power of corporations.
In other words, government can protect our liberties from those who would infringe upon them -- corporations and other individuals.

So in practical terms, what does a Libertarian Dem look like?

A Libertarian Dem rejects government efforts to intrude in our bedrooms and churches. A Libertarian Dem rejects government "Big Brother" efforts, such as the NSA spying of tens of millions of Americans.

A Libertarian Dem rejects efforts to strip away rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights -- from the First Amendment to the 10th. And yes, that includes the 2nd Amendment and the right to bear arms.

A Libertarian Dem believes that true liberty requires freedom of movement -- we need roads and public transportation to give people freedom to travel wherever they might want.

A Libertarian Dem believes that we should have the freedom to enjoy the outdoor without getting poisoned; that corporate polluters infringe on our rights and should be checked.

A Libertarian Dem believes that people should have the freedom to make a living without being unduly exploited by employers.

A Libertarian Dem understands that no one enjoys true liberty if they constantly fear for their lives, so strong crime and poverty prevention programs can create a safe environment for the pursuit of happiness.

A Libertarian Dem gets that no one is truly free if they fear for their health, so social net programs are important to allow individuals to continue to live happily into their old age. Same with health care. And so on.

The core Democratic values of fairness, opportunity, and investing in our nation and people very much speak to the concept of personal liberties -- an open society where success is predicated on the merit of our ideas and efforts, unduly burdened by the government, corporate America, or other individuals. And rather than always get in the way, government can facilitate this.
Of course, this also means that government isn't always the solution to the nation's problems. There are times when business-government partnerships can be extremely effective (such as job retraining efforts for displaced workers). There are times when government really should butt out (like a great deal of small-business regulation). Our first proposed solution to a problem facing our nation shouldn't be more regulation, more government programs, more bureaucracy.
The key here isn't universal liberty from government intrusion, but policies that maximize individual freedom, and who can protect those individual freedoms best from those who would infringe.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

1980's all over again.

As a farm broadcaster, I spend a good deal of time visiting with farmers, agri-business groups, ag lenders, etc. And one thing I'm hearing from some farmers is that "it's looking like the early 80's all over again." Higher interest rates, tougher to make things cash flow, rising production costs, etc. And we all know what happened in the mid 80's with farms. Auctioneers were kept plenty busy. But that is a subject for another day.

I was driving back from Des Moines yesterday after attending the World Pork Expo, and I was thinking about that whole issue of "it looks like the early 80's." As I scanned through the radio stations, a right wing talk show host was blathering on about America needing a flag burning ammendment. Sound familiar? Well it did to me too. And I thought to myself, this is like the late 80's all over again!

In 1989, my high school buddies, Chad Wehrle, Gary Nichols, and I were able to attend a Washington D.C. leadership conference through our FFA chapter. And one of the things we attended was a speech by President George H.W. Bush and Bob Dole in front of the Iwo Jima memorial. They were trying to drum up support for a flag burning ammendment. I suppose the President's poll numbers must have been down and he needed an issue to appeal to our sense of pride and patriotism. (obviously didn't work, as he was beaten by Bill Clinton in the next election. But I digress)

And now the subject is coming up again. There are indications that the U.S. Congress is going to bring the issue up for debate. Even Hillary Clinton is on board. And my feelings on this are kind of like they are with the gay marriage ammendment. Does this mean we have stabilized Iraq? Is health care available and affordable for every citizen? Are our ports and borders secure? Are we ready for the next Katrina? Has our dependence on foreign oil evaporated? Has global warming been halted? Has poverty and unemployment been taken care of? If so, it's news to me. Either that or flag burning has reached epidemic proportions and is endangering the lives of millions of Americans and must be immediately addressed while those other issues wait.

In June of 1944, my grandfather would have loved to have been taking a walk on Wyalusing Beach with his one-year-old boy. Uncle Sam understood his desire to walk on a beach and tried to comply. But they got the logistics a bit fouled up and instead of Wyalusing Beach in Bagley, Wisconsin, they had him walk up Omaha Beach in Normandy, France. He made it home and lived his life as a devoted father, grandfather, and community servant. I remember talking to him about my trip to Washington and I asked him about flag burning. And he really didn't care about it one way or the other. He made mention that on Christmas morning during the Battle of the Bulge, he had to make arrangements for the burial of 26 truckloads of frozen, dead G.I.'s who were stacked up like cordwood. So flag burning was to him a trivial thing compared to the bigger issues. And then he proceeded to ask about the people we met from across the country and how their crops were coming along. So when a decorated veteran of World War II cared more about the soybean crop in Arkansas than whether or not some idiot should have the right to burn a flag, that made an impression on me and I still hold it today.

So when it comes to flag burning: If you want to burn a flag, knock yourself out. I hope your shirt catches on fire while you're doing it and you suffer burns to your flesh. It was probably made in China anyway, so all you are doing by buying a flag to burn is increasing our trade deficit with China. But if you're that stupid, knock yourself out, because no matter how many flags you burn, YOU WILL NOT, IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, CHANGE MY BELIEFS ABOUT THIS GREAT COUNTRY OF MINE. NOT TODAY. NOT TOMORROW. NOT EVER! I don't need a flag burning ammendment to protect my internal beliefs. Veterans like my Grandpa and people like my Mom and Dad instilled in me what it is to be an American, and no flag burner can take that away from me.

And on the flip side of that, you can thump your chest, cloak yourself in the flag, use it to sell records, and accuse those that don't of being communist heathens and it won't change my beliefs. You're probably improperly displaying the flag anyway. And again, it was probably made in China, so if you need an ammendment to keep it from being burned to prove your patriotism you better make damn sure that ammendment also requires any American flag to be MADE IN AMERICA.

I detest seeing our flag burned. I am against it. And I am insulted when it happens. But that's what freedom is all about. There are a lot of things insulting to me that others have the right to do. There are things I do that are insulting to others. But I'm free to do them.

Love of family, love of state, and love of country comes from inside of us in varying degrees. It can't be legislated, it can't be forced, and it can't be taken away. It's inside of us. And we need to use it to its fullest potential to make our communities a better place. We need to use it to make ourselves a better person and help others to be a better person. We do that by worrying about the issues that give our communities strength and prosperity such as public schools, medical coverage, good jobs, taking care of our elderly and our veterans. We don't do it by inventing problems that don't exist and arguing about them to distract us from the truly imperative issues of the day.

Follow The Money!

It's an old saying, but it still holds true when it comes to politics in the Badger State. If you want to play, you've got to pay! The People's legislature has become the Lobbyist's Legislature. They write the bills, buy the bills, and we are stuck paying for them. There are many reasons why I've chosen to run, and I can preach about the issues all day long, but at the end of the day, it all comes back to money in politics.

Why is medical coverage so complicated, expensive, or unavailable? Follow the money.

Why are prescription drugs so expensive? Follow the money.

Why is the state in debt? Follow the money.

And so on and so forth.

And it all comes back to incumbents needing cash to get re-elected. They pass the laws, we foot the bill; they take the money, and we re-elect them.

And how does it hurt us? Consider this: (from www.wicleanelections.org)


Wisconsin is the 3rd highest taxed state in the nation, (depends who crunched the numbers. I've seen anywhere from 3rd highest, to 17th highest) while corporations are the 3rd lowest.

Privatized electoral funding is costing $1300 per taxpayer in government giveaways to the special interests that fund the elections. (i.e. , the lobbyists)

Health care costs are 10% higher than other states and 15% of our people have no health care at all. This is because health care interests give $1.4 million yearly in campaign contributions to block meaningful reforms and a universal health care system.

So it costs you, the taxpayer, $1300 per year in fees, hidden taxes, etc. that the legislature hands out in corporate welfare via bad legislation in return for campaign contributions.

What if I told you we could take $1295.00 off of that cost and at the same time, return ethics to the legislature? Well, we can. It's called Clean Money Elections. And Arizona and Maine are proving it.

In Maine and Arizona the Clean Money system works great. If you want to run for office you simply acquire a requisite number of constituent signatures, 80% of which must be accompanied by at least a $5 check. That eliminates frivolous candidates, and it qualifies you (for the primary) to receive one third of the funds allocated for that race. (Up to $100 may be given during the qualifying process, and all monies must be spent on legitimate campaign expenses. No other private money is allowed.)

If you win the primary you receive the remaining two thirds, but following the primary you cannot spend any more private cash, not even your own. If your opponent chooses to run under the current rules, and outspends you, the public grant provides additional matching funds (which discourages such practices in the first place).

Lobbyists are still allowed to lobby; they just can't lobby "public" candidates with cash in hand. For the fat cats who want to give more, they can give to those candidates running under the current, moneyed guidelines. Thus, their "speech" is not inhibited.
Maine and Arizona legislators love their Clean Money system because private fundraisers have virtually dried up and they can spend more time with their constituents and families.

The Wisconsin Legislature "attempted" (I use the term loosely) to bring up legisltation that would attempt to start trying to clean up our ethics problem in Madison. And you'd think with the Assembly Republicans seeing their comrades getting sent to prison, they might have tried to enact some reform. But Gabe Loeffelholz blocked efforts to bring it to the floor. ( Mr. Loeffelholz, by the way, is a member of the Jensen 10 so you'd think he'd have a conscience. But I guess not. http://www.therestofus.org/wisconsin/jensenten.htm )

Check out more on clean elections by going to www.wicleanelections.org

Wisconsin is #1 in Public Education

A study released by the group Education Sector, an education policy think tank, has ranked Wisconsin #1............when it comes to circumventing the NO Child Left Behind education law.

Tom Still has more: http://www.wisopinion.com/index.iml?mdl=article.mdl&article=4376

The nutshell version is that the think tank is saying Wisconsin is "cooking the books" better than any other state. So I guess we got that going for us.

Quite frankly, I hope this is Wisconsin's way of humoring the federal government by supplying them with the numbers they want, while at the same time telling them to take their unfunded mandate and shove it. Because that's what I think of No Child Left Behind. It is an unfunded mandate handed down from the Bush Administration designed to make public schools look bad and give them an excuse to cut funding using the excuse of poor performance. It's a punishment based system full of abitrary "Adeqaute Yearly Progress" standards. And as schools fail to meet them, sanctions are imposed upon said schools.

No Child Left Behind is nothing more than another attempted assualt on public education by the Republicans. They want to increase the use of vouchers and increase the privatization of public schools.

I believe in the dedication of our public school officials and teachers. And we do have some problems with our education system. Funding our rural schools is probably the biggest problem. But there are other concerns, as Still adresses in his column:

Let’s drill into one federal standard: What constitutes a “highly qualified teacher”? The federal law gives states some flexibility in determining which teachers make the grade, but Wisconsin’s 99 percent “highly qualified” ranking caught the eye of Education Sector. While almost all classroom teachers nationally have bachelor’s degrees and most have state certification, a significant number of teachers lack specific knowledge of the academic subject they teach. This is particularly true in high-poverty schools and in math and science courses taught in the secondary grades. Is Wisconsin relying too much on traditional certification, the report asked?
In the past, that was probably true. But recent reforms promise to slowly improve the skills of teachers as they move through their careers.
Wisconsin has developed a three-tier licensing system for teachers that will transform the process from a renewal system based on additional college credits to a skills and knowledge process. Under the so-called PI 34 law, teachers now graduating from college must renew their licenses with Professional Development Plans. The plans don’t ignore existing state standards, but they’re based more in helping teachers learn their subject matter. The teacher must assemble a three-member review team made up of trained colleagues. The review team works with the educator while the project is under way and eventually decides whether the teacher has successfully completed the plan.
Most teachers are still grandfathered into the previous system, of course, and only three teachers have completed PI 34 certification statewide. But it may become the norm over time as more teachers try the new certification system and find it does something the old system didn’t do – make them a better teacher.

So that why I have little worry about what a think tank thinks of how Wisconsin goes about educating it's students. Wisconsin has proven that over the years we can handle educating our kids just fine. We don't need their mandates; we don't need their arbitrary "standards." Fund what you are responsible for funding, and then get out of our way.

Now is the time!

I had a great weekend getting out and about meeting with the fine folks of the 49th Assembly district. Benton had a great fish boil, the Grant County Cattlemen had a steak feed, and Monfort put on a great parade on Sunday. Hats off to those people and the jobs they did. I really enjoy getting out and talking to people about the things that matter.

And then Monday comes. And President Bush is stoking up the gay marriage rhetoric. As you no doubt know, Wisconsin has a proposed constitutional ammendment banning gay marriage on the ballot for November. And somebody asked me yesterday; "is that what we should be worrying about right now?" Got me to thinking.

And I decided, "yep. That's what we need to focus on!"

With Iraq stable, Bin Laden behind bars, our borders secure, FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security totally prepared for hurricane season, no rogue nations trying to get nukes, stable gas prices, health care for all, our budget balanced, the deficit reduced, and our dependence on foreign oil eliminated, gays getting married is just what I want the President focused on!

Furthermore, with the people of Wisconsin being fully covered by health insurance, their personal income far outpacing the rate of inflation, their schools fully financed with no need for any referendums, teenagers with money to pay for college, farms for every young and beginning farmer, the methamphetamine problem cleaned up, more high paying jobs than you can shake a stick at, renewable fuels available at every pump, and no politicians in prison, I'm glad my state representative found the time to fight the good fight in the war against marriage.

Okay, all sarcasm aside. Don't you think this country has far bigger problems in need of attention? And instead of working on the things that matter, the President decides now is the time to start kissing the butt of Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and James Dobson.

Renewable Fuels

If you've checked out my website in depth, you've noticed I am a big proponent of renewable fuels. As I've often said, it takes far fewer soldiers and less money to guard a midwest cornfield than to guard a mideast oil field. There are quite a few myths that are being perpetuated by ethanol and biodiesel opponents. Namely, Big Oil. Myth busting seems to have become a full time job for renewable fuels proponents. And now Popular Mechanics is getting into the act of separating fact from fiction.

You can read the entire article here.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/automotive/auto_technology/2690341.html

Ethanol and biodiesel are by no means the cure-all for our energy needs. But they can go a long way in reducing our dependence on foreign and non-renewable fuels.

Unfortunately, the Wisconsin legislature insists on being behind the curve when it comes to renewable fuel use.

I think it's time for a change.