Paul Soglin: Waxing America

Ann Coulter Tests Limits of Free Speech

My view of free speech is fairly straight forward.  I am for it.  I think the Danish cartoons can be published alongside anything anyone wishes to say about the President. Certainly, ridicule and sarcasm are included.

Then we get to Ann Coulter. Coulter continues to cross the line, rarther poorly, between political commentator and humorless wit. When she attacks liberals as traitors we know she is in political mode.  When she talks of poisoning Supreme Court Justices we are pretty sure she is failing to be humorous as is the case when she tells students they are stupid.

But once in a while she comes up with gems like:

"Iran is soliciting cartoons on the Holocaust. So far, only Ted Rall, Garry Trudeau, and The New York Times have made submissions."

Then it becomes difficult to tell  if she is attempting to be funny  or she is reporting the matter as fact.

Now with Al Franken, you know when he slips in and out of serious commentator and humorist.  And he is witty. Coulter should decide if she wants to be commentator, humorist, or, the one that fits her best, silent.

Moe, Minoso, and Fay Vincent

So Doug Moe wrote the column Going to bat for Minnie Minoso referring to my Minnie Minoso and the Hall of Fame.

1.  Then Doug gets an email from Fay Vincent!

Sent: Saturday, February 11, 2006 7:18 AM
To: Doug Moe
Subject: Re: Doug Moe: Going to bat for Minnie Minoso

            Mr. Moe-   

                    I very much enjoyed your column on Minnie and Greg Bond and the committee I am chairing. My question--are you the Doug Moe who went to Williams College in the class of '59?  Perhaps you and my old pal are not the same. In any event I am delighted to have had a chance to see your fine column. Thank you for it. Fay Vincent

2.  Doug replies to Mr. Vincent and sends me the following:

Nice to have an elite readership....I did have to tell Mr. Vincent I was only 3 years old in 1959...

3.  And I wrote back to Doug:

Doug:  The column is great, but Eddie Ben Elson you are not.  Eddie would have written back to him, gotten some passes to a few games and sat with Vincent at the All Star game

Hey, it really was a nice column and now we just sit back and wait.

Paul

This Ought to be the Headline on Every Paper

In Madison, we showed improvement and it had nothing to do, nothing to do, with No Child Left Behind.  It began with Schools of Hope, a local collaborative effort,  ten years ago and it is a program that Bush would reject. Meanwhile No Child Left Behind is a joke:

Harvard Study Blasts Bush Education Policy

BOSTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's signature education policy has in some cases benefited white middle-class children over blacks and other minorities in poorer regions, a Harvard University study showed on Tuesday.

Political compromises forged between some states and the federal government has allowed schools in some predominantly white districts to dodge penalties faced by regions with larger ethnic minority populations, the study said.

Bush's 2001 No Child Left Behind Act was meant to introduce national standards to an education system where only two-thirds of teenagers graduate from high school, a proportion that slides to 50 percent for black Americans and Hispanics.

But instead of uniform standards, the policy has allowed various states to negotiate treaties and bargains to reduce the number of schools and districts identified as failing, said the study by Harvard University's Civil Rights Project.

"There's a very uneven effect. There are no clear uniform standards that are governing No Child Left Behind. If one state gets one thing, another state can do something else," the study's lead author, Gail Sunderman, said in an interview.

Under No Child Left Behind, children in every racial and demographic group in every school must improve their scores on standardized tests in math and English each year. Failure to achieve annual progress can lead to sanctions against schools.

Children in poorly performing schools can switch schools if space is available. In extreme cases, schools can be closed.

But a surge in the number of schools identified as "needing improvement," including many considered top performers in their state, has stirred opposition to the law in nationwide -- from a legal challenge in Connecticut to a rebellion by state legislators in staunchly Republican Utah.

The 60-page study examines letters sent by the Department of Education to all 50 states on how each state can administer the law and on their accountability plans.

Nearly every state has taken some action to amend the law or been granted waivers to provisions in No Child Left Behind, the study said. "The problem with this approach is that it does not affect all schools equally," said Sunderman. "No two states are now subject to the same requirements."

In one example the study cites, states in rural Midwestern regions were granted extensions to deadlines to meet requirements on teacher qualifications that were unavailable to poorer rural regions with greater numbers of black Americans and ethnic minorities in southeast and southwest states.

"The policy is essentially a product of negotiation, of power and discretion, not law," Gary Orfield, director of Harvard's Civil Rights Project, said in the report.

Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has said the law works, citing data showing reading scores for 9-year-olds up more over the last five years than between 1971 and 1999, though some dispute whether this reflects the policy.* Spelling has said states critical of the law simply fear the results.

*Nonsense.  The improvements they had in Texas are already proven fraudulent by the fact that they simply let the kids drop out so they don't have to be tested. In places like Madison, we have improvement, despite the Bush attack on public education.

Enough said.

Smoking Bans The Way to Go

While Americans are creating chaos in the Middle East, the Vice President is shooting up the neighborhood, evidence is presented of of a massive illegal spying operation, and the other shoe drops in the "Brownie you are doing a heck of a job" affair, the Brits are getting it right:

Lawmakers vote to ban smoking in English pubs and clubs

LONDON (Reuters) - British lawmakers voted by a huge margin on Tuesday to ban smoking in every pub, club and indoor public space in England, adding it to the growing list of countries taking a tough stand against smoking.

The bill, passed by 384 votes to 184, followed months of heated debate that divided the Labour government and incensed health groups.

Jubilant anti-smoking campaigners welcomed the decision, saying a ban would save thousands of lives, while critics condemned the government for interfering and denying people choice.

The law will now pass to the unelected upper House of Lords, where it is also expected to pass. If so, it will become law by mid-2007.

Although British scientists were the first to document the health risks of smoking, such as lung cancer, Britain has been slow to stop people smoking in public places.

Ireland banned smoking in restaurants, pubs and workplaces in 2004, and six countries imposed bans on smoking of varying severity in 2005.

That's the way to do it, nationally, or at least on a statewide basis in the U.S.

Senate Democrats Even Dumber Than Cheney: Screwing Hackett

Democratic Death Trip

Wisconsin Democrats controlled both houses of the state legislature twenty-five years ago until the insiders started deciding which candidate to run in the various districts.  Now the Democrats in the Wisconsin State Senate can't even sustain a Democratic governor's veto and the Assembly is not much better.  All this brought to us by the party leadership in the two houses.

The Band of Brothers, the 56 Democrats running for Congress who have military experience shrunk by one yesterday as Senators Schumer (NY) and others pushed Ohio Senate candidate Paul Hackett out of the way in favor of a Democratic Congressman, Sherrod Brown.

Hackett's departure from Ohio Senate race highlights gulf between old, new politics

WASHINGTON – With a shove from party leaders, Iraq war veteran Paul Hackett abruptly quit a key Senate race in Ohio and further exposed a disconnect between the Democratic establishment and Internet-fueled challengers.

The political novice withdrew under intense pressure from party leaders in Washington, clearing the field for Rep. Sherrod Brown – a 30-year veteran of Democratic politics with more than $2.5 million in the bank.

This is one of the core suicidal strategies of the Democratic Party--to allow fellow legislators to determine the nominee in another district or state.  The selection of nominees should be left in the hands of the voters; the role of the incumbents is to go out and campaign for the primary winners.

Screw this crap.  I don't care which of the candidates was more progressive or conservative.  What I do care about is a Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee that doesn't know its ass from a hole in the ground.  Schumer should know better.

Tax Reform Starts with A New Legislature

Questions from Lisa Subeck at Madison: Go West and Turn Left.

1. Paul states that the problem with taxation is not the amount collected but that it is collected from the wrong people and that there is compelling evidence that government should actually spend more, especially for education. While I agree with Paul, I see a problem with where this leaves local governments and school districts. What are these local entities, lacking control over the tax structure set forth by the state and federal government, to do? Cut spending and reduce or eliminate vital services? Or increase property taxes to maintain services, knowing that this may be a hardship for some residents?

The problem emanates from a perversion on a hundred year old Progressive Era ideal. The idea was to collect income taxes, and subsequently sales taxes on a statewide basis, and then redistribute the money to the various municipalities, counties, and school districts that on a needs basis. If the redistribution formula was not a critical element, then the state could have passed on the taxation authority to the local units of government.

To this day, with the relatively recent exception to allow  counties to collect a 1/2 cent sales tax, the state continues to reserve for itself all taxation powers that utilize the sales tax and the local income tax.

Unfortunately there are a sufficient number of legislators who either enjoy the power of making local units come to them and beg for revenues or who are untroubled by the formulas which are badly flawed.  The formulas include elements that account for population and poverty, but they make a bad assumption: that the value of real estate in a community is correlated to the number of families and/or school children living in poverty.

The local entities Lisa refers to are challenged.  First, lacking adequate state shared revenues, they must utilize the property tax to the maximum to pay for local services.  Secondly, and this is critical, they must maintain a continued dialog with the state regarding tax reform.  It should be noted that every commission and study in this area since the Kellett Commission some forty years ago has failed to provide proper reforms.

My own view is that it is necessary to go after every legislator who refuses to support reforms, regardless of party, and to run candidates in every district, no matter how dismal the prospects of winning.

The state controls the revenues, the state has the power to impose spending caps not tied to reality.  For years Democrats and lefties have focused on individual pieces of legislation, which has led to death by a thousand nicks.  The left must focus on the fundamental issue, which is reform of taxation, revenues, and distributions.

It is real simple:  without sufficient revenues and fair taxation, government does not work.

Given the choice posed by Lisa, given that there are a number of property tax relief programs in Wisconsin, particularly for seniors, I favor, Or increase property taxes to maintain services, knowing that this may be a hardship for some residents?  Keep in mind taxes can be raised both statewide and nationally without hurting either seniors or lower income families, or middle income families for that matter.

2. Paul suggests sales tax as a fairer and more progressive alternative to property taxes for school funding. Again, I agree. Those who spend more are typically those who have more to spend. How do we put the necessary pressure on higher levels of government to promote this or other more fair systems of taxation? Is this a realistic expectation in Wisconsin's current political climate? And how should local school districts function while waiting for such change?

We have to rethink our position on a number of taxation issues, including the sales tax. A study now over ten years old, conducted by the city of Madison, showed that replacing a portion of the property tax with a sales tax was equitable for most economic groups and in fact was more progressive than the property tax.  The group that would be hurt the most, to the tune of $35 a year, was university dorm residents who would pay the sales tax, but would not see the property taxes on their housing decline, since there are none. (Something can be done for that, like lowering dorm fees $35 a year, a good idea in its own right.)

A sales tax with continued exemptions for housing, medical expenses, and food, is, as Lisa notes, a tax that effects those who 'spend more,' and it acts like an excise tax.

Now we are back to the original question.  We have to change the legislature. We need more progressive representation to advance real taxation reforms, not phony tax-cutting handcuffs on local governments like TABOR and all its sloganeering progeny.

The prospects are grim but we have no choice.  If a movement with the intensity of Madison's anti-smoking forces launched a campaign on a statewide basis, the reforms would take place. It is time to stop focusing on individual environmental, choice, and other progressive issues and focus on revenue reforms.  A legislature capable of enacting the appropriate revenue reforms would probably do those other things as well.

Texas Hunting Accident Totals 2005

• There were 30 total accidents in 2005; only 2 were fatal.

• Hunting of  Quail/Pheasant accounted for 20% of the accidents, tying it with Feral Hog/Javelina as the second most dangerous hunt. White-tailed deer accounted for 8 or 27% of the accidents.

• 17 or 56% of all accidents involved the use of a shotgun.

• Hunter Judgment:

  • Victim out of sight of shooter/moved into line of fire   2

  • Victim covered by shooter swinging on game           12

  • Victim mistaken for game                                           1

  2005 Texas Hunting Accident Report           enjoy!

Sale of Public Assets: Often A Sign of Public Bankruptcy

Whether it is selling parkland in Madison, Wisconsin, or public lands that are part of the National Forest in California, Bush team seeks to sell land, it should be enough to make us take note. While  the Madison situation is not as severe, the Bush rape of public lands has serious environmental and fiscal implications.

The Bush administration Friday laid out plans to sell off more than $1 billion in public land during the next decade, including 85,000 acres of National Forest property in California.

Most of the proceeds would help pay for rural schools and roads, making up for a federal subsidy that has been eliminated from President Bush's 2007 budget. (emphasis added)

Congress must approve the sales, which several experts said would amount to the largest sale of its kind since President Theodore Roosevelt established the U.S. Forest Service in 1905 and created the modern national forest system.

"This is a fire sale of public lands. It is utterly unprecedented," said Char Miller, professor of environmental history at Trinity University in San Antonio, who has written extensively about the Forest Service. "It signals that the lands and the agency that manages them are in deep trouble."

The environmental consequences will draw sharp attention and rebuke, but there is also a Bush fiscal program and with its long range implications for the nation.  It is real simple:

rarely sell capital assets to fund operating programs.

From the Government Finance Officers Association on One Time Revenues:

Practice 4.4

Develop Policy on Use of One-time Revenues Practice: A government should adopt a policy limiting the use of one-time revenues for ongoing expenditures. Rationale: By definition, one-time revenues cannot be relied on in future budget periods. A policy on the use of one-time revenues provides guidance to minimize disruptive effects on services due to non-recurrence of these sources. Outputs: One-time revenues and allowable uses for those revenues should be explicitly defined. The policy should be publicly discussed before adoption and should be readily available to stakeholders during the budget process. The policy, and compliance with it, should be reviewed periodically. Notes: Examples of one-time revenues include: infrequent sales of government assets, bond refunding savings, infrequent revenues from development, and grants. These revenues may be available for more than one year (e.g., a three-year grant), but are expected to be non-recurring. Examples of expenditures for which a government may wish to use one-time revenues include startup costs, stabilization (e.g., to cover expenditures that temporarily exceed revenues), early debt retirement, and capital purchases. Uses that add to the ongoing expenditure base should be carefully reviewed and minimized, e.g., capital expenditures that significantly increase ongoing operating expenses without a sustainable and offsetting long-term revenue plan. Certain variable components of major revenue sources are similar to one-time revenue sources. While they may be addressed in a one-time revenue policy, they also may be considered separately. (See Practice 4.4a entitled: Evaluate the Use of Unpredictable Revenues.)

Smarmy Wisconsin Republicans Fondle Taxpayers

Not knowing when to drop the seduction, Wisconsin Republicans once again offer up the same old TABOR under a perfumed moniker the Taxpayer Protection Act.:

GOP brings back its tax plan

On Thursday Republicans raced to bring out a plan to tamp down taxes by writing limits into the state's constitution, proposing that most governments in Wisconsin hold growth in taxes and fees to increases in inflation, population and the partial value of new buildings.

The constitutional amendment - a tweaking of GOP lawmakers' previous plans to hold down taxes by limiting government spending - would make changing the amendment different from all other changes to the state constitution...

...Republicans tried to distance their plan from spending limits such as those Colorado voters chose to temporarily suspend last year, saying their tax-side proposal offered more flexibility.

"We need help from the Legislature to hold down taxes. We need fewer state mandates. We need health insurance reform. We need employee bargaining reform," said Rich Eggleston, spokesman for the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities. "Do that and you don't need a magic formula..."

...Gov. Jim Doyle, a Democrat, has opposed spending limits in the past and vetoed a similar GOP plan last spring, saying it would hurt education....

...Economist Andrew Reschovsky of UW-Madison's La Follette School of Public Affairs said the measure would likely substantially downsize government over time. If the proposal had been put in place 20 years ago, and without passing any referendum, the $15.5 billion the state collects in annual taxes and fees today would be about 20 percent lower, he said. (emphasis added)

"We could eliminate the UW System completely and we would still have to cut more. It's a big number," he said.

That $3.1 billion reduction is about how much the War in Iraq will cost every Wisconsinite by the end of the Spring.

Bush-Cheney Continue to Shoot Without Looking

I don't know what the punishment is in Texas or Wisconsin, but other states seem to be reluctant to do much about accidental hunting shootings.

• In West Virginia they call it negligent shooting and you can get home confinement for killing someone.
• In Iowa it is a misdemeanor charge, even if your victim dies.
• In Pennsylvania, is is also a misdemeanor, even if the dead victim is your husband.  Oh, the fine is $2000 but you do get your guns back.

I figure this is all par for the course. From day one, the Bush Administration has been shooting without looking and firing in the faces of a lot of innocent people.