Paul Soglin: Waxing America

Madison Then and Now: 1960's and the Walker Protests

No, I never saw in the 1960's what is occuring today in this effort to stop Governor Walker's union busting.

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:   

Soglin: "I've never seen anything like this"

Soglin said he has participated in the protests against Walker’s budget repair bill for a week, starting with a march Saturday from Memorial Union on the UW-Madison campus. The crowds have built every day, and on Thursday and Friday exceeded 20,000, he estimated.

He compared the mood of the crowds to those he saw during the civil rights movement in the 1960s. There’s anger, he said, but there was also “elements of joy and enthusiasm, and that’s what’s going on here as well.”

The anti-war movement, he said, was “all energized and angry - because it was focused on stopping a war. It could not have the almost spiritual nature of what’s going on in Madison today.”

Spiritual? Joy? Soglin said the teachers and other public employees from across the state are finding a bond with each other.

“There are a lot of people who are scared about the economic consequences of what’s going to happen” with Walker’s bill, he said. “But they’re also getting strength from all of the people they are meeting.”

America Now a Banana Republic - Slate via New York Times via Business Insider

Before reading further, understand that the orginal article is Timothy Noah's The United States of Inequality: Introducing the Great Divergence   in SLATE.

His work was picked up by the New York Times which led to the headline cerated by Business Insider,   reporting IT'S OFFICIAL: America Is Now A Banana Republic

One of the hallmarks of banana republics, says the NYT's Nicholas Kristof, is income inequality. In some countries, the wealthiest 1% of the population takes home 20% or more of the national income.

And now the same is true in America:

The richest 1 percent of Americans now take home almost 24 percent of income, up from almost 9 percent in 1976. As Timothy Noah of Slate noted in an excellent series on inequality, the United States now arguably has a more unequal distribution of wealth than traditional banana republics like Nicaragua, Venezuela and Guyana.

I am not sure which is worse, Republicans who made it happen, or Democrats who refused to stop it and aquiesced.  Thus the heading for this blog:

A candid examination of right-wing policies and the Democrats who play along and the horrid liberal policies designed to assuage the moderates but end up irritating everyone. And other stuff.

This is not other stuff.

 

 

 

"Atlas Shrugged" - Ron Johnson Is No John Galt

A confession: I could never get through "Atlas Shrugged." Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, Clarence Thomas and any number of deep thinkers published in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal notwithstanding, I found the writing turgid, the political and economic points simplistic, and the characters and plot overblown. (However, it does make "The Fountainhead" seem readable by comparison.)

Why care at this late date? Well, it seems that Ron Johnson has been taking some cues from the "Tea Party" and citing "Atlas Shrugged" as a "driving force in his political philosophy." In last night's debate with Russ Feingold:

Asked by a panelist about the book, Johnson said "Atlas" represents the producers of the world, while "Shrugged" represents how overburdened the producers are with rules, regulations and taxes.

"It's a warning of what could happen to America," Johnson said. "When you hear people talk about a tipping point, that's what we're concerned about. . . . We have more people who are net beneficiaries of government than are actually paying into the system. That's a very serious thing to think about."

"I believe in the community," Feingold responded. "I believe in the community of Wisconsin. . . . You believe the producers are a very special group of people. I guess they're better than the rest of us. When things aren't going their way, you take the position that people shouldn't have unemployment compensation because you have the view they don't want to work."

Screenwriter John Rogers nailed the appeal of "Atlas Shrugged" in his Kung Fu Monkey blog:

There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.

However, I suspect that Fortunate Son-In-Law Ron Johnson's interest in "Atlas Shrugged" is of more recent origin. Having started married into a company, grown the business without any government help, and become horrified by enamored with the business climate in Communist China, Johnson now identifies with the "Atlas Shrugged" hero, industrial entrepreneur John Galt.

But would John Galt, an anti-religious figure, have argued against the Child Victims Act on behalf of the Green Bay Diocese Finance Council? Would Galt be against embryonic stem cell research on religious grounds, in spite of the negative economic consequences for Wisconsin and the limiting of possible therapy options? Where would Ron Johnson be without Howard Curler's money?

Maybe "Atlas Shrugged" is a "driving force in his political philosophy" only when Ron Johnson finds it convenient.

I bet he couldn't get through that whole mess of a book either.

- Barry Orton

Rush Limbaugh Proud to be Medical Idiot

Rush Limbaugh is carted into a Hawaii hospital with chest pains and is discharged two days later, physicians declaring that there is nothing wrong with his heart.

Limbaugh then declares his health is fine - and so is the nation's health care system,

Turning from his health to politics, Limbaugh declared Friday he got the best health treatment in the world "right here in the United States of America."

"I don't think there's one thing wrong with the United States health system," Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh comes to this conclusion based on one instance of medical treatment.

That Limbaugh is deficient in the logic department is well documented, but that he does not understand the health care system is what makes his conclusions so dangerous.

Limbaugh, who has access to the best health care system, is privileged. He has the resources and the access to the best health care system in the world.

The problem is that there are tens of millions of Americans, some with health insurance, who do not have that kind of access.

In 1983 the President's Commission of Ethical Problems in Medicine and Biomedical and Behavioral Research submitted their report to President Ronald Reagan.

In the accompanying cover letter of transmittal they noted:

In examining the special nature of health care, we discern in our country’s traditional

commitment to fairness, an ethical obligation on the part of society to ensure that all

Americans have access to an adequate level of care without the imposition of excessive burdens. This obligation does not require that everyone receive all health care that he or she may want or even all that could conceivably be of benefit. Instead, it is a moral responsibility to see that adequate care is accessible, a commitment that recognizes the competing claims on available resources of other worthwhile social goals.

 

The obligation we have described is one of all to all not a special standard that

applies only to the poor. This does not mean, however, that the Federal government need be involved in the health are of all Americans. Most people rely on their own resources and insurance for health care; and charitable institutions and state and local programs contribute to making the benefits of health care widely available. Thus, in practical terms, the responsibility that ultimately rests with the Federal government is to make sure that those who otherwise could not obtain adequate care are able to do so and that the costs of care are shared equitably.

 

Mark Neumann is Toast

Looks like the Wisconsin Governor's race will be an all-Milwaukee affair in 2010.  Mark Neumann is not getting any traction against Scott Walker and will soon be a laughingstock among the Republican faithful.

The latest problem came in West Bend, where any Republican candidate needs to do well. It seems Neumann made an impromptu stop at the GOP office there with a local reporter in tow, and found the door locked with a Scott Walker sign on it.  Neumann taped one of his own signs on the door and made sure the reporter took his picture doing it.  The resulting West Bend Daily News story is here.

Owen Robinson got the rest of the story from the not-so-happy county GOP chairman, Jim Geldreich, who campaigned for Neumann in 1998, when he narrowly lost to Senator Russ Feingold:

Geldreich: "...Neumann has not attended any of our Washington County GOP events, while Scott Walker has attended numerous events the past few years and has made serious efforts to get to know the Washington County Republicans.  ... I would’ve been willing to meet with Mark Neumann and/or his staff today had I known they were in West Bend, rather than have to deal with this publicity stunt."

Robinson's conclusion:

Neumann hasn’t been in contact with anyone at the Washington County GOP for months and then shows up unannounced and complains about the lack of support?  So what has Neumann accomplished?  He got a story in the paper, but managed to tick off a lot of the GOP loyalists in West Bend in the process.  Not a good move.

Christian Schneider, arguing at WPRI that the Walker - Barrett race will be close enough that it "will most likely come down to that last fish fry in Osceola," may have put it best:

Yes, I am aware that Mark Neumann is still in the GOP field for governor, but there’s a better chance of Liberace showing up and playing at my next birthday party than there is of Neumann winning the GOP nomination.

- Barry Orton

Dubai: Free markets, Unrestrained, Unregulated Capitalism. Phooey

As the world awaits the opening of U.S. markets, the heralded example of free markets and unregulated capitalism, Dubai, sent markets tumbling from Singapore to London.Dubai default fears push futures sharply lower and Dubai debt crisis raises financial turmoil fears

HONG KONG — The fallout from Dubai's debt crisis rippled across the globe Friday, raising concerns of another wave of financial turmoil and showing how vulnerable the world economy remains despite signs of recovery

Touted as an example for the United States to emulate by right wing economists and talking heads, What Dubai could teach the US about capitalism  (2007)

Dubai is a key center of hawala, an unregulated private system of payments and currency trading between the Middle East, South Asia, and Southeast Asia. Similar to a banking system of clearing checks, hawala brokers facilitate transactions and money transfers for a 1%-2% commission. For less money than a typical bank rate, the centuries-old payments system eases currency and gold transfers between Dubai's many migrant laborers and their families abroad.

Unfortunately, hawala is under pressure from the US government, which is trying to impose its own bank reporting and record keeping regulations throughout Dubai. The US regulatory efforts are a misguided attempt to prevent money laundering and the financing of terrorism. (emphasis added)

Dubai is delivering a sucker punch to investors who hoped that the steady recovery of American markets since last March would modestly correct and then keep advancing.

Obviously Americans are not the only skeptics.

 Free Market flawed, says survey: In the global poll for the BBC World Service, only 11% of those questioned across 27 countries said that it (free-market capitalism) was working well.

For a long time, progressives expressed skepticism about the ability of Dubai to maintain its unregulated commercial growth, October, 2006: Fear and Money In Dubai

The irony is that the Dubai failure slows the U.S. recovery.  Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity will not doubt blame it on President Obama.

Blogs: Right Wing Cap and Trade Nonsense

I received a note from a reader about a post picked up by right wing bloggers claiming that proposed Cap and Trade legislation would require the owner of a home to get a federal license before they could sell their home.

...Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced..

The author of this fraudulent right wing screed, knowing the gullibility of these readers goes so far as to say:

...we encourage you to read the provisons of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of representatives and being considered by the Senate...

99.99% of the perpetually susceptible will not bother to read the bill.

Think about it. If there was a provision as described in any piece of legislation,we would have been flooded with advertisements, news release and the like from everyone starting with the real estate industry, the banks and the title insurance companies.

In order to to deprive all of these right wing wing nuts from driving up their readership, I am not providing a link but am providing a copy for the curious:

We encourage you to read the provisions of the Cap and Trade Bill that has passed the House of Representatives and being considered by the Senate. We are ready to join the next march on Washington!

This Congress and whoever on their staffs that write this junk are truly out to destroy the middle class of the USA….

A License Required for your house

Thinking about selling your house – A look at H.R. 2454 (Cap and trade bill) This is unbelievable!

Only the beginning from this administration! Home owners take note & tell your friends and relatives who are home owners!

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Cap and Trade Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act. H.R. 2454, the “Cap & Trade” bill passed by the House of Representatives, if also passed by the Senate, will be the largest tax increase any of us has ever experienced.

The Congressional Budget Office (supposedly non-partisan) estimates that in just a few years the average cost to every family of four will be $6,800 per year.
No one is excluded.

However, once the lower classes feel the pinch in their wallets, you can be sure these voters get a tax refund (even if they pay no taxes at all) to offset this new cost. Thus, you Mr. and Mrs. Middle Class America will have to pay even more since additional tax dollars will be needed to bail out everyone else.

But wait. This awful bill (that no one in Congress has actually read) has many more surprises in it. Probably the worst one is this:

• A year from now you won’t be able to sell your house. Yes, you read that right.

The caveat is (there always is a caveat) that if you have enough money to make required major upgrades to your home, then you can sell it. But, if not, then forget it. Even pre-fabricated homes (”mobile homes”) are included.

• In effect, this bill prevents you from selling your home without the permission of the EPA administrator.
• To get this permission, you will have to have the energy efficiency of your home measured.
• Then the government will tell you what your new energy efficiency requirement is and you will be forced to make modifications to your home under the retrofit provisions of this Act to comply with the new energy and water efficiency requirements.
• Then you will have to get your home measured again and get a license (called a “label” in the Act) that must be posted on your property to show what your efficiency rating is; sort of like the Energy Star efficiency rating label on your refrigerator or air conditioner.
• If you don’t get a high enough rating, you can’t sell. And, the EPA administrator is authorized to raise the standards every year, even above the automatic energy efficiency increases built into the Act.

The EPA administrator, appointed by the President, will run the Cap & Trade program (AKA the “American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009″) and is authorized to make any future changes to the regulations and standards he alone determines to be in the government’s best interest. Requirements are set low initially so the bill will pass Congress; then the Administrator can set much tougher new standards every year.

• The Act itself contains annual required increases in energy efficiency for private and commercial residences and buildings.
• However, the EPA administrator can set higher standards at any time.

Sect. 202:

Building Retrofit Program mandates a national retrofit program to increase the energy efficiency of all existing homes across America .

Beginning 1 year after enactment of the Act, you won’t be able to sell your home unless you retrofit it to comply with the energy and water efficiency standards of this Act.

You had better sell soon, because the standards will be raised each year and will be really hard (i.e., ex$pen$ive) to meet in a few years. Oh, goody! The Act allows the government to give you a grant of several thousand dollars to comply with the retrofit program requirements if you meet certain energy efficiency levels. But, wait, the State can set additional requirements on who qualifies to receive the grants.

You should expect requirements such as “can’t have an income of more than $50K per year”, “home selling price can’t be more than $125K”, or anything else to target the upper middle class (and that’s YOU) and prevent them from qualifying for the grants.
Most of us won’t get a dime and will have to pay the entire cost of the retrofit out of our own pockets. More transfer of wealth, more “change you can believe in.”

Sect. 204:
Building Energy Performance Labeling Program establishes a labeling program that for each individual residence will identify the achieved energy efficiency performance for “at least 90 percent of the residential market within 5 years after the date of the enactment of this Act.”

This means that within 5 years 90% of all residential homes in the U.S. must be measured and labeled. The EPA administrator will get $50M each year to enforce the labeling program. The Secretary of the Department of Energy will get an additional $20M each year to help enforce the labeling program. Some of this money will, of course, be spent on coming up with tougher standards each year.

Oh, the label will be like a license for your car. You will be required to post the label in a conspicuous location in your home and will not be allowed to sell your home without having this label.

And, just like your car license, you will probably be required to get a new label every so often – maybe every year.

But, the government estimates the cost of measuring the energy efficiency of your home should only cost about $200 each time.

Remember what they said about the auto smog inspections when they first started: that in California it would only cost $15. That was when the program started. Now the cost is about $50 for the inspection and certificate; a 333% increase. Expect the same from the home labeling program.

Sect. 304:
Greater Energy Efficiency in Building Codes establishes new energy efficiency guidelines for the National Building Code and mandates at 304(d), Application of National Code to State and Local Jurisdictions, that 1 year after enactment of this Act, all state and local jurisdictions must adopt the National Building Code energy efficiency provisions or must obtain a certification from the federal government that their state and/or local codes have been brought into full compliance with the National Building Code energy efficiency standards.

Here is the response of one person who knows about this:

1. As passed, the bill does not create a federal energy audit requirement for real-estate property. It exempts existing homes and buildings from any federal guidelines for new-construction energy labeling. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will be prohibited from regulating carbon emissions from residential and commercial buildings under the Clean Air Act.

2. The bill would create a national building code with a goal of improving energy efficiency for *new* construction. States would have a year to bring their codes in compliance with the federal code….

Paul Ryan: When Will You Look At the Facts About the Deficit?

In his crusade to reach the White House, Paul Ryan published another piece of phony history and econoomics last week. The Wisconsin Republican authored Why No One Expects a Strong Recovery:

He and his ultra-conservative cohort, Representative Jeb Hensarling (R - Texas) explain that we have to get back to Reagan's economics and that the Democrats are a disaster for the economy:

Why all the pessimism? The source appears to be a growing fear that the federal government is retreating from the free-market economic principles of the last half-century, and in particular the strong growth policies that began under Ronald Reagan. A review of the economic policies instituted by President Barack Obama and the Democratic-controlled Congress lends credibility to this concern...

...Anyone who believes the Democratic Party's recently expressed concern over the deficit should look at the relentless growth of spending on its watch. Total nondefense spending set an all-time record this year—20.2% of GDP—double federal spending as a percentage of GDP during the height of the New Deal in 1934

The problem, Mr. Ryan, is the facts.

As any fifth grader can tell you, the greatest federal budget deficit as a percentage of the GNP since World War II was the Reagan deficit. It was erased by Bill Clinton and then eclipsed by George W. Bush. It usually takes 2-3 years for a President's economic policies to take hold.

Republicans start these problems and Democrats get us out of them. Unfortunately, sometimes the Democrats need more than a year or two to fix a problem the Republicans created in eight years.

Notice that dip before 1980? That was Jimmy Carter's third year. The peak before was the height of Nixon's second term.  

Notice the surplus before and through the year 2000? Yup. That was Bill Clinton.

Thoughts on the Governor's Race: Take Two

It was meant as a pointed jab. With humor. When I posted A Most Serious Threat To The Wisconsin Democratic Party on Friday, I was trying to elevate the discussion about the need for a viable candidate for governor.

I did not expect the post to be most widely read Waxing America since the infamous bicycle post, Bicycling Madison Style: As Dumb As It Gets, which is exactly why, my friends, I would never be a viable candidate for Governor.

Not to mention that few are worse than moi at fund-raising, or staying on message. Or that Sara would never speak to me again.

On a more serious note, I am thankful for all of the well-meant words of encouragement and kind thoughts, some from very old friends, some from people I do not know.

Let me make something constructive of this post: when I defeated Joe Sensenbrenner in 1989, he was silly enough to think that his record on management would get him re-elected.

When I ran in 2003, I was silly enough to think that my record on management would get me elected.

There were other reasons I lost, but the point is that progressives must tend to the management and administration of government.

We must make a genuine commitment and not leave the field to the Scott Walkers. They hate government and public employees.  They want to privatize or close everything except the police and fire departments, and I am not so sure about the fire departments.

With improved management, we will have a better democracy, we will save money, the quality of services will improve, and the respect for our public institutions will grow.

Let's elect someone who embraces government, knows its limitations, and is committed to making it better.

Scott Walker: Peddling The Party Line on Taxes

Scott Walker is incapable of telling the truth about taxes and fees. 

The Milwaukee County Executive concluded this week that Wisconsin is 12th Most Taxed State is Unacceptable. Walker parroting the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance (WTA) asserts:

Rankings like these are unacceptable. 

Walker makes no mention of where Wisconsin ranks in collecting total taxes and fees for government expenditures.

Wisconsin is low when it comes to imposing fees.

When taxes and fess are combined, Wisconsin ranks in the middle of the pack of the fifty states. That means we are in the middle of the pack when it comes to total government expenditures on a per capita basis.

Taxes are progressive. Fees are regressive. Wisconsin, going back to the days of Bob La Follette, preferred to collect revenues from taxes not fees.

From Waxing America,  September 2, 2009: Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance Distorts - What Else Is New?

Is WTA accurate in portraying the burden placed on Wisconsin taxpayers by state government? No. Not by a long shot.

We have been over this. State governments have many revenue sources. They include not only income taxes, but fees, various licenses and other assessments. Some progressive states like Wisconsin rely more heavily on progressive income taxes rather than regressive fees.

When we look at all government revenues on a per capita basis, Wisconsin does not rank near the top, but ranks 17th. Using 2008 revenues and current population data, our state collects $2680 per capita. That puts us as close to 34th ranked Mississippi ($2252) as it does to tenth ranked Delaware ($3360).