So, it's not a referendum...?

As Scott Walker once more declares that the Wisconsin Supreme Court vote is not a referendum on his administration's policies (1) ,  his Republican colleague Jeff Stone is at home dumbfounded as to why he's not celebrating a victory in Walker's vacated Milwaukee County Executive postition.  Instead, Stone got absolutely trounced (61%-39%) by an inexperienced political unknown, Chris Abele.  And JoAnne Kloppenburg, a non-factor in the Supreme Court primary in February (25% of the vote, compared to Prosser's 55%), is the leader in the clubhouse for the justice post.

Not a referendum, huh?

When Walker won the gubernatorial election in 2010 by a not-landslide-like 52%-47% margin, he was all about how his subsequent policies were what the people of Wisconsin wanted.  He and his Republican colleagues in the Legislature certainly acted as though they felt that was a referendum on his policies (or, at times, perhaps a divine command?) (2)

Unlike that election, though, voters here knew the real costs.  They didn't have their candidates lie about collective bargaining, (3)  or consolidate political power to appease corporate investors (4) , or say things to purposely mislead the people of Wisconsin (see previous posts).

Kloppenburg's possible election may be nothing more than something akin to a mosquito bite on the neck of Walker's administration, but a slew of them may just have him and his friends running for cover.

On, Wisconsin.

(1) Supreme Court vote doesn't shake Walker's resolve, WI State Journal, http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_3e2fac38-60b6-11e0-ae09-001cc4c002e0.html
(2) Scott Walker Believes He's Follwoing Orders From the Lord, The Progressive, 3/7/11 http://www.progressive.org/wx030711.html
(3) Politifact, JS Online, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/feb/22/scott-walker/wisconsin-gov-scott-walker-says-he-campaigned-his-/
(4) Yes, a power grab, JS Online, 12/27/10, http://www.jsonline.com/news/opinion/112522499.html

Out of both sides of his mouth (again...)

Very short post today about honesty and non-partisanship:

(From JS Online, 4/3/11)  "Walker himself dismissed the idea that the race would be a referendum on the bargaining law or his agenda."  (1)

(From JS Online, 4/5/11) "Walker's chief counsel, Brian Hagedorn sent an e-mail on the eve of the election urging people to vote for Prosser, saying keeping him on the court is essential to advancing Walker's agenda." (2)

(1) Bit players dominate state Supreme Court race, JS Online, 4/3/11 http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119128299.html
(2) Walker agenda could be stopped, if Prosser is defeated, JS Online, 4/5/11, http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/news/119285829.html

Brother, can you spare a job?

Thanks to Daniel Bice's piece in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel today, Wisconsinites are aghast at the $81,500 job given to Brian Deschane, son of the leader of one of Walker's biggest PAC contributors, Wisconsin Builders Association. (1)

It's not just the favoritism causing the buzz, either.  At least when the father of Walker's pals, the Fabulous Fitzgerald Boys, got the top post at the State Patrol, he had credentials. (2) 

Walker's latest controversy, however, has a less-than-stellar resume for managing a department overseeing environmental and regulatory matters:  little management experience, no college degree, and two drunk driving convictions (the most recent in 2008). (1)   You can see what is reported to be Deschane's actual LinkedIn resume here (thanks to sally305 for the tip).  NOTE: This link no longer works (4/8/11).  Hopefully our Deschane friend, now resigned from all government posts, will still be able to secure employment without it...

And the fun won't stop with Deschane.  Walker's budget repair, according to the Journal Sentinel "would make existing civil-service positions into 37 new political appointments...That would allow Walker and agency secretaries to hire and fire employees in those positions at will." (3)

So to appease Walker's big-money donors, he can offer positions such as Deschane's and at least 37 more? 

That won't be nearly enough.


ADDENDUM: The very next day, Walker "took action" after getting caught with his pants down regarding cronyism--he "demoted" Deschane to a $62,000/year job. Walker demotes son of campaign contributor, JS Online, 4/5/11  http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119283094.html


(1) No degree, little experience pay off big, JS Online, 4/3/11, http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/noquarter/119159584.html
(2) Top lawmakers' father Stephen Fitzgerald to lead State Patrol, WI State Journal, 2/8/11 http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_5dbcb93c-3394-11e0-8091-001cc4c03286.html
(3) Walker gives himself more power..., JS Online,3/17/11 http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118217614.html

So, um, Prosser never was a judge before, either...?

Amazing. 

The adroit handling of the budget bills by Scott Walker and his pals has turned what should have been a cakewalk for the reelection of State Supreme Court Justice David Prosser into a real dogfight (pardon the mixed metaphors...).  In the Feb. primary, in what was a relatively obscure race, Prosser garnered a commanding 55% of the vote, with Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg receiving but a scant 25%. (1)

Because of the well-warranted attention now given to the importance of this race's outcome and the future course of this state's law interpretation, we Wisconsinites have been subjected to obscene amounts of special interest money pouring into our state and airwaves, (2) literally spouting lies and misinformation from both sides (i.e., Kloppenburg put an 80 year old farmer in jail, Prosser knew about/did nothing about a pedophile priest). (3,4)

So that's given us a chance to focus on other things, such as Prosser's claim he was "deliberately goad(ed)" into calling the Wisconsin Chief Justice "a total bitch"(5)  and the fact that Prosser's biggest personal selling point seems to be that Kloppenburg has never been a judge.

Guess what?  Before his Supreme Court appointment by Tommy Thompson, NEITHER WAS PROSSER! (6, 7)

(From JS Online) "Walker himself dismissed the idea that the race would be a referendum on the bargaining law or his agenda." (8)

Guess what, Governor?  You've made it just that.

And YOU gave Kloppenburg a shot.

Thanks.


ADDENDUM: The commercial pounding the airwaves right now is that Kloppenburg is weak on crime.  Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the Supreme Court deal with constitutional issues, not criminals...?

(1) Prosser, Kloppenburg to Face Off in...Election, WI Law Journal, 2/16/11  http://wislawjournal.com/blog/2011/02/16/prosser-kloppenburg-to-face-off-in-supreme-court-general-election/
(2) Report: Outside Interest...ads, WI State Journal, 4/2/11 http://wislawjournal.com/blog/2011/02/16/prosser-kloppenburg-to-face-off-in-supreme-court-general-election/
(3) Politifaxt JS Online, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/apr/01/citizens-strong-america/ad-says-joanne-kloppenburg-jailed-80-year-old-farm/
(4) Politifact, JS Online, http://www.politifact.com/wisconsin/statements/2011/mar/29/greater-wisconsin-committee/greater-wisconsin-committee-says-supreme-court-jus/
(5) Supreme Court tensions boil over, JS Online, 3/19/11 http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118310479.html
(6) Capital Times, 4/3/11 http://host.madison.com/ct/news/opinion/column/john_nichols/article_9f560a25-5a32-5c2f-834c-cbe3d2b5da30.html
(7) Justice Prosser website http://www.justiceprosser.com/index.php/about-justice-prosser
(8) Bit players dominate state Supreme Court race, JS Online, 4/3/11 http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/119128299.html

Icky Stuff From My Side, Too...

UPDATE: AFSCME says that it was "overzealousness" and no boycott is planned, after all.  It was still incredibly stupid, overzealousness or not.
http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt-and-politics/article_6bee6a90-5c99-11e0-a0d5-001cc4c03286.html


I am all for free choice, but AFSCME Council 24 (a WI State Employees Union) blew it.  They sent letters to businesses asking them to put a sign in their business window--"This Business Supports Wisconsin Worker Rights"--or else, in this case a boycott. (1)

Really, AFSCME?  Really?  Both sides here are engaged in a PR battle for public support, and you present something that smacks of extortion, union thuggery, and the bullying shown by the capitol Republicans? 

I am all for personal choice boycotts of businesses that gave large donations to back Walker (i.e., Walmart), but this is not cool. 

This is icky.

I know the side of the Wisconsin workers is the just, the moral side, of this issue, I'm am so sorry to see this instance that, really, we're no better than they.

(1) Union Threatens boycott of any business that doesn't show support, JS Online, 3/31/11, http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118963234.html

Blog Topic OVERLOAD!

My goodness, what a day.

1) Wisconsin courts essentially say, "Hey, what part of 'don't publish this' didn't you understand?!" as even the publisher of "budget repair" said of Fitzgerald's demand to publish it (possibly illegally), "He is our boss, so a request from him would be at the level of insisting." (1)
2) Some of the anointed saviors of Wisconsin education--choice schools--are found to be performing as bad or worse than public schools in Milwaukee. (2)
3) Walker applies for high-speed rail stimulus funds from the federal government (ironically, some of which are available, according to JS Online, because another Republican governor turned them down). (3)
4) Communities all over the state are confused and hesitant to implement taking extra health care and pension contributions from their employees (as spelled out in budget-repair) because, I guess, they're not that confident in their Governor's actions. (1)
5)  Madison unveils a five-years-in-the-making public mural illustrating the rich and pioneering history of the labor movement in Wisconsin (aside from Walker's request for high-speed rail money, this is the supreme irony of the day...). (4)

Former guv Tommy Thompson (who supports Walker (5)) used to say, "It's a great day for Wisconsin."

Think again. 

It's a great day for bloggers.

Not so much for Wisconsinites, though.

(1) Judge again blocks implementation of collective bargaining law, JS Online, 3/29/11, http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118839999.html
(2) Choice schools not outperforming MPS , JS Online, 3 /29/11, http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/118820339.html
(3) State seeks high-speed rail money for Hiawatha upgrade, JS Online, 3/29/11, http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118842999.html
(4) New Mural Depicts the History of Labor Movements in Wisconsin, Wisconsin State Journal, 3/29/11, http://host.madison.com/wsj/business/article_2ad9cbcc-5a59-11e0-b22d-001cc4c002e0.html
(5) Thompson Praises Walker, Remains Silent on Labor Law, Politico, 2/22/11, http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0211/Thompson_praises_Walker_remains_silent_on_labor_law.html

Loaded for Bear

I was about to go ballistic when I read that Walker's budget would eliminate the opportunity for publically-funded elections (1) because loss of such public input opens the way for more large corporate, PAC (special interest groups called Political Action Committees) donations.   But then I read that the system is little used, and often viewed by its critics as pretty much useless. (4) Under the current Wisconsin Election Campaign Fund (WECF), public candidates that agree to certain restrictions on spending limits may be eligible for matching grants from the state (via the little $1 donation box you probably didn't check on your tax return) to help fund their campaigns.  Wisconsin government explains it thusly: Consequently, every dollar from the WECF grant means forfeiting a dollar from PACs. (2)

But what's the problem here?  Unfortunately, the fund rules could use a major revision.  Some studies show not many candidates are willing to follow the regulations to qualify for the grants, spending limits have not been updated since 1986, fewer taxpayer participants have inadequately funded the program, and the introduction of "issue ads" in 1996--which are essentially PACs that don't explicitly endorse a candidate, but rather endorse "hot-button" issues closely identified with a candidate or party platform--have flooded the media, not counting against a candidate's spending. (3) 

So, what does this mean?  It means the system is broken.  Should it be discarded?  No, not if it truly keeps the special interests from unfairly promoting a candidate, from buying an election. 

Should it be changed?  Absolutely.  Spending limits should be raised, the value of checking the voluntary tax form contribution should be promoted, and most of all, "issue ads" should be somehow limited, if possible (yes, even the "union busting" ads, despite being true, in my opinion).

We may not feel the effect of this loss right away,  but not making changes in such a program will result in a terrifying future for Wisconsin, bought and paid for by special interest groups.

And I think we're getting awfully close to that point already.

(1) Budget Defunds Elections, JS Online, http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/118749889.html
(2) WECF, WI Dept of Revenue, http://www.revenue.wi.gov/faqs/ise/wecf-dtf.html
(3) Campaign Finance in WI, Brennan Ctr for Justice Report, http://www.policyarchive.org/handle/10207/bitstreams/8757.pdf
(4) Anatomy of a Failed Idea, WI Interest, http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Vol18No3/Nichols18.3.html