It baffles me why politicians have the biggest problem learning from their own mistakes--or the mistakes of others. I ask this after news broke on Friday that three members of Governor Scott Walker's administration are granted immunity in a John Doe investigation into illegal campaign work done by Milwaukee County Employees working under Walker.
If this type of controversy sound familiar, it's because this is not the first time such alleged activity has taken place. You may recall it was was called the "Capitol Caucus Scandal" the first time around--and some people actually went to jail because of their activities. Long story short, state employees were directed to do campaign work on taxpayers time--in clear violation of state law. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Chvala was convicted on two felony counts and served nine months in jail. State Senator Brian Burke spent six months in jail after he was found guilty of collecting contributions for his Attorney General campaign in his state office. Both Chvala and Burke were booted from the Senate as well.
Now you would think that anyone working on any campaign anywhere in Wisconsin would look at what happened to Chvala and Burke and think "Holy cow, I don't want to go to jail and be a convicted felon just to win an election!" But it's possible that was not the thought process employed in Milwaukee County. Perhaps it was more along the lines of "Well they may have been caught--but we'll be 'smarter' than them."
The next step in the playbook will be the statement from the campaign that these were merely "overly eager workers going rogue on their own with no direction from any campaign officials or their boss" and then a few low-level people falling on their swords to protect those higher up. As someone who tried to take on this career politician "I can't afford to lose at any cost" type attitude, it just makes me shake my head and say "The more things change, the more they stay the same."
Monday, September 26, 2011
Friday, September 23, 2011
The Kids Lose Again
Chalk up another win for the money counters at the WIAA--and another loss for the student-athletes they claim to care so much about. The Association announced this week that Boys Basketball Sectionals will no longer be played at at college sites like the Kolf Sports Center or the Brown County Arena. In a refreshing change, WIAA spokesman Todd Clark openly admitted that the only factor in this decision was that it would allow them to keep more of the money generated by ticket sales--rather than having to rent the gym. So instead of having a unique opportunity to play before big crowds on college-sized courts, teams making it to sectionals now get to play in just another high school gym.
Even though we never had a prayer of making it there when I played at Bay Port, playing at the Brown County Arena was a really big deal. That was where Dick Bennett and the UWGB Phoenix played, there were actual shot clocks and the hoops weren't connected to the ceiling. It was a really neat thing to experience (for teams that actually made it there I mean). If you had told me a regional title would mean another trip to Ashwaubenon High School, it would have been a bit of a disappointment. As a broadcaster, I've done sectional doubleheaders at the Arena and let me tell you having four fan bases in the house at the same time really gets things rocking.
And let's not forget the fans lose out here as well. I've been at a few sectional games at the Kolf featuring Oshkosh teams where it was standing room only--and the Kolf holds about five-thousand people. Only about half of those fans would get in a game at Stevens Point. Kind of makes you wonder how the WIAA expects to make more money if fewer fans are able to buy tickets. I doubt, venue rental was so expensive as to make that trade off a break-even deal.
I understand the WIAA has to be self-sufficient--and that Boys Football and Basketball playoffs are the only moneymakers they have--so profits need to be maximized. And let's not forget the Gannett Newspapers likely cost them thousands with their lawsuit to avoid paying $50 broadcast fees to stream playoff games--so that money has to be made back as well. But at some point, the student-athletes and the fans have to be given some consideration.
So just add this to what is becoming a lengthy list of questionable decisions coming from the WIAA--along with the Valley Football Association (which no one wanted), the idea of everyone making the playoffs in football (which no one wants) and no more taking your shirt off at insde sporting events (OK, only the kids didn't want that one). And you can also add another tick in the loss column for the kids--even though this is supposed to be "all about the children".
Even though we never had a prayer of making it there when I played at Bay Port, playing at the Brown County Arena was a really big deal. That was where Dick Bennett and the UWGB Phoenix played, there were actual shot clocks and the hoops weren't connected to the ceiling. It was a really neat thing to experience (for teams that actually made it there I mean). If you had told me a regional title would mean another trip to Ashwaubenon High School, it would have been a bit of a disappointment. As a broadcaster, I've done sectional doubleheaders at the Arena and let me tell you having four fan bases in the house at the same time really gets things rocking.
And let's not forget the fans lose out here as well. I've been at a few sectional games at the Kolf featuring Oshkosh teams where it was standing room only--and the Kolf holds about five-thousand people. Only about half of those fans would get in a game at Stevens Point. Kind of makes you wonder how the WIAA expects to make more money if fewer fans are able to buy tickets. I doubt, venue rental was so expensive as to make that trade off a break-even deal.
I understand the WIAA has to be self-sufficient--and that Boys Football and Basketball playoffs are the only moneymakers they have--so profits need to be maximized. And let's not forget the Gannett Newspapers likely cost them thousands with their lawsuit to avoid paying $50 broadcast fees to stream playoff games--so that money has to be made back as well. But at some point, the student-athletes and the fans have to be given some consideration.
So just add this to what is becoming a lengthy list of questionable decisions coming from the WIAA--along with the Valley Football Association (which no one wanted), the idea of everyone making the playoffs in football (which no one wants) and no more taking your shirt off at insde sporting events (OK, only the kids didn't want that one). And you can also add another tick in the loss column for the kids--even though this is supposed to be "all about the children".
Thursday, September 22, 2011
A Bad Call
This is a tough morning for those of us who support the death penalty. On the same day that a white supremacist who dragged a black man behind his pickup truck is put to death for his heinous crimes, a black man who very well may have been falsely accused in the death of a white police officer is also executed.
The case of Lawrence Brewer in Texas represents the very reason capital punishment needs to be an option in the US. Brewer is one of three men who picked up James Byrd, Jr along a country road back in 1998--chained him to the back bumper of his pickup truck--and dragged him behind the vehicle for two miles--leaving a trail of body parts and blood. Even as he faced the lethal injection, Brewer had no apology to offer for what he had done. Tell me, how would we be a better society for having Lawrence Brewer still alive and sitting in a prison cell eating three square meals a day, watching TV and interacting with other hardcore racists in a Texas prison? I don't think we would be any better than we are for having put him to death.
And then you have the much more ballyhooed case of Troy Davis--an African-American man found guilty of killing a white off-duty police officer in Georgia back in 1989. Seven of the nine people who testified against Davis have since recanted or changed their versions of what happened that night--leading many to question whether the death penalty is fair punishment in the case. And I happen to agree.
I'm sure those who took more than just a few pre-law classes will tell me this isn't the way things work, but I would have preferred seeing those who have recanted or changed their stories charged with perjury or obstruction of justice--beacuse isn't that what they are admitting to have done? If in those seven trials convictions are brought back by juries, that should provide compelling evidence to appeals courts that perhaps a new trial is warranted--with the "corrected versions of the facts" being presented. Unfortunately, affidavits of now-admitted-liars were all that appeals attorneys had to use and a number of courts rejected them.
Juries are instructed to convict only if they feel a defendant is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". In death penalty cases the standard for the punishment itself needs to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Yes, it will mean fewer executions I'm sure--but that is much better than the possibility of putting an innocent man to death. The lone solace we can take from last night is that even the most liberal members of the Supreme Court--Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor--did not dissent to the denial of Davis's last minute plea for clemency--and how many times have we been told they have the best grasp of the law in the land?
The case of Lawrence Brewer in Texas represents the very reason capital punishment needs to be an option in the US. Brewer is one of three men who picked up James Byrd, Jr along a country road back in 1998--chained him to the back bumper of his pickup truck--and dragged him behind the vehicle for two miles--leaving a trail of body parts and blood. Even as he faced the lethal injection, Brewer had no apology to offer for what he had done. Tell me, how would we be a better society for having Lawrence Brewer still alive and sitting in a prison cell eating three square meals a day, watching TV and interacting with other hardcore racists in a Texas prison? I don't think we would be any better than we are for having put him to death.
And then you have the much more ballyhooed case of Troy Davis--an African-American man found guilty of killing a white off-duty police officer in Georgia back in 1989. Seven of the nine people who testified against Davis have since recanted or changed their versions of what happened that night--leading many to question whether the death penalty is fair punishment in the case. And I happen to agree.
I'm sure those who took more than just a few pre-law classes will tell me this isn't the way things work, but I would have preferred seeing those who have recanted or changed their stories charged with perjury or obstruction of justice--beacuse isn't that what they are admitting to have done? If in those seven trials convictions are brought back by juries, that should provide compelling evidence to appeals courts that perhaps a new trial is warranted--with the "corrected versions of the facts" being presented. Unfortunately, affidavits of now-admitted-liars were all that appeals attorneys had to use and a number of courts rejected them.
Juries are instructed to convict only if they feel a defendant is "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt". In death penalty cases the standard for the punishment itself needs to be "beyond a shadow of a doubt". Yes, it will mean fewer executions I'm sure--but that is much better than the possibility of putting an innocent man to death. The lone solace we can take from last night is that even the most liberal members of the Supreme Court--Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Sonia Sotomayor--did not dissent to the denial of Davis's last minute plea for clemency--and how many times have we been told they have the best grasp of the law in the land?
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
So THAT'S Who Is To Blame!
According to President Obama, 234,000 people are to blame for our current federal budget crisis. Those 234-thousand people are the households that reported incomes of at least $1-million dollars last year. And--according to the President--they are the ones who did not pay their "fair share" of taxes.
Those 234-thousand people are the one's targeted by the so-called "Buffett Rule" that the President is including in his new tax increase proposal. The "Buffett" referred to there is Warren Buffett, who claims his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. However, the "Oracle of Omaha" actually doesn't need a change in the Federal Tax Code to rectify that situation. He just needs to raise his salary from Berkshire Hathaway--which is taxed at a rate much higher than what his secretary would pay--and decrease what he claims as income from capital gains and dividends--which are taxed at a lower rate. Voila, Buffett is paying 35% in federal taxes--while his secretary (assuming she makes between 40- and 50-thousand dollars a year) will continue paying 15%.
According to an Associated Press "Fact Check" story,
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1
the top 10% of wage earners in the US pay 70% of all federal income taxes. The rest is picked up by those of us in the next 44% of wage earners. 46% of all Americans pay nothing in federal income taxes. And that final group is growing every year. Kind of makes you wonder who isn't paying their fair share. Of course, I'm not part of that 46% President Obama needs to scare/placate/over-promise to have any chance of winning election in 2012.
Now, back to work to support my family--and one other one too.
Those 234-thousand people are the one's targeted by the so-called "Buffett Rule" that the President is including in his new tax increase proposal. The "Buffett" referred to there is Warren Buffett, who claims his secretary pays a higher tax rate than he does. However, the "Oracle of Omaha" actually doesn't need a change in the Federal Tax Code to rectify that situation. He just needs to raise his salary from Berkshire Hathaway--which is taxed at a rate much higher than what his secretary would pay--and decrease what he claims as income from capital gains and dividends--which are taxed at a lower rate. Voila, Buffett is paying 35% in federal taxes--while his secretary (assuming she makes between 40- and 50-thousand dollars a year) will continue paying 15%.
According to an Associated Press "Fact Check" story,
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1
the top 10% of wage earners in the US pay 70% of all federal income taxes. The rest is picked up by those of us in the next 44% of wage earners. 46% of all Americans pay nothing in federal income taxes. And that final group is growing every year. Kind of makes you wonder who isn't paying their fair share. Of course, I'm not part of that 46% President Obama needs to scare/placate/over-promise to have any chance of winning election in 2012.
Now, back to work to support my family--and one other one too.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
Why Even Bother?
I'm not going to try and re-fight the battle over high school mascots--those of us who believe in freedom of expression have pretty much accepted defeat on this issue--but I do have raise some questions as to the process the Department of Public Instruction uses to strip schools of their nicknames. After reading through the "Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law" in the Berlin High School case, it's clear that there is absolutely no way for a school district to win a challenge to a complaint--so why even bother?
When Democrats in the Legislature and Governor Doyle passed this law back in 2009 the clear intent was to eliminate all Native American-related mascots--but rather than taking responsibility for this unpopular move and writing the bill to just make the nicknames illegal--lawmakers instead chose to have the Department of Public Instruction do their dirty work.
The deck is immediately stacked against districts by requiring them to provide the burden of proof that the mascot is NOT racist. As any criminal defense attorney will tell you, proving a negative is much harder than proving a positive. That is why in our criminal system the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendent DID commit a crime--rather than the suspect having to prove beyond a reasonalbe doubt that he or she DIDN'T do it. Add to that, the DPI is to take at face-value anyone's testimony that they are "offended" by the mascot.
In the Berlin hearing, one district resident testified that he saw students at games wearing a headress twice--once in 2001 and once in 2009. A couple of witnesses claiming to represent Wisconsin Indian Tribes--but not Berlin residents (and who have testified at other such hearings for districts where they do not reside)--testified to incidents they saw years ago as children--but again, not in Berlin--and how it traumatized them.
Meanwhile, a longer list of witnesses for the district were dismissed as failing to provide "convincing" evidence that the logo and mascot do not promote stereotyping. The expenses associated with removing all references to the current logo and mascot from buildings and jerseys was also dismissed as "irrelevant".
While there is support in the new-look Legislature for doing away with this dog-and-pony show process--it is not a top priority right now--so we are stuck with what we've got. Therefore, I propose that we use the same process for redress of other school-related grievances.
Imagine if one senior citizen here in Oshkosh this past year had filed a complaint about the 10% property tax increase--claiming it was an "undue hardship" upon them with their fixed incomes. AARP could have brought in "experts" on the negative impact such tax increases have on all retirees everywhere else. I'm guessing six members of the Oshkosh Board of Education would be testifying at the hearing claiming it really isn't "that much of a hardship"--and that the vast majority of district residents had "no problem" with tax hike. The Oshkosh Education Association would be there as well detailing the expenses their members would incur to make up for the lost tax revenue. But the DPI would be required to ignore all of those arguments--and would really have no choice but to overturn the tax increase--not just for the retiree who couldn't afford it--but for EVERYONE in the district!!
You know what, this "social justice" way of doing things might actually be better than the old "equal justice" way we used to do things.
When Democrats in the Legislature and Governor Doyle passed this law back in 2009 the clear intent was to eliminate all Native American-related mascots--but rather than taking responsibility for this unpopular move and writing the bill to just make the nicknames illegal--lawmakers instead chose to have the Department of Public Instruction do their dirty work.
The deck is immediately stacked against districts by requiring them to provide the burden of proof that the mascot is NOT racist. As any criminal defense attorney will tell you, proving a negative is much harder than proving a positive. That is why in our criminal system the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendent DID commit a crime--rather than the suspect having to prove beyond a reasonalbe doubt that he or she DIDN'T do it. Add to that, the DPI is to take at face-value anyone's testimony that they are "offended" by the mascot.
In the Berlin hearing, one district resident testified that he saw students at games wearing a headress twice--once in 2001 and once in 2009. A couple of witnesses claiming to represent Wisconsin Indian Tribes--but not Berlin residents (and who have testified at other such hearings for districts where they do not reside)--testified to incidents they saw years ago as children--but again, not in Berlin--and how it traumatized them.
Meanwhile, a longer list of witnesses for the district were dismissed as failing to provide "convincing" evidence that the logo and mascot do not promote stereotyping. The expenses associated with removing all references to the current logo and mascot from buildings and jerseys was also dismissed as "irrelevant".
While there is support in the new-look Legislature for doing away with this dog-and-pony show process--it is not a top priority right now--so we are stuck with what we've got. Therefore, I propose that we use the same process for redress of other school-related grievances.
Imagine if one senior citizen here in Oshkosh this past year had filed a complaint about the 10% property tax increase--claiming it was an "undue hardship" upon them with their fixed incomes. AARP could have brought in "experts" on the negative impact such tax increases have on all retirees everywhere else. I'm guessing six members of the Oshkosh Board of Education would be testifying at the hearing claiming it really isn't "that much of a hardship"--and that the vast majority of district residents had "no problem" with tax hike. The Oshkosh Education Association would be there as well detailing the expenses their members would incur to make up for the lost tax revenue. But the DPI would be required to ignore all of those arguments--and would really have no choice but to overturn the tax increase--not just for the retiree who couldn't afford it--but for EVERYONE in the district!!
You know what, this "social justice" way of doing things might actually be better than the old "equal justice" way we used to do things.
Monday, September 19, 2011
Please Stop, My Brain Hurts
I used to think that the proliferation of live sports programming on TV was a good thing. It wasn't so long ago that all of these pennant chase Brewers games would not have been televised locally--and forget about a home game ever being on TV. Remember when the only way to see a Badgers football game on TV was to wait for the replay on Wisconsin Public Television Saturday night? And being a fan of other "out-of-town" teams in the NFL, NHL and NBA--the more games broadcast, the better the chance of one of my teams being shown here.
But now I'm wondering if maybe it might be time to start scaling back--not because I don't want to watch so many games--but rather because there are clearly not enough quality play-by-play crews to call all of the action. (Why else would the insufferable Gus Johnson be considered a "top-tier" play-by-play guy?) Never was that more evident than in the Badgers and Packers games this weekend.
Thanks to the MAC'S contract arrangement with ESPN, the Wisconsin-Northern Illinois game was relegated to ESPN3--an internet-only channel. I'll give credit to Time Warner Cable for putting the show on one of its sports tier channels (not in HiDef)--so we didn't have to deal with stop-and-go-action and "buffering" messages trying to watch it on-line. But given the production work and the call of the game--I would have rather just been kept in the dark.
The broadcast featured some of the worst camera angles ever, sloppily-edited replays and the worst call of a game I have ever seen outside of public access television. For awhile, I thought maybe the crew was watching the contest on-line as well--and was surfing some other sites during the game. And then Christian Fauria provided insightful color commentary like "Uhhhh" on a long run by Montee Ball.
The Packers were broadcast on FOX Sunday--so you would expect at least a more professional effort (I'll skip the rant about fighting robots this time). But the call from Charles Davis and Jim Mora, Junior made me want to stick meat thermometers in my ears to find some relief from the pain. I've been in TV meetings where the broadcast crew and the producers decide what the "storylines" are going to be coming into the game. Obviously, the "storyline" for the Packers-Panthers game was going to be "Cam Newton is going to be the next big thing in the NFL so we need to be on his bandwagon as soon as possible."
You would have thought it was Tim Tebow at quarterback and Evangelical Christians in the booth the way Davis and Mora were slurping on Newton. He was the greatest runner they'd ever seen, he has the strongest arm, the greatest downfield vision, etc, etc. Mora elicited the biggest groan by blaming the Panthers offensive coordinator for the three interception thrown by Newton in the 2nd half--as it was obvious that a guy sitting in a booth was responsible for overthrowing wide open receivers and throwing into double coverage several times.
Yes, I could have listened to Matt and Mike during the Badgers game--but the stream from our Green Bay sister station would not have matched up with the game action--so it would have sounded like they were doing an old-school recreation of a road game. The Packers game was on the radio as well--but I don't need Wayne Larivee yelling about every three yard run like it just won the Super Bowl in overtime--with color commentary by Chewbacca--I mean Larry McCarren--groaning and grunting in reaction to the play on the field.
So maybe the time has come to admit there is a limited number of quality broadcast crews available for games--and as a service to the fans, the networks will air only the games they can work every week. My intelligence as a sports fan can't take anymore.
But now I'm wondering if maybe it might be time to start scaling back--not because I don't want to watch so many games--but rather because there are clearly not enough quality play-by-play crews to call all of the action. (Why else would the insufferable Gus Johnson be considered a "top-tier" play-by-play guy?) Never was that more evident than in the Badgers and Packers games this weekend.
Thanks to the MAC'S contract arrangement with ESPN, the Wisconsin-Northern Illinois game was relegated to ESPN3--an internet-only channel. I'll give credit to Time Warner Cable for putting the show on one of its sports tier channels (not in HiDef)--so we didn't have to deal with stop-and-go-action and "buffering" messages trying to watch it on-line. But given the production work and the call of the game--I would have rather just been kept in the dark.
The broadcast featured some of the worst camera angles ever, sloppily-edited replays and the worst call of a game I have ever seen outside of public access television. For awhile, I thought maybe the crew was watching the contest on-line as well--and was surfing some other sites during the game. And then Christian Fauria provided insightful color commentary like "Uhhhh" on a long run by Montee Ball.
The Packers were broadcast on FOX Sunday--so you would expect at least a more professional effort (I'll skip the rant about fighting robots this time). But the call from Charles Davis and Jim Mora, Junior made me want to stick meat thermometers in my ears to find some relief from the pain. I've been in TV meetings where the broadcast crew and the producers decide what the "storylines" are going to be coming into the game. Obviously, the "storyline" for the Packers-Panthers game was going to be "Cam Newton is going to be the next big thing in the NFL so we need to be on his bandwagon as soon as possible."
You would have thought it was Tim Tebow at quarterback and Evangelical Christians in the booth the way Davis and Mora were slurping on Newton. He was the greatest runner they'd ever seen, he has the strongest arm, the greatest downfield vision, etc, etc. Mora elicited the biggest groan by blaming the Panthers offensive coordinator for the three interception thrown by Newton in the 2nd half--as it was obvious that a guy sitting in a booth was responsible for overthrowing wide open receivers and throwing into double coverage several times.
Yes, I could have listened to Matt and Mike during the Badgers game--but the stream from our Green Bay sister station would not have matched up with the game action--so it would have sounded like they were doing an old-school recreation of a road game. The Packers game was on the radio as well--but I don't need Wayne Larivee yelling about every three yard run like it just won the Super Bowl in overtime--with color commentary by Chewbacca--I mean Larry McCarren--groaning and grunting in reaction to the play on the field.
So maybe the time has come to admit there is a limited number of quality broadcast crews available for games--and as a service to the fans, the networks will air only the games they can work every week. My intelligence as a sports fan can't take anymore.
Friday, September 16, 2011
Boycott Idiocy
Those "fighting for Wisconsin's working families" are once again turning their guns on those they claim to support. Democratic State Senator Lena Taylor is encouraging her Facebook "friends" and constituents to boycott Georgia-Pacific products made right here in Wisconsin.
The company's great sin: Moving jobs to China or Mexico? Nope. Eliminating health insurance coverage for employees? Not that either. G-P is drawing this attack from the left because the corporation is under the majority control of the Koch Brothers. And because the Koch Brothers provided campaign money to Governor Scott Walker and other Repoublicans who voted for changes to the collective bargaining law--anything they are associated with is automatically "evil" and needs to be boycotted.
Not surprisingly, Taylor is finding ZERO support for her boycott--even from her fellow Democratic lawmakers. Organized Labor's biggest puppet--Senator Dave Hansen of Green Bay--laughed off the idea--knowing that any support for such a ludicrous idea would require him to stay permanently in Illinois the next time he decides to abscond from his elected duties. His comment was "we need to be focusing on job creation."
And there is the irony in all of the Democratic rhetoric. People like the Koch Brothers, and the owners of Johnsonville Brats and Menards (other Democratic boycott targets) are the actual "job creators" in our economy. Without their financial backing, and their focus on maintaining profitable operations, several thousand more people here in Wisconsin would be looking for gainful employment. But people like Senator Lena Taylor don't think about that. All they know is those people have a bunch of money and therefore must be villified for political purposes.
Since Senator Taylor's district covers many of the decaying northside Milwaukee neighborhoods, it might better serve Wisconsin's "working families" if she encouraged her constituents to "boycott" drugs...or drinking alcohol to excess...or illegal weapons...or dropping out of high school...or having unprotected sex. Maybe we could afford to pick up more than 88% of state emloyees health insurance premiums--or 95% of their retirement benefits--if we didn't have to pay for the actions of so many of Senator Taylor's supporters.
The company's great sin: Moving jobs to China or Mexico? Nope. Eliminating health insurance coverage for employees? Not that either. G-P is drawing this attack from the left because the corporation is under the majority control of the Koch Brothers. And because the Koch Brothers provided campaign money to Governor Scott Walker and other Repoublicans who voted for changes to the collective bargaining law--anything they are associated with is automatically "evil" and needs to be boycotted.
Not surprisingly, Taylor is finding ZERO support for her boycott--even from her fellow Democratic lawmakers. Organized Labor's biggest puppet--Senator Dave Hansen of Green Bay--laughed off the idea--knowing that any support for such a ludicrous idea would require him to stay permanently in Illinois the next time he decides to abscond from his elected duties. His comment was "we need to be focusing on job creation."
And there is the irony in all of the Democratic rhetoric. People like the Koch Brothers, and the owners of Johnsonville Brats and Menards (other Democratic boycott targets) are the actual "job creators" in our economy. Without their financial backing, and their focus on maintaining profitable operations, several thousand more people here in Wisconsin would be looking for gainful employment. But people like Senator Lena Taylor don't think about that. All they know is those people have a bunch of money and therefore must be villified for political purposes.
Since Senator Taylor's district covers many of the decaying northside Milwaukee neighborhoods, it might better serve Wisconsin's "working families" if she encouraged her constituents to "boycott" drugs...or drinking alcohol to excess...or illegal weapons...or dropping out of high school...or having unprotected sex. Maybe we could afford to pick up more than 88% of state emloyees health insurance premiums--or 95% of their retirement benefits--if we didn't have to pay for the actions of so many of Senator Taylor's supporters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)