The Death of Humor

When did we become the Society That Can't Laugh At Itself?  I ask as Republicans are demanding an apology from Wisconsin Congressman Mark Pocan for a spoof of the GOP field of Presidential candidates at last weekend's Democratic state convention in Milwaukee:

Republicans claim that Pocan's bit was "racist", "sexist" and that it "engaged in fat-shaming".  And you know what, it probably was--but that doesn't change the fact that it was also funny.  I'm sure that if Paul Ryan had done the same thing with Rebel Wilson as Hillary Clinton, Waldorf from the Muppet Show as Bernie Sanders and Harvey Fierstein as Mark Pocan--everyone at the Republican Party convention would have laughed as well.

As our children learn in their modern history books, there is no such thing as "reverse racism" or "reverse sexism" because it is straight, white men that hold all of the power--therefore, they are the only ones that can be targets of satire and humor in our society.  Anyone else is being "stereotyped" or "repressed" by attempts at humor.

The Pocan "controversy" comes at the same time comedy legend Jerry Seinfeld says that he and most other comedians are staying away from doing college shows anymore due to the "Politically Correct culture" on campus.  In fact, he predicts PC will be the "death of comedy"--as we completely lose the ability to laugh at ourselves--instead having to feign insult and indignation that someone other than a person who "understands our struggle" has dared to comment on a situation.

So I would suggest to the Republican Party that rather than pretend to be offended by Mark Pocan's attempt at humor that you instead join in the chuckles--because you aren't allowed to laugh at anyone else anymore.

Ben & Jerry's Rocky Road

If there is any place that "health care reform" is going to work it would be the state of Vermont.  The Liberal haven that is giving us Bernie Sanders as a Presidential candidate has a small, homogeneous population that tends to be generally healthy, well-educated and well-paid.  The state was actually ahead of the Affordable Care Act curve by already requiring insurance companies to cover people with pre-existing conditions and they had some of the highest income limits for Medicaid and Medicare programs.  And yet, if you were to ask Vermonters their opinion of the ACA, you would find the approval ratings are among the lowest in the country.

For starters, the State-run health insurance exchange has been a complete disaster.  $200-MILLION is yet to yield a system that can handle registration or allow people to change their policies based on life events.  That by the way is $200-MILLION spent in a state with a population of just 626-thousand residents to achieve zero results.  (That would be $319 spent per man, woman and child in Vermont--for those of you who learned "Ten is your friend" Common Core math skills).  In fact, they are on their second IT provider in trying to fix the mess--and there is fear that when Federal funding to run the exchanges ends soon--Vermont will likely have to use the Federal exchanges (just like Oregon, Nevada and Hawaii--who also blew more than $200-MILLION each on their own failed exchanges.)

To add insult to injury, Vermont has also been forced to admit defeat in its quest to become the first state to go to a "single-payer" Government-run health care system.  The state expected to have all medical bills paid for by its own insurance plan by 2017--that is until our old friends Math and Economic Reality stepped in.  It turned out that to pay for just its 626-thousand residents, Vermont would have to increase tax revenues by $2.5-BILLION a year--when it currently collects only $2,7-BILLION.  Yes, tiny Vermont would have to nearly DOUBLE the size of its state government to pay for universal health care.  That would have meant an 11.5% payroll tax (on top of a 1% payroll tax the Governor also proposed to make up for Medicaid funding shortfalls from Washington)--and a 9.5% income tax increase on all residents (on top of the existing 3.5 to 6.8% tax rates already in place).  Even the most liberal lawmakers in one of our most liberal states admitted there was no chance of that ever being approved.  And let's keep in mind that these expenses are for a state ranked SECOND HEALTHIEST IN THE NATION!!

I wonder how those in Vermont will react to President Obama when he touts the "success of the Affordable Care Act" later today in his thinly-veiled message to the Supreme Court as it considers the Constitutionality of Federal health insurance subsidies.  After all, they are experiencing that 'success" first-hand.

It's Cheaper to Keep 'Em!!

While "Fear the Deer!" may be cuter and easier to put on t-shirts and ballcaps, the Milwaukee Bucks should consider "It's Cheaper to Keep Us" as their new rallying cry.  That was the main "selling point" that Governor Scott Walker, Assembly Speaker Robin Vos and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett used last Thursday to justify taxpayer funding for a new downtown arena.  The argument being that the state would lose more tax revenue if the Bucks move to Seattle or Las Vegas in a couple of years than the state will kick in to keep them here.

"It's Cheaper to Keep Us" also perfectly captures the ambivalence most Wisconsin residents have toward the Bucks as well.  When the Green Bay Packers came to lawmakers asking for taxpayer funds to renovate and expand Lambeau Field, nearly everyone in Madison fought to be first in line to offer that assistance--and Brown County voters overwhelmingly approved a half-percent sales tax to "help their team"--even though there was absolutely no chance of them moving to another city.  The Packers merely had to claim that the renovations would "make them more competitive in the NFL" and Super Bowl-starved fans couldn't get out their wallets fast enough--even paying for personal seat licenses that are basically meaningless (just like the millions of shares of Packers stock that have also been sold to "help keep the team competitive").

The Brewers tried the same power play as the Bucks are now (we might move to Saint Petersburg!) and met far more resistance--even though they claimed having a new stadium would make them more competitive too.  Governor Tommy Thompson famously told lawmakers from out-state Wisconsin to "stick it to them" by instituting a five-county sales tax to build Miller Park--and even then it came down to a last-minute, one-vote margin of victory for that funding plan.  And the lawmaker that cast that deciding vote--State Senator George Petak--was recalled from office nine months later as voters in Racine County took their revenge for being included in the sales tax area.

It was Petak's experience that guaranteed there would be no special regional sales tax for the new Milwaukee Arena.  That meant the parties involved in this fight would have to use creative accounting like "certifying delinquent taxes" and a "jock tax" to appear like "new revenue" to cover the costs--and far more cash from Bucks ownership than was expected from either the Packers or Bud Selig.  And despite all of the assurances that taxpayers are not going to be on the hook for any of the cost of the new facility--support remains tepid at best.  Assembly Speaker Robin Vos admits he will have a tough time selling it to his caucus--and even though Republicans enjoy a huge majority in the Assembly, it will likely take support from non-Milwaukee Democrats in that house to pass the plan.

So look for Governor Walker, Speaker Vos and Mayor Barrett to grab their pom-poms and try to rally support for the Bucks and the arena plan over the next few weeks.  I just hope they don't expect us all to join in a rousing chant of "It's Cheaper to Keep 'Em!"

Our Major Loss

Oshkosh is a little less great of a place to live today.  On Wednesday, officials confirmed what many of us knew Tuesday night--that Sonex CEO Jeremy Monnett and mechanic Mike Clark were the victims of the company's plane crash at Wittman Regional Airport.  Jeremy was one of the bright lights in our community--a man who cared as much about his neighbors as he did for his own tight-knit family.

Jeremy was a leader in aviation--showing an unwavering passion for flight.  Every year that we would talk at the EAA Airventure he would be this close to convincing me to get a pilot's license and to buy one of their kit planes.  He had moved the aviation company founded by his father, John, to the cutting edge of sport aviation--developing an electric aircraft (and putting up with our endless jokes about needing a really long extension cord) and a jet aircraft as well.  The EAA recognized that leadership as well--often featuring Sonex aircraft in their "Innovations Pavilion" and having Jeremy speak to members about the limitless possibilities for private flight.

Jeremy was also a leading in the greater Oshkosh business community.  He was a tireless champion for Wittman Airport, believing that the "Home of Sport Aviation" could also be the "Home of Sport Aviation Construction and Development".  I always enjoyed him chiding Winnebago County Board members from Neenah, Menasha and elsewhere on the "North End" who refused to put a single penny into improvements at Wittman because "that's the Oshkosh airport"--like nobody else outside the city limits would benefit from the facility.  Jeremy also pushed for the City-County partnership that brought about the development of the Oshkosh Aviation Business Park adjacent to the airport--where smaller companies like Sonex can locate to build and test their products.

And Jeremy was also leader in making Oshkosh a better place for ALL residents.  I would run into him at a number of charity fundraisers (even those involving golf, which I don't think was one of his strengths) benefitting low-income children, domestic violence victims, youth sports programs and the local arts.  That work will leave a lasting imprint on Oshkosh that goes far beyond what many others have accomplished in much longer lifetimes.

I would like to make a suggestion for our other civic and community leaders.  Please consider naming the new Aviation Business Park in honor of Jeremy Monnett.  It would be a fitting tribute to a man who led in so many ways. 

The Economic Impactifier

There are a growing number of "political tracker" websites out there gearing up for the 2016 Presidential election season.  You've got sites that project delegate counts in the primaries, electoral votes in the general election and what seats each party will hold in the new Congress.  You can also get "truth-meter" ratings on claims by candidates and "Pinocchio ratings" with growing noses for those caught lying.  But what we really need is a site that will track the promises and proposals from the candidates and then apply them to actual economic models.  I like to call it the Economic Impactifier.

I'll admit, this would be a herculean task, to develop a working model of the American economy that also allows for variables to applied to it--but there is probably a 16-year old app developer out there who can figure it out in a couple of days.  Anyways, each candidate would have a dedicated page, and when that candidate unveils a new economic plan, tax proposal or government program, the information would be put in to the model and then the results projected out one, four and eight years into the future.  It would be a valuable tool for voters to see where the country would be is said candidates fulfilled their promises.

For example, if Republican Candidate X said he would cut capital gains taxes in half to "stimulate investment in the US economy", the Economic Impactifier would project how much revenue that would remove from Washington and how much would actually go into the private sector.  Corresponding changes would be reflected in the future models and a voter could see both how viable and how sustainable such a proposal really is.  What's more, ALL of a candidates policies and proposals would run simultaneously in the models--so we can understand the total impact of what he or she is telling the American public.  This will come in especially handy when dealing with Liberal candidates, who like to spend the same money over and over again on the campaign trail. So if Democratic Candidate X says something like "if we closed corporate tax loopholes, we could send every child to college for free" to a group of union teachers one day--they can't get away with saying "if we closed corporate tax loopholes, we could pay for everyone's healthcare" the next day to union government employees that would be needed to staff such a monstrous bureaucracy--at least without running an even larger Federal deficit.

There is a fly in the ointment here.  You see, candidates go out of their way to be as vague as possible in their campaign promises.  Republicans say "I will cut middle class taxes"--not "I will cut middle class taxes by 15%".  Democrats say "I will make the rich pay their fair share"--not "I will raise the top tax bracket to 90%".  And this lack of specificity dooms the Economic Impactifier--since sound mathematical and scientific study relies on accurate data.  You can't just type in "Make it seem fair to people" and get reliable projections back out.

Are the Terrorists Winning Now?

It has been just over 24 hours since key portions of the Patriot Act expired and the National Security Agency is no longer able to collect all of our metadata without probable cause and a warrant.  There is no doubt that those who wish to destroy America from within gave up using carrier pigeons, letters written in invisible ink and coded landline telephone calls to plot their attacks and switched immediately to cellphones and email.  Does that make you feel less safe today?  Will you be checking your Twitter feed constantly to see if more planes are crashing into buildings or if car bombs are going off in every major US city now that this "vital component of our national security" has been taken away from our domestic spies?

Supporters of the practice claim it has helped thwart some plots--yet they never seem to site specific arrests, chargings or convictions.  Those idiots who are trying to join ISIS to fight American troops, they are all being arrested in Turkey or Europe--not in their homes as they hatch their plot on their smartphone or tablet.  Show me the specific cases where collecting my information helped you capture an "enemy combatant" and I'll be more than happy to let you continue to monitor my activities without a warrant.

There is a very simple reason why everyone's data has to be collected en masse rather than focusing on a few targets: because if we did it that way we would be accused of "profiling".  Remember, that was the buzzword in the pre-Obama Administration days when those most likely to be involved in Militant Islamic activities were complaining that it was unfair that they were considered to be a higher risk for taking part in Militant Islamic activities.  So that is why the 75-year old woman from Warroad, Minnesota, the Japanese tourist and 42-year old businessman traveling to Kansas City all have to be pulled out of the TSA line at the airport for "additional screening".  Or the 10-year old kids have to go through the body scanners.  Not that all of the extra airport "security" was doing us any good--since 95% of banned items placed in test luggage made it through the checkpoints without detection.  It's a good thing we took off our shoes and our belts--or they probably would have missed that other 5% too.

So let the NSA and the FBI and whatever other law enforcement and security agencies that need metadata from terrorist suspects go back to their secret courts to obtain their secret warrants against those who are actually likely to perpetrate another 9/11 on American soil--and to stop treating all of us like potential terrorists.

You Can't Have It All

When parents choose to take their children out of public schools for private schools, charter schools or home-schooling they usually see some benefit in it.  That benefit could be incorporation of religious beliefs into the curriculum, or not have to learn "Ten is Your Friend!" math skills, or not having to take Common Core standardized testing, or being able to learn at one's own pace (especially if that pace is accelerated).  However, that choice also comes with some drawbacks.  Private schools are not bound by laws requiring acceptance of children with special needs.  They are not required to provide alternative education for students who are expelled.  And they may not provide all of the interscholastic sports available at larger public schools.

But the State Legislature is now trying to force WIAA members to take kids who don't even attend their schools for interscholastic sports teams.  The K-thru-12 funding bill up for consideration this spring includes a provision that would basically open up middle and high schools sports to any child in the district--regardless of which school they attend--even home-schooled and virtual school students.

The WIAA is vehemently opposed to this measure--and while I don't always agree with their policies--I do side with them on this one.  Teams should be made up of students from only the school they play for.  This allows for equal enforcement of attendance, code of conduct and academic eligibility standards.  The public school kid who is failing or who skipped a day of classes doesn't get to play--but the virtual school child who is slacking off has no such restrictions.  The home-schooled kid that gets caught with a beer or drugs by their "instructor" (their parents) doesn't get a sports suspension like the public school kid caught by school security or a teacher.  Yes, there are co-op teams that include public and private schools--but they agree to standards for eligibility that are common to all institutions and students involved--and the private school provides some of the funding for the coaches, facilities and travel.  This bill would not require the parents of "non-traditional" students or the charter and virtual schools to contribute anything beyond the standard student athletics fee.

Parents have every right to take their kids out of public schools and educate them in whatever way they see fit.  But if interscholastic sports opportunities are that important to you and your child--then you should weigh that against all of the other aspects of private, home or virtual schooling--instead of just trying to cherry-pick the few things you like about public schools.