Fiscal Conservative Sen. Glenn Grothman Whines about Spending Non-Taxpayer Money? Why? Who knows. Scrooge is Alive and Well.

Making the press again, and not getting publically scorned for his efforts, Republican crazy Glenn Grothman is now taking aim at spending in general. The next thing you know he'll start following public employees during their off hours, checking off what they buy at the grocery store, and complaining about that too. The Chicago Tribune:

WHEDA, the state authority that tries to locate low-income housing for poor residents, and does NOT use taxpayer money, spent $1,400 on flowers for its employee holiday party.

The expenditure drew the ire of state Sen. Glenn Grothman … calling the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority expense ridiculous. He says the money would have been better spent as a donation to the Salvation Army.

WHEDA … stands by the decision to hold the party to keep morale high and that no taxpayer money was used.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel had more:

The authority does not use tax money, instead relying on bond sales and fees. It said that this week the board approved $555,000 for emergency housing shelters and transitional housing programs, and that Grothman voted against that measure. Grothman says he objected to one $50,000 earmark.

For Sen. "Scrooge" Grothman, his one objection was enough to hold off spending $555,000 on emergency housing. Maybe Grothman can donate some of his "valuable time" to the Salvation Army. As far as that free spending state authority is concerned;

The authority has reduced operating costs 6%.

Republicans Efforts to Raise the Cost of Health Care Succeeding, While Public Support for their Plan Grows. What's wrong with this picture?

Recently I emailed a conservative friend a detailed explanation of health care reform savings sighting CBO numbers, expert research etc., and got back his answer: "I don't care, government is too big." That's it. Simple.

So I shouldn't be too surprised to see the GOP gaining traction and public support for their efforts to INCREASE the cost of health care by stripping out any cost savings from health care reform. After all, their…fiscal conservatives?

NY Times columnist Gail Collins summed up my feelings best with this op-ed:

ROUND ONE Republicans: Let’s get rid of all the Medicare savings in the bill. Think of the seniors!
ROUND TWO Mammograms! Everybody loves them. Can’t have enough.
ROUND THREE Republicans: Let’s get rid of part of the Medicare savings in the bill. Think of the seniors!

The Republicans are the fiscal conservatives in Congress, at least in the years when they aren’t actually in power. But you would expect them to try to push the whole project in the most economical direction possible. For instance, the bill would establish an independent commission on Medicare payment rates.

Obviously, this is an area where the Republicans would want to swing into action. And they did. They prepared an amendment eliminating the Medicare panel entirely.

In fact, G.O.P. senators appear to have amendments aimed at wiping out virtually all the cost-cutting the Democrats have put in the bill, including productivity adjustments and incentives for innovation in health care delivery.

If they can’t kill the bill completely, Republicans who are not from Maine seem intent on raising its price tag.

The Medicare Advantage policyholders cost the government 14 percent more than regular Medicare recipients, including free Band-Aids or gym memberships. In fact, on Thursday Senator Orrin Hatch proposed an amendment that would eliminate the entire $120 billion in Medicare Advantage savings from the bill.

There is no sane explanation for all this other than crass political calculation.

On Thursday, Senator Michael Bennet, a Colorado Democrat introduced an amendment specifically promising that Medicare recipients would not lose any of their current guaranteed benefits. It passed 100 to 0. Meanwhile, Colorado voters were getting robocalls from John McCain warning that the health care bill was going to cut their “vital Medicare coverage.”

I guess my question would be: How the hell can anyone get away with this?

Shattner Interview: Rush Proves the Conservative Emotional Disconnect is Real, Horrifying. Confuses "Want" with "Need."

William Shattner's "Raw" this Sunday at 8 central on Biography features Rush at his most pompous best. He really is an SOB.

Concealed Carry Concealing Crimes Due to Lack of Reporting, Just the Way the NRA Wants It.

The reality: crimes are committed across the nation by concealed-handgun permit holders, and the more permit holders are documented in news reports and stories like helmet use in motorcycle accidents, the faster we'll see people adjust their view of the safety hype. According to the Wichita Eagle:

From May 2007 through October 2009 alone, concealed-handgun permit holders killed eight law enforcement officers and 77 private citizens (including 10 shooters who killed themselves after an attack) —according to Concealed Carry Killers (http://www.vpc.org/ ccwkillers.htm), a new online Violence Policy Center resource that tallies news reports of such killings. The Web site offers detailed descriptions of each incident and is updated monthly to include new fatal shootings and changes in the legal status of permit holders facing criminal charges.

Of the 46 incidents detailed on the site, 10 were murder-suicides involving firearms and eight were mass shootings (three or more victims) that claimed as many as 11 lives at a time … there are incidents of concealed-handgun permit holders shooting and killing people over car wrecks and parking spaces.

Because most state concealed-carry systems release little data about crimes committed by permit holders, the Violence Policy Center is forced to review and tally killings by permit holders as reported by news outlets. As a result, the center's numbers most likely represent the floor — and not the ceiling — of actual killings committed by permit holders.

Aetna to Purge 600,000 Customers Health Care for Profits! Where's Your Freedom Now Tea Baggers?

One of the most surreal moments, at a time when insurers should be putting their best face forward, is this news about Aetna, from Firedoglake.com:

Aetna cuts 600,000 lives for profit

HuffingtonPost: "In a third-quarter earnings conference call in late October, officials at Aetna announced that in an effort to improve on a less-than-anticipated profit margin in 2009, they would be raising prices on their consumers in 2010. The insurance giant predicted that the company would subsequently lose between 300,000 and 350,000 members next year from its national account as well as another 300,000 from smaller group accounts.

Aetna’s decision to downsize the number of clients in favor of higher premiums is, as one industry analyst told American Medical News, a "pretty candid" admission. It also reflects the major concerns offered by health care reform proponents and supporters of a public option for insurance coverage, who insist that the private health insurance industry is too consumed with the bottom line. A government-run plan would operate solely off its members’ premiums."

Aetna is following the insurance company playbook as articulated last year by Wellpoint CEO Angela Braly when she said, "We will not sacrifice profitability for membership." In other words, the insurance companies won’t sell health coverage to more people if it means they will make less money on each person.

Firedoglake's headline says it all...

A few Problems about Charter Schools you Might Have Missed...

Sometimes I blog a story as a way of filing a future debating point on an important issue of the day, like charters.

Here are a few interesting observations about the "promise" of charter schools, as highlighted by Schoolsmatter.info:

The Buffalo News: Claiming that charter schools drain dollars and students from Buffalo’s traditional schools, the Board of Education voted, 6-2, Wednesday evening to seek a state moratorium on new charter schools in and around the city. board President Ralph Hernandez, who voted for the moratorium. “This is having a serious impact on the Buffalo public school system.”. . .

The latest from the LA Times editorial page:

Less clear, though, is whether charter schools offer real, long-term solutions to fixing public education in America … Studies of charter schools have been mixed; some researchers give higher marks to charters, others to public schools. One of the most recent and most comprehensive longitudinal studies, released by Stanford University in June, found that charter schools were uneven. More than a third perform worse than nearby public schools, and about half do about as well as public schools, the study found. Only 17% provide students with a "superior educational opportunity."

…charter schools have a built-in advantage. In California, most charter schools fill their seats through lotteries … It's a fair system, but it skews enrollment because the lotteries attract motivated, involved families. In addition, charter schools can require extra responsibilities for students and parents, such as volunteering time on campus, and can close enrollment when they are full. They also have more authority to expel students who do not meet their standards for behavior. Families that are unable or unwilling to invest that much in their children's education will end up at public schools, which have to accept all students within their boundaries.

But KIPP also draws the parents and students who are willing to accept regimentation, high expectations and long hours; its formula might be less successful at public schools, where many families might be less enthusiastic about its methods. In addition, the KIPP program spends significantly more per student than the public school system does, relying on private contributions to make up the difference.

At the same time, now that the number of charter schools is reaching critical mass, they are having a disproportionate negative impact on funding for public schools. Most of the state funding for those students follows them to their new schools. The public schools they leave receive less money, but their operating costs don't necessarily go down. Giving one student the opportunity to attend a charter should not mean leaving another with fewer resources.

Wisconsin GOP Whines About the Problems They Created? It Takes Balls.

You won't believe this.

Here's the stunning first line from a Wisconsin GOP press release:

"At a time many families have seen their retirement investments dwindle or jobs move overseas, Appleton Democrat Steve Kagen is proposing to exacerbate both problems with a new $150 Billion tax on stock trades."

Uummm! Reince Priebus, Chairman of the Republican Party of Wisconsin and Don Knots look-a-like, is a partisan comedian or dumb-ass.

1. First, is he kidding? THEY were the ones responsible for "dwindling" Americans retirement funds due to deregulation that trashed their accounts, getting government out of the way, and ignoring important investment safe guards they didn't agree with. Alan Greenspan admitted to that himself in front of congress after he broke the economy.

2. The Republican free market "theory" SHIPPED JOBS OVERSEAS for cheap labor in the name of competition.

The problems Americans have today were caused by Republicans, which are now awaiting Republican solutions, right? How crazy is that?

So now it's Rep. Kagen's fault he wants to tax stock trades on Wall Street, an investment entity that doesn't produce anything tangible or create jobs like the American entrepreneur. The tax simply allows the government to share in the wealth of Wall Street, which by the way, isn't "trickling down" to main street businesses or consumers.

A bigger question to Ayn Randers; what tax cut can compete with cheap foreign labor overseas? Not one.

Democrats Lower Tax Hell Rankings, Republicans Left Speechless

I wonder what the Republicans are going to run on now? They put us in the top ten year after year, and now, we're not. And under a Democratic governor too. Go figure.

This lower ranking wasn't an easy thing to accomplish after the Republicans mismanaged the U.S. economy. But, the GOP proved one thing, government can't run anything... under a Republican White House, congress and state legislature.

Coffee Mug Care not as Simple as You Think. Here's a little Christmas Help.

If you're into the unusual this gift giving season, may I suggest Philosophersguild.com, where you can find tins of Impeachmints, finger puppets of Andy Warhol and Scream and mugs with disappearing sections of the Bill of Rights when hot liquid is poured in.

Speaking of mugs, below is their instructional video on the proper use of mugs, 50's style. Great stuff.

Country (Afghanistan) First. Give 'em our Stimulus Money Too, Say Repubicans.

Who seriously suggested giving U.S. taxpayer money from the stimulus to Afghanistan, while taking it away from the American people during a time of high unemployment, crumbling infrastructure and unaffordable health care. The Republicans, proudly, without shame. And they weren't kidding:

From Commondreams/HuffingtonPost: Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told his colleagues during a closed-door GOP lunch that the best way to fund the war would be to use unspent stimulus funds. McConnell made sure to share the blame with Democrats for not paying for previous wars. "As you know, in previous years both sides agreed not to," said McConnell (though the GOP controlled Congress through 2006 and the White House through 2008, leaving Democrats little opportunity to fund a war).

Only about a quarter of the stimulus funds have been spent so far.

Let me get this right; Republicans want to give OUR stimulus money to another country. Can you see now why they crashed the world economy and didn't feel obligated to clean up after themselves?

Where are the tea party protesters?

ACORN Gets Court to Reinstate Hundreds of thousands of Eligible Voters, Ignored by Ohio Sec. of State Blackwell.

It turns out the right wing attacks on ACORN for voter registration fraud was way off, having more to do with Republicans intentionally NOT registering potential voters, violating the National Voter Registration Act. The old switcheroo.

Bradblog: The Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) has won a substantive victory on behalf of the voters of Ohio --- perhaps hundreds of thousands of them --- via a court case filed in 2006, challenging a number of voter suppression tactics employed by the state's then Sec. of State, Ken Blackwell (R). The victory may lead to the registration of "hundreds of thousands of voting-eligible low-income Ohioans". ACORN alleged that Blackwell and officials from Ohio's Department of Job and Family Services (DJFS) had systematically violated the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA)."

The major issue here is breaking the National Voter Registration Act. Get this:

A 2005 survey conducted by ACORN revealed that only 3 out of 103 people exiting a DJFS office were offered a form asking whether they wanted to register to vote. Between 2002 and 2004, DJFS offices for rural counties with relatively small populations registered far more voters than urban counties with larger populations and more people living at or below the poverty line. In the same time period, DJFS offices in 10 counties failed to register a single voter, DJFS offices in 17 counties registered fewer than 10 voters, and DJFS offices in 32 counties registered fewer than 100 voters.

Thanks to ACORN,

The provision of voter registration services will be institutionalized within the office procedures at county DJFS offices, and both the SOS [Secretary of State] and ODJFS will make sure such services are provided.

Bradblog made this interesting observation:

There is an intriguing irony. Where the Right has gone out of its way to smear ACORN, it turns out that it was the government, under the control of a Republican Secretary of State, which had violated U.S. election law.* The Sixth Circuit noted that ACORN had suffered a loss because it was forced to expend funds on voter registration activities that it would not have expended had Blackwell and the DJFS complied with federal election laws; that ACORN's Ohio members were directly injured by those violations.

News Outlets Mimic Music Industry Stupidity by Limiting Free stories, Instead of Changing Business Model for Web.

The solution to the newspaper readership problem is right there in front of them. E-readers. Just like the cable companies, newspapers can rent out the e-readers, supply cheaper subscriptions and bundle other subscriptions to make it even more worthwhile. I would even sign up for it, and I hate paying the high subscription costs now that includes paper, ink and delivery.

It's time to change, yet newspaper companies would much rather plug the dike of open information with their finger than recreate their business model. The music industry lost a similar battle, when all they had to do was switch to downloads, making a lot of money along the way. But now Google, after getting a lot pressure, is kowtowing to an aging industry too afraid to change. From the NY Times (ironic):

Amid criticism from media companies that it unfairly profits from news content, Google is closing a loophole that allowed some motivated newshounds to read large numbers of articles on subscription-based sites without paying for them. In a change that Google announced in a blog post on Tuesday, the company will allow publishers to limit nonsubscribers to five free articles a day. Some news publishers, particularly Rupert Murdoch of the News Corporation, have recently accused Google of stealing content from them.

The end result is a less informed society, fewer guys like me doing blogs, more opinions/fewer facts and a false sense of security for a dying business model. I've had my say, now this comment on the above story written by another Times reporter:

How many times do I have to say http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com... that Google is not "stealing" content from Murdoch?

Following web convention, every web page on Murdoch's publications has a file called robots.txt, which Google looks for when it indexes the web. robots.txt tells search engines whether to index that page, and gives other information.

Those robots.txt files on Murdoch publications explicitly tell search engines to index them. It's as if the Village Voice were to accuse people of stealing their newspaper after they pick one up from a box marked "Free!"

Murdoch's real problem is that Google is beating him in the free market. Since Murdoch doesn't understand the Internet, and wasn't using Google until a year ago, that's not surprising.

When it Comes to Cable Competition and Free Markets, We have Battered "Consumer" Syndrome.

From waxingamerica.com:

Told You So: Cable Rates Continue To Rise Despite Wisconsin Law

Today the Wisconsin Legislative Audit Bureau reported that in spite of the 2007 "Cable Competition Act," cable rates kept going up. Surprise! Lower cable rates were explicitly and implicitly promised by the law's legislative and corporate sponsors, not to mention its astroturf advertising campaign. But rates keep rising.

This isn't exactly news: Scott Bauer's AP story was headlined: "Audit: Wisconsin cable rates rose 21% in two years."

Basic cable rates in Wisconsin increased an average of 21 percent over the past two years, despite a new law designed to increase competition and lower costs, an audit released Tuesday said.

The data suggests that the law which took effect in 2008 did not have a substantial effect on either lowering charges or slowing their growth, State Auditor Janice Mueller said in a letter to lawmakers who chair the Legislature's Audit Committee.

"This isn't a surprise because cable rates go up every year no matter what happens in a state Legislature," said University of Wisconsin-Madison telecommunications professor Barry Orton. He lobbied against the changes and predicted then that they wouldn't live up to the hype. Orton said Tuesday that the audit proves he was correct.

"Rates would have gone up just the same if the law hadn't been passed," he said.

Republicans, in a Fantasy League of their Own on Health Care.

Let's take a look at two health care scenarios to decide which one would work best for Americans. The premise, according to the NY Times:

Last month, a government-appointed but independent panel of doctors and scientists said women generally should begin routine mammograms in their 50s, rather than their 40s. Republicans seized on those recommendations as early signs of rationing of care they say would happen under the Democrats' 10-year, nearly $1 trillion health bill.

Scenario #1: What if health care reform is defeated and insurers continue to control the market, allowing the panels recommendations to be adopted by the insurance industry, essentially banning mammogram coverage for women in their 40's.

a. Will a public outcry force the insurance industry to reinstate mammogram coverage, or

b. Will a public outcry have no effect on insurance policies?

Scenario #2: If reform is passed with a public option, and the panels recommendation not to cover mammograms for women in their 40's is adopted by the government plan,

a. Will a public outcry force the government plan to reinstate mammogram coverage, or

b. Will a public outcry fall on the deaf ears our elected representatives who will go against the public will?

I know, this is a real puzzler. It's called government accountability.

Roosevelt's Un-American New Deal Public Options, Fixing a Flawed Private Market.

It continues to baffle me how so much historical information has eluded the American public, basically keeping them in the dark, forcing all of us to repeat history if we're lucky. Their are many that don't want us to repeat what worked, like the Republican Party. Take for instance this article in the NY Times, "Roosevelt Understood the Power of a Public Option" By ADAM COHEN:

As governor of New York, Franklin D. Roosevelt crusaded for “public power,” government-owned electric plants. He was outraged by the high prices that monopolistic utility companies were charging and by their refusal to bring electricity to rural parts of the state, which, they said, could not be done economically. Public plants, Roosevelt said, could bring power to those who needed it and serve as a yardstick for measuring and keeping in check the prices charged by private power companies.

Many decades later ... the debate over health insurance reform is the so-called public option. Critics have tried to paint it as a wild-eyed experiment, but it echoes F.D.R.’s battles for public power ... that a government program could fix the flaws in a poorly functioning private market — applies with even more force in health care.

To Roosevelt, it was an important social justice issue. When he ran for president in 1932, Roosevelt made public power a cornerstone of his campaign. Critics accused Roosevelt of Bolshevism ... Public power was no more radical, he said, than the public mail. During his first 100 days in office, he backed a bill to create the Tennessee Valley Authority, a federal authority that brought affordable electricity to an impoverished 40,000-square-mile stretch of the rural South.

In 1935, he brought government into the electricity business in another way. By executive order, he created the Rural Electrification Administration, which used federal money and local farm co-ops to lay electric lines in parts of the country that private companies had no interest in serving. The R.E.A. drove down electricity prices and helped bring lighting, sewing machines and radios to the 90 percent of rural Americans who were without them.

The whole New Deal was in a sense just a series of public options ... The Farm Credit Administration and the Home Owners’ Loan Act used government funds to save farms and homes of Americans who would have been foreclosed on by private lenders. The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation saved the private banking system by insuring savings accounts, which made the public willing to put money back in private banks. Social Security, all public and no option, rescued older Americans from living their final years in poverty.

As for cost, opponents of the public option may fear it would work too well — that to compete, private insurers would have to keep their prices down and the quality of their services up. The private insurers and lawmakers claim it would be a radical break from how things have been done in this country. In reality, it follows directly from the New Deal tradition that created many of the mainstays of American society.

We could all learn from history. And I'm not talking about the "revisionist" one.

Health Care Saves lots of Money, Angers Republicans

It was a BAD news day for free market Republicans like Rep. Paul Ryan. The right wing snow job machine sputtered to a halt after the latest actuarial from the CBO. The NY Times reported:

The Congressional Budget Office said that the Senate health bill could significantly reduce costs for many people who buy health insurance on their own, and that it would not substantially change premiums for the vast numbers of Americans who receive coverage from large employers.

Before taking account of federal subsidies to help people buy insurance on their own, the budget office said the bill would tend to drive up premiums. But as a result of the subsidies, it said, most people in the individual insurance market would see their costs decline, compared with the costs expected under current law. The subsidies ... would cover nearly two-thirds of premiums for people who receive them.

For most people who get health insurance through employers — five-sixths of the total market — the budget office concluded that there would be little change in their premiums relative to the amounts projected under current law.

But the plan isn't perfect, like the current for profit system we have now, so Republicans whined anyway.

Sen. Grassley said “For large and small employers that have been struggling for years with skyrocketing health insurance premiums, C.B.O. concludes this bill will do little, if anything, to provide relief.”

Under the legislation ... For people receiving subsidies, the budget office said, premiums would be 56 percent to 59 percent lower than under current law. Without subsidies, it said, premiums under the bill would average $5,800 a year for individuals and $15,200 a year for families ... Under current law, the comparable figures would be $5,500 and $13,100.

In groups with 50 or fewer employees, it said, unsubsidized premiums in 2016 would average $7,800 a year for individuals and $19,200 for families — scarcely any different from the amounts expected under current law.

Large employers would generally not be eligible for such assistance. Their premiums in 2016 under the bill would average $7,300 for individual coverage and $20,100 for family coverage, the report said. Under current law, the comparable figures would be $7,400 for individual coverage and $20,300 for family coverage.

According to the CBO, the Republican plan would supposedly lower current premiums because of government subsidies, which don't adjust for inflation, but end up leaving more people uninsured. Nice plan huh?

Dick Cheney: Publicity Agent of Al Qaeda offers Advice to Our Enemies.

Dick Cheney has a few talking points for our enemies. In fact, Cheney is more concerned with helping Al Qaeda put on their best face in light of the New York trials, by giving our enemies ideas and marketing strategies to bring in new recruits. And that should make it easier for them to fight our troops and attack the U.S.. For instance, in this interview with Politico:

1. Cheney advises Al Qaeda to define Obama as a weak leader: “Every time he delays, defers, debates, changes his position, it begins to raise questions: Is the commander in chief really behind what they’ve been asked to do?”
2. Cheney offers the Taliban and Al Qaeda tips on how to take advantage of a demoralized Afghan citizen by observing how they “see talk about exit strategies and how soon we can get out, instead of talk about how we win. “Those folks ... begin to look for ways to accommodate their enemies. They’re worried the United States isn’t going to be there much longer and the bad guys are.”

3. Cheney hands radical terrorist groups this bullet point portrayal of Obama, as a guy who "projects 'weakness' and that the president is looking 'far more radical than I expected.'

4. Cheney tells Al Qaeda to hang in there: “Here’s a guy without much experience, who campaigned against much of what we put in place ... and who now travels around the world apologizing,” Cheney said. “I think our adversaries — especially when that’s preceded by a deep bow ... see that as a sign of weakness.”

5. Cheney also makes sure Al Qaeda takes full advangtage of the trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the accused mastermind of the Sept. 11 … “One of their top people will be given the opportunity — courtesy of the United States government and the Obama administration — to have a platform from which they can espouse this hateful ideology that they adhere to,” he said. “I think it’s likely to give encouragement — aid and comfort — to the enemy.”

Could Cheney be a Karl Rovian figure to Al Qaeda' world wide marketing plan?

Tax Laws Don't Apply to Republicans Who Disagree With Them. Ask Oregon's Gov. Candidate Bill Sizemore

The law and order party is at it again. Republicans only support laws they like, while ignoring the bad ones you and I are subject to. How hard would it be to change the law through the standard legislative process, or is that too slow and unpredictable? For some Republicans, government laws restricts their freedom to freeload off every other law abiding taxpayer...I mean sucker. From Madison.com:

Bill Sizemore, Oregon's high-profile anti-tax activist and Republican candidate for governor, has been indicted on tax evasion charges.

The Oregon Department of Justice announced Monday that it has filed the charges against him and his wife, Cindy.

A grand jury indicted the Sizemores on three counts of evading Oregon personal income taxes.

The indictment alleges the couple failed to file tax returns for the tax years 2006, 2007 and 2008.

Wisconsin Income Tax Ranking Drops, Republicans Still Complain. Why does the GOP Hate America?

So what happens when Wisconsin drops out of the top five highest income tax states, and slips to a welcome ranking of 15th place? Republicans complain.

Such a dramatic drop in taxes would be the number one talking point for the state GOP for decades. But under the Democratic governor, and now under a Democratic legislature, it's horrific news and can't be believed. Let's take a look at the two different takes, and size up who's being honest.

Wispolitics/DPW; Wisconsin tax burdens have dropped to, at, and below the national average thanks to Governor Doyle and our Democratic leadership. The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reported that since being one of the dismal top-five states with the highest income tax during Tommy Thompson’s massive spending days, Democrats have moved Wisconsin’s ranking down to 15th place – a ranking much closer in line with the national average . [Source: “Wisconsin improves its ranking on taxes,” Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, 11/27/09]

For the first time in two decades, the state fell below the average of tax dollars per person and also remained below the national average of spending dollars per person for the second straight year. Joining Tommy Thompson and other Republicans, Scott Walker passed five consecutive biennial budgets during his time in the state legislature, increasing state spending by 84 percent and making Wisconsin one of the most taxed states in the nation. [Source: 1992 WI Act 269; 2001 WI Act 16; WI Legislative Fiscal Bureau]

The following is the Republican Party's response. Keep in mind, the state budget spent about $3 to $4 billion dollars of stimulus money to balance the books, while closing the most egregious business tax loopholes to balance the budget. You will never see any mention of that below:

Democrats are still oblivious to the plight of Wisconsin taxpayers, according to Republican Party of WisconsinExecutive Director Mark Jefferson. Just months after approving $5 billion in new taxes on struggling Wisconsin families and businesses, today Democrats are touting an analysis of tax rankings compiled using data from 2007in an attempt to convince voters that Democratic leaders have somehow contributed to a better tax climate in Wisconsin. “Democrats just hiked taxes in Wisconsin by $5 billion during a recession,” Jefferson said. “Only Wisconsin Democrats could think a $5 billion tax hike is an improvement.”

"$5 billion of new taxes on Wisconsin families?" Wow, that would be a disaster if it had actually happened…but didn't. People would have noticed, right? Stimulus and business loopholes balanced the budget, along with very difficult cuts to education spending, which for years has been protected by Democratic lawmakers and the governor.

You'll also notice the GOP press release didn't give one referenced source to back up their claim (lie), while the Democrats did, twice (truth).

Dubai and the Great Free Market P.T. Barnum Sheiks

I found this ironic statement by the Wall Street Journal's Michael Casey as an open admission that Ayn Rand, free market theories of deregulation are bad for economic stability and business. Another words, a regulated financial system based on accountability.

Dubai's troubles offer a warning of the perils of investing in places where leaders--whether of governments or companies-have limited accountability. In the absence of democratic institutions, the UAE's sheikhs are not required to explain themselves. And as the majority owners of many of the biggest companies, they face no checks and balances from minority
shareholders. Meanwhile, contract law is fraught with the uncertainty of a legal system that's low on judicial independence.

Republican ideologues should take notice. But you know they won't.

Note: Remember when Bush wanted to turn our major ports over to Dubai? I guess things could have been worse, huh?

Even Democrats like Bayh are so Afraid of Terrorists, War Spending Worth Going Broke as Nation.

Is it really too late for a war tax? Evan Bayh, a Democrat believe it or not, misses the chance to finally start paying for the Bush war on terror. While he won't vote for a public option in health care reform because it MIGHT cost too much money, spending on an endless war is fine. After all, its all being done because the Republican Party has convinced everyone we should all be afraid, very afraid of the terrorist threat.

Keep in mind, Bin laden's chief objective was to involve the U.S. in a middle eastern war that would drive the U.S. into bankruptcy. Why isn't anyone bring up that little well known fact?

Dick Armey's Ten Principles a "Litmus Test" for GOP Candidates.

Dick Armey tries to explain the new "GOP Ten Commandments" by denying it is a litmus test to purify the Republican Party. The problem is, not even former RNC chair Ed Gillespie is buying it, and pretty much deep sixes the idea. Armey is either drunk or one confused movement leader.

Global Warming Conspiracy Plot to Destroy U.S.! Paranoia, not Science is the Problem.

I've always wondered why people fight so hard not to develop clean sources of energy by denying global warming, climate change or even air pollution. I couldn't make any sense out of the idea that we should leave our energy decisions up to mega big oil and energy who's only purpose is to make a profit from maintaining the status quo. Why would liberals, and now they claim conservatives too, want to destroy the worlds economies? Here's the answer from radio whack job Alex Jones:

Climate Gate is YOUR fight; The Blood of Patriots and Tyrants
The globalists, the eugenicists, are in this for the long haul. All of their eggs are in the climate hoax basket. They’re not going to stop now. Why would they? We all know this was never about climate change in the first place. No, what this is and always was about is an excuse for global government. This they certainly do not deny. Ban Ki-Moon, the UN Secretary General, penned an op-ed in the New York Times last month in which he called for a global government funded by carbon taxes.

The globalist plan for world government – the elimination of national sovereignty, ie the destruction of the United States of America – must be fully exposed. We know that this scheme is completely unknown to the vast majority of people. Perhaps now that Glenn Beck is finally speaking of this conspiracy, the Fox “News” crowd will get their heads out of their rears and realize it’s not “liberals” behind this, it’s globalists – there are prominent Republicans and so-called conservative leaders pushing this as well.

Is that what liberals and every country in the world want, the total destruction of of the U.S.? Could it be this conspiracy theory, or "scheme," is unknown for one good reason-it's crazy ! And what does it say that Glenn Beck is pushing the conspiracy? Can you say Howard Beale?

After reading through the many email "proofs" reprinted at Jones' web site, supposedly pointing to attempts to cover up information, I don't see it. It's pure hyperbole.

Dramatic Savings on Health Care Premiums Ignored. Employed Clueless over Costs, but Not Jobless.

For your information, a quick look at the cost of premiums under the proposed health care legislation from AP. Despite the fact that it dramatically reduces costs, people are still complaining. Go figure. Check out the Kaiser Foundation PDF, comparing both plans, that are updated after any new changes.

Q: How affordable is the new middle-class coverage going to be?

A: Most people would remain in their employer plans. Self-employed people and those working in small businesses would be able to buy coverage through a new insurance marketplace, with government subsidies available for many.
The aid is substantial for lower-income households, but drops off rapidly for the middle class.

Under the House bill, a family of four headed by a 45-year-old making $44,000 a year would pay roughly $2,400 in premiums, or $200 a month, according to the Kaiser Family Foundation.

A similar family making $66,000 would pay about $6,580 in premiums, or about $550 a month.

That's a bargain compared to current rates, which can top $1,000 a month, but it still may be too much for some family budgets. About one-third of the uninsured say they'd be able to pay $200 a month in premiums, and only 7 percent say they can afford $400.

Q: These bills are going to ban pre-existing conditions, right?

Both bills would forbid insurers from denying coverage to people in poor health or charging them more. That would happen in 2013 under the House bill, and 2014 in the Senate's. The reason for the delay is that it would be unfair to require insurers to take all applicants right away. The sick would sign up, but healthy people would probably wait until they faced the threat of government fines. Such a situation could raise premiums for everyone.

A Look Back: Rep. Ryan Lied About Obama with Spending Chart

According to TPM, Rep. Ryan has a tendency to LIE.

Back in the Spring, when Democrats were putting together the federal budget, House Budget Committee ranking member Paul Ryan (R-WI) released a much-mocked Republican alternative, which would have basically canceled the stimulus and instituted a spending freeze of sorts. The ideas in the Republican alternative budget were roundly rebuked by experts, but Ryan wasn't deterred. Instead of accepting defeat, he unveiled some graphs suggesting that, under Republican budgets, spending would be restrained, while under Democratic budgets, it would blow through the roof.

Except his numbers weren't based on any analysis at all. Instead, Ryan used CBO numbers through 2018 and then drew an upward-sloping line on the graph completely at random.

It didn't take long for Republicans to catch on and begin claiming that Democratic policies would make government spending half of GDP before the end of the century.

Bring on the Low Wages, Say Corporate Free Marketeers. Have we learned Nothing from Dickens?

America is one of the largest consumer markets in the world. Sell it here and foreign manufacturers can make a lot of money. Despite this huge attractive market, we're not using our consumer buying strength as a bargaining tool. It's simply a freebie for global markets to exploit and plunder.

Now instead of protecting our country workers and maintaining the ability of our citizens to be strong consumers, corporations are now push hard for lower wages. The excuse; we're not facing the "reality" that wages are really low all over the world. A reality they would like to create here. We're returning to a Dickensian labor market of the haves and the have nots, poor houses and Marleys ghost.

The following sick look at is so filled with bizarre leaps logic, I will hold my commentary back this time only because it's so obviously wrong in so many places. But it is what you'll start hearing more now than ever before, now that we have a free market Democrat in the White House.

From CNN:
Competition. A simple concept and a beneficial one. It makes us better by forcing us to work harder.

When we're not hiding from domestic competition, we're trying to shield ourselves from the foreign variety. High-skilled workers don't want to compete with those from China, India or Pakistan. Low-skilled workers are just as afraid of those from Mexico, Guatemala or El Salvador.

Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton tried to give displaced workers in Ohio, Michigan and Pennsylvania a convenient villain to blame -- the North American Free Trade Agreement. Build a wall. Impose a tariff. All so we don't have to put up with the annoyance of being forced to out-work, out-produce and out-hustle someone else to make a living. Imagine that. What people in other countries accept as the natural order, we continue to resist.

Consider what Rep. Luis Gutierrez, D-Illinois, is pitching. He has just written a new 10-point immigration reform bill that he plans to introduce any day now. "No American worker, no citizen of the United States, no one born here in this country should ever have to lose an opportunity for gainful employment at the expense of someone not born here."

As principles go, that one is dreadful. If a job is available, U.S. workers should be free to compete for it, but not have it handed to them on a silver platter. Likewise, foreign workers who come here legally should have a shot at competing for that same job.

Of course, protectionists claim that the playing field isn't level since foreign workers will often accept less money to do the same job, thus putting American workers at a disadvantage.

Tough.

Ruben Navarrette Jr. is a member of the San Diego Union-Tribune editorial board, a nationally syndicated columnist and a regular contributor to CNN.com.

Palin/Cheney Stir Up Dangerous Gun Toting Fringers. No Accident.

Ed Schultz demonstrates the power of suggestion and that words have consequences. Phil Wolf's racist bigoted billboard didn't just come out of nowhere. Palin and Cheney stir up the loony right into a killing frenzy.

Gun Owners of American's Pratt Fights for Mentally Unstable Patients Gun Rights! Credibility Killer for Group? You Bet.

Ed Schultz has recently been taking on the lunatic fringe, giving them the necessary air time to scare the living crap out of most of us, all the while exposing them as certifiable crazies. Like Larry Pratt, of Gun Owners of America. They want to protect mentally unstable patients from losing their guns unless ordered by a court. Think about that for a second. And if no ones around to get them in front of a judge, well....



As for Pratt's claim the governments plan will be going after fat people shows an ignorance of the current system in place. Insurers are already doing just that, so Pratt only has an issue with the policy if the government is doing the same thing. It isn't a "big government" idea.

What's clear is that many in the health care reform debate, Pratt especially, don't know what insurance companies are doing right now and don't know how broken the system is.

Readthebill.org's Dick Armey not interested in READING THE BILL.

This is one of the most "head exploding" stories to come along in a while. You're ears will bleed after hearing that Dick Armey, with his website "readthebill.org," hasn't read the bill and has no desire to do so. Rep. Chris Van Hollen nailed Armey with a simple Q&A. This would be funny if it weren't so slimy.



Below is a video pushing an insane proposal to make it law that a bill be posted and allowed 72 hours to be read prior to a voted. Despite the fact that congress did post the bill, and gave everyone a chance to read it with more than enough time, kind of makes you wonder what the real point is. Whinning? Oh, and it also slows down the process, even for 1 page bills. I always thought reading bills and voting on them was just part of the job. Who knew.

Shocker! Fox News Tells the Truth: Buying Insurance Across State Lines Bad Idea.

Just as the title states, the Republican mantra of buying across state lines is actually bad for Americans for two good reasons; It removes basic state mandated coverage, services states have found to be life saving and humane. Secondly, cheaper a-la-cart plans puts the patient at risk by excluding too many basic services, putting limits on treatments, even after paying monthly premiums, and hides those exclusions in small print legalise designed to be ambiguous in court challenges.

This GOP "trick" is part of their phony plan of lowering costs with risky coverage and "tort reform" that doesn't lower individual premiums. It's frustrating for me to watch Ed Schultz, clueless on the "across state line" rhetoric, give Republicans a free pass on this horrific problematic "solution." So maybe Big Ed and a few other politicians could learn from this Fox News report. It's one of the first of its kind.