Pay-to-Play campaign funding OK’d by Republicans AG Candidate Brad Schimel

In an amazing pre-election misstep, GOP AG candidate Brad Schimel has decided outright pay-to-play money is now the normal way of doing government business. That’s not good news for those less fortunate voters short on disposable “free speech” cash.

He really said that:

jsonline-Dan Bice: Waukesha County District Attorney Brad Schimel has brushed aside a request to investigate state Rep. Joel Kleefisch for introducing a bill that could have cut the child support paid by a major Republican donor.

"Why can't a legislator press for legislation that benefits a person who has contributed to their campaign?" Schimel asked in an email to the liberal group One Wisconsin Now. "Isn't that the essence of representative government?"

This all stems from a hideous attempt by a cheap millionaire to cap calculations for child support on the first $150,000. And Kleefisch's reaction to the public outrage was quite revealing:

Kleefisch spiked the bill shortly after the news stories ran in January.

Scot Ross, head of One Wisconsin Now, criticized Schimel's comments in the email. "Brad Schimel has come right out and said it," Ross said. "He has no problem with economic elites buying influence and politicians selling it in the state of Wisconsin."

This final word from Kleefisch should end any speculation of wrong doing. This piece of work will actually bring his mean spirited law back:

Kleefisch said Wednesday there was nothing to investigate. "Sometimes the constituents' advice or research lends itself to drafting of legislation." Kleefisch said he intends to reintroduce the bill next session.

Good enough for Schimel.

Large Child Support Payments Spoil Children? Yet Inheritance doesn't?

Conservatism is a jumbled pile of contradictions that seems to satisfy the need of the moment.

1. On rich guy Michael Eisenga's attempt to pay lower child support:

“Eisenga continues to travel in a chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce.”

2. On the Republicans opposition to the estate tax, because they think a family’s wealth should be passed on to their children…there is one except if you're Eisenga: Kids get what’s left over, when he's done with it.

Flipping the “death tax” logic on its head, now kids shouldn't get all that wealth?

Journal Times: Rep. Tom Larson, R-Colfax, chairman of the Assembly Committee on Family Law, had defended AB 540 (which would) reduce child-support payments for wealthy individuals. “There’s some value in having some hardship with life,” Larson said. “Even if I were a rich person, I probably would struggle a little bit to make sure my kids earned what they get. What’s the purpose of this money going to child support if it’s only going to create a child with maybe less values?”

"Less values" like the kids greedy dad:

“Eisenga continues to travel in a chauffeur-driven Rolls Royce.”

The Walker wrecking ball continues to swing….Child Support next for cuts, Costing Taxpayers over $20 Million a Year.

UPDATE 11:14 pm: Even partisan knuckle dragging Republican legislators couldn't stomach the cost and cruelty of our wannabee presidential candidate Scott Walker's plan for going easy on child support enforcement. The ol' droopy eyed sociopath lost a big one.

The GOP co-chairs of the Legislature's powerful Joint Finance Committee, Rep. John Nygren of Marinette and Sen. Alberta Darling of River Hills, made the motion Tuesday to reject the budget cuts proposed for child support enforcement by Gov. Scott Walker and to reverse cuts made in a previous budget bill. The proposal will be included in the full budget bill going next month to the Legislature and then to Walker for his signature or vetoes.

Always the remember the original intent of these bills, it's what they would really do unrestrained.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From over spending on a DOT building, to sticking taxpayers with higher Medicaid costs, this next series of cuts will just throw more children onto the public dole and cost taxpayers $23 million more a year.

jsonline: As state lawmakers consider cutting local child support enforcement by 25% next year … Joint Finance Committee set to consider the budget cuts proposed by Gov. Scott Walker … The previous funding cuts are already having an effect on the state system designed to help lift children out of poverty and reduce costs to taxpayers by ensuring that parents with the means, and not taxpayers, are the ones providing medical care and other needs for those children.

“The county agencies have unfortunately reached a point where decreased funding jeopardizes our ability to meet federal program requirements," wrote Janet Nelson, president of the enforcement association made up of county officials from around the state. "The even greater cut in the proposed budget will result in the further decline of the... program's competitive position nationally, imperiling over $12 million in (federal) funds."

But what’s a few million when you’re making government smaller:

The latest statewide cut in Walker's 2013-'15 budget bill — $4.3 million statewide in overall federal and state money — would fall hard on Milwaukee … If the program is cut further, state taxpayers will have to spend more state health programs and will lose millions of dollars in federal incentive payments for both child support enforcement and other aid to needy families. The first people affected by that drop are the children for whom the enforcement efforts help ensure income and health coverage.

For every $1 spent on the state's child support programs in 2011, the state collected $6.44 … in 2012 there were nearly 38,700 children eligible for state health coverage who were receiving private insurance because of the work of child support officers around the state. Covering those children through state programs would have cost state taxpayers an estimated $23 million a year and cost federal taxpayers $35 million a year, according to figures from Milwaukee County and the Wisconsin Child Support Enforcement Association.

It doesn't make sense to do what Walker’s doing, but right now, few are willing to criticize or call anything he does into question because he's hot for the presidency.