I nearly spit out my coffee this morning after hearing a miffed Rebecca "bigot" Bradley whine about supporter frustration over a little hate speech. Poor baby. This is a hybrid form of the Fox News trick "some say...:" Wisconsin Public Radio:
"They cannot understand why the media is going after me like this. They cannot understand why the media is going after me like this. I'm somebody who has put myself out there to serve the people of Wisconsin, and I deserve a little more respect than I'm receiving."
That's a fine example of Bradley's "hot headed" temperament. After JoAnne Kloppenburg pointed out how Bradley continues to espouse right wing positions on the issues (like contraception is murder), Bradley blew up and childishly attacked Kloppenburg (at 2:21)...not exactly the kind of behavior you want to see on the bench. The Milwaukee Bar Association Forum :
Bradley's "orginalist philosophy" is the preposterous idea that only conservative judges and justice know exactly what the founding fathers meant when they wrote the Constitution.
Kloppenburg highlighted Bradley's volatile temperament, lack of maturity and disrespect for the litigants/attorney's appearing before the state's highest court when she left during arguments to fund raise with WMC lobbyists. With the calm and precision of a Supreme Court justice, Kloppenburg laid it all out:
After Scott Walker tried and failed to unconstitutionally silence the protesters at the Capitol with a bizarre set of permits and free speech restrictions, the state asked the Court of Appeals to insert specific language that would make the law whole again, which they refused to do. Kloppenburg is on that court and wrote the decision. The State v Crute:
On an interesting side note, Bradley is outraged that the soft spoken Kloppenburg continually brings up how Scott Walker appointed her 3 times in 3 years. Bradley said Walker was just doing his "constitutional duty" when there was a vacancy...a duty Democrats like Obama don't have I guess, especially in their last year in office. Ironic?:
Soft spoken Kloppenburg is tough. Check out her closing statement. As for Bradley, has she got a bad case of projection or what...:
Bradley:"If people instead want to be dictated to and ruled by a majority of justices that happen to sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, they will elect Judge Kloppenburg."
I'd like to remind Bradley that with or without her, there's still a conservative activist majority:
The question here is this; just how much has Rebecca Bradley changed, or will we find out she's been replaced by her doppelganger. I mean really, this is getting ridiculous.
Nothing Unusual: A lot of Rebecca Bradley’s comments are typically
conservative, no big surprise. But as a nominee and sitting appointed Justice
on the State Supreme Court, yikes.
Bradley is an extreme right winger. No wonder Scott Walker
wasn’t shy or even a wee bit hesitant to appoint her three times. To him, she was conservative activist gold.
We now have to ask ourselves why we would trust the
judgement of Scott Walker, who started off his first term seeing 6 close aides
convicted during the first John Doe.
(Rebecca's) column, which appeared in the Marquette Journal in 1992,
features the then-undergraduate student denouncing the feminist movement in a
counterpoint piece titled “Awaiting feminism’s demise ... largely composed of angry, militant, man-hating lesbians
who abhor the traditional family.” Bradley also expressed support for the views of columnist
Camille Paglia, who Bradley said “legitimately suggested women play a role in
date rape.”
On that rape thing, I wonder how this Twitter troll is going to deal with her obsession over Sanders' 1972 essay, pictured here:
We all know how bad Justice Thomas is. Nobody was fooled by his ploy to play the victim during his nomination hearings. But playing off that, this is a real Bradley gem:
"Feminists whined about the 'ordeal' perjurer Anita
Hill suffered under the male-dominated Senate judiciary committee ... I call
Murphy Brown the 'near-perfect' feminist model only because she failed to abort
her baby."
It's almost like reading a transcript of Vicki McKenna's pathetic excuse for a radio show. Sadly, Bradley is running out of excuses in this career pile up:
Asked if she could clarify what she meant when she wrote
Paglia "legitimately suggested that women play a role in date rape,"
Bradley told the Cap Times she would need to go back and look at the column
again, noting that it's 24 years old … "I wrote opinion pieces 24 years
ago on a variety of issues, and they are opinions that some people may agree
with, some people might disagree with. I really haven’t gone back to read all
of them. It’s been quite some time."
There is no way Bradley will be seen as anything but an extreme activist jurist.
Her
campaign did not immediately respond to a message seeking comment on the latest
release.
It's an amazing game of words coming from the the Walker administration. Walker says we should stay with fossil fuels because that will keep prices down, all the while the PSC is raising prices, all the while solar and wind energy generation is now competitive and costs less.
It always seemed odd to me that utility companies that made money from energy use, would tell their customer how to save energy. That charade has ended:
Wisconsin's electric utilities back the bill, which would
cut funding for the Focus on Energy program by $7 million at a time when
electricity costs in Wisconsin have risen above the national average.Utilities and state regulators say the proposed cut would
return money to ratepayers, the Milwaukee
Journal Sentinel reported.
Since really big business took control of Wisconsin's legislature, the muscle flexing has begun, at the expense of it's citizens and smaller businesses:
But the program's supporters cite its savings, pointing out
that the program has delivered $3 of savings to customers for every $1 spent. Theresa
Lehman, director of sustainable services at Miron Construction. said
at a time when capital spending budgets are tight, the program offers
incentives that help customers cut their costs by allowing them to afford the
upfront expenses of switching to more efficient LED lighting. St. Elizabeth
Hospital in Appleton is saving $30,000 a year by upgrading the
lighting in its corridors, Lehman said. Another client, Lake
Mills Elementary School, received $100,000 in incentives from the program
and is now saving $85,000 every year on its energy costs, she said.
Families and businesses will now pay more, and not save energy. Hey, we're just trying to save the utilities money!!!
Supporters of the cut, including Wisconsin utilities and
manufacturing groups, say it fixes a problem that effectively charges some
utilities twice for the program. Investor-owned utilities are paying into the program based
on a percentage of sales, and then municipal utilities — which buy power from
investor-owned utilities — are paying into the program separately, at a rate of
$8 per meter. The proposed change would collect program funding by retail
rather than total utility electric sales, so investor utilities aren't paying
for both their customers' and municipal customers' contributions to Focus on
Energy. "Our concern is the formula and getting rid of the
double charge," We Energies spokesman Brian
Manthey said. Total funding for the program would increase over time
as utility power sales rise, he said.
And that savings will go right back to the customer, so they can pay for the increases by the PSC. Not a bad scam;
Madison-based Alliant Energy and Milwaukee-based WEC
Energy Group, parent of We Energies
and Wisconsin Public Service, are backing the bill. All three of the
utilities estimate they would see savings of about $2 million a year. PSC spokeswoman Elise
Nelson contends the change is about equity and fairness and
"would put $7 million back in ratepayers' pockets."
In Walker's way from the beginning: Keep the following in mind, since it's directly related and is another example of Walker outsourcing Wisconsin jobs. Scott Walker's first victim was a 30 year old Wisconsin company, replaced by one from Baton Rouge, La.
WSJ: Focus on Energy, a statewide program that promotes energy
efficiency … new management by an out-of-state corporation, suspension of a
popular rebate program, and sharp funding cuts in the pending state budget … Nearly
20 people already have lost their jobs … In the past 10 years, more than 91,000
businesses and more than 1.7 million residents used the program and saved $2.20
for every dollar spent. The nonprofit Wisconsin Energy Conservation Corp. (WECC) has
handled the program since 2001 … grew to 235 employees, with clients in 12
states and a building in University Research Park that’s a showpiece for energy
efficiency. But a panel decided in May (2011) to award the contract to Shaw
Environmental & Infrastructure, part of The Shaw Group, a publicly traded
Baton Rouge, La., corporation
I wonder why….
Other divisions of Shaw design and build power plants, erect pipelines and manage radioactive waste.
Hey, didn't Republicans end the nuke plant moratorium? Coincidence? And so Walker’s war on green energy began:
Since taking over Focus on Energy on May 9, one of Shaw’s
first decisions, with PSC support, was to suspend payments to businesses that
install renewable-energy systems, as of June 30. Contractors like Seventh Generation Energy Systems were
stunned. “It’s pretty devastating,” said James Yockey, chief executive officer.
“It probably took out six to 10 projects that we were looking to close ... for
work in the fall and the coming spring.” Several of the projects were wind
turbines for farmers. “I think the incentives are decisive in people saying
yes,” Yockey said.
We're a good Christian state now, thanks to Scott Walker. His appointed bigot Justice Rebecca Bradley, who thinks gays are degenerates and perverts, fits right in with this in kind attack on a popular summer hangout on the Wisconsin River. WISC:
DNR closes Mazomanie's nude beach, cites illicit activity as reason: The DNR said it will close approximately 140 acres of the 46,000-acre property, but not because of nudity.
Even though they've tried to close it before for that specific reason. The beach is also a popular nudist destination:
“What we're talking about is illegal drug use as well as public sexual activity going on at the beach," said Brian Hefty, with the DNR.
Which of course must be the DNR's mission now. Gone are the concerns over clean water and the protection of wild life, it's all about drug use and sexual activity now:
Hefty said the department's repeated efforts to assuage problems in the area for more than a decade have made little impact. Further, the illegal activity has kept prospective users from visiting the beach.
Hmm, those who don't want to go to a nude beach...can't go to a beach with nudists!!! Think about that. It's like closing down dog parks because people without dogs or have dog allergies can't go. Again, there just aren't enough parks?
There are so few beautiful public areas and access points along the Wisconsin River? Guess so:
“This is one of Wisconsin’s most beautiful spots, and the citizens of Wisconsin ought to be able to visit the sight and be comfortable doing so," Hefty said.
The thing is, the beach is popular because...ready for this, it's a nude beach:
Longtime users of the beach called the closure a "misdirection" by the DNR, noting it impacts most those frequent visitors who have cared for the beach longer than anyone else.
WKOW's coverage:
With state parks now funded by entrance fees, I'm wondering where the money is coming from to redevelop an already popular beach. And they're in a real big hurry:
The beach may not be closed forever. Redevelopment efforts hope to re-brand the space as family-friendly by adding more picnic and parking space, new trails and a canoe drop-off location.
It's been pretty unmistakable; Republicans oppose almost everything - science; K-12; higher education; the environment; labor; the New Deal; the opposition party; even the Constitution, demanding a rewrite via a constitutional convention.
And while pundits predict the collapse of the Republican Party, especially if Trump is the nominee, I think its just the opposite. The chaos of "every man for himself" is the desired end game for Republicans.
Thomas E. Mann, of the Brookings Institution, and Norman
Ornstein at the American Enterprise Institute, have had to add to their book, “It’s
Even Worse Than It Looks.” Back in 2012, they prophetically wrote:
“The Republican Party has become an insurgent outlier —
ideologically extreme; contemptuous of the inherited social and economic regime;
scornful of compromise; unpersuaded by conventional understanding of facts,
evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political
opposition.”
Here's some of what Mann and Ornstein have added. Kind of what we've been thinking. WaPo:
Fast forward to 2016. Incredibly, Republican destructiveness
is even worse than it was four years ago — and the party is paying
for it with a surge of anti-establishment populism that is tearing apart its
coalitional base. It is the radicalization of the Republican party — not just
in terms of ideology but also in an utter rejection of the norms and civic
culture underlying our constitutional system — that has been the most
significant and consequential change in American politics in recent decades.
Tribal politics fueled by partisan and social media leaves us with a good vs.
evil view of democracy and a visceral hatred of the opposition party. Republicans in Congress — from the day of President Obama’s
inauguration in 2009 — pursued a strategy of unified opposition to every Obama
policy and initiative, including those they had recently supported, such as
investment in infrastructure, health care reform and climate change. They also
worked with their counterparts in cable television and talk radio to demonize
every victory and to delegitimize the president. Today, incredibly, it’s even worse than it was. Continuing
to fan the flames of hatred of Obama, Republican leaders openly acknowledged
that little if anything of consequence would be considered by Congress during
the last year of President Obama’s term, then trashed long-standing precedents
by refusing to schedule the traditional hearings at which the Administration
presents its budget or to even consider any presidential nominee to fill the
Supreme Court vacancy. Donald Drumpf, America’s equivalent of European right-wing
populists and possibly the most miscast presidential front-runner for a major
party in American history, makes a mockery of the Republican establishment
agenda and presages the GOP’s possible break-up. It is a self-inflicted wound,
but one with disastrous consequences for us all.
Rebecca Bradley's short lived half ass'ed apology is turning into an all out attack on the media and One Wisconsin Now. Bradley ran for cover on conservative talk radio, getting the extra spin machine treatment. Didn't she once say she was "non-partisan." No time for that when your in a full blown public image disaster like this.
One Wisconsin Now's research director Jenny Dye ran down the impressively nasty list of Bradley qualities Walker is quite happy with on the Wisconsin State Supreme Court, already a national embarrassment. Devil's Advocates Radio Network:
Republican trolls may hate liberals more than anything, but when one of their own screws up, they're okay with being just like liberals. Like magic, they're exempt from their strongly held "principles" and responsibilities.
The following troll response to Bradley's grotesque heart felt bigotry...ignore the issue completely:
Not remotely comparable (see for yourself), but a lot easier than watching the Bradley self destruct.
Anyone think Bradley actually apologized for her comments?
"To those offended by comments I made as a young college student, I apologize..."
...and to those who agree with Bradley? They know, wink, wink, they got the message.
Did her bigotry and condescending view of Democratic voters humble Bradley? Nope, she fought back and blamed the messenger for quoting her verbatim:
She also accused One Wisconsin Now of conducting a "blatant mudslinging campaign to distract the people from the issues at hand," according to the Wisconsin State Journal.
Is it possible a conservative would not hold the following conservative values repeated ad nauseam in the presidential race?
An Associated Press review of the Marquette University student newspaper on Tuesday uncovered columns by Bradley where she defends the school's Warriors mascot and criticizes political correctness as a "frightening trend." She wrote in April 1992 that "The PC movement is entirely the agenda of feminists, gays, liberal extremists and 1960's radicals who never left school and consequently are largely ignorant of the real world."
What the hell does she know about the 60's?
And how about this non-answer response from Scott Walker, :
"It's really irrelevant in that it's now up to the
voters to decide come... April," Walker said. When asked, Walker would not
explicitly condemn Bradley's comments or share his own views on the subject.
And as we're constantly being told, these outrageous conservative views don’t
really reflect conservative views…
He said Bradley's early views did not reflect those of young
conservative activists, like himself, at the time.
But just as frightening is Walker's lack of concern over putting a justice on the state's highest court that held these strong bigoted and intolerant views:
Walker said the question of whether he would have appointed Bradley to the Supreme Court had he seen her 1992 opinion pieces is irrelevant. State Senate Minority Leader Jennifer Shilling disagreed, saying: "As elected officials, it's our job to lead by example. Hate speech, discrimination and intolerance are never 'irrelevant.'"
Walker also believes conservative activist judges and
justices never have a reason to recuse themselves:
Asked if Bradley would have to recuse herself from
significant cases involving discrimination of gay and lesbian people, Walker
said no, because there is nothing in her judicial record that suggests she
would be biased on those issues.
Could someone so ideologically driven like Rebecca Bradley change her view of "queers," as she describes them, and Americans she said are "totally stupid or entirely evil" for voting for Bill Clinton? Didn't think so.
Bradley said Monday she was embarrassed about the columns
"as a very young student, upset about the outcome of that presidential
election"
"To those offended by comments I made as a young
college student, I apologize, and assure you that those comments are not
reflective of my worldview. These comments have
nothing to do with who I am as a person or a jurist, and they have nothing to
do with the issues facing the voters of this state."
Never a great judge of character (6 of his closest aides convicted in the first John Doe investigation), Walker stepped in it again...:
A spokeswoman for Gov. Scott Walker, who appointed Bradley
to three judgeships in as many years, said on Monday that "neither the
Governor nor our office was aware of the columns." In a statement, Walker said Bradley "appropriately made
it clear today that a column written in college does not reflect her views as a
Supreme Court Justice, a court of appeals judge, a circuit court judge or as an
attorney."
They don't reflect her views today? Why would we assume that, when these weren't just one or two ambiguous statements, they were pretty clear:
Scott Foval, the Madison-based Regional Political
Coordinator for the national organization People For the American Way, said "I question how anyone in the LGBTQ community, or anyone living with HIV/AIDS feels they could get a fair decision from her. The demeaning statements she authored gravely undermines her ability to continue to serve on the state Supreme Court.”
We've got to stop using "question" when "can't" works even better. Here's the WISC coverage:
The thinness of Bradley’s legal resume left her referencing things like a college term paper she wrote in applying for one of the unprecedented three appointments in three years by Gov. Scott Walker. And while disclosing other articles she authored, she specifically failed to make any mention of her newspaper writings.
She was young, angry about Bill Clinton's win, why would we ever doubt her impartiality and ability to leave politics out of her decision making?
Senator Tammy Baldwin, who just so happens to be the first openly gay person to serve in the Senate, called Judge Bradley's trash opinions "hate speech."
Now that the public and press have finally picked up on Trump's right wing authoritarianism, I thought it would be a good to take a look again at Wisconsin's own authoritarian despot; Scott Walker. Walker's presidential spilled over with scary gems like this:
Reuters-Scott Walker on Iran: "This is
not a country we should be doing business with ...The United States needs a foreign
policy that putssteel in the face of our
enemies." "We don’t need more information,we don’t need to waitto confirm the next Secretary of
State,we need decisive
leadership and we need it now. This won’t be easy, butwhen America leads, and has a
strong president with clear priorities whobelieves
in American strength, the rest of the world will follow."
Walker's ambitious campaign agenda was peppered with outright authoritarian edicts that somehow got lost in the coverage. Like the following frightening plan to break the country up into little fiefdoms.
Walker to spin off states, dissolve "United" States, saying it's too big to fail!!!
Like another poisonous snake we're all familiar with, Scott Walker is rattling, and he's about to strike. So you've got to ask; shouldn't we do something?
In a just released interview with right wing spinmeister Breitbart, Walker doesn't acknowledge the existence of an opposition party. He doesn't care if most Americans disagree with what he has planned for popular government programs polling says people support overwhelmingly.
Carrying out the rest of his divide and conquer agenda, he would separate the states into miniature country-like entities, with their own transportation, infrastructure, workforce, and environmental laws. And he wants a tough punishment base system of social safety nets that would make anyone down on their luck wish they were never born:
Walker said that if he’s elected president in 2016, he’d aim to severely cut back on the size and scope of the federal government—and he touted his experience battling the unions in Wisconsin. “For me, what I learned from what we did four years ago in Wisconsin, is you got to strike early” ... I’d like to take huge chunks of the federal government and send it back to the states. For years people have talked about Medicaid—that’s a good start, to block grant that. But I’d take major social service programs, I’d take transportation and infrastructure, workforce and development, environmental protection, and heck I’d take education and instead of spending each of those down from Washington where the federal government skims off huge chunks of money and sends pennies on the dollar back to the state governments, why not keep those dollars back in the states where states can be more effective, more efficient, and certainly be held accountable to the hardworking taxpayers?
It's hard to be accountable under a one party system, you think?
Right now, at the federal level, we have a federal government that’s too big to fail. We need a government that’s small enough to succeed.
The closer this guy gets to the presidency, the more nervous I'm becoming. Here's audio of his comment:
Former Nixon counsel John Dean wrote an entire expose' on Walker, because yes, that's how obvious Walker has been about his intentions. Walker isn't just a "conservative without a conscience," as Dean has written, he's a "double high" authoritarian, shaping the country around his singular vision of power. Dean wrote this back in March of 2012, believe it or not:
My focus here is on Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker, who strikes some who have written to me as a distinctively prototypical authoritarian politician; what social science has labeled as a “double high” authoritarian; and the type of person which I described in my book as a conservative without conscience. There are many examples of Walker’s harsh and uncaring treatment of those whom he does not believe to be entitled to equality. Desirous Of Personal Power: As governor, Walker sought to remove civil service jobs, in order to make them political appointments, and thus subject to his control. Most strikingly, he has sought to undercut the public-employee unions so that he would not have to deal with them, thus increasing his power. He has increased his personal power over some fifteen state agencies, and I suspect that he is just getting started. Walker’s push to get Act 10 passed into law was done in about as authoritarian a fashion as you will ever see, outside of a dictatorship.
And "slick" is too kind a word to use; liar works just fine, according to Dean:
His lying is notorious. Politifacts Wisconsin finds Walker to be an accomplished falsifier. I watched a video of a Walker speech at the Goldwater Institute. He’s slick; fast-talking, confident, and dishonest—I watched him distort facts with which I was familiar. He spoke in mostly half-truths. About twenty-five percent of the population has, in varying degrees, (a) disposition to follow a double high authoritarian, many blindly or simply because it assuages their fears. And, of course, these are aggressive followers who can attract others who are unaware of the nature of the person they are electing, thus enabling an authoritarian leader like Walker to gain ever-growing control. Good luck, Wisconsin.
If it wasn't so surreal, it would be funny to listen to all whining about how Trump doesn't represent the Republican Party. So who's doing all the voting, putting Trump at the top of the Republican presidential ticket? Are we actually watching Republicans support but deny their possible nominee? Could this get any more bizarre?
Republican politicians may not have notice the right wing authoritarian movement (check out this Vox story link) that's been swallowing up their party, or their own extreme behavior that embraces a one party national authority.
Last September, a PhD student at the University of Massachusetts Amherst named Matthew MacWilliams, wondered if authoritarianism might correlate with support for Trump. He polled a large sample of likely voters, looking for correlations between support for Trump and views that align with authoritarianism. What he found was astonishing: Not only did authoritarianism correlate, but it seemed to predict support for Trump more reliably than virtually any other indicator ... repeated the same poll in South Carolina and found the same results. Authoritarians are thought to express much deeper fears than the rest of the electorate, to seek the imposition of order where they perceive dangerous change, and to desire a strong leader who will defeat those fears with force.
Making the rounds on Twitter yesterday was this jaw dropping clip of a clueless crowd, mindlessly giving the infamously familiar raised arm salute to Trump, who asked them to pledge their vote:
Get this; we're supposed to believe the crowd of Trump supporters were "liberals." State Sen. Dewey "Lord Voldemort" Stroebel not only said Trump wasn't a Republican, he also said on Upfront with Mike Gousha...
Stroebel: "...I made a comment after one of the debates, things that I was hearing coming out of his mouth, I thought I was on the floor of the Capitol listening to a Madison 'liberal' with some of the things that were being said. It was really hard for me to take, and hard for me to understand."
Liberals, who do they think they are, Americans or something. GOP strategist Brian Fraley came right out and bashed Trump's authoritarianism and boorish behavior, all the while sounding just as boorish and authoritarian as Trump and Scott Walker:
Fraley: "He's not a Republican, he's renting the party as a vehicle to move forward...look, the guy is not a conservative, he's not a Republican. He has no core. The only thing he is absolutely sure of, is his own greatness. And I just think his penchant for authoritarianism, his boorish behavior, his misogyny, he's a danger not just to the party...(but to) the republic."
All true and everything quality Republicans like about their chosen party leader, Donald Trump:
Fraley revealed another problem Republicans have; they keep making dumb ass pledges. Because of a pledge candidates made to have access to the debate stage, they're now locked into voting for eventual nominee. Now that's freedom and liberty...
Stroebel: "Ah I think you're going to see a lot of people staying home."
Oh, and GOP strategist Fraley, would wear as a badge of courage, his party's move to prevent Trump from being the nominee, usurping the choice of conservative voters everywhere. Nothing authoritarian about that....
If they didn't make Obama's presidency sound like a major disaster, Republicans would have nothing to build their fantasy world agenda around. Unfortunately for them, they've had to construct an elaborate lie about Obama's record to present their side of the argument, to make it look good.
Who better than former Bears coach Mike Ditka to sum up their disconnect with reality:
After six years of saying this, even George W. is remember more fondly, despite 9/11 and the Great Recession (seriously, what does it take to receive a failing grade on the right):
That contrasts with Obama's actual record and policies, despite GOP obstruction:
Or his administrations unmistakable jobs record:
Republican supply-side economics has a record of keeping wages low, as seen in the charts below:
Once upon a time, higher taxes were an incentive for businesses to reinvest some of their profits, and lower their tax burden. That's why we saw growth in the 50's and 60's. Businesses then increased wages, which increased demand, which prompted job growth:
But after 40 years of Reagan economics, no one remembers what made the U.S. an economic super power.
While the national media tore Scott Walker a "new one," state reporters just don't seem to get the ins and outs of the Affordable Care Act...accept for Guy Boulton:
Wisconsin uses Affordable Care Act but rejects funding for it: Guy Boulton-Journal Sentinel: Wisconsin's decision last week to challenge a fee imposed by the Affordable Care Act set up a comparison not lost on advocates who support the law.
So is Walker saving taxpayers money?
The fee has cost the state about $23 million so far ... Gov. Scott Walker and the Legislature's opposition to the law is projected to cost $678.6 million in state tax dollars through the 2017 fiscal year.
That doesn't sound too taxpayer friendly. But as with all conservative ideas, if it's their law, wasting money doesn't matter...it's the principle:
Wisconsin is the only state in the country to use the Affordable Care Act to expand its Medicaid programwhile turning down the additional federal dollars ... to pay for it.
As we all know, Republicans don't like paying for anything. Life is a free ride to them. So what's behind this Walker/Schimel lawsuit that has them so riled up? Let's start with Walker's cockeyed crazy reasoning...remember, this is costing taxpayer $23 million plus $678 million through 2017:
"Once again, we are taking action to protect Wisconsin taxpayers from the adverse effects the Obama administration's Affordable Care Act has on our citizens. This lawsuit is meant to ensure Wisconsinites are not left paying this unconstitutional and coercive tax..."
But what's obvious to everyone else is this:
"He's looking for pennies on the floor of his car, when he should be looking at the bags of money in front of him," said Bobby Peterson, executive director of ABC for Health, a public interest law firm.
Taxpayers are currently paying about 42% of the Medicaid bill, instead of ZERO and just 10% after that. No, you don't have to be a math genius to figure this one out:
Under the Affordable Care Act, the federal government initially would pay the full cost of covering poor people previously not eligible for Medicaid through 2016, with the federal government's share gradually dropping to 90% by 2020.
Bullshit: Walker is peddling bullshit with little persistent blowback by the media, who could have stopped this lunacy in its tracks. Notice the word "contend," that allows this bullshit to continue unchallenged:
The Walker administration and others have contended that the federal government eventually will reduce the money available to states through the law because of persistent U.S. budget deficits.
The federal government cannot meet its current Medicaid obligations, Laurel Patrick, a spokeswoman for Walker, said in an email ... "We maintain that states should not depend on the use of uncertain federal funds, which is why Governor Walker implemented unique reforms ..." Patrick said.
This is why Wisconsin isn't getting back every dollar we send to Washington:
As of June 30, the state had passed up an estimated $227.6 million available through the law, according to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. More than $200 million will be added to the tab in the current fiscal year. "He's just completely tone deaf on this issue, and he's not running for higher office anymore," Peterson said of Walker. "He ought to consider going after this money instead of these obscure objections to the ACA. "At some point they need to move on," he said.
Walker's biggest problem? An actual law designed to pay for itself:
The fee on insurance companies was among the myriad taxes imposed by the law to help pay for the cost of expanding insurance coverage. By requiring states to reimburse the insurance companies, also known as managed care organizations, for the fee, the federal government has imposed the taxes on the states, the lawsuit alleges. Timothy Jost, an emeritus professor at the Washington and Lee University School of Law and an expert on the complexities of the Affordable Care Act, said he doesn't believe the lawsuit has much merit. "The states don't have to participate in Medicaid," Jost said. "But if they do, they have to play by the rules, and this is a pretty garden-variety rule." Jost wrote that the states also pay substantial amounts to cover other federal taxes paid by Medicaid managed care organizations, such as payroll taxes.
Putting up the appearance of "looking out for the taxpayer," watch for the Walker's medicine show in a location near you:
"We have and will continue our work to protect taxpayers from the costly consequences of the ACA," Patrick said in the email.
Scott Walker is wrong, but you'd never know it by his continued insistence to claim Medicaid money is not guaranteed. He can't let go of a good talking point, no matter how meaningless or false.
Walker's excuse rang hollow again after hearing the testimony of a satisfied Republican voter, who is still alive today thanks to ObamaCare. It saved his life. Medicaid expansion offers that same hope for thousands:
President Barack Obama called on Gov. Scott Walker to accept the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) Medicaid expansion he turned down in 2013.
“Your governor still refuses to expand Medicaid in this state. We could cover another 21,000 Wisconsinites with the stroke of his pen. He’s denying Wisconsinites their ticket to health insurance, and it’s political.”
MSNBC's Chris Hayes picked up on the story, and interviewed Walker supporter Brent Brown:
Brent Brown, who introduced Obama, said the ACA saved his life after he was diagnosed with an autoimmune disease in college, because it allowed him to get insurance in spite of his condition. Brown, who is a Republican, urged legislators to “do what is right for the people.”
It's a Walker lie his supporters like: Has the federal government "reneged" on Medicaid funding?
...there’s a major problem in Walker’s contention.The federal share -- known as the Federal Medical Assistance Percentage, or FMAP ... fluctuates annually and varies from state to state based on a formula dating to Medicaid’s inception in 1965… "designed so that the federal government pays a larger portion of Medicaid costs in states with lower per-capita incomes relative to the national average.” In other words, the standard federal share of Medicaid costs is not promised or guaranteed to hold steady; it must only stay between the statutory minimum of 50 percent and maximum of 83 percent. But typical cost-sharing fluctuations, based mainly on a longstanding formula, explain the extra state burden -- not any reversal of course or pulling back on a commitment by Washington. We rate Walker’s claim False.
Of course, as more Wisconsinites enter the ranks of poverty, the federal government will kick in more money. Much like a number of southern states. Maybe that's Walker's plan?
I can't remember the last time I heard a Republican in this state say they'd pay for anything, ever. Sounds like we're dealing with a bunch of "on the public dole" freeloaders, doesn't it?
The transportation fund offers up a glimpse at just how bad it can get under their mismanagement. Really, no constituent blowback? Weirder still, they're still blaming Gov. Doyle for the world wide Great Recession that put them in this spot 6 years after the fact. Don't forget Obama, who's policies oddly had the opposite effect on Minnesota.
Yes, it's the transportation fund that should tell you all you need to know about straight jacket pledges and government policies hatched from the minds of ideological true believers. Many of the 16 states that raised taxes (because that's how we pay for things), were Republican economic wastelands. At least now they have better roads than us:
WKOW: The Department of Transportation has ranked Wisconsin roadways the 4th worst in the country ... finds 71 percent of Wisconsin roads are in poor or mediocre condition. Counties across the state are struggling to keep up with repairs because there's not enough money to overhaul the roads. Columbia County Highway Commissioner Chris Hardy tells 27 News ... there's a $36 million shortfall in the department's 10-year county road reconstruction plan. That means the county isn't even able to discuss fixing some of the roads that are just now starting to show wear, because it takes years to complete each project. According to the Transportation Development Association, 56 of Wisconsin's 72 counties replace the roads every 75 years, more than twice as long as the intended life span of 30 years. Craig Thompson, executive director of Transportation Development Association, says in the past two years 16 other states have found ways to fill transportation budget deficits by passing new transportation packages. He suggests Wisconsin do the same, by having people pay higher user fees, with an increased gas tax or registration fee. In 2013, a special state commission recommended raising $640 million a year for transportation costs, by increasing the gas tax, among other things. The Legislature rejected the ideas. Last year, the state budget cut funding for transportation, halting or delaying some major highway projects in the area.
Republican “stand with Walker” voters still don’t think their
party sold out to big business, even as a Supreme Court Justice and candidate
left oral arguments early to meet business campaign donors. No time for
questions, Rebecca Bradley instead glanced over the summary. Wow, she hasn’t
even been elected yet and she’s letting it all slide.
"It's money that matters"
AP: Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Rebecca Bradley left
oral arguments in a pending case before they had concluded so she could give a
speech to the state chamber of commerce, a group that's spent heavily in past
court elections in favor of conservative candidates. On Feb. 24, Bradley left
arguments in the court early to give a speech at the Wisconsin Manufacturer's
and Commerce "business day" event about three blocks away.
Every day is a "business day" on Walker's Supreme Court.
Wisconsin is enjoying an overtly partisan conservative activist State Supreme Court, one that works well with Gov. Scott Walker, a panting lap dog of an Attorney General, and a reckless majority of Republican lawmakers.
But that's not what's happening in Kansas, where the court still acts as a separate independent branch of government. That's about to changed, thanks to those "originalist" conservative guardians of the Constitution:
The Topeka Capital-Journal reports the state constitution currently uses high crimes and misdemeanors as grounds for removal from office. The new proposal would allow impeachment of Supreme Court justices if they usurp the authority of the Legislature, or for reckless judicial conduct, personal misconduct and failure to properly supervise judicial personnel.
These are amazing times. Justices working under the constant threat of job loss, over the slightest hint of dissent, is now on the legislative fast track. Their favorite excuse; "overstepping authority:"
The bill's sponsor, Republican Sen. Mitch Holmes, says the court has made several decisions recently that overstepped its authority, such as school funding rulings.
The fight over school funding is brutal. Massive tax cuts forced Republicans to take an ax to public education, which the State Supreme Court said was unconstitutional. That's when Republicans threatened to defund the entire court system if the justices didn't reverse their decision. They backed down, but came back with these gems:
Republicans have drafted bills calling for a system in which the governor would nominate and the State Senate would confirm justices. Republicans have also drafted bills calling for partisan election of justices.
But the court isn't backing down:
The Kansas Supreme Court threatened to shut down schools if lawmakers don't revamp the way the state funds public schools by July,
So now impeachment is on the table for anyone on the court who "oversteps their authority." The excuses are now piling up...
Kansas House Speaker Ray Merrick said the court was holding taxpayers and schoolchildren hostage. A fellow Republican, Sen. Jeff Melcher, called the decision a "temper tantrum. It's kind of one of those things, 'Give us the money, or the kid gets it.'" Republican Gov. Sam Brownback called it a ruling from an "activist" court but added, "We will review this decision closely and work with the Legislature to ensure the continued success of our great Kansas schools.
This is the kind of fight we're going to see in every red state where the courts aren't in cahoots yet with the controlling right wing authority.
Did Mitt Romney just insult every Trump voter? Welcome to the 47% club folks.
My conservative friend in Milwaukee called and reminded me to watch Mitt Romney trash Trump this morning, so I tuned in and recorded it. Romney did just that. So I asked my friend who he thought put Trump in the lead. Instead of saying conservative voters, he said "Obama." Welcome to Obama derangement syndrome.
Romney's statement was so brutal, so over the top final, you've got to believe the Republican Party has a bullet proof plan to usurp the will of GOP voters.
I'm posting Romney's historically bizarre Trump take down as a marker where the Republican Party completely destroyed the American political process once and for all.
Breathtaking and amazing, we have to wonder where Republicans will take our political system in 5, 10, 15 years?
Also take note of Romney's now trademark "doe-eyed" look of an innocent little boy trying to please his audience. What a con:
All this from two wealthy guys who inherited their money. What is it about privilege?
And as usual, the Republican pick for president had this classy thing to say...
And the irony of what Sen. John McCain is saying....
Former Daily Show reporter Samantha Bee and John Oliver are kicking political ass late night. Here's one of the most critical looks at how bizarre and mindless the Republican attack on abortion is, and Sam B's put down of spineless liberals.
As an added bonus, Sam B trashes Democratic voters for not showing up for the 2010 election, resulting in gerrymandered GOP majorities as far as the eye can see, and the end of "hope and change." Finally someone is taking the gloves off:
I suppose signing 58 bills is Scott Walker's idea of hard work, never mind the 40 to 60 hours a week some minimum wage families are putting in. Nothing says "detached" like this insultingly arrogant comment from our sociopathic authoritarian governor.
In the "Twitter Moments," was this nice compilation of creative reads on Scott Walker's
Gov. Scott Walker posts pic of hand, Internet responds: In another installment of "weird things politicians post on social media," Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker thought it would be cool to show the world his hand. The world didn't agree. It's not as silly as Jeb Bush's "America" gun Tweet, but it's in the ballpark.
It's just a simple invitation with no political slant whatsoever. CapTimes:
Join Justice Rebecca Bradley and Special Guests: Senator Alberta Darling & Rep. John Nygren for a Cocktail Reception. Host Levels: $2500/$1000/$500 General Attendee: $100
These Republican co-chairs of the Legislature's budget committee, who know just where the special interest money is since they've been taking it for years themselves, are just good citizens exercising their free speech rights. What, no qualms about the lack of Democratic attendees?
But Bradley's campaign says their support is no different than a standard campaign endorsement.
Republican voters will look past this supreme court sell out to special interest money too, by reminding us matter of factly, "losing sucks."
In a Facebook post published over the weekend, Appeals Court Judge Gary Sherman wrote that the fundraiser makes "plain for all to see" the "coordination between the Supreme Court and the political branches of our government."
Taking that Citizens United idea that money does not have a corrupting influence to the next level:
Justice Bradley has always stated that she follows the rule of law and swore an oath to uphold the Wisconsin and U.S. Constitutions as they are written, not by who endorses her campaign."
