Trump will be blamed for ACA collapse!!!

Overwhelming majorities in both party's support making changes to the existing Affordable Care Act. And yet Trump is now saying he wants changes that would directing break many of his campaign promises to lower prices and offer better care, just so he could supposedly save $900 million and throw 24 million people off insurance:

Trump: "I think we're doing very well on healthcare. It's been very much misreported that we failed with healthcare. We haven't failed — we're negotiating and we continue to negotiate and we will save perhaps $900 billion." 

Trump is referring to the CBO report on the AHCA ... estimated that the bill could cut the federal spending by $880 billion over the next 10 years ... (but) After the most recent additions to the AHCA, the CBO updated this estimate to say the deficit could shrink by only $151 billion.

And while Paul Ryan continues to try and reinvent the health care wheel, ignoring other successful systems worldwide while bringing back those failed "high risk pools," the market based solution he so badly wants is right there in front of him; the all-payer nationalized plan, where countries with insurers negotiate one price for each procedure. That in turn, eliminates the massive and costly price differences between providers, saving everyone lots of money.

Alaska Plan: If we had an "all-payer" pricing policy, and did what Alaska did with "reinsurance" (not risk pools), we could stabilize premiums for years to come:

Premiums for individual health insurance plans were set to rise 42 percent. So the state tried something new and different — and it worked. Lori Wing-Heier, Alaska’s insurance commissioner, put together a plan that had the state pay back insurers for especially high medical claims submitted to Obamacare plans. This lowered premiums for everyone. In the end, the premium increase was a mere 7 percent. The state already had a tax on insurance plans (not just health but also life and property insurance) ... used that money.
Now other states are interested in trying Alaska’s idea, especially because Wing-Heier is working with the Trump administration to have the federal government, not the state, cover those costs.

It's the old reinsurance model, paired with low predetermined prices for care.

Reinsurance essentially backstops insurers’ losses; it guarantees they won't be on the hook for the bills of a handful of exceptionally sick patients.

This didn't just save customers money. The federal government subsidizes premium costs for 86 percent of Alaska's Obamacare enrollees. With cheaper premiums, the federal government didn’t have to spend as much money. The cost of these subsidies fell by $56 million when Alaska created the reinsurance fund.

But Republicans have never worked hard on solutions that require research, knowledge and debate. It's much easier to repeal something, and then promise to "look into" or "study" the issue at another time.

Now Trump wants to blackmail Democrats into negotiating with him and Paul Ryan.

Trump’s new threat is that he will cut off so-called cost-sharing reductions, which subsidize insurance that offers lower out-of-pocket costs to 7 million lower-income Americans. For all the details, see this piece by Jonathan Cohn; if Trump does this, premiums could skyrocket and insurers could flee the individual markets, causing them to melt down and ultimately pushing millions off coverage. As Cohn notes, Trump is basically “threatening to torpedo insurance for millions of Americans unless Democrats agree to negotiate with him.”

Will Trump kill the ACA?

Trump told the Journal that “Obamacare is dead next month if it doesn’t get that money,” adding that “Democrats will start calling me and negotiating.” Trump treats the word “deal” as some kind of magically irresistible end in itself. But under these circumstances, the only known endpoint — the supposed “deal” — is worse than the “threat.” Why should Dems feel any incentive to respond to such a threat?

Here's what the recent Kaiser Family Foundation poll said about Trump's "let it explode" idea:

President Trump threatened to leave the law alone and let it self-destruct. But the April Kaiser Family Foundation survey finds that 75 percent of the public wants the president and the Republicans to do what they can to make the law work, compared to only 19 percent who think they should let the law fail so they can replace it later. Moreover, 61 percent say that the president and the Republicans are now in charge and are responsible for problems with the ACA—not President Obama and the Democrats who enacted it.

Mulvaney: Screw Deficits, Tax Cuts and Letting Wealthy Keep Their Money is Goal.

For the longest time I've been trying to figure out is whether Republicans actually believe their bullshit; or each deserve their own "Oscar" for keeping a straight face while "sincerely" sticking to their "core values."

Finally, the Cold Hard Truth: One of the most brutal policy wonks ever, besides Paul Ryan, is Trump's budget director Mich Mulvaney. Remember when Mulvaney said how wrong it was to go to a single mom in Detroit with two kids and ask for money to help fund Head Start? Actually, he doesn't care about her or her two kids who are probably using Head Start. Mulvaney is out to protect billionaires from redistributing their wealth:

Mick Mulvaney, in a new interview with CNBC’s John Harwood, basically admits that what he cares about is reducing transfers from the rich to the poor:

Mulvaney: "Bad spending, to me, in terms of its economic benefit, would be wealth-transfer payments. It’s a misallocation of resources. Infrastructure is sort of that good spending in the middle, where ... you do misallocate resources a little bit. At the other end of the spectrum, at the very other end, is letting people keep more of their money, which — while it can contribute to the deficit in a large fashion — is the most efficient way to actually allocate resources. It’s a little less important to me if infrastructure adds to the deficit. And I’m really not interested in how tax reform handles the deficit."

What makes Mulvaney’s comments so unusual is not only their frankness, but also their comprehensiveness. Republican politicians tend to … frame their opposition to transfer payments as concern about deficits, while framing their desire of regressive tax cuts as being unrelated to deficits. Mulvaney is essentially conceding that deficits have nothing to do with the Republican fiscal agenda.

Samantha Bee exposes Trump "Whisperer."

Of all the players surrounding Trump, why hasn't this guy gotten the once over?

Samantha Bee pretty much broke the shocking news about the lunatic fringe counter terrorism adviser to Trump:

Failed TrumpCare Plan successfully avoids debating an "All-Payer" plan.

Republicans are really great time wasters, debating how little health care coverage should be allowed before voters turn on them. Reelections matter to them. When the Democrats passed the ACA, they knew what the risks were, and it didn't turn out well for them.

But there is a solution, and it's part of the discussion they don't want to have.

All-Payer: I used to describe all-payer as a national health care plan of mandated coverage and prices. It was a common element of universal or single payer systems worldwide:

Daily Kos: As Vox's Sarah Kliff rightly highlighted, "France, Germany, Japan, the Netherlands, and Switzerland all use some version of all-payer rate setting." Even with hundreds or thousands of private insurance plans, since 1980 all five countries have experienced much slower growth in health care spending than the United States (see chart below). 

All-payer rate setting is a powerful reason why: In all-payer rate setting, all of the insurers negotiate jointly with all of the health care providers, and set on one specific price for each procedure...Single-payer health care systems save money in two ways: reducing administrative costs and increasing the bargaining power of health insurers. This is true of all-payer rate setting systems, too.

Even without insurance, the lower row of prices wouldn't bankrupt most American families:

In contrast, the Republican vision for health care is a return to the Hobbesian struggle of each against all in the American health care ecosystem. And that means more pain for consumers, insured and uninsured alike. Or as Vox founder Ezra Klein put it in March: “American health care can be free market or cheap. It can’t be both.”

Before the ACA:

A 2011 report by the Department of Health and Human Services found that before the ACA took full effect “62 percent of individual market plans did not cover maternity care, 34 percent did not cover substance abuse services, 18 percent did not cover mental health coverage and 9 percent did not cover prescription drugs.”

The Four Basic Health Care Systems: This is what we should be debating:

Sick Around the World describes the four basic models including the "out of pocket" approach, the completely government-run system implemented in the UK, the Bismarckian social insurance strategies in Germany and Japan, and the single-payer system in Canada that’s emulated by South Korea and Taiwan:

Reid reports next from Japan, which boasts the second largest economy and the best health statistics in the world. The Japanese go to the doctor three times as often as Americans, have more than twice as many MRI scans, use more drugs, and spend more days in the hospital. Yet Japan spends about half as much on health care per capita as the United States.

One secret to Japan's success? By law, everyone must buy health insurance—either through an employer or a community plan—and, unlike in the U.S., insurers can neither turn down a patient for a pre-existing illness, nor are they allowed to make a profit.

Reid's journey then takes him to Germany, the country that invented the concept of a national health care system. For its 80 million people, Germany offers universal health care, including medical, dental, mental health, homeopathy and spa treatment. Professor Karl Lauterbach, a member of the German parliament, describes it as "a system where the rich pay for the poor and where the ill are covered by the healthy." As they do in Japan, medical providers must charge standard prices. This keeps costs down, but it also means physicians in Germany earn between half and two-thirds as much as their U.S. counterparts.

Republicans are pushing a "buy what you can afford" health care insurance model. The list of physicians below shows you how difficult it would be to make those choices. And don't be naive either, insurers will charge much more for the popular choices, since they aren't about to lose money on cheap stripped down policies. And how cheap can prices go to maintain the yearly incomes below? Annual Physician Compensation Report:

Threat of Trump/Ryan Repeal will Kill the Affordable Care Act's Market Places!!! It's that easy.

JUST TO BE CLEAR: IT WILL BE THE REPUBLICANS FAULT FOR CAUSING THE ACA (OBAMACARE) COLLAPSE!!!

While Democrats may have won the health care debate for the time being, Republicans are patiently and very openly waiting for the ACA to implode, or as Trump so inaccurately claims, “blowup.”

In fact, it's not just the ACA that’s in danger, but the whole individual market (non-employer insurance); profits won’t be big enough. Modern Health:

Aetna said Thursday that it will stop selling individual policies both on and off the state's Affordable Care Act exchange next year. The decision follows on the heels of Wellmark Blue Cross and Blue Shield's announcement that it will exit Iowa's individual market in 2018. Now thousands of Iowans will be forced to switch health insurers—if they can find one.

But because both Aetna and Wellmark are pulling the plug on both on- and off-exchange individual plans, the consequences extend beyond dwindling choice on the ACA federal marketplace. “It's not clear how many options people may have even if they are able to pay full price and buy off exchange,” Cox said.

The Republican “Repeal” Poison Pill Set this in Motion: What major insurance company can conduct business under the threat of repeal? Insurers said as much:

1. An Aetna spokesman said the decision is a result of “financial risk and an uncertain outlook for the marketplace.” 

2. With a number of regulatory unknowns and no clear sign that the federal government will continue to support the individual marketplace, experts say other states could soon see an insurer exodus as well … health insurers have threatened to quit offering policies on the ACA's marketplace if they don't get the regulatory details they need to design and price their insurance plans. 

3. Insurers have warned Congressional leaders that they need to see signs that the Trump administration will work to stabilize the individual market if they are to commit to selling plans in 2018. Iowa's situation is an example of what may happen across the nation if insurers don't get answers soon.

Sounds like a problem created by Trump and Paul Ryan, ya think?

Oh, and about those tearful insurance company “losses;” let’s just call it a “decline in grotesque profits:”

Wellmark said it lost about $90 million from ACA-compliant health plans sold in Iowa over the past three years. But it is a drop in a bucket relative to the $2.7 billion in revenue Wellmark recorded in 2016 alone, financial documents show.

Given the minor loss, it is likely that Wellmark's exit has more to do with the uncertainty surrounding the future of the health insurance landscape and the prospect of further financial losses if the Trump administration fails to shore up the marketplaces, experts said.

Trump and Ryan inaction will Kill the ACA: 

It is unclear if insurers will get the details they need to commit to the exchanges for 2018. In most states, they have until June 21 to decide whether to participate. But the Trump administration has yet to address insurers' most pressing concerns about availability of cost-sharing reductions and the enforcement of the mandate that consumers purchase coverage. Those two policies are essential to ensure the individual market stays afloat and affordable during the transition period to an ACA replacement plan.

And no, it’s not a problem caused by the Affordable Care Act:

“We're deeply troubled by the angst and concern the Affordable Care Act is causing in Iowa," Iowa Insurance Commissioner Doug Ommen said in a statement. "This is a problem created by the Affordable Care Act and needs to be fixed by Congress."

Thanks to Trump and FCC: Internet and Student Privacy Gone, Schools and Library discounts disappearing!!!

Net neutrality is going away, along with your privacy, and it's going to cost Americans billions.

Remember when Republicans has a fit over collecting anonymous student data from our public schools? It was an invasion of our kids privacy.

Well, they have just reversed course on that, and targeted their own rural conservative areas for big program cuts that will cost their voters so much more. 

The following actions by Trump and the now conservative “free market” FCC will result in the loss of internet privacy, especially for our kids, and cost taxpayer billions. EDWEEK:

1. On February 3, FCC Commissioner Ajit Pai reversed an earlier FCC decision to approve nine companies as eligible broadband providers under the federal Lifeline program, which provides low-income consumers with a monthly subsidy of $9.25 to help offset the cost of phone or internet service.

2. A week later, Pai quashed an internal report documenting the success of the multibillion dollar E-rate program (which) provides discounts on certain services and products that are essential for classrooms and libraries to receive Internet connections (discounts depend on the level of poverty and location). Discounts range from 20% to 90% of the cost of eligible services.

3. In late March, Pai announced that the FCC would relinquish responsibility for designating eligible Lifeline providers to states.

As you can see, the costs for schools and libraries could suddenly skyrocket if the E-rate program is no longer supported, just so internet providers can rake in huge profits. Thank-you free market Republicans. 

And since this is insider stuff, American won’t directly see how the FCC’s irresponsible moves today will hike costs. Republican lawmakers will then use that to turn taxpayers against those costly government libraries and schools. Hey, it’s worked so far.

But giving up privacy was another profit driven move by Trump and the FCC:

On April 3, Trump signed a law overturning internet privacy protections. The former FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said: 

“Every student ought to be worried about that. And every school ought to be worried about that. Because suddenly, all of the information that goes across the network is available to be sold.

Let's go back. So the first thing [the new administration did] was come in and pull back on the E-rate report. The second thing was make it harder [for companies to get designated as a Lifeline provider.] The third thing was gut the privacy protections. The fourth thing is the Trump administration proposes a budget that cuts back heavily on education. And we're supposed to sit here and think that this is a benign environment? 

The most important part of the Open Internet Rule was that we put a referee on the field. Because who knows how the internet is going to evolve? You need to have somebody there to throw a flag and say, "No, that's not just and reasonable."

I think the people who don't support Lifeline in the first place, or don't support E-rate in the first place, always go and hide behind the ‘waste, fraud and abuse’ smokescreen. I wish they had an agenda in which they were looking forward and saying, ‘Here's some of the new opportunities and new challenges of the new connected society.’ Instead, they seem to be looking backwards and saying, ‘How do we undo everything we voted against when were in the minority?’"

Trump was against Syrian military strike before he was for it...ditto for many Republican Hypocrites.

Nope, it wasn't racism or just being a traitorous Democrat that motivated Republicans to oppose Obama's authorization to strike Syria. Wait a minute....

I guess it was no big deal when Trump announced from his National Golf Club Mar-a-Lago that the U.S. attacked Syria? Not worth mentioning?

I haven't heard pundits remind viewers how much trouble Obama had trying to get Congress to authorize a Syrian strike, even on MSNBC. Instead, Obama will always be remembered for not taking action. Well, that's not true....

Raw Story: Here are the biggest Republican flip-flops in Syria that have happened over the last four years.

1.) President Donald Trump. Trump is, of course, the most notable person to change his mind on the merits of attacking Syria. In 2012 and 2013, he regularly attacked Obama for his desire to get involved with the Syrian conflict, and even suggested at one point that Obama would go to war with Syria to boost his flagging poll numbers.

2. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI). In 2013 he said that Obama’s proposed military strike “cannot achieve its stated objectives” and could make things worse.

3. Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT). Chaffetz sent out a tweet that read, “God bless the USA!” But in 2013, he said he would oppose the use of force in Syria on the grounds that he saw “no clear and present danger” to the United States that would justify using force.

4. Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN). Blackburn announced in 2013 that she would oppose Obama’s Syrian airstrike after being briefed.

5. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL). In 2013 he said that “I have long argued forcefully for engagement in empowering the Syrian people, I have never supported the use of U.S. military force in the conflict.”

6. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT). In 2013 he said that he had “strong reservations about authorizing the use of force against Syria.”

7. Rep. Pete Olson (R-TX). Olson cited his experience as a Navy veteran as a reason for opposing the use of force against Syria in 2013. Now, however, he is cheering on Trump by praising the president for doing what Obama would not.

8. Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-AL). In 2013 he worried that Obama had not done enough to seek a “diplomatic” solution to the crisis.

9. Rep. Larry Bucshon (R-IN). In 2013, the congressman opposed intervention in Syria on the grounds that he hadn’t met a single person in his district “who believes we should fire missiles into Syria.”

10. Sen. Cory Gardner (R-CO). In 2013, Gardner expressed “skepticism” of striking Syria and argued that he didn’t see “a compelling and vital” national interest in such an attack. On Thursday evening, he called Trump’s strike against Syria a “long-overdue action.”

Walker's Mental Health Funding Scam!

Republicans rule by anecdotes and party purity.

Filled with hypocrisy and contradictions, that style of government is constantly running into the cold hard facts of life. Like mental health. Sure funding for mental health went up:

PolitiFact: Walker ... raised spending on mental health services by $29 million in his 2013-’15 state budget … the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau confirmed largest increase in at least 25 years.

But of course that's not the whole story. What about boosting Medicaid reimbursements to attract mental health providers, instead of providing some of the lowest rates in the nation?

Democratic state senator Jon Erpenbach pressed Scott Walker's top health official last week to support hiking Medicaid reimbursement rates for mental health providers in the state. Boosting Medicaid rates was identified by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin's Kids in Crisis series as a method to improve a statewide shortage of mental health providers.

Don't look at Me, I'm only the Secretary of Health Services: The video below is an example of Walker's placement of department heads who like collecting a government paycheck, but don't believe strong enough in their department to advocate for the needy. This what you call health care rationing, something Republicans keep warning us about but do automatically under the guise of "we have to balance what's important..." or "we have to take a long look at..." mumbo jumbo:

Sec. Seemeyer: "Folks have to balance, what's most important, but we've been trying to look at some of the mental health rates and see if there's something we can do about it."

Sen. Erpenbach: "I seem to remember in your opening remarks we have a surplus of how much?"

Sec. Seemeyer: "Which we returned to the general fund."

Sen. Erpnebach: "How much is the surplus?"

Sec. Seemeyer: "About $330 million, which we returned to the general fund."

Sen. Erpbenbach: "Would it have been wise to keep some of that money and increase reimbursement rates?"

Sec. Seemeyer: "I think where the money is spent resides right here in the governors office, so...."

Sen. Erpenbach: "Do you support increasing the reimbursement rates for mental health providers?"

Sec. Seemeyer: "I think we really need to look at it..."

A real advocate for the mentally ill. So we're balancing the general fund by taking $330 million away from mental health. Anyone else tired of the "we really need to look at it" BS (think highway funding).

Department of Health Services Secretary Linda Seemeyer repeatedly ducked requests to state a position on hiking Wisconsin's rates, which are among the lowest in the nation. Then she deferred rate hike decisions to state lawmakers. 

A hike in Medicaid reimbursement rates for mental health providers wasn't included in Walker's proposed state budget this year, and legislative leaders haven't been confident about boosting rates, citing competing budget priorities.

Rep. Mike Rohrkaste, R-Neenah, asked if the state could boost Medicaid reimbursement rates specifically for mental health services in schools or for children. Seemeyer said she wasn't sure and then said, “I think it probably would be” possible.

Americans 18-30 years old think Health Care a Government Duty!!! So vote...?

Even though 18 to 30 year old's don't like the idea of being forced to buy health insurance, they seem pretty open to a single payer plan:

71 percent favor the law's Medicaid expansion, 66 percent of young adults favor the prohibition on denying people coverage because of a person's medical history, 65 percent favor requiring insurance plans to cover the full cost of birth control, 63 percent favor requiring most employers to pay a fine if they don't offer insurance and 53 percent favor paying for benefit increases with higher payroll taxes for higher earners.

75 Dairy Farmers on verge of going out of business!!! Not a big issue for Walker and Trump!

I still think rural voters should be trying to get a second opinion, this time from the Democrats. What the hell have Republicans done for them lately?

Canada blocks Dairy State: Believe it or not, the latest casualty under Scott Walker's rule? The dairy industry!!! Where has Walker been, and how hard has he worked to get Trump to act on this, as opposed to getting Wisconsinites drug tested? So now about 75 dairy farms are teetering on the edge. That's a lot of local generational farming.

Walker's number one Priority with Trump!!!

Here's one dairy farmers story. WISC:

...and another. WKOW:

Is Trump or Scott Walker getting anything done as the party in control?

U.S. dairy groups are calling on Donald Trump to set his sights on Canada's "protectionist" dairy practices as he seeks to safeguard American jobs. (Earlier this month), Gov. Walker was among those sending a missive to the President, saying Wisconsin's dairy producers have been disadvantaged by Canada’s recent change in their pricing policy. 

That's too little, too late Scott. And Trump's hard line on trade? 

 

CBS: Canada should brace for a tougher, hardline approach to trade negotiations with the U.S. under Donald Trump's new pick, experts warn ... "trade hawk" Robert Lighthizer ... is aligned with the president-elect's protectionist views ... Lighthizer won't be very willing to make concessions to resolve disputes such as dairy and softwood lumber ... That could mean more protracted legal battles rather than negotiated resolutions.

On Jan. 17, 2017, Food Dive took notice of the problem, but didn't have high hopes for Trump:

Food concerns don’t appear to be his main order of business. It wouldn’t be much of a surprise if he simply didn’t respond in any meaningful way to the dairy groups’ request.

Back even further, on September 6th, 2016, in a preemptive move, Sen. Tammy Baldwin started the wheels in motion:

U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin is pushing for an investigation into whether Wisconsin milk exports are being unfairly blocked and if trade agreements are being upheld. Baldwin and Sen. Chuck Schumer called on USDA Sec. Tom Vilsack and U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Michael Froman to investigate new Canadian dairy pricing policies that could hurt dairy farmers and processors in Wisconsin.

Here's what Canada is doing:

The policy allows Canadian dairy processors to buy domestic milk at world market prices instead of higher prices controlled by the national supply management system. The U.S. dairy groups say that provides the processors with an incentive to cut milk imports. "The entire U.S. dairy industry is being hurt, as milk prices are being driven down nationally by Canada's trade actions," they wrote.

Trump to the rescue?

Canada faces a contentious trade dispute with the U.S., but industry observers believe Trump could take steps that hurt Canada's auto, beef farming, dairy and liquor and beer import monopolies.

"Stand with Walker" trolls don't seem to care about those 75 dairy farms, or people seen in the video above, because they're just too small percentage to care about:

For rural voters and dairy farmers everywhere, Sen. Tammy Baldwin is a Democrat, on the front line trying to save the industry. Again, what has to happen before conservative rural communities look to another party to get something done:

“Grassland Dairy Products Inc. is very appreciative of the interest and leadership Senator Baldwin has shown on the Canadian trade issue.” Jim Mulhern, President and CEO of the National Milk Producers Federation (NMPF) says the letter comes at a critical time for both trade and the well-being of America’s dairy producers. “We appreciate the Senators’ attention to the importance of holding one of our largest trading partners to its international commitments and the key role that the U.S. government must play in doing so.”

Senator Baldwin is a strong supporter of our Grown in Wisconsin economy and Wisconsin’s dairy farmers and producers. In July, Senator Baldwin joined a bipartisan, bicameral coalition of 60 lawmakers to call on the USDA to assist dairy producers struggling with declining milk prices. As a result, the USDA announced $11.2 million in financial assistance to American dairy producers enrolled in the 2016 Margin Protection Program for Dairy (MPP-Dairy).

ALERT: 4/6/2017: Looks like someone in Dumb Ron Johnson office was watching TV and finally picked up on the story. From the quotes below, it's more than obvious Johnson has no idea what is happening,

Bullied Town of Middleton Write-ins put Voters back in Power over Walker's Opt Out Law.

Who knew? When Dane County Towns Association lobbyist and Supervisor Tim Roehl tried to punish town residents, it didn’t go well for him. Residents who opposed Roehl’s law allowing towns to opt out of Dane County control were told Roehl wanted to make their votes “advisory,” and to boot, make them have a special meeting instead of annual board meeting. Well, the you-know-what hit the fan.

Make no mistake, this was a Scott Walker attack on liberal Dane County, the only county effected by the state law. I think the tipping point came on March 8th. Check out the condescending "outside groups" argument below:

Lawmakers on an Assembly committee heard testimony Wednesday on a bill proponents say will streamline the process by which Dane County towns can withdraw from county zoning. But opponents argue it takes residents' voices out of the equation.

Dane County is the only one of Wisconsin's 72 counties in which towns can opt out of county zoning, as a result of a bill authored by Rep. Keith Ripp, R-Lodi, and signed into law by Gov. Scott Walker last year. Under that law, towns can withdraw if residents approve the move through a referendum or a vote at an annual town meeting. The new bill, also authored by Ripp, would transfer the decision-making power to town boards.

Supporters of the bill argued that Town of Middleton residents are being misinformed by "outside groups" about the implications of opting out of Dane County zoning. "The outside forces are making it extremely difficult for town residents to make an educated decision on this issue," said Ripp aide Matthew Rohrbeck. Rohrbeck declined to name the outside groups, but Roehl suggested the push was coming from the county level. "What this legislation does, in my mind, is it keeps Dane County influences out of our town halls," Roehl said.

Deb Nelson, a 35-year Town of Middleton resident,  said she was "insulted" by the suggestion that she could not sift through information being presented to her as a voter.

Michael Rhoads, also a resident of the Town of Middleton, said the bill is "unfair, undemocratic and extremely discriminatory against town residents in Dane County."

Taking the voters voice out of the process...not the smartest move, but very Republican. Middleton Times, WREX, WKOW, WSJ:

Again, just a recap:

As a lobbyist for the Dane County Towns Association, town supervisor and Realtor Tim Roehl ... backed legislation introduced in March which made the residents’ vote advisory. The legislation’s conservative backers then amended the bill to have town residents vote to opt out - but at a special meeting, not the annual meeting.

That's when a last minute write-in campaign began, and against all odds, two write-ins won:

That caused Cynthia Richson and Richard Oberle to register as write-in candidates. Cynthia Richson defeated Kolar by a 52-48 percent margin, while Richard Oberle trounced Roehl 56-44 percent.

“The people have finally been heard, respected and listened to...This is very exciting for the town,” Richson said moments after getting the voting results … residents (were) upset with the prospect of losing their vote on opting out of county zoning. “That’s taking away a core, fundamental value of our town…and someone had to stand up against it,” she said.

Just when you thought we had a happy ending to this power grab....

Walker to eliminate minimum hours and days for state Schools!!! You'll never guess where he got the idea....

 Like Superintendent Tony Evers said, kids only have one chance to get a good education. And they can't get it back, which makes this experiment irresponsible and unnecessary:

A proposal in Gov. Scott Walker's state budget appears to make Wisconsin the only state with no law aimed at guaranteeing students a minimum number of hours and days of instruction. Walker's budget plan eliminates the state law that calls for public schools and private voucher schools to provide a minimum number of hours of instruction. The proposal in Walker's budget appears to have originated at one of the statewide education agencies in Oshkosh: CESA 6. It would also free virtual charter schools from having to ensure that teachers are available for direct pupil instruction for a minimum number of hours each year. 

State Sen. Luther Olsen (R-Ripon), a member of the Joint Finance Committee and the head of the Senate Education Committee, said he (was) leery of freeing virtual schools from mandates for teacher availability. "If you sign up and no teacher is available..." 

"... There could be nobody there," said state Superintendent Tony Evers, finishing Olsen's sentence.

What the Journal Sentinel article didn't mention at this point about Sen. Olsen, and should have. Wisconsin Watch:

School districts in Wisconsin, faced with a new mandate to evaluate the effectiveness of teachers and other educators, must make a choice and use an assessment model ... (law) crafted by state Sen. Luther Olsen, R-Ripon. The agency administrator of CESA 6, which stands to receive about $1 million a year in taxpayer money from selling this model to schools, is Olsen’s wife, Joan Wade.

The CESAs, or Cooperative Educational Service Agencies, receive most of their money from school districts, in exchange for various programs and services. Wade has a 2013 salary of $131,821, plus $53,809 in benefits, which puts her toward the top among state CESA administrators.

I hope you're sitting because the following is a doozy...welcome to Republican governance:

State ethics officials ruled in an earlier case that Olsen is allowed to take actions that benefit CESAs, despite the connection to his wife, because these agencies serve a public purpose. Wade, a former state legislator, does not see her husband’s role in helping pass legislation that allowed her agency to compete for tax dollars as a conflict of interest. “I don’t make more more because we’re doing this,” Wade said. 

And now we might not have minimum hours and days for public instruction. If that weren't enough, allowing districts to cut back dramatically hoping to get decent testing results on tight budgeted years looms large:

"What happens if you have a year when budgets get tight?" asked Dan Rossmiller, director of government relations for the Wisconsin Association of School Boards. He said the minimum hours requirement is a floor, not a ceiling. But eliminating the minimum hours requirement as well would make Wisconsin the only state without a mandate for minimum hours or days, 

...because it's a bad idea!!!

Ted Neitzke, the head of CESA 6 and the former superintendent of the West Bend School District, said some administrators wanted more flexibility for how they could count minutes of instruction. For example, he said, some Advanced Placement courses require students to read books before the school year starts. Schools don't get credit for that kind of learning time under state law, he said.

Really, Walker would eliminate the minimum hours required to educate our kids and allow districts to cut back due to budget shortfalls is based on letting some schools get credit for learning time over the summer. 

Evers is not in favor of the proposal and said schools were still free to be innovative with instructional time even with the mandate in place.

Current law calls for Wisconsin schools to provide at least 1,050 instructional hours for first- through sixth-graders and at least 1,137 instructional hours for seventh- through 12th-graders. Virtual schools have to ensure teachers are available for direct pupil instruction for those same hours and grades and also for at least 437 hours for kindergarten students.

RyanCare secret negotiations put Financial Burden on the Sick so everyone else can save money.

Secret Negotiations: The GOP's health care reform bill just got a whole lot worse, by punishing Americans who can't stay healthy. Really, what's the problem with people getting sick?

The grotesque idea health care starts with our ability to pay, so insurers can maintain their healthy profit margins, is still not getting the public attention it should.

So everything pouring out of the Freedom Caucus and Paul Ryan's continuing secret negotiations is going to land on the vulnerable sick. And because Ryan's plan is so complex, no one is going to fully understand the following brutal attack on sick people. Let me try...:

The White House is laying the groundwork for negotiations to move quickly,  hinge on Republicans accepting changes to their health care bill that would violate a key promise from President Donald Trump, namely that insurers would have to offer plans to people with pre-existing conditions.

While those regulations would still technically exist, the idea is that the House bill would now allow states to opt out of “community rating” regulations, which compel insurers to offer plans at the same rate for sick people. Conservatives believe those people would then go into so-called high-risk pools for coverage, but the effect would still likely lead to people who need health care the most paying the most ― or not being able to afford coverage at all. NOTE:

(a majority of states ran high-risk pools before the Affordable Care Act, and the pools were notorious for high premiums and deductibles, along with annual or lifetime limits on coverage. In other words, the pools lacked the kind of coverage and protections that people with medical problems need ― and they frequently wouldn’t cover pre-existing conditions for six to 12 months.) 

Ditching those protections would let insurers charge exorbitant rates for people with pre-existing conditions while also offering plans that don’t offer key services, like ... hospitalization or lab services.

Just short of taking out a gun and shooting sick people, Rep. Meadows made this jaw dropping concession:

Freedom Caucus Chairman Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) said when pressed on whether gutting the community rating provisions would allow insurers to charge people with pre-existing conditions more, he acknowledged that some sick people may be picking up the slack so that premiums of the healthy would go down.

“The fundamental idea is that marginally sick people would pay the risk associated with their coverage.”  

Even Charles Krauthammer kind of makes the case for Universal Health Care.

Ah, where are the Democrats? After Paul Ryan's failed and convoluted health insurance failure that would see 24 million Americans lose coverage, why aren't Democrats making the most of this opportunity to push universal care. 

Why are Democrats are so bad at going on the offensive and making their case every time they get in front of a microphone? Seriously, it's so easy to do that even conservative columnist Charles Krauthammer made a convincing case for universal care in the U.S.. Check it out below:

But there is an ideological consideration that could ultimately determine the fate of any Obamacare replacement. Obamacare may turn out to be unworkable, indeed doomed, but it is having a profound effect on the zeitgeist: It is universalizing the idea of universal coverage.

Acceptance of its major premise — that no one be denied health care — is more widespread than ever. Even House Speaker Paul Ryan avers that “our goal is to give every American access to quality, affordable health care,” making universality an essential premise of his own reform. And look at how sensitive and defensive Republicans have been about the possibility of people losing coverage in any Obamacare repeal.

A broad national consensus is developing that health care is indeed a right. This is historically new. And it carries immense implications for the future. It suggests that we may be heading inexorably to a government-run, single-payer system. It’s what Barack Obama once admitted he would have preferred but didn’t think the country was ready for. It may be ready now.

As Obamacare continues to unravel, it won’t take much for Democrats to abandon that Rube Goldberg wreckage and go for the simplicity and the universality of Medicare-for-all. Republicans will have one last chance to try to persuade the country to remain with a market-based system, preferably one encompassing all the provisions that, for procedural reasons, had been left out of their latest proposal.

Don’t be surprised, however, if, in the end, single-payer wins out. Indeed, I wouldn’t be terribly surprised if Donald Trump, reading the zeitgeist, pulls the greatest 180 since Disraeli “dished the Whigs” in 1867 (by radically expanding the franchise) and joins the single-payer side.

He Won, You Lost: Trump looking out for...and avoiding the "Forgotten Men and Women."

It's almost surreal watching pundits try to predict what will happen next in the Trump administration. Seriously, there is no logical rhyme or reason for their actions, no set of government guidelines they're aware of. Trump isn't trying to learn the system, he's winging it, with paranoid anti-government advisers hell bent on gutting 200 years of progress. And don't get me started on nepotism, conflicts of interest, and presidential profiteering.

With that said, let's see what every desperate Trump supporting "forgotten American" will not get for their vote and drooling loyal obedience:

NEW: Dairy farms fear Trump's immigration policies: 

Without the foreign-born help, some farmers say, they would be forced to quit milking cows because there aren’t enough other people willing to accept such physically demanding jobs for $13 an hour.

NEW: Trump’s Hurts Rural communities by spinning off air traffic control from the federal government:

Handing it over to a nonprofit or nongovernmental agency in an effort to modernize operations, critics argue that the interests of the general aviation industry and small airports would not be adequately represented under such a model, and worry that an outside agency would impose new fees and taxes.

“Rural communities, agriculture and small businesses stand to lose the most under a privatized system, where there would be no Congressional oversight to ensure that all stakeholders and communities have access to air transportation,” a group of rural and agricultural organizations wrote in a letter to congressional transportation leaders this week.

NEW: Rural Voters Are Furious As Trump Decimates AMTRAK Budget:

Under Trump’s proposed budget, funding for rail and air transportation to small towns and cities across the nation’s heartland would be completely eliminated or severely cut. Trump is asking Congress to cut $2.4 billion from the transportation budget which would eliminate all federal funding for Amtrak’s national network trains, which provide the only rail serve for 144.6 million Americans in 23 states. That translates into lost jobs, a disincentive for manufacturers to invest there and higher costs for goods and food.

Jim Matthews, President of the NARP said on his group’s website: “These working class communities – many of them located in the Midwest and South – were tired of being treated like ‘flyover country,'” added Matthews. “But by proposing the elmination of Amtrak’s long distance trains, the Trump Administration does them one worse, cutting a vital service that connects these small town economies to the rest of the U.S.'”

NEW:  Senators fight to defend rural air service from Trump budget cuts:

A bipartisan group of senators is fighting to maintain commercial air service in rural communities after the Trump administration called for eliminating federal support for such a program.

Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) said Thursday that he was “floored” by the president’s budget proposal, which proposes cutting all funding for Essential Air Service (EAS). The 40-year-old program helps give small towns and remote communities access to, where it can otherwise be difficult to support financially.

1. Health Care Freedom? 24 million will lose health insurance and everyone else will see co-pays and deductibles skyrocket.

2. Jeff Sessions backs Unconstitutional policing, excessive force and misconduct to combat Uptick in Killings: 

Attorney General Jeff Sessions painted a grim vision of violence in America on Tuesday, telling state law enforcement officials that a recent uptick in killings threatens to undo decades of progress and suggested police would be more effective if they were subjected to less federal scrutiny ... the Trump administration not only plans to scale back the number of new investigations it launches into unconstitutional policing, excessive force and other law enforcement misconduct allegations but also the likelihood it will seek to reopen agreements the Obama civil rights unit had already negotiated.

3. The FCC wants to block dozens of companies from providing low-cost Internet, known as Lifeline to Rural Americans, Vets, and Seniors: 

Saying that state officials should decide whether to allow those companies to participate in the federal program. Through Lifeline, roughly 3.5 million Americans receive a monthly credit worth $9.25 that they then use to reduce the cost of buying mobile or residential broadband. Millions more use the subsidy to purchase traditional phone service. The program created during the Reagan administration, supports seniors, veterans and rural Americans who otherwise cannot afford phone or Internet service. It is not funded by taxpayer dollars but by the fees collected on consumers' phone bills each month. Opponents of the decision said the move will limit struggling Americans' ability to choose a good provider, particularly in rural or low-income areas. "The Chairman’s position stands in stark contrast to his stated aim to close the digital divide," said the consumer group Public Knowledge, "by raising barriers to affordable choices available to low-income families."

4. Small, mid-size manufacturers may lose consulting services in Donald Trump budget. 

Trump’s budget proposes to eliminate federal funds to the Manufacturing Extension Partnership (MEP) program that make up nearly half of the revenues for the Wisconsin Center for Manufacturing and Productivity … MEP “has a direct impact on manufacturing, and when you start talking about measurable impact, over the history of the program the whole national system has a return of $12 to $1,” Buckley Brinkman, CEO of Wisconsin Center for Manufacturing and Productivity.

5. Making it harder for Wisconsin residents to stay warm in the winter: 

President Trump’s budget eliminates the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program, which helps people with low incomes heat their homes. In 2016, 199,190 people in the state received federal heating assistance … President Trump’s budget proposal eliminates that assistance.

6. Making it more difficult for struggling students to keep out of trouble and stay in school.

Trump’s budget zeroes out funding for community learning centers, which provide after-school programs for students in school districts in low-income areas … Community learning centers get results, despite the claims of Trump’s budget director.  An evaluation of Wisconsin community learning centers showed that the centers helped students miss fewer days of school and have fewer out-of-school suspensions. Students participating in the programs were more likely to graduate from high school, and more likely to continue their education after high school.

7. Harder to keep Wisconsin shorelines clean: 

Presidents Trump’s budget wipes out $300 million in funding for the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative, which pays for projects that improve water quality, protect and restore native habitats and species, and address environmental problems in Wisconsin and other Great Lakes states. Scott Walker opposes Trump’s proposed cuts, saying that “the Great Lakes are an incredible asset. They’re an asset from a commercial standpoint in terms of fishing and tourism, but also in general in terms of quality of life.”

8. By denying equal access justice to people with low incomes: 

Trump’s budget axes the Legal Services Corporation, which in 2016 provided $5 million to organizations in Wisconsin to provide free legal services for people who can’t afford a lawyer. Last year, almost 16,000 Wisconsin residents were helped by these legal services.

9. Shifting costs to our state government and making it harder to balance the state budget. 

Federal money makes up almost a third of the Wisconsin state budget. Federal money provides health care coverage for families and individuals with low incomes, supports research at the University of Wisconsin, and strengthens Wisconsin’s transportation network. Trump’s budget would cut the money coming into the state, leaving Wisconsin on the hook to make up part of the nearly $11 billion per year in these federal investments.

10. Trump Pulls Back Obama-Era Protections For Women Workers: 

Trumprevoked the 2014 Fair Pay and Safe Workplaces order then-President Barack Obama put in place to ensure that companies with federal contracts comply with 14 labor and civil rights laws. The Fair Pay order was put in place after a 2010 Government Accountability Office investigation showed that companies with rampant violations were being awarded millions in federal contracts.

In an attempt to keep the worst violators from receiving taxpayer dollars, the Fair Pay order included two rules that impacted women workers: paycheck transparency and a ban on forced arbitration clauses for sexual harassment, sexual assault or discrimination claims.

We're about to find out how big a problem "government" is, once it's been eliminated. Remember...

Republicans (72%) are twice as likely as Democrats (37%) to agree with former President Ronald Reagan that “government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Fifty-six percent (56%) of unaffiliated votes share that view.

It that were true, then why are private educators, manufacturers, and corporate CEO's always trying to get the government to fork over more and more of our taxpayer dollars?  

Right-Wing Campus Group creates "Professor Watchlist!!!" Now that's Academic Freedom.

While a new wave of white supremacist groups are infiltrating our college campuses...: 

White supremacists have held minor campaigns on college campuses in the past, but an unprecedented amount of hate-group propaganda and a rebranding of white supremacy as “alt-right” have been especially geared to recruit and provoke college students in recent months. A recent report by the Anti-Defamation League cited at least 107 incidents of white-supremacist propaganda on college campuses since September, at least 65 of which have occurred since January. Posters with messages like “Make America white again” and “Imagine a Muslim-free America” have been found in high-traffic areas on campuses in 25 states.

...at the same time Republican legislators are using academic freedom to clamp down on real academic freedom. The timing isn't a coincidence:

Conservative critics have opened a new chapter of their long-running complaints about institutions such as UW-Madison ... It could also foreshadow new legislation that seeks to change what many Republicans see as a lack of “intellectual diversity” on college campuses, by pushing institutions to invite more conservative speakers and hire more right-leaning faculty.
Speaker Robin Vos, (R), who last year called for UW institutions to invite more conservative speakers, has indicated that he wants to see the System’s funding tied to the variety of voices on campus...

In December he and Rep. David Murphy, (R), criticized a course on white identity and racism titled “The Problem of Whiteness.” Sen. Steve Nass, (R), told his colleagues that a program in which students discuss masculinity amounted to the university declaring a “war on men.”

Which begs the question...

Donald Moynihan, director of UW-Madison’s La Follette School of Public Affairs said, “Would you start looking at people’s voting registrations, or who they had donated money to? The degree to which this would be government intrusiveness on people’s lives would be mind-boggling.”

...which has now been answered by right wing Brownshirt's... 

Turning Point USA has put together a list of academics that they say discriminate against conservative students and use their lectures to push their left-wing propaganda. But what about the first amendment?

Turning Point USA's Charlie Kirk laughed at, even scoffed at the idea that this is somehow "Hitlerian," but historically....

The practice of Hitlerian authorities removing professors for any but scholastic reasons … Still others left because they would not subject their conscience to the dictates of the National Socialist ideologies as preached by the govern­ment. 

A professor at the University of Rostock demanded from the German government, which controlled all univer­sities, that he be given a clear guarantee that the government leave unimpaired his freedom to seek and teach the truth. Despite his prominence in his field, he was ousted from his position.