No Runny Eggs

Because of unpredictable Hurricane Wilma, the NFL decided to move up the Chiefs-Dolphins game to Friday night at 6 pm (sorry, no live TV coverage outside the Miami/Kansas City home markets). That puts a bit of a crimp in my theorizing, which has netted me a 50-38-2 start to the season against the line. Oh well, once more into the breach with the Friday AM line from Yahoo, with the standard reminders that this is for entertainment purposes only and that if you do decide to gamble based on this, I’m not responsible for any taxes, losses or legal matters.

Kansas City (+1.5) @ Miami – I know it’s a short week, but I still can’t figure out why the Dolphins are favored.
Pittsburgh (+1) @ Cincinnati – Big Ben’s back.
Detroit @ Cleveland (-3) – And thus the string of NFC North losses on the road continues, until…
Green Bay (-1.5) @ Minnesota – …the Packers take the Toilet Bowl. Duh Viqueens figured out how to choke early and often. For extra money, go with the over 44.
Indianapolis (-15) @ Houston – I’m very tempted to take Indy -45 (the over/under).
San Diego (+3.5) @ Philadelphia – You may like/want/get the points, but you’re not gonna need them. LT is going to run wild on the Eaglets.
New Orleans @ St Louis (-3) – Take the over of 47.
San Francisco @ Washington (-13) – The Redskins defense will outscore San Francisco.
Dallas @ Seattle (-3.5) – Both teams have serious injuries, but Dallas has the worse end of the stick.
Baltimore (+1) @ Chicago – This isn’t an NFC North opponent.
Tennessee @ Arizona (-3.5) – The Cards will find the end zone early and often for a change.
Denver @ NY Giants (-2) – Jimmy Hoffa would approve of this pick.
Buffalo (+3) @ Oakland – Guess Randy Moss felt guilty for missing The Love Boat; he won’t be playing.
NY Jets @ Atlanta (-7) – Come on, say it with me – J-E-T-S SUCK! SUCK! SUCK!

There’s a curious headline in today’s Journal Sentinel racist Jentinel, Franklin tries to stifle taxes. While it’s true that the levy increase of 3.9% is less than the 5.4% increase allowed (due to explosive growth of that amount), and that thanks to a lack of reassessment, there would be a $22 tax cut on a “median” home of $182,200 (heh; try finding 10 $182,200 homes in the tax hell known as Franklin, I double-dare you), it’s partly smoke and mirrors. Despite becoming a full-blown tax hell in the last decade (between municipal and school taxes, Franklin boasts one of the highest tax burdens around), spending is up 4.2% because, among other things, Franklin raids its contingency fund to the tune of $740,000 (the second year in the row they raided that fund), and pulls a Doyle on $289,000 in landfill fees that were to go to debt service, transfering that amount to the general fund.

I had a sleepless night following Wilma as she prepares to crash into Cancun, but all sorts of alarm bells are going off in my sleep-deprived head. I strongly suspect that because that $289,000 in debt service will need to be replaced, taxes will go up even more than expected next year thanks to the “debt-service loophole”. Also, there’s that $1,480,000 hole in the rainy-day fund that will need to be replenished sooner or later.

Also in the story, St. Francis is proposing a 2.98% levy increase (it could have raised it by 4.6% thanks to the lakefront condo development), and West Allis mayor Jeanette Bell whines that the 2.75% increase she’s forced to live with isn’t enough.

Aaron of Subject to Change has the current Carnival of the Badger up. I’m honored to be part of the treasure hunt.

Sorry about not blogging much for a bit; I’ve been distracted by Wilma and a bit under the weather.

National Review Online has a PDF copy of Miers’ Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire. It does have a promising answer on the “judicial activism” question, but otherwise contains no new evidence of what her judicial philosophy is. More-telling, however, is how the left side of the Judiciary Committee received it – both Arlen “Scottish Law” Specter and the ‘Rats denounced it as content-free. I guess they’re troubled that she won’t give them assurances that she considers Roe v Wade to be an “uber-precedent”.