Comments on: So much for the political advantage

By: Jenny

Jenny — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 05:01:07 +0000

You forgot Scott Suder

By: K. Carpenter

K. Carpenter — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:50:04 +0000

Actually, Random10- legislators are not supposed to vote their conscience- they are to represent their constituents- period.

Whether we like to face it or not, there are Republicans in our legislators representing people who want tax increases. There are actually conservatives in the outlying regions that believe they are getting the shaft when it comes to roads, schools and health care.

Yes- I know there are farmers willing to face tax increases because they want Badger Care expanded, so there children will be covered.

There are some folks who want a gas tax because they need roads too and southeast Wisconsin gets all of the money.

Once of the tax increases in this budget has gotten very little media attention. It is called a tipping fee and this was one of the biggest problems in the western part of the state. Folks are traveling across the border from Minnesota and dumping their trash. They pay a tipping fee in order to do this. It costs these out of state folks $3 per ton of garbage- that is it.

The tipping fee tax was increased and it could very well be the sole reason some of the Republicans in the outlying parts of the state supported this budget.

I know it sounds crazy, but some of these Republicans are just representing the people that voted for them. Their constituents vote Republican all the time, every time.

Many of these Republicans still stood tall for months and months fighting against the gas tax, even though their constituents were demanding their representatives get them more money for their roads.

On this side of the state, we expect these conservative representatives to fight for us when we need them. The same is true going in the opposite direction. We need to recognize the problems in outlying Wisconsin, understand that many are staunch conservatives, and help them get their fair share of tax dollars. Right now they are not.

By: steveegg

steveegg — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 04:05:13 +0000

That, upon reflection, makes me question his insight into his opponent's caucus, especially on an issue he just got done negotiating with them. Even with the uncorrected margin of error, it would have taken an unusually high number of unknowns to screw up the deal (not that I would have had a problem with that). As for the "bi-partisan" bit, what, 18 17 Pubbies wasn't enough? If not, then that would be the first time in recorded history that many Pubbies caving to the 'Rats, especially out of only 52, isn't enough to produce "bi-partisanship". Revisions/extensins (12:08 am 10/25/2007) - Corrected the count because I originally forgot somebody.

By: Random10

Random10 — Thu, 25 Oct 2007 03:42:41 +0000

The 1st rule of legislative leadership is don’t bring something to a vote until you know the vote total. I believe Huebsch let enough of the no tax increase pledgers off so they could retain their street cred with the base. On the other hand, he needed to show enough Republican support in the vote to make a valid bi-partisan claim. Beside, you always want enough insurance just in case some last minute unknown turns a vote or two.

Perhaps I’m too cynical but the idea of legislators voting their true conscious just no longer seems plausible.