No Runny Eggs

The repository of one hard-boiled egg from the south suburbs of Milwaukee, Wisconsin (and the occassional guest-blogger). The ramblings within may or may not offend, shock and awe you, but they are what I (or my guest-bloggers) think.

Archive for July 2nd, 2009

The Unpersoning begins, with the proposed elimination of Reagan from Reagan National

by @ 15:47. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – JammieWearingFool)

Barbara Hollingsworth of the Washington Examiner reports that a Washington Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority Board member told his colleagues that there is discussion on Capitol Hill to strip President Ronald Reagan’s name from Reagan National Airport.

I don’t know if they’re taking their cues from Gov. Jim Doyle, who has repeatedly refused to acknowledge Reagan’s presence in the Oval Office, or Iosif Stalin, the man who moved “unperson” from fiction to reality.

Revisions/extensions (4:04 pm 7/2/2009) – An anonymous commenter over at JWF brought this item from Debbie Schlussel to my attention – the “LT G W BUSH” stenciled on the F-102 flown by President George W. Bush during his tour of duty with the Texas National Guard on base guard duty at Ellington Field in Houston, Texas, was removed sometime after 1/20/2009, supposedly in preparation for the plane’s repainting, and has not been restored.

Hello, Is It Me You’re Looking For?

Today’s headlines:

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden has arrived in Baghdad

Um, did someone forget to tell joltin’ Joe:

The vice president’s visit comes just two days after the United States withdrew troops from Iraqi cities.

Now that the troops have gone, Joe gets to play with Iraq:

The White House on Tuesday appointed Biden to oversee Iraq policy.

I guess even President Obama recognizes it’s not safe to let Biden play while there’s live ammunition around!

In honor of Joe:

H/T the Athletic Shoe

RPW – It might be a job-killing budget if…

by @ 12:52. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

My friends at the Republican Party of Wisconsin went all Jeff Foxworthy on the DemoBudget:

As Governor Doyle tours the state promoting a job-killing budget he signed into law on Monday, he’s been touting the potential for the budget to create jobs. However, there are a few things he forgot to mention…

Hey, Governor Doyle:

When your budget will kill more jobs than it helps to create…it might be a job-killing budget.

When your budget increases spending by 6.2% during an economic recession…it might be a job-killing budget.

When your budget replaces $2.2 billion in ongoing state funding expenses with federal stimulus money hyped as job-creation spending…it might be a job-killing budget.

When your budget cuts funding for Forward Wisconsin, the state’s business-promotion group, at a time Wisconsin is losing hundreds of jobs to other states…it might be a job-killing budget.

When your budget raises taxes on small businesses and corporations alike…it might be a job-killing budget.

When your budget increases taxes on investments by $243 million…it might be a job-killing budget.

When the cost to do business is going up on everything from the phone bill to the cost of waste disposal but protects an earmark for recycling bins in one town only…it might be a job-killing budget.

When businesses move hundreds of jobs out of Wisconsin citing burdensome taxes you approved to balance the books…it might be a job-killing budget.

If you still think this budget creates jobs…you might be Governor Jim Doyle.

I’ve got one more – when the budget creates a brand-new, higher tax bracket for the more-successful of small business owners…it might be a job-killing budget.

WaPo now selling itself as the official paper of the ObamiNation – UPDATE – Sale cancelled, stench remains

(H/T – Karl, who uses my term to describe it)

Politico reports that the Washington Post is circulating flyers to lobbyists offering access to its reporters, members of Congress, and Obama administration officials, for between $25,000 and $250,000 per meeting. Politico reposts the text of the flyer that a health care lobbyist received from the Post:

“Underwriting Opportunity: An evening with the right people can alter the debate,” says the one-page flier. “Underwrite and participate in this intimate and exclusive Washington Post Salon, an off-the-record dinner and discussion at the home of CEO and Publisher Katharine Weymouth. … Bring your organization’s CEO or executive director literally to the table. Interact with key Obama administration and congressional leaders …

“Spirited? Yes. Confrontational? No. The relaxed setting in the home of Katharine Weymouth assures it. What is guaranteed is a collegial evening, with Obama administration officials, Congress members, business leaders, advocacy leaders and other select minds typically on the guest list of 20 or less. …

“Offered at $25,000 per sponsor, per Salon. Maximum of two sponsors per Salon. Underwriters’ CEO or Executive Director participates in the discussion. Underwriters appreciatively acknowledged in printed invitations and at the dinner. Annual series sponsorship of 11 Salons offered at $250,000 … Hosts and Discussion Leaders … Health-care reporting and editorial staff members of The Washington Post … An exclusive opportunity to participate in the health-care reform debate among the select few who will actually get it done. … A Washington Post Salon … July 21, 2009 6:30 p.m.”

As mhking would say, “Just Damn!” Somehow, I doubt that the WaPo either has registered as a lobbyist, or the money spent on this lobbying effort will get reported.

Revisions/extensions (10:04 am 7/2/2009) – The Post sent this trial lead balloon to Politico:

The flier circulated this morning came out of a business division for conferences and events, and the newsroom was unaware of such communication. It went out before it was properly vetted, and this draft does not represent what the company’s vision for these dinners are, which is meant to be an independent, policy-oriented event for newsmakers. As written, the newsroom could not participate in an event like this.

We do believe there is an opportunity to have a conferences and events business, and that The Post should be leading these conversations in Washington, big or small, while maintaining journalistic integrity.

The newsroom will participate where appropriate.

I believe my bullshit meter just pegged.

R&E part 2 (10:17 am 7/2/2009) – Sister Toldjah has the killer headline on this one – “The WaPo or the WaHO”.

Meanwhile, the commenters over at HotAir dug up an interesting January 2001 WaPo editorial:

Gone from any of this is the notion that people give money to candidates or parties for reasons of governing philosophy or positions on issues. The big-money folks give to those who have won or might win. Those in power threaten the contributors in plain language: Give to us or you’ll be squeezed out of the game; give too much to the other guys and you’ll be sorry. It’s the kind of sordid operation that a Mafia don would understand, and both parties play with equal vigor. “We’re a hot ticket these days,” one Democratic fundraiser boasted to The Post. “The fifty-fifty split [in the Senate] means something. People want to play, for sure.”

Plenty of members of Congress dislike what they have become, which is one factor that gives reform this year at least a ghost of a chance. They’d rather be legislating than extorting. But as Arizona Sen. John McCain’s battle for change an uphill one. But the sickening spectacle of a speaker-for-rent as a commonplace of Washington politics makes reform as urgent as it is difficult.

Why do I get the feeling this was an intended, rather than an unintended, consequence of McCain-Feingold?

R&E part 3 (10:22 am 7/2/2009) – HotAir commenter thomasaur has the perfect comment:

Presstitutes working for W. H. O. R. E.

White

House

Office
of
Reality

Enhancement

R&E part 4 (12:11 pm 7/2/2009) – With a tip of the hat to Ed Morrissey, the Post’s Howard Kurtz is now saying that the series has been cancelled. Of course, the less-destructive meme that they were selling access to themselves is getting a lot more play than the probably-illegal one of them selling access to the politicians outside the scope of lobbying laws.

Attention outstate Wisconsin residents

by @ 9:45. Filed under Envirowhackos, Politics - Wisconsin.

(H/T – The Lake-Dwelling Paul)

The Lakeland Times reports that the Department of Natural Resources (or as Dad29 aptly calls the agency, “Damn Near Russia”) has submitted the final draft of its rewrite to administrative rule NR115, the “Shoreland Protection Program”, to the Legislature, triggering the 30-day review process before it has the full force of law. For those of you city-slickers who don’t know what this will do to Wisconsin, let’s compare what the DNR is about to do to the current version of NR115:

  • Big item #1 – instead of merely applying to unincorporated areas (i.e. townships) of Wisconsin, it will also apply to those areas annexed by a city or village after May 7, 1982, or incorporated as a city or village after April 30, 1994.
  • Big item #2 – it creates a fresh limitation of a 15% impervious surface limit (including rooftops, i.e. structures, and driveways) without stormwater mitigation and a 30% impervious surface limit with mitigation. That applies to both riparian (shoreline) and nonriparian properties within 1,000 feet of the high-water mark (i.e. shore) of lakes and within 300 feet of the shore of rivers. Routine maintenance of structures, as well as in-kind replacement of walkways, driveways and patios on lots which are in noncompliance, would be allowed.
  • Instead of the boat hoists, piers, and boathouses currently allowed to be constructed within 75 feet of shore, some gazebos/decks/patios/screen houses, fishing rafts only on the Wolf and Wisconsin Rivers, small-diameter antennas, walkways, stairways and rail systems for pedestrian access to the shore, ultility structures that cannot be placed elsewhere can be constructed. While one section of the new rules does allow boathouses without plumbing and entirely above the high-water line, another prohibits all boathouses above the high-water line.
  • Within 35 feet of shore, instead of allowing up to 30 feet out of every 100 feet, regardless of lot lines, to generally be cleared of vegetation, the lesser of 30% of the shore frontage or 200 feet per parcel can generally be cleared. That clearance is now called “access and viewing corridors”.
  • Instead of allowing counties, at their discretion, to prohibit alteration/addition/repair of existing nonconforming buidings within 75 feet of shore if the cost is more than 50% of the assessed value of the structure, it allows alteration/addition/repair of existing nonconforming “principal structures” regardless of cost as long as they are at least 35 feet from shore, no expansion towards the shore happens, and the new impervious-surface limit is not exceeded. If any portion of an expansion is within 75 feet of shore, a mitigation plan would be required. Nonconforming “temporary” structures may be orderd to be removed.
  • It also creates a new requirement for the replacement or relocation of a nonconforming “principle structure”, which includes a mitigation plan to be in place, a requriement that the new/relocated structure be no closer to shore than the structure to be replaced, and the removal of all other nonconforming structures.

It isn’t quite the complete fallow prairie shoreline they wanted, but it’s a big step in the wrong direction. Given the Democrats control both houses of the Legislature, and the DNR has been trying to get this done for a decade, we’re going to be stuck with it for a while.

Hasta La Vista Baby!

by @ 5:41. Filed under Economy.

As part of an attempt to balance the California budget, Governor Schwarzenegger has proposed closing to the public 220 State parks.  The proposal would save approximately $143 million dollars.  Mixed into the 220 parks proposed to be closed, are 6 parks which were transferred to California from the Federal Government. 

According to NewsMax:

National Park Service Regional Director Jonathan Jarvis warned in a letter to Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger that all six occupy former federal land that could revert to the U.S. government if the state fails to keep the parks open.

“Lands conveyed to the State under the Federal Lands to Parks Program must be open for public park and recreation use in perpetuity as a condition of the deed,” Jarvis warned in a June 8 letter to Schwarzenegger made public Wednesday.

The state could also lose future parks funding, Jarvis warned. California has received $286 million from the federal government since 1965 benefiting 67 parks on Schwarzenegger’s closure list, Jarvis said.

Um, yeah, so what?  Is this really so hard to decide?  Has Jarvis made a point that Schwarzenegger should care about at all?  NO!

California’s budget problem is not a one year issue.  California has created a situation that will take them many years to correct, if at all.  It’s not like California is going to suddenly find a solution that will allow them to back to spending something that is about 1/3 more than they have today.

Oh, and the $286 million that Jarvis is threatening with…My math says that amounts to less than $7 million /year.  Not much when you are looking at what is now, at $26 Billion dollar deficit!

I see California having two outcomes if they close the parks; either the National Park Service who has a significant funding shortfall of their own, quits rattling sabres and the parks stay with California or the National Park Service goes through with their threat and runs the parks themselves.  Is this really a difficult choice?  Is there some choice that causes the oceans to recede and temperatures to cool that I haven’t hit upon?

Governor Schwarzenegger ought to call the National Park Service’s bluff and tell them either “Be my guest” or maybe “Hasta la vista, baby!”

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]