define('DISALLOW_FILE_EDIT', true); define('DISALLOW_FILE_MODS', true); No Runny Eggs » Politics

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 the 'Politics' Category

January 31, 2008

Presidential Pool: A time of choosing

by @ 6:38. Filed under Politics - National.

Revisions/extensions (11:44 pm 1/3/2008) – This was originally posted 12:51 pm 12/17/2007; I bumped this to the top because the Iowa caucus is today. Also, I redacted Tom Tancredo’s bit; he dropped out after the initial posting.

R&E part 2 (5:08 pm 1/3/2008) – I didn’t realize that with “pretty” permalinks, I had destroyed those that had linked to the page before I bumped this up to the top. Sorry about that. I fixed that oversight.

R&E part 3 (7:58 pm 1/7/2008) – Back to the top again just in time for New Hampshire.

R&E part 4 (5:59 am 1/29/2008) – Cold, hard reality has set in with the ouster of Fred Thompson and Duncan Hunter. At this point, I can’t recommend anybody, but I’ll put this back at the top.

R&E part 5 (6:37 am 1/31/2008) – Call it rationalization, call it what you will, but if the Double Talk Express wants to lie through his teeth, I will do whatever I can to stop him. Also, scratch Rudy Giuliani.

I wanted to do this last week as a companion piece to the “24 campaigning days to Iowa” one, but things got a bit topsy-turvy. John Washburn took me to task for not including Ron Paul in the look at why the top-runners would and would not get their party’s nomination; I’ll briefly explain why not. While Paul’s support is a mile deep, with another $4 million+ money bomb yesterday, in terms of Republican voters, it’s two feet wide, with no real support in any early-state poll.

With that bit of housekeeping out of the way, it’s time to note that there are 17 campaigning days until the Iowa caucuses and climb the molehill. Wisconsin set its too-late-to-matter Republican primary ballot order in a very convenient way for me (H/T – Jib/Badger Blog Alliance), so that’s the order I’ll take the candidates. John, and supporters of Tom Tancredo and Duncan Hunter, will be glad to know I’ll include them this time.

Rudy Giuliani

Why I could support him: He is very willing to engage in the war against radical Islam, indeed calling it just that. He says he wants to appoint conservative judges. He has a track record of cutting taxes.

What mitigates against supporting him: Oh, where to begin? Let’s start with his unabashed support of Roe v Wade and subsequent court rulings imposing abortion-on-demand from the bench. Instead of cutting spending to match cut taxes, he raised fees. He ran a sanctuary city. He loves the idea of grabbing guns. I could go on all day, but I’m out of time.
The policy takeaway: Given I believe that borders are meant to be enforced, the role of government and especially the judicial branch is to be limited, and the Second Amendment means we the people can defend ourselves against among other things a tyrannical government, I cannot support Giuliani in the primary.

Mike Huckabee

Why I could support him: He won’t attack Christianity or gun owners.

What mitigates against supporting him: Oh, where to begin, part deux? I’ll start with his tax record; he begged for tax hikes while in Arkansas. Staying with taxes, he wants a national sales tax of 30% to replace everything else. He is a lover of big-government solutions to problems. He likes the idea of an intrusive government. He is, at best, terribly naiive on foreign policy and at worst the second coming of Jimmy Carter. Once again, I could go on all day, but I’m out of time.
The policy takeaway: There is absolutely, positively nothing conservative about Huckabee, so I cannot support him in the primary.

Duncan Hunter

Why I could support him: He recognizes we need a secure southern border, and pretty much alone among the candidates, he recognizes the threat that Red China poses.

What mitigates against supporting him: His support of the “Fair”Tax.
The policy takeaway: Hunter is very intriguing.

John McCain

Why I could support him: He’s pretty tough on the war against radical Islam, and very outspoken against pork-barrel spending.

What mitigates against supporting him: Again, where to begin? He does not comprehend the First Amendment. He has a rabid opposition to tax cuts (not to be confused with his opposition to tax hikes). He has a mistaken, though personally-justifiable, aversion to torture and near-torture.
The policy takeaway: Between McCain-Feingold and his opposition to tax cuts to try to force a cut in spending, out goes McCain in the primary consideration.

Ron Paul

Why I could support him: On most domestic issues, he is a Constitutionalist.

What mitigates against supporting him: How many times am I going to ask, “Where to begin?” Let’s start with a complete lack of comprehension of how those outside of the United States think. I’ll toss in a lack of knowledge of world history. He is a goldbug who refuses to acknowledge the Golden Age of Gold has ended.
The policy takeaway: Given I’m an amateur student of history, Paul’s lack of comprehension is a disqualifier in the primary.

Mitt Romney

Why I could support him: All of his flips have been to the right.

What mitigates against supporting him: He who flips tends to flop back (I didn’t mention it earlier, but Michelle Malkin has the transcript on the flopback on amnesty). One of those flips that haven’t happened and indeed was reinforced was his gun-grabbing tendency.
The policy takeaway: If only I could believe,….

Tom Tancredo

Why I could support him: He is the strongest candidate against illegal immigration. He does exhibit some federalist tendencies.

What mitigates against supporting him: He also is the strongest candidate against legal immigration.
The policy takeaway: So close, yet so far.

Fred Thompson

Why I could support him: He’s strong on the war against radical Islam, his tax plan (borrowed from my Congressman, Paul Ryan) is eminently supportable, and he has serious federalist tendencies.

What mitigates against supporting him: He had a significant lapse of reason regarding the First Amendment, and that was only partially remedied.
The policy takeaway: He’s the second-most-intriguing candidate on the issues.

With the policy cases made, I can now take intangibles into account, such as popularity. I would have recommended Duncan Hunter, and indeed, I have donated to his campaign, but he failed to catch on with even the Republican faithful. Similarily, I would have recommended (and did recommend) Fred Thompson, but once again, he didn’t catch on with even the Republican faithful outside the blogosphere.

Taking everything into account, I am recommending Fred Thompson nobody at this time Mitt Romney in the Republican Presidential primary.

Revisions/extensions (11:18 pm 1/1/2008) – Welcome, those of you who followed in from the subtle pimping over at Hot Air. Well, Michael in MI asked for a listing of each candidate’s strengths and weaknesses, and I had noticed a certain lack of collation of same. I am usually a man of few words, but I tried to stick to “hard” items I could verify.

McCain MUST be stopped

by @ 6:35. Filed under Politics - National.

Folks, I don’t know if you paid any attention to last night’s debate, or the McCain/Alito mess, but between McCain saying in private and denying in public that Justice Alito is too conservative, McCain outright lying about Mitt Romney’s position on Iraq when he had the exact same position a couple months prior, and McCain’s double-talk on the Bush tax cuts, he cannot be allowed to get the nomination.

I’m now on my third choice for President, and while I said I wouldn’t support Mitt Romney nearly as much as I did Fred Thompson, I’d rather deal with the flips I do and don’t know than the knives I know will be shoved in my back. Therefore, I’m officially a FredHead for Mitt.

The judicial nail in McCain’s coffin (R&E part 2 – confirmed and bumped)

by @ 0:38. Filed under Lawgivers-In-Black, Politics - National.

Revisions/extensions part 2 (12:38 am 1/31/2008, H/T – Allahpundit) – Since Robert Novak has double-blind-sourced this (triple-or-more sourced assuming those two sources weren’t lying about not being John Fund’s source), this thing is back on the top after an initial posting at 1:53 pm 1/28/2008.

I had been unwilling to bring John Fund’s assertion that John McCain would not have nominated Justice Sam Alito to your attention, mainly because, like Bull Dog Pundit, I was concerned that it was unsourced and uncollaborated. However, since Kathryn Jean Lopez has collaborated it and Rich Lowry notes that the Straight Double Talk Express response doesn’t exactly deal with the charge, it’s time to toss it all out there:

More recently, Mr. McCain has told conservatives he would be happy to appoint the likes of Chief Justice John Roberts to the Supreme Court. But he indicated he might draw the line on a Samuel Alito, because “he wore his conservatism on his sleeve.” (John Fund’s column)

(Steve) Schmidt (of the McCain camp) was a major player in the Alito confirmation fight, and says this: “It’s absolutely false. Sen. McCain was instrumental is helping confirm Justice Alito. We relied on him a great deal during the confirmation process to reassure the American people that Alito was the kind of justice America needed. John McCain was a warrior to get Alito on the bench.” (McCain camp’s response per Rich Lowry)

The non-denial denial isn’t exactly selling. Bryan Preston sums it up best (as usual):

…Second, is Alito really too conservative by McCain’s lights to be a SCOTUS nominee under a McCain presidency? McCain needs to answer this immediately. Different types of conservatives vote based on many things, but judges have to rank in the top five for nearly all of us. While most conservatives have soured on the Bush presidency either because of spending or immigration or this or that policy, most of us still consider Bush’s SCOTUS nominees (minus Miers) to be reason enough to consider his presidency, on balance, worth support and certainly better than the alternatives that were available in 2000 and 2004. If McCain won’t appoint nominees similar to Bush’s, no speech at CPAC will help him repair the rift with conservatives, and conservatives don’t have much reason to support him if he’s the GOP nominee.

If McCain truly does consider Alito to be too conservative, then on judges even Rudy Giuliani is to McCain’s right and would make a less problematic GOP nominee than McCain.

I do take issue with the assertion that Giuliani would be better than McCain on the issue of judges. While Giuliani has said that he would appoint “strict constructionists”, he also signaled that he would reject any potential nominee that does not believe in stare decisis, specifically with regard to abortion.

Revisons/extensions (2:18 pm 1/28/2008) – Byron York got some face time with McCain and asked him point-blank about this:

“Let me just look you in the eye,” McCain told me. “I’ve said a thousand times on this campaign trail, I’ve said as often as I can, that I want to find clones of Alito and Roberts. I worked as hard as anybody to get them confirmed. I look you in the eye and tell you I’ve said a thousand times that I wanted Alito and Roberts. I have told anybody who will listen. I flat-out tell you I will have people as close to Roberts and Alito [as possible], and I am proud of my record of working to get them confirmed, and people who worked to get them confirmed will tell you how hard I worked.”

“I don’t get it,” McCain continued. “I have a clear record of that. All I can tell you is my record is clear: I’ve supported these guys. I went to the floor of the Senate and spoke in favor of them. It’s in the record, saying, ‘You’ve got to confirm these people.'”

I asked whether McCain had ever drawn any distinction between Roberts and Alito. “No, no, of course not,” McCain said.

I asked about the “wore his conservatism on his sleeve” line. “I’m proud of people who wear their conservatism on their sleeves, because they have to have a clear record of strict adherence to the Constitution,” McCain told me. “Remember, in all my remarks, I’ve said, look, we’re not going to take somebody’s word for it. You have to have a clear record of adherence to the Constitution, a strict interpretation of the Constitution. I have said that time after time after time.”

On this issue of the quote/non-quote, the ball is back in Fund’s (and Lopez’s) court. McCain went on to defend the Gang of 14, and gave a piss-poor defense of that. It really is an issue for another post, but it reinforces the basic objections I have with McCain regarding conservative judges.

Republican Presidential nominees, 1956-2004

by @ 0:26. Filed under Politics - National.

James Taranto, who is still running the last surviving element of OpinionJournal.com, the Best of the Web, points out an interesting and disturbing trend in Republican Presidential nominees over the last 48 years. I’ll distill out the two one-person items in that trend, previous nominee (Richard Nixon) and immediate relative of a previous President (George W. Bush), and point out that, except for 1964 and 2000 (which have their own unique “next in line” aspects), Republican nominees have fallen into one (or more) of these three categories:

  • Sitting President (1956, 1972, 1976, 1984, 1992, 2004)
  • Sitting or former Vice President (1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1988, 1992)
  • Runner-up in the previous seriously-contested nomination (1980, 1988, 1996*)

* Bob Dole was the runner-up in 1988 and Pat Buchanan finished 2nd in 1992; however, Buchanan did not win a single state in 1992 and had at the end 18 delegates.

In sum, every single Republican nominee the previous 13 election cycles has been either the incumbent or the one with the strongest “next-in-line” case. That’s bad news for those of us who would rather eat broken glass dipped in arsenic and radioactive goo than have John McCain as the next Republican nominee because McCain is undeniably the next in line.

Revisions/extensions (7:50 am 6/21/2008) – I thought I had expounded a bit on the special case of 1964, but I hadn’t. Barry Goldwater actually finished well down in the 1960 election season, but he was the highest-finishing serious candidate to run in 1964, as everybody who finished ahead of him either chose not to run or couldn’t due to death.

Also, I can’t explain why WordPress is claiming there are two comments, while there is only one. Fixed via database hack.

January 30, 2008

McCain supported “benchmarks” before he didn’t

by @ 22:56. Filed under Politics - National, War on Terror.

(H/T – Ace via Bryan)

I don’t know if the Navy taught A-4 flyers to check six back in the early 1960s, but if they did, John McCain forgot the lesson. Commit this little nugget from the Arizona Star circa January, 2007 to memory:

Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., one of the most stalwart supporters of the war in Iraq, said Thursday that he might propose that the Iraqi government meet certain benchmarks for the United States to continue its engagement.

Fellow senators and independent political scientists said McCain’s thinking reflected growing concerns within the Republican Party about the course of the war, and also might mark a turning point for the likely 2008 presidential contender, whose previous unconditional backing of the war may have hurt his prospects.

McCain said Thursday that he hadn’t yet decided on precise benchmarks. "They’d have to be specific, and they (Iraqi government officials) would have to meet them," he said.

Asked what penalty would be imposed if Iraq failed to meet his benchmarks, he said: "I think everybody knows the consequences. Haven’t met the benchmarks? Obviously, then, we’re not able to complete the mission. Then you have to examine your options."

Say, wasn’t “benchmarks” the buzzword for “cut and run” at that time? Damn if my “Double Talk Express” play on McCain’s trademark phrase isn’t accurate once again.

The Terminator latest to be assimilated by McCain

by @ 22:18. Filed under Politics - National.

Jim Geraghty the Indispensible has the details of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s endorsement of John McCain, as well as the transcript of his impersonation of Arnold.

Don’t ask me why I did it, but in a (not-so-)rare bit of insanity, I did mine.

New voting places in Oak Creek

by @ 20:51. Filed under Politics - Oak Creek.

Heads up, Oak Creek readers (if I have any, that is). Starting with the February 19 primaries, there are new polling places for those of us in the 1st, 2nd and 6th Aldermanic districts. Also, there is still a temporary relocation of the polling place for those in the 3rd Aldermanic district. You can either go to the city’s website to view, or move your eyes down just a bit…

1st Aldermanic District (Wards 1, 2, 3) – Oak Creek-Franklin School Administration Building, 7630 S. 10th St. (just south of the divided roadway portion between Rawson and Drexel)

2nd Aldermanic District (Wards 4, 5, 6) – Oak Creek West Middle School, 8401 S. 13th St. (between Drexel and Puetz)

3rd Aldermanic District (Wards 7, 8, 9) – Temporarily at the Oak Creek Community Center, 8580 S. Howell Ave. (between the library and the National Guard depot). Do note that beginning with the fall primary election on September 9, 2008, this polling place will be back at its regular place at Oak Creek East Middle School, 9330 S. Shepard Ave. (between Puetz and Ryan, though in the new building)

4th Aldermanic District (Wards 10, 11, 12) – Carollton Elementary School, 8965 S. Carollton Dr. (no change)

5th Aldermanic District (Wards 13, 14, 15) – Meadowview Elementary School, 10420 S. McGraw Dr. (no change)

6th Aldermanic District (Wards 16, 17, 18) – Oak Creek Community Center, 8580 S. Howell Ave. (just north of the previous polling place at City Hall)

The 20th and probably last Republican debate

by @ 18:51. Filed under Politics - National.

CNN goes live in 15 minutes. I go live now.

Others live-blogging:

– Michelle Malkin
– Hot Air
– Free Republic
– Stephen Green
– Heading Right

Edwards, Giuliani gone

by @ 17:04. Filed under Politics - National.

John “Breck Girl” Edwards made it official earlier today, and offered the quote of the day (spotted by Jon Sanders) – “It’s time for me to step aside so that history can blaze its path.”

Meanwhile, we’re still waiting on watching live Rudy Giuliani to officially ending what at one time was the all-but-official campaign of the Republican National Committee and endorse the man who will finish the job of excising conservatives from the GOP. The RNC may not have gotten their man, but they will have their result. I hope they’re satisfied with those results. </sarcasm>

For the record, there is no partisan registration in Wisconsin, and I’m not a member of the RPW, so I can’t honestly say that this will drive me out of the Republican Party. However, I’m starting to compile a short list of people to write in.

Revisions/extensions (5:14 pm 1/30/2008) – It’s official. DAMMIT!

January 29, 2008

McCain, Mexico win the Florida primary

by @ 20:38. Filed under Politics - National.

The Alphabet Soup has long ago declared it for the team of John McCain, Mexico, and DhimmiRATs. With 64% of the precincts reporting, McCain’s up by just over 61,000 votes out of approximately 1.5 million. I’m too tired to unleash the required number of expletives, so instead, I’ll take the overnight to toss over just how I want to write American conservatism’s epitaph. I really could and should have done that the moment Fred Thompson was bounced from the race, but with the inevitability of spit-in-the-eye-of-conservatives McCain and the flop back to liberalist populism by Mitt Romney in his last gasp, it’s now well past time to start writing.

Borrowing Mike’s America coverage again – Florida primary

by @ 16:29. Filed under Politics - National.

This thing will kick off at 6:45, 15 minutes before the Panhandle polls close. Mike is the CiL master, and because he’s anticipating a lot of people, he’ll have Curt from Flopping Aces doing the comment moderation.

I don’t know how long I’ll be in, but I’ll let them handle the work. Thanks, guys.

January 28, 2008

The folks formerly from MadTown still fragging have it

by @ 13:08. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Allahpundit/HotAir Headlines)

If you don’t bust a gut after reading The Onion‘s candidate profiles, please contact your favorite undertaker. It’s nice to see that some of the humor survived the years away from the looniest city on the planet, and that all of it got used on this.

Since they missed Tommy “The Other” Thompson, let me see if I can channel their energy….

Reason for Presidential bid:
Wanted to find new ways to “stick it to them.”

Reason for dropping Presidential bid:
Found out Secret Service wouldn’t let him ride their Harleys.

Stance on pig races:
Strongly for

Campaign accomplishments:
Beat Fred Thompson to both the entrance and the exit.

Key Issues:
Health Care:
Listen to my wife, Sue Ann.

Iraq War:
Was heard to say to Sam Brownback, “I’ll see your 3 Iraqs and raise you sextuple.”

That isn’t a stimulus package; THIS is a stimulus package

by @ 12:34. Filed under Business, Politics - National, Taxes.

(H/T – MKH)

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC) reminds us that the last one-time “rebate” scheme didn’t work out so well. Instead, he’s pushing a “get government out of the way” package of tax and spending cuts, pointing out that the tax-cut half of that adopted in 2003 lasted for close to 5 years.

Sen. DeMint didn’t explain very well why the 2001 “rebate” package didn’t work, and why the 2008 “rebate” package will also fail spectacularily, so I’ll have to stick my finger in the dike. Not only is it temporary (one-time, actually), and not only does it represent a return to the welfare state (RepubicRAT version), but that money will not find its way to American manufacturers. Those Americans in debt and caring about it will send that cash to finance companies to reduce (in most cases, not eliminate) their debt. Those not in debt or not caring how much debt they’re carrying will spend it on goods mostly made overseas. Neither item will do jack shit to the American economy; specifically, virtually no new jobs will be created in America.

Revisions/extensions (12:38 pm 1/28/2008) – This will learn me to read the feeds in reverse order. Tom McMahon has the perfect Venn diagram in today’s 4-Block World…

taxrebates.gif

January 27, 2008

Mitt(Hill)Care set to rival The Big Dig

by @ 20:32. Filed under Health, Politics - National, Taxes.

(H/T – Dad29)

CNS is running with a report that the cost of Mitt(Hill)Care will go up 85%, or $400 million, in 2009, as a lot more people than expected take the government subsidies for the mandated health insurance. Taxes, both Massachusetts’ and federal, are expected to go up to pay for this.

I’m shocked, SHOCKED that CubaCare Lite is a boondoggle that is being treated as a gateway to CubaCare Heavy. It’s yet another reason why I haven’t joined the FredHeads for Mitt exodus. I still don’t know what I’ll do, either on February 19 or November 4, but I’m beginning to prepare my short list of write-ins.

January 25, 2008

The DemonRATs’ favorite RepubicRAT (video of the day)

by @ 20:51. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Emperor Misha I)

I’m not about to endorse Mitt Romney (partly because he re-endorsed gun control just like the current Administration did last night in such a way as to, if accepted by SCOTUS, render the 2nd Amendment completely moot), but his campaign has a devastating video about John McShame (Amnesty-Media) on the same day the New Sedition Slimes (dammit, there I go again), er, New York Times gives him their unqualified “We’re endorsing him because he’s basically a ‘Rat, but we wish he’d adopt the Paul-Nut surrender line of Bravo Sierra” endorsement…

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGrWt-XICHc[/youtube]

The Emperor has it exactly right regarding holding my nose and voting for him (below the fold only because I don’t have enough separation between this and the latest roll bloat, which is also why I used the phonetic alphabet rather than the actual words I wanted to use)….
(more…)

From McCain to $oro$ in 6 steps or less

by @ 19:32. Filed under Politics - National.

Michelle Malkin has the bouncing ball. Tell me again how the f*ck (since this is going to generate a trackback to Michelle’s site, I won’t add the vowel, but rest assured it isn’t ‘a’, ‘e’, ‘i’ or ‘o’) John S. McShame (Amnesty-Media) is the presumptive front-runner in the “Republican” Presidential primary.

That brings me to a Photoshop from Slublog, unleased onto the world by Ace….

mccainsoros1.jpg

I think Slu nailed this one.

Revisions/extensions (7:37 pm 1/25/2008) – I knew I should’ve refreshed the feed reader; Slu has his own post up on this. I think the Devil is a smoother operator than $oro$.

Today’s example of no difference in the two halves of the P-I-G

by @ 15:56. Filed under Politics - National, Taxes.

(H/T – Conservative Belle)

The “economic stimulus package” (otherwise known as the RepubicRAT version of the welfare state) just keeps on getting worse. First, it was a one-time “refund”, with no permanent reduction in the 20%+ of GDP take by the federal government. Now, after the “grand compromise” not only is it a targeted transfer of funds from those that pay most of those taxes to those that pay only a small bit of those taxes (the “refund” cuts out for those earning more than $75,000/$150,000 for couples), but $300 checks are going to go to 35 million families who don’t even pay income taxes. What was that line about the Republic lasting only up to the point where a majority figure out how to get the minority to pay for their lifestyles? It sure feels like we’ve hit that point.

But wait, it’s going to get even worse. The ‘Rats are still agitating for a return to their version of the welfare state, with more unemployment benefits (never mind that, until about 8 years ago, 5% unemployment was considered “full employment”) and more food stamps.

January 24, 2008

Post-Thompson debate – live thread

by @ 19:56. Filed under Politics - National.

Sorry about the lack of notice, but I may as well step once more into the breach…

As usual, I paraphrase a lot (I don’t type that quickly, and even slower on the laptop), questions are in italics, answers are in normal type, and my comments in-line with either a question or answer are in parentheses.

Pork; it’s not just in Washington anymore (UPDATED)

by @ 15:11. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

Revisions/extensions (3:11 pm 1/24/2008) – This has been bumped to the top (originally posted 8:23 pm 1/23/2008) as Rep. Zipperer has a newer version of the guest column originally released on January 10.

Representative Rich Zipperer said it a lot better than I did in announcing that he, Leah Vukmir and Roger Roth wrote the Earmark Transparency Act being circulated for cosponsors. Therefore, I’ll simply transcribe his guest opinion column released on January 10 and handed to me yesterday by one of Zipperer’s aides (my lateness to this makes me as culpable in ignoring it as everybody else except Dad29, who caught this when it was announced on the 8th). A note; I’ve made a couple of corrections in the copy I have; those are italicized repost his guest column that appeared in the Waukesha Freeman today (a copy of which I received yesterday from his office):

Earmarks. Pork barrel spending. The bridge to nowhere. When you hear those terms, you think of Congress wasting taxpayers’ money on pet projects, often hidden as part of a budget thousands of pages long. In fact, the most recent federal budget contained over 9,000 earmarks inserted by individual members of Congress with no accountability to taxpayers. But if you thought that earmarks and pork spending were only problems for the federal government, you would be woefully mistaken. After being in the state Assembly for one year now, it is painfully clear to me that the problem has permeated the culture of state government as well. Just consider some of the provisions in the recent state budget, some inserted by the Governor, some by individual Legislators, and all tucked into a budget document that was 1,633 pages long.

  • 2.8 million for a Green Bay riverside boardwalk
  • $125,000 to the Painters and Allied Trades Council 7
  • $1.2 million for street improvements in Pleasant Prairie
  • $142,000 to the International Crane Foundation
  • $4 million for a soybean crusher in Evansville
  • numerous highway earmarks throughout the state
  • $800,000 for a bike trail in West Allis
  • $1 million for youth summer jobs program in Milwaukee
  • $950,000 for Kenosha streets
  • $100,000 for two ice arenas in Ashwaubenon & Eau Claire
  • $25,000 for a youth center in Mondovi
  • $500,000 for a civil war exhibit in Kenosha
  • $100,000 for a pedestrian path in Milwaukee

If you doubt your government’s ability to spend taxpayer money wisely, I don’t blame you. To help bring accountability to state budgets I have authored the Earmark Transparency Act along with Reps. Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa) and Roger Roth Jr. (R-Grand Chute). For the last week, we have been asking our colleagues to cosponsor the bill, and thus far have been pleasantly surprised by the support. We have received a majority of Republicans in both the Assembly (28 of 52) and the Senate (11 of 15) to cosponsor this common sense legislation. Unfortunately, no Democrats have signed on to the bill yet.

The Earmark Transparency Act will prohibit state agencies, the Governor, and individual legislators from hiding earmarks in an omnibus budget bill by requiring the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau to prepare an "˜Earmark Transparency Report’ to be released at least 48 hours prior to the Joint Committee on Finance, the Assembly, or the Senate voting to approve a state budget. The report will bring to light all earmarks, including the cost, location, beneficiary, and requesting representative or senator.

The bill also prohibits last-second additions by a budget conference committee, referred to as "˜airdrops,’ that were never included in a previously approved version of the budget. The most infamous airdrop during the budget debate last year was a provision to allow the sampling of liquor in grocery stores. Airdrops are especially obnoxious to taxpayers, as they are dropped into the budget only moments before the final vote, avoiding the months of public scrutiny that legislation typically must endure.

The Earmark Transparency Act will require full public disclosure of all earmarks before a budget is approved. If a specific earmark seems wasteful or unnecessary, the authoring elected official will have to publicly justify the expenditure. I don’t think that’s too much to ask, and I believe that under the pressure of public scrutiny there will be far fewer wasteful earmarks introduced. In the end, that will save taxpayer money.

When this bill becomes law, legislators will not be able to hide from their earmarks and pork requests in future budgets. That public accountability will help end the culture of pork barrel spending that has taken hold in Madison, and let you know where your tax dollars are being spent.

###

Politics imitates art

by @ 13:24. Filed under Politics - National.

As long as I’m trying to put off the inevitable, I’ll steer you toward Slublog’s analysis of how the remaining candidates resemble the characters in “The Breakfast Club”. He’s pretty much nailed it, and since he cross-posted it over at AoS, the morons are all commenting over there (at least until Minx crashes again; it’s overdue for one).

January 23, 2008

More from Rep. Zipperer – State of the State and Earmark Transparency part 2

by @ 21:25. Filed under Politics - Wisconsin.

I know, Rich Zipperer isn’t my Assemblyman (Mark Honadel is; I wish I could’ve stayed longer at the hearing yesterday so I could talk to him), but his staff passed along a press release on the State of the State (which I didn’t watch; Patrick took care of that for me), and a guest column on the Earmark Transparency Act set to appear in the Waukesha Freeman in a couple days. Since I don’t want to spoil the Freeman’s readership, for now I’ll simply point out the new bit of news between the original column posted below and the one to be published – 28 Assemblymen and 11 Senators, all Republicans, have signed on to co-sponsor the bill, which is now in the pipeline. I’ll repost the column once it’s published (or if it’s not published by Saturday, I’ll do it then).

I will, however, post Zipperer’s response to Governor Doyle’s State of the State address:

"Rather than accept responsibility and offer real leadership to help move Wisconsin’s economy forward in these difficult times, Governor Doyle tonight passed the buck by blaming others for the challenges facing our state.

With the economic concerns at the national and state level, it is clear that fixing the economy is the top issue facing this state. That is why we should be focused on helping families and businesses by lowering the tax burden, not worrying about filling the government’s coffers or growing state agencies.

After he spent last year pushing for record tax and spending increases, Governor Doyle tonight finally announced support for some economic growth initiatives that Assembly Republicans have long advocated. He should also advocate for immediate tax relief measures that will put money back in the hands of families and businesses throughout Wisconsin.

Bills that I’ve authored such as the Higher Education Tax Credit, the Internet Tax Freedom Act, and reducing the state income tax through an across-the-board income tax cut, would go a long way toward getting our economy moving again by putting money back in the hands of hardworking Wisconsinites.

Our economy, our families, and our small businesses need help, but Governor Doyle fell far short tonight. While his tax increases and increased spending over the last several years have pushed Wisconsin into these tight times, his speech tonight didn’t lay out any plans on how dig us out of the financial hole."

The Asian Badger has some more on the Internet Tax Freedom Act, specifically its 10-0 bipartisan approval by the Assembly committee on Energy and Utilities yesterday. That means that the bill, which will eliminate taxation on internet access charges and thus bring Wisconsin into compliance with federal law prohibiting taxation on internet access charges, will go to the floor of the Assembly.

Could Fred be 2nd right now?

by @ 18:51. Filed under Politics - National.

Jim Geraghty lays out the case from a Louisiana pro. I’ll bet you didn’t know that Louisiana had a convoluted caucus last night, but they did, and “Undecided/Pro-Life” took a plurality of the caucus portion of the slate. Louisiana’s system is a bit more-complicated than that, with a combination of an Iowa/Nevada-style caucus to determine who goes to the state convention to decide who goes to the national convention (held last night) and a primary to be held on February 9. Like Iowa and Nevada, all of the delegates are supposedly “uncommitted” (at least at this point); however, not only are they expected to follow the will of the caucus-goers, but should a candidate get a majority in the primary, 20 of the 47 delegates are bound to support the primary winner, with the other 27 still officially “uncommitted”.

As an aside, both “Undecided/Pro-Life” (largely FredHeads, according to multiple sources in multiple campaigns, important because Thompson did put at least some resources in Louisiana) and John McCain (who did nothing) did better than Ron Paul (who did make a last-minute appearance).

Wacky endorsements continue unabated

by @ 16:40. Filed under Politics - National.

(H/T – Michelle)

Here we go again with the whacked-out endorsements. Fresh from dropping out after getting 2% in a state where only he and 2 other candidates put any significant resources, Duncan Hunter has endorsed open-borders advocate Mike Huckabee. The wide speculation is that the Huckster has offered Hunter a spot in a Huck administration. Allow me to throw another thing on the wall; Huckabee is the only “Republican” left in the race that supports the “Fair”Tax, a 23% 30% sales tax designed to replace every other tax. Hunter supported the “Fair”Tax as well.

I have to echo Jib – The respect I had for Hunter and his doomed campaign is pretty much in shambles right now.

Let this be a lesson to Fred Thompson; do NOT endorse any third of the Rudy McCabee axis.

January 22, 2008

The flawed FAN bill

by @ 17:02. Filed under Business, Politics - Wisconsin, Sports.

I was at the Assembly Committee on Energy and Utilities hearing for AB 604, which was carried on Wisconsin Eye (the archived video will be here when it does get archived), which would essentially require cable companies to carry The NFL Network and The Big Ten Network, as well as any other network that feels the slightest bit aggrieved, on whatever package those networks want, with merely the price to go before a binding arbitrator. Yes, you heard me right, and I believe I heard the Assembly Legislative Counsel right; whichever side calls for arbitration has every term of its “best, final” offer except the price accepted as unchangable and unchallengable. What is unclear is what happens if both sides call for arbitration.

That, however, was only one of the two bombshells dropped at the hearing. The other is that the NFLN is now willing to accept placement on “standard” digital cable rather than basic cable (BTN is still demanding both ESPN basic-cable placement and ESPN money “for the taxpayers’ sake”). In my humble opinion, Time Warner and Charter should jump at this offer.

As for the bill itself, why should government stick its fat snout into a private business dispute, especially with a bill guaranteed to not only force the NFLN/BTN on basic cable but also open Pandora’s Box for every other of the 430 potential cable networks not currently on basic cable to worm their way in? Wasn’t the big national push to get “a la carte” channels? Isn’t that preferable to a government-mandated 500-channel “basic” cable system?

Yep, it’s official

by @ 16:46. Filed under Politics - National.

Fred Thompson is out. I’d have more fresh react (instead of the not-so–fresh), but after a long day in Madison (1 hour from 30/151 to the Capitol; doesn’t Madison know what salt is?), I’m wiped out. I missed most of Judge Gableman’s appearance at the Center-Right Coalition (somehow, I beat Mark Block, who never got off of Washington), and I do have a couple of interesting side notes on the “FAN” bill before the Assembly (that very-quick recap will be up momentarily).

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

[No Runny Eggs is proudly powered by WordPress.]