Playground Exclusive: Dramatic Reenactment of Budget Negotiations Leaked From Executive Residence

While actual footage is not available, I have been told that this is an accurate reflection of what has transpired this week. In it, Judy Robson is portrayed by Stewie, the role of Mike Huebsch is played by Brian, and the role of AB 506 is played by the mustache.

Enjoy everyone. Have a good weekend.

Sen. Schmoron to Rep. Schmoe: Didn't we kick your ass last November?

Many of you have probably picked up on the fact that someone in the Assembly was kind enough to forward a copy of the latest Schmoe release to WisPolitics, where it appeared in their morning news summary.

In it, Rep. Schmoe calls out "Senator Jim Schmoron for standing in the way of record school funding, aid to local governments and significant property tax relief for homeowners."

First off, only an idiot is still buying this false deadline crap. Nobody's standing in the way of anything on school funding. Unless the GOP reneges on its word, schools already know what they're getting.

But what kills me here is the use of Jim Schmoron to represent the Democrats. On some level, it's just leadership staff trying to be cute. But on another level, it's indicative of just how clueless and out-of-touch those staff have become.

Last I checked, this would be the same Senator Schmoron whose party was too stupid to pick up more than eight seats in the Assembly and sweep every contested Senate seat. These were seats that GOP leadership staff in both houses were intimately involved in surrendering to the other side. Man, those Democrats are morons! If this is what leadership staff thinks of the Democrats, wow, what does that make them? Über-morons?

Now, I'm not calling out Assembly leadership, because it's their staff that put together stuff like this. Besides, Mike Huebsch has been too busy working with LTE message guru and compulsive Blackberry checker John Murray trying to figure out whether he's supposed to say "no tax increases" or "everything's on the table" or something else that will completely confuse his caucus this afternoon and give them no reason to trust any kind of message guidance that comes from his office. He's got bigger issues to concern himself with.

But the fact his staff would speak in such dismissive, insulting terms about the other side speaks volumes about how arrogant and out of touch with reality they are.

Now, this isn't anything new. I mean, they kicked back, sunk the ship last November, sent dozens of their colleagues scurrying for new jobs - then painted the black horse white, mounted it, and rode it into Second Floor West to claim their raises because they're doing such a damn fine job. It wasn't enough for them to send out condescending Christmas poems inviting everyone to celebrate the holidays with them while they promised help to displaced employees - if by help, we mean sitting back while watching Rep. Nerison hire a former Dem staffer who worked for the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign. Some help.

And surely you couldn't discipline a leak these days, since not more than a few weeks ago it was John Murray himself who was babbling endlessly to a reporter about the GOP's plan to separate K-12 funding into a separate bill before those details were supposed to be public.

Any wonder that you can't get anyone but the Kool-Aid drinkers of southeast Wisconsin to do these Schmoe releases? Nobody trusts you on the message anymore. Is it "no tax increases" or the ever-resolute "now I say all this in recognition of the fact ... that not all sides get what they want"? Are you going to tell your members to go back to their districts and stand firm, only to sell them down the river at the table? You can't be surprised that nobody trusts you. The only person that showed any consistency on the tax issue was Bob Delaporte, and you threw him under the bus.

Normally I'd wait until leadership staff has nothing to do before needling them. But I'm just following their advice and "striking while the iron is hot!"

Can we stop with this looming deadline boogeyman already?

All I hear from Republicans these days is how the State of Wisconsin is going to turn into a pumpkin if the Democrats in the Senate don't pass their K-12 funding bill, AB 506, by midnight on September 28. They, of course, are simply spinning the rhetoric of DPI Superintendent Elizabeth Burmaster, who says that DPI may be forced to use last year's budget numbers if new ones aren't authorized. This, of course, means no increase in equalization aids, which means locals could raise property taxes.

But let's note what we're saying here. DPI "may" be forced to use last year's numbers. Locals "could" raise property taxes. DPI is not saying that it "will" use last year's numbers. Just that it might.

For the sake of honesty, can everyone just stop with the B.S.?

If you are a K-12 administrator, and you are reading this blog, I can tell you exactly what you are getting. You are getting absolutely, positively, no less money than what would be given to you if AB 506 were to become law. Not a penny less. Guaranteed.

The question, of course, is how the Republicans are going to find a way to pay for all of the new K-12 spending they've agreed to in principle. But those details don't concern you. They won't go back on their word. Trust me - they're not stupid enough to yank a bunch of money away from K-12 after they've promised it publicly and voted for it. They do a lot of dumb things, but they're not that dumb.

So let's just stop pretending that there's some big, ominous, looming deadline. There's not, and anyone with a brain realizes that. Republicans are just playing the property tax card to gin up fear among the masses. Burmaster's just using some made-up date to try and leverage more school spending.

There should be no massive property tax hikes. Why? Because all these school districts already have the functional equivalent of a guaranteed minimum. They can go ahead and do all their planning and not have to worry about where the money is coming from. The money is as good as guaranteed and will be coming soon enough.

Burmaster doesn't need a budget by Friday. Hell, she doesn't even need AB 506 signed into law. She just needs the word of the Legislature that K-12 funding levels will be no less than what's in AB 506, and I think that's something both sides could give her in a heartbeat.

There are enough real problems to discuss in the budget without having to worry about all the fake, political ones that both sides are trying to conjure up. Less idiocy from DPI and less histrionics from the Brothers Fitz about this would do everyone some good. Stop trying to play gotcha and please, just do your damn jobs.

Nuclear plant workers asleep on the job

At least, a whole bunch are at the Peach Bottom Nuclear Generating Station in York County, Pennsylvania. Damn WCBS and their pesky hidden cameras.

Then again, can we really blame these guys? After all, one of their colleagues has been doing it regularly for nearly two decades in front of the cameras and still has a job...

Wisconsin's new motto: Don't worry, it's on us.

In what is now a time-honored budget tradition, autism activists once again have their hands out, look for an even bigger entitlement than the one they already have.

This time, they're lobbying for a mandate on insurance companies cover autism in the health care policies. Because, as we all know, the way to work towards lower health care costs for residents of Wisconsin is by piling more mandates on the insurers.

According to Nissan Bar-Lev of the Autism Society of Wisconsin, "We believe it is a reasonable position. It is the right thing to do... The wait will only get longer."

The wait being referred to is the requirement that families apply for and receive a waiver prior to participation. That's not always an overnight process.

Of course, a large part of the reason that the wait is getting longer is because even more families with autistic kids are piling in the minivan and moving to Wisconsin to hop on the gravy train that already exists here. Don't we already have the best autism benefits in the nation?

I'm not saying that as though it's necessarily a bad thing. Just as with other disabilities, families with autistic kids carry special burdens, financial and otherwise, and goodness knows they didn't have much choice in deciding to carry them. Perhaps some degree of support is appropriate.

What is questionable, however, is this continued desire on the part of Democrats to use social spending and mandates as this endless red carpet to residents of other states. I mean, if we're busy recruiting all the families with autistic kids to live here, do you think maybe we could mix in some spending to attract jobs that actually require college degrees to, you know, pay for all these benefits?

Through 2014, the Department of Workforce Development has pegged registered nurses, retail salespeople, janitors and cleaners, food prep workers, and home care aides as the five fastest growing occupations. That's followed by home health aides, truck drivers, waiters, nursing aides, and carpenters.

Unless my math is bad, only two of those fields require anything equivalent to or better than an associate's degree. Only one, nursing, actually requires a bachelor's degree. And most of these fields aren't exactly paying wages that make it easy to support oneself, let alone a family. Let alone someone else's family.

Also, last I checked, we're already in a budgetary position where we need to bring in more and more money every year just to pay for the sum-sufficient programs we already have. We're doing a piss poor job of that, and now the Democrats want to create new programs and mandates?

Improving the quality of life of families affected by autism? Sure. Saving money in the process? Hardly. At least with Healthy Wisconsin, Democrats can make some type of argument that the program could provide an aggregate cost savings. An autism mandate is nothing more than charity cloaked as mandated private-sector spending. No offense intended, but this isn't exactly a high-return investment unlike, say, ensuring affordable access to preventative and prenatal care.

I'm not trying to pick on autistic families in particular. But we need to ask ourselves an important question. When Wisconsin is continually faced with structural deficits, isn't it more important to find stable, reliable funding sources for the programs we already have before we commit to creating a bunch of new ones? After all, whether it's through higher taxes or, in the case of this mandate, higher health insurance premiums, Wisconsin taxpayers are going to foot the bill either way.

Just because the state doesn't directly pony up the costs for an insurance mandate doesn't make the costs non-existent. I think Democrats forget that occasionally.

Wisconsin Dumb-ocracy Campaign strikes again

Today we got this gem on their blog, alleging that the Legislature has "wasted" $17.2 million in taxpayer dollars by not yet passing a budget.

Yesterday, I pointed out how some conservatives like Chris Lufter seem to find happiness in complaining. Well, the WDC is a perfect example of the liberals in Wisconsin who only find pleasure in bitching.

First off, this article quotes Marlin Schneider like he's some sort of fiscal hawk. Um, this would be the same Marlin Schneider who's been soaking taxpayers for years by living in Madison but claiming his per diem as though he's actually from Wisconsin Rapids. So perhaps if the WDC wants to get up in arms about fiscal responsibility, it should maybe start with Marlin and all of the other legislators out there who live in Dane County and claim per diem like they're commuting from their outstate districts.

Then, the WDC wants to bitch that the Legislature hasn't finished the budget yet, and that the Assembly has only been on the floor about a dozen days so far this year. Well, committees still meet and bills are still being worked on. There's lots of work that gets done that doesn't involve floor session.

But you know what? If the Assembly was on the floor 50 days, the WDC would be sitting here bitching about all the terrible bills the Assembly passed and how they're all giveaways to special interest groups.

So in other words, Mike McCabe will be pissed off no matter how often the Legislature meets, unless it's only meeting to take up the proposals pushed by his own special interest group.

Budget musings

Yesterday, we got this gem from Speaker Huebsch, showing that the Assembly is standing strong against tax increases... or maybe not.

"It has come down from the beginning to the tax issue and the fact we will continue to discuss the level of taxation the governor and Senate Democrats want to increase, and the role Assembly Republicans have taken in recognizing we simply cannot afford more than that. Now I say all this in recognition of the fact ... that not all sides get what they want."

Ah, the sweet sounds of compromise fill the air. The ball starting rolling in earnest when the Assembly offered, in essence, the Democratic position on K-12, and the Democrats returned the favor by throwing Healthy Wisconsin under the bus. Generally, when the ball starts rolling in these matters, it picks up speed. So perhaps the Governor is being optimistic about a budget being finished by the end of the week, but the pace is probably picking up. That's good news for anyone who believes that people who are elected should do their job, and a big part of the Legislature's job is passing a budget.

And of course, nobody should be surprised that when progress is being made, Steve Nass will crawl out of his elfin cave and bitch about it. He says the budget can wait until Christmas. Naturally, that's good for Nass, because it gives him more time to focus on his job building the toys for Santa.

Said Nass, "If the Democrats want to continue to push tax increases, that's fine. We will continue to hold out on behalf of the taxpayers, and we will easily go beyond Christmas without a budget."

Uh, yeah. That's great. Hey Steve, who's this "we" you're talking about? Your fellow members of the Oompa-Loompa caucus? Is it you, Vukmir, and Pridemore? Is this you speaking of yourself in plural so you can sound more powerful? You're not in leadership, so you don't really speak for anyone in the body.

And let's face it, you wouldn't want to be in leadership even if it were offered to you because leading means working with the other side, and you hate that. Your whole schtick is bomb-throwing and being against things. And that's fine. But if a compromise is reached, you know it will pass. So you can bring your "army" and make your usual budget floor speech about "blah blah blah this is terrible" and then you can push the red button and get rolled - just like you always do.

Now, don't get me wrong, I'm with you when you criticize the Republican negotiating strategy. But you still don't have the support to stop anything, and everyone knows that.

Those conservatives who doubted Columbia...

... better be watching Columbia President Lee Bollinger rip Ahmadinejad a new one before handing him the microphone. And it's not about partisanship or censorship - just about standing up for the great ideals of free speech and tolerance of diversity that so many partisans can't be bothered to defend anymore.

Beautiful stuff. It'll be interesting to see how Ahmadinejad responds, since surely this is the likely the single worst introduction he's ever received.

But if they're on strike...

... who's going to make all the crappy cars that nobody wants to buy?

School district pays teachers based on education, training: conservatives still bitch

Back in 1999-2000, the Waukesha School District implemented changes in its pay structure for teachers. Instead of simply rewarding teachers for showing up at their desk year after year, it moved towards a system that provided financial incentives for teachers to pursue additional coursework and training beyond the minimum required.

Now, how many times have we heard conservatives say that school districts should do more to reward merit among public school teachers? Pretty much constantly, right? So Waukesha does just that and now who's bitching? Oh, that's right. The conservatives.

Says shrieking conservative banshee and vanquished Assembly candidate Chris Lufter, "If you're increasing their salary by $25,000 over five years instead of over the course of 17 years, yes, you're making a huge difference, and you're having to cut programs because of it."

Conservatives always complain that the traditional pay structure of the K-12 system discourages competent, intelligent young people from teaching because teachers start at such low salaries and can generally get raises only by obtaining a master's degree or through accumulating years upon years of experience.

I know lots of people who would've been great teachers but who would never have considered beginning in a field where starting salaries are routinely pegged around $25-27K a year, and where longevity is the only way to really ring the register. Four or five years of college to barely outearn the guy who works full-time at Culver's? Is it any wonder why education majors at public universities routinely have among the lowest GPA's and standardized test scores of all majors?

So Waukesha gives the conservatives what they want - a pay structure that likely makes Waukesha one of the most desirable districts in which to teach. A structure that heightens competition for jobs in the district, rewards teachers for accomplishments and not age, and promotes a high level of retention.

A bunch of well-educated teachers who aren't constantly shopping around for other jobs that pay better, like so many of their counterparts do every spring? Gee, many people would suggest that kind of continuity and stability is desirable. Teachers get to know their students, their parents, and the neighborhoods in which they work.

But not folks like Chris Lufter, who apparently preferred the old system where people just got paid to grow old and die. She's one of those people, like those Fighting Bob Fest morons, who is clearly only content if she's pissed off about something. Don't do it her way, she's pissed. Do it her way, she'll find something else to be pissed off about.

Campaign 2008: Nobody is good enough for the religious right

It appears as though evangelical voters are still shopping for a candidate, as one of their biggest shepherds, James Dobson, has declared the great white hope, Fred Thompson, to be something everyone else already knew he was: lazy.

Said Dobson, "(Thompson) has no passion, no zeal, and no apparent ‘want to.’" Of course, Jim. It's his wife who wants to be president. He just wants to play one on the teevee. That's what he does. He acts.

Thompson continues to maintain a leisurely pace on the campaign trail, preferring to focus on raising money a few times a week instead of actually meeting voters. The Nashville Post is pleading with him to get off his ass and dispel his fairly (or unfairly) earned reputation. His bump is beginning to wear off. And of course, there was that train wreck last week in South Carolina, where Thompson admitted to the world that he doesn't really go to church. Great way to win over those southern, churchgoing voters.

Clearly, nobody is good enough for the religious right, so much so that Dobson has been singing the praises of Newt Gingrich lately. Gingrich would be, far and away, the smartest individual in the GOP race, should he opt to go that route in the next month or two. Many of us would love for him to run. Hell, if Newt ran, I'd vote for him. After seven years of a bumbling fool in the White House, Gingrich could be the guy to show America that Republicans aren't all a bunch of anti-intellectual neanderthals. But Gingrich, a twice-divorced adulterer, is hardly an angel in terms of his own personal life.

The humor here is that the candidate who is probably the best conservative option, John McCain, has fallen so completely out of favor with the base over matters like McCain-Feingold that have virtually no effect on any of their lives relative to other important issues. On every issue of traditional importance to be base, McCain and McCain alone is among the best options among major contenders.

Let's take a look at the five biggest issues that social conservatives usually take into account when looking for a candidate to support.


FAITH:

John McCain: Baptist. Or Episcopalian. Guess it depends on when you ask him or what state he's campaigning in. Goes to church on a semi-regular basis.

Rudy Giuliani: Catholic, and like many Catholics, doesn't go to church, is pro-choice, and cheats on his wives. But at least he's not fondling the altar boys.

Mitt Romney: Stormin' Mormon.

Fred Thompson: Too lazy to go to church. Prefers to let other family members go to church, then distill the major themes into simple, easy-to-read talking points.

WINNER: Romney. If he weren't a Mormon, there wouldn't even be a question about who the evangelicals are supporting.


PERSONAL LIFE:

John McCain: Messy divorce, got remarried a month later to a wealthy heiress 18 years his junior.

Rudy Giuliani: Married a cousin, got an annulment. Moved in with another woman before the annulment was final. Cheated on her a few times, then announced at a press conference that they were separated, but never bothered to inform her beforehand. Married his mistress. Does, however, marry women his own age. And slept with a relative, which could earn him sympathy points in the south.

Mitt Romney: One wife, but probably would have many had his faith not sold polygamy down the river in exchange for statehood.

Fred Thompson: Knocked up his girlfriend in high school, but had the decency to marry her. Got divorced a whole bunch of years later. Married a trophy wife 24 years younger than him who really wants to be president. But on the upside, didn't cheat with wife number two while married to wife number one, probably because wife number two was barely legal when he divorced wife number one.

WINNER: Hmmmm. None of the above?


ABORTION:

John McCain: Opposes abortion with the usual rape/incest/life of mother exceptions. Supports stem cell research. Has been fairly consistent in his positions.

Rudy Giuliani: Baby killer.

Mitt Romney: FLIP FLOPPER!

Fred Thompson: Worked for the baby killers.

WINNER: McCain. He's generally pro-life, and at least he's been predictable on the issue. He probably won't lead the charge, but none of these guys will. McCain's at least been a reliable vote.


TAXES/SPENDING:

John McCain: Hates pork.

Rudy Giuliani: Cut taxes as mayor, put the kibosh on $6 billion in spending requests by the Board of Education.

Mitt Romney: Um, universal health care, anyone?

Fred Thompson: Made a living lobbying for pork.

WINNER: Giuliani, with McCain a close second.


GUNS:

John McCain: Supports a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment but supported background checks for buyers at gun shows.

Rudy Giuliani: Hates guns unless it's the police using them.

Mitt Romney: Formerly support strong anti-gun laws, now a member of the NRA. Is there *anything* this guy won't say to get elected? FLIP FLOPPER!

Fred Thompson: I <3 guns.

WINNER: Thompson, with McCain a close second.


Giuliani's consistent lead in the polls is proving that this is a primary in which you don't have to say the right things on every issue. Enough Republicans appear to take points from Giuliani for being pro-choice, only to give those points right back to him for being honest and straightforward about his position. Either that, or lots of GOP voters just don't place a premium on the abortion/gun issue these days relative to other issues like taxes or national security.

Sure, the campaign finance bill that bears McCain's name may not help with those who love their issue ads, but that alone won't be a death knell. He's low on money, but then again, so was Bill Clinton in September of 1991.

And save for Giuliani, who appears permanently camped out at around 28%, there's still a lot of fluidity in the Republican numbers. The Romney campaign is fading fast, which is no surprise. McCain is beginning to get his feet under him again, and surely a number of conservatives have found Thompson to be a more genuine article than Romney. Some would be reluctant to write off Romney, but I'm not. Romney's done unless the contest ends after the Iowa caucus.

When it comes to Giuliani, McCain, and Thompson, Thompson's resume is certainly the lightest and least substantive. He's the Barack Obama of the Republican primary, running on image and precious little else. Certainly, Thompson's opening foray into the campaign has not gone quite as planned. Instead of working for people's votes, he seems content to smile, make a few appearances a week, and wait for his dogs to round up all the sheep. We'll see how that works in a primary. It sure as hell won't work in a general.

I'm not suggesting that I think McCain will be nominee. He still has some organizational issues, and his fundraising numbers for Q3 will probably disappoint. But in a race as crazy as this one, well, stranger things have happened. The guy's campaign is running on fumes, and he's still managed to surge ahead of Romney, who's spent more than anyone. Given Romney's current burn rate, he's unlikely to have substantially more money after Q3 than either Thompson or McCain.

My guess on September 23rd? The evangelicals will splinter their votes a million different ways, putting Rudy Giuliani in a perfect position to capitalize on their weakness.

Things I love about America... and don't.

I love that Columbia University is not backing down from the censors and the crybabies over Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's scheduled appearance Monday at the World Leaders Forum. I don't particularly love the conservative crybabies and Jewish groups that would censor a man simply because they disagree with his point of view.

Free speech is one of the greatest things about our country, and one of the strongest traditions in a liberal arts education is the objective consideration of all ideas, no matter how repugnant or goofy they might be. Critical thought requires a certain intellectual rigor.

Now, it's easy to understand how that rigor gets so sloppy and out-of-shape in America. One need look no further than many blogs to see the colossal circle jerk that so many ideologues on both sides are engaged in. So many people find it easier to blindly defend partisan positions and dismiss out-of-hand those opinions or facts which might contradict that which they already believe in.

Sadly, it's no surprise that groups like the Jewish Defense Organization are discouraging free speech, calling the Iranian President the "Hitler of Iran." So Ahmadinejad's denied the Holocaust. Big deal. I know it happened. So what's to be afraid of, guys? Unless you think we're all a bunch of idiots, what he says probably won't influence our beliefs.

Then you've got guys like John McCain, who desperately needs media, and Mitt Romney, who's dropping like a rock in the polls, demanding that Ahmadinejad be denied entry to the United States. I guess the cheapest way to gin up support among wingnuts is Iranophobia these days.

That groups of varying political motivations would want to censor Ahmadinejad is not surprising. All too often, people wish to silence those with whom they disagree instead of inviting them to share their views and then subjecting those views to critical analysis. Free speech is perhaps the founding principle we've become most lax in defending, in part because abrogating that right is at times beneficial to politicians and political groups of all stripes. Debates are always easiest to win if you can muzzle your opponent.

So here's a warm Playground welcome to the Iranian President, for helping us all to think about what we believe and why we believe it. After all, there is no better way to do that than by listening with open ears to someone with whom you vehemently disagree.

Tracking the Grand Old Perverts

I'm sure I'm like many Americans. Upon reading the news of Florida Assistant U.S. Attorney John D.R. Atchison trying to score some "soft and nice" love from a five-year-old girl, I thought to myself "gee, there sure are a lot of Republican perverts in the news these days. Is anyone keeping track of all these guys?"

Well, sure enough someone is. The fine folks at RepublicanSexOffenders.com have it all under control. They've made it their quest to make sure we don't forget about any of the many reasons that the Republicans have no credibility on social issues anymore.

I don't necessarily delight in seeing any of these individuals get taken to the woodshed, mind you, whether it's some guy at DOJ trying to arrange some private time at the local jungle gym, or Larry Craig denying homosexual tendencies by asserting that he straddles the bowl while dropping the kids off at the pool. Certainly most of us hope for better from all our public officials, Republican or Democrat.

But when so many of them are also the ones who are attacking child sex offenders or strenuously opposing gay marriage, it's hard to wonder what some others might have in their closets as well.

Maybe we could print up some green license plates that say "GOPervert" and hang them around their necks. Perhaps that would help.

Why not to negotiate with Democrats

Because you can give them what they want, but the second you turn around, they will knife you in the back.

Washington - Two Senate Democrats warned Monday that they might delay confirming President Bush's choice for attorney general unless the White House turns over documents relating to several investigations, a move that could provoke the kind of fight the administration was hoping to avoid.

So Bush rolls over and puts forward a consensus nominee who has been previously endorsed for judgeships by guys like Chuck Schumer, and his reward is watching Democrats play games with the nomination in order to extort other documents from the White House.

The guy makes a conciliatory gesture and gets kicked in the nuts for it. At that rate, Bush should've just nominated Ted Olson.

So... who exactly *should* have to pay to go to college?

Today, Sen. Dave Hansen (D - Garbage Truck) backed up the truck and dropped the following load of crap on his colleagues:

To: Legislative Colleagues

From: Senator Dave Hansen

Date: September 18, 2007

Re: Tuition fee remission for children of fallen fire fighters

Last year, Green Bay lost Lt. Arnie Wolff, a 17 year veteran of the Green Bay Fire Department who was killed in the line of duty while battling a house fire. Lt. Wolff left behind a wife and three children, a 17-year old daughter and two sons, age 21 and 25, who are enrolled at UW-Green Bay.

Now 18, 22 and 26, all three children are enrolled at my alma mater, UW-Green Bay. Unfortunately, Lt. Wolff's sons do not qualify for tuition remission because they were over the age of 21 when Lt. Wolff died in service to our community.

This legislation extends tuition remission for children of fallen firefighters (and others included in the chapter) up to age 30 if they are pursuing a bachelor's degree or a technical college program to completion.

If you would like to cosponsor this legislation, please respond to this email by Tuesday, October 2, 2007.

So who exactly should be expected to pay for college in Wisconsin? Not veterans. Not the kids of partially disabled or deceased veterans. Not the spouse or under-21 child of a correctional officer, fire fighter, law enforcement officer, ambulance driver, or emergency medical services technician killed in the line of duty.

Now, Sen. Hansen wants to make college free for some more people. And people are wondering where we can find things to cut in our bloated state budget? Hey, how about an end to these free college sweepstakes?

Look, I'm all for increasing financial aid for college, but geez, maybe we should make it need-based or merit-based and not my-daddy's-disabled-or-dead based? I mean, I feel bad for the family and all, but why should ANY of the above groups be entitled to a free education?

Yeah, yeah, I guess I'm a prick for saying it. Whatever. Somebody around here needs to say it out loud. Families already have a means of financial assistance for when a loved one of any sort passes away. It's called life insurance. Last time I turned on the teevee, I could get life insurance from just about anyone for only a few dollars a month. And frankly, I have difficulty imagining that a guy who worked for the fire department and had kids wouldn't have had a reasonable life insurance policy, given his line of work.

These carve-outs are an unnecessary and wholly inappropriate way to go about making policy on matters like education funding. And it's not that I think these kids in particular shouldn't get help. It's that I think this was a stupid road to head down in the first place, and at some point, legislators need to draw the line and start looking at these matters rationally and in a broader perspective instead of just looking for goodies for their constituents.

A theocracy with low taxes: Republicans should vote bin Laden in '08

Word is that latest diatribe from the reigning world hide-and-seek champion, Osama Bin Laden, contains an explicit overture to Republicans to join his cause. Says the latest claimant to the mantle of Reagan's conservative legacy:

"It has now become clear to you and the entire world the impotence of the democratic system and how it plays with the interests of the peoples and their blood by sacrificing soldiers and populations to achieve the interests of the major corporations... I invite you to embrace Islam. There are no taxes in Islam, but rather there is a limited Zakat (alms) totaling 2.5 percent."

This is a brilliant strategy by Bin Laden to attempt to capture the support of dyed-in-the-wool conservatives who are unhappy with the purity of any of the current Republican contenders.

First, Bin Laden indulges the theocratic impulses of the religious right by encouraging them to do away with democracy. Then, he sweeps around with a beautiful pander to the fiscal hawks by promising them the largest tax cut in the history of America. 2.5 percent?!?!?! That's crazy! It's like Mark Gundrum meets Grover Norquist!

Just two days after entering the race and already, Fred Thompson has been proven to be a pretender to the throne.

Thompson's in. Finally. Yawn.

If anyone ever needs to write a chapter on how not to plan a candidate's entry into a race, he needs only to transcribe the chronology of Fred Thompson's wayward campaign machine from May until this week.

Fred got his bump back in early June from what amounted to a non-announcement. Since then, he's underperformed in fundraising while watching thousands more big donors commit to other candidates. He's been through more campaign staff than most other campaigns combined. He's fought to appear interested and engaged in public appearances.

His announcement on Leno left an impression of a guy who was almost dangerously aloof and disinterested in the office he was running for. Look Fred, we all know it's your wife who wants this. But come on, you gave up a career in public service and lobbying to abort fetuses in order be an actor on the teevee. Harness those skills a little bit and at least pretend like you care.

There's a fine line between gravitas and boredom, and Thompson's precariously close to falling the wrong way.

The distress signals are gone. Republicans have a lot of good choices among nominees who are fighting like the want it. Even second-tier guys like Huckabee are showing spark. So why would anyone want to support a candidate for President who doesn't even seem like he wants the job?

Old. Bald. Boring. Thompson '08.

Romney right on savings

I'm going to welcome myself back from my self-imposed hiatus by venturing out on a limb. I am going to say nice things about a Republican.

Mitt Romney's plan to make investment earnings tax-free for families making under $200K a year is brilliant stuff. It's a shame nobody thought of it sooner.

I don't often find much to like about the Stormin' Mormon. For my taste, he's a little too orthodox and seems to pander to corporate interests too much. But regardless of the messenger, the plan is a great idea.

Government has no business carrot-and-sticking people over their reasons for saving money. If you save money for retirement in an IRA, they'll give you a tax break. If you're saving money for a car, they won't. If you're saving money for health care expenses in an HSA, they'll give you a tax break (at least the feds will). If you're saving money to buy a boat, they won't. If you're saving money for your kid's college education, they'll give you a tax break. If you're saving money for your honeymoon, they won't.

It's positively stupid the way that state and federal government try to entice you to save money for things it deems desirable. All it does is muck up the tax code and create confusing barriers for individuals looking to save. Suddenly, that person with an extra grand at the end of the year has to think "hmmm. Do I want to put this in my Roth IRA, where I can't get the gains out tax-free until retirement or unless I buy a house or go back to school? Do I want to put it in an HSA, where I can only use it for health-related purposes? Or do I want to put it in a regular investment account, where I can get to it if I need it but where Uncle Sam will hack the bejeezus out of my capital gains?"

Stupid. Stupid. Stupid.

Now, to be perfectly consistent, we would have all income, earned and unearned, treated identically. But realistically, that will never happen. There are too many goodies to be handed out by politicians to America's expanding investor class.

And so given the choice between having a blanket exemption for investment income and a bunch of separate carve-outs, the blanket exemption makes more sense, and it's targeted broadly at those with income levels where increased savings will have the greatest impact on quality of life. That keeps it affordable, which is also desirable. Balanced budgets are important too.

Saving money is a good thing, period - and it's something most Americans don't do nearly enough of these days. And when Romney said that his plan would help Americans save "without having to sign up for these nanny accounts," he's dead on.