Path Is Sought for States to Escape Debt Burdens

Or in other words, politicians would like to screw certain taxpayers because they are afraid to ask the other taxpayers for the money required to honor them.

Policy makers are working behind the scenes to come up with a way to let states declare bankruptcy and get out from under crushing debts, including the pensions they have promised to retired public workers.

Unlike cities, the states are barred from seeking protection in federal bankruptcy court. Any effort to change that status would have to clear high constitutional hurdles because the states are considered sovereign.

But proponents say some states are so burdened that the only feasible way out may be bankruptcy, giving Illinois, for example, the opportunity to do what General Motors did with the federal government’s aid.

I'm a big believer in contracts. I think that when you start making it easier for one side to welch on its commitments, you're destroying the fundamental value of the contract in the first place. I think it's especially dangerous when you start expanding that power for government. Such action would effectively screw the millions of Americans that hold municipal bonds by changing the rules on them in the middle of the game.

It also does no favors to local governments that might be looking to do a bond issue anytime soon. As so many conservatives argued, the general uncertainty over 2011 tax rates caused a lot of companies to sit on their cash rather than invest it last year, not knowing what their tax climate would look like going forward. This scenario is no different. The prospect of making it easier for states to stiff their creditors will not make it any cheaper for states to bond for capital projects. The threat of federal intervention drives up risk. Risk comes at a cost to the very taxpayers these politicians would profess to protect.

There are no "savings" here, only stealing money from people who are legitimately owed it. Government can always find more money to honor previous commitments. If it means raising taxes or cutting other spending, so be it. Just because politicians lack the willpower to honor their word shouldn't mean they can simply have government commitments negated.

Two approaches to auto insurance

I suppose that, philosophically, there are two ways to look at auto insurance. The first, which seems to be Rep. John Nygren's viewpoint, is that auto insurance is something you purchase to protect yourself from other drivers.

Rep. John Nygren, R-Marinette, one of the bill's authors, told the committees people should be allowed to choose coverage they can afford. He said the public never got a chance to digest the changes because they were tucked deep in the state budget.

The bill is designed to give consumers "the ability to choose and put affordability back into the equation," Nygren said. "The government with a swoop of its pen ... slipped this into the budget without consumers having a say."

The second, which seems to be the viewpoint of those who support changes made by Democrats in 2009, is that auto insurance is something you purchase to protect other drivers from you. As such, government is acting permissibly when it moves to set minimum levels of coverage that are considered sufficient to protect others in the event that you cause an accident.

Opponents of the bill said that cutting the amount of required auto insurance coverage could have drastic affects on victims of car crashes.

"In the end of July 2010, my father was struck by a motor vehicle that did not yield the right of way while my father was on a motorcycle," said Daniel Plum.

Plum said his father's medical bills are only getting paid because of a 2007 law change.

"Without the bill that was in place, my father would not be able to collect on his uninsured motorist claims. He would only be allowed what the individual that hit him has on his claim for insurance," Plum said.

If one adopts the latter viewpoint, then presumably those whose economic means are the least are actually the ones who need higher levels of coverage the most. If they were to cause a serious accident, they have no ability to pay for costs beyond what their insurance covers. And to that end, it would be reasonable to suggest that most states have liability minimums that are far, far too low.

Of course, Rep. Nygren makes a legitimate point that higher coverage levels will mean higher premiums - to what extent those premiums will increase appears to be a point of debate and likely depends on the circumstances of the individual in question. So on that end, I suppose the question is whether you'd rather have fewer uninsured drivers, but more people with inadequate coverage among the insured, or more uninsured drivers but more people with adequate coverage among the insured.

Personally, the 100(individual)/300(combined)/50(property) liability component of my auto insurance policy is less than $300 a year. I also have an excellent driving record and garage the car in a neighborhood that's extremely safe.

Wisconsin's old minimum of 25/50/10 is one that my insurer won't even offer (I can't get less than $25k in property insurance). Were I to switch to a 25/50/25 policy, I would save about $40 a year on my policy, or $3.33 a month. That's roughly 9% of the present cost of my policy.

In any case, I think it's an interesting discussion and that both sides raise valid points. What do you think?

Glenn Grothman would work you 24/7 for no pay if he could.

Sen. Grothman took some time away from his unhealthy fascination with fetuses and the reproductive health of 15-year-old girls to put on his Captain Curmudgeon outfit in regard to MLK Day.

At least one state office in Wisconsin was open Monday despite the federal holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr.

Staffers worked in the office of state Sen. Glenn Grothman, R-West Bend, who says giving public employees the day off "is an insult to all the other taxpayers around the state" who may want to get in touch with government offices.

So what happens when I want to get in touch with my state government on the day after Thanksgiving? Or on New Year's Eve? Or does Grothman oppose furlough days with the same vigor that he opposes a day off to honor our nation's preeminent civil rights leader, since both are insults to the taxpayer?

When I worked at the Capitol, I always came in on MLK Day. Aside from some lunchtime entertainment in the rotunda, it was also a good day to be productive since the phones weren't ringing. You could come in, leave the door locked, let the phones go to voicemail, and actually get stuff accomplished without being pestered every five minutes.

Besides, nobody in Wisconsin really wants a Monday in January off. It's cold and the weather sucks. So I'd come in, get a bunch of stuff done, and comp a Friday in the summer when the weather was nice.

But I digress. It's possible that Grothman isn't being inconsistent. Perhaps he would prefer that all his employees come in every day and simply devalue their time by 5-10%. In which case, let me remind Sen. Grothman that when it comes to employee compensation in the upper house, he's pretty much free to lead by example. So make them come in on furlough days and cut their annual pay.

Who needs local control?

Lest you ever mistakenly think that Republicans still believe that the government that governs best is the one closest to home.

More state control of schools...

Later this month, Sen. Alberta Darling, R-River Hills, a former teacher and co-chairwoman of the Legislature's budget committee, plans to introduce a charter school reform package that will, among other things, call for an independent statewide board to approve charter schools.

And more state control of revenue options for local governments...

Gov. Scott Walker said he will try to impose strict limits on property tax increases while giving local governments facing cuts new tools to manage costs.

On Sunday's “UpFront with Mike Gousha,” a statewide TV newsmagazine produced in conjunction with WisPolitics.com, Walker said that even as he trims state spending while maintaining core services, he aims to do it in a way that doesn't simply pass costs off to the future or to local governments and property tax payers.

“We’re going to have to make tough but compassionate decisions to do that,” Walker said of his approach to closing the state’s $3.3 billion deficit.

Asked if he would be willing to cap property taxes at about 2 percent, Walker said he hopes to get “closer to zero” while still allowing provisions for growth and development.

First, Sen. Darling should be well aware after her lengthy tenure in the legislature that no independent board is really independent - not the Board of Regents, not the Natural Resources Board, not the Veterans Affairs Board, none of them. Why? They're all appointed by politicians.

Second, Governor Walker would be well-served to clean up his own house and let local communities decide how they wish to govern themselves. If a local government wishes to tax itself to the hilt (or conversely, little at all), why shouldn't that be a decision made locally? All boards with taxation authority are either elected directly or appointed by individuals who are elected. For as much as Wisconsin has historically begged Washington for the freedom to do things differently, it's unfortunate that the state spends so much energy trying to tie the hands of its own subordinate units of government.

Do as I say, not as I do.

At least, that's the message from your sheriffs in Kenosha and Racine counties.

MILWAUKEE — Some sheriff's departments in Wisconsin are ignoring a new racial profiling law and one lawmaker plans to introduce a bill to change it.

As of Jan. 1, about 650 law enforcement agencies in the state had to start collecting the age, ZIP code, gender and ethnicity of drivers pulled over and their passengers in an effort to determine whether deputies and officers are stopping drivers on the basis of race.

Kenosha County Sheriff David Beth and Racine County Sheriff Christopher Schmaling said filling out the new form, either by hand or on the squad's computer, takes too long, the extra time spent could impact officer safety and deputies already note much of the information on citations.

"Don't tie up my officers," said Beth, who along with Schmaling directed their deputies not to comply. "We are already struggling with the amount of deputies we have on the road, the amount of calls we have, the numbers keep going up. This is just another restriction, mandate we have."

I'm not going to comment on the efficacy of the new law. It's probably too soon to properly evaluate it anyway. What I can comment on, however, is this pathetic, bass-ackwards logic being used by a sheriff who seems to think that he's free to ignore directives from the state because he just doesn't have time to follow them.

Let's try that logic in a few other situations.

"Gee, I'm super busy with my job and my kids and everything, so I'm not going to file my taxes this year because it ties me up and I'm already struggling with the work I have."

"Wow, it turns out that I don't have time to take care of my newborn. I'm busy enough as it is with my other children. I'll just neglect him for now and hope that I have more time for him down the road."

"My schedule is very packed and I'm always on the go. The speed limit is dreadfully inconvenient for me and keeps me from getting done the things that I think are more important. So I'll drive as fast as I'd like."

I get that all law enforcement is discretionary, and always has been. Following protocol, however, is not discretionary. Don't like the law, get it changed. Until then, dear sheriffs, stop whining and tell your deputies to follow the law.

Big Baby Lueders cries to Little Fitz; hilarity ensues

I always liked Pat Fuller, the Assembly Chief Clerk. Not only was he one of the few straight shooters in the Capitol, but he also didn't put up with people's bullshit. That alone made him a breath of fresh air most days.

So go figure that one of the biggest bullshitters of all, Bill Lueders, seems to have had a problem with Fuller. Of course, what does Lueders do in response but whine to the Assembly Speaker, Jeff Fitzgerald, and attempt to diagnose Fuller with some kind of mental problem.

In reading Lueders' letter, I was struck by a few things.

First of all, what does it say about Lueders' knowledge of Capitol proceedings when the guy can't identify a man who's going into his fifth session as Chief Clerk of the Assembly? Gee Bill, he's that guy in the middle of the rostrum who reads the relating clauses on all the bills. He barks the roll like a drill sergeant. Or hey, maybe Bill only gets paid to have opinions about Capitol proceedings but not to actually pay to attention them. Lueders also doesn't seem to understand the difference between the Sergeant at Arms and the Chief Clerk, which is a fairly elementary affair.

Furthermore, although Lueders can't seem to recall any of Fuller's "harsh and intemperate" words, he readily admits that he called Fuller an "ass" to his face. Think maybe Lueders was escalating the situation unnecessarily?

According to an AP account:

"Mr. Fuller reacted angrily to being questioned on his interpretation of the law," Lueders wrote. "I do not recall his exact words but he was extremely harsh and intemperate. I did, in response, state that I considered him an 'ass.'"

Fuller then asked Lueders to go someplace and "settle this right now." Lueders said he believed Fuller "was indicating a desire to get into a fistfight," according to the letter.

"He did not deny it, and in fact restated his desire to settle things, apparently with fisticuffs," Lueders wrote.

Lueders said Fuller and Marchant then got up to leave. He asked Fuller again if he still wanted to settle things, to which Fuller replied that if it came to that, Lueders would lose.

Haha. Awesome. And true. Bill Lueders would lose, big time.

If I were making a list of people in the Capitol that I'd be willing to call an ass to their face, Pat Fuller's probably dead last on my list. The dude's the Chuck Norris of Wisconsin politics. He wakes up at like three in the morning, chews on shards of glass for breakfast, washes it down with a gallon of battery acid, goes to the gym, Hulks up for a couple hours, then comes to the Capitol and puts up with state employee bullshit for eight or ten hours a day, unless the Assembly is in session, in which case he's stuck there until the children decide to call it a night. And in spite of it all, I always thought Pat did his job with a professional demeanor and a fairly outstanding sense of humor.

So if there's going to be a Lueders/Fuller showdown, I will gladly volunteer to help set up the octagon in the rotunda and sell tickets to the event. I will also bet my life savings on Fuller to win inside of fifteen seconds.

Brown splits the difference on budget proposal

Jerry Brown takes his first whack at California's bloated, dysfunctional budget piñata.

Calling for a "vast and historic" reworking of state government finances, Gov. Jerry Brown Monday said he would release a $127.4 billion state budget for the 2011-12 fiscal year that includes dramatic spending cuts of $12.5 billion - including as much as a 10 percent cut in take-home pay for some state employees.

Brown's office vowed his budget proposals will protect one key area - kindergarten through 12th grade education - from any spending cuts...

The governor's budget includes total spending of $127.4 billion for the 2011-12 fiscal year - including $84.6 billion for the state general fund. But his office said the budget calls for $12.5 billion in spending cuts, $12 billion in modifications and extending taxes that are set to expire this year, $1.9 billion in other solutions to close the gap while providing for a $1 billion "rainy day" reserve.

Among the major cuts proposed by Brown: $1.7 billion to Medi-Cal, $1.5 billion to California's welfare-to-work program, also known as CalWORKs; $750 million to the Department of Developmental Services; $500 million to the University of California; $500 million to California State University, and $308 million for a 10 percent reduction in take-home pay for about 57,000 state employees who are not currently covered under collective bargaining agreements.

However...

Brown's budget proposal includes a plan for what he called a "five year extension of several current taxes" to allow the state to pay off and restructure debt "in an orderly fashion," and it also calls for the consolidation and elimination of some state functions.

What do you think? Are politicians willing to accept that the budget problems of most states might require cuts and revenue increases to be solved? Or will liberals continue to insist that states can tax their way to prosperity while conservatives try to borrow/cut their way to the same destination? And will California voters ever recognize that this is the mess you get when you direct your government's spending via referendum but then also tell government it can't collect any new revenue to pay for your demands?

Making hay while the sun shines

Certainly, what happened over the weekend in a Tucson parking lot was tragic, and the most important thing are the physical and emotional needs of the victims and their families. That said, the threads that run through this act are undoubtedly prime for a broader public discussion.

Personally, I'm with ex-Clinton press secretary Mike McCurry, when he says that "The only way you gain political advantage is by doing absolutely nothing to take advantage — and not have a lot of people backgrounding about how clever your political strategy is."

Three easy things for the Democrats to do right now:

1. Tell your supporters to stop blaming Sarah Palin for what Jared Loughner did. Those people are your crazies, and you need to shut them up ASAP. Aside from being a ridiculous assertion, it's irresponsible and it jeopardizes your credibility.

2. Reintroduce the Federal Assault Weapons Ban, the one the GOP happily allowed to lapse in 2004 so that mentally unstable folks like Jared Loughner can walk into a Sportsman's Warehouse and buy their glocks and extended cartridges over-the-counter. Force the GOP to defend on principle their belief that the general public should have free and easy access to weapons designed specifically to kill other people. This is a prime opportunity to reframe a wedge issue in a way that expands the margins in favor of gun control.

3. Introduce legislation that makes it illegal for individuals to encourage, suggest, or incite violence towards elected officials. Force the GOP to defend ugly speech under the First Amendment. When Sharron Angle endorses "second amendment remedies" towards public officials (or frankly, anyone), force the GOP to explain why that kind of speech is deserving of protection. It's not legal to threaten the President. Why should it be more legal to simply encourage violence towards him, or towards any other elected official?

One week into the new Congress and Democrats have a prime opportunity to derail any GOP momentum and force Republicans to defend their wackiest, craziest, most extreme positions. All they need to do to succeed is leave Sarah Palin out of it. Can they do it?

State Department changes passport applications

I love stuff like this, because it's entirely inconsequential and yet will throw social conservatives into an absolute tizzy.

The words “mother” and “father” will be removed from U.S. passport applications and replaced with gender neutral terminology, the State Department says.

“The words in the old form were ‘mother’ and ‘father,’” said Brenda Sprague, deputy assistant Secretary of State for Passport Services. "They are now ‘parent one’ and ‘parent two.’"

A statement on the State Department website noted: “These improvements are being made to provide a gender neutral description of a child’s parents and in recognition of different types of families.” The statement didn't note if it was for child applications only.

I'd bet a thousand dollars there's probably a thread about this topic at Free Republic, and I'd bet another thousand that it probably talks about polygamy in the first 20 comments. The price of gold might have eased in the last few days, but tinfoil is still a prime investment.

Your death panels are already here.

Many conservatives like to extol health care as a magic fairy tale where the market ensures that everyone gets all the care they need for a price they can afford. Many liberals, on the other hand, want to convince you that everyone can get all the care they want for a price that someone else will pick up.

Norman Ornstein reminds us all that the rationing bogeyman is already here.

In Arizona, the government headed by Gov. Jan Brewer summarily stopped approving Medicaid payments for many organ transplants in October; one man had a liver virtually snatched away while he waited to go into the operating room. He couldn't get it unless he came up with $200,000 to pay for the procedure.

In Indiana, the state Medicaid program denied a lifesaving operation last year to a 6-month-old boy who lacked a thymus gland, which generates cells that the body uses to fight infection. The Indiana Family Social Services Administration said the procedure was "experimental" - even though it had been successful in 43 of the 60 cases in which it had been applied. The state twice denied the family's appeals, but fortunately the publicity caused by this case prodded two health-care companies to pay for the $500,000 operation.

As it is, health care in America is rationed by cost. It always has been. And health care will always be rationed in some way, shape, or form, unless you're prepared to spend 100% of GDP on health care (I suspect you aren't). The goal, therefore, should be to improve outcomes so we can avoid that point as long as possible.

But when it arrives (and for many states, it's just around the corner), the question then becomes how we want to ration care and who should do the rationing. If there's only one transplant to be had, do you give the organ to the person who can pay the most for it? The person who will die soonest without the operation? Or the person to whom the organ will provide the greatest utility?

In other words, what's the fairest way to ration care? By need? By utility? Or by ability to pay?

So much for his happy ending.

While it was nice of Roger Goodell to drag his feet on the Jen Sterger matter, it would appear that Favre may have made even greater use of his limited time in New York.

New York (CNN) -- Embattled quarterback Brett Favre is facing new sexual allegations after two massage therapists filed lawsuits against him and the New York Jets football organization, where he was formerly employed.

Christina Scavo and Shannon O'Toole say they were subjected to sexual harassment and discrimination when Favre was part of that team, according to a criminal complaint filed Monday.

The pair say they lost their jobs as part-time massage therapists after objecting to sexually suggestive text messages he sent in 2008.

They filed a lawsuit with the New York Supreme Court naming Favre, the New York Jets and Lisa Ripi, the person in charge of hiring massage therapists, according to the complaint.

I can't imagine that it's news to anyone that Favre is a skeezy womanizer, but it is nice to see it all get dumped on the table at the end of his, errr, illustrious career. Maybe he should've made that second retirement in Green Bay stick.