Wage increases for legislators – Part 2

I’ve written before (OK, not on my blog or in a comment, but in e -mails to Kramer and Kanavas) what I think the Republican party should do on the pay raises for legislatures, but I guess that’s not going to happen.

(Thanks to Spring City Chronicle for the link; it was easier to go there than to go back and look for it from the online editions of the Freeman)

• Mary Lazich – “I’ve returned raises in the past and after I gave them back I saw how the state squandered the money. I don’t want to let it go to waste. I’d rather give it to a charity.” So I’m helping Sen. Lazich be charitable. Great. I don’t suppose she claims it on her income tax. Nah.
• Bill Kramer – “It’s my understanding that it was six years without a pay raise and I didn’t have anything to do with the voting on it. “But I still have to pay taxes on it. And I still have to spend time away from my business so I’ll need to put (the raise) into my business.” Yeah, well we’re all struggling, I guess.
• You’ve hear this one, right? “A state law that says we must accept the raise.”

This from the Freeman,

The Freeman contacted several departments within the Legislature and the state Department of Justice to verify that rule, though no one could confirm if there was such a requirement.[Emphsis mine]

Wigderson Library & Pub: I’ll see that and raise you a legislature

Perhaps even more disappointing than Kramer’s reaction was the mixed reaction from all legislative members of the Republican Party in Madison. It’s not like this pay raise was unexpected yet there was no strategy for dealing with the issue. Instead of being used to partisan advantage, the issue seems to have been rolled under the GOP tent like a live hand grenade. The reaction, sadly predictable, has been every man for himself.

And you would think legislators would at least acknowlege receipt of an e-mail, but maybe that’s asking too much.

Filed under: 33rd Senate District, 97th Assembly District, Spending, Wisconsin, Wisconsin legislature , Bill Kramer, legislative wage increases, Ted Kanavas, Wisconsin legislature

Taxes and spending

The Chief, who I don’t think would mind being called left-of-center, reminds us of something all conservative should know.

[L]et’s make something perfectly clear: any program introduced by a legislator — no matter how well-meaning, how virtuous, how essential to the public good — costs money.

The Chief is pointing at Sen. Mary Lazich’s Silver Alert legislation, which she plans to submit and, frankly, rightly calls it hypocritical. Now perhaps the senator is looking at cutting spending elsewhere to make room for this expense, but with Wisconsin already looking at having a $5 billion deficit, it’s hard to see where this would come from.

But maybe she’s looking elsewhere. In another post Sen. Lazich wrote,

Congress is considering giving grants to states to start their own Silver Alert programs. Another bill to be introduced in Congress this month would make Silver Alert a federally-run program in every state. [Emphasis mine]

Even if a federal program, it will be paid with my taxes. Is a state tax increase bad and a federal increase good?

But as a Stateline.org article notes

Silver Alert has few opponents, although proposals in some states have been rejected because of budget concerns and worries that law enforcers already are overburdened. Some state policymakers also have cautioned that too many alerts could make the public less likely to respond. [Emphasis mine]

Popular, but concerns.

So how much will it cost? I guess we’ll have to wait for the state bureau to look at it.

Filed under: Spending, Taxes, Wisconsin legislature , government budgets, Mary Lazich, Silver alert, Spending, Taxes, Wisconsin legislature

Quick Hits

Emptying out my drafts folder:

Top 9 Good Habits For A Deep Recession – These are good habits when there’s no recession.

From the Pew Research Center, The Religious Makeup of Congress – a nice graphical representation of the religious beliefs of the Congress compared with the American public as a whole.

By the director of new media in Obama’s Minnesota campaign, Developing a New Media Strategy for Campaigns Large and Small. This, of course, would not contradict experienced hands as Wigderson and Fraley who tell me, depending on the campaign, that a candidate needs to go door-to-door, but would be in addition to that.

How Can Facebook Crack its Advertising Problem? One problem with Facebook–it appeals to older folks like me who aren’t enticed to click the ads.

Cory Leibman has resurrected Eye on Wisconsin. Cory is a “progressive,” but he’s also a thinker and I like to read thoughtful folks like myself.

Massachusetts has a new marijuana law.

It sounds simple, but David Capeless, president of the Massachusetts District Attorneys Association, said the new policy presented a thicket of questions and complications.

There, now I feel better.

Filed under: Blogs - Wisconsin, Christianity, Economics, Religion and government, Spending, US House, US Senate, government regulation, liberal , Congress, Facebook, marijuana, Massachusetts, new media campaign strategy, recession, spending habits, US religion, Wisconsin blogs

Mayors’ infrastructure request full of pork

Not surprising,

The U.S. Conference of Mayors went to Capitol Hill earlier this month with a report listing 11,391 infrastructure projects proposed by 427 cities. The mayors claimed the proposal would create 847,641 jobs in 2009 and 2010. [Emphasis mine]

Although one man’s pork may be another’s essential spending, some of these might be debatable. The requests include

plans for a polar bear exhibit, an anti-prostitution program, a water park ride, zoos, museums and aquatic centers, CNN has found.

The polar bear exhibit? It’s to increase attendance at the zoo which “will stimulate the economy in Providence.”

The water park ride? Parks are part of infrastructure.

A $1.5 million program to reduce prostitution in Dayton, Ohio?

“People make judgments about the safety of a community by the level of social disorder. Street-level prostitution is clearly a social disorder,” said Dayton Police Chief Richard Biehl.

Museums? “There are plenty of museums that I think people would argue that are part of a fabric of a city,” [Miami, Florida, Mayor Manny] Diaz said.

Maybe Waukesha County Historical Museum should apply for some money so they can finally finish that Les Paul exhibit.

I’m sorry. When I think of infrastructure, I think of roads, bridges, cargo rail and, yes, even mass transit. [UPDATE: For example more  along the lines of Milwaukee mayor Tom Barrett's list.]

Filed under: Barack Obama, Spending, US cities , government spending, infrastructure, US Conference of Mayors, Waukesha County Historical Museum

Should the federal government bail out the states?

From a NYTimes editorial

If Congress and the White House can bail out bankers and insurance companies and possibly the auto industry, they should be able to help state and local governments, too. The aid could be temporary, the way it has been during past recessions. And it should come after cities and states have downsized to the essentials.

The rub comes in defining those “essentials.”

Filed under: Economics, Spending, Taxes , Economics, government spending, mortgage industry bailout, state budget deficits

Pelosi pushes gourmet menu

From Politico.com

Newly ascendant Democrats may have hit roadblocks on Iraq and fiscal issues, but they have revamped congressional menus, replacing fatty, pre-made foods with healthier, gourmet alternatives. The once dreary congressional cafeterias now abound with haute cuisine.

The menu transformation is part of Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s “Greening the Capitol” plan to make the House campus more environmentally friendly and socially progressive.

But there can be a downside to delicious. Not everyone is happy with the enhanced offerings. Many congressional employees have complained that as the food quality has increased, so have the prices.

“It’s a big jump from high school cafeteria to fancy-pants gourmet. I just wish my pay improved,” said Caryn Schenewerk, a staffer for Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.). [emphases are mine]

It’s nice that even though Congress can’t do squat to help the little people, they can eat well and increase expenses for everyone who eats there.

And who pays these expenses? You guessed it. So bend over and take it like a man.

Filed under: Spending , government waste

Blue Dog Democrats

Speaking of politics,

The blue dog Web site boasts that its mission is to “refocus Congress on balancing the budget and ridding taxpayers of the burden of debt.” If a balanced budget is what they want, the best fiscal option would be to enact what is called a “continuing resolution” budget that would fund all programs at last year’s level plus 1% or 2%. Along with rising tax revenues, this could cut the budget deficit roughly in half next year, to well under $100 billion. But Republicans can’t do that on their own: they need the votes of these moderate Democrats.

Here’s the rub: So far this year the blue dogs have been almost all bark when it comes to fiscal restraint and debt reduction. Thirty of the 48 have voted for every one of the non-defense spending bills their committee chairman have sent them. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is enforcing party discipline, and as a result 28 of the 48 blue dogs voted “no” on each of the 27 amendments that Republicans proposed to cut the costs of these bills. The 13 freshman Democrats who represent conservative districts–such as Heath Shuler (N.C.), Baron Hill (Ind.), Zack Space (Ohio), Nick Lampson (Texas)–have been a particular disappointment; back home these same blue dogs trumpet their “independent streak.”

The Blue Dog web site proclaimed in a news release in March,

The Blue Dog Co-Chairs applauded Chairman Spratt for including key Blue Dog-advocated priorities in the Democratic Budget Resolution including: an adherence to pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) budget discipline; a commitment to the extension of statutory PAYGO requirements; a commitment to provide adequate funding for our national defense; holding the line on mandatory spending levels to put our country back on the path to fiscal responsibility; and putting an end to irresponsible deficit spending in order to reach balance by 2012 [emphasis mine].

Fiscal responsibility, like disenfranchisement, must mean different things to different people.

By the way, the National Taxpayers Union has a page devotedto those representatives who have voted for every Flake amendment. (Since the beginning of this year’s Appropriations season in Congress, Arizona Representative Jeff Flake (R) has offered numerous amendments to spending bills in order to eliminate special-interest earmarks that waste tax dollars. )

On the list is James Sensenbrenner (so is Paul Ryan). One wonders how Burkee and Walz would respond to that.

Filed under: Economics, Spending