Democrats don’t like Barrett’s proposed “diet”

by thoughtfulconservative

At least one Democrat anyway:

State Treasurer candidate Dan Bohrod today said that he was disappointed in Milwaukee Mayor and Democratic gubernatorial candidate Tom Barrett’s proposal to eliminate the Office of the State Treasurer, ostensibly to save state tax monies.

via Bohrod Campaign: Bohrod disappointed in Barrett proposal.

Yes, disappointed because he’s running for the office and wants some job security.

Oh, did I read too much into that?

“I’ve been working hard over the last 8 ½ months trying to make the case that the State Treasurer is an important office, but has for many years lacked the appropriate leadership to provide a meaningful contribution to the public discourse as regards important state financial issues,” said Bohrod. “Apparently, I have more work to do.”

You bet you have more work to do! So we really need “ a meaningful contribution to the public discourse as regards important state financial issues” from a position that gets paid $62,000 and change? Don’t we have enough of people already making public discourse?

Look at the lieutenant governor candidates’ websites, those that have them. All of them want to bring jobs to Wisconsin and fix the budget. What’s the trouble? None of them can do a thing about it. The duties of the LG are basically to wait until the governor needs them for something, kinda like a vice-president.

Same with the state treasurer. Candidates can talk all they want about their “two decades of public budgeting experience” but basically they do squat. Yeah, I know their duties. I could probably do that from here in Waukesha on my laptop.

There’s more. Ah, but you knew there was, didn’t you?

“I think any time one Constitutional officer proposes elimination of another, folks should be wary….  Eliminating the Treasurer results only in the stifling of a voice of the people, a duly elected, Constitutional Officer”

Wow. Feelings of patriotism are welling up in my breast. “Stifling a voice of the people!” It must not be! Rally to its defense!

Did the sarcasm drip a little too much there? Sorry. But really, we’re not talking about eliminating an important office, like lieutenant governor or anything like that.

But really, I have never seen three more useless elected offices than lieutenant governor, secretary of state and state treasurer.


3 Comments to “Democrats don’t like Barrett’s proposed “diet””

  1. I do think there should be some continuity in terms of a transition when the governor resigns or dies or whatever. I don’t think what happened in Arizona, where Brewer took over after Napolitano resigned, should be allowed to happen. I don’t think an AG or Assembly Speaker or Senate President of a different party should be allowed to take over.

    Maybe what they could do would be to have the governor pick a legislator from his or her party. That person would just stay in the Legislature and in his regular job (if he has one) unless something happens to the governor, and then he would take over as governor.

  2. Just to be clear, that’s not a partisan thing either. Say Walker wins in 2010 and then had to step down in 2012 for some reason, I don’t think it would be right for Russ Decker or Mike Sheridan to potentially take over. Even if I think they’d be better governors than Walker would.

  3. I can agree with you on continuity and that it should be the same party. Let’s do it the same way as the nation, let Walker, Neumann, Barrett choose their own running mates.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: