Curmudgeon's Corner

The Journal Sentinel reported this morning that the two suspects, aged 23 and 22, in the robbery of the Guaranty Bank branch in the Germantown Pick 'n Save are nicely ensconced in the Washington County Jail.

This whole incident showcases the cooperation and professionalism of both the Germantown Police Department and the Menomonee Falls Police Department.  Germantown's Police Chief Pete Hoell said that in his posting to my earlier Blog on the idea of banks in stores.  And, during an entirely unrelated meeting with Menomonee Falls Village Manager Mark Fitzgerald this morning, he mentioned the same thing about the two Departments.  Both communities have every right to be proud, and we all can feel very safe knowing that this level of inter-Departmental cooperation will exist in every similar occurrence in the future.

This also showcases just how dumb criminals can be.  The two were room mates in a Falls apartment.  Each was spending the 'loot' within less than an hour of the robbery, and one was caught on tape doing so at the Wal-Mart on Appleton Avenue in Germantown.  One, the driver, was arrested at the apartment just under one and one-half hours after the robbery.  The other was arrested at the same apartment some fourteen hours after the robbery and after the apprehension of his 'roomie'.  Darwin could have done an entire study with these two suspects.

The robber has been implicated in the January 30th robbery of another Guaranty Bank branch in the Falls Pick 'n Save; police also suspect that he may be tied to one or more earlier bank hold-ups.

Still, I have concerns about bank branches inside stores with little or no physical separation between the bank and the other facilities.  It simply seems to beg for serious consequences at some point or another in the future.  The teller was reported as saying she feared there was a gun in the robber's left hand pocket since he kept that hand in his pocket and since his note suggested that he was armed.  If he were to have 'flipped' imagine the things we might be discussing today.

Banks have been located in grocery stores for the past couple of decades.  Grocery stores love it because they get more money from the space that might otherwise not be filled with merchandise.  Banks love it because people are found in grocery stores and people use banks.  And, a lot of people love it for the convenience; bank and shop with one stop.

Makes sense doesn't it?

It seems to make sense except when we hear about a 'bank robbery' involving one of those grocery store branches.  The grocery store branch bank cannot be as secure and protected as the bank in a dedicated building.  There are nearly always more innocent bystanders near the scene in an 'in store' robbery.  People who rob banks are simply not dependable people; we do not know how far they are willing to go to obtain money; we do not know if they might be armed.  They are, it seems to me, obviously a bit over the edge or they wouldn't be robbing a bank. 

By now you probably know that the bank branch inside the Germantown Pick 'n Save store was robbed yesterday at shortly after 11:00AM.  The layout of this store and the bank branch is such that there is very little room separating the bank from the grocery store aisle that passes in front of the check-out lanes.  It is located very close to the center entrance, has one enclosed office and an open teller counter area.  It is not uncommon to see customers queued up at free-standing tables in front of the teller counter waiting their turn.  Grocery customers are often standing in line or checking out or bagging their groceries.  Others are often at the Customer Service counter.  There is no real physical separation involved and that could lead to innocent people finding themselves involved in a bank hold-up.  Additionally, the grocery check-outs are loaded with money, too.  What's to stop the robber from making a few withdrawls there while he or she is at it?  That is not good.

It seems that, if a bank branch is to be permitted to occupy space in some other venue such as a grocery store or a Wal-Mart super store (which also has such a bank), the bank should be separated physically from the other open areas of the host store.  There should be walls, whether solid or glass, separating the two business activities.  That makes sense as much from a simple 'privacy' perspective as it does from the 'safety' perspective.

There are quite a number of bank robberies every year in Wisconsin.  We seldom hear much since the bank executives and the police agencies don't want to make a lot of 'to do' over these events.  This certainly is not the first such occurrence in a grocery store setting.

Is it a good idea to have bank customers and grocery customers intermingled as they are in the Pick 'n Save?  I don't think so.  Should there be physical separation?  I think that is a good idea.  How could that be accommodated in the Pick 'n Save?  There could be a new bank entrance constructed in the outer hallway with walls separating the bank from the inner grocery store area.  It would still permit one stop shopping and banking, but it would keep the two separate and, I believe, offer more privacy and more protection.

Am I just an Old Curmudgeon, or is there something to this with which you agree?

Barack Obama was soundly criticized for his 'empty eloquence' as John McCain labeled it.  Mr. Obama has begun to add some of the substance that seemed to be missing from his earlier speeches and from his earlier debate responses.  He is proving himself to be very facile and to have 'facts' well under his control.  His 'facts' might be subject to further debate, but he is not easily tripped up when probed for a deeper response to nearly any topic.

This newfound substance, however, causes me some other concerns.  Barack Obama appears to have never met a problem that couldn't be solved by more government intervention or more tax dollars or both.

At last count, his proposals will have added some $800 billion dollars to our tax load.  He is using the populist approach of pillorying the nasty corporations that make too much money.  The worst part of that is the simple fact that too many of our citizens lap it up like Mothers' Milk.  Virtually anyone who has a share in a mutual fund, or who is in a 401K program or a profit-sharing plan or who is a direct stockholder participates in those 'gross' profits.  It may be true that some CEOs make too much money.  If that is the case, then their Boards of Directors need to take corrective action.  It is not productive to take some governmental action that tanks the entire organization.

Some of those corporations that are to be targeted include the pharmaceutical companies.  The stream of new 'miracle' drugs would not be present today if those corporations had been subjected to the kind of 'profit controls' that Obama and other liberals espouse.  If there is no reward to be had after the ten to fourteens years of investment necessary to even determine if there is a new drug to be found, then there will cease to be risks taken...and there will absolutely be no new drugs.  That is but one example.

There is ample crude oil available if the liberals would simply permit drilling to occur.  The hue and cry about the trans-Alaska pipeline has proved to have been unfounded.  The pipeline was elevated and the caribou walk under it.  That was the solution to the plaint that migratory habits would be affected.

The crude oil could be refined more quickly and at less cost if new refining capacity had been permitted in the past two decades, but government couldn't find it in its 'heart' to permit that.  So, we now import 13% of our gasoline at significantly higher costs than would've been necessary.

Barack Obama reminds me of another little-known politician from decades ago who took the country by storm and found himself in the Oval Office.  His name was Jimmy Carter and he is the worst example of a U.S. president that I've seen in my lifetime.  I recall the 13% prime rates and unemployment rates.  I remember the Iranian hostage crisis precipitated by the folly of a foreign policy that he created.  I remember the gas lines.

Barack Obama frightens me as the substance begins to be revealed.  He is an old-fashioned 'tax, spend and regulate liberal' as Larry Kudlow said in his Washington Times column published on February 19th.  Only his rhetoric is fresh...and that is beginning to show signs of getting tired, too.

I regularly read the Blogs at Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review.  I know... I should get a life :>)

One in particular caught my attention.  It discussed the phenomenon that is Barack Obama, and the recently energized involvement of youthful voters.  Against this backdrop, the author peered into a crystal ball and opined about some of the implications.  In turn, I began thinking about the issues this could raise:

* * * * * * * * * *

It was recently reported that the cost per senior citizen for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in 2007 set a record at $27,289 each.  That equates to about $10,673 per non-senior household.  While the number of senior citizens has remained stable at about 12% of the total U.S. population, the costs have risen by 24% more than the cost of living since 2000.  I suspect most of that increase is due to the cost of health care services since social security payments increase at about the rate of the cost of living increase and a year or so in arrears.

Most of us have been aware that, despite politicians' protestations to the contrary, there is no 'lock box' where previous contributions have been squirreled away for future use.  The money that has gone into this 'Trust Fund' has been removed by Congress and spent on current needs for years and years.  As the result, with longer lives after retirement, there are fewer workers who are being required to support each of the retirees.  This is truly a 'pay as you go' system today.

This situation is now being exacerbated by the beginning of the influx of the 'boomers' who are now beginning to reach 62 years of age and thus qualifying for social security benefits.  I read in another journal that the average savings of the boomers retiring at this point is some $40,000.  If that is the case, there is a real rude awakening due for all of us in the not too distant future, no matter how well we might or might not be situated in our own right.

Senior voters have always pretty much controlled the debate on entitlements for their age group through organizations such as the AARP, the senior voting block and various other groups.  This is about to change, however, as Obama brings more and more younger voters onto the political scene.  That will likely continue if he is elected, and certainly many of those people will stay involved even if he is defeated.

The long and short is this:  there is a much delayed debate due in the very near future about how to change senior entitlement programs so that the remaining 'worker bees' are not driven into bankruptcy in their attempt to make their living and to pay federal, state and local taxes.

As more seniors draw against the promises made to them over their lifetimes, the pressures on the taxpayers will increase unless some changes are made, and made quickly.  This idea that the debate can be delayed for another decade is simply not a correct assumption.  And, the children of the baby boomers who may be moved to take a stand that they want changes made would nearly assure the debate being joined.

35% of all federal spending is for seniors' entitlements, and that was just 32% in 2004.  Something has to give, but what will it be?  And whom in the current political arena is brave enough to face up to the challenge?  We often hear about the 'third rail' of politics...and that third rail is exactly what we're talking about here. 

Changes will be necessary and almost everyone will ultimately feel the impact of those changes.

The time for political demagoguery, if there ever was a time for that, has ended.

The uglier side of politics reared its head in the last couple of days.  In this instance, the victim appears to be the virtual school movement and its students and their parents.  The larger loss is the innovative approach to education that looked to be worth fully exploring.

How did this occur?  WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council), the largest of the two major teachers' unions in Wisconsin flexed its muscle.  It called in some political chits it has amassed by supporting Democrats with both money and 'in kind' services.

Why did this occur?  Because WEAC is threatened by anything that deviates from the norm that WEAC has worked so diligently for years to establish and protect.  Never mind that the norm has some very real problems.  Never mind that virtual schools showed some real promise.  Never mind that students and parents are hurt.  It has nothing to do with anything except the survival and dominance of WEAC.

It is so egregious, that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel editorial staff dealt with it in this morning's editorial titled 'A Failed Compromise'.

Patrick McIlheran also discussed this in his column, Senate says whoa on innovation, and pointed out that some 23,000 students use the current open enrollment law to engage in home study.  Some 3,300 of those are students in virtual schools.  The law didn't limit the growth of these virtual schools until a recent court decision in a case brought by WEAC.

WEAC would run the risk of fewer members since teachers in a virtual school have the ability to teach more students at the same time with no diminution of results.  This is a threat to the number of teachers who would pay dues to the union.  It is also a threat since there just might be a better solution to existing education problems that WEAC didn't create.

We can't have that kind of blasphemy going on now, can we?

We have, as a country, had the ability to quickly subject people to warrantless wiretapping orders since soon after 9/11 so that we could prevent other such occurrences and terrorist activities in general.  Apparently this, in conjunction with other things, has worked because we've been remarkably safe and protected here in our homeland.

The FISA mechanism was too slow to properly enable us to defend against the use of throw-away cell phones, etc., and this approach was the solution to the changing techniques used by the 'bad guys'.

Nancy Pelosi and her radical left-wing friends were not at all satisfied with that.  Neither were the trial lawyers since they saw this as very fertile ground that could lead to major paydays.  Pelosi's House of Representatives failed to do its job of renewing and extending the protection measures for U.S. telecommunications companies that engage in these taps before it closed and went home. 

The telecommunications companies were voluntarily conducting the taps since they had been given protection against lawsuits resulting from the activities.  Ms. Pelosi has made sure that the lawyers can now unleash the hounds.

So, now, telecommunications companies are without protection, and they are uniformly advising that they'll no longer be able to provide the taps.

This sounds pretty much like 'inside the beltway' political jibber-jabber, but it has a very significant impact on the country's safety.  Intelligence Committee Chairman, Jay Rockefeller, a Democrat, said this on the Senate floor last week:  "What people have to understand around here is that the quality of the intelligence we are going to be receiving is going to be degraded.  It is already going to be degraded as telecommunications companies lose interest".  These companies were doing this as a service to the country.  They made nothing on this service.  And without protection from lawsuits, they're simply not going to remain involved.

The Democrats who wanted to kill the wiretap program couldn't come up with enough votes to make that happen, so they've found a back-door approach.  The Senate passed the extension by a vote of 68-29.  Incidentally, Barack Obama voted against it, and Hillary Clinton was absent for the vote.  That gives us all a very good idea of what is in store if the liberal Democrats gain control of the White House and both houses of Congress. 

The real fear is that this move will have the effect of making the question "When"  rather than "If" on the issue of another terrorist attack here.

I had the opportunity to visit the Milwaukee Public Museum and the Body Worlds exhibition that is now being featured.  I had seen the publicity information so I felt that I had an idea of what to expect.

My expectations were significantly shattered by the reality of the exhibition.  It is simply AWESOME!

The various displays are done in what I would call good taste.  I left the Museum feeling as though I now knew more about self than I had ever known before.  At the same time, I didn't feel that my religious beliefs had been assailed or assaulted.

There is a separate exhibition showing embryonic development, and showing an adult woman at a late stage of pregnancy.  You may view that if you desire.  If you wish not to see this section, it is effectively kept from the publics' accidental viewing.

This was a moving experience for me.  I marveled at the complexity of the human body.  I now have a much better understanding of my own body and what I do or don't do to it and for it with various actions I might take.

There were student groups accompanied by parent escorts and teachers.  I would suspect the students were twelve or thirteen years of age.  It was obvious that this was a real learning experience for the kids, and it seemed to be a valuable teaching venue for the teachers.

There was a very young girl (three year or four years old) accompanying her parents, and she seemed oblivious to what surrounded her.  There was no indication of horror or fear of the sights she was seeing.  I obviously have no idea if she slept well that evening. 

If you're at all interested, you can access the Milwaukee Public Museum site for more information.

As I read through the Journal Sentinel this morning, Mike Nichols' column titled "Independents have clout, if not cohesion" caught my eye.  It deals with the registered Democrats, the registered Republicans and those of us who declare ourselves to be 'independent' of those parties.  Please read it in its entirety when time permits by clicking on the link above.

If you're a regular reader, you'll recall my Blog titled "Socialism is alive and well...in Washington, D.C." that appeared a week or so ago.  That dealt with my take-away after having visited Congressman Obey's office and the treatment my group received from one of his assistants in Mr. Obey's absence.

Now, I find that the congressman feels that those of us who declare ourselves as independents "are by their very nature the people who have the least depth and exposure to what the candidates are doing and saying.  That's why they're independents."

Nichols went on to point out that some 40% or more of Wisconsinites are independent while 25% are registered Republicans and 29% are registered Democrats.

First, I found Obey's statement to be reflective of his very apparent black and white view of politics.  Seemingly, we either agree with him or we're wrong...Period!

Second, I re-thought my decision to cease being a member of the Republican party several years ago.  It was essentially made as the result of my feeling that the party and I had grown further and further apart in points of view; and it was made when I thought that my contributions could be better directed to individual candidates as I chose.

Third, I resent the 'broad brush' with which I and other independents were obviously painted by Mr. Obey.  I spend a great deal of personal time studying the positions of every candidate.  I am particularly tuned to taxation and health care issues and very aware of immigration and general governance issues.

If you're an 'independent', are you lacking in knowledge about politics and candidates?  Do you feel that you need to be told by a political party what to think and how to vote?  Or, do you feel that you're likely to be better informed than most party regulars with whom you might interact?

I've used the phrase 'organized political party' as a great example of an oxymoron.  Since 'independents' are likely comprised of people of all political persuasions, it is probably unlikely that we'll coalesce into yet another 'organized political party'.  We obviously will have divergent points of view...but we'll have reached those viewpoints by independent thinking and analysis...not by group think.

Those of us who are more liberal will probably gain some impact by attempting to influence the Democrats' party, and those of us who are more conservative will probably gain some impact by attempting to influence the Republicans' party.

I would submit to you that conservatives will gain more clout in the Republican party than will liberals in the Democrat party.  Why is that?  The Democrat party is so very liberal today compared to 40 years ago that it is nearly impossible for it to become more so, and the independent liberals are much more the moderates of the Democrat party than anything else.

Back in my Blog of January 23rd, I tried to work through the choice of the person of conservative bent whom I would favor with my vote during our primary elections.  I had, at that point, devolved to Mitt Romney as 'my candidate'.  Then, Mitt determined that he wouldn't make the cut and removed himself from the fray.  He was statesmanlike, and, I believe, was placing party and country above self.  That's part of what attracted me to him, and still is.

So now, I watch 'liquid snow' and have realized that I no longer have a decision to make.  My three choices are Ron Paul, Mike Huckabee and John McCain.

I realize I am offending some of the most rabid political backers alive today when I say that Ron Paul is still a loose cannon and that I cannot vote for him.  (I saw a fixed wing airplane towing a Ron Paul banner yesterday over the Milwaukee area.  That struck me as strange since there were no large outdoor gatherings to attract viewers.)  There are some values that he espouses in the Libertarian mode that have appeal to me, but I simply do not believe that he is the right person with the right values to lead us today.

I believe that Mike Huckabee is also not right for our country today.  He has no real chance and yet he persists in continuing to run because he is able to do it 'on the cheap' and because he either thinks he'll be a player in a 'brokered' nomination, has a shot at the 'Veep' slot or is simply creating name recognition for his follow-up race in four or eight years.  He seems to me to be in the race for himself and not for the country.  I do not yet see the 'statesman' who recognizes that he is, at best, a spoiler, and therefore removes himself from the race to help the party coalesce around the obvious candidate.

The 'obvious candidate' is John McCain as much as I wish it might be Fred Thompson or Mitt Romney.  I cannot bring myself to vote for Hillary to try to somehow stem the Obama tide.  Either of the candidates on the other ticket frighten me; it is simply a matter of degrees of frightfulness.

I still have misgivings about McCain, but he is the only choice for me on the critical issue of freedom.  He will continue to be the tough fiscal conservative, and Lord knows we need that today.  I would like a tougher stance on the issue of illegal immigrants already in the country, but that has to take a back seat to our country's safety.  I would like for him to not have co-sponsored 'McCain Feingold', but he did.  I would like a more controlled temper, but I'll have to presume that he'll have solid advisors with whom he'll take counsel before making major decisions.

How he will fare against Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama remains to be seen.  I suspect that he might have a better chance against Hillary than Barack, but I'm not in the position to make that decision, so I'll just have to take my chances.

This has been a difficult decision-making process and I'm almost grateful that the final decision was made for me.

We have all heard and read about the Clintons seemingly forever.  We were, as a country, mesmerized by the first 'man from Hope'.  We watched as this former Arkansas governor simply overwhelmed the opposition.  He had all the right moves.  He seemed sincere.  He was, unknown to us at the time, a bit of a scoundrel.  He became our president for eight years.  He built the most vaunted political 'machine' of its time, and that machine ultimately helped to put the former first lady into the U.S. Senate as a New Yorker which was a stretch.  The definition of carpetbagger had to be stretched to accommodate her.

Senator Hillary Clinton was watched as she did her work in the Senate.  She was mentioned early on as the prospective first woman candidate for the presidency.  It seemed to be her destiny.  The press couldn't seem to get enough of her.  And, as it was written, she assumed the mantle and joined the race amid the flourishes that accompany the 'next coming' of a politician.

And now, there seems to be a burn-out factor that she is having greater and greater difficulty overcoming.  Peggy Noonan writes, in her piece 'Confidence or Derangement' about the problems that have beset this campaign.  If you've not read it, I would encourage you to do so.  I am, admittedly, a big Noonan fan.

Barack Obama is a politician's politician.  His rhetorical gift has propelled him into the stratosphere of political approval.  His fans are truly fanatical.  He has just begun to make his actual positions known and yet he is virtually the next Democrat candidate for President.  His speeches have inspired without educating.  He has refused to debate his now sole opponent, as is customary for the leading candidate to refuse until forced into such debates.  It has been difficult to determine his real positions on a range of important subjects.  Those positions are beginning to be fleshed out, but the decision has nearly been made, so the facts don't seem to matter that much.

It is doubtful, at best, that his actual positions will change any of his supporters' opinion about where their vote should go.  This has become a frightening political season for me quite frankly.  I do not recall such enthusiastic support about any candidate from any party in the past without having been able to get at the substance of the person.  Albeit, when candidates camouflage their real thoughts and simply parrot what they know the masses want to hear, we're unable to glean insight into the real person.  But this somehow feels different to me. 

It feels like the election could simply turn on a phrase.  And, that, even in politics, seems dangerously shallow to me.  Obama is the most liberal of the liberals.  He is, as I stated earlier, seemingly a socialist/populist.  Whatever is wrong can be fixed by government.  Corporations make too much money, so we'll force them to spend those profits as we, the government, deem they ought be spent.  And, if they refuse to buckle, we'll simply take the money away from them.

This has the vague sound of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. 

Am I the only person who is exasperated with our state and national political/tax scene?  I doubt that very much. 

As I watch the 'Amazing Obama' versus 'Deserving Hillary' race unfold, I see a real race as to which can promise greater tax increases/profit confiscation to the tune of TRILLIONS of dollars.  What is even more amazing to me is the blatant approach both are taking...coupled with the seeming lack of perception their two groups of supporters have of what they're getting into.  These two people are socialist/populists so far as I can see.  There is the inevitable class warfare coupled with promises that neither will ever be able to keep...thank goodness!  And, it seems, with every passing day, that Barack Obama will wrest this nomination away from Hillary Clinton unless the Clinton 'machine' is able to do him in...and that cannot be discounted.

Then, I read of our state's revenue collection shortfalls totaling something in the range of $650 Million by the middle of next year.  And, I hear the 'solutions' offered by Governor Doyle and by the Republicans.

On the one hand, we are collecting $650 Million less than projected due to an economic downturn.  That economic downturn is, in large part, caused by heavy taxation in our state.  We have all learned, if we'll admit it to ourselves, that lower tax rates increase revenue collections since they stimulate the economy.  Let us keep more of what we earn, and we'll find ways to earn even more than we were before, and tax collections increase.

Governor Doyle would combine his already once-defeated tax on hospitals (which will exacerbate the health care cost crisis), and delay some of the tax decreases that were part of the so-called 'bipartisan' budget passed just a few short months ago.  In essence, his solution is to raise taxes to get us out of our economic slump.

Fortunately, the Republicans are, so far at least, saying there can be no new taxes and there must be spending reductions instead.  Sen. Alberta Darling is releasing today her "Stay In Wisconsin" program.  That program represents her agenda aimed at keeping seniors, students and working families in Wisconsin.  We talked just days ago about Wisconsin's outflow of population.  Her package of proposals would eliminate the Estate Tax, increase the Property Tax Credit for seniors, eliminate tax on Social Security income, increase Tax Exemption limits, make Student Loan interest fully deductible, along with a few other things including evidenced-based health care reform. 

Probably the biggest boost would come from what Sen. Darling calls 'Invest Wisconsin 2.0'.  That includes the following:

• a 1% across the board income tax cut for all Wisconsin taxpayers
• Capital Gains reinvestment
• Angel Investment tax credit
• Education tax credit
• Green Data Center tax credit
• NanoSTEM research initiative
• Nanotechnology tax credit
• Product liability reform
• Expert Witness reform
• Jobs Preservation

The Governor seems intent on raising taxes to increase revenue while many Republicans are pointing in the direction of economic stimulation as the solution. 

I don't know about you, but I am just about at my tax paying limit.  I'd much rather help pay for a new elementary school in Germantown than add more money to the state's tax collection coffers.  The return on investment seems much better if we invest locally while our state stimulates the economy instead of increase taxes.

By the way, the idea of reducing expenditures when income lags is something that just about everyone of us has had to to do at one time or another.  Isn't it the state's turn to practice that simple budget technique for awhile?

I was struck by this news item from yesterday.  I vividly recall one day when my Dad brought home one of the very first Polaroid 'Instant' cameras.  It was a relatively large folding camera where the lens appeared as the unit unfolded.  It must have weighed almost two pounds.  That had to be in the early to mid-1950s.

The film came in a box and I recall that you got eight pictures per box at a cost approaching about $4.00 per box.  That was a high price in the mid-50s.

The camera took only black and white pictures.  You had to grasp the film tab after snapping the shutter, and pull it evenly through a set of rollers thus squeezing the 'developer' solution over the exposed film.

The packet was self-contained when it emerged and had to rest outside the camera for a minute or two to permit the developing process to be completed.  You then peeled the film packet apart and the picture emerged.  The picture then had to be coated with something in a tube that smelled like paint thinner.  This applied a coat of a plastic-like substance that sealed the picture and permitted it to be mounted in an album or frame.

So, in the span of less than six decades, a new discovery has appeared and disappeared.  At its peak, Polaroid employed 15,000 people.  It quit producing new cameras a few years ago. 

The pace of mankind's knowledge expansion is almost frightening.  I've read in several journals that man's knowledge doubles every five or six years.  I am particularly troubled by that since mine is not keeping up, or at least I don't think it is keeping up.  This points up the fact that we can never quit learning.  This also helps me better understand why my grandkids are so much smarter than me :>)

As a follow up to the last question, the question posed to Bruce Warnimont was this:

Question:  If the vote on April 1st is against the referendum question, will we see it again?

Response:  If a majority of the voters in the Germantown School District vote against the referendum on April 1st, it will come back again in November.

Passage this spring means that the school will be open for the start of the 2009-2010 school year, and the construction costs will be locked in at 2008 rates for materials, labor, etc.  Postponing approval until November 2008 or April 2009 will add a year to the completion date, and probably increase the construction costs by 10% or more.

Two years ago, the School Board was able to implement an optional full-day Kindergarten program, on a limited basis, because of moderate shifts in elementary school enrollments.  That opportunity will not exist after the coming school year, based on data produced by Applied Population Laboratory.  The APL has been extremely accurate thus far, and two major factors weren't included when the study was done: the new addition of water and sewer to the northern most part of the school district, and a new housing boom in Richfield.  Absent these developments, APL still projects that elementary school enrollments will top 1,800 in just a few years.

The effect of notoriety as the thirtieth best place to live will have an unexpected effect on migration into the school district.

Since implementing a new class size policy in 2002, Germantown's fourth grade test scores have marched upwards.  This past year, we were third best district in southeast Wisconsin when "advanced and proficient" scores were compared.  Teachers and children agree that small, controlled class sizes afford the time and attention needed to build the skills of struggling students and enhance the achievements of all.  So this becomes a "Catch-22" situation:  customers get attracted to our schools due to the proven success of smaller class sizes, then those children raise the class size to the point where less benefits are achieved.

I'd like to take the space that's available in this response to comment on "space".  Each grade level at each school, and the size of the classrooms available, has to be examined separately.  For example, School A may have 84 children enrolled in second grade and 66 enrolled in fourth grade: that's 150 children, total, and quick math might say "25 per classroom" when in actuality it's 22 in 3 fourth grade classrooms and 28 or 29 in 3 second grade classrooms - where 21 in 4 classrooms for second grade means better chances for high achievement.

*******

Once again, thanks to Bruce Warnimont for taking the time to respond to this question.  Please take the time to voice your comments and to pose other questions that come to mind.  Those can be done either through e-mails to me or comments posted to this Blog. 

United Van Lines recently released its 2007 survey of migration patterns from state-to-state across the country.  It shows that, while Wisconsin is not yet listed as a 'high outbound' state, it is nearing that designation with 54.6% of moves being out of the state rather than into the state.  55% is the trigger point to move into the high outbound category.  This trend has been evident since United started this survey in 1977.

Given our winter so far this year, we might blame some of these outbound moves on that.  North Carolina was the highest rated inbound state, followed by Alabama, South Carolina, West Virginia and Tennessee.

Great Lakes states were in the high outbound category with Michigan on top, and North Dakota, New Jersey, Indiana, Illinois, Pennsylvania and Ohio included.

The Wall Street Journal carried this a step further in a morning Editorial by establishing a significant link to the outbound states.  Each outbound state is a high tax state.  And, the eight states without an income tax are all inbound states.

The Dakotas are an excellent example of this movement.  North Dakota ranked second worst in outbound migration in 2007.  South Dakota ranked in the top 10 inbound states.  North Dakota has an income tax, and South Dakota does not.

Winter isn't the culprit there, and it isn't the culprit in the rest of the Great Lakes states.

Our politicians need to wake up and recognize that rising tax rates drive people away.  Just as the increase in tobacco taxes will ultimately result in far lower tobacco tax collections, the same holds true for taxes in general.  When tax rates are decreased, actual tax collection increases over time.  Similarly, when tax rates are increased, actual tax collection goes down over time.

One sure way to reduce tax collection is to drive people away from our state.  And it seems we're in that mode based on United's study over the years.

It is nearly impossible to avoid finding something having to do with our health care cost 'crisis' in any newspaper we pick up.  There are seemingly press releases offered daily by one or another group extolling the virtues of their plan for controlling this 'crisis', and yet the magnitude of the 'crisis' continues to increase.

Several weeks ago, I wrote about the things that consume half or more of the money we pump into the health care system.  Those issues are all matters of personal control.  We eat too much fat; we smoke too much; we drink too much alcohol; and we get too little exercise.  These are personal issues and they cannot be solved by any organization, nor any government program...yet we stumble-bumble along somehow expecting that the nanny government will do for us what we apparently will not do for ourselves. 

Unless and until we gain control over our own destructive habits, there is no 'solution' to the health care cost 'crisis'.  None!  By the way, it is not a health insurance premium crisis!  It is a health care cost crisis.  Insurance premiums reflect health care costs, not the other way around.

The magic "BadgerCare Plus' program that opened for business on February 1st in Wisconsin will do nothing about the 'crisis' other than to formalize the mechanism to throw more money at a personally-created problem.  It demands nothing from those who are participants other than the continued payment of their share of the 'premium', which is too low to cause any lifestyle changes.

Governor Doyle's newest health care 'solution', to be called BadgerChoice if it sees the light of day, will do nothing about the real problem.  He used a consultant who helped Massachusetts create its 'connector' or 'exchange' for health care.  That program is less than a full year old and already has a $400 Million deficit that nobody knows how to solve.  It uses 'community rating' which causes the healthy to pick up costs for the unhealthy.  That does nothing to promote healthy lifestyles; and, it tends to cause the healthy to stay away from the program because they know it is a bad deal.  It requires, or mandates, that everyone have coverage.  If they don't have it, they'll lose their tax refund or they'll have their wages garnished.  Mandates have never worked for auto insurance where 15% or more of all citizens in states that 'mandate' auto insurance are uninsured.  Why would we knowingly replicate a solution for our state that is already failing.  Yes, Mitt Romney was governor at the time, thus establishing that neither Republicans nor Democrats necessarily really have a grip on the issues.

How do we solve the real problem?  We begin by making individuals accountable for their own health.  If it begins to cost us more money, maybe we'll come around to a better understanding that a six-pack per day isn't the best approach; or that several Big Macs each week could be part of the problem.  People who continue to pursue their unhealthy habits, even after being helped to understand their issues and being counseled as to how to change, would be charged more for their coverage because they're going to use more care.

We make health care costs and health care outcomes 'transparent' for all to see, and we give people a financial incentive to make better decisions.  We reward the providers that deliver better quality at the same or lesser prices.  We do that by making Health Savings Accounts a part of the majority of the health plans offered in Wisconsin, in both the public and private sectors.  Those are not the 'evil' tool of Republicans, by the way.  What they are is the solution that Democrats fear because ultimately they'll help us get over the idea that only big government can solve these problems.

These things have already proved themselves, but we continue to wallow around not getting anything done.  Or, worse, we find some scheme that has already shown it will fail, and then try to import it to Wisconsin.  Without placing responsibility squarely on the shoulders of the individuals, we'll not find a workable solution.  Why not? Because we will spend more money than we can afford while those who refuse to take responsibility for themselves dither at the local bar or fast food drive-through window.

Government entitlements do not cure problems; they perpetuate or exacerbate problems.  Free market forces solve problems.  Let's get on with it!

As mentioned in the January 30th Blog that inaugurated this series of discussions about a new elementary school in Germantown, we sought questions to be posed to Bruce Warnimont, Committee Chair of the School Board's Building Committee.

Question:  How do us citizens know that this proposal is truly the best of the alternatives that were considered?

Answer by Bruce Warnimont:  Perhaps an appropriate way to answer this question is to briefly recount the building alternatives considered over the past five years.

• Building addition to Amy Belle:  Amy Belle's enrollment is constrained by the site's septic system, and the septic system is restricted by the lot size, system design and soil hydrology.  No expansion of this school can be done with any reasonable degree of feasibility and cost.
• Building additions to MacArthur and County Line:  These schools are land-locked.  Expansion would require the acquisition of adjoining homes and their subsequent demolition.  Additional art and music rooms would be required, and gymnasiums would have to be enlarged.  Also, the entire buildings would have to be brought up to the most current building codes at tremendous expense.
• Portable classrooms:  There's no such thing anymore.  The correct term would be 'modular classrooms' and they're nothing more than pre-fabricated buildings.  All of the other construction expenses, such as foundations and sprinkler systems, are required.  Local building codes prohibit them.  Plus, the same concerns expressed above for Amy Belle, County Line and MacArthur still apply.
• Adding on to Kennedy Middle School and relocating fifth graders:  This would require a sizable addition of at least 14 classrooms, and would have to include more art, music, PE and lunchroom space.  Construction would have to be coordinated around the school schedule/year.  And again, the entire KMS building would have to be renovated to meet all of the current codes.
• Renovate and re-open Highway View School or remodel the Administration Building (Victory Center School) for use as a half-day Kindergarten building:  This would only solve the Kindergarten issue, to a degree, and does not address any of the over-population issues in other grades.
• Build a new Kindergarten-only building, or K-1 building:  This would cost nearly the same as a K-5 building but with higher transportation costs.
• There is a non-building alternative:  Do nothing.  The immediate consequence to this option would be to realign attendance boundaries to conform to the restrictions on Amy Belle School, compounding the crowding at County Line and MacArthur.  And, abandon the full-day Kindergarten option, resulting in the loss of millions of dollars in state aid (with a corresponding increase in local taxes).  Other losses would probably occur, as well, but since I'm charged with recounting 'knowns' rather than 'beliefs', I prefer not to speculate, regardless of how probable those beliefs might be.

I want to thank Bruce for the time and attention he has given this question, and I'd like to invite comments and other questions from readers.  Comments are easy and might help your neighbors reach a good decision.    

Washington County received 20" of snow, and some of us felt it in Washington, D.C.  Midwest Airlines had its hands full on Wednesday as the storm continued to dump and then appeared to stall.  I sat in the airport waiting along with several hundred others as the saga unfolded.  A morning flight had been cancelled earlier in the day, and that aircraft was at the gate and would supposedly depart on time.  A delay was announced, and people at the gate simply settled in to wait the two hours for 'more information'.

Calls from home were actually a little ahead of the information being fed to us passengers in Washington, but that is likely to be expected since airline decisions don't follow the press reports.  We became aware that snow was falling and blowing to such a degree that the plows had been pulled from the sole remaining 'open' runway.

People remained calm and collected.  I had the opportunity to see Ron Gettlefinger, UAW head along with his wife while we all waited.  There is almost always someone whom we recognize at a Midwest gate in Washington.

When it became obvious that we were going to be spending a night somewhere, I waited in line for my turn at the counter.  The young lady was amazingly pleasant and that helped the situation.  She was, after all, not responsible for our situations.  I was re-booked on the early-morning flight and given a 'pink slip' with a telephone number through which I'd find the nearest available hotel room at the best price. 

That took me to a Holiday Inn in the middle of a beautiful place.  Long story short:  I write this morning from beautiful, quaint Old Alexandria, VA.  The sun is out and there are a few puffy clouds floating past; the temperatures should reach the low to mid-50s, I'm surrounded by history and I had a good nights sleep.

By the way, that early-morning flight was also cancelled so I've re-booked and will be home by tonight unless something else occurs.  Travelling is sometimes problematic but it is great knowing that our 'hometown airline' is there to care for us during these situations.

I had the 'pleasure' of meeting with one of Congressman Obey's staff members, Paul Carver, on Super Tuesday in the Congressman's absence.  Obey is the Congressman who represents Wausau and the surrounding area, and who is the 'Big Dog' so far as appropriations go in the new world controlled by the Democrats.  Congressman Obey has the reputation of a 'pit bull' and it appears that he hires in his own image.  The staff person, Paul Carver, is a native of England and had an attitude that was apparent from the very moment he walked out of his area and stated that ours weren't the names he had been expecting.  We had the pleasure of Mr. Carver's presence since the House of Representatives isn't in session this week.  I have no idea if the Congressman would've been more hospitable, less hospitable or about the same.

We were representing the National Association of Health Underwriters, a well-respected association in Washington,D.C.  NAHU represents 20,000 insurance agents and brokers who collectively handle the health care insurance coverage for some 150 million citizens.  We wanted to discuss the legislation that we expect which will affect health insurance for every citizen of the United States.

Mr. Carver proceeded to rant about how great socialized medicine was, how rotten insurance companies were, and berated us when we said we hadn't watched the so-called 'documentary' Sicko that had been advanced by Michael Moore.  Then he decided it would be more fun if he elicited comments from us that he could flame.  As we each became aware that this man was all about bullying and had no interest in learning anything, since he obviously knew everything, we ended our meeting as graciously as was possible.

During the rant, however, he did say that he believed in socialized health care for the United States, just like that in his old home, England.  We tried to offer information for his consideration, but he had no interest.  It was as if he were saying, "Don't confuse me with facts because my mind is made up."  He based much of his argument on the Michael Moore 'documentary' "Sicko".  He 'knew' that Cuba had better health care than the U.S., as did England, the Netherlands, Canada and a few other countries that flew out in his diatribe too quickly to be noted.

This is but one example of the 'ruling elite' that populate our nation's capitol.  The concept of these people being employed by we voters is simply a concept so foreign as to be laughable from their perspectives.  In defense of most of the 'staffers', they are well-educated, courteous and only too happy to meet with any citizens.  Some, unfortunately, are like Paul Carver.  I hope he is a citizen, but I don't know that for sure.  It certainly seemed that he'd be much happier back in his homeland of England.

We went to Washington. D.C., the capitol of our country, to meet with and discuss health care with our elected representatives.  We were not well-received by Mr. Carver who represented Congressman Obey.  We were actually treated with a rudeness that I've not experienced since my encounter with a former Congressman from the South Side of Milwaukee whose name was Jerry.

These are the Democrats, the very officials who supposedly represent the 'underdog'.  They turn my stomach.  They don't represent, so much as they misrepresent, the down-trodden.  So long as they are able to maintain their personal positions of power, it seems they're very satisfied.  And, we electors seem so gullible that we continue to re-elect these elitists.

Super Tuesday is upon us and it is very possible that we'll know the selections of both major parties by late tonight or early Wednesday morning.

In one regard, that may be a real blessing for many, if not all, of us who are already worn out by the relentless coverage of campaigns.  This is that time in our election cycle when candidates 'play' to their party faithful.  They know who the passionate people are and what they believe, and those votes are mighty important.  So important that we often see different people than we thought were running.

Many pass this off as mere political positioning, but I think it comes much closer to outright dishonesty.  The people are being 'fooled' by the candidates.  The day after the nominee has been 'crowned', we see the transformation back to whatever we thought was the 'real' person.  But is that the 'real' person?  How are we to know when it seems that the person himself or herself ofttimes doesn't know who he or she is at that point.  It is as if they have played so many roles, they lose their own identity.

Too often, politicians feel they have to be chameleons in order to capture votes.  Once in office, they tend to show us who and what they really are.  This seems much more pronounced in the race for the White House.  I know who and what Jim Sensenbrenner is.  Similarly, I know who and what Alberta Darling is.  I know who and what Paul Ryan is.  But, do any of us really know who and what John McCain is; or who and what Hillary Clinton is?

As for disenfranchisement, Super Tuesday holds the potential for negating our Wisconsin primary race so far as the presidential candidates are concerned.  And, that can have a profound effect on voter turn-out.  And, that can change outcomes in local and statewide issues.  Just because the Wisconsin primary is scheduled for two weeks following 'Super Tuesday', does that mean that we don't count?  It almost seems that is the case.

If that is the case, then do we feverishly respond by becoming part of the next 'Super Tuesday".  If so, do we not simply compound the wrongness of it all?

I encourage readers to click on the earlier Elementary School Blog for the give and take between citizen Irwin Fletcher and School Board member Bruce Warnimont.

This dialog will likely continue for some time and some of Mr. Warnimont's responses will appear at that location while others will comprise separate Blogs.  He has responded to questions that Mr. Fletcher had posted earlier, and the responses are very instructive.

Besides, this makes the Blog stay fresher while I'm out of town than it might otherwise :>). 

Seriously, the question as to a Yes or No vote on the elementary school issue is very important to our community, our parents and, especially, our children.  Mr. Warnimont has explained, I believe, how the expenditure of funds to build a new building might very well be offset ++ by state revenue increases. 

You need to be the judge, and you need information to be able to make the proper judgement.

That is our aim in this series.