I heard both Congressmen Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner interviewed on Jay Weber's radio show this morning. (Hour 4 Part 2). Since I trust the opinion of both of these men, I was curious as to why Ryan voted YES and Sensenbrenner NO on the latest bailout bill. 

First Congressman Ryan, who does have a degree in economics. The following are some notes I took from the interview--they are not direct quotes. Listen to the podcast if you can.

Ryan said the bill yesterday was the Paulson plan with quite a bit of tweaks.

The original Paulson bill was 3 pages: Give me a blank checkbook with $700billion.

We wrote a [Republican] alternative. Ours said, Let's make the firms buy insurance.

We rewrote the bill, added stock options--warrants to taxpayers, so the taxpayer is first in line to get money back (if there are profits--that means ACORN would not be getting funding as the orig. Paulson bill stated.) Executives won't get a Golden Parachute.

This bill was $350 billion: $250b immediately and $100b later. An additional $350b would need to be voted on in the future.  

Over the weekend, credit markets went crazy. The problem is not just on Wall Street. Credit markets are shutting down. [That means cash flow for payrolls is unavailable.] There is a fear of recession.

"I'm now sincerely worried this could lead to recession."

Jay Weber: Can we move slowly or do we need to move quickly?

Ryan: Tax money goes out the door either way, this way (bailout) or from FDIC (if banks fail.) Paulson mishandled this so badly.  We added 107 pages to his bill. 

I have never seen things like this [credit freezing up]--ever. Businesses won't be able to cash flow payrolls.

Weber: There is a deep distrust of Congress.

Ryan: 2,300 calls [to my office] almost all against the bailout. [That is changing a little now.] We have to corral Wall Street so it doesn't spill to Main Street.

Weber: Why aren't Republicans hammering this?

Ryan: I am. Since 2002 I have voted against Freddie and Fannie every time.

I think Paul Ryan voted for this measure because he is genuinely worried about our economy shutting down. He knows that if businesses cannot get credit to meet their payrolls, that means workers do not get paid. With many Americans just a paycheck away from being broke, we cannot afford to let that happen. Businesses also use credit to purchase supplies and equipment for future production.

Then it was Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner's turn:

Paulson [Barney Frank] plan fatally flawed from the beginning. That money all came from taxpayers.

The word was, $700billion would not be enough.

America can't afford this. We are wealthy, but there is a limit. 

All of this is inflationary. Interest rates will shoot up. [Remember] 20% prime rates during Carter? 

We should go back to the regular order [of crafting legislation] with committee meetings, rather than Paulson saying we have to do this.

Weber: We're racing against the clock.

Sensenbrenner: When markets opened [today] they were up 200, so hopefully the markets have calmed down.

Paulson is pushing for now. It bailed out the people who caused the problem.

I'm prepared to go back when Pelosi calls us back.

This is a case of Congress serving the people. 

Weber: What angers people is Frank and Dodd in charge of the fix. Is there any mechanism to say when you failed the people, get off the committee!

Sensenbrenner: The Community Reinvestment Act was a significant factor [to what is going on.] 

The process worked yesterday. The speeches like from Pelosi need to stop. She also knew there were not the votes to pass. Why did she bring the bill to the floor? [To fix blame on the Republicans]

Weber: Would you change the Community Reinvestment Act?

Sensenbrenner: Repeal of that law should be in the new package now.

The Security and Exchange Commission dropped the ball--enforcement was not vigorous. 

The Justice Department should investigate if any fraud was committed. [Imprisonment would serve as a deterrent.]

So there you have the Yea and the Nay. Where is Solomon when you need him? 

Conservatives would hope the next version of the bailout bill would be better for taxpayers, that it keeps money from ACORN and repeals the Community Reinvestment Act. With this crew I don't have much hope.

My fear is that the next version will included ACORN funding again or worse. The Democrats will vote for it, and President Bush, who is really over a barrel here, will have to sign it.

Calls from Americans running 500 against, to 1 in favor, of the bailout might be the only thing that saving us from an UGLY pig of a bill.

Post Script: Along the lines of Sensenbrenner's request that they craft this bill carefully, 165 Economists rip bailout plan:

The economists say they are well aware of the current financial situation and agree there's a need for bold action but ask Congress "not to rush."

They urge lawmakers to hold appropriate hearings and "to carefully consider the right course of action." 

Right now the market is up 307 points from yesterday's close. You can check anytime on USAToday. (If you leave it open, it automatically refreshes.) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

There is lots of chatter today about how Sen. John McCain squashed the soon-to-pass bail out plan. (So much for the Dems. calling him Bush 3)**

Hmm, the Democrats are in the majority, why don't they just pass it on their own?*

Because they don't have the votes in their own party.

Truth is, the bail out bill the media said was near passing, was NOT anywhere near approval. House Republicans were not consulted on the Paulson bail out bill.

In addition, Senator Lindsey Graham was on Fox last night and explained that part of the bail out money would go to ACORN! From Hot Air:

House Republicans refused to support the Henry Paulson/Chris Dodd compromise bailout plan yesterday afternoon, even after the New York Times reported that Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson got down on one knee to beg Nancy Pelosi to compromise.  One of the sticking points, as Senator Lindsey Graham explained later, wasn’t a lack of begging but a poison pill that would push 20% of all profits from the bailout into the Housing Trust Fund — a boondoggle that Democrats in Congress has used to fund political-action groups like ACORN and the National Council of La Raza

Would you want that to pass? 

Most Americans are not in favor of a bail out. Most Republicans do not favor a bail out. Newt Gingrich has not favored a bail out to save our economy. (Emphasis mine) 

Newt Gingrich:  Well, the last time we were promised they were going to save us, it was $300 billion; it was a housing bill.  And what liberal Democrats in Congress did, for example, was add $500 million a year for a left-wing activist group called Acorn.  Now, I can’t imagine why we’d want the taxpayer to give $500 million a year to a left-wing activist group, but it’s in the bill which the Bush administration signed and that was only back in July and that was going to solve everything.  That was $300 billion ago.

Now we have a brand-new, liberal Democrats, many of whom, for example, Chris Dodd, was the largest single recipient of money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and he is the chairman of the Banking Committee.  So the guy who got the most money is now going to write a bill to give taxpayers money to the people who gave him money.  Somehow, I am not reassured.

The House GOP (Republicans) have presented a plan of their own. It is more of a Work Out than Bail Out. Gingrich also favors a Work Out that would include borrowing at 2% not bailing.

I may just be a Home Economist, but I know we need to do something. If the average American was in better financial shape, not carrying around $8,000 debt on their credit card and not one paycheck away from financial disaster, I might be inclined to just tough it out.  

Gingrich recommended that Republican leaders like Boehner, DeMint, Shelby, and McCain meet to put together a proposal Americans will support. Then the people will put the pressure on the Democrats in Congress to pass it, much like public pressured Congress to drill for domestic oil. But since Harry Reid just stuck a ban on domestic oil shale drilling onto an appropriations bill, while this crisis is going on, so much for listening to the will of the people and doing what this country needs.

Heaven help us. I mean that literally.

Read more: Market Rescue Dos and Don'ts  from the Heritage Foundation

*Observation courtesy of Nick Reed interjecting on the Jay Weber show this morning. 

**Observation by a caller on Rush's show today. (The car radio does make running errands more tolerable!) 

Please, comment content should relate to the subject of the post. Although I try to respond to many, do not interpret my lack of a response as agreement.

Links: 

Oil companies have made a lot of money and some in Washington think they should get a bigger cut. The Senate recently tried to snatch some of those profits with their attempt to resurrect the Windfall Profits Tax bill. Thankfully, the Senate Republicans stopped that piece of legislation ...for now.

I am sure we will see that tax tried again. After all, Obama is campaigning, "I'll make oil companies like Exxon pay a tax on their windfall profits, and we'll use the money to help families pay for their skyrocketing energy costs and other bills," the Illinois senator said.

Generally, Democrats seem to think that oil companies just do not have the right to keep their profits. They don't seem to have that same aversion to other corporations' profits though. I heard on Jay Weber recently that oil companies made about 7.5% in profits.

How does that compare to other industry profits? Weber said Banking made 20%, Pharmaceuticals 18%, Insurance 11%, and Beverage/Tobacco 9.4%. So oil companies 7.5% is excessive and these other industries are not? Does it seem there is a double standard here?

Weeks ago, Sean Hannity broke down the profit per gallon of gas that oil companies received. We're paying around $4/gal. Oil companies get about $0.08/gal. Taxes on a gallon are around $0.19/gal for Fed. and State, I think. Again, oil companies seem to be getting the lesser amount.

How much profit does an oil company like Exxon make? Mark Perry, on Seeking Alpha, a Stock Market Opinion/Analysis site shows that last year they had pre-tax profits of $70.61 billion. Wow, that is a lot of money!

Some of you might be muttering to yourself how unfair it is that these filthy rich companies are making all the money and WE (via taxes to government) should be getting some of it.

But here is a figure the news media does not talk about very much; the amount Exxon pays in taxes. Perry includes an interesting chart showing the profits vs. taxes: $40.6 billion in after tax profits, $30 billion in taxes. Exxon averaged over the past 3 years to pay $27 billion in taxes each year. He compares that to regular taxpayers contribution to the IRS:

According to IRS data for 2004, the most recent year available:

Total number of tax returns: 130 million

Number of Tax Returns for the Bottom 50%: 65 million

Adjusted Gross Income for the Bottom 50%: $922 billion

Total Income Tax Paid by the Bottom 50%: $27.4 billion

Conclusion: In other words, just one corporation (Exxon Mobil) pays as much in taxes ($27 billion) annually as the entire bottom 50% of individual taxpayers, which is 65,000,000 people! Further, the tax rate for the bottom 50% is only 3% of adjusted gross income ($27.4 billion / $922 billion), and the tax rate for Exxon was 41% in 2006 ($67.4 billion in taxable income, $27.9 billion in taxes).

This was not enough for the Senate Democrats (and a few Republicans) though. They wanted more. 

No doubt about it. We have high energy prices and future prices don't look any better, but taxing oil companies more will not lower the price at the pump!  Would you want to work harder to increase production only to have more of your profit taken away?

FYI:  Neighborhood Information Meeting tonight for Fire Station #3 move 

Links:

The Windfall Profits Tax Bill was blocked by the Republicans Tuesday:

GOP senators shoved aside the Democratic proposal, arguing that punishing Big Oil won't do a thing to lower the $4-a-gallon-price of gasoline that is sending economic waves across the country. High prices at the pump are threatening everything from summer vacations to Meals on Wheels deliveries to the elderly. ...

..."In the middle of what some are calling the biggest energy shock in a generation ... they proposed as a solution, of all things, a windfall profits tax," Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky chided the Democrats. He called their proposal "a gimmick" that would not lower gasoline prices and only hold back domestic oil production.

"The American people are clamoring for relief at the pump," agreed Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., but "they will get exactly what they don't want" under the Democrats' plan — higher prices and an increase in oil imports.

The Democrat supporters said this tax differed from the 1980s version because "oil companies could avoid the tax by using their 'windfall' to push alternative energy programs or refinery expansions*." Senate Republicans weren't buying that argument though and so the Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes needed to stop the GOP filibuster.

Wow! The Senate Republicans were on a roll yesterday; they went on to block a 2nd bill: 

Shortly after the oil tax vote, Republicans blocked a second proposal that would extend tax breaks that have either expired or are scheduled to end this year for wind, solar and other alternative energy development, and for the promotion of energy efficiency and conservation. Again Democrats couldn't get the 60 votes to overcome a GOP filibuster.

This on the heels of Friday's block of the Cap-and-Trade bill. Maybe the Republicans are finally getting the hint that most Americans don't want all these taxes on corporations that get passed on to us?

Do I dare hope that the GOP would push for more domestic drilling and building additional US oil refineries? That would make a positive difference in future energy supply/costs.

But the bigger picture issue with the Windfall Profits Tax is, whose money is it anyway? Don't corporations, and individuals for that matter, have a right to make money?

What gives the government the right to arbitrarily say, you are making too much, we are going to take more of that. That is not a Windfall Profits Tax, that is socialism.

*Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't oil companies face opposition whenever they want to build new oil refineries? 

Links:

Just in case you missed this from the weekend news, the Sunday Journal reported in its Congress Following the Vote column,

GLOBAL WARMING FILIBUSTER  Voting 48-36, the Senate on Friday failed to reach 60 votes needed to end a Republican filibuster against an updated version of global warming bill. Democratic leaders then pulled the bill from the floor, perhaps for the remainder of the year. A yes vote was to advance the bill. McCain and Obama did not vote.

No surprise here, Feingold and Kohl voted YES to advance the bill. (So much for their sentiment that they will keep my thoughts in mind as the global warming debate moves forward.)

We are off the hook for right now. I would bet Senate offices were bombarded with negative calls and emails on cap-and-trade. I would also bet that this bill will return either in its entirety or in bits and pieces like the amnesty bills have returned. They are hoping for a time when we aren't paying attention! 

Past Post: Cap-and-Trade? Maybe it should be called Cap-and-RAID!

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

Last night I heard Senator Inhofe (R-Oklahoma) on the Mark Levin Show.  They were discussing S. 2191, the Senate "Lieberman/Warner Global Warming Bill and the disastrous effect this would have not on just the country as a whole, but the individual." (My emphasis throughout post.)

Wall Street Journal referred to Cap-and-Trade as Cap and Spend

As the Senate opens debate on its mammoth carbon regulation program this week, the phrase of the hour is "cap and trade." This sounds innocuous enough. But anyone who looks at the legislative details will quickly see that a better description is cap and spend. This is easily the largest income redistribution scheme since the income tax.

The Washington Post said, Just Call It "Cap-and-Tax" 

"...One of the bad ways [to control greenhouse gas] is cap-and-trade. Unfortunately, it's the darling of environmental groups and their political allies.

The chief political virtue of cap-and-trade -- a complex scheme to reduce greenhouse gases -- is its complexity. This allows its environmental supporters to shape public perceptions in essentially deceptive ways. Cap-and-trade would act as a tax, but it's not described as a tax. It would regulate economic activity, but it's promoted as a "free market" mechanism. Finally, it would trigger a tidal wave of influence-peddling, as lobbyists scrambled to exploit the system for different industries and localities. This would undermine whatever abstract advantages the system has.

...Call this "environmental pork," and it would just be a start. The program's potential to confer subsidies and preferential treatment would stimulate a lobbying frenzy. Think of today's farm programs -- and multiply by 10.

After listening to Senator Inhofe, I think we could also refer to it as Cap-and-Raid! If it passes, it will raid every worker in America's wallet!

Senator Inhofe said, Senator Barbara Boxer insists this is not a tax bill. But if you have looked into the bill itself and at the linked articles, it is difficult to understand how this could not be considered a tax bill.

Inhofe then quickly listed some points to ponder. He mentioned the Wall Street Journal referring to it as the most extensive reorganization since the 1930s. He called it worse than the Kyoto Treaty for the economy. Cap-and-Trade will need 45 more Big Government Bureaucracies to enforce the standards.

Using Boxer's figures, Inhofe pointed out that Cap-and-Trade would collect $6.7 Trillion dollars from industry (those costs will be passed onto us!). The maximum rebate to customers is $2.5 Trillion dollars. Do the math: That means $4.2 Trillion goes where?

That sounds like a tax to me!

He went on to remind us that the Democrats have killed every domestic drilling bill. The US relies on coal for 53% of all of its electricity production. Cap-and-Trade will tax coal fired electricity production. Consider that China "cranks out a new coal electric plant" every 3 days (?). (I think he said 3 days, which fits with this - certainly between India and China it would be true.)

Manufacturing jobs will go where there is (cheap) energy/power, Inhofe said. This is also what Congressman Sensenbrenner talked about at his Town Hall Meeting when he called Cap-and-Trade "Catastrophic for Wisconsin". I would add that manufacturing jobs will also go where environmental regulations are more lax.

Senator Inhofe suggested people take a look at Liberman-Warner Opposition Resource Center; Impacts of Costly Climate Bill Exposed  It is chock full of quotes, links and articles.

The Senate is debating this bill this week. While some say the bill will not pass, as you know, once the foot is in the door, the issue will not go away.  Considering all 3 Presidential candidates support the concept of Global Warming, I would just say, the bill probably won't pass...yet.

Our Senators' response to my emails: Not much hope of a NO vote here--unless they feel the heat from constituents.

This is important! Please contact them both: Senator Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Senator  Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill.

More reading:

George Will's Cap-And-Trade: A Devious Tax Plan

Good chart of key players and terms explained at end: Senate taking up key climate-change bill 

The Heritage Foundation's Morning Bell: Carbon Capping in Bizarro World 

Links:

If you've ever planned a road trip, mapping your route ahead of time makes a big difference: which way will allow you to travel with the least amount of traffic, major city rush hours, or road construction? Often a little planning ahead can save hours being stuck in a traffic jam. Certainly there is no sense to chart a course leading to a bridge closed for repairs. No reasonable person would say, the only bridge ahead is closed, but we'll make such good time before the bridge, we'll pick that route anyway.

Yet this is what our government is doing by ignoring the coming Social Security/Medicare crisis. Politicians don't want to deal with that reality. They know it is going bankrupt, but their attitude is, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. "There is a growing, bipartisan consensus about the greatest threat to our nation's long-term economic prosperity: the explosion of entitlement spending." (Ryan)

Last week, Congressman Paul Ryan proposed his "Roadmap for America"--a very practical and pretty painless way to shore up Social Security, Medicare, and the tax code. Ryan is planning the future path for America that allows us to make good time and still cross that bridge in the future, and he does it without massive tax increases. He said in an interview:

I am raising the same rate of tax revenue as today, but I am preventing them from doubling in the future. I am proposing to tax 18.5 cents out of every dollar to run the government as opposed to 40 cents out of every dollar. Spend the money more intelligently. The 1st $39,000 (after deductions) for family of 4 is tax free. After that, the first $100,000 is taxed at 10%.

Ryan also bravely addresses Health Insurance and Medicaid in addition to Social Security, Medicare, and Tax Reform. Simply ignoring these pending problems will not make them go away. Ignoring these entitlements just increases the problems and costs. Hopefully Ryan's route will Not be A Road Less Traveled:

There is no threat to our nation’s fiscal health greater than the coming deficits from unrestrained growth in Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. Already Social Security and Medicare consume 7.5% of our GDP. Unless changes are made that figure will jump to 13% by 2030.

Bravely stepping in to offer a policy solution, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) has introduced a plan he calls “A Roadmap for America’s Future.” 

Read through Congressman Paul Ryan's plan in the Wall Street Journal: How to Tackle the Entitlement Crisis for Health Insurance, Medicaid and Medicare, Social Security, and Tax Reform.

We cannot afford to ignore this any longer. Our children are the ones who will pay for our failure to deal with these growing problems. Ryan writes:

According to the Congressional Budget Office, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and the rest of government will consume nearly 40% of the economy by the time my [Paul's] three young children reach my age (38). This will require more than doubling the average tax burden of the past 40 years just to keep the government afloat. Continuing down this path will eventually strangle our economy.

Once we come to that "bridge", there is no easy way to cross it. The time to deal with it is NOW! The question is: Do we have any politicians brave enough to do the right thing?

Congressman Paul Ryan is a member of the Congressional Budget Committee and the Ways and Means Committee.

Don't forget the Music Concert to Benefit Chinese Quake Victims, Saturday, May 31st, 10AM - 1PM, Brookfield Civic Plaza

Links:

I admit it. I was surprised when Elmbrook's $62 million dollar referendum passed last April 1st. Usually, it takes 3 referendum tries before one will pass.

In my opinion, Elmbrook's referendum broke ranks and passed on the second try because of 3 reasons. One, it was held during a spring election (lower voter turnout) rather than a November presidential election (higher voter turnout), and two, there was virtually no get out the vote campaign from those opposed. (The third reason I call the secret weapon*, the HSST.  Voters really trusted that HSST committee theoretically made up of both "No and Yes" voters. But this third reason does not apply to this posting.)

Some might say, well, our 2007 referendum failed by a very high percentage. That one was also held in a lower voter turnout spring election too. True, but those opposed to that $108 million 2007 referendum leafleted nearly the entire Elmbrook school district with information as to why it was not a good plan. That did not happen in spring of 2008.

Why wasn't there an organized opposition? Fatigue. Those who worked hard to defeat the 2007 referendum were still too burned out from the last go round to muster much of a fight.

Why am I talking about this water over the dam now? Because Germantown's school board is sending their voters this coming November the very same referendum their residents defeated last April 1st! (H/T Jay Weber @ 7:35 am)

The Journal Sentinel's Mike Nichols wrote, Germantown School Board bucks voters. In that article, he reports how the Germantown board isn't even bothering to reduce and refine their April 2008 $16.5 million referendum. They are just sending the very same thing to voters again this fall.

"School boards do this sort of thing frequently. A referendum fails so they wait a little while, cut a little bit out and try again. And again. And again. Until the "no' voters get tired, or move.

"Germantown is taking it a step further. It's not waiting a little while, and it is not cutting.

Considering there are only so many pro referendum votes out there and there will be a larger voter turnout this November, it is hard to believe it will pass. Evidentially, the same thing happened in Hartford last November and this spring. Voters there defeated the referendum both times.

It seems unlikely Germantown's referendum will pass in November, but there aught to be a law against this!

Taxpayers need and deserve a break from this constant whining for more money from their school districts.

Jay Weber suggested this morning that a state law be made that would prohibit a school district from throwing referendum after referendum at their taxpayer base. A 2 to 3 year moratorium between referendums at least would be welcome. (He has mentioned this before.)

If districts knew they would have to wait for 2 years before they came at their taxpayers again, maybe, just maybe, they would present a more thought out and practical plan. Elmbrook's 2008 plan was not well thought out. For one, they budgeted for HVAC improvements before all of the condition reports were known.

While Elmbrook taxpayers know what they are in for now for the next 20 years (theoretically, we are nearly to the end of our referendums our district tells us), keep in mind many referendums are partially financed through the state. Remember Elmbrook paid for some of Janesville's referendum?

For our referendum, Elmbrook residents must pay “dollar for dollar” of all expenses. But according to Bob Borch, “They (Janesville) accounted for receiving 25% of every dollar needed to pay back the bonds as coming from state aid, this lowering the cost to the taxpayer for their borrowing.”

School districts should be prohibited from bombarding their taxpayers with repeated referendums. It would give taxpayers a breather in between referendum pleas, and that would be a breath of fresh air!

* The secret weapon, the HSST, made up of "No and Yes" voters, I think this was the main reason Elmbrook got voters to bite on their 2nd referendum try. Many people cited the reason they voted yes this time was that they trusted the opinion of that group's assessment of our needs. Many voters, for example, did not know they were voting for air conditioning both schools, including the gyms, or that the team started with the premise that new gymnasiums would be included. Members of the 2007 opposition expressed quiet doubts that the 3 No voters included on the HSST team were really No voters.

Links:

The Assembly narrowly approved the state budget bill fix, 51 - 46. So now what?

Representative Leah "Vukmir said she hoped Doyle would veto the entire bill."

Rich Zipperer, in his Statement on the Budget 'Repair' Bill, stated, "The solution to the current mess is simple. Control spending...With the state facing a $1.7 billion structural deficit, we can ill afford to knowingly make the problem worse."

Doyle's preference, the AP article stated, was "to take more money from the state's transportation fund, to be replaced with additional borrowing, to help balance the budget. He also proposed $111 million in cuts to state spending while the plan that passed had just $69 million."

Mike Huebsch, Assembly Speaker said in response to criticism from both Republicans and Democrats, "Frankly, if any of these were good ideas, we would have done them already. All of us would prefer changes."

I am inclined to agree with Vukmir, Zipperer, and even Spencer Black (D). "All the deal does is push off the state's financial problems into the future, he [Black] said."

But our Speaker Huebsch infers the budget repair bill is the best we could do? Certainly we could have come up with a better plant than just to delay payment of pending responsibilities. Until we cut spending, we are just postponing our problems.

So now we wait to see what Gov. Doyle does with his veto pen. 

Links:

Is it any wonder we are in the financial mess we are in with the state budget? The Senate passed the budget fix yesterday, the Assembly may vote on it today. Contact your State Assembly Representative and let them know your opinion anyway. They could use your support. (Contacts are at end of post.)

My State Representative Leah Vukmir was on Vicki McKenna yesterday explaining the budget fiasco. Leah commented, something is wrong when the budget fix proposed was less conservative than what Doyle would do! She said Doyle criticized them for not making budget cuts. It is pretty bad when your only hope for a better budget is that you liberal governor might make some vetoes!

How did we get into this predicament? Leah explained that using the "rosy" March 2007 revenue estimates to base a future budget on was one problem! Seems state income was based on March 2007's better economy figures instead of the reality of the slower economy during the summer and fall of last year.

Leah expressed her disappointment in Speaker Huebsch and called the budget fix a shuffle game.

When you cook the books, you can't pay the bills, she said. People are feeling the pinch in their budgets--they expect us to do the same.

Plus, what are the Republicans getting out of this compromise? Vukmir mentioned at least an exchange, we vote for this fix and you give us a constitutional Voter ID amendment. But we are getting nothing--just delayed billing and a huge problem in July 2009.

Not only is School Aid delayed into the 2009 budget cycle, but County Aid is pushed into July too.

Rep. Vukmir concluded with, I don't know why we are rushing this. 

Possible areas of cuts mentioned: State employee travel--$22mil, Senior Prescriptions, eliminate ethanol subsidies, 4K. I would add: eliminate Global Warming Task Force and West Allis Bike Path. 

There were originally $250 mil in cuts, now less than 1/5th of 1%. McKenna cited a 2% across the board cut as a possible remedy. 

It will only get worse. For one, Badger Care Plus is attracting far more enrollees than anticipated. That will add to July 2009's woes.

This is a straight up or down vote. No amendments are allowed because it went into Conference Committee.

Contact Assembly Representatives. 

Links:

I heard the state is close to "balancing" our state $527 million budget deficit. Problem is, there are no real budget cuts, just plenty of bookkeeping tricks. Only 1/5th of 1% of the total budget is considered a cut.

One of the areas of bookkeeping magic that really makes me see red is the hijacking of $22 million from Federal Real ID into state budget coffers. Congressman Sensenbrenner doesn't like it either. "The law authored by Sensenbrenner is designed to create a more secure identification card in all 50 states. A $10 fee was placed on Wisconsin driver's licenses starting this year to start paying for it." The state is raiding this fund.

Another budget trick is to delay the $125 million payment of state aid to schools into the next budget session. Much like someone running a little short on funds one month delaying their mortgage payment into their next payday cycle, the state is looking at postponing their yearly obligation into the next budget cycle. This solves nothing and creates a big problem for next time.

One good piece of the budget deal is that the hospital tax is not part of the fix.

Without cutting spending and programs, all this fix does is delay the pain. I am not the only one annoyed by our legislature's failure to cut spending. Take a look at an email one reader fired off to their representatives:

Vote NO on BUDGET FIX

I continue to be really angry with the actions of our State legislators and their failure to cut spending in WI. The taxpayers wallet is almost empty.  I urge you to vote NO on the budget fix, to work TO CUT SPENDING, to take the provision out of the bill that would allow municipalities to tax assisted living and nursing homes, DO NOT take federally mandated monies and use them for something else, PUSH FOR VOTER ID, ignore pressure from special interest groups and listen to your constituency.

How you or anyone else in Madison can justify the huge budget shortfall without cutting spending is beyond me.

I am 58 years old and our family is seriously considering leaving WI when we retire.  Honestly, with the actions of the legislature and Gov. Doyle we may be forced to leave sooner ... I can't afford to live here much longer.

And this is an email sent to Rep. Huebsch, Assembly Speaker

Mike Huebsch --   CUT SPENDING, VOTE NO on the Budget Fix, PUSH for Voter ID, PUSH to take out the right of municipalities to tax nursing homes and assisted living facilities, do not take federally mandated monies and use them for something else.  I think you are the most ineffective leader the Republicans have ever put in power.  I no longer will support the Republican Party in WI because of your liberal views and ineffectiveness in striking a compromise with the Democrats.  AGAIN the way to fix the budget shortfall is not to rob money from other programs BUT TO CUT SPENDING. [Previous email included.]

Contact your representatives! They will be voting soon.

Senate votes today:
State Senator Jim Sullivan, Democrat, 5th District
Sen.Sullivan@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-2512,  866-817-6061

State Senator Theodore Kanavas, Republican, 33rd District
Sen.Kanavas@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9174, 800-863-8883

Sen. Scott Fitzgerald (Senate Minority Leader), from Juneau. Counties: Columbia, Dane, Dodge, Jefferson, and Waukesha   Email: Sen.Fitzgerald@legis.wisconsin.gov   608-266-5660

Assembly: 
State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9180

Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120 

Rep. Jeff Fitzgerald (Assembly Majority Leader), from Horicon. Counties: Columbia and Dodge Rep.Fitzgerald@legis.wisconsin.gov   608-266-2401

Rep. Michael Huebsch (Assembly Speaker), from West Salem. Counties: LaCrosse and Monroe

Rep.Huebsch@legis.wisconsin.gov    608- 266-3387

Governor Doyle
608-266-1212, 414-227-4344

Links:

Congressman Sensenbrenner brought up Senate bill S. 2191, the Lieberman/Warner "America's Climate Security Act of 2007" at his Town Hall meeting Sunday. He described it as a "disaster for Wisconsin."

Information on S. 2191 from Congressman Sensenbrenner's website:

“S. 2191 proposes a nationwide cap-and-trade program for the emissions of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide, an important component of the manufacturing industry.  By setting a limit and capping carbon dioxide emissions by businesses, the Lieberman/Warner bill would thrust a highly regulatory regime on our nation’s economy, making electricity more expensive for businesses and consumers.  In Wisconsin, which relies heavily on the use of coal for electricity, this bill would have a catastrophic effect as we would be especially hard hit.

“This point is underscored in a study commissioned by the National Association of Manufacturers to assess the potential impacts of S. 2191 on Wisconsin’s economy…and the results are scary.

The Congressman discussed that study at the meeting and on Charlie Sykes show. The predictions were "scary."

“According to the study, electricity rates in Wisconsin could increase by as much as 163% in 2030 - nearly tripling today’s costs - and gas prices could increase by as much as 176% in 2030, again, almost tripling today’s cost of natural gas.

Not only will we be paying more for utilities, a figure of a 145% increase in gasoline prices was also given on Charlie Sykes show Monday, April 28, Ready for $10 a gallon gas?

So not only do we get to pay for higher energy costs for our own use, but we will pay more for every item and service produced in Wisconsin too.  

Who would ever want to live in Wisconsin or locate their business here if that is the case?

The National Association of Manufacturers report estimated that by 2030, 74,000 jobs would leave Wisconsin and a whopping 4 million jobs would leave our nation, because businesses naturally seek the cheapest and easiest place to manufacture their products.

What exactly is a cap-and-trade and why does it have such a negative impact on Wisconsin? 

Cap-and-trade is another term for Carbon Credit (or indulgences). Congress or bureaucrats set a cap or maximum on greenhouse gases that can be emitted by a company--be it a corporation or a utility company. Companies that do not comply with the standard must then have to purchase carbon offsets from companies that do comply. It is like a type of stock market that deals in these special credits.

According to Congressman Sensenbrenner, since Wisconsin gets 2/3 of its electrical power from coal fired plants, but Illinois obtains 60% of its electric power from clean nuclear power plants that emit 0 CO2, we will have to purchase these carbon offsets from Illinois just to keep producing our needed electricity! Illinois in effect gets their energy costs subsidized by Wisconsin residents. Wisconsin ends up paying 176% more for our electricity. OUCH! (At present, only 20% of Wisconsin electric comes from nuclear plants.)

Think no one in their right mind would agree to a system like this? Think again. Europe has been doing this for nearly 3 years now. Europe's greenhouse gases continue to rise as do their electricity rates. It has done nothing to lower emissions according to a publication from Sensenbrenner's office. I believe Australia just signed on to a system of carbon credits too.

Since businesses will just relocate to third world countries to manufacture their goods, these carbon credits will do nothing to lower CO2 emissions worldwide. The pollution will just move to the far east.

The increase in costs due to cap-and-trade fees are estimated at $1,300 a year / household for Wisconsinites.

Please contact Senators Kohl (Phone: (414) 297-4451, (202) 224-5653) and Feingold (Office of Senator Russ Feingold | 202/224-5323) and let them know what you think about this bill. 

Representative Zipperer informed the Town Hall meeting atendees that the Wisconsin Assembly recently passed legislation that lifted the moratorium on nuclear power plants last session. The Senate however did not. He said they would try again next time. 

Contact your state representative and senator about the moratorium.

State Representative Leah Vukmir, Republican, 14th District
Rep.Vukmir@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-9180

Representative Rich Zipperer, Republican, 98th District
Rep.Zipperer@legis.wisconsin.gov  608-266-5120

Congressman Sensenbrenner's contact info:Email  Telephone: (262) 784-1111, (202) 225-5101  

Links: Upcoming events in Brookfield

4th Annual Weed Out, May 3rd, Mary Knoll Park

Oh, I am getting so tired of all this watchdogging, calling, and emailing our officials, but the alternative is to let these bad bills pass. This one is not just about a huge amount of money; our national sovereignty is at stake.

For those of you who think Barack Obama does not have much of a record to run on, his Global Poverty Act bill ought to tell you a lot about this young senator.

Vicki McKenna cued her listeners into this unbelievable bill yesterday. (She really does have a nose for news!) She explained, The Global Poverty Act takes .7% of our G.D.P. and sends it to the UN to fight global poverty. She also reminded us that the UN is not a very efficient charity and only sends out about 5 cents from every dollar received--not to mention their bad track record on plans such as Oil for Food.

This estimated $845 billion dollars, the .7% of our G.D.P., is in addition to what we already send for foreign aid. This new bill would add up to $1,000,000,000,000 over 15 years. (That is trillion with a T) But the money is the least of our concerns.

Think we don't have to worry about this bill? It will never pass?

Think again.

It already passed the House! According to Glenn Beck, "it already has passed the House mainly because people didn't read it. "

Read the entire Glenn Beck posting. It's chock full of important things to consider before casting your vote for President like: UN Rights of the Child, Kyoto protocol, Convention on Biological Diversity, and spending $210 billion for, in essence, a new kind of WPA project.

This Senate bill 2433 sounds so outrageous, you might think it is an Urban Legend. Sadly, it is not.

Family Research Council posted this: (Direct link unavailable, emphasis added. No, I am not for Huckabee.)

"Less than a day after the President agreed to put more money in taxpayers' pockets, the U.S. Senate is attempting to take some of those dollars back. The Global Poverty Act, while seemingly charitable and big-hearted, sounds nicer than it really is... 

"...In addition to surrendering more dollars, the U.S. would also be required to surrender some of its own sovereignty over foreign aid by putting it under UN control. The bill would force the U.S. to sign onto the U.N.'s Millennium Declaration, which would commit us not only to "banning small arms and light weapons," but also to ratifying a series of objectionable treaties such as the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), the International Criminal Court Treaty, the Kyoto Protocol (global warming), the Convention on Biological Diversity, and so on. Considering the magnitude of the legislation, one would think that the Senate would proceed with caution. Not so!...

That posting concluded with: "Unreal. If that does not scare you, I don't know what will. Take action to stop this bill now." 

I couldn't agree more. 

Our own dear Senator Russ Feingold was a cosponsor too, but call or email his office anyway. 

This bill was steamrolled through the Senate committee without hearings. 

Contact our Senators: (IF you know people in other states, tell them to contact their Senators too.)

Kohl Contact page: http://kohl.senate.gov/gen_contact.html   Phone: (202) 224-5653, (414) 297-4451

Feingold  senator@feingold.senate.gov  Phone: (414) 276-7282, (202) 224-5323

Tell them to oppose S.2433, The Global Poverty Act of 2007