Last May I told you about Randy Melchert, candidate for the Wisconsin State Assembly--24th District.  Although that is not my district, his "Melchert Plan" to lower area gasoline prices by 10% is appealing. I don't have to live in the Menomonee Falls/Germantown area to be in favor of that! 

From his website:

...[His] three-part plan would eliminate the Minimum Markup Law, lower the state Gas Tax to the national average, and end the forced use of Reformulated Gas.While gas prices have risen nationwide, gas in Wisconsin has risen more than other states because Wisconsin has one of the ten highest gasoline tax rates in the nation! The Tax Foundation shows how gas taxes in Wisconsin are 3 cents higher than Indiana, 5 cents higher than Ohio, almost 11 cents higher than Minnesota and Iowa, almost 15 cents higher than South Carolina and Kentucky, and 19 cents higher than New Jersey

Now I could understand if the gas tax was used for highway maintenance and road repair, but when Governor Doyle can steal $240 million from the transportation fund to cover the rest of his budget, we're paying too much in gas taxes.

On his website, Melchert includes a series of interesting charts, graphs, and lots of statistics that illustrate how Wisconsin drivers pay more for gasoline than most other states. There is also a savings calculator where you can punch in your numbers to see how the minimum mark up, reformulation, and higher gas taxes affect you. On average, I probably would save $300 a year, but if I would calculate the savings for our entire household, we would be saving somewhere around $900 a year.

Since we just returned from a trip out west, I can confirm we found gas prices elsewhere much cheaper. The added bonus was that we could get non-ethanol gasoline in other states, giving us more miles per gallon.

For example: in a 2 day period on Aug. 16th and 17th, regular gasoline in Sioux Falls, SD was $3.49/gal, Willmar, MN was $3.62/gal, but in Wisconsin, reformulated gas (the only kind available) in Black River Falls was $3.79/gal. 

Check out the information on Melchert's website, and if you would like to save 10% on your gasoline bills, contact your representatives and senators and ask them to implement the Melchert Plan!

If I lived in the 24th District, I would be voting for Randy Melchert come Sept. 9th. But I live in the 14th District, so my vote happily goes to Leah Vukmir.

Links: 

Brookfield7, Fairly Conservative, Betterbrookfield, Mark Levin,   Vicki Mckenna

Traditionally, the days between July and September are called the Dog Days of Summer, not because of the heat and humidity causing you to pant like a dog, but because of the appearance of Sirius, the bright star in the constellation Canis Major.

But this summer, Brookfield's Common Council's Legislative & Licensing Committee* is having their own Dog Days. The Aldermen members are discussing whether or not Brookfield should adopt a dog and cat limit.

According to the JSOnline article yesterday, most people at the meeting did not favor limiting pets, but enforcing current laws,

The city should not limit the number of dogs residents can own, and instead should better enforce existing ordinances to resolve problems with dogs and their owners, animal hobbyists and rescuers say.

...A majority of the approximately 35 residents at the meeting opposed pet limits, saying they were not needed and would cause a domino effect of unintended negative consequences.

They said it was an overreaction to a single case in which neighbors complained about a dog rescue operation being run by Brookfield resident Jean Rhoten. A judge ruled that the rescue was an illegal business in a residential district.

As I stated earlier in How many dogs are too many?, it seems we already have laws on the books to protect neighbors against irresponsible pet owners. Simply making another rule will do little to eliminate the problem if Brookfield does not enforce those ordinances either.

While I do sympathize with residents who have to endure rude pet owners, I guess I don't see how simply limiting the number of pets to 4 would help. Example: We have an area resident who owns 2 large dogs who we suspect of not consistently picking up their dog dirt when on a walk. The new rule wouldn't help that situation. 

Karen Sparapani, Elmbrook Humane Society's Community Outreach Director and fellow blogger stated, "Most complaints are about dogs barking, being out of control or neglected, and that can happen whether there is one dog or 10."

The article suggested (as I did) "Some [communities] issue animal kennel, hobby or fancier permits that allow more dogs, charge higher fees and sometimes require annual inspections."

The Aldermen are obviously more aware of the number of complaints received on the too many pets issue. The L&L Committee will "likely hold another special meeting to take potential action on the issue" in August about this, according to the article in today's Brookfieldnow paper. If a policy change is approved, it then heads to the Common Council.

Legislative & Licensing Committee members (aldermen) are: Steve Ponto, Gary Mahkorn, Rick Owen, Ron Balzer, and Bill Carnell

If you have an opinion on limiting or not limiting pets, do give the committee and your aldermen a call or email.

*Correction--Because the Journal article did not state what meeting this was discussed at, I mistakingly said it was the Common Council in the earlier posting. Thank you Alan Hamari for reporting more specifics in today's Brookfieldnow article. 

Links: 

I just heard this announcement on the news: Bush to Lift Executive Ban on Offshore Oil Drilling. (This would be the moratorium his father enacted.) He will be talking about this decision from the Rose Garden at 12:30pm today.

This move will not make offshore drilling possible in itself, but it will put the pressure on the Congress to act,

White House press secretary Dana Perino says Bush is acting now in hopes of spurring Congress to act. So far, lawmakers have shown no interest in doing so.

Last week, Nancy Pelosi was still digging in her heels on domestic drilling ban, but Harry Reid and Richard Durbin showed a glimmer of interest.

But that glimmer seems to be dying in the light of Bush's probable ban lifting today,

After hearing of Mr. Bush’s proposal on Tuesday night, Mr. Reid affirmed his opposition, saying, “The Energy Information Administration says that even if we open the coasts to oil drilling that won’t have a significant impact on prices.”

This lifting of the executive ban is a step in the right direction, but it's only a step. We aren't there yet by a long shot.

UPDATE: Not only did the President lift the offshore ban, but also lifted the ban in ANWR and "on oil shale leasing in the Green River Basin of Colorado, Utah, and Wyoming." (From Breitbart.com)

Tuesday, July 15: I heard Sen. Jon Kyl state on a news snippet this morning, that if we would start drilling in the oil shale deposits, we could start producing oil from there in 3 to 7 years. So much for the not for 10 years gloomy outlook. (Didn't we put a man on the moon in less than 10 years?)

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.3 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

When I think of oil spills, my mind goes immediately to the Exxon Valdez. Remember that one? In my mind's eye I can still see volunteers trying to wash off animals and rocks with toothbrushes and Dawn detergent. 

1989 Exxon Valdez ran aground on a reef off of Alaska, it was a case of drunk driving!

Valdez, Alaska: Today, years after the Oil Spill cleanup, efforts on some heavily oiled beaches have been reinstated, and with the help of Mother Nature, the Sound will recover more each year. Prince William Sound today flourishes with marine life, waterfowl, bottom fish, and salmon runs. Visit Valdez and see gorgeous Prince William Sound for yourself!

Before the Valdez, there was the 1978 Tanker Amoco Cadiz that tanker split in two off coast of France.

These images stick with us and make people wary of increasing offshore drilling.

But if we continue the moratorium on offshore drilling, will we be immune to oil spill disasters?

NO. The Valdez and Cadiz spills were not the result of offshore drilling rigs gone bad, they were the result of oil tanker accidents.

Whether we drill here on land or offshore, we are still importing oil from across the oceans. We are still vulnerable to oil tanker crashes and accidents.

Last month President Bush urged our Congress to Lift the Offshore Drilling Ban. (My emphasis throughout page) The President,

admitted his proposals "will take years to have their full impact" but he said that rather than it being an excuse for delay, "it's a reason to move swiftly" and called on Congress to change the lift the moratorium by the July 4 recess.

...

The offshore drilling moratoria have been in effect since 1981 in more than 80 percent of the country's Outer Continental Shelf. It was instituted to protect tourism and lessen the chance of oil spills reaching popular beaches.

The good news after hurricanes Katrina and Rita was at least there were no major oil spills due to off shore drilling.

Louisiana's Governor Bobby Jindal recently stated in a Fox News piece on offshore drilling that, “You know, that’s one of the great unwritten success stories, after Katrina and Rita, these awful storms, no major spills.” 

According to a Heritage Foundation piece, June 30, 2008, More Lies From the Center for American Progress, The Center for American Progress tried to paint a picture that it was the offshore drilling that caused oil spills. The CAP linked to a Minerals Management Service study that reported, "113 oil platforms were 'totally destroyed' --a total of 124 offshore spills."

That sounds bad, but read more from the MMS: 

Offshore environmental impacts as a result of hurricane events in the [Gulf of Mexico Regional Office] have typically been minor due to the downhole safety valves at wells and operating practices conducted by the oil and gas industry with respect to platforms and pipelines in advance of approaching hurricanes… While cleanup was required, the volume of oil spilled and impacts to shore from offshore infrastructure were categorized as minor.

The Heritage Foundation article then states, "CAP then goes on to blatantly conflate onshore and offshore oils spills. They (CAP) write:

In fact, oil seeped onshore into southeast Louisiana, which saw 44 onshore and offshore oil spills. The EPA called the spills “worse than the worst-case scenario.” Even oil industry representatives admitted: “nature can always topple you.”

If you click the first link, southeast Louisiana, it takes you to a MSNBC article, 44 oils spills found in southeast Louisiana.  In that article you find:

The Coast Guard estimates more than 7 million gallons of oil were spilled from industrial plants, storage depots and other facilities around southeast Louisiana.

And from the last link, nature can always topple you, the Houston Chronicle article states: 

“Hurricane Katrina’s floodwaters unleashed 1 million gallons of oil from one of the massive storage tanks at Murphy Oil’s nearby refinery.”

The Heritage Foundation concluded, "These are all onshore oil industry activities. To cite them as evidence of the danger of offshore oil drilling is blatantly dishonest. The Center for American Progress owes Gov. Jindal an apology."

One thing I found in the Houston Chronicle that people rarely verbalize: oil companies don't want spills either! 

"We don't like to spill oil. Oil that spills is of no value," said Larry Wall, a spokesman for the Louisiana Mid-Continent Oil and Gas Association.

Oils spills = $ loss to the oil companies!  It is in their best interest to prevent storm damage and oil spills too.

Continuing to restrict US oil companies from drilling offshore cannot guarantee we have no more oil spills on our shores. We already have our own oil companies drilling offshore, Mexican companies drilling close by, oil tankers approaching our coastlines to deposit their oil, and our own land based refinery and industry storage tanks. Any one of these entities could cause an oil spill disaster...given the right circumstances. Maintaining the drilling moratorium removes just one piece from that list of possible offenders. It alone will not prevent future oil spills.

Remember the Exxon Valdez? 

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here is now over the 1.24 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

ANSWER: ONE, IF IT IS A BARKER OR MENACE.

(Sorry about yesterday's mispost. Don't know how that happened--I wasn't home at the time it was posted!) 

It is easy to see why Brookfield's JR Pups 'N Stuff would be In the doghouse with the neighbors. I would not want a neighbor with 6 to 17 dogs either--especially on such a small lot. The article also stated:

Neighbors, however, said they were tired of Rhoten’s dogs’ barking, defecating and leaving her half-acre yard despite an electric fence. Brookfield does not allow physical fences, except where residences abut commercial areas.

Neighbors also said Rhoten’s yard in the 4600 block of N. 135th St. has been cluttered with kennels, trailers and a large white tent. About 40 neighbors signed a petition against the rescue business.

Is this problem simply too many dogs? Granted, the high volume of canines does not help the situation, but from the above description of the yard being strewn with kennels, trailers, and big tent, and the dogs escaping and defecating in the neighborhood, it sounds like the problem went beyond just the number of dogs.

There are a lot of dog owners who are not model neighbors. Some let their dogs bark incessantly. Some do not pick up after their dogs when on walks. Some let their dogs run out of their yards. In these cases, even one dog is one dog too many!

When I walk our pooch* pictured here, I frequently encounter 2 of these one is one too many canines. Often I think, I'm glad I don't live next to that! 

One should have been named Diablo. He barks and snarls with fur raised on his back everytime anyone passes by. Heaven help us if his invisible fence battery ever dies.

The other dog on our walking route has no invisible fence. His owner thinks he has trained it to stay in the yard, but it comes charging out at us, snarling, with fur again raised on his back (a sign of aggression.)

Since the problem with the dog rescue household in question has been solved with a court order, do we really need to make another law for everyone?

There may be times the average household would have more dogs than the 2-3 limit that is so common in other communities. A family member once bred their boxer and had 4 puppies. It was a very positive experience for the family. (All the puppies were sold.) 

Sometimes a household must keep a dog or dogs for a short time for someone else who is in the process of moving or building a home. Often if you are looking for someone to temporarily keep your pet, you ask someone who already has a dog. 

Maybe one solution would be to require Dog Rescue households to apply for a special permit or license? They could be required to abide by more stringent rules, with number of dogs proportioned to size of yard? Rescue organizations do perform a valuable service, I would hate to stop them all. (We once adopted a dog from one rescue house in Aurora, Illinois. That home seemed to have its act together.)

The Aldermen will have to sort all this out with the wisdom of Solomon. They know how many resident complaint calls they get about multiple dog menaces. But often the problem isn't simply the number of dogs, it is the owners!

What do you think?

If you are trying to train your dog to behave better, you might wish to watch The Dog Whisperer. It is a show on cable and available through the Waukesha Library system on DVD. Cesar Millan, the Whisperer, really knows his dogs and gently illustrates the problem is not the dog!

*I am not really a dog person, although I love our little 13 pounder!

Click here to sign the DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS.  domestic drilling petition and see the latest links to related oil news (updated every day).

Drill Here just reached the 1 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions. 

Links: 

President Bush urge[d] Congress to end ban on offshore oil drilling today: (My emphasis)

"Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal, and now Americans are paying the price at the pump for this obstruction," Bush said.

About 60% of Americans support government moves to encourage more oil drilling and refinery construction as a way to combat soaring energy prices -- but the same number also profess to be in favor of conservation, according to a Reuters/Zogby poll released Wednesday. [We should drill and conserve?]

The Presidential candidates are lining up along party lines on opposite sides of the domestic drilling coin: 

Republicans, including presidential candidate John McCain who announced his position this week after opposing it in the past, increasingly support lifting the ban on offshore oil drilling.

Barack Obama who is running for president, and fellow Democrats, oppose it over environmental concerns and say such action would have little immediate impact on fuel prices.

Despite the President's plea, the Democrats in Congress' Appropriations Committee blocked the measure from coming for a vote today. So the President proposes, Congress disposes. No help from Congress.

Some Democrats did propose that government take over some refineries though!

House Republicans tried to lift the ban before, "Time after time in recent years, drilling advocates have been unable to get the votes in Congress. When Republicans controlled Congress in 2006, the House of Representatives agreed to overturn the ban on offshore drilling, but the measure died in the Senate."  The ban has been in effect since 1981.

Bush admitted his proposals "will take years to have their full impact" but he said that rather than it being an excuse for delay, "it's a reason to move swiftly" and called on Congress to change the lift the moratorium by the July 4 recess.

With 67%* of American voters supporting more domestic drilling, what are we to do with our Congress that is so unresponsive? How about signing the Drill Here. Drill Now, so we can Pay Less petition?

Drill Here just reached the 1 million mark. The goal is 3 million signatures by the Democratic and Republican Conventions.

Click DRILL HERE. DRILL NOW. PAY LESS. to sign the petition and see the latest links to related news articles (updated every day). 

*Latest Rasmussen poll 

Links:

Today is your last chance to weigh in on the Governor's Global Warming Task Force.

If you want to give the task force your 2 cents on ethanol, global warming, lifting alternative energy mandates or any other environmental issue the State of Wisconsin will be spending your money on and impacting your freedom to choose, email them now! (You can bet that all the corn farmers, ethanol manufacturers and those who lean Green will be flooding the task force with their point of view.)

The deadline for submitting comments on the Strawman Proposal has been extended to 4:00 p.m. on Thursday, June 19, 2008. Comments can be emailed to* DNRGLOBALWARMTFCOMMENTS@WISCONSIN.GOV

*The email address I had before did not work, this one should be correct. Sorry. 

Hat Tip, Vicki McKenna. She talked about this at 10:25. 

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

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:

It is watering restriction season for Waukesha County, but in Brookfield, lawn watering, pool filling, and car washing* is restricted whether you are on a private well or municipal water every day of the year.

Somehow I was under the assumption that if one had a private well they were exempt from the watering restrictions. Many people on municipal water kept their private wells for watering and car washing purposes. I also thought there was a season to water restrictions. Not so. All Brookfield residents are under the restrictions all of the time: (My emphasis)

Sprinkling lawns, gardens, shrubs, trees, and other vegetation, washing vehicles or structures and filling swimming pools are restricted to certain days. Sprinkling is restricted to before 9 a.m. and after 6 p.m. by properties with even-numbered addresses on even-numbered days, and by properties with odd-numbered addresses on odd-numbered days. The regulations apply all year.

Now I don't have a problem with the concept of conserving water. We don't sprinkle our lawn as a rule, and washing a car is not a weekly occurrence. Brown lawns do survive. Even during the drought of 1988, when it did not rain all summer, I think we only broke down and sprinkled a few times.

In fact, most gardeners know that if you sprinkle often but not long, the root systems tend to grow horizontally instead of down. Watering less frequently, but longer, will result in stronger plants. (Exception: tomatoes need more frequent watering I think.) If the roots are established deeply, more than likely it will rain in a 2 week period and then watering isn't necessary. Early morning watering is better than mid day or evening too. 

Newly established lawns, plants/shrubs, and trees do need more care and they are exempt from restrictions. And "A watering can, container or hose may be used at any time to water gardens, trees or shrubs if the device is used manually and not left unattended."

The problem I have with restrictions is for one, the day system. Yes, it is simple. I am just thinking that maybe, just maybe I get the troops to finally wash the vinyl siding on my house only to realize the day is wrong! That is just a little annoyance.

The bigger picture is that Brookfield (and other cities outside of the Lake Michigan watershed) approve heavy water using development like restaurants or car washes left and right, but then tells me, who washes a car maybe 4 times a year I am restricted! (Car washes that use recycled water are exempt from the restriction, but they still use more than a homeowner!)

The article said that fines would be given for violators. In Brookfield the fine is $350. In Waukesha for example, "We wanted to nudge people to realize that we are serious about protecting the (water) resource," said Nancy Quirk of the Waukesha Water Utility.

I don't mind protecting water resources. Plentiful, good quality well water is a problem in Brookfield. But if municipalities were really serious about protecting water resources, would they be approving more and more heavy water users like restaurants, hotels, and car washes? Will water concerns at all determine what VK puts in at his Ruby Farms development? Approving them and then cracking down on residents to "save water" seems a little 2 faced to me. 

*UPDATE: City clarifies sprinkling policy, New rule aims to cut down lawn watering  Director of Public Works "Grisa said the ordinance does not apply to certain expectations, including hand washing of residential vehicles, residential uses such as children running through sprinklers and had watering of plants with a watering can or hose. He said that residents using water for those purposes should exercise common sense and not keep water running when it's not being used."

Links:

Yesterday, I caught a bit of Mark Belling's show. He was talking about needing a photo ID to make a bank transaction. That got me thinking about how many times I need to show my drivers license more than the average person.

Because of my name, when I use my credit card I frequently am asked,

Is that your husband's card?

I say, No, it is mine.

Oh, could I see your driver's license?

Sure, and I show them. Conversation about my unique name follows. (Good reason to name kids with classic names.) 

I would not be allowed to use the card if I did not have a photo ID to prove who I am. 

Mark Belling (Podcast), talked (griped?) about his experience at the bank trying to make a deposit. He needed a photo ID to complete the transaction. He then thought about how many places everyone needs a photo ID just to carry out everyday life besides banking transactions: buying liquor and cigarettes, obtaining a Blockbuster card, library card (?), and checking in at the airport to name a few. Yet we are unwilling to take the ID step to securing our elections.

A little past the last half of the podcast, Mark got into the phony idea State Democrats promote of how requiring a photo ID disenfranchises voters. Jim Sullivan of Wauwatosa was mentioned as voting against photo ID, yet he (and other democrats) don't campaign against any other place that requires a photo ID.

The photo ID is a basic form of security in America, but we aren't willing to use the basic security for securing our vote!, Mark exclaimed. What we have allowed to happen regarding safeguarding our elections in Wisconsin is a disgrace.

Since I am planning some summer vacations, I got to thinking of all the places I need a photo ID for. We purchased a National Parks Pass. I needed a photo ID to purchase it and must show one every time I use it for admission. I have to prove I am the person on the card.

We might go to Greenfield Village and the Henry Ford Museum. I will need one to purchase a membership (its cheaper if you go more than once) and then need the photo ID to use the membership card to prevent fraud.

Some states, especially in areas with lots of tourism, require a photo ID every time a credit card is used. The National Park concessioners require one as does Disney World. Frequently gas stations along the interstate require a photo ID to charge at the counter. Oh, and of course you need one to rent a car. 

You might say, these are all areas the poor would not be utilizing. True. But remember the basics of life mentioned earlier  all require a photo ID: check cashing (that would include a welfare check), banks, purchasing cigarettes and liquor, and let's not forget, driving. 

What we have allowed to happen regarding safeguarding our elections in Wisconsin is a disgrace. I couldn't have said it better.

If your State Senator is Jim Sullivan, let him know what you think about his NO vote last session. 

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

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

Links:

Question: Who is the number 1 oil producer? Number 2? Number 3?

Do we have the right to sue any of the top 3 for not producing more or setting prices? 

If you said yes, that would include suing the United States. We are the number 3 oil producer in the world*.

"Congress' latest answer to rising gasoline prices: Sue OPEC .(LA Times)"  -What about counter suit? What if OPEC sues the U.S. for not pumping all of the oil deposits in our own country? Isn't it ridiculous that we don't pump the oil off of our shores for environmental reasons, yet Mexico just to our south does?

What about an OPEC lash back? Do we really want to poke a stick in the eye of our major oil suppliers? (One of my nicknames is Cautious Kyle.) The President must think so too, "The White House warned that the measure could invite retaliatory action by the oil cartel, which supplies about 6 million barrels of crude to the United States every day."

Just imagine what our economy might look like if we were pumping from all of our own known deposits and kept our oil dollars home? Or on the darker side, just imagine what what our economy would look like if OPEC decides to sell elsewhere? From the L.A.Times:

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) scoffed at the measure, arguing it was "long on psychic compensation" but unlikely to bring down gas prices. He assailed Democrats for blocking efforts to increase domestic oil drilling, complaining that the bill "doesn't outlaw the congressional cartel that has blocked our energy production in this country."

"Even if this bill gets vetoed, which I believe it will, we're sending a message over to the OPEC countries that we want to litigate," King said, warning of possible reprisals.

OPEC could speed the flow of oil to the market, King said. "Or they might just decide, a little bit out of spite, to turn the spigot down a little bit to say, 'We'll show you.' "

Maybe we should sue Congress for blocking US drilling attempts? 

*Top 10 oil producers: Saudi Arabia, Russia, US (first 3 each produce almost 2X or more than the following), Iran, China, Mexico, Norway, Canada, Venezuela, United Arab Emirates.

Past Post: Can We Just Start Drilling Now? 

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: