Obama wants you to spread your wealth around, but doesn't do it himself. His charitable donations are abysmal, amounting to less than 2% on average.

He wants you to contribute $845 billion to his Global Poverty Act, but he doesn't even help his own half-brother in Kenya. Guess he has no responsibility to half-brothers?

At the convention he summed up the ability to prosper in America, "Born into poverty? Pull yourself up by your own bootstraps, even if you don't have boots. You are on your own." He then contrasted that cynical view with his ideals: (My emphasis)

Our government should work for us, not against us.  It should help us, not hurt us.  It should ensure opportunity not just for those with the most money and influence, but for every American who's willing to work.

That's the promise of America - the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.

That's the promise we need to keep.  That's the change we need right now.  So let me spell out exactly what that change would mean if I am President.

Obama repeated his "I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper" clip in last night's infomercial.

Well, Obama isn't president yet, but we can see how much he believes in his own words: His own Aunt Zeituni lives in a rundown tenement in Boston. Guess being your sister's keeper doesn't apply to aunties either.

Last night Obama also appeared on Jon Sewart's show. He tried to diffuse the Socialist label by quipping,

"That whole socialism argument, that doesn't fly too well,'' Obama said. "The evidence of this seems pretty thin. I said today that I think they found proof that when I was in kindergarten I shared some toys with my friends and that's clearly a sign of subversive activity. 

But there is a big difference between sharing, which is voluntary, and being coerced to share, which is involuntary. Plus, sharing toys in kindergarten doesn't even count. The toys in kindergarten were not personally owned by Obama; they belonged to the school system

When we share our own assets, that is charity. When we share our own assets with friends, that is called friendship. When we are coerced to share our bounty through taxation--to spread the wealth around--that is called socialism! 

Obama summed it up best himself when he was asked about the greatest moral failure in his life and of America at the Saddleback Forum: (My emphasis)

...And what I traced this to [his wild living] is a certain selfishness on my part. I was so obsessed with me and, you know, the reasons that I might be dissatisfied that I couldn't focus on other people. And I think the process for me of growing up was to recognize that it's not about me. It's about --

WARREN: I like that. I like that.

OBAMA: Absolutely. So -- but look, you know, when I -- when I find myself taking the wrong step, I think a lot of times it's because I'm trying to protect myself instead of trying to do god's work.

WARREN: Yeah, fundamental selfishness.

OBAMA: So that, I think, is my own failure.

WARREN: What about America?

OBAMA:: I think America's greatest moral failure in my lifetime has been that we still don't abide by that basic precept in Matthew that whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me, and that notion of -- that basic principle applies to poverty... There's a pervasive sense, I think, that this country, as wealthy and powerful as we are, still don't spend enough time thinking about "the least of these."

Obama's selfishness and socialism is showing. If he does not do for the least of these in his own family, what makes you think he will do for you?

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: 

Joe the plumber sure put a face on the problem with taxing small businessmen and giving it to workers paying little or no Federal income tax at all.

Now we learn that Joe isn't Joe, he isn't a licensed plumber*, and in actuality, is not in such a high tax bracket**.

This Joe's real name is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. But whether he goes by Sam or Joe, there are plenty of small businessmen in the same very real tax situation that Joe asked Obama about.

Joe may not exactly be the "Joe the Plumber" we thought he was, but Barack Obama's tax give away answer is very real and sincerely believes in the ideology of spreading the wealth around.

If it were not for "Joe" would Americans have heard from Obama's own lips that, (My emphasis)

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success, too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

There isn't anything really new about Obama's "spread the wealth around" message. It just never got much national coverage. Real Clear Markets spelled it out well back in February:

The Obama spend-o-meter is now up around $800 billion. And tax hikes on the rich won't pay for it. It's the middle class that will ultimately shoulder this fiscal burden in terms of higher taxes and lower growth....

Obama would like voters to believe that he's the second coming of JFK. But with his unbelievable spending and new-government-agency proposals, he's looking more like Jimmy Carter. His is a "Grow the Government Bureaucracy Plan," and it's totally at odds with investment and business.

Obama says he wants U.S. corporations to stop "shipping jobs overseas" and bring their cash back home. But if he really wanted U.S. companies to keep more of their profits in the states, he'd be calling for a reduction in the corporate tax rate. Why isn't he demanding an end to the double-taxation of corporate earnings? It's simple: He wants higher taxes, too.

The Wall Street Journal's Steve Moore has done the math on Obama's tax plan. He says it will add up to a 39.6% personal income tax, a 52.2% combined income and payroll tax, a 28% capital-gains tax, a 39.6% dividends tax and a 55% estate tax.

Not only is Obama the big-spending candidate, he's also the very-high-tax candidate. And what he wants to tax is capital.

...

Obama believes he can use government, and not free markets, to drive the economy. But on taxes, trade and regulation, Obama's program is anti-growth. A President Obama would steer us in the social-market direction of Western Europe, which has produced only stagnant economies down through the years.

Joe certainly got his minutes of fame. He was on the Mike Huckabee show and greeted like a hero.  It took Joe the Plumber to put a face on the problem and bring it to the forefront. Why haven't we been talking more about this before?

Thank you, Joe. Sorry your life has become an open book.

*Many people in the trades do not have an actual license themselves but work under the license of an owner or boss.

** " Wurzelbacher never claimed to be making $250,000 a year. He told Obama that he might be 'getting ready to buy a company that makes about $250,000, $270,000' a year. His simple point was that Obama's punitive tax proposals would make it more difficult to realize his dream."

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: 

We are learning more and more about Barack Obama's tax plan--it is not a tax cut but a socialistic increase in spending.

As Obama was on the campaign trail in Ohio this week, Obama encountered Joe the plumber--a small businessman. He was not impressed with the Obama tax plan. Fox News Neil Cavuto interviewed Joe.

Now Barack's response, 'Spread the Wealth Around' Comment Comes Back to Haunt Obama:  

Sen. Barack Obama’s recent comments to a plumber named Joe are making some Americans nervous about Obama’s wealth-redistribution tendencies.
 
“Your tax plan’s going to tax me more,” the plumber named Joe Wurzelbacher told Obama at a rally in Ohio on Sunday.
 
Wurzelbacher told the Democratic presidential candidate he’s about to buy a company that will put him above the $250,000 income level. Obama has said he will raise taxes on people making a minimum of $250,000 – and that includes small businesses that file taxes as individuals.
 
“It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance at success too,” Obama told the plumber.

That spread the wealth comment was picked up by "McCain and other critics, who say Obama sounds like a socialist."

Contrast that with the McCain position:

“My friends, my plan isn't intended to force small businesses to cut jobs to pay higher taxes so we can ‘spread the wealth around.’ My plan is intended to create jobs and increase the wealth of all Americans,” McCain said.
 
McCain says he would reduce business tax rates to boost job-creation.

After the yesterday's debate, the Joe was interviewed by ABC: Joe The Plumber: Obama Tax Plan 'Infuriates Me'. CBS also interviewed Joe post debate; he said the McCain health care plan would help him more. Joe didn't get to say anymore because the network said they were out of time. 

The idea of taking from the more wealthy, like Joe, and giving to the less wealthy, regardless of if they pay federal income tax or not, is not a tax cut. It is welfare. It doesn't sound like socialism, it IS socialism.

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: 

Our race for the White House seems like it has gone on forever. Canada just got the job done in less than 2 months. (Lucky them!)

Who did Canadians elect? The Conservative or the Liberal?

The Conservative.

Canada's new Prime Minister is Stephen Harper and according to the Wall Street Journal, Conservative Canada, John McCain take note: (My emphasis)

...Harper and his Conservative Party coasted to an easy victory in national elections on Tuesday, winning 38% of the vote and 143 seats in parliament. Mr. Harper's closest competitor, Liberal Party leader Stéphane Dion, managed only 26% of the popular vote for 76 seats.

Though he did not win the 155 seats he needed to secure a majority, Mr. Harper did pick up 16 new members of parliament, while the Liberals lost 19 seats. In other words, in a time of great economic uncertainty, Canadians by a large margin went with the tax cutter over the tax raiser.

The WSJ suggested that Harper hoped to secure a parliament seat majority but his response to "the global financial panic" that critics said was "too casual" might have kept him from it. 

So what prompted his victory? His pro NATO role, funding military, and troops in Afghanistan to fight terrorism platform.

Mr. Harper restored Canada's important role in NATO and revived Canadian pride in playing a role on the world stage. He reversed a pattern of parliamentary neglect of Canada's armed forces and made proper funding for the troops a priority. Rather than flee Afghanistan as Mr. Dion wanted to do, Mr. Harper's Canada is playing a crucial role in the international effort to defeat al Qaeda and the Taliban.

Domestically, Harper "promised to cut corporate taxes to further attract capital and grow the economy."

What was Harper's closest challenger, Liberal Mr. Dion's platform? "To levy a new carbon tax on business" and "flee Afghanistan."

What Americans will do on Nov. 4th remains the mystery. Will they be like their Canadian neighbors to the north and vote for the true tax cutter--especially on corporations--and pro military presence man John McCain? Or choose the wealth/income redistributor (remember Obama wants Bush Tax Cuts to expire) and abandon Iraq candidate Barack Obama?

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: 

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: 

Our present market woes and the Freddie/Fannie mess did not come out of nowhere. They are not George Bush's fault. They started a  l-o-n-g  time before either Bush.  Watching the house burn down: What caused our economic crisis? gives a good run down of the chain of events leading up to this crisis.

First thing this morning, I checked to see if Rep. Paul Ryan and Jim Sensenbrenner were on board with the bailout bill. If so, then I felt it might shore up the market with the least harm. Thankfully, ACORN funding has been removed from the present version.

Rep. Paul Ryan doesn't like the bail out but agrees we are painted into a corner and must do something. Jim Sensenbrenner it seems will not support it at all. GOPUSA says it is still a Train Wreck.

The House Bailout failed to pass 228-205. Seems Pelosi gave a pre-vote speech that did not warm the hearts of Republicans by blaming Bush for all of this. Democrats were not enthusiastic either. Democrats against: 95, Republican NOs: 133. Wisconsin Representatives voting NO: Jim Sensenbrenner - R, Tom Petri - R, and Steve Kagen - D.

Roughly 4/5ths of Americans do not favor a bailout, which is why democrats were hesitant to sign on. Some want the free market work as in Citibank buying Wachovia today.

The market closed at 777 points down today. The price of oil went down to $96/barrel, gold closed up about $8 at $898/oz. One thing saving our bacon is that world wide markets are jittery too. If you are a foreign investor, who do you trust with your money? Don't know how long foreign investors will stay with us though.

I have no idea what is the right thing to do regarding the bailout bill. I think Ryan voted for because he knows this could go way south.

At the very least, it is time to put an end to no money down and little money down mortgages!

Vicki McKenna talked today on her radio show about how she* is in the process of buying a home. When she first started looking months ago, she was told she needed 20% down. This is consistent with what a Realtor friend told me--that people were getting mortgages if they had 21% to put down. But now Vicki was told she could get a mortgage for 3% down, if she did it before the end of the year!

I believe the little or no money down policy of the Community Reinvestment Act started us down this fiscally irresponsible path. Without the cushion of 20% down, for those times when home values falter, these no/little money down loans became upside down.

So the American taxpayer is asked to bailout out the lenders, and Congress is drilling more holes in the boat by not reforming down payment requirements? Pretty typical.

PS Did you see that the House passed a $25 billion bailout for automakers?

*CORRECTION: It was not Vicki herself, but someone in her building. The point remains the same regardless who got the loan. 

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: 

The Democrats present the Trojan Drilling Bill, the stock market is in major jitters, investors look for safe places to put their money. Hence oil, gold/silver/precious metals go up. Pretty simple.

With the Democrat's no-drill oil bill, prohibiting drilling in most areas, there will be little change in our domestic oil supply. If we don't get a real Drill Here bill, we will be dependent on foreign oil for years and paying higher prices. It is supply and demand...the price will go up.

Anyone wondering if the Democrats are trying to create such an oil price crisis that the government must come in and take that industry over too? I am hard pressed to explain the Democrat's stance any other way.

The other factor involved in precious metal and oil price increases is the fall of the dollar. It had been improving since about July. But the Freddie and Fannie / financials bail outs cause the United States to expand the money supply. That is inflationary, resulting in the value of the individual dollar to fall. Again, it is supply and demand.

From the Financial Times: The Short View: Oil and the Dollar: 

By late morning in New York on Monday, the price of oil had climbed by 20 per cent in barely five days and scarcely anyone had noticed. Then it went into overdrive, hitting $130 at one point before settling at $120.92. Last Tuesday, it traded at $90.51 – a swing of 44 per cent from bottom to top.

This had little to do with the supply of and demand for oil and everything to do with the fallout from the “Paulson plan” – the proposal to risk $700bn of US public money in a bail-out of toxic securities held by banks.

Oil rose as doubts surfaced about the plan.

When people are nervous, they look for tangible products to invest in. 

A key variable is the dollar. So far, it has fallen in response to the possible huge rise in the US deficit. The markets seem to have gone a step further and assumed that this step will be be inflationary and cause financial assets to lose value.

In that situation, the thing to do was to head for real assets, led by oil, although other commodities, led by silver, also had a strong day. Unfortunately for the Paulson plan, the inverse relationship between oil and the dollar is one of the few financial constants to have survived the past few days.

I heard this morning that oil settled down to about $108/barrel in Asia. People are nervous worldwide. The US money supply is expanded beyond thin.

The last thing we need is another check writing spree by the government in the form of a Democrat 2nd $50billion stimulus package or a $1,000 energy rebate based on a windfall profit tax to oil companies as Obama is touting. (That tax would be passed onto consumers, making oil prices higher.)

Even the Federal Government can only print so much money if it is to be worth more than the paper it is printed on! 

Brookfield District 7 Info meeting, Wed., Sept. 24, 2-3pm or 6:30-7:30pm City Clerk Kris Schmidt will be in attendance to answer questions or concerns regarding recent news about the Van Hollen lawsuit against the state elections authority.

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: 

Last night I caught a bit of the July school board meeting on cable TV*. The board was discussing Elmbrook's coming budget woes and the difficult decisions our district needs to make to keep our schools operating within budget. (Unfortunately, I missed at least the first half of the meeting, but I will watch again and take better notes.)

Glen Allgaier had created a list of cost saving possibilities--none of them an easy choice. The list included the unpleasant prospects of closing a school and increasing class sizes. The idea was we needed to dramatically cut spending in order to meet our financial obligations. There seemed to be agreement that drastic measures were necessary.

Then Dr. Gibson chimed in that we could also look at increasing revenue producers to solve our money problems as well as implementing cost savings measures. That was when he mentioned 4K as well as looking at nonresident students. Gibson acknowledged that we had decided to forgo 4K but it seemed the state aid dollar potential was still tempting him.

Another "revenue producer" would be to go to the taxpayers with a referendum to raise the spending cap!

The idea of coming at taxpayers on the heels of our $62mil high school referendum would be very distasteful to me--especially considering our budget shortfalls are nothing new.  While I had suggested a referendum to raise the spending cap to increase the maintenance/capital improvement budget as a way to deal with the high school improvements and needs, that spending cap referendum was to be instead of not in addition to the high school referendum!

4K was mentioned not as an improvement to education but solely as a cure for budget woes--as in increasing the school budget, not decreasing the taxpayer's burden. Our board decided last fall to eliminate 4K because it was not shown to improve student performance in the long run. But here we are again mentioning 4K as a possibility.

Universal 4K is also a subject of the presidential election. Both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama support the idea of nationwide 4K. The Democrat party believes in pre-K as it is sometimes called.

Today, the Wall Street Journal's Protect Our Kids From Preschool summed up much of what I wrote last fall when Elmbrook was deciding their 4K question. In a nutshell, there is no longterm evidence that 4K is beneficial in the long run:

Barack Obama says he believes in universal preschool and if he's elected president he'll pump "billions of dollars into early childhood education." Universal preschool is now second only to universal health care on the liberal policy wish list...

But is strapping a backpack on all 4-year-olds and sending them to preschool good for them? Not according to available evidence.
...
Mr. Obama asserted in the Las Vegas debate on Jan. 15 that every dollar spent on preschool will produce a 10-fold return by improving academic performance, which will supposedly lower juvenile delinquency and welfare use -- and raise wages and tax contributions. Such claims are wildly exaggerated at best.

In the last half-century, U.S. preschool attendance has gone up to nearly 70% from 16%. But fourth-grade reading, science, and math scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) -- the nation's report card -- have remained virtually stagnant since the early 1970s.

The piece concludes with:

If Mr. Obama is serious about helping children, he should begin by fixing what is clearly broken: the K-12 system. The best way of doing that is by building on programs with a proven record of success. Many of these involve giving parents control over their own education dollars so that they have options other than dysfunctional public schools. The Obamas send their daughters to a private school whose annual fee in middle school runs around $20,000. Other parents deserve such choices too -- not promises of subsidized preschool that they may not want and that may be bad for their kids.

Jay Weber talked about 4K in his 8am hour today too. A man whose wife taught in Elmbrook's kindergarten program called in. He said his wife presented 25 reasons 4K was beneficial at the board meeting, but the board voted to discontinue. The caller then added, he wouldn't send his children for 4K! (He must have had his own 26 reasons it wasn't beneficial?)

Finland was again mentioned as a standard. Finland doesn't start school until age 7. Their students do better than the rest of the world.

Taxpayers are asked for more and more money each year, whether at the local or national level. Can we at least narrow down the wish list to programs that actually work?

Past post: Does 4K deserve tax dollars? 

If you wish to read other past postings on this subject, just click the tag 4K and they will come up. 

*Our venture in to cable TV was short lived. We signed on with TimeWarner for a special deal that wasn't delivered as promised. Now to get the package that was presented would cost $30 more per month. Too much for television! Monday the cable TV will be shut off. 

Links: 

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

Barack Obama would prefer that most people think he is John Kennedy the 2nd. But where Kennedy said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country", Obama seems to have an opposite campaign theme: Don't do anything for yourself that the government could do for you.

No, to me, Obama more closely resembles former President Jimmy Carter. They both favor negotiating with terrorists and both seem anti-semitic. They also both share the same opinion on windfall profit taxes for oil companies.

"'SPEAKING OF WINDFALL PROFITS',  Barack Obama said yesterday [Monday] that he wants to impose a "windfall profits tax" on American oil companies. This is a stupid idea, unless you want to reduce the supply of oil and thereby increase prices even further." Barack Obama said Monday:

"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.

That same Reuters piece mentioned that "CRITICS SAY TAX DOES NOT WORK": (My emphasis)

Critics of the windfall profits tax say it proved to be counterproductive when it was last put in place in the United States in 1980 during the final year of President Jimmy Carter's administration.

Those critics say the measure prompted oil companies to cut back on domestic production while failing to raise as much in tax revenue as lawmakers expected. It was repealed in 1988 during the Reagan administration.

What's that saying about history? Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it? That's  Change we can't afford:  

“At a time when American families face record gas and energy prices, Barack Obama has called for even higher energy taxes. At the center of Barack Obama’s plan is a scheme last tried under Jimmy Carter that only increased our dependence on foreign oil. We shouldn’t expect anything more from a politician who has consistently voted to increase taxes on energy, including natural gas purchases in Illinois. Barack Obama doesn’t understand the American economy and that’s change we just can’t afford.”

BARACK OBAMA’S PLAN TO INCREASE ENERGY TAXES WILL HURT AMERICAN CONSUMERS (from the McCain campaign.)

Barack Obama is trying to call a McCain presidency George Bush's 3rd term. Tuesday I heard John McCain fire back that an Obama presidency would be Carter's 2nd term.

I don't believe McCain would be a 3rd Bush term, but if we are going to have a rerun...I know which presidency I would pick.

Links:

The big election buzz this week was Obama became the nominee.

I could not listen to his entire speech, but this part caught my attention:

It’s not change when John McCain decided to stand with George Bush ninety-five percent of the time, as he did in the Senate last year.

It’s not change when he offers four more years of Bush economic policies that have failed to create well-paying jobs, or insure our workers, or help Americans afford the skyrocketing cost of college – policies that have lowered the real incomes of the average American family, widened the gap between Wall Street and Main Street, and left our children with a mountain of debt.

I think his statements show how little he understands conservatives and economics.

Most conservatives do not consider McCain as standing with Bush. I would say McCain has been a thorn in Bush's side on many fronts for years. (Most likely, I am still voting for McCain because he is really my only choice, but he is NOT this conservative's dream.)

Secondly, the phrase, "left our children with a mountain of debt." What does he think all of his spending programs will do? He supports National Health, help with college, Global Poverty Act, more biofuel, and Cap and Trade * to name a few.

Every new spending program saddles our children with more debt. So how is it that his new spending programs are OK and those of the past are not? (I am not in favor of many of those either.)

If he had come up with a plan like Paul Ryan's Roadmap for America to reform Social Security, Medicare, and the Tax Structure, and did not have all of these new government programs as his platform, then maybe I could swallow his "mountain of debt" statement.

As it stands, he is the pot calling the kettle black. 

*WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) -- "Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama on Monday said that if elected he would establish an economy-wide cap-and-trade program that would sharply cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 2050."

Links:

Here is a little news for residents to our north, Randy Melchert* is running for State Assembly, 24th District. That area starts just north of Lisbon Road on up to Pioneer Road and from 124th St. west to Hillside Road and includes Butler, Menomonee Falls (most), Germantown, Hubertus and Colgate.

Suzanne Jeskewitz, the current area's representative, announced earlier this month that she would not be running again.

If you live in the 24th District, Melchert will start collecting nomination signatures on June 1st. The primary is September 9th. Check out his website:

"Melchert envisions a pro-life, pro-family, pro-growth Wisconsin. Melchert will be working to make Wisconsin an economic greenhouse attracting high quality corporations, jobs, and families. As posted on his website (www.randymelchert.com) Wisconsin has the seventh highest state and local tax burden according to The Tax Foundation. Melchert believes we need to stop raiding settlements and reserved funds to pay for our out-of-control budget. With aggressive spending controls we can begin to reduce taxes, and thereby revitalize the state economy."

His blog, Randall Melchert for Assembly Blog has interesting (and disturbing) postings containing graphs and information on how Wisconsin is losing jobs and increasing taxes and debt. This would be of interest to all Wisconsin residents, not just those in the 24th District.

Wish we had more like him in Madison! 

*I have known the Melchert family for 8 years. 

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

Links:

FYI, Mark Belling, is talking about our referendum and Wisconsin taxes right now on his radio show at 4:35pm. 

He mentioned the alderman who called our schools an embarrassment (Mahkorn) and the 12 aldermen who endorsed Elmbrook's referendum.

Mark said, if the residents vote for this, then they better not call his show complaining of their high property taxes.

A caller noted that the two aldermen who did not endorse the referendum were former city employees. Possibly they know something the other aldermen don't? Belling did not want the caller to speak for Balzer or Carnell. It was an interesting observation though. 

UPDATE: I almost forgot that Bill Carnell once was on the school board too! 

Belling notes and quotes: Wisconsin ranks 44th in favorable business tax climate, 50th for retirees.

"The one positive thing about referendums is that you at least get to vote NO."

"I know it is very hard to be the lone wolf." 

He praises the New Berlin school district in their approach. "I hope the (Elmbrook) referendum fails." New Berlin has built 2 new schools without raising taxes.

"At what point in Wisconsin are we going to say, enough is enough."

You may want to listen to the podcast (hour 2, part 1-housing values, raised taxes, fees, Brookfield council and 2) if you cannot listen live.

The countdown continues: Just 13 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

Former 2007 Referendum Facilities Facts Sheets (Still a good read)

Jessica Rasmussen reports, "The Elmbrook superintendent will see $5,280 added to his salary for the 2008-2009 school year.", so that answers my question from last week, Will Gibson get hefty raise this year?

"The School Board voted, 5-1, to approve the 4 percent package increase, which will bump Superintendent Matt Gibson's salary to $147,510." (Remember that Dr. Gibson's complete wage and benefit package is substantially more than just salary.)

True to form, Patrick Murphy did not support that raise. I'm going to miss Patrick's presence on the board. " 'I think these wages are excessive,' Murphy said, adding that the administration should show restraint in light of a possible $62.2 million construction project, which will go to referendum April 1."

I agree. It is rather difficult to swallow the Superintendent telling us how dire the need is for improved facilities in our schools or how we face $1.5 to $2million dollars in budget cuts due to declining enrollments and then see him accept a raise like this one.

But Murphy's opinion was not shared by all. Some "viewed the increase as both deserved and as inconsequential in the district's budget."

The $5,280 raise is 3.58%, below the QEO of 3.8% (which I think only applies to teachers).  Often a person in Dr. Gibson's leadership position will make a gesture to refuse the raise or at least make an offer to donate it back to some cause connected with the schools. I have not heard any report of that.

I don't know how deserved the raise was however, since Gibson's contact was only extended by one year, through June 30, 2010--one year beyond the coming school year. If the board had not extended it, his contract expiration date would have ended at the end of June 2009.

.

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: It's direct address is:  www.elmbrookschools.org/.../displayFile.aspx

(I am sorry, I still cannot access it from the 2008 referendum Table of Contents page.)

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

Still no link to the 2008 Election Edition of the Link. Hope you got your copy.

The countdown continues: Just 13 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

I spent last night going through all of my past Practically Speaking postings from the last referendum up until Easter 2007. I gave them a quick read and made the appropriate subject tags.

Many of them are still very pertinent this year. I hope to make a master list with titles, but if that never materializes, you can just click on the High School tag or Elmbrook to the right and they all should come up.

Brookfield7's postings can be found by typing in High School in the search box at the top of that blog. (I will try to list those too if time allows.)

One tidbit I found of interest was about Matt Gibson's raise from last year, just before the referendum. Last year he got an extra $4,881.

Uncle Matt wants you, Even if it means we have to build bigger schools:

Why would the administration, led by Matt Gibson, want to recruit every possible student if this means greater expenses for district taxpayers and shortages of classroom space?

One reader commented, “He’s trying to build a for profit empire out of our wallet! The bigger the empire; the bigger the check.”

Well big empires justify big raises, and we just gave Dr. Matt Gibson a hefty one of $4,881 for a total of $142,230 this year.

I wonder what it will be this year? 

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: It's direct address is:  www.elmbrookschools.org/.../displayFile.aspx

(I am sorry, I still cannot access it from the 2008 referendum Table of Contents page.) 

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

The countdown begins: Just 20 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

ACADEMICS, NOT ATHLETICS: VOTE NO

Links: Brookfield7, Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

Although I am not in favor of the present $62.2+ million dollar referendum, I was pleased to see this practical solution for creating larger classrooms while on the Central High School Tour this week. They are proposing removing the approx. 8' x 9' office cubes from some of the classrooms.

(These would be those classrooms you visit at the top of the stairs at the beginning of the tour--same ones that last year were mentioned as only having 3 working outlets: The Tale of Three Outlets)

I have no idea what they were thinking when this school addition was built--like so many "new" ideas, it seemed like a good idea at the time? But the office within the classroom really plays havoc with the arrangement of student desks.

You can see in the first photo the front of the classroom with the green board. The 15 student desks are arranged perpendicular to the front wall.

The second photo shows the teacher's office cube in the back. The
remaining 15 desks are arranged perpendicular to the back wall.

Each set of 15 desks face each other.

Now, I am not claiming credit for this idea. I think the referendum committee just saw what I saw, a relatively easy and inexpensive way to expand and improve the layout of some classrooms.
 

I had suggested removing those small teacher's office cubes last year in a posting : Post WW2 era buildings = modern construction: 

One “need” on the referendum wish list is larger classrooms. Classrooms at Central are not large enough. Solution: knock out the teacher’s office cube inside the classroom and suddenly the room meets No Child Left Behind standards. Presently we are told the rooms are 750 sq. ft. If the office were removed the room would exceed 825 sq. ft. The layout of the room would improve too. The concept of a teacher having their own classroom is necessary at elementary schools but not at the high school level. This work can all be done “in house” with maintenance staff during the summer as other districts do.

By removing the office cube, the layout of desks improves and the number of potential students per room could increase--if needed. The teacher would be moved to a department office room that would have a private area for student/teacher meetings. Moving the teacher's office out of the classroom also helps when the classroom is used by another teacher. Where this departmental teacher's office area will be is not know at this time Principal LaBonte told us.

I don't believe we need a $102 million referendum ($62.2 million dollar + interest) to make this type of improvement.  Like School Board Member Patrick Murphy, I favor increasing our Capital Improvement budget--I suggested  by $1million a year, last year Murphy suggested by $2 million.

Elmbrook School District Referendum Links:

Wording of the April 1, 2008 $62.190.000 referendum 

Architect's Conceptual High School Floorplans--East and Central

Facility "Needs" comparison of failed 2007 and present 2008 referendums

Key Academic Benefits: It's direct address is:  www.elmbrookschools.org/.../displayFile.aspx

(I am sorry, I still cannot access it from the 2008 referendum Table of Contents page.)

Tour Schedule  

Tax Calculator  

Frequently Asked Questions

Elmbrook asks for smaller expansion--JSOnline (Also includes links to past articles)

The countdown begins: Just 25 days until MILLIONS OF DOLLARS Tuesday!

Email me your thoughts on the $62.2 million dollar referendum.

Links: Betterbrookfield,  Vicki Mckenna 

Yikes! Gas prices rise 14 cents overnight!.

I saw this enthusiastic supporter's car in WCTC's parking lot recently.

The college student in our household says many of the students there voted for Obama in the primary just because they think he will win. They like the idea of being on the winning side.

I can understand how "youth" would be attracted to a younger candidate--especially if that candidate is promising all kinds of change.

But who is going to pay for all that change?

The answer is our children. (We will all pay of course, but they will bear the brunt of it.)

According to a PEW Generation Next Survey from 2006 (page 14), 81% of 18 - 25 year olds rated "To get rich" as "[Their] generation's most important goals in life"

Senior Citizens are promised their incomes will not be taxed if under $50,000/year and families won't be taxed either, if their incomes are under $70,000, Sen. Obama has said.

So if getting rich is that important to this age group, then picking a candidat