I do not intend to take any sides in this piece, but to simply state the facts as I see them.  If you feel that I stray, please express your thoughts in a comment.

~~~~~~~~~~

We are about to inaugurate the 44th President of the United States.  He, in this case, has much on his platter and has already taken quite a few steps in a relatively short period of time.  All this would indicate that his will be a well-organized administration and that things we see transmitted by picks, statements, leaks and so on are things of which we should take note.  I doubt that there will be a lot of 'wasted motion' from the Obama administration.  That does not appear to be President-Elect Obama's style nor does it appear to be the style of Rahm Emanuel who will be the back-seat driver, and the outspoken commenter when occasions require.

Among his early challenges is that of our economy.  I am reminded daily of just how intertwined our economy is with that of the world at large.  I am reminded daily that there is no such thing as an invincible company or institution.  The most revered names of my time, such as GM and GE and FedEx and Ford are being pummeled in the marketplace.  For example, $1,000 invested in GM at the end of 2007 is now worth $184 according to the Wall Street Journal this morning.  Similarly, $1,000 put into 3M is now worth $690.  That same $1,000 put into GE is worth $460 today.  A similar investment in Alcoa is now worth $273.  All these are the big industrial entities with which I grew up. 

There have been some indications that the Obama administration may well take the view that more government control is the desirable course at this point in our country's existence.  That suggests that our industrial model may see more governmental control over the products that are manufactured, the services that are offered, and the relationships of one with the other.  The buzz word has been "socialism".  That may well be too strong a term, and it was obviously designed to give people pause for thought when introduced by those on the right side of the aisle.

It is valid, I think, that we recognize there will be winners and losers as the new administration assumes its position and begins to guide the country.  There have essentially been two classes of appointees announced so far.  There have been the more conservative announcements such as that concerning defense, and there have been some liberal announcements such as that concerning the EPA.  This suggests that we'll likely be on a dual track from January 20th forward, at least for the foreseeable future.

If I knew who/what would be winners, I'd try to align myself as much as possible; similarly, if I knew the losers, I'd try to take the proper defensive measures.  But, I know neither with certainty.  I can only speculate.  And my speculations lead me to expect some of the following:

• Health care will not be as severely remade as had earlier been indicated since there are many impediments to wholesale change, with the economy and the country's finances being the chief reasons I see.  We just don't have the money to do wholesale change.
• Organized labor will be a beneficiary given the solid support received from those quarters by the incoming administration.  The labor department pick appears as though it could've been hand-selected by labor, for example.
• Our country will be driven to be 'greener' whether or not that is indicated by thoughtful consideration.  The Browner selection virtually assures this direction.
• Education will continue to be driven from the top down rather than from the bottom up.  Choice and charter will not be in much favor so far as I can determine.
• Stimulus packages will be aimed at infrastructure projects thus being of significant benefit to the trades and unions, and with much longer payback periods for the rest of us.  Those projects will be as 'green' as possible given the Browner appointment.
• Foreign policy will be a bit softer around the edges than during the past eight years, I suspect.  We'll be more concerned with what others think of us and that will drive changes.

We're in for an interesting ride into the future, and there will be some new winners and some new losers.

Above all this, my one hope is that you and me will be winners as the citizens of this 'changed' America, and not just those who wield the power.

Time will tell.

There is more and more speculation as to the potential that we'll see a 'clean sweep' by Democratic candidates on Tuesday, November 4th at both the state and federal levels.  I hope that isn't the way it turns out, but I'm tiring of being beaten about the head and shoulders every time I read a newspaper article or watch the bulk of the television news items.  Maybe that is the intent.  If us conservatives can be sufficiently demoralized, maybe we'll just stay home.  Not this conservative!

What do I mean by 'clean sweep'?  I refer to the potential that both the Assembly and the Senate in Wisconsin will see a sufficient Democratic majority that will be able to pass anything they wish in spite of the number of Republican votes that could be massed, with assurances on most such items that those will be signed into law by the Democratic Governor Doyle.

Similarly, I refer to Democratic victories in both the U.S. House and Senate that will be Republican-proof and that will likely find favor with a Democratic President Obama.

Jay Weber has done a good job on setting forth 23 items that could be part of the triumvirate of Sen. Harry Reid (D), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) and a President Obama and you can find those by clicking here.  Things included on Jay's list include renegotiating NAFTA, ending secret ballots in union organizing, government-run healthcare encroachments, reintroduction of the 'Fairness Doctrine' to control conservative access to the airways, and so on.

At the state level, we could easily see state-run health care, the increase in costs of education, ever larger portions of our income going to state and local taxes,  more and more loss of personal freedoms and so.

There has been, in most of our history, a certain "check and balance" relationship in most of our governments so that not everything that was proposed was ever likely to be passed.  That 'protection' could disappear for years if we see the 'clean sweep' at the state or federal levels, or both, as the result of our national election on November 4th.  Our country tends not to flourish well under such governments regardless of party in power.

Vote your conscience next Tuesday!

The Center on Wisconsin Strategy and the Wisconsin Council on Children & Families, both found in Madison, have released a report that reaches the startling conclusion you see in the headline above.

Wow!  What a surprise!  Further into the article in today's Journal Sentinel that discussed this amazing statistic, we find out that Wisconsin actually ranks quite well so far as this measurement is concerned...but apparently not well enough to make these groups comfortable.  The report shows that the gap in Wisconsin is actually smaller than on average across the country.  The report found that Wisconsin actually ranks 11th out of the 50 states in this regard, and that means the gap between top and bottom fifths of the population are lesser.

But, there are the usual suggestions made to 'correct' this terrible situation:

• Increase the minimum wage and then index it to inflation.
• Improve worker skills and education.
• Expand subsidized childcare and health care for low-income workers.
• 'Update' unemployment insurance.
• Make taxes 'more progressive'.

This 'minimum wage' canard is so old and tiresome but it just keeps coming back.  There are positions in the workforce that do not command more than the current minimum wage.  Every time the minimum wage is increased, it displaces workers at the bottom end of society because the jobs simply go away. The majority of minimum wage jobs are held on a part-time basis by students and homemakers, and not be sole bread winners.

Improving worker skills and education is a noble undertaking, it is one that we are engaged in already, and it speaks to the need to get MPS working since it seems intent on not graduating 53% of its students thus relegating them to those minimum wage jobs and/or welfare programs (except that you have to read for many of those, so I guess that is out).

I don't know where the people have been who built this study, but every time we turn around, we are expanding childcare and health care for low-income workers.  Look at BadgerCare and BadgerCare Plus.  Listen to the radio commercials begging people to come in to sign up for welfare programs.

Apparently unemployment insurance should be 'updated' (read increased) so the people who are unable to hold jobs get more money until the benefit runs out.  Maybe a better tax climate in our wonderful state would prompt the creation of more jobs and remove the increasing need for the unemployment insurance program 'update'.

Finally, the ultimate liberal solution for every ill to be found in society:  let's take more money away (tax increases) from 'the rich' and give it to the poor.  This class warfare shot is being heard all too often in the current presidential campaign, and it fails to define just who the 'rich' are; be careful middle class; you may be rich.  We don't need to resort to the use of this class warfare tactic in Wisconsin.  In case the 'ruling class' hasn't figured it out, our taxes are already too progressive.

These studies drive me nuts (as is plainly seen from this Blog).  Lower our taxes as Texas has done for its citizens and employers, and watch what happens to unemployment, etc.

What a surprise.  The rich get richer faster than the poor.  The real surprise is that liberals have yet to figure out how cause and effect function in this equation!

Earmarks...

The Republicans are fighting amongst themselves over whether or not to try to control their budget 'earmarks', and if so, how to proceed.  The party's elected members met over the week-end and failed to take any real steps to end earmarks.  The President is expected to address earmarks in his State of the Union address this evening.  It is reported that he will tell Congress that he'll veto any appropriation bills for 2009 that have greater than 50% as much in the way of earmarks as the same bill in 2008 carried.

That is a start, but until we have convinced our elected officials that they are spending our money and not their money, we will make little if any real progress.

And, this may well be the only true bipartisan area we have.  It is an affliction of both major parties as well as the small group calling themselves independents.

Limits On The WCCA...

WCCA stands for Wisconsin Consolidated Court Automation and it has a website that you can access here.

This site permits any citizen to locate information about court decisions, charges filed, cases scheduled and so on by county.  If you have an interest in where the case involving John and Jane Doe stands, you would access the site, pick the county (if you know it) and key in one of the names.  You'll then see the actions that have been taken, dismissals if that is the case, etc.

For some strange reason there have been two recent attempts to limit public access.  Last summer, two Democrats (Schneider of Wisconsin Rapids and Kessler of Milwaukee) mounted such an effort.  They would've permitted access only for court officials, law enforcement personnel, attorneys and journalists.  Now Rep. Vos (R-Racine) and Sen. Lassa (D-Stevens Point) want to limit access by removing certain cases from this site.  Those cases or charges would include a civil forfeiture or misdemeanor within 90 days after dismissal, a finding of not guilty or if the case has been overturned on appeal and then dismissed.  Felonies would carry the same requirement except the time frame would be extended to 120 days.

Both of these efforts are misguided at best and an assault on our rights at worst.  Wouldn't the accused rather have the information there for all to see if he or she had been absolved or if the case had been dismissed.  Why would we be concerned about those convicted? 

An example of the significance can be found in articles now running in the Journal Sentinel concerning physicians who have been involved in numerous complaints alledging malpractice over the course of time.  Many of those records would become unavailable under these efforts to wipe the slate clean.  This is not only an assault on our rights but it is also potentially going to endanger lives.

Anti-Gun Proposals...

Many in the group that would outlaw ownership of guns, or the group that wants to ban the carrying of guns (that is legal in 47 other states) would have us believe that their solution is the answer.

Here are some snippets that seem to point in the other direction:

• New Jersey adopted a very strict gun law in 1966 and by 1968 the murder rate was up 46% and the robbery rate was up nearly 100%.
• Hawaii adopted a series of anti-gun laws and its murder rate tripled over the next ten years.
• Washington, D.C. imposed strict gun control laws in 1976; its murder rate has grown by 134% since.
• England banned handgun ownership in 1997, and the number of citizens injured by firearms has more than doubled since.
• Prior to these actions, the statistics cited had been falling.

When guns are banned, only the bad guys have guns.  In states where concealed carry laws are in place, the bad guys really have to think hard about trying anything.

Miller Executive Dies In Walkers Point Shooting...

The Director of Compensation and Benefits for Miller Brewing was killed at about 1:10AM on Sunday morning after leaving a bar in Walkers Point.  He was accosted by a robber, gave the person his wallet and was then shot to death as he sat in his auto.

The concern immediately arose over whether Milwaukee would suffer as the result of this in the process that is now ongoing as to where the headquarters of the new combined Miller Coors will be located.  It is reported that crime and homicide rates rank first in the equation that most corporations use to determine quality of life rankings.  The Journal Sentinel reported this morning, and I paraphrase, that Milwaukee is 2.3% larger in population than Denver, has 228% more violent crime including 263% more homicides.  This is extrapolated from the FBI's statistics for the first half of 2007 that were recently released.

Would you think about that if you were making the decision?  Would you add in the fact that MPS is graduating 50% or fewer of all students that start as freshmen?