The latest count on the race to replace Sue Jeskewitz is now standing at five.  Randy Melchert (R) and Jason LaSage (R) have been involved in our Assembly "Debate" series as you know.

The additional filed candidates are:

Ms. Charlene Brady (D), a Germantown resident who is currently serving on the Washington County Board of Supervisors

Mr. Torrey Lauer (D), a Germantown resident

Mr. Dan Knodl (R),  Germantown resident who is currently serving on the Washington County Board of Supervisors

We hope to obtain the agreement of the three additional candidates to participate in the Assembly "Debate" Blog series that has begun.  If one or more decide to do so, we'll ask them the same questions already published and print a 'catch-up' Blog to get all five on the same topics from that point forward.

There is still time for another candidate or two if I remember correctly.  I believe that July 8th is the final date for the Declaration of Candidacy filing.

We should have a spirited discussion as we move toward the primary election in early-September.

MATC has now ended the suspense.  Whew!  It has officially increased its tax take by the 4.9% that it miraculously managed to get down to from the original 'straw man' of 6.4%.  This codifies the fact that MATC's appetite for tax dollars has risen by some 30% over the past five years.  MATC's leadership, if it can be called that without demeaning the word, just can't seem to understand that, while it is impervious to the wants and needs of the citizenry it serves, it really has permitted its reach to exceed our grasp.

MATC strikes me as an iceberg looking for a ship to sink.  It is floating along with the tip showing while the bulk of the 'bloat' lies just under the waterline, out of sight and, too often, out of mind.  Until it hits the ship of taxpayers yet again.  The taxpayers on this 'ship of fools' have finally come to understand, at least in Germantown, that they would be better-served if they were permitted to disembark from the current ship that continues to be victimized by the MATC iceberg...year after year after year after year!

That disembarkation is, however, contingent on so many disparate factors as to seem nearly unachievable.  First and foremost is that failure to make the petition to the state technical college board seeking a move from MATC to another contiguous tech college district renders all the other points moot.  If that is filed, then we wait and see what the august state tech college board members decide is to be our fate.  The last such application was made in 2004 and was denied.  That doesn't necessarily mean that this petition would suffer the same fate...but it is probably a decent precursor.  The only other successful action of this nature involved Germantown's petition to be moved into the MATC district back in the early 1970s.  (Ironic, isn't it?)

Back to the basics, however.  This rate of increase could've been far better controlled if the governing board for MATC were subject to re-election.  It isn't.  It is subject only to the parochial appointment desires of MATC.  Talk about a great deal, huh?  If I'm going to be governed by someone, I'd love the opportunity to pick the person without any outside interference over things such as how effective they'd be in administering their responsibilities.  If I 'accidentally' picked someone that was in lock-step with my positions and goals, could I possibly be faulted?  Sure, but it would be meaningless because no one could do anything about it except maybe move away to escape.

Maybe more to the point, I could've used the euphemism of a polar ice mass, a glacier, grinding everything in its path into submission.  Pretty soon there'll be nothing left here to tax.  It'll have been destroyed by the taxes rendered.

I guess the good news is that you can't tax the same dollar for more than 100 cents, so there is some ultimate end point.  Yet, there are so many taxes being levied against each of our dollars that we get less and less while everything costs us more and more.

Maybe, IF we pursue the change in tech college districts, and IF the state tech college board approves, we can rid ourselves of MATC President Cole, his board and his kingdom of fire-breathing dragons that burn everything of value they can identify in their domain.

I believe a full scale audit of that institution is called for and I believe one or more of our elected officials at the state level needs to pick up that banner and carry it high for all to see.  This is way past the point of being mere Blog fodder, although it sure has been good for that!

I've written about the consolidation of local health care organizations over the past months.  In preparing for a talk I delivered to an insurance agent's organization last month, I dug a little deeper to see what the trends seemed to be for the future.

There are some very interesting things happening to and with health care delivery and these things are, in part, already on or affecting the local scene.

Retail Medicine...

Several major corporations have experimented with and made commitments to what I'll call 'retail medicine'.  Major drug store chains have had walk-in clinics in their stores, and have gotten so serious about it that they've actually purchased the companies that were supplying the services.  One of those is Walgreen's and we see the result in Germantown.  Our local Walgreen store is 1 of 13 in Wisconsin with in-store clinics and that number is expected to be as high as 19 by the end of 2008.

Wal-Mart is doing similar development across the country along with the CVS drug store chain and several others.  These models all tend to rely upon the Nurse Practitioner and work to establish referral relationships to local physicians for the more serious conditions encountered.  Costs, according to the Take Care Health Systems (Walgreen) website range from $59 to $74 per visit with additional fees charged for vaccinations (seasonal flu shot priced at $24.99).

Physician Shortages... 

There are serious shortages of physicians in America and that is, in part, prompting the 'retail medicine' movement discussed above.  Massachusetts learned this the hard way when it passed laws that required virtually all citizens to have health insurance.  There were simply too few primary care doctors available in the state to handle the new demand that had been created.  The physicians who are moving through the education system today are too often choosing specialties that pay more and that have better schedules so they can also spend time with their families and pay off their loans more quickly.

These shortages are prompting our medical colleges to step up the effort to cause more graduating physicians to opt for primary care service but this will take time and there will need to be some economic push to make it happen.  This is spawning the following effort.

Nurse Doctors...

Minnesota has graduated at least one class of Nurse Doctors who are entering practice across that state.  This is a doctorate level program that claims to produce practitioners that "can do almost everything" a primary care physician can do except for some surgical procedures.  This program is being expanded to be able to graduate more Nurse Doctors every year as the program ramps up.

As we can all understand, the physicians' organizations are not at all happy about this movement.

Dentist Shortages...

The average age of dentists in many states, Wisconsin included, is increasing at an alarming pace and we are beginning to see a shortage of dentists.  Minnesota again seems to have taken a lead position with legislation that was being considered which would permit Dental Hygienists to both drill and extract teeth in addition to their normal responsibilities.

As you would also expect in this situation, this is meeting strong resistance from the organizations representing dentists, but the simple fact that this found its way to the floor of the Minnesota legislature is significant.  Minnesota has been more prone to experimentation in the general area of health care (health maintenance organizations took off very rapidly in this state in the early-1970s), so these trends aren't all that surprising in our neighbor state.

Summary...

Our health care world is changing very rapidly.  If we were to become a Rip Van Winkle and sleep for even just ten years, we'd likely encounter a strange new health care world when we awoke.

Who can say what is good or not good in these regards.  Time will tell which, if any, of these initiatives we will have accepted and which we will have discarded as bad ideas whose time hadn't yet arrived.  Some way needs be found that will permit us to control costs.  If we rely upon government to do that, I'm afraid that the consequences will be heavy-handed control and rationing of services...and I cannot find it within myself to think that is an improvement.

The morning Journal Sentinel talks about a petition being presented to the Milwaukee Common Council today that would require all Milwaukee private employers to provide paid sick days.  Employers with ten or fewer employees would be required to provide 1 hour for every 30 hours worked to a maximum of 40 hours of paid sick time per year.  Employers with more than ten employees would be required to provide 1 hour for every 30 hours worked up to a maximum of 72 hours per year.  Unused sick days would roll over from year to year.

This petition has been pushed by "labor, educational and community organizations" according to the article with the lead organization being 9 to 5, the National Association of Working Women.  It uses a state statute that provides for what is known as 'direct legislation', and requires the petitioner to present petitions signed by 15% of the total residents of the city or village involved that voted for governor in the most recent election.

Presuming all is in order with the petitions and signatures, the city council or village board would then be required to pass it or to put it on the ballot in the next election for a binding decision by the electorate.

I do not believe that a mandated employer sick pay law is appropriate anywhere, and am not suggesting that it ought be tried in Germantown.  The article cites the food service industry, for example; can you imagine how that would affect that industry?  Can you imagine how the costs would escalate if this were to occur?  Can you think of a more 'anti-business' proposition?

* * * * * * * * * *

It is interesting, however, that such direct action is available to citizens in cities and villages in Wisconsin.  Someone at sometime thought this was a good approach, and it found its way into law.  It obviously has a double edge to it.  It could be employed for good things or not so good things.  What it does do, however, is place the ultimate decision in the hands of the electorate if the city or village officials chose to ignore the petitioners' demands.

Is this a necessary 'check and balance' functionality or is it simply a tool that can be misused by the few taking advantage of emotional responses from the many?  Do we destroy the concept of representative government?  Do we permit populism to run rampant?

In keeping with the protocol we have established, we'll lead with the response of Senator Darling to each question in this chapter.

 * * * * * * * * * *

What is your position on Ethanol mandates in Wisconsin?

Darling:  I oppose ethanol mandates!  I have asked our federal lawmakers to repeal the federal renewable fuel mandate and eliminate tax credits for ethanol production.  I have also asked the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to lift the reformulated gas (RFG) blend mandate.

Wasserman:  I am against Ethanol mandates.

* * * * * * * * * *

Wisconsin is now listed as only the 11th highest taxed state in the union.  Is this appropriate given the services we receive?  Are there ways that taxes can be reduced further and, if so, where do you think that can be accomplished?

Darling:  For way too long, Wisconsin was among the top ten of most highly-taxed states.  Wisconsin is now out of the top ten because legislative Republicans have successfully defeated billions in Democrat-backed tax hikes over the years.  While I am pleased that our tax rank is dropping, the state must start to spend less too.

Wasserman:  Based on the services we receive, I think we could be more in the middle of the pack.  We can do that by restructuring government and eliminating unnecessary layers of bureaucracy.  We also need to stop giving tax breaks to every individual who comes to Madison with a paid lobbyist.  Instead of increasing the complexity of our tax code and favoring the few instead of helping the many, taxes should be cut across the board.  We can all share in tax breaks.

* * * * * * * * * *

Is the UW system working as it should or are there problems that need resolution?  If problems, what do you see those as being?

Darling:  As a proud alumna of UW-Madison, I think it is important that our UW-System remain a top notch higher educational system that is a major driver of our state's economy.  That said, there have been far too many examples where the UW-System has wasted taxpayer dollars.  Everyone remembers examples like the $26 million spent on a new computer payroll system that didn't work and the $700 per month automobile allowances for chancellors.  While the UW-System is very important to our state, it needs to eliminate wasteful spending.

Wasserman:  The overall UW system is the third largest in the country, and I'm proud of it.  I graduated from the University of Wisconsin Milwaukee, and I'm very proud of my education and what it's done for me.  One area of concern is the administrative system for the UW itself, which needs to be cut.

* * * * * * * * * *

As always, our thanks go to both contributors for taking the time to respond to our questions.  And, we again encourage readers to pose their questions for future chapters in this 'debate'.

The question for today in our 'debate' between candidates LaSage and Melchert is this:

What specific existing state programs can be cut to stop the ongoing issues of budget shortfalls?

LaSage:  The reason that I am running for State Assembly is to return the Republican Party back to being the party that stands for smaller government.  My philosophy of good government is one in which bureaucracy is reduced and local control is increased, which leads not only to a need for less tax revenue, but it returns control and ownership back to the local level, where the people that have first-hand experience with local needs reside.  So while I understand that this office carries a great deal of responsibility, it is not power that I seek, but rather empowerment for our citizenry.

Further, my core belief is that budgetary shortfalls occur because the state fails to operate like a business.  When examining a budget, a business looks at all programs that yield little value.  For example, ethanol has been proven to be an ineffective product and thus state subsidies to encourage its production should be abolished.  Gas blended with ethanol causes even more financial pain at the pump and reduces fuel economy.  Furthermore, taxpayer funded incentives to produce ethanol leads to a government sponsored heightened demand for corn, which in turn contributes to higher prices at the grocery store.  All of this for dubious positive environmental impact, as ethanol needs to be transported on trucks, which of course use gas.

Another item that needs to be addressed is wasteful pet pork project spending.  One example of such spending in the state budget would be $250,000 for a Hmong cultural center in La Crosse.  While I fully support and have worked for preserving cultural heritage in our community, this is simply absurd.  With the state's budget over 1600 pages long, examples such as these abound.

If a deficit still exists after such review, a business would also tell each of its departments to put together proposals that cut spending across-the-board.  Upon making this directive, bureaucratic administrators will say that taxpayers' most valued programs will need to be cut.  When this demagoguery occurs, your assemblyman should call them out on it, telling them to go back to the drawing board and work harder.

In the midst of cash flow problems, a business would also look at the revenue side of the equation.  Presidents ranging from Democrat John F. Kennedy to Republican Ronald Reagan understood that tax cuts for individuals and businesses spurs growth, creating jobs that in turn yield more tax revenue.  What has worked at the federal level (when employed) should be implemented in Wisconsin.  Thus, I support a lower gas tax, as well as individual and corporate income tax rate reductions.

Finally, rather than monolithically telling citizens every program I feel should be cut, I look forward to engaging in an ongoing dialogue with district residents who can share their experiences and frustrations with state government bureaucracy and excess spending.  You can reach me on either my cell phone: (262) 573-6360, or via emailing jason.lasage@gmail.com .  By working together to put Wisconsin on the right track, our collective 24th district voice will be heard.

* * * * * * * * * *

Melchert:  We need to seriously consider a spending freeze for the next biennium.  A spending freeze would keep existing government offices and services in place, but would prohibit new spending.  Rep. Pridemore states that "This budget could almost be balanced with an across the board spending freeze that would allow the level of expected revenue to catch up with spending without any of the tax increases that democrats are proposing."  (http://donpridemore.com/BudgetTaxes/IsNoBudgettheBestBudget/tabid/70/Default.aspx)  A spending freeze may be unpopular, but a $2.3 billion deficit is immoral.

In addition, the budget has grown so much that we need to re-examine every dollar of government spending.  While Wisconsin is already under a form of "base budget review reporting", we need to introduce a more aggressive culture of spending restraint.  Instead of simply justifying expenses, let's require agencies to rank their spending priorities.  What expenses would each department cut if they only had 90% of their existing budget?  Would we lose essential services or would the reduction even be noticed?  Let's have a televised hearing on Wisconsin Eye as we justify to the state why we are going to spend each dollar of the $20 billion of your money.  While Jack Welch was criticized for his cost-cutting, he took GE from a $14 billion market value in 1980 to $410 billion in 2004.

By re-evaluating every dollar of government spending and implementing a spending freeze, we can restore fiscal accountability.

Are we being a bit presumptuous by having a Wisconsin global warming task force?  There is no solid scientific evidence of anything other than what our earth has always gone through.  Our emotions are being played "like a fiddle" with pictures of polar bears drowning when, in fact, the pictures were of nothing of the sort, and the fact that there are twice the number of polar bears today as were on this earth 40 years ago.  The Great Lakes were drying up at an alarming rate and today we don't know what to do with all the water that fell on us.

We are reduced to blaming both hot weather and cold weather on global warming.  We are reduced to blaming both drought and flooding on global warming.  We either have more hurricanes or fewer hurricanes, but both those phenomenons are caused by global warming.  We just had one of the greatest snow falls in any winter on record, but it is caused by global warming.

It seems as though the powers that be have succumbed to this burst of 'junk science' that we've been treated to in the past handful of years since Al Gore adopted global warming as his latest crusade.  His Power Point slide show has spawned a great deal for him...at our collective expense.  We can't drill for oil, we can't build power plants using nuclear technology, and we are burning our food as fuel while people starve around the world.  Every one of those decisions was based on politics, not on reason and certainly not on any rational approach to the issues confronting us today.  This whole movement is destroying our economy and we seem blind to that reality.

The reality is that none of us knows anything for certain.  We don't have a clue as to whether we are in a true global warming crisis or not.  It is not sound science to assume that we are in crisis because we cannot prove otherwise.  Where is the rationality to that?  Yet, that is precisely what is happening today.  We could as easily be creating a new problem where none exists today by following the "siren's song" of global warming.

This task force convenes and decides what you and I need to be doing, but it is doing so without any basis in fact.

Why is it that this task force thinks that wind turbine energy must produce 25% of our electricity before they, the task force members, will even think of permitting us to build another atomic power plant?  Have they, the task force members, stopped to consider how many wind turbines at what cost planted where will be required to produce 25% of the electricity we consume today let alone will consume in a quarter-century?  Have they performed a cost benefit analysis for nuclear versus wind-powered electricity generation?  Of course not, since that would destroy any credibility they claim to have.

How gracious of this task force to at least say they will think of atomic power before the Yucca Mountain storage facility has been placed into use provided, of course, that we build the wind turbine farms across our landscape.  I wonder what ever happened to the fears of birds flying into these huge blades?  Is concern for wildlife now being replaced on the left by the overriding concern about global warming even though it is unproved?

The task force leaders say that their intent is to compromise.  If I had the position of manufacturing something from nothing, I, too, would believe in compromise.  The other side would have to give up 50% of its position and, in return, I'd get 50% further toward my goal of this fantastic future-land where everything is balanced, where none of us uses any more than any of the rest of us on the globe...where we are in the same desperate condition as everyone else on the face of the earth.  That makes a lot of sense to me.

Why do we insist on doing these things to ourselves?

Two candidates have declared, so far, for the Assembly 24th district seat being vacated by Sue Jeskewitz.  They are Republicans Randy Melchert and Jason LaSage.  I continue to hear that there will be other candidates declaring between now and the deadline on July 8th, however we want to begin the Assembly 'Debate' so as to help voters learn as much as possible about the candidates.  I have posed much the same questions to both candidates as were discussed in the Senate "Debate' series.

The initial question was this:  If you were to introduce yourself to a roomful of voters, what would you tell them of yourself?

Melchert:  I am Randy Melchert, and I am a 5th generation Menomonee Falls resident.  My great grandmother ran a small café near the corner of Main Street and Appleton Avenue.  My grandfather started his law practice near that same corner as well.  My mother practiced law there as well.  I have lived my entire life in this community and I enjoy it.  Except for one thing.

Taxes.  While we have "The Best Care in the Air" nearby, the Packers up the road, and a beautiful wonderland every winter, the tax situation in this state is hurting the families of the state.  The average Menomonee Falls family over the next ten years will send around $77,000 to Madison in state income and sales taxes.  In Germantown a little less, in Richfield a lot more.  We have the 7th highest state and local tax burden, the 8th highest gas tax, and the 11th worst business tax climate.  Unfortunately the tax bill may rise.  On top of our already large spending habit, we could have a $2.3 billion deficit.  That's $1,655 of debt for every family of four in the state.  We need change now.  We need legislators who are responsible, dependable, and accountable.

* * * * * * * * * *

LaSage:  I am a life-long resident, taxpayer and worker in the 24th district, truly grateful for the support I have received from this community throughout my entire life.  When I was a 5th grader at County Line School, residents, led by my Cub Scout Leader, Jim McNally, generously donated money to provide me with a scooter so that I would have a way to keep up with my friends.  At Kennedy Middle School, one of the many special teachers in my life, now principal, Steve Bold helped spark my interest in social studies by demonstrating how serving others is a rewarding enterprise.  While I was a high school student, area parents came to my aid, as I helped lead the way with a group of friends to promote drug and alcohol-free activities in the community through initiating Youth Future's 1st annual lock-in for middle school students-an event that recently celebrated its 14th year.

In 1998, residents embraced my eagerness for public service, by electing me to the Germantown School Board-an office I was re-elected to.  That same year, current outgoing state Representative Sue Jeskewitz was kind enough to take me to Madison for a day to see first-hand how state government works.  As a board member, the MacArthur Elementary School community welcomed me, as I tutored youngsters and volunteered at MacFest events.  I also worked with Keith Musolff's gifted and talented middle school students for two years.  Additionally, as I was focusing on my bachelor's degree in communication and political science from UW-Milwaukee, state Senator Alberta Darling gave me the opportunity to intern for her.

Menomonee Falls also accommodated me for four years at Guaranty Bank and six years at Strong Investments.  I have kept involved with area youth for the past six years (and counting) by part-time substitute teaching in the Menomonee Falls School District.  I am also thankful to have had the ability to learn even more about the area and enhance my leadership skills through participation in Leadership Germantown this past year.

Now, as a 24th district taxpayer and homeowner, I want to be your representative in the state Assembly, taking my rich experience from the area and championing our shared values-creating jobs through lower taxes, spending and regulation; working to achieve more local control of education and municipal government; addressing healthcare with free market, consumer solutions; protecting individual liberties-while being accessible and willing to listen to all constituents.  I realize that some politicians have the tendency to disappoint, letting the lure of outside money get in the way of doing the people's work.  Though, if given the opportunity to serve as your representative in Madison, I assure you that my values and character, my ties to the community, and my aspiration to deliver sound, conservative leadership are not for sale.

* * * * * * * * * *

As always, we thank both gentlemen for taking time to participate in this 'Debate' and welcome readers' questions for future 'Debates'.  Either email those or frame them as comments to this blog.

The move toward filing the documents necessary to seek secession from the Milwaukee Area Technical College tax district has begun to draw some debate amongst the politicos in Germantown.

Village President Kempinski has been quoted as being concerned with the seemingly slow movement in this process, and School Board President Erdmann says that we shouldn't worry because it is being taken up in July for ultimate filing in August.

Some have pointed to the earlier appointment of Superintendent Victor Rossetti as the death blow to any secession movement since Germantown is now directly represented on the MATC Board.

Mr. Rossetti will serve his last day as superintendent on June 30th.  What happens then?  Does he have to step down or is he permitted to serve out his term since he is then a 'former' superintendent.  What happens if he moves from the MATC district?  Is he immediately susceptible to removal if he doesn't resign?

Interesting questions all.  I have written earlier of some concern since the MATC discussion had been quiet for a seemingly long period of time.  Then we were advised that we shouldn't worry since the school board would resume its discussion in July. 

We are still a long way from the actual filing of documents and then we must await the decision of the state technical college board that is due within ninety days of the filing.  Then, even if we were to be successful...and that is far from a certainty...the actual secession wouldn't occur until the start of a new fiscal period for technical colleges.

And, of course, while this all plays out, we are being over-taxed and under-served by the money-eating monster that we know as MATC.

What we don't need are any artificial obstacles cropping up along the pathway to change.

Wisconsin's gross domestic product (GDP) increased by about 1% in 2007, half the rate of growth of the nation as a whole.  But one sector continues its dominant position as the leading growth segment in our state: government seems to be our biggest growth segment.

State government and related institutions continue to grow at significantly greater rates than the GDP.  Might our GDP have risen more than 1% if the state's business climate were better than it is?  I believe the answer to that rhetorical question is a resounding YES!

Seriously, there needs to be some level of sanity restored to our state government and to those institutions funded with tax money and other fees.  This simply is an unsustainable situation and that seems to have, as yet, escaped too many of our elected officials.  We cannot continue to increase the tax and fee loads at greater rates than the economy can sustain.  We cannot continue to extract more and more money from our citizenry even as they all pay far more for energy and foodstuff and virtually everything else that is consumed.

Our state educational institutions' budgets grow at rates of several times the rate of growth of our GDP.  Our government continues to give money away to the 'favored few' in the forms of ethanol subsidies, and 'ear marks' that send dollars here and there again to the 'favored few'.  Social engineering continues to be practiced as an 'art form' at the state level.

Seemingly every time we open our eyes, we're looking at someone's proposal for spending more money.  Or, we're looking at someone's proposal to curtail this or that segment of our economy.  Or, we're confronted with the latest effort to protect us from ourselves.  Or, we see the latest state labor settlement that raises the compensation of this group or that group.

The U.S. average for all states was GDP growth of 2.0%, so we came in on the bottom side of that mark.  In fact, we ranked 39th of the 50 states in terms of our GDP growth.  Coincidentally, that is also our ranking in terms of tax collections.  Do you suppose there might be a tie-in there if we probed a bit?

There is a point beyond which our GDP growth will simply become a negative number; a point at which the economic engine will simply not sustain the government demands placed upon it.  Michigan had a GDP growth rate of -1.2% in 2007.  There is a reason for that.  The reason for Michigan's problem is the auto industry decline and the rate of spending by the state government.  Wisconsin faces its own declining industry base and it certainly is spending too much.  What does that suggest?

We lose two people for every one person that moves into the state.  We watch as more and more businesses either leave the state entirely or relocate their headquarters or become acquired by an out-of-state entity.  We become defensive about negative news rather than stepping up to the proverbial plate with aggressive alternative approaches to solve our declining growth.

We do not seem to understand that states cannot use tax increases to get out of these situations.  States that use tax decreases find their economies booming in contrast to those states that use the reverse approach.

The old bromide, "will the last one out, turn out the lights?", has been employed regularly with regard to Michigan.  When will we begin to hear it used in conjunction with our own state?  What must we do to get the attention of our leaders?

Maybe the answer is: we have to fire them to get their attention...and the attention of those who follow that group!

MATC students along with all technical college and two-year college students in Wisconsin have a more difficult time gaining their education as the result of lenders leaving this marketplace.

MATC has nearly 5,300 students now at risk due to the fact that several lenders have decided to pull out of this market stating that it is unprofitable.  That supposedly is caused by too little money being borrowed for too short a time.

The total of loans that are affected by these pull-outs is more than $18 million, and involves five lenders for MATC students.

Several thoughts occur:

What other programs are available to these 5,300 students?  Supposedly there are from six to twenty other lenders available to the students if we are to believe the technical college system president, Daniel Clancy.  If that is the case, why would some big names pull out?  Those names included Chase, Citibank and TCF.  If there is money to be made, wouldn't they still want some of it?  Or is this indicative of some other more pervasive problem?

Will they qualify for replacement loans or is that really part of the problem that causes the lenders to want out?  Many of the students relying on these loans are low income people as you would presume could be the case.  It may not be possible for them to apply to other lenders and expect to be granted access to credit.  The federal government passed the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 and, contrary to what the name might suggest, this limited federal subsidies to those who lend money to students, and more than fifty such lenders left the market.  This suggests that we're talking about marginally-viable loans and that, without government guarantees, there will be fewer dollars available and those will go to better credit risks.

If there is a loss of significant numbers of MATC students, will MATC face up to the need to reduce budget?  There are nearly 5,300 students affected by this situation.  If half of those are unable to obtain different loans, there will likely be a similar number dropping out of MATC.  I don't know what the 'full time equivalent' student number is, but let's assume that these students are half-time.  So we would have a loss of half of the 5,300, or 2,650 and those would equate to 1,325 full time equivalent students.  That is about ten percent of the current total FTE students now attending MATC.  Will we see a ten percent reduction in the MATC budget?

Or, will MATC see this as forcing it to actually increase its tax take in order to offset the loss of student tuition?  Your guess is as good as mine, but I'll be amazed if we see a budget reduction as the result of this situation.  One cannot simply reduce staff because the student load has dropped, can one?  How does one manage to down-size when there are so many fixed costs, so many people relying on MATC for their livelihoods, so much left to do in the building of the empire?

What seems more likely is that this will be dragged out as alternatives are sought, and it will be talked about for awhile until we lose track of the issue.  Maybe state legislators will step up up and recommend new state guarantees.  After all, military veterans are given 100% tuition credits so it is only fair to begin providing everyone with 100% tuition to attend MATC.  It is only fair that MATC have this kind of support since the Milwaukee Public Schools are generating so few qualified graduates any longer.

The last paragraph was intended as 'tongue in cheek' in nature but I fear that it might be closer to reality than not. 

The president of the MATC teachers union, Michael Rosen, says he'll be in contact with Representative Gwen Moore (D-Milwaukee) to seek her help in assuring that students still have access to federal loans.  The dominoes have begun to fall and they threaten to crush us taxpayers yet again.  Why do they never topple in the other direction?

The UW Board of Regents decided that tuition had to go up 5.5% for students at the four-year universities.  They laid the blame in large part (3% of the 5.5%) at the feet of the legislature that mandated free tuition for veterans.  There are some 3,200 veterans now registered as students under this program; the program was originally intended to pay 50% of the tuition and that was raised to 100% last fall.

The UW and the legislature have been at odds for a long time.  This is likely just the next salvo to be fired in this long battle.

The Regents recently made their selection for the new head of the UW system and she will get a boost in what seems an already hefty salary.  That may be offset in small part by contributions from the UW Foundation as has been the past habit since the legislature has attempted to rein in the spending at UW.  She was reported to have stated her desire to see salaries increased soon to bring the UW system up to the standards of the large universities across America.  She also wants to see 'domestic partners' covered by the benefit programs made available to system employees.  Sounds as though this is going to be a costly hiring decision.

There is concern on the part of some students and the administration over the cost of the veteran's program being shouldered by the students.  Maybe that wouldn't have had to be the case had the Regents learned better how to live within their means. 

There was little hue and cry from the student body when the UW-La Crosse tuition was increased by some $1,300 per year with those funds to be used to support the tuition of more disadvantaged students attending that institution to better reflect the needs of that community.

The military has never been a 'favorite' of the UW system, so I guess we should expect that kind of differentiation.  The students' attitudes tend to reflect that of the institution in which they are immersed. 

There is a very real problem with the UW system.  We see out-of-state students being rewarded with reduced tuition rates at the expense of Wisconsin students.  We see the administration expense running at very high rates with no checks and balances apparent.  We see ever-increasing pay ranges for staff, and yet we understand there are many hangers-on that are not earning their keep.  Have costs ever been reduced in the UW system?  Are shrinking programs ever eliminated?  Are these concepts foreign to the Regents?

The system seems to have its own political beliefs and those do not fit in an institution of higher learning.  Schools should be apolitical, but that seems to have been forgotten completely over the past four decades.

The UW system begs for a thorough house-cleaning and some solid oversight with enforcement teeth.  It has become a significant part of the education industry in our country.

A brief article appeared in the Journal Sentinel this morning discussing the money received by the Miller Park stadium district from its share of the five-county sales tax collections.  We've always heard about that expressed as 1/10th of 1%, and that makes the tax seem smaller, at least to me as I briefly process the sentence that I read.

After all, that is only a penny for every $10 spent in the five county area set aside to pay for Miller Park.  I was, by the way, not opposed to that cost sharing just to set the record straight.

The month of March generated a $2,197,487 payment to the stadium district based on that penny per ten dollar sharing level.  That is a lot of money sucked out of the economy especially when we are in the midst of the cost increases we're seeing for most everything due to the price of fuel that ripples through almost every segment of our economy in the form of increased prices.

This really hit home when I recalled that there has been talk about extending the stadium tax beyond the 'sunset' date in 2014.  Then I learned that the 2014 date was never formally established as the final year in which we would all pay toward the costs of Miller Park through our general sales tax contributions.

There is way too much truth involved in the saying that when a tax is established, it never goes away.  We recently saw Mayor Barrett seeking to continue and even increase the cell telephone tax paying for development of cell 911 coverage.  He wants to use that for something else totally unrelated to cell phones. 

Now financial consultants to the stadium district say that the tax may need to be continued beyond 2014.  Does this ever end?  Not unless we demand that it end.  And, we can apparently only be heard through our use of the vote.  Yet another reason to protect the sanctity of our votes through the implementation of voter photo ID.

And, yet another reason to end the creation of taxing districts that are run by boards appointed and not elected.  The stadium district board is comprised, as I recall, of elected representatives so the voter ultimately can have some influence, but too many taxing districts are impervious to the desires of the voters (such as MATC).

Pieces of paper do not work well to defend a person from another or several others.  Even with the power of the courts behind the piece of paper, the holder is forced to rely upon the good or less-than-good intentions of the restrainee.

Restraining orders are typically employed in situations that stem from an intense emotional base; divorces, perceived wrongs, and so on.  Restraining orders threaten some kind of judicial action in the event that the restrainee fails to observe the order.  They often will specify a certain minimum distance of physical separation, be that 1,000 feet or one mile or an entire community.

We have witnessed the folly of restraining orders used as the sole deterrent over and over again, and more recently we learned of a poor woman allegedly being attacked and stabbed to death by her former husband.  This husband, a physician by education, had reportedly advised that he didn't need a gun, because he knew where to stab or cut to achieve his ends.  He was seen waiting by his former wife's automobile in the parking ramp that would become her deathbed.

Okay, so restraining orders will not deter anyone who is sufficiently emotionally charged so as to consider taking another's life.  It is simply a piece of paper that relies upon the restrainee to keep his or her temper in check, to avoid another person and to just go sit in the corner and pout.  Real life today just doesn't abide by these rules of justice.  How many times has a protected person found him or herself totally without options in front of their attacker?  What must be among the final thoughts of the person who, by that time seeing the knife, knows that he or she is about to be seriously hurt or killed?  What happens when the protected person is accosted by the restrained person who has some kind of weapon or simply brute force and clenched fists?

All this serves as background for thoughts I have had since the last senate 'debate' posting where Senator Darling talked about her beliefs as to 'concealed carry' laws.  How is it that 'progressive' Wisconsin is one of only two states that do not have some form of a concealed carry law on its books?  How is it that none of the 48 states that have such laws have ever seen fit to cause those to be repealed because of the aftermath?  How many former spouses have kept their lives in those states simply because of the deterrent effect that concealed carry brings with it.

Restraining orders without concealed carry laws are simply, as stated earlier, pieces of paper.  If the restrainee is aware that the intended target of abuse or worse might be carrying a weapon, will that add some real deterrent effect to that little piece of paper?  Or what about the possibility that some other citizen might be carrying a concealed weapon and intervene in the intended assault or murder attempt?

The emotionally-driven bully that attacked his former wife might have changed his mind.  He might have seen the other people and wondered if one of them was carrying a concealed weapon and taken flight.

Instead of the common response to any crime where a person is using a gun, which is that the blame belongs on the availability of such a weapon, maybe it is finally time for the intelligentsia of the community and the state to step back and be honest with themselves.  If 48 other states have successfully walked into that 'brave new world' maybe, just maybe, we Neanderthals in Wisconsin who think concealed carry is a good thing could navigate the same trip.

There are no hard facts to support the continued absence of concealed carry laws.  There is simply the 'we know better' attitude of the liberal rulers in our state who feel they have been put here on this good earth to protect us from ourselves.  There are greater powers than they to which we turn for our guidance...oh, that's right...they appear not to believe that either.

As Senator Darling pointed out, the high court in our state has essentially requested that the legislature step up and do its job before we risk all prohibitions on carrying weapons being struck down through a series of cases that might find their way to that court.  Better that this be controlled than uncontrolled.

And, better that the 'good guys' can carry a concealed weapon since today that is the privilege of the 'bad guys' alone.  What sense does that make?  None!

A name familiar to many Germantown people will become even more familiar.  Jason LeSage, a two-term Germantown school board member has filed as a Republican in the race for the 24th Assembly district seat.

In reading his press release, it appears we may have a choice between two conservative thinkers.  LeSage indicates that he favors lower taxes, fewer regulations and reduced government spending.

He also has agreed to participate in our 'debate' with Randy Melchert; as a matter of fact, he offered to participate since he claims to be a reader.  That may be the only soft spot we'll find in him :-)

He was an intern in Senator Alberta Darling's office, and holds a bachelor's degree in communications and political science from UW-Milwaukee.

We welcome Jason to the race and look forward to getting to know him and Randy Melchert better over the next few weeks and months.  I had actually wondered 'out loud' about Jason LeSage as a possible candidate over a cup of coffee with a friend the other day.

Will we find a Democrat candidate before this is all over?

If we could look into the future and learn the outcome of our decisions before we implemented those decisions, would we do so?  If we did see the outcome, would we persist even if the outcome was not desirable?

We have just that opportunity, as a state, before us today.  We can see the outcome of following the path we've been following and we can see it in time to avert the same consequences...if we are willing to do so.  The Wall Street Journal offered us the opportunity this morning.

Michigan is the example.  Tax increases are the path that was followed.  Dire consequences are the result.

Governor Granholm, a second-term Democrat, shut her state down last year until she got her wish of increased taxes.  Her tax increases were supposed to raise another $1.3 Billion in new revenue that Michigan could 'invest' in social programs, and to lure new businesses to the state.

The outcome isn't what she envisioned.  Michigan's revenue is down by one-third from what had been expected.  Tax collections are falling further and further behind as people lose jobs and as property values fall.  Michigan is actually in a recession unlike what the mainstream media would have you believe about the country as a whole.  Of course, Michigan's Governor blames everything but her tax hikes for this dilemma.

Michigan's unemployment rate is now at 6.9% far ahead of the country and its neighboring states.  Michigan ranks 4th in the country in terms of declining property values for homes.  Two families leave the state for every one family that moves in (which is virtually what is now happening in Wisconsin).

The only thing enjoying growth in Michigan today is government according to the WSJ editorial.

If even more convincing is necessary, just take a look at Texas.  Texas has been following the opposite course and has arguably the most vibrant economy in our country today.  New businesses are streaming into Texas and unemployment rates are less than 4%.  Tax rates have been reduced and good things follow.

So, we do have the opportunity to look into the future and see the outcome for Wisconsin...if we're willing to do so and if we're smart enough to believe what we see.

Our state's elected officials need to pay attention, and they need to pay attention from this day forward if we are to avoid the same future.  We must cut spending.  We cannot mortgage our future by borrowing money like there's no tomorrow...if that continues, there may not be a tomorrow, at least not a fiscally-sound and affordable tomorrow. 

Wisconsin is in the midst of its own budget woes; we watched the 'special session' that was called to deal with those issues.  There was actually nothing 'special' about those sessions.  When Governor Doyle seems a better tax cutter than the Republicans, then there was nothing 'special' about the session.

This started with the headline, "If We Could Look Into The Future, Would We?"  I fear that the answer is no, unless us citizens begin to demand different outcomes.

The third edition will begin with Rep. Wasserman's response since Senator Darling batted lead-off last edition:

Do you support the right of properly-trained and screened citizens to carry a concealed weapon?  If so, why and if not, why not?

Rep. Wasserman: 

The devil is in the details on this one.  Our Constitution protects the right to bear arms.  We also have a State Supreme Court ruling upholding the right to protect ourselves in our homes and our businesses.

Logically there must be some way of transporting guns in between these two places.  I feel very strongly that we could have passed a bill, but the last couple of times we voted on concealed carry, extremists on both sides of the issue refused to compromise.

Sen. Darling:

Yes.  The concealed carry bill debated in the legislature last session would have permitted individuals to carry a concealed weapon only after passing a criminal background check and completing a training and safety course.

One under-appreciated aspect of this debate is the 2003 ruling of the Wisconsin Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Hamdan.  In that decision, the court ruled that a business owner had a constitutional right to have a concealed weapon at his business for his protection and defense.

Understanding that there are likely to be additional challenges to the current law banning concealed weapons, the Court asked the legislature "to consider the possibility of a licensing or permit system for persons who have a good reason to carry a concealed weapon."

Without that system, additional court decisions striking down the ban on concealed carry may ironically lead to what opponents of the bill fear most - the ability for anyone to carry a concealed weapon anywhere in Wisconsin, with no limits on eligibility, no requirements for safety or training and no registration.

Still, I would not support this bill if the result would be an increase in public incidents of violence.  Fortunately, we can look to the experiences of 48 other states that already have concealed carry laws (with millions of permit holders over many decades) that have not seen licensees contribute to increased levels of gun violence.  Rather, as a group, permit holders have proven to be remarkably law-abiding.  I find it particularly telling that no state has ever repealed its concealed carry law, which speaks to the fact that the safeguards inherent in these permitting systems work as intended.  I do not expect that Wisconsin permit holders would be any less responsible or trustworthy.

* * * * * * * * * *

A. What would you do to cause technical colleges to be more responsive to the taxpayer?   B. And, do you support Germantown's expected petition to move from the MATC tax district to either the MPTC or WCTC districts?

Rep. Wasserman:

A. I support legislation to make technical college board members elected, not appointed.  Local elected representation is critical.  Any board that gets to levy a tax should be accountable to the taxpayers.

B. I've long been a supporter of local control.  Madison doesn't always know best, and if I wanted to be a local official making local decisions, I would run for local office.  And as with membership of technical college boards, this should be a local decision.

Sen. Darling:

A. I would make technical college board members elected officials.  Unelected technical college boards are one of the last few entities with the authority to tax without any direct accountability to taxpayers.  Members of technical college boards are named through a convoluted appointment process that sets aside seats based on race, gender and employer.  These unelected technical college boards have lately been approving property tax hikes that vastly outpace the tax growth of other local governments who, not coincidentally, are run by elected officials.

That is why I introduced a bipartisan bill that would end the insulating appointment process for technical college board membership and replace it with an election process similar to most other local government positions.  The rationale is simple.  I believe technical college board members would feel more pressure to lower their taxing and spending if they had to answer directly to the voters who foot the bill.

B. Yes.

* * * * * * * * * *

Once again, I want to thank both Rep. Wasserman and Sen. Darling for their participation.  We are looking for other reader questions, so please don't be bashful.

* * * * * * * * * *

One last item for today:  we have received Assembly Candidate Randy Melchert's commitment to participate in a similar 'debate' that may be a bit lopsided unless he has an opponent.  So far, there is no indication of any other activity on either the Republican or Democrat sides of the aisle.  The seat in the 24th District has long been thought to be a solid Republican seat, but one would think this might be the time that gets tested.

Since we don't know how Randy Melchert sees all the issues, it seems appropriate to have  this discussion even if he remains unopposed.

I just read the 2007 version of this Memorial Day Blog once again.  Not a lot has changed except that we may be even further polarized politically than we were a year ago.  That is to be expected when we find ourselves in the midst of presidential campaigning, fighting an economic slowdown, watching fuel and food prices escalate almost daily...and as we watch flags in our village and state being flown at half-staff.

The one thing that has stayed constant is the resolve and spirit of our fighting men and women who are posted in many countries of the world.  Those of us who would criticize the U.S. for being the 'policeman of the world' need to step back and ask themselves these questions:  If not us, whom?  If not us, where would the world be today?  If not us, where would we be today?

Can we survive and prosper in an isolationist world?  I doubt seriously that this would be possible.  We cannot rely on the United Nations to send a military contingent here and there as hot spots erupt.  We are the military contingent that gets sent wearing blue helmets.  Those other 'wanna be' world powers simply do nothing but respond in token fashion, or respond with more behind-the-scenes-political maneuvering to worsen already aggravated situations.  Russia is on its way back into the early twentieth century courtesy of Vladamir Putin and his new puppet president.

Against this backdrop, we watch as our politicians posture to take best advantage of the wind's direction that day.  They 'debate' various things, always with an eye toward whatever camera appears in the room.  They say whatever is convenient at the moment and then backfill as they trip over their words a day or a week later.

The one constant is the resolve and spirit of our fighting men and women.  That is as it has been and always will be so long as our freedom endures.

We remember those who have given their lives that we may live in freedom.  We remember those who gave limbs and sight so that we might live in freedom.  We remember young families without a dad or without a mom or a son or daughter or a brother or sister so that we might live in freedom.

When was the last time you walked up to a person wearing the uniform of one of our branches of service and thanked them for their service and their sacrifice.  Too long ago I'd wager.

We remember the more than 50,000 who gave their all in Viet Nam.  We remember Korea and World War II and World War I.  We remember those who protect us today from the spread of world terrorism, and who will again report to that theater of operations for another tour.

Please take a moment of your freedom to say a prayer for those men and women both past and present.  Please take a moment of your freedom to walk up to someone wearing the uniform of the United States military and thank them for their dedication, their bravery and their courage and their readiness in the face of every threat so far seen by our country.

And, please take a moment to let your elected officials know just how important it is to you that they continue to truly support our military; not through lip service and posing for 'holy pictures', but truly support our men and women.  These are not something akin to chess pieces that become political playthings.  These are not the illiterate and underclass of our country.  These are the best and the brightest.  These are the true defenders of our freedoms, not those who serve in some government capacity or other that too often is a hindrance rather than a help to our men and women in uniform.

Thank you!

We are, by all signs, involved in an oil cost run-up driven by demand being greater than supply.  It is exacerbated for us Americans because our monetary policy has seen an intentional softening of the dollar (our money is worth less than other peoples' money, so it takes more of it to buy a barrel of crude oil).  I paid $4.20 per gallon yesterday with the price of crude oil standing at about $130 +/- per barrel.  Predictions of crude oil prices of $150 per barrel or more are seen or heard regularly now.  And, the cost of oil could well be higher than that by year-end.

How did we get to this point?  We got there by congressional law making, by presidents rolling over and signing those bills, and by our country's increasing needs/demand for gasoline and diesel fuel.  Why would we permit ourselves to become part of such a quagmire?

Politics!  Politics played by those on both sides of the aisle.  Conservatives seem to have lost their voices.  Liberals never seem to lose their voices.

Laws were re-written more than thirty years ago to make it nearly impossible for a new refinery to be built.  Those were the result of congress being rolled by the environmentalists and presidents either believing the rhetoric of the day or fearing the backlash should they stand up to the rhetoric.  This has continued to this very day.  We are forbidden from drilling within 200 miles of the California and Florida coastlines but the Chinese are already doing so as we sit on our thumbs.  We are unable to pursue the shale oil deposits that span our northern plains and southwestern states.  We have ample untapped resources that are readily available but our laws don't permit us to make use of those resources.

We see the 'global warming' group and the 'environmentalist group' driving our economy into the ground...and we have not found the moral outrage/courage to stand up to them and say "no more"!  We could easily build new refineries in any number of locations around our country but we're not permitted to do so.  We know how to drill and refine today without ruining our world.  It takes from 6 to 10 years to bring a new refinery on-line so the time to have declared a moratorium on the rules that made it impossible to build new refining capacity has come and gone.  But, the typical congressional response of "that will take ten years" should remind us that if we don't roll back those silly laws today, it'll take ten years from whenever we do roll back those silly laws.  The time to begin is now, not next week or next month.

We witnessed the ridiculous 'hearings' held by congress in the past few weeks.  We watched as Sen. Herb Kohl embarrassed himself by chiding the 'big bad oil companies' for making a profit.  He is a former businessman who certainly understands that profit must be derived in order for businesses to exist and grow.  He knew how that worked when he ran Kohl's Food Stores.  He certainly must have some comprehension as the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks.  His statement to the oil company executives that their profits didn't seem fair gives one a lot of insight.  He knows better but he will play/pander to the crowd he favors.  He 'feels' as do most liberals.  He doesn't necessarily reason.  He has his millions, so he can set out to control everyone else who aspires to similar success.

Sen. Kohl is but one of the 535 members of congress.  Too many of those men and women are too intent on keeping their offices to actually vote the way they probably know they should.  You have probably heard the old phrase that states you must "go along to get along".  That should be inscribed over the doorways leading to the House and the Senate chambers since it is the rule that is followed by the vast majority of people who walk through those portals.  That is true on the national stage, the state stage and the local stage.

The people who go to Washington and who do not give in and play by the Washingtonian rules are few and very far between.

Whose fault is this dilemma in the final analysis?  Yours and mine. 

We're the men and women who have permitted this to happen.  We don't vote in the House or the Senate, but we do elect those who do...and we do not seem to unelect people very often once they've gotten into office.  Rep. Steve Kagen (D) from the Appleton area stands for re-election this November.  He is at his most defeatable point historically.  If he survives the first re-election campaign and keeps his seat, he is likely to be in that seat for so long as he desires without regard to how he votes or doesn't vote.

We're so unconcerned about our vote, it seems, that we don't even think voting is sacrosanct enough to require valid photo identification before we're permitted to cast a ballot. 

So, all this angst has been brought to us by us.  Remember that the next time you buy gasoline or diesel fuel.  Remember that the next time you go to the grocery store and try to make your food budget stretch.  Remember that when you ponder whether or not you'll be able to take a vacation this year, or buy new school clothing for your children, or go out for a fish fry.  Remember that when you try to stretch your retirement income to cover your basic needs.

And, when you've gotten yourself all 'cranked up', if that happens, make a resolution to get involved and stay involved and to talk with your elected representatives at every level of government and let them know what you think and what you want them to do on your behalf.  And, if they fail you, fire them with your vote at the polling place.

Had you and I done that two decades ago instead of simply going with the flow, maybe we'd not be in the situation we find ourselves in today.

Randall Melchert has announced that he is seeking election to the Assembly seat (24th District) being vacated by Sue Jeskewitz at the end of her current term.

He is the son of a prominent Menomonee Falls couple and the family has deep roots in the Falls.  Randy, as he calls himself, declares himself to be conservative and his stated positions suggest that he may be quite conservative.  His campaign site (www.randymelchert.com) contains position statements on a variety of subjects.  He is a member of the Waukesha Republican Party.

Among his areas of expertise is apparently that of debate skills.  That should serve him well in both his campaign and in the Assembly if he is victorious.

I have extended an invitation to him to engage readers by responding to questions that will be published on Curmudgeon's Corner much as we've begun doing in the Senate race.  I hope he will accept that invitation.

There is, so far, no indication of any opponents but that may develop over the coming weeks.