Ignore the Wine and Focus on Paul Ryan's Voting Record

I don't see much point in lambasting Paul Ryan for an appreciation of fine wines, even expensive ones. Ryan's congressional pay makes a bottle of Jayer-Gilles 2004 Echezeaux Grand Cru affordable, and his future earning potential once he leaves office makes the expense trivial.

But this really isn't a discussion about economics of oenology: it's about the symbolism of extravagance in a time of austerity, and what is consistently missing from every account of Ryan's night on the town is that is why Ryan is susceptible to charges of fiscal hypocrisy.

Ryan has built his reputation in Washington as a fiscal conservative who advocates a small government approach that "doesn't pick winners," but he also voted for TARP and the auto bailout. He frequently waxes on the need to keep taxes low, but voted to tax executive bonuses at AIG after the insurance company joined TARP. He is the author of a plan to decimate Medicare over the next generation, but also voted for Medicare Part D, the largest expansion of entitlements in a generation (even though it had a dubious funding mechanism).

Ryan's explanations for these votes range from ridiculously nuanced to outright apologetic, were all, to a very large extent, votes that placed political calculations over the economic virtues he frequently promotes in public. To date, and to their credit, bloggers on the conservative side of the Cheddarphere have actually called Ryan out on these, shall we say, inconsistencies, but their criticism was short-lived and quickly forgotten.

Wine shouldn't be the reason people are piling on Ryan, his track record of folding when the chips down should be enough. Alas, explaining the ins and outs of legislation and economic policy is far more difficult than pointing to a $350 bottle of pinot noir and yell "Hypocrite!"

Ron Johnson Really doesn't Know what He's doing in U.S. Senate, does He?

Oy vey:

Senator Ron Johnson is frustrated with inaction in Washington. The freshman Senator from Wisconsin is dissatisfied with the glacial pace of the Senate. He’s been in office six months, during which just six laws have been passed. “We spent 16 weeks debating three bills. The total dollar amount of those bills is $20 billion. That’s about half a percent of what this federal government will spend this year,” said Johnson, an Oshkosh business owner who campaigned on the need to reign in federal spending and reduce the deficit.


Johnson’s comments on the floor came as Senators engaged in ‘colloquy’, or conversations, over a non-binding debt reduction bill. “This week we’ve spent 15 hours debate. We called it a ‘sense of the Senate resolution’. It really should be called the nonsense of the Senate. That’s what’s been occurring this week, and it’s a tragedy.” Johnson noted that, as of Friday, it will be 800 days since Congress last passed a federal budget. Johnson’s comments came as President Obama began meeting with congressional leaders on a deal to raise the debt limit.

I don't know how fast Johnson expected things to move in the Senate, especially while he's in the minority and the House is is under different majority leadership.

I've heard that one of the smartest things new members of any legislative body can do is to start boning up on parliamentary procedure the morning after election to the point that one is a black belt on legislative rules by the time the oath of office is taken. Johnson clearly has not been given this advice. This is the second time in as many weeks that he's come out in public all doe-eyed at the mention of a senate rule: last week it was the concept of consent, and he he gives his audience the obvious "nonsense of the Senate resolution" joke. Perhaps he should study the Senate rules on his own time and save the parliamentary punchlines for the Capitol Steps.

Recall Finance Reports

The campaign finance figures for the recounts that were released today really are eye-popping. I don't know what's more impressive: that Dan Kapanke has raised $725,000 or has already spent $600,000 of it.

The Journal Sentinel made a big deal about the GOP incumbents out-earning their Dem challengers (Headline: "Two GOP senators raise more funds than six Democratic challengers combined"), but that's dramatically under values the fundraising situations in the other races and the big picture.

Yes, Kapanke and Darling brought a boatload of money -- but all of that money doesn't seem to be doing Kapanke a damn lick of good.

In fact, there are only two GOP candidates who seem to be in relatively good positions. Sheila Harsdorf has a lot of cash on hand against a newby opponent with zero name recognition, but still only a 5 point lead in one poll. Alberta Darling has a ton of cash and no public polls forecasting doom ... yet.

But it's next to impossible to look at the remaining three GOP senators and not be gravely worried about their prospects for defeat. How can Bob Cowles get out-raised as badly as he's been by Nancy Nusbaum? Nusbaum is not someone the Dems plucked out of obscurity: she's a former Brown County executive who ran for congress in 2006 (and lost in the primary), so this ain't her first rodeo. And poor Luther Olsen getting trounced by Fred Clark? It's difficult to look at these two incumbents and not think that they are either not taking the threat against them seriously or underestimated their opponents.

This is particularly odd for Cowles, who ran unopposed in 2008, but whose senate district went slightly for Obama that same year. That could e an anomaly, but one would imagine being recalled would inspire him to prepare for every possible contingency. Olsen, on the other hand, seems to have been out of sorts from the very beginning of the recall process. It almost feels like he's a moderate being left for dead by the right wing of the party in some ways.

Then there's Randy Hopper. He's spent a lot of money and I haven't seen or heard a single campaign ad (though I have gotten a mailer or two). Hopper is on the wrong end of a cash-on-hand gap, down a few points in the polls, and, most importantly he appears utterly demoralized:

Frankly, Hopper said, he would prefer to have his election as soon as possible. He would hope that neither he nor his likely opponent, Jessica King, has a primary race.

"Let me freakin' be done," Hopper said.

So right now there seems like the GOP could lose up to four senate seats, and within the realm of possibility that they lose all six (absent more data from Darling's district, who knows?). Things seem so close in every district that, absent precedent, there's really no way to make a reliable prediction.

Except for one. Right now, there seems to be little chance that the GOP will pick up any Dem senate seats. Dave Hansen will likely coast against Mike VanderLeest after John Nygren's monumental signature fuck-up and it's probably a safe bet that Jim Holperin will have to contend with an equally serious candidate up North. Meanwhile, Bob Wirch will probably have to deal with an opponent who lives in Racine, but works as a corporate attorney ... in Chicago, so he's basically a FIP.

The lack of seriousness with which the GOP has treated the recall is really astonishing. If the Dems succeed in taking the Senate, you can bet your sweet ass they will go after Walker and the remaining senators come January, and they will have created the apparatus and infrastructure to do so successfully.

Of course, the third party nonsense hasn't even begun yet, so all of this talk could be for nothing.

Ron Johnson's Radical Policy Shift that's Hijacking the U.S. Senate

[So this post is pretty much a stream of consciousness reaction to the op-ed Sen. Johnson published today. Skip down to the graph below if you want to get right down to the good stuff on Johnson's ridiculous new budget policy. It's so absurd that even Johnson himself was talking trash about it just two weeks ago. No time for editing, 'cuz there's drinking to be done this weekend.]

The BizTimes has an op-ed submitted by Ron Johnson that tries to explain the temper tantrum he threw on the Senate floor earlier this week. Turns out that was just the beginning of a week-long celebration of the filibuster:

Earlier, Johnson objected to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's call to take up a resolution authored by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and John McCain, R-Ariz., that would allow the U.S. to continue its military support of the NATO-led effort against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

He also thwarted the Senate Finance Committee's attempt to meet Thursday on trade agreements. And on Tuesday, he blocked a request for unanimous consent to let senators speak without a quorum call.

In a floor statement, Johnson said the debt is "the single most important issue facing this nation" and the economy "is in a coma" because lawmakers have failed to tackle the issue.

So, clearly this is all part of so kind of roll-out to brand Johnson in the same vein as a Jim DeMint-style obstructionist (and has nothing to do with Johnson's recent financial disclosure issues -- wink, wink).

But back to the op-ed. So far as I can tell, this is the first opinion piece Johnson's released since hiring former Journal-Sentinel book reportist Paddy Mac, so one would guess the results would be a marked improvement over earlier efforts. Alas, no.

The style is informal, even conversational -- an odd tone to use in what is a regional trade magazine. It doesn't fit the audience and looks like it was originally written for publication in the State Journal or Journal-Sentinel, but was refused by the editors, likely because of line like this:

The President's budget - the one he presented several months ago to great fanfare, remember that?

Yeah, dude, remember that!?! Maybe I was wrong: this could very well be the speech Johnson planned on giving to his 40th high school reunion.

It was 4 ¼ inches thick, 2,400 pages long. Who knows how many thousands of man hours that document took to produce? It was going to be the solution to our fiscal problems.

Yes, bills are long, feature many numbers and difficult legal language. This is the job you signed up for.

But it was so unserious, it would have added over $12 trillion to our nation’s debt.

$12 trillion? Really? The total budget deficit is about $14.3 trillion -- and somehow an annual budget that includes $3.7 trillion in spending is going to nearly double the deficit? In fact, the figure Johnson cites is additional debt over the course of the next decade (though it certainly sounds like all that debt is gonna us all at once) and the $12 trillion figure is actually debatable. The CBO puts the figure at just under $10 trillion. Ezra Klein puts the number closer to $7 trillion (though I think this was before the CBO revised their initial estimates), which is a lot close to the additional $6 trillion dollars in debt Rep. Paul Ryan's plan would accumulate during the same time period. Of course, Johnson supported Ryan's plan, so what's a few trillion dollars among friends?

But no one wants to hear bad sales figures! The point of this communique isn't Budget Deficit = Bad, it's Washington = Broken, which becomes apparent right around these graphs:

Instead of rolling up his shirt sleeves and personally tackling the number one problem facing this nation right from the beginning, President Obama delegated his role in sporadic negotiations to Vice President Biden.

Now that those talks have broken down, the President is finally getting personally involved in this process. But what kind of process is this – a few people, talking behind closed doors, far from the view of the American public? Is that the process that is going to decide the fate of America’s financial situation, of our financial future? Is this how our government is supposed to work?

I don’t think so. Of course not.

And this is coming from the guy who's threatening to shut down senate business without making clear what it is he's demanding. This article would seem like a pretty good place to outline those demands, wouldn't it? But it's apparently too much to ask Johnson to suggest televised meetings, releasing minutes or even letting a pool reporter sit in on negotiations. A hallmark of Johnson's missives to the masses has been an utter lack of solutions to the problems that concern him. This piece is no exception.

In fact, the vagueness of Johnson's complaints suggest that he's not so upset about the openness or seriousness of the budget talks so much as he is by his exclusion from them. If that's the case, then Johnson will surely be the first freshman senator ever to have his genius stifled by the archaic rules of a body that operates on seniority. Might as well take the ball and go home, because who needs solutions when there's folksy wisdom to dispense!

As a manufacturer, I know if the process is bad, the product will be bad. Business as usual here in Washington is a bad process.

Business as usual is bankrupting America. It must stop.

I may be projecting here -- OK, I am completely projecting here -- but Johnson's retreat to his bona fides as a manufacturer are starting to get so repetitive that they remind me of the classic "Tom Foley, Motivational Speaker" SNL skit, only instead of "living in a van down by the river" we get a "manufacturer from Wisconsin" as the appeal to authority intended to end the argument. Actually, the influence of early '90s sketch comedy is pretty apparent in this whole section of the op-ed, because Johnson really turns up the folksy with his Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer impersonation:

America is simply too precious* to subject our financial future to Washington’s “business as usual.” Now I'm pretty new here, and I don't pretend to understand everything that makes the Senate work (or maybe more accurately, doesn’t allow the Senate to work). But I do know the Senate runs on something called unanimous consent.

Now, if you're thinking that the only thing missing from this mise en scene is the image of Joe and Mrs. Tax-payer sitting around the kitchen table, eating some apple pie and balancing their checkbooks, you're in luck!

So unless we receive some assurance from the Democrat leadership that we will actually start addressing our budget out in the open, in the bright light of day - I will begin to object. I will begin to withhold my consent.
The Senate needs to pass a budget. It shouldn't be that difficult. Families do it every day. A husband earns $40,000. A wife earns $40,000. Their total family income is $80,000. That's their budget. That's what they can afford to spend. American families figure out how to live within their means.

Wank, wank wank...

The federal government should be no different. A budget is a number. We should first pick one number, and then a set of numbers, that won't let America go bankrupt.

So let me start the process by throwing out a number: $2.6 trillion. This is $800 billion more than we spent just 10 years ago. That is the amount that President Obama, in his budget, says the federal government will receive in revenue next year. If we only spent that amount of money, we would be living within our means.

What a concept, huh?

There's really nothing like punctuating a poorly explained thought with a condescending huh? to make the reader feel like he must be retarded for not understanding what was inadequately detailed in the first place, huh?

We've touched on this proposal before, albeit briefly. Johnson made this recommendation on the august bandwidth of the Daily Caller a couple of weeks ago. It's about as unserious a policy suggestion as he mocked the Obama budget for being at the very beginning of the op-ed. I mean radically unserious. Even Johnson himself couldn't help but marvel at the length, girth and impressive number of hours devoted to the creation of Obama's budget. What does Johnson offer as a rebuttal? An incomprehensible chart:

Johnson's budget calls for reducing the total amount of spending by the federal government by close to 30%. OK, so what gets cut? Are we looking at a 30% across-the-board reductions (even in Medicare)? Are we just going to eliminate certain programs, cabinet departments and the like? If so, which ones? And how much money is the state of Wisconsin going to lose with this plan? We're already a donor state, sending close to $7 billion worth of federal tax dollars to other states every year -- how much more is it going to cost the very people Johnson represents? None of this is explained in Johnson's graph.

And none of it has to be because Johnson has come up with a brilliant solution to his problem of determining what stays and what goes: divert the burden of proof:

If we want to spend more than $2.6 trillion, Members of Congress and members of this Administration should go before Congressional committees and openly justify what they want to spend, how much they want to borrow, and how much debt they are willing to pile on the backs of our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren.

This sounds a lot like a kind of earmark reform in the shape of a hybrid C-SPAN/reality show -- call it "Groveling for Dollars!" or whatever. This should scare the living hell out anyone interested in seeing the United States Senate, you know, work. Johnson seems to be equating cutting the deficit with ending earmarks when the dilemma is entitlements, which his nifty little chart doesn't seem to cut at all. The big green block representing Social Security isn't any smaller in his "Debt Ceiling Budget" than it is in any of the others; and what was once four separate orange, yellow, blue and purple blocks, each representing four different spending areas, is now one giant red block essentially signifying "everything else." Even if we eliminate all of the discretionary spending to the tune of $500 billion, there's still another $400 billion Johnson needs to cut from somewhere.

At least I think that's what the chart is saying. Again, it really must be one of the least helpful visual aides I've ever encountered.

But before we get too thick in the weeds of budget numbers here, let's take a step back and look at the big picture here because something very interesting has happened in the twelve days between Johnson's article in the Daily Caller and his piece in the BizTimes -- and if you blink you might miss it.

Here's the key graph from the DC. Emphasis added:

President Obama’s FY2012 Budget estimates the federal government will receive $2.6 trillion in revenue next year. This is $800 billion MORE than the $1.8 trillion President Clinton spent in his FY2001 Budget. $2.6 trillion would easily cover all interest on the debt ($256 billion), 100% of Social Security ($760 billion), and still leave almost $1.6 trillion (only $200 billion less that Clinton’s ENTIRE FY2001 budget) to be allocated among essential defense, security, health, and safety spending. It would not be pleasant operating under a “Debt Ceiling Budget,” and no one is recommending it, but it would not have to be a crisis if we develop a “Plan B” (See chart).

Johnson doesn't really have much to say about what his "Plan B" is. This seems like a pretty significant omission, but one we'll have to save for another day because Ron Johnson is now advocating a policy that just two weeks ago he said "no one is recommending" and "would not be pleasant operating under."

This is a radical shift in policy. Johnson is basically planting his flag on a hill he dismissed as unrealistic just days earlier. If this is what he's demanding, then that's some pretty big news, both in terms of the absurdity of the demand and the infantile nature of his presentation. Rather than doing the hard work of meeting with colleagues on both sides of the aisle, winning allies, building a consensus and adjusting desires on the basis of realities, Johnson is just throwing a fit.

So there's a lot of irony in Johnson's office these days. He calls the President's budget unserious, then offers his own proposal in the form of a sketch made by an intern on the back of a cocktail napkin. He says the opposition party isn't willing to "roll up it's sleeves," but seems to think that grinding the work of the Senate to a halt by refusing to offer consent is putting in a good day at the office. Give me chastity! Give me constancy! ... But not yet.

The question that arises from all of this is: what changed?

There are two obvious answers to this question. The first is that Johnson has a new ghostwriter who's fingerprints are all over this piece. Compared to earlier op-eds, this one actually has a logical structure that flows from point to point, uses subtle imagery without merely recite numbers roboticly. The paragraphs are compact and frequently single sentences, the calling card of a recovering journalist. The condescension is vaguely familiar even in it's subdued form. Welcome aboard the U.S.S. Ron Johnson, Paddy Mac!

The second are the recent financial disclosure issues Johnson's been negotiating. There's a tendency to attribute a Wag the Dog-esque conspiracy to such circumstances -- that Johnson's recent theatrics are merely a diversion to distract the public from ethics concerns -- but I don't really buy this theory so much.

I'm more inclined to believe Johnson's recent rhetoric is a symptom of impatience. The Senate runs on a slow burn, which requires a lot of patience and a genuine love for deliberation. Johnson was definitely not known for either of these traits when he served on the local PIE Council, where he (allegedly) appeared uninterested in opinions that did not jive with his own and frequently solved impasses by cutting checks, thus leading to Charles Murray's memorable visit to Oshkosh.

Time is such a funny commodity in politics largely because there's never enough of it, except when you're in the U.S. Senate when there's frequently too much. If you read the histories of the great Senators -- from Calhoun and Clay up to LBJ and Ted Kennedy -- they all seemed to be experts at killing time in a constructive fashion, usually by building relationships with colleagues, while letting the senate move at it's own pace. It's part of what's referred to as "respecting the institution of the Senate."

I can only imagine the collective "What the fuck?" that dropped from the elder statemens' mouths when they heard the news that a freshman would not be offering his consent.

Johnson is staking his political fortunes on his ability to cut the deficit, or to at least have a hand in doing so, but the tactics he's using to get his way are so radical that the risk in using them vastly outweighs the reward. His "Debt Ceiling Budget" is a fantasy and his petulant posturing is embarrassing. It's entirely possibly that 18 months from now, he'll find himself in the majority party and in a position to move things along on a more agreeable time table. Now should be the time to build the relationships that can hep push through an agenda during the next Congress.

Acting like a diva on the Senate floor isn't going to do that.

* Again with the use of the word "precious" to describe American abstractions -- am I the only one who finds this choice of words really weird?

David VanderLeest: "Fear my ability to Polarize the Public!" *

This degree of candor is almost admirable:

Crooked public officals [sic.] like this do not deserve the public trust. They fear my ability to polarize the public and expose true corruption that takes place at the hand of public officials who have different political views then me.

By the way, do you think the Green Bay Police Department has finished the paperwork on the "break-in" at the recall office VanderLeest was operating in April by now? It'd be interesting to read what their conclusion are.

* I'd be interested to get other folks' takes on my rather shamelessly edited title. My impression is that VanderLeest isn't calling his political opponents paranoid so much as he's suggesting that they sure as hell better fear him. If I'm wrong to think so, let me know.

Ron Johnson, Obstructionist

This is sorta out of the blue:

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) ground the Senate to a halt on Tuesday, threatening to block "business as usual" until Democrats submit a budget.

Johnson began his broadside by objecting to a quorum call, blocking the Senate from proceeding with a vote. Quorum calls, like many basic Senate procedures, are approved by unanimous consent and Johnson threatened in a floor speech to wreak havoc on these uncontroversial motions.

"Business as usual is bankrupting America," he said in a floor speech. "It must stop."

Elaborating on his scheme, Johnson warned that "unless we receive some assurance from the Democrat leadership that we will actually start addressing our budget out in the open, in the bright light of day, I will begin to object. I will begin to withhold my consent."

[...]


Johnson will have to remain on the floor to make good on his threat and it's not yet clear whether he has more lawmakers helping him out. He was reportedly spotted talking with Rand Paul and Jim DeMint on the Senate floor after his announcement, two Tea Party lawmakers known for tying the Senate in knots with filibusters and other procedural roadblocks.

[...]

Majority Leader Harry Reid could offer up popular bills and dare him to block them or try to call his bluff by forcing a cloture vote, a cumbersome and lengthy procedure. But as per Johnson's threat, "business as usual" is an impossibility unless he can be convinced to stand down.

Did Ron Johnson Bribe Himself?

Hey, if John Fogerty can (allegedly) plagiarize himself, anything's possible, right?

I may have been wrong when I called the $10 million dollar bonus Johnson gave himself a "minor" deal the other day. In fact, it's looking more and more like a rather major deal or at least on the way to becoming one.

Talking Points Memo seems to have taken on the story and they have reputation for not letting go of stories like this. In the meantime, Johnson office is doing exactly the wrong thing here by going into a communications lockdown:

So far Johnson has not produced a written deferred compensation agreement that was signed and dated before he launched his campaign. Absent such an agreement, Johnson could face serious charges that he violated campaign-finance laws barring direct corporate funding of federal candidates, election law experts tell TPM.

[...]

Johnson spokeswoman Mary Vought did not return several inquiries from TPM Monday. 

And now with allegations that Johnson may have shuffled money around so as to avoid paying taxes, it's all adding up to a very uncomfortable situation. This is the kind of nagging story that can destroy Johnson's time in the Senate before it really has much of a chance to get started.

Anyway, If there isn't a "written deferred compensation agreement," Johnson would be wise to come out and say "Yeah, we did write an agreement down. It was a mistake on our part. Here's the money back." The longer trying to explain away the situation by calling it "complicated" goes on, the more likely Johnson's going to find himself in a Anthony Weiner situation (sans the sexlessness, of course) wherein the obfuscation becomes worse than the actual deed itself.

A Banner Weekend for Conservative Leadership in Wisconsin

Bravo, Wisconsin GOP et al! You certainly know how to keep things interesting:

• First, Scott Walker fucks up a budget bill signing by scheduling it at a convicted tax evader's firm.

• Then Ron Johnson not only can't understand why folks would be suspicious of a $10 million pay-out in deferred compensation he gave to himself, but then he had to go and be a dick about it ("I don't have to explain it any further to someone like you.")

• And, finally, David Prosser had to continue to sully his legacy with whatever seemed to happen in Judge Bradley's chambers last week.

When it rains, it pours -- am I right?

The Johnson thing is relatively minor, but is emblematic of the guy's closet elitism and obliviousness to how his own financial situation reflects upon him and his office. Did he really not think that Ron Johnson, business-owner, could give Ron Johnson, U.S. Senator-elect, $10 million and no one would notice and/or care? I don't know of there's ever being a case in which someone has essentially bribed himself, but Johnson is a man of Gumpian fortune (and, according to many who know him, intellect) and would seem like just the kind of guy to trialblaze new ground in that area.

The Walker matter is also minor (at least in the grand scheme of things -- it's not like poor advance work is like a massive campaign finance violation or anything), yet also seems indicative of small administrative screw-ups by Walker's staff that seem to occur frequently. It does not provide a picture of a competent or well-managed office.

And David Prosser. Most guys his age spend time obsessing over their legacies, but Prosser seems hellbent on pissing his away. Whatever happened -- and I doubt anyone will ever know exactly what really did happen -- Prosser has been, once again, caught up in an unseemly incident. I'm sure their are a number of cause to the current acrimony on the state Supreme Court, but Prosser really is going out of his way to embody all of them and in so doing it's only a matter of time before he starts to earn a good deal of the blame.

Prosser has admitted to verbally threatening a female colleague in the past and has also owned up to breaking the law while in the state assembly, so he's lied about professional misconduct before. He also has a history of letting his temper get the best of him:

[W]hile serving as Republican minority leader, [Prosser] went ballistic on the Assembly floor because a photographer was there to film our legislators in action. He suspected the photographer, who was in the visitors gallery, was working for the Democrats - and even though Assembly rules permit cameras, Prosser made sure that everyone knew he didn't like it.

In the process, he got into a heated argument with the acting speaker at the time, Milwaukee Democrat Tim Carpenter, and wound up rushing the speaker's podium screaming and shouting irrationally, pounding the podium and accusing Carpenter of being a liar.

Then,

Then there was the contentious Supreme Court administrative hearing in 2009 when he not only blew up at Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson, but launched into a tirade against witnesses who were there advocating tough rules for judges to recuse themselves when principals in a case had contributed big bucks to their election campaigns.

Prosser's temper is well-know around Madison and has been for years. His track record certainly seems to fit the accusations, or at least make them more plausible than they would be otherwise.

Ron Johnson takes the McKinsey Survey Bait

Ron Johnson made the centerpiece of his run for the U.S. Senate last year his opposition to Obamacare, so it was something of an event when he took to the pages of the Washington Post last week with former CBO director and GOP in-house economist Douglas Holtz-Eakin to foresee doom and gloom on the healthcare horizon:

The other of us [i.e. Sen. Johnson], as a former businessman, knows what it’s like to purchase coverage for employees. There are many employers who would happily get out of the practice of providing health insurance, if they could do it without hurting their workers. Obamacare will encourage them to do so. In the current system, most employers are highly reluctant to drop health coverage for employees because they don’t want their workers to be financially exposed. But under Obamacare, instead of paying $15,000 for family coverage, an employer can choose to pay a $2,000 fine, pay more in cash wages, make his employees eligible for a huge government subsidy and come out ahead. Confident that their employees are also gaining, millions of employers will follow this logic. 

There are at least two enormous problems with this argument. The first is that it's the employer that seems to be saving $13,000 ... and yet still complaining. (The insinuation is that the $13,000+ difference would be picked up by the federal government, thus plunging the country further into debt or necessitating a rise taxes -- I think, it would have been nice of the authors to have explained this point in detail.)

The second is that it might not be necessarily true. Here's Steve Pizer:

Start by asking why employers sponsor health insurance for their employees at all.  The answer is that employer-sponsored health insurance is not taxed, so a dollar contributed to health insurance premiums buys a dollar of insurance while a dollar devoted to wages translates to less than a dollar of take-home pay.  As an employer, if I devote a portion of my compensation budget to health insurance and my competitor doesn’t, the dollar value of total compensation at my company will be greater than at my competitor’s.  I’ll attract the best workers.  So employers sponsor health insurance because the labor market is competitive.  They might wish they could cut these costs or drop health benefits entirely, just like they’d like to cut wages, but they have to consider the realities of the labor market or they won’t be able to hire.

[...]

Predicting the effects of the [health care] exchanges is harder, but the fact that access will be limited to those without employer offers simplifies things somewhat.  Most workers will not be eligible for subsidies if they had access to exchanges and the tax benefit is a major factor, especially for higher income workers, so a firm that drops coverage will be cutting compensation significantly for most of its workers.  It’s not likely that many firms will be able to do this unilaterally.

So why does Johnson and Holtz-Eakin think otherwise. Because:

A recent employer survey by McKinsey & Co. found that more than half of all American companies are likely to “dump” their workers into the government-run exchanges. If half of the 180 million workers who enjoy employer-provided care wind up in the exchanges, the annual cost of Obamacare would increase by $400 billion by 2021. If the other half eventually follows suit, and all American employees wind up in the exchanges — which we believe is a goal of Obamacare — then the annual cost of the exchanges would increase by more than $800 billion. Like Medicare in 1965, this would be more than nine times the original cost estimate of $93 billion each year ($893 billion vs. $93 billion).

The survey was really the only piece of empirical evidence cited by Johnson and Holtz-Eakin that backs up the central contention of their op-ed. The problem is that the way in which the authors use the survey is flawed:

McKinsey and Company has finally released the methodology of its study finding that many businesses are likely to drop insurance for employees (typo fixed) as a result of the Affordable Care Act.

There will be a lot to dig through here, but what’s immediately of interest is that in its statement, McKinsey repeatedly concedes that the study should not be seen as a predictor of future behavior. While McKinsey says it stands by the study’s methodology, the statement repeatedly stresses its lack of predictive value.

Why is this a big deal? Because the McKinsey study was being questioned well before Johnson and Holtz-Eakin used it as the centerpiece of their argument against Obamacare. I don't imagine we'll see a retraction any time soon, but it does seem worth while to point out shoddy work when we see it.

And speaking of shoddy work, do please check out Johnson's op-ed at the Daily Caller. To be perfectly honest, I'm not even sure I understand what point he's trying to make. The piece starts off explaining that he's against raising the debt limit and then concludes with a confusing and convoluted graph that raises more questions than provides answers. In between Johnson seems to say "We should just limit our spending to the revenue we take in" -- something that may prevent the deficit from growing, but does nothing to put a dent in it (to do that, you'd need to raise taxes, which is anathema to Johnson).

Left unmentioned in the DailyCaller piece is the fact that the debt limit will be raised regardless of what Johnson says or does. This has less to do with economics than basic political risk assessment: if the U.S. defaults on it's debt and the consequences are truly as bad (or, really, anywhere near) as some economists predict, then any elected official who helped usher in the default will find his proverbial head on a metaphorical spike.

This kind of sloppiness is likely why Johnson's office hired Paddy Mac recently, but it will have to do much better then this to effectively communicate the Senator's agenda, which, to date, has been little more than confused policy arguments punctuated by unending reminders that Johnson was a small business owner.

Show Me Proof

Here's wind up to a NYTimes/JSOnline piece on unemployment benefits:

The Times story suggests that some states have held back on changing the law to allow the extended benefits for ideological reasons.

In Wisconsin, it is the job of the Unemployment Insurance Advisory Council to make recommendations ot the Legislature on changes to jobless pay, including the decision on whether to approve extended benefits. Those benefits ended April 16, according to the Department of Workforce Development.

The Wisconsin panel has not yet considered the measure, and could not even summon a quorum for its May meeting. Its April meeting was canceled.

And here's the Huh? moment:

In the Times story, Jim Buchen, vice president of government relations for Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and a member of the advisory council, questioned whether there was a need for extended benefits.

"The management side is not inclined to approve this anyway absent concessions on their part. The real question is whether there is still a need for extended benefits. We are increasingly hearing from people that they are having trouble hiring workers who are on unemployment because they want to wait until their benefits are exhausted," Buchen told the Times.

Buchen's anecdotal aside seems patently ridiculous to me. Why would anyone pass up long-term employment income and job stability, especially in the current economy, for the sake of short-term unemployment benefits?  It would also seems to make little sense that these moochers are actively going out and speaking to the management types that would be hiring people if they are, indeed, waiting out the rest of their unemployment benefits. How, then, did "the management side" -- Buchen's phrase, not mine -- acquire this information?

I really wish news organizations would call PR shills out on shit like this. Where is the data backing your claim up? How was it gathered? Can provide the name of someone who is refusing employment to instead take unemployment benefits? Just one name, that's all we're looking for. Why not make it easier: how about the name of one employer who is having a hard time finding employees because the entire potential workforce has been rendered immobile by unemployment benefits?

Buchen's rhetoric is pretty standard: manufacturers are out their trying to create jobs that people are too lazy to fill. The problem -- and the reason why groups like WMC rely on the old "laziness" talking point -- is that there is seemingly no way to quantify the claim. But that doesn't mean further evidence shouldn't be requested way confronted evasive dodges like Buchen's.

Meet Your Sham GOP Candidates

Do check out Abe Sauer's portrait of James Smith, the fake Democrat running against Jen Shilling in La Crosse. I imagine it will not be something Smith saves in his scrapbook:

Born in 1985, it's not difficult to see how James Smith got himself into this mess. A Republican groupie, Smith is painfully willing to please the Republican party he fetishizes. Smith's real—as in, private—Facebook page features photo after photo of him standing alongside Paul Ryan, Wisconsin Lt. Governor Rebecca Kleefisch, Newt Gingrich, Senator Ron Johnson, Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen and Governor Scott Walker. And there he is next to Dan Kapanke, the recalled Republican Senator that Smith resigned his local GOP post to register as a Democrat to run against.

James Smith worked on Governor Scott Walker's election. He was a delegate to the Republican State Convention. It was a week ago that he resigned his position on the La Crosse County Republican Party Executive Committee and filed as a Democratic candidate for partisan state office. Smith admits that the candidacy was arranged by the state party. The fake Facebook page, Smith said, was done by himself, "for the fun of it."

The most generous possible way to describe him is naive. James Smith is what would happen if Lennie from Of Mice and Men somehow became involved in All the King's Men.

[...]

A lifelong resident of La Crosse, James Smith's name is mud. The local newspaper has a steady stream of letters to the editor, such as June 10's "Smith should be ashamed of actions." At 25, he's a local villain in a town of 50,000, the kind of small place where people traditionally try and keep a low profile. A Willie Stark who never quite figures out what Tiny Duffy is up to, Smith's future political career, whatever he imagined for himself, is ruined—and Smith's unmistakable physical stature makes it impossible for him to blend in anywhere.

I have no sympathy for this guy whatsoever.

Your 2012 GOP Nominee will be Mitt Romney

Might as well get this out of the way now. It's been my gut feeling for months now and seeing him at the New Hampshire debate tonight pretty much confirmed it for me.

Romney seems a lot looser this time around. He's actually discovered how to stick to his guns (kinda, in his own Romney-esque way) with regard to his health care plan. He works his balls off. It's his turn. Iowa isn't as important to Republicans as it is to Democrats. He's doing very well in South Carolina. He can raise more money than Croesus. Name recognition. All the usual reasons, for better and for worse.

That will be all.

Win/Win

The Journal-Sentinel's Patrick McIlheran is taking a job on Ron Johnson's staff -- one assumes as a speech/article-writer.

PaddyMac specializes in a lazy brand of commentary that amounts to little more than translating things he reads in national conservative opinion magazines like the National Review or the Weekly Standard into Wisconsinese with a condescending and snotty tone. Occasionally, he dabbles in the exception-proves-the-rule hysterics, but mostly he eschews original thought for ideological gate-keeping and being a dick.

Which is exactly what someone like Ron Johnson, who would be lost in this world without the editorial page of the Wall Street Journal to guide him, needs. Unspeakably awful op-eds have been a hallmark of Johnson's time in public life since his campaign last year, a problem indicative of poor communications across the board. There's really no way PaddyMac's addition can make this any worse.

Plus McIlheran now has to give up a good portion of his assholery.

Everyone wins.

This is a welcome development for nearly everyone in Wisconsin.

Sanity Prevails

The Wisconsin Dems are not going to run sham candidates in GOP primaries.

It sounds like part of the reason for the delay in rejecting We Are Wisconsin's advice late yesterday was making sure all of the Dem candidates were on the same page:

Tate said every Democratic challenger running against a Republican incumbent opposes running fake Republicans in the primaries. Democrats planning to run in the Republican recall elections on July 12 are Fred Clark, Jess King, Shelly Moore, Nancy Nusbaum, Jen Shilling and Sandy Pasch.

If that was the case, then the delay was worth it considering the the recent fumbling Luther Olsen has had to explain.

We Are Wisconsin's Idiotic Call for Democrats to Run Sham Candidates in GOP Primaries

If someone asked me what the stupidest thing the Democrats could possibly do in the face of the sham primaries the Wisconsin GOP is forcing with fake candidates, I would say to run fake candidates of their own, but they aren't that stupid, are they? Maybe not, but We Are Wisconsin sure as hell is:

In a major development, the group argues that the strategic and on-the-ground implications of the GOP tactics are far more complex and serious a threat to Dem chances than has been publicly explained. They argue that if Republicans do this and Dems don’t, the GOP will be able to dictate the election calendar with a free hand, deciding which general recall elections happen on July 12th and which on August 9th — a huge strategic advantage for Republicans. 

WAW's argument is, at best, spurious bullshit. Their reasoning is so thin that what they are suggesting amounts to nothing more than "The Republicans are doing it, so we have to too!" The recalls are not arms races. This is not an issue of bringing a gun to a fight when you know you're opponent is carrying a knife. This is an example of trying to out asshole the other side. It's the kind of too-cute-by-half maneuver that backfires and the Dems would be foolish to go along with it.

WAW thinks that the Dems need to have some "control" over the election calendar, but this seems to mean determining whether the general elections are held on July 12th or August 9th. It shouldn't really matter what date the elections are held: the Dems know what they have to do and as long as they do what they need to do they will either win or lose. Regardless of what happens this summer, no one will say "The Dems would have won if only they ran fake candidates like the GOP."

Some one has to act like an adult in this mess. Tit for tat acts of childish retribution will not help the Dems. I'm a bit disappointed that DPW didn't dismiss this idea out of hand yet. The Recall Season is already confusing enough as it is.

The First Round of Wisco Newspaper Editorials are Predictably Unkind to the Whole "Fake Candidates" Thing

The Journal-Sentinel:

We don't favor the recall elections, which are largely driven by union anger over a policy issue - the effort to limit collective bargaining for most public employees. Disagreeing with a legislator over policy does not justify a recall. It's a misuse of the recall option. The recall elections are a distraction from the important business at hand and a waste of time and money - lots and lots of money.

But if there must be recall elections, there should not be phony candidates and sham primaries. Let's keep it real.

The Post-Crescent:

There's nothing in election rules or state law that prohibits this. A year ago, a fake Republican candidate ran in an Assembly race against incumbent Bob Ziegelbauer of Manitowoc, who switched from a Democrat to an incumbent, and a Democratic challenger.



In fact, it's that case that Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald, R-Juneau, cited as a precedent for his party's actions now.

At the time, though, it was called a "nasty, cynical ploy" by none other than the head of the state Republican Party. Apparently, nasty and cynical is OK now, as long as the political purpose is their own.

It's particularly discouraging that the party that has made such a big deal about the integrity of elections, passing a voter ID law, is turning these elections into a farce.

The Sheboygan Press:

Republican lawmakers have cried for years now that there is rampant voter fraud in Wisconsin elections. So much so that they have been pushing for a law to require people to show an ID card with their photo on it before they can vote.

And, now that they are in power, have passed just such a bill to give people confidence in the election process.

But Republicans appear willing to carry out a little election chicanery of their own by putting up fraudulent candidates in the recall elections against six Republican senators.

[...]
If elections are so sacred that we have to make sure people carry a photo ID with them when they go to vote, the people who are seeking their votes should at least be honest and respectful of the process.

And remember, too, that Republicans are cutting state aid to local governments but think nothing of forcing local taxpayers to fork over more money to pay for unnecessary primary elections.

Wausau Herald:

We will say this: All of these tricks and tools are creating more problems than they've solved so far. It's not just the ideologues in Madison who are tearing each other apart. Bitter politics has become an epidemic in Wisconsin. It's hard to have a rational conversation, especially one where both sides feel like they've been heard and respected.

Political shenanigans might be an effective instrument in the short-term, but we wonder about the long-range effect on state leadership. Will we ever be able to trust these folks with the powerful tools voters gave them when they were elected?

La Crosee Tribune:

It’s one thing to run for office on principle and to fully engage in the issues, giving voters a clear choice to vote for a candidate of their choice. And it’s legitimate for candidates to switch parties when they are truly compelled to do so.

It’s another to run for office and temporarily switch parties just to cause further confusion and commotion in a process that already has enough of that with outside interest campaign spending and the entire recall turmoil.

The only thing that will be spoiled by these candidates is the public’s interest and participation in the democratic process.

Instead of using election parlor tricks, Republicans would be better suited to change the law that allows for recall elections. They have the political control — for now —  to do that.

But perhaps they’d rather publicly complain and silently keep their options open for when the recall process becomes a political tool they can use when it’s their turn.

WI GOP Hands the Car Keys Over to Tom Reynolds

Remember Tom Reynolds - the lunatic Republican state senator who started Clean Sweep Wisconsin PAC? The WisGOP must have pulled him out of the mothballs to develop the strategy for these ridiculous bullshit primaries Jeff Fitzgerald is providing his full-throated endorsement.

Only the the state GOP apparently did this without considering the cost to tax payer:

La Crosse County Clerk Ginny Dankmeyer estimated costs to the county and various municipalities would total $50,000 for a primary in Kapanke's recall election.

Dankmeyer said a primary election would cost just as much as the general recall election. The costs of the recalls would include paying poll workers, printing ballots, using supplies and other paperwork.

A spot check of other communities in the recall districts found municipal costs ranging from $2,000 in Kaukauna to $15,000 in Fond du Lac. For counties, the check showed costs ranging from $2,200 in Dodge County to $18,500 in Outagamie County.

Fond du Lac County Clerk Lisa Freiberg said the county alone would have to pay $10,000 to cover primaries in the Olsen and Hopper recall elections, and that the city of Fond du Lac would have to pay $15,000 for the two potential primary elections.

Remember, folks: this is the party that has insisted the state is broke ... and yet not broke enough to jerk around local election boards.

The GOP seems to be doing everything it possibly can do to hand control of the Senate back to the Dems. When you start seeing headlines with the word "sham" appearing next to your candidates' names -- you're doing it wrong. It's an absolute testament to just how far the GOP has fallen in Wisconsin that it now makes Tom fucking Reynolds look like a goddamn visionary.

You're Not Helping

This nonsense needs to end:

The disruption started just as the meeting began, with three men who oppose Gov. Scott Walker's plan to strip in-state tuition to UW System and state tech schools for children of undocumented immigrants commandeering the front of the room as the session was called to order.

The men refused to leave or stop reading their statements, and at least one was carried out by state troopers.

After that, the floodgates seemed to open, with protesters coming to the front of the room to berate the committee members. Assembly Co-chair Robin Vos, R-Rochester, tried to conduct the meeting over the disruption, putting an omnibus motion on the table on shared revenue. His voice could barely be heard among the din.

Whatever point these folks are trying to make is completely obscured by the open mic night amateur antics. Furthermore, these folks who would happily risk going to jail by committing a childish act of performance art usually do so for the sake saying they "fought the man," but are usually no where to be found when it comes to doing the heavy lifting of reaching out to voters and community organizing. It's selfish bullshit. If you'd like to make an ass of yourself, just throw a hat upside down on the State Street sidewalk and start your rambling: you might even make some tips.

The Football Gods have been very Good to the Badgers this Off-Season

The Badgers had a pretty terrific season (albeit disappointing end) last year, but, man, do the stars seem to be doing their damnedest to align for the team in 2011.

First, Michigan is still rebuilding in the post-Rich Rod universe. Not too big of a deal for the Badgers since they don't play the Wolverines and UM isn't in their division. Bonus: Michigan's defense was so bad last year that it's probably going to take several seasons to bring it back up to a competitive level.

Second, Jim Tressel's resignation yesterday basically throws Ohio State into a summer of panic and will likely end the school's decade long dominance of the Big Ten. The timing couldn't be better for the Badger, who travel to Columbus to play the Buckeyes a year after upsetting the then-#1 team in the nation in Madison. It's hard to think about exacting vengeance when your too busy rebuilding. Then there's the potential years of probation waiting for OSU. It took take another 4-6 years before the Buckeyes are back in contention.

Right there is usually enough to put the Badgers into contention for a Big Ten title. Michigan and OSU are the two traditional powers of the conference and they are arguably at their combined lowest point in decades, but the rest of the conference seems to being doing all it can to give the Badgers a chance to run wild through the Big Ten for the next 5 or so years.

Iowa (whom the Badgers neither play, nor share a division with) is suffering from a minor off-season training issue that sent 13 players to the hospital and has since called into question the leadership skills of the team's coaching staff. Penn State may never actually be the contender it should be until Joe Paterno retires (though, if there is anyone in any sport who deserves to retire on his own time frame it's Paterno -- I would argue that, even if they don't win, in the long run, Paterno's presence is better for both the school and the football program; but we are talking about a window of opportunity for the Badgers here). Minnesota and Indiana aren't going anywhere. Northwestern, well, they're Northwestern: bowl eligibility is usually all they ever desire. Purdue, a team that can be something of a surprise, had a crappy season last year too.

That leaves the constantly over-looked/under-rated Michigan State, whom are on a roll, and the new guys Nebraska. Apparently, the Corn huskers are supposed to be pretty loaded with top notch recruits, but a.) they're still freshman and, more likely, redshirts; b.) they team had a lot of coaching turnover and will be running a new offense; and c.) will be playing in stadiums that are considerably larger, louder and more intimate than those in the Big Twelve North. That could take a few seasons getting used to.

The Badgers lost a ton of talent to the draft and graduation, but the rest of the conference seems to be going out of its way to level the playing field. These next few seasons could be just what UW needs to jump up the football ladder and contend for more than just a Big Ten title and birth in the Rose Bowl.

Wisconsin's Close-up in Sarah Palin's Propaganda Film

You may recall Sarah Palin's most recent visit to Madison in April. The appearance was last minute. The weather was terrible. The crowds were small. The results were underwhelming. The whole event begged the question: why even bother? Well, here's your answer: the episode features prominently in the new Palin documentary that's apparently premiering in Iowa this month:

The film's coda is introduced with an on-screen caption that reads, "From here, I can see November." It is here that Mark Levin alludes to Ronald Reagan as a Palin-like insurgent who was also once distrusted by the GOP establishment.

Palin is then shown firing up a rally that occurred just last month on the steps of the state capitol in Wisconsin. "What we need is for you to stand up, GOP, and fight," Palin, in vintage campaign form, shouts to the crowd. "Maybe I should ask some of the Badger women's hockey team -- those champions -- maybe I should ask them if we should be suggesting to GOP leaders they need to learn how to fight like a girl!"

Following an extended in-your-face riff by Andrew Breitbart in which he repeatedly denounces as "eunuchs" the male Republican leaders who decline to defend Palin, the film ends with one last scene from the April rally in Madison: "Mr. President, game on!" Palin shouts before a martial drumbeat ushers in a closing quotation by Thomas Paine, which also appeared in "Going Rogue." The implication is neither subtle nor easy to dismiss.

Now I'm dying to see the film, if only to see how the Madison event is spun. By most measures it was something of a disaster. But this detail does explain why Palin and the rest of the speakers were so insistent that the numerous hecklers shut up during the proceeding: the event wasn't for the crowd that had gathered at the capitol, the small number of people watching on TV or even the folks reading the paper the next day: it was for the (undoubtedly heavily edited) film's audience.

Omens

From PPP's latest survey of the state:

43% of voters now approve of the job Walker is doing to 54% who disapprove. When PPP polled the state in late February it was 46% of voters approving to 52% disapproval. Walker's numbers now are virtually identical to where they were before with Democrats and Republicans but with independents he's seen his popularity continue to decline from a 45/53 approval spread to a 40/56 one.

That's a pretty steep decline among independents.

1000 Words

Yup, this is in Oshkosh (intersection of Sawyer and Oshkosh Ave., for those keeping score at home).

Oh, Those Nutty GOP Lawyers!

If there ever was a case study in IOKIARDI, then this would have to be it:

Challenges Republicans had made to the petitions filed against Kapanke, Hopper and Olsen focused on the initial paperwork setting up the recalls. Specifically, they said that the original document registering the recall effort - called a GAB-1 - did not list the same petitioner as another document filed with it, called the statement of intent.

In Kapanke's race, for example, the GAB-1 listed only a treasurer, Peter Larson, while the statement of intent listed Patrick Scheller of LaCrosse as the petitioner. GOP lawyers said that flaw made the entire recall petition invalid, and argued that the board should throw it out. They made similar arguments in all of the other five petitions filed against Republicans.

[...]

The memo says the Republican recall attempt against Democratic Sen. Jim Holperin of Conover had the same problem identified by Republicans in their objections to the recalls of Republicans - a treasurer named Donna Goeddaeus on the GAB-1 form and a petitioner named Kim Simac on the statement of intent. "Interestingly," the memo said, the lawyers who filed the challenge in Kapanke's case defended the same kind of setup in Holperin's.

It really is mind-blowing just how fucking stupid Wisconsin Republicans think everyone else is.

Shorter Ron Johnson: Tommy Thompson can go Fuck Himself

Jesus, the guys been in office four months and is already forgetting how he he got in to office in the first place:

Asked about that contrast Tuesday, Johnson said he hopes Thompson will "change his mind," and was noncommittal on a run by Thompson, who is likely to face primary opposition from the right.

"My guess is that maybe other people will hop in the race and I think we'll have a number of pretty good candidates that might vie for the nomination," Johnson said. "We'll wait and see."

If Thompson would have run in 2010, Johnson wouldn't have had a chance. 

The amusing thing about the fragging that is supposedly coming from moderates in the GOP is that sooner or later it's going to be the ideologues that are responsible for the fragging. No as conservative as Johnson is going o win a senate in Wisconsin in 2010, not with Obama at the top of the ticket and the president's ground game running up and down the state.

Ed Thomspon to the White Courtesy Phone, Ed Thompson to the nearest White Courtesy Phone.

It occurred to me whilst reading this post at Politico that should Tommy Thompson successful navigate the tricky water of a Wisconsin GOP primary, there are going to be numerous mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging conservatives that will not vote for him under and circumstances, thus opening the door to a third party candidate ... and who better to run a statewide third party candidacy (other than Bob Lorge, of course) , than Tommy's very own brother, Ed.

Anyway, if you don't remember how awkward Ed's candidacy for Governor was in 2002, here's a piece from the Times that might jog your memory. Just keep in mind that Tommy wasn't even running back then.

Even if it's not Ed, a conservative, independent candidacy could threaten to split the base of any GOP nominee to left of Ghangis Khan.