Monday, October 20, 2014

Burke vs. Walker: Truth Serum Time

I think politicians must have hated history classes – or at least hope that voters did – because so often it seems that they bank on people not remembering what happened in the past.

So it seems with our current election battle in Wisconsin where incumbent Scott Walker is by inference and association blaming his challenger, Democrat Mary Burke, for the state budget deficit he inherited from Jim Doyle, for whom Burke worked as secretary of the Department of Commerce.

Walker's ads are correct – he did inherit a budget deficit from Doyle. But he left out that Doyle inherited a huge budget defecit from his predecessor, Acting Gov. Scott McCallum, a Republican, who in term was saddled with the shortfall left behind when his predecesor, Tommy Thompson, another Republican, fled Madison in 2001 to join President George W. Bush's cabinet.

Here's more truth serum – Thompson actually took office with a small budget surplus left behind by Gov. Tony Earl who unfortunately inherited a $500 million budget deficit left by the late Gov. Lee Sherman Dreyfus, my friend and mentor. That's an important piece of history.

Times were much better in 1978 when Dreyfus ran against Acting Gov. Marty Schreiber who racked up a huge budget surplus – so much so that Lee used it as signature campaign issue, vowing to give the cookie jar back to the taxpayers (remember the $40 checks we got after Lee took office?). Marty argued that some of the surplus should be retained as a “rainy day fund” for when times get tough. How prophetic he was – but wisdom seldom wins political arguments.

This is where it becomes even more interesting. When Tony Earl became governor in 1983 he addressed the shortfall by a politically risky move – a temporary income tax surcharge that was ended ahead of schedule when times got better. This happened without the hoopla and costly battles that Walker brought on but it was costly for Tony – he was a one-term governor labeled by Tommy as “Tony the taxer” in the 1986 election. Since then no governor or candidate for that office has ever risked being so candid with Wisconsin voters.

As for Walker's handling of the deficit, it wasn't rocket science. In essence, his plan was based on cutting employee salaries. Setting aside the allegations of union busting, Walker's strategy amounted to a significant pay cut for state workers. No magic there – especially since the law requires a balanced budget.

What about Mary Burke? No matter how you slice and dice it, the next governor will have financial mending to do. If anything, Marty Schreiber has the right idea – the state needs a “rainy day fund” – and so was Lee Drefyus – it has to be protected from politicians raiding it for pet projects. Burke's plans aren't as clearly defined but maybe she is correct that the focus needs to be on growing the state's economy with better paying jobs which, in turn, will produce the income and sales tax revenue needed to fund the state's budget.

Finally, Republicans don't have exclusive rights to a lapse of truth in political advertising. Marty's predecessor, the late Pat Lucey, once delivered what he billed as a “no tax increase budget.” In reality, he balanced his budget with a slew of new or increased user fees including technical college tuition.

My two cents: any plan to improve Wisconsin's economy must recognize the importance of an educated workforce as a key to a healthy and competitive economy. For a long time a high school diploma alone doesn't cut it in today's world market. I'd suggest considering a plan where the state would pick up most of the tab for the first two years of technical college – perhaps as a loan that would be forgiven upon graduation. A similar offering could be made for students attending the University of Wisconsin system – either do your first two years at a technical college or get that amount credited toward a UW degree. Want to help Wisconsin businesses? How about tax credits for hiring resident graduates of Wisconsin's technical colleges or the UW system?


Let the debate begin.

More on the budget deficit from a 2002 report by the conservative WPRI think-tank: http://www.wpri.org/WIInterest/Mayers11.3.pdf

Saturday, October 11, 2014

Was there a debate Friday night?

Friday night’s debate between Gov. Scott Walker and challenger Mary Burke pretty much ended with a Walker strike out and  Burke in the batter’s box with a full count.  Neither candidate sizzled but neither did they fizzle.

Walker scored the only strikeout when he gave an equivocal answer as to whether he’d commit to serving a full four-year term.  He said it was “his plan” to do so but, as we all know, plans can change.

Burke, if she wants to be governor, needs to connect with the people on the next bar stool.  She floated several key notions about how Walker’s tenure as governor failed Wisconsin but she failed to connect the dots and thus pretty much gave Walker a pass on much of his claims that Act 10 was the greatest thing since sliced bread.

Perhaps Burke didn’t want to seem too assertive.  She could – and should – have said that Act 10 wasn’t rocket science but rather a pay cut superimposed on a strategy that made it virtually impossible for the losses to ever be recouped. 

Burke mentioned how Walker’s policies took money out of local economies while enriching his political cronies but she didn’t drive it home.  The average Wisconsin taxpayer scored a token reduction in taxes but the substantial pay cuts endured by thousands of workers coupled with the lack of promised job growth is a recipe for long-term economic disaster because it took money out of local economies that would have been spent on new cars, home improvements and the like – spending that on a good day sustains jobs.

Burke also gave Walker a light hit on education.  Even though she said the right things again she didn’t connect the dots.  Wisconsin workers aren’t going to make as many cars and boats as they did 50 years ago.  An educated workforce is one of our few bargaining chips but one that’s been undervalued in competition with other states. 

Burke correctly said we need hundreds of thousands of trained workers and affordable education must be available to make that happen.  Again she failed to point out that Walker’s shirt term “fixes” may be eroding one of the few major assets this state has and needs to develop.  Minnesota and Iowa got that memo long ago.  Wisconsin needs to train workers to compete in a high tech economy and that can’t be an afterthought.

Blasting Walker on failing to deliver on his promise of 250,000 new jobs in his term is getting worn.  It begs the question of what Burke would promise.  A valid point but there’s a bigger picture. 

Perhaps the biggest piece of ammunition left unused is the “pay to play” politics that’s become almost accepted in Madison in the last few years.  Pitting Wisconsinites against each other and selling our government to the highest bidders clearly run contrary to Wisconsin’s cherished heritage.  Burke has yet to connect with independent and disaffected Republican voters troubled by corruption.  In short, Walker may be the devil but he’s the one we know and if Burke want him booted out she needs to explain to the couple on the next bar stools what’s wrong and how she’ll fix it.

Saturday, June 14, 2014

Cut J.B. Some Slack

 
The hue-and-cry over same-sex marriage is unfortunately following the same dysfunctional political pandering as so many other issues of the day in American society with Democrats calling for a repeal of laws prohibiting it and the right-wing, not unpredictably, opposing that. 
 
The left, of course, had its energy fueled by such events as U.S. District Judge Barbara Crabb's decision striking down an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution approved by voters less than eight years ago which declared that “Only a marriage between one man and one woman shall be valid or recognized as a marriage in this state."
 
Judge Crabb stayed her decision to allow the state to appeal which Atty. Gen. J.B. Van Hollen, a Republican, promised to do.  That subjected Van Hollen to a barrage of attacks from the left which in large measure blindly call upon him to shirk his duty to defend the state constitution. 
 
The task of defending Wisconsin's recently enacted same-sex marriage ban is perhaps easier for Van Hollen because it coincides with his own thinking but even if it didn't he is still duty-bound to defend it.  Yes, he's a political animal and no doubt politics has some bearing on this, but the left, including our own Peter Barca, the Assembly minority leader, need to cool their jets and bombastic rhetoric and allow the legal process to proceed.  That's the way we're supposed to do things in  the country and to suggest otherwise is to move us closer to the throws of anarchy.
 
Regardless of how you feel about gay marriage the reality is that it is not only a divisive issue in this country but one that needs to be settled by the U.S. Supreme Court, particularly because some lower courts, such as Judge Crabb's, have claimed that same-sex marriage prohibitions offend the United States Constitution.  In so doing they rely heavily on the 1967 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1 (1967) which invalidated a Virginia state statute prohibiting interracial marriage.
 
On its face, however, reliance on Loving may be flawed -- and that's precisely why Van Hollen must be allowed to do his job and, hopefully, the U.S. Supreme Court will rise to the occasion and resolve this. 
 
First, Loving involved the marriage of a man and a woman, not a same-sex marriage.  Although gay marriage supporters see that as a distinction without a difference there is credible legal precedent which holds otherwise.
 
The almost-forgotten 1972 case is Baker v. Nelson, a post-Loving appeal of a Minnesota Supreme Court decision which the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed in a one-sentence decision for lack of a substantial federal question.  That let stand the Minnesota Supreme Court's 1971 opinion that there is no constitutional right to marriage between persons of the same sex: "These constitutional challenges have in common the assertion that the right to marry without regard to the sex of the parties is a fundamental right of all persons and that restricting marriage to only couples of the opposite sex is irrational and invidiously discriminatory. We are not independently persuaded by these contentions and do not find support for them in any decisions of the United States Supreme Court. The institution of marriage as a union of man and woman, uniquely involving the procreation and rearing of children within a family, is as old as the book of Genesis."  Further, reliance on Loving was rejected: "Virginia's antimiscegenation statute, prohibiting interracial marriages, was invalidated solely on the grounds of its patent racial discrimination . . . [T]o deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Loving does indicate that not all state restrictions upon the right to marry are beyond reach of the Fourteenth Amendment. But in commonsense and in a constitutional sense, there is a clear distinction between a marital restriction based merely upon race and one based upon the fundamental difference in sex."
 
Baker v. Nelson remained "good law" but same-sex marriage was ultimately allowed in Minnesota because the state legislature in 2013 changed the statutes.  That can't happen in Wisconsin.
 
This discussion illustrates that Van Hollen is not just shooting off his mouth or shooting from the hip when he says he's doing his duty to defend Wisconsin's constitution.  His task is considerably different from our neighboring state.  In Minnesota, voters rejected a gay-marriage prohibition amendment to the state constitution so all it took to change course was a simple vote of the legislature.  Here Wisconsin voters amended the state constitution to outlaw same-sex marriages and thus our legislature's hands are effectively tied as is Van Hollen's.
 
Perhaps the U.S. Supreme Court will revisit Baker v. Nelson.  I think it should because either the decision needs to be reaffirmed or overturned.  No doubt Van Hollen's defense of the Wisconsin constitution pleases the political right and angers the left but regardless of politics at the end of the day he's just doing his job.

Gay marriage supporters need to stand down.  By appealing Judge Crabb's decision Van Hollen is doing them a favor. Although the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago is the next stop eventually the case may wind up where it needs to be -- before the U.S. Supreme Court.  If the Constitution is on their side as they claim it is, then those who support Judge Crabb's decision should welcome this with open arms.