Here’s an odd anniversary: Four days after Cher divorced Sonny Bono, she married Gregg Allman. Come back to this blog in nine days to find out what happened next.
Birthdays start with Florence Ballard of the Supremes …
… born one year before Glenn Shorrock of the Little River Band:
Billy Brown, of Ray Goodman Brown:
Andrew Sweet, who is “Andy” in this famed ’70s song:
Hal Lindes of Dire Straits:
Adrian Wright of the Human League:
Earlier this week an email arrived announcing a raffle for America’s Sports Car, the Corvette, at a Catholic school in Effingham, Ill.
The grand prize is a new Corvette coupe with a pricetag of up to $60,000 Manufacturer’s Suggested Retail Price, or $55,000 cash. Tickets are $100 each, with 1,500 tickets to be sold.
The grand prize (for which the winner need not be present) will be presented at Mid-America Motorworks in Effingham, one of the nation’s biggest Corvette accessories sellers and the creator of National Drive Your Corvette to Work Day, which is today. (It’s the last Friday in June because the first Corvette went on sale June 30, 1953.) I drove past Effingham, Ill., coming back from a wedding in 2011. I still kick myself that I didn’t stop at Mid-America Motorworks; no one else in the van wanted to stop after a night in a hotel that featured a fire alarm at 1:30 a.m.
The pricetag of the ticket means I’m probably not going to enter. Remember, I work in journalism. (The St. Anna Fire Department Corvette raffle, which the fire department’s website doesn’t mention yet, is much more affordable.)
It did make me wonder, on National Drive Your Corvette to Work Day, how much Corvette I can get for $60,000 MSRP. Nearly every new car sells for less than sticker price, but the raffle website does say $60,000 MSRP. The website specifies a coupe and not a convertible, and the $60,000 limit eliminates the ZO6 ($75,600) and the ZR1 ($111,600).
That leaves either the base model, at $49,600, or the Grand Sport coupe, at $56,000. Both have a 43o-horsepower V-8 that can propel my Corvette from 0 to 60 mph in less than four seconds and to a top speed of 190 mph, while getting 26 highway mpg. (Your mileage may vary if you keep stomping the loud pedal.)
I’m OK with the coupe over the convertible. The convertible theoretically has unlimited headroom, which is good for the tall driver, but taking off the roof panel accomplishes that too. The hatchback adds a handy amount of storage space that the convertible does not have.
The choice between the base model and the Grand Sport depends on what you get for that extra $6,400. Most of the difference appears to be in the Grand Sport’s Z52 Performance Package, which includes a dry-sump oil cooler and “differential color” for those who select the correct transmission, the six-speed manual The Grand Sport has aluminum wheels instead of chrome, Goodyear F1 Eagle supercar tires, upgraded brakes, and front-fender paint stripes.
Chevrolet adds another level of complexity with three option packages to add on. Package LT2 adds Bluetooth, a Bose audio system and navigation system, Heads Up Display so you can see in your windshield how fast you’re going (in case you can’t figure that out from how fast the terrain is going by), and a luggage shade and cargo net. (With 0–60 under four seconds, you can rearrange what’s in back pretty fast.) Package LT3 adds a Memory Package, heated sport seats with perforated leather surfaces, and power telescoping steering wheel. Package LT4 adds a Custom Leather Wrapped Interior Package, microfiber suede seat inserts, and a Carbon Gunmetal console trim plate.
Unfortunately, the last two packages take the Grand Sport’s MSRP over our $60,000 limit. Nothing in LT4 is particularly necessary, but LT3 would be useful. That limits our choice to the base coupe with the LT3 package, much as I’d like the upgraded brakes.
There’s little option wiggle room since we’re already at $56,570. We will not waste $1,250 by ordering the paddle-shift (damnable automatic) transmission. One important option to select is Corvette Museum Delivery, where you can pick up your Vette at the National Corvette Museum in Bowling Green, Ky., where your Corvette is built, for $450. I also want the transparent roof panel ($750), because I like the sun coming in regardless of whether the top’s 0n or not.
That leaves enough money for one, but not both, of two high-cost options. I chose the The Magnetic Selective Ride Control (little magnets, believe it or not, in the shock absorbers improve handling and ride) for $1,995, instead of the dual-mode performance exhaust (six more horsepower, four more lb-ft of torque, and “a more aggressive exhaust sound”) for $1,195.
That takes us to $59,805. That also influences the color choice in taking out four alternatives, Crystal Red Tintcoat and Velocity Yellow Tintcoat ($850), and Inferno Orange Metallic and Supersonic Blue Metallic ($300). If this were a perfect world, the Donnybrooke Green of the first Corvette I remember seeing, a 1970 coupe down the street, would be available, but it isn’t. If I had more than $60,000 to spend, I’d pick Crystal Red, but for purposes of this I don’t.
A book about the creation of the C5 Corvette was called All Corvettes Are Red. They’re not all red, but even though I prefer the extra-cost red, we’ll go with the standard red, with a red interior too. And the result is …
… a car that would get me to stories and other appointments really, really quickly, you must admit.
Since on a 90-plus-degree day every Wisconsinite thinks about the Packers, you cannot help but be impressed with this Milwaukee Journal Sentinel interview with Packers coach Mike McCarthy:
Q. Having won a Super Bowl, though, and going 15-1 last year, where do you set the bar?
A. I think I said it the first day I was here. It’s always about winning the world championship in Green Bay. I don’t think you ever settle for less than that. Just take a look at last year, 15-1 doesn’t cut it.
Q. So to you, 15-2 last year doesn’t cut it?
A. That’s not what I’m looking for, and it’s not what our players want and that’s really all that matters. If we can stay focused on what the group’s trying to accomplish and continue to do the things that are necessary. We have a blueprint of success for the way we train, but it’s a challenge every year. The team takes on a new face every year. There’s a path out there for us to get to New Orleans and win the championship. It’s our responsibility, and with a little touch of grace from the good Lord, we’ll be able to stay on that path. …
Q. At the 2011 NFL combine, you said one of your goals was to become the No. 1 offense in the NFL and then you went and scored 560 points, the second most in NFL history. What’s your level of pride in achieving that, and can this offense get better?
A. We felt we clearly left a lot of offense on the table (in 2010). There was actually a lot of offense we didn’t even use because of the injuries. That year was clearly the highest of all the years here where things we did in training camp we never even used during the season. So with that being said, I was very confident and I thought the offense was ready for Aaron (Rodgers). Aaron’s been ready for more responsibility, but it’s more is everybody else around him ready, too? And we felt Aaron was ready for more responsibility at the line, and I think it’s been very beneficial to our team. To me, last year was the standard. We set the standard on offense, and that’s what we’d like to hold ourselves to.
Q. So 35 points per game is now the standard?
A. Yep. I like that. …
Q. [Aaron] Rodgers is at almost the identical point in his career as Brett Favre was when you were his position coach here in 1999. Can you compare how it is to coach the two at this particular juncture of their careers?
A. I’m in a different job today, and frankly, I miss coaching quarterbacks. I just have too many responsibilities. The most important thing that I’ve done as far as the quarterback room is make sure the structure and the emphasis was put into place, and I did that my first year here. Tom (Clements) did a fantastic job of carrying that through and now he’s doing that with (new quarterbacks coach) Ben (McAdoo). The only thing is when I look at the quarterback room, I just want to walk over and be sure it’s continuing to be done the right way, because everybody has a certain way they’d like to see a quarterback trained. As far as coaching Brett, he was a lot more accomplished in the offense, so it was a transition. I’d say it’s a lot different. I look at Ben walking in the room now. Ben’s been here. Aaron knew Ben. I was the new guy coming in. I didn’t coach Brett until the first minicamp. To me, it’s a whole different off-season layout. Brett was a great player. He went through a bunch of injuries that year and did a remarkable job playing all 16 games that year.
Q. Have you ever had anybody quite like Jermichael Finley – on and off the field?
A. Oh yeah. He’s not that hard. I’ve had a lot more challenging situations. I think with Jermichael, people are on Jermichael a little bit too hard because he’s the only one that carries himself that way. The guy has a big heart and he means well. He’s extremely competitive and very talented. Everybody expresses themselves differently and obviously his style is very resourceful to the media, and that kind of takes on a different life. But I like him. I enjoy working with Jermichael. And if people didn’t enjoy working with Jermichael Finley, then he wouldn’t be here, and that’s not the case. We think he’s a young man that still has so much in front of him. The only thing I concern myself with Jermichael is I just want to see him stay healthy. But I’ve been around a lot more challenging people than Jermichael. …
Q. Do you ever want [Ted Thompson's] job, here or somewhere else?
A. No. If I did that job I wouldn’t coach. I don’t think you can do two. I think it’s too much. I think you’d be robbing Peter to pay Paul. You can’t be in two places at one time. I’m a football coach, and I don’t see anything in the near future that’s going to change that. But I’ll also say this: I feel like I have something bigger in my life than being the head coach of the Green Bay Packers. I think there’s something out there for me to do after my time is up. I hope it’s not up for a long time because I enjoy it. But those questions are always answered by someone a lot bigger than you and I. But when that time comes, I do feel like there’s one more big challenge out there for myself professionally.
Q. Most people in this state don’t think there’s very much that’s bigger than where you’re sitting.
A. Well, it’s the best job I’ll ever have. I’ll never have a better one.
Q. You hint about that next challenge. Any idea what that is?
A. No I don’t. I’ll let the good Lord tell me what that is. …
Q. Once July 26 arrives, will you have any type of home / work balance over the ensuing seven or eight months?
A. How do you define balance?
Q. Let’s say seeing your family an hour, maybe two a day.
A. I like to think we have balance here as far as the coaching profession goes. We’re not going to have coaches sleeping here in the office. I can promise you that. I won’t allow that. I’ve done that. I know why it’s happened, but I’m very conscientious of the time management of our staff. I’ve done the sleep in the office thing, or two or three hours of sleep, but you’re not the same guy on the field. The thing I’ve noticed from the old way and the way we do it is I want the coaches fresh. I want them getting home, getting a good night sleep. The most important time you spend is with your players, in your meeting room, on the field and you need proper sleep to get that done. …
Q. You obviously learned something from the loss in 2007. What did you learn from last year’s loss?
A. Really, it takes you right back to the emphasis of the fundamentals. That’s something I feel we do every day, but maybe we had to take a look. Maybe I wasn’t doing it enough. We adjusted some practice things because of it.
Q. That was also one of the most unique weeks leading up to a football game that I’m sure you ever had [with the death of the son of Packers offensive coordinator Joe Philbin]. In retrospect, how much did that hurt you?
A. Unique is a kind word. I don’t know how you explain that week. It was like getting run over by a truck. That’s a better description. …
Q. What do you want your legacy to be here?
A. That he was a better person than a coach.
Q. In 2010, you went with the ‘Super Bowl or Bust’ theme. Will you do that again?
A. I just don’t believe in the crash and burn theory. I believe in winning and learning. I don’t believe in that other word. I don’t even like to say it. I believe you keep building and keep working at it, keep winning. And as long as they keep giving you opportunities, make the best of it. I’m not satisfied with coming close. I’m going to do everything I can to win the championship and that will never change. And when that does change, I probably need to step out and let someone else take a swing at it.
Wouldn’t you want to play for a coach like that?
Proving that there is no accounting for taste, here is the number 17 song today in 1968:
Today in 1971, Mick Jagger and Keith Richards were sentenced on drug charges. And, of course, you could replace “1971″ with any year and Jagger’ and Richards’ names with practically any rock musician’s name of those days.
Or other people: Today in 2000, Eminem’s mother sued her son for defamation from the line “My mother smokes more dope than I do” from his “My Name Is.”
Birthdays start with LeRoy Anderson, whose first work was the theme music for many afternoon movies, but who is best known for his second work (with which I point out that Christmas is less than six months away, today’s searing heat notwithstanding):
John Torinus adds up what is starting to be known as “Taxmageddon,” the upcoming end of the George W. Bush tax cuts after this year:
Without Congressional action and a presidential signature, many tax breaks for individuals and businesses expire at the end of 2012, and the combination of all those expirations could jack combined rates above the 50% mark.
Further, rates would rise for all taxpayers, not just the “one percenters.”
You’d think the negative effects on a struggling economy might scare the bejeesus out of congressmen seeking reelection this fall, but the level of dysfunction in our polarized capitol suggests the expirations could happen. It could be complete gridlock prior to the November elections and then paralysis in the lame duck session prior to new members taking office in January.
Here’s how a high earner could get to the magic 50% bracket:
• A married couple with income of $250,000 (they could own an LLC or an S Corp. where the business income flows through to them) would see their federal rate go from 33% or 35% to 39.6% on Jan. 1. For comparison, President Obama paid 20.5% to the IRS last year and Mitt Romney paid 14%. Some 40% of the population paid zip.
• Add on another 3.8% for a couple with mostly passive income (interest, dividends), a new tax come 2013 to pay for Obamacare.
• Add on the maximum 7.75% rate in state taxes in Wisconsin or 7.95% in Minnesota, meaning a net of about five add-on points after deduction from federal taxation.
• Add on 1.45% for the Medicare tax for each earner.
• Assuming the current two-point tax break goes away Jan. 1, add on 7.65% for the employee share of Social Security for income up to $110,000, or up to $220,000 if both spouses make more than that base amount or more. (You could argue that the employer share of 7.65% is also really a tax on the employee.)
Without the employer share of the Social Security tax, the stack-up in state and federal income-based taxes can accumulate to as much as 55%.
The same couple also pays a 5.6% sales tax in Southeastern Wisconsin. So if they spend half of their income on consumables, that adds another 2.8 points in state taxes.
And, at the local level, let’s assume they pay $5000 in property taxes, another two points before state and federal deductions, or at least one point on a net basis.
Add it all up, and our “rich” couple could be paying nearly 60% in taxes at all three levels. …
Suffice to say that the level of uncertainty about where the nation’s tax policies are going could be at an all-time high. That takes some of the perceived upside out of a lot of investments.
Every economist and business person would agree that such uncertainty curtails investment — just what we don’t need as a nation amidst a painfully slow recovery.
Every financial advisor is sending out red alerts to their clients, urging them to take defensive action on what could happen in 2013. Said one, “We’re all playing a wait and see game until the elections.”
My favorite Madison conservative (really!) blogger, David Blaska, introduces U.S. Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin to the rest of Wisconsin:
I was confabbing with Republicans, tea partiers, and assorted conservative wizards in the post-recall glow of victory when the name Tammy Baldwin was spoken aloud.
You would have thought that the host had just announced that there would be seconds on key lime pie for everyone and ice cream, too – so joyous was the sense of anticipation at a second great victory a mere five months after the hard slog of 15 months of recall and recrimination.
For there is no one on the conservative side of the ledger who thinks that Tammy Baldwin, D-Madison, can get elected U.S. senator from Wisconsin. Of the four Republican candidates, Tommy Thompson is the clear front-runner, according to the Marquette Law School poll, which was spot-on in predicting Walker to win by 7 points. Marquette has Tommy over Tammy by 8 points.
That margin will only widen. Here is why: the rest of Wisconsin doesn’t know Tammy like we know Tammy. …
Two weeks ago, I blogged, “Something tells me the Wisconsin airwaves and coaxial cables will thrum with images of Tammy Baldwin at the Siege of the Capitol …” Well, that didn’t take long.
This video is now beaming throughout cyberspace, courtesy of the National Republican Senate Committee.
The congresswoman appears on the screen. Her jaw is clenched as she declares, “You’re damn right we’re making a difference …”
But probably not for the better, as far as Democrats are concerned. Wisconsin was turned off by the Capitol protests, as I warned it would be. That verdict will only harden with time.
The Democratic candidate chants “Solidarity.” That is intercut with a snippet of police jostling with unruly protesters, before Tammy returns to the screen to announce that “this IS what democracy looks like.”
Footage of election results the night of June 5 follows, showing Gov. Walker with a commanding victory. …
It is difficult to envision a Wisconsin that:
• just gave a mid-term vote of confidence to one of the most conservative governors in the nation
• less than two years ago flipped both houses of the Legislature from Democrat to Republican
• turned out Russ Feingold in favor of Ron Johnson
• whose Democrat(ic) Party is dispirited and discredited, whose union supporters are financially drained – it is difficult to see how that Wisconsin elects one of the most liberal Democrats in the nation, someone even more liberal than Barack Obama! …
For the first time in 55 years, Wisconsin will have two Republican U.S. senators. We could not have done it without a lot of help from our liberal friends.
I’m not as optimistic as Blaska. One non-conservative that seems to agree with Blaska, however, is Greg Humphrey:
How is it that no one challenged Tammy Baldwin for the Democratic senate nomination?
While Baldwin is well suited for the Second Congressional District, and is very much sympatico with the voters, that is not how she will be viewed in places like Mosinee or Algoma when seeking votes as a senate candidate. Her liberal qualities we adore on the isthmus will not be what makes her electable in Wautoma. …
While Baldwin has the skills and political abilities to be elected from Madison, I am not at all convinced she has the political mojo needed to harvest the votes from across the state that will be required to win. I am not sure she has the heft and gravitas, even after her terms as a congresswoman, to campaign and speak in a way that makes victory a real possibility for Democrats this fall. There are times when one has to admit that a seat in congress is about the highest that should be expected.
There never is a shortage of political candidates who wish to move up the ladder, or make a statement about an issue and thereby launch a bid for office. So what happened in the Democratic senate race this year, where only one office seeker came forward?
At first glance, it appears that Baldwin is to November 2012 what Kathleen Falk was to earlier 2012 — the first candidate to enter who assumed she should be the only candidate. It takes considerable arrogance to believe that being a Madison Democrat will force the rest of the state will bow down to you.
As for who else could have run, perhaps had Sen. Kathleen Vinehout (D–Alma) concentrated on being the non-Madison non-Milwaukeean in the (illegitimate and tax-wasting) gubernatorial recall, she could have challenged Baldwin. Instead, Vinehout is positioning herself for the 2014 gubernatorial race, based on the emails I’ve been getting. Which is fine, because the state Democratic Party should probably ban anyone with a Dane County or Milwaukee County address from running for statewide office for at least the remainder of the 2010s.
Today in 1975, David Bowie found “Fame”:
Today in 1978, the UN named Kansas ambassadors of goodwill:
Two birthdays today are from the same group: Drummer Bobby Harrison was born two years before bassist Dave Knights of Procol Harum:
Wigderson Library & Pub (where reading while intoxicated is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you maintain control of your book/reading device) reports:
In his weekly column for the Waukesha Freeman, Milwaukee radio talk show host Mark Belling said Governor Scott Walker will pursue cuts in the state income tax while reducing state aid to local governments. …
As I’ve pointed out at the MacIver Institute and elsewhere, Wisconsin’s income tax is still higher than Illinois’ despite the huge tax increases south of our border.
With expected Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature after this fall’s election,Walker should be able to succeed in passing a state budget with these changes.
If we are going to attract the capital needed to make Wisconsin’s economy stronger and grow, Wisconsin still needs to be more competitive. Last year’s budget restored budget stability. Now it’s time to move forward with making Wisconsin more friendly to capitalism.
Given Wisconsin’s socialist (but they call themselves “progressive,” like U.S. Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin) heritage, to make Wisconsin “more friendly to capitalism” won’t be easy.
A substantial tax cut is obviously necessary. Wisconsin is high in income taxes (both personal and corporate) and in property taxes. The challenge is to reduce those taxes specifically (particularly corporate income taxes, the appropriate rate for which is zero) and the tax burden generally, and not by increasing the one tax that is relatively small in this state, sales taxes.
One important way to reduce taxes is to reduce the need to increase taxes by controlling government spending. the 2013–15 state budget should include a Taxpayer Bill of Rights that restricts increases in spending to the sum of the (correctly reported) inflation rate and population growth. Putting a spending restriction mechanism in the budget should be a prelude to a constitutional amendment that permanently (or as permanently as possible) restricts spending growth at every level of government.
The weekly newspaper soon to be named Wisconsin’s Best Weekly Newspaper has a story this week about a state Assembly candidate who is certainly a fiscal conservative, but who does not support TABOR-like mechanisms. His argument is that electing fiscal conservatives is more important than creating spending limits that can be circumvented. He has a point, except that there are fiscal non-conservatives in both parties, and electing fiscal conservatives is not enough. Both the state Constitution and the U.S. Constitution are full of passages saying what government cannot do, and it is certainly reasonable to include in that list spend too much money. Fiscal conservatism is popular in difficult economic times; it is not so popular when state coffers are flush (see Thompson, Tommy). That is why legislators of any party need to be prevented from spending money.
Related is the need to correctly measure state finances. It is imperative that state law be changed so that budgets are balanced based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, not on a cash basis. For the party that will control the Legislature after the November elections, the party supposedly all about fiscal responsibility, to refuse to adopt GAAP budgeting, which every other unit of government in this state is required to do, certainly should call voter question to the GOP’s claim about being better with your tax dollars. (Gov. Scott Walker already eliminated two multi-billion-dollar deficits; let’s see him deal with the third.)
Also related is the need to deliver government services — which is the only legitimate function of government, not to employ people (other than to perform government services), or to redistribute income, or to engage in trendy social change — in a more efficient manner. To have a unit of government for every 2,000 Wisconsinites (second only to Illinois) is ridiculous. To have one of the worst school districts in the entire country in this state’s largest city is dragging down the rest of the state. To have redundant public safety agencies does not further the cause of public safety. To blithely claim that Wisconsin has the best schools in the country does not further the cause of better education.
Making Wisconsin more friendly to capital is about government spending and taxes, but it isn’t only about government spending and taxes. You know things are different when, in the course of six weeks, you meet Walker and four of his Cabinet secretaries, and every one of them talks about promoting business, even his secretary of the state Department of Revenue. This is good, but it can also disappear with the election of the next Democratic governor of Wisconsin. I don’t write that because Democrats are always anti-business, but their core constituent groups — organized labor and environmentalists — are. (See Wisconsin Legislature, 2009–10.)
Having been elected twice in less than two years, Walker’s Wisconsin political stock will never be higher than it is now. Walker should not go for an aggressive agenda to stick it to his political opponents. He has a unique opportunity to change Wisconsin’s political culture from one that serves Da Union to one that serves taxpayers.
For some reason, the Beatles’ “Sie Liebt Dich” got only to number 97 on the German charts:
The English translation did much better, yeah, yeah, yeah:
This would have never happened in Madison, but … in Milwaukee today in 1993, Don Henley dedicated “It’s Not Easy Being Green” to President Bill Clinton … and got booed.
How can one favor motorcycle helmet use but oppose motorcycle helmet laws?
Wayne Allard of the American Motorcycle Association explains:
For many years, my organization has strongly encouraged the voluntary use by adult riders of helmets certified by their manufacturers to meet the U.S. Department of Transportation standard as part of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program to help reduce injuries and fatalities in the event of a motorcycle crash.
However, helmet mandates are not the solution because helmets do not prevent crashes. The American Motorcyclist Association believes that comprehensive motorcycle safety programs must promote strategies that are designed to prevent motorcycle crashes from occurring in the first place.
Helmet mandates have unintended consequences: Tragically, the enforcement of mandates siphons funds from effective crash prevention programs. …
Motorist awareness programs have become an increasingly valuable strategy in reducing motorcycle crashes. One of the most frequent causes of motorcycle accidents is the violation of motorcyclists’ right of way by other drivers. As traffic density and the frequency of distracted vehicle operation have increased, motorcyclists benefit when drivers are regularly reminded to watch for motorcyclists. Many states do not dedicate enough funding for these kinds of programs.
Recent reports calling for helmet mandates have failed to note that the rate of motorcycle fatalities has been decreasing. NHTSA reported in October 2011 that the motorcycle fatality rate from 2000-’09 declined 15.59% per 100,000 registered vehicles and 22.48% per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.
The wisdom of helmet mandates is questionable. The Governor’s Highway Safety Association reported in May 2012 that 11 states that do not have universal helmet requirements reported fewer motorcycle fatalities in 2011, and seven states that have universal helmet laws reported greater fatalities in 2011.
