Opponents of Sen. Luther Olsen (R–Ripon) claim they have enough signatures to force a recall election this year.

Well, bully for them. The question is: Who will run against Olsen?

This is not merely a question posed by someone who believes that the recalls of Republican senators are a waste of taxpayer dollars with the goal of draining GOP campaign treasuries in time for the 2012 elections. This is also not merely a question from someone who believes recalls are appropriate only for misconduct in office (say, not showing up for work for several weeks). This is a serious question: Who will run against Olsen?

It won’t be anyone who ran against Olsen in 2008. He was unopposed in what was a very good year for Democrats nationally and in Wisconsin specifically. And it won’t be any Democrat who ran against him in 2004, because, after winning the 14th Senate District Republican primary with 60 percent of the vote against two other candidates, Olsen was unopposed in the general election to replace former Sen. Robert Welch (R–Redgranite).

Olsen came to the Senate after representing the 41st Assembly District from 1995 to 2005. After winning the Republican primary in 1994 in the race to replace Rep. Bob Welch (yes, the same Welch, who got the crazy idea of running against Herb Kohl), Olsen’s only general election opponent was one of the candidates he defeated in the primary, who ran as a write-in candidate. Olsen then was unopposed in 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002.

That’s right, readers. Luther Olsen has never faced a Democrat in any of his seven previous legislative elections. And Olsen’s legislative career followed (well, with two years of overlap) 21 years on the Berlin school board. Regardless of what his constituents think about his votes, Olsen clearly knows how to win elections.

The irony of this recall effort is that Olsen has been criticized over the years for … not being conservative enough. (Examples here, here and here.) He (wrongly) opposed the Taxpayer Bill of Rights that would have prevented the state’s Mississippi River flood of red ink. He also (wrongly) opposed concealed-carry legislation, which did not make the National Rifle Association fans of his.

Olsen also weathered criticism over the involvement of his and his brother’s business in ethanol and subsidies therefor, without electoral consequences. For that matter, he was unopposed in years that one would think some Democrat would have run, including four elections where Democratic presidential candidates won Wisconsin’s electoral votes.

Moreover, it’s not as if the 14th Senate District fits anyone’s definition of a swing district. (In fact, the aldermanic district I live in in Ripon is probably as Democratic-leaning as it gets here, given that this aldermanic district includes the Ripon College dorms.) The 14th District is an incredibly spread out district, from Clintonville to the north to Baraboo to the south. (Ah, the joys of gerrymandering. My parents live near Waupaca, and we all have the same state senator.) Every county in the district voted for Scott Walker Nov. 2. For that matter, most of the district voted for Republican Mark Green in 2006. (On those maps in the link, by the way, Republican counties are blue.) It’s more surprising, in fact, that Olsen hasn’t had a conservative challenger over the years given the district’s makeup.

One of the 14th Senate District’s three Assembly districts, the 42nd, has been represented by “progressive” (his term) Fred Clark (D–Baraboo) since 2009, but Clark’s two predecessors were both Republicans. Clark is so popular in his district that he won Nov. 2 with a whole 51 percent of the vote, after which he discovered the difference between being in the Assembly’s majority party and being in the Assembly’s minority party. And even if Clark decides to run (as he reportedly will), will his apparent (based on his website) brand of Dane County-style liberalism fly in Fond du Lac County or Waupaca County? (The fact he formerly worked for the Department of Natural Resources might be enough to tank his candidacy to his north.) Republicans represent the 40th (Kevin Petersen of Waupaca) and 41st (Joan Ballweg of Markesan) Assembly districts, and have done so for a long time.

The last Democrat to run in the 14th Senate District was my neighbor, Fond du Lac County Board chairman Marty Farrell, who lost to Welch in the 1995 Senate special election after Sen.  Joe Leean (R–Waupaca) resigned to become the secretary of health and family services in the Tommy Thompson administration. I haven’t seen Marty recently, but merely because his last legislative race was 16 years ago, I’m skeptical that he would run.

Three other candidates come to mind, but all are 0-for-elections. Democrat Scott Milheiser of Fremont, chair of the combined Waupaca and Waushara county Democratic parties, lost to Ballweg and Democrat Jon Baltmanis of Waupaca lost to Petersen in 2010. Losing an Assembly race is not usually considered a good start to winning a Senate race. There is also Jay Selthofner, who ran as an independent against Ballweg on a marijuana platform and would seem less encumbered by Democrats’ dreary electoral history in the 14th District.

Perhaps Red Fred, Milheiser, Baltmanis or Selthofner will figure 2011 is a free shot, a dress rehearsal for 2012. Or perhaps someone else — a Democratic county official or even a political neophyte — will feel sufficiently inspired by the recall wave to throw his or her hat in the ring. I have not agreed with all the positions Luther has taken over the years, but the one thing his political career has demonstrated is that in legislative elections in this area, Luther Olsen doesn’t lose. What is the point of a recall election that those who seek the recall aren’t likely to win?

I was on Wisconsin Public Radio Friday with FightingBob.com’s own Ed Garvey, who dramatically began the show with an announcement about the threat of “financial martial law” coming to Wisconsin.

Reports are surfacing that Scott Walker is now preparing his next assault on the democratic political process in the State of Wisconsin.

Following the lead of Michigan GOP Governor Rick Snyder, Walker is said to be preparing a plan that would allow him to force local governments to submit to a financial stress test with an eye towards permitting the governor to take over municipalities that fail to meet with Walker’s approval.

According to the reports, should a locality’s financial position come up short, the Walker legislation would empower the governor to insert a financial manager of his choosing into local government with the ability to cancel union contracts, push aside duly elected local government officials and school board members and take control of Wisconsin cities and towns whenever he sees fit to do so.

Such a law would additionally give Walker unchallenged power to end municipal services of which he disapproves, including safety net assistance to those in need.

According to my sources, the plan is being written by the legal offices of Foley & Lardner, the largest law firm in the state, and is scheduled to be introduced to the legislature in May of this year.

The story first came to public attention yesterday during an interview with Madison, Wisconsin attorney and activist, Ed Garvey, on Wisconsin Public Radio.

“The secret plan is being prepared by the state’s largest law firm, Foley & Lardner, for the Greater Milwaukee Committee, the Bradley Foundation, the governor, and key legislators,” Garvey writes. “There is speculation that Alberta Darling is the Walker point person on this nutty scheme, but no need to speculate: call Senator Darling’s office and ask!”

So we did.

“I have no idea where they are getting this,” said Andy Potts, Darling’s spokesman. “It’s not true.”

Later in the blog, Garvey, who did not return calls Monday, writes of a “fancy brochure” that will essentially sell the governor’s plan to the state. Problem is, that brochure already exists. It was put out Feb. 14 by the Greater Milwaukee Committee, and it has nothing to do with the state, or the governor, or Michigan.

Instead, it focuses on Milwaukee County and offers suggestions for changes that could lead to greater transparency in government.

“Contrary to the rumors that circulated this weekend, the initiative does not support providing the state with the ability to take over cities and other entities,” said Julia Taylor, president of the Greater Milwaukee Committee.

You clearly didn’t raise any concern about the fact that Benton Harbor was effectively taken over by DEMOCRATS. Frankly, my opinion is that the city of Benton Harbor SHOULD have been taken over…and I don’t care what political party did it.

If you agree that governmental bodies can be taken over financially (i.e., the old law is OK with you), what sense does it mean to leave those in power? For instance, until this new law was passed in Benton Harbor, the elected officials could have started passing all sorts of goofy laws just to spite the state-appointed financial manager. For instance, they could have passed laws for a 100x pay increase for themselves, or that the populus would be paid $100 per day. Without the power of controlling the legislation (city laws), it becomes a tug-of-war. The state-appointed financial manager has the purse-strings and the people who were part of the problem (the city council, mayor, etc.) get to drive the city further into the ground!

Why is there not this uproar about such things in other cases? The East St. Louis school district was taken over by the Illinois state government recently. Camden, New Jersey was taken over by the state a decade ago (I think part of it is still under state control). There are dozens of examples of this.

You may argue that the law goes one step further. And, I suppose it does. However, it effectively ensures that the city councils/mayors who haven’t shown their way out of a financial mess, thus requiring outside control, aren’t allowed to continue to create a mess!

You (or your editor) chose to use words like “martial law”. Ummm, while an interesting set of words to grab headlines (and associate it with the GOP, of course), it is far from the truth. There is no military that is involved in any of the cases that I am, or you are, talking about. Why not use the words “voter murder” to further illustrate your point about the killing of a voter’s opinion? That would get you some more clicks, wouldn’t it?

I apologize for interrupting your weekend with the unhappy news that today is Tax Freedom Day in Wisconsin.

Tax Freedom Day is the determination of the Tax Foundation of the day in which we complete paying our federal, state and local taxes, and are working for ourselves the rest of the year.

Except that we’re not, as the Tax Foundation reminds us:

Tax Freedom Day, like almost all tax burden measures, ignores the current year’s deficit. Only taxes that will actually be collected during 2011 count in the tally. In many years the deficit is fairly small as a percentage of total government spending, so Tax Freedom Day gives a good idea of the size of government. Since 2008, however, deficits have been massive by any measure, and as a result, Tax Freedom Day may give the impression that the burden of government is smaller than it is. If the federal government were planning to collect enough in taxes during 2011 to finance all of its spending, it would have to collect about $1.48 trillion more, and Tax Freedom Day would arrive on May 23 instead of April 12—adding an additional 41 days to the nation’s work for government.

For those who claim that the Doyle Administration was accomplishment-free, that is an incorrect assertion. Wisconsin’s 2011 Tax Freedom Day is four days later than in 2010, which means the tax increases Doyle and the Democrats foisted on us in 2009 have had the effect of taking away our money from ourselves to be wasted by government and public employee unions. (Which helps explain the Nov. 2 election results, doesn’t it?)

Wisconsin has also “progressed” from having the 13th highest tax burden among the states to having the fifth highest tax burden (tied with Washington, California and Minnesota) and having the highest tax burden (as does Minnesota) in the Midwest. As pointed out earlier this week and on my previous blog, Wisconsin has the fourth highest state and local taxes in the U.S.

Truth be told, Wisconsinites only have ourselves to blame. Vote for Democrats, whose definition of “fiscal restraint” is sky-high taxes to fund sky-high government spending, and this is the natural result. (In fact, every state ranked in the top five as Wisconsin would be considered a blue state, last November’s election results notwithstanding.)

Changing this, however, requires more than just voting for the right candidates. I noted earlier this week that had Wisconsin had a Taxpayer Bill of Rights-like mechanism to control government spending — say, inflation plus population growth — state and local governments’ tax haul since the late 1970s would have been nearly $270 billion less. We taxpayers need to be protected from our elected officials, government employees (who lobby for bigger government and thus higher spending) and their leftist allies through permanent, nearly impenetrable government spending controls.