This being St. Patrick’s Day, we should have a bit o’ the Irish, including a video I first watched while eating corned beef at an Irish bar in Cuba City today in 1993 …
… plus Van Morrison …
No comments on Presty the DJ for March 17
-
-
I did not know what Politico reports about Ohio Gov. John Kasich:
The Republican nomination can sometimes seem like a contest to see which candidate is most religious. Ted Cruz touts his born-again faith, and he recalls how he “surrendered his heart to Jesus” as an 8-year-old at summer camp. Marco Rubio, who has at different times embraced Catholicism, Mormonism and evangelicalism, says his faith is the “single greatest influence in my life.” Donald Trump, by all appearances, has never attended church regularly and claims that he has never even asked God for forgiveness, but he nonetheless speaksabout American Christians as though they’re a persecuted minority and has earned the widespread support of evangelicals.
There’s good reason to believe, however, that the most religiously driven candidate of all is a man who is remarkably un-theatrical about his beliefs—who even vows, “I don’t go out and try to win a vote by using God. I think that cheapens God.” That would be John Kasich.
There is no easy way to measure how deeply a person believes, of course, or to what degree a politician is driven by faith. But the Ohio governor has gone to Bible study with the same group of men every other week for the past 20 years. He has attended an Anglican church in Ohio for decades because, as he wrote in his book, Every Other Monday: Twenty Years of Life, Lunch, Faith, and Friendship, he likes receiving Communion every week, a practice uncommon in other Christian denominations. When Vice President Joe Biden’s son Beau died last year after a battle with brain cancer, Kasich quickly expressed sympathy, offering a prayer on Meet the Press: “I’m going to pray for [Joe] because he’s had a lifetime of tears. God bless you, Joe.” (Cruz, in contrast, trotted out an old joke about the vice president just days after Beau’s death.)
The irony here is not just that the most pious Republican candidate has been largely overshadowed in a campaign for which Christianity is a major calling card. As Kasich makes what could be his last big campaign push to win Ohio’s primary on Tuesday, his devout faith might actually be hurting him. The governor’s faith appears to drive his politically moderate stances on immigration, climate change and gay marriage—positions that alienate him from mainstream conservatives whose support Kasich needs to have a chance at the nomination.
***
If the role of religion in Kasich’s life isn’t well-understood, that’s in part because his complex faith journey led him to a denomination that most Americans have never heard of. He was raised Catholic with ambitions to be the best altar boy in his parish, earning him the nickname “Pope” among his friends. But around the time he left for college at Ohio State, Kasich’s belief began to wane. He “drifted away from religion as a young adult,” he wrote in his book. It wasn’t until a drunk driver killed his parents in 1987 that Kasich returned to church. But this time, he entered the Episcopal Church, which his parents had joined later in life.
This is where things get a little tricky: He stayed with his church as it broke off with the mainstream Episcopal Church in the United States in protest over the denomination’s embrace of openly gay priests and bishops. In 2011, Kasich’s home church, Saint Augustine’s Anglican Church in Westerville, Ohio, is one of those that split off under a new, more conservative denomination called the Anglican Church in North America. In departure from mainstream Episcopalians, the ACNA gives local churches the autonomy to decide whether to ordain women, and it politically opposes abortion and euthanasia, while the Episcopal church acknowledges “there may be cases that stand beyond judgment.”
It also supports the traditional view of marriage as being between a man and a woman, and called the Supreme Court’s decision on same-sex marriage last year a “stark departure from God’s revealed order.”
At face value, those issues don’t diverge much from a typical conservative family-values platform. But in other ways, Kasich’s religious beliefs appear to have put him at odds with Republican Party dogma. Over the years, he has spoken enough about his faith and quoted Scripture often enough, that it is possible to tie many of his political decisions to tenets of his faith—especially the ones that deviate from GOP orthodoxy. …
That Kasich would link the expansion of health care benefits so explicitly to the Bible upset the conservative establishment, and it wasn’t long before columnists began criticizing Kasich’s betrayal of conservative ideals. Some of his 2016 rivals chimed in too, saying the Medicaid expansion would make “more and more people dependent upon government” (Jeb Bush) and would add to the federal debt (Rick Perry). Kasich, for his part, has brushed aside his critics, and continues to cite his faith as the reason.“When you die and get to the meeting with St. Peter, he’s probably not going to ask you much about what you did about keeping government small,” he said in 2013. “But he is going to ask you what you did for the poor. You better have a good answer.”
Kasich also diverges from the GOP base in that he believes people have contributed to climate change, citing religion on that front too. “I happen to believe there is a problem with climate change,” he said in 2012. “I don’t want to overreact to it, I can’t measure it all, but I respect the creation that the Lord has given us, and I want to make sure we protect it.” Compare this with Rubio’s claim that “for all we know, God wants the Earth to get warmer.” Here, again, Kasich’s faith seems to be a factor. His denomination recently acknowledged a “serious global ecological crisis” and “the fragility of our earthly existence,” in contrast to the many evangelical churches that do not address the issue of the environment at all.
While his competitors talk about building walls and sending migrants back across the border, Kasich supports a path to legalization. He also has expressed his reluctance to enforce deportation, saying he couldn’t imagine “how we would even begin to think about taking a mom or a dad out of a house when they have not committed a crime since they’ve been here.” That could be a line right out of the ACNA’s Immigrant Initiative—an effort to help immigrants navigate the complicated American legal system—and it’s earned Kasich his fair share of criticism from the far right. After the governor said that undocumented immigrants are “made in the image of the Lord,” Breitbart fired back: “If being ‘made in the image of the Lord’ provides an exemption to America’s immigration law, then that would mean that all of the world’s 7 billion people would be free to violate America’s immigration laws.”
On gay marriage, most of the Republican field has called for the Supreme Court’s decision to be overturned, and indeed, only 32 percent of Republicans report supporting gay marriage. Kasich doesn’t personally favor same-sex marriage, in line with ACNA teaching, but he is refreshingly gracious and tolerant on the issue, citing religious influences. During the recent GOP debate in Houston, he said, “I’ve always favored traditional marriage, but, look, the court has ruled and I’ve moved on. … If you’re in the business of commerce, conduct commerce. That’s my view. And if you don’t agree with their lifestyle, say a prayer for them when they leave and hope they change their behavior.” At an earlier debate in August, he told Fox’s Megyn Kelly, “We’ll accept [gay marriage]. And guess what, I just went to the wedding of a friend of mine who happens to be gay. Because somebody doesn’t think the way I do, doesn’t mean I can’t care about them or love them.” You could call this political pragmatism, but it is underpinned by faith. “God gives me unconditional love,” Kasich told Kelly, by way of explaining his stance on gay marriage. “I’m going to give it to my family and my friends and the people around me.”
***
If you listen closely to what Kasich has said over the years about religion, you start to see a particular theme: He seems less motivated by specific strictures and “values” than by the broader conviction that eternal life changes our perspective on the temporal. Kasich cites the late University of Southern California philosophy professor Dallas Willard as one of his theological inspirations—an unusual choice because Willard was not always accepted by the Christian establishment. His teaching that the Kingdom of God is available here and now—“eternity is already in session,” he was known to say—follows a school of thought known as spiritual formation, or the idea that with discipline and spiritual development, ordinary Christians can grow to become more like Jesus. “I love to envision the potential impact on society if more and more people in government began to live lives of other-centered love,” Kasich wrote in a tribute book to Willard. “I have hope that I can put practices in my life today that can help me not only now but also in the world yet to come.” Kasich, with his unique mix of left- and right-leaning views, seems to have adopted Willard’s focus on the Kingdom of God as far more important than the Republic of the United States.
Focusing on the world to come makes sense for any Christian believer. But in 2016—an unusually freewheeling, insult-filled race—it might be exactly the wrong belief for a presidential candidate to embrace. At a time when voters are demanding immediate solutions to perceived wrongs, patience and the promise of heaven might not mean much at the voting booth.
That hasn’t stopped Kasich. Recently, a voter at a Georgia town hall asked the governor when would he “live out [his] purpose” by finally punching back at Trump and Rubio. Kasich’s response—perhaps not surprisingly—was a study in temperance: “I don’t know if my purpose is to be president,” he said. “Whether I’m president or whether I am not president, OK, I’m carrying out my mission. Don’t you think?”
It stands to reason in this crazy, stupid election season that someone who actually lives his religion is criticized for being insufficiently pious. Maybe this election is God’s punishment upon us. -
Facebook Friend Ron Fournier:
Hard to imagine anything more jolting to the body politic than a candidate who declares war on a religion (“Islam hates the U.S.”), who incites violence (“I’d like to punch him in the face”), who gets his foreign-policy advice from TV (“I really watch the shows”), who calls Mexican immigrants rapists, who mocks a disabled reporter, who winks at KKK supporters, and who is quantifiably the biggest liar in politics (which is like being the nastiest person in Hell).
But this may be how it starts, not how it ends.America could trump Trump. From the start of his campaign, I’ve maintained that Trump’s disruptive potential says less about him than it does these times. In June, I called him “a combed-over reflection of angry America”—people cut adrift by globalization, buffeted by intense social change, and disconnected from a corrupt political duopoly.
Still, Trump has surprised even me with his ability to inflame and exploit people’s anger. What did I miss? First, I overestimated the political establishment. Nobody in a crowded field of rivals built a strong and sustained case against Trump; one after another, the bully made them flinch. In Washington, clueless Republican leaders dismissed Trump’s chances for months and, even now, lack the moral courage to defy him. Meanwhile, professional Democrats cheered Trump’s ascent as a sign of their own superiority, smugly ignoring the fact that his voters could be their voters if the Democratic Party hadn’t disconnected from their concerns.
Second, I overestimated the media. My profession is no longer a trusted arbiter of the truth, which means the country lacks a common set of facts around which to argue. A broken business model makes media companies desperate for clicks and ratings, which makes news leaders vulnerable to Trump’s deal-with-the-devil bravado. You can’t talk to a journalist today without hearing about the shrinking of their newsrooms—in both size and mission.Third, I didn’t realize just how urgently people want to see the evisceration of the political status quo. They witnessed massive disruption in the retail, entertainment, and financial industries—in virtually every institution except for politics and government—and they can’t understand why Washington doesn’t change. They want change in the worst way. Trump is the worst, but he’s a way to change.
In a series of tweets Sunday, the Dartmouth political science professor Brendan Nyhan explained why Trumpism has taken hold.
Trump’s rise represents a failure in American parties, media, and civic institutions – and they’re continuing to fail right now
— Brendan Nyhan (@BrendanNyhan) March 14, 2016
Shockingly few public figures and elites are defending the norms of public debate and restraint from violence that Trump is bulldozing.
— Brendan Nyhan (@BrendanNyhan) March 14, 2016
No one person or institution is at fault for Trump. Everyone has their favorite monocausal explanation. They’re all incomplete.
— Brendan Nyhan (@BrendanNyhan) March 14, 2016
I don’t think Trumpism goes away. If anything, under any scenario, it’s likely to get worse.
Maybe Trump wins the GOP nomination and the presidency. If a bigoted, sexist, divisive, vainglorious fan of political violence can win a major-party nomination, he can become president. “A major party nomination is a powerful thing,” Nyhan tweeted. “Millions of people will instinctively support Trump. Many/most GOP pols will back him.”
Or perhaps Trump wins the GOP nomination and not the presidency. Trump would emerge either as the sole owner of the party, emboldened for a second run, or tarnished. Either way, the anger that fueled his rise will not go away. It would likely intensify, especially if Democrats piously interpret a victory over Trump as affirmation of their party and the status quo.
But perhaps Trump loses the GOP nomination. He would claim that it was stolen from him. His supporters would add this to their list of grievances against the establishment. Anger roils.I don’t see another scenario. I can’t imagine, for example, President Hillary Clinton breaking the cycle of American political fratricide—not by coming to office with two-thirds of the public questioning her honesty, with disapproval ratings just south of Trump’s, and with so many scores of her own to settle. No, I fear the worst. I fear more violence, much more—like the United States and other nations have experienced in past times of great change and division.
I fear a further coarsening of the culture, now that Trump has given people license to say things in public they were once ashamed of even thinking.
I fear more polarization in politics and even less progress toward addressing the nation’s long-term problems such as the debt, climate change, immigration, crumbling infrastructure, racial tensions, and income inequality.
I fear more public cynicism toward the fragile institutions that stand between democracy and anarchy.
I fear the brightest young Americans will abandon government and politics.
I fear—no, I expect—several more cycles of circling the drain. What I don’t know is what comes next: A final plunge into the abyss, or re-circling and renewal. The latter only comes if the American public stops settling for demagogues like Trump and half-measures like Clinton.
Institutional disruption doesn’t happen until more people vote and all voters demand major reforms. More competitive House districts, transparency in campaign spending, and the elimination of election laws that allow two stale parties to operate without fear of competition—these and scores of other status-quo-busters are attainable if Americans wake up and realized they’ve got the power to change. They alone can break the cycle of negative partisanship.
Trump has galvanized a small percentage of people with the promise of change, but he actually would take America back to its darker ages. Could there be something better—positive disruption that builds, over time, a new set of institutions for campaigning and governing in the 21st century?
Only if the rest of the country wakes up.
-
The number one British single today in 1959:
Today in 1964, the Beatles set a record for advance sales, even though with 2.1 million sales the group would argue …
The number one single today in 1967:
-
The biggest critic of news media coverage of the Republican presidential campaign is the biggest beneficiary of news media coverage of the Republican presidential campaign.
“I do hate them,’’ Donald Trump has said of political journalists. “Some of them are such lying, disgusting people. … (They’re) among the most dishonest groups of people I’ve ever met.’’ In October, he said 50% of reporters were “terrible.’’ He’s since upped that to “70 to 75%.’’
The relationship can get physical. On Tuesday, Breitbart website reporter Michelle Fields said her arm was yanked by campaign manager Corey Lewandowski as she was trying to ask Trump a question. The Trump campaign denied the accusation. But the Daily Beast reported that Lewandowski acknowledged to a Breitbart editor that he grabbed Fields, whom he said he did not recognize as reporter for the site, which is friendly to Trump.
The previous week, in Virginia, a Time photographer was placed in a chokehold by a Secret Service agent after he stepped outside a press area to photograph protesters.
Trump has closed his rallies to reporters and news organizations he says have been unfair to him. Those he does admit are grouped in pens, to which Trump directs the attention of his raucous crowds with comments like, “What slime!’’
And — to the distress of First Amendment advocates — Trump says he’d make it easier to sue journalists for libel: “If I become president, oh, do they have problems!’’
Every presidential campaign tries to manage press coverage, but the New York developer is breaking new ground. “I’ve never heard of any presidential candidate who talked about weakening First Amendment libel protections,’’ says Victor Pickard, author of America’s Battle for Media Democracy, published last year. ”He’s taken attacking the press to a whole new level. It’s scary to think where this trajectory would take us.’’
Scary, maybe; ironic, certainly. For Trump spends much of his time doing press interviews; is on a first-name basis with many journalists; and (because he makes so much news and generates such high TV ratings) gets far more free media exposure than any candidate. As former Obama adviser David Axelrod tweeted after Trump floated his libel proposal, “Talk about ingratitude!’’
If anyone has a right to complain about news coverage, it would be the likes of Ben Carson, who was repeatedly snubbed by moderators at the GOP debates, or John Kasich, whose promises of competent governance don’t sell papers or goose the Nielsens.
But Larry Schweikart, a conservative political historian who’s writing a book about the campaign, says Trump’s critics are too worked up about his alleged “war on the media.’’He argues that Trump merely gives voice to popular resentment against powerful, unaccountable institutions — “People figure, ‘If we make a mistake, we have to pay for it. Why don’t they?’ ”
Trump’s talk about libel law, he says, is another shot over the media’s bow, not a serious proposal: “There’s the good Donald and the bad Donald. It goes back to The Art of the Deal (Trump’s how-to business best-seller.) It’s a negotiation.’’
“It’s like working the refs,’’ agrees Packard. As in sports, the hope is that a complaint now will yield more favorable treatment (or coverage) in the future.
As Schweikart suggests, The Donald v. The Press is merely the latest round in a battle between politicians and journalists that goes back to the republic’s early years, when most publications were frankly partisan or party-owned. Some papers called for the assassination of George Washington. His successor, John Adams, used the Sedition Act of 1798 (which made it a crime to “write, print, utter or publish, or assist in, any false, scandalous, and malicious writing against the government’’) to have editors arrested.
Battle lines hardened in the 20th century with the rise of professional journalism, which promised non-partisan coverage.
• In the 1930s and 1940s, Franklin Roosevelt cracked down on radio commentator Father Charles Coughlin, who opposed U.S. entry into World War II. The administration also fought attempts by newspaper chains to own radio stations in their markets.
•In the ‘50s, Sen. Joe McCarthy targeted journalists and news organizations for supposed (and largely illusory) communist influence. He summoned to a hearing the editor of The New York Post, whom he suggested was a secret Communist merely posing as an anti-Communist.
•In the ‘60s, Vice President Spiro Agnew led the Nixon administration’s campaign against critical journalists and news organs — “nattering nabobs of negativism.’’
Unlike his predecessors, who attacked from the left (FDR) or the right (McCarthy, Agnew), Trump is waging a two-front war. He’s attacking conservative voices — Fox News, the National Review— as well as the relatively liberal New York Times and Washington Post.
Trump also differs in his focus on individual journalists. He attacks them by name – not just TV personalities and famous pundits, but working stiff reporters. He even appeared to mock the physical disability of a reporter who contradicted his claim that thousands of Muslim-Americans cheered the 9/11 attacks.
“It’s one thing to criticize the coverage. It’s another to pick on reporters,’’ says Roy Gutterman, director of Syracuse University’s Tully Center for Free Speech. “No reporter worth his salt hasn’t been attacked by a politician, but usually it’s at a press conference in front of 15 people, not in an arena in front of thousands of rabid supporters.’’
Some at Trump rallies pick up on his cues, shouting insults at reporters or asking if they really work for Hillary Clinton. Katy Tur of MSNBC, one Trump target, tweeted this description of a rally in Virginia: “Trump trashes press. Crowd jeers. Guy by press ‘pen’ looks at us & screams ‘you’re a bitch!’ Other gentleman gives cameras the double bird.”
Reporters have reason to be nervous. On Thursday, for instance, a white man appeared to sucker-punch a black protester being escorted out of a rally in North Carolina.
But Schweikart says reporters are fair game for verbal criticism: “They’re filing the damn stories. They’ve gotten away with that cover for too long.’’ Moreover, Trump’s is a useful technique: “If you put a name to it, it takes it out of just ‘the media,’ and personalizes it. He did that with Megyn Kelly,’’ the Fox News anchor with whom Trump sparred during and insulted after the first GOP debate.
Trump’s generalizations about the news media come at a time when, in reality, it’s never been more fractured and diverse. Agnew, in contrast, could describe the network broadcast news establishment as “no more than a dozen anchormen, commentators and executive producers (who) settle upon the 20 minutes of film and commentary that is to reach the public.’’ He also deplored the “concentration of power over public opinion in fewer and fewer hands,’’ like the Times and Post.
Which explains why Trump can ignore the adage, “Never quarrel with anyone who buys ink by the barrel.’’ The metaphor is outdated in the Digital Age; Trump, figuratively speaking, is the one with the ink — media access, for which he pays nothing.
-
My favorite former Wisconsin Congressman, Steve Gunderson, is not a fan of Donald Trump, but he understands:
I came into politics during the Vietnam War. I became a moderate Republican — at of all places the University of Wisconsin. During 22 years of elected office in Wisconsin and Washington, my legislative districts leaned Democrat. My political survival depended upon building a bipartisan coalition of voters committed to non-ideological problem solving. For convenience, I simply called myself a Lincoln Republican.
My commitment to bipartisanship is shown in recent ways. I worked with President Clinton, the Clinton Foundation and currently serve on President Obama’s White House Fellows Selection Commission.
Such a resume would suggest that Donald Trump is not my preferred candidate for president. And to be honest, he is not. His foreign policy and civil rights rhetoric are incredibly inconsistent with my view of Lincoln’s Republican Party.
But, I recognize something that is happening in American politics right now which Trump has identified and promoted to his political success. It goes beyond a conservative or liberal ideology. Rather, it reflects the frustration of America’s Working class.
And I blame President Obama. His presidency will be defined by his commitment to push and impose rather than build and construct public policy. It is defined by a rejection of the politics of collaboration for the politics of ideology. While this may cheer those on the left, it has not only hurt main street Americans, it has offended them.
The president’s tenure has been marked by partisan politics. No president, of either party, in my 30-plus years of government engagement has done more to advance their agenda through regulation, rather than bipartisan legislation. The American people have a history of selecting a president of one party and a Congress of another party as a check-and-balance. They thought that is what was happening now, until the president chose to impose his agenda through countless sets of regulations.
Recently, I returned home to rural Wisconsin to visit my dad (he just turned 91). We are a family that can be defined as moderate Republicans who respect politicians of both political parties. The weekend of conversations explained to me Donald Trump’s success and record turnouts in Republican primaries.
My brother explained, “A lot of people around here would vote for Trump.” He went on to explain that most reject Trump’s offensive rhetoric regarding race and ethnicity — even his lack of manners.
But he represents the voice of the American who works hard every day; gets things done and wonders why government can’t work together to find common ground. They are hoping that Trump’s business experience could lead to a new era of non-ideological, non-partisan results.
Don’t call them the silent majority. Call it the working-class revolt.
Exit polls confirm that Trump’s support crosses all ideological lines. If elected, he would be the most non-ideological president in my lifetime. But that is his appeal. Hilary Clinton is moving left to counter Bernie Sanders. Marco Rubio is moving right to counter Ted Cruz. Both strategies are rejected by Middle America.
The current administration has declared war on the private sector. As the president of the nation’s for-profit colleges, I’ve seen this first hand. We have some bad schools in our sector worthy of government discipline. But so does the rest of higher education. My disappointment is the administration’s refusal to not even engage in constructive conversations.
I wish this were an isolated experience. It is not. We have seen the identical philosophy imposed in almost every sector of private enterprise. What has been the result? The worst GNP recovery rates from any recession in American history.
In the five years preceding the Great Recession, America’s annual GDP averaged 5.74 percent. In the six years after the recession, it hovered in the low 3 percent range. In the last two quarters of 2015 it was 2.2 percent and 1.2 percent respectively! To give you comparison, China’s annual GDP during this same time was 8.1 percent — and they call it a recession.
Working people, working hard and never getting ahead, are frustrated. They have seen the polarization of politics leading to the paralysis of public policy. Rather than finding consensus they have witnessed the administration impose its wish through an incredible number of regulations while lifting up every segment of the American population except those hard at work every day.
And we wonder why Donald Trump is ahead?
-
Today being the Ides (Ide?) of March, let’s begin with the Ides of March …
… an outstanding example of brass rock.
Today in 1955, Elvis Presley signed a management contract with Andreas Cornelis van Kuijk, an illegal immigrant from the Netherlands who named himself Colonel Tom Parker.
The number two single that day:
The number one British album today in 1969 was Cream’s “Goodbye,” which was, duh, their last album:
-
The Post~Crescent committed a flagrant act of journalism last week:
The business of high school sports tournaments has never been bigger in Wisconsin, generating $7.6 million last year from ticket sales, broadcasting rights, sponsorships and other sources.
The paychecks of top Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association executives have followed suit, according to nonprofit tax records reviewed by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin.
The WIAA reported paying its top six executives $1.1 million last year, a 72 percent boost from 2001 tax filings that outpaced hikes in other workers’ compensation.
Executive director Dave Anderson received a $162,000 salary in addition to $78,000 in benefits, including retirement contributions. His predecessor’s salary in 2001 was about $37,000 less and his benefits cost $47,000 less.
The WIAA receives most of its funding from operating the state’s annual postseason athletic tournaments. …
Until this year, hundreds of public and private school districts have also directly funded the association through membership fees and dues. School district funding last year totaled $424,000, according to the WIAA’s tax filings.
USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin took a closer look at the WIAA’s spending in light of a proposal moving through the Capitol that would require the association to comply with government transparency laws. Some legislators say the WIAA is so strongly tied to public schools that it deserves equal scrutiny.
Tax filings, open to public review under federal laws, already provide some insight into the association’s operations and how paychecks at the top have climbed even through years in which public school officials complained of state funding shortages.
About 13 cents of every dollar raised by the WIAA ultimately flows into the pockets of its top six executives: Anderson, four lower-ranking directors and an association spokesman. Each received a six-figure salary and more than $57,000 in benefits last year.
Anderson, in response to our review, said salaries are approved by a member-elected board of school officials and reflect industry rates. He said directors now work 10 more hours per week than in 2001 and noted rising consumer prices as a factor in pay changes.
Anderson disputed the fairness of comparing total compensation reported in tax filings, saying federal laws today require nonprofits to account for benefits differently than 15 years ago. By the WIAA’s calculations, the reported cost of Anderson’s benefits last year would’ve been about $28,000 lower under 2001 reporting laws.
Still, Anderson and three WIAA board members interviewed by USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin didn’t challenge our core finding that executive pay has grown alongside the association’s expenses as a whole. The combined salaries of the top six executives alone have climbed by about 40 percent since 2001 and one person’s salary has nearly doubled.
Anderson isn’t a public employee. But as the WIAA’s executive director, he now earns more than just about every administrator at a WIAA-member public school as well as the state’s superintendent and governor.
Recent calls for greater transparency at the WIAA trace back to December when a Hilbert basketball player was suspended for 4½ games because she used an expletive on Twitter to criticize the association for banning crowd chants such as “air ball” and “scoreboard.” …
The fallout prompted John Nygren, a Marinette Republican in the state Assembly, to resurrect a proposal requiring the WIAA to comply with state public records and open meetings laws. The proposal was previously introduced by a Democratic legislator in 2009 but failed to gain traction.
Nygren has argued the WIAA is a quasi-government entity and that more transparency after the suspension would’ve saved the state from international ridicule. The WIAA is opposing the proposal with the aid of four lobbyists, arguing it would set a dangerous precedent for any nonprofit that works with tax-funded agencies.
“This is a fast-tracked punitive bill that is a slippery slope eroding the privacy protections of other private entities,” Anderson wrote in a Feb. 10 memo to Assembly legislators. “Schools pay no membership dues or fees. The WIAA receives no public tax dollars from the state.”
Only recently has the WIAA cut direct ties to tax dollars, though. Member school districts, the vast majority of which are taxpayer-funded, have contributed more than $6 million to the association since 2001, according to its tax filings.
The WIAA voted in April last year to cease membership dues for two years, citing an interest in distancing the association from taxpayer funds and easing financial pressure on school athletic budgets. The association plans to vote again next year whether to continue the break, Anderson said.
Nygren’s proposal passed the state Assembly last month. It next heads to the Senate and possibly Gov. Scott Walker’s desk, where is faces an uncertain fate. Asked about the proposal last month, neither Senate Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald nor Walker endorsed the bill and only offered that it would be considered.
A recent veto by Walker also suggests he might oppose the proposal. Explaining a veto last summer related to student eligibility for public school sports, Walker said, “I do not believe state statutes should stipulate the participation and membership requirements of a private athletic association.”
That position may be foretelling in this case because Nygren’s proposal would effectively thrust state transparency laws on the WIAA via new limits on school district participation. The proposal says no district may join an athletic association unless that association elects to comply with state laws.
While the WIAA is lobbying against Nygren’s proposal, several association leaders told USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin that they don’t entirely oppose following state transparency laws because the association is already so open with its business.
“We got absolutely nothing to hide,” said Mike Beighley, the superintendent public schools in Whitehall and a current WIAA board member. “We already put everything else out.”
Association leaders pointed to allowing news reporters at Board of Control meetings where financial reports and other internal business are discussed, and their publishing of meeting minutes online like a government agency.
Simple requests for information are also routinely honored in spirit with the state’s Public Records Law, they said. Indeed, they answered most of USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin’s questions and released internal figures to back up some statements.
“What would be different? I don’t see that as a big deal,” said Dean Sanders, the superintendent of public schools in Lake Mills and a longtime voice on the WIAA’s Board of Control.
Of course WIAA leaders have their concerns. Aside from disagreeing with the principal of extending state law to a nonprofit, Sanders said he worries that athletes would be more reluctant to speak candidly during meetings or in messages that could be released publicly.
No longer would the WIAA have discretion to allow visitors at board meetings or to release certain information. These activities would be required with the added risk of lawsuits and hefty legal bills over failures to comply.
Beighley said he worried that open meeting laws could slow the WIAA’s response in unusual situations, such as an athlete who needs an emergency waiver of association rules, or invite frivolous requests that increase costs.
“Is it going to change our operation? No,” Beighley said. “Is it scary to me? Yeah.”
Sanders and Beighley, both past presidents of the WIAA’s Board of Control, are familiar with government transparency laws in their work as superintendents. They are reimbursed for meals and mileage by the WIAA but do not receive a paycheck.
The Board of Control includes nine public and two private school officials. Sanders and Beighley said board members vary in clocking hours for the WIAA. Some use taxpayer-funded school district time for WIAA meetings and personal time for tournaments.
“I’m on school time and expected to make up whatever I do on Sunday when I’m home,” Sanders said. “My (school) board knows that I put in enough time.” …
Sanders and Beighley scoffed at comparing WIAA paychecks to compensation at member school districts, saying the Board of Control instead looks at other high school athletic associations. The head of Minnesota’s association, for example, earned $61,000 more than Anderson in 2013, the most recent year for which comparable tax figures were available.
“We’ve always tried to be right in the middle. I also don’t think Wisconsin athletics should be right in the rear,” Sanders said. “By being in the middle, we’re saying we respect what you do, we respect what you’ve done.”
Beighley also said the WIAA hasn’t increased revenue merely to boost executive pay, noting that tournament costs, legal bills, insurance, printing and other expenses have risen over the years as well.
“I don’t think we’ve set out to make more money to pay people more money,” he said.
The WIAA has been able to provide larger paychecks to its executives over the past 15 years in part due to hikes in ticket prices, referee licensing fees and broadcasting partnerships.
In just the past decade, association figures show revenue from operating the state’s high school tournaments has grown from about $5.9 million to $7.2 million annually while royalties have increased eight-fold to $476,000.
In some cases, those royalties have come from media organizations seeking to cover high school postseason competition. The WIAA in 2009 sued The Post-Crescent and the Wisconsin Newspapers Association over the broadcasting rights of state tournament contests held in public schools. A federal appeals court sided with the WIAA, rejecting the argument that the games were public events. The Post-Crescent is part of USA TODAY NETWORK-Wisconsin.
The WIAA operates more than 3,000 competitions annually, with more than $2 million flowing back to host schools through payments that vary by sport. For example, hosting a basketball tournament pays $60 per game compared to $80 per game for football.
Sanders said growing revenue was critical to eliminating membership fees and dues last year. The Board of Control wanted to make the decision permanent, he said, but that can only happen under a vote of all member school districts.
“It’s been a goal of (Anderson’s) ever since he took over as executive director,” Sanders said.
The most interesting comment on the story came from …
… I was on the WIAA advisory committee for hockey back in the olden days. When we want to enhance the WIAA State HS Hockey tournament and use The Minnesota State High School League’s State Hockey Tournamenr as a comparison, the WIAA’s response from Tom Shafranski was quote. “We don’t compare ourselves to Minnesota when structuring our state tournaments.”
The WIAA had no problem comparing themselves to Minnesota’s High School League executives when it benefited their pocket books.
The WIAA’s claim of not using taxpayer resources is false, irrespective of whether or not the WIAA charges membership fees for state high schools. Where are the vast, vast majority of those 3,000 high school sports events (including all 20 boys basketball sectional finals Saturday) played? In high schools, funded by those school districts’ taxpayers. Who pays coaches? School districts, which means local property taxpayers and state taxpayers (through state aid). Who pays the teachers and other staff who man the games? Same answer.
If school districts and other governments are required to abide by state open meetings and open records laws (and they absolutely should be), then the WIAA, which also uses taxpayer dollars, absolutely should be bound to those same open government laws. The state Senate has until Tuesday to vote on Nygren’s bill. The Senate should approve Nygren’s bill, and Walker should sign it.
-
Ten days ago on Wisconsin Public Radio’s Joy Cardin Week in Review (and subsequently on Twitter) I was criticized for failing to sing the praises of ObamaCare. (Specifically by one mental and moral midget known for espousing causes that lose elections in Wisconsin.)
Well, those reactionary conservatives known as National Public Radio conducted a poll, reported by Powerline:
National Public Radio collaborated with Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health and the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation to survey Americans’ recent experience with health care. As to the Affordable Care Act, the survey’s findings are damning. They suggest that Obamacare has been worse than a complete waste of money.
This is the survey’s only question directly on Obamacare. Most respondents say that Obamacare hasn’t affected them; where it has affected them, most say the law’s impact has been harmful:
The promises that President Obama made about the ACA–cheaper premiums! lower co-pays and deductibles! better coverage!–have completely failed to materialize. This isn’t a surprise, of course, but it is nice to see it so copiously documented:
Remember how we were all supposed to save $2,500 a year in health insurance premiums? Only 4% say they have saved anything, and those respondents are probably wrong. For the vast majority, Obamacare has either done nothing, or has increased the cost of health care, counting premiums, deductibles and co-pays. Good going, Barry!
The federal government has had its share of failures over the years, but it is hard to think of a federal program that has proved such a comprehensive disaster, in such a short period of time, as the Affordable Care Act. Which, by the way, still hasn’t been fully implemented, as the Democrats have postponed some of its more baleful effects until 2017. So the number of people who are hurt by Obamacare, e.g. by losing the employer-based coverage with which they were content, is destined to rise.
My counterpart on the show claimed a slowing of health insurance cost increases, which appears from this to be a false claim. She also claimed the importance of banning pre-existing condition exclusions from coverage, which is important for those who have or have had serious illness, but which could have been fixed by a bill banning pre-existing conditions as a reason for denying coverage. And, you’ll notice, American voters thought so highly of ObamaCare that they punted Democrats from control of the House of Representatives (plus Wisconsin’s governorship and both houses of the Legislature) one election later. Good going, Barry!
This didn’t come up Friday, but apparently at the Milwaukee Loves Obama and ObamaCare days earlier a self-identified Republican who claimed to have never voted for Obama extolled the virtues of ObamaCare because it covered him during recovery from an autoimmune disease. I’m certainly happy he recovered. I wonder how he feels about his health care being paid for by the decreasing number of working Americans in this country (U6 unemployment over 10 percent) in the ObamaCare economy whose health insurance now covers less but costs more. I also wonder how he feels about health care providers leaving health care not because they don’t want to work in medicine anymore, but because they don’t want to deal with the government and insurance companies in the ObamaCare world.
-
The texting shorthand term “smh” (“shakes my head”) didn’t exist in 1955 because texting didn’t exist in 1955.
But surely “smh” was invented for things like this: Today in 1955, CBS talent scout Arthur Godfrey made a signing decision between Elvis Presley and Pat Boone.
Godfrey chose Boone, who had a successful recording career, but not anywhere close to Presley’s. (On the other hand, Boone well outlived Presley.)
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 