Today in 1969, Leslie West and Felix Pappalardi created Mountain:
Birthdays today start with Paul Williams of the Temptations:
No comments on Presty the DJ for July 2
-
-
… as divined by Holman W. Jenkins of the Wall Street Journal:
Look, potentially no greater challenge faces us than mankind’s role in altering the composition of the atmosphere.
Science, to be useful to policy makers, though, has to make valid predictions. Why, despite a nearly 10% rise in atmospheric carbon over the past 15 years, is global average temperature unchanged?
I believe the increase in carbon is worrisome and the net effect is warming, but that doesn’t mean I subscribe to every unfounded, dire scenario.
“Do no harm” is a good prescription. So is “do some good.”
My environmentalist friends want a war on coal, but U.S. coal accounts for just 6% of global emissions—less than China adds in three years.
The effect would be nil. Keystone? Canada would just export the oil to world markets and nothing would change.
Now, I understand. “Keystone” is a symbol to our environmentalist groups so they spin our wheels on Keystone. They spin our wheels demanding a higher “social cost of carbon” to justify regulating microwave ovens and ceiling fans. The effect on climate would be nil. We could cut our emissions in half overnight and the impact would be just three-tenths of a degree a century from now.
I won’t kid you. These things appeal to some in my administration. They like the idea of an expanding bureaucracy (with its own giant carbon footprint) to regulate ceiling fans. But I said we could do some good.
When I call on congress today to implement a carbon tax and use the proceeds to cut payroll taxes and flatten the income tax, I know congress may not act right away. But tax reform is coming, and tax reform would be good—giving us faster growth.
Shifting some of the tax burden from work and capital to carbon would be good—aiding the emergence of non-carbon sources of energy that ultimately justify themselves because they are cheaper and more convenient, not just lower in carbon.
Let me take a little detour. There is no democratic appetite for giving up prosperity or our energy rich-lifestyles. Put that idea out of your heads.
Let us also appreciate how little we can know about how people will live a century from now, what energy sources they will use, and the strong likelihood that any sacrifices we make on their behalf today will be of zero value to them.
We’re beyond the edge of forecastability and that’s the point.
Fracking was well understood a decade ago and yet nobody foresaw that fracking would lead to a decade-long decline—yes, decline—in U.S. greenhouse emissions.
If we are serious about climate change, we must seriously factor in the accelerating rate of technological change already in our society. I’m personally impressed with what I read about the progress of nanobatteries, which may soon turn solar into a real contributor rather than a sinkhole for taxpayer charity. I’m impressed with the prospects for cheaper, inherently safe nuclear power, like in the new documentary, “Pandora’s Promise” (go see it!).
So here’s what we can really do to help future generations and ourselves. We can maintain the dynamism of our economy, from which new technology emerges. We can broadly favor low-carbon energy without prejudging (probably wrongly) which technologies will succeed. Carbon capture, for instance, may well be the sort of white elephant boondoggle we’ll be glad we avoided.
Now I believe these new technologies will emerge or not emerge largely irrespective of what government does, though a little help can’t hurt. I also believe, no matter what we do, the rest of the world will choose economic growth over reducing atmospheric carbon. So technology is our only hope.
The tax reform I envision other countries could adopt out of self-interest, not self-punishment. But it also doesn’t matter what they do. If the technologies that emerge are truly superior and competitive, other countries will adopt them anyway.
Either way, we will not have impoverished ourselves with futile gestures. We will have done absolutely the best thing government can do to address the risk that human greenhouse emissions will lead to dangerous climate change. We will have resisted the temptation—all too typical of Washington—to do foolish or cynical things in the guise of acting against global warming.
-
Daniel Mitchell presents a scenario that should get social and economic libertarians on the same side, and could get economic lefties and social conservatives on the opposite side:
I generally believe that social conservatives and libertarians are natural allies. As I wrote last year, this is “because there is wide and deep agreement on the principle of individual responsibility. They may focus on different ill effects, but both camps understand that big government is a threat to a virtuous and productive citizenry.” …
But that doesn’t mean social conservatives and libertarians are the same. There’s some fascinating research on the underlying differences between people of different ideologies, and I suspect the following story might be an example of where the two camps might diverge.
But notice I wrote “might” rather than “will.” I’ll be very curious to see how various readers react to this story about a gay couple that is taking an unusual step to minimize an unfair and punitive tax imposed by the government of Pennsylvania.
The story is from ABC News:
John met Gregory at a gay bar in Pittsburgh nearly 45 years ago and immediately fell in love. Today, the couple has weathered the early days of the gay rights movement, the death of friends in the AIDS crisis and constitutional laws in their home state of Pennsylvania that have prevented them from marrying.
Now, as lifelong partners facing the financial and emotional insecurities of old age, they have legally changed their relationship and are father and son — John, 65, has adopted Gregory, 73.
The couple was worried about Pennsylvania’s inheritance tax.
“If we just live together and Gregory willed me his assets and property and anything else, I would be liable for a 15 percent tax on the value of the estate,” said John. “By adoption, that decreases to 4 percent. It’s a huge difference.”
Because John’s dad is still alive at 95, he could not legally have two fathers. So Gregory, though older, became the adopted son. The Daughin County Court judge who signed their papers was adamant in telling them that the adoption was “forever” and they would never be able to legally marry. …
The judge did turn to John and said, “I am really curious, why are you adopting [Gregory]?”
“I said, ‘Because it’s our only legal option to protect ourselves from Pennsylvania’s inheritance taxes,’” said John. “He got it immediately.”
Mitchell predicts a few viewpoints:
1. If you have the statist mindset of England’s political elite or if you work at a bureaucracy such as the OECD, you’ll think this is morally wrong. Not because you object to homosexuality, but because you think tax avoidance is very bad and you believe the state should have more money.
2. If you’re a libertarian, you’re cheering for John and Gregory. Even if you don’t personally approve of homosexuality, you don’t think the state should interfere with the private actions of consenting adults and you like the idea of people keeping more of the money they earn.
3. If you’re a public finance economist, you think any form of death tax is a very perverse form of double taxation and you like just about anything that reduces this onerous penalty on saving and investment.
But there are some groups that will be conflicted.
1. Social conservatives don’t like big government and bad tax policy, but they also don’t approve of homosexuality. And, in this case, it’s now technically incestuous homosexuality! If I had to guess, most social conservatives will argue that the court should not have granted the adoption. …
2. Leftists also will be conflicted. They like the death tax and they want the government to have more money, but they also believe in identity politics and wouldn’t want to offend one of their constituent groups. I’m guessing identity politics would trump greed, but I suspect their ideal approach would be to tax all inheritances at 15 percent.
In my fantasy world, needless to say, there’s no death tax and the entire issue disappears.
If you think the Pennsylvania pair had a creative answer to their death-tax problem, a commenter has an even more out-there solution, reportedly in Britain:
The son of a large landowner became engaged to be married. Then the engagement was ended and the landowner, who was in poor health, married the son’s former fiancée.
The landowner, his new bride, son and former wife all went on the honeymoon together. The landowner transferred the estate to his new wife thus completely avoiding capital transfer tax. All four continued to live in the big house.
After a year, the landowner divorced his new wife and remarried his first wife. The son married his former fiancée. The estate had passed from one generation to another without incurring tax.
One self-described social conservative commenter claims to be not be conflicted:
As a social conservative, here’s my take on it. They’re going to be a gay couple regardless of whether or not the court granted their adoption. They aren’t trying to redefine marriage or the family. They are ONLY trying to avoid paying more taxes. I don’t see it as a social issue at all and have no problem with it. In fact, I congratulate their intuitiveness!
Another comment:
Since when is it the government’s business to actively make you feel like an accepted member of society? Schools and parents have failed to inculcate a good sense of self-esteem in the victimhood crowd.
-
Today in 1963, the Beatles recorded “She Loves You,” yeah, yeah, yeah:
Four years later, the Beatles’ “Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band” reached number one, and stayed there for 15 weeks:
-
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 …
-
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):
-
Darryl Krejci makes an interesting comparison of the Packers to not other NFL teams, but the pro team on the other end of future Interstate 41:
Two years ago when the Brewers made their postseason run they did so on the backs of two primary players and numerous key contributors. The Brewers had two primary stars in Ryan Braun and Prince Fielder and personalities like Nyjer Morgan and Craig Counsell cementing the bench.
The chemistry that the team had that year propelled them to the National League Championship Series. Afterward, Prince left for big money from Detroit, Braun was plagued by PED accusations and Morgan and Counsel moved on.
Since then the Brewers have stumbled to sub-par performances. The reason for this is that they no longer have multiple star players to build the team around and the role players who brought personality and a spark to the team are gone. Plus injuries have created a hole from which they have not been able to crawl.
What does this have to do with the Packers?
Well the comparison is what is important. The Packers have two star players in Aaron Rodgers and Clay Matthews. Both who have now been locked up in long-term deals – cementing the foundation that is necessary for a prolonged run at success. Secondly, they have continued to maintain key and valuable supporting pieces in the likes of guys like Jordy Nelson, Randall Cobb, Sam Shields and Tramon Williams and then the influx of current rookies Datone Jones, Eddie Lacy, and Jonathan Franklin who have bolstered the ranks.
Depth and more importantly solid key role players have continued to foster the necessary support that has sustained success for the Packers. When you compare this to the Brewers after their NLCS run, it is evident that the loss of Fielder and the lack of significant role players in the rotation and in the field have caused the Brewers to become less than successful. If the Brewers would have been able to keep Fielder and Braun, I truly believe success would have continued. If you look at the fact that Detroit was able to secure Fielder, coupled with the play of Miguel Cabrera as he took the Triple Crown, it is no wonder why the Tigers have been successful while the Brewers have fallen apart.
I believe that in order for a team to be successful, there needs to be at least two primary stars. In the case of the Packers you have Rodgers and Matthews (back in the 90s, you had Brett Favre and Reggie White). Then you include key pieces and characters who help to create the chemistry and environment that is conducive to winning. Most importantly, you jettison those players that can no longer contribute or factor in the long-term growth of the team.
When you use this overview for a team to have success and apply it to the other teams in the NFC North, no team has the same nucleus and supporting players that can sustain the type of success the Packers have.
Krejci’s comparison is interesting, but I’m not sure how much you can compare the Packers and Brewers, because I’m not sure how much you can compare the NFL and Major League Baseball.
The Packers’ player approach under general manager Ted Thompson has been to develop from within. Regardless of the sport, developing your own means you don’t need to spend money chasing free agents. The downside is that when players want to make more, or have a bigger role, than the than the team agrees upon, they leave. Greg Jennings goes to Minnesota; Prince Fielder goes to Detroit. (As did, by the way, Cabrera, originally with the Florida Marlins.)
The problem with baseball’s build-from-within approach is that baseball player development is considerably less exact than pro football’s, because of the existence of college football. NFL teams draft players who are 21 or so years old, and have such measurable skills as 40-yard dash times, weights able to be lifted and jump heights. Baseball teams draft three groups of players — high school graduates, college players, and players from outside the U.S. Trying to predict the future of 18-year-olds and those you didn’t see develop in the U.S. is inexact, as demonstrated by the number of top draft picks who don’t hit against or throw one pitch in the major leagues.
You may not remember, in the Brewers’ case, shortstops Tommy Bianco and Isaiah Clark, first baseman Dan Thomas, third basemen Gordon Powell and Anthony Williamson, outfielders David Krynzel and Chad Green, catcher Nick Hernandez, or pitchers Butch Edge, Richard O’Keefe, Tyrone Hill and J.M. Gold. All were Brewers’ number one draft picks. Not one played a single inning for the Brewers or any other MLB team.
The legendary Brewers’ teams of the late 1970s and early 1980s had three number one picks, shorstop-turned-outfielder Gorman Thomas, shortstop/center fielder Robin Yount and shortstop-turned-outfielder-turned-infielder Paul Molitor. First-round picks that followed Yount and Molitor included shortstop Dale Sveum (now the Cubs’ manager), relief pitcher Dan Plesac, shortstop-turned-catcher B.J. Surhoff, outfielder Gary Sheffield, infielder Bill Spiers, starting pitcher Cal Eldred, outfielder Geoff Jenkins, and starting pitcher Ben Sheets. The current team includes two number-one picks, second baseman Rickie Weeks and outfielder Ryan Braun. Do the math, and between 1970 and now that’s not that many number one picks to start. (Or stay, in the case of Surhoff, Sheffield and Spiers.)
More broadly, the best Brewers teams were as much built by acquisition than by development. The home grown Brewers besides Yount, Molitor and Thomas were catcher-turned-right fielder Charlie Moore, second baseman Jim Gantner and third baseman-turned-designated hitter Don Money. Outfielder Sixto Lezcano and pitcher Lary Sorenson were Brewers until they were traded away to bring in catcher Ted Simmons, starting pitcher Pete Vuckovich and reliever Rollie Fingers. Also brought in were first baseman Cecil Cooper, third baseman Sal Bando, outfielder-turned-DH Larry Hisle, third baseman-turned-DH Roy Howell, and left fielder Ben Oglivie, plus pitchers Mike Caldwell, Randy Lerch, Doc Medich and Don Sutton.
The 2011 Brewers, which got to the National League Championship Series, added a lot to their core of Braun, Fielder, Weeks, outfielder Corey Hart and Gallardo, acquiring, before the season, pitchers Shawn Marcum and Zack Greinke and outfielders Mark Kotsay and Nyjer Morgan, and, during the season, reliever Francisco Rodriguez and infielder Jerry Hairston Jr. All of those players subsequently left, though Rodriguez is now back.
This year’s team has Braun, Weeks, Hart and Gallardo, plus catcher Jonathan Lucroy (a rookie on the 2011 team) from the farm system. They traded for center fielder Carlos Gomez and shortstop Jean Segura, signed third baseman Aramis Ramirez from the Cubs and right fielder Norichika Aoki from Japan, signed pitcher Kyle Lohse as a free agent, and, well, have never really replaced Fielder.
One thing the 2008 and 2011 teams had that this one doesn’t (besides major-league-quality pitching) is important veteran backups, guys who could perform well when called upon, even if not often. Fourth outfielder Gabe Kapler was invaluable for the 2008 Brewers. So were Kotsay, Hairston and Morgan for the 2011 Brewers; in fact, Morgan ended up starting in center field because the guy who was supposed to play center, Carlos Gomez, couldn’t hit, and Hairston played a lot of infield because Weeks got hurt and their shortstop and third basemen underperformed at the plate..
One thing you may notice in the previous few paragraphs is a lack of mention of homegrown pitching. The top non-acquired starter for the ’81 Brewers was Moose Haas, who started one game each in the ALCS and World Series. The late ’80s Brewers teams that contended included starters Higuera, Chris Bosio and Bill Wegman to start games to go with Plesac to finish them. Eldred and Sheets were the Brewers’ number one pitchers until their arms gave out, which should be an object lesson for fans of Yovani Gallardo.
The Brewers’ biggest failures in player development have been in the game’s most important area, pitching. Were it not for the ability of former general manager Harry Dalton to deal for veteran pitching, the late ’70s and early ’80s Brewers would have been known as teams that scored a lot of runs and gave up more runs. The 2008 Brewers got to the playoffs on the left arm of mid-season acquisition C.C. Sabathia, who then left for the Yankees.
(Since the Brewers have been unsuccessful in developing more than one starting pitcher at a time, one wonders if it’s a systemic problem. Atlanta had an embarrassment of riches in pitching in the ’90s, nearly all developed in the Braves’ farm system. Baltimore was great at developing pitching in the ’60s and ’70s, and the Los Angeles Dodgers have usually been successful at developing their own pitching. The Brewers? Not so much.)
There are two big additional differences between baseball and football. The latter has 16-game regular seasons; the former has 162-game seasons at the major league level, and 140 or so at the minor-league level. You’d think that after even a 14o-game season teams should know if someone can play at the major league level, but that’s apparently not the case. Players usually take at least three years to get from the minors to the majors, and major league rookies in their late 20s are not unheard of, particularly pitchers. (The Brewers’ 2004 first-round pick, pitcher Mark Rogers, is still in the Brewers’ farm system, having gone through repeated injuries while in the minors.)
The other major difference, as I’ve discussed here before, is the economics of baseball. There is a huge gulf in team revenue between big-market teams (the Yankees and Dodgers) and small-market teams (the Brewers). Revenue isn’t everything (if it was, the Cubs would be contenders every year, and their lack of World Series title since 1908 and World Series berth since 1945 shows otherwise), but being able to eat your player acquisition mistakes as the Yankees can makes life much easier. If baseball were serious about competitive balance, it would (1) share nearly all revenue, not just ticket and national broadcast revenue, and (2) institute a hard salary cap. Baseball is apparently perfectly fine with teams like the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates never being contenders, and bigger-market teams snapping up free agents from smaller-market teams that have successful seasons (for instance Sabathia signing with the Yankees and Greinke signing with the Dodgers).
Baseball teams can build from within as the Packers have, but free agents and trades have to have a larger role than in football, and the margin for error is far smaller.
-
Some thoughts about collector cars (none of which I own, including a Corvette, because life is unfair) can be read here.
Sunday is National Corvette Day, recognizing, this year, the 60th anniversary of the sale of the first Corvette, June 30, 1953.
Which brings an interesting question to mind: Why was it named the Corvette? The Gentleman Racer has the answer:
Corvette was the first mass produced post-war American sports car, but when GM introduced the car the name was still up in the air. Hundreds of people submitted ideas, but it would be the submission of Myron E. Scott, a newspaper photographer who would submit the winning name.
Myron thought the name Corvette rolled off the tongue well and thought a tie into the fast strike ships called “Corvette” that gained fame in World War II would appeal to the American men, many who had served in the war. This would go on to form the foundation for the nautical names that would be applied to Corvettes and concepts such as the Mako Shark and Sting Ray (later to be used as Stingray).
That would be, by the way …
The name Corvette was first used on ships in the 1670s by the French Navy. These small, light, and fast ships would often be used as escorts for larger ships. While they generally were under 100 feet long and only had one gun deck, their maneuverability and speed gave them a unique advantage against the larger ships. Literally a Corvette could run circles around larger ships and in the era of cannons fast moving targets were hard to hit. The British would keep Corvettes in their fleet during the colonial incursions into the rivers of the Far-East and Africa, at this point most Corvettes were steam powered.
(And here I thought most Corvettes were V-8-powered.)
The name was revived in World War II, when British naval designer William Reed drafted a plan for a small escort/patrol ship. They saw much success as anti submarine escorts in the Atlantic. Later in the war some Corvettes would be outfitted as minesweepers and saw action in the Pacific. Corvette ships are still used today, mostly has light missile ships or support vessels for fast attack boats.
-
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:
-
Right Wisconsin asked Wisconsin conservatives (and apparently I am one) their thoughts on the 2013–15 state budget, set to be signed by Gov. Scott Walker Sunday.
I wouldn’t call this a conservative budget, but it’s certainly a more conservative budget than Democrats would enact.
What kind of budget would Democrats enact? The last one Democrats got to enact was the trainwreck that was the 2009–11 budget, which featured a $2.2 billion tax increase, and yet had nine- and 10-digit deficits that Walker inherited when he took office in 2011. (Strange, isn’t it, that Democrats aren’t defending that 2009–11 budget.)
According to the MacIver Institute, Democrats have learned nothing from that:
Senate Democrats proposed amendments that would have increased spending $1.64 billion and increased taxes $646 million last week on the Senate floor, according to an analysis of their more than 50 introduced amendments completed by the MacIver Institute. …
One amendment was a direct attack on the reforms set in place by Act 10 – reforms that have saved the state more than $2 billion – by essentially repealing the law. The provision would have restored collective bargaining rights to all state and local employees, removed the requirements that public unions recertify annually, and reinstated the automatic deductions of union dues from state employee paychecks.
The amendment would also have required state agencies to pay a minimum of four percent of their employees’ earnings to the Wisconsin Retirement System, which comes out to $312 million.
Another Democrat amendment would have deleted the $648 million tax cut and funneled $640 million of the money into increased funding for K-12 public schools. This $640 million dollar increase would have been in addition to the Republican plan that increased funding by $416 million.
Several of the Senate Democrats’ amendments dealt with Governor Scott Walker’s plan to reject the Medicaid expansion. Senate Amendment 13, authored by Sen. Kathleen Vinehout (D-Alma), proposed that Wisconsin accept the federal dollars to expand Medicaid and increase funding for treatment of individuals that abuse drugs and alcohol. The amendment would have increased spending by nearly $477 million.
In addition to massive spending increases, the Democrats’ amendments would have increased taxes by up to $646 million. They introduced amendments that would have deleted the Republican income tax cut of $648 million and removed the $30 million private school tuition tax deduction from the budget.
Democrats also attempted to restore Stewardship bonding, which was reduced by JFC. That provision would have increased borrowing by $63.5 million so the state could purchase private property.
The tax cut is not even half the size of James Doyle’s tax increase, but a Democratic budget would have had no tax cuts at all. How can I make that kind of blanket statement? Because I talked to three of them during a statewide tour of Democrats opposed to Walker’s initial budget. I asked one, a state representative, about a couple of funding questions, one of which had to do with transportation funding. The representative replied that “We need more revenue.” Nothing about prioritizing, or cutting elsewhere to spend more in one place, or any regard at all for the taxpayer. The only justification for increased tax collections is from more money in people’s pockets from a growing economy.
The expansion of school choice will have more long-term effect than people think it will, if for no other reason than the fact that government programs are extraordinarily difficult to kill, particularly popular ones. (I predict statewide school choice will be popular among parents, one of the only two groups that count.) The budget includes too much debt and too much carryover spending to the next budget cycle, thus the structural deficit. The reason for the excessive debt and structural deficit is because Republicans are politicians, just like Democrats are. That is why taxpayers need to be protected from politicians through constitutional limits on taxes and spending. (State and local government is approximately TWICE the size it should be given inflation and population growth over the past 35 years.)
Assuming that it’s not possible to cut state spending in half: I have yet to see a reasonable explanation of why the bail bondsman provision is in the budget. I think the provision on the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism looks like political revenge on an organization reporting on those in power (which now are Republicans). Neither belongs in the budget. Policy items don’t belong in the budget, but for Democrats to complain about policy items in a state budget when state budgets they authored were larded up with policy items is hypocritical.
Overall, the budget still spends too much (including every cent spent on the Knowles–Nelson Stewardship Program), taxes too much (the correct tax cut is the same size as Doyle’s tax increase) and borrows too much (see Stewardship Program). And that gets to the crux of the budget problem, which is that legislators of any party are not prevented from spending and taxing as much as they like, thanks to the absence of budget and taxation limits in the state Constitution. That’s not a budget item, but if you want actually conservative budgets, you can’t just vote for them; you have to prevent them from growing larger than is justified by inflation and population growth.
The MacIver Institute adds other ways to improve the budget:
10. Delete Pork Projects
When will politicians learn? Taxpayers are sick of their hard-earned tax dollars going to fund needless and wasteful pork projects. While the politicians may think they have gained the temporary love or support of their local Mayor, all they have really done by pursuing pork projects is hurt our children and our grandchildren who will be forced to pay for their reckless spending habits for years to come. The complete list of pork found in the 2013-2015 budget is too long to include here …
9. End the Stewardship Program
As a free market think tank, we find it hard to swallow the very idea of government purchasing private land just so it cannot be put to productive use in the economy and we have long been a critic of Wisconsin’s Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program. Before the Finance Committee made a modest cut to the program, debt service payments were scheduled to total $91.8 million in ’14 and $94.6 million in ’15. Almost $100 million a year for state government to needlessly collect and hoard land! …
8. Reduce Bonding
Speaking of stewardship borrowing, let’s look for ways to reduce all forms of bonding in the budget. The more we are in debt, the worse off we are as a state. The veto pen is a great tool to reduce the state’s borrowing costs and give taxpayers some relief. …
7. Reduce Spending Everywhere
The 2013-2015 budget as amended increases general fund spending by three percent compared to the last budget. While the majority of the increased spending is attributable to higher costs of healthcare for the poor, there is just too much new spending in this budget.
Like the $2.2 million to replace older state vehicles with 80 NEW vehicles. Guess the 1,500 vehicles we already have are just not getting the job done. 1,500 vehicles? No wonder they call this the Central Fleet.
Or the $500,000 for the creation of regional intergovernmental affairs office director positions “to conduct public outreach and promote coordination between agencies and authorities.” Four new positions to coordinate the many different and increasingly complex layers of government? Isn’t that what every other state bureaucrat already does?
There is the $8.2 million in additional spending added by Joint Finance to increase walleye production at various state fish hatcheries and the directive that DOT erect two signs for the Shrine of Our Lady of Good Help.
Divine intervention to find the shrine would be less expensive and, some would argue, much more effective.
Even though it is not new spending, the $1 million dollars we spend every year on the “Diesel Truck Idling Reduction Program” is not an essential function of state government and unnecessary spending. Why state government needs to provide “financial assistance to eligible Wisconsin freight motor carriers to purchase and install idling reduction technology” is beyond us. …5. Restore Performance-Based Budgeting
One of the Governor’s most important but least-noticed reforms that he introduced was his attempt to move state government to a performance-based budgeting model. Right now, taxpayers are scammed by the base-year doubled budgeting model where a bureaucrat looks at last year’s budget, adds in three to five percent more spending without justification or thought and calls that the bare-minimum base budget that cannot under any circumstances be “cut.” Governor Walker proposed moving more of state government to real-world budgeting.
To address the skills gap in our labor force, the Governor was attempting to “incentivize Wisconsin technical colleges to address workforce needs and improve student value” by tying a portion of state funding to a set of metrics that focus on job placement and programs in high-demand fields. By 2020, the Governor proposed that 100% of funding for technical schools be tied to job-placement metrics. Fancy that, a state agency funded based on a set of definable outcomes tied to economic progress. But, of course, the Finance Committee had to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory by capping the technical college system performance-based funding at 30 percent. Maybe with a stroke of the pen, we could get closer to the original proposal.
The Governor’s attempt to introduce performance-based budgeting to our K-12 schools died an even quicker death. The Governor’s proposal to use $50 million for school performance incentive grants tied to the new school report cards was met with immediate opposition from State Superintendent Tony Evers and school officials across the state. We should not be surprised that the bureaucrats – the same bureaucrats who stood to face tough questions from irate parents when their beloved school, where every child was above average, fared poorly on the new report card – would oppose performance-based funding.
What was truly surprising was how many members of both parties quickly caved to their local school officials, wishing to buy peace in their next campaign instead of holding Wisconsin’s education system accountable. To borrow a phrase from our friends on the left, what about our children? I guess we care more that the highly-paid, slick talking administrator back home is happy. Ineffective, but happy.
4. Reduce the Amount of State Employees
The Joint Committee on Finance is to be congratulated on this one for making some progress on this problem. The Governor originally proposed adding 710 new state employees to the payroll. Finance actually cut the number of state employees in the budget bill by 730, for a net reduction of 20 compared to the last budget.
But more can be done. According to Department of Administration records, there were 37,037 state employees in 2012, up from 36,342 in 2011 (UW employees, as noted above, are counted separately from state employees). Over 800 state employees made more than $100,000 in 2012. Governor Walker’s salary, the CEO of our state, did not even crack the top 150.
Everyone is doing more with less these days. Technology allows us to be more efficient in everything we do. Gone are the days in government when, in order to accomplish more, you automatically needed more government staff. We need a hard cap on the total number of state employees for three years so that taxpayers can continue to realize the savings of Act 10 and the difficult decisions made in the last budget. Otherwise, “government hiring creep” will persistently eat away at our wallets.Matt Batzel of American Majority Action is disappointed:
This is not a conservative budget in its current form. The budget spends and borrows too much at a time when Wisconsin needs fiscal discipline. But those aren’t the only issues, as it increases earmarks, limits school choice expansion, allows bail bondsmen, begins the collection of DNA at time of arrest, and “pauses” common core education standards in a way that really doesn’t address the problems with federal mandated educational standards. There certainly are some conservative aspects with a sizable tax cut, Medicaid reform, and a UW system tuition freeze. But the total amount of increased spending and borrowing prevent me from calling it an overall conservative budget.Former Rep. Michelle Litjens (R–Oshkosh) was in the Legislature only one term (which included being covered by the spittle from Rep. Gordon Hintz (D–Oshkosh), who informed her, “You’re fucking dead!”, for which Hintz never sufficiently apologized), but Litjens was in the Legislature long enough to find out how things work:
This certainly isn’t a perfect budget. If Wisconsin wasn’t so politically purple, legislators should have drastically reduced the size of government, programs and spending. Instead, accepting our political reality, this is a much better budget than what the democrats passed in 2009. We aren’t borrowing money from the transportation or patient compensation fund or raising taxes by $5 billion and leaving a deficit of $3.6 billion. The fact that this is a honest balanced budget with $650 million in tax cuts. In comparison to 4 years ago, this is a very conservative budget.
“In comparison to four years ago” is another way of saying “more conservative,” if not “conservative.”
.jpg)
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 