Today in 1975, David Bowie found “Fame”:
Today in 1978, the UN named Kansas ambassadors of goodwill:
Two birthdays today are from the same group: Drummer Bobby Harrison was born two years before bassist Dave Knights of Procol Harum:
Wigderson Library & Pub (where reading while intoxicated is not necessarily a bad thing, as long as you maintain control of your book/reading device) reports:
In his weekly column for the Waukesha Freeman, Milwaukee radio talk show host Mark Belling said Governor Scott Walker will pursue cuts in the state income tax while reducing state aid to local governments. …
As I’ve pointed out at the MacIver Institute and elsewhere, Wisconsin’s income tax is still higher than Illinois’ despite the huge tax increases south of our border.
With expected Republican majorities in both houses of the legislature after this fall’s election,Walker should be able to succeed in passing a state budget with these changes.
If we are going to attract the capital needed to make Wisconsin’s economy stronger and grow, Wisconsin still needs to be more competitive. Last year’s budget restored budget stability. Now it’s time to move forward with making Wisconsin more friendly to capitalism.
Given Wisconsin’s socialist (but they call themselves “progressive,” like U.S. Senate candidate Tammy Baldwin) heritage, to make Wisconsin “more friendly to capitalism” won’t be easy.
A substantial tax cut is obviously necessary. Wisconsin is high in income taxes (both personal and corporate) and in property taxes. The challenge is to reduce those taxes specifically (particularly corporate income taxes, the appropriate rate for which is zero) and the tax burden generally, and not by increasing the one tax that is relatively small in this state, sales taxes.
One important way to reduce taxes is to reduce the need to increase taxes by controlling government spending. the 2013–15 state budget should include a Taxpayer Bill of Rights that restricts increases in spending to the sum of the (correctly reported) inflation rate and population growth. Putting a spending restriction mechanism in the budget should be a prelude to a constitutional amendment that permanently (or as permanently as possible) restricts spending growth at every level of government.
The weekly newspaper soon to be named Wisconsin’s Best Weekly Newspaper has a story this week about a state Assembly candidate who is certainly a fiscal conservative, but who does not support TABOR-like mechanisms. His argument is that electing fiscal conservatives is more important than creating spending limits that can be circumvented. He has a point, except that there are fiscal non-conservatives in both parties, and electing fiscal conservatives is not enough. Both the state Constitution and the U.S. Constitution are full of passages saying what government cannot do, and it is certainly reasonable to include in that list spend too much money. Fiscal conservatism is popular in difficult economic times; it is not so popular when state coffers are flush (see Thompson, Tommy). That is why legislators of any party need to be prevented from spending money.
Related is the need to correctly measure state finances. It is imperative that state law be changed so that budgets are balanced based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles, not on a cash basis. For the party that will control the Legislature after the November elections, the party supposedly all about fiscal responsibility, to refuse to adopt GAAP budgeting, which every other unit of government in this state is required to do, certainly should call voter question to the GOP’s claim about being better with your tax dollars. (Gov. Scott Walker already eliminated two multi-billion-dollar deficits; let’s see him deal with the third.)
Also related is the need to deliver government services — which is the only legitimate function of government, not to employ people (other than to perform government services), or to redistribute income, or to engage in trendy social change — in a more efficient manner. To have a unit of government for every 2,000 Wisconsinites (second only to Illinois) is ridiculous. To have one of the worst school districts in the entire country in this state’s largest city is dragging down the rest of the state. To have redundant public safety agencies does not further the cause of public safety. To blithely claim that Wisconsin has the best schools in the country does not further the cause of better education.
Making Wisconsin more friendly to capital is about government spending and taxes, but it isn’t only about government spending and taxes. You know things are different when, in the course of six weeks, you meet Walker and four of his Cabinet secretaries, and every one of them talks about promoting business, even his secretary of the state Department of Revenue. This is good, but it can also disappear with the election of the next Democratic governor of Wisconsin. I don’t write that because Democrats are always anti-business, but their core constituent groups — organized labor and environmentalists — are. (See Wisconsin Legislature, 2009–10.)
Having been elected twice in less than two years, Walker’s Wisconsin political stock will never be higher than it is now. Walker should not go for an aggressive agenda to stick it to his political opponents. He has a unique opportunity to change Wisconsin’s political culture from one that serves Da Union to one that serves taxpayers.
For some reason, the Beatles’ “Sie Liebt Dich” got only to number 97 on the German charts:
The English translation did much better, yeah, yeah, yeah:
This would have never happened in Madison, but … in Milwaukee today in 1993, Don Henley dedicated “It’s Not Easy Being Green” to President Bill Clinton … and got booed.
How can one favor motorcycle helmet use but oppose motorcycle helmet laws?
Wayne Allard of the American Motorcycle Association explains:
For many years, my organization has strongly encouraged the voluntary use by adult riders of helmets certified by their manufacturers to meet the U.S. Department of Transportation standard as part of a comprehensive motorcycle safety program to help reduce injuries and fatalities in the event of a motorcycle crash.
However, helmet mandates are not the solution because helmets do not prevent crashes. The American Motorcyclist Association believes that comprehensive motorcycle safety programs must promote strategies that are designed to prevent motorcycle crashes from occurring in the first place.
Helmet mandates have unintended consequences: Tragically, the enforcement of mandates siphons funds from effective crash prevention programs. …
Motorist awareness programs have become an increasingly valuable strategy in reducing motorcycle crashes. One of the most frequent causes of motorcycle accidents is the violation of motorcyclists’ right of way by other drivers. As traffic density and the frequency of distracted vehicle operation have increased, motorcyclists benefit when drivers are regularly reminded to watch for motorcyclists. Many states do not dedicate enough funding for these kinds of programs.
Recent reports calling for helmet mandates have failed to note that the rate of motorcycle fatalities has been decreasing. NHTSA reported in October 2011 that the motorcycle fatality rate from 2000-’09 declined 15.59% per 100,000 registered vehicles and 22.48% per 100 million vehicle miles traveled.
The wisdom of helmet mandates is questionable. The Governor’s Highway Safety Association reported in May 2012 that 11 states that do not have universal helmet requirements reported fewer motorcycle fatalities in 2011, and seven states that have universal helmet laws reported greater fatalities in 2011.
The Chicago Tribune:
Television outlets that were fined for broadcasting bare butts and F-bombs got some relief from the U.S. Supreme Courton Thursday, but the ruling didn’t settle the question of whether the Federal Communications Commission’s indecency policy violates the First Amendment. …
The Supreme Court said an FCC crackdown on content it deemed indecent was poorly explained and arbitrarily enforced: A blurted obscenity by Cher during the 2002 Billboard Music Awards drew a violation, for example, but prolific cursing by soldiers in “Saving Private Ryan” did not. As Justice Elena Kagan noted during case arguments in January, “It’s like nobody can use dirty words or nudity except for Steven Spielberg.”
The FCC had long tolerated isolated bursts of profanity on the perfectly reasonable assumption that we’re all exposed to worse during, for example, our daily commute. But in the mid-2000s, the FCC began to hold stations responsible for airing “fleeting expletives” after on-air outbursts from Cher, actress Nicole Richie and U2 frontman Bono. ABC was cited for giving viewers an eyeful of Charlotte Ross‘ bare behind during an episode of “NYPD Blue.” And who can forget Janet Jackson‘s famous wardrobe malfunction during halftime of the 2004 Super Bowl?
The Supremes said broadcasters were deprived of due process because the FCC didn’t give fair notice of its policy change. That let ABC and Fox off the hook but also left the agency’s rules in place. …
Broadcasters had argued that the rules are “hopelessly outdated and fundamentally unfair.” They’re right.
The rules apply to only the handful of broadcast stations regulated by the FCC, not to hundreds and hundreds of cable, satellite and Internet stations. (Right here we need to note thatTribune Co.,the Chicago Tribune’scorporate parent, operates 23 TV stations in large markets nationwide.)
The FCC’s rules accomplish little. Scrubbed of what FCC lawyers delicately described as “the S-word and the F-word,” the airwaves still are loaded with racy content. Just watch thetalk shows, the nightly news, the Viagra ads. …
Sooner or later, we expect the Supreme Court will have to reconcile the FCC’s policy against the First Amendment, though by the time it happens it likely will be over something far racier than seven seconds of butt cheeks on “NYPD Blue.” In the meantime, the FCC should stop trying to micromanage its slice of the broadcast business. Consumers who want to avoid profanity on television can do it just fine with the remote.
My German side should appreciate this: Today in 1870, Richard Wagner premiered “Die Valkyrie”:
Today in 1964, the Beatles released their album “A Hard Day’s Night”:
Today in 1975, Sonny and Cher decided they didn’t got you babe anymore — they divorced:
(Interestingly, at least to me: Sonny and Cher revived their CBS-TV show after their divorce. Also, Cher did a touching eulogy at Sonny Bono’s funeral.)
Today in 1990, eight Kansas and Oklahoma radio stations decided to boycott singer KD Lang because she didn’t have a constant craving for meat, to the point she did an anti-meat ad:
Birthdays start with Billy Davis Jr. of the Fifth Dimension:
Jean Knight, who was dismissive of Mr. Big Stuff:
Rindy Ross, the B-minor-favoring singer of Quarterflash:
The Dubuque Telegraph Herald reports:
Vice President Joe Biden is scheduled to make a campaign stop in Dubuque on Wednesday, June 27, campaign officials have confirmed. …
Biden is making three eastern Iowa stops in two days — in Waterloo, Dubuque and Clinton — as part of the “Strengthening the Middle Class Tour.”
According to Obama’s campaign, the vice president will be highlighting what the White House described as the president’s ongoing efforts to grow Iowa’s rural economy and bolster the middle-class security for Iowa’s and America’s working-class families.
“Strengthening the middle class”? “Grow Iowa’s rural economy” (and presumably other states)? You mean like working to make sure gas jumps far past $4 a gallon? Pushing forms of energy that mean higher energy bills? Letting the environmentalists run amuck to make farming more and more difficult? Raising taxes on businesses that employ, you know, the middle class? The Obama administration has a funny definition of “strengthening.”
I’m also concerned that my IQ will be lower after hearing Biden speak. To paraphrase myself, Biden makes Dan Quayle look like a summa cum laude college graduate. Wednesdays are my Monday, except that with Independence Day coming I lose a day out of my week.
On the other hand, I’ve never seen a vice president in person. I saw presidential candidate George W. Bush twice in 2000 before he was elected president. I also saw presidential candidate Bob Dole in 1996 before he was not elected president. In the past month I have met not only Gov. Scott Walker, but four of his Cabinet secretaries. (What is this, an election year?)
Investors Business Daily channels its inner Ronald Reagan, who famously asked before the 1980 presidential election:
A Bloomberg poll out this week purports to find that “Americans say they’re better off since Obama took office.” Don’t believe it. Fact is that by most measures, Americans have fallen behind under Obama. …
Here are the facts:
More unemployed: As of May, there were almost 700,000 more people out of work than in January 2009, and the unemployment rate is higher — 8.2% vs. 7.8%. There are also 2.7 million more long-term unemployed — those who’ve been out of work for 27 weeks or more, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.
More discouraged workers: The number of “discouraged workers” — people who believe no job is available — is still 100,000 bigger than when Obama took office. There are also more people working part-time because they can’t find full-time jobs, and millions more who aren’t in the labor force at all.
Lower weekly earnings: BLS data also show that real median weekly earnings have dropped 3% during Obama’s time in the White House.
Less household income: Aside from a few upward blips along the way, real median household income has declined steadily under Obama, and is almost 10% below where it stood in January 2009, according to the latest report from Sentier Research.
Lower home prices: The price of existing-home sales has dropped 2.5% in real terms, according to the National Association of Realtors.
More misery: This index — which combines inflation and unemployment — is up 26% under Obama.
Greater income inequality: Obama likes to talk endlessly about fairness and complain about the growing income gap. But to the extent that it matters, income inequality has gotten much worse under Obama. …
And this is to say nothing of the massive debt that Obama has piled up which, as we pointed out Wednesday, could hamper growth for years to come.
Now, of course, Obama likes to blame President Bush for these lousy results. But the truth is that the recession ended five short months after Obama was sworn in — and long before most of his “stimulus” had been spent.
Plus, if history is any guide, the deep 2007-09 recession should have been followed by an even more powerful recovery. Had Obama’s recovery been merely average, there would be millions more with jobs today.
The problem is that Obama’s growth-choking policies have produced the worst economic recovery on record. And the sluggish growth over the past three years hasn’t been enough to lift most people’s boats, but has caused them to sink even further.
The Wall Street Journal’s Dan Henninger adds:
If for the next five months the president and Mitt Romney spoke of nothing other than economic growth—on the stump, in their debates, in their sleep—this election would be the best $2 billion “investment” of campaign funds that Citizens United ever enabled. Get the growth choice right, and we’ll be ok. Get it wrong and your kids will be talking Australia emigration.
Right now, with growth stuck below 2%, we’re toast. With strong growth at 3% or better, there will be jobs. With long-term growth, Medicare, debt and the rest of the horribles that keep worrywarts awake at night are solvable. With strong growth, the U.S. will not have to cede world leadership prematurely to whichever Chinese functionary slugs his way to the top of their heap. With strong growth, your college graduate can move out of the house. With normal American growth, Europe may be irrelevant but it won’t die, and a U.S. president won’t look oddly small talking to the Vladimir Putins of the world. …
Put differently, this is a substance election. It’s not about whether one “likes” Barack Obama or can’t warm to Mitt Romney. Voters have to pick two competing growth models, which means paying attention to what the candidates are saying about economic growth. …
It’s true the Obama Cleveland speech had many familiar rhetorical distortions. One of the most revealing, though, is that “Governor Romney and his allies in Congress believe deeply in the theory that . . . the best way to grow the economy is from the top down.”
Whatever that may mean, more interesting is the Obama counter-theory found here, what he calls “our North Star—an economy that’s built not from the top down, but from a growing middle class.”
There is no theory anywhere in non-Marxist economics that says growth’s primary engine is a social class. A middle class is the result of growth, not its cause. Barack Obama not only believes in class-based growth but has built his whole growth strategy around it.
One word appears nowhere in the 53-minute Obama speech on economic growth: “capital.” Human, financial, whatever. Capital dare not speak its name. …
If Mr. Romney hopes to win what Barack Obama is rightly calling a defining growth election, the governor will have to refute in detail the president’s notions of how growth happens and then explain to voters the real-economy alternative.
There seems to be a blue theme today, starting with the first birthday, Harold Melvin, who had Blue Notes:
Carly Simon:
Proving that there is no accounting for taste, I present the number six song today in 1972:
Twenty years later, Billy Joel got an honorary diploma … from Hicksville High School in New York (where he attended but was one English credit short of graduating due to oversleeping the day of the final):
Steve Prestegard.com: The Presteblog 