Wisconsin Clean Elections Coalition

From Wisconsin Democracy Campaign

The search is on. For the poison pill, that is. Even as the Wisconsin State Journal today editorialized that state lawmakers have run out of excuses for inaction on ethics reform, the Assembly’s ethics reform stonewaller-in-chief, Speaker-elect Mike Huebsch, is telling reporters that he and his legislative allies plan to try attaching an amendment to the ethics bill requiring a photo ID to vote in Wisconsin.

The photo ID requirement does not have the votes to pass in the new Legislature as a stand-alone bill. Repeated attempts to enact it in the past failed. It is a divisive and highly partisan idea that could take the “bi” out of bipartisan support for ethics reform legislation in a real hurry.

Opponents of ethics reform know that if a clean ethics bill is given an up-or-down vote, it will pass in both houses and will be signed into law by the governor. They know the only way to kill reform is to lace the legislation with poison. And Huebsch just tipped the obstructionists’ hand. (Posted by Mike McCabe)

I think we ought to fool the hell out of the Republicans and support the photo I.D. amendment for two reasons. First, because passing ethics reform is far more important than killing voter ID, and secondly, I actually support voter ID and believe the lefties should as well. I can think of no other mechanism that would eliminate the disenfranchisement of minority voters while simultaneously strengthening the integrity of the election process. It's a one-time fix. This is the best thing that could happen, though its opponents are somehow all nervoused up about it. I don't buy the argument that people can't find their way to a registration center. Let them sign up at the welfare office when picking up food stamps, or the post office or City Halls. Send a van out to those who are home-bound if necessary, but let's fix the system.

Phasing out corruption

To retain momentum, Democrats must pass promised reforms.

Phasing out corruption

By Jack E. Lohman

Disenchanted voters completed Phase 1 of a nationwide makeover which moved political power from the moneyed Republicans to the political left and center. Now it’s time for Phase 2, which is to see how serious the Democrats really are in cleaning up our corrupt political system.

We’ve redirected the flow of political cash and power to the party we (at least currently) trust to fix the system. But if all we’ve done is reversed the flow of cash, the Democrats will have failed us.

The moneyed interests will continue to control government policy unless the Dems honor the mandate of the voters. They now have the chance to pass meaningful ethics and campaign finance reform -- or they can choose to do nothing. If they choose the former they will legitimately become the party of reform, and will likely remain in power. If they choose the latter the voters will make further political cuts in 2008, and if the Republicans try to block reforms they too will be targeted in the next election.

The public has gotten smarter, and we now know how to get the message to the voters. It may require further turnover, but you can bet that our corrupt political system will be fixed.

The public has made it very clear that political corruption will no longer be tolerated. We will no longer sit idly by while politicians give away taxpayer assets in return for campaign cash, thus stealing from taxpayers for personal gain.

What is it that our state legislators did not understand when more than 90 percent of voters supported the 2000 referendum for campaign finance reform? They may want to bury this issue, but the voters will not and the six-year delay is unacceptable.

Enter the new Risser-Pocan Clean Money proposal which allows politicians to show their true colors -- which some would prefer not doing -- by either opting in or out of the clean money system. It leaves the current system in place, but allows politicians to instead choose to fund their campaigns with a public grant. After collecting a requisite number of $5 contributions from voters in their districts - to show community support and reduce frivolous candidates -- the candidate receives a public grant sufficient to run a competitive race. If heavy expenditures are made by a competitor, matching funds are provided to the public candidate. But the candidate may also choose to remain in the current moneyed system.

Note that the public is already funding the electoral system, through the back door and at hundreds of times more than if we funded it up front with a Risser-Pocan type of system. This bill eliminates the middlemen. It is simple and it has worked well in several other states. Rather than costing Wisconsinites the current $1,300 per taxpayer per year in state government giveaways, this costs just $5 -- a savings of $1,295 per taxpayer per year. The result will be balanced budgets and lower taxes, with $4 billion left over to expand health care, education and other needed programs.

The best part is that this doesn’t have to cost the taxpayer a penny. Arizona’s Clean Money system is funded by a surcharge on traffic fines, so even out-of-staters contribute. And if you don’t want to contribute, well, don’t speed.

Opponents will call it "welfare for politicians," but don’t you believe it. There is no better form of welfare for politicians than the current moneyed political system; where state legislators can hoard cash from special interests and then push for legislation that in turn distributes subsidies, tax breaks or no-bid contracts. It is not a pretty sight. It is corrupt, and it is costing taxpayers dearly.

Instead, the Clean Money system eliminates the current system of welfare for politicians, and all fiscal conservatives should support it.

Sure, there will be some Wisconsin politicians who would like to leave our corrupt system just as it is, and they’ll find some excuse to try and block reform. But they’ll be putting a big, red target on their re-election chances. That is Phase 3.

November 28, 2006

Jack Lohman is a retired business owner who lives in Colgate, and is the founder of ThrowTheRascalsOut.org and the author of the book  "Politicians - Owned and Operated by Corporate America."

Source: http://www.fightingbob.com/article.cfm?articleID=616

Single-Payer: Good for Business

by MORTON MINTZ

[from the November 15, 2004 issue of the Nation]

Business leaders complain endlessly that the current system of private healthcare insurance based on employment provides fewer and fewer people with less and less quality care at higher and higher cost. Yet Corporate America turns its back on a publicly financed system, which, by all indicators, the taxpayers would willingly support.

Publicly financed but privately run healthcare for all--including free choice of physicians--would cost employers far less in taxes than their costs for insurance. Universal coverage could also work magic in less obvious ways. For example, employers would no longer have to pay for medical care under workers' compensation, which in 2002 cost them more than $38 billion. Auto-insurance rates would fall for them--and everyone--if the carriers were no longer liable for medical and hospital bills. You'd think that in its own selfish interest, Corporate America would be fighting to replace the existing system with universal health coverage. Yet it doesn't lift a finger.

This is a must read article, especially if you are a business leader. See it HERE.

Tidbits

From www.TooMuchOnline.com: Quote of the Week

“The most important — and unfortunately the least debated — issue in politics today is our society's steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America's top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars. They own most of our stocks, making the stock market an unreliable indicator of the economic health of working people. The top 1 percent now takes in an astounding 16 percent of national income, up from 8 percent in 1980.”

Senator-Elect James Webb, Virginia, See Wall Street Journal article, November 14, 2006

Have you tried The World's Smallest Political Quiz? This is provided by a Libertarian group and it may be interesting to find out where you stand. Are you right, left or center? Go to www.self-gov.org/quiz.html

A friend asked me if I still considered myself a Republican, especially after advocating for their removal.

Yes, mostly, but I don't agree with some of the traditional GOP beliefs, and especially their ethics. It is really more appropriate to ask the question on an issue-by-issue basis. I support concealed carry and zero taxes for corporations, but I am in the middle on abortion and gay marriage. I am a strong supporter of capitalism but oppose CEOs that steal from shareholders. I support free-market on some issues (selling consumer and business products and services) but oppose it on others (converting health care from a social service to a for-profit market commodity). I support the taxpayers paying for health care rather than employers.

I supported Tommy Thompson's work-for-welfare and school choice, and my idea of no child being left behind is to totally fund college for all students that rank in the top 10% of SAT scores (but only those in the science, technology and educational categories).

I don't believe that God is a Republican or even an American, but I do believe that His morals and integrity should start at the top (which means that politicians should quit taking bribes). And I believe that Evolution is one of God's finest achievements.

So you may challenge my Republican distrust if you wish, but the recent election demonstrated that many Republicans jumped ship this time around. They were disgusted with the corruption in their party, and they deserve kudos for putting integrity before partisanship.

Bush Tax Cut Scorecard: Summary of Bush Tax Changes from 2001 to 2010 (from www.ctj.org) 

From the Congressional Tax Report Card

How they ranked (100 being pro-constituent, not the moneyed ones):

Russell Feingold D -                         80%
Herb Kohl D -                                     75%

Paul Ryan R–1 -                                 0%
Tammy Baldwin D–2 -                 100%
Ron Kind D–3 -                              100%
Gwen Moore D–4 -                        100%
F. James Sensenbrenner R–5 -   17%  (Not very good at representing his people!)
Thomas Petri R–6 -                            0%
David R. Obey D–7 -                       100%
Mark Green R–8 -                                 0%   (Can you imagine Mark Green as our Governor?)

The Money Party vs. The People Party - By David Sirota -This is the real divide that matters in politics - not Republicans and Democrats, but Money vs. People. Don’t let the pundits’ calls for nebulous “bipartisanship” fool you. Don’t let the pledges of “civility” from politicians divert your attention. There is too much bipartisanship in pursuit of selling out, and too much civility that hides a very uncivil class war that Congress has waged - and may continue to wage - on middle America. See the complete article HERE.

“I want to focus on an issue that is almost never talked about on the floor — that is the power of big money. What are the moral implications? What do these people do when they have tremendous amounts of money? They use that money to perpetuate their own wealth and their own power. Every day, Congress works on behalf of big-money interests.”

Senator-Elect Bernie Sanders, Vermont, Mother Jones, November 20, 2006  

Give me a Break!

We alerted readers to a "Free PDF Creator," but apparently the link did not work. Here is the corrected link: www.primopdf.com 

Lesson In Political Science http://www.greatdreams.com/political/politics_globalist_style.htm

For dog lovers: http://www.ThrowTheRascalsOut.org/Who_Let_The_Dogs_Out.wmv

Ninja man! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z34JYwNGFtw&feature=Favorites&page=1&t=t&f=b

God may have created man before woman, but there is always a rough draft before the masterpiece.

One day a little Girl was sitting and watching her Mother do the dishes at the Kitchen sink.  

She suddenly noticed that her Mother had several strands of white hair sticking out in contrast on her brunette head.

She looked at her Mother and inquisitively asked, "Why are some of your hairs white, Mom?"

Her Mother replied, "Well, every time that you do something wrong and make me cry or unhappy, one of my hairs turns white."

The little Girl thought about this revelation for a while and then said, "Momma, how come ALL of Grandma's hairs are white?"

Telemarketer Woes? Follow this JUNKBUSTERS Anti-Telemarketing Script

Book Recommendations

See other reviews on Amazon.com