I’m sorry that I didn’t have a chance to post on D-Day yesterday.  On June 6th, 1944, a group of men braved the Atlantic seawall to ensure that freedom could prevail.  Many did not return.  For their bravery, their progeny were given freedom and an opportunity to dream of a more perfect world.  It is worth thinking about whether we have honored their sacrifice. 

I personally love history.  Many people think that history is some sort of albatross–that it doesn’t apply to their lives because it is the history of people a long time ago.  Untrue.  Dwight Eisenhower’s forgotten message meant for release if D-Day failed teaches us a powerful lesson about duty and accountability.

http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/06/13/quote-of-the-moment-eisenhower-duty-and-accountability/

Eisenhower wrote in his message to be released:

Our landings in the Cherbourg-Havre area have failed to gain a satisfactory foothold and I have withdrawn the troops. My decision to attack at this time and place was based upon the best information available. The troops, the air [force] and the navy did all that bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone.

His first draft said, “the troops have been withdrawn” as if some awesome third party god was making a decision.  But Eisenhower scribbled out those words, and pressed on.  He took personal responsibility for making an all but impossible decision and he took full personal responsibility for failure, even when there were other a hundred other scapegoats–the weather, the planners, the intelligence corps.  In our modern life, we do a lot of CYA.  D-Day, the men who lead it, and the men who died fighting it remind us an ideal worthy of consideration.

h/t Paul Fussell (The Story of War).

As a person who knows what joint and several liability will do to the cost of insurance in this state, this is a great exchange among members of the Democratic assembly caucus:

Currently, there’s a lively debate on joint and several liability language, which some are having trouble comprehending.

“Can you put it in layman’s terms?” Speaker Mike Sheridan asked.

“I’m a non-lawyer and I’ve dumbed it down as far as I can,” said an LFB staffer.

“We need a book ‘Legislating for Dummies,’” Schneider cracked.

Rep. Rob Turner suggested the proposal isn’t “ready for prime time” if the lawmakers are having trouble understanding it.

Pocan said there would be a clearer explanation for lay people handed out to the caucus by Monday.

From Christian Schneider at www.wpri.org/blog/

May be making people who are only 20% at fault for the damages  liable for 100% of the plaintiff’s damages doesn’t make sense to anyone, and even the silver tongue orators of the trial lawyer lobbyists cannot change that fact.  It should be called the “deep pocket rule”–if there is an accident and someone who causes it has “deep pockets” then he/she pays.

I guess they closed the caucus to the press soon thereafter.

You know what else is killing business?  Mandatory Sick Leave!  Talk to Tim Sheehy about it on June 11th at our Social Hour.   Mo’s, 5:30-8:00.  Why not join us?

Many people have mentioned that they like what we’re doing, except that it’s not convenient for them or not targeted for their particular demographics.  The easy response is that for CYP to be successful at what it’s doing, it has to be very targeted and very convenient for our target audience (although, granted Heather Treptow is making us all better people by making us go to swankier restaurants–if it were up to me, we’d probably have all the meetings at Leff’s Luckytown, but I digress).

But that doesn’t mean there is no hope!  In fact, it’s just the opposite.  If you have three people or so, you can start your own outreach organization.  CYP members have some experience in this, so we can help, and we are more than willing to do so.  The important part is the outreach–the welcoming attitude of people doing something worthwhile but also fun.  I personally think these things should be narrowly targeted.   If you’ve got that, then let us know, and we’ll help out with setting up the blog/email system and tell you some things we’ve learned. 

We don’t run this organization from the top down, and I don’t think we’re going to try to expand it from the top down, either.  I’m not too interested in telling people what to do; I will give you enough help and advice that you can figure it out yourself.

It’s a pretty simple system.  Once it’s up and running, the time commitment is pretty minimal.  Let me know:  [email protected]

And sign up for the tailgate already.  See “upcoming events”.

One simply can not make this stuff up.

The embarrassment that is state Sen. Lena Taylor continues.  Apparently in addition to driving on the wrong side of the road and then using her position as a legislator and attorney to wriggle her way out of the properly issued citation back in January, she thought it necessary to solicit votes as people waited in line to cast a ballot during this falls election.  In addition, after walking away from the police, officers asked her for identification and she stated she didn’t have any.  The officers, who had seen her driving, properly asked her why she was driving without proper identification and she made the clever statement highlighted above, one only an attorney could make with a straight face (I have a law degree, I know the power of legal rationalization).  JSOnline has the full story.

When will the citizens of Milwaukee County, particularly the city of Milwaukee,  assert  an oversight role and hold elected officials accountable?  Legislators are to be held to a higher standard.  Sen. Taylor’s erratic behavior is an embarrassment for the people of her district.  Unfortunately, this is an all-to-common occurrence in the city.  Michael McGee terrorized his district as an alderman.  Now Sen. Taylor is beginning to establish a similarly disdainful attitude toward law enforcement.

Share a Guinness at Moe’s Irish Pub with CYPs and show you don’t like the mandatory sick leave ordinance

This group is late to the party; CYPers may not know this:  the City of Milwaukee passed, at referendum, an ordinance that all employers must grant each employee a certain amount of sick leave.  The ordinance has now been challenged in court on the grounds that a city, under Wisconsin law, does not have the power to create such an ordinance.

Why is this such a bad idea?  CYPers know that regulation, even if it is meant well, is an afront to freedom–why not let employees and employers contract at will? 

CYPers also realize that regulation hurts businesses and the area’s competitiveness for jobs.  There are no free lunches in the free market; if employers have higher costs of hiring workers, they will hire fewer of these jobs.  These are mainly entry-level jobs for people without much in the way of education or experience.  Also, businesses that rely heavily on these workers (generally service businesses) can easily locate elsewhere. 

This sort of micromanagement of the economy makes people feel good; unfortunately, it drives away economic growth and makes the area stagnant.  Some businesses will stay and pay the benefits.  Others, though, will move to the suburbs.  Still others will perceive the entire region as having a high regulatory burden will locate their businesses elsewhere (which will hurt the entire region and everyone in it).  Why is the City of Milwaukee creating more regulation and burdens on entrepreneurs–the lifeblood of a growing economy?

I personally think that it’s fine to think that the lowest-paid workers should have sick leave.  But to mandate it in the face of the economic consequences is misguided and will only hurt many of the people that the ordinance is supposed to be protecting.  It also flies in the reality that it makes the entire region far less competitive, and in doing so, decreases the ability of the region to provide for its disadvantaged.  These sort of measures may have short-term benefits, but in the long-term, they create a cycle of high-taxes, high regulation, and wealth distribution that eventually drives the highest contributing citizens away from a city and elsewhere. 

If you want employees to have higher salaries and more benefits, then the employees have to be worth it on their own (that employers will gladly pay the benefits because the workers are more productive).  It is possible to make the workforce more productive–you can invest in education that produces results.  You can make government more efficient (less taxes for the same or more services).  These are far more difficult strategies to execute and cannot be put on a banner or a ballot. 

And so, we’ve asked Tim Sheehy of the MMAC (Milwaukee’s chamber of commerce; Tim is the President) to come to our next happy hour and briefly explain the detrimental economic effect this ordinance, if allowed to stand, will have on our metropolitian area.

Remember when President Obama promised to improve America’s image on the world stage?

Thus far, the president has shaken Hugo Chavez’s hand with a smile, asked North Korea politely to play nicely with others (oddly enough, test missiles have not stopped flying since), and has now managed to snub Great Britain, America’s closest ally, not once, but twice.

Back in March, Obama welcomed Gordon Brown to Washington, D.C. Brown brought a number of gifts with special meaning for the President (an ornamental pen holder made from a Victorian anti-slave shape and a first edition of a Churchill biography, among others). The United States, through President Obama, returned this favor by presenting the Prime Minister with a box set of 25 classic American films.

Now, with the 65th anniversary of the D-Day Normandy invasion close at hand, Queen Elizabeth II will not be joining in the ceremonies. The French have declined to invite the queen, despite the fact that she is the only living head of state who served in uniform during World War II, because the French are “focused on the ‘main event’ of hosting U.S. President Barack Obama.’”

Admittedly, this second incident is not President Obama’s fault-not directly at least.  However, it represents another misstep in America’s relationship with its closest ally; certainly after handling of the prior incident was panned by Americans and Brits alike, the White House should have been attentive to the significance of an event like the D-Day celebration. After all, only one of the three leaders at issue had any sort of direct involvement in the actual D-Day, and it would not have taken much research to figure that one out and find some way to mitigate the diplomatic damage before it occurred.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124329282377252471.html

Maryland made its state income tax heavily progressive or “fair”.  They taxed the heck out of the rich.  So the rich are leaving.

This is not revolutionary–you can read about it in introductory economics class–people making money don’t like to give it to the government and if they have options that are not as bad as paying the tax, they will use those options.

Everyone should be very, very skeptical when liberals come up with high-falutin’ ideas like:  taxes can pay for themselves because we’re investing in infastructure, and people will pay for that.  Maybe.  Maybe they’ll take advantage of it and pay their income taxes in another state with lower income taxes.  It’s difficult to withhold those investments from non-residents.  Also, if these “investments” are really redistribution or waste–that is, the taxes aren’t worth paying because the government can’t do anything without overpaying the unions or paying too much for toilet seats or whatever–then you can kiss those high-income taxpayers good-bye.  Those are the taxpayers who create jobs and growth for others, by the way.  And make no mistake about it, infastructure will not be judged on pretty the words sound–residents and businesses will move when they get a handle on the cold and hard facts about whether the “increased standard of living” is worth the extra taxes.  Because government programs usually come with a heavy dose of redistribution, they usually are not.

It is also very likely that these people are not making as much money, so you’ve got too effects.  Over time, it’s a certainty that these people will be leaving.

We as a group are trying to focus more on state and local issues, those issues that touch our lives in a direct manner.  Therefore, I apologize for making the jump to the federal level.  As screwed up as Madison and Milwaukee appear, the hypocrisy in Washington is sometimes simply too obvious to ignore. 

President Obama has called for bipartisan treatment with respect to the nomination of Judge Sotomayor to the nation’s high court.  However, his directive rings hollow when you compare the resumes of Judge Sotomayor and Justice Alito and then consider his approach and ultimate vote with respect to Justice Alito as a U.S. Senator.  Even though the two appear to have identical credentials, then Senator Obama felt it necessary to vote against Alito’s confirmation because as a Senator, he rightly felt it necessary to examine a judge’s “philosophy, ideology, and record.”  See Sen. Obama Floor Statement on the Confirmation of Judge Samuel Alito (January 26, 2006).  I hope the President remembers that he disagrees with the philosophy that a “President, having won [an] election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the Justice is intellectually capable and an all around nice guy.”  Id.

Justice Alito and Judge Sotomayor share almost every professional credential:

Undergrad, Princeton
Law School, Yale
Editor of Yale Law Journal
Prosecutor (Alito in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in N.J., Sotomayor in the N.Y. District Attorney’s Office)
Adjunct Professor (Alito at Seton Hall School of Law, Sotomayor at N.Y. Univ. School of Law)
Court of Appeals Judge (Alito 3rd Circuit, Sotomayor 2nd Circuit) 

Understanding the two appear to similarly be “intellectually capable and all around nice [people],” let’s hope President Obama does not criticize Republican Senators who then also examine Judge Sotomayor’s “philosophy, ideology, and record.”  If anything, the President understanding that GOP Senators will want to examine her background and judicial philosophy would be the truly bipartisan gesture.

Just a decade ago, California was the place to be.  The state looked economically unstoppable.  It had a technology boom.  It was attracting the best and the brightest to create whole new industries.  It has great weather.  California looked to be the future and a land full of riches.

But then something happened.  It didn’t happen all at once, but it happened.  California had a terrific economic surplus–investments there seemed to return greater returns because it was located in California.   California politicians worked to redistribute that surplus to other parts of the population, because, hey, there would always be more–more business investment, more jobs, and more growth.   California raised taxes to pay higher wages to governmental unions on the notion that the “investment” would yield results or for fairness sakes.  California believed that it could regulate businesses to get better outcomes for society.  These are all great goals to have.

But eventually, California lost its luster.  Other states began competing with California for its technology and defense jobs.  They worked to become more conducive to business.  They lowered their taxes and worked to make their governmental services more competitive and efficient.  For many businesses, California is no longer the “must be” place, for many others, California is no place to do business at all.  So the growth has slowed, and California is now stuck with an unsustainable welfare state dependent on high taxes that businesses are less willing to pay than before. 

A better blog than this one points out the similarities between California and Wisconsin–including the out-of-control spending and borrowing.

http://www.marketplacemagazine.com/blogs/blog2.php/2009/05/26/replace-california-with-wisconsin-and

There is a notion out there that Wisconsin doesn’t have to compete–that we can afford to tax businesses and make things more difficult for them because we have a “high quality of life” and other such nonesuch.  We do have a high quality of life.  But make no mistake about it–states compete and there are other states that are able to offer a similar quality of life for less.