When it comes to explaining political results, I’ve always been of the school of thought that campaign strategy and  who had the most clever advertisement matter far less than two things:  the ability to reach the voter on a cfonsistent basis and what is going on economically in the country.  In fact, there have been some good studies about how the best predicator, by far, of who wins the presidency is the state of the economy at the time of the election–if the economy is doing well, the incumbent party does well, if not, then, the challenging party does well.  As long as the incumbent party doesn’t do anything outrageous, the incumbents tend to stay in power barring an economic downtown.  I realize that’s a generalization, especially given the small number of data points. 

It is difficult to beat an incumbent governor in Wisconsin.  Unlike a state like Minnesota, with one large media market, the state has many people in many different media markets.  A campaign has to master the territory of Dane County, the Fox River Valley and the Milwaukee metro area.  It is a very difficult thing to educate all of those people about a new candidate and why the incumbent stinks.  Unless, of course, the wind is at your back and the economy has faltered on his watch.  In that case, the case is obvious for why he stinks–the other guy just has to show up.  Remember, this worked for Doyle once, too.

Friday was the very first day I thought it would be possible for a Republican gubernatorial candidate to win in 2010.  Why?  As the the WPRI blog reviews a new poll, Doyle’s numbers are down.

Doyle’s numbers have always been mediocre and it didn’t stop him from dealing effectively with Green.  Green had the aforementioned challenge, Doyle only had to dispatch him before he could build the campaign operation by labeling him as extreme.  But that was 2006, a, ahem, very different time.   I think there is some reason to think these numbers are different–that the people who do not approve of Doyle aren’t going to be “settling” for him at the end of the campaign because they don’t like Scott Walker’s views on stem cell research.

I think the economy colors these poll numbers very, very differently.  In America, it is a shocking thing to be in the kind of economic situation we are in.  Not only is there a general slowdown and almost everyone is making less and feeling less secure, but there are upheavals in some industries that shattering the expectations of the employees in those industries (autos, perhaps financial services). 

Everyone I know is going to expend a tremendous amount of effort in the gubernatorial race.  The eventual Republican nominee will have a credible campaign.  But winning or losing may come down to whether the recovery has occurred and enough people have healed from these general upheavals.  It’s a question of timing.  We know that there is some sort of a recovery going on in the equity markets and in the commodity markets (the price of gas is creeping up).  Consumer confidence is up somewhat and the housing market may have hit the bottom.  These are the harbingers of a recovery.

But to the voters in the middle (independents), these are interesting, but not central facts to their voting decision.  The things that affect them the most, the unemployment rate and wage increases, tend to lag the overall economy quite a bit.  In those areas, we’ve probably got quite a long ways to go.  In fact, with the announcement that revenue collections have come in far lower than expected, Gov. Doyle has announced that state workers will probably be subject to layoffs, wage freezes and furloughs–and suddenly the fortress seemingly oblivious to recession that is Dane County looks a whole lot more vulnerable.  Wisconsin, as a whole, has tended to lag in this recession.  For state finances, the worst is yet to come.

I’ve seen a little bit of uptick of economic activity.  But jobless claims are still going up and with the reconfiguration of the auto industry that will lead to the loss of a massive amount of jobs, and that could continue for a while.

People in industries that were heavily affected by lay-offs (they or someone they knew was laid-off) are not going to feel good about the economy and secure about their future for a long time (6 months?  does anyone know of any research done on that?).  For dislocated workers, the effects will be even longer.  Also, the uptick won’t happen like the downturn happened in September-October 2008:  it’s a gradual process.

So if recovery starts by the end of 2009 and really starts to pick up by the middle of 2010, then expect to see a whole bunch of “morning in Wisconsin” advertisements for Jim Doyle.  If the economy takes longer or stalls along the way, or hiring lags just slightly, then Doyle could have a tough road to reelection as he tries to convince everyone that recovery is just around the corner.

What is the difference between a conservative and liberal judge? Do politics influence too many judges? What is judicial activism and why must we pick judges that avoid it?

Mike Brennan, a retiring Milwaukee Circuit Court judge and leading Milwaukee conservative will briefly answer these questions at a reception on May 21st at the Milwaukee Athletic Club.  Please join us for this special night.

There will be appetizers and a cash bar. No reservation is needed. We will collect a $10.00/person donation at the door to cover expenses.

Speaker: Michael B. Brennan – Former Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge and current Trial Attorney with Gass Weber Mullins LLC will talk about the role of Judges and politics in the Judiciary.

Date: May 21st
Time: 6PM
Location: The Elephant Room at Milwaukee Athletic Club (758 N. Broadway)

Brought to you by the CYP and the Milwaukee Federalist Society.

A special thanks to Christian Schneider for being our special guest last night. A good time was had by all. You can always find Christian and his thoughts at http://www.wpri.org/blog/

Again, also thanks to Heather Treptow who got us an awesome venue.

Remember: Tailgate, June 27th, sign up and get your money in.

Recent tax protests (and/or tea parties)  took place mainly in response to the federal “stimulus” package passed earlier this year. However, recent proposals and events right here in Wisconsin illustrate that, like President Obama at the federal level, state politicians are going to ignore the public’s calls for fiscal responsibility and continue on a tax and spend spree that is completely inappropriate for the current economic climate.

Governor Doyle announced a proposed state tax increase in his budget back in February, which came as no surprise to many. However, three more tax increase proposals have come in during the last two weeks.

1. Increase Milwaukee County property taxes for Milwaukee Public Schools. Despite declining enrollment in the school system, officials warned recently that a large tax increase, potentially in the double digits for property taxes, is likely for Milwaukee. Personally, I can’t tell you how pleased I am that I just bought property here and will be using more of my income to support what few will deny is a failing school system.

2. Sales tax increase for Milwaukee County to 6.6%. While stating that this sales tax increase would decrease cut property taxes, the funds from the increased sales tax are to be used for transit, parks, and emergency medical services, not the public school system, so state law makers may well put both tax increases into effect.

3. Proposed increase in the state beer tax in Wisconsin. This proposal is remarkable not for the amount of the tax increase, but for the fact that Governor Doyle has actually said he would veto such a tax. Apparently, Wisconsin’s social engineering will be limited only to large-scale increases in the cigarette tax at this time.

Wisconsin is already in the top 10 nationally for highest tax burden. This is not a category for which Wisconsin should not be vying with California and New York for top honors.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113732498675505.html

Regarding the problems at Chrysler, Barak Obama went on national television yesterday to (1) hawk Chrysler products (no thanks, Kohouts drive Chevies) and (2) demonize the secured creditors who insist that they receive a better deal than what the president deemed convenient.  Because these hedge funds and creditors would not cooperate, the deal fell through and now Chrylser enters bankruptcy (bankruptcy, the president tells us, is really sign of strength–remember, some of the people, all of the time). 

The problem is that secured creditors are just that–these creditors provided Chrysler money with the legal guarantee that, if Chrysler ever had to be liquidated, they would receive the receipts from the sale of those assets.  Granted, those assets may not be worth the amount of money generated from the sale of the assets, but the secured creditors are assured of getting all of the liquidated money.  The rest of Chrysler’s creditors follow–the unions, the pension plans, the executive management’s unsecured pensions, everything (FYI, attorney fees are paid first.  It pays to write the rules).

But Chrysler won’t be liquidated.  Apparently, even after it lost a ton of money for Mercedes-Benz and for Cerbereus and the U.S. government, somebody still wants it (Fiat, but they aren’t actually putting any money up for it–the U.S. government will keep doing that), people still believe it has some going-concern value.  To give the company new owners, all of the current debt holders (and contract holders, such as the auto unions) will have to take a haircut on the amount they are owed (Chrysler is not worth as much as the amount of money that has been loaned to it).

In bankruptcy, though, the secured creditors must receive at least what they would have in a liquidation (because they need to approve the plan, the law assures them that they will be better off for having let the company continue instead of being liquidated).  So a group of secured creditors (those not operating with TARP funds and thus taking their orders from the government) refused to take a larger haircut than bankrupty law or finance law will require them to when they were asked to do so for the common good by the President.

 Despite what Barack said about the auto union taking a big hit (which is true), the unions are still being unrealistic–there simply isn’t enough value in Chrysler to pay them even the amount they were willing to settle for.  That’s unfortunate, but it’s a fact of life.  Employees are not secured creditors. 

And for this, simply exercising their legal rights, they were demonized by a president who apparently believes he can whip out the word “recession” and get his way.  For all this talk of hope and change, when Barak has a little bit of trouble he’s awfully fast to blame or demonize somebody.  The new thing, I guess, is to attack creditors as if it is wrong to ask for the money back that they loaned to a corporation:

“I don’t stand with those who held out” for a better deal, said Mr. Obama, who called these players “a small group of speculators” whose decisions “endanger Chrysler’s future.”

Oh, you mean that funds are going to hold out for the deal that they bargained for?  I guess so.  Is Obama under the impression that if the president asks loudly enough, he can get his way?  Did he fail to mention that “he’s the only thing in the way between them and the pitchforks”?  Look at the phrasing of that sentence:  “I don’t stand with…”  The implication is that it’s important for the President to stand with private investors.  It used to be that they could hang their hat on basic contract law without worrying about if the President is there to “stand behind them.”  Unforunately for Obama, contract law is not an exercise in political will or neighborhood organizing.  There are these things called “contracts” and to run an efficient economy, you can’t have the government breaking them at its whim for “public policy reasons.” 

If a corporation has a large, politically connected union, that corporation is going to be hard pressed to loan money on secured terms (that’s a pretty obvious, given the result in this case).  That’s kind of too bad, because ultimately, what will lift the U.S. out of this recession will be business investment.  If investors do not feel that their rights are protected, it is unknown why they wouldn’t choose to buy Treasury Bonds instead.  The U.S. has a very efficient economy because this sort of quasi-government interference in the market does not happen. 

But even if Obama believed that the public policy of keeping Chrysler afloat should change hundred of  years of contract law, the administration had one big problem:  the hedge funds managers have something called “fiduciary duty” to the people who entrusted them with investing their money.  That means the managers don’t get to run a ponzi scheme and they don’t get to give the money away to the government or to the common good.  The managers are trusted with making money for their investors.  Surprisingly, these funds (those who aren’t already receiving government money through TARP) decided that they’d better fulfill their legal duty, seeing how they are liable for it and all.

And now, it’s going to be a long time for the U.S. government to get out of the car business.  Because Obama overplayed his hand and couldn’t strong-arm the investment community, Chrylser is going to bankruptcy court.  The problem there will be, do the other secured creditors (all buoyed by their own government money) votes made in “good faith.”  http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113528027275219.html  What a debacle!

And so all of this is terribly worrisome, not least of which to the law school students in bankruptcy courses all across the country who are preparing for exams.  But what is funny about it is that while Obama has demonized “creditors” and lionized the little guy debtors, he forgot a truth about corporate bankruptcy law:  such gross characterizations are without merit.  There are no “good guys” and “bad guys.”  Instead, Chrysler, it’s suppliers and union workers are on one side, while Chryslers’ creditors are on the other:  yes, banks like Citigroup who probably should be in bankruptcy themselves sans their government money, but also large investment funds.  Large investment funds invest money primarily for rich people and pension plans and non-profits.  Teacher pension plans are some of the largest institutional investors, as well as university endowments.  Check out the statement by the non-TARP lenders:

http://blogs.wsj.com/deals/2009/04/30/statement-from-non-tarp-lenders-of-chrysler/

we represent many of the country’s teachers unions, major pension and retirement plans and school endowments who have invested through us in senior secured loans to Chrysler.

We have a fiduciary responsibility to all those teachers, pensioners, retirees and others who have entrusted their money to us. We are legally bound to protect their interests.

The law says the auto unions can’t be paid with teacher union pension money, even if the president stands behind it.

What is the difference between a conservative and liberal judge? Do politics influence too many judges? What is judicial activism and why must we pick judges that avoid it? If your interested in the answers to these questions, then join us for an informal get together on May 21st at 6pm.

There will be appetizers and a cash bar. No reservation needed. We will collect a $10.00/person donation at the door to cover expenses.

Speaker: Michael B. Brennan – Former Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge and current Trial Attorney with Gass Weber Mullins LLC will talk about the role of Judges and politics in the Judiciary.

Date: May 21st
Time: 6PM
Location: The Elephant Room at Milwaukee Athletic Club (758 N. Broadway)

Brought to you by the CYP and the Milwaukee Federalist Society.

Wednesday, May 6th Happy Hour

Time:  5:30-7:30

Place:  Charro  http://www.charrorestaurante.com/

Did you miss Cinco de Mayo?  Join CYP for our monthly happy hour–no cover.  We’ll be joined by special guest blogger Christian Schneider from the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute (www.WPRI.org).  Christian’s snarky posts on politics and the budget can be found here:  http://www.wpri.org/blog/  Christian is a young professional who is fighting the good fight in Madison. 

Here’s a post worth reading asking whether the Packer’s crappy season is related to Jim Doyle’s crappy budget:  http://www.wpri.org/blog/?p=687  The answer is:  yes. 

Social hour is free–although you buy your own drinks.  Please bring a friend. 

 A special thanks to Jeff Schaefer, Heather Treptrow and Travis Riffey–your social hour committee.

Also, sign up for the Brewers Tailgate June 27th

The Conservative Young Professionals will host a tailgate in conjunction with the Republican Party of Milwaukee County before June 27th Brewers game versus the San Francisco Giants.  Food and refreshments (yes, alcoholic refreshments) and a game ticket will only cost $30. Cost to attend the tailgate without tickets is $10. 

Luke Steffel will bring beanbags. 

Tickets are limited, so reserve your spot ASAP. To reserve your spot, please send a check ( with your name ) to:

RPMC Attn: tickets
P.O. Box 14665
West Allis, WI 53219

This spring’s election was not kind to conservative candidates.  Judge Koschnick, Rose Fernandez and Daniel Gabler all suffered tough defeats last Tuesday.  Making excuses never does any good.  Conservatives need to continue in their efforts to strengthen conservative organizations that will assist in spreading the conservative message and to help in recruiting solid conservatives to take on entrenched liberal interests.  Americans for Prosperity of Wisconsin took over the Midwest Express Center at their annual gathering.  Over 350 concerned activists attended the Milwaukee County Republican Party’s Lincoln Day event a few weeks ago.  Thousands are expected to attend the AFP taxpayer rally in Madison this Wednesday.  Conservatism in Wisconsin is not dead.  We need to continue to organize, raise funds, and find good folks to run at all levels.

HOWEVER, there is something that has bothered me since Tuesday that I cannot overlook.  One of Chief Justice Abrahamson’s last commercials before the election focused on the role of “special interests” and warned voters of the possible influence of such advocacy.  The only problem is that the ominous tone of the commercial really highlighted the major storyline of the election.  The ONLY special interest influence came from the political left.

Following election to the state’s high court of conservative candidates in 2007 and 2008, pundits throughout the state howled at the role special interest money played in the election, especially funding from the state’s largest business lobby, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce.  Funny, but I don’t hear that same howling.  If the left was going to be intellectually honest, it would denounce the role special interests played in this spring’s election.

The Greater Wisconsin Committee contributed to the campaign of the Chief Justice.  She raised close to $1.3 million during the election cycle, much of it raised during the fall’s election.  Conversely, Judge Koschnick raised only $180,000.  The election for State Superintendent of Public Instruction offers an ever clearer picture.  The state’s teachers union, WEAC, spent nearly $700,000 on behalf of Evers.  That amount included $500,000 in television and radio buys.  Rose simply could not match the influence of WEAC.

The reason we don’t hear howling similar to 2007 and 2008 is because liberals only complain when conservatives and like-minded interest groups organize and attempt to affect the status quo in Wisconsin.  When a group like WMC decides to spend money in order to promote candidates that advocate judicial restraint and don’t favor unlimited liability, they are portrayed as the evil forces of “special interest.”  When WEAC completely dominates an election with special interest money, there is a sigh of relief that the status quo was not affected.  Either special interest groups have the right to raise funds and express political messages during elections or they don’t.  Those on the left can’t have it both ways.

But no more complaining.  Conservatives were not as organized as we needed to be and did not raise the funds needed to challenge the only special interests involved in this spring’s election.  If conservatives are going to challenge the likes of Governor Doyle in 2010, the work needs to begin now.  Lord knows the “special interests” are going to be ready.

With so much going on at the federal level, Wisconsin conservatives need to continue paying attention to our state officials.  I know with the trillions being spent at the federal level and the national debt increasing at an absolutely alarming rate, it is natural to forget about what is going on in Madison.  However, that is a risk conservatives in Wisconsin cannot afford to take…..literally.

Mark Gundrum recently outlined in his constituent newsletter that the Chairman of the Joint Finance Committee kept in the state budget:

40 of the 80 items identified by the non-partisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau as policy items that would be more appropriately dealt with as individual legislation outside of the budget process.

Examples of the pure policy items kept in the budget include:

provisions expunging the record of convicted criminals, a statewide smoking ban, changes in the state law on contributory negligence in lawsuits, collection of traffic stop data related to race, and provisions related to staff credentials, school accreditation, pupil records, and pupil participation in religious activities at schools participating in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program

Democrats in the legislature are clearly undercutting the legislative process by inserting policy items into a massive state budget in order to avoid voting on controversial issues. 

A budget is intended to fund ongoing operations or new spending which has been debated in open hearings.  By including such policy choices, Democrats are avoiding accountability.  A vote for the state budget is in reality of vote for substantive policy considerations which should be debated on an individual basis.  Mark gets it right when he notes that such decisions should go through the “normal ‘good government’ process.”

Just because things are getting messy at the federal level doesn’t mean state Democrats should be able to avoid “good government.”  It is our job to uphold that standard.

CYP, along with co-host Milwaukee County GOP, will be hosting a Milwaukee Brewers tailgate on Saturday June 27th at Miller Park. The Milwaukee Brewers face the San Francisco Giants at 6:05pm.

The cost is $30 per person. This includes a ticket to the game, catered food and drink.

There are a limited number of tickets available, so make your reservation soon.

Hope to see you there!