One of the best things about CYP has been our speakers.  We feel that the quality of our speakers has really been top notch.  From Tim Sheehy to Mike Grebe to Scott Walker, we are very proud to offer a tremendous assortment of Milwaukee conservatives.  You should come to our events to see our speakers in action and to shake their hand.  Its better and less biased than reading about it in the newspaper. 

For example, you could have met re-elected Supreme Court Justice David Prosser.  He told you what was going to happen in the campaign and it did.  Nevertheless, the forces of truth, justice and the American way won out and for that we are thankful.  Congratulations Justice Prosser! 

“A funny thing happened to me on the way to my concession speech,” Prosser said. “The people of Wisconsin told me to tear it up and go back to work.”

For more, check out MacIver:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RO9Rf49nleE&feature=player_embedded

Despite what Democrats and some Republicans are saying in Washington, there is no more money.  I suppose that’s a little imprecise–there is a question if the US can pay back its debt at the rate its going.  In 2011, the US will run a deficit of 10.8% of GDP.  That is a $1.5 trillion deficit. 

Now it isn’t just the tea partiers talking about the goverment’s outrageous deficit.  Its the S&P bond rating service, which gave the U.S. a “negative” rating on its ability to pay back its debt.

These are scary times.  The idea that the US could default on its debt was unimaginable.  Well, a decade of politicians spending money uncontrollably has put us in a bad spot.

What will get us out of this mess?  First, the resilient US economy will continue to bounce back.  Hopefully, policies at the state level, where pro -business governors, will help business grow by decreasing the burden on business.

Second, there are indications that politicians are getting serious about this issue.  As voters are finally waking up to the notion that we can’t spend any more money (sometimes it takes voters a while to become educated on various topics), it will become more palatable to mount serious reforms to control the debt.

That’s where Paul Ryan comes in and his roadmap to the future.  Rep. Ryan has been serious about offering up solutions to the nation’s deficit problems by tackling the outsized and unsustainable growth in entitlements.  At very least, Ryan can claim a victory in pulling the President and Democrats to the table and offer their own plan.

In the meantime, Republicans and Democrats agreed to a $40 billion reduction in spending in the current year.  I was part of an e-mail debate about whether a bill that solved 2.6% of the problem was worth it or if the Republicans caved in negotiations with the President.  I thought it was a good first step on a continuing budget resolution that, because of time and subject matter, did not consider entitlements or military spending. 

Shooting was great on Sunday.  We thankfully still have our second amendment rights.

Election day is here once again. With all that has taken place in Madison over the last couple of months, today’s statewide race for Supreme Court and the local race for Milwaukee County Executive are especially important.

Among those on the ballot today are recent CYP guests Justice David Prosser and County Executive candidate Jeff Stone. And for those of you living in the 60th assembly district, founding CYP member Jake Curtis is running for the state assembly seat vacated by Mark Gottlieb when Governor Walker appointed him the head of the state’s Department of Transportation earlier this year.  

Click here if you’re not sure where to vote. Polls are open until 8 PM.

By now, we’ve all heard about the protests and the governor’s stance. Obviously, most people in CYP support the governor whole-heartedly.   Our friends at WPRI have some of the better write-ups on this here.

After reading this article about how the protestors have made this into a big sleepover, it reminded me of that great anti-hero, Eric Cartman:

cartmans-plan

I watched parts of the President’s address.  It is clear that he doesn’t want to spend any more money….  He wants to “invest” it!  Not like you or I may invest in our 401(k), though, by owning a hard assets.  More like by spending more money, but this time, with the idea that it could have some sort of return.  That’s odd then that he wants to invest in education.  Because education funding largely is not linked to increases in academic achievement.  That’s not a very good investment!

In any case, CYP is going to an admirals game on February 18th.  Get your tickets here:

http://events.r20.constantcontact.com/register/event?oeidk=a07e3b5vwpid70be4f9&llr=a9884scab

Also, remember: 

CYP Ronald Reagan’s 100th Birthday Party

Rock Bottom Brewery

February 10th, 2011

 5:30-7:30

 Ronald Reagan’s birthday is February 6th and this year, he would be 100 years old.  We’ll celebrate on Thursday, February 10th at Rock Bottom Brewery in downtown Milwaukee.

Our special guest will be Ralph Weber, an attorney at Gass Weber Mullins who edited a book of Reagan’s letters, Dear Americans:  Letters from the Desk of Ronald Reagan.  Mr. Weber will share some of his special insights on the man.        Please join us!

As many of you know, a co-founder of CYP, Jake Curtis is running for assembly.  More on that later.

If you’ve ever thought about running for office, American Majority can help–you can attend their meeting in Mequon.  We will have American Majority come and speak to CYP to get people interested in making a difference in their communities by throwing their hats in the ring.

American Majority Wisconsin and Ozaukee Patriots are pleased to
announce a Micro-Candidate Training will be conducted on Wednesday,
January 26th in Mequon, WI to provide potential candidates with the
tools necessary to become effective candidates.

The training will take place at the Concord Square – Mequon Conference
Center located at 10532 N. Port Washington Road in Mequon from 6:30 pm
to 9:00 pm. Registration opens at 6:00 pm.  There will not be a charge
for this training, but all donations are welcome to cover the costs of
materials and the program. Pre-registration is strongly encouraged.

Topics* to be covered during the Training include:

Campaign Plan

The Candidate: Ensuring you are on the ballot and other important information
The Administration and Committee: Who is going to be most involved
Communication: Strategy, messaging, medium, and positioning tactics
Fundraising and Budget: Where is the money going to come from and how
will it be spent
Voters: Finding information on who votes, contacting voters through
direct contact and GOTV efforts, and volunteers

Full training materials, samples and supplements will be provided to
help you apply what you learn to your organization, candidate, cause
or community. Food and beverages will be provided.  Please click here
to register: http://americanmajority.org/events/mequon-wi-micro-candidate-training/.

If you have any questions or would like additional information,
contact Heather Weininger: e-mail [email protected] or Matt
Batzel: email [email protected]. You can also call
262-241-794.

American Majority is a non-profit and non-partisan political training
organization whose mission is to train and equip a national network of
leaders committed to individual freedom through limited government and
the free market.

President Obama and his surrogates are attempting to blunt his refusal to extend certain tax cuts (or, if you like, his desire to raise taxes) by saying that 95% of Americans have already received a tax cut under his plan.  His surrogates then generally go on a clever aside about how clearly the tea partiers are out of their minds because while they are shouting about how Obama has raised taxes, when the opposite is true.  Thus, they conclude, the President’s policies are well-liked, but just poorly communicated.  Everything will be fine once the President gets his message across (kind of an odd conclusion given that Obama is suppose to be the best communicator since Guttenberg).

The difference here is what constitutes a “tax cut.”  By the most broad of definitions (the one Obama uses), I’m sure 95% of Americans have received a “tax cut.”  That is–did the overall amount you paid to the government decrease because of some tax provision was changed.

Democrats have been using this tactic for years–they promise a very small, usually “targeted” tax credit that can only be used if the taxpayer meets 5 or 6 requirements.  Democrats use these types of tax credits as a defense to Republican’s charge that Democrats are opposed to broad-based tax cuts (which are popular, but would require the government to decrease spending to deliver them).  The individual tax credits often end up to be very small and often, make the tax code more complex (for example, have you paid for post-k12 education lately?  There are at least 5 tax credits, deductions and tax-preferred savings provisions in the tax code to do that).

Obama’s stimulus plan stretched this strategy to the limit with give-aways that were cloaked as ”tax cuts” but were just wasteful spending that was added to a tax return.  The best example is the homebuyer’s credit (of which I am familar, because I’m getting ready to claim it next year).  My taxes will decrease because of the stimulus plan, by an $8,000 credit, because I think I qualify for the payment and I purchased a house at the right time.

But I don’t consider it a tax cut.  The homebuyer’s credit was an incentive payment made to me to buy a house–I bought a house, and now I get $8,000.  I consider it a rebate that is tied to me making a purchase.  It may be delivered via my tax return, but just because the IRS administers a program does not make it a “tax cut” or a “tax decrease.”  The government was handing out free money for doing X, and I did X.  It has nothing to do with actual income taxes, except it will be paid as part of my Form 1040 process.  It has nothing to do with my income or my ability to pay.

I think most people, when they really think about it, would consider a tax cut to be a permanent (or semi-permanent) decrease in the rate of tax that they pay.  They may consider changing the base of the tax (allowing more sales tax exemptions or more income tax deductions) a tax cut.  But they do not consider special tax credits for they have to do a certain special activity (buy new windows or a house) as a tax cut.  That’s a subsidy.  It is spending disguised as tax policy. 

There is a fundamental disconnect between the Obama Administration and Tea Party.  The Obama Administration is trumpeting the homebuyer’s tax credit as a tax cut and asking why the Tea Party is fighting it if supposedly the tea party is for lowering tax.  The Tea Party is rejecting the stimulus bill and these types of costly subsidies and pointing to them as a big factor as to why the federal deficit is so high.  If the Tea Party was not right about Obama raising taxes six months ago, it is now clear that Obama always wanted to raise taxes, and now he is attempting to do.

President Obama shouldn’t try to take credit for tax cuts that are really stimulus subsidies.  They already know about those, and the voters punished him in the elections for them.

Governor-elect Scott Walker has asked the lame-duck state legislature and the governor not to pass and bring into law contracts with state unions.  Walker probably wants to further negotiate these to get the best possible deal for the state.

He’s aboslutely right to do so.  The people who attack Walker for doing so are conflating too very important ideas–(i) the legal authority to pass a law and (ii) the moral authority in a democratic process to decide what’s best for all of us.

The lame-duck legislature absolutely has the legal authority to pass any law.  As many people have pointed out, these contracts were for the budget period that ends when Walker’s first budget will begin.  Technically, the law says that while we elect a new governor, he does not take office and thus has no authority to do anything until inauguration.  The law also says that the old governor is “carrying over.”

But I think this misses the issue.  Walker is not saying that the lame-duck legislature does not have the legal authority (and even legal legitimacy) to pass a bill and make it law.  Walker is not even saying that the legislature wasn’t supposed to address these state contracts before and could have done so at that time. 

The lame-duck legislature has lost its legitimacy to make anything but non-controversial decisions.  Remember that a legislature derives its power from the consent of the governed–i.e., elections.  In November, the voters chose new representatives.  It is pretty clear that the voters did not want the current legislators making decisions on their behalf any more.  The current majorities have lost the democratic authority (i.e., being elected by a majority) and should try to stay away from making unnecessary, controversial decisions.

As for the technical aspect, I think it’s a pretty difficult argument to say that the legal should control the moral legitimacy–that somehow, voters only rejected the Democratic majorities, but only after January 3rd.  Or that voters chose the current legislators to make these kinds of decisions up until that time or that this decision is attributable to them.  I doubt voters consider their votes that closely. 

An elected official does not receive some sort of right to make decisions carte blanche.  An elected representative should listen to the people.  There are many times when an elected official may and should vote against public opinion polls–people are not always paying attention or the best informed during all of the year.  Sometimes, our elected officials must prioritize.  That’s ok, and part of the reason its ok is because we live in a republic where we hire elected officials to govern things so that we don’t all have to be involved all the time.

But an election is when the voting populace gets a say.  And at that time, the voters are “dialed-in.”  At that time, no elected official knows better than the voters what the voters want, because under our system, votes and elections are the mechanism by which voters make their preferences known.  The revelation of those preferences make the lame-duck legislature a sort of anarachism–however, a useful one that allows the new governor to correctly transition–but nonetheless an anarachism.  People who are members of it ought to treat it as such, finish some non-controversial work, and quietly let the next governor and legislature get to work.

We are living in extraordinary times.  Generally, when politicians have to make cuts to budgets, it is unpopular (that’s why they don’t do it very often.  That’s also why we’re in the situation that we are in now).

But that does not hold true today.  Chris Christie is showing that the angst over debt is allowing politicians to push reforms that would be unattainable in many other times.  In fact, one suspects that the hardline Christie is about spending, the better off politically he is.  Right now, while the public’s mind is focused on deficit-spending, anyone who makes a reasonable proposal to cut government spending is going to be well-respected.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkuTm-ON904&feature=player_embedded

The video is instructive.  Usually, the teachers’ response works in the real world–when education is “under attack” politicians doesn’t do so well.  But the way that Christie (1) makes the issue about raises very simple and easy for people to equate to their real life situation and (2) emphasizes that he, very reasonably, gave the teacher union a choice between keeping jobs and keeping raises.  When a governor makes a simple and powerful argument about an issue that many people care about, he will succeed.

The State of Wisconsin’s budget is being chewed by things like pension contributions and healthcare.  These are problems that have arisen over time.  In good economic times, these sorts of liabilities pinch budgets, but it is really difficult to get the attention of a broad-base of voters.  And also, 4-5% raises do not seem so bad when tax revenue is increasing by 3-4% (it eventually will lead to trouble, but not immediately).  Now, in bad economic times, politicans who want to deal with these issues can get the attention of voters, and perhaps politicians will find that there are political victories to be found in addressing tough issues.

In the final weeks of 2010, it will be interesting to see what, if anything, the outgoing Congress accomplishes. Supporters on both sides of the aisle tend to forget at this point in the year that the newly-elected officials have yet to take office. It is possible that current officeholders, many with nothing to lose as they leave Washington behind in the wake of a lost midterm election, could attempt to pass extreme measures through both chambers for the president’s signature prior to the transition of power. It seems more likely, however, that the congressmen and senators will resolve one or two main issues and leave the remainder for the 112th Congress to sort out.

Discussion in the next several weeks will probably center around the Bush-era tax cuts, set to sunset at the end of the year. We will probably also be looking at a proposed temporary budget bill to fund the government (the budget year began October 1, for those of you keeping track–apparently some folks were a little too concerned about campaigning and maintaining their own positions to put together or pass bills to fund the government programs they have insisted are necessary). The president has also placed recent emphasis on the START treaty, dealing with the reduction of strategic arms, particularly nuclear weapons, and there is a rumor that an immigration bill may be in the works as well.

Remember that as bills are debated and/or passed, the new guys aren’t in yet. If your issue isn’t being addressed or if you think it’s being addressed the wrong way, don’t give up hope. Thanks to the hard work engaged in by many in 2010, there’s always next year.