Curmudgeon's Corner

Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner has been outspoken in his opposition to the tax rebate checks being proposed.  He voted against the bill that passed in the House of Representatives.

He has been speaking out on radio as well as in a Small Business Times Blog that appeared yesterday.  His position is that there should be no checks sent for several reasons:

• First, the checks, if finally issued, will not hit the pockets of recipients until late-May to June, long after the impact in the marketplace would be desireable.
• Second, past rebates of this nature have been proved to have had little beneficial impact on the economy since the bulk of the money didn't find its way into the economy.
• Third, some $10 Billion of the total amount would be sent to those who paid little or no taxes in the first place.

Sensenbrenner's position, instead, is that we could get a much bigger 'bang for the buck' if the IRS would simply forgive withholding from our paychecks for a month or two.  The value to the economy would be felt immediately, the money would be going to those who pay taxes in a proportionate way, and the government wouldn't have to borrow money to use to cover the checks that would be mailed.

Former Gov. Dreyfus was faced with a similar situation early in his term and ended state withholding for a period of time.  That did have a beneficial impact on the state's economy at the time.

Of course, there are some reasons why this won't happen:

• Uncle can't afford to have taxpayers realize just how much is being held out of their paychecks, because they could face a taxpayer uprising as the result.
• Liberals can't permit this because they are interested in redistributing income to continue to attract the votes of those who'll get money back without having paid much if anything in.
• And, liberals cannot stand the thought that 'the rich' would ever get a break.  Sen. Harry Reid (D-Nevada) was quoted as saying a few days ago that this thought "makes me want to gag."

Thanks for standing up on this and the immigration issue Jim!  You may be a little lonely, but you're right!

It may seem to be a little early to begin the discussion about the proposed elementary school that would be built if the April 1st referendum question about the $16.5 Million bond issue is approved, but we're going to do so anyway.  April 1st will be here before we know it, and this is a complex issue that deserves some thought and discussion.

I note that the Board has hired the Robert W. Baird organization to assist with the dissemination of information about the referendum, but I thought it would be good to get questions from those of you who are interested regardless of your position today or on April 1st.

Bruce Warnimont, School Board member and Chair of the Building Committee, has been invited to respond to questions raised by citizens about the need for the school, the costs involved, the alternatives explored, etc.  He has indicated that he would be happy to do so.  Mr. Warnimont has been deeply involved in this subject, and will provide his thoughts and opinions in a forthright manner. 

There are two ways for you to submit your questions for Mr. Warnimont:

• You can logon below and post your question for all to see as a comment to this Blog, or
• You can click on the 'email author' button at the top of this Blog and send me an e-mail with your question(s).

If you send questions by e-mail, please advise if you wish your name to not be shown as the person who posed the question.  I'll do what you wish in that regard.

We'll do this for so long as there are questions remaining unanswered, and often enough that we get through the questions posed prior to the election.  You're in control.

Aurora Health Care has withdrawn its proposal to SynergyHealth.  That proposal would've seen an affiliation between the two health systems.  I suspect it was withdrawn because Aurora knew it would not be selected by the SynergyHealth Board during its deliberations this week, and preferred to not be seen as a 'loser' in this quest.  Remember that a large group of that system's doctors had taken a public anti-Aurora position last year.

That leaves, apparently, the proposal from Wheaton Franciscan Healthcare and the proposal from what has now become known as Progressive Healthcare (the new entity being formed by Columbia St.Mary's and Froedert & Community Health).

It seems that the likely result of the SynergyHealth Board review will be the selection of the Progressive Health proposal.  The geography makes sense since the markets are contiguous.  Progressive Health also has created its structure to be attractive to other healthcare entities that might be seeking an affiliation.  All other things being reasonably equal, that is my bet.

The SynergyHealth decision is still expected by January 31st., so we'll soon know the outcome.

Earmarks...

The Republicans are fighting amongst themselves over whether or not to try to control their budget 'earmarks', and if so, how to proceed.  The party's elected members met over the week-end and failed to take any real steps to end earmarks.  The President is expected to address earmarks in his State of the Union address this evening.  It is reported that he will tell Congress that he'll veto any appropriation bills for 2009 that have greater than 50% as much in the way of earmarks as the same bill in 2008 carried.

That is a start, but until we have convinced our elected officials that they are spending our money and not their money, we will make little if any real progress.

And, this may well be the only true bipartisan area we have.  It is an affliction of both major parties as well as the small group calling themselves independents.

Limits On The WCCA...

WCCA stands for Wisconsin Consolidated Court Automation and it has a website that you can access here.

This site permits any citizen to locate information about court decisions, charges filed, cases scheduled and so on by county.  If you have an interest in where the case involving John and Jane Doe stands, you would access the site, pick the county (if you know it) and key in one of the names.  You'll then see the actions that have been taken, dismissals if that is the case, etc.

For some strange reason there have been two recent attempts to limit public access.  Last summer, two Democrats (Schneider of Wisconsin Rapids and Kessler of Milwaukee) mounted such an effort.  They would've permitted access only for court officials, law enforcement personnel, attorneys and journalists.  Now Rep. Vos (R-Racine) and Sen. Lassa (D-Stevens Point) want to limit access by removing certain cases from this site.  Those cases or charges would include a civil forfeiture or misdemeanor within 90 days after dismissal, a finding of not guilty or if the case has been overturned on appeal and then dismissed.  Felonies would carry the same requirement except the time frame would be extended to 120 days.

Both of these efforts are misguided at best and an assault on our rights at worst.  Wouldn't the accused rather have the information there for all to see if he or she had been absolved or if the case had been dismissed.  Why would we be concerned about those convicted? 

An example of the significance can be found in articles now running in the Journal Sentinel concerning physicians who have been involved in numerous complaints alledging malpractice over the course of time.  Many of those records would become unavailable under these efforts to wipe the slate clean.  This is not only an assault on our rights but it is also potentially going to endanger lives.

Anti-Gun Proposals...

Many in the group that would outlaw ownership of guns, or the group that wants to ban the carrying of guns (that is legal in 47 other states) would have us believe that their solution is the answer.

Here are some snippets that seem to point in the other direction:

• New Jersey adopted a very strict gun law in 1966 and by 1968 the murder rate was up 46% and the robbery rate was up nearly 100%.
• Hawaii adopted a series of anti-gun laws and its murder rate tripled over the next ten years.
• Washington, D.C. imposed strict gun control laws in 1976; its murder rate has grown by 134% since.
• England banned handgun ownership in 1997, and the number of citizens injured by firearms has more than doubled since.
• Prior to these actions, the statistics cited had been falling.

When guns are banned, only the bad guys have guns.  In states where concealed carry laws are in place, the bad guys really have to think hard about trying anything.

Miller Executive Dies In Walkers Point Shooting...

The Director of Compensation and Benefits for Miller Brewing was killed at about 1:10AM on Sunday morning after leaving a bar in Walkers Point.  He was accosted by a robber, gave the person his wallet and was then shot to death as he sat in his auto.

The concern immediately arose over whether Milwaukee would suffer as the result of this in the process that is now ongoing as to where the headquarters of the new combined Miller Coors will be located.  It is reported that crime and homicide rates rank first in the equation that most corporations use to determine quality of life rankings.  The Journal Sentinel reported this morning, and I paraphrase, that Milwaukee is 2.3% larger in population than Denver, has 228% more violent crime including 263% more homicides.  This is extrapolated from the FBI's statistics for the first half of 2007 that were recently released.

Would you think about that if you were making the decision?  Would you add in the fact that MPS is graduating 50% or fewer of all students that start as freshmen?

KRM stands for the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee rail commuter system and is used whenever the cognoscenti is looking for cute short-hand.

This thing just won't go away; not because it is an idea whose time has come, but because those who want it will keep hammering us over the head until we submit to their brilliance.  This system would supposedly make us the equivalent of a Denver, or San Diego or Minneapolis, or any other metropolitan area that has built such a system to rid itself of commuters on four wheels.

Rail systems simply do not reach the point where subsidies are unnecessary.  Chicago's 'L' is getting a tax boost of $1 Billion and this is a system used extensively by tens of thousands of commuters daily.  Even with that level of ridership, the system needs a hand-out for repairs and upgrades.  Amtrak is another wonderful example.  It will never get to the point of being self-sufficient; the best hope is that somehow it will get to a point where the costs will diminish.

The 'rail crowd' is enamored with how great KRM would be.  It would supposedly elevate our metro area to a status it has yet to attain on its own.  It would make us a daunting force in our quest to stem the outflow of jobs while it also helps to create new jobs due to all the corporate headquarters that would decide to relocate to the Milwaukee area. 

Why don't we get our Milwaukee schools on the track before we build tracks if we want to keep jobs and attract new jobs?  Why don't we build the added expressway lanes necessary to support current traffic demand?  The answer to that question is actually very easy: the rail lovers don't want vehicular commuting to get any easier.  If they keep pounding us with their message at the same time that we get caught in traffic congestion, maybe then we'll weaken and let them have their way. 

KRM should become the favored acronym for those of us who don't want rail:  Keep Rail Money.  Buy a few more buses that can go in something other than a straight line.  What a novel concept that is.  Take those who wish to avoid driving to close to where they wish to get off, rather than on a straight line trip downtown that leaves one blocks or miles away from the real destination.  That is especially helpful in sub-zero weather.

Which reminds me of our charming Milwaukee politicos who are giving Menomonee Falls a hard time over water rights renewal due to Waukesha County refusing to continue to subsidize the bus that ran into Waukesha County.  That is another novel idea.  Make suburbs as bad as Milwaukee and maybe we'll stop the outward migration that has gone on since the 70s.  That's the grand old American way, isn't it?

We are apparently going to have a 'tax rebate' program that will send some $150 Billion into the economy in the May-June timeframe.

People who didn't pay taxes but had at least $3,000 of earned income will qualify for a rebate check.  People who had up to $75,000 of earned income will qualify.  People who had earned income of about $87,000 and up will receive nothing.  The higher income people will actually be paying taxes so that lower income people can get money back from the government.

Our tax codes have been changed over the years and are now at the point where they are as much, or more, social engineering tools as they are tax code.  Money is constantly taken from those who earn it and is given to those who don't earn it.

So, what is so bad about this tax rebate other than that it is redistributing income?  It will do very little for the stimulation of the economy.

The tax breaks that are supposed to be a part of this package will do far more to stimulate the economy than the rebate checks.  Businesses will seize this opportunity to expand, to add equipment and to hire more employees.  That is what stimulates the economy.

Time and again, we have seen how tax decreases have spurred the economy to the point that tax collections have increased.  Similarly, we have seen tax increases backfire and cause tax collections to diminish.  We are likely seeing that in Wisconsin as this is written.

If the politicians who can't seem to help themselves feel this nagging urge to pander to their constituents, wouldn't you think they'd have learned that they'll have more money to toss around if they reduce taxes?  I certainly do not mean to condone this massive giveaway, but we seem unable to elect enough people of the right cut to push this mentality into the minority.

So, if we can't make that happen, then at least we should expect that the politicians who want to create money giveaway programs would learn the simple lesson that less taxes means more tax collection.  What is so difficult about that concept?

Governor Doyle advised his audience last evening during the 'state of the state' message, that we were going to have to make some tough decisions and cut spending.

Then he proceeded to propose a new program called BadgerChoice that would have subsidies of $100 Million in the next budget cycle (beginning in 2009) and that would provide healthcare coverage for employees of firms under 50 employees.  Republicans were quoted as saying that a lot could be done to stimulate the lagging economy with $100 Million, but the governor would apparently rather spend that money on this program. 

He can find $100 Million for this but continues to veto the tax advantages of health savings accounts.  Maybe the idea of consumers being able to make their own decisions is somehow unpalatable to him.

He wants to advance state-run healthcare at any cost and sees this as the opportune time in which to launch the effort...again.  He would have the state design several plans of benefits, and employees would choose the one that best fit their needs.  He would have insurers hamstrung to the point that they could not take health conditions into account.  He would have all insurers in this marketplace use a device known as 'community rating'. 

Community rating means that all people pay one of two things...they either pay too much because they're healthier or they pay too little because they're greater risks.  No one pays the right premium.  This causes something called 'adverse selection'.  If this is a voluntary program, only those who have greater health risks will enroll in large numbers.  Once that has begun to occur, insurers will seek to have the state raise premiums, or reduce benefits and will drop from the program if they cannot run the plans at a profit.

He wants to have the new 'marketplace' run without the employers and employees having the benefit of a licensed, trained and monitored health insurance agent available to handle the inevitable questions, education and problem resolution that is especially important in the small employer marketplace since, as the governor's administrator of the Division of Health Care Financing Jason Helgerson said, "Small businesses can't hire an HR Director".  If that isn't the single most contradictory thing to come out of this, it has to be very near the top of that list.  Small employers are the very area where a licensed insurance professional is needed, and virtually every small business person will attest to that.

It appears the governor is taking a page from the Commonwealth of Massachusetts where the "Connector" program was created.  It serves as a clearinghouse, sets the plan design parameters, gets competing bids from insurers and works without agents except where one might be used to do the initial enrollment.  The Connector has one significant difference, so far, and that is the mandate that everyone have coverage or face penalties assessed as part of the Massachusetts tax system.  Even with the mandate requirement, insurers have already found themselves being hit with adverse selection as the result of the community rating scheme discussed above.  The healthier people are flowing to the least expensive plans while the health risks are more interested in the higher benefit level programs.

This proposal is not only ill-timed given Wisconsin's obvious needs to reduce spending, novel concept that this is, but it is poorly thought.  This is but another example of the fact that Democrats will not rest until Wisconsin runs health care for every citizen it can force into such a program.  BadgerCare Plus is poised to launch on February 1st.  That is a state-run health care program.  It is what we used to think of as the children's health care program, BadgerCare, except that in Wisconsin we spent the majority of that funding to insure adults while some 40,000 children were never enrolled in the system.  BadgerCare Plus doesn't try to hide its intent.  Adults are openly accepted as of February 1st.

The 'nanny state' wants more and more of us wholly-dependent upon it for everything possible.  We apparently should not have to take personal responsibility for our life style habits that account for more than half of all health care costs today.

We are living in an increasingly socialist state.  We can change that if we choose when we go to the polling place.  Or, we simply go another step down the 'slippery slope' to which we've grown nearer over the past decade.

Finally, if the governor were planning to stick with his promise to not run for another term, why would he continue to raise campaign dollars at such a rapid pace?  The specter of another term after this one is indeed frightening.  The only defense will be a Republican majority in both the Senate and Assembly.

For the first time that I can recall, there does not seem to be a clear stand-out in the Presidential primary races over whom a conservative can be excited.  True, there have been those over whom we got excited and elected, and we were disappointed.  But, this time around, I am having real difficulty coming to a conclusion.

Fred Thompson came and went.  His delay at the onset followed by the lackluster performance after he entered the race pretty well assured he wouldn't be a viable contender.  Too bad, because I thought his positions were closer to mine than those of anyone else.

Rudy Giuliani has a lot of warts and baggage.  His "Florida or bust" campaign tactic is 'iffy'.  He, at least, is not trying to hide his beliefs, but I would have problems voting for him knowing what he stands for on those social issues.  His fiscal position is closer to mine than most others.

John McCain is, from my perspective, a liberal on most every issue but is tough on defense, is a true war hero and hopes that'll gather the conservative vote.  His alignment with Sen. Feingold to thwart free-speech sixty days prior to every election with the McCain Feingold bill soured me on him.  That simply gave us the '529' animals that George Soros loves.  I do not like his illegal immigrant position.  And, he is a real son-of-a-gun so far as his temper and attitude.

Gov. Huckabee is just too liberal based on his record in Arkansas despite his protestations to the contrary.  He is both socially and fiscally liberal.  He has also seemingly ridden the 'evangelical' horse about as far as that is likely to take him.

Ron Paul is a Libertarian and, while some of those ideas are appealing, he is simply a loose cannon who does far less damage in Congress than would be the case if he were President.  I would have to hold my nose and vote if the selection came down to Hillary/Obama or Ron Paul.

So I have ended with Mitt Romney remaining, and that seems to be where I'm putting my hopes.  He has changed his mind on the abortion issue and that is very important to me.  He has explained how and why that came about.  I can accept that revised position.  He is conservative except for the Massachusetts Connector health program he pushed through.  That uses private insurers but it is a government-driven program that is already showing signs of failure.  He has done some great things in business so I think he understands the economy as well as anyone.  And, he almost single-handedly bailed the Utah Winter Olympics out of the mess that existed when he took over against odds that no one would've felt could be overcome.

The remaining question is whether or not our Wisconsin primary elections will count for anything on either side of the aisle.  With the heavily front-loaded primary system in place this time around, that is a very real question.  That troubles me a lot.  I wonder if we should, as a nation, have a national primary that is held on the same day all across the country?  And, I wonder if it is healthy to have absentee ballots available so far ahead of actual elections as is the case today in some states?

Logon and give us all your comments.  Maybe you can change an opinion or two.

Have we finally gotten to the point where the lines on the graph cross?  Is it possible that politicians in Wisconsin have increased taxes and fees to the point that state revenue collection suffers?

There are ample examples of tax rate cuts actually increasing the amount of taxes collected.  It happens at the federal level and at the state level.  There are also many examples of the reverse.  Governor Doyle will probably not address this during his 'State of the State' message on Wednesday of this week.  He'll talk about the the economic slowdown and the need for belt-tightening at the state level.

Will he talk about his plan to permanently reduce taxes?  Will he acknowledge that we've finally found the point beyond which we get no return on tax rate increases?  Will he talk about our state's propensity to spend more than it should?  Will he discuss the revenue shortfall (called structural deficits in the amount of nearly $1 Billion) built into the current budget to make it appear to be balanced?  Will he discuss how the future of Wisconsin has been mortgaged many times over?

Short answer: doubtful.

He'll talk about belt tightening.  He'll talk about 'targeted tax breaks'.  He'll be looking for silver bullets to solve the slowdown.  There'll be enough blame heaped on the federal government, not that it doesn't deserve that blame.

We are a high-tax state and high-tax states are particularly vulnerable in economic slowdowns.  Economic slowdowns occur and when the last budget with its 6% increase in state spending was passed, that was not thought about.  We wonder why we can't hold on to our corporate headquarters and businesses, and we wonder why we can't attract more jobs to the state.

Short answer: our taxes are too high. 

The phrase 'collateral damage' is most often associated with military battles when things adjacent to a target get 'broken'.

There is the potential for collateral damage in the world of healthcare, and we see that playing out today between Aurora, Wisconsin Physician's Service (WPS), Health EOS, and employers and employees.  As Aurora has managed to acquire and/or merge its way to the size that it is, it has become a very dominant healthcare entity.  It participates in networks (as well as stand-alone relationships), and network access is sold by Health EOS among others.  Health EOS, a preferred provider organization, is the product of consolidation/acquisition, as well.

WPS and Aurora have been involved in a legal battle for some time now, and some of that 'battle' has leached into what we might call the very real world of day-to-day healthcare.  An earlier suit between the two entities was settled in early 2007.  WPS brought a new suit naming both Aurora and Health EOS in mid-January claiming that Aurora was interfering with WPS in its contract with Health EOS.

WPS is claiming that Aurora has asked that Health EOS not permit WPS patients' access to the Aurora hospitals and physicians at the preferred pricing that has been negotiated between Health EOS and Aurora.  WPS has a contract with the employer, Milwaukee County in this instance, that provides for County employees and their dependents to use the Health EOS network of which Aurora is a part.

When the elephants of the new consolidated healthcare world dance, employers and employees and dependents can be 'trampled'.

We all understood that legal issues tend to play out over a lengthy period of time as each side works with its attorneys and the legal system.  An Aurora or a WPS can sustain this lengthy legal maneuvering, but the covered employee needs the care today or tomorrow.  You can imagine how disconcerting these news items are to those who wonder if they're going to be covered and, if so, at what price.  The union leaders and the employers involved become very concerned because their telephones are going crazy with calls from the members/employees.

As healthcare consolidation continues, there are fewer, but larger organizations left in the wake.  If we get down to a couple of major healthcare organizations, the choices that used to exist become severely limited.  Collateral damage seems bound to occur more often and/or with more severity in that new world as the 'elephants' parry and thrust to gain market share, acquire the few remaining independent targets, and so on.

It is one thing when large companies struggle with each other in the competitive marketplace, but entirely another when we see the patients caught between.  We talk of unintended consequences often; this is one of those.  This outcome may have been thought about but it was not the desired result.  Yet, it can hurt people just the same as it would had it been intended.

Tom Kertscher writes about MATC and its new business incubator program in the January 20th Journal Sentinel.  It seems that the only press MATC can get is 'bad' press.  And they seem to get better and better at that. 

The article goes into the MATC's two urban business centers.  They have taken over old industrial building space and have rented that space in small increments to new businesses at very low rent cost.  The idea of business incubators, as the name suggests, is to enable them to mature in a protected environment until they're self-sufficient and can move out into the real world bringing jobs to the community.  Few of these businesses have reached the point of self-sufficiency which is not uncommon with new businesses.  Many more fail than succeed no matter where they start.

As Kertscher drilled down, however, we began to see the MATC we've grown to know and 'love'.  There are 98 tenants in the two locations.  The average incubator period nationwide is three years.  80% of those in the MATC locations have gone on longer than that.  Interestingly, the wife of State Senator Spencer Coggs (D-Milwaukee) whose name is Gershia Coggs, has been in the incubator for more than 20 years.  Her husband is also a tenant and rents space to store his personal and campaign materials for $55 per month.  That doesn't sound like a new business start-up situation.

17 of the MATC's tenants have stayed in their incubator space for more than a decade, including Mrs. Coggs.  More than 40% of the tenants are behind on their rent payments to MATC for a total of more than $80,000.  One tenant is three years behind in its rent payments but is still housed in the incubator receiving heat and electricity in addition to the space.  25% of the tenants are not even businesses such as Sen. Coggs.  These are comprised of social service agencies and other non-profit organizations.

MATC is losing some $125,000 per year on the incubators and guess what?  This is such a good deal that they are planning another investment of $4,000,000 to improve one of the two incubator locations.  That sounds exactly like something a real business would do, huh?  Pump more money into a losing proposition?  Only if it is taxpayer money, I guess.  Except that MATC is going to try to get grant money to cover part of the cost.  Apparently grant money grows on grant money trees that cost no one anything. 

Of course, there is the potential that jobs would be created, so maybe that is the mitigating factor here?  There is no way to tell because MATC doesn't track the number of jobs that have been created.  MATC says it doesn't have enough people to be able to track this.  On top of that, the two people within MATC charged with the responsibility for this program admit they can't think of any 'recent' success stories where a tenant actually got on its feet and moved out into the real world.

MATC's spokesman, Jim Gribble, is quoted in this article as saying that allowing tenants a grace period on paying rents is favorable to evicting them because then MATC would collect less rent.  That statement sums up many of the problems that MATC has.  Here is an institution that plows through taxpayer money like there is no end to it (and so far there has been no end to it), and somehow convinces itself that it is better to continue to give its space away to non-paying tenants because MATC will collect more rent.

I sincerely hope MATC is not offering accounting or economics classes for future business people using that logic.  By the way, one of the tenants is an economics instructor at MATC and runs his business in one of the incubators.  He indicates that his business isn't likely to employ anyone else for some time.  He sculpts items from driftwood, has been in business since September 2004 and has yet to sell anything he has created.

This is the kind of story that one wouldn't believe if it were published as fiction.  It is simply too far-fetched.  It demands too great a stretch of one's imagination.  But, again we're reminded that this is MATC and nothing should be viewed with disbelief simply because it is nonsensical.

View the whole article here.

I received a call from Attorney John DeStefanis midday on Friday, and returned his call in the early afternoon.  He serves as Germantown's Village Attorney.  He had called to give me some information that might help me better understand the situation concerning our fire department and our our village trustees.  I had referenced his opinion as reported in the Journal Sentinel article covering what I thought to be a similar issue in Mequon.

I have been critical of Trustee Langer continuing to serve as Chair of the Public Safety Committee even though he has now ended his service as a paid-on-call firefighter in Germantown.  Mr. DeStefanis pointed out that there were two distinct issues involved.  Those issues are whether or not the 'offices' are compatible when two positions are held by the same person, and it addresses the potential for conflict of interest.  He pointed out that state statutes permit one person to serve as both a trustee and a firefighter simultaneously.  This is not incompatible so long as the position as firefighter wasn't created expressly for the person, that the person not earn greater than $15,000 per year, and that the person's selection as a firefighter was not vested in the government body on which he or she serves.  The Village Board does not hire firefighters, the open position was not created by the Village Board, and any selection process is made by the Police and Fire Commission, and not the Board.

Since Trustee Langer had resigned his position as firefighter, Mr. DeStefanis mentioned that the conflict of interest is attenuated as to be of virtually no concern from a legal perspective.  He did say that some conflicts of interest were probably inevitable, but that those can be handled by the person's abstention from debate and vote on such issues.

Attorney DeStefanis also reminded me that the Public Safety Committee has much broader involvement than simply with the fire department so there were, indeed, many matters in which he would need not abstain.

I was very pleased that Mr. DeStefanis would take the time to help me better understand as I was with his professionalism and cordiality.  He invited my call back if there were ever other issues that I'd like to discuss.  I confess that I was wondering if this was his idea alone or if it had been prompted by others.

I continue, however, to be concerned with the 'appearance' of Trustee Langer's service on the Public Safety Committee and voiced that to Mr. DeStefanis.

And, I continue with my concerns for our EMTs, fire fighters and citizens.  The current environment is not a good environment no matter the 'side' one might choose.  If there truly are significant performance issues, those should be dealt with quickly.  The idea that 'apparent' dirty laundry (without being identified) is hung out for everyone to see while the fire chief is expected to run his department seems contrary to good public policy.  I am concerned that the chief is not permitted to address these 'issues' but that they can be laid out in public.  That seems unfair and possibly even a little vindictive.  But, I may not understand this issue either.  

Virtual schools have come under a very concerted attack by the teachers' union (WEAC) and now the Democratic-led Senate (Sen. John Lehman [D-Racine]).

Virtual schools must be doing a good job to have inspired this kind of attack from the establishment that 'owns' education.  Only the fear of exposure of new ideas seems to provoke such heavy-handed attacks.

There are now 12 virtual schools in Wisconsin serving some 3,500 students.  One of those schools, being operated by the Northern Ozaukee School District, was taken to court by WEAC and recently lost an appeal in the Wisconsin Court of Appeals that said state aid could no longer go to the virtual school run by the District.  The Democrats now appear to be earning their keep by WEAC by dreaming up new legislation that, while depicted as being helpful, is designed to kill virtual schools once and for all time.

Parents with students in these schools are overwhelmingly supportive.  They say that their kids are being well-educated, have a lot of individual teacher time, can tailor their curriculum to the individual student's needs and accommodate both gifted and challenged students along with the mainstream students.  The students must test out using the state-approved tests, the curriculum is approved by the state, the teachers are actually members of their union, etc.  The cost per student in this virtual school has been $5,845. 

What is wrong with this picture?

It defies the establishment's long-held monopoly on education in Wisconsin and elsewhere.  This is a huge threat to the status quo, which apparently has to be protected at all cost even when it is not generating the kinds of results we all expect.  Virtual schools are threatening to the establishment, just as choice schools are threatening to the establishment.  All these alternative educational approaches must be demeaned and killed off so the taxpayers do not come to understand that 'the king has no clothes'! 

Why would citizens continue to pump more and more tax money into an MPS with a record of graduating some 50% of those who begin their freshman year in that system if they knew they had viable alternatives?  Competition is not desired by the establishment; competition is feared by the establishment.

And what is worse is the manner in which this attack is mounted.  The proposals brought by the politicians beholden to the establishment are dressed as sheep to conceal the wolf beneath.  Double talk is designed to disguise the real purpose.  We have to "guard against corporate profiteering" according to Sen. Lehman.  What was really being said, in my opinion, was "we need to protect the establishment and we'll use whatever subterfuge we need to use in order to assure that outcome."

Too may of our elected representatives understand that few of us keep an eye on their activities, and are thus insulated when they undertake to protect their donors to the detriment of those they 'represent'.

I am not against the educational institutions we have in Germantown or Wisconsin or the United States.  At this time, those institutions are doing, for the most part, a good job of educating our children.  But, is that any reason to turn a blind eye on other approaches?  Is that any reason to attack those organizations that would use alternative methods that might just be the right approach for some?

I am against the educational establishment that would keep such alternative approaches completely off the board unless and until they have no other choice.  And, I am disgusted with the political lackeys that do their bidding with seemingly no concern for those whom they were elected to represent.

Take a look at Comparative Philosophy.

Have you ever heard of Progressive Healthcare?  No one else had either until the press release today announcing the achievement of a joint operating agreement between Columbia St. Mary's and Froedtert & Community Health.  Progressive Health will "financially integrate, govern and lead" Columbia St. Mary's and Froedtert & Community Health.

The new entity will have co-Presidents, Leo Brideau of Columbia St. Mary's and Bill Petasnick of Froedtert & Community Health.  (I don't recall too many co-Presidencies working out for any length of time.  Maybe this is simply part of the transition plan.)  The agreement is to be finalized in 2008.  (This provides a lengthy window which might indicate that there are some nitty-gritty issues yet to be handled.)

This will create a large, multi-faceted organization.  The combination will include Columbia St. Mary's Hospitals in Milwaukee, Ozaukee County, the Sacred Heart Rehabilitation Institute, 30 primary care clinics, the Columbia School of Nursing and a partnership with the Orthopaedic Hospital of Wisconsin on the one side, and Froedtert Hospital, Community Memorial Hospital in Menomonee Falls, and the relationship with the Medical College of Wisconsin on the other.

It is only reasonable to expect that consolidation will cost some jobs since duplication has to exist, add other jobs due to new skill sets required and generally shake up what has been the status quo.

The chairman of Progressive Health, James Wigdale, chairman emeritus of the Marshall and Ilsley Corporation stated, "I firmly believe Progressive Health will offer consumers a better choice, providing the highest quality care at the lowest cost while fulfilling our commitment to be good stewards of the community's resources."  (That is a pretty heavy goal.  Highest quality and lowest cost are seldom seen together.)

Are we done with puzzle pieces so far as our healthcare community?  Hardly likely.  Remember that Synergy still has its decision to announce in the next couple of weeks.  Only time will tell the story of consolidation's benefit to the community.  Healthcare consolidation and building booms have almost always caused overall costs to rise as competition stiffens.  If Progressive Health has found the formula to cause that to be reversed, then this may prove to have been a most significant announcement.

Consider, also, the many subordinate relationships that will now be impacted.  Vendors to one group may win over vendors to the other group.  Network relationships with insurers and administrators may be impacted, too.  Software issues will abound.  The shadow cast by this announcement is large even though invisible to most of us.

The footprint of healthcare continues to be changed throughout Southeast Wisconsin.  For the better or the worse is yet to be determined.

Wisconsin citizens get the opportunity to vote on whether or not the 'Frankenstein Veto' should be eliminated by constitutional amendment.  This was made possible when the Assembly gave its final approval yesterday. 

The question will appear on the April 1st ballots.

As you'll probably remember, Governor Doyle found letters, numbers and punctuation marks across many pages of the budget to enable him to cobble together a new budget item that transferred some $470,000 from the transportation fund to another pet program that the legislature had not given him.

His spokespersons, of course, decry the elimination of this 'tool' since it gives them the opportunity to protect us from the evil legislature whenever it is misguided from Doyle's perspective.

I often disagree with legislative actions, but I have to believe that we're better off not having the governor armed with this ability.  No matter your feelings about the current governor, do you want future governors to have this kind of a tool?

You will also have the opportunity to help shape the future of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, choose your state senator, vote on the school referendum and school board members, and elect county supervisors and village trustees.  Mark April 1st on your calendar (and ignore the fact that this is also "April Fool's Day').

I was listening to Jay Weber on WISN 1130 this morning and he had a proposition to resolve the smoking ban issue that had been mentioned to him by Jerry Bott at the same station.

Why not give every restaurant and tavern owner sixty days during which time they would need to decide if they were going to welcome smokers or go non-smoking entirely?  Each would then be able to cater to those whom they would naturally attract.  The doors would carry a big sign telling people which way this establishment had gone.

The discussion ended with the statement that this would never be tolerated by Governor Doyle and the Democrats since this debate has to be 'all or nothing' from their points of view.  Giving us citizens the ability to make our own decisions is not part of the more liberal world.  Of course, the 'reason' would be stated along the lines of having to protect the workers who had no choice as to where they worked.

It is as if they just know that we're too 'something' to be permitted to exercise free will since we tend to make the wrong decisions from their perspective. 

As I thought about that conclusion, it seemed that there was quite a degree of truth in it.  Our governing bodies do seem to feel that they have been ordained by our vote to make all life's decisions for us poor 'know-nothings'.  Could it be that they draw this conclusion from the fact that each of them were elected by us in the first place?  Is that how they know that we're incapable of making good decisions?

Seemingly everytime we pick up a newspaper or periodical we see that health care costs have risen again.  The only real question anymore is 'How Much?'.  Of course, if we still have health insurance, the premium rates continue to go up and up.  What in the world can we do about this?  Would statewide mandatory insurance coverage do the trick?  Can we somehow legislate lower insurance premiums?  Are the drug companies really the culprits?  Maybe we simply need to move to Canada or Europe.

Recent studies show that our national health care spending increased in 2006 by 6.7% to $2.1 trillion.  That means that one out of every six dollars spent in our national economy goes for health care.  The 'good news' in this staggering number is that this is actually slower growth than we saw for 2005.  Apparently we're going in the right direction, even if too slowly.

Another amazing fact, to me at least, is the amount of 'out-of-pocket' spending each of us averages after insurance premiums, etc.  In 2006, we spent, on average, 12% out-of-pocket for our health care expenses.  Know what we spent out-of-pocket in 1960?  We spent 47% out-of-pocket for health care expenses. 

That means that we are shielded to a much greater degree today from our real health care costs than we were in 1960.  Our out-of-pocket costs have decreased steadily since 1960.  We are often at the point today where we think of the cost of health care as being the $10 or $20 co-pay we have to come up with when we go to see the doctor.  Or, the $20 or $30 dollars we have to cough up for medicines.  Those amounts are very small percentages of the total costs.

Why is this important?  It is important because we need to think about what we're spending if we're ever going to be able to bring this cost spiral under control.  If we come to understand that the real cost of the doctor visit is in the range of $125 to $150 or more, we can begin to understand that maybe we shouldn't be running to the doctor everytime we have a runny nose or a cough.

Another very interesting fact is this:  more than 50% of all health care claims costs in America today are to cover lifestyle-related illnesses.  Those are the things that you and I can control to one degree or another.  But, we can't control them if we don't know about it or if we choose not to do anything about it.  What are 'lifestyle' issues?  Smoking, alcohol use, obesity and simply laying around doing no exercise.

Does this apply to us?  Here are the most current facts:  One in every four Americans eat fast food every day!  Six of ten Americans do not exercise or seldom exercise!  Two of every three Americans are classified as either overweight or obese!

This is the real source of our health care cost crisis.  We have met the enemy and it is us!

No mandatory state programs, or profit controls on drug companies or anything else is going to solve this problem.  The simple truth is that this is up to us.  All the rest of these proposals are simply pablum calculated to make us feel good.

That is why this 'stuff' is flowing from the mouths of politicans.  And it does nothing to solve the problem!

Let your politicians know that you understand this.  If they really want to help us, they'll begin an educational program using some of the 'smoker money' to get the true message out.  And, be sure to tell them we do not want laws banning fast food or drinking or smoking.  We need to take responsibility for ourselves.  No one else can do that for us.  The marketplace will make its own corrections just as you've begun to see with the menu changes going on in the world of fast foods, for example.

Maybe if insurance companies were permitted to charge people what we deserve to be charged based on our lifestyle habits, we'd begin to see these changes occur.  If I smoke, I pay more.  If I'm overweight, I pay a surcharge.  Make me feel my wallet lightening up if I don't take personal responsibility (just don't think this is your new way to raise taxes). 

Don't just continue to blame big health, or big drugs or big insurance!  You are doing nothing but pandering when you resort to this, and we're on to you!

How in the world can one combine freedom and light bulbs in the same context?  Well, let's see.

We are being told that incandescent light bulbs are being eliminated in favor of a nationwide conversion to the use of compact fluorescent lamps.  Those are, so far, considerably more expensive to produce (although subsidized by tax money to make them seem less expensive), are not capable of generating the kind of lumens to which we're accustomed, the color of light is different from what we're used to seeing and they have no where near the flexibility we find with incandescent bulbs.

As if this weren't sufficient, the idea of using compact fluorescent lamps (CFLs) laden with mercury is a bit disconcerting to me.  I have quite a few fluorescent tubes and a couple of CFLs that I need to toss out.  I called the Village of Germantown staff to learn about proper disposal.  The nice lady who answered on the solid waste disposal line said, "That's a problem."  As we talked about this further, I learned that the next dangerous waste disposal date is set for September, 2008 in West Bend.  Our recycling center is either unable or unwilling to accept such things.

I sought an alternative that would be available sooner.  There is a site in Port Washington equipped to take these items but they charge for the privilege of recycling such things.  I think you and I both know that these things are regularly finding their way into our landfill sites, and that will increase at quite a rate as more people are forced to begin their use.  We are creating a serious mercury problem for ourselves that will manifest some years down the road.  Our land, wetlands and streams, rivers and lakes will be more polluted than they are today.

All this got me thinking about where we've come from, why we're where we are, and just what it all means.  I'm not at all sure that I have everything figured out, but maybe you can help me work through the parts I don't seem to understand.

We are using more carbon-based energy than many think we ought, but we also ignore solutions that we've mastered many years ago.  Nuclear energy is safe and efficient and yet we've not built new reactors in years.  We have oil fields available on our turf but we're forbidden by our own government from drilling into that apparently sacred soil.  There is more oil available today but we can't refine it any faster than we are today even if we had access to a greater supply.  Why?  Because the government has caused the establishment of new refining facilities to be so cumbersome and expensive that it simply is not cost-effective for investors to plow money into that use.

The grand movement by those who think we need to be 'green' has caused our 'political' will to be turned against the will of the majority of citizens.  The 'green' people are outnumbered by the 'non-green' people; yet, our main stream press and politicos continue to thump the drum for being 'green'.  Lobbyists spend a lot of money to keep this political engine humming along.  Government has the best of both worlds in this situation.  It is getting money from both sides of the argument, so why not keep the argument alive by dithering.

The 'global warming' group adds fuel to these flames.  It seems that virtually everything causes global warming.  It also seems that global warming causes virtually everything.  I could easily understand hot weather being a direct function of global warming.  I have a little more difficulty believing that cold weather is also caused by global warming.  Until very recently, any debate has been squelched; that is now changing and, I hope, we'll begin to see the real debate taking place.  I cannot buy the suppositions of Al Gore's slide show.  I can buy the opinions, however, of a very well educated state representative by the name of Jim Ott (a professional meteorologist), who actually knows of which he speaks.  An interesting phenomenon from a politician, I agree.

I harangue on the subject of the 'slippery slope' more than many would like, but there are simply so many examples that I cannot help myself!  Then, to add fuel to that flame, I came across a statement in the Wall Street Journal letters section on Friday made by a fellow whose name is Constantine E. Anagnostopoulos from Bloomfield, MI.  To paraphrase, he stated that we began as a country in which everything was permitted except for those few things that had been forbidden such as killing another person without provocation.  Today, we are a country where many things are forbidden and fewer and fewer things seem to be allowed. 

We have myriad laws on the books, and yet we continue to enact new laws every month that a government unit is in session.  There is nearly nothing that needs to be outlawed that hasn't had multiple laws forbidding it already enacted.  (An example is the creation of a law against use of cell phones when there is a perfectly good law against inattentive driving already on the books.)  We have become such a nation of laws and litigation that we actually stifle our creativity, our economy and our lives.  It is impossible for anyone today to account for every law that impacts a certain activity.  We even feel the need to have judges 'creating' laws that don't exist through their interpretations of existing language, or by opining as to what the original authors intended as the 'living' documents were penned.  Our laws are more designed to affect behaviors to which the ruling class does not subscribe than to actually outlaw something needing to be outlawed.  Laws today are much more the tool of social reformers than of policing agencies. 

These are all harbingers for our future existence.  If we continue on the path we're on, at the pace we're traveling, we'll have managed to destroy the freedoms generations before have fought and died for in a few short lifetimes.  Maybe the loss of great democracies, as history recounts, is our self-fulfilling prophecy.

All this began with a diatribe on light bulbs.  Wow! 

The 'stop smoking' movement has done a great job in getting its point out.  So great, in fact, that most of us simply accept the idea now that all smoking in indoor public places will ultimately be banned.  Trade associations have rolled over and are now asking only that all their members be penalized as a single group so that all will be treated 'equally'.  Restaurants are willing to bite this bullet so long as all their competitors will have to do so, too.  It appears that taverns and bars are also falling into lockstep.

This is such a great example of the 'slippery slope' I continually talk about.  One seemingly innocuous thing leads us sheep to the next seemingly innocuous thing.  One day we awaken to find that the sum total of every little innocuous thing has added up to a significant occurrence.  (I could cite pre-WWII Germany, but that would probably be too emotional.)

We are nearing the point where Wisconsin will vote to destroy the rights of property owners so far as this issue is concerned.  It seems quite popular with citizens, and it certainly seems to have momentum.  If not this year, then probably by next year.

Where, then, do we draw the line on eliminating rights of property owners?  If public places are okay, when will we decide that private dwelling inhabitants need to be similarly protected from themselves?  Will we see to it that smoking in vehicles occupied by another person will be next to go?  How about forbidding people from smoking outdoors within thirty feet of another?  Oh, that's right.  There are already regulations in place that forbid that.  Will that then be taken the next logical step, and ban me from smoking a cigar on my deck?

So long as we talk about smoking, there are many who say that anything is alright with them.  But who will be willing to roll over when the government tells us how we need to dress?  Laughable?  What about the states that have motorcycle helmet laws?  What about the federal laws governing various workplaces?  Those tell people how they should dress.

I have 'confessed' to being a former cigarette smoker.  I am now a cigar smoker as you might have noticed a bit earlier.  I patronize a Germantown establishment known as Metro Cigars.  I go into Metro knowing that I will encounter both first-hand and second-hand smoke.  Nonetheless, I go in willingly; eagerly even.

There are those who will decry the fact that people have to work at Metro and are, therefore, forced to encounter second-hand smoke.  That is true, except for the fact that the employees of Metro are either owners or smokers in their own right.  So, I am not taking advantage of another unfortunate person who has no control over where they work.  I'm convening with people I know and people who are of like mind.  I can't imagine anyone walking into Metro and being surprised that it is a smoking establishment.

We are working diligently to carve out our little piece of turf by seeking the exclusion of such establishments in any state law that may be passed.  And, in our own way, we too have rolled over and accepted the fact that this ban will occur.  So, we try to get an exception written into the law rather than to try to defeat it.  We too know that this is, as it stands today, an inevitability.

In spite of the facts of the matter, the Journal Sentinel editorial writers today assailed the proposed exemption of 'businesses operated by manufacturers, importers, wholesalers and distributors of tobacco products' as being too broad.  This makes my point.  Little by little we lose our rights.  The slippery slope, once engaged, is relentless.  There are both unintended consequences and intended consequences.  The editorial staff is espousing intended consequences while I want to avoid the unintended consequence that will result in adults using a legal product being precluded from exercising their rights.  I want to protect property owners from losing yet another round...because I am a property owner, too...and the slippery slope is getting way too close for comfort!

The morning Journal Sentinel carried an article written by Tom Kertscher that immediately struck me for its bearing on the issues we've been witnessing in Germantown.

The Mequon Common Council President has decided that he'll become a paid-on-call firefighter for the city.  The mayor doesn't like the implications and the city attorney recommends that the alderman steer clear of all issues.  The mayor was quoted as saying, "My personal belief is that you must recuse yourself from every discussion-public and private-dealing with the Fire Department."

The Common Council President decided that he'd seek an opinion from the city attorney.  The city attorney, in his letter to the councilman, advised the he abstain "from any matter concerning the Fire Department, its policies, its structure and organization, and any contractual issues, strategy, bargaining or status."  Regarding issues that should remain confidential, such as bargaining or evaluation of Fire Department employees, the city attorney recommended that the councilman "not only abstain but also absent and insulate yourself from any information and discussion which would come to you in your aldermanic capacity."

Sounds like very good advice from a knowledgeable city attorney.  I wonder if our Village President Kempinski or Trustee Langer or Village Administrator Schornack have sought similar opinions from our village attorney?

Interestingly enough, unless there are two Atty. John DeStefanis' that serve cities and villages, it appears that we probably already know what Village Attorney John DeStefanis would advise.  He wrote the recommendations quoted above for Mequon.

It is time for the Village of Germantown to end the charade that has involved President Kempinski, Trustee Langer and the Fire Department.  Langer should resign from the Public Safety Committee immediately and recuse himself from any and all issues involving the Fire Department.  Kempinski should appoint a replacement that has no direct or indirect involvement in the Fire Department.  The Village Attorney should be asked for a formal opinion and that should guide all future relationships.

We must look the fools for having permitted this charade to go on and on and on.  I am told this all began in 1989 when Gary Pollpeter was appointed Chief.  He was an outsider and that didn't sit well with the then powers that were.  He is apparently still viewed by the same group as an outsider.  It is way past time to put all this behind us.  We are nearly two decades down the road.  Get over it!

We have a small group that is working diligently to mold the department to their own end, and some of them aren't even fully versed on that department.  They did not know, or would not divulge, where the labor cost budget stood even with the 'exhorbitant' overtime pay going out as they claimed.  Is it in fact still below budget?  An assistant didn't know there was no overtime line item in the department's budget during the initial stages of this debate, and she has responsibility for human resources in addition to assisting the village administrator.

We have a para-military organization being mandated to live in the touchy-feely world of normal businesses.  Police departments and fire departments have ranks similar to those found in the military for a reason.  These units need to be run like a military organization.  Touchy-feely has no place for those whose lives are on the line day-in and day-out.  When orders are given, they must be obeyed instantly.  This is not the time for debate.  If you disagree with the order, follow it, accomplish the mission...and then discuss what you think would've been a better approach.  Sometimes feelings are going to be hurt.  Better that than lives lost unnecessarily.

We see poorly thought knee-jerk propositions brought for debate.  Fortunately, most of these have so far not gained traction.  We have complaints filed and then kept alive by the new union even after two layers of review had passed on making any penalty decisions.  Interestingly enough, the sole witness to this event was Trustee Jim Langer while still in his dual role as a paid-on-call volunteer firefighter.  Can you spell c-o-n-f-l-i-c-t  o-f  i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t? 

Questions have been raised as to the wisdom of the contract negotiated with this union.  Why was a paramedic union used for EMTs and firefighters?  The chief was apparently not asked for input.  Who actually did the negotiating?  Why were some hard-coded definitions on firefighter work weeks discarded when this carries a cost for the village in the form of overtime?  Why were some members not permitted to vote in absentia?  Why were members given a version of the agreement to review with a vote scheduled for some thirty minutes later?  Why is it that this was not the final version of the agreement according to my information?

Can no one in power see the absurdity?  Please come to your senses.  We don't need recall campaigns or outside investigations.  Let us get over it, and move ahead.