Yep, these people are sick

Uppity Wisconsin had a post yesterday that hits at something that is apparent about a whole lot of today's corporate executives and the GOP politicians that they buy. These folks just aren't wired like most of us.

The Uppity Wisconsin post references an excellent Salon.com article by Paul Rosenberg titled "The Sociopathic 1 percent: The Driving Force at the Heart of the Tea Party." The article first discusses the mindset that many high-income CEO's have, and it's dished out from one of their own.

Venture capitalist Nick Hanauer — who has advocated a $15 minimum wage and for raising taxes on people like him “to reward the true job creators,” ordinary middle-class consumers — rightly called them sociopaths when he recently appeared on “All In with Chris Hayes.”

“These are the people who did not go to their kid’s soccer games. These are borderline sociopathic people and they don’t care about other people,” Hanauer said, to which Hayes responded, “I don’t want to diagnose anyone from afar, I just want to stipulate.” That’s an honorable, well-meaning liberal sentiment. But it’s a bit misplaced, particularly since it meant a missed opportunity for deeper understanding. The point isn’t to stigmatize any one particular individual, but to identify and arm ourselves against a pervasive, corrosive mindset. It’s a mindset devoid of empathy or conscience, for whom other people simply are not real, a mindset that has gripped us collectively, ever more tightly, over the past 30 to 40 years, regardless of how much mayhem it creates, as the richest 1 percent has roughly tripled its share of income, while the rest of us, collectively, have seen our incomes stagnate, despite rising productivity, year after year after year.

Remember Margaret Thatcher’s remark, “There is no such thing as society, only individuals”? That’s the sociopathic mindset in a nutshell. Of course, Thatcher added, “and their families,” an obligatory conservative feel-good trope. But as Hanauer told Chris Hayes, “These are the people who did not go to their kid’s soccer games.” In short, Thatcher was lying when she tacked on “families.” Sociopaths are like that — they lie a lot.

Near the end of the article, it talks about the influence of Ayn Rand on right-wing policy-makers, and the often-delusional self-belief and superiority complex that those individuals would have. This includies former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and a certain Wisconsinite.

...there’s an eerie similarity between [Rand's] loathing for the public with their unnamed “worse sins and crimes” and the contempt shown by the likes of [Tom] Perkins and [Sam] Zell (billionaires who complained they were being persecuted) for average Americans who simply long for the promise of the American Dream that their parents and grandparents once took for granted. How dare some of them seek food stamps to feed their children! Or seek unemployment insurance, simply because there are three job-seekers for every job! Surely, they are guilty of worse sins and crimes than the wheeler-dealers of the 1 percent who destroyed the economy in the first place.

As for Rand’s direct connection to Greenspan’s thoughts and actions, in May of 2012, Gary Weiss, author of “Ayn Rand Nation,” wrote a most illuminating piece, “Republicans and Ayn Rand, a love-hate affair,” in which he dealt with Paul Ryan and Alan Greenspan’s attempts to distance themselves somewhat from Rand. For Greenspan, this was particularly difficult, considering how close they were. “Greenspan wrote essays for Rand’s newsletters, including one in which he espoused an extremist vision of capitalism, in which all forms of regulation, even building codes, would become a thing of the past,” Weiss noted. “That essay, written in 1963, was published in an anthology called “Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal,” which is still in print.”

Weiss also took note of Greenspan’s so-called “flaw speech” in October 2008, when he said he had found a “flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works, so to speak.” Adding that “those of us who have looked to the self-interest of lending institutions to protect shareholders’ equity, myself included, are in a state of shocked disbelief.”

But after some research, Weiss concluded it was “less a mea culpa than it was a public relations exercise,” saying, “He backtracked on his ‘flaw’ remarks almost as soon as he made them, and he contradicted them at every opportunity.”

Ironically, [U.S. Rep.] Paul Ryan was far more dishonest, which paradoxically made him a better psychopath, and hence truer to Rand’s ideal. Unfortunately for him, he was swiftly caught out. Ryan had once been such an open Rand enthusiast that he assigned her books as reading material for all his staffers. Weiss noted that Ryan had tried to pass off his allegiance to Rand as an “urban legend” in an interview with The National Review, but that the Randian Atlas Society shot back by releasing a recording of Ryan praising Rand, saying, “But the reason I got involved in public service, by and large, if I had to credit one thinker, one person, it would be Ayn Rand. And the fight we are in here, make no mistake about it, is a fight of individualism versus collectivism.”

Now that we see what kind of self-absorbed sickos these people are, let's take a look at Paul Ryan's latest foray into the news. At last week's Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), Ryan relayed a story told to him by a woman in Wisconsin, and used it to explain Ryan's belief in the (lack of a) role for government.

She once met a young boy from a very poor family. And every day at school, he would get a free lunch from a government program. He told Eloise, he didn't want a free lunch. He wanted his own lunch, one in a brown paper bag, just like the other kids. He wanted one, he said, because he knew a kid who had a brown paper bag had someone who cared for him. This is what the left does not understand.

You're right Pau-lie, I really don't understand your statement at all. Is Rep. Ryan saying that the kid doesn't want to be so poor he has to be on free school lunch? Well, that may be true, but that doesn't change the fact that HE'S A KID WHOSE FAMILY IS POOR, and just because Paul Ryan doesn't want that situation to exist does not mean that it doesn't exist. Is Ryan saying that this kid should go hungry because this somehow "teaches him a lesson"? Big talk from a man who's the son of a millionaire that never had to worry about going hungry, and Pau-lie apparently has never spent a day in a classroom with a teacher (despite having kids of his own), as any teacher would tell you that a hungry kid is much less likely to learn and excel in the classroom and have a chance of lifting themselves out of poverty.

It's also telling who Paul Ryan got the story from- the Secretary of the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families, Eloise Anderson. In addition to apparently plagiarizing the story from a book titled "The Invisible Thread" by Laura Schroff, Anderson apparently misinterpreted Schroff's point, where Schroff said "It is the story of how two people who needed each other somehow became unlikely friends, against all odds. It is the story of the mysterious, unseen connections that exist between people who are destined to meet—and how, if only we open our eyes and our hearts to them, these connections can be the great blessings of our lives." This is the exact opposite of the Thatcher-like "there is no such thing as a society" mentality of people like Paul Ryan and Eloise Anderson.

And it speaks volumes that Scott Walker would appoint someone like Eloise Anderson to head up an agency that deals with child care, pre-Kindergarten education, and W-2. When you have such a warped mentality that you believe feeding hungry children makes them lazy, you don't worry about cutting off lifelines to hundreds of thousands of Wisconsin families. You just see them as bucks on a balance sheet. Anderson is hardly alone in this manner of thinking in Walker World. Look at the released emails from Walker's inner circle, including a comparison of welfare recipients to dogs, and whose first concern when a teen was killed by falling concrete was to worry about political ramifications for Walker 2010 and drag their heels on releasing requested information. And those people weren't just rogue low-level staffers, they were people Walker personally put into those positions and got promoted.

THIS IS WHO THESE PEOPLE ARE, and they aren't anybody that should be expected to do what's right for anyone other than themselves. Because to today's elitists and GOP politicians, if you're not in the inner circle, you don't matter. There is no you, there is only me.

"Jobs not chilled in February"- but still things to worry about

A highly-anticipated February U.S. jobs report came out yesterday, as many were wondering if the jobs slowdown that we'd seen in December and January was going to continue with a cold February, and if it meant our recovery was on the verge of slowing down or even heading toward recession.

Looks like those fears could be put to the side for now, as the country added 175,000 seasonally-adjusted jobs in February, and 162,000 in the private sector. December and January were also revised slightly higher, making for a pretty good report at first glance, and even the slight increase in the unemployment rate to 6.7% wasn't that bad, since it reflected 264,000 people going back in the work force, and nearly 800,000 in the last 2 months.

At least that was the line of the corporate-based media, who don't want the cocaine party bull market on Wall Street to come crashing down once this latest bubble pops. But when I looked inside of the report, I found some things that wasn't so pleasing, especially for the consumer-based economy.

The awful weather in the eastern 2/3 of the country was expected to hold down the jobs numbers in February, but a note from the BLS's report can help explain why this didn't happen.

8. How can unusually severe weather affect employment and hours estimates?
In the establishment survey, the reference period is the pay period that includes the 12th of the month. Unusually severe weather is more likely to have an impact on average weekly hours than on employment. Average weekly hours are estimated for paid time during the pay period, including pay for holidays, sick leave, or other time off. The impact of severe weather on hours estimates typically,
but not always, results in a reduction in average weekly hours. For example, some employees may be off work for part of the pay period and not receive pay for the time missed, while some workers, such as those dealing with cleanup or repair, may work extra hours.

In order for severe weather conditions to reduce the estimate of payroll employment, employees have to be off work without pay for the entire pay period. Slightly more than 20 percent of all employees in the payroll survey sample have a weekly pay period. Employees who receive pay for any part of the pay period, even 1 hour, are counted in the payroll employment figures. It is not possible to quantify the effect of extreme weather on estimates of over-the-month change in employment.

So if you were off the job for 1-2 days in a week due to some blizzard or extreme cold, you'll still be listed as having a job, even though you're not getting a full paycheck. Where a weather effect will show up is in the total hours worked and wages earned in a given week, and indeed, this went down quite a bit in February.

Average hours worked, U.S. Feb. 2014
Total Private sector- 34.2 (down 0.1 from Dec. and Jan.)
Construction- 38.0 (down 0.4 from Jan. and 0.7 from Dec.)
Retail trade- 31.0 (down 0.1 from Jan. and 0.3 from Dec.)
Education/ health services- 32.4 (down 0.2 from Jan.)
Leisure and Hospitality- 25.7 (down 0.3 from Jan.)

And this lack of hours worked is reflected in lower wages paid in February. These wages are not adjusted for inflation either.

Average weekly wages, U.S. Feb. 2014
Total Private sector- Up 0.1% from Jan.
Construction- Down 0.3% from Jan., Down 1.0% from Dec.
Retail trade- Up less than 0.1% from Jan., Down 0.1% from Dec.
Education/ health services- Down 0.6% from Jan., Down 0.5% from Dec.
Leisure and Hospitality- Down 0.6% from Jan.

With people earning less money in a number of industries, it's not hard to imagine that retail sales and other consumer spending stayed chilly in February after dropping in both December and January. And retail was the laggard in this February jobs report, down 4,100 overall, with Electronics and Appliance stores down 12,000 (BEFORE Radio Shack announced 1,100 stores were closing). In addition, Sporting Goods stores down 8,600 and Department stores down 6,600.

As I've mentioned before, a lot of this might be the reflection of a structural change where people buy more things online instead of in-person, but with a many retail stores still to close over the next few months (think JC Penney, American TV, etc.), there's not much reason to think the retail sector won't continue to drag on the economy for the first half of 2014.

So while the DC and NY-based media might be breathing a sigh of relief with yesterday's job report, I'm not so sanguine about it. I want to see some evidence of increased pay and consumer sales before I think we're back to the stronger economy we had this Fall.

Whiny WisGOP and Polit-crap can't stand the (half) truth from Burke!

Mary Burke has finally emerged with her first major TV ad of the 2014 campaign, and it's led to the Wisconsin GOP complaining about what's claimed in the ad. And given that it involves job figures, we have a lot of that information at our disposal, so let's do some fact-checking of our own for both parties.

First, here's the ad.



After the ad hit, the Wisconsin GOP complained that the ad was untrue, quoting this part from a Washington Examiner story on the ads.

In [Scott Walker's] three years [as governor], unemployment dropped from 7.8 percent to 6.2 percent at the end of 2013 and he claims he turned a huge deficit into a budget surplus.

But that’s not the story told in the first ad from his Democratic foe, former state commerce secretary and Trek Bicycle executive Mary Burke. “Under Walker, unemployment is up,” says her ad, which shows a graphic with an up red arrow beside “6.2 percent unemployment.”

According to her spokesman, Joe Zepecki, while the ad doesn’t say it, Burke is making the comparison between Wisconsin unemployment rate today and when she was commerce secretary nearly 10 years ago, from 2005-2007.

While some see it as an apples-to-oranges argument, Zepecki emailed: “4.8 percent is the highest the annual average unemployment rate ever was during Burke’s time at Commerce. Under Scott Walker it’s never been lower than 6.2 percent. Compared to when she was secretary, unemployment is up.”

Yes, the claim is dishonest, because it compares the pre-recession bubble times that Burke served under to the post-recession time that we're currently in. But are Zepecki's numbers correct?

THEY ARE, as this information from the Bureau of Labor Statistics shows. When Burke served from January 2005- November 2007, unemployment was between 4.6% and 4.85% EVERY ONE OF THOSE 35 MONTHS, with the average annual rates being between 4.6% to 4.8%. Today the unemployment rate is 6.2% in Wisconsin (or 6.3%, as apparently last year's surveys just got benchmarked), so technically Zepecki is correct, that unemployment is higher under Scott Walker than when Mary Burke was Commerce Secretary.

Yes, it's a bullshit way to do it, but you know who knows how to tell half-truths and spin stories as well as anyone? SCOTT WALKER. Here's Scotty pulling the same "lie by omission" tactic IN THE SAME PRESS RELEASE CRITICIZING THE BURKE CAMPAIGN.

Walker, who is considering a 2016 presidential bid, recently bragged: “After losing more than 133,000 jobs and 27,000 businesses during Gov. Jim Doyle’s last term, Wisconsin added more than 100,000 jobs and 15,000 businesses during my term as your governor. That’s a shift of more than 230,000 jobs and 40,000 businesses. The unemployment rate that was 9.2 percent four years ago is now 6.2 percent. Wisconsin is working again, but there is still more work to be done."

That "9.2 percent four years ago" comment is intentionally deceptive, because it leaves out that half of the drop in Wisconsin's unemployment rate happened before Walker was even in office.

Wisconsin unemployment rates
July 2009 9.2%
Jan. 2011 7.7% (-1.5%, Walker takes office)
Dec. 2013 6.3% (-1.4%)

Seems like sketchy politics as usual by both sides- not lying, but not really telling the whole truth. Which is what made today's Wisconsin Politi-fact's "analysis" of Burke's ad all the more infuriating. Politi-crap gave the ad a "pants on fire" rating, claiming

...without stating any comparison between Burke and Walker, the ad claims unemployment is higher under Walker and provides figures indicating an increase from 4.8 percent to 6.2 percent. But the rate was much higher than 4.8 percent when Walker took office and it has gone down, not up, during his tenure.

Our rating
Burke's [ad] said that "under Walker, unemployment’s up," from 4.8 percent to 6.2 percent.

Burke [campaign] defends the claim by saying 4.8 percent is a reference to when she served as state commerce secretary, which was several years before Walker became governor. But the ad gives no indication that that is the comparison she is making.

Moreover, during Walker’s time as governor, unemployment started at 7.7 percent, not 4.8 percent. And rather than trending upward, the rate has steadily dropped to 6.3 percent.

For a claim that is false and ridiculous, we give Burke a Pants on Fire.

"False and ridiculous?" The impression may be false, but the data is certainly true- the unemployment rate is higher today than it was in the mid-to-late 2000's. If the narrator had said "unemployment is higher" under Walker instead of "unemployment is up", would you rate it differently, Politi-crap?

Compare this to the Politi-"fact" analysis of the Republican Governor's Association ad that is referenced in the Burke campaign's commercial, and tell me which ad is more blatantly dishonest.

In one TV spot entitled "Backward," the RGA asks: "Who’s Mary Burke?"

It’s answer: "Burke was a senior member of the Doyle administration that left Wisconsin with 130,000 fewer jobs, and a $3 billion budget shortfall." The ad concludes: "Mary Burke would take Wisconsin backwards."...

There’s an element of truth, but the ad ignores the critical fact that Burke also worked in half of Doyle’s first term, when 86,000 jobs were gained. Employment also rose in the narrower time frame when Burke worked for Doyle over parts of his two terms.

And in any event, the role of these two officials in those losses and gains is very limited, given national economic realities of the time.

We rate the ad’s claim Mostly False.

So associating Mary Burke with results that happened after she left the Doyle Administration is "Mostly False", but giving the TRUE (if misleading) statement that unemployment is higher now than it was during Burke's tenure at Commerce is a "False and Ridiculous" claim, resulting in "Pants on Fire". ARE YOU SHITTING ME?

Right on cue, as if they were working with Politi-crap to knock down Burke's ad, the Walker campaign used the absurd "Pants on Fire" rating to whine to local TV stations and ask that the ad be pulled off the air, claiming "Failure to remove this false and misleading advertisement at this critical juncture would indicate a reckless disregard for accurate factual reporting." Yes, the same people who consistently lie by omission, and work in concert with Koch front groups who use actors and GOP activists to make false claims about Obamacare in their ads, these are the people now asking that dishonest ads used against them be pulled off the air.

There's a five-letter word that comes to mind when it comes to people like this that love to dish it out, but sure can't take it. Starts with P and ends with Y. If the Burke campaign is truly in it to win it, they'll take the advice of one of my favorite choirs and America's most trusted news man, and say the following to the Walker campaign, the whiny WisGOPs, and Politi-crap.

Another minimum wage fail by righties in Wisconsin

I see the right-wing slime at Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce and other greedhead business groups are trying to twist reality when it comes to raising the minimum wage. The oligarch group held a press conference yesterday claiming it had evidence that a minimum-wage increase would be a job-killer in Wisconsin and that people didn't really support it, and the Milwaukee Business Journal dutifully reported on this press conference, including information from the study that WMC used to back up its claims. But unlike the Business Journal, I'm going to give a little context to that study, the stink tank that did the study, and the dishonesty that was part of the poll that allegedly showed Wisconsinites opposed raising the wage.

First, here are WMC's claims, as part of their press release on the issue.

Wisconsin could lose more than 27,000 jobs if a $10.10 per hour minimum wage was passed into law, according to a new study. Four leading business associations used the study’s findings along with poll data during a news conference held in the Capitol Wednesday to urge lawmakers to oppose a government imposed wage hike.

Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mary Burke and legislative Democrats have proposed a $10.10 per hour state minimum wage, up from $7.25 an hour. A study by the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), a non-profit research organization in Washington, D.C., found that Wisconsin could lose more than 27,000 jobs if the minimum wage were hiked that much. Those figures are consistent with the findings of a recent Congressional Budget Office (CBO) report that predicted the loss of 500,000 jobs nationwide if the minimum wage was increased to $10.10 per hour....

“The data is clear that raising the minimum wage will result in substantial job loss for Wisconsin employees,” said Scott Manley, Vice President of Government Relations for WMC. “When voters learn that increasing the minimum wage is a job killer, they quickly abandon support for this misguided proposal.” WMC is Wisconsin’s Chamber of Commerce.

Last week, The Tarrance Group of Alexandria, Va. surveyed 505 likely voters statewide for WMC and asked if they supported the $10.10 per hour minimum wage. The survey found that 53 percent support the proposal initially, but support drops to 39 percent when voters are told of the 27,000 lost jobs. After learning that single piece of information, 51 percent of voters oppose the plan, Manley said.

A whole lot to debunk here. First of all, the "academic study" mentioned is from the Employment Policies Institute. One Wisconsin Now looked into this group and found they were

a front group that receives funding from the Bradley Foundation, headed by Walker's campaign co-chair Michael Grebe, and that is associated with Washington, D.C. lobbyist for the restaurant, hotel, liquor and tobacco industries and PR firm owner, Rick Berman.

Sketchy enough, but the data they cite is even weaker than this group's "objectivity". The claims of job loss should be compared to the Congressional Budget Office, which analyzed the effects of such a mimimum wage increase last month. The CBO admitted raising the wage would result in a minor job loss, stating

Once fully implemented in the second half of 2016, the $10.10 option would reduce total employment by about 500,000 workers, or 0.3 percent, CBO projects. As with any such estimates, however, the actual losses could be smaller or larger; in CBO’s assessment, there is about a two-thirds chance that the effect would be in the range between a very slight reduction in employment and a reduction in employment of 1.0 million workers....

Naturally, the Employment Policies Institute assumes the worst-case scenario of a million jobs being lost, and extrapolates 27,000 Wisconsin job losses out of that (2.7% of the job losses seems like a lot when Wisconsin has 1.8% of the U.S. population, but I'll humor them). And that 27,000 figure was thrown out to "inform" people answering the poll that WMC cited. In reality, that number will probably be much lower.

Even more important is what was intentionally LEFT OUT of that poll, including this finding from the CBO.

Many more low-wage workers would see an increase in their earnings. Of those workers who will earn up to $10.10 under current law, most—about 16.5 million, according to CBO’s estimates—would have higher earnings during an average week in the second half of 2016 if the $10.10 option was implemented. Some of the people earning slightly more than $10.10 would also have higher earnings under that option, for reasons discussed below. Further, a few higher-wage workers would owe their jobs and increased earnings to the heightened demand for goods and services that would result from the minimum wage increase.

The increased earnings for low-wage workers resulting from the higher minimum wage would total $31 billion, by CBO’s estimate.

Neither were those polled told about this part of the CBO study.

[Under a $10.10 minimum wage], real income would increase, on net, by $5 billion for families whose income will be below the poverty threshold under current law, boosting their average family income by about 3 percent and moving about 900,000 people, on net, above the poverty threshold (out of the roughly 45 million people who are projected to be below that threshold under current law).

Hmmm, if all people were told about a minimum wage increase was that over 16 million workers would get pay raises and that poverty would be reduced by nearly 1 million people, what do you think support would be? 70%? 80%? That's the left-wing version of doing what WMC's paid pollster did.

What WMC is undetaking is a classic example of a push poll, which is done when an organization wants a certain outcome on a poll, and then uses that "data" as a way to try to catapult their propaganda and/or show their policies are supported. Since us on the left tend to care about observing reality and coming up with solutions to meet the problems that exist in that reality, we don't tend to run with push polls like oligarchs that favor low-wage indentured servitude do.

But then again, I am Jake's complete lack of surprise when it comes to finding out that a right-wing organization would cherry-pick data from stink tank studies to try to show their policies work, and then relay that information through Right-Wing Bubble world. Because if righties had to give honest data about the results of their failed policies, they'd never win another election, and grabbing money and power are the two items those guys can't live without.

More WisGOP dark money shenanigans

I was looking at the Wisconsin Legislature's Committee Calendar today, and noted the Senate's Elections and Urban Affairs was having a hearing tomorrow. Since I always worry about what type of crap Republicans might do to the vote, I clicked on the agenda for tomorrow's hearing, and noticed new bills titled:

SB 654
Relating to: Disclosure of election activity

SB 655
Relating to: Various changes in the campaign finance and lobbying laws

Then I noticed both laws were sponsored by Senators Mary Lazich and Scott Fitzgerald, two of the biggest backers of voter suppression and corruption out there, and I sensed that there was absolutely nothing good that could be coming up from these bills. I was right, as both bills are ridiculous attempts to rig the electoral process by increasing secrecy and reducing the disclosure of campaign donators and related activities.

First off is SB 654, which is an attempt to say certain political groups and speech really isn't really political. As the Legislative Reference Bureau summarizes

Currently, with certain exceptions, individuals who accept contributions, organizations that make or accept contributions, and individuals who or organizations that incur obligations or make disbursements for the purpose of influencing an election for state or local office are required to register with the appropriate filing officer or agency and to file financial reports with that officer or agency, regardless of whether they act in conjunction with or independently of any candidate who is supported or opposed. Currently, in the case of a committee or group that is organized primarily for the purpose of influencing the election or nomination for election of any individual to state or local office, for the purpose of influencing the recall from or retention in office of an individual holding a state or local office, or for the purpose of influencing a particular vote in a referendum, all administrative and overhead expenses for the maintenance of an office or staff that are used principally for any such purpose are deemed to be for a political purpose.

This bill provides that registration and reporting requirements apply to any communication that contains certain explicit terms with reference to a clearly identified candidate that expressly advocates the election or defeat of that candidate and unambiguously relates to that candidate. The bill also provides that these requirements do not apply to an expenditure made by an individual other than a candidate, or by an organization that is not organized exclusively for a political purpose if the expenditure does not expressly advocate for the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate or the adoption or rejection of a question at a referendum. In addition, under the bill, administrative and overhead expenses by a committee or group are deemed to be for a political purpose only if the committee or group is organized exclusively for the purpose of influencing an election or nomination, a recall or retention in office, or a particular referendum vote. The change in the scope of reportable activity under the bill also affects contribution limitations and prohibitions by causing the term "contribution" to exclude the cost of any communication that is not reportable under the bill.

I also note that the bill lists 8 "magic words" that make certain speech "political", and a specific passage that says the organization making certain types of speech don't have to file under disclosure laws if it's

..an expenditure made for the purpose of supporting or defending a person who is being investigated for, charged with or convicted of a criminal violation of state or federal law, or an agent or dependent of such a person.

Gee, I wonder who that could be? Especially since we know that John Doe Deux happens to not only be investigating potential crimes that were committed for Scott Walker during the recall elections of 2012, they're also looking in Scott Fitzgerald's home area of Dodge County, and Scott Fitzgerald also had to face the voters in the 2012 recall elections. Sens. Lazich and Fitzgerald's bills basically allow an outside Astroturf group to do a online and unaccountable campaign similar to the Koch Brothers' Americans for Prosperity's "It's Working" campaign from 2012, and not have to reveal who they are, or have to report it as the in-kind contribution to a candidate that it is. You don't think the guys creating this bill have worked out a deal with some Koch-like dark-money group that wants to run ads defending certain John Doe targets, but doesn't want to be associated with the ads? Seems pretty obvious to me.

SB 655 may be even worse. Not only does it allow a much higher dollar threshold before any organization has to report what it spent to the GAB or even report that the political group is getting into the game, it also gives candidates extra time before they have to report last-minute contributions and expenses in campaigns (allowing for the lie to get around the block before people know who said it). It also has a remarkable passage allowing for more unregulated political activities on the Internet.

Currently, with certain exceptions, payments for political communications are subject to disclosure under the campaign finance law, regardless of the medium that is used to conduct the communications. Payments for Internet communications are treated like payments for other communications. Currently, the cost of news stories, political interviews, editorial commentary, or endorsements, regardless of the medium by which they are distributed, are not contributions or disbursements and therefore are not reportable. The costs of communications by an organization other than a political party or personal campaign committee that are limited to the organization's members, shareholders, or subscribers are generally not reportable. In addition, all services for a political purpose by an individual on behalf of a campaign finance registrant are not reportable and are not subject to the current prohibition on contributions and disbursements by corporations and cooperatives unless the individual performing the services is compensated specifically for those services.

This bill provides that any cost incurred to conduct Internet activity is not a contribution or disbursement, and is therefore not reportable if it is performed by an individual acting in his or her own behalf, or acting in behalf of another person, and if the individual is not compensated specifically for his or her services. This includes the cost or value of any equipment and services used by the individual to conduct the activity, but does not include professional video production services purchased by the individual. The bill similarly provides that any cost incurred in covering a news story, commentary, or editorial by a broadcasting station, cable television operator, producer, or programmer, Internet site, or newspaper or other periodical publication, including an Internet or other periodical publication, except the cost of a news story that appears in a medium that is owned by a candidate, candidate's authorized committee, or political party, is not a contribution or disbursement and is therefore not reportable.... The bill provides however, that the following are not disbursements, and are therefore not reportable: a) a communication or Internet activity by an individual acting in his or her own behalf (or claiming they are acting on their own, even when they're being paid and told what to say), or acting in behalf of another person if the individual is not compensated specifically for those services, including the cost or value of any electronic equipment and services used by the individual to conduct the activity; or b) a nominal fee paid for a communication to the general public.

It basically tries to claim that "individuals" doing political speech on the Internet do not have to file any campaign contribution literature- even if they are clearly acting at the behest of a political candidate. Sounds like the GOPs are trying to invent a way to avoid disclosing payments to fake posters on comment sites and allowing pro-candidate Astroturf sites to be set up. Convicted criminal Brian Pierick commenting on JSonline as "Wi_Calvin" and setting up "Scottforgov.com" at Scott Walker's request comes to mind.

If this type of evasion of exposure and accountability sounds familiar, it should. It's how the United Sportsmen of Wisconsin and other fake front groups were set up to hide the oligarchs who really fund them and call their shots. These bills are designed to give more ways to hide the source of political speech, and any groups and politicans that support this kind of thing are revealing themselves to be gutless crooks.

The fact that Crazy Mary Lazich and Fitz the Elder are trying to sneak this legislation through with minimal notice is another indication that even in their warped, right-wing bubble-world, they know these bills are sketchy as hell. Let's shine the spotlight on these cockroaches, and watch them scatter away when they try to justify this.

Tomorrow's tax cuts still aren't needed today

   The State Senate is set to discuss and possibly pass the Walker tax cuts tomorrow. The Joint Finance Committee passed an amended version of those cuts, and I wanted to give an update on where the bill stands now, and to look at it light of recent data.

  First of all, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau's report on the updated tax cut bill notes a few differences from the original. The biggest is that a proposed deposit of some of the excess revenues into the budget stabilization (or "rainy day") fund has now gone away. This was to alleviate concerns by some GOP Senators over the large structural deficit in the next budget, and the LFB notes that the current bill drops the structural deficit by around $175 million, to $658 million.

 But this is largely a cosmetic change, as the rainy day fund is also lower than it would have been, and is less of an option to use in case of an economic downturn or other fiscal constraint. It also sets into law the $406 million in added tech college-related property tax relief, the expanded tax credits for businesses, and the lower income tax bracket. If circumstances change and a fiscal concern comes up, it requires more legislation to undo these changes, since there is no sunset to them.

  And things may be getting tighter in the near future than we originally thought. I'll take you back to the original LFB revenue estimates from mid-January, and note what economic forecasts were saying at the time.

Real (inflation adjusted) GDP is now projected to grow 2.7% in 2014 and 3.2% in 2015. These estimates are similar to Global Insight's May, 2013, forecast, in which real GDP had been expected to increase by 2.8% and 3.2% in 2014 and 2015, respectively. But the early economic reports have been chilled in January and February. We saw retail sales slip badly, going down 0.4% in January. New auto sales were also down in January, while the LFB was predicting an increase in 2014, and housing starts were down 16% that month vs. January 2013.

More recently, we saw 4th Quarter 2013 GDP be revised down to 2.4% on Friday, meaning that we're also starting off from a lower level, and need to rise higher to make up the difference. Even what seemed to be good personal spending news from earlier today  turned out not to be so good.

Spending rose 0.4 percent in January after a 0.1 percent gain in December the Commerce Department said Monday. The December figure was revised down from a 0.4 percent increase....

The overall spending increase in January reflected a 0.8 percent jump in spending on services, the effect of higher heating bills. It was the biggest increase in spending on services since October 2001.

Spending on durable goods such as autos fell 0.3 percent. And spending on nondurable goods, covering things like clothing and food, dropped 0.7 percent.

"Spending looks great but is not," said Ian Shepherdson, chief economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics. Without an 11.3 percent surge in spending on utility bills, Shepherdson said consumer spending would have been close to flat.

And the January chill was reflected in the Wisconsin Department of Revenue's report for January, which showed income tax revenues were down 4.4% for January 2014 vs. January 2013. On its face, this may not be so worrying, as income taxes could drop 5.4% vs. 2013 through June and still live up the LFB's projections. But the problem is that this drop was before income tax refunds from the state started to be handed out, and those should be higher than they were last year. The reason is that the Koo-Koo tax cuts weren't withheld last year, even though they were technically law for the entire year, which means revenues drop further. Theoretically some of that will be spent and raise sales taxes, but given the huge increases in heating costs that Wisconsinites have had to take on, the tax refunds might not get spent out as much as originally thought.

I'm not saying the sky is falling or that we're heading into recession- I don't think it's THAT bad. But it's also not as good as we thought in mid-January, and with that in mind, I'd recommend holding off on a number of these Walker tax cuts until we're convinced that things are back on track economically and that the extra costs resulting from this extraordinary winter can be covered. Sadly, I don't see that happening with this group of WisGOPs, and as a result it'll just be a matter of time before the state's General and Transportation Fund deficits hamstring Wisconsin's finances, and our economic potential.

Then again, hamstringing the state's fiscal flexibility might be what a lot of the WisGOPs and their funders want. Which is yet another reason to vote "NO" on this tax cut bill.

KRAMER!

   Just a few brief thoughts on disgraced Assembly Majority Leader Bill Kramer, who will likely lose his spot as No. 2 GOP in the Assembly after accusations of sexual harassment and other disgusting behavior towards women at a GOP fundraiser in DC.   Apparently, GOP Assembly members will meet tomorrow to decide if they want to take Kramer out of his position, and to decide if they want anyone to take his place in the last few weeks of this session.


You know you want some, baby.

Naturally, Kramer is trudging off to rehab in light of this revelation (yes, because booze is so magical it turns an otherwise decent person into a harassing scumbag. Strangely, this doesn't happen to vast majority of us who partake). But while Kramer's behavior could have stunned some who don't pay attention to state politics, it should not have been a shock to GOP leadership. Cognitive Dissidence nailed this guy when he was named Majority Leader 6 months ago, with a post titled "Assembly WISGOP Pick Drunken Gun-Toting Misogynist as Their Leader." It notes that when Kramer was chosen as Majority Leader, members of his own party had concerns.

Assembly Republicans today elected Rep. Bill Kramer to be the next majority leader despite Rep. Chris Kapenga accusing his GOP colleague of displaying a pattern of inappropriate behavior that made him unfit to hold the No. 2 spot in the chamber.

Kapenga, R-Delafield, made the allegation while giving one of the two nominating speeches for Rep. Dean Knudson for the post. He also charged there was an incident at an American Legislative Exchange Council event last month in Chicago. But he did not provide details in his speech and declined to provide specifics when he was approached by a reporter following the vote.

Kramer, R-Waukesha, shrugged off the allegation, which sent a ripple through the room ahead of today’s vote, saying “Things get said in a campaign.”

“I have heard that something happened at ALEC, and everybody I’ve talked to said they heard something inappropriate happened at ALEC,” Kramer said. “I haven’t run into anybody that saw something inappropriate happen at ALEC. Apparently, I had a pretty good time. What that means, I have no idea because the night in question I was home early.”

Again, a majority of GOP Assembly members thought this guy was just swell, and elected him majority leader. Wonder what led them to that conclusion? Maybe it was because he could bang the gavel and berate those Madison liberals! Cog Dis is also the place to find an article discussing Kramer showing an especially classy side of himself in November.

Apparently, Vindictive Bill, who hates [Madison State Rep.] Chris Taylor with a passion, got upset that Ms. Taylor did not know her place.  Bill then told the Dem party -  "Shut up you asked for it."  - and passed [a] bill he said he would not pass.   

H/T Rebecca Kemble(who truly deserves the Pulitzer):

Wis Assembly Majority Leader Bill Kramer said he went back on an agreement to table the "Choose Life" license plate bill because of Chris Taylor tweet:

@ChrisTaylorWI "Choose Life" license plates pulled from Assembly agenda tonight. Have Republicans seen the light, or just not up for the fight?  

Naturally, that money from the license plates will go to the anti-choice group Choose Life Wisconsin.

But just because the Wisconsin GOP has passed that and numerous other bills restricting reproductive freedom and other women's health care is no reason to believe the "War Against Women" is actually happening. I mean, we know WisGOP is an inclusive bunch. Just look at this picture from last week with Assembly GOP leadership hanging out with Cong. Paul Ryan.

And no, the Wisconsin GOP and its spokespeople on talk radio see nothing unusual at all about this picture of 6 white guys in dark jackets.

I understand that these guys idolize Reagan, but does that also mean they have to maintain the workplace values of the 1980s as well?  No wonder these guys and their pale, male voters are so angry at the modern world. They still want their little boys club to exist where they don't have to work as hard and be decent to others.