Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Barbara Fischer hits a new low in promoting market extremist ideology over reality with her column defending oil company profits and subsidies today.
She writes the "state and federal government receive more than 50 cents a gallon for doing nothing."
Where does Ms Fischer think the funds for the interstate highway system, the nation's single largest public works project, came from? The oil companies? General Motors?
Between 1956 and 1982 every single federal gas tax dollar was used to build and maintain the interstate highway system.
This $129 billion expenditure directly subsidized the American automobile industry which, as late as the 1970s, was responsible directly or indirectly for one out six private sector jobs in the country and gave rise to the blue collar middle class. It also subsidized the trucking industry which replaced railroads as the main way of transporting manufactured goods, raw materials and agricultural produce after the World War II.
Post war suburbanization, for better or worse, was made possible by the construction of the interstate highway system.
Since 1983 most federal gas tax revenues have been invested in the interstate highway system while a small portion, between 11.1% (1983) and 15.5% (2007) has been used to support mass transit.
In 2006 Wisconsin received over $630 million in federal highway support and $69.6 million for transit from the federal gas tax. For every dollar Wisconsinites pay in federal gas taxes the state receives $1.06.
How does Ms Fischer think that the state of Wisconsin pays for state highways and the maintenance of those highways?
It's the state gas tax stupid!
That state gas tax also funds local transportation aids that help pay for local street and road maintenance, transit ($101 million) and transport for the disabled and elderly ($15.4 million).
That adds up to a whole lot of nothing!
Friday, May 30, 2008
Monday, May 26, 2008
Invest in veterans-pass the new GI BIll!
Monday was Memorial Day-a time to honor our war dead.
President Bush and Republican presidential nominee John McCain used the occasion to praise the nation's military personnel and promote the war in Iraq. At the same time, both men continued to oppose bipartisan legislation that updates the GI Bill, which has fallen far behind rising college costs, that would benefit thousands of Iraqi War veterans.
The legislation which has already passed the House would pay full tuition and other expenses at two year colleges and four -year public universities for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11. President Bush, who avoided the Vietnam War by enlisting in the National Guard, has threatened to veto it because he says it is too generous and would discourage re-enlistments.
The controversy made me think about my father and uncle.
My dad enlisted in the United States Navy in 1941 to, as he wrote in a letter from the front, "fight the Nazi bastards." After training at the Great Lakes Naval Station, he became a Lieutenant J.G. and served as Chief Officer on a PT boat at Anzio during the invasion of Italy. Upon his return in 1945, the GI Bill paid for him to go attend Harvard University. He became an outstanding teacher who touched the lives of thousands of students. The University of New Hampshire endowed a scholarship in his name.
My uncle, Arnold, was wounded in Okinawa during the last big battle of the war. Public Law 16, a more generous version of the GI Bill for disabled veterans, paid for his undergraduate education and first two years of graduate studies. While in grad school at Columbia University he worked at IBM's first research facility, the Watson Scientific Computing Laboratory, which opened in a renovated fraternity house near the campus. The first male from his family of eight to graduate from college, Arnold conducted groundbreaking research in microelectronics in the 1950's before most people had ever heard of it and later helped write the first computer programs in physics for IBM.
Both of these men, the children of immigrants, became part of a generation of highly skilled, university educated scientists, engineers and knowledge workers who provided the brain power for America's post-war economic growth and shared prosperity.
The United States government invested in "the greatest generation" out of gratitude for their national service and because it was good for the country. It did this despite a national debt that was more than 121.7% of the GDP, significantly higher than the current 69.3% and despite projections that depression would follow the end of the war.
The GI bill worked as the post-war economy grew much faster than the debt. This investment in human capital paid for itself many times over.
Yet, President Bush and Senator McCain oppose updating the GI Bill, claiming its generous benefits, I kid you not, will encourage too many vets to attend college. They argue that it would discourage re-enlistments in our military which is having difficulty meeting recruitment goals despite lower recruitment standards. They ignore the Congressional Budget Office's projection that updating the GI bill would actually increase recruitment among those who need financial assistance to enroll in college.
The President and Mr. McCain who routinely accuse opponents of the war of failing to support our service men and women are dishonoring those who have sacrificed by refusing to update the GI Bill. Giving up golf, the President's self proclaimed sacrifice, doesn't help our returning veterans.
Over 4,000 service men and women have lost their lives in a war that has lasted longer than the one my dad and uncle fought in.
The men and women of the "greatest generation" earned the nation's gratitude. The GI Bill acknowledged that by financing their education. They in turn continued to serve the country with the education that the GI Bill afforded them. America's service men and women today are no less worthy. They need us and the country needs them. Congress should pass the new GI Bill and the president should sign it into law.
President Bush and Republican presidential nominee John McCain used the occasion to praise the nation's military personnel and promote the war in Iraq. At the same time, both men continued to oppose bipartisan legislation that updates the GI Bill, which has fallen far behind rising college costs, that would benefit thousands of Iraqi War veterans.
The legislation which has already passed the House would pay full tuition and other expenses at two year colleges and four -year public universities for veterans who served in the military for at least three years since 9/11. President Bush, who avoided the Vietnam War by enlisting in the National Guard, has threatened to veto it because he says it is too generous and would discourage re-enlistments.
The controversy made me think about my father and uncle.
My dad enlisted in the United States Navy in 1941 to, as he wrote in a letter from the front, "fight the Nazi bastards." After training at the Great Lakes Naval Station, he became a Lieutenant J.G. and served as Chief Officer on a PT boat at Anzio during the invasion of Italy. Upon his return in 1945, the GI Bill paid for him to go attend Harvard University. He became an outstanding teacher who touched the lives of thousands of students. The University of New Hampshire endowed a scholarship in his name.
My uncle, Arnold, was wounded in Okinawa during the last big battle of the war. Public Law 16, a more generous version of the GI Bill for disabled veterans, paid for his undergraduate education and first two years of graduate studies. While in grad school at Columbia University he worked at IBM's first research facility, the Watson Scientific Computing Laboratory, which opened in a renovated fraternity house near the campus. The first male from his family of eight to graduate from college, Arnold conducted groundbreaking research in microelectronics in the 1950's before most people had ever heard of it and later helped write the first computer programs in physics for IBM.
Both of these men, the children of immigrants, became part of a generation of highly skilled, university educated scientists, engineers and knowledge workers who provided the brain power for America's post-war economic growth and shared prosperity.
The United States government invested in "the greatest generation" out of gratitude for their national service and because it was good for the country. It did this despite a national debt that was more than 121.7% of the GDP, significantly higher than the current 69.3% and despite projections that depression would follow the end of the war.
The GI bill worked as the post-war economy grew much faster than the debt. This investment in human capital paid for itself many times over.
Yet, President Bush and Senator McCain oppose updating the GI Bill, claiming its generous benefits, I kid you not, will encourage too many vets to attend college. They argue that it would discourage re-enlistments in our military which is having difficulty meeting recruitment goals despite lower recruitment standards. They ignore the Congressional Budget Office's projection that updating the GI bill would actually increase recruitment among those who need financial assistance to enroll in college.
The President and Mr. McCain who routinely accuse opponents of the war of failing to support our service men and women are dishonoring those who have sacrificed by refusing to update the GI Bill. Giving up golf, the President's self proclaimed sacrifice, doesn't help our returning veterans.
Over 4,000 service men and women have lost their lives in a war that has lasted longer than the one my dad and uncle fought in.
The men and women of the "greatest generation" earned the nation's gratitude. The GI Bill acknowledged that by financing their education. They in turn continued to serve the country with the education that the GI Bill afforded them. America's service men and women today are no less worthy. They need us and the country needs them. Congress should pass the new GI Bill and the president should sign it into law.
Saturday, May 24, 2008
Wisconsin Supreme Court election attracts attention
April's Wisconsin Supreme Court election continues to attract attention, most recently on the front page of the May 25th New York Times.
In the election a little know and inexperienced Burnett County Circuit Court judge, Michael J. Gableman, defeated Wisconsin's only African American Supreme Court Justice, Louis Butler. Over $5 million was spent, mainly by outside groups on negative ads. As Paul Soglin, among others have noted, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) has spent huge amounts in the state's last two Supreme Court elections in an effort to promote hard line Republican candidates with very weak credentials.
The Times reports that Gableman's campaign ran a negative, racially charged ad that accused Butler of using a loophole to free a convicted rapist who then went on to rape again. Many believe that the "loophole Louie" label and the Willie Horton style ad were so effective that they led to Gableman's narrow margin of victory.
Normally, state boosters would welcome a feature story on the front page of one of the most prominent papers in the country. But this isn't the kind of publicity that Wisconsin needs. It certainly won't help keep or attract young professionals, particularly young people of color, to the state. But, what the hey, we earned it at the ballot box.
Adam Liptik writes that:
Last month, Wisconsin voters did something that is routine in the United States but virtually unknown in the rest of the world: They elected a judge.
The vote came after a bitter $5 million campaign in which a small-town trial judge with thin credentials ran a television advertisement falsely suggesting that the only black justice on the state Supreme Court had helped free a black rapist. The challenger unseated the justice with 51 percent of the vote, and will join the court in August...
The question of how best to select judges has baffled lawyers and political scientists for centuries, but in the United States most states have made their choice in favor of popular election. The tradition goes back to Jacksonian populism, and supporters say it has the advantage of making judges accountable to the will of the people. A judge who makes a series of unpopular decisions can be challenged in an election and removed from the bench...
In the rest of the world, the usual selection methods emphasize technical skill and insulate judges from the popular will, tilting in the direction of independence. The most common methods of judicial selection abroad are appointment by an executive branch official, which is how federal judges in the United States are chosen, and a sort of civil service made up of career professionals.
The entire article is linked.
In the election a little know and inexperienced Burnett County Circuit Court judge, Michael J. Gableman, defeated Wisconsin's only African American Supreme Court Justice, Louis Butler. Over $5 million was spent, mainly by outside groups on negative ads. As Paul Soglin, among others have noted, the Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC) has spent huge amounts in the state's last two Supreme Court elections in an effort to promote hard line Republican candidates with very weak credentials.
The Times reports that Gableman's campaign ran a negative, racially charged ad that accused Butler of using a loophole to free a convicted rapist who then went on to rape again. Many believe that the "loophole Louie" label and the Willie Horton style ad were so effective that they led to Gableman's narrow margin of victory.
Normally, state boosters would welcome a feature story on the front page of one of the most prominent papers in the country. But this isn't the kind of publicity that Wisconsin needs. It certainly won't help keep or attract young professionals, particularly young people of color, to the state. But, what the hey, we earned it at the ballot box.
Adam Liptik writes that:
Last month, Wisconsin voters did something that is routine in the United States but virtually unknown in the rest of the world: They elected a judge.
The vote came after a bitter $5 million campaign in which a small-town trial judge with thin credentials ran a television advertisement falsely suggesting that the only black justice on the state Supreme Court had helped free a black rapist. The challenger unseated the justice with 51 percent of the vote, and will join the court in August...
The question of how best to select judges has baffled lawyers and political scientists for centuries, but in the United States most states have made their choice in favor of popular election. The tradition goes back to Jacksonian populism, and supporters say it has the advantage of making judges accountable to the will of the people. A judge who makes a series of unpopular decisions can be challenged in an election and removed from the bench...
In the rest of the world, the usual selection methods emphasize technical skill and insulate judges from the popular will, tilting in the direction of independence. The most common methods of judicial selection abroad are appointment by an executive branch official, which is how federal judges in the United States are chosen, and a sort of civil service made up of career professionals.
The entire article is linked.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
Soccer, footwork and basketball
Over the past decade there has been a big increase in the number of foreign-born players in the NBA.
The three stars on the NBA's reigning champion, the San Antonio Spurs, are Tim Duncan (Virgin Islands), Tony Parker (France) and Manu Ginóbili (Argentina). Their rivals in this years Western playoffs are the LA Lakers who have six players who were raised overseas including the NBA's MVP, Kobe Bryant.
The New York Times', Billy Witz, writes that this is no accident. All of these athletes and others like Steve Nash (Canada) and Dirk Nowitzki (Germany), are former soccer players who benefited from international football's emphasis on footwork, angles, spacing, and movement without the ball.
The article is linked here.
The three stars on the NBA's reigning champion, the San Antonio Spurs, are Tim Duncan (Virgin Islands), Tony Parker (France) and Manu Ginóbili (Argentina). Their rivals in this years Western playoffs are the LA Lakers who have six players who were raised overseas including the NBA's MVP, Kobe Bryant.
The New York Times', Billy Witz, writes that this is no accident. All of these athletes and others like Steve Nash (Canada) and Dirk Nowitzki (Germany), are former soccer players who benefited from international football's emphasis on footwork, angles, spacing, and movement without the ball.
The article is linked here.
Sunday, May 18, 2008
Will Republicans hold John McCain accountable?
Wisconsin congressman Paul Ryan told his fellow Republicans at their Wisconsin's state convention that "the party needs to hold its members accountable and to stick to its principles."
Is Ryan, considered a candidate for the vice presidency, serious?
If he is, the Republican faithful could start by asking their presumptive presidential nominee, John McCain, why he:
<
Is Ryan, considered a candidate for the vice presidency, serious?
If he is, the Republican faithful could start by asking their presumptive presidential nominee, John McCain, why he:
- supports the high income Bush tax cuts which he voted against in 2001 because they were fiscally irresponsible?
- inserted $14.3 million into a 2003 defense bill for a land acquisition program that provided a windfall for an Arizona developer, SunCor Development, whose executives have given McCain $224,000 in campaign contributions?
- said he'd keep troops in Iraq for 100 years and now says they will be out by the end of his first term?
- sought and accepted the endorsement of the extremist Pastor John Hagee, who says God caused Hurricane Katrina to wipe out New Orleans because it had a gay pride parade the week before and who advocates invading Iran to hasten the coming of Armageddon?
- supports his wife, the daughter of a multimillionaire Anheuser Busch distributor, in refusing to release her tax returns?
- met with the Arizona developer, convicted racketeer and bailed-out savings and loan operator, Charles Keating, in 1987, a year after his wife and her father invested more than $350,000 in a strip mall developed by Mr. Keating that the New York Times has called a "sweetheart deal?"
<
Sunday, May 11, 2008
2008 unlike past presidential elections
Frank Rich writes that the 2008 presidential election is very different than previous elections which is why the pundits have gotten so much so wrong:
Almost every wrong prediction about this election cycle has come from those trying to force the round peg of this year’s campaign into the square holes of past political wars. That’s why race keeps being portrayed as dooming Mr. Obama — surely Jeremiah Wright = Willie Horton! — no matter what the voters say to the contrary. It’s why the Beltway took on faith the Clinton machine’s strategic, organization and fund-raising invincibility. It’s why some prognosticators still imagine that John McCain can spin the Iraq fiasco to his political advantage as Richard Nixon miraculously did Vietnam.
The year 2008 is far more complex — and exhilarating — than the old templates would have us believe. Of course we’re in pain. More voters think the country is on the wrong track (81 percent) than at any time in the history of New York Times/CBS News polling on that question. George W. Bush is the most unpopular president that any living American has known.
And yet, paradoxically, there is a heartening undertow: we know the page will turn. For all the anger and angst over the war and the economy, for all the campaign’s acrimony, the anticipation of ending the Bush era is palpable, countering the defeatist mood. The repressed sliver of joy beneath the national gloom can be seen in the record registration numbers of new voters and the over-the-top turnout in Democratic primaries.
Mr. Obama hardly created this moment, with its potent brew of Bush loathing and sweeping generational change. He simply had the vision to tap into it. Running in 2008 rather than waiting four more years was the single smartest political decision he’s made (and, yes, he’s made dumb ones too). The second smartest was to understand and emphasize that subterranean, nearly universal anticipation of change rather than settle for the narrower band of partisan, dyspeptic Bush-bashing. We don’t know yet if he’s the man who can make the moment — and won’t know unless he gets to the White House — but there’s no question that the moment has helped make the man.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)