Attorney General candidates need to capitalize on Van Hollen’s partisan failure

Attorney General JB Van Hollen’s attempt to sue the federal government over health care reform may be the best thing to happen to AG candidate Scott Hassett. His campaign website has not been touched in months, even my Google alerts have been silent. But now that Van Hollen has managed to politicize his office even further (see failure to defend domestic partner registry and non-incarcerated felon folly) more people will become aware of Hassett’s candidacy.

Van Hollen initially appeared to reject the possibility of a lawsuit. This Capital Times story was originally headlined “Van Hollen too smart to challenge health reform” before a change in the headline and some of the text. Apparently Van Hollen is dumb enough to challenge reform, and waste taxpayer dollars (in short supply, if you hadn’t heard) doing it. This stunt is so partisan you’d think he was running for governor.

One Wisconsin Now is already seeking copies of correspondence between Van Hollen and the 13 other attorneys general who have filed suit, along with the other top tier Republicans (I don’t mean it as an insult) in the state. Considering Van Hollen’s initial apprehension it could be interesting to see what changed his mind. Republican Party of Wisconsin stuntman Reince Priebus has come out publicly in support of tax money being flushed down the toilet, along with gubernatorial candidates Scott Walker and Mark Neumann. Some states are lucky enough to have an AG not interested in political games, but we are not one of them.

Thankfully our governor, one gubernatorial candidate, and current legislative leaders have the power and wisdom to deny Van Hollen his  blank check to deny reasonable health care to Wisconsinites. Let’s be sure this fall’s election keeps things that way, and keeps these guys out of power.

We’re still waiting on word from Tommy Thompson regarding his flip-flop on insurance mandates, but he only acts like a candidate when it is convenient for him so it might be a while. Will he toe the Republican line? I wouldn’t bet against it.

If Hassett doesn’t sieze the opportunity to capitalize on Van Hollen’s partisan power grab he may be facing opposition from Madison talk show host Dan Potacke, who has tweeted about a possible candidacy. Hassett has failed to impress me thus far, so the coveted Pretty Important Endorsement is up for grabs. Potacke isn’t good at much, which would make him a great successor to Van Hollen.

Tommy Thompson polls at 1%

A Public Policy Polling poll shows Russ Feingold leading wishy-washy Tommy Thompson 47-44. PPP is a Dem affiliated firm with a fairly accurate record. But the big number from the poll is not the above figure, nor is it Feingold-Wall (48-34) or Feingold-Westlake (48-31).

The big number is 1%. That is the favorable opinion of Washington lobbyists, according to Wisconsin voters.

Tommy Thompson has spent the last five years as essentially a lobbyist in Washington. I doubt most Wisconsin voters even remember he was tapped by George W. Bush to be Secretary of Health and Human Services back in 2001, leaving the Governor’s Mansion mid-term. I am positive even less are aware of his current career. If Thompson declares his candidacy Wisconsin voters will know all about Tommy’s latest job as a power-broker for dozens of big business interests.

Before he was a maybe-candidate Thompson supported health care reform. Both potential opponents in a primary have pledged to repeal reform. WWTD? An apparent flip-flop.

Now a contrast. While Tommy was making millions taking special interests on as clients, Russ Feingold was taking them on for you.

His recent earmark cancellation amendment could save $478 million this year. His votes for health care and jobs have Wisconsin’s best interests in mind, not a corporation or his pocketbook. Remember, it’s “a lot of people in Washington” that want Thompson to run for Senate.

Stick to the private sector Tommy. Your pocketbook and the citizens of Wisconsin will both be better off. We want a senator that represents more than 1% of us.

Wisconsin Right to Life would deny health care reform for benefit of GOP cronies

The Wisconsin Right to Life (until birth only) is assaulting the recently passed health care bill. This is not surprising at all, as both of Wisconsin’s leading anti-choice groups have proven to be anti-health care as well. An executive order and pages of legislation barring federal funds from paying for abortions is not enough for the far-right, anti-choice groups. They are Republicans at heart and like the Congressional Republicans, want to see reform fail for their own political gain.

The final votes in favor of the bill were delivered when President Obama pledged to sign an executive order reaffirming the current prohibition on federally subsidized abortion. WRTL Legislative Director Susan Armacost says of Obama’s executive order;

“It changes nothing”

Correct Susan. The Hyde Amendment remains intact. Federal funds will not be used for any abortion (except in the case of rape, incest or the life of the woman is endangered). Within 180 days the OMB and Secretary of HHS will have guidelines for the segregation of funds by private insurance companies to ensure that not one federal dollar goes to abortion. Yet all of this is still not enough…

The National Right to Life Committee parrots the worst GOP talking points on reform, claiming rationing and premature death;

“The health care restructuring bill…will, if not repealed before its most dangerous provisions come into effect, result in the rationing denial of lifesaving medical treatment, and consequent premature and involuntary death, of an unknown but immense number of Americans.”

In this memo the NRLC evokes the thoroughly debunked “death panel” scare-tactic in everything but the name.

The anti-choice groups are terribly short-sighted. For the political gain of their anti-choice GOP cronies they would discard health care for millions of people. Obstruct reform to maybe elect Republicans which might result in further restrictions on abortion isn’t much of a prize, considering the sacrifices.

President Obama just signed the reform bill into law. Federal money still won’t be spent on abortions. A “right to life” doesn’t mean much when you’re dead because a pre-existing condition prevented you from getting insurance.

Status wave for Russ and health insurance reform

The College Democrats and Students for Russ have a status wave going on Facebook and Twitter.

Sure it’s grade A slacktivism but it’s nice seeing all the new tweets popping up on the @RussFeingold search page. Last night’s vote was a huge step forward. We need to show support for the legislators that voted for reform. Candidates like our very own Dave Westlake and Terrence Wall are already chanting “repeal it.” That kind of crap makes Tommy! look like an attractive candidate.

Feingold and the Democrats serve Tommy notice

The Democratic Party of Wisconsin has a new Tommy! video.

The comment threads of every Journal-Sentinel story mentioning Thompson has the lowest common denominator of internet posters assuming the attacks are coming because Feingold is scared of a Tommy! run. Nope. Uppity Wisconsin explains why we’re going after Tommy;

“Tommy is used to getting a free ride from the media, who report his every move. He thinks he should get daily stories that undermine Feingold’s campaign — and those of the two Republicans already in the race — without anyone criticizing or questioning him. That ain’t how it works.”

“What Feingold and the Dems are doing is serving notice to Tommy that if he does get in, he is in for the race of his life — one that he just might be afraid of.”

That’s about all there is to it, courtesy of xoff.

We had a good canvas for Russ today, so put up or shut up Tommy.

Westlake’s covert reversal on campaign donations

Twitter alerted me to a moneybomb for Dave Westlake this Friday. No surprise there, fringe right candidates love the moneybomb. The surprise is Dave Westlake announced in January he was suspending campaign fundraising, instead choosing to sell blaze orange t-shirts as the sole means of support for his campaign. He played up the announcement like the stunt it was, both announcing the announcement and expecting us to believe the motivation was on moral grounds, not that his campaign actually lacked the ability to raise money.

The suspension announcement was made via Youtube video, which is now private. There is no longer any reference to it on davewestlake.org but remnants of the Youtube link remain on Twitter and Facebook;

Now Westlake has a donation page and people are talking moneybomb on Twitter.

I know not many people are paying attention to the poor guy but did he think we would forget? A suspension isn’t necessarily permanent, but Westlake’s seemed to be for keeps, and removing the references is shady.

I suppose this type of behavior should be expected from the candidate who declared “no gimmicks” then started wearing blaze orange everywhere he went.

Hey Terrence Wall, the Constitution doesn’t mention a “filibuster” either

Terrence Wall is playing the all-too-common-lately Constitution card, saying;

“The public doesn’t want Russ Feingold’s ObamaCare 3.0 and he knows it. So why is he supporting these shady backroom deals and attempts to evade the Constitution he swore to uphold?”

Terrence Wall never really mentions much in policy realm, so I have to assume he is referring to the process of “deem-and-pass.” A lengthy but enlightening explanation of  deem-and-pass follows, first on the procedure, then why it is being used.

Byron Tau in The New Republic;

The House Rules committee is often called the “traffic cop” of the House – controlling what bills come to the floor and how much debate is allowed on each one. On each bill, they pass what is called a “rule” – a resolution determining what kind of debate is allowed on each bill. The whole House must first pass the rule, then the underlying legislation. In the case of “deem-and-pass,” the vote on the rule would also have the effect of passing the Senate bill. According to the CRS report linked above, the House has used this procedure at least six times between 1989 and 2005 with both parties in charge.

Ezra Klein explaining why the House doesn’t want to vote for a bill before they can amend it;

Rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the fixes, the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House “deems” the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes.

The virtue of this, for Pelosi’s members, is that they don’t actually vote on the Senate bill. They only vote on the reconciliation package. But their vote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill. The difference is semantic, but the bottom line is this: When the House votes on the reconciliation fixes, the Senate bill is passed, even if the Senate hasn’t voted on the reconciliation fixes, and even though the House never specifically voted on the Senate bill.

I hate posting lengthy excerpts from other sources but those two explanations are very important. If you didn’t read them; the House has to pass the Senate version as passed by the Senate before amendments can be added in the reconciliation process. This leaves Democratic members of the House vulnerable to attacks by Republicans skewing the vote by claiming the Dem voted for something “bad,” leaving out the Dem knew the “bad” would  be removed later via amendment.

Back to Terrence Wall…

Wall seems to consider deem-and-pass unconstitutional, yet thoroughly endorses the filibuster. The trouble with his argument is neither is mentioned in the Constitution, they are simply rules in their respective houses of Congress. If Wall’s simplistic views on constitutionality are taken at face value, he should be apprehensive of the filibuster. The House needs a majority vote to deem-and-pass anything. The Senate only needs 41% of the vote to obstruct everything.

To paraphrase Senator Feingold at the Jackson County listening session he held earlier this year “just because something is a bad idea does not make it unconstitutional.” Deem-and-pass is a confusing parliamentary tactic that most people do not understand. In this case the idea is necessary to avert cheap attacks by Republicans claiming a member of the House voted for the “Cornhusker Kickback” a provision that Republicans attacked and House Democrats have every intention of repealing. The GOP should be cheering, but instead prove why they are the Party of No.

Terrence Wall kicks around the word “unconstitutional” for political gain, oblivious to the impact. Russ Feingold is chairman of the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, when he calls something unconstitutional, it is.

The Tommy Lobby, plus Westlake and Wall mum on agriculture

The odds of Tommy running for Senate have dropped to 50-50, from a previous high of 70. It’s no secret Tommy has spent his time since leaving public service as Secretary of Health and Human services for George W. Bush making money utilizing his extensive government contacts. A man’s gotta eat, and Tommy eats well.

This is not the kind of representation Wisconsin needs in the Senate. As Russ Feingold so eloquently put it;

“I’ve spent years and years taking on the special interests, and Tommy Thompson spent years taking them on as clients.”

Tommy can stack all the paper he wants, but not while he is working as my senator. I want my senator to represent Wisconsin alone, and I know Russ Feingold does that.

Uppity Wisconsin has more on lobbyists and their ilk turning (or re-turning) legislator.

Now for the declared challengers…

Blogging Blue notes neither Dave Westlake or Terrence Wall has anything regarding agricultural issues on the issues page of their websites. Contrast that with the issues page of Feingold’s campaign site, which has extensive policy positions on agriculture and more than a dozen other subjects. Wall should be more involved in agriculture, with his gig as a pumpkin farmer and all. It’s not really surprising, as I’ve noted before Wall doesn’t seem to care much for genuine policy ideas, he’s running on nothing. That won’t appeal to Wisconsin’s 78,000 farmers.

Scott Walker says split Milwaukee Public Schools while MacIver talks district consolidation

Republican Scott Walker recently stated his support for splitting Milwaukee Public Schools into 10 to 12 smaller districts. Meanwhile the conservative MacIver institute offers district consolidation as a solution to budget problems. The problems of MPS go beyond simply budgetary, but these seemingly contrary ideas are worthy of examination.

A split contradicts Walker’s brown bag guide to government rule number three: “people create jobs, not government.” More school districts need more administration. More administration costs more money. Until now, Walker has made a career of dismantling government, whether it saves taxpayers money or not.

In his pitch Walker claims a split would “wipe out all the liabilities and all the other financial problems.” This sounds like screwing teachers and pension obligations to me, though Walker does not offer much for details. Would enough money be saved to pay nine to eleven more superintendents? School boards? Every other duplicated (possibly times 11) service?

An MPS split would surely result in districts defined by race due to Milwaukee’s notoriously segregated housing patterns. This is also more funding trouble. A district in a poor neighborhood no longer has areas with higher property values to bring revenue up.

Schools consolidate because of declining enrollment. Enrollment in MPS is declining to the point of empty buildings. From the MacIver article;

“Unless the consolidated districts produce a slow, steady increase in enrollment, all you get from consolidation is a very short term fix, then you’re in the same structural deficit.”

Considering the current trend in Milwaukee at least some of these new districts will face declines in enrollment. Then what? Closing a few schools in a huge district is easier than closing one in a small district.

MPS needs a comprehensive solution to the many problems it faces. Scott Walker is not offering a solution. The idea does not square with his slash-and-burn ideology. Maybe that’s a good thing but I’m more confused than ever.

Ed Thompson’s anti-tax pledge and 9/11 conspiracy theory

Ed Thompson, former Libertarian candidate for governor and current Mayor of Tomah and Republican candidate in the 31st Senate District, re-signed the Americans for Tax Reform “Taxpayer Protection Pledge” vowing to vote against any tax increase. ATR is headed by Grover Norquist, unabashed government hater (two more OWN takes).

Thompson traveled to the (partially) taxpayer funded University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire to sign the pledge. College Republicans taking advantage of state subsidized education were there to cheer him on and provide ill-informed quotes to the college newspaper;

“A major reason why people leave Wisconsin is because of the high taxes.”

“A recent alumnus of UW-Eau Claire said it’s too expensive to do business in Wisconsin so alumni relocate elsewhere. He described this shift as an “exodus of revenue.”

“One of the main reasons Wisconsin is kind of falling behind the curve is because they [sic] have such high property taxes, and people move out after they graduate from college.”

Unfortunately the article reads like a Republican press release. Note the statements above are essentially the same claim three times, accepted without question or any further exploration.

More on Ed…

The conservative blogosphere discovered another Thompson flaw — credence for 9/11 conspiracies. Wigderson must have heard sometime after shaking Ed’s hand at Saturday’s Whacky Teabagger Conference, as evidenced by a late night blog comment and tweet.

Nobody likes paying taxes, so despite Grover Norquist’s downright awful rhetoric at times, Thompson isn’t going to catch any hell for signing the ATR pledge at a state university. The 9/11 statement, though made a few years ago, could prove damaging for Thompson by fall.