|
 |
5/12/2010
Is it time to say 99 weeks is too long?
Almost 2 years of unemployment checks. You tell me – is that enough? Too much? Way too much?
And to think it all started right here in our great state of Wisconsin. From a July 8, 1934 New York Times article:
THE State of Wisconsin has embarked on a venture that is being watched with interest throughout the world. On July 1 it made effective, on a compulsory basis, the first unemployment "insurance" act to be passed and put into effect in the United States, an act differing widely from unemployment insurance schemes tried elsewhere.
Before Memorial Day, Dems in Congress want to push through a renewal of the extension of unemployment benefits that now expires June 2. Previous extensions were just for a month at a time – this time Congress wants to extend the extra benefits for the entire year. Handy when you have to be out campaigning and wouldn’t want to have to vote on this expensive stuff every month or so...
Imagine that certain Senators (i.e., Bunning and Coburn) in the recent past had the nerve to hold up the legislation, wondering just how the nation was going to pay for it. Sounds like Senator Coburn might bring us a repeat performance.
“Dr. Coburn will use every tool at his disposal to force Congress to pay for these provisions,” said Coburn spokesman John Hart. “Our country is headed toward a Greek-like collapse because Congress refuses to make hard choices.”
Ok. Our nation can’t/shouldn’t afford the increased spending. And do you recall the article included in FP News Monday about landscapers unable to fill jobs because workers would rather collect unemployment benefits? So given all the above and the very reasonable argument that lengthening unemployment benefit periods contributes to higher unemployment rates, should Congress extend unemployment benefits once again to be payable for 99 weeks, through the end of 2010? Is this the time the nation should say "NO"?
Jo Egelhoff, FoxPolitics.net
COMMENTS
Every person who is collecting an unemployment check HAD a job at one time ... at least I don't recall reading that we have started giving these checks out to those just out of school who haven't been able to find their first job (yet).
So presumably that means each of these individuals had some kind of marketable skill. So instead of looking to work for someone else, why not put that marketable skill to work for themselves? Or why not start in on something NEW that is an interest or passion.
It may not be easy, it may not be pretty - there are no guarantees that either would be the case ... but instead of collecting a check while waiting for some benevolent employer to offer a fat salary - I believe those who are collecting checks should consider starting their own business doing something they know how to do and making themselves productive.
I speak from experience in this area. I haven't made the outrageous income which would make me a 'target' for the punitive taxes government is looking to levy on independent business owners, but I also haven't been draining the pockets of my neighbors. Yes, it was tough - but if I could do it with my limited self-taught skills ... I'm certain others can.
It's far more rewarding to carve out your own niche.
Jeff Riedl (Wed May 12 06:42:54 2010)
Unless the folks receiving benefits are independently wealthy my guess is they are spending the money on groceries, gas, medical expenses, COBRA payments, in other words for a host of goods and services. They are not salting it into IRAs, 401Ks of buying gold as a hedge against inflation. The array of services to the needy are stressed to the max and adding an additional stress will make them ineffective. When we still had welfare the number of people who were chronic receipients numbered less that 5% most used it as a bridge to get back on their feet. This narrative suggests that people want to be unemployed and are choosing unemployment over a job. Go to the WorkForce Development Center and see all the folks who day after day come in looking for work. Your view is a jaunticed one.
billie (Wed May 12 07:24:43 2010)
Yea, and we should look at the cause and not just the effect. The "cause" is a trashed economy caused by the elites. The top 25 hedge fund managers raked in $25 Billion, with the #1 guy at $4 billion in 2009 salary. And now they want to block banking regulations so they can continue the raid. None of this would happen without a corrupt political system. THAT is why people are unemployed.
Some day Jo will do a piece on the trickle down effect of political corruption. Jobs are one of them; retirement income will be next.
Jack Lohman (Wed May 12 08:00:48 2010)
I'm personally aware of a couple of situations anecdotally in which acquaintances are waiting to get serious about seeking work. More helpful perhaps, I believe folks more learned than I (including Lawrence Summers before his Obama-epiphany) believe the research shows that longer unemployment benefit eligibility periods contribute to the unemployment rates staying high. Yes Billie, I believe some are comfortable in their joblessness and don't see the urgency to seek a job or the necessity to work in a job that may not be ideal.
And after jobless benefits run out? When we Americans may be hungry and in need of shelter, are there some of us who can be helped in the old-fashioned way, by our families, our neighbors and our churches?
Jo (Wed May 12 09:27:15 2010)
Jo, you very adeptly sidestep the "cause" of the high unemployment rate, and it has nothing to do with its length of 99 weeks. It has 100% to do with our corrupt political system, and as a former (and possibly future) candidate I can understand your reluctance to throw stones. So be it.
I too know people who have chosen to sit things out, but with 6 people for every job available they don't have much choice. We won't create more jobs by pushing them out the door to look, we'll only create jobs by getting rid of our cash and carry political system that buys deregulation and trashes the economy. But please, let's not address the "cause."
Jack Lohman (Wed May 12 10:14:53 2010)
Geez Jack, enough already with the corruption in the system. Fine. Stick to corruption if you like as far as causes. Corruption. Greed. Stupidity. Moral turpitude. More of us relying on a government instead of on ourselves. Call that corruption if you will and assign it to huge amounts of money flowing to our lawmakers. Fine. But then Jack, consider personal responsibility. Why is it always someone else's fault?
Jo (Wed May 12 10:26:25 2010)
Jo, I can't blame the gigantic trashing of the economy and the outsourcing of our jobs on "personal responsibility." You want people to get a job. Where? In India or China?
I am in full agreement if you were to say "No unemployment benefits unless you volunteer some time to social programs." But that's not what I hear you saying. It's that "you're all slackers; go out and get a job!"
Where?
Jack Lohman (Wed May 12 10:53:57 2010)
So, just to be sure, the logic is that people who have worked a long time, maybe their whole lives and are now unemployed are living the high life at everyone else's expense and they should just take that $8.00 hr job instead of looking to replace their $30,000/yr job so they don't take more money from unemployment insurance? Oh, by the way, they should also give up their benefits because they are now employed and they should also continue to look for the $30,000/yr job while working full time just to make up for the difference? What shred of hard, statistical evidence do you have that people on extended unemployment benefits are turning down jobs because they like the lifestyle? What shred of evidence do you have that jobs are going unfilled because people aren't bothering? Why is this country so cruel? There but for the grace of God go you.
dave allen (Wed May 12 11:56:40 2010)
A person I know, at the young age of 17, became a father. At the age of 18, he married the mother of his child. They now have 3 children.
He has worked various jobs to support his family. Shortly after buying their first home and committing to a mortgage, his employment was terminated. They had kept a stringent budget using the envolope system. They had meagre savings. For 3 months, he found every odd one-time job he possibly could, often working 14 and 18 hour days. He spent his spare time submitting resumes, interviewing, and calling on businesses he'd submitted his resume to.
He never once filed for unemployment. He refused to on principle. Not pride, mind you - but principle. His sense of self-responsibility would not permit him to blame his former employers, nor expect to ride on the back of compulsory "charity."
Family and friends helped - precisely because he'd earned their respect, but he would not take one penny more than what was required to pay his bills. He remained in constant contact with his creditors, paying them what he could when he could. He'd have lived in a cardboard box if it came down to that, and it would only have built character for his children. But he didn't have to. He worked his butt off to find work - any work, anything that could put a few dollars in his pocket.
This young man, the father of 3 children, married at the age of 18, providing for his dedicated wife (a full-time mother) and children, wasn't my grandfather, or great uncle, or a person from a "greater" generation.
This young man is 22 years old, nearly 10 years my junior, and he is an exemplar of manhood. He is living proof that 'unemployment compensation' is wholly unnecessry.
Go ahead and blame all the wealthy people who provide jobs. Blame everything on corrupt politicians. There's some truth in this. But until you are sitting on the sidewalk without food or a cardboard box over your head, don't tell me you've tried hard enough. If you still have a television or a computer or a Wii or anything beyond necessity, you haven't tried hard enough.
Unemployment compensation is an enabler, and another one of those cleverly labeled issues of "social justice."
Andrew Ellis (Wed May 12 13:24:49 2010)
Andrew,
Show me the statistics about people abusing unemployment, not accepting jobs that they should accept. You have none. Unemployment insurance" is just that "insurance" by and large paid in by employers. Show me the great number of jobs going unfilled because people are on unemployment? You have none. Why are you so willing to denigrate people without work? Terrible just terrible that this nation denigrates people because they can't find work to support their family and receive unemployment insurance to help them.
dave allen (Wed May 12 13:41:48 2010)
Dave, if you want to call it insurance, at lease let's acknowledge that it's compulsory - it's another "let's relieve ourselves of the responsibility and entrust the management of these funds to our government."
As to statistics, I don't need any. I am arguing on a basis of principle, not on a basis of behavior.
The principle of subsidiarity, coupled with the principle of solidarity: the concentric circles that start with immediate family, then broaden out to extended family, friends, community, and only then to the broader public.
Unemployment compensation is a form of welfare that intrudes on and provides a strong disincentive towards them. In conjunction with our strong proclivity to accumulate 'stuff,' and our general bent on giving that 'stuff' a higher priority than our own family and friends, we've put together a great recipe for disaster.
I have a tremendously wonderful family, and a tremendously wonderful network of friends - none of whom we could regard as wealthy. A few of us have hit hard times - really hard times. And we have been on both the receiving end, and the giving end, of those principles in affect. And it works.
I could lose my job tomorrow, Dave. And while I'm out competing in the job market - any market, including those saturated with illegals - I could lose my house, and all kinds of 'stuff.' There are only three things I have a RIGHT to - life, nourishment, and a coat to prevent me from freezing to death in the winter. Everything else - EVERYTHING else - is a privilege.
So what if I've been employed for 10, 20, 50 years? If I lived in a house for 50 years and it went up in smoke, it's gone. That's life. I can insure it if I want to. But I don't expect the State to step in and say, "here, we'll just take bits and pieces of your neighbors' homes and build you a new one."
And if I don't have family and friends to turn to, THAT, my friend, is poverty.
The introduction of unemployment compensation, much like social security and a host of other government programs, was a precursor to the kind of Statist legislation we face on a national scale.
I don't denigrate people without work. But I am not sympathetic to people who will collect unemployment without ASKING for help among close friends and family because it's embarrassing to do so in Nike shoes over Captain Crunch cereal and cable TV providing that nice, ambient background noise. How nice that we can turn to the all-benevolent government who can just take it from them for you, without even having to ask.
No thanks. Horse manure, by any other name, smells the same.
Andrew Ellis (Wed May 12 14:45:38 2010)
By the way, ever wonder why there isn't anyone willing to offer unemployment insurance? Could a person possibly come up with a more asinine business plan?
Andrew Ellis (Wed May 12 14:51:06 2010)
Excuse my ignorance. Where do the "unemployment" benefits come from? I thought the employer paid into a REQUIRED fund for "unemployment "insurance". So when someone collects unemployment payments, who really pays for it? Thankfully, I have never had to use unemployment money and do not know anyone who has collected those benefits. I do know I fired an employee and had to go to a hearing to prevent her from collecting unemployment money. At that time, my employer was a county in the State of Wisconsin. So to my question, who pays for this additional unemployment coverage? Does it go back to the former employer or does the County, State or Feds pay for it? (I know, they only have OUR money)
I think there are those that do just languish on welfare, unemployment and think nothing about taking money from others.
No, Congress should definitely NOT extend the unemployment benefits for such a long period of time.
Trying to place blame for the unemployment dilemma is not a productive discussion. It exists and until we get out and vote for better representation of our money, it is what it is. So all rhetoric aside, it's the votes that will change the situation.
Babs (Wed May 12 15:04:20 2010)
Dave, the people of America are not cruel. Because some of us would argue that having the government support our family and friends for two years may be too long, doesn't mean we are "cruel." When indeed jobs are not available - or jobs paying wages comparable to a prior job are not available - why is it so absurd to consider aid from one's family, for example? Yes, not everyone has brothers and sisters, parents, aunts or uncles or adult sons and daughters. But most of us do. Does that mean one family might have to share a home with another family? Perhaps. Is that the most ideal situation? Oh no. But please don't insinuate that the government is our only solution. Larry Summers cites apparently good research in an essay quoted in this April, 2010 Wall Street Journal article.
To fully understand unemployment, we must consider the causes of recorded long-term unemployment. Empirical evidence shows that two causes are welfare payments and unemployment insurance. These government assistance programs contribute to long-term unemployment in two ways.....
A textbook, co-authored by Mr. and Mrs. Paul Krugman is quoted in a March, 2010 Wall Street Journal article, coming to conclusions similar to those of Summers.
Public policy designed to help workers who lose their jobs can lead to structural unemployment as an unintended side effect. . . . In other countries, particularly in Europe, benefits are more generous and last longer. The drawback to this generosity is that it reduces a worker's incentive to quickly find a new job. Generous unemployment benefits in some European countries are widely believed to be one of the main causes of "Eurosclerosis," the persistent high unemployment that affects a number of European countries.
Jo (Wed May 12 15:56:35 2010)
Andrew,
Of course you don't need statistics you can just throw whole classes under the bus for your principles. Must be nice to be so "right". Sucks to be the one affected by your principles though.
dave allen (Wed May 12 16:07:33 2010)
All I can say is WOW, we sure have a lot of "compassionate" conservatives here today.
Jack Lohman (Wed May 12 16:16:53 2010)
My, My Jo:
You certainly "Stirred the pot" on this one with our Liberal Friends! Just so we're all on the same page. UC is funded by Employer contributions. However, the Wisc. UC Fund ran out of money long ago. Then they borrow from the Federal Govt. UC benefits are for a period of 26 weeks. Thus, it has been extended several times during this period of multiple Government fiascos. To further put it in perspective, I only recall a couple of occasions in my forty plus year Labor Relations career where the benefit was extended by 13 weeks to a total of 39. 99 weeks is absurd. This thinking is one of the major reasons the auto industry got in such a mess! Try 95% of wages for LIFE! (Along with bloated wages, Health insurance befefits, excessive pensions and restrictive work rules). Will we never learn?
GL Schilling
GL Schilling (Wed May 12 17:16:28 2010)
Yea, yea, let's cut them all off and let them rob people on the streets in order to put food on the table for their families.
"Will we ever learn?" seems a very appropriate question. But I would direct it at the elites that have won all the marbles.
Jack Lohman (Wed May 12 17:58:40 2010)
Jack I hope you are including the union elites in the term. Trouble comes when unions demand more than what someone overseas is willing to work for. In other words, it's possible to strike/demand yourself out of a job.
Right-to-work states are the ones with major growth right now. People should be willing to move to find employment, or else commute. My brother commuted for 2 years to Iowa, as he couldn't move. Think of the last great depression. There were plenty of people who did indeed move around in search of work; my grandparents for example.
The difference between then and now is a Christian-based work ethic. ("If any WILL not work, neither shall he eat.") The ethic was there then, and I'm not sure it's still with us.
And Dave, if this country is "cruel", you're at liberty to find a better one and move there.
emily matthews (Wed May 12 20:31:17 2010)
Ah Emily, so predictable. You have a brother, a friend a husband all as examples of how the world works. . Everything in your small little world is just perfect and therefore everyone else's world must be perfect also or they're moral failures. And that wonderful Christian perfect past, when there was no prejudice, everyone worked hard and the postman delivered the mail with a smile. Sorry, the good old days weren't so good and today ain't so good either. And now that I disagree with you I should leave the country?. I'm sure you'd be much happier in your own little world surrounded by people who think exactly like you--or else. I'm sure you can find a country (not a democracy of course) where you don't have to live with people like me or the others you despise so much. And in this country (I have some suggestions for you) you can hire people for $1.00 per hour and fire them without having to pay a dime of unemployment insurance. How could you resist such a Paradise?
dave allen (Wed May 12 22:23:00 2010)
Dave -
I find your acerbic personal attack on Emily highly offensive, simple minded, and not at all appropriate on a site which promotes thoughtful discussion.
You, yourself, are predictably following the liberal template - when you cannot answer the argument ... ridicule and demonize the opponent.
Are you not capable of rising above that type of posting?
Jeff Riedl (Wed May 12 22:50:57 2010)
Ah Yes, Emily, the Union Elites. As I've written in an upcoming article: "Indeed high labor costs play a role, and our union members must look at these realistically. Did they ask for too much, and get what they asked for? Are more reasonable wages better than no jobs at all?"
That's why the CEOs send everybody's job BUT THEIR OWN overseas. That they are legally protected behind a sweetheart board of directors is a matter for our politicians, but as long as they get a piece of the action I expect no governance.
So the elites have spent gobs of money convincing [some of] the public that that's just "capitalism" and we must tolerate it (the trashing of the economy).
Well, no thank you. Who in the hell is going to buy product when nobody has a job left? Who will even be able to put food on the table. Can anybody spell "Greece" and "riots?" Are we such a stupid nation that we cannot see what they are doing?
Jack Lohman (Thu May 13 05:42:27 2010)
Dave,
Statistics follow trends which either observe or ignore a given principle. They are a useful tool for observing trends, and for demonstrating the affects of a failure to observe a principle.
I've been there. And it DOES suck. And Dave, that's too bad. It sucks to have the flu, too. But we don't make emotional appeals demanding a fix from those that surround us. Do we ask for assistance? Yes, and that is well and good. Should we respond generously to those requests? Yes, and that is well and good. But that is altogether different from simply taking from someone else.
Perhaps this argument makes sense:
Dave, my house became infested with mice over the winter. My wife and child were nearly hospitalized last week with the Hanta virus, which can be deadly. I can't afford an exterminator. Give me money. I'm not asking, Dave. Give me the money. I need it. Now. Hand it over.
Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it? Are you throwing me under the bus?
I think not.
Andrew Ellis (Thu May 13 09:00:33 2010)
>>> "...taking from someone else???"
Andrew, just what do you think has been going on during the last two decades? Look at this chart. When the rich can't get richer by growing the GDP they start conniving from the middle class. That's what is called "taking from someone else!!!"
Jack Lohman (Thu May 13 09:14:30 2010)
This happens to fit the thread, Jim Hightower.
"Yes, jobs are hard to come by these days, but don't despair. There's a company that's hiring--if you can stomach the work.
It's the Talx Corporation, and what it does is to help major outfits (from AT&T to Walmart) prevent their fired employees from getting unemployment benefits. Sound like fun?
You see, when a corporation's former workers are denied jobless benefits, the corporation pays less in taxes to our nation's unemployment fund. However, denying benefits is a messy process, and it's not a plus for the corporate image. So--voil--Talx comes in to do the dirty chore.
Talx has become notorious in state unemployment offices across the country, for it routinely flings tons of paper at the process in order to clog and game it, thus denying or stalling benefits that laid-off people are due. Stalling a case is often enough, for many jobless folks don't have the resources or time to battle a deep-pocket opponent like Talx, so they give up.
Lying seems to be another Talx weapon. A recent New York Times report cites several examples, including the case of a mentally disabled man fired from his job as a night janitor in a New Hampshire Walmart. Talx stalled for three months before the fellow could even get a hearing. The hearing officer granted benefits to the jobless janitor, but Talx appealed, claiming that Walmart had requested to testify by phone but was not allowed to. There was, however, no such request. Finally, the janitor won the appeal--but, thanks to Talx's stalling, he had no money for rent and lost his apartment. "That was a nightmare," he says of his experience.
Talx officials say the company improves the "efficiency" of the unemployment system. Actually, it doesn't. What Talx does is even worse: It strips human decency from the system."
Dean Weichmann (Thu May 13 09:48:33 2010)
By the way, that was an excellent link Jack, thank you for providing it.
Dean Weichmann (Thu May 13 10:01:12 2010)
Thanks Dean, I'm particularly impressed with the first chart showing that our wealth inequality today is exactly where it was in 1928 before the big crash.
Why do we keep allowing this? Because our politicians are getting a piece of the action and writing the rules to prolong it. But my kids and your kids are going to suffer because of it, if we don't first have a deadly national rebellion. It's encouraging that the Tea Partiers have riled the people to throw out the dead wood.
Jack Lohman (Thu May 13 10:26:50 2010)
Jack,
Please educate me. Who's job is it to regulate the equality of wealth? When was that established and how exactly does that fit in to the Free Enterprise / Free Market system that our nation's economy is based upon?
Thanks for your help with this - I must have missed some vital reading in my U.S. History and social studies classes when I was growing up.
Jeff Riedl (Thu May 13 11:59:43 2010)
Jeff, if I have to educate you on the difference between "honest free-market capitalism" and "an unfettered free market, get whatever you can get away with, even pay off your congressman to block regulations that would prevent you from ripping off the public," then I'm afraid your teachers or parents didn't teach you anything about ethics and morality and fairness. But you wouldn't be alone in this, and that some of the elites are going to jail for their efforts may be the info you are seeking.
Jack Lohman (Thu May 13 12:11:30 2010)
Jeff,
Acerbic personality? I guess when someone tells you that you should leave the country because they don't agree with you then you should just go? Sorry. Neither Emily or Andrew have any facts to back up what they're saying and (at least he is honest and) admits it. Since when can one side in a discussion toss all sorts of stones and the other side should stick to level headed facts delivered in a calm manner. No, I have my facts they don't and I get angry at them because they condemn millions of people as failures because they don't have a job and take advantage of unemployment insurance to survive. Ascerbic? Maybe I care enough about the less fortunate in society to get angry about it. What's wrong with that?
dave allen (Thu May 13 23:36:41 2010)
More documentation Dave, supporting the claim that longer periods of jobless benefits lead to increased joblessness. I haven't read your reaction to renowned economists opposing your view. You asked for evidentiary support. You got it.
Jo (Fri May 14 05:08:10 2010)
From your link to Krugman.
"Take the question of helping the unemployed in the middle of a deep slump. What Democrats believe is what textbook economics says: that when the economy is deeply depressed, extending unemployment benefits not only helps those in need, it also reduces unemployment. That’s because the economy’s problem right now is lack of sufficient demand, and cash-strapped unemployed workers are likely to spend their benefits. In fact, the Congressional Budget Office says that aid to the unemployed is one of the most effective forms of economic stimulus, as measured by jobs created per dollar of outlay....In Mr. Kyl’s view, then, what we really need to worry about right now — with more than five unemployed workers for every job opening, and long-term unemployment at its highest level since the Great Depression — is whether we’re reducing the incentive of the unemployed to find jobs. To me, that’s a bizarre point of view — but then, I don’t live in Mr. Kyl’s universe."
Why the selective reading? Unemployment benefits do contribute to unemployment when times are good but not so much in a downturn. Five workers for every job opening.
Dean Weichmann (Fri May 14 05:32:23 2010)
Where were all of these conservative complaints when the Bush/Obama bailouts to Wall Street bankers occurred? Oh, they came alive when the bailout to Main Street occurred (unemployment checks).
But I don't agree that "the economy’s problem right now is lack of sufficient demand." It is lack of sufficient jobs because our CEOs outsourced them (except their own) to other countries. And the politicians helped, even gave tax subsidies to some.
But oh, I should get off this political corruption thingy, except that it affects every issue we talk about.
And look. Moving all the slackers to the job market is not going to increase the jobs. Only reforming NAFTA will, and the Pols won't have anything to do with that. Only public funding of campaigns will fix that.
Jack Lohman (Fri May 14 06:45:41 2010)
|
|
Blog Archives
| 2010 |
  December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Solberg: Healing After an Abortion
• Basketball fans eyeing extension of Miller Park sales tax
• Nanny sex-ed bill goes to Doyle
• A first. Village limits pension contribution for employees
• Nanny State update: Toothbrushing mandated
• Obama pushes education inflation
• WI Investment Board votes to borrow to juice up returns
• So Republicans have brought nothing to the table?
• You have got to be kidding me
• Nygren: Governor Continues Terms of Failure in State of the State
• Sen. Fitzgerald: Governor down the wrong track at high speed
• Phosphorus is the new CO2. $Billions in Wisconsin
• More Obama giveaways
• A reprimand? Would you keep him on the job?
• Burri: Sarah Palin for Prez troubles me
• Quote of the Day – Obama after the pie-eating contest
• Populism, abused and trampled
• Fitzgerald: Senate Republicans Propose Real Job Creation Agenda
• Stripped down health insurance – it’s about time
• Ok GOP, scrap the Party of NO; time to lead
• No way Feingold is a Coakley. Is Wall a Brown?
• Burri: Conservatives off the chart for a RINO?
• Paltry quid pro quo?
• Doyle says ARRA has ‘created or retained’ 44,000 WI jobs
• Does most of the public fall for this stuff?
• When you get signatures, always get a couple extra
• Blame it on the outmoded computers
• Scott Brown victory does not scuttle health bill
• 8th Congressional Candidate Forum, Jan. 25
• Scott Walker Meet-and-greet, Monday, Jan. 18
• Aren’t consumers taxpayers too?
• MORE taxes on investment income - dreadful and wrong
• Join the blaze orange army and say ‘Enough is Enough’
• The future of government-run health care
• Tax on banks is a really bad idea
• Roth, Savard on the stump, grassroots style
• Savard speaking in Appleton, 8 PM, Wed., Jan. 13.
• Rahmlow: Savard, Bies frontrunners for State Senate
• Burri: Failing Political Correctness 101
• School contracts and Race to the Top
• Senator Feingold worrisome and big red flags
• Psephological?
• This is really important. Contact Rep. Kagen. Now. Please.
• This is exactly what we need from Governor Doyle
• This guy is my hero
• Why am I not surprised?
• Talk health reform with Feingold (Th), Petri (today)
• Give the Mayor power over MPS - if he can break contracts
• Burri: Yup, Dems really are going to bypass a conference
• The $2.7 billion Wisconsin deficit no one told you about
• Walker launches county accountability website
• Rahmlow: Why is Van Hollen dodging the Nebraska deal?
|
| 2009 |
December
|
November
|
October
• The Lawton-Bader files
• Yup, it’s the TAX LEVY, not the tax RATE
• Ellis: costly automobile insurance laws must be rolled back
• If not Barrett, who?
• The subsidy game
• Burri: Bailouts, Banks, Health Care, and the Mob
• Attend Appleton Schools budget meeting tonight
• A public option WON’T increase costs? That’s delusional!
• Appleton Schools budget meeting Monday
• Wisconsin should be screaming for accountability
• Burri: If anything, we need more obstructionism around here
• WI on the leading edge - in the wrong direction
• Rep. Montgomery: Utility Customers Join State’s Crime-Fighting Efforts
• Public Conservation and Recreation Lands Total 16.5% of State
• In the crow's nest of the Titanic, shouting 'Iceberg!'
• Is Rep. Nelson a political hack?
• Health care: The road ahead will be brutal
• Kagen's pandering again
• Birthers - good stuff for you
• How much do we bend over backward for seniors?
• The trouble with health care is paying for it
• Two-parent families: The Gold Standard
• Burri: Kids... the joys and blessings
• Very, very worried about health care
• Rep. Huebsch: Wisconsin is proof government health care isn’t the answer
• School district contracts push up tax levy
• What? Obama, the Peace Prize?
• TODAY - hearing on Campaign Finance Reform
• Appleton School District tax levy up way too much
• CBO report is out - and the bill isn't even written yet?
• So, how much do YOU budget for health care?
• Burri: Copenhagen trip was amateurish
• “Sotomayor, you have blood on your hands...”
• Cap and Trade. Always follow the money
• Rep. Kagen gets (almost) free health services
• I actually agree with Rep. Kagen
• Future Wisconsin Conference for Conservatives, October 10, Wauwatosa
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
|
| 2008 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
• Important votes Tuesday, including Appleton Common Council
• Democrats are becoming supply siders??
• Further debunking Hillary myths
• WEAC has created an unsustainable monopoly
• From Mark Gundrum: One of the greatest honors an American can experience
• 'Operation Chaos' working?
• Joe Martin the best candidate in Appleton's 8th
• State programs to cut? - Volume II
• Oh the naivete of youth
• Not just disingenuous - flat wrong
• Steve - you will be missed
• Make cuts only AFTER you're elected....
• Getting serious: What programs can we cut?
• Rep. Steve Kagen joining me on Jerry Bader Show today
• Rep. Van Roy: Dental Care Pilot Program
• Has Dave Obey turned the corner on earmarks?
• Speaker Huebsch: Governor turns down Federal Aid?
• Mark Rahmlow: "We're Broke."
• As taxpayers, how do we know if it's a Chevy or a Lexus?
• This is trash talk - about a veteran
• Frank Lasee: Take time to get the Compact right
• 'The Gableman Ad' - is it racist?
• Roth thankful, Kagen shaking money tree
• Gov. Doyle's office not enamored with Freedom of Information
• Governor Doyle will never do it
• Leadership on smoking ban? Not Hanna
• Rep. Van Roy speaks out about smear ads
• You're threatening me about potholes?
• Losing the Hastert seat is NOT a trend and NOT curtians for the GOP
• First suggestion for 'slashing' programs
• Big money-saver for municipalities
• More one time fixes. Nuts.
• Any chances???
• I'm doing the Jerry Bader Show, today, the 11th
• Representative Frank Lasee: Final Waltz of the Season
• Guest Blog: It's not the county's business to be in the nursing home business
• Yup, Hillary won Texas and Ohio
• Gableman/Butler race featured - and it isn't pretty
• Lies from Planned Parenthood and NARAL
• He who sacrifices liberty.....
• Duh.
• The Troha sentencing, Doyle and that $200K
• Guns, passion and "originality"
• How hard is it anyway, to shut down a government program?
• Voting is a PRIVILEGE. And so are property taxes....
• Guest Blog: Governor Doyle, cancel your Ireland trip
|
February
|
January
|
| 2007 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
August
|
July
|
June
|
May
|
April
|
March
|
February
|
January
• Lots of ideas. No money.
• The Cigarette Tax - "Poor Policy Instrument?"
• School budget Lite?
• Frankenstein - not in the library, but in the legislature
• A librarian, a legislator, a president
• $1.25/pack - NO, NO, NO, and NO
• Kagen and Reagan in the same breath?
• Menasha: behind the 8-ball, but not biting the dust
• Any way you slice it, Wisconsin government wants (further) in on health care
• The World is Flat...what about health care?
• The PAC - too precious to fail. Day 3
• News follow-ups: Appleton West, Kagen at the White House
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail - Day 2
• Fox Cities PAC - too precious to fail
• New Transit Tax coming your way
• Rep. Petri has his finger in the dike - I guess
• AASD Retirement Costs Burdensome
• Health care, health care, health care, health care
• Water rate increase was no slam dunk
• Education for all is just a bad dream
• New Year's resolutions from a parade snob
|
| 2006 |
December
|
November
|
October
|
September
|
| 2000 |
May
|
|
