Ballanced Budget Amendment

Our own Ron Johnson has proposed an amendment to the Constitution which would require a balanced budget. On the surface this sounds like a great idea especially with the ongoing discussion of the debt ceiling. A balanced budget amendment will not do anything about the debt. It will make going to war next to impossible unless you budget for it. No more military adventures into a country like Iraq. No more bailouts, unemployment (the fund is broke), road building,... Under the Johnson plan one could assume that in bad economic times government will sit on the sidelines and do nothing because it isn't in the budget. I think that we tried that in 1928 and it was a disaster. Government at that point becomes the only entity that can spend. I don't foresee Government running a surplus to cover disasters, wars, or bad economies. Remember George Bush gave away the Clinton surplus.

Deficit Reduction

I have a plan to reduce the federal deficit.  I can't take total credit for it, I formulated the idea while reading the blog the Chief.  He was saying that Ron Johnson and his staff should refuse government run single payer health care.  He is right, that is what the campaign was about and now he is replacing a principled senator who has been know to stand on those principles.  But, this got me to thinking.  Wasn't this entire election about rejecting "government run health care"?  The people have spoken, anyway that is what the media says.  The President should end government run and paid for health care for all employees of the US Congress.  I figure conservatively that would amount to $400 million dollars in the first year alone.  I haven't seen this on Eric Cantor's U cut page.  As long as we are reigning in Congress, remember the people have spoken, maybe we can end their expense accounts.  They are all being funded by corporations anyway so the fear of corruption should not exist.  If they need to take someone out to dinner use the Congressional dining room.

Give the Money Back?

A day after the capitalists take over it was announced that 49 Wisconsin Companies (presumably led by capitalists) were going to share 13.1 million dollars in Federal Grants from the health care act.  This would be the act that Ron Johnson and Paul Ryan as well as others have said they would repeal.  Not only that but Ron Johnson and Scott Walker has said that government should not be in the marketplace.  What is their position on these grants?  Are they going to introduce legislation to get this money back?  Are these companies going to do the right thing and give the money back because they believe that business should not accept government help?  I want to know!  This country needs to follow Capitalist theory, the people have spoken, which means that the market picks winners and losers not the government.  I say that it is time to hold these businesses to what they preach.  The tea party patriots talk about the constitution.  There is nothing in the constitution that explicitly says that it is the duty of government to help business.  The same goes for tax cuts to business, again it is government helping business.  Look at Quad Graphics, $49 million in credits.  Their competition didn't get a deal, it is unfair competition directed by the government.  I for one will continue to point this out but I don't expect to see this anymore, we have a new administration in town.

Ron Johnson You're Running to be a Senator of the Country

Interesting item today from the always interesting Ron Johnson campaign.  He was complaining that some of the stimulus money that Feingold voted for went to a ski resort in Vermont.  Mount Snow for their part said that they actually applied for a government back loan (much like the one Pacur got) and in the end unlike Pacur they turned it down.  I would rather not focus on Mr. Johnson's hypocrisy, but instead what the role of a US Senator is.  He implies with his criticism of Feingold that a US Senator should not vote for anything that fails to benefit Wisconsin.  No, a US Senator represents their State but also the Country.  If a bill is good for the Nation as a whole it should be voted for.  Mr. Johnson would rather see individual States fail.  Had Mount Snow actually gotten stimulus money it would have be spent in other states where snowmaking equipment is manufactured.  It wouldn't of even been spent in Vermont.  On this point of the stimulus the question should be is a role of Government to help the States remain viable?  Wouldn't this come under the US Constitution Article 1 section 8, promote the general welfare.  I know that Mr. Johnson is a Constitution quoting Tea Party Patriot but they all seem to forget article 1 section 8 which delineates the duties of the government.  Who knows exactly who Mr. Johnson intends to represent in Washington but it doesn't really appear to be the State or the Nation.

New Problems for Johnson

It turns out that 5 of Mr. Johnson's employees are covered under the State's Badger Care program.  The official response from Pacur was that they opted out of the company policy.  Was this because it was too expensive?  Were they seeking better less affordable coverage?  were they looking for a cheaper policy and then realized that their wages were low enough to qualify them for Badger care?  For those that don't know Badger care is a Government health insurance program for low income residents of the State of Wisconsin.  Interesting that the man who entered the race because of government over reaching and "taking" over health care would have employees benefiting from one such program.  No irony here!

Russ Feingold's ad

The Senator finally has a good ad to counter Ron Johnson's ad that Feingold didn't listen to constituents before voting on health reform.  No, the Senator has been listening for years as people who have to use the health system describe a broken and unjust system and ask that government put some regulation on the insurers.  I have said for years that the health insurance industry has been begging for regulation and apparently that is the message that the Senator heard.  Now they got what has been coming to them for years, except they really didn't.  In the end they still win.  Sure they have to cover pre-existing conditions (children now, adults in 2014) but they can charge 3 times the rate of a healthy persons policy.  Sure they can't drop you when ill, but they can raise your premium.  No it is not perfect but we as a nation needed to do something.  Ron Johnson wants to go back to the out of control system of a year ago.  If the people vote him in I wish them luck in the future because I will demand that we stick with the current market based system that Mr. Johnson campaigned for.

Ron Johnson has Another new Ad

In response to Russ Feingold's jobs ad Ron Johnson has his own that blames Feingold for shipping jobs to China.  It is a great ad if only true.  Mr. Johnson heavily quotes from an article that Politico (trying to appeal to the libs?) ran but fails to tell the whole story.  Which happens to be his criticism of Feingold.  Politico did discuss that money from the stimulus went to create jobs in China but if you read further they explain that those people will be building windmill parts which will further energy independence if not independence from China.  But, the question is, why China?  The answer is amazingly simple, we don't manufacture those parts or much else in this country anymore.  In the global race for the bottom (thanks most favored nation status) China beat us there.  Manufacturing has relocated or contracted to China because of low wages.  Part of the stimulus plan was to build alternative energy infrastructure.  Unfortunately, China has the world's largest solar panel facility and one of the largest wind turbine facilities.  The reality is that until we start manufacturing stuff we are going to continue to purchase our means of production from foreign countries.  The cranes that work on erecting those windmills will most likely Korean or Japanese.  The businessmen could buy American but they don't due to price. 

Maybe, Mr. Johnson would like to enlighten us as to how he is going to bring a manufacturing base back to the country.  His website has scant information on any of his plans.  On job grow his solution is lower taxes.  We have had the tax cuts for 6 years, I think that this is enough time to tell if they have work.  Every quarter since they began has shown less job growth and a lower GDP.  Hard to believe, but yes we have joined the race to the bottom.  How is raising taxes going to affect this negative growth?  Well, it can't get worse.

Health care Post Debate

In comments after the debate Ron Johnson stated that he favors replacing the healthcare measure with smaller more targeted bills and that he would make sure that pre-existing conditions are covered.  His entire campaign has been stating exactly the opposite since day one.  Once again he is trying to have it both ways.  So, rather than the massive over reach of the current legislation he would favor having some control over the industry.  His entire campaign has been about letting the market work and all government regulation is bad.  Maybe he needs to watch his own ads, the one that states "a new government program that saves money".  The market decided that pre-existing conditions have the potential to cost more money.  This is why premiums are more expensive or coverage denied outright.  How would he fix this without doing what the reform does?  Mandate coverage but take off the meager cost control (3 times the rate of a non pre-existing condition policy)? 

This is what Ron Johnson states on his website:

"Ron will vote to repeal the Health Care Bill and replace it with market-based solutions that will include: portability, malpractice reform, mandate reduction, insurance purchase across state lines, lower costs, and a safety net for those with pre-existing conditions.
The Health Care Bill is a $1 trillion experiment that will lead to higher cost, lower quality health care and rationing by government bureaucrats.  A free- market approach to health care reform is critical to ensuring doctors and patients stay in control of the decision-making process.  The free market is essential for the development of new drugs, treatments and medical procedures that will save lives and keep our country on the forefront of medical innovation.
The Health Care Bill will further bust an already broken budget.  Obama Administration estimates are simply not believable.  When Medicare was passed in 1965, the government estimated its cost in 1990 would be $12 billion.  The actual cost in 1990 was $111 billion…nearly ten times the original estimate.  The estimated cost of the Health Care Bill will not be any more accurate."

There are no specifics in his plan.  Doctors and patients do not have control of the decision making process now.  Who is he kidding, the insurer has that control.  When you go to pick-up a prescription and the pharmacy says that it will be full price because the doctor prescribed something that is not on the list or was taken off the list.  Then you have to either pay (which isn't a problem for him) or go back (driving up costs) and get something else prescribed.  If the new drug doesn't work you have to back again and again until you either exhaust all alternatives so that you can get what was originally prescribed or you find something that works.  Yeah, the doctors and patients are in control.  The insurers deny coverage for certain conditions such as "autism", which Sharon Angle said the new law would cover and she doesn't want to pay for.  Would Johnson's reforms cover this?  Come on Ron let us have the specifics.  I have a feeling that once it is fleshed out we will be at a series of reforms that are substantially similar to the current law.  The current law is not perfect for example I favor a system of private insurance that is heavily regulated with cost controls.  What we have now and going forward is a system that shifts costs from those who can pay to those who can't and allows the price of drugs in this country to essentially subsidize the drug costs in countries that regulate the price of drugs.  These and other factors (high salaries, shiny buildings, greed) lead to premium increases that far exceed the rate of inflation.  You would think that a businessman (who claims to provide health care to his employees) would be concerned about premium increases that are averaging 6% (inflation at 0) this year.  The current law doesn't control price (obviously) and I'm sure that Mr. Johnson's proposal won't control price because that would be against his nature of free market solutions (which is the current system except for the poor, the seniors, and the military).

Healthcare and Privledge

Ron Johnson explaining why healthcare reform was so bad brought up the health issues that his daughter has.  It was a fabulous story which showed how great medical care and technology are in this country.  Unfortunately he doesn't seem to understand one simple fact, he's rich!  The procedure that she had done was almost assuredly experimental.  Many policies won't cover experimental treatment.  What happens to those people?  They self ration and don't get it done.  His daughter now has a pre-existing condition.  Has she gone out on the open market to get insurance?  How much did it cost?  Most people with pre-existing conditions can get insurance but they can't afford it.  Ron Johnson would repeal a law that allows people with pre-existing conditions to buy insurance at only 3 times the rate of an average person.  Yes, we have the best system in the world if you're rich.

Balanced Budget Amendment

The Wisconsin Senate debate tonight broke down to taxes and spending.  Ron Johnson expressed his support for a balanced budget amendment.  This is the sound bite answer to spending.  The problem with a balanced budget amendment is what happens in times of crisis?  If you follow Keynes he stated that in good economic times governments should run a surplus and in bad economic times or times of crisis governments should not only spend the surplus but should also be prepared to run a deficit.  I know that this is pretty complex for tea baggers to grasp.  Let's take the recent time.  The year is 2001 and George Bush just returned the Clinton surplus to the people.  Then some crazy Saudis attacked the country and we went to war first in Afghanistan and then Iraq.  With a balanced budget no war with Afghanistan (because the war was not budgeted).  Of course, both of these wars were run outside of the budget until 2006 when Congress put the costs into the budget which blew up the budget.  So no wars, what about other crisis?  In 2007, 2008 we stabilized the financial markets by deficit spending.  So, we let the financial markets collapse taking down everything.  At that point there is probably no longer a need for government.  Instead of amending the Constitution we need responsible legislators.

On a side note Russ Feingold can talk about what he would do, but the reality is that his proposals will not see the light of day because the Republicans will filibuster or place holds on the bills.

Talking to the Press

Yesterday Ron Johnson made the most unbelievable statement when talking about stem cell research.  It wasn't that he was opposed to federal funding (he's a Republican), it wasn't his belief in adult stem cell research (he's a Republican), it was his statement that government shouldn't fund it because a large percentage of the people are morally opposed to it.  Really, this sounds like the argument that was made by people opposed to the Vietnam war.  Currently there are large percentages of people opposed to the Afghanistan war, is he for getting us out now?  Currently there are large percentages of people opposed to any presence in Iraq, are we leaving?  Currently we have a large percentage of people opposed to escalating the war in Pakistan, does he favor ending that one?  In these tough budget times there are many people who think that defense should be put on a diet, is Ron Johnson going to join with Democrats and demand that the budget be cut as little as 1%?  My guess is no but he will probably agree to increase funding for the above and cut funding for NOAA, CDC, NSF, NASA, EPA,... where a smaller percentage of the population is in opposition to what they do.

Time to Release Pacur's Corporate Tax Records

I believe that it time for the people to join with the Democrats and demand that Pacur's tax records be released.  In most cases and for most candidates I would be as against this demand as the Republicans and Ron Johnson.  The difference in this case is that those records are relevant.  Mr. Johnson's entire campaign is based on that the crushing tax code is killing his and other businesses in the country.  He has disputed the government managed/ facilitated loans/ bonds/ grants as not being government supported.  If that were true anyone would be able to get a couple of points knocked off a business loan which is not the case.  We need to see these records so that we can determine how truthful these claims are.  I would hope that he has paid huge taxes because a majority of corporations pay little or no taxes.  Exxon a large company with record profits, headquartered in the US got a refund.  so if Pacur did pay a lot in taxes they must have done something wrong.  The tax code favors business the same way that it favors the wealthy.  By optimizing expenses, depreciation, and interest paid, you can reduce your income (profit) to such a low level that you pay very little in taxes.  This is not a bad thing but it is for someone trying to connect to people seeing 25% of their income taken for income taxes, 7.5% taken for Social Security, another 3% taken for Medicare, and then the State income tax.

Lawyers in Congress

Ron Johnson says the there is a majority of lawyers in the US senate and that would be fine if they had a lawsuit to settle.  Hey Ron, here's a government lesson for you.  Congress makes laws!  Lawyers argue the law.  It seems like a fit to me.  So if we elect Mr. Johnson he will have to rely on his high priced lawyers who have helped his business navigate through the laws all of these years to help him craft legislation.  This is so much better than keeping a senator in office who is a Rhodes scholar and lawyer who has specialized in constitutional law.  It is interesting how the tea baggers talk about restoring the Constitution but yet they are against anyone who is a constitutional lawyer.  Where were they when the constitution was being run over by George Bush (not a lawyer) and Dick Cheney (not a lawyer).  They were both businessmen and ran the country into the ground and abused their authority under the Constitution.  So Ron, how exactly is your business experience going to be different from theirs.

Healthcare and Ron Johnson

I just heard Ron Johnson's latest radio commercial on health care.  Once again it is full of lies and distortions.  You have the 2 women complaining that Sen. Feingold voted yes on health care and then one says that the worst part of it is that our rates are going to go up.  Really?  Didn't they go up before reform?  What in the bill was going to reduce the cost of insurance?  Nothing, the bill contains no cost controls other than for some things that have not started yet.  Those controls are standardizing records and allowing the poor into buying pools.  This may reduce our costs but not by much.  Ron Johnson should know this.  Currently my insurance is slated to go up 6.2% and they are hailing this as a great deal.  Yeah it's down from 20% a few years ago but it still way above the rate of inflation.  What exactly is Mr. Johnson's solution to this problem?  He would eliminate the reforms enacted.  How exactly is that going to help the people he says that he wants to serve?  Well first of all people with pre-existing conditions will either not be able to get insurance or it will be really expensive (the reform caps it at 3 times the normal rate).  Then the lifetime caps go back in place (2 million for a family, sounds like a lot, get sick and see).  We'll still have at least 50 million uninsured, but more every day as employers eliminate the employer based health care that we Americans love. 

I don't agree with the health care reforms because they don't go far enough.  But I'm not going to vote against Feingold on this vote because the alternative is disastrous.  I like the German system.  The Germans have been using single payer heavily regulated private insurance since 1890.  The same plan was proposed in this country at the same time.  Germany has had 3 times in their history where they could have got rid of the program and they have elected to keep it.  But we can't even talk about single payer.

Government subsidies and Ron Johnson

Ron Johnson has staked his entire campaign on how government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers and that government doesn't create jobs.  He has vehemently criticized Sen. Feingold for highlighting his government backed bonds.  He has an ad running where he points out that the news organizations have called on the Senator to quit using clips from their stories in his ad.  No one has disputed the accuracy of the report which contends that Pacur got a subsidy.  What Ron and maybe Russ should be acting for is a retraction from WKOW 27.  Either the report is accurate or it isn't.  Once a news report is broadcast it becomes public, otherwise the Daily Show, Colbert, Maddow,... wouldn't be able to do what they do.  Most people seem to think that Ron Johnson's business got government help.  I for one agree with Johnson that government helps business too much.  It is fine to have all of these programs but it would seem that only the connected get the help.

In today's Wisconsin State Journal Ron Johnson's campaign has come out and said that the candidate recognizes that government builds roads and provides infrastructure.  This statement is critical of his own campaign.  I guess that it is like government aid:  Projects that Ron Johnson deem worthy will get funded.  Sounds like picking winners and losers to me.  The realities of America today is that the Federal government pays for roads and other infrastructure and that Government in general provides aid through low interest loans, grants, bonds, tax deferment, ...  The choice for Wisconsin voters is who do you trust, a man who has benefited from government support but now abhors such programs or a man who has helped to create programs that help the average people and small business.  I prefer the latter, Sen. Feingold.

Government backed loans, loans, and grants

Ron Johnson wants us to understand that the help his business got was a loan. He also wants us to understand that this was not the Government picking winners and losers. Well, I for one don't understand the difference. Pacur was given a low interest government backed loan from a bank. This is different from a business loan from a bank in that if they defaulted the bank would be able to get some of the money from the government. A grant is a direct bailout, the government picking winners and losers. The way Mr. Johnson tells it anyone could have gotten this kind of deal. Except that isn't true. Only companies that are already established or led by the connected (Mr. Johnson was connected through his father in law) can get these deals. Give me $2 million dollars and I'll open a business.

So, we can say that he got government help but yet he has no problem criticizing Sen. Feingold for voting to give GM loans and grants to stay in business. This vote preserved a large American company that employed 10s of thousands of Americans. You can argue that these Americans were overpaid. He doesn't go there though. He just believes that we should have let them go.

There you have it the differences between funding sources and how Ron Johnson is playing with the facts. And I'll take a low interest loan to open a business.

P.S. Maybe Ron Johnson would be willing to release the salary structure at his company. Does he pay the so called living wage?

Ron Johnson again

Now the Democratic Party wants Ron Johnson to release the tax records for his business. Normally I would agree with Johnson that those records shouldn't be made public. The difference in this case is that Mr. Johnson is campaigning that taxes on his business are oppressive. Since his is one of the largest businesses in the State and there have been a number of articles published indicating that the majority of large businesses in the State pay little or no taxes, these records have become a campaign issue. The voters need to know how much he paid in taxes.

Wisconsin Senate Race

Try as he might Ron Johnson cannot escape being a businessman in America Today. It all flows from his implication that he went into business with his brother in law with nothing and through hard work and sacrifice built it into this large package manufacturing corporation. Well, it turns out that he had a little more help than most business owners along the way. First the start-up money came from his father in law (who is very wealthy), not going to begrudge a gift but I wouldn't be talking up my early struggle. Then is turns out he received some government assistance (which he abhors) through government backed loans. Now he says it was a loan and was paid back. He also says that no tax payer money was on the line. So no it is not like GM, AIG, the banks. Really, so Ron you're telling me that some bank gave a small business a low interest loan because they believed in what you were doing and knew that your company would help the economy. If I had only known sooner, I could be my own boss now. No, Ron the way this works is some government entity tells the bank that we will guarantee any losses that you may incur making this loan. In this case it was both State and Local money. It is great that he paid it back, but to quote one of the Tea Party faithful where is my share? The reality is that all of us paid to get his business going, he fails to recognize this fact. He also fails to talk about what exactly his business does. They manufacture packaging for the medical field. Isn't it interesting that someone who makes a living off of high tech medicine got into the Senate race against Russ Feingold because he opposes Obama care? If I were in his shoes I would be ecstatic about health care reform because there is not any form of cost containment so he is free to keep increasing prices.