recent report by CNN Business says this holiday season is ‘make or break’ for Sears Holdings, the parent company of the Sears and Kmart retail giants. This report, apparently, filed from their “No

desk.

But something in that report stuck out that made me think something that hadn’t occurred to me before: The whole ownership and corporate power structure Sears Holdings CEO Eddie Lampert has set up should be 100 percent illegal.

Before I explain, a quick little full disclosure from me.

I used to work for Sears. I started at their (now dead) Coralville, Iowa store, and finished at their (now dead) Bloomington, Illinois store. I wasn’t a manager or anything. I worked the floor there in college, in lawn and garden in Iowa, and electronics in Illinois. It was, without a doubt, the best college job I had. Pay was good (commission), people were (mostly) good, hours weren’t bad. Sure, there were some less-than-optimal things, but on the whole, it was a positive experience. As a matter of fact, the year I started there, Sears was recognized as one of the best places in America to work! Coincidentally, my last couple months at Sears were Lampert’s first months. Lampert-led Kmart announced they would take over Sears in November 2004, and I left in December 2004.

Since then, Lampert, through his role as CEO of hedge fund management company ESL Investments (ESL standing for “Edward Scott Lampert”) announced himself as CEO of the combined company, Sears Holdings, and then proceeded to drive the combined company straight into the ground. Just Google “Sears Eddie Lampert” to be treated to literally hundreds of articles explaining his terrible management strategy, his aloofness, and his short-sighted sale of everything good about Sears ruining the company’s ability to turn itself around.

This article, however, is not about that. It’s about this one, particular line from the first linked CNN Business article:

Lampert is not offering to put up much new cash. Instead, he wants to forgive about $1.8 billion of the debt he holds from Sears.

Since Lampert has started trying to “turn around” Sears Holdings, he has relied on his ESL Investments business to buy up Sears-owned real estate.

Unlike almost any other retailer (big box or otherwise), Sears actually owned a lot of the stores and real estate their stores were located in. This is different than, say, Home Depot or Kohl’s who often have stores purpose-built by third parties, and then lease them. For a lot of Sears stores, this was a significant reduction to overhead which allowed a lot of stores (as an example, the store at Linndale Mall in Cedar Rapids, Iowa) to operate more profitably than the third-party leased stores (like the aforementioned Coralville, Iowa store).

So what Lampert started doing was “selling” the stores to himself (via ESL Investments-owned Seritage Growth Properties), and leasing them back to Sears Holdings. Since Lampert owns a majority stake in both companies, he can do this without anyone saying otherwise.

Further, when that strategy didn’t help the financial health of Sears or Kmart stores (whodathunk literally raising the rent on troubled stores wouldn’t help them?), he started loaning money directly to Sears Holdings from ESL in an effort to hold off bankruptcy.

Here’s where we get to the part that should be illegal.

When you are the CEO of a company, you have a fiduciary duty to the stockholders of your company. This was first, broadly established in the 1919 Supreme Court Case Dodge v. Ford Motor Co., and most recently reinforced in the 2010 case eBay Domestic Holdings Inc. v. Newmark.

However, when you’re the head of a hedge fund (or any institutional investment apparatus, say a mutual fund, or brokerage firm, etc.) you have a fiduciary duty to your investors.

What this means is, as CEO of Sears Holdings, Eddie Lampert is legally bound to make decisions based on what is best for people who own Sears Holdings stock. However, as CEO of ESL Investments, Eddie Lampert is legally bound to make decisions based on what is best for ESL investors (keeping in mind that people other than Lampert himself are invested in ESL accounts).

So what happens when those two duties diverge?

That is, what happens when the best fiduciary decision for the CEO of ESL Investments is to sell off all the profitable elements of Sears Holdings dooming the company? And what happens when the best fiduciary decision for the CEO of Sears Holdings is to hold on to those assets, and default on loans issued by ESL?

When you, as a person, have legally binding duties that are in contradiction to each other, you should be forced to either shed duties or investments. That is to say, Lampert should be forced out of all decision-making roles at Sears (not just as CEO, but chairman of the board, any board position, or any position of authority over the company), or should be required to divest from ESL, or make ESL divest from Sears.

Right now, what Lampert has done at Sears should have white-collar crime investigators at the FBI or SEC raising their eyebrows, and if what Lampert has done is legal, then Congress should change that.

Sears was in trouble before Lampert took over, that’s not in doubt. But the actions Lampert has taken at Sears has made things actively worse, while making Lampert’s personal financial position better. That has jeopardized the livelihoods of nearly 70 thousand Sears Holdings employees, and has already cost tens of thousands their jobs over the past fourteen years.

The post The Way Eddie Lampert Has Run Sears Should Be Illegal appeared first on The Midwest Guy.

an editorial penned by Rick Esenberg, head

the Republican “Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty,” he argues…badly…that Republicans are actually expanding

voting hours when they cut them in the raft of “lame-duck” bills recently signed by outgoing Gov. Scott Walker (R-WI).

This editorial requires a response. It’s so badly argued, and so flimsy in legal bases, that it’s almost unfathomable to think that it was written by a Harvard-educated attorney with nearly forty years at the bar. This is the state of Republican thought today.

Currently, Wisconsin law allows local, municipal clerks to set their own early voting availability. While not perfect, it allows local municipalities to do as much early voting as they have resources for. That said, some municipal clerks (who are in charge of elections) are part time in smaller towns, or only have a few voting machines available for early voting, or don’t have other resources to go “whole hog.”.

Conversely, places like Milwaukee and Madison, the state’s two largest cities, make extra efforts and commit their own resources to having early voting open as early as six weeks prior to election day.

In 2016, Republicans tried to nuke this arrangement, by limiting early voting to only weekdays (eliminating weekends) during two full weeks prior to the election. U.S. District Judge James Peterson, presiding for the Western District of Wisconsin (based in Madison), struck down this law.

In this most recent lame-duck law, Republicans want another bite at the same apple, while denying that’s what they’re doing.

The 2018 bill just signed into law still limits early voting to two weeks, they just add weekends back in, and back off the hour restrictions. That’s…the only difference.

They don’t provide extra resources for the rural and otherwise under-funded municipalities to be open the full two weeks, so nothing is going to change there. The only functional change this bill implements is restricting the cities and counties that were going above and beyond to serve their voters.

Esenberg disagrees. In criticizing the legal motion filed by the One Wisconsin Institute and the Wisconsin ACLU, he first accuses them of “judge shopping” by filing a motion for contempt in front of Judge Peterson, who issued the original ruling (which is still sitting in Chicago awaiting a decision from the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals), instead of filing a whole new case and being randomly assigned a new judge.

Dear Mr. Esenberg, as someone who has decades of legal experience and a Harvard sheepskin should know by now, this isn’t judge shopping (although Republican opposition to such a practice in Wisconsin would seem to be newfound). This is 1st-year Civil Procedure. Had the lawyers representing the ACLU and One Wisconsin Institute not filed such a motion in the court they did, they would be liable for legal malpractice. Esenberg assumes everyone else doesn’t know that, but if he were on the other side of the table, he would do the exact same thing because he would have to.

There is a ruling in a case about this exact same issue that looks 90 percent the same, so the attorney must file the motion with the judge who made that ruling since that particular case is still open.

The fact Mr. Fancy-Pants Harvard Lawyer can’t write an argument to support his position that doesn’t take into account stuff you learn in your first year in law school, but this non-lawyer who just fixed court computers for a few years can, shows you just how weak their position is.

Second, in yet another Republican round of “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” Esenberg argues their bill expands early voting. Apparently, one of Esenberg’s paralegals needs to write him a memo on how “two weeks” is “less than six weeks.” Maybe then they can write him another memo explaining how “telling people they can do what they can already do now without providing extra resources to accomplish it” means rural counties are going to have the same result.

Third, he complains how taking the matter to the same judge (which, as I’ve already explained, is exactly what must happen) “unduly complicates the matter.” However, if you read through his whole editorial, and count how many times he complains about the “Madison judge,” it makes you wonder just what other options there are.

Well, the only other option is to file…with a different Madison (federal) judge, since the lawsuit is against the State of Wisconsin, whose capital is in…wait for it…Madison. The U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin is chiefed by the aforementioned Judge Peterson, an Obama appointee, while also being home to Judge William Conley (another Obama appointee) and Judge Barbara Brandriff Crabb (a Carter appointee). Who would Esenberg rather appear before?

Now, none of this is to opine on the legal merits of the actual motion filed, nor the law it was filed against. But if this is the best argument that Republicans like Esenberg can put forth in support of their law, might I recommend not wagering your life savings on a Republican-favoring ruling.

The post Wisconsin Republicans think they’re doing you a favor by cutting early voting appeared first on The Midwest Guy.

pharmacy with fast delivery buy prednisolone with the lowest prices today in the

Silver is a talented man.  Talented enough that what started out as a political statistics blog, FiveThirtyEight.com, has been bought and sold and expanded

fooled with a few times since its inception during the 2008 election.

His schtick, for lack of a better phrase, involves taking polling data, applying a bunch of additional statistical data to it (e.g. how far from the final election result each polling “house” tends to be, what the demographics and past voting performance in a particular state/district have been, what broader polling data can tell us about narrow questions, etc.).

The problem is, most people take a look at the “probability” percentages he assigns any outcome, and go into immediate excitement or despair.  So let me break down what Nate is telling you about Tuesday’s election:

Think of his probabilities as the sides on a die

Right now, according to Nate, Republicans have a 4-in-5 chance of holding the Senate, and Democrats have a 7-in-8 chance of taking the House.  What does that mean, exactly?

The easiest way to think about this is, for the Senate, take a 5-sided die (yes, I checked, they exist), and color four of those sides red.  Then take an 8-sided die (again, yes), and color 7 of those sides blue for the House.

You still have to roll the die.

That’s how probability works.  Selecting the number of chances, the number of chances each outcome has, and then taking the chance.

The Democrats have a slightly better chance of winning the Senate than Donald Trump did of winning the Electoral Vote while losing the Popular Vote

In 2016, the final probability Nate calculated for Donald Trump winning the election without taking the Popular Vote was 10.5%.

That…doesn’t sound like a lot, does it?  Well, tell that to President Trump.

70 percent doesn’t mean squat

If you look at Nate’s ratings of various races, 70 percent (or thereabouts) probability comes up in a lot of races.  That’s roughly the point at which a “normal polling error” (that is, an error the size of a poll’s “margin of error”) can throw it the other way.

If you want to think of something as, more-or-less, “certain,” that race needs to be north of 90 percent in Nate’s ratings.  But…

85 percent tends to mean multiple things have to go wrong

And Democrats are sitting at 87 percent probability, as of this writing, to take the House.  There are still scenarios where Republicans hold on (Nate explains all this here) but it would take an unusual polling error for it to happen.

Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski may become the most powerful politicians in America for the next couple years

If all goes exactly as Nate predicts, down to even the slight advantages (and it wouldn’t be the first time), we’re looking at a 50-50 split in the Senate, with the Vice President casting votes constantly.

That means Republican Senators Susan Collins of Maine and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, the last real “independent-minded” Republicans left in the body, will be calling all the shots.  If Republicans want to get anything passed, they will not be able to lose a single vote (as the Vice President only votes in the event of a tie).

And, if Nate hits 100 percent again, Democrats are looking at losing North Dakota, while picking up Arizona and Nevada.  Republican efforts to pick off any other Democrats, including in Indiana, Missouri, Florida, West Virginia, and Montana, will come up short…again…if Nate hits 100 percent.

If there is a systemic polling error, Democrats have the momentum

Let’s get something out in the open real quick…

The polls have been accurate.  Even in 2016.  They were as accurate as they usually are.  So what happened?

We happened. We couldn’t make up our mind of who we liked enough to turn out and vote for (making “Likely Voter” modeling by the pollsters more difficult).

But the final election results came in within that general margin of error.  And things get messy when that margin of error crosses the victory line.  And it crossed for Trump in 2016.  Trump had the momentum leading into Election Day.

This time, Democrats do.  For the past few days, Democratic probabilities have been on a slow-and-steady rise in both the Senate and House.

Midwestern state capitols may throw a collective big, blue switch

Right now, the only state in the Midwest to have a Democratic governor is Minnesota.

However, if all pans out the way Nate’s probabilities show (again, a very very big “if”), Iowa, Illinois, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio will join them.  And if you throw in the thought of a slight polling error again, Kansas and even South Dakota may go blue.

But, almost all of those races are super-super tight.  Of those eight races, the leader in four of them (Ohio, Wisconsin, Iowa, Kansas) has a probability below 60 percent.  That means you can more-or-less throw a dart at the board with those.

Don’t expect Nate to land another 100 percent performance

It’s not his fault, really.  It’s that Americans are growing increasingly polarized, and polarization affects turnout.  For some, polarization energizes.  For some, polarization alienates.

When you add in unlikeable candidates running campaigns (or even careers) chock full of controversy, that throws a wrench in public opinion making polling more difficult.

And if YOU can’t figure out who you like more, how the heck is Nate supposed to do it?

The post How to Sort Out Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight Data Leading Into the Midterm appeared first on The Midwest Guy.

U.S. Supreme Court decision in 1971!!!), it put in my mind

recipe for world leaders (or even domestic politicians) to “deal with” Trump, and his unpredictable nature.

One of Ali’s most famous boasts during his boxing days was that he would “float like a butterfly, and sting like a bee.  The hands can’t hit what the eyes can’t see.”

What Ali was trying to impress upon the audience was that he would move so fast and gracefully that his opponent wouldn’t be able to land a hit on him, and that Ali, in turn, would “sting like a bee,” hit his opponent with the hurt in their confusion.

It’s that latter part that people “across the table” need to do to Trump.  Ignore the floating like a butterfly.  It’s important that Trump CAN see you…slug him right in the proverbial mouth.

I learned this years ago dealing with bullies.  Being the nerdy kid I was (but having the benefit of being a large nerdy kid), I came to realize that if someone is trying to get the best of you through classic bullying tactics, trying to intimidate you, trying to bulldoze you, the only way to end it is to “swat them hard.”

A recollection: Back in the days when I was a salesperson at Circuit City (yeah, I know) in Decatur, Illinois, there was another salesperson in another department that tried to bully people out of “her area,” would harass them for stealing “her customers,” and just overall make things unpleasant for anyone she thought she could push around.

Me being the generally polite, laid-back guy I am, normally ignored her.  But one day she tried really laying into me, and trying to get me to give her credit on one of my sales I “stole from her.”  Having had enough, I told her that she gets nothing, to get back to her department, and when she tried the “you can’t talk to me like that” bit, I told her “I’ll talk to you any damned way I please, now get out.”  That’s the really short version of it, at least.

I felt bad, in a way.  I always hate losing my cool (especially since I have so little of it to lose).  However, from that day on, guess who had a new “best friend.”  For the rest of the time I worked there, this same person was just buddy-buddy with me, would do anything I asked or would help with anything I needed help with, and just otherwise did a complete 180 from how she used to be.

I’ve had a couple opportunities to play that same move on other bullies since, and every time it works the same way.  They bully you, you have enough, you “sting them like a bee,” they become your new best friend.

So how do you make this work with Trump?  Easy.  In conversation, give him the same treatment he gives others.  Touch on every insecurity (and they’re myriad) he has.  Call him “Donny.”  Rag on how he’s spent his life playing with “daddy’s money.”  Don’t back down, even for a second.  If he has businesses where you are, start having health or building inspectors start showing up all the time.  Things like that.

Because once you sting him hard, once you cross lines that he thinks only he can cross, he’ll be your new best friend.  He’ll do anything you ask.  He’ll give you anything you want.

Schmoozing him only works when you have something he wants.  But right now, all any of his “opponents” have to offer him is politics.  He doesn’t want politics.  Heck, I don’t even think he actually wants to be president.  So that’s out.

That leaves one option that nobody seems to have taken on…hit him hard.  You’ll only need to do it once.

Because as the only other boxer with (almost) as many memorable quotes as Ali once said, “Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.”

The post If World Leaders Want to Get Anywhere With Trump, They Need to Learn to “Sting Like a Bee” appeared first on The Midwest Guy.

the wily political veteran Hillary

promised…something. 

not sure, to be honest.  But we were “with her,” yeah?  No?  Well…hm.

Okay, let’s rewind a little further.

The olden days of 2010.  Here in Wisconsin, what would turn out to be a battle for the soul of the Badger State was raging between two men who were practically neighbors.  In the right corner stood Scott Walker, Milwaukee County Executive, the first Republican to hold the post…probably ever, who knows.  But Walker promised Wisconsinites that he was going to “cut your taxes,” and “kill the train,” and “create 250,000 jobs!”  His opponent, in the left corner, Mayor of the City of Milwaukee, Tom Barrett.  Barrett, the former congressman cum city CEO got out on the stump and promised the people of Wisconsin he would…not be Scott Walker?

Are you noticing a pattern here?

What I just described to you, in a nutshell, is the reason Democrats have had such a hard time winning elections even though they have proven themselves to be the better party at actually doing the jobs we elect them to do.  They aren’t putting out a bold vision for anything.  And what little vision they are talking about is so damned nuanced and long-winded that nobody remembers what they’re promising by the time they get to the end of detailing the promise from the stump.

The frustrating thing is the grassroots of the Democratic Party isn’t just demanding bold action…they’re telling the party exactly what to do.  What’s worse is, while the Republicans are promising things that either can’t be done (build the wall, create 250,000 jobs) or shouldn’t be done (cut your taxes, kill the train), Democrats have a plethora of promises to pick from that can be done, and should be done.

The best example of how to do this as a Democrat actually comes from newly-elected Virginia State Delegate Danica Roem.  Roem, while she had every opportunity to play the identity card as a trans woman running against an anti-transgender “old boy,” or to parry every bigoted attack that was thrown at her from her opposition, instead, won on a simple message: “Fix Route 28.”

With those three simple words Roem knocked out a 28-year veteran Republican in a safe Republican seat.

That’s the kind of magic that Democrats need right now.  Why?  Because the Republicans are coming back.  Why?  Because the Republicans at least say they believe in something.  Something actionable.  Something affirmative.  Something everyone can understand (whether they support it or not).

So the Democrats have to fight simple, affirmative platform fire with simple, affirmative platform fire.

Connect every home!

Every home in the United States, urban or rural, east or west, north or south, should have a connection to at least 100 megabit broadband internet.  Not only will this be the economic equivalent of rural electrification in the 1930s, this could save rural America entirely.  Our small towns and counties have been hollowed out over the last 50 years.  Farming families are dying out, literally.  Massive agribusiness is taking over the small farms and folding them in, but not doing anywhere near as much for the adjacent towns.

But you know who seems to kinda dig rural life?  Millennial desk jockeys.  There’s an unusual entrepreneurial spirit in the 18-37 year old cohort (full disclosure: that includes me).  Possibly because the Great Recession hit right when a lot of us were supposed to be getting “real jobs,” so we had to find ways to create our own.  And, apparently, we want to do it on a small farm.  But we need a website for that small farm, and credit card payment processing at the farmers markets, and a VPN connection for the spouse to remote into work downtown, and don’t even ask us to live without our Netflix.

Connect every home and you save rural America.

Make work pay!

Meet “Ned.”  Ned is a nice guy.  Ned works at the local Sam’s Club food counter in Naperville, Illinois stocking shelves for $10/hr.  Ned works full time, and goes home to his 16-year-old son Charlie, 12-year-old daughter Melissa, and his wife Betsy who earns $12.50 an hour as a Certified Nursing Assistant.  Together, they gross about $49k.  Problem is, that’s about $10k per year short of being able to afford the average 2-bedroom apartment in Naperville.

So they get a small Section 8 voucher to help afford their place to live.  They qualify for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program. Neither one of them has ever been able to afford a new car, and the idea of “retirement” is something “rich people do.”

It’s more than just raising minimum wage.  Minimum wage has to go up and be set to automatically adjust every year or two to keep up with inflation.

But more is needed beyond that.  A tax penalty against companies that have a certain percentage or more of their workforce eligible for certain public benefits because the pay is so low.  Think about it…if a full-time worker is eligible for $5,000 in various forms of public aid, that means that person’s employer is getting $5,000 worth of free labor every year.  Either pay your people what they’re worth, or repay the taxpayer what you’re costing them.

Fix our country!

America’s infrastructure is so dilapidated it’s embarrassing.  And it’s not just our roads.  Our bridges are falling into the water.  The parts of our power grid that aren’t full-on failing are still vulnerable to cyber-attack.

But didn’t Donald Trump promise to fix our infrastructure?  Sure!  He promised to spend only $200 billion on a trillion-and-a-half dollar’s worth of work!  How?  Magic, apparently.  Oh, also, the plan is already dead.

No, a real plan, with real money, and real vision is needed.  Pledge to spend X-dollars within Y-years to create Z-results.  For example: “We’re going to spend $75 billion dollars here in Missouri to bring every road in the state up to spec by 2023.”

Make our own bank!

Here’s a cool idea: create a Bank of [State].  North Dakota did this eons ago, and it is helping that state weather bad times, and secure good times.  It makes every tax dollar in that state go a little further.  And residents can invest in it, getting a good return, and generating even better outcomes for North Dakota residents.  Why should North Dakota be having all the fun?

Clear out criminals!

You know what has really cheesed the American people off?  Watching people harm their fellow Americans and get away with it.  I’ve been a big fan of Barack Obama ever since I interviewed him back during his Senate race.  Still am.  But he really screwed up here, directing his Department of Justice to not prosecute those who broke the law in the Bush Administration, or who caused the Great Recession.

Americans need to be able to trust their government again.  And they will never be able to do that so long as those who are put in a position of public trust and/or power are let off when they break the law.  No more leniency for public servants or powerful people who violate the public trust.

Create a bunch of jobs!

Sure, Scott Walker made this promise and failed on it.  Hard.  But does anyone care?  No.  At the end of the day, so long as you’re in the positive on this category, you win.  Just throw a number out there.

There are plenty more ideas that can be summed up in three words.  So if you’re a Democrat running for office, either pick a few things off the menu above, or come up with your own.  Just make sure you can sum it up in 3-5 words, make it big, and hang your hat on it.

As one of the greatest Midwesterners in history, Daniel Burnham (the Architect of Chicago) once said: “Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men’s blood.”

The post The Democratic Party is Three Words Away From Screwing the 2018 Elections Up appeared first on The Midwest Guy.

misdemeanors,” such that he recommends criminal charges against

Trump in regards to his activities during

2016 election, Congress must

take it up, file Articles of Impeachment, and play the process out.

But what about in the meantime?

A lot of experts and analysts agree, the Mueller investigation is moving along more quickly than anyone expected.  Compared to the Cox investigation into Watergate, we’re practically moving at warp speed.

That may be why Trump just started work against the political side of the scandal investigation just last night.

“We have to keep the House because if we listen to Maxine Waters, she’s going around saying ‘We will impeach him,’” Trump told a crowd at his anti-White House Correspondents’ Dinner rally in Michigan last night.

It’s no secret that Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) has been playing for impeachment for months now.  And a Quinnipiac poll recently found that 70% of Democrats believe proceedings should be undertaken.

With Democrats keeping a 7-10% lead over Republicans in the “generic ballot,” and President Trump still hanging between 15-18 points underwater on his approval ratings in recent months, it’s not a crazy position to take.

But if Scott Walker’s past is prologue, it could be a strategic error.

As a quick recap, six years ago, Gov. Scott Walker (R-Wisc.) made history, not just in Wisconsin, but in American politics.  Six years ago, Scott Walker became the first statewide politician to beat a recall.  And he did it with a clever tactic…

In early March 2011, just barely two months into his first term, having already convinced outgoing Gov. Jim Doyle (D-Wisc.) to cancel the Milwaukee-to-Madison high speed rail project he ran against, and having announced what would eventually become his infamous Act 10 against public-sector unions, polls were showing that Wisconsinites already regretted having elected then Milwaukee County Executive Walker over Democrat and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.

As talk of recall ramped up, and eventually became an actual process that set up the real recall election, and it looked like Wisconsinites would get the Walker/Barrett rematch they wanted, Walker shifted tactics.

Instead of running against Barrett, Walker ran against the recall itself.  And it worked.

Walker’s team made the case to Wisconsin voters that recall should only be used for criminal acts, or other much more major problems, not for policy disagreements (even disagreements that were extremely unpopular and led to days of some of the most massive protests in Wisconsin Capitol history).  Wisconsin voters bought it.

That’s what President Trump is hoping for as well.

In playing the anti-impeachment-itself card, Trump is hoping that Democrats either will be too worried about the political implications to file Articles, or should they push them forward, will set themselves up for a heavy loss in 2020 should it fail to remove him from office.

Let’s be fair about something else as well: Impeachment is never politically, nor publicly, advantageous.  It didn’t do much for Republicans when they threw the book at Andrew Johnson, and it was politically disastrous when they tried it against Clinton (making him the first sitting president to gain Congressional seats in a second mid-term election).

So let’s talk strategy.

First off, Democrats should self-ban themselves from saying the word “impeachment” until the Mueller investigation concludes.  If Mueller finds evidence to support charges of conspiracy, fraud, or anything else along those lines, Democrats (or Republicans) must file Articles of Impeachment.

But…what if the strongest charge against Trump is Obstruction of Justice?  What if evidence Trump colluded with the Russian government isn’t strong enough to support chargesAt that point, it’s hard to say.  It may be more advantageous to raise holy hell over it, in hopes Trump resigns, or failing that, gets mudhole-stomped in the 2020 elections.  However, impeachment may not play well politically if Democrats can’t justify removing a sitting president for the first time in American history.

If evidence of conspiracy or fraud, as it relates to Russia, isn’t found, it will be a hard case to press that the investigation was worth having at all, undermining impeachment efforts resulting from it.  From there, it may be smarter for Democrats to just let Trump and his fellow Republicans wallow in their own mire they created for themselves, and crush them in 2020.

Impeachment, at that point, may not be popular enough to generate the kind of public support necessary to both see it through successfully (that is, with conviction and removal of Trump).

That’s because, just like the recall in Wisconsin, Trump and his (not all unintelligent) team will press his case against impeachment itself, and Democrats will be left holding the bag.

The post On Impeachment, Trump is Playing a Card from Scott Walker’s Deck (and That Should Concern Democrats) appeared first on The Midwest Guy.

of House Speaker Paul Ryan from politics such a momentous occasion?  It

a lot to do with the type of thinking he represents, and has taken

the conservative movement.  The type of thinking that says, “anything can be true if you just repeat it enough.”

As a liberal, it would be a natural position for me to look at the body of Paul Ryan’s, my hometown congressman’s, work and declare it a failure simply because he disagrees with my world view.  Yes, I think his ideas were terrible, but…that’s not it.

Paul Ryan’s ideas were terrible because they were entirely unworkable and dishonest, and he got caught.

Let’s look at his Tax Cut and Jobs Act that he takes credit for ushering through Congress this past December.

Paul Ryan’s tax bill will generate between $1 and $1.3 trillion dollars worth of red ink.  That’s not “how much this bill will cost,” it is “how much it will cost that is not paid for.”

But what’s Ryan’s take?  “I don’t think [the tax bill] will increase the deficit,” Ryan is quoted telling reporters. “I’m telling you, that’s what I believe will happen.”

That’s…a big miss.

It’s especially big for a person who made a career complaining about debt and deficits.

Or take his now-infamous American Health Care Act of 2017.

The promise of Paul Ryan’s conservative attempt to reform health care is that it would cost less, provide better care to more people, provide more choice, and involve less government intervention.

It did one of those.

Ultimately, 23 million fewer Americans were projected to have health coverage; current Affordable Care Act (ACA) subsidies would be reduced meaning, no matter what happened to premiums, policyholders would pay more out of pocket; choices would be about the same as a best-case scenario; fewer items would be covered by insurance, but at least it meant government did less in the health care market versus the ACA…which may or may not be beneficial.

Here is what I’m really getting at: Conservatives, as led by Paul Ryan and his Randian-style philosophy, have convinced themselves that they can actually have their cake and eat it too.

Paul Ryan wants you to believe that you can have amazing health care, a permanently booming economy, top-notch infrastructure, amazing research and technology, the world’s best defense, all while paying next to nothing in taxes and having zero government involvement in the marketplace.

That’s just nonsense.

As strange as it may be for a liberal like me to say, conservatives need to either start following Joe Scarborough and his political inspiration, Edmund Burke…or fold up camp and just become full-bore libertarians.

Either way, a philosophy that requires you to just make things up and hope you never get called on to fulfill the promises you made isn’t just irresponsible governing, it is not even a good way to get ahead at politics…as conservatives are finding out now.

The departure of Paul Ryan, not just as Speaker of the House, but as a member of Congress, is a great opportunity for conservatism to save itself.  Just throw Ryan under the bus, blame the whole mess on him (you would not be wrong in doing so), and tell America you promise to find your scruples again.

As much as I disagree with conservatism, we need it functioning in an honest, reality-focused way in order to have a good debate on the future of our nation.  All these promises of tax cuts that pay for themselves, spending cuts that don’t hurt, health care plans that provide great care at low low prices, and even military invasions where we will be greeted with flowers and sweets…it has to stop.

I don’t know who the torch carrier for the resurrection of conservatism will, or even should, be.  However, if people want conservatism to continue being part of the political conversation in this country, someone needs to.

And now is the time to stand up.

The post Paul Ryan’s departure is the only chance conservatism will have to reset itself appeared first on The Midwest Guy.

to whose

is the most or least crooked.  Often, fingers get pointed at Illinois and Ohio for being the most corrupt in the region.  Wisconsin and Iowa are often pointed to as paragons

good government.

Well, a report out from the State Integrity Investigation, a combined project of The Center for Public Integrity, Global Integrity, and Public Radio International has some interesting news, not only for state governments in the Midwest, but nationwide.

On a national level, not a single state got an “A” from the group.  The best score was an 87%, or “B+,” for…get this…New Jersey.  The very same New Jersey where government corruption has been so rampant as to become a source of humor.

The worst?  Georgia, with a score of 49%.

So where does the Midwest begin…and end?

The best in the Midwest is the State of Iowa.  Iowa got a 78% score (C+), just behind Mississippi, ranking it 7th among the 60 states.  Iowa, however, did get an “F” for “Public Access to Information.”

In second place, which will surprise most Midwesterners, is Illinois at 74% (C) ranking 10th nationwide.  Illinois’ sole “F” came from “Redistricting,” which is a topic we’ve covered here in the past.

All the way at the bottom…Michigan.  Michigan got a 58% (F) overall, ranking 43rd of 50 states.  The Wolverine State got failing grades in “Executive Accountability,” “Judicial Accountability,” “State Civil Service Management,” “State Pension Fund Management,” “State Insurance Commissions,” “Political Financing,” Legislative Accountability,” “Lobbying Disclosure,” “Ethics Enforcement Agencies,” and “Redistricting.”  That’s ten of the fourteen categories the study scored states on.

Regardless of your state’s score, understand it’s nothing to be particularly proud of.  Check out the full national picture here.  And see the Midwest just below.

The post Midwest Boasts Some of Most/Least Corrupt Governments appeared first on The Midwest Guy.

— You think just because your elected representatives in Congress are

member of the party you generally vote for, they agree with you on SOPA and PIPA?  Most likely…they don’t.  This is largely due to the fact that there’s a lot of bipartisan sentiment on both sides of the aisle for and against these bills.

Wikipedia has a good rundown of what these bills mean to you, and to your internet experience.  The Midwest Politics Journal joins them in opposition to these bills.

So here’s what we are doing.  Want to know if your member of Congress is actively in support or opposition to the bill?  Now you can find out…just click past the jump!

In Support of SOPA/PIPA

*= SOPA/PIPA Sponsor

In Opposition to SOPA/PIPA

A good deed shouldn’t go unpunished.  Tell them thanks!

There are still a large number of Congressmen and Congresswomen that are either undecided or uncommitted on the issue.  This includes the entire delegation from the State of Indiana.  Thanks to the fine work of the men and women at ProPublica (please support them, they’re the last bastion of true, investigative journalism in the US, and they’re funded by donations), we now know the position of all members of Congress, even those who are uncommitted.  So if you don’t see your Representative or Senator’s name in the list above, click on your state listed below, and that will take you to the ProPublica page showing the entire state’s delegation’s positions.

Illinois    Indiana    Iowa    Kentucky    Michigan    Minnesota    Missouri    Ohio    Wisconsin

The post The SOPA/PIPA Blackout and the Midwest appeared first on The Midwest Guy.

interesting tool updated recently by USA

shows 57 members of Congress are in the top 1% of income earners in America.  A little more digging finds ten of them are Midwestern congressmen and women.  However, the most interesting thing is, among those ten…four of them

the State of Wisconsin.

An analysis of the data set organized by USA Today finds ten congressmen from the Midwest earning more than $9 million (considered the cut-off in terms of estimated net worth).  From there, another 38 congressmen from the Midwest are worth at least $1 million.

The richest in the Midwest is Sen. Herb Kohl (D-Wisconsin) with a net worth of $173.5M, whose earnings largely come from Kohl’s Corporation (which he served as president from 1970-1972, and remained an executive of until 1979) and from his other holdings, Kohl Investments and the Milwaukee Bucks. For perspective, the richest overall congressman is Rep. Darrell Issa (R-California) with an estimated net worth of $448M.

Oddly, the most fiscally “humble” congressman also comes from Wisconsin, in Rep. Sean Duffy (R-Wisconsin), with an estimated net worth of -$167k.  That may put his statements from earlier this year about struggling to make ends meet on his $174k/year congressional salary.

Of the ten 1%ers in the Midwest, four are Democrats, and six are Republicans.  Of the total 48 millionaire congressmen in the Midwest, 14 are Democrats, and 34 are Republicans.  Michigan has the most millionaires with eight, while Minnesota has the least at three.

Click below the jump for more statistics on who’s worth what, and where.

Millionaire Congressmen by State

Who They Are

*=Top 1%

The post The 1% and the Midwest appeared first on The Midwest Guy.