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.

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.

MPJ) — Did you know America is

 We’re completely bankrupt!  The coffers at

Security are empty!  And, in case you didn’t click on those links, they’re to PolitiFact articles showing

statements to be nonsense.

That’s not to say America doesn’t face financial challenge.  We’re spending significantly more money than we’re receiving in tax revenue.  Expenditures in the long-term are also going to rise, and rise significantly, while tax revenues in this economic climate are going to suffer until further notice.  This means two things:  1.  We must increase overall revenue by both raising taxes and increasing the efficiency of our spending and  2.  We must grow the tax base by growing the overall economy.

Unfortunately, Republicans refuse to raise taxes to a level that can actually sustain the government, and Democrats are unwilling to stand up and make sure our resources are allocated in the most beneficial way possible.  Although I think MSNBC’s Dylan Ratigan hit the point more succinctly in a rant this week on this show, saying Republicans refuse to do anything, and Democrats refuse to do anything beyond their own term in office.  We cannot continue this ridiculous trend, and we must put forward a new strategy.  And here it is in three (not so easy) steps.

1.  Use taxes exclusively as a means to fund the government, and stop using it as a political football disguised as a “job creator/killer.”

Taxes are going to have to go up, folks.  This is simply because the government is not bringing in enough revenue.  Making things worse, the favorite mantra of Republicans in Congress, that America doesn’t have a “taxing problem,” it has a “spending problem,”  completely ignores the fact that we, in fact, have both.

Here’s the thing.  As you can see by this graph, we had budget surpluses set to end out the 1990s under Bill Clinton’s economic policies.  However, once we entered the Bush era, with his massive tax cuts in 2001 and 2003, the deficits immediately returned.  And this flies in the face of what we call “prevailing wisdom.”

Back in April, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) said that the biggest cause of current deficits were the Bush tax cuts.  PolitiFact said that was true.  This was around the same time, two of Kucinich’s Midwestern colleagues took up the opposite end of the argument, and got knocked around for it.  Rep. Joe Walsh (R-Illinois) said that every time we’ve cut taxes, revenues have increased and the economy has grown.  That’s false.  While in November of last year, Rep. Mike Pence (R-Indiana) said that raising taxes actually reduces revenue.  False again.

It’s time we cast aside these fiduciary fallacies where less is more, and more is less (literally), and get back to reality.  A reality even President Ronald Reagan understood, despite the fact his legacy is that of a tax cutter, and not a hiker.  Though Reagan is most famous for his big tax cut in his first term, Reagan overall raised various taxes 11 times.

So let’s stop all this tax demagoguery, and get back to responsibly funding the government.  We’re all going to have to pay the bill in the end.  So lets get to paying it now instead of the bill plus extra interest later.

2.  Spending is going to increase anyway, so we may as well get the most possible out of each dollar.

Spending is going to increase.  This is guaranteed.  It doesn’t matter what Republicans or Democrats do because the spending that’s going to truly increase isn’t up to them.  It’s up to Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and the flood of retiring baby boomers that just started reaching that magic age of 65 (my mother being among the first) this year, and becoming eligible for those programs.

The biggest population boom in our nation’s history is reaching retirement age at a time when health care costs are skyrocketing, and after decades of raiding the Social Security fund purposes other than Social Security.  This doesn’t mean we should kill these programs in manners like those proposed by our very own Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wisconsin).  The solution is to get health care spending, across the board (not just for seniors) down.  That’s going to be tackled in further depth in the next How to Fix America.  But it needs to be done, and that’s going to take some doing.

But the spending we can control needs to be streamlined, and each dollar needs to be maximized.  That means less spending on defense, where the benefits of that spending end up heavily overseas (by means of both overseas-based contractors and the overseas nature of military conflict), and less spending on incarceration (specifically for minor offenses, that just takes otherwise productive people out of the workforce, and locks them up at next to no benefit for the rest of us).

That means less spending on administration and bureaucracy, and instead focusing on streamlining administration.  Some areas of the government are far ahead of  the private sector when it comes to administration costs, for example (oddly), Medicare.  But the federal government is also far behind the private sector in administration costs in some areas, like theUS Postal Service.

I’m not proposing a Six Sigma approach to government (largely because this is a fatally flawed methodology that has destroyed a number of private employers, such as Circuit City and Sears, and even its founding corporation, Motorola).  However, a “lean” approach to spending must be employed.

And there’s a second side to that coin.  Increasing spending on the most effective sectors of government expenditures.  One of the most cost-effective areas to increase spending in the US is on infrastructure (which will be tackled in the fourth installment of How to Fix America) and education (which was tackled in the first installment).

3.  Switch from a supply-side focused economic policy to a demand-focused policy.

If you really want to fix the government’s balance sheet, fix the economy.

For the last thirty years, we have focused most of our effort on the “supply” side of the supply-demand dichotomy.  Here’s the problem with that…supply doesn’t drive the economy.  Demand does.  And that’s what we’re having a problem understanding now, despite this being a core teaching in pretty much any Economics 101 course in college.

What we’re seeing right now is corporations doing extremely well on paper.  They’re sitting on a pile of cash while their P&L sheets show their continued profitability, and yet we wonder why they’re not hiring.  I’ll tell you why they’re not hiring.  They have no reason to.

With demand as low as it is right now, and continuing to decrease, corporations don’t have any incentive to increase supply.  So they’re just going to sit there and horde their cash (also in part due to their reluctance to invest further in the financial markets due to increasing market volatility) and wait for people to start wanting to buy their products again.  Yet, if you increase demand, the supply will follow.  If there’s one thing we’ve learned over the past couple hundred years of our capitalist system, it’s that if there’s a buck to be made, nobody’s going to leave it on the table.

This is a case for more direct government spending, even going so far as another Works Progress Administration style program.  These programs will fix the demand problem that we have.  When we invest taxpayer money in putting people to work (specifically doing productive things, not digging holes to fill back up, mind you), it has a demonstrated trickle-up effect.

The companies that are put to work see the first benefit.  Road construction companies, engineering firms, etc get the money first.  They then spend it on raw materials and equipment such as concrete, rebar, cable, computers, backhoes, cranes, etc.  They also spend it on labor.  The people they hire also need things and now have the ability to purchase them.  They can now make purchases from the basic (housing, groceries, utilities) to the common (televisions, computers, chairs, couches).  That money then moves to the next step, as those televisions, backhoes, concrete, and groceries get produced, and that money keeps moving, effectively, through the economy.

No, it can’t go on forever.  But it’s not supposed to.  Just like your car’s engine can’t run on its starter motor forever, but it requires it to get the thing started.  And that’s how this should be viewed, as a starter motor for our economy.  Use government spending to force the engine of our economy to turn until it can fire and run on its own.  It’s worked before, and it will work again.

That’s, honestly, the only thing that will dig us out of the economic morass we find ourselves in.  And that’s going to be the best way to fix our nation’s finances.  Fix the economy, fix our fiscal priorities, fix our government’s balance sheets.  Plain and simple.

Related:

How to Fix America Part I: The Crumbling Education System

The post How to Fix America Part II: Fix Our Nation’s Finances appeared first on The Midwest Guy.