Bipartisan recall efforts in Wisconsin

[flockofseagulls104]

There was something on the news last week about a judicial election that was supposed to be referendum on Gov. Walker, anybody hear how that turned out?

Meanwhile on tax policy.

How To Take A 100% Tax Write-Off For A New Porsche, BMW or Cadillac

The initial results indicated that the challenger, who ran against Walker's choice, was ahead by about 200 votes in very heavy voting (typically an off-year judicial runoff election gets very little interest). However, two days after the election, the Republican County Clerk of Waukesha claimed that there had been an error in the initial recording of the votes that resulted a substantial vote swing toward the incumbent who now appears to have won by 7500 votes. The final official tallies have not been certified (that's expected to happen later this week). Needless to say, Democrats are not happy and the whole thing seems headed to first a recount and than a possible lawsuit.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politics/2 ... s-distrust

Of course if the vote doesn't go their way they will find creative ways to fix it. That's how Al Franken is in the Senate today. This whole thing could have been avoided if the dead people voted in the expected numbers for the democrat. Meanwhile, let's spend more Wisconsin tax money that they don't have on more elections.

[silverscreenselect]

Of course if the vote doesn't go their way they will find creative ways to fix it.

I would say that when the Republican County Clerk of a County "finds" 14000 votes two days after the election and her explanation, that she forgot to hit the enter button when entering the totals the night of the election, seems somewhat suspicious on a technical level, not to mention a political one, that there is reason to inquite further into what went on here.

[Bob78164]

Of course if the vote doesn't go their way they will find creative ways to fix it.

I would say that when the Republican County Clerk of a County "finds" 14000 votes two days after the election and her explanation, that she forgot to hit the enter button when entering the totals the night of the election, seems somewhat suspicious on a technical level, not to mention a political one, that there is reason to inquite further into what went on here.

I agree that the perception is quite unfortunate, but in this case, as discussed by Nate Silver, the internal evidence is that it was an honest (albeit very stupid) mistake. I understand that the statewide canvassing board is going to take a hard look at this issue. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Here is a tax increase I would favor.

O OBAMA’S PEOPLE ARE TALKING TAX INCREASES AGAIN. Here’s my proposal: A 50% surtax on anything earned within five years after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was. Leave a $150K job at the White House, take a $1M job with Goldman, Sachs, pay a $425K surtax. Some House Republican should add this to a bill and watch the Dems react.

UPDATE: Should we also provide that salaries paid to former government officials aren’t deductible for corporations? Or is that going too far? I say: Put it in as a negotiating point!

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/118348/

Also a bonus "Who is Peter Orszag

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/11/peter ... es-it-rain

[silvercamaro]

Also a bonus "Who is Peter Orszag

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/11/peter ... es-it-rain

I protest applying the phrase "pretty boy" to that geek.

[Bob Juch]

Here is a tax increase I would favor.

O OBAMA’S PEOPLE ARE TALKING TAX INCREASES AGAIN. Here’s my proposal: A 50% surtax on anything earned within five years after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was. Leave a $150K job at the White House, take a $1M job with Goldman, Sachs, pay a $425K surtax. Some House Republican should add this to a bill and watch the Dems react.

UPDATE: Should we also provide that salaries paid to former government officials aren’t deductible for corporations? Or is that going too far? I say: Put it in as a negotiating point!

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/118348/

Why do you think that's a partisan issue?

Also a bonus "Who is Peter Orszag

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/11/peter ... es-it-rain

He's the Vice Chairman of Global Banking at Citigroup.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Actually I was hoping for some Bipartisanship on this tax.

They could name the tax after Mr. Orszag.

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Also a bonus "Who is Peter Orszag

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/11/peter ... es-it-rain

I protest applying the phrase "pretty boy" to that geek.

From the comments to the article

Manolo the Shoeblogger|4.12.11 @ 11:11AM|#

"Pretty Boy"?

The Manolo does not think that word means what you think it means.

In poker, the bad toupee would be what is known as the "tell".
reply to this
Gordon|4.12.11 @ 11:22AM|#

He looks like he is being attacked by a sausage.
reply to this
Martin|4.12.11 @ 11:56AM|#

The guy has a muskrat pelt on his head held in place by a sturdy chin strap. Maybe that's the secret of his otherwise mysterious "pretty boy" allure. You can never tell about women and their taste in male headgear.

[jarnon]

Here is a tax increase I would favor.

O OBAMA’S PEOPLE ARE TALKING TAX INCREASES AGAIN. Here’s my proposal: A 50% surtax on anything earned within five years after leaving the federal government, above whatever the federal salary was. Leave a $150K job at the White House, take a $1M job with Goldman, Sachs, pay a $425K surtax. Some House Republican should add this to a bill and watch the Dems react.

UPDATE: Should we also provide that salaries paid to former government officials aren’t deductible for corporations? Or is that going too far? I say: Put it in as a negotiating point!

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/118348/

Also a bonus "Who is Peter Orszag

http://reason.com/blog/2011/04/11/peter ... es-it-rain

I like the idea of taxing former officials who profit from their government service, through corporate or lobbying jobs, book deals, speaking tours, etc. But what about private sector executives who take a big pay cut to work for the government for a few years? They're often the most qualified for the job, and it's hard enough to recruit them already. The law would have to be drafted carefully.

[silverscreenselect]

I like the idea of taxing former officials who profit from their government service, through corporate or lobbying jobs, book deals, speaking tours, etc. But what about private sector executives who take a big pay cut to work for the government for a few years? They're often the most qualified for the job, and it's hard enough to recruit them already. The law would have to be drafted carefully.

It's not just government officials. Many people make less money working for the government than they could working in the private sector. They do so for a number of reasons, one of which often is to get hands-on experience (I'm thinking about professionals like doctors and lawyers here). If you then put a surtax on their subsequent earnings, it will be much more difficult to get qualified people to apply for these jobs in the first place.

[Bob78164]

The final score is in. Two of the Republican senators lost their jobs. All of the Democratic senators kept theirs. --Bob

[TheCalvinator24]

The final score is in. Two of the Republican senators lost their jobs. All of the Democratic senators kept theirs. --Bob

2 out of the 6 Republican Senators lost their recall elections. (1 of whom had moved in his mistress out of district, the 2nd was originally elected in what has been described as a "deeply Democratic District."[1])

The Republican Party remains in the majority in the State Senate.














[1]http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08 ... -elections

[silverscreenselect]

The final score is in. Two of the Republican senators lost their jobs. All of the Democratic senators kept theirs. --Bob

2 out of the 6 Republican Senators lost their recall elections. (1 of whom had moved in his mistress out of district, the 2nd was originally elected in what has been described as a "deeply Democratic District."[1])

The Republican Party remains in the majority in the State Senate.

As I recall, under Wisconsin law, people have to be in office for at least one year before they are subject to recall. Senators serve a four-year term, so only those elected in 2008 were subject to recall. Republicans gained four seats in 2010, and lost two of those back as a result of the recall.

As often happens with staggered terms, it takes a while for changes in voter sentiment to be fully reflected in the makeup of a legislative body.














[1]http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/08 ... -elections

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

From the Associated Press: “MADISON, Wis. (AP) — Wisconsin’s powerful statewide teachers union said 40 percent of its staff members were laid off Monday as a result of the law pushed by Gov. Scott Walker and passed by the Legislature curbing collective bargaining rights. Wisconsin Education Association Council executive director Dan Burkhalter said the laying off of 42 workers resulted from what he called Walker’s union-busting bill. Opponents had argued one of the law’s goals was weakening the power of unions like WEAC, which is typically one of the biggest spenders in campaigns on behalf of Democrats. The law takes away the right of teachers and other public workers to collectively bargain over anything except salary increases no greater than the rate of inflation. It also disallows the automatic withdrawal of union dues from workers’ pay checks and requires unions to vote annually on staying organized, making it tougher for public sector unions to stay viable.”

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Former senator Russ Feingold will not be a candidate for any office next year. As Reuters notes, this decision “takes him out of the running for senator, or governor if Democrats force a recall against Republican incumbent Scott Walker.”

[Bob78164]

Wisconsin today set recall elections for the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and four more state senators, all Republicans. One of the recalled senators resigned a couple of weeks ago, leaving the State Senate evenly split with 16 Republicans and 16 Democrats. --Bob

[Beebs52]

Wisconsin today set recall elections for the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, and four more state senators, all Republicans. One of the recalled senators resigned a couple of weeks ago, leaving the State Senate evenly split with 16 Republicans and 16 Democrats. --Bob

Bless your and their'all y'all's hearts.

[AlphaDummy]

Bless your and their'all y'all's hearts.

Blessing accepted.

[Bob78164]

Walker won his recall election, but the State Senate appears to have flipped. --Bob

[themanintheseersuckersuit]

Walker won his recall election, but the State Senate appears to have flipped. --Bob

Based on the amount of spin in this post Its entirely possible that Bob is actually a MM belonging to Debbie Wasserman Schultz.

Alternate formulation Scott Walker became the first Governor in American history to defeat a recall election with a 7 percentage point win, Dems lose 3 of 4 Senate recall votes, Wisconsin Senate expected to flip back to Republican control before it meets again.

[AlphaDummy]

Wisconsin Senate expected to flip back to Republican control before it meets again.

Agreed with the line quoted above. The flip gives the Democrats a meaningless one-vote edge, as the Legislature is currently out of session. Given that 1) the new GOP-drawn redistricting map kicks in for this fall's elections and 2) Jim Holperin - a Demcrat who held on to his seat in last year's round of recalls in a normally Republican district - is retiring, I very much see the Senate going back to Republican control for the next session, joining the governorship and the Assembly

And that is all.

[flockofseagulls104]

Well, the Unions and Liberals have wasted millions of Wisconsin taxpayer dollars, but at least they have made an important point.

I have no idea what that point is, but it must have been important.

[Bob Juch]

Well, the Unions and Liberals have wasted millions of Wisconsin taxpayer dollars, but at least they have made an important point.

I have no idea what that point is, but it must have been important.

The anti-recall groups spent over $30 million, mostly from out-of-state donors; the pro-recall group spent just over $2 million.

They certainly stimulated the Wisconsin economy!

[flockofseagulls104]

Well, the Unions and Liberals have wasted millions of Wisconsin taxpayer dollars, but at least they have made an important point.

I have no idea what that point is, but it must have been important.

The anti-recall groups spent over $30 million, mostly from out-of-state donors; the pro-recall group spent just over $2 million.

They certainly stimulated the Wisconsin economy!

If you're complaining about the anti recall groups spending so much money, I would point out that they wouldn't have spent anything but for the unions and the democrats who caused these elections to be held.

I'm talking about the millions of taxpayer dollars that the state had to spend on running these stupid elections.

[Bob Juch]

Well, the Unions and Liberals have wasted millions of Wisconsin taxpayer dollars, but at least they have made an important point.

I have no idea what that point is, but it must have been important.

The anti-recall groups spent over $30 million, mostly from out-of-state donors; the pro-recall group spent just over $2 million.

They certainly stimulated the Wisconsin economy!

If you're complaining about the anti recall groups spending so much money, I would point out that they wouldn't have spent anything but for the unions and the democrats who caused these elections to be held.

I'm talking about the millions of taxpayer dollars that the state had to spend on running these stupid elections.

I'm not complaining about the money the anti-recall groups spent. They took a lot of money from wealthy donors from all over and spent it in Wisconsin.