The Party Of Big Government And The Welfare State

The political class is full of people who believe that perception is reality, and who are committed to spinning people dizzy so their distorted perception becomes a disfigured reality that favors the spinners and the benefactors on whose behalf they do their voodoo.

In America today we have one political party that is seen as the pro-government party and another seen as the anti-government party. Funny thing is, it was the anti-government party that was responsible for the biggest expansion of government in the last 50 years, an inconvenient truth told by one of that party's leading voices 10 years before he was one of the last men standing for his party's presidential nomination.

The sprawling bureaucracy known as the Department of Homeland Security was created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002 sponsored by one of the anti-government party's top congressional leaders with co-sponsorship by well over 100 of that party's members before being overwhelmingly approved by both houses of Congress and signed into law by the anti-government party's president. A mere decade after its establishment, DHS ranks as the third largest cabinet-level federal agency.

This vast expansion of government power manifests itself in countless ways, from patdowns and full-torso scans to body cavity searches and phone wiretaps. It is the police state on steroids, courtesy of America's anti-government party.

Reality is reality. Although it's hard to tell sometimes with all the efforts to scramble the signals by cynically manipulating perception. One of the anti-government party's most beloved figures completed his transformation from lightweight actor to national political colussus in 1976 by spinning a fictitious yarn about a "welfare queen" on the south side of Chicago with 80 names, 30 addresses and 12 Social Security cards who was collecting veterans benefits for four nonexistent deceased husbands as well as other public aid that brought her tax-free income to over $150,000 a year.

He understood perception. He cared little about truth. He was not bothered by irony. In 1976 and 1996 and 2006 the anti-government party was the most outspoken and ardent defender of what is by far the biggest component of the welfare state. It remains so today. It maintains a flow of government assistance to the nation's corporate welfare kings that dwarfs what those stigmatized by the "welfare queen" label could ever hope to see.

Reality is reality. If we're not too disoriented to see it.

Common Threads Politicians Can't See

The ranks of America's politically homeless are larger than at any time in 70 years. This is no accident. Nor is it sustainable.

It is no accident because both major parties currently are blind to common threads that could be used to knit together segments of society that for the time being are torn apart. It is not sustainable because broad and deep public disenchantment with both parties creates a vacuum and vacuums never last forever in democracies.

Today both the Democrats and Republicans are captive parties that cater to narrow interest groups. Neither is seen as working for the benefit of the whole country. Which is why it's been three-quarters of a century since so many people have refused to align with either major party.

At similar moments in our nation's past, transformational forces have risen up and challenged the major parties to either adapt or perish. Sometimes they've adapted as waves of reform washed over them. Other times unsustainable conditions led to major party realignment. Another such moment approaches.

There are common threads available to any politician or political party with a hankering for sewing. When the time comes – and it will come – that the risk of uniting finally outweighs the rewards of dividing, the sewing should start where the rips are most evident.

Someone or some party has to put forward a vision, and practical policies embodying that vision, of what for lack of a better term could be described as All for One Economics. Today we have two economies. One for the powerful and privileged that works really well for them. And another for everyone else that leaves much to be desired. This too is no accident. It is the result of deliberate policy choices.

The Republicans gave us trickle down, and this reverse-Robin Hood philosophy has ruled over our economy for more than three decades. It hasn't worked. It hasn't made our economy more prosperous. It hasn't made us less vulnerable to globalization and the accompanying outsourcing and offshoring of American jobs. All it's done is further divide us, creating more pronounced class disparities and more intense concentration of wealth at the top. It hasn't filled everyone's cup.

The problem is that for over 30 years now the Democrats have failed to offer a compelling alternative. Democrats have served up their own version of oasis economics. A few are offered refuge from the desert – and plenty to drink – while most are left thirsty. This is why they've lost the support of many of the poorest among us.

Moving toward one economy for the betterment of all could start with a decisive move away from corporate welfare. Trying to bribe big companies to create jobs here isn't working now and has never worked. It just pads the profit margins of the companies and ends up subsidizing the movement of jobs overseas. What if we took the hundreds of millions of dollars we are pouring down this rat hole every year here in Wisconsin and the billions wasted nationally and sunk it instead into micro-grants and loans to local entrepreneurs, small enterprises and community cooperatives?

Instead of giving handouts to multi-state or multi-national corporations (which not coincidentally make huge campaign contributions) in the empty hope that they might do something to help Neenah or Janesville or Wausau, what if every penny instead was directed to inventors and innovators living and raising their families right there in Neenah and Janesville and Wausau? They are rooted in those communities, and so are the people they will end up employing if their ventures can get off the ground.

All for One Economics also would require One for All Taxation. Face it, we now have two tax systems. One for those who make big campaign donations and can afford $250-an-hour lobbyists to work the corridors of power to get them write-offs and loopholes to jump through. And another for the rest of us. Many if not most in our society don't want new taxes, but broad agreement can be found on the idea that everyone should pay the ones we've already got.

Many if not most in our society want a limited government. Limited not only in how much it takes from our pocketbooks, but also limited in other respects. Government has no place in the bedroom and its role should be limited to nonexistent in the doctor's office or at the death bed. Common threads abound here that today's polarized politicians cannot see.

To have any hope of getting to common ground, one more thing is definitely needed: At least one political party that behaves in a way enabling it to plausibly make the case that it is nobody's tool. Today both major parties are tools of the powerful and privileged. Neither is seen as working for the benefit of our whole country, and that perception in squarely rooted in the reality that neither party is working in such a fashion. Many if not most in our society clearly don't want government to do too much. But what government does needs to be done for the benefit of all. There's another common thread right there.

The big question is which party will see the common threads and begin using them to knit us back together. The even bigger question is what transformational force will compel them to open their eyes.

Corporate Welfare Programs Sketchy On Jobs But Good For Wealthy Special Interests

A recent state audit couldn't figure out how many jobs were created or retained from the hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars the state gave away through nearly 200 economic development programs since 2007.

But while the job and overall economic development boost - if any - is a mystery, the campaign contributions these corporate welfare programs help the governor and legislators draw from business, manufacturers and more than a dozen other wealthy special interests is known.

A related pay-to-play report released last month by the Democracy Campaign shows the state will spend about $335 million on new tax credits, cuts or other breaks billed to create or retain jobs in fiscal year 2012-13. That works out to $235 a year for a family of four, and the costs will balloon to $439 million or $291 for a family of four by 2020-21.

The report, "Special Interest Smorgasbord," details nearly five dozen proposals that benefit special interests - usually at a cost to consumer protections or pocketbooks - that were passed in the most recent 2011-12 legislative session. And those tax breaks and giveaways are in addition to present economic development programs highlighted in the state audit that cost state taxpayers $226 million in 2009-11.

The special interests that benefit from all this welfare contributed $13.7 million to Republican Governor Scott Walker from 2009 when he started his run for governor through 2011, and $9.9 million to legislators.

In addition to giving the money away, a new state law makes it difficult to gauge their performance, essentially shielding them from accountability.  State agencies that administer the programs are no longer required to report the number of jobs these programs create or retain in an industry or municipality or the amount of tax benefits that are given out and the identity of the recipients that get them.

But measuring the success or failure of these programs isn't a recent problem. Past audits have identified the same problems. A three-part series done in 1999 by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Steve Schultze highlighted the difficulty in Wisconsin and elsewhere of measuring their performance and cost effectiveness.

Another Democracy Campaign report, "Serving the Have-Mores," done in 2005 reviewed about 3,900 state grants and low-interest loans totaling $771 million from 1999 through 2004 to foster job creation and economic development. It found big donors got the biggest breaks, multi-billion-dollar corporations got state aid they didn't need and the required tracking and performance evaluations of many of the programs was spotty.

Sound familiar?

Things Worth Fighting For

Democrats have had plenty of look-in-the-mirror moments these last 30 years or so. And they never seem to take a real good look. Last week's recall election in Wisconsin was another. And from the sounds of it, there's a lot of excuse making but not much reflection going on.

The Democrats' state party chair chalked up their latest defeat in the governor's race to money. A great many others agreed, laying the blame on the infamous Citizens United decision by the nation's highest court, although in the next breath more than a few Democratic activists scolded the party's braintrust for not trusting the citizen movement behind the recall and for screwing up the election.

In what former party chair Joe Wineke described as a "circular firing squad," Democratic stalwarts aimed shots at the DNC, President Obama and current state chair Mike Tate, among others. For his part and presumably his party's, Tate said there were no regrets, gamely insisting "some things are worth fighting for; some things are worth losing over."

Indeed.

But here's the thing with today's Democrats. Some things are worth fighting for. A few things. But most are not. If you want to know which is which, all you have to do is follow the money.

When it was the ox of one of the Democrats' biggest cash constituencies being gored, Democratic lawmakers were itching to fight, with senators going so far as to flee the state to obstruct a vote on Governor Walker's plan to kneecap public employee unions. The most massive street protests Wisconsin has ever seen were organized and sustained for weeks.

What Democrats did when public employee unions were under siege in Wisconsin is not what they did when the housing bubble burst and foreclosures exploded and large numbers of people were losing their homes. What they did for public sector unions is not what they did for little people caught in a financial vise when banks and Wall Street investment firms started behaving more like casinos and brought the economy to its knees. No walkouts. No mass demonstrations. No banksters sent to jail.

Democrats largely looked the other way at credit default swaps and collateralized debt obligations and hedge funds and derivatives and subprime mortgages and other such snake oil. Might that have something to do with the fact that you see Goldman Sachs second and JP Morgan Chase sixth and Citigroup seventh on the list of biggest donors to the 2008 campaign of the Democratic Party's national standard bearer?

When public employee unions yelled jump, Democrats asked how high. But when hundreds of thousands of Americans without strong union representation were losing their private-sector jobs to outsourcing and offshoring, Democrats organized no meaningful opposition. They didn't flee the House and Senate chambers to deny Republicans a quorum and throw up an obstacle to congressional approval of "free trade" hoaxes like NAFTA and CAFTA. Hell, they helped pass those measures. Those job-killing schemes would not and could not have been greenlighted without Democratic support.

If you listen carefully you hear a few platitudes and a little bellyaching from Democrats when Republicans double down on policies that haven't helped the economy but have hurt the poor and middle class for over 30 years and pass a new batch of tax cuts for the rich or a new round of deregulation allowing the air to be more easily polluted or the water more easily poisoned. But you don't see 100,000 people circling the Capitol. You don't see every parliamentary trick in the book being employed to throw a monkey wrench in the works.

Might that be because, even close to home, Democrats are up to their eyeballs in campaign money from big business interests?

There are things worth fighting for and even losing for. But for them to ever be things that can win the hearts and minds of most Wisconsinites and Americans, they have to be in keeping with the political law of universality. That is, they have to be things that make the whole state and whole country better off, not just things that are near and dear to one group of big campaign supporters or another.

If there is a clue to how Democrats could crack the electoral code that leads to a governing majority, it is likely to be found in a paradox that haunts their party: Democrats see the Citizens United ruling and the rule of money as central to their downfall, yet the party establishment only seems to see something as worth fighting for if it will help raise money for the next election.

After The Finger Pointing

Some Democrats will blame President Obama for their party's defeat in Wisconsin, gnashing their teeth over his refusal to come in and campaign with Tom Barrett. Some will blame the DNC for not jumping in the race with all its might. Some will blame the unions for wasting millions of dollars trying to anoint Scott Walker's opponent in a primary fight. Some will blame Russ Feingold for not accepting a role as savior. Some will blame young people for not going to the polls in droves the way they did in 2008.

When the scapegoating subsides, certain realities are left. The Democratic Party proved unable to beat Wisconsin's most polarizing political figure in living memory, one bankrolled by millionaires and billionaires, some of whom could vote in the election and most of whom could not. The nation's worst job-creation record and a mushrooming cloud of scandal and criminal investigations were not enough to prompt the majority of voters to find the Democrats' standard bearer preferable.

When the scapegoating subsides, the real question remains: Will the Democratic Party finally be forced to come to terms with how damaged its brand really is?

To most eyes, the Democratic Party is the party of government and government employees and their unions. Most people hate the government. How do you build a governing majority with a brand people hate?

You don't.

When the Democrats won the hearts of a majority of people in the past, it was because the party had a big hand in creating things that tangibly benefited everyone or at least directly touched every American family in a major way. Social Security and Medicare. Rural electrification. The GI Bill. The interstate highway system.

Today's Democrats have broken the sacred political law of universality. They may say we're all in this together and need to look out for each other, but people in places like rural Clark County where I grew up don't see them practicing what they preach. Most people in such parts of Wisconsin see today's Democrats standing for health and retirement security and better pay for a few, but not for most. This has created an opening for Republicans to build a rich-poor alliance . . . and a governing majority in Wisconsin.

Liberals dwell on how Republicans have used social issues like abortion, gay marriage and gun rights as wedges to splinter off low-income rural voters who used to vote for Democrats and now reliably support Republicans. The left overlooks the economic wedge the right has skillfully exploited.

Republicans ask people in places like Clark County if they have pensions, and the answer is invariably no. "Well, you are paying for theirs," they tell them. Do you have health insurance? No. Well, you are paying for theirs. Are you getting pay raises? No. Well, you are paying for theirs.

For years now Democrats have not plausibly made the case that they will deliver better health or retirement security or higher pay to all. Only the state's few government workers have so benefited from the Democrats' toil. What is the modern equivalent of the GI Bill that offers every family a path to vocational training or an affordable college education? Where is the digital age's equivalent of rural electrification or the interstate highway system?

We have one party that is scary and another that is scared. If one is paralyzed and afraid to lead, people will opt for the one willing to act even if the actions are overly extreme for most people's tastes. It doesn't mean they hold that party in high esteem or fail to see its faults. The truth is most people hate both parties. The ranks of the politically homeless are growing fast. More Americans refuse to align with either major party than at any time in the last 70 years.

In defeat there is still opportunity for the Democrats. But not if they continue to ignore the law of universality and fail to muster the nerve to really lead. And not if they remain resistant to the obvious remedy for their brand problem. The Democratic Party is the party of government, and most people hate the government. Why? Because increasingly they see it as corrupt, run by people they view as crooked. They don't believe government is working for them, and if it's not going to work for them, then they'd prefer to keep it as small as possible.

One party is seen as standing for big government, the other for no government. But neither is seen as truly working for the people. Both are seen as captive parties that owe allegiance to their big donors and ceaselessly cater to those wealthy interests.

For the Democrats, there is a clear way out of the trap they are in. Maybe their defeat in the recall election will be the wake-up call they need. When the scapegoating finally subsides, maybe they will finally come to terms with the cancer that is growing in the body of democracy and see the impact that disease is having on their party's brand.

I'm not holding my breath. After all, in the nearly 15 years I have been doing this work, a Democratic governor reached out to the Democracy Campaign and asked to meet with us only once. That was to read us the riot act for shining light on his campaign money. In all those years, a Democratic state party chair sought to meet with us one time. That was to ask if we would support legislation to significantly increase the limits on campaign contributions to candidates and parties.

Trojan Badgers

Wisconsin isn't Wisconsin anymore. Our politics are not in keeping with our state's culture. We are a mild-mannered, polite people. Ask most anyone visiting for the first time to describe us, and chances are the word "nice" will cross their lips. But there's nothing nice or polite or mild-mannered about our politics these days. The New York Times was moved the other day to call Wisconsin the "land of cheese and rancor" and the "most politically divisive place in America."

Our laws are not even our own anymore. What was called "2011 Wisconsin Act 1" is not of Wisconsin. It was not written by any Wisconsin lawmaker. Nor was "Wisconsin Act 2." These laws were written by an invading alien force based in Washington, D.C. known as the American Legislative Exchange Council. ALEC for short.

ALEC cooked up Act 9 and Act  10 too. And Acts 14, 21, 22 and 23. Not to mention seven different parts of Act 32. All of Acts 35, 38, 93, 94, 174 and 285.

An incredibly detailed report by the Center for Media and Democracy shows the countless ways ALEC has worked to deliver a national right-wing ideological agenda to Wisconsin.

A website called "Kids in the House" managed by the U.S. House clerk's office says this to its young visitors: "Laws begin as ideas. These ideas may come from a Representative – or from a citizen like you."

Or from a corporate-funded bill mill a thousand miles away.

We all know the legend of the Trojan Horse. It lives on as a metaphor for sneak attacks and concealed agendas. What we have now in Wisconsin is beyond metaphor; it is a living embodiment of this ancient tale. Under elaborate cover, wealthy outside interests bastardize the idea of representation, usher in their agenda and have laws written for their benefit, not ours. And they make Wisconsin look less and less like the state we all once knew.

Call it the Trojan Badger.

Missing Pieces Distort Recall Money Picture

Sunday's Wisconsin State Journal featured a front-page story based on the newspaper's analysis of political fundraising in Wisconsin from the beginning of 2011 through late April of this year. After poring over close to $87 million in contributions to candidates and political committees that have been reported to state election authorities, the State Journal concluded that "despite rhetoric, the parties' mountains of money are about even."

There is a treasure trove of information in the story, and readers could surely learn a lot from reading it. But because of what was missing from the analysis, readers also could be left with substantial misconceptions.

The key point is that the newspaper's analysis was based on contributions reported to state election authorities. Looking at these disclosed donations, the partisan split is indeed remarkably even. What's missing from the picture, however, is contributions (of which there are a lot) to unregistered groups (of which there are many) that do not report their sources of income.

In last year's senate recall elections, there were 16 such groups that raised and spent close to $18 million. Over $15 million of that money went to support Republicans. That's not accounted for in the State Journal analysis because it does not show up on any campaign finance report. So far in the 2012 recalls, there are seven groups that are not registered and are not disclosing their donors. Six of the seven are Republican groups. Leading up to the May 8 primary, these groups collectively spent somewhere between $5 million and $8 million, almost all of it on the Republican side. Where they got the money is a mystery because they do not report their contributions to election authorities. So that money wasn't included in the newspaper's tally either.

The story mentions that about $50 million has been spent by interest groups sponsoring their own campaign advertising in the 2011 and 2012 recall elections, with the spending "fairly evenly split between the parties," citing me as the source of that information. It is true that about $50 million has been spent, and it is true that overall interest group spending this year and last has been fairly evenly split. But what the State Journal missed was the fact that close to half of that money was included in its analysis because the groups' donations were reported and the other half was not included because the groups did not disclose their income sources. It just so happens that most of the disclosed donations went to Democratic groups and most of the undisclosed money flowed to Republican organizations.

For example, the leading spender on the Democratic side in last summer's senate recalls was We Are Wisconsin, which reported spending more than $10.7 million. Its funding sources were reported, so the donations were included in the State Journal analysis. The leading spender on the Republican side was Club for Growth, which spent a fairly comparable amount. In fact, based on our analysis of TV ad buys, the group outspent We Are Wisconsin by 18% on television advertising. But Club for Growth does not report its election fundraising and spending, so its donations were not included in the newspaper's tally.

If such undisclosed interest group money were included in the recall money analysis, roughly a $20 million fundraising edge for the Republicans emerges because of a lopsided candidate fundraising advantage on the Republican side in 2012. Governor Scott Walker raised in excess of $25 million by the third week in April, which is over $20 million more than his Democratic opposition.

Overall, spending on last summer's senate recall elections was about $44 million. By our best estimates, Democrats outspent Republicans by nearly $3 million. In this year's recall election for governor, $40 million was spent before voters cast their ballots in the May 8 primary election. Governor Walker alone accounted for more than $20 million of that spending and Republican groups spent over $10 milllion. Add in fundraising in the four senate recall elections this year, where Republican incumbents have a significant edge, and again it is clear the Republicans have overcome the narrow lead Democrats opened in 2011 and this year have surged ahead in the recall money race by something on the order of about $20 million.

When You Gotta Go, You Gotta Give

Hardly any of the innovative energy in the political world is put to work solving real problems. That's because politicians and their handlers are spending almost all of their time thinking up ways to raise campaign money. Sometimes it's creative, most often it's crass. You've heard of pay to play. Now it looks like it's pay to pee. Hey, if you can spare a hundred bucks for the big rally there'll be a porta-potty for you to use when nature calls!

Why GOP's Rich-Poor Alliance Is Fragile

As duly noted, the Democrats find themselves impaled on the horns of a dilemma. They still see themselves as working-class champions, but they've lost the rural working poor who now faithfully vote Republican. If they do more than pay lip service to these workers' plight, they alienate their donors (who, truth be told, look an awful lot like Republican donors). But if they don't take concrete steps to once again become the party of the poor, it's darn hard to see how they cobble together a governing majority.

For years unions were the backbone of the Democratic Party. But private-sector unions have been decimated, and now public-sector unions are under assault. In a state of 5 million people, there are only something like 130,000 unionized public employees in Wisconsin and the ability of their unions to be a political force has been seriously undermined. Public workers aren't politically monolithic, but even if they were there are not enough of them to carry the Democrats. Not even close. And besides, the Democrats' loyalty to the public employee unions has more than a little to do with the Republicans being able to steal away the rural working poor.

In short, the Democrats are screwed. Until they can figure out a way out of the trap they are in, about the only thing they have going for them is the Republicans. Here is a party that believes corporations are people but a woman's body is the state's property. Good luck closing that gender gap. At a time when the face of America is growing steadily browner, here is a party that is hostile to immigrants and openly fans the flames of white fears with everything from race-baiting rhetoric and English-only rules to Jim Crow-style voter suppression laws and relentless attacks on affirmative action. Good luck appealing to the fastest growing parts of American society.

To maintain their appeal to the rural working poor, Republicans have no choice but to keep bashing gays, keep worshipping guns and keep cynically exploiting worship, knowing what Napoleon Bonaparte said about religion being the only thing that keeps the poor from murdering the rich. They have no choice because they are one-trick ponies when it comes to the economy, and their one trick doesn't work. Isn't working in Wisconsin. Hasn't worked anywhere.

Call it what you will . . . trickle down economics, supply side theory, Robin Hood in reverse. It's been tried and tried again and again for the past 30 years. All it's done is make the rich a lot richer, the poor even poorer, and the middle class an endangered species. The country grew together in the 30 years after World War II, with every income class growing in real terms (adjusting income for inflation). Then we grew apart in the three decades that followed, with every income class but the top 10% either treading water or sinking, a phenomenon that coincided with trickle down becoming the economic law of the land.

A wrecked economy marked by vanishing jobs and growing income disparity has been met with even more of what caused the wreckage in the first place. More tax cuts for the wealthy. More deregulation. Predictably the economy continues to sputter, worse here in Wisconsin than anywhere. And predictably we continue to grow apart, with 93% of income growth going to the wealthiest 1% of Americans in 2010.

Until the Republicans can rediscover sanity (economically, socially and politically), the only thing they have going for them is the Democrats.

In short, we are all screwed until at least one party that is worth a damn reemerges.

Why Unions And Democrats Have Lost Ground

Let me start by saying that joining a union in the workplace is a basic human right. That's not just my opinion, it is a statement of fact. That right is found in Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, approved by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948 with the United States voting yes.

Unions have fallen on hard times in recent years in America, and their declining fortunes have been a significant factor in the Democratic Party's struggles. Some of organized labor's wounds were the doing of powerful and vengeful enemies; others were self inflicted.

Unions have had a tendency to be insular, often not talking to and working with each other much less communities of likeminded non-union people. That's curious, considering the value organized labor places on solidarity and brotherhood.

I grew up on a dairy farm in Clark County. My dad had an 8th-grade education. In his view of the political world, as he told me more times than I can count, the Democrats were the party of the poor and the Republicans were the party of the rich.

If he were alive today, he would not be able to make heads or tails of the tea party movement. He would be confounded by the fact that some of the poorest Americans are among the Republican Party's most faithful supporters. That's not conjecture, it is fact. In the 2010 election for governor, Scott Walker carried eight of the 10 counties with the lowest per capita income. He lost in Menominee County, where only 752 votes were cast on the Indian reservation. And he narrowly lost Crawford County. But overall Walker won by a 13-percentage-point, 8,400-vote margin out of just over 66,500 votes in Wisconsin's 10 poorest counties.

In Clark County, one of the state's five poorest, Walker got 61% of the vote. For years Clark County was represented by Frank Nikolay, one of the truest progressives ever to serve in Wisconsin's legislature. Nikolay was followed by Tom Harnisch, a moderate Democrat. Today, Clark County is represented by a rabid right winger – tea partier and ALEC co-chair Scott Suder.

A few years ago, Tom Frank wrote the book What's the Matter with Kansas? It could just as well have been called What's the Matter with Clark County? As with Frank's bestseller, Clark County is full of stories that help explain its journey from a hotbed of progressive politics to a mainstay of turn-back-the-clock conservatism.

When I was a teenager, the farm economy was bottoming out and one of our neighbors was facing foreclosure. Just before the family was thrown off their land, the farmer was found hanging from a rafter in a shed. His wife and an adult son were left to pick up the pieces of their shattered life. There was no union standing in solidarity with that family as their way of life – and husband and father – was taken from them.

Today, Clark County is full of people who've never known the brotherhood of a union. They've only grown full of resentment for having to pay for others to have things they don't have themselves. And they have turned their county red. They've drunk the tea.

All of which leaves the Democratic Party trapped. The party of the poor no longer has the poorest in our society with them. The unions that supplied them with a power base have been under siege, first in the private sector and now in the public. With union power dwindling, and union money drying up, Democrats now get way more of their campaign money from business interests than from labor unions. The combination of their reliance on the 1% for donations and their allegiance to what's left of the unions is alienating them from the poor in places like Clark County. Democrats will never win in the rich counties like Ozaukee, Waukesha and Washington. Rock, meet hard place.

Republicans have built a rich-poor governing coalition. And not just in Wisconsin. In Kansas. And all across the country. For Democrats to mount a counteroffensive that has any kind of lasting impact, they can't just focus on what – or who – they want to stop. They'll have to think long and hard about where they want to start.

Biz PAC Fined For Excessive Contributions; Walker Returns Money

A political action committee was fined by the state for collecting $170,000 in excessive donations that were used to finance contributions to Governor Scott Walker’s recall campaign, the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign has learned.

The Government Accountability Board fined the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce PAC $500 in February and ordered it to get back $170,000 of the $175,000 in contributions it gave the Walker campaign in December. The board also required the PAC to return the excessive contributions to the donors. Individual contributions to a PAC are limited by a $10,000 per year overall cap that an individual may contribute to all state and local candidates and political committees.

But three of the PAC’s donors contributed a total of $200,000. Topping the list was Ted Kellner, Mequon, founder of Fiduciary Management who gave $100,000; Patrick English of Wauwatosa, chief executive officer of Fiduciary Management, at $50,000; and William J. Nasgovitz, Shorewood, a Heartland Advisors executive who also contributed $50,000.

The PAC collected a total of $219,250 from 12 donors who gave between $200 and $100,000 between November 29 and December 15, 2011. Nine of the 12 contributors worked for Fiduciary Management and a tenth donor was the spouse of an employee at the Milwaukee firm. Those 10 donors collectively contributed $159,250 to the PAC. The remaining contributors to the PAC were Nasgovitz, and David Uihlein Jr. of Milwaukee who contributed $10,000.

In turn, the PAC contributed $175,000 to Walker in two contributions of $150,000 December 14 and $25,000 December 29. The PAC also made three $10,000 contributions December 29 to three of the four Republican state senators who were targeted for recall this year – Van Wanggaard of Racine, Scott Fitzgerald of Juneau and Pam Galloway of Wausau. Galloway later resigned from office but a June 5 election will be held with the others for her seat.

In addition to the $100,000 he gave to the Milwaukee chamber PAC, Kellner contributed an additional $32,750 in 2011 to Walker, three GOP senators targeted in the 2011 recall elections and an Assembly representative. Kellner exceeded the $10,000 annual limit on individual campaign contributions in 2001 and 2006.

English personally contributed $6,000 to Walker campaign in 2011 in addition to his $50,000 contribution to the chamber of commerce PAC. Nasgovitz did not contribute to candidates for statewide office or the legislature in 2011.

Falk Heads Outside Wisconsin For Campaign Cash

Turns out Kathleen Falk, a Democrat who wants to face Republican Governor Scott Walker in a likely recall election, plans on hitting up special interests for campaign cash at a Chicago fundraiser Friday.

This, after Falk's campaign and other Democrats have criticized Walker for crisscrossing the country in recent months to raise millions of dollars from outside Wisconsin.

Falk campaign aide Scot Ross says his boss "is riding a couple of hours to meet with environmental friends and supporters" and this event doesn't compare to Walker's out-of-state fundraising.

Well, yes it does in a couple of ways.

First, Falk's Chicago event is just as much an out-of-state fundraiser as the appeals Walker has been aptly criticized for making outside Wisconsin.

And second, the event's invitation shows it is an effort to draw continued support from out-of-state labor interests that are already spending big money through an outside group to get Falk elected just as corporate interests outside Wisconsin are doling out millions to keep Walker in office.

Former Democratic Senator Russ Feingold says using massive amounts of out-of-state money in a Wisconsin election is a losing strategy in the public's eye. "By funneling out-of-state special interest money to support Kathleen Falk’s campaign, Wisconsin for Falk muddies what had been absolutely crystal clear waters in the recall effort. Up until now, the only beneficiary of ominous super PAC support was Governor Scott Walker. That can no longer be said, and because of that, Kathy Falk has been forced to cede what could have been a powerful strategic advantage, namely the complete rejection of support from dubious organizations that the American public overwhelmingly rejects."

Dems Go West For Recall Cash

The head of the state Democratic Party was in California Thursday raising money from wealthy special interests for Republican Governor Scott Walker's likely recall election.

At the Democratic “happy hour” event attendees met Wisconsin Dem Party chief Mike Tate and members of the Los Angeles County Democratic Party to talk about and contribute towards the recall.

The California fundraiser was a day after Walker was in Florida for a luncheon-fundraiser where he reportedly hauled in $200,000.

Tate criticized the governor in a January interview for raising millions of dollars outside Wisconsin to prepare for a likely recall.

California has been fertile fundraising territory for the Dems in recent years.

Former Democratic Governor Jim Doyle raised $176,002 from California contributors from 2002 through 2005 – second only to Illinois in out-of-state contributions to his campaign.

Overall, Democratic candidates for statewide office and the legislature accepted about $918,000 from well-heeled contributors in the Golden State – second only to Illinois – from 2001 through mid-2011.

Walker Draws $200K Over Lunch In Palm Beach

Republican Governor Scott Walker reportedly raised $200,000 over lunch Wednesday in Palm Beach, Florida where a mining baron who wanted to start a northern Wisconsin iron mine lives.

As the story goes, Walker stopped by a meeting of the Palm Beach Town Council to congratulate them for their stand to cut employee pensions and other benefits.

He later attended a luncheon fundraiser organized by Town Council President David Rosow, whom Walker contacted a few weeks ago, at a Palm Beach home. Walker has crisscrossed the country in recent months raising millions of dollars outside Wisconsin to pay for a likely recall election – probably in June.

One council member called Palm Beach “the ATM of American politics.”

What the story didn’t say was that Palm Beach is also the home of Chris Cline, head of the Cline Resources and Development Group. Until recently, Cline and his supporters had spent more than a year in Wisconsin lobbying to relax state mining regulations and shelling out campaign contributions to pave the way for an iron ore mine in northern Wisconsin.

Efforts to start the mine appeared to fail last week when the state Senate failed to muster the necessary votes to pass an Assembly bill the company liked. The company – Gogebic Taconite – immediately issued a statement saying it was dumping the Wisconsin project.

But Walker told reporters Tuesday – a day before his Florida visit – that the company would return if the legislature approved the version of the bill Gogebic supported. It’s not known whether Walker met with or talked to Cline before, during or after the governor’s trip.

Will IRS Notice Angry Badgers With Smoking Guns?

Yesterday the Democracy Campaign asked the U.S. Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether three groups should keep their tax-exempt status in light of frank admissions that they are working to keep Governor Scott Walker in office.

The three groups – Americans for Prosperity Foundation, the MacIver Institute for Public Policy and the Heartland Institute – enjoy tax-exempt, nonprofit status under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Such status is meant for charitable and educational organizations and they have one purpose under the law – "promotion of social welfare." Federal law prohibits them from using any resources to participate or intervene in political campaigns. The rules also puts strict limits on the time and resources 501(c)(3) groups can devote to issue advocacy to influence legislation.

There are two very good reasons why federal law requires 501(c)(3) charitable groups to steer clear of electoral politics. First, donations to charitable organizations do not have to be publicly disclosed. That means groups that play politics while masquerading as charities can keep their fundraising hidden, and the public's right to know who is behind campaign advertising is thwarted.

Second, charitable donations to 501(c)(3) groups are tax deductible. Political donations are not. When the IRS allows political groups to game the tax code and use tax-deductible donations for overtly political purposes, taxpayers are forced to subsidize the political agendas of millionaires and billionaires who fund these operations.

Americans for Prosperity was created in 2003 by the billionaire brothers David and Charles Koch, owners of Koch Industries which includes companies with operations in Wisconsin like Georgia Pacific. The MacIver Institute was established in 2009 with substantial funding from Milwaukee's Bradley Foundation as well as the Koch family.

The 28-year-old, Chicago-based Heartland Institute also has received major funding from the Bradley Foundation and Charles G. Koch Foundation. It also has received large sums from Exxon Mobil to sponsor scientific "research" purporting to show that climate change is not happening. And Heartland teamed with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.

It's bad enough that the IRS blesses such activity as "promotion of social welfare." But when the agency permits groups like these to cross the clear line drawn in federal law and use undisclosed, tax-deductible donations to engage in electioneering, it makes a mockery of the tax code and of legitimate acts of charity.

Political groups aiming to influence elections should be operating as so-called "527s," named for the section of the IRS code under which they are organized. Donations to 527s have to be publicly disclosed, and they are not tax deductible. Up to now, the IRS has not been enforcing the law that was designed to make political money transparent and spare taxpayers the indignity of subsidizing the private political aims of the likes of the Koch brothers. We hope the complaints we filed might snap the agency out of its stupor.

Our complaints offer dozens of pages of evidence that the three groups are involved in an illegal election intervention. But the strongest proof of all comes straight from the proverbial horse's mouth.

In a fundraising appeal for its "Operation Angry Badger," the Heartland Institute made no bones about the need to get involved in the recall election on behalf of Governor Walker:

The recall elections of 2012 amount to a referenda on collective bargaining
reform at the state level, making them of national interest. Successful recalls
would be a major setback to the national effort to rein in public sector
compensation and union power. Heartland is the largest and most influential
national free-market think tank in the Midwest, so we are in the right place
and with the right resources to help defend and secure Wisconsin's recent
gains.

Quoted in a story appearing last month in a Florida newspaper, Americans for Prosperity Foundation board chairman David Koch was equally blunt:

"We're helping him, as we should. We've gotten pretty good at
this over the years," he says. "We've spent a lot of money in Wisconsin.
We're going to spend more."

By "we" he says he means Americans for Prosperity, which is spending about $700,000 on an "It's Working" television ad buy in the state.

"What Scott Walker is doing with the public unions in Wisconsin is
critically important. He's an impressive guy and he's very courageous," Koch
says after a benefit dinner of salmon and white wine. "If the unions win the
recall, there will be no stopping union power."

This is not the first blatant abuse of a section 501(c)(3) charitable organization to further private political ends, but it is a rare instance where a smoking gun is found.

Now the question is whether the IRS will do anything about it.

"A Deal's A Deal". . . Until Donations Pour In

Fifteen wealthy contributors who support expanding the state’s school choice program gave $443,550 to Republican Governor Scott Walker and legislative Republicans between mid-October and mid-January when legislative action to curb the program’s expansion stalled, a Democracy Campaign review found.

Campaign reports show 11 school choice backers gave Walker $417,000, including two contributions of $100,000 from investor Foster Friess of Jackson, Wyoming and hedge fund founder Bruce Kovner of New York. Other top contributors at $50,000 a pop include New York financier Roger Hertog, Bradley Foundation board member Dennis Kuester of Milwaukee and investor Rex Sinquefield of Westphalia, Missouri.

Republican legislators got $26,550 from school choice supporters between mid-October and mid-January, including $9,000 from San Franciscans William and Patricia Hume; $5,000 from Bradley Foundation board member San Orr of Wausau and SIG Financial Holdings executive Arthur Dantchik of Gladwyne, Pennsylvania; $3,750 from SPO Partners investment executive William Oberndorf of San Francisco; $3,500 from retired investor Virginia James of Lambertville, New Jersey; and $300 from Sam Adams Alliance board member Eric O’Keefe of Spring Green.

Topping the list of Republican legislators who got the $26,550 from pro-voucher donors were three senators – Pam Galloway of Wausau, Terry Moulton of Chippewa Falls and Van Wanggaard of Racine – targeted for recall this year who got $5,000 each. Six Assembly freshmen got between $1,000 and $1,800 each, including Howard Marklein, Travis Tranel, Evan Wynn, Roger Rivard, Mike Endsley and Warren Petryk.

The timing of the contributions mostly from well-heeled individuals outside Wisconsin is significant because October 18 is the last time legislative action occurred on a proposal – Senate Bill 174 – by Senate and Assembly Republicans who control the legislature to change a provision in the 2011-13 state budget passed last summer that they say mistakenly expanded the school voucher program to as many as 37 school districts rather than just Racine as intended.

The 20-year-old Milwaukee school choice program allows children to attend private and religious schools at a cost of about $131 million a year to state taxpayers.

Representative Robin Vos of Burlington, co-chair of the budget-writing Joint Finance Committee and a sponsor of the stalled bill, said last summer “a deal’s a deal” of the agreement with Senate Republicans to limit expansion, and Walker spokesman Cullen Werwie said the governor would sign legislation to limit expansion.

But since the bill stalled in mid-October, Walker and three Senate Republicans have spent much of the time accepting unlimited campaign contributions from hundreds of wealthy special interests because they are now targets for recall. Since he signed his budget with the school choice expansion last summer, Walker has crisscrossed the country raising nearly $9.7 million – about half of it from outside Wisconsin.

Rip Van Winkling Us To Death

In Washington Irving's 19th Century tale, a colonial villager of Dutch descent by the name of Rip Van Winkle wanders up into the mountains of New York with his dog and his gun and comes upon some men of odd appearance playing ninepins. He drinks some of their liquor and falls asleep. When he wakes up, his dog is nowhere to be seen, his gun is rusted, his joints are stiff and his clothes ragged, and his beard has grown a foot or more.

When he returns to his village, Rip recognizes no one. His wife has died and his close friends have either been killed in a war or moved on. Villagers are calling another much younger man by his name, and it dawns on Rip that this man is his son and he must have slept for 20 years.

Rip resumes his life of idleness and takes up his old habits, having had the luxury of sleeping through the hardships of a revolutionary war.

Today's state and national politics are full of Rip Van Winkles, except they've been asleep for 30 years or more and are still dozing. If and when they wake, perhaps it'll dawn on them we have been through an economic revolution.

When they nodded off, there were national economies and even local economies, marked by mutual dependence. Businesses needed local communities as much as those communities needed them. Now we have a global economy and mutual dependence is long gone.

Neenah and Janesville and Wausau still need businesses, but businesses aiming to compete in the global marketplace don't need Neenah and Janesville and Wausau so much anymore. They can locate their operations virtually anywhere in the world, and they can find markets to sell what they produce virtually anywhere in the world. And they have. They've outsourced and offshored with reckless abandon, all while Rip Van Winkle sleeps.

You can cut their taxes to zero, you can bribe them with public subsidies, and they can still find a cheaper and thus more profitable place to do business somewhere else. A new economic truth has emerged: In a global economy, local communities or states or even entire nations have little or no control over material capital. Human capital is the only thing subject to local control.

Despite this new reality, with Rip Van Winkle still sleeping, scarce public resources are thrown at things, and public investments in people are starved. The building of a factory is subsidized here or there, and so is the profitability of the thing (corporations are not people, my friends) running the factory. But the factory is so roboticized that precious few jobs can be had working there. And despite the subsidies, it remains cheaper to do business elsewhere and it's only a matter of time before the company packs up and searches for some greener pasture.

As Rip Van Winkle sleeps, hundreds of millions of dollars in state aid to local schools are cut. Vocational and technical colleges are where tomorrow's workers will get the skills they need to compete in the global economy, and the state cuts their funds by 30%. Universities are where tomorrow's entrepreneurs and business enterprises are born, and the state cuts them too.

When Rip drifted off some three decades ago, our society was embarking on an economic experiment. Some called it supply side theory. Others called it trickle down economics. Its effects have been disastrous. After the country grew together for three decades from the end of World War II to the mid-1970s – with every income class gaining ground – the country has grown apart in the last 30-plus years since supply-side policies were put in place. Only the top 10% has gained ground, and the top 1%'s share of the pie has grown wildly. Everyone else is either treading water or sinking.

The rich have been made richer, the poor have been made poorer, and the middle class is disappearing. But while Rip snoozes, the wealthy continue to get more handouts and the middle class edges closer to extinction. Nobody seems to notice another economic truth that has become self evident: Economic growth is driven by demand, not supply. You can build a factory, but if no one has the money to buy what is made there, it will be shuttered in no time. If, on the other hand, people have money in their pockets and are in a mood to spend, any self-respecting capitalist will find a way to create a supply to meet that demand. They don't need a tax break or an interest-free forgiveable loan. What they need is a marketplace full of demand.

As the 1% prosper beyond anyone's wildest imagination at the expense of most everyone else, it's hard not to notice that campaign contributions to today's politicians come from no more than 1% of the population. The money game in modern politics was not born two years ago when the U.S. Supreme Court issued its infamous decision in the Citizens United case allowing unlimited corporate election spending. It was born more than three decades ago when the high court rendered an equally boneheaded ruling in Buckley v. Valeo that money is speech.

Both major parties bought into this dubious doctrine. Now all these years later, with citizens convinced that politicians are bought and our government is owned by wealthy interests, Rip Van Winkle is now just beginning to stir. But it looks like Rip is likely to resume his life of idleness and take up his old habits, having had the luxury of sleeping through the raping and pillaging of American democracy.

Republican Van Winkles are putting the money game on steroids. Democratic Van Winkles are wringing their hands. So far, the best they've been able to come up with is what they consider a better way to buy politicians. People are heartsick about the 1%'s grip on our politics, and Rip's answer is to let big donors make even bigger donations to politicians and political parties.

Banks In Foreclosure Settlement Gave $45K+ To Candidates

Employees and political action committees of four banks involved in a $25 billion settlement for mortgage foreclosure and service abuses contributed $45,674 to state candidates, including $5,765 to Republican Governor Scott Walker, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

Wisconsin will receive $140 million from the national settlement meant for payments to consumers, refinancing benefits, loan term modifications and other relief to borrowers.

But Walker drew fire last week after he announced $25.6 million of the money would be used to help fill a recently forecast $216 million state budget deficit. Critics say it’s unfair to divert money meant to help people hurt by the banks’ mortgage practices and that Walker criticized his predecessor, Democratic Governor Jim Doyle, for using one-time money meant for other purposes to repair past state budget deficits.

The bank contributions to Walker and other candidates for statewide office and the legislature were made from 2008 through 2011 – the period covered by the settlement. Campaign finance records show Walker received $1,580 from Wells Fargo executives; $1,000 from Citigroup’s PAC; and $3,185 from JP Morgan Chase’s executives and PAC.

Four of the five banks involved in the foreclosure settlement and their total employee and PAC contributions to Wisconsin candidates were: JP Morgan Chase, $34,098; Wells Fargo, $8,626; Citigroup, $2,250; and Bank of America, $700. No contributions from a fifth bank in the settlement, Residential Capital, were found.

After Walker, the other large recipients of campaign contributions include four legislative leadership committees used to milk money from wealthy special interests and spend on elections as well as Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen, whose office was involved with the other states in the case against the banks, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett who sharply criticized Walker for diverting some of the settlement money and lost to Walker in the 2010 general election.

Those recipients and their contributions, most of which came from JP Morgan Chase’s PAC, include: $4,000 to the State Senate Democratic Committee; $3,500 to the Committee to Elect a Republican Senate; $2,500 to Van Hollen; $2,000 to the Republican Assembly Campaign Committee; $1,400 to Barrett and $1,000 to the Assembly Democratic Campaign Committee.

Flattering Grover Norquist

If imitation is indeed the sincerest form of flattery, the Democratic establishment must be quite fond of Grover Norquist's tactics. Norquist is best known for the rigid anti-tax pledge he's managed to get almost all Republican members of Congress to sign.

It's hard to see how Norquist's pledge has actually helped taxpayers. It's easy to see how it has hurt them. It has paralyzed Congress on the federal budget deficit and national debt issues. With the hands of Republican members tied on taxes, there is no room for maneuvering and no way to reach a bipartisan deal that makes meaningful inroads on the biggest fiscal problem facing the country. So huge deficits continue unabated, more and more debt accumulates, and American taxpayers are put at greater and greater risk.

Now we have a major Democratic interest group taking a page out of Grover Norquist's playbook and insisting that any Democrat running for governor sign an equally rigid pledge to veto any state budget bill that does not restore collective bargaining for public employees. And at least one Democratic candidate already has signed.

What any signer of this pledge is really committing to is the very kind of gridlock that Grover Norquist's anti-tax pledge has created in Washington. It wouldn't be enough for a governor to propose the restoration of bargaining rights. It wouldn't be enough to then go to the legislature and engage in serious horse trading to secure collective bargaining a place in the budget bill. If the pledge is signed and then a budget were to land on the governor's desk that didn't include the reestablishment of collective bargaining, that governor would have to veto the whole kit and kaboodle even if it meant shutting down the government and suspending vital state services.

This would be a recipe for political brinksmanship. It would be the height of irresponsibility. After seeing what Grover Norquist's tactics have done to Congress, why on earth would Democrats want to mimic those tactics here in Wisconsin?

Will the coming recall election be about worker rights? Yes, of course. As well it should. But if it's only about public employees or even unionized workers more broadly, Scott Walker wins, mark my words.

This election needs to be about all of the people of Wisconsin. And it needs to be about putting the people back in the driver's seat. What we have now both in Washington and Madison is a few special interest groups leading elected officials around by the nose. What does this budget veto pledge do other than put a ring in some future governor's nose?

This election needs to be about the fact that this country grew together for 30 years from the end of World War II to the mid-1970s, and has been growing apart ever since. When inflation is taken into account, every income class in America has either been stuck in a rut or lost ground in the last 30 years except for the top 10%. The top 1% has absolutely cleaned up.

This is no coincidence. It is the product of decades worth of public policy making. Call it trickle down economics. Or supply side theory. Or Robin Hood in reverse. Whatever you call it, the rich have been made richer, the poor have been made poorer and the middle class is disappearing. Thanks to countless actions by politicians led around by the nose by the millionaires and billionaires who own them and snake charmers like Grover Norquist who entrance them.

The road out of this abyss is paved with declarations of political independence, not pledges of fidelity to special interests.

Senator Was Against Disclosure Before She Was For It

Republican State Senator Mary Lazich demanded full and immediate disclosure of people who signed the recall petitions against the governor, but she isn't so keen about public disclosure and transparency when it comes to thousands of special interest campaign contributors to her campaign and other state officeholders.

Lazich recently slammed the state Government Accountability Board for not immediately posting the petitions to recall Governor Scott Walker on its website. Media reports say the board decided to post the petitions after consulting with attorneys about whether it was obliged to honor requests not to post the names of petition signers who claimed to be victims of domestic abuse, sexual assault and stalking.

In her written statement criticizing the board, Lazich said in part: "Currently Wisconsin law requires you must disclose not only your address, but also your occupation and employer while donating money to a political candidate or party. The information is all readily available online."

But a lot of that information may not be available in the near future. Lazich has sought to sharply reduce the disclosure of occupational and employer information about campaign donors through a legislative proposal - Senate Bill 292 - recommended for passage by the Senate Transportation and Elections Committee she chairs.

The original bill would have changed state law so that candidates for state offices would no longer have to report the employer of contributors who give a candidate more than $100 a year.

But Lazich amended the anti-disclosure measure to make it worse and allow candidates to exclude both employer and occupational information for contributions of more than $250.

The requirement to report general occupation information, such as doctor, nurse, engineer and banker, as well as a large contributor's employer is important because it allows the public to see the real identities - and possibly motives - behind some of the big money that flows to candidate campaigns.

In addition to viewing the actual candidate reports filed electronically with the Government Accountability Board, the Democracy Campaign maintains a public database with a wealth of information about contributors of $100 and up. The database shows the date, name, city, state, occupation, employer and amount of contributions dating back to 1989, and the employer information allows contributions to be batched and viewed by special interest group, such as business, health professionals, lawyer, labor union and natural resources.

Had Lazich's proposal been in effect for the past 20 years, the Democracy Campaign's database would only identify 105,582 contribution records instead of the 673,804 records it currently contains.

Wisconsin needs more disclosure, not less when it comes to elections AND how they are financed.