Progressive Thinking

Businessman turned politician wins state with 48% of the vote after all the political professionals, pollsters, and national media under estimated an appeal that did not fall into the comfortable patterns of past campaigns. Victory sweeps along GOP politicians down the ballot.

GREEN BAY - Republican Donald Trump won a stunning upset victory Tuesday in Wisconsin, part of a series of Rust Belt victories that propelled him to the White House.

The Associated Press called Wisconsin for Trump just after 1:30 a.m. Wednesday, immediately triggering a projection that Trump would win the national election after he was already declared the winner in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

With 3615 of 3620 or 99% of Wisconsin's Precincts Reporting, Donald Trump had 1,404,869 or 48% of the vote, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton followed with 1,377,880 or 47% of the vote.

To say that these results are stunning is an understatement. As little as two days ago, the Marquette Law School poll had Clinton holding a six-point lead. Based on polling, most political observers thought she was positioned to win the state's 10 electoral votes despite becoming the first major-party nominee since 1972 not to set foot in the state.

UW-Madison political science professor Barry Burden said Clinton's decision not to visit or invest heavily in the state proved to be a mistake.

"This is one of the only states where the Trump ads outnumbered the Clinton ads," Burden said. "This may have been the only state where her ads were drowned out by his."

Trump campaigned hard in the state, making five visits over the past three months. In the final month his campaign spent nearly $2 million on advertising in the state. Clinton spent nearly $3 million in the state during the last week, but it was too little too late.

The Trump surge across the state also swept along GOP politicians down the ballot. Incumbent Senator Ron Johnson defeated Russ Feingold in Wisconsin's U.S. Senate race, and in NE WI's 8th Congressional District Mike Gallagher easily defeated Tom Nelson with a vote of 227,732 (63%) to 135,648 (37%). Green Bay's Democratic State Senator Dave Hansen was an exception with a win.

It is clear that all the political professionals, pollsters, and the national media under estimated the appeal of the businessman turned politician in Wisconsin and across the nation. Trump managed to grab the mantel of change in the minds of many, and the statistical models used by pollsters were based on trends of the past. Donald Trump surprised many, because he was a new media phenomenon that did not fall into the comfortable patterns of past campaigns.

Democratic Party insider loyalty to Clinton had given her the nomination, but never gave her much grass roots support in Wisconsin, where Independent Bernie Sanders had won 71 of 72 counties in the primary.

Sen. Kathleen Vinehout writes about the need for a divided state and nation to join hands with people whose beliefs are different from our own to the challenges we face.

ALMA, WI - “We try very hard to not have political discussions at our family gatherings,” my friend told me over dinner.

“How sad,” I replied. This comment – one I’ve heard many times in past months – stood in sharp contrast to the enthusiastic spirit of community I felt the night before.

I joined many neighbors in celebrating the release of a new album of local music. The accomplishment is a collaboration of three local musicians – Yata, Sinz and Orfield - in a delightful compilation entitled Dancing in the Light.

The crowd was enthusiastic, clapping in time with the music. One couple joined hands to dance even among the standing-room-only crowd.

As we left the concert, neighbors reminded each other of the dinner coming up in Alma. Parishioners at St John’s Lutheran Church will join hands to host a fundraiser for the victims of the flood in Buffalo County.

Somehow, we must figure out a way of taking the “joining of hands” from our local neighborhoods and apply it to the big decisions we make at the state and national levels.

By the time you read this, the election will be over. However, I am writing before Election Day. I do not yet know the outcome. What I do know is that we must find way to unite a divided state and nation…to join hands with people whose beliefs are different from our own.

To understand something of how we can join hands while respecting our differences, I turned to the French Nobel Prize winning author Albert Camus:

“Yes, the essential thing is to leave room, however limited it may be, for the exchange of views that is still possible; the essential thing is to bring about an easing of the situation, however slight and temporary it may be. And to achieve that, each of us must preach pacification to his people.” … “After all, Gandhi proved that it is possible to fight for one’s people and win without for a moment losing the world’s respect.”

Mr. Camus wrote these words during the struggle for Algerian independence. Colonialism was ending. It was a time of terrorism and difficult Arab-European relations. His words are still relevant.

“Problems must be seen in relation to the future, without endlessly going back over the errors of the past.”

We share much. For example, we share our love of our community; of music that reflects our neighborhood; of our concern for flood victims.

In addition, we share a concern about the future: of economic imbalance, of needs unmet, of public dollars unwisely spent.

“When fighting for your truth, you must take care not to kill it with the very arms you are using to defend it.”

Force will never convince another of the truth. Minds are changed with honest dialogue that respects the opinion of others.

“I shall not try to change anything that I think or anything that you think (insofar as I can judge of it) in order to reach a reconciliation that would be agreeable to all. On the contrary, what I feel like telling you today is that the world needs real dialogue, that falsehood is just as much the opposite of dialogue as is silence, and that the only possible dialogue is the kind between people who remain what they are and speak their minds.”

We join hands to celebrate the music of our neighborhood. We collect needed funds for our neighbors suffering tragedy. Can we move this “real dialogue” to the next level?

Somehow, we must begin.

As Gandhi said, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.”

STOUGHTON, WI - These are troubled times. The glass is half empty and democracy is draining out of America. In a democracy the main power is the power of our vote – to throw the bums out OR to vote in folks we hope do NOT become bums. But our vote is becoming meaningless because swindlers are on the loose in both parties, while the prosecutors and courts along with elected officials sit on the side lines wringing their hands or stuffing handfuls of money in their pockets. Money dominates state and national politics – big money that expects big profits from the winners.

If you are not depressed and outraged by the last year of this pathetic democratic circus, you are not paying attention. We have two main candidates for president consumed by the greed for power and money. Everyone is a fool but them. They apparently believe the public can always be conned if big lies are repeated often enough. Many US papers read like Pravda, full of lies, during the height of the USSR empire.

But I think Studs Terkel’s book Hope Dies Last: Keeping the Faith in Troubled Times is right. We must live with hope for without it we will wither and die – emotionally, morally or physically. Only by fighting back can we sustain hope for the future. No fight – then maybe no future.

Most Americans have a great capability to say well that didn’t work, let’s try this. They hope things will be better for their kids and grandkids than they were for themselves.

Right now a couple of days before the election we can see that we have major candidates who are duds as leaders. We have an option on the ballot. We can start fresh with Green Party candidate Jill Stein.

Will she win? Let me ask, would you have voted for Fighting Bob La Follette in 1924 or Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 if one of them was on the ballot as an independent next week? I would. They both fought against their own corrupt Republican Party though the Democratic Party was just as corrupt and controlled by Wall Streeters and corporations.

Many voters may have thought La Follette or Roosevelt would lose but vote for them they did. Would you be voting for Bernie Sanders as a Green Party candidate if he had chosen to join the Greens? I bet many of you would. Both Clinton and Trump are pro war. Obama was anti-war until he sat in the Oval Office. Sanders now says vote your fear of Trump by voting for Clinton. Then after she’s in the White House we’ll pressure her to change her policies which will be like pressuring a tiger to change its stripes.

If you wish to live by fear and false hope, the choice is yours.

But if you wish to make a positive statement on the direction America needs to go, then vote Green. Help build a third party that will hopefully in 2020 and beyond start actually building a new America rather talk about doing so for decades. Who knows America with a Green president may even stop all the illegal wars, killing, destruction, torture and spying Bush, Cheney and Obama became ‘so good at’ or should that be ‘so bad at”?

In this election November 8th, as in life, you can choose to do nothing, to go with the crowd or to fight back to protect your principles. The choice is yours, so please vote while you still HAVE the right to vote in this county.

John Humphries, a candidate for State Superintendent of Public Instruction, has been creating conspiracy theories that school report cards are rigged. Sen. Kathleen Vinehout examines his false claims related to changes to the School Report Cards.

MADISON - Recent voucher-convert John Humphries has been busy spending his days writing pieces for Right Wisconsin, retweeting voucher leaders, and creating conspiracy theories that school report cards are rigged.

But here is the problem: the report card changes were proposed by Gov. Walker and passed by the Republican legislative majorities--not the Department of Public Instruction (DPI).

Gov. Walker's February 2015 Budget in Brief says that report card changes will "improve transparency and authenticity by using g letter grades as well as weighting school performance to account for student poverty rates, students disabilities and the length of time a school has had to influence a student's academic progress."

The Governor proposed these changes, and it turns out there was a powerful voice behind the scenes: School Choice Wisconsin chief lobbyist Jim Bender.

Bruce Murphy's Urban Milwaukee recently reported "one reason [Bender's] group was able to take the lead is because of his clout in the Capitol."

He quotes Bender saying, "In working with legislators to improve [the report card], we certainly took the lead.... If there was no choice program, we would likely have the old system" of report cards.

Just the Facts: the Governor proposed these changes, championed by School Choice Wisconsin, and adopted by the Majority members in the state Legislature.

Meanwhile, DPI provided feedback and analysis on the impact of these changes. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau budget paper on accountability outlined the potential impact of report card changes on urban and rural schools, based on DPI's analysis.

DPI also provided this information to legislators on the Education related committees. They worked with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle to pass a bill correcting report card drafting and calculation errors adopted in the budget. Hardly seems like DPI is a villain in this story.

To paraphrase the Statesman Senator John Patrick Moynihan: You can have your own opinion, but not your own facts.

Voters in many communities across the State will face referenda questions on the on-going operational costs for their local schools versus new construction. Sen. Vinehout shares the reasons why school districts need to turn to voters for revenue to keep their schools open.

ALMA, WI - From Arrowhead to West Salem, voters across the state are considering the future of their school districts when they go to the polls. Citizens in 46 districts will be asked to approve referenda.

Some questions relate to the building of new facilities. However, 46% of this year’s referenda are for the on-going expenses of operating local schools.

I received many calls about school funding, property taxes and the problems underlying the questions voters face on the ballot.

“Aren’t referenda usually passed to build something new?” an Eau Claire man recently asked me. For many years, most school referenda asked voters to approve new construction. About ten years ago, there began a steady rise in the number of referenda to increase property taxes to pay for school operations.

Referenda for operations include the usual costs related to the daily operations of a school: keeping the lights on, heating the building, transporting students and paying for staff. Personnel costs make up 70% to 80% of a school’s budget. Logically a school that needs money to pay on-going expenses needs that money for staff costs.

Many constituents tell me they are unhappy about paying salary costs through referenda. Somehow, they can justify a new gym but not a new math teacher.

Early in 2011, a law known as Act 10 eliminated most union protections for teachers. Consequences of losing those protections led to increased costs. Teachers retired early. Fewer college students graduated with a teaching degree. The resulting teacher shortage caused competition between school districts for the few teachers left to fill critical positions.

Also in 2011, majority party lawmakers made deep cuts to state support for public schools in the 2011-13 state budget. They also diverted more state money to private schools.

The result is that today the actual state dollars going to public schools is lower than the amount public schools received a decade ago. This little known budget fact combined with increasing costs helps explain the increase in school referenda for operations.

Not only are there fewer dollars, but those dollars are flowing through a decades old formula that does not match today’s world.

Schools are paid by the state on per student basis. This method does not match the pattern of expenses – or cost structure – schools experience. In other words, there is a fundamental disconnect between what drives school revenue and what drives school costs. For example, when three students leave from a class of 20, district revenues are cut by 15 percent. But the cost of teaching a class of 17 is almost the same as teaching a class of 20.

In addition, the school general aid formula assumes that every student costs the same to educate regardless of background, capability or language skills. Consider, for example, that over 70% of primary grade students in Arcadia are English Language Learners. Consider, for example, that child poverty doubled in Wisconsin over a decade. Students from a difficult family background can perform at the same level as their peers upon graduation – but these students cost more to educate.

Finally, the school formula assumes every district has the same cost structure regardless of whether it has 300 or 3,000 students, and regardless of whether it covers 15 square miles or 150 square miles. Any rural superintendent will tell you the state pays only about 10 cents of every dollar of transportation costs.

Fewer state dollars, higher costs, fewer teachers, children who need more resources – all these factors add up to needs at the local school that are increasingly not met by state resources. So voters are asked to pony up through their property tax bill.

Property tax is an antiquated measure of wealth. Property rich farmers in 1848 might have been the wealthiest of folks. However, no longer does property value match real wealth.

Passing referenda will stop the hemorrhaging at our schools. However, the fundamental problems in school funding must be fixed. Real reform must accomplish three things: reduce our reliance on property taxes; recognize some students cost more to educate; recognize that school districts face different challenges and therefore different cost structures.

Until we have enough votes to pass those changes, please vote to support your local school.