Progressive Thinking

MADISON - Wisconsin Democrats have a bad case of Scott Walker on the brain.

The governor is in the news constantly, especially now that he is unofficially but obviously running for president. His opponents do a great deal to help keep him in the news, ridiculing his every move and parsing his every word and filling the blogosphere and twitterverse with a daily recital of his transgressions and shortcomings and overall unfitness for office. Whether any of it is true or false is beside the point. It all does Walker a considerable service.

In his book Don’t Think of an Elephant! and other writings, noted linguist George Lakoff examines how the human brain works, politically speaking. In our minds, words and images fit within what he calls moral “frames” and what us non-linguists would probably call core values. One of Lakoff’s key teachings is that when faced with facts that conflict with a moral frame, many if not most people will ignore the facts and hold tight to the frame. Lakoff also has observed that negating a frame paradoxically evokes the frame. For example, when Nixon told the country “I am not a crook,” the negation conjured the frame. The president unwittingly made people think of crooks when they thought of him.

There’s an old saying, “Speak of the devil and he appears.” When Walker’s enemies talk endlessly about what a bum the governor is, they keep the governor top of mind. Negating Walker evokes Walker . . . and relegates his critics and their ideas to the political equivalent of a dusty attic.

Democrats would be better off giving the governor the Lord Voldemort treatment. Do not speak his name. Resist the temptation to vent about You-Know-Who’s latest slip of the tongue or divide-and-conquer maneuver. Think twice when He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named does one more thing prompting the urge to hurl insults. Counter the impulse to spew more venom with a conscious effort to concentrate on hopes and dreams and big plans for making Wisconsin a better place.

It has been well established that Wisconsin Democrats cannot beat Walker by hating Walker. Hating him has helped him immeasurably, made him stronger. Wisconsin has been reminded daily what the Democrats are against. What they are for is more of a mystery to state voters. It will remain a mystery until the choice is made to stop obsessing – and mourning – over what is being torn down and start drawing up blueprints for what will be built up.

If Democrats could just channel their inner Harry Potter, they would see that’s the power the Dark Lord knows not.

MADISON - In their provocative book The Fourth Turning, authors William Strauss and Neil Howe suggest there is a predictable rhythm to social conditions and change, with alternating periods of progress, decay and renewal.

According to Strauss and Howe, each generation has distinct characteristics and archetypes that contribute to the perpetual change and occasional upheaval societies experience. Over the course of what they describe as a “natural century,” or roughly the length of a normal human life, there are four identifiable phases or “turnings.”

A first turning is marked by a high, that euphoric buzz that accompanies a recent overhaul of the social order. Faith in institutions is high, and society is confident of where it is headed collectively. These heady times are followed by an awakening, when institutions begin to be questioned and attacked in the name of personal autonomy. Just when society is reaching a high tide of public progress, people tire of communal discipline and long for more individual satisfaction and enjoyment.

Awakenings invariably produce an unraveling. Public institutions become weak and distrusted. Individualism flourishes. More than one observer has noticed that the early part of the 21st Century has amounted to a “great unraveling.” After unraveling comes crisis. Fourth turnings are phoenix moments, when societies are reborn – as if arising from the ashes – and national identity is redefined. Institutions are torn down and rebuilt from the ground up in response to a perceived threat to the nation’s very survival. Civic life revives, and a sense of community purpose reemerges.

America’s last fourth turning began with the stock market crash of 1929 and climaxed with World War II, followed by a prolonged post-war high, closely tracing the telltale pattern Strauss and Howe identified. Highs follow crises when society senses it must coalesce and rebuild. Unravelings come on the heels of awakenings, when the social impulse is to fragment and enjoy.

As the title of their book implies, the U.S. is now entering a fourth turning. Our country has gone through this before . . . three times to be exact. The first was at the time of the nation’s founding and culminated with the American Revolution. The second was the nation’s reckoning with the scourge of slavery and the resulting Civil War. The third was the Great Depression and World War II. The impending crisis grows out of the chaos of economic globalization, the concentration of wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands, and global climate change.

Public institutions are in tatters, having fallen victim to the loss of civic consciousness that came with the great unraveling. The major political parties are canaries in the coal mine.

The Republican Party was established by radicals who sought to overthrow morally bankrupt institutions and remake the social order. It now works to ward off social change and protect the privileges of the high and mighty. The GOP once was the party of Abe Lincoln and Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower and devoted itself to creating opportunity for all. It now is dedicated to serving the rich.

The Democratic Party has spent an enormous amount of energy trying to make amends for being on the wrong side of history with respect to slavery, and even emerged as a force for considerable good under the leadership of FDR at a time of national and global crisis. But since then the Democrats have experienced their own great unraveling, to the point where it is known to most Americans simply as the party of more government and higher taxes. At a time when society has grown wary if not resentful of public authority and when once-stout public institutions are being torn to pieces, being the party of government is not solid ground to stand on. Today’s Democrats are easy prey for opponents wishing to caricature them as a party that takes from people who work and gives to people who don’t.

Meanwhile, economic and environmental challenges and demand for social change are reaching a boiling point.

Another phoenix moment fast approaches.

Where political parties are allowed to pick their voters and protect their majorities we have seen growing polarization as the party in power feels protected from the wishes of the voters. Independent redistricting has been shown to reduce polarization.

GREEN BAY - In response to the U.S. Supreme Court decision upholding independent drawing of legislative districts, it is time for Wisconsin to move forward with passage of legislation that would create an independent Redistricting Advisory Commission to oversee the legislative and congressional redistricting process.

“The conservative U.S. Supreme Court has upheld the ability of states to enact laws creating an independent non-partisan redistricting process. It is time for Wisconsin to join the growing movement to end the ability of politicians and political parties to rig district lines to protect their jobs and their majorities,” said Senator Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay), author of Senate Bill 58 to create a non-partisan redistricting process.

In its decision, the Court upheld the right and interest of the public to have a fair and independent process that takes politics out of redistricting.

According to Hansen, “It doesn’t matter which party is in power, Republicans or Democrats, gerrymandering districts to protect the power of politicians for either party violates the spirit of a true democracy. The people have a right to free, fair elections where their votes actually matter, regardless of where they live.”

Research commissioned by the USC Schwarzenegger Institute showed that after independent redistricting was implemented in California, their state legislature became less polarized with the gap in polarization between the parties falling 15% in the Assembly and 10% in the state Senate based upon the votes taken by members of both parties.

Where political parties are allowed to pick their voters and protect their majorities we have seen growing polarization as the party in power feels protected from the wishes of the voters.

Here in Wisconsin the proposed state budget contains a number of items vastly opposed by Wisconsin residents including a $250 million cut to the state’s public universities, cuts to public schools and taxpayer funding for the Bucks arena.

“If legislators from both parties had to be concerned with the wishes of all the voters we likely would not have seen these provisions in the state budget," said Hansen.  "Instead we might likely see a budget that would have enough votes from both parties to have already been approved by the Legislature."

Now, the budget process is delayed as Republican leaders attempt to pass a budget bloated with special interest giveaways in exchange for cuts that harm the middle-class.

***

Senate Staffer Jay Wadd contributed to this article.

Sen. Kathleen Vinehout writes about the state’s transportation budget which has stalled deliberations on the state budget. Here are some options to break the impasse on the transportation portion of the budget by addressing the four major components: raising revenue, lowering spending, cutting debt and improving efficiency.

MADISON - “If it was up to you,” the Chamber of Commerce moderator asked area legislators, “How would you solve the transportation problem?”

Budget talks are stalled. Legislators can’t seem to find a way through the labyrinth of interests stalking the Capitol halls. One main sticking point is how to balance the transportation budget.

Governor Walker left lawmakers with $1.3 billion in new debt to pay for roads over the next two years. Among many decisions the governor made was to increase spending in the Major Highway Development Program by $100 million or over 13%. He borrowed $109 million to pay for this spending.

One decision the governor did not make was to take any of the two-dozen suggestions of his Secretary of Transportation to make possible changes in revenue – new taxes or fees.

Of course, borrowing $1.3 billion to pay for spending means someone in the future would have to increase taxes and fees. This is true because, by the end of the budget nearly a quarter of the spending on transportation is on debt service –an unsustainable amount.

So how to fix the transportation budget? The answer is to raise revenue, lower spending, cut debt and improve efficiencies in the dollars we spend.

Easy to say – hard to do.

To raising revenue: the simplest and easiest to administer is to increase the per-gallon gas tax. I suggest by a nickel.

Talking through options with our nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) analysts, I was reminded of lawmakers’ changes in 2006 that eliminated indexing (or matching to inflation) of the gas tax. If this law were still in place, the tax would be 6.5 cents more and better kept up with rising costs.

The LFB analysts also reminded me average fuel economy has improved giving consumers a 2.7-cent “bonus” (my words, not theirs) as improving gas mileage gets us farther on a gallon of gas. To quote LFB analyst Al Runde:

Paying less in fuel taxes for the same miles driven means that while the state’s roads receive the same impact [wear], fuel tax revenues associated with those miles driven has fallen, making it more difficult for the state to maintain and construct its roads.”

To changes in spending: I suggest we cut the really big road projects in Southeast Wisconsin by about $100 million, not buy the 13% increase the governor wants in the “majors”. Instead, cut both it and the Highway Rehab program by $50 million each. Get rid of the TEA program (an economic development program that has no evidence of success) as well as a new pilot program to eliminate competitive bidding (not a good idea!).

I would limit the Freight Rail Program to its current balance. My constituents simply cannot justify borrowing $43 million to buy new state-owned railroad with all the other deep cuts in this budget.

These changes and others could cut borrowing in half and allow for significant spending increases in local and state road repair, transit, and other alternative transportation options. In my alternative transportation budget, I also add investments in rail-crossing improvements and rail emergency preparedness – two important constituent concerns. In addition, I return money the governor ‘raided’ from the general fund to pay for road repairs.

Finally, answering the thorny question of how to get a better “bang for our buck” in road spending. The conservative Reason Foundation studied state transportation spending for over two decades. A study released last fall provides clues to Wisconsin’s road spending.

I compared numbers between Minnesota and Wisconsin –two states with similar weather and miles of state-owned roads. Over three years, Minnesota’s total spending on transportation per state-controlled mile grew less than 3%. During the same period (2009-2012) Wisconsin’s spending per state-controlled mile grew 37%.

By 2012, Wisconsin spent $226,901 per state-controlled mile to Minnesota’s $132,230.

I don’t know why spending is so different but I think Wisconsin taxpayers ought to find out why. That’s why I am renewing my call for a comprehensive audit of Transportation.

Solving the Transportation budget will be difficult. Delaying projects will take their toll on residents and business. However, making our grandchildren pay for our inability to say “no” is not a responsible choice.

Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has once again upheld the ACA as the law of the land, Governor Walker should do the right thing for the people of Wisconsin and take back our federal tax dollars to strengthen BadgerCare.

GREEN BAY - Thursday’s 6-3 U.S. Supreme Court ruling upholding Affordable Care Act tax credits is an especially important victory for the 183,000 Wisconsinites, including 11,000 children, who stood to lose their health care coverage. Had the decision gone the other way, Gov. Scott Walker made it clear as recently as Wednesday that he would not take any affirmative steps to ensure those families would continue to be covered.

According to State Sen. Dave Hansen (D-Green Bay), the “decision by the U.S. Supreme Court is a win for those who believe everyone should have access to affordable, quality health care". It "brings peace of mind to more than 166,000 Wisconsin residents who are secure in knowing that their coverage under the Affordable Care Act will continue as it was intended."

Unfortunately, tens of thousands of Wisconsinites still cannot access health care because extreme legislative Republicans refuse to enact the same law that all our neighboring states benefit from, at least in part due to Walker’s presidential posturing.

Joining our Midwestern neighbors in reclaiming our federal health care investments would allow more than 80,000 Wisconsin citizens to access health care coverage at a savings of more than $360 million over the next two years and well over $2 billion over the decade. It would provide health care access to more people at a lower cost to taxpayers and could help Wisconsin invest tax dollars in schools and communities.

Hansen says “Now that the U.S. Supreme Court has once again upheld the ACA as the law of the land, Governor Walker should do the right thing for the people of Wisconsin and take back our federal tax dollars to strengthen BadgerCare. Doing so would provide health insurance to thousands while saving Wisconsin taxpayers over $360 million over the next two years.”

Adds Assembly Democratic Leader Peter Barca (D-Kenosha),  “The people of Wisconsin are tired of legislative Republicans forcing them to take a back seat to Governor Walker’s political career. It’s time to do the right thing by taking the health care money.”