Seriously, Dana. What's the Point?

Scott Walker finds making bumper stickers is easier than creating jobs

By Dana Milbank, Published: June 20

Where are the jobs, Gov. Walker?

Scott Walker, the chief executive of Wisconsin, is riding a wave of triumph.

Yeah, that guy kind of kicks ass.

The state Supreme Court just upheld his famous crusade

Seriously? Crusade?

to strip collective bargaining rights from public workers.

That’s mildly misleading; the court decision had nothing to do with the actual law, which is universally acknowledged as adherent to both the state and federal constitutions. Nor did it pertain to anything Governor Walker actually did. The case sought to litigate the legislative procedure. (The one, you’ll recall, Wisconsin Democrats worked so gallantly to undermine by sauntering over the Illinois state line.) And even that was upheld.

The state legislature just voted, along party lines, to approve his 2012 budget reordering the state’s finances to his conservative tastes.

This sentence is kind of cute. But trying to blame Walker for the rank partisanship in the Wisconsin legislature shows that Milbank has pinpoint precision on par with that of Charlie Sheen in the beginning of Major League.

“…JUST a bit outside…”

These Democrats are the same people who would rather strong-arm a pregnant colleague into staying on the lam in Illinois than undertake the legislative process.

On Monday morning, Walker stopped by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to participate in a roundtable discussion about “what works and what doesn’t” in job creation. Walker regaled the assembled business leaders and governors with tales of his job-creating acumen.

Note the implication that Walker and “business leaders” are close. Not close, Walker “regaled” them. He showed off his “acumen.” The implication, of course, is that Scott Walker is some sort of business seducer--a lothario of the balance sheet, willing to whisper sweet nothings for positive cash flow. Nevermind that Jeffrey Immelt laughs just a little too hard at Obama’s jokes.

He boasted about passing tort reform, tax cuts, a “major regulatory reform” and his celebrated fight against the public-sector unions. “That’s powerful for job creators out there,” he said.

How powerful? “Since the beginning of the year in Wisconsin we’ve seen 25,000 new jobs,” Walker reported.

Sorry, governor, but that’s not very powerful.

I guess Walker doesn’t get the benefit of the “jobs created or lost” categorization that Obama has spent two years trumpeting. Or the goodwill and political capital from the election. It’s only been SIX MONTHS. I FEEL LIKE I’M TAKING CRAZY PILLS.

Instead of using some arbitrary sliding scale for what constitutes “good” job growth and what constitutes “bad” job growth, let’s just compare Walker with his predecessor. Taking the last year only, Jim Doyle saw an average increase in the total number of Wisconsin jobs of .05%. Walker has averaged .19%. Jim Doyle saw an increase of 10,565 seasonally-adjusted jobs over the last seven months of his term. Scott Walker has nearly tripled that number 27,060 in five months worth of data. Also, Scott Walker trounced Jim Doyle in a best of 7 Monopoly tournament shortly before being elected, and nearly broke Doyle’s wrist off in an arm wrestling bout.

Do these numbers take into account nation-wide trends or a myriad of other relevant factors? Of course not. I love me some Excel, but I’m far too lazy for that level of interest—which still leaves me eminently more thorough than Milbank, who basically set his macroeconomic expectations with a dartboard and a bottle of Scotch.  

The point is, Scott Walker is a significantly better governor, athlete, person, and (if the ladies of Alpha Epsilon Phi at the University of Wisconsin are to be trusted on such things) lover than Jim Doyle… It might have just gotten weird.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, Wisconsin’s nonfarm payroll in May was 2,764,300 on a seasonally-adjusted basis, up 20,300 from January’s 2,744,000.That’s an increase of seven-tenths of one percent in the workforce -- not much better than the anemic nationwide growth in nonfarm payrolls to 131,043,000 in May from 130,328,000 in January.

That might be relevant if the situation facing Wisconsin were anywhere close to the situation facing the country as a whole. (It’s not.) The rust belt has a fairly unique set of challenges that people in California, Texas, or Massachusetts, frankly, don’t relate to.

Wisconsin’s unemployment rate (7.4%) is well below the national rate (9.2%). What that should tell you is that the recession was far more shallow in Wisconsin than other places, particularly regional counterparts like Michigan or Illinois. This, of course, means that job growth and economic recovery will not be as robust in locations that were harder hit. That doesn’t mean that Wisconsin is doing worse.

This doesn’t mean Walker’s policies have failed;

No shit, dumbass. It’s only been six months.

by his own account, the benefits could take years to materialize. But it does suggest that the conservatives criticizing the Obama administration’s handling of the economy don’t have a silver bullet of their own.

No, it doesn’t mean that at all. It means that in four months of being governor, Wisconsin has slightly over-performed the national average, despite being situated for a more tempered recovery. Both the absolute unemployment rate and the pace of jobs improvement for Wisconsin are better than average. What exactly are we lamenting?

Given that the public sector union fight dominated the state political agenda for much of the winter and early spring, Governor Walker spent most of his political capital on that very worthy fight. Given the frivolous judicial battle that Milbank referenced mere sentences ago incorporated a stop on implementation, this policy has barely taken effect. But here’s the kicker: the law to which Milbank is referring with regards to public sector unions isn’t even an attempt at spurring job growth; it was designed to inject fiscal sanity into the Madison budget and avoid a reality that necessitated future job-killing tax hikes. By Milbank’s own admission, the legislature also “just voted” on his budget. That little piece of policy isn’t even law yet. That’s right. It hasn’t even been signed.

So when you say that Republicans don’t have a silver bullet—after a mere six months in office—it’s really that they haven’t finished loading the gun yet.

Walker, who has large Republican majorities in the Wisconsin legislature, experimented with a long conservative wish-list, but the state hasn’t been a standout in job creation during his six-month tenure.

This is like criticizing a well-regarded baseball prospect for batting .285 in a call-up to the big leagues. Sure, those aren’t exactly Pete Rose numbers, but it’s a little early to ship the kid off to Oakland for a low-A lefty and a couple of fungos.

The truth is that there’s not much more that government can do to boost jobs in the short term.

Not from what’s in the liberal playbook, at least. That’s why the Obama camp is collectively shitting itself right now.

Refreshing to hear it admitted from the left, though.

That’s up to the private sector now.

Well this is a hell of a time to turn into a rugged individualist, but I’ll take converts wherever I can get them.

Corporate America has recovered so well that profits have been at or near record levels of an annualized $1.7 trillion in the last two quarters – but businesses have yet to spend their piles of cash.

Boy, corporations stockpiling cash sounds precisely like the type of thing that regulation-busting legislation could fix. Maybe by decreasing outlay costs, adding certainty to cash flow projections and reducing annual expenditures would overcome those corporate hurdle rates to get NPVs for reinvestment projects into the black. If only there was a political party that had been saying that for the last couple years!

Instead, flush CEOs are demanding still more government spending.

Yet more proof that corporate executives generally aren’t real capitalists. Even so, it’s more the Democratic leadership that’s pushing more government spending.

This was a theme of Monday’s session at the Chamber, where 23 men and one woman sat around a u-shaped table and listened to Chamber president Tom Donohue describe states as “laboratories of democracy,” where businesses are more likely to find “common sense solutions, innovations, experimentations, bipartisanship.”

I don’t disagree, but it’s kind of like trying to get seismic readings while riding a massive bull. The highest state corporate income tax bracket is in, of all places, Iowa, at 12%. (Most are 4%-8%) Federal corporate tax rates run between 15% and 35%. At the high end, federal tax plays about four times as much into the decision-making of a firm.

Walker, whose tenure has made Wisconsin more of a laboratory of theocracy,

That isn’t even close to the right word for this situation, you oblong jabberwocky!

clenched his jaw at the mention of bipartisanship. “The very first day I was elected,”

Technically, Mr. Walker, it was the only day you got elected—for governor at least. (I can’t not give shit, even when I want to like the guy.)

he said when his turn came, “I put up a sign that said, ‘Wisconsin is open for business.’” He waved a bumper sticker for the Chamber crowd with that same message. “I called the legislature into a special session based solely on jobs.”

Of course, that has nothing to do with jobs, primarily because bipartisanship has nothing to do with jobs.

That led to the fight over collective bargaining, the fleeing of Democratic legislators across state lines, and huge protests in Madison. “We got a little more attention than most,” he said.

I may be 150 miles south, but I can still smell those hippies in the capitol.

The attention continued on Monday. Delaware Gov. Jack Markell, one of two Democrats on the panel, said he “took a different approach” than Walker did: “I invited the unions to the table.” Markell said that the cuts he got from the unions exceeded his target by 30 percent, without creating statewide bitterness.

Sounds like his target was pretty low. (In addition, Markell—or his successor—will have to renegotiate soon, in conditions that are far more likely to favor the union.)

The other Democrat, Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper, implicitly rebuked Walker when he said “with a Republican House and Democratic Senate we passed our budget with at least 75 percent in both houses.”

Little known fact: the Colorado legislature also recently passed a series of internal rules whereby they have abandoned the Pledge of Allegiance in favor of singing Kumbaya before getting down to state business. Hickenlooper brings the guitar and afterwards, they just jam. Hippies from Boulder are invited to form a drum circle, and everyone shares a hearty meal of granola.

In terms of job-creation, neither Democrat’s approach has worked any better than Walker’s. Colorado added 9,000 non-farm jobs this year and Delaware has been flat. Iowa, represented on the panel by Republican Gov. Terry Branstad, added 12,000. Virginia, represented by Gov. Bob McDonnell, added 22,000.

Compared to those geniuses, Walker might as well be Ronald Reagan!

The biggest job creator of the six, Gov. Rick Scott (R-Fla.),

Why is it that I keep seeing R’s after the names of the governors of job-creating states and D’s after the names of unethical legislators?

boasted that his tax cuts, deregulation and tort reform enabled him to cut “unemployment every month since I came into office, and last month our job creation was more than the entire rest of the country.” That’s nice, but even Scott’s job growth amounts to just 1 percent of the state’s workforce, and Florida’s unemployment is among the highest in the country.

I’m not sure how you intend to get significant job growth by shitting on modest job growth and praising anemic job growth.

Eventually, the governors – like President Obama – will have more to show for their job-creation policies.

Walker has been in office for six months. Obama’s been sitting in the Oval Office five times as long. The comparison rings a little hollow when you’re talking about giving them time until the economic recovery kicks in. Besides, Obama’s still blaming Bush.

But for now, they’ll have to settle for baby steps.

So the moral of this article is: “Republicans are significantly better at governing than Democrats, but I don’t like them very much, so they’re not good enough!”

Walker told the Chamber that Wisconsin moved up 17 places in Chief Executive magazine’s annual ranking. “Last year we were 41,” he said. “This year, we went up to No. 24.”

An excellent achievement for the governor.

If only those happy CEOs would start hiring.

This piece was a complete waste of time.

danamilbank@washpost.com

Proud Americans, and Other Demographics Liberals Don't Understand

So much ridicule, so little time. Today might be a two-fer on postings, both because I’ve got a lot of time on my hands over the next four days and because I’ve still got Krugman’s article from yesterday backlogged. Collins is an easier target though; she doesn’t even strive for thematic fluidity or logical consistency anymore. Someday I’ll get tired of shooting the proverbial fish in a barrel. Not today.

Sacred Cows, Angry Birds

By GAIL COLLINS

Published: February 18, 2011

The House of Representatives has been cutting like crazy!

Sweet! There’s a pun in here somewhere about Democrats in Madison “cutting class,” but I can’t get a handle on it. Oh well. Win some, lose some.

Down with Planned Parenthood

Would Democrats have ever funded the organization if it didn’t offer abortions? Trick question! Of course. Democrats will fund anything.

 and PBS!

Also known as “that channel that’s taking up valuable space between Fox and the History Channel.”

We can’t afford to worry about mercury contamination!

Actually, that’s more of an acknowledgement that the EPA is chock full of self-righteous lunatics. I just can’t imagine that I have anything in common with those assholes—except the self-righteousness.

Safety nets are too expensive!

The deficit is approaching 10% of GDP both because of Obama’s misguided stimuli and ballooning entitlements. I would say that yes, they are most certainly too expensive.

But keep your hands off the Defense Department’s budget to sponsor Nascar

It’s NASCAR. Thanks.

racers.

It seems like the military should have the money to recruit for the armed forces. The determination of where to spend that money should be theirs. As long as you throw in a few auditors to make sure there’s no abuse or waste, I’m good with them spending that money on whatever they believe is acceptable.

“It’s a great public/private partnership,” said Representative Rodney Frelinghuysen, a New Jersey Republican.

I believe that’s another way of saying “it works” but spruced up in the ludicrous vernacular of the leftist wing-nut to make it digestible to rhetorical wunderkinds like Collins. (See, it’s funny both because she’s and idiot and because she’s old.)

The Defense Department claims racecar sponsorships are an important recruiting tool for the Army. The House agreed — although this might be news to the Navy and Marines, which decided a while back that a Nascar

NASCAR!

 presence wasn’t worth the money.

This isn’t complicated. There is only one pool of potential military recruits that watch NASCAR. By crowding the market with three service branches, each has opened itself to the likelihood of diminished returns. The fact that the marketplace can only support one service branch to be cost-effective doesn’t diminish the cost-effectiveness of the advertising medium. What’s more, the Navy and Marines willingness to break from an unfruitful partnership implies a strong tendency for fiscal discipline within the military’s recruitment vehicle. This concept eludes the whizzes at Planned Parenthood and PBS.

“What makes U.S. Army’s motorsports initiatives successful?” Ryan Newman, driver of No. 39 U.S. Army Chevrolet asked his Facebook readers as he urged a show of support for the program. “In a 2009 study among fans nationwide, 37% feel more positive about the Army due to its involvement in motorsports.”

NASCAR races average some 3 million viewers for important races. That’s 1,110,000 viewers per race that are reminded that there exists another door for their lives or their childrens’ lives. Army commercials in the past few years have been geared more towards parents than children, which suggests that recruitment has been strongly impaired by family reticence towards the dangers inherent to military service. Unlike recruitment centers, which offer effective one-on-one interactions between military recruiters and potential recruits, sponsorships give the military the opportunity to tailor a message to the people that have the ear of potential recruits on a daily basis.

Let’s stop right here and think about this posting. Is it likely that racing fans would think less of the Army for sponsoring racecars?

No. But it’s a virtual certainty that they would think about it less. What’s more, it’s entirely possible to support the military wholeheartedly and still feel that it’s not the best opportunity for yourself or your child. That’s why the reminders from the Army are essential:  That it molds strong young men and women, That it pays for college, That it gives the opportunity for kids to develop life-long career skills. Basically, there are elements of the Army that are just like college, without the inane ramblings of a English 101 class.

Actually, wouldn’t you expect the percentage to be higher?

All advertisements are hit-or-miss.

Also, how many of you believe Ryan Newman actually wrote those sentences.

I do, but that’s because I don’t think all NASCAR drivers are illiterate hicks.

Can I see a show of hands?

Don’t be jealous that he’s got a stronger grasp on sentence composition than you. It’s not like you pretend to be a professional writer anymore.

Representative Betty McCollum of Minnesota, who sponsored an amendment eliminating the military’s Nascar

NASCAR. You don’t write Mlb or Nfl.

connection, said it could save taxpayers “tens of millions of dollars.”

You would think she’d be able to be a little more precise. There is a finite cost to the sponsorship. In fact, it’s pre-determined in a contract. $7mm per year.

She got a flood of angry letters and one death threat.

It takes some chutzpah to bitch about death threats with what’s going on in Madison.

Also, her amendment was rejected, 148 to 281.

Meh. Truth be told, I wouldn’t have been upset at all if the Army had been forced to pull its NASCAR sponsorship. We need cuts.

The opponents didn’t bother with much debate.

It wasn’t worth much debate. It’s a tiny amount of money in the federal budget and it wasn’t a serious proposal—much like the proposal to cut off funding to Obama’s teleprompter. That one was at least funny though.

“This amendment is about politics in certain districts for certain groups of people,” said Representative Patrick McHenry of North Carolina, a tad obliquely.

So pick a better quote.

McHenry was probably

No. Pick a better quote instead of embarrassing yourself by trying to interpret this one.

referring to the Democrats, who’ve often been branded by the Republicans as tennis-watching snobs.

Actually, she did a pretty good job. Democrats don’t “get” real sports.

The Obamaites actually spend vast amounts of time and money trying to woo “Nascar dads,”

First, that term hasn’t been used since 2004, which means it was John Kerry doing the dude-wooing (and really, is anyone surprised?) Second, in a column about fiscal discipline regarding NASCAR money, you’d think Democrats would be demanding a higher return for their efforts. The “NASCAR dad” demographic would still spurn Democrats if Republicans campaigned exclusively on outlawing Slim Jims and Keystone Light. Third, maybe the party would get some more traction in the demographic if it understood that it’s NASCAR, an abbreviation, as opposed to Nascar!

 although given car racing’s sinking popularity, it might make more sense to target some other fan base.

Good luck with baseball fans. We still remember that Obama throws like a girl and can’t name a single player from his “favorite team.”

What about all the people who play games on their cellphones and iPads?

Social-network gamers don’t count as a “fan base.” They barely count as people. I guess it’s good that 90% of them don’t get to vote.

Make 2012 the Year of the Angry Birds Dad or the Brickbreaker Aunt.

Are you trying to get me to punch a political strategist in the gut?

But I digress.

Yes. You do. Very often. It’s not charming or interesting. It’s just sloppy writing.

On Friday, the House was working its way through 129 amendments to its continuing budget resolution. There would have been 130, but Representative Steve Womack of Arkansas retracted his proposal to cut off financing for President Obama’s teleprompter.

That one still makes me chuckle. Props, Arkansas.

The majority did vote, however, to eliminate money for a park in Nancy Pelosi’s district. The former House speaker has been demonized to the point that it’s safe to do anything to her short of kidnapping the family dog.

Nah, I’d be cool with that. That dog has probably seen some terrible, terrible things. He deserves better, America.

Let’s give Speaker John Boehner credit for keeping his promise to give members more chance to debate and offer amendments. Really, if things get any more open, the members will start throwing themselves off the balcony.

So openness and transparency is only sort of a good thing sometimes?

But not such high marks on consistency.

Please show your work.

The newly ascendant Republicans have been howling that the deficit is so big, so threatening, that no target for cutting is sacred. “Everything is on the table. We’re broke,” said Boehner.

I’m digging me some Boehner these days. I immediately regret how dirty that sounded.

But the table is mainly crowded with stuff the Republicans didn’t like to begin with.

Is this supposed to be inconsistent?

Family-planning money and environmental protection,

This is what’s known as “low-hanging fruit.”

but not oil tax breaks

As soon as we quit subsidizing wind farms and ethanol (which, has been inflating food prices, in case you hadn’t heard) I’m so far down with eliminating tax breaks for oil companies it’s not even funny.

or Nascar

NASCAR.

sponsorships. “Sesame Street” is fair game,

Sesame Street is popular. I have no doubt that the program would get picked up by Nick Jr. or any one of 227 other channels designed for incontinent viewers.

 but the Daytona 500 is untouchable.

Untouchable, no. Our elected officials simply believe that it is an acceptable use of military recruitment funds.

“Spending is out of control,” cried Jim Jordan, the chairman of the Republican Study Committee, who argued for additional cuts in all nonsecurity discretionary spending — except aid to Israel.

They’re our staunch allies and they have been under siege for 60 years as the only stable democracy in a region dominated by fanatical neo-Neanderthals. For that alone they deserve consideration for their yeoman’s work to further our interests in the region.

In Wisconsin, the new Republican governor, Scott Walker, wants to strip state employees of their collective-bargaining rights

Now you’re confusing state debts with federal debts. See, I know this because you’re talking about a governor, who has absolutely no say in federal affairs (unless you’re talking about states ratifying amendments to the federal Constitution, which you clearly aren’t).

because: “We’re broke. We’ve been broke in this state for years.”

The difference is that Walker can’t print money to cover the government’s debts.

Wisconsin’s Democratic state senators went into hiding to deprive the Republican majority of the quorum they need to pass Walker’s agenda.

In other words, they whined like little girls, spat on the people of Wisconsin, and actively attempted to undermine the impact of last year’s elections and the democratic process in general. Who was it that said “elections have consequences?” Oh right. The guy who throws like a girl in the White House. Wait, that’s not specific enough…

The Senate majority leader, Scott Fitzgerald — who happens to be the brother of the Assembly speaker, Jeff Fitzgerald —

CONSPIRACY!!!

believes the governor is absolutely right about the need for draconian measures to cut spending in this crisis. So he’s been sending state troopers out to look for the missing Democrats.

The troopers aren’t out there because they want the proposed law. They’re out there because they value the rule of law and the legislative process. Democrats in Wisconsin have shown themselves to be irresponsible brats.

The troopers are under the direction of the new chief of the state patrol, Stephen Fitzgerald. He is the 68-year-old father of Jeff and Scott and was appointed to the $105,678 post this month by Governor Walker.

For the chief of the state patrol? That’s very reasonable. Chicago beat cops make $64,374 plus a few add-ons for various responsibilities.

Perhaps the speaker’s/majority leader’s father was a super choice,

I have no idea, and neither do you.

and the fact that he was suddenly at liberty after having recently lost an election for county sheriff was simply a coincidence that allowed the governor to recruit the best possible person for the job. You’d still think that if things are so dire in Wisconsin, the Fitzgerald clan would want to set a better austerity example.

The man runs the state troopers. $105,678 is not unreasonable in the slightest.

And if Big Bird goes, we can spare the U.S. Army Chevrolet, too.

No. You  don’t get to do that. You have strayed so far off-topic that you don’t get to come back around and make a cute little one-off about NASCAR. The Wisconsin issues has virtually NOTHING to do with the federal deficit talks, at least until Boehner and McConnell decide that they have the juice to take on the federal public unions. (I’m crossing my fingers, but not holding my breath.)

What’s more, there is no link between Big Bird and the Army. One is federally funded because…well no one knows why a show that’s perfectly viable on the open market is federally funded. The other is funded by the military with full knowledge of the other options and a full set of market constraints. What’s more, my guess is that if you cut $7mm from the Army’s annual recruitment budget that they would still keep the NASCAR sponsorship. That is how you know that one is about politics and the other is about cutting fat.

A version of this op-ed appeared in print on February 19, 2011, on page A23 of the New York edition.

Crazy Cat Ladies For Feingold

Gail Collins, circa 1997

Gail Collins is basically the New York Times equivalent of the crazy cat lady, except instead of cats, she collects absurd political opinions that she pets and feeds. Occasionally she pretends they're friends or a husband, blithely avoiding the cruel reality that after she dies, miserable, cold, and alone, they will eat her face.