Nick Schweitzer Is A Darn...Denialist!

As I pointed out in the previous post, my friend Jay Bullock received a campaign email from Scott Walker's team.

In that email, it was asserted that Walker would never sacrifice our jobs for political points, which is of course, utter bull dung.

However, another friend of mine, Nick Schweitzer, took umbrage at Jay's post, and countered with his one of his own. Nick made some outlandish claims in his post, which I am taking umbrage with, hence this post. Nick wrote, in part:

That's a lot of jobs. But wait a second. Does that mean that the courthouses have no security at all? I can just take a gun in there right now and go crazy? Am I to assume that no county owned buildings are being cleaned? If I walk into one this morning, will trash be piled everywhere? Is food not being served anywhere? You mean county employees are starving?! And the parks... aren't being taken care of at all? You mean the Award Winning Milwaukee County Park system?!

Of course not... because those jobs were not lost! Union jobs were eliminated, and were replaced with non-union jobs from a private firm. For example, security at county facilities is now provided by G4S Wakenhut. Housekeeping was similarly privatized last year. And guess what... the companies hired to provide those services didn't have staff just sitting around waiting for work when they got hired. They actually had to go out and hire people to fill the new work they were contracted to do.

Apparently, my absence from Drinking Liberally for the last couple of months has led to Nick losing his memory of the things I've tried to teach him.

Now, I will concede that Nick is correct that there is still a security force, food service and housekeeping services throughout the county. But that is about where any correct statements end.

Nick cites that Wackenhut was hired to provide security at the courthouses. He is, of course, correct in this. But Nick fails to tell his readers that there have been a number of problems with Wackenhut's quality of service. I've also learned of complaints of Wackenhut guards being, shall we say, too enthusiastic in their pat downs of come courthouse visitors, especially if the visitor is an attractive woman.

In regards to the housekeeping crew, especially at BHD, they are simply not cleaning the entire facility like the former public sector workers did. They are leaving a large part of it untouched, so I would imagine that there is garbage and grime building up, as was highlighted in a recent survey done by the state, which found the facility to be in "shoddy condition," which will cost up to $15 million to straighten out.

And if Nick wants to talk about the cost, I would point out to the security guards at BHD. The force is smaller than before, and the workers don't get paid as well, nor are they part of the county's pension plan, but the contracts are still costing more than before. That is not what anyone in their right mind call being fiscally responsible.

Another error which Nick made was assuming that the private agencies had to scour the earth for workers. As is often the case when public sector jobs are privatized, the private agency gave the current, about to be laid off workers, first consideration, for a reduced salary and reduced benefits. This way, the private agency is spared the cost of advertising and extra training, since they are receiving an already trained work force delivered to them on a silver platter. Even then, as I just mentioned, not all of them get hired by the agency, so there is still a net loss of jobs and an even larger net loss of available income to help keep the economy going.

The facts in the above two paragraphs highlights the fallacy of privatization being a money saver. Tax payers end up paying more for less services. The extra money is not going to the workers. So where does it go? Well, to the CEOs , who are obviously not using it to create more jobs or to help stimulate the economy.

And do I really need to point out that many of these private contractors that Walker signs on, not coincidentally, happen to be campaign donors?

Oh, and before I forget, about the award-winning video about the parks: Does Nick think they include the multitude of repairs and deferred maintenance needed, totally in the hundreds of millions of dollars? Or the recent tragedy that stems from said neglect of the park systems?

So, yes, Nick, Jay was correct. Walker has cut jobs for nothing more than scoring political points. Not only has he done so, but he has also stuck Milwaukee County citizens with the bill for the all too predictable problems stemming from it.

To say otherwise would be just living in denial.

But I Don't Wear Orange...

Jason and the crowd at Drinking Liberally are continuing with their threat of bringing an outsider into our midst.

This came in the mail sometime while I was gone:

Gather round, my lefty folk, come hear the tale of the tea partier who ventured into Milwaukee realm. The one who came, Westlake was his name, and into the land of beer and progressives he roamed. Over taxes and healthcare he groaned, under entitlement and non-discrimination he moaned, when really, there was no threat he'd be disowned. For it's nothing like what he'd been shown(ed).

(Rest assured we don't speak in verse at Drinking Liberally. Or anything remotely like it. And it may be telling that this meesage was composed *without* the aid of beer...)

Let me shove aside my rare (rare?) case of bad writing and give you the details:

Drinking Liberally
Wed. April 21, 7-9PM
@ Sugar Maple, 441 E. Lincoln Ave., Milwaukee

Special guest Dave Westlake, G.O.P./Tea Party candidate for U.S. Senate, who's hoping to challenge U.S. Senator Russ Feingold in November.

*** NOTE: A Republican-Tea Party candidate need to be treated gently. Pregnant women, the elderly, and children under 10 should avoid prolonged exposure to them. Do not taunt the candidate. If the candidate begins to emit smoke, get away immediately. Seek shelter and cover head. Failure to do so relieves the organizer of Drinking Liberally Milwaukee, and its parent group, Living Liberally, of any and all liability. ***

Fine print aside, let's give Dave Westlake a warm welcome. I think this will be a good conversation for all of us. Look at his info at www.davewestlake.org, and bring your questions. This will be good!

Your cordial host,

Jason Haas

Ah, well, we welcome Nick Schweitzer to these, and Westlake is not nearly as goofy. Close, but not quite.

Pay Now Or Pay Even More Later

A few days ago, JSOnline posted a short editorial from one of its Reader Advisory Committee members regarding fiscal responsibility:

To use a Milwaukee County transit bus, people will need to be wise by paying the weekly or monthly pass upfront. Stella, a senior citizen, in a tight squeeze with her Social Security monthly pension, who several times a week visits her friend across town will have to pay two fares to ride the buses needed. Our County leaders want to save now. What they do not see is that maybe Stella will visit her friend less, or not at all. Maybe Stella or her friend might develop what long ago was call “melancholy” which fully developed will debilitate their health. Maybe in this saving process we the county residents will end up paying more because the end result might be that Stella, or her friend will end up using medical services they will not be able to pay. The same can be said for not spending in children’ art, music, sports programs in our school resulting in the residents of Milwaukee County having to spend more for jails.

I was disappointed to see that my friend, Nick Schweitzer, left a rather rude and wildly tasteless comment which was made only worse because he couldn't be any further off base from the truth:

Maybe by eating that extra Twinkie as you type out a weird post, you will
increase your cholesterol and extra point, causing a heart attack in a few
years which will increase the insurance premiums the rest of us pay.

Maybe by flapping its wings, a butterfly will disturb the air in Africa enough
to cause a devastating hurricane in Florida which will cost millions of dollars
in property damage.

Its bad enough when we try to make public policy based off of bad statistics that are politically motived. Do we also have to make public policy
based off of a Rube Goldberg litany of things which might link together to
create some ill effect later down the line?

Sadly, Nick and the other detractors are missing the real point, which is often it is smarter and more fiscally responsible to spend a little money now to address a problem then to wait until it gets really bad it and soaks up more of your money.

The classic analogy to exemplify this is the car maintenance versus car repair argument. It is clearly more fiscally responsible to pay the $25 for an oil change four or five times a year than it is to pay thousands for a new engine block or tens of thousands of dollars for a new car.

There have been many real life examples of this locally.

The whole thing with the zoo interchange is one example. It would obviously have been more advisable to replace the bridges before they got to the point where tax payers now have to pay for emergency temporary bridges until they can replace the old ones.

Another example is the maintenance that has been put off by Scott Walker regarding the county's roads, parks or infrastructure. It would have been much cheaper to perform proper maintenance of these assets than it will be now that we have to repair, if not completely replace, the things that are breaking down.

But to his credit, Walker did get it right on one occasion. He was able to recognize that it was cheaper to spend a few thousand dollars now and putting troubled adolescents in a first offenders type of program, like Wraparound, instead of spending tens, if not hundreds, of thousands on the same kids by putting them in Wales or Lincoln Hills.

So, you see, Nick, it's not some kind of Goldberg type of complex theorem. It is a financially sound idea to spend a little now on the necessary services than to spend millions and billions of dollars later on something that was more likely than not to be completely avoidable.

The Next Bubble To Burst

Last month, at Drinking Liberally, Nick Schweitzer and I got into a discussion, and made a gentleman's bet, about which would be the next economic bubble to burst.

Nick thought that the next bubble bursting would be the pension bubble, due to the severe economic times putting so much pressure on entities, mostly government bodies, to both meet the needs of the public they serve and honor their contract obligations with their workers.

I disagreed with Nick. Not that the pension issue couldn't be a big deal, but that I did not think that would be the next thing to burst. I argued that the next big thing would be health care.

My thinking is that health care is becoming so expensive people and companies wouldn't be able to afford it any longer, and whenever anyone got sick, they would be forced to chose between taking their chances on the illness or taking their chances in bankruptcy.

I remembered that bet last week when I wrote about insurance rates in California going up by as much as 39%.

Unfortunately, my bet seems to be an even surer thing now. Via Caffeinated Politics, we learn that insurance rates have now jumped in four states. In fact, things are getting so bad, that anti-TEA Party rallies are being planned:

Politicians and even some health insurers, including Anthem, are urging a revival of the stalled effort in Congress to overhaul the health care system, arguing everyone needs to be covered by health insurance in order to prevent such premium spikes.

In Maine, where Anthem dominates the market, its proposal has several consumer groups planning big rallies at two public hearings on the rates, on Feb. 22 and 24.

Under Anthem's proposal, a family of four could be charged up to $1,876 per month if the proposed rates are allowed to take effect in July.

"The rate request should be denied on its face. It's outrageous," said Greg Howard, spokesman for Maine Change That Works. "We are in the middle of ... this record-breaking type of recession, and they're doing what they need to guarantee profit margin."

Not only are these outrageous hikes killing people on an individual level, but it is the biggest culprit on why public sector employees are costing tax payers so much. Without some sort of responsible reform in the very near future, this could very conceivably send the nation further down the economic spiral that we're trying to climb out of.

What I can tell you is this is one bet I'm not looking forward to winning.

In The Defense Of Marriage?

Via Pundit Kitchen:


Nick Schweitzer has a solid hitting post about the conservatives hypocritical stance towards gay marriage, complete with a suggestion for punishment guidelines for adulterous people:

With that in mind, I would suggest that those people who commit adultery, and are found guilty of such in court, face the following punishment:

Their Marriage Shall Be Immediately Annulled and Adulterers Shall Be Forbidden From Marrying Again: Clearly, if it is dangerous to the institution of marriage that gay people ought not be allowed to marry, then adulterers should also not be allowed to marry again.

Adulterers Shall Lose Parental Rights to Their Children: Once again, if gay couples make unfit parents, then it is important to follow suit and enforce the same standard against adulterous people. After all, they would likely teach their children that what they did was acceptable, which would pass lessons onto the next generation that would further erode this important institution.

Privatization vs. Profiteering vs. Accountability

Yesterday, I pointed out that the workers responsible for the mishandling the case of Christopher L. Thomas, Jr., and the harassment of the foster parents who had wanted to adopt young Christopher, were employed by a private agency. Said agency "provides these services" under a contract with the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare.

I also stated in an earlier post that I felt that the privatization of the child welfare system removed accountability from the system.

Nick Schweitzer might argue that this isn't real privatization, and per his definition, he would be correct. This would be profiteering. Nick's version of privatization would not occur in this field. The service agency would have to charge either the biological parents to have their kids removed, or charge the children, who usually don't have that kind of money. Not to mention all the ethical quandaries of whether said agency was snatching kids for their safety, or for their profit margin.

For the sake of convenience, I ask Nick to overlook the semantics for now, and call it by its common term of privatization instead of the more accurate profiteering.

Dad29 feels that I was wrong that the privatization removes accountability. He feels that it is more of an issue of the failure to demand accountability. Dad is wrong. Just this morning, concerned citizens organized a small protest demanding that accountability. Unfortunately, that will probably not do the trick by itself. I don't see Denise Revels Robinson, director of the BMCW, or the heads of the private agencies falling to their knees and begging forgiveness.

Privatization removes accountability in various ways. One of the first and most common ways is that it opens the door to a lot of finger pointing. The Bureau will blame the agency for not doing its job. The agency will blame the Bureau for not giving it the necessary resources or funding, causing them to take untenable positions. The Bureau will blame the agency, claiming poor management. The agency will return with the accusation that the Bureau set them up for failure.

Meanwhile, nothing gets done, and more children get hurt and/or killed.

But the finger pointing doesn't always go very far either. This is because, like a den of thieves, they don't want to make too much noise in an effort to blame the other because of the risk of self-incrimination.

The agency doesn't want to tick of the Bureau because they represent the agency's gravy train. The Bureau doesn't want to tick of the agency because they make an effective foil from them having to take ownership of their own systematic flaws, which were created by the bureaucrats and the politicians in Madison. The politicians don't want to make too much noise because then they would lose their politically popular myth that privatization saves tax payer money.

So the agency will blame the Bureau, and the Bureau will blame the agency. Then they will both hide behind the cloak of confidentiality, and not release the real facts of the case. Meanwhile, the politicians will either ignore the problem and hope it goes away, or they will grandstand that they will fix the problem to gain some brownie points with the voters, then they will sit on their thumbs until the story gets lost in the next issue of public outrage, like the next bailout, for example.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: While I can understand the popularity of the myth that privatization saves money, it doesn't. Furthermore, there are some things, like the life of a child, that shouldn't be weighed against the bottom line of a spread sheet.

Real ID Is A Real Bad IDea

This is where Nick Schweitzer and I agree. Real ID is a real bad idea. It accomplishes nothing but raising our taxes and giving Big Brother another tool to invade our privacy.

Nick lays out the flaws really well here. The only thing I would add is that we can thank Wisconsin's own Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner for ramrodding this idiot thing through.

(I had to add that Sensenbrenner part for two reasons. One, it's true. Two, I don't want Elliot to think I'm becoming a Libertarian.)

I Pity Nick's Liver

Poor Nick Schweitzer may need a new liver soon.

Not only does he have his Drinking Right event tonight, but he is also a regular guest at the Drinking Liberally social occasions.

And of course, Drinking Liberally, is held the third Wednesday of the month, which happens to be tomorrow.

And yes, I will be there, right after the rally at the courthouse.