Curmudgeon's Corner

This was the headline in a morning Journal Sentinel story on foreclosures increasing 67% in the month of October.  That is a frightening statistic, and it was no doubt intended to be; that attracts readers.

The story went on to mention that Wisconsin ranks 22nd in the country so far as mortgage foreclosures go, and then defined that ranking as equating to 1 foreclosure for every 997 mortgages.  This represented 2,506 foreclosures in Wisconsin in October.

This is one-tenth of one percent of the estimated 2,500,000 mortgages in Wisconsin.  That hardly strikes me as "soaring" but maybe it would if I were a lender ,or one of those whose home was being foreclosed.  Nevada is reported to have a rate of 1 foreclosure in 154 home mortgages in October.  That strikes me as "soaring".

Mortgage lenders made what are referred to as 'subprime' mortgages.  These were mortgages made to people who were eager to own a home but probably not ready to do so in terms of their financial positions.  These loans were adjustable rate mortgages (ARMs) that had initial 'teaser' rates for terms of from one to three years.  Those rates are now being increased and that is driving monthly payments up by hundreds of dollars in some cases.  Homeowners in that predicament are sometimes unable to juggle their income to cover such significant increases in costs.

That is predominantly what is happening in the mortgage marketplace.  Lenders were over-exuberant.  Regulators were lax.  People were simply people.  If I was renting and suddenly had the opportunity to buy my own home even without a downpayment in some cases, it would be difficult for me to resist the 'siren song'.

Now we have financial organizations crying 'wolf' and we have a government that is falling all over itself to bail the financial institutions out of this mess they got themselves into.  We also have 'foreclosure mills' (per the Wall Street Journal) that are law firms that thrive on these situations.  They are filling the courts with improperly-filed foreclosure actions.

Thus, we have a crisis.  And, where there is a crisis, there are politicians getting their time in front of the camera.  Our government is near a deal to freeze interest rates on certain subprime loans (again as reported in the Wall Street Journal).

Isn't it interesting that major financial institutions are able to extract government bail-outs when the citizens of Crawford and Vernon counties receive hardly anything to help them get out from under the recent flooding damage?  Are the federal agencies involved because they wish to help the families that are beseiged...or are they involved because the 'fat cats' demand their assistance.  It is probably a good thing that the people who are having the difficulties will derive some benefit from all this hoopla even though they are one of those 'unintended consequences'.  The feds can't help the fat cats without also helping the 'little people'.  This could be likened to the reverse of 'collateral damage'; this is 'collateral benefit'.

And, of course, the money being used is our money since government doesn't make money (except on printing presses).  We make the money and then they take the money.  Taxation is useful for social engineering.

By the way, another article this morning mentions that mortgage rates dropped to 6.1% in the past week.  Isn't that ironic?

The news came as a great surprise, just like the fact that the sun rose in the East.  We still don't have the ability to keep the people who are not entitled to vote from voting.

The statewide voter registration system will not be ready for the February primary elections.  It may not even be ready for the November elections.  Yet the man whose responsibility this new system was has been promoted by our governor to be the legal counsel for the new Government Accountability Board.  I feel all warm and fuzzy over that appointment.

The new system doesn't work even though more than $22 Million dollars have been spent to make it work.

My short response to all this is this stinks.  If this were really important to the people running our state, do you believe for one minute that this wouldn't have been done last year or certainly by this year?  Do you think felons should be voting?  Do you think illegal aliens should be voting?  Do you think votes should be cast on behalf of people lying in cemeteries?

There is one very simple answer to this problem of voter fraud.  Photo IDs for all voters.  Why has this not gotten the traction to have been made law long ago?  Because supposedly it would curtail the voting of senior citizens?  That is bunk and all right-thinking people know it's bunk.  Because it would unfairly curtail the votes of minorities?  That is also bunk.

Take a look at the 'turn out the vote' machines that are mobilized by the main political parties and unions, and then try to make me understand that voter IDs wouldn't also be made part of those campaigns.

There is only one reason that we still do not require voter IDs, and that, unfortunately, is because it gives one party an edge over the other party. 

An old phrase admonishes..."Physician, Heal Thyself".  There is new meaning to the phrase these days.

More and more, physicians are growing disenchanted with the practice of medicine.  They still love to treat their patients, but they do not necessarily like the manner in which they're forced to practice medicine.  Physicians have long chafed under the mantle of managed care.  The idea that some 'suit' would tell a doctor how to run his or her practice simply galled the doctors. 

Managed health care has changed the way in which doctors are permitted to interact with patients.  Doctors are required to see a certain number of patients each and every hour.  If they don't, they stand out amongst their peers.  If they're part of a large physician group, they become what is known as an 'outlier' meaning simply that they do not fit the norm.  If they fail to correct their status, they are seen as a detriment to the group with which they're affiliated.

Patients have become more or less accustomed to this form of health care.  They are used to waiting and then to seeing their doctor for a few minutes.  The doctors are often harried.  They were accustomed to the continuum of care where they decided when and where to refer patients whom they were unable to help at the primary care level.  Those decisions are largely made for the primary care doctors today.  If someone has a problem with an eye, the referral pattern dictates that the patient see the ophthalmologist that is part of the group practice.  If there is a skin condition, the dermatologist sees the patient.  If there are behavior issues, the patient will be sent to the psychologist or psychiatrist that is part of the group practice.  And on and on in that manner.  The art form today centers on maximizing the billable charges.

In defense of the group practice, it has been forced by managed care companies...the insurers...to adapt if it is to survive.  The practice leaders are likely to sympathize with their primary care physician team members, but that can't be permitted to get in the way of running the business side of the practice.

On top of this phenomenon is the seemingly continual consolidation of practices, and the acquisition of practices by hospitals, and so on.

How then are physicians 'healing themselves'? 

More doctors are moving 'back to the future' by ending their contracts with the insurers, and simply practicing medicine as they thought they would practice medicine when they graduated.  They are sometimes called 'fee-for-service' doctors and they get paid cash upon the delivery of their services.  The patient is given the paperwork to support their own claim filing for reimbursement from the insurer.  In many instances, the doctor can afford to take less money from the patient because he or she is not waiting months to get paid after re-submitting the claim once or twice.  And, because they don't require the large staff they used to need to interact with the insurers.

Some are opting to become what are known as 'Concierge Physicians'.  That is where the patient pays an annual fee of $1,000 or $1,200 or $1,500 in return for being able to call the doctor and see him or her the same day.  Some make house calls.  These physicians do not interact with the insurers either.  They practice medicine as they always wanted to practice medicine.  They take the time they feel is necessary to care for their patient. They see fewer patients for longer times and earn more money.

This movement began 10 or more years ago and has spread steadily throughout the country.  Recruiters are enticing snowbirds to move to Florida or California where they'll become part of the Concierge movement.  They'll still be part of a larger entity, but they'll be guaranteed a maximum daily patient load so they can take the time they need with each patient.

On top of everything else, they often make more money in addition to having the contentment of practicing as they desire.  That is a difficult combination against which to compete.

Will some of the Advanced Healthcare and Medical Associates doctors begin to think about going 'back to the future'?

Anyone who drives has developed a bit of 'shell shock' when it comes to the prices posted on our gasoline pumps.  Fluctuations of ten cents a gallon are not uncommon.  Unfortunately, those fluctuations tend to be smaller when prices go lower and larger when prices go higher...or so it seems.

We see gasoline prices increasing on a regular basis and we see nothing happening that will change that trend.  We're not building new refineries because the costs of complying with all the regulations makes that a foolish investment.  There are oil fields available but we're not drilling.  Even if we drilled and found more oil to get the cost down from $100 per barrel, we simply couldn't find refining capacity to handle the new crude.  We're actually losing refinery capacity since it is even too costly to modify some of the existing refineries to stay in compliance with the constant flow of new regulations.  Two such refinery closures happened in Illinois.  Does it seem reasonable that those closings caused us to pay higher prices?  I think so.

Congress is now in the process of creating new rules, and economic analysis indicates that our $100 per barrel oil costs will very likely move up to $200 per barrel as the result (according to a commentary published in the Washington Times today).  That could mean that we'll be paying $6.00 or more per gallon of gasoline.  Of course the environmentalists like that thought since they seem to believe we should all be using horses and buggies.  Think of all the 'fertilizer' that would yield.

There are 17 different boutique fuels in the U.S. and that means more than 50 different gasolines when we look at the three different grades available.  Those of us in Southeastern Wisconsin have the pleasure of being forced to use one of those boutique blends.  It costs more and it delivers 10% or worse gas mileage.  We could significantly ease the cost levels of gasoline in our country if we simply did away with those boutique blends...and that could be done overnight!

Our old friend ethanol comes into this equation, too.  Congress is considering mandating the use of 36 billion gallons of ethanol by 2025.  Existing ethanol mandates have already caused refineries to cancel 40% of planned expansions since less oil will be needed.  This is further exacerbated when we admit that ethanol blended gasoline produces less energy per gallon than regular gasoline.  Ethanol means we need more refining capacity but it is causing exactly the opposite to occur.

The economic impact of these actions is estimated to be the loss of $1 trillion in economic output and the loss of some 5 million jobs.

We need a lot less ethanol, more refineries, more drilling, less regulation and far less government interference in this marketplace.  Fat chance of that happening, huh? 

A group named Liberty Counsel has published its list of merchants that fall into the 'naughty' (no mention of Christmas) and 'nice' (Christmas mentioned) categories.

Since our Christmas is the celebration of the birth of Christ, it seems appropriate that such a list would be published.  If you're of the persuasion that this matters to you as it does to me, then here is the list:

Naughty: Ace Hardware, Banana Republic, Bloomingdale's, Circuit City, Dick's Sporting Goods, Gap, Home Depot, J. Crew Outfitters, K-Mart, Kohl's, Lane Bryant, Marshalls, Nordstrom, Office Max, Old Navy, Pet Smart, Sears, Shopko, and Sprint

Nice: Amazon.com, Bath and Bodyworks, Bed, Bath and Beyond, Big Lots, Buy American.com, Cabela's, Dillard's, Dollar Tree, Harry & David, Hobby Lobby, JC Penney, Joann Fabrics, KB Toys, L.L. Bean, Linens 'N Things, Lord and Taylor, Lowe's, M&M-Mars Candies, Macy's, Michaels, Mills Fleet Farm, Overstock.com, Sam's Club, Target, Toys 'R' Us, and Wal-Mart

Disclaimer: Liberty Counsel asks that you check for updates before you go shopping by clicking here .

While reading a Wall Street Journal Op-Ed this morning that discussed ethanol, I came across the term 'logrolling'.  It just sounds sort of seamy, doesn't it?  If it were something for politicians to be proud of, I imagine we'd see the term and hear the term used often during political races.  Instead, this term is hidden from sight, and I don't recall ever hearing it come from the mouth of a politician...whether about himself or herself, or even someone with whom they were upset.  It is, to me, reminiscent of the Lyndon Johnson era of politics.  The days of 'bourbon and branch water' celebrating one's victory or another's defeat.

Back to ethanol.  This Op-Ed was written by Robert Hahn, the former co-chair of the U.S. Alternative Fuels Council under President Bush 41.  He discusses the relative value or lack of value that is 'ethanol'.  To begin, us taxpayers are subsidizing ethanol to the tune of $0.51 per gallon when it is blended with gasoline.  That subsidy is necessary to make us think we're getting value from ethanol.  If there were no subsidy, we'd be paying $3.50 or more per gallon of gasoline if it contained ethanol.  But of course, if there were no subsidization, there would be no ethanol since the numbers simply don't work out.  Among those factors are simply poorer gas mileage and disruption of our food supplies.

While we subsidize the production of ethanol to the tune of $0.51 per gallon of gasoline, we also effectively block the importation of ethanol by adding a tariff of $0.54.  Doesn't it seem that, if ethanol were the great thing it is being claimed to be, and if we needed more ethanol than we could produce on our own, we would be encouraging the importation of ethanol and not discouraging it?  There's that 'logrolling' thing.  Logrolling is described as the practice of one politician supporting the local needs of another politician in return for that person's vote on a bill important to the second person.  It is just another way for politicians to send money to local pockets thus assuring re-election time after time.  We have to believe that our elected representatives would never withhold a vote for petty or pecuniary reasons.....don't we?

Using modest assumptions, Hahn arrives at the conclusion that ethanol use in 2012 will result in a net loss of $1 Billion to our economy.  That means that we'll have spent $1 Billion more on ethanol than will have been returned through its use.  We used 15% of our national production of corn in 2005 for the creation of ethanol.  And that replaced only some 2% of gasoline used.  In fact, if we were to use 100% of our domestic corn production for ethanol, all that would do is replace 12% of the gasoline we used.

The more corn we use for ethanol production, the greater the collateral damage we cause.  That is the principal of unintended consequences at work again.  Scientists have now learned that the use of ethanol actually increases the amount of nitrogen oxides placed into our atmosphere...and that adds to the smog problem we have in our country.  As this saga unfolds, I suspect we'll learn more and more.

As a matter of fact, our Congress is getting a little skittish about ethanol and is beginning to question its own blind support of ethanol,  the boondoggle most of us have been able to see (and feel) for some time now.  Isn't it interesting that our Congressional representatives can be both leading edge thinkers and trailing edge thinkers?  I wonder if any of that phenomena could be related to the amount of money that flows to home districts?  There I go being cynical again! 

You have probably heard all about the 'minimum mark-up law' that prevails in Wisconsin.  You' ve learned that Wal-Mart publishes a different 'Black Friday' flyer with higher prices for use in Wisconsin than in neighboring states.  And on and on and on.

What you and I refer to as the 'minimum mark-up law' is actually known as the 'Unfair Sales Act'.  It is, in fact, unfair to you and me; but it is more than fair to those whom it 'protects'!  Two very brave lawmakers are trying to get this unfair law changed once and for all.  Why do I call them brave? Because the people who want to keep this unfair law in place make lots more money with the law than without the law.  That means they are going to do everything in their power to keep this from happening.  That means things will get downright nasty for those who support the change.  Among the groups wanting to maintain the status quo will be the liquor and malt beverage wholesalers, and the major gas station chains and operators along with the fuel wholesalers.  It isn't often that profits are guaranteed by law.

Who are the legislators who've decided to take another shot at this modern version of 'Christians vs. lions'?  Rep. Leah Vukmir (R-Wauwatosa) and Rep. Bill Kramer (R-Waukesha).  (I am a huge Leah Vukmir fan, in case I've not mentioned that before!)  They are now out trolling for more co-sponsors to sign on for this challenge.  Typically, the more co-sponsors from both parties that sign on, the better the chances of passage become.  When there are big money groups trying to prevent some change, those special interests are able to bring tremendous pressures to bear. 

A case in point is Tom Reynolds, a FORMER Assemblyman, who took on the road builders over the state's then automatic annual gas tax increase.  He won the uphill battle...and then he lost his seat in the Assembly.  The road builders get a lot of money through highway projects year-in and year-out.  Those projects are funded by gas taxes.  The road builders have long memories.  The old tune tells us not to "spit into the wind or tug on Superman's cape".  Tom Reynolds did both and paid the price. 

Just what is involved with this whole situation?  First, the law as currently in place forbids general merchandise from being sold below cost by either wholesalers or retailers.  Alcohol and tobacco products must include at least a 3% mark-up by wholesalers and at least a 6% mark-up by retailers.  If the wholesaler is also the retailer, then the minimum required mark-up is 9.18%.  Motor vehicle fuel (gas and diesel) cannot be sold at less than cost, and retail seller's cost is defined as including a 9.18% mark-up over the posted "terminal price".

Exceptions to this law are made to allow for matching a competitor's price, clearance and final liquidation sales, sales of damaged goods and perishable merchandise and for merchandise sold to charitable or relief agencies.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) in its response to a member of the Assembly in October, 2003 made these statements about our current law...

• Does the law harm consumers by significantly raising prices to consumers?  "Most likely yes."
• Does the current Wisconsin law duplicate existing protections against 'predatory pricing' found in federal anti-trust law?  "The act does more than duplicate these protections; it exceeds them in ways that do not benefit consumers."
• Does the current Wisconsin law discourage or encourage competitive pricing?  "Current Wisconsin law discourages competitive pricing."  "The Act focuses on harm to competitors rather than harm to competition."
• Are there any scholarly studies or court decisions in recent years that address the effect of "below-cost" pricing in relation to the creation of monopolies?  "Yes.  Consumers are harmed by "below-cost" pricing only if, because of low prices, a dominant competitor is able later to raise prices to supracompetitive levels.  Economic studies, legal studies, and court decisions indicate that below-cost pricing that leads to monopoly occurs infrequently.  Below-cost sales of motor vehicle fuel that lead to monopoly are especially unlikely." 

Will there be some businesses that close their doors if this Act is repealed and replaced as the two legislators are proposing?  It is likely that some of that will occur.  The vast majority of motor fuel merchants are already part of major chains, so the impact to that marketplace will be minimal other than for decreasing profits that flow from the law.  Small businesses have already adjusted in major part to the threat of the Wal-Marts and Targets and Sam's Clubs and Costco warehouses.  Those who were going to be pushed out of business have been.  Those who were going to survive, have carved out their niches and are prospering.  There are very few 'Mom and Pop' pharmacies today, but there is a very vibrant and competitive marketplace nonetheless.  While pharmacies bear familiar regional and national names, there is no monopoly, and that will be the look of the new landscape.

All this is neither good nor bad on its face.  It is the free market functioning as the free market should and does function without governmental interference. The simple existence of an artificial barrier to competition, that favors the competitors and not the consumers, is the problem and not the solution.

Us consumers need to get on this bandwagon and we need to tell our elected representatives what we want.  And we need to let them know that we'll be there in the polling booth in spite of how much the current monopolists might desire to overthrow this 'democracy' in action.  Call Sen. Darling and Rep. Jeskiewitz and ask them to become co-sponsors.  And, let's give Rep. Wasserman a chance to join the party, too.

This will likely be the last of my Blogs about my friend John.  He passed peacefully with his loved ones by his side at about 11:00AM today, Wednesday, November 21, 2007.  He frankly wished that he wouldn't see another Thanksgiving Day, and as late as last Saturday we talked about how imminent that day was.  John received the answer to his prayers and has gone on to a better place.

John continued to teach me much right up to the very end.  He fought his battle with cancer with a dignity, strength and resolve that I was amazed to see.  I am not sure I'll be able to follow in his foot steps when that time comes for me, but I will have no excuse if I don't.

John and I enjoyed cigars, and we actually met at our favorite cigar store, Metro Cigars in Germantown.  Lately, I was seldom seen at Metro since my time was spent with John, puffing a cigar and reminiscing, kidding around and engaging in some very serious discussions.  We managed to solve a few of the world's problems, or so we thought, even as he suffered quietly. 

His hospice care was provided by the great people at Horizon, and he had come to know Tina and Maria and others as part of his extended family.  Dr. Lewis was John's physician and went many extra miles helping John to avoid as much pain as was possible.  John had the ability to cause people to want to help. 

John and I agreed that there are no coincidences in this life.  Things happen for which we may not have an explanation, but someday we will come to understand why.  We agreed that we bring most of the ugly stuff on all by ourselves even though we might initially blame others.  John impressed upon me the importance of 'making amends' and that is something I need to continue working on even in his absence.  Or he'll find a way to remind me!

John blessed me with his friendship and I hope I blessed him with mine. 

John's wife Cynthia and his daughter Angie were able to be with him as he passed on.  They are mourning as are many others, but we are all thankful for having had John in our lives even if for too short a time. 

And now, we take up our respective journeys without John's physical presence.  But he will be with each of us, helping us over a rough patch, reminding us to be humble, and applauding our victories.

He truly made lemonade out of every lemon he encountered along life's pathway.  Failure was simply there to strengthen a person and make us wiser for the next opportunity.

I am very thankful on this Thanksgiving Day for the gift of John, and I know I'm not alone.  John touched hundreds and hundreds of people directly, and most of those in turn have touched many others.  That was part of John's magic.  It was like a 'pyramid scheme'...a little inside humor for we John lovers.

The Milwaukee Public School Board's Finance Committee took a vote last evening concerning whether or not to support "equal provision of employee benefits regardless of an employee's sexual orientation or family status".  The committee voted 4 to 1 in favor of that change in the MPS system.

Up to now, there are four school districts that provide similar benefit coverage.  Those schools are in Madison, Middleton, Sun Prairie and La Crosse.  Additionally, the City of Milwaukee and MATC provide domestic partner benefits.  These kinds of changes have been made elsewhere around the country so this is not new although it is still unusual.

It is not possible to fully step away from the 'third rail' of whether or not same sex partners should or should not receive benefits from the employer of one of the partners.  This subject evokes very strong feelings both pro and con.  This is one of those classic 'slippery slope' issue sets where those desiring such benefits nibble away at the elephant a bite at a time, and someday we awaken to find the entire elephant has been eaten.

The language portrayed in the committee's proposition also suggests that this is not simply a subject about same sex couples.  What is to prevent one MPS employee from cohabiting with a boyfriend or girlfriend whether or not there is an 'understanding' other than simple cohabitation for the time being?  Will a 'marriage certificate' be required in order to qualify?

How can a marriage certificate be presented unless it was obtained in one of the brief windows that have periodically opened for a day or two around the country?

If not a marriage certificate, then just what documentation will be required?  What would stop a person who has just been diagnosed with a very serious disease from applying for coverage through a friend employed by MPS or the City or MATC?

My recollection is that Jennifer Morales (the MPS board member who introduced this motion during a recent board meeting) and her partner traveled to Victoria, BC to be married.  Will that certificate be acceptable in Milwaukee, or will the MPS benefits people simply need to take the employee's word for the establishment of a domestic partner?

The Milwaukee Teachers' Education Association immediately jumped on this and will expect this to be made available to bargaining unit employees prior to the expiration of the current contract.  The slippery slope increases in angle rather quickly on occasion.

Is this a case of cart and horse in reverse?  Should this issue have been resolved in courts of law prior to these small incursions in one location and then another?  Or, is it the mood of the country that this is what should be available pure and simple?

The pure and simple truth is rarely pure and never simple.  Oscar Wilde

There is this 'small' treaty that has rattled around for decades and is finally back on the front burner.  It is the Law of the Sea Treaty, or 'LOST'.

This treaty has been passed by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee by a vote of 17-4.  I had written to Sen. Feingold, a member of this committee, asking that he NOT vote in favor of LOST.  He voted in favor of LOST, but thanked me for expressing my views (which made me feel all warm and fuzzy, of course).

I wrote to Sen. Kohl asking that he not vote for LOST.  He wrote back with his typical letter stating that he would take my position into account before voting.  I suspect we all know which way his vote will go.  Can we spell Democrat m-a-j-o-r-i-t-y?

Why did the title ask "Will We Feel LOST?  Just what is LOST?

LOST is a treaty that would establish the International Seabed Authority (ISA), a U.N. agency to be headquartered in Jamaica which would then have ownership over all deep-sea beds forever.  That is a long time :), especially for a U.N affiliate! 

If 67 members of our U.S. Senate vote to approve this treaty, it will have been ratified.  America would surrender control of the free oceans and seas to the ISA and it would have sole power to issue permits for fishing, drilling and mining the deep seabed beyond territorial boundaries.

The ISA would be able to approve or disapprove any and all 'requests' made.  Those it approved would be charged 'fees'.

• The ISA would control nearly 41% of the world's surface area (deep sea and ocean beds).
• The ISA would have the power to impose international taxes.
• The ISA would have the power to impose production quotas for deep-sea mining, oil production and other future uses.
• The ISA would have the power to regulate ocean research and exploration.
• The ISA would have the power to create a multinational court system to render and enforce judgments.

Okay, that's enough of the 'good news'.  Now for the really tough stuff.  The ISA would be organized exactly like the U.N. General Assembly: one nation; one vote.  The United States would have no veto.  Venezuela (Hugo Chavez, Dictator) would have as much authority over the oceans and seas as would the United States.

Who among us believes that the U.N. will not subsume control over our military's ability to use waters all over the earth's surface, and beneath the earth's surface.  We would lose our ability to protect our interests, which is exactly what the U.N. has been about for many years.  Unfortunately, there are those who seem unable to project ahead far enough to see the tremendous threats to each and everyone of us if LOST is ratified.  Once the U.N. has control of the water surface, how does it differ that the air belongs under U.N. ownership for the benefit of all mankind. 

We Americans seem to have this perpetual guilt complex over our success as a democracy.  We seem to need to find ways to undermine our own welfare.  Too many of our politicians and other 'deep thinking' people seemingly cannot tolerate the idea that we have more than others, that we live better than others, that we have a great military where others don't, and on and on.  They don't think that is right.  They tell us we pollute more, but that isn't true.  They tell us we aren't a caring people, but that isn't true.  They tell us we have nothing to fear from the U.N., but that isn't true either.

I don't know about you, but I am excited about having our own Sendik's in Germantown.  I only wish it could be up and running in about a month!

My most recent issue with the local Pick 'N Save was finding a huge hole in the self space where minced clams were supposed to be yesterday.  Apparently everyone in Germantown decided as did I that Clam Chowder was what I needed to eat last evening.  That had to be the case since the empty shelf space would've easily held 100 or more tins of minced clams.

The free market is the best solution to any business that doesn't pay close enough attention to its clientèle.  That has been a problem ever since Jewel closed, and, unfortunately, that problem wasn't solved when Wal-Mart opened its new super center on Appleton Avenue.

The Jewel closure saw the elimination of many brand items by Pick 'N Save leaving us to pick from Roundy's or nothing.

I don't know who or what set up the display areas, but those don't bear any resemblance to where my common sense says I'll find something.  It isn't as though the stockers aren't helpful because they are.  But...I want to get in, make my selections and get out.  The grocery store is not my idea of a destination in which I want to lounge.

Maybe that'll change with the opening of Sendik's!  If they were to install a cash or debit only check-out for fewer than 10 items, I'd think I was in paradise!

How tough must it be to have roused your membership 41 different times, only to have sand kicked in your face?  That is where 'poor' Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) finds himself as the week begins in his world as U.S. Senate Majority Leader.

Sen. Reid has played to the far left side of his party and has sought, 41 times now, to end the Iraq conflict by snuffing out funding and/or imposing requirements that troop withdrawls be completed by a time-certain.  In return, he has failed to gain sufficient bipartisan votes to override the veto either made or threatened by the President.  It has been said that the definition of a person who is crazy is when that person continues to do the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.

Adding insult to injury, he now pouts and says that he'll not permit any more money to be voted for and sent to our troops until after the first of next year.  Never mind the needs of the troops.  I'm reminded of the child's comeback:  "Who died and made you King (or Queen)?

Reid must really believe that us Americans want to lose in Iraq, whether or not we were in favor of the entry into that conflict.  Why else, unless he is as clueless as he appears at times, would he persist in this charade.

What charade you ask?  The charade in which he claims he supports the troops while he denies them the funding necessary to continue to bring the fight.  The charade in which he has taken center stage with a handful of like-minded elected officials (mostly Democrats but also some Republicans that have earned the classic branding of RINO...Republican In Name Only) to force the Commander-In-Chief to pull our troops when they're finally on top of the problem in Iraq.

Reid professes to think he can force a time-certain by which all troops will be out of Iraq, and that this could happen without the rest of the world seeing it as America's surrender...much as they saw Viet Nam.  Isn't it ironic, and very sad, that it is always the politicians that cause us to lose wars, and never the fighting troops we deploy?  Isn't it strange that virtually everyone of the people in the U.S. Senate voted in favor of the move into Iraq, and now many seemingly have developed institutional amnesia?  If a person can take such a decision so lightly, they should not be making such decisions on our behalf.

Isn't it sad that when even the New York Times is forced to admit our troops are making good progress in Iraq, Sen. Reid continues to tell us that all is lost.  There will, he says, never be an end to the fighting, the people themselves don't want it, it is a civil war and blah, blah, blah, blah.  Even Iran has markedly reduced its illegal movement of the new and improved "improvised explosive devices" (IEDs), but Sen. Reid is impervious to good news.  Even the warring factions have chosen to become supporters of the troops since the option was to be removed from the earth forever.  And, the citizens of Iraq (you remember all those people running through the streets with purple fingers after they risked their lives to vote?) are squarely behind the troops.  They love the fact they can shop in the local marketplace, send their children (boys AND girls) to school, watch non-imposed television, and use computers and the Internet.

And, if we need anymore proof...even the French are true believers!

It is simply impossible for me to comprehend how one sees only bad news.  I just don't think that is possible.  Then, there must be those people who see good news but who insist on portraying it as bad news for some ulterior purpose.  Among the many descriptive terms for such people and actions that come to mind is this...disingenuous.

Too many of our elected representatives turn out to be disingenuous.  And they need be remembered so that we can turn them back to pasture at the next election and put some fresh faces and capable minds there in their places.  I think the vast majority of us wants a positive government.  There is already too much disaster and bad news in the world to desire that more be manufactured.  Voters are the only group that can make this happen.

That is your job and my job.  If we fail to get the job done, we'll know exactly where to place the blame...just look in the mirror.

The announcement concerning the sale of Medical Associates to ProHealth Care has been expected for months and finally was made.  ProHealth will buy Medical Associates for about $40 Million and the deal is expected to close around the beginning of 2008.

ProHealth owns Waukesha Memorial Hospital and Oconomowoc Memorial Hospital.  Medical Associates has clinical facilities in Menomonee Falls, Hartford, Sussex, Germantown, and Waukesha.  The bulk of Medical Associates' 175,000 patients are admitted to Waukesha Memorial Hospital and to Community Memorial Hospital in Menomonee Falls.

Community Memorial is part of the Froedtert & Community Health system.  That system has agreed to consolidate operations with the Columbia St. Mary's system.

Finally, Advanced Healthcare is being purchased by the Aurora system, and Aurora is building a new hospital in Grafton which is the 'backyard' of Columbia St. Mary's.

There are still other smaller systems fighting for survival, but those named will be the major players and are likely to have absorbed the remaining hospital systems and physician practice affiliations.

My earlier blogs have discussed what all this consolidation could mean to those of us in the Germantown area.

First, Community Memorial Hospital is at risk of losing the bulk of its patient load.  Aurora has promised the doctors at Advanced Healthcare that their admitting patterns will not be changed for at least two years.  (Read that to say, we'll shift patient admissions from Community Memorial Hospital to other Aurora hospitals in two years.)  I don't have any idea of the language of the deal between Medical Associates and ProHealth.  But, ProHealth is buying Medical Associates to gain doctors and to get added patients admitted to its hospitals.

Clinics usually are cost centers for hospital systems.  Hospitals tend to lose money on the clinics they buy and operate, but make that back plus with admissions to their hospitals.

There have been continuing rumors of discussions involving ProHealth and Froedtert & Community.  If those systems were to consolidate, there would emerge a new 750 lb. gorilla to take on the existing 800 lb. gorilla named Aurora.

Again, I have no knowledge of those discussions, if they are even continuing.  If I were running any one of those remaining systems, I'd certainly have determined that my only real chance of survival would be to consolidate with others to get the scale needed to be a true competitor to Aurora.

This bears watching.

So far as those of us in the Germantown area, we're in for a bit of a roller coaster ride over the next few years so far as healthcare is concerned.  Not only will admitting patterns be involved that will determine where we are hospitalized, but the price of healthcare will hang in the balance.  Will consolidation lead to true price competition....or will it ultimately end true price competition?  It could go either way.

The morning Journal Sentinel carried a brief story about the Germantown Citizens Action Coalition and attributed several points to the group's president, Larry Prodoehl.

Mr. Prodoehl reportedly stated this group of Germantown citizens wants the raises for non-bargaining village employees trimmed or eliminated and that they want the proposed recycling center 'tipping fee' dropped entirely.  He reasoned that the tipping fee, expected to raise between $40,000 and $45,000 per year, was approximately the amount needed for the raises.  That has been estimated at $36,000 for the initial year.

The 'tipping fee' is now apparently off the table for good after a flip flop or two.  There has already been discussion amongst the board members regarding a reduction in the proposed 3% increases down to 2%.  The village has gone through a period where several key people had moved to other positions outside Germantown to earn more money.  The recent survey of area communities supported the idea of increases, as you would expect to have been the case.  Surveys aren't typically referenced if they do not support one or another point of view.  That is not an accusation, but simply a statement of the norm.

Incidentally, the idea of banners strung across Mequon and Pilgrim Roads has finally been axed.  No matter the cost, that simply was not a good idea if we want to maintain the 'feel' of our community. 

What about a pay increase for the non-bargaining village employees? 

I have little problem with that if the employees are rewarded on merit and not simply on longevity.  My recollection of this proposal was that it contained an initial increase followed by regular step increases over time.  The initial increase might well be needed although the amount might be questioned. 

The idea of automatic step increases bothers me since the employee who lags is given the same increase as the one who excels.  I believe, further, that fellow employees will not be pleased to see their less-productive counter-parts receiving the same increase they received.  Rather than to improve morale, this actually works in reverse.  We'll face the loss of employees simply because there is no way for the good employees to earn more than the poor employees.  Ultimately, our village staff will be comprised of mediocre employees who are paid more than they're worth.  We'll all suffer as the result.  If you'll recall, MATC uses automatic step increases; we can see the out-of-control tax increases that result by simply looking at this situation.

Remember, if you have points of view that you want to be heard, comments to any Blogs are welcome.  You need not agree with me to get the comment published.  The other thing you can do is show up at the Village Administration Center on Monday, November 19th at 7:00PM.  Citizen input is welcome...and necessary!

Neither have I [except when Al Gore sneaks onto my television screen], but I came across a website that is selling 'Carbon Offsets'.  If I buy enough carbon offsets, they'll give me the assurance that I've canceled out all the bad stuff I'm doing to the environment.  Does this also mean there is a site somewhere that will take my money and forgive me for other bad things I do or contemplate doing?

I drive an SUV that calculates out to producing 27,174 lbs of carbon dioxide per year.  If I pay this company $79.95 for the first year, I'm off the hook for being such an environmental hazard.  I get a static-cling window decal telling everyone how great I am and a bumper sticker.  The company sends my money to somebody else who'll plant trees or build wind generator farms or whatever seems to be the 'saving grace' of the day.  They assure me that all this is audited by the Center for Resource Solutions, a non-profit (which must mean I can trust them implicitly) organization that apparently knows that there really is global warming and that we humans are so smart that we can reverse it even though it seems these cycles have gone on and remain unchecked for ages.

If, by now, I'm really feeling guilty, I can also buy carbon offsets to cover my home.  My home calculates to produce 31,551 pounds of carbon dioxide annually (and they remind me this is the equivalent of burning 1,613 gallons of gasoline).  It will only cost me $159.68 a year, but they tell me I can reduce that by using their home energy tips.  Those tips include: washing with cold water, turning off my lights, getting rid of a second refrigerator [which I'll have go out and buy], and using CFL bulbs [even though those are dangerous because they contain mercury].  Now I am forced to try to decide between carbon dioxide and mercury as to which is worse for me and the planet.

By the way, I can buy carbon offsets to take care of weddings, and I can give carbon offset gifts, too.

This has been a bit tongue in cheek as you've probably surmised.  The company is located in San Francisco [who'd have guessed that?].  It was founded by a college professor [who'd have thought that possible?].  It is run by people who appear to be thirty or younger, and who have credentials from several liberal universities [sorry for the redundancy].

Nowhere did I find an offset coupon available to ward off the nasty effects of bovine flatulence, however.  That should be a big seller in Wisconsin.  I suspect that they're working on that but I can't be certain.  Nowhere do they mention giving money to the home for displaced polar bears.  It seems they're missing some opportunities.

ABC News did a story about this company and carbon offsets on April 22, 2007.  It was filled with phrases like "a way to theoretically cancel out or neutralize the carbon dioxide that you produce", and reminds us that Al Gore lives in a 20 room house with a $30,000 annual utility bill while he claims his life is "carbon neutral".

The topper for me was learning that carbon offsets and carbon credits are traded as commodities on the open market, and this trade activity is a multi-billion dollar per year business.

Given the lack of  anything but assumptions that, to me, are not based on fact since the facts don't exist, this whole thing would come near being called a 'scam'.  People are paying other people for absolution of their environmental sins but continue to do that for which they were absolved.  Nothing changes except that some money moves from one place to another in the name of eliminating global warming.

But, of course, I forget the Nobel peace prize having been awarded to Mr. Gore.  Shame on me!

I can forgive Alfred Nobel for having invented dynamite, but only a fiend in human form could have invented the Nobel Prize.  George Bernard Shaw

The senate committee did pass Senate Joint Resolution 5 on November 14th.  It is now up to Sen. Russ Decker (D), the new senate majority leader, to determine if he will schedule it for consideration by the full senate.  It is important to remember that senate Democrats felt snubbed by Governor Doyle during the battle over budget items.  In part, that led to the overthrow of Sen. Robson by Decker.  Many believe that the Dems will permit this to be voted upon by the senate and that it will be likely to pass that body.  That would send the message to Doyle that he had better give the Senate its 'due' and not embarrass them as they felt was the case last time around.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

The so called 'Frankenstein' veto authority vested in the governor makes him or her the single most powerful head of a state in our country.  It's fate is being debated today in the state senate where a committee vote is scheduled to be taken on Senate Joint Resolution 5.  Use of the term 'Frankenstein' alludes to the 'stitching together' of words and phrases to create something that didn't previously exist, much as the movie makers created the Frankenstein we saw as children.

This committee vote is required in order for the full senate to have the opportunity to vote on it.  That is required before us citizens get the opportunity to amend our state constitution if we desire.  This resolution must pass the senate Committee on Ethics Reform and Governmental Operations today with no changes.  Both the assembly and the senate must have approved the same (identical) version twice before a constitutional amendment can be put to the voters.

If, on the other hand, an amendment is offered and approved today, then this entire process has been for naught.  It would need to be started all over again.

Why would that happen after three of the four votes have already been taken and the clock has been ticking?  If the democrats who control the senate desire to give Governor Doyle one more 'whack at the cat' (another state biennial budget), then all that is necessary is the amendment of this resolution or the outright defeat of the resolution.  An 'amendment' would give the Dems on this committee more wiggle room when confronted by their constituents and/or the press.  One (especially a politician) can always come up with some rationale for that action to try to make it appear that the resolution was "flawed" or that the amendment corrected a new problem about to occur, etc.

Most recently, this veto power was used to create a new property tax cap of 3.86% for the coming year when there was a properly voted 2% cap on property taxes already in place.  It isn't just one political party or another that has used this device.  Both have wielded the same pen, however it seems that Governor Doyle may've perfected the use of this power.

Line item vetoes are good.  The line item veto forces some light to be shone on foolish spending or special privilege legislation.  The creative veto power now provided to Wisconsin's governor is not a good thing, no matter his or her party affiliation.  It permits laws to be made from whole cloth without the benefit of debate, and without input from our elected representatives.  It subjects us to rule by a single person; we effectively have given our governor the right to be King if he or she so chooses.  The King created a new law just a few weeks ago and it is going to cost property tax payers dearly.

'Frankenstein' must finally be killed or it'll haunt us for a lot longer.

Thanks to Ty Finke (GermantownNOW reporter) who gathered and reported this information.

We wrote earlier about the proposed $1.00 per visit recycling center fee (also sometimes referred to as a 'tipping fee') a week or so ago.  At that time it appeared that the village board had decided against such a tipping fee and had requested that it be pulled from the proposed budget.

Apparently the 'tipping fee' issue was never really off the table; it just was made to appear that way.  Shame on me for letting up on this issue just because it looked like a small victory for the taxpayers had been gained. 

It has 'morphed' into an annual fee of $5 for residential users and $250 for commercial users.  This will happen unless citizens voice their concerns from now through the public budget hearing on Monday, November 19th.

Is $5 a year so much that we can't afford it?  No.  Then what is the problem?  It simply isn't right.  These fees never go away.  These fees are really a tax when the users have no choice but to use the service for which the fee is charged.  That is the case with the recycling center.

Would 'tipping fees' be necessary if the commercial users weren't using?  Are the commercial users only dumping materials from Germantown or are they dumping more communities' materials too?  Just how do we think we know that answer?  Would all the village equipment wear and tear be so greatly diminished that our regular tax burden could be made to cover this cost?  Should the 'tipping' fees be applicable only to commercial users? 

I bet they'd still see that as a real bargain given the high cost of fuel for their trucks.  A trip of two miles versus a trip of ten miles to dump and return would easily be worth $3 to $5 in fuel savings and vehicle maintenance and lost employee time.  Maybe that commercial tipping fee needs to be increased sufficiently to offset the need for any residential fee.

Residents have the opportunity to voice their feelings on November 19th at the budget hearing as mentioned above.  Maybe an even more effective way to voice your concern is to telephone or e-mail your trustee between now and that time.

If, on the other hand, you want that fee imposed on you and the other residents of Germantown, simply ignore this issue.

By the way, I've asked a couple of trustees where the "utility poles for advertising banners" issue stands and have heard nothing in return.  If you have them on the phone, why not ask about that too?

If the world were a logical place, men would ride side-saddle.  Rita Mae Brown

Ethanol has been part of our jargon over the past few years.  We see it shown on our gas pumps.  We know that it is chiefly made from corn.  We know that it is subsidized by our federal government.

What most of us don't hear often enough is this:

• Ethanol produces worse gas mileage instead of better.
• Instead of helping the fuel shortage, it exacerbates that problem.
• Those of us using 'reformulated' fuel pay an even greater price since that reduces mileage as well.
• Ethanol requires something in the range of 1,000 gallons of water for every gallon of ethanol produced.
• Water resources are being overwhelmed by the amount consumed to produce the ethanol that is forced on us.
• A small ethanol plant equals the water consumption of a community of 10,000 people.
• People who know suggest that we will create semi-arid land where farm land once existed through depletion of supplies.
• We know that politicians from the West already have their eyes on our water resources.
• Ethanol is highly corrosive thus creating distribution problems over longer distances.
• Ethanol plants are literally popping up all over the Midwest because the plant must be close to the user.
• Ethanol breaks down very quickly thus making it impossible to be stored effectively over time.
• Ethanol has created significant issues for farmers who raise the food we eat.
• Farmers are, expectedly, rushing to plant more and more corn because the market is being stimulated
• Corn-based food products are rising in cost.
• Other grain-based products are in shorter supply thus increasing those food costs too.
• Meat costs are increasing since much of beef, poultry and pork stocks are fed corn and other grains. 
• Mexicans, for example, are now paying over 30% more for tortillas simply due to the ethanol they're producing.
• Ethanol is seemingly loved by many politicians.
• They certainly love the votes it brings them from within the farm belt.
• Ethanol plays to those who want to cause us to use less and less oil when we should be drilling more and building refinery capacity.
• Politicians look for quick fixes since they tend to view every problem as being part of an election cycle.

 Ethanol is a problem in and of itself. 

We must always consider the 'unintended consequences' that flow from every decision made.  In the case of ethanol, the unintended consequences are already very apparent.  We are actually blessed in that we can already see the flaws in the ethanol scheme that is still in its relative infancy.

We need to move away from ethanol as far and as fast as is possible.  Instead of making more funding available to create the need for more ethanol, we need to immediately curtail the existing programs.

We need to communicate our concerns and desires to our federal representatives.  For most readers, that is Representative Jim Sensenbrenner, and Senators Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold.

You've probably heard more than enough about 'waterboarding', a technique employed (or not employed depending upon whom you choose to believe) to gather information from people who want to cause us harm.

The subject found itself heavily debated in the discussion about our new U.S. Attorney General, Michael Mukasey.  Senators can seemingly connect everything to approvals of presidential appointments.  Both Senators Kohl and Feingold chose to vote against the confirmation of Mukasey.  Sen. Kohl was quoted as saying he did so because of Mukasey's unwillingness to call 'waterboarding' torture.  Sen. Feingold used that as part of his reasoning, but he was more concerned with his age-old drive to increase Congress' authority at the expense of the Executive branch of our government.  As an aside, what would Feingold's position on that issue be if he really thought he had a chance to be President?

This issue is, for me, a non-issue.  In my simplistic view of the world, there are good guys and not-so-good guys.  I think of us as being among the good guys.

If a not-so-good guy is trying to kill me or my family or my American brothers and sisters, I want to be able to use whatever technique might prove necessary to protect us all.  I frankly agree with Mukasey who called 'waterboarding' repugnant.  But then I also find death at someone else's hands to be repugnant.  If we must use techniques that we deplore in order to protect ourselves and our way of life, is that because we are wrong-headed or is it because the not-so-good guys are wrong-headed?

Those of the more liberal persuasion seem prone to thinking that we are guilty for defending ourselves and appear to be far more concerned with how someone in another country might view us.  Those of us who are of the conservative persuasion, on the other hand, would much rather avoid being attacked and killed than we are concerned over how someone in another country might see us.

That makes us out, in the minds of the liberals, to be incapable of "intelligent debate", and "uncaring", and devoid of the mental capability to see the "nuances and subtleties" involved in the "world view".

In my mind, that makes us safe...and I am far, far more concerned with my safety and that of my country than I am with the opinion of a citizen of a foreign country.  Oh yes, my knuckles obviously drag on the ground so it'll be easy to identify me around Germantown.

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve to get it good and hard.

H.L.Mencken

Ernie Kovacs, a television entertainer in the early years of TV, wrote most of his own jokes and had a great sense of humor. 

I've paraphrased one of his quotes slightly...

"Television is called a medium.  So called because it is neither rare nor well done." 

Ernie Kovacs

Nothing much seems to have changed in five or so decades...unless for the worse.