http://www.ldnews.com/ci_13656638

From time to time my family will engage in email-debate. I like this, and look foreward to Google Wave to enhance the experience. This time, the debate over health care continued with my Grandfather sending out the article above. Below is my rebuttal and commentary in general on the healthcare debate. Refer to the article for quote context if you are confused.

"protest and dissent are pulling us apart"

Protest and dissent were essential in the formation of this nation, and the Liberal Enlightenment which preceded it. Change and dissent are necessarily correlated, as for one to promote change is to promote a dissenting view of the status quo.

There is a logical contradiction in the statement itself, as the nature of dissent is to separate ones self from the so-called "us". Those who dissent from "us" are not part of "us", and therefore cannot be pulling "us" apart unless some of "us" are swayed by "their" opinion. Upon being convinced "they" are no longer part of "us". Point proven?

"conservative protesters do not recognize the structural origins of what is happening to our politics and our economy"

Over half of all money spent in the health care industry is spent by government. The spending of money directs the flow of resources. Therefore over half of the resources employed in health care are directed by government. Therefore, we are already living in a government run system.

This is the basis of the voluntarist stance on the issue. It is imperative diagnosis a problem before treatment, to put it in medical terms. The structural origins of all changes in society can only be found in the minds of individuals, and therefore no one can ultimately recognize the origins of change, only recognize the changes themselves once they have manifested from the actions of those individuals. The actions over the past hundred years have been to collectivise the means of production. Why are you Statists complaining? You are getting what you want! "We" are moving in "your" direction!

"The force for change is technology and not malice nor ideology nor politics"

I mostly agree with that statement, so why is the author taking the stance that it is politics which should dictate the advancement of technology? Technology cannot be legislated. It must be discovered. Technological change only comes from necessity; its origin is man's mind. The driving force behind technological change come from the need to satisfy an end, and to politicize any means of production removes the incentives for change, as technology necessarily replaces some form of work previously performed by a human being. That person, if granted political power, may use it to inhibit the process of change via technological growth, and in a political economy individual effort is not rewarded at the scale of the voluntary economy.

I disagree in that the other three items mentioned are indeed forces for change, although the changes they produce are often arbitrary and immoral.

"The free market becomes a myth when the new normal installs a handful of firms that control product, price and distribution"

If a "new normal" installs a handful of firms that control product, price and distribution, you are not living in a free market.

The free market is as much a myth as it is a system. It does not exist in itself; rather, it is a term which describes the concept of economic voluntarism. Socialist societies can exist within a free market society, so long as the interactions are of a voluntary nature. It is when socialism is forced from the top-down that a free market cannot exist. The two are only mutually exclusive when force is involved.

I don't want to force anyone to operate for profit. No capitalist does; besides, it is impossible to do so.

The free market is the lack of a prescribed, arbitrary system of resource distribution, i.e. the state.

The fact is, a handful of firms which control product, etc. has only historically arisen due to government collusion. In economics, we call this "Regulatory Barriers to Entry". I suggest you check out the concept, as I will apply it in my following point.

"Had an alternative been offered, the situation might be different."

An alternative was not offered by the Repubs in office because they too are Statists. The proper alternative would be a stripping of all regulations and government involvement with health care, and a grandfathering-out of Medicare, etc. (improve production first, end entitlements last)

The reason Republicans will not do this is because the regulations they have placed on big pharma, insurance companies, and other sectors of health care, are set up to keep competition from threatening the good-ol-boys club.

So you see, regulatory barriers to entry have ruined health care. Republicans wouldn't dare suggest removing them because they are maintaining the status quo by guaranteeing that competition cannot grow to the size where it could affect profits. This is why big business lobbies for industry regulation.

Ever wonder why big business doesn't support libertarians, those who would strip away regulation? That was the question which sent me down the path to voluntarism, perhaps it will send you, too.

"No one is in favor of big government, much less socialism."

I haven't been rude at all, so now's the time. That statement is a load of crap and you all know it.

Elitists are in favor of big government. Those who seek to maintain control of resources through political means favor big government. Those who are in favor of big government are more likely to move in the socialist direction than the direction of liberty.

What of voluntarism? What of self-ownership? What of responsibility?

Are you in favor of those? I am, and I recognize that each of those tenants outright reject the legitimacy of arbitrary government and forced collectivism.

Ben was right, and his quote runs contrary to the point made by Paul's article, and all government intervention in the private lives of human beings.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

-- Ben Franklin

Governor Doyle recently said that he supports lifting restrictions on the use of medicinal marijuana, arguing that medical doctors can already use their discretion to prescribe drugs that are addictive and/or dangerous. It is certainly time for the legislature to act and follow through with this request.

The restrictions against pot use, especially for medicinal purposes, make absolutely no sense. They are based on assumptions that marijuana is a "gateway" drug and appear to be rooted in an archaic and puritanical sense of moral self-righteousness. After being told to "just say no to drugs" time and time again, it is uncomfortable for many people to accept the fact that maybe one of those drugs isn't as bad as we originally thought.

However, it is time to get over this hurdle and our silly predispositions about marijuana. If you think about it, who are we as individuals and as a society to prohibit a cancer patient from relieving his/her pain by smoking pot? Morphine is a hazardous drug that has addictive properties and the propensity to be abused, but we nonetheless do not morally castigate people who, under consultation with a medical professional, opt to use it to ease the suffering of certain illnesses.

Perhaps the most convincing reason that we should legalize medicinal marijuana use is its potential treatment properties. For example, the main chemical compound found in pot that makes people feel "high," THC, can inhibit the growth of lung tumors. Although this fact might at first sound counterintuitive because we associate smoking with an increased risk of lung cancer, researchers at the University of Michigan found that regularly smoking marijuana alone (as opposed to cigarettes) does not increase the risk of lung cancer. Furthering the case for marijuana's potential untapped treatment value is research from a group of scientists who found that cannabidiol, a chemical compound found in pot, can actually decrease the aggressiveness of breast cancer, helping prevent or slow the spread of cancer cells outside of the breast.

It is time for Wisconsin to stand up and shake off the ludicrous preconceptions it has regarding pot. The legislature should act and legalize the use of medicinal marijuana, joining the other 13 states (Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington) that have the sense and fortitude to improve the health of their people.

P.S. I've linked to the primary research articles that back up my claims. If you access them through a computer on campus, you can download the original article and read the research for yourself.

The University of Wisconsin System has decided to exercise eminent domain in order to seize the Brothers Bar & Grill at the corner of University and Lake in order to complete the acquisition of land necessary for a planned performance hall for the School of Music. An agreement had been reached for the sale of the property last year for $2.1 million plus moving costs, but after the agreement was all but done, the UW System reversed course and opted to exercise eminent domain to condemn the property and pay the appraised market value of $1.25 million.

As part of the state government, the UW System has been legally granted the ability to use eminent domain to acquire property, though it uses that right very rarely. In this case, the System has defended the use as saving taxpayers a significant amount of money. You know, the taxpayers besides the Fortney family, owners of the Brothers Bar and Grill.

Eminent domain should not be used for this purpose, it is a legal concept that only has legitimacy when attached to needs as opposed to wants. It is perfectly understandable that the UW System did not want to overpay for the property, indeed it is exactly the motivation that should drive our civil servants. But it was not unfair for the Fortneys to negotiate for what they did. The level at which they are willing to sell their private property is not required to be comparable to fair market value. If the fair market value of someone's private property is less than they are willing to sell it for, it is their perfectly appropriate choice to choose not to sell it at all. That is the very definition of private property. It isn't their concern if that decision disturbs a third party's plans for property it does not own.

The exercise of eminent domain is a distasteful act that becomes the lesser of two evils in a single case: when it is unavoidable that a public project for the greater good has to use somebody's property (new freeways in crowded areas, extensions of airport runways). The legitimacy of even this hinges on the definition of "greater good," a case which the UW System is hard pressed to make in this particular instance. The legal standing may be such that the UW System is on firm ground, but that does not mean that ethically this seizure is anything more than theft perpetrated in the name of the public.

According to Paul Ryan (R), representative of Wisconsin's 1^st district, Republicans in congress do in fact have a slew of vibrant solutions to help fix our country's broken health care system! I know, I know - you are probably asking yourself why Ryan and his colleagues did not mend this defunct system when they controlled both the Presidency and the House of Representatives from 2000-2006? I can't say that I know the answer, but I would assume that if you actually asked Paul Ryan you would probably hear some slick and mindless spiel about taxes and competition. At any rate, Ryan highlights the much-publicized Republican fix-all for health care reform: Tort reform!

Don't get me wrong, I think that tort reform can offer something valuable to our society and that it is probably needed to some degree. Doctors should not practice so-called "defensive medicine" and doing so likely wracks up medical costs. It is also worth pointing out that one of the main reasons that Democrats try to ignore this issue is because they get big bucks from trial lawyers. However, to think that tort reform will magically improve the vast majority of our country's health care system is completely disingenuous. Maybe the Republicans don't say this explicitly, but it is always the first thing mentioned when they are asked if they have a reasonable plan to improve health care. Thus, they are either acknowledging that they bring only trivial ideas to the table, or they are suggesting that tort reform is in fact something they perceive as a major component of health care reform.

This angers me for two reasons. One, tort reform is unlikely to have as large of an impact as Republicans desire. Studies published in the New England Journal of Medicine have shown that frivolous lawsuits make up only a small portion of medical malpractice lawsuits and are usually thrown out of court. The bulk of lawsuits come from doctors making mistakes on patients, which are legitimate claims. Also worth mentioning is that states that have actually enacted strict tort reform have not seen substantial decreases in their medical costs. The state of Texas has seen some of the most staunch tort reform in the country, yet still has some of the highest health care costs. Two, the idea of tort reform does not philosophically make sense with the Republican message of less government intervention. The Republicans holler about wanting the government to stay out of our lives, and yet here they are trying to get the government to regulate the courts and the legal system.

With all the conservative pontificators and academics that have reigned over the past decades, it is utterly shocking that the Republicans in Congress cannot come up with more varied and, well, effective proposals that address health care. But then again, I'm not too surprised, since the Republicans actually nominated this lady to be our country's second-in-command.

Hammes Company, the developer for the contentious $109-million Edgewater hotel renovation, has a brilliant new idea for getting the Greek system to support the plan.

If you can't beat 'em, buy 'em!

On Sunday, Hammes will take a group of Greek leaders up to their luxury box at Lambeau Field in Green Bay.

The bus leaves the Edgewater at 7:30 a.m. for the noon game between the Packers and the Detroit Lions. The presentation? Why, an overview of the redevelopment of the Edgewater Hotel, of course!

"Refreshments" will be served "throughout the game," so Hammes can get some frat boys good and drunk before sliding the city's largest project in 15 years down their throats.

...

I'm often critical of this city for creating obstacles to business, but it's times like this when I remember why those obstacles are important.

The company that built Lambeau has no problem plunking down a few thousand bucks to get the support of these Langdon Street "transients" (as they've put it in the past).

Hammes has the resources their grassroots opponents don't. And it kind of disgusts me that this is how the company is using those resources.

The city of Madison recently enacted a law that requires plastic bags to be recycled, thus making it illegal to dispose of non-biodegradable plastic bags with regular household refuse. In order to recycle these sorts of bags, residents now have to visit one of thirteen recycling stations in the city. Although many of these recycling points will be in convenient locations, such as grocery stores, it is estimated that curbside recycling of plastic bags is two and a half years away.

The law certainly can't be faulted for trying, but for such a simple issue, its remarkable how convoluted our failure can be. One might liken this new law to the policy of allowing the possession of marijuana, while banning its consumption. In both cases, the attempt to ban the practice is half hearted and inevitably destined to failure. However, in the case of plastic bags, there are substantial consequences for the failure of the policy. Plastic bags fill our landfills in vast quantities to the point where toxins from the bags run off into water tables, further polluting our water system. Furthermore, the production of these bags is environmentally costly. Because the plastic which constitutes these sorts of bags is a petroleum bi-product, these nearly worthless bags come at a high cost in terms of natural resources.

So why even bother with them?

The municipal ban on the disposal of plastic bags provides, at best, a marginal improvement over the status quo. Although the recycling of plastic bags will indeed help to alleviate the congestion of our landfills with these seemingly immortal bags, we will still pay the environmental costs associated with the production of plastic bags. Moreover, recycling itself is a costly and inefficient process. Although it is not my intention to deride the practice of recycling, it is a process which itself consumes more energy - and thus natural resources - than the reuse of a resource. Furthermore, the success of recycling is dependent upon the community's will to recycle. Although we can rely on the members of the Willy Street Co-op to recycle their bags (if they're not already using cloth totes), the inefficiencies of recycling will be made grossly manifest by suburban and low-income recycling habits.

Enforcement of these recycling laws will be daunting to say the least. One can really feel the force of this problem by asking, "When was the last time that I was fined for disposing of a recyclable in the trash?"

Even if there were 100% compliance with this new law, the very fact that plastic bags are being produced, shipped throughout the country, and then later recycled is far more environmentally costly than if they simply were no longer produced. Plastic bag recycling is something that the city should offer, and has indeed been available to city residents before this law came into being. My point is not that recycling is, in itself, bad. Rather, my point is that it doesn't solve the environmental problem that it claims to solve.

It is truly remarkable how such a minor issue of environmental policy can reveal the lack of will on the part of municipal policy makers. What would be lost if there were no cheap plastic bags in the city of Madison? Paper and cloth bags can provide almost all of the functionality of plastic bags with only a fraction of the environmental impact. I won't bother to speculate as to the motives for this lousy piece of legislation, as they don't really matter.

The real tragedy of this sort of half-hearted policy making is that it distracts from truly consequential issues of environmental policy. This policy, like our stringent litter laws, is remarkably effective in improving the aesthetics of our everyday environment. Consequently, these laws tend to make us feel as though we are really helping to improve the health of our environment.

As Edward Abbey so astutely pointed out, what does it matter if a fast food wrapper wastes away in a landfill or on the side of the road? Litter does its damage whether its out of sight in a landfill - or the mid-pacific - or on the side of the road. However, in the latter case we feel the impact of our wasteful habits, whereas in the former case we can easily forget the problem. This latest plastic bag recycling policy is exactly the kind of feel-good environmentalism that we can no longer afford. Now, Madisonians will be able to proudly proclaim that we are no longer wasting our plastic bags, we recycle them. Yet, it is plain to see that we haven't really solved anything.

Moreover, plastic bags constitute a relatively inconsequential policy issue, and a straightforward one at that. Energy production, natural resource harvestation, industrial waste...these are consequential issues and ones that we aren't addressing. Although it would be irresponsible to blame the feel-good environmentalism of our new plastic bag policy for our failure to address more demanding sorts of issues, our preoccupation with mere aesthetic issues such as roadside litter certainly isn't helping. This isn't to say that we should litter or use plastic bags, but rather that banning these practices is such an amazingly small legislative accomplishment and we can no longer afford to be satisfied with these sorts of accomplishments.

This is why the new plastic bag policy is so tragic. Plastic bags are such an inconsequential matter, and our failure to meet this insignificant challenge with an appropriate response bodes poorly for our ability to meet greater challenges, environmental or otherwise. It is certainly my hope that a ban on plastic bags can be brought into municipal law in the near future. Moreover, it is my hope that such a law can be brought about in an effortless manner, as we have much better ways to expend our political energy.

This post isn't going to win me any friends, but what if we added a localized alcohol sales tax to downtown bars?

A few years back, Madison added a $100,000 fund for the "Downtown Safety Initiative". It funds police overtime to add extra patrols on busy nights in downtown Madison. The DSI isn't used every night, or even every weekend night - it often depends on what else is going on, like football games and even the weather. Every year, the DSI runs out of money before the end of year.

The DSI has always been a target or a complaint from alders from outside the downtown core. It is in the budget again this year - with a twist. Instead of getting $100,000, this year it's funded at $80,000. The remaining $20,000 will come from "donors". From a Mayor who prides himself on enhancing public safety, that's sort of like replacing some of our full time fire fighters with volunteers.

I'm glad the DSI is being funded, and I'd like to see the police have extra resources, so long as they're not being wasted on checking for 20 year olds with fake IDs. In fact, I'd like to see if funded sufficiently to make it through the entire year. However, it's a tough sell to the rest of the city to increase the funding, especially in this budget environment.

The Ed Board today decided that it could handle the principle of taxing booze to raise some funds for the government. It's not quite apples-to-oranges, but what if we applied the same logic and added a sales tax to downtown alcohol sales? We could use that new revenue to fund the DSI. It wouldn't be a huge tax, mind you, just maybe something that would raise a tolerable beer from $3 to $3.15 or $3.25. The DSI doesn't cover the entire city, so this wouldn't hit every bar in the city. A logical set of bars to add the tax would be the bars in the Alcohol License Density Plan area.

It's a small enough tax that no one is seriously going to say "fuck it, I'm going out to the Hilldale Great Dane because it's cheaper". It's not meant to reduce alcohol consumption. Even a very small tax could raise some serious funds - the bars in the ALDP do millions of dollars a year in alcohol sales. It applies to everyone who drinks downtown, including those who come in from the outskirts of town, but only those who actually use the downtown bars. That's something that all-but-officially-running-for-Mayor Alder Schumacher could support.

It's also more fair than asking for voluntary contributions from downtown businesses. The cost of the "donation" is going to get passed on to the clients anyway, and so what's the incentive for all bars to participate? Brothers would be better off if it didn't donate, and instead let Wando's and the KK pony up.

There's certainly precedence - many of the bars in the downtown area are already part of the Business Improvement District, which means they all have no choice but to pay extra taxes to support special programs in the downtown area.

I have no idea if this plan is even legal, and if state law permits the city to tax like this. I assume that if nothing else, the city can put conditions on liquor licenses to effectively create the tax.

It's a better plan than passing the hat to fund a critical safety tool.

It may have been a matter of nanoseconds after Governor Doyle announced that he would not seek a third term that Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton joined the race. It's pretty logical that someone who has been rarely utilized by her boss would jump at the chance of being able to call the shots. Most political insiders, as well as the general public, assumed that would not be the only Democratic candidate for the 2010 race.

The names of State Senators Russ Decker and Jon Erpenbach, Assembly Speaker Mike Sheridan, our own Kathleen Faulk, Congressman Ron Kind, and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett have been dropped. Other than Barrett, the rest have either publicly declined to seek the position or appear unlikely to attempt to build a statewide campaign. The depth chart of Democrat Candidates in Wisconsin is getting close to rock bottom, especially given that Senator Russ Feingold would have little interest in taking over a job that would be at best a lateral career move. Congressman Kind appeared a near lock to enter the race, but appears to have been talked out of it after the Democratic National Committee realized they didn't have a backup plan for his seat.

So that leaves Lawton along with the rest of those who are paying attention to the Wisconsin Governor's Race watching Mayor Barrett's every move to get a sense of whether or not he is going to jump in. You can't blame Lawton for having her fingers crossed that she can get through the Democrat primary without a major challenger. Lawton, though, has taken an extra step and begun to poke a sleeping Barrett by slowly but surely shoring up support right in his back yard. These endorsers include the Milwaukee County Democrat Party Chair, Rep. Barbara Toles (D-Milwaukee), Rep. John Steinbrink (D-Kenosha), and State Sen. Jim Sullivan (D-Wauwatosa).

The fact that these Democrat figures in the Milwaukee area are willing to endorse Lawton so soon with Barrett's decision unknown means one of two things: either Barrett really doesn't have the support that it seemed when he was crime fighting at the state fair or Barrett has given off enough signals that he has more than enough on his plate in Milwaukee. With the city budget process under way, the debate over the mayoral takeover of Milwaukee Public Schools, and the demand for family time, there are plenty of reasons for Barrett to not get involved in the governor's race. It appears, with every passing day and the endorsements for Lawton adding up, she will be the only big named democrat on the primary ballot.

The bottom line: this is great news for the Lieutenant Governor; however, questions remain. Does the Democratic Party of Wisconsin hold the same opinion? As we close in on one year until the election, they may not have a choice. One thing is for sure: most Republicans would be ecstatic at the idea of a Lawton vs. Scott Walker or Lawton vs. Mark Nuemann matchup. If Mayor Barrett is serious about being a candidate for Wisconsin's Governor, it's time for him to wake up.

For more info on Lawton's Endorsements:

http://www.wispolitics.com/index.iml?Article=172909

For more info on Barbara Lawton's Campaign:

http://www.barbaralawton.com/

For more info on Scott Walker's Campaign:

http://www.scottwalker.org/

For more info on Mark Nuemann's Campaign:

http://markforgov.com/

By all measures, Wisconsin's economy seems to be in abysmal health. The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute recently published a number of articles, examining the depth of this problem. One article, which comprehensively examines our economic troubles, suggests a number of solutions. While some of these suggestions, such as forward thinking state investments (i.e. not investing in failing GM plants), make a lot of sense. However, the thrust of the article's proposed solutions are tired pro-business cliches. Design the UW system around businesses, design a business and upper class friendly tax code, etc... The overall message being that we should be attracting rich people from other states, rather than building the wealth of the state's current constituents.

A second article takes a similar tone, although it examines Wisconsin's political and economic climate in a broader scope than the aforementioned article. The message here is that, if we are beating the other states, we are winning. But is a strong economy really defined in terms of how well it compares to its neighbors? Perhaps in a 20th Century mindset (post-World War II, pre-2008 Credit Crisis) this was the prevailing definition. However, this mindset clearly does not lead to the development of a sustainable economy. I'm not using "sustainable" in an environmental sense. I am using it to denote an economy which can sustain itself by producing wealth and continually bring forth economic opportunities and advances for those people engaged in said economy. Basing our economy completely around the wealth of other economies would be a mistake. Indeed, we have made this mistake before. I'm not trying to argue against an open interstate economy or free trade, but how well did it really serve us to rely on GM for manufacturing jobs? What will happen when the Biotechnology sector stops attracting funding to the UW-System? Can Wisconsin build a flexible economy that can adapt to a diversity of economic challenges? If so, what does this entail?

The difference, subtle as it may seem, between building an economy that attracts talent and wealth and building an economy by pandering to talent and wealth, is great. The former necessitates that we produce our own wealth and talent, to which others will be attracted. The later necessitates that we make ourselves a vessel for the wealth of others.

Why should Wisconsin focus on attracting out-of-state talent? Shouldn't we be doing something about providing a better education for the people of Wisconsin? Why should we focus on brining in out-of-state business and funding? Isn't the real test of economic power to produce our own wealth, rather than to ride the economic success of others?

Don't misunderstand my question, I'm not trying to demean people from other states or countries. Part of what makes our University great is the talent that it attracts from other countries and states. Indeed, we should welcome immigration into our state at any chance we can. Diversity, as in nature, is a great asset to a culture and an economy. Nor should we take up the line of protectionism. If China wants to go through the industrial revolution at a blitzkrieg pace, let them. Our response should not be to try and keep old manufacturing jobs, which are our own relics of the industrial revolution, in state. Rather, we should take a moment and ask ourselves, what new jobs can be created? How can we repurpose our manufacturing capacity in a forward thinking manner? A perusing of any mildly intelligent news source provides dozens of ideas.

I meant for this post to address the role of a renewed education system in the future of Wisconsin's economy, but clearly I won't be able to make this a concise post while giving any mention to that topic. So, I will settle for raising the problem of our state's economy.

The Isthmus recently illuminated Wisconsin's reluctance and inability to work for federal money. Although I just raised the problem of basing our economic recovery on federal subsidies and out-of-state talent, we clearly need some help in getting back on our feet in the first place. A wise use of federal subsidies would be the establishment of industries that will eventually sustain themselves. This approach is already being put into use on campus.

However, it is not enough to simply create more University-centric industries. Or rather, Wisconsin will not be able to build a sustainable economy if it only creates industries, and thus jobs and economic growth, in the towns of major UW-System facilities. In particular, it would be all too easy to ride a variety of technology booms in Dane county, leaving the northern half of the state to languish in poverty. The UW-System might be a great aid in the economic recovery of the state, so long as we remember that the state border extends beyond the Dane county line.

auf Wiedersehen,

Karl

First, let me admit that Madison is actually pursuing the Edgewater Hotel and new central library projects in a way that isn't raising taxes. Basically, they are using a financing technique called tax incremental financing which basically is a complex financial system involving betting on interest, and federal grants and other complex things that I can't clearly explain, but the fact that tax payers are not footing the bill must be noted. The fact that the city government in Madison found some quirky way to finance these two projects is beyond the point.

The point is that Madison is in a deep recession. The city will be two to four million dollars in debt. Especially hard hit by the housing crisis, there is no telling when the economy will be virille again. With unemployment as a laging indicator of economic turn-around, a seemingly endless recession, necessary property tax increases, and hiring freezes causing many offices to strain to complete the tasks required of them, when the government can land money to improve the city of Madison, we need to be just as frugal as we would if we were using tax dollars.

It is no secret that Madison's library is out dated. With the UW library system up the street as well as the revitalization of the South-Central branch, located in one of Madison's poorest neighborhoods, the central library is a joke.

What is not funny to me, is the beautiful outer facade of the central library beyond which lies sparse collections, outdated computers, and astere rooms that make few people feel welcome unless you count Madison's homeless population during the bone chilling days of Wisconsin winter. Though far from final, people have talked about placing a community garden on the roof. If it is privately funded, I say a roof garden is a great idea, but I don't think that we should waste the opportunity to create a usable central library by once again wasting public money on pretty facades.

Let's be conservative with public money. There will be little of it to fix Madison's many problems. With a need for a second belt line, pushes for more hybrid busses, and a need to bring our library system up to a reasonable standard to suit the intelligent population of Madison, lets hve the foresight to say no to roof gardens and other frivolous projects. We have found a loop hole to fix many problems that are long overdue to be remedied, so let's not let liberal pet projects and speical interests taint our efforts to make positive changes in Madison!!

I had a debate coach once point out that in the real world, outside the realm of cross-examinations and time limited speeches, it was terrifically easy to recognize winners and losers in debates. The first to call the other a name lost the argument, the second to do it lost the audience for both of them. It's a clever bit of summary, though not without its holes. If one is willing to fight dirty, name calling can be a particularly effective weapon in argument, but not if it's just whipped around like an over pressurized fire hose. Insults are a scalpel, not a baseball bat.

"Moron?" Really? That's the best vilification you can each summon to your verbal offensives? Argument is an exercise of intellect, and a sharp and targeted insult can eviscerate a soft spot, lay open the guts of your opponent's logic. "Moron?" At least "your momma" would have required some minimal level of cleverness to connect the dots of how your opponent's mother's negative attributes metaphorically connected with the debated points of global warming. If you must resort to insults, which is occasionally necessary and deliriously satisfying as I can attest to from this little rant, at least try to be intelligent about it. Dumb blind name calling is a sign of either laziness, an irredeemable intellectual midget, or a rank amateur.

As for the argument at hand about climate change, it seems that we need to split the debate into two parts: the problem and the solution. It's disingenuous to claim both that there is no problem and that even if there was, the system that created the problem will provide a solution without any change to that system. You don't get to have it both ways.

The vast majority of reputable scientists believe that climate change is a real problem, regardless of whether one particular data point or another tracks on the opposite side of the curve. The reason is extraordinarily simple: what we do affects our environment.

If you take a petri dish, add some sugar, and only one type of bacteria, that bacteria will eventually all die of a polluted environment, drowning in their own waste products. Any stable eco-system requires at least two components, each of which consumes the other's waste, thus ensuring a functionally indefinite closed loop. The concept should be familiar to anyone who's heard the cliche: don't sh*t where you eat. While there are components of the natural world that can easily expand and adapt to take care of certain human waste products (our ever increasing exhaled carbon dioxide, for example), others are more problematic because the natural world does not include a component that can deal with them, at least on the scale at which we've arrived in the last two centuries. The goal is simple and very obvious: morph our civilization such that waste products are eliminated or at the very least captured and stored. If at every dusk we leave our environment as it was at dawn, then we drastically improve the long term viability of this little petri dish of a planet as our species' home.

Do I think that carbon emissions, to take one salient example, will cause catastrophic global effects in the next fifty years? Two hundred? I don't know, that's what the scientists are there for. Certain quarters of society are claiming that the scientists don't know what they're talking about, forgetting that those same scientists are the ones who invented the wonders of industrial civilization whose impact is being dismissed. Who is more qualified to say that a house's foundation is inadequate, the guy who designed and built the house, or the guy who lives in it? Ignorance and a vested interest in maintaining that ignorance are a catastrophic combination.

Markets are a tool. A great tool to be sure, a tool that has produced unprecedented wealth in the modern world. But like any tool, they are only as good as what they are pointed at. Blindly insisting that the market is a beneficent deity that will magically fix any problem is the height of naivete. The market didn't magically eliminate 18 hour work days, child labor, and the gamut of other horrors of early industrialization. Regulation did. The cap and trade systems being bandied about are a brilliant hybrid approach, using the superior tool of a market for a carefully targeted purpose.

Morons? I think as a species a more accurate invective would be "children." There is nothing more childish then ignoring your own mess even as you wallow in it.

When your first article is a direct attack on my intelligence, you've asked for it.

Matt, if you think Global Warming is based on good science and government protects the environment with regulation, you are the moron.

Once the word broke that the hockey stick graph was a crock, proponents of anthropogenic climate change realized they had a struggle ahead, and the vernacular began its shift to the new phrase, "Climate Change".

After eight years of global cooling, an increase in the polar bear population, and plenty more evidence that CO2 is not dangerous, all they have left is their computer models.

Computer models are not only inaccurate, they are not science.

On another topic which was hyperlinked above- Endangered Species Act: It creates the incentive for land owners to kill any endangered specie so as to not lose their land.

On Cap and Trade: see my last article

On Pollution: Progressives in the late 1800s ended incentives for industry to be clean when they declared maximum production in the public interest. The court system has since not regarded pollution a violation of property, when it is necessarily trespass and therefore criminal.

Environmentalists are split into two camps. They agree on the end, which is man being respectful of nature and mindful of the scarcity of natural resources. The difference is in the means to attain that end. Some think that government exists to force people to do what is in the supposed public interest. I, and many like me, understand that problems are solved more completely and permanently through the voluntary mechanisms of the markets, and protection of property rights.

I was reading in the Wisconsin State Journal the other day that UW Madison has, for the second year in a row, denied funding for the Collegians for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT). This organization is a student run group here on campus that believes that "most consumer and environmental problems can best be met and overcome - not through excessive government regulation and bureaucracy - but rather, by better unleashing the power of the free-enterprise system and the ingenuity of science and technology." In effect, CFACT is a pro-market environmentalist group.

When I first read this story I was irked. The Student Services Finance Committee, the student-run body that allocates funds to student groups like CFACT, says that CFACT did not get their requested $190,000 because they violated school rules, like misuse of furniture, keeping six-packs of beer near the organization's garbage can, and not offering enough "direct services" to UW students. Come on! Are we to believe that there aren't at least a few orgs that have had a little beer sitting near their trash can or that the UW Democrats didn't stand on a bit of furniture last election night? I was inclined to believe CFACT that they were denied funds because they are a relatively conservative club on a liberal university. Different points of view should not be stifled, but celebrated and explored.

Notice my use of the past tense above. My sympathy for CFACT quickly ran out when I visited their webpage and read through their mission statement. I first noticed that this group of so-called environmentalists thinks that global warming is based on "shaky science" and the consequences of governmental intervention to slow the rate of atmospheric warming will ruin our economy. However, in the same breath, CFACT believes that scientific progress is our solution to saving the environment - yes, that's right: the same science behind global warming can also solve the problems facing the environment. It does not end here, though. My favorite part of the CFACT mission statement is their proposal to protect endangered species: "To protect endangered species, policies that encourage landowner cooperation, respect private property rights, and utilize market-based incentives should be pursued wherever possible." I'm sure that land developers, corporations, and investors can't wait to get out into the wild and save some unknown, endangered bird species in the name of not only ecological sustainability, but mostly the love of cute and cuddly animals. I'm sure that developers will line up to halt their multi-million dollar projects in the name of saving obscure species like the Hine's Emerald Dragonfly from extinction.

Needless to say, after getting a taste of CFACT's ideas and logic, I too am unsure what this organization brings to the students besides providing a venue to drink and get angry with Al Gore.

A recent op-ed article in The Badger Herald dismissed the University's "going green" campaign, and similar movements, as ineffectual and counterproductive. Indeed, I would agree that aesthetically-minded environmentalism, which has brought us stringent litter laws but loose industrial emissions regulations, is generally ineffective in producing positive environmental change.

However, the article was criticizing something different from the faux-environmentalism of Sigg waterbottles. Rather, the author of the article, Mr. Zach Schuster, suggests that we engage in "subversive environmentalism." The thrust of the argument seems to be that we should either "go big or go home." The problem with Mr. Schuster's line of reasoning is that he provides no basis for what constitutes "subversive environmentalism."

Should we violently protest in Washington, DC? That seems rather subversive. Should we boycott all machinery that relies on an internal combustion engine? Should we only eat food that we have grown for ourselves?

The problem with subversive environmentalism, or any call for radical mass action, is that it simply doesn't go anywhere. What is mass action without a proposed action?

Against my academic habits, I won't turn this entry into a critique of this loose notion of "subversive environmentalism." Rather, I wanted to highlight the different aspects of environmental action and policy. There is the global and national scale, concerning things such as industrial pollution regulations. There is the state and national level, involving community planning and sustainable economics. Deeper down, we have the communal and personal level, pertaining to things like everyday consumption and waste. While this isn't a perfectly detailed hierarchy, it loosely highlights the scaling of environmental consequences.

For example, if everyone in Madison purchases an iPod, then Apple must have its manufacturers in China produce 250,000 iPods. This will produce carbon emissions and manufacturing waste, to say nothing of the environmental impact of producing the raw materials of an iPod in the first place. Consequently, there will be emissions from the planes and boats used to ship all of these iPods over to the United States, in addition to the emissions from the semi-trucks that will bring the shipment from a port city to Madison. Keep in mind that all of that fuel was drilled out of the earth, shipped around the world, refined, and then used in the transportation process.

Once we all have our iPods, we're all satisfied. However, about seven or eight years later, a lot of us are going to start having broken iPods on our hands and most of us will probably thrown them away. Now we have 250,000 iPods, loaded with toxic materials, sitting in our landfill. All of those materials will eventually make their way into the same soil and water that sustains our very existence.

So there are a whole lot of ways to impact environmental change, certainly more than I can enumerate in this blog post. However, the focus of this blog is local policy. So, what is a good example of a small change in local habits of consumption that might result in a positive environmental impact?

Mopeds!

A little known fact is that mopeds produce MORE emissions than automobiles. Their simple two-stroke engines and inefficient exhaust systems produce some very nasty emissions. Indeed, a study by a group of students at the Technical University of Denmark showed that mopeds with carburetor fuel systems produce 6.7 times the carbon monoxide emissions of a gasoline powered automobile. The results, found here, indicate that carburetor equipped mopeds can produce as much as 36 times the amount of hydrocarbons as a gasoline automobile.

Thus, mopeds present a great opportunity for a small change in habits to produce great environmental results. Those of us who live close to campus can drastically reduce our impact on greenhouse emissions by simply walking to campus. Others who live further away would be making an even greater impact by commuting on a bicycle. Driving in to campus would even help reduce greenhouse emissions in comparison to moped use.

Certainly we can all have a positive impact by simply not driving mopeds around campus, however should the University do anything to discourage moped usage? Many buildings on campus offer moped parking, while simultaneously lacking enough bicycle parking for people to securely lock their bikes while at class or work. Should the University convert moped parking into bike parking? What sort of measures can be taken to discourage moped usage?

If you disagree, and believe that moped usage should be encouraged, then what should be done in order to reduce moped emissions? Electric mopeds obviously produce very little in terms of emissions (aside from emissions from the power plant that produces the electricity). Is there anything that the University or greater community of Madison can do in order to encourage the production, sale, and usage of electric mopeds? Being that I'm the kind of idiot who rides his bike to campus all winter long, this discussion would probably benefit from the input of you readers.

auf Wiedersehen,

Karl

Al Gore, the supposed leader of the environmental movement, is going to be making a pit stop here in Madison this Friday to talk about... can you guess?

Climate Change!

Notice how the vernacular has changed- Global Warming turned into Climate Change as soon as they (UN "scientists") realized that the earth had actually cooled over the last decade.

There was once farming in Greenland. This, and most other historic data, enumerates two things: First, a warmer planet isn't bad. It's actually better-

"Infrared satellite readings show that the Earth has been getting greener since 1982, thanks apparently to increased rainfall and CO2. Worldwide, vegetative activity generally increased by 6.17 percent between 1982 and 1999--despite extended cloudiness due to the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo and other well-publicized environmental stresses." -Center for Global Food Issues

Second, the climate is ALWAYS CHANGING.

Politicians know that the public has a short memory, so all you have to do is change the terms every once in a while and you can continue the same policy unabated- just look at who we have as president, and what the military and financial industries are doing.

So, in keeping with this tricky tradition, Al Gore and his elitist counterparts will be rolling out a new batch of eco-scares, and I am predicting he will test market a couple when he speaks here in Madison.

On the list are Toxic Plastics, Fresh Water or Oxygen Shortages, or a new round of possible disasters linked to "climate change".

While the scares may be ginned up, the effects on the economy come with real consequences.

If you tax CO2 output, not only are you choking Mother Gaea, you are increasing the cost of everything in the economy. Extra costs on an economic system results in suffering.

Cap and Trade will kill people. Pure and simple. People who are on the margin, be it for their next meal, vaccine, or even car maintenance will not be able to afford it, and will starve, get ill, or crash because of the costs imposed by this, and other, government initiatives.

That is a reality, as this bill will cost Trillions- but that's just the estimation. Medicare was estimated to cost 7 Billion over 30 years upon its creation, and ended up costing well over 67 Billion.

Economic troubles caused by D.C will intensify with Cap and Trade, but why care about people on the margin when your only goal is 50% plus one?

Join CFACT in protesting Al Gore's visit to our city this Friday at the Concourse Hotel.

The idea behind the (new) Muckrakers blog is for the authors to present relatively short, edgy, blog articles that will be engaging for the readers. This is not to say that the regular editorials are to move towards a format, which is overly wordy and monotonous, but rather that these short pieces will act as catalysts, which will provoke the reader's thoughts, rather than acting as a guiding voice, which the editorials should tend to do.

However, I must confess that I generally detest the increasingly common attempts to deal with substantial societal issues in a, seemingly, ever decreasing number of words. This is not to say that the state of political and social discourse is getting worse across the board. I'm not a complete decadent (or nihilist for that matter). Some of the discussions which are had in our media (primarily newspapers and public radio) are remarkably thoughtful and well-written (or well-spoken). The vast amount of thoughtless discourse to which we are subjected seems to be a consequence of more people being allowed into the media. Cable news networks need to pass the day away somehow, and so they often instigate contrived and unedifying discourse rather than calling it a day. The internet has allowed everyone the chance to be in "the media", which is not a bad thing by any means, but has resulted in an unspeakable quantity of worthless material.

At this point it seems that a short, edgy blog might not be worth writing. Indeed, it could easily turn out to be a pursuit of little value if one was careless in writing such a thing. Nonetheless, there is promise for creating valuable discourse through this medium. The University community is ripe with brilliant and creative minds, and perhaps blogs such as these are an excellent way by which to engage them. Indeed, many of the op-ed articles posted on The Badger Herald website attract diverse, creative, and most importantly, thoughtful responses (although this is not a steadfast rule). These responses add to the original articles, even when critical of them, in a remarkably constructive way. Thus, out of the spirit of experimentalism and constructive discourse, I will write this blog in the follow way...

Every week, I will aim to write short and engaging blog entries on recurring themes, rather than taking up a new issue with every post. The goal will be to draw out responses from the readers so that, over time, a more diverse and thorough understanding of the topics might be achieved. The focus of the blog will be on issues facing Wisconsin. However, being that so many of the issues facing Wisconsin are the same issues facing the world as a whole, I will not make an attempt to limit the scope of readers responses. To start out, the recurring issues will be environmental problems and education. Both problems are of particular interest here in Wisconsin, which has historically been progressively minded with respect to both. However, given the increasingly urgent nature of environmental problems and the new challenges of maintaining and improving the public education system in a declining economy, these issues deserve fresh investigation. I certainly hope that you will keep reading, and moreover, that we can create something valuable together.

auf wiedersehen,

Karl

It's rare to find something that is more costly, unproductive, over hyped and short lived than the "career" of Ryan Leaf. Marquette Gold would be within the margin of error, but I submit for consideration an entry from the Wisconsin Department of Tourism and its slogan "Live like you mean it." The marketing campaign was halted after only a few months since being revealed until further notice. The cost of the often mocked slogan was $57,000, nearly $5,000 solely for the design of a logo.

The logo depicts a person doing cartwheels, but in what appears to be a Freudian slip in design, it resembles a taxpayer being "shaken down" for a last bit of change pocket change. If that was the case, a more appropriate slogan to accompany it may read "Business leaving like you won't believe it" or "Taxed like you wouldn't believe it."

Most people believe that the Department of Tourism's role in the state is to encourage vacationers to visit Wisconsin, a task in which they have seen much success, based on the column of Illinois plated trucks pulling boats that I manage to get stuck behind every Friday afternoon. The Department's other mission is economic development. As far as a road assessment of their performance, I have seen far fewer semi-trucks taking products across and out of state with too many taking it a step further and taking entire businesses out of state.

The easy thing to do is blame greedy companies and evil business owners for packing up or even considering other venues. With Gov. Doyle abandoning the idea of fixing the economic mess in Wisconsin, much of which he created, there is an opportunity for a new person to step up and attempt to get this state on track again. I'll admit I am bias toward a particular candidate, but I am more than willing to listen to ideas coming from all view points. What is important is the denial of the current state of Wisconsin's economy ends and the debate begins with fresh ideas; Rather than focusing on revising the state's slogan, more time and effort should be placed on how to live up to our state's motto and how to move "forward."

As the Department of Tourism attempts to rethink how to market this state to vacationers, it is fitting that businesses, elected officials and taxpayers meet to determine what can be done to increase the capitalistic foot print and warm the economic climate in Wisconsin. Far too often these discussions occur too late to save businesses and, more importantly the jobs they provide.

For the full story check out the La Crosse Tribune:

http://www.lacrossetribune.com/news/local/article_a97bc868-aea7-11de-b33f-001cc4c002e0.html

To see what else the Department of Tourism is up to:

http://tourism.state.wi.us/

And in case you didn't get the Ryan Leaf reference, enjoy:

http://z.lee28.tripod.com/wherehaveyougoneryanleaf/index.html

The Madison police department has around 300 operations officers, but only about 200 assault rifles to go around. The argument basically goes: shared weapons are substantially less effective by every measure, so every officer should have his or her own. Unwilling or unable to allocate the roughly $120,000 that the purchase would require, the government has worked out a wonderful little loop hole: just let the officers buy their own rifles instead. From the department of course, the pay can come right out of the paycheck of anyone who signs up.

The debate gets easily distracted by the words "police" and "assault rifles." There's an easy gut reaction to this, the strawman around which both sides like to dance and jab, getting in their emotionally satisfying if intellectually empty blows. Police equipped by the hundreds with assault rifles? It's an easy irrational jump to the nightmare visions of Beirut, Rwanda, Sarajevo, to draw on that patently American distrust of giving power to authority. But of course there's the opposite dance too, the one that begins by asking if you really want the police to be outgunned by the criminals, and concludes with asking why you hate America so much. Both of our cliched debaters are missing the point though. The real argument shouldn't be over the weapons, it should be about the ceding of employer responsibilities to employees.

I showed up to the first day of my first job at the ripe old age of seventeen, ready to stock staples and pens for Office Max, but was told that I had to purchase a pair of khaki pants, white button-down shirt, and a tie. Not ten minutes into my first job and I was already in the hole. Bad example? Well, perhaps I was just an ill-dressed teenager. A friend of mine though wasn't allowed to start a construction gig until he purchased his own toolbox with a list of tools provided by the company. As far as it pertains to a police officer's job, a gun is a tool, a tool with a particularly grisly purpose, but a tool nonetheless. If it is required to do the job right, it should be provided by the employer, end of story. Precedents to the contrary start to take you right back to truck systems and sharecropping.

Officer purchases are attractive as an easy solution, but easy solutions have buried costs. Once established, the precedent of officer purchases incentivizes the stripping of police budgets to bare bones. What happens over the next couple of years as some of those 200 already-purchased rifles break or need replaced through normal wear and tear? Why in the world would the department or city council ever allocate funds again to purchase rifles if they've already managed to get officers to start paying for their own? Do not establish a mechanism in which the employer tangibly benefits from shifting its responsibilities to its employees.

Barbara Lawton? Apparently, they've never heard of her. Although, according to this UW-Wisconsin Policy Research Institute Poll, no one is well known.

Early on in the race to replace Doyle as governor, the main contenders - Barrett, Walker, Barbara Lawton and Mark Neumann - are still unknown by half of Wisconsinites. Among Democrats, more have a favorable view of Barrett (41 percent) than Lawton (30 percent); more Republicans have a favorable view of Walker (45 percent) than Neumann (33 percent).

But one of the things the press release doesn't mention? There's at least two political Wisconsinites that people still appreciate...

Tommy Thompson

Very favorable 116 16.57%

Somewhat favorable 268 38.29%

Somewhat unfavorable 112 16.00%

Very unfavorable 105 15.00%

Never heard of person 36 5.14%

Don't know/Refused 63 9.00%

Russ Feingold

Very favorable 163 23.29%

Somewhat favorable 218 31.14%

Somewhat unfavorable 110 15.71%

Very unfavorable 101 14.43%

Never heard of person 46 6.57%

Don't know/Refused 62 8.86%

Now, any Madison resident can tell you the ways they absolutely love Russ Feingold. And hell, if he ever wanted to run for Governor, he could probably have it handed to him. Especially if he keeps making strange decisions based on some of his constituency's needs. But that'd be a step down for him. Feingold seems to be just fine where he is. Now, if he wanted to run for president in 7 or so years, a trip round the governor's seat would make him the most qualified human being to do so -- both because of the experience and the principled resolve.

But Thompson. Now that's something. The man was governor for most of my natural life and seems to enjoy at least some kind of hallowed status today. (although his presidential run probably didn't help...what kind of governor would make a rash decision because he wants to go to the bathroom?) Now, the man's nearly 15 years would make for plenty of fodder for opponents (welfare to work, anyone?), but if he still has that sort of rating in polls, what does this say about the people of Wisconsin? (They still appreciate BadgerCare?) What are they really looking for? Are they looking for the strong(er) Wisconsin economy that fizzled under Doyle's term? Or are they just hoping to turn back to a time before Doyle and the abysmal Gov. McCallum?

The fact is: If Thompson does decide to enter the race, it may take a Feingold to bring him down.

And admit it, wouldn't that be far more interesting than seeing an Lt. Gov. try and outdo a college dropout?

Every week or so you can read another condemnation of landlords in downtown Madison. As a tenant myself, I can say there are some things I think my landlord could do better. That does not mean I am going to go whining to the City to force them to do something. If they violate the contract, I won't pay rent. If they just do a crappy job, I won't rent from them again. So far, all is well.

The current property tax system creates a penalty for landlords to update their properties; improving your property often increases your tax greater than whatever gains would be had by it. This especially applies in the case of energy-saving improvements, which are often expensive.

What Madison needs is to encourage renters to update their structures through a property tax system which is tied to income instead of property value. This way, there would be an incentive for the owners of the property to reinvest as much of their earned income as possible into maintenance and remodeling.

Finally, the planning committees need to get out of the way. Time is Money, and that crap across from the Fluno Center on Campus Dr. needs to be demolished. This city gives private developers hell and then allows the ugliest sculpture in the history of man to be built without question, a metaphorical middle finger to us all.

With the passing of the state wide smoking ban as part of the state budget that will take effect next summer and the skyrocketing taxes per pack of cigarettes, it would appear that the state of Wisconsin has taken a strong stance against smoking. Why, then, did it come out this week that the state programs that include a quit-smoking phone line would be taking drastic budget cuts? This cutback goes far beyond Governor Doyle's previous goal of ten percent reduction from each agency's budget. The numbers show this year's budget is $5 million but will fall to $1.8 million for 2010, a total reduction of almost 278%.

Is this shift in policy one that relies on smokers being "out of sight, out of mind?" It is clear that smokers have been singled out by the state government as a group that deserves a heavier tax burden, a policy with which even I, a lifetime non-smoker, disagree. With significant cuts in state anti-smoking programs, Wisconsin appears to have lost its moral and economic arguments that it wanted healthier citizens and a reduction to the healthcare expenses of taxpayers. Clearly a large portion of the money is not going to these worthy causes. It appears to be a classic bait and switch scheme, previously seen with the state's highway fund and other segregated fees that have been raided in recent years.

So if the state's goal is not to achieve zero smokers, and is using the cash raised for other budget priorities, does that mean that the State of Wisconsin wants you to smoke and continue to do so to fix their budget blunders? Hard to say for sure, but their actions don't leave much room for alternative theories. It might be asking too much to have an honest state government that can explain why they should be able to collect $2.52 per pack of cigarettes, yet place a diminishing importance on reducing smoking in Wisconsin. I applaud Rep. Jeff Smith (D-Eau Claire) for attempting to gain an additional $2 million for such programs, but more importantly segregated fees in this state must be protected and used for their state purpose.

For the full story check out the Wisconsin State Journal:

http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/local/govt_and_politics/article_abc73658-ae10-11de-ad74-001cc4c002e0.html

For more information on Smoking in Wisconsin:

www.smokefreewi.org