CLUB FOR GROWTH NEWSLETTERS

In This Issue

Make a Donation today!

Keeping Free Marketers Current on the Issues

  Thanks for your support of Wisconsin Club for Growth!

We hope you enjoy the newsletter. Our goal is to be brief, informative and bit provocative.

We welcome your feedback. Please feel free to contact us anytime by emailing staff@wifg.com , or come visit us on the worldwide web.

Wisconsin Club for Growth Website 

Back to top

Last week, an appellate court in Wisconsin determined that a "virtual" school in Ozaukee County violated state law and must be denied millions of dollars in state funds.  The lawsuit was originally brought by WEAC, the state teachers' union, who sued both the school and the state Department of Instruction.

Of course, the virtual school represented a new way of educating students - via their computers at home, rather than in a classroom.  This new model requires an expanded role for parents in their children's education but the lessons are planned, delivered, tested and evaluated by licensed union teachers. 

The state's lawyer Paul Barnett argued, "This school depends on unlicensed, untrained, unqualified and, um, adults who are not required to prove competence."  But this is true of every school, public or private, and WEAC acknowledges that parental involvement is critical for students and schools to succeed.

The lawsuit wasn't about kids as much as it was about protecting public school union jobs.  If virtual schools were allowed to get off the ground, more parents might opt for the flexibility distance learning offers.  That means more kids being taught by fewer teachers and with test scores above the state average to show for it.  When it comes to public employee unions, quantity trumps quality every time.

According to WEAC attorney Lucy Brown, the union was concerned the school was not being held to standards in state law that "ensure students receive quality public education."  Is Ms. Brown referring to the quality public education such students in Milwaukee Public Schools receive, as their reading and math scores continue to plummet toward third-world levels?

It will be up to the Legislature to change the law to enable virtual schools to operate.  Naturally, there will be legislators beholden to WEAC who will try to cut a deal most beneficial to their chalk-wielding masters.  As a result, union teachers will continue to step over "the kids" in their pursuit of job protection and they won't have all those unlicensed, untrained, unqualified and, um, adults who are not required to prove competence to kick around anymore.

Back to top

Supreme Hypocrisy

On Monday, the seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court issued a signed letter in which they unanimously indicated their support for full public financing of court races.

In their letter, the Supremes say "The risk inherent in any non-publicly funded judicial election for this Court is that the public may inaccurately perceive a justice as beholden to individuals or groups that contribute to his or her campaign. Judges must not only be fair, neutral, impartial and non-partisan but also should be so perceived by the public."

Translation:  "We are not corrupt, but because the public isn't smart enough to figure that out, we need to use their tax money to pay for our campaigns."

There certainly was a lot of spending on the Supreme Court race this year between Annette Ziegler and Linda Clifford.  But the overwhelming majority of the spending was done independently of the campaigns themselves - mostly by third parties making independent expenditures.  No matter how much taxpayer money you pump into a race, that spending will still be there - which will always lead to a "perception" that the justices are influenced by donations.  The only way to solve the problem would be to deny these groups their right to exercise free speech during elections or to have judges appointed for lifetime tenures like the U.S. Supreme Court does.  Wisconsin voters would likely prefer their judges be accountable to the public, at least once every decade.

So these seven wise men and women, all of whom used the current financing system to get elected, now conveniently express the need to reform that same system.  It just so happens that when they're up for re-election, they will have enjoyed ten years of incumbency - and all the electoral advantages that come with that tenure.  For someone to be competitive against a 10-year incumbent, they likely will need to spend more money to gain more name recognition - something public financing and spending caps will prevent.

Furthermore, the audience for such a reform essentially amounts to about five people - made up entirely of campaign finance reformers and newspaper reporters who make their living trying to convince the public that all their elected officials are corrupt.  For them, it means more business.

The Supreme Court could have merely issued a statement that promised to maintain their integrity throughout the judicial session - rather than pandering to the lowest common denominator.  Apparently, the justices need to be saved from themselves.  They see taxpayer money as the way to wash their hands of the current system, and the warts that free speech provide. 

The incumbent protection provided by publicly financed campaigns is just another perk that comes with the robe. 
  

Back to top

Labor Education

A bill being proposed at the Capitol would require school districts to teach students the history of organized labor.  Apparently school districts have already mastered teaching children reading, writing, and arithmetic - now some lawmakers believe they should add some political propaganda to the mix.

Ironically, many of the same legislators who oppose virtually every unfunded mandate on local school districts support mandating this ridiculous propaganda.  The very legislators who criticize the idea of testing students in a meaningful way through the No Child Left Behind federal mandate are the same ones who support a mandate that won't improve education one iota.  Clearly, "local control" is only a valid concept until it gets in the way of advocating for liberal causes.

Union representatives contend passing this unprecedented bill would provide "balance" in the curriculum, since they believe students are being taught about business already (a debatable proposition itself, given students' appalling knowledge of basic economics).  Apparently unions are troubled by the idea of teaching students to be self-sufficient.  It makes more sense to teach them how to threaten to walk off your job in order to soak your employer (and therefore their customers) for more cash.  That's a valuable lesson for those who don't want to be evaluated on the quality of their own work, and an appealing message for most high school students.

Back to top

      Mandatory Auto Insurance

In other legislative news, State Senator John Lehman of Racine is pushing a bill that would mandate drivers get car insurance before being issued a license.  Lehman thinks that since other states impose the same mandate on drivers, it makes sense for Wisconsin.  He said:

"I have had people just laugh at me. They just moved into the state of Wisconsin and they go to the DMV and they bring their insurance papers and the people at the DMV say you don't need those. It's just so unusual."

So apparently that is now the standard for changing the law - whether people laugh at your state senator.  People laugh because Wisconsin voters aren't required to provide photo identification at the polls.  Maybe now John Lehman will support requiring photo ID at the polls.

Furthermore, it's not at all clear how effective such a mandate would be.  According to the Insurance Research Council, Wisconsin has an uninsured motorist rate of 10.6%.  Nationwide, the average is 13.7%.  All Wisconsin's neighboring states are higher: Minnesota (11.7%), Illinois (12.9%), and Michigan (13.1%).  28 of 29 states that have an estimated higher percentage of uninsured drivers than Wisconsin have compulsory insurance rates.

In fact, the research shows that compulsory auto insurance laws are largely ineffective. 13 states that have compulsory insurance laws are higher than the national average, and 5 of these 13 were above 20% uninsured.  Yet a majority of states continue to require insured drivers to carry uninsured motorist coverage.

This may be, in part, because research shows that when insurance is mandated in states, the cost of insurance goes up.  Once insurers know drivers have to have it, they charge more.  As a result, fewer people can afford it and more drivers go uninsured.

And that is nothing to laugh at.
 

Back to top