Elections and Self-Promoting Politicians

Election season is underway, so it's time for incumbent politicians to engage in shameless acts of self-promotion.   Now is the time when liberal politicians with foolhardy records of spending suddenly become wise fiscal conservatives months shy of the November election.  Last week, for instance, Russ Feingold's campaign released a statement stressing that Feingold is "an independent and a fiscally conservative voice for Wisconsin."  I think anyone who knows Feingold's voting record recognizes the falsity of this claim.

Is Feingold an Independent or a Hard Core Liberal

Feingold invests quite a bit of effort conveying a maverick-like persona.  He prides himself in being an "independent" - a pioneer of sorts that's not afraid to antagonize his own party if necessary.  It appears, however, that his political independence is byproduct of inordinate liberalism, not free thinking. 

In late January, Politico released an article floating the possibility of former Governor Tommy Thompson challenging Feingold for his Senate seat.  Politco said, "Republicans have so far been unable to recruit a top-tier challenger to take on Feingold, who is one of the body's most liberal Senators."

It's important to highlight that Politico sees Feingold as among the most liberal in the U.S. Senate.  And they aren't the only ones to make such claims either.  Onetheissues.org, a respected website devoted to assessing the politics of Congress, scored Senator Feingold in the top 90th percentile of Congressional liberals.  I believe the term they applied to Feingold was "Hard-Core Liberal".  To illustrate this point, please refer to the graph below that plots out, with a red marker, where Feingold is positioned on the political spectrum.  (Hint, look to the far left.)

The only time that Feingold is an independent is when he's so far left ideologically that he finds himself voting against both parties.  This is not the ordinary understanding of an independent.  A true independent is a moderate who is not beholden to the politicking of either party.  An independent can vote either Democrat or Republican because he is guided by the dictates of his conscience.  Feingold, however, does not vote with the GOP on anything substantive.  And therefore, it is misleading for Feingold to characterize himself as an independent.

Let's consider the second claim that Feingold is a fiscal conservative.  In the past year, the United States has managed to triple its annual debt through spectacular spending.  Some would argue that government spending was necessary to dig our way out of a remarkable recession.  And although there is some truth to this claim, Feingold has not made a distinction between necessary and superfluous spending.

Russ Feingold's Spending Record

Tracking back to February of 2009, Feingold voted for the $410 billion Omnibus Bill, which guaranteed approximately 9,000 wasteful earmarks to special interest groups.  He also voted for the $787 billion Stimulus Bill - a bill that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel conceded Has not created any jobs.  These two bills account for more than a trillion dollars, which is truly a staggering number.

In May of 2009, Feingold voted for the 3 billion dollar "Cash for Clunkers" program, which essentially subsidized auto purchases for the middle and upper classes while destroying many of the low-grade vehicles commonly used by low income earners.  By taking these "clunkers" off the road, Democrat Senators like Russ Feingold reduced the number of vehicles available to poor communities, thus limiting their modes of transportation.

In October of 2009, Feingold voted for (get ready, this is a long one) the $126 billion Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agency Appropriations.  This bill spent inordinate amounts of money on domestic food programs, rural development, and foreign agricultural services.

In the same month, Feingold also voted for the $34.28 billion Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act that funds the protection of our borders, our Coast Guard, our Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and our Secret Service.  (Arguably, this one got bi-partisan support.)

And finally, in December of 2009, Senator Feingold voted to expand the national debt limit from $12.1 trillion to $12.39 trillion - a fiscally irresponsible habit that Congress has unfortunately got itself into.

An Evaluation of Feingold's Spending

In just what I've tallied up here for 2009, Feingold personally voted to spend more than $1,360,280,000,000, which also includes the expansion of the national debt limit.  And the staggering 1.3 trillion doesn't include Feingold's votes on bills that had expanded pre-existing government programs.

Even if we go back 2008, we would see Feingold voting to increase the national debt limit again while spending on projects like Amtrack ($5.3 billion) and TARP (nearly $700 billion).

Another interesting bit is that the non-partisan National Tax Union gave Senator Feingold a score of 17 out of 100 based upon his record of spending.  According to the NTU, the higher the score, the more effort the representative invested into protecting the taxpayer.  The NTU also states that representatives can vote for spending bills and still score well as long as they seek alternative ways to reduce costs by cutting somewhere else.

According to the NTU, Feingold is among the worst spenders in Congress.  He is worse than east and west coast liberals like Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, and Barney Frank.  The NTU also has him tied with Ted Kennedy and Harry Reid.  With a voting record like this and a bottom rung score from the NTU, how can Feingold's campaign talk like they are fiscal conservatives?  Either Feingold has a very good explanation for these inconsistencies, or he thinks that Wisconsin citizens are uninformed.  One thing seems fairly certain.  Russ Feingold is not a fiscal conservative.

Internet Search Engines 101

Our liberal friend over at the Cognitive Dissidence put up a post that shows the Google search results for "Scott Walker Achievements".  Apparently, he thought it was funny because Google said "no results found for Scott Walker Achievements".

However, what Liebenthal doesn't tell you is that by putting "Scott Walker Achievements" into quotes, Google searches for that exact phrase, which doesn't work so well because people haven't published articles using that exact arrangement of words.

But if you type in "Scott Walker's Achievements" without the quotes, there are 168,000 search results.

If one really wants to read about Scott Walker's achievements, all one needs to do is read "Why Scott Walker is Likely to Become Wisconsin's Next Governor".

Below are both images starting with Liebenthal's image and finishing with mine.

Chris Liebenthal's Image

Aaron Rodriguez' Image

(Take notice that my article critiquing Liebenthal's non-profit organization for being a partisan group of liberal bloggers.  Ah, the power of the Hispanic Conservative!!!)

Bottom line is that Liebenthal performed an improper internet inquiry, which gave him the search results he was looking for.  I think it's rather interesting how liberals can spin their posts knowing full well that they are misleading readers.  But when they are called to the carpet, they rarely post retractions.

And just for fun, here is the exact same search on Mayor Tom Barrett.

Democrats Changing Their Game Plan

After the Massachusetts election, Democrats realized that their Titanic had hit the proverbial iceberg.  Blinded by ideological zeal and party infighting, they focused on bill like the "Public Option" and "Cap and Trade", but not enough time on fixing the economy.  Reflecting the dissent of American voters, President Obama shifted gears a bit in his State of the Union Address by redirecting efforts to job creation while relegating health care reform to a cameo appearance. 

In Wisconsin, our two gubernatorial headliners are Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  (Of course, there is also ex-Congressman Mark Neumann, but he's about as relevant to politics as Don Majkowski is to the Green Bay Packers.)  Following the national trend, both leaders are doubling down on job creation.  However, it should be noted that Scott Walker has been preaching job creation for the better part of last year.   

Scott Walker's Jobs Plan

Scott Walker has a simple approach to job growth  He says that by providing businesses with tax breaks, we can stop the bleeding and keep our jobs in Wisconsin.  As a pointed example, Walker referred to job losses at both Harley Davidson and Thomas Industries as a sign that our governor has not fought hard enough to create a pro-business environment.

Walker also believes that tax cuts, among other fiscal policy changes, is the fastest and most effective way to create jobs.  He says that tax cuts allow businesses to invest more in production and job growth.  This will not only raise tax revenue for the state, but encourage consumer spending.  Does this sound reasonable?

According to most economists, increasing taxes on small businesses will negatively affect their "after-tax" profits.  And when companies can't maintain profitability, their incentives to save and invest decreases.  And if were to happen, businesses will either contract or refuse to expand and unemployment will eventually increase.   

Most economists also agree that lowering taxes on businesses will increase in the total supply of goods and services, also called an aggregate supply.  How does this work?

Simple, by putting more money into the hands of consumers, they will either save or spend.  If they spend, they will consume more products from suppliers.  This will cause suppliers to supply more thus increasing the aggregate supply.  If they don't spend, but rather save and invest, then they will increase their chances of contributing more to the economy in the future.  The end result is that an increased aggregate supply requires more workers and will lower unemployment.  While this occurs, the economy's output will stay above its natural level - something economists like to call a boom.

Tom Barrett's Job Plan

What's Tom Barrett's platform on business?  On his official campaign website, the entirety of his business platform is found in his gubernatorial announcement made last November.  Barrett says nothing about how to create or maintain jobs in Wisconsin.  He says nothing about cutting taxes or providing incentives to Wisconsin businesses.  Barrett did note, however, that families and businesses are complaining about tax increases and that they want them to stop.  However, Barrett falls short of making a commitment to stop them. 

The only definitive statement that Barrett makes about taxes is that they should be collected fairly and spent frugally.  What does this mean?  Some think that a "fair tax" is liberal code for penalizing top income earners while giving breaks to the middle class.  But nobody can be sure since Barrett has yet to outline his position on jobs.

Frugal Spending and High Speed Rail

Also, Barrett said we should spend our taxes frugally.  This could be interpreted as a discrete criticism of governor Doyle's excessive tax and spend philosophy that has accrued a record breaking $6 billion dollar budget deficit.

Just recently, for instance, Governor Doyle praised the idea of building high speed rail after receiving an $823 million subsidy from the federal government.  What's not mentioned in newspapers is that high speed rail is not cost-effective.  Another problem is that there is virtually no demand for a rail line that routes from Milwaukee to the Dane County Airport (falling about 6 miles short of downtown Madison).  And lastely, the structural maintenance of rail will add millions per year to an already bloated budget deficit.  If Barrett wants to convince Wisconsinites that he wants to spend their tax dollars frugally, then he should reconsider his position on high speed rail and how us that he's serious.