First Impressions

What a beautiful day for a debate at the Wisconsin State Fair.  The humidity was low, the sun was out, and the temperature was near perfect.  Only one problem though, Walker and Neumann held the debate in an enclosed radio studio so spectators and fans had difficulties seeing the candidates.  Even more annoying were the campaign signs that made better doors than windows.  But beyond this minor inconveniences, everything was splendid.

The tone of the debate was tepid.  Neither Walker nor Neumann took off the gloves.  Even during broadcast breaks, they were socializing while enjoying their refreshments.  Shockingly, I didn't see Sue Neumann, Mark's wife at the debate.  I thought for sure they would have set up a chair for her so she could take some of Mark's questions.

High Speed Rail

Both candidates said they would derail the High Speed Rail contrived by Governor Doyle and Madison liberals.  Walker called it a boondoggle while Neumann described it as a "long term deficit" for the people of Wisconsin.  More interestingly, Neumann said he would use the federal money intended for High Speed Rail to provide tax cuts.  (Footnote: Walker suggested a similar idea using stimulus funds early last year).

Walker was the first out of the gate on this issue sternly promising he would stop the boondoggle.  Neumann, however, proposed taking the federal funds and giving it back to the people.  Neumann scored more points on this issue.

County Spending Increases

Wagner mentioned Neumann's ad that had talked about the increased spending in Milwaukee County under Walker.  It gave both men an opportunity to explain their side.  Neumann stated that spending definitely increased under Walker's watch, while Walker disagreed.  Walker said he cut the size of government, cut the county debt, increased the county bond rating (indicating prudent fiscal management), vetoed every resolution that attempted to increase taxes, and produced a budget surplus during a time the state was registering substantial deficits.  In other words, he did everything humanly possible to reduce spending.

(Footnote comment: there are more intricacies involved in this issue that sounds wonk-ish, but Walker did a fair job simplifying the idea that he would be the strongest advocate for the taxpayer.)

Neumann was on the offensive, but Walker effectively disputed Neumann's claim.  I saw this part as a draw.

Taxes

Both candidates did a good job explaining their views on taxes.  Neumann emphasized the importance of capping government spending as a way to also cut tax rates.  He stressed that looking at the "big picture" when it comes to spending is important because some believe they can cut in some places while increase spending in others.  Under a Neumann Administration, they would cut spending across the board and reduce taxes.

Walker talked about the importance of putting more money back in the pockets of taxpayers so they can participate in the economy (a slightly different approach).   Walker mentioned that while serving in the state legislature, he voted for the state's largest tax cut and would follow a similar trend as governor.

Both candidates had a draw on this issue.  They both support tax cuts and reduced government spending.

Jobs

Wagner asked how each of the candidates would help bring jobs to Wisconsin.  Walker focused on cutting taxes, cutting regulatory and litigation costs, including performance pay for teachers, and lowering the costs of health care for small businesses.

Neumann agreed on getting government out of the way, but advertised his special brand of tax cuts - specifically his one time, one year moratorium on property taxes, which he claimed would be the biggest tax cut in Wisconsin history.  Walker rejected Neumann's idea calling it a simple tax shift, a tax that would be paid later.  He said "not one penny of government spending is cut under that plan."  Walker went further calling it a tax increase for those who itemize their taxes.

Walker scored higher points on this issue by critiquing Neumann's tax shifting scheme that few people would utilize.

Health Care Reform

Both candidates would authorize state Attorney General J.B. Van Hollen to sue the federal government for levying a tax on consumers for a forced membership into Obamacare.  Walker said he would pass a law similar to the one folks in Missouri passed in order to send a clear message to Washington that we don't want their mandate.  Neumann promoted his petition upon which he gathered $25,000 signatures delivering them to Doyle on two dollies.

Both reactions to Obamacare are primarily symbolic since federal law trumps state law.  On this issue, it appeared to be a draw between the candidates.

Illegal Immigration

Neumann stated that Arizona acted appropriately by protecting themselves against illegal immigration.  Interestingly, Neumann was in touch with someone trying to become a legal citizen, which took about 7-years.  Walker went further than Neumann by saying he would sign a law similar to Arizona's while also ensuring that illegal immigrants wouldn't gain access to public assistance, including instate tuition reimbursement.

Walker scored higher points on the immigration issue because he was willing to be more aggressive.  However, I believe he goes too far by denying instate tuition reimbursement to the children of illegal immigrants.  Both candidates hold this position, but Walker was willing to promote it.  This is just my view, but it's my bet that Walker's base appreciate his willingness to deny social services to illegal immigrants and their children.

Education

Walker supported rewards for teachers that perform well while helping those who struggle.  He also promoted limits on teacher wage and benefits so that money can be spend in the classrooms helping students.  Walker would also remove the voucher cap for Choice Schools so area schools can compete.

Neumann, however, spoke about the schools he founded and how their test scores were above the national average.  He also criticized bureaucratic mandates from Madison that tie up the process with red tape while shutting parents out of the process.

Neumann scored higher points on this issue due to his educational background and personal involvement founding successful private schools.

Conclusion

Both candidates did well on the issue of taxes emphasizing its importance while stressing the necessity of spending reductions.  On many issues, they mirrored each other, but there were two disagreements in the debate.

First, Walker called out Neumann on his plan to initiate what he calls the biggest tax cut in Wisconsin history by calling it a tax shift.  Although it was a theoretical disagreement, both can't be right.

Second, they disagreed on whether Walker had increased spending in Milwaukee County at a rate greater than Doyle.  There is a big debate on this issue because Nuemann has been caught adding budget items to Walker's budget that weren't also included in Doyle's budget.  That's like comparing the times of two runners while one of them is required to run a longer distance.  Also, Neumann allocated a 3 year loan taken by Milwaukee County to the 2010 county budget without averaging the payments out for three years.  It becomes an issue of honestly you allocate a three-year loan to a one-year budget.  

On a more personal note, one issue that bothered me was Walker's emphasis on instate tuition reimbursement for the children of illegal immigrants.  It's one thing to deny illegal immigrants government services because you don't want to incentivize law breaking, but making it more difficult for innocent children, who have defied the odds and done well in school, to compete and do well in society because of what their parents years before is misguided.

Preamble

On July 21, four Milwaukee County Supervisors attended an event hosted by SEIU to protest the county's handling of the O'Donnell Parking Garage investigation.  Supervisors John Weishan Jr., Johnny Thomas, Marina Dimitrijevic and Chris Larson called on County Executive Scott Walker to resign his right to continue a county investigation.  It is thought that a state takeover would provide the public more transparency.

When County Supervisors coalesce with organized labor for a protest, you know the smell of election season must be in the air.  What better way to get a fair investigation than by handing over the reigns to a Democrat Governor who endorses the "other guy". 

About Graef-USA

Shortly after a 13-ton panel fell from the O'Donnell Parking garage killing a 15 year-old boy, the county hired Graef-USA to oversee inspections of more than 100 county buildings.  But hiring Graef created a stir among Walker's harshest foes.

A reporter from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel discovered that Graef had contributed more than $14,000 to Walker over an eight-year period.  The discovery raised the possibility that Walker had hired Graef in what is typically called a "pay to play" scheme.  But in all fairness, Daniel Bice reported that Graef had also contributed more than 3 times that amount to Governor Doyle suggesting that Graef is as likely to favor Democrats as Republicans.

County Supervisors Create a Political Ruckus

County Supervisor Marina Dimitrijevic, who represents a predominantly Latino district, has spearheaded an effort in what Scott Walker has dubbed "a political ploy" to hobble his Republican bid for governor.  A recent statement made by Dimitrijevic might lend some credence to this viewpoint.

Accompanied by union leaders (otherwise known as the political arm of the Democrat party), Dimitrijevic told reporters that it was "still unclear whether deferred maintenance played a role in the failure of the decorative concrete slab".

What's unclear is why Dimitrijevic still thinks that deferred maintenance might be the cause.  Last month, Parks Director Sue Black released a memo itemizing all of the "currently critical", "potentially critical", and "necessary, but not yet critical" problems at the O'Donnell Parking Garage.  The report confirmed that all itemized problems were identified and resolved months prior to the tragedy.  In other words, there is no evidence that deferred maintenance caused the concrete panel to fall. 

Furthermore, recent investigative reports show that contractors, more than a decade ago, did not follow the building's blueprints when attaching the concrete panels to the structure's walls.  Instead of using four connecting rods to secure the panels, contractors used only two.

William Cannon, the attorney representing the deceased boy's family, stated that "shoddy design and an on-site decision to change the stell connections were responsible for the death."  He also said that the pre-cast concrete panel that killed the boy did not fit on the parking structure wall as intended, and modifications were made to shorten the panel.  More interestingly, the two connecting rods used were hammered into the wall at a depth of 1.5 inches, which was 5 inches shorter than ordered in the original plan.

All available evidence indicates that the O'Donnell tragedy resulted from a failure of contractors to secure the panel properly to the wall.  So we asked ourselves, what makes a County Supervisor more inclined to focus on deferred maintenance while the family's lawyer focused on shoddy design?

The simplest explanation is that the lawyer has been hired to present the strongest case based upon a preponderance of the evidence.  He has no political axe to grind, and he has no stake in the November election.  By keeping the focus on deferred maintenance, Dimitrijevic is looking to connect Scott Walker to the O'Donnell tragedy.       

An Independent Investigation

Marina Dimitrijevic has called for the state to usurp the safety investigation of all county buildings.  She thinks they can provide an independent analysis.  But she fails to understand that the County Sheriff and District Attorney, who are currently leading the investigation, are not appointed by Scott Walker.  In fact, they are not appointed at all.

These offices are won through a county-wide election process making them independent and answerable only to a county electorate.  If there are any concerns about a vast right-wing conspiracy involving Sheriff Clarke and Attorney Chisholm, it may be reassuring to know that both Clarke and Chisholm are registered Democrats.

Conclusion

The issue is this: Scott Walker is running for governor.  Most policy decisions he makes, for better or for worse, are made newsworthy.  Instead of being a part of the solution, Dimitrijevic has chosen to be part of the problem.

On July 29th, the County Board voted 10-8 to have the state assume control of the investigation, but it failed to reach the necessary two-thirds mark.  If they had exceeded a two-thirds majority vote, they would have succeeded in prolonging the investigation through November, which could harm Walker's chances to win.    

What's not being talked about, however, is that a child was recently killed in a terrible accident.  The family who suffered the loss has a long road of grieving and healing ahead of them.  For Dimitrijevic to use a human tragedy as a platform for partisanship is shameful, and prolonging an investigation to keep it in the news is rather callous.

But Dimitrijevic's actions underscore a larger problem for Hispanics leadership on the south-side.   Recently, County Supervisor Peggy West, who represents a predominately Latino district, became the laughing stock of the nation when she tried enforcing a boycott against Arizona not knowing that it shared a border with Mexico.  Now we have Dimitrijevic, who also represents a Latino district, exploiting a casualty to inject politics into an investigation.

As they say, the most effective way to influence your leadership is the voting booth.  If the Hispanic community wants to become a political force in years to come, they must start holding their own leadership more accountable.

What We Expect from our Media

The phrase "fair and balanced" has become an earmarked slogan often brandished by the Fox News network.  It's not meant to signify "lacking ideological bias" or "always accurate", but simply representing both sides of an issue.  The point is that it's not the job of the media to lack ideology, but to provide multiple perspectives so viewers have the tools they need to make informed decisions.

Taking the Local Media to Task

Last week, El Conquistador ran an article questioning why a reporter from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel omitted noteworthy information from a news report.  Here is the background.

On June 24th, a 13 ton concrete panel fell from the O'Donnell Parking structure killing a 15 year old boy.  The tragic accident immediately raised concerns about the stability of other county buildings.  So Scott Walker, encouraged by the Architecture and Engineering Department, hired an engineering contractor called Graef-USA to inspect more than 100 county properties.

On July 11th, watchdog reporter Daniel Bice discovered that the county awarded Graef-USA a no-bid contract.  It was also determined that Graef had contributed more than $14,000 to Scott Walker in the past 8 years.  The story was appealing for two reasons.  First, Walker is running for governor.  And second, it appears that there is some sort of cronyism at the county level - at least on the surface.  Quite naturally then, the story about Walker premiered on the front page of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Two days later, Bice's colleague Tom Held reported that the Department of Transportation had awarded the same engineering company with a contract to inspect the Hoan Bridge.  However, Held neglected to report that this was a no-bid contract arranged by Governor Doyle, who had received 3 times as much from Graef as Walker did.  While Bice's story about Walker debuted as a major story on the front page, Held's report about the Hoan Bridge was buried in the local section. 

Dialogue with the Journal Sentinel

We contacted reporter Held and asked why he had omitted the information.  He said that Bice had already run a story linking Graef's contributions to Doyle and didn't see the need to include it in his story.  He also said he didn't have sufficient space available inclining him to focus on more immediate news.

Indeed, in an earlier story, Bice did indicate that Graef-USA had contributed funds to Doyle.  But it's unlikely that the casual reader would have made that same connection here since the article made no mention of Governor Doyle or the no-bid contract.  

We also contacted Deputy Managing Editor Thomas Koetting for more clarification.  He said,

"Tom Held's article on July 14 was focused on repair work that needed to be done on the bridge, and the impact it would have on motorists. Dan Bice's column focused on a political - and financial - relationship between the governor and a business. While both stories pertained to the Hoan bridge, they were focused on two completely different issues. "

Koetting makes a valid point.  Held didn't write a political piece.  He focused on the inspections and necessary repairs for the Hoan Bridge, which was a legitimate story worth covering.  We agree with Koetting, but we take issue with how the stories were prioritized.  We believe that if a story about Walker was relevant enough to headline on the front page, then Held's story on Doyle should not have been relegated to the local section - especially with no mention of Doyle, Graef's political contributions, or the no-bid contract.

But to their credit, the Sentinel corrected the problem.  After we ran a story critical of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Daniel Bice followed up with a piece on Doyle's no-bid contract with Graef that received an equal amount of attention.  It is evident to us, therefore, that Bice saw what was missing in Held's report and acted swiftly.  By including a sequel report, Bice not only proved he has a penchant for probing into both sides of the political isle, but that his journalism was fair and balanced.

Conclusion

It's election season, and there are many special interest groups actively involved in the upcoming gubernatorial election.  For this reason, it is more important than ever that our local media presents the news in a fair and balanced way.  We recognize that the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel did the right thing by running the Doyle/Graef story, but it's even more important that the local media makes balanced coverage a priority on a regular basis.