Andre's Executive Order

Today I'm going to walk you through an analysis of the logic behind protesting the Budget Repair bill that I think anyone regardless of political orientation can follow. First, some facts taken from Scott Walker and his Administration. I've placed some citation sources in the margin for areas I thought might be helpful. Campaign Promises The cornerstone of Scott Walker's campaign promises were on numerous items including stopping the train, cutting taxes, cutting spending, and creating 250,000 jobs. He also made numerous smaller promises none of which are relevant to this discussion one way or another. These promises are pretty standard Republican election points, the only thing particularly interesting is that the number of jobs promised is very ambitious – but good for him. Set your sights high. We need jobs. State of the Budget In Scott Walker's State of the State address, he referred to the budget in dire terms: “First, let me be clear: we have an economic and fisca

I heard what sounded like political wisdom last night on the Lawrence O'Donnell show. I'll share that in a moment, but first an update on the protests. The Wisconsin protests are striking their long stride at this point. While the sheer numbers of people showing up at the capitol have started to ease, the determination of those present has if anything grown deeper. I was at the capitol for about three hours last night and got a chance to talk to a lot of people. The icy damp air had pushed most of the protesters into the capitol building which was still crowded and loud, but the streets and walkways around the capitol were still moving with signs and chants. The diversity of people I talked to was impressive. Of course they included teachers, firefighters, and other public union members but they also included private sector non union employees. I talked to an electrician of 23 years who had moved to Madison from a 'right to work' state and had told union friends 'ne

“John Kotter suggests that for change to be successful, 75% of a company's management needs to "buy into" the change. So for change to happen there needs to be a shared a sense of urgency around the need for change. And this will result from honest and open dialogue with your people about what's happening in your market and with your competition. If many people start talking about the change you propose, the urgency can build and feed on itself. To lead change, you need to bring together a coalition, or team, of influential people whose power comes from a variety of sources, including job title, status, expertise, and political importance. You can find effective change leaders at all levels within your organization - they don't necessarily follow the traditional company hierarchy. It is important to get an emotional commitment from these key people as you build a team to support your change initiative.” The above excerpt is taken from John Kotter, as stated, an ex

As an attorney, one of the things I have to constantly be concerned with is a conflict of interest. It's a term that you hear on the news every once in a while, but most folks don't really truly get it. This is mostly because it just doesn't come up in normal conversation if you're not an attorney, an accountant, or a public official. In simple terms, a conflict of interest is when a person or organization benefits or has a relationship with a certain cause or outcome of a situation and is then approached to do something asking them to go in the opposite direction. For example: If I have shares of stock in a IBM, and someone pays me to sue IBM, I have a conflict of interest. My interest in the profitability of IBM and my interest in doing right by my client and taking money from IBM run counter to each other. In simpler terms, if I'm on a diet and decide to order cake, I have a conflict of interest. My diet and the cake work counter to each other and it is questiona

The hardest thing to explain to folks who are not part of the Wisconsin protests now in their second week is that this isn't about money. The spin placed on it by the far right and even Walker wants to portray this fight as being about greedy unions refusing to make concessions to a tight budget during tight times. That's a load of crap. The unions have been willing to talk concessions in order to help with budget shortfalls since the beginning. In addition, the state was on track for a 121 million dollar surplus when governor Walker took the job. So it's hard to understand how a 121 million dollar surplus turns into a 137 million dollar shortfall in one month that is so much an emergency that it requires a budget repair bill passed in 5 days or Armageddon is upon us. Well no matter what you think about this, the whole process of how it's happening feels wrong. Even if you don't want to question why a surplus budget became a dangerous deficit in one month requiring

Before we get started today, I found it amazing that Rachel Maddow's segment 'The GoP: Bakes sales v. Billionaires' mirrored my connect the dots article in a surprisingly tight fashion. It was reassuring to find that I wasn't the only one who saw the connection between Citizens United and the moves by Governor Walker to crush Wisconsin public labor. I've linked that show segment in the margin if you want to see her take on the idea that what's happening here in Wisconsin is really an effort to let Republican sweep the table in upcoming elections. Whether your conservative or liberal, I'd give it a look. I was at the protests on the capital last night and again was amazed at the determined front presented by public servants. Fire fighters, already exempt from the bill's dismantling of negotiation rights, stood in full uniform with us and marched together through the capital. But it wasn't just unions that showed up. Signs hung from the central banist

At the risk of being called a conspiracy theorist, let's connect a few dots and ask a few questions about the political climate in the last couple of weeks and the last couple of years. Bear with me, I will do everything I can to support what I see and leave the rest to you. Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010), was a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court holding that corporate funding of independent political broadcasts in candidate elections cannot be limited under the First Amendment. (taken from Wikipedia) Now every American knows that the basic building blocks of democracy are votes that are worth the same no matter who casts them. That's why every American also knows that the battle of politics is to convince as many people as possible to cast their votes in a desired direction. The number one weapon to convince a large population of anything, as anyone who watches TV knows, is advertisement. So suddenly large organizations ar

I went to the protests at the state capitol against Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's so called 'budget repair' bill last night. The protesters were in the thousands, marching around the square through the halls and chanting their opposition to this bill. I got a chance to listen to toughly twenty people get in front of the committee hearings and plead against the bill. I learned things. First, I learned that a number of big hitters out there oppose this bill outside of Unions and those directly affected. The University of Wisconsin faculty, for instance. The Madison school board. County executives and other state politicians. Second, I learned how well many average folks understood the implications of this bill. The loss of salary was really only an annoyance compared to what the primary concern was here – that their rights were being taken away. Testimony after testimony pleaded with officials not to strip them of their ability to fight for working conditions and benefits

Citizens of the United States. Citizens of Wisconsin. I come before you today to discuss how I will reduce government spending and help deal with the an out of control deficit. To better serve the public interest and ensure the economic prosperity of our economy, I have decided to balance the budget by stripping away your first amendment rights. Sound ridiculous? Of course it does. What do your first amendment rights cost? What does stripping them away gain for the national or state budget? The answer is nothing. There is no direct connection between the expenditures of government and this particular right, and the entire statement feels like someone told you that they were going to mow the lawn by changing the water in their fish tank. Scott Walker's budget for Wisconsin strips away the rights for State unions to bargain for anything except salary. In addition, salary 'negotiation' is rendered almost entirely dead. If any raise goes over the consumer price index, it would

Let me tell you a story. Once upon a time, there was a great idea. That idea was that a group of refuges who had escaped a brutally heavy handed and entrenched society where populations lived and died at the hands of dictators could live together and stand together without that excessive social and governmental weight. These refuges by choice; colonists to a new land, broke their ties to the heavy handed politics of Europe and began the great experiment that would become our nation. The founders of the United States unquestionably recognized that when government acquired total power, the people suffered. They also knew that without a central government, the new colonies would have no future. Whether it was external threats or internal squabbling, the colonies had to stand together if they were to retain the freedom they had won and, in fact, have any freedom at all. This point is often forgotten. Whether you are a 2nd amendment advocate for private firearms or a 1st amendment champion

I promised this one a while ago. With luck, today starts another string of my actual daily entries instead of good intentions separated by silences. Back to gun control. Let's be clear, gun control is popular. It is also politically toxic. What's the difference? Well if you actually ask most people if they want gun control, a vast and staggering majority will answer yes. People generally understand that guns are dangerous equipment and should be handled the same way as any other similarly dangerous hardware. We're not just talking progressives here, we're talking about a good majority of Republicans, NRA members, and the whole kit and kaboodle. But there are two elements embedded in this popular idea that usually bring any legislation to a screeching halt. The first reason gun control is politically toxic is that while almost everyone wants gun control, the same people are highly suspicious of that control being determined by anyone other than themselves. The reason for