The Latest News from JimBurkee.com

Jim Burkee Is the Better Republican (Shepherd Express)

Sat, 06 Sep 2008 08:10:06 +0100

Congress Endorsement

It’s time for longtime Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner to retire.

Sensenbrenner has little positive to show for his 30 years in office. Sensenbrenner has not only led this nation on a dangerous path after Sept. 11 with his disregard for the Bill of Rights, but he has also sowed division among Americans with his cruel immigration legislation.

Unfortunately for the Republicans, he has been instrumental in helping lead the Republican Congress back into the minority. Sensenbrenner took pettiness and partisanship to toxic levels once he attained some power in Congress as chair of the Judiciary Committee. He was willing to demonize and dehumanize illegal immigrants and threatened to turn a tolerant nation into something unrecognizable.

The Shepherd endorses Jim Burkee in the Republican primary for the 5th Congressional District. Burkee is a traditional Republican, and we don’t agree with him on many issues. But Burkee honestly wants to serve the public—and not put himself or his party first. That’s a notion that Sensenbrenner clearly doesn’t get after all of these years in Washington. Burkee would provide his constituents with a rep resentative who would seek out common ground with Democrats and independents.

Now that Republicans in Congress are back in the minority, Burkee’s willingness to work across the partisan aisle will allow him to be more effective than Sensenbrenner despite all of Sensenbrenner’s seniority. That makes Burkee a better match for the district than Sensenbrenner, and we encourage voters to support him.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endoreses Jim Burkee

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:55:26 +0100

Editorial: Burkee for Congress

Jim Burkee is a principled conservative who would square well with the views of this right-leaning district. The incumbent has too often been a roadblock for progress.

From the Journal Sentinel

Posted: Sept. 5, 2008

Jim Sensenbrenner has the support of the party apparatus in the 5th Congressional District. He consistently earns high ratings from taxpayer rights groups and conservative organizations. He has a strong sense of constituent service. He’s tough. He’s outspoken.

But Sensenbrenner too often has been a roadblock in Congress, even to the point of splitting his own party over illegal immigration because he couldn’t find it in himself to compromise.

Jim Burkee, whom we recommend in Tuesday’s Republican primary, is a 40-year-old history professor at Concordia University Wisconsin in Mequon with no political experience. A downside, yes, especially as he would be replacing a veteran with plenty of clout on Capitol Hill. But Burkee is thoughtful, committed and principled. He has sent signals that he can work with the opposition, which will be necessary when Congress reconvenes in January. And he is running on traditional Republican values.

Take, for instance, taxes and spending. Burkee is a fiscal hawk who worries, as many people do, that the nation is spending itself into a budget black hole. “I grew up a Reagan Republican,” he says, noting his enthusiasm for the smaller-government message of the 1994 “Contract with America.”

What ensued? Under the Republican majority of the Bush years, the federal government grew — and at a faster rate than during the Johnson administration.

And taxes? “I’m all for tax cuts,” he says, though he feels they should follow spending cuts, not the reverse. Of the Bush tax cuts: “We have not had our taxes cut. . . . Tax cuts that aren’t accompanied by spending cuts are not tax cuts; they are deferred taxes.”

Burkee also has talked of a “comprehensive” approach to energy rather than the sort of grandstanding of many who simply call for drilling for oil. Such pragmatism actually might get Republican ideas passed into law and should have appeal to all but the most hardened partisans.

Burkee also favors what he refers to as “balanced trade,” which might be a third way between protectionism and a no-holds-barred approach. But it’s a concern if it leaves Burkee open to the protectionist sentiment that is building in Congress.

Sensenbrenner, though solidly conservative, did little to advance Republican priorities while entrusted with the powerful chairmanship of the House Judiciary Committee. Instead, he alienated an entire voting bloc — Latinos — with his dogmatism on the immigration issue.

His extreme stance on illegal immigration helped inflame the public, split his party and poisoned the atmosphere in Congress for reform. Sensenbrenner authored an enforcement-only measure that would have made felons of undocumented immigrants, split up families and built a 700-mile border fence.

Like President Bush’s sensible approach, Burkee favors comprehensive reform that increases legal immigration, seeks to protect families and deports those with criminal records.

Burkee favors other ideas that will sound good to Republicans: Do not take money from special interests and limit members of Congress to three two-year terms.

Is it naïve to believe a freshman legislator can replace an old pro such as Sensenbrenner? Perhaps. But Burkee offers fresh thinking on a variety of issues and argues convincingly that the Republicans — and Sensenbrenner — have lost their way.

In our view, of course, Sensenbrenner has been wrong on numerous issues — Real ID, aspects of the USA Patriot Act, giving the administration a virtual pass on oversight.

But our support for Burkee has more to do with the strength of his ideas than with our past disagreements with the incumbent. We see Burkee in the mold of Rep. Paul Ryan, the Janesville Republican, who has creatively and sensibly represented Wisconsin’s 1st District. Burkee is the better candidate.

Excerpt from Ben Merens Radio Show

Fri, 05 Sep 2008 06:51:06 +0100

At Issue with Ben Merens

Click the play button below to listen to an excerpt from the At Issue with Ben Merens on Wisconsin Public Radio on September 4, 2008. Ben interviewed both candidates for the 5th Congressional District of Wisconsin.

Link to the Show

Excerpt from Jay Weber Radio Show

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:58:24 +0100

The Jay Weber Show

Click the play button below to listen to an excerpt from the Jay Weber Show on September 3, 2008. Jay interviews JR Ross from Wispolitics about Jim Burkee.

Fresh face takes on years of experience (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:18:01 +0100

Burkee finds fault with Sensenbrenner

By SCOTT WILLIAMS
swilliams@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Aug. 21, 2008

It was not supposed to be like this.

Republican Jim Burkee planned to challenge incumbent U.S. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner as part of an unusual political partnership with Democrat Jeff Walz.

The two Concordia University professors planned to campaign together and create a new model for American politics. But just as the bipartisan team approach was getting started, Walz dropped out of the race, leaving Burkee to face Sensenbrenner alone.

The result: Essentially a winner-take-all Republican primary Sept. 9 in Wisconsin's 5th Congressional District.

Independent Robert Raymond has registered for the Nov. 4 election, but Raymond shows no sign of campaigning in a district that stretches from Port Washington to Johnson Creek.

Burkee, on the other hand, has come out firing at Sensenbrenner, whom he accuses of out-of-control spending, harsh partisanship and losing touch with southeastern Wisconsin.

"I see a congressman who spends a lot of time traveling around the world and not a lot of time advocating for his constituents," Burkee said.

Sensenbrenner, who is seeking his 16th term in the House, fires back that he has fought wasteful government spending and that he is active throughout his district.

"I'm here. I'm around. I'm visible. I'm accessible," he said.

The incumbent from Menomonee Falls has faced challengers before - but never from within his own party. He enjoys support from many traditional Republican groups, including the state party leadership.

"We're behind him," said Mark Jefferson, executive director of the state GOP.

Burkee, a history professor at Concordia University, is making his first political campaign as very much an outsider fighting an uphill battle.

The Cedarburg resident has pledged to refuse special-interest contributions and lobbyist gifts, and said if elected, he would limit himself to three terms in office.

Burkee vows never to support what he terms irresponsible deficit spending, which has inflated the national debt to a level that the challenger believes will take generations to pay off.

"We're not going to have any real change in Washington until we change the people in Washington," he said.

Sensenbrenner cited his opposition to Hurricane Katrina disaster relief as an example of needless spending that he has fought. Many of his predictions of waste and mismanagement in the hurricane relief effort have come true, he said.

He added, "How a politician votes is more important than how a politician talks."

F. James Sensenbrenner

Age: 65
Address; time in district: N76-W14726 North Pointe Drive, Menomonee Falls; 50 years.
Occupation: Congressman.
Elective offices and other governmental experience: Wisconsin Assembly, 1968 to 1975; state Senate, 1975 to 1979; U.S. House, 1979 to present.
Education: University of Wisconsin-Madison, law degree; Stanford University, bachelor's degree, political science.
Family: Married; two children.

Jim Burkee

Age: 40
Address; time in district: W66-N491 Madison Ave., Cedarburg; four years.
Occupation: College professor.
Elective offices and other government experience: None.
Education: Northwestern University, PhD, history; New York University, master's degree, business administration; Concordia University; bachelor's degrees, history, marketing and business administration.
Family: Married; three children.

GOP newcomer challenges Sensenbrenner (Shepherd Express)

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:15:20 +0100

Political newcomer Jim Burkee will attempt to unseat longtime incumbent Jim Sensenbrenner.

By ERIN LAMB
elamb@jcpgroup.com | Link to Original Article

Political newcomer Jim Burkee will attempt to unseat longtime incumbent Jim Sensenbrenner as the two battle for the 5th Congressional District seat in the Sept. 9 Republican primary.

The 5th Congressional district encompasses Ozaukee County and Washington County, as well as parts of Waukesha, Jefferson and Milwaukee counties.

Sensenbrenner, 65, of Menomonee Falls has held his position in Congress since he first took office in 1979. In contrast, Burkee, 40, of Cedarburg has never held office in Congress, a point of which he is proud.

"I proudly boast that I have no experience in Congress. Proudly - because that's what Congress is supposed to be comprised of," said Burkee, an associate professor of history at Concordia University, who contends that Congress is supposed to be the "People's House," not the career politician's house.

Burkee said he will "work across the aisle with independents and Democrats" and would limit himself to three terms in Congress.

Sensenbrenner, an attorney, who is seeking re-election for his 16th term, said his leadership and tenure allow him to get things done.

"I am still able to effectively work for elimination of wasteful government spending and fight to protect the interests of the taxpayers, he said. "My track record speaks for itself."

Burkee considers Sensenbrenner's track record when asked what differentiates him from his primary opponent.

"There are several clear differences between Congressman Sensenbrenner and myself: Mr. Sensenbrenner likes to cut taxes without cutting spending to pay for the tax cuts; I believe it is immoral to give ourselves tax breaks while passing the bill to our children and grandchildren. Mr. Sensenbrenner voted for the biggest government entitlement in history - Medicare Part D - but didn't have the integrity to vote to pay for it. As a consequence, our children and grandchildren will face massive, unbearable tax burdens in the future to pay for our leaders' mistakes today."

Sensenbrenner, who cites he is regularly heralded by the anti-tax group, the National Taxpayers Union, said he is fiscally responsible. He said "what you see is what you get" and as a politician does not intend to "sugar coat" when months later constituents realize exactly the opposite has happened.

"I am willing to take a politically incorrect stand when necessary to save taxpayers money and defeat legislature that is not common sense," he said.

Sensenbrenner said he treats every election seriously and approaches each one with the same eagerness. He said he is running on a record that he is available, accessible and accountable, adding he has been at hundreds of town meetings, and office hours; in addition to other events like parades, church fests, and spaghetti dinners.

"You name it, I've been around," said Sensebrenner.

Tuesday's primary winner is scheduled to face independent Robert R. Raymond of Shorewood in the Nov. 4 election.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Is It Time for Sensenbrenner to Retire?

Wed, 03 Sep 2008 12:11:14 +0100

Burkee says the district needs new leadership

By Lisa Kaiser
Original link to article

Sept. 9 is the general election,” said Jim Burkee, who is taking on longtime Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner in the Republican primary on that date. “It is probably the best opportunity we’ve had in this district in 30 years to retire Jim Sensenbrenner.”

Burkee, a Concordia University history professor who lives in Cedarburg, is making the case that Sensenbrenner has failed to provide responsible leadership and tangible benefits to the Fifth Congressional District, which encompasses Washington and Ozaukee counties, and portions of Waukesha, Jefferson and Milwaukee counties.

Burkee called Sensenbrenner “one of the most partisan and polarizing members of Congress” who doesn’t match the increasingly diverse district that includes suburbanites, high-tech and blue collar workers and rural residents.

“I want people on a broader, emotional level to feel good about their leader ship,” Burkee said. “We shouldn’t have to be embarrassed by the people who represent us. We can do better than that.” Burkee argued that Sensenbrenner’s 30 years in office haven’t led to a practical solution to the country’s energy crisis, a long standing problem that was apparent when Sensenbrenner was first elected to C o n g r e s s . S ensenb renner ’s opposition to immigration—not just illegal immigration, but his call to slash legal immigration by 70%—has hurt the district, especially the high-tech businesses that rely on skilled workers from abroad.

Burkee also hopes to change the tone of political debate. While most elected officials try to promote their home state, Sensenbrenner has managed to offend Wisconsin residents. In 2006, he called Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett a “crybaby” and said Milwaukee is “rapidly becoming the murder capital of the U.S.”

Burkee said he would serve the district better by being less partisan than Sensenbrenner and would work to bring more federal money to Wisconsin.While Wisconsin is the 20th most populous state, Burkee said, the state receives less than its fair share of federal funds for Medicare reimbursements; trans portation infrastructure; research grant money that could fuel a high-tech economy; and education. The result, he said, is a higher property tax burden on res idents and a strained state budget.

The solution, Burkee said, is to work with Democrats instead of offending them. Indeed, Burkee is hoping that Democrats and independ ents—as well as Republicans who are turned off by Sensenbrenner—will turn out and vote in the Sept. 9 Republican primary. Burkee said that although the district is gerrymandered to favor Republicans, those who are not party members should have a say in who represents them.

“Our challenge is to get people to the polls, to capitalize on getting Republicans to the polls who are fed up with a party that has completely betrayed the very principles it says it stands for, to turn out Republicans who are also fed up with representation from people like Jim Sensenbrenner who are just not capable of working across the aisle, plus independents and Democrats,” Burkee said. “We are counting on Democrats to turn out who are also interested in seeing some new leadership.”

But the Sept. 9 primary will likely have a small turnout. Milwaukee County has only one county wide race, for county clerk. The hot race on the North Shore is in the Democratic primary, for the Assembly seat being vacated by Rep. Sheldon Wasserman as he runs for state Senate, and those vot ers can’t cross party lines to vote for Burkee. But Republican state Rep. Sue Jeskewitz is leaving an open seat, so Germantown and Menomonee Falls voters will be active.

Burkee sees a small advantage in a primary that he predicts will have “record low turnout.” “A primary vote is equal to about 10 votes in the general election,” he said. “People can accomplish great things. All it takes is a willingness to get out there and be active.”

While Burkee has harsh words for Republicans who “circle their wagons around party leadership, instead of circling their wagons around a new generation of leadership,” he does have a traditionally Republican platform. Burkee says he would only pay for programs that have a funding source, he’s pro-life and pro-business, and wants to shrink government.But he is running against irresponsible tax cuts and states on his Web site that “the war in Iraq must be brought to a responsible but rapid conclusion.”

“I’m going to win this race in many ways by doing just what I’d do in Washington,” Burkee said. “That means working with and appealing to Republicans and Democrats alike.”

What’s your take? Write: editor@shepex.com or comment on this story online at www.expressmilwaukee.com.

Sensenbrenner is not delivering for his district

Thu, 07 Aug 2008 07:49:46 +0100

by Jim Burkee

James Madison, the "Godfather of the Constitution," believed the young United States would be best represented when the country's wide array of representatives - Congressmen, senators and even state and local officials - each fought ferociously to represent the interests of their constituents.

Each representative, he believed, fighting for the best interests of his district or state, would check the other, maximizing equality for all and the common good.

It is worth considering Madison's view of representation in evaluating our own congressman, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. If a Congressman is to actively advocate for his district, how is ours doing?

Not well.

In recent years, Wisconsin has consistently ranked at the bottom of the list of states receiving its fair share of federal funding for roads, bridges, education, research and more. According to Wisconsin's Division of Intergovernmental Relations, Wisconsin ranks 47th in the country in federal funds received per capita.

What does this mean for residents of Wisconsin's 5th District?

Higher health care costs. Earlier this month Congressman Sensenbrenner was the only member of the Wisconsin delegation to vote for a 10.6-percent cut in Medicare payments to Wisconsin doctors. This in spite of the fact that Wisconsin doctors receive smaller payments from Medicare than doctors in better-represented states like California and Florida. Who makes up the difference? Anyone carrying private insurance and Wisconsin taxpayers.
Failing roads and bridges. The nation's infrastructure faces a $500 billion shortfall, and it's even worse in Wisconsin, where 32 percent of the state's roads are in poor condition, 15 percent of our bridges are deficient, 25 percent of our highways are congested and our construction companies receive less funding than counterparts in other states.
Less high-tech research. Wisconsin is the 20th-most-populous state, yet it is just 37th in research grant dollars. Research funding at universities sparks high-tech business development. Yet, Milwaukee - receiving fewer research funds than other cities - lost 71 high-tech employers by 2006.
A struggling education system. If you thought 37th in research funding was bad, consider that Wisconsin ranks 49th in federal spending on education. Voters in Germantown, Mequon and West Bend are already coming to grips with the consequence of this funding shortfall: Local property taxpayers must make up the difference.
Higher taxes. Why is Wisconsin's tax burden so high? The simple arithmetic is that Wisconsin taxpayers subsidize residents of Alaska, Virginia, Maryland, New Mexico and North Dakota - states at the top of the federal funding list who have representatives that advocate more vocally for them. What would it mean to Wisconsin taxpayers to receive our fair share? $873 million would bring us to Oregon's level - No. 46 on the list.

Rather than use his 30 years in office to have Wisconsin tax dollars brought back home, Congressman Sensenbrenner's response has been to publicly demean and belittle local public officials who dare to advocate for the people they represent. Sensenbrenner admits to being "abrupt" and "blunt" with his constituents, but it goes far beyond that.

In 2006, after calling the city he represents a "murder capital of the U.S.," Congressman Sensenbrenner was rebuked by business, convention and tourism organizations. When Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett raised an eyebrow, Sensenbrenner called him a "crybaby."

Former West Bend Mayor Mike Miller recounts a similar story. In 1999, Miller asked Sensenbrenner to use funding for Wisconsin's Army National Guard, which risked being relocated after the unit was slated 85th in appropriations. Only after confronting Sensenbrenner in an airport did the Congressman use his clout to move the post from 85th to fifth in appropriations, saving the National Guard for West Bend - but not before publicly nicknaming Miller, you guessed it, "Mayor Crybaby."

Mr. Sensenbrenner claims to oppose pork-barrel spending, or "earmarks." And true to form, he hasn't brought much pork home for his own constituents. But the reality is that Congressman Sensenbrenner does vote for pork - just not for his own constituents. In just six years, between 2001 and 2007, he voted for over $94 billion in pork-barrel spending - for other states.

It is possible to oppose pork-barrel spending (I was the first in our race to sign the no-earmark pledge) while fighting for Wisconsin's fair share of funding in defense, education, transportation, science and research, and other normal appropriations.

Unfortunately, Wisconsin residents have the worst of both worlds: A massive level of debt - including $3 trillion in additional debt between 2001 and 2007, when Congressman Sensenbrenner's Republican leadership controlled Washington - but little to show for it at home.

Opponents of term limits, including Congressman Sensenbrenner, will argue that longevity in Congress means more power, and therefore better representation, for Wisconsin taxpayers. Mr. Sensenbrenner's record belies that argument. More years in Congress may have meant more power, but the result has been less responsibility and weak representation.

James Madison's view of congressional representation is as valid today as it was two centuries ago. Wisconsin's 5th District needs a Congressman who will represent his district with respect, in cooperation with other local elected officials, and always with an eye to what is best for the people of Wisconsin.

Jim Burkee, an associate professor of history at Concordia University in Mequon, is challenging Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. in the Sept. 9th Republican primary.

White House projects record deficit for 2009

Tue, 29 Jul 2008 09:43:04 +0100

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush's budget chief blamed the faltering economy and the bipartisan stimulus package for the record $482 billion deficit the White House predicted for the 2009 budget year.

The White House blames a faltering economy and the stimulus package for the increased budget deficit.

Jim Nussle, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, said the deficit would be about 3.3 percent of the nation's gross domestic product, the measure of the nation's total economy.

The fiscal year begins October 1, 2008.

The federal deficit is the difference between what the government spends and what it takes in from taxes and other revenue sources. The government must borrow money to make up the difference.

While the deficit would be a record in absolute dollar terms, Nussle said it would be below the 2004 deficit, 3.6 percent of GDP, and the record deficit of 1983, 6 percent of GDP, when compared with the size of the overall U.S. economy.

White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the stimulus package was necessary, even if it increased the deficit.

"We do think the plan was the right one, and it will have an effect," she said. "And the best way to help reduce the deficit is to make sure you are keeping a lock on spending, but also that you can also try to help to build the economy. So we hope this will help us pull out of the economic downturn over the next few months because of the stimulus package.

"I remember that back when we were discussing the stimulus package, both parties recognized that the deficit would increase, and that would be the price that we pay in order to help improve the economy," she said.

Nussle said the $170 billion, bipartisan stimulus, which congressional Democrats and Bush agreed to earlier this year, was a major reason the deficit was expected to reach record levels next year. The deficit projection for 2009 would have been only 2.2 percent of the economy, or $272 billion, if the stimulus package is excluded, Nussle said.

"The determination was made that getting the economy back on track was a higher priority than immediate deficit reduction," Nussle said.

He said the OMB projects that the deficit would fall after the 2009 budget year, and he predicted that the government would have a surplus in budget year 2012, if the president's budget blueprint is followed.

"Near-term deficits are temporary and manageable if -- and only if -- we keep spending in check, the tax burden low and the economy growing," Nussle said, warning that congressional Democrats were planning to add billions of dollars in spending to the federal budget.

President Bush inherited a budget surplus of $128 billion when he took office in 2001 but has since posted a budget deficit every year.

The Bush administration has spent heavily on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, and faces a large budget shortfall in tax revenue in part because of Bush's tax cuts and a souring economy.

A Democratic point man on the budget, Sen. Kent Conrad of North Dakota, blasted the administration for its "reckless fiscal policies," blaming the president's tax cuts for driving the government into deficit and saying Bush "will be remembered as the most fiscally irresponsible president in our nation's history."

Conrad, who chairs the Senate's budget committee, accused the president of "squandering" the surplus he inherited from President Bill Clinton and said the increased debt the government has taken on to cover the deficit has undermined the value of the dollar and hurt the overall economy.

"If they gave out Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, silver and bronze," Conrad said. "With his eight years in office, he will have had the five highest deficits ever recorded. And the highest of those deficits is now projected to come in 2009, as he leaves office."

But a senior administration official says the budgetary problems stem from what he called inadequate defense, intelligence and homeland security resources that were handed down from Clinton.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office in March projected the deficit for the 2008 fiscal year, which ends September 30, would be $357 billion. It predicted the 2009 deficit to be $342 billion, if the president's proposals were adopted.

Both assumptions, however, were made before the economic stimulus package was passed by Congress and signed by the president this spring. The CBO said it would release revised deficit estimates in September.

The two major presidential candidates -- Democrat Sen. Barack Obama and Republican Sen. John McCain -- used news that the United States' budget deficit will hit a record high as an opportunity to criticize each other's fiscal plans.

CNN's Brianna Keiler and Scott Anderson contributed to this report.

Texas to Tel Aviv

Sun, 27 Jul 2008 23:33:42 +0100

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN

Published: July 27, 2008

What would happen if you cross-bred J. R. Ewing of “Dallas” and Carl Pope, the head of the Sierra Club? You’d get T. Boone Pickens. What would happen if you cross-bred Henry Ford and Yitzhak Rabin? You’d get Shai Agassi. And what would happen if you put together T. Boone Pickens, the green billionaire Texas oilman now obsessed with wind power, and Shai Agassi, the Jewish Henry Ford now obsessed with making Israel the world’s leader in electric cars?

You’d have the start of an energy revolution.

The only good thing to come from soaring oil prices is that they have spurred innovator/investors, successful in other fields, to move into clean energy with a mad-as-hell, can-do ambition to replace oil with renewable power. Two of the most interesting of these new clean electron wildcatters are Boone and Shai.

Agassi, age 40, is an Israeli software whiz kid who rose to the senior ranks of the German software giant SAP. He gave it all up in 2007 to help make Israel a model of how an entire country can get off gasoline and onto electric cars. He figured no country has a bigger interest in diminishing the value of Middle Eastern oil than Israel. On a visit to Israel in May, I took a spin in a parking lot on the Tel Aviv beachfront in Agassi’s prototype electric car, while his sister watched out for the cops because it is not yet licensed for Israeli roads.

Agassi’s plan, backed by Israel’s government, is to create a complete electric car “system” that will work much like a mobile-phone service “system,” only customers sign up for so many monthly miles, instead of minutes. Every subscriber will get a car, a battery and access to a national network of recharging outlets all across Israel — as well as garages that will swap your dead battery for a fresh one whenever needed.

His company, Better Place, and its impressive team would run the smart grid that charges the cars and is also contracting for enough new solar energy from Israeli companies — 2 gigawatts over 10 years — to power the whole fleet. “Israel will have the world’s first virtual oilfield in the Negev Desert,” said Agassi. His first 500 electric cars, built by Renault, will hit Israel’s roads next year.

Agassi is a passionate salesman for his vision. He could sell camels to Saudi Arabia. “Today in Europe, you pay $600 a month for gasoline,” he explained to me. “We have an electric car that will cost you $600 a month” — with all the electric fuel you need and when you don’t want the car any longer, just give it back. No extra charges and no CO2 emissions.

His goal, said Agassi, is to make his electric car “so cheap, so trivial, that you won’t even think of buying a gasoline car.” Once that happens, he added, your oil addiction will be over forever. You’ll be “off heroin,” he says, and “addicted to milk.”

T. Boone Pickens is 80. He’s already made billions in oil. He was involved in some ugly mischief in funding the “Swift-boating” of John Kerry. But now he’s opting for a different legacy: breaking America’s oil habit by pushing for a massive buildup of wind power in the U.S. and converting our abundant natural gas supplies — now being used to make electricity — into transportation fuel to replace foreign oil in our cars, buses and trucks.

Pickens is motivated by American nationalism. Because of all the money we are shipping abroad to pay for our oil addiction, he says, “we are on the verge of losing our superpower status.” His vision is summed up on his Web site: “We import 70 percent of our oil at a cost of $700 billion a year ... I have been an oil man all my life, but this is one emergency we can’t drill our way out of. If we create a renewable energy network, we can break our addiction to foreign oil.”

Pickens made clear to me over breakfast last week that he was tired of waiting for Washington to produce a serious energy plan. So his company, Mesa Power, is now building the world’s largest wind farm in the Texas Panhandle, where he’s spent $2 billion buying land and 700 wind turbines from General Electric — the largest single turbine order ever. The U.S. could secure 20 percent of its electricity needs from wind alone.

But Pickens knows he’s unique. Unless, he says, “Congress adopts clear, predictable policies” — with long-term tax incentives and infrastructure — so thousands of investors can jump into clean power, we’ll never get the scale we need to break our addiction. For a year, Senate Republicans have been blocking such incentives for wind and solar energy. They vote again next week.

If only we had a Congress and president who, instead of chasing crazy schemes like offshore drilling and releasing oil from our strategic reserve, just sat down with Boone and Shai and asked one question: “What laws do we need to enact to foster 1,000 more like you?” Then just do it, and get out of the way.

Young Republicans, Blue About the Prospects Ahead

Thu, 24 Jul 2008 10:45:50 +0100

Gen-Nexters Are Feeling Left Out of the Party

By Krissah Williams Thompson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, July 22, 2008; C01

David All glanced around Top of the Hill bar and saw the future of the Republican Party. It looked dim. A who's who of young conservatives had gathered, but they were few, and they were frustrated.

Here were the executive director of the Young Republicans, and the 20-something who helped steer Fred Thompson's Internet operation, and the young woman who put Mitt Romney's Web site on the map, and the 24-year-old staffer for Newt Gingrich's American Solutions for Winning the Future, who had brought them all together to cry in their free Blue Moon beer. The crowd was mostly white and mostly male, dressed in slacks and starched shirts. For most of them, Ronald Reagan and the good times he personified for conservatives were not even vague memories.

"When Reagan was president, I was 9 years old, doing cannonballs and watching 'Rambo,' " says All, 29, who prominently displays the requisite grip-and-grin photos of himself with President Bush in the office of his own L Street consulting firm. He recalled that first Republican presidential debate of the 2008 campaign, held at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library in California; it was a veritable Reagan love-fest, with each contender claiming to be more like the conservative icon than his opponents. They sounded like old fogies and intoned the icon's name at least a dozen times.

"For me, I don't even know what that means," All says. "The Republicans are sort of talking down to Gen-Nexters, not bringing them in."

"You don't hear Barack Obama going around saying, 'I'm John F. Kennedy.' He's saying, 'I'm Barack Obama,' " All says. "There's a reason for that. He's inspiring an entire generation, and it's a generation that's trying to change the world in 160 characters or less through text messages."

And John McCain? His campaign has never sent All a text message, he complains. It's the little things like that, along with poor communication on the big issues such as Iraq and the economy, that have caused the GOP brand to slip with younger Americans, even as they have grown more political.

Voters under 30 are more than twice as likely to identify themselves as Democrats, according to the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll.

All and his friends bravely offer bromides to fight off despair:

"I think the Republican Party is staring down a very long, dark, quiet night," All says.

"It's always darkest before the dawn," says Mindy Finn, 27, who ran Romney's site.

"It's a challenging time right now, and I think there's a lot of people searching for a new identity, new leaders," says Robert Bluey, 28, a blogger who is editor in chief of the Heritage Foundation's Web site and director of its Center for Media and Public Policy. "Sometimes it will take some cleansing before it gets better."

Republicans haven't always been so disconnected. A quarter-century ago, Reagan charmed young voters and won 59 percent of their vote in 1984. In 1992, on the heels of the Reagan Revolution, voters under 30 split their allegiance about evenly between the two major parties. But every presidential cycle since then, Democrats have gained ground. This year, according to the Post-ABC poll, 44 percent of those under 30 call themselves Democrats, and only 18 percent identify as Republicans.

Both parties had a tendency to shrug off the youth and young adult vote, because as a group they have been the least reliable to turn out on Election Day. But this year, record numbers have registered to vote and shown up at the polls. In the swing state of Virginia alone, 90,000 people under age 34 recently joined the voter rolls.

"Conservatives haven't been in the right place to get the message to young voters," Austin Walne, 22, says, sipping his beer. "Young people who just got into the workforce don't care about the tax rate, but they have to fill up their gas tank and turn on the AC in their studio apartment. Energy is a big winner for us if we can communicate it well."

Walne, just one year out of the University of Tennessee, helped staff former Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson's Web site and now works for a small PR firm in town. He has taken some teasing from Democratic friends, who predict this year will see a tidal wave for their party. He nudges back at them. "Congress's approval rates are [approaching] 19 percent, so nobody's thrilled," he says. "People that didn't grow up under Jimmy Carter don't remember the stagflation of the '70s or the Iran standoff. Our job is to educate them on the failed policies of the past."

Like their elders, the young Republicans have mixed feelings about their party's presidential candidate. Some worry that McCain is not conservative enough on core issues such as immigration reform and lowering taxes, on which he has departed from the party line. Others admire his lifelong service to the country and heroism while imprisoned during the Vietnam War. If McCain can convey his straight-shooting independence and show his authentic sense of humor through compelling YouTube videos and smart interaction via the blogosphere, he can pull in Gen-Next and millennial voters, says All.

The campaign intends to do just that, stepping up its presence on Facebook and MySpace and other social networking sites. McCain will continue to make the rounds of shows like "Saturday Night Live" and Comedy Central's "The Daily Show With Jon Stewart."

"Over the next couple of months, you will see John McCain talking to young voters across this country about the major issues confronting our country. We view the youth vote as very competitive, and we will campaign aggressively," says McCain spokesman Joe Pounder. "The vision [McCain] has outlined for this country addresses such challenges as global warming, energy independence and ensuring peace for future generations. Those issues appeal to young people."

Still, many of the party's newbies are preparing for the worst. Matt Lewis, 33, is hoping a trouncing in November will force the old guard aside and give his generation a shot. He was one of the committed young conservatives who came to Washington during the Bush administration, eager to push the politics of limited government and compassionate conservatism. He worked for the Leadership Institute, which teaches youngsters about the principles of classic conservatives such as Edmund Burke and Frederic Bastiat, as well as William F. Buckley Jr. and Barry Goldwater. He now blogs full time at the conservative Web site Townhall.com.

He's happy with Bush's Supreme Court picks but disappointed by the administration's failure to curb the ballooning deficit and bloated government.

"When everything is working well there is no hunger for new ideas," Lewis says. "Maybe there is room for some new up-and-coming thinkers to get a shot now. There is a bright side to seeing the Republican Party go through travail."

And there is a depressing side, too. Tim Cameron, 24, the Gingrich staffer who sent out the mass e-mail bringing everyone to the bar to mingle, is now saying, "We don't care what the electoral map looks like." He cut his teeth on local races in South Carolina and worked on online strategy for conservative Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), but being out of power forces a different tactic.

"I'm focused more on solutions than partisanship," Cameron says. He began working for Gingrich's nonpartisan group last month, pushing the former House leader's "Drill Here. Drill Now. Pay Less" campaign to advocate for drilling off the coast of Florida and in other domestic oil fields. Cameron sent out a ton of e-mail promoting a "Drill Now" online petition and promoted a YouTube video of Gingrich discussing his plan. The petition now has more than 43,000 signatures. That got a few nods of approval at the Top of the Hill bar.

David All points to a page on McCain's Web site as more old-fogy branding: The candidate is extolling his regulatory policies as friendly to small business, and the accompanying photo shows an old-time Main Street barbershop in the background. The young Republican techie, who raises money online for McCain, would have used the image of a young high-tech entrepreneur instead, someone to whom teenagers could relate. Seventy percent of high school students say they want to be entrepreneurs, according to a recent Gallup poll.

"But," says All, "they're not talking about opening a barbershop."

Polling analyst Jennifer Agiesta contributed to this report.

My Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil

Thu, 10 Jul 2008 15:54:41 +0100

By T. BOONE PICKENS
July 9, 2008; Page A15

One of the benefits of being around a long time is that you get to know a lot about certain things. I'm 80 years old and I've been an oilman for almost 60 years. I've drilled more dry holes and also found more oil than just about anyone in the industry. With all my experience, I've never been as worried about our energy security as I am now. Like many of us, I ignored what was happening. Now our country faces what I believe is the most serious situation since World War II.

The problem, of course, is our growing dependence on foreign oil – it's extreme, it's dangerous, and it threatens the future of our nation.

Martin Kozlowski

Let me share a few facts: Each year we import more and more oil. In 1973, the year of the infamous oil embargo, the United States imported about 24% of our oil. In 1990, at the start of the first Gulf War, this had climbed to 42%. Today, we import almost 70% of our oil.

This is a staggering number, particularly for a country that consumes oil the way we do. The U.S. uses nearly a quarter of the world's oil, with just 4% of the population and 3% of the world's reserves. This year, we will spend almost $700 billion on imported oil, which is more than four times the annual cost of our current war in Iraq.

In fact, if we don't do anything about this problem, over the next 10 years we will spend around $10 trillion importing foreign oil. That is $10 trillion leaving the U.S. and going to foreign nations, making it what I certainly believe will be the single largest transfer of wealth in human history.

Why do I believe that our dependence on foreign oil is such a danger to our country? Put simply, our economic engine is now 70% dependent on the energy resources of other countries, their good judgment, and most importantly, their good will toward us. Foreign oil is at the intersection of America's three most important issues: the economy, the environment and our national security. We need an energy plan that maps out how we're going to work our way out of this mess. I think I have such a plan.

Consider this: The world produces about 85 million barrels of oil a day, but global demand now tops 86 million barrels a day. And despite three years of record price increases, world oil production has declined every year since 2005. Meanwhile, the demand for oil will only increase as growing economies in countries like India and China gear up for enhanced oil consumption.

Add to this the fact that in many countries, including China, the government has a great deal of influence over its energy industry, allowing these countries to set strategic direction easily and pay whatever price is needed to secure oil. The U.S. has no similar policy, because we thankfully don't have state-controlled energy companies. But that doesn't mean we can't set goals and develop an energy policy that will overcome our addiction to foreign oil. I have a clear goal in mind with my plan. I want to reduce America's foreign oil imports by more than one-third in the next five to 10 years.

How will we do it? We'll start with wind power. Wind is 100% domestic, it is 100% renewable and it is 100% clean. Did you know that the midsection of this country, that stretch of land that starts in West Texas and reaches all the way up to the border with Canada, is called the "Saudi Arabia of the Wind"? It gets that name because we have the greatest wind reserves in the world. In 2008, the Department of Energy issued a study that stated that the U.S. has the capacity to generate 20% of its electricity supply from wind by 2030. I think we can do this or even more, but we must do it quicker.

My plan calls for taking the energy generated by wind and using it to replace a significant percentage of the natural gas that is now being used to fuel our power plants. Today, natural gas accounts for about 22% of our electricity generation in the U.S. We can use new wind capacity to free up the natural gas for use as a transportation fuel. That would displace more than one-third of our foreign oil imports. Natural gas is the only domestic energy of size that can be used to replace oil used for transportation, and it is abundant in the U.S. It is cheap and it is clean. With eight million natural-gas-powered vehicles on the road world-wide, the technology already exists to rapidly build out fleets of trucks, buses and even cars using natural gas as a fuel. Of these eight million vehicles, the U.S. has a paltry 150,000 right now. We can and should do so much more to build our fleet of natural-gas-powered vehicles.

I believe this plan will be the perfect bridge to the future, affording us the time to develop new technologies and a new perspective on our energy use. In addition to the plan I have proposed, I also want to see us explore all avenues and every energy alternative, from more R&D into batteries and fuel cells to development of solar, ethanol and biomass to more conservation. Drilling in the outer continental shelf should be considered as well, as we need to look at all options, recognizing that there is no silver bullet.

I believe my plan can be accomplished within 10 years if this country takes decisive and bold steps immediately. This plan dramatically reduces our dependence on foreign oil and lowers the cost of transportation. It invests in the heartland, creating thousands of new jobs. It substantially reduces America's carbon footprint and uses existing, proven technology. It will be accomplished solely through private investment with no new consumer or corporate taxes or government regulation. It will build a bridge to the future, giving us the time to develop new technologies.

The future begins as soon as Congress and the president act. The government must mandate the formation of wind and solar transmission corridors, and renew the subsidies for economic and alternative energy development in areas where the wind and sun are abundant. I am also calling for a monthly progress report on the reduction in foreign oil imports, as well as a monthly progress report on the state of development of natural gas vehicles in this country.

We have a golden opportunity in this election year to form bipartisan support for this plan. We have the grit and fortitude to shoulder the responsibility of change when our country's future is at stake, as Americans have proven repeatedly throughout this nation's history.

We need action. Now.

Mr. Pickens is CEO of BP Capital.

BURKEE BRIGADE BANNED FROM AREA PARADES

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 13:59:00 +0100

Tyler Williams
(262) 365.1079

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Brookfield, Waukesha, and West Allis parades will allow only Sensenbrenner; Constitutionality, fairness of the competition-stifling policies questionable

WEST ALLIS -- Despite this weekend‟s celebration of democracy and freedom, Fifth Congressional District challenger Jim Burkee has been told by the cities of Brookfield, Waukesha, and West Allis that he and his brigade of families cannot walk in their parades, although his only opponent, 30-year incumbent F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., is welcome to walk.

While the three cities‟ policies against challengers being able to participate formally in their parades was a disappointment to supporters, it represents yet another obstacle on a list of difficulties when challenging career politician incumbents like Congressman Sensenbrenner.

Already has Sensenbrenner been able to use taxpayer-funded mailings, congressional staff, and millions in special interest money to cushion his candidacy against challengers, and gerrymandering has helped make the Fifth Congressional District one of the least competitive districts in the entire nation.

“As if the millions of taxpayer dollars Congressman Sensenbrenner has spent promoting himself through free mail wasn‟t enough,” said Burkee‟s campaign director, Tyler Williams. “Career politicians can use the parades of Brookfield, Waukesha, and West Allis to further stifle competition. This is a shame.”

“Voters in the Fifth Congressional District have for the first time in 30 years a choice in congressional district‟s September primary,” said Williams. “But some are trying to deny the right to vote for an alternative to Sensenbrenner, a rare opportunity that is being undermined by these policies.”

Burkee‟s group, which at the Menomonee Falls Memorial Day parade consisted of dozens of children and parents, was saddened at the news that they would not be allowed in the upcoming parades in Brookfield, Waukesha, and West Allis.

High resolution press photos of Burkee’s parade participation are available online at jimburkee.com/press.

Gary Wickert, Supervisor of the Township of Cedarburg and attorney with Matthiesen, Wickert, and Lehrer, S.C. in Hartford, Wis., questioned the fairness and constitutionality of the restrictions at the parades, noting that unless the restrictions are content-neutral or are necessary to further a legitimate state interest, then they should be overturned.

“Any legitimate state interest a city or village might have in prohibiting challengers from walking in a parade would seem to be extremely tenuous -- if they even have one at all,” noted Wickert. “Especially on the Fourth of July, what more American of an interest could possibly be contemplated than a grassroots political campaign?”

At issue is the prohibition of some candidates alongside the allowance of others in the parades. Unlike Parkland Republican Club v. City of Parkland, where a Federal district court allowed a prohibition of all political campaigns from a parade, the Burkee example is one where the incumbent candidate may participate while the challenger has been told to stay home.

Burkee will be walking in the Menomonee Falls, Cedarburg, Butler, Pewaukee, and Grafton parades over the course of the Fourth of July celebration.

Burkee is running for Congress in the Fifth Congressional District in Wisconsin against 30-year incumbent and Washington-insider Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Burkee has signed a pledge that he will never vote for irresponsible deficit-spending, will reject lobbyist gifts and special interest money in his campaign and in office, and will limit himself to three terms.

###

Independence Day and Lessons of the Founding Fathers

Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:46:37 +0100

by Jim Burkee

Over the past few years Americans have been noticeably drawn to the era of our Founders. The acclaimed HBO miniseries John Adams followed David McCullough’s bestselling books, John Adams and 1776. Walter Isaacson profiled Franklin; Ron Chernow, Hamilton; and Joseph Ellis presented Washington, Jefferson, and the generation of Founding Brothers.

Students of historiography – the writing of history – note that history books reflect the time in which they are written. There is a reason Americans are fascinated by the Founders today. So it is worth asking, why the great interest with our Founding Fathers, and why now?

Perhaps it is that Americans find in our Founders qualities so starkly absent in our own generation of political leaders.   While our young nation’s first leaders were imperfect, they were espoused virtue, duty, civility, and sacrifice. They represented thirteen unique states – each considered their home countries – with diverse interests and passions.   Coastal towns preferred commerce while western and southern promoted agriculture. Populous states like Virginia faced small states like Rhode Island.   Pennsylvanian Quakers opposed Carolinan slaveowners; Anglophiles feared Francophiles; and Anti-Federalists disputed Federalists.

And yet they found a way to get things done – through compromise.

The first week of July is a hallowed one for Americans. On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted to separate from Great Britain, signing the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia on the 4th. Twelve years later, on July 2, 1788, the Constitution – after a long year of debate – was ratified, becoming the law of the land.

Both the Continental Congress and the Convention that preceded ratification and crafted that exceptional document say a lot about the virtues of the Founders. And there are lessons to draw as we contrast that generation of leaders with today’s less able and certainly less fraternal representatives in Congress.

They identified a crisis and committed to act. The nation’s first governing document, the Articles of Confederation, was almost uniformly seen as a failure by 1786, when James Madison proposed they be revised. When in May, 1787, he called for a “Grand Convention” to rewrite a constitution, all states but one sent delegates.

They worked toward a common goal. The Articles of Confederation created a hopelessly weak central government. It had no authority to tax, and therefore had to request money from the states. The original Congress also had no authority to raise an army. But states were often unwilling to volunteer funds or troops because of disproportional representation (big states and small states each had one vote). There was also no chief executive. The government, as Washington put it, was "little more than the shadow without the substance." While the fifty-five delegates at the Constitutional Convention differed on how to remedy the failures of Articles, they almost all agreed on goals: Stronger central government, an executive branch, and fairer representation.

They deliberated in private. James Madison understood that no comprehensive reform would be agreed-upon at the Convention without compromise on several issues. But he knew that transparency would undermine compromise: Delegates would be reluctant to express their views freely, or to suggest ideas not fully though-out, knowing their views would be recorded and publicized. So he posted armed sentries outside the Philadelphia hall’s doors and held the entire convention in secrecy.

They understood the value of consensus. Adams and Franklin understood that the July 2, 1776 vote to declare independence from Great Britain would carry less weight were the vote anything less than unanimous. Twelve of the thirteen colonies’ delegations voted to separate with Britain (New York, which abstained, later affirmed its support). At the Philadelphia convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin implored each delegate to present a united front, “and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument.” Though differences remained within state delegations, each of the twelve participating states voted “aye” for the new constitution.

They compromised. Each delegate settled for less a document agreed to be less than perfect, but they best the assembly could produce – to work, as one delegate put it, in the “spirit of mutual concession.” Franklin concluded before the final vote, “I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others.”

The Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights satisfied no one entirely, but everyone sufficiently. Yet this “Great Compromise” has stood for 221 years as the most exceptional governing document in the modern world.

The Founders were men of principle who built coalitions. In contrast to today’s conventional partisans, trapped by ideological inflexibility and often hostage to special interests, America’s first leaders understood that principle and compromise are not always mutually exclusive.

It was a tradition that extended for much of our nation’s history. The great legislators of the 19th century – men like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster – won their reputations crafting compromises that held the held the young nation together: The Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1833, and the Compromise of 1850.

The crises our nation faces today – energy, health care, immigration, entitlements, indebtedness and more – will require statesmen in Washington willing to set aside partisan shackles and personal gain, identify common objectives, and work to achieve them with the greatest degree of unanimity possible, yet in a “spirit of mutual concession.” Great legislation cannot happen with fifty plus one, debated before CSPAN’s prying eyes, and without leaders willing to embrace a concept once widely-accepted, now frequently rejected, by America’s political class: Compromise.

Jim Burkee, an Associate Professor of History at Concordia University Wisconsin, is a Republican candidate for US Congress in Wisconsin’s 5th Congressional District.

Building a Wall Against Talent

Thu, 26 Jun 2008 11:51:46 +0100

By George F. Will
Thursday, June 26, 2008; A19

PALO ALTO, Calif. -- Fifty years ago, Jack Kilby, who grew up in Great Bend, Kan., took the electrical engineering knowledge he acquired as an undergraduate at the University of Illinois and as a graduate student at the University of Wisconsin to Dallas, to Texas Instruments, where he helped invent the modern world as we routinely experience and manipulate it. Working with improvised equipment, he created the first electronic circuit in which all the components fit on a single piece of semiconductor material half the size of a paper clip.

On Sept. 12, 1958, he demonstrated this microchip, which was enormous, not micro, by today's standards. Whereas one transistor was put in a silicon chip 50 years ago, today a billion transistors can occupy the same "silicon real estate." In 1982 Kilby was inducted into the National Inventors Hall of Fame, where he is properly honored with the likes of Henry Ford and Thomas Edison.

If you seek his monument, come to Silicon Valley, an incubator of the semiconductor industry. If you seek (redundant) evidence of the federal government's refusal to do the creative minimum -- to get out of the way of wealth creation -- come here and hear the talk about the perverse national policy of expelling talented people.

Modernity means the multiplication of dependencies on things utterly mysterious to those who are dependent -- things such as semiconductors, which control the functioning of almost everything from cellphones to computers to cars. "The semiconductor," says a wit who manufactures them, "is the OPEC of functionality, except it has no cartel power." Semiconductors are, like oil, indispensable to the functioning of many things that are indispensable. Regarding oil imports, Americans agonize about a dependence they cannot immediately reduce. Yet their nation's policy is the compulsory expulsion or exclusion of talents crucial to the creativity of the semiconductor industry that powers the thriving portion of our bifurcated economy. While much of the economy sputters, exports are surging, and the semiconductor industry is America's second-largest exporter, close behind the auto industry in total exports and the civilian aircraft industry in net exports.

The semiconductor industry's problem is entangled with a subject about which the loquacious presidential candidates are reluctant to talk -- immigration, specifically that of highly educated people. Concerning whom, U.S. policy should be: A nation cannot have too many such people, so send us your PhDs yearning to be free.

Instead, U.S. policy is: As soon as U.S. institutions of higher education have awarded you a PhD, equipping you to add vast value to the economy, get out. Go home. Or to Europe, which is responding to America's folly with "blue cards" to expedite acceptance of the immigrants America is spurning.

Two-thirds of doctoral candidates in science and engineering in U.S. universities are foreign-born. But only 140,000 employment-based green cards are available annually, and 1 million educated professionals are waiting -- often five or more years -- for cards. Congress could quickly add a zero to the number available, thereby boosting the U.S. economy and complicating matters for America's competitors.

Suppose a foreign government had a policy of sending workers to America to be trained in a sophisticated and highly remunerative skill at American taxpayers' expense, and then forced these workers to go home and compete against American companies. That is what we are doing because we are too generic in defining the immigrant pool.

Barack Obama and other Democrats are theatrically indignant about U.S. companies that locate operations outside the country. But one reason Microsoft opened a software development center in Vancouver is that Canadian immigration laws allow Microsoft to recruit skilled people it could not retain under U.S. immigration restrictions. Mr. Change We Can Believe In is not advocating the simple change -- that added zero -- and neither is Mr. Straight Talk.

John McCain's campaign Web site has a spare statement on "immigration reform" that says nothing about increasing America's intake of highly educated immigrants. Obama's site says only: "Where we can bring in more foreign-born workers with the skills our economy needs, we should." "Where we can"? We can now.

Solutions to some problems are complex; removing barriers to educated immigrants is not. It is, however, politically difficult, partly because this reform is being held hostage by factions -- principally the Congressional Hispanic Caucus -- insisting on "comprehensive" immigration reform that satisfies their demands. Unfortunately, on this issue no one is advocating change we can believe in, so America continues to risk losing the value added by foreign-born Jack Kilbys.

georgewill@washpost.com

BURKEE HONORS VETERANS IN MEMORIAL DAY PARADE

Tue, 27 May 2008 08:01:44 +0100

Tyler Williams
(262) 365.1079

For Immediate Release
Monday, May 26, 2008

Burkee surrounded by dozens of children wearing shirts that read, “It’s About My Future”

MENOMONEE FALLS -- Surrounded by dozens of children wearing shirts that read, “It’s About My Future,” Republican primary challenger Jim Burkee honored America’s war veterans in Menomonee Falls’ Memorial Day parade and highlighted his agenda to eliminate deficit-spending, which passes an enormous economic burden onto America’s future generations.

The parade also marks the beginning to a summer of campaigning prior to the September 9 primary, where Burkee will challenge 30-year incumbent Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.

“Today, we honor those who make great sacrifices to preserve our freedom, our liberty, and our way of life,” said Burkee, whose late father and grandfather fought overseas during Vietnam and World War II, respectively. “We also remember and honor those who served our country when they made the ultimate sacrifice by giving their lives to protect this great nation.”

“Those generations before us and the veterans and service members who serve today give our children a better, more hopeful tomorrow,” said Burkee. “Our leaders in Congress must dutifully honor their pledge to do the same by eliminating the Washington spending and deficits that threaten the welfare and prosperity of our children and grandchildren.”

High quality press photos of Burkee’s parade participation are available online at jimburkee.com/press.

###

'The Sensenbrenner Tax' abandons true conservatism

Mon, 19 May 2008 08:12:11 +0100

by Jim Burkee

Last year, Wisconsin legislators raised the driver's license fee by $10 to pay for state compliance with Real ID, the national ID law authored by Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner. The fee, which raised Wisconsin taxes by $22 million, will now be used to balance the Wisconsin state budget.

Now Congressman Sensenbrenner is mad. He calls the deal, negotiated by Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch (R-West Salem) and Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker (D-Weston), a "breach of faith with the people of Wisconsin" and a "fiscal shell game."

This turn of events leaves many Wisconsin conservatives scratching their heads in wonder: Congressman Sensenbrenner purports to be a foe of big government. So why is he complaining that Wisconsin legislators aren't spending his tax increase the way he wants them to?

On May 11, Wisconsin and the nation's other states reached the implementation deadline for Real ID, the national identification card program authored by Sensenbrenner, the Fifth District's 30-year
incumbent congressman. After a lengthy staring match with the states, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) blinked, effectively granting the states until 2011, perhaps even 2018, to comply. But the conflict isn't over.

Real ID was born in controversy when Sensenbrenner attached the bill as a "rider" to a 2005 military appropriation bill (a rider is a provision that shares little in common with the original bill - and is favorite technique legislators use for dropping earmarks into unrelated bills). Worse yet, Real ID was voted on in the US Senate without an opportunity for a single hearing or debate.

Many conservatives, already bristling at the GOP's irresponsible spending habits and expansion of government by 2005, soon revolted. The Wall Street Journal accused Sensenbrenner and the Republican leadership of betraying its "federalist principles" yet again. Real ID, as described by the Journal, effectively requires all 245 million license holders in the US to "head down to the local Department of Motor Vehicles with certified source documents - such as a birth certificate or Social Security card - to apply for the new standardized national ID. And people from states that don't play ball won't be able to use their licenses to board planes or enter federal buildings."

In effect, Real ID is an internal passport for American citizens with a mandate to build, according to the Cato Institute, a "federal surveillance infrastructure" to track "every American, native-born and immigrant
alike." The Journal evoked images of totalitarian Germany, calling it the "show-us-your-papers Sensenbrenner approach" to internal security.

Since 2005, the rationale for Real ID has mutated as its proponents struggle to overcome bipartisan opposition. Initially it was an antiterrorism bill.

It then became a technique to control illegal immigration. Then it was about preventing identity theft. Most recently a top DHS official suggested the ID could be used to control access to cold medications.

Reasons enough to oppose its implementation.

The lesson of DHS's call for an ID to control access to cold medicine, warns Cato's Jim Harper, is this: "Once a national ID system is in place, the federal government will use it for tighter and tighter control of every American."

With Real ID, Jim Sensenbrenner has managed to unite left and right in opposition. Groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to Gun Owners of America oppose Real ID. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned Americans that a national ID system might soon be used to monitor your "credit history, your residential information, your banking history, your medical and mental health records, your marital status, your ATM withdrawals, turnpike use,
library checkouts, movie rentals, pharmacy prescriptions, phone call records, and firearms by serial number and address. Imagine all that information encrypted in a hologram on your national ID card ... but a hologram you can't read. Only higher authorities can read it."

"Never accept the idea," he concluded, "that surrendering freedom - any freedom - is the price of feeling safe."

Nineteen state legislatures have passed bills refusing to comply with Real ID, while Republicans in Congress work for its repeal. South Carolina's Republican governor, Mark Sanford, considered suing the federal government over the unconstitutionality of Real ID. Senate Republicans John Sununu and
Lamar Alexander are working actively to roll it back.

Their complaint? Sensenbrenner's bill violates the GOP's commitment to federalism, or states' rights. Conservatives have long complained about the abuse of "unfunded mandates" by the federal government. Real ID is among the most abusive unfunded mandates in recent history: Sensenbrenner's bill appropriated between $40 and $60 million in federal funds, while estimates of the total cost passed on to the states range from $4 billion to over $20 billion.[8] With unfunded mandates like the Sensenbrenner Tax, federal legislators are able to hide the real cost of government by making the
states raise taxes for them.

It is, to use Sensenbrenner's own words, a "fiscal shell game" - the tax increase he secretly passed along to Wisconsin taxpayers a "breach of faith with the people of Wisconsin."

Proponents of Real ID suggest concerns over abuse of the system are unwarranted. But Americans were once promised that Social Security numbers would not be used for identification purposes. Now, Social Security numbers are used for drivers licenses, patient and credit records, and by employers. Moreover, Real ID's national database increases the likelihood of identity theft.

There are viable alternatives. For those who would use Sensenbrenner's national ID to combat illegal immigration, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis) introduced in February an employment verification system to provide a "tested and effective way to immediately authenticate an employee's legal status." Ryan touts his proposal as an effective alternative to the "new 'big brother', one-size-fits-all federal
government database and national I.D. card."

Wisconsin voters should be angry enough that under Republicans the government grew by almost fifty percent between 2001 and 2007. Now the same leaders who gave us $3 trillion in new debt and a massive expansion of Medicare are working hard to give us more unfunded government, this time at
the expense of our privacy.

Next time you complain about Wisconsin's high tax rates, remember the Sensenbrenner Tax. It's one of many reasons Real ID needs to be repealed.

Jim Burkee, an associate professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin, is challenging Jim Sensenbrenner in the September 9 primary for Wisconsin's Fifth Congressional District seat.

A conservative crisis of followership

Wed, 07 May 2008 12:44:02 +0100

By David Frum

Published: May 6 2008 20:03 | Last updated: May 6 2008 20:03

These have been a terrible few weeks for the Democrats – so bad that Republicans are feeling faint flickers of hope.

Damaging revelations about Barack Obama – and his own and his wife Michelle’s ill-chosen words – have opened the way for John McCain to rerun the Republican presidential campaign of 1988. That year, George H.W. Bush mauled Michael Dukakis, his Democratic rival, as a hopelessly feckless liberal. Mr Bush seized on three symbolic facts about Mr Dukakis: he had vetoed a law requiring the pledge of allegiance in school. He described himself as a “card-carrying member of the American Civil Liberties Union”. And he furloughed Willie Horton, the rapist-murderer. Lee Atwater, Mr Bush’s campaign manager, is supposed to have chortled: “By the time we are finished, they are gonna wonder whether Willie Horton is Dukakis’ running mate.”

Can the controversial comments from the pastor, Jeremiah Wright, Mrs Obama’s statement that she had never before felt pride in her country and Mr Obama’s description of white working-class voters as “bitter” achieve the same effect in 2008? In spite of concerns from Democrats, who fear victory is slipping away amid the rancorous contest, the best guess? Probably not.

The anti-incumbent mood is stronger in 2008 than in 1988. Ronald Reagan’s approval rating was almost 60 per cent in 1988 against George W. Bush’s 30 per cent rating today. Mr McCain’s campaign is much less focused and determined than the elder Bush’s.

Yet there are deeper reasons we will not see a replay of 1988. Atwater’s attacks on Mr Dukakis were not plucked at random, but carefully chosen to resonate with Democratic weaknesses and Republican strengths: patriotism, religion and public safety.

Today, however, Republican conservatism is tired and confused. Once the party of limited government, now it is the one that enacted the largest new social programme since the 1960s: the prescription drug benefit. Once the party of law and order, it now offers amnesty in all but name to illegal immigrants. Once the party that ran against Washington’s special interests, it is now run by lobbyists. Once the party of sound management, it is now tarred by the managerial disasters of the Iraq war and Hurricane Katrina.

Those Republicans who imagine that the party can regain its strength by returning to the core conservative doctrines of the 1980s are making a serious mistake. They are like tourists who believe uncomprehending locals will understand them if only they repeat their message louder and slower.

The country has changed since 1988. Polls capture a shift to the left on economic issues. The once decisive tax issue has faded altogether, and no wonder: 80 per cent of Americans now pay more in payroll taxes than in federal income taxes. Americans care less about taxes than healthcare and fuel prices, issues where Republicans offer few solutions and speak with something less than passionate urgency. Americans are expressing a new pessimism about upward mobility and their children’s chances of leading a better life – an understandable reaction to the stagnation of median wages since 2000. Even on the signature issue of the war on terror, Americans are turning away from Republican ideas. The proportion of Americans who believe that terrorism can be defeated by military force has sharply declined since 2002.

So, 2008 is not 1988. The problems are different and so must the solutions be. The Reagan themes do not carry the power they once did. The conservative voting majority is not a majority any more. To compete and win this year Republicans have to adapt and change, not revert and revive.

Mr McCain could be the perfect candidate for this new mission. He is less bound by old orthodoxies than almost any other national Republican. He fought Mr Bush and Donald Rumsfeld, the former defence secretary, on Iraq strategy, and has been proved right while they have been proved wrong.

Unfortunately, Mr McCain has been a maverick on issues that matter least to voters: campaign finance reform, tobacco, climate change. On the ones that matter most to voters – healthcare, economic management, immigration – he has positioned himself with party orthodoxy and against the voters.

This is Mr McCain’s error, but it is not his error alone. If he is a bad candidate, at least some of the blame attaches to a party that will not allow him to be a better one. Our Republican crisis is a crisis of followership at least as much as a crisis of leadership.

Successful institutions are always reluctant to change and the Republican party of Richard Nixon, Reagan and Newt Gingrich has been a very successful institution. Many conservative leaders have quietly accepted the likelihood of defeat in 2008. They point out that past defeats have led to greater triumphs: 1992 to 1994, 1976 to 1980.

But what was true for conservatism on the way up will not necessarily be true on the way down. If the Democrats win the presidency in 2008 (as most polls suggest) and gain seats in both houses of Congress (as most experts predict), they will have scored their most decisive victory since 1964. In 1992 the Democrats won the presidency but lost seats in Congress; in 1976 they won the presidency but gained only one seat in the House and none in the Senate.

A Democratic victory on this scale would be a 1980 in reverse. The Democratic defeat in 1980 was not exactly a harbinger of liberal triumphs to come. This is going to be a tough election for Republicans. But it is not too late to avert the worst – and not too early to begin rebuilding for a comeback.

The writer is resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute and author of the new book, ‘Comeback: Conservatism That Can Win Again’

Taxation Without Representation

Thu, 01 May 2008 21:52:10 +0100

by Jim Burkee

The 26^th Amendment to the Constitution, approved in 1971, lowered the voting age for Americans to 18. The inconsistency it addressed was exposed in a slogan common to the time: “Old enough to fight, old enough to vote.” 18-year-old Americans were serving and dying for their country in Vietnam, but they weren’t allowed to vote for or against politicians who sent them there. Signed into law in July, the constitutional amendment was ratified faster than any in American history.

At its heart the debate revealed a contradiction first exposed by the nation’s Founders on the eve of Revolution: Government’s power to conscript, and its power to tax and spend, derives only by the consent of the governed. Boston Revolutionary James Otis said, “taxation without representation is tyranny.”

Since then, suffragists and civil rights activists have expanded the franchise on the essential American premise that a government cannot compel to action those who have had no part in choosing that government. Abigail Adams urged her husband to advocate for women’s voting rights, arguing that women “will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation.” Martin Luther King, Jr. echoed those sentiments generations later from his Birmingham jail cell: "A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law."

It is worth considering this basic principle as our federal government closes rapidly on $10 trillion in national indebtedness. Since 2001, our leaders in Washington have conspired to borrow, spend and promise at levels never before seen in American history – levels so high as to seem almost laughable, if the subject weren’t so terrifying. The country has borrowed before, but never like this. Because we are no long just indebting ourselves: We are indebting our children.

Last week the Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, quit his job years before the fifteen-year term expired. Walker, the nation’s top accountant, crusaded for years to stop Congress’s runaway deficit spending. He toured the nation on a “fiscal wake-up tour” with allies left and right to warn the country that its leaders were spending away our children’s future. He decried accounting practices in Congress that would land anyone in the private sector in jail. He blasted Republicans for falsely arguing that tax cuts magically pay for themselves, and he lambasted Democrats for standing in the way of entitlement reform. Finally, fed up with a Congress that would not listen, he threw up his hands and left for the private sector, where he vows to continue his crusade heading the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

What Congress has already done to our children is damning. Each teenager entering the workforce next year will assume a $450,000 debt over the course of their lives to pay for our current debt and future promises in Social Security and Medicare. That’s far more than the average American mortgage – except there is no house to back up this debt. And it gets worse each year: Congress has already added a half-trillion dollars to the national debt since last fall, and projects at least $400 billion more this coming year.

And they’ve done it in the most immoral of ways, with Enron-style accounting and outright deception. If you don’t believe Walker’s warnings, ask yourself this: How can Congress tell us that the annual deficit last year was only $177 billion, while in just six months time we have added $500 billion to the national debt? You don’t have to be an accountant to understand that those numbers just don’t add up.

Rather than address the crisis, Congress votes year after year to make it worse. Republicans tried to buy votes in 2003 by passing a massive expansion of government-run health care, Medicare Part D; Democrats violated their own “pay-go” standards in late 2007; and both parties borrowed from our children for “stimulus” checks many Americans will receive this spring and summer.

Tomorrow’s generation will face enough challenges already. Already each college student graduates with an average of $20,000 in student debt, and those going to graduate school will finish with six figures in loans. The threats of radical Islamic extremism aren’t going away, and the country will continue to face economic challenges from India and China.

In Washington’s farewell address, he warned Americans to avoid national indebtedness and the immorality of “throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear.” He would recognize what our government is doing today for what it is – taxation without representation.

Which leaves us with one of two possible solutions: Stop spending our children’s money, or let them vote. The latter is impractical, and the former is necessary.

Either way, the solution requires new leadership in Washington.

Jim Burkee is an Associate Professor of History at Concordia University in Wisconsin, and a Republican candidate for US Congress in Wisconsin’s Fifth District.

K Street: the road the GOP took to its ruin

Mon, 28 Apr 2008 08:38:21 +0100

In 1995, then House Majority Whip Tom DeLay, fresh off the party’s landslide victory in the 1994 congressional elections, compiled a list of the largest political action committees (PACs) in Washington. He figured out how much each PAC had given to each party, then invited lobbyists to his office, where he showed them their place in his “friendly” or “unfriendly” columns. “If you want to play by our revolution,” DeLay said, “you have to live by our rules.”

Thus was born the K Street Project – Tom DeLay’s decade-long effort make Republicans the primary beneficiaries of lobbyist cash (Washington’s K Street is home to many of its most powerful lobbyists). In one notorious example, first reported in Washington Monthly, Tom DeLay and Haley Barbour (Chairman of the Republican National Committee) met with the CEOs of several large American corporations. DeLay made clear to the executives – mostly Republicans – that “they were expected to purge their Washington offices of Democrats and replace them with Republicans.” The offended executives promptly walked out. But Tom DeLay’s project was ultimately successful.

It also killed the Republican Revolution.

In 2001, when George W. Bush cemented Republican control of Washington, there were just over 17,000 registered lobbyists in Washington. By 2007, when Republicans lost the House and Senate, there were 37,000. Since 1998, according to the Center for Public Integrity, lobbyists spent $13 billion to influence members of Congress. Lobbyist influence extended even further: Half of all retiring Members of Congress now go into lobbying, where they often collect large six and seven-figure salaries.

The lobbyists got what they wanted. The federal budget, just $1.8 trillion in 2000, rose to $2.77 trillion in 2007 – an increase of 50% in just six years. Moreover, the US added over $3 trillion to its national debt, while adding another $8.7 trillion liability in Medicare’s prescription drug program. The Republican Congress – many of the same Republicans who had vowed fiscal responsibility in the 1995 Contract With America – approved tens of thousands of earmarks during that stretch costing taxpayers in over $100 billion.

So if you want to understand why Republicans lost the House and Senate in 2006, take a long walk down Washington’s K Street.

Studies by Fortune Magazine demonstrate what even the most politically inarticulate Americans know – money buys influence. And what do lobbyists want for their contribution dollars? More federal spending.

The Washington Post reported in 2005 that expenditures on lobbying had risen 30% in just five years. Unsurprisingly, federal spending during that period also increased by over 30%.

Lobbyists once had several ways to influence members of Congress, including meals and expensive travel junkets for congressmen and their spouses. As those have been restricted, lobbyists funnel PAC contributions – in rates increasing almost exponentially – to congressional campaign coffers, protecting incumbents and shutting out potential challengers.

This, too, serves to bloat federal spending. John Berthoud, President of the National Taxpayer’s Union, says that the longer a congressman is in Washington, the more likely he is to vote for bigger government: “For lawmakers, growing in office can often lead to growing Washington’s waistline," he said. “By contrast, Members of Congress who keep their pledge to limit their own terms of office appear to keep other promises as well — those of lower spending and less government."

There are simple solutions to the party’s woes. Republicans can’t fight for smaller government while demanding that lobbyists and PACs write progressively bigger checks. And they won’t retain vulnerable districts by embracing incumbency and shutting out competitors.

Kings of incumbency are also kings of pork and corruption. Ted Stevens, author of Alaska’s infamous “Bridge to Nowhere,” is the longest-serving Republican in the Senate. And Jerry Lewis, the subject of a federal investigation for his ties to lobbyists and recipients of earmarks, is nearing his 30^th year in Congress.

Incumbency fosters corruption abroad, as well. In 2007, Hugo Chavez, Venezuelan strongman, narrowly lost his bid to eliminate the country’s constitutional limit on presidential terms. But he’s not finished trying.

Term limits are an idea whose time has come, again. By reigniting the party’s passion for a citizen legislature, Republicans will rely less on lobbyists because they will care less frequently about running for reelection. And the competition term limits breeds will reinvigorate the party with new people, new ideas and a very necessary dialogue.

But if they continue to appeal to K Street – instead of Main Street – Republicans may be in for another very bad year.

Jim Burkee is an Associate Professor of History at Concordia University Wisconsin and a Republican candidate for US Congress from Wisconsin’s 5^th District.

References:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2003/0307.confessore.html

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0601/08/sm.01.html

http://www.rollcall.com/issues/52_135/ornstein/18770-1.html

The public's disdain for Congress is justified

Fri, 25 Apr 2008 10:19:35 +0100

by Jim Burkee
April 25, 2008

In "The Leadership Secrets of Billy Graham," Harold Myra and Marshall Shelley describe an important meeting the Rev. Graham and his leadership team held in 1948. Too many shady evangelists had given Christian leaders a bad name: poor handling of money, sexual scandals, badmouthing of others doing similar work, and general dishonesty were all undermining the church's work.

So, Graham's team developed principles to "lock them in" to ethical behavior. As an example, Graham committed then to never being alone with a woman who was not his wife: Not only would he avoid that temptation for the rest of his life, but perhaps more importantly he would eliminate the appearance of any impropriety.

Graham, recalled an associate, always insisted on "total integrity." To achieve that level, he committed to lifelong disciplines that would leave his character unquestioned and unquestionable.

Congress could take a page out of Graham's book.

In a recent Milwaukee Biz Blog, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) played politics as usual by attacking plans by the "Democratic majority" to "spend, spend, spend."

This, after he voted for 28,000 earmarks over six years and cast one of the deciding votes for Medicare Part D - one of the largest and costliest entitlement programs in American history. In short, he overlooked the log in his own eye to find a speck in his opponent's.

He also called on Democrats to act on tax cuts passed a few years ago when Republicans were in charge which are set to expire, or "sunset," soon. What he's not telling you is that he voted to "sunset" the legislation in the first place. Why? So Congress - while Mr. Sensenbrenner was a leader in the Republican majority - could continue to falsify the long-term budget projections, assuring us that in spite of all those earmarks and entitlement expansions (combined with tax cuts), tomorrow's books will magically balance (they won't).

An added benefit was that Republicans could set themselves up to do exactly what Mr. Sensenbrenner is doing today - bash Democrats for wanting to "raise taxes" when the sunset approaches.

"Total integrity" means being honest about the numbers. It means dealing fairly and honestly with your colleagues.

It also means striving to avoid the appearance of impropriety.

Earlier this month, the Center for Responsive Politics issued the results of a study of congressmen invested in defense contractors. Over one fourth of all members of Congress own stocks in the same companies that received hundreds of billions of dollars in defense contracts - and many congressmen benefited financially.

At the top of the list was our own Congressman Sensenbrenner, who earned at least $3.2 million between 2004 and 2006 on defense-industry investments alone.

Similarly, Mr. Sensenbrenner voted in favor of Medicare's Prescription Drug Program in 2003 - a $9 trillion entitlement expansion - while having massive holdings in pharmaceutical industry stocks.

In any other industry, this would be considered insider trading. To avoid the appearance of impropriety and the temptation to vote for legislation that personally benefits them, many congressmen and senators voluntarily put their investments into "blind trusts." But Mr. Sensenbrenner did not support legislation mandating that members of Congress put their funds into blind trusts.

A judge would not rule on a case involving a pharmaceutical company he owned stock in. So why would a congressman vote for legislation that positively affected the value of stocks he owned in pharmaceutical companies - or defense contractors?

Even if it's not corrupt, it sure looks bad.

A similar problem exists with the impact of special interest money. Many members of Congress, including Mr. Sensenbrenner, take millions of dollars from special interests, then vote for legislation that positively affects the very interests that fund their campaigns (the majority of his campaign contributions come from special interests). Or they accept gifts, like the hundreds of thousands of dollars in free travel given Congressman Sensenbrenner, from organizations looking to benefit from Congressional legislation.
It may not be illegal, but it sure looks bad.

Billy Graham understood that leaders need to be held to a higher standard because their actions impact a wide audience. A pastor's example inspires the congregation, while his moral failings undermine the faith and trust of many.

Similarly, our political leaders can aim to elevate and motivate the people they represent by example, or they can take the low road, playing to the public's expectations that all politicians are dirty and that Congress is an arena for combat - instead of cooperation in the public interest.

Public confidence in our leaders is at an all-time low - under 20 percent in the most recent approval ratings of Congress. That's because too few of our leaders care to do what great leaders do best - inspire, lead by example, work together, and understand that appearances matter.

It's time we expected more of our leaders.

Jim Burkee is an associate professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin and is a Republican candidate for Congress in Wisconsin's 5th Congressional District against F. James Sensenbrenner.

BURKEE LAMENTS RESIGNATION OF NATION’S TOP ACCOUNTANT

Tue, 11 Mar 2008 22:49:50 +0100

Tyler Williams
(262) 365.1079

For Immediate Release
Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Fifth-district Republican congressional candidate Jim Burkee today lamented the resignation of David Walker, Washington’s budget watchdog, top accountant, and the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) Comptroller General.
Walker, Washington’s voice for fiscal sanity, has for years criticized Congress’s fiscal irresponsibility.

Congress is creating a “fiscal tsunami,” Walker recently said, that threatens to “swamp this ship of state.” Moreover, he says, “by delaying tough choices,” Congress will be saddling Americans with “much higher taxes than this country has ever afforded before.” If government worked like the private sector, Walker concluded, “somebody would be going to jail.”

In hopes that he can better advocate for change as a private citizen, Walker recently decided to step down from the post. His resignation is effective Wednesday.

“For years, General Walker has been pleading with Congress talk honestly and govern with integrity. It seems that he’s finally determined that there is just too little honesty, integrity, and responsibility in Congress to work from within the system,” said Burkee.

“We have Washington career politicians like Congressman Sensenbrenner to thank for the fiscal tsunami that will force a tremendous tax burden on our children,” said Burkee, who signed a pledge on national television to never vote for deficit-spending in times of economic growth. “Sensenbrenner is the very type of politician that has forced fiscal sense out of Washington.”

Congressman Sensenbrenner, who has been in Washington since 1979, cast one of the deciding votes in favor of Medicare Part D, which Walker calls “probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.” Sensenbrenner has supported over $3 trillion of deficit-spending since President Bush took office.

Burkee is running for Congress in the 5th Congressional District in Wisconsin against 30-year incumbent and Washington-insider Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Burkee has signed a pledge that he will never vote for irresponsible deficit-spending, will reject lobbyist gifts and special interest money in his campaign and in office, and will limit himself to three terms.

SENSENBRENNER FLIP-FLOPS, FAILS TO MAKE PORK-FREE LIST

Thu, 28 Feb 2008 22:33:10 +0100

Tyler Williams
(262) 365.1079

For Immediate Release
Friday, February 29, 2007

Not even one year after he slammed Republicans as too tied to pork barrel spending and big government, 30-year incumbent Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. himself failed to make the annual “no pork” spending list published recently by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

Instead, Sensenbrenner requested hundreds of thousands of dollars for pork barrel spending projects in fiscal year 2008 alone, according to public records compiled by the organization. This does not include the over $94 billion of pork in bills that he voted for since 2002.

But only a year ago in a March 2, 2007 conference of the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) in Washington, D.C., Congressman Sensenbrenner attempted to brand himself as a lone voice for less government.

“Many of my fellow-Republicans got a little taste of pork and couldn’t help themselves as they participated in the spending frenzy. I watched as earmarks and pork barrel projects were approved, but I did not watch in silence,” said Sensenbrenner. “I waved my hands wildly in protest as my fellow-Republicans signed off on projects such as the ‘bridge to nowhere’.”

Sensenbrenner’s inconsistency on the pork-barrel spending issue immediately caught the attention of his opponent, Jim Burkee, the Republican challenging his fiscal integrity in the September primary.

“You don’t wave your hands wildly in protest against pork on one day, and then go back to your comfortable Washington office and support pork-spending the next,” said Burkee, who has pledged to oppose such pork spending and has taken an oath against irresponsible deficit-spending. “This district needs a congressman whose yes means yes and no means no on pork.”

In the same speech, Sensenbrenner made other attempts to present himself as a fiscal conservative by citing his vote against Hurricane Katrina aid, which he said made him “lonesome and unpopular” with media. Yet, in 2003, Sensenbrenner cast one of the deciding votes for the largest government program in four decades, Medicare Part-D, which Comptroller General David Walker calls “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”

“It seems our congressman can’t decide if he’s for big government or for bigger government,” said Burkee. “Either way, it’s obvious that he’s been in Washington too long, is too close to special interests, and is out of touch with the fifth district.”

Burkee is running for Congress in the 5th Congressional District in Wisconsin against 30-year incumbent and Washington-insider Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Burkee has signed a pledge that he will never vote for irresponsible deficit spending, will reject lobbyist gifts and special interest money in his campaign and in office, and will limit himself to three terms.

BURKEE APPLAUDS MCCAIN’S PLEDGE TO END WASTEFUL SPENDING

Wed, 27 Feb 2008 22:11:20 +0100

Tyler Williams
(262) 365.1079

For Immediate Release
Friday, February 8, 2007

Following presidential candidate Sen. John McCain’s promise Thursday to cut federal deficit-spending and veto any legislation with pork spending projects, Republican candidate for congress Jim Burkee applauded the pledge and called on others to do the same.

Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Committee (CPAC) conference held in Washington, D.C., McCain paid special attention to what he called “the entitlement programs that are bankrupting us,” specifically pointing to “the prescription drug benefit bill that saddled Americans with yet another hugely expensive entitlement program.”

Burkee said that the remarks represent the kind of change that is needed in Washington. “Only by electing people who, like McCain, have sworn off massive government programs can both the Republican Party and the federal government kick the spending habits of the last eight years and return to fiscal responsibility,” said Burkee. “And McCain’s pledge to stop this wasteful spending deserves our support.”

Medicare Part-D, the largest government program created in over four decades, was approved by a Republican-controlled Congress and White House in 2003. “If we want change in Washington, we have to change the people who are in Washington. That means replacing big government Republicans like my opponent,” said Burkee.

Burkee’s opponent, Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., voted for Medicare Part-D, an $8.7 trillion liability that Comptroller General David Walker calls “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”

Burkee is running for Congress in the 5th Congressional District in Wisconsin against 30-year incumbent and Washington-insider Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr. Burkee has signed a pledge that he will never vote for irresponsible deficit spending, will reject lobbyist gifts and special interest money in his campaign and in office, and will limit himself to three terms.

Bloomberg: Cash Rebates Like Booze for Alcoholics

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 22:06:31 +0100

NYC Mayor: U.S. Resembling A 'Third-World Country'

NEW YORK (CBS/AP) ― Mayor Michael Bloomberg has unleashed another flurry of jabs on Washington, ridiculing the federal government's rebate checks as being "like giving a drink to an alcoholic" on Thursday, and said the presidential candidates are looking for easy solutions to complex economic problems.

The billionaire and potential independent presidential candidate also said the nation "has a balance sheet that's starting to look more and more like a third-world country."

President Bush signed legislation Wednesday that will result in cash rebates ranging from $300 to $1,200 for more than 130 million people.

The federal checks are the centerpiece of the government's emergency effort to stimulate the economy, under the theory that most people will spend the money right away.

But Bloomberg does not believe it will do much good. And his harsh words at a news conference Thursday reflect the view among some of his associates that the country's economic woes present a unique opportunity for him to launch a third-party bid for the White House.

The theory among those urging him to run for president is that a businessman who rose from Wall Street to build his own financial information empire might be particularly appealing as the fiscal crisis worsens.

Publicly, Bloomberg says he is "not a candidate," and explained recently he is speaking out on national issues as part of an "experiment" to influence the dialogue in the race.

His tirade against the candidates and the economic stimulus package on Thursday began when he was asked how that experiment is going.

In his answer, he praised Democrat Barack Obama for the plan the Illinois senator outlined on Wednesday that would create a National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other public projects. Obama projects it could generate nearly 2 million jobs.

Last month, Bloomberg and Govs. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California and Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania announced a coalition that would urge more investment in infrastructure.

"I don't know whether Senator Obama looked to see what I've been advocating, or not -- you'll have to ask him -- but he's doing the right thing," Bloomberg said.

But then the mayor went on to say that while the presidential candidates appear to be talking more about the economy now, they are looking for quick fixes to please voters instead of focusing on the roots of the problem.

"Nobody wants to sit there and say, 'Well there's no easy solution,"' Bloomberg said. "They want to send out a check to everybody to stimulate the economy. I suppose it won't hurt the economy but it's in many senses like giving a drink to an alcoholic."

A spokesman for the mayor said later that Bloomberg was trying to say Washington can't stop itself from spending, and was not insinuating that Americans who receive checks are part of the problem.

The mayor last month said the economic stimulus package was shortsighted, and presented his own views on where the federal government should be focusing its attention. Specifically, he said the government should adopt a capital budget to oversee long-term infrastructure spending, instead of the current year-to-year spending.

It should also offer financial counseling, modified loans, and in some cases, subsidized loans to homeowners who find themselves unable to afford their mortgages.

He says that the government should also think differently about immigration, and that bringing more workers in rather than keeping them out is the key to long term economic stability.

Senior benefits cost over $10k every year for each American family

Sun, 17 Feb 2008 21:54:00 +0100

By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY

The cost of government benefits for seniors soared to a record $27,289 per senior in 2007, according to a USA TODAY analysis.

That's a 24% increase above the inflation rate since 2000. Medical costs are the biggest reason. Last year, for the first time, health care and nursing homes cost the government more than Social Security payments for seniors age 65 and older. The average Social Security benefit per senior in 2007 was $13,184.

"We have a health care crisis. We don't have an entitlement crisis," says David Certner, legislative policy director of the AARP, which represents seniors.

He says seniors shouldn't be blamed for the growing cost of government retirement programs.

The federal government spent $952 billion in 2007 on elderly benefits, up from $601 billion in 2000. It's the biggest function of the federal government. States chipped in another $27 billion in 2007, mostly for nursing homes.

All three major senior programs — Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid — experienced dramatically escalating costs that outstripped inflation and the growth in the senior population.

Benefits per senior are soaring at a time when the senior population is not. The portion of the U.S. population age 65 and older has been constant at 12% since 2000.

The senior boom, however, starts big time in 2011 when the first baby boomers — 79 million people born between 1946 and 1964 — turn 65 and qualify for Medicare health insurance. The oldest baby boomers turn 62 this year and qualify for Social Security at reduced benefits.

USA TODAY used a variety of government data to calculate the cost of providing Social Security, medical benefits and long-term care to an aging population. Billions of dollars paid to non-seniors — the disabled, children and others in the programs — were removed to create an estimate that focuses exclusively on seniors.

Findings include:

Medicare experienced the most explosive growth from 2000 to 2007. The Medicare prescription drug benefit, started in 2006, accounts for about one-fourth of the increase in Medicare, which provides health benefits for people 65 and older.
Long-term care costs per senior have declined slightly in the last three years because of a move away from nursing homes to less-expensive home care.
The cost of senior benefits is equal to $10,673 for every non-senior household.
About 35% of the federal budget is spent on senior benefits, up from 32% in 2004.

Eugene Steuerle, a senior fellow at the non-partisan Urban Institute, notes that the full cost of senior benefits goes beyond Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. A complete estimate would include other programs for retirees, such as military and civil servant pensions and medical benefits, he says.

The Urban Institute estimates that kids receive an average of about $4,000 per child in benefits, including the child tax credit and other indirect assistance.

Economist Dean Baker calls it "granny bashing" to focus on the cost of senior benefits. The elderly paid a designated tax for Social Security and Medicare taxes during their decades of working to support these programs when they retired, says Baker, co-director of the liberal Center for Economic Policy and Research.

Chavez Threatens, and Still No Energy Policy?

Mon, 11 Feb 2008 21:54:07 +0100

Feb 10 07:17 PM US/Eastern
By SANDRA SIERRA
Associated Press Writer

CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) - President Hugo Chavez on Sunday threatened to cut off oil sales to the United States in an "economic war" if Exxon Mobil Corp. wins court judgments to seize billions of dollars in Venezuelan assets.

Exxon Mobil has gone after the assets of state oil company Petroleos de Venezuela SA in U.S., British and Dutch courts as it challenges the nationalization of a multibillion dollar oil project by Chavez's government.

A British court has issued an injunction "freezing" as much as $12 billion in assets.

"If you end up freezing (Venezuelan assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you," Chavez said during his weekly radio and television program, "Hello, President." "Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger."

Chavez has repeatedly threatened to cut off oil shipments to the United States, which is Venezuela's No. 1 client, if Washington tries to oust him. Chavez's warnings on Sunday appeared to extend that threat to attempts by oil companies to challenge his government's nationalization drive through lawsuits.

"I speak to the U.S. empire, because that's the master: continue and you will see that we won't sent one drop of oil to the empire of the United States," Chavez said Sunday.

"The outlaws of Exxon Mobil will never again rob us," Chavez said, accusing the Irving, Texas-based oil company of acting in concert with Washington.

Exxon Mobil spokeswoman Margaret Ross said the company had no comment. A U.S. Embassy spokeswoman in Caracas did not return a call.

Venezuela accounted for about 12 percent of U.S. crude oil imports in November, the latest figures available from the U.S. Energy Department. The 1.23 million barrels a day from Venezuela makes that country the U.S.'s fourth-biggest oil importer behind Canada, Saudi Arabia and Mexico.

Venezuelan Oil Minister Rafael Ramirez has argued that court orders won by Exxon Mobil have "no effect" on the state oil company PDVSA and are merely "transitory measures" while Venezuela presents its case in courts in New York and London.

Exxon Mobil is also taking its claims to international arbitration, disputing the terms it was granted under Chavez's nationalization last year of four heavy oil projects in the Orinoco River basin, one of the world's richest oil deposits.

Other major oil companies including U.S.-based Chevron Corp., France's Total, Britain's BP PLC, and Norway's StatoilHydro ASA have negotiated deals with Venezuela to continue on as minority partners in the Orinoco oil project.

ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil, however, balked at the tougher terms and have been in compensation talks with PDVSA.

___

Associated Press writer John Porretto in Houston contributed to this report.

Republicans lost credibility as upholders of lean government...

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:03:55 +0100

January 24, 2008

Business as Usual GOP

By Robert Novak

WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When House Republicans convene behind closed doors today (Thursday) at the Greenbrier in White Sulphur Springs, W.V., they have a chance to make two bold moves to restore their reputation for fiscal responsibility. First, they could declare a one-year moratorium on Republican congressional earmarks. Second, they could name anti-earmark reformer Rep. Jeff Flake to a vacancy on the House Appropriations Committee. In fact, almost surely they will do neither.

Instead, the retreat is likely to adopt some limitation on earmarks with no public impact and exerting no pressure on the earmark-happy Democratic majority. Consideration of Flake's candidacy for Appropriations was postponed until after this week's earmark debate at the Greenbrier. But content with a half-measure on earmarks, the House Republicans will not place insistent reformer Flake in the midst of the pork-dispensing appropriators.

Staring into a 2008 election abyss, Republicans lost credibility as upholders of lean government by sponsoring profligate pork barrel spending during 12 years in the congressional majority and have not reformed since the 2006 Democratic takeover. The message out of West Virginia this week predictably will be business as usual.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, the Appropriations Committee's ranking Republican, leads fellow appropriators against the moratorium. They are joined by the most seriously challenged Republican incumbents, who see political salvation in bringing home the bacon to their districts, and principles be damned.

If the moratorium were adopted, it would make sense to put Flake on the Appropriations Committee to harass its irascible, earmark-loving Democratic chairman, Rep. David Obey, without offending GOP appropriators. But if Republicans have not foresworn pork, Flake as an appropriator would be on a collision course with Lewis. Under federal investigation for earmarks, Lewis has lost his customary California cool on the floor when Flake has challenged his pork projects.

Flake, a four-term congressman from Arizona who ran the Goldwater Institute in Phoenix before his election, is usually a dependable party man and is personally well liked. But the Republican Party, preferring to operate as a secretive private corporation, deplores Flake for discussing the GOP affinity for pork in public instead of closed forums such as this week's session at the Greenbrier.

Flake's most prominent competitor for Appropriations is Rep. Tom Cole, a major political figure in Oklahoma who currently heads the National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC). A few sensitive Republicans worry about Cole solving the NRCC's fund-raising woes by dispensing earmarks. But opposition stems mostly from the belief that Cole's NRCC chairmanship is enough for one congressman.

The most likely winner of the Appropriations derby will be Rep. Dave Reichert, the former sheriff of King County, Wash. (Seattle) who has not distinguished himself during three years in Congress and gets only a 60 percent rating from the American Conservative Union. His sole qualification appears to be that he is the most endangered Republican House member in 2008 and needs to bring home the bacon.

As far as Republicans recovering their fiscal brand, the appropriators say earmarks are strictly Washington inside baseball with no public support. They should follow Sen. John McCain on the campaign trail, as he is cheered for promising to veto bills with earmarked pork.

McCain as the party's leader is one possible new development for the earmarkers to ponder. Then there are possible new indictments tied to earmarks. In addition to Lewis, Alaska's two longtime purveyors of pork -- Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young -- are under federal investigation. Though Flake likely will be kept off the Appropriations Committee, he will not go away and will be joined this year by additional Republicans proposing elimination of individual earmarks. Flake until now has not tried to kill more than a dozen earmarks on any appropriations bill. This year, he promises to introduce "many, many more" than a dozen amendments per bill.

Ironically, the Appropriations vacancy was created by the appointment of Rep. Roger Wicker of Mississippi to the Senate. The Washington Post last week reported that Wicker late last year as an appropriator inserted a $6 million earmark for a defense firm that contributed to his campaign and was lobbied by Wicker's former chief of staff. Roger Wicker is a poster child for an earmark moratorium.

The Moral Economy

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 22:00:43 +0100

January 24, 2008

The Moral Economy

By Victor Davis Hanson

In this heated campaign season, housing prices are plummeting. Banks write off billions of dollars in unrecoverable debt. The stock market wildly fluctuates almost hourly. Candidates promise painless and near instant relief.

But despite the politicians' rhetoric, it is not hard to understand why America is in trouble.

First, there has been too much madcap real estate speculation. In recent years, housing prices were driven sky-high on the expectation that almost anyone, often with little security, could profit by borrowing easy money to buy and sell property.

Too many investors lost the old pedestrian notion that the purpose of a house was to be a home in which to live, to raise a family and to take pride in ownership. Its acquisition used to be a multi-year, if not once-in-a-lifetime, investment - not quite comparable to the easy buying or selling of volatile paper stocks and bonds. Others did not have the means to afford the type of home they purchased, once risky variable interest rates climbed.

Gasoline prices, meanwhile, are well over $3 a gallon in many places, sucking hundreds of dollars out of annual family budgets. But how long did we really believe that oil-exporting belligerents in the Middle East, Latin America and Russia, or our economic rivals in China and India, were going to allow the United States to continue gobbling up a quarter of the world's daily output at $20 a barrel?

American households have on average the largest houses in the world, the most cars and plentiful conveniences like big-screen televisions and DVD players. Yet there is a growing sense that we are paying the tab by borrowing trillions from the Chinese, Japanese, Europeans and South Koreans.

Some economists might argue that it is a win/win situation to have others toil to send us their cheap consumer goods, lend us the money to buy them and get little interest back on their debt. But when in history has a debtor ever felt better - in a moral, psychological or practical sense - than his lender?

Our candidates avoid that sort of honest tough talk. Republicans instead want an indebted government to pump up the economy by interest-rate cuts and tax rebates. And if we listen to Democrats, you would think no American could survive another maxed-out credit card without another new government bailout program.

Yet in truth, there are few options left to stimulate the already frenetic economy.

The United States is still racking up large annual budget deficits and trade imbalances - while serially piling up aggregate national debt. Soon America won't be able to meet its ever-expanding Medicare and Social Security obligations.

Current interest rates are not historically high. So cutting them might well convince our foreign borrowers to take their capital elsewhere for higher returns. And we can't pay for the federal programs we now provide, let alone expand them to offer universal health care or heavily subsidized college tuition.

What then can we do?

First, at this late date, Republicans shouldn't vote for any candidate who promises another tax cut without first offering a matching slash in expenditures. And Democrats should reject any candidate who promises another multi-billion dollar entitlement without detailing how the additional revenue is to be raised.

Second, instead of demanding new billion-dollar programs for health care and education, we should take more responsibility for our own welfare.

Americans need to readjust their budget priorities. One might be able to believe that a $200 dollar a month private catastrophic health plan is out of the reach of most Americans - if we were also to hear that sales of video games, cell phones and plasma televisions have crashed.

Third, we need to ignore the alarmist hysteria, calm down and appreciate that life is better than at any time in the last 5,000 years of civilization. People are living longer; we're healthier; and millions of Americans have the opportunities to travel, communicate and avoid physical drudgery that were once reserved only for a tiny aristocracy. There is plenty of excess in modern American life that can be shed without real hardship.

Finally, we must view our present economic challenges in a larger philosophical and ethical framework - and redefine success as being able to pay off what we owe, and spend only what we earn.

Who knows? Knowledge that we live in a nation that has a strong currency, no annual deficit and no aggregate debt to be passed on to our children might bring Americans as much pride and joy as the next iPhone or trip to Vegas.

Victor Davis Hanson is a classicist and historian at the Hoover Institution, Stanford University, and author, most recently, of "A War Like No Other: How the Athenians and Spartans Fought the Peloponnesian War." You can reach him by e-mailing author@victorhanson.com.

Budget deficit may increase by $6 trillion in next decade

Thu, 24 Jan 2008 21:51:29 +0100

CONCORD COALITION WARNS THAT NEW CBO NUMBERS DEMONSTRATE WHY FISCAL
STIMULUS SHOULD NOT MAKE THE LONG-TERM OUTLOOK WORSE

Jim's Take

Even the Congressional Budget Office -- using unrealistic assumptions -- acknowledges a much-worsening budget picture. Read More

WASHINGTON -- The Concord Coalition warned today that under reasonable assumptions about spending and tax policies, budget deficits could easily exceed $6 trillion over the coming decade. Given that a fiscal stimulus package would further expand the deficit, Concord urged that any such legislation be carefully designed to have its maximum effect in the very near future, minimize costs in later years, and provide the greatest stimulus for the amount of spending or tax relief.

"While much attention will be paid in the coming weeks to the contours of a fiscal stimulus bill, no one should overlook the implication of today's report by the Congressional Budget Office that we are heading into the baby boomers' retirement years in a position of fiscal weakness. Despite several years of economic growth, the budget remains in deficit and now policymakers are contemplating even higher deficits to avoid or mitigate a possible recession. It is an inauspicious way to begin the year in which boomers begin to qualify for Social Security retirement benefits," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of The Concord Coalition.

"At the moment, there appears to be a political consensus around fiscal stimulus that is 'targeted, temporary and timely.' If those criteria are scrupulously followed, a fiscal stimulus bill would not present long-term concerns. Clearly, however, there is a risk that some will want to add long-term agenda items that have little to do with short-term stimulus. Fundamental changes in long-term tax or spending policy should not be undertaken in the context of an effort to apply quick, short-term, fiscal stimulus. Most of all, what must be avoided is a costly bargaining process in which support for proposals with dubious bang for the buck and potential long-term costs is exchanged between Democrats and Republicans in the name of 'getting something done.' As the size of the expected package rises this risk will increase. In an atmosphere of crisis, attention can easily be diverted from the need for long-term fiscal discipline," Bixby said.

"The fiscal and economic consequences of the boomers' retirement is clearly reflected in the CBO numbers. Slowing labor force growth reduces CBO's projection of economic growth by the end of the decade and the boomers' eligibility for Social Security and Medicare accelerates spending growth. Regardless of the mix between spending and taxes, a fiscally responsible budget plan must lay the foundation for dealing with the fiscal consequences of an aging population and rising health care costs," Bixby said.

On the surface, the CBO report shows a dramatic improvement in the budget's outlook over the next decade even as the baby boom generation begins to retire. This deceptively benign outlook is not because spending on health care and retirement programs is held in check. To the contrary, between 2008 and 2018 the cost of Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid will increase by 20 percent -- from 9 percent to 10.8 percent of the economy (GDP). As a result, these three programs, which consumed 42 percent of federal spending in 2007, will consume 53 percent by 2018.

The reason for the baseline improvement is that it assumes policymakers will hold discretionary programs, including defense, to just 2.2 percent growth annually beyond 2009 -- in contrast to the 6.7 percent annual average rate from 1997 through 2006 -- and that they will not enact new legislation to extend any expiring tax cuts or provide relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).

The Concord Coalition's baseline scenario uses alternative assumptions contained in the CBO report. It reflects more plausible policies based on recent trends. Our baseline assumes:

Appropriations rise at the same rate as economic growth (GDP), not inflation
Funding for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan will slow gradually
All expiring tax provisions are made permanent
Relief from the AMT is extended

These changes turn CBO's 10-year baseline surplus of $274 billion into a deficit of $6.47 trillion. Instead of an $87 billion surplus in 2012, there would be a deficit of $485 billion. By 2018, the baseline surplus of $223 billion becomes a deficit of $954 billion.

###

The Concord Coalition is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to balanced federal budgets and generationally responsible fiscal policy. Former U.S. Senators Warren Rudman (R-NH) and Bob Kerrey (D-NE) serve as Concord's co-chairs and former Secretary of Commerce Peter Peterson serves as president.

Feel-good economics: the Washington that buys America's votes

Sat, 19 Jan 2008 12:07:09 +0100

Feel-Good Economics

By BRUCE BARTLETT
January 19, 2008

With remarkable speed, Congress, the White House, Republicans, Democrats and even the Federal Reserve have come to a consensus on the need for economic stimulus to moderate and perhaps forestall a recession. It seems certain that the final stimulus package will contain a tax rebate.

The underlying theory for the rebate idea traces back to the British economist John Maynard Keynes. He believed that spending was the driving force in the economy. It didn't matter whether the spending was done by businesses on capital equipment, by governments on public works, or by consumers -- spending is spending in the Keynesian model, and all of it is stimulative.

In Keynes' defense, his theory was developed during a severe, world-wide deflation. Spending of all kinds was paralyzed by a lack of liquidity, and the Federal Reserve had difficulty injecting money into the economy because so many banks had closed. Under these circumstances, deficit spending by governments made sense as a means of getting money into circulation and overcoming deflation. The problem is that, once World War II seemed to validate Keynes's theory, the idea of stimulating the economy by increasing government spending became the all-purpose cure for every economic slowdown, regardless of its underlying cause.

In the 1960s and 1970s, this usually took the form of public works spending. But in 1974, the White House was keen on the idea of cutting taxes to stimulate private spending. Since it was feared that a permanent tax cut might be inflationary, President Gerald Ford and the Democratic Congress agreed on a one-shot tax rebate. It was thought that cash-strapped consumers would take their government checks and immediately run out and spend them on food, clothing and other necessities. This would give the economy a Keynesian boost.

One dissenter was economist Milton Friedman. His research had led him to conclude that consumer spending was less a function of liquidity than something he called "permanent income." Friedman observed that when workers lost their jobs, they didn't immediately cut back on spending. They borrowed or drew down savings to maintain spending, in the expectation of finding a new job shortly. Conversely, consumers didn't immediately spend windfalls. They kept spending on an even keel until they achieved a promotion at work, or other increase in their long-term income expectations.

Thus Friedman predicted that the $100 to $200 checks disbursed by the Treasury Department in the spring of 1975 would have a minimal impact on spending, because they did not alter peoples' permanent income. Most likely, people would save the money or pay down debt, which is the same thing. Very little of the rebate would cause consumers to buy things they wouldn't otherwise have bought in the near term.

Subsequent studies by MIT economists Franco Modigliani and Charles Steindel, and Alan Blinder of Princeton, showed that Friedman's prediction was correct. The 1975 rebate had very little impact on spending and much less than a permanent tax cut -- which would change peoples' concept of their permanent income -- of similar magnitude.

In 2001 -- despite the thoroughness and general acceptance of these studies -- Congress and the White House once again chose a one-shot tax rebate to deal with an economic slowdown in 2001.

To his credit, Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill cautioned against the rebate. "I was here when we tried that in 1975, and it just didn't work," he said. "If we want to change consumption patterns, we need to make permanent changes in peoples' tax burdens." But President George W. Bush overruled his Treasury secretary and approved the rebate idea. Checks of $300 to $600 per taxpayer were sent out in the late summer. Contemporaneous polls by Gallup, Bloomberg and the University of Michigan all found that the vast bulk of consumers expected to save the money or use it to pay bills. Subsequent studies confirmed these forecasts.

In short, there is virtually no empirical evidence that tax rebates are an effective response to economic slowdowns. The increased personal saving doesn't help the economy because the federal budget deficit, which can be thought of as negative saving, offsets all of it in the aggregate. The main benefit of a tax rebate would seem to be political -- giving politicians a way of appearing to be doing something about the nation's economic problems that is superficially plausible.

A new rebate probably won't do much harm. But anyone who thinks it will prevent a recession -- if one is actually in the pipeline, which is not at all certain -- is dreaming. It's an insult to Keynes even to call a tax rebate Keynesian economics. It should be called "feel good economics" because its only real effect is to make politicians feel good about themselves and buy re-election with the public purse.

Mr. Bartlett was deputy assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy during the administration of President George H.W. Bush.

SENSENBRENNER TOPS CONGRESSIONAL MAILING SPENDING ABUSE

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 23:09:11 +0100

Tyler Williams
(262) 365.1079

For Immediate Release
Friday, December 31, 2007

Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., who frequently claims to be a fiscal conservative and touts his record on rejecting pork projects, has been named by the National Taxpayers Union as one of Congress’s top abusers of franked mail spending, joining Democrat David Obey as the top spender on franking among Wisconsin’s U.S. House delegation.

Its annual report on Congress’s franking privilege – a privilege often abused as a way to promote reelection – shows that, in 2006, Sensenbrenner’s spending ranked in the top three percent of the U.S. House, 11th out of 435.

“It’s a shame that our congressman couldn’t manage to be like his 424 colleagues who spent less of taxpayer money on franking,” said Jim Burkee, the Republican of Cedarburg, Wis. who is challenging Sensenbrenner in the primary this September. “Things in Washington must be bad when even people like Congressman Sensenbrenner who call themselves fiscally responsible are spending wildly, adding even more debt to our kids’ burden, and voting for massive government programs like Medicare Part D.”

Sensenbrenner earns decent ratings on many taxpayer alliance groups’ congressional surveys, but Burkee notes that those organizations often ignore votes on government programs and entitlements. Taxpayer defense organizations consider tax cuts but not wasteful spending, so big government Republicans like Sensenbrenner can easily manipulate those surveys.

News of Sensenbrenner’s latest wasteful spending comes after he voted to violate pay-as-you-go restrictions that prohibited the Federal government from going further into debt to fund new spending or tax cuts. The vote on HR 3996 occurred over the holidays when most Americans were busy preparing for Christmas and the New Year.

Sensenbrenner defends his record by pointing to his disciplined refusal to support heavy pork projects for his home district, but Burkee revealed that this is a distraction from the Congressman’s real record as a big government Republican.
“Sensenbrenner may avoid pork projects,” said Burkee, “but pork spending is a drop in the bucket compared to massive government programs like Medicare Part D.”

In 2003, Sensenbrenner voted for Medicare Part-D, an $8.7 trillion liability that Comptroller General David Walker calls “the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.”

“Real conservatives don’t waste tax dollars,” said Burkee, who signed a pledge on national television in August to never vote for deficit spending in times of economic growth.

BURKEE WILL CHALLENGE SENSENBRENNER DESPITE WALZ DEPARTURE

Thu, 17 Jan 2008 22:26:16 +0100

Tyler Williams
(262) 365.1079

For Immediate Release
Friday, December 28, 2007

Despite the sudden departure of co-candidate Democrat Jeff Walz from his joint congressional campaign with Republican Jim Burkee, Burkee has announced that he will continue his campaign to unseat 15-term Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr., citing the importance of returning fiscal responsibility and moral leadership to Washington.

On Friday, Walz made public his decision to formally end his candidacy for Congress, allowing his colleague and co-candidate Burkee time to restructure his campaign before the New Year. Burkee remains disappointed at Walz’s decision, but said that he understands the hardships of political campaigns and is ready to move on.

“This district deserves a chance and a choice, not an unchallenged 30-year incumbent congressman,” said Burkee. “I am optimistic that I will be that chance--that choice--to restore fiscal responsibility and moral integrity to our nation’s capitol.”

“Republicans are tired of leaders who can’t and won’t stand up for conservatism, and we have a new generation of Americans that want to grow up with the same opportunities as their grandparents, but worry about fiscal irresponsibility of politicians who simply don’t care,” said Burkee. “We need this campaign.”

Burkee plans to make the case that he is the best choice for voters who seek an alternative to Congressman Sensenbrenner. Burkee will target moderates looking for that alternative while appealing to conservatives who know he will stand by his pledge of fiscal conservatism.

“In the week before Christmas, Republicans and Democrats conspired to approve over 10,000 earmarks, violate pay-as-you-go spending rules and approve ‘off-budget’ war spending that added tens of billions of dollars to our national debt, which now stands at nearly $9.15 trillion,” said Tyler Williams, campaign director for Jim Burkee for Congress.

“We look forward to letting voters contrast Jim Burkee, who looks to protect our children from Washington politicians, with Jim Sensenbrenner, whose votes – from Medicare Part D to these most recent votes – added hundreds of thousands of dollars to the future burden of each and every child in this district,” said Williams.

Burkee will continue to invite Sensenbrenner to sign his Pact With the People, pledging to never take lobbyist gifts or special interest money and to vote against all irresponsible deficit spending.

National debt grows by $1 million a minute

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:11:24 +0100

By TOM RAUM

December 3, 2007

WASHINGTON (AP) — Like a ticking time bomb, the national debt is an explosion waiting to happen. It's expanding by about $1.4 billion a day — or nearly $1 million a minute.

What's that mean to you?

It means almost $30,000 in debt for each man, woman, child and infant in the United States.

Even if you've escaped the recent housing and credit crunches and are coping with rising fuel prices, you may still be headed for economic misery, along with the rest of the country. That's because the government is fast straining resources needed to meet interest payments on the national debt, which stands at a mind-numbing $9.13 trillion.

And like homeowners who took out adjustable-rate mortgages, the government faces the prospect of seeing this debt — now at relatively low interest rates — rolling over to higher rates, multiplying the financial pain.

So long as somebody is willing to keep loaning the U.S. government money, the debt is largely out of sight, out of mind.

But the interest payments keep compounding, and could in time squeeze out most other government spending — leading to sharply higher taxes or a cut in basic services like Social Security and other government benefit programs. Or all of the above.

A major economic slowdown, as some economists suggest may be looming, could hasten the day of reckoning.

The national debt — the total accumulation of annual budget deficits — is up from $5.7 trillion when President Bush took office in January 2001 and it will top $10 trillion sometime right before or right after he leaves in January 2009.

That's $10,000,000,000,000.00, or one digit more than an odometer-style "national debt clock" near New York's Times Square can handle. When the privately owned automated clock was activated in 1989, the national debt was $2.7 trillion.

It only gets worse.

Over the next 25 years, the number of Americans aged 65 and up is expected to almost double. The work population will shrink and more and more baby boomers will be drawing Social Security and Medicare benefits, putting new demands on the government's resources.

These guaranteed retirement and health benefit programs now make up the largest component of federal spending. Defense is next. And moving up fast in third place is interest on the national debt, which totaled $430 billion last year.

Aggravating the debt picture: the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates could cost $2.4 trillion over the next decade

Despite vows in both parties to restrain federal spending, the national debt as a percentage of the U.S. Gross Domestic Product has grown from about 35 percent in 1975 to around 65 percent today. By historical standards, it's not proportionately as high as during World War II — when it briefly rose to 120 percent of GDP, but it's a big chunk of liability.

"The problem is going forward," said David Wyss, chief economist at Standard and Poors, a major credit-rating agency.

"Our estimate is that the national debt will hit 350 percent of the GDP by 2050 under unchanged policy. Something has to change, because if you look at what's going to happen to expenditures for entitlement programs after us baby boomers start to retire, at the current tax rates, it doesn't work," Wyss said.

With national elections approaching, candidates of both parties are talking about fiscal discipline and reducing the deficit and accusing the other of irresponsible spending. But the national debt itself — a legacy of overspending dating back to the American Revolution — receives only occasional mention.

Who is loaning Washington all this money?

Ordinary investors who buy Treasury bills, notes and U.S. savings bonds, for one. Also it is banks, pension funds, mutual fund companies and state, local and increasingly foreign governments. This accounts for about $5.1 trillion of the total and is called the "publicly held" debt. The remaining $4 trillion is owed to Social Security and other government accounts, according to the Treasury Department, which keeps figures on the national debt down to the penny on its Web site.

Some economists liken the government's plight to consumers who spent like there was no tomorrow — only to find themselves maxed out on credit cards and having a hard time keeping up with rising interest payments.

"The government is in the same predicament as the average homeowner who took out an adjustable mortgage," said Stanley Collender, a former congressional budget analyst and now managing director at Qorvis Communications, a business consulting firm.

Much of the recent borrowing has been accomplished through the selling of shorter-term Treasury bills. If these loans roll over to higher rates, interest payments on the national debt could soar. Furthermore, the decline of the dollar against other major currencies is making Treasury securities less attractive to foreigners — even if they remain one of the world's safest investments.

For now, large U.S. trade deficits with much of the rest of the world work in favor of continued foreign investment in Treasuries and dollar-denominated securities. After all, the vast sums Americans pay — in dollars — for imported goods has to go somewhere. But that dynamic could change.

"The first day the Chinese or the Japanese or the Saudis say, `we've bought enough of your paper,' then the debt — whatever level it is at that point — becomes unmanageable," said Collender.

A recent comment by a Chinese lawmaker suggesting the country should buy more euros instead of dollars helped send the Dow Jones plunging more than 300 points.

The dollar is down about 35 percent since the end of 2001 against a basket of major currencies.

Foreign governments and investors now hold some $2.23 trillion — or about 44 percent — of all publicly held U.S. debt. That's up 9.5 percent from a year earlier.

Japan is first with $586 billion, followed by China ($400 billion) and Britain ($244 billion). Saudi Arabia and other oil-exporting countries account for $123 billion, according to the Treasury.

"Borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from China and OPEC puts not only our future economy, but also our national security, at risk. It is critical that we ensure that countries that control our debt do not control our future," said Sen. George Voinovich of Ohio, a Republican budget hawk.

Of all federal budget categories, interest on the national debt is the one the president and Congress have the least control over. Cutting payments would amount to default, something Washington has never done.

Congress must from time to time raise the debt limit — sort of like a credit card maximum — or the government would be unable to borrow any further to keep it operating and to pay additional debt obligations.

The Democratic-led Congress recently did just that, raising the ceiling to $9.82 trillion as the former $8.97 trillion maximum was about to be exceeded. It was the fifth debt-ceiling increase since Bush became president in 2001.

Democrats are blaming the runup in deficit spending on Bush and his Republican allies who controlled Congress for the first six years of his presidency. They criticize him for resisting improvements in health care, education and other vital areas while seeking nearly $200 billion in new Iraq and Afghanistan war spending.

"We pay in interest four times more than we spend on education and four times what it will cost to cover 10 million children with health insurance for five years," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. "That's fiscal irresponsibility."

Republicans insist congressional Democrats are the irresponsible ones. Bush has reinforced his call for deficit reduction with vetoes and veto threats and cites a looming "train wreck" if entitlement programs are not reined in.

Yet his efforts two years ago to overhaul Social Security had little support, even among fellow Republicans.

The deficit only reflects the gap between government spending and tax revenues for one year. Not exactly how a family or a business keeps its books.

Even during the four most recent years when there was a budget surplus, 1998-2001, the national debt ranged between $5.5 trillion and $5.8 trillion.

As in trying to pay off a large credit-card balance by only making minimum payments, the overall debt might be next to impossible to chisel down appreciably, regardless of who is in the White House or which party controls Congress, without major spending cuts, tax increases or both.

"The basic facts are a matter of arithmetic, not ideology," said Robert L. Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates eliminating federal deficits.

There's little dispute that current fiscal policies are unsustainable, he said. "Yet too few of our elected leaders in Washington are willing to acknowledge the seriousness of the long-term fiscal problem and even fewer are willing to put it on the political agenda."

Polls show people don't like the idea of saddling future generations with debt, but proposing to pay down the national debt itself doesn't move the needle much.

"People have a tendency to put some of these longer term problems out of their minds because they're so pressed with more imminent worries, such as wages and jobs and income inequality," said pollster Andrew Kohut of the nonpartisan Pew Research Center.

Texas billionaire Ross Perot made paying down the national debt a central element of his quixotic third-party presidential bid in 1992. The national debt then stood at $4 trillion and Perot displayed charts showing it would soar to $8 trillion by 2007 if left unchecked. He was about a trillion low.

Not long ago, it actually looked like the national debt could be paid off — in full. In the late 1990s, the bipartisan Congressional Budget Office projected a surplus of a $5.6 trillion over ten years — and calculated the debt would be paid off as early as 2006.

Former Fed chairman Alan Greenspan recently wrote that he was "stunned" and even troubled by such a prospect. Among other things, he worried about where the government would park its surplus if Treasury bonds went out of existence because they were no longer needed.

Not to worry. That surplus quickly evaporated.

Mark Zandi, chief economist at Moody's Economy.com, said he's more concerned that interest on the national debt will become unsustainable than he is that foreign countries will dump their dollar holdings — something that would undermine the value of their own vast holdings. "We're going to have to shell out a lot of resources to make those interest payments. There's a very strong argument as to why it's vital that we address our budget issues before they get measurably worse," Zandi said.

"Of course, that's not going to happen until after the next president is in the White House," he added.

Presidential candidates avoiding hard choices on entitlements

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:09:08 +0100

In the earmark war, we are all losers.

Earmarks are the new political euphemism for pork, those pet projects with which lawmakers salt the federal budget.

President Bush signed a $555 billion spending bill in the final days of last year that included about $10 billion for about 9,800 such projects.

He made a point of decrying them in a "signing statement" and vowed to continue the fight when he submits his 2009 budget proposal to Congress next month. After presiding over seven years of spending increases, the president begins his final one by calling for fiscal discipline.

The bill was a victory for Republicans because they managed to hold Congress to Bush's spending limits after Democrats tried to add another $22 billion in discretionary items.

The victory, though, is a hollow one for the rest of us.

"They're having this big fight, but it's not really where the problem is," said Bob Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group that advocates a balanced federal budget.

"I get concerned that people are getting so caught up in the earmark war that they're not looking at the big money," Bixby said.

The big money — a spending increase of almost $100 billion this year alone — is in entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. They're "mandatory" items, meaning Congress doesn't vote on them, it just writes a bigger check each year.

"That happens on autopilot," Bixby said.

Because we're running a deficit of $244 billion, much of the spending increases are likely to be financed. Interest on the federal debt is running about $250 billion, or 9 percent of the total budget.

Solving the larger problem of entitlement spending, though, receives scant attention from the candidates vying to be Bush's successor.

"The campaign rhetoric hasn't made me feel any better about all of this," Bixby said.

Candidates from both parties have said little about the rising cost of entitlements because slowing the advance of the big money requires hard choices — saying no to good programs or popular tax breaks, for example.

That's not a message that plays well in an election year.

"Both sides are over-pandering to their base," Bixby said. "The implication is that Republicans won't ever raise taxes and Democrats won't ever cut benefits."

Actually, if we're going to bring the deficit under control and embrace fiscal discipline, we'll have to do both.

Instead, Congress and the administration opt to simply embrace what Bixby calls the "three deadly sins of rational budgeting": delay, denial and diversion.

Rather than develop a permanent solution to the alternative minimum tax, for example, Congress delays every year, passing an annual "patch" to prevent the AMT from effectively raising the taxes of an ever-growing number of middle-class Americans.

As a result, we've developed a fiscal policy that just "kicks the can down the road," Bixby said.

Wisconsin's Lee Dreyfus: Underdog governor made politics better

Tue, 15 Jan 2008 22:00:33 +0100

By Steve Rundio

On the night of Jan. 3, I watched Illinois Senator Barack Obama deliver his victory speech after winning the Democratic caucus in Iowa. As I listened and watched the audience respond, it hit me:

I know how that feels.

Ironically, the man who first made me feel like that had died just the night before.

Lee Sherman Dreyfus, governor of Wisconsin from 1979 to 1983, died Jan. 2 at age 81. Nearly 30 years ago as a senior at Baraboo High School, I volunteered for Dreyfus’ campaign. I organized a campaign stop at Baraboo’s Oschner’s Park, coordinated literature drops in Sauk County and adorned my 1970 Buick LeSabre with a Dreyfus cartop. Like Obama (at least before New Hampshire voters clicked the reset button Tuesday), Dreyfus symbolized more than just a pol working his way up the system; his campaign offered a promise of a more inclusive and noble politics. Besides, there’s something exhilarating about backing the underdog and winning.

Dreyfus was, indeed, the underdog. As a candidate, he traveled the state in a school bus accompanied by his “Rag-Tag Band,” which was aptly named; Dreyfus spent only $100,000 in the primary. He was a social moderate in a party that was veering to the right. His opponent for the Republican nomination, Bob Kasten (the Hillary Clinton of the campaign) was a suburban Milwaukee Congressman who had the support of the Republican establishment, which dismissed Dreyfus as a red-vested clown and Johnny-come-lately to party politics. (Dreyfus did wear a red vest while chancellor at UW-Stevens Point so students could easily identify him on campus. He actually wanted students to approach him.) The establishment officially endorsed Kasten during the state Republican convention in June 1978, and I witnessed the establishment vs. insurgent battle first-hand a month later when Sauk County Republicans wouldn’t let Dreyfus distribute campaign literature from the party’s booth at the county fair. He later cited the incident as he convinced Republicans to abolish endorsements and “let the people decide.”

The people did decide in September 1978, and the establishment lost. Dreyfus swamped Kasten in the primary with the help of independents and crossover Democrats, and his victory in the general election over hapless incumbent Democrat Martin Schreiber was more a coronation than a competitive campaign. Wisconsin’s relatively late primary gives underdog winners a big general election boost (see Tony Earl, 1982; Tommy Thompson, 1986; Russ Feingold, 1992), and Dreyfus overwhelmed the “acting” governor with 54 percent of the vote.

Dreyfus governed as a maverick. He viewed consenting gays and lesbians as human beings, not deviants, and signed the nation’s first law that prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation. He ran the most open administration in anyone’s memory. Unlike our incumbent president, Dreyfus enjoyed unscripted encounters with the public and press and gave nearly 300 press conferences.

Yet the Dreyfus Administration wasn’t a resounding success. He brainstormed a tax holiday to erase the state’s $942 million surplus only to watch a severe recession plunge the state into debt (he “temporarily” raised the sales tax from 4 to 5 percent to partially plug the hole). Still, I was ready to campaign for his re-election when he suddenly announced that he wouldn’t run for a second term. At that point, the party establishment had good reason to be mad. His late exit saddled Republicans with Terry Kohler, a miserable nominee who mustered 42 percent against Earl. Twenty years later when Jesse Ventura, another maverick, announced he was bugging out after one term as governor of Minnesota, my reaction: another Dreyfus.

Like Ventura, Dreyfus didn’t leave a permanent legacy. His blend of fiscal conservatism and social tolerance is invisible in today’s Republican party (social liberals, like me, gave up and left). Example: only one Republican lawmaker -- a lame duck -- voted against the 2006 anti-gay marriage amendment that Dreyfus himself opposed.

Despite his limitations as governor, I’ll always remember Dreyfus as a good and inspirational man. During his campaign for governor, he delivered the commencement speech to UW-Baraboo’s Class of 1978. It wasn’t a campaign speech; he didn’t mention Bob Kasten, he didn’t mention Democrats, he didn’t mention anything about his political opponents. Instead, he lauded the greatness of America after World War II. He noted the harsh terms imposed on Germany by the European Allies after World War I and how they sowed the seeds of World War II 21 years later. He then noted that World War III didn’t erupt 21 years later in 1966 because it was a benevolent and far-sighted United States, not a revenge-seeking France or Great Britain, that conceived and implemented the postwar terms.

It was a powerful speech about the absolute necessity of good intentions. Whatever his strengths and weaknesses, Dreyfus was a man who inspired people to enter politics for the right reasons. Maybe Obama can do that, or maybe John McCain. In an era when politics has become entrepreneurial and mercenary, and when elected officials and cabinet appointees view their salaries of $150,000 as chump change and leap at the chance make “real money” as a lobbyist, the recollection of the bus with the Rag-Tag Band rolling into Baraboo’s Oschner’s Park on a sunny day in August 1978 reminds me that it’s still OK to believe in politics. For that, I’ll always be grateful to Lee Sherman Dreyfus.

The Latest News from JimBurkee.com

Jim Burkee Is the Better Republican (Shepherd Express)

Congress Endorsement

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel endoreses Jim Burkee

Editorial: Burkee for Congress

Jim Burkee is a principled conservative who would square well with the views of this right-leaning district. The incumbent has too often been a roadblock for progress.

Posted: Sept. 5, 2008

Excerpt from Ben Merens Radio Show

At Issue with Ben Merens

Excerpt from Jay Weber Radio Show

The Jay Weber Show

Fresh face takes on years of experience (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)

Burkee finds fault with Sensenbrenner

By SCOTT WILLIAMS swilliams@journalsentinel.com

Posted: Aug. 21, 2008

F. James Sensenbrenner

Jim Burkee

GOP newcomer challenges Sensenbrenner (Shepherd Express)

Political newcomer Jim Burkee will attempt to unseat longtime incumbent Jim Sensenbrenner.

Is It Time for Sensenbrenner to Retire?

Burkee says the district needs new leadership

Sensenbrenner is not delivering for his district

White House projects record deficit for 2009

Texas to Tel Aviv

Young Republicans, Blue About the Prospects Ahead

My Plan to Escape the Grip of Foreign Oil

BURKEE BRIGADE BANNED FROM AREA PARADES

Brookfield, Waukesha, and West Allis parades will allow only Sensenbrenner; Constitutionality, fairness of the competition-stifling policies questionable

Independence Day and Lessons of the Founding Fathers

by Jim Burkee

Building a Wall Against Talent

BURKEE HONORS VETERANS IN MEMORIAL DAY PARADE

Burkee surrounded by dozens of children wearing shirts that read, “It’s About My Future”

'The Sensenbrenner Tax' abandons true conservatism

A conservative crisis of followership

Taxation Without Representation

K Street: the road the GOP took to its ruin

The public's disdain for Congress is justified

BURKEE LAMENTS RESIGNATION OF NATION’S TOP ACCOUNTANT

SENSENBRENNER FLIP-FLOPS, FAILS TO MAKE PORK-FREE LIST

BURKEE APPLAUDS MCCAIN’S PLEDGE TO END WASTEFUL SPENDING

Bloomberg: Cash Rebates Like Booze for Alcoholics

NYC Mayor: U.S. Resembling A 'Third-World Country'

Senior benefits cost over $10k every year for each American family

Chavez Threatens, and Still No Energy Policy?

Republicans lost credibility as upholders of lean government...

Business as Usual GOP

The Moral Economy

The Moral Economy

Budget deficit may increase by $6 trillion in next decade

Jim's Take

Feel-good economics: the Washington that buys America's votes

Feel-Good Economics

SENSENBRENNER TOPS CONGRESSIONAL MAILING SPENDING ABUSE

BURKEE WILL CHALLENGE SENSENBRENNER DESPITE WALZ DEPARTURE

National debt grows by $1 million a minute

Presidential candidates avoiding hard choices on entitlements

Wisconsin's Lee Dreyfus: Underdog governor made politics better

By SCOTT WILLIAMS
swilliams@journalsentinel.com