The Walker scandle will help bring Ryan down.

New Walker tool: The Interactive Map of Corruption by WisDems

By Lisa Mux On February 8, 2012 · Leave a Comment · In Election 2012, Wisconsin Politics

Forget the Kardashians, the hottest new reality show around is “Keeping Up with the Corruption” starring Governor Scott Walker. This drama is not just for political nerds anymore; proverbial ratings have soared as citizens across the state of Wisconsin have tuned in to see what’s going to happen next. The WisDems just unveiled the perfect new tool, a TV Guide, of sorts, to help us keep up with the saga. Here it is:

Map of Corruption
http://www.walkerinvestigation.com/twitter/

@morninmist -

I'm glad to see the WI Dems spending their time so constructively instead of oh… I don't know… helping to come up with some good jobs programs! Cause I'm really helping to pay Cory Mason and company's salaries to put together a bs partisan website about Walker's alleged corruption. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that they were elected to go to Madison to legislate - not muckrake.

If they're doing this on the taxpayer's time and dime, isn't that just as bad or even worse than the campaigning that Walker's CE aids were doing on our time and dime?

The hypocrisy and double standards just keep coming from you guys. But at least you're consistent with it, I'll give you that!

@ Hoffa

The website is put up by the Wis Dems, not by an elected official. It is their job to win elections, much like the Wis. Republicans are paid to win elections, not legislate. That is the job of the people who get elected.

@Matt -

So it's the DPW that's sponsoring the website, and not "WisDems."

Sorry, but when lefties such as morninmist refer to the "WisDems" here on Patch, they're usually referring to the current elected caucus, thus the reason for my confusion.

Thanks for the clarification.

@James..

@Matt is right but you still are not 'clarified" yet.

Here--this will help you.

Democratic Party WI
@WisDems Wisconsin
The Democratic Party of Wisconsin - Recall Walker HQ
http://www.wisdems.org/RecallHQ

..........

James R Hoffa

2:00 pm on Wednesday, February 8, 2012

@Matt -

So it's the DPW that's sponsoring the website, and not "WisDems."

Sorry, but when lefties such as morninmist refer to the "WisDems" here on Patch, they're usually referring to the current elected caucus, thus the reason for my confusion.

Thanks for the clarification.

James...Your independent leaning right,and i'm independent leaning left because I worked since I was 16 till retirement!
The word "war" has many uses.ie.deregulation of OSHA=war on workers.Personhood laws=war on woman's rights.
so to try to use the word war as you just did in in the least missleading!

@Robert -

What does working "since I was 16 till retirement" have to do with being "independent leaning left?"

I've been working since I was 12. Started on a farm and then helping to build a small family business. While other kids were playing, I was working. The school bus used to drop my sister and I off at our family business instead of at home so that we could help work at the family business after school. And 17 years later, I'm still working to this day.

Yeah, like I said, the liberal networks are constantly talking about wars other than the actual military Wars in the Middle East - "war against workers," "war against women," "war against the poor," "war against the middle class," "war against the 99%," "war between the classes," etc. I mean come on, Granholm's show is titled "The War Room!"

It's nothing but "war" for the liberals.

The only time I hear the word 'war' being used on Fox though, outside references to the military Wars in the Middle East, is the perceived "war against religion" by the Obama administration. And that's it, period.

Now, I don't know about you, but I consider the word 'war,' to be a very divisive word.

And yet, it's the liberals that are claiming that the Repubs are dividing our state and nation. But all I ever hear from the Repubs, like Walker, is let's work together to move forward, while in the mean time, the Dems are screaming about 'war.'

So again, how is it that it's not the Dems that are really the ones that are dividing, because to me, it's clear as day.

@JRH, we had a very similar upbringing. I was raised on a farm and grew up in the family business. In elementary school I helped in the store and every New Year's day helped mom do inventory for taxes. About age 12 I was left on my own in the store so mom could get things done at home. Dad was always out on the job. I worked there til I was 18 and then being smarter than my parents, left home for the big city. Everybody in the family did their part whether it was doing farm work or work for the business.

Hoffa... you forgot one... the war on the family farms -- early/mid 1980s. I've never seen so many independent family farms become as unified... so unified they got involved with the Farmers Union.

@Denise -

Have you been following 'Hoffa's Retro Cinema Club' ;-)

BTW - New installment coming either tonight or tomorrow morning!

Everyone is invited to check out all installments of Hoffa's Retro Cinema Club here:

http://mountpleasant.patch.com/users/james-r-hoffa/blog_posts

@Denise, National Farmer's Organization (NFO) was active in Wisconsin in the 1960's. A few of the farmer's who belonged to this organization dumped their milk. Most in the area did not and were not happy about those who did. Go to the bottom of this page and read the Responses. http://wvls.lib.wi.us/ClarkCounty/clark/history/1933MilkStrike.htm I don't know just how active any farmer's unions are now. Most farm areas have their own milk cooperatives which were very successful.

@mau -

Very similar upbringing, except that the farm I worked on wasn't ours - it was a neighbor's farm.

@Bren -

It has to be about more than just taxes, as I constantly hear Schultz, Maddow, and O'Donnell going on and on about "the war against workers," and the "war against the middle class."

Even you have to agree that Current TV's self promotion as claiming to be the "new, independent news network," as being a huge hypocrisy - as clearly Current TV leans even farther to the left than MS-NBC does.

In fact, as I was watching tonight, both Olbermann and Uynger both openly admitted to their on-air guest commentators that they are bona fide liberals, and Granholm's show is described as offering "the progressive voice."

And as far as I know, there's no 'news desk' shows on Current TV at all, it's only pundits, period.

Maybe Current TV needs a reality check from Hoffa about what being 'independent' means :-)

Mr. Hoffa, I'm thinking the tax issue and the "war against the middle class" are intertwined. Forgive me I was taking the term "war" too literally. Since you watch MSNBC, you have seen the income charts presented on Ed and Rachel Maddow, using data from the U.S. Dept. of Labor showing that wages for the 1% skyrocketed in the last few years, while the remaining 99% are stagnant. The liberal position is that this is deliberate, hence the term "war against the middle class." With statistics that show that workers in "Right to Work" states make less, and diminishing of unions (pro-worker organizations) nationally, not to mention outsourcing of blue- and white-collar jobs, the assertion is resonant (to me at least. I accept the stats from the USDL as factual).

Perhaps Current TV is actually, literally independent from the other media outlets, and that's what they mean--I need to look that up. So far the only programs I have watched on Current are Keith Olbermann and Vanguard, a documentary-style program which is quite interesting.

Since you believe that the tax issue and the "war against the middle class" are intertwined, are you saying that the 'liberal position' is that the lower tax rates that rich people allegedly pay is the reason for the difference in wage growth?

@Bren -

Yes, I've seen the income growth graph that MS-NBC loves to use. But none of their pundits ever explain how or why there is currently such a large disparity between the top 1% and the 99%, do they? Instead, they want and encourage their viewers to infer that it's the greed of the 1% that is stealing from and trying to keep the 99% down, don't they?

But is there another graph that might inversely line-up with the MS-NBC graph that would explain the reason for the disparity? In fact there is - the Federal Reserve Historical Prime Interest Rate graph.

So, what is it that's really allowing the rich to get richer? Artificially low interest rates. But you never hear that mentioned on MS-NBC ever, do you? Why? Because class warfare tactics are more entertaining and are easier to sell than the truth. After all, if you told people that the 1% are simply better at managing their money and making it grow than the 99%, you'd be alienating 99% of your potential audience, right?

Power in truth Bren!

Robert, there's a lot of information needed before a definitive suggestion can be made, but the courts also make custody determinations for the placement/custody of minors. Without joint custody, I understand that all the time a guardian is really obligated to provide is about an hour each month, and that supervised with a court order. Aggressive behavior can jeopardize even that amount of visitation. It might seem harsh but keep in mind that precedents drive the rules.

All I can suggest is that you follow the rulings of the court, and if the courts aren't currently involved, work together to make that happen. This is to provide protection and expectations for both of you. Hopefully trust and peace will return over time.

If Ryan doesn't have his way, Medicare and SSI will undo themselves as they are not sustainable in their current forms. Doesn't it make sense to make changes and reform Medicare and Social Security before they collapse completely?

@Mike -

Apparently you didn't hear, and not that it would matter anyway because obviously you didn't understand Ryan's first plan, but he is now offering a second plan on paper which preserves the current SS and Medicare systems via adjustments.

So now, Ryan has two fully vetted and scored by the CBO plans on paper!!! Wow, imagine that, an elected official coming up with and offering multiple solutions to our problems. Sounds like Ryan is actually doing the job that we sent him to DC to do. Go figure, eh?

Could you point me to the Dems plan on paper that I could review? Oh, that's right - they don't have any plans except to stick their heads in the sand and hope that everything will be OK, right? Either that or they'll wait to come up with a plan when people actually stop getting their benefit checks because the funds are insolvent, correct?

So Mike, how can you honestly be supporting the do-nothing Dems?

Mike, I've mentioned elsewhere on Patch that a friend from Racine Co. actually attended one of Paul Ryan's Town Hall meetings and asked for more details about his Medicare plan. Ryan stated that this was "just like what I get as a Congressman." When it was pointed out that his plan for the rest of us doesn't include automatic salary adjustments to compensate rising insurance costs, he had no answer, just went back to babbling talking points.

But that's the essential point. Ryan gets an automatic pay adjustment, we will not. Medicare was created because senior citizens couldn't get health insurance because of their age and care expense. Ryan's plan will return us to this unacceptable baseline. And you don't hear Ryan saying that he is going to eschew his Congressional pension and benefits in favor of his own plan, do you.

Personally, I believe that Medicare D should be rolled back and expanded and that we need to work on phasing down private health insurance over the next 20 years. The insurance companies could be contracted to process the claims, and they would have to accept flat fees for service, no more U&Cs and all the other crapola that allows them to not/underpay claims they are paid well to process. I'm on a roll here--under this system, insurance companies that layoff workers and/or try to outsource would be fired.

Cow, Social Security was raided multiple times. Social Security is sustainable, it needs to be left alone and repaid as possible.

What automatic salary adjustments are you referring to Bren? Is that the automatic pay raise that they voted to not take in 2010 and 2011?

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/97971-obama-signs-law-blocking-congress-pay-raise

What retirement health benefits do you think Ryan will be getting?

How is SS sustainable if there are only two people are working to support each person receiving their retirement benefit? Where is the money going to come from to pay back what was raided?

Here's the summary of retirement benefits for members of Congress...

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/RL30631.pdf

Even the Social Security Administration has stated that SS is not sustainable for the long term. I would think that they would be a pretty reliable source for that sort of information...

"The Social Security Board of Trustees today declared that the Social Security program is not sustainable over the long term. "

http://www.ssa.gov/pressoffice/pr/trustee03-pr.htm

I assume that you aren't putting anything into your 401(k) then? You certainly can't trust that it won't be stolen by some greedy Wall Street capitalist...

Cow, would you agree that it is contradictory to set money aside for the future into a fund that is at the mercy of Wall Street raiders? Time and again my fund has been hit by double-digit percentages, and I'm not exactly a wild-eyed speculator.

Most people seem comfortable enough with their 401(k) plans to contribute to it. If you don't like the high risk 'wall street' stock options, move your money into T-Bills or mutual funds...

Skinny, Social Security is NOT a Ponzi scheme. That is an absolute myth. Social Security is not broke. Social Security works when it isn't raided as it has been. "Conservatives" who call Social Security a Ponzi scheme are liars. Privatization is not the answer for social investments. Government is the best steward because it does not have a for-profit agenda. It is a shame that Social Security has been raided by presidents of both parties since the 1960s, because it was designed to accommodate shifts in population over time. A replenishment plan would be the wisest and most effective course.

lol Bren read upon the facts before you comment .

I have no problem with someone coming up with a decent plan to keep this program somewhat "safe" from the thieves of Wall Street. that is my only problem is allowing Wall Street to control this money is a no no to me. Otherwise Democrat or Republican if someone has a better plan I
would be in.

@Bren and Mike -

How about a simple opt-out?

Those who'd like to manage their own retirement account can opt out of paying into the SS fund. Those opting out would still have to pay a small contribution towards the SSI disability fund, but the remainder that would otherwise go into the retirement fund would instead go into a separate tax exempt account managed by the individual taxpayer instead of the government. Those opting out would also receive a direct deposit into their individual account of the amount-to-date that they've currently paid into the SS retirement fund, plus the interest earned off those funds. Once retired, they would receive no SS benefits beyond what is in their individually managed account.

They were trying to push the SS opt-out a few years back. It went nowhere because at that time everybody wanted out.

Mr. Hoffa, I believe it had been proven during the Reagan administration that Social Security was a better investment than a private account (larger corpus). A lot of young people felt they would rather take their chances instead of paying into an account that they believed would no longer exist at the age they needed it. The issue of course had to do with the usual raids on the Social Security principal.

Despite the raids, there are huge sums in the fund. If Al Gore had been selected president in 2000, the "lockbox" would have protected the corpus (not to mention George W. Bush's raids on Social Security to pay for the Iraq invasion that Al Gore wouldn't have done!).

Instead of "IOUs," the legislature would have had to found other ways to pay for services, etc., prioritized, or done without (true fiscal conservatism). And we wouldn't have to be talking about Social Security again. Alas.

Heres one of the better articles on issues with social security .
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/277376/great-social-security-debate-charles-krauthammer