It’s Monday, May 21st, 2012….but before we begin, we take a moment to celebrate another entry into the workforce:

Travis Paul McKee, Salisbury University Class of 2012; he’s a handsome lad….of who The Bear would have been profoundly proud!

Congratulations, Travis; we too are very, very proud.  To mangle a phase from Richard Halliburton, you’re now adrift in the sea of life….with a diploma for a sail, and lots of nerve for oars; row hard!

Now, here’s The Gouge!

First up, this snippet from Derek Hunter’s latest offering in Townhall.com perfectly portrays our opinion on the practicality of compromising with Progressives:

“….Progressives’ goal is to raise taxes, spend more, grow government and make an ever-growing number of people dependent on government services, so those people will vote continually to keep them in power. Conservatives, though not necessarily Republicans, seek to bind the government to the Constitution, that pesky document that progressives all too often treat as a small speed bump on their way to their tyrannical Utopia.

Conservatives want less government involvement in people’s lives, smaller, constitutionally limited government and lower taxes for everyone. When two sides are pitted against one another, one side wanting higher taxes and more spending while the other wants lower taxes, or at least no increase, and less spending (or even just a decrease in the rate of increase) how do they compromise? Where is the middle ground?

It’s always the side that wants a bigger, more intrusive, ever-expanding government who wins in that compromise, no matter how much “compromise” there is, because they get more. And the goal is always “more.”

Progressives are like heroin addicts, only less honest. They both want “just one last fix” before they’ve finally had enough and will get serious about quitting. But a junkie will ask you for money for that next fix; progressives simply will deem a need for more of your money and then vote to take it. Neither is ever really done, and “just one more” is never enough with either.

The simple fact is there is no negotiating with terrorists or junkies just as there is no negotiating with progressives. “Compromise” might as well have six fewer letters when it comes to protecting individual liberty because there is simply no room for it anymore. We’ve already given away too much of our founding soul to give away any more and remain the nation, the people, we are meant to be.

There’s a reason all the people of the world who seek freedom and opportunity always try to come here. For them, and for our future, we can not allow politicians to negotiate that away any further in the name of compromise.”

To borrow a phrase from both the Gipper and Forrest Gump:

And….

Since we’re on the subject of the pitfalls of compromising with Progressives, Wisconsin attorney Chris Toner, writing in the WSJ, details….

What’s at Stake in the Wisconsin Recall Election

What unions really want is legal standing to sue employers and prevent any changes—in wages, hours or other conditions of employment—unwanted by their members.

Wisconsin’s recall election is on, pitting Gov. Scott Walker against Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett. If Mr. Walker is voted out of office on June 5, what other politician will be willing to step forward to address America’s entitlement challenges?

Mr. Walker’s record is well known: He limited collective bargaining for government labor unions and trimmed health-insurance and pension benefits, bringing them more in line with private business. Organized labor thinks Mr. Walker’s reforms should be the end of his career.

They argue, first, that public workers just wanted to “have a voice” in their employment. But public-school teachers are more than welcome to participate in school-board meetings or sit down with principals to discuss how to achieve better results. What unions really want is legal standing to sue employers and prevent any changes—in wages, hours or other conditions of employment—unwanted by their members. Their call to continue combative litigation hardly promotes the kind of statewide unity that they, and Mr. Barrett, have called for.

Public employers deal with thousands of grievances that result in discussion, negotiation, mediation and arbitration. In 2010, the last full year before the reforms, the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission issued 129 decisions in cases that went to a full hearing. That is a lot of litigation.

Unions frequently abuse their standing to sue. (GASP!!!) In 2009, during the height of the recession, many government agencies furloughed employees to save taxpayer money. In Milwaukee County, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees successfully sued to prevent this—and won $6 million in back pay and interest, at a time when every local government was drowning in red ink.

In 2006, the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC) sued the Cedarburg School District for terminating a teacher who had viewed pornography on his school computer. An arbitrator initially reinstated the teacher and awarded back pay. Only after much time and expense did the Wisconsin Court of Appeal uphold the termination.

In the past year, WEAC again fought the termination of a teacher who had viewed and shared pornography on his school computer in the Middleton-Cross Plains School District. An arbitrator recently reinstated and awarded back pay of over $200,000 to that teacher. According to the Wisconsin State Journal, the district spent over $300,000 in legal fees in its failed attempt to fire him.

In the Antigo School District, a principal has been criminally charged with selling drugs from his house to fellow teachers, among others. The district could drug-test these employees to ensure that students aren’t exposed to teachers under the influence of illegal drugs, right? Sorry, drug testing is prohibited by collective bargaining and the union contract.

Why did Wisconsinites have to incur considerable costs in lost staff time and legal fees as unions sued local governments? Because, argue Democrats, the people we elect to serve on school boards and city councils can’t be trusted to treat employees fairly. It matters little that these local officials can be voted out of office if they act inappropriately.

Public workers without collective-bargaining rights will hardly be subject to the whims of tyrannical bosses. There are ample protections for all (i.e., union and NON-union alike!) employees—the Family and Medical Leave Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, the Fair Labor Standards Act, the Civil Rights Act and many more.

Employees have considerably more legal protection now than when Wisconsin first gave collective-bargaining rights to public unions in 1959. All employees have standing to sue in state and federal court if their rights are violated. If government agencies go too far, voters can vote out board members. Noticeably absent from the debate thus far are examples of a school district running roughshod over teachers.

Education is easily the most important social equalizer in our society, yet there is no evidence that Wisconsin’s previous levels of retirement and health-care funding for teachers improved student performance. Many factors harm student performance—including that we don’t fire our worst teachers and don’t reward our best, thanks to union contracts that forbid merit-based compensation and block the dismissal of teachers except in rare circumstances.

Recalling Gov. Walker and reinstating collective-bargaining rights would guarantee a tax hike to pay astronomical, pre-Walker-level health and retirement benefits to union members. Local governments would have to continue fighting in front of arbitrators to exert any semblance of control over their workforce. And big labor would be able to exert more control over politicians and dictate reform on its terms—which is virtually no reform at all.

If politicians nationwide see Mr. Walker as a cautionary tale, what will happen on the inevitable day when we have to tell seniors that they must contribute more toward Medicare or wait until age 68 to receive Social Security? Will the AARP run those people out of office too?

This cycle of attempted reform followed by all-out warfare could continue until we are bankrupt. Had Wisconsin Democrats and unions been willing to support more modest reforms years ago, Mr. Walker’s changes wouldn’t have been needed. But most politicians are unwilling to confront their friends and constituents. That habit will continue—or get worse—if Wisconsin’s expensive and divisive recall campaign boots the reform governor from office.

In a related item, Townhall.com reports another ray of sunshine in what until recently was an ever-darkening day:

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel Endorses Scott Walker 

No governor in recent memory has been so controversial. No governor in America is so polarizing. Everyone has an opinion about Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin.

Here’s ours: We see no reason to remove Walker from office. We recommend him in the June 5 recall election.

Walker’s rematch with Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett was prompted by one issue: Walker’s tough stance with the state’s public-employee unions. It’s inconceivable that the recall election would be occurring absent that. And a disagreement over a single policy is simply not enough to justify a vote against the governor.

It’s time to end the bickering and get back to the business of the state. We’ve had our differences with the governor, but he deserves a chance to complete his term. We recommended him in 2010. We see no reason to change that recommendation. We urge voters to support Walker in the June 5 recall election.

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the WSJ offers these observations regarding the realities of yet another aspect of capitalism Socialists love to hate:

Bain Capitalism 101

Watching Obama campaign ads or MSNBC, one could easily come to the conclusion that Bain Capital makes money by destroying the companies it owns. So for voters unsure about the business that Mitt Romney founded but still reluctant to trust the financial analysis offered by community organizers, some perspective might be helpful.

The basic Obama-liberal critique goes like this: Bain buys a company, loads it with debt and then sucks out cash before foisting the wounded business upon an unsuspecting buyer or a bankruptcy court. In the risk-taking world of private equity such a scenario can certainly happen, and it’s true that Bain likes management fees and dividends as much as the next partnership.

But then how to explain the history of Bain Capital? Mr. Romney started the business in 1984. The company has since bought and sold many businesses and executed thousands of financing transactions.

If Bain’s standard operating procedure were to hand the next owner of one of its companies a ticking bankruptcy package, how is Bain still finding buyers nearly three decades later? And who would agree to lend money to a company backed by Bain? Wouldn’t word have gotten around by, say, 1987 that Bain’s portfolio companies weren’t creditworthy?

The liberal critique of private equity assumes that the financial industry is full of saps who have been eager to lose money across the table from Bain for 28 years. This is the same financial industry that the same liberal critics say is full of greedy schemers when it comes to padding their own pay or ripping off consumers. But financiers can’t be both knaves and diabolical geniuses at the same time.

Learning about Bain successes like Staples or Gartner or Steel Dynamics confirms the logical conclusion that Bain had to be creating value along the way—for investors, for lenders, and that means for workers too.

Here’s the juice: the only aspect of private equity Team Tick-Tock seems to understand is its willingness and ability to produce campaign contributions; as if, like their view of so many other segments of the economy, they believe money….

….just grows on trees. You know, like the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act….

….isn’t coming out of someone else’s pocket!

Speaking of money coming out of of someone else’s pocket, the WSJ‘s Allysia Finley asks….

Will California Ever Learn?

California: where EVERYONE wears a red shirt!

Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown is making California lawmakers out to be models of Franciscan frugality. Last year they made “tough cuts across state government to reduce General Fund spending as a share of the economy to its lowest level” in 40 years,” he says. Hold the holy water, Friar Brown.

The state constitution mandates a balanced budget, so revenues and expenditures as a share of GDP must match, at least on paper. For the past several years legislators have been using special funds (fees earmarked for specific purposes) to pay for programs that are usually financed by general fund spending.

The lack of structural reform helps explain why the state is running a $16 billion deficit, which is equivalent to about 20% of the general fund. Mr. Brown has proposed a ballot initiative to raise taxes on millionaires by 30%. He says the tax hike will help erase the state’s chronic deficits, but history suggests that it’ll raise little revenue without concomitant economic growth.

This year general fund tax collections make up about 4.6% of the state economy, which is way down from their recent peak of 5.5% in 2005 and the state’s 25-year average of 5.2%. Democrats blame the low revenues on last year’s expiration of temporary sales and income tax increases. In 2009 lawmakers raised the sales tax by one-percentage point and income taxes by a quarter-of-a-percentage point. However, the tax hikes raised revenue as a share of GDP to just 4.8% in 2010—not enough to keep up with spending growth. Notwithstanding the higher tax rates, the state faced a $20 billion deficit in 2010.

Similarly, when the state increased sales and income taxes in 1991, adding a top marginal rate of 11% for married couples earning more than $400,000, revenues as a share of GDP flat-lined at about 5%. That was until 1996 when the state cut top marginal rates back down to 9.3% (which coincided with the dot-com bubble). Revenues as a share of the economy shot up to 5.9% in 1999.

The lesson here is that raising rates won’t guarantee higher revenues or eliminate structural deficits, which are primarily functions of a weak economy and overly generous entitlement programs. And to the extent that the tax hikes deter investors from realizing capital gains and businesses from expanding, they could dampen revenue growth.

So if history is any guide, and the wisdom of Horace Greeley notwithstanding, our advice to the youth of California would be….

….go East, young man, go East!

On the Lighter Side….

Then there’s this bit of pointed humor from JC, aka “Balls”:

Finally, we’ll call it a day with this interesting bit of electoral analysis from Mike Warren in The Weekly Standard:

Who Is Deb Fischer?

On Tuesday night, Nebraska state senator Deb Fischer unexpectedly won the Republican primary over a better-funded establishment favorite, attorney general Jon Bruning. Folks curious to know just who Fischer is might want to watch a few her debates with her Republican primary opponents—many are available on YouTube. Fischer’s performances reveal a serious conservative, with populist tendencies.

On the major issues, Fischer is a conservative with plenty of Tea Party tendencies. She opposes Obamacare, believes in cutting spending and keeping taxes low, supports a strong national defense, and believes education is best administered at the local level.

But Democrats and liberals will have a hard time casting Fischer, as they did with Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, and other Tea Party Republicans defeated in 2010, as an anti-government nut. Her tone is calm, and her message is, “I’m a leader who wants to get things done.” In pitching herself at a debate in Blair on March 26, Fischer told voters to ask themselves not necessarily who is the most conservative candidate but, “Who’s the conservative who’s been effective?”

Not to mention she’s Sarah Palin-approved!  Which proves two things: the rumors of the Tea Party’s demise have been greatly exaggerated….and Sarah Palin best serves from the sidelines.

Magoo