The "Stuck on Stupid" Dictionary #34

The normally lazy lexicographers working on the "Stuck on Stupid" dictionary have decided to become more productive without further physical motivation exercises (ending practices that violated the Geneva Conventions and have mostly been banned by the UN).  Apparently they've decided that the regular release of efforts for the SOS dictionary are far more likely to improve their working conditions and perhaps even rate them a better long-term compensation plan.  (Personally, I just think they're jealous of the Cheetos and AC that we supply to the DJBSS in their attic Command Center.)  Senior staff will continue to evaluate not only the quantity of their efforts, but the quality before re-opening negotiations (Kansas is after all, a right to work state).  Besides, we're already spending more in our Cheetos budget than we can reasonably afford.

Now for those of you who have somehow managed to miss previous postings in this area (shame on you, now go back and read all of the postings under the label of dictionary), the SOS dictionary is a reference guide to terms which nominally mean something to the rest of the English speaking world, but appear to mean something entirely different when looked at in a political context, especially to those us who have come to understand the often peculiar vernacular of politics in Toledo, Northwest Ohio ... and sometimes even the nation as a whole.

Campaign Contributions

1.  Money raised for political purposes usually only mentioned these days in conjunction with "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission".   This was a landmark US Supreme Court case in which, by a 5-4 decision, the Justices essentially held that money and speech could be considered the same thing when it came to campaign expenditure and that according to the First Amendment; the government was therefore prohibited from placing restrictions on such independent expenditures.  The restraint of this prohibition was held to be true whether you were an individual, a corporation, or a union.

2.  Money raised in a particularly evil form of 'election buying' and considered a travesty by the political left about the political right when they are outspent and lose the issue that had been placed before the voters. (ie: The Governor Scott Walker recall vote of 2012 in Wisconsin, where the right apparently outspent the left by a ratio of 7 to 1, though some numbers are in dispute.) 

3.  Money raised in a particularly evil form of 'election buying' and considered a travesty by the political right about the political left when they are outspent and lose the issue that had been placed before the voters. (ie: The Ohio "Issue 2" vote of 2011 (also known as SB5) in which the left apparently outspent the right by at least a ratio of over 3 to 1, though some numbers are in dispute.)

4.  Money raised by major party presidential candidates, the amounts of which are only released when they can do the most good to themselves and the most harm to their opponents.  The candidate raising the greater amount attempting to prove (incorrectly) that the ability to raise campaign money equates to the ability to lead.  The candidate raising the lesser amount of money usually thanking contributors for their cash before citing the 'Citizens United' decision as the reason that there is too much money in politics.

5.  Money raised which has apparently led to a great deal more discussion of political issues, candidates, and elections around the country.  It has likewise performed the function of no longer leaving the message delivered on these elections in the hands of representatives of the two major political parties, allowing independent voices from all sides of politics the opportunity to get their own messages across.  While the results of such discussion are far from in, the increased level of discussion has been generally seen as a good thing, and the level of spending on campaigns while increased, has had no demonstrably negative effects on the electoral process.     

The Lessons of Scott Walker

Having said it likely that I would wait until the weekend to post, here I am again (which I suppose  means that I am as untrustworthy as some of the politicians I write about).   I  simply found that the more I listened to the talking heads on both sides of the political spectrum discuss the Wisconsin vote, the angrier I got.  I am therefore going to weigh while the ink is still drying on the Wisconsin tallies.

One of the few things more amusing than seeing the mainstream media handed their collective butts in an election is watching the Olympic back-pedaling of the losers and the massive overreaching of the winners when the final results of such an election are finally tallied.

After Ohio's Governor Kasich took a drubbing for the failed effort in his state to gain the restrictions of public sector workers, the left was all but convinced that Governor Walker would receive a similar shellacking, especially with the numbers of signatures on the recall petitions.  In spite of the fact that Walker seemed to be consistently ahead in the polls, we were told to expect his demise.  

Well the results are in now and the reports Scott Walker's demise were apparently greatly exaggerated.  He will remain the governor of Wisconsin, by what appears to be a lead of 53% to 46% over Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.  And even as Badgers were going to the polls, the pundits were lining up with excuses and prophecies.

I for one was amazed at the amount of whine produced in Wisconsin, as those on the left quickly pointed out that Barrett, after all, was not the Union supported candidate in the Democratic primary (refusing to acknowledge that the fact that his beating of that union candidate should have been saying something).  Lest Union power and dignity suffer unduly, they were also quick to point out that outside money being spent on the left was being significantly outspent by outside money from the right. (I was curious that no mention was made about the impact of the opposite having happened in Ohio last year).  

Before the dust had settled, we were likewise reminded that Ohio and Wisconsin were different situations, since the Ohio proposal included safety workers and Walker's in Wisconsin didn't.  According to this form of spin we're supposed to believe that voters, who often have trouble distinguishing the candidate's political parties, understood the subtle shading of these arguments seven months later.  I suppose it's equally possible that we should instead believe that safety workers, having no dog in this hunt, simply threw their Union brethren under the bus; but I heard no one mention this potential.

Last but not least, we were told that in spite of the Walker win, Barack Obama was still polling better than Mitt Romney.  (This is known as the, "Oh yeah, your family has a better car, well mine has a better house.  Nyeh!" response; and is usually limited to the playground in kindergarten.)  By the time they were done, all I cold hear was John Belushi crying out to Carrie Fisher in 'The Blues Brothers', "It's not my fault!"

For their part and much like with the election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts a few years back, those on the Right were busy announcing the second coming of the Republican Party to the tune of "Ding Dong, the Witch is Dead".  They were equally vocal (and close to being as poor a sport in winning as the left was doing in losing) in predicting that the results of this election was a mere foretelling of Republicans increasing their lead in the House, taking over the majority in the Senate, and ultimately winning the Presidency.  They were not only as excited as a new puppy, I think that in a couple cases they actually peed on the rug.

In all of this, they like their opponents were also wrong (at least in my opinion).  

Scott Walker did not become the first governor to beat a recall election because he was a Republican.  He did so because he's one of the few elected officials out there (along with members of the Wisconsin legislature) to understand what needed to be done and when, in order to balance the budget of the state in his charge.  For this, those who originally voted for him did so again. 

He knew that raising taxes was an unacceptable option, and that cutting spending was the only answer.  He knew that public sector employee health and retirement benefit programs were only going to become worse if nothing was done about them.  He likewise knew that laying off public sector employees and reducing services had to remain a last resort.  In this, he was in some ways like his counterpart in Ohio, and their contemporary Chris Christie in New Jersey.  Regardless of the path taken, all have managed to achieved a balanced budget for States under their care (unlike their ridiculous counterpart in Illinois). Unfortunately, this is not necessarily an example of Republican values when viewed on a grander scale.  

Oh don't get me wrong, Republicans will certainly talk about small government and fiscal responsibility when on the political stump, but talk is usually all you get.  (Remember the budget discussions of last year, and the 'Incredible Shrinking Budget Cuts' that resulted.)  Upon achieving national office, they mostly seem to revert to a kind with their brethren on the left.  Republicans have never had any problem spending, their difference was little more than the rate at which they did it.  We were still spending more than we were taking in when Republicans controlled both Houses of Congress and the White House.  We just hadn't loosed the deficit dogs, running up debt like a country that never expected to pay it back except by inflating a portion of it into non-existence.  (Wait, that's exactly what we we're doing ... oh, never mind.)

Social Security and Medicare were both still going broke, and the Republican answer was to add a prescription drug program to make it happen quicker.   Regulatory agency budgets at the EPA, HHS, and the Security agencies were increased annually; and added to as required when the Department of Homeland Security was formed.  As for Defense spending; of course it had to go up.  There were two wars to be fought after all.  Oh sure there was talk about shutting down the NEA, but it never amounted to anything.  There was also talk of streamlining the tax code, and with it the IRS; but nothing ever came of it but empty rhetoric.

If all of this is the case, what then can we learn from Governor Walker maintaining his office?  Perhaps it's simply that even in a state as progressive Wisconsin, sometimes people will overlook political theory and keep someone in office who's getting the job done.  It might be that people are getting tired of the way things have always been, and want real change (not hope and change).   They're sick of what has largely become an over-priced and dysfunctional form of governance and want one that understands its limited power and even more limited finances.  On the other hand, maybe this is just the acorn that the blind squirrel finds once in a while.

As for what this taught (or at least should have taught) the two major political parties, I expect neither learned anything.  They've become too bloated, too power-hungry, and too set in their ways to learn from a simple lesson right in front of their eyes in Wisconsin.  Elections are not necessarily won by greater spending, more effective bullying, or more masterful rhetoric and spin.  Ultimately they are won by those who show up to vote; and increasingly, that group is made up of people who are really pissed at both of you.


So endeth the lesson ....