A Pig-In-A-Poke is an idiom that originated in the late Middle Ages when instead of a suckling pig in the wriggling bag (poke), the seller would substitute a rat or a cat on the unsuspecting buyer. The phrase subsequently transformed over time in the English language to accepting an idea or a plan without fully understanding its basis. The question today is how applicable that phrase is to the voters who bought "Change You Can Believe In" and elected Barack Obama as our 44^th President. Did they buy a Pig-In-A-Poke and are now feeling buyer’s remorse? It certainly appears so as the polls indicate that his approval rating has fallen to less than 50%, lower than any other elected President during his first year in office.

How could this happen? If the media and the public had dug deeper into Obama’s background would they have been surprised in to what he has apparently morphed? I personally doubt it. The "Bush Hatred Syndrome" had so overwhelmed both the general public and the media that it would have drowned out further Obama history as a Chicago politician with a history of playing to his audience of the moment.

In the Obama case, if the country bought a Pig-In-A-Poke, we have to live with it at least until the next election in 2012. The question might better be asked how we might avoid such a purchase in the future. The ObamaCare Health Bill offers an opportunity to consider options.

I had the opportunity to attend Senator Russ Feingold’s Ozaukee County listening session at MATC-North. I must say, he found little to no support for ObamaCare in its current form. He had trouble keeping a straight face when he stated that the Congressional Budget Office projected a $185 billion reduction in the deficit from a ten year working of this bill. He knew it was hog wash and so did everybody else in the room, with the possible exception of some of the organized MATC facility led by Charlie Dee. One of his minions proposed that all seniors who oppose ObamaCare remove themselves from their Medicare coverage.

I didn’t get an opportunity to present my views to the Senator as he limited the session to about 80 minutes, so here goes now. To avoid a possible Pig-In-A-Poke I wanted to propose to Senator Feingold that he return to Washington and offer an amendment to the Bill along these lines. Let’s add both some incentives to the bill to insure that it actually operates as planned, especially that it will not add to the federal deficit as currently trumpeted, and some penalties if the results are not as promised and it does add to the federal deficit.

The incentive in the amendment would be that every Senator who votes for the ObamaCare Bill that finally is signed into law, will receive a $1million bonus at the close of the ten year period wherein the costs did not add to the federal deficit. On the other hand, the penalty if the costs of the ObamaCare Bill have added to the federal deficit after the ten year period, would be: "All Senators who voted for it, whether active or not, would lose their government pension and those still in office would resign immediately." That seems fair to provide some assurance that the country is not being sold a Pig-In-A-Poke. As a matter of fact, why not utilize an incentive /penalty approach for every piece of congressionaL legislation where there is a difference of opinion whether the legislation will add or subtract from the federal deficit? "ALL IN FAVOR SAY: "AYE!."

We have all heard the old adage "You Can’t Fight City Hall." It wasn’t an adage for me recently. It was an actual experience. Not only couldn’t I fight city hall, I wasn’t even allowed in the ring. It all started with the new 2009 property assessments. Mequon property owners are now sadly aware that all property has been reassessed in value as of January 1, 2009. Average assessments were increased about 18%, not withstanding the collapse of the real estate market which accompanied the economic downturn.

Being the owner of a town house in the Concord Place Condominium I undertook an evaluation and comparison of all 109 of our town houses. WOW - did I find assessment mistakes of every kind in both Land and Building assessments, which I called to the attention of the assessor at the Open Book session and subsequently in two separate meetings. If his initial work is any indication of the accuracy of his assessments elsewhere on Mequon residential property - property owners are in big trouble.

He made many of the corrections, primarily to the town house buildings themselves, but informed me I would have to go to the Board of Review for what I considered serious over assessments on the Land. Town house condominium owners do not own the land on which their town houses sit, but rather own an equal joint interest in all the condominium land – in our case some 19 acres.

For that reason, I filed the required Objection form in the name of the entire Concord Place Condominium, with myself as the agent. I walked into the Board of Review meeting expecting to present my evidence only to discover I had been sandbagged by the assessor and the Board. Apparently they had decided some time before my appointment that I would not be able to present the Condominium’s case unless I had brought with me the signed authorizations of each of the 109 town house owners. Of course, I hadn’t, although all the owners had been informed by me in writing that I was going to appeal on their behalf.

Nowhere on the Objection form nor in the letter from the City confirming the appointment, does it state that an agent has to bring written proof of his being deputized – and in fact, in the case following mine, an agent representing an owner was NOT asked for any written proof of his standing. With this condition inflicted, I did my best to present my evidence using my town house assessment as the example, but it was plain that it was already a lost cause. In fact, when it came for the assessor to respond, it became evident that all he brought to the meeting were pictures of my town house and an already filled out form prepared to deny changing my town house assessment, which of course I never asked for. Even a slow learner like me, recognized I had been had – that the assessor and the Board of Review were in cahoots ahead of time to avoid hearing the filed Objection. This wasn’t a fair hearing. It was a Kangaroo Court. To add insult to injury, I was asked if I desired the Board to reduce my town house Land assessment - an offer I rejected out of hand, since it was never part of the filed Objection and seemed more like a bribe or sop for my efforts.

Lastly, the Board of Review and the assessor appeared to salve their conscience by agreeing that the assessor would take another look at the deficiencies I uncovered. The assessor stated he was too busy to fix them this year – so I guess property owners will pay the additional property taxes up coming and wait for some relief in 2010. Too bad our City officials decided to eliminate our past in-house assessment function for a hired gun assessor who looks on Mequon as just another job. The City might have saved a few bucks, but the inaccurate assessments mean an unfair distribution of the property taxes for all.

On reflection, I am sadly disappointed in what occurred in a community where I have resided for more than 22 years. I am especially distressed that the City of Mequon’s official notice of assessment states: "This new assessment is an estimate of the full (100%) market value of your property as of January 1, 2009," when a challenge to that assessment is denied a fair hearing. Let’s hope our elected officials take notice – and action.

Quentin Tarantino’s latest movie, "Inglourious Basterds," is now playing at our North Shore Cinema.  My son invited me to see it with him and I accepted the invitation.  It was entertaining for its full 153 minutes, covering a time line from 1941 to 1944 during World War II. The locale was occupied France, after the German Army defeated the French and British, driving all organized resistance from western Europe.

Mr. Tarantino tells his story through a series of loosely related vignettes, centered around a group of Jewish-American soldier volunteers, led by Brad Pitt, who were inserted into occupied France to kill Nazis. While the stories are obviously fiction, as a student of military history, I found Mr. Tarantino playing loosely with the facts. Mr. Pitt, who assumes a corn pone accent as an Army Lieutenant leading the team, advocates killing Nazis without mercy and charges his team to each secure 100 scalps. While I have no sympathy with the Nazis of that era, their role in the German military was primarily in the Schutzstaffel (better known as the SS) which means in English, "Protective Echelon." Why then, does Pitt’s team zero in on the Wehrmacht Army personnel, mainly consisting of conscripted German youth who were not members of the Nazi Party? It made me cringe to watch a Wehrmacht Army Sergeant beaten to death with a baseball bat, because he refused to give up military information. I’ll venture that half of the audience who think water boarding is a venal sin, thought that beating a common German soldier to death with a baseball bat was okay. I thought if Pitt’s team wanted to kill Nazis, why didn’t they take on the Nazi SS? Where was Attorney General Eric Holder when we needed him?

Later, Mr. Tarantino introduces Dr. Joseph Goebbels, German Reichsminister of Propaganda, into the mix, identifying him as the number two man behind Hitler. Actually he was somewhere behind Reichsmarshall Hermann Goering and Reichfuhrer SS - Heinrich Himmler. Why Mr. Tarantino didn’t introduce Herr Doctor Goebbels correctly is a puzzle since it didn’t influence the plot in any way.

The final vignette in which Hitler, Goering and Goebbels are all consumed in a Paris theater fire unleashed by a Jewish woman whose family had been brutally killed in the first vignette brings the film to an exciting if fictional conclusion.

By far the best role as nasty SS Colonel Hans Landa is played by Austrian actor Christoph Waltz. His performance made Brad Pitt look like someone out of the high school senior play. His best actor award for the role at the Cannes Film Festival was well deserved. His work is worth the price of admission all by itself. So, don’t hesitate, go see the movie. It’s suitable for adults, but too bloody and violent for the younger generation.

By this time all Mequon property owners have received the City Assessor’s Official Notice of their new assessment which is an estimate of the full (100%) "market value" of their property as of January 1, 2009. "Market value" is defined in the 2009 Wisconsin Property Assessment Guide as: "The dollar amount for which a property would be sold by a willing seller to a willing buyer under normal market conditions."

Considering single homes, including town house condominiums, it comes as no surprise that both the State and Ozaukee County are on the record stating that such properties lost value in 2007 and 2008 and a further reduction is forecast in the State’s Department of Revenue equalized value report due out in August 2009. The Wall Street Journal, however, reports that a small up-tick is underway in the nationwide home sales market thus far in 2009.

Since the City Assessor states that the January 1, 2009, market value assessment is based on sales in 2007 and 2008, one could logically conclude that the majority of 2009 sales would occur near or above the 2009 market value assessment.

Surprise, surprise — that is not the case at all. A sampling of single homes and town house condos sold since January 1, 2009, show that about 90% were sold for below their 2009 market value assessment, with town house condos taking the biggest hit at some 11% below their 2009 assessed market value. Single homes sold at about a 6% deficiency to their 2009 market value assessment. The only reasonable conclusion from this analysis is that the City Assessor has over-assessed single homes about 6% and town house condos some 11%, all contributing to the average 18% increase imposed on all Mequon property.

Now, the City Assessor states that a higher assessment does not necessarily mean an increase in property taxes, but is that really the case? First, with different classes of property (i.e., town house condos vs. single homes) assessed at a greater percentage than warranted, that class will be paying more than its fair share of the property tax. Second, with all Mequon property over assessed in comparison with other property in Ozaukee County, Mequon property owners will be paying more than their fair share of both the County and State imposed property tax. Lastly, an over assessment condition will make it likely that Mequon will be subject to the Ozaukee County Library tax, for which Mequon is currently on the bubble. To avoid the Ozaukee County Library tax, Mequon would have to increase its funding to the Weyenberg Public Library, beyond its needs, to meet the exempt formal criterion. In either case, Mequon property owners will be zinged with an additional property tax component.

The solution to this dilemma is for the City Assessor to first resolve any assessments which property owners can show are incorrect in comparison to similar properties. Then the City Assessor should reduce all residential assessments by the percentage the data indicates that category has been over assessed. (i.e., condo town houses vs. single homes, etc.) That will result in an overall assessment that is on-the-money meeting the market value definition of a value that a willing seller and buyer would agree on. This solution will result in a fair allocation of Mequon’s residential property taxes to each category – the City, the County and the State, which, after all is the goal of the assessment program.

I note that the Interurban Trail Bicycle Bridge over I-43 in the Town of Grafton is right on schedule to open in early September.  That's good news for trail cyclists as well as hikers.  Too bad that Ozaukee County property taxpayers can't enjoy the event as they would have, if the 2003 proposal had been implemented as promised.   

As a County Supervisor in 2003, I and the rest of the County Board, heard the initial proposal from county officials in which they promised faithfully that the cost of the bridge would be fully covered by grants from the federal and state especially available for that purpose, plus private donations.   Needless to say, that cost concept resulted in a rousing affirmative from the County Board -- and the program got underway.

The initial plan called for $1 million in grants and $300,000 in private donations to cover the estimated total cost of $1.3 million.  The first bump in the road occurred when the state required handicap access, as well as other cost increasing changes.  With those requirements incorporated, a bid price of $2.8 million, more than twice the available financing, was received.

So it was back to the drawing board for a different approach with a steel structure in place of concrete at a lower cost.  Still with the mandated state requirements, the next cost estimate was $1.8 million -- some $500,000 over the available financing.  What to do -- and the head scratching began?  

The answer was to take Federal Highway funds, allotted to Ozaukee County for the construction, repair and maintenance of county roads and use those funds to make up the shortfall remaining in the bicycle bridge project.  I suggested that this was a violation of the commitment not to use funding that would require the Ozaukee County taxpayer to subsidize the bridge.  My rationale was that if the Federal highway funds were so diverted from county road projects, the taxpayer would have to be tapped for those funds or those road projects abandoned. 

I soon learned that my rationale was a minority opinion and that the solemn, staid and serious promise not to use resources that affected service to county residents was not considered broken by this arrangement -- in fact, not even dented.  That was another lesson learned -- "when government officials and legislators want something, convoluted thinking will find a loophole."  The loophole rationale was that since the $500,000+ required to complete the bicycle bridge project, did not really come from 2008 property taxes. Those county highway projects slated for the $500,000+ could be delayed into another budget period, when more Federal highway funds might be forthcoming.  Thus the County could allege they did not break the commitment not to use county taxpayer funds -- maybe just bend it.  My own perspective was that the County should have been forthright with its residents, explaining the necessity for using Federal highway funds for the bridge's completion and what consequences resulted from the removal of Federal highway funds from the county's road construction, repair and maintainence programs.   

In retrospect I should have known better since when I was a relatively new County Board supervisor, the issue arose as to fulfilling another solemn, staid and serious commitment to remove the 0.5% county sales tax after the new Justice Center construction had been fully paid.  I urged its removal as probably the one chance of a lifetime to remove a temporary tax after its purpose had been fulfilled.  I soon learned that once a tax has been implemented, regardless of its temporary nature and the commitment to remove it when its purpose had been fulfilled -- the allure of a continuing revenue source is too great for government elected officials to overcome.  So today, some 8 years later, Ozaukee County residents are still paying the 0.5% sales tax to the County as a part of our overall 5.6% total sales tax.

Of course, none of this is unique to local government.  The State and Federal governments outdo us in spades in ignoring tax relief promises.  The most gross example may be a federal phone tax that dates back to the Spanish-American war at the turn of the 20th century. The tax was imposed in 1898 to help pay for the Spanish-American War.  It was designed as a tax on wealthy Americans, back when phone service was considered a luxury.  It only took 108 years for this tax to be removed in 2006.  Another, is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), imposed in 1970 to insure the top 155 earners paid an income tax and now, 39 years later, catches over 20% of all Federal income tax filers.  Our US Congress just cannot bear to remove any revenue source, regardless of whether it has outlived its original purpose.

You would think that American citizens would now be well advised to take political promises with a tablespoon of salt, but every four years candidates tour the country with promises.  We should realize campaign promises are worthless, but we lap them up and regularly elect the biggest promiser of the bunch. 

QED:  AMERCANS GET THE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS THEY DESERVE! 

Reading about Supreme Court nominee Judge Sonia Sotomayor’s role in the case of Ricci vs DeStanfano brought back memories of my experience in the same arena in 1993. As you probably know, the current brouhaha involves the rights of the City of New Haven, Connecticut firefighters who took a civil service exam for promotion to lieutenant and captain. The City retained an outside consultant to design the exam to ensure it was job related and not racially biased. Of the some 118 firefighters who took the exam, 59 earned passing grades, however due to the limited vacancies only the 19 top scorers were eligible for promotion. This group consisted of 17 whites and two Hispanics, but none of the 9 black firefighters with passing scores.

New Haven’s Civil Service Board threw out the results -- refusing to promote any on the list and calling for new tests. That triggered a civil lawsuit from the 19 firefighters claiming reverse discrimination because they were white. The US District Court denied their claim on the basis that the 9 black firefighters who passed the test but did not score high enough to qualify for promotion did not receive promotions either.

An appeal was filed with the US 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals on which Judge Sotomayor serves. She was a member of the three judge panel which also dismissed the appeal. The full 2nd Circuit Court voted not to rehear the case over the protest of Judge Jose Cabranes who suggested that the firefighters had not been treated fairly.  Subsequently an appeal was made to the US Supreme Court who agreeed to hear the case -- and did hear it in April 2009.  A Supreme Court decision is now expected in July. 

You can decide for yourself as to whether reverse discrimination actually occurred to those New Haven firefighters, inflicted by the City of New Haven in failing to stand up for the rights of all firefighters regardless of race.

Now, here’s the next case for your evaluation, which happened back in 1993 in which I was a primary player. I was encouraged by some Milwaukee Area Technical College officials to apply for a MATC Board position, representing employers and Ozaukee County. The appointment process is complex -- concluding in a day-long interview procedure. I was selected for one of the three vacancies along with a West Allis publisher and an African-American attorney, who was appointed to represent employees.

I was informed that "I was in," with only a rubber stamp review from the Wisconsin Technical College System Board in Madison. So I hit the ground running, by meeting with the MATC President and other Officers and Deans as well as continuing Board members. Was I surprised to wake up one morning to be informed that the WTCS Board had rejected all three of us appointees and required a redo of the entire appointment process?

A little investigation turned up the facts. The black attorney apparently had represented some company managements in legal cases involving employees and that did not sit well the Local 212 union. So Local 212 appealed that appointment to the WTCS Board on the basis he did not fill out the paperwork properly. So the WTCS Board was faced with the decision of rejecting the black MATC Board appointee while approving the two white appointees.

Can you envision the consternation of these esteemed WTCS Board members faced with that dilemma – reject a black candidate and approve two white candidates – OH MY!! That would require courage. Courage, of course, is not a characteristic often exhibited by public servants and there was no "profile in courage" example in view within the WTCS Board that day. Whereupon the Board voted to deny the appointments of all three appointees and to redo the appointment process. I called it reverse discrimination at the time, but your opinion may differ. In any case, the media did not care to pick up the issue and I was not about to initiate legal action to secure a volunteer assignment that required considerable time with zero remuneration.

To end the story, I was asked to go through the complex appointment process once again. Disenchanted with the whole endeavor I replied with a firm "NO." Subsequently over the years, I have met with MATC officials and participated in MATC events with no hard feelings. I always reminded them that I had the best of both worlds: "I was elected but did not have to serve!"

I watched several talking heads this past weekend expound in two areas that I felt crossed the line in presenting opinion versus fact. First there was a discussion regarding the release of the CIA memoranda concerning interrogation techniques used in the past against captured terrorists to extract information that allegedly kept our country safe from another 9/11 attack. Whether that is true is hard to confirm but we do know that there were no post 9/11 terrorist attacks in the United States. We do know that these aggressive techniques, including water boarding, have not been used since 2003.

Now, President Obama has decreed that these memos be made public over the serious objection of the current CIA Director Leon Panetta and four of his immediate predecessors. The rationale expounded by the talking heads supporting the President’s decision went along these lines.

1. Our allies will now love us and provide greater support in the "war on terror." - Debunked almost immediately by NATO nations’ refusal to supply troops and equipment to the Afghanistan conflict. If one defines "love" at the populace level, just open our already porous borders to one and all and watch people stream into our country from every nation and direction. That’s "love" for our country and its institutions in action!

2. As reciprocity, our fighting troops on the front lines will be treated humanly if captured. - Sure and pigs will fly. Any captured military will continue to be executed with beheading a favorite technique – all captured for subsequent showing on You Tube.

3. Recruitment of terrorists will substantially reduce because our new benign interrogation methods will remove a reason for participation. This is perhaps the most ridiculous reason of all and it was spouted by a US Senator to boot. Does anyone believe that at the level of recruitment, the recruits even know what our interrogation policy is? And as we have been denounced over the years as "The Great Satan" with accompanying phony wild slurs, terrorist recruiters will most certainly not apprise recruits of our interrogation policy changes.

In summary, the panty-waists now in charge who have re-designated the "war on terror" to "overseas contingency operations" inspire no confidence for the future safety of our country with the support of this action.

The second area occurred on "60 Minutes" where their correspondent strove to convince us that we needed the federal government to step in and play nanny because our 401k accounts have taken a big hit these past several months. We heard the usual sob stories from some in their 50's or 60's how their dream retirement to a log cabin in the woods cannot be fulfilled. It’s certainly true that 401k accounts along with IRA’s and annuities have taken a substantial hit and those in their 50's and 60's will probably not see a recovery to their previous values prior to retirement.

But that’s not the full story. The question is how much money did the individual invest and what is the value of that investment now. In my case, I determined that I had invested 34% of the value of my 401k with my own funds when I retired. I have subsequently taken the minimum distributions as required by law for the past 12 years and as of this writing my personal contributions are now 33% of the value of my 401k, so I am slightly ahead of where I started, plus having pocketed 12 years of payments. Sure my total portfolio value is down 36% from its maximum value, which saddens me, but I’m still ahead of the game. I also invested in a fixed annuity which at its zenith was worth over 4 times what I invested. As of today, it is only worth 3 times my investment – still pretty darn good.

My point is that those in their 50's and 60's who have been contributing to a 401k or an IRA with an employer match of some dimension are still ahead of the game and the whining CBS 60 Minutes correspondent who wants a nanny state intervention presented only one side of the picture – the decrease in value from the apex but not whether the investor is still substantially on the plus side of his/her investment. You might compare this to a Bernie Madoff investor who gave Bernie $1 million 15 years ago and watched it grow in value to $10 million through Bernie’s cooked bookkeeping – and now alleges he has a $10 million loss. So the 60 Minutes story is yet another example of the liberal media in action with a slanted presentation in the hopes of encouraging the nanny state’s control over another aspect of our lives.

Observing some of the events of the past several weeks brought to mind some random thoughts on unconnected issues. So here goes: :: While I share the opinion of Bernie Madoff as a knave, thief and general scam artist, I find it difficult to work up much sympathy for his victims. Most of them were victims of their own greed – accepting annual returns of 12 - 15% through ups and downs, returns unequaled by any other investment; failing to do due diligence by accepting an unknown accounting firm to do annual audits; and failing to accept the basic investment principles of diversification.

Bernie Madoff

QED:

It appears we have to update Senator Everett Dirksen‘s well known phrase by one order of magnitude to: "A trillion here, a trillion there; pretty soon you’re talking real money." The financial bailout and now the proposed stimulus bill are proof that Senator Dirksen was right, except being off by several zeros.

The way things are going, it seems important for all Americans to grasp the magnitude of monetary numbers being tossed around and what they may be in for in the future. We generally grasped the concept of a million dollars ($1,000,000 - 6 zeros), but then the financial bailout and proposed stimulus bill brought "billion" to the forefront ($1,000,000,000 - 9 zeros), or 1000 million dollars.

While we are now trying to grasp the size of a billion, we might as well look forward to the next few monetary plateaus and acquaint ourselves as to what’s next, for surely it’s coming and we should be ready. A trillion ($1,000,000,000,000 - 12 zeros) is 1000 billion dollars. So while we are educating ourselves to the magnitude of a trillion dollars, we might as well get ready for the next steps – and here they are.

What follows a trillion is a quadrillion ($1,000,000,000,000,000 - 15 zeros) and sooner or later that number will be bandied about in the Washington, DC beltway community. In succession comes quintillion (18 zeros), sextillion (21 zeros), septillion (24 zeros) and octillion (28 zeros). There are larger numbers but sums up to octillion would seem to handle upcoming bailouts and budgets for the foreseeable future.

Regardless of the nomenclature used, in this case a trillion dollars, the question remains as to whether a government spending spree of that size will jolt the economy back to growth status. There is certainly opinions at 180 degrees, with President Obama and his liberal team at one side and his conservative opponents on the other. My own opinion is that whatever stimulus bill is finally adopted it will act more as a placebo than actual medicine. If my opinion turns out to be correct, a different placebo could have been produced at half the cost and we could have kept "trillion" in its nomenclature box and out of out of our vocabulary.

It is interesting to note how the spending door opens at the various governmental levels --municipal, county, state and federal. I’ve had a unique opportunity to observe this first hand as an alderman in the city of Mequon and a supervisor in Ozaukee County. Elected officials at the municipal level are the most reluctant to spend local taxpayer funds and rarely approve a budget with any substantial tax increase. I attribute this "tight" approach because these officials have to live and work in the same community with their taxpayers.

At the county level, the spending door starts to become somewhat ajar. Supervisors are further away from county taxpayers so occasionally go off the spending reservation. The two examples during my elected tours include the county board reneging on their solemn promise to revoke the 0.5% sales tax imposed to pay for the construction of the county Justice Center. When that payment was complete the lure from the income from that sales tax was just too much for a majority of supervisors to give up, so they cavalierly ignored their promise, kept the 0.5% sales tax and have no problem spending it year after year. The second example is the county board’s recanting their second solemn promise not to use county taxpayer funds to construct a bicycle bridge across I-43. That promise was disdainfully dismissed when the cost of the bridge far exceeded private contributions and state and federal grants. So the county board approved using federal highway funds intended to rebuild and improve roads in the county for the benefit of all county residents.

So now we have the spending door ajar when we move to the state level. There the spending door swings wide as attested by our $5 billion budget deficit, as legislators from both parties find programs to finance far beyond income. And how do we address the continuing shortfall to accommodate the state’s requirement to operate under a balanced budget? The governor and legislators mickey-mouse the system such as converting the stream of tobacco payments into a cash payment. Shades of the "JJ Wentworth" TV commercial - "Do You Need Cash Now?"

At the federal level, the spending door hasn’t been opened wide – it’s been removed from its hinges. "Earmarks" clog every spending bill with "pork" projects of dubious value, except to get their congressional authors re-elected. Now we have a trillion dollar alleged stimulus bill about to be signed into law. No one argues that it is not filled with social engineering programs that should have been submitted under separate legislation that would be debated and understood by the American public. Whether any of the stimulus part of the bill will work or not remains to be seen, but assuredly money will flow in large chunks soon and probably larger and larger chunks in the future.

So let’s get ready for the next phase and familiarize ourselves with what will enter our vocabulary when those larger and larger chunks appear: "A quadrillion here, a quadrillion there; pretty soon you’re talking real money!"

Ever since George W. Bush was declared the winner over Al Gore in 2000, the Bush haters have been on the march. We’ve been reading and hearing their invectives now for eight years blaming Mr. Bush in particular and Republicans in general for every problem, small or large, real or imagined. For example, hurricane Katrina was not a Mother Nature event but due to President Bush’s failure to embrace the Kyoto Compact to reduce emissions everywhere except in China, India and third world countries. He fed terrorism after 9/11 by going to war with terrorists rather than opening a dialogue – and on and on.

With Mr. Bush leaving office on January 20, 2009, we might expect those cheap shots to be tapering off, with his end date in sight. I fear that is not the case, as pundits are rushing to get in their last licks in what I dub the "Blame Bush For Everything" or the BBFE Syndrome. Why just on the last few days in our own Milwaukee Journal Sentinel we find:

1. An editorial cartoon of an easel painted portrait of President Bush atop drape cloths, covered with paint droppings, entitled "We the People," "Bill of Rights," "War Powers Act," "Geneva Convention," "UN Against Torture," all implying his legacy will be only as a stomper of our Constitution and our freedom.

2. An OpEd article "Disgraceful shenanigans in Illinois" written by Harold Meyerson. You might think that purely Democratic Party brouhaha, would leave the Republicans untouched. Oh no, Mr Meyerson ends up blaming the "disgraceful shenanigans"on the fecklessness of the voters depressed by the era of Republican President Ronald Reagan and he now hopes that Obama will bring that age to an end. How’s that for convoluted logic?

3. Another example comes from a Community Column authored by Joe Simon "Sadly, there’s no justice for gays." Mr. Simon deplores the bigotry of the California electorate in banning gay marriage which he extends to the Wisconsin voters ban as well. He laments the military policy of "Don’t ask, don’t tell," forgetting to mentioned that the policy was a creation of the Clinton Administration. After all Mr. Simon’s lamentations, he ends his screed by blaming President Bush for everything because he "openly embraced the wholesale debasement and dehumanization of gays for political gain." during his eight year term. Does he offer any examples of this "debasement and dehumanization?" No, but he gets a free ride on the "Blame Bush For Everything" bandwagon as a full fledged passenger.

4. Lastly, we have good old O. Ricardo Pimental, the Journal Sentinel’s editorial page editor, who we can always count on for some good BBFE reading. In an "Quick Hit" O. Ricardo alleges that "Bush pushed the (Iraq) war based on flawed evidence in the face of countervailing evidence." Would he mind informing us of that "countervailing evidence?" Funny, but I remember Colin Powell making the case at the UN and Senator Hillary Clinton along with a bevy of her Democrat colleagues voting for that action based on the evidence at hand. But facts have never bother O. Ricardo in the past and I’m sure they won’t in the future as he continues to push his leftist leanings down the throats of innocent Wisconsinites .

When can we expect the left leaning media and their fellow travelers to let up with their "Blame Bush For Everything" mentality? Not soon, because no matter what goes wrong during the upcoming Obama Administration, ex-President Bush is certain to be blamed. Maybe during Obama’s second term the "BBFE Syndrome" will run out of steam. Don’t hold your breath.

The avid Hillary Clinton supporters are faced with a dilemma of great proportions. Just 18 months ago, their candidate was a prohibitive favorite to become the Democrat candidate for president in the 2008 presidential election. Now, Senator Clinton is an also-ran which frustrates and hurts her supporters to the core. They continue to ask how this could have happened? If the Democrat Party had the same primary rules as the Republican Party, Hillary would have stood in that Denver sports park, delivering her acceptance speech.

If that comment puzzles you, remember that Senator Clinton won the primaries in all the big states, but had to share the delegates proportionally with Senator Obama. Under Republican Party rules, she would have been awarded all the delegates from those large states and her nomination would have been a shoo-in.

So where does this leave Hillary’s sad and disillusioned supporters, not to mention Hillary and Bill themselves? Supporters’ emotions have undoubtedly run the gamut from confidence that Senator Clinton was assured the nomination to the realization that Obama had snatched it away -- from the gamut of watching her being thrust aside for that coveted second spot to knowing that had she been the nominee, she would have most assuredly selected her rival as her vice-presidential running mate to solidify the party and insure victory in November.

How much emotional pain has all this inflicted on the Clintonites? You can summarize their position thusly:

1. Senator Clinton was a more qualified candidate than Senator Obama, got more primary votes and carried the critical large electoral states – but lost only because the Democrat Party primary rules awarded delegates on a proportional basis.

2. Senator Clinton was brushed off as the consensus vice-presidential candidate which would have assured victory in November – and in a humiliating way.

3. If Senator Obama prevails in November, Senator Clinton’s opportunity as a future presidential candidate is most probably eliminated until the 2016 election at the minimum. She will be 69 by then and who knows what her situation, interests and desires will be in 8 years.

4. If, however, Senator Obama loses, she becomes the odds-on favorite for the Democrat Party nomination in 2012, with a full four years to demonstrate her leadership and become the voice of the Democrat Party in the US Congress.

So, what are the options for her loyal retinue of supporters within her 18 million primary voters, whose actions could easily affect the outcome of the November election?

1. They can bury their deep emotional pain and vote for the Democrat candidate, thereby dooming Senator Clinton’s presidential ambitions, perhaps forever – if it is their votes that provide the Obama margin of victory.

2. They can stay home on Election Day, retreat to a dark corner and sit in a fetal position to await the results, which by their inaction may still lead to a Senator Obama victory – and again, probably doom Senator Clinton’s presidential ambitions forever.

3. They can turn out on Election Day and vote for Senator McCain. If he wins, Senator Clinton’s presidential standing is rejuvenated as the choice for 2012, with 4 years to solidify her leadership. If Senator Obama still wins, they will have the satisfaction of having done everything they could for their candidate.

If you want to know how this will all turn out just stick around until late on November 4, 2008, when the pundits will clear it all up for us. Stay tuned!

Ozaukee County is indeed fortunate to have a very dedicated and patriotic individual, namely County Supervisor Joe Dean, who has been the driving force in establishing a chapter of the national organization, Honor Flight. Dean is President of the Stars & Stripes Honor Flight organization, formed to offer World War II veterans the opportunity to participate in a one day tour of the recently completed World War II Memorial in Washington, DC. The first flight is planned for November 19, 2008 with 113 participants already signed up.

World War II veterans within a radius of 120 miles of the County seat in Port Washington are eligible to participate. With this veteran group dying at a rate exceeding 1000 per day, time is short to honor this "Greatest Generation" by a visit to their Memorial honoring their service and expressing our gratitude.

Eligible veterans participate at no cost, with accompanying spouses, guardians and volunteers paying $500. Flights from Milwaukee land at Dulles International Airport where veterans are bussed to the World War II Memorial where they tour the Memorial at their leisure. After a full day including lunch, they are bussed back to Dulles and returned to Milwaukee – completing a wonderful one day outing.

The cost of each one day flight and tour is $94,000 and must be raised from generous individuals, corporations and organizations within the 120 mile radius area. Donations are tax deductible and there are zero overhead fees as the entire staff are volunteers. Donations to the "Stars & Stripes Honor Flight" can be sent to Ozaukee County Veterans Office, P.O. Box 994, Port Washington, WI 53074-0994.

This is a great opportunity to say "thank you" to all World War II veterans who are still with us, for their service to our country, which changed the course of history and resulted in a freer and better world. Won’t you help make sure the Stars & Stripes Honor Flights get and remain aloft?

More information is available on the Ozaukee County web site www.co.ozaukee.wi.us or from Supervisor Joe Dean at jdean@co.ozaukee.wi.us and Veteran Service Officer Ken Brown at kbrown@co.ozaukee.wi.us.

4. All properties located within fire hose distance from a hydrant receive fire fighting water from the hydrant whether they are a utility customer or not – and non-customers will never be charged for this fire fighting advantage under the terms of the Referendum.

Now that the price of gasoline is at the $4/gallon+ level, the pain is at the acute level for just about every driver. The question asked is how did it get to be this high? Lots of theories abound. One lady, in a letter to the editor of the Journal Sentinel, blamed it all on the compensation level of the top executives of the oil companies. Other theories proliferate which are equally ludicrous.

One real reason is the weakening dollar on the world market. The US dollar has been the standard set for selling and buying oil by the barrel, so when the oil sellers can only purchase say $80 worth of American goods instead of the past $100 of American goods, up goes the price of a barrel of oil to make up this shortfall – and up goes a gallon of gasoline. If and when the dollar strengthens as the American economy strengthens, the price of gasoline at the pump will reduce.

Another real reason is the activity of uncontrolled speculators in the world market. Oil bought and sold on the future’s market, that is oil companies and speculators, bid on future delivery of barrels of oil. The speculator will buy say 100,000 barrels of oil from a producer at a high price for future delivery on the theory that he can sell it at a higher price to a user before delivery. If the speculator believes that the price of a barrel of oil will continue to rise, he will bid at a price higher and higher and the price of a barrel of oil will climb like a self-fulfilling prophesy.

The major real reason, however, that makes all of this possible is the intractable law of supply and demand. There is a greater demand for oil than the oil pumping countries are willing to supply. With China and India emerging as large oil users, demand is outrunning supply and concomitantly the price of oil rises in accordance with the law of supply and demand.

So how can we overcome the law of supply and demand? We can make a small dent in the demand side through conservation activities – smaller cars, higher MPG, alternate fuel (Ethanol), nuclear, wind, hydro and solar power. No sense kidding ourselves though, all those conservation activities come with their own set of problems – and together will never equal the energy output required. Can anyone envision the environmentalists’ delirium over a "all electricity generated by nuclear plants" concept? Yet, it would solve air pollution created by coal, oil and gas plants – and make electric cars a logical alternate.

That leaves us with the supply part of the equation. Currently, it is estimated that North America (Canada, U.S. & Mexico) has 229 billion barrels of oil in proven available reserves. That by itself would last the U.S. some 30 years at our current usage of 20 million barrels per day. The major of that reserve lies in the Athabasca oil sands of Canada and the environmentalists are already petitioning the Canadian government to shut it down. U.S. domestic oil production produces about 8 million barrels per day of the 20 million barrel usage.

There is no doubt the U.S. could become fully self-sufficient in oil production from domestic sources if the Congress lifted the current ban on drilling where known crude oil deposits have been identified – namely ANWAR in Alaska and offshore in the Pacific & Atlantic Oceans and the Carribean Sea. How ridiculous is it for the US to watch as Cuba and China prepare to drill in the Carribean between Cuba and Florida? To these known sources one can add the Bakken Oil Formation located primarily in North Dakota, estimated to contain from 175 to 500 billion barrels of recoverable oil using new drilling techniques. That’s anywhere from 40 to 114 years of self-sufficiency when added to current domestic production.

But no, instead of the US looking out for itself, we go hat in hand to the oil suppliers and ask them to pump more oil to increase the supply and lower the price of oil. When they reply that they are pumping all they can, our illustrious Congress threatens to cut off any aid or sale of defensive weapons. How ironic, when the US is the top complainer that other countries do not share the load in the world fight against terror, hunger, disease, etc., but we refuse to share the load in supplying crude oil for the world’s need. We don’t mind the oil producers having to resolve their environmental problems, just so long as we are spared and we can continue to ride in our SUV’s, Hummers, pick-up trucks and luxury sedans without feeling any pain at the pump.

Any fifth grader would tell you that the answer is "Drill for oil." Are we smarter than a fifth grader? Doesn’t seem so? The truth is all we have to do is to create a "Manhattan Project" for oil – clear the decks of regulatory barriers – and get underway. The leverage this will create with oil suppliers will, by itself, cause a decrease in the price of oil. Any marketing major will tell us that potential, announced competition is sufficient to cause a competitor to lower his price in the hopes of keeping us out of the market in the future.

But of course, our Congress, filled with lawyers, wouldn’t understand the way economics work. Why, one presidential candidate (a lawyer) claims that the solution is to sue OPEC – proving my point. Will the American public rise up in righteous anger to demand such action? Not until crisis proportions are reached as they were back in the early 70's during the OPEC oil embargo, when Congress got off its hands and authorized drilling in Alaska. For now, they and the presidential candidates will be content to wring their hands and cry "Oh my." America deserves better!