If Peter Pan and Ayn Rand Had A Child...



According to 60 minutes, Norquist got the idea to “Brand the Republican Party as the party that will never raise your taxes” when he was 12 years old and volunteering for the Nixon campaign.

“If the parties would brand themselves the way Coke and Pepsi and other products do…”

Strange in and of itself. There’s nothing wrong with it, just damn odd. How many 12 year-olds think that way?

In the piece, 60 minutes goes on to say:

“Many Republican congressmen fear retaliation from Norquist if they even suggest that a tax increase for the wealthiest of Americans should be up for discussion…”

Emphasis mine.

This really is no secret, that the opposition to tax increases applies only to the wealthy and not to Joe six-pack, and is demonstrated clearly in Norquist’s silence about taxpayer funding for a new sports facility for the Milwaukee Bucks basketball Corporation.

Norquist is most known for his ‘Pledge” that he forces republicans to sign, promising that they will never vote for a bill that raises taxes. In fact, it’s not enough to sign the pledge once, as Mitt Romney learned. And woe be to any who refuse to sign, as defeating them will become Norquist’s new mission.

Former Senator Alan Simpson, Co-Chair of the National Commission on Fiscal Responsibility and Reform, considers Norquist to be “megalomaniac, an ego maniac". Simpson is what is referred to as an ‘adult’ and understands that in the real world, compromises need to be made and that stomp-your-feet-and-hold-your-breath-till-you-turn-blue demands are not how responsible adults operate.

Norquist wouldn’t know much about that, never having a position of real responsibility. Unless, you consider writing speeches and making threats real responsibility.

According to www.nndb.com, Norquist equates taxing rich people with the holocaust. To paraphrase, Norquist says that it’s not right or okay to do something to a group of people just because you’re not doing that thing to everyone.

Yet, this philosophy doesn’t extend to the non-wealthy. Grover, genius that he is, can’t seem to grasp that when he fights for and wins tax breaks for the already wealthy, a greater tax burden falls in those less able to pay them.

In an article in Mother Jones, Ralph Nader says Norquist’s quest is:

“the most powerful, nihilistic movement in Washington…It is such a cold-blooded atmosphere it would sustain icicles.”

And it shows. Willing, if not eager, to strip the needy and elderly of any semblance of a social net, all so that the wealthy prosper further.

The article adds:

Norquist calls it[1] the “Leave-Us-Alone Coalition,” a grouping of gun owners, the Christian right, homeschoolers, libertarians, and business leaders that he has almost single-handedly managed to unite. The common vision: an America in which the rich will be taxed at the same rates as the poor, where capital is freed from government constraints, where government services are turned over to the free market, where the minimum wage is repealed, unions are made irrelevant, and law-abiding citizens can pack handguns in every state and town. "My ideal citizen is the self-employed, homeschooling, IRA-owning guy with a concealed-carry permit,” says Norquist. “Because that person doesn't need the goddamn government for anything.”

This is the Tea Party agenda, word for word. Or, it would be if the Tea Party had a standard platform. It doesn’t because there is no one Tea party. That may be by design, because then you can’t target them. It becomes political Whack-A-Mole.

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of Mr. Norquist is that he knows how to win. The vision for America that he adopted back when he was 12 years old is coming true – pick up any paper, visit any news website, and it’s all there.

Norquist wants the country to return to the status quo of yesteryear – the ‘gilded age’ minus the economic prosperity (because economic power leads to political power) for common folks, the era of the Robber Baron. The only cure for this dystopian Randian vision is to use the same tools that progressives used 100 years ago: educate, organize, and vote.


[1] The ‘Wednesday morning group’.

Charles Koch's Pity Party

In a shocking and unexpected turn of events, Charles Koch defended his War on America in an opinion piece Wednesday, in The Wall Street Journal.

It’s barely more than a ‘stop picking on me’ screed in which Koch tries to convince people that he’s really one of the good guys, and anyone who says otherwise is stupid and just being mean.

Let’s unpack what this Son-of-a-Bircher, who owes a measure of thanks to the former Soviet Union (a well-known anti-American group) for his inherited wealth, has to say.

The very first sentence sets the tone for the entire piece when Koch says “I have devoted most of my life to understanding the principles that enable people to improve their lives”.

If this is true, then you've failed. Epically. Queue faceplant picture.

That is, unless you think that the principles that enable people to improve their lives are the purchasing of a political party which you then use to reshape the political landscape of a once-free country to your own personal fantasy, then okay. Otherwise, no.

Charles, not everyone inherited a fortune from daddy. What that means, Chuck, is that most of us don’t have the means to buy an entire political party. Weird, eh?

Prince Charles adds “Unfortunately, the fundamental concepts of dignity, respect, equality before the law and personal freedom are under attack by the nation’s own government”. This part is true, at least since him and his brother, the other Son of a Bircher pretty much are the government at this point.

Chuck says that “the fatal conceit of the current administration is that you are incapable of running your own life…” Wrong again, Chuck. The real fatal conceit is that you think you should be able to decide whether or not we are able to decide what kind of society we want to live in.

Since you seem to enjoy giving advice and life-lessons, Chuck, here’s one for you: we, the people of the United States of America, a long time ago, had already examined the landscape of political philosophies and then we decided that the one that would serve all of us was the democratic model. As this model is unfamiliar to you, allow me to provide a synopsis for your personal edification.

In a democracy, Chuck, the people get to do this thing called voting (this is where each person gets his or her own little say in how things should be run, very different from what you like best, buying entire political parties fully packaged in your own Bircher image).

It is often the case in a democracy, Chuck, where the way you wanted (the guy you voted for) isn’t the way most other people wanted. This is called ‘losing’. When that happens, as an adult, you accept it for what it is and prepare for the next vote, where your preferred way may prevail. But what is considered poor sportsmanship (for lack of a better term), is instructing the politicians that you’ve paid for to fight reality and refuse to do any of the people’s work unless and until you get your way. We don’t tolerate that kind of behavior from children, Chuck. That’s one reason why you draw so much criticism.

You, Chuck, a Son-of-a-Bircher, have the nerve to decry character assassination, but only when it’s directed at you. Otherwise, you’re okay with the tactic, and have given money to your surrogates, sycophants, toadies, flatterers, bootlickers, brownnosers, grovelers, cronies, underlings, juniors, subordinates, subjects, pages, minions, and assistants, (directly or through the web of quasi- and pseudo-political groups you give money to), to do so. Paul Ryan’s (a known hypocrite) lamenting of the ‘takers’, Ted Cruz (a known hypocrite), Scott Walker (a known hypocrite), Rush Limbaugh (a known hypocrite), Sean Hannity (a known hyp…oh, enough!), Bill O’Reilly, etc., etc.

Then, and this, for me, is the best part, you accuse those who do not agree with you of not understanding what you’re trying to accomplish. You state that your critics would have us believe (hey – pay attention, Chuck – we are your critics), that you’re “un-American”, are trying to “rig the system”, and are against “environmental protection”, and finally, eager to “end workplace safety standards”. Good for you, Chuck, you got something right!

You cite Sen. Moynihan and his well-known quote about opinions vs. facts. You say that people are not entitled to their own facts. Not yet. That will have to wait until you and your brother are done buying the country, then you can focus on purchasing individual facts.

Yea, we think that. Because there’s overwhelming evidence that’s exactly what you’re doing. Oh, to be sure, you personally don’t do these things. No, you have your toadies to do that for you. What else are toadies good for anyway?

Then you spend some ink in talking about how many people you employ and how good your businesses are for the economy, as if it’s some charity you’re running. We know better.

By the way, this isn't the first time one of the people-should-be-more-self-reliant-and-earn-for-themselves heirs to a fortune that was made in the USSR by their father, a staunch anti-communist has complained about being 'a whipping boy'.

Finally, you state that “If more businesses (and elected officials) were to embrace a vision of creating real value for people in a principled way, our nation would be far better off…” I agree with that statement, Chuck, I really do.

So, why don’t you start doing that?

Where Was Jiminy Cricket When Scott Walker Needed Him?

We here in Wisconsin have been inundated with news stories regarding the John Doe investigations relating to Gov. Scott Walker.

A February 25, 2014 article in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports that John Schultz, former Chief Legal Counsel for the state’s Department of Transportation, has lost his job due to improper emails.

While the email in question was sent before Schultz joined the administration, this is now at least the second time that Walker or his staff's failure to properly vet hires has come back to bite him. I know of staffing agencies that do a better job of researching temporary workers.

Reading the article, I found myself asking how it was possible someone with a law degree can be so stupid to send an email that offensive over the state’s email system. Schultz himself asks the same question, sort of.

After reading the remainder of the article, I was asking other questions: Are there no responsible adults working for Walker? Why do people on Gov. Walker’s staff seem not to be able to excersize any impulse control? Where is Gov. Walker’s Jiminy Cricket?

Who? Jiminy Cricket?

For those not familiar with this valuable asset, let me direct your attention to the Poynter Institute’s article “Meet 12 great employees to toast in 2012”, written by Jill Geisler.

One employee that Walker apparently needs desperately is Jiminy Cricket. Here’s Jill’s description of Jiminy:

“The Jiminy Cricket: Like the venerable little sidekick to Disney’s “Pinocchio,” this employee is characterized by conscience. Jiminy Cricket deftly asks questions that get people thinking about ethics, diversity, fairness, accountability, safety, legality — helping people see past their blind spots.”

It seems as if the Wisconsin Governor has a huge blind spot when it comes to hiring people who conduct their employer’s business with integrity. That’s bad for a private employer conducting private business, and simply unacceptable for any public office holder conducting the public’s business.

Did no one working for Walker either in his administration or on his campaign question this email? More importantly, why was no action taken at the time the email was sent – over the state’s email system, no less?

It seems the only time Walker deals with ethics is after they’ve been exposed. That’s weak because it’s reactive. If you’re forever explaining and cleaning up past mistakes, how do you move forward?

Talk about working harder, not smarter! Walker will now be spending a lot of time and money (taxpayer money) dealing with the aftermath of this disclosure.

One Jiminy Cricket equals ten campaign strategists.

The time and money spent on spinning and distracting, with evading questions and avoiding responsibility won’t be spent of formulating a forward looking strategy designed to govern a state or win a campaign.

In a manufacturing setting, this would be called ‘rework’: doing additional work to a product because it’s defective and the work wasn’t done right the first time. That is directly non-productive, non-value-adding work. That’s what Gov. Walker is doing.

Someone like Jiminy can be a real pain in the neck at times, but his concerns about being ethical, and about accountability when people fall short are a necessary and vital input to open, transparent, and fair practices, whether in the private sector or when conducting the public’s business.

By questioning certain actions early in the process, Mr. Cricket serves as an organization’s Early Warning System – one that saves time and money as well as something that money can’t buy: repute.

Mistake-Proofing, which is really what Jiminy is doing, is comparatively inexpensive, and really not that hard to accomplish.

Walker has aspirations to the Presidency. It might just be too late for Jiminy to help him.