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?

Gov. Walker Wants To Eliminate Wisconsin's State Income Tax

Walker recently floated out the idea of eliminating Wisconsin's state income tax. he hasn't come up with a plan yet as he claims he wants input from 'the people'.

That's something we in Wisconsin haven't heard from him before, but he is running for President, so he has to at minimum appear to care what voters think.

He says he has no definite scheme in mind, but we know that can't be the case. This guy's middle name is subterfuge. That's mainly because he knows his policies are unpopular and can't just come out say what he wants to do. Geez, if he did that, he probably wouldn't get elected.

Let's look at Wisconsin's current state income tax, compare it to other state's that have no state income tax and see if it can't be discerned where Walker is really going with this.

Currently, there are seven states with no state income tax: Alaska, Florida, Nevada, South Dakota, Texas, Washington, and Wyoming.

Right off the bat, you can see that the line representing Wisconsin doesn't follow the contour for the states with no income tax. The reason for this is that Wisconsin's current tax structure has a graduated design and is far more progressive than those states that have no income tax.

Wisconsin's state motto is "Forward" and used to be lauded for it's progressiveness. In fact, it was Wisconsin's Republicans that gave the state this reputation.

Now, with Walker running the state, this is no longer the case as his main interest is serving his overseers. And, the one thing his overseers lust after more than possibly anything else, is the elimination of capital gains taxes. Considering that Walker is a man of little or no real substance and will bend to whatever political wind is blowing (Tea Party, anyone? Anyone? Bueller?), watch for it to be forced down the throats of the people.

If we're lucky, we'll end up with a tax structure that resembles the 'overall average' of data sets reflected in the chart above and those least able to fight back will end up bearing the heaviest load. That last part is sure to be a feature of whatever plan Walker comes up with because we now live in an echo of days past where the only ones that mattered were those with money.

Follow me on Twitter for more analysis on this and other topics.

Looking For Love

When we hear of the latest gaffe made by some politician, usually on the right, we all chuckle a bit at the apparent cluelessness that’s on display. It’s fun when a politician says something stupid or downright inane, it shows them, intellectual warts and all, and it reinforces the idea that maybe these big shots aren’t so high and mighty after all. It’s fun to watch other people make asses out of themselves, especially when they take themselves so seriously.

It’s the reason I watch primary debates.

Yet when these sort of comments are uttered in the heat of a political campaign, it seems to us so insipid of them to not understand that people are listening, and many are waiting for the chance to pounce on some verbal flub. For some, it’s the way they make their living and they’re counting on it to happen.

So when someone says that ‘married women can’t be raped by their husbands’ or that poverty is due to ‘inner city’ culture, it’s invariably followed by a near instantaneous onslaught of attention, mostly on the internet.

Can it be that these pols really are such intellectual lightweights and simply don’t understand why people sit up and take notice when saying some of the things they say? Or, is it because they are so rabid in their beliefs that they can’t understand why their statements aren’t taken as gospel and received with widespread acclaim and standing ovations?

It’s neither. What it is, is advertising.

In the current state of politics in the U.S. with endless election cycles, those aspiring for higher public office have to get noticed. To utter something outrageous is a calculated effort to be seen and heard.

In doing so, they differentiate themselves in some way from the rest of the pack. And, because campaign politics, primary campaign politics especially, is an exercise in ruthlessness and raw ambition if nothing else, even getting noticed for something bad is better than not getting noticed at all.

So when a Paul Ryan says that when we feed a hungry kid, we’re actually doing him long-term harm, he says that not so much because that’s how he feels (although that may be the case as well) but because he knows that that’s what that audience wants to hear, and no marks need be given or taken away for lack of accuracy.

Take the instance of Mitch McConnell taking the stage at CPAC’s 'open-mic nights' bearing a shotgun. What he’s communicating is ‘see, fellas, I’m one of you’. For history buffs, there's Richard Nixon and his peace sign wavery. Let’s not forget to wear our flag lapel pins either, and by the way, mine’s bigger than yours.

They are merely heeding Nixon’s (again with Nixon!) famous advice: If you’re a Democrat in a primary, run to the left. And if you’re a Republican in a primary, run to the right. Both should run towards the center in the general election.

And many have taken his advice, because as weird as Nixon was, he was not a stupid man. The problem is that in our never-ending election cycle, primary season never ends. That’s why we hear these outlandish, even insulting comments coming from the Ryan’s, the Rand’s, the Cruz’s:

They need to get noticed.

How Can You Tell When Walker's Lying?

Data from Politifacts have confirmed what we in Wisconsin have known for a while: Our Governor plays fast and loose with the truth.

The chart below was created from data taken from Politifacts “Top Ten Most Fact-Checked” article.

No surprise why Walker’s one of the most fact-checked. It’s because he’s also one of the most factually-challenged. Doesn’t it always seem that those who shout “I’m straightforward” the loudest are the least so?

It reminds me of the Tom Smykowski,  from the movie “Office Space” who becomes frustrated and angry when trying to explain to the business consultant that his main reason for being is that:

“I have people skills; I am good at dealing with people. Can't you understand that? What the hell is wrong with you people?”

It’s clear that Mr. Smykowski doesn’t have people skills, he just thinks he does. Same with Walker and his ‘straightforwardness’. He’s so straightforward, he won’t bother to answer whether or not he knew about the secret email serves in his Milwaukee County Executive office.

Maybe it really is better that he doesn’t say anything at all. Judging by the Politifact numbers, he’s more likely to either lie (38% of the time) or to fudge the truth (65%). In fact, Walker only tells the truth outright a mere 10% of the time.

Based on that, it’s easy to conclude he isn’t being ‘straightforward’ with the people of Wisconsin, no matter how many times he stays on script.

Telling the truth and being straight with the people you work for only 10% of the time wouldn't cut it in the private sector - or in the White House.