Last week was a gut check for congressional representatives. Many citizens were outraged by what they saw as a bailout for fat cats. But others were calling Congress to warn that not passing the bill could throw the country into a recession.
This was less of a problem for senators or representatives with safe districts, who mostly voted yes. Well-behaved moderate Herb Kohl usually votes as the leaders prescribe and did again, voting yes. So did Democratic U.S. Reps. David Obey, Tammy Baldwin and Gwen Moore and Republican U.S. Rep. Paul Ryan, though some of them expressed reservations.
One no vote was fairly predictable. In the Republican-leaning 8th District, incumbent Democrat Steve Kagen couldn’t afford to vote for the bill; not when Republican challenger John Gard is running ads attacking the bailout.
Far more surprising was the no vote by Republican Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (5th District). He represents the most well-to-do district in Wisconsin, yet he didn’t side with the fat cats, but with personal responsibility. “It is unfair and irresponsible to ask conscientious taxpayers to now shoulder the burden and debt of those with poor foresight,” he declared.
In a way, Sensenbrenner and Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold voted as matching conservative and liberal bookends. For Feingold, his no vote was another chance to show he’s with Main Street, not Wall Street. In a similar vein, he’s opposed free trade agreements, arguing they hurt workers.
Policy-wise, Sensenbrenner argued the government “had no business injecting itself into free market,” while from the opposite perspective, Feingold argued the bill failed “to reform the flawed regulatory structure that permitted this crisis to arise in the first place.”
Probably the most gut-wrenching votes were taken by Thomas Petri (R- 6th District) and Ron Kind (D-3rd District). Neither has an overly safe district: Kind’s leans Democratic and Petri’s leans Republican, so they often vote carefully, with less adherence to their party leaders. Petri voted no on the bailout, arguing an alternative means of solving the problem could have been found and sounding a populist note, calling the bill “a breathtaking grasp for power which should have alarmed everyone.”
Kind voted yes. He faces both a Republican and third party opponent in November. His statement suggested the squeeze he felt: “I recognize that western Wisconsin families did not get us into this mess, and that there is a lot of anger about this plan. However … without this bill, there is a good chance that Wisconsin families could lose everything they have worked so hard for.” As could Kind, if enough constituents disagree.
County Real Estate Fiasco
Has anyone noticed how the portion of the Park East project owned by MilwaukeeCounty never gets developed? Yes, developers get selected, but they keep delaying or pulling out. County officials have blamed the economy, which is certainly a factor, but meanwhile the city continues to get projects developed. The huge North End development by Barry Mandel on Water Street and the Flat Iron building just across the street. The new Manpower campus just west of the river. Add to that the Staybridge Suites and the Brewery, both developments that adjoin the Park East area, and the city is getting a lot of projects up.
The reason for this is obvious. The Department of City Development specializes in developing real estate. “The city has an infrastructure to deal with this and a proven track record,” notes DCD head Rocky Marcoux. “Look at the Beerline, the MenomoneeValley and all the other developments we’ve done. We have the ability and we have the staff to do these deals.”
City officials say they approached the county and asked to manage the development of the county portion of the Park East, which includes about 16 of the 64 acres. They say Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker was interested, but County Board Chair Lee Holloway turned down the offer. Why?
Holloway didn’t get back to me, but Harold Mester, spokesperson for the board, did. So why wasn’t the board interested in taking up the city’s offer? “Because it’s the county’s land,” Mester answered.
That’s it? There were no policy reasons for insisting the county oversee the development? “The elected officials chose not to move forward on this,” Mester replied.
The situation is absurd on multiple levels. The city has created a Tax Incremental District for the entire Park East, including sewers and lights and street connections, which raises the value of county land, yet the city is left out of county deliberations. Companies wanting to develop on the county portion of the Park East first have to get board members’ approval, but they are voting without knowing if the company will need city help to complete the infrastructure connections. So after this approval, the company must go to the city and start all over again. “It complicates things. The cost of doing business goes up,” Marcoux notes.
The city, moreover, has experts on development that the county lacks, and is in a much better position to evaluate proposals. But that evaluation comes after – rather than before – the county has approved a developer’s proposal.
The county did have one expert in this area, Economic Development Director Bob Dennik, who has just resigned, after getting criticized by the board for a poor performance when it came to selling county land. Now Walker has floated a plan to eliminate this position. Odds are, the situation will only get worse.
Given that the county can’t really afford to pay staff to oversee the Park East development, why not accept the city’s offer to manage this? The current situation, where businesses have to get through two governments, makes Milwaukee look small time.
Craig Loves Sarah
No one is objective when it comes to evaluating the presidential or vice presidential debates. That’s why I’ve taken to watching the CNN coverage, because it always has a group of previously identified independents electronically indicating when they like what a candidate is saying. The graphed result can be seen at the bottom of the screen and lets you track how each candidate is doing.
There’s little doubt Democratic VP candidate Joe Biden had the graph going up more times than Republican Sarah Palin. And sure enough, a CBS survey of 500 uncommitted voters found 46 percent thought Biden won, while 21 percent gave Palin the victory. A CNN survey found 51 percent saying Biden did better and 36 percent favoring Palin.
So it was remarkable to read last week’s stilted analysis of the debate by Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reporter Craig Gilbert. No, Gilbert didn’t suggest Palin won, but he did the next best thing: He gave her all the ink. His story included nine paragraphs with quotes by Palin, for a total of 296 words directly quoted; Biden got just three paragraphs and 130 words. Biden had many strong moments, but you couldn’t read about them in this story.
Gilbert’s stories often feel like he’s walking on eggs, and for good reason. The paper gets pummeled by complaints from both liberals and conservatives. But there are always more e-mails and letters from the right, largely because talk radio activates these kinds of complaints.
I don’t envy the paper in handling this issue. Yesterday, I got an e-mail from a reader responding to recent Pressroom column by this magazine about the Journal Sentinel. “I am canceling the Journal because I no longer think the paper practices fair and objective journalism,” he wrote. “I think the story placement, the headlines, the selection of what and whom to investigate falls along editorial lines and is not the result of what was once an objective obligation to report the news. Most of the papers suffering from declines are fairly described as liberal.”
I would agree that the editor’s headline choices and placement often betray a bias, but I’d argue it’s conservative, and this reader would say liberal. That pretty much defines the problem the JS faces, and the complaints are most heavy when it comes to national coverage. That leaves Gilbert, the national reporter, in a tough position.
All of which might help explain, but doesn’t excuse, his slanted debate story.
The Buzz
-Attorney General JB Van Hollen, who wants every voter’s registration to exactly match the name on his or her driver’s license, may himself violate the rule he wants to impose. So says a story in Isthmus.
-Talk radio’s Mark Belling was a relentless and effective supporter of the tax bailout for MillerPark, so his column last week was interesting for how he lashed out at owner Mark Attanasio. “The only reason he bought the team is because the cash flow from MillerPark made it a good financial deal,” Belling writes. “The terms of its financing and the current lease define the meaning of sweetheart deal. The taxpayers are putting everything in and the Brewers are taking it all out.”
But isn’t this precisely how these deals work, and precisely why opponents (like yours truly) suggested the baseball subsidy would poorly serve the community? Attanasio at least spent enough on payroll to get the Brewers into the playoffs. So we could have done worse. In any event, Belling’s sudden sympathy for the “beleaguered taxpayers” seems rather belated. Isn’t Belling a key reason they are so beleaguered?
And the Sports Nut discovers why fans still love the Brewers.
