March 29, 2009
Welcome to the public sector
By Bill Kraus
Now that you're a quasi-public...you have two new rules to follow in your dealings with the press.
The Ody Fish rule: When you are asked a question, never, never, never, ever lie. There are three acceptable responses:
I don’t know the answer. I do know the answer, but I cannot tell you what it is. And the answer is....
The Owen Coyle rule:
Regard everything you say to anyone anywhere in any circumstance as something that will appear on the front page of tomorrow’s newspaper.
There are a few other things that are worth knowing about the status that attaches to becoming a legitimate “beat.”
You now have a new constituency. The public. The press is the connection to this new constituency.
There are two major components in journalism. Editors assign reporters, write headlines, decide how prominently stories will be displayed. This will range from above the fold on page one to buried somewhere near the classified ads in the least prominent part of the paper. You have no control over this placement or these headlines and neither do reporters.
Reporters may get the story wrong or misquote sources, but editors are invisible and the real bane of your existence.
Reporters like candor and will respond viciously when overdosed with “no comments,” which are actually comments by their very nature.
Reporters are only as good as their last story and their beats are their life blood. It’s hard to think of them sympathetically, but not keeping their needs and priorities in mind is a big mistake. They need you more than they will ever admit. This need can be reflected in accuracy if not affection. They misquote. You clam up. They suffer.
Editors overreact to what they decide are big stories. Think of all the stories that didn’t get reported in New York while reporters and photographers were massed in front of Bernie Madoff’s apartment building on 64th Street.
Reporters have an incurable instinct for the capillary. They think, for example, that everyone but them is overpaid, and will pounce on anything that smells of big money going to places and people who they regard as undeserving. Take the money and the perks if you wish, but in your quasi-public status be assured you will pay a price in unwelcome publicity.
If you or your organization become sensational enough to attract the attention of the talk radio screechers, you will have entered a whole new coverage zone. These people are in show business. They take the information produced by journalists and blow it so far out of proportion that it is unrecognizable.
They are a blight on the information landscape. They are not journalists.
You are in a more exposed but not uncontrollable position. You can be candid. You cannot be stupid. You will survive.
March 22, 2009
Missing the mark
By Bill Kraus
Earmarks are fast becoming the “Madoff” or, worse yet, the “A.I.G.” of contemporary politics. An undeserved fate.
Consider that government budgets are a combination of entitlements, programs, and “earmarks” disguised as or incorporated into entitlements and programs.
The difference between these earmarks and those added by legislators in the next stage of the budget process is that they are proposed by the executive branch and the bureaucrats who construct the executive budgets. The legislators’ earmarks are toxic. The executive/bureacrats’ are not.
The way to detoxify the legislators’ contributions is with line-item vetoes.
This idea gets shot down in Washington by legislators who are protecting their branch's rights. The fact that it does no such thing is assiduously ignored. What happens without a line-item power is that the earmarks grow like cancer, which is bad, and executives sign a budget bill that they must have which is loaded with pork.
Earmarks which have to pass a line-item veto test fulfill several roles in the budget bill process which are at least useful may even be desirable. These earmarks give individual legislators a chance to bring worthy but overlooked priorities to the attention of the executive branch and the legislative leaders. Some pork is or can be made into bacon.
They also give legislators a way to get insistent constituents and interest groups off their backs and legislative leaders a way to buy essential votes from the philosophically obtuse and/or the members of the inevitable sleaze caucus which is present to a greater or lesser extent in every legislative body.
The earmarks get added to the budget bill. The earmarking legislators vote for the bill. If the earmarks are unworthy the legislative leaders make sure they are accessible to an executive veto. If the executive doesn’t find them worthy, they are vetoed. The vetoes are sustained. A leaner budget bill becomes law.
The government gets an essential budget bill. The legislators either get their earmark or get a story and an excuse to mollify their constitutents. The system works.
Only purists or poseurs like the late Senator Bill Proxmire, who made enemies of his 99 peers and a reputation for pettifogging frugality with his infamous “golden fleece” awards, are inconsolable.
Get the line-item veto where it doesn’t exist, and get the benefits of earmarks which are endemic, incurable, and maybe even desirable.
March 15, 2009
Save the news gatherers
By Bill Kraus
The crisis in news gathering and dispersing isn’t about newspapers. It’s about news gatherers.
News is produced by reporters and editors who are expensive and in a congenitally inefficient business. It’s about hanging out, being there, being everywhere. Watching and writing about what happens if and when something does.
Their management’s response so far to saving newspapers has been to reduce the numbers of reporters and editors, which saves money and diminishes the coverage which is the reason for their existence.
What is the point of doing that?
What the country needs is more reporters in more places reporting on more things and fulfilling the essential journalistic function of making the powerful turn square corners and giving the unpowerful the information to call the powerful to account as, if, and when necessary.
Except the revenue flows needed to pay for them aren’t flowing the way they once did.
The traditional combination of subscribers and advertisers no longer works.
Advertisers have gone elsewhere. Subscribers are getting their news from the free sources provided by the suicidal newspapers which give away what they should be selling and/or the faux sources that litter the blogosphere.
Newspapers are shrinking, disappearing, merging, going broke, and what Jefferson described as the sine qua non of democracy is more non than ever.
There are sporadic responses from the increasing numbers of no longer working journalists. A group of Wisconsin writers who specialized in environmental coverage (one of the first non-essential specialties to get the axe) is trying to expand and distribute through other, as yet undecided, means news about this subject. A former investigative reporter is assembling a group of the newly outsourced in hopes of rebuilding this really essential and really expensive journalism and selling it back to whatever remains of the newspaper business. These I know about. Other news substitutes are probably being spawned as well.
Maybe this is the future. A free-standing collection of news gatherers whose work is available, at a price, to whatever media survive the advertising holocaust.
It is possible, it may even be desirable, that the news business will find something akin to the iTunes solution that has brought order and money to the people who create and perform music, another sector that was in a kind of Internet-induced chaos not so very long ago.
It is even possible that the terminal newspaper business will face the realities and find new ways to get paid for what it produces and, at the very least, quit giving away with one hand what it is trying to sell with the other.
This imperfect democracy has survived wars, depressions, natural disasters, chicanery, even stupidity, but a largely uninformed, ignorant, inattentive populace can bring it down.
Save the reporters so they can save the country? I think so.
March 11, 2009
Thomas Friedman is right!
By Ms. Forward
Ms. Forward does not often find herself in common cause with New York Times columnist/celebrity futurist Thomas NAFTA Friedman. But today is that day.
Friedman is more succinct than others when he warns that a couple days of good returns in the stock market do not mean the economy is suddenly resting on a solid foundation. Just as--Friedman did not finish the thought but I will--several days of especially bad trading did not mean President Obama's stimulus plan took us in the wrong direction.
What Ms. Forward found most gratifying about Friedman's column was the part where he noted that John McCain says he does not want all of Obama's policies to fail like Rush Limbaugh does. "The G.O.P. is actually debating whether it wants our president to fail," Friedman writes.
Ms. Forward's eyes started to glaze over a bit as Friedman went on about his preferred neoliberal solutions to the economic crisis. I was looking for him to cite Bob Menamin's FightingBob.com article about state-owned banks, but if he did I missed it.
March 9, 2009
Zealots with hearts of gold
By Bill Kraus
There is a movement afoot in Wisconsin to give the board of the Department of Natural Resources the power to hire and fire the secretary of that department.
This is a back-to-the-future move to a system of governance in Wisconsin that was in place until 1968. The major departments of state government (now called cabinets) were governed by boards or commissions not the elected governor. The governor, who was nonetheless responsible for the work of and results achieved by those departments, was one step removed from the direct supervision of the operating managers of those departments.
The governor did have the power to appoint those commissioners and board members, but since their terms were staggered the governor did not get putative control of the agency for several terms. Even this control was subject to the immutable law of government that every appointment creates 10 enemies and one ingrate.
A commission headed by the legendary Bill Kellett decided, properly, that since the governor was a.) elected to govern and b.) held responsible by the voters for the management of state government, the governor should have the authority to go with that responsibility, which would include hiring and firing the people running those departments.
Thus cabinet government came to Wisconsin. The governor appoints cabinet secretaries. The state Senate approves those appointments.
None of the 13 governors I have known disputed the wisdom of the Kellett Commission’s conclusions and recommendations. Nor would any scholar of governance and management. Authority and responsibility must be commensurate.
So what has brought this discredited idea back to life?
Distrust and dislike of the governor?
Distrust of elected officials?
Distrust of democracy?
What seems to be in the forefront of the move is a desire by large numbers of citizens whose organizations make the worthy case for environmental issues and programs to increase the spending on, attention to, and priority for these issues and programs.
This is suspiciously like the efforts of other zealots who are determined to put their special issues above the more important but general issues which voters elect officials to promote and protect.
Many years ago a man named John Gardiner said, in effect if not in fact, that the people are the least organized and most endangered sector of society.
What government by special interest has got us is what the New York Times’s Bill Safire predicted it would get us 30 years ago: hardening of the arteries.
The environmentalists’ hearts are true, their issues are important, and their cause is indisputably honorable, but they and it are not the whole thing. They and it may not even be the main thing in some cases.
The proposal is anti-democratic at best and elitist at worst.
March 7, 2009
Before this goes any further
By Dustin Beilke
A 39 percent top income tax rate means people making more than $250,000 per year will be taxed three cents more for every dollar they make over $250,000. Three cents.
I wanted to say that for the record, just in case it is too hard to work back to it before the debate rages any further.
I also need to say this: President Barack Obama's budget and stimulus plans embody the most bland, moderate, middle-of-the-road neoliberalism there is.
I'm not saying he's wrong. It's just that those are the only terms that aptly describe the tax credits, private industry incentives and private-public partnerships that make up his economic policies.
So yeah, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are bloviating about Obama's intentions to turn the United States into a socialist republic. Other columnists are writing that his anti-capitalist policies are causing the stock market to decline (!). And still others have dragged out that old straw man, "class warfare."
During the campaign, McCain's minions said Obama's reason for running was to "redistribute wealth." In other words, he didn't even want to raise government revenues for the sake of government programs or deficit reduction, he simply wanted to take money away from wealthy people for its own sake, for punitive reasons.
It's pure, pure nonsense, but the kind of nonsense that reporters not only repeat but actually sometimes generate on their own.
Much of the suspicion is focused on Obama's plan to raise the top income tax rate from 36 percent to 39 percent. The truth is that W.'s own plan called for the top rate to go up to 39 percent next year, because that is where it was before he cut taxes for the wealthy early in his administration. Republicans had been hoping to repeal the sunset, but nonetheless that is what the Trickle Down President had proposed.
The top tax rate was 91 percent during World War II. It was 70 percent during the Eisenhower and Nixon administrations.
I'm not saying it should go that high again, or that we shouldn't talk about the relative impacts of increasing taxes on one group or another. But c'mon, people. Three cents.
March 4, 2009
LOP: Limbaugh's Own Party
By Dustin Beilke
Fellow GuestBlogger Bill Kraus has done an excellent job of documenting the Republican Party's degeneration from a party that stood for foresight and self reliance to one that is all about GodGaysGuns in the service of the corporate elite (or something like that).
But as W. and other misfortunes have befallen the GOP in the past several years, even disenchanted Republicans like Bill must be pleased that the rest of the world is finally seeing the party for what it is, or anyway for what it has been for the last couple decades or so. It is Rush Limbaugh's party, and the rest of the Republicans just live in it.
For the second time in two months Limbaugh has extracted an apology from a more legitimate GOP leader who deigned to question his authority. This time it was party chairman Michael Steele, who, in an interview with D.L. Hughley, said that Limbaugh is not the leader of the party. Steele said he is, instead, an "entertainer," whose speech is sometimes "incendiary" and "ugly."
Steele should not apologize to the likes of Limbaugh, but the fact is that he was wrong on both counts. Limbaugh is the leader of the party, and when he is incendiary and ugly he is not distinguishing himself from the Tom Delays, Sarah Palins, Scott Jensens, John Gards, Frank Lasees and J.B. Van Hollens of the GOP. He is just fitting in.
March 2, 2009
Would you buy a used book from this man?
By Dustin Beilke
Ever since the Rod Blogojevich story broke and it became apparent that he would be impeached, I have been saying to anyone who would listen that the "disgraced" governor would end up with a show on Fox News. Maybe they will put him up against a much more articulate and skilled Republican and call it bi-partisanship, I thought. Or maybe they will just give him a show and let him call himself a Democrat and repeatedly humiliate himself for money.
Well, today comes news that Governor Bad Hair has signed a six-figure book deal. Writing a bad book certainly sounds to me like the next logical step toward hosting a low-quality show on Fox.
Mark my words.
March 1, 2009
Right and wrong
By Bill Kraus
Judge Barbara Crabb has turned her relentless logic on our judicial elections. Our first exposure to this admirable trait was when she told the state of Wisconsin, in effect if not in fact, “You cannot ban gambling and indulge in it.”
Her ruling on the rules surrounding judges and politics is equally logical. The rules are that judges cannot run as partisans or do partisan things like make donations or join parties. Judge Crabb says, “Who are you kidding?"
She points out that most judges get the job in the first place by appointment. These appointments are made by governors who are partisans and are unlikely to stray far from their list of political loyalists when looking for candidates for these jobs.
Even those few judges who are elected to open seats do not come full grown from the brow of Jove. They have some kind of political history and credentials.
It follows then that any voter who is interested and semi-conscious will know where the state’s judges are coming from politically and ideologically.
The attempts to deny this reality started when rules about non-partisanship were promulgated in 1913. These were reaffirmed in 1968 and strengthened again as recently as 2004.
In the new world of special interest politics, Judge Crabb says, party affiliations are not the problem anyway. The remedy to this new, more powerful threat to objectivity is a combination of disclosure and recusal. A judge who takes a campaign contribution from, say, the organization that is interested in school choice should reveal that and recuse him or herself if, as, and when a case on this subject comes before him or her.
Well and good, even though it may cause some difficulty in rural Wisconsin, where a judge is likely to have a friend or contributor involved in a lot of otherwise routine litigation.
The problem with following the judge’s logic so literally and single-mindedly is it goes against the probably unattainable ideal we seek from judges: a kind of impartiality which approaches pure disinterest.
We don’t always get it. It may even be, like the song in Man of La Mancha, an impossible dream.
It is worth aspiring to nonetheless. It's something every judge should have as a goal or a code of conduct.
The excesses of partisanship are unavoidable in the legislative and executive offices where we vote for people who share our beliefs.
What we want when we enter a courtroom is not favor but fairness.
A dispassionate judiciary is a worthy idea. Overt partisanization is not.