Milwaukee Biz Blog

Jean-Baptise Colbert, French King Louis XIV's Minister of Finance, once quipped, "The art of taxation consists in so plucking the goose as to obtain the largest amount of feathers with the least possible amount of hissing."  For much of the past century, Congressional leaders have demonstrated their commitment to Colbert's maxim by taxing us in successively more opaque ways.

The first wave followed World War II, when the federal government adopted the payroll tax. After the 16th Amendment was ratified in 1913, allowing for a national income tax, Americans who paid income taxes filed a 1040 and wrote a check at tax time. Keenly aware of their tax burden, voters kept income tax rates low. But during World War II, the federal government revived an idea first experimented with during the Civil War:  income tax withholding. 

For Congressional spendthrifts, the payroll tax was a gold mine: People less aware of taxation are less likely to object to tax increases or to penalize politicians who raise taxes.  As the U.S. Treasury notes, "(withholding) greatly eased the collection of the tax for both the taxpayer and the Bureau of Internal Revenue. However, it also greatly reduced the taxpayer's awareness of the amount of tax being collected, i.e. it reduced the transparency of the tax, which made it easier to raise taxes in the future."

War also led to another form of hidden taxation, the corporate tax. The first corporate taxes appeared in 1909, at just 1 percent of profits. By 1918 - the last year of World War I - they had jumped to 12 percent. World War II took them to 40 percent, which is about where they have remained since. Yet, as economist Walter Williams notes, corporations are "merely tax collectors" who shift taxes to consumers in the form of higher prices.

Politicians since have excelled at the art of taxing you without your knowing it. The Alternative Minimum Tax, yearly extending to lower tax brackets, is one form. So are sales taxes - again, collected by retailers rather than paid directly by consumers. So too are taxes on gasoline, cigarettes, your utility bills, your insurance premiums, special travel taxes and more. Why do politicians add taxes to your cable bill? Because it is another way of taxing you without your knowing it. 

By far, the most innovative and cowardly forms of hidden taxation are found in deficit spending, which was used to great effect by the previous administration and is being perfected by the current. The nonprofit Peter G. Petersen Foundation pegs the value of the "real national debt" at $56.4 trillion – that's $184,000 in future taxes for each and every American.

Today congressional leaders face a new dilemma: They are running out places to find money. Foreign governments are growing increasingly skittish about lending us money, which will soon drive interest rates higher. Under the House health care proposal promoted by President Barack Obama, top income tax rates in some states could top 57 percent.  

Looking for ways to make up the difference, the federal government has already begun shifting costs to the states. Democratic and Republican governors balked at the House health bill, arguing that plan saddles them with costly new Medicaid obligations without the funds to pay for them. Republicans relied on similar unfunded mandates under President Bush: REAL ID, for example, cost the states $14 billion while allocating just $40 million to pay for the program.

Medicare has perfected the art of indirect taxation, or cost-shifting. A recent study in New Hampshire estimated that Medicare underpayments to hospitals and doctors result in a 17-percent increase in the cost of commercial health insurance rates. In other words, rather than raise taxes to pay for Medicare obligations, Congress simply underpays providers and makes the rest of us pick up the difference through our health insurance premiums. The House health bill, which does the same thing, raises even more from you indirectly by penalizing all but the smallest businesses up to 8 percent for not offering health benefits.

States have responded by issuing mandates of their own on local governments and private industry. In recent years, several states have cut state education spending on treatment for autistic spectrum disorders, shifting costs to private insurance policyholders by mandating that insurance companies pay for treatment.  Similar mandates have been issued for hearing implants and other treatments.

Recent calls on state and federal levels to tax energy company "excess" profits are another form of indirect taxation. Wisconsin's plan to tax 2.5 percent on the price of gasoline - despite Gov. Jim Doyle's claims that companies will be prohibited from passing along the cost to consumers - is one such example of indirect taxation. So too is Wisconsin's 800-percent increase in car rental fees. 

Colbert's truism about politicians has held up over the centuries. But at some point - and the United States is nearing that point - they run out of easy places to borrow or raise money. In the months to come, expect the federal government to push more mandates on the states and for states, in turn, to push them downhill to local governments and businesses.

But don't forget, some 220 years ago after the fact: The state Jean-Baptiste Colbert helped build - the home of Versailles and the "Sun King," which helped finance America's own anti-tax revolution - ultimately ended in a revolution over taxes.

 

Jim Burkee is an associate professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin.

If you think government is too big, politicians too irresponsible, and lobbyists too influential now, just wait until there’s no one left to keep them accountable.

For decades, conservatives have been railing – at times with justification – against a left-leaning mainstream media, or “MSM.” Rush Limbaugh has taken to calling it the “drive-by media,” likening the press to a “drive-by shooter except the microphones are the guns….” In an interview with Sean Hannity, he claimed, “They go out and try to destroy people's careers. Then they get in the convertible, head on down the road and do it all over again, while people like you and me are left to clean up the mess with the truth. So I call them the Drive-By Media.” 

Unsurprisingly, then, conservatives have watched with glee the rapid demise of the mainstream press. Major newspapers across the country, stung by the loss of advertising revenue and readership to the internet, have been losing money, shedding jobs, and cutting back on investigative news. This week the New York Times Company, which owns the storied Boston Globe, threatened to shut down the paper, which is projected to lose $85 million this year. The Washington Post is offering retirement buyouts and threatening layoffs, while the Los Angeles Times just fired 300 workers, including 75 newsroom staff.

Conservatives may be beaming, but they’d better be careful what they wish for.

The mainstream news media really emerged after World War II. By its heyday in the '60s, the hegemonic media of Cronkite and Brinkley had long since developed the standards which guide students of journalism still today – a separation of opinion and news, accuracy in reporting, confidentiality of sources, balanced reporting and so on. 

While at times the press failed in its obligation to impartiality and to serve as a check to unaccountability in government, consider the alternative, coming soon to a major city near you. Already mainstream investigative news stories are conflated with opinion pieces on blog rolls, while millions consider talk radio a viable alternative to Limbaugh’s “drive-by media.” 

The problem, however, is that even an army of bloggers and talk show hosts don’t have the sources, the training, the financial resources, and the standards necessary to provide an adequate check on government unaccountability. For all his gifts, Rush Limbaugh can’t produce the deep, investigative stories that Bob Woodward can. Matt Drudge doesn’t have a Moscow bureau chief. And Sean Hannity doesn’t have the Rolodex of sources a good AP reporter does. They are legitimate opinion leaders, but good journalism – the kind we need for an educated population and healthy democracy – requires more than just opinion. It needs investigative news. For that, we need the mainstream press.

Consider where current trends will take us if left unchecked: Government spending is reaching levels not seen since World War II. Politicians are safer in office today than they have ever been. Corporate lobbyists are spending more to buy their votes than ever before. And all this as the one institution capable of reporting on these trends, mainstream journalism, slashes resources. It’s a recipe for corruption, undue influence, and runaway government.

We’ve been here before. In the late 19th century – a time of unparalleled political corruption – few newspapers exercised the kind of standards we have come to expect today. Political parties and corporate interests had their own, partisan news outlets, which they regularly used to libel opponents and whip up their followers. Few expected news that was fair or balanced, which is why no one got it. That was when government spending as a percentage of gross domestic product was in the single digits (this year it will near 30 percent). 

For all its faults, we need the mainstream media, today more than ever. Rather than celebrate its demise, conservatives should consider what a world without the MSM will look like. 

Jim Burkee is an associate professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin in Mequon.

Like many conservatives of my generation, I came of political age with Rush Limbaugh.  I first began listening to the show after graduating from college and settling in Milwaukee.

I found his approach to issues a refreshing alternative to the dominant, left-leaning media, and above all, he was entertaining. His programs then began with a daily countdown to the end of Bill Clinton's first term, which he dubbed, "America held hostage." When I moved to New York, I stood in line to see his television show and have him autograph a book.

Rush Limbaugh was an entertaining source of information, but nobody ever considered him the head of a movement or ideological forefather. Newt Gingrich was the intellectual force behind the Republican Party, giving a public face and ideological depth to conservatism, best articulated in the 1994 Contract With America, which called the country to fiscal and personal "responsibility" and led to a sweeping Republican victory in the 1994 midterm elections.

2000 was a turning point, something conservatives are only now reluctantly acknowledging. The presidency of George W. Bush was an unmitigated disaster for the Republican Party and for conservatism in general.

With Newt Gingrich's demise and the rise of Tom DeLay, a fatal shift was underway. The GOP under Bush and DeLay swapped its ideological moorings for raw, power politics, doing whatever it had to do - rejecting pay-as-you-go principles for unfunded tax cuts, launching a "K Street Project" to raise millions from special interests and even creating the largest expansion of government in 40 years - to stay in power.

Before long, the Republican Party was a mirror image of the very thing it once opposed: A self-perpetuating bureaucracy shorn of relevance, rationale, and reason. An intellectual movement that once promoted tax cuts as the product of small government and fiscal responsibility became a pseudo-ideology, an evangelistic cult of tax cuts, the anytime, anywhere magic elixir. 

Rush Limbaugh was still there, his following as large and vocal as ever. And as his speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Washington this week illustrates, he fashions himself much more than an entertainer.

Appealing  to "conservative intellectuals," he took to task "conservative media pundits" who "think the era of Reagan is over, who believe that conservatism needs to be redefined."

"The Declaration of Independence," he said, "does not need to be redefined and neither does conservatism. Conservatism is what it is and it is forever. It's not something you can bend and shape and flake and form."

But conservatism has changed over the centuries. A Jeffersonian conservatism that cast a wary eye on military spending was jettisoned by pro-military conservatives; a party of predominantly economic conservatives was fused with Christian evangelicals after Roe v. Wade; and a fiscal conservatism averse to deficit spending was supplanted by a debt-inducing and intellectually false gospel of "starve the beast" tax cuts.

In short, the "conservatism" Mr. Limbaugh himself espoused in a 2005 Wall Street Journal editorial is the product of perpetual redefinition in response to changing times.

In response to Limbaugh's CPAC speech, Republican National Committee (RNC) Chairman Michael Steele said, "So let's put it into context here … Rush Limbaugh is an entertainer. Rush Limbaugh, his whole thing is entertainment" that is at times "incendiary" and "ugly."

Within hours, Steele was on the phone apologizing to Limbaugh and publicly retracting his challenge to Rush's "voice or his leadership." It was a humiliating acknowledgement of what Democrat Tom Kaine crowed shortly after, that Rush Limbaugh "is the leading force behind the Republican Party."

Ideological movements need people like Rush Limbaugh to convey beliefs in engaging and simplified ways - something he is particularly skilled at doing. But if conservatism is to retain any semblance of intellectual depth, the seriousness and reasoned consistency necessary to transform it again into a broad, majoritarian movement, conservatives must vocally reject any notion that Rush Limbaugh is a prominent or serious leader. 

Looking to a man who refers to opposition leaders as "Dingy Harry" and "Barack the Magic Negro" conveys all the sobriety and profundity of "Joe the Plumber." It's entertaining, but hardly the stuff of movements.

The problem is, as a friend and fan of Rush Limbaugh told me this morning, "There's nothing else out there" for conservatives. 

If conservatives want to be taken seriously again, we must look to a new generation of leaders who understand the movement's present vacuity and have the intellectual seriousness, capacity and honesty to redefine it - energetic reformers like Wisconsin's Paul Ryan and Arizona's Jeff Flake.
But to get there, we'll need to take an important first step: Turn off the radio.

Jim Burkee is an associate professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin. He challenged Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Menomonee Falls) in the 2008 Republican primary.

The day after the election, don't forget how you felt the day before. "Nothing is so admirable in politics," wrote economist John Kenneth Galbraith, "as a short memory."

If historical patterns hold true, Americans will put behind us the negativity and bitterness of yet another election season, forget many of the winning campaign's promises, and ignore the very faults in our process many of us want to see changed. 

We shouldn't.

On its surface, this was the "change" election. Fed up with Bush-era partisanship, economic crisis, conflict abroad, and political gridlock at home, Americans chose the ultimate outsider - a young Illinois senator with relatively little Washington experience.

But was this truly an election for change?  

You wouldn't know it by looking at Congress. On Nov. 4, incumbency still ruled the day.  While Democrats picked up several important seats in the Senate, incumbents in the House remained relatively safe.

In Wisconsin, our sitting congressmen were eight for eight, with only one somewhat strongly-contested race. Two of the state's congressmen ran unopposed.

In fact, incumbents nationwide were par for the course. While Democrats may pick picked up 30 seats in the House, the incumbency rate should still hold firm at nearly 95 percent - this with a Congress that has a 9 percent approval rating.

In fact, voters sent back to Congress several members currently under federal investigation, including Louisiana's William Jefferson, indicted by the federal government on racketeering and bribery charges, and Alaska's Ted Stevens, recently convicted by a jury on corruption charges.

So much for change.

We forget that for most of our nation's history, the House of Representatives experienced much larger and more frequent turnover. Following the Panic of 1893, Republicans gained 130 seats in the House, and in 1932, they lost 101. Democrats picked up nearly 50 seats after Watergate; Republicans grabbed 54 in 1994. During Harry Truman's administration, Democrats lost 55 seats before picking up 75 the next cycle. 
In recent years, however, waves of special interest money, gerrymandering, Congressional franking and other institutional advantages constructed by incumbents for incumbents have left our system very uncompetitive. Billions of dollars and another election cycle later, that hasn't changed. In fact, it's even worse.

So how much is likely to change in 2009?

Rarely has there been an election where campaign themes bear so little resemblance to the reality our next president will confront. President-elect Barack Obama will likely face the largest single-year budget deficit in American history, with a national debt that has already soared over $10 trillion.

Every hour of Obama's administration, 365 baby boomers will become eligible for Social Security - and in 2011, millions will qualify for Medicare coverage. Yet neither campaign talked realistically about confronting these, the most critical fiscal challenges our nation has faced since the Great Depression.

Instead, both promised tax cuts and spending programs unlikely to fully materialize given the fiscal realities Obama will now face. By 2012, it is much more likely that most Americans' taxes will go up than down.

In foreign affairs, much was made of the war in Iraq. Yet Obama's administration is much more likely to be consumed in Afghanistan, where the situation is deteriorating, than Iraq.

On energy, declining prices at the pump may undermine Obama's ability to promote investment and promotion of alternative energy, which is probably just the way the Saudis, Russians, and Iranians want it. 

And at the end of the day, Washington will still be largely run by the same people who got us into this mess - with one exception (a big one), Obama.

So how do we guarantee change next time around? For one, don't forget how you felt this time around. Don't forget about the negative ads, the massive amounts of special interest money, the empty campaign promises, and the absence of competition in Congressional races. Promise to vote for someone new next time around.

We must also advocate for changes to a system that keeps sending the same people back year after year. This election cycle saw record levels of money raised -over $5 billion, a 25-pecent increase over the 2004 election cycle. Candidates continue to spend most of their time dialing for dollars from wealthy donors, rather than talking to and working for their constituents.

One change we should strongly consider is voluntary public financing of Congressional and Senatorial campaigns. Congressional leaders will be more responsive to the people they represent when we are the ones paying their bills, instead of Washington's army of lobbyists.

Finally, we must demand statesmanship from our leaders. The Bush era demonstrates that big problems cannot be addressed with 50 percent, plus 1. The crises of tomorrow - massive indebtedness, the need for energy independence, entitlement reform, immigration, and more - can only be solved with large, bipartisan majorities. 

But none of this will happen if we forget how we felt on Monday. 

So remember that feeling, and use it to advocate for real, structural change in the coming year. With any luck, our system will be a little better next time, giving us greater turnover, more responsive government, honest leadership - and real change.

 

Jim Burkee is an associate professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin. He unsuccessfully challenged U.S. Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) in the Republican primary this year.

On Wednesday's Mark Belling Show (WISN-1130), Belling expressed dismay that I would run against the 5th Congressional District's longtime congressman, Jim Sensenbrenner.

Unlike Tom Petri and others, Belling argued, Sensenbrenner isn't part of the Republican "earmarks crowd," "spending crowd," "do anything to stay in power crowd" and "let's not try to do anything to solve any problems crowd."

So why, Belling wondered, would I run against Sensenbrenner?

Belling called me, among other things, a "pissant" and an "ankle biter." Since he won't return my phone calls or e-mails and he won't let me respond on the air, I would like to respond here in the Milwaukee Biz Blog.

'The earmarks crowd'
Congressman Sensenbrenner hasn't been an advocate of earmarks for Wisconsin. But that doesn't mean he hasn't voted for earmarks - and lots of them. Between 2001 and 2007, when Republicans were in control in Washington, Sensenbrenner voted for about $95 billion in earmarks - an amount more than 50 percent higher than Katrina relief. Much of that pork was jammed into Defense and Homeland Security bills, and most of it went to other states.
So Wisconsin got the worst of both worlds during that expensive six-year period: high levels of deficit-spending on earmarks, but almost none of it coming back to our state.
Earlier this year,. Sensenbrenner did sign Dick Armey's "Earmark Pledge" promising to vote against any and all bills containing earmarks - two weeks after I signed it. It's unfortunate that it took a little competition and accountability to get him, after a decade of voting for earmarks, to take that important stand. But better 30 years late than never.

'The spending crowd'
The problem with my Republican Party during the six expensive years it controlled Washington was not simply the people - it was, and is, an intellectually-dishonest current of thought that equates conservatism with tax cuts. Sensenbrenner and other Republican career politicians sign, year after year, the Americans for Tax Reform pledge to oppose all tax increases. Instead, they should be signing a pledge to oppose all deficit spending - because Sensenbrenner and others are primarily responsible for saddling our children and grandchildren with trillions of dollars in debt.
The intellectual dishonesty is supported by a legion of organizations supposedly dedicated to protecting taxpayers: Congressman Sensenbrenner was named a "Treasury Guardian" by one, a "Hero of the Taxpayer" by another and a "Tax-fighter" by a third - all in 2003, the same year he cast a deciding vote in favor of Medicare Part D, what may turn out to be the biggest new program in American history.
So, Sensenbrenner saw fit to support a bill that will cost $8.7 trillion - more than half the size of our current annual GDP - without paying for a single penny of it. He supported hundreds of billions of dollars in Defense expenditures - without paying for it; trillions of dollars in tax cuts - without paying for it; and even advocated (in the Milwaukee Biz Blog) - a stimulus tax cut of over $100 billion - you guessed it, without paying for it. 
Spending trillions of dollars without paying for it isn't conservative. Cutting taxes without paying for it isn't conservative. The one pledge Sensenbrenner refused to take is the one I wrote - to vote against all deficit spending during times of economic growth.  

'The do anything to stay in power crowd'
Has anyone noticed that the two major presidential candidates both ran against their respective party structures?  Barack Obama actually beat a Clinton. He outraised her without taking PAC contributions - and he energized an army of young voters. John McCain, a modern-day Teddy Roosevelt, cut his teeth fighting special interest influence while Sarah Palin took on career politicians in her own Republican Party. Americans are hungry for politicians willing to take on the special interests. 
Conservatives shouldn't look past the fact that Congressman Sensenbrenner has been one of the House's top abusers of special interest money. He takes a greater percentage of his contributions from lobbyists and PACs than most. And while Sensenbrenner and his family racked up over $200,000 in free travel from lobbyists and other special interests during that expensive six-year period - even more than Tom DeLay - his staff took another $340,000. As I wrote in a Milwaukee Biz Blog in April, even if it's not technically illegal (Congress writes its own laws), it looks corrupt.
And we conservatives must have the integrity to be critical of these corrupt practices - even if it means pointing the finger at one of our own. 
Doing anything to stay in power? Sensenbrenner signed the Contract With America - as did many Republicans still in the House - committing himself to term limits (a "citizen legislature"). Yet he, and many others, turned their backs on the pledge.   

'The let's not try to do anything to solve any problems crowd'
I won't argue that Sensenbrenner hasn't tried to solve problems. It's just that I disagree with how he's tried to solve them. 
On energy, he supported the 2005 ethanol mandate, driving up fuel and food prices while creating a massive corn ethanol infrastructure. Three years later, he is spinning himself, with hundreds of thousands in taxpayer-paid mailings, as an opponent of ethanol - despite his responsibility for giving us the mandate.
And on other fronts - health care, entitlement reform, immigration, the national debt, and more, we've seen no progress. In fact, in many ways the problems have gotten worse. 

We all - Democrats, Independents and Republicans - agree that Washington is broken.  One thing we can be sure of is this: If we keep sending the same people back, nothing will change.

Mark Belling, I have long appreciated your sharp, insightful mind. My hope is that you and others can acknowledge that the recent conservative sellout on deficit spending is just plain wrong. From tax cuts that weren't paid for to war spending that wasn't paid for to a massive Medicare bill that wasn't paid for, my opponent and others like him are responsible for a massive, unprecedented transfer of wealth - from our kids, to themselves.

Congressman Sensenbrenner has undeniably spent too much, without paying for it. Let's hope that on Sept. 9, for the first time in 30 years, he does pay for it.

Jim Burkee is an associate professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin and is a Republican candidate for Congress in Wisconsin's 5th Congressional District against F. James Sensenbrenner.

James Madison, the "Godfather of the Constitution," believed the young United States would be best represented when the country's wide array of representatives - Congressmen, senators and even state and local officials - each fought ferociously to represent the interests of their constituents.

Each representative, he believed, fighting for the best interests of his district or state, would check the other, maximizing equality for all and the common good.

It is worth considering Madison's view of representation in evaluating our own congressman, F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. If a Congressman is to actively advocate for his district, how is ours doing?

Not well.

In recent years, Wisconsin has consistently ranked at the bottom of the list of states receiving its fair share of federal funding for roads, bridges, education, research and more. According to Wisconsin's Division of Intergovernmental Relations, Wisconsin ranks 47th in the country in federal funds received per capita.

What does this mean for residents of Wisconsin's 5th District?

• Higher health care costs. Earlier this month Congressman Sensenbrenner was the only member of the Wisconsin delegation to vote for a 10.6-percent cut in Medicare payments to Wisconsin doctors. This in spite of the fact that Wisconsin doctors receive smaller payments from Medicare than doctors in better-represented states like California and Florida. Who makes up the difference? Anyone carrying private insurance and Wisconsin taxpayers.
• Failing roads and bridges. The nation's infrastructure faces a $500 billion shortfall, and it's even worse in Wisconsin, where 32 percent of the state's roads are in poor condition, 15 percent of our bridges are deficient, 25 percent of our highways are congested and our construction companies receive less funding than counterparts in other states.
• Less high-tech research. Wisconsin is the 20th-most-populous state, yet it is just 37th in research grant dollars. Research funding at universities sparks high-tech business development. Yet, Milwaukee - receiving fewer research funds than other cities - lost 71 high-tech employers by 2006.
• A struggling education system.  If you thought 37th in research funding was bad, consider that Wisconsin ranks 49th in federal spending on education. Voters in Germantown, Mequon and West Bend are already coming to grips with the consequence of this funding shortfall: Local property taxpayers must make up the difference.
• Higher taxes. Why is Wisconsin's tax burden so high? The simple arithmetic is that Wisconsin taxpayers subsidize residents of Alaska, Virginia, Maryland, New Mexico and North Dakota -  states at the top of the federal funding list who have representatives that advocate more vocally for them. What would it mean to Wisconsin taxpayers to receive our fair share? $873 million would bring us to Oregon's level - No. 46 on the list. 

Rather than use his 30 years in office to have Wisconsin tax dollars brought back home, Congressman Sensenbrenner's response has been to publicly demean and belittle local public officials who dare to advocate for the people they represent. Sensenbrenner admits to being "abrupt" and "blunt" with his constituents, but it goes far beyond that.

 

In 2006, after calling the city he represents a "murder capital of the U.S.," Congressman Sensenbrenner was rebuked by business, convention and tourism organizations. When Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett raised an eyebrow, Sensenbrenner called him a "crybaby."

Former West Bend Mayor Mike Miller recounts a similar story. In 1999, Miller asked Sensenbrenner to use funding for Wisconsin's Army National Guard, which risked being relocated after the unit was slated 85th in appropriations. Only after confronting Sensenbrenner in an airport did the Congressman use his clout to move the post from 85th to fifth in appropriations, saving the National Guard for West Bend - but not before publicly nicknaming Miller, you guessed it, "Mayor Crybaby."

Mr. Sensenbrenner claims to oppose pork-barrel spending, or "earmarks." And true to form, he hasn't brought much pork home for his own constituents. But the reality is that Congressman Sensenbrenner does vote for pork - just not for his own constituents. In just six years, between 2001 and 2007, he voted for over $94 billion in pork-barrel spending - for other states. 

It is possible to oppose pork-barrel spending (I was the first in our race to sign the no-earmark pledge) while fighting for Wisconsin's fair share of funding in defense, education, transportation, science and research, and other normal appropriations.   

Unfortunately, Wisconsin residents have the worst of both worlds: A massive level of debt - including $3 trillion in additional debt between 2001 and 2007, when Congressman Sensenbrenner's Republican leadership controlled Washington - but little to show for it at home. 

Opponents of term limits, including Congressman Sensenbrenner, will argue that longevity in Congress means more power, and therefore better representation, for Wisconsin taxpayers. Mr. Sensenbrenner's record belies that argument. More years in Congress may have meant more power, but the result has been less responsibility and weak representation. 

James Madison's view of congressional representation is as valid today as it was two centuries ago. Wisconsin's 5th District needs a Congressman who will represent his district with respect, in cooperation with other local elected officials, and always with an eye to what is best for the people of Wisconsin.

 

Jim Burkee, an associate professor of history at Concordia University in Mequon, is challenging Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner Jr. in the Sept. 9th Republican primary.

Over the past few years, Americans have been noticeably drawn to the era of our Founders. The acclaimed HBO miniseries "John Adams" followed David McCullough's bestselling books, "John Adams" and "1776."  Walter Isaacson profiled Franklin; Ron Chernow, Hamilton; and Joseph Ellis presented Washington, Jefferson, and the generation of "Founding Brothers."

Students of historiography - the writing of history - note that history books reflect the time in which they are written. There is a reason Americans are fascinated by the Founders today.

So it is worth asking, why the great interest with our Founding Fathers, and why now?

Perhaps it is that Americans find in our Founders qualities so starkly absent in our own generation of political leaders. While our young nation's first leaders were imperfect, they were espoused virtue, duty, civility, and sacrifice. They represented 13 unique states - each considered their home countries - with diverse interests and passions.

Coastal towns preferred commerce while western and southern promoted agriculture. Populous states like Virginia faced small states like Rhode Island. Pennsylvanian Quakers opposed Carolinan slaveowners; Anglophiles feared Francophiles; and Anti-Federalists disputed Federalists. 

And yet they found a way to get things done - through compromise. 

The first week of July is a hallowed one for Americans. On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted to separate from Great Britain, signing the Declaration of Independence in Philadelphia on the July 4. Twelve years later, on July 2, 1788, the Constitution - after a long year of debate - was ratified, becoming the law of the land.

Both the Continental Congress and the Convention that preceded ratification and crafted that exceptional document say a lot about the virtues of the Founders. And there are lessons to draw as we contrast that generation of leaders with today's less able and certainly less fraternal representatives in Congress.

They identified a crisis and committed to act.  The nation's first governing document, the Articles of Confederation, was almost uniformly seen as a failure by 1786, when James Madison proposed they be revised. When in May, 1787, he called for a "Grand Convention" to rewrite a constitution, all states but one sent delegates.

They worked toward a common goal. The Articles of Confederation created a hopelessly weak central government. It had no authority to tax, and therefore had to request money from the states. The original Congress also had no authority to raise an army. But states were often unwilling to volunteer funds or troops because of disproportional representation (big states and small states each had one vote). There was also no chief executive. The government, as Washington put it, was "little more than the shadow without the substance."

While the fifty-five delegates at the Constitutional Convention differed on how to remedy the failures of Articles, they almost all agreed on goals: Stronger central government, an executive branch and fairer representation.

They deliberated in private.  James Madison understood that no comprehensive reform would be agreed-upon at the Convention without compromise on several issues. But he knew that transparency would undermine compromise: Delegates would be reluctant to express their views freely, or to suggest ideas not fully thought-out, knowing their views would be recorded and publicized. So he posted armed sentries outside the Philadelphia hall's doors and held the entire convention in secrecy.

They understood the value of consensus. Adams and Franklin understood that the July 2, 1776, vote to declare independence from Great Britain would carry less weight were the vote anything less than unanimous. Twelve of the thirteen colonies' delegations voted to separate with Britain (New York, which abstained, later affirmed its support).  At the Philadelphia convention in 1787, Benjamin Franklin implored each delegate to present a united front, "and to make manifest our unanimity, put his name to this instrument." Though differences remained within state delegations, each of the 12 participating states voted "aye" for the new constitution.

They compromised.  Each delegate settled for a document less than perfect, but they agreed, as one delegate put it, in the "spirit of mutual concession." Franklin concluded before the final vote, "I confess that there are several parts of this constitution which I do not at present approve, but I am not sure I shall never approve them: For having lived long, I have experienced many instances of being obliged by better information, or fuller consideration, to change opinions even on important subjects, which I once thought right, but found to be otherwise. It is therefore that the older I grow, the more apt I am to doubt my own judgment, and to pay more respect to the judgment of others."

The Constitution and subsequent Bill of Rights satisfied no one entirely, but everyone sufficiently. Yet this "Great Compromise" has stood for 221 years as the most exceptional governing document in the modern world.

The Founders were men of principle who built coalitions. In contrast to today's conventional partisans, trapped by ideological inflexibility and often hostage to special interests, America's first leaders understood that principle and compromise are not always mutually exclusive. 

It was a tradition that extended for much of our nation's history. The great legislators of the 19th century - men like Henry Clay and Daniel Webster - won their reputations crafting compromises that held the held the young nation together: the Missouri Compromise, the Compromise of 1833, and the Compromise of 1850.

The crises our nation faces today - energy, health care, immigration, entitlements, indebtedness and more - will require statesmen in Washington willing to set aside partisan shackles and personal gain, identify common objectives and work to achieve them with the greatest degree of unanimity possible, yet in a "spirit of mutual concession." Great legislation cannot happen with fifty plus one, debated before C-SPAN's prying eyes, and without leaders willing to embrace a concept once widely-accepted, now frequently rejected, by America's political class: Compromise.

Jim Burkee, an associate professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin, is a Republican candidate for U.S. Congress in Wisconsin's 5th Congressional District. He is challenging incumbent F. James Sensenbrenner for the seat.

Last year, Wisconsin legislators raised the driver's license fee by $10 to pay for state compliance with Real ID, the national ID law authored by Congressman F. James Sensenbrenner. The fee, which raised Wisconsin taxes by $22 million, will now be used to balance the Wisconsin state budget.

Now Congressman Sensenbrenner is mad. He calls the deal, negotiated by Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch (R-West Salem) and Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker (D-Weston), a "breach of faith with the people of Wisconsin" and a "fiscal shell game."

This turn of events leaves many Wisconsin conservatives scratching their heads in wonder: Congressman Sensenbrenner purports to be a foe of big government.  So why is he complaining that Wisconsin legislators aren't spending his tax increase the way he wants them to?

On May 11, Wisconsin and the nation's other states reached the implementation deadline for Real ID, the national identification card program authored by Sensenbrenner, the Fifth District's 30-year
incumbent congressman. After a lengthy staring match with the states, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) blinked, effectively granting the states until 2011, perhaps even 2018, to comply. But the conflict isn't over.

Real ID was born in controversy when Sensenbrenner attached the bill as a "rider" to a 2005 military appropriation bill (a rider is a provision that shares little in common with the original bill - and is favorite technique legislators use for dropping earmarks into unrelated bills). Worse yet, Real ID was voted on in the US Senate without an opportunity for a single hearing or debate. 

Many conservatives, already bristling at the GOP's irresponsible spending habits and expansion of government by 2005, soon revolted. The Wall Street Journal accused Sensenbrenner and the Republican leadership of betraying its "federalist principles" yet again. Real ID, as described by the Journal, effectively requires all 245 million license holders in the US to "head down to the local Department of Motor Vehicles with certified source documents - such as a birth certificate or Social Security card - to apply for the new standardized national ID. And people from states that don't play ball won't be able to use their licenses to board planes or enter federal buildings."

In effect, Real ID is an internal passport for American citizens with a mandate to build, according to the Cato Institute, a "federal surveillance infrastructure" to track "every American, native-born and immigrant
alike." The Journal evoked images of totalitarian Germany, calling it the "show-us-your-papers Sensenbrenner approach" to internal security.

Since 2005, the rationale for Real ID has mutated as its proponents struggle to overcome bipartisan opposition.  Initially it was an antiterrorism bill.

It then became a technique to control illegal immigration.  Then it was about preventing identity theft.  Most recently a top DHS official suggested the ID could be used to control access to cold medications.

Reasons enough to oppose its implementation.

The lesson of DHS's call for an ID to control access to cold medicine, warns Cato's Jim Harper, is this: "Once a national ID system is in place, the federal government will use it for tighter and tighter control of every American."

With Real ID, Jim Sensenbrenner has managed to unite left and right in opposition. Groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) to Gun Owners of America oppose Real ID. Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned Americans that a national ID system might soon be used to monitor your "credit history, your residential information, your banking history, your medical and mental health records, your marital status, your ATM withdrawals, turnpike use,
library checkouts, movie rentals, pharmacy prescriptions, phone call records, and firearms by serial number and address. Imagine all that information encrypted in a hologram on your national ID card ... but a hologram you can't read. Only higher authorities can read it."

"Never accept the idea," he concluded, "that surrendering freedom - any freedom - is the price of feeling safe."

Nineteen state legislatures have passed bills refusing to comply with Real ID, while Republicans in Congress work for its repeal. South Carolina's Republican governor, Mark Sanford, considered suing the federal government over the unconstitutionality of Real ID. Senate Republicans John Sununu and
Lamar Alexander are working actively to roll it back.

Their complaint?  Sensenbrenner's bill violates the GOP's commitment to federalism, or states' rights.  Conservatives have long complained about the abuse of "unfunded mandates" by the federal government. Real ID is among the most abusive unfunded mandates in recent history:  Sensenbrenner's bill appropriated between $40 and $60 million in federal funds, while estimates of the total cost passed on to the states range from $4 billion to over $20 billion.[8]  With unfunded mandates like the Sensenbrenner Tax, federal legislators are able to hide the real cost of government by making the
states raise taxes for them.

It is, to use Sensenbrenner's own words, a "fiscal shell game" - the tax increase he secretly passed along to Wisconsin taxpayers a "breach of faith with the people of Wisconsin."

Proponents of Real ID suggest concerns over abuse of the system are unwarranted.  But Americans were once promised that Social Security numbers would not be used for identification purposes.  Now, Social Security numbers are used for drivers licenses, patient and credit records, and by employers. Moreover, Real ID's national database increases the likelihood of identity theft. 

There are viable alternatives.  For those who would use Sensenbrenner's national ID to combat illegal immigration, Congressman Paul Ryan (R-Wis) introduced in February an employment verification system to provide a "tested and effective way to immediately authenticate an employee's legal status." Ryan touts his proposal as an effective alternative to the "new 'big brother', one-size-fits-all federal
government database and national I.D. card."

Wisconsin voters should be angry enough that under Republicans the government grew by almost fifty percent between 2001 and 2007. Now the same leaders who gave us $3 trillion in new debt and a massive expansion of Medicare are working hard to give us more unfunded government, this time at
the expense of our privacy.

Next time you complain about Wisconsin's high tax rates, remember the Sensenbrenner Tax. It's one of many reasons Real ID needs to be repealed.

Jim Burkee, an associate professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin, is challenging Jim Sensenbrenner in the September 9 primary for Wisconsin's Fifth Congressional District seat.

In "The Leadership Secrets of Billy Graham," Harold Myra and Marshall Shelley describe an important meeting the Rev. Graham and his leadership team held in 1948. Too many shady evangelists had given Christian leaders a bad name: poor handling of money, sexual scandals, badmouthing of others doing similar work, and general dishonesty were all undermining the church's work.

So, Graham's team developed principles to "lock them in" to ethical behavior. As an example, Graham committed then to never being alone with a woman who was not his wife: Not only would he avoid that temptation for the rest of his life, but perhaps more importantly he would eliminate the appearance of any impropriety.

Graham, recalled an associate, always insisted on "total integrity." To achieve that level, he committed to lifelong disciplines that would leave his character unquestioned and unquestionable.

Congress could take a page out of Graham's book.

In a recent Milwaukee Biz Blog, Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.) played politics as usual by attacking plans by the "Democratic majority" to "spend, spend, spend."

This, after he voted for 28,000 earmarks over six years and cast one of the deciding votes for Medicare Part D - one of the largest and costliest entitlement programs in American history. In short, he overlooked the log in his own eye to find a speck in his opponent's.

He also called on Democrats to act on tax cuts passed a few years ago when Republicans were in charge which are set to expire, or "sunset," soon. What he's not telling you is that he voted to "sunset" the legislation in the first place. Why? So Congress - while Mr. Sensenbrenner was a leader in the Republican majority - could continue to falsify the long-term budget projections, assuring us that in spite of all those earmarks and entitlement expansions (combined with tax cuts), tomorrow's books will magically balance (they won't).

An added benefit was that Republicans could set themselves up to do exactly what Mr. Sensenbrenner is doing today - bash Democrats for wanting to "raise taxes" when the sunset approaches.

"Total integrity" means being honest about the numbers. It means dealing fairly and honestly with your colleagues.

It also means striving to avoid the appearance of impropriety. 

Earlier this month, the Center for Responsive Politics issued the results of a study of congressmen invested in defense contractors. Over one fourth of all members of Congress own stocks in the same companies that received hundreds of billions of dollars in defense contracts - and many congressmen benefited financially.

At the top of the list was our own Congressman Sensenbrenner, who earned at least $3.2 million between 2004 and 2006 on defense-industry investments alone.

Similarly, Mr. Sensenbrenner voted in favor of Medicare's Prescription Drug Program in 2003 - a $9 trillion entitlement expansion - while having massive holdings in pharmaceutical industry stocks.

In any other industry, this would be considered insider trading. To avoid the appearance of impropriety and the temptation to vote for legislation that personally benefits them, many congressmen and senators voluntarily put their investments into "blind trusts." But Mr. Sensenbrenner did not support legislation mandating that members of Congress put their funds into blind trusts.

A judge would not rule on a case involving a pharmaceutical company he owned stock in. So why would a congressman vote for legislation that positively affected the value of stocks he owned in pharmaceutical companies - or defense contractors? 

Even if it's not corrupt, it sure looks bad.

A similar problem exists with the impact of special interest money. Many members of Congress, including Mr. Sensenbrenner, take millions of dollars from special interests, then vote for legislation that positively affects the very interests that fund their campaigns (the majority of his campaign contributions come from special interests). Or they accept gifts, like the hundreds of thousands of dollars in free travel given Congressman Sensenbrenner, from organizations looking to benefit from Congressional legislation.  
It may not be illegal, but it sure looks bad.

Billy Graham understood that leaders need to be held to a higher standard because their actions impact a wide audience. A pastor's example inspires the congregation, while his moral failings undermine the faith and trust of many.

Similarly, our political leaders can aim to elevate and motivate the people they represent by example, or they can take the low road, playing to the public's expectations that all politicians are dirty and that Congress is an arena for combat - instead of cooperation in the public interest. 

Public confidence in our leaders is at an all-time low - under 20 percent in the most recent approval ratings of Congress. That's because too few of our leaders care to do what great leaders do best - inspire, lead by example, work together, and understand that appearances matter. 

It's time we expected more of our leaders.  

Jim Burkee is an associate professor of history at Concordia University Wisconsin and is a Republican candidate for Congress in Wisconsin's 5th Congressional District against F. James Sensenbrenner.

The 26th Amendment to the Constitution, approved in 1971, lowered the voting age for Americans to 18. The inconsistency it addressed was exposed in a slogan common to the time:  "Old enough to fight, old enough to vote."

Eighteen-year-old Americans were serving and dying for their country in Vietnam, but they weren't allowed to vote for or against politicians who sent them there. Signed into law in July, the constitutional amendment was ratified faster than any in American history.

At its heart, the debate revealed a contradiction first exposed by the nation's founders on the eve of revolution: Government's power to conscript, and its power to tax and spend, derives only by the consent of the governed. Boston revolutionary James Otis said, "taxation without representation is tyranny."

Since then, suffragists and civil rights activists have expanded the franchise on the essential American premise that a government cannot compel to action those who have had no part in choosing that government. Abigail Adams urged her husband to advocate for women's voting rights, arguing that women "will not hold ourselves bound by any laws in which we have no voice or representation."

Martin Luther King Jr. echoed those sentiments generations later from his Birmingham jail cell:  "A law is unjust if it is inflicted on a minority that, as a result of being denied the right to vote, had no part in enacting or devising the law."

It is worth considering this basic principle as our federal government closes rapidly on $10 trillion in national indebtedness. Since 2001, our leaders in Washington have conspired to borrow, spend and promise at levels never before seen in American history - levels so high as to seem almost laughable, if the subject weren't so terrifying. The country has borrowed before, but never like this. Because we are no longer just indebting ourselves: We are indebting our children.   

The Comptroller General of the United States, David Walker, recently quit his job years before the 15-year term expired. Walker, the nation's top accountant, crusaded for years to stop Congress's runaway deficit spending. He toured the nation on a "fiscal wake-up tour" with allies left and right to warn the country that its leaders were spending away our children's future. He decried accounting practices in Congress that would land anyone in the private sector in jail. He blasted Republicans for falsely arguing that tax cuts magically pay for themselves, and he lambasted Democrats for standing in the way of entitlement reform.

Finally, fed up with a Congress that would not listen, he threw up his hands and left for the private sector, where he vows to continue his crusade heading the Peter G. Peterson Foundation.

What Congress has already done to our children is damning. Each teenager entering the workforce next year will assume a $450,000 debt over the course of their lives to pay for our current debt and future promises in Social Security and Medicare. That's far more than the average American mortgage - except there is no house to back up this debt. And it gets worse each year:  Congress has already added a half-trillion dollars to the national debt since last fall, and projects at least $400 billion more this coming year.

And they've done it in the most immoral of ways, with Enron-style accounting and outright deception. If you don't believe Walker's warnings, ask yourself this: How can Congress tell us that the annual deficit last year was only $177 billion, while in just six months time we have added $500 billion to the national debt? You don't have to be an accountant to understand that those numbers just don't add up.

Rather than address the crisis, Congress votes year after year to make it worse. Republicans tried to buy votes in 2003 by passing a massive expansion of government-run health care, Medicare Part D; Democrats violated their own "pay-go" standards in late 2007; and both parties borrowed from our children for "stimulus" checks many Americans will receive this spring and summer.

Tomorrow's generation will face enough challenges already. Already each college student graduates with an average of $20,000 in student debt, and those going to graduate school will finish with six figures in loans. The threats of radical Islamic extremism aren't going away, and the country will continue to face economic challenges from India and China.

In Washington's farewell address, he warned Americans to avoid national indebtedness and the immorality of "throwing upon posterity the burden which we ourselves ought to bear." He would recognize what our government is doing today for what it is – taxation without representation.  
Which leaves us with one of two possible solutions: Stop spending our children's money, or let them vote. The latter is impractical, and the former is necessary.

Either way, the solution requires new leadership in Washington. 

Jim Burkee is an associate professor of history at Concordia University in Wisconsin and is a Republican candidate for the U.S. Congressional seat held by Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner.