Quote of the Month "Our country values life and we will never seek war unless it is essential to security and justice," - President George W. Bush in his weekly radio address Saturday, October 5, 2002

 

Time to Clean Up Government and Elections is Now

by Dennis Shaw, Chairman,
Third Congressional District Republican Party

There was a time not too long ago when we were proud of Wisconsin's clean government. But, the public and press have now been shocked by the indictment of several legislative leaders with up to twenty felony counts each. These are only charges, and those charged will have their day in court, but hopefully we have woken up and now realize that there is a problem that needs to be addressed.

Could we have discovered the problem sooner? Hindsight is always 20-20, but YES, there were warning signs that were not picked up. Some of us were sounding alerts 2 years ago and were dismissed as only more partisan attacks on opposing candidates. The people and the press now know better! Even the non-partisan Wisconsin Democracy Campaign's warnings were not heeded. Opponents successfully dismissed their reports, saying the WDC is only using the stories of questionable fundraising practices to further their push for campaign finance reform. We now know there was much truth in what they said.

There was also a time when we felt that elections here were clean and fair. But, then we found out about the "smokes for votes" scandal in Milwaukee. Or the students who were bragging about voting multiple times. They only changed their story when there was a push to charge them with a felony if true. Or the hundreds of irregularities that surfaced from many Wisconsin communities, large and small, when considering whether or not this state should recount the 2000 Presidential election. Or now the "Bingo-gate scandal" of the 2002 election.

The public and the press need to demand that Wisconsin "clean up" government. The allegations that the Attorney General dispersed DOJ money to friends in return for campaign contributions have not been addressed seriously. The charges from Democrat insider Don Fish made regarding Wisconsin's Democrat Congressmen and the state Attorney General has not been addressed seriously. The State Senate candidates who were direct beneficiaries of alleged extortion outlined in the complaint against Senate Majority Leader Chvala have been allowed to just say, "I didn't know anything about it." It would be considered illegal if they had known or if they SHOULD HAVE KNOWN.

The public and the press also needs to demand that Wisconsin enact common-sense election reforms. Volunteers from the state Republican Party will be "poll watching" at many polling locations but that is not enough. We need a system that is alert for irregularities and tries to better make sure that everyone can vote, but that those votes are from people qualified to vote, are not coerced, and only counted once.

We are from Wisconsin! We deserve better and it's about time the people and the press demand it!!
 

  - Top -

---

Questions for Kind regarding Military Action Support

by Bill Arndt, Cnadidate for Congress

I read with some interest the Opinion piece from Rep. Ron Kind in the La Crosse Tribune. As the Republican candidate for the seat held by Kind, I first want to say that I have no problems with our Representatives debating an issue as serious as a possible war. I would expect nothing less.

I applaud President Bush for seeking congressional approval before taking any necessary actions. Many of our past Presidents, from both parties, did not seek such approval.

I also appreciate all of the citizens of the district who attended forums, wrote letters and e-mails, and spoke to your elected officials and to those of us seeking such office about your views. We all pray that war can yet be avoided!

With that said, and following the format used by Mr. Kind, I would like to share with your readers some questions I have in the following open letter to our Congressman.

Dear Rep. Kind,

I trust that President Bush answered your questions as he answered the questions of many of us through his speech last Monday night. I applaud your vote in support of the joint resolution on Thursday. We are praying that it will not come to a war with Iraq, however in this post 9-11 world, we cannot allow Saddam Hussein and his terrorist friends to have weapons of mass destruction.

There are still some questions about your being hesitant to support the resolution that I feel need to be addressed by you. Why would you hold back your support of action against Iraq when you eagerly supported President Clinton's committing troops in Kosoko? There appears to be many parallels with the Iraq leader killing off thousands of ethnic Iraqis.

Why would you say in public forums that your main concern with the initial resolution language was that it could authorize military action elsewhere in that region, yet you voted against the "Istook Amendment" (which tried to prohibit funding for any plan to invade Yugoslavia with ground forces) during the Kosovo action?

In virtually every vote regarding military action in and around Kosovo you supported the Clinton Administration's position. In fact, in a May 2, 1999 editorial the Capitol Times mentioned your overwhelming support for military action stating "Ron Kind, D-La Crosse -- continue(s) to dance to the Clinton administration's broken war record...."

So I ask you, why would you strongly support any military action Bill Clinton, a Democrat President, wanted, yet be slow and questioning in support of a resolution authorizing George W. Bush, a Republican President, to possibly take military action? And before your staff does a poll to calculate how you should best answer this question, be careful, your partisanship is showing -- again.
 

 - Top -

---

Stewardship - "Spending Without Limits"

by Rep. Sheryl Albers

The notion of conservation is certainly appealing in principle. In today's political climate, however, any effort to retreat from purchasing private property, regardless of the economic impact to the very people the program was designed to help, is met with staunch resistance from those who see government land programs as sacrosanct. Such is the case with the Stewardship Program, invented by well-meaning legislators to allow the state to buy property in order to promote conservation efforts. As with most government programs, Stewardship quickly burgeoned out of control, and the Department of Natural Resources now goes on frequent spending sprees, buying up thousands of acres of property - and spending millions more taxpayer dollars than originally anticipated. Many of these purchases are driven by the Nature Conservancy, a private organization that purchases property, then sells it to the state. Who decides what the state actually purchases - and at what price - is one of the big questions before the legislature at this point.

Stewardship has become the poster program of wild expenditures that escape fiscal reality. The state currently pays for property based on appraised values that are more often than not substantially higher than assessed values. For one land purchase alone, the state handed a property owner 928% of the land's assessed value – nearly 10 times the value used for determining property taxes! Was this higher value reflected in the next year's assessment of similar properties in the area? Not likely.

The spending spree does not stop with the purchase of property, however. Under the program, the state must pay "aids in lieu of taxes" to the local unit of government where the property lies to make up for otherwise lost tax revenue. The payment is based on the appraised value of the land at the time of purchase, however, not the value of the property used for years to calculate the local property tax. As an example, one property yielded the local unit of government a 25,575% increase in property tax revenue! In times of economic crisis where cuts to shared revenue are proposed, local units of government may look to Stewardship as a means to increase revenues.

How does all of this happen? Well, if an appraiser deems a forested piece of property's "highest and best use" as residential, its fair market value is based on future residential development – even though the property is being appraised in preparation for purchase by the state in order to protect it from development. In turn, the local unit of government is compensated annually - forever - on the basis of a "residential use" appraisal that will never exist. In essence, phantom uses that might never exist under the watch of the state or locally elected officials become the basis for exorbitant purchase prices and aids in lieu of taxes payments.

I will introduce legislation in the upcoming session to limit the price for major land purchases to 500% of the assessed value of the property. In addition, while current law only provides review by the Joint Committee on Finance for Stewardship purchases over $250,000, my legislation will require the full legislature and our governor to approve any purchase exceeding 400% of the assessed value of property, then require a reassessment of all similarly zoned properties in the property's taxation district. These changes will force government officials to think twice before handing off lands in their jurisdiction for state control and management.

In addition to the limits established on Stewardship purchases, the legislation will also reign in the inflated land appraisals. Rather than merely an assumption that a piece of agriculture or forested property might get rezoned to residential, I propose a required statement from the local unit of government clearly indicating whether or not the "highest and best use" initially established by the appraiser meets reality.

Even though a zoning office might verbally say a change in use would likely get approved, we need to get that information in writing before using that information to inflate appraised values. The alternative would be a requirement that the local unit of government vote affirmatively on the issue of possible future zoning changes. Regardless of the means used, appraisers could then prepare an "adjusted highest and best use" that includes the probable future zoning of property. That, in turn, translates into a more realistic purchase price.

Finally, while I support a continuation of an aids in lieu of taxes payment for Stewardship purchases, my legislation will only provide a continuation – not a windfall. Local units of government will receive compensation based on the assessed value of the property at the time of purchase, adjusted annually for inflation. It will not receive an annual windfall in revenues simply because the state takes ownership. I cannot say that appraisers are not doing their job; nor would it be fair to claim that assessors are failing to accurately reflect values in our communities. However, the variations between the two valuations of property ought to shock the conscience of the legislature and trigger change.

Recently, the Joint Committee on Finance approved of a private-public partnership as part of a Stewardship purchase. Rather than buying the large tract of land in northern Wisconsin outright, the state - using largely federal dollars - bought only the "surface development rights." This purchase cost only $205 per acre; purchasing the land outright would have cost about $389 per acre. The state's purchase allows the landowners to practice sustainable timber harvesting, but also allows the public the right to access the property for recreational use. The land stays in private hands, the property owner continues to pay property taxes and exercise wise, privately-driven conservation efforts, the state saves tens of millions of dollars in fee title purchase expenditures, and the public retains the ability to protect the land from uses that endanger preservation efforts or public access. Combined with my legislation, private-public acquisitions would simultaneously protect conservation efforts and stretch taxpayer dollars further.

Wisconsin faces a projected deficit that could reach as high as $3 billion as we put together our 2003-05 budget. Our credit rating is among the worst in the nation, and we're "balancing" our checkbook by pushing off bill payments into the future. Even so, we remain the 3rd highest tax state in the nation. No longer can the people of Wisconsin afford the spending sprees of the DNR, and its time to face reality.

Conservation efforts need not cost the taxpayers more than we can afford; we can protect the environment and our bank account at the same time by exercising common sense and revamping our Stewardship Program.
 

- Top -

---

GIVE IRAQ NO CHOICE

by Rep. Tom Petri

Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein has labored intensively to build chemical and biological weapons stockpiles and to acquire nuclear weapons. But, does that give us the right to invade a sovereign nation simply because we think those weapons might be used against us or our allies?

Maybe. Maybe not. There are times when gentlemanly behavior is more dangerous than force.

After its defeat in World War I, Germany accepted a treaty obligation to keep its military out of the Rhineland, although this region continued to be part of the nation as a whole, with a civilian administration. The creation of this demilitarized zone was designed to make it difficult for Germany ever again to threaten France, Belgium or the Netherlands.

The Germans considered the treaty unfair, and on March 7, 1936, Adolf Hitler's army marched across the Rhine River bridges to re-establish military positions facing the Reich's western neighbors.

At that early date, the German army was hopelessly weak compared to the French military. Hitler later admitted that if the French had asserted its treaty rights and determined to eject the Wehrmacht, Hitler's government would likely have collapsed. "The 48 hours after the march into the Rhineland were the most nerve-wracking of my life," he said.

But the French did nothing beyond sending a formal protest to the League of Nations. The British urged the French "not to make the situation more difficult." It was, after all, German territory.

And the rest, of course, is history.

On June 7, 1981, Israeli jets destroyed Iraq's Osirak power plant, then under construction. The New York Times editorialized: "Israel's sneak attack on a French-built nuclear reactor near Baghdad was an act of inexcusable and short-sighted aggression."

The Israelis explained that Iraq intended to use the reactor to build nuclear weapons. This didn't satisfy the Times, however, which said that since the Israelis had a nuclear capability, they could hardly complain if Iraq created one as well.

Currently, of course, it is generally acknowledged that without the Israeli attack, Iraq would have been a nuclear power well before its 1990 invasion of Kuwait which resulted in the Persian Gulf War. Saddam Hussein would have succeeded in his ambition of heading a regional superpower, with a stranglehold over a huge portion of the oil supplies that fuel the world's economies.

Today, Saddam Hussein - one of the world's bloodiest dictators - continues to seek out the world's most horrifying weapons in violation of the agreements which ended the Gulf War. His links to Al Qaeda terrorists are unclear, but he is clearly an enemy with great potential for destruction in our country as well as his own neighborhood.

Even so, I have no appetite for a war with Iraq. War is what we are trying to avoid - although not at any cost.

There are circumstances in which the United States must act unilaterally to protect ourselves, but we should do our best to avoid it. This is why I continue to emphasize the importance of working through the United Nations and the international community to force Iraq to disarm.

Over the past 10 years, however, it has become clear that the only way to get Saddam to cooperate is to give him no choice. Accordingly, on October 10th I voted to give the President broad authority to act. Maybe if we carry a big enough stick, we won't actually have to use it.
 

- Top -

These web pages designed and maintained by
Fiona Web Goddess web page design and hosting
webdesigns@goddessfiona.com
Last Update: Saturday, November 09, 2002