The current seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate in Wisconsin is 8.7 perent.

Attn. Governor Jim Doyle and DPI Superintendent Tony Evers: We Told You So.

In fact, we told you so, again, and again and again…

Colorado, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Tennessee had the highest scores among applicants for nearly $2 Billion in one-time Federal “Race to the Top” education grants.

Applicants were judged on 500-point scale that looked at the states’ commitment to improving teacher effectiveness, data systems, academic standards and low-performing schools.

Why didn’t Wisconsin make the cut?

One thing is certain.  Contrary to the overheated rhetoric of Governor Doyle and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett, Doyle’s failure to win legislative approval to transfer governance of Milwaukee’s failing public schools from the MPS Board to the Mayor played little, if any role.

“Nowhere in the application did it expressly say that a state would be given extra points for having mayoral control [of an urban school district],” said Andy Smarick, a nationally recognized leader on education reform who has been following the Race to the Top grant making process while serving as a Distinguished Visiting Fellow at the Thomas B. Fordham Institute. “To only point to the mayoral control piece, as the reason they didn’t make the cut, that is not justified.”

Not that it stopped Doyle from having a public temper tantrum last week, but the Governor should have seen this denial coming.

Last November, we reported on legislative efforts to pass a watered-down education reform package intended to make Wisconsin’s RTTT application stronger. When WEAC, the state teachers’ union, used their influence to water down any serious effort to tie teacher compensation to student performance, we wrote:

“Wisconsin Republicans say they like what the President has to say about the need for education reform, even more so than state Democrats do. Only time will tell if it stays that way. WEAC’s clout helped block sweeping merit pay reforms from passing in the legislature this week, while more modest changes were accepted. Will that jeopardize Wisconsin’s application for ‘Race to the Top’ Funds?”

See the entire video report:

Then in January, we saw further warning signs that Wisconsin did not fare well when compared to other states’ educational reform efforts.

Wisconsin’s charter school law, passed more than 16 years ago, has failed to keep pace with others’ reform efforts and could hurt the state’s chances in a national battle for education funding, according to a new national study.

The National Alliance for Public Charter Schools says Wisconsin’s charter school law now ranks 33rd in the nation in terms of ‘quality and accountability,’ ‘funding equity,’ ‘facilities support,’ autonomy, and ‘growth and choice.’
…

Wisconsin’s application for Race to the Top funding, could be scored lower due to the relatively weak ranking on its charter school law.

The Alliance warned, “As states prepare to submit applications for the federal Race to the Top (RTTT) grant program, the rankings provide clear indications of where some states excel and others come up short in charter-related policies,”

Commenting on another black mark on Wisconsin’s application during his interview this week with the MacIver Institute, Smarick also said the state’s caps on enrollment in online public charter schools, also known as virtual schools, hurt Wisconsin’s grade. “The rules confirm that restrictions on charters will result in a deduction of points.”

Oh well, virtual school open enrollment transfers are capped, by statute, at 5,250, but who could have predicted that such a restriction would hurt Wisconsin’s application?

Well, we did…back in October, when the RTTT rules were first proposed.

The education press in Wisconsin has already pointed out that Wisconsin’s prohibition on the use of student achievement in teacher evaluations jeopardizes our state’s ability to procure Race to the Top funds. But unreported, so far, is the fact that the enrollment cap on virtual schools also could serve as a deal breaker. In Madison, legislation has been proposed to eliminate the restriction on teacher evaluations, but those efforts may be moot if a similar effort to remove the cap on virtual school enrollment is not successful.

On page 32 section D(2) of the proposed rules one prominent selection criteria for up to $100 million in Race to the Top funding is“The extent to which the State has a charter school law that does not prohibit or effectively inhibit increasing the number of charter schools in the State (as measured by the percentage of total schools in the State that are allowed to be charter schools) or otherwise restrict student enrollment in charter schools.”
 
The cap on online public charter school enrollment is clearly a restriction on student enrollment in charter schools, and also serves as a de-facto cap on the number of public virtual charter schools that can operate here.

If the cap remains in place, the Race to the Top funding may go elsewhere.

And, it did.

How Wisconsin’s failure in this effort could surprise anyone is, frankly, mind boggling.

Now, it will be more than a month before we know just how poorly Wisconsin’s application graded out, and why. The scorecards of all 41 applicants won’t be made public until the after the 16 semifinalists are whittled down even further and the final winners announced in April. However, don’t expect to see the phrase “failure to pass legislation putting MPS under mayoral control” mentioned prominently, if at all, on Wisconsin’s scorecard.

Moreover, Doyle and the legislative leaders should not be surprised, given the Wisconsin Legislature’s reluctance to embrace the real reforms favored by the USDOE, that future ‘consolation prizes’ from this program may also be hard to come by.

But rest assured if Wisconsin gets shut out again, we’ll hear more surprise and outrage from the East Wing.

Because they desperately needed that money…

By Brian Fraley
A MacIver Perspective

Coming soon:  Part II. Shell Game Canceled: Why the Race to the Top funds would not have increased education funding in Wisconsin anyway.

Included in the budget were a number of cost-saving measures that required negotiations with the employee unions for concessions: a pay freeze, 20% cut in pensions, higher health care premiums, and less overtime. The unions have not yet agreed to those concessions, and the numbers dictate that the county add more furlough days, outsource where they can, and reduce headcount where they can, in order to reduce the county’s labor costs.

Listening to AFSCME District Council 48 Executive Director Richard Abelson, he would have you believe the budget provision calling for cuts in wages and benefits are unprecedented, even illegal because it was “unbalanced” when passed. Abelson said to the Shepherd Express:

“This budget presumed that there would be concessions from the unions that at the time that they passed the budget hadn’t even been proposed. I don’t know how you can stretch the definition of a legal budget to somehow include items that haven’t been proposed at the bargaining table when you have an equally binding obligation by state statute to negotiate in good faith.”

Abelson is not telling the whole story. Yes, the budget was passed with the assumption that there would be reduced labor costs from union concessions. However, Milwaukee County is hardly the only government entity to create a budget with assumptions about holding down labor costs that have yet to be negotiated.

For example, Eau Claire’s 2010 budget as adopted included this statement, “The importance of the labor settlements in balancing the budget cannot be over emphasized.” The city included figures for two different scenarios for holding down labor costs, then added, “The more typical labor settlements would have increased the City’s projected budget shortfall by 25% or more.”

The City of Waukesha under Democratic Mayor Larry Nelson has passed budgets with assumptions regarding reduced labor costs two years in a row. In the city administrator’s message regarding the current year’s budget, Lori Luther wrote, “…in order to create a balanced budget, an unprecedented salary freeze was assumed for all budgetary purposes. This salary freeze anticipates no increases in 2010, including the traditional step increases normally afforded particular employee groups. It is important to note, however, that a salary freeze must be negotiated with the labor unions that represent our employees.”

Luther added, “I am cautiously optimistic that negotiations will result in a mutually agreeable solution for a one year labor agreement given these extraordinarily difficult economic times. We have not, however, sat down with the unions to discuss contract proposals but will be doing so in the near future.”

In other words, Waukesha’s budget conversation sounds quite like Milwaukee County’s budget, only the unions are not complaining to the media that the city’s financial plans are illegal.

Eau Claire and Waukesha are doing the appropriate budget planning for the future with a recognition of what can happen if they cannot reach an agreement with the city employees’ bargaining units, they will have to make drastic cuts. Like every other community in the state, they are making assumptions about their costs, and if those assumptions don’t pan out then they will have to make cuts elsewhere.

The difference, of course, is that neither the mayor of Eau Claire or Waukesha is running for governor. The question for Abelson is whether it is really worth risking more layoffs for his membership to score political points against Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker, and if he is acting in his union membership’s best interests in pretending the budget passed by the Milwaukee County Board is without precedent.

By James Wigderson
Special Guest Perspective for the MacIver Institute

Increasingly, these freedoms and responsibilities are being threatened by state and federal legislative efforts to place our personal health care and health insurance decisions into the hands of government agencies.  Under such proposals, we as individuals will have far less freedom to work with our family doctor to make health care choices for ourselves and our families. 

In response to this movement, it has become imperative that we take action to preserve the right of every Wisconsin citizen to make their own health care and health insurance purchasing decisions.   

It is for this reason that I am proposing an amendment to the Wisconsin Constitution that would protect and preserve this personal right.  Specifically, the Health Care Freedom Amendment (HCFA) seeks to constitutionally safeguard an individual’s right to make decisions regarding their health care and health insurance needs, obtain or purchase private health care services and private health care insurance coverage and prohibits our government from forcing participation in any public or private health care/insurance program. 

Following is the specific constitutional language being proposed under HCFA: 

The people have the right to enter into private contracts with health care providers for health care services and to purchase private health care coverage. The legislature may not require any person to obtain or maintain health insurance coverage or to participate in any health care system or plan. 

As a proposed constitutional amendment, the HCFA requires adoption by two successive legislatures and approval by the people of our state via referendum before it can become effective.  As our government at both the federal and state level continues to address health care reform, the people of Wisconsin want and deserve to be heard.  Many feel that they are not being listened to at this time.  This amendment takes this key portion of the debate directly to the people so they can decide if they want to create some constitutional protections for the right to make their own decisions regarding their health care and insurance needs. 

Without a doubt, improvements can and must be made to improve the affordability and accessibility of health care and health insurance, and there are many reform proposals at both the state and federal level that deserve an honest discussion.  As we work to correct these problems and improve the delivery of quality and affordable health care, we should not eliminate or destroy the freedom and responsibility we all have regarding this very personal matter. 

For more information on the proposed Wisconsin HCFA, click here.

By Wisconsin State Senator Joe Leibham
Special Guest Perspective for the MacIver Institute

That staggering figure was revealed last night at a meeting of the MPS School Board.

The average salary for an MPS teacher is $56,500. When fringe benefits are factored in, the annual compensation will be $100,005 in 2011.

MacIver’s Bill Osmulski has more in this video report.

From our archives: The Mess at MPS:

Of course, had their leadership considered their membership’s best interests instead of just trying to score rhetorical points against the County Executive, the situation might never have come to this.

For 2010, the county budgeted wage and benefit concessions across the board, including union employees. The county budget calls for a wage freeze, no step increases, $30 per month health care premium increase, and a change in the pension multiplier to 1.6%.  In his budget address, County Executive Scott Walker said 48% of the county budget goes to fund wages and benefits for county employees. The concessions are necessary to fill a $10 million budget gap.

However, the unions have not yet agreed to the concessions, forcing the county to address the impending budget imbalance by taking steps to reduce labor costs.  Apparently the unions would rather have fewer members than have their current membership paying a little extra towards their health care.

Unions represent approximately 85% of county employees.  Non-union employees are already under the new wage and benefits plan.   To start to close the budget gap, Walker proposed the additional ten days of furloughs for approximately 1,468 union-represented county workers, for a total of 22 days this year.  Exempted from the furloughs were personnel responsible for the public safety (sheriff’s deputies and employees in the District Attorney’s office), and medical personnel responsible for direct care of patients.

The Milwaukee County Board wisely endorsed the extra furlough days on a 10-7 vote on Thursday.  The County Board issued a statement saying that the extra furlough days were necessary because the employee unions have not yet agreed to the concessions that were part of the county’s 2010 budget.   Walker followed up on Friday with the issuance of layoff notices to 76 county employees working as courthouse security and parks employees.  A private security firm (to be determined later) will replace courthouse security.   In the meantime, Wackenhut Security has been selected to act as a back-up to the existing Courthouse security should they have a “sick out.”

Why the back-up plan? Well, when the county decided to outsource the Courthouse janitorial services to a private firm last year, county employees in those positions had a “sick out” on their few last days, which led to  dirty bathrooms and sporadic litter and full trash bins.

County Board Chairman Lee Holloway was not as supportive of the layoffs as he was of the furlough days. Holloway sided with the unions, saying, “…it needs to be made clear that this is not the County Board’s decision. This was strictly the action of County Executive Scott Walker. I disagree with this decision and think he could have been more creative in developing corrective action plans.”

This is in direct contrast to Holloway’s statement praising the additional furlough days, saying the County Board’s vote indicated, “As painful as it may be, the majority of Supervisors who voted for this resolution, in my humble opinion, are looking further down the road than just the here and now.”

Clearly the furlough days are a temporary solution, while the outsourcing of Courthouse security is more of the “looking further down the road” Holloway praised a day earlier.   Holloway says the County Board specifically rejected the idea of privatizing Courthouse security. However, the board did agree to the outsourcing of security at a different county facility, so it was not a matter of principle as much as it was a concession to union interests, the same union interests unwilling to make wage and benefit concessions.

The County Board also agreed, in passing the 2010 budget, that the wage and benefit concessions were necessary for a balanced budget. Absent those concessions, the County is obligated by law to take other steps to balance the County’s budget.

Holloway knows this and shouldn’t pretend to be shocked and horrified by the County Executive’s decision to lay off employees. Unless, of course, Holloway has proposed other deep cuts in the county budget.

Unfortunately for many union employees of the county, given the reality of the 2010 budget, if their leadership continues to fail to agree to the wage and benefit concessions, more layoffs and furlough days will be inevitable. The current layoffs will only save $1.8 million. The current furlough days will save $2 million. More savings will need to be found unless union leadership returns their focus to the best interests of the union membership.

Holloway and the Board should focus their attention more on getting union leadership to accept the changes rather than pretending along with them there will be no consequences for their intransigence. To solve the county’s budget woes, everyone will need to change their long-term view of county government, including the unions.

By James Wigderson
Special Guest Perspective

Each week, the website WisOpinion.com asks two veterans of Wisconsin policy and politics, Scot Ross of One Wisconsin Now and our own Brian Fraley (a Director at the John K. MacIver Institute for Public Policy) to engage in exchanges on a topic of their choosing.

From Fraley’s entry, this week:

Walker outlines his six keys to a better business climate: 1 – Lower Taxes; 2 – Less Regulations; 3 – End Frivolous Lawsuits; 4 – Better Education; 5 – Improve Healthcare; and 6 – Strong Infrastructure. Yes the devil is in the details, and it will be up to him and his campaign to follow through with the meat that needs to be put on those bones. Yet, even as it stands today Walker’s is more of a plan than the current administration’s, which is … um … well as soon as they have one I’m sure they’ll let us know. As for Walker’s record with dealing with the three budget problems of Milwaukee County employees, the Ament pension mess and the unions? Three more gold stars on his report card! 

You can read the entire exchange here.

As reported earlier, the Wisconsin Global Warming Bill, dubbed the Clean Energy Jobs Act by its supporters, assumes that the price of carbon-based energy will increase due to the establishment of a ‘cap and trade’ system for carbon emissions. Our February 5th report included warnings, however, that a federal ‘cap and trade’ system was not certain to come about.

The Washington Post reports this morning:

Three key senators are engaged in a radical behind-the-scenes overhaul of climate legislation, preparing to jettison the broad “cap-and-trade” approach that has defined the legislative debate for close to a decade.

The sharp change of direction demonstrates the extent to which the cap-and-trade strategy — allowing facilities to buy and sell pollution credits in order to meet a national limit on greenhouse gas emissions — has become political poison. In a private meeting with several environmental leaders on Wednesday, according to participants, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), declared, “Cap-and-trade is dead.”

Even if Cap and Trade were to die, however, the cost of carbon-based fuels could still increase due to other federal regulatory action. While the Wisconsin bill assumes a future cost at $20/ton and rises slowly with inflation, there are no firm numbers yet as Washington has not passed new federal regulations and the prospects for such action are unknown.

MacIver News Service will report on the impact Washington’s actions may have on the pending Wisconsin legislation in the days ahead.

While these meetings are closely watched by industry and consumer representatives, they could hardly be described as riveting.

But contrary to Thursday’s White House Health Care Summit, those meetings are usually at least a bit productive. What a small slice of America witnessed take place at Blair House yesterday was stagecraft, not statesmanship. And while the President may think he accomplished the goal of attempting to look reasonable (so that he and his fellow Democrats could then pursue the nuclear option in the Senate) all yesterday did was expose their weaknesses and diminish the office of the President itself.

For years now, the Left has tried to portray the Republicans as the Party of No, particularly as it pertains to health care. Yesterday proved that this is not the case. One after the other, GOP lawmakers explained dozens of policy efforts they’ve attempted to advance. No one was more brilliant than our own Paul Ryan. Below, you can see what I believe to be the defining moment of the Summit.

To the contrary, Obama played the role of a petulant NAIC breakout session moderator. At times it seemed as if the GOP had a firmer grasp of what was in his plan than Obama himself did. When the Republicans pointed out what they disliked about the Democrats’ bloated plan, Obama curtly dismissed them (in the case of Senator McCain, outright mocked him) and then changed the subject and cut them off.

The Democrats’ idea of bipartisanship on this issue: Here is our health care regulation Christmas tree, all decked out with backroom deals for unions and states like Louisiana and Florida, and draped with massive new federal regulations that do not curb health care inflation. You Republicans are free to add a couple ornaments on it, if you can find room, as long as they do not offend the trial attorney or our other allies, but you absolutely can’t remove any of our items from the tree.

That’s not compromise, by even the widest interpretation.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, much to the chagrin of the status quo in Washington, D.C., yesterday’s Television Special did nothing to quell the passions of the growing tea party movement.

It was politics as usually, only televised.

Highlights of the Summit

Ryan’s first attempt was cut short.

But he eventually got his say, and this is an excellent recap of the day

By Brian Fraley
A MacIver Perspective

The bill, SB484, was originally on Tuesday’s calendar, but when Senator Kathleen Vinehout (D-Alma) and some of her fellow Democratic Senators began to ready amendments to the legislation,  the Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker (D-Schofield) maneuvered the bill back to the Senate Organization Committee.

During the early afternoon debate Thursday, Republican Senator Ted Kanavas (R-Brookfield) was blunt in his assessment about what is wrong with the plan.

He argued the Wisconsin Commissioner of Insurance would never allow a company in the private sector to market a plan like BadgerCare Basic, which Kanavas said will not have enough reserves to cover the risk the State is assuming, “There are simply not enough funds to support the kind of claims you are going to see.”

An effort was made to once again send the bill back to the Senate Org Committee, this time put forward by Republican Leader Scott Fitzgerald (R-Juneau).

Before the vote, Senator John Erpenbach (D-Waunakee) warned his fellow Democrats, ” If you vote to send this back to committee, you vote to kill this.”

After a lengthy debate of more than 90 minutes, Senator Fitzgerald’s motion  failed 15-18, with all the Democrats voting no.  Debate then began on a series of amendments.

A Vinehout amendment (SA3) to require an audit of the program passed with a bipartisan vote of 23-10 (with Democrats Carpenter, Jauch, Kreitlow, Plale, Robson, Sullivan and Taylor joining Vinehout and all the Republicans in support).

Before the final vote, Senate Fitzgerald made one last stand, arguing the plan would prove to be an expensive burden on Wisconsin taxpayers.

“This is the public option that we are voting on, just so we are clear,”said Fitzgerald. “This is Obamacare light.”

Senator Erpenbach defended his bill.

“This isn’t going to cost the state any money,”  said Erpenbach. He argued it was not universal coverage and that eligible individuals could choose whether or not to enroll.

“Here is a choice, this is a choice they have, if they choose to do so,” he said. “Obamacare? No, not even close.”

Shortly after 3pm, the bill passed 17-16 with Vinehout the lone Democrat joining the Republicans in voting no.

The bill now awaits action in the State Assembly.

Under SB484, BadgerCare Plus Basic would accept customers with pre-existing conditions, would cost enrollees $130 per month and supporters argue it is designed to pay for itself without additional tax dollars. The plan covers low income, childless adults, the same population served by BadgerCare Plus Core. The Core Plan was only expected to serve about 40 thousand people during a two-year period, but that number was reached in only a few months.

The state had to cut off enrollment in October, leaving more than five thousand people on an initial waiting list. A list that quickly surged to more than 23,000.   The proposed Basic plan offers leaner benefits, higher co-pays and deductibles, but opponents say the proposal is undercapitalized and ultimately will result in either the State picking up cost overruns, or ending the program due to lack of funds.