Mark Green Needs Our Support

Walker Weekly

March 24, 2006 was the day that I announced that I was bowing out of the
race for Governor and supporting Mark Green. Without a doubt, this was the
toughest decision I've ever made in my entire professional career. More
than 10,000 of you stood up and supported our efforts and I was afraid to
let you down.

The decision to support Mark wasn't made because of concerns over the
primary election; it was made because of my concerns over the general
election. At the time, Jim Doyle was far ahead of both Mark and me in
raising the funds needed to win the election. Keeping two Republicans in
the race was a sure way to see Doyle re-elected.

Thankfully, it was easy for me to support Mark Green. Mark and I were both
sworn into office in 1993, and he was one of the hardest working lawmakers I
served with in the Assembly. Since 1998, he has been a great Congressman.
Most importantly, I traveled the state for more than a year as a candidate
and I heard him speak at nearly every stop. What I like most about Mark is
that he has the same positive message in every part of the state. He
doesn't pander to one area at the expense of another part of the state. He
wants to make ALL of us better in Wisconsin.

Over the years, I've grown to have many friends who are Democrats. While I
do not often agree with them on policy, I respect them for having a core set
of beliefs and acting on those principles. Sadly, Jim Doyle does not seem to
have a core set of beliefs. His only true passion seems to be re-election.
That is why this race is so important.

When I got out of the race, some people said that I did it for the party.
They are wrong. I did it for the state. Tonette and I want to raise our
two sons in a state that has a leader we can be proud of again. That leader
is Mark Green.

To everyone who supported me, I am asking you to not let my difficult
decision be made in vain. Help me help Mark Green get elected on November
7th.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Scott Walker, Milwaulkee Countee Executive & former candidate for Governor

Finding the Right Balance?

Lasee’s Notes

Newspapers, television stations, internet news sites, and many other media outlets and citizen groups throughout the state have been sending out questionnaires to help them decide which candidates to endorse in the upcoming elections. The questions range from healthcare reform to the environment. And of course taxes.

One of the most common questions asked is: Which taxes would you seek to increase or decrease in an effort to balance the budget? What they are really asking is who should be taxed more or are we taxing the right people enough.

My answer has been the same every time.

This question overlooks the problem all Wisconsinites face. The real problem is that we spend too much so we tax too much. We need to reduce the overall tax take from all of our citizens.

If we truly want to make Wisconsin a better place to live, work, and retire then we need bold action.

Ratcheting one tax up just to get more revenue or to lower the burden on someone else isn’t the answer. Accounting gimmicks or budget transfers (made famous by Governor Doyle) will not solve the problem either. It won’t happen by sitting around in a legislative committee talking about which projects deserve more funding.

We do NOT need more revenue we need to prevent our government from spending more. Then and only then will taxes stop being an economic drag on our state.

How do we do this?

The only way to tame the rapid growth in government spending, taxing, and borrowing and give us, the taxpayers, more control is to put another constitutional check into our system of checks and balances.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights has been my number one priority for many years because I believe that we need a constitutional amendment that will give us the right of referendum on government spending, taxing, and borrowing. We need to have our elected officials explain why they recommend additional spending, have a conversation about why it is needed and whether we the bill payers can and want to afford it. We have done this successfully and popularly with schools spending in this state since 1993.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights will allow for a reasonable spending growth rate for both state and local governments of inflation plus population growth. If governments want to grow their spending faster, they will have to consult their voters first.

Under our current system, governments spend first and ask questions later. The voters, the stakeholders, the bill payers, are often intentionally left out of the budgeting process. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights will require our government officials to explain, discuss, and convince us that more spending is needed. More importantly, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights will continue Wisconsin’s progressive tradition of giving power over our government back to the citizens and stakeholders.

Why should you care?

Wisconsin is at a crossroads. The present tax and spending situation in our state cannot stand. We cannot afford to continue the pattern of the wealthy leaving and the poorer middle class moving in. People are voting with there feet, they are moving to where it is best for them, their families and businesses.

We cannot afford to ignore the changing world around us. As I’ve said in the past, we are in serious danger of becoming a state where the demand for government services exceeds the citizens’ ability to pay. According to the non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, in the last five years we have lost $4.6 billion in net worth and $450 million in net income, due to higher income people moving out.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Sparking an International Debate on

Lasee’s Notes

Last week, in the wake of several school shootings including one in rural Wisconsin, I proposed legislation to give Wisconsin teachers and other school staff, who complete a background check and a rigorous gun safety course, the option to defend themselves and our children with weapons.

To clarify, this is how I described my proposal to my 10 year old daughter when she asked me over the weekend why so many people with cameras wanted to talk to me. I told her that somewhere in her school there will be a locked box (safe?) with a gun in it. And that if a bad person with a gun came into her school that wanted to hurt her or her classmates a school official who is trained to use it, would go to the box (safe?) and use the gun to protect them from harm. She looked at me, smiled and said, “That makes sense to me daddy,” and went back to playing.

Many disagree with me on this proposal. I challenge all those who disagree to offer their proposals. It is important that we are talking about improving the safety of our children in our schools. The discussion this idea created is an important step in making our schools even safer havens for learning.

The fact remains, armed criminals who commit these crimes in schools are NOT stopping at the school doors and dropping their weapons in accordance with the state and federal gun-free schools laws. In most cases, they are coming into our schools, unopposed, unchecked, and intent on destruction.

If they were confronted by a teacher, administrator, principal, or other authority figure who was trained to use a weapon, they may lay their weapons down. If not, they would face resistance and the would be victims could defend themselves and our children. Like it or not, school officials are our children’s last line of defense in a school attack. It makes sense to give them the ability to protect themselves and our children until the police arrive.

You probably haven’t seen it on the evening news -- several school shootings have been stopped by armed citizens.

In Mississippi, a vice-principal was forced by federal law to keep his gun in his car some 1000 feet from the school. After a student rushed into the school and started shooting, he ran out got his gun from the trunk and was able to stop the attacker. If he was allowed to have the weapon in the school in the first place, he may have been able to prevent the attack or stop it sooner. And the two children who lost their lives that day may still be alive.

Many people have asked me why I would dare to tackle such a controversial issue, especially in an election year. My answer to them has been that the safety of our children is far too important. We cannot have round table discussions and dream that criminals will follow the laws. Some of the greatest ideas in our nation’s history have risen out of controversy.

For those who disagree with me, I welcome your ideas and suggestions on how to make our schools safer. As well as those who support this concept on how to make it better. As we move forward with this debate on school safety, I know that in the end we will have made our schools a better and safer place for our children to learn.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Wisconsin Public Television's "Separate, but Equal" Policy is a Farce

I want to thank you all for your emails and phone calls to Wisconsin Public Television protesting my exclusion from the debate

"You stood up and defended Wisconsin’s traditions of openness and democracy. Because of you, Wisconsin Public Television (WPT) will be much more careful about how it schedules its candidate coverage in the future.

"Wisconsin Public Television tried to 'spin' the debate in several different ways. They started out by claiming 'we are not producing a formal debate among any of the candidates for U.S. Senate this year'. Later, facing a barrage of protests, they became more aggressive, 'Thank you for writing regarding the inclusion of Rae Vogeler on "Here and Now." I noticed, however, that you left out another candidate, Ben Glatzel.'

"WPT’s response to emails stated 'By providing all four candidates with more time and comparable opportunities to discuss their views and positions, even if that means splitting them between shows on consecutive weeks, we believe we are better serving the viewers, and voters, of Wisconsin.' Their spin on the debate left a number of you a bit puzzled over what was and wasn't happening at WPT.

"We now know that Herb Kohl and Robert Lorge appeared together at the same time on 'Here and Now'. They sat around a table, were asked questions by a moderator, each laid out their responses in turn, and then argued with one another over what each other’s positions were. In short, while it may not have been 'formal', (in the sense that both candidates were sitting as opposed to standing), it was a debate.

"Wisconsin Public Television argues that it has a 'separate, but equal' policy. That policy didn't cut it in education, it didn't cut it in race relations, and it doesn't cut it here. Excluding me allowed Kohl to waltz through an easy debate with someone he agrees with on a lot of key issues. He didn’t get confronted on his support for the Iraq war, the Patriot Act, tax cuts for the wealthy and a host of other issues that harm working Wisconsinites.

"In the debate last night, Kohl stated he does not support setting a date for troop withdrawal from Iraq, saying it would be a 'disaster'. Yet most Wisconsinites support troop withdrawal. He defended his support for the No Child Left Behind Act, despite objections from Wisconsin educators that the testing interfered with teaching. Throughout the debate, Lorge and Kohl agreed on most of the issues, with few exceptions. Lorge even suggested that Kohl might as well switch parties and become a Republican. I concur: as much as Kohl agrees with the Bush agenda, it would be an honest move for him to make.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rae Volger, Green Party Candidate for U.S. Senate

Is Arming Teachers the Solution to School Shootings?

Lasee’s Notes

Last week, fifteen year old Eric Hainstock walked into Weston high school in Cazenovia and fatally shot his principal. In a true act of heroism, despite being shot three times John Klang wrestled the gun away from the troubled teen. This cold blooded murder carried out by a teenager shocked residents of this quiet, rural farming town located 40 miles northwest of Madison. The story has made international headlines and left many wondering why this young man made the choice to commit such a horrific crime.

This was the third school shooting in the nation in the last two weeks. Last Wednesday, a drifter in Colorado took six high school girls hostage, molested them and then killed one of the young women then himself as police closed in on his location. Yesterday, a truck driver took twelve students hostage in a one-room Amish schoolhouse in Pennsylvania. He barred the doors and killed five young girls. Six others are in critical condition.

Another school shooting spree was prevented in Green Bay last month after a student turned in his friends who had told him of their plot to open fire at school. Last week a 16 year old from Madison got into the home economics room and stole a knife which he used to threaten another student on school grounds.

The school shooting in Wisconsin is particularly concerning. Not because the others were less tragic, but because it happened so close to home. After the initial shock and sorrow of this tragedy wears off, there will be many questions to be answered. Naturally most people will want to know why this troubled teen did what he did.

We must look beyond the why. Only Eric Hainstock truly knows why he walked into his high school with murder on his mind that day. We know that he had a horrible family life and that he may have been picked on by his fellow classmates. Were those the things that pushed him over the edge? We may never know.

Unfortunately we can not legislate proper parenting or prevent kids from poking fun at one another. The fact is that many kids suffer through the same treatment and worse and don’t take a gun to school and commit murder.
The question then becomes: what can we do to prevent school violence in the future?

To enhance security at the schools in Cazenovia at least one armed police officer will stand guard when students return to class later this week. Sounds like a reasonable plan. Unfortunately there have been several school shootings in recent years and NOT one has been stopped by the police. While the police provide many valuable protective services, stopping a school shooting in progress is not one of them.

Many on the left will most likely use this tragedy to push for a total ban on guns. In their naïve view, if there were no guns there would be no crime and we would all live in a peaceful, safer society and sing kum-bye-yah together. Several countries have tried
this tactic. It has failed every time.

Great Britain has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the world. To curb violent crime rates, they banned all handguns in 1997. What happened after they disarmed the general public? Homicide rates jumped by 50% and armed muggings increased by 53%. All handguns gone, and gun violence up. Go figure.

In 1996, Australia instituted a “buy back” program which took 660,000 guns off the streets. If the liberal gun control theory is right, crime rates should have fallen Down Under. They didn’t. According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, the murder rate increased by nearly 10%, assaults rose by 17%, and armed robbery went up by 73%. But how can that be? I thought fewer guns meant less violent crime.

The truth of course is that taking away our constitutionally guaranteed right to keep and bear arms won’t make us safer. Because when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns. Like it or not, that includes troubled teens like Eric Hainstock and many others who have opened fire in our schools. These people are intent on destruction and no law or policy would have prevented these tragedies.

So what then?

To make our schools safe for our students to learn all options should be on the table. That includes encouraging teachers and other school officials to carry firearms. While it may not be politically correct, it has worked effectively in other countries.

Following repeated attacks of Israeli schools by Palestinian terrorists, teachers and parent volunteers in the West Bank began carrying concealed weapons to protect themselves and their students from harm. In the twenty five years since, no child has been harmed by gunfire in an Israeli school. Thailand recently enacted a similar program to allow teachers to carry guns for protection. The results have been the same – less violence and a safer learning environment for their children.

We, as adults, have a duty to protect our children. If we truly want to make our schools safe havens for learning wouldn’t it make sense to give our teachers the tools and training they need to protect our kids from harm?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.

Wisconsin School Referendums - An Experience in Democracy

Lasee’s Notes

Thirty-five school districts in Wisconsin have referendums on the ballot this fall. Voters in these districts will decide whether or not to allow their local schools to borrow more money for future building projects or to allow them to exceed the state’s revenue controls.


Twelve school districts already voted on their referendums earlier this month in the primary elections. Six passed and six failed. That is democracy. Those that passed requested nearly $23 million in new funding or a little less than $4 million per community. Those that failed requested over $36 million or $6 million per community.


According to the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, the total amount of additional spending and borrowing being requested through the fall referendums is nearly $473 million ($472,671,877). That is an average of nearly $13 million per community. The largest single request is in Janesville where voters there will be asked for over $70 million in additional funds. Click here to access a full list of the school referendums and the amount of additional money they are requesting.


Since revenue controls and the referendum requirement went into effect in 1995, school districts must ask their voters to spend more. This has led to voters having more say over how much their local school district can take from them. The effects: growth in property taxes has slowed.


Despite the doomsday claims from some in the education community there have been positive improvements in the classroom as well. There are more teachers and non-teachers per student than ever before. They are among the best compensated in the country. Our kids are achieving some of the highest test scores in the nation. And they enjoy access to computers and other modern teaching aids. We have many new school buildings and a large selection of non-core classes and extra-curricular activities.


Without revenue controls, and without referendums, school districts would do what they did before – take more of your money without asking.


Because of the referendum requirement, school districts are more accountable to their communities and their voters. They have to talk more, explain more, discuss more, and attempt to convince us more. Property tax growth slowed after revenue caps went into place, because the people who pay the bills have more say. It’s that simple.


State taxpayers already spend nearly $10,000 per student. Public schools collect and spend 40% of all state and local tax revenues in Wisconsin. Do you think school boards would be spending more or less in all areas of public education if they didn’t have to ask?


What would our property taxes be? We’ve already got one of the highest property tax rates in the nation, even though the state subsidizes local schools with billions of dollars each and every year. State aid for schools hasn’t decreased in any budget during my twelve years in the legislature.


Think of the effect it would have on your family’s pocketbook if we had the same requirement on all levels of government. I wish we’d had it 30 years ago. Imagine how much less our governments would be taking from us today and how much lower our tax burden would be, if they’d had to ask the stakeholders – the taxpayers, the voters, the bill payers, the owners – for permission to spend over a certain amount.


Imagine how much stronger our economy would be. How much more money would be available for private investment, for payrolls, for prescriptions, for healthcare and all other costs of daily life.


As is the case within our democracy, some of these communities will vote their referendums down. Some will approve theirs. Some will win, some will lose. Maybe you will agree with their decisions, maybe not. The important thing is that we have the vote. They have to explain the reasons for additional spending. School districts have to ask us. Wouldn’t it be great if all of our governments did?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lasee’s Notes is a weekly column by Representative Frank Lasee, 2nd Assembly District, covering events in the Legislature and statewide.