[Blank] Jobs

You can fill in the blank.

A couple things struck me reading this morning's relatively in-depth article on the economic development platforms of Governor Jim Doyle and Mark Green. One, if Green is elected, he had better hope that Democrats take back the legislature, because his ideas won't get past those Republicans:

Green's goal would be to reduce the number of economic development programs to 10 or fewer. Doyle's most recent budget proposal, for 2005-'07, included a plan to restructure the Wisconsin Development Fund, which would have eliminated several inactive and outdated programs. The Legislature did not include that restructuring plan in the final budget bill. [. . .]

A current state tax credit for "angel investors," who provide funds for start-up companies, would be expanded from $6.5 million annually to $20 million, Green said. It was Doyle who started tax credits for angel investors as part of his "Grow Wisconsin" agenda. Doyle wanted to offer $10 million in credits annually. The Republican-controlled Legislature scaled it back to $6.5 million a year.

Also, Doyle's 2005-'07 budget expanded a program that provides tax credits to businesses expanding or locating in areas known as "enterprise development zones." The $243 million program was created in 1995, and $123 million in credits had been used by 2005. But the remaining $120 million in credits couldn't be used in recent years because of a limit on the number of development zones in Wisconsin. Doyle used his veto power to lift that cap. [. . .]

Green said states can pay too much to attract new jobs. But, he said, such incentives packages can be good investments based on the number of family-supporting jobs they help attract. [. . .] Doyle last year proposed $2.5 million in annual state grants for businesses moving to Wisconsin's border counties from other states. The Legislature did not approve that program.

Got it? Green wants to recycle a whole slew of Doyle's old ideas, ideas that in many cases were shot down by the very people now out campaigning for Green.

But what struck me even more in reading this is the extent to which the governor is expected to meddle in the process of development--an expectation that can only lead to a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't situation for anyone in that office. We already know, for example, that a tremendous double-standard exists for Gov. Doyle: If, for example, Doyle had leaned on the DNR about that whole Menard's flap, he would have been tagged as bending the rules for big campaign donors. Instead, he stayed out of it, Menard's built elsewhere (which probably had little to do with DNR anyway), and Doyle got tagged for not being aggressive enough in pursuing them.

Green, in this morning's article, trots out Honda. As we have discussed before, Honda was not coming to Wisconsin, no matter what we might have said or done. It wouldn't have made a lick of sense, and besides, the paper today tells us what it might have cost us:

For Honda, Indiana is providing $141.5 million in state and local incentives - or $70,750 for each job created. That amount includes money for future roads and other public improvements to accommodate additional commercial and residential growth tied to the Honda plant.

That's got to be more than the annual salary of those workers. Given how far away from scoring the plant Wisconsin actually was, can you imagine how much more it might have cost us? Is it, at those kind of numbers, worth it?

And here's the damned-either-way part: Had Doyle promised, say, $100,000 per worker in your tax money to subsidze the Honda plant, would he--could he--have gotten away with it? And what if there were campaign donations involved?

There are a whole lot of people who make good money complaining that neither political party is worth anything. Even the paper, in another of its annoying "kids, play nice" editorials, bemoans the lack of a focus on issues in this campaign. (They need a bit of a heal thyself moment.) But here we have a solid study on the issues, with seemingly no recognition that the whole concept--governors personally inserting themselves into the commerce of the state--invites at the very least the appearance of corruption, and at worst, a culture of actual corruption and putting business interests above those of the people, the environment, and the well being of the state.

And the irony is, that after all the negative press Mark Green has been able to stir up about Jim Doyle, Green's own plan--the part he hasn't stolen from Doyle--puts him even deeper into the mess:

Green would replace the Department of Commerce, the state's main agency overseeing economic development efforts, with a new public-private agency, called the Wisconsin Economic Development Corp. That agency would be led by a non-partisan board, chaired by Green, made up of industry, labor and University of Wisconsin System leaders.

The new agency would be more flexible than the Commerce Department and able to respond more quickly to changing business conditions, Green said. Having the governor lead the agency would create a more visible contact for businesses seeking economic development help, he said.

Not that I want Green to win, but if he does, I can't wait for the first time this new agency meets, Green firmly at the helm, and a business with $10k or $20k or $50k of donations to Green sitting across from him, asking for handouts. Middleman eliminated, Green would do a true job on the state of Wisconsin.

Midweek Miscellany

• I have parent-teacher conferences tonight, so I won't make it to Drinking Liberally. But don't let that stop you!
  
  
• WisPolitics is having a contest!
  
  
• Some light reading on the Menard's flap: Seth and Cory tell us that just knowing Menard's is building in Iowa and Ohio doesn't tell you the whole story.
  
  
• If indeed Democrats do take control of the House of Representatives after this November's elections, according to Chris Bowers, it will be the first time since 1955 that the South has not controlled the House:

  The gains Democrats are making in this election are not the result of becoming more moderate. The gains Democrats are making in this election are not the result of doing a better job of talking to "values voters." The gains Democrats are making in this election are not coming from rebuking the party's liberal wing. The gains Democrats are making in this election are not coming from moving to the right on national security, immigration, or taxes. The gains Democrats are making in this election are not the result of recapturing "the Bubba vote." It is easy to tell that the Democratic gains in this election are not the result of any of those things, because Democrats have not done any of those things. We have, instead, built significantly improved political infrastructure, moved to the left, and rallied a broad, people-powered coalition against Republican extremism. [. . .] This will be the first post-Dixiecrat, post-Blue Dog, post-DLC, post-triangulation, post-moderation victory for Democrats in a long, long time.

  
  
• Some more reading on North Korea: Josh Marshall provides a timeline and remids of us the salient fact: This is not Bill Clinton's fault:

  So Clinton strikes a deal to keep plutonium out of the North Koreans' hands. The deal keeps the plutonium out of reach for the last six years of Clinton's term and the first two of Bush's. Bush pulls out of the deal. Four years later a plutonium bomb explodes.

  Mixter asks, "Who was president in 2002?" I ask, at what point--2009? 2010?--does stuff start being the fault of the guy under whose watch this happened?
  
  
• Among the scariest parts of the "Detainee Trials" bill passed a couple weeks back (and then buried under the Foleylanche) is the notion that, at his discretion, the president can declare anyone, even citizens of the United States, "ublawful combatants." You can be arrested for something as innocuous as donating to a non-profit, thrown in jail, and tortured. If it happened to Jose Padilla, it could happen to you:

  He stayed in a black hole, kept by his own government, for the next three-and-a-half-years with no charges of any kind ever asserted against him and with the administration insisting on the right to detain him (and any other American citizen) indefinitely--all based solely on the secret, unchallengeable say-so of the President.

  Even if you like George W. Bush, consider what President Hillary would do with that kind of power, the decide if you want that in the unsupervised and unchallengeable hands of one person.
  
  
• A note about Blogads: I'm generally happy to take anoyone's money, of any stripe, if you want to support what I do or promote yourself. However, I did reject an ad this week--the first time I've done so--for JB Van Hollen. The ad was "Dems for JB," and I felt that anyone seeing the ad might mistake me as a Dem for JB. I am not; I support Kathleen Falk and, even though my influence is undoubtedly very small in the matter, will not do anything to give the impression that I think we should elect Van Hollen. I'm sure his money spends just like anyone else's, but I had to say no.
  
  
• Yesterday, I wrote about how abusive and hostile the other side of the Cheddarsphere can be (my great sin, to be clear, was linking to someone else; that alone was enough to prompt a profane and childish explosion). One of the good guys, to me, has always been Rick Esenberg, who I don't think has a hostile or profane bone in his body. However, Fair Wisconsin's Joshua Freker Ferrets out something about Rick:

  The picture becomes clearer when we note that Esenberg has begun working with the Alliance Defense Fund, which has been at the forefront in pushing bans across the country. He contributes to their blog, Constitutionally Correct. [. . .] Esenberg works with an organization passionately opposed to providing gay families with any measure of fair treatment. So when he says that the Wisconsin ban wouldn't touch gay families' health care--when he offers an interpretation counter to the one put forth by ADF attorneys across the country--count me as deeply skeptical.
  
  If our ban passes, is Esenberg saying that ADF won't sue here? Or that he won't take part in such a suit? Somehow, I doubt it.

  Now, to be fair to Rick the connections I found Googling ADF's website for Rick's name are a little slim, but he is indeed attached to ADF in some ways. I think it is incumbent upon Rick to explain why ADF's history of pursuing cases based on the kind of weasel language our proposed amendment contains shouldn't make us wary of a "yes" vote. (Reminder: Vote no.)