Posted by MarkStrand4Liberty on 02/10/09
Last updated 08/02/09

In Wisconsin, responsibility for redrawing legislative and congressional district lines rests with the legislature.  The legislature is required to redraw legislative and congressional districts every ten years based upon the results of the decennial federal census.

Despite changes in redistricting technology and uncertainty about judicial standards, the purpose of redistricting and the end result remain unchanged -- that is, the establishment of election districts which provide representational equality for all potential voters. *

Members of the 2009 Wisconsin Legislature receive an annual salary of $49,943. This amount will not change during the 2009-2010 biennium, because Article IV, Section 26, of the Wisconsin Constitution dictates that salaries of public officers cannot be increased or diminished during a term of office.**

The Wisconsin Constitution allows for the Assembly to have between 54 and 100 members, and the Senate to be between one fourth and one third of the Assembly, according to Article IV, section 3. With Wisconsin being one of a handful of states paying legislators full time benefits and wages, shouldn't we consider a smaller number of assemblypersons and state senators? Reducing the size of the assembly to 63 and the state senate to 21 would save taxpayers at the current rate $2,397,264 per year in salaries; plus as much as $12,000 per year on office supplies per legislator; plus the incalculable amount in state employee benefits, such as healthcare, accumulating sick leave, 12 paid holidays and an $88 per day stipend if a legislator has to travel from outside Dane County, and many more.

At the estimated 5.5 million people living in Wisconsin as of 2007, each assemblyperson currently represents approximately 55,000 constituents and each senator approximate 150,000 constituents. Reducing the size would increase the constituency marginally to approximately 80,000 per assemblyperson and 240,000 per senator, making the positions much more cost efficient.

In effect, We, the residents of Wisconsin, hereby demand from the combined legislature a reduction of its members to sixty-three members of the Wisconsin Assembly and twenty-one members of the Wisconsin Senate, to be completed in conjunction with the 2010 results of the decennial federal census and mandatory redrawing of legislative and congressional districts.

Posted by MarkStrand4Liberty on 01/09/09
Last updated 02/06/09

The Wisconsin Constitution allows for the Assembly to have between 54 and 100 members. With Wisconsin being one of a handful of states paying legislators full time benefits and wages (nearly $50k a year), shouldn't we consider a smaller number of assemblypersons? Reducing the size of the assembly to 63 would save taxpayers at the current rate $2M , plus $12k per year on office supplies PER LEGISLATOR. At the estimated 5.5 million people living in Wisconsin, each legislator currently represents approximately 50000 constituants. Reducing the size would increase the constituency, making the position much more challenging and cost efficent. Redistricting must be done for each census, so I believe that redistricting the Assembly needs to be addressed quickly and swiftly to have the most impact. Given the last decade of reducing county boards and taxpayers making representatives more accountable for their actions, such as Milwaukee and Fond du Lac, just to name a few,hopefully, the Campaign for Liberty in Wisconsin will undertake a noble cause that is decades behind.

***This blog has been edited after reviewing the Wisconsin Constitution. In Wisconsin, the Assembly must be between 54 and 100 members, however in Article IV section 3, I discovered that the Senate must be between a quarter and a third of the size of the assembly. The original number that made the most sense was 55 members,100,000 per legislator in the Assembly. After discovering that the Senate is based on the number in the Assembly, I have changed the number I would prescribe most feasible to 63, with 21 senate seats. In any event, redistricting after census in conjunction with campaign limits from out of district contributors and term limits would greatly improve our quality of ideas, prosperity, freedom and liberty in our great state. That is why I plan to start a petition to present to the Government Accountability Board an outline for responsible governance through accurate, responsive, and articulate representation, hopefully with your support. 

Posted 01/10/09 Greg L Appleton, WI

This is a tricky issue. I am usually for government spending less. In this case I think there are some other issues to think of. If you shrink the size of the legislature you also increase the size of the districts. The smaller the district the more personal the campaigning, the larger the more the candidate is isolated from the citizens. So the way I see it the question is "Is it worth it to save a few dollars at the expense of less responsive representation?" I would rather cut the pay for our volunteer representatives (they all run of their own free will) and then put that money into adding more seats. Then add term limits - but that is another issue.

Posted 01/13/09 MarkStrand4Liberty Lomira, WI

Greg- This is just the jumping off point. We all agree for the most part that a smaller government is most efficent. While I understand your point of having a less responsive representation, if you asked most people, they couldn't name their representative. They may not know that each legislator receives full time benefits, including state pension, health insurance, etc. but are not in session full time. View the Wisconsin C4L kickoff video, and listen to what Rep. Wood says to that effect. I have been to the capitol to talk with former Senator Carol Resslor. She was delighted to see one of her constituents face to face, and had a staffer take notes on the issues I was bringing to her! Letters, e-mails and phone calls are great too. All I am saying is if you want your voice to be heard, whether your representative represents 50000 or 100000, they can and do make time for individuals.

Posted 01/15/09 rickrich Janesville, WI

I understand your viewpoint. I believe, however, that special interest groups making deals with corrupt (virtually all) politicians is the single biggest cause of loss of liberty and government growth in modern times. Fewer legislators would make it easier for the lobbyists to channel their money and influence, and buy votes and therefore increase government. There is actually a small movement to INCREASE the federal house of representatives. http://www.thirty-thousand.org/ To see how politicians are being bought: www.maplight.org

Posted 01/16/09 MarkStrand4Liberty Lomira, WI

Rick - While it may be true that decreasing the size of the Assembly may make it easier to "buy" votes, the other part is the accountability side. If I had a choice between someone who can be bought and someone, like Dr. Paul who does not accept lobbyist money, I would ALWAYS vote for the person who isn't on the take, regardless of party affiliation. That's why I voted for Aaron Onsrud last election as opposed to Scott Fitzgerald. Look at who donates money to campaigns. Fitzgerald in the last election got 92% of his campaign money from OUT OF DISTRICT fundraising... I wonder who he represents, me (his constituent) or someone in another district. You can't possibly tell me that there aren't others, and increasing the size or leaving the size the same will not help. So in addition to redistricting, I am in favor of finance reform that is transparent and regulate the amount that can be raised out of district to 25%. I am not in favor, however, of removing lobbyists, and here's why. I want to know who is selling their vote. If you ban lobbyists, the money goes under the table. There would be no way of knowing who is on the take. The limitation of 25% out of district fundraising would at least curb the purchasing of votes, no matter what size the legislature is. That's real campaign finance reform, but obviously that's not going to happen overnight. In the meantime, shrinking the assembly for 2010 through the following census would be the place to start the crusade to an equitable and accurate representation of the people of Wisconsin.

Posted 01/17/09 Greg L Appleton, WI

I agree that there has to be an end to outside money. I wholeheartedly think that we should limit candidates to only accepting bribes (I mean contributions) from residents of the district they wish to represent.

Posted 01/20/09 rickrich Janesville, WI

Mark, While you personally may know the right candidates to vote for, your example of Dr. Paul, etc... The vast majority of voters are too uneducated on such matters. Take for example the last U.S. Congressional elections. Despite Congress having a 13% approval rating, plus having them not listen to the American public demanding no bailout, over 80% of incumbents were voted back in ! And on finance reform, the same politicians who are in charge of the "reform" are taking the bribes..I mean campaign contributions in exchange for votes on their bills. Meaningful finance/lobbyist/transparency reform will never happen.

Posted 01/21/09 MarkStrand4Liberty Lomira, WI

Rick, I thought that was why the C$L was formed, to educate the public on such things! That is the purpose of THIS organization. The things I am asking of the organization are to educate the public on the errors of the past. Why does "reform" need to be enacted at the federal level first anyways? Do you have the state approval ratings? I'm sure that they are much different than the national numbers (or possibly not, to be honest I don't know). Why does "reform" need to come from politicians? I recall in Milwaukee the Tom Ament fallout, leading to Scott Walker becoming the County Executive and changes to the state pension plan that were NOT reformed by politicians, but by an activist group Citizens for RESPONSIBLE GOVRNMENT. Meaningful reform CAN happen. I'm just not educated enough on my own to organize such a reform, which is the basis of why I am here...if anyone is out there that knows how to begin such a revolution for reform, please contact me.

Posted 01/23/09 rickrich Janesville, WI

Mark, don't misunderstand me. My definition of the revolution is voting out the elected officials that are making deals with special interest groups that result in bigger government. The reform I was referring to that I don't think will happen is meaningful finance reform. Yes, I think educating the public is needed and a big part of the answer.

Posted 01/25/09 MarkStrand4Liberty Lomira, WI

Again, Rick, look at the Tom Ament pension scandal, reform lead by citizens. How can you have such a defeatest attitude without even trying? I thought this was an open forum for likeminded people to share ideas to better improve government. Nothing would ever get "reformed" if people did not offer alternatives, discuss, then act on those alternatives. I guess you see the reform glass half empty, while I see it as half full. My belief that we are better served with fewer "representatives" who currently share almost none of our viewpoints is a positive step in the right direction. I believe that a cap must be set on accepting contributions from out of your district must be set. I also believe that when the two are combined lobbyists, special interest groups, and unions will have to run their own candidates against honest people with integrity and honor with a desire to serve the public interest. For the most part, I think that the person with the best moral character will prevail. And that would be a crowning acheivement in any state.

Posted 02/13/09 pblumel Atlantis, FL

Term limits are definitely a reform to consider. As you probably know, Ron Paul was (and is) a pioneer on the issue of Congressional term limits. See http://www.campaignforliberty.com/blog.php?view=10943. - Philip Blumel

Posted by MarkStrand4Liberty on 10/24/09

I'm happy to report that things are finally starting to look brighter in my personal life. It has been one year since my wife and I moved out of our (really, Wells Fargo owned it while we attempted to make payments) home. I have learned and grown so much in the last year. I learned that buying a home with zero down is never a good idea, especially when the home you buy needs repairs and you have decent credit but zero savings. Losing a lower management position at the local grocery store didn't help either. Neither did having 2 new vehicles with 6 year loans and vehicle payments over $850 a month. Hey, at least we were buying American and not paying any interest. I think my wife and I were caught up in what a lot of other Americans were, impressing people that could care less, and spending more than we were making because it was the thing to do.

My wife also lost her position at the local hospital, and has been under-employed since then. That was in May of 2008. I was unemployed from April 2007 until July 2007, then underemployed (I was lucky to work 10 hours a week until May!) from January 2008 until June 2008. We literally lost everything we had worked for last October when we filed for bankruptcy.

We are people that always paid our bills on time until it was no longer possible. I think a lot of people are in a similar position. We have received a lot of greif about filing bankruptcy and putting the burden of our debts on other consumers. It was a decision that has kept me awake at night. I sleep much better now, and have learned many valuable lessons that I am now teaching to my kids.

The American Dream of having it all and paying for it as you go is no longer a dream, it's a nightmare, especially when you're faced with job changes. I'm thankful that my wife and I are young enough to recover from our losses. She has returned to college, and I plan on returning to better solidify our prospects of advancement, once we have all recovered from "the Great Recession." My dream now is to live within our means, use credit only as an absolute last resort instead of a way of life, and to go without unless and until we can pay cash. Eventually, I would like to see our state government do the same, as well as our Federal Government.

When I hear people say that the US is the richest country in the world and we can afford it, I laugh. When does spending the most (on credit) make anyone wealthy? When companies claim to make a profit, is it a cash profit or a credit profit? Does printing more money mean you have more money or does it mean that you have less purchasing power? If you give someone a minimum wage increase of 100% over a decade and you have struggled to get to where you are and not received the same 100% increase in pay over a decade, does that make goods and services more or less expensive?  How can a person get ahead and save when everything is taxed to the hilt and inflation is rampant. Doesn't anyone else notice these things? These are questions I am requiring my representatives too think about before voting on legislation that makes the middle class and working class into the second class of America.

Posted 10/27/09 ToddWelch Baldwin, WI

Mark, Glad to hear you are learning from your mistakes, that is the number one thing that many people do not do. I strongly recommend that you read the book "Total Money Makeover" by Dave Ramsey as it is a life changing book if you take it to heart.

Posted by MarkStrand4Liberty on 07/27/09

I took my 2 kids to Atwater park in Milwaukee (we originally went to see the Air Show, but couldn't find anywhere to park). I saw a younger kid knock an empty bottle of water onto the ground, and as I passed it up, the Grandmother or Aunt of the kid who dropped it thanked me and said that was very kind of me. I think she was shocked that I did what I did for her son, because they were a different skin color than we were. If you read the Journal Sentinal, a commentator named Eugene Kane often writes about how racially divided the city is, but in the same article will call upscale areas like Whitefish Bay "White Folks Bay". So first off, Eugene, if you don't like it here, leave. Secondly, I spent a lot of my childhood in Milwaukee, and growing up as one of the only white kids on the block, I have dealt with adversity, racial slurs,etc. My advice is to get over it, ignorant people often call other people ignorant things because they are ignorant. I guess I could say I have seen it from a lot of different angles, and that people choose to be prejudice, for whatever advantage they think they can get from it.

Now that I have that out of the way, I am not being prejudice (reference the above disclaimer statement), but it is time to use the funds that have been appropriated 4 years ago and secure our borders. Yes, I said borders, both sides, all sides! I say this because we need to know who is here in order for any other reform to work. I think that border security is the one thing that is being completely ignored by nearly everyone. We can't say we have fair elections, we can't fix health care, social security or the economy until the border is fixed. We can't win the war on drugs or the war on terrorism until we fix the border, because the people who want to do us harm that aren't here legally get here through our leaky border partol system. And even when our border patrol does apprehend a bad actor, the border patrol are the ones prosecuted.

I have a resource for anyone who is interested in finding out more about illegal immigration. I don't want to take credit for someone else's work, and found this site to be extremely enlightening.

www.usillegalaliens.com has a well thought out breakdown of the effects of illegal immigrants here in the US. I highly reccommnend it.

Posted by MarkStrand4Liberty on 07/17/09
Last updated 07/19/09

I have read several articles pertaining to education in the past few months, and it makes me think, with all of the money being spent on education, is it just me or are kids getting dumber by the class? It isn't my intention to label people, but in my line of work, I deal with a lot of younger people. I'm not seeing a very bright future for a lot of them. I would like to make a few points about what the problem is, what's been done about the problem of public education, and what can be done better.

I honestly believe that each class of students has an equal amount of intellect and capacity. The potential is there for kids to learn. I think the problem with our current education system is that teachers are teaching to the lowest intellect, and dragging the rest of the students to that pace. It is my belief that laws like "no child" have prevented a lot of the potential growth in a lot of kids. I saw it happening when I was in school, teachers teaching the answers to standardized testing, and that's it. All the quizzes and tests were multiple guess or fill in the blank. Teachers unions, government mandates and the culture of everybody's a winner have taken away the opportunities of many kids, and I feel that environment has gone from kindergarden through Masters degrees. Teach to the test, no one fails if they show up. If you are a teacher, please, see the potential in each kid and help them help themselves.

Another problem that I see with the way we teach our kids is the lack of parent involvement. Until recently, you could say I was guilty of that as well. But without Moms AND Dads taking time each day just to listen to your kids read, or helping them with a math problem, you won't know what they are learning, or what they are missing. My oldest son is going into second grade next year. He reads at a fifth grade level, comprehends and has a very wide vocabulary. He also lacks good penmanship and fine motor skills. Had I not been involved, would I know these things?

Yet another problem exists, and that is guidance counselors pushing 4 year traditional college on EVERY high school student, or handing them the drop out papers. Yeah, I've known people from both sides of this one, and it makes me sick to think that an educated adult would ever give up on someone at the age of 15. I don't believe that we are all here to get a 4 year degree. In fact, 4 out of the top 5 jobs in need require an associates degree, not a bachelors, along with practical training, not theory. I believe that a lot of high school aged people are missing an opportunity by going to a traditional college when the jobs are coming from the technical side. Sorry, but not everyone can be a doctor, however we need nurses and specialists. We need engineers. We need truck drivers. We need skilled machinests. We need people with specialized skill sets, not just the basic broad spectrum, and the technical college system can meet those needs. Yet all we ever hear about is tuition going up and more money being subsidized to the 4 year schools.

The biggest positive change that I can see being made is taking the tax dollars away from Washington and away from Madison and keeping those dollars in the district. It is my belief that school tax dollars should be collected and distributed within the school district. This way, the dollars can't be misappropriated fo this initiative or that over run cost. Wisconsin, under Governor Doyle, has greatly increased public school spending, yet we have not seen better results. In conclusion, there is a lot more we could be doing in Wisconsin a lot better when it comes to educating our kids.