Fed grant for 94 South is nice. But Walker won't say what's getting left behind

I saw this note cross the wires today out of Senator Baldwin’s office, and my eyes perked up a bit.

After advocating for federal investments to improve Wisconsin infrastructure, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin today applauded a $160 million Infrastructure for Rebuilding America (INFRA) Grant that will be awarded to the Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WisDOT) to assist in funding construction of the I-94 North-South Freeway Project in Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee Counties.

In October 2017, Senator Baldwin wrote to Secretary of Transportation Elaine Chao on the importance of this grant for Southeastern Wisconsin in supporting our state and local economies, connecting workers to their jobs and facilitating the transportation of goods throughout the region.

“Maintaining our transportation infrastructure is crucial to economic growth in Wisconsin. That’s why I’m proud to work across party lines to secure needed funding for our state’s infrastructure,” said Senator Baldwin. “This investment will ensure that the I-94 freeway can continue to play a vital role in helping manufacturers and small businesses transport their products to the markets they serve, connecting workers to job opportunities and strengthening our Made in Wisconsin economy.

Within an hour, Governor Walker’s office was out with their own release saying that these gifts from DC would allow for great progress in fixing the state’s roads and highways.

“Our plan is to invest in more highway projects, nearly 50 more local bridge projects, and complete the I-94 North-South project years ahead of schedule with this funding,” Governor Walker said. “This is great news for Wisconsin. Not only are we keeping projects on time, we’re actually going to be able to do more projects across the state and get them done faster.”...

The record-setting federal grant for Wisconsin will open all lanes to traffic by Memorial Day weekend of 2020 with full completion by 2021, 11 years ahead of schedule. The I-94 North-South expansion project began in 2008 and stretches 36 miles from the city of Milwaukee past the Wisconsin/Illinois state line. The Wisconsin Department of Transportation applied for this grant in October 2017.

[Wisconsin also received] $67.4 million in supplemental highway funds and redistribution funds, $30 million of which is planned by WisDOT to fund 49 more local bridge projects throughout the state.

Well, I guess pork from DC isn’t so bad for you these days, is it Scotty?



It’s important to go back to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau’s summary of the Fox-con bill, to see how the state money set aside as part of that package needed this grant in order to be freed up.

The Act authorizes $252,400,000 in general fund-supported, general obligation bonds, which may be used for the I-94 North-South corridor project in the southeast Wisconsin freeway megaprojects program. The Act creates a general fund-supported, sum sufficient appropriation that would pay any debt service associated with the issuance of these bonds and specifies that the Department of Transportation (DOT) may not expend the proceeds from the bonds authorized under this provision unless the state receives an award of federal moneys for the I-94 North-South corridor project.

Well, that certainly seems to be satisfied from today’s announcement.

There was originally a second part to paying for I-94 by giving the Joint Finance Committee the ability to hold a hearing and/or keep those funds from being released. But Walker issued a partial veto that conveniently keeps Joint Finance from potentially having to talk about whether this $160 million is enough to get I-94 South done by 2021, or other DOT projects that will have to be delayed in order to get it done in 3 years. It sure seems like we could use that discussion because this grant award adds more questions than it answers.

The Walker Administration said in its grant application that it needed $246 million from the Feds to finish the I-94 project by 2021, and we didn’t get that. Walker is still claiming that the project will be done at that time, but the leader of the Road Builders called BS on that claim, and demanded more info on the DOT’s plans.

Craig Thompson, executive director of the Wisconsin Transportation Development Association, said he was pleased the state was getting more money for I-94, but noted the project is behind schedule.

"To claim that this is 11 years ahead of schedule is simply not true," he said.

Thompson also said his organization wants to find out more about how the state will fund the freeway work because Wisconsin did not get all the money it sought.

"Where that other (money) is going to come from is a great question — and how it impacts other projects around the state," he said.

And the Fox-con bill gives a reason why this throws funding for the I-94 project and others up in the air. Because says now that this grant has been approved, it largely leaves it up to the DOT (and Governor’s) discretion how the rest will be paid for.

Although the administration indicates that these bonds could be used as the state match for a potential federal "FASTLANE" ("INFRA") grant that would fund remaining work on the I-94 North-South corridor project, any award of federal moneys for this project, in the 2017-19 biennium or beyond, could provide DOT with the authority to use these bond proceeds. For instance, if the state did not receive a "FASTLANE" grant, but instead received some amount of federal redistribution aid for this project, it is possible that the receipt of the additional aid could be interpreted as satisfying the criteria required to expend the bond proceeds.

You may remember that the Walker Administration asked last year for $341 million in money left over from completed/abandoned projects from the US DOT in the form of “redistribution aid.” I ripped the hell out of this plan at the time, as this would be 10 times the amount that the state usually gets in a given year, and it underscored the desperate situation that Walker and WisGOP had put the state in by failing to generate enough money to fix the roads.

Well, we got twice what we usually get in redistribution funds, but it was still less than what we allegedly needed to finish to I-94 South, and Walker’s press release indicated that some of those redistribution funds would go to other projects and needs. And the Walker folks aren’t saying how they’ll fill this gap.

Tom Evenson, a spokesman for Walker, said other projects won’t be sidetracked because the state got less than it hoped from the federal grant. Evenson wrote that the state plans to re-allocate existing transportation cash “that will allow funds to be available for the (project) while not delaying any other road projects in the state.”

Walker, speaking to reporters Wednesday, said the gap will be partly covered by other funding sources identified by the Department of Transportation.

Translation - "We don't have a clue how we're paying for the rest of this and we don't want to admit other projects in the state will be worked on as a result of concentrating on I-94 South near Foxconn." They're just praying some other Magic Dollars come along to bail them out, or that no other problems crop up between now and November that expose them even further on the roads issue.



What it seems like to me is (WARNING- hackneyed sports analogy coming) that the Walker Administration tried for a Hail Mary in the form of getting all of their INFRA and redistribution requests to be filled. Well, the pass got completed, but the receiver only got to the 10-yard line, so there was no score on the play. Now the half is over, and so the overall game really hasn't changed.

While the federal money is nice and helps for the short-term, it's not enough on its own to get I-94 done, and we deserve to know what else in the state is going to be delayed because all of this money will be sent to the Foxconn-sin region. And we deserve to know how far short our state funding will fall in meeting the needs of the rest of the state, so we can stop the Walker/WisGOP habit of kicking the can further down the road and watching more Scott-holes pop up with each year.

Social Security "insolvent"? DEAD WRONG. In fact, it's healthier than last year

I saw this tweet from the Associated Press yesterday, and a similar meme appear in “Forbes”, and had to respond.

BREAKING: Government: Medicare will become insolvent in 2026, three years earlier than expected, Social Security to follow in 2034.

— The Associated Press (@AP) June 5, 2018

First of all, THOSE PROGRAMS WILL NOT BE INSOLVENT. The dates that the AP are noting is the date that the Trust Fund for those programs falls to $0. When that happens, it simply means that 1 or more of the following things (and it can be done earlier to keep the Trust Fund above $0 for a longer period of time).

1. Raise taxes that are designated for these programs
2. Cut benefits to current and future recipients
3. Use regular income taxes to pay for some/all of the program (like we do for ALMOST EVERY OTHER FEDERAL PROGRAM)
4. Borrow/print the money (which we do to fund our deficits already)

That is not insolvency…unless some evil legislators choose not to allow Americans to get anything back from all of the Social Security and Medicare taxes they have paid for decades. Yeah, can’t see that happening (I would invest in guillotine futures if Congress or a president put together a serious effort to try it).

I’ll concentrate on the Social Security side for this post (I may get into Medicare at a later point). If you dig into that report from the Social Security trustees, you’ll find that both OASI (what we general call “Social Security”) and DI (what we general call “Disability”) actually ran “profits” last year.

Social Security, Disability balances, 2017
Social Security
Social Security payroll taxes $706.5 billion
Taxes on Social Security benefits $35.9 billion
Interest of trust fund investments $83.2 billion
Total $825.6 Billion

Social Security payments $798.7 billion
Soc Security Admin, other payments $8.0 billion
Total $806.7 Billion
NET GAIN $18.96 BILLION

Disability
Disability payroll taxes $167.1 billion
Taxes on Disability benefits $2.0 billion
Interest of trust fund investments $1.9 billion
Total $171.0 Billion

Disability payments $142.8 billion
Disability Admin, other payments $3.0 billion
Total $145.8 billion
NET GAIN $25.14 BILLION

In addition, the trustees say Disability is now projected to pay its full amount for an additional 4 years without the need for any changes in the law. And the reason why is noteworthy.

The change in the reserve depletion date for DI is largely due to continuing favorable experience for DI applications and benefit awards. Disability applications have been declining steadily since 2010, and the total number of disabled-worker beneficiaries in current payment status has been falling since 2014. For this report, ultimate disability incidence rate (the percentage of people who go on disability) assumptions are unchanged from the last report. However, this year’s report has lower incidence rates over the first few years of the projection period, and a gradual rise from recent low levels, reaching the ultimate DI incidence rates by the end of the short-range period. In addition, average benefit levels for disabled-worker beneficiaries were lower than expected in 2017, and are expected to be lower in the future. Disabled-worker average benefit level were somewhat elevated in 2011 through 2016 due to reduced numbers of hearings decisions (where monthly benefit levels tend to be relatively low), as the number of applicants awaiting a hearing increased. In 2017, hearings decisions increased, thus restoring a more normal, and somewhat lower, average benefit level for disabled workers newly awarded benefits in 2017…These changes, which are partially offset by lower payroll tax revenue in the near term, are primarily responsible for the change in the DI reserve depletion date from early in 2028 in last year’s report to late in 2032 in this year’s report.

That sounds like good news. Fewer people are going on Disability (so shove that RW talking point up your ass), and the average Disability payment was lower than expected, so there is no immediate need for the rules to be changed.

As for OASDI, (aka the combined totals of “Social Security” and “Disability”), the demographic issues of retiring Boomers starts to get mitigated in 20 years as the smaller Gen X generation hits retirement age.

Projected OASDI cost increases more rapidly than projected non-interest income through 2039 primarily because the retirement of the baby-boom generation will increase the number of beneficiaries much faster than the number of covered workers increases, as subsequent lower-birth-rate generations replace the baby-boom generation at working ages. From 2040 to 2052, the cost rate (the ratio of program cost to taxable payroll) generally declines because the aging baby-boom generation is gradually replaced at retirement ages by subsequent lower-birth-rate generations. Thereafter, increases in life expectancy cause OASDI cost to increase generally relative to non-interest income, but more slowly than between 2010 and 2039.

Yep, my generation really is the “middle children of history” (although I’d argue against the “no Great Depression” statement after the 2008 meltdown).

Hey, I always am up for a reason to insert "Fight Club" clips.

As for the panicky talk about “costs will be more than benefits in 2018”, it’s largely due to a one-time flattening of incoming revenues on payroll taxes in 2018 (only up 1.1% vs 4.1% last year). In 2019, Social Security is bolstered by receiving a bit more of the 12.4% in payroll taxes that are paid (likewise, Disability gets less, which is why its Trust Fund starts dropping next year), and Social Security is projected to be profitable for 2019.

And yes, the Piece of Shit tax bill passed by the GOP Congress and signed by President Trump also will hurt Social Security’s finances in the coming years, as the trustees note.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Public Law 115-97, was enacted on December 22, 2017. This law will have several effects on the actuarial status of the OASDI program. The law reduces tax rates for individuals, alters the tax brackets and their indexing, and repeals the individual mandate of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. The repeal of the individual mandate is expected to cause some individuals to drop their employer sponsored health insurance, which is estimated to increase OASDI covered wages and taxable payroll slightly. The tax rate and tax bracket changes will affect income to the trust funds from taxation of Social Security benefits. Because the law reduces tax rates through 2025, and the tax bracket thresholds will grow more slowly in the future due to the change in indexing, income from taxation of benefits relative to last year’s report is decreased through 2025 and increased thereafter. In addition, temporary changes for certain small businesses will have effects on reported self-employment income. As a whole, the law has a significant net negative effect on the financial status of the OASDI program over the short-range projection period and a negligible net positive effect over the long-range projection period.

So it’s not just because of lower revenues and higher future deficits that the GOP Tax Scam has threatened Social Security, but because of a few direct provisions in the law itself. Yes, you have a right to be angry about that.

Another issue that the trustees bring up is that with Trump rescinding DACA and trying to limit immigration, this will reduce the number of people paying into Social Security, both now and in the future. That’s another strain that wasn’t in the forecast when the last report was made, and something that could be cleaned up quickly with an immigration reform bill …if Paul Ryan and other Republicans in Congress cared more about the big picture instead of wanting the votes of xenophobes and other trash.

Now, even with the reallocation of funds starting next year, Social Security is projected to start paying out more than it takes in starting in 2020, and Disability starts running a deficit in 2019. These may be things to note and possibly adjust, but let’s also remember that there is a lot of money that is set aside in both trust funds to pay all benefits IN FULL for more than a decade.

Trust Funds total
Social Security $2.82 Trillion
Disability $71.5 Billion

As we saw in 2017, that money can gain interest before it is used. In a time of rising interest rates, this may end up bolstering that trust fund total in at least the next couple of years.

Lastly, let’s not forget that there are a lot of people not paying the full 6.2% into Social Security/Disability. And no MAGAs, it isn’t “illegals” or people on welfare, but it’s the richest Americans. Once someone makes $128,400 in 2018, he/she won’t pay another dollar toward Social Security/Disability, meaning that person gets an extra tax break on top of what you were already given by the GOP Tax Scam. If you look at the 2016 stats, slightly more than 5% of Amercian wage earners get this backdoor tax cut from the Social Security cap.

Seems like “scrapping the cap” would be an easy solution for the future, and possibly combined with a minor cut in what 95% of us are currently paying into these programs. You want to talk about real “tax reform” that improves the lives of Americans, that sure sounds like it. Bottom line, Social Security and Disability is actually in better shape than it was this time last year, but it’s being needlessly endangered by GOP giveaways to their rich, corporate donors. All it takes is some simple tweaks to the current system to put things on even better footing for the next 40 years.

But as a certain “non-Democrat” put it a few years ago, there are right-wing interests that want an unknowing media and populace to be scared that Social Security and Disability is endangered, and give up benefits that WE ARE OWED, to make us the indentured servants to the rich and corporate.

Listen to Bernie, and don’t fall for the “Social Security is in crisis” BS that is sure to be trotted out by Paul Ryan and other right-wing hacks in the coming days.

It can't be ignored any more - local governments being "strangled" under big govt WisGOP rule.

Local officials have been drawing attention to the funding issues that have resulted from a state-mandated system that seems to have failed to keep up the realities of the 2010s. This system forces the property tax to be the main source of locally-generated revenue, and since coming to power in 2011, the Wisconsin GOP has put a lower ceiling on how much the property tax can be raised in a community in an attempt to keep those taxes low. But at the same time, the WisGOPs have refused to make up the difference in state aids, which means that local governments often don’t have as much money as they need to maintain services.

The Wisconsin Policy Forum recently looked at this issue, and noted that there is a noticeable difference across Wisconsin communities based on how much new development has happened in those places. Revenues can frequently only be raised by the amount of new construction that happens in a community in a given year, and if the community isn’t growing, then the WPF notes that some of its services suffer.

Policy Forum researchers separated the state’s cities and villages into four categories according to new construction growth. From 2011-2016, cities and villages with the highest growth – over 1.5% net new construction annually – increased property tax levies by a median of 17.9%, while the slowest-growth municipalities increased levies by just 3.2%. The report found that total municipal spending patterns mirrored levy growth, with the highest-growth municipalities spending a median 18.3% more, while the lowest-growth communities spent 3.9% more.

Although levy increases and total spending patterns mirrored total new construction growth, spending priorities differed by the rate of development. For example, while all municipalities increased spending on public safety, transportation spending varied depending on new construction growth, with the highest increases in communities with medium-low and high development.

Significantly, the report shows spending on economic development increased substantially more in high-growth municipalities compared to lower-growth areas. Low-growth communities decreased development spending by a median of 3.1% while spending in high-growth areas doubled.

Levy limits appear not to have constrained communities of any growth rate from maintaining spending on core services, such as public safety. But, the report cautions, a lack of new construction, and the additional property tax revenues that come with it, may be making it difficult for low-growth municipalities to spend more on programs to attract development. Conversely, high-growth municipalities have been able to increase levies, and spending, due to that growth. The analysis does not prove that levy limits are hampering economic development in some communities, but cautions that as these trends continue, they may contribute to a growing gap between high-and low-growth municipalities.

Which leads to a self-perpetuating cycle, where communities that can pay for extras and economic development get the added business that allows them to invest even more in those amenities. But the communities that haven’t grown have little way to dig themselves out of the hole. Given that a majority of Wisconsin cities and villages have lost population since 2010, which is when the tightest of the levy limits have been in place, that makes for a lot of places that are being deinvested.

Last week, Jerry Deschane of the League of Wisconsin Muncipalities hosted a roundtable that was broadcast on Wisconsin Eye. The title was telling: “Strangled by Levy Limits: Local Decisions in Cities and Villages Impacted by Levy Limits.”

Here’s some of the video from that discussion, and I’ll also include some highlights from the LWM’s press release that accompanied the program.

In response to a question, Deschane stated he would ask League members to stop being so diplomatic when they talk with candidates about this topic. “For years, citiesand villages have been making it work. It’s time to start telling the stories we told today. Municipalities need a more diverse revenue system, a more locally controlled system and that’s the question for candidates.”

In South Milwaukee, with a baseoperating levy of $10,774,142, the city was allowed to increase their spending under levy limits by just $9,688 last year according to Mayor [Erik] Brooks. When asked what the impact on his city would be if there were no changes, Brooks stated “You worry about all the things that governments do.... That problem neighbor you have whose lawn is a foot tall, we may notget to it as often and now its two feet tall. It may not be a draconian cut, but it’s a little slice here and there and it all adds up.”…

The City of Clintonville is a smaller community illustrative of many Wisconsin communities who, in an effort to be responsive to their citizens and retain services, are more and more dependent on borrowing. “We’re working very hard to lower our tax rate and we are looking primarily at our debt load. We’re down to bare bones. We can’t make some of the improvements that we need,” City Administrator [Sharon] Eveland said and she went on to talk about delays in needed road repairs.

Mayor Brooks concluded by saying, “Residents expect a level of service, I want to deliver that level of service but I can’t. We need flexibility and support from Madison to deliver that level of service.”

This lack of flexibility helps to explain the explosion in wheel taxes that have hit Wisconsin, resulting in state residents shelling out nearly $14 million more to register their vehicles over the last 6 years. It's either that or even more potholes and cuts in other services beyond what we are already seeing.

This is where I remind you that Wisconsin Republicans are using $48 million in tax dollars in this budget to prop up the state lottery, just so they can say "your property taxes may be $2 less than in 2014." I'll also remind you that a bill that would allow local governments to put in a 0.5% sales tax earmarked for road repairs has also been buried in the GOP Legislature for several years. A local city or town sales tax would make out-of-towners to pay for some of the roads and other services that they use, instead of putting all of the burden onto the residents of the community.

But Republicans don't seem to care much about dealing with that reality, and allowing the freeloading to continue. Which means that if you want to see local Wisconsin governments start to fill the potholes, have other infrastructure upgrades, and have parks and other amenities that make communities worth living in, you'll have to get new people in charge at the Capitol that will take the handcuffs off of those communities. The current system of "grow as much as possible to increase tax base" is causing a two-tier situation that benefits an increasingly smaller amount of Wisconsinites, while most of the rest of are falling behind. It's gotta go.

WBA is wrong two ways - 1. Trying to narrow Dem guv field 2. Making MU Law Poll the one to trust

Not that straw polls of hundreds of party members are the best way to measure if a candidate is leading or losing in the real world (hi there, 2012 Iowa GOP straw poll winner Michele Bachman!), but they do serve as at least a minor indication of who that crazy subsection of the party likes.

Which makes it noteworthy that Kelda Roys was able to consolidate enough support to get the most votes out of any candidate in the straw poll held at the Democratic Party of Wisconsin’s convention in Oshkosh over the weekend

.@wispolitics #WisDems18 straw poll:

Kelda Roys: 184
Mahlon Mitchell: 93
Tony Evers: 91
Andy Gronik: 89
Dana Wachs: 89
Kathleen Vinehout: 83
Mike McCabe: 81
Matt Flynn: 71
Josh Pade: 7
Paul Soglin: 1

— Patrick Marley (@patrickdmarley) June 2, 2018

But Roys' total was less than ¼ of the total votes cast, and also notice that 7 of the 10 candidates that are on the ballot for the Dem primary received at least 10 percent of the votes cast. That means things are still very much up in the air, and that few candidates seem to be at the “no chance” level with 10 weeks left to go before the August 14 primary.

Enter the Wisconsin Broadcasters’ Association - who thinks it’s found the way to narrow that crowded field in time for the debate it is sponsoring next month.

Up to the top four (4) candidates in the Democratic gubernatorial race and Republican U.S. Senate race in the Marquette University Law School Poll (the Poll) released closest to the date of the debate will be considered as significant candidates if the other criteria set forth below are met.

O In the event that there is a tie in the Poll for the final positions in the debate, the selection among those candidates tied in the polling will be made based on which of these candidates have raised the most campaign funds according to the state and federal campaign finance reports released closest to the date of the debate.

·All candidates must be qualified for the office that they seek under federal and state law and shall either have (1) qualified for a place on the ballot or (2) demonstrated that they are bone fide write-in candidates through criteria including making appearances at rallies and campaign events statewide, having taken established positions, and provided campaign literature on a wide array of public issues, and having a substantial campaign organization including offices statewide.

·Candidates who have not raised at least $250,000 campaign funds according to state and federal campaign finance reports released closest to the date of the debate will not be considered significant candidates.

In addition to the eye-rolling decision to make money a major part of the “viability” equation (who cares about quality of the wishes of the voters?), that’s quite a shrinking of the field. And Dems did not appreciate the WBA jumping in and making this decision.

The Wisconsin Democratic Party called on the Wisconsin Broadcasters Association to reconsider.

"This is not a fair and democratic way to go," party spokeswoman Melanie Conklin said. "With these criteria it is actually quite possible than an eventual nominee is excluded from their debates."…

A spokesman for the association said the group was preparing a response to the criticism and calls for candidates to skip the event. No other broadcast debates have been announced in advance of the primary.

Ross, the liberal group [One Wisconsin Now’s] leader, said it was unfair to rely on a single poll as the primary criteria for debate inclusion. He's long questioned the merits of the Marquette poll and Charles Franklin, the pollster who leads it.

"It's not up to the broadcasters to determine who the viable candidates are and it's certainly not up to Charles Franklin," Ross said.

And Scot Ross is absolutely right. What gives the Marquette Law School poll precedence over ever other survey? If we don’t know when that poll will be taken or who is paying for it, why should it get “voice of authority” status?

Even Charles Franklin himself said that the WBA’s plan to use the MU Law poll as a velvet rope for admission to its Dem governor’s debate was a bad idea.

From Marquette Law School Poll Director Charles Franklin pic.twitter.com/CsLSYT4c8u

— Charles Franklin (@PollsAndVotes) June 4, 2018

But there’s another reason we should be suspicious of using MU Law School Polls to guide our decision-making in elections and coverage. Go back to the start of the 2010s, and go 90 miles from MU’s west, when the Bradley Foundation front group WPRI (a group which has nauseatingly rebranded itself as the Badger Institute) tried to use the good name of UW-Madison to shade the findings of UW PoliSci professor Ken Goldstein. Bruce Murphy recounted this sketchiness in Urban Milwaukee before the 2012 elections.

But liberals were suspicious of the university lending its name — and star scholar — to a conservative think tank. Scot Ross, who then ran the liberal advocacy group One Wisconsin Now, requested Goldstein’s emails with [then-WPRI leader Gordon] Lightbourn, and found a couple eyebrow raisers, as the Associated Press reported.

Goldstein’s poll showed a majority of state residents opposed school choice, but Lightbourn demanded that Goldstein run a headline touting the finding that Milwaukee residents favored school choice. The state results were included, if you looked hard enough, but were buried in the report.

Goldstein was also asked to poll people as to whether they would support Tommy [Thompson] if he chose to run against then incumbent Democratic U.S. Senator Russ Feingold [in 2010]. The results showed Thompson was favored by a small margin, and Lightbourn issued a press release claiming the poll showed Thompson would beat Feingold. The emails showed that Goldstein scolded Lightbourn for simplifying the report’s analysis this way.

In reaction, UW officials asked the WPRI to stop using the university’s logo and stopped providing graduate students to work on these polls. Within a year, Goldstein stopped doing polls for WPRI and soon took a job as president of Kantar Media CMAG, a Washington, DC-based political consulting firm. He also teaches at George Washington University.

And so who stepped up in place of Goldstein to do polls in Wisconsin?

Not long after this the Marquette Law School cut a deal with Goldstein’s longtime colleague at UW-Madison’s Political Science Department, Charles Franklin, to do polls for MU. Franklin, who co-founded Pollster.com, is also highly regarded nationally, and has a deal to do polls through the entire 2012 year.

And that drives the concerns of Ross and One Wisconsin Now

Correction: $3.25 million https://t.co/NAYmlGb7oH

— One Wisconsin Now (@onewisconsinnow) June 4, 2018

And unlike UW-Madison, Marquette doesn’t have to release emails which may show similar “behind-the-scenes” discussions on how to report the findings of Charles Franklin's polls (or if they would even be reported at all).

I sure would have liked to see if there was something going on in 2014, when Franklin’s last MU Law poll showed a “surge” for Scott Walker, saying that Scotty had opened up a 7-point lead on Mary Burke among likely voters after polling in the race had shown a toss-up for several months. Even sketchier was that among registered voters, the margin was only 1 point.

I hypothesized at the time that this gave Franklin cover in case Burke won, since that would be within the registered voter poll’s margin of error. In the end, Walker won by a little over 5 points, and I have a hard time not thinking that some people were influenced by the poll’s meme that “Walker’s going to win” and voted for Scotty so they could be on the winning side (or they didn’t vote at all).

Then look at 2016, and the MU Law Poll had Hillary Clinton leading in all 7 polls done in the final 5 months of the campaign, with the final poll 1 week before the election giving a 6-point Clinton lead. Likewise, the MU Law Poll had Russ Feingold leading Ron Johnson in every poll it made of the Senate race, albeit with the last poll having the two candidates within 1 point.

The fact that MU missed in 2016 isn’t a crime, and in fact, the figures showed that there were enough undecideds at the time of the final poll to plausibly allow the GOP candidates (with a nice boost from Russian targeting on social media) to turn the tide and win those elections. But it should mean that Charles Franklin’s polls aren’t be the only item to rely on when it comes to figuring out which Dem candidates for Governor are viable.

On a related note, many news media reports have reported Walker as “having a 47-47 approval rate” based on one Marquette Law Poll that ignored its own finding of a pro-Dem enthusiasm gap and counted on a 2014-type electorate. Maybe media should note that several other polls that have been released this year has Walker between 5 and 10 points underwater. You can bet the analysis of Walker’s frequent tweets would be quite different if media members thought he was losing and desperate (HINT- he probably is).

In addition to the WBA’s flawed criteria on choosing the candidates to interview for governor, we also have a real problem in that there is a vacuum of polling and information on where Wisconsinites stand on the issues and the November elections, at least when it comes to mainstream organizations releasing information.

In that vacuum, one big voice like the MU Law Poll takes up a disproportionate amount of attention from state media, because media can’t help but report poll numbers and similar horse-race stuff (hey, it beats going into issues!). This vacuum is especially apparent in this election cycle, as Charles Franklin and company have become noticeably quiet for 2018.

In 2014, when Republicans were rolling, @MULawPoll had 9 polls before the November 2014 election. With the GOP clearly on the ropes in 2018, they've had one. Guess their secret funders don't want to pay for creating headlines about Democratic enthusiasm.

— One Wisconsin Now (@onewisconsinnow) June 4, 2018

Because there is so little information out there, if some savvy Dem campaigns had information which showed them ahead of Scott Walker and/or outperforming expectations in the Democratic primary, they would be wise to release it in the near future. Especially now that the WBA is trying to narrow the field with their very narrow, poll-and-money based criteria.

See, what Republicans (and their Bradley Foundation allies) understand is that polls can be used as weapons to drive media coverage of issues and elections. It infuriates me that Dems and Dem-leaning groups don’t do the same (Tony Evers is a notable exception - he touted his internal poll showing him leading Walker 49-45 during his speech at the Dem convention). A favorable poll for Dems would be easy “earned media”, and slant coverage toward a trend of “Walker in trouble/losing.”

This is especially true since a lot of Dem primary voters are waiting to see who is ahead and who is flailing in order to strategize their voting and donations. And if the Dems don’t produce these numbers, Bradley and Koch stink tanks and corporate media will give the “information” for them. And you can bet those right-wing groups will use their influence to put out results that try to discourage Dem voters from getting out and change things in 2018.

So maybe the WBA should get out of the way, let all Dems who want to be in their debate show up and speak, and let the voters decide who is a worthy candidate. Or they could use their money to put on their own legitimate polls instead of waiting for the not-quite gold standard numbers from a Marquette Law School, and make some decisions from there. Either option would be better than the idiotic idea that the WBA floated today to shrink the Dems’ race for govrnor to 4 candidates.

Americans still spending more despite mediocre pay raises. What trend breaks first?

Late last week, the US's personal income and spending report came out for April. This is a report I've been keeping my eye on not only because I wanted to see if spending was picking up after the GOP's tax cuts took effect at the start of this year, but also because I've noticed a troubling return to the spendy ways of the mid-2000s for American consumers, and we all should remember how that crashed down by 2007-08.

This month's report had a couple of interesting indications on those fronts. The first is that for the first time since those tax cuts came into effect, we saw a bit of a jump in spending to go along with decent increases in income.

Personal income increased $49.5 billion (0.3 percent) in April according to estimates released today by the Bureau of Economic Analysis. Disposable personal income (DPI) increased $60.9 billion (0.4 percent)and personal consumption expenditures (PCE) increased $79.8 billion (0.6 percent).

Real DPI increased 0.2 percent in April and Real PCE increased 0.4 percent. The PCE price index increased 0.2 percent. Excluding food and energy, the PCE price index increased 0.2 percent.

Granted, some of that spending increase had to do with rising gas prices and consumption. But it's a noted increase from the flatline we saw in consumption in the first couple of months of 2018, and March's increase was also revised up by $12.8 million. So let's see if the tax cuts are finally encouraging people to spend a bit more, because there was little evidence of it until recently.

But on the flip side, incomes continue to rise by less than consumer spending goes up, with the lag being more than $30 million in April (and nearly $38 million if you count interest payments and Social Security taxes). And wages and salaries still haven't seen any notable increase from what we were seeing this time last year, even with lower unemployment and tax cuts.



Which means that the US's savings rate is falling again, back below 3%, like we saw at the end of 2017, before the tax cuts gave a short-time boost due to higher disposable incomes.



Much like how the low unemployment rate and low wage growth isn't a trend that is likely to hold up for much longer, I think that this "low-savings, mediocre income growth, rising housing and gas prices" trend can't continue either.

The three ways this situation will seem to turn out are as follows - 1. Incomes grow and catch up to spending, meaning a 1990s-style economic boom 2. People stop spending so much and start saving more, leading to recession and a bursting of the housing bubble many places are in. 3.Wages pick up but spending does not, meaning inflation first, and then higher interest rates and 1970s-style stagflation after that. And I think we may know which answer is coming by the November elections.

May jobs up, unemployment down. But wages still won't budge

Yesterday featured the release of the May US jobs report. And it was a very good one.

U.S. employers extended a streak of solid hiring in May, adding 223,000 jobs and helping lower the unemployment rate to an 18-year low of 3.8%....

...the report shows that the nearly 9-year-old economic expansion — the second-longest on record — remains on track. Employers appear to be shrugging off recent concerns about global trade disputes.

The job market is also benefiting a wider range of Americans: The unemployment rate for high school graduates reached 3.9%, a 17-year low. For black Americans, it hit a record low of 5.9%.

And unlike recent months, the drop in the unemployment rate was due to people finding work instead of people dropping out of the work force.

Household survey, May 2018
Labor force +12,000
"Employed" +293,000
"Unemployed" -281,000

The 223,000 increase in non-farm payrolls was also a bump up from the last two months of 155,000 and 159,000, which brought the 3-month average back toward the general trend of 180,000 jobs a month that we had for 2017. And when you dig inside the Bureau of Labor Statistics jobs report, it shows a couple of blue collar industries were especially strong.

Employment in construction continued on an upward trend in May (+25,000) and has risen by 286,000 over the past 12 months. Within the industry, nonresidential specialty trade contractors added 15,000 jobs over the month....

Manufacturing employment continued to expand over the month (+18,000). Durable goods accounted for most of the change, including an increase of 6,000 jobs in machinery. Manufacturing employment has risen by 259,000 over the year, with about three-fourths of the growth in durable goods industries.

That's certainly good to hear, and a nice turnaround from the losses we saw in manufacturing in much of 2016. But the flip side is that wages in manufacturing aren't going up much at all. These figures are before accounting for inflation, by the way.

12 month change in wages, manufacturing May 2017-May 2018
All Manufacturing
Average Hourly Wages +1.5%
Average Weekly Wages +1.7%

Durable Goods Manufacturing
Average Hourly Wages +1.7%
Average Weekly Wages +1.5%

Overall wages in the US also continue to stagnate, even with the low unemployment rate.

In May, average hourly earnings for all employees on private nonfarm payrolls rose by 8 cents to $26.92. Over the year, average hourly earnings have increased by 71 cents, or 2.7 percent. Average hourly earnings of private-sector production and nonsupervisory employees increased by 7 cents to $22.59 in May.

That 2.7% nominal increase in wages over the last 12 months is no different than what we've seen since the start of 2016.



Let's also note that inflation has gone up over those two years, and with gas spiking in May, it is very possible that real wages will have declined over the last 12 months (we will find out for sure when the CPI report comes out in a couple of weeks).

One last item that grabbed my attention from the jobs report was a relatively obscure table that is the only place where jobs in agriculture, hunting, fishing and forestry come in. It's in the household survey, and it shows that the number of people who say they are working in these jobs has declined noticeably over the last 2 years. Almost all of this decline has come among people who describe themselves as "self-employed" in their ag-related field, which indicates many people are either going under and/or being bought out.



The unemployment rate in "Agriculture and related private wage and salary workers" is currently at 5.8%, the highest of any sector in the economy. Could be worth checking on to see if the jobs in those industries keep declining, especially as we continue to hear stories about farm bankruptcies piling up in Wisconsin. But that's about the only sector that's seeing difficulty when it comes to people finding work in our current economy.

So the job market remains in good shape, with jobs growth continuing near (OK, slightly below) the levels we have seen for much of the last 5 years, and the unemployment rate continuing to fall. But wage growth keeps lagging and one of those trends is going to have to break - meaning we are heading toward a bubbly and inflationary boom, or a stalling in the economy that stops the consistent 8-year decline that we have seen in the unemployment rate.

Live from Oshkosh

Just pulled into town, getting ready to run the gauntlet of campaign hacks. They tell me I'm big in this town (inside joke, I'm just a lug with a rapid typing finger).

Wish me luck in keeping my sanity around these folks.

At least the view is nice for the "warm-up."