Milwaukee Needs A Tougher Legislative Caucus
There has been no shortage of damaging news stories about people and institutions in the city and county of Milwaukee of late:
Massive scamming of the state-run child care system.
A state social services caseworker impregnating a client.
County government routinely dumping recyclables into landfills. [Another piece of solid disclosure reporting by the Journal Sentinel's Dave Umhoefer. And some of you think you can do without old-fashioned journalism? Get serious.]
City revenue shortfalls through state shared revenue cuts and restrictions on local taxes and fees, based on a report from the Public Policy Forum.
Resolving or adequately addressing these and other urban issues require a strong, coordinated, activist voice in the State Legislature by Milwaukee's representatives and senators - - to initiate legislative fixes, demand better agency oversight, and stand up for the city and county with the Governor.
But over the years there has been a drop-off in legislative representation, both in numbers and effectiveness. A notable exception: breath-of-fresh air newcomer Sandy Pasch, a Democrat who replaced Sheldon Wasserman. Wasserman lost a bid to move out Alberta Darling, the River Hills Repyblican.
Voters have to understand that without more vigorous legislators, Milwaukee and the rest of the state will get stuck with the status quo, and that is simply unacceptable.
Look how long it took to undo the clout of the Milwaukee Police Union at the Capitol to finally rid Milwaukee taxpayers of the unique and unfair burden of paying police officers after their convictions for crimes.
Stronger legislators would have long ago reformed or eliminated the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission which obtains about 17% of its annual budget from City of Milwaukee taxpayers but does not give the city a single seat on the suburban-dominated, 21-member board.
Too many state legislators from Milwaukee are content to go everyday to Madison, serving without an agenda or a sense of urgency, or much of a record to show at the end of the session.
Push is coming to shove in Milwaukee - - city and county and the school system, too - - and along with taxpayers here, will remain scrambling for revenue and initiatives and solutions to real problems until the local legislative delegation shows some backbone and leadership.
7 comments:
But, but, but pretty soon we might have extra sober bartenders. Thanks to Milwaukee Dem Josh Zepnick, or as we may soon call him- Mom.
To Anon:
Two questions:
What's wrong with sober bartenders?
And you do know that Zepnick's sister was killed by a drunk driver?
Not only do legislators need to talk to each other and have a plan, they need to actually work with the common council and friends on the County Boasrd. It seems like they are in their own world--without touching the reality of Milwaukee.
What's wrong with sober bartenders? Nothing. What's wrong with prohibition?
It is terrible that his sister was killed, by a driver. Who was drunk. But he wants to ban bartenders from drinking. He doesn't want to ban drinking. Or cars. Or even bartenders.
Would you support a legislator attempting to ban cell phone salesmen from texting at work, since texting and driving is as dangerous as drinking and driving. Or is it only stupid when its something that affects you.
Zepnick has not cited his personal circumstances, nor should he. Nor should you. Personal tragedy diminishes objectivity.
And while you attempt to make a sympathetic point perhaps you can explain why Zepnick has a fundraiser planned for a bar?
I used to be one to shrug off republican suggestions that democrats want to micromanage our lives. Nanny state, blah, blah, blah. But that doesn't mean we look the other way when one of us tries to get so directly involved in a workplace.
You ask what's so wrong with a sober bartender, like that's even the question.
So how about you answer these questions: What's so wrong with the government leaving the workplace relationship alone, absent evidence of any harm in a practice?
What's so wrong with a guy walking to work (or cabbing, or bussing, or biking, or getting a ride, or whatever) and having a couple of shots on the house, or sharing a couple shots with some girls, or just having a good time at work, if the boss doesn't mind?
What's wrong with leaving the problems of drunk workers in the hands of bosses, rather than the government?
What's wrong with government mandating "sober" bartenders? How about they mandate sober assemblypersons first.
To Anon: Actually, Rep. Zepnick has been very public about his family's loss, and he did so as the issue was taking shape in the legislature this year.
As to sober bartenders: it's a necessity, as bartenders have to make the judgement when a person cannot be served. They have to break up disputes and fights. They need clear heads.
Bars are heavily regulated. The products they serve. The hours they are open. The ages of the patrons.
All for good reasons.
No one is talking prohibition. Just rules and laws that merge the interest of the bar, the patron and the public.
And since bartenders are the enforcers of the rules and the laws inside the estabishgment, they need sober beads.
This is hardly a typical workplace - - though most businesses do not allow their employees to drink on the premises, or during working hours.
Typo in the second-to-last graph: sober heads, not beads.
Its far too late to effectively note this, but I will anyway. I am not opposed to sober bartenders. I am also not opposed to sober secretaries, judges, strippers, or veterinarians.
Or bloggers or assemblydudes. But on what basis is the government stepping in, and why here (as opposed to veterinarians). And the answer is where the right is right about the left. And being of the left, I don't understand fixing a problem that doesn't exist at the cost of being (CORRECTLY) accused of starting the nanny state.
Post a Comment