I gotta go along with this. Pay someone a few bucks to post this as a "press release" under their own name so it doesn't look like a campaign being run out of someone's basement.

@Brian -- Did you ever get an answer from him the first time you asked this question? I don't think he reads his own blogs anymore than Jim Sensenbrenner does. This is not a good sign in someone who hopes to be an elected representative.

(The third time you ask this question, I'll answer for Mr. Hovde, to the best of my non-economist abilities.)

These are email blasts or postings spread across many areas of the wide open interweb. Patch is just picking them up and posting them locally. Same with Dan Knodl and Sensenbrenner. If your waiting for a response it's going to be a boring weekend.

That's true, Steve. I notice he's using the 'royal we'.

good catch.

I do that all the time when talking to customers online or over email, it sounds better than "I". Even if the truth is most of the time it's just me doing whatever it is we are discussing.

@Brian -- That's my sense too. They use short-selling to bet against themselves so they're covered for any eventuality. And like Tom Wolfe's Sherman McCoy, they take a little crumb from every transaction, win or lose, and they end up with a nice pile of cake.

This is a great strategy for making money. For running a country and an economy -- not so good.

@Randy.... I agree we should not run the country like a hedge fund, as the government has never been successful at asset allocation models. The most recent examples are Solyndra and including the Chevy Volt production as part of the GM restructuring.

You don't get it, Jay. Man like Mr. Hovde get paid whether an investment goes up or down, whether a company goes under or not. They're the ones who brought us to the great recession of 2008 and now they want to run the country, business as usual.

His are not qualifications I would be bragging about. Especially Mr. Hovde, who somehow is only worried about massive government debt NOW.

That should read 'men' like Mr. Hovde.

And,Randy, the folks in Washington get paid regardless too. The scorched earth was a long time in the making. The fire started when LBJ made Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac quasi-government agencies and the complete burn-out was assured when Bill Clinton removed the firebreak, in place since 1933, the Glass–Steagall Act.

Bankers need regulation, as it is a highly,highly leveraged business. We figured it all out in 1933. But, these smart people in Washington forgot. It is the job of the government to provide that regulation.

Pardon me, Jay, but wasn't it the financial whizz types like Mr. Hovde pestering Government to get its 'regulations' out of the way of business that led to the repeal of Glass-Steagall? And weren't they the ones who made out like bandits by bundling those iffy loans and selling them to some other poor slob? I mean, how do you lose on a deal like that -- you collect interest or you get your collateral back. Who could have predicted the collateral would suddenly be worth a lot less?

This isn't the fault of the 'smart people in Washington'. It's the fault of the smart people on Wall Street lobbying Washington.

A super majority of the 'loan packages' were flowing through Fannie and Freddie at the point of mortgage meltdown. The idea to turn them quasi-governmental(less regulatory in nature) came from LBJ, as a way to fix the balance sheet of the USA, when we were fighting the Vietnam war. So, the Moral Hazard creation(failure to assign/assess the collateral risks/reduced down payments) has its roots in a 1960's political decision to cover-up the cost of war.

@Jay Sykes -- It's amazing that we should agree on something. I do credit the beginning of the long economic slide to LBJ's escalation of the Vietnam war without raising taxes to cover it.

Of course you know there was more to FMA than book-cooking. There was that unfortunate practice by banks of red-lining, which made it difficult to impossible for any minority person to purchase a home in a 'minority' area.

Indeed. They do it by moving money and taking a percentage. It's someone else's 'hard work'.

Moving money isn't 'hard work'?

Just a bit. Perhaps the grave-spinning of hard-working immigrant ancestors could be harnessed for clean energy?

OOPs, I just checked, Baldwin is a stinkin' lawyer and she bats for the other team.

Is Obama's aunt still living in public housing?

I don't know about his aunt, but his brother lives on $12.00 a year. So when Obama said "“Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper, caring for the poor and those in need"......... the "we" must not have included Obama.

That aunt was sister to the father Obama knew for one month of his life and was otherwise estranged.

In your opinion, is Obama to be responsible for the care of all estranged relatives, even when few of us are?

That's a bit over the top, Greg, obtw.

If we all took care of our own, our country would be much better off. This country's major problem is greed and it starts right at the top. To attack one man by using the actions of others is over the top too. I have not made my decision about Hovde, but I do think that everyone should be judged by their own actions, not just by the amount of money they have earned. If you open your eyes you will see that the tea party does not have an exclusive on greed. A lot of what you condemn occurs in the name of environmentalism, social programs and other issues dear to the left. At some point we worker bees should join and attack greed for greed's sake, whatever the source.

Just to add a little info on the aunt:
Describing her relationship with Obama as "close," Onyango said, "President Obama, I am his aunt, I am the only person on earth allowed to pinch his ears and smack him. Not his father, not his mother, not his wife or brother - he'll fight with him. But Auntie is a much honoured person in African culture."
"I have been treated like public enemy number 1. I did not take advantage of the system, the system took advantage of me," she said. "You can take that house. I can be on the streets with homeless people. I did not ask for it (public housing). They gave it to me. Ask your system. I did not create it or vote for it. Go and ask your system."
On why city taxpayers should be burdened with paying for her needs, Onyango said, "This country is owned by almighty God. You people who preach Jesus Christ, almighty God ...are here to help people, help the poor, help other countries and help women. That is what the United States is supposed to do. And you have to give me my right."

Just sayin...

It would be nice if we could take care of everyone around us. That's why our taxpayer dollars fund programs that help and empower those less fortunate. Unfortunately, radical right-wingers like Ayn Rand fanboy Paul Ryan are trying to slash those programs. Why?

I agree we should work to curb greed wherever it rears up. It undermines our government and abuses the rights of others in business.

Empower??? That's where you and I are way apart.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”
― Benjamin Franklin

Greg, our modern society is constructed in a way that values certain types of abilities and skills more than others. Not everyone has the lecture hall/9-5 mindset, nor should they. It takes many different types of people and viewpoints to make a world. While needed, childcare, manual labor, etc., sadly do not have the same pay rates as others. One really cannot raise a family well on $10 or so per hour before taxes.

If someone makes $10/hour before taxes and whose spouse, who made $10-$12/hour loses their job, how will they take care of a sick family member? This is a reality for a lot of people. That's why some of our taxes go to provide Badgercare and/or federal programs. You might say that the person who makes a lower wage as a childcare worker should get a better-paying job, but isn't childcare an important job? Health insurance is so expensive, family coverage especially so. Many families also have to choose between health care and paying bills.

Another sad fact is how we treat stay-at-home parents based on income. A moderate-to-low income parent is demonized for wanting to stay home and raise their children with taxpayer support, but a parent who has income (alone or with a working spouse) sufficient to stay at home is lauded. There's no in-between.

And, if folks like Ms. Hendrick have their way, our state will become Right to Work and wages will dwindle further.

I agree with many of your points. I come from a family that had to do with little. But reality is that the programs, that you tout, are wrought with abuse and you do not seem to understand the concept of killing someone with kindness. Why shouldn't the $10/hr employee work to improve their situation? Lack of ability or lack of ambition? I was taught, if I wanted something I had to work for it and save for it. What part of your social programs promotes anything close to this type of thinking? Our poor have lost perspective of want and need, $100 basketball shoes and food stamps, and people like you encourage their continued actions. Sticking your head in the sand really doesn't help people. I do a lot of service work and I support a lot more, so people are just not numbers to me.

Read Franklin's quote again, I think we are mostly on the same page. But I stand firm that hand-outs do not empower. The cycle of poverty is proof that our system is broken.

Yes, Greg, but what do you call a 'hand-out' versus a hand up? Do you consider publicly funded primary education a hand-out? Without literacy, a person has almost no chance of prospering in life. How about medical care? You can't work if you aren't healthy, and whose fault is it if a working family can't afford health insurance if their employer pays low salary and no health benefits?

I know the 'cycle of poverty' you're talking about -- four and five generations of single-mother families with chronic unemployment and no responsible role models. But they aren't the ones going to be hit the worst by this belt tightening. It's the marginal working poor -- all the way through retirement, if that austerity includes Social Security and Medicare.

As Jesus said, the poor will always be with us. There will always be those who have skill sets/abilities that do not fit within normal social confines--but who sets the confines?

The "cycle of poverty" is an environment without hope, a terrible place in which to live. How does one obtain hope? It is easy to criticize without a similar point of reference.

And I agree with Randy. The current generation of workers will rely on Medicare and Social Security as no others before may have done, because of salary cuts, job loss, etc. And yet these are the programs that radicals in Washington want to cut.

One can provide hope by having a system that is a true safety net rather than a lifestyle. We need a system that works to get people back into the workforce instead of just sustaining them as unemployed people. Perhaps make job skills training one of the jobless benefits.

The 'radicals' in Washington rightly recognize that Medicare is not sustainable in its current form. Social Security is far from financially secure as well. I applaud the progressives in Washington that are thinking outside the box and proposing solutions that will address the sustainability of the programs rather than just applying another band-aid and hoping it stops the bleeding...

The apocryphal--and debunked--"welfare queen" comes to mind when I hear people talk about the tragedy of multi-generational social displacement as a "lifestyle" choice. As if anyone would choose this for their children. We might as well say that people indulge in a "low cognitive function" lifestyle, a "parapalegic" lifestyle, or an "elderly" lifestyle.

I don't believe the people who consider poverty a lifestyle choice are truly cruel, in most instances. A lack of context and/or empathy are most likely at play here. But a vote made in ignorance is just as devastating in its potential impact as one made in cruelty.

If you believe as I do, life is a series of tests. Jesus also said, when you helped a stranger you helped me. I believe that wealth is a test, remembering the wealthy man who wanted to follow Jesus--until he was told to give away his wealth. How we treat people in need defines us as a society. This is why many of us believe that Scott Walker's policies (and nationally) are regressive, moving us away from the mindset of inclusivity and into a more selfish place. We each of us have to decide: whether we want to use our taxpayer dollars to "help a stranger," or not; and if we like what looks back at us in the mirror after making that decision.

The message was to give away your wealth, not to take the wealth of others and give it away

The message was, for that man (the wealthy man), the test of his faith was to be willing to give away his wealth and follow Christ. A true test of the Commandment, "Thou shalt have no other gods before Me." Ultimately the man chose his wealth over Christ.

Now our politics turned into religion. Oh boy. Just add beer and watch what happens.

I understand your points and I enjoy the conversation. My "oh boy" comment was tongue-n-cheek.

A blind nut found a squirl?

Interesting note about the sustainability question: In 1974 1% of the 35-49 population collected Social Security Disability, in 2004 it was 2%. In the same time frame the 50-64 group moved from 2.5% to 3%.

The percent in the 45-49 group has Doubled in 30 years. Since these are percentages, not absolute numbers, what are we doing to create all these additional disabled?

@Jay Sykes -- Not hiring the marginally disabled? Morbidly obese, mentally ill. Simply over 45? Employers prefer young, pretty and fit, and in this market they can take their pick.

I know people who could probably have worked some kind of job, but they hadn't a snowball's chance in hell of being hired or keeping that job. People like that are forced to do what they have to do to survive.

@Randy... Note that it was 1974 v 2004, not v 2011, the economy was just fine. Remember,SS-DI is not designed for people that 'can't find work' or for those of 'traditional retirement age'. If you are right, and all it takes to collect on Social Security Disability Insurance is to not be 'young,pretty and fit', then this country is in BIG BIG trouble. What kind of objective standard of disability is that?

@Jay Sykes -- Perhaps I didn't explain as clearly as I should have. The 'buyer's market' when it comes to hiring has existed for longer than just the current downturn, although it's much worse at the moment. What I'm saying is that the chronic difficulties in getting hired because you're old or not in the best of health may have lead those who legitimately qualified for disability to swallow their pride and apply rather than to keep working at those marginal jobs they were still able to do.

In the case of a relative of mine who was bi-polar, she was quite capable of working when she was on an even keel, but that lasted only a few months and then she'd be let go. And isn't that a disability of its own?

The problem is that it's overwhelming the system.

Brian, art and architectural history were probably the two most useful classes I took in college (I majored in Fine Art) so thank you for doing what you do.