For Conservatives, Government Is The Problem and The Solution

Inspired by all the recent flurries we’ve had in Wisconsin, John Torinus is back shoveling the yellow snow of economic policy. He begins with two head-scratchers.

“Congress should think twice before getting too generous with weekly unemployment compensation. That’s because manufacturers are already having a hard time finding enough workers to man their factories.”

First, what is “too generous” for weekly unemployment compensation? Recent compensation has been bolstered by the fact that we’re living through a global pandemic. It’s part of a stimulus package to keep workers and businesses afloat. It’s not meant to exist into perpetuity.

Second, it’s been pretty clearly and universally established that manufacturers are having a hard time finding workers because the work is grueling and worth more per hour than the amount they are willing to pay.

Tornius alerts, “The labor shortage is real.”

Again, this is wrong. Pay that is not commensurate with the work that is being asked to be done is real. We have a compensation problem, not a skills shortage or a labor shortage.

Torinus then pretends that stimulus money distributed during the ongoing pandemic has left many just sitting at home collecting checks, and many others just planning to do this forever. This is classic Republican bullshit. They’ve been claiming this garbage forever. Poor and working class are lazy and will stay home if given then chance. Yet, conservatives will bend over backwards to cut taxes and provide incentives to the rich. Remember, The Haves are the job creators and something will eventually trickle down to the poor and working class.

He then talks of the plethora of living wage jobs available for any willing worker. “Employers have also raised starting wages in this area to $14 to $16 per hour.” $15 per hour results in a yearly income of just over $30,000.

Torinus continues with even more drivel, “Yes, it is a noble goal to want a minimum level of income for every adult in the United States. But the better way to get there is through good-paying jobs in the private sector. Government jobs, which always seem to keep growing in number, may be necessary, but they do not propel the economy.”

Last I checked, the private sector has been around a while. We’ve deregulated, cut taxes and genuflected to their omnipotence for decades. Yet, the economy has been a roller-coaster of recessions alongside declining wages and benefits for most workers. And, despite Torinus saying so, the number of government employees has been declining, not increasing. As Fiona Hill, of the Brookings Institution, found, “Contrary to popular belief in the bloated growth of the U.S. public sector, the size of the federal government proportionate to the total U.S. population has significantly decreased over the last 50 years.”

Torinus’ article seems, in the end, to be an elaborate smoke and mirrors, which concludes, somehow, that the government is preventing the private sector from employing more people and also responsible for helping the private sector to employ more people.

He concludes, “We don’t need excessive unemployment compensation if there are lots of open jobs with good pay and benefits. Congress and the president have to get the incentives right. We can’t afford disincentives for working.”

Again, what is “excessive unemployment compensation”? What and where are these “open jobs with good pay and benefits”? Funny, too, that, with Republicans, “We can’t afford disincentives for working.” Yet, the subsidies, tax cuts and giveaways to corporations and billionaires can’t be considered anything but a disincentive and/or welfare. Somehow, in the twisted Republican logic, giving incentives to The Haves is sound economic policy, but giving incentives to those who really need it, is bad for business.

Ad Nauseam Entrepreneurialism

John Torinus has an interesting article, UW System Needs New Kind of Leader, which raises pertinent issues and offers some reasonable options.

The only area I have strong disagreement with is his recommendation to "Emphasize entrepreneurship on each campus. Entrepreneurs re-invent economies, which Wisconsin will need in the rebound from our deepening recession. Some campuses are well down this path."

Entrepreneurship, entrepreneurialism, etc. has been pushed ad nauseam over the past few decades. This serious-sounding talking-point has little supporting evidence. This idea that everyone is a business mogul and everyone should be investing and/or starting a new business or venture, is a big reason this country is so ill-informed, ill-prepared, has crumbling infrastructure, and has seen the environment continually degraded.

The UWM Center for Economic Development performed an exhaustive study debunking the myth of the entrepreneurial university. The Hechinger Report echoed similar findings in Think universities are making lots of money from inventions? Think again. Derek Lowe found similar results for his article Innovation, at Universities and in Industry. Two others whom have studied the issue extensively, Matthew Wisnioski and Lee Vinsel, have noted identical results, most recently in The Campus Innovation Myth.

The "entrepreneurialism" drum is one that we should have stopped pounding long ago.

Self-Indulgent Swindler

Poor Big Business, our mean ole' President is out to get them. At least that's what John Torinus is whining about (yet again!). He claims President Obama does not like business and there has been over-regulation due to the financial crisis.

As Paul Krugman explains, U.S corporate taxation is not overly burdensome compared with other countries. Krugman's latest column also highlights the fact that corporate profits are up 44% from the previous year.

Paul Volcker stated, “The thing went from what is best to what could be passed," regarding new financial regulation. Russ Feingold said, ""It doesn't do the job, and I'm not going to be part of basically defrauding the American people into thinking it does."

Torinus throws in the ludicrous claim, "Tommy Thompson was a governor in the 1990s who understood pro-business policies, but also the value of positive signals and strokes." Tommy Thompson left office with a $3.2 billion deficit. Oh yes, quite the businessman. Even during the second most horrific recession this country has seen, the current state deficit is just $2.7 billion.

These are simply more tactics and propaganda of the Coddled Class trying to protect the status quo. Everyone is out to get them. Taxes have their hands tied. They've done nothing to give us reason to question their intentions nor motives.

Other than their corruption, fraud, and greed that has sunk the world economy and led to the most inequitable situation this country has seen since the Gilded Age.

Torinus and his ilk want to dismantle social programs, punish public workers, relieve themselves from paying taxes, and have their profits assured into perpetuity (at taxpayer's and worker's expense).

More On Torinus' Misinformation:
Obama Making Corporate Hacks Nervous
Torinus' Taxed Reality

May The Force Be With You

"The force of globalization can't be stopped," declares John Torinus in his latest Journal Sentinel rant. This type of thinking is typical of the business class. They believe in the magic of the market - an unstoppable force which always gravitates toward optimal outcomes. The problem with this paradigm is that it leads to a global race to the bottom, which ends up decreasing labor standards, while rewarding mobile capital.

He points to Mexico, and our trade relationship with them, and concludes it's a "major plus, a job creator." But, as I wrote in an earlier post, with the U.S. continually subsidizing farmers, we artificially lower the price of American agricultural exports and hurt developing countries. Such as Mexico, in one area where they can actually produce at a lower cost. Instead, our subsidized agri-business drives Mexican farmers off their land because of our low priced agricultural products. And, because of this, Mexican wages have actually fallen since NAFTA.

Torinus also claims, "Companies must go where the business is, not where you want it to be." So why are subsidies and tax breaks given out to lure companies? Just as the two Spanish companies (which Torinus mentions) whom are moving some operations to Milwaukee based on subsidies, not simply business nor competitive advantage (which Torinus doesn't mention).

I guess when one believes so blindly in a theory, which one also benefits and profits handsomely from, it's hard to let historical and empirical evidence get into the picture.

Pushing On A String

John Torinus has penned another misguided and misinformed piece, Entrepreneurs, rather than government, will help create jobs, for the Journal Sentinel.

I've already taken Torinus to task for his fictitious claims regarding small businesses and job creation. His latest drivel is merely a variation of the same theme.

He also uses this most recent column, in a very roundabout way, to bring it all back to a classic right-wing panacea - the business climate. Which, to translate from Republican, means lower taxes. Another topic on which I've had the pleasure of throttling Torinus and his mistaken ideas.

The most glaring error in Torinus' latest mess is his obliviousness to our current recession. Spewing on about entrepreneurs opening new businesses and creating jobs is a cliched though plausible suggestion in a normally functioning economy. In the midst of a recession, with lending contracted, and extremely reduced demand, such a proposition is preposterous.

New Firms Are No Job Engine

John Torinus, of the Journal Sentinel, assures us that new firms are the key to our recovery. Encouraging new firms using the typical incentives (job credits, small business loans, investment credits, grants, using pension fund money for speculative investment, etc.), he believes, will create jobs.

He also uses the education-as-magic-bullet talking-point to paint the image of a miraculous market machine, infused with newly educated college graduates, encouraged by credits and grants, creating new firms, thereby growing employment.

Yet, Torinus even points out that one-third of young companies fail to make it through a second year; what he calls a "messy churn." But lets ignore that fact, it would expose the false premise concocted in the article.

As Doug Henwood notes, "Small firms pay less than large ones, are less likely to offer health, pension, or child care benefits, and are often more dangerous to workers. With few exceptions, they're not all that innovative technologically...37% of the labor force changes its employment status every year...new jobs do not sprout in the greatest numbers at either fresh start-ups or small firms...Smaller employers do generate plenty of jobs, but they also destroy them in great quantities. If you add together creation and destruction, no clear picture emerges."

The recovery hinges on the destruction of neoliberal policies and a reclamation of the public good.

Falsehood Fabrication

John Torinus, tax-avoiding-CEO of Serigraph Inc. and writer for the Journal-Sentinel, asks, What will it take to lure back manufacturing?

Torinus states that, "political and business leaders have watched this trend [the loss of manufacturing] with something approaching shock." Really? We enter into trade agreements like NAFTA, which many warned would lead to outsourcing, we abandon any type of industrial policy, we bash unions - which is a large number in manufacturing, and we haven't generally discussed manufacturing since since automakers were making tanks for WWII, and they're "shocked"?

Their shock is manufactured. Otherwise, the politicians and business leaders would have to take responsibility for the exodus of these well-paying jobs. Torinus mentions the economy gravitating toward a service economy [away from actually producing things]. This is a natural progression according to business leaders and their paid think-tank and media mouthpieces. So they all run with this excuse as to be absolved from any blame for manufacturing's decline.

[This type of deflection occurs in the poverty debate also. This isn't the fault of misguided or missing public policy, it's the fault of the individual. Never mind the fact that there is not a job available for everyone whom would like one, it's still their fault. It's not political and business leaders faults that they've allowed policies that ship jobs overseas, it's just a natural economic movement. There is nothing than can do.]

This is a result of the sordid relationship between politicians and businesses. Businesses pay for politicians campaigns; businesses want their production and labor costs cheap; therefore, politicians allow businesses to deter unionization and outsource production. All alongside the lie that it's natural and they're not doing anything to foster it.

Torinus uses the example of a $35,000-a-year manufacturing job to analyze what type of taxes would be returned from an investment in a manufacturing job. But where does this $35,000 number come from? According to BLS, private non-unionized manufacturing workers earn over $18 and hour, which is roughly $38,000 per year. Unionized manufacturing workers earn $70, or so, more per week, approximately $41,000 per year. If we're going to use earnings numbers to make an example, let's use the correct numbers.

In his cursory remarks regarding development incentives, Torinus says, "...there is little gain when one state lures a plant from another. It's zero-sum game." Which it is, but he doesn't take this point any further, other than saying it's the union opinion, and therefore, in his mind I guess, not worthy of discussing.

Torinus finishes up with a classic talking-point of his own, and of business in general. He thinks maybe we should eliminate the 7.9 percent income tax on manufacturers. (It's always about not paying any taxes.) His logic: the state corporate income tax is no longer a huge revenue producer for the state, so we might as well just get rid of it. He doesn't address how this has changed over the years, how it has decreased favorably for corporations, increasingly burdening homeowners. He also fails to mention the tax breaks already provided to manufacturing.

He spouts a common falsity, that taxes are a primary factor affecting locational decisions. Business basics - inputs, suppliers, customers, labor, transportation - are much more important for a business in their site location decision.

Is there a sector (like manufacturing) or a topic (like health care) that Torinus won't exploit in an attempt to have businesses pay even less in taxes?

For Further Reading:
Corporate Tax Breaks
Failure of Economic Development Incentives
Grading Places
Industrial Incentives
Rethinking Growth Strategies
Tax and Spending Incentives and Enterprise Zones
The Great American Jobs Scam

Torinus' Taxed Reality

John Torinus, Journal-Sentinel writer and CEO of Serigraph Inc., is at it again. He's complaining because his company can't completely avoid all forms of taxation in the State of Wisconsin. This is a well-worn theme of his.

It's really strange how business has morphed into entities that feel they have no social responsibility other than fattening their own pockets and rewarding their shareholders. One would think they might realize their long-term solvency and viability is tied to the health and performance of the country, and therefore, they might want to do all they can - pay taxes, plan long-term rather than short, minimize risky behavior - to support and strengthen such nationwide goals.

Torinus' undies are all in a bunch over an exemption from the state capital gains tax. Torinus claims this is, "one of the few tax advantages of doing business in Wisconsin." Governor Doyle took the exemption down to 40% in his budget. The Senate wanted to eliminate it altogether.

He always forgets to mention that his company, Serigraph Inc., paid no corporate income taxes in 2003 and 2004. And, I'm only speculating, has probably paid next to nothing since then. This is an onerous business tax burden? This would be laughable if the Journal-Sentinel didn't give this guy a platform to spew such nonsense.

The Tax Foundation found:
Wisconsin's 2009 Business Tax Climate Ranks 38th in the Tax Foundation's State Business Tax Climate Index. The Index compares the states in five areas of taxation that impact business: corporate taxes; individual income taxes; sales taxes; unemployment insurance taxes; and taxes on property, including residential and commercial property.

The Institute for Wisconsin's Future released a report Exposing The Tax Hell Hoax, which attempted to put an end to this misinformation the business community continually puts forth in an attempt to pay nothing in taxes.

Torinus also smears state legislator Russ Decker, declaring him anti-business, because he doesn't feel the corporate community should be absolved of paying any taxes. Implying that, somehow, making businesses pay their fair share as proposed in the latest budget, is responsible for the 133,000 job losses over the last year. That's quite a jump in logic and honesty.

A larger counter-point can be extracted from his closing corporate talking points - we need nationalized standards of regulation and combined reporting. We need to put an end to the blackmailing site selection and the inefficiency of our zero-sum, beggar-thy-neighbor business and development policies.

Torinus complains about combined reporting, without offering the reader the details of what it actually is. Presenting it simply as an additional cost to business, rather than what it really does -remove a tax loophole inserted into state tax law by business lobbyists which shifted the tax burden onto homeowners and workers.

Torinus states, "The Democrats obviously have decided to play to union leaders and to the average voter and have turned a deaf ear to business." The reality is, the Democrats are trying to enact fairness and uniformity into our tax system, helping out average workers, and trying to make businesses pay their fair share.

He then [and you can almost feel the tears in his eyes] says,"Overall, the Democratic posture toward private employers is pretty punitive." Corporate taxation has declined 47 percent over the last thirty years. Homeowners have made up this shortfall. How much more disingenuous could a corporatist be in claiming this is punitive treatment? I'm sure Torinus is shedding just as many tears for the workers in the State whom have made up for all the taxes he is allowed to avoid.

For Further Reading:
Ralph Nader wrote an interesting article regarding the legally privileged status our corporations are allowed to operate under and the trajectory of such - Avoiding Corporate Liability.

Bait and Switch

To paraphrase Dan Akroyd from a well-known SNL skit, "John, you ignorant slut." John Torinus, business-interest shill and Journal Sentinel "writer", spews forth yet another column of misinformation in his April 11th article, Cap-and-trade bill could devastate manufacturing. As usual, he derides anything regulatory toward business, and lectures about how cap-and-trade will be bad for business.

He is basically defending the do-nothing, status quo protecting, companies that have been too lazy and stupid to get their act together over these last few decades to address the sustainability and environmental challenges that are now at a breaking point.

David Yarnold, in an excellent commentary for McClatchy, discredits all of the lame excuses put forth by Torinus. All the proponents for doing nothing about carbon emissions incessantly scream about the cost and the (fictional) negative economic consequences. Strangely they never mention the negative economic consequences of destroying the planet. As Yarnold reports, the Department of Energy estimates a cap on carbon would cost just ten more cents a day. Roughly thirty-six dollars a year. A small price to pay to save the planet.

Torinus completely ignores that cap-and-trade could be an opportunity for Wisconsin's manufacturing capacity and comparative advantage, a chance to be leaders in the innovation and technology transformation to sustainable industries. This regulatory mandate alongside stimulus-bill infrastructure improvements (like light rail) are an opportunity for Wisconsin to lead in green-innovation, create living-wage jobs, protect the environment, and enable a favorable forward-thinking business environment for Wisconsin to grow and remain competitive into the future.

Energy is a pillar of modern society. It is a public good and should be a public utility. Otherwise, if it must remain in private hands (which have been unable to make advancements nor contain costs) the government should cap profits and rate increases substantially. (We have a hodge-podge system similar to this, but it works horribly and is inefficient.) Government could dictate an allowable profit margin while ensuring maintained infrastructure standards and quality service provision by the private provider.

Torinus then gives a woe-is-me for Serigraph, of which he is CEO, and the fictional costs they would have to endure if cap-and-trade were instituted. But maybe Torinus could use some of the money Serigraph is saving from not paying its fair share of taxes to cover those fictional costs.

He continues with the 'poor Serigraph' routine claiming they could not pass any additional cost onto their customers. But this is the cost of business, which is what business models take into consideration, and what managers are suppose to, well, manage. These considerations should be included in the real price of any service or product, rather than circumventing these costs onto the public through subsidies, exemptions, and loopholes, as is the typical route for most big businesses. Or is government supposed to do nothing, and benefit Serigraph, at the expense of the majority of citizens and the planet?

We're taught to believe that those with Ivy League degrees - John graduated from Yale - are incredibly smart, trained well, and can solve the tough questions our society faces. These are exactly the types of decisions (efficient and sustainable production methods) that CEOs should be making if they want to claim they are worth the millions of dollars they are paid. But, as always, it seems their solution is for government to change the rules for them, subsidize their continued misadventures, and allow these captains of industry to plunder and plod along.

Cap-and-trade will primarily induce sustainable efficiency. It will reward those companies which plan, innovate, and create. It will weed out the antiquated. The days of inefficient - economically, societally and environmentally - destructive business practices being allowed to continue to exist through subsidization and market manipulation is over.

Torinus also takes a jab at environmentalists, "Environmentalists assure us that the economic questions can be worked out. Not to worry." Somewhat reminiscent of how the CEOs and Wall Street executives assured us that they knew what they were doing and had conquered risk? Everything the business community claims to be, all the lofty jargon they emit, is false. Their emperor has no clothes. Thanks, John, but I think we'll listen to some entity other than the business community from now on.

He helps buttress his opposition's case by pointing out that the Midwest is 60 percent dependent on coal. What the hell have our politicians and captains of industry been doing these last thirty years? Then in an amazing show of inflexibility, obtuseness, and treachery, Torinus spouts off about the bogus "clean" coal. This is a finite, heavily-polluting resource. Torinus feels we are going to competitively move forward by investing in yesterday's energy source? And then, of course, he has to mention nuclear. But what do we do with that waste? The business community and their ilk seem to feel the solution to one problem (coal) is another problem (nuclear waste).

If a business can not get by without subsidization, the government manipulating the market in one's favor, exemptions, tax havens, or cooking the books, it should not be in business. We allow business to grow to enormous proportions, so enormous they're allowed to bet over fifty times their value. They are able to leverage billions and put whole communities and the economy in jeopardy. Businesses hire lawyers and buy politicians to write laws and devise tax breaks solidifying this privileged societal position.

It's time we actually have public policy for the public again, by following parameters constructed by government about what is best and how it will be accomplished. That is representative democracy.

For Further Reading:
Does Taxing Pollution Lead to Higher Prices and Lower Aggregate Output?
History of the U.S. Electric Power Industry
Jobs & The Environment: The Myth of a National Trade-Off
Regulation and Competitiveness

Taking A Healthy Approach To Health Care

John Torinus, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel and WMC propagandist, predictably feels the answer to our health care system concerns should come from business. And from a subsidiary of a magazine printing company no less. I am not saying they may not have good ideas and some good suggestions regarding the matter, but the delivery and implementation issues of health care are just as important as the management. A profit-driven, cost-cutting, avoid-the-sick mentality does not fit well into health care. It's not just about the cost, it's about the quality and access of the care given.

How about we allow the input of doctors, physicians, nurses, et al in determining our health care system? How about you "business" guys stick to running your companies into the ground, begging for trillions in bailouts, crashing the financial system, and exploding the world economy.

In the last few decades we've turned health care over to the insurance companies with "managed" care -- and this has led to disastrous results. Now Torinus, never one to contradict his unwavering belief in corporate omnipotence, would like to see things turned over to corporate clinics opertating at business sites. This plan seems as though it would be replacing one greedy overlord (HMOs) with another. Neither of which care about health care, but rather see this as another business opportunity...another avenue toward profit.

As business has played a larger part in politics and policy-making, the U.S. has seen itself become a debtor rather than creditor nation, wages for the majority of workers have stagnated, the environment has been ravaged, economic periods of boom and bust have become more frequent, pensions are a thing of the past, social services have been continually dismantled, and the numbers of uninsured keep increasing. Sorry, but I just dont trust these same selfish, short-sighted know-nothings to "manage" my health care.

Hey, Private Sector, Get Away From My Health Care

Torinus is at it again.

The public sector can't do health care right and is at fault for high costs, yet the private sector (as usual) is a bastion of efficiency.

Just a curious aside ... Has Torinus ever mentioned Serigraph's lack of paying taxes in his column? As I have noted in an earlier post, "He is the chairman of Serigraph Inc., which paid nothing in Wisconsin corporate taxes in 2003 and 2004. He is also a board member of Wisconsin Manufacturers & Commerce (the lobby for Wisconsin big business), an organization where even when it's members pay no taxes at all still feel taxation is too high." Anyways...

The ever-increasing cost of health care has nothing to do with inflated Medicare charges by private insurers? Nor does it have anything to do with the ridiculous gouged prices charged by pharmaceutical companies? As I expanded upon previously (here and here), "Medicare is a quandary, but not because of it’s entitlement issue. It’s because of managed care and the pharmaceutical industries skyrocketing profits. Seniors consume the most medical care and prescriptions -- private companies are gouging the government through Medicare reimbursement with inflated charges (yet another, in essence, subsidy to big business). We don’t even use our numbers to negotiate prescription drug-price deals for buying in volume (in fact, this was strictly prohibited in Bush’s Medicare bill)."

Public sector costs do not, as Torinus implies, "demonstrate the inability of public sector payers to purchase health care effectively." The public sector tries to pay the cost rather than passing it onto it's employees or making them go without, which happens to be the private model. So much for actually respecting and valuing your workforce.

Nowhere does he mention the overcharges and fraud taking place at the Medicare/caid systems expense (private insurers falsifying documents to steal from the government). Nowhere does he mention the inflated charges the pharmaceutical companies demand and how this inflates our overall medical costs. Both of these factors add billions to the cost of our medical care each year.

Torinus, regarding the private sector, states, "...employees are offered plans with high deductibles and offsetting personal accounts by employers. It becomes their money." This is the grand ole trick - it's your money (except when it's needed to bailout AIG, Citibank, et al). Employers are going to pay less and cover you less, but you can use your money to find health care, and because we're so nice we've gathered a few options for you to choose from. Again, by extension, playing up the ownership society and pretending every American is an actuarial/investment wizard, which is delusional. This is similar to the arguments we've heard about privatizing Social Security. The same thing that would happend to retirees 401Ks during a bust in the market is exactly the type of care we could expect from this private sector model.

And, for Torinus to have this holier-than-thou preachy tone about the efficiency and accountability of the corporate community and the private sector is laughable. These guys just drove the economy off a cliff, and now they have the audacity to try and tell us how to put things back together. Since we've adopted managed care, medical costs have exploded. Since we've adopted defined-contribution (rather then defined-benefit) retirements plans, our retirements have become more volatile.

The private sector is based on profits. They make those profits by only insuring the healthiest people and denying care to the others. Health care is a right not something to be rationed by the dictates of monied interests. We should not be moving toward a caste system of health care in America.

Until federal restrictions cap cost growth, until the government reestablishes its control over the health care system, more money will be needed. Making workers pay more or going without can hardly be considered sound management.

We have deregulated and privatized up the wazoo in this country. It hasn't worked. It's time to have some other motives driving our public policy rather than just profit and greed by private companies.

Development Needs Research

In Sunday's Journal-Sentinel, John Torinus has a bullet-pointed, long-winded sermon on the beauty and stimulative-nature of entrepreneurship (whatever that means). Even his title has it backwards.

There is a tone when he states, "...a heavy dependence on its historic manufacturing sector." As if we should divest ourselves of our large market share, our competitive advantage, and a continued focus of the success of one of our most lucrative sectors. Manufacturing is generally a higher paying, high value-added industry. This should be a prime focus of our research and development efforts. The hits to employment in this industry over the last few decades have more to do with trade politics (and slave labor) than with efficiency or productivity.

He also feels we should capitalize on our research and development capabilities and stengthen them. OK. Sounds good. Although, typically this type of activity is either heavily subsized by the government, or directly funded by the government through the university system and organizations such as the National Institutes of Health. Has Torinus suddenly become a tax-and-spender? Or is he just citing another example of where government and bureaucrats can be highly effective and actually improve society?

Much of his opinions regarding UWM -- it's construction projects, and it's innovative leadership, and the giant strides it has made in recent years -- are spot on. And, hopefully UWM will choose a downtown rather than a suburban location. As a former student and employee at UWM, I'm proud of their progress and their scholarship.

[Mr. Torinus mentions, "The R&D has to be turned into patents, licenses, and start-up companies." Here are numerous articles by Dean Baker that disprove the economic efficiency of patents: A, B, C, D, E, and F. The money is made being the first to create the idea, not holding that creative capacity from others to build upon it. That causes long-term inefficiency.]

But after the public sector nurtures these industries and ideas, Torinus feels we should, "...transferring the basic technology to commercial applications in the real world of business." If public entities are producing technologies and products the market wants, aren't they applying their know-how in the real world of business? And, competing quite effectively it seems. We should turn over the innovative capacity to the private sector so they can make highly leveraged bets, create gains for a select few, watch them mismanage and corrupt the endeavor, and see the whole thing collapse...to then have to be cleaned up by taxpayers (the public sector)?

It seems taxpayers' money is actually better managed and spent by the government than the private sector. The Republican propaganda campaign over the last 35 years to dispute this fact and muddle the discussion about such seems impervious to reason and clear-thinking. We'd all be better if we just ignored them.

Other than that, I'm all for Torinus' bullet-pointed research spending ideas. But, lets keep them state- or local(ly)-run centers, having well-paid jobs with health care and funded retirement plans.

"Sharing is caring," as Mr. Rogers said. If a select few would share just a minuscule amount (pay their fair share of taxes), they could initiate massive change and end the impoverished conditions of the majority on this planet. The only thing standing in the way of this is political cover, masking greed and entrenched interests.

Obviously all the ideas Mr. Torinus feels should be funded would have to be public programs. If this was "easy money" wouldn't private corporations already be making the investment? Of course, they only care about short-term gains. How we fund our societal institutions and the priorities of such, how we reach for sustainability and prosperity, these are long-term policy issues. Concerns rightfully addressed and managed by the public sector.

But WMCers and the right-wing bow to a different savior. They must keep their shareholders happy. You don't want to piss off Wall Street. Wall Street it now seems has become our defacto government. How about the change we believe in is taking our government back.

With some populist spin struggling to conceal the underlying conservative positions and giveaways to the private sector, this piece seems nothing more than typical WMC rhetoric from Torinus.