Got this message from my Congressional mis-representative, Ron Kind, and felt inspired by his words:

Ron talks about inexpensive health care, small business, and economic opportunity in that piece. My response:


Thank you for your recent email regarding health care, small business, and economic opportunity. Consider the following:

You want low insurance rates, yet you promoted Obamacare, which taxes the very goods and services that you correctly observe already cost too much.

DHHS recently added 15000 regulations with regard to Obamacare. How is this going to REDUCE the cost of delivery of medical care? Quite simply, it is not.

Today bipartisan leaders from the House and Senate will launch new efforts to punish criminals backed by China, Russia or other foreign governments for cyber spying and theft. The Cyber Economic Espionage Accountability Act, introduced today by Reps. Mike Rogers, R-Mich; Tim Ryan, D-Ohio and myself will send a clear message to offending nations that this behavior will no longer be tolerated.

"This is a vital step to let China know that there are real consequences to stealing American intellectual property and robbing U.S. ingenuity and innovation in order to gain competitive advantage," Rogers said. "It’s happening at an alarming rate. It is one of my top national security concerns. This rampant theft is crushing American jobs. We need to identify these economic cyber criminals and create valid consequences to prevent them from undermining our economy and compromising U.S. national security."

The proposed Wisconsin State Budget from Scott Walker includes a number of bad ideas. Among them is the idea that we should put tax dollars into a venture capital fund, for start up businesses. My objections are these:

I have thought that rather than taxing employers for the UC fund, we should tax employees. Why? Several reasons. First, some people are more prone to unemployment than others. Some are more inclined to get a job, so why tax employers for those who would game the system to stay unemployed longer?

Second, if employees paid the tax, it would demonstrate to them, that because of this mandated benefit, their wages are less. That way, they can actually see the costs to them, which at the present time, can only be inferred. Hey, we could even mandate that employers pay the employee more by the percentage that UC insurance now represents, so that employees' actual incomes do not go down. This would help make the lesson to the employee without it costing him anything on the front side, and we already mandate that employers pay this now, so no difference in cost to employers either.