On August 27, 2010, Rasmussen Reports released its latest poll on the Wisconsin gubernatorial race.  This poll indicates that both Republican candidates remain ahead of Democratic frontrunner Tom Barrett but only by a small amount.  This poll differs from the many others conducted since January 2010, in that Mark Neumann is now statistically polling as the frontrunner.

In a head-to-head matchup, Mark Neumann leads Tom Barrett 48% to 44%, with 3% of voters preferring another candidate.  Conversely, Scott Walker, the WI-GOP endorsed candidate, and the perennial frontrunner, leads Barrett in a head-to-head matchup, 47% to 44%, with 4% preferring another candidate.

As noted, for the first time since polling began in January, Mark Neumann is now the frontrunner in this hotly contested race.  Walker’s percentage of the vote decreased by three points since last month’s poll.  The July 30, 2010, Rasmussen poll indicated that Scott Walker became the first candidate to reach the 50% threshold.  Walker’s decrease in this latest poll was precipitated by a poor performance in the three GOP gubernatorial debates in August, the electorate’s chagrin with establishment candidates and Mr. Walker’s penchant for polemical attacks against his opponent’s character.

Conversely, Mark Neumann’s release of a book detailing his agenda for Wisconsin’s economic growth, coupled with his strong performance in the Republican debates, and the endorsement of former Representative and television pundit Joe Scarborough, has allowed him to nudge past both Walker and Barrett in the ongoing campaign.

The Wisconsin gubernatorial election is poised to be one of the closest and most highly anticipated elections in 2010.  Rasmussen has altered its classification of this race from leans Republican, to “a tossup.”  Barrett’s success in this race stems partly from the fact that Wisconsin, since 1984, has been a Democratic leaning state and partly from the  fact that he lacks a credible primary challenger.   For the fifth consecutive month, it appears as though the Republican Party is poised to win back the statehouse in November.

The August 27 poll, much like the July 30 poll, had a sample size of 750 likely voters.  The August 27 poll, however, despite having a larger sample size than polls conducted in previous months, still fails to meet most polling standards of legitimacy.  If a poll is to be considered an accurate indicator of an electoral outcome, the sample size must exceed 1,500.  None of the Wisconsin gubernatorial polls conducted by Rasmussen, or the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute thus far, have had a sample size of over 750.  A small sample size allows pollsters to judge the mood of the electorate and their feelings on specific candidates, but as aforementioned, may neither accurately predict the outcome of the September 14, 2010, Republican primary nor the November 2, 2010, general election.

As the reader could see from this poll, voter opinions of the three major candidates have changed dramatically in the past month.  The electorate’s view of candidates often fluctuates, due mainly to specific statements made by candidates or their performance in debates.  It is hypercritical to note that polls with sample sizes than 1,500 are purely speculative and lack standing and precision.  The race remains anyone’s match at this point.

As new polls and information on the election become available, PAI will keep you abreast. 

Issue Highlights

SECTION 1

• The Department of Revenue indicated that 24,500 jobs have been created since January 2010. The manufacturing sector, long the driving force of the state economy, has been the leading source of the employment boom. With the creation of nearly ten-thousand manufacturing jobs since the beginning of the year, the Wisconsin economy will once again become an engine of growth, innovation, and productivity.

SECTION 2

• Wisconsinites should expect to see their personal income increase by a paltry amount in the next two fiscal years. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue notes that household income is expected to increase by 2.7% in 2010. While personal income growth is to be lauded, it has little effect on consumers or economic growth, when the government continues to raise taxes. The most viable solution for ensuring economic recovery is cutting taxes, while at the same time, vastly expanding personal income. Tax cuts, not tax increases, will provide Wisconsinites with more money to be spent on stimulating the economy, and paying off their loans or debts.

SECTION 3

• The Department of Revenue’s Economic Outlook Report indicates that Wisconsin economy will recover much faster than that of the United States, due to the sheer size and complexity of the United States economy. The federal government needs to follow the economic models being espoused by states such as Texas, Alaska, Alabama, and Wisconsin, to name a few, all of whom has witnessed economic recovery in this time of tumult.

SECTION 1
With the creation of nearly ten-thousand manufacturing jobs since the beginning of the year, the Wisconsin economy will once again become an engine of growth, innovation, and productivity.

This week, the Wisconsin Department of Revenue released an intriguing and statistics-laden document entitled The Wisconsin Economic Outlook, in which they remark that since the onset of 2010, the State of Wisconsin has created 25,400 new jobs.

Manufacturing, long the cornerstone of the state economy, is the engine driving the economic recovery and job growth. Since January 2010, the manufacturing sector has created nearly 10,900 new jobs. In fact, more jobs have been created in the manufacturing sector than in any other entity of the state labor force. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue notes that during the past several years the Wisconsin manufacturing sector has been more productive than the U.S. manufacturing industry and is expected to remain that way for years to come.
In 2011, it is predicted that the State of Wisconsin will see a 4.7% increase in manufacturing jobs. Conversely, at the national level, manufacturing employment is expected to increase by just 4.3%. Wisconsin has one of the largest and most vibrant manufacturing sectors. In their enthralling report, the Department of Revenue writes, “The expected recovery in the manufacturing sector is fueled by the inventory cycle in the short term and a recovery of domestic and foreign demand in the medium term.” The manufacturing industry is currently the third largest employer in Wisconsin and is expected to rise to the second largest when the economy rebounds. Currently, 15.6% of Wisconsin’s total employment is in the manufacturing sector; whereas, manufacturing comprises a meager 8.6% of the national workforce. In order for Wisconsin to remain an economic superpower, and a leader in technological innovation, it is paramount the manufacturing sector creates copious jobs in the years ahead.
SECTION 2
The most viable solution for ensuring economic recovery is cutting taxes while, at the same time, vastly expanding personal income. Tax cuts, not tax increases, will provide Wisconsinites with more money to be spent on stimulating the economy, and paying off their loans or debts.
The Department of Revenue made note of the fact a unique dichotomy is taking place in Wisconsin; the government is continuing to raise taxes while personal and disposable income levels are also increasing. Economic growth is precipitated by consumer spending, not increased taxes. Thus, it is imperative that the state works ravenously to ensure that citizens are able to keep more of their own money.
The WI Department of Revenue predicts that personal income will witness a steady increase for the next four years. Personal income is expected to increase to 2.4% this year; 4.4% in 2011, and 4.2% in 2012 and 2013. When it comes to personal income, Wisconsin falls below the national average, which is predicted to rise to 4.8% in 2012 and 2013. Tax increases, when coupled with an increase in personal income levels, stymies economic productivity. It is imperative that the state government cuts taxes in order to prompt economic recovery and ensure that individuals are able to keep more of their income. PAI is contacting the Wisconsin legislator to secure answers on why growth rates will be lower for Wisconsin. Look for this report in subsequent snap-shot pieces.

SECTION 3
The federal government needs to follow the economic models being implemented by states such as Texas, Alaska, Alabama, and Wisconsin, all of whom have witnessed economic recovery in this time of tumult.
The federal government, if it wants to ensure job growth, tax cuts, business incentives and a reduction of the corporate tax rate, must emulate the economic models devised by the states who have thus far witnessed economic growth. Several states have witnessed unprecedented economic growth in the past two years, mainly: Texas, America’s most robust and vibrant economy; Alaska, the epicenter of the nation’s oil production; Alabama, the home of several foreign automobile plants—Honda and Toyota—and Wisconsin, the state that encompasses the largest number of manufacturing jobs per capita.
Each of these states has witnessed economic revival due mainly to the fact they have cut taxes, drastically reduced spending, provided businesses with incentives, reduced their corporate tax rates and made job creation the focal point of their domestic policy agendas. Texas’ economic success can be attributed largely to the availability of jobs, the low cost of housing, the lack of a personal income tax, and the lowest corporate income tax rate in the United States. In fact, Fortune, one of the nation’s foremost business periodicals noted that thirty-eight billionaires and fifty-eight Fortune 500 companies currently reside in the “Lone Star State.” In addition, Texas is the only state not affected by the economic recession. The USG, despite having a larger and more intricate economy than the aforementioned states, can witness similar economic growth if it cuts taxes, reducing spending, and decreases its corporate tax rate. The federal government, if it intends to witness economic vitality, must emulate the strategies implemented by the abovementioned states.

Appreciate the Snap-Shot Format? Let us know!
Email deputy.policydirector@paxamericanainstitute.org

We appreciate our readers’ input.

PAI is releasing a Foreign Policy Snap-Shot Series piece and national OP-ED that will showcase the many successes of OIF. Stay tuned for updates at the week’s end.

To read more of the Administration’s claims, visit the White House report here.

PAI is looking for a series of event planners within the Upper Midwest to work with its Executive Team on planning and executing events around the region.  Event planning experience is desired but not mandatory.  For more information or to express interest in this position, please contact Mr. Drew Davis at execdirector@PaxAmericanaInstitute.org

For more information, visit our Jobs Page.

• The Department of Revenue indicated that 24,500 jobs have been created since January 2010.  The manufacturing sector, long the driving force of the state economy, has been the leading source of the employment boom.  With the creation of nearly ten-thousand manufacturing jobs since the beginning of the year, the Wisconsin economy will once again become an engine of growth, innovation, and productivity. Read more on this point in Snap-Shot Series Policy Vol 1. No. 4

• Wisconsinites should expect to their personal income to increase by an inconsequential amount in the next two fiscal years. The Wisconsin Department of Revenue notes that household income is expected to increase by 2.7% in 2010.  While personal income growth is to be lauded, it has little effect on consumers or economic growth when the government continues to raise taxes.  The most viable solution for ensuring economic recovery is cutting taxes while, at the same time, vastly expanding personal income.  Tax cuts, not tax increases, will provide Wisconsinites with more money to be spent on stimulating the economy and paying off their loans or debts. Read more on this point in Snap-Shot Series Policy Vol 1. No. 4

• The Department of Revenue’s Economic Outlook Report indicates that Wisconsin’s economy will recover much faster than that of the United States due to the sheer size and complexity of the U.S. economy.  The federal government needs to follow the economic models being espoused by states such as Texas, Alaska, Alabama, and Wisconsin, to name only a few, all of whom have witnessed economic recovery in this time of tumult. Read more on this point in Snap-Shot Series Policy Vol 1. No. 4

Download “Actuaries Report: Social Security Insolvency Could Occur Earlier Than Predicted”

Issue Highlights

Section 1

• The annual report by the Social Security Trustees/Actuaries predicted massive and permanent deficits if Congress fails to reform this dilapidated and outmoded entitlement program.

• In 1950, there were fifty workers for every one recipient of Social Security, whereas, today, there are three workers for every one beneficiary.

• By 2040, the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will consume one-hundred percent of federal expenditures.

Section 2

• In the next seventy-five years, the Social Security Trust Fund will owe $7.9 million more than it will receive in payroll taxes.  Finding a viable solution to solving this entitlement program is of paramount importance.

Section 3

• Social Security is predicted to be one of the hot-button issues in the 2010 midterm elections.  With Social Security beginning its precipitous decline towards insolvency, it is pertinent that conservatives induce the electorate to believe that personal accounts, not the current pay-as-you-go system, is the only viable solution to reforming this passé entitlement program.

Section 4

• The long-term costs associated with the current government run entitlement programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid) pose a fatal threat to America’s economic supremacy.  Social Security’s exorbitant unfunded liabilities, $27 trillion over the next seventy-five years, will be demonstrably bad for American economic supremacy.

Section 1

In the next seventy-five years, the Social Security Trust Fund will owe $79 million more than it will receive in payroll taxes.

In their newly-released report, Social Security Trustee’s highlight the myriad tribulations surrounding the Social Security system.  In this enthralling report, Trustee’s note that Social Security will begin running a cash-flow deficit as early as October 2010.  In 2008, when this author penned his now seminal thesis on Social Security reform, entitled: The New Wave of the Future: Social Security Accounts and the future of Entitlement Spending, the Social Security Administration was predicting that cash-flow deficits would not take effect until 2014.  The current economic recession, however, coupled with a decrease in government revenue, has pushed the date of insolvency forward.

Section 2

In addition, the 2010 report denoted that in 2015 Social Security would begin running permanent deficits that will require hundreds of billions of dollars to pay recipients their full benefits.  Furthermore, in 2037, Social Security will only be able to pay 73 cents for every dollar paid into the trust fund.

So once again, in just two short years, the insolvency date has been pushed ahead due to the perilous state of the American economy.  The diminishing number citizens paying into the trust fund, compounded by an excess of retirees, poses mortal problems for Social Security and American fiscal health.   The excess of retirees is a direct result of the influx of children birthed during what has been dubbed by modern historians as “the Baby Boom.” During the Baby Boom, 1946-1964, nearly seventy-seven million children were birthed, the eldest of which began retiring in 2009.  This influx of workers, coupled with a drastic decrease of the American workforce poses a grave threat to America’s fiscal future.  In addition, the ratio of workers to recipients has seen a precipitous decline since 1950.  In 1950, there were fifty workers for every one recipient of Social Security, whereas, today, there are three workers for every one beneficiary.

As a result of the declining workforce, and an influx of retirees, the Social Security Trust Fund owes $7.9 trillion more than it will receive in payroll taxes.  Thus, many liberal policy scholars contend that the only viable solution for reform is increasing the payroll tax.

As noted in the thesis, a failure to reform the current Social Security system would have cataclysmic and calamitous effects on the future of the American economy.  By 2040, the Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid will consume one-hundred percent of federal expenditures.  This in turn means the United States will not possess the monetary resources necessary to fund the military, public schools, highways or infrastructure projects.  As the reader can discern, Social Security, in its current form, is unsustainable and will ultimately bankrupt the United States of America.

Section 3

With Social Security beginning its precipitous decline toward insolvency, it is pertinent that conservatives induce the electorate to believe that personal accounts, not the current pay-as-you-go system, is the only viable solution to reforming this passé entitlement program.

Social Security, for just the second time in recent memory, is poised to be a hot button issue in a national election.  In 2004, President Bush traveled the country promoting his plan for Social Security reform.  The Bush plan, as it was affectionately dubbed by conservative political scholars, advocated for a system of personal accounts in which citizens would be allowed to invest just four percent of their payroll taxes into low-risk bonds, stocks, or life-cycle accounts.  President Bush was successful in making Social Security reform a focal point of the 2004 presidential election, but ultimately failed to convince the electorate that his plan was economically feasible.

The 2010 elections mirror the 2004 presidential election, in that liberals and Democratic politicians are working rapaciously to persuade the American electorate that Republicans and conservatives want to slash benefits and ultimately bring about the demise of Social Security.  These vitriolic harangues being fabricated by liberal polemicists are erroneous on all accounts.  Conservatives have no intention of abolishing Social Security.  Rather, conservatives seek to transform the current pay-as-you-go system, administered by the federal government, to one that is controlled by individuals.

Pay-As-You-Go vs. The Personal Account System

In the next several paragraphs, the author will meticulously analyze the fundamental differences between the pay-as-you-go system, as supported by liberal Democrats, and the free market based personal accounts system, which has been lauded by conservatives for decades.  Prior to doing so however, it pertinent to first provide a concise synopsis of the pay-as-you go systems inception.

In 1939, President Franklin Roosevelt and Congressional Democrats worked vicariously to reform this, at the time, successful program.  After countless debates, petulant negotiations and copious amendments, Congress reformed the Social Security system.  Under the 1939 provisions, Social Security was funded by a pay-as-you-go system, and abandoned the funding mechanism in which retirees were paid a lump sum.

For those unfamiliar with the term pay-as-you-go, current workers, through payroll taxes, are paying current retirees.  The pay-as-you-go system is no longer viable for a myriad of reasons.  Firstly, when Social Security was established the average life expectancy was 60 years; whereas, today it is 77 for males and 79 for females. Conversely, the number of citizens 65 and older increased from 9 million in 1940 to a whopping 34 million in 1995 and is expected to skyrocket to 80 million by the middle of the next century.

Secondly, the architects of the program were unable to predict the titanic population influx that occurred during the middle of the 20^th century.  From 1946-1964, 77 million babies were born, constituting the most cataclysmic population increase in American history.

Lastly, the ratio of workers to recipients has seen a precipitous decline since 1950.  In 1950, there were 50 workers for every one recipient of Social Security, whereas, today, there are 3 workers for every one beneficiary.  The pay-as-you-go system is no longer feasible, as the number of retirees is vastly exceeding the number of workers.

Personal accounts, as advocated by leading conservative scholars and Republican politicians, are the antithesis of the derelict pay-as-you-go system.  Since the inauguration of President Reagan in 1981, conservatives have worked voraciously to transform the Social Security system from a government run entity to one dominated by individuals and the free-market.  Of the many personal account proposals drafted in the past decade, none of them have come to fruition, due in part to trepidation over cost, benefit cuts, and transfer costs.

In recent years, two excellent Social Security reform policies have been proposed: the Ryan-Sununu plan of 2005, named after WI Representative Paul Ryan and NH Senator John Sununu, and the Tanner plan, named after Michael Tanner, the taciturn, senior policy fellow at the Libertarian Cato Institute.  Both of these plans advocated for full, not partial, privatization.  The fundamental difference between full privatization and partial privatization is the amount of payroll taxes that can be invested in personal accounts.

Under the Bush plan (2005), citizens would have been able to invest just 4% of their payroll tax into a personal account.  In contrast, the Ryan-Sununu plan advocated for 6.4% investment into personal accounts, whereas the Tanner plan called for 6.2% investment.  The 6.4% advocated by Ryan-Sununu would have allowed employees to invest the entirety of their payroll tax, and 0.2% of the employees share into personal accounts.  Both the Tanner plan and the Ryan-Sununu plan would have allowed citizens to invest in low-risk stocks or bonds and would have created what is known as Life Cycle Accounts.  Life Cycle Accounts allow the investor to fluctuate the amount of money invested into stocks throughout the duration of their working career. For example, a citizen could invest 60% of their money into bonds and 40% into low risk stocks upon being hired, and later invest 60% into stocks and 40% into bonds as their career progresses.

Many Republican politicians have been hesitant to support either of these proposals or address the issue of Social Security reform on the campaign trail.  As noted in the introduction to this section, the liberal media has been tremendously successful in convincing the American people that these proposals intend to cut benefits and do away with Social Security entirely.

The Republican Party has been divided over whether or not to make Social Security a focal point of the 2010 midterm elections.  Moderate Republicans have thus far been hesitant to discuss Social Security and, in turn, have expressed their chagrin with the Roadmap for America’s Future, a policy document penned by Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), which advocates for the creation of personal accounts and increasing the retirement age from sixty-five to seventy.

Conversely, those in the conservative wing of the Republican Party contend that with Social Security nearing insolvency and on the brink of calamity, it must be a focal point of the 2010 campaign.  Conservative Republican candidates are correct in their assertion that personal accounts are the only viable solution for Social Security reform.  Accordingly, it is pertinent that they make Social Security reform a focal point of the 2010 midterm elections.

Section 4

Social Security’s exorbitant unfunded liabilities, $27 trillion over the next seventy-five years, will be demonstrably bad for American economic supremacy.

The long term effects associated with the current government run entitlement programs, Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, pose a colossal threat to American economic supremacy.  In a 2010 report the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office noted that by the year 2040 Social Security and Medicare will consume one-hundred percent of government revenue.  In addition, the report noted that the unfunded liabilities, or mandates, by these two programs is a combined $82 trillion over the next seventy-five years.  With unfunded liabilities as astronomically high as these, it is impossible for the United States government to function.

As noted, by 2040 every dollar brought in by the federal government will go towards paying off the benefits of these three entitlement programs. As a result, the federal government will be unable to fund the military, schools, roads, or the motley assortment of other programs that require federal funding.  Supporters of the pay-as-you-go system contend that the only feasible way to reduce the transfer costs is to increase the payroll tax from 12.5% to an unfathomable 14.2% by the year 2055.  An increase in what is already the highest tax paid by Americans on a yearly basis would be nonsensical and pose a grave threat to financial predicament of every American.

Conversely, Michael Tanner of the Cato Institute, in his plan, suggested that a minute portion of the payroll tax not being invested into a personal account be used to assist in paying for the unfunded liabilities.  This solution, despite being unable to cover the entirety of the unfunded liabilities, is exceptional and should be seriously considered.

Representative Paul Ryan, in his landmark policy piece A Roadmap for America’s Future: A Plan to Solve America’s Long-Term Economic and Fiscal Crisis, ascertained that without a drastic alteration of the Social Security stem the federal government would have to finance these transfer costs with higher taxes.  Doing so would cripple the U.S. economy and force the government to transfer an unprecedented level of economic resources away from other entities of the economy.  In order to dissipate the already exorbitantly high transfer costs, it is imperative that the United States Congress reforms Social Security.

As more information becomes available on Social Security reform, PAI will keep you abreast.

If you are interested in reading the Social Security Trustee’s Report, you can find it at:

http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

For a more detailed analysis of this issue and the various proposals for reform, read this author’s thesis entitled: The New Wave of the Future: Social Security Privatization and the Future of Entitlement Spending, at: www.PaxAmericanaInstitute.org

Download this Campaign Snap-Shot Series

The 2010 Wisconsin Senate Race: A Methodical Analysis.

Issue Highlights

***Section 1

Senate frontrunners Russ Feingold and Ron Johnson are becoming more visceral in their attacks on one another.  With the Wisconsin Senate race officially a “dead heat,” both Ron Johnson and Russ Feingold are intensifying their rhetoric and tone.

***Section 2

Dave Westlake, Ron Johnson and Russ Feingold have placed an unprecedented emphasis on online social networking, trumping traditional campaign methods such as: mass mailings, yard signs, and telephone calls.

***Section 3

The latest Rasmussen poll denotes a modest change in candidate preference.  For the second straight month, Rasmussen polling reports that Ron Johnson, a political outsider and business leader, is narrowly defeating four-term incumbent Russ Feingold.

***Section 4

Russ Feingold’s voting record reflects that he is neither a fiscal conservative nor a moderate. 

Section 1

With the Wisconsin Senate race officially a “dead heat,” both Ron Johnson, and Russ Feingold are intensifying their rhetoric and tone.

In recent weeks, Wisconsin U.S. Senate candidates Russ Feingold and Ron Johnson have become more visceral in their attacks upon one another.  Rather than focusing on seminal policy issues, and their plans for economic recovery, they have resorted to vitriolic harangues and polemical attacks on the other’s character.

The campaign began to take on a visceral tone early last month when Rasmussen reported that this race was a statistical dead heat.  For just the second time in his storied political career, Senator Russ Feingold is vulnerable.  As a result, he initiated a series of blatantly erroneous attack ads pertaining to Ron Johnson’s positions on critical policy issues; mainly, drilling for oil in the Great Lakes and Social Security reform.  For instance, in one of his earliest advertisements, Senator Feingold argued that Ron Johnson would “hand over the Great Lakes to big-oil companies.”  Sen. Feingold’s attack ad was erroneous in that Mr. Johnson had stated on numerous occasions he is fundamentally opposed to drilling for oil in the Great Lakes, to say nothing of the fact drilling is already illegal in the Lakes.  In fact, Russ Feingold was the only Great Lakes Senator to vote against the Great Lakes Compact—the measure that sought to protect the Great Lakes from commercial drilling.  FactCheck.org has also noted that Feingold’s advertisement was blatantly false.

In response to Sen. Feingold’s advertisement, Mr. Johnson issued a scathing rebuttal in which he contended that Russ Feingold has been a career politician whose sole interest is his own political fortunes.  Russ Feingold then abandoned his infamous heartwarming, feel-good biography advertisements and began a character assassinations of Mr. Johnson.

Ron Johnson, despite running a more positive campaign thus far, has still spent more money attacking Sen. Feingold than he has on promoting his agenda for restoring American prosperity.  In this time of economic tumult, it is paramount that political candidates refrain from mudslinging and, instead, focus on their proposals for restoring American Exceptionalism.

Section 2

Dave Westlake, Ron Johnson and Russ Feingold have placed an unprecedented emphasis on online social networking, trumping traditional campaign methods such as: mass mailings, yard signs, and telephone calls.

For the first time in the history of Wisconsin politics, social networking is the primary medium for voter outreach.  Social Networking tools such as Facebook and Twitter, while having been in existence since 2004 and 2006, respectively, were not a prominent part of the 2006 U.S. Senate election, in which the Republican Party failed to recruit a viable challenger against Senator Herb Kohl.  In that election, neither Kohl nor Lorge barraged the state with television or radio commercials, rob calls, yard signs, or mass mailings.

Each of the candidates vying for the position of United States Senator is running a media savvy, social network based campaign.  The 2010 United States Senate election in unique in that neither of the three major candidates has barraged the state with signs, billboards or mass mailings, all three of which have long been the preferred methods of voter outreach.  Instead, Sen. Feingold, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Westlake have made technology, mainly social networking and campaign advertisements, the focal point of this campaign. As of August 16, 2010, Ron Johnson, the Republican frontrunner, has nearly 8,000 fans on Facebook and has released five television commercials.  Mr. Johnson’s Republican opponent, Dave Westlake, has 2,034 fans on Facebook and has yet to release a television commercial, while Russ Feingold has nearly 23,000 fans on his Facebook page and has run four television commercials.

As the reader can discern, Sen. Feingold, Mr. Westlake and Mr. Johnson have focused more of their resources on new media and social networking than traditional methods of voter outreach. In fact, PAI’s policy staff has yet to see a single yard or highway sign for any of the three major candidates.  It appears that the traditional methods of voter outreach, yard signs, mass mailings and phone calls have gone by the wayside in this competitive U.S. Senate race.

Dr. Richard Semiatin, a professor of Political Science at American University in Washington, D.C., recently edited a fascinating tome entitled Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, in which he and his contemporaries argued that social networking and media-based campaigns are the “new wave of the future.”  Furthermore, Dr. Semiatin asserted that campaigns will begin to abandon traditional methods of voter outreach due to the ease and efficiency of new media.

Since the publication of this book in late 2007, Dr. Semiatin’s assertion that mass media and social networking would come to dominate American political campaigns have proven to be accurate.  With the general election just two months away, voters should expect the candidates to exert even greater energy in online for to try and convince voters that they are the superior candidate in this competitive race.  As a result, the candidates will begin spending more money on television and radio advertisements, as well as increasing their presence on the internet, especially on social networking websites.

Section 3

With the U.S. economy dwindling on the brink of calamity, and the United States mired in two wars, the electorate is demanding a change in the national political climate.  As a result, many leading incumbents, including Wisconsin’s Russ Feingold, are finding themselves vulnerable.

For the third consecutive month, Rasmussen, the nation’s largest and most preeminent polling agency, has reported that Ron Johnson, a political outsider, leads his opponent, Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold, by a miniscule margin: 47% to 46%.

Technically, the race is a tie, due to the fact that the margin of error exceeds Johnson’s margin of victory over Russ Feingold.  The August 2010 Rasmussen poll denotes little change in the mood of the WI electorate, or in candidate preference.  For the past five months, Russ Feingold’s percentage of support in the Rasmussen polls has been a steady 46%.  Conversely, Ron Johnson, since winning the nomination of the Republican Party at its convention in May, has seen his percentage of the vote fluctuate from 49% to 47% in recent months.

In each of the last three polls, the race has been a statistical dead heat, with the margin of error exceeding Johnson’s margin of victory.  The August 2010 Rasmussen poll, despite being a dead heat, provides political analysts with enlightening information.  First, 57% of Wisconsin voters believe that the economy is in a state of disarray, whereas just 4% believe the economy is on the right track.

Among those who believe the economy is in a state of utter disrepair, roughly 65% support the Republican nominee, whoever it will be.  On the other hand, those who assert that the economy is on the right track overwhelmingly support Democratic incumbent Russ Feingold.

Secondly, aside from the economy, a significant portion of those surveyed said that health care, entitlements and victory in the Middle East remain the most pressing issues facing the United States in the years ahead.  On each of those issues, voters support the Republican candidate over Sen. Feingold.  Rasmussen noted that 85% of those who oppose ObamaCare support Ron Johnson; whereas, just 69% support Mr. Dave Westlake.

Lastly, Independents and non-affiliated voters, the catalyst for Barack Obama in 2008, are abandoning the Democratic Party in droves in 2010.  Rasmussen noted that Ron Johnson leads Russ Feingold among Independents, 53% to 46%.  With the U.S. economy dwindling on the brink of calamity, and the United States mired in two wars, the electorate is vying for “real” political change.  As a result, many leading incumbents, including Wisconsin’s own Russ Feingold, find themselves vulnerable in 2010.

Section 4

Russ Feingold’s voting record reflects that he is neither a fiscal conservative nor a moderate.

Since his inauguration into the world’s most exclusive club, the United States Senate, Russ Feingold has sought to portray himself as a moderate, fiscally conservative “man of the people.”  Russ Feingold’s voting record, however, reflects that he is anything but a fiscal conservative, or for that matter, a moderate.

For nearly a decade, Russ Feingold has been one of the more liberal members of the United States Senate.  The intention of this section is to alert the electorate of key votes taken by Senator Feingold during his three terms in the U.S. Senate.  Feingold, as aforementioned, portrays himself as a voice of reason who is always looking out for the best interest of Wisconsinites.  His voting record, especially on social and national security issues may prove otherwise.

Key votes by Russ Feingold that went against the wishes of his constituents:

• Defense of Marriage Act: In 1996, Russ Feingold was one of just fourteen senators to vote against the Defense of Marriage Act, a bill which his constituents overwhelmingly supported.  The Defense of Marriage Act sought to define marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
• The USA PATRIOT ACT: Russ Feingold was the only Senator to oppose the USA PATRIOT ACT.  Immediately following the heinous attacks of September 11, 2001, Russ Feingold chose to put his liberal partisan interests ahead of protecting American security.
• The Graham-Leach-Bailey Act: The Graham-Leach-Bailey Act, herein referred to as GLB, sought to repeal key elements of the Glass Steagall Act of 1933.  The GLB Act allowed commercial banks, investments banks, security firms, and insurance companies to consolidate.  Feingold, a self-proclaimed fiscal conservative, argued that this legislation provided the financial industry with too much authority.
• The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2005: After the passage of the Arizona Immigration legislation, S.B. 1070, in early July, it appears as though immigration reform will be a focal point of the 2010 elections.  In 2005, Russ Feingold was one of 65 senators to support the Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act of 2005.  This legislation sought to double the number of H-1B visas from 65,000 to 115,000, with an automatic increase of 20% increase every year.

Key votes by Russ Feingold that supported the wishes of his constituents.

• The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act, TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program), and The Final Reform Act of 2010. Senator Feingold was one of the only Senate Democrats to oppose these pork laden economic reform bills.  Senator Feingold should be lauded by fiscal conservatives for opposing these egregious spending bills. 
• ObamaCare: Russ Feingold, since being elected in 1992, has been an ardent supporter of universal, or government run, health care.  Senator Feingold, in a 2010 press release, indicated that his vote against ObamaCare stemmed from his chagrin with the fact it did not include universal coverage. 
• The Confirmation of Timothy Geithner: Russ Feingold was one of just four liberal Senators to oppose the nomination of Timothy Geithner to the position of Secretary of the Treasury.  Feingold, despite agreeing with Geithner on the vast majority of policy issues, voted against him for personal reasons.  In a 2009 press release, Senator Feingold stated, “I am deeply troubled by his failure to pay the property taxes he owed, despite repeated alerts from his employer at the time, the International Monetary Fund, that he was responsible for paying those taxes.” 

The votes analyzed above are just a select few of the thousands of votes cast by Russ Feingold during his year Senate career.  Throughout the duration of his tenure, he has accumulated one of the most liberal voting records and party loyalty scores: 96% (as of April 2010).

Aside from going against the grain on fiscal issues every now and then, Russ Feingold is an ardent liberal Democrat.  His liberal voting record, coupled with his wanton disregard for constituent viewpoints, has made Feingold one of the most vulnerable incumbents in the 2010 election cycle.  Prior to stepping into the voter booth on November 2, 2010, it is paramount that Wisconsinites are informed as to where each of the candidates stands on critical policy issues.  It is our hope that you turn to the Pax Americana Institute for information pertaining to the 2010 U.S. Senate Race, as well as the 2010 Wisconsin gubernatorial race.