Relaunching the Situationalist: Looking at the American Marriage

What a great day to relaunch the Situationalist Blogsite after two years on leave pursuing my masters. Today marks a historic day in American politics as the Supreme Court continues to wow us with their judicial power. The past two week felt like a roller coaster ride with this slightly right leaning bench. We first saw the Affirmative Action case being taken back to the lower courts even though the estimated vote count was 5-3 considering Kennedy's opposition to affirmative action programming. Then it was expected and affirmed that the Voting Rights case would be shut down. Now, we see the court taking a huge milestone in the political debate on same sex marriages. 

Although I would admit that recognizing same sex marriages for benefit reasons is a huge milestone, one should dive deeper for what that means and how will this progress the conversation of homosexuality in this country. On the surface, if a same sex partner were to die and leave an estate to his/her significant other, it is now only up to the states to make regulations on those procedures. This means the Federal Government cannot interfere with same sex couple benefits through such laws like the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA). This also meant that Proposition 8 in California that stopped the state from giving out marriage licenses to same sex couples was unconstitutional as well. 

Unfortunately, one could tell these rulings did not seem to end the political divide on homosexuality. Instead, it gave a political point to the left while the religious right are handing out to those supporting the result a ticket to hell. On one end, eventually we will all see the financial and social ramifications for such decision. On another hand, we are still in the middle of the river waiting to get to the other side. So what is a reasonable answer that includes appeasing those who consider marriage a vital and living sacrament in their religious beliefs while allowing free American couples, regardless of religion, to live and make decisions how they want. 

The answer is simple. Take the religious ceremonial responsibilities out of the government. I understand that some people believe I am anti-Christian for saying this, but I truly believe my American Catholic beliefs are not affected by this position. Isn't it not true that conservatives abide religiously to the constitution? Is it also not true that liberals are okay with religious institutions to worship as they please as long as it doesn't violate the laws of the land? 

At the end of the day, it should be recognized that civil unions can support a union between two individuals regardless of who they are and what they believe. Isn't this an example for why our forefathers created this country to begin with? Those of us who are Christians and want to protect the sanctity of Marriage should have the right to do so as a religious organization. If and when this view on Marriage and civil unions eventually takes place, I will only start to protest the government if it starts forcing religious institutions to perform their traditional ceremonies on people they cannot justify to God. One may not agree on a church's justification on denying a marriage, but that is up to God to judge that decision and the couple's freedom to find another church they can get married in if that's what they want. 

Take one situation at a time. 

Mike Lampe

Relooking the "Liberal Media" Argument

Since the beginning of my time in the modern political arena, there's not a political cycle that goes by that I hear a conservative friend of mine say the media, in general, is exaggeratedly slanted to the left. They site the research that shows that Obama had way more positive news stories than McCain in the 2008 Presidential Election, as if Sarah Palin had nothing to do with it. They also site that out of the major news outlets, in television, only one news station has a noticeable bias to the right. Although I do agree that these arguments have some merit, I do not believe the "liberal media" is trying to brainwash America into becoming a far left socialist country.

Why... the first concern for me with this argument is that my conservative friends constantly talk only about the news media on television. They look at how FOX News has to go up against the mean and highly manipulative MSNBC and CNN. Yet, they fail to discuss the popular and numerous conservative radio talk shows that do not get as much scrutiny when they get the information wrong. Here in Milwaukee, there was not a time when listening to Newsradio 620 or WISN 1330 that I heard the conservative talk show host take a news article or report and conservatively spin it to the point where angry liberal callers get cut short and the conservative callers seem like the smartest political analysts since sliced bread was invented. Driving in my car, it was very difficult for me to find one liberal radio talk show host that could spin the issues like the conservative talk show hosts could.

This phony argument goes deeper than just the conservative radio and the liberal television stations. Lets take a look at the NBC, the company that is more widely known as being owned by General Electric. NBC also has the liberally slanted news channel MSNBC. While at this point, these points strikes up to big arguments for this news organization to be slanted to the left. NBC also has the news state in Wisconsin with the call name TMJ4. Wait, isn't TMJ4 connected with WTMJ Newsradio 620... the conservative talk radio. This is a great example where media companies are not a liberal army, but rather another company that is profit motivated that finds the best way to diversify their consumers. The same example can be applied to ABC which is connected to WISN 12 News and WISN 1330 radio in Wisconsin. One could even look at Rupert Murdoch's Empire (Owner of FOX News) where he supports one side of an argument in one country and is against it in another country with a different news name (he owns multiple international news organizations).

So there you have it, my reason why the liberal media argument has little merit.

My Experience at the Barrett Camp Election Night

Besides my election party I had with Sam Dunlop who ran for State Assembly, I never went to a big election night party such as the one I went to for Tom Barrett Tuesday Evening. I did not go because I was an avid Barrett supporter. However, I felt the need to experience something that was quite historic considering Walker was the first American Governor in history to survive a recall election. I also want to send a personal thank you to my friend Caitlin for accompanying me last night! I do not think I would have had the guts to go by myself!

As a political analyst, I have always tried to stay as non-biased as possible. However, I found it difficult to fully understand what was happening with the election. Between being shocked to meet Jesse Jackson and trying to utilize my smart phone in a crowded room, I started getting my information on the hardcore supporters being overly optimistic about Barrett and discrediting the projections coming out of the news media. An example of this  was when people in the crowd saying that Milwaukee and Racine had still more people waiting to vote when the polls closed at 8PM.

As a person going along for the campaign ride, I was able to meet some awesome people, some angry and some just plain cool. I randomly walked up to a bunch of teachers with solidarity t-shirts and we had a small discussion on education and the issues relating to accountability. I also met some differently dressed firefighters who were part of the biker brigade. They personally knew Mahlon Mitchell and were also part of the Firefighters Union. I had a great conversation with them about the decline of the working class and why they felt it was important to keep fighting.

Most importantly, I was able to rethink about how politics is not a game... people's livelihoods are at stake when any policy is put into action. When Barrett lost, I felt bad to see that there were people in that room were hoping for someone to listen to them and fight for their struggles that seem impossible to overcome. Although I predicted Barrett would lose, one should not discredit the passion of the people I met in that room tonight. I also have to praise Governor Walker on his speech last night where he made it clear of wanting to work together. As of now, it appears as if he truly understands that he could have done things better when communicating his policies.

In the future, I could definitely see Mahlon Mitchell coming up through the Democratic ranks. It almost seemed like he was better when he was not reading from his notes. He did a great job to re-energize the party whom just heard Barrett give his concession speech. Now that all this is over, we can stop this election nonsense for a while... oh wait... Republican Primaries for U.S. Senate is coming up... 

Lampe's Analysis and Predictions on the Recall Election (VOTE TODAY)!

It is finally here. The recall election that will determine the fate of Governor Walker. Throughout the course of the recall campaign, I expressed concern of the shady conversations Walker had with donors and avid supports, while also expressing weak political campaigning from Tom Barrett. I do have to note that Barrett came out strong the week before the vote today bringing President Clinton for a surprise last minute visit and confidently and harshly calling out Walker about his policies and actions during the last debate at the Marquette University Law School.

Wisconsin also noticed that polls have given Walker a slight edge. Some polls showed him up as many as 8 points, while others should him around 4 points up. In my prediction, I believe Walker will win by three points. That is, if likely voters only vote today. The other side of my prediction is that Barrett could win by 1 point. After calling some of my sources throughout the state, registration lines have been busy to vote for the first time in their wards. We wont know if these new registered voters were leaning more Republican or Democrat. One could reason that, when Walker won, Democrats were not energized during the 2010 election that gave Walker the slight edge last go around. This time, Democrats/Liberals are angerly energized from the hard line Republican Policies.

So there you have it... although I think Walker has an advantage, I believe the polls might be slightly off due to the possibility of unlikely voters voting this going around (hence my analyzed margin of error).

Walker wins by 3%
or
Barrett wins by 1%

The Simple Economics of Discrimination

Diversity is a topic that comes up quite frequently, whether having debates on affirmative action policies or hate crimes against a particular marginalized group in society. I'm surprised when working in higher education when the topic of diversity does not come up. It could just be me, but I get the perception that the voices I usually hear  are the loud voices of those who feel there is too much government interference on hiring minority candidates and those who feel that American Society is still as racist as it was in the Early 1900's. 

Considering the diversity conversations usually get brought up by the confronting fringes of society, I wanted to bring this topic more down to earth and explore the economics behind discrimination. This article will take a micro-economic approach that views the production of a business firm selling a good or service to consumers. The one assumption to this analysis is that discrimination of a producer leads to a direct or indirect action. It then also leads to them not selling to a consumer or indirectly influencing the consumer not to buy that good or service on the basis of feeling discriminated against. 

Pretend you are an owner of a mid-sized grocery store that is located in a mostly Caucasian neighborhood, but also has a noticeable group of African Americans and Latinos in the area. Down the road, there is also a gay bar. being realistic, people do not see "white only" signs anymore or business owners that bluntly kick anyone out due to their backgrounds. However, there are times where people show visible signs of being uncomfortable with a minority cultural group whether intentional or not (microaggressions). In this particular example: If the grocery store owner is prejudice against gay people and has had limited interaction with other racial groups, these minority groups will go elsewhere for their grocery needs and give negative publicity online via social media and review sites about the business. This means less products being purchased in the store and less revenue for the owner. 

Below is a short run supply and demand curve that shows when a business owner engages in discriminatory behavior with marginalized/minority consumers. The demand curve (slanting left to right) shifts to the left because the owner has a change in the consumer base, excluding the marginalized groups. The supply curve (slanting right to left) does not change because the production does not change in the short run. As you can see, Q1 goes to Q2 showing a decrease while there is also a decrease in price from P1 to P2. Although the price drop is good for the loyal consumers in the short run, it stagnates the growth of the owner's business and  decreases its comparative advantage to the business' competitors. (more text below graph).

With this analysis, one could come to an economic and realistic understanding why it is important not to discriminate against marginalized/minority groups. If one looks at it in more of a macro-level perspective, one could argue that the economy can be hindered by discriminatory activity. Especially if a big portion of private or public sector engages in such activity. 

What I learned from the Walker Recall Fiasco

On Tuesday, we saw a historic and rare political event happening with the Recall Election of Gov. Scott Walker. We also noticed that there was a higher voter turning topping a little over 30% (as reported by the Appleton Post Crescent). Although it was an  interesting event that politicos will analyze from now until November, the current political state of Wisconsin is in much need of compromise and repair. Although you hear some political rhetoric about getting along, we are mostly hearing why their economic policy is better and how the other completely destroyed the jobs outlook of the state/city (Milwaukee).

Now what did I learn from this? Quite simply, this election throws a curveball in some politicos' minds about the voter not being rational in the sense of having a short mind-span when it comes to negative political events relating to a political candidate. The original frame of mind comes from how consumers have recently recently reacted to some economic tragedies of well knowing businesses. For example, one could notice consumers forgiving Ford quickly for their tire issue on their expeditions in the 90's and Toyota more recently with their brakes issue. Now, however, one could notice a difference in the Wisconsin voters based on the timeline the recall elections occur. 

One must remember that this all started back in February 2011 (over a year ago) when Gov. Walker introduced the collective bargaining bill to Wisconsin Residents. Once the law went into effect last summer, Wisconsin voters had to wait to petition a recall until the first year of the Governor's term was complete (per election law). Consider that timeline, many voters against the bill had to wait 6 months until they could start the whole process. Also considering all the media slip ups politicians make on almost a daily basis, many politicos did not think the recall election was overwhelmingly possible. Then, the news broke out about how the Democratic Party got over a million signatures, which surprised not only the Walker Campaign Team, but also myself.

We will have to wait and see what happens to Scott Walker in a few months when Barrett faces him in the general recall election, however I am curious what the Obama Campaign Team is thinking right now given this analysis. Considering 2 weeks is usually political eternity for political candidates, angry voters waiting impatiently for 6 months to recall a governor is a new twist in political strategy. Is 6 months for a controversial collective bargaining bill the same as a 2.5 year wait of angry voters wanting to kick Obama out due to his health care bill. Although I still think many voters are going to elect their candidate based on economic indicators, I am considering changing my mind about whether the healthcare bill will pop up as a strong secondary reason why an angry conservative voter will vote for Romney instead of Obama.  

Breaking News: Tom Barrett wins Wisconsin Primary

As mentioned last night in the last blog article, it was to be expected that Barrett would win the election. While Kathleen Falk was there in the beginning, I believe she had too much support from the unions. That made more centered democrats worried what radical policies a Falk Administration begin.

What was more surprising that the fake lt. Governor candidate Isaac Weix got more votes than Ira Robins. Regardless, the round two battle between Walker and Barrett will mostly be on the economy. If Walker can lower the unemployment rates in Wisconsin, he can coast through an election win. If now, expect Barrett to hammer Walker on a poor economic record.

What also still remains is how the state election could be the bell weather election for the national presidential election. If Walker keeps his position as Governor, does that smell trouble for the Obama Administration. The reverse could happen for the Romney Campaign. Final thought: As Carville put it yesterday... "wake up Democrats, You could lose this election." Democrats must not be too confident that they have any election in the bag, considering the Economy has not made up its mind on being a bull or a bear (going up or going down).

Last Minute Guide for the Last Minute Voter: 2012 Wisconsin Governor Democratic Primary

As tomorrow holds the answer to who will run against Scott Walker in the recall election, here is the analysis on each other candidates and prediction on will be the Democratic Recall Nominee. (There's no sugar coating in this analysis)

Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett 
Tom Barrett is more well known in the City of Milwaukee then elsewhere in the state. Let's be honest, most people hate Milwaukee mayors because of their inability to look past the usual crime that occurs in a large city (which means they hardly go into the city). However, that's not a big deal in this race because many years of voting shows most Democratic support concentrated in Milwaukee and Dane County.

Those living in or have access to Milwaukee television see Barrett as a candidate who has seen some revitalization in the city making the area around the Marquette Interchange look better. He also was a survivor of a vicious attack and came back to push better crime preventive measures. The downside of his candidacy, he ran for governor in 2010... against Scott Walker. It's unfortunate that the un-electable 2010 candidate has become the electable Democratic Primary Candidate. Although he sometimes put his foot down when getting heat to talk about an issue, he is not consistent which worries some voters of him not being strong enough to go against a strong vocal Walker.

County Supervisor Kathleen Falk
Kathleen Falk comes from Dane County, another state stronghold for Democratic Voters. She has been the county supervisor for a long time. Known as the "Union Candidate," she was there from the beginning of the movement to recall Scott Walker to restore the collective bargaining rights of public workers. Her strong stance is a double edged sword. On one hand, she showed her leadership in standing for what she believes in and did whatever she could to get things done. On the other hand, her stance and doing whatever it takes to restore collective bargaining doesn't scream being the "mom" of Wisconsin to unite the state back together.

Her other downside has to deal with her early entrance into the race. Some political analysts believe that Barrett entered the race because there were core Democratic Supports not fully in love with a Falk Candidacy. This could also be proven with the push for former US Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold to enter into the race. If she wins the nomination, she needs to strengthen her tone and perception of being a strong leader.

The Other Two Un-electable Candidates
When it comes to Professor LaFollette, he had some good ideas considering hes a reputable college professor. During the debate, his message focused on the "Wisconsin Idea" where education is a strong foundation along with collaborating with people one may disagree with. Although he had some interesting ideas, I view this candidate as a potential advisor on educational policy, especially for higher education institutions.

Out of the two un-electables, I really would have endorsed Vinehout if she was given enough media attention and was electable according to the party higher ups. Unfortunately, this state senator is not. Regardless, I liked her strong voice during the debate and she actually gave ideas on how to work on pushing legislation through realistically... and not in a populist was like how some of the other mainstream candidates would do.

My Prediction
I agree with the polls showing a good lead for Mayor Tom Barrett. Although he is not the strongest candidate the Democrats got out there right now, he has a realistic chance against Walker. Therefore, I predict it will be Barrett vs. Walker round 2.

Romney likely to win Presidential Nomination for Republicans

Yes, it does seem like there was a disappointing night for Mitt Romney and a promising one for Rick Santorum. However, the national spotlight has put negative attention on Santorum regarding his campaign's inability to file for being on several ballets in a handful of counties and/or states. As of this point, a safe assumption can be made that Romney will be the nomination winner, keeping his high campaign money spending, strong economic message, and pending no major screw ups (like a Howard Dean moment).

Although a comfortable prediction of his win can be made, his speech made in Massachusetts tonight could be a prelude to tactical mistakes that could cost him the candidacy or a second term in the White House if he wins the Presidential Election. He talked about balancing the budget by cutting unnecessary programs and pretty much undoing everything President Obama has done. The question that needs to be asked is if he over-promised tonight by telling his supporters of all the different taxes he wants to repeal, like the death tax and cutting taxes for businesses.

There is statistical evidence to place a bet on Mitt Romney winning due to the public opinion polls being reported in recent months. Many of the polls showed that the economy and deficit were one of the top concerns of Americans on the list. Then, there is a mixture of ranks between repealing Obama-Care, pro-life issues, and security. One can make a general correlation with what areas (regions, counties, states) presidential candidates won with those public opinion polls. For example, Mitt Romney were winning well populated areas that have economically established Republican voters. This gives Romney the economy candidate which gives him a statistical edge. Gingrich showed himself being a regionally south candidate while Romney being the leader of rural and Christian conservatives. 

Friday Mike Out Podcast (2/24/2012)

Welcome to Friday Mike Out, I am your host Mike Lampe from the situationalist.

These are your top three headliners from the week

1. Rick Santorum was the momentum candidate going into Wednesday's Presidential Debate. However he seemed to have slipped! It was, instead, Mitt Romney acting like the comeback kid, acting strong although a little stiff.

2. Things are getting interesting in Wisconsin Politics. Governor Scott Walker has seen better days considering the recall election pending to happen and his former aids indicted for illegally campaigning.

There is a bright side to Walker's troubles. There seems to be a hint of hesitation among liberals regarding the potential Democratic Recall Candidates. Along with poll numbers, this can be shown by the hype Russ Feingold got after telling Stephen Colbert on Comedy Central he is not looking to run.

3. Going back to Wednesday's blog, a new Marquette University Law School Poll indicates Obama still beating all potential Republican Candidates... This means the contraception issue did not affect him as much as some political commentators thought it would.

That is it for your Friday Mike Out from the Situationalist... Have a good weekend!

Election 2012: Obama's Win with Contraception Fiasco?

Welcome to The Situationalist beginning of Coverage of Election 2012!


Two weeks ago, it was made known that the Obama Administration had implemented a rule that forced religious institutions to cover the use of contraceptives to women that were asking for it. The media focused on the expressed anger of Catholic Bishops who oversaw Catholic medical centers and universities housing health services for their students. One could say this was another run of the mill when it comes to Democrats standing for Women's Issues while Republicans show their loyalty to the religious right.

However, one should wonder why the Obama Administration implemented this rule considering social issues have not been brought before in this election cycle. Why give the Republicans a reason to rally up a constituency that had been dormant for the last year and a half? Although some are calling foul and others are calling this an embarrassing move by the Obama campaign machine, it is interesting what has happened since this event occurred. Below are the events that occurred starting with the implementation of the policy:

1. Media recognizes implementation of the contraception policy
2. Political outcry by Catholic Leaders and other social conservatives
3. Rick Santorum (R) gains bump in the polls for his strong stance on social issues
4. Mitt Romney loses ground to Santorum and loses a handful of primaries
5. President Obama announces compromise given political outcry

Intentional or not, the Obama Administration has been able to shake up the Republican Primary in the short run which has made it harder for conservatives to fully back Romney as their Republican Nominee. Some political commentators are speculating that Santorum has become the momentum candidate which could lead to nomination. Although the Republicans will eventually unite to nominate a presidential candidate, The Obama Administration has been able to indirectly make political campaign contributions to Republicans more sporadic.

Blog/Article by The Situationalist - Mike Lampe

The Growing "American" Hatred of Higher Education

 DISCLAIMER: I am writing this article fully knowing I am working in the Higher Education Field. I fully recognize my bias of supporting higher education. I also fully recognize that we must look at the criticisms of higher education to validate the importance of our economic labor producers.

As early as the 19th Century, higher education played a pivotal role in maintaining and creating economic markets by providing skilled labor. Even today, many desired positions with desired income levels require or prefer some sort of advanced degree above a high school diploma. Not only is this an economic necessity, it has also become part of the American middle class social status. That is, you may be looked down upon in many middle class circles if you do not have a degree. 

With the obvious benefits being stated, the United States must look at why there is a growing hatred for higher education institutions to calm down social tension as well as finding more effective and efficient ways of creating the skilled labor force. This, now more noticeable, hatred can be described by economic, political, and social reasoning. 

Economic

The economic reasoning for this hatred is quite simple noticing the economic hardship we are seeing today. Since higher education institutions have played a pivotal role in the labor markets, people are wondering why job vacancies are left unfilled due to lack of skilled laborers in those particular fields.

Political

The primary reason for any anger politically are taxes. Since tax dollars are used to support higher education and unemployment at a record high, Americans are upset that institutions are not living up to their pivotal role to appease the economic labor markets. A typical tax-hating citizen would wonder why they have to pay into a system that doesn't work.

Digging more historically in the political hatred, Americans, in general, have had an individualistic ethic. From the British Government to the New Deal of President Roosevelt, there has always been American anxiety of public expansion. When noticing the history of higher education, one can see a consistent growth of access to higher education, number of institutions, and federal/state programs that help increase access to all who want it. For example, the GI Bill (allowing funding for soldiers to go to college) was a significant policy that some regard the gate opening allowing many who, before then, could not go. One could tie the American anxiety of large public entities to the modern growth of higher education.

Social

Last but not least, there has been a modern social trend in which high school students are socialized by numerous social institutions to get a college degree, regardless of what students want to do. Adding that to the graduated college student struggling to find work in a sluggish economy, one can see the social uproar towards any higher education institution. 

With this being a general overview of criticisms, one can point out many specifics that could demonize higher education institutions. At the the end of the day, we have to realize the importance of higher education, as well as how we can accommodate the criticisms that have been highlighted in the bad economic times in the 21st Century. Higher education has become a beacon of opportunity for many students. Unfortunately, the more students have access to such opportunity, the more students have to separate themselves from the growing pack.

The Situationalist

Written by Mike Lampe

Obama and the "Buffett" Rule

As stated in a previous article, President Obama's Administration has provided details on the Jobs Plan he promised to release after Labor Day. This plan is set to cost around 300 Billion Dollars and seems to be round 2 of where Speaker Boehner and the President ended last time while discussing the debt ceiling. 

Besides the tax cuts that are set to give incentives for businesses to hire within the United States, media outlets are hooked on has been coined the "Buffett" Rule. Obama discussed the situation in which Warren Buffett, A successful investor on Wall Street, pays less taxes that his receptionist does.

Therefore, the Obama Administration proposed that when "Buffett"-like tax situations millionaires get into,  their taxes would default to the middle class tax rate. Thus eliminating the complicated minimum alternative tax as well as changing the concept of a "flat tax," only the flat tax would be for the wealthy income earners. 

In the article, Lampe: Its the Economy Stupid, Mike Lampe had recommended to get rid of the Bush Tax Cuts to the rich and implement a tax break that is more job specific. Although not getting rid of the Bush Tax Cut for the wealthy entirely, this approach sends a message of compromise and the perception that fresh ideas are going through the Oval Office at the White House. 

Although it is quite clear that Obama will not get everything he asks for, it will be interesting to see how the Republicans will respond to this bill. There is already the anti-tax movement of the Republican Party that suggest the government should not tax "job creators."

BREAKING NEWS: Huntsman joins Perry-Romney battle in Tonights Republican Debate

In the Reagan Presidential Library, the 2012 Republican Presidential Debate was held on MSNBC to determine who might be the next Republican Candidate to run against Barack Obama. There are three groupings of candidates that showed up at the debate; 1. the Governors, 2. The Opportunists 3. The Left Behind.

1. The Governors
A secondary title to this article was the battle of the Governors. Everyone knew and expected a back and forth between Gov. Perry from Texas and Gov. Romney from Massachusetts. There was a great interaction between the two on the most important issue, job creation. The exchange argued the rankings of each state while they were in office. However, another Gov. Huntsman from Utah gave Perry and Romney a run for their money. After the small exchange, Huntsman pulled a fast one and shared that his state was #1 in job creation during his administration.

2. The Opportunists
Of course, I would have to say that the three governors took the main stage. Now for those who I would consider to be on the side "free stage," I put Michele Bachmann and Herman Kane. Michele Bachmann was putting an aweful amount of time talking about Obamacare, especially during the job creation discussion. Did she not remember how the Democrats lost the congressional elections is 2010? (Focusing more on health care than on job creation/economy)

3. The Left Behind
Although I called Ron Paul the winner of the first Republican Debate, I'm surprised to see him somewhat off his game tonight. Since the whole field was somewhat hostile, Ron Paul's normal strategy was overshadowed. Santorum was not strong and Gingrich is known not to have a good foundational campaign for Republicans to throw support at him.

SUMMARY:
- Perry will remain the front runner, but Romney also took impressive swings
- Huntsman may get a bump in the polls for being on par with the other front runners
- Bachmann and Paul will diminish more in polls
- Herman Cane 9-9-9 Tax Plan was catchy and may stick.

Lampe: Its the Labor Markets Stupid... (Obama announces Jobs Plan after Labor Day)

Prior to the new Jobs Plan President Obama is set to announce after Labor Day, the un- and underemployed people in the United States are asking, 'what have you done for us lately?' With unemployment at over 9%, both Democratic and Republican officials are trying to pitch the failure of the other party.

Let's face it, the Republicans are being hypocritical by slashing social programs and fundraising machines from Democrats (unions) without touching revenues; and Democrats are asking to keep key governmental programs without putting much of a fight to keep revenues (taxes) on the table.

But all this bickering does not solve the issue at hand. Yes, the federal budget will help ease political uncertainty in the markets, but it will not do much to increase employment as dramatically as the public wants. Although the Republicans' minds are in the right place, they are not thorough in their tax cut approach for the high income earners.

Would it not be a fair compromise to replace the high income tax break for a tax break specifically for companies employing people in the United States?

MAKING IT SIMPLE: Remember in school where we learned the basic process of our economy. You had the banks, industries, and the laborers. The bank would loan money to the industries to invest in their businesses. After the business is set up, they would pay employees to run the business. When the employees get paid, they go back to the banks and industries to start the process over again and expand the economy.

The question for our time is this, 'Are we becoming too efficient?' If we are not giving people the opportunity to earn money then spend it in the US Economy, does that mean the economy slows down because goods and services are not being purchased by the consumer powerhouse of Americans?

My three points of what I would ask President Obama to do:
1. Expire the tax cuts to the higher income brakets
2. Reform former tax cuts into a job-creating tax cut
3. Initiate these steps in your new jobs plan


Blog/Article by the Situationalist - Mike Lampe

The American Dream

I was able to experience the Fire Over the Fox in Green Bay to honor our independence day (July 4th). It was an excellent site to show how far we have come as a country. As many of you may know, we consider ourselves the land of the free and home of the brave. We have also become a culture where we scream "AMERICA!" everytime something cool occurs that just happens to be patriotic as well.

After seeing the fireworks, I also started thinking about numerous articles and commentaries about how the United States is on the decline from its world hegemony. Could it be possible? Of course it could, but I think we are far from it. People think that China will take us over in the near future, not realizing that our free trade agreement with them is the only reason why they have as much manufacturing labor market share. Along with the economic downturn, people forget how we became a super power in the first place.

This is the point where I talk about "our founding fathers," the three words passionate conservatives love using. Our ancestors were somewhat social rejects of their respective homeland. They saw going to the New Americas as a chance to live they want to live and become successful. Although the great migration to the United States happened a long time ago, we are continously seeing a reenactment.

As each generation goes by, a group of people from distant lands are getting austricized for living the way they want to live. Think about it! It started with the Europeans (British, Germans, Dutch, Irish, etc.) who immigrated to the States. Currently, you are seeing Latinos,Eastern Europeans, and South East Asians trying to find the same American Dream that Western Europeans saught for in the found years of this country. Due to our involvment with current wars, you will probably see an influx of Middle Eastern immigration.

This refreshment of new cultures and new market opportunities are what makes the United States strive. Along with the new cultures, this country brings in people who knows what it's like not to have the opportunity to succeed. If we limit this constant refreshment, we lose our niche of being the greatest country in the world. I'm not saying we need to have an immigration policy that makes sure our borders are safe, but we cannot have such a strict policy that it denies the American Dream to so many people.

BREAKING NEWS: Recall Elections Over in Wisconsin

It is official! Tonight marks the last of the recall elections in which two out of the six Republicans lost their seats to Democratic Recall candidates. The two Democrats up for a recall election have won both their seats back.

Both sides are declaring victory, with the Republicans stating that the four/six recall wins shows Wisconsin is not as upset about the collective bargaining as the Unions are portraying. The Democrats are declaring victory considering they did win two seats which means there is momentum for Democrats in the 2012 Election Cycle. History was made with State Senator Holperin (D) being the first state senator to have won two recall elections while serving office.

My Analysis: Considering Recall Elections are rarely won by the opposite party challenger, I believe this shows the Democrats (in Wisconsin) have a slight advantage going into the 2012 Election Cycle. However, I believe it will be a very close race. If I had to place my bets on the future elections tonight, I would see more Democrats winning in slight margins.

Of course that would determine on what happens between now or then. There could be a Howard Dean moment or the economy could sink in a double dip recession. However, a recent USA Today/Gall Up Poll suggested that there was a bigger drop in Republican Support vs. their Democratic counterparts. On top of that, Warren Buffett went on Charlie Rose recently discussing how Corporate America is starting to pick up the pace to recover. He describes the economy being hindered by the slowness in the housing market.

Also, New numbers show that Americans in general have been paying off their own debts as well as saving more than previously expected. In 2001, it was reported that Americans in general saved a mere 1% of their income. Last month, the general savings rate for Americans are at 5% of their income. This could suggest a better than expected turnout heading into the holiday season.

Lastly, although I am sure Unions will push forward for a Recall Election for Gov. Scott Walker, I do not believe the Recall Elections the past two weeks show a minimal return on investment for an expensive unusal election cycle.

Until next time,
The Situationalist.

Lampe: Expect a Debt Ceiling Vote Late Sunday Evening

Heres the scoop since yesterday:
- Boehner's plan cuts $838 Billion in Spending
- Reid's plan cuts a little over $2 Trillion in Spending
- Both plans have little chance passing both houses

However, as Chris Matthews put it, "the pre-game" strategies are now over and the real negotiations begin. As reported yesterday morning, the tea-party freshmen Republicans reluncantly got their "asses" in line (Boehner said it, not me). In this time of constant political positioning for candidate campaigning, it only makes sense that a grand deal will happen in the final hours of Sunday Evening, hours before the opening bell of the markets begin to panic, or sigh in relief. I believe a repeat congressional performance of the health care bill will happen with the debt ceiling vote.

According to a recent poll, it seems like Obama is winning the rhetoric on this issue of compromise (56% of Americans Agree) with the Democrats holding their guns with the "shared sacrifce" anti-tax for the rich strategy and the Republicans trying to blame the President for lack of leadership. Hopefully the political theatre will die down considering the tea party policy shift on the debt ceiling issue.

Considering some bill will pass that has the debt ceiling saving us from credit rating catastrophe, I start to wonder if the debt ceiling debate should be part of the political arena. Just like the interest rates and printing money, shouldn't the debt ceiling be considered on the same circumstances. After all, if we do not raise the debt ceiling, global economic calapse is highly likely. Therefore, I believe that the debt ceiling should be under the Federal Reserve, the entity that allows our economic power to flow freely without any governmental disruption.

Although, for the markets' sake, we can get this debt ceiling crisis done earlier, these modern political times trends to the likeliness of last minute politics. Where the last bill will likely be the foundation of the grand compromise. If you listen to the news today, you are hearing that a 'new bill' is in the works. Let's see what that bill is... Didn't someone mention 'grand compromise'?

CANDIDATE SPOTLIGHT: Michele Bachmann Sees More Than Russia From Her Window

For those of you who remember the Tea Party Response of the State of the Union Address, most people met Michele Bachmann as a woman with guts but with a few loose screws. Along with that, she was caught up with making 'anti-American' comments while on Hardball with Chris Matthews.

Fast foward to the Presidential Debate Monday night, things are starting to turn around for the presidential hopeful. Although Ron Paul had the most gain from the debate, most people do not see him as becoming a candidate for the Republican Party. The next person that actually did not put themselves in an ackward position was Michele Bachmann.

One might have to ask how she was able to pull off becoming a possible front runner. Easy, you add Ed Rollins (well known political strategist) and straight confident talk of beating President Obama; you're in. Unlike Gingrich, it seems like she is following the directions of her advisors.

The next test for Bachmann will be coming soon. Although it may be too late for Palin to jump in due to Bachmann's success, Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) will be another potential savior for the conservative movement.  If either of these candidates continue to be straight and smart with the American People, you won't see Mitt Romney be the frontrunner for much longer.

Blog/Article by the Situationalist - Mike Lampe

BREAKING NEWS: Wisconsin Senate Passes Concealed Carry Bill

This afternoon, the Republican led Wisconsin State Senate passed the contraversial concealed carry law that will allow Wisconsin Citizens the right to carry a weapon given they have the proper permit and training. Although some people are concerned about safety, there are certain events (such as Summerfest) that can prohibit concealed weapons as long as it meets the criteria stated in the bill.

When it comes to this bill, and other bills that relate to gun regulations, there are good arguments for and against. When I present workshops on civil discourse, I use this subject as a perfect example how legislation should be based on situational instances rather than having a blanket policy. There have been numerous stories on people being able to protect themselves because they had a weapon next to them. There are also numerous stories to connect crime in metro areas to gun violence. Tim Carpenter (D-Milwaukee 3rd) pointed out statistics that makes that connection.

On top of that, you have people who purchase weapons for hunting in the great Wisconsin woods. Although it would be hard for someone to conceal and carry a rifle, some of the hunting population will make sure their rights will not be taken away. If you look the other direction as far as leisure, should people be able to carry weapons while alcohol is present. The legislature needs to make sure they are consistant, considering the message of alcohol not mixing with driving. Concepts are similar aren't they?

If this bill does pass, Governor Scott Walker is expected to sign the bill as soon as it gets to his desk.

Blog/Article by The Situationalist - Michael Lampe