New Right-Wing Attack on Wisconsin Teachers Boomerangs

February 22, 2011

A word of advice to conservatives desperately trying to smear teachers and other public employees in Wisconsin: when trapped in a hole, first stop digging. On Monday, the right-wing blogosphere made the mistake of complaining that Wisconsin received millions of dollars in federal education aid when solidly Republican red states get much, much more. Now, the would-be Republican union busters are whining that Badger state students can't read. As it turns out, Wisconsin students outperform their counterparts in those reddest of states where collective bargaining rights are few - or non-existent.

A day after he inadvertently drew attention to the persistent phenomenon of "red state socialism" (that is, the one-flow of federal tax dollars from Washington DC to heavily Republican states), Terence Jeffrey of CNS News protested that "two-thirds of Wisconsin eighth graders can't read proficiently." The implication, of course, is that the unacceptable scores are the fault of overpaid, undeserving public school teachers:

Two-thirds of the eighth graders in Wisconsin public schools cannot read proficiently according to the U.S. Department of Education, despite the fact that Wisconsin spends more per pupil in its public schools than any other state in the Midwest.

In the National Assessment of Educational Progress tests administered by the U.S. Department of Education in 2009--the latest year available--only 32 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned a "proficient" rating while another 2 percent earned an "advanced" rating. The other 66 percent of Wisconsin public-school eighth graders earned ratings below "proficient," including 44 percent who earned a rating of "basic" and 22 percent who earned a rating of "below basic."

Sadly for Jeffrey and his right-wing echo chamber, the data show that Wisconsin schoolchildren out-read the kids in states where Republicans poll best and public workers have the fewest collective bargaining rights. Those know-nothing red states also happen to be where the federal government most heavily subsidizes the local education systems.

The numbers - and the electoral map - tell the tale. According to the National Center for Education Statistics, Wisconsin does in fact spend more per student than some of its Midwestern neighbors even as its pupils score less well. But with 34% of its eighth graders students at or above the target reading proficiency, Wisconsin far outperforms the Republicans' solid south (and the national average of 30%). Only Kentucky, which receives substantially more money from DC can match Wisconsin's scores.

Just as telling, the woefully inadequate per student spending levels are propped up only by generous federal spending provided by blue state tax payers. Meanwhile, the bluest of states in the Northeast spend more and get what they pay for. In Connecticut, 43% of eighth graders are at or above reading proficiency. The Nutmeg state spends $14,610 per pupil per year. New Hampshire (39%, $11,951), Vermont (40%, $14,421) New Jersey (42%, $17,620), Pennsylvania (40%, $11,741) and Massachusetts (42%, $13,667) pay the price for better educational outcomes.

At their assault on union rights continues in Wisconsin, so too does conservatives' vile and baseless scapegoating of teachers there. But sadly for the right-wingers trying to smash the unions in Madison, Americans have already seen the future with today's failure in Alabama, Mississippi, Alaska and the other states Republicans call home.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/002109.htm

Wisconsin Dems demand probe of Walker's conduct on fake Koch call

Posted at 10:41 AM ET, 03/ 7/2011
By Greg Sargent

Governor Scott Walker's conduct on the prank call with the David Koch imposter has largely receded from the national media spotlight, but if Wisconsin Democrats have their way, it will be the subject of an investigation by Wisconsin's enforcer of campaign finance and ethics statutes.

The Wisconsin Democratic Party is set to file a complaint today to the state Government Accountability Board that alleges Walker repeatedly violated Wisconsin statutes by appearing to request support from Koch in shoring up vulnerable Republicans and by indicating that he would use the threat of layoffs as a political tool.

I've got a copy of the complaint, to be released later today, and it's worth a read, not necessarily because of the impact it may or may not have, but because it's a reminder of how egregious Walker's conduct on the call really was.

The complaint, which reflects a sense among Dems that all bets are off in this standoff, makes an interesting argument. By any reasonable standard, it says, Walker's conduct should undermine "public trust" and fell well short of standards designed to ensure "the faith and confidence of the people of this state in their state public officials and state employees."

The complaint focuses on several aspects of the prank call, but I think these two may be the most interesting:

16. Respondent states during the Call that he has the Attorney General's office "looking into" strategies to force the Democratic senators to return. This constitutes a misuse of the independently elected office of the Attorney General for primarily political motivations.

And:

19. Respondent states during the Call that he will send out 5,000-6,000 layoff notices to public sector employees in an attempt to "ratchet up" pressure on the Democratic Senators. This use of threat against, and intimidation of, public sector employees for political purposes constitutes an unfair labor practice in violation of Wis. Stat. Section 111.84.

The complaint also alleges that it was improper for Walker to suggest to Koch that Republicans in swing areas might need shoring up, since this smacks of illegal coordiation, though to my mind it isn't clear what he was asking for. It also says that Walker's claim that he "thought about" planting troublemakers in the crowd "constitutes a conspiracy to recklessly endanger public safety," though here too it's not quite clear what Walker really considered doing.

That said, even those examples were eyebrow-raising, and the complaint is worth reading, because it's a reminder that taken together, Walker's shenanigans on the call add up to conduct that by any reasonable measure should raise serious questions about Walker's judgment and approach to his office. Some in the national media were quick to exonerate Walker after the call, but reading the complaint, the Wisconsin Democratic Party's claim that his conduct risks undermining the public trust in state government doesn't seem particulary unreasonable.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2011/03/wisconsin_dems_demand_probe_of.html

Clarence Thomas faces call for his disbarment in MO Supreme Court

Daily Kos / By RogerShuler

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas should be disbarred for his failure to truthfully complete financial-disclosure forms over a 20-year period, according to a complaint filed by the watchdog group Protect Our Elections (POE). This would not affect his ability to sit on the Supreme Court, but it would add to mounting pressure on the Department of Justice to investigate Thomas.

In a bar complaint filed with the Missouri Supreme Court, POE attorney Kevin Zeese says Thomas committed multiple violations of the Missouri Rules of Professional Conduct. (See full complaint below.) Zeese asks the Office of Chief Disciplinary Counsel to take immediate action against Thomas, including disbarment.

Thomas became a member of the Missouri Bar in 1974, and former U.S. Sen. John Danforth (R-MO) was a primary supporter during Thomas' confirmation hearings in 1991. How is the justice responding to recent allegations against him? He struck a defiant tone in a speech over the weekend in Virginia.

Reports Politico:

Delivering the keynote speech at an annual symposium for conservative law students, Thomas spoke in vague, but ominous, terms about the direction of the country and urged his listeners to “redouble your efforts to learn about our country so that you’re in a position to defend it.”

He also lashed out at his critics, without naming them, asserting they “seem bent on undermining” the High Court as an institution. Such criticism, Thomas warned, could erode the ability of American citizens to fend off threats to their way of life.

What threats is Thomas talking about? He did not make it clear. But the justice apparently feels threatened by recent reports that he repeatedly failed to disclose his wife's non-investment income. The story, broken by Common Cause, should lead to serious consequences, Zeese says. From the bar complaint:

Clarence Thomas breached his legal duty and violated the Rules of Professional Conduct by knowingly and willfully failing for 20 years to state truthfully on required AO 10 Financial Disclosure Forms that his wife Virginia earned non-investment income. Clarence Thomas further labored under a financial conflict of interest by failing to disclose $100,000 in support for his nomination by the Citizens United Foundation when he sat in judgment of a case involving Citizens United. Finally, he made rulings that his wife benefited from financially and professionally, and by extension, that benefited him. In short, this unethical and criminal conduct violates the Rules of Professional Conduct, and undermines the rule of law, respect for the law and confidence in the law.

Thomas has sought to resolve the issue by filing amended financial-disclosure forms. But Zeese says that should not be the end of it:

Justice Thomas acted knowingly and willfully. First, judges are presumed to know the law and at least four of Justice Thomas’ colleagues on the Supreme Court--Justices Breyer, Ginsberg, Kennedy and Roberts--knew well enough to disclose their spousal income during the same time frame that Justice Thomas did not.

Second, according to the Department of Justice Handbook on Prosecutions, a defendant's signature on a document is strong evidence of willfulness and knowledge. See United States v. Tucker, 133 F.3d 1208, 1218 n. 11 (9th Cir. 1998) (noting that signature proved knowledge of contents of return); United States v. Mohney, 949 F.2d 1397, 1407 (6th Cir. 1991) (holding that signature is prima facie evidence that the signer knows the contents of the return); United States v. Drape, 668 F.2d 22, 26 (1st Cir. 1982) (finding that defendant's signature is sufficient to establish knowledge once it has been shown that the return was false).

Perhaps most alarming is Thomas' failure to disclose conflicts that might have affected his decision-making:

It appears that Justice Thomas had a reason for not disclosing that his wife was working for a conservative think tank and a conservative 501c(4) group; he did not want litigants who had cases pending before the Supreme Court to have information that could be used to disqualify him from hearing those cases, and he wanted his family to benefit financially from his decisions.

Does the law apply to all Americans? That question is at the heart of the POE complaint:

Hundreds of Americans have been federally prosecuted since 1989 for various types of false statements, many involving checking or not checking a box on a form. Many of those prosecutions involved a single form, and most defendants were not given the opportunity to amend their forms before being prosecuted. Many were found guilty, fined and sent to prison. And some even appealed their cases to the Supreme Court where Justice Thomas sat in judgment of them, upholding their sentences.

POE makes a compelling argument that Clarence Thomas has no business sitting on the U.S. Supreme Court:

A lawyer who commits a crime is subject to disbarment. A lawyer who fails to disclose important financial information as require by law is subject to disbarment. A lawyer who makes rulings on cases that will benefit himself and his wife is subject to disbarment. A Judge who commits 20 crimes by falsifying 20 disclosure forms in order to enrich himself and his family, as did Justice Thomas, is subject to disbarment. A lawyer who withholds information about a supporter when ruling on a case involving that support is subject to disbarment.

Justice Thomas violated the Rules of Professional Conduct: he committed crimes that carry serious jail time if prosecuted, he acted in a untrustworthy manner, his conduct involved dishonesty, deceit and misrepresentation, and he engaged in conduct that seriously interfered with the administration of justice. Therefore, he must be disciplined.

Below is the full bar complaint against Clarence Thomas:

Clarence Thomas Bar Complaint

http://www.alternet.org/rss/1/511275/clarence_thomas_faces_call_for_his_disbarment_in_missouri_supreme_court?akid=6602.30928.Pa6qid&rd=1&t=21