The more your boss succeeds, the greater chance you have of succeeding, right?  Seems like a simple concept, but it’s clear that some faculty and staff of (my alma mater) the University of Wisconsin- Eau Claire don’t get it.

A strong business climate results in more tax collection, which shores up more money for government.  I would assume then that even those who oppose “evil” business owners and corporations would want their community’s private sector to succeed, if for nothing more than the tax collection to provide the government jobs and services they adore.

But maybe it’s more fun just getting “even?”

UWEC faculty and staff were sent an email March 18th by Chancellor Brian Levin-Stankevich, chastising them for political activism while on the job.  (Fellow taxpayers, that’s our time and dime.)

“While I understand these are difficult times and that passions continue to run high, I urge you to review and follow all guidelines pertaining to campaign activities associated with the use of state time or resources.

You also should refrain from using your title or affiliation with the University in a way that suggests your private political campaign activity is somehow officially related to, or sanctioned by, the University.

Finally, I want to state in the strongest possible terms that, as taxpaying citizens of Wisconsin, you are in no way prohibited from exercising your constitutional rights, and I encourage you to do so in a way that complies with all applicable state law and policies.”

In other words, keep up the good work.  Just don’t get caught doing it during work hours.

The list compiled by UWEC staff contains some of the largest and most respected businesses in the Chippewa Valley.  It’s surprising to me that these supposedly intelligent professionals can’t understand that socking it to these companies could hurt the jobs of their neighbors, who pay their salary and benefits!

Further confusing is the presence on the boycott list of businesses that have given to both parties, and those who haven’t donated money to Walker at all.

It’s their right to boycott.  In a legal, non-threatening way.  And it’s also our right to know where to spend money.  So, here you go (list published here as I received it, with no edits).

Pro-Walker Businesses  – “ Local”      (researched and complied by UWEC Staff)

Kwik Trip     (Moveon)

Oakleaf Surgical Hospital, Eau Claire    (Huff. Post: lg. Republican donations…Kapanke)

County Concrete   (Moveon)

M&I Bank   (Moveon)

Menard’s    (Moveon)

Wal-Mart    (Moveon)

John Markquart   (Huff. Post: lg. Republican donations…Kapanke)

Dave Markquart   (admission in letter)

Market & Johnson

Stella Blues    (WRA Dining Guide)

Mogie’s   ( “ )

Mona Lisa’s      ( “ )

Livery (all WRA Dining Guide, all John Moganson)

The Coffee Grounds    (thinks provisions in the bill would be “good for business”)

Gordon Schafer of Gordy’s Markets

Rick Lambrecht of Mega Foods gave money to both parties

Skogen Family and other officials of Festival Foods

Reit’s Garden Center

Wipfli LLP

J&D Manufacturing

Lebakken Rent to Own

Fantastic Sam’s

Ayres and Associates

Royal construction

Lorman Education Services  $10,000

Stucky Chiropractic

Stender Chiropractic

Optima Health and Vitality

Herrick and Hart

Weld, Riley, et al.  (the EC School District’s retained Law Firm!)

Park Ridge Distributing

Tri-Mart Corp

Larson Companies (over $6,000)

Prudential Benrud Realty

Elk Lake Tavern

William Rauckman   (chief exec of Professional Hair Design Academy)

Peter Farrow (chief exec of Group Health)    (the EC School District’s health provider!)

Discover Wisconsin

Burger King

Culvers

Ken Vance

Mouldy’s Archery

PAC Groups:

Concerned Realtors Committee $43,000

Realtors PAC $43,000

Koch PAC $43,000

Wisconsin Dental PAC $43,000

WI Builders Association $18,000

Associated Builders and Contractors PAC $15,000

WAL PAC Walmart $15,000

Tavern Industry PAC $13,500

Don’t get me wrong.  The Donald may hold a June press conference (his self-appointed decision time), where all the mainstream press will flock to hear the grand announcement that “after much consideration I’ve decided my country- and its economy- needs me.” 

Trump may throw his comb in the GOP primary ring (he’d never cover that famous mane with a hat!), but I believe he has ZERO, ZILCH, NADA intent on winning the nomination or running against Obama in the general election.

Then why would he do it, you ask? 

Well, first of all, the man LOVES the attention!  The recent media fawning has helped ratings for The Apprentice, and likely boosted interest in his other business ventures.  And it’s all about the dollar for The Donald.  Even if he has no serious interest (and my following theory is off-base), the tease has translated into cash for Trump. 

But I believe it’s about even more than money.  Let’s face it, the GOP primary crew is another mostly-anemic blend of has-beens, wanna-bes, and almost good enoughs.  It’s going to take some personality to spark voters’ enthusiasm (ala ’08′s Palin jolt to McCain’s campaign) if any of these fine folks have a chance in Kenya of beating Obama.  What?  What’d I say?  Kenya?

Well, I didn’t say it.  Trump did. 

“I want him to show his birth certificate. I want him to show his birth certificate,” Trump said on ABC’s “The View.” “There’s something on that birth certificate that he doesn’t like.”    

The Birth Certificate.  The red meat of so-called Obama “conspiracy theorists.”   A topic few serious candidates have dared raise.  Contender and former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has said that Obama ‘absolutely’ was born in the U.S., and former governor of Minnesota Tim Pawlenty was quick to distance himself from Trump’s questioning. 

TPaw told MSNBC’s Morning Joe, “I, for one, do not believe that we should be raising that issue. … I think President Obama was born in the United States.”

So why is Trump bringing this up, especially if he wants to win?   

“Fire in the hole!”   Donald Trump is the bomb-thrower. 

(Can I say bomb-thrower?  Is that acceptable in the “new tone?”  You know I don’t mean literal bombs, right?  Just wanted to make that clear.)

Trump can, and will, and is, saying things about Obama (and the Chinese) that the other candidates won’t.  And, just perhaps, there’s a mild orchestration to The Donald’s “madness,” or as some like to call it, truth. 

Could it be that Romney (or Pawlenty or Gingrich, but most likely Romney) is the silent partner in all this press?  Is is possible that Trump has been recruited to stir up doubts about Obama and the way he’s managing the country, in the blunt way only he can, and in order to keep others out of the mud.  (And if you’re thinking it’s just a waste of his time, Trump has MUCH personal financial interest wrapped up in getting rid of our current anti-business President.)

The strategy would have Trump moving hard and fast in the media against Obama for the next two months and then deciding against the Republican primary, or he could give it a go and pull in MUCH more public interest and media attention to the GOP primary debates and campaign appearances over the next 12 months, all the while taking it on the chin for the more “serious” Romney. 

Trump would be the Dennis Kucinich of the GOP’s 2012 field.  He’d say what no one else could. 

And he’d have no chance in Kenya of winning.

Update:  Could Evangelicals be taking an interest in Trump?   Check out David Brody’s report for CBN News here.

I’ve neglected blogging, as I’ve moved action mainly to Facebook these days, but realized I’m missing out on a chance to pass along some first-hand reporting I’ve been doing through this “crisis.” 

If you don’t know what’s happening in the Badger state, you can catch up here.

(Potential R rated content in many videos linked here, due to the unhinged vulgarity of the “peaceful” protesters.)

I have a hunch (based on some good tips and also intuition) that at least some of the Gang of 14 senate Dems will be returning soon.   

Last night it was reported by @Liberty_Chick on Twitter, that Democrat Sen. Tim Cullen was seen driving across the state line into WI last night.  She won’t give away her sources and no one was confirming the story this morning, so I (did the obvious, and) called Cullen’s office around 9:00am.  His aide told me that the story was a “rumor” and that Cullen was not in WI.  She said “he will not return without all the others.” 

 ”No one wants to be the 20th vote,” she said.   I asked if the senator had any plans to return soon and she reiterated, “Not without the others.”

I contacted Liberty_Chick, who responded and stands by her report that Sen. Cullen WAS in WI last night. 

So if Cullen was back in WI, why was he here and then why did he leave?   Change of heart?  Union threats?  Or, as a friend of mine suggested, did he just need a new shirt?

Of course, many sources have also reported that he was in Kenosha on Monday to meet with Republican Sen. Majority Leader Scott Fitzgerald. 

They’re starting to crack.

Somebody keep an eye on I-90.  

Does the official HHS website include their latest study of ObamaCare along with their propaganda links?  Not so far, but the AP picked up on the new analysis, which shows that far from containing costs, the proposals for health-care reform on Capitol Hill will actually increase costs, thanks to an entirely predictable response from people with new health insurance:

The nation’s medical costs will keep spiraling upward even faster than they are now under Democratic legislation pending in the House, a report from government economic experts concluded Wednesday.

Republicans said the report is a warning sign that health care legislation is likely to fall short of President Barack Obama’s goal of “bending the cost curve” by slowing torrid rates of medical inflation. …

Unlike previous estimates that have focused mainly on the legislation’s impact on the federal deficit, the actuaries’ report looked at total costs, public and private, over the next 10 years. It found that the nation’s health care tab would increase somewhat more rapidly with the legislation than if nothing is done. The main reason: Newly insured people will seek medical care.

The nation’s health care tab, now at about $2.5 trillion annually, is projected to approach $4.7 trillion in 2019 without the legislation.

With the legislation, national health care spending would be nearly $4.8 trillion in 2019.

This should surprise no one who looks at the actual cost problem in American health care.  It comes from a lack of price transparency, thanks to an irrational system which has most of the costs paid through third parties. Consumers overuse the system and choose inefficient, expensive options for care because they have no idea of the costs, and providers locked into compensation schedules have little incentive to compete and to innovate.  As a result, costs go up as demand increases irrationally, and producers don’t get rewarded for efficiency and excellence.

The ObamaCare model would make this problem exponentially worse by locking everyone into this faulty model.  The HHS probably underestimates the increased demand that will result from imposing comprehensive plans on everyone in the country.  Those who forgo health insurance to pay retail actually help the industry and reduce their costs of care in the short term, although they leave themselves vulnerable for catastrophic events.

The proper route for reform would remove pricing opacity and rely on consumers to make rational choices on health care.  That would allow providers in clinics and hospitals to compete for consumers and get rewarded for excellence and efficiency.  Those efforts would not only drive costs downward, but would also encourage more providers to enter the market to meet the demand.  A combination of health-savings accounts with a move away from comprehensive insurance to catastrophic coverage would not only better serve Americans but would result in a massive boost to the health-care industry.

In the meantime, we should ask why the administration doesn’t pay attention to its own analysis.  Perhaps it’s because the ObamaCare push has always been about ideology over rational policy.

At Marginal Revolution George Mason University economics professor Alex Tabarrok comments on Obama administration’s pay czar Kenneth Feinberg’s decision to cut bailed out firm executive pay by an average of about 90 percent from last year:

There is no way this will work as advertised. If the administration actually follows through, most of these executives will quit and get higher paying jobs elsewhere. Executives not directly affected by the pay cuts will also quit when they see their prospects for future salary gains have been cut. Chaos will be created at these firms as top people leave in droves. Will the administration then order people back to work?

End TARP. End the Obama Czar State.

Decide for yourself what the most disgraceful aspect of this is. Was it the fact that Gibbs told Jake Tapper explicitly on Monday that the White House wouldn’t try to dictate to the press pool who should and shouldn’t be included — before doing precisely that? Was it Anita Dunn going out of her way to say she respects Major Garrett as a fair reporter — before the administration decided he didn’t deserve a crack here at Feinberg? Or was it the repeated insistence by Dunn and Axelrod that of course the administration will make its officials available to Fox — before pulling the plug today?

The other networks deserve the praise they’re getting for standing up to the Baby-in-Chief, but if they had acquiesced in this freezeout, a precedent would have been set that would have been eagerly used by future Republican presidents to close them off too. And don’t think they weren’t all keenly aware of it.

The Obama administration released the first hard numbers on how many jobs their $787 billion stimulus package has created or saved on Recovery.gov today. The number: 30,383 jobs from roughly $16 billion worth of stimulus contracts awarded directly by federal agencies.

Crunching the numbers, that comes to $533,000 per job “saved or created.” To put those 30,383 jobs in perspecitve, consider that the U.S. economy lost 263,000 net jobs just last month and has lost 3.6 million net jobs since President Barack Obama was sworn into office.

But the administration also claims that federal contractor spending is just one portion of the overall stimulus “buckshot.” Last month at the Brookings Institute, Vice President Joe Biden claimed that White House computer models showed their stimulus plan had already saved between 500,000 and 750,000. And just how accurate are these White House economic  models? Well, when the White House was pitching its plan to the American people, White House economic adviser Jared Bernstein wrote a reportA a 26-year record high of 9.8% unemployment rate. claiming the stimulus would keep unemployment under a peak of 8%. And what have actual Bureau of Labor and Statistics shown?

So what does Bernstein have to say about the stimulus now? Associated Press reports:

Jared Bernstein, the chief economic adviser to Vice President Joe Biden, said it was too early to draw conclusions from the data “but the early indications are quite positive.”

Heritage fellow J.D. Foster explains where Bernstein’s fancy model went wrong:

The Keynesian stimulus theory fails for the simple reason that it is only half a theory. It correctly describes how deficit spending can raise the level of demand in part of the economy, and ignores how government borrowing to finance deficit spending automatically reduces demand elsewhere. Exculpatory allusions to idle saving simply do not wash in a modern economy supported by a modern financial system. Deficit spending does not create real purchasing power and so it cannot increase total demand in the economy. Deficit spending can only shift the pattern of demand toward government-centric preferences.

Exactly what the Obama administration is after.