Wisconsin Rep. Derrick Van Orden: 'Too Easy' for Veterans to Commit Fraud

Wisconsin Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R) reprises Joe McCarthy. 
This time, Van Orden takes aim at veterans, holding papers claiming 
massive fraud in House VA Subcommittee that Van Orden chairs, 
(Forbes). The former Navy Seal now levels his guns against 
veterans in service to Trump administration, planning cuts in
veteran benefits that would cut 80,000 VA workers who serve 
veterans, (AP). Rife with abuse, easy to defraud, says Van Orden.

Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR and E) Program Is Boogeyman Used to Hit Veteran
Benefits
False Accusations Provide Cover for Trump Admin to Cut Veteran Benefits

Madison, Wisconsin — Veterans are committing fraud and the VA is making it too easy, according to an old defamation against our guys.

Now, Wisconsin Rep. Derrick Van Orden (R-Wisconsin), who represents a gerrymandered district in western and central Wisconsin, is bringing this slander back.

Derrick Van Orden served 26 years as a Navy SEAL Senior Chief operator with multiple combat tours before being elected to Congress. 

Rep. Van Orden chairs the House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity for Veterans. He said at the conclusion of his July hearing: "This, [VA VR&E (Veteran Readiness and Employment)], is a fantastic program. But it is rife for abuse. And it's too easy to defraud this program." 

Rep. Van Orden made his remarks at the House Veterans Affairs Committee hearing on July 16, entitled "Path of Purpose: Restoring the VA VR&E (Veteran Readiness and Employment) Program to Effectively Serve Veterans."

"Veteran Readiness and Employment (VR&E) (Formerly known as Vocational Rehabilitation and Employment) services to help with job training, education, employment accommodations, resume development, and job seeking skills coaching," reads a VA explanation of the popular program.

The new blast against veterans follows years of the Bush-Obama administrations using the offices of the Inspector General and DoJ to contrive criminal complaints against veterans for applying for disability benefits in what is supposed to be a paternalistic process, not an adversarial process. 

Congress and VA bureaucrats parading the specter of dishonest veterans appear a government disease that will never die, and charges of fraud commonly precede the McCarthyite slurs against military veterans, and dishonest work of VA Office of Inspector General.

National Associated Press writer, Allen Breed, took point on the neocon slurs against veterans some 15 years ago. See Tide of new PTSD cases raises fears of fraud (2010), for example. 

From Agent Orange, to PTSD to now trying to find a job and assimilate at home, veteran bashing is back in style.

After the AP's Breed cited benefits-hostile Dept of Veterans Affairs bureaucrat, Mark Rogers, in 2010 in his hit piece on veterans, in which Rogers said the VA benefits processes, especially PTSD, are an open invitation to fraud, veterans advocate and attorney Robert Walsh was more pissed-off than usual.

Robert Walsh of Battle Creek, Michigan, (U.S. Army, 101st Airborne Division, RVN 1971-72), said, "What about the claims of all the honest veterans that languish in the system for decades until they die? They freeze to death on the streets or blow their brains out in the garage. The veterans' benefits claims system is a national tragedy, and men like [longtime claims specialist with the Veterans Benefits Administration] Mark Rogers are the problem, not the solution for our veterans and their families."

The U.S. VA Office of Inspector General began accelerated referrals to the U.S. Dept of Justice when Vietnam veterans reached retirement age, and the VA and neocon press began its dishonest propaganda campaign against veterans to provide cover.

Van Orden's remarks against veterans this month were first reported by Forbes in late July 2025, citing almost identical language as veteran bashers regarding PTSD 25 years ago.

During the Veterans Affairs Committee hearing this month, Rep. Van Orden (R-WI) opened and closed the hearing about the VA's Veteran Readiness And Employment program with unsupported hyperbolic allegations of criminal fraud and waste.

One of the primary gripes of veterans advocates is the VA does not follow the law in administering (and adjudicating) veterans benefits, and the VA and its Congressional allies' work results in nothing less than death, with the VA Office of Inspector General ready to slur, lie and cheat in this macabre quest to stop veterans from using their benefits.

Said veterans advocate Walsh today, "Maybe VA OIG (VA Office of Inspector General) makes it 'too easy' to circumvent the law and kill innocent disabled and dislocated veterans. That's the problem."

The Forbes video footage from the House Subcommittee on Economic Opportunity for veterans, on the VR&E (Veteran Readiness and Employment) Program, is below. 

        

Wisconsin GOP Justices Seen as Corrupt, Litigation Is Pending

Wisconsin Supreme Court entrance at state capitol

Update: In Jere Fabick v. Andrea Palm, Appeal Number 2020AP000828, A May 18 state DoJ legal filing reads in part: "As a result of this Court's decision in Legislature v Palm, the petitioners' motion for an injunction and petition for an original action challenge an order that no longer exists. If this Court doe not sua sponte deny the petitioners' motion for an injunction and decline to take jurisdiction of the petition for an original action because the claims are moot, then the State Respondents respectfully request that the Court issue a schedule for supplemental briefings on the issue of mootness," (Wheeler Report).
  
Madison, Wisconsin — Wisconsin Supreme Court republicans deciding questions through fidelity to law is as likely as Republican legislators using empirical investigation and scientific findings to inform public policy.

It's not the way it is here.

Impartial processes are often mission-critical barriers to Republican Party aims of achieving corporatist demands and fundamentalist taboo-morality dogma.

Democratic foundations such as law, rights and empirical reality are rejected by Republicans, in conception.

All proceedings, hearings, deliberation and elections should arrive at orderly, pro-Party results. Law and citizen input must be minimized because the rule of law and rights-laden democracy can be powerful opposing forces to Republican Party autocracy.

It is in through this perspective that we can understand the work of Wisconsin Republican justices reaching preordained, nakedly corrupt decisions to serve Republican Party interests.

Noone was surprised by the Wisconsin Supreme Court decision to block Gov Tony Evers administration's safer-at-home Emergency Order 28, (Wisconsin Executive Orders), (Treleven, Wisconsin State Journal).

That legal case is entitled Wisconsin Legislature v. Secretary-Designee Andrea Palm, Julie Willems Van Dijk and Nicole Safar, In Their Official Capacities As Executives of Wisconsin Department of Health Services Respondents. (Appeal Number 2020AP000765), (Case History).

Another case now before the Wisconsin Supreme Court is the so-called second safer/stay-at-home litigation, Jere Fabick v. Andrea Palm, Appeal Number 2020AP000828.
 
Fabick appears part of the Republican Party effort to dismantle targeted statutory law protecting public health and safety without the introduction of legislation. No need for a bill when hyper-activist justices stand ready to accomplish Party aims.

"Final briefs have been filed in a second lawsuit challenging Wisconsin's 'Safer at Home' order, this one arguing the order violated peoples' rights to freedom of worship, speech and travel under the Wisconsin Constitution," reports Wisconsin Public Radio.

Fabick is pending before the state Supreme Court. A decision whether the Court will hear the case is expected soon.

As local public health officials issue local orders to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic in the wake of Palm, the state DoJ issued an advisory opinion on May 15 affirming the authority of local officials because they are empowered by a different statute than the governor and Health secretary.

The non-binding DoJ opinion states in part:

4. First,  the supreme court’s  decision  addressed  only  DHS’s  authority found in Wis. Stat. § 252.02. That statute does not govern the authority of local health officers, which is separately set out in Wis. Stat. § 252.03. That separate grant of local authority  provides,  among  other  things,  powers  to  'prevent,  suppress  and  control  communicable  diseases'  and 'forbid  public  gatherings  when  deemed  necessary  to  control  outbreaks  or  epidemics.'  Wis.  Stat.  §  252.03(1)–(2).1  Because the  court  decision addressed a different statute applicable to a state agency, and not the statute applicable to local authorities, the Palm decision is not directly controlling on powers under the latter statute.

More litigation is expected by some observers.

Wisconsin Republicans' Coup Against Reality

In our democracy, we the American people have a vested, sacred interest in protecting our families' health, safety and lives.

When our society through legislative bodies enacts legislation, the process whether at the municipal, state or federal level, is supposed to be orderly and process-driven in which all parties and interests are equal under the law—broadly speaking.

But equality in the legislative process is not a feature of contemporary America.

This inequitable dynamic has accelerated in modern America as the Republican Party has worked for polluting industry, while erecting measures in many realms to disable and eliminate competing interests of industry, e.g. those families and communities that do not wish to be poisoned by industry-produced toxic wastes.

The legislative process where Republicans work as majorities suggests another realm for Republicans to rig the process: the judicial branch. Inequality for industry before adjudicating bodies is the industry-desired standard against families and communities working together to protect their health and very survival.

Rigged Judicial Hearing

As legislative action at the federal and state level the last 60 years has yielded laws and and agencies protecting health and safety, Republicans have inserted mechanistic language in statutes and legislation stating remarkably that courts examining governmental action will always arrive at predetermined results favoring a vague private interest as a protected class of litigants: Property owners and their "free" use of property, (Strifling, Marquette University Law School, Mal Contends).

In 2014, an orderly, neutral state administrative law hearing led to a result explicitly recognizing the rule of law against polluters producing toxins on their property, (Wisconsin Watch).

Among the Republican Party's counteroffensive is an audacious statutory and legislative framework that industrial property owners can do virtually anything, including inflicting costs onto society.

REINS - Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny

At this moment there are two bizarre bills in the Wisconsin legislature that call for automatic triggers if a state agency issues regulations: the REINS - Regulation from the Executive in Need of Scrutiny - Act, (Senate Bill 15, and Assembly Bill 42). SB 15 passed the Senate on August 8 2017. The legislation was tabled from consideration in the Assembly on June 14, 2017.

The radical REINS Act is effectively a legislative veto process of state agency regulations that Republicans want to protect polluting industry.

An amended REINS Act bill could be used in theory to protect families from polluting industry, a clean water advocate points out.

For example, a state administrative action issuing a Wisconsin Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (WPDES) under a state program that vectors manure into the environment could be halted under the theory that real dollar costs to society in healthcare, real property devaluation, road repair, well contamination/remediation costs, county-level conservation compliance and enforcement costs, nutrient management plan costs and so on make Big Ag-friendly administrative rules a cost that society, families and communities should not be made to bear.

But in Republican land, a regulatory action or rule is destructive if it protects families and communities against industry polluters because of the fact families are not real and do not exist in the current reality.

Look for new exposure in the months to come of a new and dangerous conception of property rights pushed by Republicans who are selling out Wisconsin families and communities and will not stop this perverse project.

Wisconsin Republicans' Destruction of Ad Law Dismantles Public Protection

Madison, Wisconisn — In Wisconsin, Republicans have been busily working since 2011 to ensure that any proceeding, hearing, deliberation and election arrives at an orderly pre-determined result favorable to Republicans' special interest.

To the extent Republicans may face adjudicative or electoral defeat, then the respective system must be rigged, gerrymandered, and programmed, with Constitutional rights vacated.

This radical destruction of Equal Protection and Due Process accomplished over six years is vastly under-reported in Wisconsin by a corporate press.

David Strifling at the Marquette Law School takes a shot at chronicling some major results of the statutory changes and corruption in administrative law in Wisconsin.

Writes Striflin:

In Wisconsin, the past five years have seen an unprecedented makeover in longstanding principles of state-level administrative law. These changes shift power away from agencies and toward courts, the legislature, and the governor. In this post, I divide the changes into three categories: 1) reductions in agency authority; 2) additions to the rulemaking process that, among other things, allow the Legislature to indefinitely block new rules; and, perhaps most importantly, 3) fundamental revisions to the doctrine of judicial deference to agency interpretations of law. Taken together, these developments deeply change the balance of power between agencies and the three branches of Wisconsin government.

Of course, Republicans cannot exactly write a statute explicitly reading that quasi-judiciary hearings arrive at pre-determined results. But they try.

So, like the statutory mandates for Wisconsin municipal, (kangaroo), court, Republicans have engineered statutory language mandating agencies rule in favor of a class of litigants when competing interests litigate a claim.

Notes Striflin:

In 2016, the Wisconsin Legislature changed that approach by enacting Wis. Stat. § 227.57(11). The statute provides that a 'court shall accord no deference to the agency’s interpretation of law if the agency action or decision restricts the property owner’s free use of the property owner’s property.' The contours of this exception aren’t clear; the terms 'restricts' and 'free use' will no doubt provide ample fodder for disputes in the years to come.

No, the statutory contours are not clear.

But the desired certainty for favored interests that exists in societies lacking the rule of law and Constitutional protections for all is an affront to American democratic traditions, which is what Republicans want.

Wisc Court Hits State DoJ and Factory Farm Polluters in Win for Clean and Safe Water Advocates

Wisconsin DoJ and Industrialized Ag Hit in State Circuit Court Opinion

- Dane County Judge John W. Markson offers hope not all law is rigged in Wisconsin

From Midwest Environmental Advocates:

In a victory for this case, [Clean Water, Inc. and Lynda A. Cochart v. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources et al (Wisconsin Case No. 2015CV002633)], we are pleased to share the July 14, 2016 Circuit Court [Judge John W. Markson's] decision that affirms the petitioners' and partner organization Clean Wisconsin's argument before the court that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources' rejection of the Division of Hearings and Appeals' Administrative Law Judge's order to include animal unit limits and off-site groundwater monitoring of Kewaunee County CAFO was unlawful. This decision also describes how the Department of Justice's narrow interpretation of Act 21 - that the DNR did not have explicit authority to impose these permit conditions - was incorrect and that state statutes do empower the DNR to require limits and monitoring of pollution in order for permitees to comply with state and federal clean water laws.

Read the full Circuit Court decision (PDF).


On Monday, October 12, 2015, three years after the initial petition for a contested case hearing, and a year after the administrative law judge issued a decision in this case, we had to again challenge the DNR’s unlawful action in September to overturn the judge’s decision. After the DNR changed its position, petitioners appealed the agency’s final decision (PDF, large file) to permit the company to operate without a limit on the number of animals in the facility or a requirement to monitor the conditions of groundwater where the company spreads manure offsite. Petitioners’ appeal was combined with Clean Wisconsin’s appeal and the cases were briefed before the Dane County Circuit Court.

On Friday, September 11, 2015, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources issued a final decision on the challenged water pollution permit, circumventing the October 2014 Administrative Law Judge's decision and doing an about-face on the position the agency argued in the case. In October, the Judge found that the DNR does have the authority under state law to include an animal unit limit and off-site groundwater monitoring requirement in the industrial livestock operation's permit, and called the polluted groundwater in Kewaunee County evidence of a “massive regulatory failure.”

Midwest Environmental Advocates is working with Kewaunee County petitioners in this appeal by providing the citizens with legal and technical support. In a parallel action, Clean Wisconsin has also filed an appeal of the agency’s decision as it would have set a precedent that could negatively impact groundwater protections throughout the state of Wisconsin.

Case Summary

Original case and decision

In October 2012, neighbors of the proposed expansion of a large, concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) filed a petition with the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to request a review of the water pollution permit issued to Kinnard Farms Inc. in the Town of Lincoln, Kewaunee County, Wisconsin.

Petitioners are concerned that an expansion of Kinnard’s industrial dairy will produce so much farm waste that its plans to manage, store, and spread manure on area land will result in runoff into area surface and downstream waters, and will contaminate the groundwater on which the families rely for drinking water. The DNR issued the permit before the CAFO’s design plans for the expanded facility were complete and reviewed and approved by the DNR. This denied the public’s right to review and voice their concerns about the expansion and hampered the agency’s ability to determine whether additional conditions or monitoring were necessary to protect the area’s land and water. The agency also did not include a limit on the number of cows at the dairy, which is essential to an enforceable permit.

The five petitioners live near or share property lines with the proposed CAFO expansion and have deep concerns about the impact of the dairy’s waste management on the health of their families, their land and their water. Some have lived their entire lives in the rural town. To them, property means more than acreage. Their land is their home, where they have raised children, enjoyed recreation and wildlife, peace, quiet and fresh country air.

But they also understand the geological features of the Karst region, which has deeply cracked land that does not filter rain or runoff like other soils do and is particularly prone to groundwater pollution. Polluted groundwater is already a health concern for people who live in the area. According to Kewaunee County Land and Conservation Department records, 50% of private wells tested in the Town of Lincoln are unsafe to drink, either because they tested positive for total coliform bacteria or because they exceed groundwater quality standards for nitrates (for an interactive map of groundwater quality in Wisconsin, visit the Center for Watershed Science at UW-Stevens Point website).Further, for residents with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, living near manure lagoons filled with the untreated waste from thousands of cows turns fresh, country air into aggravated health problems.

After citizens filed their petition with the DNR, the agency granted the request for a contested case hearing with the Wisconsin State Division of Hearings and Appeals. Kinnard Farms intervened and asked the Division to dismiss the case. The appeals division dismissed the request for summary judgment and a contested case hearing was held in Green Bay on February 11-14. Attorneys completed a briefing schedule and Midwest Environmental Advocates filed the final brief on behalf of the petitioners on June 27, 2014.

On October 29, 2014, the Wisconsin State Division of Hearings and Appeals issued a decision in the water pollution permit challenge. Two of the most important parts of the decision include orders for groundwater monitoring and an animal unit limit as enforceable permit conditions. Specifically:

• Kinnard Farms, Inc. must conduct groundwater monitoring at the production area and around at least two landspreading fields. Kinnard must submit a plan to the DNR within 90 days of the decision that includes no less than six groundwater monitoring wells. If practicable, at least two of those wells must be in locations that monitor groundwater quality impacts from off-site manure landspreading.
• Kinnard Farms, Inc. is now required to put a cap on the number of animals to ensure the facility does not grow beyond its current capacity to store and dispose of the large quantity of manure held on site in multimillion gallon lagoons.

Other results from the decision included the requirement for Kinnard Farms, Inc. to take steps to prevent environmental harm from a catastrophic failure of above-ground manure storage lagoons. The pollution permit now also has requirements meant to protect surface water and aquatic life from the facility’s discharges. Unfortunately, these additional conditions are very general and are likely harder to enforce than the numeric discharge limits and monitoring requirements Petitioners sought. The decision also did not require Kinnard Farms, Inc. to reduce the amount of manure it can spread on fields, which the Petitioners believe will contribute to surface water and groundwater pollution.
This case should encourage the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources to take science-based, meaningful steps to protect our water from the pollution caused by the mismanagement of livestock manure. Industrial livestock operations create waste just like other industrial pollution sources. They need to be regulated like other industrial point sources across the state, with strict discharge limits and monitoring oversight. Read MEA's press statement on the decision.

Appeals

On November 18, 2014, Kinnard Farms, Inc. submitted a petition asking the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources Secretary to review the recent administrative law judge’s decision. Midwest Environmental Advocates sent the DNR Secretary a letter urging the agency to reject the petition for review as the request would undermine the integrity of the contested case hearing process and ignore the role of an administrative law judge as an independent decision maker. On Tuesday November 25, the DNR Secretary declined Kinnard’s petition for review.

Kinnard’s Appeal and Motion for a Stay
As expected, Kinnard Farms, Inc. appealed Administrative Law Judge Boldt’s decision on November 25, 2014 to challenge the authority of the DNR to require an animal unit limit and a plan for groundwater monitoring at fields where Kinnard land applies and disposes of its manure. Kinnard also filed a motion for a stay of Judge Boldt’s decision so that Kinnard would not have to provide a groundwater monitoring plan for its landspreading fields and would not have to provide information necessary for the DNR to include an animal unit limit in its permit.

Petitioners’ and DNR Motion to Dismiss
The citizen petitioners along with the DNR filed a motion to dismiss Kinnard’s appeal on December 22, 2014. They argued that Kinnard cannot appeal Judge Boldt’s decision yet because it is not “final” and ready for appeal until the DNR issues the modified Kinnard WPDES permit with the conditions that Judge Boldt ordered—including groundwater monitoring at landspreading fields and an animal unit limit.

Next steps for appeals
On April 28, 2015, the Door County Circuit Court agreed with citizens and the DNR that the case wasn’t ready for appeal until the DNR modified the permit and made the decision “final.” Initially, instead of dismissing the appeal, the court chose to put the appeal on hold until the DNR made its “final” decision by issuing a modified Kinnard water pollution, or WPDES, permit. The court also declined to rule on Kinnard’s motion to stay, and thus declined to prevent the DNR from enforcing, Judge Boldt’s decision.

The court later reconsidered its decision to put the appeal on hold instead of dismissing it outright. On June 9, 2015, the court decided that the more appropriate action was to dismiss the appeal pending a final decision from the DNR. Kinnard can appeal to the circuit court again once the DNR makes a final decision and issues a modified permit.

Kinnard’s Failure to Provide Information to the DNR
During the time that the Door County Circuit Court Judge Todd Ehlers assigned to Kinnard’s appeal did not rule on the citizens’ and DNR’s motion to dismiss, Kinnard still had not complied with Judge Boldt’s order. In his decision, Judge Boldt ordered Kinnard to develop a groundwater monitoring plan for its main site as well as its landspreading fields within 90 days of the decision. Kinnard then submitted a groundwater monitoring plan for its main site, but not for landspreading fields. The DNR sent a letter to Kinnard asking for a complete groundwater monitoring plan that complies with Judge Boldt’s order. The company did not respond. On June 3, 2015, the DNR sent another letter to Kinnard Farms, Inc. to request the information necessary to develop a groundwater monitoring protocol and set up an animal unit limit.

DNR Permit Decision and petitioner appeal
On Friday, September 11, 2015, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources issued a final decision on the challenged water pollution permit, circumventing the October 2014 Administrative Law Judge's decision and doing an about-face on the agency's position. The Judge found that the DNR does have the authority under state law to include an animal unit limit and off-site groundwater monitoring requirement in the industrial livestock operation's permit. But the DNR now denies that it has that authority.

On September 17, Administrative Law Judge Boldt sent a letter to the DNR's Office of Legal Services citing a 2001 Maple Leaf Farms vs DNR lawsuit in which the Wisconsin Court of Appeals held that the Wisconsin legislature has "clearly and unambiguously" given the DNR authority to regulate off-site landspreading of manure. Judge Boldt's letter points out how the known court decision conflicts with the DNR's denial of its authority.

Questions remain as to whether the agency's action - and the Wisconsin Department of Justice's opinion letters on which it is based - have legal merit or would survive a circuit court challenge. On Monday, October 12, petitioners filed an appeal of the agency’s final decision to permit the company to operate without a limit on the number of animals in the facility or a requirement to monitor the conditions of groundwater where the company spreads manure offsite.

---

Related Media Coverage

After criticizing judge, DNR secretary declines to "correct" ruling on Kewaunee dairy water permit - Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Kate Golden, 11/26/2014
Kewaunee mega-dairy asks DNR secretary to overrule judge's permit modifications - Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Kate Golden, 11/20/2014
‘A Massive Regulatory Failure to Protect Groundwater,’ Kinnard CAFO Must Cap Cow Numbers, Monitor Groundwater – Peninsula Pulse, Jim Lundstrom, 11/7/2014
Judge: Contaminated Wells Part of ‘Massive Regulatory Failure’ – Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Lee Bergquist, 11/6/2014
Kinnard Farms Expansion Approved With Conditions – Door County Daily News, Tim Kowols, 11/4/2014
Judge Blames Toxic Kewaunee County Wells on ‘Massive Regulatory Failure” – Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Ron Seely, 10/30/2014
Mega-Dairy's Growth Plans Hotly Debated- Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Ron Seely, 2/14/2014
Kewaunee County DNR Permit Hearing Underway in Green Bay- Green Bay Press Gazette, Nathan Phelps, 2/12/2014
Kewaunee County Residents Challange DNR's Approval of Dairy Farm Expansion- Wisconsin Public Radio News, 2/10/2014
The hearing was also highlighted in the Wisconsin Ag Connection, Door County Daily News, Kewaunee County Star News and Green Bay Press Gazette, NBC 26 (with video) and Fox 11 (with video).
Disputed Expansion of Dairy Watched for Statewide Impact - Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Kate Golden, 2/8/2014, includes map of the concentration of permitted CAFOs in Wisconsin
Kewaunee County Residents Challenging Wisconsin Water Quality Code - Peninsula Pulse, Carol Thompson, 1/3/2014
Manure Spills in 2013 the Highest in Seven Years Statewide - Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Lee Bergquist, 12/5/2013
Kewaunee Families File Legal Action Against DNR - Peninsula Pulse, 10/26/2013
Explosion of CAFOs Cause for Concern in Kewaunee County - Peninsula Pulse, Robyn Mulhaney Op Ed, 8/23/2013
CAFO Expansion in Kewaunee Raises Concerns - Peninsula Pulse, Carol Thompson, 11/9/2012
The Costs of CAFOs - Peninsula Pulse, Carol Thompson, 8/31/2012
State Pits Water Quality Versus Commerce - Peninsula Pulse, Myles Dannhausen Jr., 6/9/2011

National Press Hits Another Scott Walker Myth

Nate Cohn demolishes another Scott Walker myth: That winning gubernatorial elections in Wisconsin means Scott Walker has broad appeal for a presidential general election, bringing electability to a GOP presidential ticket.

"[Walker's] electoral record — three wins in governor’s races in four years in Wisconsin, including a recall election — isn’t as impressive as it looks," writes Cohn in the NYT in his column, The Upshot. "Mr. Walker’s electoral performance was average for a Republican running for governor in 2010 or 2014. His showing — a modest victory in a modestly Democratic state — was highly consistent with the extent that Republican candidates for governor outperformed Mr. Romney’s showing from 2012."

Cohn points out off-year turn-out adequately explains Walker's statewide success, and notes, "One could even argue that Mr. Walker’s performance was the least impressive of any Republican candidates for governor in the Midwest."

These facts are not lost on Wisconsin.

Nor is the fact that Walker garners his electoral success from the racially segregated counties, the WOW counties, outside Milwaukee and in rural Wisconsin where younger generations don't stay around that long as Walker continues to demolish community institutions that took generations for Wisconsin to build.

So, Walker continues his ambush on Wisconsin through his ludicrous 2015-2017 budget proposal that seems as much as a tool to bash political and ideological foes, as a thoughtful document to solve the deficit Scott Walker created.

Scott Walker is working to accumulate as much power as he can in his politicized Department of Administration.

Office of State Employment Relations

Walker's budget, for example, eliminates the "Office of State Employment Relations (OSER)" and transfers "the funding, positions, and functions of OSER to a new Division of Personnel Management in DOA which is attached administratively to the Department of Administration (DOA)." (Legislative Fiscal Bureau, p. 330)

The OSER is already sending risk notices to employees that they might be canned by Walker.

Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals

And, administrative law judges in the Wisconsin Division of Hearings and Appeals (DHA) which hears complaints from Wisconsin citizens about many state agencies, such as the DNR would be moved to Walker's Department of Administration.

"According to the Budget in Brief, the Governor recommends that DOA conduct all administrative hearings for state agencies, with the exception of the Public Service Commission and unemployment insurance." (Legislative Fiscal Bureau, p.41)

This proposal can be understood as payback against Administrative Law Judge Jeffrey D. Boldt who hit the DNR for not considering "the accumulated effects of groundwater use when the agency reviewed an application for a high-capacity well for a $35 million dairy farm," a decision unpopular with Walker campaign contributors. (Bergquist, Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel)

Less citizen recourse against a more corrupt state government. Walker would never run on this, and does not enjoy a broad mandate for most of his agenda.

Any suggestion that Walker has cross-over appeal and electability as political assets is absurd.

Safe Water and Protected Land in Wisconsin—A Winning Commitment

Water

"The power to enforce the important, federal Clean Water Act that protects waters like Lake Superior is delegated to states' natural resources agencies by the EPA. If state government fails to protect water, the EPA has the power, and the responsibility, to step in," notes the Midwest Environmental Advocates (Facebook)

Wisconsin gubernatorial candidates also have the power and responsibility to step it.

If the two major candidates share a common assumption that Wisconsin voters will choose to vote for one candidate out of repulsion for the other, consider the possibility that many famously unpredictable Wisconsin voters will register a protest vote, effectively stating, 'the hell with these two politicians,' in the absence of the candidates appearing in person and addressing issues such as clean and safe water, and safeguarding Wisconsin's pristine wilderness and habitats up north.

How many campaign appearances has Burke and Walker made to areas with lakes, streams and aquifers devastated by pathogens from liquid cow manure runoff? How many times have they visited Iron and Ashland counties, the proposed site of the massive GTac open pit iron ore mine?



The wavy lines to the right are called Lake Michigan, a
large body of water next to Wisconsin for the benefit
of the Mary Burke campaign

Campaign travel suggestion to Mary Burke: Get your ass up to Iron County, talk to Citizens Concerned about the proposed Penokee Mine, ask Joel Austin to take you to Rouse Falls; talk to Nick Vander Puy to get the 'News from the Front;' head southeast and talk to the folks in Kewaunee [citizens' groups at KewauneeCares and Restore Kewaunee] and then drive southwest to Wood and Adams counties.
Thousands of people from the surrounding counties in central Wisconsin would meet you  and talk about safeguarding the water for their children, their grandchildren and protecting the tourism and recreation industry; just don't swim in Lake Camelot or any other lake for that matter or swallow any water from the lakes under any condition.

Contrary to conventional political wisdom, voters are disaffected by both parties, or in Bernie Sanders' words, "people are profoundly disgusted ... and people want to hear voices saying, 'enough is enough' ... ."

Land - No place to devastate with an open pit mine