<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Cocaine Dan gets a Christmas Slap in the face from his Campaign Chairman</title>
	<atom:link href="http://watchdogmilwaukee.com/jim/2005/cocaine-dan-gets-a-christmas-slap-in-the-face-from-his-campaign-chairman/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://watchdogmilwaukee.com/jim/2005/cocaine-dan-gets-a-christmas-slap-in-the-face-from-his-campaign-chairman/</link>
	<description>Which side of the leash do you want to be on?</description>
	<pubDate>Mon, 06 Oct 2008 22:03:22 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Jim McGuigan</title>
		<link>http://watchdogmilwaukee.com/jim/2005/cocaine-dan-gets-a-christmas-slap-in-the-face-from-his-campaign-chairman/#comment-454</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim McGuigan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2006 06:44:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://watchdogmilwaukee.com/blog/?p=101#comment-454</guid>
		<description>What's the point of reducing the size of the board?  Is it to make a bunch of people feel good about "reducing goverment"?

Isn't it really just a reduction in representation?  Isn't it just reducing peoples connection to the government the elect?  Is it better to sacrifice democracy so just a few could be influenced, and thereby more accurately targetted by hatemongers and lobbyists intent on furthering their own agendas regardless of how nefarious?

As for reducing the need for the lobbyist, it sounds like the lobbyist was responsible for working to draw down state and federal aids.  Is that not a worthwhile pursuit or would you rather Waukesha taxes increase to handle local needs without the benefit of the federal/state tax dollars you already pay?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What&#8217;s the point of reducing the size of the board?  Is it to make a bunch of people feel good about &#8220;reducing goverment&#8221;?</p>
<p>Isn&#8217;t it really just a reduction in representation?  Isn&#8217;t it just reducing peoples connection to the government the elect?  Is it better to sacrifice democracy so just a few could be influenced, and thereby more accurately targetted by hatemongers and lobbyists intent on furthering their own agendas regardless of how nefarious?</p>
<p>As for reducing the need for the lobbyist, it sounds like the lobbyist was responsible for working to draw down state and federal aids.  Is that not a worthwhile pursuit or would you rather Waukesha taxes increase to handle local needs without the benefit of the federal/state tax dollars you already pay?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alicia</title>
		<link>http://watchdogmilwaukee.com/jim/2005/cocaine-dan-gets-a-christmas-slap-in-the-face-from-his-campaign-chairman/#comment-453</link>
		<dc:creator>Alicia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 01 Jan 2006 03:15:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://watchdogmilwaukee.com/blog/?p=101#comment-453</guid>
		<description>We really don't need the lobbyist. As a former county board supervisor, the lobbyist never gave me much info. on events in Madison and never asked what my concerns were for the county. I'm not sure what happened between Vrakas and Jenifer, but I'm almost sure he won't draw more attention to the matter. Even if we don't lose the lobbyist, we could stand to reduce the size of the board.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>We really don&#8217;t need the lobbyist. As a former county board supervisor, the lobbyist never gave me much info. on events in Madison and never asked what my concerns were for the county. I&#8217;m not sure what happened between Vrakas and Jenifer, but I&#8217;m almost sure he won&#8217;t draw more attention to the matter. Even if we don&#8217;t lose the lobbyist, we could stand to reduce the size of the board.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
