I'll admit that I have a high standard when it comes to political newsletters.  I don't like my tax dollars wasted on fluff mailings.

So when I received County Supervisor Joe Rice's "Rice Report" which included a survey that asked:

Milwaukee County should balance its budget by

___ Increasing Taxes

___ Reducing Spending

___ Other

I asked myself: "Self, what exactly would other mean?"

Fairy dust?  Underfunding key areas?  Overestimating revenues?

Yes, I already know that Rice has supported the latter two but the simplicity of Rice's question is quite possibly the weakest, most impotent query I've heard of in a County-funded newsletter.

What are people going to answer?  Increasing taxes?  I don't want my taxes to go up.  Who would say yes to that?  Reducing spending?  Well there's one that we all would like but where are the specifics?  If Rice gets back his surveys and the 1-2% of the responders say "reducing spending," does it mean Rice will feel justified in cutting services for the disabled?  (…The poor?  The tired?  The huddled masses yearning to be free? …)  Will he support a greater cut to the Department on Veterans Affairs?

After all, Rice voted to sustain a veto by County Executive Scott Walker cutting veteran services.  He voted to sustain a veto cutting services to the most disabled in our community.  He voted to sustain a veto that increased paratransit fares on the poorest in our community.  He voted to sustain a veto cutting funding for public safety and the courts.

Rice complicates the matter by telling us in his newsletter that "most would agree that our tax burden is already too high and that the answer cannot lie in increasing taxes."  If that's the case, why did Rice even ask the question in his survey? 

Rice also asks: "Should Milwaukee County actively market and sell property it owns that is determined to be surplus and not currently needed?"

Exactly which park is Rice suggesting we sell?  Who will deem land surplus?  Shouldn't something like that go to a referendum?

In the interest of full disclosure, I ran against Rice in 2004 in an unsuccessful effort to regain the seat I lost in 2002.  Back then, Rice used negative suppression calls and mailings to deceive voters into thinking I was the anti-Christ. 

Rice's approach to his legislative responsibilities has been very part-time, mostly just showing up for meetings which take about 9 hours a month. For this he's raked in a comfy $30,000 a year ($277 an hour) at taxpayer expense.  As a taxpayer I wouldn't mind paying him more if he actually did the work the job requires (40+ hours/week), but showing up for photo shoots and agreeing with everything that Scott Walker tells him to do is not leadership — it is government waste.

Bragging is something I won't fault politicos for as long as there's some sort of substance.  But Rice is bragging that he saved almost $13,000 from his office account.  What did he not spend it on?  Not getting a county issued cell phone was on his brag list, but there's a reason — he doesn't want his cell phone records used against him in a campaign. Newsletters were another item.  The newsletter I received was the first in nearly 3 years in office that Rice has sent out.  Sadly, it is completely devoid of substance. 

I feel poorer for having wasted the time to read what would have been more aptly titled "Fluffy Rice."

###

If Rice wants to write a response to this column, we'll publish it.