"Wisconsin is broke!" (wink, wink)

He received a 26 percent raise, and he's been in the job for two months. What exactly, could he have done to have merited that raise?

And when the governor is whining about how there needs to be "Shared Sacrifice", he comes off as a hypocrite when one of his appointees feeds at the public trough for a double-digit raise in two months time.

 

I never said he was qualified.

I'm just asking how you know that he isn't qualified. Where do you draw the line? Because, if you draw it at "no college degree" than that would mean that the incredibly talented James Lee Witt would not have been eligible.

Do you draw it at "no sons of political donors"? OK, how many people does that disqualify.

Maybe the line is drawn at "no DUIs". OK, fine. Who does that disqualify.

This kid is probably an idiot. The necessary skills required for a Commerce Department job in Wisconsin are probably pretty low, and he still might not possess them.

Fine. So, are you down for a which hunt of similarly qualified people throughout government?

Tell me what the criteria is that puts you on a "do not hire list" and let's go looking for some more folks that should be fired, and which elected officials should be forced to resign.

 

So, Yankee, what I hear you saying is that you don't mind carrying unqualified, overpaid government workers as long as they don't belong to a union.

 

The line should be a college degree. If I had to get a degree to make $26K per year, it's not a much of stretch to say someone running a department in state government should have one as well.

 

He didn't get a "raise" he got a new job.

From the article:

It's a political job.

And, if the author of the column wants to say that he's unqualified or not doing a good job, fine, but he doesn't do that.

Surely there are civil servants at the agency. Couldn't the author pick up the phone and at least get one quote from someone saying that the guy is a disaster in the job?

He doesn't even attempt to make the case. He doesn't have one accusation, one anecdote, or one off the record quote.

Maybe this is the guy, like James Lee Wit, that will "turn around" the Wisconsin Commerce Department.

 

For someone in their mid-20s it does not seem to be an unreasonable requirement, although I can see exceptions for people with truly relevant experience or demonstrated capability. (I'm talking about the guy who turned his lawn-mowing jobs into a multimillion-dollar landscaping business, for instance, not the hack son of a business crony.) It's just standard CYA if nothing else: The more standardized the criteria are, the less chance the Journal-Sentinel is going to end up with a story that draws 1,400-plus comments.

 

Not at all. I'm all for you guys getting him fired so long as I get to fire one political flunkie from a Democrat administration. You know they're out there.

Short of that, some evidence that he unqualified and/or overpaid would be sufficient.

You didn't need to. There are plenty of jobs that are available that pay more than that and do not require a college degree.

You wanted a specific job that paid that amount and required a degree. (Though, I could point to many tremendous journalists and authors who don't have one.)

But, that's fine if you want to draw the line there. Just know, that if we followed you guidelines, James Lee Witt, who apparently was the best, most qualified director FEMA ever had, would have been ineligible.

And, what about the next James Lee Witt? What other terrific public servants will we miss out on because of your rule?

 

Oh, and as long as we're planning a which hunt, I assume these same rules should apply to the unions themselves, right?

Because I'd hate to see nepotism influence hiring or unqualified people put into important jobs.

And, we should probably apply the same rules to groups that receive state or federal funding too, right?

 

YF, really, I think his total lack of relevant work experience shows that he is unqualified (I guess you can count the previous crony jobs his dad got him as beneficial). And the two DUIs show that he is not an exceptionally motivated and responsible young man. Whatever questions you've asked about where the line is, and there have been five or six different "what line are we using" criteria, he is on the wrong side of all of them.

 

Are you implying that unions involve favoritism and nepotism? Say it ain't so...

 

I'm not planning a which hunt. I am considering a that hunt, however.

 

Fine. But, if we're going to apply the rules fairly, I need to know where the line is.

Otherwise, when I come back with examples of folks who are unqualified, but who work for Dems, you'll all have some excuse.

Where is the line?

(And, besides, what is the relevant work experience for a midlevel commerce department job? It's a job designed for a political flunkie. The real answer is that his qualifications are perfect: he's a politically connected flunkie.)