Tuesday, May 17, 2016

New Turbines going up near Plattville, WI


Bill's Page 1B 001

Bill's page 2 001

Bill's page 2 001

bill's page 3 001

Bill's page 2 001

Bill's page 2 001


Seymour, Lafayette County, Wisconsin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search

For other towns named Seymour in Wisconsin, see Seymour, Wisconsin (disambiguation).

Seymour, Wisconsin


Location of Seymour, Wisconsin
Location of Seymour, Wisconsin

Coordinates: 42°39′7″N 90°14′58″W / 42.65194°N 90.24944°W / 42.65194; -90.24944Coordinates: 42°39′7″N 90°14′58″W / 42.65194°N 90.24944°W / 42.65194; -90.24944

United States




• Total
36.1 sq mi (93.6 km2)

• Land
36.1 sq mi (93.6 km2)

• Water
0.0 sq mi (0.0 km2)

1,043 ft (318 m)

Population (2000)

• Total

• Density
10.0/sq mi (3.9/km2)

Time zone
Central (CST) (UTC-6)

• Summer (DST)

Area code(s)

FIPS code

GNIS feature ID

Seymour is a town in Lafayette County, Wisconsin, United States. The population was 363 at the 2000 census. The unincorporated community of Seymour Corners is located in the town.


According to the United States Census Bureau, the town has a total area of 36.1 square miles (93.6 km²), all of it land.


As of the census[2] of 2000, there were 363 people, 118 households, and 96 families residing in the town. The population density was 10.0 people per square mile (3.9/km²). There were 122 housing units at an average density of 3.4 per square mile (1.3/km²). The racial makeup of the town was 99.72% White and 0.28% Native American.

There were 118 households out of which 46.6% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 72.0% were married couples living together, 2.5% had a female householder with no husband present, and 17.8% were non-families. 16.1% of all households were made up of individuals and 5.1% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 3.08 and the average family size was 3.45.

In the town the population was spread out with 36.9% under the age of 18, 5.5% from 18 to 24, 30.0% from 25 to 44, 18.7% from 45 to 64, and 8.8% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 32 years. For every 100 females there were 111.0 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 120.2 males.

The median income for a household in the town was $40,000, and the median income for a family was $40,536. Males had a median income of $25,417 versus $22,917 for females. The per capita income for the town was $13,390. About 10.9% of families and 14.1% of the population were below the poverty line, including 20.3% of those under age 18 and 6.5% of those age 65 or over


Lafayette County, sometimes spelled La Fayette County, is a county located in the U.S. state of Wisconsin. It was part of the Wisconsin Territory at the time of its founding. As of the 2010 census, the population was 16,836.[1] Its county seat is Darlington.[2] The county was named in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette, the French general who rendered assistance to the Continental Army in the American Revolutionary War.[3]



According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the county has a total area of 635 square miles (1,640 km2), of which 634 square miles (1,640 km2) is land and 1.0 square mile (2.6 km2) (0.2%) is water.[4]

Major highways[edit]
Adjacent counties[edit]


2000 Census Age Pyramid for Lafayette County


U.S. Decennial Census[6]
1790–1960[7] 1900–1990[8]
1990–2000[9] 2010–2014[1]

As of the census of 2000,[10] there were 16,137 people, 6,211 households, and 4,378 families residing in the county. The population density was 26 people per square mile (10/km²). There were 6,674 housing units at an average density of 10 per square mile (4/km²). The racial makeup of the county was 99.03% White, 0.11% Black or African American, 0.11% Native American, 0.22% Asian, 0.04% Pacific Islander, 0.14% from other races, and 0.35% from two or more races. 0.57% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race. 33.8% were of German, 17.5% Norwegian, 13.6% Irish, 11.9% English, 6.8% Swiss and 6.0% American ancestry.

There were 6,211 households out of which 33.30% had children under the age of 18 living with them, 59.00% were married couples living together, 7.60% had a female householder with no husband present, and 29.50% were non-families. 25.40% of all households were made up of individuals and 13.10% had someone living alone who was 65 years of age or older. The average household size was 2.57 and the average family size was 3.10.

In the county, the population was spread out with 27.20% under the age of 18, 7.60% from 18 to 24, 27.20% from 25 to 44, 22.10% from 45 to 64, and 15.80% who were 65 years of age or older. The median age was 38 years. For every 100 females there were 99.80 males. For every 100 females age 18 and over, there were 98.00 males.

87 Percent of Cuts in House “Sidecar” Package Come from Low- and Moderate-Income Programs


May 17, 2016


Isaac Shapiro

Richard Kogan

The vast majority (87 percent) of the cuts in the House “sidecar” package — a series of cuts in entitlement programs that House Republican leaders are promoting as a package they could attach to the budget resolution if it’s brought to the House floor — would come from programs for people with low or modest incomes (see Figure 1).  In fact, the sidecar’s cuts to low-income programs would be even more disproportionate than the cuts in the fiscal year 2017 budget resolution that the House Budget Committee approved in March.  Some 62 percent of the cuts in the budget resolution would come from programs for low- and moderate-income people.[1]With the sidecar package, low-income Americans would end up big net losers.

Figure 1


"Sidecar" Package Gets Most Cuts from Programs for People with Low or Modest Incomes

The sidecar’s $151 billion in cuts to low-income programs over the next decade would dwarf the estimated $3 billion in sequestration relief that low-income programs may receive in 2017 from last fall’s budget agreement.  With the sidecar package, low-income Americans thus would end up big net losers. 

Like the House budget resolution, the sidecar package contrasts sharply with House GOP rhetoric around its forthcoming poverty plan, which House leaders have said they intend to unveil before the presidential conventions.  House leaders have stated that they seek to strengthen efforts to combat poverty, and Speaker Paul Ryan has said their poverty proposal won’t be a “budget-cutting exercise.”  Yet their budget plans consistently cut core anti-poverty programs, and by highly disproportionate amounts.

Sidecar Targets Low-Income Programs

The sidecar package has emerged as a mechanism to facilitate House passage of the budget resolution, although such passage remains highly uncertain.  Most of the sidecar package consists of provisions that several House committees approved in March, largely on party-line votes, though several additional provisions of the sidecar — which would cut the SNAP program (food stamps) — leaked last week and were reported in the media.[2]

The sidecar’s ostensible purpose is to offset the cost of the $30 billion in sequestration relief in fiscal year 2017 that last fall’s bipartisan budget agreement provided.  But as CBPP analyses have explained, that rationale is weak, as the 2015 Bipartisan Budget Act itself contained provisions roughly offsetting the increases it provided for discretionary appropriations.[3]

Moreover, although House leaders have sought to portray the sidecar as primarily reducing duplication, curbing abuse, and the like, the principal effects of most of its provisions would be to expand the number of people without health insurance, significantly shrink funding for preventive health measures, reduce child care and other services, and push more people into poverty.[4]

The sidecar mostly consists of cuts to entitlement programs that provide health care for low-income people, basic food assistance, and key services to low-income families such as child care assistance — along with cuts to the low-income component of the Child Tax Credit (see Appendix table).  Only two provisions, related to the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, are not aimed at low-income programs.

The sidecar cuts total $33 billion over two years and $172 billion over the next decade.[5]  Of these:

  • 91 percent of the cuts over the next two years (or $30 billion in cuts) would be to programs for low- and moderate-income people.
  • 87 percent of the cuts over the next decade ($151 billion in cuts) would be to low-income programs.

These cuts hit low-income programs — which account for roughly one of every four dollars in federal spending — far harder than any other part of the budget.  The cuts are even more disproportionate than those in the lopsided House budget plan; as noted, an estimated 62 percent of the cuts in that plan would come from programs assisting low- and moderate-income people.

Low-Income Programs Would Lose Much More from Sidecar Than They Gain from Sequestration Relief

House Republicans are advancing the sidecar package to address concerns in their caucus about the discretionary spending levels for 2017 in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015.  That Act provided $30 billion of sequestration relief for 2017, divided equally between defense and non-defense spending.

Figure 2


Impact on Low-Income Programs: "Sidecar" Cuts Overwhelm Estimated Sequestration Relief

Under the relatively optimistic assumption that low-income discretionary programs will receive a proportionate share of the sequestration relief, their funding will be about $3 billion higher in 2017 than it would have been without the 2015 agreement.[6]  This increase pales in comparison to the sidecar’s cuts to low-income programs of $30 billion over two years and $151 billion over the decade. 

In other words, the net effect of the sequestration relief in the 2015 agreement and the cuts in the sidecar package would be significant cuts to programs assisting low- and moderate-income people, by $26 billion over two years and $147 billion over the decade.


Low-Income Share of “Sidecar” Cuts
(cuts in billions of dollars)


Low-income programs

Eliminate caps on repayment of advance marketplace subsidy payments due to changes in mid-year income

Require Social Security number for refundable Child Tax Credit

Eliminate Social Services Block Grant

Repeal Prevention and Public Health Fund

Impose SNAP time limit in high-unemployment areas

End Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program – SNAP simplification option

Cut federal match for Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)

Restrict states’ ability to use provider taxes to help fund Medicaid

Reduce federal Medicaid reimbursement for hospital care for prisoners

Change treatment of certain lump-sum payments in determining Medicaid eligibility

Other programs

Repeal authority of Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation to liquidate certain firms

Repeal mandatory funding of Consumer Financial Protection Bureau

Total cuts, all programs

Total, low-income programs

Low-income program cuts as a share of all cuts

Source:  Congressional Budget Office and CQ New

ABOVE IS FROM:  http://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/87-percent-of-cuts-in-house-sidecar-package-come-from-low-and-moderate?utm_source=CBPP+Email+Updates&utm_campaign=852ed0e407-5_17_16SidecarPaper_General_5_17_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_ee3f6da374-852ed0e407-43435549

WNIU/WNIJ’s Perspective opposing eminent domain for GLB RR

Your Voice Can Make A Difference

By WNIJ News 3 hours ago


Katie Andraski's "Perspective" (May 17, 2016).

The Great Lakes Basin Railroad will cut across three states from LaPorte, Ind., into Milton, Wis. Frank Patton has not ruled out quick-take eminent domain, which means the project could take people’s land if they refuse to sell, if the Surface Transportation Safety Board approves his project.

These days a billionaire serving the public good by saving time for trains coming through Chicago and creating jobs seems more powerful than ordinary people.

But that’s not necessarily true. My parents stopped Mayor Corning of Albany, New York, from taking their land to make a park. They stood up to Consolidated Gas, with the company ordered to pay their legal expenses. Our Belvidere neighborhood fought city hall and won.

Recently, at the Boone County scoping meeting, people spoke about how 21,000 acres of rare, fertile farmland would be lost. Fields could turn into swamps due to the tracks blocking drainage. They protested that, if there’s a derailment, toxic chemicals could ruin the water supply for the entire region. Officials from rescue squads warned how response times for emergency vehicles could become deadly due to long trains or roads being closed.

People stood up for their legacy, their livelihoods, the ground itself -- American protest at its best.

If you’d like to comment before the June 15 deadline, check out the Block GLB Railroad and the Surface Transportation Safety Board websites.

I’m Katie Andraski, and that’s my perspective.

Above is from:  http://northernpublicradio.org/post/your-voice-can-make-difference

Big business must be stopped from stealing our Illinois farm using eminent domain




Dear Editor,

I write to you today, in the hope that you might be interested in, and possibly investigate further the Great Lakes Basin Railroad project. While it is touted as a pro business venture, there is great opposition to this proposal among the farm and rural community.

I am a native Illinoisan living on the family farm that will be designated sesquicentennial in 2019.  As of March 2016, we became aware of a proposed railroad that would cut through our farm ground within a few 100-ft of our home.

Originating in LaPorte, IN and ending in Milton, WI, the majority of this railroad will run through our state of Illinois.This Great Lakes Basin Railroad project is a private entity, seeking the use of eminent domain.  Currently the GLBR is under environmental review by the Surface Transportation Board, a process expected to take from 18-36 months.

The project manager, Frank Patton, has been featured in several prominent publications — the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, as well as numerous local media outlets.  Patton’s narrative states their intent to provide “just compensation” for the necessary ground.  His offer, I believe, is evidence of his ignorance of the agriculture business and an insult to the intelligence of the land owner.  In each interview, he states that the farmer would be allowed free access to the rail line. Farmers are painfully aware of the impracticality and absurdity of this statement. The prohibitive cost to the farmer would include building the rail spur, and providing for onsite weight and inspection. The minimal information put forth by the GLBR has been broad statements that are woefully inaccurate, if not actually untrue.

The Grundy County Board invited Mr. Patton to speak about his project on May 2nd at the Morris Community H.S. His opening comments were to insist that this rail line would in no way affect our field drainage systems and waterways, but did not provide a single detail or explanation.  His response to our concern that our homes and property would be devalued by the close proximity of the train was to flatly say, “I don’t accept that premise.”  Again, no substantiation.  When asked about the identity of his non-disclosed investors, he offered that he actually knew a couple of investors who could fund the entire estimated $8 billion project, but would still seek federal assistance.  Per the Morris Daily Herald, May 3:

Patton answered one question about whether he would use Railroad Rehabilitation & Improvement Financing for the project by stating it is one option they have looked at.  “The RRIF currently has a balance of $30 billion and the federal government is aggressive to use it,” Patton said.

To add injury to insult, our own tax dollars may fund this devastation to our livelihood. Again and again, big money maneuvers it’s way through all the loopholes and lobbied legislation to drain our resources for their own private gain.

We vehemently oppose the use of eminent domain for private gain.  In searching the internet, there are countless articles about the practice being no longer used for the greater good as it was intended, but instead used to facilitate the greed of big business.  Our small business has great value, don’t steal it from us.  There is no “just compensation” for ground that we do not want to sell.

Thank you,

Kathleen Maher Bessen

Gardner, IL

Above is from:  http://www.rebootillinois.com/2016/05/16/editors-picks/kathleen-maher-bessen/big-business-must-be-stopped-from-stealing-our-illinois-farm-using-eminent-domain/57769/