Welfare queens have come calling in Milwaukee again. Unlike the caricatures of old, these latter day welfare trolls sport expensive suits and wingtip shoes.

Manpower, Inc., the global temporary-service firm, has announced plans to consolidate its Milwaukee-area offices into a new building in downtown Milwaukee. The company expects to locate nearly 1,000 employees in the new headquarters initially, with perhaps another 300 or so to be added in the coming years. All that has Milwaukee officials beside themselves. So much so that they’re rolling out the red carpet—actually, a cement parking ramp—to help ice the deal.

Time was a business would use its own funds to build necessary plants, offices, and other structures. Now, businesses—assuming they’re large enough—sit back and wait for the community to fork over “incentives” for the business to relocate. Incentives can come in the form of tax breaks, infrastructure improvements, and job training.

Milwaukee has taken the concept to a new level: a free parking ramp. Yep, a brand, spankin’ new structure compliments of Milwaukee taxpayers. City officials defend the decision by claiming the new headquarters will spur even more development in that portion of downtown. Plus, the city’s “investment” will be repaid through the property taxes generated on the land.

They miss the point. A handout is still a handout. Corporate welfare is still corporate welfare. Scare funds should be used for truly needy projects, not to grease the skids for a successful and wealthy firm.

Originally designed to spur development of blighted industrial land, tax incremental financing dollars are increasingly being used to develop farm land and hot urban properties. Such is the case with the Manpower development.

The new Manpower headquarters is planned for a portion of downtown Milwaukee that has experienced a phenomenal building boom of late. Former warehouses have been converted to pricey condos. The closed Pfister & Vogel tannery is being torn down and its land reclaimed for new housing. Open land along the a Milwaukee river likewise has been developed. Developers are scrambling to meet the booming demand for new housing structures in and around downtown Milwaukee. And they’re doing it without handouts from the city.

Manpower’s headquarters will be built on land that formerly held mostly railroad tracks. No clean up required. What’s the risk to Manpower? More to the point, what’s the risk to Milwaukee? Eventually—more likely sooner than later—the land will be snatched up and developed. Perhaps for condos, but what’s the difference between hundreds of residents and hundreds of workers? Both spend money. But one group hangs around after hours while the other heads for points near and far.

The cost of building structures has always been borne by the business owner. Any contact with government agencies was confined to asking for relief from burdensome and needless taxes and regulations. Politicians can and should assist there.

Manpower executives obviously are fans of professional sports. They’ve witnessed how communities across the country have caved into demands of wealthy team owners. They obviously learned a thing or two watching Bud Selig duke it out with local and state officials over the building of a new baseball stadium for the Milwaukee Brewers. Selig got his new ballpark, paid for mostly by new taxes.

Manpower executives dangled the prospect of a new headquarters in front of the Milwaukee Common Council, and aldermen drooled. How, they wondered, could they convince the firm relocate? Why not throw in a parking ramp, they wondered. It may be a novel idea, but it’s a bad idea.

Downtown Milwaukee is comprised of hundreds of businesses collectively employing thousands of people. Any of the firms would love to have a handout from the city. But that won’t happen. Not big enough, the city says. You don’t count. (Funny how the city is all to happy to collect property taxes each year, though.)

Manpower can afford to construct its office building and parking structure. The firm is one of the more profitable in the area, and posted record sales and earnings for 2005. Company executives should scratch their request for a handout, and build their structures with company funds. That’s the way every other business operates. That’s how things are done in a capitalistic environment.

These handouts will continue until politicians stand up to the whining businesspeople. Reducing taxes and bureaucratic red tape is one thing. Handing over a $19-million parking ramp is another. If Milwaukee follows through with this plan, the city will establish a costly and embarrassing precedent that will be nearly impossible to stop.

It’s time to start getting tough with Mexico about the border crossings. This time, though, we’re not talking about illegal aliens. Drug smugglers, apparently aided by renegade members of the Mexican army, are becoming more brazen as they attempt to ply their trade in the United States. A confrontation with Texas law enforcement personnel on Monday nearly resulted in a gun battle.

According to news reports, Texas state troopers, aided by county sheriffs deputies, tried to stop the drug smugglers as they fled back toward the U.S./Mexico border. The smugglers managed to make it across the Rio Grande, though not before abandoning two of their three SUVs and over a half-ton of marijuana.

Losing the drug dealers was only half of it. Most troubling is that the law officers were staring down the gun barrels of Mexican military personnel stationed across the river. Both sides drew their guns, but no shots were fired.

In a statement the Mexican government tried to deflect criticism, claiming that drug traffickers and other criminals have used military clothing and vehicles in the past. "It is possible that these actions were designed to damage the image of our armed forces," the statement said.

Maybe so. But the incursions themselves are very real and very dangerous. The Valley Daily Bulletin of Ontario, Calif. has reported that there have been over 200 such incidents in the past 10 years. Many have involved members of the Mexican military. Michael Chertoff, Secretary of Homeland Security, tried to shrug off the report, claiming that many of the incursions were “mistakes.”

The only mistake being made here is by the United States. It’s high time we lower the boom on the Mexican government, and get them to stop the tide of drug smugglers and illegal aliens. But don’t expect Pres. George Bush to raise a peep. Ever the politician, Bush wants to avoid alienating the all-important (and ever-growing) Hispanic bloc. Never mind that hundreds of thousands of hard-working Hispanics live in the parts of the southwest being terrorized and taken control of by drug smugglers.

We are reminded of the 1976 incident in which two U.S. army officers were beaten and hacked to death by North Korean soldiers while supervising the pruning of a tree along the DMZ.

Monday’s armed standoff in Texas thankfully ended with no injuries or deaths on our side. But it’s only a matter of time before the drug smugglers and their highly trained and armed bodyguards decide they don’t want to be caught or chased anymore. How many Hispanic votes are worth the life of a U.S. lawman?

It appears Judge Alito has survived contemporary America’s version of an inquisition, known officially as a judicial confirmation hearing. The Democrats did their best to rattle his cage, but the good judge stood firm. Conventional wisdom has it that he’s headed for confirmation later this month.

While the liberals on the Judiciary Committee spent an awful—actually, inordinate amount of time—on their pet cause (the Roe decision), they managed to offer some variety by questioning Alito on executive power and his apparent membership in the Concerned Alumni for Princeton.

Try as they might, Alito’s detractors on the Judiciary Committee couldn’t smear him or get him to incriminate himself. They couldn’t, because there is nothing in the esteemed judge’s past that is demeaning, derogatory, or controversial. Unless, of course, you’re a liberal.

So it’s up to the liberals in the press to keep up the heat. The usual suspects have come out of the woodwork to lambaste Alito. The New York Times, which normally can be expected to be level-headed (though tilted to the left), has gone totally off its Gucci rocker over Alito.

In today’s editorial, the not-so-gracious Gray Lady offers a half-dozen points as to why the American people should “worried” about a Justice Alito. They include (to use the Times’ own words):

1. Evidence of extremism: What’s extreme about Alito? Why, he described Judge Robert Bork as (gasp!) "one of the most outstanding [Supreme Court] nominees” of the 20th Century. Bork is the man the liberals really came to hate. They hated him so much their actions turned his last name into a verb.

Fact is, Bork is one of the more knowledgeable nominees to face the Judiciary Committee in decades. He would’ve brought great intellect and insight to the Supreme Court. But radical special interest groups, with help from their puppets in the Senate, wouldn’t let that happen. To his credit, Alito understands Bork’s passion for the law and for the proper role of the Supreme Court in our society.

2. Opposition to Roe v. Wade. No surprise here. Ever since Bork was, well, borked, Supreme Court nominees have had to genuflect before the altar of abortion in hopes of getting confirmed. John Roberts and now Samuel Alito found ways to dance around the issue. But, that’s not enough in the eyes of the Times. Alito refused to declare that Constitution protects abortion rights (it does not, as any sixth-grader who has read the document can tell you) and that the Roe decision is “settled law” (it is not).

The Roe decision is just that: a court decision. It has never been passed by a legislative body and signed into law by a governor or president. It is subject to review like any other decision, and, like some 200 others over the years, could be overturned if reasonable minds decide at some point it makes legal sense to do so.

3. Support for an imperial presidency. OK, I’ll give the Gray Lady some credit here. Of interest, though, is that the Times makes no mention of the Imperial Congress, which is an equally troubling problem affecting our nation. We can expect this hypocrisy from the Times. The paper has always supported a strong national government at the expense of state powers. Like other leftwing organizations, the New York Times hates the 10th Amendment.

The Times has more to say about Alito, including his involvement with CAP. Liberals tried desperately to link Alito to CAP because the alumni group once argued that Princeton shouldn’t admit women and minorities. Sen. Arlen Specter laid waste to that charge today.

But we get the picture. The liberals realize they are on the verge of losing yet another battle. They are left foaming at the mouth, which is where we usually find them.

The American people realize that the sky isn’t about to fall, nor is the land about to open up and swallow this great nation. We will survive. Indeed, we will prosper, as we have for over 200 years. History will record that Alito was the thoughtful, temperate justice portrayed during the grueling confirmation hearings. And our nation will be the better as a result.

True to form, the Democrats jumped all over Judge Alito about their pet causes, starting with Roe v. Wade.

Led by Arlen Specter, the alleged Republican from Pennsylvania, Alito was grilled about his position on the infamous 1973 decision as well as Casey v. Planned Parenthood, another litmus test for the Left.

Regarding his position on Roe, Alito said his written comments from 1985 reflected his views at the time as staff attorney for the Reagan administration. He says now that he will keep an open mind on the issues and remain respectful to stare decisis, the concept of adhering to precedent. However, he also left the door open to rethinking a decision, stating that holding to precedent was not "an inexorable command." Good for him. A judicial nominee should not feel pigeon-holed into taking a position one way or the other. Democrats would love to handcuff Alito on abortion-related issues, but he has to be free to decide a case on its merits.

Liberals then took Alito to task on executive authority, asking his opinions of Pres. Bush’s approval of wiretaps against suspicious foreigners. The stage was set on Monday with Sen. Russ Feingold. According to the liberal senator from Wisconsin, “We need judges who will stand up and tell the executive branch when it ignores or distorts the laws passed by Congress.”

Alito today tried to allay his critics by saying that “no person is above the law,” including Presidents and members of the Supreme Court.

Unfortunately, he didn’t use the opportunity to remind the politicians of their sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. Congress has been wiping its feet on the 10th Amendment for decades. What this country needs—and what we hope to find in Samuel Alito—is a Justice who will work with other concerned justices to rein in the Imperial Congress.

Whine as they might over an occasional overstep on the part of the executive branch, Congressmen must be forced to accept that their powers are limited. If they won’t quench their thirst for power, the Supreme Court must step in and make amends.

To be continued….

The vicious political attack of Judge Samuel Alito has begun.

The usual suspects have come out of the woodwork. Sen. Ted "Two Fingers" Kennedy lashed out at the veteran judge. "...I find Judge Alito's support for an all-powerful executive branch to be genuinely troubling," Kennedy is quoted in news sources. Quite ironic, as the socialistic fossil from Taxachusetts has made a career of advancing an imperialistic Congress.

Sen. Charles Schumer, Hillary Clinton's soul mate from New York, threatened on Sunday to filibuster the nomination if Alito refuses to answer questions deemed "vital." What he and the rest of the radical Democrats on the Judiciary Committee are saying is that they will torpedo the nomination if Alito doesn't toe the Democrat party line. Which is to say he will always vote against any law that even remotely chips away at the one case dearest to liberals' hearts: Roe v. Wade.

You know darn well the Democrats will try to box Alito into a corner and smear him in the eyes of the public.

In opening remarks this morning, Alito served notice that he will stand his ground if need be. "A judge can't have any agenda," he is quoted in news sources. "A judge can't have a preferred outcome in any particular case."

Today's hearing was taken up with opening comments. The questioning begins tomorrow. Confidence is high that Alito--like Pres. Bush's other nominee, Chief Justice John Roberts--will prove himself to be the stellar candidate his record suggests. At the same time he will prove to the country that the Democrats on the Committee are the shameless toadies for liberal interest groups and way outside of mainstream society.

To be continued....