Sauk County, Wisconsin: Volunteer Opportunities Available in Fall, 2008

One we're not sure of; one we might lose; one we’d like back; and one we ought to keep.

Sauk County, November of '08.

Heading into a big election year with a lot at stake, we – conservatives, Republicans – are walking a tightrope, and we know it. Governor Doyle is entrenched; the State Senate is firmly Democrat; the State Assembly is Republican by…well, not quite a razor-thin margin, but not much more than that.

Republicans hold the Assembly 52 to 47. A net loss of only three seats will swing it – and with it, Wisconsin – into Democrat control.

So, let's see: Healthy Wisconsin, check. Higher taxes on businesses: check. Taxes on oil companies, real estate, rental cars, garbage, the internet. Check.

No limits on property taxes. Repeal of the QEO. An overhaul, if not outright repeal, of school spending limits.

In-state tuition for illegal aliens; Wisconsin as a “sanctuary state;” collective bargaining for UW employees; doubling, tripling, quadrupling of Stewardship Fund land purchases with no legislative oversight, and no public use rights.

Oh, let’s not forget redistricting. Re-drawing the district lines. That’s coming up pretty soon, too, and with complete control of the government, Democrats will make sure they stay in complete control of the government.

All that, and probably more. That's what we're looking at, should the Assembly go Democrat.

As if this being a presidential year – and Wisconsin, again, a battleground state – wasn’t enough.

So. If I were a conservative and/or Republican (and I am), I’d be rooting for Sauk County.

My home county contains parts of four Assembly districts: two open seats (both due to retiring Republicans); one freshman Democrat; and one well-entrenched Republican.

One we're not sure of; one we might lose; one we’d like back; and one we ought to keep.

The one we're not sure of:

Last week, Rep. Sheryl Albers (R-Reedsburg) announced she won’t be running for re-election after 17 years in office. Her district – the 50th , covering northwestern Sauk County, has re-elected her with consistently big margins. In 2006, she won with 57%. In 2004, she beat both a Democrat and a popular local Libertarian with 58%.

It's been a solid Republican district, but when one person holds the seat for that long, it could be that person – not the person's Party. Albers retiring means we'll find out just how Republican the 50th really is.

The one we might lose:

The other soon-to-be retiree is Rep. Gene Hahn (R-Cambria), who’s held the 47th AD (mostly Dane and Columbia Counties, but with a township and village in Sauk) for 18 years. He won handily in 2002, but since then has gotten by with squeakers: 50.4% in 2004; 50.3% in 2006.

Democrats think they can take it, and they may be right. The race to replace Hahn is already crowded: three Democrats, five Republicans, and one independent have filed so far.

The one we'd like back:

The only Democrat representing Sauk County won the 51st AD in 2006 by upsetting a long-time Republican incumbent with 53% of the vote.

That was Rep. Steve Hilgenberg (D-Dodgeville) winning over Republican Rep. Steve Freese. Before 2006, the 51st was re-electing Freese with totals in the upper 50s. That history of electing a Republican, plus the natural vulnerability of a freshman, means Republicans have a shot there.

Not much of a shot, maybe. But a shot.

The one we ought to keep:

The 42nd AD covers the northeastern part of Sauk County – Baraboo and the Dells. Rep. J.A. “Doc” Hines (R-Oxford) is running for his 4th full term in office.

Doc was one of very few Republicans to buck the Great Republican Slaughter of 2006, and improve his numbers. He won with 54% that year, compared to 52.4% in 2004. With a formerly unknown Democrat filed to challenge him…well, there's no such thing as a sure thing, but Doc's next best thing to it.

So. Predictions? The worst Republicans will do is 1-3. A net loss of two seats. The best? 4-0 is possible. Not probable, but possible. A net gain of one. Anywhere in between: that's possible, too. Sauk County could help a little, hurt a lot.

Like the bumper sticker says: think globally, act locally. That's what I'm gonna do.

Note: clicking on the maps above leads to bigger versions of those maps. For a pdf of Assembly districts statewide, click here.

This Time It's Bologna

My latest column is up over at FoxPolitics.net. An excerpt:

Look, a bologna sandwich is just a bologna sandwich. I can’t stand it. Wouldn't pay for it. Won’t eat it. But if I’m ever stranded on a desert island, one bologna sandwich will be worth a lot.

Restrict supply enough, and anything can be worth a fortune.

Read the whole thing.

Cheese on the Ticket, Part V

My newest column is up at FoxPolitics. Here's a taste:

Instead of choosing to back Obama – or Clinton, for that matter – and possibly ending up on the losing side, Feingold says he's happy either way: he just wants the nomination over and done with, before the bare-knuckle process hurts the Party.

Well, gee, he could help that process along…by picking a side. Campaigning for his chosen candidate. He’s well-known and respected among his Party’s true believers.

Everything says he should’ve endorsed by now, and that he should’ve endorsed Obama. So why hasn’t he?

Go read the whole thing.

Supremes Vote, Dems Whine on Photo I.D.

Indiana has a law that we don't. In Indiana, before you can cast a vote, you have to prove who you are with a photo I.D.

This is embarrassing. We've fallen behind Indiana.

Indiana's law achieved rock-like solidity this week, because the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that it is, indeed, constitutional. The vote was 6-3. One of the Court's "liberal" members wrote the majority opinion.

He's got faith in people, I guess. The other side doesn't. Writing in dissent, Justice David Souter made that clear.

The law "threatens to impose nontrivial burdens…and a significant percentage of those individuals are likely to be deterred from voting," the Justice writes.

"…the travel costs and fees necessary to get one…" are a burden, he says, and: "Poor, old, and disabled voters who do not drive a car, however, may find the trip (to the DMV) prohibitive."

Those Indianans who don't already have a photo I.D. "…are likely to be in bad shape economically," which means there's "no reason to doubt that a significant number of state residents will be discouraged or disabled from voting."

He left out the "Republicans are racists" argument. Other than that, all the talking points are there, and they all boil down to: the poor, elderly, and disabled are incompetent.

They simply can't do it, and how unjust of us to expect them to.

Think about it: an entire political species – Democratus Liberalus – which believes that some people aren't smart, ambitious, or competent enough to go and get a photo I.D.

And they're supposed to be the compassionate, caring ones.

It's enough to make one despair. Just give up hope entirely, abandon politics, pack up the family and drive away.

In fact, that's a great idea. Vacation. Get away from all this demoralizing sewage. Tonight, after dinner, I'll sit the family down to figure out where we're going.

Then we'll get online and make reservations – camping spots, fishing licenses, etc.

We'll make a list of everything we'll need (my wife loves lists), budget out how much it's going to cost. Let work know when I'd like to take some time off.

Then, about a week in advance, we'll start getting everything together. Organizing it before we cram it all into the van.

Phew. Tell you what, just thinking about all that work makes me think again. I know it's worth it. Our camping trips usually are. Still. What a pain.

Granted, a lot of people don't – can't – take vacations the way my family does. But, come on: everything we do, everywhere we go, we've got to make some preparations. Have certain things with us. Wallet, keys, phone, sunglasses. That's part of daily life. Planning ahead is part of daily life.

Just going shopping for food: you have to get there. You have to know what things you need. You have to pay for it. You have to carry it all back.

And everybody has to do that, one way or another. Regardless of age, income, physical ability.

Don't they? Are people not eating because the trip to the store is too big a burden?

Or are they finding a way – some way – to get food from the store to their homes?

I'll bet on the latter.

Hey, I hate going to the DMV, too. Taking time away from other things; getting there when they're open; filling out forms; standing in line; shelling out the money. I don't want to do it.

But I do. And so do you. Anyone can, with a small amount of planning ahead.

Certainly, between now and November, anyone could.

Now, we're making a few assumptions. Big ones. The biggest being: somebody who's so far out of society's path – so far that they don't have a photo I.D. – is actually voting in the first place.

And the next: that if they are voting, they're voting Democrat.

Well, okay, that's a pretty safe assumption. Which is why, instead of getting out there and reaching those people, helping them get the I.D. cards they need – and telling them, oh, by the way, don't forget to vote Democrat – Democrats whine and moan and stand in the way.

They wouldn't be standing in the way, if the I.D.-less masses were voting Republican.

But then, we wouldn't be whining and moaning. We'd be getting those people to the DMV.

Presidential Cat and Mouse

How to explain the Democrats' presidential primary?

Easy. Tom and Jerry.

No, not the drink (although that might help). I mean the old Hanna Barbera cartoon. The cat and mouse.

There’s one old scene in particular that I remember: Tom chasing Jerry through the house, smacking him repeatedly with a long metal spatula. Bam! Bam! Bam! Jerry rounds a corner, and once Tom finishes skidding the area rug into a corner, he’s waiting for the cat with a pan. Bwong-ong-ong-ong-ong-ong.

Now: just replace Tom with Barack Obama, and Jerry with Hillary Clinton. Except, instead of hitting each other, they keep hitting themselves.

Election 2008.

Let the record show, if you please: I’m not aware of any racist or misogynist overtones to cats and mice, either cartoon or real.

Is anybody else absolutely fascinated by this primary? Don’t answer that – you don’t have to. I know the answer. You’re as fascinated as I am.

We can't stop talking about it. We can't stop writing about it.

Hey! Democrats! What the hell are you thinking?

It's a mystery as to why we should ask. Why it should matter to us – conservatives, Republicans, or both.

Well, maybe it isn't – maybe it's just plain human nature. Still, for us on the Right to sit around gossiping the way we are, like we're…I dunno, concerned or something – you can see why some on the Left might think we're being facetious. Sarcastic. A little less than sincere.

Why should we keep pointing out the Democrats' perpetual dysfunctionality? Why not just let them go along their merry neurotic way, and reap whatever benefits might come of it?

I have a theory. I dub it: "The Tom and Jerry Theory."

The Democrat primary is like cartoon violence: watching someone get hit with a cast iron pan, or dropped from a cliff, or swallowing a lit firecracker wouldn't be funny if it were real. But it isn't real. And it is funny.

Or maybe it’s more like rubbernecking: car accidents aren’t funny – not even a little – but we can’t help looking at them, even if it means clogging up the road for a couple seconds longer.

Like any kind of disaster footage: we feel awful for the people involved, we hope it never happens to us, but we can't stop watching.

It's Curly, getting his arm stuck in the turkey he's supposed to be preparing for dinner, and Larry trying to rescue him. Curly pulls one way, straining. Larry pulls the other way, struggling to keep his grip. You know what's coming: that turkey's going to fly across the room at the very moment that Moe walks in the door. Smack! Right in the kisser.

And you know the nose-pulling, eye-poking, head-bonking hilarity will quickly follow afterward.

That's the Democrats' presidential primary.

It's a train wreck, but it's not our train wreck. It's a catastrophe, but it's not our catastrophe. It's America's Funniest Home Videos. It isn't us tripping over the rake and falling into the kiddie pool full of snapping turtles. We're on the sidelines, uninvolved, unhindered by any direct stake in the outcome.

I admit: this kind of fascination isn't the most desirable of human behaviors. But…well, there it is.

Of course, in the real world, the Democrats' train wreck is our train wreck. One of the two remaining Democrat contenders could, all my mockery aside, very well become President.

That's a personal stake.

For example: when America went looking for a head coach, half the nation's Democrats settled on the guy running the laundry room. Every other candidate – all of them, Democrat or Republican, still in or dropped out – is more qualified to be President than Barack Obama.

Kinda risky, dontcha think?

So the Democrats' dysfunction affects us all. That's not necessarily bad: they're going all-out to damage each other while our guy basks. They're using up resources while we stockpile ours. That's no guarantee of November victory, but it helps. Things look better now than they did three months ago. They look better than we thought they would.

So. Sit back. Pop a beer. Enjoy the show.

I am.

It Just Isn't Fair!

Let’s say you’ve got a friend who, for whatever reason, likes to buy you lunch once a week. Nothing fancy: just a sandwich and soda at a local diner.

One day you also order a dessert. Then you start ordering a bowl of soup to go with your sandwich.

Your friend says nothing, generously continuing to pay. Then you wonder: why only a sandwich? Why not a steak?

Why this diner? Why not someplace nicer?

Why lunch? Why not dinner and drinks? And why only once a week?

Your friend can clearly afford to treat for any and all of these things, so you ask. Several times. You begin to complain. Tell other friends how cheap he is.

Not surprisingly, it isn’t long before he stops meeting you for lunch altogether.

The Wisconsin Taxpayer Alliance released a report last week on Wisconsin tax filings: how many people at various income levels filed, and how much in taxes they paid.

The results won’t surprise anyone: fully half of all Wisconsin tax filers paid 5% of all state income taxes in 2006. Nineteen percent of tax filers paid 77% of all income taxes.

The richest 0.1% of Wisconsin’s tax filers – those with adjusted gross incomes of over $1 million – paid over 8% of all taxes. The richest 9% - those whose AGIs are over $100,000 – paid 47% of all income taxes.

To those of us on the Right, these numbers speak for themselves. No further explanation necessary. We stand aside, nodding, with knowing looks. See? There it is. Black and white. You can’t argue with it: the “wealthy” pay a disproportionate amount of taxes.

To which members of the Left say: awww, pity the poor rich people, having to pay more. They can afford it, you know. They can spare a little to help those on the other end of the economic scale.

My answers to those answers, in reverse order: true, true, and that’s not the point.

We're not arguing that the rich are paying too much. We're refuting the argument that they're not paying "a fair share."

If they’re not paying enough now, when will they be? If people making over $500,000 a year – three-tenths of one percent of all tax filers – pay over 13% of all the taxes, for which they get exactly the same services as those paying nothing (fewer services, in fact)…how is that less than "a fair share?"

And yes, I agree, half a million dollars is a lot of money. I agree, people making that much can afford to pay more. The question isn’t whether they can: the question is: should we make them?

I’ll come back to that.

Half a million is a lot. A quarter million is a lot. A hundred thousand a year? Any tax filer – and realize that “tax filer” can mean a married couple – making $100,000 is in the top 9% of tax filers in our state. They’re among those paying 47% of all state income taxes.

A couple making $100,000 could be an electrician married to a teacher. A police officer married to a construction worker. A registered nurse married to a car salesman.

Heck, the city of Madison has bus drivers making six figures.

These are hardly blueblooded country-club fourth-generation Republicans who bathe their children in champagne and attend five-grand-a-plate fundraisers for the sake of “being seen.”

Okay, so some of them are. A tiny minority. Mostly, though, these are working people. Families. People who might as well have “middle class” tattooed across their foreheads.

This is the top ten percent.

When the Left complains about “the wealthy” “not paying their fair share,” they’re talking about people like this.

And even if they’re not: even if “the rich” are only the big CEOs and corporate lawyers and investment bankers and spoiled Hollywood starlets, the point still remains. The top 0.1% pay more income taxes in Wisconsin than the bottom 50% pay. That’s not crying for the rich: that’s denying that the rich aren’t paying a fair share.

And even if you disagree – even if you think it still isn't fair – well, we’d better hope that 0.1%, or 0.3%, or 9% doesn’t decide to up and move to Texas, or Florida, or Nevada, where there is no state income tax.

And why wouldn’t they? They can buy lunch there, too.