Of Trash and Old Folks

What do old folks and large piles of trash have in common?

Sauk County’s trying to decide what to do with both.

Before I get myself in trouble, let me emphasize that I’m not comparing the elderly with big piles of garbage. I am, however, comparing the issues surrounding both.

Yesterday’s Baraboo News Republic headline read: “County likely to get out of trash.” The county landfill is going to be full by early next year. Our choices: build a new one, build a transfer station, or get out of the business entirely.

It takes years to get a new landfill past the state’s bureaucracy, and even then, the locals don’t want one. That would seem to be out.

A transfer station (which the locals also don’t want) means the county competing with privately owned businesses.

Government should not do this lightly, and in this case, it may not be possible. One supervisor predicted a 25% increase in costs if we get out of the business, but a 50% increase if we stay in. If that’s correct, the county won’t be able to compete. Our prices will be too high.

On the other hand, staying in the business may be the only way to ensure that prices stay down. There are far fewer landfills, and companies carrying trash to those landfills, than there were 10 years ago in Wisconsin. At some point, our options may narrow to the point that private companies can simply name their price.

If the county stays in, it might cost more. If the county gets out, it might also cost more. It’s hard to predict.

It’s also hard to predict what the cost of long-term health care is going to do, and not just because of market forces. Health care is mired in government bureaucracy, and multi-governmental financing. As Sauk County saw last year, that can mean unpredictable changes.

But while current and future operational costs are a subject for the landfill debate, they haven’t been, at least outwardly, in debating the new health care center.

In case you didn’t know, Sauk County runs its own home for the elderly – particularly those with developmental and memory disabilities (like Alzheimer’s). The building is old, and there will likely be a decision within 6 months on how and where to build a new one.

The various plans will cost between $11.4 million and $15.5 million. It would cost $7.6 million to just remodel the existing building.

These two issues – the landfill and health care center – have a lot in common. Both services live under a heavy burden of government oversight and regulation. Both are, in many other places, provided by privately owned businesses.

There are differences, as well. For example, the county will spend $2.2 million in property taxes on the health care center this year. No property taxes are being spent on the landfill.

It sounds callous to mention that. Price should be less of an issue, because on a human level, caring for our old folks is infinitely more important than disposing of our garbage.

Of course, just let the trash pile up for three months or so, and then see where it ranks. There are real health and environmental necessities behind trash disposal that affect far more people than the health care center.

Again, that sounds callous. But it’s also true.

And here’s one more difference: while the county is likely to get out of the trash business, getting out of the retirement home business won’t even come up.

There are several reasons for that. While the locals don’t want a landfill, there are no such objections to the home. Landfill employees are few, while the home employees are many, and organized.

Most importantly, going private would be more likely to mean closing the home down, and finding other places for those folks, at great expense and pain for the families. Compassion for the residents and their families will be the main argument against privatizing the health care center, if it even comes up.

The pain of closing the landfill will be different: borne by bureaucrats and/or business managers. The expense will be spread across the local tax base.

It’s possible that I’m completely wrong. There may be additional factors I’m not aware of. There may be no private businesses offering the same services. If so, let the county say so. If not, let privatization take a front seat in the debate, just like it is with the landfill.

Ah, Politics

Why are people so cynical about politics?

Well, take the recent excitement over the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, just to look at a perfect example.

The Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) was dead – for the rest of this year, anyway. The Senate Majority Leader, Mary Panzer, opposed it, or at least was extremely ho-hum about passing it.

When the Legislature wants to pass something – when they want to pass something really bad – it passes, and it passes quickly. Leadership does what they have to do – compromising, making deals, twisting arms – to get the votes they need.

That I can suggest so easily that legislators will vote a certain way because of a little “arm twisting,” rather than conviction, speaks frankly to my point. I’m that sure legislators aren’t always voting with their consciences.

The point is, if TABOR were a real top legislative priority for the state’s leadership, the legislature would have voted on it by now, and it would have passed. The powers that be would have gotten it done weeks ago, if not months.

They didn’t. She’s not entirely to blame, but it was Senator Panzer who finally tanked TABOR for the year. She said it was because she didn’t have the votes, and no amount of effort could have won them over.

But wait! A prominent Assembly Republican decided to run against her in the primary! For the first time in her career, Panzer has real competition for her seat, and TABOR is the issue.

Panzer saw the light and called the Senate back in. As a result, the past few days have been chaotic, fluid, frustrating, and the Senate proposal is so full of loopholes it would be better to pass nothing at all. But, at least Panzer finally did the right thing.

Or, at least, she hopes she did. Nobody else seems to think so.

When a politician does something that is so obviously politically motivated, I have to wonder if something else isn’t going on – I mean, there’s got to be some greater strategy here, right? Nobody in her position could be so naïve as to think this was going to work.

Maybe she’s trying to scrape blame off onto the Assembly. Maybe she’s trying to give everybody TABOR fatigue. Maybe she really does intend to pass something, finally.

Whatever her strategy (if any), I bet none of this changes anyone’s answer to the question: where does Panzer actually stand on the issue? Does she really support constitutional limits on government spending? Does she really support referendums on tax increases?

This is one reason people are cynical about politics. TABOR has been a big, big issue in Wisconsin this year. Taxes are, supposedly, a top priority for the Republican-led Legislature. Yet the Senate Majority Leader doesn’t move on it until potential unemployment is staring her in the face.

She’s not alone, of course. Right here in this part of the state, we’ve got a sitting Assemblyman running for a state senate seat. Earlier in the year, he voted against a bill to make carrying concealed weapons legal. Then he decided to run for the Senate, so he voted in favor of it. Earlier, he opposed constitutional spending limits. Now, he supports them.

Now, this is all part and parcel of politics. It’s nothing new. Sure, we’d all prefer that elected officials vote the way they really think they should. On the other hand, elected officials are frequently berated for not voting the way their constituents want.

And there are legitimate reasons to change your mind. Maybe somebody brought something new to your attention – something you hadn’t thought of before. Maybe a particular bill wasn’t quite right, but now it is. Maybe you’ve had a life experience that gave you a different perspective. Maybe there is some circumstance, some subtlety, that makes one bill good, but another, seemingly identical bill, bad.

This is possible, and it does happen. Most of the time, the issues are minor. Nobody notices. Sometimes, like this time, the issue is big, and everybody notices.

When this happens, we would like our elected officials to explain themselves. Explain it, and be ready to take the criticism that will, regardless of your explanation, come your way.

And there, I think, is the rub. It’s possible to get through this life without being criticized, without being challenged, without controversy. But becoming a public figure isn’t the way to do that.

And if some of our officials think it is, well, maybe they’ve just been spoiled.

QEO Bad for Teachers, But What's the Alternative?

It’s quite the rare occasion when I feel any sympathy for a government employee’s union.

Not that I don’t ever try: in a previous column I tried to see things from the perspective of unionized teachers, but still came away wondering whether the union could ever really be satisfied.

I find myself sympathizing with those same teachers today, though, after reading about the new contract signed by the Baraboo teachers’ union.

Under the new contract, the current pay scale will be frozen next year, but will grow the year after that.

In exchange, teachers agreed to a concession on their health insurance. They’ll pay more for their prescription drugs – the fastest-growing segment of health costs, according to the story – than they did before.

Note: the one-year pay scale freeze doesn’t mean everybody’s pay is frozen for a year: teachers will still move up the scale, and will receive the corresponding raises. But those teachers at the high end of the pay scale will have to do without monetary raises for one more year. At least, that’s the common complaint.

I can’t help but be grateful to the union – or at least its members – right now. The teachers will get the higher pay scale they wanted, albeit after another year’s wait, and in return will give up a little on the benefits side. They wanted something, so they gave something. At first glance, it appears to be a relatively equal trade-off.

And this will all be done within the confines of the Qualified Economic Offer (QEO); the state law allowing school boards to avoid arbitration (which they nearly always lose) by offering a minimum 3.8% salary and benefit increase.

Once the school board invokes the QEO, the union’s choices are limited: they can still negotiate, but the board doesn’t have to offer anything above 3.8% (they can choose to offer more, but can’t offer any less, either). The union can either accept, or go without a new contract. Government employees aren’t allowed to strike.

That sounds unfair to the teachers, doesn’t it? Kind of takes away their ability to negotiate.

Unfair, possibly, but also necessary. You see, the teacher’s union holds a real monopoly over public education in our state. A monopoly over the supply of trained, licensed teachers.

You could say the union really holds a double-monopoly. School attendance is mandated by state law. Unless you can afford a private school, or unless you can take the time to home-school, your children are required to attend public school.

The kids are required to go, so the state is required to supply, and only the teacher’s union can meet that supply.

You can see the kind of leverage the union could have. That’s why the legislature gave additional leverage to the school boards.

And that’s why I don’t imagine that Baraboo’s teachers are entirely satisfied today, despite the overwhelming 158-2 vote in favor of the new contract. Somehow, I think simple pragmatism won the day. Vote yes, or go two more years without a contract. That was their choice. Something or nothing.

Now, the “something” they got isn’t exactly nothing. Even with the one-year freeze of the pay scale, a starting teacher will be paid just under $28,000 next year. Plus the full benefits package, including health and dental, and the best retirement benefit you can find outside Milwaukee County, and summers off, if the teacher wants. That’s pretty good for a kid right out of college, or an older adult starting out on a new career. Especially in middle Wisconsin.

Teachers on the high end of the scale will earn over $50,000 next year, and the scale will go higher after this coming school year.

So our teachers aren’t destitute. They’re not wealthy (although with good money management, there’s no reason they can’t be), but they’re not poor.

Still, the QEO swung the balance of power decisively over to the school boards. That doesn’t sit well with the union, and likely makes many teachers feel powerless.

But what’s the alternative? Take the QEO away, and the pendulum swings back the other way.

Therein lies the problem. A union’s purpose is to create a monopoly on labor, and to use that monopoly to gain more for its members. But this monopoly gives the union too much power, given the state’s duty to provide K-12 education.

It may not be fair, but as long as a monopoly exists in public education, there will also have to be laws to limit the monopoly’s power.

Not the Worst Idea, But Not the Best, Either

How many ways are there to raise taxes?

That phrase usually means raising the tax rates, but I can think of at least one other way: tax more stuff.

For example, Wisconsin’s sales tax is 5%, plus the county option of another half-percent sales tax.

State statutes contain a lot of exemptions from the sales tax. In fact, if every sales tax exemption were eliminated, the state would bring in another $3.57 billion – nearly doubling the current take.

Eliminate every exemption other than food, motor fuels (which is already subject to a use tax), medical services and prescription drugs, and revenues would be $2.37 billion higher. We could even lower the rate – from 5% to 4%, for example – and still bring in more money.

It’s not an entirely new idea, but it’s one that has recently come back out of the shadows. The Governor’s Task Force on Educational Excellence recommended, among other things, raising the sales tax to 6%.

A Sauk County Supervisor followed that recommendation with a letter, both to the newspaper and to state legislators, suggesting that the exemptions should go, instead. Then a former Supervisor wrote, commending that idea.

They all had different reasons: the task force wants to use the higher sales tax to offset property taxes (an idea that’s been tried before, multiple times, and failed). The county supervisor wants to increase revenues to the county, and the former supervisor wants to remove politics from the equation (industries with a lot of political clout are more likely to get exemptions, he says), and protect government services from the state’s budget problems.

Now, in the history of bad ideas, raising the sales tax isn’t the worst. There’s a body of evidence showing that the sales tax (taxes on consumption) are less damaging to an economy than the income tax (taxes on production) or the property tax.

One can avoid paying sales taxes, at least to a degree. If the sales tax forces a price too high, one can simply buy a cheaper brand, or do without that product.

Plus, a sales tax only takes your money after you’ve earned it. The income tax, on the other hand, takes your money before you earn it. It doesn’t cycle into the economy as efficiently.

And the income tax isn’t as avoidable as the sales tax – if you make more money, you pay more income tax. You have less control over the money you’ve earned.

So I could live with a higher sales tax, as long as we could be sure it would offset another tax – that is, it’s not going to take any more out of the taxpayers’ pockets. Oklahoma was debating something very like this not too long ago – replacing the income tax with a higher sales tax.

But today’s proponents of higher taxes aren’t promoting that because they want to make the economy more efficient. They simply want more money for the government.

There’s one more thing they should keep in mind, I think – the economy. It’s turning around. Every indication is that business will be booming by the end of the year, if it isn’t already. This isn’t the time to raise taxes to protect current spending – it’s the time to be thinking about the next time we’re short of cash.

Remember the 1990s? Business was good, and tax revenues showed it. Between 1993 and 2002, the state’s general fund (where all the taxes go) grew by 5.8% per year. And that includes the first two years of the recession, when revenues actually shrank. Take those two away, and revenues grew by 9% per year.

Wisconsin suffered during the recession, just like nearly every other state. Higher taxes aren’t the answer to that: having the foresight to prepare while times are good is.

Government – state and local – has to resist the temptation to begin new programs and expand old ones when the money starts rolling in. Keep the tax burden down, so our economy can grow all the faster. Attract more business, keep more college grads inside our own borders.

Two, put some money aside. A healthy budget stabilization fund, with some iron clad rules about when we can use it, will do a lot more than a tax increase – even if it’s “temporary.”

It’s too bad we didn’t do these things 15 years ago, but we can at least learn from recent experience. If nothing else, that recent experience should tell us that more spending isn’t the solution.

Would Doyle Hype a Booming Economy?

What would Jim Doyle’s platform be, if he were running for re-election today?
 
I admit, it’s not entirely fair to ask.  He’s got two years left in his term.  In that time, he could pocket a lot more on which to run.
 
But, closing in on the halfway point of the first Democrat governor’s term in nearly twenty years, I’m curious: if he had to run today, what would Jim Doyle run on? 
 
Gambling is certainly a defining issue, with Doyle on one side and the Republicans on the other.  Whether or not Doyle could get any advantage from it, I don’t know.  He took a beating in the press for negotiating the “perpetual” compacts, which looked a lot like a quid pro quo.
 
If Doyle were up for re-election this year, he could probably count on the tribes’ support again.  They’ll want a friend in the governor’s office in case they have to renegotiate the compacts. 
 
That might not be the case two years from now.  If they have nothing more to gain, the tribes may just choose to stay home. 
 
Doyle also has a wedge on education.  Although he hasn’t made much effort yet to reform Wisconsin’s school funding system, he at least has the recent task force report, calling for the repeal of the QEO, among other things. 
 
He’s got that Kids First initiative.  There’s also a Healthy Kids initiative, a Grow Wisconsin initiative, and the Governor’s Taskforce on Energy Efficiency and Renewables.
 
Yawn.
 
Maybe prescription drugs: Doyle did buck the federal government, by setting up a state website that helps Wisconsin citizens buy their drugs in Canada.  If he could corner his opponent on the issue, it could win him some votes, particularly among seniors.
 
But none of this gets very far from the usual Democrat base.  To win, you have to win in the middle.  How would Governor Doyle attract the moderate vote?
 
Here’s a suggestion: run as a fiscal conservative.  He tried that two years ago.  Then, it was all talk.  Now, he’s actually got some credentials.
 
For example, he can lay claim to balancing the budget without tax increases (fee increases, yes, and the usual fancy accounting, but let’s not quibble).
 
In fact, Doyle can claim that he actually cut taxes.  Doyle signed the single sales factor, simplifying and reducing the corporate tax burden.  He also signed the Job Creation Act, to streamline regulation on economic development.  So he can lay claim to having reduced both taxes and regulation.
 
And, with his Grow Wisconsin initiative and his relationship-building trip to China, he can claim leadership on economic development.
 
Jim Doyle, friend of the businessman, protector of the economy.
 
Why not?  Wisconsin’s economy has really come around since he’s been Governor.  According to the Department of Workforce Development, there’s more jobs in Wisconsin today than at any other time in history.  We’re leading the Midwest in job creation.  New construction starts are at their highest level in three years.  Production rose faster in May than in any month since 1998.  And Wisconsin ranked 9th nationally in personal income growth in the first quarter of this year.
 
All things considered, I think Doyle’s been rather quiet on the subject   This happened on his watch.  He ought to take some credit.
 
And he is.  “Once again, Wisconsin is leading the Midwest in job creation,” Doyle said in a recent press release.  “This is just one more sign that our efforts here on the state level to balance the budget without tax increases…is paying off.”
 
Now, imagine a Democrat governor touting the economy at the same time that a Republican president is doing the same thing.
 
For a year, Democrats have been talking the economy down.  First it was a recession, then it was a jobless recovery, then it was low-paying McJobs.
 
As events have continued to prove them wrong, the Democrats’ message very rationally continued to change, until today, when they’re hardly harping on the economy at all.
 
This is logical: as long as the economy continues to improve, it will be a huge plus for President Bush.  Democrats naturally want to change the subject.  I’d do the same thing. 
 
Doyle’s choice, if he were running, would be to ignore the economy, following the Democrat game plan but also ignoring an advantage for his own re-election, or talk the economy up, and undermine his own party’s efforts.

Six states have Democrat governors up for re-election this year.  Sure wish we were one of them.

Too Few Candidates? Must Be the Money.

Two million Wisconsin voters won’t have any choices in this year’s elections!

That was the rather breathless conclusion of a Wisconsin Democracy Campaign (WDC) press release, issued last week. According to WDC and their president, Mike McCabe, 45 out of 115 legislative races might have had only one candidate - usually the incumbent.

Their conclusion: 2 million voters, with no choice.

This, of course, is spin. Highly sophomoric spin. Forty percent of races are unopposed. Forty percent of Wisconsin’s 5.5 million people is 2 million people. Two million people without a choice.

Well, yes, many of those 2 million are children. I said it was sophomoric.

To be fair, the numbers WDC used were only preliminary: as of today’s 5 pm filing deadline, 32 out of 99 Assembly races and 2 out of 16 Senate races had only one candidate – a total of 29.6%. That's only 1.6 million voters, if we're still counting the kids.

This puts the dumper on one of WDC’s worries – that the percentage of unopposed Legislative seats is rising. This is a drop from two years ago.

Still, their main point – that it’s just bad for democracy – is well taken.

I think elected officials should face challengers as often as possible. I think it’s healthy to have third- and fourth-party candidates running, and I think the threat of a same-party primary challenge helps officials remember why the voters elected them in the first place.

Less competition for elected officials means they can get away with too much. There’s no consequence for flip-flopping on issues. There’s no accountability when they fail to live up to campaign promises.

Plus, it just goes against the grain. It’s like going to see a football game that ends up a forfeit.

So I agree with WDC's wish for more challengers. I don't agree with their theory as to why there aren't more.

McCabe suggests two reasons. One: money. Incumbents can simply outspend opponents, which scares opponents away. Two: redistricting. Political districts are re-drawn every 10 years, and of course both major parties try to have the new lines drawn to their own advantage, creating more “safe seats” which challengers can’t hope to win.

Money and redistricting – these two factors mean fewer choices for Wisconsin voters. That’s the theory.

Let’s test it.

We’ve got a big race for U.S. Senate in Wisconsin this year. Talk about needing a lot of money – this is multi-million dollar range. And the incumbent is very well known, well liked, and has national appeal, which means even more fundraising ability.

That hasn’t kept seven challengers from entering the race. Granted, four of them are just token candidates with no chance to win, but three others aren’t. Money hasn’t prevented a healthy race.

Redistricting, of course, doesn’t affect that race, so it’s not a perfect example.

How about Congress? Congressional seats are subject to redistricting, and those races require a great deal of money, too.

All eight of Wisconsin’s congressional seats are contested, most of them with more than two candidates (albeit one has only a Democrat and two minor party candidates).

How about county board races? In most cases (outside Milwaukee County, at least), candidates for county board spend almost nothing, and there’s far less opportunity for gamesmanship in the redistricting process.

If the WDC theory is correct, there should be plenty of competition for those seats.

Nope. In 2004, 73% of county board races statewide had no opposition. That, you’ll notice, is more than twice the rate of single-candidate Legislative races.

I could nitpick my own nitpicking, if I wanted. For example, major political parties can’t fail to run somebody in a congressional race – they’re too high profile, even with no chance of victory.

But I think there’s another reason WDC didn’t examine other levels of government, before reaching their conclusions.

WDC’s whole purpose is to advocate for campaign finance reform. They’re going to jump on any evidence that we need such reform, whether it completely pans out or not.

Sure, maybe it’s not fair to criticize their conclusions, since they were using incomplete, preliminary numbers, a week before the filing deadline.

Still, it will be interesting to see whether they announce that the number of unopposed seats has fallen since two years ago. It will be more interesting to see if they consider other levels of government at all.

If they do, good for them. Maybe they’ll explain why I’m wrong. If they don’t, then maybe I’m right – about the holes in their theory, and about their motives.

Less Greyhound, More Amtrak

Greyhound Bus is cutting some routes. About 260 smaller communities in the Midwest, including 43 in Wisconsin, will no longer be part of the company’s regular service. Greyhound’s reasons: fewer customers, higher insurance and security costs.

Following that announcement, I was surprised to see a series of articles regarding Amtrak’s plan to build a new, $351 million high-speed train route between Madison and Milwaukee.

Wisconsin DOT chief Frank Busalacchi just returned from Washington D.C. last week, where he was checking on federal funding for the project. Busalacchi says the new line “will provide state residents and visitors a transportation option that is anchored in success.”

Now, people don’t generally make their daily commute by bus. Hopefully, there’s a whole different market for trains than for busses, and Greyhound’s problems don’t carry over to Amtrak.

Still, I’m skeptical. This sounds a lot like opening a new restaurant on the same block where three others have already gone out of business.

It’s 78 miles from downtown Milwaukee to downtown Madison, by highway (according to Yahoo Maps). Now, let’s say your car gets 20 miles to the gallon. My favorite gas station just raised its price to $1.89 this afternoon (from $1.85 just this morning, dang it all). For a Milwaukee-Madison round-tripper, you need 7.8 gallons of gas, which at that price will cost you $14.74.

Now add parking. In downtown Madison, that’ll cost you $6 a day. Let’s also say car maintenance runs, on average, $10 a day.

That’s $30.74 a day to drive your commute. Greyhound charges $28. Badger Bus charges $25 ($22, if you buy the 10-ride pass). Amtrak charges $40 for a round trip from Milwaukee to Chicago (oddly, Greyhound wants $23 – less than the Madison-Milwaukee route), although they’re contemplating charging more for “business travelers.”

What about traffic? Rush hour traffic on Madison’s beltline can be hard, especially during construction season. Milwaukee can be worse, depending on where you’re going.

Surely, your time is worth something. Better to spend a little more money than to sit in traffic for a couple hours a day. That’s a plus for the train side, if you’re commuting to Chicago. But Madison to Milwaukee?

Besides, in a car, you can go exactly where you want. Amtrak only has one station in Milwaukee (the plans call for another, by the airport), and plans call for one in Madison (only one in Chicago, too). So, to use Amtrak, you first have to get yourself to the station (on time, too – don’t run late!).

Then, you still have to get to your place of business. That’s either time, shoe leather, or money for a cab or bus. Amtrak doesn’t do door-to-door service.

Here’s another plus: riding the train, you’re on their schedule. Last train is at 7:30, so no staying late. No going out after work for a beer.

So, the question is, does the freedom to go where you want, when you want, offset the stress you avoid by doing your own driving? Sure, it’s possible Amtrak’s price will be lower than the average daily cost to drive, but I’m not holding my breath. We’ll have to wait and see.

Some people will opt for the train. Who knows, maybe they don’t like driving, or their car only gets 10 miles to the gallon, or they want to save the Earth from carbon dioxide.

Others will opt for the freedom of their own car.

That brings us to the next question: how much of a market is there for this service? Busalacchi claimed that ridership between Chicago and Milwaukee is up 14% over the past year (up 14% over what? He didn’t say). Somebody must be using it.

Well, how many people commute from Madison to Milwaukee or vice versa? According to the Department of Workforce Development, just over 1300 people. But that’s between the two counties – not between the two cities.

Some, possibly most, of those 1300 people commute directly from city to city. But it’s likely that many don’t. Will those who don’t want to first drive into the city in order to catch a train? Would you? Or will Amtrak build a series of substation, to pick people up along the way, and thus defeating the purpose of the high-speed train?

Perhaps I’ve forgotten something. Perhaps Amtrak’s got a bulletproof business plan, and I’ll be proven wrong. For now, though, I only see a $351 million boondoggle.

The Great Circus Parade

It wasn’t a hundred twenty-five thousand, and it probably wasn’t a hundred thousand – at least, according to the news reports. Weather and (ironically) predictions of huge crowds may have kept the crowd down, but it was still more people than Baraboo has seen at any one time, at least since the last time the Circus Parade came to town.

The courthouse square was a sea of people. Grass? Nope. No sidewalks, either. Not that you could tell. I wouldn’t have been surprised to see small children in the trees.

The smaller streets along the route were two or three people deep, where the crowd was thin. Where it was thick, they covered the lawns and clogged the intersections.

Even if it was only eighty thousand people, that’s almost eight times the city’s population. Imagine taking eight people into the bathroom with you. Except for the smell, of course. Or not, depending on which horse-drawn wagon just went by.

Being a politically-minded person, I naturally noticed the parade’s politicians. Republicans were outnumbered by Democrats, both in number (two to one, although Sheryl Albers also made an unofficial appearance on top of a circus wagon) and in rank (Governor Doyle and U.S. Senator Feingold, to Assemblyman Jake Hines).

So it was a Democrat-laden parade, as evidenced by all the clowns.

Tip of the hat to Feingold’s crew. About a dozen young men and women, wearing dark blue shirts with spines emblazoned on the backs. Their guy has backbone, get it? And they’ve got the shirts to prove it. At least it’s funny. Democrats usually don’t have a sense of humor.

Too bad the fireworks were rained out, but still, the parade must have been good for business. Good way to get the tourist season going, and a good way to promote the Circus World Museum. Good way to put Baraboo on the map. Get people to come here more often, talk us up. Put butts in the seats, cash in the registers.

I’m sure we’ll hear lots in the near future about numbers – how much the Museum made, how much local businesses made, how much local government spent and recouped. The parade made money, I’m sure – it also cost money.

But the idea is to promote the area, get more people up here more often, right? If you don’t promote, you don’t sell. If you don’t sell, you go out of business.

That’s largely how the parade was sold to the various government units that contributed to it – as economic development. One large infusion of people and money, hopefully translating to a more regular increase, as more people learn that Baraboo isn’t just the Dells’ boring little brother.

I, for one, think it’s worth it. People are going to spend their money someplace. Might as well be here.

At the same time, I wonder what the overall result will be? Maybe downtown businesses and restaurants will have to hire a few more people. Maybe there will be fewer empty storefronts. Noble and worthwhile goals. But how many people in Baraboo find employment in those businesses? Career-type employment, that you can raise a family on?

In the end, real economic development means bringing more of those kinds of jobs – career kinds of jobs, blue and white collar both – into our area. That means being an attractive location for both existing and new businesses.

That means having some places for business to move in. It means streamlining the bureaucracy – not doing away with standards, but making it clear up front what our standards are, and making the process easy for those who meet them. It means being able to tell business owners that putting their business here will cost them less than putting it in Dane County.

Baraboo is just a stone’s throw from the Madison market, and we’re a rapidly growing market, ourselves. Just look at our shopping. How many major chains have moved in, west and north of town? Why are they coming? Because they know there’s business to be done here.

That’s an important point: the Baraboo area is growing. Everyone agrees on that. Everyone also agrees (or seems to) that we don’t want Baraboo to become a Madison bedroom community.

Well, to prevent that, we have to bring in the jobs. I hope everyone who was so enthusiastic about bringing in the parade will keep that in mind, when it’s a factory, or distribution plant, or new office building that wants to come in, instead of a long line of wagons.

Spending vs. Growth, or Growth to Support Spending?

How much should public schooling cost?

That question led off an interesting series of editorials in the Wisconsin State Journal this week. I find it particularly interesting, because I’ve asked the same question myself.

Why in the world does it cost so much to put a kid through one year of public school? In 2003, the statewide average was $10,223 per student. School spending is growing at a rate of 5.5% per year.

Does that seem generous? I think so. Yet the complaints continue. Consider this, from a recent WEAC (teacher’s union) press release: “Madison schools Superintendent Art Rainwater said that because of inadequate and unfair funding of public education, ‘We are in danger of losing our children and losing their future.’”

That’s a typical statement, which makes me wonder: do Mr. Rainwater and his educational colleagues have an amount in mind? Can they tell us what would be “adequate?”

I don’t mean to pick solely on the schools. The same complaints come from every level of government: towns, villages, cities, counties, and even state agencies. There just isn’t enough money, according to them.

So how much is enough? How much should government cost?

What if, starting next year, we decide to spend $15000 a year per student? What if we suddenly added 25% to all government budgets, and promised annual growth of 6% or 8% a year. Will that be enough?

If not, can you tell me how much will be? Can you give me a number?

The temptation is, instead of answering the question, to turn it around. Instead of how much is enough, how much is too little? Could I tell them how low I want government spending to be?

Indeed, I can. While I would love to roll some government back, and start from a lower cost, I’ll settle for starting with what we’re spending today. Then I’ll make sure spending doesn’t grow too fast in the future.

For at least the past fifteen years, government spending in Wisconsin has grown faster than Wisconsin’s economy. Consider the following chart, which shows total spending by each category of government, compared with several measures of economic growth (scroll down):

Growth, 1997-2002			Growth, 1987-2002
Tech Schools Villages State Towns Counties School Districts Personal Income Gross State Product Cities State GPR Inflation Population	45.79% 38.66% 34.37% 32.83% 31.09% 27.53% 26.62% 25.74% 24.79% 21.35% 12.00% 3.29%		Villages Towns Tech Schools School Districts State All Funds Counties Gross State Product Personal Income State GPR Cities Inflation Population	192.73% 171.13% 156.45% 149.60% 144.75% 137.03% 127.12% 123.90% 122.18% 105.65% 58.00% 13.85%

Notice, in nearly every case, government spending is growing faster than the economy.

Imagine a forest, where the only inhabitants are rabbits and wolves. The rabbits are the wolves’ food. Without them, the wolves would die off. Luckily, the rabbits breed, well, like rabbits, so no matter how much the wolves eat, there’s always more.

As long as the rabbit population continues to keep ahead of the wolf population, there’s no problem. But let’s say the wolves start breeding faster – even faster than the rabbits. Sooner or later, you’re going to run out of rabbits, which means you’ll also run out of wolves.

The government doesn’t exist all on its own: it’s part of an environment, like our fictitious forest.

Okay, people want the government to provide services. Fine. To do that, the government needs tax money. It needs the private sector to provide products and services, which others want to buy. It needs the private sector to create jobs. It needs a healthy, growing economy to provide wealth, property, tax money, which in turn feeds government services.

The faster the government grows, the more restricted the private sector is. The more money the government takes, the less families spend, the less workers save, the less businesses expand, and the less the economy can grow. And that means less money available for taxes.

It’s a vicious circle: the government spends faster than the economy can grow, which ensures there will be less of an economy to tax in the future, and ensures that more citizens (and businesses) will need government help. This, of course, will increase the cry for more government spending, and the cycle continues.

The wolves have an interest in keeping the rabbit population healthy. Proponents of government spending ought to realize, a healthy, growing economy is just as essential for their programs as the rabbits are for the wolves.

Note: the spending statistics used in the above chart were compiled from the Wisconsin Department of Revenue and the Legislative Fiscal Bureau. The economic growth statistics came from the Bureau of Economic Analysis and the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

No statistics were harmed during the writing of this column.