Great News! RNC Ignoring Conservatives!

I’ve often read that politics is the art of making everybody happy. Failing that, I suppose, you just try to keep them relatively satisfied.

If you’re a news hound like me, you’ve probably heard that conservatives are neither happy nor satisfied with the lineup of prime time speakers at this week’s Republican National Convention in New York.

But if you ask me, being ignored is the best news conservatives could get.

The prime time lineup features Senator John McCain and former NY Mayor Rudy Guliani (last night), California Governor and former barbarian Arnold Schwarzenegger (tonight), and a Democrat, former Senator Zell Miller (tomorrow night).

That, as they say, is one moderate group.

At least, that’s the prevailing wisdom about them – not entirely true. Still, I hear conservatives are miffed that conservative views aren’t better represented.

If so, we should all take a deep breath and keep the big picture in mind.

Most people, I think, understand that we aren’t going to agree with everybody on everything all of the time. At best, we hope our political views will overlap with enough others to make a majority.

Those four names I mentioned earlier: they are all, to one degree or another, in favor of abortion rights, gay marriage, and/or embryonic stem cell research. These are not core conservative positions, to say the least.

The speakers do, however, have excellent conservative credentials on taxes and spending, law enforcement, and the War on Terror.

All else being equal, I’d rather support candidates and leaders who agree with me on all the issues – social and fiscal both. I don’t always have that option, and sometimes, even when I do, I choose not to take it.

This is the battle between ideological purity and political pragmatism: do we insist on candidates and leaders who toe the conservative line, or do we recognize that, sometimes, we have to take the best we can get, in order to make progress?

Case in point: Wisconsin’s 2nd Congressional District. Two Republicans – Ron Greer and Dave Magnum – are competing in the primary. The winner will face Democrat Tammy Baldwin on November 2.

There are few people I’d rather have representing me in Congress than Ron Greer. Charismatic, smart, a fabulous speaker, and conservative to his core.

Move now to Dave Magnum, a businessman, running on a fiscally conservative, pro-business platform. He’s not as socially conservative as Greer – close, but with room for compromises, like civil unions for gays, and the usual bevy of exceptions on abortion.

A conservative purist would automatically vote for Greer – but wait! Greer ran two years ago, won the primary, and then proceeded to lose to Baldwin with only 34% of the vote.

Maybe he would do better in his second attempt, but maybe not. Baldwin cornered him last time – painted him as an extremist on social issues. If Greer is an extremist, then so is Baldwin, but with a friendly media and her ultra-liberal Madison base, Baldwin’s strategy worked. It will probably work again.

Political pragmatism says vote for Magnum. His views, according to the polls, are actually more mainstream than either Greer’s or Baldwin’s. If he wins the nomination (and if he can raise enough money), he’ll be able to paint Baldwin as the extremist. Not just on social issues, but on taxes and national security as well.

With Magnum, social conservatives don’t get everything they want. But what if they get something else – a real chance to beat Tammy Baldwin – in return? Baldwin has voted repeatedly in favor of late term abortion, against parental rights, against school choice, and against the War on Terror.

What would solid conservatives prefer – Baldwin, or a moderate conservative?

I’m not trying to convince anyone to vote for Magnum – just illustrating my point. The same point, I believe, the Republican National Committee is making with their moderate speakers.

If Magnum wins the nomination, for whom will conservatives vote? Baldwin? Not likely.

And conservatives aren’t going to desert President Bush, just because he follows a series of moderate to liberal speakers. Bush gave us the tax cut. He’s conducting a successful war, and is making America safer. We all hope there will be more, in his second term. Time will tell.

Instead of being dissatisfied with the lineup, I think conservatives ought to be thrilled. After all, by featuring moderate Republicans, which voters is the convention attempting to sway?

Not the conservatives. Not the President’s base.

For conservatives, being ignored may be the best news yet.

Money or No Money, Programs Go On

If we’ve got it, we might as well use it.

That’s a prevailing attitude in government. Not only in government, of course, but nobody cares if it’s just some guy using leftover paint to do the downstairs bathroom.

In government, leaving money unused risks getting less money to spend next year. So there’s never any unused money.

There’s a cousin to that attitude, too: we’ve already come this far – we can’t stop now, money or no money.

Keep both of them in mind, when considering the new plan to let Sauk County buy up development rights anywhere in the county.

It all began with the state’s plan to upgrade and improve the U.S. Highway 12 corridor, connecting Madison to the Baraboo/ Dells/ Sauk Prairie area. Environmentalists feared the plan would bring lots of development, threatening the Baraboo Range – a “national natural landmark,” and one of the “last great places.” Or so we’re told.

So several government units and non-government groups got together and forged an agreement: $5 million to purchase development rights along the corridor.

The theory: once development rights are sold, you can’t build on the property. No new subdivisions, condos, shopping malls or car dealerships. Protection.

The problem: the Baraboo Range encompasses about 144,000 acres. So far, Sauk County has paid an average of $1,100 per acre for development rights. It would take almost $160 million to buy development rights to all of it. The $5 million available will protect about 3% - about 4,500 acres.

Thus far, there’s no answer to what happens when the money runs out. Some members of the County Board think (or seem to) that the program will simply end, and that will be that.

Enter the Sauk County Preservation Plan (SCPP): not an expansion of the BRPP per se, but the same idea on a much wider scale. Under the SCPP, the county will be authorized to buy development rights not just in the Baraboo Range, but anywhere in the county, to protect natural resources and prime agricultural land.

If the Board approves it next month, the plan will be starting in a deep hole. While the BBPP started out with $5 million, the SCPP will begin with only $250,000.

At going rates, that’s enough to buy development rights on about 227 acres: 0.04% of the land in Sauk County. It will be gone within a year. Then what?

Hopefully, somebody’s asking that question, now that we’re talking about a county-wide project, with very little money to start from. In the past, the limited amount of money available to the BRPP has been seen as a positive: once the money’s gone, we won’t have to worry about it anymore. We’ll spend the $5 million, and be done with it.

If nothing else, this new plan should put an end to that idea.

I can already hear the arguments: we’ve done this much, we can’t stop now. We can’t leave it half-finished. Protecting only part of the Bluffs makes no sense. We’ll be even worse off, because development will scatter out among the protected areas.

The same goes for the SCPP. That quarter million dollars – it won’t be enough. Not even close. Not even if the Planning and Zoning Department finds matching grants from the state, or the feds, or some private group.

It won’t simply end. Where will the money come from? Sooner or later, right from our taxes.

And consider this: at some point, a stretch of prime farmland will be entirely protected, except for 80 acres that belongs to a single farmer. He wants to sell it, to retire, and because it’s the only land in the area that still has development rights, it will be even more valuable to developers.

Will the anti-development crowd simply sit back and let it happen? Lose that prime farmland? Maybe. Or maybe they’ll take things just a little bit farther, whether that means putting pressure on the landowner to sell his rights, or pressuring the local government to zone him out, or pressuring the County to pay him more than fair market value.

Let this single landowner threaten an entire area, otherwise protected? After all the effort and money it took to protect the rest of it? We’ve come this far. We can’t let this happen now.

Maybe I’m just paranoid. Or, maybe I’ve figured out that the natural way of things – especially government – is to grow, to expand, to take that next little step.

Not just to end.

Today, the Descendents of Slaves. Tomorrow…Me?

Alan Keyes, the ultra-conservative carpetbagger running for the U.S. Senate in Illinois, has what I think is a great idea. Last week, he caused a bit of a stir in conservative circles by saying he favors reparations to the descendants of slaves.

Reparations – money, in compensation for slavery – aren’t something you expect to hear a conservative support. Keyes is on record opposing it, which is why this was such a surprise.

I’ve always opposed it, too, which is why I’m surprised by how positively I’m reacting to what Keyes had to say.

Here’s the actual quote that caused such a stir: “I think a cogent argument could be made for reparations in principle.”

He quickly issued a clarification – by “reparations,” he means tax exemptions, not actual monetary damages. He compared his suggestion to something from Roman history: “When a city had been devastated, they exempted the damaged city from taxation.”

This reminded me of a proposal that bounced around in (I think) the early 1990s: make Washington D.C. a temporarily tax-free zone.

Then, proponents used much the same reasons Keyes does in support of reparations: to give the city a free-market boost.

Opponents had an excellent sort-of rebuttal: if it’s all right for D.C., then why not other cities, too?

And that’s a good point. If we’re going to exempt one city (state, village, business, person) from taxes, then why not another one? We can’t discriminate – can’t just throw a dart and say “that one.” We have to draw a line somewhere, somehow, and say “everybody under this line, you’re exempt.”

Ah, but then, what about those cities that just barely miss the cutoff? Won’t they do everything they can to have the line moved, just a little bit?

I would.

It’s a common occurrence known as “incrementalism.” Usually, that word describes rules that used to stop over there, but now stop right around here. It’s the argument pro-abortion groups use to oppose the partial-birth abortion ban, and pro-Second Amendment groups use to oppose handgun registration.

For a perfect example, just look at Wisconsin’s SAGE program. SAGE – Student Achievement Guarantee in Education – uses state tax money to lower class sizes in public schools. When the program began in 1996, a school had to have at least a 50% poverty rate to qualify.

The reason: high-poverty areas typically have lower academic achievement, so if you’re going to target limited resources, it makes sense to target those who need it most.

Today, there’s no such requirement. A school full of rich kids can qualify.

Why? Because how do you tell a school with a 49.9% poverty rate they missed the line? How do you tell a parent who doesn’t quite qualify that his kids aren’t as important as somebody else’s?

That’s not the whole story on SAGE expansion, of course. The teacher’s union had something to do with it, too. But that was the argument. If it’s good for some kids, it’s good for all kids.

How did they determine who’s in poverty? By whether or not a kid is in the free and reduced lunch program. A family of 4 making just under $35,000 a year qualifies for that.

Is that family in poverty? No. Do they need help feeding their kids? They shouldn’t.

But there, again, is a product of incrementalism. I’ll bet the cutoff for that used to be much tighter, but some dozens, hundreds, maybe thousands of times, some parent has been just a dollar over. The result: higher cutoffs, and more people eligible.

Back to Keyes, and why I love this idea. Incrementalism. Keyes wants to exempt blacks from federal taxes “for a generation or two.”

There are other groups that have been disadvantaged by history, one way or another. Why does one group deserve help more than another? Over time, incrementalism will expand the ranks of the tax-exempt.

Now, there are obvious flaws in this plan: for one, the further along this path we go, the fewer and fewer people will be footing the whole bill. Two, we’re already heading in that direction: a large and growing number of people already don’t pay any federal income taxes.

But now for the other thing Keyes said, that got my attention: “my firm goal and ultimate objective is to replace the income tax, and thereby free all Americans from this insidious form of tax slavery.”

One thing everyone says about Keyes – he’s smart, maybe brilliant. Could it be that, for him, reparations are less of a goal, and more of a path?

Values Grow, Taxpayers Pay

The news late last week: statewide property values rose 8.45%.

That’s an average, obviously. Some areas of the state got a lot more growth. Others got a lot less. Local government budgets will thrive, or suffer, accordingly.

Sauk County was among those areas with healthy growth. Between 2003 and 2004, property values grew 10.2%, enough to place Sauk County 13th in the state.

As I wrote on Tuesday, this means the county will be able to spend 10.2% more tax money without raising the tax rate.

But even at the same rate, most property owners will get a bigger bill, because our property values rise, even when we don’t make any improvements. The state calls it “economic change.” More than half of Sauk County’s growth – nearly 5.8% - came in “economic change.”

Taxes on a house worth $100,000 this year, at the current tax rate, are $478. On average, that same house is worth $105,800 now. Taxes on it are $505.72, an increase equal to your 5.8% increase in value.

In order to prevent a tax increase of this kind, the county will have to lower its tax rate to about 4.54 per thousand – that would leave the tax bill just slightly higher – about $480 – on our example house.

It’s important to remember that, even at this lower rate, the county will still be able to spend more money – over a million dollars more. Property worth nearly $200 million, which didn’t exist in Sauk County a year ago, does exist today. That’s tax base that didn’t exist before, but which does exist – and which is subject to taxes – now.

The county gets to spend more, and our taxes don’t go up. Everybody wins, right?

You would think so, but the debate won’t go that way.

A lot of people in county government are licking their chops, looking at that 10.2% increase. By leaving the tax rate the same, county spending can grow by over ten percent – nearly $2.2 million.

But, because they left the tax rate the same, they can say they didn’t raise taxes.
Or, they can increase spending by, say, 9%, and cut the tax rate by a little bit. Then they’ll claim to have cut taxes.

Of course, our actual tax bills will still be higher.

There will be a lot of pressure to spend the whole 10.2%, and probably even more. Every program and department has its advocates. Some of them are county employees, department heads, whose livelihoods depend on the board’s budget decisions. Many others aren’t – they’re just regular citizens who support that program.

All of them will lobby the board relentlessly on the absolute and singular importance of the program or department they support.

In particular, I expect pressure to come from those departments which felt they bore the brunt of last year’s much harsher budget season.

For example, the county put computers on a 4-year replacement schedule, instead of a 3-year schedule. Somebody will ask to have that changed back. The Sheriff’s Department took budget hits that they thought went too far. So did the Commission on Aging, and the Health Care Center. They’ll ask to have their budgets restored.

And they’ll ask for it, in addition to the increases they’ll need just to keep up. There’s always pressure on every budget. Personnel costs – salaries and benefits, especially health insurance – rise significantly every year. Just covering them may eat up the whole million dollars. That won’t be enough. It never is.

So, the county is at a bit of a crossroads. There’s an opportunity here: to expand county spending by a little, and give the taxpayers a break, or to expand county spending by a lot, and give the bureaucracy a break.

You can agree or disagree with the cuts these departments took last year. You can agree or disagree that they should have that money back. That’s not the point.

Last year, the county had to make significant cuts to the budget, because the state budget was in such bad shape. Sauk County lost about a million dollars in state money last year.

The result: big cuts in spending, and a big tax increase. The tax rate went up over 8%. Coupled with growth in property values, whether you made improvements on your property or not, taxes in Sauk County went up 14.6%.

Given last year’s tax increase, and this year’s increase in property values, I think the real opportunity is to give the taxpayers the break they paid for last year.

Property Values, Property Taxes

Last week, Wisconsin got another signal that the economy is back, and back strong: statewide, property values are up over $30 billion – nearly 8.5% a – since 2003.

The Department of Revenue credited low interest rates and a booming economy. I’m not arguing with them. I’ve suggested in the past that the Doyle administration, of which DOR is a part, should take some credit for the growing economy.

Governor Doyle has good reason to be pleased: one can easily argue that President Bush’s policies had more to do with the recovery than Doyle, but when it happens on your watch, you get the benefit.

Plus, if you like government spending, a strong economy gives you something else to be happy about: strong rates of growth mean the government gets more tax revenue to spend.

How? If property values rose 8.5%, that means property tax levies will also rise 8.5%, even at the same tax rate.

The same thing happens with income taxes. If you make $40,000 a year, and are taxed 5%, then your taxes are $2,000 a year (disregarding any deductions or credits).

Next year, you get a 3% raise, so you’re making $41,200. The rate is the same – 5% - so your income taxes go up commensurate to your salary.

Overall, income tax revenues grow faster than raises, because people join the workforce. Almost nobody gets annual raises of 5%, but state tax revenues have grown right around that fast, on average, the last 20 years.

All of this applies to property taxes, as well. Our properties become more valuable over time (e.g., we get raises), thus allowing government to receive more income from that value. New construction creates brand new property value, which supplements government revenues, much as growth in the workforce does with income taxes.

They act the same – yet, they’re different. One reason is that income tax rates and sales tax rates rarely change. Property tax rates change nearly every year.

There’s another reason, too: your income taxes are linked to your income – as your income rises, you pay more in taxes, but your net pay grows faster. Sales taxes are more elastic: you can choose not to pay them, by choosing to spend less.

Property taxes – not so much. Let’s \ say that local property taxes add up to $20 per thousand, or 20 mills. On a $100,000 house, that’s $2000 a year in property taxes.

If your property value goes up 6% (about the average for non-construction growth, statewide, this year), your taxes go up, even if the tax rate stays at 20. Now you’re paying $2,120 a year. The “growth hike:” the tax increase you get without doing anything to deserve it.

Unless you’re a landlord, which most of us aren’t, your property doesn’t make you any money. Sure, it affects your bottom line. There are few better investments. But until you actually sell, that’s all hypothetical, existing only on paper. Unless your salary goes up at the same rate as your property value, your disposable income takes a hit.

More insidious, local officials can claim to cut taxes, even while you pay higher taxes.

Because property values went up 8.5%, local governments will be able to spend (on average) 8.5% more next year without raising taxes – by which, I mean the tax rate.

Do they need 8.5% more? Some of them probably think so, but let’s hope that most are more responsible. So maybe they spend 6% more. Then, they can reduce the tax rate, and claim to have cut taxes, even though many of us will still pay more because our property values went up.

Of course, 8.5% is an average: the real increases range from 2.7% (in Taylor County) to 12.58% (in Sawyer County). Sauk County’s went up 10.2%. Columbia’s by 10% even.

For counties like these, and probably for the municipalities within them, there should be no excuse for higher tax rates next year. Their property values are sky high. The state budget is in much better shape, meaning fewer cuts to the locals’ money.

Some counties, Sauk County most of all, will hopefully take the opportunity to undo the tax increases from a year ago.

The way is open to them: with better than 10% growth, there should be more than enough money to fund county programs while reducing the tax rate. The real question is: will they keep spending down enough to prevent “growth hikes,” or will property owners continue to lose ground to government spending?

Taking Care of Grandpa

If a new study is right, we’re going to be knee-deep in old people in the not-too-distant future.

According to a study released by the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, Wisconsin’s elderly population is set to far outgrow the population as a whole: between 2000 and 2030, they predict, the state’s population will grow 20%. The over-65 population will grow 90%.

That’s a lot of gray hair. A lot of old folks, especially compared to the number of working-age people who pay the taxes that support the programs that the elderly use.

Reaction to the report was predictable, and went something like this: how are we going to pay for them all?

The Wisconsin State Journal editorial read like a precursor to panic. “A ballooning elderly population seems likely to overburden existing health and social assistance programs. There's only one reasonable alternative to collecting more taxes from fewer workers: Wisconsin families would have to assume a larger and more direct role in caring for their aging members than they do today. But with income growth expected to lag, can families handle the burden?”

As if screwing up our childhoods and costing us millions of dollars in therapy wasn’t enough, right?

If we limit our options to paying higher taxes for the same inadequate programs, we may as well go ahead and panic. Social Security and Medicare were fine ideas decades ago, but today they’re dinosaurs, unable to adapt to new circumstances, about to topple of their own weight.

Let’s agree up front that we can’t eliminate or reduce benefits for retirees and near-retirees. They’ve been paying the taxes their whole lives: they deserve to see a return on their investment.

Ah, but there’s the rub. Social Security isn’t a good investment. The average baby boomer can expect, maybe, a 4% return on his/her money. Later generations will get even less: today’s teenagers will be lucky to get a 2% return on a lifetime of payroll taxes.

The average IRA does a whole lot better than that, recent years’ unpleasantness on Wall Street notwithstanding. Even with the recession, the Wisconsin Retirement System has averaged 10% growth over the past 10 years.

Yet our reaction is to stick with the a Social Security program that barely beats inflation? I’ve got three words for that: stupid, stupid, and stupid.

One of Wisconsin’s own Congressmen, Rep. Paul Ryan, has introduced a measure to allow workers to invest half of their social security taxes – 6.2% of their pay – in personal investment accounts, which would work just like an IRA. The other half would pay the benefits we already owe.

It will work – actuarial studies have proven that the plan will pay everything we owe current and soon-to-be retirees, while generating far greater amounts of wealth for today’s workers.

Health Savings Accounts are an idea along the same lines. With an HSA, employers offer high-deductible health insurance to their workers. The employer and employee then invest a certain amount per month into an investment account, out of which the employee pays for medical care. Insurance takes over, of course, once the employee reaches the deductible.

The best part is, whatever you don’t use rolls over into the following year, and continues to accrue interest. By the time a member of my generation retires, he/she could have six, even seven figures in that account.

The difference between these two plans is: one already exists. President Bush signed HSAs into law last year. States have yet to follow suit, and make contributions tax-free (Governor Doyle vetoed a bill to make Wisconsin one of the first states to do so), but it will come.

Will Social Security reform come as well? That’s a little harder to see.

Social Security is known as the “third rail” of politics for a reason. It’s an immediate issue for the older population – not just those over 65, but those getting within a decade of retirement, too.

Those people vote. They vote in much larger numbers than younger people do. Politicians know this.

The task, then, is twofold: reassure the older segment of society that their benefits are secure, and make them realize that standing pat on Social Security and health care is only hurting the generations that come after them – their own children and grandchildren.

These innovations and others like them will go a long way toward relieving our generational problem. There are still 27 years before we see if the projections are correct: that’s a lot of compound interest.

But it has to happen first.

Class Size: Really so Important?

So, how big was your class in fourth grade?

Fourth grade was 26 years ago for me. Like many people in my age bracket, I suspect, I can’t remember how many classmates I had. I do have vague memories of long lists for Valentine’s Day cards, but that’s about it.

Was class size even an issue back then? I don’t know that either, but it sure is an issue now.

Nobody wants their kid in a larger class, and that’s placing local school boards in a four-sided vice. Taxpayers, the school finance system, employee unions, and parents are squeezing school districts between the demand for smaller classes and the money to pay for it.

The unions want more money (and more teachers), but the state’s funding system restricts the district’s budget. Even if it didn’t, the taxpayers aren’t in much of a mood to pay any more than they already do.

Now, add in the fact that you can’t always divide the number of available students by, just for example, 18.

Let’s say that’s your target class size – 18 – but your school has 27 third graders and 27 fourth graders. You’ve got several choices. You can simply have one class of 27 for each grade. You can have two classes of 13 or 14 for each grade. You can try to shuffle students to other elementary schools.

Or you can create a combined grade classroom, as the Baraboo School District plans to do.

All four solutions have their pros and cons. Nobody likes the larger class sizes, but if you make the classes too small, you run into space problems (are there enough rooms?). Plus you have to pay more teachers.

If you’re going to make kids change schools to smooth the numbers out, you’ll have to do it every year. Most parents, I bet, won’t want that. I know I don’t.

Which leaves a combined class. Some parents aren’t thrilled about the idea. Can’t say I blame them.

But, let’s look at the bright side. According to the newspaper story, the regular, single-grade classes will have 24 or 25 students each, while the combined 3rd and 4th grade class will have “about 18.” So, you get a smaller class size.

You also get more exposure for the students along a wider swath of curriculum. The 3rd graders will get a sneak peek at what’s coming up in 4th grade. Some of the 4th graders might get some needed review of 3rd grade material.

Competition might set in: those 3rd graders would just love to show up a 4th grader. Of course, the 4th graders aren’t going to have any of that – who wants to get beat by a little kid?

The possible negatives: managing a combined class will probably take more skill and preparation than managing a single-grade class. If the wrong teacher gets the job, it could be a mess.

None of us are quite sure how it’s going to work, or what the results will be. Combined grade classes used to be quite common, as I understand it, but this is the first time any of our kids have faced them.

So we’re uncomfortable with the combined classrooms. I chalk that up to it being new – at least to parents of my generation.

Hey, I’m all for innovation in education. The problem is, trying something new carries the risk of failure. None of us want our kids subjected to a failed experiment: that’s why we stick with what we know.

I know, plenty of people think public education is full of failed experiments that the establishment won’t admit have failed. That’s another column.

The thing is, none of it matters much to me. Maybe I’m naïve, but I don’t believe there’s any “new method” that will make my kids better at math or reading. I’m not convinced that having a sub-20 class size is essential for a good education.

I’m not even convinced that the kids’ lives will be irreversibly tainted if they don’t have a first-class experience in elementary school. How many of today’s adults would admit to having had a great childhood? Pretty few – that’s been my experience.

The real factor in a child’s success in school, and whether that success does the child any good as an adult, is the home. Having parents who check homework, who expect both effort and results, and who involve themselves in their children’s lives means more to their future than the size of their classrooms.

I hope everyone keeps that in mind.

Bumper Stickers

I love bumper stickers. In fact, if you ever look in your rear view, and see me right on your tail, odds are I’m trying to read whatever you’ve got stuck to the back of your car.

That’s the only reason I ever tailgate, I swear.

Political bumper stickers, I find especially fascinating. Working in Madison, you can guess what that means.

One car I frequently see has two stickers: one says “I’m pro-choice, and I vote!” The other says “The death penalty is dead wrong.”

I’ve spent many a walk into the office contemplating the mind that agrees with both those statements.

Another favorite, on a car I see now and then: “Capitalism = Problems; Socialism = Solutions.”

The driver is some young guy. What do you want to bet his parents are paying his way through college?

While some make me roll my eyes, and some make me think, a bumper sticker will rarely make me angry.

One did, though, just the other day.

The car was parked near Memorial Union (my daughter was in the office with me that day, so we went for an ice-cream walk). Amid a number of Kerry for President stickers was one that read “What Would Jesus Bomb?”

Okay, I get the reference to the “What Would Jesus Do” thing, but, really, is this meant to be a serious question?

It reminded me of yet another bumper sticker: “We are the rogue state.” That one’s an eye-roller, trying to equate the U.S. with nations like Iraq, Libya, Sudan. It’s ironic, though I know it’s not meant to be: like accusing the U.S. of censorship.

But this one, “What Would Jesus Bomb?” This one seems to equate Christianity with that radical wing of Islam with which we’re at war – the wing that sends its children to blow themselves up, kills stewardesses with box cutters and flies airplanes into American skyscrapers.

What does it mean? That Christian opposition to abortion and gay marriage (issues on which Christians are hardly united, I might add) are the same thing as suicide bombings?

Or is the car’s owner suggesting that the U.S., an arguably Christian nation, is bombing indiscriminately, just like the radical Islamicists are?



When was the last time this person was in a church, I wondered? How many actual Christians does he know?

None, I bet. I could introduce him to a few, like the manager of my softball team, who always votes Democrat, and who puts me to shame with the amount of time he spends working in our church. Or to my coworker, who took a second job so she could afford to go on a missionary trip to Guatemala, where she volunteered at an orphanage.

That was my reaction: angry, that this person so ignorantly lumps the kindest people I know in with mass murderers.

Perhaps I shouldn’t be so surprised, I thought, to find that sort of anti-Christian bigotry on one of the most liberal campuses in the country.

But on further reflection, I came to a different conclusion. A wonderfully ironic conclusion.

Who Would Jesus Bomb?

Nobody.

Obligatory nod here toward the Crusades and the Inquisition, and other such tragedies staged in the name of Christianity before most people could read the Bible for themselves. Also acknowledged that, with 2 billion Christians in the world, there are going to be a few nutcases who think it’s okay to murder abortion doctors.

Okay, Christians aren’t perfect. Newsflash: that’s why we need Jesus. The U.S. isn’t perfect, either.

I’m no theologian. I hope that Islam really is a religion of peace, and that these terrorists really are warping its real message, just as those who led the Crusades and the Inquisition warped Christianity’s.

But the fact is, it’s a widespread wing of radical Islamicists who are pursuing worldwide terrorism – not Christians, not Jews, not Hindus, not atheists, not Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Radical Islamicists conspire to kill, and sometimes succeed in killing, indiscriminately. Radical Islam imprisons and kills homosexuals, forbids women from being educated, and teaches children that the murder of non-Muslims is a sure path to Heaven.

Meantime, what are Christians doing?

Show me the analogy between radical Islam and Christianity – not the occasional aberration, but the widespread norm. Show me the analogy between the nations ruled by radical Islam and the U.S.

That bumper sticker attempts to make just such a comparison. I’m sure its owner intends for us to see the similarities. Instead, he succeeds in pointing out the differences.

You Keep Saying That Word...

What is a RINO?

Last week’s blitzkrieg almost-extraordinary session on TABOR has brought that phrase – RINO, or Republican in Name Only – into the fore.

It’s currently being applied with the most gusto to two people: Senate Majority Leader Mary Panzer and former Governor Lee Dreyfus, both Republicans. More on them later.

What is it that makes someone a RINO?

The theory among those who don’t really know is that opposition to, or lack of enthusiastic support for, the Taxpayer Bill of Rights (TABOR) makes one a RINO.

The Tomah Journal, editorializing on Republican dissent over TABOR, suggested that the name is being used to blacklist those who don’t fall into line. “They will be condemned as RINOs…but state Sens. Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center) and Ron Brown (R-Eau Claire) did the right thing when they withheld votes for the Taxpayer Bill of Rights.”

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel likewise wrote: “the Taxpayer Bill of Rights, or TABOR, appears to be the new litmus test to determine who is a ‘true’ conservative.”

To quote a favorite movie character, “I do not think it means what you think it means.”

People turn to particular political parties because of specific issues. Second Amendment rights – that’s a Republican issue. Those who oppose gun control are more likely to support Republican candidates, because Republicans tend to oppose stricter controls on gun ownership.

The same can be said for the pro-life agenda, a strong military, the free market and limited government intervention in daily life. These are the issues and positions people expect Republicans to support.

But there is debate, even among Republicans, on all of these. There are Republicans who support the assault weapons ban. There are Republicans who think abortion should be legal. There are Republicans who support more government spending for prescription drugs.

There is debate, even among Republicans, on TABOR. Some oppose putting tax and spending limits in the Constitution. Others oppose mandatory limits on the growth of government spending.

This may put them at odds with conservatives and Republicans who want limited government, but disagreeing, even on a core Republican issue, doesn’t make you a them RINOs.

So what does? Exactly what the name implies: saying you support a core Republican issue, when you really don’t.

Panzer isn’t in trouble because of her position on TABOR: she’s in trouble because her actions haven’t matched her words. As I wrote last week, if she really wanted TABOR to pass, she would have found a way to make it happen. Instead, she made excuses until a threat to her political career emerged. Then, all of a sudden, she wanted to do whatever it took.

That’s a reactionary form of political opportunism, better known as protecting your own behind. That’s why she’s earned the title RINO: not because of honest opposition, but because people don’t believe her when she claims to support TABOR.

Former Governor Dreyfus is an even better example. As Rep. Frank Lasee wrote a few weeks ago, Dreyfus ran for governor in 1978 on a fiscally conservative, limited government, tax-cutting platform. As a candidate, he believed taxes were too high, and government should learn to live within a budget, just like families and businesses.

Then push came to shove, and when the choice was to cut spending or raise taxes, well, he decided Wisconsin’s taxes weren’t all that high, after all. Up they went. Today, he’s a front man for a left-wing anti-TABOR group.

When it helped him get elected, Dreyfus ran on a core Republican issue. To help her win re-election, Panzer rededicated herself to a core Republican issue. The glue that attached the politician to the issue was political pragmatism – not conviction.

This is the epitome of RINO-ism: claim to support core Republican and conservative issues because it’s advantageous for you, politically – not because you really believe it.

This isn’t to say that you can have any set of beliefs and still be a legitimate Republican. If you’re a tax-the-rich, pro-abortion, gun-hating, tree-hugging, big government socialist who wears sandals to the office, you should probably have a D (or a G) after your name – not an R, no matter how conservative your district is.

But dissent is possible. There are Republicans who oppose TABOR. If you’re one of them, then we disagree. I’ll debate with you, I’ll argue with you, I’ll question your conservatism.

But as long as you’re being honest about your position, even if it makes things a little hotter for you with the voters, I won’t call you a RINO. And neither should anybody else.