Amending the Constitution

In all likelihood, Wisconsin will vote twice in the next two years on amendments to the state constitution.

Amending Wisconsin’s constitution takes time. The legislature has to vote on it twice – once before, and once after an election, so two different (but successive) legislatures approve it. Then, we have a statewide referendum.

Last year, the legislature passed two constitutional amendments, each for the first time. Each has to be voted on (and passed) again, before they can be put to the voters.

One is the Defense of Marriage Act – the constitutional amendment to define marriage as one man, one woman.

The other will change the terms of office for county elected officials from two years to four years.

Both will be presented to the legislature right away next week. The legislature could vote on them before the month is out. Whether or not they will – that’s another question. My guess: the second one will get a quick vote, but the first will wait. Possibly for over a year.

The first one – the definition of marriage – is by far the more explosive, politically. It will get a lot of attention, and a lot of press. Both sides will want to extend the debate, and the story, as long as possible. We probably won’t see the question on a ballot until November, 2006.

The second isn’t nearly as controversial: on the contrary, it’s almost boring.

Some years ago, the state passed a constitutional amendment, extending the term of office for county sheriffs from two years to four. Now, the legislature is considering doing the same for all the other county officers: district attorneys, county clerks, treasurers, coroners, registers of deeds, clerks of court, and surveyors.

The argument in favor of lengthening sheriffs’ terms was a good one: and subjecting the top county cop to such quick re-elections isn’t good for administration.

I think you can make the same argument for district attorneys: trials can take a long time, particularly the big ones. Better that a DA concentrates on work, rather than re-election.

A similar, but less convincing argument could be made for all the other county offices, too. I’m fairly satisfied that the surveyor’s office, for example, will continue to function smoothly, whether or not he has to face re-election at a more frequent pace.

But while we’re on the subject, here’s what I think is a better idea: move those elections from November to April.

Why? November elections are partisan: candidates for those offices take a party label – Republican, Democrat, whatever. The party machines work for their duly labeled candidates.

April elections are non-partisan. No party labels.

What’s the difference, exactly, if the sheriff is a Republican or a Democrat? It’s more important that he or she be qualified.

And while we’re at it, is it really for the best that those positions are elected, rather than appointed?

It wasn’t long ago, here in Sauk County, that the incumbent Sheriff faced a challenge from within his department. The challenger, a fine man and an excellent officer, by all accounts, was a deputy who had never held any higher position of responsibility.

No matter how good a man he is, why would we elect someone with no leadership, administrative, or supervisory experience to lead a 100-plus member police force? Beats me, but in a low turnout election, anything can happen, and in this case, it nearly did.

Police chiefs are hired, not elected. Ditto city attorneys. Hiring them makes it more certain that they’ll be qualified for the job. It also makes them easier to get rid of, if need be.

Quick: what does the county clerk do? The register of deeds? Do you know, for sure? If not, how do you make an informed choice between two or more candidates?

There are some good reasons for leaving those positions elected: for one, it gives them a degree of autonomy from the county board. And I can’t actually point to any real-life examples of incompetent people being elected to county office.

Plus, this same idea was floated in the city of Baraboo not too long ago: rather than electing a clerk, somebody thought, let’s just hire one. The idea was quickly drowned out in the public uproar.

In the end, does it really matter? Not that much, I suppose. I fully expect the constitutional amendment to pass, both the legislature and the referendum.

Still, these are questions we have an opportunity to raise. I hope I’m not the only one who raises them.

The Reason for the Season

I love Christmas.

Sometimes, I can’t help but wonder why. Christmas time, there are so many more things to get done: the shopping, decorating, baking; the school events, the family visits. There’s traffic, it’s cold outside, vacations to plan. And that’s in addition to all the usual things: the kids, the house, the job.

Christmas time can be very, very stressful.

Yet, I know very well there are lots of reasons to love Christmas. Jesus was born. That’s a big starting point, for some of us. Just imagine what it must have been like: the birth of a child is always special, no matter whose child it is. It’s the prototype magical event. A brand new human being – a really small human being, entirely dependent on you.

Then add the fact that a real live angel came down to talk the kid over with you, before he was born. Wise men and kings come looking for you, a couple of peasants in a stable, to see him, and to give you expensive gifts, because of him.

And, of course, that child had a destiny.

That’s one reason. I’ve also got the favorite Christmas memories. The Star Wars toy I really, really wanted when I was a child, that a relative had to bribe a toy store employee on the other side of the country to get, because there just weren’t any more anywhere else.

My daughter, at about the same age, jumping up and down so excitedly on Christmas morning (we’re Christmas morning people – not Christmas Eve) that things started falling off shelves on the other side of the house.

The manic anticipation our children endure, especially on Christmas Eve. You can see what they’re going through: they can’t sleep, because they’re so excited, but they know they have to sleep, or Santa won’t come.

Those are some of the obvious reasons to love Christmas. Those, and the food, the cookies, the presents.

Not so obvious are the very same reasons that Christmas is such a hassle. The full house, the constant visitors, the crowded dinner tables. Christmas is messy, and it’s loud. Chaotic.

I love the chaos. I especially love the chaos at the stores, those last couple of days before Christmas.

I finished my own shopping early this year: Thursday, the day before Christmas Eve. I made my last few purchases at a large retail establishment – big enough to have over 20 checkout lanes. Every single one of them was open, and the shoppers were still stacked ten deep.

Unbridled capitalism. It always makes me smile.

I looked up and down the front of the store, grinning, taking it all in, listening to the clerks, the beeps and chings of the cash registers (even the computerized ones still make that “ching” sound). All these people, with their carts full of candy canes, sugar plums, G.I. Joes With the Kung-Fu Grip.

That was in Baraboo, two days before Christmas. I doubt things were much different anywhere else. Stores were open. They were busy. Paychecks got spent. More paychecks got earned. Warehouses, trucking companies, dock workers, suppliers, distributors.

Managers and supervisors everywhere, saying man, we’ve gotta hire some more people.

I know, the economy isn’t dependent on the holiday season, and it certainly isn’t dependent exclusively on the last few days before Christmas. The eggheads will crunch numbers for a long time to come, and we’re already being treated to dozens of news accounts about how well/poorly retailers did.

Let’s face it, as much as we may avert our eyes at the consumer-driven free-for-all Christmas has become, it couldn’t be this way, except that we’re an amazingly wealthy people. That comes with some drawbacks, true, but all in all, it’s a good thing.

Our wealth makes a lot of things possible for us: free health care, for example, at any hospital emergency room (but that’s another column).

Our wealth also lets us do a lot of things at Christmas that we wouldn’t, normally, and don’t really have to. Dr. Seuss taught us that.

Things aren’t supposed to make us happy. Presents and cookies and decorations aren’t.

Yet, at Christmas, we bring to bear both our wealth, and our stress-tolerance levels, in order to bring a little something special into other people’s lives. Or, at least, we hope so.

A sign of our society’s materialistic dysfunctionality? Maybe.

But, may as well get used to it. After all, we’re going to do it again next year, aren’t we?

Yep. And I can’t wait.

(Garvey's) People's Legislature

Our state government is run by lackeys to big-money interests, who control the agenda and the votes and shut the rest of us out.

At least, that’s the story as told by Ed Garvey, Wisconsin’s uber-liberal Man Of The Common People, superlawyer, and proprietor of FightingBob.com.

Garvey made headlines last week by calling for a “People’s Legislature,” a gathering of the “politically homeless:” those who feel out of place in the existing political system.

He said: "The idea is simple: What would the Legislature take up if the members represented their voting constituents instead of cash constituents? If we succeed, perhaps La Follette's statement that 'if it is the will of the people it will be law' will come true."

Just for the record, when Garvey talks about “cash constituents,” he’s not talking about public employee unions. Their money is okay.

He and his supporters announced their “people’s legislature” for January 4. They’ll meet at the Alliant Energy Center in Madison, and hope to get more attendees than the 800+ lobbyists who work the Capitol.

Will Garvey stand up for the principles he touts? Is it so important that the will of the people be law?

Here’s what he wrote on his website (emphasis added): “Should the Legislature focus on hokum like the misnamed Taxpayer Bill of Rights, abortion, gays and concealed weapons, or on how we can provide high services to our people, educate our kids, hold down tuition, cut back on the number of prisoners and develop a fair and progressive tax system?”

One survey found 67% support for the kind of controls on government spending a Taxpayer Bill of Rights offers. About two thirds of Wisconsinites oppose abortion after the first trimester, except in the most dire circumstances. A plurality support letting law-abiding, trained citizens carry a concealed weapon, after they obtain a license through local law enforcement.

None of those people are getting the hokum, to use Garvey’s word, that they want out of government. Is Garvey planning to stand up for them? Doesn’t sound like it.

I could be wrong. Let’s give Garvey the benefit of the doubt, while we doubt him.

Here’s something else he said: "We want to form a people's legislature that would lay out the steps necessary to achieve the democracy we once enjoyed. People who attend the meeting Jan. 4 will decide what to do. This will not be top down.”

So, if enough people show up who want to legalize concealed weapons and restrict abortion and limit the power of government, Garvey will let it happen. At least, that’s what he says.

Little risk of that, probably. The information you need to sign up for the “People’s Legislature” is on fightingbob.com, where the state’s real lefties hang out. There won’t be a lot of right-wing knuckle-draggers in attendance.

But Garvey and his crew are giving the appearance of non-partisanship – or, rather, multi-partisanship – their best shot. Ed Thompson, leader of the state’s Libertarian Party, is said to be taking part. So is “longtime Republican” Carol McKy, who was widely quoted in the press account.

Odd that Thompson wasn’t. He’s usually very quotable. Whether he has a real role in this “People’s Legislature” will be another sign as to whether or not it’s for real.

McKy is another story. The token Republican on the stage, she spoke at both the Democratic and Republican National Conventions, to denounce President Bush, his social policies, and the war in Iraq. A quick Internet search reveals that she is pro-abortion, pro-embryonic stem cell research, and pro-euthanasia. Her only political contributions: $300 to Democrat Kathleen Falk, during her campaign for Governor.

There’s nothing wrong with any of that. She’s entitled to her opinions. There are no official criteria for calling oneself a Republican. Yet I find it troubling that this “multi-partisan” gathering could find no better example of a Republican than McKy.

Again, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt, if only because doing so doesn’t cost me anything. But I have little hope that this “People’s Legislature” is going to produce anything that the average Wisconsin citizen would recognize as representative of their views.

Despite the rhetoric, I doubt that’s the real goal. Among the real motives: promote the liberal (“progressive”) agenda; provide a second front, in the battle to delegitimize anything the Republican-led legislature does; and, not last but not least, to keep Garvey in the public eye.

The People’s Legislature meets January 4. Read the papers January 5. See if I’m wrong.

The All-Seeing Eye

At one time, Baraboo Common Council meetings didn’t last very long. An hour, maybe, or so I’m told.

That was before they were televised locally. Now, they can go on for a very long time. After all, what alderman wants to be seen just sitting there, never saying anything?

It makes me wonder: what does WisconsinEye have in store for us?

WisconsinEye is a C-Span-like TV channel, which will, once it begins broadcasting, offer C-Span-like coverage of the State Legislature.

Imagine: nonstop legislative work, committee hearings, floor debates, press conferences, policy forums. Move over, must-see TV.

It’s not quite clear when WisconsinEye will go on the air. Just this week, two legislative committees voted in favor of an agreement, giving WisconsinEye the right to broadcast. Various groups have been working toward this since 1999.

Is it a good idea? It sounds like one. Lots more people will be able to watch their government in action. On controversial or popular issues, they’ll be able to tune in and watch it, first hand.

Plus, it’s not going to cost the taxpayers anything. At least, that’s the current plan. Sooner or later, someone will want to change that, and if you disagree, you’ll be in favor of less public access to government.

So things go. You heard it here first.

What makes that prediction all the more enjoyable is the conniption fit legislative Democrats threw this week. Democrats in both houses tried to stop Wednesday’s vote – the one that gave WisconsinEye the go-ahead.

In the Assembly, Rep. “Snarlin’” Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) and Rep. Spencer Black (D-Madison) accused Republicans of plotting to bend the channel to their own partisan ends. A legislative committee will have oversight, you see, and since Republicans are in the majority, Republicans also control the committee.

Of course, Republicans won’t always be in the majority, and the WisconsinEye board is a nonpartisan group – in fact, seven of Wisconsin’s former governors (three Republicans and four Democrats) are co-chairmen of their fundraising drive.

In the Senate, Sen. Bob Jauch (D-Poplar) complained that Wisconsin Eye will only be available to about two thirds of the state where cable TV is available. “This is urban eye, not Wisconsin Eye,” Jauch complained.

Last time I checked, urban areas trended Democrat. Jauch’s complaint means he’s worried about giving his own base more access to the Legislature than the Republican base.

Democrats are in the minority. The loyal opposition. Their job: don’t let the majority get away with misusing their power.

Wouldn’t WisconsinEye be a great tool for doing just that?

They don’t seem to think so. They don’t seem to think that having the light of a 24/7 television network shining on the legislature is a good idea.

Maybe that’s the problem. That light wouldn’t shine only on Republicans – it would also shine on Democrats.

Close observers of the Capitol will remember one Democrat Assemblyman (now gone) threatening to bring a weapon into the Assembly chamber, should the Concealed Carry bill become law. And not just some wimpy pistol, either. “I’m talkin’ heavy metal!” he screamed into the microphone, following with his playground rendition of automatic weapons fire.

It was Democrats who repeatedly invoked poll taxes, Jim Crow, and Selma, Alabama, during debate over voter I.D.

It was a Democrat who ripped the microphone away from the Senate President during a debate last year. That same Democrat is infamous for having physically charged a Republican colleague during an Assembly debate years before.

Democrats in both houses have been, at least for the past four years, prone to long, ranting, accusing, insulting, incendiary speeches during floor debate. Once WisconsinEye gets going, they’ll be doing it on live TV.

I’m not so naïve as to think these antics will turn their constituencies against them. Every election since 1994 has left fewer Democrats in the Legislature. Those who are left are those with the safest Democrat seats. The occasional bout of immature temper won’t cause them any trouble.

But, rather than being overjoyed that more people will be able to watch them, speaking truth to power, standing up to the Republican juggernaut, protecting the common man, I wonder if they’re concerned that their shtick will put them at a disadvantage.

Maybe they’re afraid the average voter will be repelled by the tactics they’ve habitually used in the past.

If that’s the case, it should be easy enough to change tactics.

Will they? Set the TiVo. We’re going to find out.

Whose Rights: Ours or Mine?

Imagine your elderly grandmother passing a family heirloom – an oil painting by your great-grandfather – on to you. It’s important to her that it stay in the family, so she’s given it to you.

You’ve no idea how much it is actually worth, and you don’t care. You’ll treasure it all your life, and will, hopefully, leave it to one of your own children.

Then your local government tells you that you have to pay them $50 a year because it qualifies as taxable property. Pay the tax, or give up the painting.

That’s just an example, of course. Items like that are not taxable as property, under Wisconsin law. But it does illustrate what property taxes are: us paying the government for the privilege of owning our property. The government has rights over our property.

That’s the negative way to look at it. One could also be positive: I’ve often said that I want to pay taxes, because I agree that some things are better paid for as a community, rather than as individuals.

I recognize the need for police and fire protection – these services are for me, even if I never need them. Same goes for road construction and maintenance.

Taxes pay for a lot of things we need: a lot of things we’re better off buying in bulk, as a group. In that way, taxes are good, and I want to pay them.

But that way lies madness. The more we look on taxes as benevolent, the easier it becomes for spending interests to plow deeper and deeper into the government trough.

Far better to dislike taxes as a necessary (and often an unnecessary) evil. Far better to look upon government as an unwelcome intrusion into our lives – something we tolerate, sometimes, but barely.

Far better, maybe, but most of the time we don’t see it that way. Even I sometimes see government as a good thing: taxes pay for necessary services, and as a member of my community, I’m perfectly willing to pay those taxes.

There is disagreement, of course, even on some of the core services. Why, for example, should a childless 70-year-old help pay for my children’s education?

One could argue that better, more widespread education betters society as a whole, and thus is better for all of us. The real reason, though, is that the majority has made education a priority, for which we shall spend tax money.

In short, the majority has taken on a right to the property of others.

It seems silly to complain about that, when talking about something basic like education, or police services. Still, it should send a chill up our spines to admit: the majority has an implicit right to our property. If the majority votes a certain way, we will be required to give up more of our property, whether we agree with it or not.

This is made even more troublesome by the fact that it clearly is not always the majority pulling the strings. More often, it’s a minority. A small minority.

For example: the DNR, in order to help balance their budget, had proposed eliminating state-funded positions at the MacKenzie Center and two other programs. A “public outcry” convinced the Natural Resources Board to change that decision, and restore the positions.

Don’t know what the MacKenzie Center is? Never been there? You’re not alone. It’s near Poynette, in Columbia County, perhaps 40 miles north of Madison. Not far from where I live, and I’ve never been there. Probably won’t ever go.

Yet, I’m helping pay for it. So are you.

Now, proponents did have some arguments: there has already been a “significant investment” in the Center; there’s an educational value, especially for inner-city kids who don’t often get to “experience nature.”

I’m not convinced. We have lots of other places to “experience nature.” Over half of our tax money already goes to public schools. Surely, closing this center won’t throw today’s youth into desperate ignorance.

I’d rather not help pay for it. But, if the few people who support it can convince the Legislature to leave it alone, I’ll have to continue doing so.

Is this right? As members of a community, we accept that we must live by certain rules, for the good of the whole. Yet we live in a national community that was formed with individual rights – protection of the minority from the majority – at its core.

Where’s the tipping point? More importantly: is there even supposed to be one?

Coffee Bites, but Taxes Hurt

Dateline South America: the coffee bean harvest was bad this year. Joe just got more expensive.

Coffee shops have already raised prices. More importantly, a major brand name is raising prices by 14%. Other brands are sure to follow suit.

To an all-day coffee drinker like myself, this is grim news.

Or, perhaps it isn’t. Really, what does a 14% increase in the price of coffee mean to my overall budget? Sure, my wife (known to squeeze pennies so tightly they will sometimes bleed nickels) will notice, and worry about the increase, just as she did over recent increases in the price of eggs and milk, not to mention gas.

But, when you spend maybe $10 a month on a product, an increase doesn’t hurt much. Most people’s budgets are flexible enough to handle it. If not, well, some would argue that coffee is more of a luxury than a necessity. A want, not a need.

I would disagree, but the argument could be made.

Other parts of our budgets are less flexible: I live 50 miles from work, ergo I pay the price of gas. The alternatives – uproot my family, or take a less lucrative job closer to home – are worse, but at least I know there are alternatives.

Then there are our tax bills. Alternatives? We can buy less, and pay less sales tax. It’s possible to control your income taxes, to a degree. Property taxes too high? Move to a smaller house. A big step, and a drastic one we don’t want to take.

And, according to at least one group, we shouldn’t worry about it. The Institute for Wisconsin’s Future, a coalition of labor unions and advocacy groups, has produced a report to inform us: Wisconsin’s taxes aren’t really that high.

The report is, in a word, feeble. Titled “Exposing the Wisconsin ‘Tax Hell’ Hoax: Why spending caps on state and local government are wrong for Wisconsin,” it’s an unconvincing attempt to blunt the tax reform charge.

I won’t try to refute every point the report makes – I don’t have the space, and anyway, there’s no need. The Institute makes no argument about the level of Wisconsin taxes. They agree on the numbers. They disagree that the numbers are too high.

Here’s the context: Wisconsin is the 6th highest taxed state in the nation. That measures state and local taxes, as a percentage of personal income.

The report admits it, but takes issue with using that measure. When “more accurate” measures are used, they claim, Wisconsin is “well within the middle half.”

“The middle half” means in the teens. Wisconsin ranks 18th, when measuring state and local government spending as a percentage of income. We rank 15th when measuring state and local taxes and fees as a percentage of personal income.

It’s true, 15th and 18th are better than 6th. Still in the top half, and out of step with per capita personal income (we rank 25th, nationally). But, if lower rankings are what you’re looking for, you can stop. You’ve found them.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: the rankings miss the point.

What if every other state in the nation suddenly doubled their taxes? Wisconsin’s ranking would plummet.

Would taxes here be any lower? No. Rankings don’t matter.

What does matter is the size of the tax bite, and how fast that bite is growing. According to the Tax Foundation, state and local taxes took up 11.1% of Wisconsin personal income in 2004. Note: that’s just the taxes, not fees. Add federal taxes into the mix, and it’s 28.2%.

Nearly one dollar out of every three earned – just to pay taxes. Only taxes: not fees.

According to our friends at the Institute for Wisconsin’s Future, that’s just fine and dandy. Don’t be concerned. Quit complaining.

Also okay with the Institute: “Wisconsin state and local government spending was 21.4% of total state income in 2002.” That’s up from 17.5% in 1976, according to a UW professor who did similar calculations.

However you slice it, whatever “context” you put it in, the government’s appetite is big, and getting bigger.

Is it too much? Depends on your point of view. You may think that this level of taxes is just fine.

If so, well, okay. But ask yourself: how long can keep paying a tax bill that grows faster than your income?

Because that’s what’s happening. It’s been happening, for a long time.

And those tax bills – they’re a little bigger than the coffee bill.

Missing the Point on Social Security

Do we have to reform Social Security? The answer to that question seems to revolve around the program’s “solvency” – that is, how many years we have until the payroll taxes we all pay won’t be enough to pay the benefits anymore.

In 1950, there were 16 people working for every retiree receiving Social Security benefits. Today, the ratio is 3.3 to one, and by 2030, it will shrink to 2 to 1.

This isn’t advanced calculus: with fewer workers and more retirees, each worker will have to pay more in order to pay the benefits, or each retiree will have to accept lower benefits, or we’ll have to supplement the program with other tax revenues.

But there’s disagreement over how long the program can stay solvent, and over how urgent it is that we do something about it.

For example, the Congressional Budget Office recently reported that Social Security is solvent until 2052 – ten years longer than an earlier estimate. This prompted one congressman to declare that Social Security is not in crisis, so everybody calm down with all this reform talk.

A lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. That’s what I think.

All those dates mean very little: they’re projections, which can and will change with the ebb and flow of any number of different variables. Birth rates. Death rates. Economic growth. Advances in medical science. A tax increase, or a reduction in benefits.

And I think it misses the point. Why do we really need to reform Social Security? Not because of solvency, but because Social Security is such a lousy investment.

According to the Social Security Administration, the average worker can expect to earn less than 2% annual interest on his or her “investment” in Social Security. That’s not even enough to keep up with inflation: your money is worth less, by the time you retire, than it was at the time you earned it.

That’s what you get, when you depend on the government.

Granted, past performance is no guarantee of future success. Investing contains risk. We just went through a few years in which the stock market took a big tumble – a lot of people lost a lot of money.

But guess what: since December 6, 1994, the Dow Jones has averaged 12.19% growth per year. That includes the years between 2000 and 2002, when the Dow tumbled from over 11,700 to under 7,300.

If you’d invested $100 in the Dow Jones Industrial Average stocks exactly ten years ago, that $100 would now be worth $315.89. If you’d invested it twenty years ago, it would be worth $997.89 today, and if you’d started thirty years ago, it would be worth $3,152,28. That’s the magic of compound interest.

Now, take a look at Social Security.

Let’s take the same $100 investment, earning 2% annual interest for 49 years (starting work at age 18, retiring at age 67). Notice: that’s nearly 5 times as long as our original example.

Today, that $100 would be worth $263.88 – less, even, than you’d earn by investing in the Dow Jones for one fifth the length of time.

And less than inflation, too. Simply adjusting that same $100 for inflation over the last 49 years gives us $712.31 today.

Is this the system we want to protect?

This is why I support personal retirement accounts: Social Security is an almost criminal waste of money. It’s wasting my money, and it’s wasting your money. Sorry, Gramps, but the Social Security program has robbed you of a far more comfortable retirement.

I know, there are questions about the “transition costs” of switching to personal retirement accounts – money invested in stocks and bonds won’t be available to help pay today’s and tomorrow’s benefits, which means less revenue for an already-hurting Social Security system.

Here’s an idea: the power of compound interest can make me rich, given enough time. It could also help us to pay off Social Security benefits that have already been earned.

Nobody thinks it’s going to be easy: we have to change the system while still protecting the benefits today’s retirees and older workers have been promised.

But even today’s retirees have to admit: it’s no party living on Social Security. If we can find a better way, we should. Or, do the parents and grandparents of my generation want their children and grandchildren to be dependent on the same ineffectual government system that they struggle with?

I won’t settle for it – not for myself, and certainly not for my children.

Policy Plus Politics

One of the frustrating things about politics is: you never know what the motivations are.

We want to believe our political leaders are pursuing the best policies – at least, the policies they think are best. Yet, we can never quite shake our cynicism: the thought that, whatever they do, career promotion (or simple partisanship) is their main goal.

Actually, the two aren’t mutually exclusive. Politicians can do both: pursue good (to them) policies, and promote their own future re-elections.

Two good examples have hit Wisconsin’s news in recent weeks. First, the “deficit.” Governor Doyle’s administration announced that, 7 months before the state has to pass a two-year budget, we’re already $1.6 billion in the red.

As always, this depends on your definitions.

The federal government’s deficit results from them spending money they don’t have – they run short, and so they borrow money to cover it.

The state “deficit” is different: it’s the difference between what we expect to have over the next two fiscal years ($24.4 billion) and what state agencies want to spend over the next two fiscal years (nearly $26 billion).

We haven’t suddenly found ourselves $1.6 billion short, and we won’t, unless the Governor and Legislature approve all the agencies’ requests between now and mid-2007, which isn’t likely.

Governor Doyle could do away with the deficit right now, simply by telling the agencies (which are all arms of his own administration) that they can only spend, collectively, up to $24.4 billion.

He doesn’t. Why? Because he wants the issue. He wants to spend a few months agonizing over how to “protect necessary services” without “hurting the taxpayers.”

Remember, the 2006 election isn’t far away. Republicans have already started jockeying for position to run for Governor – give it a year before the primary really gets under way.

When it does, fiscal conservatism – controlling taxes and spending – will be a major issue. Doyle won in 2002, partly based on his fiscally conservative position. Balance the budget, but don’t raise taxes. Assuming he sticks to those guns, he’ll outflank his Republican adversaries on one of their best issues.

Taking an issue away is one good strategy: splitting your opponent’s constituencies is another.

Enter Governor Doyle’s plan to spend three quarters of a billion dollars on biotech research at UW. He describes it as a “public, private investment” to build new research facilities and promote research into new technologies.

Among other things, that means stem cell research. The UW is already considered a leader in such research, and it would be a real shame to let that – and all the potential investment that goes along with it – slip away.

But pay close attention to that phrase: stem cell research. Notably absent is the word “embryonic.”

Embryonic stem cells – stem cells which are harvested from human embryos, destroying the embryo in the process – are only one type of stem cell. There are others (they can be harvested from umbilical cords, for instance) that show just as much, if not more promise.

The pro-life community opposes embryonic stem cell research, because it requires the destruction of human life. They’ll oppose any public funding of such research, and they’ll want political candidates to oppose it, too.

And there’s the rub: this project – a huge investment in new technology research – suggests that Wisconsin is serious about competing in the national and global markets. The resulting technologies could catapult our economy in the future. Think Silicon Valley. This is just the kind of signal the business community wants to see.

I don’t mean to suggest that the business community is completely deaf to pro-life concerns, but on this issue, the two groups could find themselves at odds, especially if strong opposition to embryonic stem cell research threatens to stop the whole thing.

Conservative candidates, which is mostly to say Republican candidates, may find themselves facing an uncomfortable choice between the pro-life and pro-research positions. At least, that’s how Governor Doyle would like things to play out.

Are these good policies? Absolutely. We should not raise taxes. We should become leaders in new and lucrative technologies.

Do I think Doyle and his team are taking these positions solely for the purpose of re-election positioning? No. That they may help Doyle’s re-election could be nothing more than a sweet bonus. It’s also possible that I’m imagining the whole thing. The administration may not be capable of projecting a strategy that far.

But, Karl Rove came from someplace to work for our side. Could be there’s a Democrat version, and he’s from Wisconsin.