The Strange Battle for a Minimum Wage

It’s a done deal – Wisconsin will have a higher minimum wage. The only question remaining: when?

Wisconsin law gives the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) the authority to set a “living wage.” Currently, that wage is $5.15 an hour.

Governor Doyle and legislative Democrats want a higher minimum wage, and, therefore, so does the DWD. They’ve created a new administrative rule that will, once it takes effect, raise the wage to $6.50.

It’s a done deal. All opponents can do is delay it. The new minimum wage will take effect in late 2006, unless the legislature passes a law – a law the Governor would have to sign – to stop it.

We’ll sooner see Randy Moss wearing a Superbowl ring.

Despite the fact that they’re getting what they want, no matter what, legislative Democrats have done what they can to make a statewide issue of the minimum wage. Every legislative floor session, they make speech after speech, demanding it. They’re holding hearings around the state. They write press releases and columns, blasting Republicans for withholding those higher wages from the working poor.

Not only that: there’s also been a concerted effort to make us – even those of us who would normally oppose it – hope for a single statewide increase in the minimum wage. It began last year, when the Madison city council voted to raise the minimum wage for Madison only. Now, they’re an island, where businesses must, by law, pay their employees more than businesses in surrounding communities.

Others have threatened to follow. The cities of Milwaukee, La Crosse, Stevens Point, Menasha, and Kaukauna have all suggested they might go ahead with their own increases, if the state doesn’t “act.”

The business community doesn’t want a higher minimum wage. A higher minimum wage increases costs, just like higher gas prices, and rapidly-rising health insurance costs. Higher costs mean less money available for investment and expansion. They make it harder to make a profit, and to stay in business.

Higher costs mean it’s tougher to create new jobs, and to keep the ones you’ve got.

But the business community wants a Balkanized Wisconsin, peppered with islands whose rules are unique to themselves, even less. They’re prepared to accept a higher minimum wage, if it will mean pre-empting that.

It’s hard to believe that all those cities would really go through with it. What would it mean, for a city like Kaukauna to require private businesses to pay more than the communities around it?

Would all the local businesses simply shut down? No. There will still be demand for grocery stores, restaurants, gas stations. Those businesses will remain.

Sure, they might have to raise their prices a little. They might have to cut down on customer service a little. But they’ll stick around.

Well, some of them. The bigger stores – the chains, like Wal-Mart and K-Mart and McDonald’s – are the least likely to be affected. It’s the Mom and Pop places – the places Democrats say they support – that will be hit the hardest.

Irony. I usually enjoy it.

And remember, it’s not just the fact that employers will have to give raises to anyone making less than $6.50 an hour. Employees making $6.50 today will have to get a raise, too. So will employees making $7 an hour. That’s the “accordion effect.” Bump up the minimum wage, and those at higher wages get raises, too.

That’s why the unions like it so much.

And it’s not just the wages. Materials will cost more, because suppliers will be paying higher wages. Printing, advertising, deliveries: they’ll all cost more.

Building will cost more. Today, communities compete with each other to attract new business, new jobs. Will a new factory or department store ignore the fact that it costs more to move into a community, and then more to do business there? Why locate in Kaukauna, when Kimberly is right next door? Why go to La Crosse, when Onalaska is just up the road?

Mayors and city council members may not be economists, but they’re not ignorant, either. Blinded by liberal orthodoxy, perhaps, particularly in Madison. But not ignorant. They know these things, just as we do.

So, then, why? Because they want the higher minimum wage sooner than 2006?

Maybe. Or, maybe, to promote anger at the Republican Legislature. Perhaps they’re hoping that this issue will help undermine other issues, as well. The property tax freeze. The Taxpayer Bill of Rights.

Either that, or they really do want to hinder their own homes.

Short Term Advantage, Long Term Solution

Depending on whom you’re listening to, Social Security is either not in crisis at all, or is in crisis because of President Bush’s tax cuts.

These conflicting claims should come as quite a surprise to Bill Clinton, who declared a Social Security crisis in 1998. “Save Social Security first,” he said, repeatedly, as did other prominent Democrats named Boxer, Kennedy, Gephardt, and Gore.

Fast forward to 2005. The Social Security crisis is a fantasy concocted by the same liars who brought us the massive stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. At least, according to the President’s critics.

The numbers are already well known – there aren’t nearly as many workers per retiree today as there were 40 years ago, and the ratio is going to get even smaller. Social Security already has liabilities in the trillions – at some point, we’ll have to raise taxes, cut benefits, or a combination of both.

Unless Germany will start taking our old folks in. I understand they’ve got quite a generous system over there.

On the other hand, let’s keep in mind that those same demographic trends will, eventually, bring the ratios back the other way. Not to be crass, but the Boomer generation won’t be around forever. Fifty years from now, they’ll be material for historical retrospectives. Little more.

He doesn’t say so outright, but reform opponent Kevin Drum was getting at the same thing when he wrote:

Social Security is going to get more expensive over time, but it's not going to keep getting more expensive forever. Starting in about a decade costs will go up, but then, after about 20 years, they'll flatten out. And the size of the increase, from about 4% of GDP to 6% of GDP, just isn't a crisis.

Oh, that part about the percentage of GDP? That’s a tax increase. But don’t worry, it isn’t very much. Drum said so.

Is Social Security in crisis? Don’t ask me. I’m just a guy, not an actuary. I don’t understand all the ins and outs, all the variables, all the potential ramifications of this and that and the other boring thing yet another economist is droning on about.

But I can add. I can look at the amount of FICA taxes that comes out of my paycheck. I can multiply by three. I know that’s not enough to pay for one retiree’s benefits. Unless we’re going to cut those benefits, I’ll have to “give” more.

Sorry, kids, but last year’s shoes will just have to do.

Enter Congressman Paul Ryan. Ryan is the author of a Social Security reform plan, which will allow workers to put a certain amount of their FICA taxes into a managed fund.

Short term, this thing is bad news. Because all those taxes won’t be going to pay benefits anymore, we’ll come up short faster.

And short term is all opponents have. Would you support reform if it means $2 trillion more in deficits? The survey says: hell, no.

What if it meant eliminating more than $10 trillion in liabilities, plus amassing $7 trillion in personal accounts? Would you support it then?

I bet the answers will be a hundred eighty degrees different.

That’s the long term effect of Ryan’s plan. It puts us into the red, short term. Long term, meaning 30 years down the road, it brings us back, and more.

But, there’s not a lot of long-term thinking out there. There’s only today’s advantage, and reform opponents see advantage in egging on the danger of touching the third rail.

This brings me back to the point I keep making about Social Security reform. Social Security, as it works today, is stupid. Columnist Star Parker:

If Social Security did not exist, and we attempted to enact today a system like we currently have, would it pass? The answer is unquestionably no. There is no way that any working American would agree to turn over to the government 12.4 percent of his or her paycheck in exchange for a benefit that has no guarantee, on which ownership has been relinquished and that is less than what could be obtained by buying risk-free government bonds.

That’s Social Security. That’s the program the President’s opponents are fighting to keep, just as it is – even those who claimed in the past that it was in “crisis.”

And, I’m afraid, that’s the program today’s seniors are stuck with. But ask them: is it also the program they want to stick their grandchildren with?

Not That Much, Unless You Can Add

It’s only a little bit.

That is the argument, when taxes go up. It’s only a little, and it pays for something wonderful. Can’t you spare just a little bit more? Give up one movie? One dinner out?

Funny, how a little bit, and a little bit, and a little bit more suddenly adds up to a lot.

A couple of months ago, I had praise for the Sauk County Board. It still applies: the board kept its tax increase this year to a very reasonable 4.3%, well below the rate of economic growth in the county.

Unfortunately, they were the only ones. The City of Baraboo increased its levy by 7.3%. The Baraboo School District increased theirs by 11.7%.

The county wins the tax derby this year, I guess, but they’re hardly innocent. It was only last year that Sauk County had the third-highest tax increase in the state (among counties), at over 14%.

Yes, we have a lot of construction going on, which helps – it means more property owners to share the load, a broadened tax base.

But existing property owners haven’t been spared. Property in Baraboo was reassessed last year: our homes and businesses are worth 29% more this year, in the tax man’s eyes, than last year.

The result of all this: if your home was worth a hundred grand last year, this year it’s worth $129,000. Last year, you paid $2,714 in property taxes. This year, you’ll pay $2,977. A 9.7% increase in your tax bill, minus whatever the school tax credit and the lottery credit take off the top.

Now, everybody’s bill will be different, for one reason or another. Mine went up by 6.7%. Less than the average, I suppose, but my income didn’t go up by 6.7%. My bet: neither did yours.

But…everything is getting more expensive. It costs more to provide all the services every year, and people want those services. It isn’t really that much.

There have been the usual proposals to raise the sales tax – none are likely to be enacted. For some reason, it’s next to impossible, politically, to raise sales or income taxes. Too bad the same can’t be said for property taxes.

The same can’t be said for fees, either. For example, sometime this year, we’ll all begin to see a new charge on our cell phone and pager bills. It won’t be much – only 50 to 80 cents a month. And it’s for a good cause – to help expand 911 coverage.

Another example: the DNR Board has already approved higher fees for hunting licenses: a gun deer license will cost $12 more next year, if it gets through the legislature. A fishing license will cost more, too. Renting a state park campsite will cost more. Ditto state park stickers.

But…we need that money to keep Wisconsin beautiful, to attract tourists, to manage our wildlife, to enforce the laws during hunting season, to fight CWD.

The DOT wants to charge $15 more to register your car, and $29.50 more to register a light truck. Renting a car will be more expensive, too – another proposal would raise the car rental tax from 3% to 5%.

But…Wisconsin’s car registration fees are among the lowest in the country.

And let’s not forget, Wisconsin’s gas tax goes up automatically, every April. It’s already the highest in the country.

But…we need more money to maintain all our roads. It’s a safety issue.

The problem is this: each of those increases got its start at a different place in our government’s vast bureaucracy. There’s a reason for each one. Each can be easily rationalized as necessary, and small.

But…put them all together, and they become a noticeable hike in the cost of living.

Add Sauk County’s 4.3% increase this year to the 14% increase last year. Add all of these individually small fee increases together, then add them to the more than $500 million in fee increases the state used to balance its budget in 2003.

Add in all the school district referendums. The new municipal tax districts for sewers, water, runoff. The higher development fees for county planning and zoning inspections.

Now add that all up.

It’s not enough to look at each increase by itself. At some point, we have to realize that we’re slowly, surely, taking over people’s bank accounts. Not just the elderly, living on fixed incomes and Social Security’s tiny increases. Working families, too.

People want those services, but…what happens when the taxpayers can’t afford them anymore?

The Conservative Con

There are two kinds of Republicans. Rich ones, and stupid ones.

That’s the theory, anyway.

Here’s why: rich people are Republicans because they have a vested interest in fiscal conservatism. They get far more benefit from tax cuts than anybody else, so naturally they support the party of lower taxes.

Poor and middle-class voters don’t benefit as much from tax cuts (not directly, anyway), so if they vote Republican, it’s because they’ve been conned – fooled into believing that social concerns trump their own financial interests.

In a column written for the L.A. Times, Reihan Salam concurs, writing: “To win elections, the GOP increasingly relies on socially conservative voters of modest means. Which is why Bush’s second term agenda is so spectacularly wrongheaded.”

“Consider this from the perspective of a not atypical GOP voter — say, a young married woman with three small children living in Ohio. She voted for Bush because he promised to vigorously defend her family against terrorists and because he shares her values. But she has material interests too. She would like to raise her kids full time, but the money isn't there. Her husband is working long hours, but it's not nearly enough, and the tax cuts barely made a dent in their debts. At some point, she has to wonder, what has President Bush done for me lately?

Precious little is the right answer, and GOP politicians would do well to take note.”

Salam’s point: President Bush has cut taxes for the rich, but has done little or nothing to help the lower to middle classes. Why would those classes vote for him, then? Because they’ve been conned.

According to this theory, our real interests are purely financial. If a policy or politician doesn’t directly benefit my bottom line, I should reject it in favor of something else.

To which I say: the absence of wealth does not automatically mean ignorance.

During his presidency, JFK called for lower taxes, in order to spur the economy. He understood that leaving more money in the hands of those who earned it means more spending, and more investment, which eventually means more jobs, and greater opportunity.

Just because lower-class voters aren’t benefiting from the President’s tax cuts right now doesn’t mean they don’t understand this – many of them do.

And even if they don’t, they still may not buy into the Democrat theme of taking from the rich and giving to the poor. There are a lot of proud, hardworking people in this country who want to live their lives and earn their way. Handouts? Don’t need them.

There’s no room in Salam’s theory for self-reliance. Nor for selflessness.

This screams with irony. What is it that liberals despise most about conservatives? Our greed.

We want tax cuts. Why? So we can keep more of our own money. Pay for welfare? No thanks, I’d rather buy another VCR, go out to eat, drive a bigger gas-guzzler. Conservatives don’t care about their fellow man: only about their own wallets. At least, that’s what liberals see.

Yet this is precisely what Salam is suggesting we do: worry about our own bottom lines first.

This is, in the end, Salam’s point. Nothing is more important than money. Democrats are more likely to give poor people money: refundable tax credits, school breakfasts and lunches, free health care, free child care, etc. Therefore, it only makes sense for poor people to vote Democrat.

If you do otherwise, you’ve been hoodwinked. Snookered. Fooled into believing that there’s something more important.

And yet, there are things more important. More important than money. More important than our own individual well-being.

Family, God, protecting the unborn, upholding moral standards. A lot of poor and middle-class people – even educated ones – believe these things are more important than a little extra money, even when that extra money means a new pair of shoes next month, instead of next year.

Another irony: this is how liberals describe themselves. For them, values – taking care of the elderly, the sick, the poor – is far more important than another detestable tax cut.

I can’t say for sure that Salam is a liberal, but surely he agrees with this – else he wouldn’t speak so derisively about Bush’s “tax cuts for the rich.”

So, he wants us – the poor and middle-class – to reject the con: vote our pocketbooks, instead of our consciences. Our heads, instead of our hearts.

Which is precisely the sort of calculus liberals reject.

It makes one wonder: just who is trying to con whom?

Perspective

I love coffee. Strong coffee. Dark coffee. Fresh brewed with just a minute’s time to cool, in a real mug, or sometimes in a glass, like a Russian. I’ll drink it any time of day, and usually do. Prick me, do I not bleed dark brown roast?

I remember the best cup of coffee I ever had. It was on a Sunday. I know this, because it was our third day at Ft. McCoy – Wisconsin’s sole Army base. A long weekend spent in the aftermath of a cold, cold rain. Ankle-deep mud everywhere; damp, cold air that seeped in through your clothing and stayed there. The kind of miserable that sticks to you all day long.

Sunday afternoon, I saw a canvas-covered truck. The soldier in the back had a couple of those multi-compartmented cans that mess halls use to send food out to the field. He was ladling something into Styrofoam cups.

“That coffee?” I asked, incredulous. “Want some? Hurry up, we gotta go,” he said. I ran, naught in my wake but the sucking sound of boots leaving mud.

It was a half-warm, weak, mess hall cup of coffee, served in a small Styrofoam cup.

It was the best cup of coffee I ever had.

I think Albert Einstein described this best: "When you are courting a nice girl an hour seems like a second. When you sit on a red-hot cinder a second seems like an hour. That's relativity."

Perspective can be a funny thing. Once, we had two kids, and thought they ran us ragged. Now, we have four, and we know better.

Eighty degrees is awfully hot, until the thermometer hits 95. Last week’s twenty degrees seemed awfully cold, until the weatherman started telling us what was coming up soon. Today’s high, if you can call it that, didn’t hit double-digits. Our low, on the other hand, may well hit double digits: double-digits below zero – the wrong way.

And it could get colder tomorrow.

Those 20+ degree highs don’t seem so bad anymore. And just look to the north: people in Ashland are gazing wistfully at our above-zero temps. Theirs aren’t expected to hit the positives until Tuesday.

At least it’s too cold to snow. There’s nothing quite as wretched as shoveling snow, especially when it’s really cold and wet. Fingers and toes begin to hurt. The face goes numb. Shoulders get tired. It’s miserable.

Thus, I place on my recommended reading list: Citizen Soldiers, by the late Stephen Ambrose. It’s about the troops who served in Europe in World War II, between the Normandy invasion and Germany’s ultimate surrender.

World War II marked the first time that major military operations weren’t at least curtailed during the winter (unless, of course, the weather demanded it). Infantry troops continued to march, to fight, to carve holes out of frozen ground every night, and to sleep – or try to – in them. The ground was frozen, of course, because it was winter, and cold, and the troops were out in it, every day, all day, lugging their packs, trying to stay warm.

Which wasn’t easy: the invasion was slow sometimes, but other times it was rapid. Initial expectations had Allied troops moving much faster than they did – the German army had made other plans.

Thus, many front-line troops didn’t start out the winter with the right equipment. It either wasn’t there to start, or couldn’t catch up to the men who needed it.

Perspective. Shoveling snow will be just a little bit easier next time. At least there’s nobody shooting at me.

Life can be hard. Kids, family, house, job, boss, neighbors, pets, cars, traffic, bills, the future – and then your wife forgets to set the VCR to tape your favorite show.

But every now and then, a little perspective seeps in. Tragedies are, unfortunately, good for that. The 9/11 attacks all made us appreciate our lives a little more. Ditto the tsunami in Indonesia and, to a lesser degree, the mudslides in California.

Cold here? It’s colder in Ashland, and if that doesn’t help, just remember how much Canada there is even further north than that.

We’ve got a lot of troops in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. They’re not fighting the winter along with the enemy, but that’s small comfort – the desert can’t be much fun, nor can the long separation from home and family. Whatever problems I have, they don’t include that.

Yep. A little perspective can go a long way.

Opportunity Ignored, Opportunity Lost

Legislative Democrats have missed an opportunity.

And it was a good opportunity: an opportunity to cast doubt on the Republican commitment to lower government spending, and more importantly, to make leaders on the Republican side of the aisle look bad.

Two events led to this opportunity: first, the announcement that the Assembly would have 40 standing committees for the next two years – two more than last year.

Second, the decision to cut overall Assembly staff.

In a nutshell, staff for any Assembly member who is not a member of leadership, on the Joint Finance Committee, or a committee chair will be allowed one full-time staffer from now on. Previous to this, they were allowed one and a half.

Since every member of the majority party who has served at least one term gets to be a committee chair (unless they’re members of leadership, or on the Joint Finance Committee), this new rule didn’t affect the majority party – the Republicans. It only affected the Democrats.

Democrat leaders responded, and responded well, by suggesting that we might already have too many committees, so why create two more?

And, since fewer committees means fewer committee chairs, there will be fewer Assembly staff. They estimated the Assembly could save $2.6 million by establishing 23 committees, instead of 40.

Thus, the Democrats put themselves in position to declare themselves champions of the taxpayers. No one would believe it, of course, but for the Republicans, this was a potential embarrassment.

We should note a couple of things. First, the “new” staffing levels aren’t all that new. It was the new Republican majority, in 1995, which increased minority office staff to today’s levels. Before that, the standard was one and a third employees, which effectively left most offices with only one.

Do the Democrats appreciate the irony, do you think?

Second, there are legitimate reasons to have more committees. More committees means less work for each committee, which means each bill gets more scrutiny. More committees also means more devolution of power from central leadership – more individuals, not fewer, making decisions.

This is not to deny the fiscal argument: $2.6 million, if that number is correct, is a lot of money, and if we can save that much, we should. Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. It’s not seemly for them to defend a higher number of committees, when we could save money otherwise.

This was the Democrats’ opportunity, and at first, Minority Leader Jim Kreuser played it well, releasing a list of 23 committees he considered “legitimate,” and threatening to not assign any Democrats to the others.

His tactic might have been working. The Republican side didn’t announce full committee assignments until the afternoon of Thursday, December 23, only a couple of hours before the whole country went home for a long Christmas weekend.

Committee assignments are usually a good way to get some local press. Not this year. By making the announcement when they did, Republicans made sure Kreuser would get minimum attention, if he complained again.

Not that this was a solution. If Kreuser went through with his threat to ignore 17 committees, he would create a never-ending source of embarrassment. A regular reminder of the issue at hand. A weekly Republican-bashing story for the media, with built-in pictures – the Democrats’ empty chairs.

He’d set the stage for a showdown. The sun at his back, his opponents squinted painfully at his silhouette, trying to discern what his next move might be. He paused, spat tobacco juice, rubbed his fingers against his thumb, and then…

And then he blew it. On inauguration day, January 3, Kreuser and his fellow Democrats forgot all about the fiscal angle, going instead on long, whiny rants about how it’s just not fair that they get less staff.

The taxpayers were no longer the issue – no, it was all about the Democrats. Instead of driving their attack home, they came off sounding like angry children.

Then, on January 4, quietly, with only a brief announcement, Kreuser released his appointments to all 40 committees.

Republicans took control of the Assembly in 1994, and the Senate in 2000. Those majorities have grown every election cycle. I’d like to think that’s because more people agree with a platform of lower taxes, less regulation, and social conservatism.

But political competence has played a part. Over the last ten years, Republicans have proven themselves the Democrats’ betters in that respect.

Judging by the last couple of weeks, that’s not going to change.

Every Kid Deserves a Well-Paid Teacher

Something’s not right.

Since 1993, Wisconsin’s public schools have been under a form of revenue controls: each year, each school district’s revenues (and thus spending) can grow only by a certain amount, depending mostly on growth in the student body.

As you might imagine, WEAC, the teacher’s union, hates the revenue controls. Here’s a little of their most recent condemnation:

(WEAC President Stan) Johnson said Wisconsin's schools are among the best in the nation, but that status is threatened by revenue controls.

"We have reached a point where we no longer provide great schools for every child," he said. "As curriculums are narrowed, more and more children will be denied learning opportunities. Evidence of this new reality is found in the growing societal gap, which continues to widen. A truly great school system would achieve a narrowing of this disparity."

"School districts have done a heroic job living under this law, but they have reached the limit," WASDA Executive Director Miles Turner said. "Districts are forced to make short-term decisions that will inflict long-term damage on schools, children and our communities."

"If the quality of education declines, it's not just the kids who are hurt," Johnson said. "The value of Wisconsin residents' single largest investment - their homes - will also decline, because schools and property values are directly related."

You see, revenue controls mean we spend less on schools than we otherwise would have. Less, certainly, than WEAC would like, which to them means schools get worse instead of better.

But, let’s run a little experiment here: what if we increased per-student spending by 50%?

According to Education Week, Wisconsin currently ranks 8th, nationally, in spending per student (and that’s after a dozen years of revenue controls – where would we rank, I wonder, without them?).

Increase spending by 50%, and we’d be #1, by a lot. If WEAC’s theory – more money equals better schools – is right, then this would guarantee a great school for every child.

Right?

But there’s a hitch: the District of Columbia, currently #1 in spending per student, is also among the worst in student achievement.

D.C. wasn’t always tops in per-student spending: just a few years ago, New York held that title. Their achievement? Much better than DC’s, it’s true. But not as good as Wisconsin’s.

And take the other end of the spectrum: Utah, the state with the lowest per-student spending in the nation. They rank at or above the national average on 4th and 8th grade math and reading tests.

This would seem to refute the “less money equals bad schools” argument.

What’s going on here? Take into account that between 80% and 90% of a school district’s costs pay for personnel, and you can easily see that, when WEAC talks about greater funding for schools, they’re talking about higher pay for teachers.

Nothing wrong with that, of course. WEAC is a union, which is supposed to get the best deal possible for their members. Although, their slogan is: “Every kid deserves a great school.” It’s not about us, it’s all about the kids.

I wonder.

Just last week, Assembly Republicans announced they will try to switch the state’s teachers to the state health insurance plan. Currently, over 80% of districts use WEA insurance – a provider owned and run by the teachers’ union itself.

According to a new report, moving all those school districts to the state employee health plan would save $100 million a year.

That’s a hundred million that could be used for raises, textbooks, computers, curricula, or (gasp!) property tax relief. According to the report, teachers would probably have more options under the state plan, too.

But WEAC is opposing the move. Johnson called it an “all out attack against teachers.”

Why? When it could mean bigger raises, more money spent directly on education? More great schools?

They’ll say it’s because of the benefits – the state plan doesn’t offer as much. As one who’s been on the state plan for nearly 5 years, I say baloney. The state plan is far better than nearly anything to be found in the private sector, and its cost is rising at a relatively slow rate – only 5% this year – about a third the rate of WEA insurance.

If it’s really all about the kids, WEAC will go along. A hundred million can go a long way to teaching kids to read.

Otherwise, well, I guess we’ll know: every kid deserves a great school, as long as it doesn’t touch a teacher’s pay.

DE-fense!

Reggie White’s death last week was unexpected. Given the circumstances, the wave of restrospection into his life, both as a player and a man, was not.

If I may say so without cheapening White’s well-deserved week-long eulogy, his death also put the spotlight on something else we’ve all noticed lately, but in a different light: the Packers defense.

Remember those great defenses, back in 1995, 1996? Ah, if only we had another Reggie on the line, a Craig Newsome or Doug Evans in the secondary, a Wayne Simmons in the linebacking corps.

What a difference a decade makes. This year’s defense is awful. They can’t stop anybody. After 16 games, the Packers rank 24th in the league in points surrendered, and 27th in opponents’ yardage.

As usual, statistics don’t tell the whole story. For example, the Packers’ win at Minnesota two weeks ago: that was sweet, but why, exactly, did it happen?

Conventional wisdom says the Packers won by controlling the ball. Green Bay ran 78 plays, to Minnesota’s 47. Time of possession was 34:13 to 25:47.

But two of the Vikings’ drives were one-play touchdown drives that took a total of 41 seconds. In each case, Green Bay defenders missed assignments, and then missed tackles, and then quickly ran to pick their shorts up from where they’d fallen after being blown off like plastic bags on an interstate highway, and slinked away to look for hiding places on the sidelines.

Had it not been for the Green Bay defense’s ineptitude, the ball control statistics may have looked a lot different.

Green Bay won, but not thanks to the defense. That forced Viking punt in the fourth quarter? Not the result of anything the defense did, but rather of the Vikings’ own mistakes.

Now, it’s not all bad. There have been a few rays of light.

Early in the season, the Packers inexplicably lost to the Bears in Green Bay, 21-10. Then they lost to the Giants, also in Green Bay, 14-7.

The mighty Packers offense, with Pro-Bowl caliber players at nearly every offensive position, could manage only seventeen measly points against two teams who are pulling up a beer and a comfortable chair to watch the playoffs from home this year.

The offense – not the defense – lost those games. Had they won them instead, the Packers would have a first-round bye in the playoffs.

We don’t have to look only at the losses. Remember the game against Detroit? The lowly Lions outscored Green Bay 13-0 in the first half, and looked good doing it. The tables turned in the second half: the Pack scored 16 points, and the defense blanked Detroit. Final score: 16-13 Green Bay.

And earlier in the season, on the road in Houston, the Packers won, 16-13, with a last-second field goal.

Four games, lost or narrowly won, not because of a lack of defense, but because of a lack of points.

In fact, the Packers defense has held opponents to 20 or fewer points 9 times this season. The offense has scored 20 or more points 11 times.

Looked at that way, the defense doesn’t look so bad.

Oh, sure, there were the debacles at Philadelphia, when nothing went right. Ditto the day Tennessee came to town. Jacksonville made us look silly on both sides of the ball until it was too late. Indianapolis lit us up pretty good.

It’s the defense that glares the worst.

If the defense had been more effective this season in only one thing – turnovers – the Packers could be destined for greatness. Green Bay is the only playoff team this year with a negative turnover ratio – negative 14, to be exact.

It’s not that they’re giving up the ball a lot: with 29 giveaways, they’re just a smidge above the league average. In takeaways, though, they are far below the league average – tied for last in the league, in fact.

This means the offense has overcome a disadvantage that usually has teams sitting home in January.

All season, if it wasn’t blown assignments, it was penalties. If not penalties, missed tackles. If not missed tackles, it was simple getting beat at the point of attack.

I don’t want a “bend but don’t break” defense. I want a brutal, unforgiving defense that makes the opposition wet their beds the night before the game, simply by ordering them to do so.

And, your attention please, front office: I want it next year.