The $3 Bubble

Gas has hit $3 a gallon.

This morning, drivers were buying gas for considerably less. Since then, though – since word of the disaster left behind by Hurricane Katrina – some stations have raised prices by twenty, thirty, even forty cents.

Makes you wish the war in Iraq really was “all about the oil.”

This latest spike is Katrina’s fault – the damage done to docks and industrial facilities on the Gulf Coast has caused fear of shortages, which has caused the price to rise.

But prices were rising before Katrina. We were heading for $3 gas already – Katrina only sped up the process.

And why, exactly, have prices been rising? Is it supply? Demand? China? Your SUV? My 50-mile commute?

Up until Hurricane Katrina hit, my answer was: none of the above. If you asked me yesterday, I’d have said it’s a futures bubble.

In fact, I still say that. Just look: gas prices went up nearly 40 cents a gallon in some places today – has Katrina already disrupted supply? No. That won’t be felt for a couple of days, if ever. But futures traders think it will drive the price up, and so it has.

I know, China and India are leading worldwide growth in demand for oil, which is pushing prices up. Maybe that’s so, but I’ve also read there’s plenty of crude oil being pumped. It’s our own refining capacity – and those regulations that prevent us from increasing our capacity – that artificially keeps supply down.

Maybe that’s so, too, but if so, then the global supply and demand argument is moot. As long as our refining capacity can reasonably keep up with domestic demand, prices should remain stable.

And…they haven’t. A barrel of crude topped $70 on futures markets today, before coming back down – a new record. One year ago, a barrel of crude was going for $40 to $45.

So what can we do? Lots of things, I guess. I, for one, will begin to carpool with a friend who just moved within spitting distance of my daily commute. That will cut about a quarter of my gas bill. If I can work out working at home one day a week, I’ll be buying 60% of what I am now. And we’ll finish renovating and insulating our basement.

What else? Drill for oil in Alaska, and in the continental U.S. Reduce the regulatory burden hampering construction of new refineries. And, oh yeah, build more nuclear power plants.

Lean on the Middle East and other oil-producing countries. Lean on oil companies, too, to find ways to reduce their prices.

Tap into the strategic reserve? Not just to keep prices down, no. President Bush says he might do that, just as a “loan,” to keep supply running smooth until we recover from Katrina.

Lower the gas tax? Well, I’ll always support that, whether gas prices are high or not.

The pundits will tell us: with the exception of lowering taxes, none of these things will have any immediate effect on the price of gas.

Or…maybe they will. Think back to last summer, when gas prices rose and Congress held hearings on whether the oil companies were gouging red-blooded American car owners.

It was almost funny, how fast prices came down.

Does that prove that oil companies were gouging? No. They might have been, I suppose, but this might also prove my original speculation – that the rise in prices is the result of a speculative futures bubble.

If that’s the case, we don’t need concrete action to bring prices back down – we only need to convince investors that the price is going to come down. Aggressive action in favor of: streamlining regulations, building new power plants, demanding more production, producing more domestically, and maybe even promoting conservation. Any or all of the above could do the trick.

The trick being: convince enough investors that the price is coming down.

That’s not to say we shouldn’t actually go about those things. We should. But to bring prices down in the short term, it’s time to pop this bubble.

Cheese on the Ticket...Again

Everybody laughed at the time, but it’s not looking so funny now, is it?

The possibility of having a Cheesehead on the 2008 presidential ticket has been splashing across national headlines for over a week now, as Senator Russ Feingold began publicly maneuvering for the nomination with his half-hearted deadline/flexible non-deadline for pulling our troops out of Iraq.

Or, at least, he’s maneuvering for an audition as the second-seat candidate.

And then, not to be left out, Governor Tommy Thompson made just a little bit of noise with his own pseudo-interest in the Republican nomination.

Admittedly, what Thompson said wasn’t much of anything. It could be that he’s considering a run, or it could be that he’s just trying to keep his name in the game.

Still. Back in June, I wrote this:

When it’s all said and done, Tommy’s still got the resume: four-term governor, HHS Secretary, creator of W-2 and School Choice. The SAGE class reduction program got started on his watch. The U.S. engaged the world on AIDS.

Whether you love those programs or hate them, agree or disagree, there’s a lot there to attract and/or appease a whole lot of voters.

Not to mention, some of them are considered staples in any conservative pantry, and Thompson can claim to have blazed the trails – on welfare reform and School Choice, most particularly.

In 1999, The Economist ran an op-ed entitled “The Man Who Should Be King.” The subject: why Tommy Thompson should be the Republican candidate.

That was then. Should he, now? Maybe, maybe not. We’re all aware of his pluses and minuses, here in the Badger state. The real question is: how will they play on a national scale?

And here’s another question, maybe a better one: how will it all play when he’s trying to balance out a ticket as the #2 guy?

Remember, some of the leading candidates (for now, at least) are squishy when it comes to certain issues – abortion, gay marriage – that Republican primary voters care about. We may not be as harsh about our litmus tests as the Democrats, but we’ve still got them.

If a Guiliani or a Romney wins the nomination, you can bet they’ll look for a running mate who can upgrade their credentials on those issues. Thompson could do that.

And, something else Thompson could do: put Wisconsin into the Republican win column.

That is, after all, one of the reasons pundits are taking Feingold seriously. Sure, Wisconsin’s voted Democrat in every presidential election since Dukakis, but we’ve been trending Republican, especially in 2004. Both major parties have put enormous amounts of effort and resources into Wisconsin the last two elections. 2008 looks to be more of the same.

Put Feingold on the ticket, and Wisconsin goes Democrat for sure. We’ll have a nice relaxed election season for a change.

Which, considering the massive intensity of the last one, might not be such a bad thing. Unless it means Hillary in the White House, that is.

Or, worse, Feingold himself. Why worse? Because we’ll get the blame.

So the Republicans counter by placing Thompson on the ticket. Wisconsin is back in play. Big time.

Yes, I know, somebody’s going to bring up a few popular complaints from conservatives about Thompson. I’m aware of those complaints. Give a presidential-level spin machine six weeks with them, and you might as well be spitting into the wind.

Feingold’s new popularity doesn’t guarantee him a spot, of course. And even if it did, Republicans might be just as happy to put their resources somewhere other than Wisconsin. There are other states they could lock with the Veep slot – Colorado, Iowa, Florida – that are as valuable as Wisconsin, or moreso.

Still, political junkies can’t help but be intrigued. Just by the possibility.

So I’ll close the same way I did months ago.

How about Clinton-Feingold vs. Rice-Thompson?

Stranger things have happened.

Shouldn't Voting Be Easier?

What’s the most important right we have? The right to vote. More important than the freedom of speech, or owning property, because the vote embodies the individual’s primacy over the government. Without the vote, freedom is at the mercy of those in power.

Thus, we have to protect the right to vote above all others. This has led to an interesting choosing of sides in Wisconsin politics.

On one side, those who want to make it more difficult to commit voter fraud, by requiring proof of identity at the polls – Photo I.D. On the other, those who want to remove barriers – obstacles in the form of bureaucratic requirements – and thereby make voting easier.

No, that’s not right – they don’t want to make voting any easier, they just want to prevent it from becoming harder.

Which begs the question: why not make it easier?

A small but significant minority in Wisconsin thinks Photo I.D. is a bad idea. As one blog commenter recently put it:

In a democracy, the thing that should be least difficult to do is vote. It is the most fundamental action within a government of, by, and for the people.

Those who seek to establish greater barriers to the exercise of the right to vote, in my opinion, do disservice to the ideals our country was founded on.

This is a common sentiment among Photo I.D. opponents – Photo I.D. will “disenfranchise” voters who don’t have and can’t get a picture I.D. Thus, it takes away this fundamental right – the most important one we have.

There is some disagreement over how many of these potentially “disenfranchised” people there are. Proponents have bent over backwards, trying to make acquiring a photo I.D. as easy as possible.

Still, the possibility will always exist. Forget the pro-I.D. arguments for a moment, and imagine you’ve been disenfranchised – unable to cast a vote – by a bureaucratic obstacle. In our society, this should be regarded as a fundamental wrong.

And it must happen, at least sometimes. Wisconsin today has what are among the most liberal voting requirements in the nation. Even so, especially given the sometimes-overwhelming turnout some polling places had last November, some votes have certainly been “lost” here.

We’ve all read the stories. Even seen it ourselves. Long lines at the polls. Big crowds. Chaotic conditions. Inexperienced and overworked poll workers. Even shortages of ballots on occasion. All of these conditions are obstacles to successful voting. All can cause voter disenfranchisement.

This is why Wisconsin law makes it as easy as possible to vote – to reduce the effect of those negative barriers. New voters can even register at the polls, on election day, without a picture I.D.

That doesn’t stop the chaos and confusion, though. In fact, same-day registration probably makes it worse. It’s an extra step, more waiting in line for already-exasperated voters, and lots of arcane regulations for overworked, overstressed poll workers to manage.

So: if the proper way to protect our most valuable right – the vote – is to remove bureaucratic barriers, then the only reasonable thing to do is: get rid of the registration requirement.

This would speed up the voting process. A lot. Poll workers would, mostly, just have to direct traffic. Just hand out those ballots and point to an empty booth. Less training required. Faster lines. Less confusion and chaos at the polls. Much less possibility that a voter will be discouraged, or that a vote will be lost in the quagmire of provisional balloting.

True, if we stopped registering voters, someone could quite easily vote several times, even returning to the same polling place later in the day to vote again.

But that’s already possible, and besides, our goal is to make voting easier. Remove potential barriers. Make sure every voter can cast a vote, and that every vote is counted.

Someone, somewhere, is thinking right now that I’m being ridiculous. That I’m being sarcastic, for the sake of making a point. That person is correct.

But, somewhere else, shouldn’t there be a Democrat, a liberal, someone like the commenter quoted above, who’s thinking there’s actually merit to this idea?

If not, then Democrats, liberals, and our commenter have drawn a line – we’ll make voting as easy as possible up to this point, but no further. Further restrictions, like requiring proof of identity, will “do a disservice to the ideals our country was founded on,” but the restrictions we already have don’t.

And I wonder how they came to that conclusion.

Dealing With the Freeze

Conjunctions can be tricky things.

Consider, for example, this lead paragraph from a Baraboo News Republic story on Sauk County’s budget:

Sauk County residents will get a 30-cent drop in their tax rate, but new state budget caps mean paying for services will be tight in 2006, according to a county official.

“But” is the conjunction. Mistakenly used, in this case. It confers a sense of conflict, of contradiction. As in, it’s really hot outside, but I’m sweating through my shirt.

It’s those same “new state budget caps” that are causing both the 30-cent drop in the tax rate and the fear of a tight budget next year – no ifs, ands, or especially buts about it.

Like most (if not all) local governments in Wisconsin, Sauk County’s Board is now dealing with a reality they’ve been fighting for the last several years. Despite the shaken heads, the disgust and disbelief, and especially the strongly-worded resolutions, the world of local government has woken up to a new and tighter cap on how much taxpayer money they can raise and spend.

And they got it from the same guy they trusted to protect them from it. Governor Doyle’s “property tax freeze” is on the books (barring an unlikely veto override), and it’s time to do the math.

Unless (or until) they figure out how to work the built-in loopholes, that is.

The new law limits Sauk County to a 3.4% increase in the tax levy – the raw number of dollars the county can get through the property tax.

I know what you’re thinking: wow, you’re rich! That’s almost twice the rate of inflation!

Indeed. That 3.4% means another $760,000 for the county to spend. Quite a healthy sum, and that doesn’t count other sources of income, like the sales tax (estimated growth next year: $600,000).

Since my house was assessed last year, it won’t be again this year. Thus, that 30-cent drop in the tax levy would, in a purely mathematical world, mean lower taxes for me next year, in real terms.

Not living in that purely mathematical world, I’m not sure what will happen – assessments are done on a very localized basis, and then are put through the state’s “equalization formula,” which spits your tax bill out the other end. On average, statewide, tax bills will be about the same next year as this, so I figure mine to drop, just a little.

Jealous? You shouldn’t be – you’re probably in the same boat, or at least on the same lake.

So, the county gets another $1.3 million to spend, without taking a dime more from me, or from any other taxpayer.

What, again, was all the ruckus about?

Granted, not every part of the state is as fortunate as Sauk County. Thanks largely to the Dells/Delton area and Dane County refugees, we have a lot of growth and a lot of tourism here. Thus, the new limit allows us faster growth in spending. Many local governments will be limited to 2% growth – the floor set by Governor Doyle’s freeze.

Tough to see what we can do about that, as long as we’re going to stick with local control of taxes and spending. We could just have the state collect and allocate it all, but if local officials don’t like the current system, they certainly won’t like that one.

Anyway, even in those slower-growing areas, they still have a way out – the voter referendum. They can spend more than the limit allows, if their voters give the okay.

That is, after all, the point. The will of the voters. What the citizens, the taxpayers, the voters want and are willing to pay – not what a government bureaucracy can convince a few board members we need.

A government that is limited, unless the voters agree to extend those limits. That was the original idea. That is what we’re trying to achieve.

It's a Win

Sometime yesterday, Wisconsin’s Department of Revenue released its annual report, telling us just how much property values – the basis of the property tax – grew last year.

The gist: they grew by a statewide average of nearly 10%.

The reaction: Wow!* That’s the most growth in a single year since 1980.

That’s good news: it means a healthy economy, and a wider tax base. That, we can hope, means lower overall tax bills for taxpayers.

That’s particularly the case this time around, because Governor Doyle signed the property tax “freeze.” A “freeze,” which won’t actually freeze property taxes, but will limit their growth to about 3% statewide – the percentage of growth due to new buildings, or improvements on existing ones.

Of course, not every place will be affected the same. That 3% is just an average. Some places got more, some places got less.

Sauk County got more – about 3.4%. Thanks to the freeze, Sauk County will only be able to raise the tax levy – not the tax rate, but the dollar amount they can take – by 3.4%. Since overall property values in the county have grown by over 10%, most of us should (repeat: SHOULD) see our individual tax bills go down next year.

As has been noted, the “freeze” does have some loopholes. The 2-year time limit is one – local governments can just make due until then. And bonding: in the recently-completed state budget, the state shifted real money from some areas (mainly roads) so they could spend it on other things (mainly k-12 education), and planned to borrow money to pay for roads. Local governments can take that page out of the state’s book to get around the limit.

But the biggest, easiest, most immediate loophole in the “freeze:” fees. As in: there’s nothing stopping local governments from simply raising fees and/or creating new ones to get more from their taxpayers.

The City of Milwaukee is already considering new and higher fees, to raise more money. The City of Baraboo is doing the same, with a storm water assessment and (possible, but unlikely) a new library assessment.

Those fees – especially those which affect everybody – make a mockery of the property tax freeze.

The temptation to use these loopholes will be greater in low-growth areas, because their tax base isn’t growing as fast, which means their limit will be stricter than areas with faster growth.

That’s ironic, because those low-growth areas are the ones that most need to keep their fiscal house in order, their taxes low, in order to attract new growth, expand their tax base, and bring in more money for those oh-so-valuable services.

Other than that, the freeze will work, more or less, for the next couple of years.

But that’s only for the next couple of years. After that: my money’s on a big jump in taxes, because local governments have been “starved” for two years.

Still, all problems aside, I’m pleased. Conservative reaction to Doyle’s “freeze” has been mostly negative, mostly focusing on the loopholes, and the time limit, and explaining why it won’t work because of all that.

And, of course, for the reasons I’ve listed above (and probably more), those criticisms are quite correct. To a lesser extent, they were correct about the Legislature’s freeze, too.

But I, a Wisconsin Conservative and foot soldier in the Tax Revolt Army, am taking some credit. I prefer to see Governor Doyle’s property tax freeze for what it is – a victory for our side. It wasn’t so long ago, remember, that Doyle couldn’t throw enough insults at the very idea of freezing property taxes. Since then, even he’s come to realize: standing in the way of the Tax Revolt is the fastest way back to the private sector.

And the best part: the Revolt gets a fresh batch of fuel in two years, when Doyle’s “freeze” thaws out.

*Actual reaction of Dale Knapp, research director for the non-partisan Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance.

Vetoing Photo ID - Why?

Sometimes, all you can do is scratch your head.

For example, when a leading politician does something tremendously stupid – or, at least, something that looks that way. And he does it not once, not twice, but three times. Even though he doesn’t have to.

Earlier today, Governor Doyle vetoed Senate Bill 42: a bill to require photo I.D. at the polls. The idea is simple: prove that you are who you say you are, so we know you’re not stealing somebody else’s vote.

As I’ve said before, Photo I.D. polls better among Wisconsin voters than Trident Sugarless Gum among dentists. It’s an 80% issue among Wisconsin voters – people want a secure election process.

Now, a politician – a leader – shouldn’t always go along with the majority. If he believes the majority is wrong, he should stand up and say so. Stand your ground, and if necessary, take your punishment. That’s what leaders do.

Is that what Jim Doyle is doing?

Well, he certainly knows he’s going against overwhelming popular opinion. That’s why he vetoed the bill on a Friday afternoon, when there’s certain to be as little media coverage as possible. He did the same thing the last time he vetoed it.

For the rest of it, well, Doyle’s doing his half-hearted best to show himself in a noble light. From his press release:

(Photo I.D. would make it) more difficult to vote for 177,000 Wisconsin seniors who do not have driver's licenses or state issued photo identification.

"Senate Bill 42 unfairly restricts the right to vote at the expense of far too many of Wisconsin's law-abiding, elderly citizens," Governor Doyle said. "Under this proposal - nearly one-quarter of Wisconsin's elderly population could be disenfranchised. I cannot allow that to happen."

Side note: does anybody else remember when it was minorities who were going to be disenfranchised? Interesting, that now it’s the elderly.

As has been pointed out already, ad nauseum, the latest version of Photo I.D. bends over backwards to prevent disenfranchisement. Can’t afford an I.D.? We’ll give you one for free. Can’t easily leave the retirement home? We’ll exempt you. Had your license confiscated? We’ll accept a copy of the order or citation.

That’s right. This bill even takes care of drunk drivers.

So: he’s telling 80% of voters to take a hike, and his excuse for doing so is, to be kind, flawed.

Why? Why, when there’s an easy and obvious way out?

Just tell Republicans you’ll sign the bill, as long as the Legislature also passes your own “Voters Rights Initiative” – a host of programs that will, you announce, ensure and protect every eligible voter’s right to vote.

Then, when it reaches your desk again, sign it. Announce to the world that you’ve solidified Wisconsin’s election law while protecting the weak and innocent from oppression.

See: Governor Doyle can have his cake and eat it, too. He can get himself on the popular side of the issue, take a big campaign issue away from the Republicans, and still champion the poor, weak, and elderly. Everybody’s happy, except his opponent in 2006.

Won’t voters remember him flip-flopping? Maybe, maybe not. The electorate tends to have a short memory, and anyway, a flip-flop on Photo I.D. would just highlight Doyle’s remarkable consistency.

He did, after all, oppose then support expansion of gambling, oppose then support a Property Tax Freeze, and oppose then support the far-reaching veto power granted Wisconsin’s governor.

Moral absolutism is not a requirement for working in the East Wing, I guess.

Which brings me back to me, scratching my head. When it’s so obviously easy, why doesn’t he get himself out of this?

He thinks vetoing the bill is politically smart? Obviously not: he’s doing it while nobody’s watching, and he knows it.

He and his staff are stupid? Hard to believe, with that many law degrees over there. Inexperienced, maybe? Easier to believe: Democrats haven’t had to run the state since 1986 – there could be an experience shortage.

He doesn’t want to be re-elected? Umm…

He knows he can only win with significant voter fraud? A tempting and fun accusation, but let’s be serious.

That only leaves me with this: Governor Doyle opposes Photo I.D. for the simple reason that Republicans want it so badly.

If true, it’s too bad. This is his chance to be a leader, to get real reforms passed into law, and to strengthen his own hand.

Three times he’s looked that opportunity in the face. Three times, he’s said no.

Lower Taxes: Not the Whole Answer

How would you like to own some lakefront property?

I suppose we’d all like that. Maybe. Depending on the taxes. Property taxes have averaged 5.2% growth a year over the last six years, so you might want to take that into account before you answer.

But not in this case. This lakefront property belongs to a friend of mine: over two acres (in two lots), wooded, including 50 feet of lake frontage. Her property tax bill this year: $206.

Granted, there’s no house on it or anything, but come on, my taxes on my little quarter-acre city lot are going to hit three large a year pretty soon, at this rate. How can her idyllic lake-and-woodland property cost so little?

Answer: it’s in another state. Michigan, in the Upper Peninsula.

However Michigan is paying for its government, they’re not sticking it to their property owners like Wisconsin. Yes, I know the next question: how high are their fees? Don’t know, but according to the Census Bureau (2002 data – latest available), Michigan ranked lower than Wisconsin in every category of per-capita taxes except fees – and even then, they ranked 22nd, we ranked 29th .

So they’re not exactly breaking their people with fees, either.

If there’s a silver lining to property taxes in Wisconsin, it’s the Tax Revolt. Voter/taxpayer frustration is getting plenty of attention – even normally liberal Democrats are wrapping their ideas in the mantle of “protecting the taxpayer,” from Governor Doyle’s embrace of the Property Tax Freeze, to the ill-named “HOPE” proposal.

The taxpayers want a break, and nobody wants to be the guy standing in the way. On the contrary: how would you like to be the one who brings taxes down to Michigan levels?

Do that, and start picking out drapes for the Governor’s mansion.

Sure, we’d have to make up the money somehow. Some of it, at least. Find another way to pay for schools, for law enforcement, courts, social services. The obvious thing to do: raise the income and sales tax rates.

Gasp! Did I just write that? Yes, and it would be worth it, if real, permanently lower property taxes came with the deal. Income and sales taxes are far less damaging than property taxes, because we only pay according to the money we have. Property taxes don’t care about that: they grow no matter what your income is doing.

Plus, for whatever reason, it’s much more difficult, politically, to raise income and sales tax rates. Property tax rates? They go up all the time.

Replacing property taxes with income and sales taxes is, in my opinion, a good idea – but not without real limits on how much our government can take from us.

See, just shifting the taxes around isn’t enough. Over time, they’ll keep right on growing, until we hit another Tax Revolt wall.

Yes, I know, I said it’s hard to raise income and sales tax rates, and it thankfully is. Doesn’t matter. When government can’t raise taxes, it simply creates new ones.

For example, the City of Baraboo’s proposed new stormwater utility district, complete with new tax assessments. Don’t push – there’s one for everybody. And the Baraboo Library Board’s proposed new “impact fee” on new housing developments. Not to mention all the fee increases Governor Doyle tried to include in the state’s budget – some of which made it, some of which didn’t.

This is why we need limits on government’s ability to spend – not just to tax. Limit taxes, and our government will simply find some other way to raise money. Property taxes not the answer? Raise fees. Already raised them? Create a new one. Create a new tax district, with a new tax.

Limiting government spending erases that loophole. Over time, it will mean the government taking less from each of us individually – our per-person tax burden should go down, as it has in Colorado.

Once that’s done, the battle will shift to a new theater: protecting those limits. That’s what happened in Colorado – the battle now is to protect those limits (they enacted a Taxpayer Bill of Rights in 1992) from those who think the government should have more power to tax and spend.

Thus, the real fight isn’t over dollars. The real fight is for hearts and minds: making sure enough people understand that their well-being, their way of life, their opportunities and successes don’t come from government, but from themselves. If we can do that, we’ll win.

If not, well, which way to Galt’s Gulch?

Extreme By Necessity

The two years I spent in local government were among the most frustrating of my life.

Thus, I can relate to Tom Kriegl, who was then and is still a member of the Sauk County Board, when he expresses his own frustration.

I don’t quite get where he’s coming from, but still.

In a letter to the Baraboo News Republic, Tom writes:

There are two "unhealthy" extremes in viewpoints about government spending.

One extreme opposes almost all government spending regardless of the purpose and consequences. This extreme believes private is always better than government.

The other extreme believes that for the roles government should fill, we shouldn't spend time analyzing what it costs, or how well it works.

Not to get too picky, but Tom’s two extremes are entirely unrelated to one another. Be that as it may. I can’t relieve Tom’s frustration, but I can explain where one source of it comes from.

Tom and I spent two years together on Sauk County’s Finance Committee. At the time, I’m certain he would have put me in his first category – heck, near the end of our term, I’d have put me there, too.

But his categorization is flawed, and not just because the categories don’t match up. Perhaps there are people who believe “private is always better than government,” as he says, but not many. Even staunch fiscal conservatives concede that things like law enforcement, road maintenance, and foreign affairs are best handled by government.

And while fiscal conservatives may call for less spending – or more public involvement – on the “social safety net,” higher education, and environmental protection, we rarely hear calls for complete elimination of government involvement.

It’s not an either-or question, you see. Not an all or nothing question. It’s a matter of degree: how much should government involve itself? How much should government do?

I’ll try to explain with an anecdote. Two years ago, when Tom and I were on the Finance Committee, we (the committee) decided to eliminate funding for one position in the District Attorney’s office – an executive assistant, if I recall correctly.

Yes, the DA’s office said that position was essential. Every department said the same thing about every position they had. We had a budget to balance.

That was only one of many specific decisions we made over the course of three days. Once we’d finished, I asked this question: which position is more important, the executive assistant in the DA’s office (which we’d cut), or the same position in the UW-Extension office (which we’d left alone)?

My point was: we’d established a level of spending, and now I felt we should take some time to better prioritize that spending.

The committee’s decision: keep both positions. Raise taxes to pay for it.

How did I become the sort of person Tom puts into his first category? That’s how. By sitting through meeting after meeting in which higher spending was always approved. Every item. Every request. Whether it was part of the budget process or not. Even after we’d agreed on some set of priorities, or goals, or limits. Those priorities and goals and limits would be forgotten weeks later, when the next request came in, accompanied by the usual half-dozen people explaining just how important it was.

God forbid we should tell somebody no.

It got so I, and others like me, felt we couldn’t afford to support any spending item at all, because the majority of the Board wouldn’t oppose any spending at all. They refused to set priorities and live by them: therefore, I had to do the same.

What made things worse was that we – the County Board and others – were constantly complaining that we had no long-range plan. My answer to this: what a laugh. We can’t stick to a plan for two weeks, much less five years.

And this isn’t a problem only at the county level. Oh, no. Every level of government, from the smallest towns and school districts all the way up to the feds, sees the same thing happen, over and over and over again.

This is why I favor limits on government’s ability to spend – strict, constitutional limits. With them, governments will be forced to prioritize. Forced to make choices. To stick to a plan.

Or, if they don’t, at least we know they can’t just jack up our taxes.

Once governments lose that ability, maybe Tom’s first category will fade to nothing. His second one, too. Until then, I’ll stay happily categorized.

A Beginner's Thoughts on Objectivism

A beginner’s thoughts on objectivism.

It was, oh, about a month ago that I started reading Ayn (pronounced, I’ve since discovered, Eye-na) Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged.”

A virgin, I was. Still am, I suppose, since I haven’t finished it yet: a week’s vacation and the release of the new Harry Potter book got in the way.

Vacation was great, thanks for asking. The new Potter book is better than the last one, but still not up to par with the first four.

Surprisingly (to me, anyway), I’ve encountered lots of people who never heard of “Atlas Shrugged.” Even though I’d never read it, I certainly knew what it is. Anyhow, that’s how I found myself in the unlikely position of describing it to somebody else, as unqualified as I was (and still am) to do that.

I called it “the Bible for fiscal libertarians.” Seemed like the simplest way to explain it, although I then found myself, twice, having to explain what a fiscal libertarian was, and in a situation like that, it just doesn’t do to mention Adam Smith and laissez faire.

To a degree, the book is as I described it. I plan to have copies of several speeches printed: Hank Reardon’s speech in court, and Francisco D’Anconia’s speech about money, and the speech by that guy Dagny met on the train to Utah – the unemployed guy, who’d worked at the motor company where they started that “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs” policy.

But the book is also more than that: as I understand now, it’s Rand’s attempt to explain her philosophy, objectivism, through fiction.

It was only after I found the Rand Institute website, and its brief description of objectivism, that I began to understand certain things. For example, Dagny’s wildly dichotomous personality. I couldn’t understand how someone who’s so commanding, so competent, so self-reliant, so inclusive within herself could become such a submissive wax figure with Hank Reardon.

The same goes for her apparent non-interest in Reardon’s marriage, and his inability to acknowledge her in public.

Perhaps an even better example: Reardon signing the “gift certificate,” handing over the rights to Reardon Metal to the government. Yes, I read his long thought process which took him from solid opposition to lackadaisical acquiescence, and I still didn’t get it.

Until, that is, I read a little about Rand’s philosophy. If I understand correctly, this states that every man is (or can be) an island, making choices and decisions based entirely on his or her desires, deductions, conclusions, whatever.

This is how Reardon was able to ignore all other factors and sign the gift certificate: despite the other industrialists who were counting on him to lead the fight against government-sponsored collectivism; despite his loathing of the bureaucrats who championed it; despite his previous promises to Dagny; despite the work and effort and investment he had put into Reardon Metal. He could be at peace within himself.

Same goes for Dagny, in her relationship with Reardon, and in her return to the railroad following the tunnel disaster. She tells Reardon that they will stick with their loves – hers, the railroad; his, his Metal – because they love them, no matter what the looters do. The two of them can be at peace within themselves with these decisions. They are islands, making their own choices regardless of what others do.

Here’s the problem: no man is an island. For better or worse, flawed or not, what other people think matters to my own well being. The expectations others have of me matter to me. Human beings are social creatures.

Leave that aside, though. Under certain circumstances, I can see Dagny being satisfied with her relationship with Reardon, but only if their relationship is cynical, emotionless, for physical pleasure only. I can see Reardon being satisfied with signing the gift certificate, but only as part of some other strategy by which he expects to attain his goals.

I can see the two of them being satisfied just running their businesses, and screw everybody else, but not under the circumstances presented. Under those circumstances, the government had placed itself in a position of absolute power. At any moment, their businesses could be nationalized. New rules could be put into place. They could be arrested.

By pursuing their own desires, by contenting themselves with this inner peace, they ignore whatever they might be able to do to forestall these possibilities: they concede the actual fight, being satisfied with whatever crumbs are left over. They satisfy themselves with whatever they can get now, while refusing to take action to keep themselves and their companies safe into the future.

Sure, they’d still be able to look at themselves in the mirror, and know they’d done their best. But they’d have lost. Whereas, if they had been more willing to play the game, they might have won. And this was my biggest frustration with the two of them: they were achievers who never let an obstacle stop them from their goal…until now. Now, they’re letting that obstacle have its way.

I suppose this is a bit of a paradox: the only way to maintain the ability to be an individual is to concede some of that individualism and be willing to play the political game. If absolute individualism – Rand’s objectivism – is your goal, you won’t be able to do that.

There’s another explanation, of course. Dagny and Reardon are just fictional characters, created by Rand to illustrate a point. But forget about that, or there won’t be anything to argue about.

One, But Not the Other

From the very first – back when he was still one of three Democrat candidates for Governor – Jim Doyle wanted to cast himself as a fiscal conservative.

To an extent, he’s succeeded, but he’s also missed an opportunity, and kept that opportunity alive for the real fiscal conservatives.

First, his success. Governor Doyle signed a Property Tax Freeze into law.

I know: it’s hardly what conservatives were hoping for. This freeze, as modified by Doyle’s veto pen, affects only about half of the property tax bill. What’s left has loopholes, and one thing we know about loopholes: if they exist, government will use them.

And I know: Doyle came pretty late to the party. Less than two years ago, Doyle was calling the Republican idea for a property tax freeze a “political gimmick” and “bumper sticker politics.”

But…it’s still a limit on local taxes. Expect Doyle to trumpet that he signed a property tax freeze from now until November 2, 2006 – the day voters decide whether or not he keeps his job.

By doing so, he clouds the tax issue. Takes it away from his Republican opponents – at least partially. Gives himself the credibility he needs to outflank them, or at least to keep from being outflanked himself. Conservatives will still harness taxpayer anger, but Doyle won’t be such a juicy target.

Will it work? Depends on what local governments do with their next two budgets. If property taxes slow, he’ll reap the benefits. If not…well, he’ll come up with something. But he won’t give up his claim to fiscal conservatism. He signed the freeze!

Which makes me wonder: why did he veto a state spending limit?

In order to sway Sen. Mary Lazich’s budget vote, the Senate added their provision to limit state spending growth (about half of it, anyway) to the rate of population, plus inflation, plus one percent – about 4.5% per year, average.

Sorry to say, it had a lot in common with Doyle’s version of the property tax freeze, which is to say: it looked good on paper, but in practice, it was about useless, for three reasons.

First, the state could have ignored or changed it at will, because it was only statutory, not constitutional. Second, it only affected the general fund – about half the state’s total spending. The state could still have raised fees and raided other funds (as they did this year, with the transportation fund) to keep right on spending. Finally, it only affected the state, which means the state could simply have shifted responsibility onto local governments without providing the money.

So: Doyle signed one relatively meaningless spending limit, but vetoed another one. He could have signed – and taken credit for – both, without harming the spending interests he needs to keep happy.

More importantly for Doyle and his allies, signing the Senate’s limit may have spelled the end of a constitutional Taxpayer Bill of Rights. Why bother, when we’ve already got one signed into law? Republicans wanted this in the budget, Doyle would have argued, and in a spirit of bipartisanship and protecting the taxpayers and being fair to local governments, I take full credit for having signed it.

Why, he would have asked, do Republicans now want another spending limit, without even giving this one a chance to work?

I believe this fairly falls within the realm of irony: by vetoing this meaningless spending limit, Governor Doyle has left the door to a Taxpayer Bill of Rights open. At least, more open than it would have been otherwise. Had he left it alone, that door might well have closed.