Partisanship for Fun and Profit!

ANAKIN: We need a system where the politicians sit down and discuss the problem, agree what's in the best interests of all the people, and then do it.

PADMÉ: That is exactly what we do. The trouble is that people don't always agree. In fact, they hardly ever do.

ANAKIN: Then they should be made to.

I’m a big fan of the adversarial process.

In the legal system, the adversarial process guarantees that each side will have a voice dedicated to its cause.

In politics, it means neither side gets a free pass. Everything is scrutinized. Everything criticized. And everything is harder.

Yes, harder. Sometimes that’s frustrating, it’s true. Sometimes I wonder why we can’t just get something done. Taxes. Security. Immigration reform. Social Security Reform. Something I know will make my life – and many others – better.

On the other hand, a government strong enough to give me everything I want is also strong enough to take everything I have. If our legislative process were so streamlined and efficient that my pet projects could sail through, then the same is true for those things I most don’t want.

It would all depend on who has the power at the time.

But we’ve got the adversarial process. Even when one party controls both our Legislative and Executive offices, the other party still has a voice. Not to mention – our system creates new adversarial fault lines. The longer one party holds sway, the greater the chance that party will begin fighting within itself.

And it’s a good thing, too. As Jonah Goldberg put it:

…the belief that a healthy liberal democracy is one in which partisanship has disappeared is not merely ignorant, it's dangerous. Liberal democracy ceases to exist when partisanship vanishes. Democracy is about disagreement before it is about agreement.

But we hate that, don’t we? We hate the partisanship, the bickering, the anger. We want more civility in discourse, more discussion and compromise instead of fighting and stonewalling.

That’s what the Janesville Gazette wants:

It would be nice if, instead of more pompous exaggeration and pretentious rhetoric, politicians started the New Year by returning civil discourse to Madison. It would be nice if they reached across the aisle and said, "Let's work together to solve this issue. Let's revisit the suggestions made last year by the governor's task force on school funding. Let's pick the best ideas and enact them."

How very precious. Just give the kindergarten class a good talking-to, and all will be well. Warmth and fuzziness for all. Kumbaya, my Lord, Kumbaya.

Fine. Let’s take their advice. I think we should give school vouchers to every child in Wisconsin, so their parents can pick whichever school they think best.

That’s the best idea. Let’s enact it.

What? You disagree? You think school districts need more flexibility to raise taxes, so they can spend more on teachers, training, and equipment?

Well. No agreement there, then.

I think the best idea is to pull back on the tax burden, mandate that Wisconsin be no higher than 24th in taxes nationally, and do away with the obsessive regulations that make Wisconsin a hard place to do business.

You think the best idea is to make businesses pay their “fair share,” and to enact more regulations to protect the environment.

I think law-abiding citizens can be trusted to carry concealed weapons. You think handguns should be outlawed.

I think the Taxpayer Bill of Rights is the best thing we could do for our state. You think it will turn Wisconsin into an economically depressed backwater.

I’m sure I’m right, and I think you’re hopelessly wrong. You agree with me on that, as long as we turn the pronouns around.

It’s not hard to see the immature naiveté in the Gazette’s (and Anakin Skywalker’s) concept, to just figure out what’s best and do that. It’s not always a matter of “picking the best ideas.” Sometimes, we disagree over the most basic things. Sometimes, we disagree over whether a problem even exists.

The adversarial system can get nasty. It can get ugly. Politics is a contact sport – if you’re not getting your nose bloodied now and then, you’re standing too far from your opponent.

But as much as we claim to hate the partisanship and bickering, the alternative would be much, much worse.

Enjoying Christmas

Note: due to circumstances entirely within my control, this column was posted roughly twelve hours late. Apologies to all my readers whose week revolves around my regular twice-weekly posting. Which basically means I'm apologizing to myself.

There’s more to Christmas than the presents.

Yes, of course. Cue the eye roll. We know, we know, more than just the presents. We hear it every year. We say it every year. I believe it, and deep down, I hope, so do you.

There’s more to Christmas than shopping, putting up decorations, baking eleventy-dozen cookies, and getting the Christmas cards mailed.

What, exactly, is there, other than that?

Actually, if one is not a Christian, not that much.

But then, the presents are more than just…well, presents.

Just three days ago, on Saturday, I thought our five-year-old was going to explode. Have an aneurism. Something.

Some family had come to celebrate Christmas a day early. You know how that goes – sometimes you just have to get together when you can. We sat. We visited. We had something to eat.

We, that is, excepting said 5-year-old. This was no time to talk. This was no time to eat. There were unopened presents under the tree.

The anticipation of Christmas is, sometimes, almost more than a child can take. I certainly remember it. One year my brother and I so doggedly nagged our mother that she finally gave in and let us open a few things early. Yeah, maybe I regretted it later. But my brain was addled by the hyper-anticipation of Christmas morning. I couldn’t see clearly.

One of my favorite Christmas memories is that of my daughter bouncing up and down on Christmas morning with such an abundance of nervous energy that books fell off a shelf on the other side of the room. And she didn’t even realize she was doing it.

This year, it was the 5-year-old’s turn. He hovered around the room in edgy impatience, , eyes glazed with the anticipation of ripping colored paper from hidden treasures, nervously dancing from the tree to whichever adult he could ask: “is it time to open presents yet?”

I thought he was going to explode.

Of course, we finally did open the presents. And then Santa Claus came and left him a Batmobile, and a tent for him and his little brother. And then there were stockings, and a few more presents from us, and from siblings, and from grandparents.

Oh, and he was pretty excited about handing out the presents he got for people, too.

It’s tempting to dismiss all this as crass materialism. After all, Jesus taught that we should forgo worldly goods. Give our money to the poor, rather than keep it for ourselves.

I can’t balance Jesus’ teachings with my own enjoyment of our present-centric Christmas morning. It’s not possible. This may well make me a hypocrite.

So be it, I guess. At the risk of paraphrasing Madonna (the pop singer, not the Savior’s mom), we live in a material world. Such temptations are everywhere, and all the time.

Maybe there’s a lesson here about teaching children to appreciate un-materialism by giving them presents. You know, learning how to be grateful even for a present you don’t like. Being discreet when it’s something you already have. Learning to enjoy watching someone else, other than yourself, opening presents.

There’s also the joy of watching someone open the gift you gave them – the one you made yourself (the kids made shrinky-dink ornaments and snowflake pillowcases this year), or the one you spent hours deciding on. The one you hope is perfect, because you want to make that person happy.

It may be rank rationalization, and if so then, well, okay. There will be no grand life-lesson here today.

As if any of those ever show up on this page, anyway.

I know someday the light of excitement will stop showing up in my children’s eyes on Christmas Eve, Christmas morning. So. Rationalization or not, I’m enjoying it while I can.

The Spirit of Christmas (whether we know it or not!)

What’s Christmas all about?

Shopping! What else? And baking, and decorating. Colorful giftwrap, big ribbons, and children jumping up and down so excitedly that things fall off shelves on the other side of the house.

Unbridled capitalism always makes me smile, and capitalism never seems quite so unbridled as on the last shopping day before Christmas.

Yeah, okay, so there’s supposed to be more to it than that. Whether you believe in Jesus Christ or not, whether you believe He was the Son of God, God himself come to Earth to save us from ourselves, there is more to Christmas than just spending money on the latest toy.

Here’s what I wrote in my Christmas column last year:

…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.

We spend a lot of money on a lot of worldly goods this time of year – hardly the epitome of the pure Christian worldview. But, at least, the season turns our minds more to charity, to being good neighbors, to making others – rather than ourselves – happy.

Or rather, making ourselves happy by making others happy.

That’s what Santa Claus is about, isn’t it? That’s all the big guy does – works all year to make everybody else happier. I’ll celebrate my 37th Christmas this year, and he’s never once sent me a bill.

Ah, but even more of a rub – Santa has become the symbol of what’s wrong with Christmas. The symbol of materialism, of wanting, of getting. Of turning away from the real meaning of the day – the birth of Jesus.

Santa Claus. Even the name smacks of we’re-bigger-better-richer-than-you Americanism. It’s a Westernization of an earlier name – Sinterklaas, which is what the Dutch still call him.

Sinterklass itself is a contraction of the name Sint Nicolaas – or Saint Nicholas. Jolly old St. Nick!

St. Nicholas was, before he became a saint, a living breathing person. Born in the 3rd century to wealthy parents, Nicholas was known even as a youth for his piety and devotion to Christ’s teachings. When his parents died, he devoted his wealth to charity. Some accounts say he ended up giving away every penny he had.

Traditional tales of Nicholas’ generosity include his throwing money into homes through open windows, or (in one instance) down a chimney. In the most common tale, the gold coins he threw landed in a shoe, sitting underneath the window.

Maybe that’s true, maybe not. There are other, similar, older legends that tell the same chimney/stocking/nighttime ride story.

Regardless, we know this much about St. Nicholas: his personal generosity was matched only by his belief in Jesus, and his desire to follow Jesus’ true teachings. He was imprisoned, even tortured, more than once because of his beliefs and his refusal to waver from them. He is the patron saint of, among other things, children.

Santa Claus is modeled after him.

Typical, isn’t it? Santa, that symbol of materialism, of childish greed, of whaddayawant for Christmas, is based on a guy who believed so fervently that he gave all his money away.

Capitalism and spirituality. Materialism and religious sacrifice. Pleasing the kids and pleasing God. Hoping for that special present, and hoping they like the present you give them.

We do it all!

At Christmas, especially, we do the things we do for mixed (and mixed-up) reasons. Sometimes conflicting reasons.

But at least we’re conflicted by the conflict. We recognize it. We’re inconsistent and imperfect and even hypocritical, and we know it. And we wish it were different, even if we can’t seem to change.

Those imperfections and inconsistencies have worked themselves into our very celebrations. I mean, sure, it’s Christmas, but what’s that? Religious or secular? Are we celebrating Jesus’ birth, or not? Are anti-religious zealots trying to de-Christianize one of Christianity’s most important days, or is Christmas just a Christian bastardization of pagan Winter Solstice traditions in the first place?

In the end, it really doesn’t matter. Sure, I think Christmas means a lot more with Jesus at its center, but even non-Christians get that spirit of giving and charity this time of year. Don’t they? I did, before I was a Christian.

If so, then at least we’re following in Santa Claus’ footsteps. St. Nicholas’ footsteps. Footsteps we didn’t create for ourselves, but were put there in advance for us to follow.

I Can't Stop My Leg!

A couple years ago, a local Baraboo toy store began selling anti-war merchandise – “It’s Time for Peace” yard signs and such.

At the time, I had very mixed feelings. Annoyance, at being confronted with this in a toy store. Respect, that the owner was willing to (potentially) put conscience before profits. Unease, because I wondered how much really was conscience, and how much simple Leftist hatred of the President.

Because the Left’s policy does seem to be: oppose whatever President Bush does, for no better reason than that President Bush does it.

And, sometimes, it seems that the Right’s policy is to support whatever President Bush does, for no other reason than that the Left opposes it.

I refer, naturally, to the (so far) media-driven kerfluffle over the NSA’s domestic wiretapping: spying on U.S. citizens who communicate with foreign locations, because we think there are terrorists at those foreign locations.

The New York Times sat on the story for a year, then suddenly decided the time was right to break it. Just as the Senate was voting on the Patriot Act.

Then the piling on began, most notably from our own Senator and wannabe-Vice President Russ Feingold, who is doing all he can to court the knee-jerk Left as we head into the Presidential sweepstakes.

Following the initial, liberal knee-jerking, came the conservative counter-knee-jerking. My knee jerked, at least. Almost broke my nose. Even though I knew (and still know) very little about the wiretapping program or the relevant laws, I automatically leapt to the President’s defense.

It’s troubling that I should have done so. It should trouble all of us if there is no small-government-conservative wrinkling-of-the-brow, at least, over the Feds using the monumental power of government to spy on U.S. civilians, no matter what the rationale.

Mind you, there appears to be a rationale. An airtight one. Legally (as the Wall Street Journal pointed out today); morally (according to Dick Morris); and politically (as John McIntyre explained).

But as a conservative, I consider it my sacred duty to distrust the government and everything it does, no matter who is currently in power.

George Will spoke for me with his usual accuracy: “Particularly in time of war or the threat of it, government needs concentrated decisiveness -- a capacity for swift and nimble action that legislatures normally cannot manage. But the inescapable corollary of this need is the danger of arbitrary power.”

That is the danger – the federal government is expansive, enormous, encompassing, and powerful. They’ve got the people, the experience, the know-how, the money. And, as one wise person once put it, liberty is never lost all at once – only a little at a time. Even if it was legal, moral, and right for the NSA to begin this program, we on the Right should be watching suspiciously.

Of course, regardless of what the Left is saying, there was Congressional oversight of the program. Bipartisan coalitions in both houses of Congress have approved of and voted to continue the program for the last two years.

And Democrats are fooling themselves if they think this will be a winning issue for them come next year’s elections.

But that’s beside the point. The point is, it’s up to us – conservatives – to be distrustful of government. We can’t wait for the liberals to do it, that’s for sure.

That means wanting answers about this wiretapping program. It means not giving the benefit of the doubt that the program is comfy-cozy, warm, fuzzy, and terrorists only.

That will be tough for conservatives, because it might undermine our national security. Good conservative skepticism, in this case, runs directly counter to other good conservative goals: a strong national defense; success, democracy and peace in the Middle East.

Worse, open doubting of the President and his policies means siding with the Left – the knee-jerk, opportunist Left. It could give the Left an opening to use our skepticism in their own propaganda.

Look! Even his own base opposes him!

And, boy, that really rankles.

Thankfully, in this case, the President appears to be right. Legally, morally, practically, and politically.

But it’s a short step from spying on Americans who are conversing with potential terrorists abroad, to spying on Americans conversing with other Americans inside our own borders.

Are we conservatives? Then we have to be troubled. And we have to watch.

Opposing Concealed Carry Opponents

I met a raving liberal the other day.

That may not be fair. He seemed like a raving liberal. He acted like one. And he taught me something: I can be driven to an opinion, simply by the inanity of liberal argument.

It was Tuesday – the day the state Assembly voted to let private citizens carry certain types of weapons – firearms included – if they first pass a background check and completed a safety course. Concealed Carry.

There was no reason for it to come up in our conversation – a brief meeting between two people who had never met before, and probably will never meet again. Usually, that means pleasantries, and shallow discussion of major topics: jobs, family, home towns. Nothing deeper than that.

Then he found out that I’m a Republican. His dislike of the Republican agenda – concealed carry especially – became topic number one.

He couldn’t believe it. Couldn’t fathom the sheer idiocy of wanting to arm every citizen. And he couldn’t pass up this chance to express his disgust.

Okay. Fine. I engaged him lightly, hoping to stay at the momentary-acquaintance level of conversation. No dice. Not that he was rude, necessarily, other than his pushy insistence on deriding my opinion – at least, the opinion he assumed was mine.

No big deal, though, right? Right or left, we’ve all been through it. And I never have to see the guy again.

But I left the meeting seething. Flabbergasted at the shallow blindness of his arguments.

Here’s a shocking twist: I don’t really care about concealed carry. If it becomes law, it won’t make any difference to our collective lives. If not: again, no practical difference.

Sure, if you put it in front of me, I’ll vote for it. People shouldn’t have their liberties constrained due to the crimes of others.

That’s what the ban on concealed weapons is. Because others use guns to commit crimes, none of us are allowed to carry them. We are all considered threats to society, no matter how mature, sober, responsible, civilized we are. Our actions have to be constrained, lest we randomly open fire.

Is that what the Founding Fathers had in mind?

Philosophy aside: I can’t get excited about the issue on a practical level.

Six months after concealed carry becomes law, I predict most people will have forgotten all about it. Very few people will apply for and receive the permits, and even fewer will actually carry a weapon. Unless a permit holder opens fire in a crowded restaurant (for whatever reason), the subject will pass into the nebulous limbo of yesterday’s fad.

The reverse is, I think, also true. If it never becomes law, it won’t make much difference.

And yet…here I am writing about it. I’ve written about it before. I’ve stood up to be counted with the rabid pro-concealed carry crowd.

Why? When I don’t really give a hoot, and never have, why do I so adamantly support it?

I learned the answer Tuesday night. It’s because I can’t stand the arguments against it.

This guy’s basic point was: he doesn’t want people walking around armed. He doesn’t understand why (extra derision here) a bunch of wannabe cowboys think their manhood depends on packing a Magnum .44 on their way to work. He’s afraid of road rage gunfights.

He doesn’t want to worry that the person next to him might have a gun.

The intellectual banality of his argument would be astonishing, if it weren’t so commonplace. His reasoning is indistinguishable from the standard liberal/Democrat line – allow concealed weapons, even for the most responsible citizens, and we’ll all be in more danger.

You are a criminal. That’s the bottom line. No matter what your background, history, demeanor, beliefs, or training, if you are allowed to carry a gun, you will become a dangerous liability to society. An irresponsible yahoo. A homicide waiting to happen.

Ward Cleaver plus a pistol equals Norman Bates, but without his sense of civic responsibility.

There I stood, in my bulky winter coat, wanting to ask the guy whether I was armed. I could have been. Him, too. And any of the other Wisconsin-winter-dressed people around us. The situation he fears so much already exists.

But never mind. That’s logic. No help there.

Call me shallow, if you like, but I can’t stand it. It’s too blind. Too unreasonable. And much too widespread, even among people smart enough to know better. It makes me want to oppose it.

So here I am.

Allies Clash over the Gas Tax

By the time you read this, the state Assembly may already have voted to end automatic gas tax increases.

If so, we’re waiting for the Governor to act. Waiting for that will mean more amusement, as the debate over automatic increases in the gas tax …

Well, increases. Or at least continues.

Amusing, I say. It’s important that I be amused. If for no other reason, it saves me from despair.

Why despair? Because of the people who have come out to support the automatic increases. They’re not just any people – they’re people who should know better. People who, normally, are reliable advocates for lower taxes, and smaller government.

Not this time. This time, they’re arguing the other way. And the argument goes like this: “government needs more money!”

Writing in the Wisconsin State Journal, the Transportation Development Association’s Bob Cook writes:

Indexing has worked so well that most residents take our exceptional transportation system for granted. Those days appear to be coming to an end.

Translation: if you don’t let us raise your taxes, life will get worse. Your quality of life depends on your government spending more.

Gas tax indexing has become the easy target for state legislators who are looking to score political points as they enter an election year.

Political points with…the people who elected them in the first place. The automatic increases are unpopular with the voters. Remind me who’s supposed to be in charge again?

Not that political courage, standing against the tide, is a bad thing. But in this case, the “tide” favors more oversight over our government. Standing against the tide means standing up for bigger, more powerful government.

Skipping ahead:

If the commitments to fund transportation are not backed by political courage, repeal of indexing will jeopardize economic development, highway safety, local road programs and services like snowplowing. It will reduce transit services for the low-income and elderly and disabled. Over time, repeal of indexing will require Wisconsin residents to pay with lost lives, lost jobs and lost time.

Let us take more of your money, or your life will get worse.

Now, back a little further, because this part needs more explanation:

Legislators claim that the annual increase for inflation, which totals approximately $26 million, is taxation without representation. They conveniently ignore the fact that sales and income taxes will increase approximately $535 million next year without any vote.

He’s both right and wrong. Right, that sales tax revenues will grow next year, as they do every year. Wrong, because there was a vote on that $535 million. The Legislature voted to appropriate that money when they voted on the state budget.

Cook is glossing over an important distinction: the difference between tax revenue and the tax rate. That $535 million is an increase in revenues at the same tax rate. An increase, brought about by a bigger population, earning more money, which equals more consumption. The sales tax grows as a result of taxpayer behavior.

The gas tax increase is a change in the government’s behavior. A change that occurs with no debate, no input, and no vote.

But these are quibbles over minutiae, as far as I’m concerned. The big issue is this: do our lives really depend on government spending?

Cook, and others who agree with him, think it does. Just peruse those quotes again: “…repeal of indexing will require Wisconsin residents to pay with lost lives, lost jobs and lost time.”

Death! Destruction! Poverty!

All due respect, of course, but (as a like-thinking buddy put it) this argument is a bunch of hooey.

Indexing is not the only way to increase funding for roads, if in fact we need more funding. The Legislature has the power – and will still, after the repeal – to spend more on roads. They could cut spending elsewhere. Issue more bonds. Raise taxes. Or find ways to cut waste. Be more efficient.

Cook’s argument amounts to this: more government power is the way to solve our problems, make our lives easier, and our society more successful. Less government power does the opposite.

Again, hooey. And many of the very people making that argument would, on other tax issues, say the same thing.

The War(?) on Christmas

I feel so…elite.

Why, you ask? Because I’m one of the 1.4 million Americans who got a Christmas card from the White House.

Cool. Sure, I know they’re auto-signatures, and not the real deal. I know Laura didn’t spend any time wondering which card I’d like to get. But still. The gold ink, the White House address, the Presidential seal.

Cool. My kids are impressed. And since I don’t have many years of that left (teenagers ahead!), I’m milking it for all I can.

A picture of the White House, laden with snow, adorns the front. Three semi-nondescript animals (two dogs and a cat, I believe) dot the softly frozen landscape.

Inside, the Presidential Seal, the two auto-signatures, and a wish for “a holiday season of hope and happiness.”

Oh, and there’s also a psalm:

The Lord is my strength and my shield;
In Him my heart trusts;
So I am helped, and my heart exults,
And with my song I give thanks to Him.

Psalm 28:7 (RSV)

It’s obvious, isn’t it? President Bush has joined the War on Christmas, and he’s on the other side.

The Washington Post picked up the story this week.

"This clearly demonstrates that the Bush administration has suffered a loss of will and that they have capitulated to the worst elements in our culture," said William A. Donohue, president of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights.

Bush "claims to be a born-again, evangelical Christian. But he sure doesn't act like one," said Joseph Farah, editor of the conservative Web site WorldNetDaily.com. "I threw out my White House card as soon as I got it."

Wow. And here I was, excited to get it. I’d actually thought the Bible quote counted for something. It did, with me.

But, obviously, not with everyone. The War on Christmas, as it’s been coined, brooks no dissent. You’re either 100% with us, or you’re with the enemy.

The War on Christmas. The ongoing “battle” to remove references to this Christian holy day from the public sphere. Happy Holidays, instead of Merry Christmas. “Holiday” trees, parades, parties, events.

And that’s all just a microcosm of the movement to remove all things Christian from anywhere they might offend a touchy atheist, Muslim, Jew, pagan, or…well, take your pick.

We have a real interest in protecting equality and the right of expression in our society. Christian symbols, holidays, and expressions should be given just as much respect as any other – but sometimes, it seems that they’re not.

Sometimes, it seems like Christmas is the one thing we’re not allowed to mention. That’s annoying, and more: that’s dangerous to a free society.

But identity politics – that’s annoying, too. And that’s exactly what this “War on Christmas” is becoming.

Is there ever a time when we can say “holiday?” Can we ever refer to this time of year – this time of Advent, Hanukkah, the Winter Solstice, Kwanzaa, Christmas, and New Year’s – as a holiday season?

Must we, as Christians, take offense?

Maybe it’s because President Bush is a born-again Christian, who called Christ his favorite philosopher in a 1999 debate. I’m sure the two gentlemen quoted in that Post story simply hoped for more in a Christian President’s holiday – oops, I mean Christmas – message.

Well, I think they should get a grip. They’re becoming identity-group hucksters – no different than the ethnic and gender “leaders” who are so quick to huff and puff over every transgression, no matter how tiny or imagined.

If a grade-school student’s artwork isn’t displayed with his classmates’ because it portrays the Manger scene, that’s something to complain about.*

When a UW-Eau Claire student is told he can’t hold Bible study meetings in his dorm room, that’s something to complain about.**

Complain about them, because they’re encroachments on personal liberty. On our freedom to express our beliefs.

But to complain about the word “holiday” – and to complain so loudly and bitterly, impling widespread conspiracy against Christianity – cheapens otherwise valid arguments.

Especially when the word is accompanied by a Bible verse.

Perhaps there is such a conspiracy. If so, I’ll meet it as Christians have since…well, since Jesus. I’ll practice my faith openly, and try to be a role model to others who might follow suit.

But I’ll let others be offended by a word, said in the spirit of friendship and joy. I’ll let others rant and rail against imagined slights.

I wish they wouldn’t, but, well, freedom of expression. It cuts both ways.


* I made this one up.

** This one is real.

Feingold and the Axe

For a little while on Sunday, I was in a really good mood. Nearly the same mood I was in back on October 23. For a little while.

Why, you ask?

Because for a little while on those two days, the Green Bay Packers were beating their two biggest rivals – the Bears and the Vikings. They were doing it on the road, in front of Chicago and Minnesota crowds. And life was good.

That the Packers eventually blew those leads and lost both games is beside the point. At least, it’s beside the point I want to make.

Winning is sweet. Winning against an entrenched and hated rival is even sweeter.

But schooling said rival on his own field. In front of his own fans. That’s beyond sweet. That’s nirvana.

Think Wisconsin Badgers, running around the field with Paul Bunyan’s Axe. Running around the field…where? In Minnesota.

As I spent a great deal of time and energy explaining to my wife that blessed Saturday, there is no greater joy than taking the Axe away from the Minnesota Golden Gophers in their own stadium.

Golden Gophers. Please.

Which brings us back to politics.

Wisconsin’s junior Senator, Russ Feingold, is going to take a shot at the Presidency. He hasn’t come straight out and said so, but come on. We all know he’s angling for the Big Chair.

Or maybe not. He may also have Chair Number Two in his sights. An invitation to ride along on a presidential ticket. Maybe it’s his main goal. Or maybe he’s just open to it, as a fallback position.

As I’ve suggested before, Feingold would be a great pick for the Vice President slot. He’s “progressive,” experienced, well-spoken, Jewish, and enjoys a solidly positive reputation in his own home state.

And lately, he’s been polishing his moonbat-Lefty credentials, all the better to outflank potential rivals. Sure, he voted for President Bush’s Chief Justice nominee, but he also called for that definite-sorta-let’s-be-flexible “deadline” on Iraq, and more recently suggested that the Iraqi government is a sham, which doesn’t represent the Iraqi people.

And don’t forget, he voted against the Patriot Act and co-authored the McCain-Feingold campaign reform bill. He can make a real claim to John McCain’s maverick coattails.

All that aside, it’s his home state that gives Feingold the best chance for a serious look. Wisconsin, with our seemingly negligible ten electoral votes, is a swing state. A very close swing state, in two straight nail-biting elections.

Changing Wisconsin’s 10 electoral votes from a “maybe” to a “definite yes” would be a very big deal, considering the last two margins of victory. Big enough, I think, to make Feingold a very attractive Vice President selection.

I can think of one other prominent Democrat in a similar position: Bill Richardson, the Governor of New Mexico. His advantages: he’s a Governor, he’s Hispanic (though he doesn’t look it), and Bush won his state (barely) last time. His disadvantages: New Mexico has only 5 electoral votes to Wisconsin’s 10.

Having Feingold on the ballot, whether it’s in the first or second spots, would be a mixed blessing for conservatives and Republicans in Wisconsin.

On the one hand, it would likely mean that Wisconsin again goes into the Democrat column – something we’ve done every Presidential year since 1988. This is a losing streak that is beginning to grate.

On the other hand, it would also mean a lot less attention paid to Wisconsin during the next election, probably. A lot less pressure on activists on both sides to win. Is that a bad thing? Maybe. But a lot of activists – volunteers especially – from the last two elections are still flat-out exhausted. Not looking forward to the three-peat. I bet many of them – even Republicans – would welcome a cycle off.

But this brings me back to the Packers, and the Badgers.

Putting Feingold on the ballot, whichever spot he’s in, should-could-would, pundits will say, put Wisconsin squarely into the Democrat column.

Wouldn’t it be sweet to win anyway?

No. Beyond sweet. That would be Paul Bunyan’s Axe.

Why Gas Prices Matter

Gas. Not the kind you took away from the Thanksgiving table. The kind you put in your car.

We’ve been talking about it a lot, haven’t we? How much it costs. Why it costs so much. Whether we’re getting gouged. Whether there ought to be a government-mandated markup in the price.

Whether we should have to pay so much in gas taxes, and whether those taxes should go up every year, automatically.

We do pay a lot. Nearly 33 cents a gallon this year, including the 3-cent PECFA fee. That’s already more than any other state, and of course, it’s going up again next year. We’re one of three states that index our gas taxes to inflation.

Gas taxes pay nearly 70% of what the state spends on highways and local road aids. Highways are important – you can’t run a modern economy without them.

Yes, I’m aware of the cyber-revolution and Internet commerce. Oh, sorry, didn’t mean to yawn in your face like that.

Take a long look at your computer. Did it get there through your phone line? Nope. Not through your cable line, either. It came by truck.

Trucks run on gas.

This is why the price of gas is such a big deal – it’s not just the way higher gas prices hit our wallets. Everything around you, the chair you’re sitting in, the rug you’re standing on, the screen you’re reading this on: it all came to you by car, to the store by truck, to this country by ship. When fuel prices rise, it increases the price of everything we buy.

And not only once: the store charges more because the distributor had to charge more. The distributor charges more because the manufacturer had to charge more. The manufacturer charges more because his suppliers had to charge more. Add it up.

Now, two companies competing with each other don’t really care what the gas prices are – not to a certain extent. As long as their competitors have to pay the same prices, it all evens out. They pass those costs onto their customers.

That’s where the rub will come in: higher fuel prices mean less disposable income, which means we – the consumers – will buy less, which means less business for businesses.

Not to mention that my little model, of two companies competing with each other, is nowhere near adequate. We live in a global economy, with companies that span states, nations, continents, even oceans.

Conservatives argue that taxes are an important factor in national and international competition. Liberals argue that, when compared to labor and material costs, taxes are a tiny fraction of a company’s overhead, thus of little importance.

Okay. But when you’ve got an obvious disparity in any cost, it’s going to have some effect.

Let’s get back to gas prices. The website www.gasbuddy.com is a great resource for comparing prices among states and major cities.

And, by comparison, Wisconsin’s gas prices are pretty high. Higher than the national average:

And higher than our immediate neighbors, Michigan and Minnesota (in the first chart) and Iowa and Illinois (in the second):





(sorry about the small charts: click for a larger version. Wisconsin is the blue line in the first, the green line in the second and third.)

Something important to notice here: in Iowa and Minnesota, gas is taxed at 20 cents per gallon. In Michigan and Illinois, it’s 19 cents. The national average is 21 cents.

Ours is between 12 and 14 cents higher.

Not exactly the same, but nearly the same as the gap between our prices and theirs.

Seems like a place where our government could do us all a favor, doesn’t it?

I know the counterargument: we have to pay for our roads. If not from the gas tax, where do we get the money?

A good question, to which there are all kinds of answers. My favorite: our government can set priorities, and spend less somewhere else.

That means making somebody – whatever spending interest supports whatever priority is deemed lowest – mad. It could mean trouble for our political leaders – the ones brave enough to make a stand. Taking a stand always means bad press, nasty letters, angry floor speeches from the other side.

Sorry about that, but nobody said it was easy being in charge.