Benevolent Government

It’s an economic law that goes well beyond economics: the easier something is, the more of it will happen.

That goes for a product – you’ll sell more at a lower price, and less at a higher price. It goes for behavior, too: lower the fine for speeding to a buck, and watch average speeds hit eighty.

Supply and demand. A simple idea.

The conservative’s favorite example is: lower taxes make economic activity cheaper, thus more common. That means more growth, more jobs, more money.

And more taxes paid. Higher government revenues, because of lower taxes. Looks like a paradox, but it isn’t.

Herman Cain laid this all out for us in his column this week:

…for the first five months of fiscal year 2006 are up 10.3 percent from the same period a year ago. The 2006 revenue growth adds to a 15 percent tax revenue increase from 2004 to 2005. This good fortune for U.S. Treasury coffers is attributed to the steady and growing economy, which is largely a product of the 2003 cuts in income, dividend and capital gains tax rates.

Read the whole thing. To conservatives, this is common sense, not to mention historical fact.

But there’s another perspective. It still relies on supply and demand, but through a glass, darkly. Government largesse, making life easier and cheaper. Government spending, services, programs, improving our standard of living and thus making Wisconsin – and Baraboo – a better “buy.”

The argument appears again – just as benevolently, and just as wrong – in the debate over school funding. More funding, proponents say, means a stronger economy.

Here’s an excerpt from a pro-referendum letter in today’s Baraboo News Republic (not online), making that very argument:

The quality of life in the community is a part of the sales pitch, and the quality of the local school system is paramount if the employee has children. If the local school system is sub-par or in decline (or if it’s perceived to be in decline), that will affect a company’s ability to attract good employees. In our case, if those good employees choose to accept employment opportunities elsewhere, Baraboo area businesses may have to settle for less qualified individuals. This, in turn, may have a negative effect on the success and profitability of those businesses in years to come. Less profitable businesses contribute to a community in decline, or at the very least, a community that is not as strong as it could be.

To a point, this is true. The Laffer Curve, a mathematical model, shows taxation is good for an economy…to a point. Some government – police protection, infrastructure – is necessary for a stable community, which is necessary for a healthy economy.

But only to a point. When taxes get too high, they drag the economy down. There’s such a thing as too much of a good thing – food makes you strong and healthy, until you start eating too much of it. Government gives us a safer and more efficient community, until it gets too big.

Then it becomes the Borg.

It doesn’t work, for the same reason socialized medicine doesn’t work. Yes, government programs make my life cheaper – thus, I want to consume – “buy” – more of it. But it doesn’t make our community’s life cheaper – somebody is paying for it.

Government can’t spend a dollar without first taking that dollar from someone. Every dollar (or dollar and a half – gotta feed that bureaucracy!) the government takes means that much less circling through the economy with free-market efficiency.

More dollars free-wheeling through the free-market economy – that’s what makes tax cuts work.

The opposite is also true. Wisconsin’s taxes and regulation are chasing money and people out of the state – those with greater net worth, greater earning ability, are moving elsewhere.

The fact that Wisconsin has great schools isn’t keeping them, because it isn’t keeping – or attracting – the businesses. Neither is Wisconsin’s work ethic, our nice friendly people, our beautiful landscapes, or our standard of living.

Being a high-service, high-spending, high-taxing state isn’t working.

Reducing the size and power of Wisconsin’s government – less regulation, less bureaucracy, fewer tax dollars – will improve the bottom line for business, which will mean more business, more employees, and more paychecks.

Which, in turn, will mean more revenues for the government. Including the schools.

We can’t start by wanting more government. We can only start by wanting less.

Change the System, but Not the Vote!

Does our school funding system need fixing?

That question has come up a lot recently – except, not as a question. It’s a statement: we need to fix school funding!

It’s come up a lot, because we Barabooians will vote on a school referendum on April 4. The school district wants an additional $1.5 million a year for the next 5 years, and the voters have to decide whether to give it to them.

I’ll be the first to say: our school funding system may well need fixing. But not because Baraboo schools are strapped, or think they are.

In a nutshell: state law limits how much school spending can grow each year by applying a formula, based on enrollment. A faster-growing student body equals faster spending growth.

Then there’s another formula, based on property values, which assigns state aid to each district (low-value areas get more). Subtract what you get from this formula from the amount you got from the first formula, and viola! That’s how much the district can take in property taxes. If a district thinks they don’t have enough, they can ask the voters to let them spend more.

That’s how we fund our schools. A growing number of people (it seems) think this system is broken, and needs to be fixed.

My question to them: why?

I have one possible answer: there may be a built-in constitutional problem. High-value districts can raise property tax money faster and easier than low-value districts. State aids don’t go far enough to equalize spending between the property-rich districts and property-poor ones, thus property-rich districts tend to spend a lot more per student. The state constitution requires uniformity in education “as far as practicable.”

If you believe that more money equals better education, this might prove we need to change the system.

But. I doubt constitutional uncertainties are the reason we’re hearing calls for change in Baraboo today. Odds are, the real reason is a simple one: they want more money. They want it to be easier for our schools to spend more, and thus avoid another such “crisis.”

Never mind that no amount of money will ever be enough for any government, agency, bureaucracy. Not for long.

Never mind that school spending, statewide, is growing about 5% a year. Never mind that Baraboo school spending is growing at about 4% a year. Never mind that, despite these “limits,” Wisconsin’s students continue to rank among the best in the nation. And never mind that anytime the schools think they need more money, they can have more, if they convince the voters – the taxpayers, the owners – that it’s both necessary and worthwhile.

What’s wrong with that? Four percent growth a year seems reasonable, to me at least. Five percent seems generous. If not, come and ask us for more. We can say yes, and live with the higher taxes, or say no, and live with whatever budget decisions the school board makes.

I guess it’s too much of a burden, though. Having to live within a budget. Having to ask for more. Actually having to ask, instead of simply taking it.

Oh, yeah. We definitely need a new system.

I guess I’ve been pretty clear where I stand on this referendum – I’ll be voting no. And I’ll be voting no on every government request for more money until such time as taxes only take – oh, say one dollar out of every ten earned in Wisconsin, instead of one out of three.

I’ll also want somebody to explain to me (convincingly) why government schools have to spend so much more than private schools.

But let’s be clear about this, too: if the referendum passes, I’ll pay the extra taxes and move on. That’s what we do: we vote, we win or lose, and then we move on.

I sure like being asked. I like it that there’s a limit on how much the schools can take in taxes, and how much they can spend. I like it that they can ask us for more, and it’s up to us whether or not they get it. Win or lose, I like it that they have to ask.

I wish all other levels of government had to do the same thing.

The school funding system may well need changing. But if “changing” is simply a euphemism for removing limits, and taking power away from the voters, you can count me out.

What I Wish I’d Said

Isn’t it just the way? You know, always thinking of what you should have said, but too late. On your way home.

Me, for example, on my way home from Tuesday’s debate over Baraboo’s anti-war referendum. If only I’d said this, handled that differently, known the other thing at the time!

Bush Lied!

This rhetorical gem came up several times Tuesday night. Bush lied to us, misled us into war. There were no weapons of mass destruction.

False, and provably so. No, we never found the stockpiles we thought Saddam had. But to conclude that Bush Lied! is to ignore the very recent past.

Saddam did, in fact, have WMD – both chemical and biological weapons. The United Nations itself reported as much:

“UNSCOM has supervised or been able to certify the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless of large quantities of chemical weapons (CW), their components and major chemical weapons production equipment…”

I asked the audience: could the UN have done this, if Saddam didn’t have WMD?

The report lists specific materials, and specific amounts. Chemical weapons, biological weapons, delivery systems. He had them, and he used them.

Not to mention all the prominent liberals and Democrats who called Saddam a terrorist threat who might one day use WMD (or cause it to be used) against the US.

I had evidence, the audience didn’t. And they left, unconcerned. I should have pushed it harder.

Perhaps there is a logical path to the conclusion that Bush Lied! If so, it will have to explain why the UN and so many prominent Democrats were also lying.

That, or how Bush (that chimp! That moron! That intellectually incurious village idiot!) knew Saddam didn’t have WMD, when the rest of the world thought he did.

The war costs too much.

Let’s be honest: the 2006 budget was almost 10% bigger than 2005’s. Spending in the Bush administration is growing at twice the rate it did in the Clinton administration. The war (as one gentleman claimed) has so far cost $19,000 per American household.

And not only that (as my opponent claimed): Bush is slashing veteran’s benefits at the same time that he’s breaking the bank to send our troops to war.

How can conservatives support this?

It’s true, the war costs a lot. From 1993 to 2001, spending on national defense grew an average of 0.6% per year. Since then, it’s grown 11.7% a year.

Yet, the rest of the budget hasn’t starved. In fact, it’s bloated on pork.

Non-defense discretionary spending has grown 7.8% a year since 2001 – between three and four times the rate of inflation, and well faster than personal income. Medicare spending has grown 9% a year. Education: 10.1% a year. Energy: 6.4% a year. General government: 5.7% a year.

Oh, and veterans’ benefits: 7.9% a year.

Slashed, did you say?

I wish I’d known that on Tuesday. A lack of foresight on my part.

The problem here isn’t bad priorities – it’s no priorities at all. National defense is one of the main reasons we have a federal government. We are at war. Defense spending has risen, as it should. Preventing another 9/11 is worth that.

Human Rights.

Remember Bosnia? Somalia? Haiti?

Why did we send troops to those places? Our security wasn’t at stake. These were humanitarian missions.

There are real humanitarian reasons for being and staying in Iraq, as well. I did say that Tuesday night.

I wish I’d also asked: isn’t it a good thing that Iraqis are voting? That Iraqi women are voting? That girls are going to school? The drained marshes are being restored? Religious practices that were brutally suppressed are now being practiced openly? The children’s prisons are closed? Dozens of newspapers, hundreds of candidates for office?

I opposed going to Bosnia, because there was no security issue. Yet I hedged, inwardly, because I was at least glad to be easing those people’s suffering.

We can’t be the world’s policeman. Human suffering and dictatorship aren’t enough reason to send in the Marines.

But can’t we still be glad, when we do relieve suffering? No matter what you think about why we invaded Iraq, whether we’re to blame for 9/11, whether “they” are right to hate us: don’t you have to admit that we’ve done some good in Iraq? That Iraqis have a chance today that they didn’t have five years ago?

Liberals used to care about such things. At least, they did when Bill Clinton was giving the orders. Oh, how I wish I’d said that.

Support the Troops - Defeat the Referendum

Note: tonight, I participated in a debate over Baraboo's anti-war referendum. Due to my preparations for that event (and a lot of busyness at work and at home) I present tonight my opening statement in place of a regular column.

I wrote this to be spoken (with frequent diversions from the text), not just read. I'd be interested to hear what my regular readers (both of you) think about the difference in quality.

First of all, my thanks to the organizers (Bring Our Troops Home – Baraboo). This is a group that formed to create and support this referendum – it would have been easier for them to simply hold a pro-referendum event. That they invited the other side speaks very highly of them.

This referendum calls for an immediate phased pullout of our troops from Iraq. I’ll say right up front: the issue here is whether or not we support our troops.

That's not simply a statement of patriotism, or something meant to scare people into agreement or cast a bad light on those who disagree.

There is a real security issue for Iraq, for the US, for the enemies of terrorism, and for our troops – a real security issue both right now, and into the future. If we support the troops, we must support their mission, and defeat this referendum.

Osama bin Laden once called the US a paper tiger. We can talk tough, but when it comes to action, we don’t have what it takes. We can’t sustain a long effort. If things are difficult enough, we will quit. That was his opinion of the US.

We know that al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations don’t seek to fight the US military. Their goal is to wear down US public opinion, bring pressure on our political leaders, and cause us to withdraw before the job is really finished.

That’s the lesson they learned from Vietnam, - In 1990, a North Vietnamese general said during an interview: "We were not strong enough to drive out a half-million American troops, but that wasn't our aim. Our intention was to break the will of the American government to continue the war."

That’s the lesson Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups have learned. They learned it from Somalia, and they learned it throughout the 1990s when our responses to terrorism were to launch single cruise missiles from miles away. A cruise missile here, a cruise missile there, but the main thrust of our defense policy was not to win, but to avoid casualties.

This referendum, calling for withdrawal, is exactly the sort of thing Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, and the people who want to bring dictatorship back to Iraq are hoping for.

If we pass it, and if the twenty or so other communities in Wisconsin pass theirs, we’re sending the message to Al Qaeda that they were right about us. They can act with impunity. We may respond militarily, but all they have to do is wait us out, because we do not have the stomach for a long effort.

Terrorist leaders will use this proof – and they will call it proof – to bolster the morale of their followers. Morale is an extremely important factor for any fighting unit, whether an elite military unit right down to a group of street thugs. Karl von Clausewitz, an 18th century Prussian general who wrote the book “On War,” called it the single most important thing.

Higher morale means more willingness to be aggressive, to be bolder, to take risks and go on the offensive. Higher morale among America’s enemies will place our troops in greater danger right now.

If you were a leader of a terrorist group in Iraq, and news that Americans were beginning to vote against the war reached you, what would your reaction be? Positive, probably. You’d probably see it as evidence that you’re winning. That you just had to hold on a little longer. Maybe you would decide to step things up a little – maybe increase attacks on US soldiers, all the better to demoralize the US public, and perhaps move the snowball of retreat a little faster.

I’m speculating a little, but it’s not speculation to say that higher morale has a positive effect on performance, regardless of what you’re doing. That’s why motivational courses are so popular in business. Sports teams know it – losing begets more losing, while winning begets more winning.

Passing this referendum will serve as a morale booster for our enemies, which will put our troops at greater risk.

At the same time that we’re helping our enemies’ morale, we’ll be doing damage to the morale of our own troops. We will, in effect, be telling them that we don’t believe in what they’re doing.

Now, this is where we come to the line about supporting the troops, but not the mission. You can’t support the troops but not their mission, because our troops are about their mission.

To pass this referendum is to tell our troops we don’t believe in their mission, which they care about, which they’ve trained to do, which they’re ready to do. The folks back home don’t like it. What you’re doing isn’t worthwhile. Or worse, we’re telling them it never should have been done in the first place.

This can’t help but have a negative effect on our own troops’ morale. If they come to believe that what they’re doing isn’t supported back home, their morale will suffer for it. That will hurt their readiness, and that will put them at greater risk right now.

Long term, if the US succumbs to this urge to take the easy way out that this resolution represents, it will become another in a long list of examples that terrorists will use to prove that the US is weak and that they can defeat us.

We know Al Qaeda uses Vietnam and Somalia as examples of American inability to stay the course. The aftermath of the Gulf War is another example – we promised support to Iraqis who wanted to overthrow Saddam then. They did not get that support, and thousands of Iraqis were massacred by Iraqi government troops.

Whether the terrorists are right or wrong about these being examples of what the US is really like, it doesn’t matter. This will be another loss for the US, and another win for the terrorists.

When a sports team starts winning, fans climb onto the bandwagon. Al Queda will propagandize this as a win. They won’t care exactly what wording the referendum used. They won’t care how big the town was that passed it. They won’t care what the margin of victory was. They’ll use it in their propaganda regardless. And it will help them propagate further terrorism in the future. Not to mention, we will be leaving a very young and inexperienced Iraqi government and military on their own.

We have made commitments to the Iraqi government and people. We have to live up to those commitments.

Instead, will have given the enemy a morale booster, and by leaving the Middle East we will have given them their territory back. This will mean further terrorist action in the future, and it will increase the probability that we will have to send our troops overseas again.

Thinking that we can simply bring our troops home and live happily within our own borders is 19th century thinking. In the 21st century, we can not disengage from the rest of the world and expect to remain safe.

I see a bumper sticker now and then that says: support the troops, bring them home now. Not to be offensive, but I see this as an example of shallow thinking. Passing this referendum will send exactly the opposite message – it says we do not support the troops, it will encourage Al Qaeda and other terrorists, and because of that it will put our troops at greater risk.

This is why I oppose this referendum, and I urge Baraboo’s voters to vote it down on April 4.

Feingold First

He’s the Howard Dean of 2008 – or worse, the Dennis Kucinich.

That’s the common wisdom on Wisconsin’s Senator Russ Feingold, now that he’s openly called for a Senate resolution to censure President Bush over “illegal” wiretapping.

The common wisdom has, I think, ignored some recent history. More on that later.

Feingold has been roundly ridiculed this week from the Right, and studiously ignored from the Left. Mainstream Democrats are ticked in private, uncomfortable in public. At least, according to this hilarious Washington Post story: Democrats are scurrying for the tall grass to avoid answering questions about Feingold.

The New Republic’s Ryan Lizza explains further (link requires free registration):

The nature of the split is obvious. Feingold is thinking about 2008. Harry Reid, Charles Schumer, and other Democrats are thinking about 2006. Feingold cares about wooing the anti-Bush donor base on the web and putting some of his '08 rivals--Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden, and Evan Bayh--in uncomfortable positions. Reid and Schumer care about winning the six seats it will take for Democrats to win control of the Senate. Feingold cares about making a political point with a measure that has no chance of succeeding and which, even if it did, would have no actual consequences. His colleagues want something with a little more bite: subpoena power, control of committees, and the rest of the perks that go along with a Senate majority, which would make Bush's last two years hell.

So Feingold’s being selfish, taking advantage of an opportunity to sell himself with the Presidency in mind, at the expense of his Party and their strategy.

Sounds like a plan.

The radical, chatroom, edge-of-sanity Left is in love, or getting there. Finally, somebody with the guts to Speak Truth to Power! Or, at least, to the Cowardly wing of the Democratic Party.

Whatever. This isn’t the first time Feingold has done this sort of thing. Last summer, if you’ll recall, he called for a definite timetable on getting our troops out of Iraq. A definite, kinda-sorta, gotta-be-flexible timetable. The Left loved him for that, too.

I haven’t noticed that little bit of history entering the debate over his latest grab for attention. I guess we all forgot about it.

Which is precisely my point. Feingold first calls for a withdrawal timetable, thereby earning the love and admiration of Captain Kossite and the Loony Legions. Later, he tones it down, saying the timetable should be “flexible.” Then he votes to confirm John Roberts.

Now he calls for censure of the President. We all react just as we did when he wanted to abandon Iraq. And…wait six weeks, let’s see what happens next.

Rather than challenging for Champion of the Moonbats, I think Feingold is just keeping them on the hook. Keeping himself on top of their list.

There’s a long way to go until 2008 – the fact we’ve all forgotten Feingold’s “timetable” is proof that what he does today won’t necessarily hurt him 18 months from now. The specific issues won’t last. What will last is his growing name recognition, and the warm fuzzies lefties feel when they hear that name.

Maybe, in a year or so, he’ll have his own Sista Souljah moment, and distance himself from the loons. He’ll have to, at some point, depending on how far he intends to go. For the Big Chair, he’ll have to distance himself, move to the middle.

Otherwise, he’ll use his influence with the Left to earn the Veep nod.

Political mastery, if he pulls it off. Mastery one doesn’t normally see from a Senator (see: Kerry; Gore; Dole).

It’s become idiomatic that Senators don’t win the Presidency. Could be that’s one of those streaks that means something until it’s broken. Like the Packers always winning in cold weather. Or the incumbent President losing if the Redskins lose their last home game before the election.

October 31, 2004: Packers 28, Redskins 14. November 2, 2004: Bush 52, Kerry 48. It was fun while it lasted.

But that streak was nothing more than chance. There may be more to the Senatorial Presidential losing streak. Senate Democrats are playing the odds, or trying to – moving politically to regain the majority. Or trying to.

Perhaps it’s just that sort of politicking – the frightened moderation of Party leaders playing majority politics – that hurts a Senator’s chances. Perhaps the politics of a successful Presidential candidate are more individual, Machiavellian, me-first.

Kinda like the politics Feingold is playing.

When Men Act Like Boys

I tend to agree: it’s not fair, in a schoolboy sort of way. Not fair, not fair, NOT FAIR.

And…so?

A group called the National Center for Men (and I’ll be using that word loosely today) has filed a federal lawsuit, citing discrimination and a violation of the 14th Amendment.

Women, they complain, have choices about pregnancy that men don’t have. Women can choose to have the child or to abort it, and the father has nothing whatsoever to say about that decision. If the mother chooses abortion, the might’a-been Dad can’t stop her.

In the reverse, if the mom chooses to become a Mom to the formerly unpredicted and assumedly unwanted child, the dad can’t stop her from doing that, either. Eighteen years of child support, coming up.

These particular dads (again, using a term loosely) say that’s not fair: they should have just as much right to abandon the child as their former one-night-stand did.

They’re calling it “Roe vs. Wade for Men.” Sounds like a shampoo.

On one level, I agree with them. It’s not fair. Women can make choices about having children or not having them, and in most cases, the men just have to pay.

But that level – it’s somewhere down around the elementary school playground, where the basic unfairness of life could be rebutted simply by picking up your ball and going home.

The men who have formed this group, and have filed this lawsuit – they presumably have left the playground behind, and are living in an adult world. So, really, I should spend my sarcasm not on them, but on the world itself – on a society which invites adults to avoid responsibility, rather than demands that they accept it.

I should, but I won’t.

What would John Wayne have said to these…uh..."men?" I'm not sure, but I bet there’d be fisticuffs. Except he wouldn’t call them fisticuffs.

I’m not gonna hit ya. I’m not gonna hit ya.

You know the rest. And if you don’t, get thee to the video store.

Whose definition of “man” includes whining about the unfairness of it all? Women have more reproductive “choices” than men? Tough. Here’s an idea: keep your pants on.

That is, after all, the core issue. Sex. Women can have wild unprotected sex with the knowledge that whatever happens, they’re covered. Men, on the other hand, might actually have to live with the consequences of their decision to get busy.

We don’t like that. Consequences. We want what we want, we want it all now, and we don’t want to be bothered with any silly repercussions.

Eat your favorite foods and still lose weight!

That’s the whole idea behind abortion in the first place. We should be able to do what we want, with as few consequences as possible – the consequence in this case being the babies.

Well, reality has something else in mind. Sex has consequences, both emotional and physical. Pregnancy is one of them. And, in the vast majority of cases, pregnancy can only occur due to the choices made by two individuals.

These men want the right to help create a baby – the direct result of their own freely-made decision – and walk away with no strings.

It used to be that women didn’t just jump into bed willy-nilly, partly because of the potential consequences. It wasn’t in their best interests.

Modern birth control and abortion have changed that. Maybe now it’s time for men to realize that jumping into bed willy-nilly isn’t in their best interests.

But not if this group has their way. Like children, they see someone else being immature and irresponsible, and rather than being offended by that and expecting better, they say: me too!

Maybe I spent too much of my youth reading pseudo-medieval adventure fiction – you know, the kingdoms and knights and heroes ready to sacrifice all for the good of their whatever. Honor. Chivalry. That sort of thing.

Because I seem to have grown up with these odd ideas about taking responsibility for my own actions, even when those around me don’t. That – and I know how corny this sounds – is what a man does.

That’s not what these men are doing – or rather, it’s not what they want to do. They want to share in an exception from responsibility – if they don’t have to do it, we shouldn’t have to, either.

And the irony is: it’s probably better that we give them that exemption. Otherwise, they might become fathers.

What it was...what it is...what it will be

It’s amazing how far we’ve come.

A true statement, if an incomplete one.

It’s always annoyed me a little bit, that phrase. The same goes for “time goes so fast.”

Sure it does, when you’re looking at it from the finished end. From here and now. Oh, the kids grow up so fast. Sure, now that they’re grown. But back when they were yelling and crying and spilling juice on your jacket and you couldn’t find a babysitter so you could have just one evening of adults – back then, you couldn’t wait for them to grow up and move out.

Or maybe that’s just me.

Whenever I hear “how far we’ve come,” it puts me in mind of another phrase – one I like a lot better. “How much farther will we go?”

We didn’t know, really, a decade ago, that it was possible to come as far as we have in just ten years. So where will we be ten years from now?

I’m put in mind of this because my family went to the EAA Museum in Oshkosh last week. I particularly enjoyed the World War II displays: an enormous map of the world, detailing deployments and movements of air forces; a B-25 we were allowed to crawl around in; and, oddly, a full-size model of two doughboys repairing a WWII-era jeep in what appeared to be a forest.

What that had to do with aviation, I’ve no idea. But the image stuck with me. I didn’t realize why until I hit our van’s brakes in the parking lot, on our way out.

Power brakes. I’ve never driven a car without them. Power steering, either. Or even air conditioning. That jeep had none of those. They didn’t exist yet.

The B-25? It was, surely, thicker and stronger than a soda can, but once inside it, it didn’t seem so. They flew how high? And how far? In this?

The wall map, representing thousands of ships, planes, people, spread over thousands upon thousands of square miles. I know they communicated with each other somehow, someway. But without satellites, without cellular technology, without fiber-optic cable.

Today, we have a really astounding amount of information available to us – literally at our fingertips. For example: I wore my Snoopy tie to work yesterday. Snoopy, with the flight helmet and goggles, flying his doghouse to meet the Red Baron over occupied France.

Remember the song? A friend and I tried to remember the lyrics, but couldn’t. Not quite.

Twenty years ago, even ten years ago, we’d have been on our way to the library (where we had no real guarantee of finding our answer), or out of luck. Today, we have a new verb: “google.” Five seconds later, the lyrics were right in front of me.

Five years ago, I didn’t own a cell phone. Ten years ago, almost nobody did. Car trouble? Wait for help. Not any more.

Modern technology gives us opportunities we didn’t have ten, fifteen, twenty years ago. Opportunities to learn, observe, meet people we never would have met without it.

We’ve come a long way, haven’t we?

I wonder, though. Back in 1945, did people wonder at the new things that hadn’t existed only a few years before?

Maybe not. Still, they must have considered themselves to be better off than people who lived fifty years before them.

Honestly, can you imagine living then? Without modern technologies? And as uncomfortable as that sounds, can you imagine living further in the past? Say, three hundred years ago?

Oh, sure – adventure, the new frontier, etc. Five hundred years ago: knights in armor and all that. Right. They didn’t know any better than to dump the chamber pot right outside the front door.

Nice place to visit, but I wouldn’t want to live there. Or…maybe not even visit.

As far as we’ve come, it only makes me wonder more: how far will we go? Space elevators, nanotechnology – maybe, in another 15 years, we’ll be implanting the technology right into our brains. A PDA you can’t ever lose!

I’m ready!

In a hundred years, even fifty years – will people say about living today what I just said about living in the 1940s?

As it’s unlikely that anyone reading this (much less writing it) will live out this century, that’s just another way of asking: we’ve come so far, and have no idea how far we can go…

…what am I going to miss?

What's Yours is Mine

I have a right to your property.

Let’s just drop the charade, and admit it: that’s what we all think. Whether I know you or not, whether I’ve met you or not, whether I care about you or not, and vice versa: I have a right to your property. And to your labor.

You work for me. What you own belongs to me. At least, a little bit of it does.

And what I own belongs to you. You can take it, whether I like it or not.

Why all the shocked faces? It’s not like this is a secret. We take each other’s property all the time, because we need it for ourselves (or think we do) or, more commonly, because we think somebody else needs it.

It’s ingrained. It’s a pillar in our way of life. Almost impossible to imagine things any other way.

We do have considerable historical precedent, quite strongly suggesting that I do not, in fact, have a right to your property. The inestimable Walter Williams pointed this out quite forcefully in a column he wrote last year. And there’s always that story about Davy Crockett.

Ah, but that’s so last millennium. Consider some more recent rhetoric, this being spread against the Taxpayer Bill of Rights and its most recent form, the Taxpayer Protection Amendment (TPA):

Opponents focused on the extensive damage the TPA would cause by drying up resources for critical state and local government services from health care for the poor to public safety to social services and education.

That was WEAC, the teacher’s union. Here’s the Wisconsin Council on Children and Families:

TABOR would require cuts in critical services. Proponents suggest it would merely limit growth to “reasonable levels,” but in fact TABOR would result in deep cuts in certain areas of spending like education, health care, and human services.

Only two examples, but you get the picture. We’re trying to provide services for the needy – we need tax money to do that. Your tax money.

And let’s be clear: just because those are two liberal groups in my examples doesn’t mean only liberals think this way. Even I, a fiscal conservative (or so I like to think), don’t dispute the existence of government schools, financial assistance for the poor, government-guaranteed loans for college students.

Very few do dispute them. Those who do, mostly, do so in theoretical terms – not in real proposals. Those who aren’t just talking theory are viewed as crackpots, even by those of us who are, philosophically, on their side.

Voucher schools – a conservative favorite – mean taking money from you and giving it to somebody else. Some of the President’s most popular tax cuts are actually refundable credits. The child tax credit – a thousand dollars per kid – will get you a refund even if you didn’t pay any taxes.

I get that one, by the way. Thanks to all of you who ended up paying last year. You paid for my refund.

Come on, admit it. Would you eliminate Medicaid tomorrow, if you could? Food stamps? Home heating assistance? Throw the people who use (or “depend on,” if you want to use that imagery) those programs to the mercy of local charitable efforts that might suffice sometimes, but not other times? In some places, but not in others?

If you wouldn’t, then you agree with me. I have a right to your property.

That’s what these programs amount to.

That wouldn’t be so bad, if we really were helping the neediest among us. Oh, I suppose we are, depending on how you define “neediest.” That’s the real problem – there are more and more “neediest” every single year.

In five years (2000 to 2004), the number of Wisconsin citizens receiving Medicaid assistance grew over 40%. The state recently expanded eligibility for home heating assistance. There’s always another program, another person who just misses the cutoff.

Another one of your dollars, whether you like it or not.

Nobody’s going to come knock on your door, asking if you’ll contribute something to support Medicaid or 4-year-old kindergarten or the Aging Resource Center. We will simply take it, through your taxes. You have it. Somebody else needs it. That’s enough for us.

The government can’t spend a dollar unless it first takes that dollar from somebody. Oh, make that a dollar fifty. Gotta feed the bureaucracy, you know.

And that’s how it is in America today. I have a right to your property, and you have a right to mine.

Gimme.

Political Reality (and Satire) in Wisconsin

Democrats Vow Not To Give Up Hopelessness

WASHINGTON, DC—In a press conference on the steps of the Capitol Monday, Congressional Democrats announced that, despite the scandals plaguing the Republican Party and widespread calls for change in Washington, their party will remain true to its hopeless direction.

"We are entirely capable of bungling this opportunity to regain control of the House and Senate and the trust of the American people," Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said to scattered applause. "It will take some doing, but we're in this for the long and pointless haul."

The above is purely satirical. Fictional. An article from The Onion, where they understand that satire is best when it mirrors real life. That’s why it’s so funny.

Which brings us to Wisconsin. I’m not saying Wisconsin’s Democrats are as inept as those in Washington, but they do show a certain affinity for ludicrousness – a subconscious desire to prove how ineffective they are.

It was only a few months ago that legislative Democrats, led by Senator Judy Robson (D-Beloit), introduced a bill requiring a bill to guarantee universal health care (defined as 98% of the people) in Wisconsin.

At the time, I wrote:

It’s a bill to require a bill. Senator Robson has taken the ball squarely in both hands and thrown it blindly behind her, expecting someone else to catch it and run. She’s come down squarely in favor of “universal” health care, expects to get credit for it, but has no intention of getting down and dirty in the details. Not her. That’s somebody else’s job.

It’s a whole new level of meaninglessness in leadership.

Since then, the bill has been stuck, quite reasonably, in committee. Assembly Democrats have twice tried to pull it direcly to the Assembly floor, to no avail. They, of course, knew the attempts would fail, just as they know the bill is as useless an example of lazy hypocricy as one is likely to see, even in the halls of government.

And now, another example. Rep. Sondy Pope-Roberts (D-Verona) and a few others have authored a resolution, calling on the Legislature to “create a new school financing system that provides each child with an equal opportunity for a sound basic education…”

This is, I should point out, a half-step above Sen. Robson’s bill-to-require-a-bill. It’s only a resolution. Little more than a request, really – a formally-inked wish. Pointless, yes, but with less pretention to reality.

Nobody claims our school funding system is perfect. Poorer districts – those with little or no development growth – simply don’t have the financial resources that richer districts do. If the state is responsible for K-12 education (as the Constitution suggests), then we ought to do something about that.

If you believe more money equals better education, that is.

Which points us, probably, toward Rep. Pope-Roberts’ real goal – likely the same goal the Democrat/educracy always has: more money, more money, more money. When they say “adequate funding,” they mean spend more.

But that’s another debate.

If she looked, Rep. Pope-Roberts might find a few sympathetic ears on the Republican side – the potential, perhaps, to actually enact some changes.

Which brings me to my question: why doesn’t she? If Rep. Pope-Roberts feels so strongly that we need a new school funding system, why doesn’t she figure one out? Come up with an actual plan?

She’s a state representative. She has her own staff, plus extensive resources that are available to all legislators. The Reference Bureau, the Fiscal Bureau, Legislative Council, not to mention DPI and WEAC and the School Board Association, who would surely give her their support.

I wonder the same about Sen. Robson. Both of them have set a goal, but, apparently, have no intention of getting their own hands dirty with the details.

They want to require change, without going through the pain of making the change happen.

They want credit for caring, without actually doing anything.

That’s how it looks, anyway. And why shouldn’t it? If they really intended to make changes, they would do the work. Find allies. Do the research, write the bill, present it, fight for it. Maybe it fails this year. So you come back and try again next year.

But no. They’re satisfied with “calling” for it. As long as they get the credit. To them, that’s what really counts.

A monument to futility. Somebody tell the Onion.