In a World of Waterparks...

The family and I went to a water park over the weekend. Actually, a water and amusement park – both slides and roller coasters, all indoors, with naught but windows between us in our swimsuits and winter outside.

You wonder how much it costs to run a place like that – whether the electricity, upkeep, payroll are worthwhile. Particularly when it’s as empty as it was this weekend. Small crowds, and short lines.

Waiting in line at the small but enjoyably discomfiting roller coaster, looking up at the massive beams and trusses supporting the track, I wondered about that: how much did it cost? To run the place? To put it all together?

And where did it all come from?

This is what I do now. Once, waiting to go on a roller coaster, I’d have been pleasantly distracted by the knots of nervous anticipation. Now I think about economics. Such is the world of the grown-up, I guess.

Where did all this come from, I wondered? All this specifically-formed metal? China?

Probably, I assumed. That’s where all our manufactured goods come from, right?

This was an unsettling thought. I recently read or heard that the U.S. doesn’t produce its own steel anymore. Perhaps I mis-heard it, because I’ve learned since – that’s wrong. Still, it reinforces a growing image of the U.S. as a nation dependent on – as opposed to profiting by – international trade.

We don’t make our own stuff anymore. Toys, clothes, electronics, equipment. Our manufacturing sector is down and gonna stay that way, thanks to cheap labor overseas.

How hard will it be for a foreign alliance to bring the U.S. to its knees, simply by refusing us a few key imports? Imports like steel. Like oil. Like the basic things we need to live life as we know it.

This I wondered while waiting in line at an amusement park. While wishing there were more football on TV. While wondering why we can’t have both cheap wireless internet AND high-flow toilets.

On the other hand, such dependence can be a good thing. We’ll never go to war with China - our economies are far too intertwined. We depend on their manufactured goods for our way of life, and they depend on our dependence for theirs. Without our need for their products, China’s economy would, I’ll bet, collapse.

On the other hand, shouldn’t we be unsettled that we have to rely on this economic standoff?

But on the other hand (last one, promise), why should we be?

Let’s say, just for fun, that our entire domestic economy centered around waterparks. What’ve we got?

Well, we’ve got lots of low-paying jobs – somebody’s got to man those rides, clean up, tell kids to quit running and leaping headfirst down the slides.

We’ve also got mechanics, electricians, plumbers, and carpenters. You can’t outsource that kind of work. It has to be done here.

We’ve also got marketing professionals. Accountants. Designers. Executives. Lawyers.

Could an economy survive like that? Well, why not? We could all make our money entertaining each other, spend our money being entertained. Let someone else actually make all our stuff, as long as they’re as dependent on our business as we are on theirs.

But that’s still unsettling, because…well, we don’t like being dependent. Could we go back to sustaining ourselves, if we had to?

Which brings me back to steel. In 2004, the U.S. produced over 80% of our own steel consumption. We produce all of our own electricity. We rank third, worldwide, in oil production, and import more oil from Canada and Mexico than from any other country.

We’re hardly helpless dependents.

Which isn’t to say the international market doesn’t matter. It certainly does.

For example, worldwide demand for steel could grow to the point that it becomes more profitable for U.S. companies to export their steel. We need steel here, too, so U.S. companies would have to pay the price.

What happens around the world matters.

I’m hardly an expert, so maybe I’m all wet. But it’s nice, now and then, to follow a train of thought away from the doom and gloom.

If nothing else, it’ll let me stop wondering about economics, and start wondering why I’m getting on this roller coaster.

Dropouts Owe Us a Living

High school dropouts cost us money!

That is, at least, the conclusion of this Racine Journal Times piece, on a study that said the same thing.

High school dropouts cost Wisconsin billions of dollars in revenue, according to a study by the Alliance for Excellent Education.

For example, if high school dropouts of Wisconsin’s class of 2006 had graduated instead, they would have added $4 billion in wages over their lifetimes…

From the study itself:

…if the students who dropped out of the class of 2006 had graduated, the nation’s economy would have benefited from an additional $309 billion in income over their lifetimes…

…each dropout, over his or her lifetime, costs the nation approximately $260,000.

Interesting how they put that: if only more kids would graduate, the nation would have more money. They work for us.

As if the simple act of graduating from high school creates a new, higher paying job, all on its own.

Of course, what they mean is that tax revenue from the higher wages is lost. Those numbers aren’t as impressive, though, so they use the bigger ones. It’s either that, or an inclination to think in socialist terms. Take your pick.

And it’s not just the lost tax revenue:

High school graduates are also less likely to commit crimes (Raphael, 2004), rely on government health care (Muennig, 2005), or use other public services such as food stamps or housing assistance (Garfinkel et al., 2005).

So dropouts aren’t just failing to pay more in taxes, they’re using more of the tax money we do have!

So what do we do about it? Duh. Spend more on schools. Maybe I’m putting words in their mouths, but you can see where the logic leads. If the dropout rate costs us $4 billion per class, then over a cohort of 50 classes, it costs us around that much every year. At an average tax rate of, say, 4%, that’s $160 million in annual revenues. Not to mention, fewer people needing government services.

Isn’t spending another hundred million or so on public schools worth that return?

What else? We could pass a law. Compulsive attendance. Compulsive graduation.

And why not? We pass lots of laws to stop people from doing things bad for both themselves and the rest of us. Smoking, for example. It’s bad for society! Strains the health care system! Costs productivity!

Same principle, isn’t it? Let’s just require everyone to graduate.

That’ll create those jobs.

Oops, back to the same fallacy. The AEE is assuming that a higher paying job is simply waiting, somewhere, out there, in the effervescent ether, to spring headlong into creation, and all it needs is some random student to wrap his eager fist around an officially-stamped piece of Commencement parchment! If only we had more graduates, we’d have more high-paying jobs!

Maybe. But. In Wisconsin, a 100% graduation rate would mean a 25% increase in the number of high school graduates. A higher supply of graduates means more competition for that level of job. A glut, which would push wages down.

Low-wage jobs might go wanting, I suppose, from the lack of dropouts. That might push those wages up. Maybe even things out.

But that contradicts the study’s premise, that more graduates will automatically create all this money. So never mind. It’s all just theory, anyway.

Here’s another theory: it’s not the piece of paper, per se, that brings in the money. It’s the person holding the piece of paper.

Some kids take tough classes, work hard, earn As, and graduate. Others take easy classes, skate by with Cs and Ds. And graduate.

Some dropouts become small time criminals and chronic dependents on taxpayer largesse. Others (a few, at least) get a job at the local filling station and five years later become auto mechanics.

It’s not only important that they graduate. It’s important that they learn. And even more important than their letters and their cipherin’, they have to learn work ethic. Responsibility. Ambition. These are the attributes that lead to success, and they’re more likely to be learned…

…in school? Could be. Sometimes, I’m sure. But more likely, these things are learned at home. And if these things are learned at home, the kids will be less likely to drop out in the first place.

Twenty Percent Less Gas

Filled up the gas tank yesterday. Paid $1.97 a gallon. That’s right – gas is under two bucks.

My reaction, naturally: yeeeeee-ha! Fire up that Hummer and let the sweet crude flow!

Coincidentally, tonight President Bush gave his State of the State Address, in which energy policy was to be a major topic.

I wondered: like Al Gore giving a speech on global warming during a snowstorm, will the newly sub-$2 prices undermine President Bush’s proposals?

President Bush wants Americans to slash gasoline consumption by up to 20 percent by 2017 while boosting fuel economy standards from the auto industry.

Bush envisions the goal being achieved primarily through a sharp escalation in the amount of ethanol and other alternative fuels that the federal government mandates must be produced.

A dramatic goal – one-fifth of the consumption of the most oil-hungry population in the world. Yes, congressional Democrats will want to play hardball, but this will be tough to oppose.

Are they for the environment, or aren’t they? Do they want more global warming?

And yet, it doesn’t feel like a dramatic goal. We’ve heard all this before: conservation, new economy standards, ethanol. It’s not a bold, exciting new initiative. It’s quibbling around the edges.

Far better, if you ask me, for Bush to act like he’s in the playoffs, down by 9 points, fourth quarter, two-minute warning. You lose, and you go home. Pull out the stops, Dubya! What have you got to lose?

For example, call for 50 new nuclear power plants in the next 10 years. We don’t have to limit our demand, when it’s well within our abilities to increase our supply!

And an increase in supply leads to lower prices, which leads to more money in my pocket, and less in those of terrorist-supporting Middle Eastern governments.

Naturally, a moment’s thought will tell you: this premise is off. Not completely off, but closer to off than on. At least for now.

Nukes produce electricity, and our cars – the real kind, anyway – don’t run on that. We have 104 nuclear reactors in the U.S. today, which generate about 20 percent of all our electrical power.

Most of the rest comes from coal and natural gas. We supply all of our own coal, and as of today, most of our natural gas comes from the U.S. and Canada. Very little comes from anywhere else, and very very little from any OPEC nations.

So we don’t really need the extra nuclear power to further international goals. Oh, it would do a little. A few Middle Eastern nations export natural gas, and since such commodities are fungible – worldwide markets – this would, indirectly, bite into the a few bottom lines.

Plus, North America has only 4% of the world’s known natural gas reserves. The Middle East has 34%. And Iran - while currently a net importer of natural gas – is second only to Russia in proven reserves.

So new nukes aren’t entirely off target. Still, today, biting into natural gas won’t make an international dent. To really make a statement, we have to deal in petroleum. Oil and its cousins make up 80% of Iran’s exports, 90% of Saudi Arabia’s, and 45% of Syria’s.

Based on this, the President’s idea has merit – at least on paper. We’re the single biggest consumer of gas in the entire world, by a lot. The next biggest – the European Union – uses about 30% less than we do.

Cut our consumption by 20%, leave all those barrels on the world market, and watch the price drop.

Let’s see the worldwide Jihad support itself on sand.

And…still. Ethanol? Other additives and, maybe, replacements for oil? It’s fine, as far as it goes, but come on. The Dukes of Hazzard used moonshine sometimes, too.

If nothing else, well, futures traders are a skittish bunch. Maybe this will scare them off – convince them, for a little while, that U.S. consumption is on its way down. Way, way down.

Convince them of that, and watch the price fall lower, which is good me, good for our economy, and bad for radical Jihad.

And considering that congressional Democrats would never go for more nuclear plants…well, fine. Let’s give the corn a go.

Those Fightin' Dems

There are three kinds of politics in the City of Madison: liberal, liberaler, and liberalest.

These various subspecies of genus liberalis recently had a bit of a tiff. At a regular meeting of the Dane County Democratic Party (the Dane Dems, they’re called for short), a preponderance of Progressive Dane members managed to stymie efforts to endorse more mainstream candidates in the upcoming primary elections.

Progressive Dane (PD) is a liberal group – Ed Garvey, Paul Wellstone liberal – more concerned with left-wing advocacy than practical politics. As you might suspect, this frequently puts them at odds with the regular Party.

So the PDs packed the meeting to support their own candidates. Endorsements (requiring a 2/3 vote) were thus impossible.

A lot of electrons have been spent, since, discussing this. Kristian Knutsen rounded up the post-meeting angst:

The Democratic Party of Dane County and Progressive Dane (PD) are at it again.

Melanie Conklin reported in the Wisconsin State Journal:

…Ald. Austin King packed the Dane County Democratic Party membership meeting Wednesday night with Progressive Dane members and engineered a coup that overturned many of the Dem's Executive Board endorsements…

Lisa Subeck, a PD co-chair, blogged:

… the Dane County Democratic Party sent a clear message to party leadership, candidates, and others that we will not support self-proclaimed moderates who choose mediocrity over progressive values.

Former Mayor Paul Soglin saw it differently:

PD basically demands a loyalty oath... The absolutist position of PD in regards to candidates is one of the reasons that the present mayor, no longer needing them to establish his left credentials, is not renewing his membership.

Fun! And there’s plenty more links in the Isthmus story.

But…why is everyone acting so surprised?

Let’s start with a basic truism: we’re Americans. We argue. It’s what we do.

The only thing that stops us from arguing is a common goal, or a common enemy. Once the goal is reached, the enemy defeated, the arguments will, more than likely, return.

Dane County does have a large and active Republican Party, but they’re not nearly enough to provide local Democrats and progressives – of all three stripes – with a common enemy. Thus, it’s only natural for the Dems to factionalize, choose up sides, fight amongst themselves.

This is good. This tendency we have to cannibalize ourselves, politically speaking, is one of the things that prevents one-party rule in the U.S.

And, of course, any time your enemies (opponents, adversaries, rivals) spend time and energy fighting amongst themselves, that’s time and energy they’re not spending fighting you. So any kind of internecine warfare within the Democrat structure is good, so far as I’m concerned.

Let’s not fool ourselves, of course. The battle in Madison is between liberal Democrats and REALLY liberal Democrats. The Dane Dems can only be described as “moderate” when they’re compared to the PDs.

The Dane Dems simply aren’t going to splinter to the point that Republicans can take over. Not in this part of the state. Democrats run the show in Dane County – both at the local levels, and in state-level offices.

Which doesn’t mean their intra-liberalspherical squabblage can’t still be good for us.

A caveat: we would rather have Republicans in charge. Failing that, we’d rather have thoughtful, responsible Democrats in charge.

But, failing that…

Dane County – more specifically, the City of Madison – is the single most important Democrat stronghold in the state. As such, they have a lot of influence over their Party. A lot of influence over their Party’s statewide image.

The bigger the battles between the Democrats’ liberal wing and their liberalest wing, the liberaler the entire party is going to become. And the liberaler they become, the further they move from anything your average Wisconsinite would ever vote for.

Mainstream Dems seem to know that. The PDs might, too, but they don’t care.

Which leads me to say something that I find downright unsettlin’.

Go Progressive Dane!

Newton was Right

Isaac Newton’s third law of motion: for every action, there is an equal but opposite reaction.

Man, was he ever right.

Just last week, we were all kvetching about the lack of winter weather. The lack of snow.

Today, not so much. Sure, what we’ve got now is still pretty tame, compared with winters past. But it’s enough to remind us: oh yeah, it’s Winter. Oh, right, this cold and snow stuff – it’s a pain.

The action – a particular kind of weather – produces the reaction: kvetching about that weather, and never mind what we were saying just last week.

Another action: the merest mention of the term “stem cells.” The reaction: my hackles rising automatically into tactical position. It’s not stem cells! It’s embryonic stem cells! Embryonic!

Or adult. Or amniotic. Depending on the context.

President Bush and the Republicans oppose this lifesaving research!

Argh! No! Refer back three paragraphs, and besides, President Bush and the Republicans proposed – and passed! – the most generous taxpayer support for ESCR ever, partly in the hope that the Left would both appreciate it, and show that appreciation.

A foolish hope, it turned out.

Here’s another one (emphasis added):

…the critics ignore a key fact -- these tiny bits of cells would be destroyed anyway during in vitro fertilization, a process that helps women get pregnant and which produces more embryos than needed.

See, part of me agrees with this: if the embryos are going to die anyway, why not use them?

And since in vitro fertilization is going to produce more “excess” embryos anyway, why not expand our research, so more of them can be put to good use?

Why not age those embryos in the laboratory, and conduct research on them at 2 weeks, or 6 weeks, or 10 weeks of gestation? Why not, if they’re going to be destroyed anyway?

Bush Lied! Bush misled us into war! Iraq was a huge mistake from the start!

Of those three statements, only the last has the slightest chance of being true, if we add a large dose of hindsight. The first two have no chance. The UN inspectors themselves said Saddam had WMD, and that he had used them in the past*.

By the time of the Gulf War in January 1991, Iraq had a large arsenal of chemical, biological weapons and ballistic missiles. It was also developing a nuclear weapons capability.

And they said so less than 3 weeks before we invaded. Bush lied? Then so did the UN!

Why can’t we get that straight? Why must I point out the obvious, over, and over, and over…

…temperature rising…vision blurring. Rage...taking...over...

A better question: why do I take it so seriously? Why can’t I just roll my eyes, shake my head, and dismiss such negligible blather as exactly that?

Heck if I know. But I can’t. It gets under my skin, like two small children screaming over a toy. It’s hopping, hair-pulling, teeth-baring frustrating. Which, believe it or not, impairs my ability to argue.

As much as I’d like to.

Oh, sure, there are examples on the other side, too. Senator Barbara Boxer’s latest faux pas, suggesting that Condoleeza Rice is unqualified to make decisions regarding Iraq because she has no children, thus has less to lose.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

It’s the old chickenhawk argument. Make Bush send his daughters, or he’s got no credibility on the war!

Which is both a huge pile of steaming liberal goo and, despite the reaction from some conservatives, not what Boxer said. Not at all. I’m sure Boxer’s eventual point was, like the argument, simple liberal goo, but the statement at hand was neither a shot at childless women in general, nor a shot at Condi for being childless.

But, you know, action and reaction.

And I’ll be happy to play along. Feminism is dead! Boxer thinks childless women shouldn’t serve!

Why would I do this? For the reaction. Because I can just see a bunch of lefty-hippie-treehugger Democrats right now, not to mention three months from now, slobbering in fury and screaming “that’s not what she said!”

See, that’s just fun. Action. Reaction. It works against me. Might as well work for me, too.


* This link leads to a UNMOVIC document (1.5 MB) detailing the status of Iraq disarmament, dated March of 2003 - same month the invasion began.

Can't Win for Losing

Iraq was a big issue in 2006. Remove it from the equation, and maybe last year’s elections turn out differently.

Democrats think Iraq will favor them again just as much – or even more – in 2008. And, if the next two years go by like the last two did, they may well be right.

Some of my conservative brethren are bashing Democrats for not taking a more active role in this, the most important issue facing our country today. For kibitzing from the sidelines, and little else. For not advancing their own plan, such as it may be.

But that’s naïve. Democrats do, in fact, have a plan of their own, and they’re executing it: avoid responsibility. Whatever happens in Iraq, the war, Middle East policy in general: blame Bush.

They’re betting that, whatever happens, the American public won’t be happy, and 2008 will turn accordingly.

This puts Republicans in an odd position. Do the right thing – continue striving for a stable Iraq, and against radical Jihad – and maybe pave the way for a total Democrat takeover in Washington, which is the same thing as ending the war.

"Holiday from history,” here we come.

Or do the wrong thing – retreat from Iraq, leave them to their fate, hand victory to the Jihadists – in the hopes of a more positive atmosphere leading up to the election and, maybe, hanging onto power.

Do the wrong thing, in order to keep the power we need to keep doing the right thing. But once we’ve done the wrong thing, it’ll be too late to go back and do the right thing.

Either way, we’re just screwed.

Okay, maybe it’s not all that bad. But like the daily trudge to school in my father’s day, getting out of our Iraqi quagmire is a five mile hike, into the wind, in four feet of snow, uphill. Both ways.

Some of my conservative brethren think that the Democrats’ apathy is our advantage. They’ve been slamming Democrats for not taking a more active role in our Middle East policy. For criticizing the President, while having no alternatives of their own.

That’s not leadership. It’s not responsible. It certainly isn’t what their more radical supporters want them to do.

And…so what? The Democrats have already passed a higher minimum wage. They’ve already passed more funding for embryonic stem cell research. They’ll putz around with health care. They’ll fiddle with ethics. They’ll even pass something they’ll euphemize as a “tax cut.”

They’ll nickel and dime their nickel-and-dime agenda through, and let President Bush run the war. That is, after all, his job as Commander in Chief.

And on the far end of two years, they’ll have done nothing impressive, but their poll numbers will be up. Republicans will have attempted something both uniquely enormous and uniquely important, and their polls will be down.

Or so the Democrats believe, and I sure can’t prove them wrong.

It’s possible that they are wrong. There are some more positive possibilities. For example: the “surge” strategy works, Baghdad is secured, and both the government and the populace have more reason to be optimistic – to trust in themselves more than the jihadists. US casualties fall, and our troops begin to leave.

Add in a couple of small but significant victories over Al Quaeda and their ilk.

Or, we pull our forces out prematurely, but the Iraqis surprise us: standing on their own, standing up to Iran, and standing up to the jihadists. Maybe not in absolute Shiite/Sunni/Kurd unity, but at least in some semblance thereof.

Add in the aforementioned victories, just because.

I’m optimistic, but not expectant. We’ve been in these situations before: Somalia, and Haiti. They start fast, get sticky, and end badly. There’s little reason to believe this will be different.

Except that this is different. Our actions (or lack thereof) in the Middle East have real, serious, and long-ranging ramifications.

It may be that the Democrats know this, and intend to do what’s needed, once they gain power due to the Republicans doing what’s needed.

Maybe. But I’m not betting the future on it.

The hard part is, barring a major resurgence of Rovian-style strategery, we may not have any choice.

A New Kind of Stem Cell

So we’ve maybe got a new source of stem cells, and they might be just as good as the embryonic kind.

University of Pittsburgh researchers have discovered that one type of cell in the human placenta has characteristics that are strikingly similar to embryonic stem cells...

The cells, called amniotic epithelial cells, potentially could be used to produce new liver cells to treat liver failure, or new pancreatic islet cells to cure diabetes or new neurons to treat Parkinson's disease.

Unlike embryonic stem cells, which are obtained only by destroying human embryos, these cells can be extracted from the same placentas that now are routinely discarded after birth. They thus could be a non-controversial alternative to embryonic stem cells.

This is great news. Stem cell science is exciting stuff, which I (and many others) very much want to support. All kinds. Every kind. I’d love to throw my arms wide and embrace it and all its grandiose potential.

But. The fact that using the accepted “best” kind of stem cells – embryonic – requires us to destroy a human embryo gives me pause. It makes me wonder if that isn’t a step too far. Whether it crosses a line.

There is a line, right? Experimenting on old folks, coma victims, viciously violent criminals serving consecutive life prison sentences – that’s all on the other side of the line.

On which side does destroying human embryos fall? Maybe, finally, on the same side, if this new thing pans out.

Ambiotic stem cells will remove ethical concerns over further stem cell research. They will open the door for all of us to be not just happy, not just excited, but jubilant. Let the federal research money flow! Save Michael J. Fox!

We’ll wait and see, of course, whether anything comes of this. Whether this report holds up over time. And especially, how those who support embryonic stem cell research (ESCR) to the exclusion of all others respond.

The refusal to even acknowledge an ethical dilemma is one of the more frustrating aspects of the whole stem cell debate. ESCR supporters frequently seem not even to recognize the other major source of stem cell science – adult stem cells.

Consider this passage, from a National Institute of Health (NIH) primer on stem cells (emphasis added):

Research on adult stem cells has recently generated a great deal of excitement. Scientists have found adult stem cells in many more tissues than they once thought possible…

Adult stem cells typically generate the cell types of the tissue in which they reside…However, a number of experiments over the last several years have raised the possibility that stem cells from one tissue may be able to give rise to cell types of a completely different tissue… Therefore, exploring the possibility of using adult stem cells for cell-based therapies has become a very active area of investigation by researchers.

That’s fairly positive, and (to a point) refutes some of the more popular anti-adult cell arguments – namely, that adult cells are too rare, too difficult to work with, and not flexible enough.

Those arguments are prevalent on the University of Wisconsin website, as well as the website TellMeAboutStemCells.org (emphasis in original):

Unlimited stem cells can develop into any kind of cell type or tissue and therefore have the potential to reverse numerous diseases and injuries…

Limited stem cells have been successfully used for some time now and still have great further therapeutic potential. However, limited stem cells can only be used to repair the types of organs or tissues from where they came, and not every organ has been shown to contain them (and they are often difficult to obtain.)

The NIH isn’t a fringe, unknown organization, and their documents aren’t brand new. Their information is known. The ESCR crowd simply ignores it.

Oh, and note the interesting use of hyperbole: “limited” and “unlimited.” Nothing like trying to reframe the debate with new and pointed labels.

Many of us are hoping for a solution just like the one ambiotic stem cells present. A solution that allows us to pursue stem cells’ lavish potential without the ethical closed door of human experimentation.

Whether ESCR supporters embrace at least the possibility that amniotic stem cells could do both, or whether they dismiss amniotic stem cells with the same disdain they treat adult stem cells, will tell us a lot about what they deem more important: their commitment to medical advances, or their commitment to a political position.

Social Security: the stupid stone in my shoe

It’s like having a stone in your shoe.

Everybody’s had one. Just some little pebble that finds its way in, and won’t let you be.

You can shake it over to the side, or take the shoe off entirely. But sooner or later, it’ll be back. If it’s not the same exact stone, it sure feels that way.

Well, I’ve got a stone in my shoe again. A stick in my craw. Congressional Republicans and Democrats and President Bush, talking, maybe, about Social Security.

The program, as it exists today: no security, little (if any) profit, and great cost. Or, as columnist Star Parker put it:

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

How can we not understand this? Social Security is stupid!

Compare it to a mutual fund. A mutual fund belongs to you: the government can’t take it away. It has real money in it, not just IOUs. And it earns at far higher rates than Social Security, which offers – maybe – a 2% annual return, if you live to be 90.

It’s not like government doesn’t do retirement, and do it well. The Wisconsin Retirement System (WRS) is one of the biggest, strongest retirement funds in the world. Yes, it got kicked around during the recession. Still. Over the last ten years, it’s averaged 8.7% annual growth.

If today’s retirees had invested in the Dow Jones stocks their entire working lives, they’d have realized interest of 7% per year, average, even if they retired on October 9, 2002 – the recession-plagued day on which the Dow bottomed out.

That’s about four times what Social Security offers.

There’s no reason we can’t all have that. There’s no reason we can’t all have the strength and security the WRS offers. No reason, except congressional Democrats.

Personal accounts are the best idea. They’re just like mutual funds. They belong to us – the government can’t take them away, can’t raid them for spending money, can’t change the benefits we’ll eventually get.

But Democrats hate personal accounts. Too much personal responsibility. Too much personal freedom. Not enough dependency on government.

That’s my interpretation, anyway.

Okay, fine. I’m reasonable. I can compromise. Personal accounts aren’t the only way.

There’s no reason we can’t turn Social Security into something very like WRS. It would take some sacrifice – mostly from Congressmen who don’t want to stop spending today’s Social Security surplus. Once we clear that gargantuan hurdle, the rest won’t be hard.

First, create the “lock box.” Turn the Social Security trust fund into a real investment pool – something over which its investors have proprietary rights.

I’m not entirely sure that’s possible. It should be: WRS is a pension fund, which Wisconsin’s government can’t raid. On the other hand, if the government creates it, the government can probably destroy it, too. Or at least they can tax it into negligence.

But let’s assume that it is possible, or at least politically impossible to fiddle with, once it’s created.

The next step: put half of Social Security contributions into the new fund, the other half toward paying today’s benefits. Hand it over to a management company to invest in safe-to-moderate investments.

Voila! Social Security is saved!

Finally, change the name. It’s not Social Security anymore. It’s the American Retirement Fund. Just have a Democrat propose that. A Republican will be accused of trying to “end” Social Security.

I’ll admit, it’s a slippery slope. In the future, we’ll add more options for the fund’s proprietors – you and me. After not too many decades, I see this turning into personal accounts. Too late for me, maybe too late for my kids, but not too late for theirs.

I’d rather have it sooner, but in this case, later is better than never. And at least it’s not stupid.

A 2007 Wish List

It’s a new year, and thus, time for pundits to predict!

What’s in store for us in 2007? Sun will shine, snow will fall, children will get owies and I’ll spend more time on my computer than I do working in my yard.

Other than that, heck if I know. And, pundit or not, I’m not going to guess. My New Year’s resolution is: no more predictions. Instead, here’s a list of things I hope – I wish – will happen in 2007, in no particular order.

Brett Favre returns for One More Season. With just one more season – even a subpar season like this one – Favre can break the NFL records for passing attempts, touchdowns, yards, and interceptions. He’s already got the completions mark

If that isn’t enough, then somebody (I’m thinking Deanna) please slap him and remind him he’s set to make $11 million next year…if he comes back. Don’t need the money, Brett? Take a voluntary cut, so the Packers can sign free agents for a final-year playoff run. Still don’t need the money? Plenty of charities do.

Bonus wish: Favre has exactly one pass reception in his entire career – the one he threw to himself back in 1992 – for negative seven yards. The Packers absolutely MUST install a play that has Favre on the receiving end of a touchdown pass.

“Bush Lied!” jumps the shark. Now that the Democrats have some responsibility for future policies in the Middle East, it’s my hope that we can put some of this silliness aside. Bush Lied? Cue the eye-roll.

It’s just a stick in my craw. If Bush Lied! about WMD in Iraq, then so did the UN’s weapons inspectors. Let’s move on, or at least let the grownups handle things.

Bush refuses to deal on Social Security reform. The Wall Street Journal fears he’ll give up a big tax increase in return for some kind of Social Security reform (or, rather, promises of reform), except that reform won’t include personal accounts – the only reform that makes any sense. Don’t do it, Dubya! It’s the same trap your dad fell into! (Hat tip to Owen)

Governor Doyle catfights Senate Dems over the property tax freeze. The “freeze” wasn’t what it should have been: if we look, we’ll find places where property taxes are still outgrowing people’s ability to pay. But statewide, property taxes grew only 2.2% last year – just over half the rate of personal income growth.

That’s good fodder, which will help Doyle hold the Republican hounds at bay…if it continues. The “freeze” is scheduled to end this year. If post-freeze property tax bills leap by four or five percent, fuggedaboudit.

Doyle will want the freeze – or some facsimile thereof – to continue. Legislative Democrats – itching to raise taxes with their newfound power – won’t. At the sound of the bell, come out fighting! Ding!

I get better at everything. Better at writing, better at working, better at Dad-ing and better at husband-ing. It's no secret how. It’s just a matter of doing it.

An even better year for Wisconsin sports. A Final Four appearance (at least!) for the Badgers. A playoff appearance – maybe even hosting a playoff game – for the Packers. A Big Ten Championship and BCS bowl for the Badgers. And an explosive, outrageous, disgraceful controversy in the BCS system that will leave the NCAA no choice but to install a college football playoff system.

I’m available to consult on that. Gimme a call.

Politics doesn’t get any nicer, bipartisan, cooperative, or any less nasty, but we’ll all be a little less uptight about that.

George Lucas finally admits that there’s way too much money in the franchise not to make the final three Star Wars movies, not to mention a series of spinoff movies. Josh Whedon will agree to write and direct.

The kids learn to pick up after themselves without being nagged.

And while we’re delving into fantasyland, how about:

The Badger Blog Alliance is invited to guest-blog at NRO's The Corner for a day, without resorting to violence, trickery, or pseudo-cartoonish plans for world domination.

There you have it. My wish list for 2007. I’d invite you to check back in December, to see how I did, but…well, even I can predict that.