No Profit for Health Care

Parts of the lefty Cheddarsphere are outraged. Mortified. Adamant that Something Be Done.

Because, they’ve discovered, health care in this state is driven by greed. Profiteering. Profit motive. Even the non-profit hospitals are bleeding us dry: we give them tax breaks and they – gasp – keep their finances in the black!

That the profit motive exists at all is problematic for the liberal mind. That it exists in health care…such a basic, fundamental need…

That’s not just outrageous. It’s criminal. Or it oughta be.

Let the smear campaign begin. The health care industry is, you see, overrun by greedy, miserly, money-grubbing fatcats whose only goal is to add one more buck to an already-bloated hoard.

Degrade. Demonize. Give us somebody to blame. Then step in and save the day.

It’s really an odd point of view, if you think about it. Why do people get into the health care business in the first place?

Because it’s a good thing to do, I’m sure. Noble. Healing the sick, helping the injured. Becoming a doctor, or nurse, or attendant.

Oh, and by the way, there’s a paycheck.

Just like police officers, firefighters, teachers, priests, and reporters: they’re doing something worthwhile, necessary, good.

How many of them would stay at these jobs, if they weren’t getting paid?

Damn few. And neither would construction workers, secretaries, garbage collectors, or truck drivers.

And neither would I. And neither would you.

None of us work for free. We all work for profit. We are for-profit organizations, each and every one of us. That’s how we eat.

Of course, that’s not quite what the profit-hating Left means. We’re just people, not big, faceless corporations. We’re not insurance companies, making millions by filling one of our most basic needs. It’s wrong. Ugly.

Doctors who make six-figure salaries. Shame!

And farmers! Not all farmers, obviously, but some. Some farmers make profits. Some make big profits. The rest…well, we wish they made money, don’t we? Don’t we wish farming was more profitable?

I do. I wish farmers were making more money. Lots of money.

But farmers fill one of our most basic needs: the need to eat. So I guess liberals want them to stay poor. Because it’s not right to profiteer on people’s basic needs.

Back to health care. It’s expensive, and getting more so. So some of us look around and see people making money, and figure that’s the problem.

Or, at least, it’s an easy scapegoat. Let’s face it: life can be scary. It’s frightening to think that a serious accident or illness could put our loved ones in danger, and ruin us financially.

That’s a serious concern. And somebody’s making money from it. It doesn’t seem right. It shouldn’t be allowed!

So the solution is: take the money-grubbers out of the mix. Screw laissez faire economics! Yes, I know, the “Wisconsin Health Plan” purports to use the free market. With price controls, and government-defined profit levels, and billions in new taxes.

Right.

Even if it did work, this “solution” just exchanges one problem for another. It exchanges the cold logic of economics for the cold…well, logic, of a sort…of the mid-level government functionary, armed with a stack of regulations and very little interest in whether the system is working as it should.

He gets paid either way, you see. It’s a profit deal.

I’m not suggesting that the free market will solve every problem. Not at all. There will still be problems. There will always be needs, and some of them will always – always, no matter what we do – go unfilled.

At least our current system – with all its problems and insecurities – lets us move. It lets us find ways to solve problems for ourselves, instead of waiting for others to do it for us.

Let the government take control, though, and there will be no such movement. There will be no possibility of improving our access, or our family’s. We’ll all be stuck in a government-run, massively bureaucratic tar pit that depends, for its own success, on businesses providing jobs in a harshly regulated environment that sports the highest tax burden in the country.

In other words, a system that will be just as insecure, albeit more securely insecure, than what we have.

Smoke 'em while you Got 'em

The State of Wisconsin: smoke-choked pariah!

Either that, or standing firm for individual rights, even if we have to do it alone.

Okay, I’m going too far. As usual. But we’re definitely the odd state out. See, we still allow smoking in public places. Some public places, anyway. And in that, says the Wisconsin State Journal, we’re falling behind the curve:

…a smoking ban took effect in Ohio in December. Bans took effect in Arizona in May and New Mexico in June. New Hampshire's ban takes effect in September, Minnesota's on Oct. 1 and Illinois' on Jan. 1.

By the time Maryland's ban takes effect Feb. 1, fully half the states will have antismoking laws that ban smoking in all restaurants.

Smoking in all office, factory and warehouse workplaces will be prohibited in 18 states, and by the end of 2009 smoking in all bars will be banned in 22 states.

Peer pressure. Just another reason, according to the WSJ, that we should adopt Governor Doyle’s plan to “prohibit smoking in public buildings and workplaces, including restaurants and bars, statewide.”

Me, I’m ambivalent. Let me get this out of the way right now: I don’t defend smoking. It’s a bad habit. A bad decision.

When I was younger, I worked in a pool hall/bowling alley. Later, I was a waiter and bartender. Then, the ever-present haze of smoke didn’t bother me. Now, they do. I’d rather not smell it, and I’d rather not come home smelling like it.

I don’t allow smoking in my home or car. If I have a guest who smokes, we’ll go on outside together so he can enjoy his cigarette.

If I ever catch one of the kids smoking, I’ll do that thing where they have to smoke a whole pack, one after the other, for which I’m sure to be accused of child abuse.

But you know…that’s my house. I can make that decision, if I want. Or, if I want to allow smoking, or even start smoking myself, I can do that, too. Because it’s my house. My property. My decision.

How come bar owners can’t make the same decision for their property?

Yeah, I know. Smokers hurt all of us, because we end up paying for their health problems.

But, then, overeating does the same thing. Obesity. Lack of exercise. Too much TV. Too much drink. Eating too much red meat, and not enough vegetables. Do we want laws about those, too?

There’s a significant difference, of course: your eating habits don’t directly affect my health. You eating a whole bucket of fried chicken doesn’t clog my arteries, but your cigarette smoke does touch my lungs.

That’s right! Smoking’s unhealthy. Causes cancer, and emphysema, and heart disease. Why should we have to put ourselves at risk like that?

You don’t. Just don’t go where people smoke.

The employees don’t have that choice!

And there it is: the anti-smoking activists’ trump card. I can stay away, but the employees – they have to be there. They have to breathe the smoke. They’re under a lifetime contract, or something.

There are, naturally, other jobs. Water parks and other businesses up in the Dells are so short of workers they have to import them from Europe every year. Wal-Mart and the like are always hiring. Surely those jobs don’t pay that much worse than what the average waiter makes.

Regardless, we can’t entirely ignore that argument. There are likely waiters and bartenders who honestly, for whatever reason, have no recourse in finding another job. They’re trapped in an environment that is harmful to their health.

Fine. You know who else is in that boat? People who have smokers in their families. Maybe Dad smokes. Maybe it’s Mom. Maybe Grandpa moved in last month, and he sits in the kitchen smoking cigars.

If employees have few choices, then kids in those families have fewer. Their health is at risk. How can we do that…to our children?

Mark my words: homes are next.

Again, I hate to sound like I’m defending smoking. And since I don’t smoke, and since nobody in my immediate family smokes, and since I don’t own or work at a restaurant, bar, or other such business, this ban won’t affect me at all.

But: first they came for the smokers, and I said nothing, for I was not a smoker…

Feingold's Script

Wisconsin’s liberal Senator, Russ Feingold, wants to “censure” President Bush. Without the blessing of his fellow Democrats. Or, just maybe, with it.

He’s offered two censure resolutions in the Senate:

The first would seek to reprimand Bush for, as Feingold described it, getting the nation into war without adequate military preparation and for issuing misleading public statements. The resolution also would cite Vice President Dick Cheney...

The second measure would seek to censure Bush for what the Democrat called a continuous assault against the rule of law through such efforts as the warrantless surveillance program against suspected terrorists, Feingold said…

“Censure,” as a punishment, ranks right around the serious talking-to. Worse than a stern stare, but not quite as bad as a time-out. If censured, President Bush will not actually lose anything, except, possibly…

…well, nothing. Come on, the only people who will approve aren’t exactly his friends now. Majority Democrats are already trying to Bush-bash their way to victory in 2008. And it’s not like “censure” will be the straw that finally turns the mainstream media against him.

So that’s all a wash. Censure is, quite simply, a more formalized method of sticking out one’s tongue and making a rude noise.

It is a formal statement of disapproval, however, that can have a powerful psychological effect on a member and his/her relationships in the Senate.

Ooo, a “powerful psychological effect.” We’re all shaking in our collective jackboots now, aren’t we?

Want a friend? Get a dog. He won’t care.

Censure would, at least, have some historical significance. Only two presidents have ever been censured: Andrew Jackson in 1834 (subsequently expunged) and Josiah Bartlett, in season 3 of NBC’s “The West Wing.”

This President won’t be the third. Feingold has introduced a censure resolution before, and got only three cosponsors. His leadership doesn’t support it. His Democrat peers aren’t exactly stampeding over each other to get on board.

I wonder why not. Democrats and their liberal-to-liberalest supporters make such a big deal out of Bush Lied! and “warrantless” wiretapping and Guantanamo Bay – if they think these are winning issues, issues that embarrass the President and his Republican allies, then why not go ahead with censure?

Why not draft Articles of Impeachment?

Feingold can’t do that himself, of course. Only the House of Representatives can. Tammy Baldwin. Ron Kind. Steve Kagen. Etcetera.

So why don’t they?

Maybe they know very well that all their blustering hyperbole on these “issues” is just that: hyperbole. They don’t really believe it, and know it would be wrong to go any further than making rude accusations on cable talk shows.

Nah.

Or maybe they realize that it won’t work, and might actually backfire. The House might successfully vote to impeach – that only takes a simple majority. But it takes a two-thirds majority for the Senate to convict. That’ll never happen.

And while it’s not happening, it will rally the Republican base. That’s mostly what the Clinton impeachment accomplished in 1998. Clinton came out the other end stronger, with his base rallied around him. Republicans just looked petty, wasting time on cheap political grandstanding.

Republicans – Democrats, too – think the same thing will happen again. That’s why Dems aren’t going for it. That’s why Republicans egg them on.

This may be wrong. The circumstances are different. We may all be fighting the last war over again.

Regardless, Democrats feel they have little to lose by leaving it alone. Republican morale is down. Conservatives are disgruntled. Democrats hope this will translate into further victories in 2008.

But. Their more angry bands of followers – the Kossites and Garveyites – want blood, and are willing and able to embarrass the hell out of their own side if they don’t get it.

Thus, the Feingold resolutions. Thus, Dennis Kucinich and his resolution to impeach Dick Cheney.

The actions of mavericks, willing to cause their leaders and their Party discomfort in order to do what they think is right?

Maybe. Or, maybe, experienced partisan fighters, purposely doing just enough to give the nutroots their red meat. Just enough to prevent outright rebellion, while allowing Republican weakness to keep handing electoral majorities to the Democrats.

It’s more fun to think they’re scared. It’s wiser to think they’re smart.

Knowing Bias When You See It

How does one recognize bias?

In some ways, it’s like obscenity: you may not be able to define it, but you know it when you see it.

Bias, like obscenity, is a little bit in the eye of the beholder. Unlike obscenity, bias is a two-way street. What looks to one side like bias, when it’s aimed at their side, might pass for absolutely fair when aimed at the other side.

Or, maybe not. Sometimes, surely, we can all recognize bias, no matter which direction it’s pointing, if only we can examine it properly. Compare. Like a scientific experiment: change one variable, and see what the difference is.

For example, let’s look at…oh, just anything. Any issue. Pick one at random. Let’s say…the state budget.

Here’s the Wisconsin State Journal’s lead from June 27 – the day after Senate Democrats passed their version of the state budget:

A sweeping universal health care plan that would cover virtually every person in Wisconsin cleared the Democratic-controlled state Senate on Tuesday as part of the two-year budget.

It now heads to the Assembly, where Republicans who hold a slim five-seat majority are expected to delete the plan and a number of other tax increases in the $66.1 billion budget.

That’s not so bad, is it? Although you wonder what they mean by “other” tax increases – you mean the health care plan was a tax increase? And why Republicans have a “slim five-seat majority” in the Assembly, while the Senate is “Democratic-controlled.” But, surely, I’m just nitpicking. This doesn’t constitute bias.

On the other hand, why didn’t they write something like this:

“A budget proposal that includes universal health care but which critics argued would be devastating to Wisconsin’s taxpayers and economy cleared the Senate on a partisan vote Tuesday.”

Does that sound biased? I sure think so.

That’s exactly what they wrote a couple weeks later, when Assembly Republicans passed their version:

A budget proposal that rejects tax increases but one that critics argued would be devastating for education and health care cleared the Assembly on a partisan vote Tuesday.

Okay, so they’re trying to get both sides’ views into the same lead paragraph. Nothing wrong with that, except that they didn’t handle the previous story the same way. And besides: Devastating! Partisan!

The Senate vote was also partisan. Where were these words back in June?

On to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:

Flexing political muscle they lacked for four years, Democrats on Tuesday pushed through the Senate a budget with historic tax increases, a $15.2 billion universal health care plan and a broader role for state government in the lives of every Wisconsin resident.

At least they mention the tax increases and intrusively expanding government power. At least they mention a price tag.

Not with the same derision I’d have used, but you can’t have everything.

Notice, though: no mention of any critics. No mention of what some other side – if, in fact, there is another side – might say. Now compare to their lead on the Republicans’ budget:

The Republican-run Assembly passed a budget late Tuesday that avoids tax increases by funding education, the University of Wisconsin System and local governments with much less than what Democratic legislators insist is needed to protect programs for two years.

The other side! It’s back!

Caveat: I am a partisan. Politically, and ideologically. That’s a fact, and there’s no getting around it. Like other partisans, I tend to see things through the us-good-them-bad lens. I’m more likely to view anything liberals and Democrats do with suspicion, and to assume that what Republicans and conservatives do is right.

More likely. Not a hundred percent likely, but more.

This could be partly at work here, but note: these are lead paragraphs about, essentially, the same story. One legislative house passed its version of the state budget.

Note the difference in tone. The difference in focus. The need to squeeze critics’ opinions into lead paragraphs about Republican budgets, but not lead paragraphs about Democrat budgets.

That’s how I would probably write about them, albeit in reverse. Or how Democrat leaders Judy Robson and Jim Krueser might write about them.

But then, we’re partisans. We see things through that lens.

What lens are these supposed-to-be-objective news sources using?

Apropos of Nothing (and I mean nothing)

If a tree falls in the woods and no one is there to hear it, does it make a sound?

Duh. Of course not. It can’t.

No matter how you look at it, that tree didn’t make the slightest peep. No matter how big it was. No matter how many other trees it hit on the way down. Not if no one was there to hear it.

You see, if nobody is around to hear it, then all it makes are vibrations. There’s no ear to translate those vibrations, and no brain to interpret them. That’s what sound really is: the brain’s interpretation of vibrations received through the ear.

So no. It doesn’t make any sound. All is perfectly quiet.

I related this to my brother one day, some time ago. He disagreed. According to him, you don’t have to wait until the pizza comes out of the oven: it’s a pizza from the moment you put your hands in the batter. The tree’s fall causes vibrations, he argued, which are the equivalent of sound.

As you may have guessed, my brother isn’t married.

If he were married, he would know what a total load of unhelpful drivel that is. Merely producing the vibrations necessary to make sound doesn’t – repeat, does not – make them sound. If it did, men’s lives would be a lot more difficult.

For example: the morning my wife insisted that she had told me the week before – at least once – that I would have to pick our two little boys up after work and take them to their older brother’s soccer practice that day.

She insisted, because she had to. Because I had no memory of her telling me that. None whatsoever. I was caught completely by surprise when she “reminded” me.

There are only two possibilities: she did tell me, or she didn’t. If she didn’t tell me, then her insistence that she did is simply another part of her ongoing plot to establish and secure supremacy at home by undermining my faith in my own sanity.

If she did tell me, then there are two more possibilities: I heard and assimilated the knowledge, but later forgot; or the information never reached my brain.

Under the first scenario, I’m responsible for it. Under the second, I’m not. Or, at least, I’m much less responsible.

If a tree falling in the forest does make sound, even though no one is there to hear it, the second scenario is no longer possible, and life just got harder.

Here’s why: communication is a two-way street. One person gives, the other person receives. Both must happen, in order for communication to occur.

If there’s nobody around to hear the tree fall, then the second part has not been achieved. Thus, there’s no communication.

By the same token, if my wife tells me something but I am not quite “there” enough to hear it – busy as I am with important man-matters like politics and the Middle East and whether or not the Bucks have made the Packers’ choice of first-round draft picks look downright prescient – then the second phase of communication has not been achieved.

And, therefore, she didn’t actually say anything. I’m off the hook.

If, on the other hand (as my brother suggests), the second phase of communication isn’t required – if the creation of vibrations is enough without reception or interpretation of those vibrations – then it’s enough for her merely to say something, anything, within reasonable range of my hearing, and I’m responsible for hearing, understanding, and executing.

As anyone can see, this would make my life, and the lives of all husbands and potential husbands, much, much harder.

And life is quite hard enough as it is, thank you. Especially when you’re sleeping on the couch.

Like…um…tonight. At least, probably.

If my wife reads this.

(Love you, honey!)

Doyle '07 vs. Doyle '03

Headline: Governor Doyle Attacks Assembly Budget.

My reaction: well, duh.

Here’s the headline we ought to be seeing: Governor Doyle Attacks Own Budget.

Now that’s news! And, yes, as a matter of fact, it’s true.

True, although maybe not quite a fact, in the “Jim Doyle was a fiscal conservative back in 2002” sort of sense. Not that straightforward. But still, fact-ish. And fun.

We need a little fun, I think. It’s been a long, serious week, and now it’s Friday. Time to lighten up. Time for some fun.

And, naturally, no sooner do we think of fun than we think of Governor Doyle, the Senate Democrats, and their versions of the 2007-09 state budget. Excellent examples of something Democrats, in general, seem willing and even eager to do.

To wit: ignore the past.

For example, then-Attorney General Doyle’s campaign promise to eliminate 10,000 state jobs over 8 years. Anybody seen that promise lately?

Then there’s this, from his 2003 Budget Address (emphasis added):

“This budget, like all, relies on some one-time revenue sources. Because one-time sources helped create the current mess, we used them sparingly. …We are using them as part of a long-term plan that results in long-term balance, not a one-time fix that just delays hard decisions. …by the end of this budget, we will have cut state spending enough that we won't have to rely on these revenues any more.”

I don’t remember, specifically, but I’ll bet a number of Democrats, including some currently serving in the Senate, applauded that line.

Other examples, from Governor Doyle’s 2003 State of the State

“The simple fact is this: We're spending too much -- and we have been for a long, long time.”

“Wisconsin is already one of the nation's most heavily taxed states. Adding to the burden would make it virtually impossible to attract new jobs...”

“By costing us jobs, raising taxes would trigger an economic spiral that would cost us revenue too. In the long run -- and perhaps in the short term too -- raising taxes will make the deficit worse, not better.”

And who can forget this classic:

“Going forward, my mind will be open to every solution -- except one. We should not -- we must not -- and I will not -- raise taxes.”

Yeah, I know: that was four years and two budgets ago. Things – mostly Democrat prospects – have changed. Governor Doyle is in his second term, firmly ensconced in the Governor’s office, and Democrats are ascendant in Wisconsin politics. That’s what’s changed, mostly, so no more of this stupid conservatism!

Feh. Can’t believe we actually had to say all that stuff to begin with. And with a straight face, even! Cut taxes? Smaller government? I feel all dirty now.

No problem. It’s all over. Democrats are back to acting like tax-and-spend Democrats, and are leaving Republicanism to Republicans. Consider:

Governor Doyle’s 07-09 budget increases spending by almost 9%. Senate Democrats increase spending by 23%. Assembly Republicans increase spending by five percent – right around the usual rate of inflation (for two years).

Governor Doyle increases tax and fee revenues by $1.75 billion, including new taxes on hospitals, and higher taxes on cigarettes, gas, and real estate transfers (i.e., buying a house!). Assembly Republicans eliminated each and every one of the Democrats’ tax increases, and passed several different tax cuts.

Because: “Wisconsin's problem is not that we tax too little. It is that we spend too much.”

Governor Doyle's budget borrows over $3 billion. The Assembly Republicans’ cuts that nearly in half.

Governor Doyle’s budget raids several different segregated funds – “one-time revenue sources” – to the tune of $411 million. The Assembly Republicans cut that back to $14 million.

And the Assembly budget spends more on K-12 education than the Governor’s budget does.

No tax increases: check. Spending within the taxpayer’s ability to pay: check. Eliminating one-time funding: check. Reducing the tax burden and Wisconsin’s tax-hell status: check. Reducing the size of government so the private sector can create more jobs: check.

So what’s the Governor mad about? Assembly Republicans have passed his budget!

Health Care for None

I spent the weekend doing a fast-paced re-read of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged.

One doesn’t pick up a 1000+ page novel on a whim, of course, no matter how badly everyone – and I mean everyone – needs to read it. But I was reminded recently of a quote I knew was in there, and I had to find it.

And here it is (emphasis added):

The stocky, elderly man was obviously a businessman of the conscientious, unspectacular kind. His formal dress suit was of good quality, but of a cut fashionable twenty years before…His face had the expression which, these days, was the mark of an honest man: an expression of bewilderment. He was looking at his companion, trying hard – conscientiously, helplessly, hopelessly – to understand.

His companion was…saying, in a tone of patronizing boredom, “Well, I don’t know. All of you are crying about rising costs, it seems to be the stock complaint nowadays, it’s the usual whine of people whose profits are squeezed a little. I don’t know, we’ll have to see, we’ll have to decide whether we’ll permit you to make any profits or not.”

A throwaway happening in a much larger scene. Hardly on par with the book’s better-known speeches, but just as important. It’s the arrogance of unearned power. The young punk bureaucrat, powerful with connections, lording it over the businessman who’s spent his life building. The dark side of government regulation. Of government control. The end result of wanting a government to give us everything we want, when we want.

And what reminded me of it?

What else? The Democrats’ plan for universal, government-controlled health care in Wisconsin.

From page 37 of the bill (emphasis added):

(4) QUALIFYING HEALTH CARE NETWORKS. A health care network is qualifying if it does all of the following:

…

(b) Will spend at least 92 percent of the revenue it receives under this chapter on one of the following:

1. Payments to health care providers in order to provide the health care benefits specified in this chapter to participants who choose the health care network.

2. Investments that the health care network has reasonably determined will improve the overall quality or lower the overall cost of patient care.

The Democrats have decided: they will permit profits, but only up to eight percent. Less than a good mutual fund will make. Good luck attracting those investors.

Or maybe not even that high. Question: do the “payments” and “investments” mentioned above include the network’s own expenses? Their own payrolls, operating costs, etc.?

How about taxes? Do the networks have to pay the 9-12% of new payroll taxes – created by this very plan – out of their 8%? Or not?

If I were running a health care network, I’d argue not, but it won’t be up to me. It will be up to a board of appointed bureaucrats who may be sympathetic, or who may dismiss my complaints as “the usual whine of people whose profits are squeezed a little.”

Will any health care networks want to do business in Wisconsin under those circumstances? And how will the Democrats’ plan work, if not?

Now, let’s not be too doom-and-gloom. I’m sure Senate Democrats only whipped this thing together, not because they actually think it will pass, but out of fear that I’d write yet another scathing column, mocking them for having no actual plan for single payer health care.

Even Governor Doyle doesn’t support it. This isn’t a serious proposal, and everybody knows it. It’s a moment in the spotlight: a chance to pose for the cameras without having to worry about whether or not it will work, and with a little luck it will make Republicans look mean and heartless, come 2008.

Still, it’s a toe across a line that ought to remain un-toed. Governments – Republicans included – love to offer grants, tax incentives, exemptions for this or that industry. That’s a fact Ayn Rand mocks unfailingly, and it’s also a fact of life.

We nudge, emphasize, encourage. But Democrats have decided: we won’t just nudge. We won’t just emphasize. We won’t just encourage. We’ll control.

All together, now, from another classic: “First, they came for the health care providers, and I did not speak out because I was not a health care provider…”

Due to an extremely late night at work...

...today's column has now officially become tomorrow's column. Thanks for coming, hope you didn't have to drive far to get here.

Let the Dems Have Their Way

Remember the Free State Project?

It started in 2001 – a few libertarians realized their “movement” wasn’t moving anywhere because all the true-believing Libertarians were scattered around the country. Sparse minorities, thus politically impotent.

So they started the Free State Project. The idea is simple: find 20,000 true-believing libertarians who are willing to move to New Hampshire. Once they’ve all moved, tilt the balance of power and create a libertarian-based government. Live in the libertarian paradise you’ve always wanted!

What made me think of this? Why, the state budget, of course, and the $18 billion tax increase proposed by Senate Democrats.

Wouldn’t it be great if they all moved to New Hampshire? Or, maybe, Minnesota?

Back to that later.

To recap: Governor Doyle proposed a budget that included around $3 billion in new taxes. That wasn’t nearly good enough for Senate Democrats, who expanded on the Governor’s tax increases, added more government, more bureaucracy, more pork, and then added another $15 billion-with-a-B in tax increases to pay for their government-mandated, single-payer, socialized health care plan.

How much is $15 billion? Well, in 2005-06, the state of Wisconsin raised a little over $12 billion in taxes. The Democrats’ budget – in fact, their health care plan alone – will more than double our state tax burden in one fell swoop.

And note: this doesn’t replace the government health care we’ve already got.

Under the plan, individuals – each and every one of us – will pay between zero and 4% of our wages. The self-employed will pay 9 to 10 percent. Employers will pay 9 to 12 percent – not of their profits, but of their payroll.

Supporters crow that most – or at least many – people and businesses will save money, once they’re forced to switch to the new state plan.

Democrats used to hate it when rich companies “forced” their employees onto government health care. Now they want to require it. I guess Wal-Mart is off the hook.

But the “savings,” if any, won’t last. For one thing, government programs always cost more than the initial assessments claim. For another, many businesses offer only rudimentary health insurance, or none at all.

Those would be the lower-wage kinds of businesses: gas stations, restaurants, grocery stores, etc. The places we spend our money. Their costs will be higher from day one, and they’ll have to raise prices to pay the new taxes.

And not only them. At every level of production – from raw materials to retailer, and every truck in between – businesses will have to pay both their own higher taxes and the higher prices of the businesses which sell to them, because those businesses, in turn, have to find a way to pay their own higher taxes.

For us, that means less disposable income. We all become poorer.

And, of course, there’s no stopping the government from expanding the program in the future. It will get bigger, and more expensive, as time goes on. And, of course, the government – in all its reliable and efficient glory – will have taken over our doctor’s offices and emergency rooms.

Part of me wants to let the Democrats have it. Just throw my hands in the air and let them have their way. Let them have their taxes, and their government power, and their expanded bureaucracy, just so we can all see, once and for all, the end result.

But not here. Not in my state. Instead, let’s do what the Free State Society wants, with a twist.

Send all our liberals to Minnesota. Bring all their conservatives here.

They get Russ Feingold, we get Norm Coleman. They get Judy Robson, we get Tim Pawlenty. They get Joel McNally, we get…um…okay, so I can’t name too many Minnesota conservatives. I’ll take Jesse Ventura. Or Al Erkkila. Take your pick.

Let the Dems enact their “reforms” on the other side of the Mississippi. Let them tax businesses to pay for government-micromanaged health care. Mandate renewable energy. Whatever social programs they want. Whatever economic programs they want. Let them legislate their dear progressive hearts out.

Wait ten years. Compare. Then we’ll start sending aid packages. Relief missions. Hey, we’ll be able to afford it.

And field trips. School groups. Because nothing beats seeing the consequences first-hand.

Senate Democrats, Budgeting with Integrity

News is a feast or famine kind of business. Sometimes you starve for something to write about. Other times, you can’t keep up.

The only thing you can be sure of: take a week off, and the floodgates will open.

I took just such a week off last week: a mission trip, with three teenagers, to Kingston, Tennessee. Saw exactly zero news: no papers, no TV, no internet. My biggest worry all week was getting any sleep, crammed into a room with 11 other people, four of whom snored, frequently and explosively.

Including my own son.

And…what happened? Flooding in Texas. Paris out of jail, claiming she read a book. The Brewers still winning, the Bucks one-upping the Packers on questionable first-round draft picks. Major news media reporting a poorly-documented and ultimately bogus multiple beheading in Iraq.

Wisconsin’s Democrats held their state convention, where they shrewdly announced exactly which Republican-held Assembly districts they plan to target next year.

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed – most of them, anyway, and to a point – that “Congress shall make no law…abridging the freedom of speech,” which I’m sure I read somewhere once.

The point: all kinds of big, interesting, column-worthy news last week. That last one, at least, I expected. Knew it was coming and would have been shocked if SCOTUS had voted differently.

What I didn’t expect: the integrity shown by Senate Democrats on their version of the state budget.

Yes, I said the Senate Dems are acting with integrity. Being true to themselves, their beliefs, their constituents.

Just look where they are: a new majority in the Senate, looking to build on last year’s victories, maybe even win a majority in the Assembly next year.

You don’t do that through political extremism. Majorities are won and held by moving to the center. Keeping the base happy, of course, but attracting the middle, too.

Given that, one might expect the Dems to moderate their positions. Tamp down their more liberal urges. Ignore ideology, to a point, and bow to political necessity.

They’ve done exactly the opposite. No fingers in the wind for this bunch. Not a DINO among them. No, these are real, confident, aggressive and fighting liberal Democrats. Opportunistic political maneuvering be damned, they’re embracing their liberal ideals and swinging them gaily around the dance floor.

Just look at their budget: tax increases all around. Higher taxes on business. Higher taxes on people. On homeowners. No limits on property taxes. The single biggest tax increase in Wisconsin history. Biggest in the nation.

We don’t like being the 8th highest taxed state in the nation? No problem. Senate Dems will launch us right up to first.

A 23% increase in spending. Cradle-to-the-Grave government-run health care that increases business taxes to the tune of double digit percentages. A massive new entitlement program that can easily be tweaked in the future, to increase access and/or benefits even further.

Government Is The Answer, and since government can’t do anything without money – correction, more money – we’ll all have to Pay Our Fair Share to get that answer. And it’ll be a lot.

This all might be – correction, will be – unpopular among many wide swaths of the electorate. Never mind. Senate Dems will stand on principle, dammit: take from individuals for the good of the collective, because the collective, led by them, knows better.

One wonders whether Senate Dems will be celebrating Independence Day tomorrow, with the rest of us. The American Revolution began, in large part, because the British levied taxes on things like paper and tea.

Senate Dems love taxes. Their budget proves it, which makes one wonder further: had they been in charge in 1776, how might history have been different?

Senate Democrats aren’t stupid. They surely don’t believe that tax increases like these will win them stronger majorities.

Or maybe they do believe it. Fine by me.

Regardless, they’re doing what they’re doing not for political advantage, but because it’s what they believe. It’s what they want. It’s who they are.

Good for them, I say. Best of luck.