The Magical, Mythical, Wisconsin non-Covenant

I don’t often watch network news. Last night, I was reminded why.

Channel 27, WKOW, Madison’s ABC affiliate, ran a story last night about incoming High School freshmen and their hopes for the future.

Here’s the story, as posted on their website:

Some area ninth graders made a promise to the State of Wisconsin Thursday night.

The State of Wisconsin made a pretty hefty promise in return: guaranteed college admission if students make the grade.

...

These teens and their peers across the state are the first class eligible for the Wisconsin Covenant.

The covenant guarantees admission into a state college if students graduate from a Wisconsin high school, get involved in the community and maintain a "B" average

The state also promises to help students get funds to pay for school.

There’s a lot of cleverness behind Wisconsin Covenant. A lot of political shrewdness. It’s pretty smart, really. More on that in a minute.

First, though, should WKOW be embarrassed? Quite possibly, yes.

Notice the choice of words: Wisconsin “made a pretty hefty promise;” “guarantees;” “promises.”

Those are important, because here’s the skinny on Wisconsin Covenant: it doesn’t exist. The state can’t “guarantee” admission unless something is actually written into law. The state can’t “promise” help paying for school unless something is actually written into law.

It isn’t. Wisconsin Covenant appears nowhere in Wisconsin law. No state agency has authority to enforce those “promises” and “guarantees.”

One might think that little fact would make it into any news story about Wisconsin Covenant. If so, one would be wrong.

Not a hint. Not even a suggestion that some legislative activity might still have to take place. In fact, the opposite was true. The TV story (wish I had video) featured snippets of interviews with both students and parents, all of whom were thrilled with the state’s “promises.”

Now, let’s not get too overwrought. This is hardly the most egregious screw-up by a news outlet ever.

Still, it might have been nice if they’d run this past whoever covers state politics for them.

Or, maybe, if they’d checked on the Wisconsin Covenant website.

See, while the news story used the words “promise” and “guarantee,” the website itself – the official Wisconsin Covenant website – doesn’t.

Read the pledge yourself. Read the details. Students “can expect” a place at a college, university, or technical school; and a financial aid package “determined by the FAFSA (Federal Application for Federal Student Aid).”

Students can expect that if they: graduate with a B average or better; take college prep classes and meet entrance requirements; apply for financial aid in a timely fashion.

Never does the website mention the words “promise” or “guarantee.”

The thing is, they could have. They could have promised, and guaranteed. And they wouldn't be lying.

The state doesn’t have to promise, because any student who does what the Covenant requires will be accepted to college, Covenant or no Covenant. Covenant or no Covenant, any student found eligible for financial aid will receive it.

In other words, this Wisconsin Covenant is offering things that students and their families already have.

What a brilliant bit of political scheming by Governor Jim Doyle.

Wisconsin Covenant is his baby. His idea. His issue. He’s misleading people into believing in a program that doesn’t exist. In magical, mythical college acceptance letters and financial aid checks that would remain just that – magical and mythical – if it weren’t for him and his benevolence.

Of course, they never were magical and mythical, but he’s getting the credit anyway.

What spectacular public relations.

What spectacular politics, too. In two years, as the next gubernatorial campaign is getting underway, Doyle will be able to lambaste a Legislature – whether Republican or Democrat – that hasn’t passed Wisconsin Covenant into law. Assuming that they haven’t.

Three years’ worth of signed-up students will be depending on it!

Either that, or he’ll be able to tell three years’ worth of families: look what I’ve done for you.

And he’ll be able to tell them directly. Through the mail. Because you have to give him contact information when you sign up.

And that’s whether or not the Covenant ever really becomes law, because those families will get those benefits regardless!

I realized all this after ten minutes of research and thought. Surely, WKOW could have – maybe did – do the same.

But the fluff story was more important. Too bad.

It's Just Too Early

“The Weather Man” was a depressingly gloomy but interesting movie. Nicolas Cage played the lead: a TV weatherman who discovers, by the movie’s end, that life is neither predictable nor controllable.

Much like the weather.

In one of the movie’s final scenes, someone asks him: “so, is it going to rain today?” He answers unexpectedly, but maybe wisely: “who knows?”

I can relate.

In my case, the question is: “who do you like in the Presidential primary?” I hear that, or something like it, probably once a week. My answer: “I dunno.”

That surprises people who know me and my love of things political. Oh, I can discuss various strengths and weaknesses of various candidates with some knowledge and insight. But solid opinions? I have none.

It’s far too early to invest oneself in a candidate. Come September, a few days from now, we’ll have 14 months to go before the election. Nearly six full months before the primary – before we actually have to duck under a curtain and check a box.

Okay, six months…that doesn’t sound so early to start picking sides. Still, I can’t quite bring myself to do it. Not yet.

Why not?

Well, let’s see. Back in 2000, I was leaning toward John McCain. In 1996, it was Lamar Alexander. In 1992, I seem to remember oscillating between Bob Kerrey and Jerry Brown. In 1988, I wore a Paul Simon button.

Yes, I was supporting Democrats back then. Cut me some slack. We’ve all done things in youth we’re not proud of today.

You may have noticed: none of those gentlemen became President, or even found a spot on the ticket. In fact, except for Simon, I never voted for any of them. By the time Wisconsin’s primary rolled around, the issue had already, essentially, been settled.

Next year will be no different. Wisconsin will vote on February 19, after thirty-odd other states already have. It’s possible that we’ll still have a contest, but not likely.

And even before then, even before those states have their votes…something’s gonna happen. Some things are gonna happen, that we never saw coming.

John McCain was a front-runner. Now he’s a used-to-be. Fred Thompson might shake up the Republican side of things. Al Gore might shake up the Democrat side.

There could be a scandal. There could be an implosion. There could be a tiny, inconsequential misstatement during a debate or public appearance that gets blown way out of proportion during a slow news week.

There could be a national crisis – real or media-driven – that highlights one candidate’s strengths, or exposes another’s weaknesses for all the world to see.

In other words, it’s way too early to do more than get a couple cheap columns out of the Presidential primary.

And that’s just the primary. Sure, we won’t have a surprise drop-out once the nominees are chosen, but still: the dynamics of the unpredictable remain.

Even something that’s happening right this moment. For example, just to be completely random and unrealistic…just to wildly dream up the most far-fetched fairy-tale…let’s imagine a major national party alienating an entire, populous, battleground state:

The Democratic National Committee, which accused Florida of failing to count every vote during the 2000 presidential election, says it won't count the votes of Florida Democrats in the 2008 presidential primary.

That's right. The party that castigated Florida for disenfranchising voters now plans to disenfranchise every Democratic voter who participates in Florida's primary…

Although Florida is a battleground state, it leans Republican in presidential politics…

Yet with its actions, the Democrats' tone-deaf leadership is encouraging Florida Democrats to re-register as Republicans so that their votes will count in the primary. Think of the implications there.

“The DNC made the no-count decision over the weekend to punish Florida for moving its primary to Jan. 29, where it will play a bigger role in presidential politics,” writes the Tribune.

And I say: way to go, Dems! Don’t take that crap from Florida. Get them back into line! Those old folks and Cuban expats should learn their place!

Of course, Michigan might move their primary to January 29, too. If the Dems put the muscle on Florida, they’ll have to do the same to Michigan.

And the effect of all this next November will be…um…

Yeah. Little too early to say anything, really, except: should be fun, but for now, it’s football season.

Check back in January. Late January.

Democrats Stand in the Way

The State of Wisconsin doesn’t have a budget yet!

Well, we do have one. The old one. Still good, you know. Not what a lot of people want, but still working.

But we don’t have the new one. The one that was supposed to be ready on July 1, fifty-five days ago. This has, according to one guy, made Wisconsin a “national joke.”

Jay Heck, executive director of government watchdog group Common Cause in Wisconsin, said the delays by the state's full-time Legislature are turning the state into a "national joke."

"Even with the resources available to it, the Wisconsin Legislature could not and would not get its primary job done on time," Heck said.

Well, aren’t I just hanging my head in shame. Aren’t you? I can barely stand to drive on the interstate anymore. Just knowing that it connects Wisconsin to other states – states which have passed their budgets – I have to pull over every time I see a car with out-of-state plates, to let them go before me. I figure they deserve it more.

Of course, I could be overreacting. Could be that those other states had to pass their budgets, because they didn’t have the same foresight Wisconsin had.

See, if Wisconsin doesn’t pass a budget, everything just…keeps going. The old budget keeps working. Programs continue, people get paid, wealth gets redistributed. Life continues. That’s how our system works.

That said, of course, it would be better to have a new budget. And we will, sooner or later. Thing is, we’ve got a few disagreements to work out, first, and no amount of holding hands and singing Kumbaya is going to change that.

What should be in the budget? What should be left out? Can we assume you don’t care about that, if not having a new budget is your biggest complaint?

Does that mean we can remove all restrictions on campaign contributions, let legislators accept gifts from lobbyists, eliminate the Government Accountability Board entirely, but Common Cause – campaign finance zealots that they are – will be happy because we finally passed a budget?

That’s kinda what we’re dealing with, here. It’s not just having a budget that’s important. It’s having the right budget.

That said, there are ramifications for waiting this long. For example, this college student, who says he can’t go back to school without his state grant, which is up in the air because of the up-in-the-air state budget.

(Mario) Selph depends on financial aid through the Wisconsin Higher Education Grant program to pay tuition. But until the state budget is approved, the 2004 Delavan-Darien High School graduate doesn't know if the financial aid will be available.

"I need that money to even register for classes," Selph said. "I've been praying about it."

You may be thinking the same thing I am: surely this young man can find some way to make it happen, other than depending on the state.

Let’s not belabor that point. Let’s assume, instead, that this is a young man with potential, who just needs this one small leg-up to help him reach it.

Shame on the Democrats, then, for keeping it from him.

It’s their fault, you know. They insist on keeping their socialist (fine, “universal, single-payer”) “Healthy Wisconsin” health care “plan,” which they cobbled together and threw into the budget at the last possible moment. Even if you support socialized health care, you have to admit this is the wrong way to do it.

But, this willy-nilly attempt to completely redesign health care in Wisconsin is in the Democrats’ budget, and they won’t budge.

Ditto the tax increases: about $1.5 billion in new taxes, even without “Healthy Wisconsin.” And the gimmicks: Democrats raid other funds for $340 million, and borrow over $3 billion.

For crying out loud, are these the same Democrats who stood up and cheered Governor Doyle when he went on and on about writing a responsible budget, without tax increases, without gimmicks, without credit card spending?

And now these Democrats are standing in the way of passing a budget that some people need, because they insist on going back on those promises.

They should back down. We’ll have a more reponsible budget, but best of all, we’ll have a budget. No more “national joke.” And that student will have his grant.

Don’t Democrats care about that?

Cheese on the Ticket, Part IV

Tommy out of the race. Feingold never in it.

It’s been 83 years since a Wisconsinite joined a Presidential ticket. A serious Presidential ticket, anyway. Next year’s election looked like our next best chance, but...with Tommy’s 6th place finish in the Iowa straw poll, it’s over.

Right?

Well, no. Both Tommy and Feingold are still available for Veep, if chosen, but now there’s something new from Wisconsin – at least in the minds of pundits who need something new to talk about.

And that something new is: Governor Jim Doyle. Stanley Fish, a professor of literature (among other things) includes him on a list of possible choices for Hillary Clinton's VP (via Ann Althouse):

Wisconsin has a democratic governor, Jim Doyle, a veteran (some might say shopworn) politician who was formerly an attorney general and has two adopted African American sons. He also has been caught accepting Green Bay Packer tickets, a minor infraction for which he was fined $300, but enough, perhaps to taint him.

You might be thinking: Doyle? Jim Doyle? Diamond Jim Doyle?

I sure did. That’s our Jim Doyle: pay-for-play scandals, broken budget promises…that Jim Doyle.

All I know about Stanley Fish I learned from a quick internet search. If he believes that accepting Packer tickets is the end-all of Doyle’s political liabilities, then he knows as little about Wisconsin politics as I know about him.

This is, after all, the same Jim Doyle who supported legislative oversight of Indian casinos, and who opposed their expansion…until casino interests dropped $700,000 on his ‘02 campaign.

Kenosha businessman Dennis Troha allegedly funneled a hundred grand to Doyle’s campaign, and received what looked like quid pro quo favors in return.

A high-ranking member of Doyle’s Department of Administration actually went to jail over the Adelman Travel scandal. And the state Public Service Commission approved the sale of the Kewaunee Power Plant – a sale they had previously denied – right around the time various interested parties contributed $44,000 to Doyle.

But y’know what? The public yawns. Doyle won re-election by a healthy margin. And anyway, that high-ranking DOA executive has since been acquitted and released, and Wisconsin’s Attorney General - a Republican – found no link between the Kewaunee sale and the Doyle campaign.

So forget the scandals. They’ll be so much background static in a national campaign, anyway. Just the usual mudslinging. A little decent PR work, and Doyle becomes the victim of evil Republican smear tactics. You know how Democrats love a victim.

Not to mention, the fundraising and other scandals might just show Clinton Redux that Doyle has both the ruthlessness and the slipperiness that embodies all things Clintonian.

And Doyle’s got more Clintonianisms to his credit. He continues signing kids up for his “Wisconsin Covenant,” despite the fact that this program doesn’t exist. He made campaign promises and budget promises in 2002 that, today, he simply pretends never existed.

And he’s learned how to triangulate. He opposes “Healthy Wisconsin,” his own party’s scotch-tape-and-chewing-gum “universal” health care “plan.” When asked about it, Doyle reportedly said: “I live in the real world.”

This could be of particular use to a Clinton campaign, eager to neutralize the socialist “Hillarycare” experiment of the 1990s.

Doyle has other advantages. He’s a Governor – a Presidential ticket needs one of those. He’s got – or the aforementioned PR campaign could give him – a reputation as a moderate. He adopted and raised two African-American sons, but didn’t make a big deal out of it until they were grown.

Did you see last year’s campaign ad, featuring Doyle’s sons and, at the end, his grandson? Magic.

And, of course, Wisconsin has been the narrowest of swing states the last two Presidential elections. Our ten electoral votes aren’t much, but they can mean the difference. Having a hometown boy on the ticket should – repeat should – lock the state up.

All that, plus something for the feminists: if a Clinton/Doyle (Edwards/Doyle, Obama/Doyle) ticket should win in 2008, Wisconsin would have its first-ever female Governor.

Say it with me: Governor Barbara Lawton. That would be interesting, if not outright fun.

Just like having Doyle on the ticket.

Wisconsin Schools: Time Hasn’t Told

Education in Wisconsin continues to thrive.

Not that you’d know it, by reading UW and WEAC statements about the state budget. If that’s all you read, then Wisconsin schools are crumbling all around us.

So let’s not. Let’s read something else.

The U.S. News & World Report’s annual university rankings have both good and bad news for Wisconsin. The good news: UW-Madison tied for 8th best among the nation’s public universities, and 38th best overall.

That’s pretty good, considering the hundreds of colleges and universities we have in this country.

The bad news: those rankings are slightly down from last year, when we ranked 34th overall and 7th among public universities.

A sign of decline? Who knows?

It doesn’t matter anyway. Rankings like these are so subjective. As Chancellor John Wiley put it: “what you think is the most important aspect may be different from someone else." And, in fact, these particular rankings have been criticized for just that over the years.

Still, it’s an awfully nice bragging point. We’re one of the best! We can say that, if we want. And this is far from the only study which ranks – and has ranked – the University of Wisconsin among the best universities in the nation and the world.

One can understand, can’t one, why the bi-annual budget-cycle prophecies of doom are so confusing for the common man? Why we can’t quite understand how university officials can complain – as usual – that the UW, its students, and the entire state will suffer horribly unless they get lots more taxpayer money?

Of course one can. Complaining about impoverishment seems odd, when viewed next to evidence of excellence.

Case in point: Wisconsin’s public K-12 schools, which got some good news of their own this week:

More students take ACT, 22.3 score bests seven-year trend

MADISON—A record 70 percent of Wisconsin’s 2007 high school graduates took the ACT college admissions test during high school, and their average composite score of 22.3 beats the seven-year trend of scoring 22.2 on the test.

By the way, Baraboo schools did even better. But that’s just ‘cause us Barabooians are smarter.

Public schools hate standardized tests, except when those tests show what a good job they’re doing. This year’s ACT scores are good enough to place Wisconsin second nationally* for the second straight year. Before that, we were #1 for right around a decade.

Is that a sign of decline? Eh. Since 1994, Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota have shared the top three spots. Every. Single. Year. And according to the National Education Association**, Minnesota and Iowa spend significantly less per student than Wisconsin.

Plus, this is far from the only measure at which Wisconsin schools continue to excel.

One can understand, can’t one, why we’re so confused? How can our schools be so good, when every single educational professional in the state is eager to explain – long and loud and with gusto – that public schools in Wisconsin are circling the drain at the bottom of the toilet, thanks to an inadequate, mean-spirited, child-punitive funding system.

Give us more money, or society falls! But our schools are doing so well on what they’ve got!

Oh, sure, the educracy replies, they’re doing well for now. But it’s just a matter of time. We can’t keep cutting corners like this or, sooner or later, everything will go to hell.

How much time, one wonders? It’s been over ten years since our current school funding system went into effect. How long does it take to starve a school system into criminal inadequacy?

Or are those standardized tests being somehow “dumbed down” to let our students seem to excel, despite the short-changing they receive from Wisconsin’s miserly taxpayers?

How long before other universities avert their eyes in embarrassment when they see the once-great, now-destitute UW coming down the street?

Or does this already happen? Is the You Dub like a past-his-prime football player, still making the Pro Bowl based on past reputation, even though his obviously age-weakened play doesn’t deserve it?

Time will tell, I suppose, although you’d think it would have already.

* Among states with over 50% of students taking the ACT.

** See page 55 of the linked pdf.

Harry Potter and the Unbridled Potential

Editor's Note: there is one possible but vague and subtle spoiler to the final Harry Potter book in the following column.

And…it’s all over.

Except, you know, it isn’t. And anybody who says otherwise doesn’t understand the power of the phrase “hundreds of millions of dollars.”

I could be talking about the Star Wars franchise, but no. July was Harry Potter Month in the English-speaking world and beyond. Book number seven – the Grand Finale. Movie number five.

Quick opinions: the book was satisfying. Sometimes exciting, sometimes surprising. Ended well. Better than the two books which preceded it, but didn’t surpass the first four. Which is fine. It’s hard to keep producing that kind of quality.

The movie: not so much. It did manage to combine confusingly disjointed scene-hopping with boringly slow and awkward dialogue – a notable achievement, I’m sure – and then gave a whopping five minutes to the best part: the big magical Order vs. Death Eater rumble at the end.

Did George Lucas give five minutes for the mass Jedi battle at the end of Episode II? No, he did not.

Come on, people. You are professionals, right? I mean, these writers and producers and directors: they make a living making movies.

And none of them noticed how bad this was?

Lucky for them, Harry Potter is an international phenomenon, and has been since before book #2 hit the shelves in 1998 (was it really so long ago?). Every release since – whether book or movie, good or bad – has been The Event: the kind that leads the evening news more than once.

Just how culturally ingrained is Harry Potter? My spell checker recognizes the word “Azkaban.” Dumbledore, too. And Hogwarts.

Now that the books are done, with only two more movies to go (and if you believe the rumors that the last two won’t be made, please re-read paragraph 2), it’s tempting to look for the broad, overarching Meaning Of It All.

For example, it’s tempting to compare the events in Harry Potter – book five, especially – to the ongoing War on Terror. One group of voices calling for vigilance, warning of the danger. Another group refusing to see that danger: ignoring it until it’s very nearly too late.

But that’s annoying, so let’s not.

Instead, let’s go all the way back to the first book. Hagrid, the half-giant gameskeeper, finally admits that he can’t raise Norbert, his illegal pet dragon, right there on the grounds, so Harry and his friends take an enormous risk to help him out.

They get caught. They get in huge trouble. But they never talk. They never let on about their friend. To them, helping Hagrid was more important.

That particular theme repeats itself frequently throughout the series – friendship and loyalty are more important than personal comfort or success. That’s a helluva good lesson to put in a children’s book. Or a grown-up’s.

Then there’s the main conflict: Good vs. Evil. The evil side wants power, because power gets you…well, power. That’s their goal. An end in itself.

The good side…well, they use power. No doubt about that. But there are at least three examples of: a character understanding his own susceptibility to power’s corruption; a character giving up not only power, but friendship and respect in order to serve a greater purpose; and a character willingly laying power aside, once its purpose has been served.

See, for the good guys, the whole thing wasn’t about them, and what they wanted. It was about a greater good, which their own human frailties could easily subvert. So they accepted relative weakness, rather than risk becoming the problem – the bad guy – themselves.

Ultimate victory isn’t achieved through accumulation of power, but by being willing to lay power down. Not through greatness, but through humility.

The author J.K. Rowling may not have meant to make this statement about human nature, and it certainly isn’t why I’ll re-read the series – when I do, inevitably, re-read the series.

I might re-read it to help with the screenplay for movie #6. Somebody has to. But more likely, I’ll do it just for fun. Because Rowling has created a whole cast of characters – indeed, an entire world – that I and a sizeable percentage of you have come to love.

I’ve no doubt that we’ll get more of Harry Potter, even after the movies are done. Star Wars and Star Trek have huge fan-based universes – comics, novels, cartoons, games. I fully expect the same for Harry Potter.

The end? This may be the beginning.

Hey, I’ve got ideas myself, about the wizarding world over here in the U.S. Quidditch? Feh. Give me my National Folzzesphere League.

Now that’s a sport.

Partisanship for Fun and Profit!

Editor's Note: I'm taking the week off in order to spend some time with the family, which in turn will motivate me to get out of the house and back to work for another year. I'll be back next week. Until then, we'll continue posting from the Best of Lance Burri collection.

The following column first ran on December 30, 2005.

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

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

ANAKIN: Then they should be made to.

I’m a big fan of the adversarial process.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That’s what the Janesville Gazette wants:

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

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

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

That’s the best idea. Let’s enact it.

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

Well. No agreement there, then.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Life of Ease

Editor's Note: I'm taking the week off in order to spend some time with the family, which in turn will motivate me to get out of the house and back to work for another year. I'll be back next week. Until then, we'll continue posting from the Best of Lance Burri collection.

The following column first ran on May 26, 2006.

What if you could have anything you wanted? Right now, this minute, without cost?

Food, clothes, new countertops. Right this second, push a button, and there it is. Poof! Push it again, and get something else. From nowhere, a double bacon cheeseburger and curly fries. Diet soda, just so you don’t feel fat.

Yes, my fellow nerds, I’m talking about replicators. Star Trek style. Always ready to dispense a cup of tea, Earl Grey, hot; or coffee, double-strong double-sweet; or the Klingon version of whiskey. On command.

Clothes, spare parts, instruments, food, simply by asking for it.

Fiction often requires the audience to suspend their disbelief. I found it easy, watching Star Trek, to suspend mine over the faster-than-light travel, the teleportation, the aliens, even Counselor Troi falling in love with William Ryker.

But the idea that a human society could survive the kind of plenty replicators provided? That was hard to swallow.

The concept itself isn’t all that far-fetched. Nanotechnology. It’s coming along as we speak, with more potential uses being thought up all the time. A few trillion itty-bitty robots, some sort of interface to direct those robots, and viola! They simply use whatever raw material is at hand, dismantle it molecule by molecule, and use those molecules to build whatever you want.

What would we humans make of it? What would it make of us?

It’s my theory that, human nature prevailing, we would no longer have much motivation to do anything.

Much of what motivates us, I think, is that we want. We want a full freezer (but first we want a freezer!). We want clothes. We want a working/decent/nice/bitchin’ car. A home. A vacation. We want to be secure in our retirement. We want to give our wives nice presents for their birthdays.

These desires motivate us to work. To earn. And at the same time, to create. It’s our needs, wants and desires that fuel our economy, both from the supply and demand points of view.

I think it’s great that some people take vows of poverty. I’m just glad everybody doesn’t.

This old theory resurfaced recently, thanks to a story I just read in the latest issue of Asimov’s Science Fiction Magazine (yes, I subscribe): “Nano Comes to Clifford Falls,” by Nancy Kress.

Clifford Falls is a small, rural town, among the last places to get nanotech. And then they do. Replicators, just like in Star Trek.

And then the next-door neighbor has a new sports car. Another neighbor has new diamond earrings, and a fancy new dress. Oh, and they’re building a new house, too.

All for free.

But where Star Trek ignores technology’s effects, Kress gives us a hard look at them. Suddenly, people’s wants were filled with no effort at all. Supply was limitless. People stopped going to work, because…why bother? They didn’t need the money anymore. Let the bank foreclose.

No work meant no taxes. Teachers didn’t get paid. Policemen. Government began to shut down, and a limited amount of chaos began to ensue.

The local plant shut down, too, but that’s not all that must have happened to the economy. For example: the jewelry industry is out of business. Might as well be, since nanotech can make diamonds and gold from scratch now. Those things will quickly become worthless.

The auto industry – that’s gone, too. And the clothing industry. All the stores, all the factories, all the farmers and chemists who make the raw materials. Done. Out of work.

At least we won’t be exploiting third-world workers anymore, paying them subsistence rates to stitch our sneakers together. I’m sure they’ll be thrilled.

It’s a new take on an old story. The combustion engine running the buggy whip out. Wal-Mart out-pricing locally-owned stores. Overseas labor putting the squeeze on American manufacturing.

Normally, from an economic point of view, this is a good thing. New efficiencies and lower prices free up resources, which are then available for other things. This helps the economy grow.

But with nothing to work for, no work gets done. Human nature: we need challenge, deadlines, motivation. We need needs.

Why should anyone strain? Why should anyone try? Why should anyone care enough to achieve?

Ms. Kress’ narrator has the answer: “nano sorts out two different piles: the ones who like to work because work is what you do, and the ones who don’t.”

The question is: how many of the former do we have, and how many of the latter?

Fairyland Economics and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Ever watch Wal-Mart plan a new store in a new place?

Local shopkeepers don’t tend to like that. A new Wal-Mart worries them, because Wal-Mart sells things cheap. That forces existing businesses to offer more, somehow, or offer it for less, so they can stay competitive.

This can happen, even without a modern-day Genghis Khan like Wal-Mart involved. If you own a hardware store, and another hardware store opens right across the street, suddenly you find yourself competing for the customers who once automatically – because you were the only game in town – came to you.

Maybe that means lower prices. Maybe it means new products. Maybe it means new services. Competition forces these things.

Logical, yes? Well, no. Not according to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, which says more competition will mean higher prices.

Officials of Aurora Health Care say that their decision to build a new hospital in Grafton and to purchase Advanced Healthcare, the state's largest physician group, dovetails with their goal of improving health care in this area and reining in rising costs by increasing competition.

But building another hospital, particularly in an affluent suburban area that is clearly not underserved, is not going to control costs. On the contrary, most health care economists would contend, the new hospital will drive up costs even more, in part because this area already has enough beds.

We believe they're right.

More hospital beds, in an area that already has enough, will drive prices up. That’s their position. By flooding the market with more hospital beds than the area needs, the hospitals will be able to charge more.

I’m gonna need to see those economists’ diplomas, please.

Competition in health care does not by itself reduce costs, especially when there is excess capacity. Someone must pay for the cost of two new hospitals, equipping them with the latest technology and staffing them - and it's going to be consumers, employers and others already burdened by the area's higher-than-average health care costs.

Well, duh. Of course it’ll be the consumers. Who else? Fairies? Well, yes, I suppose, if they’re also customers.

If a new business is going to succeed, it needs customers. Consumers, who pay that business’ costs in return for goods and/or services. Why this offends the MJS, I have no idea.

Now, I’ve got no dog in the whole Aurora fight. I have no idea whether their plan is a good idea or not, and I don’t much care.

I do care that the MJS is being dense. You see, they could be right – Aurora’s move could have the effect they fear. But if so, it’s not because of the free-market principles they so clumsily attempt to cite.

Honestly, you’d think they never tried to argue a free-market position before.

They could be right, because health care and health insurance don’t operate on free market principles, because government subsidy and regulation are so incredibly invasive.

The irony is, if the MJS really wanted consequences for flooding the market, as they claim Aurora is doing, they’d call for exactly those free-market forces. They’d call, loud and long and obnoxious, to let the free market reign.

Let the free market reign, and then let Aurora build their new hospital. See what it gets them.

This, however, is the antithesis of what the MJS wants. The MJS loves government regulation. They want government-run health care.

Newsflash: put the government in charge of health care, and the government will be deciding where new hospitals are or are not built. Which, according to other MJS opinions, means campaign contributions will decide.

Is that what they want? Because that’s what they’re advocating.

On the other hand, if the MJS wants to see the free market work – if they want to see Aurora punished for putting more hospital beds in an area that is already over-served – they should advocate putting consumers more directly in touch with their own health care costs. Give them something like…oh, just to pull some random example right out of the air…Health Savings Accounts. Give them an incentive to keep track of costs, and to keep their costs down.

That would create competition, and when Aurora builds their new hospital – if they do – it would help force lower prices, improved services, or both.

Let’s see that editorial from the MJS. But let’s not hold our breath waiting.