Primary Wars

When the fallout from Election 2008 begins next November 5, we might find ourselves looking quite intently at tomorrow.

Tomorrow, Saturday, September 29, is the deadline for Florida to move their presidential primary from January 29 back into February.

That’s the deadline…or else.

The Florida Democratic Party will hold its presidential primary on Jan. 29, despite being told by the Democratic National Committee that doing so will result in the state losing its 210 delegates to the 2008 nominating convention in Denver, a Florida Democratic official tells CNN.

In addition to losing all of its delegates, the decision also means that most of the Democratic presidential candidates will no longer campaign in Florida.

The candidates agreed to that “under pressure from the four states permitted to hold contests in January,” Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina. Republican candidates are under no such restrictions.

For Democrat candidates, this is the rock and the hard place. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t. Anger the early primary states, or anger one of the biggest collections of electoral votes in the country.

Doing well in the early primaries is vital to a presidential campaign. Doing well in Iowa and New Hampshire attracts volunteers, supporters, money. More importantly, doing poorly scares them away.

You’ve got to do well – if not win outright – in at least one of those two states, if not both. And if you do well in only one, you’d better do really well in South Carolina. Most people won’t put their effort into a candidate who has no chance. Not even Ed Garvey.

So candidates do not want to anger the state and local Democratic Parties in those states. If those states are “pressuring” them not to campaign in Florida, the candidates have to listen – and they apparently have.

On the other hand, Florida is one of the most important states in Presidential election politics. Only three states – California, Texas, and New York – have more electoral votes. And the last two elections have been close: Bush won it by 5 percentage points in 2004, but by only a hundredth of a point in 2000.

So you don’t want to get the old folks riled up, either. It’s not good politics.

All is not completely lost. Sure, the national party says Florida will get no delegates to the Democratic National Convention, but the eventual nominee could – probably should – insist that they be seated.

The nominee will have her cake and eat it, too. She’ll go along with the early states’ demands, do well, win the nomination, then become a hero to the Democrat machine in Florida.

And then hope the non-aligned moderate middle has forgiven her for the earlier snub.

Still, it’s a spot. At a time when any misstep or bad sound bite could tip the scales toward or, more likely, away from any given candidate, an internecine squabble like this is a distraction the candidates neither need nor want.

It’s a few extra landmines dropped into the field of presidential politics.

In 2004, a British reporter called for a worldwide vote on the American presidency, because having the whole world vote as one body has worked out so well every other time its been done.

I’m reminded of that now, except instead of Europeans with neither claim nor right clamoring for a role, it’s actual U.S. citizens and states, with their legal, traditional, historic and moral claims to an equal voice in their government.

Complaining about the early states’ “undue influence” is getting to be boring. A cliché.

Still, that some of us have more oomph than others in such an important decision rankles. It doesn’t sit right. It doesn’t mesh with the “one man, one vote” ideal.

That’s why states are pushing their primaries up. To let their citizens’ votes count for more.

Which is why those early states, if they are pressuring candidates to shun Florida, are being snobbish, selfish, arrogant and wrong.

I don’t know the solution to the primary problem. I don’t know how we get to any of the solutions others have suggested.

I do know that favoring one state over another in this way is on the way out. The only surprise is that it’s taken so long.

Watching and Waiting. And Watching. And Waiting.

What’s it like to be Aaron Rodgers these days?

For any young quarterback, being drafted by the Green Bay Packers is – at best – a mixed blessing. It means you’ll spend your Sundays wearing headphones instead of a helmet. Carrying a clipboard instead of a state’s collective hopes.

On the other hand, Packer backups have been hot commodities around the league, and have found success elsewhere. That bodes well.

But on the other hand, Rodgers – in the third year of a 5-year contract – could start for any other team in the NFC North right now. Possibly for half the teams in the league. Right now.

In fact, he could be starting for the Packers right now. Or, maybe next year. If he was playing behind a broken-down nearly-40 used-to-be-star whose reputation is all that’s left to keep him on the field.

But he’s not. He’s playing behind Brett Favre.

Remember the story about Favre demanding a trade…to the 1996 Packers? Looks like they made that trade, and we got the 1996 version in return. Just with more gray hair.

Ah yes, the sports world is abuzz over the Green Bay Packers, and not only because this is the year Favre will break all the major quarterback records. The Packers, who many of us thought would be lucky to start the season 1-4, are a convincing 3-0.

It’s not all about Favre, of course. The defense is better. Open field tackling has been a source of great pleasure – I love a one-on-one open field tackle, and the Packers are providing me with plenty to love this year.

And the offensive line is playing well – at least in the passing game. Quick quiz: how many times did you hear the name Shawne Merriman during Sunday’s game?

Merriman got 17 sacks and a trip to the Pro Bowl last year. He’s a demon rushing the passer. How many times, Sunday, did you hear his name?

Once. During a replay showing tackle Mark Tauscher pushing him around like a paper bag on the highway.

The Packers’ story this year was supposed to be: strong on defense, weak on offense. Game 1 against the Eagles seemed to bear this out: the defense was tough, the offense anemic. Worse than anemic. They – Favre included – couldn’t do anything.

The question wasn’t whether Favre would get the seven TD passes he needed to break Marino’s record. It was whether he’d get any.

And then the Giants game happened. And then the Chargers. Two games the Packers should have – on paper – lost. Two games they won, because the offense moved the ball smoothly, efficiently, regularly, and with a pass-run ratio of nearly 3-1. We no longer cringe at the thought of a 3rd-and-3 situation in Packerland.

John Elway, in his last two seasons in Denver, was reliant on a resurgent running attack. Brett Favre, in his last…well, they’ll be the last two sooner or later…IS the attack.

He’s a superstar. Superman. Unflappable. Unstoppable. Dodging defensive linemen and dominating SportsCenter highlights. The single irreplaceable player on the field. Any field. On either team.

I know: there’s a long way to go. Things will change. High-flyers will fall, or at least fly lower. I could easily be writing another “down from that ledge” column a month from now.

And I know: there have been circumstances. Had Philadelphia made just one less boneheaded mistake on special teams, the Packers would have lost that game. Had San Diego made just one more good play – maybe two – the Packers could have lost that game.

Blah blah blah. The line between winning and losing is a thin one sometimes. The Packers have trailed in all three of their games thus far, and then they’ve found themselves on the right side of that line.

They’re fighting the battle of “did” vs. “almost-did,” and they’re winning. That nebulous quality of get-it-done-ness? They’ve got it.

And Favre is the driving force. Playing like a stud right out of college, but with a veteran’s brain. If he’s still playing like this in December…

…well, why wouldn’t he play again in 2008?

Rodgers has got to be wondering that, too. And if he’s wondering it now, just wait until the home crowds are chanting: MVP! MVP!

The Democrats and the Shiny New Bike

When I was eleven, maybe twelve years old, I got a new bike.

It was awesome. A dirt bike, blue with gold trim. Thunderbird colors, although I didn’t know that at the time. Brand new.

Walking it out of the store, I saw a display of stickers. Really cool pseudo-hologram stickers with panthers on them. I wanted one.

My mother told me no. She had just shelled out for a new bike, hadn’t she?

Yes, she had. And, having just been given a new bike, I pouted the whole way home because I didn’t get a sticker.

In my defense, I was just a kid. What’s the Senate Democrats’ excuse?

Earlier this week, the Republican-led Assembly passed a bill to fund Wisconsin’s public K-12 schools over the next two years. The bill was unusual for two reasons: one, passing a budget in parts, instead of as a whole, is uncommon; and two, the bill used the Democrats’ spending numbers.

Republicans passed the Democrats’ schools budget. Without negotiation. Without getting anything in return. Without even asking for anything in return.

In other words, they handed Governor Doyle and the Senate Democrats a shiny new bike.

Republicans weren’t just making nice, of course. With no new state budget, the old budget remains in effect. Under the old budget, local school budgets keep growing, but state spending doesn’t – that remains flat. To make up the difference, local school districts will have to increase property taxes by nearly $600 million.

Republicans would prefer that this didn’t happen.

So they made what anyone familiar with the average negotiation process would consider an extremely generous and unilateral offer – the Democrats’ numbers.

The Democrat response?

Stuff it.

The very numbers they spent months insisting that schools had to have just to keep their noses above water. Senate Democrats say no, we won’t pass it. Governor Doyle says even if they do, I’ll veto it.

And…why?

Well. Because. You just can’t…you can’t do that. You can’t just pass part of a budget. You have to pass the whole thing. All at once. Otherwise, it’s…well, it’s just wrong.

And…why?

Besides surrendering any and all American interests abroad to the whims of the French (except when they talk threateningly of attacking Iran, that is), Democrats have two basic issues: health care and education.

I might call them socialist income re-distribution and slavish genuflection to the turned backs of teachers’ unions, but that’s just me.

Public education is a mainstay of their everyday agenda. More money for schools! It’s for the children! It’s for the future!

But. An irrelevant procedural consideration – whether we should pass the budget in pieces, rather than as a single whole – is stopping Wisconsin Democrats from sending money to our public schools.

Procedure.

This, from the party that wants a complete government takeover of health care, without even a public hearing on the bill that would do it.

And note: it’s not whether we can pass the budget in pieces. It’s whether we should. Nothing in Wisconsin law says we can’t, and it’s happened before. Not exactly like this, true, but so what?

They’re not just pouting about the sticker. They’re refusing to take the bike home, too.

And I think I know why.

Democrats thought they could hang a $600 million property tax increase around Republicans’ necks. Republicans riposted, and the tables turned, but here’s the rub: Democrats don’t care.

These are the same Democrats who proposed – and who refuse to back down from - $18 billion in tax increases. The biggest tax increase in U.S. history.

Six hundred million more in property taxes is only about 3% of the taxes they’ve already proposed. Three. Percent.

Big. Whoop.

Democrats aren’t afraid of tax increases. Democrats love tax increases. And they’re certainly not going to balk at a measly nine figures. Especially when the schools will get their money, one way or another – either from the state, or from the local property taxpayers.

Sure, the latter means less income redistribution, which must sting for the average Democrat. But still.

I pouted because I didn’t get the sticker. Democrats would have thrown a tantrum, and then the bike, too. And they’d have been satisfied.

Ridiculous, maybe, but satisfied.

The Easiest Promise Jim Doyle Ever Made

Have you ever taken credit for something you didn’t do?

Or maybe you did do it, and then, afterwards, then someone asked you to do it. Did you say sure, and take credit for doing that person a favor? Even though you’d already done what he/she asked you to do?

That’s Governor Doyle’s proposal on higher education – the so-called “Wisconsin Covenant.”

Here’s another example: a few weeks ago, I was driving home from work. Hungry. Specifically, I was hungry for hamburgers, cooked on the grill. With onions and tomatoes and lettuce.

It was after 6 o’clock already – way too late to start something like that – but as it turned out, the wife was already making grilled hamburgers. Just like I wanted, even though she didn’t know I wanted it. I ate three.

Did my wife take credit for giving me exactly what I wanted? Of course she did. Did she try to pretend she’d done it because it was what I wanted?

I would have. She didn’t.

She could have. She could have found out over the phone that I had a hankerin’ for hamburgers. She could have sighed loudly, feigned exasperation, but said fine. It’s a pain, but I’ll make you hamburgers. Even though she’d already made them.

And then she could have taken the credit, and a gotten back rub, because I was just that grateful.

That’s Governor Doyle’s so-called “Wisconsin Covenant.”

So far, the discussion over “Wisconsin Covenant” has centered on the fact that it doesn’t exist. No law has been passed to create any such program, yet Governor Doyle continues to talk it up and – judging by news reports – parents are listening to him.

"It's a wonderful opportunity and it gives us a sense of security if that's the direction my daughter wants to go," (Neenah High School Principal Mark Duerwaechter) said. "I just hope the funding follows through."

Here’s the secret, though, that isn’t getting any attention: “Wisconsin Covenant” doesn’t need any funding: not because it doesn’t exist, but because it doesn’t offer anything new.

Read the pledge yourself (emphasis added):

• I will graduate from a Wisconsin high school.
  
• I will maintain a B average while in high school.
  
• I will take classes in high school that will prepare me for entrance into higher education and will meet or exceed college entrance requirements.
  
• I will demonstrate good citizenship and engage in activities that support my community.
  
• I will apply for state and federal financial aid in a timely manner.
  
• I will apply and do all that is necessary to gain admission to a University of Wisconsin system institution, Wisconsin Technical College, and/or a Wisconsin private college or university.

You know what happened if a 1987 high school graduate did all those things? He got into college, and got financial aid.

You know what will happen if a 2011 graduate does all those things? He’ll get into college, and get financial aid. With or without “Wisconsin Covenant.”

That is, he’ll get financial aid if the Federal Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) says he’s qualified for it. “Wisconsin Covenant Students will apply for financial aid in the same way all students apply and will need to meet all existing eligibility requirements in order to receive financial aid,” according to the details.

What, you thought you were special?

Oh, and "If possible, the Scholar will be placed in the higher education system of their choice. However, Wisconsin Covenant Scholars are not guaranteed acceptance into the school of their choice."

Huh. What’s that remind me of?

Oh, right. It reminds me of the way things are now.

It’s true that “Wisconsin Covenant” doesn’t exist. No law has been passed to create it. No funding set aside.

Meaningless. “Wisconsin Covenant” doesn’t have to exist, because students can get everything it offers, simply by doing what it requires of them – i.e., the same things students wanting to go to college have always had to do.

Not that you’d know any of this, to read the press reports.

Maybe I should just shut up and be satisfied that this is one “promise” even our Governor Jim “No-new-gambling-or-taxes-or-budgetary-gimmicks” Doyle can’t break.

Because there’s nothing for him to break. What he’s promising, we already have.

Life in Autumn

Spring is the season of renewal. New life. Growth. Fall is supposed to be the opposite: everything closes down.

Funny, isn’t it, that the season in which everything begins is the same season in which so much seems to slow down, and to end.

And vice versa.

In the Spring, while the leaves are spreading and flowers are blooming and Bambi and Thumper are getting all frisky, we humans tend to become…well, slothful, and with good reason.

Who wants to be cooped up in an office when there’s sun and warmth outdoors? School’s out. Time for vacations. The pool, and the beach, and long nights sitting outside and sipping your favorite beer.

And then in the Fall, as everything outside is getting cold and gray and sleepy – that’s when Life kicks back in.

And kicks. And kicks. And then, once you’re down, kicks a couple more times.

School’s only a couple of weeks old now, and already three nights a week at my house are shot. Cub Scouts on Monday. Girl Scouts on Tuesday. And then church night on Wednesday. I’m one of the leaders for our teenage group this year, God save them.

Thursday we play catch-up, and then Friday – oh, blessed Friday – I’ve actually blocked out Friday evening on our calendar, to make sure the wife and I take some Wife And Me time.

It’s amazing how good a single evening in front of the TV can feel.

But it still doesn’t end. There’s soccer for the young’uns. Football for the oldest boy. A wide assortment of activities – both school and social – for the daughter. And then there’s still work, and the house, and the yard, and meals to cook, and clothes to wash, and…

…I used to wonder why my mother developed that facial tic. Now I know.

Not only is there more to do, there’s less time in which to do it. Thanks to the marvels of modern communications technology, it’s now possible to watch four full football games, back to back, every Saturday. Three on Sunday. Plus Mondays and Thursdays.

And that’s just with basic cable! Get the extended package, and you can watch even more.

So I’m a little busy on weekends already. Plus, hunting season is coming up – gotta get to the range a little bit, at least.

What’s my point? Well, we’re busy. Big whoop, right? Everybody’s busy. So what’s my point? I guess I really have none, except…

Every now and then it gets to you, all the constant busyness. That’s not to say we’re overscheduled. Our kids have plenty of time for Legos and bikes and computer games and marathon hair-braiding sleepovers. And I am, as you can read for yourself, taking the time to flex a hobby.

But still. It usually hits me after dinner, right by the sink, where the magic fairies have again failed to show up and wash the dishes. There’s so much to do. There’s never a chance to just sit, read, relax, do nothing.

When I was younger, there was plenty of time. I’d spend three hours a night watching TV. The very thought of sweeping the floor on a Saturday night was ridiculous.

Not anymore.

Here’s the rub, though: would I slow us down, even if I could? And even if I could, which of the many things my family does would I stop my family from doing?

This is a grass-is-greener moment. A “careful what you wish for” moment. And I have that moment, almost without fail, when I’m cursing the hardest (silently, of course –children are present).

Sure, we’re busy – because there are lots of us, because we’re interested, and because we can’t just sit home doing nothing. Either that, or because the wife and I won’t let the kids sit home doing nothing.

I suppose we could limit activities more than we already do. We could say “no” more often than we already do. We could put locks on the kids’ bedrooms and throw them in there every night at seven.

Or, I suppose, we could’ve had fewer kids. But that’s double-edged. After all, the only reason we’re not even busier is because we stopped at four.

And besides, there’s always Spring to look forward to.

Irrelevant Festers

Fighting Bob Fest has come and gone. It’s over, once again, until next year.

Its attendees may not realize it, but that’s how it is.

In fact, its attendees don’t realize it. They left Baraboo on Saturday energized, ready to fight, to Speak Truth To Power. Stand Up to The Man.

As Fester-in-Chief Ed Garvey wrote immediately following this year’s annual progressive spew-fest: “Message to Congress: thousands of progressives are watching to see if you have the courage to follow the people. Bring the troops home!”

And…when Congress doesn’t?

And when the Democrat candidate for President won’t?

What then, Ed? Whatchagonna do?

“Following the people,” Fighting Bob Fest-style, means ending the war and impeaching Bush and Cheney. The big draw: anti-war icon Cindy Sheehan, who rode her soldier-son’s death in Iraq to the height of war-protester fame.

“I have to make sure they've been impeached for what they've done, and that is a service to humanity,” Sheehan told the crowd.

Humanity, I’m afraid, will have to muddle on un-served. Impeachment is nowhere on the horizon today. How much more remote will it be once the primaries are over, the nominees chosen?

As fun as it might be to have Sheehan, Garvey, and the rest dogging their candidate and threatening revolt, it’s all a lot of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Vapid venting, by people who have nothing better to do with their time.

But what about the war?

Impeachment is moot, but the war isn’t. Fighting Bob Festers want the war stopped, the troops home, the terrorphile dictators left alone.

They have a problem: their likely candidate, Hillary Clinton, voted for the war, and hasn’t recanted. She tended toward hawkishness during her first Senate term, and has avoided the kind of feverish anti-war-ism favored by Festers and less calculating Democrats.

She’s angling for the Big Chair, and so is positioning herself to grab the middle ground. To insulate herself from shifts in public opinion.

Maybe she won’t be the nominee. Her main rivals have been better on the war, from a Fest point of view. Obama or Edwards might be more willing to throw all their eggs in with the latest opinion polls, and damn the triangulation!

But what if she is? What do the “progressives” do then?

They’ll have a choice: support a candidate who doesn’t reflect their priorities – or worse, a candidate who exploits and then abandons them as soon as it’s politically expedient – or support a third-party candidate with no chance to win.

Either way, the “momentum” produced at Fighting Bob Fest is lost. Irrelevant.

For the record, I think they’ll do the former. Vote for Hillary!

There’s nothing inherently wrong with this. There’s nothing unique about the choice they’re facing. Last year’s election was a Democrat landslide, in part, because conservatives were fed up with Republicans acting like liberals. Many of us chose not to support the party to which we’re naturally drawn, and the results spoke for themselves.

I myself am extremely likely to support the Republican candidate for President next year, even if I have to compromise.

But Garvey and the Festers are Progressives, man! The heirs of Fighting Bob LaFollette and his legacy of Speaking Truth to Power, fighting the culture of corruption, not letting political calculation trump that which you hold dear!

That’s why Garvey defined progressivism (emphasis added):

Most important of all, it requires a belief that the powers that ought to be can prevail over the powers that be. Progressives must be less concerned about a single election than with the philosophical framework within which the candidates operate and support those who believe in economic and social justice.

Was Garvey lying? Did he change his mind? Or does he still believe this?

Because if he does, he can’t support Clinton – as cold-blooded and calculating a politician as exists in American politics today. He simply can’t.

But you know what? He will. Just as he tossed Ralph Nader aside back in 2004 in order to support the blue-blooded aristocrat and war-waffler John Kerry. Because it wasn’t about principles, man, it was about re-defeating Bush!

A lot of ink gets spilled – a lot of electrons spent – by liberals congratulating themselves for Fighting Bob Fest. For nothing. Once the election nears, they’ll stay true and take themselves out of the game, or, more likely, they’ll pull a Garvey and ignore the principles they’re so proud of right now.

The Progressives' Annual Festering

Football season has begun, and yet I cannot rest easy. Something in the air. Something oddly…wrong.

A disturbance in the Force. Some rift in the zephyrs of my karma.

Oh, right. It’s Fighting Bob Fest again.

Fighting Bob Fest, brainchild of Wisconsin’s own uber-liberal master of politically pragmatic progressivism, Ed Garvey. Once a year, not even a mile from my home, the moonbats come out during the day. In droves.

They come to demand impeachment. They come to protest the war. To rend their clothes, and gnash their teeth. To rant against injustice. To wail the evils of capitalism. They come to shout their defiance, man!

It’s Liberals Gone Wild.

Yeah. I needed that image.

Credit where it’s due: Fighting Bob Fest has been a rousing success. The first one, in 2002, attracted about a thousand people. They got twice that in 2003, and twice that in 2004. Attendance has held steady at around 5,000 since then.

There’s no cover charge, but they still make money. They sell out of booth space every year. And they boast an impressive list of national-level liberal speakers including, this year, anti-war icon Cindy Sheehan.

And…

That’s all great, but so what? What’s it mean, exactly?

A lot, according to the Capital Times’ John Nichols:

…the task seems far less daunting than it did in September 2002. We will not gather Saturday in the shadow of dominant Bushism. Rather, we gather at the dawn of a new progressive era. And if we get it right, we will yet keep Bob La Follette's promise -- and the faith of Ed Garvey -- that: "The will of the people shall be the law of the land."

“The way the landscape has changed for the better just in the time since the first Bob Fest shows why progressives need to keep fighting and festing,” he writes.

Not to be flip, but I think Nichols will be manning the Kool Aid stand Saturday.

The landscape has changed for the better, he says. How? Well, the Marriage Amendment passed with 59% of the vote, and a flawed conservative candidate crushed her liberal opponent in the Supreme Court race.

On the other hand, President Bush is on his way out of office. But that would’ve happened anyway. Congress is in Democrat hands, and they’re poised to take the White House, too. Wisconsin’s Governor and Senate are Democrat-controlled now, as well.

And?

“Progressivism,” I learned by reading FightingBob.com, isn’t about political party – it’s about philosophy. Ideology. Doing the right thing, even when it may not be the smartest political thing.

So how are those Democrats doing? Living up to the progressive ideal?

Hardly. They’re either turning around or turning tail on the war. They’re doing zip about corruption and abuse. No legislation on global warming. Nothing on health care. Nothing on campaign finance.

They haven’t even repealed the PATRIOT Act, for crying out loud!

In other words, Democrats in power aren’t doing the things Fighting Bob Festers want. The Garveyites have changed exactly nothing. And that, itself, is unlikely to change.

Let’s be real. Come election time, Ed Garvey, John Nichols, and the rest of the Festers will support…who? The Green Party candidate?

Ha. No. They’ll support whomever the Democrats put on the ticket. That’s what they always do.

In 2004, Garvey and his crew went for John Kerry instead of Ralph Nader, despite his far better progressive credentials. Tammy Baldwin, annually an honored Fest speaker, wins re-election every two years by accumulating vastly more campaign money – bribes, Garvey calls them – than her opponents.

Were the Festers themselves living up to the progressive ideal, they’d have shunned Kerry, and scolded Baldwin. They didn’t, and they won’t. Come 2008, all our “progressives” will zealously support Hillary Clinton, whether or not she’s supporting the war or giving back the illegal campaign contributions. They’ll support Jim Doyle in 2010, whether or not he helped kill the latest attempt at socialized medicine.

I’m sure tomorrow’s Fighting Bob Fest will be a great party. People will attend, chant, sing, pat each other on the back, and leave feeling great about America’s progressive future.

But when push comes to shove, all that talk will be just that. Talk. Partisanship will take precedence over progressivism, just like it did in 2006, just like it did in 2004.

The only real changes to the landscape will be the tracks left behind, when all the progressives drive away.

Free Market Won’t "Fix" Health Care

In this corner: socialized medicine. Put the government in control, so nobody goes without.

And in this corner: the free market. Just get government out, and everything will be fine!

Defenders of the Democrats’ “Healthy Wisconsin” socialized health care “plan” like to tell us that both those statements apply: their health-care-for-all plan is free-market, and isn’t government control.

It limits health care provider profits by law to – at best – 8%, and gives control over prices to a government-appointed board. But it’s free market, and isn’t government control.

Right.

Others like to blast the free market itself because the free market hasn’t provided everyone with low-cost high-quality health care. For example, from the Racine Journal Times:

The mujahideen of free market capitalism have nothing to show for their continued insistence that the markets will fix everything.

Let’s be clear: if any defenders of free-market capitalism are saying “markets will fix everything,” they should sit down and shut up. They do not understand the free market.

The free market does not “fix” anything. It won’t “fix” health care, because as far as it’s concerned, there’s nothing to “fix.” People will either pay a certain price for health insurance, or they won’t. People will either provide the product of health insurance at a certain price, or they won’t.

Those statements don’t become any less true, just because the government starts sticking its fingers into things.

Socialism isn’t the opposite of the free market. Even in a socialist economy, the free market exists and continues to operate. Since everything is devalued under socialism, the free market responds by providing less of everything.

It’s like an ecosystem: you can introduce a new species, maybe something slow and stupid and good to eat, which will change the ecosystem – maybe for the better, maybe for the worse. But the ecosystem remains, and continues to work along the same principles – just with different inputs, and therefore different outputs.

Likewise, the free market responds to our monkeying. When we artificially toy with economic inputs, we get different outputs, but they’re still working according to the same economic laws.

That’s laws, not theories. As in: the Laws of Supply and Demand.

It’s true, health care is frighteningly expensive. Normally, when there’s demand for a product, producers will try to find a way to meet and even increase that demand. That’s why laser eye surgery costs less today than 10 years ago.

But. Laser eye surgery is optional – we choose whether or not to buy it. When you need a heart bypass, or chemotherapy, or a jagged-ended two-by-four removed from your abdomen, that’s not optional, and it’s not something a doctor can market to a wide consumer base.

And it requires a lot of highly trained specialization, and a lot of people, and equipment, and resources. It will always be expensive. No way around that.

Health care is an enormous cost. Contemplating life without protection against that cost is scary. Thus our desire to Do Something, to relieve that fear. To make sure people can access health care without wiping themselves out, financially.

That’s what the debate is really about: not providing health care, because even without insurance, one can access care. It’s about providing insurance – protection against cost.

And the free market won’t do that. It won’t “fix” that, any more than an ecosystem will provide more food, just because you need it.

Yet, the free market, left to itself, is preferable to the tinkering and kibitzing offered by pro-Socialists.

“Healthy Wisconsin” will provide insurance to everyone, that’s true. If that’s your goal, you’ll have reached it.

But while everyone will have protection against the cost of health care, everyone will also have a lot more trouble accessing that care.

Like I mentioned earlier, this “plan” artificially limits both prices and profits. We’ve seen this sort of thing before. It’s one of the reasons Medicaid patients can’t find a dentist who will treat them.

It’s like that new species we introduced into the ecosystem, thinking they’ll become a new supply of food. Over time, the new species does damage – eats too much, over-breeds, pushes other species out – which results in less available food. Not more.

“Healthy Wisconsin” will provide insurance coverage, but by artificially limiting both price and profit. Ergo, we’ll all do with less. And the kicker is: we won’t be paying less for it.