Wisconsin: Leading the Charge!

The presidential primary doesn’t matter. Not for Wisconsin.

That’s what I’ve said in the past, and with good reason: Wisconsin’s primary has historically been so late, the nominee is long chosen before we get to vote.

With next year’s primary season so heavily front-loaded, there’s little reason to believe this will change.

But wait a minute: I’ve been wrong before.

Allow me to hedge my bets: it’s possible – just possible – that Wisconsin will have a meaningful role in the presidential primary next year. In fact, February 13-19, 2008, might be the most exciting week of the political year.

And some of the states, which were in such a hurry to move their primaries up, might find themselves wishing they hadn’t.

The primary schedule (as it currently stands) looks like this: Iowa on January 3rd; Michigan on the 14th; Nevada on the 19th; New Hampshire on the 22nd; Florida on the 29th and South Carolina on February 2nd. Then comes Super Duper Tuesday on February 5th: twenty-three states, including several of the nation’s largest, all vote on the same day.

Normally, the primary process helps cull candidates out. As one candidate wins, loses, exceeds or fails to meet expectations, they either gain or lose momentum, gain or lose supporters, money, fawning media coverage.

They start to drop out, as their candidacies become more and more quixotic or as their better-positioned opponents start dangling plump Cabinet posts. Soon enough, one candidate has enough delegates to win, and states which have yet to hold primaries simply have to live with it.

But with the calendar so compacted this year, that dynamic might not work the same way.

As of right now, according to various polls, our Republican leaderboard is quite the mixed bag. Mitt Romney seems to have a commanding lead in Iowa, with a cluster of candidates elbowing for second place.

But Rudy Giuliani has first place in Michigan and Nevada, followed by Romney and Fred Thompson.

Romney has a solid lead in New Hampshire, followed by Giuliani and John McCain, but then it’s Giuliani again in Florida, with Thompson and McCain tied for second. And in South Carolina, Thompson is in first, with Romney, Giuliani, and McCain all tied behind him.

Could we have three candidates with early-primary victories by the time Super Duper Tuesday comes along? Yes, indeed we could. And if so, with the coast-to-coast, border-to-border nature of that one-day electoral gaggle, couldn’t we have multiple winners on that day, as well?

Yes, indeed we could.

A few other states have primaries the week after Super Duper Tuesday, and then…

…there’s Wisconsin, all by our lonesome on February 19, the last primary for two whole weeks.

Get your Valentine-themed campaign gimmicks ready, people. It won’t be winner-take-all (at least, probably not), but for once we’ll have a much bigger say in who becomes the Republican nominee.

Which is attractive.

A caveat. There are a lot of good reasons for Republicans to dislike this scenario, not the least of which is: Hillary Clinton is well in the lead in every early primary state. Odds are, she’ll have the nomination wrapped up by the end of January.

If the Republican nomination fight drags into February, and especially if it gets to Wisconsin, it’ll get bruising. Rough and tumble. Nasty, even. The gloves will have come off long before. And our candidates will be spending lots of money while the Democrat nominee isn’t.

And getting lots of press, that’s true, but that would be true without a long nomination fight.

But, whaddayagonnado. If it is to be, then it will be, and we might as well enjoy the ride. A multi-candidate slugfest, held for a full week between Superior and Kenosha, La Crosse and Sheboygan.

The nation’s eyes on us, and us alone.

Whee!

And try this on: to this point, state parties have moved their primary dates up, and up, and up, wanting more influence over the presidential primaries. The doomsayers-that-be (myself included) have been pulling their hair over this rush to January.

Should things continue as they are and a multi-candidate primary continue well into February, that will give the later states exactly what the now-early states wanted: more influence.

In which case, let the charge to September begin!

Three Hundred Forty-One Votes

November 2, 2006. Election Day. All across Wisconsin, voters swarmed to the polls.

Most of them voted for Democrats. It’s well-established: 2006 was a banner year for the Democratic Party, and a disaster for Republicans. That was true nationally. It was true here in Wisconsin.

True, but not total. Once all the smoke had cleared, the dead and wounded carried from the field, prisoners exchanged and terms presented, Republicans still held the field – just barely – in one place. The State Assembly.

Not by much. The Republicans’ eleven-seat majority was reduced to five: 60-39 before the election, 52-47 after.

And what kept Republicans in that slim majority?

Three hundred and forty-one voters. Seventy-eight of them in Cambria. A hundred and eleven in Medford. And in Westby, a hundred fifty-two.

Voters, in places most of us never heard of. Standing shoulder to shoulder, blocking the pass, staring down the maddened hordes of tax-crazed liberals and declaring with defiance: you ain’t coming though here.

Not on my watch.

These are the people who kept the tide from washing Wisconsin into liberal purgatory. Who stalled the takeover, bought us time – two years’ worth – to reorganize, rally, prepare.

Three hundred forty-one! Marching to the polls, finding the name of their Republican candidate, and voting. If they’d made a different decision, joined the other side instead, pulled the other lever, marked the other box, followed the arrow wrong…

…then three more Republicans - Gene Hahn, Mary Williams, and Lee Nerison - would have lost last November. Gone home. Private citizens. Instead of a bare majority in one-third of state government, Republicans would be the minority party everywhere. Democrats would control all. The Senate. The Governor. The Assembly.

All of it.

And the Wisconsin state budget wouldn’t have been signed this morning. It would have been signed back in June.

And it would have looked…different.

The cigarette tax would have been higher than a buck. That’s for sure. The oil tax: $280 million in higher gas prices, plus an expensive and embarrassing lawsuit when Doyle tried to “prevent” the oil companies from “passing the cost on to consumers.”

The hospital tax: $420 million in higher health care costs. The real estate transfer tax: $142 million added to housing costs. Higher taxes on corporations. On garbage. On the internet. On filing taxes.

No limits on property taxes. Repeal of the Qualified Economic Offer, which gives school districts leverage while negotiating teacher contracts. An overhaul, if not outright repeal, of school spending limits.

The point being, with Democrats in full control of the government, there’s no telling how high our taxes would go.

And I haven’t even mentioned the in-state tuition for illegal aliens; collective bargaining for UW employees; mental health insurance mandates (just to start); doubling, tripling, quadrupling of Stewardship Fund land purchases with no legislative oversight, and no public right to use that land.

Nor have I mentioned the Dems’ so-called “Healthy Wisconsin,” which shrewdly combines the biggest tax increase in U.S. history – $15 billion, if we can believe the estimates – with socialistic government control of prices and profits.

Liberals thought the Taxpayer Bill of Rights was going to turn Wisconsin into an economic backwater. Huh. You want to see an economic backwater?

Well, you can’t, thanks to those 341 voters.

Amazing, isn’t it? Nearly 2.2 million people cast votes in that election. Three hundred forty-one of them prevented all that.

On the other hand, the just-signed budget keeps spending at a lower rate than personal income growth, and includes tax cuts on retirement income, for health insurance premiums, and for college tuition. Plus tax incentives for people looking to invest money here in Wisconsin.

Yeah, I know, there was pork, and there were fee increases, and I’m sure other things will come to light over the next few weeks that we won’t like. Democrats did get some things they wanted. We didn’t get as much as we wanted.

We took some casualties, and that’s a fact. We gave some ground. Life isn’t as good for us as it would’ve been, had 2006 been a victory.

But boy, it could’ve been worse. It would have been worse, if not for that slim Republican majority in one-third of Wisconsin’s government. If not for those three hundred and forty-one.

We should keep that in mind, because there’ll be another call.

And we’ll need them to answer again.

NOTE: I used this Elections Board document, which list pre-recount results, to arrive at my numbers. Two of the races I mentioned above had recounts (results available here), which, if I'd used that instead, would have changed my number slightly to 349. Hat tip to Steve for noticing.

What I Learned at the Taxpayer Rally

So I went to this taxpayer rally in Madison last week.

Depending on which estimate you saw, anywhere from 100 to 500 fine Americans came to Madison from all over Wisconsin, to rally for lower – or at least no higher - taxes. Also depending on the estimate, some two to three times that number of counter-protesters – government employees, mostly – tried (but failed) to shout the rally down.

The post-rally spin has taken two tacks: conservatives have focused on the boorish, rude, pubescent behavior of the union pro-taxers. Liberals have smeared the pro-taxpayers as pawns of “big oil.”

One side remarks on what actually happened. The other side uses a vague connection to smear private citizens.

But that’s beside the point.

What exactly was accomplished by holding a “taxpayer rally?” Sure, we got a chance to rant and rave and rah, rah, rah. Got a little press for the cause. The crowd was small, but enthusiastic. It was fun.

Did it matter? Did it change any minds?

Maybe not. Probably not, but that’s not necessarily the point, either.

For several weeks AFSCME, the government employees’ union, has held small but almost daily “protests” in the State Capitol. Protests against Republican efforts to stick to Republican principles.

See, no matter how tight your own budget might be, no matter how many trade-offs you and your family have to make, you’d better pony up when government employees want more. If you don’t, you’re the jerk.

Did they change any minds? Well, no, probably not. But no man is an island: “man,” in this case, meaning anybody marginally interested and informed about politics. People have to know that they’re not alone.

That’s one reason the taxpayer rally was important. We want people statewide to know: they’re not alone, and others who share their opinions are willing to make a spectacle to support them.

And more importantly, to make sure those who have a vested interest in higher taxes aren’t the only ones being heard.

But AFSCME has more in mind than just being heard. Inside the Capitol, they marched with sarcastic (and sometimes nasty) depictions of Republicans and Republican symbols on their signs. They defaced pictures of Republican leaders.

At the rally, the Greenshirts stopped just short of thuggishness. They were rude, often obscene, and did their best to intimidate the ralliers, nearly closing off the exit to force face-to-face confrontations.

Was that going to change minds? Win adherents? Teach conservatives the error of their ways?

No. Not even close. In fact, if their tactics were more widely known, I think they’d have the opposite effect.

So why use them?

I can think of a few reasons. Maybe they were, in fact, trying to intimidate their fellow Americans into shutting the hell up. Maybe they were purposely trying to create an incident.

Maybe they were just trying to make themselves feel better. Or maybe they had no purpose at all. They were just being themselves.

I won’t try to guess. Now that it’s all said and done, their bad behavior netted them exactly nothing.

Which isn’t the same as saying it had no effect at all. It did.

The sun even shines on a dog’s butt every once in a while. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Sooner or later, I’ll find myself on the same side of an issue as AFSCME, just because sooner or later, everybody shares the same blankets.

Other than by chance, though, there’s simply no way I’ll ever – ever – support the unions. After last week, why would I?

Now, I’m just a guy. Regular. A minor blogger. No more important than any of the other million people in the state who pay attention to politics. So what I’ll support or not isn’t keeping anybody up nights.

But if I feel this way, so do others. And we wouldn’t feel this way, if the union had simply used different tactics. If they’d simply shown us some good old-fashioned American-style agree-to-disagree adversarial politics. If they’d resisted their urges to thuggery just a little bit more.

They didn’t. And instead of support, they won themselves some highly dedicated opponents.

Huh. Maybe they changed minds, after all.

Why Won't Democrats Give Us a Budget?

UPDATE - Events overtook this column before it was posted, but it was posted before I knew that events had overtaken it. Deal.

Concerned that the state’s budget drama hasn’t included enough empty but entertaining gestures, a state Assemblyman is staging his very own sit-in.

Rep. Tom Nelson (D-Kaukauna) says he’ll stay at his desk 24/7 “until a budget proposal is brought to the Assembly and passes both the Assembly and Senate.”

Well, not 24/7. He’s leaving to use the bathroom, and to take showers, and to change his clothes. And to eat, since Assembly rules forbid food in the chambers.

If he was really serious, he wouldn’t do any of that. He’d sit there and stink, surviving on nothing but smoothies and water.

He’d still use the bathroom, though. Let’s give him that one.

Let’s give him some props, too. As ridiculous as this might be, Nelson is causing himself considerable discomfort, trying to pressure legislative Democrats into abandoning their lust for more taxpayer money.

Ha. Just kidding. Nelson’s goal is to pressure Republicans.

He’s not alone, figuratively speaking. Governor Doyle made headlines this week when he threatened a government shutdown.

“In order to fund essential services that are needed to protect the health and safety of Wisconsin residents, a partial shutdown may well be necessary," he said. "The Legislature's failure has left the state with no other option but to plan for the disaster they have caused.”

For instance, the Department of Corrections and the UW System are expected to run out of money in April, he said.

What? My God. Young people, running loose, causing chaos! Former college students who would otherwise be closeted in libraries doing their best to learn from kindly tweed-wearing professors will have little to do but hang out on street corners, and we all know what comes of that.

Trouble. That’s what.

Governor Doyle wasn’t alone, either. His Democrat colleagues have happilyfollowed his lead.

Republicans haven’t. On the contrary, Republicans are rolling their eyes at these over-the-top tactics. Republicans are accusing Democrats of trying to scare people.

And that is, in fact, the official media storyline: Democrats using scare tactics to force Republicans to Give Us a New Budget!

As the Wisconsin State Journal put it:

The Democratic governor's warning came a day after the Republican-controlled Assembly met in a special session to reject his latest offer to break the nation's longest budget dispute. Wisconsin remains the only state without a budget.

Doyle offered. Republicans rejected. Republicans are standing in the way.

Whether the offer was responsible or feasible or in any way acceptable to anyone more conservative than Ed Garvey is entirely beside the point. It was a budget that we could have had!

But, official storyline or no, one has to wonder how Democrats are sleeping at night, aware of the problems they’re causing.

Prisons will close. Universities will close. Property taxes will rise. And of course, Rep. Marlin Schneider (D-Wisconsin Rapids) told the Assembly Monday night that People Will Die, should a new budget not be passed.

For crying out loud, then, why aren’t Democrats willing to go the extra mile?

If they really believe that all this will happen, that the $26-or-so billion in revenues the state will receive this year – new budget or no new budget – aren’t enough to prevent it…

…why won’t they do what has to be done?

You want those few more votes you need to pass a budget? No problem. I’ll tell you exactly what to do.

Come to the Republican position.

It’s not so unreasonable, is it? Given the disaster waiting right around the corner? Assembly leadership has already indicated their willingness to compromise on cigarette taxes. On some fee increases. There may be more – all I know is what I read in the paper.

So, Democrats, move to that position. Oh, fine, get a couple other little things. Just to give your base a win. Some funding for a study on the Greenhouse effects of putting a surtax on logging on non-Stewardship land, for example. And how minorities are hardest hit. Touch all the big issues at once.

But stop standing in the way. Think of the children! Give up the taxes!

Wisconsin needs a budget, and you – Democrats – can give us one! If you’ll just stop standing in the way!

And let Representative Nelson go home.

Are We Ready for Social Security Reform Yet?

Ida May Fuller, a retired schoolteacher and legal secretary in Vermont, became the nation’s first Social Security beneficiary on January 31, 1940 when she received a check for $22.54.

Not quite six years later, Kathleen Casey-Kirschling was born. Just this week, she became the first of some 80 million Baby Boomers – over a quarter of the U.S. population – to apply for Social Security benefits. She’ll receive her first check next year.

Now are we ready?

We’ve known, roughly since 1964, that this – the Boomer generation’s retirement – was going to happen. Thus, one might think, the government has taken steps to protect the Social Security program.

One would be wrong.

The federal government continues to spend all our Social Security taxes – 12.4% of our paychecks. The Feds could be investing that money, setting it aside like a retirement fund, but they’re not. They’re spending it, and trusting to future taxes to cover their IOUs.

It’s always been that way.

We’ve been over this before. Today’s workers pay for today’s retirees. That was fine back in 1950, when the ratio was 16 workers per retiree, but today the ratio is down to 3.3. By 2032, it’ll be 2.1.

By 2017, when roughly half of those baby boomers have applied for benefits, Social Security will begin to lose money. There will no longer be enough going into the system to pay all the benefits owed.

And by 2041 even the IOUs will have run out. The “trust fund” will be empty.

Great. I’ll turn 72 that year. My children will be in their late 30s to late 40s.

Are we shocked? Shocked, to find out Social Security is in trouble?

We shouldn’t be. We’ve known for a very long time.

We’ve known. We’ve known that it will run out of money. We’ve known that keeping it alive will require a tax hike, cuts in benefits, or a combination of both.

Either that, or spending cuts elsewhere in the gargantuan federal budget, but don’t make me laugh. Ha. Ha. Ha.

We’ve known. And some of us have tried to do something about it. President Bush tried, but abandoned the issue as political capital became harder to come by. Congressional Democrats cheered his failure.

Rep. Paul Ryan, Wisconsin’s conservative barbarian-at-the-gate, still has reform legislation out there. We can place some hope in that.

Not much, though. Not as long as Congressional Democrats, “moderate” Republicans, the AARP and other usual suspects refuse to Speak Truth to Power – “power” in this case being hordes of silver-haired grandparents who listen, rapt, to Chicken Little descriptions of “reform.”

Current and near-retirees fear cuts to their benefits, as well they should: their benefits are controlled by the government, which can change or even end them at any time.

Do they prefer things that way? Do they want their grandchildren to face the same thing?

Because we can fix that, by creating some kind of personal account.

Over the average 40-year period, the Dow Jones stocks earn about 7% per year, even accounting for recessions. That’s nearly four times what Social Security will give you, even if you live to be 90.

We can fix that, by investing those personal accounts in low-risk investments.

Ryan’s proposals, like others like them, will mean debt – what opponents call the “transition costs.” We’ll have to keep paying for current benefits somehow. We did promise. That probably means borrowing money.

Quick, somebody accuse me of mortgaging our children’s future. My irony meter needs some exercise.

This debt isn’t being caused by reforming Social Security. It’s caused by decades of political raiding of the Social Security fund: if politicians hadn’t used the fund to pay for current spending to begin with, these debts wouldn’t be necessary.

We can fix that, by giving Americans ownership of their accounts, like they have ownership of their IRAs and 401Ks.

So: well before Ms. Casey-Kirschling and the rest of the Boomers have gone on to that reward that isn’t controlled by the government, we could have a whole new form of Social Security: one which the Feds can’t touch, which is less risky than stuffing twenties into a mattress, and which will return a far greater amount, meaning wealthier retirees better able to care for themselves, for their families, and for our economy.

We can do this. Will we?

Less Spending, Fewer Jobs

We have found the solution to creating jobs in Wisconsin.

I’m playing a little loose with my definitions, of course. When I say “we,” I mean the Wisconsin Alliance of Cities. When I say “creating jobs,” well, I’m just following along with them. I’m not sure what I mean.

And “solution?” I’m really taking liberties there.

I’ll let this Alliance press release explain (emphasis added):

Shared-revenue freeze cripples job creation

The lack of an increase in state shared revenues in a budget bill Gov. Jim Doyle says he will submit to a special session of the Legislature next week would cripple the ability of Wisconsin communities to create jobs and improve services to their citizens, representatives of Wisconsin's largest cities said Wednesday.

Shared revenue is tax money, collected by the state and distributed to local governments – mostly (about 65%) to cities. Next week, Governor Doyle is expected to recommend zero growth in shared revenue for the next two years.

This, according to the press release, has crippled job growth in Wisconsin.

No, wait, it doesn’t say “has crippled.” It says no increase this time “would cripple” job creation. Not that it already has.

That’s weird. Shared revenue stayed flat – no increases – from 1997 until 2002, then grew a little, then dropped by about 8% in 2004. According to the Cities’ logic, job creation should already be in a wheelchair. Maybe even breathing through a tube.

I mean, those were actual cuts to shared revenue. In 2004, they’d have been happy just to stay flat, right?

So where are all the disheartened throngs of unemployed Wisconsinites, lining up for free soup? Because if the Alliance is right – if a zero increase in shared revenue will “cripple job creation” – what would another cut do?

It’s not such a stretch. Governor Doyle loves to raid monies meant for other things. Why wouldn’t he – or a future governor – tap into that money?

Instead of a billion dollars, give local governments half a billion. Balance the state’s budget with the rest.

But then we’re back to the milling mobs of unemployed, wearing patched woolen coats and cloth caps and warming their hands around barrels of burning garbage. At least, according to the Alliance.

So let’s go the other way, instead. If zero shared revenue “cripples job creation,” then increased shared revenue should mean more jobs. Therefore, we should double shared revenue. Triple it. Decuple it.

Because it means more jobs!

It’s the solution we’ve all been searching for: how do we keep our economy strong, and provide more good, well-paying, reliable jobs for Wisconsin citizens?

More government spending. More taxes!

How do we maintain – even improve – on our quality of life?

More government spending. More taxes!

Let’s just go ahead and double the tax rate. More income taxes, more corporate taxes, more sales taxes. No exemptions. Enact the so-called Healthy Wisconsin plan, and load that 12% payroll tax onto businesses to pay for it.

We’ll really have it good as soon as Wisconsin is the single highest-taxed state in the nation!

At the very least, we’ll create more government jobs. Right? Heck, we could have 100% employment, if only we could tax and spend enough!

That’s what communist nations do. Control all the money, hand out all the jobs. Haven’t you seen pictures of life in the old Soviet Union? In Cuba? They live like kings!

Hmmm. Suddenly I’m not so sure.

It’s true: a certain amount of public spending helps the economy along. Commerce takes place more easily when private property is protected, for example. When laws are enforced.

And I know, rhetoric like “extreme budget cuts threaten our jobs” is part and parcel of budget-time politics. The Alliance of Cities is just playing the game. They’re an advocacy group that lobbies government on behalf of government, so their game is to coax more taxpayer money out of the state.

Just don’t confuse the omnipresent governmental need to spend more money with real-life economics. Some government spending is good, economically speaking, but it’s the opportunity to make a profit that brings business, growth, and jobs.

Profit, meaning income over costs. Costs, which include taxes. Higher taxes make it harder to achieve profits, and therefore are bad for job creation.

Even taxes spent on local governments.

The Questions Not Asked

Today is the 100th day that Wisconsin has been without a new budget. Or so I heard on the radio this morning.

That’s “new” budget. Not just “budget” as so many news reports and chronic complainers have put it. Wisconsin has a budget – the old budget, which is just as good today as it was two years ago, when Governor Doyle signed it.

So that’s an unfortunately common but incomplete storyline, and it’s not the only one. Another goes something like this: how many Democrat votes will Assembly Republicans end up needing?

This Capital Times story from last week illustrates:

As state budget talks drag on, Assembly Speaker Mike Huebsch, R-West Salem, faces a series of increasingly difficult choices.

He can give Senate Democrats and Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle some or all of the tax and spending increases they want - a move that would cost him support within his own party and could force him to seek up to 25 Democratic votes to pass the budget in his house.

Or Huebsch can exercise the so-called “nuclear option” by refusing to give in to the Democrats on taxes and blocking adoption of a final budget - a move that would blow up the entire budget process and throw the state into fiscal uncertainty.

Notice: it’s Huebsch who would exercise the “nuclear option” by not giving in. As if there were only one side. As if the other side couldn’t “give in.”

The Assembly is Republican-controlled, but not by much. If three or more Republicans break ranks on an otherwise party-line vote, Republicans lose.

Since many Republicans are opposed to raising taxes – any taxes, by any amount – it’s hardly a stretch to imagine that this will happen, should the Assembly vote on a budget that raises taxes.

This has led reporters to ask “gotcha” questions of Republican lawmakers. Questions like “how many Republicans will vote for a higher cigarette tax,” and “how many Democrat votes will the Assembly need to pass a budget?”

No one seems to be asking: how many Republican votes do Senate Democrats need to pass a no-tax-increase budget?

How many Democrats would vote for a no-tax-increase budget? How many will vote for a budget that doesn’t stick it to “big oil,” or “big tobacco?”

Why isn’t anybody asking those questions?

On one hand, there’s a certain logic to this. We’re in the midst of budget “negotiations.” The very word “negotiation” implies that the two sides will, eventually, meet in the middle.

Senate Democrats proposed over $2 billion in new taxes even without their so-called $15 billion “Healthy Wisconsin” plan. All told, their budget amounts to the largest tax increase in U.S. history – a tax increase almost certain to launch Wisconsin to the highest taxed state in the nation, and by a lot.

So if we’re going to “meet in the middle,” that means there will be some tax increases. The only question is how much, and which ones?

But wait: why any? Where is it written that taxes have to go up at all?

Fraternal blogger Mr. Pterodactyl put it like this:

As if the taxes have always been there, as if the taxes are natural. And we can tinker with them, but they'll always come back unless we pay real close attention. Kind of like that grass that comes up between chunks of sidewalk. And that's how it's supposed to be.

Tax revenues will grow at about 3% a year over the next two years, without any tax increases. Even if the legislature does nothing, never passes a new budget bill, the state will have about $1.2 billion more to spend.

So. How many Democrats will vote for a budget that increases spending by $1.2 billion?

How many Democrats will vote for a budget that increases spending by only $1.2 billion?

Is there any scenario under which Democrats would vote for no tax increases? Or are they irrevocably, irreversibly, now and for all time devoted to higher taxes in Wisconsin?

Could somebody ask that question, please?

Or maybe some reporter could start calling Senators' offices and asking whether they'll vote for AB 506 - the partial budget bill funding schools and local shared revenues - if their leadership will let them.

And here’s another question: if everyone is assuming that taxes are going up this year, what about next time? Next budget? Do we just assume that taxes will go up next time, too?

Leaving the Communist Paradise

I am a communist.

No use denying it. It’s the simple truth.

Oh, well, yes, I’m a capitalist at heart. I go shopping the day after Thanksgiving, every single year, just so I can smell the rampant consumerism all around me.

But there’s still no way around the fact that I live – voluntarily, happily, even enthusiastically – in a communist society. In a centrally-controlled economy, in which we all share whatever resources we have. In which a small minority of unelected “leaders” make the decisions – all the decisions – about how to distribute those resources.

I’m one of those leaders. Responsible for deciding what will be made available, and in what amounts, and who will get how much of each. Etcetera.

That’s necessary, in any real communist society. Since we generally – in theory, anyway – share everything, and since “everything” is limited, somebody’s got to make the decisions.

This has become harder as our little society has grown. Each additional person means additional activity, needs, demands.

If there were any more of us, we might not be able to do it. God knows how the Russians did.

Because conflicts do arise. Limited resources mean conflicting demands. It’s not just money and different foods and which radio station we’re listening to: it’s time. Time spent driving, time on the computer, time on the telephone. Time spent paying attention to each adorable little proletariat.

There are twenty-four hours to every day, and seven days to every week, and no amount of haranguing over our need for more will change that.

The proletariat is supposed to understand: we’re all in this together. We may be suffering from want, but at least we’re all suffering the same.

Well, not all of us. Those of us at the top, naturally, have privileges. Our needs are simply higher priority.

That’s life, Junior. Deal with it.

But still: we can see the beginnings of dissatisfaction, especially in our 15-16 year old female demographic. Sooner or later, somebody’s going over the wall. Leave our little communist paradise, hoping for greener pastures elsewhere.

Either that, or we’ll have a purge. Hey, sooner or later, dissent has to be dealt with. I expect this – either an escape or a purge – sometime in the next 3-5 years.

And then it’ll happen again, I predict, maybe two years later.

It’s not as though we want this, you understand. Like all good communist leaders, we’re committed to the well-being of The People, and want only their happiness. But…they’re not happy. Not always. And with the limited resources at our disposal…well, how do you prevent it?

How do you even understand it?

The state provides them with everything. Clothing. Food. A warm, dry place to live. We take care of them when they’re sick. We make sure they go to school. We make sure they get to the places they need to go.

But it’s never enough, is it? I guess that’s just a fact of life. Human nature. The way of the world. Not even Marx and Lenin could circumvent it. No matter how much one has, one always wants more.

So eventually they’ll leave on their own, or we’ll have to get rid of them. One at a time.

We could, I suppose, promise more. Guarantee medical care for their entire lives, for example. Not that we wouldn’t do that anyway, if needed, but let’s make it a promise. Make it a right.

We could guarantee their educations, even through University, maybe even beyond that. And not just for them, but for their children.

We could even give them direct cash payments. Regular payments, guaranteed.

Oh, right, we already do. Fine, then, bigger payments.

They’ll stick around longer then, I bet. It might not stop all the complaining. In fact, I know it won’t: since the resources for those extra perks have to come from somewhere, there will be less to go around elsewhere as a result.

And we could never renege on those promises. Doing so would ensure an exodus: everybody would head for the wall. Barbed wire, guard dogs, whatever. Once people have a taste of More, there’s no peaceful way back to Less.

Hum. Maybe better we just let them to go. Give them all they need now, but make sure they can manage on their own.

Sooner or later, it’ll just be us leaders left. Lots fewer of us to share the resources.

And then the remote really will be all mine.

Whither the Republicans?

Republicans are in trouble. That’s what everybody’s saying, anyway, and they’re saying it for a reason: all the signs point to another bad year in 2008.

Democrat activist Bill Kraus, of all people, caught the essence of Republican problems over at Fighting Bob.com: “The Republican Party trudges on toward picking a presidential candidate even though the party no longer seems to know why it exists.”

Actually, the Republican Party isn't officially dead yet, but it does seem that the party that based its pitch for votes on a list of unspectacular but worthy virtues is wondering, "Where did our reputation go?"

We might not know where it went, but we’ve a good idea why it went there. And the results aren’t pretty.

If you’re a Republican prone to depression, you may want to skip ahead a bit.

Nationally, Democrats are raising millions more dollars than Republicans. Yes, the Republican National Committee has more cash on hand than their Democrat counterparts, according to this story in The Hill, but other Republican organizations – including the major Presidential campaigns – are lagging well behind.

The money is important, but this means much more than money. It means the Republican rank and file isn’t forming up for battle. Not like they did in 2004.

There’s more. Nearly seventy percent of Americans think a Democrat will win the White House next year – and that includes almost half of Republicans.

As if that weren’t enough, the pseudo-non-conservatism that was partly to blame for last year’s pounding continues to erode the Republican base – even parts one would never expect.

Even when Republicans do stick to a principle – like upholding the rule of law – we lose ground. Hispanics, the story goes, are abandoning any pretense of becoming long-term Republicans because the party won’t abandon immigration issues.

No crash-and-burn is ever complete, of course, without some self-cannibalism. Several social conservative leaders have pledged to break from the Republican Party if Rudy Giuliani wins the nomination.

This has led to talk of a third-party candidate. Remember those? The last major third-party challenge on the conservative side was Ross Perot, which cost Bush I his re-election bid. Or Ed Thompson, whose Libertarian run cost Scott McCallum.

Given all that, I guess we should be thankful that Clinton, Obama, and Edwards – one of whom is likely to be Commander in Chief – are all waffling about that quick retreat from Iraq.

Deep breath. We’ve been through this before: 2006 was a huge defeat for Republicans. Defeats – especially huge, demoralizing defeats – send us scrambling like ants under a descending shoe.

But don’t panic. The election is 14 months away. Lots can happen. Pendulums can swing. Candidates can do stupid things.

Politics is cyclical, and as much as we Republicans are to blame for our own problems now, that cycle will come around again.

It’ll come faster, if we do the right things.

If the shoe really is about to drop on all us scrambling Republicans, then this seems like a good time for Republicans to stop worrying about the shorter-term – which is what got Republicans in trouble in the first place – and start looking at the longer term.

Secure the base. No, the base isn’t buying what we’re selling right now. But we’ve got a few things to hang our hats on.

Rep. Paul Ryan, for example, was recently singled out as one of three rising young, conservative, Republican barbarians-at-the-gate.

Wisconsin’s Republican chairman Reince Priebus – whose first priority is Republican electoral victories – wrote a letter to the Republican legislative leaders, declaring that “raising taxes should be the furthest thing from our minds.”

And that Republican leadership in the state legislature has, thus far, run circles around their Democrat adversaries while debating the state budget.

That hasn’t been easy: Governor Doyle is ready and willing to use his bully pulpit. The state’s media is, as most major media tends to be, largely in favor of universal health care and other forms of expanded taxpayer-funded largesse. But Republican leaders have, so far, won victories.

The base needs some of those.

If our fates are sealed, then they’re sealed. Maybe this won’t help the Republican Party in 2008. If not, there’s always 2010. There’s always 2012.

Disaster is waiting for the other side, too.