When a Rebate Isn't a Rebate

I got a rebate in the mail the other day. Ten bucks. Back before hunting season, I bought a few boxes of ammunition on special, sent in the paperwork, and the little postcard check finally came.

That’s a rebate. First you pay the money, then you get some back. Or it’s what you do when the fish ate the worm off your hook.

But I might be spelling that wrong.

Anyway. The Feds are redefining the word “rebate” for us:

The measure would send rebates to most income earners, including roughly 35 million families who don't make enough to pay income taxes. Individuals with adjusted gross income of $75,000 and couples making $150,000 would get rebates equal to the taxes they paid, up to $600 for individuals and $1,200 for couples. Those making more than that would see their rebate go down by $50 for each $1,000 of income over the limits.

All eligible people would get at least $300 - or $600 for couples. They would get an additional $300 per child.

Since only about 50% of wage earners in this country actually pay federal income taxes, much of this – maybe most of it – is a transfer, not a rebate. We – myself included – will receive money we never paid in.

That’s one reason conservatives are grinding their teeth over the plan. It’s a transfer of wealth: taking money from those who pay all the taxes (but who are much less likely to receive a rebate) and giving it to those who don’t pay taxes.

Because we can.

It’s a gimmick-fix: a one-time deal that may or may not help the economy, isn’t really needed for that purpose anyway, and will increase the federal deficit.

And it smells like something leading Republicans did out of fear that their Democrat rivals will demagogue them, if they hadn’t.

They don’t care about the poor! They don’t want a healthy economy! Like the Dems won’t say that, anyway.

I generally agree with my conservative brethren, but, just to be different, I’m going to point out the silver lining.

It’s honest.

You heard me. Honest. At least, more so than usual.

Usually, when government transfers wealth, they disguise it with a program to “help the needy.” Welfare. Food stamps. Health care. Child care. Heating assistance. Etcetera. Thousands upon thousands of pork projects.

Heck, even if you don’t use those programs, you still benefit from the government whether you pay taxes or not. It’s true. You benefit by…um…hang on, I’ll think of something…

The military. We all benefit from having and being protected by the greatest military force in history. But only half of us are paying for it.

But now – finally – they’re just taking the money from one person, and handing it straight to another person. Or people. Gimme. Here you go.

Sure, it’s just a few degrees difference from mugging the guy in the pinstripe suit and the Bluetooth earpiece to give his money to a panhandler.

And? At least this way, it isn’t under the guise of some new entitlement program.

In fact, there’s no “program” at all. No new offices. No new bureaucracy. No new Cabinet-level position that will become nothing more than a mouthpiece for another bloated Washington budget.

See? It’s not all bad.

Dizzy from the spin yet?

As a friend of mine put it when I asked her opinion: “It’s good politics, terrible policy, and I want the money.”

True dat. It’s seductive. Hard to refuse. I know it’s a bad idea, but I’m still thinking about what to do with the money once I’ve got it. Pay off a bill, buy something, take the wife someplace overnight. All of the above.

Still. Economies move in cycles. No matter what you do, sooner or later, you’ll get a recession. And then, if you just let the market work, you’ll come out of it. Far better to simply not panic. Reduce spending, reduce tax rates, let the economy heal itself. Because it will.

Or we can let the government muck around with it. That always works.

Would laissez faire play with the electorate? Dunno. And we won’t know, because our leaders aren’t trying it.

Wish they would.

The State of the State Is...Well...

Governor Jim Doyle gave his annual State of the State Address on Wednesday, and as such speeches go, this one was…

…um…

Addresses like these – like the President’s State of the Union – are supposed to be big. Important. Indicative of the CEO’s intentions for the coming year.

Of course, this year, the Governor’s address was likely to be something less. The Legislature won’t be in session much longer. There’s very little time left to cause any harm…I mean, accomplish anything. Thus, major policy initiatives have about a sunbather’s chance in downtown Baraboo (lately, anyway) of becoming law.

More likely, this year’s SOTS was a shot across the election-year bow. A few snippets of whatever the Governor’s party intends to pursue in pursuit of electoral glory.

Even so. This year’s speech seemed like…a non-event. A whole lot of nothing.

And so, instead of the usual intuitive wisdom my readers are accustomed to finding here, I’m just going to snark.

The economy:

Everybody – the governor included – seems to think there’s a recession on the way. The Legislative Fiscal Bureau tells us the state budget will be short by over $300 million.

”We will have to delay some of the things we all agreed on. We will have to make deep cuts and hard sacrifices,” Doyle said, suggesting that the 2003 version of himself has time-traveled to the present.

What those deep cuts and hard sacrifices are, well, he didn’t say. He did, however, talk economic stimulus.

Tax credits for research and development; tax credits for venture capital; streamlining regulations on agriculture and manufacturing. All fine, Republican ideas.

But back to the “hard sacrifices” part. Governor Doyle wants to expand the state’s role in health care even further than was done in the last budget, and eliminate the Qualified Economic Offer (QEO) – the state law that guarantees teachers minimum increases in salary, but allows school districts more leverage in contract negotiations.

We have to cut back! We have to spend more! We have to put off new programs, but we have to expand these new programs!

The Minimum Wage:

“Imagine trying to pay $3 a gallon for gasoline when you’re making $6.50 an hour,” Doyle said.

Indeed, that would be difficult. Good thing it’s so easy to move beyond the minimum wage. Oh, that’s not what the Governor meant. Well, good thing the Feds are increasing it to $7.25 next year. Oh, also not what he meant. In fact, he didn’t even mention those things.

Funny.

Energy:

“Our addiction to foreign oil is compromising our national security, paralyzing our economy, and melting the polar ice caps.”

If only we were addicted to domestic oil, instead, the ice caps would be fine.

Incidentally, Doyle also said: “Skyrocketing health care costs are paralyzing our economy.” Lot of paralysis going around, it seems.

Or maybe somebody on his staff could break out the thesaurus now and then.

Anyway:

A barrel of oil has topped $100…

The oil companies don’t care. They’re making the biggest profits in history.

And then:

Our nation’s dependence on foreign oil must end, but drilling our way out of this crisis is not the answer.

Can anybody tell me why the hell not?

Let’s see: recession looming, revenues falling. Need economic growth. Gasoline is one of the most inelastic goods in existence.

A barrel of oil has topped $100! Biggest profits in history!

Let’s get in on that action!

You can make an environmentalist seize up uncontrollably just by suggesting that we drill in the Great Lakes, and since we don’t want them doing that (they’ll get onto the Endangered Species List, and then there’ll be just no living with them), how about we build a refinery, instead? Maybe two?

Bring that sweet, sweet crude on up here. Let the nation depend on us when supplies get low. Manitowoc, or Racine, or maybe Superior. Those Canadians have got an awful lot of oil, you know.

Oh, right, that’s foreign. My mistake. Alaska, then.

I’m mostly kidding. I’ve no idea what the feasibility of a Wisconsin-based refinery would be. But. Coal, natural gas, and oil work. Ethanol, biomass, solar and other renewables – Governor Doyle’s pets – might work, someday. At some level. But I don’t know that.

And neither does Doyle.

The Left's Fear of Investment

Yes, let’s invest in the stock market. What could go wrong?

That’s the question a Milwaukee-area blogger asks about this story:

A plan to borrow money and invest the proceeds as a way of managing Milwaukee County's pension debt - an idea once rejected by voters and reviled by critics as too risky - now appears headed for fast-track approval.

Milwaukee County has about $1.6 billion in their retirement account right now: about $267 million less than what they need to cover all the retirees’ benefits.

So, they’re proposing to borrow the $267 million over 30 years at 6% interest, then invest that money at an estimated 8% annually. That will allow them to: cover all the benefits owed; pay off the new debt; and come out the other end about $90 million in the black.

Liberal blogger Folkbum doesn’t like it. Or so I surmise. Too risky, you see. Just look what’s happened to the stock market over the last half-year!

I wonder what Folkbum would have written, though, had this story hit exactly one year ago. He points out that, by January 18 of this year, the market had fallen by about 13% over the previous six months.

Invest in the stock market? That’s a terrible idea!

But by January 18 of last year, the Dow Jones was up 16.4% over the previous six months.

Invest in the stock market! That’s a great idea!

Shortsighted and myopic in both cases. Just in different directions. Like predicting Global Warming/New Ice Age by what the weather’s like this weekend.

As blogger Paul Noonan, commenting on Folkbum’s post, points out: investing in the stock market is a long-term endeavor. Most of us don’t play the market for short-term gain, and with good reason. That’s dangerous. Risky. Almost nobody can make it pay.

But long-term, over the course of decades, anyone can make it pay. Over the last two years, for example, the Dow Jones gained 11.5%. Over the last five years, it gained 137%. Over the last ten: 127%.

Over the last 20 years, the Dow gained 710%. Seven hundred and ten percent. Compounded annually, that’s about 11% per year, average, even though it’s been dropping like a rock the past couple of weeks.

So. Shall we invest in the stock market?

Hell yes, as long as we can leave the money in there for a good long time.

I’ve argued this before: between 2000 and 2002, the Dow Jones took a header, falling from over 11,700 to under 7,300. Exactly the kind of short-term catastrophe that makes some people – Congressional Democrats, for example, shooting down Social Security reform with similar fearmongering shortsightedness – run around covering their heads with old newspapers.

But. If you’d started work at 18 years of age, and invested in the Dow Jones stocks for 49 years, finally retiring on October 9, 2002 – the day the Dow Jones hit its recession-burdened low-point – you’d have seen an average 7% annual return on your investment.

Seven percent per year, even though the Dow lost over a third of its value in the final two years of your working life.

Add a seasoned, educated, experienced mind guiding your investments, and it’s hardly beyond reason to expect an 8% annual return, which is what Milwaukee County expects.

I don’t mean to say I support the plan – honestly, I don’t know, and since I don’t live in Milwaukee, well, I’ll just leave it to them.

It’s just this fear of the market our political Left seems to have. This distrust: this complete misunderstanding of what investment is.

To borrow money for investment is hardly a new idea: that’s what we do when we borrow to start or expand a business, to go to college, or even to buy a house. We go into debt, expecting (hoping) that we’ll come out ahead in the end.

Granted, Milwaukee's plan is a little different: more like taking out a second mortgage (when you already can’t afford your first one), and investing the money to put the earnings toward retiring both debts.

It’s a little weird. It’s also intriguing and – if they’re sure of their rate of return, and sure they can still cover things if they’re wrong – it’ll work.

If reason can take precedence over knee-jerking fear, that is.

Minnesota: the liberal dreamland

It isn’t often that one political side gets to really prove that they’re right. To have the unmitigated proof. The smoking gun. To really rub it in the other side’s face: we’re right, and you’re wrong.

Don’t look now, Wisconsin liberals, but Minnesota may be giving you a chance to do just that.

They're taking over the health care business there.

Two bipartisan panels that Gov. Tim Pawlenty and the Legislature formed to find the antidote to Minnesota's rapidly accelerating health care costs are planning to propose drastic changes to the state's health care system that include spreading insurance to all by 2011.

Now, the two panels haven’t quite finalized their reports yet – they’re supposed to do that sometime this month – but we can still draw a few conclusions.

Not that you need a secret decoder ring or anything. Universal coverage, improved care, affordable costs. That’s what they – like every liberal worth the description – are calling for. Price tag: an estimated $700 million.

No problem, says Sen. Linda Berglin (DFL-Minneapolis):

“We don't need to spend more money on health care,” she said. “There's enough waste from unnecessary treatments, inefficient care and in some cases inflated prices to do what we need to do.”

Just so we all understand what the good Senator means:

“Unnecessary treatments” means somebody other than your doctor decides what you need and what you don’t. A bureaucrat in every examining room!

“Inefficient care” means, largely, the same thing, with the added spice of bureaucratic monitoring of medical activity.

And, of course, “inflated prices” means somebody will decide, subjectively, how much everything should cost.

Plus, they plan to go hard after things like smoking, obesity, alcohol and drug abuse. Help us – or, rather help Minnesotans – help themselves.

A government finger here, a government finger there. Government fingers everywhere.

Attentive and regular readers will remember a recent column in this space regarding the Free State Project – the movement to move enough libertarian-minded citizens to New Hampshire that they can effectively (and legally) take over the government there.

In that column, I suggested a slightly different version: move all of our liberals to Minnesota, where they can enact whatever policies they see fit; and all of Minnesota’s conservatives here, where we’ll do the same.

Wait ten years. Compare results.

Obviously, that isn’t going to happen. We conservatives may mock the intelligence of our liberal friends and rightly so, but even liberals know better than to trade Wisconsin for Minnesota.

Luckily, Minnesota is offering us a chance to test this out. Liberals, “progressives,” You Who Care About the Poor: you’ll have a chance in just a few years to show us all how right you were.

Of course, there’s a difference between knowing what you want, and making it happen. There’s a political process. The Minnesota Legislature has to write these recommendations into law. Pass them. The Governor will have to sign them.

But there again, Wisconsin liberals, luck shines upon you! Minnesota’s version of the Democratic Party has huge legislative majorities: 85-48 in the House, and 45-22 in the Senate.

Those are big majorities. Almost veto-proof majorities. Those are majorities that ought to get a progressive agenda through.

Sure, the Governor is a Republican, thus in the pocket of Big Business, but he sees the writing on the wall. The biggest danger facing progressive change in Minnesota now is that every pigeon-holed interest group will push and pull and tug and influence until the final bill has more exceptions and loopholes and add-ons than the federal tax code.

I’ve heard you say it, liberal Wisconsin: universal coverage is simple, and easy, and within our reach! Don’t let Minnesota screw up this chance they so obviously have.

Get on those phones, send in those checks. Show your support now! You’re just a few short years away from sitting back, popping a beer, hiding your laughter behind your hand (or not) while we, conservatives, beaten and subdued, shovel another big hunk of crow down our submissive throats.

When Minnesota, that beacon of Midwestern light, is bursting at the seams with the people who’ve come to take part in the liberal dream: free health care for all!

Better them than us.

Tips of the hat to Patrick McIlheran and the Star-Tribune's Katherine Kersten.

You Don't Always Get What You Want, Even When You Do

Big doings around the country these days. Important doings. Doings that will last at least another few weeks. Into February. Maybe longer.

Who are you cheering for? More importantly, who do you want moving on to the Big Show? Are you hoping for a specific opponent? Somebody you think your top choice can beat? Or, at least, that you can stand to see win, should your choice lose?

Come on, take your pick: the Patriots, or the Chargers?

What, you thought I was talking about politics?

Nope. There may be something important happening in Michigan today, but we’ve no time for it. The Green Bay Packers are still playing football. Hosting the NFC Championship game. Sixty minutes to the Superbowl!

Last time this happened, we expected it. This time, not so much. It feels a lot different.

I admit: part of me wanted Dallas to beat the Giants last week. Part of me wanted Green Bay traveling there for the NFC Championship game.

Hey, championships are sweet, but winning them on your rival’s home field is even sweeter. Plus part of me thinks that, without beating Dallas, a Superbowl berth is cheaper, somehow.

The same goes for New England: part of me wants them to win next week, and bring their thus-far-undefeated season to the Superbowl for the Packers to ruin. And part of me wants San Diego, because, on paper at least, they’re not as good a team.

Choosing isn’t easy. It’s even less so in politics.

For example: John McCain has momentum in the presidential primary, and if he wins in Michigan today, he’ll have even more.

Do we really want him in the Big Show? The general election? Could this crotchety old anti-conservative win against Obama the Smooth, or Clinton the Wicked?

But wait a minute: maybe it would be better for Republicans to lose in November. All the better to gain ground in Congress. In which case, which Democrat would be best?

And even if Mitt Romney or Fred Thompson – the two most solidly conservative candidates – win the Presidency, there’s really no guarantee that they’ll govern the way we think.

Ronald Reagan raised taxes, supported abortion rights, got divorced and savaged Gerald Ford during the 1976 primary. And became an icon, against whom all Republican candidates are measured.

Bush the First raised taxes. Clinton the First snubbed warlike homosexuals and signed welfare reform.

Maybe we wanted the Giants, so the Packers could have an easier (we hope) game. But the Giants have won twice now as underdogs.

Maybe we’ll cheer for San Diego, for the same reason. But if they beat New England, they’ll have won twice as underdogs, too. There’s no guarantee Green Bay will beat either team.

Politics, of course, has longer-lasting effects than football. On future elections, on future history, on our very present and very real lives, elections cause ripples that we have to live with for years, decades, even centuries to come.

Football, not so much. You play the game, and that’s that. Share the reflected glory, or storm the warehouses and throw every last can of clam chowder to the bottom of Lake Michigan.

Still, though: in 1996, the Denver Broncos were the best team in the AFC. Everybody thought so. But they lost in the playoffs, so Green Bay beat New England – a good, but lesser team – in the Superbowl.

Did that cheapen Green Bay’s victory? Hardly. Nobody remembers the exact circumstances anymore. Only that Green Bay won.

Mondale, Dukakis, Dole: all inadequate presidential candidates, beaten like the Patriots in Superbowl XX in their respective elections.

Regardless: the proceeding Presidencies were no less real.

Lesson? You don’t always get what you want, even when you do. And sometimes when you don’t, you do anyway.

Still, this is a special year. I’d rather beat Hillary Clinton, and I’d rather beat New England. One is evil incarnate, the other…well, okay, they both are. But both victories would be sweeter than any others, and…

…well, if my side does lose, Clinton’s the best choice among the Democrats, anyway, and the Patriots will have completed a perfect season. History, in both cases.

Funny. I’ll find it easier to live with the former, than the latter.

The Minimum Wage: Lifting Families out of Poverty since 1919!

If we raise the minimum wage, people will no longer live in poverty.

Until the feds change the definition of “living in poverty,” at least.

The Democrat-controlled Wisconsin State Senate is all set to raise the minimum wage again – it’s been a little over a year since the last increase – with Senate Bill 130. That will make the wage $7.25 an hour.

No biggie: the federal minimum wage will be $7.25 in another year and a half, anyway. Right?

Yes, but that’s not all the bill does. It also indexes Wisconsin’s minimum wage to inflation. It’ll go up every year – up, past those in surrounding states. Past those in competing states, which is…hang on, lemme count…yeah. All of them.

But never mind. Full steam ahead. Senate Majority Leader Russ Decker, also the bill’s lead author, says:

“Indexing the minimum wage to inflation will help lift families out of poverty. It will help keep people out of the welfare system and make sure the first rung on the ladder of success will be strong enough for them to move up,” said Decker.

Decker is right about one thing: higher-paying jobs are better than lower-paying jobs. Of course, any jobs are better than no jobs. We should be able to agree on that.

On the same point, more jobs are better than fewer jobs. Even Democrats understand this: that’s why Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton was out recently, touting the state’s tax cut for film production. That’s why Governor Jim Doyle is out promoting his “Accelerate Wisconsin” agenda: a collection of tax cuts, credits, and other programs designed to improve Wisconsin’s business climate.

Make it cheaper to do business here, and more businesses will do business here!

So many Democrats don’t understand that. Some – like those in charge of the State Senate right now – don’t get the relationship between making money and creating jobs. Their agenda is all about squeezing business.

Profit is important. Profit. Income minus expenses.

And taxes are part of expenses. But guess what: payroll is an even bigger part of expenses. If the Doyle/Lawton doctrine – reducing the tax burden to help business – is good, then government-forced increases in payroll are bad.

It wouldn’t really matter, if our minimum wage was the same as everybody else’s. It won’t be: the bill raises our minimum wage as of September 1, and then starts indexing one year later. So ours will be among the highest in the nation.

But. If it “helps lift families out of poverty,” won’t it be worth it?

Well, if indexing for inflation means lifting families out of poverty, then I’ve got good news.

A little history now, and then a little math.

Wisconsin’s first minimum wage, 22 cents an hour, went into effect in 1919. Twenty-two cents, adjusted for inflation, comes to $2.67 an hour in 2007 dollars, less than half of today’s actual minimum wage.

In 1956, the minimum wage went up to 70 cents. Adjusted to 2007 money, that equals $5.41 an hour. Today’s wage is still ahead of inflation!

In 1989, the minimum wage went up to $3.65. In 2007 dollars, that equals $6.19.

In all three cases, actual growth in the minimum wage outstripped inflation. It was last raised – to $6.50 – in 2006. If it rises to Sen. Decker’s $7.25, that will be an 11.5% increase over two years’ time.

So. If indexing for inflation will “lift people out of poverty,” as Senator Decker says, well, we’ve already done that. In fact, the minimum wage has done far better than inflation over the years.

Does that mean we’ve lifted people out of poverty? The good Senator would, I bet, laugh me right out of the hearing room if I said it had.

To be honest, I’m not entirely opposed to indexing the minimum wage: I’ve thought, in the past, that doing so would at least get the issue off the table. Keep the Democrats from playing saint.

Of course, it wouldn’t. Even though the minimum wage has done everything Senator Decker wants – and more – since its inception, he continues to demagogue the issue. If indexing succeeds, other Democrats will do the same.

New Hampshire Decides. I still don’t.

Very early this morning, New Hampshire voters started making their disproportionate contribution to American presidential politics.

I’m a little too late to add my two cents: by the time you read this, the results will (probably) be in.

Sorry, New Hampshire. I know you were waiting to hear from me.

Luckily, we’re far from done. Michigan is up in just a few days. Then Nevada and South Carolina. Then Florida. Then a gaggle, including Super Duper Tuesday on February 5, and by the time Wisconsin’s turn rolls around on February 19, the issue might be all decided. Or it might not be.

That leaves plenty of time for me to make my opinion – inconsequential as it may be – known. If I can figure it out for myself.

So here goes.

I’ve already chosen a Democrat candidate. In some distant parallel universe, Lance¹ is crossing party lines to vote for Hillary Clinton because the Republican primary has been long settled, while the Democrat primary is still in doubt.

That’s as likely as any other scenario, I guess. If Lance¹ were an actual Democrat (because he didn’t listen to his father in his youth), he’d probably be voting for Kucinich.

Back to this parallel universe, where the internet is abuzz about Clinton “crying” during a speech.

I’d have advised her to do differently. You don’t cry, Hillary: you have Chelsea cry. During a speech, when she gets to the part about how much you care about this country. Then you, the wise and empathic mother, take her by the shoulders; lead her, sobbing, away (not so far that we can’t see you); speak softly but firmly, and send off for hot chocolate while you advance to the podium yourself.

There you go. I am the next Dick Morris.

So that’s settled. Were I voting Democrat, I’d vote for Hillary Clinton. But I’m not. So. Now what?

So many things to consider. For example, how well will the candidate govern, if elected? Who gives us the best chance of regaining/retaining at least part of Congress?

More impendingly, which candidate can win in November?

All important questions, and all a little too cute. Like trying to sink the 8-ball and set yourself up for the 9-ball at the same time, except you can’t see where the 9-ball is.

We can conjecture all we want, but we just don’t know.

So let’s focus on the 8-ball. How do the candidates stand on the Conservative Trifecta: foreign affairs, fiscal policy, and social policy?

Been thinking a lot about that, and I’ve learned a few things.

For instance, I’ve learned that, in a President, security and foreign policy are more important to me than domestic social issues.

Just take two candidates: Giuliani and Paul. The former is a socially liberal but strongly hawkish candidate with two tons of credibility on national security issues.

The latter is an isolationist. The moment I discovered this about him, I wrote him off. Instantly. Didn’t require a second thought. I won’t vote for Ron Paul.

I haven’t written Giuliani off, despite his pro-choice and shaky (at best) Second Amendment opinions. I might still vote for him. Emphasis on “might.”

Why not? I disagree with him, as much as with Paul.

Partly, it’s because security issues have to trump others. Weakness in foreign policy increases the odds that our lifestyles will be illiberally curtailed in the future.

True, a President has the bully pulpit, so other-than-conservative positions can significantly influence the nation. But a President is most powerful in foreign affairs. Get that issue right, get judicial nominations right. That makes a quarterback’s difference.

On the other hand, I’d very nearly written off John McCain – arguably the most hawkish of the Republican candidates – because of his position on taxes, and illegal immigration, and campaign finance. Because of a general distrust I – and many other conservative Republicans – have for him.

So I guess “Security First” is more of a guideline than an actual rule.

Which leaves Romney, with his resume, and Thompson, with his gravitas, as my most likely choices. But not my only ones.

If I had to vote today…well, maybe I’m just glad I don’t.

Another reason to be happy I’m not from Michigan.

An Iowa Disappointment

So. Did you get everything you wanted?

No, not for Christmas. From Iowa. The Iowa Caucuses. Did your candidate win?

Mine didn’t. She came in third.

What, you thought I was talking Republican? Nope. Haven’t even chosen a Republican candidate yet. But I’m backing Hillary Clinton. She should win. I want her to win – the primary, anyway, and if a Democrat has to win the November election, she’s the best option.

Reasons abound. Most importantly, my brother gave me a Hillary Nutcracker for Christmas. It’s really cool, and it’ll be even cooler if I can get her to autograph it.

Well, yes, I do think she’d autograph it, if I could get close enough to ask her. And it’ll be a more valuable collectible with a Hillary Hancock across the top…but not if she becomes an also-ran. A historical footnote. A female version of John Kerry. She has to at least win the nomination, if not the presidency itself.

But that’s not the only reason. Just for a moment, imagine a Clinton presidency. Imagine Bill, in all his immature, self-serving glory, back in the White House.

Wouldn’t that be fun?

Then imagine the court nominations. Not so much fun, there. More than reason enough to hope, pray, and work hard against a Clinton presidency. Or an Obama presidency, or an Edwards presidency, too.

But let’s admit to ourselves – and I know this sounds like defeatism – Republicans can’t win every election. Republicans won’t win every election. Sooner or later, there will be a Democrat in the White House, and it’s about 50-50 that “sooner or later” is November.

So. If it has to be a Democrat, which Democrat do we want it to be?

Obama is, it appears, the favorite, both among Iowa caucus-goers and among the punditocracy. He’s become The Anointed One, which will mean the harsh light of presidential campaigning aimed right at him.

What’s he got, like a week’s worth of experience? The American presidency is high stakes. The suit that fills it needs more than that.

Edwards? I defer to columnist Peggy Noonan, who wrote: “we can't have a president who spent two minutes on YouTube staring in a mirror and poofing his hair. Really, we just can't.”

Which leaves us with Hillary Clinton. Why, you ask, is she the best of a bad bunch?

Because, of the Democrats, she’ll govern furthest to the right.

Politics is all about priorities. Measuring priorities against one another. Balancing ideology and pragmatism.

Getting elected, getting re-elected, maintaining power while elected – all of these are on the priority list. Anyone’s list. The question is: how high on the list?

Everybody has their issues. Their beliefs, which they’ll pursue regardless of the consequences. Which trump the politics of the moment. President Bush stuck with the war effort, even as his poll numbers dove. Sure, he let Social Security reform go: he had to maintain at least a little political capital to keep the war going, so that issue fell lower on the priority list.

To the Clintons, I think, power is the priority. Nothing else trumps it. There is no issue so important to them – to her – that she’ll give up power (or risk losing in 2012) to pursue it.

And that’s a good thing.

That means a more centrist administration. It means triangulation – finding that middle ground where the American majority doesn’t notice what you’re doing and, more importantly, doesn’t get riled up about it. That means no broad-sweeping socialism. It means no overseas defeatism. If it means no bold changes to immigration policy, it also means no drastic changes to immigration policy.

And she’ll have to be centrist from square one. Clinton fatigue may well be a factor in the campaign. It’ll be a factor in her presidency, too. The “honeymoon” new Presidents usually enjoy will be shorter, and less protective of her than it would be of Obama or Edwards, who would also be more reactionary when it comes to satisfying the liberal base.

I could be wrong. And don’t get me wrong. I don’t want Clinton to win. I’m just trying to be pragmatic – to decide, if we have to lose, how we can make the best of it.

Barbara Lawton: Conservative Champion

Conservatives, as a group, are a little bit kerfluffled these days. With two days to go before the Iowa caucuses - the starting gun for Election 2008 - true blue liberals have a bevy of bleedin’ heart candidates from which to choose. Conservatives, on the other hand...there are good conservative reasons to dislike every single presidential candidate, regardless of party.

Like I said. Kerfluffled.

So how surprising was it to get a lesson in real conservatism last week – not from a conservative, or a Republican, or even a moderate. No, it was Lieutenant Governor Barbara Lawton – a liberal Democrat if there ever was one – shining the conservative light in the darkness.

The story: Baraboo, Wisconsin, is one of 20-odd cities under consideration as a location for Johnny Depp’s new movie. Wisconsin wouldn’t even be in the running, Lawton says, except:

Baraboo wouldn't even be considered for the shooting of an upcoming Hollywood film if not for state tax incentives taking effect Jan. 1, Lt. Gov. Barbara Lawton said.

…

Wisconsin couldn't lure a Hollywood production if not for the upcoming tax breaks, Lawton said. "Without it, they never would have come knocking on our door," she said. "They wouldn't have given us a second glance."

Amen, sister. Amen.

The more expensive something is, the less of it will happen. Lower the cost, and more of it will happen. If it costs Hollywood more to make movies in Wisconsin, they’ll choose someplace else.

Good conservative gospel. The Laws of Supply and Demand.

Thus, in 2006, Wisconsin enacted a 25% tax credit for film production in Wisconsin – as bipartisan a bill as you are ever likely to see.

That’s good news for Wisconsin, Lawton says.

"This is an industry that has a real impact on creating jobs," Lawton said.

Amen, sister. Amen.

Hey, you know what other industries have a real impact on creating jobs? All of them. If we’re giving 25% credits to limo-and-champagne Hollywood types, how about giving the same credit to pickup-and-lunchbucket greasy-fingernail types, too?

Doing so would create more jobs. I know, because LTG Lawton, champion of fiscal conservatives, said so!

Now if only she could work on her colleagues a little. Majority Democrats in the State Senate, for example. Their idea of “job creation” included the biggest tax increase in U.S. history – an increase thankfully tanked by...well, I thought it was Assembly Republicans, but maybe it was LTG Lawton after all.

If so, she’s not done yet. Senate Democrats intend to bring back their so-called “Healthy Wisconsin,” which will increase taxes on business and the self-employed by at least nine percent. They want to further raise taxes on employers by shifting property taxes, heaping on more reporting requirements, and yes, by increasing other taxes, too.

They haven’t given up on making Wisconsin the single highest taxed state in the nation. Nor will they.

Not that it isn’t good to have goals. Goals are good. Just, you know, maybe they could try jogging? Needlepoint? Something like that?

No matter. Barbara Lawton, conservative champion, is no doubt on the case. Listen up, she’ll bark, with a loud “thwap” as her palm hits a random Senate Democrat in the back of the head. If lowering taxes attracts more business, then the reverse is also true. Raising taxes – increasing the cost of doing business – scares businesses away. At the very least, it’ll prevent new business from locating in the state.

Just like we – actual conservatives – have been saying all along.

Now, it’s possible that LTG Lawton didn’t really mean the things she said. If pressed, I’m sure she’ll have some reasonable explanation for her shockingly anti-liberal fiscal comments.

Could be she was caught by surprise. Could be she was taken out of context. Could be that taxes on moviemaking were just unusually high, and lowering them was simple “fairness.”

More likely, she and her fellow Democrats simply wanted to help liberal Hollywood stars and starlets spend some extra time in Wisconsin, and maybe attend a fundraiser while they’re here.

That’ll be interesting to watch.

Still, it’s a pleasure to see someone as liberal as Barbara Lawton espouse an anti-socialistic truism like that. Welcome to the fold, Barbara! Here, sit by me. Have a beer?

Or wine. We’ve got wine, too.

Now, let’s talk about that Senate…