Would you vote Democrat, and why?

What would it take for me to vote Democrat this year?

Ha. Trick question. I already did, in the presidential primary. First time since 1988, although I might have voted Clinton in ‘92 if I’d registered in time.

That was in California. Yup, liberal California. You had to register in advance – no same-day allowed.

But what about November? What would that take?

I ask the question only because of another question I posed recently: what would it take for liberals to withdraw support from Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin?

The questions are a little different: one is simply not supporting, while the other is directly supporting the other side. Passive vs. active. Being a half-game behind the division leader, or a full game behind.

But it’s also just a matter of degree: after all, the most effective way to withdraw support is to vote the opposite way.

So just to answer my own question: to vote Democrat in November, I’d have to see Joe Lieberman – or maybe Zell “Spitball Metaphor” Miller – running against Ron Paul.

A realist foreign policy versus…well, the opposite thereof.

Now, y’see, even as I write that, I second-guess myself. Lieberman is great on foreign policy, but he’s your average liberal Democrat otherwise. Paul is absolute dreck on foreign policy – particularly Iraq – but an intriguingly strict constitutionalist.

So it would be hard. It would be hard for a liberal, too: even choosing between a Tammy Baldwin you no longer trust and some imaginary, anti-war, pro-abortion, open borders Republican who wants to mandate cars that run on grass.

The kind you mow, that is.

I suppose most liberals would just vote Green, if they really couldn’t stomach the Democrat. Or Nader. Or not vote at all. Anything to avoid pulling the “R” lever, even if that is the best way to tell a “D” that you’re mad.

Anything to avoid watching the other side celebrate.

I’ve had plenty of fun with Ed Garvey in the past, for talking big about supporting “progressivism” even if it means electoral losses, just to turn and support the Democratic candidate, whoever that might be.

This year, Garvey’s big on board with Obama. It’ll be interesting to see what he does, should Clinton turn things around. Will he vote for Nader? Or another third party? Or will he tail back to whatever Democrats are available, because stopping Republicans is just more important?

Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce (WMC), the state’s Chamber of Commerce, is as good as a starting gun for liberal ire. The political left will go after WMC at the first hint that somebody’s loosening their grip on the hat, and one wonders whether WMC could support or oppose anything – anything at all – without guaranteeing fervent Leftist opposition.

We should find out. Have WMC come out in favor of healthy puppies, or something.

To be fair, that’s not limited to the political Left. I myself feel the same way about certain Leftist organizations – the public employee unions, for example.

Back in October, I wrote:

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.

Except, wait…now comes Assembly Bill 695, a Republican bill, which limits “John Doe” proceedings – that is, anonymous but officially court-filed accusations – by prison inmates against guards.

I support it. So does AFSCME.

So I can cross the lines, when circumstances allow. Maybe the Left can, too, but I’m at a loss for an example.

Luckily, we – myself and the Elements Of The Left I keep talking about – are junkies. We’re in that societal fringe that pays attention to politics all the time. Most Wisconsinites – most Americans – feel no such automatic loyalties, or anti-loyalties.

The great masses of the electorate aren’t living and breathing this stuff. Not yet, and maybe not ever. Even on election night. They’ll pull the lever, go on home, maybe watch the news, or wait until the next morning and find out who won.

Then they’ll shrug, talk over the watercooler, and get back to life.

That’s where I’ll be, I think, before I vote Democrat again.

It's a bird...it's a plane...it's a Superdelegate!

Tammy Baldwin: independent maverick.

Oh, no, wait. I mean Tammy Baldwin: turning a deaf ear to her constituents.

Congresswoman Tammy Baldwin: Superdelegate!

You’ve heard of those, of course: mythical beings with supernatural powers, allowing them to nominate any candidate for President, whether or not the wider Democrat electorate agrees.

Well, Baldwin is one, and she’s supporting Hillary Clinton.

Some see that as a problem. The Democratic primary is so close this year, the Superdelegates could very well be the difference; and Baldwin’s Congressional district – the 2nd Wisconsin – voted for Barack Obama in last week’s primary election.

By a lot.

In fact, all six counties in Baldwin’s district voted for Obama. The closest was in Columbia County: Obama won there by 13 points.

Emily Mills, blogging at The Lost Albatross:

What I and a number of other folks find irksome, however, is the fact that Baldwin is still promising to vote for Clinton come convention time, regardless of the fact that the vast majority of Baldwin's constituents supported Obama in the primary.

Ben Brothers, at Badger Blues:

This hardly seems fair to the thousands of Democrats in Madison and the surrounding communities who went to the polls yesterday and voted for Barack Obama.

One hopes that Rep. Baldwin will recognize the need for democratic legitimacy when selecting our nominee, and support the candidate who, you know, won the most votes.

Some of the comments following those posts say: hey, if you don’t like what she does, vote her out.

Neither blogger suggested anything of the kind – to the contrary, in fact: the Superdelegate issue isn’t important enough to cancel out what they like about Baldwin.

It does make one wonder: what would Baldwin have to do to lose their support? To lose the support of Democrats, liberals, the core constituency that put her in office and keeps her there?

But that’s another column.

And anyway, voting out an individual Superdelegate is the wrong prescription. Superdelegates weren’t a creation of Congress – they’re a creation of the Democratic National Committee, which is, we should all remember, a private organization.

That’s important: the Democratic Party, Republican Party, Libertarian, Green, etc., are private organizations, which can conduct their business as they see fit. They could, if they wanted, eliminate the primary process altogether and leave nominations entirely to the delegates at convention.

They won’t, but they could.

The Democratic Party created Superdelegates – officially PLEOs (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) – in 1982, following a string of disastrous conventions and Presidential defeats. So if you don’t like the Superdelegate rules, the thing to do is become more involved in the Democratic Party machine.

Can you count the ironies?

Superdelegates were created in part because, in 1972, the nomination process didn’t seem to follow what the electorate wanted.

Today, it’s the Superdelegates themselves who might give Democrats a nominee they didn’t want.

Following the chaos at the 1968 convention, Superdelegates were seen as a stabilizing influence, offering an emergency reserve of maturity and experience to a potentially riotous process.

This year, they could be the cause of said riotousness.

And finally, Superdelegates were supposed to be a moderating force, to help ensure that a consensus “electable” candidate is chosen. To prevent disasters like those in 1968, 1972, and 1980.

I don’t have any more idea than anyone else as to who’s “electable” and who isn’t, but if anybody isn’t, it’s the guy with less than four years experience in big-time politics.

Maybe Clinton won’t turn out to be any better – indeed, if she’s nominated, however it happens, core liberals will suffer some of the same angst that core conservatives did (and still do) over McCain’s impending nomination.

But if the Superdelegates make the difference for Clinton – the more mature, experienced candidate – over the voters’ will, the push to get rid of them will intensify.

Or if Superdelegates are cowed into voting for Obama, and then the national electorate rejects him as a candidate still in political pre-school, the angst will turn the other way: why didn’t the Superdelegates do what they were created to do?

Add the potential nastiness over Florida’s and Michigan’s disqualified delegates; plus the natural volatility of the Democrats’ varied and competing identity groups, and…

With great power comes great – and sometimes thankless – responsibility.

When the Watchdog Makes Things Worse

It was a nasty election. It spent lots of money. It threw lots of mud.

It was Ziegler vs. Clifford: last year’s election for Wisconsin Supreme Court. The conservative candidate won so, naturally, Something Had To Be Done!

Okay, not really. But close, I think.

Special interests – meaning groups of private citizens – thought the election was important enough to spend money, time, and effort to elect the candidate they liked best.

The problem: lots of money, and a partisan divide. Judicial races are non-partisan. We hope to elect objective, independent judges. The usual nastiness and big money of political campaigning could undermine the objectivity of – and the public’s faith in – our judiciary.

Whether we can do anything about that is another question, and another topic.

In December, therefore, the State Bar of Wisconsin created the Wisconsin Judicial Campaign Integrity Committee (WJCIC), to “educate voters” and “monitor campaign-related activities of candidates and their supporters.”

A new committee! That’s just the thing!

Well, no. Almost immediately, there was a problem. The committee’s membership was weighted – heavily weighted – toward the Left. Toward Democrats.

That is an appearance of bias. Non-partisan citizen committees are supposed to avoid that.

But, okay, let’s say that in this case, it doesn’t matter. The committee members are legal professionals: let’s assume they’re able to look past their own ingrained biases.

After all, every NFL referee grew up someplace. Went to college. Cheered his teams. Yet we expect referees to be objective and fair. Surely, these legal professionals can do the same.

But then…bam! Another problem: committee members were found to be speaking disrespectfully – even disdainfully – of conservative Court candidate Mike Gableman, his campaign, and his aides.

Granted, they’ve all got First Amendment rights, and are perfectly free to call Republicans “mercenaries,” “the enemy,” and “the legitimate child of the demon.” Which, in a series of emails, one of them did.

But wait a minute: what if one of this year’s Superbowl referees called the Patriots a bunch of cheaters who didn’t deserve to go undefeated?

How about a high school teacher, openly badmouthing a particular student part-way through the semester?

Certainly, a police officer heard making racist comments in his off-time wouldn’t be excused just because he was “exercising his right of free speech.”

True, the committee has no actual power. In real terms, they’re just a group of people who get together and print their names on fancy letterhead. But even without any formal powers, a group of lawyers, law professors, and former judges gathering to monitor ethics should be a little more aware of their own biases.

That is part of legal ethics, right? Doing your job objectively? Learning to put personal bias aside?

They’ve failed to do that. Or, at least, they appear to have failed. And remember: Campaign Finance Reformers say appearance counts as much as fact.

Fortunately, they’ll have a chance to win some of their credibility back.

The Greater Wisconsin Committee (GWC), a liberal “special interest” group (see definition above) has an ad about the Gableman campaign. In it, they accuse Gableman of having “bought” his judgeship with a contribution to former Governor Scott McCallum.

Gableman did indeed give $2,500 to McCallum’s campaign in 2002. Whether that led directly to his appointment…nobody can say for sure, but at the very least, this looks bad.

In the language of political attacks, this is supposed to nail Gableman’s character. A candidate’s character is supposed to matter.

At least, it’s supposed to matter for conservative and Republican candidates.

But you can’t prove causation, here. You can only allege, and hope it sticks.

Now: in their only “official” action so far, the committee “rebuked” the Gableman campaign for a mailing criticizing his opponent’s past rulings – specifically, his opponent’s propensity to let criminals go free.

Character is important. So is past performance. Voters deserve to know about both.

About Gableman’s mailing, committee member Prof. Dennis Dresang wrote: “…we are not taking any party’s side, but rather using education and encouragement to keep the electoral process from damaging the reputation and functioning of the Court.”

If Desang were a conservative, one could easily imagine him saying the same about GWC’s ad. The question is: will he?

Will they? About this, and about future attack ads?

If so, conservatives will have much less to complain about. If not, well, we suspected as much already.

The Evolution of Victimology

Which of these is not like the other?

• A law banning the obese from eating in restaurants;
  
• Mandating that insurance companies pay for autism services, mental health services, chiropractor services, etc.;
  
• The federal government bailing out people who live in flood plains, hurricane coasts, southern California, etc.
  
• Forbidding insurance companies from considering credit scores as evidence of responsibility or lack thereof.

One forbids what might be a good business practice, while another demands what might be a bad one. One spends taxpayer money directly while others spend it indirectly. Some aim to help people whose problems might be of their own making. Others seek to help victims of circumstance.

All are exercises of government power.

So which one is different? I’m going with the first.

Some background: a Mississippi lawmaker has proposed legislation to “make it illegal for restaurants with more than five seats to serve people who are obese…restaurants that do not comply would have their permits revoked.”

Irony note: the main authors are Republicans.

The bill’s been sent to a committee, whose chairman has pledged to let it rot, unheard.

Irony note, part two: that chairman is a Democrat, who reportedly said: "It is too oppressive for government to require a restaurant owner to police another human being from their own indiscretions."

The authors now say they knew it would never pass. They never intended it to pass – only to “draw attention” to the state’s highest-in-the-nation obesity rate.

Why? To help the obese improve their own health?

Maybe, but the story tellingly contains this info: “Dr. Ed Thompson, state health officer, has previously said Mississippi's obesity rate cost Medicaid alone $221 million each year.”

As an aside, I can’t be the only one amused by the name “Ed Thompson” attached to the title “Dr.”

Anyway. My other three examples – and we could surely list many, many more – are examples of government power used on behalf of individuals in need. Individuals as victims. This one – banning fat people from restaurants – is using government power on individuals. Because they’re making it tougher on the rest of us.

It brings smoking bans to mind, except: smoking ban backers emphasize second-hand smoke – the negative health implications smokers’ decisions have on others.

They’re quick to back away from the personal responsibility argument. Why not regulate Twinkies? Why not require exercise? Why not ration alcohol?

Because: you eat a box of Twinkies, I don’t gain weight. Your slothfulness doesn’t affect my heart rate. You can swill a case of beer a day and, as long as you’re not driving, it doesn’t affect me at all.

Until you develop cirrhosis, that is. Or until it makes you fat.

Smoking has victims: those innocently forced to breathe the smokers’ smoke. Obesity doesn’t have victims…except, it does. Society.

Society – not the far-less-powerful individual – in the role of victim. That’s what makes this different. Victimhood has come full circle.

We could have seen it coming. What was the basis for mandatory seat belt laws? Mandatory motorcycle helmet laws? Not so much different: somebody without health insurance who’s in a catastrophic motorcycle accident is gonna end up on the public dime.

The problems of obesity aren’t as dramatic, of course. They’re slower. Not as certain as a human head hitting pavement at fifty miles an hour.

More importantly, obesity is one of those things that might be the individual’s fault…and might not be. Could be glandular. Could be a compulsive disorder. Could be a mom who cooked everything in pork fat plus a desk job and a long daily commute.

No matter. Not anymore. You’re hurting society by costing us money. We’re the victims, and you’re the cause.

Thomas Jefferson, founder of the Democratic party, said: “as government grows, freedom recedes.”

Today, any average conservative might define “freedom” as the extent to which government stays out of our business.

But government’s been getting into our business. And into it, and into it, all in the name of helping those in need; those who, whether through random circumstance, the avarice of others, or their own actions, have become victims.

At one time, the obese may have fallen into that role. Not anymore. We have seen the victim, and the victim is us.

Old and Busted Trumps New Hotness

The shiny new toy vs. the old and boring toy. The former is new, thus exciting. The latter is old, but known. And it’s at least lasted long enough to become old and known.

You wonder: can the new toy do the same?

I hope Wisconsin’s Democrats are asking themselves that question.

Wisconsin holds its Presidential primary in four days. Senator Barack Obama has the momentum and, possibly soon, the delegates to win his Party’s nomination.

Democrats have little reason to heed my opinion, but: Hillary Clinton is clearly the better candidate. The coveted Lance Burri endorsement goes to her.

Vote for Clinton!

Please understand: this isn’t some Coulter-esque cry for attention. I’m not switching sides. Come November, I will – barring amnesia or Imperius curse – cast my vote for the Republican candidate.

But. There’s a 50-50 chance that, this time next year, a Democrat will be in the White House, and we’ve all got a stake in who that might be.

It’s a dangerous and difficult world out there. North Korea and Iran are working on – at least working on – nuclear weapons. Russia is resurgent and dictatorial. The Middle East is the same pain in the ass it’s always been.

Nations with large oil deposits know they can play politics with the American economy. Growing entitlement programs have spawned ever more interest groups seeking ever greater entitlements. And speaking of entitlements, some of the biggest – Social Security and Medicare – are going broke.

The next President will have to face these things, and he/she will do so while facing an entrenched bureaucracy, fickle public opinion, and an opposition party ready and willing to make the new President look like a bumbling idiot.

Experience matters, but the Democratic Party is set to nominate a man with less experience in high-stakes politics than the average teenager has with text messaging.

Every single candidate that has already dropped out of the race – on either side of the aisle – has more experience than Barack Obama. Governor Jim Doyle is more qualified to be President. So is Russ Feingold. David Obey. Former Governor Scott McCallum.

That’s right. Scott McCallum is more qualified than Barack Obama. Chew on that for a while.

Obama’s been in Congress for four years. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has been in Congress for twenty-six. Not a slam-dunk, but come late October, that’s going to sway some voters.

Granted, Clinton’s only been in the Senate for 8 years. But that’s far from the only thing on her resume.

She’s got her own White House years. Direct work experience? Maybe not – not most of it, anyway. But she got a first-hand view of things: a view most of us, Obama included, never get.

Okay, so Hillarycare didn’t turn out how you hoped. Turned into a cluster, as a matter of fact. It helped Republicans beat hell out of you in 1994.

She screwed up. Does that disqualify her?

I’d argue not. In fact, I’d argue that her past failures make her more qualified. She’s seen the difficulty of getting something done. Of getting something big done. She’s seen, first-hand, how things can fall apart when you fail.

Has she learned from it? Hell if I know, but at least she’s had the chance.

Clinton is liberal. That’s beyond doubt. But she’s pragmatic, too. She’ll at least look ahead, understand what’s possible, and work to achieve that.

Not what the blood-and-guts core of the Party wants, I know, but better than falling on one’s face and spending two years just overcoming the laughter.

From a liberal perspective, Clinton offers the bully pulpit and a shared desire for big-government solutions.

From a conservative perspective, she offers experience and the claws to lead in foreign policy, to handle the pressure, to be neither overwhelmed nor exploited.

Believe me, I don’t want her in the Big Chair. I’d be quite happy to watch President Obama fall flat on his face. Problem is: so would Al-Qaeda.

Better a seasoned politician, regardless of stripe, than a wet-eared newcomer. The job’s too important for that.

You’ve got a choice, Democrats. Elect a liberal Democrat who’ll sprint from the gate come hell or high water; or elect a liberal Democrat who’ll work doggedly, but pragmatically, to reach your goals. One will be more exciting.

The other has a far better chance of success.

Your choice.

If the Government Is Paying, That Means It's Free

Earlier today, an Assembly committee held a hearing on Assembly Bill 47 – a tax credit for Health Savings Accounts (HSAs).

In case you don’t already know, HSAs are high-deductible health insurance plans – commonly known as “catastrophic” plans. They’re called that because the policy holder – you or me – has to pay the first couple thousand dollars (or so) of our own medical costs each year. After that, the insurance kicks in, and we’re covered.

They’re supposed to protect you from the catastrophes - long illnesses, bad accidents, appendectomies, etc. – while also providing incentives to not spend money if we don’t have to.

The incentive works like this: instead of a regular deductible, HSAs have accounts. Your annual deductible – real money – goes into your account. If you spend that down to zero, then the insurance takes over.

If you don’t spend it down to zero, if you don't use the whole deductible in a given year, you keep it. You keep the money. It stays in your account, earning interest, compounding, until you need it for health costs later in life.

It's like a second retirement fund.

Here’s another best part: in many cases, the employer can pay the entire deductible, because the premiums are so low they still save money. That’s what happened in Manitowoc County: the county pays the deductible - $1,500 per single person, $3,000 per family - and they’re still paying less than they were for traditional, comprehensive insurance.

Plus, the employees no longer pay any deductible, no longer pay co-payments. Everybody is winning with HSAs up there.

Even if that weren’t true, even if HSAs cost the same as a traditional plan, they’d still be a good deal for employees because of the investment aspect. I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again: HSAs are a good idea.

That is, they’re a good idea unless control is your agenda. If individual choice, individual empowerment, and the Laws of Supply and Demand aren’t your cup of tea, then HSAs are, likewise, not your cup of tea.

For example, a snippet of testimony on today’s bill from the lefty group Citizen Action of Wisconsin:

...we believe it is unconscionable to offer up false solutions to the health care crisis at a time when millions of Wisconsinites feel that their access to health care is at risk.

And from the AFL-CIO:

It is fair to ask whether this expensive initiative offered to address the health care crisis provides the path to affordable, quality, comprehensive health coverage for all residents of our state.

… Assembly Bill 47 is the wrong path to health care reform and will actually undermine the goal of health coverage that meets the actual health care needs of the population.

I could go through their testimony point by point, explaining why they’re wrong along the way, but…how very tedious. Allow me to translate, instead: HSAs don’t do everything for everyone. They aren’t the perfect solution. They aren’t a solution at all.

Thus, we shouldn’t support them. They shouldn’t be allowed.

One. Two. Three. Sigh.

Of course HSAs aren’t “the solution.” For the record, I doubt there is “a solution” to our health care “crisis.” Health care costs money. Somebody has to pay it. CAW and the AFL-CIO will, it seems, be unsatisfied unless every citizen has the best and most comprehensive plan available at the lowest possible price…to them, the consumers.

But unless and until somebody discovers the Magic Bean, their wishes are going to remain just that: wishes. What they want doesn't work.

For a lot of people, HSAs are an improvement. They're certainly better than nothing, which is what a lot of employees face if rapidly rising costs might force their employers to drop insurance altogether. That is, as I understand it, part of the "crisis" we face.

But, no. Not good enough.

Luckily, their intransigence is hardly fatal for HSAs. They’re not even a factor in the bill’s fate, really. Not when its eventual success or failure rests with the Democrat-controlled Senate, where doctrine clearly states: “if the government is paying for it, it must be free.” This bill provides incentives for individual choice, responsibility, and independence from somebody else’s authority. The Senate will never go along with it.

And anyway, even without the Senate, CAW, and the AFL-CIO, and even without any Wisconsin state tax breaks, enrollment in HSAs is growing fast. Over 40% growth in 2006 alone.

It’s hard to keep a good idea down.

What then? The government isn't the answer

Note: the following is a column published in today's Tomah Journal, in response to editor Steve Rundio's column of January 21.

Steve is a native Barabooian whose brother and family lived right next door to mine for a little while. I appreciate him letting me respond.

His editorial was a sorta-response to something I wrote back in March, which was itself a response to something that appeared in the Journal earlier that same month.

So I guess...tag.

Extra Friday Bonus: page down or click here for a once-in-a-blue-moon second column of the day.

In his editorial of January 21, Journal Perspective Page editor Steve Rundio wonders why everyone isn’t as gung-ho as he is for single-payer “universal” health care.

He makes his case partly by brushing off the other side’s arguments, and partly by using examples of our existing system's faults.

He writes:

“You're 50 years old, you’ve lost your job (outsourced to China, perhaps) and either you or a family member has a disease or chronic condition (cancer, Lou Gehrig’s Disease, Down Syndrome, lupus, multiple sclerosis, etc.), which means you can’t purchase health insurance at any price.

“What then?”

This example illustrates the fear and helplessness many of us feel, or can easily imagine: we might someday find ourselves in a situation just like this unless Someone Does Something, and soon.

As it turns out, this is a bad example. We have programs like Medicaid and BadgerCare, for lower income families (among others) with dependent children. We have the Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan (HIRSP), specifically for people who have been kicked off or refused insurance coverage.

That’s the “strategy for delivering health care to poor people” Mr. Rundio says he wants. It’s not perfect -- not by any means. But it’s there.

His other example is better. Nataline Sarkisyan, a 17-year-old California girl, died late last year for lack of a liver transplant. The family blames the insurance company, which refused to pay for the transplant until it was too late.

This hits all the big fears: a bank-breakingly expensive but essential treatment, a helpless young girl and grieving family, the soulless calculations of corporate accountants. It emphasizes unfeeling brutality in the medicine-for-profit system. If only health care were a guaranteed right in this country!

Of course, even this example has its weaknesses. Assuming the young lady was physically able to undergo the treatment, and that a liver was available, and everything was in place … the doctors still said no? They were willing to let this girl die, unless the insurance company came through?

I find that hard to believe, and think there must be more to the story. Still, the presumption is that single-payer, government, "universal" health care would have prevented this death.

Maybe it would have. But maybe not.

Mr. Rundio says the other side is “long on horror stories from other countries that guarantee universal health care,” but that we don’t acknowledge “how private medicine fails people in the United States.”

I wonder: what prevents me from saying the same about Mr. Rundio, in reverse?

Examples of “universal” care’s failures abound. In places like Canada and Great Britain, patients sometimes wait months, even years for treatments they could receive immediately in the U.S. There are actual examples of patients dying on waiting lists. Right now, doctors in Britain are debating whether they even should provide care for smokers, drinkers, the obese, and the elderly.

Question: if you can’t get the treatment your doctor says you need -- not at any price -- is the health care really “universal?”

Is doing without somehow less egregious when it’s government health care?

We’re not immune from these effects here in the U.S. In Massachusetts, where “universal” health care was enacted in 2006, they’re expecting an 85% increase in costs next year. That means massive, unsustainable tax increases or reductions in service.

Last year, Congress very nearly enacted a mandatory 10% reduction in Medicare doctors’ reimbursements, because Medicare spending is growing at double-digit rates -- 18.7% in 2005. They might still do that, which will mean fewer doctors willing to treat Medicare patients.

The point being: protecting ourselves against the cost of health care means limiting our access to health care. Just because the government is supplying it doesn’t mean it will be available whenever we want it.

Health care costs money. Making it cheaper for the consumer -- cheaper for us -- doesn’t change that. Somebody has to pay that cost, and that means somebody will make decisions about what to pay, and when to pay it. Transferring that responsibility from a corporate insurance accountant to a government accountant doesn’t guarantee a more humane, “universal” system.

Let me be clear: the free market isn’t the “answer,” either. There is no “perfect” system, but at least under a market-based system we are able to improve our own situations. We’re able to, through our own initiative, make things happen.

That’s a lot less possible under a “universal” system. There, everybody depends on the government, whatever the government provides -- or doesn’t provide.

A Few Random Thoughts

The U.S. Senate passed a slightly bigger version of the economic stimulus "rebate" bill yesterday - the bill to send almost everybody in America some free money, because that's the kind of country we are!

The bill passed after a brief argument over whether they should spend even more than the House did.

Well, duh. Of course they should. But only a little more – at least, “little,” in the government-spending sense. Another seven billion, give or take a couple hundred million.

The Treasury Department will start issuing checks in May.

You know what would be funny? If the economy was already coming around by then.

If I were Superbowl MVP Eli Manning, I’d be in Honolulu this weekend, congratulating all the guys who were chosen to play in the Pro Bowl instead of me.

Congratulating them, and making sure they got a real good look at my Superbowl ring.

Shake hands with the right, smooth the hair back with the left, because that’s where the ring is. Maybe on the middle finger, too.

Announcer: “Romo drops back to pas…he’s…he’s, uh…OH! BIG hit by Merriman. Romo didn’t see it coming, looked confused on that play.”

Color man: “Yeah, he sure did. Looked like he had something in his eye. Thought I saw a camera or something flashing in the stands – light must have gotten him in the face.”

Manning: “Hee, hee, hee.”

The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance reports that total taxes ate up 34.7% of personal income in Wisconsin last year, an 8.1% increase over the year before.

That includes a 10.8% increase in federal taxes, and 3.9% and 3% increases in state and local taxes, respectively.

Because state and local taxes (and fees, according to WTA) grew slower than personal income, those taxes “only” accounted for 12.2% of income last year, down from 12.4% the year before.

Imagine that: government spending can grow at 4% per year, and still shrink, compared to the overall economy.

But. Federal taxes rose sharply compared to personal income. Overall, taxes increased to 34.7% of personal income – the highest level since 2000.

That’s over one dollar out of every three earned. And Democrats still want to raise them higher.

Charlie Sykes posted a question on his blog: what will you do on February 19, when Wisconsin votes in the presidential primary? Looks like it’ll actually mean something this time.

Well, on the Democrat side, anyway. Looks like the Republican side has been decided.

Anybody who’s been paying attention already knows what I’m going to do. Which means nobody knows what I’m going to do. Except me.

I’m going to cross party lines and vote for Clinton.

No, not because my Hillary Nutcracker is a more valuable collectible that way. No, not because I think it would make for an amusing four years.

Well, yes, because of those things. But not mostly because of them.

And not because I think she’s more beatable, either. For one thing, I don’t think that. For another thing, I don’t think anybody has any objective idea of who’s a better bet to beat anybody else in the November general, ten months from now.

Way too much time to go. Way too much could happen.

Besides, considering how this election has gone so far, should we even be writing Huckabee off at this point?

No, I’ll be voting for Clinton for two reasons: one, I think she’s simply the better candidate on that side of the ticket. She has more experience – and yes, I think her time as First Lady should count – and she’s a much more hardened, pragmatic politician. Thus, I think she’ll govern further to the right, especially on the war.

All speculation, of course. I’ll still be voting Republican in November.

Oh, my second reason for voting Clinton: Ed Garvey supports Obama. “I get goose bumps thinking what Obama could do for this country,” he writes.

You and me both, Ed.

This stands to reason: Garvey, unofficial head of the state’s “progressive” movement, dislikes the corruption and compromise – or at least the impression thereof – that go along with top-level politics. Obama’s been involved in top-level politics for, what, five minutes? He hasn’t had time to be tainted yet.

Let Clinton win the nomination, and Garvey will come around. Or maybe he won’t. Maybe this time, he’ll stick to his guns and support the Green candidate, instead.

Or maybe Ralph Nader. But I’m not holding my breath.

A Seasonal Post-Mortem

It’s not as if we didn’t know it was coming, but that doesn’t make it any easier.

Beginnings are exciting. Possibilities stretch out in infinite directions. Anything is possible, or so we believe.

Over time, some avenues close, while others loom larger. Possibilities are fewer. Still, there’s always the next step, the next day, the next moment that could bring something completely new, unexpected, wonderful.

And then it’s over, and all that remains is the barren wasteland: a shallow oasis here, the mirage of relief over there. Otherwise, nothing but memories, what-might-have-beens, and pale glimmers of future beginnings.

I’m speaking, of course, of the NFL season.

Superbowl Sunday is a bittersweet day for the veteran NFL fan. The ultimate championship: a single game, grown to iconic status in America’s unique culture. We love the Superbowl. We hype it. We plan for it. We dissect everything about it. And when it’s over, football is gone.

Little is left to us Monday morning. For five months, Mondays were spent largely at the water cooler, endlessly describing and debating that fourth-down play, undeserved penalty, pancake block, wasted timeout, what the cheerleaders were wearing outside in 30-degree temperatures.

Oh, sure, we can speculate about next year, but it’s so far away. It’s retirement to an 18-year-old. An abstraction, at best.

And so, we’ve come to this. No football. Nothing to do after church now, but rake, mow, paint, and wash windows.

One. Two. Three. Sigh.

As usual, we feel we should have been ready for it. It’s not like the NFL doesn’t prepare us. Weeks of playoff games, with dwindling numbers of teams each week and, thus, dwindling numbers of games. The updating statistical scrollers at the bottom of the TV screen seem suddenly ridiculous when there are only eight teams to compile them, rather than 32.

Then, suddenly, a week off. No football the Sunday after conference championships. The weekly ritual is broken. We stand confusedly in our living rooms, trying to remember what we’re usually doing, before dejectedly wandering off to sweep the basement.

And then, finally, the Superbowl – in its own way, the ultimate anticlimax, because, despite the crowning of NFL champions, this is the end. After today, nothing. Two weeks ago, teams played to go on, or go home. After the Superbowl, everybody goes home.

Or to Disneyland, I guess.

And the Superbowl itself tends to be a letdown. Not always because of a lopsided game – it sure wasn’t, this year. No, it’s because the Superbowl has become such a national (and international) event, everybody wants in on the action. It’s like St. Patrick’s Day, when everybody wants to be Irish. Suddenly, everybody’s a football fan. Everybody wants to go to the party, join in the office pool, claim the best game-watching chair, whether or not they have any idea what a McNabb might be.

Or do they? There’s as much pre-game speculation and post-game analysis of the Superbowl commercials and the halftime show as there is of the game itself.

The result: an event, in which the supposed star of the show – the football game – is almost an afterthought. And now it’s gone.

Sure, there are some tonics to soothe our despair. Pigskin aspirins, just to take the edge off. There’s arena-league ball, which somewhat resembles actual football. There’s NFL Europe. The Internet.

Small consolation, but more than our fathers got.

Oh, right, the Pro Bowl. A soulless shadow of football. Don’t bother me with that.

Such is life. Anyone with kids can tell you how many times they’ve heard (and said): “they grow up so fast.”

Sure, now that they’re grown, it seems like it happened fast. It didn’t look that way when they were one, or five, or teenagers.

Or when your favorite team was 2-1, with a division game coming up. Then, it seemed it would last forever.

But just as the start of the football season seemed bursting with promise, sure to last forever only to fade slowly and end suddenly, so, too, will the off-season. Time will go on, and what seems like forever will become months, then weeks, then only days.

Take heart. The NFL draft is a mere seventy days away.

Note: attentive readers will notice that this is a slightly modified version of a column from February 8, 2005. A re-hash, if you will. Several factors, including illness, car trouble, weather, and church have conspired against me this week: thus, I’m dipping into the vault.

Attentive readers. Meaning nobody would have noticed if I hadn’t mentioned it.

And the Award for Most Astounding Twist in a Presidential Race Goes To…

You know what this primary season needs?

A car chase. A race against time. Some kind of Manchurian Candidate subplot, with the good guy (a minor campaign staffer) racing madly to file something or deliver something or get away to warn the eventual winner’s campaign.

Maybe a fistfight. An explosion or two. And a behind-the-scenes romance, if you’re into chick flicks.

Why not? It’s had everything else so far.

This presidential primary is, at best (or maybe at worst), four days from over. It could go on even longer, if Super Duper Tuesday’s results are less than decisive one way or the other.

Heck, it could go all the way to August. Even beyond.

Three months ago, the writing was on the wall. It was going to be Clinton vs. Giuliani in a nationwide rematch-that-should-have-been – the contest New York expected and political junkies wanted in 2000, when then-First Lady Hillary Clinton ran for U.S. Senate against – we thought – former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

Today, Giuliani is done, and endorsing Sen. John McCain, the Arizona Republican who lost to George W. Bush in 2000 and who, as late as six weeks ago, was all but out of the race himself, even if he didn’t know it.

Giuliani falls from the pinnacle. McCain back from the dead, the front-runner. And that’s just on the Republican side.

No one – Hillary Clinton least of all – really expected any challenge to Clinton’s inevitability. And yet, there it is. Sen. Barack Obama, who’s been in big-time politics half as long as Dubya’s been in the White House.

The possibilities for this election very nearly boggle the mind.

Never mind that we may have the first female or black President in U.S. history. A former First Lady, even.

Does anyone really care about that? More than they care about foreign policy and taxes and judges and immigration and the war? Somehow, major storyline or no, I doubt it. Americans don’t care. Just don’t interrupt my favorite program with your speeches, and we’ll get along fine.

Here’s something, though: McCain, Clinton, and Obama are all Senators. If McCain does win the primary, and if the Democrats send Clinton or Obama to their November ticket (if brokered conventions don’t send even more surprises our way), America will elect a Senator to the Presidency for the first time since 1960.

Electability-minded and McCain-deriding conservatives haven’t taken up that theme yet. You’d think somebody would.

But even that’s not the juiciest bit.

Remember how the Democratic National Committee stripped both Michigan and Florida of their delegates, because those states moved their primaries up to January in spite of DNC rules to the contrary?

That means those two states get no vote at the Democratic National Convention, in late August, when the party officially chooses its candidate.

Normally, that’s no big deal. Normally, the nominee has already won decisively well before the convention begins. Thus, the delegate vote is little more than a rubber stamp. A quaint tradition. An historical throwback.

But. This time could be different.

A Democrat candidate needs 2,025 delegates to win his/her party’s nomination for President. Between them, Michigan and Florida have 341 Democrat delegates: seventeen percent of a winning total.

Clinton won in both Michigan and Florida. Okay, so she won by being the only candidate to go back on the agreement they’d all made not to campaign in those states. But still. Those states voted for her.

What if Obama wins the nomination by fewer than 341 delegates? Meaning that Clinton would have won, had the DNC not disenfranchised Florida and Michigan?

Or what if Clinton is successful in having those delegates seated regardless of the DNC’s punishment, meaning she wins the nomination by fewer than 341 votes? So if the DNC had stuck to their guns – and to the rules they themselves put into place – Obama would have won?

Better yet, what if the winning margin, either way, is less than 156 – the number of delegates normally allotted to Florida?

It could be that close. And then the Democrats can elect their nominee…either by changing their rules mid-game, or by disenfranchising the voters…of Florida.

The irony-drenched twist ending. I smell an Oscar.