Minor Thoughts from me to you

Liberal, conservative, neocon, radical, progressive, red, pinko -- what does it all mean? Callimachus breaks it down in his latest Carnival of the Etymologies.

I'm not an educational expert, but a recent bill passed by the Florida House seems like a bad idea:

The Florida House passed a bill on Thursday that would make the state the first to require high school students to declare a major, just as college students do.

Mr. Bush and others say that requiring high school students to declare a major and concentrate on a particular field could prepare them better for college and the working world and reduce the dropout rate.

Opponents say the requirement would put too much pressure on students about their future. But supporters hope the state's dropout rate will fall and classroom achievement will rise if students can concentrate on subjects they enjoy. Majors could include basics like English and math or vocational fields like carpentry and auto repair.

I think this bill could be a bad idea, for several reasons. First of all, many college students switch majors multiple times and most high schoolers are completely clueless about what career they want to pursue. Indeed, most adults switch careers multiple times during their life. How much benefit can there possibly be in forcing someone to specialize so early in life?

Secondly, I think high school needs to continue to teach students about a wide variety of subjects. From what I remember, middle school classes focused on reading, writing, 'rithmetic, a little history, and a little science. I'm firmly of the opinion that high school students should be exposed to philosophy, economics, ethics, logic, and rhetoric. Not every student will end up attending college. With that in mind, I believe that high school should provide at least a rudimentary understanding of how the world works and how to think about the world.

I think restricting high school to a narrow, student-chosen list of classes would inhibit true learning and development. It may lower the drop-out rate, but at what price?

Owen reported on two form letters that were sent to the state legislature, criticizing the Taxpayer Protection Amendment. One form letter was signed by leaders of city governments, the other was signed by leaders of county governments. Fortunately, my neither my alderman nor my County Board Supervisor signed it.

The more interesting part of this entire deal is that form letters were drafted by AFT-Wisconsin.

AFT-Wisconsin is a labor organization representing 17,000 public and private employees in the state of Wisconsin. Formerly called the Wisconsin Federation of Teachers (WFT), AFT-Wisconsin is the Wisconsin chapter of the American Federation of Teachers. Started primarily as a teachers' union with 1,400 members in 1933, AFT-Wisconsin has grown exponentially and today represents many diverse professionals with over 500 job classifications

In other words, people who work for the government are writing letters for other people who work for the government to sign. These letters say that the government should be able to raise taxes whenever it wants by however much it wants. That sounds to me like they're probably more interested in protection their jobs and their easy access to my pocketbook than they are in actually governing responsibly.

Furthermore, I think their worries about the TPA rolling back our basic services are a load of hooey. The TPA, sad to say, won't roll back any spending. It will just limit the rate at which spending can increase in the future. And, yes, it will allow spending increases. Just not huge ones. Unless you ask the taxpayers first. If they approve it, then it's all right. So why the long faces? Are they afraid to actually ask the taxpayers before increasing taxes? No, the TPA will not impose spending cuts. No, the TPA will not stop spending increases. All the TPA will do is slow down spending increases. Is that such a bad thing?

For the convenience of anyone else reading from Madison or Dane County, I've included the full list of Madison / Dane County signatories. If your alderman or county supervisor is on the list, I'd highly recommend giving them a call and expressing your displeasure. As Owen says, these are people are worthless local officials who are so terrified of having to ask the taxpayers when they want to blow the taxpayers' money. On the other hand, you might want to thank them all for providing such a handy list of people to vote against in the next election.

Representing Madison:

Dave Cieslewicz, Lauren Cnare, Austin King, Mike Verveer, Tim Gruber, Brenda Konkel, Ken Golden, Paul Van Rooy, Noel Radomski.

Representing Dane County:

Jane Licht (Register of Deeds), David Gawenda (Treasurer), Brett Hulsey, Robert Fyrst, Barbara Vedder, Kyle Richmond, John Hendrick, Don Eggert, Dave de Felice, Duane Gau, David Worzala, County Supervisor, Mark Opitz.

Madison, along with many other cities in Wisconsin, will be sporting a shiny-new anti-war referendum in the April election. The referendum is simple: Should the United States bring all military personnel home from Iraq now?. Simply vote "yes" or "no".

Recently members of the cheddarsphere have been opposing similiar referendums. Owen Robinson opposed it in Whitefish Bay and Lance Burri opposed it in Baraboo.

I fully support the views expressed in their remarks. They're both far more eloquent than I am, on this subject, so, please, go read their remarks. Then vote "No" on April 4.

According to FoxNews, Mayor Ray Nagin said that New Orleans residents should be allowed to rebuild anywhere -- as long as they do so at their own risk. Quoth the good mayor I don't recommend you going in areas I'm not comfortable with. I'm confident that the citizens can decide intelligently for themselves..

Actually, I am too. Unfortunately, I'm afraid that citizens will intelligently decide to rebuild in dangerous areas. Why? Because apparently poor decisions no longer have harsh consequences. President Bush's Gulf Coast Rebuilding Coordinator, Donald Powell, recently announced that President Bush would seek $4.2 billion for uninsured home owners that lived in the flood plains of New Orleans. The home owners that lived in that flood plain risked being flooded out. Many of them chose to accept that risk even without flood insurance. No matter. The federal government is now promising to cancel out any of the painful consequences of those decisions.

With consequences like that, I'm sure many citizens will choose to live wherever they please. It would be an intelligent decision too. After all, if the government's bailed them out once, it's likely to do it again. And we'll pay for it. How's that for living in the land of freedom and opportunity? Our government is guaranteeing that you can have the freedom to live wherever you want and your fellow citizens will have the opportunity of paying for your choice.

Larry Kudlow reported this morning on a pathetic state of affairs in the U.S. Senate. Currently, Senator Gregg's (R-N.H.) Budget Committee is writing and debating the Senate's budget resolution. So far, the commitee has managed to drop out entitlement cuts and is currently working on adding even more pork to the budget. Good job guys. You've succeeded in completely losing whatever small modicum of support I was willing to give to Congressional Republicans.

Let me make this perfectly clear: from this moment on, I will actively work to defeat every Republican Congressman or Senator up for reelection. I will actively work to reelect every Democrat Congressman or Senator up for reelection. For out of state races, I will donate money to Democrat candidates, not Republican candidates. For in-state races, I will make phone calls and literature drops on behalf of Democrat candidates. I will do anything and everything I can to ensure that only Democrats are elected. There is only one thing you can do to change my mind: grow a backup and stand up for the American taxpayer. Short of that, I see no reason why I should work for a Republican majority rather than a Democrat majority.

To all Republicans working to cut the budget -- you'd better find a way to convince your big spending colleagues to toe the line. You might start out by reminding them of all of the Congressional perks and committee assignments that they'll lose if Republicans lose the majority. At this point, I see no reason to give time, money, or effort to the Republican party as long as it is unserious about practicing fiscal conservatism. True, Democrats won't be any better. On the other hand, if big-spending budget bills are passed by a Democrat majority, President Bush just might remember where he hid the veto pen.

I'm willing to gamble. Are you?

Actually, I'm not sure that understanding Russ Feingold is completely possible. But I would like to understand how he got reelected by such a wide margin in 2004. Levnik Lad recently said "I cannot help but think that there are a whole bunch of people out there scratching there heads wondering how on God's green earth Russ Feingold continues to get re-elected". Well, I've been wondering the same thing.

I'm a recent transplant to Madison, WI. I've now been here a little over 10 months. Feingold is a perfect fit -- if he was the Senator from Madison. From what I've seen of the rest of the state, however, Wisconsin is much more moderate than its junior Senator. So, those of you who've been here longer than me, how does he do it? How does Feingold keep getting reelected? Incompetent opposition? Election day 2004 was opposite day in Wisconsin?

I'd love to hear any ideas, thoughts, or wild speculations ya'll have.

In American politics today, there is a simple question that divides us: who makes our choices? Do we make our own choices or do we stand aside and let someone else make our choices for us? This is the question that fuels the debate over school choice, over ethanol mandates, over FDA drug approvals, and over a host of other issues.

There are those that believe that only government employees can be trusted to make decisions. They believe that parents cannot be trusted to choose a school for their own children. They believe that drivers cannot be trusted to choose the best fuel for their vehicles. They believe that patients cannot be trusted to choose which medicines to take. As a result, they established the FDA to pick and choose our medicines for us. They established local School Boards to run the schools, making it as difficult as possible for parents to use non-government schools. They support ethanol mandates, to make us use the fuels they like best.

This governmental paternalism is always presented as a benevolent service. A service that government willingly provides to its citizens. But is it benevolent? Does government paternalism really make our lives better? Are we really better off if the government makes our choices for us?

Let me make this entire issue more personal: do you trust the FDA to make the right decisions about your drugs? Be cautious how you respond. The FDA has two criteria for approving drugs: is it safe and does it work? Every drug must be tested thoroughly -- a process that often lasts 10 years or more. Some drugs make it through these tests and are approved for sale, most don't.

What does it mean when a drug fails its tests? It means that the drug doesn't work more often than it does. It means that the drug hurts more people than it helps. It doesn't mean that the drug never works and it doesn't mean that the drug always causes harm. FDA employees look at the test results and make a decision. Does the drug work often enough, in a safe enough manner to be sold? In some manner, these decisions are arbitrary. There is no hard and fast line that can determine whether or not a drug is appropriate for human usage.

FDA doctors look at all of the variables, all of the tests, all of the evidence and make one decision. This decision is binding on all 300 million American citizens. This decision is no mere recommendation. It is a crime to use a drug that the FDA has not certified as being safe and effective. Both the patient taking it and the doctor prescribing it can be thrown into jail if their usage of the drug does not meet FDA "guidelines".

Is the FDA's decision really that valid? Is it really valid for all 300 million Americans? Probably not. There are tradeoffs involved in the decision to take any drug. Is it going to work? How well will it work? What side effects will there be? How severe will the side effects be? Is there a danger of death? How big is that danger of death? What benefits does the drug offer? How dramatic are those benefits? Are those benefits worth the danger of death? These are questions that don't have a one-size fits all answer. Some drugs may be very dangerous for some patients and very safe for others. Some drugs may have no effect on one person and a life-changing effect for another person. And yet, the FDA makes the same decision binding on both people.

Case in point: yesterday, the FDA heard testimony from patients with multiple sclerosis about a called Tysabri. This drug has been called a breakthrough for the treatment of M.S. Multiple sclerosis is a neurological disease that affects about 400,000 Americans. It wouldn't be surprising if a drug that treats neurological defects has neurological side effects. So it is with Tysabri. Tysabri has been linked to P.M.L. (progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy), a rare but deadly neurologic virus.

On the one hand, we have a drug that's been hailed as a breakthrough treatment for a debilitating disease. On the other hand, we have a drug that can kill those who take it. Should it be available for patients to take or not? The FDA is currently deciding. The FDA is currently deciding whether or not M.S. patients can take a potentially life-changing (and possibly life threatening) drug. Why is the FDA deciding this issue? Why can't these patients make their own decisions? Pamela Clark of Salt Lake City told the agency that "We understand the risks of using experimental drugs, but we also understand the risks of doing nothing." She also reported that "Tysabri had allowed her to walk to a duck pond with her two 5-year-old sons and stand up long enough to cook dinner."

Tysabri has made Pamela's life better. It's allowed her to enjoy life again. She weighed the risk and decided that the benefit of the drug was worth the risk. Unfortunately for Pamela, she's not allowed to make that decision. She has to wait for the FDA to make the decision for her.

Do you think that's right? Do you think that Pamela should be prevented from deciding for herself? Do you think that her illness distorts her judgment in such a way that she is incapable of making her own decision? Would your answer change if you were in Pamela's shoes? Are you willing to turn control of your life over to government employees?

It's time to make a choice.

A little black comedy from the Associated Press to start your day off right, Lords and Ladies:

CHICAGO "” Nation of Islam officials on Tuesday said Jewish leaders who resigned from a state hate crimes commission rather than serve with one of their members should rejoin the panel or quit criticizing it.

Two former commission members said they had no intention of returning to the Governor's Commission on Discrimination and Hate Crimes because Sister Claudette Marie Muhammad refused to repudiate the religious movement's leader, Minister Louis Farrakhan.

In her first comments since four commissioners resigned last week, Muhammad said it was ridiculous that she has been condemned for Farrakhan's remarks.

Gov. Rod Blagojevich's appointment of Muhammad to the commission in August drew no public attention until she invited commissioners to attend a speech given by Farrakhan, who is known for his disparaging remarks about Jews, whites and gays.

Some commissioners began criticizing her presence on the panel after Farrakhan's speech Feb. 26 in Chicago that included references to "Hollywood Jews" promoting homosexuality and "other filth."

On Tuesday, Farrakhan's chief of staff, Brother Leonard Muhammad, said the Nation of Islam forgave the former commissioners because they "left out of confusion."

"You misunderstand what the commission is all about," Leonard Muhammad said on WVON-AM. "Come back to the commission and debate your point."

He later issued a stronger challenge for them to return.

"They need to come back or shut up," Leonard Muhammad said.

Claudette Muhammad urged her critics to leave her alone.

"For those who try to condemn me because of the honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan's remarks," she said, "it's ridiculous, absolutely ridiculous."

Claudette Muhammad said she and her family have been victims of hate crimes and discrimination, and that she has Jewish family members, has traveled to Israel and has worshipped in synagogues.

"Please know I am not the victimizer here, OK, but instead I am the victim," she said. She refused to repudiate Farrakhan and recommended that people who disagree with him, speak with him.

"I have no intention of returning to the commission until it is cleansed of the stain and stench of bigotry caused by Sister Claudette's continued presence," said Hirschhaut, executive director of the Illinois Holocaust Museum and Education Center.

As a cherry on this little sunday, the governor has stated that he didn't actually have any idea that he hired a Nation of Islam follower for his commission, apparently thinking that this would make everyone feel better.

Local radio personality John Peterson wrote a blog post yesterday called The Voucher Wedge. In it, he talked about his displeasure with the voucher program that allows students to leave the Milwaukee Public Schools and enroll in various types of private schools. He has two specific complaints about giving families vouchers to use at non-public schools:

First, the choice program is sending taxpayer dollars into private schools that are not accountable to people of this state. I had heard Republicans were the party of accountability. Not only is there is no standardized test to compare private and public schools ability educate children, but choice supporters have blocked an honest evaluation to support their contention that private schools are better.

Second, public schools could not budget accurately for the next year without knowing enrollment numbers. Suggesting that there be no cap demonstrates a lack of business savvy.

As a supporter of vouchers, I'd like to respond to John's complaints. Now, I'm definitely not an "educational expert". I'm a guy with a blog that likes to ask questions and raise concerns. I'm probably overlooking some subtleties of the educational system. I'm not an expert on the Milwaukee Choice Program or on the private schools that are currently accepting vouchers. These are simply my reactions to John's assertions.

I must admit that I'm a bit surprised by his first complaint. He claims that private schools are not accountable to "people of this state". Well, as I see it, the private schools are accountable to one very important group of people: the parents who are sending their children to these schools. The vouchers, that the parents receive, are usable at many different schools. If the parents see that their children are doing worse in a voucher school than they were in a public school, it's a simple matter to move the children to a new voucher school or back into the MPS (Milwaukee Public Schools).

That's why I think this complaint is a bit of a red herring. WEAC (Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state teachers union) would love to keep Milwaukee's children in their schools. To that end, WEAC moans about a lack of oversight and a lack of standardized testing. What they really mean, is that WEAC is not able to oversee the schools or determine if Milwaukee's children are measuring up to WEAC's standards. (Now it's true that John only mentioned state oversight of the private schools. But really, which group has the most influence over Wisconsin's educational policy? WEAC does. Therefore, it seems to me, that any state oversight of eduction really boils down to WEAC oversight of education.)

I don't think a teacher's union should be the final arbiters of whether teachers are doing a good job. I don't think teachers should be determining which school system does the best job of teaching children. I think doing so creates an inherent conflict of interest for the teachers. I believe parents are the best judge of school effectiveness. I think parents are the best judge of which school does the best job of teaching their children. I think parents will do a better job of providing school oversight than other "people of this state" ever would. I may be wrong. I'd love to hear from anyone who can point me to widespread examples of parents making poor educational choices for their children.

John's other complaint revolves around the budgeting process for MPS. Specifically that with vouchers public schools could not budget accurately for the next year without knowing enrollment numbers. Again, I'm not an expert at this, and I may be wrong. It seems to me that, with an expanded voucher program in place, public school enrollment will only be going down, not up. If that's case, what's so hard about budgeting? Stick to the same budget that was used in the previous year. It should be more than adequate to cover expenses for the current year. It will probably even have money left over. Am I wrong? Am I missing something obvious that would make the budget process something truly worrisome?

Some sad news came down the pipeline today, at least for those of us who count ourselves closest in agreement, of all the United States' political parties, to the Libertarian Party. That is to say, the LP's presidential candidate in 1996 and 2000, Mr. Harry Browne, has died. According to an AP article:

[Harry] Browne, an author and investment adviser, died at his home Wednesday night, family friend Jim Babka said. He died of Lou Gehrig's disease.

Browne received 485,134 votes, or 0.5 percent, for president in 1996 and 384,431, or 0.367 percent, in 2000.

A few of you out there may remember (yeah, sure you do) that Mr. Browne wrote How You Can Profit From The Coming Devaluation, in which he predicted powerful inflation and the dollar's losing its power. It's a good book.

While I'm mentioning Libertarian candidates, however, I have to ask: is the Libertarian Party's battle to wrestle one-half of one percent of the vote away from the dominant political parties here in America worth its trouble? Might the resources (and I really am just pontificating here, I don't know) not be better used in securing more and higher municipal offices than in playing the national gadfly?

Consider New York City or Chicago. A large percentage of the population know the names of these cities' mayors; more than know the names of their senators or governors, I'd be willing to bet. What if the Libertarian Party just threw its back one year into getting one of its people in such an office? I know the Libertarian Party's pollsters consistently find that more people would vote for them if they thought the Libertarian Party had a chance of winning. Seeing a viable Libertarian Party candidate-who does not owe his name recognition to celebrity status, like Clint Eastwood-in a serious office would go a long, long way to meeting that goal.

So I suppose what I'm saying here is, maybe an extremely impressive man like Mr. Harry Browne was wasted on a national platform.

Owen reminds us about today's hearing on the Taxpayer Protection Amendment:

I'll be there to speak up for myself and my family. Will you be there to speak up for yours?

I'd love to be there. Unfortunately, we're still a one car family and my wife needs the car this afternoon. I'll be stuck in Madison, but my thoughts will be in Pewaukee. Owen, make sure the legislators know about the people who aren't there, as well as the people who are.

Callimachus on why George Washington matters:

Washington is beginning to recover his reputation; he deserves it. He was the steady hand on the tiller when we set sail as a nation. Steadiness, not reckless innovation, was the thing America needed at the time. It's to his credit that we forget the serpents of tyranny and mob rule that slithered about the American cradle. To remember, read the history of the French Revolution.

To me, Washington is American history's grand exemplar of the virtue of civic duty. Say "actor-president" and people think Reagan, but Washington played a role so thoroughly, and so perfectly, that people still think he was that regal, noble Roman hero. When you read the accounts of him written by his intimate circle during the Revolution, you see the American man -- vain, hard-driving, hard-cussing, clever in a farmer's ways. And you appreciate what he did to get America launched on an even keel: passing up a life he could have spent happily among his horses, transforming himself into a living virtue as a gift to the new nation.

Now regarded as almost surely mythical, Cincinnatus was a real hero to the Founders. And when Washington resigned from public life in 1783 after the great victory and returned to Mount Vernon rather than mounting the throne of the new nation, he was the marvel of the world, and he was behaving quite deliberately on the classical model.

As America's first president, Washington literally had to invent the job of being an elected leader of a nation, because there was no model for it in modern times. He had to parse out decisions about what title people should use when addressing the president, how a president should interact with Congress, how he should receive dinner invitations.

I've never thought about Washington in quite this way before. Please do, go read the full essay. It is doubtful whether America would have survived without Washington's leadership. Callimachus reminds of what George Washington did, why he did, and why it mattered so very much.

Boots and Sabers has been all over the Wisconsin Taxpayer Protection Amendment. Yesterday, Owen reported on a conference call, concerning TAPA, sponsored by American's for Prosperity. Dr. Milton Friedman participated in the call. This is important because:

Milton Friedman, for those of you who may not know, is a Nobel Prize winning economist who has been fighting for tax and spend restrictions on government since Proposition 1 in California in 1973, when Governor Ronald Reagan began trying to bring our governments back to fiscal sanity. Proposition 1 failed to pass, but it helped start a revolution. He has seen measures like the TPA written and tried across the country for 30 years and knows what works and what doesn't.

He came out strongly in favor of the amendment. Good enough for me.

Earlier in the week, Owen relayed information about a public hearing on TAPA. The hearing is Wednesday afternoon. Pending approval from my boss, I plan to leave work early so that I can attend. I support this amendment and I want to make sure that Wisconsin's Republicans know that.

It's something Christine and I aren't doing. However, it looks like Alan Greenspan's legacy just might be helping millions of Americans to get comfortable with debt. The entire linked article is worth reading, but I'll provide a few excerpts:

Today, borrowing against equity in real estate occurs at rates never seen before. Mortgage equity withdrawal was unheard of generations ago - a second mortgage was the last recourse for a family in trouble.

Today it is routine.

Septuagenarians shake their heads as they see young people living lifestyles which don't square with what they know of their incomes and expenses. Debt it seems has not taught any hard lessons lately - debt has become too friendly, too tame, and too forgiving.

In the last three years alone, nearly three trillion dollars of new mortgage credit has been extended - first mortgages, second mortgages, home equity loans, and lines of credit.

Some dismiss concerns of too much debt by pointing to the bottom line.

Debt, they say, is not a problem because household balance sheets are the best they've ever been. Today, household net worth does look impressive - against a meager 12 trillion dollars in debt stands a hefty 64 trillion dollars in assets.

A closer look at net worth, however, shows that while liabilities have marched steadily upward, assets can go up or down

What happens if real estate assets suffer the same fate as equities did a few years ago? Or, what if real estate values simply go flat for an extended period of time?

My wife and I voted in Madison for the first time, this evening. I was already registered, she registered at the poll (taking advantage of Wisconsin's notoriously lax voter ID requirements). Madison's 56th Ward was voting in two elections: a primary for Seat 1 on the Madison School Board and County Supervisor for District 24.

We voted after I got home from work, around 7pm. We cast the 93rd and 94th votes of the day, for our ward. I wouldn't have known about the election if it had not been for Jenna, at Right Off the Shore. She blogged about her vote, which alerted me to the fact that an election was actually happening.

Unfortunately, while I knew about the primary for the Madison School Board, I hadn't noticed that we were also supposed to be voting for a County Supervisor. So, we just cast our votes for Maya Cole and abstained in the County Supervisor's election.

I'm still in the process of getting plugged into the political scene here in Madison. I was surprised today, I don't intend to let it happen again. Fortunately, there will be another election in April. I'll be ready for that one.

In case you haven't been keeping track, Dubai Ports World is in the process of buying P&O; Port. P&O; Port, a British company, currently operates six major American ports. These ports are in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami, Philadelphia and New York. The problem is, Dubai Ports World is a company owned by the United Arab Emirates. While the UAE is a close American ally, they have also been tolerant towards terrorist groups. Understandably, many Americans are concerned about the safety of America's ports if Dubai Ports World takes over their management.

With that in mind, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and House Majority Leader John Boehner have pledged to introduce legislation that would prevent Dubai Ports World from taking over the ports. This opposition led President Bush to call reporters aboard Air Force One and threaten to veto the legislation.

Why would the President do that? This statement sets up a conflict of interest within his own party. Worse, it makes the Administration look weak on national defense during an election year. Worse yet, Republicans have been making national defense the linchpin of their electoral strategies. Why put all of that at risk by allowing a Middle-East state-owned Arab company take over America's ports? Is Bush out of his mind?

Well, probably not. Like most things in life, the situation is more complex than it looks. Spook86, a former member of the U.S. intelligence community, passes along this analysis:

But it's not that simple. Cancelling the port deal could mean the end of U.S. basing rights in the UAE, strained relations with other regional partners, and the potential loss of a key defense contract, all viewed as critical in fighting the War on Terror. Collectively, those factors probably explain why the deal hasn't already been nixed, and why the Bush Administration may put up a fight--even with political allies.

Overturning the port deal could also create other problems in the Persian Gulf. Cancellation of the contract would be viewed as an insult to the UAE and its leadership; regional critics would accuse the U.S. of hypocrisy--anxious to utilize UAE bases and sell its defense hardware to the Dubai, but unwilling to let a UAE company manage operations in U.S. ports.

Finally, striking down the port deal would mean likely curtailment of the sale of U.S. F-16s to the UAE. ... In economic terms, the UAE F-16 deal means literally billions of dollars and thousands of jobs in the President's home state.

I'd advise you to go read the full analysis. This deal appears to be a lose-lose situation for the President. He can either risk political fallout at home, or he can endanger his foreign policy initiatives. Right now, he appears more than willing to preserve his foreign policy, even if it means engaging in a domestic battle with his own party.

At the moment, I'm not sure what the right course of action is. One thing I do know: this issue is far more complex than it originally appeared.

Employer provided healthcare is obviously a good thing. It's so obvious that a local, Madison grass roots group is pushing the city to mandate health insurance for all local employers:

A grass-roots group of Madison-area residents wants the city to require employers to provide health insurance through a mandated fee. The group, Wisconsin Health Care for All, has proposed a universal health insurance plan called "Provide or Pay." It would force employers to make insurance available to all workers or contribute roughly 5 percent to 10 percent of payroll into a community health plan.

Thankfully, the name of this plan is perfectly descriptive. It is a threat to all local businesses: follow our demands or else. While their aim may be laudable, providing healthcare for employees of Madison-based businesses, their methods are deplorable. Their plan will immediately increase the expenses of local businesses by 5 to 10 percent. Increased expenses have to be met somehow. Local business will be forced to increase prices by an equivalent amount or will be forced to lay off employees. Neither outcome will be beneficial for the poor in Madison.

But backers of the insurance proposal call it pro-business, saying it would give companies an affordable way to provide insurance for all workers. "We're trying to create a standard that would make Madison a mecca for business," said Ann Fleischli, a leader of the group.

I'm thankful that we have these enlightened leaders to provide solid advice to Madison's businesses. While most business owners are struggling to balance revenue and expenses, these citizens have discovered the perfect way to provide affordable health insurance. Fortunately, they are willing to share their expertise for free. Who knew? It turns out that increasing expenses by 5-10 percent is not only a good business idea, but is also all that's needed to turn Madison into a mecca for business. And here I always thought that lower taxes was the only ingredient needed to make any area a mecca for business.

"The city doesn't have the authority to impose a payroll tax," [Michael May, Madison city attorney] said.

Fleischli, also an attorney, maintains that municipal law would allow the plan. "It isn't a payroll tax," she said. "It's a fee that's indexed to the payroll."

How's that again? Isn't that what an income tax essentially is: a fee indexed to one's income? I really think this is the most incredible statement in the entire article. Fee? Tax? What's the difference? If the government requires payment and the payment is indexed to some other variable, I'd say that's a tax -- no matter what name the government may choose to put on it. Wisconsin Health Care for All is proposing a new city-mandated payroll tax. It is anti-business, illegal, and potentially damaging to the city's economy.

Bright ideas like these are why Madison is described as "70 square miles, surrounded by reality". It would be nice if we could find some way to inject "Wisconsin Health Care for All" with a concentrated dose of reality. Until then, I'll oppose this plan unequivocally.

If you live in Colorado, you may be surprised at how hard it is to start a business. Coyote recently won a concession to manage the Elk Creek Marina on Blue Mesa Lake. He posted a list on Getting the Government's Permission to do Business. It's a 20 item list. Everything on there is either time-consuming, expensive, or both.

• To register as a foreign corporation, we need to hire a person to be a "registered agent" to be a contact with the state. The only real purpose of this person I have ever found is to provide an avenue for mail to get lost.
• We need to fill out a pretty elaborate application to sell Colorado fishing licenses, and may need to post another bond to do so. (Update: Confirmed, we need a $4000 bond).
• We need to go through an extensive application process to transfer three current liquor licenses into our name. I wrote about liquor license hassles here.
• The person on the phone today told me a corporation in Colorado cannot own more than two liquor licenses. If this is true, we will have to form a second company in Colorado, repeating all the tasks above plus the initial work just to form the company
• Our managers need to attend food handlers training in Colorado. Of course, they have attended the exact same course in California, but Colorado wants them to sit through it again within their state's borders

There's more. Lots more. Think of this if you wonder why there aren't more jobs available. Every potential employer has to go through this hassle before being legally allowed to offer jobs.

I saw this article earlier in the day and wanted to blog on it. Unfortunately, getting my wisdom teeth pulled and being on pain meds made blogging a risky proposition. Owen (of Boots and Sabers) wrote that the study mentioned in the article confirms the need for the Tax Protection Amendment. He said exactly what I wanted to say:

I read this study and said, "huh"¦ $5,200,000,000 less in government spending"¦ that would be nice.... $5,200,000,000 additional money in the economy.... that sure would help create jobs and raise our standard of living..." 3.8% growth is STILL faster than the rate of inflation. Most Wisconsinites haven't been getting a 3.8% raise every year for the last 20 years. In fact, personal income only went up by about 4.5% since 1990, so to increase government by 5.3% just seems criminal. Government has been increasing in size faster than the ability of the citizens to pay for it.