And, we're going to get 'change' if the Democrats have their way...and that seems likely.

Saxby Chambliss (R-GA) retained his seat in the senate yesterday so the Democrats will not have the magic number necessary to absolutely control the senate.  The outcome in Minnesota is still somewhat in question, but, at the rate that new votes for the Democrat candidate are being 'found', I suspect that he'll prevail.

The problem with Republicans in the senate has always been the number who have worked hard to earn the right to be called by that ugly name, "RINO"; "Republicans In Name Only".  Those people are still there and they are still beyond the ability of the Republican leadership to 'control'.  Even though the Democrats will technically be unable to override filibuster attempts, the RINOs will often tip the scales by bolting from the 'party line'.  Those three or four people tend to be more liberal in their thinking than conservative.

So, we are going to see the 'change' we voted for in November.  The only questions remaining, in my mind, are just what that 'change' will be, how quickly it will occur, and how much it will cost.

The magic "first 100 days" comes into play so far as answering the question of how quickly change will occur.

The Democrat leaders are busy shaping what they'll propose, developing the time lines for each, and determining whether or not they'll go for a few all-encompassing bills or take smaller bills up, pass those and bask in the victories during the course of those first 100 days.

The likely items include the vaunted "economic stimulus plan", a bill requiring electric utilities to be using renewable sources for at least 15% of their power by 2020, a big push on funding and hurdle-clearing for embryonic stem cell programs and increases in the funding and reach of the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP).

After the meeting between governors and the president-elect yesterday, I presume we'll also see some kind of state-directed stimulus programs proposed, possibly as part of the overall stimulus package.

Change is around the corner.  The Democrats understand that they will be gaged by what they accomplish in the coming two-year period, so far as the elections that hit two years down the road for the entire house of representatives and for one-third of the senate seats in Congress.

As always, these are interesting times in which we live.

There is more and more speculation as to the potential that we'll see a 'clean sweep' by Democratic candidates on Tuesday, November 4th at both the state and federal levels.  I hope that isn't the way it turns out, but I'm tiring of being beaten about the head and shoulders every time I read a newspaper article or watch the bulk of the television news items.  Maybe that is the intent.  If us conservatives can be sufficiently demoralized, maybe we'll just stay home.  Not this conservative!

What do I mean by 'clean sweep'?  I refer to the potential that both the Assembly and the Senate in Wisconsin will see a sufficient Democratic majority that will be able to pass anything they wish in spite of the number of Republican votes that could be massed, with assurances on most such items that those will be signed into law by the Democratic Governor Doyle.

Similarly, I refer to Democratic victories in both the U.S. House and Senate that will be Republican-proof and that will likely find favor with a Democratic President Obama.

Jay Weber has done a good job on setting forth 23 items that could be part of the triumvirate of Sen. Harry Reid (D), Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) and a President Obama and you can find those by clicking here.  Things included on Jay's list include renegotiating NAFTA, ending secret ballots in union organizing, government-run healthcare encroachments, reintroduction of the 'Fairness Doctrine' to control conservative access to the airways, and so on.

At the state level, we could easily see state-run health care, the increase in costs of education, ever larger portions of our income going to state and local taxes,  more and more loss of personal freedoms and so.

There has been, in most of our history, a certain "check and balance" relationship in most of our governments so that not everything that was proposed was ever likely to be passed.  That 'protection' could disappear for years if we see the 'clean sweep' at the state or federal levels, or both, as the result of our national election on November 4th.  Our country tends not to flourish well under such governments regardless of party in power.

Vote your conscience next Tuesday!

Much is being written and discussed during this Presidential election period about health care reform.  Barack Obama prefers a government-run version of reform.  John McCain prefers a private market reform that would use tax law changes to accomplish nearly-universal coverage...the stated goal of both approaches.

I saw a news report this morning that serves as a great reminder of one of the things we need to be mindful of if we are going to move to government-run health care.  Here is that article:

Medco CEO argues for federally mandated end of life care protocols for Medicare patients.

CQ (9/17, Weyl) reports that in a recent speech at the National Press Club, chairman and CEO of Medco Health Inc., David B. Snow Jr., said that "the federal government should set protocols based on medical science to guide Medicare treatment for patients at the end of their lives." Snow elaborated that "30 percent of Medicare spending -- about $130 billion per year -- is spent on patients in the last year of their lives, often when recovery is no longer possible." But, nearly all of that money could be saved by establishing guidelines "of when to forgo further treatment." Snow also proposed "increasing electronic medical coordination, passing tort reform, promoting healthy lifestyles, and encouraging compliance among patients," which would save an estimated "$1 trillion per year, or half of current healthcare spending."

I have written of the "R" word before.  Rationing is a very common practice where tax dollars are used to fund health care.  I recall the situation recently reported from Oregon where a patient with cancer was not accorded medicines that likely would prolong life, but would be accorded coverage for 'assisted suicide' since that is legal in Oregon.

This isn't intended as a debate on the efficacy of withholding treatment that would extend life.  It is intended to provoke some thought about the need for such decisions if we go down the government-run health care road.  There will never be enough tax money available.  We see that in the debate over a new school building, and in road repair discussions and so on.

When there is not enough money in a government-run health plan, the patient will pay the price.  The organizational structure won't be pared down and taxes won't be increased because it is politically unpalatable.  The weakest link in this chain is the patient who has no way to fight the decision.  A "dispassionate" board who have never met the patient will make "an informed" decision and move on to the next agenda item.

Medicare is government-run healthcare.  Medicaid is government-run health care.  Between the two programs, more than 50% of the people in the United States already have health care coverage provided by the government. 

So, we debate the question all the while that government-run health care grows essentially unchecked.  The next step in Wisconsin, by the way, after BadgerCare Plus is to be BadgerCare Connect...if the politicians on the Democrat side of the aisle in Madison have their way.

Incrementalism is alive and well in Wisconsin.  It reminds me of the old saw that asks how one eats an elephant?  The answer, of course is: one bite at a time.

Oregon has had government involved in health care for quite a few years.  The state electorate also approved the concept of state sanctioned suicide several years ago.

Recently, the board that reviews the medications that are approved for state residents made a determination that was controversial...in my mind if no where else.  The board, in essence, said that, given the cost of a certain medication, it would approve suicide for this patient but would not approve use of the medicine given its relative newness and the lack of convincing data as to the outcome.  It had essentially set a price on the human life involved.

Today I read the story concerning Denver Children's Hospital and heart transplants in infants that use the heart from another infant that died a 'cardiac-related death'.  This differs from a heart harvested from a brain-dead infant in which that heart is beating until removed from the donor body.  A decision has been made that the donor that has been pronounced dead and has been in that state for only 75 seconds, is a valid heart donor for purposes of this new program.  The earlier line that had existed required death be determined only after some five minutes during which time the heart did not re-start itself.  In this instance, the length of time a person had been deemed 'dead' had been reduced to assure that the harvested heart had a decent chance of functioning in the new body.  The three cases in which this approach has been employed resulted in three infants alive today.  The decisions to withdraw life support were made by the parents in all three instances.

We know so much more today than we did a decade ago.  We can do things from a medical perspective that were impossible then, and these procedures have become commonplace now.  We are, in this area, pushing the envelope as it has never before been pushed.

I know there are at least two sides to these issues.  I have good friends whose daughter lives today because of transplanted organs that were available on a timely basis.  I can't even begin to comprehend being placed in the middle of such decisions, and I earnestly hope that never befalls me.

And this leads to my general question:  Is there a line we dare not cross?  If so, where is or was that line?  Am I comfortable with an appointed board making life and death decisions about me?  Who among us can claim the right to make such a decision?  How do medical ethicists deal with these kinds of issues?

I don't profess to have the answers to these questions.  If you do, and you're willing to share, I'd appreciate your comments.

We are, by all signs, involved in an oil cost run-up driven by demand being greater than supply.  It is exacerbated for us Americans because our monetary policy has seen an intentional softening of the dollar (our money is worth less than other peoples' money, so it takes more of it to buy a barrel of crude oil).  I paid $4.20 per gallon yesterday with the price of crude oil standing at about $130 +/- per barrel.  Predictions of crude oil prices of $150 per barrel or more are seen or heard regularly now.  And, the cost of oil could well be higher than that by year-end.

How did we get to this point?  We got there by congressional law making, by presidents rolling over and signing those bills, and by our country's increasing needs/demand for gasoline and diesel fuel.  Why would we permit ourselves to become part of such a quagmire?

Politics!  Politics played by those on both sides of the aisle.  Conservatives seem to have lost their voices.  Liberals never seem to lose their voices.

Laws were re-written more than thirty years ago to make it nearly impossible for a new refinery to be built.  Those were the result of congress being rolled by the environmentalists and presidents either believing the rhetoric of the day or fearing the backlash should they stand up to the rhetoric.  This has continued to this very day.  We are forbidden from drilling within 200 miles of the California and Florida coastlines but the Chinese are already doing so as we sit on our thumbs.  We are unable to pursue the shale oil deposits that span our northern plains and southwestern states.  We have ample untapped resources that are readily available but our laws don't permit us to make use of those resources.

We see the 'global warming' group and the 'environmentalist group' driving our economy into the ground...and we have not found the moral outrage/courage to stand up to them and say "no more"!  We could easily build new refineries in any number of locations around our country but we're not permitted to do so.  We know how to drill and refine today without ruining our world.  It takes from 6 to 10 years to bring a new refinery on-line so the time to have declared a moratorium on the rules that made it impossible to build new refining capacity has come and gone.  But, the typical congressional response of "that will take ten years" should remind us that if we don't roll back those silly laws today, it'll take ten years from whenever we do roll back those silly laws.  The time to begin is now, not next week or next month.

We witnessed the ridiculous 'hearings' held by congress in the past few weeks.  We watched as Sen. Herb Kohl embarrassed himself by chiding the 'big bad oil companies' for making a profit.  He is a former businessman who certainly understands that profit must be derived in order for businesses to exist and grow.  He knew how that worked when he ran Kohl's Food Stores.  He certainly must have some comprehension as the owner of the Milwaukee Bucks.  His statement to the oil company executives that their profits didn't seem fair gives one a lot of insight.  He knows better but he will play/pander to the crowd he favors.  He 'feels' as do most liberals.  He doesn't necessarily reason.  He has his millions, so he can set out to control everyone else who aspires to similar success.

Sen. Kohl is but one of the 535 members of congress.  Too many of those men and women are too intent on keeping their offices to actually vote the way they probably know they should.  You have probably heard the old phrase that states you must "go along to get along".  That should be inscribed over the doorways leading to the House and the Senate chambers since it is the rule that is followed by the vast majority of people who walk through those portals.  That is true on the national stage, the state stage and the local stage.

The people who go to Washington and who do not give in and play by the Washingtonian rules are few and very far between.

Whose fault is this dilemma in the final analysis?  Yours and mine. 

We're the men and women who have permitted this to happen.  We don't vote in the House or the Senate, but we do elect those who do...and we do not seem to unelect people very often once they've gotten into office.  Rep. Steve Kagen (D) from the Appleton area stands for re-election this November.  He is at his most defeatable point historically.  If he survives the first re-election campaign and keeps his seat, he is likely to be in that seat for so long as he desires without regard to how he votes or doesn't vote.

We're so unconcerned about our vote, it seems, that we don't even think voting is sacrosanct enough to require valid photo identification before we're permitted to cast a ballot. 

So, all this angst has been brought to us by us.  Remember that the next time you buy gasoline or diesel fuel.  Remember that the next time you go to the grocery store and try to make your food budget stretch.  Remember that when you ponder whether or not you'll be able to take a vacation this year, or buy new school clothing for your children, or go out for a fish fry.  Remember that when you try to stretch your retirement income to cover your basic needs.

And, when you've gotten yourself all 'cranked up', if that happens, make a resolution to get involved and stay involved and to talk with your elected representatives at every level of government and let them know what you think and what you want them to do on your behalf.  And, if they fail you, fire them with your vote at the polling place.

Had you and I done that two decades ago instead of simply going with the flow, maybe we'd not be in the situation we find ourselves in today.

The Center on Wisconsin Strategy and the Wisconsin Council on Children & Families, both found in Madison, have released a report that reaches the startling conclusion you see in the headline above.

Wow!  What a surprise!  Further into the article in today's Journal Sentinel that discussed this amazing statistic, we find out that Wisconsin actually ranks quite well so far as this measurement is concerned...but apparently not well enough to make these groups comfortable.  The report shows that the gap in Wisconsin is actually smaller than on average across the country.  The report found that Wisconsin actually ranks 11th out of the 50 states in this regard, and that means the gap between top and bottom fifths of the population are lesser.

But, there are the usual suggestions made to 'correct' this terrible situation:

• Increase the minimum wage and then index it to inflation.
• Improve worker skills and education.
• Expand subsidized childcare and health care for low-income workers.
• 'Update' unemployment insurance.
• Make taxes 'more progressive'.

This 'minimum wage' canard is so old and tiresome but it just keeps coming back.  There are positions in the workforce that do not command more than the current minimum wage.  Every time the minimum wage is increased, it displaces workers at the bottom end of society because the jobs simply go away. The majority of minimum wage jobs are held on a part-time basis by students and homemakers, and not be sole bread winners.

Improving worker skills and education is a noble undertaking, it is one that we are engaged in already, and it speaks to the need to get MPS working since it seems intent on not graduating 53% of its students thus relegating them to those minimum wage jobs and/or welfare programs (except that you have to read for many of those, so I guess that is out).

I don't know where the people have been who built this study, but every time we turn around, we are expanding childcare and health care for low-income workers.  Look at BadgerCare and BadgerCare Plus.  Listen to the radio commercials begging people to come in to sign up for welfare programs.

Apparently unemployment insurance should be 'updated' (read increased) so the people who are unable to hold jobs get more money until the benefit runs out.  Maybe a better tax climate in our wonderful state would prompt the creation of more jobs and remove the increasing need for the unemployment insurance program 'update'.

Finally, the ultimate liberal solution for every ill to be found in society:  let's take more money away (tax increases) from 'the rich' and give it to the poor.  This class warfare shot is being heard all too often in the current presidential campaign, and it fails to define just who the 'rich' are; be careful middle class; you may be rich.  We don't need to resort to the use of this class warfare tactic in Wisconsin.  In case the 'ruling class' hasn't figured it out, our taxes are already too progressive.

These studies drive me nuts (as is plainly seen from this Blog).  Lower our taxes as Texas has done for its citizens and employers, and watch what happens to unemployment, etc.

What a surprise.  The rich get richer faster than the poor.  The real surprise is that liberals have yet to figure out how cause and effect function in this equation!

I had the 'pleasure' of meeting with one of Congressman Obey's staff members, Paul Carver, on Super Tuesday in the Congressman's absence.  Obey is the Congressman who represents Wausau and the surrounding area, and who is the 'Big Dog' so far as appropriations go in the new world controlled by the Democrats.  Congressman Obey has the reputation of a 'pit bull' and it appears that he hires in his own image.  The staff person, Paul Carver, is a native of England and had an attitude that was apparent from the very moment he walked out of his area and stated that ours weren't the names he had been expecting.  We had the pleasure of Mr. Carver's presence since the House of Representatives isn't in session this week.  I have no idea if the Congressman would've been more hospitable, less hospitable or about the same.

We were representing the National Association of Health Underwriters, a well-respected association in Washington,D.C.  NAHU represents 20,000 insurance agents and brokers who collectively handle the health care insurance coverage for some 150 million citizens.  We wanted to discuss the legislation that we expect which will affect health insurance for every citizen of the United States.

Mr. Carver proceeded to rant about how great socialized medicine was, how rotten insurance companies were, and berated us when we said we hadn't watched the so-called 'documentary' Sicko that had been advanced by Michael Moore.  Then he decided it would be more fun if he elicited comments from us that he could flame.  As we each became aware that this man was all about bullying and had no interest in learning anything, since he obviously knew everything, we ended our meeting as graciously as was possible.

During the rant, however, he did say that he believed in socialized health care for the United States, just like that in his old home, England.  We tried to offer information for his consideration, but he had no interest.  It was as if he were saying, "Don't confuse me with facts because my mind is made up."  He based much of his argument on the Michael Moore 'documentary' "Sicko".  He 'knew' that Cuba had better health care than the U.S., as did England, the Netherlands, Canada and a few other countries that flew out in his diatribe too quickly to be noted.

This is but one example of the 'ruling elite' that populate our nation's capitol.  The concept of these people being employed by we voters is simply a concept so foreign as to be laughable from their perspectives.  In defense of most of the 'staffers', they are well-educated, courteous and only too happy to meet with any citizens.  Some, unfortunately, are like Paul Carver.  I hope he is a citizen, but I don't know that for sure.  It certainly seemed that he'd be much happier back in his homeland of England.

We went to Washington. D.C., the capitol of our country, to meet with and discuss health care with our elected representatives.  We were not well-received by Mr. Carver who represented Congressman Obey.  We were actually treated with a rudeness that I've not experienced since my encounter with a former Congressman from the South Side of Milwaukee whose name was Jerry.

These are the Democrats, the very officials who supposedly represent the 'underdog'.  They turn my stomach.  They don't represent, so much as they misrepresent, the down-trodden.  So long as they are able to maintain their personal positions of power, it seems they're very satisfied.  And, we electors seem so gullible that we continue to re-elect these elitists.