Now that the dust of the election returns has begun to settle, the talk of the governance approach of our new president has taken flight.  I have read several pieces that discuss this subject and heard several discussions on the same subject.  The Wall Street Journal had an excellent editorial today titled Obama's Real Opposition.

The subject of that piece was the old line liberals who will be pushing and pulling President Obama as they wish, to make him decide as they wish him to decide.

There are many who believe that President Obama will actually move to the center left as he takes office and begins to face the daily decisions required of him.  There are also many who remind us of his very liberal voting record and suggest, therefore, that he'll govern from the left or far left.

We are reminded of those with whom President Obama will interact:

• David Obey from our own state who wants to slash the defense budget to get money for his social entitlements.
• Barney Frank who recently said that he thought defense could be reduced by 25%.
• Chuck Schumer who continues to push banks to lend more money even after being heavily involved in causing the Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae problems due to similar tactics.
• George Miller who heads the House Education and Labor Committee who is talking about 'nationalizing' 401K and other private pension plans to free up all that money for other purposes.
• Jim McDermott who chairs the House Ways and Means Committee and who seems to like Mr. Miller's ideas.
• John Conyers who loves the idea of the Europeans indicting President Bush and Bush officials for 'war crimes'.
• Henry Waxman who wants to grab the Chairmanship of the House Energy and Commerce Committee from Rep. John Dingell so that he can really push the global warming agenda.
• Pete Stark who believes that a Canadian-style single payer health care system is exactly right for us.
• Rep. Pelosi whom we presume will retain her leadership post will continue down the very liberal path she has trod to now.
• Sen. Reid whom we presume will continue in his leadership role, although he could find that a difficult task given his miscues so far.

These men are well-seasoned congressional combat veterans who know the inner workings much better than does the new President Obama.  They will stop short of nothing to take advantage of what they see as a 'significant mandate' from the United States electorate.  They are running short of time in which to make the country over into the image they believe is best for us all; they will not be anxious to slow their pace simply because a new president wants that to happen.

President-Elect Obama has seemed to recognize this in his appointment of Rep. Rahm Emanuel (D from Chicago) as his new Chief of Staff.  This is the single most powerful position in any White House.  The person in this role manages the President; he determines who the President will see and what he will hear; he selects those on the staff who will be granted limited access to the President; he will play a very large part in determining the programs the new president will pursue and the order in which various initiatives will occur.  Everything goes through the Chief of Staff.  Everything.

Emanuel is a rough and tumble Chicago-style politician.  He is liberal.  He is going to be a tough Chief of Staff.  The battles between him and those in Congress who believe they deserve the President's ear will be legend before this tour of duty is finished.

I suspect that our new president will be pushed to the left of center very quickly whether or not he wishes to be in that position.  The question in my mind is just how far left of center he'll end up after the first hundred days that seem to be so magical.

He will have inherited a terrible economy and a country with so much debt that it will be able to do only limited things in the way of new programs.  Against that backdrop stand the legions such as described above who simply don't care about this, that or the other.  They are intent on getting their way, on making their imprint seen.

This Congress has it within its power to limit this new president to a single term, as was the case with President Carter, if it forces the new president too far to the left and pushes too hard for what it thinks is now being demanded by a country they believe to be left-leaning like themselves.

I am overloaded with politics!  This election for president has been going on seemingly forever.  Obviously, it has been going on for nearly two full years.  The two final candidates have spent nearly $1 billion between the two of them.  They have filled the airwaves with television and radio advertisements and they have filled the newspapers and mailboxes with written advertisements.

In addition to the presidential campaigns, we have been inundated with congressional campaigning and local senate and assembly campaigning.  Telephones have been ringing with 'get out the vote' campaigns and with 'robo calls'.  Lawn signs have seemed to grow for the past three or four months.  Early voting has been going on for a month or better.

I have watched the 'talking heads' tell me what I should be thinking until I want to throw something through my television screen.  I have seen the Saturday Night Live videos over and over again.  I have seen the late night show clips over and over again.

I have listened to the 'pollsters' explain this and that trying to convince us as to their method's accuracy.  The plethora of polls has produced varying numbers for months on end.  If there are six polls released in a day, there six different sets of numbers.  Exit polls were even wrong last time around.  Why should I put money on pre-election polls?

The candidates seem unable to even agree with themselves.  One tax plan has three or four different versions in as many weeks.  Amazingly, each political party is to blame for everything bad that has happened according to the other party.  Washington insiders dress up to appear on the Sunday morning talk shows and spew the day's 'talking points' as if they are gospel.

We are given the treatment befitting idiots by both parties.  If we are so dumb as to fall for their lines, why in the world are we given a vote?  We would obviously not even be able to find a polling place if we were susceptible to their diatribes.

Political activist organizations are falling all over themselves to sign up new voters.  Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck get registered and we are to feel assured that every vote cast is a legitimate vote from a legitimate voter.

Senators running for re-election are convicted of accepting bribes.  Congressmen who took money from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac like it was going out of style are now sitting in Washington meeting rooms with the look of the pious telling us why it was someone else's fault that our economy took a nose dive.

Re-election to office is so nearly automatic that we citizens ought to be examined carefully to assure full mental faculties before we permitted to get close to a ballot box.

I am tired and it isn't even election day yet.  I am disgusted with what we have permitted to happen in our country.  I am disgusted that so many of my fellow citizens seem to fall for the largest promise of good things if we'll simply elect the right people from the right party.  Elect me and I'll give you this; no, elect me and I'll give even more than he will!

Have we lost our senses completely?  Do we really think that government creates anything?  Is it possible that we can all get a tax cut, especially when tax reductions from one administration will be ended?  Is it really possible for 95% of Americans to receive a tax cut?  How is it that we can reduce taxes when we have the national debt that we have?  How is it that we permit ourselves to be hoodwinked on a regular two year and four year cycle?  Should we really end our foreign trade deals?  Will we be able to have what we want when others don't get what they want?  How will we keep our economy moving when we refuse to recognize that we can't possible get to the level of greenhouse gas emissions the various players are telling us they'll get us to in the time span allotted by their plans?  Where do we think the money for such programs is coming from?

Are we nuts?

I have political overload, and I fear it isn't going to end on the evening of November 4th

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!

There is a very real sense that we have been placed in a new world of politics.  I'll call it Politics 2.0 signifying the coming of a new genre.

As I watched the debate last evening involving Barack Obama and John McCain, it was as if I was witnessing a battle between the old and the new politics.  And, that is exactly what we've been hearing during this twenty-month plus campaign.  Obama has been pointedly making himself the leader of Politics 2.0 so far as the race for the presidency.

Obama has appealed to those of us who are younger and has been successful.  He outlived his Democratic challengers and he appears poised, if we are to believe the pollsters and the mainstream media, to become our next President.  He is a masterful communicator so far as style points.  Too many of us are unable to, or don't feel the need to, dig beneath the smooth, suave surface to get at the underlying meat in his answers and in his speeches.  He has run a campaign of nearly two years in length and we are still waiting for some definition to his talking points; we'll wait until after November, 2008, too.

Obama has deployed one of the most effective campaigns I can recall, and I've been an active observer since Au H20 (Goldwater) days.  He has had an advantage in campaigning against one of the 'old' pols who can 'barely' communicate when viewed in the glow of Obama.  He has, in my opinion, had the advantage of having the mainstream press firmly in his pocket for well over a year, if not longer.  I have seen mainstream "journalism" largely trumped by Politics 2.0, and I have seen the Internet used to very nearly its current maximum potential by one candidate. 

As if this wasn't sufficient, we see our economy reeling and that almost always portends defeat for the party in the Whitehouse without regard to the cause or finding of true fault.

I have made no pretense as to my views of the final two candidates.  I am a fiscal and social conservative and there is but one place for my vote.

That having been said, I can say that I am fearful of a Democrat sweep that leads to control of the Congress and of the Whitehouse.  If that should occur, I will see much of which I disapprove happening in our country.  If there is nothing remaining but a vocal, versus meaningful, minority, the minority's voice will be silenced except for the Internet and talk radio for the next four years.

While our federal government usually takes a long time to get anything accomplished, that is usually because the two-party system is sufficiently active and potent to thwart some of the less-than-wise moves attempted by the majority.  If the Democrats sweep to the degree that they have absolute control in both the House and the Senate, and if they have Barack Obama in the Whitehouse, we'll see an activist government such as we've not before witnessed.

We will see Supreme Court justices that will re-interpret the constitution to their liking.  We will see congressional hearings into everyone who ever served in the Bush administration.  We'll witness the complete take-over of healthcare by the government.  We'll see 'progressive' taxation policies that will cripple the economy and stifle the growth of businesses.  We'll see states governed by liberal majorities creating laws recognizing same sex marriage.  We'll see attacks on our rights to keep and bear arms.  We'll see our education system subverted to become a political indoctrination tool beyond that which already exists.  We will see an inexorable slide toward socialism.

I hope that I am wrong...but I fear that I may be correct.

Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal has done a good job with her Obama's Magic opinion piece in today's Journal.

There will be a lot of "magic" required to accomplish all that he has promised us, but we're accustomed to 'rude awakenings' following  Presidential campaigns.

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.

The 'virtual fence' that was approved by Congress to extend across hundreds of miles of the border between the United States and Mexico has been been put on hold indefinitely.

Why?  Well, it seems that the Interior Department has not signed off on the use of its lands.  These officials have refused to accept an environmental assessment that the towers, cameras, etc. would have no appreciable effect on the lands.

Even though the Department of Homeland Security has the authority to waive environmental laws for border security projects, it apparently does not extend to the virtual fence projects.  Sounds like the typical governmental bull!

An employee of a Florida hospital testified recently about the costs of treating illegal immigrants in one hospital.  You can watch the testimony by clicking here.

The citizens of this country finally prevailed on border controls, and yet the government continues to thwart this solution.  It seems like someone is a bit confused on just how this country works.  The people in these various departments are employed because we pay taxes to support their employment.  I am tiring of those within the system who pervert it to their own will.

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.

Barack Obama is the presumptive Democrat nominee for President of the United States.  He and his campaign staffers, and much of the press, appear to also have concluded that he is the presumptive President of the United States. 

The audacity of Obama is yet again on center stage for all to see.  He has kowtowed what passes for the 'free' press and the big three networks have trailed along in awe of the new President.  His campaign staffers refer to him as President when they say things such as, "When the President speaks..." which they did in the last day or so.  His campaign staffers refer to him as President when they create the phony 'Seal' that appeared on the podium behind which he was speaking.  Nothing about this campaign is an accident except for when Obama speaks extemporaneously without benefit of scripting.

Obama gets a 'free pass' on all this because the press is in his back pocket.  Thank goodness there is a Fox News Network.  Were that not the case, Obama would already be living in the White House so far as public opinion was concerned.  The election is a foregone conclusion.  He will undoubtedly deliver his 'inaugural speech' in Denver at the Democrat Convention; why wait for January 2009 and the Inauguration?

The 'World Tour' has taken him to Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel and on to Europe.  He has become an expert on foreign affairs.  He is telling General Petreaus when and where to position troops.  He has already convinced most that he, alone, can resolve the domestic issues.  He is the 'whole package'.

Hard to believe that this is a person who got a law degree, served as an Illinois state senator and has been in the U.S. Senate for 143 days of actual Senate sessions (as Jay Weber pointed out this morning on WISN 1130AM).  He is obviously the gift of a lifetime to us citizens who apparently have been stumbling about in the darkened wilderness all this time.  How in the world have we managed to even feed ourselves without Obama's guidance?  And we thought that JFK was something!

He may become our President, but he isn't there yet.  I, for one, am sickened by the sycophant press.  I am angered by the lack of criticism for Obama's actions.  This man has changed more positions than most people hold to begin with.  Politicians are chameleons, but he is the master chameleon.  He has built one of the most effective campaign organizations ever seen in our country or the world, for that matter.  It puts the 'Clinton Machine' to shame.

It seems that we now elect our leaders based on their charisma alone without regard to their experience.  That will demonstrate the shallowness of us as a people if he prevails.  As always, we will get the government we deserve. 

The mainstream media has taken up the fight now that Hillary and Barack have gotten their 'thing' settled; at least until the gathering in Denver. 

The learned political scientists on our college campuses have nearly unanimously opined that Obama is incapable of being defeated.  They have preordained that this election will be among the most lopsided victories for the left that we have witnessed in the entire history of our country.  Polls show Obama up by double digits over McCain.  It is all over but for the voting.

The election of Barack Obama as our next president is, apparently, inevitable.

So...there you go.  We conservatives can simply suck it up, pack it in, and decide how we're going to survive the coming four or eight years.  It is divined: Barack Obama is the next President of the United States...and will create a veto-proof majority for Democrats in both houses of our congress.

But wait.  Is it really inevitable?  Is the smugness of the left such that it will determine the course of history?  Is it really time for undefined change simply for the sake of change?  Are we in such dire straits that we will anoint Obama without so much as a discussion about that inevitable future?  Will the influx of young voters automatically accrue to the benefit of Obama?  Have the liberal professors that dominate our college campuses (98% + and counting) so indoctrinated the student body that inevitability is the only outcome imaginable?

Are 'we the people' so enamored of this man of change as to be taken with his oratorical skills in spite of the lack of depth of our knowledge of the details?  It is commonly discussed in political circles that the 'devil is in the detail', and yet, so far, there is very little flesh to be found on the skeleton of change. 

Will it remain the rule that any question of Obama's positions is akin to unfairly characterizing the man?  We smear him when we reflect upon the pastor that he followed willingly for twenty years.  We smear him when we talk about his very limited experience in politics, let alone on the national scene.  We smear him when we criticize his broadly-brushed position papers.  We smear him when he is forced to restate previous statements, sometimes more than once, to 'clarify' what he originally meant to say.

Obama has created a bubble that seems to surround him.  It is a protective bubble that keeps the hounds at bay.  One is to accept his speeches at face value.  One must not question the lack of substance.  One must not ask from where the money will come (although we know if we but listen to the tax increase rhetoric).  One must not ask which of the ladies in waiting the public would prefer in the White House.

Obama has created a protective bubble with the willing assistance of the liberal media.  Will that media be silent as well when we wake up to the second term of Jimmy Carter?  Will that media be silent when we throw away victory in the war on terror so that foreign governments will profess to like us better?  Will that media be silent when terrorists again begin to strike us in our homeland? 

Is it really Obama the Inevitable?  Or was the only inevitable thing about all this that the liberal media would fall into lockstep?

We have, it appears, survived the presidential primary campaign season. 

During this season just passed, we witnessed the significant defeat of the Clintons.  Yes, of both Clintons, not just Hillary.  There is no 'just Hillary'.  With her comes the other, Bill.  With her comes the remembrances of all that was the Clintonian presidency; the innuendo, the smears, the lost billing records, the huge trading gains, the eleventh-hour pardons and on and on and on.  It wasn't a significant defeat in terms of numbers of votes, but it was significant in terms of the name and the legacy.

During this season just passed, we saw the emergence of a first-term senator from Illinois who is now the Democrat candidate for President of the United States of America.  He is biracial, and that means that a historic 'barrier' appears to have been overcome.  He is inexperienced as compared to the typical candidate for our highest elected position, but he has an eloquence about him that seems to enthrall those to whom he speaks.  He is Barack Obama.  Of that we can be sure.  But, beyond that we are unsure.  There is much about him and his beliefs that needs to be fleshed out between now and November

During this season just passed, we saw the Republicans settle on an elder member of the senate who will be nearly 72 if and when he takes office.  The word 'settle' was chosen intentionally.  The conservative members of the Republican party were forced to 'settle' for John McCain.  They may take up the banner and charge ahead, or they may hold back, contribute little and vote begrudgingly.  We know that he has been bloodied in battle, and that is reality and not simply an expression.  We know the mettle of the man.

So, Hillary is expected to finally make her amends to Barack Obama today by suspending her campaign.  That means that she is still trying to finagle something more for herself.  It might be that promise of a nomination to become a member of the Supreme Court, or it might be the payment of her $20 million campaign shortfall that came from the Clintons' pocket, or it might be the selection as the vice presidential candidate.  We don't know, and we may not come to know anytime soon; but we do know the Clintons and we do know that there will be some price extracted by them.  That is the way it is with them.

And the rest of us are left to make a monumentally important decision as to whom we desire as our next titular head.  I use the word 'titular' intentionally, as well.  The President of the United States influences but seldom decides policy.  The President lives in a world of 'checks and balances' that sometimes seems to be unchecked and imbalanced.  Congress will be very important as it always is.  That is frightening when one steps back and observes the ofttimes childish machinations that come from this body.

As it stands today, we would choose between an elder about whom we know a good deal and a junior about whom we know virtually nothing.  I am reminded of the phrase that refers to the 'devil we know versus the devil we don't know'.  I don't use that phrase in a derogatory manner.  This election is, to my thinking, a classic 'lesser of evils' election.  The campaign will be waged between one who is so far only a passable speaker but whom we know, and between the other who is as eloquent a speaker as any politician in my lifetime but about whom we know next to nothing.

And I confess to great concern since us voters tend to be swayed by eloquence more than substance far too often...and we often pay a dear price as the result.

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 campaign for President of the United States seems, to me at least, interminable at this point.  It has been going on for years now in one or another forms.  We might think that we would, by now, even if trying to avoid the process, know the candidates almost as well as they know themselves.  The answer is that we do...and we don't.

Each candidate is artfully packaged by his or her 'handlers' to be just what the handlers' believe we all want in our next President.  Each candidate has been drilled on the policies and pitfalls.  Each has had multiple lines written for them that have, by now, become their own.  Different questions in different parts of the country elicit responses with slight variations on the central theme.

Every once in awhile, though, there comes the break-through moment when the candidate speaks from his or her heart...and thus reveals more about who and what they really are, their true beliefs and motives in an instant than has been revealed to us over the course of many months of appearances, and things we call 'debates', and countless articles penned by countless reporters.  In these rare moments, we are able to peel away the polished surface and see inside the person.

One of those moments occurred for Hillary Clinton when she 'mis-remembered' the situation the day she and Chelsea landed in Bosnia.  Another occurred when her husband, the former President, mis-mis-remembered on her behalf.  These two are, in my opinion, pathological liars.  They conjure up their own form of the truth and it pours out to we the people.  We the people scratch our heads and wonder if we are 'mis-remembering' or if we have just witnessed another of the seemingly regular prevarications to which we've become accustomed.

Another of those moments occurs on differing occasions with John McCain.  Those moments, for me, are the fleeting glimpses we get of the anger inside the man.  Some would say that is simply the 'set of his jaw' and that he is solid and steadfast.  I want to believe that because he will get my vote, but I still find a bit of concern welling up within me whenever I think I witness that.

Another of those moments occurred on April 6th and involved the 'great orator', Barack Obama when he opined in an off-the-cuff response to a question.  He conjured up the image of America that resides deep with him, and he saw small town middle Americans as being angry, since life was passing them by, since they had seen all their employment opportunities taken from them, etc.  And, he saw those middle Americans as now being relegated to holding on to their religion and their guns.  Barack Obama delivers one heck of a speech.  Speeches that have been pre-written and massaged over and over again.  Speeches that present the Barack Obama we are supposed to think is the real Barack Obama.

I believe we had another of those 'insightful incidents' on that April day, and it turned my stomach...for want of more descriptive terms.  It seemed to play to his wife's 'mis-speak' when she opined about finally finding something about which she could feel proud as an American.  This couple scares me.  I understand that he could easily become our President, and I am concerned for what that might mean to us all.  I know that he is the most liberal person in our U.S. Senate...and that takes some doing.  I know that he has served so little time in any elected office that we know virtually nothing of him and his ideas.

I know that John McCain has been tested as few among us have been tested.  I know that he is, for me, an imperfect candidate and not my first choice, or even my second choice.  I know that he will be a staunch defender of our country, and that is of utmost importance to me.

So, my intention to vote for John McCain has not changed, but my reasons for not voting for either Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton have been reinforced.

Has anyone ever thought that psychological testing might be a good idea before we annoint a candidate and subsequently elect a President?  I'm sure the United Nations would be happy to be the dispassionate arbiter of those test results.

Just kidding....

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!

The New England Journal of Medicine, yesterday, published results of a study on prostate cancer and the various treatment regimens employed.  I selected this as today's topic since I'm a man, I've had friends who've died from the disease, I have friends who now have the disease, I'm in the target age group and fully one in six males will be diagnosed with prostate cancer.

Prostate cancer is the most common form of cancer in men and the number two killer second only to lung cancer according to the American Cancer Society.  It is predicted that there will be some 186,000 diagnoses this year and some 28,700 deaths are expected from the disease.

The New England Journal of Medicine reported on the study of a group of 1,201 men and their partners after three kinds of treatment had been administered.  Those were: removal of the prostate; implantation of radioactive 'seeds'; and, radiation therapy.  Of the group who had received either radioactive 'seeds' or radiation therapy, one-third also took hormones.  The Journal was careful to note that the patients and doctors had made decisions independent of this study so the conclusions drawn were said to be suggestive rather than conclusive.

The conclusion drawn by the urologist who led this study, Dr. Martin Sanda of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, was this (as he was quoted saying): "Doctors or their patients should think twice if they're considering hormone therapy.  Most of the cancers treated nowadays are not really that aggressive."

The good news is that more than 99% of patients survive at least five years.  Thirty years ago, only about two-thirds survived that long.

This study showed that too much treatment can make a patient needlessly miserable. Complaints with hormone therapy centered on lack of sexual drive, problems with urination and bowel problems.

I remember very well my conversations with my friend John, of whom I've written before.  He was adamant that the quality of his life was more the issue than the length of his life.  He was encouraged to take hormone therapy and refused to do so after reading of the possible side effects.  He knew that was the right decision for him and maintained his quality of life until very near the end.

What lesson can we all draw from this?  I think the most important lesson is this:  Men should not avoid being examined for prostate enlargement and PSA counts for fear of what might be detected.  That is a very, very small price to pay for the peace of mind that flows for most of us as the result.  And, early detection is by far and away better for the patient because treatment can be begun before the cancer has grown too large to control.

The rule of thumb that I've always heard was that we men should begin to be examined for prostate issues at age 50.  My  feeling is that even earlier would be better.  My friend was diagnosed at about his age fifty and the cancer had already gotten a good start by that time.

I regularly read the Blogs at Health Care Policy and Marketplace Review.  I know... I should get a life :>)

One in particular caught my attention.  It discussed the phenomenon that is Barack Obama, and the recently energized involvement of youthful voters.  Against this backdrop, the author peered into a crystal ball and opined about some of the implications.  In turn, I began thinking about the issues this could raise:

* * * * * * * * * *

It was recently reported that the cost per senior citizen for Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid in 2007 set a record at $27,289 each.  That equates to about $10,673 per non-senior household.  While the number of senior citizens has remained stable at about 12% of the total U.S. population, the costs have risen by 24% more than the cost of living since 2000.  I suspect most of that increase is due to the cost of health care services since social security payments increase at about the rate of the cost of living increase and a year or so in arrears.

Most of us have been aware that, despite politicians' protestations to the contrary, there is no 'lock box' where previous contributions have been squirreled away for future use.  The money that has gone into this 'Trust Fund' has been removed by Congress and spent on current needs for years and years.  As the result, with longer lives after retirement, there are fewer workers who are being required to support each of the retirees.  This is truly a 'pay as you go' system today.

This situation is now being exacerbated by the beginning of the influx of the 'boomers' who are now beginning to reach 62 years of age and thus qualifying for social security benefits.  I read in another journal that the average savings of the boomers retiring at this point is some $40,000.  If that is the case, there is a real rude awakening due for all of us in the not too distant future, no matter how well we might or might not be situated in our own right.

Senior voters have always pretty much controlled the debate on entitlements for their age group through organizations such as the AARP, the senior voting block and various other groups.  This is about to change, however, as Obama brings more and more younger voters onto the political scene.  That will likely continue if he is elected, and certainly many of those people will stay involved even if he is defeated.

The long and short is this:  there is a much delayed debate due in the very near future about how to change senior entitlement programs so that the remaining 'worker bees' are not driven into bankruptcy in their attempt to make their living and to pay federal, state and local taxes.

As more seniors draw against the promises made to them over their lifetimes, the pressures on the taxpayers will increase unless some changes are made, and made quickly.  This idea that the debate can be delayed for another decade is simply not a correct assumption.  And, the children of the baby boomers who may be moved to take a stand that they want changes made would nearly assure the debate being joined.

35% of all federal spending is for seniors' entitlements, and that was just 32% in 2004.  Something has to give, but what will it be?  And whom in the current political arena is brave enough to face up to the challenge?  We often hear about the 'third rail' of politics...and that third rail is exactly what we're talking about here. 

Changes will be necessary and almost everyone will ultimately feel the impact of those changes.

The time for political demagoguery, if there ever was a time for that, has ended.

We have all heard and read about the Clintons seemingly forever.  We were, as a country, mesmerized by the first 'man from Hope'.  We watched as this former Arkansas governor simply overwhelmed the opposition.  He had all the right moves.  He seemed sincere.  He was, unknown to us at the time, a bit of a scoundrel.  He became our president for eight years.  He built the most vaunted political 'machine' of its time, and that machine ultimately helped to put the former first lady into the U.S. Senate as a New Yorker which was a stretch.  The definition of carpetbagger had to be stretched to accommodate her.

Senator Hillary Clinton was watched as she did her work in the Senate.  She was mentioned early on as the prospective first woman candidate for the presidency.  It seemed to be her destiny.  The press couldn't seem to get enough of her.  And, as it was written, she assumed the mantle and joined the race amid the flourishes that accompany the 'next coming' of a politician.

And now, there seems to be a burn-out factor that she is having greater and greater difficulty overcoming.  Peggy Noonan writes, in her piece 'Confidence or Derangement' about the problems that have beset this campaign.  If you've not read it, I would encourage you to do so.  I am, admittedly, a big Noonan fan.

Barack Obama is a politician's politician.  His rhetorical gift has propelled him into the stratosphere of political approval.  His fans are truly fanatical.  He has just begun to make his actual positions known and yet he is virtually the next Democrat candidate for President.  His speeches have inspired without educating.  He has refused to debate his now sole opponent, as is customary for the leading candidate to refuse until forced into such debates.  It has been difficult to determine his real positions on a range of important subjects.  Those positions are beginning to be fleshed out, but the decision has nearly been made, so the facts don't seem to matter that much.

It is doubtful, at best, that his actual positions will change any of his supporters' opinion about where their vote should go.  This has become a frightening political season for me quite frankly.  I do not recall such enthusiastic support about any candidate from any party in the past without having been able to get at the substance of the person.  Albeit, when candidates camouflage their real thoughts and simply parrot what they know the masses want to hear, we're unable to glean insight into the real person.  But this somehow feels different to me. 

It feels like the election could simply turn on a phrase.  And, that, even in politics, seems dangerously shallow to me.  Obama is the most liberal of the liberals.  He is, as I stated earlier, seemingly a socialist/populist.  Whatever is wrong can be fixed by government.  Corporations make too much money, so we'll force them to spend those profits as we, the government, deem they ought be spent.  And, if they refuse to buckle, we'll simply take the money away from them.

This has the vague sound of Venezuela and Hugo Chavez. 

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.

Seemingly everytime we pick up a newspaper or periodical we see that health care costs have risen again.  The only real question anymore is 'How Much?'.  Of course, if we still have health insurance, the premium rates continue to go up and up.  What in the world can we do about this?  Would statewide mandatory insurance coverage do the trick?  Can we somehow legislate lower insurance premiums?  Are the drug companies really the culprits?  Maybe we simply need to move to Canada or Europe.

Recent studies show that our national health care spending increased in 2006 by 6.7% to $2.1 trillion.  That means that one out of every six dollars spent in our national economy goes for health care.  The 'good news' in this staggering number is that this is actually slower growth than we saw for 2005.  Apparently we're going in the right direction, even if too slowly.

Another amazing fact, to me at least, is the amount of 'out-of-pocket' spending each of us averages after insurance premiums, etc.  In 2006, we spent, on average, 12% out-of-pocket for our health care expenses.  Know what we spent out-of-pocket in 1960?  We spent 47% out-of-pocket for health care expenses. 

That means that we are shielded to a much greater degree today from our real health care costs than we were in 1960.  Our out-of-pocket costs have decreased steadily since 1960.  We are often at the point today where we think of the cost of health care as being the $10 or $20 co-pay we have to come up with when we go to see the doctor.  Or, the $20 or $30 dollars we have to cough up for medicines.  Those amounts are very small percentages of the total costs.

Why is this important?  It is important because we need to think about what we're spending if we're ever going to be able to bring this cost spiral under control.  If we come to understand that the real cost of the doctor visit is in the range of $125 to $150 or more, we can begin to understand that maybe we shouldn't be running to the doctor everytime we have a runny nose or a cough.

Another very interesting fact is this:  more than 50% of all health care claims costs in America today are to cover lifestyle-related illnesses.  Those are the things that you and I can control to one degree or another.  But, we can't control them if we don't know about it or if we choose not to do anything about it.  What are 'lifestyle' issues?  Smoking, alcohol use, obesity and simply laying around doing no exercise.

Does this apply to us?  Here are the most current facts:  One in every four Americans eat fast food every day!  Six of ten Americans do not exercise or seldom exercise!  Two of every three Americans are classified as either overweight or obese!

This is the real source of our health care cost crisis.  We have met the enemy and it is us!

No mandatory state programs, or profit controls on drug companies or anything else is going to solve this problem.  The simple truth is that this is up to us.  All the rest of these proposals are simply pablum calculated to make us feel good.

That is why this 'stuff' is flowing from the mouths of politicans.  And it does nothing to solve the problem!

Let your politicians know that you understand this.  If they really want to help us, they'll begin an educational program using some of the 'smoker money' to get the true message out.  And, be sure to tell them we do not want laws banning fast food or drinking or smoking.  We need to take responsibility for ourselves.  No one else can do that for us.  The marketplace will make its own corrections just as you've begun to see with the menu changes going on in the world of fast foods, for example.

Maybe if insurance companies were permitted to charge people what we deserve to be charged based on our lifestyle habits, we'd begin to see these changes occur.  If I smoke, I pay more.  If I'm overweight, I pay a surcharge.  Make me feel my wallet lightening up if I don't take personal responsibility (just don't think this is your new way to raise taxes). 

Don't just continue to blame big health, or big drugs or big insurance!  You are doing nothing but pandering when you resort to this, and we're on to you!