For unto you is born...

Merry Christmas

And there were in the same country shepherds abiding in the field, keeping watch over their flock by night.

And, lo, the angel of the Lord came upon them, and the glory of the Lord shone round about them: and they were sore afraid.

And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord.

And this shall be a sign unto you; Ye shall find the babe wrapped in swaddling clothes, lying in a manger.

And suddenly there was with the angel a multitude of the heavenly host praising God, and saying, Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

A "Smell Test" for payments from tax revenues?

In his Letter to The Editor at the WSJ, Hendrik Van den Berg of Lincoln, Nebraska begins by seeming to make the point that the ACLU has the right to question where public tax dollars are spent. At first, I give him the benefit of doubt that he seems to make the libertarian argument that tax dollars should not be spent on anything. Instead, he just creates his own "smell test" where only anything that has any reference to God, not be funded.

In your Nov. 26 editorial "Bashing the Boy Scouts" you bash the ACLU for pursuing legal actions to stop the use of public funds to support the Scouts, using the term "silly" to describe such actions and the military's reaction to the ACLU's suit -- but you present no compelling argument why the ACLU is wrong. Whether you think that the Boy Scouts are part of "the bedrock of American life" is irrelevant. That the Boy Scouts "build character in young men" is also irrelevant to the argument. Whether the Boy Scouts lose when the ACLU gets the courts to rule against the use of public funds is not just irrelevant to your argument, but this argument hints at exactly the problem the ACLU is attempting to address: The many alleged "bedrocks" and "character builders" in our country all have the right to make their cases, but they have no right to government funded sponsorship.

The fact is that the Boy Scouts require members to believe in God. They have every right to set requirements for membership, and the courts have supported that right. But that requirement makes them a religious advocacy group. The constitution is very clear in this case: we have freedom of religion, not official sponsorship of religion. I certainly do not want to have my taxes paying for the Boy Scouts brainwashing young boys with ideas that clash with my convictions.
Hendrik Van den Berg
Lincoln, Neb.

Brawl Erupts At Competition

Another incident involving overpaid professional sports figures? No. This brawl took place at a Pom Pon event for teenagers:

"'A brawl broke out in the gym,' said Bridgette Rhodes, whose daughter performed in the competition. 'People were fighting. Somebody threw cans. Somebody threw a trophy. It was just out of control.'"

As wrong as the NBA players were in the recent violence in Detroit, under-reported actions like this tell the bigger story. Our society has become more and more less civil. I don't argue that violence has increased. There has always been some level of violence historically. What is most troubling is how trivial the causes have become.

Thomas Sowell: Green bigots international

Yet again, Thomas Sowell brings a clarity to reality:

"African economist James Skikwati in Kenya put the case against affluent Western environmental extremists very plainly when he said, 'wealthy countries want the Earth to be green, the underdeveloped want the Earth fed.' He asked: 'What gives the developed nations the right to make choices for the poor?'"

Hmmm?

What matters to voters

From a recent NBC-WSJ poll, this insight from Al Hunt:

"Democrats do well on universally shared values; asked in the December WSJ-NBC News poll which values are associated with the Democratic Party, Americans say ensuring equal opportunity, tolerance and compassion. But it's Republicans who score high on strengthening families, raising standards of public decency, religion and faith or personal responsibility. These are the politically defining social issues, the ones that affect votes."

When it comes time to vote, people vote on issues where they see the bigger gap between what they desire and what they think exists. For the 'shared values' that the Democrats poll well in - equal opportunity, tolerance, and compassion - most people don't see a big enough gap, or need to fix compared to the those that Republicans score high on.

In other words, Democrats poll high in areas that most people think already work and they poll lower in areas where most people have concerns and are looking for change.

Another plank of personal responsibility removed?

WE Energies, a Wisconsin electric and gas utility that serves primarily the southeastern corner of the state has proposed a new rate plan as a pilot. The utility cites "... an “alarming trend” in the number of bills that customers are unable to pay..." as the reason for this new plan. In effect, the utility is willing to forgive past debts from delinquent customers and give them a reduced rate structure. These debts, and the difference in rate revenue, will be made up somewhere I'm sure.

This quote from the article:

"Charlie Higley, executive director of the Wisconsin Citizens' Utility Board, said he supports the concept because it's based on a customer's income and ability to pay."

Brings to mind another:

"From each according to ability, to each according to need."

Let's just remove all personal responsibility from these people. The "soft bigotry of low expectations" is alive and well in Milwaukee!

Peterson Verdict & Penalty

I have little to say on this matter.

The man committed a horrific act without remorse and the world will not miss him.

Will putting Peterson to death deter future murders? Only those that he may commit.

Will the world miss anything he could contribute in the future? Far less than anything Laci and his son would have contributed if they had been given a chance.

This Is Your Country on Drugs

I commented on this phenomenon in an earlier post, here a college professor re-enforces the idea that I have such a hard time comprehending. We are a nation of pill poppers:

"College students take Ritalin to improve their academic performance. Musicians take beta blockers to improve their onstage performance. Middle-aged men take Viagra to improve their sexual performance. Shy people take Paxil to improve their social performance. The difference is that if athletes want to get performance-enhancing drugs they go to the black market. If the rest of us want performance-enhancing drugs, we go to our family doctors."

The professor at first, attributes this to the free market:

Perhaps this is the inevitable result of turning our medical system over to the market, where making sick people well is often less profitable than making well people better than well. Procter & Gamble, for example, has decided that the profit margins of its ordinary consumer items like Crest toothpaste and Tide laundry detergent are not nearly as appealing as the enormous profit margins of prescription drugs.

But later, I think he makes an even more salient point:

America's appetite for stimulants, antidepressants and Botox injections looks less like enthusiasm and more like fear. It is the look of a Little Leaguer stepping up to the plate in the bottom of the ninth with two outs and the bases loaded, terrified that he is going to strike out.

My question is, "Who judges us more harshly: other people, or ourselves?"

UPDATE: Here is an essay from a doctor discussing the patient, doctor, drug relationship and the implications. Interesting insight, including this:

"The next, we discover once again that little known fact: There is a placebo effect for doctors, too."

Onscreen, It's the Season of Cynicism

Christmas films today take a far different approach than in the past, according to this article in The New York Times:

"Nowadays, 'you make fun of Christmas,' said the film historian David Thomson, who has just published a history of the industry called 'The Whole Equation' (Alfred A. Knopf). 'I think it's more current now to say that Christmas is this dreadful family occasion where relatives who don't like each other come together and get drunk and start fighting. A lot of Christmas movies are rather like that.' "

Fortunately, at our house, the cynicism hasn't set in as hard as at seems in other parts of the country. I'll take a little wholesome naivete over worldly skepticism any day:

"One of the main problems in the industry is that young kids do not take the story material seriously," Mr. Thomson said. "They think it's mocking. For that reason it's very difficult to play a straight Christmas film, with a straight Christmas sentiment, without looking ridiculously sentimental. If you tried to do 'A Wonderful Life' now, I don't think you could get away with it. The things we once took very seriously, we half-mock them now."

As for the kids not taking the material seriously - gimme a break. It isn't the kids, it's how the parents treat them. If the parents choose to be cynical and express it, the kids will pick up on that far more than anything that film contains. It isn't the film mocking the kids, it's the parents mocking them and not letting them be kids.

Christmas is a time for ALL of us to be kids again. Give it a try. You can even buy "It's A Wonderful Life" on DVD and watch whenever you want!

Why study math?

In the NYTs piece, "The Last Time You Used Algebra Was...", the age old question is raised to counter the annual rankings the US finds itself falling in year after year. As the Thomas Sowell piece earlier addressed, our educational priorities are often skewed by the 'professionals' who know better. In this story, the author suggests another aspect: "Why learn something we'll never use?" As he points out, this can be asked of nearly ALL subjects. When was the last time you used Voltaire, Shakespeare, dissected a pig, or cited the table of elements?

In our world of immediate satisfaction, we educate to, and expect, immediate results. We don't educate to think unless it's related to social issues. And even then, you're educated to think one way - diversely (which has become an oxymoron). The last paragraph, from an educator who understands, makes the point:

"'What we do isn't exactly what mathematicians do,' she explained. 'And I know more alums here become artists than become mathematicians. But kids don't study poetry just because they're going to grow up to be poets. It's about a habit of mind. Your mind doesn't think abstractly unless it's asked to - and it needs to be asked to from a relatively young age. The rigor and logic that goes into math is a good way for your brain to be trained.'"

We all need to think more - not just learn. There is a difference.

Educational priorities

Thomas Sowell: Phony 'ethics':

"We have known for a long time that teenagers in Japan scored much higher on international math tests than American teenagers do. But did you know that teenagers in Poland, the Slovak Republic, Iceland, Canada, and Korea -- among other places -- also score higher than our teenagers? Out of 29 countries whose teenagers took a recent international math test, American teenagers ranked 24th. Americans also scored near the bottom on tests of general problem-solving."

But no one should be able to get their college diploma at the University of Michigan without a Sex and Gender requirement being met! (see earlier post)

The stakes are higher than single issues

Thomas Sowell: Once in a lifetime:

"With the agenda of the political left increasingly rejected by voters at the polls, the only way to get the items on that agenda enacted into law is to have judges who will decree the liberal agenda from the bench. Too many judges have already done that on everything from gay marriage to racial quotas and the death penalty.

It is not these or other particular issues which are the highest stakes. The highest stakes are democratic self-governance versus judicial fiats that threaten to make a mockery of the American system of government by elected officials."

As always, Sowell has a way of looking past the immediacy of the moment in time and sees the bigger impact.

Welcome back Krugman

Paul Krugman is back and I must admit, in this statement, he's absolutely right!:

"If Mr. Bush were to say in plain English that his plan to solve our fiscal problems is to borrow trillions, put the money into stocks and hope for the best, everyone would denounce that plan as the height of irresponsibility. The fact that this plan has an elaborate disguise, one that would add considerably to its costs, makes it worse. "

However, since this is NOT Mr. Bush's plan, the premise of Krugman's story is the same old rant. As usual, Krugman does his best to misrepresent the intentions of George Bush and his administration while offering no plan of his own to solve a looming problem. It's easy to state a problem, imagine all the potential negatives of any plan, and present only the negatives as fact making the plan, therefore, an "unrealistic scheme".

One way or another, Social Security is going to cost us a lot of money. We're either going to pay to fix it, or fund it as is. To do the latter would require the greatest shift in wealth from one generation to another in the history of man. There are simply not enough future workers to pay for the benefits of the future recipients.

The Left believes in redistribution of wealth but I don't think even they can live with the impact this would have on the productivity and well-being of every American worker - not to mention the generational animosity brought on by the policy.

UPDATE: Apparently I missed an earlier piece (December 7th) from Krugman that discusses his plan: Leave Social Security alone and raise taxes!

Mother's Little Helper - for Everything!

WSJ.com:

"As for the politicians who turned out for the Sunday talk shows--e.g., John McCain recently suggested that the government step in to require more stringent testing if baseball owners do not quickly come around to that position themselves--they should at least acknowledge that there is a fair amount of hypocrisy behind all the righteousness. With everyone else relying on biotech to improve what nature has decreed for us, do not expect Mr. Giambi to be any different. As long as there are pills to boost performance, there will be consumers ready to take them. In a culture where we medicate every opportunity, the real surprise in the wake of baseball's steroid mess may be not how many players used the drugs to gain an edge, but how few."

I must be out of the loop on this but I can't believe our society has come to this. I understand there is a sub-set of our society which looks for the easy answer. I understand there are those who can't face the reality of aging. I can understand some people's pain threshold is lower than others. But I can't believe that the MAJORITY of Americans seek medication or surgical procedures to 'fix their ills'. For a doctor to suggest this gives it some credibility, but I think we need to examine what got us to this point in history where a pill can solve all our problems!

Campaign Kick-off?

Could this be the start of Democratic hopeful Jimmy Massey's 2036 Presidential campaign?:

"A former United States marine told a refugee hearing for an American war dodger Tuesday that trigger-happy U.S. soldiers in Iraq routinely killed unarmed women and children, and murdered other Iraqis in violation of international law. In chilling testimony intended to bolster the asylum claim of compatriot Jeremy Hinzman, former staff sergeant Jimmy Massey recounted how nervous soldiers trained to believe that all Iraqis were potential terrorists often
opened fire indiscriminately."

Just because it didn't work for Kerry doesn't mean that Massey can't pull it off. I can already see the ads by the "Humvee Vets for Truth" being blamed for his loss, however.

And this makes our graduates more competitive in what - exactly?

This, from Independent Women's Forum via John Miller at The Corner, is almost laughable if it wasn't possible:

"'A Gender and Sexuality requirement will create new dialogues, challenge hegemonic discourse, break taboos and stigmas, and open up realms of communication between all students, states the student's proposal, slowly being circulated among...faculty members. The plan would incorporate a wide swathe of issues, from classes on 'Hollywood Masculinity' to those on gender and health.'

As Erin writes:

'In other words, this is a course requirement that would force all UM students to undergo a mandatory process of political consciousness-raising.'"

This "enlightened" proposal is from the students at the University of Michigan in Ann Arbor.

Size doesn't matter

The New York Times > Opinion > A Family Portrait, in Red and Blue (5 Letters):

To the Editor:
David Brooks applauds parents 'who have enough kids for a basketball team,' a sentiment that takes my breath away. Does having many children signal a greater devotion to parenting? I think not.

My husband and I have one child, and our 'personal identity is defined by parenthood.' Our child's physical, emotional and spiritual well-being is our primary and deeply satisfying concern.

But I also know that we are part of a bigger family. And this is what Mr. Brooks overlooks.

Large American families consume resources and produce waste in glaring disproportion to most other families of the world.

These natalists value their own immediate nuclear families to the detriment of our human family.

Erin Anthony

Carbondale, Ill., Dec. 7, 2004

Here is an excerpt from the original Op-Ed which Erin responded to:

Very often they have sacrificed pleasures like sophisticated movies, restaurant dining and foreign travel, let alone competitive careers and disposable income, for the sake of their parental calling.

As a parent of three, living in a small (just over 10,000 people) town in Wisconsin (a blue state mind you), I can attest to some of the statements made by David Brooks in his Op-Ed piece. My wife and I have made other choices than some. In fact, most of the families in this small town have made the same choices. To call the things Mr. Brooks lists as 'sacrifices', misses the point.

As for Erin from Carbondale, she completely misses the point of having a family. She uses her letter to condescend and admonish those of us who have the audacity to produce more than one offspring. For her, it isn't the number of children as much as it is her attitude. Each of our three children is unique, with their own personality. Without families like those of us in 'wasteful' Port Washington, her precious progeny would grow up in world without much diversity.

In addition, there is a dynamic between siblings that can't be replaced. Brothers and sisters have to learn to get along with each other. They can't 'go home' and be alone. They share bedrooms, bathrooms, dinner tables, toys, and parents every day. Just like they'll share workspaces, transportation, resources and bosses in the future.

We didn't make our decision to have children on political grounds. We didn't intellectually calculate the impact that each of our kids would have on the environment to determine to proper number to produce nor did we calculate the 'life-time' cost of raising kids and the impact that would have on our portfolio.

We had children as an expression of the love that we have for each other based on the traditions of our own families and the faith we have in the future of mankind. As I think about our community and the families that make up this community, I believe that most feel pretty much the same way. We tend to be generally optimistic and conservative - even those who vote blue.

What is government's role?

In today's WSJ.com, Milton Friedman discusses how the non-defense spending by the US government has changed since the end of WWII. He rightly points out that while Socialism, in the true sense of the word, has been all but been eliminated as a government of choice throughout the world, in practice, the US is very close to operating a socialistic welfare and regulatory state:

"In the first postwar decade, 1945 to 1955, government non-defense spending, federal, state and local, equaled 11.5% of national income, varying from a high of 16% in 1949 to a low of 8.5% in 1952. From then on, spending rose rapidly. By 1983, government non-defense spending reached 30% of national income, nearly triple the average amount in the first postwar decade. In addition, over the same period, government intrusion into business and private affairs exploded (a small sample: Medicare, Medicaid, Americorps, Head Start, Job Corps, EPA, OSHA, CPSC, LSC, EEOC). No doubt the growth of government was one reason for the shift in public opinion. Big government in practice proved less attractive than big government in prospect."

Illegal Immigration Policy?

Malaysia has what may be considered an unusual punishment for illegal immigrants. Of course, nothing is as bad as anything the US does, whether it's prisoner abuse or it's own unfair immigration policies, but this might raise some eyebrows:

"A total 18,607 illegal immigrants in Malaysia were whipped under an amendment to the Immigration Act introduced in 2002, Deputy Home Affairs Minister Tan Chai Ho said Wednesday. "

Before you get too worried, there's this:

"Most were whipped for entering without valid documents but the women and men above (50) years who were caught were spared," he said.

It may be worth watching this situation as those that do not leave voluntarily may face further sanctions:

"We are unhappy many have still not left...if they don't leave they will face the full might of the law."

Hmm. I wonder where the International Red Cross is? That's right, they're in Gitmo fretting over terrorists being held against their will (so they don't kill anyone) rather than assisting innocents for crossing the wrong border to find work.

Nations Meet to Discuss Global Climate Change

I wonder what kind of wine and hors de oeuvres they are serving? "Story" [emphasis mine]:

"The Climate Change Convention will be the last before the Kyoto Protocol officially takes effect in February. The environmental community is still glowing from the recent decision by Russia to ratify the Kyoto Protocol which made it legally binding. The convention's Executive Secretary, Joke Waller-Hunter of the Netherlands, addressed the convention Monday and congratulated delegates for their achievements."

Perhaps they should reconsider the choice of Executive Secretary. Didn't anyone think that someone with that first name may not be the best spokesperson for a questionable cause?

'Tis the season? Apparently not for some...

Maureen Dowd, a voice of the left (by edict or self-appointment) makes a confession in her witty Op-Ed titled Jingle Bell Schlock:

"I've never said this out loud before, but I can't stand Christmas."

On the one hand, this epitomizes the left - they hate everything! Can anyone tell me ONE positive thing the left has had to say in the last, oh - 50 years? Especially MoDo?

On the other hand, it isn't a surprise that the main reason for her anxiety and negative thoughts during this season are self-focused and full of self-pity:

"It might be exacerbated by the stress I feel when I think of all the money I've spent on lavishing boyfriends with presents over the years, guys who are now living with other women who are enjoying my lovingly picked out presents which I'm no doubt still paying for in credit card interest charges."

Get over yourself, it isn't always about you! That goes for those of you on the left who commiserate with her too.

Steroids, Sports and Life

The WSJ.com - The Daily Fix has a story which compiles reactions from around the country to the latest scandal in sports:

"While fans immerse themselves in the ugly details, it's worth also recalling why this matters. Miami Herald columnist Linda Robertson reminds that we may lose a key element of enjoying sports: wonder. 'Fans who once marveled at the feats of their fellow humans will get bored watching chemically-enhanced mutants smash ever more meaningless records.' The International Herald Tribune's Rob Hughes, meanwhile, asks, 'What do we tell the children now of our grown up ethos that sport is good for the body and the soul?'"

As a fan and father, I have long since given up on that ethos in sports. There are too few who embody it anymore. Here in Wisconsin, we feel blessed to have Brett Favre as the quarterback of the Green Bay Packers. He has been the closest person to continue that ethos - playing for the love of the game and always giving his best (even when his best isn't good enough) - yet even he struggled with pain killers.

No one is perfect and we should never place anyone on that pedestal. As easy at is to blame the player (and justified) for not taking personal responsibility, others must assume blame as well. Owners, coaches, trainers and, perhaps most of all, the fans.

That's right. The fans. Those of us who feel the need to be entertained every minute of every game. Who will only respond to the big play, the slam dunk, the home run, a new record at every event. Those of us who will pay ungodly sums of money for memorabilia and will do almost anything to get it in the first place. And those of us who feel we are part of the game and are immune to any sanctions for our actions: "we paid good money for these seats, we can do what ever we want!"

Getting back to Brett Favre. He did something more important than win a Super Bowl and break multiple records. He grew as a human. Yes. He was addicted to pain killers and drank more than his fair share. But he had the heart and support to overcome these addictions, discontinue their use, and still perform at the top of his game. In addition, he still plays because he loves the game.

That's an ethos that I hope my kids learn. You can make mistakes. As long as you take responsibility for those mistakes, learn from them and put forth your best effort each and every day, you will be fine. And it wouldn't hurt to do what you love to do - not because others love you doing it.

JS Online: State's condom buy raises hue and cry

This article in the morning newspaper discusses the outcry over the purchase and distribution of novelty - colored and flavored - condoms by the state. While the cost is paid through grants from the CDC, the non-monetary costs don't seem to hit home:

"The intent of offering novelty condoms is to provide greater choices to those people who might be reluctant to use a condom or discuss the subject of protection with a partner, Vergeront said."

Rep. Sheldon Wasserman (D-Wasserman) offered this telling comment:

"Like it or not, we're going to be paying either way," Wasserman said, because taxpayers could foot the bill for health care costs if the state doesn't contain the spread of sexually transmitted diseases."

"Like it or not,"? If I engage in risky behavior - such as driving too fast on the highway - and I get in an accident through my own actions, does the state have the responsibility to pay for my medical bills? If I should die, does the state have the responsibility to compensate and take care of my surviving family?

"Religion is but a myth...

...and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds" ~ Freedom from Religion Foundation. This quote - certain to bring us closer together - was found by Professor Althouse at the Capitol building in Madison. Scroll down through the lovely pictures of the Christmas tree and other decor in the rotunda and you will see a picture of this quote on a sign which represents the foundations criticism of the tree.

Continue to read her comments about the quote. I agree completely.

Science and God

They can co-exist. Despite the extreme opinion on both sides of this argument, I think most people believe in the existence of both, as expressed by Professor Colling here, from the WSJ.com - Science Journal:

"Unlike those who see evolution as an assault on faith, Prof. Colling finds it strengthens his own. 'A God who can harness the laws of randomness and chaos, and create beauty and wonder and all of these marvelous structures, is a lot more creative than fundamentalists give him credit for,' he told me. Creating the laws of physics and chemistry that, over the eons, coaxed life from nonliving molecules is something he finds just as awe inspiring as the idea that God instantly and supernaturally created life from nonlife."

More on obesity

As a follow-up to the November 30th post from the WSJ, this story by Radley Balko at Tech Central Station details more of the harm that unquestioned statistics can cause:

"The CDC's announcement represents a tidy anecdote for what's wrong with the obesity debate. The problem, put simply, is that hysteria sells. It sells research to grant writers, it sells executive summaries to media outlets, and it sells newspapers to the public. Anyone taking a close look at the 400,000 number could see some obvious flaws in its computation. In the New York Times, for example, the University of Chicago's Dr. Eric Oliver pointed out that there are only 2 million deaths each year in the United States, total. Since obesity has little effect on the mortality rates of people over 65, and 70% of annual deaths are among people over 65, in order for the 400,000 figure to be correct virtually every single death among people under 65 would have to have been caused by obesity."

Later, there's this:

"The most troubling thing about the 400,000 fiasco is the way nutrition activists and politicians relied on the number to call for drastic new laws and regulations aimed at getting obesity under control, but which also represented potentially severe restrictions on the food industry, and serious trespasses on consumer choice, personal freedom, and personal responsibility -- and how the media let them get away with it without an ounce of skepticism."

We all need to have a healthy skepticism for all statistics thrown at us. If it sounds too good to be true - or in this case, too ominous - it probably is.

WI: School tax levies rise 7.3% in state

This story in today's JS Online reports that property tax levies by school districts will increase an average of 7.3%. This is more than double the rate of inflation. The story goes on to address some of the factors that have led districts to this 'need'. In addition, it quotes John Gard (R-Peshtigo) as saying his number one priority is to get a tax freeze bill passed in the next session, to end this. Everyone is pointing fingers - and they're all right. What they need to do is turn the finger around:

"Many involved in the school finance scene point to the decision by the governor and state Legislature two years ago to back away from the decade-old commitment to providing, on average, two-thirds of the money for general local school spending as the cause of the property tax increases now.

State Sen. Michael Ellis (R-Neenah) said: 'As the state goes south on participating (in paying for schools), the levy has to go north.' He predicted that, if nothing changes, levies in the next years will increase by 10% or more annually.

School officials also note that not only are they getting squeezed by a drop in the level of state aid, but they also have to cope with rising expenses, particularly the cost of health insurance for employees.

Stan Johnson, president of the Wisconsin Education Association Council, the state teachers
union, said leaders need to have 'some kind of discussion very soon' about how to fund schools in ways that maintain their quality."

We need to be grown-ups about this. We've created - or allowed to be created - a system that is almost unaccountable to anyone. As with most publicly run programs, politicians and bureaucrats have turned schools into the proverbial 'football' that they all use for personal gain.

We are far from unique in Wisconsin. The courts in New York have just ruled that funding for schools in New York city alone, have been under funded by $5.6 billion a year! What they haven't reported is, where the funding would go, what it would be used for, and ultimately, who'd pay for it.

Right now, we have no one representing us on either side with any objectivity. The schools are represented by the unions and administrators who don't believe there should be ANY limits to what we spend. After all, it's for the children.

On the other side, we have the politicians who are trying to make points with their constituents by 'freezing taxes' through a bill or state constitutional amendment. This will not solve the problem, but may get them re-elected.

Schools are important. They are necessary for our state and country to continue to be competitive and successful in the world - now and in the future. It is our responsibility as tax-payers to fund public schools because we all benefit from the product.

Schools must become more responsible. Just as it is the public's responsibility to fund schools, it is the school's responsibility to produce a product that meets the public need at a competitive cost. For too long, schools have evolved to focus more on the social needs of students, rather than the intellectual needs. It has been far more important to reward self-esteem, than results.

This focus has been a windfall for schools. Special needs programs have historically exceeded general funding increases over the last decade or so. Federal and State dollars have provided 'bonuses' to districts for special needs students - thereby incenting districts to redefine and attract (recruit) more special needs students. What is happening in our country that we are producing this ever increasing number of 'special needs' children?

Additionally, the story in the paper this morning quotes school officials who point to rising costs in health insurance as a major factor in the need for increased funding. First, this does nothing to increase the results - children who are better educated. Second, a major reason health care costs are out of line in Wisconsin schools is because they do not seek competitive bids - they self-insure. And finally, most private businesses have chosen to bite-the-bullet and ask their employees to contribute more to the cost of insurance and medical costs. Schools, with very rare exceptions, refuse to do so.

There is more than enough blame to go around and even more difficult decisions which must be made. Unfortunately, we don't have enough leaders - on either side - to take on the tough decisions. It's far easier to point fingers and promote band-aid 'solutions' like tax freezes. Schools happen to be the largest, single consumer of tax dollars, but all departments, agencies and tax funded programs could reduce costs as part of the solution. The vast majority of tax payers are more than willing to pay their share - when they believe they are getting what they pay for. Right now, we don't.

Thomas Sowell: A taxing experience

Thomas Sowell:

"There was a time when the purpose of taxes was to pay for the inevitable costs of government. To the political left, however, taxes have long been seen as a way to redistribute income and finance other social experiments based on liberal ideology."

And more times than not, the experiment fails with unintended consequences which have far greater undesireable impact.