Dependence and freedom are fundamentally at odds with each other. You want to depend on government for something, you'd better be prepared to give up your freedoms in exchange. Too often, people don't notice this because the benefits of dependence are immediate, while the loss of freedom takes years or decades and happens incrementally. This is true regardless of whether we're talking about different levels of government being dependent on each other (.08 BAL limit and highway money, state budget mess affecting property taxes, etc.) or individuals being dependent on any level of government. It's the old "you live in my house, you follow my rules" principle. Now if we apply that same logic to oh, say, health care, we can begin to see the real danger in that...

So, Wisconsin's state budget is now 107 days overdue and counting. For most people in the state, this is a good thing, or at the very least it's not the "crisis" that some are trying to make it out to be. With no new budget, government programs continue to be funded at previous levels. It's a taxpayer's dream come true - zero increases across the board. Predictably, though, Democrats in the senate and Gov. Doyle are throwing out scare tactics.

All along, they have claimed that failure to pass a budget will actually hurt the taxpayers since less money will go to local governments and schools, which will cause property taxes to be raised. The flaw in this argument is the assumption that property tax increases are bad but other tax increases (the ones being proposed in the Democrats' budget) are good. Neither are good, but with government programs being funded at last year's levels it is certain that less money will be spent than would be if the budget was passed. Less money being spent means less taxes overall. Sure, property taxes may inch up, but all those other tax increases in the Democrats' budget will not happen. You have to look at the whole picture, not just half of it - we pay both state taxes and property taxes, so an increase in one is not necessarily bad if it prevents an even greater increase in the other. Will the freeze on state taxes be enough to make up for the threatened increase in property taxes? Yes, since we know the total amount of spending will be less than what it would be if the budget was passed - it's a mathematical certainty.

Now, the latest scare tactic is a partial government shutdown. Ignoring for a moment the fact that this is just political posturing (since we continue at the previous budget levels until a new budget is passed), for most of us this is not the end of the world. But there is a lesson here - it's another example of how dependence on government is something to be avoided. The reason a partial government shutdown wouldn't be all that bad is that most of us don't depend on government for basic needs. But now think of how that picture changes with, say, government-run health care. Would a government shutdown mean no non-emergency doctor visits? Possibly. Not a position I want to be in, that's for sure.

The "dependence on government" principal actually applies to the first point as well. Since we have a system in Wisconsin where local governments get huge amounts of money from the state, they are all in a state of dependence. If local governments simply raised their own money and didn't rely on state handouts, they wouldn't care about the inability of the state legislature to pass a budget on time. But as it is, this dependence causes everyone to be affected.

I think Republicans, who are attempting to hold the line on taxes, are in a great position here. If we continue with no new budget, they essentially win. If the Democrats cave and drop their tax increases, they win. They only way they can lose is if they needlessly give in to the Democrats' proposed tax increases. So far that hasn't happened, and every day that passes saves Wisconsin taxpayers millions.

I caught this snipped in the August 2007 issue of Reader's Digest:

NAY
New Hampshire Governor John Lynch
For not taking an early stand in favor of a proposed seat belt law requiring adults to buckle up. That's taking the state motto, Live Free or Die, to literally for the public good.

Yes, how terrible that someone actually wants to take freedom literally. I guess "Live Free or Die" is just supposed to be a cute slogan with no real meaning. I wonder if whoever wrote this thinks we take freedom of speech too literally as well...

I think it's great that someone has the courage to stand up to these nanny-state seat belt laws in the name of freedom. The government goes too far when it tries to protect us from ourselves. Most people (including myself) wear seat belts anyway - the few that don't certainly know the risks and consequences, yet choose to do so anyway. It's their decision to make.

The only intelligent argument I've heard in favor of these seat belt laws (other than knee-jerk emotionally-driven slogans like "it's for the public good" and "it will save lives") is that when someone gets injured in a crash the rest of us have to pay their medical bills, therefore their decision to not wear a seat belt affects the rest of us indirectly. That argument is actually a great illustration of the dangers of socialism! When we all pay for and take care of each other, we have a right to tell everyone else how to live. After all, if they mess up, we have to pay for their mistakes. Therefore, we must regulate their lives and decision-making. Now apply this to health care. With a socialized health care system, how long do you suppose it would take for certain foods to be banned? After all, if one individual eats cheeseburgers and donuts and ends up needing quadruple bypass surgery, we would all pay for it. So perhaps we should just ban cheeseburgers and donuts, or at least limit their consumption. Maybe we need a government-approved dietary plan that everyone must comply with. Don't think for a minute this won't happen. If we are comfortable with mandating seat belt use, there's no logical reason not to apply that to food as well under a socialized health care system. It's just a matter of time.

Last Sunday our local newspaper, the Wisconsin State Journal, ran an opinion article about the loss of freedom in America:

http://www.madison.com/wsj/home/forum/index.php?ntid=199603

I wrote a response to that, which they printed in today's paper along with a bunch of others. I was pleasantly surprised by how many responses there were, more than usual, and a good number of them agreeing that we have lost too much freedom. Anyway, I thought I'd share my letter (email, actually) here:

Freedom is not free, and one price we all must pay for our freedoms is personal responsibility. It is impossible to have one without the other.

Although the concept of freedom is popular, personal responsibility is often seen as mean-spirited or frightening. It is for that reason that we allow, and even ask for, our freedoms to be eroded. Too often we’d rather live as children with government as our parents, caring for us and insulating us from the risks and responsibilities of life. Some don’t want the responsibility of maintaining a healthy diet so they demand that government remove unhealthy options from the restaurant menu. Others don’t want the responsibility of making their own health care decisions so they favor a government-run system instead of market-based reforms that would allow choice. The list goes on.

Dependence and freedom cannot coexist. The more we look to government to provide for our needs, the safer we may feel, but the more freedom we lose. If we wish to remain free, we must be willing to embrace personal responsibility and keep the power of government to a minimum, not use it as a cure-all for life’s problems.

Yesterday the mayor of Madison and the Dane County Executive announced a new proposal to raise the county sales tax by 0.5% to 6.0%. This would be used to establish a "Regional Transit Authority", which mostly consists of two things: (a) a commuter rail system, and (b) a streetcar/trolley system in downtown Madison (yes, like San Francisco).

In addition to getting approval from the state legislature, it would have to pass a county-wide referendum, but Dane County is easily the most liberal county in the state, and probably one of the most liberal counties in the nation. I can see it getting enough support to pass a referendum, even though only a small minority of people will ever use it. Why is that?

To understand this, you have to understand one of the key concepts of liberalism: it's not about getting results, it's about making them (liberals) feel good about themselves. Think about it - when was the last time you heard of a government program being eliminated because it didn't get results? Never - because results don't matter. All that matters is that we set up program after program, agency after agency, so that liberals can feel like they're doing something great and noble, even though in the end most of them have accomplished nothing, with other people's money of course.

If the regional transit plan was about results the main focus would be on roads, which virtually everybody uses.

Instead it will be spent on commuter rail and streetcars that will be used by only one or two percent of the population - and that one or two percent will mostly come from those already riding the bus now. And yet, everyone in the county, from downtown Madison to the small towns and rural areas, will be forced to pay for it.

For our higher taxes, we'll end up with a system of mostly-empty trains and mostly-empty streetcars. The traffic congestion will be much worse, not only because of a lack of new roads but also because of all those rail crossings where drivers, during rush hour downtown, will have to stop and wait for the empty trains go by fifteen times an hour! Even most of the liberals who support this idea will continue to drive, and only take the train or streetcar occasionally for the novelty factor. But as they drive by the empty trains, they'll feel good about themselves for having done something to save the planet, even though in reality they have accomplished absolutely nothing.

With all the global warming hype lately, there has been a renewed effort to address transportation issues. The left, of course, favors public transportation, since cars produce greenhouse gases. But there's more to it than that. Public transportation represents the essence of liberalism - dependence on government - while cars represent the essence of conservatism - individual freedom.

Before I go on, let me clarify that there's nothing wrong with some level of public transportation - it's nice to have as a backup for when your car breaks down, or if you can't afford (or simply don't want the expenses of) a car. The problem is when activists try to expand its role to be something that most people rely on for their everyday needs. That's what I'm going to focus on today - not public transportation as an alternative on the side, but the desire to have public transportation become a way of life.

First, there's the dependence issue. When you rely on public transit you are dependent on its schedule, its service, and ultimately the government, for a basic need. That's why it is so appealing to liberals. More public transit = more tax dollars = more control surrendered to government. You need look no further than New Orleans during Katrina to see the danger of that - it was the people who had cars that were able to flee the city, while those without, who rely on public transit, were the ones stuck in the disaster than ensued.

Then there is the time issue. With the exception of air travel over large distances, you're not going to have public transportation that is as fast as walking to your car in the driveway and taking it directly to wherever you're going with no stops to pick up or drop off other passengers. Unless...

...Unless traffic conditions are so horrid that it's actually slower to drive than take public transit. It's only in places like this where large-scale public transportation works well, like New York City. Most places in the United States - my home city of Madison, Wisconsin included - aren't like that. For most of us it's faster to drive.

So what do you think the liberal solution is? Make more of the country like New York City, of course. I'm serious - there is a very real movement in Madison, and possibly your city as well, to make this happen. It can be identified by taglines such as "increasing density", "sustainable development", or "new urbanism". Part of this agenda is to purposefully allow traffic congestion to become so unbearable that most people would rather get on a bus or train. Other than your tax dollars, that's how public transportation extremism affects you - the next time you're stuck in traffic, thank a liberal!

I don't know about you, but there's a reason I don't live in New York. I like having a house with a back yard. I like the relative peace and quiet of a small town. If you live in New York and like it, good for you. It's great that we live in a country with options, where I can choose to live in a small town and you can choose to live in a large city.

As usual, this level of freedom is intolerable to the far left. They can't force you to live in a large city, but they can redesign and shape the communities you do live in to have the characteristics of one. Less single-family housing, more apartments and condos. More density. Miserable traffic congestion, with public transportation as the only alternative. It's definitely happening where I live, and it may be happening where you live too. Usually, though, it goes unnoticed because those local issues don't make big headlines. That's why it's so important to be aware of what's going on in local politics, and to vote in your city and county elections - not just the statewide and national ones.

I'll end with an example of how the anti-car left works here Madison. We have a bottleneck where two highways meet - U.S. 18 and U.S. 12 (that's Verona Road and the Beltline for those of you familiar with the area). It's a mess because highway 18 is not a freeway - it has several stoplights and very busy intersections. Furthermore, it carries a lot of truck traffic, since it is the only major artery running from the southwest part of the state to anywhere in the eastern half of Wisconsin, including Milwaukee and Green Bay. A few years ago, the state offered to make dramatic improvements to that stretch of highway, specifically, turning it into a freeway with no stoplights. And they offered to pay for it. But the mayor of Madison turned it down! One member of the city council, when asked about the traffic jams at that intersection, summed up the liberal position nicely: "That's what they get for living out that far." Out that far! We are talking about a stretch of road maybe 5 miles from downtown Madison! The anti-car "new urbanism" vision, in which we must all live in a tiny apartment or condo downtown and rely on public transportation, was laid out as clearly as I'd ever seen it during that debate. Simply put, it is an assault on the American Dream.

Drivers in the state of Wisconsin are now legally responsible for making sure all passengers in their vehicle wear their seat belts. Not just children - adults as well.

I'm sure many think this is a great idea because it will save lives.

I just wonder why we stopped at seat belts. After all, these proposals would also save lives and are philosophically no different than the seat belt law:

* Require the driver to ask all passengers if they have eaten a well-balanced meal for breakfast. If not, the driver is required to proceed directly to the nearest health food store and purchase tofu smoothies for all on board.

* Require the driver to measure the body-mass index of all passengers before departing. If any are determined to be obese, they must walk or bike to their destination.

* Ask all passengers if they smoke - not just on the current trip, but at all. If any do, the driver must recite the surgeon general's warning and cannot depart until all passengers promise to quit immediately.

Those would all be great ideas as well, right? After all, they would save lives...

At some point we have to let adults be adults and make their own decisions. Everyone and their brother knows seat belts save lives. It should not be up to one adult to force other adults riding with them to make "acceptable" lifestyle choices, whether that be wearing seat belts or anything else.

The thing that is really troubling about this is that it's part of a trend - we're more and more willing to trade freedom for safety, not just from outside sources but from ourselves. It's almost as if we are saying to the government: "We now realize we are just too stupid to manage our own lives. Please be our parents! Tell us how to live, provide for us, care for us, and protect us."

I actually wonder if the breakdown of family is partly responsible. Are people so desperate for a good, parental role model they turn to government to play that part?

We need to draw a line in the sand and define governement's role as protection from outside threats - whether those be terrorism, street gangs, or toxic chemicals in our water, I'm fine with all of that being governement's job. The moment we ask government to protect us from our own decision-making is the moment we cease to be free-thinking adults and relegate ourselves to the role of children.

The problem is there is no consistency in what we expect from governement and how we allow it to regulate our lives. There is no underlying philosophy. We'll accept almost any law; we just need to be talked into it.

Here's what I'd like to see, and I'm fully aware that this will never happen: A consitutional amendment that Congress shall pass no law whose sole purpose is to ban behavior that (a) directly affects only the individual that actively decides to partake in it, and (b) entails fully known and understood risks and consequences.

Until then, I'm required by law to tell you: "Buckle up. And eat your vegetables. And get more exercise. And quit smoking. And watch less TV...."