Well, Well, Paul Rolly

Just when I dish on the fluffiness of the Media, Paul Rolly writes a very substantive analysis of the Treasurer’s race. The first substantive analysis I’ve seen, as a matter of fact.

I’ll disagree with a few of Mr. Rolly’s points: The scandal played a big role in the outcome (and I still haven’t seen a hint in the Media yet about the fact that the source of the allegations is a key backer for Ellis and that he stands to make millions for his employer/self(?) based on decisions made by the Treasurer or even an acknowledgement that any questionable conduct arose out of a CONVERSATION, NOT A SOLILOQUY, involving both candidates and the witness/kingmaker) . Qualifications also played a role in the outcome; Ellis’s background experience looked better to voters. The UEA was in the thing more for voucher payback than concerns over retirement benefits. And, from my perspective, the defined benefit (DB)/defined contribution (DC) issue doesn’t have enough legs to be the key motivating factor; though a shift from DB to DC could make sense in some ways, the transition would be problematic (the transition problem requires a separate, quite-detailed post; it has to do with exponential cost increases that would be incurred in providing defined benefits for a long, but diminishing, tail of DB recipients as other workers moved to a DC system).

But, I do agree that competing philosophies were (and still are) at the root of the battle. Largely, people who want tax cuts aligned behind Walker, and people who oppose tax cuts aligned behind Ellis. It’s another round of the role-of-government debate. And, as Mr. Rolly writes, special interests worked hard and, ultimately, effectively. And, good for them. That’s a legitimate part of the process. If people don’t like that fact, they need to dig in and outwork the special interests.

UPDATE: I don't know what to make of it, but it is interesting to note that the number of readers rating Mr. Rolly's column was way up (by a factor of 7 or 10 or so), and that they weighed in to rate it low.