I've been on vacation for a few days, so I've tried to turn off the news for awhile. Of course, you can't turn on the idiot box without seeing Michael Jackson. Congress and the President are in the midst of some important things with healthcare and the environment, but we get instant updates about Jackson's death from the 24/7 "news" providers. But that "news"  is what it is, so why think about it? Celebrities apparently top calamity.

In July, the movie shot mostly in Wisconsin, Public Enemies, debuts, with a good deal of it shot at Little Bohemia in Vilas county. Yup, Johnny Depp and company in the Northwoods, retracing the steps of the Midwest's notorious John Dillinger, Baby Face Nelson and the gang.

But I'm beginning to wonder about our "friends" in Madison, our elected officials, and whether the recent budget deliberations don't put them into a real "Public Enemies" list.

I've harped about open meetings enough times here that I don't need to talk about it again, at least from the local perspective. But as the budget process unfolded, it became abundantly clear that the leaders in both chambers in Madison wanted little of their deliberations to be held in public.

When the Republicans were in power in Madison, the Democrats howled loudly about how the G.O.P. had been behind closed doors when debating a stressed budget. Now that the Dems are in power, seems like what we have is the flip side of the same coin. Session after session was held behind closed doors. Then surprise....we have a budget!

Something similar happened recently when the DNR came forward with revisions to years-long and hotly debated shoreland protection rules. The process started seven years ago and had generated at least 50,000 comments, but the agency chose to announce the changes to the 40-year-old rules just north of Madison with little public notice.

There are more than 2,000 lakes in Oneida and Vilas counties, but a good deal of the opposition to the changes also came from here. So after the quick announcement,  it went to the Natural Resources Board two weeks later.

Seems the tactic is, if it's controversial, keep it under wraps, spring it, then run for cover.

This is the "Wisconsin Way"?

What is so incredibly irksome is, none of this has to be behind closed doors. In a democracy you want everyone to be aware, don't you? Even if there's opposition to public policy, talking behind closed doors, then suddenly launching the decision smacks of, well, Illinois politics.

John Dillinger would have been proud. It's the same tactic you use, apparently, when robbing a bank. Plan everything behind closed doors with your pals, get yourself ready, spring the heist, then run.

A friend who wanted to run for mayor in a Wisconsin city campaigned on the idea of no closed meetings, period. You can see some exceptions – like a physical ailment that is hurting job performance – but why should there be closed meetings for salary and benefits discussions? Sure it's the law, but it's a law designed to save the negotiators embarrassment and little else.

Up here where the air is relatively fresh the debate in Madison smelled of really bad politics. Our local officials would be fined, big time, for doing their budget deliberations the way the Wisconsin legislature mowed through the deeply-in-debt state budget deliberations.

Then you look through the law, and guess what? When the legislature established the newest version of the open meetings law, THEY EXEMPTED THEMSELVES FROM IT! So the local public official sits nervously concerned over whether a local meeting is legal, and the folks who made the law apparently couldn't care less about their own meetings!

Assembly Bill 143 seeks to end this "do as I say, not as I do" practice.  It would rescind the Legislature’s special exemption from Wisconsin’s open meetings law. The proposal would allegedly prevent groups of Democrats and Republicans in each chamber from meeting in secret as partisan groups, often when a majority of senators or representatives are present.

But guess what? Before I went on vacation, I heard there was opposition to it!

Public enemies might be in the form of a gangster like Dillinger (viewed by many at the time as “sticking it” to the banks and the big shots) or maybe in the form of someone with a suit and a smile who votes to use your money without necessarily letting you have much input about it.

Someone once said Americans get the government they deserve. Need I say more?