I told you so.

The Tribune editorial board can never resist an opportunity to say "I told you so," and this morning's editorial is no exception.

The column addresses the fact that spending on lobbyists was up roughly 47% over the previous session. The Tribune offers two reasons for this.

First, they say that there were "weighty issues" on the table. Second, and here is the "I told you so," they argue that, "as was predicted," term limits have increased the power of lobbyists.

Well, I don't know about that. Couldn't one argue that the increased spending indicates that the power of lobbyists actually decreased on a per capita basis since presumably each client had to spend more to get his or her point across? I don't think common logic dictates that increased spending on lobbyists necessarily means that term limits failed.

But they had to say "I told you so."

Plus, they ignore the elephant in the room. I would suggest, while freely admitting I have no specific research to support my suggestion, that the increased spending on lobbyists is a direct result of our ever growing, ever more intrusive state government. For you see, it is only when government's action will impact you in some way that you will spend your hard earned dollars to avoid the impact. Less government = less impact = less lobbying. More government = more intrusion = more lobbying.

I told you so.