South Dakota Politics

South Dakota Budget

Two news stories today cover Gov. Rounds' budget message scheduled for tomorrow.  This story discusses the vagaries of revenue and how it might effect the up coming legislative session. 

Demands on the treasury will be huge, and a recent report shows revenue somewhat above last year but well below what lawmakers projected when they finalized the current budget last March."It's all about money, where it comes from and where it's needed most," said Rep. Jim Putnam, R-Armour, a long-term member of the Joint Appropriations Committee. "We never have enough for everything."

The report goes on to say that many revenue streams are up from last year, but not as much as anticipated last year by the legislature. 

Meanwhile, Democrats in the state are unsurprisingly asking for a major increase in education funding. 

Senate Democratic Leader Scott Heidepriem of Sioux Falls says he hopes Republican Gov. Mike Rounds' budget proposal will boost state financial aid to school districts and limit spending increases in the rest of state government.

In recent years, increases in overall state spending have exceeded the growth in state spending on education, Heidepriem said. He said he hopes Rounds reverses that when he presents his budget proposal to the Legislature on Tuesday.

"I'm hoping we'll have a budget that returns to common sense," Heidepriem said.

However, House Republican Leader Larry Rhoden of Union Center said the governor and GOP majorities in the House and Senate have been prudent in writing state budgets. Overall state spending has increased in recent years partly because the federal government has made the state pay a larger share of Medicaid, the state-federal program that pays the medical expenses of low-income people, he said.

Leader Rhoden concludes:

But Rhoden called the Democratic plan irresponsible. If more earnings are spent each year, the funds will not keep pace with inflation, he said.

If too much is spent from the trust funds each year, the funds eventually will be gone, the Republican House leader said. That would mean the only way to fund ongoing spending would be to raise taxes, he said.

Rep. Rhoden perhaps should be reminded that South Dakota has the lowest tax burden in the nation.

Being Mitt Romney

Mitt Romney will apparently give a major speech tomorrow about the role of faith in American politics.  This is widely seen as Romney's attempt to deal with the "Mormon issue."  Joe Knippenberg has some comments and links to the relevant news articles.  I am not a Romney supporter for reasons other than his faith.  But one can say this: if the nation can survive the heterodox Abraham Lincoln, it can certainly survive Mitt Romney. 

That Lauck Review

As Jason notes, the Brent Lerseth review is finally in at the Argus of Jon Lauck's Daschle v. Thune.  The review is largely positive.  If one were to review the review, one might criticize it for dwelling too much on the context of Lauck's book (Lauck's campaign blogging, his critiques of the Argus, his current job as a Thune staffer) rather than analyzing the actual content of the book.   

Prof. Newquist is not as pleased with the review.  Of course, it is unlikely that Newquist would approve of any review that didn't trash the book and discuss the degradation to American civilization caused the the scurrilousness of Lauck's Orwellian fascism.  Lauck's book has two major themes.  One, why did Tom Daschle lose his re-election race?  To that end the book dwells more on Daschle's missteps than on anything Thune did.  Newquist will never except acccept this analysis as reasonable as he is convinced that Thune won only because of lies and deception.  The book also is concerned about the compromised coverage Argus Leader.  Lerseth is correct that Lauck could have spent more time discussing other media outlets in South Dakota, particularly the television coverage coming out of Sioux Falls. But one cannot deny the power of the Argus to drive news stories for the entire state.  Thus Lauck's focus on the Argus is reasonable.  Given Lauck's status as a former blogger, it is not surprising that he uses the conflict between "new media" and "old media" as part of his story line. 

One can argue that Lauck's own biases effected these editorial decisions to focus on Daschle's mistakes and the conflict over the Argus.   But within that context Lauck's book is a reasonable analysis of the Daschle v. Thune race.  Read Lauck's book.

Argus Leader Finally Reviews Daschle V. Thune

The Argus Leader has finally printed their review of Jon Lauck's Daschle V. Thune.  The review is quite good, and goes in to depth on Lauck's thesis that the Argus gave the Daschle campaign an easy time and the bloggers contributed to his defeat by offering other points of view.  The author concludes:

Overall, Lauck’s book provides a worthwhile discussion of the 2004 race, the role of local media and the importance of alternative media sources. While his partisanship has to be considered as part of any evaluation of his depiction of events, he does raise valid concerns about the need to critically evaluate traditional media on similar grounds.

Be sure to give it a read.

More News from Iraq

Every time I see a report on the recent progress in Iraq, I am tempted to hold my breath.  There have been lots of disappointments in this war, and we may be only setting ourselves up for more.  On the other hand, it is a kind of psychological dysfunction to ignore good news because the future is still uncertain.

The news from Iraq is in fact extraordinarily good.  Here is Michael Totten from the New York Daily News: 

In the spring of 2007, Ramadi was the most violent place in Iraq. But the insurgency there has been finished. The Taji area north of Baghdad, which was a catastrophe when I paid a visit in July, is now going the way of Ramadi.

I am writing these words from Fallujah, site of the most horrific battle of the entire war in November 2004, and the city thought to be the meanest in Iraq since at least the time of the British in Mesopotamia.

Almost everyone I know back home was sure I'd be shot at every day, that it's still a war zone out here. Based on the news reports - even the new, optimistic ones, could you blame them for thinking that?

But attacks against coalition forces in Fallujah are down by more than 90% since March of this year. Almost all attacks these days are single, ineffective pot shots rather than the lethal IEDs of last year.

There hasn't been a single firefight in this city for months. The Marines at Camp Fallujah haven't been shot at with a rocket or mortar since April. Not one Marine from the 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment has even been wounded since they rotated into the city two months ago. The only shots the Marines have fired have been practice rounds on the range.

None of this means that the war was the right decision in the first place, nor does it tell you what we should do next.  But it would be stupid to try to answer the second question without recognizing how things are going now.  That is especially true if you are interested in bringing American troops home as soon as possible, as Democrats claim they want to do.

There are only 250 Marines in Fallujah, a city of about 350,000, right now. Last year, there were 3,000 Marines. Because the city is pacified, troops that were here can join the additional surge forces that are clearing and holding more volatile areas.

Surely the quickest as most sensible way to withdraw American troops is to do as they are no longer necessary to keep the peace.  And if that is in fact happening right now, wouldn't you want to celebrate it?   

Let Xerox Help You Thank a Soldier

Take the time to visit this website that, with the help of Xerox, is sending cards to our soldiers in Iraq.  After doing some quick googling, it appears to be legit.  I've sent my own card already, and everything seemed to work fine.  Regardless of your views on the conflict, do this for our soldiers.  There's no cost to you, and it's a service they'll no doubt appreciate.

Some Shots of Snow In Aberdeen

Looking south, down Jay St., toward Northern. 

Looking South from access road next to Target. 

Republicans are Saner than Democrats

Or at least they think they are.  This from Gallop:

Republicans are significantly more likely than Democrats or independents to rate their mental health as excellent, according to data from the last four November Gallup Health and Healthcare polls. Fifty-eight percent of Republicans report having excellent mental health, compared to 43% of independents and 38% of Democrats. This relationship between party identification and reports of excellent mental health persists even within categories of income, age, gender, church attendance, and education.

I don't give much credit to this sort of thing, but after all the "Conservatives are fascists says New Study!" articles that have come out lately, it's nice to have some balance.

For That Someone Special This Holiday Season

Buy it here.

Late Debate Analysis

David Innes argues that John McCain won the You Tube Republican debate from this past week.  Is reasons are thus:

If the winner of this sort of event in the one who came across most consistently and convincingly as a president for our times, then John McCain was the clear winner. Since 2000, I have not trusted him, but last night he commanded my respect. On every question, he was tough, honest and seasoned with experience. Straight talk is what he gave us, and there was no sense at any point that he was posing, i.e. adopting a rehearsed posture.

The "rehearsed posture" is exactly what the usual debate format encourages.  Indeed, it is doubtful that we can rightly call these "debates" as really what they are as candidates repeating well rehearsed sound bites.  What Innes detects in this debate is exactly what is most attractive about McCain: the distinct impression that he is not playing you at every turn with words given to him by campaign strategists.  That separates him from most of the candidates of either party, and certainly from all of the so-called "major" candidates. 

My Comments on Senator Johnson

From time to time I get a call from Dave Kranz, veteran reporter at the Argus Leader. I enjoy my conversations with Dave, and I am glad to be of service.  But it does carry some risks. 

A few days ago Dave called me to discuss the challenges facing state Republicans who might want to run a viable candidate against Tim Johnson next fall.   Some of what I said appeared in his column on the 26th.  I am confident that he quoted me accurately and I have no complaint, but I was speaking without preparation and without a chance to review the transcript.  As a result, my comments are not as eloquent as I would like. 

As it happens, some of my comments were picked up by the Associated Press and they appeared in this morning's American News.  Here is the juicy quote:

It is not that they [Republicans] can't get a strong candidate, but it is hard for them even to begin a campaign to unseat the incumbent you have to attack...  How you attack someone like Johnson under the circumstances is like attacking a cripple." 

Oh boy.  I used the "C" word.  That is very politically incorrect.  I received a scathing e-mail after the original piece was published in the Argus Leader.  I was admonished to "purge" the word from my vocabulary,on account of all the negative connotations for people with disabilities. I have a few words to say in my defense.

First, I was not using the word cripple to refer to any person with disabilities. I was using it precisely to refer to a stereotype.  Tim Johnson's recent health problems do constitute a de facto disadvantage for any Republican challengers.  The word in that context was clearly the right word, if one is concerned with vigorous English.

Second, it is hard to avoid word with negative connotations.  My e-mail interlocutor used the word purge, a word with obvious totalitarian associations. A lot of governments in the last century purged language, institutions, and people whenever the latter did not fit with the party line.  It was nonetheless the right word, if the writer wants to clearly state his or her position.

Third, the attempt to purge prejudice by purging language is a losing battle.  The word cripple is connected to the word creep.  Both words originally meant a simple physical disability, which is to say, the inability to walk.   But it is way of language for simple strong words to become metaphors, and this word became a metaphor for any type of dysfunction.  A weak government or army is crippled.  A person with a deficient character is a creep.    For that reason, those who represent persons with disabilities sought substitute words without such connotations.  I remember in kindergarten how Miss Burgess patiently explained that we should use the word handicapped to refer to someone in a wheel chair.  But that word didn't last long either.  Nor did the term challenged do better.  No doubt disabilities will follow the same career. 

What the movement for people with disabilities really wants is to convince us that persons with disabilities are not really disabled.  All of us suffer the loss of some functions over time.  I now have to wear bifocals.  But with every loss of function, the human brain builds new pathways and discovers new ways of engaging the world.  As a practitioner of Zen Buddhism, I am sure this is true.  But it is not an easy truth to grasp.  I doubt that purging the language of bad words does much to help us see it.