South Dakota Politics

The Wrong Prescription for Drug Prices

I stole that headline directly from the Washington Post.  I was too lazy to come up with one that good on my own.  Here is the gist of the story. 

HOUSE Democrats delivered on a campaign promise yesterday, passing a bill that would require the government to negotiate the price of pharmaceuticals covered by the new Medicare drug benefit. The idea is that government negotiators could force prices down, generating savings that could be used to make the benefit more generous. But the measure is misguided.

The Democrats point to the Department of Veterans Affairs, which manages to negotiate discounts for the drugs covered in the veterans' health program. But the department can do this because it is free to deny coverage for drugs whose makers refuse to provide discounts: Fully 3,000 of the 4,300 medicines covered by Medicare are unavailable under the veterans' program. Restricting the list of covered drugs saves money, but it also reduces the quality of the benefit -- 1.5 million veterans are sufficiently unhappy with the result that they opt to buy the more inclusive Medicare coverage.

I continue to think that the Washington Post is one of the best newspapers in the nation.  It is liberal and Democratic to its marrow, to be sure; but it displays a lot of independent and clear-headed thinking.  The economics of this issue are not difficult.  Medicare is such a large player that it won't be negotiating prices, it will be setting prices.  Price controls always limit the supply and quality of whatever is being regulated.  Pat Cleary at the National Association of Manufacturers has this:

At core, this debate is about whether lawmakers put their trust in the market or the government. This year alone, premiums for the drug benefit under Medicare Part B are 40% lower than originally expected as drug makers compete for their share of the market.

But in fact the Democrats themselves realize that this is a bad idea.  Again from the WaPo:

Recognizing that narrow formularies are unpopular, the Democratic plan does not permit Medicare to establish one. But if drugmakers know that Medicare must buy their pills, why would they grant a discount? The Congressional Budget Office estimated this week that savings from direct negotiation would be "negligible."

If I get this right, it means that the Democrats aren't really doing anything at all.  Maybe we were right to put them in charge of Congress! 

The United States has the most productive pharmacy in the world, due to the competitive market we have maintained.  The WaPo realizes that there is no alternative to this market for producing the best drugs fastest at the best prices. 

Not only are the Democrats too optimistic about government negotiation; they are also too pessimistic about the current system in which private insurers administering Medicare drug benefits do the price bargaining. These private insurers stand to profit if they can secure discounts and cut premiums and thus attract more customers: Witness the fact that the average monthly premium has fallen since the program began a year ago. Private insurers can do this precisely because they are free to establish formularies, but market discipline ensures that these lists are not unappealingly narrow. The insurers need to keep customers.

The Democrats' stance is troubling because it suggests an excessively government-led view of health-care reform. One of the key challenges in health policy is to understand which drugs, tests and therapies are most cost-effective; although it will take government pressure on doctors and hospitals to disclose the information necessary to figure out what works, solutions are most likely to be found by competing private entities. In drugs, for example, there needs to be a culture of paying handsomely for new ones that really do add value -- and refusing to pay for pseudo-new drugs that merely mimic cheap generics. Striking the right balance is not easy, and it won't be accomplished by government fiat. The better approach is to let each insurer offer its own version of the right balance, see whether it attracts customers -- and then adapt flexibly.

Responsible Disclaimer: I should note that after my father personally defeated the Japanese Navy, he spent the rest of his productive life working for Merck Inc.  Growing up in a house filled with note pads, pens, and plastic models of human bones and organs (which came in handy at Halloween), all of them sporting the name of some new drug (my brother and I had a generic name for this: mexatoxaloxafloxin), I was inoculated early on against any prejudice towards big drug companies. 

Marriage: That Blessed Arrangement

Ken Blanchard's post supporting HPV vaccination makes an argument for monogamy as a buttress to public health.  My post supporting vaccination mentioned Mr. William Shakespeare.  It turns out Shakespeare agrees with Ken Blanchard (or visa versa).  To wit: Measure For Measure. In this play, the town of Vienna is plagued with promiscuity and, consequently, venereal disease.  To make a medium length story short, The Duke of Vienna's solution to this problem is marriage.  Channeling human sexual desire into marriage (which I agree is somewhat distinct from monogamy) strengthens the social order by giving this strong impulse an outlet in an institution that both fulfills and tames passion. 

Let me give a ringing endorsement to Kay Hymowitz's new book on marriage, entitled Marriage and Caste in America.  Hymowitz marshals copious statistical evidence that marriage is the greatest anti-poverty program we have, and does so in a very readable book.  She argues that upper and middle-class people essentially by into "the script": school, work, love, marriage, kids--in that order.  Lower economic classes, as a rule, and often with the encouragement of elites/academics, do not buy into this script, much to their detriment.  Again, Hymowitz provides strong evidence that divorce/single motherhood is economically and educationally disastrous for women and children.  There is nothing like growing up in a stable home headed by two married biological parents to give a child a head start on success. 

This has implications for Gov. Rounds's plan to provide more money for preschool.  Gov. Rounds mentions that 85% of brain structure develops by age five.  Hymowitz shows how married parents devote more time and make better use of their time to talking to their children, reading to them, disciplining them, asking them questions, in short, getting children to think about their world and their behavior.  For example, the average number of words a day a child hears in his first years of life are far higher in homes with married parents than in single parent homes.  Of course we all know exceptions, but this is the rule: children are far better off growing up with two biological parents who are married.  I submit that the problem we have is seldom that five-year-olds have spent insufficient time in school.  If there is a problem, it is that they have spent insufficient time with their parents.  I do not take issue with providing more money for preschool, but I suggest we resist the idea that preschool should be mandatory or that programs provided by the state can replicate a job better done by parents.

Taxes Cut, Revenues Up, Deficit Down

A few days ago I mentioned that federal revenues were at record levels even after Congress and the president cut taxes.  Yesterday's news confirms this.  Deficit numbers for the first three months of the fiscal year are projecting the lowest deficit in four years while revenues are up 8.2% over last fiscal year at this time.  The key to reducing the deficit is holding the line on spending while allowing the economy to grow, which will inevitably flood the public coffers. Raising taxes on the most productive parts of our economy is bad policy.  If anything, Democrats and Republicans should come together to renew the 1986 reform which actually cut rates while eliminating scores of tax loop holes.  The tax reform we need involves simplification, not monkeying with marginal rates. 

All HPV All The Time!

Governor Rounds's announcement that he would make the HPV vaccine available to all South Dakota women between the ages of 11 and 18 has earned the rousing support of the regional blogosphere.  South Dakota War College supports it, as does S.D. Watch.  My SDP colleagues have jumped on board.  The vaccine would guard against a venereal virus that causes cervical cancer.  Am I the only one who considers the fate of this poor virus?  When did we become such an unforgiving nation?  Pardon me, but the cheeky and irreverent satirist in me briefly got control of the central processor.  We here at Brain Blanchard have him back under lock and key. 

Some genuine dissenters have weighed in on the War College site, though it is difficult to tell how many there are as they post anonymously and under pseudonyms.  Their argument is that the vaccine will promote sexual promiscuity by removing one of its inconveniences.  Like my colleagues, I find this argument difficult to take seriously.  It gets the cart before the horse.  We are right to try to discourage promiscuity because of its bad consequences; it would be asinine to preserve bad consequences in order to discourage it. 

I agree with Professor Schaff that physical health is not the most important aim of sexual morality.  A good example of this is the almost universal taboos against incest.  There are two reasons why incest is held to be a sin and crime in all cultures.  One is that it is, biologically speaking, bad for business.  Another is that perverts the natural familial relationship: instead of nurturing their offspring, incest-minded parents exploit them.  The latter reason is much more important than the first.  Classical Greek drama explored the ways in which incest destroys the family and therefore civilization itself.

But the biological arguments for moral restrictions on promiscuity are sufficient on their own.  Human beings live in much larger communities than evolution designed us for, and those communities are promiscuously interconnected.  This makes the conditions for all historical epidemics.  As an example, the AIDS epidemic among male homosexuals in developed nations, and in African nations where males frequently move from one family to another in a game of musical chairs, show why promiscuity is a bad idea.  Monogamy has a lot to recommend it.  One important thing is its role as a firewall against venereal infection. 

Religion and social sanction can discourage promiscuity.  Fear of eventual cervical cancer surely does not.  The Governor's proposal is a sensible way to take care of our sisters and wives and daughters.  The unanimous support he has received from the regional blogosphere suggests that the dissenters are fringe group at the very worst. 

Dog Pile On HPV

OK, count me in.  I find it hard to believe that this HPV issue is even a question.  The pro-abstinence folks who worry that a vaccine that helps prevent cervical cancer will promote promiscuity fall into the trap of speaking about sexuality as if the only inhibitions we should have involve our physical health.  I am less concerned about the damage teenage sex does to young people's bodies (although I am concerned) as I am about what it does to their souls.  I don't mean souls in a religious sense (although that may be true, too), but soul in the ancient sense of psyche in the Greek meaning, roughly, the essence, mind, or "being" of a person.  Sexuality is an important part of who we are as human beings, and to treat it as a play thing for mere pleasure with physical safety and consent as our only inhibitions is to dehumanize sexuality.  As Allan Bloom reminds us in the introduction to this book, politics begins with the fulfillment of mere life, but has as its end the good life.  So to with sex.  It's beginning is with the need to propagate the species, but its end is love (or eros, the longing of the soul to be complete with an other).  As Bloom writes, “Animals have sex, humans have eros. Coupling begins in sexual desire, but has as its end love.”  Any discussion of sexuality that doesn't make that distinction is an incomplete discussion. 

By the way, I see that they have taken Bloom's essays on Shakespeare that originally appear in Love and Friendship and have published them as a separate book.     I can highly recommend these essays, although the book Love and Friendship, unfortunately out of print and only available used, contains further essays on Austen, Stendhal, Tolstoy, Rousseau and Plato's Symposium. In addition, the introduction to Love and Friendship, an essay called "The Fall of Eros," is one of the finest and most moving essays I have ever read. Also available again is Bloom's Shakespeare's Politics, which includes an essay or two by Harry Jaffa.

HPV Vaccine

There's a rather heated debate going on at Pat Power's South Dakota War College blog about the new HPV vaccine proposal.  Governor Rounds has announced he would like to make the vaccine available to all South Dakota women between the ages of 11 and 18.  Mr. Powers is supporting the use of the vaccine and some of his more socially conservative readers are bashing him for it.

The opponents of the governor's plan say immunizing teenagers may encourage sexual activity and, thus, oppose making the shots mandatory.  But I'm with Powers on this one; arguing that immunizing against cervical cancer is the same as condoning sexual activity before marriage is absurd.  Todd Epp and Greg Belfrage also weigh in.

Johnson Improving

The Argus Leader reports today that Senator Johnson's condition continues to improve.  Also, Todd Epp has this great news:

A very well-placed, knowledgeable and reliable Democratic source of mine (who I know extremely well) who prefers to remain anonymous tells me to expect to see Sen. Tim Johnson physically back in “campaign form” well in advance of the 2008 election.

This is excellent news, whether Tim runs for re-election or not.  In the meantime, keep those hopes, prayers, and cards coming for Tim!

Indeed, the hopes and prayers continue for Senator Johnson.

Top Blog Stories of 2006

The Beltway Blogroll has put together the top blog stories of 2006.

Dems Choose Denver

Democrats, in an effort to improve their Western credentials, have chosen Denver as the site of their 2008 national convention.  New York Times excerpt:

The Democratic Party chose Denver over New York on Thursday as the site for its next national convention, capping months of debate about which city had better logistics, deeper pockets and a more compelling backdrop to frame the party’s message.

“If we’re going to have a national party, we’re going to have to have Westerners vote for us on a consistent basis,” the Democratic national chairman, Howard Dean, said in a telephone news conference. “At the end of the day,” Mr. Dean added, “that’s what tipped it to Denver.”

Denver economic development officials said that by one important measure, the convention, to be held Aug. 25-28, 2008, would be the biggest gathering in the city’s history, with 35,000 people spending hundreds of millions of dollars on food, drink and places to sleep.

No national political convention has been held in Denver in nearly a century, since Democrats gathered here in 1908 and bestowed their presidential nomination on William Jennings Bryan, who went on to lose the election to William Howard Taft. But Western Democrats — led by Senator Ken Salazar of Colorado, Mayor John W. Hickenlooper of Denver and the new Senate majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada — argued throughout their party’s selection process that the shifting demographics of the region, where Democrats have made big gains, was a strong suit in Denver’s bid.

Clinton Slipping in the Polls

The Washington Times reports that Sen. Hillary Clinton is slipping in the polls next to populists John Edwards and Barack Obama.  Excerpt:

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's popularity in Democratic presidential-preference polls has fallen in the nation's first caucus and primary states in the face of increasing support for her chief rivals for the 2008 nomination.

Pollsters said her weaknesses in Iowa and New Hampshire were the result of the growing popularity of two major opponents -- former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards and Illinois Sen. Barack Obama -- and their populist economic messages, as well as a deepening antipathy toward her among Democratic-leaning independents who dislike her support for the war in Iraq and who question her electability.

"I think Hillary strikes these voters the same way Senator John Kerry did in 2004. They would really like to vote for someone they really like this time. Hillary doesn't fit that characterization right now," said pollster Del Ali of Research 2000, who conducted polls in both Iowa and New Hampshire.

His findings mirror more recent polling showing a similar national decline in support. "There's been erosion," said pollster John Zogby. "She's polling in the low- to mid-40s nationally."

The New York Democrat, who has been her party's clear front-runner, came in a distant fourth in an Iowa presidential poll of 600 likely voters conducted Dec. 18 to 20, drawing 10 percent in a crowded field of contenders. Mr. Edwards, the Democrats' 2004 vice-presidential nominee, and Mr. Obama were tied in first place with 22 percent each, followed by outgoing Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack with 12 percent.

Boxer's Low Blow

Excerpt from the New York Post:

Democratic Sen. Barbara Boxer, an appalling scold from California, wasted no time yesterday in dragging the debate over Iraq about as low as it can go - attacking Secre tary of State Condoleezza Rice for being a childless woman.

Boxer was wholly in character for her party - New York's own two Democratic senators, Chuck Schumer and Hillary Rodham Clinton, were predictably opportunistic - but the Golden State lawmaker earned special attention for the tasteless jibes she aimed at Rice.

Rice appeared before the Senate in defense of President Bush's tactical change in Iraq, and quickly encountered Boxer.

"Who pays the price? I'm not going to pay a personal price," Boxer said. "My kids are too old, and my grandchild is too young."

Then, to Rice: "You're not going to pay a particular price, as I understand it, with an immediate family."

Breathtaking.

Simply breathtaking.

Read the rest.

Thoughts and Questions on the Surge

The President has provided a comprehensive plan that covers the major areas that needed addressing: military, political, and economic.  I still have concerns about the dedication of the Maliki government to tackle Sadr and the Shia militias and whether or not Syria and Iran will be dealt with in a meaningful way.  I also wonder if we're doing enough with the increase in troops.  An additional 17,500 troops in Baghdad will help secure that area, but what about the Anbar province, where it seems we can only expect an additional 4,000 Marines?  Anbar is an al Qaeda stronghold, and we cannot afford to overlook that.  I have every faith in our military to carry out their tasks.  Our success or failure depends on the will of our political leaders and the nation, and the will of the Iraqi people and their political leaders.

Echoing Andrew Cochran, there are a couple questions I have yet concerning Iraq that the President did not answer last night, and I thought I'd toss these out and let you debate amongst yourselves.  First, how does this strategy, or any other, cut off funding to the insurgency?  The Iraq Study Group reported:

Funding for the Sunni insurgency comes from private individuals within Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States, even as those governments help facilitate U.S. military operations in Iraq by providing basing and overflight rights and by cooperating on intelligence issues. (p. 29) 

The New York Times also reported, on November 26, that the insurgency is "financially self-sustaining, raising tens of millions of dollars a year from oil smuggling, kidnapping, counterfeiting, connivance by corrupt Islamic charities and other crimes that the Iraqi government and its U.S. patrons have been largely unable to prevent."  The report estimated that insurgencies were "raising $70 million to $200 million a year from illegal activities."  Another story in the Chicago Sun-Times from December also examined the funding of the insurgency.  The increase in troops will help, but unless we can cut off this funding the insurgents can fight for as long as they wish.

The second problem is the high number of Iraqis that are leaving the country, particularly their middle class.  The UN reports that nearly 100,000 Iraqis are fleeing the country every month.  This is a problem because it means a large segment of this generation of Iraqis will not be around, and it's this generation that Iraqi democrats will grow from.  This tells me that the Iraqis have a lack of confidence in their country's future, which is particularly troublesome considering that their economy is doing so well.  I can't help but wonder: If they have no faith in the future of Iraq, is my faith for the future of Iraq misplaced?

Question two probably can be answered by the troop increase.  If the violence in Iraq is curbed, then perhaps the flow of Iraqis will drop.  But the concerns about the funding of the insurgency remains an issue we still must resolve.

Given the current situation in Iraq, are there better alternatives to what the President has now laid out?  Probably not.  As the Times of London wrote:

In reality, there is no credible alternative. The Iraq Study Group proved rather better at setting out the many problems that exist in Iraq than in offering precise solutions. Its recommendation that the White House co-opt Iran and Syria as its allies in Iraq does not look remotely plausible. The idea that suddenly withdrawing American soldiers from the country would convince Shia and Sunni hardliners to be more charitable to one another is equally improbable. Mr Bush’s domestic foes, notably Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives (who has a minimal record in foreign policy) and the increasingly surreal Edward Kennedy, would simply abandon Iraq and be done with it.  This is not a course that the United States can afford to take.

If a better alternative exists, I have yet to hear about it.  Besides, this is the way we should have fought this war three years ago.  We still have some areas that need addressing, but I think we're on the right track.

UPDATE:  More thoughts from Austin Bay.

UPDATE II:  Also read the questions TigerHawk asks.

Could It Work?

Mackubin Thomas Owens on how the "surge" might work out. 

Mugged By Reality...Not!

Joe K. has an interesting story of a British academic who had an unfortunate run-in with the Atlanta police, and then feels the need to draw comparisons to international relations.  The lesson: don't jay walk in Hot-lanta. 

Johnson Update

The Senator is out of intensive care.  Here is Ken Rudin of NPR on the 2008 Senate elections (HT Peter Schramm).

SOUTH DAKOTA – Tim Johnson (D): First things first: Let's hope for a full recovery. If he is unable to seek re-election, Rep. Stephanie Herseth would be the likely Democratic replacement. With or without Johnson in the race, Gov. Mike Rounds is the expected GOP nominee. In 2002, Johnson squeaked by John Thune (R), now the state's junior senator, by just 524 votes.

Political Quizzes, Take...Whatever

Bob Ellis at Dakota Voice took the quizzes.  See his reactions here and here.  Reader Doug B. took that first test and scored a 3.75 on economics and 0.15 on social controls (conservative, leaning libertarian).  Gene K. scores a 2.75 economic and -1.74 on social.  That's essentially libertarian.  I took the quiz Jason mentioned, and again found myself conservative, leaning towards moderation/libertarian.

Plenty Of Sutton

The fact that the Supreme Court quickly decided to hear the Sutton case does not bode well for the lower court's decision.  After discussing this issue with someone in the legal profession last night I am even more sure than I was that Sutton is taking the wrong course.  I rather doubt that the Supreme Court is going to interfere with the legislature's right to police itself (see Lawyer Epp).  It is well established that we remove people from office for behavior that falls short of a crime, or for which there is not enough evidence to actually convict in a court of law.  For example, Alcee Hastingts was impeached and removed as a federal judge, even though he was never indicted for any wrong doing.  Mark Foley resigned, but does anyone doubt that he could have been (or should have been) expelled for his misadventures?  What is at stake in these situations is not whether there is criminal wrong doing, but whether the honor of the office has been disgraced.  That is a political standard, not a legal one, and the courts should, and I think will, defer to the political body. 

The fact that Sutton is attempting to hold on to his seat with legalisms rather than by fighting the charges directly is damning.  For the sake of his own honor and that of the South Dakota Legislature, Dan Sutton should simply resign. 

Local color, or lack thereof

Below is a view from the third floor of Northern State University's new edition.  This is roughly what you see, standing at the door of my new office. I find it beautiful, in its somber, winter way.

Here is a view of the courtyard that has been enclosed by the new edition. 

I would much rather have had some grass in there, but all in all its not a bad design. 

The Democratic Position on the Surge

They are all for it!  Or at least they were until President Bush proposed it.  Here is evidence, from the Wall Street Journal editorial for Thursday:

[F]ormer House minority leader, now Speaker Nancy Pelosi, citing General Shinseki in May 2004, on "Meet the Press": "What I'm saying to you, [is] that we need more troops on the ground." Thus, too, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, just four weeks ago: "If it's for a surge--that is, for two or three months--and it's part of a program to get us out of there as indicated by this time next year, then, sure, I'll go along with it."

Lately the Democrats have been singing from a different hymnal. In a letter Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi sent the President last week, they write: "Surging forces is a strategy that you have already tried and that has already failed. . . . Adding more combat troops will endanger more Americans and stretch our military capability to the breaking point for no strategic gain."

This supports my contention that the Democrats are virtually incapable of forming a position on the war, but it suggests more than that.  They seem to be uninterested in forming a position.  They simply say whatever they think will do the most damage to Bush. 

Our good friend Todd Epp has this:

How can the United States call itself a democracy when a overwhelming majority of Americans oppose the war, a majority of the U.S. House and Senate oppose the war, and even most of the President’s own party and base oppose the war?  I thought we were a representative democracy?  And even our representatives, as well as the people, oppose this war.

As Todd correctly observes, we are not in fact a Democracy.  If we were, the people would simply get whatever they want when they want it, without bothering with such inconveniences as the Bill of Rights or the Separation of Powers.  We are a Republic, where the popular will is expressed through a system of institutions including checks and balances.  And the President is as much a representative of the people as is Congress. 

I vehemently disagree with Todd's statement that Bush stole the 2000 election.  That was a mess, to be certain, but both sides used the Courts to try to decide the election.  The Florida State Supreme Court sided with Gore.  The U.S. high court sided with Bush.  In such a contest, the latter wins.  Them's the rules, and if you win by them, you didn't steal anything.  And at any rate, Bush won fair and square in 2004.  The people made him commander in chief, of which we have only one.  Not 525, or millions. 

If you oppose the increase in troops, and/or want to pull out now, you have to consider the consequences.  The London Times does that. 

In reality, there is no credible alternative. The Iraq Study Group proved rather better at setting out the many problems that exist in Iraq than in offering precise solutions. Its recommendation that the White House co-opt Iran and Syria as its allies in Iraq does not look remotely plausible. The idea that suddenly withdrawing American soldiers from the country would convince Shia and Sunni hardliners to be more charitable to one another is equally improbable. Mr Bush’s domestic foes, notably Nancy Pelosi, the new Democratic Speaker of the House of Representatives (who has a minimal record in foreign policy) and the increasingly surreal Edward Kennedy, would simply abandon Iraq and be done with it.  This is not a course that the United States can afford to take.

Dr. B. Takes the Test.

Intrepid and frequent reader Cassey McEnelly took Professor Schaff's second political quiz, with these results:

It said I was a Libertarian-Conservative. Of the Supreme Court members I most closely matched Stephen Breyer and William Rehnquist. I’m not sure how exactly that is possible, but I only matched 33% to each. Most disturbingly, of the House Incumbents I most closely matched Mark Foley at 65%. I feel dirty.

--Casey McEnelly, Falls Church, VA, SDSU ‘98

I took it myself, and the computer identified me as a "populist-leaning conservative."  I think that's well off the mark.  I am a libertarian-leaning conservative.  On the other hand, it did rank me with Supreme Court justices in pretty much the frequency that I agree with them: Thomas, Scalia, Rehnquist, all the way down to John Paul Stevens.  But how it could get Mr. McEnelly together with Rehnquist and Bryer is as much a mystery to me as to him.  I mark it off as a bad calculus. 

As for Professor Schaff's first quiz, it correctly identified me as a strong conservative with moderately libertarian leanings, rather like Milton Friedman.

Carter

Jimmy Carter is having more problems regarding his new book:

Fourteen members of an advisory board at the Carter Center resigned today, concluding they could "no longer in good conscience continue to serve" following publication of former President Jimmy Carter's controversial book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid."

"It seems that you have turned to a world of advocacy, including even malicious advocacy," the board members wrote in a letter, a copy of which was reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. "We can no longer endorse your strident and uncompromising position. This is not the Carter Center or Jimmy Carter we came to respect and support. Therefore it is with sadness and regret that we hereby tender our resignation from the Board of Councilors of the Carter Center effective immediately."

Sutton Update

Argus Leader:

The South Dakota Supreme Court will hear arguments about why a circuit court judge can’t stop the state Senate from investigating Sen. Dan Sutton, Attorney General Larry Long said late today.

The high court agreed to get involved after Long asked the justices to intervene. Yesterday a circuit court judge put a stop to Sutton’s disciplinary hearing and ordered Senate leaders to show up at the Moody County Courthouse Jan. 19 to explain why they have authority to conduct the hearing.

Sutton was accused last year of sexually groping a high school page during the last legislative session. He has denied any wrongdoing.

In two filings with the court today, Long argued that Judge David Gienapp doesn’t have the authority to stop the Senate from investigating Sutton. Sutton’s attorneys, on the other hand, argue that the Senate has no legal authority to expel a member who hasn’t been convicted of a crime.

Sutton’s disciplinary hearing was supposed to start Jan. 16. That will be delayed now.

The court is expected to gather arguments from the two parties and then make a ruling before next Friday, Long said.

For more information, see Friday’s Argus Leader.

Another Political Quiz

Here's another political quiz I came across yesterday (thanks to Prof. Bainbridge).  This one's different because not only does it gauge your political philosophy, but also allows you to compare your results to various candidates and political celebrities (and explains why if you follow the web links).  If you take the test, be sure to read the explanations for the questions (follow the links) to ensure you're voting the way the website understands it.

UPDATE:  When I took the aforementioned quiz, I (like Prof. Blanchard) scored as a populist-leaning conservative, which I found somewhat off the mark.  In the quiz Prof. Schaff linked to, I scored as a solid libertarian-leaning conservative, which seems about right.

Sutton's Legal Argument

Apparently Dan Sutton's lawyer is arguing that the South Dakota Constitution only allows for expulsion from the legislature for criminal conduct.  This is a reference, one assumes, to this section of the Constitution that says those with a criminal record are not qualified to be seated in the legislature. 

No person who has been, or hereafter shall be, convicted of bribery, perjury, or other infamous crime, nor any person who has been, or may be collector or holder of public moneys, who shall not have accounted for and paid over, according to law, all such moneys due from him, shall be eligible to the Legislature or to any office in either branch thereof.

On the other hand, Section 9 of Article III states:

Each house shall be the judge of the election returns and qualifications of its own members.

This could be read to mean that the Senate has the right to judge a member "unqualified" on whatever grounds it chooses, and I so read it.  Sutton seems to be arguing that even if he did what he is alleged to have done, the Senate has no power against him.  That does not place him in the strongest position.

Northwest To Acquire Mesaba

Northwest Airlines appears well on the way to puchasing Mesaba Airlines.  Hopefully this gives some stability to our regional air carriers. 

Another One Of Those Dang Ideology Tests

What is your political ideology?  Another test, via Jonathan Adler at Volokh.  Yes, some of the questions are silly (I am not sure it is "natural" for kids to keep secrets from their parents, but I know it is inevitable), and sometimes present false choices (it is bad to always question authority and bad to always accept it), but still, I find these little quizzes fun.  I took the test a couple times to change answers on the questions I was unsure about.  Between the two attempts, I scored roughly 3.8 on economics and roughly 3.1 on social questions.  In other words, my politics are slightly "authoritarian right," but approaching moderation. Take the test to see how you score.  I'd be interested in the results from the South Dakota blogosphere. 

Between Iraq and a Hard Place

The President's speech was good.  You can read it here, at the White House Site.  There is also a video link.  The President does have a clear strategy in mind: pacify Baghdad, and gradually expand the areas under control while making sure that the pacified areas stay pacified.  It probably means moving against the most dangerous militias.  It is one traditional, and frequently successful, counter-insurgency strategy.  The obvious question is why we waited three years to try it in earnest. 

It is possible that the grim political situation the President faces here at home will in fact make success more likely.  The Iraqi government has to know that they are in real danger of being left to protect themselves, and that is the kind of thing that concentrates the mind. 

It is possible that the Democrats will block the "surge", but I do not expect it. Bill Clinton had no Iraqi policy for most of his administration.  John Kerry couldn't come up with one during his Presidential campaign, nor could Nancy Pelosi get one when she convened her fellows for that precise purpose.  A vague notion of withdrawal sooner rather than later is as close as they came during the recent election.  Blocking the President now would mean giving up, and it's hard to see how they can do that without open debate on what that would mean. 

Moreover, the Democrats have something to gain whether the policy succeeds or fails.  If the latter, then the Republican Party is likely to suffer more erosion of support in the next election.  If the former, the next Democratic nominee will still have a lot to complain about without having an Iraq disaster to deal with in its first year in office. 

Speech Roundup

CORRECTION:  For whatever reason, I mistakenly referred to the President's speech as the State of the Union.  It has been corrected.  My apologies for the embarrassing blunder.

Jay Reding and Ed Morrissey live-blogged the President's speech.  Byron York comments: "Bush's words will lead to more pointed questions than ever before — especially the part about U.S. troops operating under 'too many restrictions.' Why did he allow that?"  Have we been engaged in "compassionate warmaking"?  John Hinderaker and Paul Mirengoff offer their thoughts on his speech.  Also see the milblog Mudville Gazette.  Jonah Goldberg reports that the surge has already begun.  Iraq the Model has a report from Baghdad.  Victor Davis Hanson comments: "After listening tonight to Wesley Clark, Dick Durbin, Tom Vilsack, Nancy Pelosi, etc. I still can't for the life of me learn what they want to do."  Some Democrats were for the surge before they were against it.  And now?  Some tough symbolic votes!

UPDATE:  I was going to wait until morning to write up my thoughts, but just give Prof. Blanchard's post above a read.  He has summed up what I was thinking more eloquently than I can at the moment.  "The obvious question is why we waited three years to try it in earnest."  Absolutely correct.  It's also good to see we're finally getting serious about Iran and Syria.

Permanent Energy Agriculture Assistance Act

It looks like Senator Thune is using his new chair in the Ag Committee to help South Dakota.  After an unfortunate drought season, legislation like this could be imperative.  I haven't researched this much, but here's a clip about a bill Senator Thune is sponsoring that could really help the agricultural industry and South Dakota:

South Dakota U.S. Senator John Thune has introduced the Permanent Emergency Agricultural Assistance Act, legislation that would authorize a permanent agriculture disaster program for the 2007 crop year and future crop years. The bill would cover agricultural producers in federally declared disaster counties and contiguous counties.

The Senate Ag Committee member said, as unfortunate as it is, drought has become a fifth season for tens of thousands of farmers and ranchers across the country. He said each year severe drought conditions threaten to take the life out of family farms and ranches, in turn delivering a major blow to rural state economies. Thune said what has become an annual disaster should not an annual gamble for America’s farmers and ranchers.

Here's the source: http://wfrv.com/ag/local_blogentry_010101638.html

Fazul Abdullah Mohammed

Associated Press: "The suspected al-Qaida militant who planned the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings in east Africa was killed in an American airstrike in Somalia, an official said Wednesday."

Bush Speech

President Bush will hit the airwaves tonight and explain his new strategy for Iraq:

President Bush spent hours Tuesday practicing in front of cameras, preparing to make his case for increasing the U.S. military commitment in Iraq in a prime-time address to the nation tonight, even as congressional Democrats readied legislation to block any increase in the number of troops.

Members of Congress who met with Bush said he appeared to understand that, after years of upbeat rhetoric and positive assessments that belied a lack of progress inside the country, his credibility was on the line.

"He told us what he planned to say tomorrow," said Rep. Jane Harman (D-Venice), one of about a dozen House members who met with the president and his top advisors for more than an hour Tuesday afternoon. "In terms of tough moments in his presidency, this is it."

. . .

In the White House meeting, Bush gave a rundown of the speech to House Democrats, who gave him a tepid response. Rep. Adam Smith (D-Wash.) said no lawmaker in his meeting supported the new policy. "We were more in a question-and-answer mode, but a fair amount of skepticism was voiced," Smith said.

"It was not a confrontational meeting," said Rep. Ellen O. Tauscher (D-Alamo), who said she emphasized the importance of the Iraqi government making political progress. "I think he understands that, at some level, this is the last best chance."

I can't say I'm completely convinced that a "surge" in troops is the right course of action, but I won't criticize the idea until we find out the details tonight.  If the mission is clearly outlined and the rules of engagement changed so our troops can accomplish those goals, then this might be a good plan.  This is the President's last chance to change strategy in Iraq in support of victory. 

Bold Suggestions On Iraq

Wise pieces coming from Robert Zelnick and Eliot Cohen and Bing West. Both, it seems, give tentative endorsement to "surging" troop levels, but also both pieces argue that Iraqi political will is at least as important as anything American troops are achieving. 

Words We Don't Want To Hear

Robert Samuelson thinks we are in denial over entitlement spending.  One thing is for sure, while "earmarks" and "pork barrel" spending might be bad, they have almost nothing to do with our deficit.  Almost 2/3rds of the federal budget is mandatory spending and about another 1/5 of spending is defense spending.  That leaves (very roughly) 20-25% of the budget.  Again, while pork spending might be bad for other reasons, one does not go $8 trillion in debt because of the "bridge to nowhere." 

This shows why "pay-go" which Ken Blanchard discusses here, is a nice idea that will amount absolutely nothing.  First, it assumes a static economy, thus raising taxes automatically means more revenue and cutting taxes means less.  Then why is it that federal revenues from income tax are at record levels in spite of those damned "Bush tax cuts" (you know, the ones Tim Johnson voted for)?  Because the economy is strong.  Within a certain range, tax revenue has more to do with the strength of the economy than the tax rates.  We should keep taxes relatively low, giving more incentive to the wealth creation that makes an economy strong.

Second, if the Democratic Congress is going to cut spending here to pay for it over there, where will they cut?  They will not cut entitlement spending as it is against their ideology.  They won't cut defense spending because it would be politically unpopular, playing into the image of their party as weak on defense.  So what is left?  Should we cut the Veterans Administration?  How about Highway funding?  Democrats don't want to cut education spending, indeed they want to increase it for college students.  Farm programs?  Perhaps we could freeze the pay of federal employees, but I suspect the Democrats' friends in the labor movement would be unhappy with that move. 

I suspect "Pay-Go" will very shortly be gone with the wind.

Rabbit One; Snake Zero

Professor Schaff has his favorite film.  Here is mine:

http://www.break.com/index/brave_rabbit_vs_snake.html

This is one aggressive rabbit.  Maybe the snake reminded him of Jimmy Carter.

All Roads Lead to South Dakota?

The Aberdeen American News has this bit of good news, which I have a hard time believing:

United Van Lines has been tracking moving trends since 1977. The study of 227,254 moves handled by the company in 2006 in the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia was released Monday. It looked at all moves that involved either going to or leaving a state.

North Carolina had the highest inbound migration with 64 percent of moves going into the state. Oregon was second with 62.5 percent, followed by South Carolina (60.6), Nevada (59.9) and Idaho (59.3).

N.D. ranking: At the other end, Michigan and North Dakota tied for the most outbound migration. Nearly two-thirds of all moves in both states - 66 percent - were heading out. Other states with high outbound migration were New Jersey (60.9), New York (59.5) and Indiana (58.2).

Eight of the 10 winners in inbound migration were from the Southeast or West. The only exceptions were the District of Columbia, whose inbound migration of 57.9 percent tied for sixth, and South Dakota, 10th with an inbound migration of 55.9 percent.

One of the few western states with outbound migration continued to be California, though the outbound percentage (52.4) was the lowest in four years.

South Dakota has an inbound migration larger than those leaving the state. Good news.  But where the heck are all the new people?

But I am eager, as always, to take credit.  I came here from California in 1989, and United Van Lines, God bless 'em, transported most of my stuff.  I like to think that all the other folk described in this story were just following my lead. 

Jordan Foils Terrorist Plot

Associated Press:

Police killed one suspected al-Qaida member and detained a second in a crackdown Tuesday that foiled a terrorist plot against Jordan, the state news agency and officials said.
...

A unit comprised of elite police and intelligence forces stormed the cell's hideout because of "information on plans by al-Qaida targeting the Jordanian arena," Petra said, quoting an unidentified security official. It did not elaborate.

Security officials told The Associated Press that the two men opened fire at the special security forces that came to arrest them.

Police shot one man dead, said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because the operation was under way. The other man is in police custody, they said.

Meanwhile, we're helping fight back al Qaeda in Somalia.

Wadhams

The Argus Leader reports that Dick Wadhams, who ran Senator Thune's campaign in 2004, is headed to Colorado to help the GOP:

he man who helped engineer the defeat of former Sen. Tom Daschle is returning to Colorado where he hopes to bolster a state Republican Party that’s had its teeth kicked in during the past two elections.

Dick Wadhams, who managed Sen. John Thune’s successful campaign to push out Daschle in 2004, announced that he plans to run for chairman of the Colorado GOP.

Wadhams solidified his status as a top political strategist with the defeat of Daschle, who was then the U.S. Senate’s minority leader.

Following Thune’s victory, Wadhams went to work for Sen. George Allen, R-Va. Allen lost his Senate race in November, a rare defeat for a Wadhams-run campaign.

Johnson Upgraded

Tim Johnson's condition has been upgraded to "fair." 

Film Of The Year

As we head into the pretentious and predictable award season, let me link to the best film I have seen in the past year.  It is called Dog Years and is an Internet short.  Warning: There is a small amount of harsh language in the film. 

Campaign Finance

This story gives a brief outline to Secretary of State Chris Nelson's suggestions for reform of our state's campaign finance laws.  Raising contribution limits is a good idea, as is real penalties for failure to file on time.  The only campaign finance law that makes sense is one that makes it easy for candidates to raise money and makes it just as easy for the public to find out where that money is coming from. 

SDP receives email from Abraham Lincoln!

Last month I exchanged posts with Professor David Newquist and Todd Epp on Abraham Lincoln.  David mentioned the marvelous C-Span reenactment of the Lincoln-Douglas debates, and I expressed my own admiration for that series of films.  In one post I singled out the actor Michael Krebs for his clean shaven interpretation of Lincoln.  Here is what I said:

David mentions the C-Span reenactments of the Lincoln Douglas debates. I vividly remember one of those episodes.  I believe that the actor Michael Krebs portrayed Lincoln.  Whoever it was, he was magnificent. He wore no beard (an historically accurate detail, as the famous whiskers came much later).  Instead of the ponderous, tragic figure that most would-be Lincolns offer us, this guy was bright-eyed and cheeky.  His manner was much closer to the spirit of Lincoln as it flows through the pages of the debates, and helps explain how this man went so quickly from nowhere to the Presidency.

While I was in New Orleans I received this note by email from the actor himself.

Ken,

Thank you for the kind words on the SD politics blog. It's amazing that something airing on C-SPAN 12 years ago still follows me.  Imagine knowing that day that ten Douglas descendants are seated in front of you, Holzer, Wilson, and America. Luckily it went so well because Larry Diemer and I memorized and rehearsed it for months, as did the spectators. The success of the Galesburg Debate is due to the late Director, Ted Hippely. I helped open ALPM last year in Springfield and talked to Brian Lamb and others from C-SPAN about the overwhelming good feedback on those '94 debates. I have been performing Lincoln for 15 years full time based in Chicago.

 

Thanks,

Michael Krebs

Thank you, Mr. Krebs.  I have loved Abraham Lincoln since first I read Professor Jaffa's Crisis of the House Divided.  I have seen him portrayed in a number of films, but no one came close to getting Lincoln right, in my opinion, until I saw your interpretation. 

Press Credentials for Bloggers?

Professor David Newquist considers this proposal and cautions against it. 

Bloggers like to call themselves citizen journalists. So why should they want privileges that are not available to every other citizen? Why should government not be open and information accessible to all people who have legitimate inquiries and concerns? That some bloggers want press credentials is an indication that they consider themselves in a class above the ordinary citizens (although most ordinary citizens write better than they do), and they have a higher political calling.

Press credentials were originally devised as a way to manage the requests for information and to try to get timely and accurate information to the people through the Fourth Estate so that government agencies are not besieged and stymied by hordes of citizens when the information can be more efficiently, promptly, and accurately disseminated.

As for the news standards of blogs, the South Dakota bloggers' handling of the Dan Sutton matter and Sen. Johnson's illness show clearly that they are media in quest of sensation, mean gossip, and whatever else they can filter and contrive to inflict damage on their targets. If they subscribe to any journalistic practice, it is the practice of tabloid journalism.

While I disagree with David's characterization of South Dakota Blogs and the regional MSM, he certainly has a point.  Blogging is a new hybrid.  To some degree it represents nothing more than political conversation among citizens, carried on in a new medium.  On the other hand, it is a form of publication, no more or less respectable than your average newspaper at the time of the American Revolution.  And it is clear that some blogs, Powerline, for example, function very much like the editorial pages of major newspapers: they are partisan to be certain, but they are one of the places that a lot of persons go to get the story.  A lot of folk walk around with press credentials who write for publications much less responsible and serious than Powerline. 

The problem, as Professor Newquist rightly points out, is that if blogging did earn one press credentials, then virtually anyone could get such credentials.  That would make such credentials useless for narrowing the number of people who get access to certain places and events, which is what press credentials are all about.  But the same technologies that have made blogging possible also make it possible for any Jane or Joe to publish his or her own journal.  What constitutes the legitimate press?  Big city newspapers, TV stations, and radio reporters only?  When I was a teenager, the most entertaining paper in Arkansas was published in Sharp County.  The Sharp Citizen was a radical rag published by a hysterical crackpot; but let me tell you, it lit a lot of fires under the butts of local governments. 

I am not quite sure who is responsible for bestowing or recognizing press credentials, either on the state or Federal level.    No doubt it involves judgment calls, and all we can demand is that the selection be fair.  I am sure only of one thing: a state government that gives the likes of South Dakota War College press credentials is more open than one that does not. 

Pay As You Go. Right.

Brian Doherty in Reason on the Democrats first 100 hours:

“Pay as you go” spending rules that try to link spending increases with either cuts or tax raising—and, alternately, tax cuts with spending cuts or tax raises elsewhere? This is potentially a positive step toward fiscal discipline, though given the nature of D.C. priorities more a guarantee of no more tax cuts than no more spending hikes. While the language in H. Res. 6 on rules for the 110^th Congress on “paygo” sound great, it also sounds too good to end up being true. Congress has managed to pass, and flout, similar rules many a time in the past. As a Heritage Foundation analysis explained, “not a single sequestration took place during PAYGO's 12 years as law. Instead, lawmakers repeatedly passed legislation that forbade OMB from enforcing PAYGO at all….The PAYGO law that existed from 1990 through 2002 exempted from sequestration Social Security, net interest on the debt, nearly all Medicare spending, and several other entitlement programs. Overall, 97 percent of all mandatory spending--all but $31 billion--had been statutorily exempted from any PAYGO sequestration, according to 2002 OMB figures.” When the new resolution on "paygo" becomes practice, it needs to stay solid in ending “emergency” appropriations and be accompanied by a severe rethinking of the autopilot entitlement programs of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security.

New Orleans Debriefing

I have enjoyed the good fortune of visiting New Orleans (pronounced New OR-lee-uns, or Nawlins) four times in recent years.  I took my family there a couple of years ago.  I took three NSU honors students there for the National Collegiate Honors Council Meeting, and attended a Liberty Fund conference just off the French Quarter (or "the Quarter" to those in the know).  I just got back from a meeting of the Southern Political Science Association, my first postdiluvian visit. 

I spent a lot of my time reading conference papers that I was to comment on, being the chair and sole discussant on a panel.  But I got to read them in a hidden garden in the courtyard of the Place D'Arms hotel (that's Plass-ah-DARMS), surrounded by moss covered stones with a fountain burbling a few feet away.

Friday, after breakfast at the Grover Grill, I chanced to walk into the New Orleans Voodoo Museum.  Sitting behind the desk, surrounded by voodoo dolls and occult literature, was a comfortably round man, a little older but just as white as I am, who identified himself as a voodoo priest.  He had that soft Nawlins flow to this voice, and he kindly showed me photos of his pet snakes.  One of them was a gorgeous albino, all white and red, though sadly deceased.  In another photo he had a very large snake curled around his shoulders.  I thought of mentioning that a man had recently been strangled to death by his pet snake, but thought better of it.  I was staying in a haunted hotel.  The last thing I needed was to irritate a voodoo priest.

That gentleman was New Orleans.  You won't find his like, or at least not with the accent and the humidity, anywhere else. 

Someday soon someone is going to write a prize winning book about Katrina, and it won't be me.  In that book we will find out two things, and more.  One is that more aid reached New Orleans faster than in any previous hurricane.  The other is that the post-storm evacuation did more damage to the city than the storm did.  As Federal, State, and local government were slow to react as the storm approached, so they over-reacted after it hit.  And it wasn't just government.  For weeks after the storm everyone who remained was gripped by rumors of roving murderous bands.  The Krewe of Paranoia ruled the parade of days after Katrina.  Maybe I am wrong.  But we will have to wait for the book.

Elizabeth Fox-Genovese Has Died

Ms. Fox-Genovese was the wife of Eugene Genovese.  Both were historians (a pardonable sin), and made a rather notable transition from the Marxist perspective to the conservative side of the academy.  SDP mourns her passing.

South Dakota Senate Race in '08

Todd Epp has a post he cleverly entitled "Though it's too early to speculate on Senator Johnson and '08 they're speculating on Senator Johnson and '08."  In that post Todd speculates on Senator Johnson and '08.  He is responding to a new and apparently anonymous blog, Senate2008Guru.  Despite the very mild scolding in his title, Todd mostly agrees with SenateGuru's speculations. 

I don't think it's too early at all.  Whatever the short term prospect for Senator Johnson's heath (short term being precisely now until January, 2009), the odds that he will not in fact run for reelection have surely increased dramatically.   Here is how SenateGuru puts it:

If you're reading this, you no doubt know about Johnson's well-publicized medical condition. He seems to be steadily recovering, and may even be able to perform his senatorial duties and serve out the remainder of his term, but it is probably a safe assumption until there is news to the contrary that he will not run for re-election.

Democrats and Republicans in the Rushmore State have to be thinking and talking about who they will field in the event that 2008 turns into an open election.  The only use in blogs and newspapers keeping mum would be that the speculations would be entirely opaque to the public.  I see no reason why that is something to wish for. 

It takes no rocket scientist to calculate that Stephanie Herseth is in the strongest position to reclaim the seat for the Democrats.  I am not sure if anyone other than Mike Rounds could beat her.  Whether either person is interested in the job, well I will let others speculate on that for now. 

Al Gore

Argus Leader:

Reporters and TV news cameras will be banned from almost all of former Vice President Al Gore's appearance Jan. 23 in Sioux Falls.

Gore is the Boe Forum speaker at Augustana College and plans a talk called "Thinking Green: Economic Strategy for the 21st Century."

Kalee Kreider, a Gore staffer in Nashville, confirmed by e-mail that news media will be asked to leave his talk after the introduction and that Gore will not hold a press conference.

Gore has agreed to meet with college and high school students before the speech, said Arthur Huseboe, executive director of Augustana's Center for Western Studies, which sponsors the forum.

Related thoughts from The Captain.