Grand Falls Casino Synergy -- That's What I Said!

Last summer, when Iowa announced it was building its big Grand Falls Casino in Larchwood, right at the northwest corner of the state, various South Dakotans, including the man getting my vote for Governor today, flipped their lids. I suggested some of the concerns about the casino and proposed warlike responses to the project were exaggerated. I said that proper planning and marketing could turn the project into an economic plus for our state. "Think synergy, not scarcity," I said.

Synergy. That's the magic word. And it's already happening:

...Sands Drywall of Sioux Falls has one of the biggest jobs, putting up all the exterior and interior walls.

"This job hit at the perfect time for us. We're going to have containment on the whole project by Thanksgiving is what the schedule is, and it will keep us working inside all winter long," Greg Sands, owner of Sands Drywall, said.

Despite concerns that a 'Buy Iowa' first initiative was going to keep construction crews from other states off the job site, only 55 percent of the contracts that have been awarded have been to Iowa companies. The rest are from outside the state.

...The Sioux Falls companies working on the job site are glad South Dakota is seeing some benefits from the Iowa project.

"Their philosophy was to be compliant with what they had to do, and also to create synergy between them and the Sioux Falls market, and South Dakota. And they've done that. There's a lot of people working from both states. A lot of people working here from both states for me and there's just a lot of synergy," Sands said [Ben Dunsmoor, "Paying out for South Dakota," KELOLand.com, 2010.11.01].

Sioux Falls Mayor Mike Huether says he and his business pals are already thinking down the synergy line as well. We could try to compete, but it may be easier to simply capitalize on the Iowa megacasino. When Iowa gives you rhubarb, make rhubarb pie.

One South Dakotan Votes: Madville Times Picks!

Barring any surprises, here's how I'm voting tomorrow in South Dakota's general election:

• U.S. House: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. She disagrees with me on important bills. I am still looking for a good Wellstone-McGovern Democrat to challenge her in the 2012 primary. But unlike her GOP opponent, she is intelligent and competent, and she hasn't had to lie to make headway in the polls. Brains matter. Truth matters.
  
• S.D. Governor: Scott Heidepriem. Dennis Daugaard is a good guy, but he represents a broken status quo whose problems he can't acknowledge. Heidepriem more clearly speaks to our problems and the need for solutions.
• Attorney General: Ron Volesky. He's just plain my kind of guy. And he won't waste our money suing Uncle Sam over health care reform.
• Secretary of State: Ben Nesselhuf. He'll focus on practical governance and real problems, not boogeymen from New Mexico.
• State Treasurer: Tom Katus. I met Tom just briefly at the Dems convention this summer. He strikes me as a tough, no-nonsense guy, someone we can trust with the purse strings.
• State Auditor: Julie Bartling. Experience matters. She has it; her opponent doesn't.
• Commissioner of School and Public Lands: Bob Pille. I'll vote the party line for the Democrat here...
• Public Utilities Commissioner: Dusty Johnson. ...because I'm cashing in a chip to cross party lines here. I'm still mad about Hyperion. And Dusty fixed my phone.

Whew, let's take a break from faces and talk statewide ballot measures:

• Amendment K, Secret Ballot: No. The conservative wingnuts are trumpeting this sneaky bill because it's a way to kick the unions while they're down. The secret ballot is already protected by the state constitution. This Amendment isn't necessary.
• Amendment L, State Cement Plant Trust Fund: Yes. It sounds like a reasonable measure to keep from burning up the money we made from selling the cement plant. I'm uneasy about the point Senator Adelstein makes about the amendment removing some funding from education, but I'll take that hit and charge our legislators with finding the courage to replace that money with another source of funding.
  
• Referred Law 12, Smoking Ban: Yes. It's not about freedom or income tax, you ninnies. It's about health. I don't get to walk into restaurants barefoot, either, but the Constitution is still intact.
• Initiated Measure 13, Legalizing Medical Marijuana: Yes. If your doctor says pot will do you good, it's not my place to stand in your way from toking up to ease your pain. nor is it Pierre's. Just don't do it in a public place.
  

All right, now let's go local:

• District 8 Senate: Clark Schmidtke, Sr.
  
• District 8 House: Gerry Lange and Mitch Fargen. Mitch will be majority leader someday. Gerry ought to be majority leader. :-)
• Lake County Commission: Scott Pedersen and Craig Johannsen. Cashing in one more bipartisan chip. I'd like to give Doug Erickson a shot, but he didn't show enough fire in the campaign to show he's ready to deal with the complex issues the county will face. Call this campaign a trial run for 2012, Doug! Scott and Craig simply know their stuff and can explain it better to the public (a very important part of the job).
  
• Lake County Sheriff: Jason Lurz. Not an easy choice for me. I'm comfortable saying it's time for change. Lurz and fellow challenger and Madison policeman Dan Wyatt are both good cops, both conservatives... how do I choose? In a tight race, little things matter. The appearance in the "Likes" on Wyatt's Facebook page of a prayer asking God to kill President Obama, whether intended as a joke or not, is enough to make me put down the coin and choose Lurz.
  
• Lake County Auditor: Roberta Janke. I'm tempted to go for Gust. I get the impression she might be just a little more enthusiastic for Web-ifying county records. Gust was first out of the gate with campaign Web presence. But Janke has 23 years of experience with nearly every aspect of the job. She'll need to move her coffee mug maybe 15 feet from her current desk to the new desk. I usually like change, but in our local auditor's office, I can live with continuity for now. (Now Bobbi, let's see lots more records online, fast!)

There's lots to vote on tomorrow, folks. Get out and mark those bubbles!

District 8 Senate Prediction and Endorsement

The latest Madville Times poll finds the local electorate split on the relevance of the criminal records of both District 8 State Senate candidates, Independent/Democrat Clark Schmidtke, Sr., and incumbent Republican Senator Russell Olson. I asked whether the criminal records of each man, revealed just in the past week in the blogosphere, would affect your vote for District 8 Senate. The results:

	Schmidtke	Olson
Yes	51 (57%)	30 (34%)
No	39 (43%)	57 (66%)

These numbers seem reasonable. Russell Olson is better known and better liked. Those who know and like a guy are more inclined to forgiveness toward that guy. Additionally, Olson's crimes—speeding, failure to stop, failure to appear, open container, simple assault—happened mostly when he was in his 20s and fall into that fuzzy category we reserve for crimes of the young and stupid. Schmidtke's guilty plea to three counts of theft occurred in his 40s and involved misuse of checkbooks of elderly folks placed in his care.

In 2006, the last off-year election, Democratic District 8 Senator Dan Sutton beat Republican challenger John Toates 57% to 43%. Sutton had just been hit with allegations of improper conduct with a male page at least as scandalous as the charges against Schmidtke. In the face of those charges, the relatively quiet Toates was able to get 43% of the district to mark his name. And this was with Sutton supporters still able to say, "Innocent until proven guilty."

In 2008, Olson beat a much stronger Democratic contender, Scott Parsley, 55% to 45%. Schmidtke, with less money, less name recognition, and fewer connections than Parsley, was probably headed pre-scandal for a 40% finish. Speculating wildly from the above poll results, I'm going to guess that Schmidtke's court record loses him two votes for every one Olson's court record loses him. Not helping Schmidtke's situation: the Madison Daily Leader gives Schmidtke's court record front-page coverage on the Friday before the election while making no mention of Olson's court record. A large portion of voters who don't access online media thus have no idea that they will vote for a man with a significant criminal record regardless of which District 8 Senate bubble they fill.

Given Schmidtke has no legislative record or other major connections to counter the bad press, I'll project Olson's margin of victory rises from 60–40 to 70–30.

I will still be voting with that 30.

Russell Olson has enjoyed the benefits of numerous favors from the wealthy and powerful in Madison and South Dakota. His friends in the party of Janklow, Rounds, and Prostrollo handed him comfortable government-related jobs while the ink was still fresh on his court record. Rich Republicans in Madison and across the state have handed him tens of thousands of dollars to buy ads and win elections against much less-well-funded opponents. Russell Olson is where he is because of a lot of favors from a lot of powerful people.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get the impression Clark Schmidtke has ever gotten much in the way of favors from the rich and powerful. I don't get the impression he moves in those circles. The way he told me his side of the story, the powers that be were looking for a way to get him and forced him to surrender when he couldn't afford to fight.

Now we have Russell Olson, who owes his career to the benevolence of the powers that be, acting as a staunch defender of those powers. He knows that running for office brings risks of public criticism of his past, but he can rely on his wealthy and powerful friends to support him.

And we have Clark Schmidtke, who appears not to have grabbed any gold ring of patronage, challenging the powers that rule South Dakota. He knows that running for office brings risks of public criticism of his past, and he has few wealthy or powerful individuals to speak on his behalf or fill his campaign coffers to splash images of his happy family across the newspapers to counter bad publicity. He knew the past that could be used against him in this campaign could also hurt his business. Yet in the face of that risk, Schmidtke still chose to take on a fight that matters to him, a fight for good government, a fight for better policies on education and health care, a fight against handouts to rich oil corporations.

Clark, I have no wealth, no power to offer you. I have only my vote, and a little blog post that may redound against you as much as it will redound against me (especially if there are any more surprises). Oh well. I've faced worse. So have you, Clark.

I can't guarantee I'll bring anyone else along. But Clark, you have my vote.

The South Dakota (and Lake County!) Anti-Establishment Voting Guide

In this period of great anti-establishment foment, it behooves the responsible blogger to offer to all those raging against the powers that be a voter's guide to throwing the bums out. If you consider yourself a true Tea Party patriot, if you truly want to take your America and your South Dakota back from the entrenched special interests and tyrants, here's how you should vote tomorrow. (Note: this is not necessarily how I'm voting tomorrow; we'll cover that later today.)

U.S. House of Representatives: Vote for B. Thomas Marking. Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Republican State Represenative Kristi Noem are both much more beholden to their respective political parties than the Independent Mr. Marking. And in his appearance on the SDPB debate last Thursday, Marking made the interesting point that in a Congress that may be more evenly split between the two parties, and Independent might actually have some pull. If you want to upset the apple cart, Marking is your man.

South Dakota Governor and all statewide offices: Vote for Democrats. Look who controls the South Dakota executive and legislative branches. Republicans up and down, for decades, for really the entire 121-year history of our state, have dominated our state's politics. Republicans are responsible for our state budget deficits and everything else governmental that you anti-establishment folks don't like here. In South Dakota, Republicans are the establishment. Democrats are the anti-establishment. Fight the power: vote Heidepriem, Nesselhuf, Bartling, Pille, Karpen, Katus, and Volesky.

Exception: You have one third-party candidate for our Constitutional offices, Lori Stacey, Constitution Party candidate for Secretary of State. She's definitely anti-establishment. She even shares my and Dennis Kucinich's healthy skepticism of electronic voting machines and the Patriot Act. Alas, she's incapable of sustaining a rational argument, but hey! We're fighting The Man, not writing a paper for graduate school. Stacey is clearly the anti-establishment candidate for Secretary of State.

Amendment K: Vote No. This amendment is really about busting unions. Vote for it, and you challenge the establishment of union power. Vote against it, and you challenge the establishment of corporate/managerial power. Unions are a waning establishment; corporations are a growing establishment. The anti-establishment vote goes to the underdogs. To fight the power, vote No on K.

Amendment L: Vote No. This amendment seeks to protect the trust fund create by the sale of the state cement plant a few years ago. The downturn in the stock market has caused the fund to lose value. Amendment L would impose percentage limits on how much we withdraw from the fund for our state budget, with the intent of ensuring the fund remains solvent. Nuts to that! If you're anti-establishment, you want the state to have as few resources as possible. Vote No, let Pierre burn up that fund, and then drown government in a bathtub sooner than you hoped!

Referred Law 12: Vote. The South Dakota Legislature passed this law in 2009. The South Dakota alcohol and tobacco lobby referred it to a public vote. You have political and economic establishments tussling over this one. Either way you vote, you're supporting one entrneched power over another. Either way you vote, you support the oppression of one class or another (yes vote: smokers; no vote: restaurant workers). But at least by voting, you exercise your authority to have a say over what the Legislature does. Vote yes, vote no, but for Pete's sake, vote!

Initiated Measure 13: Vote Yeah, Man! Legalize medical marijuana? Absolutely anti-establishment. Voting yes on IM 13 takes government out from between you and your doctor. Voting yes on IM 13 takes power away from the corporate pharma power structure and gives you access to homegrown remedies for what ails you. Voting yes on IM 13 gives the police one less reason to harass decent citizens in public. IM 13 gives power to the people.

And now for the home crowd:

District 8 State Senate: Vote for Clark Schmidtke. Senator Russell Olson is a member of South Dakota's power elite, with connections to the big money donors of the Republican Party who ignored his criminal record as they recruited him into their ranks and shaped into their yes man. Olson embodies the Establishment. Clark Schmidtke has little wealth, little power. he is more inclined to speak truth to power.

District 8 State House:Vote for Gerry Lange and Patricia Stricherz. Gerry Lange has always been an original thinker, taking his cues from his independent sense of justice for the little guy, not from any central party doctrine or campaign strategy. His colleague in the State House, Mitch Fargen, is also a Democrat and has fought the establishment in Pierre, but his willingness to work bipartisanly and his connections with business and industry suggest he has just slightly more Establishment inclinations than a purist anti-establishmentarian might want. Patricia Stricherz has clearly shown herself to be an outsider to both parties; she lists herself as a Republican, but the state party only grudgingly acknowledges her. Jason Bjorklund has claimed to be an Independent, but he gets more support from the Republicans than Stricherz, suggesting the Republican machine sees Bjorklund as asomeone they can draw into their Establishment fold. Even if they can't, Bjorklund takes all his cues the machine of Glenn Beck/Big Media celebrity propaganda. If you want anti-establishment spirit, Lange and Stricherz are your best choices. If you need a back-up choice, go with Fargen as another Democrat well-equipped to fight the powers that be in Pierre.

Lake County Commission: Vote for Erickson and Johannsen. The establishment isn't very big in Lake County. Doug Erickson has no connection to any money or power. He has the Winfred vote, which is a total indicator of anti-establishment cred in Lake County. Craig Johannsen has been part of the establishment, serving on the county commission and numerous other boards, but he represents that healthy obstreperous rural vote that checks the power of town money and attitudes. Kelli Wollmann is a nice lady, but she has family connections to Madison Republican money that ought to make any anti-establishment purist suspicious (nothing personal, Kelli: I'm just trying to split hairs for my Tea Party friends!). And Scott Pedersen: current commissioner, established businessman, Lake Madison resident, effective public speaker—he's too good not to be a member of the Establishment!

Lake County Sheriff: Toss-up. One would think the obvious anti-establishment vote is to get rid of the current sheriff, Roger Hartman. But he doesn't seem to have any particular favor with the powers that be. Nor do either of the challengers, Madison policemen Dan Wyatt and Jason Lurz. I get the impression the Establishment looks at our local police as an annoyance that gets in the way of their drinking, speeding, and other behaviors. The challengers have both been members of hierarchical power structures (military and law enforcement at different levels). Take your pick!

Lake County Auditor: Vote for Gust. Bobbi Janke has served in the Lake County Auditor's office for 23 years. She is part of the Establishment. Shelli Gust has served in the Lake County States Attorney's office for three years. She is part of the Establishment. Gust just has a little less Establishment in her than Janke.

Tar Sands Oil Kills Ducks; TransCanada Spoils Roads

If you still aren't mad at TransCanada for slurping up $10.5 million in tax refunds that South Dakota could have used to fund education and roads (see Rep. Mitch Fargen's duly indignant comments at the Madison Chamber forum last week), how about getting mad at them for poaching ducks?

Well, I suppose it's not poaching, and it's not TransCanada directly, but they are part of tar sands industry that is killing ducks without a hunting license, ducks that you and your law-abiding, South Dakota license-holding pals could joyfully and legally blast from the sky. Reports Plains Justice:

Just a week after paying a CAN$3 million fine for the deaths of 1600 ducks that landed on its tailing ponds in 2008, Canada tar sands extractor Syncrude had to euthanize 230 ducks that landed on its tar sands tailing ponds this week (there was good coverage of the story out of Calgary). To look at their website, you’d think Syncrude was an environmental organization, but they’ve been unable to resolve the lethal combination of highly toxic tailings ponds and a huge migratory waterfowl corridor. In spite of reassurances from industry and the Canadian government that the 2008 event was a mistake that would never happen again, here we are [Carrie La Seur, "230 More Ducks Dead in Tar Sands Tailing Ponds," Plains Justice Today, 2010.10.28].

TransCanada is more directly responsible for some road wreckage here on the Great Plains. Just as has been the case in South Dakota, Kansas officials and residents are struggling with road damage caused by construction last year of TransCanada's Keystone pipeline.

So thanks to our addiction to foreign oil, you'll have fewer ducks to shoot and you'll burn more gas trying to get to those ducks as you detour around wrecked roads on TransCanada's pipeline route.

Regressive Tax Structure Not Correlated with Healthy Economy

Rep. Gerald Lange (D-8/Madison) has consistently advocated measures like repealing the sales tax on food and extending the bank and insurance income tax to corporate income in general to make South Dakota's tax structure more progressive. His opponents in the District 8 House race, Republican Patricia Stricherz and "Independent" Jason Bjorklund, have climbed all over each other to swear their opposition to income tax. Stricherz and Bjorklund both prefer a regressive tax system where they both as working-class folks pay 10% of their income in taxes while the rich people who control this state pay only 2% of their income in taxes.

Bjorklund and Stricherz have little reason other than electionering against Rep. Lange to oppose the income tax and other efforts to make our state's tax system more progressive. States like Minnesota with progressive tax systems are just as likely to enjoy healthy economic performance and business climate as state like South Dakota with regressive tax systems.

Think tank Minnesota 2020 studied the correlation between state tax structure and state economy in 2008. Minnesota 2020 ranked the states for tax progressivity, then ranked states on six different indices of economic well-being: economic performance, business vitality, development capacity, competitiveness, and two different measures of quality of life.

You can see Minnesota 2020's numbers here in PDF.

The results: comparing the progressivity rank with ranks with each economic index produces a slight positive correlation. In other words, states like Minnesota that move away from sales taxes and toward income taxes have a slightly better chance of having good business climates and quality of life than states like South Dakota that stick tax the poor harder than the rich. The correlation isn't much—the highest is a measly 0.20 on the economic performance index—but where it does show up, the correlation smiles on the tax system Gerry Lange proposes.

Now this doesn't mean you can't achieve relatively good economic results while laboring under a regressive tax system. South Dakota ranks 46th for progressivity in taxes, yet we come out in the top ten on three of the economic indices used in this study. We also rank 48th in business vitality, a measure of competitiveness and job growth from new businesses.

But you can also enjoy relatively good economic outcomes under a progressive system:

Why is this? One explanation is that states with the most progressive tax systems are better able to finance the educational and transportation infrastructure and the public services that a modern economy requires because they don't shift a disproportionate share of the burden of paying for these investments to households with the least ability to pay. The loss of high income households due to progressive taxation is offset by an increased ability to pay for public investments [Jeff Van Wychen, "Progressive Taxation: Not So Bad for Business After All," Minnesota 2020, 2008.01.21].

The evidence keeps building that Gerry Lange is right and South Dakota's tax system is wrong. Remember that at the polls tomorrow.

GOP Invades Mailboxes with Manufactured Scandal

I hear from our party chair that the Republicans violated federal law to bring me my weekend dose of Republican lies. According to a press release from the state Dems issued Sunday at breakfast, Republican operatives placed campaign literature for Kristi Noem, Rich Sattgast, and other candidates directly into mailboxes across Madison. Anyone other than the mailman or the owner sticking anything into a mailbox is violating federal law.

But violating the law and the truth hasn't bothered Republicans much this year. They were probably just in a hurry, right?

Among the pieces of mail Republicans have placed in my box this weekend is the newst big lie and distraction from real policy issues from the state GOP: the accusation that Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's $1300 expenditures of taxpayer dollars at "exclusive baby boutique" Baby Elements in Sioux Falls, South Dakota, represent some scandalous "silver spoon" "spending spree."

Hmmm... how does the GOP lie to us? Let me count the ways:

1. "Exclusive": I'm reviewing the store's description and not seeing how they "exclude" anyone. The "exclusive" part of this store is that it features handmade pieces available exclusively in Sioux Falls.
   
2. The GOP implies these were irresponsible expenditures. As Dr. Newquist points out, the expenditures were authorized, audited, and approved by a standard Congressional budget ovesight procedure... the kind of fiscal responsibility our South Dakota Republican crony capitalists don't follow as they issue no-bid contracts and bloat the state motor pool to benefit their wealthy friends.
3. Dr. Newquist informs us that these expenses were far from outlandish expenditures; they are pretty much the cost of doing business as a Congressperson:

   And what were the funds spent for? For the mounting and framing of historic documents, photographs, and cultural materials, such as star quilts, for the member offices to inform visitors of the traditions under which Congress operates and to promote the features of South Dakota. Anyone can view these items on display at the offices [David Newquist, "The Annals of Libel: A Campaign Strategy," Northern Valley Beacon, 2010.10.30].

4. In spending taxpayer dollars for standard office decoration, the Congresswoman bought goods and services from a local South Dakota craftsperson.
   
5. The Congresswoman did exactly what her Republican challenger Kristi Noem did on a much larger scale with the stimulus dollars: bringing federal dollars that would have been spent elsewhere here to South Dakota. $1300 in framing for the office is peanuts dust compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars Noem and Governor Mike Rounds have spent from the federal stimulus package to avoid making hard state budget choices.
6. Remember, Herseth Sandlin has a tendency to put money back into the South Dakota economy, while Noem prefers to export our money to John Thune's adman in Texas.
   
7. Republicans tell you Speaker Nancy Pelosi is evil... but they wouldn't even have the information they are twisting into lies if Pelosi had not ordered the online publication of the House Disbursements in 2009.
8. Thanks to Speaker Pelosi's drive for transparency, we can also learn that Minnesota GOP Congresswoman and conservative firebrand Michele Bachmann spent almost $44K in taxpayer money on franked mail. Bachmann spent more than twice as much in total and per household on mass mailings to constituents than did Herseth Sandlin over the period reported.

From this manufactured non-issue to the "failed" stimulus, Republicans from Kristi Noem on down are cheating and lying to us six ways from Sunday to win this election. Fellow Dems, if for no other reason, get up out of your chairs and vote Tuesday to reject this politics of deceit.
------------------------------
Update 2010.11.02 10:05 CDT: Jeff Long, postal inspector and spokesman for the Postal Inspection Service out of Minneapolis, tells Austin Kaus at the Mitchell Daily Republic that the illegally placed campaign materials included literature for District 8 State Senator Russell Olson. Alas, says, Long, prosecution for this misdemeanor offense is unlikely. As usual, we aren't supposed to pay attention to Russell Olson's violations of the law.

RCJ Ignores Noem Conflict of Interest on Crop Insurance

The Rapid City Journal is one of the few major newspapers endorsing Republican Kristi Noem over Democratic Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. (Sioux Falls, Aberdeen, and Mitchell papers are backing the incumbent.)

RCJ bases its endorsement on bogus arguments:

1. They grumble that SHS hasn't been visible enough in West River, yet they say nothing about Noem's skipping the KOTA debate, the Rapid City Tea Party rallies, and even a visit from her own national party chair to stay home in East River and shoot birds.
2. They brand the stimulus a Democratic boondoggle, ignoring the good the stimulus is doing in their own backyard.
3. The biggest whopper: the RCJ editorial board chafes at Max Sandlin's lobbying but ignore the Noem family's own blatant conflict of interest:
   

   Some of Herseth Sandlin's decisions have been difficult for the congresswoman, when her personal and/or party's convictions cross with those of her constituents. Noem would have no such conflict [editorial, "Noem in Tune with West River," Rapid City Journal, 2010.10.31].

No such conflict? Bull-roar. In addition to surviving on farm welfare payments, Kristi and Bryon Noem sell crop insurance. Crop insurance has been recognized by Republicans and Democrats as a "textbook example of waste, fraud, and abuse in federal spending." Crop insurance companies have regularly made three to nearly five times the benchmark rate of return on their policies. A 2007 report from the Government Accountability Office found that from 1997 to 2006, 42 cents out of every federal dollar spent on the crop insurance program went to the crop insurance companies, not to farmers.*

In response to this waste and inefficiency, the 2008 Farm Bill includes a new Standard Reinsurance Agreement that cuts six billion dollars from the crop insurance program and applies some of those savings to reducing the deficit. Those savings come in part by capping commissions for crop insurance agents like the Noems.

Those caps don't kick in until next year. Put Kristi Noem in office, and she'll have a chance to repeal those caps before they cut into her family's crop insurance profits. Wouldn't that be a nice little anniversary present for Bryon?

No conflict of interest there, is there, Rapid City Journal? Noem is clearly in tune with West River and South Dakota values of taking every penny we can from Uncle Sam.

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has explicitly addressed concerns about her potential conflict of interest... in the pages of the Rapid City Journal itself. Kristi Noem has said nothing about her own direct business interest in the federal crop insurance program that she'd like the chance to vote on. In manufacturing its endorsement of Noem, the Rapid City Journal is holding the GOP challenger to a much lower standard than it applies to our incumbent Congresswoman.
----------------------------------------
Bonus endorsement ding: RCJ concludes its Noem endorsement by saying "This country needs elected officials with positive, proactive solutions." That's funny: Kristi Noem hasn't offered any positive, proactive solutions. She hasn't even offered a clear agriculture policy.
----------------------------------------
*That same 2007 GAO report suggest another possible connection between Noem, crop insurance, and the Farm Service Agency. The GAO found that the Farm Service Agency was not conducting enough inspections to prevent bogus crop loss claims. Crop insurer Kristi Noem served on the state committee of the Farm Service Agency in the 1990s. What government connections might Noem have made then that are now helping her crop insurance business?

Bjorklund's Dreaded "Legislation, Taxation, and Regulation" Comes from Kristi Noem

"Independent" candidate for District 8 State House Jason Bjorklund continues to insist that "legislation, taxation, and regulation" caused the recession and put his trucking company out of business. Yet in his campaign literature and forum speeches, Bjorklund has failed to identify specific South Dakota "legislation, taxation, and regulation" that caused these problems and that he would repeal. Where'd all this evil "legislation, taxation, and regulation" come from?

Kristi Noem. Russell Olson. The very Republicans whose signs Bjorklund places in his yard. The Herseth Sandlin campaign points out that Kristi Noem has supported and sponsored at least seven tax increases in the South Dakota State Legislature:

• In 2010, Noem cosponsored SB 186, which increases taxes on small businesses to cover shortfalls in the state unemployment insurance fund. (Senator Olson backed that, too.)
  
• In 2009, she was the prime sponsor of HB 1217, which gives the Governor authority to raise taxes unilaterally by suspending tax exemptions – such as exemptions on churches, hospitals, doctors, clinics and prescription drugs.
• She was also the prime sponsor of HB 1218, which increases taxes by raising fees collected by any state department or agency by 2.5% per year since the last time they were raised.
• She was also the prime sponsor of HB 1229, which increased the gross receipts tax on South Dakota’s tourism industry by 50%.
• She voted to increase vehicle license fees by 67% (HB 1007), and cosponsored another bill to raise license fees on vehicles older than 5 years by an additional 33% (SB 11). (Senator Olson did vote to table the former.)
  
• She cosponsored SB 116, which imposes a new gas tax for ethyl and methyl alcohol used in motor vehicles. (Senator Olson also sponsored that one.)
  

Noem supported increased business regulation with this year's HB 1203 and 2008's HB 1128.

Noem also voted to raise her own pay 33% with HB 1250 in 2008.

Bjorklund has a profound capacity to ignore the reality of South Dakota politics: nearly all of the South Dakota legislation, taxation, and regulation under which he labors and against which he rails have been passed by Republican legislative majorities and signed by Republican governors. Bjorklund's and the Tea Party's darling Kristi Noem has promoted that very legislation, taxation, and regulation.

Argus Endorses Racist Peters from District 9

South DaCola reports that Representative Deb Peters (R-9/Hartford), the Republican who received the endorsement from Sioux Falls's big liberal-media newspaper, believes our Native American neighbors' problems are their own darn fault. In a debate Friday with Democratic challenger Rob Wilson, Peters said twice that Indians are "genetically predisposed" to many of the problems they face.

In other words, to make life better on the reservation, it's not Peters's job to come up with the kind of practical policy solutions her Democratic challenger Rob Wilson would work for. In Peters's happy world, we can blame the Indians and focus on simply teaching them how genetically inferior they are to us white folks who wisely used alcohol and deception to conquer them.

Nice endorsement, Sioux Falls newspaper.
-----------------------------------

In related news, there is a hilarious story of thoughtless sleaze floating around District 9 about another candidate. Alas, I can't get anyone to go on record about it. The standard reason for declining runs along the lines of, "It's true, the behavior was inappropriate and should be called out, but this person has power and we have to work with this person, so we'd better not mention it."

In other words, "South Dakota Nice" means we only call out the people who don't have power they might use against us... rather like the Madison Daily Leader going after State Senate candidate and assisted living center operator Clark Schmidtke's criminal record but not State Senator and economic development officer Russell Olson's criminal record.

South Dakota Dairy Industry Continues to "Grow"

I guess you can call it growth: South Dakota has more dairy cows producing more milk than it did five years ago. However...

The state’s dairy herd currently stands at 94,000 head, up significantly from its low point of 80,000 head in 2005. The state currently has approximately 400 dairy operations. Ten years ago, South Dakota had about 1,200 dairy operations and a dairy herd of nearly 100,000 [Jerry Nelson, "South Dakota's Dairy Industry Continues to Grow," Dairy Star, 2010.10.25].

Even all the fancy equipment and hormone treatment isn't putting out that much more milk: the Nelson article includes a graph that shows South Dakota's annual milk production is just barely higher than it was in 1983. We may be getting more milk per cow, but those cows are also concentrated into much larger facilities, posing more environmental risk than cows given room to roam.

South Dakota's dairy operations are an example of the real redistribution of wealth that should worry us. In just ten years, the wealth of South Dakota's dairy industry has been redistributed from 1200 independent operators to just 400. That's money and power concentrated in fewer hands... and that's not healthy for the economy or for democracy.

Vote Now: Do Criminal Records Matter in District 8 Senate Race?

The last Madville Times poll before the general election asks two questions:

1. Will Clark Schmidtke's criminal record affect your vote for District 8 State Senate?
2. Will Russell Olson's criminal record affect your vote for District 8 State Senate?

I'll take votes here in the right-hand sidebar until noon on Monday. Tell your friends, and vote now! And then 24 hours later, we can all head to the polls and finally cast the votes that matter.

Worth noting: you can read another, less well-written version of Mr. Schmidtke's troubles with the Minnesota court system in Friday's Madison Daily Leader. You cannot yet read any version of Senator Olson's encounters with the South Dakota court system in the Madison Daily Leader (at least not the online version), which has made thousands of dollars in advertising from Olson over the last four years.