Votes from the Fringe: Stacey Outpolls Marking

In the South Dakota U.S. House race, Independent B. Thomas Marking got 5.99% of the vote. That 5.99% of the vote had little to do with Mr. Marking's qualities as a person or candidate. Lori Stacey, Constitution Party candidate for Secretary of State, nuttiest person on the statewide ballot, got 6.60% of the vote. 832 votes more than Marking.

B. Thomas Marking didn't say much, but what policies and positions he did advocate were debatable yet reasonable. Lori Stacey spouted conspiracy theories and baseless threats and dwelt on minutiae of word choice as only a desperate paranoiac fringe candidate can. Her campaign finances were laughable even compared to Marking's paltry sums.

Yet she got more protest votes than B. Thomas Marking, who got to play referee (a good role for Indies—keep that in mind for future elections!) between Kristi Noem and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in the marquee race of 2010.

Maybe worth noting: Marking's third-best showing came in Hamlin County, Kristi Noem's home turf. Noem's own neighbors were among the folks most willing to vote for the third man. He drew 8.32% in Noem's backyard, even better than the 7.89% he pulled in his home county of Custer. Marking had his 17th-best showing in Brookings County, Herseth Sandlin's current home county. He bombed in Herseth country up north, Brown County, where he got only 4.59% of the vote.

South Dakota Legislature: No Good News for Dems

2011–2012 South Dakota Legislature, party composition (unofficial results, 2010.11.02) Click image to enlarge

Some vote notes on what happened in the South Dakota Legislature:

1. With Democrats Sandy Jerstad, Nancy Turbak Berry, and Gerald Lange booted by the voters from the Legislature, what's Dakota War College have left to blog about?
   
2. I guess there's still Frank Kloucek, still representing District 19. Kolaches will ride again... and maybe a little scrutiny of Monsanto-controlled SDSU?
3. But at least Turbak Berry got beat by Ried Holien, an old debate guy! Let's hear some good speeches, Ried!
   
4. Other incumbents who lost: Sen. Dan Ahlers from Dell Rapids, Rep. Oran Sorenson from Garretson, Rep. Quentin Burg from Wessington Springs, Rep. Matha Vanderlinde from Sioux Falls, Sen. Pam Merchant from Brookings, and Rep. Gerald Lange from Madison... all Democrats. Not one Republican incumbent in the Legislature lost.
5. If I'm counting right, the State Senate now has 29 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Dems lose 4. The Democratic caucus could carpool... in one car.
   
6. My count shows the State House with 51 Republicans and 19 Democrats. Dems lose 5.
   
7. Blogger and Pastor Steve Hickey wins District 9 House. Steve, I'll expect vociferous opposition to any new Blog Control Acts.
8. Blogger Steve Sibson does not win District 20 House. I was going to suggest that Sibby needs to put down World Net Daily and talk about things actually happening in South Dakota... but last night's results up and down the board make clear South Dakotans are not voting on policy.
9. Even without Sibby, the yahoo caucus made great gains. Expect Rep. Rev. Hickey to carpool with Reps. Jenna Haggar and Brian Liss from Sioux Falls. Get ready for Don Kopp to make climate change denial law as he originally wanted.
   

Veblen West Dairy Auction Delayed Two More Weeks

In another sign that the bad guys are winning in South Dakota, the bankruptcy auction of the Veblen West Dairy in northeastern South Dakota has been delayed again. Last week Friday, bankruptcy trustee Forrest C. Allred moved and Judge Charles C. Nail agreed to postpone the auction until November 18. Allred moved on behalf of the contending parties, the Veblen West equity owners and financier AgStar, which apparently "have requested and agreed to further time to discuss possible settlement of the matters in question, and consent to this motion" (says Document 461 in the Veblen West bankruptcy case, Allred's motion filed 2010.10.29).

So the main force behind Veblen West, Richard Millner, may be pulling out a victory after all, cobbling together just enough investors and financial tricks to keep the dairy and thousands of head of cattle in his hands. But that also means there's time for anyother investors interested in acquiring a giant feedlot and a few thousand head of cattle at rock-bottom prices still have a chance to make AgStar and the court an offer.

Liberal Blog Helps Patricia Stricherz Beat Gerry Lange?

Patricia Stricherz offers the following statement on winning a seat in Pierre with her surprise second-place finish in tonight's District 8 State House race:

Thank you all very much. Tonight, I have been given a privilege that few have been given — the privilege of accepting the voters call to service as Representative for District 8 State House. I accept it with gratitude, humility and confidence.

Finally, a word to all District 8 House Candidates. You are all great men and ran a good and respectful campaign. You stood for something you believed in, the citizens of District 8 and the state of South Dakota, and did something about it. Because of this you have my respect and admiration [Patricia Stricherz, e-mail, 2010.11.02].

That said, I can't help wondering: did the Madville Times help Republican Stricherz beat my favorite Dem and neighbor Gerry Lange? Stricherz beat Lange by 124 votes. Her strongest margin over Lange was right here in Lake County, where she outpolled him by 380 votes.

Lake County is the Madville Times' core market. Stricherz advertised here. She campaigned here in the comment section.

And now, barring a remarkable recount outcome, she's going to be my representative in Pierre. Wow. I'm serious: Representative-Elect Patricia Stricherz is the biggest surprise I've had all night.

Bringing Religion to the Polls: How High Is Your Wall?

As I enjoy the tense hush surrounding a free people somberly performing their sacred democratic duty, I muse over seemingly conflicting views of politics and religion from theologically inclined corners of the South Dakota blogosphere.

First, check out the Gordon Howie/Pastor Scott Craig show at The Right Side Blog. Their mission statement calls for stimulating something called "Christian Conservative thought." In the last week and a half, their posts have portrayed this election as a "wake-up call for Christians." They have portrayed voting as a moral imperative to address the "dive" of the "moral fabric of our country" that is "apparent to every Christian." Under patriotic images of the American flag and Founding Fathers, they have exhorted readers to "take a stand for God and Jesus" (the ending D and S should be pronounced as separate syllables) the way the Founding Fathers did by doing "something." They urge voters to subject candidates to religious litmus tests. They even feature Rep. Mike Verchio (R-30/Hill City) managing to conflate Christian principles with tax and spend policies and his right to defend himself.

Meanwhile, another Christian, Pastor Shel Boese, offers this thought on Election Day:

As we approach another election in the USA I am so thankful our founding fathers understood that the church is best protected by not being co-opted by the state. (Something many Evangelicals who are almost back into the Egypt of Fundamentalism forget) AND the State is healthier when the church can be a prophetic voice and alternative power source in the world/nation – instead of a co-opted branch of the statist machinery [Pastor Shel Boese, "Election Thoughts...1," News, Thoughts, Theology, Teaching..., 2010.11.01].

Tell me if I'm wrong (I know you will!), but I think Pastor Shel is saying something different about church and state than are Pastor Scott and his friends.

Be a prophetic voice... remember that, pastors, next time you benedict the mayor's prayer breakfast. Regardless of who sits in the governor's chair or our seats in Congress, perhaps Christianity calls believers to always be the loyal opposition.

Madville Times on KJAM AM 1390 Tonight!

Local radio gets a dose of real liberal media tonight: KJAM has invited the Madville Times to join its Election Night news team! I will be blogcasting live from the KJAM studio in beautiful downtown Madison tonight from 7 to 10. I will be tweeting election results and commentary at #sdvote2010 (and I invite the Twitter-inclined among you to do the same).

Best of all, at the :10's and :40's on each hour, Matt Groce may actually let me near the microphone! Think of it this way: Matt will be Al Michaels, news director Lauri Struve will be Dan Fouts... and I'll be Dennis Miller.

When I'm not at the mic, I'll be furiously clicking through the live election tallies streaming from Secretary of State Chris Nelson's awesome website. (Seriously, Republicans, you picked Noem over a guy this smart, who can do stuff this cool on the Web?) I'll also be taking and responding to comments here on the blog. If you've got questions or comments you'd like us to address on air, submit them in the Madville Times comment section, and Matt and I will try to work your comments into the program!

And who's making this electrifying nght of wall-to-wall election coverage and blog-radio synergy possible?

The Madville Times is going to sell a lot of beer tonight. Wisecracks are more than welcome in the comment section.

So get your local Election Night 2010 media overdose right here in Madison! Listen to Matt and me on KJAM, follow the tweets and blog feed, and contribute your two cents' worth here on the Madville Times!

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.