Mayor Boke Fighting Booth Hatchery Closure; Noem Strangely Noncommital

Spearfish Mayor Dana Boke understands that we need to save the D.C Booth Fish Hatchery:

“This is part of our culture,” Boke said. “My 10-year-old daughter read about it in the paper, and it brought her to tears. That’s how all the kids feel. There are memories all across South Dakota and beyond of this place and the family memories it’s created over time. It’s tied to who we are.

“We need to champion the cause and assist in any way we can to get this thing turned around,” the mayor added [Tom Griffith, "Spearfish's D.C. Booth Fish Hatchery Helped Change South Dakota History," Rapid City Journal, 2013.08.25].

Senator Tim Johnson seems to get it, too:

“I am very disturbed about the rumors that the D.C. Booth Fish Hatchery in Spearfish might be closed by the Fish & Wildlife Service,” Johnson said. “The D.C. Booth Fish Hatchery is a tremendous asset of the Black Hills. I have fought hard for funding to invest in the restoration of the hatchery and to make it an informational and educational showcase of fish hatchery operations in the Black Hills and the U.S.” [Griffith, 2013.08.25]

I think Congresswoman Kristi Noem gets it, although as usual, Noem's aloof, self-absorbed talking-point detachment makes it hard to tell. Rep. Noem told a packed Spearfish town hall Friday that she'll "push to get more information and ask the right questions." But after hearing such vociferous feedback from so many Spearfish residents and even visiting the hatchery herself Friday, our Congresswoman's only social media reaction to the town hall is to thank "interested parties" for the "info" and to post photos of herself while cheering the great turnout at "my townhall".

Kristi, get with the program. You go to a town hall during working hours in Spearfish. Concerned citizens pack the hall to express concern about an obviously bad decision from Washington that will kill jobs and hurt tourism and tax revenue. The mayor's daughter is in tears! Politically, the D.C. Booth Hatchery issue is a no-brainer. You tell those eager constituents on the spot, "The Hatchery rocks. It stays open. I'll call the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and read them the riot act." You use your social media presence to send the message immediately that you listened and you're doggedly on the case. "Thx for the info" doesn't rally the troops or make a memorable impression on voters who want to know you'll fight for them and for the Hatchery.

I understand Rep. Noem may have difficulty getting passionate about an issue that doesn't appear in the weekly briefing points from Speaker Boehner. But South Dakota's lone Representative needs to get off script and join Mayor Boke in representing her constituents and fighting to save the D.C. Booth Hatchery from the thoughtless Washington budget axe.

Reich Reviles Rotten Reaganomics Rehash -- Congress Passes Stimulus II

Senator Tim Johnson was on SDPB Dakota Midday Tuesday insisting that he had no choice but to vote for the $858 billion Stimulus II that the Republican leadership and President Obama worked out. Funny: Senator Tom Harkin from Iowa thought he had a choice. So did twelve other Senate Democrats, six Senate Republicans, and one Senate Indy-Socialist (roll call vote #276 here).

South Dakota's last Democrat in Washington needs to read more Robert Reich. America's best darn former Secretary of Labor critiques exactly this false "have no choice" excuse. Reich says we ought to have the courage to choose something other than a rehash of failed Reaganomics:

Supply siders are also fond of claiming that Ronald Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts caused the 1980s economic boom. There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, that boom followed Reagan’s 1982 tax increase. The 1990s boom likewise was not the result of a tax cut; most of it followed Bill Clinton’s 1993 tax increase.

Nor did George W. Bush’s tax cuts trickle down. Between 2002 and 2007 the median wage actually dropped. And Bush’s record of job creation was pathetic relative to Bill Clinton’s, when taxes were higher. Under Clinton, America added 22 million net new jobs. Under Bush, barely 8 million [Robert Reich, "The New Tax Deal: Reaganomics Redux," blog, 2010.12.16].

Holy cow: our gal Stephanie and my man Dennis both voted aye! Michele Bachmann and Anthony Weiner voted nay. We should have more votes with alignments like that.

Wow: two empirical examples of significant tax increases followed by better economic growth than we got after the Bush tax cuts... ineffective cuts that we are now extending.

I know, it's all over but the shouting. But there are economic lessons we aren't learning... and I intend to keep shouting them.

Congressional Republicans and Democrats All Rolling in Dough

Dr. Weiland gets me reading about the health insurance industry's huge donations to the Chamber of Commerce to fight health insurance reform. As an undercard, WaPo's Dan Eggen also discusses the personal wealth of our Congresspeople:

The personal wealth of members of Congress collectively increased by 16 percent between 2008 and 2009, even as the economic downturn eliminated millions of jobs for ordinary Americans, according to a study by the Center for Responsive Politics released Wednesday.

In the House, the study found, the median wealth was $765,010, up from $645,503 in 2008. In the Senate, median wealth grew from $2.27 million in 2008 to $2.38 million in 2009.

The new data come as lawmakers consider whether to extend tax cuts for couples making $250,000 or more - a move that presumably would benefit many of the members. The Obama administration wants to confine the tax breaks to earnings under $250,000, although it has signaled it might be open to a compromise with Republicans on the issue [Dan Eggen, "," Washignton Post, 2010.11.17].

Interestingly, I check the original database at OpenSecrets.org and find there is no mathematical correlation between Congresspeople's personal wealth and party affiliation. The Democrats have as many rich lawmakers as the Republicans.

Perhaps that's one more reason that the difference between Democrats and Republicans, left and Right, isn't as big as you think. The real battle lines in American politics may be between individual rights and corporate power... and those of us on the individual rights side are sorely outgunned!

-------------------------
Our Congresspeople don't have to give exact data, just ranges for their net worth. Using OpenSecrets.org's calculation of average worth, 43% of House members and 70% of Senators were millionaires in 2009. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin was one of them, with $1.3 million. She ranked about 160th among her colleagues.

Neither of our Senators made the millionaires' club in 2009. Senator Tim Johnson was back at $724K, ranking 79th. Senator John Thune showed "only" $441K in average net worth, ranking 88th.

Blog Potpourri: Fine Turns of Phrase

We find all sorts of verbal artistry on display in the South Dakota blogosphere this week.

Exhibit #1: Doug Wiken discusses Senator Tim Johnson's capacity for playing the grown-up in the room on earmarks. Senator Johnson notes that the federal government now lists every earmark online. Our Senior Senator says declaring a moratorium on the current earmark process will take spending decisions out of the hands of elected members of Congress and put it in the hands of an unaccountable Washington bureaucrat. Senator Johnson says earmarks done right fill vital needs in rural South Dakota. Wiken says "those enamored with the boilerplate mythology of Thune and Noem" should pay attention to Johnson's much more practical assessment.

Exhibit #2: David Newquist launches another hefty assessment of the disadvantages South Democrats face and the action the party should take to effect change. He addresses the South Dakota inferiority complex, saying young Democrats with talent recognize that this state doesn't appreciate talent and that they can find other states that will give them better political and employment opportunities. But Newquist still sees hope for young, ambitious Dems like Ben Nesselhuf and Mitch Fargen to stay and make a difference... and it's not through electoral politics that force us to pretend we are Republicans:

Elections produce nothing but rancor and lead to nothing but oppressive gridlock through the power game playing. A reformed political party must understand that to contribute to beneficial change, it will have to work around the state government, not through it. The old Non-Partisan League, which formed in the Dakotas early in their statehood, has some lessons for our current time.

Just as the Non-Partisan League built its influence through addressing the actual concerns of farmers who realized that the railroads and grain companies were impediments to their lives, the Democratic Party must acknowledge the forces that keep so much of South Dakota in a state of thralldom. The Non-Partisan League challenged the stifling oppression by the business community through state-owned banks, grain elevators, mills, and banned corporate farming. Many people objected to the socialist aspects, but state government in South Dakota is dominated by the credit bank interests, so there is really no difference between the rule of state government and the rule by banks. The Party needs to strengthen and revitalize its presence in those enclaves in the state where it has its support, and it must work at the local level to build functioning relationships with the segments within and outside the state that make the creation of viable communities its priority. The election of sacrificial goats and/or scape goats to the state legislature is more of a distraction than a reasonable focus of political activity [David Newquist, "Flogging dead horses, inflating degenerate balloons, or what?" Northern Valley Beacon, 2010.11.17].

Newquist clearly disagrees with my contention that we Dems should focus on fielding enough candidates for a primary in every race. But his suggestion is to focus on direct political action to benefit our communities. I (and the rest of us Dems) clearly have some thinking to do.

Exhibit #3: Bob Mercer discusses "The Soviet Takeover of Dakota War College." On reading the headline, I thought Mercer was referring to the turn of the blog from mostly rugged individual authorship to the new writers' collective (which, alas, includes some anonymous writers who need to cowboy up and put their names to their words). But Mercer's concerns about the Sovietization of the blog are less about creeping collectivism and more about the Soviet-style deletion of history and documents. Journalist Mercer appears to share concerns expressed elsewhere in the blogosphere that this self-censorship signals that, at best, six years of blogging was just a rough draft, now subject to revisionary pressure to suit ideological or commercial demands.

Grassland Wilderness: Noem Willfully Uninformed, Ikes on Board, Herseth Sandlin Still Thinking...

As we wait to see if the Senate will act on Tim Johnson's really good grassland wilderness bill, it is worth noting that GOP House hopeful Kristi Noem not only has not read the whole bill (S. 3310, the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act... all six whopping pages of it!), but also won't even listen to folks who could explain it to her:

Several weeks ago we requested a meeting with Noem to provide information about wilderness and share with her the support this legislation has received from over 50 local organizations including hunters, the Oglala, Rosebud, Cheyenne River, Standing Rock and Lower Brule Sioux Tribes, conservationists and others. Unfortunately, we received no response.

I hope Noem reconsiders, and bases her decision on factual, accurate information this time around [Cheryl Warren, SD Wild Grassland Coalition, letter to the editor, Rapid City Journal, 2010.09.15].

The South Dakota Izaak Walton League also supports the Cheyenne River grassland wilderness plan. More wild-eyed grass-hugging greenies? Not from the looks of the folks I see at the Ikes' clubhouse on Lake Herman.

I note that Richard Rasmussen's letter cites Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin's "recognition that Sen. Johnson's grassland wilderness bill positively affects hunting and the economy." But Herseth Sandlin's office has yet to finish its evaluation of "this complex issue" and issue the endorsement that Senator Johnson's bill deserves.

Thune Leads South Dakota Delegation in Dirty Energy Money

Since we're talking about tainted campaign contributions, let's look at polluted political money from Big Oil and Coal. An eager reader points me toward DirtyEnergyMoney.com, a fun website with lots of buttons to push. You can look up how much money your Congresspeople get from the fossil fuel lobby and others who want to keep America in the energy Dark Ages.

So how much money do our Congresspeople take from energy lobbyists in smoke-filled rooms fighting for a smoke-filled country?

1. Senator John Thune: $521,046 (22% from coal interests, 78% from Big Oil)
2. Senator Tim Johnson: $218,260 (61% coal, 39% oil)
3. Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin: $72,450 (52% coal, 48% oil)

Alas, DirtyEnergyMoney.com only tracks current members of Congress, not candidates. You'll have to dig through Federal Election Commission records yourself to find the scuzzy money in Kristi Noem's war chest (though I've started a list here).
-----------------------------
Bonus BP-Boehner bash: DirtyEnergyMoney.com's numbers show that House Minority Leader John Boehner has taken $8000 in contributions from BP. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has taken $1000 in dirty BP money. The logical conclusion: John Boehner is eight times worse than Nancy Pelosi! ;-)

Help Business: Pass Carbon Caps Now!

Yesterday I mentioned Rebecca Terk's cogent explanation of how clear regulation of homemade food helps micro-business by making the marketplace predictable for home-based entrepreneurs. I drew a parenthetical analogy with the passage of energy security legislation: get the Senate off its duff to set clear national policy for renewable energy and the cost of carbon emission, and industry will finally know where to invest in long-term energy plans.

Then David Leonhardt makes exactly the same point in his NYT essay on how Congress can boost growth and stave off the dreaded double-dip recession. He notes that health insurance reform and financial reform are already helping businesses make decisions.

One big piece of uncertainty remains, though: energy. Several energy chief executives have said they have major projects ready to go, if only they knew what was going to happen to the cost of emitting carbon. The same is no doubt true of nonenergy companies trying to make decisions about new buildings and factories.

The Senate still has a small window to pass an energy bill this summer. A good bill would include a cap on power plant emissions, making clear how much more expensive those emissions would become. Such a bill wouldn’t help only the climate, as Jim Rogers of Duke Energy says. It would be a form of stimulus, too [David Leonhardt, "5 Ways Congress Can Bolster Growth," New York Times, 2010.07.06].

As I've said, and as my friends at Repower America have said, let's finish the job on energy security legislation so the marketplace can get to work. Senator Tim Johnson knows energy security legislation will be good for South Dakota—he said so at the Heartland open house yesterday (I'll buy an ice cream cone for the first person who can send me a photo of Russell Olson applauding those lines!). Unfortunately, Johnson also said cap and trade won't pass the Senate—nertz! Time to swing the big stick, Senator Johnson, get your colleagues on board, and pass some energy legislation to help the environment and the economy!

-------------------
Related: Senator Johnson told the nice people at the Heartland shindig yesterday that energy security legislation will promote the production of low-cost electricity. Matt McGovern of Repower America agrees: he tells KJAM that reports of the impending demise of your pocketbook due to green energy are greatly exaggerated... by the oil industry and corporate interests determined to squeeze every dollar they can from an outdated, unsustainable energy business model.

Also Related: The Obama Administration is following through on a campaign promise to clean up the air in the eastern U.S. Per direction of the courts, the EPA is issuing a revamped version of the Clean Air Interstate Rule (originally proposed by that crazy socialist greenie and destroyer of the economy President George W. Bush) to require coal-fired plants east of the Mississippi to drastically reduce sulfur dioxide and nitrogen oxide emissions by 2014. The plan includes pollution credit trading.

Johnson Good on Grassland Wilderness; What's Thune's Problem?

Location of first national grassland wilderness (blue zones), proposed in Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010. Click image to enlarge. [Image courtesy of South Dakota Wild Grassland Coalition]

Senator Tim Johnson has a good idea. In May, he introduced S. 3310 the Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act of 2010. The bill, which got its first Senate committee hearing last week, would designate about 48,000 acres of West River grassland as national wilderness. That's about 75 square miles, a total area a little larger than Sioux Falls, declared off limits to development and mechanical travel (including my mountain bike) and kept about as natural as it can be.

The South Dakota Wild Grasslands Coalition released a survey last March finding about 60% support for this specific wilderness proposal among voters in the neighborhood of the affected lands. The survey even found majority support among snowmobilers and off-roaders.

Ranchers won't lose any grazing land if the wilderness designation passes. S. 3310 specifically excepts established grazing from the bill. In other words, if your cows eat grass near Red Shirt now, they'll be able to eat grass there after the bill becomes law.

Hunters and fishers would still get to enjoy the area right alongside backpackers, birdwatchers, and rock collectors. S. 3310 specifies that the state retains jurisdiction over fish and wildlife management, including hunting, fishing, and trapping.

Even Ellsworth Air Force Base gets to carve a niche in this bill. S. 3310 specifies that the military gets to keep its current flight training routes and can even declare new flight paths over the wilderness. (And you know, even when I'm backpacking, I think getting a good look at big jet planes is kind of cool... as long as that ordnance stays bolted on tight!)

Now Senator John Thune ought to be backing Senator Johnson on this proposal. Thune appreciates the value of protecting habitat and game populations for hunting and tourism.

But Thune is opposing S. 3310. He cites opposition from Governor Rounds, the Legislature, county commissioners, and area ranchers like Ken Knuppe and Scott Edoff, who worry their grazing permits will change.

The list of ranchers opposing the wilderness designation does not include Dan O'Brien, who holds the largest grazing permit in the northern portion of the targeted territory. He raises buffalo and is looking into eco-/agritourism. In his Senate testimony last week, he invoked the spirit of Teddy Roosevelt to declare the silence and solitude of the Indian Creek area a vital national resource deserving "maximum federal protection." He says wilderness designation would protect his own ranching and business interests as well as the rights of all Americans to enjoy the grasslands, which he says are "the least protected landscape in the world."

Senator Thune appears to be reaching for arguments, resorting to saying that the language in the bill doesn't say exactly what it says. He's rounded up the South Dakota Cattlemen's Association to echo his alarmism. The SD Wild Grassland Organization pretty effectively disposes with every one of Senator Thune's and the SDCA's stated concerns here.

The Tony Dean Cheyenne River Valley Conservation Act would create a unique national wilderness, protecting a fragile prairie ecosystem that enjoys this sort of protection nowhere else. Right between South Dakota's two existing wilderness areas, the Black Elk Wilderness in the Hills and the Badlands Wilderness, the Indian Creek, Red Shirt, and Chalk Hills wildernesses would boost South Dakota's profile, tourism, and hunting without taking away from ranching. Passing this bill would honor the memory and wisdom of famed South Dakota outdoorsman Tony Dean, who appreciated the value of wilderness.

Senator Johnson recognizes the clear and immediate good S. 3310 would do. Senator Thune is grasping for hypothetical "potential" harms refuted by the spirit and the letter of this legislation, not to mention plain facts.

Come on, John: you can work with Tim on Ellsworth; you can work with Tim on wilderness. Drop the obstructionism, and support this good bill.

-----------------------
Update 19:37 CDT: I learn via Sibby that President Bush proposed creating a 71,381-acre Cheyenne River Valley Grassland. Sibby also leaves me to puzzle over how protecting wilderness ecosystems on federal land is part of the "socialist anti-property-rights agenda in South Dakota." Hmmm....

South Dakota Celebrates Ellsworth Pork

State Bravely Accepts Heightened Military Risk for Filthy Federal Lucre

South Dakota Republicans talk a good game on cutting federal spending. But start handing out military pork, and watch the good times roll. Republican Senator John Thune is as eager to take credit for bringing a new drone flight control center to Ellsworth Air Force Base as is Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, who as chairman of the military construction subcommittee and member of the majority party might actually have had something to do with bringing the joystick warroom to Ellsworth.

Senator Thune likes to cite the conservative Heritage Foundation when it suits his agenda (he also mentioned them to justify his vote for the 2008 bailout). Yet Badlands Blue astutely points out that Senator Thune conveniently ignores the Heritage Foundation's position from the Bush era on the benefits of closing military bases. Thune also ignores President Eisenhower's admonition about dependence on the military-industrial complex. But who cares about taking a principled stand against federal spending (not to mention military technology arguably more sneaky than black helicopters) when Uncle Sam's money (a) hires local people, (b) helps politicians get re-elected, and (c) wrecks things and kills people?

By the way, has anyone noticed that by taking these federal jobs and putting ourselves "up front in the War on Terror," we're increasing the risk of a terrorist or military attack on South Dakota soil? But hey, we're all about creating jobs with pipelines that could leak, refineries that could explode, pesticides that cause cancer, and other unnecessary risky projects. Military targets are good for the economy, too.

Johnson Right on Gays in Military; SHS Casts Correct Vote

David Montgomery works late to give a good breakdown of where our Congressional delegation stands on allowing gays to serve in the United States Armed Forces. Senator Tim Johnson, who didn't actually get to vote on the defense appropriations amendment that would repeal the Don't Ask Don't Tell policy, made the clearest statement of why we should support that repeal:

As things stand now, any repeal would go into effect only after the study is completed and military leaders and the President give the go ahead. Once that happens, I support ending Don't Ask Don't Tell because any individual who is willing and able to defend our country should be able to do so, regardless of their sexual orientation. My view is shared not only by the administration, but top military leaders as well [Senator Tim Johnson, quoted in David Montgomery, "South Dakota's delegation weighs in on 'Don't Ask, Don't Tell,'" Behind Government Lines, 2010.05.27].

Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin joined 233 House colleagues in voting for the repeal. She fails to address the issue of justice and opportunity for all, talking instead about the importance of leaving it to military leaders to "determine what's best for the military." I would prefer SHS add, "...and what's best for the military is to take every willing and able soldier it can get, regardless of whom they love. Forcing gays to stay in the closet and kicking them out when they don't (or when the Rapid City police rat them out) is wrong." Even if SHS manages not to let the gay-word cross her lips, her GOP opponent will still hoot and holler that her vote shows she's beholden to Speaker Pelosi and the "gay agenda." Why play word games, Steph? Call a discriminatory spade a spade and say "Gays have rights like everyone else."

Senator Thune plays a similar game of dodging the real issue. As Montgomery points out, Thune mischaracterizes the repeal amendment as a "White House ultimatum" rather than a compromise. (And don't tell me Thune doesn't have in mind some ultimata he'd issue if he got to be President.) Thune calls repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell a "last-ditch effort by the White House to deliver on a campaign promise"... as if delivering on campaign promises is a bad thing.

On Don't Ask Don't Tell itself, Senator Thune drops this turd in the rhetorical crapper:

"It just seems to me that moving forward [with repeal] would be a mistake.... There are very serious misgivings about changing a policy that has worked pretty effectively" [Thune, quoted in Montgomery, 2010].

..which translates as "Our soldiers are such wimps they couldn't shoot straight if we forced them to serve alongside queers. So kicking out over 13,000 skilled but annoyingly gay soldiers is a great idea. Besides, homosexuals aren't real Americans, anyway. Our Founding Fathers didn't mention them in the Constitution, so screw 'em."

Thank you, Senator Johnson, for the straight talk on this issue. Thank you, Rep. Herseth Sandlin, for at least voting the right way. And thank you, Senator Thune, for exposing the continued bigotry and ignorance of your party.

Tim Johnson Shows Leadership, Tells South Dakota He's Proud of Health Reform

Meanwhile, Senator Tim Johnson shows some Democratic leadership by standing up in the middle of red-state South Dakota and declaring health insurance reform is good!

Americans have been waiting for generations to see common sense changes made in our country’s health care delivery system.

Now that Congress has passed health care reform and President Obama has signed the legislation into law, reforms that had only been talked about for decades are now being put in place. As this bill is implemented, South Dakotans will not have to wait long to see the immediate benefits of this bill [Senator Tim Johnson, "SD will see benefits of health reform soon," Pierre Capital Journal, 2010.04.06].

It takes more than some politically impotent protestors and posing propagandists to drive Senator Johnson away from the facts on health insurance reform:

Unfortunately, those against health care reform have tried to scare seniors and families about the impacts of this bill. Some have gone so far as to say these reforms should be overturned. I can’t imagine why anyone would want to reopen the donut hole and charge seniors more for their prescriptions, once again allow insurers to drop you from your plan because of a preexisting illness, or banish kids from their parent’s policy.

After all, this bill actually reduces the national debt by $143 billion dollars over the first decade alone.

As for me, passage of health reform was one of the proudest moments in my 31 years in elective office [Johnson, 2010].

One of the proudest moments... that's the kind of leadership we need to hear from South Dakota Democrats. Health insurance reform is good for South Dakota and good for America. It saves money, improves health care, and expands our liberty. Thank you, Senator Johnson, for not being afraid to say so.

Dems! Follow Johnson, Enact Public Option This Year

Kudos to South Dakota's Senator Tim Johnson: he is among 31 senators so far [Update! 34!] who have said they want a public option in the health insurance reform reconciliation bill. Makes sense, since that's what Americans want.

Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee promises Republicans will campaign to repeal whatever health insurance reform the Democrats pass this year.

To which the proper response is to pass health insurance reform with a public option that kicks in now. Don't wait until 2013, which is how long it would have taken Uncle Sam to start offering health insurance under earlier forms of the House bill. Pass it, sign it, and start offering working Americans the chance to buy into Medicare the next day. Watch millions of Americans, myself included, buy in before Election Day.

And then, even if the GOP retakes Congress in November, just watch what happens when they turn to those millions of Americans who buy the public option and ask them to give up that more comprehensive, more secure, more efficient and affordable insurance and return to the dog-eat-dog private individual market.

Don't think about November, Dems. Think about now, and the millions of Americans who need a health insurance solution.

FY 2010 Earmarks for South Dakota: $148 Million

Taxpayers for Common Sense has posted its Fiscal Year 2010 Earmark Database. South Dakota's take in earmarks, by my sorting of the spreadsheet: $147,824,150.

Remember, that's not total federal funding; that's just the little Christmas ornaments Senator Johnson, Senator Thune, and Representative Herseth Sandlin (and President Obama!) were able to hang on the tree. (Oh, and one from North Dakota Senator Dorgan, who was nice enough to request $150K for a Corps of Engineers investigation on the James River.)

And just which of our Congresspeople were responsible for how much of those earmarks?

House sponsor	Amount	Senate sponsor	percentage of total SD earmarks
Herseth Sandlin	$360,000		0.2%
	$8,105,000	Johnson, Tim	5.5%
	$5,750,000	Thune	3.9%
	$150,000	Dorgan	0.1%
Herseth Sandlin	$19,381,550	Johnson, Tim	13.1%
Herseth Sandlin	$0	Thune	0.0%
Herseth Sandlin	$87,947,600	Johnson, Tim; Thune	59.5%

Six out of every ten earmark dollars were requested by our entire Congressional delegation, Democrats and Republican working together to bring home the bacon. And that nice fellow in the White House was nice enough to request more than $20 million more, mostly for the Fort Randall and Big Bend dams.

The ten biggest earmarks for South Dakota:

Amount	Project	Location	Purpose	Agency	Earmarkers H=Herseth J=Johnson T=Thune P=President
$32,200,000	MNI Wiconi Project		Energy and Water	Bureau of Reclamation	HJTP
$14,500,000	Add/Alt Deployment Center	Ellsworth Air Force Base	Military Construction	Air Force	HJTP
$11,604,000	Fort Randall Dam, Lake Francis Case, SD		Energy and Water	Corps of Engineers	P
$9,383,000	Big Bend Dam, Lake Sharpe, SD		Energy and Water	Corps of Engineers	P
$7,890,000	Joint Forces HQ Readiness Center Supplement	Camp Rapid	Military Construction	Army National Guard	HJT
$3,200,000	Alternative Power Technology for Missile Defense	Brookings	Defense	Research, Development, Test & Evaluation	HJT
$3,000,000	Advanced Electronics Rosebud Integration	Rosebud	Defense	Research, Development, Test & Evaluation	HJT
$3,000,000	Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe, Lower Brule Sioux, SD	Lower Brule Sioux	Energy and Water	Corps of Engineers	JT
$3,000,000	SD Highway 63 Resurfacing, SD		Transportation-Housing and Urban Development	Federal Highway Administration	T
$2,750,000	Sun Grant Initiative (SD)		Energy and Water	Department of Energy	HJ

The earmarks also include $500K for suicide prevention on the Rosebud, $400K for the Brant Lake sewer system, and $1.2M for developing "stabilized hemoglobin wound healing" for the Army. Once again, I welcome Dr. R. Blake Curd and my Tea Party friends to tell me which of these programs and any of the other earmarks are among the great evils of the Republic that South Dakota should reject.

Some notes from the national earmark scene:

• The Senator and Representative who won the most earmarks are both Republicans.
  
• Of the top five from each house, five were Republicans, five were Democrats.
• Republicans did claim fewer earmark dollars, taking just 34% of the partisanly assignable dollar value in this budget, compared to 44% in FY 2009.
• 58 Representatives claimed no solo earmarks; 13 were Dems, 45 were GOP.
  
• 24 Senators claimed no solo earmarks; 16 were Dems (including John Kerry), 8 were GOP (including John McCain).
  
• Earmarks went down by number, from 10,363 to 9,413.
• Earmarks went up by dollar, from $15.6 billion to $15.9 billion.
• Earmarks went up, barely, as a percentage of the total budget, from 0.44% to 0.45%.
  

Obama Dings Bailed-out Banks for Balking at Student Loan Reform

President Obama criticizes the special-interest opposition to his plan to reform student loans and strengthen Pell grants (HR 3221, which passed the House last week):

Mr. Obama, speaking at a community college, said that American banks had received bailout money from the federal government, and yet were still fighting against a proposal that would eliminate an unwarranted subsidy which the banks receive for providing student loans.

“Ending this unwarranted subsidy for big banks is a no-brainer for folks everywhere,” Mr. Obama said, before lashing out against his favorite target of late. “Everywhere except Washington, that is. In fact, we’re already seeing the special interests rallying to save this giveaway” [Helene Cooper, "Obama Criticizes Banks over Student Loan Subsidies," New York Times: The Caucus, 2009.09.21].

So let's rewind the tape: why did Congresswomen Herseth Sandlin say she voted against HR 3221?

The enactment of this bill in this form could result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs in South Dakota during a period of higher unemployment," she told reporters Thursday, mentioning Student Loan Corp. in Sioux Falls, a subsidiary of Citi [Ledyard King, "Student Loan Reform Could Cost S. Dakota," that Sioux Falls paper, 2009.09.18].

SHS is fighting for a continued government subsidy to Citi, which we bailed out with $50 billion, the most given yet to any one bank. Senator Thune says he's all about ending the bailouts (which he voted for)... yet he supports continuing the student loan subsidy as well.

Please tell me at least Senator Tim Johnson will agree with the President that ending this subsidy and making college more affordable for more Americans during a recession is indeed a no-brainer.

Middle Class: Herseth Sandlin Good, Johnson Middling, Thune Deficient

The Drum Major Institute for Public Policy sponsors a little website called TheMiddleClass.org, where they try to put major legislation in the context job and retirement security, home affordability, access to health care and good education, and other issues that make for a reasonably comfortable middle-class life.

TheMiddleClass.org also issues Middle Class Grades for each member of Congress. How does South Dakota's Congressional delegation score on middle-class issues?

	Running score for 2009	Grade for 2008
Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin	77%	B
Sen. Tim Johnson	67%	C
Sen. John Thune	22%	D

On middle-class issues, Sen. Thune is at the bottom of the class. But hey, at least he's improving: he got F's during his first three years in the Senate. Maybe by election time next year, he can bump that score up to a whopping C.

Senator Johnson, alas, has been slipping: he managed an A back in 2003, but it's been mostly Cs since. And SHS has been working her way up, slow and steady, from Cs at the start to Bs now.

End note: TheMiddleClass.org gives SHS's vote for the Food Safety Enhancement Act a thumbs up for middle class concerns, in contrast with my position. Interesting.

Tell Senator Johnson America Can Do Health Coverage Right: Single-Payer!

My friend Jackie reminds me that Senator Johnson is spending the Congressional holiday recess touring the state to talk health care. She lists three events where we can tell the Senator what we want in person:

1. Sioux Falls, Tuesday, June 30 – Ramkota, Roosevelt Room, 3200 West Maple Street, Panel Presentation from 2-3:30pm.
2. Yankton, Wednesday, July 1 - Best Western Kelly Inn,1607 East Hwy 50, Panel Presentation from 11-12:30pm.
3. Mitchell, Thursday, July 2 – James Valley Community Center, 300 West 1st Avenue, Panel Presentation from 2-3:30pm
   

If you can't make the meetings, Senator Johnson is also taking health care stories online. Need ideas on what to write? Here's what I dashed off to him this weekend:

When our daughter was born at Madison Community Hospital, she had a lung infection that required three nights in NICU in Sioux Falls. The total bill for prenatal, birth, and NICU came to $24,000, of which our high-deductible insurance policy (all we could afford on teacher pay) covered only $12,000 (insurers in pro-life South Dakota aren't required to cover prenatal and maternity). Every bill the insurer sent us after our daughters birth had at least one error that we had to take the time to track down and correct.

The federal government can't do worse than that. Actually, we're convinced the federal government can do better. We need a single-payer system. To pay for it, my family will gladly pay $3,600 more a year in taxes... which is exactly what we pay now for a $7,500-deductible private insurance plan that could disappear the moment one of us suffers cancer or a stroke or some other malady that would make us too unprofitable for our private insurer to continue to cover.

As I said, we are confident the government (all of us, working together, not for profit but for the common good) can do better. Single-payer, not-for-profit health coverage: if other countries can do it, we can do it even better (we are America, aren't we?).

I was hoping that when Senator Johnson came back from his stroke two years ago, he would be inspired to champion giving every American the same great government health coverage that helped him through his hard times. Government health care works for you, Senator Johnson. It can work for all of us. Stand and fight for single-payer, not-for-profit health coverage.

Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights Passes... No Thanks to South Dakota

The cheese stands alone: Senator Tim Johnson is the only Democrat in the U.S. Senate to vote against the Credit Cardholders Bill of Rights. Senator John Thune was almost the only Republican Senator to do so: only three other senators could rustle up a reason to vote against making credit card companies deal honestly with customers.

Recall that three weeks ago, Representative Herseth Sandlin similarly played the cheese in the House on this bill. So South Dakota has the distinction of its entire Congressional delegation voting in favor of supporting deceptive, predatory lending as a basis for economic growth. How embarassing. Fortunately, the vast majority of our delegation's colleagues from other states are able to see the sensibility of requiring credit card lenders to play fair. President Obama will sign this bill, and we will have the pleasure of calling Premier BankCard's bluff: Are you guys really going to close down because of this law? Are we really going to see consumer credit dry up just because you won't issue cards to people who are bad risks any more? Go ahead, make my day. Even if Governor Rounds's worst-case scenarios come true, our state and our economy will still be better off getting rid of these near-criminal business practices.

But remember, by Rep. Herseth Sandlin's logic, if she's catching hell from conservative Republicans and liberal Democrats, then she must be doing a good job. Cool: then the liberal Democrat writing this blog will be happy to forward her cause and Senator Johnson's by heaping plenty of criticism on them for their bad, bad, bad votes on this credit card legislation.

Question for Rep. Herseth Sandlin and Sen. Johnson: where are all the moderates you so ably represent who are crying out for you to protect the usury industry from regulation?

Thune, Johnson, Herseth Sandlin Join Unemployment Stimulus Battle with Rounds

South Dakota's Congressional delegation seems to be making some uncharacteristic incursions into state politics this week. In response to Governor Rounds's signaled rejection of 0.89% of the federal stimulus money coming South Dakota's way, both of our senators took sides, with Senator Thune backing the governor and Senator Johnson telling him to take the money.

I note with interest Senator Thune's argument against accepting the unemployment money:

"These governors are going to have to shut off these programs (once the money runs out) and how do you tell somebody enrolled in the program that they’re no longer going to be eligible for it" [reported by Ledyard King, "Johnson Says Rounds Shouldn’t Turn Away Federal Unemployment Aid," that Sioux Falls paper, 2009.02.25].

That's funny: I thought Republicans were all about shutting off programs. Thune sounds like a bleeding heart Washington liberal to me. ;-)

Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin has also weighed in, going point by point against the arguments Governor Rounds and some of his GOP pals have made:

• The stimulus law does not require states to maintain any unemployment insurance rule changes past the duration of the stimulus money.
• Unemployment benefits are among the best stimulus tools available.
• Taking the stimulus money now will actually avert a UI tax increase on employers this year (just as the governor's labor secretary is trying to tell him).

I'm of the impression that our representatives in Washington don't often challenge decisions in Pierre. But there's enough at stake with the unemployment stimulus—boosting the economy, making the most of federal dollars, and helping our neighbors—that our Congresspeople can justify spending a little political capital to back or rebut the governor's action.

Internal Johnson Poll: McCain 45, Obama 40

...and Joel who?

Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic gets hold of an internal poll from Senator Tim Johnson's campaign (papers do just float about in funny ways, don't they?). You can read the full document here (Word format). Highlights from the 613 likely South Dakota voters surveyed Monday and Tuesday of this week:

• McCain leads Obama 45% to 40%. (Bush beat Kerry in SD in 2004 60% to 38%.)
  
• The sample included 41% self-identifying Republicans, 35% Democrats, and 24% Independents. Should boost McCain's numbers.
  
• The sample could be said to skew older (though that depends on your definition of old): 41% over 55, 32% under 40. Should boost McCain's numbers
• The sample skewed educated: 44% college graduates, 27% with only HS diploma or less. Should boost Obama's numbers.

Laugh line of the poll: Joel Dykstra has a lower favorability rating in South Dakota than Barack Obama... and one week before the election, 42% of respondents still say they have never heard of Dykstra. (3% say they've never heard of Senator Tim Johnson... who are you people?)

The GOP presidential nominee winning South Dakota by 5 points, against a black Democrat who came in second in the South Dakota primary. The GOP Senate candidate still unknown to 2 out of 5 likely South Dakota voters. If there's any truth to Johnson's numbers, heads are gonna roll at GOP campaign headquarters....

NRA Endorses Democrats Johnson and Herseth Sandlin

One more time, Barack Obama isn't coming for your guns.

But even if he were, he'd have to answer to two of his biggest South Dakota backers, Tim Johnson and Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. The National Rifle Association has given Senator Johnson and Congresswoman Herseth Sandlin its highest rating... and its endorsement. We have two rock-solid conservative Republican challengers, and the NRA picks Dems. Go figure.