house

How much pork pie is enough pork pie?

But, while we're on the subject of pork, what should we get? What federal pork should South Dakota want? What makes sense? It's well and good to, at a minimum, get back all the federal dollars we put in. We do that quite well. According to this analysis we get back $1.49 for every $1.00 we put in.

That's a heck of a return on our investment. But, is it right? We can't expect to lower the budget deficit and cut taxes while we take money from other taxpayers or create more debt so we in South Dakota can take out more than we put in. Can we?

California, Connecticut, and Delaware get considerably less federal spending back as a share of taxes paid. Is that right? Maybe. Many huge US businesses are based or incorporated in those states. For example, 58% of Fortune 500 companies are based in Delaware. Thus, when someone from South Dakota buys a product or service from a Delaware company the profit on that sale is taxed in the company's state of incorporation. So that tax, which may be recorded as a Delaware tax, was actually paid out of a South Dakota pocket.

Okay, that accounts for some of the disparity. But certainly federal dollars are spent in South Dakota at a greater per capita rate than in other states. In FY 2003 South Dakota received about $8.9 billion in federal expenditures and assistance, that's $11,639 for every man, woman, and child in the state. Where is that money going?

$1.8 billion was retirement and disability. Can't do much about that now - that's pretty much fixed. $807 million was loans. That comes back presumably but at a discount. Some of the rest is Medicare ($600 million), crop insurance ($421 million), crop disaster program ($159 million), medical assistance program ($391 million), insurance ($1.9 billion). But what about the other $2.8 billion?

Some of it is knitted into larger systems such as highway funding. We have more miles of federal highway per capita then most states. If we, as a country, want federal highways from Wyoming to Minnesota or from Nebraska to North Dakota we will need to spend a lot of dollars ($284 million in FY 03) in South Dakota. Those dollars go to South Dakota contractors, employees, retailers, and generate South Dakota tax revenue. But they also serve a greater purpose and serve people from all over the country.

Some of it is spent here on a discretionary basis. Ellsworth Air force Base doesn't have to be in South Dakota. It's an open question if South Dakota is the best location for Ellsworth. Does it make sense to base those bombers as far as possible from where they might be needed? Would it make more sense to split them up and locate them on coastal bases. I know, that's heresy. The base is a huge deal in Western South Dakota. In FY 2003 Ellsworth paid out almost $200 million in salaries alone. Defense accounted for another $300 million in federal expenditures in South Dakota. That supports a lot of retail trade and sales tax revenue. That's a big enough deal to generate some serious lobbying business as Jason van Beek notes here.

But, despite our relative skill at getting our snouts in the trough, we do have our weak spots. A 2000 study by the Rand Corporation concluded: "South Dakota ranks 52nd among the 50 states, District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in terms of the amount of federal R&D dollars received annually." Wow, where was that famous Daschle clout on R & D?

Anyway, federal money strikes me as the "elephant in the living room" of our state's political discourse. As soon as I can figure out how to operate a calculator I'm going to get more into that.

Souee! Souee!

Here's an interesting bit of analysis from a story in The Aberdeen American News about Senator Thune's ability to bring home the bacon:

Tim Martinez, a professor at Black Hills State University, said it might not be easy for the president to return political favors because of the federal budget deficit.

"I think Bush is going to try to reward Thune for his victory some, but I don't think there's going to be an ability to deliver on it," Martinez said. "I don't think pork is going to be something the Bush administration is going to be able to do much of in the near future. There are a lot of other people the president owes favors. Congress is a large place."

Any payback to Thune probably would be short-term, Martinez said.

"A lot of it is driven by two factors," he said. "First of all, the budget crisis, which I think is already here. ... Second, there's a pecking order set up in Congress. The pie is going to be pretty small, and there are going to be a lot of people demanding their slice."

True, there will be a lot of people demanding their slice. But, rather than just assume Thune is simply one among 535, let's take a look at who's been naughty and who's been nice.

Really Naughty:

Senate Democrats - 44

Senate Independents - 1

House Democrats - 200

House Independents - 1

Subtotal Really Naughty - 246

Somewhat Naughty

Sen. Specter - 1

House Republicans (For screwing up the Presdent's intellegence bill) - 234

Subtotal Somewhat Naughty - 235

Total Naughty - 481

Balance - 54

Somewhat Nice

Senate Republicans - 53

Really Nice

Senate Republicans who knocked the President's Chief Adversery/Obstructionist out of his bully pulpit - 1

Hey! That's Thune!

Okay, to put all House Republicans in the naughty column is a bit distorted. But you see my point - The White House certainly owes no member of either House more than they owe John Thune. In light of the import of Thune's win, Martinez' reasoning doesn't stand. The pie may be small but South Dakota should be in for a much bigger slice thanks to Thune's win.

There is no off season

We've just finished watching John Thune's victory over Tom Daschle in South Dakota. The seeds for that victory were planted long ago. Many of those seeds were planted by Daschle who made votes that betrayed his ideological distance from his constituents.

Consequently, one of several successful strategies (Virtually all of which are well noted here: How Thune Won ) used by Thune and his consigliere Dick Wadhams (and also employed by independent organizations) was calling Daschle out on his record.

A particularly effective ad run by the National Republican Senatorial Committee (Thune later ran a similar ad.) talked about the eight times Tom Daschle voted to raise gas taxes. It cited the votes. It was absolutely factual. Now, some of those votes were not presented in their full context of highway funding or other benefits that might have accrued to the state in a trade-off for higher gas taxes. But that was Daschle's burden to explain. If you're going to vote to raise taxes on your constituents, for whatever reason (There's always a reason.), you should be able to explain your vote.

Rather than explain his vote or even attack the group running the ad (the NRSC), Daschle initially chose to attack Thune.  Daschle ran ads that dishonestly complained of Thune's "negative" campaigning. This didn't seem to help him in any quarter so he switched to an ad that in graphic terms (video of hands giving a dollar and taking two dollars) showed how the gas tax increases he supported were okay because, as part of the deal, we were screwing taxpayers in other states to pay for our roads. Crude but effective.

Herseth and Johnson are now building records to run on, rather than run from, with votes that can be used to their advantage in their next elections.

Herseth is in hock to the pro-abortion lobby. For her two elections this year she received $178,000 from Emily's List and another $16,000 from NARAL. Her "pro-choice" position puts her at odds with her South Dakota constituency. While NARAL and Emily's List support unrestricted abortions, a Sioux Falls Argus Leader/KELO poll last spring found that 72% of South Dakotans would like abortion to be forbidden or restricted to very specific circumstances, such as rape, incest or to save the life of the mother. NARAL gives South Dakota a grade of "F" for its abortion laws.

Johnson, who is generally perceived as moderate on abortion, is actually in lock step with Daschle on the issue. Look at the votes the two cast. The National Right to Life Committee's website has a comparison here. Johnson and Daschle each voted to support legal abortion 31 times out of 38 opportunities since 1997. Betcha didn't know that.

But now, a Republican measure to protect hospitals, medical centers, and doctors who refuse to perform abortions gives the two Democrats an opportunity to pad their resumes. Herseth and Johnson have a pass to make votes that will provide fodder for effective ads in two or four years.

Last summer HR 5006, the “Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2005”, came up for a vote on the House floor. The bill included the language: “None of the funds made available in this Act may be made available to a Federal agency or program, or to a State or local government, if such agency, program, or government subjects any institutional or individual health care entity to discrimination on the basis that the health care entity does not provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” That language protects hospitals, clinics, and doctors who choose not to perform abortions from penalties by state or local governments. That language is strenuously opposed by NARAL and Planned Parenthood.

However, despite the pro-abortion lobby's opposition to the language, Herseth voted for the Act. It passed overwhelmingly so her vote didn't matter. Certainly that was her excuse to her friends at Emily's List and NARAL. But, regardless the bill's popularity, regardless her feelings about abortion and desire to see its legal status protected, she did vote for the bill.

That same language wound up in the omnibus appropriations bill HR 4818 (which included the appropriations in HR 5006) that was approved this weekend. Again, Herseth voted for the omnibus bill with the anti-abortion language. Again, that bill passed overwhelmingly so her vote didn't matter. But now she can say, "I voted twice to support federal protections for hospitals that choose not to perform abortions." Believe me, when the time comes, she, or independent groups who support her, will say that.

Johnson only had one chance to support that language and he took it. He voted "yea" on HR 4818 (HR 5006 never made it to the Senate but as an amendment to HR 4818.). Kerry, Boxer, Kennedy, Edwards all voted "nay" so Tim was able to separate himself a bit from that crowd. But Daschle also voted "aye" making it that much more difficult for Tim to separate himself from Tom. Tim needs to separate himself from Tom's failed legacy.

Daschle's reelection bid and Thune's election bid began long ago. The 2006 South Dakota congressional race started last summer. The 2008 South Dakota Senate race started this weekend. Unfortunately for those who oppose abortion, for those who oppose Herseth and Johnson, these two appear to be more savvy than their mentor.

There's a long way to go. Johnson and Herseth put a little money in the political bank this weekend, but their positions on the issues will force them to draw down those accounts over time. Certainly no one is invincible. Eighteen months ago who thought John Thune could unseat Tom Daschle?

Happy hour's over

"We had...five drunks or six drunks when I came here. There's nobody drunk in the United States Senate. We don't have time to be drunk." said Sen. Ernest Hollings, D-S.C., retiring after 38 years in the Senate.

"I'm proud of those times in this body when we showed our very best. I'm proud of that moment on the Capitol steps when we joined hands and sang," Tom Daschle said.

"joined hands and sang,"? Now, was that during the drunk years or the not drunk years? The stoned years?

Here goes

It looks easy.

It's easy to comment on other's blogs (I've always been a pretty good counter-puncher.).

But now, faced with a blank post body screen, I got nothing.

Bird by bird. Here's bird one.