Say Anything Blog

Americans For a Fair Tax need some volunteers who can attend the North Dakota Farm Bureau convention in Bismarck on Thursday, November 17th. The volunteers would need to sit at the Fair Tax booth and hand out brochures from 6:00pm - 9:00pm.

The convention is taking place at the Ramkota Inn.

If you're interested email me and I'll pass your names on to the appropriate people. It sounds like a good time.

I'd be attending personally, but I'm going to be traveling most of the rest of this week and just can't make time.

Bismarck Democrats has launched.

It's got a slick layout. Looks like it will be a good addition to the North Dakota political blogging community.

Update:

Never mind.

Time Magazine has a ranking of America's governors out. Lousiana's Kathleen Blanco is at the bottom.

TOPEKA, Kan. - Gov. Kathleen Sebelius has been named one of the five best governors in the nation by Time magazine.

Sebelius, a Democrat, was elected in 2002 "by winning the governor's race in a state where Republicans outnumber Democrats almost 2 to 1," the magazine said Sunday in a news release.

"Through spending cuts, fee increases and some borrowing, Sebelius was able to balance Kansas' budget in her first year in office without raising taxes or cutting funding for education," the magazine said. . . .

Time's worst governors were Kathleen Blanco of Louisiana, Bob Taft of Ohio and South Carolina's Mark Sanford.

One has to assume that this ranking is a reflection of Blanco's horrendous handling of the Katrina disaster. The media and America's political left exerted a lot of energy blaming Bush on Katrina, but the people who were paying attention know where to lay the blame and Blanco deserves a lion's share of it.

On an unrelated note, it's odd that North Dakota's John Hoeven didn't make the top five. Our state has an unemployment rate hovering around 3%, an approval rating consistently in the mid-70's and a $100 million budget surplus. You'd think that'd warrant a top ranking.

I can't find the whole list, so who knows. Maybe he still did rank near the top.

Update:

Blanco lied, people died.

Ugh...

Fargo Forum - Planned Parenthood Federation of America, the national reproductive health organization, has opened an office in Fargo.

Until the downtown office opened recently, North Dakota remained the last state without a Planned Parenthood presence.

Although the organization has operated a clinic in Moorhead for 30 years, opening an informational office in Fargo is viewed as a milestone for the organization.

“North Dakota literally is the last state in the union that has a Planned Parenthood presence,” Marta Coursey, director of marketing and communications for Planned Parenthood of Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota.

“To say we actually have a presence in North Dakota is important,” Coursey said

Staff in the Fargo office will work to build coalitions and create public awareness about women’s reproductive freedom issues, Coursey said. . . .

“We don’t anticipate opening a clinic,” she said, noting Fargo has an abortion clinic. “It’s to draw attention to the reproductive freedom needs of women in North Dakota.”

In the view of Planned Parenthood, North Dakota has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in the nation, Coursey said.

“It’s not considered reproductive-freedom friendly for women,” she said.

Nice of Patrick Springer and the Fargo Forum to give Planned Parenthood this fawning welcome to our state. The entire article reads like a press release/invitation to the official reception for the group. Not one response from a North Dakotan who views our laws not so much as against reproductive freedom (whatever that means, seems North Dakota women are as capable as having sex in our state as in any other state in the union) as against allowing women to shirk the consequences of their actions by killing their unborn children.

I guess a little bit of balance in the face of a withering deluge of propaganda and buzzword doublespeak from Planned Parenthood is too much to expect.

Regardless, I expect that this organization will soon be advocating for legislative protection for smuggling children away from their parents to have abortions without their knowledge or consent, among other things.

I cannot wait for the day when Roe vs. Wade is overturned and North Dakotans (along with every other citizen of this great country) have the opportunity to tell groups like Planned Parenthood, with cast votes, that we do not find abortion acceptable.

Hmm...

A one-day conference is scheduled Wednesday at the Fargodome to discuss the role of child care in North Dakota’s economy. . . .

North Dakota, with 72 percent, has the highest percentage of children under age 6 with both parents in the labor force. The supply of licensed child care meets only 25 percent of potential demand.

“North Dakota needs to find ways to bridge the gap between what working parents can afford to pay for child care and what child-care programs need to operate,” said Linda Lembke, director of Lakes & Prairies Child Care Resource and Referral.

Bridge the gap on affordable child care? Sounds to me like a call for more tax dollars directed at daycares.

These people will no doubt be trying to raise alarms about "poor working families" who cannot afford to put their kids in daycare, but I wonder if it has ever dawned on these people that rising child care costs, much like rising tuition costs, are the fault of too much government money being made available?

When the government starts paying, even in part, for things like education and child care it creates havoc in what should be a free market. Daycare costs are high, yes, but daycares are, at the end of the day, businesses. They are not going to let themselves be priced out of the market. If their prices are too high and parents cannot pay the daycares will find a way to lower them lest they loose all their business. When the government makes money available prices do not go down. Rather, they go up because the average citizen's ability to pay has been artificially inflated meaning that the daycares can now increase their profit margins without fear of losing customers.

So many politicians and bureaucrats think that societal problems can be solved by throwing tax dollars at them, but the usual result is that increased government funding not only increases the tax burden on every working American but also rarely solves the original problem.

Earlier this week I posted about the Senate passing legislation to prevent prisoners of the war on terror from pursuing habeas corpus writs against their detainment in American courts. What I failed to note is that both of North Dakota's Senators, Conrad and Dorgan, voted against the legislation.

In a state that overwhelmingly supported the Bush administration in the last election, and overwhelmingly supports the war on terror, it's hard to imagine that Conrad and Dorgan voted the way their constituents wanted them to on this issue.

It'd be nice if Conrad and Dorgan could put the interests of their constituents above the interests of the national Democrat party.

From the North Dakota Democrats Blog:

While Minnesota Republican Governor Tim Pawlenty flew around his state yesterday talking helpful energy policy, North Dakota Governor John Hoeven sat and did nothing about heating aid issues facing this state. The article from The Forum today best explains Pawlenty's stance. Although some Democrats in Minnesota don't think it is enough, it is encouraging to many.

(link to the Forum article referenced above)

What a crock of baloney.

As I have pointed out again and again, last year North Dakotans got, on average, $933 for heating aid. While heating prices have been going up, it is clear that North Dakotans who need it are already getting plenty of it and Washington has promised to adjust the amount federal funding needed for this upward to match rising energy costs.

There is no problem, thus there is no need for Hoeven to do anything. There is no need to use our state's budget surplus to fix problems that don't exist.

This is an issue of convenience for state Democrats. They're grasping for criticism to hurl at a popular Governor who is doing a terrific job ($100 million state budget surplus, unemployment rate hovering around 3%, approval rating in the 70's) and this is any easy one to twist to their purposes. They're trying to make it sound like, because the Governor is not willing to spend more tax dollars on a program that doesn't need it, that he doesn't care about keeping the poor warm.

Clearly, that's not true. Governor Hoeven is exercising some fiscal restraint, and I applaud him for it.

FARGO (AP) - North Dakota college students are speaking out against a federal budget bill they say would hit student loan programs hard.

"I'm afraid it will price students out of college," said Minot State University junior Mike Sadowski.

Kayla Pulvermacher, a senior at North Dakota State University, said she worries the bill will force her two younger brothers to bypass a college education.

"It is important to me to see my younger brothers have the same opportunity as me," Pulvermacher said Tuesday, at a press conference called by the North Dakota Progressive Coalition.

"They (lawmakers) need to find a different alternative."

The budget bill is an attempt to control automatic growth in such government programs as Medicaid, food stamps and student loan subsidies, but even some Republicans in Congress are unhappy with it, and changes are expected.

About 75 percent of North Dakota's college students, or about 30,000, have loans, said Barry Nelson, the North Dakota Progressive Coalition board chairman.

I appreciate the concern of students who depend on student loan programs for their education, but the truth of the matter is that as more federal money for college tuition becomes available the price of tuition goes up.

This is the effect programs like Medicare and student loans have on markets. They insulate citizens from the true costs of things like education and health care thus allowing health care providers and higher learning institutions to charge outrageous prices for their services with little or no backlash.

College tuition prices have become a vicious cycle. The price of tuition goes up, so the government makes more money available. Colleges see that more money is available and raise tuition again. At some point, though, there has to be an end. If more money didn't become available tuition isn't as likely to go up. And if it does it probably won't stay up for long. After all, these colleges aren't going to price themselves out of business.

Further, letting the students feel some more of the financial impact from their academic decisions will likely prompt more of them to work a little harder in school. How many college students do you know spend the first year or so at school messing around and not really taking things seriously? We hear a lot of complaints about the "party atmosphere" on a lot of college campuses. How long do you think the party would last once students were tasked with shouldering more of their own tuition costs?

(via The North Dakota Democrats Blog)

FARGO - The Fargo School Board has refused to ban a John Grisham novel from a Fargo North High School English class.

Two women sought to ban the book "A Time to Kill," saying it was brutal and violent. Board members said the book meets community standards, and that parents are given a chance to decide whether they want their children to read it.

The decision was "predictable," said Pamela Sund Herschlip, one of the parents who wanted the book removed from the curriculum. "The hubris of this board is unbelievable."

The request of Herschlip and Ruth Walsh was previously denied at the building and district levels.

Grisham's novel, set in Mississippi, tells the story of a lawyer who defends a black man after he shoots two white men who raped his young daughter.

School Board President Jim Johnson said he had seven e-mails from people asking that the book be removed, including four from outside the school district.

Johnson said the Grisham novel is controversial. "But I can find graphic scenes of rape in the Bible," he said.

Well, I don't know about that "graphic scenes of rape in the bible" bit. I certainly don't remember any such thing when I read it, but that was a long time ago. There are some disturbing things in the bible, but I don't remember any of them described in the way certain acts of violence are descrbed in A Time To Kill.

But whatever. A Time To Kill really doesn't contain anything in it that kids aren't seeing on the evening news. My problem with the situation is this: What is a John Grisham novel doing on the reading list of an English class? An advanced English class to boot, if earlier reports are correct.

Don't get me wrong, Grisham's novels are very entertaining, but they are hardly the sort of reading I expect my kid to do in an advance placement class. Surely there are works, even among contemporary authors, that are more qualified.

WASHINGTON - Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., says he does not expect he will support a filibuster if Democrats attempt to block the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court.

"I think it is unlikely, absent some new information, some bombshell that comes up in the process, that I would support a filibuster," Conrad said Wednesday, after meeting with Alito in his Washington office.

He said he has not made a final decision on whether he will vote to support Alito, though, and will wait to decide until after the judge testifies before the Senate Judiciary Committee in January.

Conrad's comments may signal that moderate Democrats from conservative states will be unwilling to spend political capital on blocking Alito, who has served as a judge on the 3rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals since 1990.

"I found him to be very impressive, I found him to be a very thoughtful person," Conrad said. "He got off to a very good start with me."

Alito definitely leans to the right, but that does not disqualify him from the job, Conrad said.

"Absolutely he is conservative, but I believe in the broad mainstream of American jurisprudence," Conrad said. "It is healthy to have different views on the court."

No, Senator Conrad, it's healthy to have different views in the legislature. Justices, comprise the non-representative Judicial wing of our government, should have only one view: A dedication to ruling on law as written.

As Thomas Sowell has said:

...the only view that really matters is a judge’s view of the role of a judge. If a judge sees his role as applying laws passed by other people, then his own personal views on issues are irrelevant.

This "conservative/liberal" stuff has got to stop when we talk about judges. Either a judge is an originalist who rules on the law as written or he/she is an ideologue incapable of impartiality and wholly unqualified to sit on the bench.

Sigh...

Fargo Forum - A state Democratic House leader argues that poor North Dakotans could be “left out in the cold” if the state fails to bolster federal energy assistance payments.

Rep. Merle Boucher, D-Rolette, the House minority leader, on Wednesday accused Gov. John Hoeven of not taking the initiative to have a state plan in place if federal funding isn’t increased to meet rising fuel costs.

“I think it’s incumbent on us here in the state of North Dakota to fill in the gap,” Boucher said. “If we need to have a special session to accomplish it, then we need to consider it.”

The state should tap its $100 million budget surplus to augment payments under the federal Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program if Washington fails to boost funding, he said.

But a spokesman for Hoeven bristled at Boucher’s allegations, saying the governor was in Washington Wednesday, where he was given renewed assurances from the administration and in Congress that $1 billion in energy assistance funding for the poor is coming.

“We’re addressing the home heating assistance funding issue at both the state and federal levels,” Hoeven said in a statement. “In addition, we are working through the Department of Commerce’s Division of Community Services and private sector utilities to help bring conservation and fuel assistance to needy citizens.”

This is ridiculous.

As I've pointed out before, North Dakota received, last year, $14,000,000 in federal funding for heating aid for low income families. That $14,000,000 was distributed to 15,000 families. Doing quick bit of math, you see that each family received an average of $933.

Looking at my heating bill, that's paying for it, not assistance.

I suspect that, for people like Boucher, heating assistance is an "issue of opportunity" more than a real concern. It's easy to generate sympathy when you throw around imagery of "freezing poor people" in North Dakota, especially when the state has a huge budget surplus sitting around. I think that Boucher and other state Democrats would rather see that budget surplus stay in the government than see the Republicans do something crazy with it. Like, I don't know, give it back to the people in the form of a tax cut.

Heating aid is just a means to an end.

(via The North Dakota Democrats Blog)

A couple of funny North Dakota themed jokes for you.

First one, Survivor ND (via Voice of Dakota):

Due to the popularity of the Survivor series, North Dakota is planning its own, titled "Survivor-Dakota Style."

The contestants will start in Fargo, then to Wahpeton, west to Edgely, Linton and on to Mott. From there it's off to Dickinson, Watford City and Williston. Now it's off to Stanley, then Minot before going souteast to Carrington, back up to Devils Lake..on to Grand Forks and then back to Fargo.

Each contestant will drive a pink Volvo with California plates and a large bumper sticker reading:

"I'm a vegetarian, beer is harmful to your health, Republicans suck, Hillary in '08. Deer hunting is murder and I'm here to confiscate your guns."

First one who gets back to Fargo alive wins!

Second one (received by email from reader Tom Brusegaard):

Ve haf just sent you da "Norvegian Virus". Since ve do not haf any programming experience and do not know how to actually damage your computer, dis Virus verks on da honor system. Please forward dis Virus to efveryvone and den manually delete all of da files on your hard drive.

Tank you for your cooperation.


Sven and Ole

WASHINGTON (AP) - Amtrak's board of directors on Wednesday fired President David Gunn, saying the debt-laden rail carrier needs "a leader with vision and experience."

Gunn has struggled to maintain Amtrak service amid a sinking financial picture and a push by the White House and some in Congress to recraft it as a group of regional inter-city companies.

"Amtrak's future now requires a different type of leader who will aggressively tackle the company's financial, management and operational challenges," Amtrak Chairman David Laney said in a statement.

"The board approved a strategic plan in April that provides a blueprint for a stronger and more sustainable Amtrak. Now we need a leader with vision and experience to get the job done."

Democrats (including North Dakota's own Byron Dorgan) were quick to respond:

Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., called the firing of Gunn a "horrible mistake."

Gunn has ridden Amtrak's Empire Builder through North Dakota. "He has run Amtrak like a true champion, in my judgment," Dorgan said.

Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who has fought against a Bush administration effort to end subsidies for the struggling passenger rail service, praised Gunn as "a brilliant manager."

A "true champion?" A "brilliant manager?"

Amtrak, in it's 34 four years of existence, has never turned a profit. More recently, it has been sucking up nearly $2 billion/year in government subsidies and is nearly $4 billion in debt.

I don't know about the rest of you, but to me those aren't exactly the hallmarks of brilliant leadership. But then, people like Byron Dorgan aren't exactly known for their appreciation of capitalistic enterprise.

Fargo Forum Editorial:

There are trade trips and then there are junkets disguised as trade trips.

Falling into the former category was the recent trip – several trips, in fact – to Cuba by bipartisan North Dakota delegations, led by Republican Gov. John Hoeven or Republican Lt. Gov. Jack Dalrymple and Democratic state Agriculture Commissioner Roger Johnson. Falling into the latter category was the jaunt to Antigua a few months ago by a tight-knit group of Republican legislators – a trip that would not have been exposed but for the reporting of The Forum’s capitol correspondent Janell Cole.

The Cuba trips were appropriately transparent, paid for by state funds and coordinated with a federal effort led by Sen. Byron Dorgan, D-N.D., to open trade between Cuba and North Dakota. It’s working. The trips resulted in trade deals that promise to be the first of many. The bipartisan and completely open nature of the effort to establish ag trade with Cuba further confirms the legitimacy of the trips.

By contrast, the excursion to Antigua was an exclusively Republican affair, paid for in full by the Antiguan government and aimed primarily at entangling North Dakota in the Internet gambling business. The trip was approved by no one other than the participants, yet the legislators involved certainly would have been viewed as representatives of the government of North Dakota – and by extension the people of North Dakota. While the trip was not illegal, its clandestine and unofficial nature raises an odor of illegitimacy.

Defenders of the Antigua trippers crow that the “trade mission” should be applauded because it cost the taxpayers nothing. How’s that? Taken to its ludicrous conclusion, such illogic leads to a system whereby North Dakota legislators would appear to be for sale to the highest bidder. And be assured, those bidders would lard the travel budgets of legislators in order to influence legislation.

Read the whole thing.

So let me get this straight. A trip to Cuba that a) was billed to the taxpayers, b) entered North Dakota into dealings with a corrupt despot who's money either comes from illegal activity or from the blood of his oppressed people and c) will only lend legitimacy and support to Castro's oppressive regime is the "right" sort of trade mission. Yet a trip to Antigua that a) started the ball rolling for trade dealings with a democracy and b) didn't cost tax payers a nickel is the "wrong" sort t of trade mission.

Is it just me, or does it seem like the Forum and state Democrats have their priorities messed up when it comes to trade agreements?

I'll admit that the Republicans making the Antigua trip could have made their dealings more transparent (and I will support legislation to that end), but the simple fact of the matter is that they broke no laws and were working in furtherance of their state. The Forum tries to insinuate unethical relationships between the Republicans who went on the Antigua trip and lobbyists, yet there is not one shred of evidence to suggest that these lawmakers crossed any sort of ethical boundaries.

The Forum's shilling for state Dems on this issue is nothing short of alarming.

(via The North Dakota Democrats Blog)

NEW YORK - The all-star cast of energy executives due to face Congress Wednesday has an unenviable task: convincing lawmakers that record profits in the face of sky-high gasoline prices do not warrant penalties.

At issue is whether Congress will levy a tax on record oil industry profits, be it a windfall tax on sales of oil over a certain price or a tax to fund a winter heating program for low-income families.

Most of the fireworks at the hearing are expected to be set off by lawmakers, feeling heat from constituents over gasoline prices and heating bills.

Corporate head honchos, however, are expected to be noncombative.

The oil companies have steadfastly maintained that record profits are nothing to be ashamed of, but brash statements in self-defense may backfire, said one government policy analyst.

“The problem is there is no way for oil companies to look good in this environment,” said Kevin Book, an analyst with Friedman, Billings, Ramsey & Co. Book said criticisms heard on the news are going be repeated through questions like: “’How do you deal with old grandmothers being pulled from their homes because they can’t afford to heat them?”’

The left's desperate scramble to tar-and-feather oil executives over high gas prices is nothing short of astounding. I've been chronicling North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan's push behind this "windfall profits" legislation (here, here, and here, with ND State Rep. Tom Brusegaard's op/ed on the issue here) and I can't help but feel that Dorgan, and the legislators who are with him on this issue, either don't understand simple economics or are pretending like they don't for some ulterior motives.



First off, what these legislators don't understand about recent high gas prices is that they are high because of a decrease in supply. Hurricanes Katrina and Rita did some major damage to petroleum supply lines in the south. This meant that gasoline became more scarce and prices went up. Anyone with a basic understanding of economics gets this. The oil companies were not jacking up prices to buy themselves new corporate jets, they were doing what is necessary to succeed in an open market.

Second, most of the legislators siding with Dorgan voted against drilling in ANWR. I know for sure that Dorgan himself did. If they're all so concerned about gas prices then why in the world are they opposing the development of more petroleum supplies? Something that will bring down prices? Supply goes up, prices go down. Again, Economics 101.

Third, the gist of the legislation backed by Dorgan is that "excessive profits" from oil companies will be taxed heavily and re-distributed to the people. If they really want to lower price and give citizens back some of their money why don't they lower federal taxes on gasoline? Why institute a new tax when they could effect the same sort of change, more directly, by lowering the nearly $0.50/gallon U.S. citizens already pay on average in gas taxes? A simple $0.04/gallon decrease in taxes could save citizens $6 billion.

I'm not trying to tell you people that there isn't a problem with energy prices in this country, because there is. What I'm telling you is that people like Dorgan are going about solving the problem all wrong. Their solution (more taxes!) won't make prices go down, they'll make them go up. The tax won't be a burden on the oil industry, they'll simply pass the cost of the tax onto citizens.

There are so many better solutions to the energy problem. Like, for instance, easing restrictions on building new refineries. Easing restrictions on domestic oil exploration. Lowering taxes on gas. Any, or better yet, all of these initiatives would lower energy costs, yet people like Dorgan aren't interested in implementing them.

Why?

Here are my theories:

1. They are big-government bureaucrats who leap at any chance to levy more taxes and seize more power from the American people.



2. They are trying to draw attention away from the real reasons why gas prices are so high: The oil industry is heavily taxed, hopelessly mired in red tape and can't raise production levels because they can't build new refineries or exploit available domestic oil reserves. All of which, for the most part, is the fault of people like Dorgan.



3. A combination of 1 and 2.

What Dorgan and his comrades are doing is shameful. It's easy to cast aspersions at big-time oil executives. They're rich, so it's easy to also make them look greedy to the average American with only passing knowledge of the facts that surround this situation. But what's really going on here is a push to levy another tax on the American people and seize more power for the government.

Dorgan's solution isn't a solution at all, unless the problems he is trying to solve is a free oil market and Americans paying too little in taxes.

(via The North Dakota Democrats Blog)