Say Anything Blog

The problem, of course, is that pay should be set by what workers (including women) are willing to accept for compensation and not what the government thinks they should earn.

And, frankly, a lot of women just aren’t worth as much compensation as men.

Before the torch-wielding feminists attack me, let’s remember that a lot of women take career paths that make them worth less to employers than men.  Warren Farrel, a former board member of the New York Chapter of the National Organization for Women (NOW) and author of Why Men Earn More, pointed out in his book 25 decisions that women make which impact their pay.

Among those decisions?  Staying home with children.  Staying home with sick family.  Women, in general, tend to log fewer hours in the office than men do.  Women also choose to work at less dangerous jobs (9 out of 10 workplace deaths happen to men) and often drop out of the workplace for months, or even years, due to pregnancy.  Also, women are less likely to take jobs that require a lot of travel, require them to work outside or require them to move.

And then there’s the fact that women tend to be motivated in their careers differently than men.  According once again to Mr. Farrel:

A 2001 survey of business owners with M.B.A.s conducted by the Rochester Institute of Technology found that money was the primary motivator for only 29% of women, versus 76% of men. Women prioritized flexibility, fulfillment, autonomy and safety.

In short, the gender wage gap is not driven by some widespread anti-female conspiracy but rather decisions women themselves make.  If anything the wage gap cuts the other way as, according to studies, when women make the same choices men make in their careers they tend to get paid more than men:

But what happens when women make the same lucrative decisions typically made by men? The good news--for women, at least: Women actually earn more. For example, when a male and a female civil engineer both stay with their respective companies for ten years, travel and relocate equally and take the same career risks, the woman ends up making more. And among workers who have never been married and never had children, women earn 117% of what men do. (This factors in education, hours worked and age.)

At the end of the day the question we need to ask ourselves is this: Do we really believe that rational employers across the nation are choosing men to do jobs that women could do even though those men cost them more in wages?

There’s no conspiracy.  Just another victim’s group trying to leverage entitlements out of the government.

Today Scott Hennen had Russ Newman on his show. Russ is the VP of Development for the Tharaldson Ethanol Plant in North Dakota.  Russ, obviously, spent his time flaking for his product and talking about how “optimistic” he and the rest of the ethanol industry are about ethanol’s future in the energy market.

The problem?  The reason he’s optimistic is because the federal government has mandated increases in ethanol production.  Which begs the question: If ethanol is such a wonderful product that’s worth getting behind, why does it have to be mandated?

I actually emailed in a question to Scott for Russ and Scott asked it on the air: Why should North Dakotans continue to subsidize ethanol when it has never once been competitive with gasoline in the energy markets.

Russ’ response?  Dead silence, followed by an answer that boils down to: Subsidies are good because they make ethanol blended fuel cheaper at the pump.

Of course, ethanol fuel blends are only cheaper because taxpayers - who are also the same people who buy the fuel - paid for it to be cheaper.  So they’re “saving” at the pump because they already paid a portion of the fuels price in taxes.

So where are the savings?

Russ also talked about the economic impact of his ethanol plant.  Again, the problem is that by taking heavy subsidies from the state and federal government any economic development the plant creates is offset by the additional tax burden it places on taxpayers.

In truth, Mr. Newman’s interview only cemented for me the absurdity of the ethanol industry as it is currently structured.

North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan issued a press release about T. Boone Pickens, the “legendary” oil man who is currently hawking wind power with the same level of shameless promotion of a carnival barker, coming to Dorgan’s Great Plains Energy Expo and Showcase (a taxpayer-funded event that exists for the exclusive purpose of promoting the all-Democrat North Dakota Congressional delegation’s energy agenda).

Here’s an interesting way to look at this development: Dorgan hates the oil companies.  He thinks the oil companies make excessive amounts of profits.  He thinks those profits should be taken from the oil companies and given to the government.  He, in general, doesn’t think the government should help the oil companies in any way.

Pickens, on the other hand, is an oil billionaire who stands to make billions more if the government invests in his wind energy plan.  And since wind energy has never once in the history of the world been marketable in the energy markets without government subsidy, the investment Pickens is looking for is significant.

So answer me this: Why is Dorgan ok with promoting the interests of wind energy billionaires who want to dip further into the taxpayer’s pockets to fund their industry, but not ok with oil industry billionaires making their profits?

The Bismarck Tribune has an editorial today bemoaning the lack of ethnic diversity in North Dakota.  Forget that the state is mostly made up of descendants of immigrants from Germany, Scandinavia and Russia.  All of those people are white, and the Tribune wants more people of color.

Now, diversity is just fine with me.  I’d welcome any blacks or Hispanics or Asians or any other ethnic demographics to my home state.  It’s fine by me.  But what irks me are demands that we seek out diversity.  Not because I have a problem with diversity, but rather because saying that we need diversity implies that there’s something wrong without state’s society as is.

If blacks and Asians and Hispanics and everyone else who is considered a minority want to come to North Dakota to live that’s fantastic.  But if they don’t want to come here to live, why is that necessarily a bad thing?

Diversity for no other reason than diversity’s sake is a pretty stupid idea.

If you’re not listening already, Scott Hennen’s new radio station (AM1100 “The Flag") is live this morning.  Scott’s on the air already, and joining him later will be none other than John McCain himself.

Click here to listen live.

Also, to get live updates on your computer desktop from Scott’s show click here (there will also be an option in the program to let you get Say Anything headlines on your desktop as well).

The Bismarck Tribune has an editorial today praising the recent “surge” of law enforcement officers onto the Standing Rock Indian Reservation to combat crime there (my previous post about this event here).  Certainly the increase in law enforcement on the reservation has resulted in some positive outcomes, but the Tribunes echoing of Senator Byron Dorgan’s call for more funding to sustain the “surge” is folly I think.

Because as long as our reaction to high crime on the reservations is to merely increase the level of law enforcement there we’ll only be treating a symptom of the disease that’s causing the crime problems in the first place.  And we could spend ourselves broke spending money treating the symptom and still never solve the problem.

If we want to solve the problems on the reservations we need to address root causes.  And the root cause of crime on the reservation is the welfare state we’ve created there.  On the reservations we have created entire communities of people who are almost entirely dependent on the government, which is something made clear even with this situation that has warranted the “surge” of law enforcement officers onto the reservation.

Facing a crime problem, the people on the reservation didn’t turn to their own leaders or even themselves to solve the problem.  They turned to the federal government, and the American taxpayers, to solve it.  Just like when the Standing Rock reservation needed a fire department.  Did they turn to their own tribal members to create a volunteer department of the sort that dots non-reservation North Dakota?  No.  They blamed the federal government for not building a fire department for them.

This is the disease that’s afflicting the reservation.  This idea that the government must provide for them because they cannot provide for themselves.  Something that has created and perpetuates a welfare state that gives the Indians just enough to keep from wanting to advance themselves and improve their lot in life.

If we want the problems on the reservation to end we need to end that which is causing them.  Namely, the reservation welfare state.

NDGOP Chairman Gary Emineth fired back via press release at Democrats over their demand for an investigation into a public service announcement at least one of them (Senator Kent Conrad) admitted to not even seeing before filing his complaint:

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) recent admittance to never watching the PSA has raised suspicions of partisan politics, since Conrad, along with Sen. Byron Dorgan (D-ND) and Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-ND), composed a letter to the US Department of Health and Human Service requesting a federal investigation on Hamm.

“Requesting federal investigations on public service announcements without having seen the PSA should not be a Congressman’s main concern with everything that is going on in America right now.” Emineth explained. “I think taking time out to configure a comprehensive energy plan saving consumers from high energy prices would be a better use of taxpayer dollars, rather than requesting federal investigations on a public service announcement.”

“It’s ironic that a U.S. Senator under investigation for ethics violations is throwing out allegations at a North Dakota Public Official just doing his job,” Emineth concluded.

Ouch.

As Rob reported the other day, the new Scott Hennen show is starting off with a bang next Monday.  Scott’s going to have Presidential Candidate John McCain on his show.  Scott’s soliciting questions from the public to ask the Senator.

Now I could submit my questions but I don’t think that my questions would be asked.  I expect that Scott will pick someone with a question like “How do we beat Obama?”.  Scott’s in the McCain camp and he’s not going to ask him a question from the conservative point of view.  Of course it’s Scott’s show and he can do what he wants.

But I think some hard questions from the conservative side would be a good thing for McCain.  After all McCain’s got problems with the base.  He needs to campaign to us to. 

I got to thinking what question I would ask if I had the chance.  Now I’d want to stay away from the ‘gotcha’ type, but the Senator isn’t above being challenged.

The questions I can think of would go along the line of this:

You’ve said that you wouldn’t support legislation allowing illegal aliens to stay in the county until the border was secure.  Exactly how would you certify that the border was secure before signing any legislation?

You’ve expressed support for global warming legislation.  Does the fact that the Earth hasn’t warmed for ten years and that 2007 was one of the coolest winters on record make you think the matter deserves more study before we act?

While we’re on the subject of global warming legislation.  Polls have shown that the public is unwilling to pay more for gasoline or electricity to combat global warming.  On the other hand studies show that your cap and trade legislation will nearly double the price of those energy supplies.  How do you convince cash strapped families that they need to sacrifice so much for something that’s unproven?

Senator 30,000 scientists have signed the Oregon petition saying that climate science cannot guarantee that the global warming theories are correct.  Does this make you reconsider your position on global warming?

Won’t doubling the cost of energy result in the loss of jobs in this country?  (Follow-up question if he brings up his ridiculous statement that his cap and trade legislation will create jobs.) What economic theory says that increasing the costs of an activity results in more of that activity?

That’s the questions I can come up without resorting to zingers.  What would you ask Sen. McCain?

The other day I posted on North Dakota’s all-Democrat Congressional delegation demanding an investigation into commercials run by state Insurance Commissioner Adam Hamm (a Republican) to help their little buddy Jasper Schneider who is running against him.

But you know what’s funny?  It turns out that one of these whiners, Senator Conrad, hasn’t even seen the commercial in question.  Something we learn thanks to a rare bit of aggressive reporting from the North Dakota media:

FARGO - U.S. Sen. Kent Conrad said today he has never viewed a North Dakota Insurance Department TV ad which he wants targeted in a federal investigation.

In an interview with WDAY Radio News, Conrad said he believes the ad is meant to benefit the reelection campaign of North Dakota’s Repulican Insurance Commissioner Adam Hamm, but he said this morning that he hasn’t viewed the ad.

So how can Conrad think the Hamm commercial is political in nature when he hasn’t even seen it?  Can we not conclude from Conrad’s assumption that it’s really his call for an investigation that’s politically motivated?

I think so.

And as I pointed out in my previous post, it’s worth noting that the program (Medicare) the commercial itself is promoting has an enrollment deadline that comes immediately after the election.  Meaning that there is no way Hamm could have run an ad offering help before the enrollment deadline and not have it running before the election.

Meaning that Hamm could either run the ad and face the possibility that his political enemies would twist it into something it’s not, or not run it at all.

Regardless, this was a cheap shot by North Dakota Democrats that turned around and blew up in their faces.

Justice served, as far as I’m concerned.

The Fargo Forum today has an article about the North Dakota Policy Council’s “Sunshine on Schools” website, particularly focusing on the websites new feature which lists the compensation level for every single public school teacher and administrator in the state.

Of particular interest, though, is the rather bizarre criticism of the website from people quoted in the article:

Critics warn site users to be wary of the data.

“They’re not statisticians so some of their graphs are distorted,” Fargo Business Manager Dan Huffman said.

West Fargo Superintendent Dana Diesel Wallace said the site is helpful but some data is outdated.

“I think they’ve done a good job making the data accessible for a layperson to get to,” Diesel Wallace said. “But the challenge is always accuracy and timeliness.”

I have two reactions to this.

First, to respond to Mr. Huffman, it’s worth noting that there aren’t actually any statistics on the Sunshine on Schools website.  Just raw data including names of teachers and schools and then salary figures.  That’s it.  You don’t have to be a “statistician” to list raw data.

Second, to respond to the Superintendent from West Fargo, it’s worth noting that all of the information on the site came directly from the Department of Public Instruction and is the latest available from the department.  The figures go up through the 2006 - 2007 school year.  Apparently the DoI hasn’t had a chance to compile the data from the 2007 - 2008 school year yet, but I’m sure once the figures are available the North Dakota Policy Council will update its website.

As for inaccuracies, I’m sure the folks at NDPC would welcome any input from a school superintendent has to offer about any inaccuracies in the data.  And I’m also sure that such inaccuracies, once indicated, would be promptly corrected.

If this is the best the critics of Sunshine on Schools can do (outside of apparently trying to crash the website) it’s not much.  Which isn’t surprising.  What else could their argument be?  The public isn’t allowed to see what they’re paying teachers?

I don’t think that argument would get them far.

Meaning that they’ll allow off-shore drilling, but only if we spend tens of billions of tax dollars on renewable energy (read: more subsidies and mandates for ethanol).

The latest half-baked idea comes from a “gang of ten” senators — five Republicans, five Democrats — who have offered a compromise that would lift the ban on offshore drilling in exchange for $20 billion in new federal spending on alternative sources of energy. The list — ag-friendly guys like Saxby Chambliss and Kent Conrad, corn-staters like Ben Nelson and John Thune — smells of ethanol. The compromise bill includes $2.5 billion for biofuel research and billions more in incentives for automakers to make cars with ethanol-burning engines. There might be a smart way for Washington to subsidize research into alternative energy, but this isn’t it.

Am I the only one who is weary to death of seeing the ethanol industry constantly showered with gifts such as those proposed above all at the expense of the taxpayers?  And what good does lower gas prices do if taxpayers are burdened once again with additional government spending aimed at propping up the biofuel industry?

Put simply: In the decades biofuels like ethanol have been available on our markets not once have they ever been a cheaper alternative to gasoline without subsidy.  Even now with E85 ethanol selling for dozens of cents less per gallon than traditional gasoline it’s still not a viable alternative because people who use it lose fuel efficiency, anywhere from 5 - 15 miles per gallon.

Republicans need to stand firm on the drilling question.  They need to tell America, and the Democrats, that we are going drill for more oil in America because that’s the right thing to do and that such a decision doesn’t need to be tied to any more corporate welfare for “big biofuel.”

For those of you who have been waiting (and I know a lot of readers in the North Dakota region have been pretty excited about this), the new Scott Hennen Show will be launching on AM1100 “The Flag” out of Fargo at 8:00am on Monday, August 11th.

Mark your calendars because the first show is going to be a big one.  Why?  Because Scott has John McCain himself scheduled to be on the show.  What’s more, Scott is actually soliciting questions from you listeners out there.  If you want to submit questions for Scott to ask McCain, click here and download the Scott Hennen Show alerts program.  Something that, frankly, you’re going to need anyway to keep up with the soon-to-be most popular radio show in North Dakota.  Oh, and by the way, when you download that alerts program you can also choose to get alerts to new posts here on Say Anything.

Just another reason why you need that program.

The first show will only be broadcast on Scott’s Fargo station, but starting August 18th his show will be broadcast from stations across the state of North Dakota.  Meaning that no matter where you are in the state, you’ll be able to (finally) tune in to someone other than liberal talkers Joel Heitkamp and Ed Schultz.

So, in summary, download the alerts program.  Tune in to Scott on AM1100 Monday August 11th.  And then tune in to Scott every week day after that at 8:00am on a station near you.

Nationally Republicans are having a field day sticking it to the Democrats on their domestic oil obstructionism.  Duane Sand is bringing that debate home to North Dakota by hitting Earl Pomeroy on supporting his party’s decision to take a vacation in Congress instead of debating domestic drilling.

Good stuff, particularly in a North Dakota that’s in economic boom times thanks to domestic oil drilling.

But for some reason the Governor still isn’t supporting the income tax cut initiated measure (50% rate cut for individuals, 15% rate cut for businesses) put on the ballot by Americans for Prosperity:

No one is suggesting reducing the excess to zero through lump-sum payouts to state residents, but Hoeven said it could mean he’ll plump up a previously announced $300 million plan to cut property taxes while pumping more money into public schools.

He also said it could mean he will propose an income tax reduction bill in the 2009 Legislature.

That was not, however, Hoeven’s endorsement of the initiated income tax measure voters will see in November, sponsored by the Americans for Prosperity.

So if the governor has a plan to provide much-needed income tax relief in the state, why isn’t he sharing the details with us?  With an initiated measure to cut income taxes on the ballot, and Hoeven himself up for re-election, don’t North Dakotans deserve to know the details of any tax-cut legislation Hoeven might be proposing in the next session?

Or does Hoeven expect us to re-elect him based on coy half-promises like the one above?

Voters have a decision to make, both on AFP’s initiated measure and on re-electing Hoeven.  So shouldn’t voters be paid the courtesy of knowing what Hoeven has planned?

With another business that never should never should have gotten our money:

In 2006, Branded Beef Inc. bought a cattle processing plant in Harvey, ND. Owner Juanita Braun said that right after they started their retail business “we found out that the plant that was processing our meat was going to shut down. And so it was either find a way to keep it open or buy it ourselves to keep it open. And we ended up buying it ourselves.”

After purchasing the plant they applied for an Agricultural Products and Utilization Commission (APUC) grant to help defray costs associated with marketing their products. They received a grant of $46,750. In fact, they have received several APUC grants. In 1999, they received $25,000 and $46,000 in 2002 for a total of $117,750. That doesn’t include any other federal, state or local subsidies they have received.

What went wrong.  Not enough capital, bad management, a flawed business plan?  I don’t know, but before you invest in a business the investor needs to look into details of what they are investing in and make sure you aren’t wasting your money.

Once again the state bureaucrats failed us.  Time after time the businesses that fail are ones that the arrogant government has given our money to.

If it’s it a good business they shouldn’t have any problem funding it.  If it’s a bad business then they’re wasting our money. 

We’d be far better off if that $117,750 (and how much more) were left to the people that earned it.  They’d know far better then some government committee what’s the best way to spend or invest it.

And this article brings up another good point.  Why is it that no one knows how much this business might have gotten in subsidies?  Why is it that that information is nearly impossible to get?  Why aren’t the citizens of the state entitled to know where our money is being misspent?