Another window for setting off fireworks in South Dakota? Why not simply legalize it? (KSFY)
Let’s talk about those lions, shall we? (KOTA)
Rounds likes idea of getting federal (taxpayer) dollars to save state budget from (taxpayer funded) adjustments. (KELO)
Squirrels like to water ski, too. (Argus Leader)
Time for folks to be “made whole.” (Capital Journal)
My house, along with millions of others, received a letter this week telling it that it would be receiving another letter shortly. The English portion of it read as follows:
[]About one week from now, you will receive a 2010 Census form in the mail. When you receive your form, please fill it out and mail it in promptly.
Your response is important. Results from the 2010 Census will be used to help each community get its fair share of government funds for highways, schools, health facilities, and many other programs you and your neighbors need. Without a complete, accurate census, your community may not receive its fair share.[]
Others have already noted that it was rather wasteful to send out something telling us that we will be receiving something later. In fairness to the Census, however, one must remember that by so doing they are providing work for the Post Office–which could use the revenue.
That aside, I’d like to look at the use of “fair share” in the second paragraph. First, the reference in both places is to a community–not people. A slight difference, true, but a difference none the less. It apparently takes a community to receives its fair share of government largess. No reference is made to individuals or small disadvantaged groups getting their “fair share.” After all, that would be divisive and intolerant. Instead, we are told that communities receive this so that they can then benefit “you and your neighbors.” In fact, these are for things that we “need.” See, we can’t live without the good old government programs.
Of course, this is very much the way the federal government likes it to work. In brief, here is an ideal system: I work and earn money, from which the federal government takes a generous helping of cash. The federal bureaucrats then dole out the cash to various state and local governments. These entities are also run by bureaucrats–who are largely more intelligent than you and I. They decide who gets what and why they get it.
It is quite revealing that the letter says absolutely nothing about the constitutional mandate for the census, which is as follows:
[]An Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct.[]
The letter also says nothing about the original point of the enumeration–which is to ensure that representatives are allocated in accordance with population.
Let me say very simply. I do not want my community to gets its fair share. I do not want to get my own trickle down fair share. I do want to keep the share that I work for and use that to provide for my wife, my children, my parents–and those who may not have that which I do. I would like to do this without interference from the government. I would like to do it through my church, my family, my friends and acquaintances. I would like to use just enough middle men to ensure that those I’m helping do not usually know who is doing the helping. I do not want to do this by giving my earnings to the government and trusting that they will do better things with them than I would.
One last point. The government funds talked about in the letter? Those aren’t properly the property of the government. Everything the government “owns” is held in trust for the citizens. Of course, putting it out that the government has funds for all of the communities makes it out as a loving father, or perhaps a wealthy uncle. Unfortunately, it has already broken our grandchildren’s piggy banks, as it were, to fund a number of enormous future liabilities.
Remember, if you don’t fill out the census correctly, a bureaucrat somewhere will lose his wings.
No, really. That is exactly what is being requested. Here’s the solicitation:
[]The U.S. Department of Education (ED) intends to purchase twenty-seven (27) REMINGTON BRAND MODEL 870 POLICE 12/14P MOD GRWC XS4 KXCS SF. RAMAC #24587 GAUGE: 12 BARREL: 14″ – PARKERIZED CHOKE: MODIFIED SIGHTS: GHOST RING REAR WILSON COMBAT; FRONT – XS CONTOUR BEAD SIGHT STOCK: KNOXX REDUCE RECOIL ADJUSTABLE STOCK FORE-END: SPEEDFEED SPORT-SOLID – 14″ LOP are designated as the only shotguns authorized for ED based on compatibility with ED existing shotgun inventory, certified armor and combat training and protocol, maintenance, and parts.
The required date of delivery is March 22, 2010.[]
Do they need them for spring break? Why would the ED have an existing shotgun inventory? What are they doing with armor and combat training? Are we sure this is the Department of Education and not the Department of Defense?
[]New equipment only; no remanufactured products. No partial shipments
Offer must be good for 30 calendar days after submission.
Offerors must have current Central Contractor Registration (CCR) at the time offer is submitted. Information can be found at www.ccr.gov.
This is a combined synopsis/solicitation for commercial items in accordance with Federal Acquisition Regulation Part 12, Acquisition of Commercial Items. The Government will award a commercial item purchase order to the offeror with the most advantageous offer to the government. All offerors must submit their best price and delivery capabilities.Place of Delivery:
U.S. Department of Education
Office of Inspector General
c/o: Gary Pawlak, Special Agent
500 West Madison Street – Suite 1414
Chicago, IL 60661[]
Why does the Department of Education have a “special agent”? Don’t get me wrong, I’m not faulting their choice in weapons, but I’m wondering why a non-military, non-law enforcement division of the federal government wants a bunch of shotguns which are generally considered appropriate for usage on SWAT teams.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier nails it:
[]Every shred of energy needs to be expended to prevent this disaster from starting. Those who suggest it can be repealed need to think of a drug user. Heroin is extraordinarily addictive. Stopping a person after the first hit, is nigh to impossible. After the third? Forget it.
Those who suggest repealing this bill, will be asking heroin addicts across the country to take themselves off the drug. That’s what government entitlements are: Societal Drugs. They hook a person, and he doesn’t even know he’s dying until it’s too late and his freedom is gone.
Better to hide the drugs and destroy them forever, than to allow a person one hit. This health care bill MUST be stopped now or there will be no stopping it later.[]
Amen.
When it comes to passing bills, Congress is to get permission first–not forgiveness (or apathy) later. Otherwise, our various representatives aren’t representing, are they?
If the original GW had wanted an aristocracy, he could have had one–forget that–he could have been king. That’s not how things turned out. We have a responsibility to ensure that we maintain as much of our republic as we are able. Defeating the health care takeover is one of the ways we can ensure that a legacy of freedom, personal responsibility and love for law continues into our still-young-century.
Don’t smoke the fund to prevent kids from lighting up. (Argus Leader)
South Dakota is 8th in per capita federal earmark rankings. What a shame. (Rapid City Journal)
Post office changes coming, like it or not. (Aberdeen News)
Here comes the disaster money from our pockets. (KSFY)
Police to begin wearing Taser computers. (The Arizona Republic)
Some folks in South Dakota are wining about the Iditarod. (KTIV)
Anybody want a fire truck? (Capital Journal)
Jail time for driving on closed winter roads? (Aberdeen News)
Tea may dump local police in favor of county sheriff. (Argus Leader)
State to fund schools based on current year enrollment? (KELO)
Updated title to reflect correct date. That what lack of sleep gets me.
‘Tis the season where we take up, once again, the question of the South Dakota State Fair. Huronians and those in the nearby areas are certain that it should continue to be funded by the state. Others are not so certain. The Huron Plainsman has a fairly detailed article on the matter:
[]South Dakota legislators are heading into the last five days of the main run of the session preparing for yet another familiar fight – the state budget.
And once again, District 22 lawmakers are finding themselves seeking allies to defend funding for the State Fair. After about $380,000 was sliced from the appropriation two years ago, the Republican plan unveiled last week recommends cutting another $100,000.[]
I realize that to many, the following statement will sound unnecessarily simplistic; nonetheless, here it is. If the state fair is constitutionally required, then the state ought to fund it. If it is not, then the state has no business funding it–regardless of perceived or supposed benefit to any. Unfortunately, the principle of limited government won’t be discussed much (if at all) in the coming battle over funding.
No, instead the discussion will be over things like whether the money spent on the fair is an investment–considering how much money the fair brings to the surrounding part of the state–and whether other programs should be cut this year because the fair already had its funding reduced, and . . . well, you get the picture. The assumption underlying all of these pieces of the argument is that the state can fund the fair if it (the state) has the money–making the argument about cost rather than principle.
If all of the legislators would vow to cut those portions of state funding which are not required by the constitution (of either the state or the federal government), then I’ve a strong feeling that balancing the budget wouldn’t be much of a challenge at all.
Is it too much to hope that such a scenario is within the realm of reason?
Dog is a man’s best friend. (KSFY)
Time to go on a money diet? It is for the state. (Yankton Press & Dakotan)
Knuppe works the auction crowd–his way. (Capital Journal)
Trying to grow more South Dakota college graduates. (Argus Leader)
Remember when it looked as though another powerplant was coming online to feed the Dakotas? Right at election time last year came the news the Big Stone II was not going to happen:
[]A power plant ran out of steam Monday as developers announced that they have decided not to build the $1.6 billion Big Stone II project near South Dakota’s border with Minnesota. The joint announcement by four utilities brings to an end one of the larger environmental debates in the state in recent years because of mounting public concerns about global warming and energy policy.
Seven utilities were partners when the 500- to 600-megawatt coal-fired plant was announced in 2004, but three dropped out.
The lead utility, Otter Tail Power Co., withdrew from the project in September, citing uncertainty about future carbon dioxide costs and regulations, and the poor economy.[]
You will notice the reference to “future carbon dioxide costs and regulations.” That’s another way of saying that Otter Tail was fairly certain that cap and trade legislation was on the horizon. As a result, what was previously seen to be a good investment turned out to be something else entirely. Despite shelving the project, however, a fair amount of money had already been spent on the endeavor. Now, Otter Tail is doing what many businesses do when they have poor investments. It is raising prices to bring its sheets back into balance:
[]Montana-Dakota Utilities Co. and Otter Tail Power Co. say they spent more than $20 million developing the Big Stone II power plant in northeastern South Dakota.
They’ll be asking regulators in four states for electric rate increases to help them get their money back.[]
One can argue about Big Stone II and whether it was the best available option for expanding the power supply in the region. Regardless, such a discussion does not change the realities–not only do the consumers in the region not have the benefit of more available power, they get to pay for the absence of power.
That has to be painful.
By nature of my work, I spend a number of hours each week in and around South Dakota’s most populous city: Sioux Falls. As a result, I am quite aware of the marvelous crop of potholes which have arisen throughout that fair city over the winter months. With that said, I had to laugh a bit when reading this article:
[]The City of Sioux Falls Public Works department is beginning its most aggressive campaign ever to repair potholes and make permanent street repairs, Mayor Dave Munson announced today.
Beginning this week, the City will deploy crews into all areas of the city to fill potholes. Once weather further moderates, the City will begin a $33 million street construction program to address 1,200 blocks across Sioux Falls.[]
One of the functions of a city (indeed, one could say the primary function) is proper maintenance of public roads. A city does not need to build an events center, or homeless hotels (though the county is footing the bill for that one) or even to engage in efforts to entice new businesses to put down roots–unless and until it has properly addressed all infrastructure issues. (And it should not do anything which can be better handled by a non-public entity.) Any other approach is little more than putting new wine in an old winesack.
I am glad to see that Sioux Falls is doing what it should. I don’t think, however, that we need an “aggressive campaign” so much as we need a thoughtful, measured approach to performing those tasks which are properly within the purview of local government.
What’s a bank to do with a thousand bovines? (Aberdeen News)
Crunch time for the legislature is here. (Capital Journal)
Floods ahead. (KELO)
Google enters the SF mayor’s race. (Argus Leader)
It would appear that we have an answer to a question I posed a yesterday, after Representative Herseth Sandlin was invited to meet with the President and hear why she needed to get with the program:
[]The South Dakota Democrat confirmed during a telephone conference call with reporters that she won’t vote for the Senate version of health-care reform, just as she didn’t vote for an earlier version approved by the House of Representatives.
As for an additional piece of legislation being developed by President Barack Obama to answer some concerns about the existing Senate bill, Herseth Sandlin said she won’t vote for that if it comes to the House by way of the reconciliation process in the Senate.
“I will not vote for the Senate bill as is,” she said. “I will not vote for a package of changes that would go through the reconciliation process.”[]
Sounds good to me. Let’s give Representative Herseth Sandlin credit for sticking to her previous position in light of the fact that nothing has really changed in the interim–except certain people’s desires to make this happen no matter what it might do to hurt (as well as help) the general citizenry.
Next,
