Constant Conservative

According to its own documentation, Planned Parenthood was not always in the business of planning parenthood by revoking parental status via abortions:

According to a pamphlet unearthed by the pro-life group Live Action, back in 1952, Planned Parenthood - today the largest abortion provider in the United States - told women that having an abortion was a danger to their lives, health, and fertility, and kills a baby.

Of course, this was nearly 60 years ago, but still . . . .

Go read it all.

Taking a bit of a break from the health care “reform” debacle to look at other issues, I found the following:

A Sioux Falls woman faces 13 counts of possession of a controlled substance – and authorities say each count is for a different type of drug.

I wonder if she was simply addressing personal health care issues, dealing or just enjoying the buffet? In any event, I trust she will receive, if guilty, a sentence which is properly commensurate with the crime–and not one borne of inflexible sentencing laws.

Getting serious about the potholes. (KSFY)

More free money still available for those who need to get rid of appliances. (KOTA)

A whole lotta water. (KELO)

Taxpayer dollars for incarceration of people who probably should be paying restitution. (Argus Leader)

Flood insurance craziness continues. (Brookings Register)

Much has been written with reference to the Slaughter solution for the current health care legislation impasse. However, I’ve not seen a clearer argument against this solution than the following from Michael W. McConnell. I’m linking you to the write up in PowerLine because the article is behind the paywall at the WSJ.

Here is the key piece:

[]The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 “the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal.” These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that.[]

Imagine that. The Constitution was drafted to prevent trickery from occurring at the very highest levels of government. Here is hoping and praying that a sufficient number of legislators will understand that what they are attempting via the Slaughter solution is patently un-Constitutional.

On track for normal pheasant season in South Dakota. (KOTA)

Waiting for Mo’ Dough from DC. (KELO)

Money from you and me given back by government for disaster victims (Capital Journal)

Smoking isn’t all it’s cracked up to be. (Brandon Info)

Bottom Story: Flood waters to recede. (Argus Leader)

A long time ago in a land far away there was a set of laws. These laws were unusual for the time in that they could not be revoked by the ruler of the land (whether they were good law or bad law). Daniel benDavid references this in his book:

Now, O king, issue the decree and put it in writing so that it cannot be altered—in accordance with the laws of the Medes and Persians, which cannot be repealed.

It would seem that Senator Reid and friends are interested in bringing back the good old days. In this video, Jim DeMint points out a few problems with doing so:

This has not been in the news so much lately because all the talk now is of reconciliation, but it should be under discussion because, as far as I know, this language is still in the Senate bill which would become law via the misbegotten reconciliation slaughter process.

Does anyone one else find it funny (in an odd way) that conservatives are the ones trying to ensure that it is possible to change things in the future while progressives are attempting to prevent the possibility of the same?

Thanks to those who emailed me about this.

Senator Reid was not (I believe) the majority leader at the time of this interview. Nonetheless, I’ve no reason to believe that he has changed his beliefs in the last couple of years.

He appears to believe that our taxes are voluntary because we have the option of not paying them to the government immediately upon earning the income. By this reasoning, payment for my groceries is also voluntary since I can choose to defer actual payment until some future time, too. Incredible.

Of course, Senator Reid probably doesn’t accept my phraseology. Sorry, sir. I’m just working with the English language here.

HT: FairTax

Yet another person who is touting wind power as South Dakota’s future while failing to get the basics:

[]Doug Sombke says South Dakota is known as the “Saudi Arabia” of wind for its wind energy potential.[]

I wouldn’t say it is known as that. Rather, it has been called that–as has every other Great Plains state as well as the whole region and other states here and there. Does the wind blow here? Yes, just like it does in a number of other places.

[]But investing in wind power is difficult right now because it’s expensive to transmit and hold it.[]

Transmission and storage of power is always expensive. It has been for a long time. It will continue to be. This is not an issue which is unique to wind-generated power but rather one which is inextricably tied to electricity, however it may be generated.

[]It’s a struggle Sombke compares to projects like the interstate highway and hydro–electric dams. Opponents had said the country couldn’t afford them but they happened anyway.[]

To say that something was considered too expensive but that it was purchased anyway is hardly a positive statement. Looking at the examples given, however, we find that the interstate highway system has paid for itself many times over. One could say that the highway system has been the single largest expediter of the increase in commerce among the several states.

Hydro-electric dams, on the other hand, have been a bit of a mixed bag. Unlike highways, one cannot replace a bit of one at a time and their replacement costs are insanely large.

That aside, wind power (unlike hydro power) is incredibly inconsistent. Therefore, it is unreliable. This in itself creates enormous issues with the grid–as noted by our English cousins.

If supporters of wind power wish to convince the general population that this is indeed the next big thing for South Dakota, there are a few things which could be done:

1. Be honest about the weaknesses of wind power. Any power source has weaknesses, whether that source be nuclear, hydro, coal, wind, sun, etc. Don’t treat us as fools and tell us wind power has no substantive downsides.
2. Show us, don’t tell us, that it is financially feasible. Point out particular windfarm installations which have paid back more than their installation + maintenance costs over a reasonable investment period (10, 20 years).
3. Do not talk about upcoming breakthroughs in the technology and how that is going to make everything work if we can just wait a bit longer.

And finally, and this is enormously important, do not say things like:

[]“Agriculture can actually be a financial benefactor of the right kind of climate legislation if it comes with renewable energy incentives,” Johnson said.[]

How many of you think that agriculture needs to finance “the right kind of climate legislation” to get more subsidies? That’s what Mr. Johnson is saying here. Here’s hoping he doesn’t know what “benefactor” means and what he was really trying to say was that agriculture is happy to get more subsidies if that’s part of a climate change bill.

Either way, it’s not the sort of statement which appeals to anyone outside of the wind power industry. It is most assuredly not a reason to support a commerce-crippling cap and trade bill based on crumbling climate science.

Welcome or not–here comes the water. (KSFY)

Laundry in Canistota area fails to cash in. (KOTA)

Social Security IOUs coming due. (Aberdeen News)

The government taketh away dealerships–the government giveth them back. (Argus Leader)

Saying the right things on the South Dakota budget. But will they do it? (Capital Journal)

I’ve been thinking  way too much about starting and finishing over the last few days–how simple it is to start a task and how hard it often is to finish. I’ve begun more things than I could easily call to mind, but I could count on a couple of hands the large endeavors which I’ve hammered on to proper completion.

I understand that I am hardly alone in this regard–though being found in the company of others who do less than they ought hardly gives me cause for joy. That aside, I’m reminded that many of the things which you and I are given to do are not begun by us, merely carried forward for some while before being handed over to the next generation. In particular, we have this republic. As citizens, we are the heirs of those old dead white guys who wrote things like:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

And:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

There is little question that if the bill(s) currently considered by our Senate and House of Representatives with regard to health care are passed into law that we will no longer be holding those truths to be self-evident or securing the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.

Instead, we will have traded a large portion of our current liberty for the promise of future security–a promise which those who make will be unable to keep without further throttling our liberties until the differences between our country and those European nations from which my ancestors came will amount to little more than geography.

You may say that I’m overstating matters; speaking in hyperbole to make a point. I wish I were. I really do. But I’m not.

It is incumbent on us, therefore, to ensure that no matter what other things we’ve left undone we do not fail to let our senators and representatives (yes and President Obama as well) know exactly what will be their lot should they ignore the sacrifices made by millions to keep this country the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Sometimes I do wish to lock myself into a room with high-grade soundproofing and crank up the natural vocal output to a personally painful pitch.

From the esteemed paper for the record:

[]Lawmakers don’t want to take final action on the budget pending the outcome of legislation in Washington that could send more money to the states to meet their Medicaid obligations. The measure has passed the Senate, but the House hasn’t taken up the issue, leading to uncertainty about when or if states will get more money. South Dakota would get about $42 million, enough to meet an anticipated budget gap for next year.[]

Do we have no leaders in the legislature who understand that 1) the money that may be sent to the states is money the feds do not have–that is, it is more deficit spending; 2) it doesn’t matter if the feds might bail the state out, the state has a responsibility to balance its own books; 3) what the federal government giveth it may take away; and 4) it’s not against the law to cut government programs?

In fact, much like rosebushes, government programs benefit from regular and repeated pruning to ensure an aromatic outcome. Somebody send Pierre a truckload of pruning shears, stat.

Free money for dried fruit raisers. (KOTA)

Budget, budget, budget . . . oh, it’s the last day. (KELO)

Muskrat love is not the problem (Capital Journal)

Thune and Herseth Sandlin telling EPA to get real. Johnson, not so much. (The Daily Republic)