Last Friday, the FCC launched an inquiry into Google Voice's blocking of calls and began an review of whether the application should be regulated as a traditional telephone service, also known as a common carrier. Google has rejected such claims, saying in a blog posting that Google Voice is a Web application and not a telecom service.

That is from the Washington Post's tech blog. Read it all here. AT&T claims that Google has blocked calls to an ambulance service, a community center and a tribal center. (Out here in the sticks, we are more expensive to connect up to the grid. Ergo, phone companies - including AT&T - have tried but failed to find ways around the rules that say they have to connect to the more expensive numbers.)

The FCC's answer to the question of whether Google Voice is a telecom carrier or an Internet site might already be available in how the federal agency has structured its inquiry. It is investigating whether Google has violated telecom rules but has declined so far to do the same when it comes to net neutrality and other rules designed to make sure all Internet users can access the same websites and tools. I say, If it looks like duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

The outcome of this FCC inquiry will matter immensely to states like South Dakota. Should Google get a pass on this, it would probably be less than a decade before we Dakotans would be living parallel lives to our big city brethren, suffering a similar fate to those towns bypassed by the railroads or the interstate highways. There are a smattering of hollowed out buildings near Ellsworth Airforce Base that illustrate the importance of an on- and off-ramp.

Google's apparent intentions to prevent some people from using its voice app raises the question of whether the company is violating its own mantra - Don't be evil. What might not seem so terrible in Palo Alto must seem downright cruel and inhumane in Eagle Butte.

And, as a fan of Google fan and tech enthusiast Jeff Jarvis, I wonder where he is on this one? So far, radio silence.
 

I'm to the point anymore where I firmly believe that maybe government should just take the children at birth and raise them for us, Moore said. They're not letting parents make their own decisions anymore. And it just seems ludicrous to me to make these laws telling parents what to do.

Moore was speaking to increased pressure coming from the National Transportation Safety Board trying to get three hold-out states - SD, Arizona, Florida - to pass booster seat laws.

If they use a booster seat and a seat belt, rather than a seat belt alone, they reduce their risk of injury by 59 percent. said Deborah Hersman, head of the NTSB. And what the data and the facts tell us is that it's much safer to be in a booster seat that restrains your child properly in the event of an accident.

The NPR report did not mention Project 8, Gov. Rounds' program to promote the use of child seats and distribute them for free to some families. I had our little David's seat checked out by this program, and I understand it is Rounds' idea to "educate not legislate." For South Dakota's sake, I wish this information had been included as I think it's a valid, non-hayseed policy position to try to increase the use of booster seats through this kind of a program rather than through tickets and fines. (Anyone know of any data on child seat use in South Dakota versus other states?)

In any event, we can be sure this one will be with is during the law-making months of January and February. I don't look for Rounds to change his position.
 

What the place lacked in warmth former Sens. Jim Abourezk and George McGovern delivered - Abourezk in a fiery, unapologetic screed against a corrupt GOP and McGovern in a heart-warming, professorial, self-effacing essay about the greater good. (Disclosure: I'm assuming that's all that McGovern's speech was, as I had to leave in the middle of it - baby's bed time and all. That's what it was up until my departure, and that's McGovern's signature style.)

Above, Abourezk addresses the Friday night crowd.

The event was a fundraiser for Democratic gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem, the state's Senate minority leader of Sioux Falls. Neither Heidepriem nor his campaign manager Steve Jarding were on hand.

(I had expected to be late to the party when it came to publishing a report on this event, as weekend activities kept me from the blog. However, even though Mount Blogmore's Kevin Woster, Dakota Day's Sam Hurst and robbinsdale radical's Curtis Price were in the house, they are apparently even busier than me. No other published reports as I write this.)

Here's a closer look at Abourezk.

We need a government that is honest, Abourezk said. This one-party system is ruining South Dakota's clean reputation.

Gasps, tsk-tsks and here-heres came from the crowd.

Among the unforgivable crimes committed by South Dakota's GOP, according to Abourezk, are the following:

• Gov. Mike Rounds and the governor-appointed Board of Regents allowing SDSU President David Chicoine to serve on the board of directors for Monsanto, "one of the dirtiest chemical companies in the world," for $400,000 per year - in addition to a state salary Abourezk says is $300,000 per year. (A Google search seems to confirm these numbers - they're often-quoted - but I did not find original source documentation.) As the crowd tsk-tsk'd, Abourezk said: "You can see the conflict, but they can't."
• A too-friendly relationship between the state Department of Envirnment & Natural Resources / governor-appointed Board of Minerals and Environment and Hyperion company officials, as Hyperion seeks to build a huge oil refinery in the middle of pastoral Union County farm territory. Abourezk named Hyperion top dog Albert Huddleston cited a dinner out among Hyperion officials and the state officials who were considering whether to grant the permits needed to build the refinery. "It's so pervasive they don't even notice it," Abourezk said.
• A $300,000 state grant to former state legislator and 2008 GOP US Senate candidate Joel Dykstra, for a Dykstra business venture. (Again, a Google search lends support to this accusation, although it appears this was originally a loan, and $200,000 was later converted to a grant. This also matches what I remember having been reported at some time in the middle-past.)
• More than 1,800 no-bid state contracts. (One might assume this implies that a Dem governor would not have no-bid contracts? Just wondering.)

Abourezk did conclude with this:

Scott Heidepriem is tough enough to resist the desires of cronyism.

That would make him the rare politician indeed. Even the rare human being.

McGovern reviews his notes before speaking Friday night in Rapid City.

I don't have nearly as incendiary quotations from McGovern. Most of what I heard involved a story about how, as a US House member, he got sent to speak on behalf of Hubert Humphrey to the great disappointment of the fellow who picked him up at the airport and then introduced him with: "My fellow Minnesotans, I have some bad news."

The Abourezk-McGovern tour is a fascinating bit of political sociology/archeology on many levels. The contrast in styles is stark - tour organizers are wise to have Abourezk wind up the crowd and then have McGovern put warm, fuzzy smiles on their faces. Perhaps this leads to bigger checks being written? The sheer history wrapped up in this idea, both to South Dakota and the nation, is cat-nip to us junkies. The wisdom of putting up these two unapologetic liberals to campaign in a South Dakota gubernatorial race is a question that will be debated for the next year. There is the danger that they might overshadow Heidepriem himself, who is a mix of the two personalities.

For all that, I love that this political odd couple is on the road.
 

Gant was an open government champion before it was cool - he even has been accused of being a closet Democrat - and he's got a plan for how to make the Secretary of State's Office even more open. I'd argue that it already is one of South Dakota's most open government offices, with the Legislative Research Council probably leading the way. But in our beloved state, the bar for open government hasn't been set very high.

Gant envisions an SOS office that takes full advantage of the world wide web for both openness and efficiency.

Hopefully we will put as many records as possible right there, get that stuff online, he said. We have to remember who our boss is and who's paying for it.

Gant would put all the public records maintained by the SOS online - from corporate filings to campaign finance reports - on the website in searchable form, not the pdfs we now have access to. In addition, he would set up a system under which those forms could be filled out entirely online, thus saving the staff the trouble of re-typing the information into another computer. (Right now we can do some of this online, but ultimately the forms get printed out and mailed in - and then re-typed.)

Gant also hopes to visit high school government classes where he would encourage the 18-year-olds to register to vote.

And he said he'd do more to assist small jursidictions with elections while promoting best practices when it comes to those local elections. Like most states, South Dakota doesn't have an entirely uniform set of elections practices, but Gant thinks maybe we should think about doing that.

For the GOP nomination, Gant faces Teresa Bray who currently works in the SOS office and who Gant expects will have the support of current SOS Chris Nelson. But he's not worried about that. At the moment, he's traveling the state meeting with Republican delegates. As in old machine-style politics, in these statewide offices below the governor, it is delegates that win one a primary victory.

Read Gant's campaign brochure below.  

Daugaard's son, Chris, graduated in May from SDSU (Go Jacks!) after achieving his own electoral success as student body president. (He majored in poli sci.) After a stint kickin' it in Europe, Chris is on board with his dad's campaign and says he'll be off to grad school after the campaign is over.

Son-in-law Tony Venhuizen, married to Daugaard's daughter Sara, will be on board as well. (He's a USD law grad who finished a year clerking for the state court system and is now full-time with the campaign.) And like I said, Daugaard can hear the tongues wagging.

People can easily misunderstand that to be naive and inexperienced when I'm confident it is not. These guys have a lot of gray matter.

Venhuizen worked on Gov. Mike Rounds' campaign back in 2002, when Rounds was a long-shot. (That is, in fact, how the young Mr. Venhuizen and the young Miss Daugaard got headed towards matrimony, after first meeting during a legislative session.)

So it would be easy to say that Daugaard is following Rounds' improbable formula for success in hiring family members to run his campaign. (I think we sometimes forget that during the 2002 primary, Rounds had no money and no doubt had to rely on family for support. That, of course, wasn't the case in 2006 when the all-in-the-family tradition continued.) Back to Daugaard, he's hired the Beltway political shop of Wilson Grand Communications, whose motto is, "You Elect Us, We'll Elect You." (This is the same outfit hired by the late George Mickelson in the 1980s and Walter Dale Miller in 1994.)

Daugaard said he recognizes the need for a seasoned campaign pro (he named Paul Wilson specifically) to helm the ship and to help the family avoid becoming "myopic." At the same time, Daugaard insisted, he said, that Lawrence & Schiller remain a key part of the media strategy. As I understand it, Wilson Grand gets to do the "creative" while L&S gets the rest of the media work, mostly placement I figure. (L&S employees Daugaard's other daughter, Laura.)

And so another tradition continues, one long grumbled about amongst SD ad types and blown out into the open by a 2008 ballot measure campaign. The Republicans who run Pierre really like Lawrence & Schiller for campaign work and state contracts. It appears Daugaard has no intention of changing the landscape here.
 

As lieutenant governor, I believe my job is to advance the governor's policies ... I think the governor, who is elected for their stance and policies, should be supported in all instances by the lieutenant governor. I think I should offer my opinion on policy and issues only when asked. If I offer it and the governor still believes otherwise, then once the closed door opens, my position is what the governor wants it to be. ... I will never betray that trust once the door opens.

He said in 2009:

I think I can still be true to my duty of loyalty during (the legislative) session, and I will. When session is over, I will come out with my own policies and platforms. There's no inconsistency or conflict there.

Daugaard said he'll start a mission to visit each of South Dakota's 66 counties in November and continue that during the spring as his campaign gets into full swing. (He plans a formal campaign announcement tour during the first few days of October.)

Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard has been largely absent from this summer's fairs-and-parades circuit, and it's been by design. The GOP gubernatorial candidate isn't interested in starting his 2010 campaign much before 2010.

And even though he's not been shy about his intentions to seek South Dakota's chief executive job and has been raising money towards that goal literally for years, Daugaard won't officially announce his candidacy for another month.

Dennis Daugaard in action in the SD Senate. (I neglected to get my own photo of Daugaard, which is too bad because he held my baby through much of our visit.)

Daugaard was in Rapid City this week, along with his son Chris - a recent SDSU grad (go Jacks!), and he looked up the Hoghouse for a chat.

He's wisely starting off the shoe-leather portion of the campaign by telling his personal story - perhaps the best personal story in American political history. He's got John Edwards beat by a country mile.

He is the son of deaf farmers who became janitors after their farm went bankrupt during Dennis's high school years. The 56-year-old remembers a slew of unglamorous jobs as he worked his way from a one-room country school near Dell Rapids to a law degree from Northwestern. Daugaard can spin out vivid, detailed memories about each job, but we'll start with just a listing.

• Egg collector, cleaner & packager on his parents' farm. ("My earliest memories are of chores on the farm," he said.) He also mentioned milking cows at 5 am and shoveling silage, though didn't mention the shoveling of anything else. I'm sure he did shovel plenty of barnyard waste, which probably prepared him for his career in the Legislature. But I digress.
• Once at USD, where he majored in government "because I could get a scholarship in it," Dennis became a sorority "house boy," which probably had its moments. The high points, no doubt, did not come while washing the womens' dishes - the bulk of the job.
• During his college summers, Dennis welded - both on an assembly line and repairing water towers. Assembly-line-welding, aside from the occasional case of his pants catching on fire when a spent rod would land in the wrong spot, was "the most boring job I will ever have," he said.
• In 1975, Daugaard got to Northwestern by hitching a ride to Chicago on an egg truck owned by a friend's family. Once there, he worked as a security guard on weekends - the 8 am to midnight shift - signing people in and out of the building. "It was a great job because I could study," he said.
•  During law school summers, Dennis drove a Chicago city bus (I told you he had John Edwards beat). That was "the most interesting job." Since he filled in for vacationing drivers, Daugaard got to see much of the city and its inhabitants from his bus-driver's seat.

Near the end of his legal education, Daugaard left the world of blue collar work behind and did clerking and research for a Chicago law firm, where he worked for three years after earning his law degree. He then decided to return to South Dakota and marry his high school sweetheart, Linda. (The two drifted apart when she went to SDSU, he to USD.)

I'd just had enough of the big city. There were too many extremes of all flavors.

Then he worked in the estate and trust department of what is now US Bank. While there, he got a seat on the board of the Children's Home Society, where he has worked the last 19 years. He is giving up the executive director job at the end of September in order to campaign full-time (aside from January and February when he will be dutifully fulfilling his role as lieutenant governor during the legislative session).

There are also personal details to Daugaard's story, like how he and Linda bought his parents' farm and then built their own house - using their own labor - on the place. In a year. And they have three children.

More to come on Daugaard, including more on his campaign team and his campaign schedule.

Personally, I would like to have a direct hand in reversing the Wall Street bonuses, but I digress. Here's one of the ads:

 

I wrote about Thune's anti-bailout passions in a recent newspaper column:

I was puzzled by the ads. Didn't Thune vote for the $700 billion bailout, the Troubled Asset Relief Program? Yes he did. So why is he now campaigning to stop something for which he voted?

Thune campaign manager Justin Brasell offers an explanation - that the Bush administration did a bait and switch. And while they certainly did do that, I'm still puzzled that Thune would choose this as a campaign theme. (To be fair to Brasell, he was puzzled that I was puzzled. It all makes perfect sense to him, so perhaps I am missing something or being unnecessarily obtuse.)

Perhaps Brasell and I see things differently because the Mississippi native wasn't yet on South Dakota soil when Thune defended his pro-bailout vote with passion equal to that with which he is now fighting federal bailouts.

From the Oct. 1, 2008, press release:

It would have been easy to do the `politically popular' thing and vote against this bill, but for me it would not have been the responsible thing to do.

(The underlining is Thune's.)

I know Thune's "end-the-bailout" line is resonating. I've heard folks talking about it. (See the page about this on Thune's campaign website.) So perhaps the collective amnesia is suffient, or perhaps there have been too many big federal spending packages greased through the pipe for them to care about a vote on the original bailout. But I still struggle to see how a principled stand 11 months ago can turn into campaign fodder in the opposite direction.

Should this be a case of, You've made your bed; now ly in it. Am I wrong to wonder whether this would be the tone if Bush or some other Republican still held the White House. Will voters ponder which one of Thune's pronouncements is coming from a place of principal?

Read the full column below.

 

Thune campaigns to end bailout he voted for

Senator says Bush administration misled him on TARP.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., doesn't yet have an opponent for his 2010 re-election campaign, but he does have a message. "Stop the bailouts," read the ads running on newspaper websites and at least one blog.

I was puzzled by the ads. Didn't Thune vote for the $700 billion bailout, the Troubled Asset Relief Program? Yes he did. So why is he now campaigning to stop something for which he voted?

Thune campaign manager Justin Brasell says it's because TARP as it exists today is not what Thune voted for last fall.

"What was done with the TARP money and what he was told are two completely different things," Brasell said. "The Bush administration sold the bill on purchasing toxic assets and getting them off of the balance sheets of these companies. Instead, they turned around and took ownership in these companies. They turned it into a revolving slush fund of bail-out money.

"He feels like the Senate was deceived on what this would be."

If you're not sure you remember which bail-out bill TARP was, you're not alone. It was the original bail-out, targeted to Wall Street banks, passed last October in a panic. It was followed by a proposed bail-out for the auto industry, which failed, and then by the $787 billion stimulus package passed in January at President Obama's urging. (Brasell notes that Thune is sour on all the bills targeted at economic recovery and voted against the auto bail-out and the stimulus.)

In Thune's campaign ads, he is addressing the TARP bill, as he has introduced a bill to get the government's money back from Wall Street. The bill, called the Government Ownership Exit Plan, would bar the federal government from taking any further ownership in private companies. In addition, it would give the government until July 1, 2010, to sell its stake in private companies and would prohibit the government from influencing management decisions of private companies. (Read more at http://www.johnthung.com/exitplan)

When he voted for TARP, Thune issued a press release saying that "the sober facts" were that without it, the economy would collapse.

"It would have been easy to do the `politically popular' thing and vote against this bill, but for me it would not have been the responsible thing to do," Thune said after his vote. "I am frustrated that the government is being forced into this position, but the authority this bill provides is temporary. It also ensures strong oversight and strong taxpayer protections and it prevents Wall Street executives from walking away from their failed companies with golden parachutes."

Nearly a year later, the sober facts have changed.

Short of a time machine that could take him back to change his vote, Thune's exit plan bill is as close as he can get to undoing his bail-out vote. Because Democrats control Congress and are unlikely to give Thune's bill a hearing, he almost certainly won't get the chance to cast a redeeming vote.

Thune has long been for some specific flavors of health care reform, but at the moment and into the foreseeable future he is against health care reform of pretty much any stripe. That is no doubt because Democrats are writing the bill(s). It's possible that Thune would change his tune should the Senate Finance Committee's tortured bipartisan toiling bear fruit, but it's not likely.

There is little overlap between what Thune has been calling for - telehealth, tort reform, small business health plans and cheap prescription drugs - and the bills in play.

Read the full colum below.

Thune both fighting, promoting health care reform

Senator leads opposition but has long supported changes.

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., must feel slightly confused these days. As one of the U.S. Senate's top Republicans, it's part of his job description to rhetorically whip Democratic plans for health care reform.

He did so a few weeks ago when he delivered the Republicans' national radio address and described a potential boondoggle.

“Their plan for government-run health care would disrupt our current system and force millions of Americans who currently enjoy their employer-based coverage into a new health care plan run by government bureaucrats,” Thune told the country. (There is substantial room in which to challenge Thune's claims, but you're hearing that debate constantly already.)

At the same time, Thune has long sought his own list of changes to America's health care system, most notably improvements in the use of “telehealth,” essentially the use of the Internet for some provider-patient visits as a way to better serve rural areas.

“By using telecommunications and information technologies, telehealth has the ability to lower health care costs and provide quality health care services at a distance to patients in remote and underserved areas,” says Thune on his official Senate website. So far, there's no sign of telehealth measures in the reform bills in play.

Thune has other reforms he's pushing. But since he's not on either of the committees writing the legislation, his role for the moment is limited – limited, it seems, to broad criticisms of the Democratic proposals. In Thune's defense, it's hard to get too detailed since the Senate Finance Committee is still working on a bill and the Senate Health Committee passed its bill but has yet to release the final version publicly.

Thune and other Republicans say the Democratic plans would cost too much. And they say they prefer to keep the current insurance system, but what's been proposed would result in government-run health care.

His spokeswoman Andi Fouberg says Thune and the Republicans hope to get to offer amendments once a bill gets to the floor.

After government incentives for telehealth projects, Thune offers this list of reforms he supports:

**Tort reform. “Lawsuits, driven by trial lawyers who contribute millions of dollars to Democrats, drive up costs with unnecessary tests and other measures doctors are forced to take to shield themselves from junk lawsuits,” said Fouberg.

**Small business health plans. This would allow small businesses to band together to buy insurance for employees, thus giving bargaining power more in line with big employers. “According to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, SBHPs would expand health care coverage to approximately 750,000 employees of small businesses who are currently uninsured,” Thune says on his website.

**Prescription drugs. Thune wants Americans to be able to import drugs from “FDA-approved facilities overseas,” since prices in other countries are cheaper. He also supports continued access to generic drugs.

Despite his own calls for reform, its hard to see Thune supporting whatever bill emerges in the final analysis. The gulf between him and what's in play is too wide.

Of course when the crowd heard it, it seemed obvious. Tom Hennies wanted his final farewell, the last hymn sung at his funeral, to be God Bless America. And so it was.

Besides the size of the crowd - the Rapid City Journal's reporting 800 - the broad swath of society present at Tuesday's funeral is notable. That the Rushmore Plaza Civic Center was needed to house the crowd, that was a given. So, too - for anyone who knew Hennies, was the mix. Dusty cowboy boots and shiny dress shoes. Shirt sleeves and blue jeans (even a pair of bib overalls) and expensive suits. Whites and natives. Young, middle, old.

Lawmakers (past and present) in attendance who I saw were Larry Rhoden, Jim Lintz, Eric Bogue, Fred Whiting, Stan Adelstein, Elizabeth Kraus, Gordon Howie, Alan Hanks (now mayor), Don Hennies (of course). I also saw Qusi Al-Haj of John Thune's Rapid City office. I'm sure there were others there who I did not see, as the crowd was literally that big - a sea of people.

Afterwards, I took this picture to try to illustrate just how many uniformed cops of various stripes were there, but the photo really doesn't do justice to what seemed like an endless stream of uniforms - many blue but also lots of other colors.

When I remember Hennies, I think of both his incisive judgments, which could sometimes seem arbitrary but always proved to be thoroughly thought-out, and his equally incisive sense of humor, examples of which would either be lost in translation here or are not entirely appropriate to retell on the solemn occasion of his passing. Suffice it to say, there were many times when I and others were left only to shake our heads.

OK, here is one, done at the very public event of a legislative crackerbarrel. Some other lawmaker had drawn a diagram on a chalkboard to try to illustrate South Dakota's school funding scheme, which lends itself to multi-faceted diagrams. Hennies got up, drew over an hour-glass-shaped part of the diagram to make it bolder and said, "Aw, hell, I thought this here was supposed to be Arlene Ham."

There are a whole lotta folks, Hennies, who are going to miss both your judgment and your jokes.

Well, I heard from Johnson's office after I posted his column. They want to avoid any confusion and say Johnson refers in his column not to the bill that has passed the House but to a future bill that will be rewritten in the Senate. The bill will "get a completely fresh start" in the Senate, said Johnson's spokeswoman. (Sounds like a good old-fashioned hoghouse in the state Legislature. The folks in Pierre always knew they could teach Washington a thing or two.)

And I learned that the term "cap-and-trade" is falling out of favor among those who back the bill. The new term is "climate and clean energy." (Gotta love focus groups.)

Here's the official statement from Johnson staffer Julianne Fisher:

The Senator supports efforts for a clean energy incentives bill. The House bill (H.R. 2454) will procedurally come to the Senate, but will get a completely fresh start and will likely look very different from the bill that passed the House.

There are four Committees expected to weigh in on this process on this side of the Hill: Energy, EPW, Agriculture and Finance. Floor action isn't expected until the late fall, but the Senate Energy Committee has already begun its work, including a measure to increase renewable energy production and update the electric transmission grid. This would help stimulate wind energy development in places like the Dakotas and get the energy to where it's needed around the country.

Again, Tim believes that this effort can bring jobs, prosperity and clean air to our state while moving us away from a dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Sen. Johnson is a member of the Energy and Natural Resources Committee, so he should have a hand in writing the bill - not just voting for it or against it.
 

Writes Johnson:

Soon the Senate will consider climate change legislation that could finally help South Dakota to live up to its wind generating potential and capture the benefits of a cash crop that is just blowing across our landscape. 

...

South Dakota’s growing clean energy economy has added good-paying jobs at an annual job growth rate of 7.9 percent over the past decade. 

...

The question is: are we sending more of our hard earned money to Big Oil and oil rich countries or are we investing in our own backyards?

He goes on to predict the effort to kill the bill will reach the fevered pitch of an anti-health-care crowd at a town hall meeting. And he says doing nothing would be counterproductive.

These scare tactics just present a status quo approach that leaves us all vulnerable to oil spikes in a global market and high gas prices that crush family budgets like we saw last summer.

So, if we thought the season of discontent would end with the fate of health care reform, I suspect more likely we'll look back on this summer like we look back on the much maligned predictions that war in Iraq could cost $50B.

Read Johnson's column below.

Climate Change Bill Could Bring Jobs, Prosperity and Clean Air
By U.S. Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD)
 
How many times have you heard experts cite the fact that South Dakota is the fourth windiest state, but only ranks 20th in actual installed wind energy generation?  Soon the Senate will consider climate change legislation that could finally help South Dakota to live up to its wind generating potential and capture the benefits of a cash crop that is just blowing across our landscape. 
 
In fact, the wind energy potential in South Dakota can put us in a leading position to reduce our nation’s dependence on foreign sources of fossil fuels and get America running on clean energy. 
 
This is a chance to invest in American ingenuity and help our country become a global leader on clean energy that can jumpstart our economy.  We can grow our economy and reduce the demand for oil, much of which is imported and drives up our trade deficit while enriching hostile foreign governments. 
 
South Dakota’s growing clean energy economy has added good-paying jobs at an annual job growth rate of 7.9 percent over the past decade.   A new federal policy that drives demand for wind power will sustain these jobs and create more of them.
 
As a consequence of the forward-looking 2007 Energy Bill that boosted renewable fuels production and reformed fuel efficiency rules for cars and trucks, our consumption of petroleum-based gasoline is predicted to decline by over 1 million barrels per day below the country’s daily total in 2007.  In addition, it helps pick up the pace on ethanol and looks at next generation biofuels, such as switchgrass, wood waste and other non-grain feedstocks, which helps both East and West River, South Dakota.  It also included a tax credit that, in our neck of the woods, can help build wind turbines and start harnessing that energy potential. 
 
Simply put, that means we already have a plan in place that moves us toward consuming less oil and more homegrown biofuels while making our cars and trucks more energy efficient.  But that is just one step.  When it comes to energy, we should be open to new ideas that help our economy and invest in America.  
 
Now some will throw their hands up and say we just can’t do this now or they will try to cite worst case scenarios and cost projections far beyond what the non-partisan groups have told us clean energy incentives will actually cost.  These scare tactics just present a status quo approach that leaves us all vulnerable to oil spikes in a global market and high gas prices that crush family budgets like we saw last summer.
 
Energy prices are going up with or without any comprehensive policy changes from Congress.  The question is: are we sending more of our hard earned money to Big Oil and oil rich countries or are we investing in our own backyards? 
 
Technology and alternative ways to produce energy need long-term planning.  For South Dakota in particular, with so much untapped potential for wind energy generation and renewable fuels production, a more progressive national energy policy could be just the step that will finally transform that economic potential into actual jobs, economic development, and opportunity for people and communities across our state. 
 
This fall, the Senate is likely going to take a fresh look at a comprehensive energy bill focused on clean energy incentives.  I am optimistic we can turn energy potential into reality and help create new job opportunities at home by producing more clean energy in the United States.

As I wrote in a recent newspaper column, South Dakota's own Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., holds a key position within the Blue Dog coalition and, therefore, a key position in the ongoing health care reform debate. Her assessment so far: No deal. (Read the full column on the jump.)

Herseth Sandlin said that she can't lend her support to any House legislation yet, but she's watching to see whether some provisions now under negotiation make the final cut. Specifically, she's looking for small business protections, a continuation of the private insurance market and a requirement that any public plan negotiate with providers and not simply impose Medicare payment rates. 

SHS said she's most hopeful about what might come out of the Senate Finance Committee, which has continued bipartisan negotiations into the recess. Specifically, SHS and the BDs are looking for cost control, something she said is largely missing from the collection of competing bills unveiled so far.  

Blue Dogs believe it's fundamental to reform to control rising costs but also to improve access and quality. It must be deficit neutral and bend the cost curve.

It's been noted on other blogs that SHS hasn't scheduled any town hall meetings to discuss this during her time back in the state. For those who are upset about this, what are the provisions and priorities that she's outlined with which you disagree or agree? Perhaps blog comments can provide some sort of dialogue on the specifics of this key issue.  

Tead the full column below.

 

Congresswoman can't support House bill – yet

 

If you're having trouble keeping track of the debate over health care reform, keep an eye on South Dakota Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

That should be easy, as in the past week no story updating events on Capitol Hill is complete without noting the activities of the U.S. House's coalition of Blue Dog Democrats. Not only is Herseth Sandlin a member of the Blue Dogs, she serves as the group's co-chair for administration. That puts her squarely in the middle of the ongoing negotiations, and she's often quoted in the near-constant updates in the national media.

For example, this from ABC News online: “The 52-member Blue Dog Coalition has not taken a group position on the draft health care legislation … The committee will work its will, but the broader coalition has not ratified any agreements related to the draft legislation.”

That was Wednesday, and the reports updating the negotiations have come out literally every few minutes. In the midst of a fluid situation, what Herseth Sandlin said remains true – the Blue Dogs haven't as a group endorsed or condemned any piece of health care legislation.

Because the health care debate is consuming Capitol Hill, I'm taking three week's worth of columns to examine how South Dakota's congressional delegation is handling the health care debate. Specifically, I'm asking them to name their top priorities and to identify any deal-breakers that would prevent them from voting for a bill.

Not surprisingly, for Herseth Sandlin containing costs - and doing so over the long term - is a top priority.

“It's leading the country down a path to fiscal disaster. We have to get health care costs under control,” she said. “Blue Dogs believe it's fundamental to reform to control rising costs but also to improve access and quality. It must be deficit neutral and bend the cost curve.”

Because the Blue Dogs were able to delay a House floor vote on any health care reform until after Labor Day, the Congressional Budget Office will have time to crunch the numbers and report how competing proposals stack up when it comes to saving money.

“The bill started out where the more liberal members of our caucus wanted to be,” Herseth Sandlin said, calling that original bill draft “heavy on coverage and light on cost containment and system reform.”

The bill began, she said, expanding insurance coverage millions of uninsured Americans but doing almost nothing to address what makes health care so expensive. The result would have been an even more expensive health care system.

“Real reform demands serious change,” she said.

Meanwhile, Herseth Sandlin said that she can't lend her support to any House legislation yet, but she's watching to see whether some provisions now under negotiation make the final cut. Specifically, she's looking for small business protections, a continuation of the private insurance market and a requirement that any public plan negotiate with providers and not simply impose Medicare payment rates.

There's nary a red state left, with our neighbor Wyoming holding fast. After polling from January-June, Gallup now lists South Dakota as "Leans Democratic," one step away from full-on blueness.

While one cannot discern this from examining our state Legislature and Governor, it does add a great dinner party topic as we head into 2010. Who knows, maybe even John Thune will have a contest.

Says Gallup:

Only four states show a sizeable Republican advantage in party identification, the same number as in 2008. That compares to 29 states plus the District of Columbia with sizeable Democratic advantages, also unchanged from last year.

So much for that permanent Republican majority? For now, at least. I mean, look at the South. Even 4 of the top 10 Republican states show a dead heat or a slight advantage for Democrats. (See that chart and the full report here.) As Hunter S. Thompson would say, "My God, man."

For South Dakota, Gallup lists 46 % of registered voters as either all-out Democrats or independents who lean Democratic, while 40 % are all-out Republican or lean that way.

The Democratic Party continues to hold a solid advantage in party identification in most states and in the nation as a whole. ... The deck is clearly stacked in the Democratic Party's favor for now.

Even in South Dakota, I guess.
 

I'm not able to support the bill in its current form, she said on a conference call.

SHS said she believes the well-known Blue Dog coalition, of which she is a leader, has had a positive impact on the House bill(s) - especially when it comes to cost containment, but she's more interested in what might come out of the Senate Finance Committee.

 The bill started out where the more liberal members of the (House Dem) caucus wanted to be. ... 

(What comes out of Senate Finance) will be a product I might find more appealing than what emerges from committees in the House. I'm pleased I'll have time to see what this group comes up with in the Senate.

SHS cautioned that her current unease with House legislation doesn't mean she's a no vote on the floor. That will depend on a lot of things, particularly any amendments she and others could make that would bring the House bill more in line with the Senate version.

 This is just a committee markup. There will be a lot of legislative steps left.

She also said it's not unreasonable to expect members of congress to read bills before voting on them, even when they're more than 1,000 pages long - as the current House bill is. It's not about reading a bill "cover to cover," she said, but about sitting down with various interested parties and examining/discussing the language.
 

Earlier this month, South Dakota's lone US House member ended the suspense that had preoccupied any legitimate political junkie who follows events in the Rushmore State. She will run for re-election to the US House, the least risky move. In a recent newspaper column, I did a Q&A with SHS about her decision-making process. It boiled down to the potential for a grueling gubernatorial campaign and the likely detrimental effects that would have on her 7-month-old son, Zachary Lars. (Read the full column on the jump.)

I just felt that what is best for Zachary is what balance we've been able to find these past seven months, she told me.

So the question we will never know the answer to - and the question I neglected to ask - is if she were not a new mother, would she have made a different decision?

I do think she was tempted by the prospect of a gubernatorial run, as evidenced by her answer given on the jump. She clearly had thought it through. She'd even listened to pitches promoting the Pierre school district for the future young scholar, Zachary.

She also said her decision isn't part of some grand scheme to run for Tim Johnson's Senate seat in four years. She re-iterated what Johnson's staff says - don't assume he's retiring at the end of this term.

Sen. Johnson retiring is an assumption it's too soon for anyone to make.

Read everything Stephanie told me below.

HERE'S THE COLUMN:

Herseth Sandlin explains her decision

Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin decision earlier this month will shape South Dakota politics for years to come. She will run for re-election to the U.S. House. She won't run for governor. The ramifications are numerous. Her reasoning was simple. She believes this is what would be best, both for her infant son and for South Dakota.

She answered a few of my questions about her decision-making process.

 After you announced your decision, did you feel a sense of relief?

HERSETH SANDLIN: I felt a positive sense of resolution to a matter I had been deliberating for a few months. I really didn't start looking at 2010 until April. I told people who wanted to talk to me in November, December, I'm just not going to turn my focus there until later this spring. When I did start thinking about it, there was a lot of back and forth. I would get excited about one possibility and then similarly excited about another. I only made my final decision the weekend before I made the final announcement. It doesn't really seem final until you make it public.

You do get a sense in your gut about what is the right thing. I was weighing all the factors of personal, political and professional. Ever since I made the announcement public, I have felt as good if not better about the decision. That's because I'm very professionally fulfilled in the work I'm doing for South Dakota and Washington. It's an exciting time to be doing this work with South Dakota's interests at the forefront. These are really historic times, exciting times, very challenging times. That was one of the primary reasons I wanted to run for re-election. It also has felt good to have the decision made.

Practically speaking, with regard to our little one, day to day it's so wonderful. But it is a challenge to juggle it. I have found a really good balance. When I take a step back from getting very excited about the possibility of running for governor, then I start thinking about what the campaign would be like, what issues would be discussed, and then I take a step back and say, practically speaking how will life change if I decide to run for governor?

I would be distracted and diverted away from the issues I've been working on these last few years, and what it would mean in terms of my time with Zachary day to day. There are a lot of unknowns there. I just felt that what is best for Zachary is what balance we've been able to find these past seven months.

 I think that answers my next question, which is what tipped the scales for you?

HERSETH SANDLIN: The reason I feel so good that it's the right decision is in the final analysis it was about Zachary. I feel like I've been effective for the state. I think the vast majority of voters in the state agree given the margins of the last two elections. I'm not doing anything differently now in terms of how hard I work. Working with new administration, these working relationships and these issues and the groundwork we've laid, this is where I'm best positioned to work for South Dakota right now.

 Are some folks upset about your decision?

HERSETH SANDLIN: I haven't heard of anyone who's upset. Over the July 4 weekend, a few people I ran into maybe got the sense where I was leaning, no one has said they're upset. I think people are still wondering if maybe I'll consider it in the future. I'm not going to rule anything out. And I'm not trying to keep the speculation going. Some may be disappointed because they think the political climate is such that Democrats can win. While there may be a tinge of disappointment with a few folks, by and large people are very understanding and respectful. A number of people are very pleased with the decision.

 What about the chance to be governor most tempted you?

HERSETH SANDLIN: The chance to work with the Legislature, regardless if it's Republican or Democrat. Having been in the legislative process, to partner with them, to not try to propose sweeping change, but just to pick the brains of people in the public and private sectors to see if there are some things we could do differently or to build on some of what has been working for the state in job creation, to build relationships with tribal governments, to find some win-win solutions rather than a zero sum game all the time. I think I have developed a lot of trust and working relationships with tribal governments and entrepreneurs in Indian Country. To find ways to advance economies in very remote communities.

To work the state and executive side of the underground science lab. I've tried to stay really involved and abreast of all of that.

I really enjoy my relationships with people in education, higher education to early childhood education. Part of it was having my own little one. I had a constituent group of educators – I won't say which group – so enthusiastic and encouraging about the possibility that I might run. Having someone make the pitch for the Pierre school district.

That's why I'm not going to take it off the table in the future. Some of the issues I would have wanted to make progress on, maybe we make the kind of progress over the next set of years. Now that I've made the decision, I don't want to look back on it and I don't want to look forward. You can lose site of the work that's at hand.

 Some observers believe you'll run for the Senate, assuming Tim Johnson retires in 2014. How likely is that?

HERSETH SANDLIN: That's looking too far into the future. First, we don't know what Sen. Johnson's going to do. There are a lot of things that could develop politically in 2010 and 2012 that may affect that political timing. I may feel that I can serve the state more effectively in a different capacity. There are too many assumptions and variables on the political side. And in 2014 Zachary will be 5. Then you're weighing, if it is an open seat, the likely pressure I would come under to seek that office, marrying that up with where my husband is in terms of what he wants professionally and personally.

I'm not going to take that off the table either.

Sen. Johnson retiring is an assumption it's too soon for anyone to make. He just got re-elected by a very large margin; he's a very effective senator. We all know seniority matters in the U.S. Senate.

I agree with Johnson's assessment that the way our country draws the boundaries of its congressional districts is not healthy.

...

The current redistricting system is, quite literally, the fox guarding the hen house.

When I wrote the column, it was only Johnson and a congressman from another state on board. Soon, South Dakota's own Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and a group of Blue Dogs joined the effort. (More details on that to come soon.)

I prefer Iowa's academic approach to redistricting, but Johnson's idea would be a vast improvement over the methods currently used almost everywhere except in our neighboring state.

I hold no illusions that Johnson's bill will be widely embraced, let alone passed. But I am thrilled that anybody with the power to do something about this is talking about it at all.

To read my full column, click "CLICK HERE" below.

HERE'S THE COLUMN:

If you've ever marveled at how America's congress-people seem more strident in their partisan views than the public at large, you are in the company of Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D.

Johnson thinks he knows why this is the case, and he thinks he has a solution – the Fairness and Independence in Redistricting (FAIR) Act. The bill seeks to remove politicians from drawing their own district boundaries, thereby ending a lot of the electoral hanky panky that goes on today.

To be clear, I agree with Johnson's assessment that the way our country draws the boundaries of its congressional districts is not healthy. It is one of two issues in the political realm where, as a journalist, I'm comfortable taking a position. The partisan redistricting process closely follows the need for a more open and transparent government when it comes to ways our democracy could stand improvement.

When covering redistricting for the South Dakota Legislature after the 2000 census, I watched a committee made up of legislators extend a district boundary just far enough over a hill to include a future candidate's house in one district, thereby averting the need for him to run against an incumbent in the district he otherwise would have inhabited.

Since South Dakota has such a small population, we don't have the added trouble of drawing multiple districts for members of the U.S. House of Representatives. But in most of the other states, it's the state Legislature in charge of drawing those boundaries, too.

The games played when drawing up the national or state boundaries are indistinguishable. They count how many voters are registered in one party versus another. They are keenly aware of which precincts are populated by racial minorities. They calculate how voters in various precincts voted in the last election. All this to try to ensure the future election of either more Republicans or more Democrats, depending on who's in charge of any given state's Legislature.

That leads to a near-guaranteed election of one party over another, and the real contest shifts to a primary race, Republican v. Republican or Democrat v. Democrat. And when political candidates sing to the choir, the songs praise the political activists and ignore the needs of the average voter.

The current redistricting system is, quite literally, the fox guarding the hen house.

Or, as Johnson put it: “Redistricting should be done according to the constitution and the Voting Rights Act. Drawing boundaries for which voters elect members of the U.S. House of Representatives shouldn’t be placed in the hands of those looking to increase their odds in the game.

“Sometimes when you take self-interest out of making a decision, you’re better able to do the right thing. South Dakota is not directly affected by redistricting, but you can be sure political interests are getting in the way in other places.”

For the last several congressional cycles, Johnson has attempted to fix this broken system. He has been joined by Rep. John Tanner, D-Tenn., in signing onto the FAIR Act, but no one else.

Here are the provisions of Johnson’s bill:

• Commissions in each state would be made up of at least five members, with an equal number appointed by the minority and majority leaders from the state Legislature. Those members would then elect a final member, who would chair the proceedings.

• The commissioners would have to be registered voters in the state in which they serve.

• The commissioners could not have held elected or appointed office. They also could not have been an employee of a political campaign or worked for a political party during the past two election cycles. And they could not run for the U.S. House of Representatives for a decade afterwards.

Another model, where the politicians are entirely removed from the process, exists in Iowa where the nonpartisan Legislative Services Bureau draws the boundaries. That might be the gold standard, but Johnson's proposal would dramatically improve a key part of our nation's political system.

Besides being a tad boring, it's hard to fault the congresswoman for her choice. It's a safe choice, and she's got a meaty job with the Blue Dogs. Plus there's no rule that says she can't run for governor some other time. She does have plenty of time left.

Now, the Democrats have the unenviable task of trying to mount a credible offense against the traditionally dominant Republicans in the gubernatorial race. Ditto in taking on Sen. John Thune.

Republicans have the same task when it comes to taking on Herseth Sandlin.

In other words, business as usual.

Beyond the Republican gubernatorial primary, it's hard to see the possibilities of a spirited contest. Perhaps the election gods will prove me wrong. (I did, after all, predict SHS would run for governor. I also predicted Mike Rounds would run for Senate. Clearly I like to predict what would be more fun for reporters and junkies.)

Meanwhile, assuming Herseth Sandlin remains in the House and in a key position with the Blue Dogs, she'll continue to wield disproportional influence in representing lil' ol' South Dakota.

Republicans are likely to continue to rule in Pierre, and Sen. Thune will continue his rise up the GOP ranks, where he has the competitive edge of sanity and social skills, which seem to be in scarcer and scarcer supply by the day. 

Given the avalanche of substantive issues hitting the Capitol(s), the rest of us will be left to debate the issues and leave the drama for another election cycle.
 

Thune, it seems, has managed to stay just below the radar and above the fray as a voice audible inside the Beltway and back here in South Dakota but absent from the confused melee that's consumed his party since the Democrats' sweeping victory in 2008. 

Writing the column didn't help me understand the thinking of the national punditry any better - they now seem to be looking to Haley Barbour, another blast from the past - but I feel a little better. 

Read the full column below.

S.D. senator could lead GOP.

By Denise Ross

The consensus is in amongst the national punditry: the nation's GOP is leaderless. How many times have we heard our TVs pose the question, “Who speaks for the Republican Party?” And how many times have we asked why Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., never comes up in the conversation?

As vice chairman of the Republican conference in the Senate, it is his job to speak for the GOP. And if you look to the news sources consumed by those on Capitol Hill - publications like Roll Call and Congressional Quarterly – you'll find him there. Yet he is absent from the ranks of Sarah Palin, Newt Gingrich, Mitt Romney and any other soul being bandied about in the popular press as possible contenders in 2012. And he's certainly not inciting the conservative base like so many radio and TV talk show hosts.

Thune, it seems, has managed to stay just below the radar and above the fray as a voice audible inside the Beltway and back here in South Dakota but absent from the confused melee that's consumed his party since the Democrats' sweeping victory in 2008.

At home, he's recently continued his run as champion of ethanol by reminding farmers that they'll soon be able to get paid for corn cobs and switch grass, thanks to a provision he put into the farm bill. Nationally, he's explaining the GOP's strategy to try and stall President Obama's plans for health care reform.

In both places, he's the face of the message that seems to be getting Republicans the most traction these days. He's sponsored a bill saying the federal government should divest itself of ownership in private banks by a date certain, an idea that's proven quite popular with the electorate.

If Thune has designs on rising further in his party, let's say to the presidency, he certainly could take an opportunity amongst the current chaos to step up and swing at a few pitches. His name would be on the lips of the pundits in lightning speed.

But waiting is much smarter.

His status as the giant killer who felled Tom Daschle hasn't faded and won't for years. That gives him a cat-nip-like mystique in the halls of power. Combine that with an affable personal style and a competent without being overbearing command of the issues and you just might have a party leader.

Thune, 48, will almost certainly breeze to re-election to the Senate in 2010. By then he'll have shored up a strong foundation of credibility in Washington by having handled more and more policy work. That will strip away the criticism that has stuck – and stung – the most, that he's a show horse, not a work horse.

By then, we all will have tired of Sarah, Newt, Mitt and the gang, and a certain percentage of them will have self-destructed.

And by then, serious minds will begin scanning the landscape for a giant killer to take on President Obama. And who knows what shape his administration will be in by then. If things fall apart, Thune could be ready for the main stage.

Should the president be able to maintain his immense popularity and keep the confidence of most Americans well into his first term, then Thune would again be wise to wait a little longer.

After all, there's always 2016.