Where is George W. Bush's compassionate conservatism when we need it?

Governor Rounds says increased enrollment in Medicaid may set the state back another $40 million. Candidate Scott Munsterman's solution: kick people off Medicaid.

Munsterman said the state should scale back Medicaid eligibility and provide vouchers to purchase health insurance for catastrophic events.

He also called for more personal responsibility on the part of Medicaid recipients.

“We have a higher rate of medical care within our Medicaid system than other people do who have their own insurance,” he said. “We need to look at deductibles, we need to look at co-pays. We need to have a program that they can engage in, and become responsible, too” [David Montgomery, "Munsterman Says Medicaid Eligibility Must be Scaled Back in SD," Pierre Capitol Journal, 2009.10.27].

More personal responsibility—that's conservative code for not my problem.

Sure, we can probably find folks who take advantage of Medicaid (just like we can find insurance execs who take advantage of their clients... but I don't hear Munsterman calling for dropping the hammer on that system). But the problem the state faces in funding Medicaid is not a sudden surge of goldbrickers. The problem is thousands of responsible South Dakotans who have lost their jobs or/and their health insurance and have nowhere else to turn to get their families decent medical care. They don't want charity; they don't want to face the stigma of irresponsibility that conservatives like Munsterman keep piling onto folks who need help through no fault of their own. But the recession is hammering them, the flu is coming, and they just want to be healthy and not bankrupt.

The proper response from society is to say to these neighbors, "All right, we'll get you through." Candidate Munsterman's response is plain old class warfare—if folks need help, it must be their fault, and they should pay for their irresponsibility.

Practically, his proposal makes about as much sense as cutting unemployment benefits during a recession. It continues the long, sad history of Republican "leaders" unwilling to take the lead on getting South Dakota as a community to recognize our common obligations to each other in tough times. Blame the poor, demand nothing of the well-off: typical GOP.

Update 2009.10.29 07:10 CDT: A reader forwards this breakdown of South Dakota's Medicaid enrollment and spending. The data come from 2006 through 2008, so they don't capture the recession-related surge in Medicaid enrollment. But in FY2006, here's who was on Medicaid in South Dakota:

Medicaid Enrollment	SD	US	SD	US
Total Enrollment, FY2006	118,500	58,714,800	-	-	% of total residents
Children	70,100	29,182,400	59.2	49.7	% of Medicaid enrollees
Adults	20,100	14,879,700	17.0	25.3	% of Medicaid enrollees
Elderly	12,400	6,116,200	10.5	10.4	% of Medicaid enrollees
Disabled	15,900	8,536,500	13.4	14.5	% of Medicaid enrollees

source: State Medicaid Fact Sheet, StateHealthFacts.org, Kaiser Family Foundation, downloaded 2009.10.29

83% of the people Dr. Munsterman thinks need to take more personal responsibility for their health care are children, disabled, or elderly. Evidently the Republican philosophy is to balance the state budget on the backs of those who can't fight back.

...comments and prescriptions for humane public policy welcome at the Madville Times!

At 13:48 CDT today, I received the following request from KELO-TV:

Cory,

We’d like you to adjust the title of this blog entry: [URL] along with any other instances of this wording within the blog post.

Thanks,

Jonathan García
Web Producer
KELOLAND.com

O.K. See revisions below, in bold:

Travis at Badlands Blue makes a good point: why is the South Dakota media giving Senator John Thune a pass on his vote against the Franken amendment, a nay vote which some have characterized as a vote that protects malfeasant government defense contractors and makes it harder for women to seek legal recourse for abuse in the workplace. Senator Franken's amendment ot the defense appropriations bill sought to withhold defense contracts from companies "if they restrict their employees from taking workplace sexual assault, battery and discrimination cases to court." When Halliburton/KBR employee Jamie Leigh Jones alleged that she was gang raped by coworkers at Halliburton and then locked in a storage container for 24 hours without food, water, or a bed and threatened, Halliburton/KBR tried to force her into binding arbitration instead of being able to take the case to court.

Angie at Dakota Women opened the story for discussion in the South Dakota blogosphere two weeks ago, even beating Jon Stewart to the punch. Yet as far as I know, only one professional reporter in this state has seen fit to ask our Senator why he would vote against Senator Franken's amendment to prohibit federal money from going toward defense contractors who force their employees to give up their civil rights.

(Reminder of the Jon Stewart position: we'll bust ACORN for giving bad advice to a fake pimp, but we keep pumping millions of federal dollars to corporations whose employees commit offenses like those committed by Halliburton/KBR employees in Baghdad, offenses that have been widely referred to in the press as allegedly including gang rape?)

That one bright, shining exception: Kevin Woster (of course!) does good journalism and takes up the issue in a Sunday report in the Rapid City Journal discussing possible Dem challengers to Thune in 2010. (If you've read others, do let me know!)

But Thune's hometown rag, that Sioux Falls paper? Nothing. The Sioux Falls TV "news"? Nope, zip, nada.

Senator Thune puts the profits of Halliburton and other Republican money machines over the protection of women and the prosecution of actual offenses like those committed by Halliburton/KBR employees in Baghdad, offenses that have been widely referred to in the press as allegedly including gang rape, and no one making money for reporting news—at least no one on this side of the river—thinks it might be worth asking the Senator to clarify his position?

As Travis notes, so much for the "Liberal Media." If you want liberal media in South Dakota, you have to do it yourself.

...comments and further suggestions for revision welcome at the Madville Times...

...or, Rounds Administration shows how not to involve local officials in problem solving.

State Representative Bill Van Gerpen from Tyndall is working with state, county, and local officials to find a way to re-open the rural drivers license stations that Pierre closed to cut wait times for Sioux Falls drivers.

Rep. Van Gerpen, call former Rep. Nick Nemec. Mr. Nemec provides a solution that could re-establish drivers license stations to most of the rural communities—or at least their counties—by Christmas:

Highmore lost its drivers license examiner years ago. But the solution has been better than the old status quo. Now if you need to renew or even get a license for the first time you just go to the county treasurers office. Hyde County Treasurer Sandi Hemminger administers the written test, the eye exam, and takes your photo with a digital camera. Sheriff Mike Volek administers the driving test if needed. All the results and the photo are electronically transmitted to Pierre, and in a few days your new license comes in the mail. When this system was first implemented during the Janklow years it was touted as a way to save money and provide better service to rural SD.

I assume it has saved money and the service is much better. The treasurers office is open 5 days a week while the examiner used to come to town only once every month or so.

There are ways to do things better without sticking it to rural SD. We just have to think of them. I don't know if this system will be allowed in other towns. If I remember correctly Hyde County agreed to try if on a trial basis and was the first, and maybe only, county in the state to do so [Nick Nemec, comment, Madville Times, 2009.10.09].

Department of Public Safety Secretary Tom Dravland tells the Yankton Press & Dakotan he's "willing to discuss with legislators and with other South Dakota citizens any suggestions for ways to deliver driver licensing service." Of course, if the Rounds administration had talked to county officials before imposing this plan, the folks at the courthouses in Olivet, Britton, Canton, and elsewhere would have had time to study their options. They could have talked to the folks in Hyde County, studied the cost and details, and worked out a plan with Sec. Dravland to cut costs and improve service for everyone, not just the big city. The state could have transitioned to a plan that everyone in Pierre, Sioux Falls, and our small towns could join hands and sing kumbayah over.

But effective participatory government isn't nearly as fun as ruling by fiat and torquing off a bunch of small-town voters and legislators, right?

...comments and proposals for protecting rural America against the predations of city slickers always welcome at the Madville Times!

Mr. Mercer notes that Dakota Rural Action has failed to meet another deadline in submitting pre-filed testimony on the Keystone XL pipeline docket. Mercer cites a letter from PUC staff attorney Kara Semmler that says DRA may request postponement of the upcoming November hearing, a change Semmler says may be impossible.

To understand what's taking so long, perhaps we should go back to June and the Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents Ms. Semmler sent to Dakota Rural Action. On June 3, 2009, Semmler, on behalf of the PUC, gave DRA 26 days to submit the following information for HP09-001, the Keystone XL docket. As you read these "requests" (quoted verbatim), ask yourself what relevance each point may have to permitting the Keystone XL pipeline:

1. Describe Dakota Rural Action's business structure.
2. Describe Dakota Rural Action's business relationship with Plains Justice.
3. How many members does Dakota Rural Action have?
4. How many members own property crossed by the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline (herein "pipeline")? List the names and addresses of those members.
5. How many members are located within one half mile of the pipeline? List the names and addresses of those members.
6. How many members will have a pumping station located on his or her property? List the names and addresses of those members.
7. How many members are interveners in HP09-001? List the names of intervener members.
8. Provide a copy of all correspondence from your members regarding this pipeline.
9. Provide all records of telephonic or other verbal communication with members regarding this pipeline.
10. What is Dakota Rural Action's mission statement or goal?
11. Identify any membership meetings or other types of meetings scheduled by or through Dakota Rural Action at which this pipeline was discussed.
12. Provide a copy of any correspondence you sent members or non-members regarding this pipeline. Provide a copy of all mass mailings as well as individually addressed letters. Specify whether the mailings were sent to members only.
13. Provide a copy of all newsletters or other information published or created by Dakota Rural Action regarding this pipeline.
14. Has Dakota Rural Action polled or otherwise communicated with its membership to determine what percentage support and what percentage oppose this pipeline? If so, provide the results.
15. For the past two years, list all legal processes, administrative and otherwise in which Dakota Rural Action has participated.
16. How does Dakota Rural Action determine what legal or other process to become involved [sic]?
17. The applicable applicant burden of proof reads as follows... [see SDCL 49-41B-22]... Specify particular aspect(s) of the applicant's burden of proof for which you intend to provide testimony and evidence. Provide Dakota Rural Action's position regarding said aspect.
18. State Dakota Rural Action's position regarding "terms, conditions or modifications of the construction, operation, or maintenance." See SDCL 49-41B-24 and 49-41B-36.
19. List with specificity the witnesses Dakota Rural Action intends to call. Please include, name, address, phone number, credentials and area of expertise.
20. Do you intend to take depositions? If so, of whom?
21. As an ongoing request, provide Commission Staff with a copy of all data, documentary or interrogatory requests you send any party to this docket along with its complete answer to such request.
    
    —Kara Semmler, staff attorney, Interrogatories and Request for Production of Documents, South Dakota Public Utilities Commission, 2009.06.03

Now I've never been party to a PUC docket, so I can't speak with authority about the normal scope of interrogatories addressed to interveners. I haven't seen the interrogatories the PUC sent to TransCanada, the entity actually seeking to disrupt land and property rights in South Dakota, so I can't compare the burden placed on other parties to this docket.

In its formal response, Dakota Rural Action argues the PUC's interrogatories are a burdensome and occasionally unconstitutional fishing trip. In twenty-plus pages, DRA offers the following objections (I paraphrase):

• Some requests improperly seek private, confidential information.
• Some requests seek information irrelevant to the docket that could not produce evidence admissable in the PUC hearing.
• The PUC fails to offer the "threshold showing of relevance" required by precedent to justify its seemingly extraneous requests that do not touch on "facts related to the Proposed Pipeline or its impacts."
• Quoting from case law, "no overbroad or 'carte blanche' disclosure, unduly burdensome or lacking in specificity, should be allowed."
• The requests in total are "unduly burdensome, expensive, oppressive, [and] excessively time-consuming."
• The disclosure and publication of member names and addresses violates the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
• Disclosure and publication of member information and internal communications have a chilling effect on freedom of association and free speech.

I find the chilling effect particularly disturbing. Suppose you're a member of a group that advocates certain policies in Pierre—Dakota Rural Action, South Dakota Retailers, whatever. Suppose your organization told you it would be recording every call you make to your organization's officials and archiving every e-mail you send for possible publication in government proceedings. I don't think it's a stretch to say a lot of members would avoid calling or writing... or even sending in membership dues.

Even from a practical perspective, the PUC's interrogatories threaten to chill citizen activism. Suppose you're working for a local non-profit advocacy group, or you're just a concerned citizen trying to speak up for your neighbors. In this case, you're busting your chops researching oil pipelines, right-of-way proceedings, environmental and economic data, and other relevant and complicated information. You're spending your spare time—or your spare change hiring a lawyer or two to help you—trying to put together a case that can reasonably compete with the attorneys and experts that a multi-billion-dollar corporation has at its disposal.

In the middle of that process, the state calls and asks you to turn your file cabinets inside out for them. Whether you submit to the request and turn over stacks of private information or work up a solid legal argument to protect your and your neighbors' constitutional rights, your workload just doubled. And every dollar and hour you spend on that task is a dollar and hour you can't spend building your case that permitting the pipeline does not serve the public interest.

Citizen activism is already hard enough. If the PUC can erect further barriers like the information requests it made of Dakota Rural Action, even more citizens and organizations will back away from public activism. That will leave public decision-making all the more in the hands of the well-moneyed and well-lawyered.

While R. Blake Curd and his Tea Party friends are dressing up in tri-corner hats and re-enacting their personal mash-up of the Cold War and the Revolutionary War, and while South Dakota conspiracy theorists like Lori Stacey are fighting the Illuminati, groups like Dakota Rural Action are fighting real battles, against real threats, to protect the rights of South Dakotans against encroachment from big corporations (and in this case, a foreign corporation).

And our own state appears to be sandbagging citizen groups with impractical and unconstitutional legal demands.

...comments and Constitutional opinions welcome at the Madville Times...

Munsterman for Governor campaign manager Pat Powers continues to look too far in the future by concentrating his fire on Democrat Scott Heidepriem instead of Munsterman's three immediate Republican primary challengers. And it's not even good fire. In what promises to be standard GOP procedure in 2010, Powers avoids policy and instead attacks Heidepriem for the endorsements he gets from George McGovern and Jim Abourezk.

Heidepriem's hanging out with liberals! shouts Powers. He's Castro! (Yes, Powers really did make the former association.) Powers tells us nothing about what actual policies Heidepriem will advocate that will drag us into liberal Sodom and Gomorrah; he simply provides a bogus verbal template on which his sheep can transpose their favorite irrational fears.

It's not like Heidepriem is hanging out with some fringe radical like me (although he did chat with me once at a debate tournament—uh oh! Lib-a-palooza II!). Heidepriem's receiving the support of two former United States Senators, fellow South Dakotans elected by us. Heidepriem is receiving the support of McGovern, a decorated World War II veteran and U.N. Ambassador on World Hunger, and Abourezk, an Arab-American civil rights leader. So if there's guilt by association, we can expect Heidepriem to support courage under fire, fight hunger, and defend civil rights—oh! the horrors of the liberal agenda!

Powers also fails to explain why, if McGovern and Abourzek are such nefarious liberals, they're choosing pragmatic Heidepriem over his real wild-eyed liberal challenger, my man Ron Volesky. (And indeed, I'd like to know, George and Jim, what's up with that? Where's the love? Run hard, Ron!)

Oh well. The Republicans know they have an executive and legislative history that have left us with a structural deficit and shaky budget unable to withstand an economic downturn. They know the policy choices they have to make in the 2010 will not be pretty and will not make for cheery campaign slogans. So Pat Powers, like Lucas Lentsch and the state GOP, are turning early to distraction and slime. It's Obama-Ayers all over again... but the South Dakota Republicans can't even find an Ayers.

Up next from the Munsterman campaign (when they remember "primary" means first): attacks on Knudson's association with liberals at Harvard, Daugaard's association with liberal Chicago lawyers, and Knuppe's liberal facial hair.

...comments always on at the Madville Times...

Remember last weekend when I steamed up over KELO's biased coverage of President Obama's propsoed student loan reforms? I thought maybe we could find some balance to Senator John Thune's pro-usury propaganda by turning to one of our leading Democrats, a supporter of President Obama, someone like, oh, maybe, Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

Nope. Thursday SHS was one of four Democrats in the U.S. House to vote against H.R. 3221, the Student Aid and Financial Responsibility Act of 2009. She voted against increased funding for Pell Grants, construction money for public schools and community colleges, environmental and energy efficiency upgrades in schools, lower interest rates for student borrowers, simpler financial aid forms, and $87 billion dollars in savings for taxpayers, all because she buys the Thune/Rounds banker propaganda:
 

"The enactment of this bill in this form could result in the loss of hundreds if not thousands of jobs in South Dakota during a period of higher unemployment," she told reporters Thursday, mentioning Student Loan Corp. in Sioux Falls, a subsidiary of Citi. "I have concerns about completely eliminating a role for private sector and the relationship that private lenders in South Dakota have with our universities and colleges, and any potential disruption and access to loans for students that could occur during the proposed transition to a new system." [Ledyard King, "Student Loan Reform Could Cost S. Dakota," that Sioux Falls paper, 2009.09.18]

Enactment of this bill would also result in hundreds if not thousands of South Dakotans finding college more affordable and being able to get the training they need for new jobs during a period of higher unemployment. But evidently SHS and Thune alike would prefer to see $87 billion of wasteful government spending subsidize a few South Dakota banking jobs (specific numbers on which Citi VP Public Affairs Mark Rodgers declines to give).

I'd suggest that SHS is letting donations from the fiannce industry sway her vote, but I'm sure she'd find such a suggestion "ridiculous".

Perhaps fellow Dems can take heart: Stephanie Herseth Sandlin still votes with the Democratic majority 94.1% of the time. By that measure, she's as Democratic as Reps. Eric Cantor, Dan Burton, and Dan Lungren are Republican.

But when I can look back over this summer and rattle off votes and positions—student loan reform, American Clean Energy and Security Act, Food Safety Enhancement Act, health care reform—where Rep. Herseth Sandlin sounds a lot more like a big-business Republican than a Democrat, I can't help hoping for a nice primary challenge from a good Wellstone Democrat, a McGovern Democrat, a Democrat who will be a Democrat on the hard issues.

...comments and nominations for draft movements and primary challengers welcome at the Madville Times!

Did anyone else notice that South Dakota gubernatorial candidate Scott Munsterman didn't really answer my question about patching our state deficit without federal stimulus dollars? He did grace me with a reply, complete with tables, which I as a taxpayer, voter, and blogger do appreciate. But upon further review of both that reply and the budget chapter in Munsterman's book, I'm afraid my original assessment of Munsterman's budget talk still stands: nice rhetoric, but no specific or workable roadmap for South Dakota's worsening budget shortfall.

Let's review: my original question was what $71 million worth of programs Munsterman would have cut from the state budget this year instead of taking those dratted federal stimulus dollars. I expanded that question to three parts, wondering what cuts Munsterman would propose for this year, next year, and the biggie, FY2012, the budget year when the new governor has to fill the deficit without federal stimulus dollars. Matthew J. Trask put reiterated the basic question in a Hubba's House exclusive interview (complete with Hubba's amusing Madville Times impression ;-) ).

In his replies to Trask and me, Munsterman replies with eager, earnest talk about strategic investment and synergy, benchmarks and performance, all good business lingo that makes the MBAs nod and smile. Munsterman makes the point that he's pulled off this trick before, taking the reins in Brookings in 2001, when the city faced a 10% budget overrun in the midst of a recession. He and the city commission chose budget cuts instead of reserve spending and steered the city toward fiscal stability (see p. 125). In his Hubba's House interview, Munsterman assures us that the good people of Brookings never missed what they cut from the budget.

Data-driven performance assessments are a good idea. I do them to my students all the time. State government can benefit from them as well. Candidate Munsterman appears to think that if he applies such assessments to the bureaucracy that Governor Rounds has inflated (keep pushing that point, Scott!), he'll find all sorts of fat to cut from the budget. On general budgeting principles and long-term planning, Munsterman makes a good business case.

Unfortunately, performance assessments wouldn't have fixed this year's budget, and they won't fix the new governor's first budget. Benchmarks and data take time. We need to collect data for a year just to get a benchmark, then compare the next year's data, then make decisions. Maybe Governor Rounds should have been collecting such benchmarks from day one (and maybe he already does? Bob Mercer, help me out here!), but in the absence of data, Rounds and the Legislature still had to fill a $71 million hole. The governor proposed some ugly cuts, and we mostly chose to take the federal money instead.

Munsterman still has not answered whether, in the absence of the data he needs for solid performance assessments, he would have preferred those cuts (or others) in this year's budget, or next year's.

Ultimately, Munsterman's answers so far on the South Dakota budget remind me of Ewan McGregor and Charlie Boorman motorcycling through Siberia in Long Way Round. At more than one point, the choice before them is to try fording a rough and frigid river on their bikes or wait and catch a lift with a Russian truck. I feel like Munsterman is the happy Swiss cameraman saying, "Well, someone ought to show some leadership and build a really nice bridge."

No kidding someone should build a bridge, but right now, we've got to get across the river! Do we get wet or ride with the Russians? (Please do have fun with the metaphor.)

I've said that on several counts, I like the Munsterman campaign (note: there's a big difference between acknowledging that a machine runs well and saying I want to get in and go for a spin). On this budget discussion, Munsterman is perhaps just campaigning smart: why state any specific budget cuts before you absolutely have to? The campaign needs to promise plenty, not pain. Saying "Well, I'll cut X, Y, and Z" might only alienate the voters (and donors) who benefit from X, Y, and Z.

Of course, such specifics might also demonstrate fearless fiscal leadership.

Fixing the South Dakota budget will take more than mild-mannered MBA talk. In discussing our state's worsening fiscal situation last week, Governor Rounds said that the budget shortfall for next year may be larger than the entire budget for the bureaucracy, the government operations that Munsterman wants to benchmark, assess, and trim. In other words, we could send everyone in Pierre home for the year, and we'd still have a deficit.

Finding a leader who can be fearless in that predicament is no easy task.

...comments and fearless leaders welcome at the Madville Times!

The folks to my right often seem to make great fuss and feathers over declaring that America is a republic, not a democracy. They puff up with professorial pedantry (hey, I thought that was my gig!) as if this simple observation is the cornerstone of all political wisdom. They recite their Adams, Hamilton, and Madison, and fulminate as if praise of democracy is blasphemy against the Pledge of Allegiance and other sacred American texts.

America is a republic, not a democracy. Sure. So what?

How does "republic, not a democracy!" change our approach to any practical question of policy? How does it help us frame our discourse about health insurance reform, taxes, or education? Whether the Senate is elected by state legislatures or we let the darn 17th Amendment contravene our Founding Fathers' intent and elect Senators ourselves, we still have to build roads and schools and fighter jets. Whoever is making the decisions, the great unwashed masses, the Senators, the philosopher kings, does "republic, not a democracy!" help anyone make a practical decision?

The only takeaway I get from the "republic, not a democracy!" chanters is that the chanters are elitists. Aren't they really saying that they, like the Founding Fathers, didn't trust the common citizen to make decisions of great import, and that we thus had to insulate the leaders from popular pressure? Aren't they saying that expecting our ruling elites to mingle with the masses at town hall meetings and take their cues for governing from the hysterical shouts of the mob is absurd, farce at best, tyranny at worst? Aren't they really saying that our leaders should be further removed from and less responsive to the momentary passions of the citizens? That's not what I was hearing at the Glenn Beck Madison picnic on Saturday... but that's what "republic, not a democracy!" appears to mean.

Constitutional scholarship is great. But esoteric points about political philosophy don't really help us solve problems... and if you aren't careful, they can knock the legs out from under your everyday citizen activism.

-----------------------------------
For better understanding of the emptiness of RNAD ranting, read Dr. Newquist's excellent contribution to the conversation. Similarly lucid comments are always welcome at the Madville Times!

Anonymi do have some use.

Dakota War College and slime-meister Lucas Lentsch of the SDGOP have had some fun criticizing Democratic gubernatorial candidate Scott Heidepriem for having a nice big house (asking price $1.275 million).

By that tack, it looks like Republican R. Blake Curd is out of the running for any high office in 2010. Just as Pat Powers attempts to puff up the health care histrionicist to run for Congress (puffed cheese curds, anyone?), a commenter notes that Curd's house is up for sale:

10,056 square feet and turrets, all yours for $2.8 million. Boy, sell that, and you won't need any campaign donations.

Let's see, by SDGOP standards, that price would make R. Blake Curd what... the phoniest tea-bagger in South Dakota?

...comments and hot real estate tips welcome at the Madville Times!