Sunday, December 27, 2015

It's Crazy (x2): South Dakota Has No Income Tax

     Yes indeed, there are two dimensions of craziness to the notion that South Dakota doesn't have an income tax.  Dimension 1) it's crazy that we don't have one. Dimension 2)  it's crazy to think that we ever will.
And We're Trying To Attract Workers?

Regarding that first dimension of derangement, consider how we stack up on some vital elements of public budgeting compared to our neighbors (ex-Wyoming, which is left out of this discussion because the state uniquely derives about 25% of its revenues from taxes on mineral production) and all but  5 other states in the country.  The Council of State Governments in 2011 produced a document that summarizes the contrasts, some of which are pretty stark indeed. On a national scale, individual income taxes generate about a third of total state tax revenues, with slightly less than that share coming from sales taxes. South Dakota is a much different story. Sans income tax revenues, South Dakota in 2013 got an astounding 80% of its total tax revenues from sales and excise taxes.  Talk about regressive, good grief.  The tax burden in this state falls heaviest on the lower tiers of wage earners, who carve out taxes from a much larger share of their incomes than the well-to-do. 
     South Dakota is a low tax state, no question.  State and local revenues consume just 8% of the state's total income, third lowest in the nation.  This is a feature of fiscal life here that is frequently pushed as an advantage of some sort, but I think that's bunk because the "advantage" is belied by our persistent worker shortage.  In fact,  the shortage is so acute that last May our state government started pushing an ad campaign  to lure workers and their families by claiming that South Dakota is a better place to live than the planet Mars. Uh-huh.  The tongue-in-cheekishness of the ad notwithstanding, I think it reflects the reality that our worker shortage isn't merely acute . . . it's desperate.  That desperation is created by issues that trump low taxes in the minds of people who might be thinking about migrating into South Dakota.  
     Now that our socialized stinginess has resulted in the manifestation of those serious issues on two fronts--abysmal teacher pay and infrastructure maintenance--our elected leadership is busy configuring ways to squeeze more money out of existing revenue streams.  Most notably, the mind-numbing gesticulations regarding property tax reform seem like nothing more than a "strife of interests masquerading as a contest of principles." **  And trying to squeeze more sales tax out of an already overburdened class of ordinary citizens isn't going to happen.
     Ergo, the craziness of the status quo.  As to the prospect for income taxes, you can count me as one of the crazy ones who think there might be some change in our thinking on them.  First off, we
SD Rich Folks Have It Made
Working Stiffs Not So Much
(graph from
need the money. Paying our state's 8,000 teachers another $10k/year comes out to $80 million, and that just gets them on the low end of the range of salaries immediately surrounding South Dakota. Secondly, a progressive tax that would shift some of the state's tax burden upward might have a shot at succeeding if people can be made to understand the connection between constructive government spending and the quality of their lives.  Because of two constitutional amendments, created in 1978 and 1996, the only ways South Dakota could impose an income tax are via voter initiative or a two-thirds vote in both houses of the state legislature. 

     You can forget about the politically impossible latter, but the former might fly.  I think enough signatures could be gathered to at least get an income tax initiative on a ballot and that the subsequent public debate could clarify and instruct voters about the possibilities that can accrue to a state that has a progressive tax system.  Limiting the tax to businesses that make quite a bit more than a typical  mom-and-pop operation would probably be a realistic place to start. If nothing else, it might start moving us out of the realm of states with the "most regressive tax systems in the United States."  

 ** Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary"         

Tuesday, December 22, 2015

Oh, Ya Better Watch Out, Get Ready To Die, Ya Better Not Doubt, I'm Tellin' Ya Why--Ho Chi Minh Is Comin' To Town (Reprise from 12/21/14)

It's Beginning To Look A Lot Like Christmas
Everywhere You Duck
I Was In This One.  Dong Ha, 1967
(photo from

     So, okay, wit wasn't exactly a common attribute among us Marine Corps riflemen stuck along the south edge of Vietnam's laughably mis-named Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) during the Christmas season of 1967. But what we lacked in wit we more than made up for in sarcasm, which was often so extreme that it lapsed into flat-out nihilism.  I guess war has a way of doing that to people, especially a military adventure that was as entangled in moral imperatives and hazards as the one we waged in Vietnam.
     We knew all about the violent ambivalence about the war that was tearing our country apart, but we were pretty much immune--maybe numb is a better word--to all the noise. Marines at the DMZ didn't care about any of that--we knew we were in Hell and that, as we routinely put it, "Hell sucks." We just wanted out, we counted the days until our tours were up.  We said of our dead that they had been "wasted." Not "killed."  Wasted.  Never did think about it much back then, but realize now how much pungency there was in the use of that word.  Considering Vietnam's post-war shambles and the nearly 60,000 Americans (and many times that number of Vietnamese) killed in action during that ill-starred escapade--which I still regard as the defining screw-up of my generation--"wasted" is a word that more than applies, and not just to the dead.
     So here we are a half-century later, still bogged down in wars that are saturated with political and economic and moral confusion.   Considering that this seems to be a cyclical recurrence since perhaps the Korean War in the 1950s and certainly my war in Vietnam, you just have to wonder if this is built into our modern destiny.  Do our Congressional reps stop to consider the relentless futility of their actions when they robotically re-authorize funding for these ventures?  I mean, we left Vietnam with a superb complex of ports and landing fields and excellent buildings (I saw them when I visited in 2009) throughout the south that we basically handed over to our enemies. Same thing seems to be happening in Iraq, and no doubt will lead to a recurrence in Afghanistan. 
     As to the long term cost, Stateside? Just as so many of my generation of warriors came back with serious post-war issues, I note
USMC Lance Corporal Me, 1966, Enroute To Vietnam
(photo from
thamany veterans of our ventures in central Asia are having their own bouts with the traumas of battleI know that combat in its own right will lend itself to psychological and emotional consequences, but my experience in Vietnam tells me that the overriding issues of fighting a war with much-contested moral underpinnings against an enemy that poses no direct threat to the United States leaves a residual ache that can be consumptive for some.  It already started for me and my brothers-in-arms when we blithely referred to KIAs as having been wasted, when drug use by our troops became a common occurrence, and when our songs of the war were filled with sarcasm and contempt ("Jingle Bells, mortar shells, VC in the grass . . . take your merry Christmas and shove it up . . " well, you know). 
     Now I think about our combat forces deployed in central Asia and wonder if the incipient bitterness is beginning to creep into their souls.  For some of the vets I've talked to, I know it has. That hangs some sorrow on me, mainly because I know it never really goes away.  Such is the legacy of our political leaders who don't constantly examine and re-evaluate the basic assumptions that brought us here in the first place.  My wish this Christmas is for Thune, Noem and Rounds to demand an answer to the question "why?" before they vote another dime of American money to sustain what seems to be a stone much larger than the one Sisyphus was forever condemned to roll up that hill. The myth to the ancient Greeks has become the reality to us modern Americans.

News today of the death of 6 U.S. Airmen (one of them stationed here at Ellsworth) at Bagram, Afghanistan, prompted me to reprise this post from a year ago.  John

Monday, December 21, 2015

Not COOL. South Dakota Ranchers Get Stiffed By Noem, Rounds And, Sort Of, Thune

     Budget hawk-ish Republicans from South Dakota who are already irked by the easy
Ranchers And Consumers Want This
Why Aren't Our Reps Fighting For It?
(photo from
passage of the big "Omnibus" spending bill in Congress last week have more than its deficit-ballooning elements to get steamed about.
Tucked into the bill was a provision that would repeal the "country of origin labeling" (COOL) rule that many South Dakota ranchers fought for years to get implemented.  Voting in favor of the bill were Congresswoman Kristi Noem and Senator Mike Rounds.  Senator Thune voted against the measure, though on a prior spending bill (the "Bipartisan Budget Act")  a month earlier he did vote with every Senate Democrat to invoke cloture on furthering legislative discussions of that budget-stretching bill, a vote so politically and ideologically uncharacteristic that it was deemed "statiscially notable" by  Thune the budget-hawk then voted in favor of it. Why Thune would want to stall further debate of a budget bill and vote in favor of it, then, at the very next opportunity, vote against the spending bill that ended COOL is a political consideration that bears explaining.  You might say he was "for" government overspending before he was "against" it.  

     My take?  Pubs got so much heat for shutting down the government two years ago that they just didn't have the political nerve to fight this budget proposal again by repeating that blunder of 2013. In the meantime, though, I'm a little steamed about how the COOL repudiation got stuck into this thing, as I believe our Congressional delegation owes it to their ranching community's voters to put this out as a separate item, worthy of consideration on its own merits. Slipping it inside a budget bill is chicken manure, and I'm surprised and perplexed as to why Noem, Rounds and Thune seem to have let it slide.  Where was the vigorous defense of COOL, a cornerstone of ranching industry economics that also just happens to be favored by 93% of American consumers? 
     As a former cattle feeder and trader I've never been that much of a fan of COOL, considering its labeling requirements to be burdensome and unnecessary.  Carcasses leaving meat packing plants in this country are inspected and graded to standards that apply to final products
Kowgirl Kristi, Defiance Personified
Why So Meek When It Comes To COOL?
(photo from
regardless of their origin. However, the law is the law--and I understand that consumers generally favor this type of labeling, so the practice has been in place and the industry has adapted to it, and that's that. That it has run afoul of international trade agreements is well enough known, with a recent WTO ruling against the American practice precipitating the repeal of the law.  

     The problem that South Dakotans should be having with this is clear.  Why did our U.S. reps roll over so easily and let COOL repeal slip through the process with nary a whimper?  They've been quite supportive up to now,  much to the delight of South Dakota's ranchers.  Now all of a sudden they've clammed up and pretty much acquiesced to the extermination of one their pet issues. Fear of retaliatory trade measures is certainly a matter to be considered here, but the categorical rejection of a program that means much to South Dakota livestock producers, as well as consumers throughout the country, merits more than a mere yea or nay vote on a surrounding bill that has nothing to do with COOL, per se. Sans pushback or explanation, it doesn't say much for our congressional delegation.  

Tuesday, December 15, 2015

Daugaard Needs To Talk Financial Turkey To The Legislature If He Wants Them To Support Medicaid Expansion In SD

     It's encouraging that Governor Daugaard has finally come around to supporting and
Can We Afford To Do This?
Can We Afford Not To?
(graphic from
proposing ways of expanding Medicaid in South Dakota.  
His piece in yesterday's Rapid City Journal included 3 caveats.  The first two, getting the Feds to take over the costs of medical services given to Indians who for any number of good reasons get care outside the Indian Health Service and convincing the state's tribes to go along with the plan are challenges that seem meetable.
  I can see the Obama administration's HHS going along with taking over the $67 million/yr obligation (which I understand is consistent with the federal obligation to pay for Indian medical services in the first place) to pick up the cost of Indian health care as a condition for expanding Medicaid (an Obamacare feature) into South Dakota. Daugaard notes that transferring the $67 million cost from the state to the Feds will cover the state's share of Medicaid expansion costs through 2021. I won't presume to speak for the Indian community, but note that from the tribes' points of view, it doesn't look like anything will change in the delivery of non-IHS health care, the only difference being which government entity will pay for it. Of course, anything dealing with the IHS is a topic of considerable discussion and concern, so there's no telling how the Indian community will react to a proposal that affects its status as a significant stakeholder in Daugaard's plans.
    Those caveats duly considered, though, it seems to me that the more formidable task will come in getting the third condition met.  Of it, Daugaard unequivocally says  that he "will not support expansion unless the Legislature supports it."   My general observation is that our state legislature has a fair number of committed Obama-haters in it, and their reflexive reaction to the Obamacare-spawned program of Medicaid expansion will be opposition.  That about fifty thousand South Dakotans who now make too much money to qualify for conventional Medicaid but don't earn enough to pay for private health insurance will qualify for Medicaid if expansion occurs hasn't been a convincing enough reason for our state government to take this deal. That's actually pretty sad, considering that even Daugaard acknowledges that although this pool will include those who become government-dependent, it also includes "the single mother of three who cannot work enough hours"  to afford private healthcare.  
     My take?  The cost of letting system-gamers into the Medicaid expansion pool isn't enough to dissuade us from accepting the plan.  It just comes down to the greatest good for the greatest number of people.  When GOP Governor Chris Christie implemented Medicaid expansion
It Just Makes Too Much Sense
We Need "Smart" not "Stubborn"
(graphic from
in New Jersey in 2013 he said, "expanding Medicaid is the smart thing to do for our fiscal and public health."  In order to convince South Dakota's conservative legislature that this is the right way to go for us, I emphasize the words "fiscal health."  It is such an obvious financial windfall for our state that it seems amazing that political intransigience has been so willing to forgo billions of dollars over the next decade to nurture our legislature's hatred of everything Obama.  A couple of billion dollars pouring into South Dakota's economy during the next few years will generate a few times as much when the money rolls over.  You don't need to be an Economist to understand what that will do for state tax revenues in an era when we're scrambling to find enough money to pay teachers competitive wages and keep our infrastructure functioning properly.

     Governor Daugaard has some well thought-out reservations going into this, but it's clear that he's coming to the same conclusion.  We have to find a way to make this deal work.  


Saturday, December 12, 2015

Bollen, Bollen, Bollen . . . Is That Money Stolen? . . . Keep Them Lawsuits Rollin' . . . And Hide! **

     It took me a couple of days to get to Seth Tupper's piece on the latest act in the EB-5 drama
Bollen And Former Gov.  Rounds
I Invite A Caption Contest.  Readers?
(photo from
in the Rapid City Journal last Thursday.  
In Thursdays piece in RCJ
Tupper reports some details in the ongoing sue-a-thon between the State of South Dakota and former EB-5 facilitator Joop Bollen. Left out in this episode is the continuing saga of the Chinese investors who are suing everybody in sight because they believe they got royally ewed-scray (to the tune of $18 million) during their participation in the FUBAR ("Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition"--although in the Marines we didn't say "fouled") investment scheme.  Seems like one of the things Bollen (through his firm SDRC, Inc.) did, according to the State of South Dakota (that's us, folks) was help himself to a million bucks that he collected in fees from foreign investors, fees that were supposed to go into an indemnification fund (read "emergency cash needed for unexpected expenses, including lawsuits") that was part of his contract with our state.
     If this is indeed what happened, Bollen ripped us off.  The state claims, per Tupper's piece, "the accounts holding these indemnification funds were closed without notice to the State" and that "unbenownst to the State SDRC transferred the funds into a new third account."  I'm sure we'll get a counterclaim or some sort of explanation from Bollen as to how that money migrated from a fund in which the state has a stake to a checking account that is owned exclusively by SDRC.  We enquiring minds and short-changed citizens of South Dakota, who've lost what appears to be $120 million or so in the EB-5 program, would like to know.  
    And while we're at it, how about some information on just how this lucrative deal passed from the state's control to Joop Bollen's?  The latest batch of lawsuits and subsequent media copy
Meantime . . .
How Did Bollen Get Away Wth This?
(photo from, Cory)
being dedicated to them are having the effect of taking attention away from the main point in this messed up deal--the main point being, just how the H did Joop Bollen, who was running the EB-5 program for the State of South Dakota, manage to hijack it and all of its subsequent fees by turning the operation over to himself via his corporation SDRC, Inc.?  

     Meantime, if the State of South Dakota is so sure that Bollen essentially stole money from us--sure enough to pursue the matter in civil court, anyway--why isn't our Attorney General Marty Jackley doing something about this?  I mean, the taking "without notice" of public money and then transferring that money "unbenownst" to us sounds like plain old fashioned "theft" to me.  It also coincides with every legal definition of theft that I've found on-line, which basically comes down to intentionally and fraudulently taking someone's property without that person's consent. That's the gist of South Dakota's civil claim.  Why doesn't the criminal justice system see it the same way?  

**My thanks to the anonymous reader who has a taste for great old TV westerns, in this case Rawhide.

Tuesday, December 8, 2015

I Didn't Think Anybody Could Out-Crazy Trump, But Ted Cruz Just Pulled It Off. Pubs Will Be Cruz-in' For A Bruiz-in' If Ted Gets The Nod

     Ted Cruz is making some headway in the GOP primary polls, apparently deciding that
Tailgunner Ted
Jab That Finger.  Curl That Lip.  You Be Baaad.
(photo from
crazier you get these days, the better your standing among Republican primary voters.  If you thought Trump's recent bashing of religious freedom  (which even that right wing stalwart Dick Cheney considers an affront to American valuespushed the "crazy" envelope to its limits, consider the "can-you-top-this?" nuttiness that Ted Cruz just came up with while hustling a bunch of Republicans in Iowa over the weekend:  "If I am elected president, we will utterly destroy ISIS. We won’t weaken them. We won’t degrade them. We will utterly destroy them. We will carpet bomb them into oblivion."  Then Mister Tough Guy added, "I don't know if sand can glow in the dark, but we're going to find out." 
    My oh my, that guy sounds baaaad.  The chicken-hawkish Cruz, who never served in the military and "regrets" that he never did (yeah, right, tell that to the Marines) hasn't got a clue about carpet bombing, its effects or its military value. And that bit about "sand glowing in the dark?"  Is he saying he's ready to use nuclear weapons?  Good grief, where did this madman come from?  First off, Cruz might check with some Vietnam vets and get their opinions on how our "Rolling Thunder" carpet-bombing campaign worked over there.  From my vantage point at the DMZ I'd say it did squat, which I think is borne out by history. It wasn't but a couple of years after the U.S. departure that our enemy's flags were flying over big swatches of territory that, per Cruz's strategy, we were "bombing into oblivion." Not only are they not "oblivion" but they now contain some of the world's largest rubber plantations. I saw them a few years ago with my own eyes when I went back to the Nam
Carpet Bombing In Vietnam
I Watched Us Doing This.  Didn't Work.
(photo from
to check things out.  Fact is (and military historians, feel free to help me out with this), I don't think carpet-bombing as a strategic plan of action has ever had anything in the way of lasting success.  

     In the second place, could you imagine the civilian casualties that a carpet-bombing campaign would inflict?  I'd say that a program like that would create exponentially more enemies, both military and political, than it would ever destroy.  Even that forum of level-headed conservatism, The American Conservative, calls Ted Cruz's idea "atrocious."  The man is plain crazy and dangerous.  That he and Trump are contending for first place in the hearts of Republicans is a sure sign that the GOP is ready to go down the paths of Goldwater and Alf Landon (1936, check it out), so mired in rhetoric and bombast that the surest destination is political oblivion itself.  

Wednesday, December 2, 2015

A-one And A-two And A-three, Altogether Gang, Let's Sing The EB-5 "Sue Me, Sue You Blues . . ." **

     Lessee if I got this right.  The aftermath of South Dakota's EB-5 fiasco has turned into a medley of lawsuits.  First off, the State of South Dakota is suing Joop Bollen (actually his corporation SDRC, inc.) for screwing things up in the operation of the program.  That's a-one.  Then we have Bollen counterclaiming that the state messed everything up and wants $1.5 million in
Former Gov. Rounds With EB-5 Investor
A Fateful Handshake(photo from
damages. That's a-two.  Now all of a sudden, I see from
 Cory Heidelberger's excellent blog Dakota Free Press, that 35 Chinese investors are suing both South Dakota and Joop Bollen for $18.55 million, apparently contending that both parties lied about a slew of things and conned them into believing all was hunky-dory with their investments being managed in South Dakota.  And that's a-three.

     You can find details in the links and a very good summary in Cory's blog. I'm grateful to Heidelberger for his yeoman's job in keeping us informed about this bit of unpleasantness, the worst of which is that a key state official named Richard Benda apparently committed suicide on the eve of his arrest for stealing and misdirecting money from the state during his work on the EB-5 program.   The U.S. Department of Homeland Security, which oversees the program through the U.S. Citizen and Immigration Services, got so fed up with South Dakota's mangling of it that they sent us a Notice Of Intent To Terminate our state as a regional center.
     Meantime, has any state official or investigative body ever produced a comprehensive account of just exactly how this mess occurred?  Not that I've seen.  There was a brief investigation a year ago by the SD state legislature's Government Audit and Operations Committee that basically singled out Benda as the fall guy.  It was a pretty lame effort, one that didn't even require Joop Bollen to testify in person--all he had to do was submit written answers to written questions.  A bunch of Perry Masons our elected officials were not.  Just the same little bits
Still Under Scrutiny
After All These Years
(image from
and pieces of information kept popping up during the past 12 months, culminating to some extent with that Notice of Intent to Terminate.  As part of the process the state has undertaken to restore its status as a regional center for EB-5, the state apparently has to convince the feds that it is doing whatever it can to recover lost public money, which means suing Bollen.  Thus the counterclaim by Bollen, suddenly followed by this week's filing by the Chinese investors who claim they got ripped off by South Dakota and Bollen.  

     Oh well, if getting substantive information from our public officials isn't going to happen, I imagine a lot of details will emerge in the courts as these lawsuits progress, barring some settlements that will scuttle the process along the way.  The Washington, D.C.-based Center for Immigration Studies thinks South Dakota's citizens lost $120 million in this debacle.  As the criminal justice system hasn't been able to shed much light on how it happened, it looks like civil jurisprudence just might.  We'll see, I guess.  If nothing else, I'm anxious to see where this cash-strapped state will find the $18 million if the Chinese investors get a favorable judgement.  

**Thanks,  George Harrison

He Seems Okay, But I'm Leery Of Marco Rubio's Block Grants . . . And His Obstinance On The Cuban Trade Embargo

     Marco Rubio has one major thing going for him in this GOP primary season:  He isn't
Says He's For "The New American Century"
(photo from
Unlike the incomprehensibly uninformed Ben Carson or the megalomaniacally delusional Donald Trump, Rubio and his campaign are subject to rational analysis and discussion.  If for that reason alone, I'd take him in a heartbeat over Carson or Trump--both of whom are anathema to realistic Republicans--and would support him because
 I believe he actually stands a chance against Hillary, unlike those other two towers of ignorance and demogoguery.                                       In general, Rubio's campaign themes seem tolerable enough to suit most Republicans.  His "platform" generally stays inside the parameters of GOP dogma, and even leans toward enlightenment on a couple of big social issues, like abortion and gay marriage.  But I am leery of one major policy proposal, which is to federally fund "safety net" programs via block grants and then turn over the operation of them to states.  Yes, there are strong practical and philosophical bases for doing so: some duplication of administration could be eliminated and states know best how to dispense and manage the funding and other resources internally.  On that basis the Rubio concept makes sense. But speaking as a South Dakotan who's sick and tired of the way federally designed and funded programs have turned into boondoggles with tragic consequences--of course I'm talking about
Rubio's Cuban Policy?
Strictly From The Old American Century
(photo from
EB-5 and GEAR UP--after being turned over to state administrators to operate and oversee, I'm having my doubts about our state's ability to run these programs very well.  
     When it comes to our policy toward Cuba, Rubio's levels of rationalism and common sense drop sharply.  He's definitely stuck in the 1960s, much to the detriment of our country as a whole and South Dakotans, specifically. History is pretty clear on one matter:  improved trade relations between former enemies has done much to reduce tensions and add to the general prosperity of people.  I'm old enough to remember when China referred to us as "running dog imperialists" and we called them "the yellow peril."  That all changed when Richard Nixon opened up trade and diplomatic relations. Both of our countries have since profited from  private and public sector connections that have evolved over the decades.  Being in the tourism biz myself, I certainly know how my industry has benefitted from the huge numbers of Chinese who come to visit every year. That other mainstay of South Dakota's economy, agriculture, would stand to benefit even more directly.  Rubio needs to get with the program on this one and look toward the future when it comes to Cuba, not dwell on the past.  

     My take?  These reservations aside, I think he's the Pub with the best chance of winning the general.  I also think he's a guy I could do business with.  I'm in for now.      

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Emily Tsitrian Writes From Mexico City--And Makes A Case For An Open Border

     Note:  My daughter Emily was born and raised in Rapid City, SD.  She's a graduate of Rapid City Stevens High School and the University of California, Berkeley.  This is from her facebook page, posted today.  ("DF"=District Federal, aka Mexico City)

     Musings after my first trip to Mexico City: A five-day vacation in Mexico City confirmed what I’ve
Emily Tsitrian
South Dakota-bred, World-educated
(photo from dad)
previously suspected - that this city is extraordinary, friendly, clean, and cosmopolitan. Many folks here are young, educated, hip, relatively wealthy and well-traveled, and have no interest in moving to the   United States. There is this idea north of the border that Mexicans would “flood the border” if they could and that’s simply not true, especially in DF. Citizens of DF are fascinating, indeed. Though many are more European descendants than Mestizo, they are proud of their country's history, both pre-Columbian, and post-Revolution. Remember: this is a city where, even before the rise of the Aztec empire in around 1300 AD, there were 150,000 inhabitants with nearly 30,000 participating in the daily trading at the city's markets. Sit with that fact for a minute. Yes the cities of Boston, Philly, DC are fantastic destinations for history buffs, but if you are really looking for North America’s first true city look no further than DF. Nowadays, Mexico City is beyond livable and it joins my list of possible places to live as an ex-pat someday 
smile emoticon It’s experienced a dramatic drop in crime, is full of world-class museums, restaurants, bike-friendly zones, parks, and schools, is a gay-friendly city (same-sex couples proudly hold hands and can marry here), and should be a destination on every North American’s bucket list. Why isn’t it? Many North Americans would rather isolate and vacation in the sterile, no-Mexicans-allowed destinations such as Cancun. This is a real shame, as Mexico City is a short flight away, easy to navigate, and an important part of North American history. I was even struck by, at times, how much more “American” Mexico feels than “Latin American” - perhaps that’s an effect of having lived so much of my life in California.
     Everyone we met was pleasant and helpful, and why shouldn’t they be? A smile and a bit of the local language always goes a long way to facilitate happy exchanges. Every time I travel internationally, I am reminded that people are just, well, people with the same basic needs and desires and fears.
     Social class divisions are evident here as most places. The lifestyle of many DF citizens is evidence of a burgeoning Mexican middle-class that can and should be embraced and encouraged to participate
Mexico City
Distrito Federal
(photo from
in the world economy and culture. In addition to the powerful middle class in DF, there’s evidence everywhere of the mass migration that took place post-NAFTA. Rural indigenous folks who have no option to farm anymore sell trinkets and snacks on the streets, no doubt many of them tried their luck crossing “la frontera” and were deported - much like one of the taxi drivers we had. He had worked in California for twenty years (sin documentation), picking grapes in the Mojave and washing dishes at Chinese restaurants in Temecula, sending wages back home until he was discovered in a raid. Now he drives a taxi in DF and is scared of what Donald Trump represents. He described him as “loco” “racista” - and I had to agree it’s a scary thought of the aggravated geopolitical divisions his popularity represents. Both the US and Mexico are much stronger as a united front as we have many common interests and cultures. I was glad to be able to be an example to him that not all US citizens feel that way towards Mexicans.
     I can’t help but wonder what it would be like to have a virtually open border with Mexico, easy ways to obtain temporary work permits (for both sides!) and much better collaboration in the fight against the violence of the cartels and economic assistance for rural farmers in need of help (which are completely related - cartels have been capitalizing on the desperation of the rural poor by providing economic security in order to “win” them over). Drug cartels have terrorized Mexicans for years now, aggravated by the last two presidencies, and yet the mass beheadings and shootings somehow do not meet the terrorism definition and do not thusly receive the attention they deserve. I think both countries could do a much better job of collaborating on common interests, but unfortunately the xenophobic rhetoric that plagues our political culture at this moment is not incentivizing politicians to take this on.
     Finally, for anyone who made it through this entire post, I tell you this: I believe traveling the world is one of the most important things you can do, especially as an American. Honestly, it felt almost like a political act to travel out the country during an official State Department warning about international travel in the aftermath of the Paris attacks, but please keep in mind that things of this nature are EXTREMELY RARE - a statistical zero! We are all much more likely to die in a car accident or mass shooting in our own country, and basic precautions in any large city, international or not - go a long way to keep the vast majority of travelers safe. I also believe that travel does make the world a safer place because the exchange of goods, ideas, culture, and identity brings us all closer to the humanity we all have in common.
n the words of my hero Frida Kahlo, “Viva la vida!"

Monday, November 23, 2015

Trump Is Nuts. Libertarians Need To Watch Out For This Guy. Gun-Toters Should Be On The Alert Too.

     Donald Trump's weekend sputterings were plain crazy.  First off there's that wierd bit about
What Next, Trump?
A Registry For People With Flyaway Hair?
(photo from
thousands of Muslims dancing in the streets ("I saw it with my own eyes") of New Jersey while watching the twin towers collapse on 9/11.  I'm not sure if Trump has backtracked on that whopper yet, but his megalomaniacal stubborness makes me doubt that he will.  The evidence for such an event occurring is, of course, non existent. Until now I didn't even know the story had reached the status of "urban myth," but apparently it's been out there circulating for many years, snaring any number of  gullible fools who choose to use it as support for their fear and loathing of Muslims. 

   And that, obviously, would include Donald Trump, whose second bit of rhetorical madness reeks of the worst political effluvia I've ever smelled. Trump apparently is open to the idea of registering Muslims.  At least that's what the National Review concludes (some media analysts think he favors the notion unequivocally)  after parsing the confused and nebulous list of comments that Trump has made on the subject in the past week or so. That Trump won't categorically reject the idea is enough to get my Libertarian hackles up, because this whole idea of registries suggests a course of action that can lead to much mayhem in any society.  
     I mean, once we develop the technology and precedent of keeping databases that will track
Government Registries?
No Thanks
(graphic from
specific groups of people, who can possibly dismiss the idea that tracking won't be applied to any number of sub-populations in this country?  
The whole thing is just plain creepy to imagine. Wholesale registrations of Muslims sets the worst possible scenario into motion, the one that gives government the ability to identify, investigate, harass and control entire groups of Americans.  And those groups don't necessarily have to be identified on the basis of race, religion, national origin or ethnicity.  They could have, say, gun ownership in common.  Considering that any number of recent polls show that a strong majority of Americans favor gun registration, what's to stop a political movement based on those attitudes from extending Muslim-style registration to those who own guns? I'm against it on principle  . . . and one thing I know about the National Rifle Association--it abhors the notion of gun registration.  With the unequivocally independent spirit that drives much of the NRA's ideals and positions, I have much in common. Registration?  We don't need no stinkin' registration.


Saturday, November 21, 2015

Anti-Corruption? Yes. Publicly Financed Elections? No. Initiated Measure 22? Can't Support It.

         I didn't know Justin Smith from Justin Bieber, but now I know (thanks to Cory
Government Reform?  Yes
Election Reform Is Another Thing
(graphic from Center for Public Integrity)
Heidelberger and his excellent blog Dakota Free Press) that Smith is
 a Sioux Falls lawyer and lobbyist who's been outspoken about his opposition to Initiated Measure 22.  A vigorous word war has erupted on DFP between Smith and Heidelberger, well worth reading as a primer to what IM 22 is all about.  First off, the SD Secretary of State has yet to review the petitions required to get the measure on next November's ballot, but given the 25k signatures submitted, which is almost twice the number needed to make the ballot, chances are very good that voters will be considering it next year. IM 22, labelled the South Dakota Government Accountability And Anti-Corruption Act is probably too long (at 34 pages) and too detailed (with 70 sections) to get many voters to carefully read and understand it.  I wish they would because for the most part it does a good job of reforming government operations and exposing them to the light of public scrutiny.
       If IM 22 had stopped there, I'd be an enthusiastic supporter.  But damn it, the folks who put this thing together had to go and throw in a poison pill that has nothing to do with government reform. On that basis, they can include me out. Why?  Because I think publicly financed elections are a way to force me to support candidates I don't like, which is baloney. How?  Because it wants public financing of elections (see sections 42 through 62) via a "democracy credit fund" amounting to $12 million (with built in inflation adjustments) to be distributed to participating candidates.  According to the measure, this is to "minimize corruption or the appearance of corruption in government; to promote broad, diverse, fair, and undistorted influence and participation by South Dakotans in state electoral politics; to better inform the public about candidates running for office; and to promote meaningful and open discussion of political issues in the context of electoral politics."
     Noble goals, indeed.  Fulfillability is another matter. That neither the measure nor its supporters address the issue of how much extra strain it puts on a state budget that is already scrambling to cover
Noble, Needed
Not Going There With IM 22 
such basic costs as infrastructure repair and decent teacher salaries is more than a poison pill--it's a fatal flaw. That it also steers the measure away from government reform to election reform--big difference in my book--diverts the rhetorical energy required to address operational issues and ethics of government.  We need reform and oversight in this state, which is where the focus of this measure should have been. As a practical political matter, I believe my reservations about IM 22 will be widespread throughout the electorate and that the measure probably doesn't stand much of a chance at the polls. While it's a shame that money remains the mother's milk of politics, I would have preferred a separate measure focused on campaign--not government--reform.  Much as I admire the overall intent, the IM 22 effort itself will probably go for naught.  

Thursday, November 19, 2015

That Makes 2 Of Us, Anyway. Another Republican Combat Vet Stands With Me On Accepting Syrian Refugees

Congressman Russell
He Commanded An Army Infantry Battalion In Iraq
klahoma's 5th Congressional District U.S. Representative, Republican Steve Russell, has a thing or two to say about accepting Syrian refugees.   From the floor of the House of Representatives he notes that turning away Syrian refugees makes us like ISIS.  I guess there's something about the willingness to stop bullets in defense of this country that keeps somebody like Russell from being particularly paranoid about giving a welcome assist to some of the most miserable human beings on the face of the earth.  The C-Span link is 4 minutes long, well worth the time.

Monday, November 16, 2015

Might As Well Not Take Any Refugees If We're Going To Start Singling Out Syrians For No Admittance

     The sudden upthrust of  xenophobia masquerading as caution is understandable enough, but the wholesale refusal to take in Syrian refugees by a number of state governors is a
Syrian Kids
Scary, huh?
(photo from
wasted effort.
There are now 10 Governors (probably more will jump on this bandwagon by the time I finish this piece) who won't accept Syrian refugees after the Paris massacre a couple of days ago.  As one among many of those "huddled masses" who came over here as a refugee in 1950 from the "teeming shores" of postwar Europe, I'm finding this exercise in holding all Syrians at arm's length
 contrary to the best angels of our American nature.  
     First off, it's utterly ridiculous, even by intent.  While a small minority (13%) of those who inhabit Syria are Christians, these people are for the most part Muslim Arabs who happen to reside in a "manufactured" political entity called Syria, which didn't even exist until it was part of the carve-up of the Ottoman Empire after World War I, in 1919 at Versailles.  Before that, it languished for centuries as part of the Ottomans' vast land holdings that spread north into the Balkans and east and south from what is now Turkey, going all the way down the Arabian peninsula and over into Egypt. In '07 I was in Syria and shopped at the Souk Hamideh in Damascus, so named after the last Ottoman Sultan Abdul Hamid II. The Ottoman presence is still pervasive in Syria, which was under French control from 1920 until 1936, when it gained independence.  By ethnicity, language, culture, religion and history, the vast majority of Syrians are the same as their fellow Arabs throughout the middle east.  
     Trying to single out Syrian Arabs from their brethren in the rest of that post-Ottoman region is a fool's game, as the only token of their Syrian status is a piece of paper called a passport.  For an Arab of Syrian residence to obtain a fake passport is an easy task, so I doubt very seriously that a determined terrorist from Syria would have much trouble entering this or any country with a passport that makes him a Jordanian, a Saudi Arabian, or any number of other national identities that are essentially Arabs first, nationals second.  Meantime, thousands of the most miserable human beings on the face of the earth, most of them--contrary to what that breathtakingly ignorant presidential contender Ben Carson has said about most refugees being young males--are women.  The number of males aged 18-59 amounts to 21% of the total.  
     Meantime, the United States has accepted a relatively tiny number of Syrian refugees since the civil war there started in 2011.  So far we've taken in 1,500 of the nearly 4 million who have fled.  Upping the ante a bit, President Obama has authorized a total of 33,000 refugees to be admitted this year from the "Near East/South Asia," which
We Can Find Space For These Folks
We're A Big Country With A Big Heart
(photo from
includes Syria but also means that many refugees will be coming from other parts of that region. These are relatively small, manageable numbers that can stand all the official vetting and scrutiny required by security and common sense.  In context, consider that in just one day in 1907 nearly 12,000 immigrants passed through Ellis Island.  

     Taking in refugees is so definitive of the essence of America that arbitrarily rejecting a whole class of them because of the awful nature of a handful who can probably slip through the system anyway is a pretty crass rejection of our own identity.  Tightening up the process is probably long overdue, but saying to those who, like me, were once the "wretched refuse" of their native lands "no, you can't come because of who you are" is a heartbreaking turn, a hardening of our hearts, a sorry capitulation to our most reptilian fears.  

Thursday, November 12, 2015

The Blue Ribbon Task Force On Education Report Just Came Out. Save The Drum Rolls.

     The State of South Dakota Blue Ribbon Task Force On Teachers And Students was
How We Stack Down
As Yucky Now As We Were In '13
(graphic from
convened by Governor Daugaard this year as a way of coming up with solutions for our state's ongoing teacher salary problem, which is widely regarded to have evolved into a crisis.  
BRTF came out with its final report yesterday, claiming in its cover letter to be a "bold" set of recommendations.  On review, the result seems to be a fairly pedestrian recapitulation of the obvious, without much in the way of conclusions or recommendations that seem to be particularly "bold." That doesn't make them irrelevant, of course, nor does it mean that the time and effort of those engaged is unappreciated. I offer a big "thank you" to those engaged. I understand and think BRTF had to work within the parameters of political and economic reality, which precluded them from thinking outside the box of the possible
, and as we all know, politics is indeed "the art of the possible."
     Leadership, however, is the art of the possibilities. On that score, the task force report is disappointing and disheartening.  It's disappointing because even though it correctly calls attention to the wage gap between SD teachers and their counterparts in surrounding states, it doesn't understand that the crisis is focused on what kind of teachers we'll have in coming generations if the only applicants for SD jobs are those who are sub-qualified to work in places with higher wages.  We could have an entire generation of teachers who are here only because they aren't good enough to get better paying work elsewhere.  This is the crisis.  As to disheartening, BRTF's "Recommendations for New Funding for Teacher Salaries" (about $75 million/year) are limited to a) using "existing funds to the greatest extent possible," and b) increasing "the state sales and use tax for additional ongoing revenue."  
     There are ways of generating revenues for schools that don't rely on what is probably the politically impossible effort to raise sales taxes.  Overhauling the sales tax exemption list  which in 2013 had nearly $600 million worth of special interest  exemptions could have some productive results. Nearly 2/3 of them fall into the business--not agricultural--category.  If you scan the list provided in my link you'll see that a lot of these seem to have no purpose other than protecting select businesses from having to charge sales taxes because . . . well, you'd have to ask somebody other than
BRTF Meeting, Final Report In
Solution Is Still A Work In Progress
(photo from

me.  Plenty of them just make no sense. On another front, Rapid Citian Stan Adelstein makes a compelling argument for a fairer application of property taxes (he says statewide that $78 million would accrue to SD school districts as a result) in South Dakota. Stan's case is a good one and needs to be considered. Another possibility is the collection of corporate income taxes for those businesses making substantially more than a typical family-run operation, using net income starting at a threshhold of say, several hundred thousand dollars, as a point where earnings become taxable. Considering that these businesses probably depend on a well-educated South Dakota workforce in order to survive, I'd see their tax liability as more  of an investment than an  expense.  An analysis by the State of South Dakota on just how much revenue could be raised by such a tax would be nice. I'm confident that the result would be in the millions.  
     No doubt some creative approaches that I haven't even thought about exist.  Despite its lack of "boldness," the BRTF's final report makes for a good springboard from which some movement can materialize. To see "bold" happen, we next turn to Governor Daugaard for some leadership on this.  

Tuesday, November 10, 2015

South Dakota Gets A Great Big FAIL On Integrity And Corruption. Meanwhile, The State's GOP Disses Efforts To Change The Status Quo.

  Trying not to laugh . . . Amid Seth Tupper's excellent piece in today's Rapid City
Last Or Close To It Again
We Can Do Better
(graphic from
Journal on South Dakota's awful showing (47th out of 50) in the non-partisan Center For Public Integrity's ranking of states in terms of "laws and systems in place to deter corruption," SD Governor Dennis Daugaard's son-in-law (who serves on the public payroll as Daugaard's Chief of Staff) Tony Venhuizen makes the fatuous observation that the state hasn't enacted these measures because South Dakota "has very little history of corruption." 

     Why "fatuous?"  Not so much because of the recent EB-5 and GearUp imbroglios that come immediately to mind (I have to respect the presumption of innocence and wait for the justice system to prove corruption), but because Venhuizen, speaking for Governor Daugaard, blithely dismisses the need for codified and institutionalized measures that can do much to prevent unethical and criminal behavior.  Some basic oversight that would have stifled conflict-of-interest potential in both of those brouhahas might have spared all of us South Dakotans from watching millions of dollars go unaccounted for, not to mention the tragic aftermaths of suicide and murder that seem to be directly related to both affairs.  
     It would actually be nice for Governor Daugaard himself, who has already acknowledged that he believes some "mishandling" of money occurred in the EB-5 situation,  to explain to us
Time For A Change
(graphic from

just exactly why he hasn't pressed for stronger oversight of these matters. Meantime, I find it rather disgusting that my Republican Party's leadership is ridiculing efforts to change the status quo by petitioners who've taken matters into their own hands by putting  measures on to the November 2016 ballot that would remove partisanship from primary elections, then scoffing, via the GOP's most prominently supportive blog in the state, at a measure that would make compehensive changes in electioneering, oversight and financing of elections.
     Though I'm enthusiastically supportive of the first measure and dubious about the contents and prospects of the latter, both proposals are a response to a status quo that has proven itself incapable of making  South Dakota particularly efficient or open--or moving us upward in our standing among states on so many fronts.  That Republicans here are pooh-poohing these efforts without proposing much in the way of substantive changes themselves is a telling revelation of the party's attachment to business-as-usual.  Governor Daugaard leads a party that is overripe with self-satisfaction.