Delaware, South Dakota Least Socialist States in America

Ah, so that's why Sarah Palin left Alaska: she was fleeing socialism!

Mr. Gibilisco points me toward a fun little MSNBC article that calculates the most socialist states in America. There's no squawking about smoking bans or climate change legislation or other misapplications of the S-word. Greg Bocquet of MainStreet.com works from the "from the core definition of socialism as a form of government in which the state owns the means of production and allocates resources to its citizens at its discretion."

Bocquet thus divides state expenditures by state GDP and ranks the states by that percentage high to low. His top five: West Virginia, Alaska, Alabama, Vermont, New Mexico.

Surely we all want to know how South Dakota ranks, but the article doesn't provide a full spreadsheet. I thus go hunting for my own table. USGovernmentSpending.com comes to my aid, providing an even better dataset: combined state and local government spending. The results: South Dakota state and local government spending in Fiscal Year 2009 was $6.1 billion, 15.9% of our $38.3 billion GDP. We're not quite one-sixth socialist... which ranks us 49th nationwide! Only Delaware is less socialist than we are!

State	State & Local Spending (billions)	State GDP (billions)	Govt/GSP	"Socialism" Rank
Alabama	$40.60	$169.90	23.9%	9
Alaska	$14.30	$45.70	31.3%	1
Arizona	$58.40	$256.40	22.8%	17
Arkansas	$21.30	$101.80	20.9%	29
California	$437.10	$1,891.40	23.1%	15
Colorado	$44.70	$252.70	17.7%	46
Connecticut	$37.10	$227.40	16.3%	48
Delaware	$9.50	$60.60	15.7%	50
DC	$14.90	$99.10	15.0%	51
Florida	$168.60	$737.00	22.9%	16
Georgia	$82.90	$395.20	21.0%	28
Hawaii	$14.40	$66.40	21.7%	23
Idaho	$11.70	$54.00	21.7%	24
Illinois	$123.30	$630.40	19.6%	38
Indiana	$52.10	$262.60	19.8%	35
Iowa	$27.40	$142.30	19.3%	39
Kansas	$26.00	$124.90	20.8%	30
Kentucky	$37.20	$156.60	23.8%	10
Louisiana	$51.40	$208.40	24.7%	7
Maine	$11.50	$51.30	22.4%	18
Maryland	$55.00	$286.80	19.2%	40
Massachusetts	$71.50	$365.20	19.6%	36
Michigan	$87.00	$368.40	23.6%	11
Minnesota	$54.80	$260.70	21.0%	26
Mississippi	$25.60	$95.90	26.7%	4
Missouri	$48.40	$239.80	20.2%	33
Montana	$8.80	$36.00	24.4%	8
Nebraska	$20.00	$86.40	23.1%	14
Nevada	$23.10	$126.50	18.3%	43
New Hampshire	$10.60	$59.40	17.8%	45
New Jersey	$96.60	$483.00	20.0%	34
New Mexico	$20.50	$74.80	27.4%	2
New York	$277.30	$1,093.20	25.4%	5
North Carolina	$77.90	$398.00	19.6%	37
North Dakota	$6.00	$31.90	18.8%	41
Ohio	$105.60	$471.30	22.4%	19
Oklahoma	$28.80	$153.80	18.7%	42
Oregon	$37.10	$165.60	22.4%	20
Pennsylvania	$114.70	$554.80	20.7%	31
Rhode Island	$11.10	$47.80	23.2%	13
South Carolina	$43.10	$159.60	27.0%	3
South Dakota	$6.10	$38.30	15.9%	49
Tennessee	$50.10	$244.50	20.5%	32
Texas	$208.00	$1,144.70	18.2%	44
Utah	$24.70	$112.90	21.9%	22
Vermont	$6.30	$25.40	24.8%	6
Virginia	$67.80	$408.40	16.6%	47
Washington	$71.10	$338.30	21.0%	27
West Virginia	$14.80	$63.30	23.4%	12
Wisconsin	$52.10	$244.40	21.3%	25
Wyoming	$8.40	$37.50	22.4%	21

Note that when we include local spending, Alaska takes first place for socialism. They can't just see Russia from their front porches; they live Russia, spending nearly twice as much of their state wealth as South Dakota does on state and local government.

Two Scoops of Socialism: SDSU Ice Cream Downtown!

Don't tell me the State can't do anything right!

South Dakota State University, my alma mater, makes some of the best ice cream in the state. The SDSU dairy program also makes some smart business moves. Ryan Woodard reports in the Brookings Register that SDSU has opened the Campanile Connection, a shop selling SDSU ice cream and cheese in downtown Brookings.

The new shop is getting up and running right next door to Sioux River Cyclery (a long bike ride always makes me hungry for ice cream!). SDSU instructor and dairy plant manager Howard Bonneman also looks eagerly to the gymnastics center next door and the spectacular new Children's Museum just a couple blocks away as sources of hungry little coneheads.

This new state-owned business (SDSU's second downtown venture this year, following a new branch of the campus bookstore to Main Street) isn't putting too much of a squeeze on other businesses. With Zesto's now moved out to the University Mall, there's no ice cream vendor within reasonable walking distance of downtown. There's no grocer downtown, either—hmm... maybe the Campanile Connection can snag some SDSU beef as well!

This kind of town-and-gown connection is good for everyone. The dairy products students make in their dairy-micro classes gets put to good use instead of getting thrown out. Students and residents get to make connections through commerce and chocolate revel. And everyone has one more reason to spend the day in the wonderful destination into which downtown Brookings is making itself.

Maybe DSU here in Madison can do something like this. Maybe our Tech Fellows could open a branch office downtown to provide cheap tech support for the community. Maybe our programming classes could open up a shop, Widgets While u Wait, whipping up quick Facebook event pages, blog polls, and other Web gizmos in under an hour.

SDSU ice cream: totally socialist, and totally good for downtown. Two scoops, please!

Kristi Noem: Hamlin County Farm Welfare Queen

If Mr. Epp keeps putting out good material like this, I might have to add him back to the RSS feed list!

We learned last year that Minnesota Congresswoman and anti-government, anti-socialism crusader Michelle Bachmann is herself a beneficiary of government socialism: her family farm collected over a quarter-million dollars in farm subsidies from 1995 to 2006.

But Bachmann's a piker compared to South Dakota's Iron Lady-in-waiting, Kristi Noem. During that same period, the newest U.S. House candidate, who works our pro-life anti-government factions into such a froth that they need a good cold shower, eleven-tupled Bachmann's farm welfare haul. As Middle Border Sun reports, the Environmental Working Group database shows that Noem's Racota Valley Ranch received $2,765,175 in government handouts, most of that for corn, soybean, and wheat production.

Noem has a 16.9% ownership stake in Racota Valley Ranch. The operation, which apparently spans three counties, was the single largest recipient of federal subsidies in Hamlin County:

Rank	Recipient* ✴ ownership information available	Location	Total USDA Subsidies 1995-2006
1	Racota Valley Ranch ∗	Hazel, SD 57242	$2,598,827
2	Bochek Stock Farms ∗	Vienna, SD 57271	$1,834,856
3	Clarmont Hutterian Brethren Inc ∗	Castlewood, SD 57223	$1,389,763
4	Poinsett Hutterian Brethren Inc ∗	Estelline, SD 57234	$1,363,047
5	Terrance Lee Hilliard	Bryant, SD 57221	$1,194,959
6	Nathan N Lakness	Hayti, SD 57241	$1,082,698
7	Leiseth Farms Inc ∗	Hazel, SD 57242	$996,724
8	Ronald E Jongeling	Castlewood, SD 57223	$967,193
9	Milton A Lakness	Hayti, SD 57241	$957,429
10	J Anderson Farm Inc ∗	Bryant, SD 57221	$921,281

Table 1: Top 10 Farm Subsidy Recipients, Hamlin County, SD, 1995–2006
Data courtesy of Environmental Working Group

It takes two Hutterite colonies combined to beat her haul, and that's saying something!

For perspective, from my read of the EWG data, the average amount Hamlin County farmers received from Uncle Sam from 1995 to 2006 was just under $82,000, or about $7400 a year. Noem's ranch averaged $250,000 in government handouts each year.

Racota Valley Ranch's handout haul makes it the 16th largest farm subsidy recipient in South Dakota. That's out of 75,612 recipients.

Sigh. Just when I thought Noem might bring some fresh perspective to the House race, it turns out she's just another Tea Party faker, shaking her fist at big government holding out her other hand for payment.

-----------------------------------
Update 15:29 CST: Bob Mercer mentions that "some Democrats" have brought up the issue of candidates taking farm subsidies. Why he doesn't just say "Todd and Cory" is beyond me. Mercer notes that we can find Democrats and Republicans on the subsidy rolls. I maintain that receipt of federal farm welfare will be an issue for any candidate of any party who campaigns as a champion of the free market and an enemy of big government handouts. But I ask Bob: which party's candidates are shouting that message louder? And where oh where will the Tea Party crowd find anyone who really embodies their purported values?

ThePostSD.com "Story Co-op" -- Media Socialism or Deep Community?

I like The Post. In just four months, they've done some good journalism and lots of good local stories, some better than what you get from the big "local" media. Yeah, yeah, they've given me some free press... but they've given equal time to Big Ag propagandist Troy Hadrick: how's that for diversity?

I also like The Post because, like any good start-up, they are ready to change and innovate. Editor-in-Chief Heather Mangan is announcing changes that will allow more interaction between readers and writers. More interaction? Heck sounds to me like their "story co-op" concept can break down barriers and make readers and writers one and the same:




Motivating the idea of a "story co-op" is The Post's passionate sense of place. They are all about South Dakota, and they want to be the forum for sharing South Dakota's stories. Listen to what publisher Scott D. Meyer says about how The Post is about bringing South Dakotans together:



Cooperative model... creating a product that none of us can create on our own... my wingnut neighbors ought to be alarmed that online journalists like the folks at The Post are sneaking socialist ideals into God's Country. The corporate media should be more alarmed that maybe The Post—as well as the greater South Dakota Blogosphere—is doing what KSFY only pretends to when it chirps "For You!" between Breaking Action News Alerts!!!

p.s.: South Dakota's a crazy place—you ain't kiddin' there, brother Scott! Keep dreaming!

White House Undermines Capitalism by Choosing Socialist Open-Source Software?

Expect the wingnuts to start spinning conspiracy theories about how the swine flu "national emergency" declaration is the first step toward suspension of the Constitution and hauling Bob Ellis to the death camps. Bob Ellis is taking a blog break—code to his followers to buy up ammo and retreat to the mountain militia hideaways. My cousin Aaron is already fretting on Facebook about HHS Secretary Sebelius getting extraordinary powers. [Funny: we descend into tyranny under similar emergency declarations to respond to Hurricane Katrina (2005), Hurricanes Ike and Gustav (2008), and North Dakota flooding (2009).]

If you wingnuts want real evidence that the White House is building Marxist tyranny, check out (hat tip to Deane at Gadgetopia!) the White House's latest software decision: the Obama Administration is abandoning proprietary content management software in favor of Drupal. Drupal is open-source software: it is built not by a single corporation or entrepreneur but by thousands of people around the world, collaborating online, working not for any direct monetary gain but for the general good of society. Individuals and teams of programmers build and improve the software and post their code online, where anyone can download it, use it, tinker with it, and make it better.

Cooperation, no profit, social good, open to everyone... aaahhh! Socialism!!!

Actually, open-source software can be viewed through a safely capitalist lens. The White House is working with plenty of for-profit firms to make this software switch. They can use this open-source software to provide better service for a cheaper price (every capitalist I know likes that formula).

The White House's move to open-source software is also a perfectly logical outgrowth of the Web philosophy and political philosophy the Obama campaign made manifest last year. Adopting Drupal for WhiteHoue.gov embodies in tech the same participatory values embodied in President Obama's approach to government:

...[B]y being open source, the White House is opening itself up to all the bright ideas, powerful plug-ins, and innovative tools that the considerable community of Drupal aficionados come up with. It's a community that the White House says it is eager to tap into. "Open source is a great form of civic participation," the White House's Phillips told me this afternoon. "We're looking forward to getting the benefit of their energy and innovation" [Nancy Scola, “WhiteHouse.gov Goes Drupal,” Personal Democracy Forum, 2009.10.24].

Drupal creator Dries Buytaert (whose company Acquia has helped the White House jump to Drupal) naturally says similar things about the civic sense and business case for Drupal in government:

First of all, I think Drupal is a perfect match for President Barack Obama's push for an open and transparent government -- Drupal provides a great mix of traditional web content management features and social features that enable open communication and participation. This combination is what we refer to as social publishing and is why so many people use Drupal. Furthermore, I think Drupal is a great fit in terms of President Barack Obama's desire to reduce cost and to act quickly. Drupal's flexibility and modularity enables organizations to build sites quickly at lower cost than most other systems. In other words, Drupal is a great match for the U.S. government.

Second, this is a clear sign that governments realize that Open Source does not pose additional risks compared to proprietary software, and furthermore, that by moving away from proprietary software, they are not being locked into a particular technology, and that they can benefit from the innovation that is the result of thousands of developers collaborating on Drupal. It takes time to understand these things and to bring this change, so I congratulate the Obama administration for taking such an important leadership role in considering Open Source solutions [Dries Buytaert, "WhiteHouse.gov Using Drupal," personal blog, 2009.10.25].

p.s.: I dig Drupal. I use it for RealMadison.org, the Lake Herman Sanitary District, and my online dissertation. If I like, it must be socialist, right?

Republicans Applaud Socialist Statue in U.S. Capitol; Revolution Begins Tomorrow

It is October, after all. Can't believe Sibby missed this one.

The United States continues its eagerly awaited embrace of socialism with unveiling of a bronze statue of American Socialist leader Helen Keller. Republicans appaluded this high honor for the ACLU co-founder and ardent supporter of Vladimir Lenin and the Soviet Union. "The story of Helen Keller inspires us all," said Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Republican House Minority Leader John Boehner was also on hand to honor Keller, along with Democratic leaders Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi, signalling the intent of the full Congress to redouble its efforts to advance its socialist agenda.

Praising Keller's "courage and strength," Republican Governor of Alabame Bob Riley emphasized the importance of spreading Keller's socialist message to the millions of American children who visit the U.S. Capitol: "Children especially need to be reminded of this basic truth, and this statue will get their attention." Alabama has already spearheaded an effort to increase support for socialism by placing the Red icon in the pockets of millions of Americans nationwide.

Even well-known Red-state Senator John Thune (R-SD) acquiesced to the advance of socialism, offering no opposition to either of the resolutions quietly passed by Congress to authorize the statue and clarion call to Revolution.

The statue unveiling was a double blow against the radical separationist ideology spouted by holdouts of the conservative movement. To make room to honor Keller, Alabama banished its statue of a Confederate soldier from the U.S. Capitol, meeting with praise from Dixie observers eager to nip any nascent resurgence of Calhoun conservatism in the bud.

More Helen Keller jokes welcome... but each must end with the punchline, "Workers of the world, unite!"

p.s.: South Dakota Public Radio is discussing the life of Helen Keller on Dakota Midday today. Tune in for Bolshevik code words!

Madison DQ Gets Good Vibes from Corporate

We all know Madison's Dairy Queen is the best in the country. It doesn't hurt that the head office in Minneapolis knows it, too. Check out this audio blog from Chief Brand Officer Michael Keller, who visited our DQ on August 13 this year and saw the amazing turn out for Miracle Treat Day.

Did you catch that phrase I just used quite naturally: our DQ? That's exactly the kind of language that's music to the ears of branding guys like Keller. Part of Delon Mork's success is that the DQ isn't just his. Keller gets the impression that in Madison, the community owns the brand.

Community ownership? Hmm... sounds almost socialist....

Private Health Care Fundamentally Flawed: Socialize Medicine Now!

Your access to health care should not hinge on whether the economy is doing o.k. and you can keep your current job. You should not be stuck with thousands of dollars in medical bills because your employer turns deadbeat without telling you.

And when you go to the hospital, you should not be treated like a piece of meat on the John Morrell's slaughter line:

LARRY CHURCHILL: There are very few relationships in which we're asked to take off our clothes and be examined by people with the idea that it's going to be safe to do that and tell them about intimate parts of our history that we probably don't tell anyone else about. That makes it special. That's making oneself vulnerable and sometimes a fairly profound way. Or going under anesthesia for an operation. If someone says, "I'm going to put you to sleep and we're going to cut you open and do certain things to you and it is all going to be fine and good for you," that's a pretty big leap of faith.

MAGGIE MAHAR: Larry Churchill is a bio-ethicist and one of the heroes of his profession. A discipline that struggles with the hardest moral questions regarding medicine. He doesn't just ask his students to wrestle with end of life care or stem cell research. He takes a clear-eyed look at the most difficult ethical questions regarding how you deliver care in a profit driven system.

LARRY CHURCHILL: We're now treating medicine as if it were an industrial product. Through put. How many units of care can you deliver? The idea that you are going to see a patient on average for between 12 and 15 minutes, no matter what their condition or how many kinds of problems they have or how complicated their diagnoses or how much reassurance they might need is an idea that you can treat medicine like a production line product and you can turn out patients in the same way like we produce widgets. That's a commercialization and an industrialization of the relationship. So this is a system which is fundamentally broken in terms of the kind of conflicts it raises in the minds of physicians and, also, in the minds of the patients.

[excerpt from Money-Driven Medicine: The Real Reason Health Care Costs So Much, broadcast on Bill Moyers Journal, 2009.08.28]

The private health coverage system is inescapably, morally flawed. It's time for serious reform, complete with (yes, say it, McCarthyite Republicans and cowardly Democrats be damned) socialized medicine that guarantees coverage and treats all Americans like human beings, not widgets.

Pam Merchant Blogs!

Castlewood conservative Kristi Noem (R-6) had better get back on her legislative blogging horse: she now has a blogging buddy in Brookings! State Senator Pam Merchant (D-7) has started a blog of her own. Senator Merchant's inaugural (and so far only) post bids a fond farewell to the Norwegian exchange student who stayed with the mercahnt family during the past year. But for you McCarthyites out there, Merchant offers some tantalizing Red code words:

When I think of the societal challenges we face, such as growing a new economy, establishing healthcare coverage for all, and keeping our highways in better condition; we have a lot of work to do, and we must support one another in our endeavors. We must realize and pursue challenges, pushing ourselves beyond our individual limitations, into much needed collaborative solutions [Pam Merchant, "A Norwegian Sendoff," District 7 SD, 2009.08.09]

Support one another... push beyond individual limitations... collaborative solutions... sounds like socialism to me!

Sibby, PP, your ball....

Seriously, I am pleased to see another legislator pick up the blogging baton and offer constituents another avenue for communication. Keep on typing, Pam!

Sloppy Thinking and Entitlement Mindset Abound Among Anonymous Commenters

I generally ignore the lingering trolls who persist in leaving cowardly anonymous comments in complete disregard of the Madville Times rules of engagement. If making anonymous public statements is really that important to you, set up your own anonymous blog and fire away. I need not waste my time answering faceless whispers in the dark.

But occasionally Anons perpetrate such idiocy that I feel a moral obligation to correct them.

Pat Prostrollo, fellow socialist
(photo courtesy Madison Daily Leader)

For instance, this morning, woefully ignorant Brookings Swiftel customer 66.17.116.131 returns for another dose of my "smug rhetoric" and suggests my labeling of Pat Prostrollo as a "fellow socialist" (oh look! there's the graphic again!) constitutes defamation.

Ha ha ha.

Dear Anon, if calling someone who advocates a government spending program a socialist constituted defamation, there would have been mass arrests and lawsuits at the Tea Parties.

Amusingly, Anon shakes the junk drawer of her/his/its brain and spills out some additional unrelated rhetoric about the entitlement mindset. Funny: I had another anon just a couple weeks ago argue that no one is entitled to anything... and then, in the same comment, claimed that her/his/its comment was entitled to being posted on this blog, comment policy be damned.

Anonymous commenters fill my mornings with laughter... but I'm still deleting their posts. Next issue!

Pope Benedict Calls for Socialism (Hooray!)

Pope Benedict XVI has issued a new papal encyclical, "Charity in Truth" (Caritas in Veritate—everything sounds cooler in Latin). Issued on the eve of the G8 summit, the encyclical blames greed and unbridled growth for the current global recession. It also reveals the true socialist new-world-order nature of Catholicism... something believers would do well to heed.

So what makes the Pope a socialist? Let's look at His Holiness's own words (and imagine the response the right-wing blogosphere would give if such words came from a hippie like me [all emphasis mine]):

• His Holiness says the common good must guide our economic decisions. We are to love our neighbors not just in individual charity but also by "the institutional path — we might also call it the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional mediation of the pólis."
• Contrary to the very definition of corporations, the Pope says business cannot be guided by profit alone: "Once profit becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating poverty." (Seems that's what I've been saying about health insurance.)
  
• Pope Benedict calls for world government! At least that's what I'd expect Bob and Sibby to say about his call for strengthening the United Nations: "To manage the global economy; to revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a true world political authority...."
• The Pope says rich nations are hoarding natural resources that should be shared to allow poor countries to develop.
• He declares there is a "covenant between human beings and the environment" (does that sound like pagan-Greenie Gaia-worship to you?)
• He essentially endorses cap-and-trade: "It is likewise incumbent upon the competent authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or future generations..." (in other words, tax those externalities!).
• The Pope makes a clearly hippie call for lifestyles "in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices, savings and investments."
• The Pope establishes the intersection of Catholic and Lakota beliefs with this blatant socialist declaration: "[The Church] must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone."
• He criticizes government restrictions on labor union activity based purely on economic utility. "...[T]he promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the past...." (In other words, look for the union label on the mitre.)

I know, I'm proof-texting. There's plenty in Caritas in Veritate that supports other values. Pope Benedict XVI acknowledges the great good capitalism and globalization can do. (He even slips in some anti-abortion language.) But the above statements make it pretty clear that the Catholic Church rejects the sort of laissez-faire capitalism to which some conservatives still pretend. Pope Benedict XVI is calling on us to check the abuses of capitalism and consumerism with exactly the sort of communitarian and environmental principles and actions that our far-Right doom criers brand "Socialism!"

Anti-Health Care Reform Rally Fizzles; Unruh Explodes in Hyperbole

Tea Party organizers said they expected almost 10,000 people at their rally against health care reform yesterday. Crowd estimates:

• KELO: "more than 1,000"
• that Sioux Falls paper: "...325 people in the grandstand for the midafternoon speeches, though organizer Dr. Allen Unruh later estimated 500 to 700 people attended at least some of the four-hour rally. Either way, the turnout was a fraction of the 4,000 at Covell Lake on April 15 to re-enact the Boston Tea Party...."
• [Update 09:45 CDT] Michael Woodring: 500–1000
  

Tea Party organizers are apparently as adept at arithmetic and prediction as they are at grasping politics. Bored chirpractor and organizer Allen Unruh offers this hyperbole:

Nothing threatens our freedom more than the government taking over health care because it will never be reversed [quoted by Erica Johnson, "Health Care Rally Against Reform," KELOLand.com, 2009.07.02].

"Government taking over health care"—Allen, what do you call a law whereby the state forces doctors to say certain things to their patients? Haven't you and your wife Leslee been advocating government control of women's health care for years? Didn't your wife gladly accept taxpayer funding of her women's "health care" facility? (Oh, wait: Washington is reversing that.)

But here's my list of things that threaten our freedom more than taxpayer-funded health insurance (which is what we're really talking about, not government "taking over"):

1. Al-Qaeda
2. the PATRIOT Act
3. warrantless wiretaps
4. decline of investigative journalism
5. abortion bans
6. medical bankruptcy
7. health insurance tied to employment
8. addiction to fossil fuels
9. global warming
10. cranks who bleat "Socialism!" and delude themselves into thinking they are fighting the Revolutionary War and the Cold War all at once while ignoring the need to come up with practical solutions for real problems

The only good thing about these Tea Parties is that they make for easy blogging. Keep pouring those fish in the barrel, Allen; I'll keep shooting.

Public Option for Health Coverage: Socialism with Benefits!

PP notes that Tea Party organizers expect 10,000 people to join them in Sioux Falls to protest the "socialized Obama administration." (Maybe some of those doom criers would like to donate money to support the Karl Mundt Debate Tournament: Senator Mundt was big on the Red Scare, too.)

As we wait to hear an independent Tea Party headcount at the end of the day (maybe KSFY will send an intern to the fairgrounds with a hand clicker), let us remember that sometimes, socialism is the best way to allocate resources. In World War II, we socialized huge swaths of our economy (complete with rationing) to ensure we had the tanks, bombers, and fuel to beat the Axis (while our red-blooded socialist allies in Russia did much of the heavy lifting with Nazis occupying major portions of Soviet home turf). The Missouri River dams (one of which provided the setting for our family camping trip this week) brought socialist reallocation of resources to South Dakota (which Senator Mundt passionately fought for... now that's ironic!). Locally, Lake County continues to thrive on earmarks that redistribute wealth from richer parts of America.

When it comes to health insurance, those of us who support a real public option—i.e., single-payer, not-for-profit health insurance à la Canada—aren't asking for socialism of any greater scale than already exists in the status quo. As it is now, those of us who pay private health insurance premiums already see our money reallocated socialistically. Our premiums go up to cover losses from uninsured folks who show up in the emergency room and bankrupt folks who can't pay. In addition, we pay taxes to cover the poor, the elderly, and the millions of public servants (like Senator Tim Johnson) who get better public health coverage than I get under my private policy.

We also see our private insurance premiums reallocated rather less than socialistically. A big chunk of the money we pay Assurant, Aetna, et al. goes to pay a few executives who live high on the hog on the backs of the sick and afraid-to-get-sick. My wife forwards me a 2007 article finding that from 2000 to 2005, $14.9 billion ostensibly spent on health care was funneled to the pockets of just 23 people, the CEOs of 23 major health companies.

So suppose you have $14.9 billion to spend on health care over five years. Do you spend it to buy insurance for 300,000 families? Do you hire 15,000 doctors to tackle the shortage of practitioners in rural communities and Indian reservations? Or do you hand that cash to 23 guys who sit in offices and never stitch a cut or process a claim?

Here's where I turn socialist, not out of raving Redness, but out of a desire to get the most for my dollar. I'm tired of seeing my insurance dollars go toward such absurd executive pay and other overhead that doesn't fix a single broken bone. I'm sick of paying money to a for-profit entity that will use my money to pay lawyers to figure out tricky ways to deny me coverage when I need that health coverage the most. I want my money's worth... and in the broken-market world of health insurance, a public health coverage plan is the best way to get our money's worth.

Is a nationwide co-op of 300 million people all chipping in to the same pot to cover each others' medical bills socialism? Probably. But socialism would be an improvement over the current system. We taxpayers could keep covering the old and poor through Medicare and Medicaid and get ourselves more reliable coverage to boot. That sure beats the perverse socialism of reallocating wealth from the masses to 23 rich CEOs.

You Tea Partiers keep chanting ideology. The rest of us will keep looking for practical solutions.

Thune Divestiture Bill: Ideology over Pragmatism

...which is how the GOP lost in 2008...

Senator John Thune's federal corporate ownership exit strategy continues to be heaped with continuing laudatory praise... or at least that's the impression you'd get from reading his campaign blog or its paid subsidiary, Dakota War College, which has taken to slavish repetition and amplification of every dribble posted by the "Friends of John Thune." (Thune does have a track record of paying bloggers.)

So let me join Powers in flogging the issue his advertisers are paying him for (something Doug Wiken says the FTC is going to start monitoring). I would like to buy into Senator Thune's Government Ownership Exit Plan Act (S. 1242). It sets a deadline of July 1, 2010, for the federal government to sell off its ownership interest in all of the businesses that have gotten bailouts. I am worried that this arbitrary deadline might lead to a fire-sale divestiture: it wouldn't take a financial whiz to figure out that the remnants of GM or AIG could be had for a song by simply waiting until next June 30 and submitting a lowball bid to a federal government bound by law to sell. Thune's bill does include a provision for extensions: it looks like the Secretary of the Treasury can request a six-month extension and one renewal if we taxpayers stand to get screwed by low bidders.

So if I'm reading this right, all the bailout companies that we taxpayers currently own would get two years max to turn themselves back into lean mean money-making machines so we can sell them off at a decent price and pay down the federal debt (sorry, no dividend checks: Thune's bill sends any divestiture proceeds straight to paying down the public debt... which is as good a place for the money as anywhere else). I assume Thune's subpremise to his business friends is, "Look, if you need more than two years of government ownership to get your act together, you don't deserve to survive."

S. 1242 also bans members of the Executive Branch from influencing any "significant management decisions" of federal bailout money. Here our corporate welfare queens seem to be getting a break that regular welfare recipients and publicly held corporations never do. The government gets to impose all sorts of influence on the "significant management decisions" of indivudals receiving government support. The federal government has used its welfare dollars to require recipients to take jobs and get training and even to influence them to get married. Stockholders get to communicate and vote at stockholder meetings to influence the corporations they own all the time. When our President reviews the books at GM and Chrysler and makes recommendations for fixing their broken business practices, is that really undue influence that should be criminalized, or is that simply our President acting as a good steward of our public investment?

The final question we should ask about this legislation is whether we even need it. Heaven knows Republicans hate to clutter up the books with unnecessary laws. On the GM bailout, President Obama has described us as "reluctant shareholders" who intend "to get out quickly." And as for that influence Thune seeks to ban, Obama sounds like he's already on the same page, at least 90% of the way:

"GM will be run by a private board of directors and management team," Obama said. "They — and not the government — will call the shots and make the decisions about how to turn this company around. The federal government will refrain from exercising its rights as a shareholder in all but the most fundamental corporate decisions" [Tom Raum, "Obama: Nationalization of GM to Be Short-Term," AP via Yahoo News, 2009.06.01].

If you buy the propaganda that Obama and the rest of us Dems are socialists, then sure, Thune's law sounds like a vital protection of the free market. Actually, if you're a real free-marketeer, Thune's law doesn't go far enough: you should demand an amendment requiring the immediate divestiture of all government holdings in private businesses, with no extensions allowed at all.

But if you turn off Rush and look at what's actually going on, you see a government (under Bush and Obama alike) that executed these bailouts not as a re-enactment of Marxist revolution but as a last-resort alternative to economic free-fall.

Thune's bill may be a honest defense of capitalist ideals... but that may be its fatal flaw. The Government Ownership Exit Plan appears to be motivated entirely by ideology and not by any cogent analysis of actual economic conditions. It's a lot easier to just shout "Socialism!" than it is to come up with actual plans to solve problems. If Senator Thune and the GOP continue to pursue the easy route, they will find themselves increasingly irrelevant to the vast center of the elctorate that wants solutions, not slogans.

South Dakota GM Dealers Seek Nanny State Protection

I'm still trying to sort out the lawsuit two South Dakota General Motors dealers have filed to fend off GM's effort to shut them down. The dealers, Springs Auto in beautiful (I mean that!) downtown Wessington Springs and Yankton Motor Company (I'd link, but they have a really annoying low-quality autoplay jingle on their website) in Yankton, claim that South Dakota law prevents GM from shutting them down without a hearing. (Feel free to page through South Dakota's vehicle dealers regulations, particularly SDCL 32-6B-45 and 32-6B-46.)

So just checking: is this an example of good Republican businessmen hiding behind the skirts of the nanny state? Do we have capitalists begging the government to prevent their business partners from acting like capitalists and making free-market decisions that are in the best interest of the corporate bottom line?

Sibby says no, this is businessmen hiding behind the skirts of the South Dakota nanny state to protect themselves from the Obama nanny state. Sibby reminds us that Obama (and the rest of us) own GM now, so really, the suing dealers are asking the courts to protect them from... themselves. Ourselves. Aaaagghh! This is as bad as "I'm My Own Grandpa"!

Whichever way the legal cookie crumbles on this one, it is interesting to note the apparently unique role South Dakota government plays in setting the terms of the car sales business in our fair state:

"South Dakota has a statute that says you can't end a franchise with a dealer before having a hearing," said Michael Dady, the attorney representing the two dealers.

"We'd like you to revoke the letters, schedule a hearing and you can tell the hearing examiner why you have the right to do it and we can tell them why you don't," he said of the notice sent to GM.

Dady said he's negotiating with GM's attorney in hopes a hearing can be scheduled.

GM's in-house lawyer handling the issue could not immediately be reached for comment.

Dady said South Dakota is one of a few states -- or maybe the only one -- with such a requirement.

"It's not typical," he said [Carson Walker, "2 South Dakota Auto Dealers Sue GM to Stay Open," AP via Chicago Tribune, 2009.06.09].

South Dakota car dealers must have a lot of pull around here.

According to Walker, the dealers argue that GM is violating South Dakota's unusual dealership franchise laws in four ways:

1. GM "didn't notify the state." (I didn't know capitalists had to inform the state of their business decisions.)
   
2. GM "hasn't given a good reason to close the franchises." (I didn't know capitalists had to give the state a reason for their business decisions.)
   
3. GM failed to show that the needs of the communities will be served without them. (Serve the community? Isn't that socialism?)
4. Dealers have a right to a new contract if they fulfilled their obligations. (Right to a new contract? Boy, if only South Dakota's workers had that sort of legal protection.)
   

Our car dealers may donate and vote Republican, but this lawsuit and the legal protections they've gotten written into state law show that they are as socialist as anyone else.

Red Tide: Capitalism Losing Youth Vote

1950s Soviet propaganda poster claiming the glorious socialist system was building more schools while the dratted capitalists were spending more on war than education. As if anyone would ever believe such Red nonsense.

Turn me lose in the public education system for a decade and a half, and look what happens: America's youth start turning socialist. A new Rasmussen Reports survey finds that when adults under 30 are asked, "Which is better: capitalism and socialism?" capitalism wins, but barely, 37% to 33%. (The other 30% are undecided.)

That's what I get for teaching the kids at Montrose The Grapes of Wrath. Of course, I was a registered Republican until 2004, so alas, I can't claim sole credit for this new Red Tide. More likely we're just seeing a natural shift in at least surface-level reactions from a generation of youth who have grown up with no grasp of ideological warfare and rhetoric of the Cold War.

Anyone care to speculate on the correlation between capitalism and fundagelicalism losing the youth?

Marxism on SDPB -- Wolff Critiques Capitalism, Calls for Participatory Economic Decision-Making!

Oops: GOP sure to cut more SDPB funding next year....

SDPB Dakota Midday chats with Dr. Richard Wolff, professor of economics at University of Massachusetts–Amherst, about his new documentary, Capitalism Hits the Fan. Dr. Wolff argues that the anti-democratic way we run capitalism now—huge corporate decisions made mini-politburos of corporate boards—has led to huge corporate profits, stagnant wages, and American workers swamped by debt. Dr. Wolff says we must respond to the resulting economic morass by, among other things, revolutionizing corporate governance to give workers (and consumers?) more voice in corporate decisions.

The professor's discourse provokes me to ask:

Fascinating conversation! I totally dig your guest's point that we have the right to participate in making the decisions that affect our lives. My question: how does your guest respond to the free-market argument that consumers already have a mechanism for holding corporations accountable with their spending if I don't like a corporation's decisions, I can take my money elsewhere. Employees, too: if they don't like the board's policies, they can take their labor elsewhere or work for themselves. Isn't that enough of a check on corporate power?

I e-mail the question, and Paul Guggenheim reads it on air. Dr. Wolff responds that if capitalism were working right, that mechanism would work. But capitalism is off the rails. Market forces don't work in favor of consumers or workers. If we take our money elsewhere, the corporation sees a downturn in profits, and it responds by laying off workers. Those laid-off workers don't have the economic liberty to make significant choices with their dwindling savings. They spend less, more workers get laid off... and the only people left with money are the corporate bonus takers picking the industrial skeleton clean. The whole system is broken!

Thanks for the answer, Dr. Wolff! Paul, expect Sibby et al. to picket the Vermillion studios within the week.

Learn more from Dr. Wolff in this video at Rethinking Marxism (yup, the M word, for real!).

--------------------
By the way, Paul G. continues to introduce my Midday questions by saying "This comes from Cory in Lake Herman...." Now plenty of readers will tell you I'm all wet, but trust me: I won't be in Lake Herman for a little while... a least not until I put on my waders for water monitoring! :-)

SDP's Blanchard: Knock off Ideology, Fix the Banks!

...and fix means nationalize!

Two good reasons to read South Dakota Politics this morning:

1. Dr. Blanchard offers a wonderfully non-ideological post that calls everyone, Dems and GOP, to task for not focusing on the very real problem of a world banking system that can't balance the books. Blanchard explains the problem in very clear, practical terms. Silly cries of "socialism" be jiggered, he says, "government should probably be taking over banks."
2. After lo these many years, SDP has added comments! Yahoo!
   

Notes from State Debate: President Obama Is a Socialist

...and Republicans aren't much better!

Between rounds yesterday here in Yankton at the South Dakota State Debate Tournament, I spotted a hammer and sickle floating around Yankton HS:

"Obama: When He Says Change, He Means
Our Country, Not It's [sic] Leadership!"

I had just heard Huron senior Kayla Samson deliver an oration on freedom of expression. Now, she was putting her words to work. Done with rounds for the day and not needing to suit up for debate until Saturday morning, she slipped into something a little more comfortable. For Samson, comfortable means branding our President an enemy of freedom.

I had to ask where her critique was coming from. Two words, she said: "stimulus package." She rattled off a list of spending projects* that she says increase government power. (I'm still trying to figure out how the California tattoo removal program increases government power when it's intended to help gang members leave their past behind them, get jobs, and become productive members of society.)

For all her criticism of President Obama's socialism, Samson is willing to call out Republicans for hypocrisy on capitalism and individual liberty. The October bank bailout appalls her. She likes Mitt Romney and contends he lost the nomination last year because he's not the right kind of Christian in the minds of too many voters. She sees socialism and theocracy ascendant—candidates, try tailoring your message for that voter!

The big question: what politician is offering a restoration of the individual liberty and true free market principles Samson wants?

"Me," she says. No hesitation. No teenage girly giggle or upward intonation. She's not kidding. Senator Hansen, Reps. Gibson and Burg, watch your seats!

It was a fascinating conversation, the kind of intelligent and spirited interaction that I hear young people at debate tournaments engaging in every weekend.

My conservative friends, you'll have to tell me whether Samson's politics are a sign that I and my vast left-wing secular humanist conspiracy are winning or losing in our quest to indoctrinate the youth.

Of course, if your metric is commitment to the First Amendment, I'd say we're doing a pretty good job. Carry on, Kayla.

-------------------------
*Both Kayla and I want to be clear: the earmarks Senator McCain and others are making into political hay are not part of the stimulus package (which contained no earmarks at all) but the omnibus spending bill.