By Scott Aust

You’ve probably seen them. Stumbling drunk, reeking of malt liquor as they ask for spare change. Downtown business owners this week aired their concerns about panhandlers and public intoxication as you can read here.

But the issue isn’t limited to downtown. You can see the same thing going on near Prairie Market and along the bike path.

Blogmore’s own Kevin Woster tells me there’s a group of men living under a bridge near Executive Golf Course who offer fishing tips on occasion when he casts a line into Rapid Creek.

When asked for money by a panhandler, I usually decline but it depends. Heck, I usually don’t have a lot of cash anyway given a reporter’s salary. One time, though, I did give a couple dollars because the guy’s pitch was quite entertaining.

He wanted to see if he could lift me. I’m a big dude. I could see the challenge.

But I politely declined, and we ended up talking about boxing for awhile before he hit me up for some coin. I gave him the money. He wasn’t threatening me and wasn’t demanding it so the city wouldn’t have considered it illegal.

The city’s response to both drunkenness and panhandling seems to be their hands are tied unless the person is belligerent or acting aggressively.

What do you think? Should the city take a more active role? How would you resolve the issues?

By R.R.

I had to work Tuesday night, so I missed President Obama’s first address to Congress.

My name has somehow fallen into the clutches of the White House press office and they have e-mailed me a copy of the speech which I’ll read tomorrow when I get the time.

In the meantime, I’ll start an open thread on Obama’s speech. Those of you who did watch Obama’s address, what did you think?

By Kevin Woster

You heard it here second.

Or maybe third, depending on what Dave Kranz has written in his columns the last couple weeks. (Sorry, Kranzman, I got caught up in Cormack McCarthy’s “The Road” and the latest issue of Gray’s Sporting Journal - I know, odd combination - and got behind in my column reading. I’ll catch up.)

But I know I”m at least second on this, because Kranz - whose lovely mother, Sally, lent her name to the overdone alliteration in the headline - said on public radio yesterday - I know, because I was yammering in the background - that Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin will very soon announce her plans for the 2010 campaign.

As in a matter of weeks. Two or three, perhaps.

So, another reelection campaign for the House? A run for governor? Or, less likely, a challenge of Republican Sen. John Thune.

Or stay home and be full-time mom to Zachary?

Whatever, it has to be soon. Because the other Democratic wannbes are getting anxious in the starting blocks.

We’ll see.

Meanwhile, say that headline real fast 10 times.

By Kevin Woster

The McCain thing? Pretty cool.

In calling on his past campaign adversary, Arizona Sen. John McCain, for the opening comment in the closing session of his “fiscal responsibility summit” Monday, President Barack Obama showed he has both political IQ and class.

The president’s gracious acknowledgement of McCain’s history of budget hawking opened the door to a brief exchange between the two on the seemingly overpriced plans for a new fleet of helicopters to serve the president. Obama allowed McCain to score a point or two, then followed with a couple of his own.

It seemed both serious and good natured, a spirit that is often missing in the nation’s capital.

Indictative of a day when the new president reached out to both supporters and critics, and treated both with respect, the McCain moment speaks well of Obama, and of our chances as a nation to set aside partisan rancor often enough to get some things done.

That doesn’t necessarily mean that spending $787 billion is the right move right now, or that the president’s next move in addressing the economic crisis will be the right one, either. Time will tell a lot more about that than the politically-driven, contradictory perspectives being exchanged in Congress.

But it might have been yet another classy sign that Obama is serious about changing the way people treat people in Washington, D.C.

That’s a pretty good way to begin working for bigger types of change.

By Randall Rasmussen

It never fails. Every time President Obama talks about the economy, the Dow Jones industrial average drops like a stone.

While Obama and congressional lawmakers were busy Monday coming up with a plan to implement fiscal restraint -– quick, someone, anyone, come up with a plan! -– the Dow fell 251 points.

A week after signing an $787 billion economic stimulus package, Obama will tell Congress on Tuesday that he plans to cut the budget deficit he inherited from President Bush in half by the end of his first term.

Good thing the stimulus package was off-budget — it won’t count against the budget deficit.

“We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences,” Obama said after Monday’s fiscal policy summit. He blasted the Bush administration for “casual dishonesty of hiding irresponsible spending with clever accounting tricks.” Sort of like putting all manner of pork in the stimulus plan instead of in the annual budget.

After Tuesday’s speech to Congress, expect the Dow to drop again. On Monday it fell to 1997 levels.

Next week, Obama plans to take on health care reform. At this rate, it’ll be like the Jimmy Carter years all over again, including a Dow average to match.

By Kevin Woster

Who’s afraid?

We are, according to Attorney General Eric Holder. In calling America “a nation of cowards” for failing to do enough to engage each other on the race issue, Holder got what he surely wanted: a reaction.

If he’d been more careful, and fairer, in his choice of words, the message might have drifted off into the cloud of coverage swirling around the stimulus package.

With his “a nation of cowards” comment, Holder saw to it that his message didn’t drift away.

He might be right, too. We might be cowards.

We might be afraid to fully discuss it - across racial lines, at least - when we believe someone didn’t get a job because of their race. And we might be just as afraid to discuss it when we think someone did.

We might be afraid to discuss our own racist tendencies, or superficial judgments, regardless of what race we are. And we might be afraid to challenge our friends and family members, again regardless of what race they are, for prejudging people based on their color.

Some of us might be afraid to admit to our failures as a nation in race relations. And some of us might be afraid to admit to our successes.

But Holder’s right. They’re all conversations we can’t be afraid to have.

By Kevin Woster

A sign much like that headline always made me chuckle when I’d stop at Kone’s Korner up south of Watertown and check out the guns.

They had a great gun selection up there, in a little old building that didn’t have the latest in security systems. But the staff had their own security system, just a safety click away.

You’ll see that same type of personal security on the hips of the employees at Jack First Guns in the Rapid City industrial park. I’d imagine that building doubles up on security with system safeguards that Kone’s Korner never had.

But how about personal security through the use of firearms? The thread about firearms restrictions down below includes some compelling arguments about the value of unfettered firearms possession in self defense.

It even includes some thoughts on the most effective ammunition - hollow points - to stop a potential killer in his tracks.

And I don’t think I’d hesitate to shoot somebody if I thougth they were likely to kill me or somebody I loved, or maybe even somebody I didn’t know particularly well but felt an obligation to protect.

But I’ve never been put in that situation, or anything close. And right off hand, I can’t think of anyone I know who has, outside of war.

Anybody out there with an experience, other than in war, where a gun saved your life or somebody you knew?

By Kevin Woster

The hearts of Mount Blogmore go out to Sen. Tim Johnson and his family today for the loss of the senator’s 88-year-old mother, who died Thursday evening in East Lansing, Mich.

It’s easy to say that Ruth Johnson, a native of Platte, lived a good, long life and that her family was blessed to have her for so many years. That is all true. But losing a mother - a wife, a grandmother - brings profound sadness at any age. And we send our sympapthies and well wishes to the grieving members of the Johnson family.

In announcing the loss, Tim Johnson said: “It is never easy to lose a parent, especially someone as loving and caring as my mother. She was a special person who spent a lifetime taking care of my father, my siblings and me. She will be missed more than I can say, and I am proud to see her live on in the faces of my own children and grandchildren.”

Ruth Johnson is survived by her husband, Van, a former dean at the University of South Dakota and administrator at Michigan State University; three children: Dr. Tom Johnson, U.S. Sen. Tim Johnson and Julie (Johnson) Spencer; 9 grandchildren; and 6 great-grandchildren.

By Scott Aust

Citing the recession and economy, Sanmina-SCI announced today it will close in June, putting 275 people out of work. Business reporter Jeremy Fugleberg will have a story in Friday’s Journal, but here’s what an e-mailed statement from the company said:

“The company understands and deeply regrets the hardships this closure decision places on the loyal and dedicated employees who will be impacted and expresses great appreciation to them for their years of service,’ said company spokeswoman Paige Bombino, in a e-mailed statement. “This difficult decision was made after considerable deliberation and ultimately made necessary by factors that are largely outside the control of the company.”

Mayor Alan Hanks told me this afternoon that the company would start the shut down in April, gradually leading to closure in June. He pledged the city would work with state and federal officials to do what they can to help displaced workers.

Looks like life is not so good in Rapid City right now.

By Kevin Woster

Talk about a traveling troupe of tourism taxers, and odd legislative mates.

Black Hills tourism guru Bill Honerkamp and House Democratic leader Bernie Hunhoff agree: A half-penny hike in the summer tourism tax should be used to save the South Dakota Arts Council and help plug other leaks in the state budget.

Even more interesting, state tourism Secretary Rich Benda agrees, too. Which means Gov. Mike Rounds agrees.

Or at least, doesn’t disagree. At least, not now.

The House Taxation Committee today approved a bill to increase the special tourism tax from 1 percent to 1.5 percent, which would raise $2.6 million, with much of it being paid by travelers to South Dakota. The money raised would generate the $800,000 needed to keep the South Dakota Arts Council in business (which Rounds earlier proposed eliminating because of budget problems), plus provide an additional $1.8 million to help cover the state red ink.

With Honerkamp, Hunhoff, Benda and - by association - the big guy lined up beyind the hike, who could stop it?

Is Frank Kloucek still around?

By Kevin Woster

A bill to prohibit public universities from restricting gun possession on campuses died in the state Legislature in Pierre today, again.

HB 1257 fell in the House Education Committee on an 11-3 vote. If proponents can’t revive the idea, the Board of Regents and their individual university presidents can continue to restrict gun possession on campus.

Those on-campus restrictions have gun-rights advocates worked up enough. But they’re really steamed these days about a federal bill, H.R. 45, or the Blair Holt Firearms Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009, which would require gun owners to have a federal or state license to even possess a firearm - anywhere, anytime.

The proposal, which was headed for the House Judiciary Committee last time I checked, would impose a bunch of other restrictions on gun owners as well - including potential charges if a government agent decided you had property protected your weapons from access by childre. All told, the idea raises the BP of many - most? almost all? - gun owners in pretty substantial ways.

If it gets out of the House committee, South Dakota Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin would face the bill on the House floor. And there we could expect the pheasant-hunting Democrat to flash her National Rifle Association credentials.

Here’s what Herseth told Mount Blogmore about the gun bill:

“As most of the first few weeks of Congress have been primarily dedicated to addressing issues like the worsening economy and the long-overdue reauthorization of the popular State Children’s Health Insurance Program, I haven’t had the chance to fully review this recently-introduced legislation,” Herseth Sandlin said by e-mail.

“However I was pleased to receive an “A” rating from the NRA because of my support of the rights of gun owners. As a defender of our Second Amendment rights, I support allowing law-abiding citizens to exercise their right to carry firearms for personal protection. I oppose federal firearm registration and licensing and attempts to limit gun owners’ rights through bans on types of firearms or ammunition.

“Additionally, I oppose extending or renewing the assault weapons ban because I believe that gun violence, not gun ownership, should be the focus of legislation that affects our Second Amendment rights.”

Is it just me, or does that sound like a “no” vote?

”

By Randall Rasmussen

During the debate in Congress over the $787 billion economic stimulus bill, President Obama repeatedly warned the country of “catastrophe” — which the dictionary defines as a “sudden disaster” — if the bill wasn’t passed immediately.

Members of Congress were in such a hurry to pass the 1,000-page legislation that no one read it before voting on it.

The emergency legislation was passed on Friday, and a leisurely three and a half days later, Obama flew it to Denver to sign it.

In his remarks on signing the stimulus bill, Obama said: “Now, I don’t want to pretend that today marks the end of our economic problems. Nor does it constitute all of what we’re going to have to do to turn our economy around.”

Never mind.

By Kevin Woster

Sum total, a winner or loser for Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and John Thune?

Good question. I’m glad I asked. (Pardon me, while I talk to myself.)

Herseth Sandlin and Thune are both up for reelection next year. And they both had to vote on Barack Obama’s $787 billion - yes, that “B” as in “Boy-Howdy!” - economic stimulus package.

Like a good Democrat, Herseth Sandlin voted “yes.”

Like a good Republican, Thune voted “no.”

And both surely took a glance ahead to 2010 as they did. They should have. Considering that congressional campaigns are often pestered - and in some cases even defined - by difficult-to-discern vote sequences of a lot less clarity or significance, the stimulus vote will carry a club into the 2010 campaigns.

This was a clear vote on an easily understood bill (as long as you didn’t try to wade through its 1,100 pages).

If, as seems most likely, Herseth Sandlin runs for another U.S. House term, she will get nicked for moonwalking a bit on her much-celebrated march toward a leadership position among pay-as-you-go Blue Dog Democrats. There’s not much pay as you go in the stimulus-recovery-economic-rainmaking package. But there could be plenty of benefits for South Dakota - a state that loves to talk the talk of hardy, independent, tax-cutting fiscal conservatism but never walks the walk away from fat federal checks.

By next year, Herseth Sandlin should be able to tick off a list of projects and places and people who benefitted from the government booty.

So, winner or loser for her? It remains to be seen.

Then there’s Thune, who found himself caught in the crossfire between obligations to Republican leadership and conservative principles and a WHOLE BUNCH OF MONEY (YIPPEEEEE!) for the folks back home. His vote against the plan was a nothing-but-net stroke on the first two that rattled off the rim on the third. The list of benefits that Thune “voted against” could make for some entertaining campaign ads by the time a Democratic opponent - I presume there’ll be one next year in the U.S. Senate race, right? - starts chipping away at the Thune incumbency.

Thune will make an argument that it was too much money, too much debt and that his opposition to the stimulus cut a small bit of fat, at least, and made the package better.

A winner or loser for him? It remains to be seen, too.

Much will depend on how well the monstrous stimulus package does, what comes next in the way of government spending, and how much the economy and the unemployment rate rise or fall between now and November of 2010.

At least, that’s what I think.

And so do I.

Me, too.

The takes care of my split personalities. The rest of you can jump in at will.

By Kevin Woster

Hey, what’s Hillary Clinton up to these days?

Apparently, she’s over at the State Department, operating in relative calm.

Who woulda figured?

I mean, Richardson, Geithner, Daschle, Killefer and Gregg all churned up some rough water for the Good Ship Obama.

And Clinton? Heck, it’s been smooth sailing for her.

Could you have imagined three months ago that Hillary Clinton would be easily confirmed and handling cabinet business in peace, while the blow-up would involve people like Daschle?

Not me.

By Kevin Woster

Nobody wants a prison in their backyard.

Or across the street.

Or up the boulevard a block or two.

“Not in my backyard” becomes “not in my neighborhood, or anywhere near my neighborhood” in cases like this.

And this “case” is the proposed minimum-security prison in Rapid City, which would end up along Elk Vale Road in the lastest version of the state Department of Corrections wish list.

DOC is hoping that state lawmakers will provide bonding authority for $6 million needed to purchase and renovate the old All Decked Out building at 925 Elk Vale Road. It’s a much cheaper option than the most recently considered location near the landfill.

It’s also likely to be more controversial.

The concerns are understandable. But the question remains: If not there, where?

And how much?

Or don’t we need it at all?

When the Journal reported the plan this week, it stirred things up quickly.

By Randall Rasmussen

South Dakota’s U.S. senators split their votes Tuesday on the $838 billion economic stimulus bill.

Sen. Tim Johnson voted for the bill and Sen. John Thune voted against it.

In a release, Thune called the bill a “business-as-usual Washington spending spree.”

“The last thing struggling American families and small businesses need is billions of dollars worth of pork-projects that do little to create the amount of jobs needed to get the economy going again. This legislation represents the largest inter-generational transfer of debt in history and will saddle our children and grandchildren with significant debt,” said Thune.

The bill is financed solely through debt.

Johnson told The Associated Press the legislation is not perfect but that no bill of its size can be. He said the goal was job creation, tax cuts for the middle class and infrastructure investment. Most of the 3.6 million people who have lost their jobs in the last year lost them in the last three months, Johnson said, adding that action is needed to get people back to work.

Every amendment offered by Republicans was defeated except for a $15,000 tax credit for homebuyers and removing a $246 million earmark for Hollywood, which as we all know hasn’t been able to make any movies during the economic crisis and desperately needs help.

Not to worry, there is plenty of pork left in the bill.

This being a family-friendly blog prevents me from truthfully labeling this legislation. However, it can be accurately described as something brown, odorous and it floats. Well, maybe this one is a sinker.

By Kevin Woster

The question hit me right after sundown up in the Pactola Basin, under a nearly full moon hung in a sky shading from pink to blue to gray.

Was I was unfair to Daschle?

I hadn’t thought about my Sunday column all day Saturday, until that moment under the moon. For some reason, looking up from the base of Pactola Dam, with a fly rod waving back and forth above me, I remembered that somebody - Jeff Olson, maybe - had spoken of taking Daschle fly fishing in the basin, and about how much he loved it there.

And then I remembered my column and my conclusion that Daschle’s tax troubles and subsequent withdrawal from consideration for an Obama cabinet post had as much to do with him growing away from his humble South Dakota roots - and falling in love with a wealth-driven Washington, D.C. establishment - as it did with the complexities of our tax code and the former senator’s busy schedule.

I’d shown the column to a mutual friend, and he thought it too harsh. But then, he loves Daschle, with an innocence of affection that I find kind of charming. I considered his criticism and decided that I didn’t agree. Then, under the almost-full Daschle moon, I wondered.

You always wonder when you criticize someone in print. Or at least you should. And with Daschle, you tend to wonder more than with most. Or at least, I do.

That’s because I like the guy. It’s awfully hard not to. It always has been.

People think Tom Daschle got good press coverage here at home over the years because reporters were sympathetic to his liberal philosophies. Well, there’s some truth in that. The majority of reporters lean left more than right, although those who do their job well try to set that aside and be fair in their stories.

But that’s not the main reason he got good coverage. There were several main reasons: He was good at what he did. He accomplished more in national politics and than any previous South Dakotan. He made news and did many things beneficial to his home state. He was always courteous and respectful, responsive and engaging with often-irritating news weasels.

That’ll get you plenty of coverage. And those last interpersonal qualities in particular will make it more difficult for reporters to challenge or criticize you too harshly.

I thought plenty about the column in the waning light of the basin, as night settled in and the trout continued to ignore me. Then I drove back to town, stopped at the Journal and asked the opinion of Lesa Walter, a news-savvy copy editor whose opinion I respect. Comforted by her perspective, I decided to let the column run as written.

I slept pretty well, too, which doesn’t necessarily mean I was right.

By Kevin Woster

Consider this an open e-mail to John Thune:

$10,000 to me and my wife? Seriously?

Now we’re getting somewhere.

I mean, our new fly rods - courtesy of the $1,200 George Bush stimulus check in 2008 - are really nice.

But if your amendment could get Mary and me - and all those other joint-filing married couples (as opposed to joint-smoking married couples covered under the Bob Newland amendment) a $10,000 check, I’m buying a new pickup.

American made.

I promise.

I’ll trade in the Nissan and buy American. I”m thinking Ford, but I won’t rule out GM and Chrysler.

I’ve done the math, senator, and I’m pretty sure that Mary and I can sneak our combined Rapid City Journal reporters’ salaries in under the $250,000 adjusted gross income limit.

And don’t worry about us following the example of that obvious Communist sympathizer Scott Aust and doing something totally unAmerican like paying down our personal debt. No way. We’ll spend, baby! (Is it appropriate to call a U.S. senator, “baby!”? What the heck, as Gutzon Harlan used to say: “It’s the Internet.”)

But first we need that ten, large, senator. I can already feel it, burning a hole in our joint (relax, Newland, not you) checking account.

Sure, I know, your amendment didn’t arrive in the Senate to a hero’s welcome the first time around. But there’s always conference committee, right?

Stick with it. Mary and I are counting on you. So is Wells Fargo.

If you bump it up to $20,000, I might get a boat, too.

Talk about stimulation.

By Scott Aust

Sen. Thune offered an alternative to the proposed stimulus package, one that would put money into the pockets of the middle class through tax rebates.

According to a press release:

The amendment would result in a tax rebate of $5,143 for single filers and $10,286 for married couples who file jointly. Eligibility is capped for all tax filers at 2007 adjusted gross income of $250,000.

and:

“I think most Americans believe they know how to best spend their own money and would rather have control over it than have the government create new federal programs, or waste it on pet pork projects that will not stimulate the economy,” Thune said.

I think I’d like to have money in my pocket that I could use to pay down my personal debt. What say the rest of you?

By Kevin Woster

I could be wrong, and often am, but I thought the deal was floor votes.

I thought the Republicans in the U.S. Senate wanted a chance to submit, debate and vote on amendments to legislation submitted to that body by the majority party Democrats. Am I halllucinating, or just making things up?

But hasn’t the main complaint by the minority party in the Senate for the past couple of years been that Democrats - read Harry Reid - wouldn’t give them a chance to submit amendments for debate and vote? Reid denied that regularly, a snub that wasn’t entirely unheard of when the Senate was in GOP hands.

But now Reid is finally, wisely, perhaps with sincerity of purpose allowing some serious Republican input into the stiumulus-bill discussion. And Republicans are talking about filibustering anyway.

Why? Apparently because they’re losing the votes on their motions.

I agree that so far the Democratis - read Reid - haven’t been inclined to accept and support changes brought by GOP senators. And surely some of those have been worth keeping, haven’t they?

Even so, at some point doesn’t the party with the votes get to decide?

Or do I not understand the system?