By Kevin Woster

This just in from the Secretary of State’s Office: The petition drive to refer the expanded state smoking ban is on.

Don Rose and Pete Thompson of Sioux Falls, Mark O’Neill of Henry and Deadwood’s own Mike Trucano have their signatures on the document needed to begin the petition drive to refer HB1240.

You’ll recall, that’s the bill passed by the Legislature and signed by Gov. Mike Rounds to expand the already substantial state smoking ban in public areas to bars, casinos and restaurants that sell booze.

The anti-1240 folks will have to hustle to gather 16,776 valid petition signatures by the end of June. If the do, the real work will begin: convincing a majority of voters in the 2010 general election to reject 1240.

Trucano knows it’ll be tough, but also believes it’s not impossible.

“I think there’s a chance that the people of the state of south Dakota will not agree with what the Legislature and the governor have done on this,” he told Mount Blogmore’s cracked political reporter just moments ago.

So, do you agree? Disagree? Or just need to step outside for a smoke?

By Kevin Woster

Remember? Fifteen or 20 years ago, when research indicated that 5-year-olds were more familiar with Joe Camel than Mickey Mouse?

That was spooky. Unless, of course, you were R.J. Reynolds.

Times have changed, a lot. Joe Camel’s long since gone from TV. And it’s getting tougher and tougher to be a smoker.

First, there’s hardly any public place where it’s allowed. And it’ll get even tougher when the new state law goes into effect banning smoking in bars and casinos.

(Unless, of course, it gets referred. Hello, Larry Mann, Tim Dougherty, Mike DeMersseman, are you guys out there? Got anything you’d like to tell me?)

There was the big boost in tobacco taxes from the state a couple years back. And now, on Wednesday, a federal tax hike will raise Uncle Sam’s take on the sale of a pack of cigs from 39 cents to $1.01.

In the face of such restrictions and costs, you’ve got to be pretty determined to keep lighting up.

Either that or pretty addicted.

Hey, by the way, did Obama ever quit?

Or do you think he fires one up from time to time in the Oval Office?

In Joe Camel’s memory?

By Kevin Woster

(Note from the mountain: Operating on the assumption that the new blog templates (or whatever they’re called) would be fully functional by yesterday morning, I posted this thread. But the work wasn’t finished, and somehow 20 or so excellent comments were lost. Sorry about that, because the discussion was really quite good.)

Last week I wrote that President Barack Obama hadn’t asked American’s to sacrifice in finding a solution to our financial crisis.

My guess is that Rick Wagoner would disagree.

Wagoner, the CEO of General Motors for the last nine years, has been booted by the Obama Administration for failing to come up with an acceptable restructuring plan. Obama said there has to be sacrifices to fix the ailing U.S. auto industry, and Wagoner is one of the most high profile of those.

Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm said Wagoner ended up being a “sacrificial lamb” at a time when auto sales were at their lowest level in decades. But she also hesitated to criticize her president.

It’s an interesting time,when the government determines who runs private corporations. And the CEOs at Chrysler and Ford must be watching closely. Chrysler has a deal in the works that will be crucial to that company’s survival, and probably to the professional future of its CEO.

Taking billions of dollars of government money changes that relationship between the private and public sector, as Wagoner knows so personally.

It’s getting pretty close to government take-over of private business. You can argue it’s justified, given the tax dollars involved. But it’s a bit unsettling, too, isn’t it?

By Kevin Woster

The people here at the Journal who actually understand the computer system (that wouldn’t be me) are fixing up the blogs this weekend.

They’ll be easier to operate after the fix. But they’ll also be down for the weekend.

So if you try to post and don’t get approved, it probably means the system has been suspended for repair and upgrade. It’s supposed to be back online by Monday morning.

I’ll try to moderate for as long as I can, manning a lonely post here on Mount Blogmore, as the clouds of disconnection roll in.

I’m hanging on as long as I …..

By Kevin Woster

Seriously, how does the guy sleep?

If I were Barack Obama, I’d be lying in bed every night, staring at the ceiling.

Wait, I already do that, and that’s just from thinking about my deflated retirement accounts and the repair bill on the ‘91 Miata. I don’t even carry the weight of the free world on my shoulders.

For Obama, the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression isn’t enough. As he wonders how to boost the stock market, stop the rise in unemployment and get the economy running again, he has other stuff to fret about.

Like getting out of Iraq and deeper into Afghanistan. And health-care issues that, in better times, would be likely to dominate a president’s attention.

There’s the always explosive Gaza Strip, the increasingly troublesome drug war and the most recent flare ups in Mexico and along the border. And now there’s a missile sitting on a launch pad in North Korea. And if the government there goes ahead with launch plans, Obama might have to decide whether to allow our military folks to shoot it down.

And on top of everything else, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin still isn’t saying what she’ll do in 2010.

It’s a crazy world out there. Lots for a president to worry about.

And it’s tough to squeeze it all into the smooth roll of a teleprompter.

Obama-insomina? I’d certainly think so.

Yet, the guy seems pretty well rested. And when he speaks off the cuff on issues like teacher qualifications and illegal drugs (I thought his playful comment about the callers who pushed for legalization was funny) at events such as the D.C. town-hall meeting, he appears relaxed and confident.

That’s how I want my president to appear, during such difficult times.

I hope that means he’s ready for the challenges ahead.

By Kevin Woster

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin tells a Gannett reporter in Washington, D.C., that she will decide her next political move by the end of summer.

Say what?

Maybe it’s just me, but that seems like a long time to wait - if you’re, say, Scott Heidepriem.

Heidepriem, a state senator from Sioux Falls, and other potential Democratic candidates remain in a holding pattern, waiting for Herseth Sandlin to decide if she will run for reelection to the U.S. House, take a run at the governor’s chair or, least likely I’d think, challenge Republican Sen. John Thune in 2010.

End of summer? Hmmm.

Thune says the delay is no problem for Herseth Sandlin, who has fund-raising abilities that allow her to delay a decision and still have the bucks she’ll need for a House or even a Senate campaign.

“If she was going to run against me, she wouldn’t need a lot of time because she’ll be able to raise the money,” Thune said. “I think she has the luxury of time in deciding.”

Same goes for a House reelection bid, Thune said. Herseth Sandlin will quickly have all the money she needs for that race.

The governor’s race would be more complicated, and a delayed decision might be a sign that she’s turning away from that option. She didn’t do much in her House campaign last year to prepare for a governor’s run. And not making a move until fall would seem unwise for a Democrat - even a very popular Democrat - in a state that almost always elects Republicans as governor.

Delaying her decision too long also “might create a problem because you put other people at a disadvantage,” Thune said.

I’d think that might include Heidepriem and others who would need time and money to boost their name ID and prepare to challenge a formidable Republican nominee, such as Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard or state Sen. Dave Knudson.

Heidepriem will be in town this weekend for what is clearly a campaign trip. But campaign for what? Governor or U.S. House? Depends on what Herseth Sandlin chooses.

And when.

By Kevin Woster

NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd has taken some criticism over his question last night to President Barack Obama:

Where’s the sacrifice?

Since this is the equivalent of a financial war, what are U.S. citizens being asked to sacrifice?

I think Todd asked a good question. It’s not quite as good as a similar question that President George W. Bush never answered during his White House tenure: Where’s the sacrifice for the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, beyond the one by those who are fighting it and their families?

Their sacrifices, of course, were huge. And the rest of us? Not so much.

What have we done as a nation overall to sacrifice for that war? Not even so much as a specific tax to pay for it.

Nothing was rationed. Nothing was denied. Nothing changed at all in our daily lives, except for the sadness we certainly felt at the loss of human lives and the growing economic toll.

Fighting the economic-recovery war is less serious in human terms, certainly, than the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. But still, shouldn’t citizens be asked to do something in the way of specific sacrifices?

Obama says Americans are already sacrificing, as they struggle to pay their mortgages and health-care bills, help kids pay tuition, manage increased costs of living on stagnant or declining salaries, or in the face of job layoffs.

Well, sure, yeah, there’s real pain there. But those aren’t really sacrifices FOR anything. They’re impacts FROM something.

What are we doing specicifically, as part of a recovery plan, to help right the tipping financial ship? Well, most of us are getting a tax break, albeit a small one. Many of us are going to get debt reduction, even if we were irresponsible in our borrowing practices and managing our wants versus our needs.

Many of us will get increased social benefits.

There will be more jobs, more government programs, more government dollars, more assistance for banks and financial groups, even if they, too, were irresponsible in their financial affairs.

The wealthy among us will sacrifice a bit, in a higher tax rate, and a lower deduction for charitable contributions.

Beyond that, what is Team USA giving up to help the nation recover and protect the financial future of our children and grandchildren?

Good question, Chuck Todd.

Not such a good answer, Mr. President.

By R.R.

President Obama’s opening remarks for tonight’s news conference:

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

EMBARGOED UNTIL 8PM

March 24, 2009

EXCERPTS OF THE PRESIDENT’S OPENING REMARKS AT TONIGHT’S NEWS CONFERENCE

[W]e’ve put in place a comprehensive strategy designed to attack this crisis on all fronts. It’s a strategy to create jobs, to help responsible homeowners, to re-start lending, and to grow our economy over the long-term. And we are beginning to see signs of progress.

The budget I submitted to Congress will build our economic recovery on a stronger foundation, so that we do not face another crisis like this ten or twenty years from now. We invest in the renewable sources of energy that will lead to new jobs, new businesses, and less dependence on foreign oil. We invest in our schools and our teachers so that our children have the skills they need to compete with any workers in the world. We invest in reform that will bring down the cost of health care for families, businesses, and our government. And in this budget, we have made the tough choices necessary to cut our deficit in half by the end of my first term – even under the most conservative estimates.

At the end of the day, the best way to bring our deficit down in the long run is not with a budget that continues the very same policies that have led to a narrow prosperity and massive debt. It’s with a budget that leads to broad economic growth by moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest.

That’s what green jobs and green businesses will do. That’s what a highly-skilled workforce will do. That’s what an efficient health care system that controls costs and entitlements like Medicare and Medicaid will do. That’s why this budget is inseparable from this recovery – because it is what lays the foundation for a secure and lasting prosperity.

We will recover from this recession. But it will take time, it will take patience, and it will take an understanding that when we all work together; when each of us looks beyond our own short-term interests to the wider set of obligations we have to each other – that’s when we succeed. That’s when we prosper. And that’s what is needed right now. So let us look toward the future with a renewed sense of common purpose, a renewed determination, and most importantly, a renewed confidence that a better day will come.

And here’s a transcript of the whole thing.

By Randall Rasmussen

President Barack Obama speaks to the nation tonight about his proposed $3.6 trillion budget in a televised address.

The Congressional Budget Office, meanwhile, released its estimates on Friday that Obama’s budget would generate deficits totaling $9.3 trillion over the next decade. That’s a number that’s four times the budget deficits of his predecessor, George W. Bush. It’s also $2.3 trillion greater than Obama’s budget writers predicted.

How could the administration miss the budget target by 25 percent?

They’re cooking the books.

The Obama administration is relying on rosy economic forecasts of a 3.2 percent increase in Gross Domestic Product next, while the CBO predicts a more modest 2.9 percent growth and nongovernment forecasters are predicting 1.9 percent growth.

You can hide a huge budget deficit behind an overly optimistic economic forecast.

This prompted Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H., who was Obama’s one-time choice to head the Commerce Department, to say the administration is “playing hide and seek with the American public on the budget.”

By Scott Aust

Less than six months after opening its brand-spankin’ new store in Rapid City, outdoor outfitter Cabela’s is appealed its $13 million property assessment to the local board of equalization Thursday morning.

Shannon Rittberger, Pennington County’s director of equalization stands by his department’s assessment and noted it is actually less than the accumulative total of the building permits Cabela’s filed to build the store.

The local board, which consisted of six city council members and a representative of the school board, denied the request to reduce the amount but Cabela’s could decide to appeal it to the county commission next month.

That’s sure to draw some howls from those who opposed Rapid City’s generous donation of $2 million and free land the council felt was necessary to lure Cabela’s here. Not to mention the TIF the city approved to pay itself back the value of the incentives.

Reducing Cabela’s property taxes would increase the time it takes to pay off the TIF. One would think a request like this might tick off even the most tone-deaf officials but we’ll see.

By Kevin Woster

OK, I owe Guggeheimer a buffalo burger.

The governor signed HB1240, which would extend the ban on smoking to bars, casinos and restaurants with liquor licenses

That’s just what public-radio’s Paul Guggenheimer predicted Rounds would do, as he dared me to bet otherwise.

But becamse I’m a gambler, a risk taker, a blade runner and perhaps the worse political prognosticator this side of Jere Murphy’s oldest son, I took the bet.

For a buffalo burger.

So, anybody got Dan O’Brien’s number out at Wild Idea buffalo? If I’m going to shell out for bison meat, it might as well be the premium stuff.

O’Brien, you out there? Take a break from running the dogs and flying the falcon and give me a call. I need patties!

And I need ‘em soon.

But becamse I’m a gambler, a risk taker, a blade runner and perhaps the worse political prognosticator this side of Jere Murphy’s oldest son, I’m not finished.

It’s double-down time, Guggenheimer. Double or nothing seays HB1240 gets referred to a public vote by opponents

By Randall Rasmussen

The newest public whipping boy has to be AIG, the giant insurance company that plans to give $165 million in bonuses to its executives.

The insurance company said it was obligated to hand out the bonuses by contracts that predate the $170 billion in bailout money it received last fall.

President Obama focused on the bonuses today at the White House: “How do they justify this outrage to the taxpayers who are keeping the company afloat? This isn’t just a matter of dollars and cents. It’s about our fundamental values.”

Obama pledged to block the bonuses using every legal means necessary – emphasis on “legal,” because if the contracts are legal, there’s little anyone can do about it, even the federal government.

Not to be outdone, Iowa Sen. Charles Grassley suggested the AIG executives kill themselves.

Yes, turning down the money isn’t good enough.

In an interview with a Cedar Rapids radio station Grassley said: “I suggest, you know, obviously, maybe they ought to be removed. But I would suggest the first thing that would make me feel a little bit better toward them if they’d follow the Japanese example and come before the American people and take that deep bow and say, I’m sorry, and then either do one of two things: resign or go commit suicide.”

You know the outrage one-upmanship has gone too far when suicide is a preferred option. How can anyone top that? Hanging? Disembowlment in a public square?

The AIG bonuses are just another distraction to blame our economic predicament on something other than the politicians and officials in Washington, D.C., whose incompetence and negligence created this crisis.

The $165 million in bonuses doesn’t bother me as much as the $170 billion in taxpayer bailout money given to AIG in the first place. The bonuses are less than 0.1 percent of the bailout funds they received — and that is what outrages pubic officials the most?

I guarantee that much, much more than $165 million is being wasted and spent irresponsibly by AIG and all other companies that took bailout money.

Forget AIG executives. When can we expect the flogging of members of Congress who approved the bailout and administration officials who are dispensing the funds, no strings attached?

P.S. I forgot to mention that Grassley is a Republican.

By Kevin Woster

Soon, the buffalo burger will be mine.

Unless, of course, it’s Guggenheimer’s.

We could find out tomorrow, when Gov. Mike Rounds meets with reporters in person and by telephone in his post-Legislature news conference. In it, he could say what he decided to do with HB1240, the bill approved by the state House and Senate to extend the smoking ban to just about every business South Dakota has - including casinos and bars.

Last week, in a dramatic throw-down on South Dakota public radio’s Dakota Midday, host Paul Guggenheimer called me out on my assertion that there was a better-than-50-50 chance the governor would veto 1240. Knowing I was already down an Italian dinner at Botticellis to Denise Ross, Guggeneheimer wagered smaller: a buffalo burger.

With a only a brief glance at my checking account, I took the bet.

Guggenheimer seems to have the strength of argument on his side: Rounds doesn’t like smoking; he doesn’t like what second-hand smoke does to innocent bystanders; he knows the majority of South Dakota citizens don’t smoke and do support the smoking ban; and key Democratic and Republican leaders in the House and Senate supported the bill.

What have I got going for me? Only the bucks.

It’ll cost money to end smoking in video lottery casinos. Millions of dollars, almost certainly. Maybe tens of millions.

Are bucks enough? We should see within the next few days, and maybe tomorrow.

Then, Guggenheimer and I will get down to bet basics: like is a buffalo burger best served medium or medium rare?

By Randall Rasmussen

Thirty-six senators this week signed a letter to President Obama condemning the proposal to rescind the rule giving conscience protection to health care professionals.

Before President Bush left office in January, the administration issued a conscience protection rule, granting health care professionals to right to follow their own judgment on providing medical services.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., authored the letter, which was signed by Sen. John Thune, R-S.D. You can read the letter here.

The conscience protection rule is usually applied to physicians regarding abortion services and pharmacists regarding birth control measures.

Should health care professionals be coerced into providing what are essentially health care options that they disagree with philosophically or ethically?

What should be the government’s role, if, as we are often told when it comes to abortion, that medical decisions are private matters best left between a physician and his patient?

Coburn’s letter concludes: “Americans in the health care field who choose to exercise their rights of conscience should be able to do so in this country without fear of discrimination or coercion.”

Agree or disagree?

By KW

Had I been there myself, I’d have been beaming like an idiot.

I wasn’t there. But capital newshound Bob Mercer did some beaming on my behalf, caught on public television, as the South Dakota Legislature honored my brother, Terry, with House Commemoration No. 1027.

Today is Terry’s last day of covering the legislative session for the Associated Press. He did that full-time from 1969-1978, if memory serves, before moving on to the Pierre Times, the Pierre Capital Journal and finally, in 1987, becoming capital reporter for the Sioux Falls Argus Leader - where he’d begun his daily newspaper career back in 1967. (If these dates are wrong, sue me, bro. Oh, yeah, like you never made a mistake….)

The Argus retired Terry a couple years early in December, and he picked up some familiar work with AP during the session. Now he’s free to freelance, and get the boat ready for ski season.

This legislative session was Terry’s 40th as a reporter, by the way, which means he’s both knowledgeable and extremely tolerant and resilient. Whether he does 41 is anybody’s guess, given the state of the news game.

The writers of the commemoration, whom I presume included magazine publisher and former newspaperman Bernie Hunhoff, had some fun at the expense of the state’s largest paper in the last paragraph of the commemoration, which concluded like this:

“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT COMMEMORATED, by the Eighty-fourth Legislature of the State of South Dakota, that Terry Woster, despite long service in the employ of conglomerate media, writing for the Sioux Falls Argus Leader from 1967 to 2008 (well, not quite) personally exemplifies the best traditions of hometown journalism through his commitment and caring for the people and communities of South Dakota.”

Nice. Well earned, bro.

I wonder what they’ll say about me?

By Kevin Woster

Question: What’s the difference between a good earmark and a bad one?

Answer: The good ones come to South Dakota. The bad ones go everywhere else.

OK, it’s not that simple. And I agree with earmark advocates - including, near as I can tell, EVERY member of Congress who has served from South Dakota in recent memory - who say that it makes sense to have members of Congress helping to direct money to needed projects and programs at the state land local level, rather than allowing the money to be dished out by “nameless, faceless bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.”

No names? No faces? Wow. I’d ask who those people are, but they apparently have no names.

Republican Sen. John Thune joined that irascible earmark buster, Arizona Sen. John McCain, Tuesday in voting to continue debating the $410 million omnibus spending bill needed to continue government operations - perhaps in something less than frugal ways - this fiscal year. But they lost, as the Senate vote 62-35 - two more than needed to end debate - in a key procedural vote that preceded an it’s-all-over-but-the-shouting voice vote that sent the bill on to the president, with Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson voting with the majority.

This is not to say Thune would turn down most of the earmarks that will come to South Dakota. He just has more of a philosophical problem - and maybe a political one - with the earmark process than Johnson does.

Asked Wednesday during a telephone conference call with reporters to define a bad earmark, Johnson said: “I think that a bad earmark is one that can’t stand the light of day. And, accordingly, I have had my earmarks all transparent and accountable.”

That means they go through the committee process, and are subjected to scrutiny and public discussion prior to being approved, as opposed to being “air dropped” in at the last stages.

More than that, though, Johnson said: “I’m proud of all the earmarks I have included in South Dakota.”

As for charges that Obama is backtracking on a campaign pledge to cut earmarks, Johnson said: “The president swore to reform the earmark process, and he’s doing that.”

Well, not so much, just yet. Obama argues that the 8,000 plus earmarks in the omnibus spending bill - a small percentage of the overall funding - are left over from the Bush budget process (bad Bush, baaaaad, baaaaad, baaaad BUsh), and that real reform will begin with the next budget.

It’ll be interesting to watch that play out.

By Scott Aust

All we need now is a guy in a white beard and robe standing on a street corner with an “End is Near” sign.

According to numbers available today Rapid City’s new unemployment rate is now at 5.8 5.1 percent, up from last month’s 4.4 percent. And those numbers don’t count the 157 jobs that will be lost in September when Merillat closes, or the 275 jobs that will be lost in June when Sanmina-SCI shuts down.

Meanwhile, there’s a mayoral election coming up in June in which the local economy, and the incumbent’s cheerleading in the Life is Good advertising campaign, will probably play a role though how much of a role is anyone’s guess.

I asked Mayor Hanks about the political side of that ad campaign but it got cut from the dead tree edition. I wondered if being linked to that message about how things are better here than elsewhere would be hung around Hanks’ neck during the campaign.

Hanks said flat out he doesn’t think it will cause him trouble. He believes his record as a fiscal conservative who advocates for no-growth city budgets shows he’s been forward thinking. However, he also believes his job is to promote the city’s positive aspects, even if it sets off critics.

“One of the responsibilities of an elected official is to deal with the downside of the current economy, and we are dealing with it. But we also don’t want to get into a self-fulfilling prophecy where people feel so bad they start pulling back and create an even bigger problem,” he said.

So is Hanks toast? What do you think? Will Rapid City have another 8-pack of candidates to choose from?

By Kevin Woster

Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson said today that there isn’t enough support in the Senate to pass the Employee Free Choice Act.

“There are not enough votes to support this legislation, so far,” Johnson said during his weekly telephone conference call with reporters.

Right now, the act doesn’t even have his vote, at least not just yet.

Johnson was a co-sponsor of a version of the act that passed the Senate two years ago, although he didn’t actually vote on it because he was recovering from his brain hemorrhage. He has made supportive statements about this year’s version of the act. But feedback from home apparently has the senator thinking the proposal needs more work.

“I’m undecided about that,” he said Wednesday when asked if he could vote for the current version of the act.

Former South Dakota Sen. George McGovern, who is certainly not anti-union, cut an advertisement against the act, saying it could deny workers the right to cast a secret ballot on whether to form a union. Near as I can tell, that’s not entirely true. And as supporters of the act point out, when workers use a card check now, employers can under the existing system require a secret-ballot election. Sometimes that takes months, or longer.

During which time workers can come under unfair pressure.

Johnson said there’s a great deal of misinformation, especially on the Internet (misinformation on the Internet? Wait a minute…), about what the proposed act would and wouldn’t do. He rejects the notion that the act would end the option of secret ballots for workers. And he points out that the act could not force South Dakota workers to accept a union, Johnson said.

“Because of right-to-work laws in South Dakota, nobody can be forced to join a union as a condition of their employment,” Johnson said. “That has not changed.”

What might have changed is Johnson’s mind. He’s apparently hearing the concerns some constituents have about the act. And now he’s uncertain if he can support it as is written.

“I seek some kind of compromise on this legisaltion,” he said.

That compromise could include a requirement that a secret-ballot election on a union question be required in a limited time period after being requested.

Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin supports the act. Republican Sen. John Thune is way against it.

Thune is also supporting legislation to clearly preserve the secret ballot right.

By Randall Rasmussen

The following letter to the editor of the Wichita Falls (Texas) Times Record News (www.timesrecordnews.com) was read by Glenn Beck on his radio show Tuesday.

Dear IRS,

I am sorry to inform you that I will not be able to pay taxes owed April 15, but all is not lost.

I have paid these taxes: accounts receivable tax, building permit tax, CDL tax, cigarette tax, corporate income tax, dog license tax, federal income tax, unemployment tax, gasoline tax, hunting license tax, fishing license tax, waterfowl stamp tax, inheritance tax, inventory tax, liquor tax, luxury tax, medicare tax, city, school and county property tax (up 33 percent last 4 years), real estate tax, social security tax, road usage tax, toll road tax, state and city sales tax, recreational vehicle tax, state franchise tax, state unemployment tax, telephone federal excise tax, telephone federal state and local surcharge tax, telephone minimum usage surcharge tax, telephone state and local tax, utility tax, vehicle license registration tax, capitol gains tax, lease severance tax, oil and gas assessment tax, Colorado property tax, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, Oklahoma and New Mexico sales tax, and many more that I can’t recall but I have run out of space and money.

When you do not receive my check April 15, just know that it is an honest mistake. Please treat me the same way you treated Congressmen Charles Rangel, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and ex-Congressman Tom Daschle and, of course, your boss Timothy Geithner. No penalties and no interest.

P.S. I will make at least a partial payment as soon as I get my stimulus check.

Ed Barnett

Wichita Falls

By Kevin Woster

Former Sen. George McGovern isn’t so fond of the Employee Free Choice Act, which he says would “effectively deny millions a right to a private vote” on whether to form a union.

In the advertisement by the Employee Freedom Action Committee, McGovern says he has alwyas been a champion of labor unions, “but I fear that today’s labor leaders are turning their backs on Democratic work-place elections.”

McGovern, who makes a compelling figure for opponents of the act given his unabashed liberal philosophy, says he has studied both sides of the issue and comes down against the act.

That puts him with Republican Sen. John Thune and against Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Democratic Sen. Tim Johnson. Both Herseth Sandlin and Johnson supported a 2007 version of the act which passed the House and failed to get past a Republican filibuster in the Senate. Johnson was still recovering from his brain hemorrhage at the time.

Herseth Sandlin spokeswoman Betsy Hart says the congresswoman recognizes that there are strong views on both sides and that she hopes a consensus will be found on how to improve the law.

“However, it’s important to bear in mind that the bill passed the House with bipartisan support during the last Congress because it’s a fairly straightforward idea,” Hart said. “Workers should get a right to vote whether or not to organize a union free from pressure or fear of retribution from their employer, and that vote should be transparent and fair.”

Would that be possible under the new version of the act facing a vote in the Senate? Johnson says it would.

“The Employee Free Choice Act would allow working men and women to decide whether they want to organize and maintains their right, as does current law, to do so through either a secret ballot or a card check process,” Johnson said. “Any form of intimidation or coercion by union organizers or coworkers is illegal under current laws and nothing in the Employee Free Choice Act changes that.”

Thune argues that the act could cost worker’s rights their to a private ballot, in favor of the so-called “card check.” Under card check, Thune says, all workers in a company must join the union after organizers collect cards signed by a majority, even if some of those workers did not know about the organizing drive and were never asked to sign a card.

“The right of workers to organize into unions has a long-standing, cherished place in the history of American labor,” added Thune. “This measure seeks to ensure that right continues to be built around free and fair elections, not undue pressure from union leaders.”

Thune supports alternative legislation that would guarantee workers the right to a secret ballot.

So, as is often the case about important legislation, there seems to be more than one version of the truth.