By Randall Rasmussen

Is the Environmental Protection Agency suppressing scientific dissent from its global warming conclusions?

Sen. John Thune wants to know and on Tuesday he wrote a letter to the EPA’s acting inspector general to request an investigation of efforts to silence dissenting views at the agency.

At issue are internal agency e-mails which “indicate an apparent attempt to suppress information that would have contradicted EPA’s preconceived conclusion that certain greenhouse gasses contribute to climate change, and therefore, are harmful to human health.”

Thune asks the following questions:

“Did Administrator Jackson or Ms. Browner, Assistant to the President for Energy and Climate Change, or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration have knowledge of dissenting scientific information within the EPA on the matter of the carbon dioxide endangerment finding? If so, when did they have knowledge of this information and to what extent did they suppress this information?

“Did Administrator Jackson, Ms. Browner, or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration knowingly exclude or authorize other EPA personnel to knowingly exclude dissenting scientific information with regard to the endangerment finding?

“In light of Mr. Carlin’s emails, could EPA’s proposed endangerment finding or actions in refusing to properly weigh Mr. Carlin’s research mean that EPA’s endangerment finding could be considered arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with the Administrative Procedures Act?

“In addition to Mr. Carlin’s research, what other studies, reports, testimony, or information in whatever form did the EPA consider that did not support its endangerment finding?

“What other correspondence or electronic communication in whatever form was generated by the EPA or other high-level environmental policy officials within the administration relating to the EPA’s decision about what studies, reports, testimony, or information in whatever form should be or were considered by the EPA when making its endangerment finding?

“Did the relevant group assigned to work on the endangerment finding within EPA accept new information or modifications to previously submitted information on or after March 16, 2009?”

You can read Thune’s letter here.

It is often repeated that there is a “consensus” among scientists that man-caused global warming is a fact. It’s easier to reach a “consensus” when differing views are censored.

Before the Senate considers the climate change legislation that passed the House last week, it’s important that the EPA comes clean on just how solid the science is on global warming. Congress shouldn’t pass the largest tax increase in U.S. history if the science doesn’t support the EPA’s justifications.

By Kevin Woster

The drug companies are taking the congressional money game to a new level in the face of health-care reform.

And they’re spreading the wealth around in a more bipartisan way, now that Democrats are in control of just about everything.

Writing in Congressional Quarterly online, Bennett Roth takes an intriguing look at the way drug makers are weaving influence throughout Congress, upping their donations, using former congressional aides and members to build positions of power and shifting more contributions toward Democrats.

The story examines the somewhat-unstable stage for President Obama’s multiple-act play on health-care reform, as well as his campaign pledge to keep big money and powerful lobbyists from controlling D.C., an entrenched reality that he railed against effectively during the campaign.

From the perspective of just one part of the mammoth lobbying puzzle - albeit a pretty big one - Roth’s piece shows just how challenging keeping that campaign pledge will be.

As if there was ever any doubt.

By Kevin Woster

The 5-4 ruling today by the U.S. Supreme Court in favor of New Haven, Conn., firefighter Frank Ricci and other firemen in a discrimination suit agains the city makes things even more interesting for Judge Sonia Sotomayor in her confirmation process in the U. S. Senate.

The Obama nominee to the Supreme Court was part of the three-judge U.S. appeals court panel in the 2nd District that  unanimously ruled in favor of the city of New Haven and against Ricci and others - 19 whites and one Hispanic, I believe - who who alleged discrimination against them and in favor of blacks in a testing policy for advancment in the department.

The Supreme Court overruled that decision on a 5-4 vote, with Anthony Kennedy as the key swingman, as he sometimes is.

It’s a loss for Sotomayor, of course. But it’s a loss based on a 5-4 decision, so it’s hardly a blowout.

I doubt it’ll affect the outcome of the Sotomayor confirmation. But it certainly does’t help.

What it will do to race-based hiring procedures is another question.

By Randall Rasmussen

The Clean Energy and Security Act just barely passed the U.S. House of Representatives Friday on a 219-212 vote.

Also known as the “cap and trade” energy regulation bill, the law would create “green energy” jobs and limit America’s dependence on foreign oil, according to supporters, and would be the largest tax increase in U.S. history, according to opponents.

Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., was among 44 Democrats who voted against the bill.

Normally, when a major piece of legislation is voted on, Herseth Sandlin’s press office is quick to put out a statement. As far as I know, Herseth Sandlin did not issue a release. (Hey, KW buttin’ in here. Herseth Sandlin’s office did send out a news release on her vote Friday night, and it didn’t get much press play. But here it is.)

Will Herseth Sandlin’s no vote help or hurt her in South Dakota?

I think she knows that any significant tax on energy production and use will hurt South Dakotans more than residents in other states. A yes vote would have been difficult to explain to her constituents.

We know that Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., will oppose the bill when it reaches the Senate. How will Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., vote?

By Jerry Steinley

Good news for South Dakota — Sen. John Thune has been elected to lead the Senate Republican Policy Committee.  It’s the number four position in the party meaning South Dakota’s needs will get more attention in Washington.

Of course, that’s bad news if you don’t agree with Thune’s political philosophy. But Thune has had the state’s interests at heart and more attention to topics such as health care, Ellsworth and alternative energy development won’t be a bad thing for South Dakota.

Thune made a name for himself when he toppled then Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle in 2004 and he’s quickly filling the void left by Daschle’s absence. Now, the AP reports that the rising star Thune is considered by some to be a 2012 presidential possibility.

A president from South Dakota? Doubtful. But we should enjoy the spotlight as long as we’re in it.

By Jerry Steinley

It’s Tea Party time again. Citizens for Liberty in Rapid City is planning a Fourth of July event to “call for limited government and constitutional accountability” from the nation’s lawmakers, the Journal reports.

I missed the first Tea Party in Apri and, frankly, don’t know if I’ll be investing several hours on July 4 to catch up with the group. But who knows? Maybe it’s an event the general public needs to get behind? Maybe meeting in the park, waving banners and hearing speeches on socialized medicine and cap-and-trade can make a difference.

If it’s a show of solidarity they’re after, they’ll get it. Tea parties are lined up around the country and the media tends to eat up these kinds of events which further legitimizes them.

These events are fairly new to our political landscape and they’re driven by well organized political groups, simple messages and mass communication.

But do they make a difference? Will these Tea parties influence lawmakers and public discourse or simply become parodies of themselves?

By Randall Rasmussen

For years, opponents of the Iraq war called for an exit strategy.

After watching Washington acquire more power and take over more and more of the private sector economy – from last summer’s bank bailouts to TARP to auto company ownership – many people are wondering if the Obama administration has an exit strategy for its seizure fever.

Last week, Sen. John Thune introduced a bill that would require the federal government to end its ownership of private entities seized under TARP by July 1, 2010, and prevent the government from using TARP funds to take control of more private companies. The bill is called the Government Ownership Exit Plan Act.

In a release announcing the legislation, Thune said: “Having the federal government call the shots for private industry is bad for business, bad for the economy, and bad for taxpayers. Government needs to get out of the business of owning American companies, and this legislation establishes a reasonable end date for government ownership and provides a clear exit strategy for taxpayers.”

Kevin Woster posted a piece on Thune’s announcement last week. But it is getting more notice in the national media.

The senator has been interviewed on cable news programs.

You can read his op-ed in his idea here. The Weekly Standard published an article here.

By Randall Rasmussen

Sen. William Proxmire of Wisconsin used to give out his Golden Fleece Award to taxpayer-funded projects that he felt were a waste of money. He served from 1957 to 1988 and was a Democrat. His opposition to wasteful government spending would clearly put him out of step with the current crop of Democrats in Congress.

Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla., may be a modern day William Proxmire. He recently released his stimulus oversight report, “100 Stimulus Projects: A Second Opinion.” You can read it here.

In his report, Coburn highlights 100 stimulus projects that are the “worst examples of waste in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.” The projects cost $5.5 billion, which must be pointed out, the government had to borrow along with the rest of the $787 billion pork bill.

One of the projects is for the Gavins Point National Fish Hatcher near Yankton.

“South Dakota fish hatchery to spend half of a $20,000 grant on a freezer for fish sperm.
Gavins Point National Fish Hatchery already has three cryo freezers for storing sperm from pallid
sturgeon, but stimulus money has given it the to purchase another one. “The insulation on the
side that holds the liquid nitrogen is breaking up,” explained Jeff Powell, a project manager with
the hatchery. The new refrigerator will be used “to hold sperm samples, hormones and ice
packs.” The hatchery plans to use the other $10,000 portion of its grant to replace lighting,
which is expected to save the hatchery $713 per year – meaning it will take only 14 years for the
savings to outstrip the cost of the grant.”

The grant for energy efficient lighting actually would only break even if the light bulbs last 14 years. When was the last light bulb you bought that lasted 14 years?

Coburn has done the taxpayers a service by calling attention to the fraud that was the stimulus bill. William Proxmire would be proud.

Sen. Tim Johnson ponders the presentation by Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner earlier today during a Senate Banking Committee hearing.

By Kevin Woster

TJ and TG, together again.

Sort of.

Today’s gathering of the Senate Banking Committee won’t be the last time TJ looks across at TG. As a member of the committee - and a subcommittee chairman - Tim Johnson will have plenty of opportunity to listen to and question Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner.

The business today focused on the Obama plan to re-regulate the financial industry, which promises to be a Herculean chore involving more mathematics than most political reporters - or one for sure - would care to consider.

Most people, I’d guess, now believe more regulation was needed in the months and years leading up to the self-serving, greed-driven financial meltdown (Whoa, Nellie, easy on the slanted indignation…) suffered in 2008. How much, where and when we should add regulations are vexing issues, however.

So, let the devil’s-in-the-details dance begin.

And would somebody (Geithner, Johnson, Treat Williams, William Shatner, Michael Douglas, somebody?) please tell me when my 401-(k) is likely to rebound?

It is likely to rebound, isn’t it?

Hello? Hello?

By Randall Rasmussen

Mount Blogmore should get its shot at discussing health care reform.

Sen. Edward Kennedy’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee began markup of the health care reform proposal put forth by the Obama administration.

The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office dealt the measure a significant blow Tuesday when it released its findings that it would cost about $1 trillion over 10 years but still leave 37 million people without insurance.

The analysis was hampered, however, by the absence of specifics on whether it would include a public option and require employers to provide health care.

According to the Associated Press, Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., last year’s GOP presidential nominee, questioned how the committee could move ahead on legislation without hard figures on cost.

“How can we possibly, reasonably address this bill … without accounting how to pay for it?” McCain asked at the start of Wednesday’s committee’s session.

How to pay for health care reform could be the elephant in the room during hearings to craft legislation.

My view is that health care, like Wednesday’s financial overhaul proposal and government taking over GM, is part of the Obama administration’s efforts to change America’s market-based economy to one where government has its fingers in every pie.

The American people may just draw the line at government bureaucrats making health care decisions for them.

Here you go. Have at it. What do you think of health care reform?

By Jerry Steinley

Letterman and Palin are getting plenty of attention for their tough talk about a bad joke (should we really care?) when the real tough talk — with global implications – we should be worried about didn’t get nearly the same level of attention.

Earlier this week President Obama said a nuclear-armed North Korea is a “grave threat” to the world and pledged U.S. support for sanctions and, you got it, South Korea.

Uh oh.

Former President Bush put North Korea in the “axis of evil” in his 2002 State of the Union speech. Maybe he was right?

Meantime, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said Tuesday his country’s U.S. alliance “will prevent anything from happening” and “They (North Korea) will think twice about taking any measures that they will regret.”

That’s the tough talk we should be worried about.

Jerry: There’s a generally accepted rule among Blogmore moderators that we don’t refute each other’s thread selections  WITHOUT  providing Wall Drug donuts to soften the blow. I take my afternoon break at 2:30. If you leave soon for Wall, you can easily be back by then (two maple-tops, please). K.W.

By Kevin Woster

It seemed sincere.

I missed the first part of David Letterman’s apology to the Palin family last night because Jay Trobec was going long in his update on the tornado warning over on the prairies west of Pierre.

As the storm in Stanley County whirled, the The Late Show gale seemed to fade.

Unlike his smarty-pants non-apology a few days earlier, Letterman just said he was sorry about the Palin jokes, and in particular apologized to the Palin daughters, Bristol and Willow.

What he intended in the jokes, Letterman said, wasn’t how they were taken. And that was his fault, he said.

What’s up with that?

A simple change of heart? The feelings of a father coming out in an edgy comedian? A sponsor threatening to drop a money bomb on the show? A call from a network boss?

Whatever, it was a moment you rarely seen from Letterman, and one I really didn’t expect.

By Randall Rasmussen

Vice President Joe Biden appeared on NBC’s “Meet The Press” Sunday and he was asked by host David Gregory why job losses have continued even after the passage of economic stimulus legislation that was supposed to keep a lid on unemployment.

The administration said at the time that the stimulus would hold unemployment in check at 8 percent. The jobless rate is now 9.4 percent with no sign of stopping there.

Biden answered: “Everyone guessed wrong at the time the estimate was made about what the state of the economy was at the moment this was passed.”

Not everyone guessed wrong, Mr. Vice President. The $787 billion economic stimulus bill passed without a single Republican vote.

Biden is wrong about a lot of things, but what is troublesome is the vice president’s admission that the Obama administration is guessing about what will cure the economy.

Hopefully, one of their proposed fixes will hit the mark.

By Kevin Woster

Bit by bit, the larger picture of Judge Sotomayor emerges.

Jeffrey Rosen of The New Republic adds a compelling piece in his “Sotto Voce: The Sonia Sotomayor you don’t know.”

In it, Rosen - the publication’s legal affairs editor - reviews Sotomayor’s record in 10 years on the federal appeals court, beginning by pondering Adam Liptak’s comments in the NYT that Sotomayor has “no large vision” and writes opinions with “a void of quotable language.”

Rosen finds some truth in that, but discovers much more intellectual life and lively language in Sotomayor’s dissenting opinions, where most judges tend to let the soul loose.  There she shows “flashes of civil libertarian passion,” sometimes “stakes out unequivocal liberal positions” and reveals herself to be “a judge who can be both crusading and open minded.”

What she doesn’t show is a wild liberal style, but rather indicates a more moderate form of liberalism than the man she would replace, Justice David Souter.

Her somewhat-predictable dissent - scathing at times - on a case where police used a food-delivery woman to make entry into a drug-dealer’s home and her support for a police officer fired for making racist comments made for an interesting counterbalance.

It’s a good read, just one more piece of the Sotomayor puzzle.

By Kevin Woster

OK, I’ll admit: I laughed at the jokes.

But I laugh at a lot of jokes that are in poor taste. When I first saw David Letterman replay on the joke about keeping Eliot Spitzer away from Sarah Palin’s daughter, I figured the joke was mainly on Spitzer. I didn’t think much about Palin’s daughter, until later - after the giggles subsided.

And the Alex Rodriguez joke? That was edgier, probably farther over the line, in part because of the language Letterman used. It was still primarily aimed at Rodriguez, who has done plenty to earn jokes like that. But it hit home at the Palin place, too, because of the unplanned pregnancy of Sarah Palin’s now-18-year-old daughter, Bristol.

It also hit home because , well, in reality, the victim in the joke ended up being Palin’s 14-year-old daughter, Willow, who was the one actually acompanying her mom and dad to the Yankees game.

That complicated Letterman’s non-apology apology, in which he admitted that the jokes were in poor taste - as many jokes are - but that they were aimed at the 18-year-old, not the 14-year-old.

Except, of course, that it was the 14-year-old who was at the Yankees game, and almost certainly the 14-year-old who feels as victimized as her sister in all this.

The Palins were understandably upset, but their response was a wild, politically driven overreaction - taking a shot at the entertainment industry overall and charging the 62-year-old talk-show host with “perverted ” humor that could lead to more sexual abuse of underage girls.

That’s kinda silly. Just about as silly as Letterman’s non-apology apology.

I think they should get together on The Late Show  and talk it out.

I’d stay awake for that.

By Kevin Woster

“Hey, wanna go crazy?”

That was the question a newsroom staffer posed with an e-mail attachment to a site purporting to offer a real-time tally of the nation’s growing debt, and where the money is spent.

Many of your Blogmorites probably have seen it. I hadn’t. I’m not sure if it’s entire accurate, but it’s interesting.

Those numbers sure move fast, don’t they?

I wonder what they all mean?

By Jerry Steinley

I thought “exit strategy” was a dirty word in Washington but it has been re-introduced by our very own South Dakota Sen. John Thune.

Thursday, Thune introduced a bill that would set a July 2010 deadline for the government to sell its stake in private industry.

“We think the federal government needs an exit strategy, needs a plan,” Thune said.

Heck, I’ve thought that for years.

The Thune bill doesn’t stand a chance of passing. What it will do is re-invigorate a much-needed conversation about the government’s role in private industry. And it’s a timely conversastion we need to have as Washington begins debating health care reform and giving the FDA regulatory control of tobacco products.

Is the government out of control? Overly intrusive in our private lives and more than willing to compete with private business? Or, as Thune apparently wants to see, can they pull out by July 2010?

I expect more government intervention, not less.

By Kevin Woster

R. Creigh Deeds.  M. Michael Rounds.

Whats the connection, besides that first initial thing?

Improbable wins.

Deeds just took the Democratic governor’s primary in Virginia, surprising Brian Moran and former Democratic National Committee chairman Terry McAuliffe, a pair who had been the hands-down front-runners (remember those spots, Mark Barnett and Steve Kirby?).

Once way behind in the polls and almost considered an afterthought (remember that spot, Mike Rounds?), Deeds stunned the smart-aleck prognostictors by taking 50 percent of the vote to 26 percent for McAuliffe and 24 percent for Moran.

The Washington Post account of the campaign offers an intriguing insight into something far away with a familiar ring back home.

You wonder if there could be any such surprise in South Dakota’s next statewide election cycle.

Scott Munsterman, Ken Knuppe, what do you say?

By Kevin Woster

When the regents speak, Bob Mercer listens.

Often, he’s about the only one who does - from the news team, that is.

Mercer - the one-man capital reporting service who ranges far beyond the city of Pierre to cover the news - quite frequently mans a lonely media outpost at state Board of Regents meetings.

And he quite often catches important news and views that most of us other snarling, sniffing, woofing and wailing newshounds tend to miss.

Why? Well, ’cause those regents meetings can be boring enough to make a statue of General Beadle weep. I know. I’ve quietly - and , on occasion, not so quietly - shed some tears myself covering the regents, during those brief periods when I regained consciousness long enough for my tear ducts to function.

Harvey, Tad, Jim, Jack - now take it easy. I’m just joshin.

But it’s true that South Dakota news outlets don’t cover the regents like we used to, due largely to smaller staffs, greater demands and, perhaps, sometimes questionable news judgment. (And, of course, the increasing narcolepsy of some aging reporters…)

Bright-eyed and still-bushy-haired, Mercer rarely misses a regents meeting, however, and he typically remains conscious and alert for the entire agenda. He also often provides insights that would otherwise get lost in minutes of the gatherings.

Take the recent meetings last week down in Vermillion between the regents and Lt. Gov. Dennis Daugaard and state Sen. Dave Knudson, both Republican candidates for governor in 2010.

In a  supper meeting with Knudson and a lunch meeting with Daugaard, the regents listend as the candidates gave their views on higher-education funding, technical school management and the near-term financial standing of education in South Dakota.

Knudson’s plan to create a new oversight entity for the state’s technical schools was one interesting item discussed. The apparent disconnect between legislators and the regents in recent years was another.

It’s pretty interesting stuff. No, really, it is. I read Mercer’s entire story and didn’t cry or fall asleep once.

By Randall Rasmussen

President Obama on Tuesday endorsed the “pay-as-you-go” budget formula that Congress has paid lip service to since it was adopted in the 1990s.

Obama wants Congress to pass a law to require lawmakers to pay for new spending and tax cuts without adding to the deficit.

“The ‘pay-as-you-go’ rule is very simple,” Obama said. “Congress can only spend a dollar if it saves a dollar elsewhere.”

You read that right. Obama, whose budget in this fiscal year is projected to be more than $1.8 trillion, or more than four times the previous record set just last year, is telling lawmakers to watch their spending.

During the same lecture about fiscal responsibility, the president said it would be allowable to borrow money to jump-start health care reform. Current health care proposals would cost about $1 trillion.

What?

According to Obama, balancing the budget is important. Unless it’s for health care, or stimulus, or bailouts, or TARP — in which case, that doesn’t count.

Only Obama could say he’s for fiscal responsibility and discipline, all the while he’s exploding the national debt.

Our Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin was still mooning over the Obama endorsement of “pay as you go” when she said in a release Tuesday: “For years, the Blue Dog Coalition has worked tirelessly to require the federal government to spend within its means. Passing statutory PAYGO into law is a significant step forward in meeting that goal. Blue Dogs are proud to stand together with partners in this effort to return to the strong tools of fiscal responsibility that brought us budget balance — and surplus — in the 1990’s.”

They’ve let the horses out of the barn and are telling us that they are so dedicated to their responsibilities that they are going to guard the door and make sure nothing gets out of the now empty barn.