By Jerry Steinley

I’m still surprised that some South Dakota towns don’t allow liquor sales on Sunday. But no sales on Christmas day? What’s the point of that? Well a legislative panel has voted to take these antiquated ideas to task.

The panel voted 6-5 (five didn’t think it was a good idea? Sigh…. ) to bring these particular liquor restrictions before the full legislative body in January.

Here are some of the regretfully banal arguments shaping the discussion early on… From AP:

“Rep. Charles Turbiville, R-Deadwood, said he suggested the measure mostly to allow liquor sales on Memorial Day. Military veterans might want to buy a drink as they gather on that holiday to reminisce about their service, he said.

and …

House Republican Leader Bob Faehn of Watertown, a committee member, tried unsuccessfully to change the bill so it would continue to ban liquor sales on Christmas. The full Legislature will never pass the bill if it seeks to allow Christmas liquor sales, he said.

Some lawmakers asked whether it makes sense to ban liquor sales on Christmas but not holy days of non-Christian religions.

and …

Rep. Tim Rounds, R-Pierre, said he believes the state should continue to ban liquor sales on Christmas so employees of bars and other businesses would not be forced to work that day.”

That’s it, folks. Common sense has left the building.

By Kevin Woster

The Merillat deal, it’s got me puzzled.

For a while, it looks like the Rapid City plant will close. And the company strikes a deal with workers to stay on the job until the closure, in return for their regular pay and benefits and a separate severance package.

Bad news, with a little good.

Then the plant doesn’t close, but gets sold to a new owner. And it looks like a strong majority of workers will keep their jobs, while a minority won’t. Good news with a little bad - more than a little, for those workers who lose their jobs, of course.

But Merillat decides that since the plant didn’t close, the promise of severance pay is moot. And the workers sue - including many who are keeping their jobs under new owners.

Huh?

I understand those who lose their jobs seeking severance. Even though the plant didn’t close, the effect was the same on them.

But those who kept their jobs, why would they deserve severance?

Please, wise and wonderful people of the mount, help me understand.

By Randall Rasmussen

It was about one year ago that the wizards of Washington, D.C., panicked and announced to the world that the U.S. economy was on the verge of collapse and only an emergency expenditure of $700 billion would rescue the country from something worse than the Great Depression.

If you remember way back then, the original price tag of the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act was in the neighborhood of $550 billion to $600 billion, but in order to pass the emergency legislation that we were told was necessary for the good of the nation, more than $100 billion in earmarks, special interest goodies and pork projects was added to get a majority of lawmakers on board.

Republican Sen. John Thune of South Dakota voted for the bill that came to fund the Troubled Asset Relief Program, while South Dakota Democrats Sen. Tim Johnson and Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin voted against it.

(For the record, because it almost certainly will be brought up by the usual suspects on Mount Blogmore, I opposed the funding and the TARP program last year and was disappointed that Sen. Thune and President George W. Bush would support such a huge waste of money.)

Today, Sen. Thune and Sen. Johnson have switched sides.

Thune opposes the TARP program and has signed a letter to Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner asking him to let the program expire on Dec. 31, 2009, and return unspent funds to reduce the debt.

“Subsequent to the enactment of this legislation, however, TARP has been used by the federal government to acquire ownership stakes in banks, financial institutions, and automakers,” the letter said. “This direct investment certainly was not the intention of Congress in passing this legislation.”

Johnson now supports the TARP program that he first voted against. “I think it’s premature to get out of the TARP process at this time,” he said. “After all, it has saved us from a great depression.”

Rep. Herseth Sandlin, on the other hand, has been more consistent. She voted against the legislation last year and now wants to take TARP away from the Treasury Department and have a board of trustees adminster the program.

She says the core problems that caused the economic crisis haven’t been solved by the TARP program.

“Clearly, there is plenty of blame to go around,” she said. “But we have to ensure more transparency, more accountability and get rid of some of the perverse incentives that were going on on Wall Street that helped create some conditions for predatory lending or bad choices.”

I support Thune’s efforts to end the TARP program and return the money to taxpayers. But I can’t help but believe that Thune voted for TARP last year because President Bush and Republican presidential candidate Sen. John McCain also were for it, and that he opposes it now because a Democratic administration is running the program. Johnson is acting in the same degree of partisanship –- opposing TARP last year because Bush and McCain were for it and supporting it now that his own party is handing out the money.

I never believed the bailout money was needed to save the economy, which, by the way, has gotten worse, not better. It’s easy to say that the bailouts prevented a depression since there’s no way to prove or disprove that argument. The fact that politicians from both parties can be for or against something as costly as the TARP program depending on which party is handling the money automatically discredits it as an absolute necessity.

By Kevin Woster

I love the sight of a single windmill spinning in the  prairie breeze of some picturesque cow pasture.

I’m not sure how I’ll feel about a hundred, or a thousand, super-sized windmills doing their dramatic slow-motion dance on an otherwise picturesque South Dakota ridgeline - for miles, and miles.

It’s a much different picture, this new windmill game. And it’s not just size. Most of the older, smaller windmills are in the low ground, closer to the underground water supply - which is generally the pumping point of the windmill.

Commercial wind generators are up on the ridges, where they can be seen for miles, and miles, and miles.

Is that a good thing for the South Dakota view? And the South Dakota psyche?

Wind energy is a great green thing. I believe that.  And I think it makes sense to add it to our mix of energy sources.

It could mean a consistent source of income for landowners. Lots of jobs. More tax revenue. Better opportunity. Less reliance on fossil fuels.

It’s renewable. And it’s clean.

But its’ not perfect. No energy source is. I’ve lost track of the migrating bird issue. But I’d guess it’s still out there.

More prominent to me is what portions of the South Dakota landscape will look like if we add hundreds, even thousands of wind generators.

Does that worry anyone, as it worries me?

By Jerry Steinley

Energy on your mind? Tuesday we will be doing our first live chat on Mount Blogmore. South Dakota PUC commissioner Dusty Johnson will be our guest. Johnson will answer questions about …. well, about anything he’s asked that pertains to energy.

Johnson has a thorough knowledge of energy issues and we know his answers will be insightful, to say the least. And there’s plenty to talk about from the national energy bill to Big Stone II, right here in northeastern South Dakota.

Tune in here, live at noon on Tuesday. Kevin Woster and myself will start the questions but we hope Blogmore weighs in and takes advantage of Johnson and live chat and it can become a regular feature on the Mount.

Hope to hear from you Tuesday.

Here’s the link.

 

Ditto from me. I also hope that by Tuesday I’ll know what a live chat is, and how it works.  That’s noon mountain time, by the way, 1 p.m. central, so Dusty can grab a bite to eat before the energy chat begins. K.W.

By Kevin Woster

Save Our Secret Ballot South Dakota has done the reverse of the normal.

Instead of by passing the the Legislature and going directly to the people, they’re bypassing the people and going directly to the Legislature.

SOSB spokesman Matt Konenkamp said yesterday that the petition drive was going well. But they got a bit spooked when they saw how much administrative and legal tapdancing the ant-smoking-ban folks have had to do after their petitions were scrutinized, and challenged.

So SOSBSD - pause, to let my fingers rest on the keys - is going to have a joint resolution introduced to the 2010 Legislature, by Republican leaders in the House and Senate. The resolution would place on the general election ballot next year a measure to guarantee secret ballots in union organization elections.

Lots of questions with that one, including whether it would stand a legal test if the U.S. Congress passed the Employee Free Choice Act, giving unions an option of forming at a business by getting a majority of workers there to sign a card.

Fed law trump state law on this?

Senate Republican Leader Dave Knudson said he will co-sponsor the resolution and expects widespread legislative support.

I expect he’s right.

The next question is, would it it have widespread support from state Democratic legislators?

And the next: Would it pass a general election vote?

P.S. I might be slow in moderating comments. Sorry. But  Mary, the Miata and colorful Spearfish Canyon are waiting…

From a floor or two above, a nosy lobbyist captures a treat-impaired reporter as he bends the ethical rules with a dive into the carrot-cake, courtesy of the South Dakota Optometric Society.

By Kevin Woster

Yeah, I went for the carrot cake.

Uh, every year. For about 20 years. Or however long the optometrists have been coming to the South Dakota Capitol during the legislative session, and bringing the carrot cake with them.

Every year, I had a piece. Or maybe two.

I couldn’t help myself. It’s really good carrot cake. And I guarantee you that it has never affected my news coverage.

Never.

Not ever.

Not even once.

But you should get your eyes checked regularly, by a qualified optometrist.

I’m just saying…

By Kevin Woster

As I just said to my podmate, reporter Kayla Gahagan, I can be bought.

But not with big things. Just little stuff, in tiny little ways.

Take peanut-butter cookies. I love ‘em. Which is why I asked Ron Steslow, Dave Knudson’s campaign man, whether there might cookies - preferrably peanut butter - at Knudson’s news conference in Rapid City tomorrow afternoon.

Steslow hadn’t thought of it. But much to his credit, he was open to the idea.

I think that speaks well of Steslow, and of the Knudson campaign (Daugaard, Munsterman, Knuppe, Heidepriem, Volesky - are you paying attention?) and its developing relationship with reporters, especially those inclined toward small-but-tasty treats.

Issues are important in a campaign, of course.

But cookies ? Well, they’re SWEEEEET.

Kayla listened in on my phone exchange, as she often does. As a young reporter, she tries to pay attention and learn from the old guy with the gray hair and sometimes snarky attitude sitting next to her.

“OK, Kayla,” I said. “Did you catch that? I didn’t demand cookies. I suggested that a couple might make for a more complete news conference, and more engaged reporters, or at least one more engaged reporter.”

It was a teaching moment. I think Kayla caught it.

Of course, I explained, I wouldn’t go far beyond cookies. I wouldn’t take a bottle of scotch, for example. (I hate scotch). Nor would I accept a week in a Cabo San Lucas condo (My wife and I have one of those, on time share. I never go).

Or a steak dinner. Definitely not a steak dinner. No way.

Although, now that I think of it, Knuppe does have an entire herd ….

By Kevin Woster

It sounds like a gas to me -  George McGovern and Jim Abourezk  hitting the campaign trail together.

Just like the good old days (meaning the 1960s and 1970s). But this time it’s for somebody else.

The former South Dakota senators, neither of whom has ever run from his liberal political philosophy, are on the road again - for state Sen. Scott Heidepriem and his campaign for governor in 2010.

McGovern and Abourezk began their statewide tour on Sept. 10. They’ll be in Rapid City at 7:30 p.m.  Friday at the Labor Temple. And they’ll continue their pitch for Heidepriem.

I think it’s a great idea from a news standpoint. The old ring warriors - McGovern, a gentlemanly Floyd Patterson type and Abourezk more like the Raging Bull - working the stump, to inspire interest in the campaign and support for Heidepriem.

But as a tactical move, is it a double-edged sword for Heidepriem, a political moderate who hopes to emphasize that philosophy? State GOP ED Lucas Lentsch had this to say about that:

“This is the same liberal crowd who worked to elect Barack Obama on big 
promises of hope, change and openness, and we see how that’s working 
out.  South Dakotans are hoping we have some change left when these 
guys get done raising taxes, driving up energy costs and chasing jobs 
out of South Dakota.  Heidepriem, Abourezk, and McGovern are all birds 
of a liberal feather.”

Well, Lentsch overstates the point, as is his job. Heidepriem surely lives his political life somewhere to the right of Abourezk and McGovern. And I’d say it’s a bit early to decide how the Obama presidency is working out.

McGovern and Abourezk are both compelling personalities and effective speakers, in their own distinctly different styles. And they’re likely to inspire both people of their generation and younger voters with a sense of political history to get engaged.

But you have to wonder if two of the most well-known liberals in recent South Dakota history give Heidepriem the kind of boost he’s looking for?

Especially in the general election?

P.S. I missed this response from Heidepriem campaign manager Steve Jarding last night, in which he first responds to my question and bows to the former senators and then waves, uh, sort of, at Lentsch.

“George McGovern is 87 years old, Jim Abourezk is 78 years old. They each devoted much of their lives to making South Dakota and their nation a better place to live.  If they want to go around and tell stories and recount historical perspective to crowds in South Dakota, God love them for doing so.  And if they say they support Scott Heidepriem in the process we thank them for their support — not because Scott agrees with them on every issue, but because we respect their lifetime of service.  My question is this: Is is not possible for this kid to open his mouth without thinking it always wise or cute to trash somebody?  I didn’t agree with a lot of things that Larry Pressler or Jim Abdnor did, but if they wanted to come to Rapid City and talk about their years in service to South Dakota, I would not trash them, I would probably tell my kids they should go and listen to them because they might learn something.  I have seen Senator Abdnor at several Posst 22 games in Rapid and at a couple of games in Mitchell in the past year.  Each time I thoroughly enjoyed sitting down and talking with him, in one case for over an hour in Mitchell.  He is an elder statesman and he deserves far more than name calling and stereotyping for selfish political gain.  The young Republican mouthpiece should have the same respect for Senators McGovern and Abourezk.

By Randall Rasmussen

The Pentagon leaked a 66-page report on the Afghanistan war written by the U.S. commander Gen. Stanley McChrystal to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post over the weekend. You can read the Post story here, which includes a redacted version of McChrystal’s report to President Obama.

Gen. McChrystal calls for more troops or the mission in Afghanistan would fail. The White House reportedly has been sitting on the report for a month, which prompted the Pentagon to leak it to Woodward.

Speculation is that there is intense debate between the military and the White House over Afghanistan strategy. Supposedly, Obama and his advisers don’t want to send more troops to Afghanistan that the generals in the field believe are necessary to the mission’s success.

Unfortunately for Obama, there is no one higher than his own pay grade to make this decision. As commander in chief, he has to decide what the war strategy is and whether he should heed the advise from commanders in the field or his political advisers in the White House.

Maybe George Will is right: If you’re not in it to win it, get out.

On the other hand, former Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice told Fortune magazine that Afghanistan is critical to our national security:

“The last time we left Afghanistan, and we abandoned Pakistan, that territory became the very territory on which Al Qaeda trained and attacked us on September 11th. So our national security interests are very much tied up in not letting Afghanistan fail again and become a safe haven for terrorists.
“It’s that simple. If you want another terrorist attack in the U.S., abandon Afghanistan.”

What’s a young president to do?

By Kevin Woster

You could argue, I supposed, that they both have personal reasons for disagreeing with Jimmy Carter on the race issue.

Barack Obama wants to control the tone of the debate over health care. Bill Clinton is still stung by charges that he was inspiring racist opposition to Obama during last year’s presidential primary.

Or maybe they just both believe what they said, that Jimmy Carter was wrong in arguing that the emotional opposition to Obama and his reform initiatives is based on racism.

When asked by NBC’s David Gregory if he agreed with Carter on the race issue, Obama didn’t equivocate: “No.”

The president said he understands that some people still see issues through “the prism of race” but that most oppose him because: “It’s about people being worried about how government should operate.”

By and large, that seems true - even though some clearly can’t accept a black man as president and racism certainly shows up in some of the demonstrations and comments.

And Clinton? He disagreed with Carter as well, in comments to Doug Wiken’s favorite Web site, Newsmax (Control your breathing, Doug, I tease.).

But let’s get back to David Gregory and Meet the Press.  After his interview with Obama, Gregory talked to House Republican leader John Boehner - yes, he of the shining eyes - of Ohio and Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina and asked Boehner an interesting question: Is Obama a socialist?

He gets called that a lot these days, including by some here on Mount Blogmore. Boehner’s answer was simple: “No.”

And on follow up: “ I didn’t call him that,” Boehner said. “And I’m not going to call him that.”

That comes from a conservative Republican, who nonetheless believes that Obama wants to enlarge government in unhealthy ways through reform initiatives including health care and energy.

But socialist? Nope, not Obama.

Anybody disagree with Boehner?

And on an issue as American as mom and apple pie,  there was Obama’s assertion, when asked by Gregory to pick the World Series champions, that the White Sox are still in the pennant race - statistically speaking.

He said it with a grin, indicating that he’s neither socialist nor completely delusional.

Which are  pretty good things for a U.S. president not to be.

By Kevin Woster

Mount Blogmore sends its sympathy and best wishes to the family of former state Rep. Dean Anderson of Bryant, who died Thursday.

Gov. Mike Rounds has asked for a more official showing of respect tomorrow, urging that all flags by flown at half staff in honor of Anderson, a five-term Republican lawmaker in the 1980s. He also served as state agriculture secretary and state director of the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service - now the Farm Service Agency.

 A funeral service will be held on Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009, at 2 p.m. CDT in Our Redeemer Lutheran Church at Bryant. Burial will be at Woodlawn Cemetery.

“Dean Anderson was a well-respected legislator who served his district and the state very well in the South Dakota House,” Rounds said in a prepared statement. “We are indebted to him for that service and for the time he spent as state secretary of agriculture.”

 Anderson’s daughter, Debra, was elected to South Dakota House from Sioux Falls, and eventually served as speaker. Father and daughter were lucky enough to serve together for a number of years, and annual winter reunion in public service that they clearly enjoyed.

Dean was a soft-spoken lawmaker who tended his legislative duties with care and  was consistently courteous in his dealings with reporters.

He served us well. We’ll miss him.

By Jerry Steinley

World leaders are gathering in New York City this week for a U.N. climate summit. Their goal: develop ideas, and support, for a climate plan to replace the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that expires in three years. The summit is a precursor  to December climate talks in Copenhagen where leaders would like to craft a plan to control global emissions.
The U.S. has failed to be a leader in providing initiatives that would control emissions in response to climate change worries. Bush turned his back on the Kyoto Protocol claiming it would cost American jobs. Who knows? Maybe he was right? By contrast, Obama talks tough on controlling levels of greenhouse emissions and has been urging Congress to follow suit. He says it will create jobs. Who knows, maybe he’s right?
As with all things political, the truth lies somewhere in between.

It’s an issue that has been entangled in politics and, because of that, we may see little success in addressing it. That failure to address emissions and climate change might save jobs or it might cost jobs but if the worst-case predictions are near target, jobs could be the last thing we would be worried about.
One thing that can’t be argued is the need to sit down and address the world’s emissions and how they will impact our long-term health and sustainability.
Who could argue with that?

By Randall Rasmussen

President Barack Obama appeared on five Sunday morning talk shows this morning (Sunday, of course) to push health care reform out of the mud it appears to be stuck in. He was on every show except “Fox News Sunday,” which is, apparently, unworthy.

Obama is on television as often as a Bud Light commercial.

How did he do? I missed his multiple appearances because I was watching “Fox News Sunday.”

The Associated Press helpfully summarizes Obama’s answers to questions – tough, thoughtful, softball and otherwise:

Highlights of Obama’s 5 broadcast interviews

By The Associated Press

Highlights of President Barack Obama’s interviews broadcast Sunday on CBS’ “Face the Nation,” NBC’s “Meet the Press,” ABC’s “This Week,” CNN’s “State of the Union” and Univision’s “Al Punto.” The interviews were taped Friday at the White House:

Health care:

He said requiring people to get health insurance and fining them if they don’t would not amount to a backhanded tax increase. “I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said.

Economy:

He isn’t ready to close the book on the recession. Only last week Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke said the worst recession since the 1930s probably was over. Obama said while there are signs the economy is going to start growing again, he’ll leave it to Bernanke to say whether it’s officially over or not.

Afghanistan:

He has no deadline for withdrawing U.S. forces and pledged there will not be an indefinite American occupation. He said he won’t base any war decision on “the politics of the moment.”

Osama bin Laden:

He said a tightly focused war strategy in Afghanistan will help with the hunt for the elusive al-Qaida leader. He said he knew getting bin Laden would be hard.

Russia:

He dismissed criticism that Russian opposition influenced his decision to scrap a European missile defense system. He said it will be a bonus if Russia’s leaders end up “a little less paranoid” about the U.S.

North Korea:

He said the leader of reclusive North Korea is “pretty healthy and in control,” based on the assessment the president got from Bill Clinton after Clinton returned to the U.S. in August with two American journalists who had been detained by the North. Kim Jong Il, 67, is believed to have suffered a stroke last year.

Swine flu:

The first family will follow the rules like every one else in waiting in line for the vaccine. “When folks say it’s our turn, that’s when we’ll get it,” he said.

CIA interrogations:

He does not plan to ask the Justice Department to end its criminal investigation into the harsh interrogations of suspected terrorists during the Bush administration. Seven former CIA directors have asked him to do just that.

ACORN:

He said there deserves to be an investigation into the hidden-camera video involving two employees at the activist group ACORN and a couple posing as a prostitute and her pimp. He did not say who should investigate.

Cuba concert:

He said cultural diplomacy with Cuba can be helpful to a point and that the effect of performances such as the concert set for Sunday in Havana by Colombian singer Juanes should not be overstated. Obama said the event carried no U.S. stamp of approval.

Baseball playoffs:  

 He’s keeping close to the vest as long as his Chicago White Sox are still in the hunt. But he tipped his hand a bit with flattering mentions of the St. Louis Cardinals and the New York Yankees.

By Kevin Woster

It’s an interesting question when you think about it. Not a new or unique question, but interesting.

It comes up  in blog discussions from time to time, mostly as an aside. So how about a more specific discussion?

I call Barack Obama a black man. But he’s half white. Why don’t I call him a white man?

Is it because of his skin tone, which is actually brown not black, or because I’m aware of his ethnic heritage, which is mixed?

If he had three white grandparents and one black grandparent, biologically speaking, would he still be a black man? Or would he then be considered a white man?

With a black father and a white mother, isn’t he as much white as he is black? Is the assumption that anything less than white must be labeled as such?

Is this a society stigma speaking, or a practical reality?

I know people who call themselves Native Americans who are a quarter Native American. Even an eighth native American. Even less.

Are they Native Americans? Or white people?

And does it matter?

And am I being racist for bringing it up?

By Kevin Woster

One of the saddest things I heard during the Cash for Clunkers program came from a caller to one of those radio talk shows.

He suggested with a poignant voice of sincerity a Junkers for Clunkers program to go with the Cash for Clunkers government subsidy to take older-model gas hogs off the road.

Why? Beccause he would have loved to have a chance to trade for the clunkers that were being sent off to the compacter. Many would have been an upgrade from his junker vehicle, he said.

The radio host explained, in a not-so-understanding way, that such a program would defeat the goal of getting the gas-guzzlers off the road. But this guy just wanted a better car, yet one that he could actually afford.

It was a reminder of just how much poverty remains in this country, including the poverty of the working poor.

But while we’re on the subject of Cash For Clunkers, my main main rdennis sent this in.  What do you think?

CASH FOR CLUNKER RESULTS:
A vehicle at 15 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 800 gallons a year of gasoline.
A vehicle at 25 mpg and 12,000 miles per year uses 480 gallons a year.
So, the average clunker transaction will reduce US gasoline consumption by 320 gallons per year, per vehicle.
They claim 700,000 vehicles – so that’s 224 million gallons / year.
That equates to a bit over 5 million barrels of oil.
5 million barrels of oil is about ¼ of one day’s US consumption.
And, 5 million barrels of oil costs about $350 million dollars at $75/bbl.
So, we all contributed to spending $3 billion to save $350 million.
How good a deal was that?
But they’ll probably do a better job with health care.

By Kevin Woster

The answer to any vexing question usually lies somewhere in-between the land of the ideologues on both sides.

Maybe Max Baucus has found it in his Senate Finance Committee version of health-care reform.

Baucus, you might recall, is the U.S. senator from Montana who offered mostly-show support for Tom Daschle during the former South Dakota senator’s hour of need in confirmation proceedings for U.S. health secretary. Had Baucus in particular held strong in support of Daschle, his former friend and colleague, the Aberdeen native might well have hung in there and been confirmed by the Senate.

And all but the most strident of Daschle haters would admit that he’d have been a capable health secretary, particularly during this time when crafty, pragmatic leadership is needed on this issue.

History.

Now Baucus is the key player, while Daschle works from outside the government arena to influence reform. But the Baucus bill contains Daschle-like pragmatism, including a proposal for insurance cooperatives rather than a straight government insurance option to compete with private insurers.

There’s some legitimate question about whether the cooperatives could effectively compete with private insurance companies. And there remain looming concerns over the costs of the reform package over time, and its impact on private businesses.

But the fact that it begins in the reasonably reasonable neutral zone of ideas between hard-line advocates on either side is encouraging.

That’s where most meaningful things happen.

By Kevin Woster

And speaking of Ben Bernanke, here’s what Sen. Tim Johnson says about the Federal Reserve chairman recently nominated for another term  by President Obama:

“Chairman Bernanke made tough decisions and took unprecedented actions over the last year which helped bring our economy back from the brink. Those tough calls have helped put us on the road to recovery and future economic growth. Despite this progress, many challenges lay ahead.

“It is more important than ever that we have a Federal Reserve Board Chairman that puts politics aside and does what is appropriate to restore stability in our economy. As Fed Chair during both Republican and Democratic administrations, Chairman Bernanke has proven to be an extremely capable leader during extraordinary times. His background as an expert in causes of the Great Depression served him well as he worked to steer our nation out of the worst recession in generations.

As a member of the Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee, I appreciate the opportunity to meet with Chairman Bernanke and look forward to hearing more from him when his nomination comes before the committee later this year.

Chairman Bernanke was nominated by President George W. Bush to replace retiring Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan on October 24, 2005. President Obama nominated him for a second term on August 25, 2009.  

By Kevin Woster

Good news, finally, from Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, who said during a question-and-answer session at the Brookings Institute that he believes the 2-year recession is over.

Which doesn’t mean the worst is necessarily over, if you consider things like the nation’s elevated unemployment rate and depressed housing values - which could, respectively, go up and down a bit more before they turn around.

The current national unemployment rate of 9.7 percent (about twice the South Dakota rate) is headed for 10-plus percent, and may approach the post World War II high of 10.8 percent, which was in 1982.

Even so, the economy seems to  be growing again, and the 2.7-percent rise in retails sales in August is a good sign.

Unless, of course, you just lost your job, or your house. And not everybody agrees with Bernanke’s assessment, either. Some business and economic experts fear the economy is still shrinking and may not rebound until sometime in 2010.

Who’s right? Don’t look at me. I skipped Econ 101 at SDSU in favor of fish management in farm and ranch ponds.

But what do you think? About the recession and Bernanke’s assessment, I mean, not my course selections in college.

By Kevin Woster

When Joe Wilson shouted “You lie!” at President Barack Obama, I did a slight double take in my seat in front of the living room TV.

Inappropriate, I figured, and surprising. But probably a literal slip of the tongue by a man caught up in the moment, and not so very different from the unwarm welcome GWB received from Democrats during  some visits to Congress.

The Republican from South Carolina’s Second Congressional District has since apologized to Obama, and to Vice President Joe Biden. But he’s not inclined to apologize publicly on the House floor.

That seems reasonable enough, since Obama himself has said he accepted Wilson’s apology and is ready to move on.

Not everyone is. NYT columnist Maureen Dowd - who’s about as far left as it gets in the column writing world - projects a more insidious picture in her latest well-crafted column.

It’s about race, Dowd says, more even than policy differences. She argues that a whole bunch of people - Wilson, other GOP congressional members from the South and by association, we can presume, many of those marching in the states with unflattering signs and statements about the president - are simply not willing to accept a black man in the White House.

I’ve tended to disagree with those who argue that race is a huge factor in the opposition to Obama and his policies. I think it’s easy and mostly  unfair to write off legitimate opposition as racially inspired.

Obama would attract inspired opposition from conservatives, regardless of his race. Obama himself seems to believe that, according to his press secretary Robert Gibbs, who rejects the race-based notion Dowd is trying to promote.

Still, given some of the wild protest signs and wild protest statements around the nation - some of which have clear racial overtones - it’s also pretty clear that dislike, even hatred, for the president goes beyond policy differences for some.