Random Thoughts On A Cold Morning

Having it Both Ways

I’m trying so darn hard not to be a partisan on this blog, but geez, there are some things that just tick me off. One of them is what was said by Governor Hoeven in the paper this morning, commenting on the President’s speech Wednesday night. Our Governor was critical of a 21 per cent budget increase in some federal programs. Well, people who live in glass houses . . . I don’t have the numbers in front of me, but I seem to recall at least two recent North Dakota Legislative sessions where Governor Hoeven’s budget proposal was at least 25 per cent higher than the previous biennium. You won’t find me among the critics of those budgets, because much of the increase was for much needed new funds for education. You will find me among the critics of hypocrisy and pandering now that the Governor is a candidate for higher (?) office and needs to swing way to the right to keep his party’s activist base happy. But then, I think Curly and his friends have good memories too.

Cousins, But We Ain’t Kissin’

Okay, so now we learn (it’s true, you can look it up on the Internet) that President Barack Obama and newly elected Senator Scott Brown of Massachusetts are related. Yep, they are actually 10^th cousins. They are both descended from one Richard Singletary, who died in 1687 at age 102. Uffda. Let me tell you, though, that stretching out distant cousin relationships doesn’t reveal much about family similarities. I’ll give you an example of how far apart relationships like that can go. I have a second cousin named Margaret. Her grandmother and my grandmother were half-sisters. My great grandfather was widowed at a young age and remarried. He had daughters with each of his wives. They were the grandmothers of Margaret and I. Margaret and I don’t have much in common though, other than a mutual interest in politics. We hardly know each other, even though we both live here in Bismarck. Margaret ran for political office once, and I didn’t vote for her. She will be running for the North Dakota Senate again this year, against one of my best friends, Tracy Potter. No offense, Cousin Margaret (Mrs. Sitte), but blood is not thicker than politics. Tracy will get my vote again. (I think Margaret and I once had an agreement not to tell anyone we were related, but one of us broke it long ago. Now the whole world knows. Uffda again.)

Friends, Not Cousins

Speaking of voting, I’m ticked off at a couple of my friends too. Three of them, actually. And all three are running for Congress in North Dakota. There’s been a lot of criticism coming from the right directed at my friend Earl Pomeroy the past couple of weeks. My friend Kevin Cramer (God, I hope he’s still my friend a year from today) and my friend Rick Berg (Rick’s from Hettinger, and I’m from Hettinger, and Hettinger has never had a Congressman, and he’s going to cause me a lot of heartburn on Election Day if he is the Republican candidate) have both accused Earl of walking in lockstep with Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats in Congress. Y’know, guys, this goes both ways. EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN in the U.S. Senate voted in lockstep with Mitch McConnell on the major pieces of legislation last year. And EVERY SINGLE REPUBLICAN in the House of Representatives voted in lockstep with . . . aw, darn it, I can’t even think of the House Minority Leader’s name (that’s how insignificant a player he is), and I’m not going to waste time looking it up. Now, if Rick or Kevin gets to Washington, that’s exactly what they are going to have to do. So just don’t pay any attention to that kind of criticism this year. As for Earl, I hope he quits talking like a weenie on health care. He voted for the House bill. He should vote for the Senate bill (see Monday’s blog post). And then fix it.

Totally Unrelated

And speaking of friends and cousins, today’s paper also says state wildlife officials say there are more coyotes in western North Dakota, and with the increase has come a jump in the number of coyotes with mange. Nah, I’m not going there.

What I Meant To Say

Paul Begala wrote this. I wish I had. It's what I really feel about politics, the U.S. Congress, the Democrats, and the health care issue. He just nailed it. Especially in the 5th paragraph. I read it on Huffington Post today and want to share it with you. I don't think Paul will mind.

In an op-ed several months ago, I advised my fellow progressive Democrats to support health care reform even if it fails to include some of their cherished goals.

Now I'm begging.

I understand and share the frustrations of progressives. They compromised before the debate even began, giving up on Medicare for all and settling for its weak cousin, a public option. The progressive wing of the Democratic Party has been everything that the reactionary wing of the Republican Party has not: open-minded, pragmatic and respectful of the views of others. The Republicans' obstinacy has been rewarded by the voters, who sent Scott Brown to the Senate as the candidate of change who promised to defend the status quo on health care. So why do I urge further flexibility? Because failure is not an option and surrender is not a strategy.

I am convinced that Democrats lost the Congress in 1994 because we failed to pass health care. And yet today many Democrats are worried that they will lose the Congress if they pass health care. They are wrong. Here's why:

You're going to get the attack anyway, you may as well get the accomplishment. I don't mean to be rude, but if health care is the kiss of death, you've already been kissed. Now, I don't think it is -- not in the slightest. If passing health care would ensure Republican takeover of Congress, wouldn't those Rovian Republicans cut loose one or two senators to help it pass?

The Senate bill is progressive. No, it's not as progressive as the House bill -- but that's the wrong question. The right question is whether the Senate health care bill is better than the status quo. And that ain't even close.

The Senate bill prohibits insurance companies from denying coverage for pre-existing conditions, stops insurers from dropping health insurance coverage when someone gets sick, eliminates gender discrimination, requires coverage of preventive care, and levels the playing field for the little guy and gal through new health insurance exchanges. It includes the largest expansion of Medicaid since it was created under LBJ, fully funds the Children's Health Insurance Program through 2016, protects seniors who have fallen through the so-called "Donut Hole", and finally -- finally -- covers 31 million Americans who today lack health insurance.

After passing the Senate bill Democrats should use the budget reconciliation process -- in which the majority still rules -- to make improvements like a fairer system of taxing (assessing the rich instead of the middle class), and a better system of subsidies. I am convinced those improvements will never be made without first passing the basic architecture -- and the Senate bill is the only viable blueprint.

The winners get to write the history. Winston Churchill said, "History will be kind to me because I intend to write it." The truth is the winners in Massachusetts are miswriting the history. Health care is a uniquely complicated issue in Massachusetts because the state already has near-universal coverage (which Scott Brown voted for). Thus, many voters who would otherwise support a candidate in favor of health care reform worried that a new national program might cost them more for health security they already had in Massachusetts. As Brown said in a debate, "We have insurance here in Massachusetts. I'm not going to be subsidizing what other states have failed to do." That's a far cry from outright rejection of health reform. In fact, if there's a lesson to be learned from Massachusetts, it is that once enacted, comprehensive reform quickly becomes broadly popular and politically impregnable. A poll co-sponsored by the Washington Post, the Kaiser Family Foundation and Harvard University showed that 68 percent of Massachusetts voters support their state's health care reform -- including a majority of those who voted for Scott Brown.

This is our last, best shot. Up to 40,000 Americans die each year because they lack health insurance. 40,000: a 9/11-size death toll every thirteen days. After our failure in 1994 it took 16 years before another president and Congress were bold enough to take on the challenge. If we fail now it won't be just 16 years -- or even 36. If we fail now, I doubt anyone old enough to read this column will live long enough to see universal health insurance.

If Democrats fail to deliver on a basic campaign promise, it will only heighten voters' anger and deepen their cynicism. But health reform that actually protects consumers and controls costs will soon join Medicare -- and the Massachusetts reform -- as unassailable accomplishments.

Amen, Paul Begala. I think that is what I was trying to say last week. He's just so much better at it. House, pass the Senate bill. Then, Senate and House, use your majorities to make changes to make it better. My friend Tim says this is the moral issue of our generation. He's right.

Just do it.

Sound Familiar?

I’m not quite sure I understand why a party with an 18-vote majority in the United States Senate feels it is handcuffed when it comes to passing major legislation. I know, I know, the Republicans can filibuster. That’s what the 60 vote deal is about. Cutting off debate so a vote can be taken. But when is the last time anybody actually filibustered (is that even a word?)?

The United States Senate’s Reference page on the World Wide Web defines filibuster as an “informal term for any attempt to block or delay Senate action on a bill or other matter by debating it at length, by offering numerous procedural motions, or by any other delaying or obstructive actions.”

The Senate rules permit a senator, or a series of senators, to speak for as long as they wish and on any topic they choose. When was the last time they did that? When did Strom Thurmond die?

I’ve got a four year old issue of Rolling Stone magazine laying around with an article by Tim Dickinson about President Bush’s “Deficit Reduction Act of 2005” (remember, this was in the days when Republicans controlled the Congress and the White House). Here’s part of what Dickinson wrote:

The net result of the Deficit Reduction Act will be a $50 billion increase in the deficit. In the bizarro world of President Bush's doublespeak bills, the new spending measure takes its place alongside the Clear Skies Act, which sought to increase air pollution, and the Healthy Forests Initiative, which opened America's woodlands to more clear-cutting. "If this is deficit reduction," says Bob McIntyre, director of the nonpartisan advocacy group Citizens for Tax Justice, "then up is down, down is up and George Orwell is president."

It wasn't easy for Republicans to get the measure through Congress. The final bill was hammered out in a closed-door, GOP-only session. Then -- when the spending plan was finally released to Democrats and the media after midnight on Sunday, December 18th -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert invoked "martial law" in the chamber, forcing representatives to pull an all-nighter and vote on the 774-page act after only forty minutes of debate. "Here you have one of the most consequential pieces of domestic legislation in years, with profound effects on millions of low-income Americans, and members of Congress were required to vote on it without even having a chance to read it," says Robert Greenstein, executive director of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

In the Senate, the measure seemed headed for defeat when a handful of moderate Republicans refused to support the cuts, which GOP Sen. Susan Collins of Maine blasted as "draconian." Majority Leader Bill Frist was forced to give Sen. Norm Coleman of Minnesota a $30 million subsidy for his state's sugar-beet industry, essentially bribing him to back the bill. "They have no shame," Minority Leader Harry Reid tells Rolling Stone. "These cuts are simply un-American."

Sen. Kent Conrad, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Budget Committee, decried the dearth of public scrutiny for a bill "written behind closed doors, filed in the dead of night and voted on at the crack of dawn." But Rep. Dave Obey, ranking Democrat of the House Appropriations Committee, isn't angry with his Republican colleagues for operating in the dark. "I don't blame them," he says. "If I put together a bill like this, I'd do it with the lights out too."

Geez, does any of that sound familiar?

So what happened next?

Vice President Dick Cheney was on a rare mission abroad, expressing his support for the millions left homeless by a massive earthquake in Pakistan, when he received a summons to return to Washington immediately. His vote was needed to break a tie on the Senate floor, where five Republicans had broken ranks to oppose the president's Deficit Reduction Act of 2005.

Racing halfway around the world on a trans-hemispheric red-eye, Cheney arrived on December 21st, just in time to cast the decisive vote. His "aye" gave Republicans a 51-50 victory on the budget cuts . . .

Go back and read that again. 51-50. Not 60-40. 51-50.

Okay, there are rules, and then there are rules. Budget bills are different than other bills, I think. And that was probably a budget bill. But the score in the Senate these days is 57 Democrats, 41 Republicans and 2 Independents, I think. And the Independents vote with the Democrats. There are ways to pass bills when you have an 18-vote majority. From what I understand, there are 30 million Americans without health care today, who can have health care if a bill is passed. Meanwhile, Congress is paralyzed. Nothing is getting done.

So just do it.

A New Appropriator For North Dakota

I had a couple of poignant comments from friends after last week’s post here about the U.S. Senate race. I want to address both of them.

The first was from my friend Dave over in the Red River Valley (Dave is not affiliated with Senator Dorgan’s office), who pointed out that perhaps Governor Hoeven owes Byron a third thank you card for all the federal funds he’s brought to North Dakota. Something like half a billion dollars, Dave said, and much of it has gone to help create those “good paying jobs” Governor Hoeven talks about a lot. It’s true, the governor has been at a lot of groundbreakings and ribbon cuttings for projects funded by grants Senator Dorgan has gotten for the state. Point well taken, Dave.

The other was from my friend Tom, who winters in Texas, and read my blog from afar. I’ve never known Tom’s politics, but he’s either a Republican or just a fan of the Governor’s, based on his note: “Are you going to say anything good about John?”

Yeah, I am, Tom. Here’s goes.

John Hoeven is not a conservative.

That said, you’re going to have to work pretty hard to find someone to say that Governor Hoeven hasn’t done a pretty good job. Even among Democrats. In fact, maybe especially among Democrats. A lot of conservatives don’t like him at all. The Governor has indeed, as I pointed out, been the beneficiary of lots of money with which to run his government. He’s done a pretty good job creating programs to spend it, and hiring a decent Commerce Department Director to manage them.

The governor, and all North Dakotans, got some good news this week when Senate Minority Leader McConnell showed up and promised that if Governor Hoeven becomes Senator Hoeven, he gets to be on the Appropriations Committee (although I’m not sure if he consulted the Majority Leader and the President of the Senate first—seems to me they might have something to say about that. Not sure—how does that work, anyway?).

Problem is, the quid pro quo for Senator Hoeven is probably going to be that he has to vote with the Republicans. All the time. And if he happens to be the 41st vote for the Republicans, that means he kills every Democratic legislative effort. And if he does that, Democrats on the Appropriations Committee are not going to be happy. And so he’s going to be the most ineffectual member of Senate Appropriations. No bacon to take back home for him.

Well, Governor Hoeven is no dumb man, and he’s going to catch on pretty fast. I’d say it’s more likely that once in a while the new Senator will vote (with the Democrats) in the best interests of North Dakota instead of voting in lockstep with Mitch McConnell. When that starts happening, Democrats might even let him start using that seat on the Appropriations Committee to start delivering the kinds of things Byron Dorgan has been delivering. Good paying jobs for North Dakota. Pretty hard to turn that down.

And I don’t think it will bother him to “go rogue” on the Republicans. I mean, when you stop and think about it, John Hoeven is not a very good Republican, at least as defined by the tea-bag wing of his party. And they are the ones who are running the Republican Party these days. I mean, just look at the huge budget increases in North Dakota during his time as governor. Look at how many times the Democrats have cheered on his budgets while his own party whittles away at them. Look at all the new state funding for education and all the new state programs. Sheesh, looks more like a Democrat than Republican anyway.

And he’s really only been a Republican for ten years—that’s not long, and the Democrats are pretty forgiving folks. Switch parties? Not unheard of. Happened a couple times already in Washington in 2009. So don’t be surprised if North Dakota has an all Democratic-NPL delegation in Washington again before the ink is dry on President Obama’s second certificate of election.

What do you think, Tom?

Footnote:

“I have always been moderate in my political views, but now that I am considering elective office, I realize I must join a political party and stick to it. I have decided to join the Democratic-NPL Party because I believe that is the best fit for my views.”
John Hoeven, letter to the Forum of Fargo-Moorhead, February 1996

Credit Where It Is Due

It’s pretty easy to be the most popular governor in the universe when your have a billion dollar state budget surplus and when the Legislature, controlled by your party, cuts taxes by a few hundred million dollars.

And it’s pretty easy to decide to run for the United States Senate when the seat is being vacated by the state's longest-running most popular politician.

So Governor John Hoeven owes Senator Byron Dorgan two thank you notes this month, with a brief one to Senator Kent Conrad as well. Here’s why.

A week or so ago, John Hoeven was comfortably ensconced in the Governors office, his feet up on the desk, reading a paper showing North Dakota government has the best balance sheet in America, comfortable in the fact he could just cruise through his last three years as Governor and then slip quietly into the chairman’s office at First Western Bank to serve out his working years. Never mind the cries from North Dakota and national Republicans to take on Byron Dorgan for the U.S. Senate. Way too much trouble. No fun to risk this incredible popularity in a bloody battle with Dorgan.

And then, the unthinkable . . . Dorgan quits. Well, now, that’s a different story. All of a sudden you’re the odds-on favorite to go to Washington D.C. as North Dakota’s junior U.S. Senator next January. Yikes. No way out now. Here we go.

Thank you, Byron. Card’s in the mail.

But what of that second thank you card? Take another look at the first sentence above. A billion dollar surplus. You can thank Byron Dorgan for that as well.

You see, while Dorgan and the pundits all talk about Dorgan’s legacy of Red River Valley Research Corridors and Devils Lake flood protection and energy policies and aid to Indian reservations, Dorgan’s legacy goes back much farther than that. It goes back to a Good Friday morning in 1977, and Election Day 1980.

In the early morning hours of Good Friday, April 8, 1977, the North Dakota Legislature enacted the state’s first real coal severance tax after an all night session. North Dakota Democrats, led by Tax Commissioner Byron Dorgan, held out through a bitter, and arguably the most interesting, legislative session in all of state history to enact a hefty tax on lignite coal to be strip mined from North Dakota’s shallow underground coal beds. A bill likely written by Dorgan’s chief lieutenant in the tax department, Kent Conrad (HB 1360), was the impetus for the beginning of what was to become a critical revenue source for North Dakota state government. Dorgan huddled with Democratic-NPL Legislators Richard Backes and Buckshot Hoffner for three and a half months, in the end bringing Republican leaders Earl Strinden and David Nething to the table to negotiate a reasonable tax on coal (more about this session in a future blog).

Three and a half years later, late in the evening on November 4, 1980, the North Dakota news media reported that North Dakota voters had approved an initiated measure, Measure 6, which levied a new 6½ per cent tax on oil extracted from North Dakota’s oil fields. The measure, sponsored by a committee composed of the North Dakota Farmers Union, the North Dakota REC’s, the North Dakota Education Association, and the North Dakota AFL-CIO, and written in the office of Tax Commissioner Byron Dorgan (likely by his chief lieutenant Kent Conrad), was overwhelmingly approved, more than doubling the state’s tax on oil from 5 per cent to 11½ per cent. Dorgan and Conrad staked their elections that year, for Congress and State Tax Commissioner, respectively, on that measure, championing its cause as the basis of their campaigns. They were the only two Democratic-NPL statewide candidates to win election that year.

It was Dorgan’s genius, in both cases, to recognize that mineral extraction was going to be an important piece of North Dakota’s economy and that putting a reasonable tax in place while those industries were in their infancy could prove to be an important source of revenue to the state for many years.

Make no mistake: Dorgan (with help from his strategist Conrad) gets the credit for the coal severance tax and the oil extraction tax. Period. Republican Legislatures have whacked away at those taxes in the years since, lowering the coal tax and creating myriad exemptions from the oil tax, but they remain in place today, and when the numbers are in for 2009, they may be providing nearly half a billion dollars annually to state government. Who’da thunk it?

Oh, absent Dorgan and Conrad, we might’ve gotten some kind of a coal tax, but we’d not likely have gotten the oil extraction tax. And today, North Dakota would be like every other state, struggling to keep its financial head above water. And we would not have all those other wonderful amenities that make governors of any party popular, like great schools and roads and parks and museums and universities and well-paid state employees and $400 million in property tax relief.

So take a pause, Governor, along the campaign trail, and get out your pen, and dash off a note to Byron. No, make that two. You owe him.

Welcome to Prairieblog

A note from Jim:

I created this blog in October of 2005, and then never wrote anything on it. I guess I was afraid of a commitment. Because what's the use of a blog if you don't write on it from time to time? Then, a month or so later, I ended my first foolish retirement and went back to work, and worked through the summer of 2009. No time to blog. But now I've really, truly, hung it up. I'm pretty sure. Lillian and I have moved to Bismarck, staked out a home to spend the rest of our lives in, over in the Highland Acres area of west Bismarck. Two months ago today, we moved in. Just now I have finished unpacking the last of the boxes, except for the one that says "Clothes Jim will wear when he gets back to 160." I'll let you know when it is time to open that. Don't hold your breath.

Now, I have time to blog. And I have things to say. So I'm going to say them here. On Prairieblog. It's not a fancy blog, and if it seems worth it, I'll call my friend Kalvin down at K2 and have him fix me up with a more modern one. This'll do for now. If you want to comment, my e-mail address is jimfuglie@hotmail.com. I've learned that a Hotmail e-mail address is a code word for unemployed/retired. Those of us who use them no longer have an employer to provide us an e-mail account. I say, "Good for us!"

I'll try to write here a couple times a week. Try. Lillian and I are going to travel some. Maybe I can learn to post from a Blackberry. We'll see. I'll probably write a bunch about politics, since that is what I know. I'll write about traveling, and about North Dakota. History and current events. And other things I'm interested in. Today, it's politics. Here we go.

Jim