I read with great interest the brief recently filed by former North Dakota Workforce Safety and Insurance Executive Director and convicted felon Sandy Blunt.  It's short and fairly simple.  You might want to read it to.  So I'll post it.  Here.

Blunts Post Conviction Brief

I've been busy having a life, recovering from a good, long vacation and getting ready for and then celebrating my son's first birthday, so I haven't analyzed this before now.  And -- to be honest -- I'm gonna hold out on you guys quite a bit.  I have more thoughts than what I'm gonna let on here, but I'm gonna tell you some of what I think about Blunt's brief, here, now. 

Reason for me holding out?  I don't much care for Sandy Blunt, a convicted felon, or his friends.  I don't know if they are all evil or if they are all crazy or if they are all just simply bad people.  Or maybe they are just bad now, and weren't bad before or won't be bad later.  I don't know.  I just know I wouldn't trust any of them to watch my wallet while I used the men's room.  But I have thoughts about Mr. Blunt's case that -- frankly -- might help Mr. Blunt.  But I'm the last person that's going to voluntarily tell him what those things are.  He and his friends will just have to read this and suffer through knowing that I have thoughts on some things that could possibly help him, and I'm not willing to share what those things are.  If they want to hire me and pay for my advice, they should give me a call.  (Ha!)

With that said, let's talk about Blunt's brief (which you've possibly read, above).  First, it's only really a little over 2.5 pages long.  (The other 30-some pages are attachments and signature pages, etc.)  Blunt's lawyer is a good lawyer, but I suspect he'd be the first to tell you this brief isn't what anybody would describe as "heavy artillery."   I don't know why that is.  It may be that Blunt's lawyer thinks it's such a slam dunk legal pleading, that he didn't have to write more than 2.5 pages of analysis.  That's possible.  Or, it may be that he knows he doesn't have a chance with this motion, and he didn't want to make the judge mad by making him read a long, frivolous motion.  Or... there are some other possibilities.  One I wonder about is... sometimes lawyers don't write long briefs because they don't want to cause the judge to think about certain problems with their argument.  If I were a betting man...  I'd bet this is where Blunt's brief falls.  But I don't know.  But it's only a 2.5 page brief.

Let's talk about the substance of the brief.  Let's talk about two things that are patently absent from the brief:  (1) any previous complaint/allegation that prosecutors withheld the "Wahl memo" that is the sole apparent issue in the ethics grievances against the various lawyers in the state's attorney's office.  That's missing.  Glaringly missing; and (2)... I just decided I'm not going to write about the other thing missing.  But, trust me, there's something else missing.  And it's kind of important.  You -- and Blunt and his friends -- will just have to suffer through knowing there's something else important that's missing.  It must suck to be them and read this.  I really feel sorry for them.  To have been so close to actually getting something helpful from me, and then... poof!  Gone.  

Bummer for them.

But let's talk about the abandonment of the basis for the ethics grievance.  What's the significance of this?  Well... for one, whether Sandy Blunt's lawyer doesn't think his client was prejudiced by the prosecutors' failure to disclose the Wahl memo, or if he's remembered that they actually DID disclose it, or if the prosecutors' brief convinced him it's a loser of an argument... the issue should be dead.  And buried.  If Blunt's lawyer doesn't think it's an issue, then it's not an issue.  Steve Cates and Blunt's other useful idiots have gone on for months (and pages and pages) about how THAT document was the end-all and be-all, proving Blunt was wrongly convicted.  

Now that whole argument seems to have been abandoned by Blunt and his lawyer, having never been formally asserted by Blunt or the lawyer.  

That kind of says a lot.  

No.

That says A LOT.  It speaks volumes.

One thing it says is that you really shouldn't trust the things Steve Cates and Blunt's other useful idiots are saying.  But you knew that.  

So it's kind of a big deal.

I must acknowledge that I'm intrigued by Blunt's lawyer's claim that these BCI reports and an audio recording were allegedly "withheld" from Blunt's lawyer.  It's clear Blunt thinks (or hopes) this can be the "something significant" I mentioned in my earlier blog post about this.  Might it be?  Sure.  But is there an "other side of the story?"

Once again, as before, I'm on the edge of my seat. 

Newsweek has done an analysis of the difference between America's jobs and deficit under Obama versus America's jobs and deficit under Republicans.  And it doesn't look great for Republicans.  It's not a perfect analysis, but it's definitly worth consideration.  Here's the "bottom line":

The bottom line, then, is that recent GOP proposals would produce fewer jobs and far larger deficits than the plans Obama has already passed or currently wants to pass.

Newsweek

Imagine how much better off we'd be right now if Republicans weren't obstructing Obama's more aggressive economic recovery proposals and throwing up road blocks to other Democratic ideas for creating jobs and stimulating the economy.

Better yet, imagine how much better off we'd be if Republicans hadn't destroyed the U.S. economy by driving it into the ditch to begin with.

Leave Al Jaeger Aloooooooooooooooooooooooone!

The object of the SoSP rests on Joseph Stalin’s famous quote that “It’s not who gets the votes, it’s who counts the votes.” The truth of this was demonstrated in last year’s senatorial election in Minnesota and how important that 60th Democratic senator proved to be to the Obama agenda.

Mock’s assaults, and there have been several, on Jaeger are just an extension of the SoSP so that he (Mock) will become the arbiter in close North Dakota elections. Jaeger’s performance over the years has been exemplary. He has performed in a quiet, efficient and, most importantly, nonpartisan manner to the benefit of all North Dakotans.

For 'em Letter to the Editor

The SoSP(Short for Secretary of State Project) does exist, its website is here, but Corey Mock is not an endorsed candidate of the project, and I don't know that he has sought their endorsement either.  The amazing thing about this letter is that it is complete and total projection.  The two most questionable elections in recent memory were Florida in 2000, run by Katherine Harris(R), whom Bill Nelson clocked in 2006 for Senate.  Most observers of that race seriously question her actions in the recount.  The other case is Ohio in 2004, which was run by Ken Blackwell(R).  On the other hand, the author brings up the Minnesota Senate recount, the longest, most open and transparent, and most nonpartisan recount in the nation's history.  

Lets remember who certified Al Franken's victory:

Minnesota State Canvassing Board

Secretary of State Mark Ritchie(D)

Chief Justice Eric Magnuson(Appointed by Gov. Tim Pawlenty(R))

Associate Justice G. Barry Anderson(Appointed by Gov. Jesse Ventura(I))

Chief Circuit Judge Kathleen Gearin(Elected-Non-Partisan)

Assistant Chief Judge Edward Cleary(Appointed by Tim Pawlenty, Subsequently Elected)

Certified Election Results unanimously

Franken V Coleman District Court Panel(Appointed by Senior Justice Alan Page)

Judge Elizabeth Hayden-Presiding(Appointed by Rudy Perpich(DFL))

Assistant Chief Judge Kurt Marben(Appointed by Jesse Ventura(I))

Assistant Chief Judge Denise D. Reilly(Appointed by Arne Carlson(R))

Unanimous ruling in favor of Franken.  Coleman Claims Dismissed with Prejudice and Coleman is assessed all legal fees in the matter, along with fines for the handling of Pamela Howell

Supreme Court of Minnesota

Senior Associate Justice Alan Page-Presiding(Elected)

Associate Justice Paul H. Anderson(Appointed by Arne Carlson(R))

Associate Justice Helen H. Meyer(Appointed by Jesse Ventura(I))

Associate (now Chief) Justice Lorie Skjerven Gildea(Appointed by Tim Pawlenty(R))

Associate Justice Christopher Dietzen(Appointed by Tim Pawlenty(R))

Unanimous, per curiam(no specific author named) ruling in favor of Franken.  

"Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative."

John Stuart Mill

Turns out.... if we weren't already, we really are turning into a "nation of know-nothings"...

Having shed much of his dignity, core convictions and reputation for straight talk, Senator John McCain won his primary on Tuesday against the flat-earth wing of his party. Now McCain can go search for his lost character, which was last on display late in his 2008 campaign for president.

Remember the moment: a woman with matted hair and a shaky voice rose to express her doubts about Barack Obama. “I have read about him,” she said, “and he’s not — he’s an Arab.”

McCain was quick to knock down the lie. “No, ma’am,” he said, “he’s a decent family man, a citizen.”

That ill-informed woman — her head stuffed with fabrications that could be disproved by a pre-schooler — now makes up a representative third or more of the Republican party. It’s not just that 47 percent of Republicans believe the lie that Obama is a Muslim, or that 27 percent in the party doubt that the president of the United States is a citizen. But fully half of them believe falsely that the big bailout of banks and insurance companies under TARP was enacted by Obama, and not by President Bush.

New York Times

And -- as usual -- the Bismarck Tribune, it's favored Letter-to-the-Editor authors and it's right wing editors join the stupid, knuckle-dragging side show.

What's frustrating is that Republican leaders -- like Newt Gingrich and John Hoeven -- know all of this, and they love it.  Hoeven Gingrich talks about Christian family values out of one side of his mouth, and then gets married and divorced more often than most people change underwear.  Hoeven won't tell you anything about his positions on anything, because it's to his advantage to keep you uninformed of his opinions.  He's the enigma candidate.  Seriously... what do you know about his position on privatizing Social Security?  Does he agree with Mitch McConnell and the rest of the Republicans that benefits need to be cut and the system needs to be abandoned?  Does he agree with other Republicans that we need to eliminate all farm programs?  Does he agree with other Republicans that we need to increase the burden on poor and middle class people, and enact new tax cuts for the richest 2%?  Does he support the Republican position on relaxing regulation of Wall Street?  

You don't know, do you?  Know why?  Because when voters are stupid, John Hoeven and New Gingrich are happy.

Like it or lump it.

May God save us from ourselves.

(Crossposted, with permission, from the Prairie Blog.)

"One night in October, 1919, and I think it was the 19th of the month, five farmers dined at a restaurant in Washington, D.C. It was a good enough place, rather noted for moderate prices and a varied menu, which was why the farmers chose it. They ordered, with design, a dinner of staple viands, and, as it came to the table, measured or weighed or closely estimated each dish; so much of bread, so much of potatoes, so much of butter, so much of meat, so much of sugar, and thus to the end.

"With paper and pencil they recorded each amount and, at current prices at the farm, the net sum the producer received for each dish they consumed. When all was done, they called for their bill. It was $11.95, exclusive of gratuities.

"They made a total of all the items they had entered as they went along, showing what the producer had netted from this. It was 84 cents."

That’s how Charles E. Russell begins his book “The Story Of The Nonpartisan League,” published in 1920 when the League was still in control of North Dakota Government. I’m not going to give you a history of the Nonpartisan League here. There are a number of books on the NPL, the most important of which, I think, is Robert Morlan’s Political Prairie Fire, published in 1955, and reissued in 1985 with an excellent introduction by my old friend, the late Larry Remele. Another old friend, Ardell Tharaldson, thinks it should be required reading for graduation from a North Dakota high school. I think he’s right.

But I’m quoting today from Russell’s book because it has just been reprinted, along with a couple others of his, by a company called Nabu Press, and so you can buy it from Amazon for 25 bucks. Or you can buy the original 1920 hardcover on ABE.com for about the same price. I have a good copy of the 1920 first edition and that’s what I’m quoting from. 

Russell, incidentally, is a cool guy. He was a socialist, muckraking journalist in the last part of the 19th century and the first part of the 20th. He joined the Socialist Party of America in 1908, he was one of 5 co-founders of the NAACP in 1909, he ran unsuccessfully for governor and senator from New York and mayor of New York City, he wrote at various times for daily newspapers in Minneapolis, New York, Chicago and Detroit, and he wrote 15 books, one of which, “The American Orchestra and Theodore Thomas” won the Pulitzer Prize for Biography in 1927.

Much maligned by politicians for his style of journalism, he once wrote, in response, “The best way to abolish the muckraker is to abolish the muck.”

But I digress. Russell spent part of a year here, during the heyday of the League, and his book lays out the case of the farmers of North Dakota and what he called the Middle Northwest that led to the formation and success of the League. I want to share two more passages from the book for you, and then recommend you get it and read it. Because it is one of the best things ever written about North Dakota. The first is part of a speech given in 1917 by League President A.C. Townley in St. Paul, Minnesota.

“Let me try to make plainer still to you the reason for the injustice in our industrial life. This war (World War I) will cost America maybe thirty, forty billions of dollars. It is very difficult to raise so many billions of dollars. It entails tremendous sacrifices on us all, a sacrifice that we shall not shirk. Those billions will be spent by this government to win the war for Liberty and Democracy. Part of it will be spent for guns, part for ships, part of it for coal, clothing, shoes, leather. A part of it will be paid to those that are making millions of profit out of the war to-day. 

“But a soldier boy cannot carry a gun unless there is bread in his stomach. A soldier boy cannot dig a trench unless he has a strong body made by bread.

“And some of those billions of dollars have to be spent to pay the farmers for the wheat to make the bread. Now we have been calling for government control of prices. And we got them all right. But in our clamor for government control we overlooked the better tool.

“We forgot, or neglected to see, that the representatives of the profiteers were too large a part of our government, and so we got the government control too largely on behalf of the profiteers. They are to-day influencing this government in too large a measure. Else they would not fix a price on coal twice what it was before the war; else they would not be so long reducing the price of bread after they have reduced the price of wheat.”

Townley and other Leaguers were relentless with that message in 1917 and 1918, and in the 1918 election, the League won complete control of North Dakota government, including the newly-created Industrial Commission to oversee the beginning of the about-to-be created state industries (Governor, Attorney General and Commissioner of Agriculture and Labor), and both houses of the North Dakota Legislature. And in the 1919 Legislature, they passed their program into law. And later that year, opponents of the League secured a referendum election, at which seven of the measures passed by that Legislature were put to the test of a popular vote. Here is Russell’s analysis of why the issues to be voted on were being referred.

"1. The Bank of North Dakota threatened the huge profits of money-lenders, in which the entire banking system of the Northwest, including the overshadowing financial institutions of Minneapolis and St. Paul, had shared for a generation. These financial institutions were directly connected with the powerful banks, insurance and trust companies of Wall Street, whose influence on national affairs has been solemnly attested by a committee of Congress.

"2. The railroad rate bill directly menaced the most powerful railroad companies of the United States; companies accustomed for many years to unquestioned political domination in the Northwest, companies also directly linked with the great packing-house combinations, the greatest banks in Chicago and New York, and the Interests that were once called the arbiters of national destiny.

"3. The proposal that the state should own its elevators struck directly at the great and profitable business of handling grain, erected through so many years around the Minneapolis Chamber of Commerce. This naturally involved an assault upon the profits and prosperity of the Minneapolis banks, linked as before said to the greatest banks in the country; linked also to the great and not always apparent speculative Interests in the grain business that centered in the Chicago Board of Trade, involved the Armours and other packing Interests, and was linked once more to railroads, banks and insurance companies.

"4. The proposal that the state should build and operate flour mills was an ominous blow at the great flour-milling Interests of Minneapolis, the greatest of their kind, whose mills rolled forth a daily total of eighty thousand barrels of flour, and fed an appreciable part of the world.

"5. The Hail Insurance Act menaced the business and profits of the insurance companies linked with the banks that were linked with the railroads and linked with the controlling groups of Wall Street.

"6. The suggestion that the state might print and furnish its own school text-books was a menace to the business and profits of the school-book trust, linked as the other Interests and in the same way to the controlling groups.

"7. The laws instituting the State Income Tax, State Inheritance Tax, Work-men’s Compensation for Injuries, the strict inspection of mines, although not without precedent, undoubtedly aroused each its own element of opposition that was drawn now to the general assault. For it was felt in all these menaced quarters that if the League’s innovations should be sustained in North Dakota they would be adopted within a short time in other states, and no man might foresee how far the reform might go no what profound changes it might achieve."

Well. A state-owned bank. A state-owned mill and elevator. Worker's compensation. State hail insurance. You think we have big ideas today? We haven’t done anything to match this lineup since the day they were passed in 1919. Suppose they all went away with the demise of the League? Hah! Look around. State hail insurance disappeared in the 1930's when the federal government thought it was such a good idea they created federal hail insurance. You know the rest of the story.

As for Russell’s analysis? Remember, this was written in 1920, and he—and the League—believed these conspiracies and threats were real. And they probably were.

In the special election on June 26, 1919, the League prevailed on all seven measures. 

Russell’s book closes with a recount of the great Scandinavian American Bank scandal, which ended in another League victory—this time in court. It was published before Lynn Frazier, William Lemke and John Hagan were re-elected in 1920 as governor, attorney general and commissioner of agriculture and labor, and before they were successfully recalled from office the following year.

There were four books written about the League in 1920, one by Herbert Gaston, who was editor of the League’s newspaper, the Leader; one by Oliver Thomason, about whom I know nothing; and one by William Langer himself. Gaston’s and Langer’s books have also been reprinted in paperback by Nabu Press. I can’t find a copy of Thomason’s anywhere. Ardell Tharaldson is the only person I now who has a Langer original. I haven’t read it. Gaston’s and Russell’s are fun to read because they were written in real time, during the League heyday. Morlan’s is still, however, the definitive history of the League from 1915-1921. 

Surely the Nonpartisan League was one of the best ideas ever hatched in North Dakota. Oh, and by the way, someone has started a Facebook page for the League. Imagine that.

(Crossposted, with permission, from the Prairie Blog.)

A huge portion of the Repukelican National Committee's July fundraising comes in the form of a secretive payment from a subsidiary of "too big to fail" insurance company AIG.

The Republican National Committee's $5.5 million in July receipts includes a $900,000 insurance payment, helping boost anemic fundraising by the national party.

Federal campaign reports show that Democratic Party committees maintained a cash on hand advantage over their Republican counterparts as they entered the final three months before the election.

The Republican Party's insurance payment was from Illinois National Insurance, a subsidiary of insurance giant American International Group. A party official said the money was for an insurance claim but said there was a confidentiality provision in the agreement. The official was not authorized to discuss the claim publicly and spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Google (AP)

This $900,000 payment from the AIG subsidiary to the Repukelican Party is clearly a bribe*. It is unclear what the bribe* is for.  It may be for Republican votes for the AIG bailout.  It might be a bribe for some other Republican vote(s) on some past pro-AIG bill.  It may be just a regular bribe, for future votes by Republican legislators.  That is unclear, but it is clearly a bribe*.  

You have to wonder how much of the RNC's bribe* money will work its way to North Dakota's corrupt Repukelican party.

America deserves better.

* My position is that any time a big company pays a political party $900,000 and won't say why, it's a bribe unless and until the insurance company and/or political party fully discloses and proves otherwise.  If the RNC or AIG proves that this was NOT a bribe, I will retract my assertion and insistence that it is a bribe.  Until then, we'll call it a bribe.  Because that's what it is**.

**  See above*.

While on vacation I've been missing all the North Dakota political ads.  Last night I did get to see Rick Berg's ad, in which he denies he ever voted to privatize Social Security.  That kind of surprised me.  It seems to me like that's something he either DID or he DIDN"T DO.  Black and white.  True or false. 

My memory was that he had voted to privatize Social Security.  So I looked it up.  Turns out....   He did.  But it's not as simple as that.  Not only did he vote to privatize Social Security.... he was the primary sponsor of the Resolution.  And not only was he the primary sponsor, but he also specifically voted AGAINST a resolution opposing George Bush's plans to privatize Social Security.

If you think back to 2004, right after George W. Bush won re-election, Bush was traveling all over the country, promoting his idea to privatize Social Security.  One of his first stops on his "Privitization Tour" was in Fargo.  Also, remember, 2005 was a legislative year for North Dakota's legislature.  Our legislature met in the first few months of 2005 and considered hundreds of bills and resolutions.  

There were two competing resolutions relating to privitizing Social Security.  One was brought by Democrats, the other by Republicans.  Here's what the Democrat's resolution said:

HCR 3030

So the Democrats were pretty clearly on record as being AGAINST privatization of Social Security.  Considering Berg's ad, you'd think he'd voted for this resolution, right?  Well you'd be wrong if that's what you thought.  He voted against this one.  (Click here to see his vote.)

Then the Republicans had their own resolution.  Take a look at who sponsored their resolution:

HCR 3056

The lead sponsor of this bill was none other than Rick Berg.  

And what did this bill propose?

 HCR 3056 (Berg obviously voted to support the resolution he sponsored.) 

President George W. Bush's proposed "personal account" language, for those of you just joining the show, was code for "privatizing Social Security."  So, clearly, Berg voted to privatize Social Security.  (For more info on the Republican Party's use of the words "personal accounts" instead of "privatizing Social Security," click here.  In summary, their polling data was showing the idea of "privatization" was hugely unpopular, so they had to come up with different jargon.  They settled on "private accounts" and then "personal accounts.")

So how can he go on TV with an ad that says he "Opposes Privatizing Social Security"?!?  

If he "opposes privatizing social security," wouldn't he have voted for the Democratic resolution that clearly said its supporters oppose privatizing Social Security?  If he "opposes privatizing social security," why did he sponsor a resolution advocating the privatization of Social Security?!?

By expressly voting to privatize Social Security and voting against a resolution saying he opposes privatizing Social Security, isn't Berg pretty clearly on on record in support of privatizing Social Security?!? 

Isn't it false advertising to claim he "opposes privatizing social security" when he's clearly on record as being supporting of privatizing Social Security?!?  Isn't there a law against false advertising?!?  How can Berg get away with this? 

And he calls someone else's ads "false and negative"?  How's that for hypocrisy?

Maybe Berg thinks we need more hypocritical liars in Washington.

For the record, I'm against that.

(Cross-posted with permission from the Prairie Blog )

TO: Cory Fong, Adam Hamm, Kevin Cramer, Brian Kalk, Tony Clark, Doug Goehring, Bob Peterson, Kelly Schmidt

FROM: Wayne Stenehjem

CC: John Hoeven, Jack Dalrymple 

Dear Republican Team Members,

Eighty years ago, someone with a warped sense of humor decided that the Secretary of State’s office should be here on the First Floor of the Capitol Building along with the offices of the Governor/Lieutenant Governor and the Attorney General. I guess they thought that maybe someday in the future the office would be important. Or maybe it was important back then. Or maybe they thought Ben Meier liked company (He was Secretary of State back then, wasn’t he?) and they wanted his office to be easily accessible.

Anyway, what’s happened is that the guy down the hall now is a royal pain in the butt, and he’s just 30 feet or so away from me, and he won’t leave me alone, no matter what I do or say. He’s over here almost every day looking for an opinion on something or other, trying to get me to take the blame whenever he screws up and has to make an unpopular decision. A couple of months ago, he lost some paperwork for a candidate running against Kevin Cramer and needed me to cover his butt by telling him to go ahead and put the guy on the ballot anyway. Never mind that this kid from Fargo, Voytek, I think his name is, didn’t really give a rat’s ass if he ran for Public Service Commission or not—he announced he would be a write-in candidate against Al for Secretary of State just a couple of days after he learned that Al had left him off the ballot for PSC, except he only announced it to 11 of his friends, apparently, because he only got 12 votes in the whole state.

So I told him to just put the kid on the ballot, and he did, (saying I said it was okay) and those darn Democratic-NPL Legislators jumped right in and asked me to issue a formal opinion. Well, I shopped it around among my assistants trying to get one of them to write an opinion that agreed with me, and they all said they just couldn’t do that because the law was pretty clear that he shouldn’t be on the ballot, and as a result I got a bunch of political heat I really didn’t need. And our buddy Al down here just smiles and says “Wayne told me to do it.” 

Then there was that deal with the other Libertarians not getting on the ballot, and he’s got me in the middle of a lawsuit on that one. Seems like if he was willing to bend the rules when HE screwed up, he should bend the rules when THEY screw up too. Ah, but it’s easier for him to just send it down the hall to me and let me spend a bunch of state dollars in a long drawn-out lawsuit.

Well, I finally got smart after that one and I put one of our college interns on sentry duty outside my office, and kept him away most of the summer, but then school got ready to start, and the intern went away, and sure enough, Al snuck in the back door again this week asking for help on this petition signature thing. Yep, he had told the papers earlier this week that he was going to ask me to help him decide if those petitions should be declared valid. But I could see this one coming. He wanted me to say yes or no, so he could tell the papers again “Wayne told me to do it.” 

Well, I decided I’d had enough and just told him to go read the law himself. He’s a big boy. AND KEEP MY NAME OUT OF IT!

And so today he told Wal-Mart and Walgreen and Tammy Wal-bach they won’t need to spend any money this fall on a ballot measure campaign. And guess what—for once he didn’t blame me!

But it is just a matter of time before he comes traipsing down the hall again with another screwup, and so and I’m looking for help. I’m thinking if I could just get him off the First Floor, where it’s not so convenient for him to come running over here, maybe I can put a stop to this. And so, I’m asking you, my faithful Republican brethren and sister, to help me find a new home for Al somewhere else far, far away. Cory, you’ve got some space up there on 16, I think, which wouldn’t be bad, but maybe one of you knows of a spot somewhere off campus. We could do an office trade. I’d even throw in this old Roger Maris baseball card—1961 I think it is—it’s pretty old and has what looks like some old signature on it, and is probably worthless, but it would be a nice present for one of your kids or grandkids. Just take this guy off my hands! 

If it wasn’t Republican blasphemy, I’d even ask you to send some money to this Mock kid who’s running against Al, just to help get him out of here. I can’t send any more or my name will show up on his report, and that just wouldn’t look good. Look, I’m offering perfectly good First Floor office space here. John and Jack agree. It would be just fine with them. Somebody step up and volunteer, okay? 

Thanks.

Your Buddy, Wayne

 (Cross-posted with permission from the Prairie Blog)

I was on vacation for the last 10 days or so.  I hope I wasn't missed. 

I can report that Yellowstone National Park is still a great big SOCIALIST monument to Republican President Ullysses S. Grant, who signed into law the legislation that created the park.  I hiked in the big socialist mountains, kayaked on the big socialist lake, swam in two socialist rivers, watched Old Faithful go off at sunset and took lots of photos.   I was "off the grid" most of the time there, too.  No cell phone coverage in most places.  No wi-fi anywhere.  I didn't buy a single newspaper.  It was a great vacation. 

Barack Obama has been on vacation too.

Coincidence?

Republicans and teabaggers are trying to make a big deal out of the president's vacation...

The Republican National Committee has taken to calling Obama "the Clark Griswold president," a mocking reference to the Chevy Chase character in National Lampoon's "Vacation" movies. With unemployment claims climbing again, the GOP was hoping its criticism would have a certain national resonance. And maybe it will.

One potential complication: Obama has spent far less time on vacation than his Republican predecessor, George W. Bush, had at this point in his presidency.

Veteran CBS News White House correspondent Mark Knoller, a fastidious keeper of presidential statistics, has kept count. By his tally, Obama has embarked on nine "vacations" since taking office, bringing his total days off to 48. Some of those trips lasted a day and some, like his Christmas holiday in Hawaii, more than a week.

By comparison, Bush had visited his ranch in Crawford, Tex., 14 times at this point in his administration and spent 115 days there. And yes, Democrats let him have it, too, complaining that he was a chronic vacationer.

White House advisers made clear in the days leading up to this getaway that a president, especially a wartime president overseeing a country in the grips of economic distress, is never really on vacation.

Washington Post

That's interesting enough.  But there's more.  During the first 234 days of George W. Bush's administration, Bush took 96 days of vacation.  Compare that to the 48 days of vacation Obama had taken during his first 579 days.  Bush had taken exactly twice as many days in less than half the time.  For you math buffs, that means Bush's vacation rate was 400% of Obama's.  

So why did I pick the number 234?  That's the number of days Bush was president before the September 11 attacks.  But even after that, Bush's vacation rate stayed at 4 times Obama's vacation rate.  His final rate of vacationing was 32%, compared to Obama's current 8% (so far).  

But we all know black people have to work 4 times harder just to get half the credit, right?  

And golf?  John Boehner golfs 119 times, Obama golfs 43 times.  Who cares?!?  I don't.  That seems like a lot of golf, but if they can squeeze that much golf in and still get their work done, it's not really any of my business.   I don't even care that Bush took 2.67 years of "vacation" during his 8 years in office.  It's not really "vacation," I figure, when either president is having daily national security briefings, meeting with cabinet members and foreign dignitaries.  I'm fine with all of it, as long as the president can walk and chew gum at the same time.  I'm fine with it as long as the president isn't ignoring security memos saying Bin Laden is planning to attack buildings in New York.  I can ignore those memos and go "off the grid" when I go on vacation in Yellowstone, but I don't think either Bush could or Obama can.  They're always working.  Or they should be.

This whole thing is a decoy.  Like the New York City mosque "story," this vacation "scandal" is a Fox News/Republican/Right-wing/teabagger ploy to try to draw gullible Fox News watching America's attention away from the fact that Republicans don't have any new ideas for fixing the economy they ruined.  They just have their same old ideas: tax breaks for the super rich; table scraps for everyone else.

We're better than that.

Aren't we?

Some comments here and in the editorial page of The Forum have called the overtime problems in Al Jaeger's office.  I don't think they really understand the issue here.  Nobody, not Corey, not me, are suggesting that overtime is a bad thing.  Of course overtime is a necessary expense for any office.  At one point though the cost of overtime eclipses the cost of hiring a temp or a full time employee.

Lets look at some numbers here.  A full time employeeworks 40 hours a week. Assume for a rough estimate thata month has four weeks in it.  That's 160 hours a month. That's 1920 hours per year. That's a little short, so just round it off to 2000 hours per year, 4000 hours per biennium.  Jaeger's office paid out over 7000 hours of overtime in the last biennium. Remember that overtime is paid out time and a half, so you can really look at this being over 10,000 hours.  even if you factor inthe costs of benefits, you're still looking at the costs of at least one, if not two additional full time employees for the costs of overtime.  

What is also clear about this is that this overtime is not evenly spread across the employees in the office.  In fact, Jaeger's top two non-political staffers account for nearly a third of all overtime in the office.  The overtime hours they racked up for the first ten months of the current biennium could almost cover a another Full time Employee.  Look at it this way.  If we assume for the sake of argument that the head of the business division(Business Systems Director) makes a $60,000 annual salary.  That means an hourly rate of $28.84.  Overtime pay is time and a half, so that makes this staffer's overtime pay $43.27.  This person worked 605 hours of overtime in the first ten months of the 2009-2011 Biennium.   Assuming these figures, since the end of April, this employee has made $26,188 just in overtime.  If current trends continue, this employee will make $31,426 in overtime for FY2010.  Add that onto the base salary of $60,000, and you've come away withover $91,000.  For those of you who are unaware, the Secretary of State, who doesn't get overtime pay, makes $83,550 per year(NDCC § 54-09-05).  Now I could be off a little on my salary estimate, but efen if you knock it down to $50,000, using the same figures, this employee would have made $76,188 by the end of the fiscal year ifthe trend of overtime were extended out. That's less than a ten thousand dollar difference from the Secretary of State's salary. 

I don't mean to bash the staff in Jaeger's office.  I need to explain that over the past few months I have made a number of records requests with the Secretary of State's office, and I have been extremely impressed with the promptness and professionalism shown by both Al Jaeger, who handled all of my requests, and all of his staff, who I am sure put in a decent amount of time fulfilling my requests. That alone has made me very appreciative of Jaeger's office in particular when it has come to my personal experience with the office.  I have personally thanked Jaeger for the professionalism he and his office have shown in this regard.  There is absolutely no evidence that any overtime hours were forged, or that any employees did not put in the time that they have declared.  If that is the case, a review of the procedures used in reporting and approving overtime pay needs to be reviewed.  More likely though is that the hardworking staff in the office are overworked and need relief.  We have labor laws that require a forty hour work week for a reason.  The head of the business division should not be working 53 hours a week, either putting in eleven hour days or working weekends, in order to get his or her job done. 

This office is either overpaid, or more likely, understaffed, and while additional full time employees may not meet the requirement for all of the staffing problems in the office, part time employees and temps should be strongly considered to help ease the load on the staff in the office and keep costs from spiraling out of control.  

Either way, this is another sign of Al Jaeger's poor, hands off, head in the cloud management of the Secretary of State's office.  He can't keep track of third party candidates in a primary, he doesn't read certifications of nomination following that primary before signing them, and he doesn't know how to keep overtime costs in check.  

The insinuation that Corey Mock is somehow out of line, or even unqualified for office for bringing this issue up and asking serious questions about how Jaeger is running his office is ridiculous.  Get real.

We, and our hardworking public employees deserve better.

Happy 75th,Social Security