Governor Dennis Daugaard and other Republicans tell us we should bend over and take the Keystone XL pipeline because it will bring lots of jobs and economic stimulus. The Department of State puts Keystone XL's job creation between 5000 and 6000 new jobs nationwide.
O.K., fine. According to information from the White House, President Obama's American Jobs Act would put 5700 people to work... in South Dakota alone. Add in a few hundred million in public investment and tax cuts (hey! this is Barack Obama, cutting your taxes again), and you get what sure looks like a good deal for South Dakota job creators and job do-ers.
Feel free to peruse all fifty state-by-state analyses. Then tell me why anyone would turn down a great plan like the President's but embrace an environmentally hazardous land grab by a private foreign company.
Cory,
If Obama told you that the world is flat, you would believe it. Didn't you learn anything from his first stimulus? Did you learn anything from the Great Depression?
Oh Steve, please tell us what the CBO said the first stimulus did in terms of jobs.
Would I believe Obama if he said the world was flat? No!
Would you believe 98% of the scientists that said global warming was real...? Would you believe a Shriner that said he wasn't a part of the Free Mason conspiracy and was just more interested in helping crippled children?
You know what though Steve, you're dogma says that the stimulus didn't help...got proof?
And no fair showing us pictures and news stories of Republican Congress members taking credit at press conferences where stimulus dollars went to work and provided jobs and an economic boost.
However you could show us the Tea Publican plan for jobs and we can weigh the options....what's that...there isn't one? Go figure....
If I want unbiased information about a product (e.g., insurance or the jobs bill), I don't consult the seller (e.g., State Farm or the White House).
Do 98 percent of scientists believe that global warming is "real"? I don't know. I should think that plain observing apparatus would render the figure either 0% or 100%, anyhow, unless some scientists refused to believe what they see.
Honestly, I am against Obama's payroll tax cut. (Maybe I'm the only Republican in the country with that view.) I oppose any changes in tax rates or laws at this time. We need some solid rock, not more shifting sands.
Oh by the way, Steve, the world is flat. I can look out my window here in Lead and see that, plain as the toes on my face.
Stan, if there was a 98% chance a tornado was going to hit your house in the next 10 minutes, what would you do? How about a 70% chance? 50/50?
Come on.
"You know what though Steve, you’re dogma says that the stimulus didn’t help…got proof?"
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate
And that is understated.
"However you could show us the Tea Publican plan for jobs and we can weigh the options….what’s that…there isn’t one? Go figure…."
Reduce government spending, decrease taxes and have trust in the people.
"Oh by the way, Steve, the world is flat. I can look out my window here in Lead and see that, plain as the toes on my face."
You would not happened to be drinking Kool-Aid too?
And Cory,
How much is the government spending on XL?
Two very fundamental flaws in Obama's plan:
1) Take $447Billion from the hands of people who employ people, run it through the bureacracy in an attempt to create jobs, and expect a different result than the first time Bozo tried it. He keeps citing the "insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result." Does the guy even absorb his own speeches?
2) If it makes sense to raise taxes $447Billion, why doesn't he propose it to reduce the deficit. If it makes sense to use Keynesian pump priming to stimulate the economy, why doesn't he propose that? But to raise taxes (which Keynes would say is anti-stimulative in an attempt to stimulate is at cross purposes.
Without a doubt, Barack Obama is the dumbest President in history, bar none. The guy hasn't a clue, contradicts himself every time he opens his mouth, and appears to be totally motivated by his own re-election without regard to the good of anyone, including Democrats in Congress.
My prediction: Obama announces he is not running for re-election prior to the State of the State.
P.S. If you don't think losing the Weiner seat won't send shock waves across the Democrat House caucus among every member who won the last election by less than 5%, you are crazy.
Troy, I haven't seen tax increases in the Obama plan. I've seen tax cuts. Are you reading something I've not seen?
No Bill, you don't get it. When Obama proposes tax cuts, it is actually Tax increases. Because he is a Democrat. Don't you know the rules? Although, let me think. George Bush spent trillions of dollars on a medicaid giveaway to the seniors, cut taxes during a time of war, and basically borrowed until our collective ears bled. No bitching from Troy then though. Remember your Milton Friedman; "A tax cut without a decrease in government spending is a tax increase deferred."
Republicans think if they can say a big lie often enough the echo will deafen people to the truth. They turn "stimulus" into a dirty word with continuous blather and cooperating media outlets. They stall progress in congress and then blame Obama and Democrats for the problems their destructive partisanship causes. They talk gloom and doom about the economy and enough people lose confidence that it off=sets rational observation of actual progress and reality.
There is zero evidence that Republican trickle-down rosy scenario voodoo economics makes a bit of sense in the real world.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44489655/ns/business-eye_on_the_economy/
In this article it says Obama intends to raise taxes. Mike, deal with facts and use your brain. Or do you have to turn it off to be a liberal.
Mike, regarding Bush, back when I was opposing Invading Iraq, I was alone and considered a traitor by Republicans and Democrats, and I opposed the Medicaid plan. I assum by your comment you will join me in walking out of Afghanistan, I raq and ending the Prescription plan.
I would be glad to do all of that Troy. That brain comment is nice; do you have to turn off your soul to be a conservative? Get a life. And while it is petty and obnoxious to point this out, before you insult the intelligence of someone, learn how to use punctuation properly.
And I would love to see some actual documented evidence that you opposed all of what you mention above. Though I may be punished by the Youth for Reagan 1980 alumni association for not taking the Mighty and Powerful OZ...cough...Troy Jones, at his word, but you talk so much bull honk on these sites, and are so partisan, that I can't take your words at face value. Sorry.
Bill:
I'd go to the basement if I thought there was a five percent chance that a tornado would hit my house in the next 10 minutes.
Steve:
Ye gods, I was kidding!
And then there was this ...
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/09/14/us-usa-congress-weiner-idUSTRE78C7X220110914
U da man, Stan. (I would too, brother.)
Troy, in my admittedly limited experience, there are thresholds one must reach in order to break through one phase of any strategy into the next. In my case it is called market penetration, or (in mediaspeak) GRP's (Gross Rating Points).
My market is full of advertisers who lack either the savvy or the means (or both) to invest enough to reach that tipping point, and so, instead of admitting that, they insist that "we tried TV ads, they don't work." When the fact is, they were almost there, and then gave up, thereby wasting every dime of their investment in marketing.
Something like that is going on with economic stimulus, I think. It's not that the Keynesian model didn't work. It did. It's just that the tipping point wasn't reached, to fully turn the huge economic machine around. But at least it kept it from going off the cliff.
In order for us to balance a budget, have to first be sure that there is an economy there in which to have a need to budget in the first place.
Meanwhile, back to the ad metaphor. When the assignment is to build awareness of your customer or your issue, the question arises, "how much do we have to spend on that?" The answer is always, "As much as you possibly can." Just ask McDonalds. Or Marlboro.
Mike, Iraq and Afghanistan are before blogs so I doubt there is any documentation. Where might it be? But what I will tell you is I have never been a neo-con and dont support nation building. On Afghanistan, I only supported a direct attack on the training sites and other similar strategic actions- in and out. I was very closed to any Iraqi invasion even though I struggled with the human rights abuses. But in the end, because we were not invited in by neighbors, I didnt think it was justified. After we "broke" Iraq, I did assent to a "fix it" role only because it seemed the alternative was worse. I am on the record for opposing the Afghan surge which maybe Cory can find but I am sure you will just consider that partisan.
My views on military engagement is grounded in a strict adherence to the "Just War Doctrine" grounded in a priority much higher than party allegiance. Iraq did not pass this test in my mind. And the continued occupation never was even close. This is similar to the grief I take in GOP circles for my strict opposition to the death penalty.
I hold many positions publicly contrary to current orthodoxy in my party on other matters like immigration, neo-con foreign policy, some components of the Patriot Act (cant help but notice the dearth of liberal noise on similar abuses by this administration).
But, I really don't care if you believe me. Just address my first point and admit your snarky response to deny Obama intends to raise taxes in his "jobs plan" was ignorantly incorrect.
Troy, the whole "raise taxes" rhetoric is so weasely, I'm surprised you would engage in it. It's a shell game hardly worth playing, but if you insist, yes, I assume Obama is going to let the Bush tax cuts expire at some point. But I think it's intellectually dishonest to call that a "tax increase."
Here's how dishonest it is. Let's say I make a disposable widget that you like, and you have been a good customer, so my business has been good, and my business is now flush with cash.
So, to give all my good customers a break, and still keep the company going, I offer you all a temporary discount that puts me dangerously close to my cost on the widgets. Then the market changes. My costs go up, so I remove the discount.
And all I get for thanks is, "You son of a bitch, you're raising your price!"
Bush Tax Cuts = Temporary. Got it?
"Ye gods, I was kidding!"
Stan, I know you were, I was trying to play along. Looking back, I can see that it may have looked like a slam...sorry.
Bill, while maybe you have more information than is publicly available, Obama hasn't said he is going to repeal the Bush Tax Cuts to pay for this. All I can find so far is similar to in the article I linked to above or ones like this one: http://www.businessinsider.com/obama-jobs-plan-would-raise-400b-in-taxes-cut-subsidies-2011-9
And, you are missing my point: Obama says this is a job creation plan (ie. stimulus but isn't using the word). It has two components:
1) Government spend $447 Billion (proto-typical Keynesian stimulative strategy)
2) Government tax employers $400 Billion (proto-typical Keynesian anti-stimulative strategy)
At best, it is a wash. Slightly positive if you believe the government is more efficent at "investment" than business. Grossly negative if the effect of the last "stimulus" is considered (Obama promised unemployment wouldn't go past 8% and now it is forecast to not get to 8% for years).
In the meantime, we have a Super Deficit Committee charged with cutting spending or raising revenue $1.5 Trillion by year end or across the board spending cuts will be enacted. Because Obama is using $400Billion of tax increases (regardless of the source), unless you believe it is good to increase taxes on employers and consumers even more, the final result is the Super Committee will have to rely almost exclusively on spending cuts to meet the $1.5Trillion requirement.
Now the real rub. In the end, this entire exercise will exchange current spending priorities to be sacrificed for these new spending priorities in the "Obama Jobs Plan" having no net effect on jobs. As a conservative who believes in government doing well what it should do and not doing what it either shouldn't do or doesn't do well, my strong suspicion is at best we will end up trading the former for the latter, resulting in a net loss.
In the end, it is just all so much nonsense. And, as a Democrat, you too should be appalled. The trouncing of the Democrat in NY last night in a district heavily Democratic should tell you the frustration is not just with the Tea Party-ites but also deeply in your own rank and file.
Finally, the ultimate irony: Obama's "jobs plan" will divert government resources to certain private businesses (esp. in construction) and away from traditional government services Democrats traditionally defend at the same time shrinking government programs Republicans fundamentally oppose.
Troy, tsk. There you go again with the weasely stuff:
"1) Government spend $447 Billion
One more time. The American Jobs Act is 60% tax cuts. Ron Paul would say "Why should you have to pay for that? It's YOUR money." So which is it Troy? You can't have it both ways.
P.S.
1) First poll on the Jobs Plan: "Obama Approval Plummets on Jobs Plan" http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-09-14/obama-approval-drops-on-skepticism-of-jobs-plan.html
2) Record Poverty and record number of uninsured for health care: How is Obama's efforts working so far? http://www.marketwatch.com/story/record-poverty-last-year-as-household-income-dips-2011-09-13
3) Small business confidence is dropping. http://www.cnbc.com/id/44499307
4) CBO, Federal Reserve and OMB agree on one thing: Future growth is tepid at best.
5) The loss of the Weiner seat is recognized by all as a repudiation of Obama.
Dems are in a catch-22. Throw Obama under the bus and alienate their far left base or ride the horse and have the moderates and independents do it (giving the GOP even greater control of Congress). Wouldn't want to be ya.
p.s. Troy, it is my understanding that all CBO projections on anyones plan assume the expiration of the Bush Tax Cuts. I thought this was common knowledge.
http://www.businessinsider.com/sp-does-not-believe-the-bush-tax-cuts-will-get-lifted-in-2012-2011-8
Bill, I stand corrected. There is about $200 Billion in spending. And, nearly all of the tax cuts are in the payroll tax which worsens the financial condition of Social Security and Medicare. Now that I know that, I don't feel any better. The payroll tax is the worst tax to cut considering the health of Social Security.
Why, what's wrong with Social Security? We owe that fund about $3 trillion. If it's broke, so is China, buddy.
What gets me is that of all the urgent economic problems we have, SS doesn't seem like of them. Pay back what we've borrowed from the Trust Fund, raise the income cap, and it's probably in good shape for several decades. Beyond that, maybe take a look as some very liberal means testing alternatives. The only reason anyone brings it up is that it's an emotional hot button. Speaking of which, Rick Perry really put his foot in it on that one. You guys can forget Florida if he's gonna be your candidate.
Nate Silver over at the 538 blog has an interesting take on the American Jobs Act that is worth the read.
http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/09/09/jobs-jobs-jobs-versus-the-s-word/
Jana. Yes. No doubt Troy has read it. Hence his transparent partisan posturing here.
Troy, help me out here. So the payroll tax is the worst cut? You mean the one that benefits the working middle class? That one? So what are the good tax cuts? So the continuing hollowing out of the middle class is a good thing?
What would your choices be? What other plans are out there?
While we are cutting Social Security taxes, why not give us all back what we paid in and cut the program for good? Talking about helping out the middle class and the working poor.
The payroll tax cuts will apply to both the employee and the employer and pump immediate cash into the economy, because working people need to spend that money. Cut taxes on the more affluent and the extra cash will probably go into savings. It would be lovely to dream that it would go into job creation, but alas, we've had those cuts in place for the last 10 years now, and look where it's brought us. The logic needs to change. First CREATE the JOBS, then you get the tax break. Not the other way around.
Right, Sibby. I suppose you want all your car and life and health insurance money back too, right? You guys. I tell ya. I thought you and Troy were business people.
Bill,
Social Security is the opposite of life insurance. It is only by living do we get our money back. If I die today, my estate gets nothing. Like most things from the left, the name is the exact opposite of reality.
You get health care if you get sick, your car paid for you if you wreck it, and SS if you get old. Makes sense to me, Sibby, sorry.
Bill, Bill, don't you realize that - unlike the slackers who only make $10 an hour - Steve has managed to save the $400,000 he'll need if, say, he gets a medical emergency (unlike Ron Paul's deceased ex-campaign manager), plus the one million dollars he'll need in order to live without government assistance from his "retirement" until he dies? Who needs social security or health insurance when you've got that kind of cash? He's reaping the rewards of hard work, thrift, and extremely good fortune.
A million-four huh, Eve? That's a good number to remember. (And that's about all most of us will ever do — remember ...that we don't have it.)
Jana, I think this payroll tax cut is the worst for the working person despite its short-term benefit for one reason (besides hurting the solvency of Social Security as a whole) is less money is paid into the workers SS account lessening benefits when they are retired.
Bill, I think the reason we can't pull out of this recession is for these reasons:
1) Business (which includes those making over $200K because their small business is organized as a sub-S Corp. or LLC) fears a future tax increase which diminishes the potential return on future investments that create jobs. Lower returns combined with higher risk because of the potential effect on their customers from a tax increase, no recovery.
2) Consumer confidence in the future has them not spending out of fear. As long as employers have hiring freezes, people who are working fear they could lose their job if things turn worse. When their employer is hiring they feel greater security. Take the Bush/Pelosi "stimulative" tax cut of 2008 in an effort to stave off the recession that hit us. People will take the payroll tax relief and do what they are doing now with it-hoard it.
This recession, job creation, and a reduction in poverty will only occur when business and consumers have confidence in the future. More of the same of Obama's "tried and failed" policies to deal with unemployment, mortgage/housiing crisis, etc. do not inspire confidence but actually have diminished it.
Troy, I love ya, buddy but that's not clicking for me for several reasons. First, I own a small business, and those are not the things I think about when considering expansion. Never have been. So I question whether that's a real concern. My hunch is, businesses aren't hiring a) because the continuing demand (and growth of same) for their goods and services is uncertain, and b) because they have become more mechanized and c) because it is difficult to find workers who can do the job.
As to your second point, I agree. People are acting out of fear. You Repubs should stop with the doom and gloom bullshit and get back into that good old Ronnie Reagan shining City on the Hill stuff. It's disgraceful, I think, that your party is willing to tank the American economy for four years just because your guy didn't win.
"You get health care if you get sick, your car paid for you if you wreck it, and SS if you get old. Makes sense to me, Sibby, sorry."
Oh, so Social Security is old-age "insurance", and not a retirement plan like our 401Ks. If was up to me, I would instead have the tax sent to my 401k, that way if I die young, by estate gets the cash. But since I am living in democratic tyranny, I don't have that "choice". So who is "anti-choice" here?
Yes, Social Security is an insurance program with scheduled benefits. Exactly. And nothing's stopping you from also having a 401K, of course. Besides, your employer contributes half of your premium, so what are you grousing about, really?
Billl, it might not be a consideration you make but 100% of the people I work with every day analyze their return on investment and consider after tax return (and yes they do add back any items like tax credits or accelerated depreciation).
Let me give you a simple scenario. Investment based on 40% tax rate (state and national income taxes and yes I know this doesn't apply in SD exactly) has a projected payback in 5 years (manufacturers have higher horizons/more risk as future is unknown, service/retail have shorter horizons/less risk as future is more certain). If the investment has returns beyond 5 years, the entreprenuer makes money (cash in pocket). If it produces returns for less years, the investment was a bust.
For easy math, say the investment is $300,000 and is projected to produce $100,000 pre-tax over the five years, the business will put $60K in their pocket after taxes and pay for it over 5 years.
Now, let's say taxes go up 5% and the higher taxes reduce pre-tax profits to $90K because demand is less, the business now puts $45K in their pocket to pay off the investment which now means it takes 7 years to pay back the $300,000. You have significantly reduced the incentive for making the investment as it takes two extra years (longer into the uncertain future) before the business puts money into their pocket for making the investment.
Even if it doesn't result in lower pre-tax profits and they still make $100,000 pre-tax, the after tax return is $55,000 which requires almost 6 years to pay off the the investment.
And remember this, instead of making the $300K investment, the business owner could put the money into Treasury Securities, earn 2% every year, and have $330,000 (after tax) in the bank after the seventh year.
Would you take the risk to maybe have $25,000 more money in your pocket or just sit on your hands, take less risk, and not have to work as hard? You might but unfortunately too many business owners are deciding to do this.
By the way, I agree with your a) point. It is exactly my point regarding "animal spirits" and the uncertainty toward the future. And, these business owners don't think higher taxes improves the prospects for the future.
I disagree with your point on mechanization. It has been the buggaboo forever from the Luddites and has never proven itself in reality. Mechanization has increased productivity, made the American worker more valuable (brains vs. brawn), and led to economic growth.
I strongly disagree with your last point. The American worker is the best in the world. Period.
Regarding the doom and gloom, every clarion call from your side to raise taxes and increase regulation is like a slap in the face to every business owner. Because we are standing up for preventing their worst fear from occurring, we have made the situation better than it would otherwise be.
I said at the time, and your earlier point about hte Bush tax cuts being temporary, that a two year extention was going to be fruitless. Business has too long a horizon to consider and the two year couched in it being motivated to "stimulate" was code for "when we get growth, we will raise your taxes." Business owners might be optimistic (necessary for positive "animal spirits") but they aren't stupid. They hear you and Obama loud and clear- "The government will get you tomorrow."
Yes, Bill, a million four is what you'll need to survive without taking any money from the government, and that's assuming you own your house outright, no payments necessary.
$800 a month for utilities/property taxes/etc., $700 for food, $1000 for health insurance, and $250 for miscellaneous supplies adds up to $33,000 a year. To get that in interest payments (stocks, bonds, CDs, whatever), you need about a million in investments. The extra $400,000 is so that you can pay for any medical emergency that your health insurance company refuses to cover, and/or the many, many things that no health insurance covers at all, plus deductibles. By the way, these figures do not include money for long-term care insurance, which runs at least $3,000 a year over age 65 and only covers FOUR YEARS worth of care in a nursing home, so if you get Alzheimers, you and your estate and your family are screwed. So, whether you buy it or not, in Steve's trenchant phrase, you're still a sluggard. In my trenchant phrase, whether you buy it or not, after four years, you'll lose everything you have anyway to the nursing home.
Just a note: 90% of people say they'd rather die than go in a nursing home; 90% of people are going to spend time in a nursing home, one way or another.
"so what are you grousing about, really?"
I am being ripped off, I want my tax and my employer's Social Security taxes going into a private account (401k) that I control (kind of), not the President who uses our senior citizens hostage so that he can spend more printed money that makes interest revenue rise for the International ruling elites.
Troy, not saying American workers aren't good, it's just that they don't know how to do the job. Nobody does. It's a whole new world every year or so, at least in my biz. If you want to hire somebody who knows how to do the work tomorrow, you pretty much have to steal them from a competitor. From what I hear, that's how it is for about one out of four jobs available in the current job market nationwide. .
Troy, glad you think American workers are the best! Do you think that some think the term best might be defined through a different filter?
Oh yeah, you were going to say what the better tax cut would be? Weren't you? It's about choices, right?
Steve, why should your employer contribute anything to it? Who's gonna make him?
Troy 9/14/11 7:36am-But, I really don’t care if you believe me. Just address my first point and admit your snarky response to deny Obama intends to raise taxes in his “jobs plan†was ignorantly incorrect.
Troy 9/14/11 8:09am- Bill, I stand corrected. There is about $200 Billion in spending. And, nearly all of the tax cuts are in the payroll tax which worsens the financial condition of Social Security and Medicare. Now that I know that, I don’t feel any better. The payroll tax is the worst tax to cut considering the health of Social Security.
Hmmmm.....No Mr. Jones, I don't think I will admit that I was speaking from ignorance. Please see above for reasons why.
Thank you
Mike,
And to pay for this combination of the payroll tax cut and spending: $400 Billion of tax increases. Period. Obama says it himself.
OK, just for the record, it's called the American Jobs Act. Now if you want to call something else, that's fine, but just know that with your own personal name for the act you are diminishing your credibility.
The other rule is if you want to tear the AJA apart, do it at an intellectual level and weigh in on your opinions line by line on the substance of the proposed bill.
I know, that will mean you actually have to read it and weigh each aspect of it on an intellectual level. But hey, the loyal opposition here aren't 'morans' (I'll send you a picture if you didn't get that reference) Then when you are done weighing each item for it's economic benefit, then jump in and criticize all day long...just be specific.
None of this chicken sh*t Obamacare critique where just saying 'Obamacare' was enough. Have the intellectual courage to stand up and agree or disagree line by line with the bill. Like the part about kids with pre existing conditions.
I know there are some out there who despise the that think that there shouldn't be incentives for small business to offer their employees health insurance. And god knows that there's way too many out there on the right that think that the kid diagnosed with cancer at an early age should be destined for a life of financial hell if he survives...but hey, that plays well in the party. I even heard them clap and cheer this week.
Troy, there's a big sentiment in the Republican party to repeal the current payroll tax decrease that was part of the first stimulus bill. It's funny that the Grover Norquist groupies aren't screaming over this one. Oh that's right....
So where else could we come up with $400 billion...I mean other than from the middle class.
Troy, why is it I get this sense from the Republicans that their sense of community ends at the fence in their own back yard.
Jana, if you look at SS solely from the standpoint of the worker, SS is forced savings with a mandated employer match. Thus, all a payrolltax cut is reduce my retirement.
Regarding your attempt at a slur of Republicans, I must be too dense to understand it. All I can say is I am a Republican who believes there are some things government can do well. SS retirement is one of them. I am not interested in making it less viable as a whole or decrease its value to especially poor retirees. Thus, I oppose this tax cut as anti- working poor and middle class retirees.
Troy, I think you know your SS argument is bogus. You should come clean about it. Those temporary cuts aren't going to diminish anyone's SS benefits in any way whatsoever. If you are going to insist they will, you must at least offer proof so your points can be debated.
For Troy:
http://thethrivingsmallbusiness.com/articles/social-security-tax-cut-2011-what-employers-need-to-know/
more oil in the gulf: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Chevron+reports+potential+Gulf+Mexico+leak/5396995/story.html
h/t: lynn
"Who’s gonna make him?"
Bill, The government already is.
That's circular reasoning, Sibby. You argue for things to change, then want them to stay the same. You can't have it both ways, man. Do you want the government involved in your retirement plan, or not?
400 US citizens have more assets than the bottom 150 million. Republican logic on taxation is dig the economic hole deeper with more tax cuts for the very rich. The Bush tax cuts for the very rich did so much to increase jobs.
I do not understand why the South Dakota unrich find the Republican economic mythology so appealing.