Congressional Approval Rating: New Low at 11 Percent

Liberals love to crow about Bush's low approval ratings (he should try being more conservative, instead of alienating his base), but I think the Democrat-controlled Congress would love to have his rating.

From Yahoo News:

President George W. Bush and the U.S. Congress registered record-low approval ratings in a Reuters/Zogby poll released on Wednesday, and a new monthly index measuring the mood of Americans dipped slightly on deepening worries about the economy.

Only 29 percent of Americans gave Bush a positive grade for his job performance, below his worst Zogby poll mark of 30 percent in March. A paltry 11 percent rated Congress positively, beating the previous low of 14 percent in July.

More Plunder

Why is it the more I see and hear, the less I'm liking what's coming out of Rapid City's city hall these days?

Rapid City has been looking at the possible annexation of several parts (or the whole) of Rapid Valley for some time now.

This huge community between Rapid City and the Rapid City airport is home to several thousand people; I recall reading a story a couple of years ago that added up the numbers and found it would be one of South Dakota's top 5 towns if it were incorporated.

There were few businesses in Rapid Valley until about 5 years ago, but now, with new housing simply exploding in the Valley, several more businesses are popping up fast.

And it looks like Rapid City is licking it's chops with renewed interest.

From the Rapid City Journal:

Little progress was made Monday by the Rapid City Council regarding the possible annexation of commercial properties along S.D. Highway 44 in Rapid Valley that are outside the city limits.


Though the council rejected the idea eight months ago, Alderman Tom Johnson urged the council to reconsider its decision because of the sales tax revenue those businesses would generate for the city.

In January, the city council, minus Johnson who was unable to attend, voted against the proposal, which would have required staff to contact property owners to gauge interest in voluntary annexation. No one was proposing forced annexation.

Some are talking (of course) about what Rapid Valley would gain from being part of the city. The answer no one is talking about: nothing.

Rapid Valley already has a volunteer fire department right in the middle of it (the kind of fire dept. that serves almost every other South Dakota town), already has it's own water and sewer system, and has a sheriff's dept. substation located right in Rapid Valley. This in addition to the other services it receives from Pennington County.

So Rapid City can really offer Rapid Valley nothing except higher taxes and additional regulations. Nice deal, huh?

While some try to paint him as a naysayer, it once again seems Alderman Sam Kooiker is the only voice of consideration and reason on the council:

Alderman Sam Kooiker, the only council member to vote against more discussion, questioned how the city can make the case for annexation without the promise of providing direct services.

Kooiker said a community of interest exists between Rapid City and Rapid Valley, as well as small communities such as Black Hawk, but Rapid City should have a more productive and encompassing dialog that shows it is "truly interested in providing services and becoming a community of interest, rather than being a 15th century plunderer, where we just go ahead and take properties so we can have additional revenue for city coffers."

I like that, "15th Century plunderer." Kind of reminds me of that Capital One commercial with all the barbarians running out to pillage interest dollars, only to find they were thwarted by the low-rate Capital One card. Only in this case, the plunderers find Kooiker speaking of more than just reaping more taxes, and maybe the residents and businesses of Rapid Valley wanting more than just to be able to say, "Oooh, we're part of Rapid City now. How neat!"

I'm also reminded of the fast and seemingly forced-down-the-throat incorporation of the Summerset area west of Rapid City. That seems like a real goat-rope, and has since moments after the incorporation.

Has it ever occurred to those with the bureaucratic mindset that maybe some people would rather simply live quiet lives without the hassles of unnecessary government?

Cabela's Land Transfer Approved

According to the Rapid City Journal, the transfer of 30 acres of city property to Cabela's, which was referred to a vote today, has gone through with a 59.6% yes vote.

The final vote total was 6,957 "yes" votes to 4,716 "no" votes.

I had hoped it would pass, but would be a squeaker so that it might be less likely that the city council would feel emboldened to make similar deals in the future.

Maybe the deal the city struck is what it took to bring Cabela's to Rapid City. But I can't escape the suspicion that the deal was too eager and too generous from the start.

We can hope that the controversy and trouble of a special election will give everyone pause in the future. Government should be business-friendly, but govenment still has a responsiblity to be good stewards of the taxpayer's interest.

I also have a hard time believing that Cabela's "business model" couldn't work without a leg up from Rapid City government. I'm very pro-business, but I have to ask myself, "If Cabela's can't be profitable without the help of several million dollars worth of real estate help from the city, does Cabela's really deserve to be in business?"

Hillary Boils the Frog

Glimpses of truth from Hillary's obfuscation about her socialized health care plans.

From Yahoo News:

"At this point, we don't have anything punitive that we have proposed," the presidential candidate said in an interview with The Associated Press. "We're providing incentives and tax credits which we think will be very attractive to the vast majority of Americans."

Notice the "at this point" caveat. "No, Mr. Frog, at this point we have no plans to boil you alive. Just wait a little while for us to turn up the heat a few degrees and we'll get back to that proposition."

And try this on for size, freedom-lovers:

She said she could envision a day when "you have to show proof to your employer that you're insured as a part of the job interview — like when your kid goes to school and has to show proof of vaccination," but said such details would be worked out through negotiations with Congress.

Who cares if you're qualified to do the work and the employer wants to hire you? You must conform to the wisdom of the state first!

No, I wouldn't consider being denied a job because you won't play along with Hillary's socialist games "punitive." Not at all. Why would anyone think that?

When will people wake up and realize liberals couldn't give a rip about your freedom, as they travel along the merry road to their socialist utopia?

The Land of Opportunity

Ever wonder why we get such distorted, inconsistent rulings from the judicial branch these days?

Dennis Prager offers some insight:

I learned a major part of the answer years ago in Idaho where I was the moderator of a panel of judges – including a past California Supreme Court justice – and lawyers connected to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I asked the panel members to give their view of the role of judges. The response of the liberal former California Supreme Court justice opened my eyes to the left's view of virtually everything in society.

He said that the purpose of a California Supreme Court justice, and for that matter, every judge, is to fight economic inequality and racism in society.

Sounds right out of the Marxist textbook; envy is at the heart of pure Marxist philosophy.

But the Bible, the center of the Judeo-Christian worldview that built this nation, sees poverty and justice differently.

Consider Leviticus 19:15 which says

Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly

And Exodus 23:2-3 says

Do not follow the crowd in doing wrong. When you give testimony in a lawsuit, do not pervert justice by siding with the crowd, and do not show favoritism to a poor man in his lawsuit.

The Bible is rich in examples that God is a friend of the poor...but not at the expense of what's fair and true and just.

You don't erase an injustice (or poverty itself) by taking something from one innocent person and giving it to another (innocent or not); you just create or multiply injustice.

We are to seek the truth, aim for what is right, not indulge our own sense of self-guilt or become confused by the politics of greed. God is more concerned with the truth of a matter, than with changing economic "inequalities."

But this example from Prager serves to illustrate what is wrong with so many judges and our judicial system as a whole: it is too concerned with setting rules for society and too unconcerned with adjudicating the laws we do have.

In an imperfect world, the United States has the most fair system on the planet, and provides more opportunity for the individual to succeed and excel. Our system of government was intended to provide maximum opportunity, not maximum outcome. The best a human government can do is ensure that maximum opportunity exists...and leave the results up to the individual and to God.