A demonstration in support of Marc Wisecarver identified several issues that affect us all, even though it appears that the general facts concerning the case are not in dispute. It is not clear that justice has been served in this case by the sentence. According to the Sunday, April 26, 2009 Rapid City Journal article, Mr. Wisecarver was found not guilty of assault, but in his sentencing statement for the second charge conviction, the judge referred to the seriousness of the charge the defendant was found not guilty of. The comparison was made that in Indian Country, “this is just another example of what I see on a day-to-day basis.” Apparently, no mitigation by reason of self defense was considered by the judge or reference to the trespass that caused the confrontation that resulted in charges against Mr. Wisecarver.
The court takes into account other circumstances when imposing a sentence. This is reasonable, but what does “not guilty” mean when the charges an individual was acquitted from are still referred to in the sentencing for conviction on a separate charge? This becomes an important question for those of us who would like to defend ourselves and our property from trespass.
For more insights, information, and comments about this case visit the following websites:
http://www.lakota-aid.co.uk/lakotanews.htm
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/04/27/news/local/doc49f61d46d8245096828837.txt
http://www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/04/25/news/top/doc49f327cdf4234810537299.txt?show_comments=true#commentdiv
Friday, May 1, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
The Way We Perceive Things
Where in the world is South Dakota? While still quite young, it was a surprise for me to learn that what is considered the Middle West is east of where I lived in South Dakota. However, when considering the area covered by the High Country News magazine, our state is not part of the west. Even though South is part of our state’s name, we are northerners.
Look at that name Middle West and consider that the even though there is a place like that in our country, there is no corresponding complimentary Middle East within our borders. How did these apparent misnomers get by all the political correctness my neighbors like to make fun of. Perhaps, they aren’t socialist concepts?
Socialism seems to be a new buzz word with about the same relationship to reality as some of the place names in our country. I know where Dallas South Dakota is, but when you hear people talking about the Dallas Cowboys, rarely is the boot and hat variety of our locale the topic of the conversation.
Likewise, socialism had a definite definition when I took classes that touched on political science. What I hear as defining socialism today blurs the lines of reality and could be used to describe situations that many of the users of the term would not want included in their disdainful labeling fiesta. Like using taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care for the general public is socialistic. Using taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care for veterans, elderly people, and elected officials is an accepted element of our idea of capitalism. Using taxpayer dollars to feed hungry people is socialist welfare. Using tax payer dollars supplement the relocation of independently healthy and profitable businesses is capitalism. Providing free access to publicly owned highway and road systems, free access to public owned schools, and free access to many other publicly provided services is capitalism and certainly is not wealth transference. However, providing housing assistance to people in need is socialistic redistribution of wealth. Are you confused?
How did these concepts get so turned around? Is there a difference between a business perk and welfare? Don’t get into argument that one is earned and the other is not because upon close scrutiny it can get very hard to identify which is which. Is a gift really a gift if there are conditions associated with reception eligibility? Most of us have heard of perks that come with the job but aren’t tied to the ability to do the job or to doing the job well. If that isn’t the case, what is all the fuss about bonuses for executives that are considered responsible only when the company shows a profit and not when there is a loss?
Why is it that Republican spending is capitalism and Democratic spending is socialism? Ronald Reagan’s administration ran up the first trillion dollar national debt, George W. Bush funded the first major war without a tax increase, and during the G. W. Bush administration a Republican controlled congress went on a spending spree that dwarfed all previous congressional spending sprees. No one accuses them of being borrow-and-spend Republicans. The cost of the Iraq war wasn’t even included in the normal federal budget; instead it was more on the order of an addendum called a supplement. Where were the current Tea Party protestors then and why don’t the protestors now identify these glaring omissions in their public presentations? Well, the answer to that is not really a surprise to anyone; that would be admitting to some holes in hull of their boat as well as the holes in their opposition’s vessel.
What’s that you say? This opinion piece includes some of those inflammatory words? Nanner nanner nann nerr, big fat water rat . . . That proves my point, we’re both able to tell the difference in how to describe things so that they sting and so are most children when they use name calling. Many times we use these words as devices to get the reader or listener’s attention. Unfortunately, instead of adding a little spice, we end up dropping a dump truck load of salt on an open wound. Then it becomes questionable as to just what the intention was or is for the use of this type of language. There are lots of people that use the strategy of divide and conquer. Why we do what we do depends a lot on the relationships involved.
Many of my conservative neighbors in this state have their personal finances under control. They don’t borrow unnecessarily and they don’t spend that way either. However, they wouldn’t let their children go under financially without trying to help them, even when their children may not necessarily be all that deserving of that help. They do it with the hope that in the end the children will see their own mistakes and avoid them in the future. Why is it so difficult to transfer or apply that same idea and reasoning to the family of man? Many of these neighbors that I refer to, have applied that theory through religious organizations they belong to and/or support. The hang-up is in the terminology and labels that we have learned to apply to public programs. Some how the corporations and certain other groups have convinced us that the perks they receive from our government are something other than the so called nefarious welfare giveaways. You wouldn’t be so confused about that at home, even if your children were to incorporate.
There is enough faulty public and private perception and management to satisfy even the sloppiest and unskilled examples of researchers. Unfortunately, most research is left up to political leaders and news outlets that are more concerned with profits and furthering the political ideals and agendas of their owners than in conducting real investigative journalism. Many people are more inclined to look and listen for what they want to hear rather than to skeptically question what they read or hear. Fortunately, there have always been good journalists that do their jobs and provide the information the public needs to separate the spin from the truth. The trouble is that the other kinds of journalists are many times easier to pay attention to since they are serving the food we like to eat.
Now that skepticism is no longer unpatriotic, we need to do what the Tea Baggers claimed to be doing. We need to question the actions of our elected officials. We should question our foreign policy, question our fiscal policy, question our monetary policy, and generally question all of our government policies; forming our questions with the intent of identifying what is good for the country and not what is good for our favorite political party. Political theory and idealism is good for elections and bad for legislation. Do a little checking and you can find lots of examples of good legislation when the political idealism was checked at the door of the debate hall.
Start by checking your own vocabulary and eliminating inflammatory labels and accusations. One-upmanship is an elementary school device that we should be able to do away with. The conservative and liberal talk show hosts have become trainers for the rest of us in how not to get along. We need to find better examples and better teachers. They exist and some of them helped to write our Constitution. Emulate the speakers that don’t insight riot, let the cooler heads prevail and become a majority. There will be plenty of opportunities to sling mud in the elections, but let us keep our hands clean when we are about the country’s business.
I have a brother-in-law that I think very highly of and he ascribes to a political viewpoint quite different from my own. For a while we had to give up talking about politics because we couldn’t do it without becoming emotionally aggravated. Lately, we have been talking about political issues; not because we have changed the way we think, but because we have changed the way we describe what we think. Now it appears as though we agree on far more issues than before, probably because we always did.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm121980.pdf
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm121989.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost_of_war_counter_notes
http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/10/tax-and-borrow.html
Look at that name Middle West and consider that the even though there is a place like that in our country, there is no corresponding complimentary Middle East within our borders. How did these apparent misnomers get by all the political correctness my neighbors like to make fun of. Perhaps, they aren’t socialist concepts?
Socialism seems to be a new buzz word with about the same relationship to reality as some of the place names in our country. I know where Dallas South Dakota is, but when you hear people talking about the Dallas Cowboys, rarely is the boot and hat variety of our locale the topic of the conversation.
Likewise, socialism had a definite definition when I took classes that touched on political science. What I hear as defining socialism today blurs the lines of reality and could be used to describe situations that many of the users of the term would not want included in their disdainful labeling fiesta. Like using taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care for the general public is socialistic. Using taxpayers’ dollars to provide health care for veterans, elderly people, and elected officials is an accepted element of our idea of capitalism. Using taxpayer dollars to feed hungry people is socialist welfare. Using tax payer dollars supplement the relocation of independently healthy and profitable businesses is capitalism. Providing free access to publicly owned highway and road systems, free access to public owned schools, and free access to many other publicly provided services is capitalism and certainly is not wealth transference. However, providing housing assistance to people in need is socialistic redistribution of wealth. Are you confused?
How did these concepts get so turned around? Is there a difference between a business perk and welfare? Don’t get into argument that one is earned and the other is not because upon close scrutiny it can get very hard to identify which is which. Is a gift really a gift if there are conditions associated with reception eligibility? Most of us have heard of perks that come with the job but aren’t tied to the ability to do the job or to doing the job well. If that isn’t the case, what is all the fuss about bonuses for executives that are considered responsible only when the company shows a profit and not when there is a loss?
Why is it that Republican spending is capitalism and Democratic spending is socialism? Ronald Reagan’s administration ran up the first trillion dollar national debt, George W. Bush funded the first major war without a tax increase, and during the G. W. Bush administration a Republican controlled congress went on a spending spree that dwarfed all previous congressional spending sprees. No one accuses them of being borrow-and-spend Republicans. The cost of the Iraq war wasn’t even included in the normal federal budget; instead it was more on the order of an addendum called a supplement. Where were the current Tea Party protestors then and why don’t the protestors now identify these glaring omissions in their public presentations? Well, the answer to that is not really a surprise to anyone; that would be admitting to some holes in hull of their boat as well as the holes in their opposition’s vessel.
What’s that you say? This opinion piece includes some of those inflammatory words? Nanner nanner nann nerr, big fat water rat . . . That proves my point, we’re both able to tell the difference in how to describe things so that they sting and so are most children when they use name calling. Many times we use these words as devices to get the reader or listener’s attention. Unfortunately, instead of adding a little spice, we end up dropping a dump truck load of salt on an open wound. Then it becomes questionable as to just what the intention was or is for the use of this type of language. There are lots of people that use the strategy of divide and conquer. Why we do what we do depends a lot on the relationships involved.
Many of my conservative neighbors in this state have their personal finances under control. They don’t borrow unnecessarily and they don’t spend that way either. However, they wouldn’t let their children go under financially without trying to help them, even when their children may not necessarily be all that deserving of that help. They do it with the hope that in the end the children will see their own mistakes and avoid them in the future. Why is it so difficult to transfer or apply that same idea and reasoning to the family of man? Many of these neighbors that I refer to, have applied that theory through religious organizations they belong to and/or support. The hang-up is in the terminology and labels that we have learned to apply to public programs. Some how the corporations and certain other groups have convinced us that the perks they receive from our government are something other than the so called nefarious welfare giveaways. You wouldn’t be so confused about that at home, even if your children were to incorporate.
There is enough faulty public and private perception and management to satisfy even the sloppiest and unskilled examples of researchers. Unfortunately, most research is left up to political leaders and news outlets that are more concerned with profits and furthering the political ideals and agendas of their owners than in conducting real investigative journalism. Many people are more inclined to look and listen for what they want to hear rather than to skeptically question what they read or hear. Fortunately, there have always been good journalists that do their jobs and provide the information the public needs to separate the spin from the truth. The trouble is that the other kinds of journalists are many times easier to pay attention to since they are serving the food we like to eat.
Now that skepticism is no longer unpatriotic, we need to do what the Tea Baggers claimed to be doing. We need to question the actions of our elected officials. We should question our foreign policy, question our fiscal policy, question our monetary policy, and generally question all of our government policies; forming our questions with the intent of identifying what is good for the country and not what is good for our favorite political party. Political theory and idealism is good for elections and bad for legislation. Do a little checking and you can find lots of examples of good legislation when the political idealism was checked at the door of the debate hall.
Start by checking your own vocabulary and eliminating inflammatory labels and accusations. One-upmanship is an elementary school device that we should be able to do away with. The conservative and liberal talk show hosts have become trainers for the rest of us in how not to get along. We need to find better examples and better teachers. They exist and some of them helped to write our Constitution. Emulate the speakers that don’t insight riot, let the cooler heads prevail and become a majority. There will be plenty of opportunities to sling mud in the elections, but let us keep our hands clean when we are about the country’s business.
I have a brother-in-law that I think very highly of and he ascribes to a political viewpoint quite different from my own. For a while we had to give up talking about politics because we couldn’t do it without becoming emotionally aggravated. Lately, we have been talking about political issues; not because we have changed the way we think, but because we have changed the way we describe what we think. Now it appears as though we agree on far more issues than before, probably because we always did.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Reagan
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm121980.pdf
ftp://ftp.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdm121989.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_debt_by_U.S._presidential_terms
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/cost_of_war_counter_notes
http://momocrats.typepad.com/momocrats/2008/10/tax-and-borrow.html
Sunday, April 19, 2009
Letter to the Editor, Published in Rapid City Journal 4-19-09
Thank you for your comments referring to my letter Mr. Johnson. However, what makes you think that I’m defending Democrats? Here is a fact, based on my experience: Visiting numerous Tea Party websites and perusing their lists of slogans, signs, and talking points (when they included those things) did not turn up anti-Bush, anti-Paulson, anti-TARP, or anti-stealing money from our grandchildren to pay for the war in Iraq references. Is it possible that Nancy Pelosi, President Obama, and Timothy Geithner are only part-time Democrats? There were lots of examples on those websites that did not specifically name one party or one administration responsible for maximizing levels of taxation and spending. They almost made me want to join in.As you pointed out, we agree that people should protest. Are you are unable or unwilling to see how people with an agenda that is slanted against one party also used this event to further that agenda? Perhaps you’ll be on the front lines of some unbiased Labor Day celebration in the future just to spite me.
As for my letter being presented as something other than my opinion, how did it differ in that respect from your letter?
Friday, April 17, 2009
Senator Rhoden responds to my Feb. 9, 2009 letter
Today, Senator Rhoden sent me an e-mail message asking me to speak with him on the phone regarding the questions I asked him in the letter I sent to him and published on this blog earlier. The Senator was very open and forthcoming about his reasons for voting the way he did with regard to pipeline legislation, SB171 and SB190. His main concern when SB171 was being reviewed in the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing was with the constitutionality of the bill. Upon pressing lobbyists for more information about their claim that at least one other state imposes a similar fee, Sen. Rhoden discovered that the circumstances in that state were quite different from the situation in South Dakota. The other state pipelines were intrastate systems and the pipelines in question crossing South Dakota will be inter-state transmission systems. Federal laws regarding inter-state commerce applied to the South Dakota systems that did not apply to the state lines used for comparison by the proponent lobbyists for the legislation.
My letter discounts his likely concern with the unconstitutionality of this issue compared to his apparent lack of concern for the constitutionality of other legislation. Sen. Rhoden explained that in the other case, testing the constitutionality of the legislation was the intention because of the potential for a positive outcome in the Senator's opinion. In the case of the pipeline legislation, the test stood little or no chance of resulting in a positive outcome and would therefore be nothing more than a large waste of money.
Sen. Rhoden is convinced that adequate funding is currently available to cover the costs of potential pipeline spill cleanup from two existing sources. He referenced the average estimated cost of spill cleanup based on documented historical experience numbers for pipelines in the United States.
Senator Rhoden also apologized for not getting back to me sooner. The timing of his response was not as important as the fact that he did respond and took time out to answer my questions personally, just as I had requested. The same cannot be said of all of my local district's elected officials and I thank Senator Rhoden for his time and his consideration.
My letter discounts his likely concern with the unconstitutionality of this issue compared to his apparent lack of concern for the constitutionality of other legislation. Sen. Rhoden explained that in the other case, testing the constitutionality of the legislation was the intention because of the potential for a positive outcome in the Senator's opinion. In the case of the pipeline legislation, the test stood little or no chance of resulting in a positive outcome and would therefore be nothing more than a large waste of money.
Sen. Rhoden is convinced that adequate funding is currently available to cover the costs of potential pipeline spill cleanup from two existing sources. He referenced the average estimated cost of spill cleanup based on documented historical experience numbers for pipelines in the United States.
Senator Rhoden also apologized for not getting back to me sooner. The timing of his response was not as important as the fact that he did respond and took time out to answer my questions personally, just as I had requested. The same cannot be said of all of my local district's elected officials and I thank Senator Rhoden for his time and his consideration.
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
Tea Party protest in Rapid City
Tuesday, April 14, 2009; Jerry Steinley’s article Spending brings out the tea protest was published in the Rapid City Journal:
http//www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/04/14/news/opinions/jerry_steinley/doc49de39520221d774387146.txt .
Since then numerous online comments have been posted on the Rapid City Journal’s website and several rebuttal letters have also been published in the print version of the Rapid City Journal. I wrote the following article before reading the online posts and I can see that a number of the people writing in support of the Tea Party should not be included in my one party slant perception of participants. In defense of what I wrote below, my opinion came from the print newspaper rebuttals and from visiting a website that listed the issues of the protest. That list was decidedly one sided and party biased. For better or worse, my letter to the editor appears below:
The accusations and pronouncements of the Tea Party group would be much more believable if their charges of malfeasance included members of more than one political party and more than one presidential administration. Mr. Steinley’s recent editorial very clearly identified the upcoming demonstration for what it is, divisive party exploitation of public anger rather than rational nonpartisan voter indignation.
Mr. Steinley’s editorial also implied that not all of our conservative neighbors accept the one sided accusations. The organizers are apparently not interested in using this opportunity to gather more broad based support for their protest. Broad based, multi-political party, support that could actually and positively affect the future of our nation and help to reduce partisan obstructionism and divisiveness.
We should be outraged by what has happened, demand accountability, demand transparency, and get personally involved. Many of the Tea Party group members think they are doing just that, but they should drop the one political party slant on some of the issues they have raised. They could draw many more participants to their rally.
Americans can be very skeptical at times. Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, some of us seem to have forgotten where we left our skepticism laying.
http//www.rapidcityjournal.com/articles/2009/04/14/news/opinions/jerry_steinley/doc49de39520221d774387146.txt .
Since then numerous online comments have been posted on the Rapid City Journal’s website and several rebuttal letters have also been published in the print version of the Rapid City Journal. I wrote the following article before reading the online posts and I can see that a number of the people writing in support of the Tea Party should not be included in my one party slant perception of participants. In defense of what I wrote below, my opinion came from the print newspaper rebuttals and from visiting a website that listed the issues of the protest. That list was decidedly one sided and party biased. For better or worse, my letter to the editor appears below:
The accusations and pronouncements of the Tea Party group would be much more believable if their charges of malfeasance included members of more than one political party and more than one presidential administration. Mr. Steinley’s recent editorial very clearly identified the upcoming demonstration for what it is, divisive party exploitation of public anger rather than rational nonpartisan voter indignation.
Mr. Steinley’s editorial also implied that not all of our conservative neighbors accept the one sided accusations. The organizers are apparently not interested in using this opportunity to gather more broad based support for their protest. Broad based, multi-political party, support that could actually and positively affect the future of our nation and help to reduce partisan obstructionism and divisiveness.
We should be outraged by what has happened, demand accountability, demand transparency, and get personally involved. Many of the Tea Party group members think they are doing just that, but they should drop the one political party slant on some of the issues they have raised. They could draw many more participants to their rally.
Americans can be very skeptical at times. Unfortunately, when it comes to politics, some of us seem to have forgotten where we left our skepticism laying.
Wednesday, April 8, 2009
The Sioux Falls Argus Leader printed my letter to the editor (posted below) under the heading State must protect itself, March 30,2009. The following three comments were posted by Argus readers:
surviveit wrote:
Replying to ManInBlue:
good one..another like opinion
Follow the money. How much has Rounds taken from them in the last 10 years!
3/30/2009 4:05:05 PM
___________________
ManInBlue wrote:
Follow the money. How much has Rounds taken from them in the last 10 years!
3/30/2009 11:07:33 AM
___________________
StopHype wrote:
SD is so anxious to become the pollution center of the US that our government doesn't stop to think about any protections for the state or for the residents!
3/30/2009 10:34:52 AM
surviveit wrote:
Replying to ManInBlue:
good one..another like opinion
Follow the money. How much has Rounds taken from them in the last 10 years!
3/30/2009 4:05:05 PM
___________________
ManInBlue wrote:
Follow the money. How much has Rounds taken from them in the last 10 years!
3/30/2009 11:07:33 AM
___________________
StopHype wrote:
SD is so anxious to become the pollution center of the US that our government doesn't stop to think about any protections for the state or for the residents!
3/30/2009 10:34:52 AM
To: sibbyonline@hotmail.com
Subject: SB171
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:08:46 -0600
Mr. Sibson,
We have never met, but it appears that we are both concerned about the potential consequences of a oil pipeline spill in South Dakota.
I listened to the testimony at the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing on SB171. In researching the issue, I also listened to testimony relating to SB190. A question by Senator Abdalah at the most recent hearing seemed to cut to the heart of the issue and lack of a satisfactory response left me wonder why anyone would be against this legislation.
Comments by Senator Rhoden regarding other legislation and the legislative process made me think that perhaps he could explain to me why this legislation (SB171) was killed in committee by a one vote margin. He did not respond to my letter. Consequently, I wrote to the editor of the Rapid City Journal 3-22-09, asking South Dakotans why we wouldn't want this limited, alternative protection.
Now, I'm asking you.
Sincerely,
Greg Olson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,
Thanks for your email.
The answer to your question is that the Governor is against this idea. He is afraid of scaring away business. And the Governor pretty much runs thw show in Pierre.
I am surprised Larry did not reply to you. Larry is one of the better legislators, although he is not infalliable. He pushes the line as far as he can.
There is a lot of things we need to be concerned about today. Not sure if we can put a stop to them, but I for one believe the fight must happen.
Keep in touch,
Steve
Subject: SB171
Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 22:08:46 -0600
Mr. Sibson,
We have never met, but it appears that we are both concerned about the potential consequences of a oil pipeline spill in South Dakota.
I listened to the testimony at the Senate State Affairs Committee hearing on SB171. In researching the issue, I also listened to testimony relating to SB190. A question by Senator Abdalah at the most recent hearing seemed to cut to the heart of the issue and lack of a satisfactory response left me wonder why anyone would be against this legislation.
Comments by Senator Rhoden regarding other legislation and the legislative process made me think that perhaps he could explain to me why this legislation (SB171) was killed in committee by a one vote margin. He did not respond to my letter. Consequently, I wrote to the editor of the Rapid City Journal 3-22-09, asking South Dakotans why we wouldn't want this limited, alternative protection.
Now, I'm asking you.
Sincerely,
Greg Olson
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Greg,
Thanks for your email.
The answer to your question is that the Governor is against this idea. He is afraid of scaring away business. And the Governor pretty much runs thw show in Pierre.
I am surprised Larry did not reply to you. Larry is one of the better legislators, although he is not infalliable. He pushes the line as far as he can.
There is a lot of things we need to be concerned about today. Not sure if we can put a stop to them, but I for one believe the fight must happen.
Keep in touch,
Steve
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Perhaps the general public will answer my question?
Note: Senator Rhoden chose not to respond to my letter to him (posted on this blog after a reasonable waiting period). Consequently, the following letter was submitted to the editors of several South Dakota newspapers. The Rapid City Journal published the letter on March 22, 2009.
__________
This year SB171 was proposed to provide for a fee of two cents per barrel to be levied on oil pumped through pipelines crossing South Dakota. A fund was to be created by the proceeds of the fee to be used for clean up in the event of an oil spill or some contamination emanating from the pipeline. A cap on this participating fund would be established at thirty million dollars. Similar legislation in another state requires a higher per barrel fee. For more details please refer to the actual text of the bill.
The bill was killed in the Senate State Affairs Committee by a one vote margin. The current South Dakota pipeline regulations and the testimonies by the pipeline supporters relating to pipeline spills and safety are mostly reassuring. However, there appears to be a deficiency with regard to who will pay for a clean up in the event that the pipeline company becomes insolvent or is no longer in business. This missing financial recourse is a very important consideration, especially when considering the state’s experience with specific gold mining and solid waste operations in the Black Hills area. Why wouldn’t we want this limited, alternative protection?
__________
This year SB171 was proposed to provide for a fee of two cents per barrel to be levied on oil pumped through pipelines crossing South Dakota. A fund was to be created by the proceeds of the fee to be used for clean up in the event of an oil spill or some contamination emanating from the pipeline. A cap on this participating fund would be established at thirty million dollars. Similar legislation in another state requires a higher per barrel fee. For more details please refer to the actual text of the bill.
The bill was killed in the Senate State Affairs Committee by a one vote margin. The current South Dakota pipeline regulations and the testimonies by the pipeline supporters relating to pipeline spills and safety are mostly reassuring. However, there appears to be a deficiency with regard to who will pay for a clean up in the event that the pipeline company becomes insolvent or is no longer in business. This missing financial recourse is a very important consideration, especially when considering the state’s experience with specific gold mining and solid waste operations in the Black Hills area. Why wouldn’t we want this limited, alternative protection?
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Concerning recent opinion letters to the Rapid City Journal
March 17, 2009
Several opinions have been expressed about the size of the Obama economic stimulus proposal. They imply that the proposed cost is too high, as if a proposal of this magnitude has never before been considered or implemented. Faced with recession at the beginning of his presidency, Ronald Reagan’s spending policies increased the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Real gross domestic product increased and sixteen million new jobs were created during Reagan’s time in office. Similarly, Obama’s proposal is not based solely on increased government spending. His plan includes tax relief too. Not everyone was satisfied with the Reagan presidency, but criticism of Obama’s plan should be tempered by awareness of the policies of a locally revered former President. Much of the debt incurred by the deficit spending of the Reagan years was purchased by Japan and matured during George H. W. Bush’s presidency. However, by the end of the Clinton administration, deficit spending was erased and there was a budget surplus.
Several opinions have been expressed about the size of the Obama economic stimulus proposal. They imply that the proposed cost is too high, as if a proposal of this magnitude has never before been considered or implemented. Faced with recession at the beginning of his presidency, Ronald Reagan’s spending policies increased the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion. Real gross domestic product increased and sixteen million new jobs were created during Reagan’s time in office. Similarly, Obama’s proposal is not based solely on increased government spending. His plan includes tax relief too. Not everyone was satisfied with the Reagan presidency, but criticism of Obama’s plan should be tempered by awareness of the policies of a locally revered former President. Much of the debt incurred by the deficit spending of the Reagan years was purchased by Japan and matured during George H. W. Bush’s presidency. However, by the end of the Clinton administration, deficit spending was erased and there was a budget surplus.
A letter to Senator Rhoden
February 9, 2009
The Honorable Larry Rhoden
The State Senate
PO Box 12
Union Center, SD 57787-0012
Dear Senator Rhoden,
Thank you for your service to South Dakota. It has been interesting to observe the 2009 session of the legislature. You are one of the few legislators that I have had an opportunity to meet in person. You have voiced in the senate and during committee hearings your particular interest in several issues that are important to me. Also, we both are residents of western South Dakota. When we met, a friend of mine had just testified at a House State Affairs committee hearing and after the meeting he introduced me to you just outside the committee chamber. During the discussion there, you told my friend, who shares many of my political views that you thought that you shared more of the same views with him on legislative issues than he might think. Consequently, it has been especially interesting to observe how you have voted on issues of interest to me, to my friend, to western South Dakota, and to the entire state.
It has been my opinion for a long time that members of political parties will vote in ways that reflect the general views of their political party. Generally this seems to be true, but on occasion, the party view does not coincide with the particular interests of the individual. You have expressed your concern for issues relating to agriculture and land owner rights. Considering how you make your living and where you come from, it is reasonable to expect that on occasion your views would differ from your own political party’s view. Also, some issues are considered nonpolitical so that party affiliation wouldn’t necessarily be an indicator of how you might vote.
With due consideration to the above statements and with no ill intention toward you in any way, your votes in Senate State Affairs Committee on SB171 were puzzling. Fortunately, with recordings of the committee hearings available, I was able to listen to the same testimony that you heard before you cast your votes relative to SB171. Compelling testimony was given by both proponents and opponents of the bill. A critical question that addresses the very heart of this issue was asked by Senator Abdallah at the initial hearing on February 13, 2009. Senator Abdallah asked the question twice; rewording it the second time for clarification and it does not appear that a complete answer was given either time. This is a paraphrase of the senator’s two questions: In the event that the pipeline company was to become financially insolvent for an unspecified reason, how is the required cleanup provided for?
One of the paid lobbyists for the pipeline company indicated that property taxes to be collected on the pipeline during the first two years of operation would be equal to the thirty million dollar fee fund outlined in SB171. How is that relevant or why should these two amounts be equated? The property taxes derived from other entities are not generally used to accumulate funds for the sole purpose of reparations.
While responding to one of your inquiries during the question portion of the hearing one of the proponents of the bill voiced a subtle concern about the makeup of the membership of the task force that was created to study the pipeline projects in South Dakota. The implication was clear that there may have been a bias that affected the reported findings of the task force.
Concern was expressed by Secretary Steve Pirner, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, for the constitutionality of charging a fee for the transportation of goods across South Dakota. Your votes on other nonrelated issues indicate that this is not necessarily a convincing enough concern to cause you to vote against legislation. Apparently, the opposite seems to be true, that in some cases you would appreciate the opportunity for the constitutionality of some legislation to be tested.
Last year SB190 started out to address the same issue of collecting a fee on barrels of oil transported by pipeline across South Dakota. The bill was passed in the senate and was presented to the House State Affairs Committee for consideration. At that hearing, the bill received a do pass recommendation from the committee, but not from you. Later in the house vote, you voted in favor of the bill. Of course, the bill was amended and no longer included the provisions for collecting a fee on products transported by pipelines. Again, audio recordings have provided the opportunity to hear what you heard during the committee hearings. What testimony from the committee meeting convinced you that this bill should not receive the do pass recommendation to the House? Further, what convinced you later to vote for the legislation during the House vote on the bill?
Since a one vote margin defeated SB171 in the Senate State Affairs Committee, I would appreciate hearing from you personally what convinced you to vote the way you did at that time. You stated in your address to the 2009 senate during the discussion before the vote on another bill of mutual interest, that it (HB1301) represented the legislative process at its best. When you and I met after the House State Affairs Committee meeting I agreed with your sentiments expressed then to that effect. Your consideration of my questions and a response would be appreciated.
The Honorable Larry Rhoden
The State Senate
PO Box 12
Union Center, SD 57787-0012
Dear Senator Rhoden,
Thank you for your service to South Dakota. It has been interesting to observe the 2009 session of the legislature. You are one of the few legislators that I have had an opportunity to meet in person. You have voiced in the senate and during committee hearings your particular interest in several issues that are important to me. Also, we both are residents of western South Dakota. When we met, a friend of mine had just testified at a House State Affairs committee hearing and after the meeting he introduced me to you just outside the committee chamber. During the discussion there, you told my friend, who shares many of my political views that you thought that you shared more of the same views with him on legislative issues than he might think. Consequently, it has been especially interesting to observe how you have voted on issues of interest to me, to my friend, to western South Dakota, and to the entire state.
It has been my opinion for a long time that members of political parties will vote in ways that reflect the general views of their political party. Generally this seems to be true, but on occasion, the party view does not coincide with the particular interests of the individual. You have expressed your concern for issues relating to agriculture and land owner rights. Considering how you make your living and where you come from, it is reasonable to expect that on occasion your views would differ from your own political party’s view. Also, some issues are considered nonpolitical so that party affiliation wouldn’t necessarily be an indicator of how you might vote.
With due consideration to the above statements and with no ill intention toward you in any way, your votes in Senate State Affairs Committee on SB171 were puzzling. Fortunately, with recordings of the committee hearings available, I was able to listen to the same testimony that you heard before you cast your votes relative to SB171. Compelling testimony was given by both proponents and opponents of the bill. A critical question that addresses the very heart of this issue was asked by Senator Abdallah at the initial hearing on February 13, 2009. Senator Abdallah asked the question twice; rewording it the second time for clarification and it does not appear that a complete answer was given either time. This is a paraphrase of the senator’s two questions: In the event that the pipeline company was to become financially insolvent for an unspecified reason, how is the required cleanup provided for?
One of the paid lobbyists for the pipeline company indicated that property taxes to be collected on the pipeline during the first two years of operation would be equal to the thirty million dollar fee fund outlined in SB171. How is that relevant or why should these two amounts be equated? The property taxes derived from other entities are not generally used to accumulate funds for the sole purpose of reparations.
While responding to one of your inquiries during the question portion of the hearing one of the proponents of the bill voiced a subtle concern about the makeup of the membership of the task force that was created to study the pipeline projects in South Dakota. The implication was clear that there may have been a bias that affected the reported findings of the task force.
Concern was expressed by Secretary Steve Pirner, Department of Environment and Natural Resources, for the constitutionality of charging a fee for the transportation of goods across South Dakota. Your votes on other nonrelated issues indicate that this is not necessarily a convincing enough concern to cause you to vote against legislation. Apparently, the opposite seems to be true, that in some cases you would appreciate the opportunity for the constitutionality of some legislation to be tested.
Last year SB190 started out to address the same issue of collecting a fee on barrels of oil transported by pipeline across South Dakota. The bill was passed in the senate and was presented to the House State Affairs Committee for consideration. At that hearing, the bill received a do pass recommendation from the committee, but not from you. Later in the house vote, you voted in favor of the bill. Of course, the bill was amended and no longer included the provisions for collecting a fee on products transported by pipelines. Again, audio recordings have provided the opportunity to hear what you heard during the committee hearings. What testimony from the committee meeting convinced you that this bill should not receive the do pass recommendation to the House? Further, what convinced you later to vote for the legislation during the House vote on the bill?
Since a one vote margin defeated SB171 in the Senate State Affairs Committee, I would appreciate hearing from you personally what convinced you to vote the way you did at that time. You stated in your address to the 2009 senate during the discussion before the vote on another bill of mutual interest, that it (HB1301) represented the legislative process at its best. When you and I met after the House State Affairs Committee meeting I agreed with your sentiments expressed then to that effect. Your consideration of my questions and a response would be appreciated.
Saturday, February 7, 2009
Concerns about South Dakota House Bill 1301
February 7, 2009
By Greg Olson
Most South Dakotans would agree that the intrusion of government in private life is to be avoided. Many South Dakotans would prefer to limit the size of government as well. Unfortunately, there are people of considerable monetary and personal influence that are willing to increase the size and intrusiveness of government in order to serve their own interests. It appears that legislation has been introduced over time that would help specific groups of people to avoid need for future legislative processes and/or avoid public scrutiny of the actions of governmental organizations similar to the Ellsworth Development Authority. It is difficult to view this ongoing effort to promote such legislation as something other than an effort to benefit this influential minority.
Conspiracy does not accurately explain this view of the use of influence and power with regard to government. Nor should anyone infer from this article that there is any nefarious intention associated with the coincidental minority benefit from this type of legislation. Capitalism many times allows each of us a least some opportunity to take advantage of a situation created by legislation that has as its stated intention the promotion of the public good. It is difficult to lobby against the laws that claim to provide jobs, save local tax dollars, or improve the local economy. Most promotions for this type of new legislation include these general beneficial claims. The state of the state addresses we have heard in the past usually include renditions of how well these legislative actions have worked.
Every elected official in our state has probably laid claim to being somehow personally responsible for keeping Ellsworth Air Force Base in operation. Believing these claims is normally relative to whether or not you voted for these officials instead of whether or not you or they can actually prove what they say. A large number of people in our state are convinced of the necessity of continuation of the military presence at Ellsworth AFB. It is not the intention of this article to debate the claims of elected officials or the merit of the continuation of Ellsworth AFB.
The article addresses what is disturbing about HB1301; the language of the bill is broad and somewhat ambiguous. With this type of language, what is at stake with this legislation has everything to do with limiting what it could be used for rather than desire to achieve the good it might produce now. Some of the language included in the proposed bill could be considered alarming if it is referring to actions being considered relating to someone that may be reading this article now; such as in section seven, paragraphs 27 and 28: the Authority may “Exercise such power over property controlled by the authority as is necessary or expedient for the promotion of health and safety; and do any act and execute any instrument which in the authority's judgment is necessary or convenient to the exercise of the powers granted by this Act or reasonably implied from it.” Everyone should read the entire bill.
Other language in this bill appears to circumvent the authorities of existing government bodies, such as the county commissions and city governments. Language to ensure oversight and public transparency is not obvious in the bill’s current form. There is no way for the actions of the authority to be referred to a vote of the people. The members of the Authority are appointed, not elected. As another fellow concerned citizen pointed out, if there is no intent to take advantage of this type of language now or in the future why include it?
You can be assured that minority interests that will benefit from this legislation will support it. Government officials that can use certain actions of this Authority to enhance their own images for supporting it will do so. Unfortunately, the average voter in South Dakota would like to believe in the good faith efforts of our elected officials and media reporters. As stated earlier, it is difficult to get past the claims of job creation, money saving, and economic improvement. These claims may be true, but that does not eliminate the need to keep poorly written and ambiguous legislation from becoming law.
A visit to the South Dakota Legislative Research website can be very enlightening. Political bias is non-existent at this site; it’s just the facts. The bills under consideration can be read in their entirety. Search of current and past proposed legislation can be accomplished with relative ease. For example, using the search phrase “eminent domain” can show how statutory laws have been adjusted to satisfy specific requirements. The number of references implies that our legislators have taken the time in the past to be very specific. No doubt this can be or has been a slow and frustrating process. This slow process is one of the reasons our democratic form of government is generally fair.
It can not be in the public interest to abdicate public responsibility by creating an “independent public instrumentality“ with the powers to tax, own property, and condemn property at its discretion without apparent recourse by the public other than by lawsuit. The chamber of commerce, Black Hills Vision, Ellsworth Task Force, the county commissions, two US Senators, one US Representative, the state legislature, and local city government already exist to perform some or all of the functions of this proposed Authority. Ellsworth AFB is here, the entities just listed provide a long list of accomplishments in promoting and preserving the base. What additional purpose is there for this Authority?
In article that appeared in the Feb. 7, 2009 Rapid City Journal a local Rapid City committee recommended that the state should become more involved in promoting “compatible development around the base.” Hasn’t the state been quite active in base promotion in the past? The article quoted the Mayor of Box Elder as saying, “. . . we’re in favor of the governor creating the authority as long as it’s done in friendly manner.” Is it possible to exercise eminent domain in a friendly manner?
In the RCJ article the authority is referred to as “an important mechanism to help deal with growth.” This analogy implies that the authority is another tool to be used to accomplish a task. Tools generally are used to perform specific purposes. The tools already exist to tax, create easements, condemn property, acquire property, zone, and several other powers either listed or implied in this new legislation. What not so obvious new tool feature does this legislation provide?
By Greg Olson
Most South Dakotans would agree that the intrusion of government in private life is to be avoided. Many South Dakotans would prefer to limit the size of government as well. Unfortunately, there are people of considerable monetary and personal influence that are willing to increase the size and intrusiveness of government in order to serve their own interests. It appears that legislation has been introduced over time that would help specific groups of people to avoid need for future legislative processes and/or avoid public scrutiny of the actions of governmental organizations similar to the Ellsworth Development Authority. It is difficult to view this ongoing effort to promote such legislation as something other than an effort to benefit this influential minority.
Conspiracy does not accurately explain this view of the use of influence and power with regard to government. Nor should anyone infer from this article that there is any nefarious intention associated with the coincidental minority benefit from this type of legislation. Capitalism many times allows each of us a least some opportunity to take advantage of a situation created by legislation that has as its stated intention the promotion of the public good. It is difficult to lobby against the laws that claim to provide jobs, save local tax dollars, or improve the local economy. Most promotions for this type of new legislation include these general beneficial claims. The state of the state addresses we have heard in the past usually include renditions of how well these legislative actions have worked.
Every elected official in our state has probably laid claim to being somehow personally responsible for keeping Ellsworth Air Force Base in operation. Believing these claims is normally relative to whether or not you voted for these officials instead of whether or not you or they can actually prove what they say. A large number of people in our state are convinced of the necessity of continuation of the military presence at Ellsworth AFB. It is not the intention of this article to debate the claims of elected officials or the merit of the continuation of Ellsworth AFB.
The article addresses what is disturbing about HB1301; the language of the bill is broad and somewhat ambiguous. With this type of language, what is at stake with this legislation has everything to do with limiting what it could be used for rather than desire to achieve the good it might produce now. Some of the language included in the proposed bill could be considered alarming if it is referring to actions being considered relating to someone that may be reading this article now; such as in section seven, paragraphs 27 and 28: the Authority may “Exercise such power over property controlled by the authority as is necessary or expedient for the promotion of health and safety; and do any act and execute any instrument which in the authority's judgment is necessary or convenient to the exercise of the powers granted by this Act or reasonably implied from it.” Everyone should read the entire bill.
Other language in this bill appears to circumvent the authorities of existing government bodies, such as the county commissions and city governments. Language to ensure oversight and public transparency is not obvious in the bill’s current form. There is no way for the actions of the authority to be referred to a vote of the people. The members of the Authority are appointed, not elected. As another fellow concerned citizen pointed out, if there is no intent to take advantage of this type of language now or in the future why include it?
You can be assured that minority interests that will benefit from this legislation will support it. Government officials that can use certain actions of this Authority to enhance their own images for supporting it will do so. Unfortunately, the average voter in South Dakota would like to believe in the good faith efforts of our elected officials and media reporters. As stated earlier, it is difficult to get past the claims of job creation, money saving, and economic improvement. These claims may be true, but that does not eliminate the need to keep poorly written and ambiguous legislation from becoming law.
A visit to the South Dakota Legislative Research website can be very enlightening. Political bias is non-existent at this site; it’s just the facts. The bills under consideration can be read in their entirety. Search of current and past proposed legislation can be accomplished with relative ease. For example, using the search phrase “eminent domain” can show how statutory laws have been adjusted to satisfy specific requirements. The number of references implies that our legislators have taken the time in the past to be very specific. No doubt this can be or has been a slow and frustrating process. This slow process is one of the reasons our democratic form of government is generally fair.
It can not be in the public interest to abdicate public responsibility by creating an “independent public instrumentality“ with the powers to tax, own property, and condemn property at its discretion without apparent recourse by the public other than by lawsuit. The chamber of commerce, Black Hills Vision, Ellsworth Task Force, the county commissions, two US Senators, one US Representative, the state legislature, and local city government already exist to perform some or all of the functions of this proposed Authority. Ellsworth AFB is here, the entities just listed provide a long list of accomplishments in promoting and preserving the base. What additional purpose is there for this Authority?
In article that appeared in the Feb. 7, 2009 Rapid City Journal a local Rapid City committee recommended that the state should become more involved in promoting “compatible development around the base.” Hasn’t the state been quite active in base promotion in the past? The article quoted the Mayor of Box Elder as saying, “. . . we’re in favor of the governor creating the authority as long as it’s done in friendly manner.” Is it possible to exercise eminent domain in a friendly manner?
In the RCJ article the authority is referred to as “an important mechanism to help deal with growth.” This analogy implies that the authority is another tool to be used to accomplish a task. Tools generally are used to perform specific purposes. The tools already exist to tax, create easements, condemn property, acquire property, zone, and several other powers either listed or implied in this new legislation. What not so obvious new tool feature does this legislation provide?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)