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?
Sunday, March 22, 2009
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)