Pipeline Fee Legislation, 2010

Once again a bill to impose a fee on certain pipelines carrying crude oil and to create a crude oil pipeline compensation fund that may be used in the event of a crude oil spill was up for a vote in the South Dakota Legislature this year. The same or very similar bills have been presented for consideration and passage during the previous two legislative sessions. Earlier postings relate to the previous legislation.

This year, Senator Rhoden identified that he had come full circle with his opinion on this proposed legislation. When the bill was presented to the Senate State Affairs committee and on the Senate floor, Senator Rhoden voted in favor of the bill. His stated reason for supporting the bill was to protect property owners from financial ruin resulting from the liability for an oil spill on their property.

Thank you for your votes in favor of this legislation, Senator Rhoden. Senator Rhoden also mentioned that his neighbors and others in his district were influential in changing his opinion on this legislation. Unfortunately, once again a one vote margin stopped the passage of this legislation.

This is a disappointing outcome. Hopefully, this issue will be successfully revisited again in the next legislative session. Support for new business is important to the strength of the state’s economy. However, the desire to make accommodation to attract new business to our state should not outweigh our consideration for existing business. This is especially true with regard to the oil pipeline companies. The pipelines need to cross our state in order for the pipeline companies to conduct their business and existing land owners/businesses have been required to make concessions. The full impact of these concessions was not necessarily apparent to everyone concerned when the project was first proposed to or considered by the legislature.

Something Less Than Complete Agreement

South Dakota’s governor and the state attorney general have committed South Dakota to a lawsuit that disputes the Constitutionality of the recently passed healthcare reform bill. They believe that the federal government has infringed on state’s rights with a mandate requiring individuals to purchase health insurance. Further, they imply that the federal government should not force individuals to participate in this plan without their consent. Yet the governmental mandate requiring the purchase of health insurance was previously promoted several times by Republican Party elected officials and election candidates.

I do not care to participate in this lawsuit, but apparently the Governor and the state attorney general aren’t actually concerned with this contradiction of governmental perception on personal rights infringements. It isn’t the first time they have acted in this manner. South Dakota’s majority party’s agenda has been pursued through state government with regard to the abortion issue also. Most likely, this is not a situation unique to South Dakota or to just one ruling political party.

An article from the Dakota Today blog site identified Senator Thune’s one sided view of political partisanship. Many people seem to be unable to conceive the possibility that there is than one way to view political issues and that complete agreement is not possible. Compromise appears to be the only way to achieve some level of fairness on many issues, but this concept appears lost on the ears of members of the Republican Party.

Apparently, according to Senator Thune, partisanship is something that Democrats engage in. Republicans participate in strong political opposition. When the Democrats were the minority party in Congress, they were described as partisan obstructionists when they strongly opposed Republican sponsored legislation. Interestingly, it is extremely rare that the Democrats ever act with complete unity in opposition to legislation. The Republicans appear to be able to pull that theoretically amazing unified opposition quite easily. How is it that a political party can be structure such that all of its millions of members are in complete agreement? Is it possible that all those millions are not incomplete agreement with their elected representatives?

Children often form informal groups that appear to share ideas that aren’t necessarily based on facts. Long ago, most of our ancestors were ignorant of the actual shape of the earth and the workings of the Universe. Cosmological ignorance took a long time to overcome and before it was, the incorrect concept of a flat earth was the common and unquestioned view of the majority of mankind. Isn’t it possible that simple ignorance, as well as intentional self-imposed ignorance help to unify the Republican members of Congress?

If it isn’t ignorance that results in what I view as an incorrect or an improbable degree of party unity, then what is it? Is it possible that health care reform is not actually the issue that is being resisted? Is it possible that one party political control is really the reason for the completely unified front presented by the Republican Congressional Minority?