Sibby Online

Open government crusaders launch campaign

While in Pierre this week (without my broken laptop), I received this press release:

SIOUX FALLS, SD, January 28, 2008 -- An initiative to clean up state government and open up state contracts has been launched in South Dakota. South Dakotans for Open and Clean Government is leading the effort to promote the proposed ballot initiative that will change the face of South Dakota politics.

"We have widespread support from across the state for the South Dakota Open and Clean Government Act," said Jim Anderson, board member of the ballot committee. "This initiative contains sensible provisions that increases the voice of the people in state government and prevents opportunities for corruption in politics. It just makes sense."

The South Dakota Open and Clean Government Act would change the current law in five ways:

• Taxpayer funds could not be used to lobby or campaign for partisan political agendas, including increased taxes.
• Legislators would not be able to use their legislative positions to ensure "golden-parachute" jobs after their public service has ended.
• The "pay to play" system -- where contractors are forced to make campaign donations to elected officials in order to get a government contract -- would be outlawed.
• Recipients of no bid contracts would be contractually prohibited from donating to political campaigns while they hold a state contract and two years thereafter.
• A simple, searchable website with information on all state contracts over $500, not including employment contracts, would be launched so citizens can know how their money is being spent.

"Much of the language in this initiative has been tried in other states with success. Even the federal government has a website to search federal contracts," said Anderson.

Tonchi Weaver, board member from Rapid City, said, "The average South Dakotan views politics and government with apathy and cynicism because of what they perceive as systemic corruption. This initiative will restrict what is seen as an incestuous relationship between elected officials, lobbyists, and contractors by inserting a degree of separation between public service and personal gain."

"Under this law, elected officials can still work together, testify before legislative committees, and lobby the legislature," said Weaver. "They cannot use your tax dollars to pay high-priced lobbyists to do their legislative work."

"It is time that we put the taxpayers of South Dakota first by implementing these sensible open and clean government measures," said Anderson.

Regents lose gun fight

Yesterday House State Affairs heard two bill regarding firearms on post secondary institutions in South Dakota. Here is the report form the Rapid City Journal:

Law-abiding people should be allowed to carry and possess guns on the campuses of South Dakota's public universities, a state House committee recommended Wednesday.

The State Affairs Committee voted unanimously to pass HB1261, which would guarantee people the right to carry or possess firearms on college campuses. The schools also would be prevented from expelling students or firing employees for having a gun on campus.

The panel later voted unanimously to kill a competing measure, sponsored by the Board of Regents, which sought to ban guns on campus.

Rep. Thomas Brunner, R-Nisland, the main sponsor of the bill allowing guns on campus, said most mass shootings in recent years have occurred in areas where guns are prohibited. Murderers have been able to kill many people because no one else was armed and able to stop them before law officers arrived, he said.

If more people carried guns, they could stop mass murderers before they kill so many people, Brunner said. The guard who shot and wounded a gunman at the New Life Church in Colorado Springs in December helped save lives, he said.

"Should a person have less freedom and safety than anyone else simply because he or she attends college?" Brunner said.

Nancy First, South Dakota coordinator of Second Amendment Sisters, said a handgun is the best defense for a woman walking at night on a college campus or anywhere else.

"The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun," First said.

The only opponent to the bill was Jim Shekleton, legal counsel for the state Board of Regents, who said allowing students and faculty to carry guns could make campuses more dangerous.

The report did not mention comments made by Joel Dystra that seemed to state that the hatchet has been buried regarding a controversy a few yeards ago with the South Dakota Gun Owners organization. Zach Lautenschlager, of South Dakota Gun Owners, testified on both bills and delivered a number of petitions from his members. Dykstra showed appreciation for the measured approach used on the two bills. It was nice to see legislators capable of forgiveness.

Contact Senators on SB190

I got back from Pierre late yesterday after sending three days participating in the legislative process. Senate action on SB 190, which would impose a fee on certain pipelines carrying crude oil, was deferred until Monday with a motion made yesderday by Senator Knudson. Here is a link where you can find your Senator. Please contact your Senator and ask them to support SB190. They are getting huge pressure from lobbyists representing TransCanada and other interests. They are also getting pressure from the Governor’s office to vote against the bill.

Cory Heidelberger has a post that makes this point:

Yesterday's Senate State Affairs Committee vote to send SB 190, the pipeline tax, to the floor wasn't quite the small victory of South Dakota interests over Big Oil that it appeared to be. Sure, it passed 6-3 (the three opposing votes were Kundson, Dempster, and Gray, all urban Republicans). But Senators Nesselhuf and Heidepriem, my fellow Democrats, put forward an amendment to water down the bill. Now, instead of the first $30M in revenue going into a crude oil pipeline compensation fund and any revenues about that going toward a water and environment fund, the tax has been capped at $30M. Once the fund reaches $30M, the state stops collecting the tax, and TransCanada and other pipeline operators get to ship their crude oil through the state for free. The tax doesn't kick in again until something bad happens (spill, explosion, etc.) and the pipeline compensation fund is spent down below $5M.

I consider the amendment to be a good one as I would be against just adding a tax. The spirit of the legislation is to make sure TransCanada, or any other crude oil pipeline, provides funding to take care of any problems that may occur during the operation of the pipeline. I also testified in support of the bill on Monday and Bob Mercer reported this:

Steve Sibson of Mitchell, who said the TransCanada pipeline will cross land owned by some family members, said the funds could be used to eventually "retire the pipeline in a safe manner" when it is no longer needed "a long time down the road".

"This may affect South Dakotans who have yet to be born," Sibson said.

Senator Heidepriem said that point was the most salient point made in the entire committee hearing. This legislation is about protecting property and water resources. It should not be simply about imposing another tax has Heidelberger says here:

As a commenter noted here last night, the pipeline tax is a great revenue opportunity for South Dakota. Not one penny comes out of South Dakotans' pockets, and the oil companies paying it will hardly notice two cents out of each $90 per barrel. We hit our own citizens much harder with utility hook-up fees, business licenses, and local taxes when they start up businesses in state; why are we giving a foreign oil corporation an almost free pass to ship black gold through our state without making them pay for the privilege?

Let's remove the cap from the pipeline tax. TransCanada is using and endangering South Dakota's resources to make its oil profits: South Dakota has every right to claim a piece of the action.

While contacting you Senator, please resist making the "tax the Big Oil companies" argument. SB190 is about protecting property and water resources during the operation of the pipeline(s) and also when it comes time to pay for reclamation costs when the pipeline is no longer needed. TransCanda is using the power of the governemtn to enforce eminent domain on landowners and water providers. We should also expect the power of government be used to protect those properties and water resources from the environmental dangers that crude oil poses.

MSM bias on preschool bill

Bob Ellis has a post that busts the Rapid City Journal for bias reporting on yesterday’s crackerbarrel regarding the preschool bill:

Yesterday I attended the legislative crackerbarrel in Rapid City where the controversial pre-kindergarten bill SB 26 was discussed.

As I reported from that meeting, only two lawmakers who spoke could be said to have "supported" the pre-k bill.

Democrat Tom Katus gave a hard-to-follow endorsement of the bill, centering around the admission that he did in fact vote for it, was offended at the implication that he was a "communist," and that "nutrition is important to kids" (I'm assuming the pre-k bill is intended to feed children???).

Republican Mike Buckingham gave tepid support of the bill. He said he supported the concept of preschool, having sent his own children to preschool However, he said he would not support the bill unless standards for it were defined first.

Buckingham said essentially the same thing at the previous crackerbarrel a couple of weeks ago, and at that time added that he didn't believe this service should be "moved into government."

Meanwhile, on the other side, five other legislators stood up at the crackerbarrel and state their opposition to it.

And with the headline "Area lawmakers support preschool bill", the report says this:

Preschool accreditation, agricultural land-value assessment and liquor licenses were topics of discussion Saturday at a crackerbarrel featuring Rapid City area legislators.

The crackerbarrel was the second in a series of four put on by the governmental affairs committee of the Rapid City Area Chamber of Commerce and held at the South Dakota School of Mines & Technology.

Rep. Mike Buckingham, R-Rapid City, said he supports a bill that would establish standards for pre-kindergarten programs in South Dakota.

"I think pre-K is good," Buckingham said. "Preschools help our kids prepare for kindergarten."

Buckingham said his own daughter, now grown, struggled as an elementary-school student because the preschool program she was in was not as good as it should have been.

Buckingham said he will support the bill only if there are specific draft rules for the preschool standards.

Sen. Bill Napoli, R-Rapid City, said it should be left up to preschool owners to decide how to run preschools and up to parents which preschool, if any, their children will attend.

"It's just flat out wrong for the state to get involved in people's private lives yet again," Napoli said.

Sen. Tom Katus, D-Rapid City, said he supports the bill.

"This is a voluntary program," Katus said. "It sets some simple voluntary standards. Pre-K schools can implement it or not."

Only one of the five that did not support the bill was covered. And Katus position was not challenged. Bill Harlan was there a couple of weeks ago when I testified to the fact that the standards have already been developed and approved by the Department of Education and preschools, including Ellsworth, have already received accreditation by the NAEYC, the National organization the creates the "National" standards and who assisted the DOE in the development of standards they approved. What SB 26 wants, has already been done. They already used taxpayer’s money in doing so "through a series of contracts with the Departmetn of Education’s Head Start – State Collaboration Office" by the University of South Dakota. Here is more:

Gera Jacobs is a professor of early childhood education at the University of South Dakota and taught preschool, kindergarten, and the elementary grades for many years. She has published articles in a number of national and regional journals and produced a CD ROM on Inclusion for young children with special needs. She has presented at numerous state, regional, and national conferences, and has conducted many in-service presentations for teachers. She is a member of the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Governing Board and served on the NAEYC Affiliate Council. The Carnegie Corporation named her the South Dakota Professor of the Year in 2002. She was chairperson of the South Dakota Early Learning Guidelines Panel, responsible for writing the preschool standards for South Dakota. Gera is now helping with South Dakota’s efforts to establish public preschool.

In fact, they are already in use in the Sioux Falls School District.

Again here is what SB 26 wants:

Section 2. That chapter 13-33 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

The South Dakota Board of Education shall promulgate rules pursuant to chapter 1-26 to establish standards for the accreditation of pre-kindergarten programs and establish standards for preparation of certified personnel for pre-kindergarten programs.

It does not take too much thought to understand that the purpose is for the government takeover of what is currently being provided by the private sector. The already approved standards will be the "public preschool" requirements to get taxpayers’ monies. They are already being used in the Sioux Falls School District. And all of this is being done under the radar, thanks by the refusal of South Dakota’s media to cover the details and research that I have done, much of which I have provided to them, and most of which they have ignored.

Randell Beck on open government

Today Randell Beck addresses the current political situation regarding open government. Excerpt:

For that we can thank a few lawmakers courageous enough to champion change - slow but steady, in the case of Sen. David Knudson and Rep. Larry Rhoden; fast and dramatic, in the case of Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry.

While those legislators and their approaches originate in different parties - Rhoden and Knudson are Republicans, Turbak Berry a Democrat - all believe lifting the veil of secrecy around government, carefully erected during many decades, is a pressing issue. Mainly, they disagree on how to get to where they want to go.

Trubak’s legislation is SB 189. Rhoden and Knutson are pushing their legislatoion in both chambers with HB 1280 and SB 186.

Beck then makes this point:

To her credit, Turbak Berry has staked out the highest moral ground - arguing forcefully that we must begin with a presumption that all records and activities of government are open to inspection, then carefully craft exemptions in areas where individual privacy trumps the public's right to know.

She is right. Yet it is a position that stands no chance of gaining traction among more than a few liberal Democrats in our happily, brief legislative session. Thus, like all radical notions in God's Country, it will die a swift death. Turbak-Berry knows this and she will play the loyal opposition to the end.

It is typical of the media to over play the Republican versus Democrat political theatre. Beck's statement is a good example as we take a look at those who have signed on to Turback Berry’s SB 189:

Senators Turbak Berry, Abdallah, Gant, Heidepriem, and Koetzle and Representatives Cutler, Engels, Gillespie, Halverson, Koistinen, Lust, McLaughlin, Novstrup (Al), Thompson, and Weems

Note the number of Republicans incuding the prime sponsor in the House, and I can also tell you that the list contains what I consider some conservative minded Republicans.

Beck then goes after the Governor:

But we also need those who recognize harsh political realities. Knudson and Rhoden, Republican leaders respectively in the Senate and House, face the complex task of steering incremental reform under the watchful eye of a governor adamantly opposed to it.

Knudson and Rhoden, balancing what's right against what's doable, studiously have avoided expressing their own views about the need for change.

Rather, they have focused energy on crafting a bill that will be acceptable to their own party - and, most important, survive Gov. Mike Rounds' veto.

Again, Beck over plays the Republican versus Democrat political theatre. I consider a handful of Senate Democrats who are more conservative than the Governor (and some of the Republican Senators). And I believe the true battle should be the Executive Branch versus the Legislative Branch as Bill Harlan has noticed:

Here’s a theme Gov. Mike Rounds is hitting hard this year: Lawmakers are "notorious" for offering proposals to cut taxes and spend on programs without offering corresponding program cuts or tax increases. He really hammered that idea during his press conference Friday. See my "bleeders and spenders" story.

This was a storyline during last year’s session, too, as it is most years. Governors on the second floor of the Capitol battle legislators on the third floor. This year, however, the governor’s criticism seems especially … I don’t know what the word is. Pointed? Harsh? Incendiary?

And speaking of bleeders and spenders, there are two other Bills that the media is not covering enough in regard to government transparency. One is HB 1233:

An Act to bring transparency to state spending by requiring the Bureau of Finance and Management to create a website making certain state government information available to the public.

And HB 1317:

The Department of Education shall develop a searchable website containing school district expenditure data which shall be accessible by the public at no cost.

If you look at the sponsors of those two Bills, you will find the support to be bipartisan. Again, this might be another Executive Branch versus Legislative Branch battle. The Legislative Branch is there to represent the best interest of the taxpayers. In today’s technology environment the taxpayers should have the capability to find out where their money is being spent and this can be done with little additional cost. I hope the media will also include HB 1233 and HB 1317 in their open government crusade.

Socialism and public-private partnerships

We have two examples of public-private partnerships in South Dakota. One is the preschool pilot program in Sioux Falls. The other is the high speed REED project involving SDN Communications. Henry Lamb also joins those who say this is not free-market capitalism, but instead socialism:

A relatively new device government is now using to control the market and engineer the society is called Public-Private Partnerships, or PPPs. This device comes in a wide variety of shapes and colors and is widely hailed by government, and government partners, to be the answer to virtually any problem.

In some instances, government uses tax dollars to "partner" with private organizations to do government's dirty work. A good example is the rash of PPPs developed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which pays not-for-profit trade associations to force or coerce their members to participate in the so-called "voluntary" National Animal Identification System.

Sometimes private organizations pay the government to gain special privileges. A good example is the Trans-Texas Corridor partnership. This PPP gives billions of dollars to the state government in exchange for the privilege of building and operating a toll road – and all the related concessions – for 50 years. This type of PPP is rapidly growing in popularity among cash-strapped states that have misused their fuel tax and are now suffering from inadequate transportation infrastructure.

A third type of PPP widely used allows a government agency to fund private not-for-profit organizations to lobby Congress and promote policies the agency wants to adopt. A good example is STAPPA/ALAPCO, two private, not-for-profit organizations that are regularly funded by the Environmental Protection Administration to lobby Congress and promote the desires of the EPA.

Still another type of PPP that is growing in popularity is employed by the Security and Prosperity Partnership. In this type of PPP, the executive branch of government "partners" with private organizations, and sometimes individuals, to develop policies that can be implemented through changes in rules and regulations without having to bother Congress or other legislative bodies that represent the people who must comply with the executive policies.

These PPPs bring obvious benefits to the government and to those selected to receive government money or the special privileges government bestows. What they are doing to the economy and to the American system of government is, in the long term, disastrous.

We have traded the benefits of laissez-faire, with its inequities, for the burdens of a government-managed economy, with its inequities. We are trading the fundamental principle of government power controlled by the consent of the governed for the principle of government control of the people.

Organizations that have sold their soul to the government will discover that the government is a cruel master. They have or will become little more than puppets dancing at the end of government's string, only as long as they serve government's purpose.

People who elect representatives who allow executive agencies to create PPPs such as the Security and Prosperity Partnership will discover that their purpose is not simply to "harmonize" rules and regulations, as boasted by the SPP, but to "harmonize" the freedom provided by America's representative government with the absence of freedom offered by socialist governments.

Government management of trade and the use of PPPs is transforming America into a socialist nation – or worse. Once individual freedom is usurped by government, it is rarely, if ever, restored.

Education standards, centralization, and quality

One of the arguments put forward by proponents of SB 26 (We want to develop standards that we already approved legislation) is that standards and accreditation provide quality education. Ellis Washington disagrees:

I don't mean to denigrate the necessity of degrees in modern times (I have three), or associations or certifications, but just to state that like all organizations or bureaucracies of man, they are intended not to improve the quality of education or improve the standards of academic disciplines, but to centralize academic, educational and administrative authority in the hands of a university oligarchy. This centralization of educational authority determines who gets a degree, who gets that coveted Ph.D., MBA, J.D. or M.D., who can belong to their elitist academic associations or be bestowed with the coveted certification, or maintain the indispensable college accreditation. These certification and accreditation organizations have little to no correlation whatsoever to academic worthiness or vocational excellence. Why do they exist? Follow the money.

These associations, certification boards and accreditation institutions generate billions of dollars in annual revenue to determine college accreditation and fund the test-taking bureaucracy (MEAP, ACT, SAT, MCAT, LSAT, GRE, GMAT, KAPLAN, BAR-BRI, etc.). In this land of milk and honey, it's all about the money, power and control ... not knowledge or wisdom.

Thank goodness humanity's best and brightest made their contributions before this entrenched and intractable education bureaucracy we call the academy came along with their degree requirements, academic associations, certification boards, teacher and professorial unions telling them that they had to have their stamp of approval to make such stellar contributions to humanity.

If you think that I write from hyperbole, I challenge the reader to take any core curriculum, examine any canon of great works, scrutinize the credentials of any of the geniuses the academic class venerate as the foundation of their disciplines, study and codify in their textbooks or write Ph.D.s about, and you will conclude that the following somber aphorism is most true: A professor is a mediocrity that is an expert on the works of great men.

Senator Olson taking heat on SB 164

This was in today’s Mitchell Daily Republic:

Let us examine Planned (un)Parenthood’s advocate, ultra-liberal Republican, Ed Olson’s skewed statement that "the morning-after pill is contraception."

"Conception" refers to the moment at which the sperm penetrates and fertilizes the ovum to form a viable zygote. It does not refer to the process of implantation of the newly created human embryo, which is a separate event, occurring about seven to eight days after conception. A woman is pregnant because conception has occurred, not because implantation has occurred. This distinction is important.

The correct term to describe any interference with the pregnancy after conception has occurred is "abortifacient." This is the precise biological description for any drug or device that acts to end a pregnancy once it has begun at conception. It is ethically and medically dishonest to break from these definitions. What Olson is trying to do is to get people to think that abortifacient drugs such as the morning after pill are just contraceptive drugs.

Do you see the clever deception the senator, advocate of planned murderhood, is doing? Redefine when a pregnancy and new human life begins and you redefine the key characteristic of the drug — how it works. Many people object to abortifacient drugs because they cause a loss of human life. Not so many people object to methods of contraception (condoms, diaphragms etc.) because these methods prevent new human life being created.

So if ultra-liberal Ed Olson succeeds in convincing people that human life begins after implantation, eventually most people will have no objection to the pill. They will have been tricked into believing that human life had not begun when the pill exerted its anti-implantation effect.

Abort SB 164!

Wake up, South Dakotans.

John Shaw

Mitchell

Three strikes on George McGovern

That was the title used by the Mitchell Daily Republic today on my editorial that responded to the recent Op Ed Senator George McGovern wrote for the Washington Post:

Former Sen. George McGovern’s Washington Post editorial on Jan. 12 needs a response. The basis for his position that President Bush and Vice President Cheney should be impeached leaves me puzzled.

McGovern accused them of lying to the American people and having "reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world." If McGovern has such a problem with presidents who lie, where was McGovern during the Clinton impeachment trial? Remember, "I never had sex with that woman?"

Prior to the DNA tests on the stained dress that proved Clinton lied to the American people, McGovern said this in a Jan. 24, 1998, Daily Republic report regarding Clinton’s stature at home and abroad in regard to the Lewinsky escapades: "If these allegations prove to be true, that’s another matter."

Why would McGovern invite a president that reduced our beloved country to a historic low to be keynote speaker at his library dedication?

McGovern also chastised Bush-Cheney for deceiving "Congress, the press and the public into believing that Saddam Hussein had nuclear arms and other horrifying banned weapons." Go back to December 1998 when Clinton addressed the nation after ordering military strikes at Baghdad and said, "Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons." That is strike two on McGovern for partisanship.

Yet McGovern says, "The political scene is marked by narrow and sometimes superficial partisanship, especially among Republicans …"

Strike three on McGovern for being partisan about narrow and superficial partisanship.

Yes, we do honor McGovern for his service to the country during World War II. Back then, America was united against our enemies, because there was little anti-war protest blaming America for Pearl Harbor. Unfortunately, it is the partisan conduct of people like McGovern that divided America during the Vietnam War and now while we fight World War III against the Islamic fascists. It is these anti-war partisans that have reduced our beloved country to a historic low in the eyes of people around the world.

Whatever happened to those JFK Democrats?

SD GOP folding on TransCanada

Thursday I witnessed the testimony on SB 138, a bill that requires TransCanada to provide bonding for any problems with their pipeline. The prime sponsor was Franck Kloucek, and he had a impressive list of proponents there to testify:

Dennis Davis, SD Assn of Rural Water Systems
Silvia Christen, Dakota Rural Action
Lillian Anderson, self, Langford
Kent Moeckly, self, Britton
Curt Hohn, Web Rural Water
Jim Hendrickson, self, Roslyn

There were only two that testified in opposition:

Dennis Duncan, Trans Canada
Dawna Leitzke, SD Petroleum & Propane Marketers Association

And on a straight party line vote, the Republicans sided with TransCanada and the Democrats sided with the South Dakota proponents. Even though the bill died, there are plans to smoke it out, so now is the time to contact your Senator. Unfortunately, the Mitchell Daily Republic is reporting that the Governor is against the Bill:

Rounds does not agree with a bill that would require the TransCanada Corporation to create a superfund to pay for possible leaks on its proposed pipeline through eastern South Dakota.

SB 138 would mandate, for companies wishing to build pipelines across the state, "financial assurance guaranteeing the performance" of the pipes. SB 138 was before the Senate Ag and Natural Resources Committee Thursday, but was deferred to the 36th day.

Round said South Dakota already has financial safeguards in place should a pipeline ever fail and told reporters that "you don’t have to reinvent the wheel." Also, the state already is crisscrossed by oil pipelines, he said.

"For some people, the only answer is ‘please don’t change what we have right now,’ " the governor said, adding that he would rather have Canadian oil moving through the United States than crude from the Mideast or Venezuela.

I think those financial safeguards that the Governor is talking about comes from South Dakota taxpayers [Correction, later I found out that it is the refined product that provide the funds to take care of underground tanks at service stations. I was told that there is only a couple of million currently in the fund.] While I agree with the Governor regarding the merits of the project. We should not let Big Oil trample on property rights before the pipeline project is started, during its operation, and after the pipeline's useful life has ended. Cory Heidelberger has a post on this subject that makes an excellent point:

Why else would our governor have done absolutely nothing to help landowners threatened with eminent domain (and claimed he hadn't been aware he was supposed to do anything)? Why else would the Republicans on the State Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources kill SB 138, which would have required TransCanada and other pipeline companies to put up some guarantee of financial responsibility for any damage caused by a pipeline accident? (Note: Democratic Senator Tim Johnson and Representative Stephanie Herseth-Sandlin think such a requirement is perfectly reasonable.)

A quick glance north will demonstrate that we don't have to bend over backwards to accommodate TransCanada. North Dakota has been asking for some concessions from TransCanada and getting them. ND's Public Service Commission has gotten TransCanada to agree to lay thicker pipe near the Fordville aquifer and Lake Ashtabula. The City of Fargo played hardball with TransCanada and got them to add some safety features to protect the city's water sources. The ND Forest Service got TransCanada to agree to use horizontal drilling, a method that costs five times as much as regular trenching, and adjust the pipeline route to minimize its span across the Pembina Gorge area.

A few environmental regulations and resistance to eminent domain aren't going to stop TransCanada. They've got oil that's worth $90 a barrel now, twice its value five years ago, and will only increase in value as demand increases and supplies dwindle. Like any business, they want to maximize their profit, and their accountants could probably show us that it's worth the gamble for TransCanada to pay lawyers to try getting the land for cheap through eminent domain and to pay lobbyists to tell our legislators that bond requirements are an excessive financial burden. We all do that when we negotiate: we argue for the best deal we can imagine, then settle for a deal that works.

Almost nothing South Dakota can do regulatorily will make TransCanada say, "Ah, forget it, we don't really want to build this pipeline. We'll just leave this oil in the tar sands." We could bring back SB 138 and double the requirements.

I am most disappointed in the lack of concern over property rights by the leadership of the SD GOP. Yes, this is good for economic development, but I thought Senator Lintz was more supportive of the individual property rights of landowners. Like Heidelberger points out, we will not stop this project by simply doing what is right for the landowners of South Dakota (cuurent and future), South Dakotans who drink from the waters that will be in harms way (cuurent and future), and the taxpayers of South Dakota who may be stuck with paying for cleanup of a huge mess (cuurent and future).