Thursday, December 29, 2016

South Dakota's Unfair Tax System Extends To Our Farmers And Ranchers

     Meade County Commissioner Galen Niederwerder penned a most provocative and insightful look into South Dakota's nagging problem with fairness in agricultural property taxation.  Writing for
Snowed Under By Taxes
In South Dakota
himself (not the Commission) Niederwerder's piece appears in my blog just below this post as a welcome addendum to my Nov. 30 Rapid City Journal column in which I called for tax reform by substituting income taxes for many of the regressive sales taxes imposed on South Dakotans.
     In that piece I had to ignore property taxes on agricultural land for space reasons and am glad that Commissioner Niederwerder followed through on this essential element in the conversation about tax reform.  He calls property taxes "the most regressive form of taxation" and adds, "ag property does produce income; however the taxes due are not based on the actual income produced, but rather a Department of Revenue bureaucrat's theory of what it should be able to produce."
    This seems an amazing and intolerable situation. The taxable amount is driven by income, which I can see, but not on actual income.  It's based on theoretical income.  There's an intrinsic craziness to this set-up--sort of like my accountant informing me that my tax obligation this year is not based on what I actually made but should have been able to make.  Subjected as they are to that kind of nuttiness, it's little wonder that Niederwerder and his many ag-oriented constituents in Meade County are crying "foul" and calling for some reform.  I know enough about the grain and livestock markets via my many years as a commodities trader, broker and producer to understand that producers have gotten clobbered during the past couple of years.
    Actually, the 76% drop in ag income in South Dakota during 2015 is more like a bloodbath than
Wheat Prices Wither
Taxes Don't
a mere clobbering.  Given the static nature of their property taxes, farmers and ranchers in this state are being unfairly squeezed by a tax system that is too rigid to accommodate their uniquely volatile markets.  As Niederwerder notes, "taxing the revenue stream is vastly preferable, whether it's on the incoming side when it's earned, or the outgoing side when it's spent."  He adds that he would support my suggestion for an income tax as a substitute for sales taxes if the proposal also called for elimination of property taxes or a designation that property taxes be used solely to fund local government services.  As with me, Niederwerder wants income taxes as a substitute for, not an addition to, existing taxes.  And also with me, this savvy county commissioner wants the word "fairness" applied more judiciously to South Dakota's tax system, which is profoundly indifferent to the equitable distribution of its burdern.
 

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

Property Taxes Need Overhauling As Part Of SD's Tax Reforms. Guest Post By Meade County Commissioner Galen Niederwerder

 
Mr. Niederwerder
Meade County (SD) Commissioner
  Two items recently published in the Rapid City Journal were read with special interest out here in farm/ranch country.
    John Tsitrian’s November 30th column and the paper’s December 6th editorial both discussed the sales tax shortfall currently befuddling Gov. Daugaard’s office. Both attributed the drop in state revenue to the severe decline in farm/ranch income this year, with the editorial noting farm/ranch income is down 76%. That’s right - 76%! Disappointingly, both pieces reflected only on the effect the decline is having on state revenue; neither mentioned the impact it is having on individual farm families and local economies.
   To his credit, Mr. Tsitrian did outline a possible solution to the problem - implementing a state income tax. Although it wasn’t clear, he seemed to suggest that it be an additional tax - not a replacement. But just adding a new tax wouldn’t necessarily fix the problem. At the very least, the governor and legislators could sure do a better job of budgeting; when their spending budget was set last year, their sales tax revenue projections were way optimistic. Not only so, it’s ironic - and troubling - that the state has a revenue shortfall less than a year after Daugaard engineered the two largest tax increases in state history.
   I agree with Mr. Tsitrian that we need tax reform. But not for sales tax supplementation - it’s necessary for property tax relief. Even as farm income has plummeted - not just this year, but over the past several years - Ag property taxes continue to skyrocket. That’s because the governor and legislature have determined that Ag property taxes are “too low” compared to Owner-Occupied and Commercial properties. And owners of those properties are also over-burdened - if you disagree, I invite you to attend the Assessment Appeal hearings before your county Board of Equalization next April.
  It’s truly the most regressive form of taxation. Ag property does produce income; however, the taxes due are not based on the actual income produced, but rather a Department Of Revenue bureaucrat’s theory of what it should be able to produce. Commercial properties are taxed the same amount, even if they’re vacant. And a homeowner is penalized for owning a mere object that has no innate ability to produce the dollars required by the state to pay the tax due on it. Fact: Property taxes are not based on one’s ability to pay, they’re based on a government official’s opinion of value. Taxing real property is as senseless as the Personal Property Tax that was outlawed 40 years ago. The system needs to be overhauled. 
  Taxing the revenue stream is vastly preferable, whether it’s on the incoming side when it’s earned, or the outgoing side when it’s spent. An income tax only taxes one on what is actually earned; make a little - pay a little, make more - pay more. And a person pays sales tax only if he feels he can afford the object he’s buying; if he can afford that, he can probably afford the tax. The current situation with farmers and ranchers bears this out with laser-point accuracy; sales taxes are down because they’re just not buying much right now. Although people don’t have to pay taxes on something they can’t afford to buy (obviously), they get no such grace when it comes to paying their property tax. Taxing the revenue stream gives people at least some control over their taxes; with property taxes, the state has all the control.
  So I support Mr. Tsitrian’s suggestion of an income tax, or an increase in the sales tax, or a combination - but ONLY IF achieved by a Constitutional Amendment that also either eliminates the property tax, or designates it for local governments exclusively, such as counties, townships, fire and road districts, etc. Otherwise, it’ll just be piling on. Can you imagine giving the state an additional source of revenue without constitutionally changing the property tax? It would be like handing gasoline to an arsonist.
 Yes, government and schools require revenue. And there is no truly “fair” tax. There is no such thing as the “best” way to tax, or even a “good” way to tax. Even so, the state should adopt a less worse form of taxing the people it governs. But please, Gov. Daugaard, don’t appoint a Blue Ribbon Task Force to study the issue. That’ll only result in another historic tax increase.

  Galen Niederwerder operates a small ranch and insurance agency with his wife, Donna, north of New Underwood. He is a member of the Meade County Commission; the opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect the opinion of Meade County, or the other commissioners.  

Friday, December 23, 2016

Would-be Black Hills Uranium Miner's Biggest Stakeholder Was Just Indicted For Fraud In New York

     Azarga Uranium, the mining outfit that has been trying for about a decade now to set up a mine in the southern Black Hills, has financial underpinnings that have always looked shaky to
Azarga's Biggest Shareholder
The Company They Keep?
me.  
As South Dakotans consider the ability of this company to follow up on its plans and have the financial wherewithal to make things right if their operations disrupt the local landscape and groundwater, Azarga's finances should be kept under some very close scrutiny.  I have my doubts about the company's ability to even function, so flimsy is its financial superstructure.  I noted here a couple of months ago that its biggest stakeholder, a New York (albeit registered in the Cayman Islands) hedge fund called Platinum Partners, which owns 30%, is an outfit with some history.  At the time one of its associates had just been arrested for wire fraud and the fund itself was liquidating two of its largest positions.  

     Now it comes out that the partners at PP a few days ago were charged with fraud.  The 49-page indictment is consistent with the claim that the fund was effectively a Madoff-style Ponzi scheme.  Guilt has yet to be decided via due process, but if the facts in the indictment are accurate, this is an outfit that was on the ropes and desperate to cover up its hopelessly mangled finances.  It holds a 30% stake in Azarga that might have to be liquidated.  Dumping all that stock on the market would be some tough news to beleaguered Azarga shareholders who've already watched the stock price go from around $40/share ten years ago to 25 cents/share today.  A massive wave of selling is likely to put even more downward pressure on the stock. Azarga's 2015 annual report, issued last March, includes a cautionary statement by its auditors that "material uncertainties" in the company's financial position "cast significant doubt about the company's ability to continue as a going concern." (Italics mine.)
     The combination of the long delays in the permitting process to get the Black Hills (known locally as "Dewey-Burdock" for its location) mine operating and the crushingly low price of uranium, which hasn't recovered from the pounding it took after the Fukushima nuclear reactor disaster in Japan a few years ago, has been devastating to Azarga's fortunes.  Its stock now languishes in the slums of the
Platinum Partner
Alleged Perp
(from NYTimes.com)
securities world, the penny-stock market. Its hopes for a revived stock price are based on the prayer that uranium markets and friendly regulators will converge into a positive outlook for the company. Meantime, it just keeps bleeding cash, operating at continuous losses, and now has to contend with a major shareholder that's fighting a criminal indictment. The State of South Dakota, generally, and residents of the Black Hills, specifically, need to keep an eye on this company's financial fortunes. Like its auditors, I have my doubts about Azarga and I'd like to see the company come out with some specifics about the soundness of its financial footing before anybody starts drilling holes at Dewey-Burdock.  

Saturday, December 17, 2016

No Need For Cheerleading, Senator Rounds

     Our U.S. Senator Mike Rounds is brimming with enthusiasm about the prospects for our "new president" and "reinvigorated Congress" to get to work next year.  Published last week in
Senator Rounds
Rubber Stamp?  We'll See
the RCJ, his glowing projections  for the newly installed Trump administration's commitment to "moving infrastructure into the fast lane" reflected some politically mandatory enthusiasm for the Republican-controlled federal government and its plans for "investing in infrastructure across America." Actually, I'd guess most Americans are plenty gung-ho about infrastructure investment, though Trump's proposal to make private financing the cornerstone of the plan should raise a few questions.  Rounds himself stood by while one of the largest public-private projects he endorsed during his administration as South Dakota's governor a few years back, the failed beef plant in Aberdeen, blew up into the EB-5 scandal.  That fiasco 
directly cost South Dakota $2-$3 million, probably more when you add in lost local and state taxes that bankrupt investors didn't pay.
     If that venture didn't make Rounds a bit more circumspect about his unabashed enthusiasm for Trump's public-private concept, the rest of us should be paying attention.  An analysis of the Trump plan by the conservative free-market thinkers at the American Action Forum uses words like "fantasy on steroids . . . nonsense . . . there is no infrastructure Genie" to lambaste Trump's supposedly revenue neutral plan for providing investors with tax breaks that will be offset by taxes on wages of new construction workers, along with corporate profits earned by builders and contractors. Meanwhile, the vastly more liberally-oriented Washington Post calls it a "trap . . . a tax cut plan for utility investors . . . that doesn't directly fund infrastructure" and could provide tax breaks for "investors in previously planned projects."
     The American Society of Civil Engineers has identified (in 2013) numerous infrastructure projects that need repairs and upgrades in South Dakota.  The total bill over the next couple of
Troubled Bridge
Over SD Waters
decades is in the hundreds of millions, and given the numerous bridge, road and water projects, among others identified by ASCE, that are crucial to our state's economy, getting a workable infrastructure program going under the Trump administration is high priority stuff for our state's Congressional delegation.  The traditional approach of direct government investment and oversight can be tailored by our elected officials to avoid excessive red tape, which is where the deliberative energy should be focused.  I hope Mike Rounds will show some more independence and analysis on this before going along with whatever the Trump administration hands him as his marching orders.  

Monday, December 12, 2016

"Caveat Emptor," Trump Supporters

    Way too early as it is to think in terms of "buyer's remorse," South Dakotans, who went 2-to-1 for Donald Trump last month should be at least going into "buyer's concern" mode.  This
Pruitt The Ethanol Hater
was kicked off a few days ago in the arcane but ultra-meaningful market for "renewable identification numbers" (RINs) which are traded on the basis of expectations for corn-based ethanol production. Too complicated to sufficiently explain here, you can figure that RINs are something like a futures market for ethanol prices--and last week developments in the Trump transition caused them to take a 5% nosedive in one day.  Consider that a similar move in the stock market would cause a 1000 point drop in one session.  Anyway, I've stressed my concern about a President Trump's potential for badly impacting South Dakota's number one industry, agriculture, many times here, and sure enough, last week we got our first inkling of that.

     Trump's nomination of Oklahoma Attorney General Scott Pruitt to head the Environmental Protection Agency was the news that caused the flight from the RIN market, and with some reason.  Pruitt has been an aggressive critic of EPA during his tenure as AG, particularly focusing on the Renewable Fuel Standards (read:  corn-based ethanol) which in 2013 he called "a flawed program," adding, "the evidence is clear that the ethanol fuel mandate is not working."  Whew.  With a guy like that in the driver's seat at EPA, I'd be pitching my ethanol certificates in a hurry, too.  As a floor trader and broker in both stock options and ag commodities at the principal Chicago exchanges, as well as a cattle feeder here in South Dakota, for many years, I know first hand the effect of ethanol mandates on corn production and pricing.  More than a third of U.S. corn is used for ethanol.  Here in South Dakota, about 6 million acres are dedicated to corn production. At 5 or 6 hundred bucks worth of corn coming off each acre, you can see the connection between ethanol markets and corn prices.  
     Our Governor Daugaard is aware ("concerned" might be a better word) of the situation. A
This Month's Corn Price
Look Out Below
copy of a letter that Daugaard signed last Friday turned up in Cory Heidelberger's Aberdeen-based blog Dakota Free Press over the weekend.  The letter, from the "Governors' Biofuel Coalition," comes on the heels of the Pruitt nomination and ever-so-gently and -carefully reminds the Trump transition team that "the nation's biofuel industry has generated thousands of jobs throughout the nation."  Though the alarm bells are muted, they're going off.  On the political tachometer, farm state Trump supporters are probably in a stage between awareness and concern, with regret and remorse to follow if Pruitt doesn't lighten up on his anti-ethanol rhetoric. If he goes the other way and Pruitt's actions follow his words, alarm is likely to follow. Already beleaguered corn prices could get pounded even harder, adding more pressure to the already-stressed South Dakota ag industry.  

Friday, December 9, 2016

Identity Politics, The Democratic Party, And Dred Scott: A Guest Post By Sam Hurst

Sam Hurst is a Rapid City writer.  He is an Emmy Award-winning journalist and documentarian.
Sam Hurst
In 1992, as a producer for NBC News, he was awarded a Neiman Fellowship in Journalism at Harvard University, where he studied evolutionary biology. Following his retirement from NBC News, Hurst and his family moved to the Black Hills where he owned and operated a buffalo ranch and continued to produce independent documentary movies. His recent book "Rattlesnake Under His Hat" is a biography of Black Hills business legend Earl Brocklesby, founder of Reptile Gardens.  



I’m an old white man. That’s important to say upfront.
I have been thinking a lot these last few weeks about “identity” politics and the failure of the Democratic (Obama) Coalition. I’ve been thinking about the “forgotten man”—that angry, white, working class man—who rose from his stupor, let out a primal scream against the inevitability of the Democrat’s diversity coalition, and elected Donald Trump. I am having a hard time understanding him. Too late now…He elected Donald Trump, and now we are in for it.
How silly Democrats now seem for clinging to their blind faith that a demographic imperative would sweep Hillary Clinton into the White House. Campaign in Wisconsin? No need. Why waste money in true blue Michigan! It was enough to cobble together her own basket of inevitables (women, blacks, Latinos, LGBT,) whose numbers were growing and who would always vote Democratic because…well, they always have.
How vindicated the Republicans feel today. They have argued since the Reagan Revolution that racial and gender identity was a false foundation. How right they seem…for all the wrong reasons. How exasperating it has been for Democrats to hear Republicans embrace Martin Luther King, Jr.’s aspiration that Americans should be judged by their character rather than the color of their skin. Our world seems upside down.
All across the spectrum, from county Republican chairmen in Iowa to Senator Bernie Sanders, the verdict of election night echoes across cable television. It’s not enough to be black, or a woman, or a disabled-lesbian-vegetarian, without an economic message. The Democrats’ diversity coalition pushed the white working class up against the wall, and they kicked back. No one saw it coming.
Okay…let’s have a conversation about “identity” politics. And let’s discuss how the Democrats got trapped in their own contradictions of elitism and separation from forgotten America. But let’s have an honest conversation. And let’s start with a little history that puts “identity” in its proper context. Let’s start with the original American identity: White Supremacy.
I first read the 1857 Supreme Court decision in the case of Dred Scott v. Sandford (60 US 393) forty years ago, as a graduate student in American history. It has haunted me ever since. Chief Justice Roger B. Taney’s majority opinion is a tightly reasoned 47 pages (https://www.loc.gov/resource/llst.022/?sp=2&st=gallery) that nobody bothers to read anymore. For me, it is one of the ten most important primary documents in American history; not because of the legal precedents it established, or how it changed the Missouri Compromise, or how it catapulted the union into civil war, but because of how Chief Justice Taney, a Jackson populist, framed the fundamental problem of American identity.
Contemporary historians and legal scholars have thrashed the Dred Scott opinion (it was a 7-2 vote) as a stain on the Supreme Court. The criticisms are part of the effort to purge ourselves from an indefensible past and prove ourselves modern. But as we descend into the Age of Trump in search of that golden past he longs to return to, it is apparent to me that the Taney opinion is powerfully relevant.
Dred Scott was a slave who had lived and worked as a contract employee in Illinois and Wisconsin before being brought back to Missouri by his owner. He claimed that his years in the free-state north gave him standing under the Missouri Compromise to sue in federal court for the freedom of his family. In writing his opinion, Chief Justice Taney reflected on the attitudes and laws that guided the Founding Fathers at the time of the Revolution.
“They [African Americans] had for more than a century before [the drafting of the Constitution] been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect; and that the negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit.”
Let the words roll around in your mouth. This was the foundation on which Taney grounded his rejection of Dred Scott’s plea for standing. “…of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race…” But what about the children of slaves? What about their grandchildren? What about the seventh generation of African-Americans? Could a slave or former slave ever aspire to equality with the white man?
“In the opinion of the court, the legislation and histories of the times, and the language used in the Declaration of Independence, show, that neither the class of persons who had been imported as slaves, nor their descendants, whether they had become free or not, were then acknowledged as a part of the people…”
The Chief Justice was hardly done. Even with the nation about to fracture into civil war, he did not shy away from his duty to recount the original intent of the Founders. He did not try to obscure or twist or reinterpret the state of mind of the Fathers. Justice Scalia would be proud.
“He [the African slave] was bought and sold, and treated as an ordinary article of merchandise and traffic, whenever a profit could be made by it. This opinion was at that time fixed and universal in the civilized portion of the white race. It was regarded as an axiom in morals as well as in politics, which no one thought of disputing…”
Let the sour taste roll around in your mouth. Human beings,“...an ordinary article of merchandise…fixed and universal.”
Taney recounted the laws of individual colonies—Maryland and Massachusetts, by example—drilling home his conclusion that even though the new states of the nation were not united in their attitudes toward slavery, they were united in their attitudes toward the supremacy of the white race and the inferiority of the African race.
“…in the eyes and thoughts of the men who framed the Declaration of Independence and established the State Constitutions and Governments… They show that a perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery, and governed as subjects with absolute and despotic power, and which they then looked upon as so far below them in the scale of created beings, that intermarriages between white persons and negroes or mulattoes were regarded as unnatural and immoral, and punished as crimes…And no distinction in this respect was made between the free negro or mulatto and the slave, but this stigma, of the deepest degradation, was fixed upon the whole race.”
No matter the greater aspirations of African-Americans who toiled in the fields. No matter their talents. No matter their work ethic. No matter how much blood was Ghanian and how much Scottish. No matter their dedication to family. No matter their desire to become citizens, to love and embrace the land that had enslaved them. No matter their astounding ability to survive. Taney drew a bright white line in the sand. Slaves and former slaves, their children and grandchildren, generations into the future, forever, in the eyes of the Founding Fathers, could never be citizens. For many white Americans (perhaps most), they could never even be human.“…this stigma, of the deepest degradation, was fixed upon the whole race.”
Of course, Taney concluded, Dred Scott had no standing to sue for his freedom. He could never have standing.
From slave auction blocks and Baptist pulpits to the floor of the U.S. Senate, from elementary schools in Hannibal, Missouri, to barrooms on the frontier of Bloody Kansas and the editorial pages of South Carolina newspapers, north to south, from sea to shining sea, the nation wrapped itself in a culture and legal system of white supremacy. No one was exempt.
Historians describe the economic system of slavery as the original sin of the Founding Fathers that could only be redeemed by the slaughter of the Civil War, the Reconstruction Amendments, and the courageous activists of the civil rights movement; a heavy price, indeed. Paid in blood. But if slavery was the original sin that could be purged by the Thirteenth Amendment, the legal, economic, and cultural system of white supremacy that wrapped itself around slavery is the poison at the heart of our national identity that no pile of twisted bodies at Fredericksberg and no bloody Freedom Riders have been able to purge.
White supremacy is the original “identity” of America. And it is white supremacy that one generation after another of demagogues has rallied to defend long after slavery was abolished; sometimes full-throated from the pulpit, sometimes from the political stump, sometimes by blocking the schoolhouse door, and sometimes by dog whistle.
For 150 years after the Reconstruction Amendments promised a Second American Revolution, Americans have struggled in courtrooms, in the streets, in schools, on assembly lines, at family dinner tables, to purge the poison of white supremacy from our system. It took a hundred years and thousands of cracked skulls and lynching’s to beat Jim Crow. To what effect? Republican legislatures gerrymandered legislative districts to isolate and minimize the impact of the black vote. It took decades to expose residential segregation and redlining in our cities. To what effect? White families fled to the suburbs, built walls to protect ourselves from the emerging black middle class, and changed our registration from Democrat to Republican. Nixon’s Southern Strategy—Reagan Democrats.
A cornerstone of slavery and Jim Crow was a legal system that denied African-Americans the right to an education, even basic literacy. For sixty plus years after the Supreme Court decision in Brown v. the Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, progressives have tried to de-segregate our public schools. To what effect? White citizens fled, and decided that we would rather destroy public education than go to school with African Americans. Progressive advocates of integration created hundreds of affirmative action policies at American universities to give the talented tenth an opportunity to fulfill their potential. To what effect? Conservative whites complained that affirmative action was not the American Way. We were the victims of discrimination they insisted. You have to admire the sheer audacity!
Unions overcame their own worst histories and led the fight to de-segregate the American economy. To what effect? We destroyed the unions and shipped the jobs to right-to-work states in the South.
Slavery is long passed, but the culture of white supremacy persists. It hangs on with grim determination in the unemployment lines in Ohio, the abandoned factories in Michigan, and the inflamed rhetoric of Trump rallies. After all, African-Americans are, “…altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations; and so far inferior, that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect…”
It is a long-standing article of faith among whites in my region of the country that Blacks, Latinos, and Lakota Americans refuse to do the hard work of participating in the grand experiment of American exceptionalism. They are lazy. They don’t show up for work. They get pregnant as teenagers. They commit crimes against their own. They deal dope on the street corner. They flood across the border. They don’t graduate from high school. They worship a false messiah. They refuse to participate in the American Way. We are the victims of their excesses and dependencies.
This is a willful ignorance of our shared history. We have it exactly upside down. It’s not that African-Americans refuse to participate in American society. It’s that we refuse to allow access to American society. The words of Chief Justice Taney are as haunting today as they were 150 years ago.
“…a perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery…”
For the longest time I could not understand why Donald Trump chose to carry the banner of the birther movement. Why in the world would a real estate tycoon in Manhattan find advantage in making himself a clown by insisting that the first African-American President of the United States was not really a citizen? Why would he persist in the crusade for almost eight years? Of course, we have now learned the answer. Donald Trump has been channeling Justice Taney. For the President-elect and birthers, and their paranoid social media sites, Barack Obama cannot be a citizen, nor can his strong, proud daughters, or their sons in another 20 years. To believe that they can be citizens is to smash the original intent of the Founders, break the social contract, and denigrate the exceptionalism of the American white male.
We are aghast at the overt racism of the alt-right rabble-rouser, Richard Spencer, who told a gathering of supporters at Texas A&M University last Tuesday night, "This country does belong to white people — culturally, socially and politically." Between Nazi salutes and chants of “Hail Trump”, he also told his crowd of 400, “What I care about is white identity…I want white identity to be a force in politics.” We are desperate to hate him, to judge him an intellectual Neanderthal, to marginalize him. But young Mr. Spencer is channeling Roger Taney. And Taney was channeling the Founding Fathers.
Most Americans will find the arguments embedded in a 159 year old Supreme Court decision absurdly obscure and irrelevant—useless in our time. But Donald Trump does not, even though he has probably never read the Dred Scott decision. It is worth a side note that Steve Bannon, Mr. Trump’s senior advisor, has described Andrew Jackson as the American president Mr. Trump is most likely to resemble…so Spencer’s rants and Trump’s dog whistles are consistent with the Jacksonian populism that Chief Justice Taney embraced.
The President-elect understands that slavery has passed. Jim Crow has been beaten to the ground. But white supremacy is the backbone of our social contract. It is our original identity. Make America Great Again.
By equal measure I wonder why the Republican Party is so relentless in its adoration of the Founding Fathers. Our Constitution is woefully irrelevant to the problems of modern life. What is it about the Founding Fathers that Republicans find so infallible, 250 years after they locked themselves in a room in Philadelphia and built a slave republic? Why do these strict constructionists celebrate the genius of the Founding Fathers but reject the genius of Thaddeus Stevens and the 14th 15th and 19th Amendments? Why is it that conservatives so vociferously reject the idea that the Constitution is a “living document” that must change with the centuries? What are they afraid to let go of? I don’t understand, but Chief Justice Taney did.
While Donald Trump prepares for the White House, we 21st century progressives cannot look ourselves in the mirror. We are ashamed. We believe ourselves to be better than our own history, better than Mr. Trump’s basket of deplorables. We play a self-congratulatory game of whack-a-mole on the subject of racism. We sit in judgment of our fellow citizens, with a thumbs-up, thumbs-down finality. You’re a racist. He’s a racist. The middle school teacher who loses control of her class and screams racial epithets at her students is fired. The mayor who re-tweets a joke about Michelle Obama looking like an ape is forced to resign. The anchor who lets slip a racially condescending comment is taken off the air. The NBA owner who uses racial slurs to describe his players is forced to sell his team. The policeman who shoots a citizen in the back is contrite. He may be a murderer, but to the bitter end he insists, “I am not a racist!” In our effort to pass judgment on every “rotten apple”, we utterly miss the larger point. Our system, our way of life, is built on white supremacy. It is the poison in our veins, and the veins of our fathers, and we cannot whack-a-mole our way to redemption. We’re all in it…up to our necks.
It is easy for Democrats to confuse the important effort to develop an economic message with the struggle to defend white supremacy. In the 1930s and 40s American labor unions struggled with the same challenge. For decades the working class was synonymous with racism. Why? The bosses told us that blacks would take white jobs. We should never forget that Donald Trump is a businessman, and his strategy of divide and conquer comes straight out of the historical playbook of American business. It’s the playbook that set newly arrived black immigrants from the South against white industrial workers in Chicago. It’s the playbook that set Chinese “coolies” against Irish railroad workers. It’s the playbook that set Teamsters against Latino farmworkers. Trump took men who were at the end of their ropes and told then that it was Blacks and Latinos and Muslims who were to blame for their fate. Don’t look behind the curtain. Hordes of Blacks and immigrants and terrorist Muslim refugees were pounding on the factory gates, but he is just the strong man to defend the race and lead us back to glory. If we rallied together, we could make America white again.
As reporters and pundits tried to understand the Trump sweep through the northern industrial states, we were admonished over and over again that Hillary Clinton failed to “listen to the grievances of the white working class.” Vice President Biden implored the Clinton campaign: “We’re not showing enough respect to these people.” The judgment must have come as a shock to labor leaders who have been fighting the inequities of global capitalism for decades.
There is a more delicate point to be made. While progressives have every reason to listen and empathize with the working class (a little organizing wouldn’t hurt, either), we should be wary of pandering to white men and their claims of victimhood. Along with crafting a populist economic message, there needs to be some push back against the dark side of the white working class. There needs to be a recognition that in the real world the American working class is, itself, diverse. It’s made up of low-income black women secretaries, Muslim policemen, Latino roofing crews, and none of them are taking jobs from white men. Of course, that wasn’t the working class that Donald Trump was speaking to at his rallies. That wasn’t the working class that delivered his ever-so-thin majorities in Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Trump’s working class won’t be easy to reach, and they can’t be reached by young black militants or DACA Dreamers or water protectors at Standing Rock. Old white men have to speak truth to ourselves.
Why? Because we are the heirs to the legacy of white supremacy, and we are the ones who have to break it. We must be the ones to reject the infallibility of our Founding Fathers. The nation cannot be made whole until we reject the poisonous ideology of racial supremacy.
We need to stop whining, and stand up to the demagoguery that tells us our failures and limitations are their fault. Man up! Come to terms with privilege. The grand irony of modern America is that white men, no matter our class or condition of previous servitude, are the most privileged, entitled class of humans in the history of the world. And yet, we are so quick to wallow in our own self-pity and sense of victimhood. Republicans believe that people should not be given advantage just because of their race, in the absence of initiative or accomplishment. And yet the principle that white men, regardless of our initiative or accomplishment, are, by virtue of our skin color, superior and privileged, has governed American society from its inception—from frontier to colony to state to union. 400 years! And modern Republicans have not done one damn thing to challenge that privilege.
Now for the hard part: It is easier to critique an old decision of the Supreme Court than it is to articulate exactly what, practically, white men should be doing to break the legacy of white supremacy. Progressives have a tendency to get lost in the big picture. The way to solve racism is universal health insurance, or affordable housing, or a war on poverty, or high quality public education. Minorities will suffer most from the impact of climate change. The best way to deal with the mass incarceration of black men is to give everybody a job. True, all! But what does an old white man actually do when he gets up in the morning?
Last January, Stephen Colbert invited the young Black Lives Matter activist DeRay McKesson onto the Late Show to talk about race. It was an eight-minute segment. The first four minutes were wasted on a gratuitous discussion of why “all lives matter” and why only a few “rotten apple” policemen shoot black teenagers in the street. But the last four minutes of their conversation were quite revealing. Colbert invited McKesson to change seats with him. Their conversation gives us insight into how difficult it will be for white men to deal with privilege. Here’s part of the exchange:
McKesson (in the host’s chair): “What do you plan to do now that you understand your whiteness a little better?”
Colbert (eyes wide): “What am I going to do to dismantle my white privilege?”
McKesson (interrupting) “Yes…now that you understand it.”
Colbert: “I don’t know if I do understand it. I can acknowledge it, but I’m not sure if I understand what I can do to dismantle white privilege.”
McKesson: “You have a lot of money. You have a show.”
Colbert: “You can’t have my money.”
Audience laughter.
Colbert: “And you can’t have my show.”
Audience laughter.
McKesson: “What can you do to manage that guilt?”
Colbert: “I drink a fair amount.”
Audience laughter.
McKesson: “You’re great.”
Colbert: I don’t know. I’m shooting from the hip, here.”
Stephen Colbert hardly understood what he was saying when he made the joke: “You can’t have my money. And you can’t have my show.” Black men cannot have our money, and they cannot have our mass media. Of course, that’s not literally what Colbert meant. He was joking. But, come to think of it, where is Arsenio Hall these days?
At the end of the segment, McKesson and Colbert agreed that we need to take “baby steps.” Disarming the corrosive effects of white supremacy is such a big undertaking, our insecurities are so deep, and the crutch of seeking solutions in sweeping generalities is so convenient, I agree with the suggestion that we take baby steps. Here’s my first draft. Please add to it.
1. Admit to ourselves that we are the product of racial privilege. This is almost a religious confession, but once made, it clears the air for new thinking. It is an essential first step. This is not a confession of personal racism or personal blame. It’s an acknowledgement of the raw facts of our common history. In this regard, it is a non-starter to lose ourselves in the whack-a-mole game of who’s a racist and who’s not. Don’t get lost in the idea that “It’s not my fault.” We are all part of the system. The challenge is not to identify the “bad apple”, but to acknowledge our own privilege. Embrace the history, but waste no time with personal blame or shame. It corrodes the stomach.
2. Give the Founding Fathers their due, but no more. False idol worship blocks us from dealing with our world in our own way. The Founding Fathers are dead 200 years. Even in their time they were neither smarter nor more righteous than every generation that has followed them. They relied on religion and pseudo-science and economic advantage to cobble together a despicable system of slavery and white supremacy. We have given them a pass because they did not know better, or did not know how to unwind their own failings. Perhaps it is time to call them out. If we are truly “not to blame” for the original sin, we need to face up to it and resolve it. Don’t let it pass to our children. Would I be pretentious to quote Voltaire? “Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do.” It is time for us to do good.
3. Build your opinions about movements and organizations you don’t understand from the primary voices of young black activists who may make you uncomfortable. Read blacklivesmatter.com. Read the police reform website joincampaignzero.org. Read The Root.com. Break out of your comfort zone. If you are listening to Hannity and Limbaugh rattle on about the violence of black activists, it may be comforting, but it’s useless. They are playing you for a fool. They believe that you do not have the simple intelligence to seek knowledge on your own. If you can search the web for an alt-right conspiracy website, you can search for the original voices of contemporary black activism. As Donald Trump said so eloquently, “What do you have to lose?” If the young activists are a step too far, if you’re not “woke” quite yet, bookmark the congressionalblackcaucus.com, or naacp.org.
4. Start to read about race. Visit your local library and ask for a few books about slavery, segregation and civil rights. Librarians love to help a conscious reader. Start a reading group with other white men. Think that’s funny? Ridiculous? Think that real men don’t read books and talk to each other? Man up! Don’t celebrate ignorance. Make 2017 the year that you read Eric Foner on Reconstruction, or Taylor Branch on the Civil Rights movement, or Hank Aaron on what it was like to break into the Big Leagues as a young black ballplayer. Read Beverly Daniel Tatum’s book Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria. Read her essay on Racial Identity Development Theory. Read Ta-Nehisi Coates, Between the World and Me, and The Case for Reparations. Don’t worry about agreeing with him. Maybe he’ll drive you crazy. That’s okay. Read him.
5. Visit a local public school and volunteer. Assert your belief in public education. Get your head on right about this…you aren’t there to save poor black or Latino or Indian children. You’re there to learn from them. Listen to them talk about their lives.
6. Recognize and embrace the reality that a debt is owed. There are reparations to be paid. The sooner we recognize that reality, the sooner we can get to healing. Quit whining about it. Affirmative action programs work. They make our nation stronger. If we had made Head Start universal a generation ago, if we had sustained and enlarged affirmative action programs for university admission, if we had encouraged affirmative action hiring policies in business and unions, as practical, non-ideological programs rather than bending over backwards to reject them as un-American, we would be a long way toward creating the level playing field we claim to believe in. I hear you: “But I don’t believe in giving one person an unfair advantage over another.” Deal with it! We have had 400 years of advantage, and we’re not complaining about that. Coming to grips with our privilege means coming to grips with the debt. Buck up.
7. We cannot grow our way out of white supremacy. Slavery was certainly an economic system (so were the Black Codes and Jim Crow). Racial inequality is certainly tied up with the problem of poverty. It’s part of the catastrophic gap between the rich and poor. But white supremacy is not the same thing as poverty. We can’t dismiss our history of slavery and enforced segregation with platitudes about growing the economy. Growing the economy doesn’t heal the soul.
8. Go out of your way to build relationships with people from different backgrounds…not Van Jones, or Richard Sherman, or a virtual friend on television…a real human. If it is so essential that we “listen” to the white working class, listen to your new friends. Don’t preach…listen.
Looking at this list, I am embarrassed. These seem like such simplistic ideas. There is nothing grand, or noble about them. Celebrate baby steps.
Americans are in for a rough road the next four years. Many of us are still shell-shocked and confused about how to resist. Donald Trump gave voice to the despicable shadows of our society and they now posture as a majority with a mandate to govern. They are not the majority. They have no mandate. The Clinton Era is over. The New Era is being born and it is a little scary that no one knows what it will look like. Each generation has its chance to purge the poison of white supremacy from our system. This is our chance. Take it as an honor. We can take courage from the young. It will be good for us. In Ferguson, Missouri and Standing Rock, North Dakota the young are speaking truth to power. They are already far head of us in their thinking and action. We just have to learn how to follow.

Sunday, December 4, 2016

Memo to South Dakota's Governing Class: Keep Yer Pickle-Packin' Hands Off IM 22

South Dakota has a motto.  It's Under God The People Rule.  It isn't "under the government the people rule." It's "Under God."  Atheists and non-believers alike understand that to mean that the
Under God The People Rule
Get It?
people of the state are the ultimate source of authority when it comes to how things operate. Seems pretty plain, simple and straightforward to me, but seeing the apoplectic and apocalyptic reaction to last month's passage of the sweeping government reform measure (IM 22) that will change the way business gets done in Pierre, I wonder if our elected officials need reminding of where power lies in this state.
      opposed the measure here, in my column at the Rapid City Journal, on television and at a public forum. I abhor the fact that it will now require the state of SD to set aside $10 million right away in a public financing of campaigns provision.  The rest of it seems draconian, but for the most part I like that it puts transparency into government operations, creates an ethics commission and severely limits gifts to lawmakers by lobbyists. But, my arguments against it notwithstanding, the people went ahead and passed it anyway.  Oh, well. It's happened 'afore and it'll happen agin'.
     As to the reaction by the entrenched political class in Pierre, 25 legislators and some outside individuals/groups responded with a lawsuit filed in state court challenging the law's constitutionality.  The case is set to be heard this week.  Essentially they're saying that the judgement of the majority of voters in South Dakota was flawed and that they passed a law that in itself is illegal. Governor Dennis Daugaard condescendingly said that voters were "misled" and that they were "deceived" by $1 million in out-of-state money supporting the campaign.  The Governor ignores the fact that more than $600 thousand in opposition money came from out-of-state interests, mainly from the Koch Brothers' Americans For Prosperity organization.  
     South Dakotans who voted for IM 22 have good reason to feel disdained and insulted by
A New Day In Pierre
Like It Or Not
their Governor's cavalier dismissal of their ability to make intelligent judgements in a voting booth. Considering that serious money poured into both sides of the measure and that it got plenty of media coverage, voters were probably as well-informed on this issue as any they've ever had to consider. More to the point, they have strong memories of the blatant corruption and the weak investigation that followed the EB-5 fiasco in recent years, as well as the hideously ineffective oversight that let the Gear-Up scandal happen. People are sick of it, and "Under God" they have spoken.  Our political class should be paying heed, not resisting.  

Saturday, November 26, 2016

Time For South Dakota To Institute An Income Tax

   South Dakota has to find a way to shift its tax burden away from sales taxes to income taxes.  During the last few weeks we've gotten some pretty grim news about how sales taxes this
Why Is This Man Laughing?
We're Way Short Of Cash
year haven't matched up with projections ("sales tax isn't close to generating enough revenues," per a Rapid City Journal report a month ago), meaning that some tough budget-cutting is probably the likely outcome. The always excellent and comprehensive South Dakota Dashboard prepared by the Black Hills Knowledge Network notes that the revenue decline is nearly 2 per cent for the quarter completed last September, which contrasts badly against the 3% growth rate forecast by the state's analysts when the current budget was set last January.  That's a 5% drop from expectations, which is enough to set off the collective "ouch" we've been hearing from Pierre.

    A lot of this has to do with the big drop in agricultural commodity prices during the past couple of years.  USD business prof Ralph Brown told the RCJ that the falloff in farm revenues in South Dakota amounted to more than $3 billion, which reduced the ripple effect to something barely noticeable this year. Our economy just isn't diverse enough to absorb that much of a shock.  BHKN also notes that growing e-commerce sales, which are sales tax exempt, probably had something to do with it.  I'm having trouble getting information on how much those sales amount to in South Dakota, but I have no doubt that they're a factor.
     Consider this: swings in commodity prices make farm state revenues subject to the vagaries of global markets. By now we should have reached a point where
The Current Set-Up
Unfair As All Get-Out, Anyway
dependence
on sales taxes needs to be reconsidered as a primary revenue source.  Throw in the growth of e-commerce and you've got a situation like the present one, where the only surprise is the fact that so many people are surprised.  
     We really need to think about another source of state revenues, which in this case is income.  Even as our sales taxes have turned into a serious floppola this year, median income in South Dakota has been rising.  Though hovering slightly behind the national growth rate during the last 5 years, South Dakota median household income (per BHKN) has nevertheless risen steadily during that period.  Taxes raised from income would have avoided the sudden lurch we're currently experiencing.
      Politically difficult as the prospect of instituting an income tax may be, the sensibility of it seems self-evident.  It's long past time for us to start the conversation about this.  

Thursday, November 17, 2016

SD Democrats: "Now Is The Time To Re-Evaluate Your Basic Assumptions."

     First time I saw that phrase was on the inside of a wooden outhouse at some divinely-forsaken USMC outpost in Vietnam, up by the Demilitarized Zone.  Its provocative challenge counter-balanced perfectly against that most banal of human activities.  Many are the times during subsequent years when it applied to my personal and political
Can SD Dems Go
From This . . .
endeavors--and it came roaring back to mind yesterday when I saw a piece in the Sioux Falls Argus Leader quoting Paula Hawks, the just-defeated Democratic candidate for South Dakota's seat in the U.S. House of Representatives.  

     Hawks was engaging in a public post-mortem over the bi-annual pummeling that SD Democrats had just endured.  She told the A-L that "I think what we've seen in the last year is that what we're doing isn't working.  We do need a shake-up."  The gist of the piece is that Hawks's view reflects the state party's internal disagreement over how many of its woes should be blamed on its current leadership.  As a Republican who wishes we had a more vigorous two-party climate in South Dakota government, I find myself cheering a lot for Dems that I admire, and I put Paula Hawks in the top tier of that list.  But on this issue of leadership I think Hawks is missing the underlying point.  Dems in South Dakota need to re-evaluate their basic assumptions, and they need to do it on three fronts.  
     First they have to settle on an identity.  Yes, they can be the agents of social change (and I'm with them on just about every aspect of that), but they simply must understand that their essential persona has always sprung from the roots of economic justice.  Remember "it's the economy, stupid?" 
     Next they need to tailor a coherent, statewide message that reflects that party identity.  Yes,
To This?
You Bet Your Whatever
there's room for cultural liberalism in their message, but they have to have an overriding economic argument that makes it possible for them to put the conversation into terms like education, healthcare, infrastructure, wages, tax reform and economic growth. That's the stuff that affects people's day to day lives.  For example, though moot now, I was very disheartened by the lack of urgency about Medicaid expansion in the message of Democrats throughout the state.  

     Finally, they must find the means to get their message across.  I've met Co-Party Chairs Ann Tornberg and Joe Lowe and can attest to their abilities and commitments.  They accomplish a lot without the mother's milk of politics--money. Fund raising should be a top priority, beginning now. South Dakota has 170 thousand registered Democrats.  That's a pretty sizable pool of potential donations.  
    Even though money is tight, there's no shortage of ideas and issues that SD Dems can put to work.  Once they resolve their identity crisis a lot of other things will fall into place.  

Sunday, November 13, 2016

Why Do We Need To Turn Spearfish Canyon Into A South Dakota State Park?

 
     Turning a beautiful hunk of federally owned land in Spearfish Canyon into a South Dakota State Park is a bad idea both in terms of the end result and the means by which the deal 
Roughlock Falls
This Ain't Grazing Land
 is being developed. The ride through Spearfish Canyon is on a road (Hwy 14A) that is officially designated as a "scenic byway" by both the U.S. and South Dakota governments, and with good reason.  It's gorgeous. Tourists love it as much as we locals do, and one of the best parts of the experience is the fact that it doesn't have any entrance fees.  According to a list of FAQs answered by SD's Game, Fish, and Parks Department last September 30, that won't change with respect to people driving through on 14A. However, people who want to get off the road for a day and use the 1600 acre segment that gives access to some of the premier assets (Roughlock Falls, Spearfish Falls and all that incredibly beautiful country in between) of the canyon will be in for a surprise.  After takeover and management by the State of South Dakota they can expect to pay what GF&P refers to as "potential fees," as yet to be determined.
     Having had interests in the local tourist biz for many years, I'm a little skeptical about how well this will sit with our out-of-state visitors.  They'll continue to follow the justifiably seductive literature promoting the scenic byway, only to find that when they want to stop at the most pristine point of the trek they'll have to fork over that yet-to-be-determined fee. The unknown fee would also apply to locals.  For context, consider that Custer State Park charges $20 dollars/car for a 7-day pass, Bear Butte charges $6/day. GF&P would do us all a favor by posting what it expects to charge for Spearfish Canyon so that the discussion has a focal point to it.  Meantime, I'm plenty familiar with tourists grousing about entrance fees and don't look forward to hearing people complain about this one.
      And speaking of focal points, what's the deal with swapping state range land at its agricultural value for federal land in Spearfish Canyon assessed at the same use-value?  GF&P
Great For Livestock
Tourists, Not So Much
says that "agricultural value makes sense because it is the best representation of how this land will be used." To which I can only say, "what!?"  That is complete baloney.  Since when does that land in Spearfish Canyon have even the remotest potential for agricultural use?  A bill facilitating this transfer (along with some federal land near Custer around Bismarck Lake) has provisions to ensure a transfer at fair value, but the starting point of arbitrarily creating equivalence between grazing land and Spearfish Canyon doesn't make much sense.  GF&P does a good job at Custer State Park, and I'm sure they'd run Spearfish Canyon well.  But the compelling question is, why do we want to make this change in the first place? We need to see more in the way of projected costs, fees, revenues and a fair comparison of land values before this idea moves forward.  


Addendum from Spearfish Canyon resident Jim Nelson:

Response to Tsitrian Blog re Spearfish Canyon State Park
By: Jim Nelson, Member and Past President of the Spearfish Canyon Owners Assn.

Sir: I am a resident of Spearfish and also an owner/resident of a summer cabin in Spearfish Canyon. I read your blog of Sunday, 13 November in the Rapid City Journal, regarding whether we really need to turn the Canyon into a State Park.
I grew up in Lead, graduating from HS there in 1947, and have fished, hiked, enjoyed the Canyon since old enough to do so, beginning in the 1930’s. I graduated from Yankton College in 1951, during the Korean conflict, entered US Air Force Aviation Cadets and eventually served 31+ years in the US Air Force, retired and worked 10 years for General Electric Aircraft Engines, retired again and later did some consulting work for USAF regarding aircraft engines ownership and management issues. My wife is a 1949 graduate of Spearfish HS and SDSU, 1953. We were able to purchase a cabin in the Canyon in 1987 and subsequently the lot in 1990-1 as Homestake offered the owners the opportunity to buy the land as part of the Homestake/USFS Land Exchange of those years. I served on the Spearfish Canyon Owners Association(SCOA) Board for 9 years, 6 years as Board President(2002-2011).

I am glad to see articles such as yours appear, questioning the need for the State Park in the Canyon. First, let me correct what you may not understand as I read your article. Highway 14A through the Canyon is a National Forest Scenic Byway and a SD State Scenic Byway…it is NOT a National Scenic Byway, such classification being rejected by a Corridor Management Plan(CMP) group convened by the USFS back in 1990 to address how to manage the Canyon with the then-pending sale/transfer of lands by Homestake as they shut down their gold mining operations in Lead and the Black Hills. The National Scenic Byway designation was considered but not applied for, due to the CMP group determining that the Canyon was well-enough known at the time, did not need further national exposure since the Canyon travel/visitation was already high and growing and would continue to grow as the Black Hills became a destination of growing popularity. Thus, the decision was to continue it as National Forest
and  State Scenic Byways.

The CMP was not published as a USFS document, but was printed by USFS as a local report for the participants to use as a guideline for the management of the Canyon, which has been done for almost 30 years now. That CMP group included all the stakeholders in assuming the increased responsibilities for attaining the goal of keeping the Canyon as natural as possible, avoiding commercial developments in the Canyon(beyond those existing such as Cheyenne Crossing Store, Wickiup Campground, Latchstring Inn, Rimrock facilities). Homestake, in their sale of the lots/properties they owned in the Canyon, required the owners to form an Owners Association with very strict Covenants and tasked them to maintain those lots as Homestake had done for a hundred years. Those Covenants are attached to each deed in perpetuity and the owners must belong to the Association. These Covenants, subsequent Articles of Incorporation(filed with the State), By-Laws, Architectural Guidelines were all formed at that time of SCOA formation and Homestake retained two Board membership positions to assure smooth transfer. All these documents are available for review on the SCOA website, Spearfish Canyon Owners Association.org.  The CMP group, convened by USFS, included all the significant stakeholders involved with the Canyon, including Homestake, SCOA, USFS, Spearfish Canyon Foundation, Lawrence County Commission, chambers of commerce for Lead, Deadwood, Spearfish, and SD DOT, DENR, and GF&P, as well as a few other organizations active in the Canyon at that time. In addition to the scenic highway designations, the group considered and made recommendations to restrict further development in the Canyon with the goal of keeping it as natural as possible. These restricted camping, open fires, off-road vehicles, snowmobiles, signage, speed limits, and recommended no further trail development on the Canyon floor, but connector trails to those on the rim. Homestake had stipulations that the Canyon should remain open to the public with no fees for its access. Access to Spearfish Creek(for fishing, recreational activities) was also assured. Details are available in the CMP and cover the activities/conditions that should be allowed/limited to preserve the Canyon’s unique beauty, serenity, and the waters of Spearfish Creek and its tributaries.

In 2004, when Governor Rounds proposed that the State purchase five parcels of land in the Canyon that Homestake had held onto in the 1990 Land Exchange for future sale, but only under their conditions. SCOA supported that sale after the then-Secretary of GF&P Cooper came to Spearfish in 2006, gave an open-to-the-public briefing on how the State would buy those parcels and comply with the Homestake conditions of sale, e.g., remain open to the public with no fees for access. Those parcels included the Savoy and Little Spearfish intakes on Spearfish Creek and Little Spearfish Creek(with dams), respectively, Roughlock Falls, and the to-be-negotiated-later Spearfish Falls. Management would be by GF&P. This model has been pursued with the support of SCOA,USFS and LCC as the dam at Savoy was removed and the step pools installed, the dam at Little Spearfish was removed and replaced by a fishing pool, and Roughlock Falls was cleaned up, trails restructured, picnic grounds restored, with viewing decks installed. All this has been done by GF&P while managing all as Nature Areas. Now, as negotiations have been completed to acquire Spearfish Falls, the Governor announced last December that all these parcels would be combined as a State Park, but with significant added land area, currently owned by USFS, to be acquired through another land exchange. Essentially all of Little Spearfish Canyon up to Timon Campground and some acreage in the main Canyon between Savoy and the Savoy pond would be added. SCOA submitted a letter with attachments to the Governor in February, essentially expressing concern with this expansion, and recommending the Governor reconvene the CMP group(with appropriate stakeholders) to assess the State Park concept and how it would impact the prior issues/concerns regarding keeping the Canyon as natural as possible while dealing with the significantly increased traffic/usage of the Canyon since the 1990 report. That letter was never answered or even acknowledged. Subsequently, SCOA has written an open letter to the Governor, published recently in the BLACK HILLS PIONEER and THE SIOUX Falls ARGUS LEADER. The letter was also submitted to the RC JOURNAL, but, as yet, it has not been published in the latter paper.

The point is made that even though SCOA is second only to USFS as the largest stakeholder in the Canyon, no member of the State government has contacted that organization or shown interest in what the LOCAL stakeholders or the public may think about the initiative for the State Park in the Canyon.

Jim Nelson
15 November 2016


  

Wednesday, November 9, 2016

Keep An Eye And A Leash On Trump And His Foreign Trade Rhetoric

     South Dakotans, who went for Trump two-to-one (I was a Johnson voter) can feel pretty good about their decision, considering their man won--but with one caveat.  Voters in this state
Not So Fast There,
Mr. President-elect
(from bloomberg.com)
really need to consider the consequences of the President-elect's tough talk on trade. Depending on where he was and when, Trump has promised to declare China a currency manipulator, put TPP talks on hold, and place tariffs as high as 45% on imported goods.  And that's just for starters.  I won't burden you with more of the rhetoric, which you've heard plenty of during the past couple of years.

     What's missing from Trump's politically repetitive tirades is a grasp of how his pugnacious approach to foreign trade might have consequences for Americans whose personal livelihoods and surrounding economic settings might be affected by his hard-line approach. Getting fair and mutually lucrative trade deals is everybody's goal, but I wonder if Trump understands the benefits that Americans get from the trade deals (NAFTA, WTO, among others) that are already in place.  On a manufacturing level, consider that General Motors sells twice as many vehicles overseas as it does in the United States, including more cars in China than here at home. Many are manufactured in or close to their markets, of course, but the profits are repatriated here, as millions of GM shareholders and their 5% dividends happily know.  As far as domestic activity, the U.S. auto industry is responsible for over 7 million jobs (including a 50% gain in direct employment since 2004), many of them created by foreign-owned companies like Nissan, Toyota and Honda, among others. 
     Here on the South Dakota homefront, the situation is just as meaningful. According to the Business Roundtable,  trade supports 130,000 (or 22%) of our jobs.  10% of those jobs are with companies that are mostly foreign-owned.  Last year South Dakota exported $1.4 billion worth of manufactured goods, about $1 billion of which went to our NAFTA partners Canada and Mexico. Our ag exports were even more stunning, totaling about $4.3 billion.  Since 2005, SD ag exports to
Agreed,  Wholeheartedly
our Free Trade Agreement partners have grown by 81%, with the growth to our NAFTA partners (about $400 million) far outpacing the rest.

      Numbers like these should be in the backs of our minds as we assess the hostile rhetoric that Donald Trump has directed at our trade policies.  My general sense is that Trump's bad-mouthing assumes that our trading partners will willingly go along with his threatened actions.  History shows that it doesn't work that way and that retaliation is the most likely result, something we most definitely do not need here in South Dakota.