Tax Porn Not Corn, Part 2 -- Maybe Madville Times Isn't Crazy

On Tuesday, I proposed replacing the state sales tax on food with a increased sales tax rate on porn and other "adult" items. Just more nutty talk from that crazy liberal on Lake Herman?

Well, consider this Tennessee blogpost from Jan 2007*:

Tax porn not corn

Yes, I stole the title from the Tom Humphrey and Brad Williams article but it was too good to pass up. For those who did not read the article it is about a tax swap that I am going to propose. The swap would be to remove or significantly remove the sales tax on food and replace it on the porn/sex industry. The items I am considering are magazine's, videos (online, cable purchase or hard copy) or items that you have to be over the age of 18 to view or purchase due to sexual content. R rated movies will not be included. Strip club fees, purchases of services at strip clubs and Escort services will also be included.

The porn/sex industry is very powerful and a multi billion dollar industry. Just how big it is in Tennessee will be calculated in the bill and used to lower or remove the tax on food...

I wait to hear the arguments on how it is more important to save the huge profits of the thriving porn industry and keep taxing food then it is to help put food in the mouths of poor families that are struggling to make ends meet.

The source: Stacey Campfield, of Knoxville, Tennessee. That's Representative Stacey Campfield, Republican member of the Tennessee House. Excellent argument from a conservative Republican that there are better ways to generate revenue than taxing working folks for eating.

Let's see, we have until Wednesday to submit new bills? Russ, want to help me out on this one?

*Update 17:55: Oh! I'm sorry -- I goofed up when I read that post. It was a legislative proposal in 2007, not this year! It doesn't appear to have passed in Tennessee, but Rep. Campfield's blog links to a number of articles and pieces of similar porn legislation in other states, including the "Texas Pole Tax," a $5 tax on strip-club admission! It's expected to generate $40 million a year. That could pay a lot of teachers, or maybe even recapitalize the REDI fund!

Senator Johnson Says No to Eminent Domain for TransCanada

Cross-posted at KELOLand.com!

Hooray for Senator Tim Johnson, the only member of South Dakota's Congressional delegation to say flat-out that he does not support the use of eminent domain by TransCanada to obtain easements for its Keystone pipeline.

The Aberdeen American News sent six questions to Senator Johnson, Senator Thune, and Representative Herseth-Sandlin pertaining to TransCanada's proposed pipeline. Question 6: "Do you support the use of eminent domain to acquire needed easements from landowners who oppose the pipeline crossing their property?" In today's AAN ["S.D. Congressional Delegation Responses to Questions About TransCanada's Keystone Pipeline," Aberdeen American News, 2008.01.20], Senator Johnson provides this very succinct, unqualified answer:

No. I do not support the use of eminent domain to acquire easements for this project.

Landowners take note: you have at least one friend in Washington.

Unfortunately, you appear to have only that one clear friend in Washington. Here's Representative Herseth-Sandlin's rather typical gentle fence-riding:

The power of eminent domain for any project must be used sparingly. We have had experience across South Dakota with construction of regional water systems. This process has demonstrated easements can be obtained through mutual agreement rather than through condemnation and courts. I have been concerned by reports that TransCanada was overly quick to threaten legal action and force landowners to incur legal fees and have raised this issue with company officials, urging them to deal fairly with landowners.

That said, pipelines are the most efficient, safe way to transport volatile liquid fuel around the country. Our highway and rail system alone would not have the capacity to transport the amount of fuel needed to power this country, nor could it do so as safely as a pipeline. Denial of eminent domain authority on a project like this could doom all such projects to failure and impair the development of vital infrastructure.

She's concerned, but pipelines are great. No help for South Dakotans there.

Senator Thune's response was worse. His folks couldn't even take the time to respond directly to AAN's questionnaire (which surprises me: Thune's man Lauck should have been able to crank out some old-fashioned policy-debate line-by-line in no time). His statement doesn't say a word about eminent domain. He just says the project is great, since it will help free our country from Middle East oil:

At almost $100 per barrel, our dependence on oil from the Middle East is harming our national and economic security. It is important that our nation take reasonable steps to displace this oil with homegrown renewable fuel, domestically produced petroleum, and petroleum imports from our friends and neighbors in North America. From the Keystone pipeline to ethanol and biodiesel plants, South Dakota has an important role to play in freeing our country from Middle East oil.

Um, note to Thune and everyone else: Alberta's tar sands will not lower our imports from the Middle East one drop:

To many, Canada is America’s greatest hope to continue happy motoring for a while longer. They look longingly at those billions of barrels of “oil” trapped in the Alberta tar sands and assume that it will soon be flowing south in whatever amounts we desire. This is unlikely to happen for extracting “oil” from Alberta is turning the place into one of the greatest environmental disasters on earth. While production from the Alberta sands will likely continue for centuries, it will never reach the level to replace even a fraction of the 13 million barrels of imports the U.S. requires each day. It will not be long before the Canadian people start thinking about their grandchildren and exports will slow [Tom Whipple, "The Peak Oil Crisis: Issues," Falls Church (VA) News-Press, 2007.12.20].

The TransCanada pipeline won't replace Arab oil; it will only fuel our ever-increasing consumption. The Canadians will violate our property rights, tear up our farm fields, leak into our aquifers, and Osama's buddies and financiers will still be making money off America. We will still have ships in the Persian Gulf and troops on the ground in Qatar, Kuwait, and Iraq.

Perhaps Senator Johnson recognizes exactly this fallacy in the "TransCanada means no more Arab oil" thinking. The pipeline feeds greed. If we pursued energy conservation and real alternatives, we wouldn't need to sacrifice our land rights and environmental security.

Senator Johnson is the only South Dakota politician I've heard yet say anything about protecting South Dakota landowners' rights against TransCanada and any other foreign corporation that pretends just to be doing what's "Good for America, Good for South South Dakota." Kudos, Senator Johnson. Now tell your colleagues to get with the program.

Update 11:35 CST: But don't bother calling Governor Rounds's office. In his frontpager on the eminent domain issue, AAN's Scott Waltman notes that calls to the governor for comment on the issue were not returned. Read that article, with a good summary of the issues surrounding eminent domain here: Scott Waltman, "Your Land or Their Land?," Aberdeen American News, 2008.01.20.

Saturday Econ Notes: Fighting the Recession Through Consumerism

Forget Islamo-fascists or secular humanists: the biggest threat to America is cheapskates, regular Americans who don't buy enough stuff. Or so one might think from all the talk from the President and Congress about needing a stimulus package -- that's the modern translation of "bread and circuses" -- to stave off a recession. The U.S. economy grew 3.8% in the second quarter of 2007 and 4.9% in the third quarter, people bought more computers and cars and who knows what else, but apparently that's not enough. President Bush, who wasn't willing to let funding for children's health care increase any more than $5 billion, wants to pour $150 billion out of government coffers to encourage shopping.

Now Mrs. Madville Times and I certainly won't burn our $1600 rebate check from Uncle Sam in protest. But when we think about what we would do with the money, we find our priorities leaning toward some distinctly unpatriotic uses. I'd love to use the rebate to pay down our medical debt. Otherwise, it would be nice to just sock the money away and add a little cushion to our pretty lean budget.

We're not the only folks with such unpatriotic thoughts: some of the economists in the street -- actually, folks at the mall -- KELO interviews say they'd put a rebate check in the bank as well for future expenses, like a wedding or kids' college tuition.

Such anti-American thinking! If Congress and the President enact a tax rebate, they'll be expecting us to let those handouts burn holes in our pockets. Pay down your credit card debt? Knock a couple payments off your mortgage? Save the money? Blasphemy! If we don't buy more iPods and TVs and plastic junk from China, we're not helping the economy!

It seems the whole economy is based on our indulging in a constant orgy of ever increasing spending. Responsible, conservative financial behavior -- the frugality that got Grandma and Grandpa through the Depression and paid for World War II -- would ruin the nation... or at least the wealthy corporations that depend on our mindless overconsumption.

Is that why no one talks about energy conservation? Is that why Bob Ellis speaks so insultingly of the poor? If everyone tightened their belts and started putting money in the bank, the U.S. economy would collapse. Responsible -- dare I say moral -- behavior would lead to serious economic harms. That suggests something profoundly wrong in the values underpinning our economic system.

The dependence of our economy on overconsumption is a moral failing more destructive than any of the faux family values that Bill Napoli or Jim Dobson preach. This is why I'm so much more concerned about economic issues than abortion, gay marriage, or any of those popular social issues. We need to figure out how to get everyone off the treadmill of "buy, buy, buy!" and put our economy on a practically sustainable and morally defensible foundation.

Lake Herman Sanitary District: Don't Just Fix the Map; Expand It!

Faithful readers and sewage devotees will recall the kerfuffle the Lake Herman Sanitary District had over its map a couple months ago. (They will also recall that I am a member of that district's board.) Well, we straightened out the map and the tax rolls. And now we're ready to take the next step. At our December meeting, we drew up new proposed boundaries that would annex about three square miles into the Lake Herman Sanitary District. (Click on the map to see a larger image.)

The district board will meet Wednesday, January 30, 2008, at 6:30 p.m., in the public meeting room at the Madison Public Library, to discuss this proposed annexation and set a schedule for making it happen. If the board approves a formal resolution of annexation, three things have to happen to make the annexation a reality:

1. The Lake County Commission has to approve the proposed boundaries.
2. The LHSD has to publish the resolution twice, in two consecutive weeks, in the Madison Daily Leader for public review.
3. The LHSD board has to hold a public hearing on annexation, at which all residents affected by the annexation may air their views. At that meeting, the board can then vote yea or nay on the annexation. If a majority (there are three of us, so a majority is two guys) of the board vote in favor, the annexation becomes law right then and there.

If we put forward the resolution at our next meeting, we anticipate that the county could act on our request by mid-February, and we could have our formal hearing and vote on the annexation itself by the end of February.

The annexation would bring a few dozen residences onto the tax rolls. It would also encompass a fair amount of ag land where some landowners run cattle. Board member and cattle owner Lawrence Dirks has expressed some concern about this, since the district has an ordinance prohibiting livestock within district boundaries. of course, the board hasn't used that ordinance to prevent the grazing of cattle within the current boundaries or even the wading of cattle in Lake Herman. The ordinance explicitly allows the district board to make exceptions; nonetheless, we might have to take a look at clarifying that ordinance or maybe even changing the proposed annexation boundaries to avoid active pasture land.

What do you think? Should the Lake Herman Sanitary District expand? Weigh in with comments here... or better yet, come to the meeting on January 30 and let us know what you think!

Delightful, Democratic, and Nowhere Near Official: The Madville Times District 8 Caucus!

Hey, quick! While Russ, Dan, and Dave are all off in Pierre, let's have a caucus and see who should replace 'em!

Welcome to the first ever Madville Times District 8 Caucus, where you can nominate your favorite resident of Sanborn, Miner, Lake, and Moody Counties for the esteemed position of District 8 Senator or Representative to the South Dakota Legislature.

Who can participate? Republicans, Democrats, Independents... pretty much anyone in the District (no proof of residency necessary -- honor system, kids!).

How do you participate? Just click on the comment link and submit the names of folks you'd like to see serving as your District 8 State Senator and Representatives. Go ahead and argue for them -- tell us why your choices would be great legislators for District 8. You don't have to include your name, but it might be fun to include your party affiliation, just to see which way the parties are leaning.

Whom can you nominate? You can nominate one person for Senate and two for the House. Article 3 of the state constitution says they have to be 21, US citizens, and SD residents for at least two years. They also have to live in the district (this is the Legislature, not the Heartland Consumer Power District board). And yes, you can nominate yourself. (Russ, Dan, Dave -- care to give the Madville Times a scoop on your intentions? ;-) )

How much impact will the Madville Times District 8 caucus have? Probably darn little, but that's o.k. -- it should be a fun conversation!

To get the ball rolling, here's the Madville Times District 8 Dream Team, biased not by party but by hometown affiliation (I could vote for an incumbent or two, but at the moment, I'm in a throw-the-rascals-out mood):

1. Senate: James "Doc" Miller, theater director, Madison High School. Politics is theater, and Doc knows theater. The speeches would be spectacular! And seriously, when the state spends half of its budget on education, wouldn't it be a good idea to have some actual educators involved in the legislative process?
   
2. House: Brett Kearin, DSU student. As a budding entrepreneur, Kearin knows firsthand the challenges that entrepreneurs face in making their hometown dreams come true in South Dakota.
3. House: DeLon Mork, owner, Madison Dairy Queen. So Russ's outfit, Heartland, bought all the legisltors personalized mugs as welcome-back swag? Nuts to that. DeLon would get them all Blizzards! They'd appoint him chair of all the important committees.

There are my picks... open to discussion and change. The caucus remains open through March 25, the last day to file primary election nominating petitions. I'll post running totals in the sidebar as time permits. So declare your loyalties! Submit your nominations!

Go See a Show -- It's One-Act Play Season!

It's 20-below, kids are dragging themselves to school at 6:30 a.m. to put on make-up -- it must be One-Act Play contest time! In the coming couple weeks, you'll have opportunities galore to see your kids overcoming stage fright, balky sound systems, and who knows what other challenges to put on some quality theater. On the calendar:

--This Sunday, expect a drama-rama around the area. Madison High School presents a public performance of its one-act drama, "Crying Out" by Mathew L. Hunt, at 2 p.m. at the MHS auditorium.

--Tuesday, Jan. 22, Beresford, Bon Homme, Dakota Valley, Elk Point-Jefferson, and Vermillion present their one-act dramas in the Region I-A contest at the Marion Auditorium on the Mount Marty Campus in Yankton.

--Wednesday, Jan. 23, Baltic, Dell Rapids Public, Garretson, Sioux Falls Christian, and Tri-Valley present their one-act dramas in the Region III-A contest at the Jeschke Fine Arts Center on the University of Sioux Falls campus.

--Also on Wednesday, Jan. 23, Madison hosts the Region IV-A One-Act Contest. Competing here that day with Madison will be Deubrook Area, Flandreau, Howard, McCook Central, and Milbank.

--The Brandon Valley Performing Arts Center (best house and staff in eastern South Dakota!) hosts two one-act contests next week as well: Wednesday, Jan. 23, Region II-A schools Canton, Harrisburg, Lennox, Parker, and Tea Area go head to head with their dramas.

--The next day brings Region I-B to Brandon, as Chester Area, Colman-Egan, Freeman Academy, Irene-Wakonda, Montrose, and Rutland stage the one-act comedies.

That's hardly the half of it: there are 12 Region One-Act contests going on around the state next week (B Regions III and VII have already done theirs this week!) All these schools are competing for the chance to perform at the State One-Act Festival at NSU in Aberdeen the following weekend, January 31-February 2.

I got to watch Colman-Egan's rehearsal this morning, and Mrs. Madville Times and I (and even Madville Times Jr.!) will get out to see Doc Miller's show in Madison this weekend. Then I'll be judging two of those contests, Region I-A in Yankton and Region III-A in Sioux Falls. It promises to be a really good week of theater. Plus, these shows are all free to the public! So sneak out of work for a bit, go get some culture, and cheer for those kids bustin' their chops on stage. Break a leg, kids!

Schools Need Cash, not "Confidence"

State Representative Russell Olson (R-Madison) is daring me to throw the doublespeak flag:

...[T]he one issue all agree on is that the system for funding education in South Dakota is broken.

Do I mean that the state isn't adequately funding K-12 education? Not necessarily. Do I think that teachers should be paid more? In most instances, yes. However, teacher pay is a local issue, and I believe we need to find a way to give the proper assurance to local administrators and school boards, giving them the confidence in continued funding to adequately pay our teachers [Russell Olson, "Legislative Report," Madison Daily Leader, 2008.01.14, p.3].

The system's broken, but the state might still be funding schools adequately. Half of school funding comes from the state, but teacher pay is a completely local issue. Hmmm....

I welcome clarifications on the good legislator's actual meaning there. In the meantime, I will suggest school administrators and board members around the state might respond, "We don't need confidence: we need money!"

Small Schools Safe from Consolidation?

The State Senate Tuesday tabled SB 23, which would have put the teeth in last year's school consolidation law. And they tabled it pretty convincingly, 25-10.

Last month I commented on Huron lawyer Rodney Freeman's argument that the law failed to provide any real enforcement mechanism. At the time I thought it was just too good to be true, and that if the argument did have any merit, the Rounds-Melmer-"local control when we don't want to pay for it" crowd would get the Legislature to straighten out the language pretty quickly. What happened? Could more than two thirds of the Senate really be making a stand to protect Conde, Oldham-Ramona, and our other small rural schools from the governor's axe?

District 8 Senator Dan Sutton (D-Flandreau) suggests that the arguments that sold consolidation to the Legislature a year ago may have worn thin. In a discussion with visitors from Madison yesterday, Sutton and his District 8 colleague Rep. Dave Gassman (D-Canova) addressed one key justification for school consolidation, cost savings:

Sutton said that opponents [of school consolidation] haven't seen any proof of lower education expenses.

"When we ask the question, 'Where is the savings?' they can't give us an answer," Sutton Said.

According to Sutton, some school consolidations have had salary savings offset by other increased expenses such as transportation. Gassman also said parents can find themselves paying higher out-of-pocket costs for transportation when a larger school district is created [Chuck Clement, :District 8 Lawmakers Discuss School Consolidation, Tax Changes," Madison Daily Leader, 2008.01.16, p. 1].

Now don't get too comfortable, my small-school friends. 'Tabled" doesn't mean dead, just mostly dead, and "there's a big difference between mostly dead and all dead." But for now, well, keep your fingers crossed!

Free Market Good... General Welfare Better

As reported here earlier, District 8 Representative Russell Olson (R-Madison) wants more booze -- or at least, more booze licenses. He still won't come right out and say it; ever the politician, Olson hedges his statements in Monday's MDL "Legislative Report" this way:

Several bills will attempt to change the current licensing of liquor, both on and off sale. I will keep you informed on which, if any, I will support [Olson, MDL, 2008.01.14, p.3].

Well, you don't have to wait until next week's installment of the Legislative Report to find out which bill Olson supports. The Legislature's web site lists Olson as a co-sponsor of HB 1142, "An act to authorize additional off-sale retail liquor licenses in certain municipalities."

Olson doesn't mention this bill in his first Legislative Report, but he makes his position pretty clear with a ringing defense of the free market:

Currently, licenses are limited by population. I have never understood why, in a free market economy, we have a system that limits the opening and operating of a business, if there are patrons to support it [Olson, 2008.01.14].

Ringing defense... ringing hollow. If Representative Olson really believed in letting the free market rule unimpeded by government regulation, he would not be supporting HB 1240, "An Act to increase certain vehicle dealer license fees" (hey, do Prostrollos know about this?). Don't vehicle dealer license fees "limit the opening and operating of a business"?

Why would he be supporting HB 1151, more nanny-state legislation* to limit the operation of "adult-oriented businesses." By Olson's stated principles, if there are patrons to support a porn shop at all hours of the day, or within a quarter mile of a school, park, or church, the state shouldn't stand in the way of the free market.

Why, for that matter, doesn't Olson support repealing South Dakota Codified Law Chapter 22-23, which outlaws the practice of the oldest profession, a service that could surely find patrons to support it in our fair state (it always does). We followed Vegas in gambling; let's do it with prostitution! License the brothels and tax them to make up for the shortfall in the transportation budget (Look out for Four for the Future's new slogan: "Hookers for Highways!").

The answer is obvious: society has an interest in regulating business, especially business that can harm society. Porn shops degrade women, promote unhealthy behavior, and coarsen public discourse. Thus, we limit where and when they can operate. Prostitution is just bad, so we outlaw it.

Alcohol contributes to all sorts of social problems. Even if the market would support a bar at every bump in the highway and a liquor store on every street corner, that wouldn't necessarily be the healthiest state of affairs. (And I still haven't heard anyone make the case that it's just too hard for a guy to get a drink anywhere in this state.)

South Dakota appears to have all the booze and booze licenses that consumers need, and not enough resources (argue the counties) to pay for the law enforcement and other services necessary to clean up for the mess booze helps make. "Free market forever!" is a nice line to trot out to defend one's legislative agenda, but we all have to remember that the free market is not the end-all, be-all of political philosophy. The free market is not an end in itself, but just a tool, secondary to the greater good of the general welfare.

-------------------------------
*Funny Dakota War College gets all over Senator Jerstad for trying to regulate smut shops, but ignores his pal Russ's efforts on the House side.

Gassman: SD Energy Self-Sufficient?

I really wish our District 8 Legislators would take a cue from their District 6 colleague Rep. Kristi Noem (R-Castlewood) and start blogging. Then I wouldn't have to wait a day or two to get hold of the print copy of the Madison Daily Leader. Of course, Russ, Dan, and Dave probably don't want to make it any easier for me to give 'em heck....

Monday's MDL brings us the first Legislative Reports from our District 8 representatives. Rep. Gassman (D-Canova) makes this rather impenetrable statement:

South Dakota has reached the goal we would wish for our nation, that being energy self-sufficiency [Rep. David Gassman, "Legislative Report," MDL, 2008.01.14, p. 3].

Maybe Canova's Central Farmer's Co-op is running on pure ethanol and keeping customers warm with a corn stove (that would be cool!), but the whole state of South Dakota has reached energy self-sufficiency? So we're not importing any coal -- or looking to import more -- from Wyoming? We're telling Hyperion they can build their silly oil refinery elsewhere? We're all biking to work?

Probably just one of those verbal slips, maybe just a word left out at the keyboard while tryign to do three things at once. But better check the energy file in your campaign debate book, Dave, just in case there's a District 8 primary....

(But stay tuned -- Rep. Olson's report gets what's coming later this morning!)

Total Recall -- Bill Targets School Boards

PP may get his wish: HB 1150 would grant citizens the power to recall school board members. Not that any school districts can afford recall elections, but it would be nice for citizens to have the same power over school board members as they have over mayors, city councillors, and other elected officials. Then again, here in Madison, we have trouble finding enough willing candidates to fill vacant seats as it is. If we start recalling board members, we might end up with a bunch of empty chairs setting school policy.

Staving off the AntiChrist: Bill Fights Microchip Implants

Call it "An Act to Prohibit the Mark of the Beast":

HOUSE BILL NO. 1141

Introduced by: Representatives Hackl, Faehn, Feinstein, Lust, and Pederson (Gordon) and Senators Duenwald, Gant, McNenny, Napoli, Peterson (Jim), and Schmidt (Dennis)

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit the implanting of a microchip and provide a civil recovery.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That chapter 20-1 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

No person may require that another person be implanted with a microchip. Any person who violates this Act is subject to a civil action in circuit court for the recovery of actual or punitive damages not to exceed ten thousand dollars. Each violation is a separate offense.

Thank goodness Senator Napoli et al. are busy protecting us from the globalist government-corporate conspirators who would do the devil's work. But... uh oh: the bill says, "No person...." Shouldn't that read, "No person or manifestation of Evil Incarnate..."? They'll fix that in committee.

Funny thing is, in my more contrarian moods, I could vote for this bill. I'm not quite so worried about getting stamped with a silicon 666, but there are companies looking to make money off technology like this. What better way to make money than to convince schools, corporations, and the US Army to require their minions to carry an implanted chip? Sounds like another plutocratic conspiracy. And heck, I don't even like being required to carry photo ID to vote....

Meanwhile, SD teacher pay remains 51st in the nation, farmers are fighting land-thieving TransCanada, Citigroup could lay off 24,000 workers, inflation's at a 17-year high,... oh, but don't let me trouble the legislature with pressing issues.