State Affairs: Yes Birth to 3, No Pipeline Tax

Whew! Our man Russell Olson (R-8/Madison) and the Senate State Affairs committee had a busy Wednesday! Let's review the votes:

1. Birth to 3 victory! Russ joined the committee in blowing a unanimous raspberry at the governor and approving SB 203, a bill to fully fund the Birth to 3 Connections program. No quarrel there—that's a program worth paying for.
2. National Guard: guns before butter? Russ joined the slim 5–4 majority of the committee who voted to kill SB 166, a measure that sought to limit the National Guard's ability to relocate and deactivate its units in South Dakota. I'm with the Republicans on this one: the bill seemed to put economic considerations above the Guard's best judgment on readiness and resource use.
3. Piepline tax still too taxing: Things go downhill from here. Russ helped kill SB 171, the two-cent-per-barrell pipeline tax. So again, to be clear: Russ thinks local businessmen can survive a new 4% tax on their service, but thinks a multi-billion-dollar foreign oil corporation can't bear a 0.05% tax on its product. I'm still waiting for someone to clear that up for me.
4. Stimulus: Do we even have a Plan A yet? Russ may also be viewed as the deciding vote in killing SB 197, which would have created a commission to figure what the heck to do with all that federal stimulus money. O.K., maybe we don't need another commission. But I assume somebody in Pierre is working on the stimulus money... right? Couldn't the legislature assert its proper fiscal perogative on this one instead of waiting for the governor to call a special session?

Lots of substantive bills to deal with yet... and we haven't even seen the budget yet. Stay tuned!

National Guard Here to Protect Us... from Economic Downturn?

My neighbor Gerry Lange puts his name on a couple bills that appear to exist for the wrong reasons. Senate Bill 166 would prohibit the South Dakota National Guard from deactivating or relocating any unit if that move would leave the unit's former home community more than eighty miles away from the nearest Guard unit. SB 167 would create a state National Guard Commission, whose job in part would be to conduct public hearings on any proposed Guard unit changes or armory closings.

Now if the thesis of this bill is that we all need National Guard units within a couple hours' drive (gotta include time to get the soldiers together, haul gear out of the armory, etc.) for quick response to emergencies, then o.k., let's have that conversation.

Leaders in Lemmon, where the National Guard plans to close an armory, do nod toward that argument. Their primary concern, however, appears to be money:

"The arguments the governor made to keep Ellsworth (Air Force Base) open are the same arguments we're making to keep the Guard in Lemmon," said Mike Schweitzer, KBJM-AM owner and a Perkins County commissioner.

Not having the Guard unit based in Lemmon will hurt the town's economy just as it's been on an upswing, in part because of young people moving back, town leaders said.

"I think Lemmon has turned the corner," said Shane Penfield, city attorney and Perkins County state's attorney, who moved his family from Rapid City.

"We're not going to ignore the fact that we've got a demographic issue," he said. "But help us" [Carson Walker, "Lemmon Leaders Trying to Reverse Armory Closure," AP via Rapid City Journal, 2009.02.06].

Even conservative Lemmon loves government when it brings money to town (as does Governor Rounds).

Problem is, the National Guard says moving the 842^nd Engineer Company from Lemmon to the Black Hills actually improves its readiness:

"By consolidating our units to geographically centralized locations versus having them out in these smaller towns, the National Guard leaders are going to be able to maximize resources and training capabilities," said Maj. Brendan Murphy, Guard spokesman.

"And this is going to help the National Guard remain ready in both crisis or disasters. Another thing, too, is it really makes better use of the taxpayer dollars" [Walker, 2009.02.06].

Beware the military-industrial complex, President Eisenhower said. Base your economy on military spending, and you end up muddling your missions. The National Guard exists to protect citizens from natural disasters, Cuban paratroopers, and other perils. If Lemmon can make the argument that they need a Guard presence to keep them safe (from what, civil disorder at Boss Cowman Days?), then move those engineers back to the Lemmon armory. But if the best argument Lemmon boosters can make is that they need the money, well, that's just not the Guard's mission.

South Dakota Guard 147th Activated for Iraq Again

KJAM reports that the 147^th Field Artillery and 147^th Forward Support Company have been activated for another year in Iraq and Afghanistan. 460-plus soldiers from Sisseton, Aberdeen, Webster, Watertown, Salem, Sioux Falls, and Yankton will deploy, some for the fourth time in seven years, to Iraq and Afghanistan next April.

I know our National Guard men and and women signed on to do a job, they're proud to do it, and they do it well. But did anyone in the Guard really sign on for four deployments in seven years? Is there really no way to deploy the 1.4 million active duty personnel of the regular armed forces that would keep our Guards closer to home?

Just what is the proper role of the National Guard? How much should we expect of our part-time soldiers and their families? Readers with military experience, I defer to your wisdom on this one. Relying so heavily on the National Guard to fight Osama et al. seems like a bad idea... but those of you who have been there—and are going there again—the comments are open for your perspective.