How many 'Enablers' can you name in
South Dakota's legislature
By Gordon Garnos
AT ISSUE: For a lack of a better
word, an enabler is one who enables, or simply put, gets things
done. The contention here is that this state is short of enablers,
especially in our state's Legislature. Yes, we have some, but far
too few. And, yes, there are loads of maintainers, those who keep
things going in state government, but won't rough up the status quo
too much. However, when it comes to developing our future we seem to
be short of those people who have the brainpower, vision and courage
to resolving today's issues as well as developing our tomorrows.
THE READER'S DIGEST is publishing
a series of articles on those people campaigning to become the next
President of the United States. As each candidate is interviewed a
report card is prepared by a panel of experts. A four-point would be
an "A," or very strong, and so on down to very weak. In the stories
I read, I didn't find a valedictorian in the bunch. But maybe that
isn't necessary. Nor perhaps it is not necessary for our state's
elected officials either.
A few other things jumped out as I read
some of those stories. For example, while most of the candidates
ranked high in charisma, they didn't measure that high in such
important traits as courage and vision.
WHERE AM I going with this? This
is the first week of the 83rd session of the South Dakota
Legislature. While we don't expect a lot of fire in this, the last
session before November's General Election, there are a number of
contentious issues facing our legislators.
Will they have the courage and vision to
get things done? I am sure the brain power is there, but this
session is going to require a lot more than that to get things done.
After reading about all these performance enhancement drugs (PED)
being taken by professional athletes, perhaps a few of these pills
should be sent via Pierre to help our legislators as well. Let's
call it our PEP program (legal, of course)..
I have already expressed my concern
about the Governor wanting to cut the Highway Patrol's budget by $2
million, but there are several other concerns that South Dakotans
should have as this legislative session progresses.
FOR EXAMPLE, the Governor had
hardly announced his budget, including his recommendation for school
funding, when school officials started complaining it was not nearly
enough. He countered by accusing the schools across South Dakota of
hoarding the state money they have received and not giving it to the
teachers as where it was intended to go.
Governor Rounds in citing next year's
tight state budget, is recommending state employees only get a 2.5
percent pay raise instead of the annual 3 percent they have received
for the past several budget years. This isn't going over very well
either. But he has agreed to fund a 4.5 percent increase in the cost
of state employee health insurance and that isnšt exactly peanuts.
There have also been several articles in
newspapers regarding the shortfall of funds for the S.D. Department
of Transportation (DOT), so much so that several highway projects
may have to be curtailed. That is particularly sad news as many of
our highways need major repairs.
WHILE MENTIONING the DOT, there
is a fund few are acquainted with that could stand some tweaking--if
anyone in the Legislature had the courage and vision to do so. Since
the 1980s there has been what is termed the "Tank Inspection Fee."
Before that time it was part of the state's gas tax structure which
put all of its revenues into the highway fund. However, it is my
understanding, when the name of this revenue was changed, it took
the lid off the pot for several state agencies to stick their
fingers into.
So, what is the Tank Inspection Fee? It
means that two cents of every gallon of gasoline, yes, every gallon,
that comes into South Dakota, instead of going for highway
construction and repair, for which it was originally intended, it
now goes to a myriad of state agencies to be used the way they see
fit. Needless to say, this fee brings in millions of dollars every
year into the state treasury. They call it a fee, but whatever they
call it, it sure sounds like a tax to me.
ANOTHER ISSUE that seems to be
getting a lot of ink in the newspapers is a more open government,
meaning more government open meetings and open records. While there
has been a lot of lip service on this issue from our legislators,
what will be their final word on this remains to be seen. As a long
time newspaper man I can't help but be somewhat dubious on the
outcome.
Now you may scoff at a PEP program in
Pierre for our legislators, but if we could get it approved, we
could monitor it carefully this session and then have an impartial
evaluation of the program. A comparison, if you will, of the last
legislative session. I am sure the electorate would be happy to
accept the cost for this PEP program. But just wait a gosh-darn
minute. Maybe the General Election will take care of it.....
Gordon Garnos was long-time editor of the Watertown Public Opinion and
recently retired after 39 years with that newspaper. Garnos, a
lifelong resident of South Dakota except for his military service in the
U.S. Air Force, was born and raised in Presho.
Leave a comment about this article
