Maybe we should pay attention

by Lorraine Collins 

When I read a recent news report that Black Hills Airport in Spearfish had been granted over $3 million by the Federal Aviation Administration to build a taxiway to make the airport safer, I was happy for the airport and for the taxpayers in Lawrence County. I don't know how much money the total airport improvement project has cost over the last few years, though I'm sure it is several million dollars. I haven't looked into the matter lately, but one eastern South Dakota newspaper indicated awhile ago that it was at least $7 million and also said that 95% of this was paid by the federal government. Another three percent is paid by the state, so we in Lawrence County have had to come up with only 2% of the money to provide an improved airport.

I'm certainly not against improving the Black Hills Airport because I know it has some recreational and commercial benefits to the county. I used to be co-owner of an airplane based there, my husband once served on the airport board, and he was also Commander of the Lookout Mountain Civil Air Patrol Squadron. I guess you could say we are pro-airplane.

Yet, thinking of the money the federal government has spent on developing and improving this airport, I wonder whether folks who keep complaining about the federal deficit and government spending would be willing to say, "Okay, we'll get by without this modernized, improved, safer airport" or even, "We'll pay for it ourselves."

Considering this, I began to wonder what would happen if taxpayers had to pass a bond issue to build an airport as they often do to build a school. Would they "opt out" of property tax limits to build it? Would local taxpayers think that this airport is so important to them and to their children that they would willingly increase their taxes in order to pay for it?

I rather doubt that. But if the federal government is paying 95% of the cost, then we tend to say, "Hey, this is a good deal! Go for it!" This may help explain how government spending gets out of hand. We want and need highways, military bases, airports, bridges, water projects, and we particularly want them where they help the economy of our county and state.  We refer to these things as "infrastructure." But just now when President Obama has been trying to promote government spending on infrastructure and on schools in order to create jobs, this idea is being rejected and blocked by political leaders who say we can't afford it and it wouldn't work anyway.

Yet when I look around western South Dakota and see people working not only at the airport but on roads and bridges, I have to think that projects like these have good results and pump real money into the economy.  In July when Congress adjourned without funding the FAA, a couple of billion dollars of construction projects were put on hold, thousands of people were laid off and the government was unable to collect taxes on airline tickets so hundreds of millions of dollars were lost. At the time, that did not seem like a good economic plan to me.          

The fact is, this economy needs help and people need help. We can't ignore this much longer. The gap between rich and poor in this country is real, and getting bigger. In Spearfish, there has been a 33% increase in people coming to the food bank in the last nine months. In Sioux Falls and Rapid City there has been an increase of 60% in the last three years. But Congress wants to cut $800 million from nutrition programs. Does this make sense?

Last March there was a cartoon in the Pioneer in which a fellow with a microphone was standing in a city square. He was saying, "It's eerily quiet in the square, no demonstrations are planned. Despite an economy in shambles, high unemployment, huge disparity in wealth and a reviled ruling class, there's not even a hint of a popular uprising. Americans may not be ready for an Egyptian style democracy."

Well, we're seeing people gather in the streets now in many places, including South Dakota. Maybe we should pay attention.

Lorraine Collins is a writer who lives in Spearfish. She can be contacted at collins1@rushmore.com

What really matters

by Lorraine Collins

Whew! It's finally over! What a thrill! Oh no, I don't mean the election, which some may think of as more thrilling than others. I mean that enthralling rescue of miners in Chile last month. By now the rapt attention of the world has moved on to other dramas, but that event will live in song and story---television documentaries, movies, paperback books.

The first documentary about the rescue aired on PBS a few days ago. It showed the giant machines that were brought in to pound a hole through the rock and the men who worked so desperately. What a triumph of science and faith, technology and spirit, courage and teamwork it was. It also demonstrated government efficiency and innovation and an apparent willingness to share credit for the success. It's everything we long for here in America and we saw it for a few weeks there in Chile. The rescue also showcased American inventiveness and knowhow as American equipment and expertise were substantially involved in the rescue. So that makes us feel even better about it.

I guess you could say that what happened in Chile was the antipathy of what we've experienced here at home during the long, rancorous election season. The rescue of the miners cost a whole lot of money but maybe not as much as was spent by candidates in California. Or not as much as was lost by those big banks that were too big to fail.

In the midst of all the drama, one of the commentators who filled the television screens and airwaves during the rescue of the miners said something that I had not heard for a long time, but I think is still true. He reminded us that all wealth comes from two things only---mining and agriculture. Without mining and agriculture, it is said, nothing else exists. It's a primitive idea, perhaps, and one nobody thinks about. But if you wear it, sit on it, eat it, drive it, read it, watch it or use it to talk to somebody half a world away, whatever you are using would not be there for you unless somebody had dug a mineral out of the ground or grown a crop. That's where it starts.

Of course, a lot of other procedures have to go on after the initial production or extraction of the basic material, such as processing, refining, inventing, designing, manufacturing and marketing. All this leads, somehow, to banks, lawyers, corporations, hedge funds, speculation, bubbles, and Wall Street bankers who get millions of dollars in bonuses no matter what. Somehow, all those people who seem to have nothing whatever to do with mining and agriculture appear to be the guys with all the money. It kind of makes you wonder.

Our economic system seems to reward best those who are far removed from the basic source of all wealth---mining and agriculture. The only time we actually pay much attention to miners is when they are involved in a catastrophe that captures our imagination. And the only time we think much about those who toil in the fields is when we're wondering whether or not they're illegal aliens.

 There are easier ways to make a living than mining and agriculture so we should be grateful for those who are willing to do the work. The men who were trapped in that mine haven't spoken much about the experience yet, but they've said they realized what was important, what really mattered to them, and so did their families waiting for the rescue.

 The rest of us should stop and think of this, too. What really matters to the economic health of the nation? What are we producing, manufacturing, inventing other than complicated financial instruments that nobody really seems to understand?  If we thought about that a little more, we might not be in the mess we're in.

Lorraine Collins is a writer who lives in Spearfish. She can be reached at collins1@rushmore.com

The $25 million jailhouse

Congressional strategies to win favor for “stimulus” monies as a way to solve our economic woes have met with mixed results. Doubtless there has been some success; otherwise, we suspect there’d be a whole lot more hoopla over the insanity of spending money that we don't have. This wrong-headed strategy arose last fall in an effort to “jump start” the economy by spending enormous amounts of money – trying to rejuvenate the stock markets and get people back to work.

Well, since the Treasury Department prints it, we’d have to concede that the money’s there. But so is the debt……and it’ll be there for generations to come.

One of the real casualties of this fiasco is common sense, which has been smothered by the availability of TARP funds. When you and I overspend the family budget and realize that we’re in a world of hurt, common sense tells us that it’s not time to go out and buy a new car. But that's the kind of logic employed by the administration and Congress.

By spreading the money around – everything from the "Clunkers" program to public works projects – Congress has deflected much of the criticism that they really deserve.

Take, for example, the $25 million grant for a jail on the Rosebud Reservation here in South Dakota. I suspect that closer scrutiny of the project would result in determining that there is questionable need for such a facility – at least, not $25 million. And already, tribal officials express concern that they may not have enough money to operate the facility!

There are real needs in our American Indian communities, but this “economic stimulus” fiasco would be easier to stomach if it were for a facility focused on education and training – one with a thoughtful road map and the funds necessary to operate it.

But both on and off the reservations, it seems easier to just take the money – pat yourself on the back for getting it – and ignoring both common sense…… and future generations. They’re the ones who’ll have to pay for it.

I used to avoid writing about the economy lest it becomes obvious that I don’t fully understand it. However, it’s become painfully clear that Congress and many government bureaucrats don’t have a clue either.

Generational Theft

When I saw the laundry list of South Dakota projects that could be funded with the latest proposed "stimulus" package, I felt that surely this scenario was being played out in states all across the country. States that have mis-managed and overspent their budgets -- most far worse than South Dakota -- will jump at this lifeline to save them from their bad practices.

I wanted to opine about it, but when I saw Senator Tom Coburn's (R-OK) essay in the Wall Street Journal the other day, I knew he said it better and with greater knowledge than those of us outside the beltway who are, therefore, more blissfully ignorant of the details surrounding most federal shenanigans.

Read Coburn's essay here.

When I was managing the public television station in Tulsa back in the early 1980s, Tom Coburn was in school, pursuing a new career. He'd already established himself as a successful businessman when he made a life-changing decision to pursue medicine.

Coburn's political stripes may be a different color than those of the late Mike Synar, his congressional predecessor from Oklahoma's 2nd district. But their common sense approach to tough issues has an abiding universal appeal. A Democrat, Synar seemed to have boundless energy and great integrity. For many Oklahomans -- including transplants like me -- Mike Synar was a source of inspiration and hope. Synar's career was cut far too short by a brain tumor in 1996. He was just 45 years old.

Coburn's appeal for common sense has struck a chord in many of us. Some have branded him "radical," and there's probably some truth to that. After all, while most of his Senate colleagues rush to pass a massive "stimulus" package of about one TRILLION dollars, he has been a potent voice of opposition. He's right, it really is a case of grand generational theft.

We really do need "change"

We shouldn’t be surprised by the financial meltdown at Lehman Brothers, AIG, and Merrill Lynch. Banks involved in the “sub-prime” mortgage crisis took a big hit. They were loaning money to folks who couldn’t really afford the huge mortgage payments they were assuming. There wasn’t enough collateral or ability to re-pay the loans, and the sheer volume of this risk began a snowballing of no confidence in those mortgage papers.

Others involved in this chicanery, from investment banks to insurance companies, are now feeling the impact.

For decades, “financial institutions” have been sending out credit cards to anyone with body temperature, not to mention canines, felines, and other varied critters. Dealing with high volume, they worried very little about individuals who found themselves upside-down in indebtedness they could ill afford. South Dakota was a witting enabler for the charlatans purveying this crap.

Mortgage lenders, fueled by a government and social environment that suggested everyone should own a nice home – whether or not they could really afford it – were warmly greeted by the masses and gained good traction.

Alas, that good traction eventually lost ground quickly on the slippery slope of sub-prime loans. By that time, the greedy lenders determined that their customers wouldn’t be able to re-pay the burgeoning collective debt encompassed in the sub-prime loans. The jig was up.

We all recognize that our federal fiscal health is on the critical list. Why would we expect otherwise, when federal policies promote “spend, spend, spend,” within both government and the private sector? Didn’t we all just love those “stimulus” checks this year?

The notion of “saving” rather than “spending” went out of vogue more than 30 years ago. It’s time we embrace the common-sense approach that you shouldn’t spend more than you have.

~

More than that, we should hold our government accountable to adopt fiscal policies that reflect common sense. Perhaps that’s too much to expect of the U.S. Congress, but we shouldn’t give up the struggle.