Representative Betty Olson (R-28/Prairie City) gets the highest score of any South Dakota legislator on the shadowy SDFC's Freedom Index. Voicing her support for Governor Dennis Daugaard's two-year moratorium on acquisitions of land by the state Game Fish and Parks Department, Olson reveals that in her Wild West anarcho-capitalist utopia, the state would own no land:
Some in agriculture oppose state acquisitions in part because they take land out of production. Other objections are more ideological.
"I don't think the state has any business owning any land," said state Rep. Betty Olson, R-Prairie City, who has been a vocal critic of Game and Fish [Cody Winchester, "Ban on Buying Land Stirs Hunting Debate," that Sioux Falls paper, 2011.09.26].
Oh my. I guess Rep. Olson would prefer that she and her colleagues hold session next to the buffet line at the Kings Inn. I guess she would prefer that SDSU abandon its land-grant status and rent space in the Brookings Mall. I guess she would prefer we cede all of our great state parks to the private sector and see common folks priced out of the ability to swim and fish and camp on land that should belong to all of us.
In bad news for Olson's Freedom Index score, the good representative advocates higher taxes for people who disagree with her:
Olson advocates taxing game production land at a higher rate to replace the contributions of the former owners [Winchester, 2011.09.26].
That's Betty Olson's brand of freedom: you get low taxes, but only when you do the things she wants you to with your land.
Great idea, Ms. Olson!
Ted Turner: here's hoping you follow nutcase politics in failed red states!
Is she running for public office or for Old West Cattle Baron?
Currently, GF&P can buy and sell land at will without legislative oversight. Legislators in the past abdicated their responsability and gave that sweeping authority to the GF&P. When GF&P purchases farm land, it drives land/rental prices higher and the public gets less off the land then when it was in private hands. When a farmer farms the land, the land feeds wildlife, grows a crop, and taxes are paid by the taxpayer. When GF&P buys it, wildlife is fed and a government agency redirects collected taxpayer money to cover the tax loss.
Anyone who does not know Rep. Olson, I would encourage you to meet her. She is a pleasure to work with. She is an honest hard working South Dakotan who you can ALWAYS count on to receive an honest answer from. She views things only with a care towards advocating what is her understanding of what is the best interest of South Dakotans, not politics. SD is well served with her candid candor in Pierre and I am blessed to get to work with & know her.
We need state parks and some areas set aside for folks to hunt; however, at what point does further purchases adversely affect our state economy?
I got roasted this last year by some farmers & educators after GF&P purchased $Millions in ground in my district during the same time frame the state said monies were short and we were cutting support to education, etc. Different pots of money; however, I can assure you, folks do not see that as an acceptable answer.
I agree with Stace. And government ownership of property is a communist version of socialism. The GOP version of government control of private property is the fascist version of socialism. So whatever party you adhere to, you are promoting some form of socialism. This issue is proof that both parties can work together in the name of socialism...let us buy up private property [Democrat] so that the government can development the hunting economy [Republican].
And Steve, if GF&P really represents socialism, then it is a form of socialism I wholeheartedly support. Acquiring, restoring, and maintaining land for public recreation is a proper function of government. Yes, Steve, those public lands also happen to support the economic development goals of your Republican friends, but I would support GF&P's acquisition of land for parks and wildlife habitat even if we didn't make a bunch of money on hunting and tourism. As I'm sure those aware of the Kelo decision will agree, some things have value independent of their revenue-generating potential.
Cory, so there we have it, both parties in favor of socialism. So one who uses critical thinking would have to ask, why oppose one just because they are in the GOP? Second point, what about the rights of us who oppose socialism? Right now, we have no choice.
Keep fighting, Steve. But my critical thinking tells me that the Dems are fighting for a kind of socialism very different from the crony capitalism of the GOP.