Voting for effect? Or non-effect.

Authored: June 8th, 2009 @ 10:20 AM

In the military we hear of “fire for effect*”.  In a fine LTE by our own Doug Jones (click and scroll down),  to the Northfield News, Doug points out the duplicity of our SD25 state senator, as Sen. Dahle “votes for effect”.

Excerpt: go to Northfield News and scroll down for the full story.

Flip flop time. Sen. Kevin Dahle said before he was elected that he would vote for every tax increase that came before him. This was in a context that he supported K-12 school funding and anything that added revenue to the general fund would help the schools.

As a man of his word Kevin Dahle voted for every conceivable and some inconceivable tax increases.  Except near the end he voted against the $2 billion senate income tax increase.  Apparently he was told it was a “throwaway vote” that wouldn’t matter. So he voted no for $2 billion and yes for a $1 billion increase.

* Fire for effect is a military term. According to NATO doctrine:

  • 1. Fire which is delivered after the mean point of impact or burst is within the desired distance of the target or adjusting/ranging point.
  • 2. Term in a call for fire to indicate the adjustment/ranging is satisfactory and fire for effect is desired.

According to DOD