Bill Overview
Title: Mount Rushmore Protection Act
Description: This bill prohibits the use of any federal funds to alter, change, destroy, or remove any name, face, or other feature on the Mount Rushmore National Memorial in South Dakota.
Sponsors: Rep. Johnson, Dusty [R-SD-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals connected to Mount Rushmore
Estimated Size: 1500000
- Mount Rushmore is a national monument in South Dakota, USA, which implies that the primary target population will be individuals and communities in proximity to or with a vested interest in Mount Rushmore.
- Tourism related to Mount Rushmore may have indirect impacts; therefore, people working in tourism-related industries in South Dakota could be affected.
- Mount Rushmore holds cultural, historical and patriotic significance, impacting citizens and entities interested in this heritage.
- Indigenous groups, particularly the Lakota, who have historical and cultural connections to the land of Mount Rushmore, may feel impacted due to the continued preservation without modification.
Reasoning
- The Mount Rushmore Protection Act primarily impacts individuals and communities connected to Mount Rushmore, including those living in South Dakota, working in tourism related to the monument, or having cultural and historical ties to it.
- The budget constraints suggest minimal direct financial impact on communities, as the policy restricts federal spending on alterations, not general funding like tourism or maintenance.
- Given the monument's symbolic status, opinion and wellbeing effects are more likely to manifest emotionally or ideologically rather than through tangible economic changes.
- We expect a range of impact levels due to diverse connections to Mount Rushmore, from high impact on those with cultural concerns (e.g., Indigenous communities) to low or no impact on individuals with no direct connection to the monument.
Simulated Interviews
Tourism Manager (Rapid City, SD)
Age: 42 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm glad the monument is being preserved as-is. It ensures our tourism business remains stable.
- There could have been talk about changing it which might confuse tourists, reducing visits.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Cultural Historian (Washington, DC)
Age: 67 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Maintaining Mount Rushmore's current state is crucial for posterity.
- It's symbolic of preserving our shared history and cultural heritage.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 3 |
Student and Activist (Pine Ridge Reservation, SD)
Age: 23 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's disappointing that our perspectives on altering or updating Mount Rushmore aren’t addressed.
- The monument's presence is a reminder of unacknowledged history.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 2 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 2 | 5 |
History Teacher (Chicago, IL)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act is a reasonable measure to retain our historic national symbols.
- It's important for educational purposes to have unchanged historic landmarks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Environmental Lawyer (Sioux Falls, SD)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Preserving the monument is vital, but integrating changes for Native acknowledgment would be more inclusive.
- It's a step in ensuring heritage conservation but lacks a comprehensive cultural approach.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 5 |
Digital Content Creator (New York, NY)
Age: 35 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While securing Mount Rushmore seems important, adapting to modern dynamics could enhance its relevance.
- Neutral about the policy, as my work isn’t deeply affected.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Artist (Los Angeles, CA)
Age: 47 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see Mount Rushmore as a fixed, impactful emblem that could stir new artistic interpretations.
- Changing it could open up creative avenues.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Political Analyst (Boston, MA)
Age: 29 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 15.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The Act preserves a longstanding national symbol, which has both its benefits and oversights.
- It restricts progressive adaptations of historic interpretations.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 4 |
Retired Park Ranger (Sturgis, SD)
Age: 64 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 20.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm pleased to see Mount Rushmore protected; it maintains its historical integrity.
- Efforts to change it are unnecessary from my perspective.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 4 |
College Student (Salt Lake City, UT)
Age: 22 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Preserving Mount Rushmore is vital for understanding historic context in American history.
- It remains a resource for educational experiences nationwide.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Year 2: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Year 3: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Year 5: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Year 10: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Year 100: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Key Considerations
- Mount Rushmore's protected status avoids possible legal disputes over unauthorized changes.
- The bill solidifies cultural heritage protection which could positively impact tourism.
- Administrative costs for enforcement of the prohibition are expected but minimal.