The Coming Storm in the South Dakota Republican Party: I’d like another helping of the abortion issue. Please?
When I started writing this series, I figured one of the issues I’d focus on was one of the most divisive issues that Republicans have faced over the years - the legality of abortion.
There’s been much written about the issue dividing the party, and how it’s caused much of our electoral troubles. Or has it?
I sent out several e-mails to legislators, activists and people in the abortion movement to see what I would get back. I openly solicited comments from Republicans. And surprisingly to me, there was not a huge amount of dissent. Without a huge amount of commentary, here’s what was related to me after I requested a paragraph or so on the issue, and it’s effect on the GOP.
Has it driven the party apart, or brought the GOP closer together and why?:
Going back to 2006, if you look at the votes in the Senate, HB 1215 definitely had bipartisan support. In fact, it was sponsored by Senator Bartling, and even supported by then Democrat Minority Leader Gary Moore. So saying this is a Republican issue isn’t entirely accurate. Of the 12 negative votes, eight were Republican and four were Democrat.
Has it had an effect on the GOP? I would say yes. While I don’t think it was the overriding issue in most legislative races, it did have a big effect on candidate recruitment. Let’s start first in the primary elections, where Adelstein and Duane Sutton were challenged based at least partially on their votes on 1215. As you know, in primaries, conservative voters show up. Both then lost in the June primary, setting up two general elections in which the GOP had no sitting incumbent.
Let’s turn now to the general elections. While the Dems traditionally had weak legislative recruitment efforts, they certainly stepped up some of their efforts for Senate seats. Now I can’t tell you why Heidepriem, Turbak, and Jerstad ran, but I suspect part of it may have been the abortion issue.
So as we look at last year’s elections, I think we can point to five districts where the abortion issue had some effect on candidate recruitment, either in the general election or the primary election. We can debate about why some of our people won and some lost, but I have generally held the belief that most legislative races are not won or lost on issues, but have more to do with overall quality of the candidate, how hard they work and how effective they campaign, and how well known and likeable they are in their community. On top of that, some had funding issues… some had a lack of funds and others had well-financed opponents. Some had both.
Back to your question and my answer. I would say ‘YES’, the abortion issue did have an effect on the GOP. It primarily had an effect on candidate recruitment efforts by the opposition. That may have been the tipping point for some of those legislative districts, but there were other factors in the mix as well within some of those campaigns.
In terms of the issue itself, I think it is certainly an issue dividing many within our party.
- Senator Bob Gray, Senate President Pro Temp
And…..
The abortion issue has been with us since 1973.
This is one of the top issues that defines the two major parties’ platforms. The Democrats are seen as the party of unfettered abortion while the Republicans are seen as the party of life. The right to life is the fundamental right above all other rights! Therefore on general terms the abortion issue has been good for Republicans.
Let’s look at the numbers: Republicans have grown in numbers in South Dakota since becoming known as the pro-life party. The SD Democratic platform in 1979 was still pro-life, but the nationwide Democratic Party on the other hand was not and forced politicians to support their stance on abortion to get funding for their elections. Therefore, we had politicians such as George McGovern in the early 70’s and Tom Daschle later saying one thing (I’m pro-life, but…) to get votes in South Dakota and voting the opposite in Washington . In 1978, Republicans had 1,600 less members than the Democrats in SD. In the 2006 election cycle, the Republicans had a majority of almost 50,000 people, 49,196 to be exact. Democrats actually have 2,440 less people now than they did 28 years before. Republicans have grown by 48,335 registered voters. Yes, it is true that some Republicans are pro-abortion but there are also many pro life Democrats.
Both parties have struggles within their ranks about this issue and will as long as the right to life of the unborn is not protected. The real question should be, what has happened to the Democratic Party in South Dakota and how much farther can they fall? And why is it that the media here in South Dakota has never pointed out these facts?
Overall I believe it has been a unifying force for the Republican Party.
- Dana E Randall, SDRTL President of the Board
And….
The socially conservative faction was brought together on the pro-life issue. They learned how to work as a cohesive unit statewide in the primary season and saw success. Though the abortion ban failed, I think many on the pro-life side saw the developments during the year positive.
The socially liberal side (I don’t use the word moderate on life issues, it just does not apply) felt public rejection from their party. Even though they were somewhat vindicated by the results on initiated measure 6, I think most left with a sour taste in their mouth. I would too if I felt my party had turned its back on me.
Most of the people left on the outside looking in right now in the Republican party are self-described moderates. The question for the Republican party is, are they liberal on life but conservative on other issues? Are they conservative on even one issue? Many politicians in this state are Republican due to the fact that it is the only way to get elected in some places. Others are careerists, and see being a Republican as the only way to advance in public service.
I love the fact that the GOP is the big tent party now, but some people are not Republicans, and many of them are finally coming to that realization.
Does this spell trouble for the GOP in SD? I would say emphatically no. I actually believe that 2006 was the year that the storm swept through the GOP. I think we are past the storm, but the question remains as to whether we will bounce back as a strong party. Not just a strong party structurally, but a strong party philosophically. Republicans can and will continue to win in SD when they get back to emphasizing low taxes, self-reliance, and common sense values. Small-government, low taxes voters will never leave the Republicans permanently over the life issue if Republicans stay true to their core values.
- Ben Zierke, GOP Activist
And…
Pat,
You asked me if I think the abortion issue has driven the party apart or brought it closer together. The answer is yes.
Abortion is an issue that divides Americans without regard to party affiliation. Within the Republican party, as in the general population, there are differing views on abortion. During my tenure in the legislature there has never been an abortion related bill that was considered a “caucus position” in the Republican caucus any more than there was in the Democratic caucus.
I believe the GOP as a whole can work through the abortion issue as well as the House Republican Caucus has. Even though individuals within our caucus have differing beliefs on this one issue, we have been able to work through them and focus on the multitude of other issues that bring us together as a party.
- Rep. Larry Rhoden, House Majority Leader
And finally,
The pro-life platform in the Republican Party is a major mobilizing force to ignite and engage conservative voters. Not only do more conservative Republicans vote, but this issue attracts thousands of pro-life Democrats and Independents to vote for Republicans. In addition, for those who feel the life issue is the #1 issue they vote on, pro-life voters outnumber abortion advocates two to one. This is the #1 social issue in future Federal and Supreme Court appointments, the presidential debate, and all US Senate and Congressional elections. The pendulum is always swinging in politics and due to the fact that many National Republicans abandoned Republican principles, conservative voters were disenfranchised with Politicians who allowed power and money to trump principles and the people who elected them.
- Leslee Unruh, South Dakota Abstinence Clearinghouse
When you look at this diversity of opinion, I think there are some valid points brought up.
GOP membership has continued to go up at the same time the Abortion issue has continued to gain in visibility.
Conservative voters are disenfranchised with politicians who allowed power and money to trump principles and the people who elected them - not because of abortion.
Possibly some of those who do feel disenfranchised might not have truly been Republican (based on a broad spectrum of issues, as opposed to just one).
We’re likely going to be acing the issue again this next session, and it’s very possible that much of the hullabaloo is not from within the GOP as much as from without. In that case, should the GOP in South Dakota have any caution to avoid the issue?
I don’t know on this one. I certainly don’t have a crystal ball, but if anything, this might have caused me to pause and think. Think that this might have little or nothing to do with the GOP’s troubles, as opposed to the abandonment of core values, as Leslee Unruh observed.
What are your thoughts on the issue? Are the commenters dead on, or all wet? (please be thoughtful, and use a name in your comments, because I think this is worthy of substantive discussion).
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
How does a dumb fat basically jobless slob like Powers get all these really important politicians to kiss his boots?
blog power, baby. blog power.
- Editor’s note:
I had originally redacted this because it was utterly inaccurate and off topic. But I thought it might be better to use it to prove a point. You see, knowing the origin, and deducing the author, I’m kind of surprised.
While I’m honored and humbled to get to talk to the state’s political movers & shakers (and have the time of my life doing so), he knows he’s consigned to fade into thankless obscurity. While at the same time he tries to infer that I’m jobless (which is a gross inaccuracy, having two at the moment), this slob hasn’t had a job in years he hasn’t sponged off of friends. While I enjoy the comfort and company of my bride, I know he’s sitting in a hotel room in another state at the moment watching hotel porn, and wishing he still had his wife (who unceremoniously dumped his ass). And because of it, he feels he need to build himself up by tearing others down anonymously, since he’s never had the spine to stand on his own two feet.
So Anon, if it comforts you in your waning days, go ahead and take your shot. Because, to quote MC Hammer, you can’t touch this.
How does Leslee get folks to keep listening to her? Refered law 6 lost but she still maintains that anti abortion voters outnumber choice 2 to 1 in the state. The math just doesn’t add up.
Other than that, good article.
I just wrote about this under the mainstream post, so don’t want to do the whole thing again.
In a nutshell, I feel the word “conservative” has been stretched too far, where we conservatives have been lumped together with extremists who claim to be conservatives…
That’s the real divide in the party.
Thanks Jack, I will certainly remember the comments you have in paragraph 3. I guess you have put yourself in the same room with Hildebrand and Clean Cut Chad. It is amazing how some seemingly intelligent people will base someone else’s intelligence level on a single philosophical question or issue rather than overall achievements and accomplishments. Judgment of one should take place after personal discussion of all the facts. I don’t believe you have had that discussion!
Garry
Abortion has nothing to do with it. The real issue is how the Republicans sold themselves and their values out in the last decade. The GOP doesn’t have a chance in 2008. They have really screwed themselves this time and I do not feel one bit of sympathy for them on the national or state-wide level. I guess years and years of lies have a way of catching up.
“We can debate about why some of our people won and some lost, but I have generally held the belief that most legislative races are not won or lost on issues, but have more to do with overall quality of the candidate, how hard they work and how effective they campaign, and how well known and likeable they are in their community. On top of that, some had funding issues… some had a lack of funds and others had well-financed opponents.”
Bob Gray hit the mail on the head, the problem in today’s political environment is that money is more important than the issues. That is why Stan Adelstein is a huge problem for the South Dakota GOP.
The Republican party should be ashamed of the way it treats pro-choice Republicans. I know of a number of longtime pro-choice GOP activists who have been explicitly told they aren’t welcome at Republican women’s events because of their stand on the issue. People aren’t evil and shouldn’t be treated as untouchables just because they have differing opinions on a controversial topic.
To say that abortion didn’t play an important role in the 2006 election is ludicrous, and if the rumors circulating on this blog are true, it appears that abortion will be a major issue in 2008 as well. For as long as anti-abortion extremists in both parties refuse to understand the fact that people don’t want abortion to be illegal, pro-choice Democrats will continue to win elections in South Dakota.
Here we go again…blaming other people for the quandry your party finds itself in. The fact is that you are in this mess because your party created it. That’s the harsh truth staring you right in the face.
I choose the GOP because I believe in decentralized government.
If we trust people know best when it comes to their own financial matters, why do we then think we need the government run in and dictate their moral matters?
I prefer that government sticks to nuts and bolts issues. Infrastructure, economic development, education, etc. Legislating morality is like nailing jello to the wall - doesn’t stick but leaves a huge mess.
This GOP has done nothing but try to dictate our moral values and how we should live our lives. Especially this legislature and the last Congress. However, it turns out that many Republican Congressmen and state legislators couldn’t live up to their sanctimonious world view on morality. I think most voters are moving on and tired of the “Family Values” mantra crap. In the process, they are leaving the GOP behind.
It wont matter anyway because the next generation coming up will be bigger and more liberal than the New Deal generation. You can read it all here:
http://www.newpolitics.net/node/360?full_report=1
Don’t worry about it too much. You’ll be well taken care of once my generation passes universal healthcare and protects social security from conservative mongrels.
It’ll be ok. We actually care about the greater good.
Penny,
I certainly think it’s noble to want to ensure your fellow man is taken care of. But someday you’ll come to realize that there’s a cost to it. And someone has to pay that cost.
There comes a point where we each have to take responsibility for ourselves, as opposed to waiting for someone else to do it, because otherwise there’s no incentive to do so.
If we get too many people on government welfare, eventually it will collapse from having too many takers and not enough “payers.”
Of course by then, our democratic system will have become socialism, and there will be no incentive for anyone to strive for excellence.
Dear PP,
Just like no one strives for excellence in England or France? It’s more than noble to take care of your fellow citizens, it’s the right thing to do.
Of course there is a cost to it. Aren’t you paying higher medical bills right now because you are paying for bills poor people can’t pay at your local hospital? What about the lost productivity from workers short changed in their insurance from their employer?
When you get to 65 are you going to flush your Social Security check down the toilet? I’d like to hear you promise right now that you will never use Medicade or Medicare ever.
England, France, Canada and a lot of other nations have successfully used these programs and have massive amounts of people on them and they haven’t collapsed economically. To the contrary the Canadian Loon is now the same value as our dollar.
In almost every other life emergency you can encounter, be it a fire or whatever you can think of that you need a cop for, who do call? A socialized government entity. So why not have that when you are having a heart attack?
If Republicans have their way we’d repeal the estate tax altogether. Look at who this benefits and what it would pay for:
Waltons (Walmart)=$32 billion tax cut
Medicaid cut by Bush $28 billion
Mars (candy bar family) = $11.7 Billon tax cut
Bush cut to VETERANS (V.A.)= $3.4 Billion
Do you see how dumb that is?
Cutting taxes and not funding anything is obviously not working. My generation sees that and will still be kind enough to ensure that you won’t have to worry about paying for a nurse to wipe the spittle off your chin while you and Grover Nordquist think about the good old days when we just let old people die because no one cared.
We are the wealthiest, best nation in the world. Don’t you think it’s time we act like it?
Look at all the countries we have imported capitalism to, Russia and China being the two biggest examples, are there people any more free because of capitalism? It takes more than putting in a sweet shop to import things to Walmart to spread democracy and freedom. But of corse like Russia and China, the GOP is against habeaus corpus and 4th ammendment rights. So way to go GOP. We’re now more like Communist China than socailist Sweeden. Good move.
To my Republican friends. Keep treating the moderates in your party like crap. They will eventually leave. And become Democrats. You’ll have your ideological purity on abortion but start losing your grip on power. It will take time but it will happen. Just keep ignoring the lessons of 2006, when your party decided to follow Leslee off the cliff. Keep it up, you’re doing great.
The current crop of self-styled “conservatives,” “reasserters”, “traditionalists” (they love them labels) are doing a lot of damage by the way the exclude people.
I’m not asking any Republicans to abandon their long-held point of view. (Of course, if they WANT to register Dem, sure, our values could use more support these days, glad to have you.)
What I really want is a dialogue with conservatives — I’ve had enough of the snide Ingram-esque dismissal of different points of view. We have huge challenges to face and there’s simply no room for that any more. We need everyone… we cannot afford to exclude anyone from the conversation.
PP- I was looking forward to this installment and your post is great. Sorry, though, you couldn’t get a coherent, rational discussion going here.
Although, Sibby makes a valid point in stating that money often supersedes issues. Case in point: Planned Parenthoods campaign to bring 1215 to a public vote (measure 6) cost them $4 million. And they won. End of story?….NO. We then have a state funded campaign to discover who the $500,000 donor to the pro-life campaign side was. Why?? Someone wanted to know. Most likely to target and intimidate the donor and any potential future donations to possible future campaigns.
Oh well, See you in “socailist Sweeden”.
Penny, PP’s answer stated what I was going to say to you better than I could.
One other point about Social Security. Do you really think that little SS check is going to support you at retirement? If there is even any SS at all by that time (I’m assuming you are quite a ways from there)?
All Bush wanted to do was privatize a portion of your SS contribution. Gov’t employees already get this option. My hubby took advantage of that option, and the part of his contribution that went into private vs SS now far outpays that SS check. If SS collapses, you would at least still have your private fund. Any young person who relies solely on SS for their retirement is naive.
But keep your head in the sand and pay your bucks to Uncle Sam, who spends those same bucks as fast or faster than you send them in, replacing those bucks with IOU’s that just night not be there when you need them later.
And to re-emphasize another point, we just visited Plimoth Plantation in Massachusetts. Seems it was originally set up on the socialist module. But when certain members realized they were doing most of the work while others did little or nothing, but all received the same benefits, those worker bees protested or quit working or something similar. And unless something was changed, the colony would not have survived. The system was then changed to one of private enterprise and the colony thrived. A good analogy for the present time.
Nothing is free. Someone has to pay for those so-called freebies that some demand as their right. Someone has to work to earn the money to pay the taxes so that the freebies are there. What happens when most payers decide they want to become takers too? Oops, the freebies are gone!
Todd -
Speaking of ideological purity, how do your Democrat presidential candidates differ on abortion? Hmm…It won’t be long until that mentality filters into your state party. At that point, your so called “moderates” will be turning in droves back to the Republicans. The Republican party is the one moving the other direction towards welcoming all.
You also accuse Republicans of sacrificing ideological purity for power. I would pose it as a principles vs. power situation. In that situation, I would hope every politician and voter puts their principles first, not what it takes to stay in office.
I think many South Dakota Democrats would not sacrifice principles over power either. I know it’s hard for you to understand given your national role models who will say anything for power, but principles do matter to real people and last year was a testament to that (on both sides).
Dear Tigerman,
Where to start with you?
First, I never made the argument that we should live on Social Security alone, but nice to try to switch the argument. About two thirds of people receiving social security get half their income from it. So try to imagine this country without it.
Second, there will be Social Security when we both retire as long as Republican nitwits don’t screw it up. In 2004, according to the Congressional Budget Office if Social security was privatized, generations born from the 1940’s to the first part of this century would do WORSE than if we left it alone. That does that sound fair to you?
Plus, what ever private funding you are giving your retirement to is actually more risky than social security. The market or whatever you are investing in can go belly up too.
And as far as to who spends money wisely, Bush had surplus of income when he started. HE has run the nation into debt. Good move GOP. Way to be fiscally responsible.
I agree with you, Republicans need to stop spending our money so poorly.
Now to the pilgrims…..
Much like people on Social Security they needed assistance too.
What do you think Thanksgiving is about anyway?
They never would have “thrived” without help from the Indians. Did you skip all the stuff there about Squanto? The pilgrims are less of an example of a socialist failure. They were just bad farmers. I can list a bunch of places, even in this country, where socialism works great.
But you are right the Pilgrims are a good analogy for the present time, especially in South Dakota.
The government they created was a theocracy (much like the one Leslee Unruh wants to create) and you don’t have to go very far in the history books to read about how well that worked. Ever read the Scarlet Letter? Or hear about the Salem Witch trials?
“Therefore on general terms the abortion issue has been good for Republicans.” - Dana Randall
The ugly face of politics. Might as well follow that up with as long as we have abortion, gay marriage and flag burning as unresolved issues, we can rally the base to gain or retain control, then toss those issues aside while we grow fat looking ahead to next election cycle. Shameful.
“Much like people on Social Security they needed assistance too.
What do you think Thanksgiving is about anyway?”
Want to know what Thanksgiving is about? Open a book, it wasn’t a welfare program! It was a celebration of a successful harvest - and thanking God for it!
And no, social security isn’t solvent. Nobody says that with a straight face. We may disagree how to fix it, but it is incontrovertible. Tim Penny, a former DEMOCRAT from Minnesota runs a national group that advocates social security reform. Everyone except you apparently realizes that this is a concern for those of us just entering the workforce
Another problem with your post. You say Bush spent a surplus. It was a fiscal year surplus, we never eliminated national debt.
And yeah, socialism worked great for the Soviet Union (killed more people than Nazis), Pol Pot, Mao…etc. What a nice lineage of intellectual figures you have to look up to. Yours must be a very miserable life.
By the way - give me the scarlet letter over khmer rouge or stalin’s purges, or for that matter, mao’s great leap forward.
I have a few pro-life Democrat friends, and none of them have voted Republican because of the abortion issue. Most of them have other solutions they think will help the problem, and will not vote for a ban. In my experience a ban does not bring pro-life Democrats to the Republican side.
#24/25 are you admitting you are an adulterer?
#1 Thanksgiving was a celebration of a successful harves thanks to the Indians that kept the Pilgrims from starving. You should read at least one sentence about Squanto in any history book and learn that yourself. I never said it was about a welfare program.
#2 As long as there are workers paying FICA taxes, the program will have money. It does need to be managed properly and if we don’t tinker with it, it’ll run great until at least 2052 (so says the congressional budget office). And then after that it’ll just be OK. So the best thing to do would be to strengthen it not weaken it by privitization.
#3 I said Bush had a surplus OF INCOME. Not of a budget I know the difference as well as you do. you just try to change what I said to fit your story. And no we never eliminated the debt. But we were heading in the right direction.
#4 the last part about comparing socialism with dictators is idiotic. You can have a free society along with social programs and a free market economy. Western Europe and Canada are great examples. Plus look at the socialism around you.
True socialism does not advocate economic dictatorship — it can only be democratic.
Just because Hitler’s party had the word socialist in the title it doesn’t mean he was. China still calls itself a republic but we can agree that it’s a lie.
It’s still shocking to me that Leslee continues to be the voice of the anti-choice movement in South Dakota. Guess when you’ve got so many anti-choice men, you’ve got to take all the women you can get…even if they’re crazy.
Abortion is a problem for the Republican party, because when that’s the only litmus test (besides maybe for same-sex marriage) for whether someone is “really” a Republican, you get away from the original ideals behind the party….and then PP has to do post after post about the “nanny state.” Maybe Republicans should should figure out what they believe in beyond policing everyone’s sex life.
#19 - “All Bush wanted to do was privatize a portion of your SS contribution. Gov’t employees already get this option. My hubby took advantage of that option, and the part of his contribution that went into private vs SS now far outpays that SS check.”
If you are talking about the Thrift Savings Plan, you are comparing apples to oranges. TSP is a 401k, it allows the employee to set aside a certain percentage of their wages for future use. Every person in America has the oppertunity to participate in a plan of this type. Granted, TSP is only for federal employees, but you can set up a 401k plan with just about any mutual fund company or even some insurance companies.
Also, if everyone were to stop paying FICA and instead put those funds into 401k’s, how would either of the parties balance the budget? Those funds are used to paper balance the budget, or should I say attempt to paper balance the budget.
PP, I hope this wasn’t the end of your series. The first couple of installments were good writing on your part, and decent discussion on the part of us anons and partanons.
This particular topic could be seen looming over the hill a hundred miles away. You had to address it. You probably have more to address with it. So much more many of us will puke in disgust.
It’s been a good series. I hope you can find more topics which get you writing just as insightfully. My only criticism of this installment was you really didn’t write any of it. You had the “idea” to solicit comments from GOPpers. “Big” GOPpers. You got a couple. Tossed in a couple more. My guess is you printed 4 of your 6 total responses.
They wrote your article. You didn’t. You didn’t have the insight and effort that was clearly visible in the first 2 installments. You phone this baby in.
Not meant as a slam, just MHO. I certainly believe we’ll see more of these good insightful serial posts as we move more into the campaign season, and into session.
Please…just no series on how you’re making sure that “Mr. and Mrs. John Public are getting into just the perfect house for them and their growing family, because you know better what they need than they do.” Save those stories for your Real Estate blog.
I like how Angie Buhl labels pro-lifers with the negative term as anti-choice. I surmise that we should call her and Kate Looby as anti-lifer then, right?
To #31-
The GOP are the kings of mislabeling things. The “death tax” is a perfect example. So please don’t act so hurt when we turn the tables.
As to Bob Gray’s comments, they are the most disingenuous things I have read in some time. The whole reason he was elected was beacuse of this single issue. If he seriously thinks that he was a “better overall candidate” than Patty De Hueck he needs a serious head check.
It maybe a divisive issue within the GOP but it got him elected.
#32,What does the death tax has to do with labeling people? Besides, is it not a tax leveled after one dies, hence after death, hence a “death tax.”
I think #31 is right. If you start calling pro-lifers as anti-choice then be prepared to be called anti-life. Your side started the negative labeling, so don’t complain. Just call them pro-life and pro-choice.
#33 Because it’s not a death tax fool. 98% of Americans who die pass their estate on to their heirs completely tax-free — in fact, they get a valuable tax break on capital gains. Zero estate tax is charged on assets left to a spouse or to charity.
The Estate Tax is eminently fair. It is collected from those most able to pay. It prevents the creation of family dynasties that would distort our democracy and limit economic opportunities for succeeding generations. Ever read de Tocqueville?
Also when the Farmer’s Bureau (they hate the estate tax) was asked to come up with example of a family farm that was lost due to the estate tax, they came up with exactly ZERO.
For 98% of Americans, the Estate Tax takes away nothing, and it actually shields assets from capital gains taxes. For the other 2%, the average effective tax rate is 17%.
Why do you want to defend the Paris Hiltons of the world?
Penny - The estate tax isn’t about the Paris Hiltons of the world. In fact, most Republicans could care less about her.
It’s about the family farmers, and small businessmen who pass away, and end up having to liquidate those businesses just to pay the taxes - and 9 times out of 10, they aren’t selling the business as a whole, they’re selling it part by part.
Family members who’d rather run the business - they end up with a little cash in their pocket, temporarily, when they’d rather continue the business. And employees who had jobs are now out on the street.
Speaking from experience, sorry kid - it’s mindsets like yours that make entrepreneurship difficult. I’d rather build something for my kids, and possibly the future of my town than pay for someone else’s entitlement.
PP-
Name one person that lost their farm or business due to the estate tax. Just one.
Look at who is funding the fight to repeal the estate tax: the owners of Nordstrom Inc., Mars Inc., Koch Industries Inc. and Wal-Mart Inc.
They are the ones that are fighting this.
This is totally about the Republicans defending the Paris Hiltons of the world.
Have you ever read de Tocqueville? He said the estate tax was one of the best things about the thinkers of early America. I would think some as conservative as you would want to read about your own country. You guys are always going off on what the founders of the country would have done. They would be screaming to keep the estate tax.
Sorry old man, speaking from expeience- it’s about time that big business pulls its share in this country and stop thinking about was to shirk its responsibility to the country that allowed them to get rich in the first place.
#34 this is 33. Now now Penny, starting to call names? Do you know of anyone that is charged the tax before they die? It is only paid on their estate after they die. Hence a DEATH TAX. It is not a Living Tax. It doesn’t matter if it is paid on only 2% of the estates after they die. Death Tax is very appropriate term for it. Unlike calling someone anti-choice as Buhl did.
You say it is a fair tax because because those that are able to pay get taxed. That is called an income tax. It sounds to me that you are oneperson that loves a tax that OTHERS have to pay. That sure sounds fair to me!
I don’t know what the FB came up with, but I do know of some family farms that had to sell off large portions of land to pay the death tax. But let’s not forget family owned businesses that have had to sell out totally to pay the death tax. It is easier to sell a portion of land than a portion of a retail business of a manufacturing business.
Don’t forget, all that money that has been accumulated over the years has had taxes paid on it and probably at the highest rate. Called the income tax. My how you must hate the people have inherited a lot of money, so full of envy, but I bet you would take every dollar that you could from someone who left it to you.
Paris Hilton types I don’t care about, but it is the business owner and farmer that I have concern for.
Angie Buhl, this is 31, Why would I complain when pro-choice people are called pro-abortion?
“Pro” is a positive prefix to a word, unlike “anti” which is usually thought of as negative. Do you not like the word abortion? Is that what you are complaining about, you think the word abortion is bad? Why do you think the term abortion is bad, because it’s about killing an unborn baby?
I do agree with you, I think killing babies is not something I could support either.
Dearest #38,
Wouldn’t a sales tax you pay on say your coffin, burial plot, or (if you go the other route) an urn also be death taxes? Maybe you should call the South Dakota sales tax a death tax too.
Simply put it’s a tax put on to your estate. So it is an estate tax.
If you could supply me with a list of names of these people and their businesses that were lost due to the estate tax, I would like to see them. Wouldn’t FOX news love to have them on as the poster children of the over taxed?
You are a fool if you can’t think for yourself enough that all you do is parrot what Frank Luntz tells you to say.
You must hate all the things the government has done for you and your community like, education, roads, law enforcement, I could go on.
I like to pay my taxes and I like other people to pay their share to so that this continues to be a great place to live.
Penny, Nope those are sales and service taxes which are paid on anything you buy, whether a product or a service. Has nothing to do with ones estate. I can purchase a plot or the whole ceremony while I am alive.
I still think name calling shows a lack having a valid argument so one resorts to that. And calling one anti-choice or pro life has a negative connotation as apposed to a positive one. That is what your debate with me started as until you switched to taxes.
Who in the world is Frank Lutz? Somebody that you must despise, huh?
Never said I hate what the government has done for all of us. So where out of the thin air did you pick that from. Oh, I get it, trying to change the argument again because you can’t think of any valid reasons to back up your statements.
You like to pay your taxes, but you also want others to pay taxes that YOU don’t have to pay. That is why you favor the death taxes on others, because you don’t have to pay it. Only the wealthy do, right? Have a good day!
#40-
Frank Luntz invented the term Death Tax. He’s a huge Republican operative that makes up different phrases to frame thing to fit his argument. If he were a Democrat, he would probably have come up with Anti-choice for the abortion debate. You can read more about him here.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/persuaders/interviews/luntz.html
I can’t believe you know so little about your own point of view that you don’t even know who made it up and bought and paid for it.
I’ll stand by my assumption that you are a fool. You prove it time and again. You can’t even detect sarcism. And my argument are backed up with facts, names and numbers. You have yet to share one.
It has always been a principle of this country that everyone pays their share. The middle and lower classes in this state especially have been carrying the burden too long for the upper class.
It’s about being fair. You seem to think that you can be born on third base and tell everyone you hit a triple.
I will have a good day and I hope you’ll feel better knowing that my generation will fix your arrogant mistakes.
Penny, the stress must be getting to you. First you goof on the correct comment number and then you appear confused indicated by your typing in 43. You are getting too worked up. Take it easy, don’t blow a gasket.
You accuse me of being a parrot for Frank Luntz (see #40) when I don’t even know him and
you take me to task for not knowing him. Wow, you are just all over the place.
As far as putting a individual’s name who has had a problem raising the money to pay the death tax on their loved one demise, I would never invade thier privacy by posting it on a blog. After all you and I remain anonymous.
You say your arguments are backed by facts, I question your “facts”, and I see no names mentioned in your arguments except of Frank Luntz who you accused me of parroting.
I truly believe in everyone paying their fair share, but my definition of fair does not include someone having to pay a tax that I don’t have to pay. Your “fair tax” includes taxes for others that you don’t have to paid.
Since you didn’t deny it before I will repeat it again. I bet you would take every dollar you could from someone who left it to you.
Since I won’t be by a computer for a while, I guess you will be able to have the last word.
#39
I can easily call pro-lifers anti-women. They hate to give women a choice over their own bodies.
I am pro-choice because I believe in giving all options to women, be it abortion, keeping the baby or adoption. In that sense I am pro-life too. Isn’t being pro-choice beautiful that way?
So called pro-lifers cannot say the same. They would rather keep women barefoot and pregnant against their will than support women regardless of what they choose.
#45 so if one is against abortion then they are anti women? No matter how much they support them otherwise? You are another example of favoring baby killing!
#44
I shouldn’t care so much about correcting your stupidity but it’s fun to point out how hollow and wrong all the information the GOP has told you.
My fact and figures are from the IRS. http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/article/0,,id=108143,00.html
I’ll stand by their numbers.
You can read about who is funding the campaign against the estate tax in several articles. It’s pretty much an open secret:http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=2182
Print it off, read it over, and see if you and your friends can tell me if I am saying anything wrong.
Congressional Budget Office also has another interesting study showing the negetive impact of repealing the estate tax and what people give to charities.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5650&type=0&sequence=0
I have answered all of your questions. You can’t answer a single one of mine.
You ARE parroting Frank Luntz, whether you know it or not. In the link I sent you, he takes credit for making up the term and explains why he had to. It’s a good insight into the GOP’s East German like propoganda.
I’m serous about naming names. If there was someone so slighted by the Estate tax as you say there is, they would be on Fox news nonstop. The GOP would be running ads showing the “tax man” taking all of the kids’ “worked for” inheritance way while they had a big slow motion tear running down their face. But you can’t name one.
And because I am from a hard-working middle class family, My inheritance will be less than $1.5 million dollars and by law I will be able to collect every penny tax free. That’s the way the law was even before the GOP geniuses decided to run up the debt more by trying to repeal it.
But don’t take my word for it. The second richest man in America, Warren Buffett agrees with me too. (I’ll make you look that one up)
Our discussion has only gone to show you can lead a Republican to the facts but you can’t make them see the truth.
The absolute best part….. One person who fought for an Estate Tax because it was a good idea and for exactly the reasons you say you don’t like it……
His picure is featured on this website at the top every day…
Theodore Roosevelt.
http://www.williams.edu/humanities/sdunn/op-ed/pages/teddyrooseveltbetrayed.htm
First of all, abortion as an issue is extremely divissive. It divides the GOP (look at the social conservatives versus the MAINstream Coalition), and it divides the Democrats (Remember Julie Bartling versus Steve Hildebrand?). Referred Law Six was arguably the most divissive issue in recent political history in our state. It made for some very uncomfortable and angry conversations among neighbors and friends. HB125 divided South Dakota, without question.
Additionally, abortion issue overshadowed all others in 2006. Referred Law 6/HB 1215 was a part of every legislative race and Republicans did not do particularly well in those races - especially in the Senate. It caused the usually lazy and inactive left in South Dakota to mobilize. And Dems won seats in places (like Rapid City) where they really shouldn’t have even been competitive. HB1215 caused Republicans to support Democrats with their money and their votes. Without HB1215, that wouldn’t have happened. Dems would not have picked up the seats they did without HB1215. I don’t think anyone can credibly argue otherwise.
And as a result, you have a closely divided Senate with some pretty smart Democrats in leadership (which is a pretty significant change). There’s even at least one credible Democratic candidate for Governor in the legislature (which, again, was not the case in 2005). Again, without HB 1215, these newly elected Democrats likely wouldn’t have gotten involved, Republicans would still hold those seats, and Stephanie Herseth would be the Dems only hope in 2010.
In terms of its impact on the GOP, the other fascinating result of the RL 6 was the fact that support for the ban was weakest in some surprising places — particularly Rapid City and the Black Hills. These are very Republican parts of the state (places that Bush, Thune and Rounds won easily) but the libertarian minded voters Pennington, Lawrence, Custer and Fall River voted against RL 6 by more than 60%. This seemed to be a pretty strong rejection of the encroachment of religious conservatism by libertarain conservatives. These aren’t moderates, these are dyed in the wool conservatives who beleive the government should stay out of their lives. That means they’re opposed to taxes, regulation, and social legislation that limits individual freedoms. Note that the gay marriage amendment also didn’t do very well out there (barely won in Pennington, lost in Fall River, Custer and Lawrence).
Ultimately, this is the divide that’s going to cause the most problems for SDGOP. It looks like there are three distinct (related, but disticnt) ideologies within the SDGOP — social conservatives, small government libertarians and moderate/MAINstream coalition members. The liberatarians and social conservatives likely agree on economic issues, but the MAINstreamers and the libertarians appear to agree on social issues. This split wasn’t particularly obvious before 2006.
For example, it’s now clear that there is a difference of opinion between many Republican voters and Republican legislators on abortion in the West. It’s clear that it’s not just moderates who disagree with the social conservatives on abortion. How that plays out on social issues will be interesting to watch. If the tenuous coalition that brings economic conservatives and social conservatives together starts to crack, it’ll have a much bigger impact on the GOP than anything the MAINstream coalition or Stan Adelstein are capable of.