Category: Democrats

Dem’s minimum wage increase to benefit students causing service cuts for students.

@SoDakCampaigns

Remember the minimum wage increase promoted by State Democrats and passed by voters? Democrats poo-poohed arguments that it mainly benefitted high school and college students who are working these low wage, part-time positions while they also go to school.

Well, here’s a real world example of exactly who the measure is hurting. In the January 14th edition of the SDSU Collegeian student newspaper, the top of the fold story is titled “New Minimum Wage Affects Union Hours”  and discusses how the SDSU Student Union has been forced to cut hours so as to remain on budget directly as a result of the minimum wage:

Students learned this week that the Union will close at 10 p.m. daily. This cuts two hours off of the former hours in order to adjust, for the minimum wage increase that went into effect Jan. 1 according to this week’s Monday morning message sent out by Students’ Association President, Caleb Finck.

and…

In order to compensate for the minimum wage increase from $7.25 to $8.50 per hour, Novotny along with other administration, including the Student Union Advisory Committee, had to make changes in the facility, Novotny said The. changes need to compensate for a total of $30,000 in student labor.

and..

If The Union goes back to closing at midnight next year, funding for the facility will have to increase. This money will most likely come from a General Activity Fee increase, meaning that students will have to pay more to keep the building open later.

Read it all here.

Cutting hours to remain on budget… and if they want those hours back, they’re going to face a general activity fee increase, pushing their tuition up higher.

Cuts in services and increased tuition fees. All I have to say is to remind them to remember who made this happen. The South Dakota Democrat Party.

Democrat party floating idea to move candidate picks to party HQ in Sioux Falls.

@SoDakCampaigns

I had some time this morning, and listened in to one of the pieces of legislation I’m following, Senate Bill 69 which was heard in Senate State Affairs this morning.

SB 69 is a bit of an omnibus bill regarding petition requirements, including a proposal to move the start of the petitioning process back to December 1 of the year preceding the election. I’m in favor of parts, oppose parts (specifically removing the Registered mail submission of petitions), and think the exercise is a worthwhile discussion to have.

One of the most notable things from this morning was the testimony against the bill by the ACLU lobbyist dujour, who will likely move on to other things within a year or so as most of their people do. But this moment’s ACLU Person, “Libby,” was there mainly to introduce their expert opponent and to present a bill amendment.

Their person, the writer of “Ballot Access News” spoke. And the bill amendment that the ACLU was supposed to have ready? They didn’t have it prepared.  At all.  Regardless, what the Ballot Access person spoke of was a desire by the ACLU to amend the law to allow new political parties to organize as late as June or July for inclusion on the fall ballot.

And it gets better.

The ACLU apparently wanted not just late statewide ballot access for new parties organizing as late as July, but they want to change the law to give them the ability to select local legislative candidates at convention. That was bad.

And it got worse. In later committee discussion, Democrat Senator Bernie Hunhoff suggested going even further.

The path that Senator Hunhoff started to explore in committee discussion on the bill was one that raised my eyebrows. Senator Hunhoff floated the concept of removing the concept of placeholder candidates – a tool Democrats are using in greater and greater numbers as time goes by in an attempt to fill gaps left by the lack of interest of people in running as Democrats – and instead allow the political parties to fill the empty ballot positions.

I almost had to do a double take, and internally asked, “Is he kidding?”

In effect, it would allow them to nearly forego the petition process entirely, and allow whoever is in charge of the disorganized mess at Democrat HQ in Sioux Falls to find a list of 105 people acceptably liberal, and anointed by party elders, to just be their candidates.

So, why is the Democrat party floating idea to move candidate picks to party HQ in Sioux Falls? I’m sure they’d like to pass laws that way too, but there are valid reasons we don’t. Really, how is a candidate finding 25 or 30 people to sign a petition to nominate them to run burdensome in the least? (Dems, it might typically be far fewer)

It would seem that the petitioning process is an incredibly nominal step, but an important one to ensure that the person running is there to represent the people of their district, as opposed to whoever from that zip code sent a donation into the Democratic party. It has the important step of broadening the representation the candidacy provides. Personally, (except for Lt. Gov) I’d like to see most of the constitutional level candidates have to circulate petitions too, but I might face opposition going that way as well.

So whether the suggestion comes from the ACLU, or State Democrats, any suggestion of stripping the petitioning requirement is something that South Dakotans should take a dim view of.  And if gathering a few names is too large of a burden for some, then maybe they aren’t the kind of people anyone wants in a position of power.

Did anyone tell Rick the campaign ended a few months back?

@SoDakCampaigns

In the last day or so, the Mitchell Newspaper had a column from losing Senate Candidate Rick Weiland, that seems a little too much like he’s still in campaign mode:

In fact, I cannot think of one reason to build this pipeline other than to placate big oil and its big money. I can think of lots of reasons not to.

Did you know, TransCanada, a foreign oil corporation, can take South Dakota farm and ranch land without landowner permission through eminent domain?

Did you know that Keystone One, built in 2010, leaks on a regular basis — some big leaks, too — and that Keystone XL is going to be built over the Ogallala Aquifer, a vital source of water for our region?

And did you know, that the energy it takes to extract the tar sand oil, liquefying it for transport, refining and shipping it overseas for sale, will dump 100 million tons of additional carbon into the atmosphere?

When the threat of climate change has 99 percent of the scientists in the world seriously worried about the future of the planet and the human race, this greed is inexcusable and needs to be exposed and rejected. We should be transitioning from fossil fuels to renewable energy, not doubling down on Keystone.

Read it here.

“Big Oil, Big Lie.”  Did anyone point out to Rick that no one bought this same tired rhetoric in the campaign, so he suffered a “Big Loss?”  South Dakotans didn’t buy it then, and they still aren’t interested in smoking what he’s offering.

Tyler fired because she was Democrats’ illegal hire

@SoDakCampaigns

I don’t think I can relate it better than Bob Mercer does this afternoon. But today, Kathy Tyler was fired as an illegal hire by the Democrats. Unless, she wants to work for free.

Why? Because she approved the budget she’s attempting to draw a paycheck from:

Now former Rep. Kathy Tyler also has been shown the door, or at least refused a state paycheck, as the House Democrats’ caucus secretary. The Republican leadership had strong grounds for that decision, however, because there is a ban in the state constitution against state contracts for legislators while they are in office and for one year after.

And…

Tyler’s hiring by the Democrats appears clearly illegal if she was to be paid with state funds.

Read it here.

You would have thought Tyler should have known about the legal prohibition as to the fact it is a conflict to draw a paycheck from the state within a year of departing office as a legislator.

Democrat Chairwoman: “It’s been worse.” Reality: No. It really hasn’t been.

@SoDakCampaigns

From the Capitol Journal comes an almost bizarre line of propaganda out of Democrat Chairwoman Ann Tornberg to the coffee clutch size gathering of Democrats she was able to entice to listen:

Ann Tornberg, elected last month as chairwoman of the South Dakota Democratic Party, told the group of 17 that in this new year, when there are only 20 Democrats among the 105 legislators meeting in the Capitol in Pierre, it will take grassroots organizing by everyone to bring the party back to relevance.

It’s been worse, and the same things that worked for the party back then can again, said Tornberg, who is 59 and from Beresford.

and…

Of the 17 who met at the Long Branch saloon downtown on Pierre Street on Monday evening to hold the regular meeting of the Hughes and Stanley counties’ Democrats and to hear Tornberg, two were men and four were college women working as interns in the Legislature.

and…

Tornberg ran for the state Senate from District 16 near Sioux Falls, losing to Republican incumbent Dan Lederman, despite touting herself as pro-life, pro-family, pro-agriculture and pro-education.

She got nearly 45 percent of the vote and forced Lederman to spend $75,000, Tornberg said. And she can relate to many Democrats in the state in knowing the bad feeling of losing an election, she said.

Read it here.

Where do I start?   Tornberg tries to turn the Democrat frowns upside down by telling them “It’s been worse.”  Reality to Anne: No, it hasn’t. It really hasn’t been worse.  If it has been worse, it hasn’t been in our lifetimes.

obamas_allyThe even funnier part was the line where she claimed “She…. forced Lederman to spend $75,000.”  Another dose of reality to Tornberg: How did she force him to do this? With psychic ability?

Dan didn’t spend it out of his own pocket. He didn’t write the check from personal funds. Lederman was able to raise $75,000 to beat Tornberg because people didn’t want a hyper-political Obama sycophant in office.

The voters in District 16 had rejected Tornberg for office several times already, and made the 2014 election an exclamation point after she’d wrapped her arms around Obama in the previous cycle, hosting events for his re-election.

And serving as the Democrats’ convention chairwoman didn’t help much either.

So, as Tornberg spouts this message of Democrat hope across the State, she should keep those things in mind, lest her nose start growing like Pinocchio’s . This IS the low point for Democrats, and whatever she did in the last election, as far as Republicans are concerned, she can keep doing it.