Lust's long term planning committee

House Majority Leader David Lust should be commended for his suggestion of a long term planning committee to deal with education and other important state matters.

Lust says the Legislature too often deals with education and other issues one year at a time. He says that puts the part-time Legislature at a disadvantage when dealing with full-time officials in the executive branch of government.

Lust says the proposed new committee would be a permanent panel that would compete with the executive branch in suggesting ideas.

I have often felt that the full-time bureaucrats in the executive branch are given too great an advantage over our legislators who are part time, hold another job, and are expected to juggle the many ideas and programs consistantly brought forth by many leaders from around the state. Our legislators consistantly show they are more than capable, but I cannot imagine the sudden work load our current legislators must deal with when session begins. A permanent panel might help to equalize the branches.

14 Replies to “Lust's long term planning committee”

    1. Anonymous

      If the Tea Party wasn’t throwing smoke where there isn’t fire our legislators could do a better job by not getting distracted.

      If we wouldn’t have had a blow up over the LRC and ag committee’s we could clearly focus on the Gov’s proposals.

      Whatever the legislature feels they need to be adequately ready for session I am all in favor of.

  1. insomniac

    I like Lust as a legislator. Doesn’t surprise me that you don’t Stace but Lust is a solid fella. The Governor has too much power and you and your fellows should be after some of his power rather than going after other legislators.

    It’s those people who sit in there offices all day and get paid $40-100K to come up with laws to throw at you that you should be after.

    Cut there spending, cut there pay, send them home packing. (I’d rather do that than go after the teachers.)

    1. Stace Nelson

      Contrary to what you may believe, I have nothing personal against Rep. Lust.

      I agree with you that the legislature needs to remember that it is not supposed to simply carry the water for the executive branch. I am afraid that too many years of the legislature cutting itself has left it the weakest of the three when it is supposed to be the strongest as the voice of the people.

        1. Anonymous

          We have about 30% turnover in SD anyway. Why can’t we keep the legends for as long as they can run and win. You don’t like them get off your duff and defeat them.

          In case anyone doesn’t realize how bad term limits are for our state: Jason Frerichs, Jim Hundstad are minority leader and assistant leader in the senate.

          On the GOP side we look pretty darn good but why do we need to send them home once they become excellent legislators. I’m tired of the Governor (Janklow, Rounds or Daugaard) thinking they are superior to the legislators and ramming legislation through. Our legislators need to be made more powerful not less. The legislators are closest to the people so term limiting a legislator is only making the governor (farther removed from the people) and his well paid staff more powerful.

      1. Anonymous

        Didn’t the legislature restore only their own cuts last year? The legislature should be cutting themselves not dining on bacon fat while every body starves.

  2. troy jones

    Two comments:

    In favor: I’ve always believed the Legislature is too reactive and only focused on fixing the manifestation of problems and less pro-active in leading long-range strategic solutions.

    Opposed: I think the checks and balances has certain division of responsibilities between the legislative and executive branches. This seems to be intrusion on responsibilities that are primarily executive in nature.

    I think if this committee sees itself as collaborative and consultative to the executive branch, it can be a good thing. If it sees itself as an alternative to executive initiative, it will be counter-productive to the overall system. My advice is to move forward cautiously and not have big expectations or make big promises.

  3. Name

    Do away with term limits but limit the time in leadership. This allows good legislators to be there for good policy, not good politics. Absolute power corrupts absolutely!

    1. anon

      The legislators vote on who’s in leadership, so there’s no need, or way to put limits on that. If a leader lets power go to his head, chances are he wouldn’t be a leader the next term.

  4. Anonymous

    It would be wonderful if the members could look down the road and plan!!! Most of them are fearful they will make what sounds like a outstanding idea and a very good long term projection because something will change and they will loose a vote for going for something that does not work out well at all. The success of long term planning is real planning not vote protection planning……………..