ATTORNEY GENERAL EXPLANATION RELEASED FOR PROPOSED INITIATED CONTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT AND PROPOSED INITIATED MEASURE, BOTH DEALING WITH MEDICAID EXPANSION

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg announced today that Attorney General Explanations for a proposed initiated constitutional amendment and a proposed initiated measure have been filed with the Secretary of State. These explanations will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor, Rick Weiland, of the initiated constitutional amendment and the initiated measure. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures by November 2021, as certified by the Secretary of State, the proposed amendment may be placed on the ballot for the November 2022 general election.

The initiated constitutional amendment is entitled “An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution expanding Medicaid eligibility.”

The initiated measure is entitled “An initiated measure expanding Medicaid eligibility.”

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. The Attorney General Explanation is not a statement either for or against the proposed amendment.

An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution expanding Medicaid eligibility.

An initiated measure expanding Medicaid eligibility.

-30-

Just got done watching Americans for Prosperity’s town hall with Dusty Johnson, and Dusty might  have had the best statement of the night in the last 10 minutes or so of the program after he was asked a question about coin shortages.

Dusty was remarking about some people writing on social media that they couldn’t be forced to use a cash card, and quipped:

“Too many of you are sharing garbage on facebook.”

I don’t think any of us can argue with that.

South Dakota Closes the 2020 Budget Year with a $19 Million Surplus
State’s Total Reserves Increase to $193 Million

PIERRE, S.D. – South Dakota closed the 2020 budget year on June 30 with a surplus of $19.1 million, Governor Kristi Noem announced today. Although total revenue finished $7.9 million lower than adopted estimates, the state general fund budget ended with expenditures approximately $27.2 million lower than budgeted. The state spent $74.8 million in Coronavirus Relief Funds in fiscal year 2020.

“Despite the challenges with COVID-19, South Dakota remains in a strong financial position,” said Governor Noem. “As many states closed their economies, I trusted South Dakotans to make the right decisions for themselves and their loved-ones. Our future remains bright because we kept our state open for business and we live within our means.”

Of the $27.2 million of 2020 general fund reversions, $23.9 million came from executive branch agencies, $1.8 million came from the Board of Regents, $0.9 million came from the Unified Judicial System, and $0.6 million came from the Legislature and constitutional offices. The unspent funds in fiscal year 2020 represent just 1.6 percent of the total general fund budget.

Total general fund revenue for fiscal year 2020 was lower than legislative adopted estimates in February by $7.9 million, or 0.5 percent. Sales and use tax, which is the state’s largest revenue source, finished $11.8 million below estimates but still grew 4.6 percent over the prior fiscal year. A combination of all other sources of general fund revenue finished the fiscal year $3.9 million above legislative estimates.

By law, the fiscal year 2020 surplus of $19.1 million was transferred to the budget reserve fund. The state’s budget reserve fund now has a balance of $149.4 million, and the general revenue replacement fund has a balance of $44.0 million, for a total reserve of $193.4 million.

###

Americans for Prosperity are hosting a video Town Hall tonight with Congressman Dusty Johnson. How can you participate? Read on:

The title of the post says it all, as we look at the FEC Report covering 5/14/20 – 6/30/20.

Dan Ahlers’ FEC Report for July:

Dan Ahlers July Fec by Pat Powers on Scribd

US Senator Mike Rounds’ FEC Report for July:

Rounds July FEC by Pat Powers on Scribd

When it came to fundraising, Mike Rounds literally destroyed Democrat Dan Ahlers in comparison, by more than a factor of 10.

Ahlers raised $24,832.44 to Rounds’ $256,952.86. Alhers spent $18,352.14 – 74% of what he raised, leaving him with $49,556.72 in the bank. Rounds spent $222,810.98, and has $1,868,842.77 left on hand to run his fall race for US Senate.

I don’t think the outcome is in doubt.

State Representative Tim Goodwin is lamenting on his website that he has a number of questions about the third attempt at selling what used to be known as Star Academy:

So, now after 13 months since the repossession, it is going on the auction block. I have a few questions.

-Why wait 13 months to re-sell? I’m sure the School and Public Lands answer is that they needed another appraisal.

-Why does it take 13 months for an appraisal?

-What is the cost to us taxpayers for this appraisal, and the appraisal when it sold in January 2018?

-Is it true it costs the state $351,115 to maintain the facility while it sits empty? (I got that figure off of the School and Public Lands website.) This is all the more reason to have a sense of urgency and sell the property, right?

Read that here.

I guess I hadn’t realized that Rep. Goodwin went out and got his Real Estate Appraiser’s license, since he considers this a long and drawn out process. (Last time, the sale was going through too quickly.)

Never mind it’s only been about 10 months since the final deadline was exhausted for the prior owner. And since then we’ve been in the middle of the COVID mess, and there was the issue of the residential leases for families at STAR Academy until March 1. It probably took until now to get them out and to complete appraisals.

If you’re an investor who might sink the kind of money into a property of that size, due diligence requires full appraisals. Not guesstimates.

What critics don’t seem to understand, as Goodwin questioned above, yes – it does cost the state $351,115 to maintain the facility while it sits empty. It’s not a lake cabin that you put into cold storage over the winter. Even lake cabins deteriorate if not occupied and maintained.

Now imagine it 100 times or more larger in size and exposure to the elements. You might be getting close to the albatross that the state would like to be rid of. And should I mention, due to its construction and age, this albatross more than likely has pipes and other parts with asbestos.

If it was bare land, selling it would be a breeze. But, it’s not bare. And to knock it down and make it bare will require an investment of millions – and that’s a cost over and above the sales price. You can cover those asbestos insulated pipes when it’s being inhabited, but when you do demolition, you can’t just knock it down, you have to account for taking that mess out.

And who is ready to buy it? Sorry. I must have misplaced my $2 Million. Mr. Local Banker – would you loan me $2 Million?  Ok… You want to see a current appraisal? And on a commercial property, you need 20% down? 

Most people don’t exactly have that laying around.  And the very small universe of people who do have that kind of cash are also looking at other properties they can choose from that are likely more profitable, closer to population centers, etcetera.

This is definitely not an easy sale. Remember when I referred to it as an albatross?  It’s an albatross located in a county of about 8500 with relatively flat population growth.

The Office of School & Public Lands is doing yeoman’s work in dealing with this boomerang property which they keep getting back. If reducing the price slightly gets it sold, then it’s a justified reduction of value.  Otherwise we – as in you and me – are going to continue to be on the hook for it.

Honestly, as a taxpayer, I think the state might consider a fire sale or a creative donation of the land if they can find someone who would agree to put the money into it to develop the property, and either pay the tremendous amount of upkeep or knock the unusable buildings down and ameliorate any hazardous conditions.

At 350K annual costs to keep the place up, based on a 2 million dollar price tag, the state could pay itself back in a little over 5 ½ years for what it would otherwise costs that taxpayers for a property that will continue to go downhill if unoccupied.

By then, whoever takes it over might be able to turn it into a property that returns taxes to public rolls instead of being a sucking black hole of expenses that the state is challenged to sell.

A new video from Governor Kristi Noem has been posted on Facebook. Check it out here:

I didn’t need to read that. But someone sent it to me anyway.

Heard an interesting rumor today.

Don’t have any confirmation, and it may not be available until October. But I did hear something interesting today.  So, with a couple degrees of separation, the claim was made by a friend of a friend that – and definitely just a rumor at this point – that allegedly state Democrats might have agreed to work with marijuana legalization campaign on some voter data.

I can’t confirm any of this, but given some of the involvement of former Dem candidates and other highly placed Dems, a person can voice speculation and ask if this is true?   Yes, I know there are people like Jordan Mason affiliated with the pot measure who have worked with some Republican candidates in the past, but people are chirping that supposedly Dems might be working to support the marijuana measures organizationally.

If true, it might not be able to be verified until the pre-election reports are filed in October. But if anyone has inside information on this, drop me a note here, and let’s chat.

Several years back – in 2016 – I opened up a PAC as a possible mechanism to help promote candidates with the (semi-serious) purpose “to promote economic opportunity and goodness in government.”

I never really did anything with it, but it never cost me any effort, so I let it sit there for a while. Then, there was a movement to attach a criminal penalty to any screw-up with PAC reporting. Criminal penalty for a problem with filing?  I “Noped out” of keeping that PAC going, and I shut it down in 2018.

So imagine my surprise when I get a letter the other day from a Democrat House Candidate whose name I’m not even going to try to pronounce, Rick Stracqualursi:

Apparently this District 34 Democrat is skipping the vetting of his list, and is just blasting fundraising letters out to any old political action committee. Emphasis on old, since he sent it to mine, again a PAC defunct since 2018. Mark that down as Mistake number 1.

Nevermind the fact I don’t know him, and I would venture that it’s pretty well known that I am not likely to support a Democrat candidate running against GOP House candidates. Bonus that both Mike Derby and Jess Olson are pretty good people. Mistake #2.

Stracqualursi goes on a bit about expanding medicaid, but then we get to mistake #3:

Simply complete the enclosed contribution form and return it in the enclosed envelope. Checks can be made out to “Rick for House”. Any donation amount is needed, and please consider $10, $25, $100 or more to help with the campaign.

Wait.. did he really send a letter to a political action committee, asking for cash, and he led off by asking for $10?  It’s bad enough he capped his request at $100, but he really led off by asking for $10?

You know how this works, right? Ask and ye shall receive. For those very, very few PACs that will respond, they know he’ll be happy with $10. That might cover the cost of printing and sending 6 or 7 of these letters, as they were mail-merged, bar coded, and had envelopes.

Stracqualursi very well might actually lose money on this fundraiser. Definitely mistake #3.

Then we get to mistake #4. From the November 3, 2018 Rapid City Journal:

So Rick Stracqualursi, the person who in 2018 declared “we need a system that stops lobbyists and big money from controlling our elections and government” and that “we can no longer let special interests corrupt our legislature” just sent out a solicitation letter begging for cash… to a group that includes lobbyists and special interests?

That might be the biggest mistake of them all.

Because it certainly appears that Rick Stracqualursi can include being a hypocrite among the problems his campaign has to overcome.