Author: @SoDakCampaigns

South Dakota is in the middle of a healthcare boom. While the strain of the pandemic has challenged this industry across the country, our state has remained resilient.  

A new study from WalletHub ranked South Dakota the No. 1 best state for doctors to work in. Last year, that same firm ranked our state in the Top 10 for work environment for nurses. 

South Dakota must continue to raise the bar for other healthcare workers. We can do that by meeting the needs of the industry. Last fall, I joined our state’s largest healthcare providers in recruiting nurses to move to our state. But we also need to generate home-grown talent. 

This session, I fought for funding to expand healthcare programs at our colleges and universities. Today, I joined Southeast Technical College in celebrating its forthcoming Health Sciences Clinical Simulation Center. The state is providing the funding for cutting-edge simulation equipment and learning laboratories to support the Certified Nursing Assistant (CNA), Licensed Practical Nursing (LPN), Registered Nursing (RN), Sonography, and Surgical Technologist programs. 

We are also expanding our accelerated nursing program through a partnership with South Dakota State University and Northern State University. Strengthening this career pipeline will help us ensure we provide opportunities for our children and grandchildren to succeed in this field. But South Dakotans also need better healthcare today. 

That’s why I supported purchasing cutting-edge equipment for EMTs. This new technology will save lives. We’re expanding telehealth capabilities to allow EMTs to connect patients with doctors and deliver that care faster. 

In the last three years, our state has made great strides to increase access to healthcare. We created a robust telehealth system. We recognized licenses for out-of-state healthcare professionals moving to South Dakota. We guaranteed transparent prices for South Dakotans when dealing with their insurance companies. We launched a successful campaign to increase awareness of available substance use disorder treatment.  

And thanks to $15 million in federal funding, South Dakota will soon be one step closer to expanding Appropriate Regional Facilities to each of five regions where people experiencing mental health crises can get the short-term care they need. Our state is leading the way. We want to help people get the care they need at a place that is close to home. In the process, we will prevent our jails from becoming mental health holding centers. 

On March 18th, I signed into law several bills focused on taking care of people in South Dakota. These bills range from strengthening our fight against opioid addiction to prohibiting discrimination in organ transplants. The state is helping Lyman County to build a new nursing facility, and we are constructing a new state public health lab to support our state’s healthcare industry. 

Together, we will raise the bar and set a new standard of healthcare in South Dakota. 

 

Looks like fundraising letters are going out (of varying quality) as evidenced by this one that was sent our way this morning. This one comes from the Cole Heisey campaign, whom you might recall from recent posts, and it’s a great opportunity for a teaching moment, because there’s a lot of incorrect assumptions and things wrong with it that you should do differently as you’re composing your own letter:

Here’s one of the few things the candidate managed to do correctly. Always include a self-addressed envelope with your fundraising mailer.  If you have a lot of money, you can put a stamp on it, but if you’re sending out a fundraiser, you’re trying to raise money because you don’t have it in the first place.

Had a nice comment today where I had a person who they very likely disagree with me, but they certainly weren’t disagreeable. And My response was getting a little long and detailed, but I thought worthwhile enough to raise to the top level:

Read that here.

And In response, I offer the following to Mary –

Thank you for comments. I’ve had people advertise on my site whom I don’t support or agree with and that’s ok. Advertisements do not affect editorial policy. If they want to advertise, they certainly can, but it’s not going to change my mind.

And I certainly do consider myself conservative, as when I started in politics as well as when I started this website, the political universe was a lot different. A lot of it is perspective. There were fights on even having a pro-life statement in the GOP Platform, and an effort was out there to push out conservatives with a group called the “mainstream moderates”  (man, that takes me back). And those who stood against them were the hardcore conservatives. 

Now, 16 years later, the same people who fought against the mainstream moderates are now being derided as liberals and RINO’s.  I suspect for those who are considered the hardcore conservatives now who can survive in the elections and government.. there will come a point in the future where they’ll be derided as liberals.

Now you might not consider the incumbents conservative, but in what universe is Kristi Noem not the most conservative Governor we’ve ever had? How is Pro-life, pro-2nd amendment Christian Senator John Thune or Mike Rounds not considered conservative for their views? 

Or, what about Dusty Johnson? After they disagreed on a funding mechanism for the border wall, President Donald Trump himself endorsed him.  I don’t think a lot of people consider Donald Trump Liberal.

Sometimes for those incumbents when they vote on legislation, or have to make a decision on the worst issues, where there’s no winning side. Depending on what side of the issue you’re on, it’s bad choice A or bad choice B. Having to pick the least bad choice doesn’t make them liberal. It just means they have to deal with the reality of governing.

The reason that they are incumbents is that they are good at communicating their message and in running a campaign, AND enjoy the popular support of a majority of the citizens of the state.  Do I agree with them 100% of the time? No. I wish I would get my way 100% of the time. But even when I don’t get my way, I have always found them to be good people.  Why do I support them?

Dusty Johnson is a childhood friend of my brother’s, and I’ve known him for decades. He would admit himself that he can be a little nerdy and a policy wonk, but he’s engaged in the process to improve government, authentic, a good person, and I respect him.  He’s shown he can win elections. 

I worked for John Thune when I was with the State Republican party many years ago. There’s a story I remember at the time about a bunny in his yard in Pierre that still makes me chuckle. No one has worked harder to make South Dakota Republicans be successful throughout their political career as John Thune. Again, a tremendously good person. He has his mentor’s (Jim Abdnor) knack for remembering people. And again, authentic.

When she first ran, I helped a candidate run in a primary against Kristi Noem in her first race for the State Legislature, and found out quickly what a force of nature she is to be reckoned with. I remember the GOP State office staff at the time remarking on her campaign savvy and work ethic. She’s tremendously sharp, a phenomenal speaker, has a wicked sense of humor and again, she’s a nice person. She takes an unbelievable number of rocks being thrown at her, but slugs them off and keeps pressing on.

She’s also very empathetic, which I’ve observed in her work on disability issues, where she’s made things happen that previous governors chose not to. Doesn’t mean they were bad, but she was willing to push back against the big hospitals & insurers. She is genuine in her support to help kids & families.

In each of those cases, those are a few of the reasons why I strongly support them to remain in their jobs. For their challengers, that doesn’t mean they are necessarily bad people, but I do not believe they possess the qualities that have made Dusty Johnson, John Thune and Kristi Noem successful in their political careers.

Does that make me biased towards those who are considered “the establishment” politicians? I don’t view them through that lens, as much as I support them to remain doing the job for South Dakotans because they are good people.

AFSCME Local 519 Endorses TenHaken for Mayor

The membership of Local 519 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees has overwhelmingly voted to endorse Paul TenHaken for his re-election bid for Mayor of Sioux Falls.

During the Mayor’s tenure in office, he has prioritized the needs of the workers of the city of Sioux Falls, and the general membership of Local 519 believes that he will continue to put the needs of the hardworking public servants of the city at utmost priority.

Local 519 President Jason Ness said, “We have enjoyed a good working relationship with the Mayor’s office through many rounds of contract negotiations and we appreciate the Mayor’s desire to ensure that the employees of the city of Sioux Falls are paid appropriately and are treated with respect while they do the difficult work of keeping the city running.”

The labor movement is strong in Sioux Falls, and Local 519 looks forward to a continued healthy labor management relationship with Mayor TenHaken.

Gov. Noem Signs Dakota State University Cyber Research Bills into law

PIERRE, S.D. – Today, Governor Kristi Noem signed legislation to expand the cyber research industry in South Dakota by enhancing programming and job opportunities at Dakota State University.

“Dakota State University is leading the nation in cyber research, and with the expansion of this program, we will revolutionize our economy,” said Governor Noem. “The project itself will bring hundreds of high-paying jobs to Sioux Falls, and cybersecurity companies will be looking to relocate their operations to Sioux Falls. We already have the strongest economy in America – this industry will make it even stronger.”

The Governor signed SB 54, which provides $30 million in investments from the state for this project. She also signed SB 130, which authorizes various associated aspects of the project.

Governor Noem has signed 236 bills into law and vetoed one this legislative session.

###

Yard Signs are starting to pop up in my neighborhood for the April Election, and a couple in particular caught my eye as good examples of what NOT to do if you’re designing campaign material. First up is Teresa Binkley for Brookings School Board:

All I can think is that someone must have a thing for owls, because that’s the most significant thing on the sign. Keep in mind you’re reading this after I’ve snapped a photo, blown it up, and enhanced the contrast.  Because if you’re driving by at 25 MPH, it’s actually very challenging to read.

It’s supposed to be advertising Binkley for School Board, but the last name is one of the smaller items on the sign, and is relegated to the upper right corner. What’s even more maddening is that they probably have $5-7 or more into the sign which spends more space advertising an owl than the race.  There was plenty of room for the name, and Binkley isn’t terrible contrasted for readability.

The candidates name is unfortunately JUST TOO DARN SMALL, and represents wasted money, and a wasted opportunity for the candidate.

And then there’s this utter mess of a sign:

It appears to be for a candidate named Bonnie, but I got in an accident trying to open the giant QR code on the sign as I drove by, as I stuck my phone out the window and tried to click on it to open the link.  Just kidding about the accident. But no one is going to click on a QR code as they’re driving by.

And even enhancing the contrast in the image, it’s more than challenging to see what the sign is. Literally, it’s like the designer’s computer decided to barf random graphics. There’s a lightbulb. An exclamation point. And I think that’s an arm. Is this sign supposed to communicate something?

If you stop, you might be able to make out that it’s “Bonny for Brookings,” but even that’s challenging to make out because there’s so little contrast between the 2 colors.

And we’re only given 1/2 of the information. There’s a Bonny. And she’s for Brookings… Brookings what?

There’s $7 or more down the drain for that sign. Each.  Ugh.

A good campaign sign really isn’t difficult to do. But when people decide to be “extra creative” it can quickly turn into a mess.

A good campaign sign communicates basic information on name and office. (The two most important things).  Latest trend is for people to emphasize their first name. You’ll see more women than men who do it.  If your name is distinctive – Like Dusty in Dusty Johnson – I think you can do it.  But I’d tread carefully with that. As in this case, I’m not sure anyone is going to readily identify one “Bonny” from any other Bonny or Bonnie in the community.

A good campaign sign communicates its message in a flash in readily visible and easily readable text which contrasts from the background color.   The goal is to communicate a message in 2 seconds or less as someone drives by at 25 mph in town, or 55 mph for a large sign on a highway.

As I opined in Bonny’s case, this sign is more likely to cause an accident than communicate an effective message that she’s running for anything.

Moving on..

Rounds, Kaine, Boozman and Hassan Introduce Bipartisan Legislation to Boost Hiring of Military Spouses

WASHINGTON – U.S. Senators Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), John Boozman (R-Ark.) and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) introduced the Military Spouse Hiring Act, legislation which would amend the tax code to incentivize businesses to hire military spouses. Companion legislation was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Antonio Delgado (D-N.Y.-19).

“Our service members and their families are willing to sacrifice so much for our country,” said Rounds. “One of these sacrifices includes moving from one assignment to the next, which can make it difficult for military spouses to secure a job and for employers to hire them. We owe it to our service members and their families to remove obstacles hindering their financial well-being. Expanding the Work Opportunity Tax Credit to include military spouses will help remove one barrier, giving our military families the opportunities they deserve.”

“Congress has a responsibility to take care of our service members, veterans, and their families,” said Kaine. “That means helping America’s talented military spouses, who consistently make enormous sacrifices for our safety and security, access a wide range of work opportunities. Expanding the Work Opportunity Tax Credit is a commonsense step to help make that happen.”

“Military spouses make countless sacrifices as they support their husbands and wives, and our nation’s defense,” said Boozman. “We can help reduce the burdens they face in the process of finding gainful employment by expanding this tax credit so businesses have an extra incentive to hire these unsung heroes.”

“Military families make immeasurable sacrifices for our country as their loved ones work to keep us safe, secure, and free,” said Hassan. “Unfortunately, the unique set of challenges that military spouses face, from relocation to child care, makes it harder for many to find a job. This bipartisan legislation will work to strengthen employment opportunities for military spouses and support our military families. I look forward to working across the aisle to move this commonsense bill forward.”

Military spouses consistently experience unemployment rates substantially higher than the national rate, and two-thirds of employed active duty military spouses report underemployment. Frequent moves often stall military spouses’ upward career progression and force them to find new jobs.

This legislation would address the issue by expanding the Work Opportunity Tax Credit program—which incentivizes employers to hire individuals who experience unique employment barriers—to include military spouses.

The Military Spouse Hiring Act is supported by: Air Force Association (AFA), Air Force Sergeants Association (AFSA), Association of the United States Army (AUSA), Commissioned Officers Association of the US Public Health Service (COA), Chief Warrant Officers Association of the US Coast Guard (CWOA), Enlisted Association of the National Guard of the United States (EANGUS), Fleet Reserve Association (FRA), Jewish War Veterans of the United States of America (JWV), Marine Corps League (MCL), Marine Corps Reserve Association (MCRA), Military Chaplains Association of the United States of America (MCA), Military Officers Association of America (MOAA), Military Order of the Purple Heart (MOPH), National Guard Association of the United States (NGAUS), National Military Family Association (NMFA), National Restaurant Association, Non Commissioned Officers Association (NCOA), Reserve Organization of America (ROA), Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN), The Enlisted Association (TREA), Tragedy Assistance Program for Survivors (TAPS), United States Army Warrant Officers Association (USA WOA), USCG Chief Petty Officers Association (CPOA), Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW), VetsFirst, Vietnam Veterans of America (VVA), Wounded Warrior Project (WWP) and Work Opportunity Tax Credit Coalition.

“The military spouse unemployment rate has remained too high for too long. When military spouses can’t find work, it’s a problem for their family’s financial stability and wellbeing,” said Besa Pinchotti, Executive Director and CEO of the National Military Family Association. “The Military Spouse Hiring Act will encourage more employers to hire military spouses, investing in our military spouses, our military families, and our military as a whole.”

“Military spouses make tremendous sacrifices for our country yet continue to face significant burdens when it comes to employment opportunities. The continued high rate of unemployment and under employment among military spouses not only impacts the financial stability of military families, but also hurts military retention. More than a third of military families cite spouse employment challenges as a reason for leaving active duty,” said MOAA president and CEO Lt. Gen. Dana T. Atkins, USAF (Ret). “We appreciate Sens. Kaine, Boozman, Hassan, and Rounds’ efforts to incentivize the hiring of military spouses which will benefit this great community, the local economy, and employers alike.”

Full text of the legislation is available HERE.

###

Amendment C: Protect Your Pocketbook
by Noah Greble*

Ben Franklin said it best, “in this world nothing can be said to certain, except death and taxes”. He was right: taxes here still remain as a fact of life. For these policies, we look to our state lawmakers, who have procedures in place to promote fiscal conservatism. Gloomily, one dangerous loophole proposes potential harm to South Dakota taxpayers. 

South Dakota is not Washington- we balance our budget and remain without income or inheritance tax, which serves as an excellent benefit for families. Regardless, there has been tax increases approved by our elected leaders over the years. In 2009, there was an increase of 0.5% in the tourism tax. In 2015, the gas tax was raised by 6 cents. South Dakota also collects tax on online retailers that do business in our state. Now, note this: in the legislature, all appropriations, budgeting, and taxing questions require at least a ⅔ majority vote, making it much harder to increase the burdens on citizens. Many groups who would want to spend massive amounts or raise taxes know of this rule, so they use the one loophole they have: ballot measures. 

To avoid a supermajority requirement, groups who want to achieve such objectives put these measures on the ballot, where they can be passed with as simple a majority as 50.1% percent of voters. Here’s a couple examples of failed measures from the recent past. 

• IM15 (2012): if passed, it would have raised sales tax by 1%, costing taxpayers an estimated $143,927,000 for just the following fiscal year alone. 
• IM25 (2018): this proposed a 20% increase on the wholesale tobacco tax and an increase in pack price, costing adults another $10,335,528 to exercise a liberty given to them. 

Despite having failed, those two alone would have cost hardworking South Dakotans over an estimated $150,000,000 in their first year implemented alone.  Remember, as simple as a 50.1% of voters could have made life that much harder for the average family, small business owner, single mom, or young adult working to help the household. Is this the South Dakota we want to live in, where there is a loophole to pain for taxpayers? Low taxes is one of the primary reasons that people are leaving fiscally crushing states behind and are coming to call South Dakota soon. The risk to these values in the status quo is high, but the solution is finally available.

Proposed on the ballot this June, is constitutional Amendment C. If passed, it will serve as a protection from ballot measures that could pose immense damage to the taxpayers of South Dakota. It states that all measures to raise taxes, fees, or appropriates over $10 Million or more over five fiscal years would require a 60% margin of voter approval. Again, the legislature requires 66%, Amendment C simply wants 60%. Protect your income, vote YES in June. 

—————

 

*The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of any group or organization

Take unified action against Big Tech
by William Beal, Moody County GOP

As a small business advocate, lifelong conservative, veteran, and informed citizen, I am alarmed by the concentrated power of Big Tech corporations. Using their corporate power to spy and collect our personal information they manipulate and censor us as we search, market our businesses, shop for goods, or voice our opinions on the internet.

Financially, Big Tech corporations have enjoyed a rapid rise to the top of their respective markets but have unapologetically destroyed small businesses and limited choices for American consumers in their ascent. These companies have monopolized consumer choice using aggressive tactics, such as controlling internet search results to suppress and throttle their competition in our digital marketplaces. Their meteoric rise throughout the “Digital Age” allows them to amass astronomical profits while American consumers and small businesses continue to struggle in the aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic.

I have grave concerns as to how their monopolistic practices are negatively affecting my colleagues and communities. The power these platforms wield affects me personally, even limiting my ability to voice my opinions on social and political issues.

Historically, the government has played a critical role in “leveling the playing field” before an industry concentration amasses even a fraction of the power that Big Tech now enjoys. In their rapid ascension, Big Tech has outgrown current mechanisms and regulations. Now, all too often, these corporations are using their economic power and control over our personal data to restrict competition in the marketplace and politically influence, or suppress our speech.

Our leaders in Congress finally realize the significant harm posed by Big Tech’s censorious actions, and that the damage is in danger of becoming irreversible. The American Innovation and Choice Online Act is now making its way through the halls of Capitol Hill, and we here in South Dakota are relying on our Senators Thune and Rounds, and Representative Johnson to be the voices and champions for the families, businesses, and economy of our great state.

A critical piece of legislation, the American Innovation and Choice Online Act will reinvigorate the FTC and give regulators the necessary tools to monitor and intervene in Big Tech’s exploitive practices. With rules, regulations, and enforcement mechanisms fit for the 21^st century, the FTC can effectively combat practices like unfair referencing of a platforms products, services, or lines of business. A practice that these companies actively use to maintain their power and influence.

The “Digital Age” has ushered in an era of opportunity for businesses small and large. In my three decades working with data and technology, I have seen the positive effects that digital marketplaces, data analytics, and innovative platforms have on small businesses and the benefits that their convenience affords consumers. But it has been far too easy for Big Tech corporations to use these advantages to the disadvantage of others.

It is time for Senators Thune, Rounds, Representative Johnson, the GOP and government leaders across the country to take unified action against Big Tech corporations and their monopolistic practices. As a lifelong advocate for conservative values, I whole-heartedly voice my support for The American Innovation and Choice Online Act and urge our lawmakers to take immediate action to end the pain these corporations are bringing to Main Street businesses, South Dakota families, and consumers across the country.

Had this note from someone ‘in the know’ involved in Pennington County Republican Politics:

I wanted to pass along is that when the subject of the SDWC post regarding the downplaying of Governor Noem as the “Guest Speaker” at the Lincoln Day Dinner came up, the chair (and his minions) reacted by saying that “no one reads SDWC anyway.”

BTW the new flyer (just produced today) has a photo of Kristi on it.

Also, just this morning an email was sent out to promote the LDD with the subject line “The Red Wave with Christi Noem.” 

Sounds like the post was extensively “not read.”

If only in their non-reading we could prod them into talking about their candidates on social media, instead of Lauren Boebert.

Hopefully by the time of the dinner, they’ll figure out how to spell the Governor’s name.