Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Paula Hawks had a fundraising piece hit mailboxes recently. And….. yeah, I was almost starting to feel sorry for her at this point. At least until she started to roll her predecessors under the bus.

Not only is the fundraising letter awful, but Hawks decided is was a good opportunity to rub Matt Varilek & Corinna Robinson’s noses in their loss in a weak attempt to make her campaign appear better:

With a strong female Democratic candidate running for this seat for the first time in five years …… Democrats have an historic opportunity in South Dakota this year.

and…

Although the state leans Republican, Paula can win by improving turnout in the Democratic areas of the state and by appealing to socially moderate Republican women, a constituency she has successfully won in previous elections.

In what is shaping up to be the “year of the woman” (with a female presidential nominee likely heading the Democratic ticket), Paula’s message will reinforce those at the top of the ticket. As importantly, Paula’s campaign will be well situated to work closely with and support other progressive groups active in the state.

Read it all below…

Hawks Campaign fundraising letter 2016

To begin with, I’m not sure what this letter is supposed to accomplish by slamming those who went before her.   “With a strong female Democratic candidate running for this seat for the first time in five years” comes off as a backhanded slap at the prior two Democrat offerings.

First off, when she says “strong female Democratic candidate,” She’s got 2/3rds of it right. But you need to redact “strong,” as she’s the worst offering the Democrats have sent up against Noem to date.

Aside from that, looking at how Dems have performed since Noem’s big win in 2010 – In 2012, Matt Varilek performed the best among the Democrats running for statewide office that year (42.5%). So Did Corinna Robinson in 2014 (33.4%).

Now granted, they were handily beaten by Congresswoman Kristi Noem. But at the same time, I don’t recall them going out and slapping at their predecessor in a fundraising letter in a weak effort to try to raise money.

And getting back to it, this was a fundraising letter? It’s not personalized.  It sets no suggested amount of donation. It absolutely does nothing to show the need for the money, or what the campaign will do with the money. It’s basically a lazy, blasé effort at raising money.

It might be an effective slam on the previous Democrat Candidates, but as an effort to raise money? Not so much.

With his petitions turned in this morning, State Representative Josh Klumb is beginning his campaign to run for the office of State Senate in District 20, a position currently held by term limited State Senator Mike Vehle.

And is it me, or does it sure seem like the Democrats have quieted down about running somewhere in the neighborhood of 105 legislative candidates?

After a couple of posts on this topic, I notice where “Anonymous” people are claiming that the DiSanto Drug Testing for Welfare recipients proposal may only apply to recipients of TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), and not as it sounded in the KCCR interview, to Medicaid recipients and the disabled.

But, even if it’s TANF recipients only, sometimes there are things you just can’t get out of your head, and that’s what I find myself facing with the introduction of the proposed legislative measure to require drug testing before recipients can receive welfare assistance.

Why? To this conservative, there are two insurmountable obstacles for something of this nature to be palatable.

First, it is the polar opposite of what most of us would consider compassionate conservatism. Consider if you will, a single mother abandoned by someone who left her with nothing except hungry children, forced to scrape together thirty-five dollars she doesn’t have so she can urinate into a little cup – just so she can try to feed her family while she’s job hunting.

I can’t imagine what that would do to the last remaining shreds of dignity that someone has as they try to better themselves. This measure presumes people applying for such benefits are guilty, unless they provide bodily fluids to be successfully tested.

The TANF program, as a condition of receipt, already has a provision where recipients are limited to a lifetime of 60 months of receipt, and the condition that the recipient must be seeking work. For those most in need, adding a pre-qualification of this nature is little more than class warfare against those least able to fight it. It is unnecessarily cruel, and speaks poorly of those who would insist on government’s hand being that heavy.

Was I mentioning the heavy hand of government?   Second, and more importantly, the measure embodies the ultimate expression of the intrusive nanny state in its most malevolent form as it creates more government, and a dangerous overreach of the authority of the state to intrude into our lives.

We will literally be adding more bureaucracy for the purposes of government drug testing citizens of the state. Just like this proposal being the polar opposite of compassionate conservatism, it is the polar opposite of what we might term (and pardon me for the bastardization of Latin) “imperium de minimis” or, the least amount of government necessary.

If anything, it introduces a very, very dangerous concept that interactions with government should be prequalified based upon successfully passing a very fallible drug test that’s often prone to false positive results.

In this instance, the bill sponsors are introducing the concept with receiving TANF assistance. But what happens when someone comes along and says “we don’t want drug users owning guns, so they should have to pay for a drug test before receiving a concealed weapons permit?” It doesn’t take a broad leap in logic before a Democrat Governor or Legislature could take that step once it’s in place for other programs.

As government becomes more and more intrusive into our lives, expanded intrusion is a dangerous path to go down. Rights that you give up generally don’t come back to you. Just like taxes, you find yourself giving up more and more to government, until you sit there one day and say “What happened?.”

If lawmakers want to condition TANF on not using drugs, then why on earth would we not assume they are eligible for the program until they’re convicted of a drug crime, instead of expanding the nanny state yet once again? (Psst…. That’s what Montana does.)

I think they call that “Innocent until proven guilty.” Wow. That’s profound. What a concept! You know, that might be a good one to adopt in this country!

If someone is convicted for using drugs, that seems to be a far different situation than adding the “State Bureau of Urine Testing” to test everyone who came into the door. We don’t need more and bigger government programs costing taxpayer dollars. What we need is sensible policy.

If we’re that concerned with making sure that welfare is not used for purchasing drugs, put the burden on those who have been adjudicated of breaking the law, not those receiving the assistance.

Because what’s being proposed in this years’ legislative session isn’t what I would consider an American value. They aren’t even Republican ones.

It is uncompassionate conservatism and the nanny state at its worst. And we can do a lot better than that.

In the story I just did on this, a commenter made note of something which I hadn’t picked up on in relating the prior story:

….An 86 year old applying for Medicaid (cash assistance) would be subject to drug testing?….. This would cover public assistance and that is Medicaid which many residents of nursing homes need because they can’t afford the monthly $7,500.00+ bill.

Read that comment here.

What?  That caught my attention, and had me going back to the recorded section of the original story which I’ll transcribe:

“The bill is asking for people who will be receiving welfare through the state of South Dakota should be required to submit to a drug test that will ensure (unintelligible) that those who are applying for welfare are not going to be utilizing that money they’re receiving from the taxpayers for their drug addiction or abuse.”

Listen to that here.

I was wondering when the comment was left if that would apply to Medicaid, and in re-listening, Rep. DiSanto seemed to paint “welfare” with a pretty broad brush. And the commenter’s scenario doesn’t seem too far off the mark.In fact, it seems too close to home.

And that’s where the measure being proposed moves from something to contemplate into the realm of being offensive. Because saying “Welfare” is a very, very broad term that applies to a lot of people.

Currently, there are programs under the Department of Social Services for things such as Medicaid for Workers with Disabilities (MAWD), Medicaid for Individuals in Assisted Living Facilities, Nursing Facilities or Homes, and Quadriplegics who receive Special Services in their Home who would appear to be required to pay for drug testing prior to receiving Medicaid under the broad definition expressed in the interview.  Despite the fact that there’s not a lot of quadriplegics who are snorting cocaine, or people in assisted living who are cooking meth in their bathroom sinks.

And that’s just getting started. Because it addresses nothing with children yet.

Children relieving benefits through the South Dakota Children’s Health Insurance Program are going to require that crack test first before their benefits are paid. Same goes for children with Down Syndrome, or children such as my daughter with Autism Spectrum Disorder who is Medicaid eligible as a result of being born with a disability will have to line up to pee in a cup to make sure they’re not in the alley shooting up heroin at recess.

Depending on his this bill is written, the smart move may be to withdraw it before it ever sees it’s first vote. Unless the sponsors feel the need to campaign on the need to drug test a lot of seniors, children, and the disabled.

I didn’t get to stick around and say hi to the Governor or his staff at Lunch today, as I had to make a hasty exit when my daughter called and said “There’s smoke coming out of my car.”  But I did get to hear his speech which he characterized as a 1/2 hour summation of the State of the State Address which he gave last week.

However, in the interest of having a good rundown on the Governor’s education proposal, I did get my hands on a very detailed rundown of the highlights of his education plan – pp

The Governor’s Blue Ribbon Teacher Pay Plan

Gov. Dennis Daugaard is proposing the following plan to bring about competitive teacher pay, a transparent and fair funding formula, and a more efficient education system. The plan is funded with a half-cent increase in the state sales tax, and funds $40 million in property tax relief for all property taxpayers.

New funding formula

The plan creates a new school funding formula. The new formula sets a target statewide average salary of

$48,500. The new formula works as follows:

• For each district, calculate a target student-­‐to-­‐teacher ratio, based on a sliding scale by student enrollment (see below)
• The district’s target number of teachers is calculated by dividing the district’s fall enrollment by the target student-­‐to-­‐teacher
• The district’s total instructional need is calculated by multiplying the district’s target number of teachers by the statewide target for average teacher salary, and by increasing that total by 29% for
• The total instructional need is increased by 31% to cover non-­‐instructional This category includes operating costs as well as salaries and benefits of non-­‐instructional staff, such as administrators, guidance counselors, librarians, and school nurses.
• These steps calculate the district’s total need for state aid. At this point, local aid is applied against total need, with the state providing any necessary funds to achieve the total

The plan proposes the following sliding scale for the target ratio, based on enrollments:

• Less than 200 5 students to 1 teacher
• Between 200 and 600 Sliding scale from 12.5 to 1 to 15.0 to 1
• Greater than 600 0 to 1

This sliding scale retains the same enrollment thresholds as the current small school factor, as well as the 20% value of the small school factor.

The formula will not require school districts to strictly meet their target ratio; districts retain local control on how to use the dollars once they are appropriated. However, the formula creates an expectation that schools use new funds for salaries, and that schools make significant progress toward the target salary.

Today, the statewide student-­‐to-­‐teacher ratio is approximately 14:1. If every district achieved its target ratio under this plan, this sliding scale results in a statewide ratio of 14.46:1, using FY15 enrollments.   This ratio does   not determine class size because it considers other instructional staff, such as special education   teachers.

Notably, the “benefits factor” includes sufficient funds to cover all district benefit costs, regardless of current funding source. This means that revenues currently collected by the pension levy can be considered to cover this total benefits need.

New funding for teacher salaries

The formula requires $81.6 million in additional state funds. Because the new formula rolls pension fund expenses into the formula, the $19.2 million collected by the pension levy counts against that total need. Therefore, the need of new state funds to fully fund the new formula is $62.4 million. In addition, state-­‐level programs described below have a cost of $5 million, bringing the total need to $67.4 million.

The proposal meets the entire $67.4 million need with new state funds, raised by an increase in the state sales tax. The plan increases the state sales tax by one half-­‐cent, from 4% to 4.5%. This increase is projected to generate $107.4 million in FY17 and is used to cover the state’s cost of $67.4 million.

No existing school funds are re-purposed to meet this $67.4 million need. Property tax relief

The half-­‐cent sales tax increase generates $40 million more than is needed to meet the $67.4 million need. This remaining $40 million is dedicated to property tax relief, applied to all classes of property at the same ratio as the general education levies.

Reserve fund caps

The proposal reinstates reserve fund caps, on a tiered system based on enrollment, as recommended by the Blue Ribbon Task Force.

At the time that reserve fund caps were repealed, districts were capped at 40%. That was calculated by dividing the district’s June 30 fund balance by general fund expenditures. If that system were reinstated today, 68 districts would be over that limit.

Beginning this fiscal year, DOE now collects monthly, rather than annual, fund balances from districts. The proposal reinstates caps as follows:

• The “percentage fund balance” will be calculated by dividing the lowest monthly cash fund balance of

the previous 12 months by general fund expenditures. The purpose of this mechanism is to ascertain the fund level that, over the course of a year, is never used.

• Districts caps are determined by the same three enrollment tiers as the funding formula:
  • Less than 200 40%
  • Between 200 and 600 30%
  • Greater than 600 25%
• For the purpose of selecting a tier, districts use the lowest of the previous three year’s enrollments. This prevents a district that is close to the line from fluctuating too frequently between
• The caps take effect for FY19, or the 2018-­‐19 school There are no intermediate tiers to transition districts – it is the districts’ responsibility to manage toward the caps.
• Once in effect, a district that is in excess of the cap would have its state aid reduced dollar-­‐for-­‐dollar. The Governor will appoint a five-­‐member oversight board to consider requests to waive the caps in special

Abolition of the pension levy

Today, school districts may assess up to 0.3 mills for a pension levy. There is no reason to assess a separate levy for this narrow purpose. The plan merges this levy into the general education levy.

General education levies will be increased to raise the same $19.2 million that the pension levy currently raises. Because each class of property currently pays the same pension mill levy rate, the shift to the the general education levy will also be even across the classes. Statewide, this is revenue-­‐neutral to taxpayers.

Merging the pension levy with the general education levy also allows the $19.2 million collected to be counted toward total need in the funding formula. The new formula also includes a benefits rate for schools that will cover these pension-­‐related benefits costs.

Currently, districts also maintain a separate pension fund. The plan allows districts to maintain this separate fund for five years, and requires that it be merged into the district general fund in FY21. This gives the districts time to spend down these funds without initially counting against reserve fund caps.

Capital Outlay

The plan makes four changes to the current capital outlay (CO) levy:

• Repeal the sunset of CO flexibility and make it permanent. Broaden CO flexibility so that up to 20% of CO collections can be used for any general fund
• Require that districts make annual CO requests in the form of a dollar amount, not a mill levy
• Limit future growth in CO collections by capping the maximum dollar amount that can be collected to increasing annually by 3% or inflation, whichever is less, plus new
  • Note that this differs from the growth cap on other levies, which are applied to the amount collected, rather than the maximum that can be
  • The effect of this cap in future growth will be to continue to allow districts to manage their levies up or down, while gradually lowering the maximum from 0 mills over time as valuations increase. This growth cap does not, in any case, require a district to collect less than it does now.
• Impose an alternative maximum on CO collections, on a per-­‐student basis, at $2800 per student, which is double the approximate state average of $1400 per student. In future years this would inflate at the same rate as the formula – CPI or 3%, whichever is less. This alternative maximum would take effect in FY21, and special provision will be made for districts with capital outlay certificate
• The state will not mandate that any current capital outlay funds be shifted to general ed purposes. The capital outlay proposal has no effect on the general ed

Equalization of other revenues

The plan seeks to bring equity to other revenues over time while giving schools a glide-­‐path to that solution over five years. Other revenues are funding sources that school districts receive that are counted outside of the formula, and therefore not equalized across all districts.

The plan equalizes six sources of other revenue that have the character of a state tax. These sources are: gross receipts tax on utilities, local revenue in lieu of taxes, county apportionment of revenue from traffic fines, county revenue in lieu of taxes, wind farm tax, and bank franchise tax.

Initially, each school district will be given a base that will hold its other revenues harmless in the first year, based on its current collections. This base will be stepped down over five years, at 20% per year.

Each year, any other revenue collected beyond the “hold harmless base” will be counted as local effort and therefore equalized across districts through the funding formula. At the end of the five-­‐year phase-­‐in, the “hold harmless base” is eliminated and all revenue from these six sources will be counted as local effort and equalized through the funding formula.   At that point, these revenue sources will be treated in the same way as local   property taxes.

This plan does not offset state or local funding and will not take any funds away from the state’s education system. The Cutler/Gabriel ratio, which determines the share of education expenses paid by the state and by local taxes, will be adjusted so that the state’s contribution is not reduced and local property taxes are not impacted.

Accountability

Although this proposal is not a mandate, the funding formula will create an expectation. The state will expect significant movement towards the target statewide average salary and any school districts that lag behind the target salary must account for the difference.

To that end, the bill will require specific reporting measures so legislators will have the information to hold school districts accountable. Also, local residents of the school districts will be armed with a more transparent funding process to facilitate a more robust discussion on the impact of decisions in their school district.

Other proposals

The plan provides for the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s recommendations on voluntary shared services, e-­‐learning, and teacher recruitment and retention:

• The e-­‐learning proposal expands the capacity of the NSU e-­‐learning center at an ongoing cost of $1   million, and creates a “classroom innovation grant fund” to incentivize teacher training and classroom   access to virtual education and customized learning tools, at an ongoing cost of $1 million. These efforts build upon a recent Bush Foundation $4 million grant received by TIE to develop online learning platforms.
• A mentoring program is created for first and second-­‐year teachers, at a cost of $1 million ongoing.
• The plan reinstates the bonus for achieving National Board Certification, and payment to those teachers who achieved this in the five years since it was suspended, at a one-­‐time cost of $150,000 and ongoing cost of $50,000.
• Expansion of voluntary shared services. The state has already done this successfully in areas such as internet bandwidth and a student information system. The state pays for these services centrally and the school districts receive them for free. The amount that school districts save from not having to procure these services separately exceeds the amount of money the state pays to provide them. The proposal will expand this approach to more areas – such as purchasing, payroll, and software There will also be incentives for school districts to share staff.

The plan proposes that $5 million in ongoing funds be allocated for these proposals. Combined with the new formula need of $62.4 million, this brings the total need to $67.4 million in new funds.

Agree with it or not, I don’t think anyone in the state thinks that our teachers being 51st in pay in the nation for them is a scenario for the long term health of the supply of teachers in the state.  If someone else has a magic plan to alleviate that, I’d encourage them to bring it forward for examination and discussion.

Barring that, arguably, this is the most well thought out and viable proposal on the table at the moment.

I’m hearing that Redfield residents were treated to a flyer in their mailboxes recently which cajoled them to support the construction of a new school in their community. And while you have the normal divisions that come up in those types of elections, apparently the source of the this recent mailing has some people up in arms.

I’m told this is the flyer that went out (this is from facebook, but I’m trying to get my hands on a hard copy)

And here’s what was sent to me as being printed on the backside as a return address and mailing panel (I redacted the recipient’s address) …

Take note of the return address printed on the back of the flyer. And yes, you can confirm at the City of Redfield’s web site, that is the actual address of the City’s office of Parks and Recreation.

If you go to it, one thing you might notice about the city web site is that it notes the name of the City’s director of Parks & Rec as Heidi Appel. Why is this important? Because if you go to the web site of the group “Citizens for the Future of Education” a group promoting the construction of a new school in Redfield, it also appears to have the involvement of a Heidi Appel of Redfield.

So… why do we care? Well, if you take a look at South Dakota Codified Law 12-27-20:

12-27-20.   Expenditure of public funds to influence election outcome prohibited. The state, an agency of the state, and the governing body of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state may not expend or permit the expenditure of public funds for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of any candidate, or for the petitioning of a ballot question on the ballot or the adoption or defeat of any ballot question.

This section may not be construed to limit the freedom of speech of any officer or employee of the state or such political subdivisions in his or her personal capacity. This section does not prohibit the state, its agencies, or the governing body of any political subdivision of the state from presenting factual information solely for the purpose of educating the voters on a ballot question.

Read that here.

Uh oh.

I’m told that this whole thing hasn’t escaped the notice of the Redfield City Council, who had not taken a position on the school proposal, despite information on this election being said to have gone out through their return address.  As I’m told, the council decided to stay neutral, but had been asked to publicly support it.

The word on the street that councilmen in Redfield are going to be looking for answers. I’m told that at least one council member openly noted to a constituent that they did not authorize this mailing. There’s a City Council meeting scheduled for 7pm on Tuesday night, where the topic is certain to come up. The words “strong discussion” were related to me as what they expect to be had on the issue.

Now, it all may be an innocent misunderstanding for one of a few reasons. However, being in the business of doing mailing pieces, generally nothing gets printed without a person signing off on a proof, because no one wants to eat the cost of a screw up.

Oversight, innocent mistake, or something else. At the very least, the explanation should be interesting.

From Medium.com comes a disturbing story on the current state of Bitcoin, and why the cyber-currency is quickly headed towards a crash:

Think about it. If you had never heard about Bitcoin before, would you care about a payments network that:

• Couldn’t move your existing money
• Had wildly unpredictable fees that were high and rising fast
• Allowed buyers to take back payments they’d made after walking out of shops, by simply pressing a button (if you aren’t aware of this “feature” that’s because Bitcoin was only just changed to allow it)
• Is suffering large backlogs and flaky payments
• … which is controlled by China
• … and in which the companies and people building it were in open civil war?

I’m going to hazard a guess that the answer is no.

Read it all here.

From Today’s KCCR News, Rep Lynn DiSanto is in the news again a second time today. Not for another on-line petition, but for a measure she’s introducing to #1 – Require drug testing for any welfare recipient, and #2 – to make them pay for it:

Under the bill, adults applying for cash assistance would complete a screening or questionnaire and would be subjected to a mandatory drug screening. They would not receive the benefit if they test positive. At least 13 states have passed drug-testing or -screening legislation for people receiving or applying for public assistance.

The bill’s main sponsor, Representative Lynne DiSanto of Rapid City says the bill would make sure welfare recipients don’t use taxpayer dollars inappropriately…

Those who test positive for drugs would be connected to treatment options. DiSanto says the bill would require any welfare applicant to pay the approximately 25 to 30 dollar initial drug test fee…

DiSanto says support for this bill has been “overwhelmingly positive”…

Read it here.

DiSanto notes in the recorded part of the interview that she’s uses a lot of social media, and has overwhelming support on the measure, as gauged by over 300 likes on her facebook page for the proposal.

What do you think?

 

If you make a point and catch the weekly postings on Drinking Liberally Sioux Falls, this week you were treated to the Democrat rank and file reaction to the Democrat Party’s reaction to Governor Daugaard’s education proposal.

What was the reaction? I’d characterize it as light mocking, not too dissimilar from what we had noted on it earlier:

In Political News: Our Democratic Legislators in Pierre countered Governor Daugaard’s proposal to increase teacher salaries to an average $48,000 a year with an “Oh yeah! I will call your $48,000 and raise you $2000 more” proposal. To the Democrat’s credit they also tied their proposal to the elimination of the sales tax on food. We will have to see if the South Dakota Education Association (SDEA) backs our Democratic Legislators principled attempt to make our sales tax less regressive or if the teachers push the Democrats to drop their demand for this reform at the first sign of Republican resistance to the Teacher’s well-deserved pay increase. The cynic in me bets that the teachers will take the money without regard to how it is raised and the Democrats will fold like a cardboard box in a thunderstorm when it comes time to vote for the Governor’s proposal.

Read that here.

We docked Democrats points for lacking originality beyond saying “spend more,” and their own rank and file apparently did it too. It’s too bad that there are no original thinkers left over on that side of the aisle, but it’s hard to be original when you’re holding caucus meetings in the 3rd floor phone booths.

I also noticed recently that Drinking Liberally Sioux Falls has removed their advertising from Dakota Free Press. I suspect they discussed the renewal notice earlier in the evenings at one of their meetings, and they just hadn’t had enough to drink to think of it as a good idea. I suppose there are days when you just can’t drink enough….

Otherwise, keep on enjoying what the other side has to say at Drinking Liberally Sioux Falls, and stay tuned for more political stuff!

President Obama’s Distorted View of Reality  
By Sen. John Thune

Year after year, President Obama has used his annual State of the Union address to lecture the American people about his government-knows-best approach, and this year was no different. The president painted a rosy picture of the economic well-being of America’s middle class and his supposed success on the world stage. The president’s distorted view of reality left many people scratching their heads, wondering which America he was actually talking about.

On President Obama’s watch, we have experienced the worst economic recovery since the Eisenhower administration, with stagnant wages and millions dropping out of the labor force as the lasting trademark of the Obama economy. American families are seeing their dreams for the future erode, as they struggle under ever-increasing government burdens and a lack of economic opportunity, and any serious discussion of the state of our union needs to address these challenges and offer solutions. Unfortunately, the president failed to do either.

Then there are the burdensome regulations the Obama administration has imposed, which have made it more challenging for businesses large and small to grow and create jobs. The Obama Environmental Protection Agency in particular has done more than its fair share to make things difficult for Americans. Again and again, I’ve heard from South Dakota farmers and ranchers, homeowners, and small businesses about the difficulties they’re facing thanks to the Obama EPA’s massive new regulations.

If the president’s record on the economy and middle-class opportunity is bad, his record on foreign policy is even worse.

During the president’s last year in office, the White House says, “we can show the world what is possible when America truly leads.” Republicans couldn’t agree more that America should truly lead – the problem is that the president’s first seven years in office have generally been distinguished by a lack of leadership.

In June, former President – and fellow Democrat – Jimmy Carter described President Obama’s successes on the world stage as “minimal.” “On the world stage, just to be objective about it as I can,” Carter said, “I can’t think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over.” Neither can I, and that’s a real problem.

Rather than substantively addressing any of these major problems in his State of the Union address, the president took a victory lap and spiked the football on his presidency. But the American people clearly don’t think there’s much to celebrate, nor do they think America has “made extraordinary progress on the path to a stronger country and brighter future,” as the administration believes it has.

While President Obama might be satisfied with where America finds itself, Republicans believe there is much more work yet to be done. The president still has 12 months remaining in his presidency, and it’s our hope that he spends each month working with us to make the American people’s lives better.

###