Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Representative Schoenbeck visits the Senate during the ed tax debate.

Daugaard says he won't ask lawmakers to take up Medicaid expansion this year, but conversation isn't over pic.twitter.com/gfKRHMuNI4

— Dana Ferguson (@bydanaferguson) February 29, 2016

New Law a Win for Consumers, Producers,
and Innovators
By Sen. John Thune

Honey production is an important part of South Dakota’s agriculture economy. In fact, we’re consistently one of the top honey-producing states in the country. While that’s a badge of honor many South Dakotans wear proudly, and rightly so, the United States produces less than half the amount of honey it consumes, which means there’s a lucrative market for foreign competitors to export their product to the United States.

Over the years, I’ve learned a lot about the unfair practice of circumventing our trade laws, conducted primarily by Chinese honey producers trying to cheat the market, a process also known as “honey laundering.” In 2011, Richard Adee, a well-known honey producer from Bruce, South Dakota, testified before a congressional panel I led about the negative economic effects honey laundering has had on domestic producers and family-run businesses. Thanks to producers like Richard who told their story and kept pressure on lawmakers in Washington, the United States is cracking down on these unethical practices and the importers who knowingly break the law. After all, free trade is only fair trade when our trading partners all play by the same set of rules.

These provisions to combat honey laundering, along with several others I authored aimed at providing relief to consumers, assistance to small businesses, and incentives to innovators, were recently signed into law as part of a larger trade enforcement bill, which enjoyed broad bipartisan support on Capitol Hill. It passed the Senate in early February by a vote of 75-20.

Also included in this trade enforcement bill is an important provision to make it easier for small businesses to import components they need to create products sold in traditional brick and mortar stores or online venues like eBay and Etsy. Unfortunately, when the ability of American entrepreneurs to send and receive necessary components or products becomes encumbered by unnecessary costs and red tape, it makes it more difficult for their business to grow. With that in mind, my provision significantly increases the threshold for certain duty-free imports, which reduces complexity and a heavy paperwork burden and gives these small businesses one less thing to worry about.

Finally, in a victory for both consumers and businesses, accessing the Internet will no longer be a taxable event. This is good news for families and small businesses who currently pay an access tax on their monthly cable or phone bill. A permanent ban on Internet access taxes – an effort I’ve championed for years – gives our entrepreneurs and innovators a greater incentive to not only continue working toward the next generation of connectivity in America, but the next big thing yet to be invented. I was also glad to see a provision I fought hard to include that gives states that currently tax Internet access four years to prepare for this transition.

Amid all the seemingly bad news that comes out Washington, D.C., in instances like this, it’s nice to share some good news. We’re starting 2016 off on the right foot, and I hope we’ll be able to score more victories like these for South Dakotans over the course of the year.

###

Justice Scalia: The Gold Standard
By Senator Mike Rounds

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia will be greatly missed by his family and loved ones, as well as all Americans who share his core conservative values and beliefs. For almost 30 years, Justice Scalia was one of the court’s strongest defenders of our Constitution. His brilliant legal mind and animated character will be remembered, studied and celebrated for generations to come. The Senate recently paid its respects to Justice Scalia by unanimously passing a resolution honoring his life, legacy and legal contributions to our country.

Justice Scalia’s death has left a vacancy on the bench of our nation’s highest court that will be difficult to fill. Under the Constitution, the president is allowed to nominate a replacement, and the Senate has a Constitutional role of “advice and consent.” This is a Constitutional responsibility that I take very seriously. The Supreme Court is the final authority for interpreting federal laws and the Constitution. The decisions it makes often have long-lasting ramifications that – in one vote – can dramatically alter the course of our country.

At a time when the current administration has stretched the limits of the law and attempted to circumvent Congress and the federal court system, choosing the right candidate with the aptitude for this lifetime appointment is as important as ever. After giving it much thought, I have determined that my benchmark for the next Supreme Court Justice will be Justice Scalia himself. Scalia’s strict interpretation of the Constitution and deference to states’ rights set a gold standard by which his replacement should be measured.

Recently, every Republican member of the Senate Judiciary Committee—which is in charge of reviewing court nominations—sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell expressing their firm belief that the people of the United States deserve to have a voice in determining the next Supreme Court justice. In their letter they wrote, “Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution is clear. The president may nominate judges of the Supreme Court. But the power to grant – or withhold – consent to such nominees rests exclusively with the United States Senate.” As a result, the committee does not plan on holding any hearings related to this issue until after the election in November. This decision will allow the American people to have a voice in the next Supreme Court Justice based upon who they elect as president in the upcoming election.

Whoever is confirmed to fill the open seat on the Supreme Court will be serving a lifetime appointment. Keeping in mind the current political makeup of the court, the man or woman who will replace Justice Scalia has the potential to hold incredible influence over the ideological direction of the court for generations to come. It is critically important that the next justice is committed to upholding the principles of the Constitution. We owe it to Justice Scalia, our judicial system, the Constitution and every American to uphold the highest standards when determining our next Supreme Court Justice.

###

Women of Influence
By Rep. Kristi Noem

Among South Dakota’s “Great Faces” are the pictures of countless women who have had a strong influence over the way we live and work. They may be our mothers, sisters or daughters. Perhaps a coworker, employer, or teacher. Maybe they’re one of South Dakota’s notable female pioneers. Perhaps she’s even the “Pioneer Woman” herself, Laura Ingalls Wilder, whose literary works brought life on the prairie to readers (and later viewers) around the globe.

There is also Gladys Pyle from Huron, who in 1938 became the first female senator in U.S. history to serve as a Republican. Even more recently, Rapid City’s Becky Hammon has broken significant barriers in sports, becoming the first full-time female coach in NBA history and the first female head coach in the NBA’s Summer League, which she led her team to win. Without question, some incredible women have called South Dakota home.

March is Women’s History Month, and as important as it is to reflect back on all the women whose shoulders we stand on today, I try to remain focused on building a bigger foundation on which the next generation of female leaders can stand. To do so, we must unlock the potential of hardworking Americans – both women and men – empowering them to build a future that is better and brighter and more prosperous than we could have imagined.

From a policy perspective, it means building paths to upward mobility, giving more families the opportunity to rise from poverty into the Middle Class. As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, this is an area I am actively working on. There is so much we can do to make our welfare system more accountable to both taxpayers and the families it’s intended to help.

We also need to develop a healthy economy that produces more and better-paying jobs. We need to secure our neighborhoods, our borders, and our homeland. We need to create more opportunities – that’s the only way America’s next chapter will be more successful than the last.

On a personal level, I want to foster opportunities that help more South Dakotans thrive. One way I’m doing that is by holding my first Women of Influence Conference in Sioux Falls on March 31. This will be a networking and education opportunity for women who are interested in changing the minds and hearts of those around them. We have an incredible line-up of special guests who will provide tools, advice, and contacts that I’m hopeful will help women across the state take their next step – whether they are just starting off or backed by years of experience.

Attendees will hear from familiar faces, including Angela Kennecke of KELOLAND, Karla Santi of Blend Interactive, and Melissa Johnson of Oh My Cupcakes! Entertainment Tonight’s Mary Hart will be our keynote speaker and what an incredible story she has to tell, building a career that took her from Madison, South Dakota, to the red carpet.

Businesses and organizations from across the state will also be on hand to provide conference-goers with additional resources, tools and information. If you or a woman who has influenced your life is interested in attending the conference, please RSVP at noem.house.gov/WomenOfInfluence

I hope to see you there as we continue to build an even brighter tomorrow for South Dakota.

###

South Dakota Receives Highest Rating Possible From Moody’s
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

On Friday, February 19, we learned Moody’s has upgraded South Dakota’s lease-revenue bond rating to Aa1. This is great news for South Dakota. Aa1 is the highest rating South Dakota can receive from Moody’s. It is equivalent to the AAA rating we received from Standard & Poor’s last spring.

It took persistent effort for our state to earn this upgrade. Lt. Gov. Matt Michels and Jason Dilges, our state’s Chief Financial Officer, met four times with Moody’s officials, in Pierre and in New York, to discuss South Dakota’s rating. Following their first meeting in 2014, we adopted a number of new financial practices. These included annually issuing a debt affordability report, a long-term financial plan and a capital expenditure plan, to accompany the voters’ approval of a balanced budget amendment to our state constitution.

In large part, the upgrade is a result of our budgetary practices. In 2011 we dealt with a structural deficit without raising taxes or spending reserve funds. Each year thereafter, we have continued that stewardship by projecting our revenues and expenses with caution, so if we err, we err on the side of a surplus not a deficit. In 2014, after receiving an unexpected windfall, we used the money to retire bonds early and to pay cash for our new veterans’ home rather than borrowing.

These practices combined with high reserve levels, low debt and zero unfunded pension liability led Moody’s to award South Dakota the highest credit rating.

This upgrade is not just a symbolic victory for South Dakota. There are tangible benefits flowing from an upgrade. Although our constitution prohibits debt, the South Dakota Building Authority and the vocational education program within the South Dakota Health Education Facilities Authority borrow to finance public construction projects like state park improvements and public university dormitories. The upgrades we have received from S&P and Moody’s not only give the financial markets affirmation of our state’s exceptional credit worthiness, but also save substantial amounts in future interest payments. That means our AAA and Aa1 ratings will bring savings for universities, state parks and, ultimately, taxpayers.

As the nation and some states have experienced downgrades, South Dakota’s rating increases are indications that we’re on the right track. We don’t spend money we don’t have. We keep our budget in structural balance. We are frugal and seize opportunities to spend in the short term where it can lead to savings, efficiencies or better government in the long term.

We work hard to keep our state on a firm financial footing, and this is just the latest example of how that stewardship is paying dividends.

-30-

According to facebook this AM, Janette McIntyre is apparently circulating a petition to take on State Representative Jeff Partridge, who had already announced he’s running for the District 34 State Senate Seat.

It also seems that there’s possibly a group (I suspect Howie Minions) who are recruiting challengers to some of the open seats. I’m not sure why, as to my knowledge, Jeff Partridge would be the opposite of a liberal.

Regardless, Janette will be out to get your John Henry. (So, get your steel-driving men out?)

This week the President signed into law legislation authored by South Dakota’s US Senator John Thune known as the Internet Tax Freedom Act (ITFA). By permanently barring state and local government from taxing access to the Internet, ITFA is a huge victory for both consumers and small businesses.

Over 10,000 different state and local taxing jurisdictions across the country apply high tax rates on communications services. While state tax rates generally run at approximately seven percent, telephone and cable services are taxed at a rate of 17% and 12% respectively. If the Internet is taxed in the same way, consumers would be burdened with an excessive 25% in total taxes on communications services.

Since the early days of the Internet, Congress had passed a series of bills temporarily preventing state and local governments from applying these extremely high taxes to Internet access.  As noted by the Internet Tax Freedom Act Coalition:

Originally enacted in 1998, and extended seven times with overwhelming bipartisan support, ITFA has protected most consumers from paying state and local taxes on their Internet access services. It has also protected Internet commerce from multiple and discriminatory taxation. Without this legislation, Internet access would likely be subject to the high rates of taxation currently imposed on traditional telecommunication services – which are often taxed at rates more than double those imposed on other goods and services. A threat made even more imminent after the FCC’s reclassification of broadband services as a telecommunications service.

Read that here.

South Dakota is one of seven states that have collected Internet taxes. For South Dakotans, combined state and local internet taxes cost about $15 million a year. So it is no surprise that ITFA garnered support from a broad collection of lawmakers, manufacturers, and technology companies. These seven states now have until summer of 2020 to phase out their taxes.

Cost is a huge factor in determining whether or not consumers are able to access the Internet. Making Internet services more affordable will help fuel economic growth in our state connecting more budding entrepreneurs to new markets domestically and abroad. There are a lot more potential Internet entrepreneurs in our state than little old me.  The Internet can help us become our own success story.

Eliminating the Internet tax also opens a gateway to educational opportunities and better healthcare services to more consumers regardless of income or residence.

South Dakotans everywhere should congratulate and thank Senator Thune for his strong leadership to engender the necessary support to get this legislation across the finish line. The result will be higher broadband adoption rates among consumers and a ‘net’ win for all Americans.

February 17^th was an interesting day for lending in South Dakota.

House Bill 1126, which was primed by State Representative Mark Mickelson was being heard in House Commerce and Energy Committee for the purpose of exempting certain entities from provisions related to money lending licenses.

It was a bill designed to exempt from regulation any entity which has made or acquired no more than ten loans to other entities within any calendar year and any entity that purchases and services commercial loans acquired for investment purposes. These are typically big dollar loans that are used by groups of investors. It failed, but it boasted a group of sponsors led by Mark Mickelson, and including Representatives Beal, Deutsch, Dryden, Duvall, Harrison, Hunt, Jensen (Alex), Johns, Langer, Otten (Herman), Partridge, Rasmussen, Schoenbeck, Solum, Steinhauer, Verchio, Westra, Wiik, and Willadsen and Senators Curd, Greenfield (Brock), Haverly, Heineman (Phyllis), Peters, and Tieszen.

That same day, House Bill 1161, sponsored by Kris Langer, a bill to provide for and regulate consumer lines of credit, was heard in House State affairs. This bill which passed committee has attracted a lot of grousing from liberals, because it creates a new line of short-term consumer credit.  Ironically, Mark Mickelson who sponsored the bill to exempt high-dollar investment lending from state oversight sits on the House State affairs committee and cast a no vote on the short-term consumer credit measure.

So, why is deregulation good for the rich, but low-dollar lending for those of less means is being regulated out of business? It’s not terribly consistent.

Frankly, I have a really hard time with the attitude of overregulation being led by those with a far left point of view on lending. For me, as a Republican, I believe it’s important to allow consumers to make their own decisions, and I would invite Representative Mickelson and the other sponsors of House Bill 1126 to keep that in mind when they vote on House Bill 1161 today.

If you’ve noted what I’ve written about payday lending this past week, South Dakota is one of the beachheads that the opponents of this type of product are trying to establish through the initiated measure process. But, at the same time the opponents of payday lending are trying to kill the competition, they are advocating for the federal government to create a program so they can set up their own program backed by taxpayers.

I can’t help but shake my head at Republicans who rail on about Obamacare this, and Obamacare that, yet at the same time are piping up in crackerbarrels talking about opposing House Bill 1161. Because those who vote against it will be complicit in helping to establish the “Obama Loan” program being developed at the federal level – a government backed loan program that is designed to have government assume the risk that private lenders assume now. So, instead of those getting the loans assuming the risk, The “Obama Loan” program will have taxpayers assuming it.

Why on earth would legislators want to seek a taxpayer funded solution versus one willingly being pursued by the private sector via 1161?

The thing to keep in mind is that the people promoting this sea change in personal lending at the federal level, while they’re pushing ballot measures, and opposing 1161 at the state level are farther left than George McGovern when it comes to taking away freedom and consumer choice.  Even McGovern believed that we need to value the freedom to make our own decisions.

As I’d quoted before, McGovern noted ” Since leaving office I’ve written about public policy from a new perspective: outside looking in. I’ve come to realize that protecting freedom of choice in our everyday lives is essential to maintaining a healthy civil society.  Why do we think we are helping adult consumers by taking away their options? We don’t take away cars because we don’t like some people speeding. We allow state lotteries despite knowing some people are betting their grocery money. Everyone is exposed to economic risks of some kind. But we don’t operate mindlessly in trying to smooth out every theoretical wrinkle in life.”

Read that here. 

The vote today on House Bill 1161 comes down to a basic question with our economic system and our political beliefs. Either we value the freedom to make our own decisions free of government coercion, or we don’t.

Today legislators have a clear choice to make. They can vote for free enterprise, or they can vote for more government. It’s their choice.

Wow.  I’ve been chiding South Dakota Democrats for being on life support for a while now, and in looking at their latest FEC report, they’re starting their death rattle.

Sddp_JAN FEC Report

In the federal account for the state Democrat Party, they took in $24,270.18, and spent $20,895.95, leaving $14,736.77 cash on hand. But, that’s only part of the story. What we need to look at is what they took in and where.

The party took in an extremely anemic $2725 in itemized donations, and $5231 in unitemized funds, totalling $7956. Those itemized donations should be the party’s bread and butter, as these are the large donations that keep the lights on, and give them money to operate. Money they didn’t have.

Moving on from there, Tim Johnson’s South Dakota First PAC kicked in $5000, and the national Democrats sent them $11,289.18, to total $16,289,18 – over twice as much as they took in from all donations, and almost six times as much as individual donations.

Burning $20,895.95 in expenditures, this means that South Dakota Dems are almost completely dependent on the National Democrats and Tim Johnson for keeping the lights on in January.  Because they couldn’t have done it on their own.

With two lackluster federal candidates, and only a smattering of legislative races, it’s hard to concieve how the SDDP is going to have the money to pay their staff, much less be competitive in elections in 2016.