Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Headline over at SouthDaCola:  Mike Myers to challenge John Thune?

HA HA HA HA HA HA!  Now, that’s a knee slapper! Seriously, I think Dems and liberals have run out of good options, are through mediocre ones, and are now so desperate to push anyone into running against Thune, they’ve been venturing past left field off into crazy for some time now.

Regarding any consideration of a Myers candidacy, it makes me think back to when Myers was running for Governor:

Coolest presser ever. Gov. candidate Mike Myers does 20 push-ups to Pink Floyd.

— Jonathan Ellis (@argusjellis) January 15, 2014

Move along. Nothing serious or worth considering here. Just someone randomly doing push-ups.

I don’t think it’s a stretch that Senator Thune could not only mop the floor with him politically, as Myers throws out gibberish and holds suicide re-enactments as he did during the gubernatorial race, I think Thune would beat Myers at push-ups as well.

And how bad of a candidate is Myers that we’d even have to bring “push-ups” into the conversation?

Enough said.

Okay, I found the latest plug by the Democrats to get their minions to attend the Bill Maher event a bit funny.

This week is your last chance to purchase tickets to the Bill Maher show, taking place Sunday, September 13 at the Washington Pavilion. Tickets are still available through the South Dakota Democratic Party until Thursday, September 10 at noon. We can’t wait to see you there!

Samuel Parkinson

Compliance Director

 

The plug for Democrats to attend the show, and the pre-show reception (with no one famous attending) is being pushed hard today by their compliance director.

So, if the minions don’t attend, are they out of compliance with the party’s Liberal-speak?  And someone will put a checkmark in a box? 🙂

Here’s a good one submitted to me from “Personal Capital” – What is the candidate’s net worth?

Executive Summary:

The 2016 presidential primaries are ramping up, and with those races come a slew of public awareness events aimed at positioning each candidate in the best spot to win their party’s nomination. As Americans begin to learn more about the people hoping to run the country, Personal Capital wants to see how money may help decide our next Commander-in-Chief.

In 2012, about $7 billion was spent on political races across the United States. More than a third of that total ($2.6 billion) was spent on the presidential election alone. For reference, about 129 million people voted in the 2012 election, and if the money spent promoting Barack Obama and Mitt Romney were split between every voter, they would each receive a check for more than $54 dollars! This and more can be seen in our exclusive blogger community infographic.

GOP presidential hopeful Donald Trump has by far the highest net worth, sitting at slightly more than $4.1 billion. On the Democratic side, current frontrunner Hillary Clinton holds a personal net worth of about $30 million. Members of Congress all also pretty well off. The median net worth of a member of Congress is more than $440,000, while the median U.S. adult has only about a tenth of that!

Lastly, unless Trump wins the election the net worth of the country’s next president will be dwarfed by those of Washington, Jefferson and Roosevelt. In 2010 dollars, President George
Washington would have been worth an astounding $525 million, more than doubling (and then some) his closest rival, Thomas Jefferson.

What are your opinions on money, power and this year’s candidates? If you want to know what you’re worth, check out Personal Capital’s net worth calculator.

A candidate’s wealth isn’t necessarily a indicator of how they would run government as public sector isn’t the same as private sector experience. But it does provide food for thought, as those who have earned or managed that type of wealth over their lifetime have a sense of what truly matters, and what’s merely minutia. In a Macroeconomic sense, one might argue.

What are your thoughts?

Attorney General Jackley to Deliver National Keynote Address at Alcohol Law and Policy Conference

PIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley will deliver the keynote address at the 8th Annual Alcohol Law and Policy Conference hosted by the Center for Alcohol Policy on September 11th in Chicago, Illinois. The conference will focus on better understanding the role of state attorneys general in policy debates over alcohol. The annual conference attendees include experts in the field such as state regulators, attorneys general, legislators, public health leaders, educators and industry official to discuss and debate current law and policies.

“This is a great opportunity to focus on the role of the State Attorneys General and the importance of polices that safeguard against the abuse of alcohol. I intend to highlight the success of South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Program to cost-effectively addressing addiction. It is also important to recognize the strong efforts of the Center for Alcohol Policy in working with law enforcement to safeguard against the abuse of alcohol,” said Jackley.

South Dakota’s 24/7 Sobriety Program has reduced the likelihood for alcohol re-offenses by implementing drug and/or alcohol testing for first-time DUI offenders with a high blood alcohol concentration and any repeat DUI offenders. The 24/7 Sobriety Program exists in 61 of South Dakota’s 66 counties and due to the success of the program, it has been replicated statewide in North Dakota and Montana and is at different stages of implementation in 9 additional states.

Click on link below to view Center for Alcohol Policy event release:

http://www.centerforalcoholpolicy.org/2015/05/18/south-dakota-attorney-general-marty-jackley-to- deliver-keynote-address-at-alcohol-law-and-policy-conference/

From Today’s KCCR, Attorney General Marty Jackley is weighing in on the new thorny issue of the 2018 Gubernatorial race. The issue of whether or not Hilger’s Gulch in Pierre should go back to a natural state, or continue being watered like a golf course:

Gov. Dennis Daugaard has earned his share of scorn, mainly from Pierre residents, since the Hilgers Gulch initiative announcement.

and…

An organized resistance sprung up fast. Hundreds of citizens railed against the plan, voicing their disgust during community meetings and lodging complaints directly to the Bureau of Administration and Daugaard’s office.

One elected official Attorney General Marty Jackley, whom many believe to be running for Governor in 2018, says the Hilgers Gulch initiative should be a local decision…

Read, and listen to Marty Jackley’s comments here.

Marty notes that personally, he thinks “rather than the state making that decision, the local folks should make that decision.”

Wait, what?  Isn’t this state property?  Here’s one issue where Marty and I probably will disagree. I’d say the local people can make the decision – but conditionally.

It’s easy to say you want it kept green with other people’s money. If the city and/or all the people protesting and making it an issue want the area kept lush & green in the punishing Pierre summer heat, I’d say “pony up, and bring your proposal to the table.” Offer to pay for the watering and mowing. That makes it an easily solved decision.

But otherwise, don’t tell your neighbor how he needs to design his landscaping to meet your personal preference.

 

Here’s an interesting one. I heard a complaint from the State Fair this weekend that one of the petition measures might not have had people out there being…. precise in their explanation of the ballot measure they were pushing.

Word I’m hearing is that one person out there allegedly explaining the redistricting panel petition explained their measure as something along the lines of “the people not being represented by the present system.”

Uh… yeah. That would be one person’s opinion. Not a real explanation of a ballot measure.

Bob Mercer posted some interesting numbers this week regarding the migration of voters in South Dakota.   While numbers of Republican voters remain steady, voters seem to be abandoning the Democrat party by the thousands:

Turning back the calendar two years, Republicans are down by 400-some, Democrats are down by 12,000-plus (yes, that number is correct), and independents / others are up by more than 11,000 (and yes, that number too is correct).

Read that here.

Whenever I read statistics such as that, I’m reminded of the 2014 election where former House Democrat Minority Leader Dale Hargens abandoned the Democrat party to run as a Republican for the state legislature, and made no bones about what prompted the switch:

Hargens was an interesting entry into the Republican primary because he is a legislator that already served for a number of years as  Democrat; and he was a Democrat Minority Whip and Democrat Minority Leader during that time. Hargens said he felt the Democrat party moved away from him in its surge to the left. He said the Democrat Party had “Turned the lights out”.

Read that here (Via SDLiberty).

When one of the recent Democrat party leaders decides that there’s no place for his views among the party faithful, it’s not surprising at all that they’re shedding voters at a mind-shattering pace. But it’s not just Hargens.

Former Democrat legislator Ryan Maher who served in the South Dakota State Senate from 2007-2014 discovered a conservative point of view wasn’t welcome in the Democrat Caucus, and found himself going GOP when he changed political party from Democrat to Republican in November 2010. As he noted in his statement at the time “since Jim Peterson and Julie Bartling have moved on, they made up the conservative wing of the Democrat party, there was really no reason for me to stay behind. ”

Senator Eldon Nygaard found himself in a similar position when he returned to the State Senate after election, with leadership that he found wasn’t aligned with mainstream South Dakota.  One article described Nygaard as having “a pretty moderate to conservative voting record.” and as a business owner his “philosophy regarding government’s role in society is more in line with the Republican Party.”

What other examples are there regarding the Democratic Party’s hard left turn? Two words: Bernie Sanders:

Free college tuition.  Doubling the minimum wage.  A single-payer, universal health care system.  Those are just a few of the campaign promises by Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders, who does not try to hide that he embraces a form of socialism.

and…

Despite his self-described socialist views, Sanders is experiencing an unexpected wave of popularity, and is drawing some of the largest, most electric crowds of any presidential candidate so far.

Read it here.

20 years ago…  possibly even 10 years ago, no one could have predicted that there was a real possibility a registered socialist could top the Democrat ticket for President.

When a self-described socialist is surging among Democrat voters, it’s a sure sign that business-owners and those with conservative views are going to continue to find the environment within the Democrat party less and less hospitable of a place to reside.

It’s evidenced by the continuing trend of impossibly strong Republican showings in elections, and it’s evidenced by the trend of people choosing to be independent, rather than put a D behind their names on that voter registration card.

 

A South Dakota Summer
By Senator John Thune

I spent the busy August work period crisscrossing South Dakota, meeting with South Dakotans and taking in the sights and sounds of everything that our great state has to offer in the summertime. I attended fairs from Butte-Lawrence County to Brown County to Turner County and this year’s state fair in Huron; held town hall meetings in Lemmon and Buffalo; wished Godspeed to the 155th Engineering Company; and summer wouldn’t be complete without spending a day on Lake Oahe and checking out the sunset over the Missouri River.

As I traveled the state, I shared news of the good work the Republican-led Senate has accomplished in Washington in just the first few months of the new Congress, and while much was accomplished, there is much more work yet to do. I also shared with South Dakotans the many challenges we face in Washington with a president who is determined to fight us nearly every step of the way. As the old adage goes, “it takes two to tango,” and as long as this president is in the White House, Republicans are going to be left to dance alone. That doesn’t mean we’re giving up the fight, though.

The Obama EPA, for example, is out of control. We will continue to work to stop the EPA’s burdensome overreach, like the so-called “Clean Power Plan” rule, which can be more accurately described as a backdoor national energy tax. This EPA rule will have a devastating impact on small businesses and American families – particularly those who can afford it the least. In fact, this national energy tax will make it harder for families to make ends meet and more costly for businesses to survive – exactly the opposite kind of policy we need from leaders in Washington.

Then there’s the Obama IRS. The American people have never held the IRS in high regard, and after D.C. bureaucrats used their power to target conservative groups for purely political reasons, what little respect remained was lost. The IRS has a long way to go in order to restore the trust and confidence the American people expect and deserve, and I’m glad that Congress will continue to use its oversight ability to investigate this agency and hold bureaucrats accountable.

The work doesn’t end there either. We will continue to vote to repeal Obamacare, fight President Obama’s illegal amnesty, secure our borders, work to redirect federal funding from Planned Parenthood, and make sure the American people’s voices are heard on the president’s flawed Iran nuclear agreement. Where President Obama opposes us, we’ll continue to fight until we have a new president who is willing to work with Republicans to meet the challenges we face.

###

Responsible Spending Starts with a Budget Process
By Senator Mike Rounds
September 4, 2015

With the elections far behind us and so many pressing issues before us – the Iran deal, the rise of ISIS and “lone wolf” terrorists, a national highway bill and cyber security – the need to address our budgetary crisis has fallen out of the limelight recently. But failing to make front-page news doesn’t change the fact that our national debt has more than doubled in the last decade and irresponsible, reckless spending continues to threaten our economy and national security. When you elected me to the United States Senate last fall, I pledged to work to rein in federal spending, address the massive national debt and make government more effective and efficient for the American people. I believe this can best be achieved through enacting a normal budget process.  After all, that’s how it works in South Dakota.

The regular budget process begins when the President submits his budget request to Congress, outlining his ideas for spending priorities for the following fiscal year. Congress then crafts its own budget, a comprehensive road map to be used in the appropriations process. I applaud my colleagues in the Senate for debating and passing a budget for fiscal year 2016 – a rarity under previous Democrat leadership. The budget we passed in the spring sets forth a fiscal path that will rein in spending, grow the economy, repeal Obamacare and protect Americans from new tax burdens. It is the first step that under normal circumstances allows Congress to get to work on the appropriations process and enact meaningful changes to spending and policy.

The process then moves to the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. These committees use the budget blueprint – which sets overall spending caps – to consider and vote on 12 appropriations bills which write the specific funding levels for individual programs within the federal government. Once the appropriations bills are passed by both houses of Congress, they then head to the President’s desk and the federal government is funded until the next budget cycle. Until recently, this was the norm in Washington. The perpetual threat of a government shutdown and the uncertainty that temporary funding patches brought were not annual threats.  Unfortunately, this continual threat of a “government shutdown” is simply the newest byproduct of the dysfunction in Washington.

Reviving and staying committed to this process is important for a number of reasons. Enacting a budget through regular order allows elected representatives to affect policy and make certain Congress is being a responsible steward of taxpayer dollars. It is also the most effective way to rein in spending and tackle our out-of-control debt that recently surpassed $18 trillion.

Finally, a regular budget process prevents us from having to rely on a series of temporary funding patches known as “continuing resolutions” that have plagued our system for too long. For the most part, a continuing resolution continues the status quo and fails to bring about any meaningful discussions about how to best spend your hard-earned taxpayer dollars. It fails to provide long-term certainty and stability to government and by extension the American people it is meant to benefit.

Unfortunately so far this year, Senate Democrats have refused to allow a single appropriations bill to come to the Senate floor for debate. Because it takes a supermajority of 60 senators to proceed to a bill and Republicans currently hold 54 seats, it would require a minimum of 6 Democrats to vote with Republicans in order to consider any appropriations bills on the full Senate floor. Democrats would prefer to filibuster these bills and maintain the status quo on spending and policy – hence discussions of a continuing resolution for fiscal year 2016.  I wholeheartedly disagree with the idea of kicking the can down the road through continuing resolutions – especially when the important policy matters that we face go unaddressed.

I know this common sense approach may not be shared by many in Washington – but for too long, runaway spending has been the norm. We owe it to every American to be responsible stewards of their hard-earned dollars. I believe this is best achieved through a regular budgetary process that brings about serious, thoughtful debate to how and where that money is spent.

###