I can actually point to several state legislative campaigns who literally kicked the tail of Liz May’s sad campaign in fundraising. $10,020.92 raised, of which a little over $4500 was out of the candidate’s own pocket. $17,207.53 spent. $8,812.62 cash on hand against $15,608.82 in debts and obligations.
Liz May’s campaign was over before it began. If only her out of state consultants had mentioned that.
Thune: Abandon Partisanship and Work Together on Real Solutions
“So wouldn’t it be prudent, wouldn’t it be logical, wouldn’t it be rational for this body, the custodians, the stewards of the American people’s tax dollars, to take a hard look at what’s working and what’s not working before rushing headlong into spending another $3 trillion?”
Click here or on the picture above to watch Thune’s speech.
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today discussed the importance of monitoring the comprehensive and bipartisan response to the COVID-19 crisis to ensure money borrowed from future generations is going to programs and efforts that are working to bring real relief to Americans who are suffering in the wake of this pandemic. Thune also expressed his frustration with Democrats’ desire to advance partisan legislation that has no chance of becoming law.
Excerpt of Thune’s remarks below:
“Just as a reminder to my colleagues, every dollar that we spend is borrowed from our children and grandchildren. This doesn’t just magically appear out of thin air. We’re borrowing money. Now, granted, money that we needed to borrow. Particularly what we’ve already done – and everybody acknowledges we had a crisis, we had to put out a fire, and we’ve been doing that. But every dollar, respectively, every dollar that we’ve already spent is a borrowed dollar, borrowed from future generations of Americans, and someday, dollars that we’re going to have to repay. So wouldn’t it be prudent, wouldn’t it be logical, wouldn’t it be rational for this body, the custodians, the stewards of the American people’s tax dollars, to take a hard look at what’s working and what’s not working before rushing headlong into spending another $3 trillion?
“The Democrat leader got up here and applauded the House of Representatives for blowing into town for 24 hours last Friday, cobbling together an ideological wish list. Now, granted, there were some things in there that are probably good ideas, and maybe things that in the end could end up in a piece of legislation. But it didn’t get a single Republican vote, and it didn’t have a single consultation with Republicans in the House of Representatives about how to put it together. You know what, in the end, they couldn’t keep all of the Democrats. There were 14 Democrats that voted against that in the House of Representatives, and not a single Republican. Which makes sense, if you’re a Republican you never get asked, you’re never at the table, you have no input whatsoever. They come in and put this thing together, 1,800 pages, $3 trillion, and what’s it got in it? Crazy stuff.”
In an article today about the City Council Candidates, the Argus gives the candidates the opportunity to discuss why they’re better than their opponent. And once again Theresa Stehly shows why she has the reputation she does:
Why are you a better choice for voters than your opponent?
My opponent is a First Premier Business Banker who has raised over $85,000 for this City council race, a position that pays approximately $19,000 a year. Big business already has a strong presence on the council. I bring a common sense voice for the average citizen.
I have a proven track record of standing firm on these citizen concerns: More funding for roads, including pothole relief; transparency in government; accountability in spending; reinforcing of public safety, including police; adequate funding for snow-gates and snow removal; affordable living by keeping fees and taxes low; Advocating for citizen’s rights and needs.
versus Alex Jensen’s response.
Why are you a better choice for voters than your opponent?
I am a best person to help navigate Sioux Falls through the budget shortfalls that are happening due to COVID-19. Every day I focus on helping small businesses in Sioux Falls navigate these difficult decisions, and it is through transparency and good communication that we are able to make a change for the better. This is not a time for distractions, but a time for action, working as a team and prioritizing how the Council can best utilize the taxpayers’ dollars.
Stehly’s first reaction was to go on the hard attack for…. well, for Alex Jensen finding support for his campaign bid, at the same time she’s exhibiting the very combativeness that she has been criticized for time and again.
Not sure if she genuinely believes that’s a positive personality trait, or if it’s coming down to the wire, she sees the handwriting on the wall, and is just crabby because she knows her time on the council is coming to an end.
Stehly once again shows her stripes. And claws, as she keeps up the slashing against her opponents that she’s infamous for.
Thune, Hassan Introduce Bill to Improve Railroad Infrastructure
WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, and Maggie Hassan (D-N.H.) today introduced the Railroad Rehabilitation and Financing Innovation Act, legislation to improve the Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) loan program by providing dedicated funding for RRIF financing costs, streamlining the application process, and extending loan terms for certain assets.
“RRIF was created to provide stable financing to small railroads for infrastructure investment, however, shortlines are often unable to afford the time and expense associated with the current RRIF application process, discouraging them from using the program,” said Thune. “This legislation makes necessary updates to RRIF, so that shortlines are better able to use the program as originally intended.”
“As communities consider steps to promote economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic, this bipartisan legislation looks ahead to strengthen funding opportunities for passenger rail,” said Hassan. “Passenger rail can provide a significant economic boost to Granite State communities, and as Congress considers future transportation and infrastructure packages, it should prioritize passenger rail efforts.”
The Railroad Rehabilitation and Financing Innovation Act would:
Streamline the application process: Building on the work done by the Department of Transportation (DOT) in creating the RRIF Express pilot program, the bill establishes an expedited credit review process for loans meeting certain financial and operational criteria. The bill also reduces applicant uncertainty by requiring DOT to provide applicants with regular updates on the status of their application.
Improve program flexibility: The bill makes several changes to improve program flexibility, including longer loan terms for certain rail infrastructure projects and increased flexibility for DOT to evaluate collateral and creditworthiness.
Provide dedicated funding for RRIF financing costs: Similar to the Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act loan program, the legislation authorizes funding to cover financing costs associated with providing RRIF loans. Half of the funding is dedicated solely to shortline railroads, while the remainder is reserved for passenger rail projects.
Jonathan Ellis at the Argus Leader is making note of some interesting statistics on Twitter today. And Maybe I’m reading something into it he isn’t intending, but.. I have to say that it sounds an awful lot like Governor Kristi Noem was absolutely correct in her measured approach to the Coronavirus:
This suggests to me that voluntary social distancing behaviors have been successful. And it means I’m optimistic we can live with this thing until reliable medical treatments come online without blowing the economy to smithereens.
A LETTER TO (THE LATE) WILLIAM F. BUCKLEY SEEKING CLARIFICATION Thomas E. Simmons
A tenured professor at the University of South Dakota School of Law, Thomas Simmons concentrates on trusts, estate administration, and the estate tax. Prior to joining the legal academy, he was a partner with the law firm of Gunderson, Palmer, Nelson & Ashmore, LLP
Dear Mr. Buckley:
Is my best friend a RHINO if she obeys traffic laws?
It’s sometimes difficult for me to discern the correct conservative stance. Republicans value law and order and national security. These values keep us safe. With safety and security comes freedom. We value personal liberties. Freedom is an end in itself. So is human life, which is why we are pro-life.
I know that in 1959 (in Up from Liberalism), you wrote, “I will not cede more power to the state.” I understand this to be an absolute. Any state encroachment on personal liberty should be resisted. There’s no such thing as reasonable firearms regulation. Freedom comes first. That’s why you also said, “I will not willingly cede more power to anyone, not to the state, not to General Motors.”
I’ve read your more recent tracts too. I know that you defended Regan from conservatives who called him a sell-out. “Idealism is fine, but as it approaches reality, the costs become prohibitive.” That’s what you said. But when you were younger, you were purer about things and those are the books of yours that I prefer. Reagan was no Goldwater; you’ve got to admit that.
Still, I understand that we do tolerate governmental intrusions into our lives to punish those who intentionally harm others or their property. Kidnappers, murderers, vandals, and abortionists should be criminally prosecuted. But accidental or incidental harms are just the cost of doing business. That’s why the war on drugs was just another page from the liberal play book. Sure, some people are harmed by drug dealers, but not intentionally. Drug dealers are just trying to make a few bucks.
Today, liberals want to resist reopening the economy in the interests of safety – sure, that sounds like a conservative value – but it’s really just a pretext for disempowering small business owners (who typically vote Republican). Liberals say they want to be cautious in their approach to COVID-19 – which also sounds like what a conservative would say, but they don’t mean it. Or is it that those crafty liberals have co-opted some of our conservative values? And if they have, should we be unsafe and reckless?
I don’t’ know, but I do know that progressives calling for a balanced approach – reopening with restrictions like masks, plexiglass, curbside shopping, social distancing – are false prophets. Although wearing a mask might dignify the rights of others by respecting their personal freedoms and mitigate risks from a potentially deadly virus (i.e., preserve lives), it’s also an inconvenience and therefore unacceptable on any terms. I’m not intentionally infecting others by not washing my hands, right?
What I can’t wrap my head around is whether my friend who obeys traffic laws is a RHINO. By doing so, doesn’t she cede power to the state to regulate the way people drive? By keeping her speedometer right at 80mph on I-90, doesn’t she demonstrate that she’s not only a passive bystander to the fascism of the deep state, but also a willing participant? I mean, she might as well be wearing a mask!
I’ve tried convincing her, but so far, no luck. Can you help?
Yours in safety,
Thomas E. Simmons
Vermillion, SD
All of the views and opinions Professor Simmons expresses here on are his as an individual and do not reflect the views of the Board of Regents, the University of South Dakota, its School of Law, their employees, faculty or administrators. The foregoing editorial represents only his views as a private citizen.
From today’s mail comes outside help for three of the candidates running in District 17 via the Prairie Country PAC out of Aberdeen:
Nothing against the people the postcard is featuring, but you’d better be pretty good at Microsoft Word if you’re going to use it in graphic design. Whoever designed this card wasn’t, and ended up with a bit of a mess. Aside from the fact it’s not very visually pleasing, they screwed up Nancy Rasmussen’s internet link, leaving it unclear what a reader should put in. Capitalization and punctuation are all over the place. And don’t get me started on spacing & margins.
If their goal was to move the candidates forward as a slate, I’m not sure it accomplishes that, as their names are some of the smallest text on the front. I mean, what are you trying to sell? UNDER GOD and LIBERTY or the candidates?