Author: @SoDakCampaigns

US Senator Mike Rounds’ Weekly Column: King v. Burwell Ruling Doesn’t Change the Fact that the ACA is Fatally Flawed

@SoDakCampaigns

RoundsPressHeaderKing v. Burwell Ruling Doesn’t Change the Fact that the ACA is Fatally Flawed
By Senator Mike Rounds
June 26, 2015

MikeRounds official SenateOn June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) federal subsidies are legal. Ruling in the case of King v. Burwell in a 6-3 vote, the Court sided with the administration finding the subsidies 6.4 million people currently receive do not depend on where they live, under the president’s health care law.  With this ruling, the administration has dodged another bullet. The Supreme Court once again interpreted the law in a way that favors the administration. We continue to be stuck with the ACA’s ever rising health insurance costs and the damage it is doing to our economy. This is the second major case in which the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the ACA, underscoring the need to elect a Republican president in 2016 in order to repeal and replace this fatally flawed law.

From increased insurance costs to website malfunctions and canceled coverage for millions, the ACA has hurt our economy and millions of American families. At least 4.7 million Americans lost the health care plans they enjoyed, and the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office says that the law will reduce employment by 2.5 million in the next decade. This is in part because the ACA is not designed to incentivize growth. Employers are reluctant to expand and hire more employees because they could be subject to more costly mandates under the law. Lower income individuals are likely to stay in their income brackets to keep their health benefits instead of going for a promotion at work. These are only a couple examples of how the ACA discourages economic growth.

In South Dakota, there have been 18 ACA-compliant plans requesting double-digit premium rate increases in 2016. One insurance company in South Dakota is proposing premium increases of 43 percent.  Part of the reason for the rate increases are the new “one-size-fits-all” requirements forcing plans to cover unneeded benefits. One mother of three, who lives in Northeast South Dakota recently wrote to me after being notified that her out-of-pocket health insurance cost for herself and her children was increasing from $450 a month to more than $1,700. She spent hours exhausting all her options for obtaining new insurance, sifting through healthcare.gov; yet she got nowhere under Obamacare. Her children are now faced with completely losing their health insurance at the end of the month. This is just one more example of the law failing American families.

Americans deserve a health care solution that is patient-centered, effective and accountable with a strong, vibrant marketplace to provide this freedom and choice. The ACA fails to achieve any of these goals. It also removes choice and innovation from the market, which is the most powerful tool to lower costs and better address everyone’s unique healthcare needs.

Republicans in Congress will not be deterred by the Court’s decision. South Dakotans deserve better. I will continue to work with my colleagues in the Senate to repeal and replace this flawed, government-run health care plan. Our goal is to secure, affordable services in a competitive market for all Americans.

###

Congresswoman Kristi Noem’s Weekly Column: This Independence Day

@SoDakCampaigns

noem press header

This Independence Day
By Rep. Kristi Noem
June 26, 2015

kristi noem headshot May 21 2014How different the fourth of July must have been in 1776. Today, it’s a loud celebration with fireworks, parades, and excitement.  But I imagine a much quieter and reflective tone in 1776.  Yes, John Adams had written that in the future our independence “ought to be commemorated … with shows, games, guns, bells, bonfires, and illuminations, from one end of this continent to the other.”  But we still had a war to win against the British.  And for the next seven years, we battled to secure our independence and protect our rights, among them “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

There have been so many times over the last few years that I’ve seen these liberties once again tested and strained by an intrusive federal government.  The President’s health care law, for instance, took control away from families and put our healthcare options – and our wallets – into the hands of bureaucrats.  The Environmental Protection Agency repeatedly seeks out new regulations that threaten to increase our electricity bills or erode our property rights, as a new “Waters of the U.S.” rule could do.  The government is telling our schools what ought to be put on lunch trays and targeting certain groups that speak out against an even bigger federal government.  It has to stop.

My focus each and every day is to reverse this trend and to make sure you’re in control.  We’ve made some progress, although we still have a long way to go.  When the Department of Labor tried to ban some kids from doing certain farm work on their relative’s or neighbor’s farms, I put pressure on them and they withdrew the rule.  When OSHA tried to regulate small family farms, we got them to reverse course.  When the President’s health care law sought to ration care for seniors, we gutted the finances for the program and continue to fight for its full repeal.

Independence Day is yet another reminder of why we need to keep fighting for a smarter government – a government that opens opportunities for every American and protects our right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.  During this year’s Independence Day celebrations, I encourage you to take on our Founding Father’s quieter and reflective tone – if only for a moment.  Consider the battle they fought, the declarations of liberty they made, and the journey we have yet to finish.

I am so proud to live in this country – a country where anything can happen because we have the freedom to pursue our American Dream.  We each share the responsibility of keeping it that way.

From my family to yours, have a safe and happy Independence Day.

###

Governor Dennis Daugaard’s Weekly Column: Those Who Have Carried The Flag

@SoDakCampaigns

daugaardheader

Those Who Have Carried The Flag
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

DaugaardAt the beginning of the Revolutionary War the individual states were not united by a national government and they lacked a symbol that could unite them. Instead, there were many flags. An attempt to unite the states fighting for independence under a flag that held resemblance to Great Britain’s was not successful. Instead, the Second Continental Congress determined it was time to part with Great Britain’s emblem entirely and establish a new national symbol for a new nation.

One year after the Declaration of Independence was adopted the Second Continental Congress established a national flag. The resolution pronounced that “the flag of the United States be 13 stripes, alternate red and white” and that “the union be 13 stars, white in a blue field, representing a new constellation.”

Decades later, a conflict over slavery and state sovereignty erupted. The North and the South could no longer resolve their differences. Those in the South rejected the flag that had united the country since its origin. Southerners replaced the American flag with their own flags: three successive confederate flags that would set their people apart from the United States.

Although the Civil War nearly tore our nation apart, we eventually emerged as a better and stronger nation. The tenets of the Declaration of Independence – that ALL men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights – could finally be realized with the elimination of slavery. And because of the Civil War, Americans began to fly the American flag. It wasn’t until Northerners began displaying flags as a symbol of their allegiance and patriotism that it became commonplace for individuals to fly flags at their own homes.

By the time of World War II, the United States was among the most prosperous and prominent nations of the world. The country had grown and the flag then contained 48 stars. As a world superpower, the United States joined the fight against the Axis Powers and led the Allies to victory.

With the admission of Alaska and Hawaii to the union, our flag became what it is today –a flag with 50 stars. Today our flag represents the American way of life. It is a sign of relief, an emblem of hope and a symbol of freedom. The flag stands for the fight for independence, the triumph over slavery, the crushing of Nazism and the containment of communism.

This Independence Day, I hope you’ll take the opportunity to thank the men and women who have worn the uniform of our United States, united under the flag of our nation. Because of them, and those who went before them, we won our independence, and are free.

-30-

Revisiting last week, a few pics of our delegation, the local scenery, and enjoying a cold one.

@SoDakCampaigns

As I’m waiting for a coffee table I’m building for my daughter to dry (I added skirting), I was perusing a few of my pictures from trip to DC last week, and I notice I had a few photos of our delegation I hadn’t added.

Here, Congresswoman Noem briefs the assembled group about the issues that are (were) coming up in front of Congress, and specifically the Ways and Means committee .

Noem_explains

Here, Senator Rounds gives us his time – and he gave us a lot – and listens intently as we explain the issues we’re working on for families of children with Autism. Mike offered a few pointers on things we should look at in state law which he remembered from being in the State Senate and the Gov’s office.

Rounds_listens

Here Senator Thune talks with our group before the sunrise breakfast session.

Thune-Greets

And a couple of the buildings we walked by on the way. – Here’s the Supreme Court in the days leading up to the recent SCOTUS decisions:

SUpreme_court

The US Capitol under renovation:

fix_cap

And, in case I forgot to share it earlier, here’s your’s truly at the Dubliner Irish Pub enjoying a cold glass of Harp.  IMG_1513.JPG

Good times. Now I need an excuse to go back!

Family Heritage Alliance on Supreme Court Ruling; Divided United States Supreme Court Decides On The Definition of Marriage

@SoDakCampaigns

Divided United States Supreme Court Decides On The Definition of Marriage
Rapid City, SD, 06/26/2015
South Dakota Family Heritage Alliance

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:  Friday, June 26, 2015

FHA Executive Director Dale Bartscher announced today that the United States Supreme Court issued a decision in Obergefell v. Hodges.  The case involved four combined cases from Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan and Tennessee.  The key questions they ruled on are whether the U.S. Constitution requires states to give marriage licenses to same-sex couples and whether the constitution requires states to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex that was performed legally in another state.

Today five justices of the Supreme Court ruled that all states must redefine marriage directly.

The FHA sees this ruling negatively affecting three major issues.

First, Marriage and Parenting.  Every child deserves the best opportunity we can give them to be raised by their married mom and dad. Today’s ruling puts the government’s stamp of approval on intentionally depriving kids of either their mom or their dad.  Redefining marriage redefines parenthood.  This new definition of marriage further weakens the institution of marriage by making it about the desires of adults rather than considering the good of children.

Second, Religious Freedom.  Regardless of whether someone supports or opposes same-sex marriage, I think we can all agree government shouldn’t force Americans to violate their beliefs about marriage.  Today’s ruling only increases the likelihood that our government will force Christians and other people of faith to celebrate or participate in same-sex marriages that violate their beliefs.  Now that same-sex marriage has been forced on our country, will there be tolerance for those whose faith teaches that marriage is the union of a man and a woman?

And third, Judicial Overreach.  The freedom to democratically address the most pressing social issues of the day is the heart of liberty. The Court took that freedom from the people.  The Court overrode the will of over 50 million Americans in 31 states who successfully voted to preserve the millennia-old definition of marriage.

Today as South Dakotans move forward we believe that much as the Roe v. Wade decision awakened pro-life Americans, we expect this ruling will re-energize efforts to protect and uphold God’s design for marriage in our culture and our laws.

At this writing, it is unclear as to the far-reaching ramifications of this ruling, and its impact on people of faith.  We are in the evaluation phase and more information is forthcoming.

###

Attorney General’s Guidance on Same-Sex Marriage Decision

@SoDakCampaigns

Attorney General’s Guidance on Same-Sex Marriage Decision

PIERRE – The United States Supreme Court has ordered that every State must recognize and license same-sex marriage. The Supreme Court order should be treated as effective immediately absent further direction from the Courts, with the practical recognition that a reasonable period of time may be necessary for state and local officials to implement this new rule of law.

-30-

Watertown paper giving love to Kristi Noem for Governor in 2018

@SoDakCampaigns

In an editorial printed in the Watertown Public Opinion this week, the editorial board would appear to be giving love to Congresswoman Kristi Noem as to whether she should consider seeking the office of Governor in 2018:

There also appears to be a solid movement favoring a gubernatorial candidacy by U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem of Castlewood which, if she decides to make a move for the governor’s chair, would potentially create atleast a threeway primary.

This isn’t the first time her name has come up as a potential candidate for governor. Political experts point to her experience in one statewide primary in 2010 and three general election campaigns in 2010, ’12 and ’14 as valuable assets. Plus, throw in the historical significance of her being the first woman Governor in South Dakota history, and it makes her possible entry into the race even more intriguing.

Read it here at the Watertown Public Opinion (Subscription required)

Do you think Kristi Noem could possibly be South Dakota’s first female Governor?

It didn’t happen with Wismer this last election, as I don’t think anyone thought she could legitimately compete with Daugaard. But Kristi is a horse of a different color, and an electoral force unto herself. Would the historical significance of her being a legitimate candidate who can win a general election give her a boost among female voters across the board as compared to her potential male competitors?

Jackley: Divided United States Supreme Court Holds State Marriage Laws Prohibiting Same-sex Marriage Unconstitutional

@SoDakCampaigns

jackleyheader2Divided United States Supreme Court Holds State Marriage Laws Prohibiting Same-sex Marriage Unconstitutional

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that a very divided United States Supreme Court has issued its decision in Obergefell, et al. v. Hodges, et al., holding that the Fourteenth Amendment requires states to issue marriage licenses between two people of the same-sex. The Court additionally held that states are required to recognize lawfully licensed out-of-state marriages between two people of the same sex.

“It has always been my position that the citizens of our state should define marriage, and not the federal government,” said Jackley. “Five members of the U.S. Supreme Court have now determined neither the States nor our citizens have the right or the ability to define marriage. Because we are a Nation of laws the State will be required to follow the Court’s order that every State must recognize and license same-sex marriage.”

In November 2006, South Dakota voters approved a Constitutional Amendment making marriage valid only between a man and a woman. South Dakota voters approved this amendment by a vote of 172,242 to 160,173. South Dakota Constitution Article XXI, Section 9 mandated that only marriage between a man and a woman shall be valid or recognized in South Dakota. In addition, SDCL 25-1-1 defines marriage as a personal relation between man and a woman. The U.S. Supreme Court has now held our Constitution and statutes violate U.S. Constitution.

South Dakota’s constitutional provision and laws prohibiting same-sex marriage were held unconstitutional by the United States District Court for the District of South Dakota in Rosenbrahn et al. v. Daugaard et al. in January 2015. That District Court stayed the enforcement of its judgment pending the appeal. The Eighth Circuit previously deferred its ruling pending the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell. The Rosenbrahn case is currently before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals.
Significantly, today’s Obergefell decision makes clear that the law of this Circuit was previously controlled by the Bruning decision, which upheld Nebraska’s Constitution and state statutes defining marriage as between one man and one woman. Accordingly, South Dakota has been acting under controlling case precedent.