Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Governor Daugaard’s Weekly Column: Studying South Dakota’s Education System With An Open Mind

@SoDakCampaigns

daugaardheader

Studying South Dakota’s Education System With An Open Mind
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

Daugaard South Dakotans all share three goals for our education system. First, we want a quality system of schools focused on student success. Second, we want a workforce of great teachers. Finally, we want an efficient, equitable funding system that supports those goals.

Earlier this year, I joined with legislative leaders to create the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Teachers and Students. This task force will seek public input, collect and analyze data, and make recommendations to the 2016 State Legislature for reform.

The first step has already begun. Over the past couple of months, task force members have been holding meetings to seek public input. They have met with teachers and administrators, parents, business people and interested members of the public. The agenda is simple: the task force is there to listen.

Over the next couple of weeks, several more meetings are being held so that members of the public can offer input. An up-to-date schedule of public input meetings is available at blueribbon.sd.gov. Citizens can also email their input to the task force at that site. I encourage all South Dakotans to take advantage of these opportunities to participate in the process.

So far, these public meetings demonstrate the value that South Dakotans place on education. They want to have the people, facilities and resources to provide a quality education to our young people. Many ideas and suggestions have come forward – everything from a longer school year, to consolidation or sharing among small districts, to differential pay for high-demand teaching fields, to increased funding through a new tax.

Ideas like these can be controversial and I know they will lead to more discussion. That is why I have asked the task force to consider all viewpoints, honestly consider all available data and use good judgment as it recommends reforms. This process does not have a predetermined outcome and, at this point, no options should be taken off the table.

I hope everyone will wait to judge the process until it ends, and will consider the task force’s recommendations with an open mind. That is what I will do.

-30-

AG, Law enforcement on Pot legalization ballot proposal – Only if the FDA, Doctor & Pharmacist are in the equation.

@SoDakCampaigns

jackleyheader2

Attorney General Marty Jackley is interviewed in today’s Argus Leader regarding the proposed pot legalization measure being proposed for the ballot, and he succinctly sums up the problem these measures always tend to have:

Marty JackleyAttorney General Marty Jackley said he would only support medical marijuana legalization if the treatments were backed by the FDA, if prescriptions can be written only by physicians, and if products can be only dispensed by a pharmacy.

“I do hope that medicine may reach a point in which some form of marijuana or THC can safely be prescribed under a doctor’s care for treatment,” Jackley said.

and…

Sioux Falls Police Chief Doug Barthel is against legalizing marijuana for medical use. He thinks most groups pushing for medical marijuana are just looking for a way around the law to use it for recreation.

“I certainly sympathize with the very small percentage of people who have illnesses and ailments that marijuana has been able to help,” Barthel. “I think there is certainly an opening to get some sort of FDA approval for that to get them help.”

Read that here.

And that’s one of the eternal problems with things grown in a dude’s closet under grow-lights. It’s not medicine.

There’s a good article from Men’s Health in 2013 which reviews many of the problems with it’s use as such, and explains why we’re a long time off in even considering it as such:

“I think we have to be real about what that’s all about,” says Dr. Friedmann. “It’s really about legalization—not the health benefits or risks.” Sure, tobacco and alcohol—which are both legal—harm many more people than cannabis, but we don’t use them as medicines, Dr. Friedmann adds. “During Prohibition, one of the few ways to get alcohol was by prescription, and some unscrupulous doctors and clinics made good money—just as they are for medical marijuana.”

So could the pot you pick up with a medical marijuana card ease anxiety like many people claim it does? “It could,” says Dr. ElSohly. “But it could also exacerbate it.”

You don’t actually need much THC to see medicinal benefits. But street pot—as well as pot sold in dispensaries—is just getting more potent. Dr. ElSohly and his team at Ole Miss track the THC content in confiscated marijuana in this country. “In the 1970s, the THC content was around 1 or 2 percent,” he says as he shows me weed sent to the lab from the Drug Enforcement Administration after a raid. “Today it’s more like 11 or 12 percent.”

Why that matters: It’s the lowest dose of Marinol—2.5 milligrams of THC —that works best for appetite stimulation in HIV patients, Dr. ElSohly says. This is equivalent to smoking about a half-gram joint at 1 percent THC. The same thing goes for a good high: A 2007 Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics study found that of 1.7, 3.4, and 6.8 percent THC pot, most people preferred the experience from the 3.4 percent weed. What you won’t read in that study is that it was originally designed to include 8 percent THC weed, but “even the most experienced marijuana smokers couldn’t tolerate it,” Dr. ElSohly explains. “So what the heck do you want more THC than that for?”

Look at the Colorado population using marijuana for pain, Dr. ElSohly says. “It’s mostly youth—people who should be pain free.” It takes him about a minute to stand up—he’s wincing again. “I have back pain right now, but I’m not about to smoke marijuana for it. You know what I’m saying?”

Read it here.

Is there research being done? Yes. But as you can read for yourself, it’s showing many problems in delivery methods, absorption and dosage. Things are a long way off, at best. Not exactly the basis for a state approving the ‘wonder medicine’ du jour.

The organizer of the ballot measure claims that only 150 people statewide would be affected by the measure. So does that number justify setting up new levels of bureaucracy in the state health department to justify bypassing physicians, pharmacies and the FDA?

The AG and law enforcement doesn’t think so. And they’ll be the ones left to clean up the mess if it passes.

Rapid City School Board to legislators who opposed opt-out: And your plan is…?

@SoDakCampaigns

The Rapid City School Board is waiting for the plan from legislators who waded neck deep in the local election and opposed the proposed opt-out as a group:

“It really hurts, because now we’re back to the only thing we can do, and that’s start cutting programs and start cutting staff,” Hansen says. “You know, because 85 percent of your budget is always staff.”

Hansen and other supporters of the opt-out say they now expect those who opposed it to present meaningful alternatives.

District 35 state Rep. Lynne DiSanto of Rapid City wants to do that, beyond tax hikes.

“We really would like to have all things on the table, besides just a tax increase,” DiSanto says. “We really would like to look more comprehensively at some options for school funding.”

DiSanto joined three other Black Hills lawmakers in a press conference against the opt out the day before the vote. Hansen says that put the burden on them to have a plan.

“I can’t believe they don’t already have it,” he said.

Read it all here at KELOLAND.

What’s your thoughts on it? 

Politically, did the group of legislators step into the middle of a mess, given any problem solving they can provide is seven or eight months into the future and contingent on the other 101 legislators?

And will the school district be pointing fingers at them, and calling it ‘their fault’ when they cut things like band and football?

Gov. Daugaard Names Additional Members To Blue Ribbon Task Force

@SoDakCampaigns

Gov. Daugaard Names Additional Members To Blue Ribbon Task Force

DaugaardPIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Dennis Daugaard today announced the appointment of thirteen new members to the Blue Ribbon Task Force.

“I joined with legislators to create the Blue Ribbon Task Force because all South Dakotans want to ensure that we have a school funding system that provides a great education to our young people, based on great teachers,” said the Governor. “There was strong interest in participating in this task force, and I thank these appointees for committing their time and thoughtful consideration to this important issue.”

The new task force members are:

· Dave Davis, Rapid City – member of the Rapid City Area School District Board of Education

· Dr. Becky Guffin, Aberdeen – superintendent of Aberdeen School District

· Vicki Harmdierks, Mitchell – principal of Gertie Belle Rogers Elementary School

· LuAnn Lindskov, Timber Lake – math and science teacher at Timber Lake High School and 2013 South Dakota Teacher of the Year

· Dr. Brian Maher, Sioux Falls – incoming superintendent of Sioux Falls School District

· DeLon Mork, Madison

· Steven O’Brien, Watertown – English teacher at Watertown High School

· Erik Person, Burke – superintendent of Burke School District

· Beth Pietila, Yankton

· Dr. Michael Rush, Pierre – incoming executive director of SD Board of Regents

· Jim Scull, Rapid City

· Eric Stroeder, Mobridge – member of Mobridge School District Board of Education and incoming president of Associated School Boards of South Dakota

· Kevin Tetzlaff, Brookings

These appointees will join the 13 members named earlier this year, to complete the 26-member task force.

The Blue Ribbon Task Force will continue to hold public input meetings throughout the summer. Beginning in July, the entire task force will meet to consider public input, analyze data and discuss ideas for reform. The task force will make recommendations to Gov. Daugaard and to the 2016 State Legislature.

Learn more about the Blue Ribbon Task Force and view the schedule of upcoming meetings at blueribbon.sd.gov.

-30-

Congresswoman Noem: Setting the Record Straight on TPA

@SoDakCampaigns

from Congresswoman Kristi Noem:

noem press header

Setting the Record Straight on TPA

 

First and foremost, Washington uses far too many abbreviations and they can get misconstrued, so let’s start with some definitions…

 

TPA = Trade Promotion Authority.  This is what the U.S. House is expected to vote on this Friday.  It defines congressional objectives and priorities for the administration to follow when negotiating trade agreements (more on this below).  TPA is not a new power being sought by the President. In fact, nearly every president since FDR has had TPA.  The legislative text for TPA is available here.

 

TPP = Trans Pacific Partnership.  This is the name of a trade agreement that the U.S. is negotiating with 11 other countries. The U.S. has been negotiating this since the Bush administration. There is no vote scheduled on TPP and there won’t be until all of the countries involved finalize negotiations and the public has been able to review it for at least 60 days (assuming TPA passes, that is).

  

 

There is a lot of misinformation floating around about what the U.S. House of Representatives is voting on this week.  Let’s set the record straight…

 

Myth:  Congress is voting this week on a trade agreement.

Fact:  This week, Congress is expected to vote on TPA – a bill that would set congressional parameters on any ongoing trade negotiations, including TPP. 

TPA is in no way a trade agreement.  Instead, TPA allows Congress to help set the rules for trade negotiations and lays out objectives of what a good trade deal looks like for America.  This helps ensure greater transparency throughout the negotiating process by empowering Congress to conduct vigorous oversight and hold the administration accountable.

 

Myth:  Congress will have to pass TPA to see what is in it.

Fact:  TPA’s legislative language has been publicly available for nearly two months.  You can find a copy of the bill Congress will be voting on here.

We know exactly what TPA will do and we have for quite some time.  As a member of the House Ways and Means Committee, Rep. Noem helped edit the TPA bill that the House is expected to vote on this week.  On April 23 in a public hearing, she joined members of that Committee in clearing the legislative language for consideration by the full House.

 

Myth: TPP is being negotiated with a dangerous and unprecedented level of secrecy (and TPA lets that happen).

Fact:  While TPP negotiating documents are available to Members of Congress, they are not fully available to the general public right now because there is no finalized agreement to review.  This is common during negotiations like this.  That being said, the final text would be available online for 60 days before it’s even sent to Congress for its consideration, assuming TPA is in place. This 60-day review period is mandated by the pending TPA legislation.

It is false to say that TPP negotiations have been secretive.  The USTR and Congress have met nearly 1,700 times in the last five years to discuss TPP negotiations.  Key congressional committees – including the House Ways and Means Committee of which Rep. Noem is a member – have also received previews of various TPP proposals before the U.S. Trade Representative took them to our trading partners. 

 

With TPA in place, the general public will have online access to the final version of any trade agreement, including TPP, 60 days before that agreement is sent to Congress.  Earlier drafts are not made public in this way, because revealing draft proposals before a deal is struck emboldens our opposition, undermines our negotiating positions, and exposes negotiators to public scrutiny over provisions that might not even be in a final deal.  We need to keep the upper hand to get the best deal for America. 

 

Myth: TPA gives the President new and unlimited powers.

Fact: TPA gives Congress greater powers, while putting dozens of strict negotiating parameters on the President.

The President already has the authority to negotiate a trade agreement under the Constitution, but TPA enables Congress to be part of the process.  If TPA is established, Congress is telling the administration:  If a trade agreement is to get the privilege of an up-or-down vote in Congress, you must follow our rules and instructions, keep us in the loop, and remember that we have the last say.  As a result, Congress maintains total control over the international trade authority granted to it by Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. 

 

Additionally, TPA in no way obligates Congress to approve TPP or any other trade agreement.   If this administration violates the parameters we’ve set, Congress can revoke TPA.  And if he follows the parameters and we still don’t like the agreement, Congress has the power to vote it down. 

 

Myth: TPP is a secret backdoor to achieve the President’s political agenda.

Fact:  The TPA bill specifically bars the President from enacting any changes to U.S. law.

Many have tried to claim that TPA will allow the President to bypass Congress and use the TPP as a backdoor to lawlessly expand immigration, curtail gun rights, or restrict Internet freedom, among other things. That is false.  The Constitution is clear: only Congress can change U.S. law.  TPA further reinforces that with additional restraints on the President. 

 

MYTH: Trade agreements destroy U.S. jobs.

FACT: Expanding markets for American exports will fuel stronger economic growth and create jobs.

95 percent of the world’s consumers live outside our borders.  Our growth is limited if our products can’t reach those consumers on a level playing field. Trade supports 124,000 jobs in South Dakota.  It enables South Dakota to export $3.7 billion in goods and $1.3 billion in services annually through more than 970 exporters.  It has a huge impact on our economy, and with lower trade barriers, those opportunities only grow. If we don’t expand our opportunities through trade agreements, other countries (like China) will fill the void.

 

 

Still looking for more information?  Here are some helpful links.

Summary of Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015
Overview of the Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015
Frequently Asked Questions
Updates to TPA in 2015
Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015
Conservative Support for TPA
Section-by-Section Summary
Report

An interesting interlude regarding the proposed pot legalization measure.

@SoDakCampaigns

potheader

I was doing a little bulk shopping in Sioux Falls yesterday at Sams Club with my wife, and happened to run into a Republican State Representative (who I won’t name, as I didn’t ask if I could go public with the conversation) who was doing a little shopping as well. He noted that he read with interest the post I had on Attorney General Marty Jackley releasing his explanation for the initiated measure relating to pot.

We both agreed that more often than not, the people proposing these types of measures were often their own worst enemies, and that they often go too far with what they’re asking for, such as the ballot measure that’s soon going to be introduced for circulation.

Are they simply trying to legalize certain derivative oils for children that physicians can prescribe in the absence of other drugs to reduce the incidence of seizures? Well, no.  I think both he and I (and this may surprise you) thought there could be a pathway to allowing that very limited kind of treatment, if it was prescribed and or administered by physician. The problem gets to be with the awful measures that keep getting thrown at us, and defeated by the voters, and the people out representing them.

The measure that’s set to currently be circulated allows sick minors to obtain pot, but really doesn’t limit the manner of application. So, a 4 year old could smoke it as soon as he can learn how to hold it in his little hand. As the South Dakota Secretary of Health once quipped in legislative committee “We don’t smoke our medicines in South Dakota.”  Not that the people proposing them ever take the hint.

Anyone under the act can designate “a caregiver” who can assist their use of pot.  And guess what? They’ll be able to grow it at home as well.   The act provides for cultivation in “enclosed, locked facilities,” to store or grow pot including “any closet….. that is equipped with locks.”   And who can prescribe the pot being grown in a locked closet? Not a specific type of physician, but a “Practitioner,” which is simply defined as “a person who is licensed with authority to prescribe drugs to humans.”   That could be a doctor.. or some counselors. Or more.

If you have non-smoking apartments, guess what landlord? You might ban tobacco, but you can’t ban pot smokers if they have their pot smoking card. Despite it being as bad for them if not worse than tobacco smoking.

The act being proposed as usual is filled with wide open loopholes, and takes away the ability of property owners to regulate the use of their property. All despite the fact that pot is still illegal at the federal level.

When you have measures in front of you as loose as this, most reasonable people are going to say no. In this instance, the legislator I was speaking with had a bill in front of him just like this during a recent legislative session. Expressing some of the same reservations, the reply wasn’t that the group asking him to sponsor it was going to work on it, or instead propose a much more limited version.

He was hysterically told that he was killing people, and the pot advocates started calling his house and otherwise haranguing him for the next couple of weeks. Really?

Unreasonable advocates who want to throw the door open for people to grow it in their closets and harass people who say no are not the kind of people you want writing & proposing legislation.

And you certainly don’t want them writing wide-open ballot measures that they want people to vote yes on.

Lawsuit filed to require specific language against nanny-state payday lending ban.

@SoDakCampaigns

A lawsuit was filed against the Attorney General yesterday to include a clear statement of the consequences should a measure that’s soon to be circulated in South Dakota pass on the ballot next November:

South Dakotans for Responsible Lending is proposing the ballot measure. Jackley’s office approved language last month for the measure that would educate voters on what would happen if it passed. South Dakotans for Responsible Lending must collect 13,871 signatures of registered voters by November 2016 to qualify for the ballot.

But Erin Ageton, the vice president of operations for a title loan company, argues that if the measure were to pass, it would cause her employer to close stores in South Dakota.

“I am an opponent of the initiated measure to set a maximum finance charge for certain lenders because I believe it will limit South Dakotans’ access to affordable credit by capping interest rates and charges for certain lenders at such a low rate that they will be unable to cover the cost of extending loans to customers who need them most,” Ageton wrote in an affidavit.

The complaint argues that Jackley’s description of the measure fails to inform voters that the payday lending industry would collapse if the 36 percent limit is adopted by voters. It notes that a 36 percent limit would not be enough to cover the expenses related to issuing loans.

Read it all here.

Ugh. Should a group of people who want to tell others how they should conduct themselves be able to make a fairly benign behavior illegal because they don’t like it? Should they be able to say “don’t do that, because I don’t think that’s good for you, and I’m the decider.”

Despite the fact that it’s legal, and some people are willing to take a chance and risk lending people money who don’t have a track record of handling it well, or paying it back on a timely basis?

The measure seems to be primarily directed towards people who let themselves get in over their head. But, just like nearly any other nanny-state provision, it punishes those who don’t abuse things. Payday lending can be a boon for those who are running short on a short term basis, but it isn’t, and shouldn’t be a salve to chronic spending problems.

I’ll offer myself up as an example – early on in my marriage, (close to 20 years ago) I had some awful, unplanned bill that was due – I believe an unanticipated car repair for a disabled vehicle – approximately a week or so before my monthly paycheck from the State of South Dakota. I obtained a $200 Payday loan, and it cost me $25 – $30 for it, and I was glad to have the car back in service.  It was worth that to me to get my car fixed.

The companies that perform that service have calculated the risk of providing it, and the risks and costs are built into the charges. If someone can do it cheaper, they would be out there advertising it. But let’s not kid ourselves. There are those who don’t pay their bills, and it adds costs for the rest of us.

So, here come the nanny staters with no solution other than to punish the whole for bad decisions of a few.

Are they going to start providing short-term low-interest loans on a statewide basis to people they’ve never met?  Absolutely not.  If they had any intention of providing solutions, they would have been out there working for a private solution allowing them to eliminate the need.

Instead of eliminating the need, they’re out eliminating the ability to fill the need. The need isn’t going to go away. In fact, it will get worse with people being forced to make payments late, be saddled with bounced check fees, or worse.

Promoting a ban on things you don’t like is little more than sticking your head in the sand and saying ‘problem solved.’ It’s an uncreative solution for an age-old problem that many people who work for a living have faced at one time or another.

And fewer ways to solve temporary problems are only going to make things worse for average working class folks who might find themselves in a bad spot.

Rounds Encourages Support of Bipartisan Defense Bill

@SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Encourages Support of Bipartisan Defense Bill


WASHINGTON —U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-SD), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, today spoke on the Senate floor to encourage his colleagues to support the bipartisan National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2016.

“I’m proud of my colleagues who serve with me on the Armed Services Committee for coming together to achieve a truly bipartisan, comprehensive bill,” said Rounds on the Senate floor. “Our bill will support our troops and meet the demands of a military that needs to continue its dynamic evolution in the face of ever more sophisticated threats.

“I was pleased that a number of provisions I offered were included in the final package that we are debating today. Now that we’ve completed our work in committee and Leader McConnell has brought our bill to the full Senate for debate, we must come together to pass the NDAA as the Senate has done each year for more than five decades.”

Text as Prepared for Delivery:

I rise today to encourage my colleagues to join the bipartisan group of Armed Services Committee members who support an important measure for our troops.

Last month we overwhelmingly voted in favor of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2016 that the Senate is considering today.

The defense of our nation is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government, and the annual passage of the NDAA is an important step in making sure our service members have what they need to succeed.

These brave men and women selflessly sacrifice everything to keep us safe from the forces of darkness who wish to do us harm.

We owe it to these men and women to wisely work together to make certain they have the necessary tools to accomplish their dangerous and demanding missions.

And that is what we did in the Armed Services Committee just a few weeks ago.

Under the leadership of Chairman McCain and Ranking Member Reed, we reported a bill out of committee that not only supports our armed forces but makes a host of needed reforms.

And we did so overwhelmingly, by a bipartisan vote of 22 to 4.

I would like to cite a number of bill provisions which make our nation stronger, and which I hope congress and the president will enact into law.

Our bill cuts nearly $10 billion in wasteful and duplicative spending, thereby freeing up additional funds to develop and procure weapon systems of the future while also giving our troops in combat the tools they need today.

The bill also makes important reforms aimed at recruiting and retaining the all-volunteer force that has so consistently defended our country for over four decades.

The Armed Services Committee produced this legislation by using the limited and admittedly less than optimal funding tools at its disposal.

For now, the hand we are dealt to fund the defense of our country is limited by the Budget Control Act, which includes arbitrary spending caps and the threat of sequestration.

So in our bill, we are funding our armed forces using funds from the “Overseas Contingency Operations” account.  We are doing so at a level above that requested by the President for this account.

OCO was included in the Budget Control Act because members of the 112th Congress recognized the importance of funding our men and women on the front lines.

I believe that many members of the Senate fervently hope that in the near future we will be able to fund our government in a fiscally-sound manner without the irrational budget caps and threat of sequestration that pervades all of Congress’s budgetary deliberations.

And I am willing to work with any of my colleagues on either side of the aisle to fix the Budget Control Act.

But until that day comes we need to use what funding options we have to keep America safe. Our legislation does that.

We are following the rules that are in force today.

I’m proud of my colleagues who serve with me on the Armed Services Committee for coming together to achieve a truly bipartisan, comprehensive bill.

Our bill will support our troops and meet the demands of a military that needs to continue its dynamic evolution in the face of ever more sophisticated threats.

And I was pleased that a number of provisions I offered were included in the final package that we are debating today.

Now that we’ve completed our work in committee and Leader McConnell has brought our bill to the full Senate for debate, we must come together to pass the NDAA as the Senate has done each year for more than five decades.

It is no coincidence that the NDAA is the only legislation to achieve this track record.

Rather, it indicates the vital importance that generations of Senate members have attached to it.

The defense of our country is not a partisan issue.

Our bipartisan NDAA bill sustains what our service members need to succeed in a world that grows ever more dangerous.

From Russian aggression in Ukraine and mounting Chinese coercion in Asia to the ugly aggression of the self-proclaimed Islamic State in the Middle East, new threats continue to rise throughout the world.

These threats are multi-faceted, our enemies’ tactics ever-changing.

We must make certain our armed forces can continue to face these challenges and we must uphold our commitment to them.

I encourage my colleagues to pass the NDAA in the Senate, and I encourage our president to work with congress to keep Americans safe.

###

Bags are getting packed for next week’s DC visit.

@SoDakCampaigns

I’m busy today getting ready for my return trip to DC on Sunday; Getting those last minute tasks done, running to the bank, making sure my stuff is covered at one office, following up on things at the home one. Now if I would only get my hotel reservations…

whitehouse-from-rooftopThe great part is that the Autism Speaks Leadership Summit is taking care of the hotel, I just had to buy the plane ticket, and any extra days I’m there for sightseeing.

I did find out today that apparently, I’m staying at the “W” Hotel, which is smack in the heart of DC, right by the Reagan building, with views of the memorials & everything in the area.

You can even see the White House from the Rooftop bar.   My only question – how big a mortgage I need to take out for that extra day?

I’ve got visits set with all three members of our delegation set, including Senator Rounds in his brand new office, and I’ll have my camera at the ready. So, stay tuned!