US Senator John Thune’s Weekly Column: Keeping Environmental Bureaucrats out of Your Tackle Box

thuneheadernew John_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_CongressKeeping Environmental Bureaucrats out of Your Tackle Box  
By Sen. John Thune

I’ve been a vocal opponent of the Obama Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA’s) over-intrusion into the American people’s lives. Perhaps the most egregious example came in the form of the agency’s Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule that turns nearly every body of water – no matter how large or small – into Washington’s jurisdiction. Imagine a farmer or rancher in South Dakota with a small ditch or creek that runs through his or her farmland or a small puddle that’s created by a summer storm. Under WOTUS, that farmer or rancher might need the EPA’s permission to complete certain day-to-day tasks or build necessary structures like pole barns or fences.

As crazy as that sounds, if the liberal wing of the president’s party and EPA bureaucrats had their way, they’d even regulate the tackle South Dakotans use to reel in walleyes from the Missouri River and ban the lead ammunition they use to bag ringnecks in the prairie. These Washington environmental bureaucrats are already reaching into South Dakotans’ backyards through WOTUS, which we’re fighting hard to rein in, and there’s absolutely no reason why they should reach into their tackle boxes and hunting vests as well.

I’ve fought for years to block potential bans that could have a big impact on outdoor recreation in our state and around the country. Alternative kinds of tackle can cost as much as 20 times more than traditional tackle, which is a huge expense for everyone from the recreational angler to the most seasoned sportsman. We should be doing all we can to encourage more young people to participate in outdoor activities like hunting and fishing, not price them out of these sports or provide a disincentive to join.

I fully support sensible regulation that protects the outdoors for future generations, but some of the things the EPA has suggested just go too far. Thankfully, last year Congress passed and the president signed legislation that included my provision to permanently block the EPA from an outright ban on lead ammunition used in the field. That’s a good first step, but solves only half of the problem. I’m glad my provision that would extend this regulatory prohibition to fishing tackle recently cleared an important hurdle in the Senate and is one step closer to enactment. I’ll be working hard this year to make sure we get this common-sense proposal to the president’s desk.

While it might be an uphill fight, taking on the EPA one out-of-touch regulation at a time is worth it. The concrete jungle that is Washington, D.C., and the bureaucrats that inhabit it need a little South Dakota straight talk from time to time, which will help reinforce the message that we don’t need the EPA pushing into every facet of our lives.

###

Congresswoman Kristi Noem’s Weekly Column: Coach Meyer

noem press header kristi noem headshot May 21 2014Coach Meyer
By Rep. Kristi Noem

Some of the most influential people in my kids’ lives have been their coaches, and I think that’s true for a lot of folks.  All three of our kids have been blessed to be on teams led by incredible coaches who taught them lessons they could use on and off the court.  It’s what a good coach does.

In 2014, we lost one of South Dakota’s greatest coaches, Don Meyer.  Coach Meyer served as head basketball coach at Northern State University in Aberdeen for 11 seasons.  In 2009, he became college basketball’s winningest coach, and by the time he retired, he clocked in more than 900 victories.  Earlier this month, I had the opportunity to participate in a ribbon cutting for the Don and Carmen Meyer Center of Excellence at the Avera Cancer Institute in Aberdeen.  It was an incredible honor to be there and recognize a coach that each of us could learn something from – whether we play basketball or not.

For those who may be unfamiliar with his story, Coach Meyer got in a terrible car accident in 2008 with injuries so significant that his lower left leg had to be amputated below the knee.  During that surgery, they found cancer.

One of my favorite things he left behind was his “2nd Ten Commandments.”  His words offer incredible perspective for anyone battling a serious illness.  Like so many of his lessons as a coach, however, these commandments could apply to each of our lives.  I won’t go through all of them in this column, but I did want to share a couple of highlights.

He started out his list with these two commandments: “Thou shall not worry, for worry is the most unproductive of all human activities.  Thou shall not be fearful, for those things we fear never come to pass.”  We live in an ugly world and it’s hard to not jump to worry and fear.  Whether you or a family member is battling cancer, facing a job loss, or trying to change Washington, we ought to keep our focus on action, not fear.  Our attention should be on what we have control over and the steps that can be taken to make a positive change.

Coach Meyer goes on to write in his fourth commandment:  “Thou shall face each problem as it comes; you can only handle one at a time anyway.”  Advice each of us could use from time to time.

His seventh commandment: “Thou shall not try to relive yesterday for good or ill. It is forever gone; concentrate on what is happening in your life and be happy now.”  So many people today struggle with living in the now.  We’re constantly on our phones or social media.  It takes us out of the moment.  Put it all aside – if even for a few hours a day – and live in the now.

Coach Meyer’s tenth commandment is my favorite:  “Thou shall count thy blessings; never overlooking the small ones, for a lot of small blessings adds up to a big one.”

Coach Meyer was a blessing to South Dakota and the basketball community.  As I stood up to recognize him at the recent ribbon cutting, I couldn’t help think about the legacy he has left for us.  It is my hope that those facing serious illnesses – whether at the Don and Carmen Meyer Center of Excellence or any of South Dakota’s excellent medical facilities – can find inspiration and even comfort from his story of resilience and faith.

###

Governor Daugaard’s Weekly Column: Strengthening The South Dakota Retirement System

daugaardheader DaugaardStrengthening The South Dakota Retirement System
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

Over the last several years, various states have been considering pension reform to address funding shortfalls. Some have looked at increasing employee contributions. Others have considered raising their retirement age or lowering benefits. Pennsylvania is now attempting to deal with $50 billion in unfunded pension obligations and a funded status of only 60 percent. Their plan is to make cuts that will affect current workers’ retirement benefits.

According to the Milliman Public Pension Funding Study, which evaluates the largest 100 pension funds in the nation, some plans are faring even worse than Pennsylvania’s – Indiana Teachers at 50 percent funded, Chicago Municipal Employees Pension at 42 percent, Connecticut State Employees at 41 percent, Illinois State Employees at 37 percent and, worst of all, the Kentucky Employees Retirement Fund at 25 percent.

South Dakota is among the states considering pension reform this year, but unlike other governments, we aren’t experiencing a crisis. In fact, South Dakota’s Retirement System is consistently among the best-funded retirement systems in the nation. We measure our funded status at the end of each fiscal year. As of June 30, the South Dakota Retirement System was 104 percent funded.

Virtually all government employees in South Dakota fall under the South Dakota Retirement System. This includes all public school teachers in our state, all public university professors and employees, all state employees, and many county and city employees – all under the S.D. Retirement System. Third grade teachers in Canton, snowplow drivers in Mobridge, social workers in Winner, university professors in Madison, police officers and firefighters in Rapid City – all in the one plan.

At its December board meeting, the SDRS Board of Trustees unanimously approved a new retirement design for new public employees who begin work after June 30, 2017. The new design accommodates longer life expectancies, adds variable hybrid benefits and eliminates inequitable subsidies. Those who fall under the new design will not be subsidizing members of the current design. Both designs will be self-sustaining.

Unlike reforms in other states, this change will not affect current employees – not now, and not when current employees retire. It will not impact those who are already retired. And this change will not require additional contributions from employees or employers. The Board’s recommendation is under consideration by the Legislature this session.

I am proud of how we have responsibly managed the South Dakota Retirement System. Thanks to the conservative management of the Retirement System Board of Trustees, the outstanding performance of the SD Investment Council, and the cooperation and support of all stakeholders, our pension plan is sound.

I am equally proud that we are considering reforms now, when we are in a position of strength. South Dakota is not waiting for a crisis to tackle this issue. We’re taking this on now so the benefits of our future teachers, social workers and firefighters remain secure. South Dakotans act with responsibility and with foresight. As some would say, “It’s how we roll.”

-30-

A new collectible for my wall on the way. Pierre has won for Permanent Capital.

I’ve collected political items for quite a few years, and have managed to assemble a somewhat respectable grouping of them. But as I get older, and have less and less room for quantity, I’ve tried to keep my interests narrower than I used to. I tend not to get excited over presidential pins, preferring South Dakota items.

When it comes to South Dakota items, the ones I really get excited over are the really early political items, and in that category, ribbons and pins from the State Capitol fight are a high interest level for me.  This morning, I was excited to get the winning bid on one in that category that I’d never come across before:

Pierre_souvenir1 Pierre_souvenir2

This “Badge Pin” was issued in 1904 in commemoration of Pierre winning the final fight for the location of the State Capitol between Pierre and Mitchell.  I’ve never seen it before, but it’s going to make a great display with a few other State Capital fight items I have hanging in my office.

Nanny state pee-testing Bill introduced. Did anyone mention it’s unconstitutional?

If you recall the measure I derided earlier as being contrary to principles of compassionate conservatism, as well as a unprecedented expansion of government oversight into our lives, it has now been assigned a bill number, and has been introduced as House Bill 1076.

HOUSE BILL NO. 1076

Introduced by: Representatives DiSanto, Brunner, Campbell, Craig, Greenfield (Lana), Latterell, Marty, May,Qualm, Rasmussen, Schrempp, Verchio, Werner, and Wiik and Senators Olson, Ewing, Greenfield (Brock), Jensen (Phil), Omdahl, Rampelberg, and Shorma

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to provide for drug testing for certain assistance applicants.  BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:

Section 1. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

Upon application for temporary assistance for needy families or for the supplemental nutrition assistance program, the Department of Social Services shall test each adult applicant under sixty-five years of age for the illegal use of controlled substances if the applicant is otherwise eligible for benefits. If the applicant tests positive for the use of a controlled substance that was not prescribed for the applicant by a licensed health care provider, the applicant is ineligible to receive benefits for a period of one year. The applicant shall pay the cost of the drug test.

Section 2. That the code be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read:

An applicant aggrieved by this Act is entitled to an administrative hearing to determine the validity of the test and to contest the decision to deny benefits.

Has my opinion of this measure changed since I penned my objection to it a couple of days ago?

Not one iota.

If as a state, we’re going to have a program of this nature to provide temporary help, you don’t need to kick them in the face before you lift them up.  Having to go to the state for assistance is bad enough.

I was surprised to read on the Internet that the prime sponsor of this measure, Rep. DiSanto, was trying to justify it by saying she’d been on public assistance at one time herself.  According to the Daily Signal:

DiSanto, who herself received welfare assistance when she was a young single mother, argues that welfare recipients should not use taxpayer dollars to finance drug habits. She posted to her Facebook page Jan. 15:

I was a 20-year-old, single mom when my first son was born. I received welfare including food stamps, WIC and child care assistance. I worked full time and attended night classes during this time. I have all the respect for people who are utilizing these government safeguards to better themselves and become independent and self-supporting. However, if you can afford drugs you can afford food. The taxpayers do not need to subsidize your drug habit.

Read that here.

Wait, what?

Someone explain to me how we make the leap in logic from “I have all the respect for people who are utilizing these government safeguards” to “if you can afford drugs you can afford food.?”  Because if DiSanto actually had any respect for them as she claims, why would she assume they ALL need to be tested for drug use?

By saying that we need to test them all, as I noted before, the measure embodies the ultimate expression of the intrusive nanny state in its most malevolent form as it creates more government, and a dangerous overreach of the authority of the state to intrude into our lives.  We will literally be adding more bureaucracy for the purposes of government drug testing citizens of the state.

And it introduces a very, very dangerous concept that interactions with government should be prequalified based upon successfully passing a very fallible drug test.  If there was any compassion or conservatism – as opposed to meanness and big government – in the interest of barring drug users we might consider principles that seem to be cast by the wayside in this instance.

You know, those principles handed down by our country’s forefathers, contained in the US Constitution and amendments known as The Bill of Rights. And I’m not the only one who thinks this way (From December of 2014).

A federal appeals court on Wednesday said a Florida law requiring applicants for welfare benefits to undergo mandatory drug testing is unconstitutional, a decision that could affect efforts to enforce similar laws in other states.

The 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Florida did not show a “substantial special need” to test all applicants to its Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program without any suspicion of drug use. The federally subsidized program was intended to help people pay for food, shelter and other necessities.

“By virtue of poverty, TANF applicants are not stripped of their legitimate expectations of privacy,” Circuit Judge Stanley Marcus wrote for a three-judge panel. “If we are to give meaning to the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition on blanket government searches, we must – and we do – hold that (the law) crosses the constitutional line.”

Read that here.  And if we look to the Congressional Research Service from March of this past year….

Based on the case law analyzed above, state or federal laws that require drug tests as a condition of receiving governmental benefits without regard to an individualized suspicion of illicit drug use may be subject to constitutional challenge. Drug tests historically have been considered searches for the purposes of the Fourth Amendment. For searches to be reasonable, they generally must be based on individualized suspicion unless the government can show a special need warranting a deviation from the norm. However, governmental benefit programs like TANF, SNAP, unemployment compensation, and housing assistance do not naturally evoke the special needs that the Supreme Court has recognized in the past.

Read the Congressional Service Report here.

If we’re to keep with true conservative principles, including those principles in the US Constitution, it’s easy to see that the bill as proposed should not just be killed, but withdrawn entirely out of embarrassment.

If we’re to hold true to the ideal that people are innocent until proven guilty, the only way to properly trigger the limiting of benefits upon drug use is to consider legislation that affects recipients if they’re convicted of a drug crime. It’s a far better path than expanding the nanny state into unheard of authority.

I had mentioned before that utilizing an adjudication of a drug crime is how Montana limits TANF benefits for drug users, so there is strong precedent for it that isn’t going to run afoul of the constitution.  Believe me, I hate drug users as much as, if not more than a lot of people. But executing everyone because you can’t find the guilty party is how they do it in dictatorships. You’re not guilty until proven innocent here. Not in South Dakota, and not in America.

House Bill 1076 needs to be withdrawn, or barring a sense of dignity or conscience, killed immediately. Because that’s not how we’re supposed to do it in this country.  Period.

HB 1067 continues to garner controversy. Both sides sounding off on the measure.

The Argus Leader has an article this afternoon coming after the introduction of HB1067 where it appears that the prediction of it being controversial is not an overblown statement. To say the least.

If approved, the bill would essentially legalize the way Sanford Health Plans interpreted Initiated Measure 17. Sanford began offering a plan that includes all providers who want in, but it has also continued to offer narrow-network plans to consumers and employers who want them.

Rapid City-based orthopedic surgeon, Dr. Stephen Eckrich, said the measure is an attempt by lobbyists to reverse South Dakota voters’ 2014 decision.

“This is an insult to the people of South Dakota,” Eckrich said in a statement Wednesday. “When the vast majority of the public say they are in favor of choosing their own doctor, they have spoken. However, Sanford thinks they are above the law and are putting their selfish interests ahead of the will of their patients.”

Rep. Tim Rounds, R-Pierre, defended the measure, which he is co-sponsoring in the House. He said the debate would provide a good opportunity for resolving some of the conflict between doctor-owned hospitals and non-profit hospital systems.

Read it all here.

HB 1067 is currently scheduled to be heard in House Commerce and Energy, which will likely come up in the next week, as it is not currently calendared.  At least three of the measure’s sponsors are on the committee, including the prime sponsor of the bill, Tim Rounds, who also serves as the chairman of the committee.

Given how controversial this measure is, I question whether it will actually be heard in the committee, or if there’s a chance it could be recalled, and assigned to State Affairs. It’s already sounding like this could be a cat fight.

And we haven’t started the bills on increasing taxes for teacher pay or medicaid expansion yet!

A few new pins for my collection. And the march of the Mundt elephants.

Over the past few weeks, I’ve picked up a few new pins here and there, and today, I made a good raid on the local antique mall while on the way to pick up my daughter.   Today, I spread the sum total of my gatherings, as well as what I cleaned out of my truck, out on my desk:

newpins

There’s an Alick Kundert Skinny Cat Club Pin from her run for Governor. A great big Clint Roberts pin I hadn’t seen before, and a Nils Boe pin I hadn’t seen, as well as a few others I didn’t have. I’ve been trying to pick up some South Dakota presidential related pins, as they’re typically among the more rare ones

The thing I’m probably the happiest with was finding another three Mundt Morton Elephants for my collection.

mundt_elephants

There were at least two, maybe three produced for as many South Dakota candidates, and the Mundt elephants are by far the most plentiful.

I’ve got two varieties here (Mundt and Mundt, and GOP and Mundt). They were produced by the Morton Pottery company in the 1950’s, and they made them for primarily GOP candidates, although there were a few Morton Donkeys out there.

Handing out ceramic figurines to campaign supporters apparently went by the wayside in the 1950’s, but they’re still a nifty tchotchke for the campaign memorabilia collector.

Thune: Child Nutrition Bill a Step Forward for Students in South Dakota

 thuneheadernewThune: Child Nutrition Bill a Step Forward for Students in South Dakota

“This committee needs to ensure that common sense is applied regarding nutritional standards and that assistance is provided to those who truly need it.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, today expressed his support for the Improving Child Nutrition Integrity and Access Act of 2016, legislation to improve child nutrition programs, including school lunch. This legislation, which passed the committee by voice vote, would increase flexibility for South Dakota schools to continue to improve nutritional standards, while allowing them the time to make the adjustments needed to meet the standards that have been set for whole grains and sodium. It would also make changes to ensure that free and reduced meals make it into the hands of those who need them the most.

The legislation includes several Thune provisions that would better address the unique needs of Indian Country and its desire to include locally grown and traditionally prepared foods, which have a significant role to play in the education of Native American students. These provisions would bring needed flexibility and clarity for tribal schools.

From the Editor: Out with the old, in with the new! As things change, we’re still here for the long haul!

You might notice that I’ve got a couple of ad spots that have opened up for new advertisers; One I’ve been assured is coming soon from a new advertiser, and another couple of them have been talked about.

If you’re interested in advertising space, on February 20th, aside from a few (as in very few) top level ad positions available, I will be opening up a chunk of advertising real estate where the Newsmax feeds are. These once held some interesting national political items, but they’ve now all become ads for age treatments and reverse mortgages. So I put in my notice that I’m reclaiming that space.

Otherwise, I’m more than pleased our current set of sponsors are going to be hanging around for a while. South Dakota War College continues to be the state’s longest standing and regularly published political website. And we’re not going anywhere for the forseeable future.

Unless I someday win the lottery. And then all bets are off.

Absent a massive financial windfall that would send me into hiding, we’re starting our 11th (wow!) year here at Dakotawarcollege, and we’re entering what should be an interesting election cycle, and the eyes of the politically active and community opinion leaders will all be pointed here in 2016 to this website as we see the elections for the state’s new set of political leaders.

Of course, after 2016, we start moving towards the big Kahuna – the slobberknocker of elections to end all elections (at least until another 8 years go by) – 2018, where our state’s political titans will be battling each other in political primaries.

And we could not do it without you, the reader. Thank you so much for your patronage, and for keeping a close eye on South Dakota Politics.


Pat Powers ProfileAbout the Editor

Pat Powers is the editor & primary writer of Dakotawarcollege.com, and has been in involved in state Republican politics since 1988. in 2005 he founded the South Dakota War College blog, and since 2009 it has regularly been named by the Washington Post as one of the nation’s top state-based political blogs.  Pat is a veteran of numerous state political campaigns, including 2 gubernatorial contests.

Rounds’ Easement Disclosure Provision Included in Sportsmen’s Package

Rounds Logo 2016 MikeRounds official SenateRounds’ Easement Disclosure
Provision Included in Sportsmen’s Package

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works (EPW) Committee, today thanked his colleagues for their support after his amendment regarding easements was included in S. 659, the Bipartisan Sportsmen’s Act. Rounds’ amendment would require documentation that landowners have been fully informed of all of their conservation options—both termed and perpetual—when choosing to place their land in conservation easements. S. 659 passed out of the Senate EPW Committee this morning with Rounds’ support. It now heads to the full Senate for consideration.

“When entering into a conservation easement with the government, South Dakota’s farmers, ranchers and landowners should be made aware of all options available to them,” said Rounds. “Greater optionality for landowners will benefit everyone, and I believe it will result in greater public access to land. Giving landowners the option of entering into a termed, renewable contract for conservation easements will keep the landowners and federal government on equal footing.”

Rounds’ amendment includes language making sure there is documentation showing landowners were made aware they have the option of setting their land aside in an easement for a limited period of time. It will make sure landowners are aware of all their options and are not forced into making a decision that will lock their land into a permanent easement, preventing future generations from accessing it.