Author: @SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Cosponsors Obamacare Repeal Act

@SoDakCampaigns

Rounds Cosponsors Obamacare Repeal Act

WASHINGTON—U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) today signed on to cosponsor legislation that would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act. The bill has 44 cosponsors.

“Obamacare isn’t working for American families, plain and simple. Now it’s our job in Congress to clean up the President’s mess,” said Rounds. “Premiums have skyrocketed for many and millions have lost their preferred doctor or insurance plan, despite promises to the contrary. Ideally, we will replace Obamacare with a market-based, patient-centered plan. Repealing and replacing Obamacare needs to remain a priority.”

The Obamacare Repeal Act fully repeals Obamacare effective 180 days after its enactment, and provides Congress and the states the intervening six months to develop and vote on patient-oriented health care reform that will incrementally unravel Obamacare’s structural damage to our health care system and economy.

Congress must demonstrate its commitment to reducing healthcare costs and empowering American families with better innovations that save and improve lives.

###

Thune Statement on President Obama’s Budget

@SoDakCampaigns

Thune Statement on President Obama’s Budget

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) made the following comment on the president’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposal:

“While the president continues to cling to the same old failed top-down economic policies of spending increases and tax hikes, Republicans are focused on the future. Our budget will focus on growing the economy from the ground-up. Unlike the president’s budget, ours will balance and will reduce runaway spending and waste to make a more efficient, effective, and accountable federal government.”

###

Noem Statement on President’s FY2016 Budget

@SoDakCampaigns

Noem Statement on President’s FY2016 Budget

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today responded to the President’s release of his FY2016 budget proposal. Noem will be questioning the administration on the proposal Tuesday morning during a Ways and Means Committee hearing.

“Our country faces tremendous challenges and they require real solutions, not political rhetoric,” said Noem. “The President’s tax-and-spend budget proposal is nothing more than politics, which is extremely disappointing. South Dakotans deserve a genuine proposal that will fundamentally rebuild our economy from the bottom up, ensuring hardworking folks have the opportunities they need to achieve the American Dream.”

###

Where should the line be drawn in determining the number of signatures needed for the ballot?

@SoDakCampaigns

There’s been a bit of fuss on line over Senate Bill 166 which, in case you’re wondering, intends to alter the determining the number of signatures needed for the ballot. The language of the measure notes:

SENATE BILL NO. 166
Introduced by: Senators Brown, Lederman, and Novstrup (David) and Representatives Stalzer, Bolin, Gosch, Haggar (Don), Rounds, Solum, Westra, and Wink

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to revise the method used to calculate the petition signatures to place initiated measures on the ballot and to declare an emergency.

BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 2-1-5 be repealed.
2-1-5. The total number of votes cast for Governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election, shall for the purposes of this chapter, be the basis for determining the number of petitioners required.
Section 2. That chapter 2-1 be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
For purposes of this chapter, qualified electors shall mean the total registered voters eligible to cast a ballot for Governor in the preceding gubernatorial election as determined by the secretary of state.
Section 3. Whereas, this Act is necessary for the support of the state government and its existing public institutions, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this Act shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval.

Follow SB 166 here.

What the measure states is that the number of petition signatures required for placing a measure on the ballot is not based on the “total number of votes cast for Governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election,” but “the total registered voters eligible to cast a ballot for Governor.”  There have been some fussing on-line over the move to revise the definition. Some are calling it an attack on the power to petition, and noting that all the legislators proposing it hate cats and woodland creatures, etc and so on.

But playing devil’s advocate there are a couple of things worth pointing out.  Because much of the criticism ignores it.

For the first part of it, I go to the state constitution:

§ 1. Legislative power–Initiative and referendum. The legislative power of the state shall be vested in a Legislature which shall consist of a senate and house of representatives. However, the people expressly reserve to themselves the right to propose measures, which shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state, and also the right to require that any laws which the Legislature may have enacted shall be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state before going into effect, except such laws as may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety, support of the state government and its existing public institutions. Not more than five percent of the qualified electors of the state shall be required to invoke either the initiative or the referendum.

This section shall not be construed so as to deprive the Legislature or any member thereof of the right to propose any measure. The veto power of the Executive shall not be exercised as to measures referred to a vote of the people. This section shall apply to municipalities. The enacting clause of all laws approved by vote of the electors of the state shall be: “Be it enacted by the people of South Dakota.” The Legislature shall make suitable provisions for carrying into effect the provisions of this section.

Read that here.

It would appear that the corresponding provision in the state constitution requires that no more than 5% of the qualified electors of the state shall be required to invoke either the initiative or the referendum.

Just like the measure being proposed.

A little history on the constitutional provision – this portion of the State Constitution was solely amended in 1988, despite multiple attempts previously to do so. What changed? A former requirement which mandated the legislature formally ratify an initiative to appear on the ballot was removed:
constitutional-amendment-a
Aside from that sole amendment, the constitutional provision has remained unchanged since 1898. In comparison, the SDCL 2-1-5 has been in it’s current form only since 1976. (I’m going to have to do a little more digging when I’m in Pierre on Tuesday or Wednesday for the specifics on that change in the law.)

But, when you dig into it, 2-1-5 is almost a little out of place.

As opposed to being something arbitrary that legislators are coming up with off of the top of their heads, the change that’s being proposed in Senate Bill 166 is to make the definition in statute mirror the definition in the state constitution.

But it’s not just the constitution. Other portions of state law also note the larger requirement. Take SDCL 2-1-1:

2-1-1.   Initiative petitions–Number of signatures required. All measures proposed by initiative shall be presented by petition. The petition shall be signed by not less than five percent of the qualified electors of the state.

Read it here. What? It says right there that “The petition shall be signed by not less than five percent of the qualified electors of the state.” But that’s not the requirement. And the confusion doesn’t get any better.

SDCL 2-1-3 notes:

2-1-3.   Referendum–Laws subject to petition–Form. Any law which the Legislature may have enacted, except one which may be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state government and its existing public institutions, shall, upon the filing of a petition as hereinafter provided, be submitted to a vote of the electors of the state at the next general election. Such petition shall be signed by not less than five percent of the qualified electors of the state. The form of the petition shall be prescribed by the State Board of Elections.

Read that here.   And only then we get to SDCL 2-1-5:

2-1-5.   Total vote used to determine number of signers required in petitions. The total number of votes cast for Governor at the last preceding gubernatorial election, shall for the purposes of this chapter, be the basis for determining the number of petitioners required.

Read that here.

I sense an issue of inconsistency here, muddied with contradictory laws. Both the initiated measure law, and the referendum law are consistent with the constitutional definition. And then we have SDCL 2-1-5 tossed in to revise those laws, despite the fact they’re still in force.

Are you thoroughly confused yet in trying to figure out how 2-1-1 & 2-1-3, play against 2-1-5 in the big scheme of things?  I doubt you’re alone.   Yes, changing SDCL 2-1-5 will raise the number of signatures some. But it will also make it consistent with two other laws governing the same thing, as well as the state constitution.

I guess it all depends where you think the line be drawn in determining the number of signatures needed for the ballot.   Historically, for every good measure on the ballot, we’ve had more than our share of nutty Informed Jury, Jail for Judges, and Open and Clean Government initiatives paid for and ran by out of state organizations using South Dakota as the beachhead for launching privately funded assaults on laws nationwide.

But what do you think? Is this a hurdle too far, or is it time to remove the misplaced law, and place the requirements for initiated measures back to what our constitutional framers intended?

So, how did all those Libertarians do in campaign finance?

@SoDakCampaigns

With end of year campaign finance reports due, I thought it would be interesting to look back and see how those plucky upstarts over at the Libertarian Party did in raising money to run for office, since they fielded more Candidates than the state Democrat Party did.

Did I say plucky? I think I might have meant yucky.  An examination of the reports shows that there literally was no money raised or spent universally across all of their candidates. The one who raised the most, John English, who ran for office of School and Lands Commissioner, was said to have dropped out before election day.

Having filed his termination report in October might also be an indicator.

Here’s what I found among the candidates. There is still a possibility that a report may yet come in, especially from Chad Haber, who has never filed a report of expenditures. But I think you get the hint of how they all did if you review the reports. Links are to the reports I reviewed:

What do you think? All show, and no go, or was that the start of a grand experiment for the Libertarians?

The New Butte County GOP. And the strange tale of the old.

@SoDakCampaigns

party_loyalty_OathRemember the recent story I did on the loyalty oaths being demanded of candidates by the Butte County Republican Chairman?

The one where they placed an ad, and went after elected officials in January for not taking their oath back in July:

Am I the only one who remembers those days of yore when Republican party organizations worked to get Republicans elected? Instead of beating them up, and trying to throw them to the wolves?

Read that here.  Yup. That’s the one.

I received a note yesterday from the *New* Chairman of the Butte County GOP Lon Carrier. Lon informed me of the election, detailing that the meeting was held at the Belle Inn in the county seat of Butte County with 16 or the 25 Central Committee members present.

Lon Carrier was elected Chair. Heather Plunket (also State’s Attorney) was elected Vice Chair. Sherry Smeenk as Secretary. Francis Hays was elected as Treasurer. Lt Col (retired) Fred Wells is now the County’s State Precinct Committeeman and Mary Kay Budmayr is State Precinct Committeewoman.

The meeting was conducted by Dave Roetman, from the Minnehaha Co/State GOP, and John Teupel (Lawrence Co) and Marilynn Oakes (Custer Co) were also there to observe and assist in certifying.  Another reason they were there was to leave no doubt of the group being recognized as the official Republican organization in the County.

In the face of impending elections, the word I’m hearing is that before the ones officially conducted, there may have been some alternate elections hastily ‘held’…. contrary to county and state party bylaws. Which generated this letter:

pietela etter

Somehow, holding an election without notice and not telling the central committee memebers is frowned upon. And not recognized.

The official, and recognized chair, Lon Corrier indicated that the new Butte County GOP organization is fired up, and ready to get to work. And as Lon quipped to me –  they’re ready to “plug on ahead getting good Republicans elected instead of trying to have them pledge loyalty.”

And that’s how we get Republicans elected in South Dakota!

US Senator John Thune’s Weekly Column: The ObamaCare Taxman Cometh

@SoDakCampaigns

The ObamaCare Taxman Cometh
By Senator John Thune

John_Thune,_official_portrait,_111th_CongressThe Beatles aptly sang in their song “Taxman”: “If you get too cold, I’ll tax the heat / If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.” Had ObamaCare been the law of the land at the time, they perhaps would have added, “If you need a pill, I’ll tax the bill; if you need a doc, my tax will shock,” to represent the pain of the tax penalties that will be hitting South Dakotans and millions of Americans across the country this tax season.

ObamaCare was supposed to solve our nation’s health care problems. It was supposed to drive down premiums and make health care more affordable. Instead, it’s generally done the opposite. Since ObamaCare became law in 2010, health care premiums have risen. Millions of Americans have lost their health insurance plans. Others have lost access to their doctors. Still others are stuck in new insurance plans paying more for less coverage.

The American Action Forum recently ran the numbers and estimated that 6,000 South Dakotans will have to pay the ObamaCare tax penalty for not having government-approved health insurance. According to a calculator on the Wall Street Journal’s website, the average individual who must pay the ObamaCare tax for not having government-approved insurance in South Dakota will pay a $394 penalty this year, while the average family of four in South Dakota will pay a $650 penalty. That’s a lot of money for a South Dakota family. And it’s only going to go up, because the tax penalty will rise in 2016.

South Dakotans could be spending that tax money on a number of essential items if they didn’t have to pay the penalty. An individual could purchase 201 gallons of gas or six weeks of groceries with the money he will use to pay the tax penalty. A family of four could buy three weeks of groceries, or cover almost two months’ worth of car payments, or purchase 332 gallons of gas at South Dakota prices. That would cover a lot of trips to school and football practice and dance practice.

The last few years have involved government creating many burdens on American workers and the American economy to fund big-government programs and the president’s pet projects. Take the ObamaCare tax on lifesaving medical devices like pacemakers and insulin pumps. This tax was put in place to help pay for the president’s health care law, but it has ended up negatively affecting jobs in this industry.

ObamaCare has demonstrated big government is not the answer. Instead of pushing big-government solutions, we need to rebuild our economy from the bottom up. I will continue working with my colleagues in the Senate to repeal and replace the most onerous parts of ObamaCare with policies that lower health care costs for South Dakota families.

###

US Senator Mike Rounds’ Weekly Column: Balancing our Budgets

@SoDakCampaigns

Weekly Column: Balancing our Budgets
By Sen. Mike Rounds
January 30, 2015

MikeRounds official SenateIn my time spent working as State Senate Majority Leader and Governor of South Dakota, balancing the state budget was part of my job. Our state laws require us to balance our books each year, so we found ways to do more with less and grow our economy without overspending – just as has always been done in South Dakota. Despite sometimes having to make tough decisions, in the end we are better off for it. I’m proud of our record of balancing the books in South Dakota for 125 years.

At the federal level, the idea of balancing a budget is seemingly a foreign concept. Our current national debt is more than $18 trillion, and shows no signs of slowing down. A recent report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated our annual federal deficit will be half-a-trillion dollars in 2015, and again in 2016. That comes off the heels of several years of $1 trillion annual deficits under President Obama’s watch, which CBO projects will return within a decade. This is unsustainable and poses a threat to our entire economic system.

One action we can take to combat our debt problem is to pass a Balanced Budget Amendment that would force the federal government to balance its books. It simply means that Washington cannot spend more than they’ve taken in. I’ve already agreed to cosponsor balanced budget legislation in the Senate and hopefully it will receive widespread, bipartisan support among my colleagues.

Taking significant steps to rein in spending, as the Balanced Budget Amendment would do, would send a strong signal to job creators that we are serious about growing our economy for the long haul. It would give them the confidence to invest and hire again.

The South Dakota State House just passed legislation calling for a convention to amend the U.S. Constitution to require a balanced federal budget. If it is approved by the Senate and signed by the Governor, South Dakota would join 24 other states calling for such an amendment. Thirty eight states are required by law to approve an amendment to the Constitution. It is unfortunate that Washington’s irresponsibility is forcing these actions.

When I talk to South Dakotans, they always ask me why Washington is so broken, and the fact is that the culture of spending in this country has gotten out of hand. It is extremely frustrating to me, and I will support every effort to responsibly rein in spending. Continuing to kick the can down the road only exacerbates the problem for future generations. Congress must begin its work on a long-term solution to balancing our books. Passing a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution is a good place to start.

###

Governor Daugaard’s Weekly Column: Caring For Those Who Have Borne The Battle

@SoDakCampaigns

Caring For Those Who Have Borne The Battle
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

daugaard2Last year at this time, the South Dakota Department of Veterans Affairs launched Operation Reaching All Veterans. Seeking new ways to assist those who have served, the Department began an unprecedented effort to reach out to veterans all across the state.

Historically, American veterans haven’t always received the kind of support they deserve. During the Revolutionary War, the Continental Congress did not have the authority or the money to pay soldiers, so payment was left to the states. Though General Washington and many of the Founders stressed the importance of justly compensating those fighting for liberty, the states just weren’t able to afford it. Only 3,000 out of the 200,000 who served in the war actually drew a pension.

By the time the Civil War began, a federal veteran pension system was in place, and by the end of the war – at the urging of Abraham Lincoln – veterans’ hospitals were opened.

We’ve come a long way since then. But even with all of our progress, there’s still more to do. As Lincoln put it in his second inaugural address, we must always strive to “care for him who shall have borne the battle.”

Today we have a new generation to care for. Since 9/11, each of South Dakota’s 22 National Guard communities has experienced a unit mobilization in support of Operations Enduring Freedom, Iraqi Freedom, New Dawn and Noble Eagle. To date, the South Dakota National Guard has deployed more than 7,200 Soldiers and Airmen in support of the Global War on Terror. Thankfully, for the first time in more than a decade, none of our National Guard soldiers or airmen are currently deployed overseas.

With a new generation of veterans to serve, the South Dakota Department of Veterans Affairs launched Operation Reaching All Veterans last January with the goal of reaching out to every single veteran in South Dakota. This campaign was a first for the Department and a first in the nation.  Their objectives were to educate veterans and their families about benefits, programs and services; to listen to concerns, provide key contacts to assist on a local level; and, most importantly, to say “thank you.”

The Department anticipates that there are 75,000 veterans living in South Dakota. Over the last year, staff and veterans service officers estimate they have already made contact with about two-thirds of those veterans by making phone calls, staffing a booth at the Capitol and holding 153 open houses in 63 counties. One veterans’ service officer, Tom Sparrow of Turner County, personally contacted over 11,000 veterans.

Larry Zimmerman, South Dakota Secretary of Veterans Affairs, says that this was just Phase I. Phase II will involve trying to reach those that they couldn’t reach by phone.

I know there is no way to fully repay our veterans for all they have sacrificed to protect our freedom. They left the comfort of their homes and the embraces of their loved ones to put their lives on the line for us. Still, I believe Operation Reaching All Veterans is making a difference, and it’s one step toward repaying just a small part of the debt we owe to those who have borne the battle.

-30-