Author: @SoDakCampaigns

US Senator Mike Rounds’ Weekly Column: Taking Care of our Vets

@SoDakCampaigns

Taking Care of our Vets
By Senator Mike Rounds
February 6, 2015

MikeRounds official SenateProviding adequate care and support for our military personnel – during and after their service – is a fundamental responsibility of the federal government. In fact, national defense is the primary purpose of the federal government. The brave men and women in uniform sacrifice everything to protect our freedoms here at home, and we owe it to them to make sure they have everything they need when they return from service. In the Senate, I have the unique privilege to serve on two committees that focus specifically on our military personnel: The Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) and Veterans’ Affairs Committee.

I continue to be humbled by the stories of the brave men and women who fought and continue to fight for our country. I recently took part in a Congressional Gold Medal Ceremony in the United States Capitol. The ceremony honored World War II veterans who served in the First Special Service Force. In the year and-a-half these men fought in combat, they never once lost a mission. They specialized in rock climbing, skiing and amphibious stealth attacks in dangerous territory. A number of these heroes were present at the ceremony, and hearing their stories was inspirational. Though their bravery and sacrifices can never be fully repaid, we must make sure they and other veterans are properly compensated. We must never forget their sacrifice in service to our country.

A recent SASC hearing focused on a commission report that called for an overhaul of the compensation layout of our armed forces. The Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission (MCRMC) recently completed their recommendation to overhaul how the military receives compensation and benefits, including regular and retirement payments. I thank the members of the commission who presented their findings to us. Right now, only about 17 percent of service members leave the military with any retirement benefits. The commission’s plan would bump that number up to 75 percent. From what I have read, there are some good ideas in the report. However, we have to honor the promises which we have made to those individuals currently in the retirement system. They honored their end, we must honor ours. We cannot balance our budget on the backs of service men and women or our veterans.

We wasted no time getting to work to help our heroes in the Veterans’ Affairs Committee. One of the very first pieces of legislation we took up this Congress was the Clay Hunt Suicide Prevention for American Veterans Act. Tragically, too many returning veterans, still struggling with the invisible wounds of war, don’t seek the mental health care they need. By passing the Clay Hunt SAV Act, we hope to change that. I supported it out of committee and was happy it passed unanimously out of the Senate. The legislation takes important steps to supply returning veterans with the tools they need to safely acclimate to life back home. It would also streamline mental health resources to make them more effective and efficient.

We have a duty to care for our men and women in uniform and follow through on our promises to them, and it’s an honor to serve them in the Senate Armed Services and Veterans’ Affairs Committees. I will continue to find ways make sure these brave men and women have the support they deserve from the government of the country they fight so hard to defend.

###

Congresswoman Noem’s Weekly Column: Bypass the Bureaucracy

@SoDakCampaigns

Bypass the Bureaucracy
By Rep. Kristi Noem
February 6, 2015

kristi noem headshot May 21 2014It’s a project that would support approximately 42,100 jobs, according to the U.S. State Department.  It’s a project that would generate millions of dollars in revenue for cash-strapped county governments in South Dakota every year, supporting needed infrastructure investments and critical community services.  It’s a project the majority of Americans agree we should move forward with – even in this hyper-partisan world we live in.

The project is the Keystone XL Pipeline and this week, Congress will be putting legislation on the President’s desk to finally approve it.  We’ve been debating this pipeline for more than six years.  In that time, nearly 10,000 miles of oil pipelines have been constructed in the United States, which is the equivalent of eight Keystone XL Pipelines.  And even without the pipeline, Canadian oil has flowed into the United States via roads and rails, which are much more costly and risky options.  So, what’s been the holdup?  The President has made this debate political.

Despite what the President said in his State of the Union address a few weeks ago, this isn’t just about “a single oil pipeline.” This administration has slow walked many attempts to expand America’s energy economy.  Recently, lower gas prices have given many families more financial independence.  Those prices are directly linked to more North American energy production and the additional influence the U.S. now has over global oil markets because of the increased supply.

That growth was achieved in spite of this administration’s policies.  Less oil was produced on federal lands in 2012 than in 2007.  But on non-federal lands, which don’t require federal approval, production increased 35 percent in that time.

The discrepancy between federal and non-federal production is due, at last in part, to a broken bureaucracy.  In many states, it takes less than a month to process drilling permits.  In North Dakota, for instance, it takes an average of 10 days.  In California, it’s seven days.  Texas averages a five-day turnaround, although expedited permits can be issued in as little as 48 hours.  A federal permit, on the other hand, takes more than 300 days to acquire.  But it hasn’t always been this way.  Since 2006, federal permitting times have increased by an incredible 41 percent.

I agree that we need to aim higher than a single pipeline, but I also believe that pipeline is a good place to start.  That’s why I’m voting to put this project on the President’s desk this week.  We must cut through the layers upon layers of red tape this administration has put in the way of a healthy economy.

Despite our efforts and the support of millions of Americans, the President has already promised to veto the legislation.  That won’t deter us. I believe it’s my responsibility to keep pushing forward commonsense, bipartisan measures like this.  Should he follow through on his veto threat – as I suspect he will – I will continue looking for legislative options that move this pipeline to completion.  It’s time to bypass the bureaucracy. It’s time to build.

###

New pins for the collection, and Senator Kittridge joins the board.

@SoDakCampaigns

While I was in Pierre this week, I was furiously hitting eBay for a group of political pins that were closing, and dang it, someone was bidding me up, right to the wire. But, I really wanted these, as there were several I didn’t have.

newpins

A nice McGovern for Congress Litho pin, a Large Joe Robbie for Governor, a Joe Foss for Governor Pin, 4 inaugural pins (Sig Anderson 1951, Joe Foss 1957, Ralph Herseth 1959, and Frank Farrar 1969), and a pin for that declares ” I am for A. B. Kittridge.”

I was missing the McGovern Pin, the Foss Inaugural, that particular size of Foss for Congress Pin, the Large Robbie Pin, and the Kittridge pin were all ones I didn’t have, so I paid a little more than I might have on another day.

My fellow button collecting friend Lee Schoenback tells me the Kittridge pin is easier to find than some, but I didn’t have one. It’s an early South Dakota pin, and many of those are challenges to find. Especially during a time when US Senators weren’t elected by the people, but were chosen by the state legislature.

In July of 1901, Kittridge was appointed by Governor Herried, and according to an article:

Governor Herreid to-day- appointed A. B. Kittridge of Sioux Falls as Senator to fill the vacancy caused by the death of Senator Kyle.

kittridgeAlfred B. Kittridge is a native of New Hampshire, haying been born in Cheshire County, March 26, 1861. . His early education was obtained In ; the public , schools and when 17 years of age, he entered Yale University. He was graduated from that institution in 1882, and at once commenced the study of law at Rutland, Vt. In 1884 he entered the Yale Law School and was graduated in 1885, being admitted to the Connecticut bar in June of the same year. He removed to. Sioux Falls, S. D., in 1885 and began practice of law. Mr. Kittridge early manifested an interest in State politics and was for a long time ex-Senator Pettigrew’s trusted lieutenant. In 1896 the” two parted upon the money question. Mr. Kittridge was the Republican committeeman from South Dakota in 1892 and 1896. He is a bachelor.

Read that here. And, according to the American Almanac Yearbook of that year, in 1903, he won election in his own right in 1903, when he was selected by the State Legislature on January 20th, by a vote of 120-12 over his Democratic opponent, John A Bowler. (Dems didn’t do so hot back then, either). But, according to his congressional biography, he failed to be renominated in 1908.

The pin was likely from the 1908 election.  And along with the non-duplicates, the Kittridge pin will be given it’s place of honor on the SDWC Bulletin board.

Senate Bill 166 – The Petition signature measure – tabled. It’s going to take a lawsuit to figure this one out.

@SoDakCampaigns

From the Rapid City Journal, State Representative Corey Brown has asked for Senate Bill 166 which proposed to make state petition law consistent with the constitution to be withdrawn.

He said Friday afternoon that he received a message from the Legislature’s page adviser Thursday evening. He said she told him the pages were answering calls from opponents of SB 166, including some who cursed at the high school students.

and…

Brown said the state law setting the threshold at 5 percent of governor votes for a statewide initiative or referendum doesn’t match other state laws, such as 5 percent of registered voters needed for a municipal initiative or referendum.

and…

Brown said he expects the next initiative petition to be challenged if the signature count is based on 5 percent of the governor vote.

“I do believe that there’s still a problem,” he said. He added, “I guess maybe there’s other avenues to fix that.”

Read it here.

Cursing at high school kids? Nice. I always thought people of good conscience could disagree in a civil society. Apparently we’re setting the bar too high. Based on what Senator Brown notes, It sounds as if it’s going to take a legal decision based on the laws’ inconsistency with the state constitution to void SDCL 2-1-5.

What do you think, was Senator Brown’s decision to ask for his bill to be tabled a good move, or should this bill have gone all the way?

Highway patrol steps in after Rep Hickey argued with atheist group

@SoDakCampaigns

From the Capitol Journal, it appears that things got lively on the Capitol rotunda floor yesterday:

Talk that started out sounding friendly ended with raised voices and a lawmaker who said he was “insulted” by one of the secular humanists/freethinkers who spent several hours Friday in the Capitol Rotunda talking about their concerns.

Capital security, in the person of a state Highway Patrol trooper and a state public safety official checked in with members of the group after the legislator, Rep. Steve Hickey, R-Sioux Falls, told the officers as he was leaving that he had been insulted.

And…

Hickey said Tomlinson insulted him.

“He said I should take a high school science class. I said, ‘Are you questioning my education?’ He said yes.”

Tomlinson corroborated Hickey’s account, except that he thought the lawmaker seemed thin-skinned over the sharp exchange. “I said, ‘Educate yourself.’”

Read the entire story here.

Did the highway patrol need to get involved? What are your thoughts?

State Rep Kevin Killer’s PAC has some confusing campaign finance reports

@SoDakCampaigns

Remember Ann Tornberg’s excessive listing of unitemized contributions? Unitemized totals far out of proportion to what the itemized contributions were?  Here’s one that’s even worse. Democratic State Representative Kevin Killer’s SD NDN Election efforts PAC:

SD NDN PAC 2014 Year end Report

Killer’s Year End PAC report noted $16,618 in itemized contributions.  And an eye-popping $136,710.54 in un-itemized contributions.  A closer look at the report provides some clues as to the source of much of this funding.   Acting as a intermediary, it would appear that most or all of this funding comes through ACT Blue:

actblue

If you look at the itemized report on the embedded pdf file above, it appears that more of the itemized contributions came from out-of-state.

The curious part is that Act Blue South Dakota IS registered as a South Dakota PAC. So… why are these donations appearing to arrive through ACT Blue coming in as individual donations, and not listed as a PAC to PAC donation?

Regardless, it looks like most of the funds raised by Killer & Act Blue went for overhead, with over $113,000 of the funds spent on Salaries, $10,221 on Travel, $6,534 for Act Blue to act as middle-man for fundraising, and $4508 on meals.

ndn_operating_expenses

Curiously, for an organization that raised and spent as much as they did, I’d never heard of them. At the time of the pre-general report on October 24th, they had a whopping $1000 in their account. And then just like magic they claim that from October 22nd through the end of the year, they raised well over $100,000 for their efforts.

But, there are some inconsistencies that are coming up in those claims that would contradict what was reported to the Secretary of State’s office. According to the Secretary of State:

12-27-22. Persons and entities required to file campaign finance disclosure statements–Time for filing–Violation as misdemeanor. A campaign finance disclosure statement shall be filed with the secretary of state by the treasurer of every:
(1) Candidate or candidate campaign committee for any statewide or legislative office;
(2) Political action committee;
(3) Political party; and
(4) Ballot question committee.
The statement shall be signed and filed by the treasurer of the political committee or political party. The statement shall be received by the secretary of state and filed by 5:00 p.m. each February first and shall cover the contributions and expenditures for the preceding calendar year. The statement shall also be received by the secretary of state and filed by 5:00 p.m. on the second Friday prior to each primary and general election complete through the fifteenth day prior to that election. If a candidate is seeking nomination at the biennial state convention, the candidate or the candidate campaign committee shall file a campaign finance disclosure statement with the secretary of state by 5:00 p.m. on the second Friday prior to any biennial state convention. Any statement filed pursuant to this section shall be consecutive and shall cover contributions and expenditures since the last statement filed.

and..

A violation of this section is a Class 1 misdemeanor.

Read it here.

Notice the dollar amounts that they attribute as being raised by the South Dakota NDN Election Efforts PAC and the date in this Article from Daily KOS:

Fri Oct 10, 2014 at 11:00 AM PDT
When Natives vote Democrats win. You can help 9 reservations in South Dakota GOTV to save the Senate
by navajoFollow for Daily Kos

GOTV takes money and there’s not much of that on the reservations, especially at Pine Ridge. Which is why Daily Kos is asking those who can afford it to contribute to this effort.

On Thursday we raised more than $12,000 of our $50,000 goal for the South Dakota NDN Election Efforts PAC to fund the efforts for Great Plains project. Today we wanna continue that effort to buy fuel for the bus, feed the drivers, buy cash cards to support the volunteers and purchase much-needed radio time to spread the word about the GOTV effort. Everyone on the rez listens to their local radio station.

Read that here. That was on the 10th…. which was before the pre-general. So, why are there no donations totalling $12,000 reflected in the report.?

And look at this at this article from Daily KOS five days later:

Wed Oct 15, 2014 at 08:28 AM PDT
Control of the Senate runs through South Dakota reservations, and you’re helping GOTV
by Meteor Blades
Five minutes before I posted this, 6,062 of you had contributed $71,730 for South Dakota NDN Election Efforts. And the thanks you get? We’ve raised the goal from $75,000 to $100,000. The money will help pay for the  enthusiastic voter registration campaign being run by the Great Plains Get Out the Native Vote on the state’s nine American Indian reservations.

Read that here.

Or this article which would be the “fifteenth day prior to that election” as cited above.

Mon Oct 20, 2014 at 11:51 AM PDT
South Dakota ground game fleshes out as GOP rushes in reinforcements
by kos

Just a few moments ago, supporter #10,000 gave to the NDN Election Efforts PAC, the GOTV operation focused on American Indian reservations in the now-pivotal state of South Dakota. The $124,691 raised is slightly above my initial goal of $50,000 (which I considered overly optimistic at the time), and puts us well within reach of the PAC’s entire 2014 GOTV budget of $200,000.

South Dakota Rep. Kevin Killer, head of the PAC, sends me an update on what the fresh funds are allowing them to do.

Read that here.

The articles claim they had raised Over $12,000 on October 10th, $71,730 on October 15th, and $124,691 on October 20th – the last day that’s supposed to be included in the pre-general report. So, why does the pre-general report say on page 4 that, as of October 20th, they had only raised $1000 from an out of state PAC, and claiming that only $41.16 had been raised in unitemized funds?

That would appear to be a very well documented contradiction. By Democrats’ own reports, the funds were in-hand, and being spent during the time covered by the report to help elect Senator Rick Weiland.  But.. amazingly, none of that money is reported for the time period it they said it was raised in, via their own news reports. They only show up in they year end report due months later?

What are your thoughts? Is it time for some spot checking on reports by the Secretary of State?

Thune Questions Lew on Yet Another Obama Death Tax Proposal that Could Devastate South Dakota Family Farms

@SoDakCampaigns

Thune Questions Lew on Yet Another Obama Death Tax Proposal that Could Devastate South Dakota Family Farms

“…most farms…would not have the liquid assets to deal with that large of a tax bill, meaning the only way they would be able to pay Uncle Sam would be to break up the family farm and sell off portions of it…”

WASHINGTON, D.C.—U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today at a hearing before the Senate Finance Committee questioned U.S. Department of Treasury Secretary Jack Lew about the Obama administration’s proposal to institute a second death tax on South Dakota family farms and businesses. Thune offered an example of how the administration’s capital gains proposal will negatively impact family farms in South Dakota and called on the secretary to explain the intent behind their capital gains proposal.

Impact on South Dakota Farmers and Ranchers:

“[The administration’s] proposal, if enacted, would have a devastating impact on family farms and small businesses in my state of South Dakota. I want to give you an example… if you take a typical family farm that bought…640 acres back in 2000 for $640,000, which…in South Dakota that would be considered a small farm. Today that same farmland is probably worth somewhere between $3.5 million and $4.5 million, depending on where it’s located.

“So under the current estate tax law, which excludes assets up to $5.43 million, the family farm isn’t taxed when it passes from one generation to the next. Now under the administration’s proposal, this family farm would be hit with a significant tax when the family farm is transferred to the next generation of family members. …so in that example this South Dakota family would suddenly find themselves facing a tax bill of $1 million or more.”

Administration’s Intent Behind Capital Gains Proposal:

“…most farms of this size would not have the liquid assets to deal with that large of a tax bill, meaning the only way they would be able to pay Uncle Sam would be to break up the family farm and sell off portions of it…What is the administration’s intent with regard to this tax? If it is to break up family farms, obviously it is going to have that effect, or is it simply an unintended consequence of your interest in imposing yet another layer of taxation at death?”

###

Governor Signs First Bill Of Legislative Session Into Law

@SoDakCampaigns

Governor Signs First Bill Of Legislative Session Into Law

PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Dennis Daugaard today signed the first bill of the 2015 Legislative Session into law. The piece of legislation, Senate Bill 28, authorizes the Board of Regents to sell a parcel of property on the South Dakota State University campus to the City of Brookings.

The piece of property referenced in the bill was given to the university to provide rail access to the heating plant and has not been used for 35 years.

The bill contains an emergency clause to allow the Board of Regents to sell property in Fiscal Year 2015. Once the land has been sold, the proceeds from the sale will be credited to the university.

-30-