Author: Pat Powers

Looking at both the state and year end reports for the South Dakota Republican Party, it hasn’t been a bad year. The SD GOP’s combined cash on hand for year end is roughly $265,000 ($168,200 in federal account and $96,837 in state acct).

2015 SDGOP Year End Filings

The big question is “What about those Dems?” Democrats have only posted their FEC report, which shows a comparatively anemic $11,362 in cash on hand at the end of the year. But their state report…. well, we’re still waiting. Either the Secretary of State hasn’t posted it yet… or they have yet to receive it.

What might it be that the Democrats are holding their breath to show us?

With Huckabee out, and Ben Carson maybe, sort of out (or not), the dominos are continuing to fall today as Rand Paul suspends his campaign.

“Although, today I will suspend my campaign for President, the fight is far from over. I will continue to carry the torch for Liberty in the United States Senate and I look forward to earning the privilege to represent the people of Kentucky for another term.”

Paul, who was often at odds with other Republican candidates on issues like national security and surveillance, struggled to attract the loyal and enthusiastic following that buoyed his father Ron Paul’s past presidential bids.

Read that here.

I’m started to wonder if people in Pierre are getting up on the crazy side of bed some days.

SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2

Introduced by: Senators Hunhoff (Bernie), Parsley, Peterson (Jim), and Rampelberg and Representatives Brunner and Feickert

A JOINT RESOLUTION, Proposing and submitting to the electors at the next general election a new section to Article XI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, relating to the imposition of a corporate income tax and dedication of the revenue therefrom.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN:
Section 1. That at the next general election held in the state, the following amendment to Article XI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, as set forth in section 2 of this Joint Resolution, which is hereby agreed to, shall be submitted to the electors of the state for approval.
Section 2. That Article XI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
§ 16. The Legislature shall impose a corporate income tax. However, this section does not apply to any for-profit educational institution or any insurance company subject to a tax on gross premiums or financial institution subject to the bank franchise tax. The revenue and interest generated by the tax, less the cost of administration, is dedicated for the purpose of providing property tax relief. The rate of taxation imposed on corporate income shall be an amount not to exceed six percent of the federal taxable income. The Legislature may exempt an amount of federal taxable income not to exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars from the tax imposed by this section.

I really can’t say that I’ve heard a hue and cry across the land for people to place a corporate income tax on businesses, including family farms who have incorporated.

I’m even more shocked to see a couple of Republicans on the measure. You expect this kind of silliness from the Democrats. But the Republicans? This is the kind of bill that is used to crucify politicians.

I would think they’d know better.

A group of Liberal Democrats in the South Dakota legislature have introduced a legislative measure to require the Public Utilities Commission to defer to the federal government before any licensure measures for pipelines.

SENATE BILL NO. 134

Introduced by: Senator Heinert and Representatives Killer, Bordeaux, Gibson, Hawks, and Soli

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit the Public Utilities Commission from granting certain permits until federal approval is granted.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 49-41B-24 be amended to read:
49-41B-24. Within twelve months of receipt of the initial application for a permit for the construction of energy conversion facilities, AC/DC conversion facilities, or transmission facilities, the commission shall make complete findings in rendering a decision regarding whether a permit should be granted, denied, or granted upon such terms, conditions or modifications of the construction, operation, or maintenance as the commission deems appropriate. If, however, the construction requires a Presidential Permit, which the President of the United States has the constitutional authority to require and the United States Secretary of State has the authority to approve under the provisions of Executive Order 13337, the commission may not grant a permit for the construction under this section until the Presidential Permit is approved.

Read it here.

This measure looks to be directed specifically at Keystone, and the recent action by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to continue approval of the pipeline.

So, these legislators want to demand that South Dakota submit to the strictures of an executive order issued by President Obama? Why don’t we just call this bill the “bow to Obama” bill, as they ask for South Dakota to cede authority of what happens within the boundaries of our state.

It is particularly telling that Paula Hawks appears as a sponsor on this bill. Because, it is exactly this type of measure Congresswoman Kristi Noem, as well as the rest of our Washington delegation has been fighting.  

If South Dakota was unfortunate enough that Hawks would be sent to Washington, I wonder what other areas of sovereignty that she would demand the state knuckle under to Obama for in subservience to the federal government?

Governor Daugaard’s proposals for increasing teacher pay are out and available for review, according to KCCR radio:

HB 1182 would increase the sales tax by a half-penny and dedicate $40 million for property tax relief. The new revenue would increase South Dakota’s average teacher salary from $40,000 to a target average of $48,500.

SB 131 establishes a new funding formula and requires that 90 percent of new funding go specifically to teacher pay. The bill also imposes new caps on school general reserve funds and on the growth of capital outlay levies.

SB 133 includes a number of proposals to recruit and retain more teachers and to create new opportunities for school efficiency.

Read it all here.

What do you think?

Had a nice note from a legislator this morning. Or maybe nice, and a little disappointing:

Thanks for sharing your thoughts publically on HB 1076. I have been told there is a similar bill coming in the Senate.

*insert audible groan here*

If after the opposition the illegal (for SNAP benefits), and unconstitutional (blanket testing without cause) urine testing bill received, someone is foolish enough to promote that massive expansion of government again after the public rejection of it, they certainly deserve the butt kicking the bill is certain to recieve on that side of the legislature.

Someone close to me referred to it as “legislation by Facebook,” referring to the bill as legislation coming as a reaction to nutty memes we all see in our Facebook feeds, as opposed to legitimate problems. In other words, it was just awful.

With the fight over Medicaid expansion, teacher pay, and dozens of worthier topics, I think legislators can find better use of their time than to revisit bad bills already killed once.

“Badlands Pawn is an example of the American Dream.”

– lead singer of the Badlands Pawn house band.

(I’m at the Hairball concert tonight, where they’re the opening act.)

As promised earlier, former State Representative Charlie Hoffman has turned in his petitions to run as a Republican in the District 23 House race, where Justin Cronin is termed out.

Who else is running? So far….

Race	Name	Party	Petition Filing Date	District
State Senator	Ernie Otten	REP	1/6/2016 0:00	District 06
State Senator	Deb Soholt	REP	1/26/2016 0:00	District 14
State Senator	Jim Bolin	REP	1/12/2016 0:00	District 16
State Senator	Joshua Klumb	REP	1/19/2016 0:00	District 20
State Senator	Jim White	REP	1/25/2016 0:00	District 22
State Senator	Ryan M. Maher	REP	1/26/2016 0:00	District 28
State Senator	Bob Ewing	REP	1/5/2016 0:00	District 31
State Representative	Tom Holmes	REP	1/26/2016 0:00	District 14
State Representative	Mike Stevens	REP	1/25/2016 0:00	District 18
State Representative	Tona Rozum	REP	1/12/2016 0:00	District 20
State Representative	Charles B. Hoffman	REP	1/27/2016 0:00	District 23
State Representative	Oren Lesmeister	DEM	1/6/2016 0:00	District 28A
State Representative	Sam Marty	REP	1/25/2016 0:00	District 28B
State Representative	Travis Lasseter	REP	1/19/2016 0:00	District 30
State Representative	Charles M. Turbiville	REP	1/13/2016 0:00	District 31
State Representative	Dan Dryden	REP	1/21/2016 0:00	District 34

 

House Bill 1076 had a lot of crash and thunder surrounding it, but after testimony today, it died an appropriate death as we learned some things about the measure.

First, we learned that the measure sponsor Lynn Hix-DiSanto puts a lot of stock in facebook, as she based popular support on the measure on how many people viewed her facebook page, and how people commented.

Next, we learned that the sponsors of the measure probably didn’t bother to consult with DSS when they wrote it, because they dropped the bombshell that the 100,000 people the bill wanted to drug test are barred from it under federal law.  Because SNAP is a federal program, and states cannot put further restrictions on it under federal law. Oops.

We also learned that the genesis of this measure came when people went to Senator Betty Olson concerned about drug use on the Cheyenne and Standing Rock reservations. It was actually related that someone said “if they had to drug test, they wouldn’t get their welfare checks.”   I doubt that helped their case today.  (I gasped when I heard that one).

I also learned that you could have taken all of the Democrats from the room, and the bill still would have been rejected by a strong Republican Majority of 7, as they and 2 Democrats voted against it, and it was only supported by 4 Republicans, three of which were sponsors.

It’s done. And with good reason.  It was bad legislation which would have been worse law.