Author: Pat Powers

Just on the Internet and in today’s paper this AM, I have a guest column in the a Rapid a City Journal this morning on why House Bill 1076 violates conservative principles, as well as American principles:

HB 1076 presumes applicants for such benefits are guilty, until bodily fluids are provided to prove innocence — and tested at the applicants’ own expense. That stands against one of the most basic principles of criminal justice, the presumption of innocence, which has been recognized for nearly 1,500 years.

As a proponent of limited government this measure troubles me greatly as a dangerous overreach of the authority of the state. Adding more bureaucracy for the purposes of government drug testing citizens of the state en masse and establishing the precedent that it is an acceptable thing to do so, is not a good thing for democracy.

With HB 1076, the state will be testing a significant portion of the nearly 7,000 TANF recipients and roughly 100,000 South Dakota residents who receive SNAP benefits. Ignoring the obvious concerns of expense, mass-testing tens of thousands of South Dakotans to prove them innocent also has a lot of other problems, particularly with the U.S. Constitution.

Read it all here.

One of my spies dropped me a note this evening, noting that sometime in the next 2 days there is going to be a challenge to the 36% payday lending ballot measure. Watch for this as a strong possibility, as it’s a good source.

Catch the article in today’s Pierre Capital Journal: The Pierre School Superintendent, Dr. Kelly Glodt, points out that the Governor’s plan for $8000 more for teachers is only going to be worth $3500 when the rubber hits the road:

Superintendent Glodt said although the Blue Ribbon Task Force’s proposal gets described as raising the average teacher’s pay about $8,000 a year to about $48,000, it won’t work that way and is much more complicated.

The many formulas and circumstances of the 151 public school districts and the changes in state funding formulas will all work out in various ways, Glodt said.

And while teachers need raises, the lowest-paid employees of the Pierre district, custodians and cooks, need raises more than anyone, Glodt said. And the lowest-paid jobs are the hardest to keep filled, Glodt said.

All his teacher slots are filled, but he’s advertising for cooks and janitors every week, he said. Plus, his administrators also deserve a raise, so he would use some of the added funding for that, Glodt said.

If the teacher pay proposal gets approved by the Legislature, it likely will mean an average raise of about $3,500 to Pierre school teachers, not $8,000, he said.

Read it here.

I don’t think anyone would disagree that every district is different, but teachers only getting $3500 of $8,000 seems far from the intent of what’s being promoted. 

Is this just a harsh dose of reality, or an indication that legislators need to build in strong directives on how the money is to be used? 

Out west this week, the heat was turned up on House Bill 1067 with a local doctor tackling the first controversial issue this session in the media:

Dr. Stephen Eckrich says that Sanford Health, one of the state’s largest healthcare providers, is behind this year’s bill, and the additions would completely undermine the voter’s will.

And…

“They have, I believe, hoodwinked some of our local legislators to thinking this is some minor tweek that needs to be made to a bill, when in fact it’s going to completely gut what 62% of the voters in South Dakota voted for.”

Several West River lawmakers sponsored the bill including Representatives Kristen Conzet, Dan Dryden, Jeffery Partridge, and Senators Terri Haverly and Alan Solano.

Read it here at KOTA-TV.

As a result of how this measure is being perceived in the public, some of the Rapid City area sponsors were publicly reconsidering their support at this weekend’s crackerbarrell.

A doctor asked about HB 1067 regarding Initiated Measure 17 passed last year. He asked whether it was right for legislators to vote to overturn a measure approved by a majority of the people. Senator Haverly said it was not sold to her as “gutting IM 17”, and she is taking another look at HB 1067. Rep. Conzet said she voted for IM 17, and that HB 1067 was not sold to her the way it is being perceived. She said she is reconsidering the bill, and though she is one of the sponsors, she will be voting against it.

Read that here.

This bill doesn’t appear likely to go down without a fight, but with at least two sponsors reconsidering before it hits committee, it looks like it might be a bumpy ride for this legislation.

It is a weekly ritual at this point where the site authors for Sioux Falls Drinking Liberally make their weekly post on what’s going on behind closed doors at the Democrat party, and then I’m doing a post based off of what they’ve written. 

It’s great stuff, and should be on your reading list.

This week’s post is regarding the Governor’s Education plan, and how the Democrats made a cocked up mess of their response:

 The Democrats proposed using the additional money to increase teacher salaries a bit more than the Governor proposed and to remove the sales tax on food, making the state sales tax a little less regressive. This is a noble proposal.

One would think that the Democrats would have lined up their primary constituent and the primary beneficiary of the sales tax increase, the South Dakota Teachers Association (SDEA), behind their proposal if it was to have a ghost of chance of passing and if they meant it as a serious proposal. It turns out the SDEA announced its preference for the Governor’s plan, not the Democratic plan, even before the Democrats revealed their proposal. 

One would think the Democrats would have checked with the SDEA before they announced their proposal. After all, Ann Tornberg, before assuming her election as Chairman of the South Dakota Democratic Party and mother hen of the few remaining Democratic Legislator’s in Pierre, was President of SDEA’s organization in Sioux Falls, the largest school district in the State. Apparently such message coordination didn’t occur. 

Is it any wonder that no one is taking the Democrat’s plan seriously.

Read it here.

Ouch. I felt that burn all the way up here in Brookings.

Former Union Boss Ann Tornberg didn’t even bother to check with ‘her peeps’ on where they stood with the Governor’s plan before her party offered an alternative? Wow.  

At this point, we’re left wondering if Ann Tornberg could screw up her political party any more if she tried?

South Dakota Dems are dependent on their national party to keep them financially afloat. They’ve abandoned all hopes of running a good candidate for US Senate, and at last look were shopping for another sacrificial lamb, such as they have running for Congress against Kristi Noem. So far, their roster of announced state legislative candidates for seats they don’t already hold can be counted on your fingers. 

And now we’re hearing they didn’t bother seeking the support of SDEA, a long time partner with close ties to the Dem party, as well as personally for the chairman, before they rolled out their education plan?

We haven’t seen leadership like this since the skipper and Gilligan set out on a three hour tour. 

Senate Democrats Vote to Expand Government Into Americans’ Backyards
“At the president’s urging, Washington bureaucrats have issued a rule governing Americans’ backyards without regard for the negative effect it has on communities that depend on the land.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued the following statement after the Senate attempted to override the president’s veto of the Obama Environmental Protection Agency’s Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule, which places burdensome regulations on farmers, ranchers, and businesses across the country.

“At the president’s urging, Washington bureaucrats have issued a rule governing Americans’ backyards without regard for the negative effect it has on communities that depend on the land. Unfortunately, rather than listening to the American people’s objections, the president and Senate Democrats have persisted in their efforts to expand the reach of the federal government. We will continue to fight this thinly veiled land grab this year and beyond.”

WOTUS is under fire from Americans across the country, who are pushing back against a rule that allows the federal government to regulate ponds, ditches, agriculture water, storm water, and other bodies of water not historically regulated under the federal Clean Water Act. In November 2015, the Senate passed a resolution of disapproval to overturn WOTUS, and 31 states have filed lawsuits against the rule. An October decision by the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals extended to all 50 states an earlier injunction from a federal district court that blocked implementation in 13 states, including South Dakota.

###

As I’m in the middle of rearranging a few things on the website in preparation of the election season, I wanted to take just a moment and remind you of the two groups of College Republicans who are raising money to help their membership attend CPAC in March.

The Augustana University College Republicans are at 52% of their $5000 goal as we come to the end of January. They have a huge group they’re trying to send, so click here, and add to the total to help get this very active group of CR’s there.

The University of South Dakota College Republicans are a beacon of conservatism in that liberal institution that wishes it could be as great as South Dakota State. They’ve raised $220 of the $1000 they’re trying to raise to send members of their organization to CPAC.  C’mon readers – we can do better than that! $1000 collectively isn’t that much – Click here and see if we can put them over the top.

Many of these students will be running Republican campaigns, if not running as candidates in the very near future. Help them with what they’re not getting in college – exposure to conservative values, and the opportunity to network with conservative leaders from around the country.

Rounds Supports New North Korean Sanctions

WASHINGTON— U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) cosponsored legislation to impose new sanctions against North Korean officials involved in nuclear program and proliferation activities, as well as human rights abuses.

“While much of our attention has been on conflicts in the Middle East, we must not forget the military aggression from North Korea, as well as their human rights violations,” said Rounds. “The North Korean regime continues to threaten the U.S. and our allies with violence, weapons of mass destruction and cyberattacks. Such actions must not be tolerated. Increasing sanctions will apply pressure on the North Korean regime.”

The North Korea Sanctions and Policy Enhancement Act would:

• Explicitly state that it is the policy of the United States to pursue sanctions against the North Korean government in order to peacefully disarm the North Korean regime;
• Require the administration to submit a strategy to counter North Korean cyber-related attacks and impose sanctions on cyber criminals;
• Codify two executive orders released in 2015 authorizing sanctions against entities undermining U.S. and national economic security in cyberspace; and
• Require a report by the State Department identifying human rights abusers in North Korea and a report on their political prison camps.

###

From KELOLAND:

The husband of former Republican U.S. Senate candidate Annette Bosworth has taken a deal and avoided jail time for charges related to his wife’s 2014 campaign.

Chad Haber appeared Wednesday at the Hughes County Courthouse. He pleaded no contest to two misdemeanors related to not reporting criminal activity to authorities.

He was originally indicted on felony charges of perjury and offering false or forged instrument for filing.

Read it here.

So, all he had to do was to admit in some manner what he did was wrong, and he was allowed to plead it down to a misdemeanor?

Hmm….  Do you think that might have been good advice for his wife as well?

One of the legislative measures that have already proven to be controversial before it was finished has now been put in the hopper and given a number. House Bill 1067, as primed by State Representative Tim Rounds, represents the latest draft of the legislation as supported by Sanford Health Plans, who believes in a different interpretation than the one in State Law as passed by 2014’s Initiated Measure 17, otherwise known as the “Any willing Provider” act.

What are the differences between the draft measure we pointed out yesterday, and the one that was filed today?

The draft dated 1/7/2016 is titled “An Act to allow health care providers to offer plans that contain less than all of the health care providers on a panel of providers.”

House Bill 1067’s title is “An Act to promote quality, competition, and freedom of choice in the health insurance market place.”

Well… it’s a shinier title. But, with the exception of the new title, it would appear to be the same bill as circulated around previously.

The bill’s complete sponsor list is as noted:

Representatives Rounds, Beal, Conzet, Cronin, Dryden, Hawks, Hawley, Jensen (Alex), Otten (Herman), Partridge, Peterson (Kent), and Willadsen and Senators Peters, Buhl O’Donnell, Haverly, Rusch, Shorma, Solano, Sutton, and Tidemann.

Residency for the sponsors is heavily weighted in South Dakota’s urban areas, and politically, most, if not all, aren’t going to face tough competition at election time. No one is going to beat Tim Rounds or Deb Peters, or Arch Beal, or Larry Tidemann, etc.   Or, like Alex Jensen, and Angie Buhl, they’re sitting out the next election.

Although it was very interesting to see that State Representative Paula Hawks who is running for Congress has signed on as a sponsor to what may be one of the legislative session’s most controversial bills.  Her sponsorship is a wild card in all of this, given her high profile race for office in 2016.

Stay tuned. The wild ride of the 2016 legislative session is just starting.