Category: Uncategorized

From the Rapid City Journal, it appears that the defendant in the EB-5 case is going to change his plea. 

So much for the need for a special prosecutor.

Our Nation’s system of national elections (A.K.A. The Electoral College) was put into place by our forefathers to guarantee that state’s are the one casting ballots for presidents, versus them being elected by popular vote, as a way to balance out the interests of large states versus small states.

Obviously, South Dakota’s vote would be rendered meaningless and swamped out by larger states such as California, or Texas, or New York. Granted, our weight in the electoral college is minimal compared to theirs, but it’s better than being out-voted by several million votes.  In other words, it’s incontrovertible and undisputed that it’s a good thing for our state. So, who would disagree with it in our sparsely populated state?

Democrats, of course.

Without exception, every single vote against supporting the electoral college – every vote against making sure South Dakota matters in the vote for President – came from Democrats.

Just something to keep in mind.

Attorney General Jackley Update on Medical Marijuana Issue 

PIERRE, S.D. – On August 19, 2016, Attorney General Marty Jackley provided correspondence to the FDA and DEA urging both to assist in the determination of whether marijuana presents medical opportunities and further setting forth considerations for public health and safety.

“As Attorney General, I am hopeful for the sake of children and adults suffering medical conditions, that research will conclude derivatives of marijuana will help treat a child experiencing seizures or the pain of a cancer patient. If medical research  reaches this milestone, I strongly believe that three important conditions must be satisfied for public health and safety  reasons:

1. There needs to be FDA approval for marijuana or one or more of its derivatives as a safe and effective drug;
2. A South Dakota doctor to prescribe the drug; and
3. A South Dakota pharmacist to dispense the drug,” stated Attorney General

On October 13, 2016, the DEA responded recognizing that:

While the DEA shares your desire to facilitate research with CBD, and to carry out any scheduling actions that are supported by the medical and scientific evidence, as you undoubtedly recognize, the protection of the public health and safety must remain of paramount consideration.

On January 26, 2017, the FDA responded that:

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) shares your concern for children and adults suffering from diseases such as epilepsy and cancer, and is committed to advancing the development of new therapies. We agree that the drug approval process represents the best way to help  ensure that any medicines derived from cannabidiol (CBD) or other constituents of marijuana are appropriately reviewed for safety and effectiveness, consistent with FDA’s statutory requirements…

At present, FDA has approved several drugs for human use which contain active ingredients that are present, or similar to those present, in botanical marijuana….FDA has not, as of now, approved any drug containing marijuana or CBD as safe and effective for any therapeutic use. FDA is working diligently to support scientific studies that may determine the safety and effectiveness of these products….

FDA encourages and supports medical research into the safety and effectiveness of marijuana products through adequate and well-controlled clinical trials conducted under an appropriate investigational new  drug.

The Attorney General recognizes that there are several proposals being discussed this South Dakota Legislative Session surrounding medical marijuana and cannabidiol (CBD). As set forth above in the Attorney General’s August 19, 2016, letter to the FDA and DEA, the Attorney General strongly believes that there are three significant conditions that are very important for public health and safety    reasons.

-30-

This Senate Concurrent Resolution was filed recently in the legislature in an effort to compel the State Attorney General, Marty Jackley to appoint a special prosecutor.  Unfortunately, it’s a waste of money, and a stupid idea.

The AG’s office has been conducting investigations on both of these topics for considerable time, and is already prosecuting both to the extent that law allows.

I’m not quite sure how the legislature butting in and saying we need a special prosecutor a couple years after the fact is anything but grandstanding. Especially in light of the fact that the resolution refers to “failing grades from national groups.”  Adding that into the measure makes it seem positively doltish, in that none of those studies refer only to state government, and they’re hopelessly biased and skewed as a result of our small population.

The people who conducted one study spoke at length as to how the backers of Initiated Measure 22 lied about the study, and noted it didn’t apply because South Dakota was an outlier.  And let’s not ignore the study that noted South Dakota as one of the least corrupt.

Old news that’s long being handled properly and under the law, as well as discredited studies are no basis to form legislation or charge that the Attorney General isn’t doing the job that taxpayers hired him to do.

The measure is nothing more than grandstanding. And henceforth, a waste of taxpayer’s time and money.

From Twitter:

From IM22 Election night results:

So, was he actually trying to say that HB 1069 is a hypocritical assault on the will of the people… at least, on the will of those other than the people who elected him?

Just asking.

(p.s.  Dumping IM22 because it’s unconstitutional is probably a far more compelling reason.)

As the Trump administration swiftly moves to bring back jobs to this country, one of the areas that the administration needs to give serious attention to is how this country makes credit available in communities, and the one-size fits all attitude that the Consumer Financial Protection Board has instituted in the country.

And it doesn’t help that this one-size fits all attitude comes from an agency that was set up to be an unaccountable 4th branch of government under the Obama Administration.

Since its inception, the CFPB has been controversial, and in this past year, it was ruled that the agency’s structure was unconstitutional, and literally, was a fiefdom lacking responsibility to anyone in government:

Because the CFPB is an independent agency headed by a single Director and not by a multi-member commission, the Director of the CFPB possesses more unilateral authority – that is, authority to take action on one’s own, subject to no check –than any single commissioner or board member in any other independent agency in the U.S. Government. Indeed, as we will explain, the Director enjoys more unilateral authority than any other officer in any of the three branches of the U.S. Government, other than the President.

At the same time, the Director of the CFPB possesses enormous power over American business, American consumers, and the overall U.S. economy. The Director unilaterally enforces 19 federal consumer protection statutes, covering everything from home finance to student loans to credit cards to banking practices. The Director alone decides  what rules to issue; how to enforce, when to enforce, and against whom to enforce the law; and what sanctions and penalties to impose on violators of the law. (To be sure, judicial review serves as a constraint on illegal actions, but not on discretionary decisions within legal boundaries; therefore, subsequent judicial review of individual agency decisions has never been regarded as sufficient to excuse a structural separation of powers violation.)

That combination of power that is massive in scope, concentrated in a single person, and unaccountable to the President triggers the important constitutional question at issue in this case.

Read the court decision here.

More unilateral authority than anyone in all of government other than the president. And added to that, the court notes that the law which set up the position is unaccountable to the President.

This is less than an agency gone rogue.  This is a constitutional crisis, and thankfully the court recognized it, and has declared the bureau’s structure Unconstitutional. For there to actually be an unelected person second in power only to the President of the United States is an unfathomable travesty, and this should have been an action that had the country up in arms.

However, it was the Obama administration it happened under. So the media collectively went “meh.”

But with a new president in town, there’s a glimmer of hope that an out-of-control bureaucracy may have their reins yanked, and yanked hard. There’s every expectation that the new President will take a dim view of an untouchable agency with unelected bureaucrat as its head with power equal to or exceeding his own:

Within days of being sworn in, President Donald Trump has already pledged to cut business regulations by 75%. One way he is likely to fulfill that promise, at least in part, is by defanging a legacy of the 2008 financial crisis: the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

and…

Republican leaders have long tried to check the CFPB, arguing that the agency is flawed, too powerful and not accountable to elected officials. Currently, the bureau is funded by the Federal Reserve, and therefore doesn’t report to elected leaders. Most recently, Senators Ben Sasse (R-NE) and Mike Lee (R-UT) called for replacing the director of the CFPB with a multi-member panel that can be controlled by Congress.

“Director [Richard] Cordray has vigorously supported the unconstitutional independence of the CFPB,” Lee said in an early January statement.”Considering the damage CFPB has done to credit unions and community banks, President Trump should act quickly to remove the director.”

Read it here.

There’s talk that it is likely that the new president will assert his authority over the CFPB and fire it’s unelected head. If this happens, there’s speculation that the CFPB head Richard Corday will likely sue to prevent it from happening. But, make no mistake, there is a growing sentiment that this is a battle worth fighting, and there’s a strong basis that should he fire Cordray, President Trump would completely be in the right:

Shortly before the election, a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit concluded that the law limiting the president’s power to fire the director was unconstitutional. The court reasoned that, by creating an agency with vast powers and shielding it from oversight, Congress violated the Constitution’s provisions designed to defend against arbitrary decisions and the abuse of power. Since the election, the CFPB has sought a review of this decision by the entire court of appeals, contending that it “sets up what may be the most important separation-of-powers case in a generation.”

The new president may wonder whether he can fire Mr. Cordray before the courts issue a final judgment. The answer is yes, Trump could fire Mr. Cordray and order him to vacate his office.

and…

Madison and Taft were right. The Congress that sought to force a president to retain a hostile cabinet was wrong, as were the Congress that enacted the independent-counsel statute and the Congress that created the CFPB. To say otherwise would permit legislators to create a permanent class of unelected, autonomous bureaucrats who may thwart a president’s agenda.

A law that shields an officer as formidable as the CFPB director can have no place in our constitutional scheme.

Read it all here.

If ever there was an example in the Federal Bureaucracy that there are government employees in Washington who are out of control, the unaccountability of the CFPB is a prime example of what is wrong in government.

It’s time for President Trump to make it right – It’s time for him to return government to the people, rein in the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau, and fire Richard Cordray, the most powerful unelected person in the federal government.

It may not solve all the problems with the bureaucracy. But it’s a start.

While South Dakota Republicans have a sense of excitement and competition over the choices they have to lead the South Dakota Republican Party over the course of the next two year cycle, Democrats involved with their party aren’t sounding very enthused over what their party is doing.

In fact, they’re openly noting that their leadership has forgotten that they’re a political party, and it’s time for “an intervention:”

Locally, I attended an E-board meeting of the South Dakota Democratic Party (SDDP) on Saturday. I will not bore you with the details. Suffice it to say, the SDDP has lost its way. Its Chair has forgotten its primary goal is to elect Democrats. Instead, she wants to husband its resources for ballot initiatives, referendums, and constitutional amendments. Despite her own promises, she resists committing $100,000.00 in unbudgeted funds to organize in the Black Hills and Indian reservations and her staff stated they would stay holed up in the Sioux Empire. An intervention is needed.

Speaking of Sioux Falls, Mayor Huether vetoed an ordinance directing the Parks Board to video its meetings. He believes the light of day would inhibit their work. If he is right, you have to wonder about what nefarious work the Park Board does that he doesn’t want the public to learn about. We seem to have government at its most autocratic. Thank God, Mayor Huether left the Democratic Party to become an Independent. Or was it a Libertarian or Constitutionalist. Has anyone checked? Let me know. Maybe he just became a Huetherite.

Read it all at Drinking Liberally Sioux Falls.

Another email came out today from state party chair Pam Roberts in reference to the upcoming state Republican party elections. Today’s late afternoon email came in reference to David Wheeler, who Pam is announcing would be offered as her vice chair.

In the race for Republican GOP Chairman, an announcement came out from Pam Roberts on Tuesday of this week from her personal e-mail declaring her candidacy for a second term of office.

As SDWC readers know, this year may mark the first time in a long while where there’s a competitive race for the office, with word of former Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dan Lederman out contacting people and indicating that he’s running.

For those of you following the race with interest:

It’s Time to Bury the Death Tax
By Sen. John Thune

Benjamin Franklin once famously quipped that “in this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” While there’s some truth to what Franklin said, we certainly don’t need a system where Americans are taxed at death. The idea that death could be a taxable event might come as a surprise to some people, but believe it or not, the IRS sometimes and unfairly views death as a final chance to help fill its coffers. I strongly disagree, which is why I’m continuing my years-long fight to permanently repeal the estate tax – or the death tax, which is a far more accurate characterization.

The reality of the death tax hits families at the worst possible moment. The last thing families need to worry about when they’re grieving the loss of a loved one is how and when they’ll deal with the long arm of the IRS. The underlying premise of the death tax, which is re-taxing wealth that has already been taxed, is fundamentally unfair. It also hits every family differently. In South Dakota, for example, family-owned farms and ranches are often land rich and cash poor. On paper, a family with a several-thousand acre farm might seem far wealthier than what’s reflected in the family checkbook or savings account.

Anyone who has run a farm or ranch knows that land alone doesn’t pay the bills. The land represents an opportunity to earn a living, put food on the table, send kids to school, and keep the operation running from one day to the next. Without it, the farm doesn’t exist. The IRS takes the opposite approach. It only sees lines on a balance sheet. The IRS lumps land value with other assets, like cash in bank accounts and the owner’s home. In too many cases, the land and other assets can put the farm owner and his or her family directly in the crosshairs of death tax.

Some people argue that with smart lawyers and accountants and complicated estate planning, individuals can avoid having to pay the death tax at all. While that might be true for some of the wealthiest people who can afford both the ongoing time and financial burden of effective estate planning, that’s not the case for everyone. Estate planning comes at a cost, and every dollar spent on a lawyer or accountant is a dollar that isn’t reinvested into growing a business, hiring new employees, or boosting paychecks. That money isn’t used as effectively as possible while the individual is alive, long before the death tax may even apply.

Abolishing the death tax would give Americans greater peace of mind so they can focus on what really matters, and that’s why I’m committed to this fight. According to the American Farm Bureau, thousands of farms in South Dakota would exceed the death tax’s exemption level today, just based on the value of their land. My primary interest in taking up this cause has always been to protect those farmers and ranchers and to put this onerous tax six feet under once and for all.  

 ###