Category: Uncategorized

Thune Begins Farm Bill Rollout, Introduces New Income Protection Program for Farmers

“I know what it takes to get these farm bills across the finish line, and I know the hard-working farmers and ranchers who will be affected once we do.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), a long-time member of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry, today unveiled the Soil Health and Income Protection Program (SHIPP), the first of many individual farm bill proposals he will introduce over the next few weeks and months. SHIPP is a new voluntary income protection program for farmers that is designed for today’s production agriculture and soil health needs. It would provide participating farmers with a short-term acreage conserving use program, which unlike the Conservation Reserve Program (CRP), would require a commitment of only three to five years.

“I’ve written three farm bills during my time in Congress, having served on both the House and Senate Agriculture Committees,” said Thune. “The 2018 farm bill will be my fourth. I know what it takes to get these farm bills across the finish line, and I know the hard-working farmers and ranchers who will be affected once we do. That’s why over the next several weeks, I’ll be rolling out incremental farm bill proposals that will cover most titles of the farm bill.

“The first proposal I’m unveiling would create a new voluntary farm bill program that would provide a short-term option to conserve acreage while protecting farm income. Unlike CRP, which requires a long-term commitment of 10 to 15 years, SHIPP would require only a three-to-five-year commitment. SHIPP would give farmers the flexibility they need to enroll their least productive acreage in this new program in return for a rental payment and additional crop insurance assistance.” 

“Sen. Thune’s new farm bill program has the potential to be a helpful tool for farmers in today’s agriculture economy that has been bogged down by low commodity prices and numerous challenges in meeting the cost of production for most crops,” said Scott VanderWal, president of the South Dakota Farm Bureau. “SHIPP provides a common-sense, voluntary alternative to spending money on expensive seed, fertilizer, and chemicals on our least productive land.” 

SHIPP Highlights:

• Participation is voluntary.
• Operator chooses the land to be enrolled in SHIPP on each Farm Service Agency (FSA) Farm Serial Number (FSN).
• Both the landowner and the operator must sign the SHIPP contract.
• A one-time sign-up will be held, beginning with the first crop year after the next farm bill has been enacted.
• Land is enrolled in SHIPP for three, four, or five years.
• A maximum of 15 percent of the cropland on a FSN may be enrolled in SHIPP, and to be eligible for SHIPP, land must have been planted or considered planted to a commodity crop for three consecutive years prior to enrollment.
• One base acre for each acre enrolled in SHIPP will be suspended and returned to the SHIPP-enrolled farm after a SHIPP contract expires or is terminated.
• Acres must be planted to a low-cost perennial conserving use cover at enrollee’s expense.
• Acres may be harvested for seed after nesting and brood rearing period, but cannot be insured (25 percent reduction in rental payment if harvested for seed).
• Annual SHIPP payment rate shall be one-half of the CRP general sign-up rental per acre rate for the county.
• Premium discount for insured crops planted in a crop insurance unit each year shall be increased by 2 percent if the unit contains acres enrolled in SHIPP. 
• SHIPP acres may be hayed or grazed outside the nesting and brood-rearing period established for the county, with adequate stubble height left standing to protect the soil, as determined by the State Technical Committee.
• At the outset, socially disadvantaged and military veteran SHIPP enrollees would receive 75 percent of the CRP general sign-up rental rate, a 3 percent increase in crop insurance premium discounts, and no deduction in payment for harvesting grass seed on acres enrolled in SHIPP. 

For additional information on Sen. Thune’s commitment to agriculture and other issues that are important to South Dakota, please visit www.thune.senate.gov. 

###

Sioux Falls resident Michael Wyland of Non-Profit quarterly has an interesting article on that website about how the Mid Central Educational Coop’s attempts to drag State Representative Kyle Schoenfish’s Accounting firm into a lawsuit filed against the Coop is primarily smoke and mirrors, and not one that’s likely to work:

In response to the unfolding lawsuit, MCEC has taken the unusual step of filing papers with the state court asking that the education cooperative’s auditors be held liable of any damages resulting from the class action lawsuit.

and.

The filing goes on to say if MCEC is found to be at fault in the class action, “such fault is slight in comparison to the fault of Schoenfish & Co., Inc.”

Blaming the auditors is highly unlikely to be successful for at least three reasons. First, audits are not designed to uncover criminal activity such as embezzlement. Second, audits are dependent upon management’s representations of the organization’s finances. If management misrepresents the finances with skill, the auditors won’t know it. Third, the auditors in this case noted material weaknesses in MCEC’s financial controls as well as missing or incomplete management reports expected of federal grantees. The 2014 audit prepared for MCEC included a note from the auditors that it was the eighth year material weaknesses had been reported to the MCEC board of directors.

The tragedy of GEAR UP is more than the deaths of six people and the alleged embezzlement of millions of dollars. The real damage done to Alyssa Black Bear, Kelsey Walking Eagle-Espinoza, and other Native American plaintiffs likely to join the class action is in the misadministration of the GEAR UP program from its inception in 2005 through the following decade.

Read it here.

From Facebook, Cynthia Mickelson announced today that she is taking the plunge and joining her husband Mark (Speaker of the House) Mickelson in running for office:

Thune, Gov. Daugaard Participate in Hearing on Infrastructure

“Eliminating unnecessary hurdles, while maintaining an emphasis on safety improvements, can lead to a better use of both public and private dollars.” 

WASHINGTON  — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation, today led a hearing entitled, “Connecting America: Improving Access to Infrastructure for Communities Across the Country.” Gov. Dennis Daugaard testified at the hearing, which examined the challenges of connecting Americans, particularly in rural communities, to transportation and information networks.

Thune questioned Daugaard about existing programs under the FAST Act, which passed the Senate in December 2015, and how they compared to new policy designs or a project–specific approach.

I’m a bit stumped at the mixed messages being given.

If you recall, Initiated Measure 21, which was passed at the ballot box this past year, severely limited personal lending in South Dakota by placing express interest limits on short-term and other personal lending, by capping the lending rate at 36% for most entities that weren’t regularly chartered banks.

Who was exempt from IM 22?

• State and national banks
• Bank holding companies
• Other federally insured financial institutions
• State chartered trust companies
• Businesses that provide financing for goods and services that they sell

In my opinion, Initiated Measure 21 was a regulatory overreach, by telling the short-term lenders that they could no longer make a profit sufficient enough to cover their risk. In effect, regulating them out of the business.

Now, a new type of banking measure, House Bill 1179 has been bouncing around in the legislature. What does this measure do? It allows certain types of mortgage lending without a license from the state. Specifically, it is “An Act to revise certain provisions related to exemptions from licensure for nonresidential mortgage loans.” The measure allows a person to lend up to 8 million dollars total, exempting them from licensure, oversight, taxation, etcetera.

In other words, this new class of elite lenders get to do what they want. It made it through the House of Representatives with so-so support, and barely passed out of the Senate, making it out of committee with “No Recommendation.”

It’s coming to the finish line. But, when you put it up against IM21, there’s not a lot of consistency.

On one hand, Initiated Measure 21 puts onerous restrictions on the smallest types of personal loans. So much so that it put them out of business. But, if you have enough money, HB1179 proposes to allow a person to loan out up to 8 Million of it without oversight or regulation.

One approach is contrary to free market principles, and the other ignores the fact that in a year the state is going to have a revenue shortfall, they look as if they may exempt a class of money lenders from taxation, as well as licensure.

Instead of legislatively creating the haves and have nots, if they’re going to de-regulate banking, they should consider relaxing state regulations on established state banks, holding companies, trusts, and others as opposed to creating a caste of elite “lending clubs” not subject to regulation or taxation.

Over-regulating lending, or creating a class of lenders we don’t regulate or ask to pay their fair share of taxes at all.

Maybe there’s a happy medium in there somewhere.

AG Jackley Meets with the President, Vice President
and U.S. Attorney General to Coordinate Fighting Crime

Yesterday Attorney General Marty Jackley met with President Trump, Vice President Pence and U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to discuss strengthening public safety, including addressing violent crime, human trafficking, and controlled substances  from  our  southern borders.

“As South Dakota’s Attorney General and the former Chairman of the Nation’s Attorneys General, I am looking forward to working with our federal partners in continuing to strengthen public safety. Law enforcement cooperation in South Dakota involving the U.S. Attorney, Attorney General, State’s Attorneys, Tribal officers, Chiefs, and Sheriffs, sets a high standard on how to better protect communities by developing task forces and sharing resources,” said   Jackley.

After the meeting, President Trump announced he has directed the Department of Justice to work with state and local law enforcement to reduce violent crime. In addition, the President announced he has ordered the Departments of Homeland Security and Justice, along with the Department of State and the Director of National Intelligence, to coordinate an aggressive strategy to dismantle the criminal cartels that have spread across our Nation.

President Trump has also said he will bring the full force and weight of the U.S. government to combat the epidemic of human trafficking.

In response to Speaker Mickelson’s guest column on House Bill 1200, I’ve had several people point out the article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal opposing the Campaign Finance Disclosure measure.

For your review:

The South Dakota House voted 42-25 last week to require sweeping disclosure of names and addresses of donors to political nonprofits. The bill requires any group that spends more than $25,000 in independent political expenditures in a year, or more than $25,000 on a ballot question, to disclose the names of its top 50 donors. This is the kind of chilling “transparency” legislation you might find in California or Vermont, not a statehouse with GOP supermajorities.

The bill is a response to a new Democratic strategy, unveiled in 2016, to use ballot measures to overcome the party’s failure to win other South Dakota elections. The Mount Rushmore State has a loose ballot-initiative process, and out-of-state progressive groups swamped South Dakota with liberal policy initiatives. These ranged from challenging the state’s right-to-work law to requiring nonpartisan elections. Most failed but donors from outside the state bought enough ads to pass an ugly campaign-finance restriction.

and..

Republicans say this is about exposing outsiders who are meddling in state elections, but both sides know the real goal is chilling political participation. Money for issue advocacy will dry up if donors fear becoming targets of political retribution, boycotts or bureaucratic assaults. (See Lois Lerner’s IRS.)

and..

What silences the political left will end up silencing everyone. That’s why a coalition including the National Rifle Association, Americans for Prosperity and the state Chamber of Commerce oppose the bill. Groups like these helped to defeat the progressive ballot initiatives, which is proof that more voices and better arguments are the way to win debates—not a limit on campaign donations.

Read it all here (Subscription required)

What do you think?

Is more extensive disclosure the answer? Or does the disclosure come with a chilling effect?

President Trump’s Speech Highlights Americans’ Priorities

“We’ve got a lot of work to do, but I believe we can accomplish big things for the American people this year, and I look forward to getting after it.”

WASHINGTON  — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) issued the following statement after President Trump’s address to a joint session of Congress:

“Tonight President Trump highlighted his continued focus on tackling the issues that matter most to Americans,” said Thune. “I look forward to working with the president to implement policies that will help create jobs and get our economy growing at a faster rate. The Republican-led Senate shares the president’s commitment to repealing Obamacare and replacing it with patient-centered health care that is affordable for every American, to easing burdensome regulations that are driving up the cost of creating jobs in this country, and to reforming our outdated tax code. We’ve got a lot of work to do, but I believe we can accomplish big things for the American people this year, and I look forward to getting after it.”   

###

(Editor’s Note – The table below has been updated to remove a couple of inaccuracies – PP)

The Case for HB 1200 and Ballot Reform
by Mark Mickelson, Speaker of the House

Dakota Territory was divided into North Dakota and South Dakota at statehood for a simple reason.    The 1880’s railroad political lobby wanted four pro-railroad U.S. Senators to continue the federal government’s financial support for the construction of railroad lines.

After gaining statehood in 1889, Civil War veterans and immigrant farmers settled in South Dakota.  Our South Dakota founders did not trust our local government officials completely, as they were afraid they could succumb to the far-away railroad titans to effectively “buy” our government.  As a protection against this measure, South Dakota became the first state in the nation to fully embrace a citizen’s right to petition its government.

It is our right, as South Dakota citizens, to have the public vote on the quality of our ideas at the ballot box if we gather the appropriate number of signatures.

This year we saw this process play out as it was intended in 1889 with the successful 2016 pay-day lending interest rate cap ballot initiative (initiated measure 21).

However, I submit to you that the remaining initiated measures reflect a perversion of our original purpose.  The very system created to protect us against the influence of big money from outside the state has been hijacked by out of state special interests.

In 2016, there were seven initiated measures, including four that proposed to re-write our constitution.

• Six of the seven ideas were brought to us by out of state political and business interests.
• $8 million was spent in support of the initiated measures and amendments, 91% from out of state.
• $12 million was spent in total on the ten measures (including three referred), 83% from out-of-state;
• Over 60% of the money came from groups that do not have to disclose their contributors; dark money, some say.
• Three passed, four failed.

	Description	Pass/Fail	Proponents	Opponents	Money raised Pro (for)	Money raised Con (against)
IM 21	36% pay-day lending cap	Pass (76%)	Former state Rep. Steve Hickey (R), former Daschle staffer Steve Hildebrand (D	Select Management Resources (pay-day lending business)	$76,243 73% in-state	$1,285,702 0% in-state
IM22	Government ethics/public financing for candidates	Pass (51.5%)	Represent Us Florence, MA Liberal	Americans for Prosperity, DC, Conservative	$1,726,198, 2% in-state 61% NO CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE	$640,865, 2% in-state 48% NO CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE
IM23	Pro-Union	Fail	Americans for Fairness Chicago, Illinois Labor Union	AGC of South Dakota National Right to Work Committee	$873,793 0% in-state NO CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE	$296,283 50% in-state PARTIAL CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE
CA S	Crime victims rights (Marsy’s law)	Pass (70%)	Henry Nicholaus (California) and Jason Glodt (in-state Republican lobbyist)	Criminal defense bar	$2,001,469 0% in-state	$4,850 100% in-state
CA T	Legislative redistricting	Fail	SD Farmer’s Union, Democrat Party	SD Farm Bureau	$498,941 100% in-state 83% NO CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE	$1,500 100% in-state
CA U	Usury law – unlimited interest rate with signature	Fail	Select Management Resources	Center for Responsible Lending	$1,879,623 0% in-state	$23,205 9% in-state
CA V	Non-partisan elections	Fail	Open Primaries Take It Back, Org.	SD Republican Party	$1,819,248 15% in-state 79% NO CONTRIBUTOR DISCLOSURE	$287,076 100% in-state

Is it possible out of state interests are using our low signature requirements and cheap media markets in an attempt to buy our ballot initiative process?   If so, they will have turned our state founders’ intent completely on its head.

Our system needs safeguarding if we are to restore our system to one that serves the people of South Dakota.  We have two sensible measures pending which have passed the South Dakota House and are pending in the South Dakota Senate:

HB1074:                This proposal limits certain out of state contributions to a ballot question committee at $100,000.

HB1200:                This proposal requires all organizations which contribute more than $25,000 to a ballot question committee to disclose their top 50 donors.   A transparency measure designed to shed a little light on the contributors associated with these largely out of state organizations.

HB1200 merely asks that a group allow the voter to put a name and face with the otherwise nameless, faceless organizations that come into South Dakota to advocate for their public policy interests.

Think of The Club for Growth (conservative Washington D.C. based think tank); Americans for Fairness (Illinois Union affiliated group); Americans For Prosperity (Washington D.C. conservative – David Koch founded); Represent US (Massachusetts liberal) and many other groups.

These organizations do not have children that attend our schools, they do not attend our churches and you will not see them at the basketball game this weekend.  That is because they do not live here and likely have never been here.   I have worked with their representatives to try to overcome their objections to HB1200 and do you know who is calling their shots?    Their Washington D.C. lawyers.    Let’s limit their involvement unless they can demonstrate either residency or a legitimate business interest in South Dakota.  At the very least, let’s at least make them tell us who they are.

I urge you to contact your state Senator and ask them to support both of these proposals.

NOEM: Trump Action, a Step toward Ditching WOTUS Rule

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today applauded President Trump’s Executive Order to begin pulling back the controversial, Obama-era Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule. 

“The Obama administration attempted to pull off one of the largest federal land grabs in U.S. history when it finalized the Waters of the U.S. rule,” said Noem.  “Today’s actions are a step toward reversing the rule’s impact and lifting another regulatory burden from the shoulders of hardworking farmers, ranchers, and homeowners.  As the administration’s efforts move forward, I will continue to work on the legislative front to reverse this Obama-era regulation and protect South Dakotans from the costly impacts it could have.” 

As finalized by the Obama administration, the WOTUS rule could greatly expand the federal government’s control over small and seasonal bodies of water throughout South Dakota and the country.  Estimates show that if a landowner falls out of compliance, penalties could cost more than $30,000 per violation, per day. 

In May 2015, Noem helped the U.S. House of Representatives pass the bipartisan H.R. 1732, the Regulatory Integrity Protection Act of 2015, which would send the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Army Corps of Engineers back to the drawing board on the WOTUS rule.  Months later, a federal appellate court temporarily suspended the nationwide implementation of the WOTUS rule, a suspension that holds today.

In January 2016, Noem joined the House in passing legislation disapproving the rule.  President Obama later vetoed the bill.  Watch Noem discuss this legislation.

In February 2017, Noem joined more than 35 Members of Congress in a letter to President Trump, urging the administration to take action to roll WOTUS back.

###