Category: Uncategorized

Recall yesterday’s Argus Leader article claiming that Senator Soholt was prevaricating on the Blue Ribbon Education plan?

Sen. Deb Soholt, R-Sioux Falls, told reporter Dana Ferguson last week that it was too “premature” to predict her support for a tax increase that would be pivotal to the recommended overhaul of South Dakota’s 20-year-old funding model.

and…

So, when we’re talking about those other school funding what-ifs, what if one of the key authors of Daugaard’s plan is already prevaricating like a politician?

Read that here.

It was noticeable enough that it was worth a mention here yesterday at Dakotawarcollege.com.

But a short time later, I had a note from someone up at the legislature saw that I’d noted the article, but cautioned me that I might want to dig a bit deeper, as they were hearing that what Soholt was quoted as saying was not as it was said, or at least intended. It was out of context, and as portrayed by the media, completely incorrect.  So, I contacted the Senator to get the bottom of the issue.

Q:  I’m hearing through the grapevine that today’s Argus article misquoted you on the ½ cent sales tax statement. Is that correct?

Sen Soholt:  Yes – totally correct as one sentence of an entire conversation that supported solving this problem.  The first question I was asked was “will you support a tax increase” and I did say that it was premature (a bill has not even been filed) – BUT went on to say, because…we need to be very careful with taxpayer $ and make sure that we could not fund the extra $75 million that we need with existing funds.  Also that we have a very serious problem in South Dakota that we need to solve and that it requires ongoing (not just one time)  additional funding at that level to assure that we have great teachers in the classroom.  Said more but the above is the summary of it.

The Blue Ribbon Task Force clearly identified the problem in South Dakota – that we are at a minimum, $8 – 10,000 out of market with respect to our neighbors in average teacher salary.  I’ve spent countless hours this past year providing leadership to this issue and now committed to a real solution.  In hundreds of conversations that have had with SD citizens, the theme is to get something done for education and support our teachers.  If all other options have been exhausted to secure this funding from what we now have, then I would support a tax increase.

The time is now to be bold.

And I think there are a couple of points to be taken from this. Yes, when you ask legislators on whether they’re going to support a bill that hasn’t been created or filed yet, there’s a chance they might not be direct without knowing what’s in it. But, considering her position on the task force, the idea that Soholt would be undecided is something that a reporter should really question!

So, there you have it.

 

Ask and ye shall receive. Not thirty minutes ago, I was noting that if people had tips or hot information, they could pass it my way. And get a load of this executive summary for a poll that a friend in Pierre just passed my way.

The bottom line? I don’t know if I’d want to stand in front of the 1/2 cent of sales tax for education. Because that train might just run you over.

glenbolger_surveyfindings

As noted – Public Opinion Strategies conducted a statewide survey of 500 likely voters in South Dakota. The survey was conducted by landline and cell phone, using live interviewers, December 3-6, 2015. Thirty percent (30%) of interviews were conducted with cell phone respondents. The margin of error for this survey is +4.38% in 95 out of 100 cases.

South Dakota voters overwhelmingly believe teachers in the state deserve a pay raise, and a solid majority favor increasing the state sales tax, with the money going to increase teacher salaries.

A whopping 86% of voters say teachers in South Dakota deserve a pay raise, while just 11% say they do not.

Nearly three-in-four voters (71%) say they favor an increase of a half cent in the state sales tax to increase teacher salaries, including 54% who strongly favor such a proposal. Just 26% oppose it. Among key subgroups:

• Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Republicans, 72% of Independents, and 76% of Democrats favor the proposal.

• Strong majorities back the proposal in both East River (72%) and West River (70%).

• Voters of all ideological stripes back the proposal, including 66% of conservatives, 74% of moderates, and 87% of liberals.

The Bottom Line

South Dakota voters overwhelmingly say teachers in the state deserve a pay raise. And, despite the conservative tilt of the Mount Rushmore State, there is one tax increase that a large majority of voters can support: a half cent sales tax increase to go toward increasing the pay of South Dakota’s teachers.

Bipartisan majorities and voters across the ideological spectrum back the proposal, as do voters across the state.

People can complain about raising taxes all they want, but if this poll from Public Opinion Strategies, one of the top polling firms in the nation, is to be believed, the Governor’s proposal has more than significant public sentiment behind it. It has near universal support across the state.

Read the executive memo for the poll yourself and let us know what you think. As I said, I’m not sure I’d want to be in the way on this one.

We’ve been on fire here this past week or so, and it’s very likely because there’s actually something to write about!  And what can you stoke a fire with? More fuel!

So, send me your tips, bill drafts, candidate sightings, etcetera and so on. And you can e-mail them to me by clicking here!

Governor Appoints Duenwald Chief Hearing Examiner

 PIERRE, S.D. – Gov. Dennis Daugaard announced today that he will appoint Catherine Duenwald chief hearing examiner.

Duenwald is currently general counsel for the Bureau of Administration. “Catherine has served the bureau well and will continue to do so in her new role as the chief hearing examiner,” said BOA Commissioner Jeff Holden.

Duenwald has served the state of South Dakota for over 15 years.

“The office has a long history of impartiality and fairness,” said Duenwald. “I look forward to protecting the high integrity of the Office of Hearing Examiners.”

Duenwald will replace Hillary Brady who passed away earlier this year following a long battle with cancer.

-30-

And just a little extra Congratulations for Katie Duenwald, (whom I remember as a lowly Legislative Intern way back when.)  You deserve it!

I’d written a couple of time this past week on an upcoming legislative battle between the people who opposed Initiated Measure 17 this past election, and the impending battle did not go unnoticed by the state’s largest newspaper:

Businesses and consumers would have the ability to purchase health insurance plans that exclude some health providers under a bill that lawmakers will consider.

If passed, the bill would authorize so-called narrow network insurance plans, which have a small universe of health providers. The plans can be less expensive because the doctors and other health providers agree to charge lower amounts in exchange for the guaranteed volume generated by those covered in the plan.

But the bill could prove controversial because it amends an initiative that voters approved in 2014 requiring health insurance plans to be open to all providers who are willing to accept an insurance network’s terms and conditions. Initiated Measure 17 – which proponents dubbed as a “patient choice” measure – passed with a solid 62 percent majority.

It also opens another front in the long war between doctor-owned hospitals and the nonprofit hospital systems.

Read that here.

And with legislators back in Pierre today, a draft of the proposed legislation dated this past week found itself to me, 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.”

Draft House Bill – IM17

And that title indicates the sort of problems that this legislation faces in the 2016 legislative session. As noted in the Attorney General’s explanation of the 2014 Ballot measure:

Some health insurers offer health benefit plans in which the insurer maintains a list of health care providers. Plan members must use listed providers in order to obtain the maximum plan coverage, or to have coverage at all. “Health care providers” include doctors and other licensed health care professionals, clinics and hospitals.

The initiated measure establishes who is entitled to be on the insurer’s list of providers. The measure requires that these insurers list all health care providers who are willing, qualified and meet the conditions for participation established by the insurer.

The law that was voted in by the 2014 election notes that everyone who is a “willing and qualified health care provider” be included “on their provider lists.” The bill (or at least this draft) expressly gives permission “to allow health care providers to offer plans that contain less than all of the health care providers on a panel of providers.”

Now, take it as you will, and interpret it as you will, but it’s difficult to see how the 2014 Ballot initiative supported by 62% of the electorate and this bill draft being circulated by it’s proponents can exist side by side without voiding the “any willing provider” provisions in state law as they apply to medical insurance.

Paula Hawks had a fundraising piece hit mailboxes recently. And….. yeah, I was almost starting to feel sorry for her at this point. At least until she started to roll her predecessors under the bus.

Not only is the fundraising letter awful, but Hawks decided is was a good opportunity to rub Matt Varilek & Corinna Robinson’s noses in their loss in a weak attempt to make her campaign appear better:

With a strong female Democratic candidate running for this seat for the first time in five years …… Democrats have an historic opportunity in South Dakota this year.

and…

Although the state leans Republican, Paula can win by improving turnout in the Democratic areas of the state and by appealing to socially moderate Republican women, a constituency she has successfully won in previous elections.

In what is shaping up to be the “year of the woman” (with a female presidential nominee likely heading the Democratic ticket), Paula’s message will reinforce those at the top of the ticket. As importantly, Paula’s campaign will be well situated to work closely with and support other progressive groups active in the state.

Read it all below…

Hawks Campaign fundraising letter 2016

To begin with, I’m not sure what this letter is supposed to accomplish by slamming those who went before her.   “With a strong female Democratic candidate running for this seat for the first time in five years” comes off as a backhanded slap at the prior two Democrat offerings.

First off, when she says “strong female Democratic candidate,” She’s got 2/3rds of it right. But you need to redact “strong,” as she’s the worst offering the Democrats have sent up against Noem to date.

Aside from that, looking at how Dems have performed since Noem’s big win in 2010 – In 2012, Matt Varilek performed the best among the Democrats running for statewide office that year (42.5%). So Did Corinna Robinson in 2014 (33.4%).

Now granted, they were handily beaten by Congresswoman Kristi Noem. But at the same time, I don’t recall them going out and slapping at their predecessor in a fundraising letter in a weak effort to try to raise money.

And getting back to it, this was a fundraising letter? It’s not personalized.  It sets no suggested amount of donation. It absolutely does nothing to show the need for the money, or what the campaign will do with the money. It’s basically a lazy, blasé effort at raising money.

It might be an effective slam on the previous Democrat Candidates, but as an effort to raise money? Not so much.

With his petitions turned in this morning, State Representative Josh Klumb is beginning his campaign to run for the office of State Senate in District 20, a position currently held by term limited State Senator Mike Vehle.

And is it me, or does it sure seem like the Democrats have quieted down about running somewhere in the neighborhood of 105 legislative candidates?

The Argus Leader has a blurb this morning wondering if the Governor’s 1/2 cent increase in education proposal is already in trouble, based on the statements of one of the plan’s authors; State Senator Deb Soholt:

Sen. Deb Soholt, R-Sioux Falls, told reporter Dana Ferguson last week that it was too “premature” to predict her support for a tax increase that would be pivotal to the recommended overhaul of South Dakota’s 20-year-old funding model.

You might recognize Soholt’s name. It’s on the report that served as the basis for the governor’s plan. It was signed near the top, not far from the words: “we believe that it is now time to act.”

The senator spent months co-chairing the task force that eventually filed a report to the governor last year.

So, when we’re talking about those other school funding what-ifs, what if one of the key authors of Daugaard’s plan is already prevaricating like a politician?

Read it here.

Do you think this could mean the votes are not there?

Secretary of State Shantel Krebs Certifies Seventh Ballot Measure

Pierre, SD – Today, Secretary of State Shantel Krebs announced that an initiated measure to give certain organizations the right to charge fees was validated and certified to be on the November 2016 general election ballot as a ballot measure the citizens will vote on. The sponsor turned in 30,810 signatures to the Secretary of State’s office. An initiated measure requires a minimum of 13,871 signatures from South Dakota registered voters. Once the signatures were delivered to the Secretary of State’s office, a 5% random sampling was conducted. It was determined that 48.2% or 14,861 of 30,810 signatures were in good standing. This will be Initiated Measure 23.

This is the 7th initiated measure to be approved by Secretary of State. A total of 8 measures were submitted for review. This office will continue the signature validation process of the final ballot measure submitted. A total of 275,000 signatures were submitted among all petitions.

Those looking to challenge the Secretary of State’s certification of a ballot measure have 30 days from the date they are certified, which would be February 18, 2016.

After a couple of posts on this topic, I notice where “Anonymous” people are claiming that the DiSanto Drug Testing for Welfare recipients proposal may only apply to recipients of TANF (Temporary Assistance to Needy Families), and not as it sounded in the KCCR interview, to Medicaid recipients and the disabled.

But, even if it’s TANF recipients only, sometimes there are things you just can’t get out of your head, and that’s what I find myself facing with the introduction of the proposed legislative measure to require drug testing before recipients can receive welfare assistance.

Why? To this conservative, there are two insurmountable obstacles for something of this nature to be palatable.

First, it is the polar opposite of what most of us would consider compassionate conservatism. Consider if you will, a single mother abandoned by someone who left her with nothing except hungry children, forced to scrape together thirty-five dollars she doesn’t have so she can urinate into a little cup – just so she can try to feed her family while she’s job hunting.

I can’t imagine what that would do to the last remaining shreds of dignity that someone has as they try to better themselves. This measure presumes people applying for such benefits are guilty, unless they provide bodily fluids to be successfully tested.

The TANF program, as a condition of receipt, already has a provision where recipients are limited to a lifetime of 60 months of receipt, and the condition that the recipient must be seeking work. For those most in need, adding a pre-qualification of this nature is little more than class warfare against those least able to fight it. It is unnecessarily cruel, and speaks poorly of those who would insist on government’s hand being that heavy.

Was I mentioning the heavy hand of government?   Second, and more importantly, the measure embodies the ultimate expression of the intrusive nanny state in its most malevolent form as it creates more government, and a dangerous overreach of the authority of the state to intrude into our lives.

We will literally be adding more bureaucracy for the purposes of government drug testing citizens of the state. Just like this proposal being the polar opposite of compassionate conservatism, it is the polar opposite of what we might term (and pardon me for the bastardization of Latin) “imperium de minimis” or, the least amount of government necessary.

If anything, it introduces a very, very dangerous concept that interactions with government should be prequalified based upon successfully passing a very fallible drug test that’s often prone to false positive results.

In this instance, the bill sponsors are introducing the concept with receiving TANF assistance. But what happens when someone comes along and says “we don’t want drug users owning guns, so they should have to pay for a drug test before receiving a concealed weapons permit?” It doesn’t take a broad leap in logic before a Democrat Governor or Legislature could take that step once it’s in place for other programs.

As government becomes more and more intrusive into our lives, expanded intrusion is a dangerous path to go down. Rights that you give up generally don’t come back to you. Just like taxes, you find yourself giving up more and more to government, until you sit there one day and say “What happened?.”

If lawmakers want to condition TANF on not using drugs, then why on earth would we not assume they are eligible for the program until they’re convicted of a drug crime, instead of expanding the nanny state yet once again? (Psst…. That’s what Montana does.)

I think they call that “Innocent until proven guilty.” Wow. That’s profound. What a concept! You know, that might be a good one to adopt in this country!

If someone is convicted for using drugs, that seems to be a far different situation than adding the “State Bureau of Urine Testing” to test everyone who came into the door. We don’t need more and bigger government programs costing taxpayer dollars. What we need is sensible policy.

If we’re that concerned with making sure that welfare is not used for purchasing drugs, put the burden on those who have been adjudicated of breaking the law, not those receiving the assistance.

Because what’s being proposed in this years’ legislative session isn’t what I would consider an American value. They aren’t even Republican ones.

It is uncompassionate conservatism and the nanny state at its worst. And we can do a lot better than that.