Category: Uncategorized

The Aberdeen American News has reprinted a recent story about the Death Penalty’s national decline, but comes to the conclusion that while it’s support might be shifting, it’s not going anywhere anytime soon:

Battered with bad publicity in recent years, the death penalty’s public support has declined. But earlier this month when voters in Nebraska, Oklahoma and California had their say, they voted to retain and even expand it, making clear that the controversial punishment is far from finished.

But even while public support for the death penalty remains in place, the political ground underneath that support has shifted in important ways.

and…

Public opinion polls seem to clearly follow crime over that time period, with support for the death penalty spiking just after crime rises, then falling gradually as crime falls.

If this link between violent crime and public opinion on the death penalty is accurate, then the 60 percent level of death penalty support today may not be the result of a downward slide that is destined to continue. The drop may be, rather, the ebbing of an unusual dual spike upward and back down to more normal levels. Confidence that this slide will continue may be misplaced.

Read it here.

Interestingly, an anti-Death Penalty group had a booth at the last State Republican convention for the first time. But I suspect it’s more of an aberration than a trend.

The Death Penalty in South Dakota has traditionally been one of those litmus test issues for those running for high office. Opposing it could come at a price, as it’s certainly an effective wedge issue. People vote for people who will keep them safe in their homes. Being viewed as weak on violent crime is not a positive thing.

But, there is opposition.

Much of the concern from the opposition seems to be coming from wrongful convictions in other states. However, one would be hard pressed to argue that anyone on death row in South Dakota is wrongfully convicted. In fact, South Dakota would be the opposite, as in this state, juries tend to dole out a Death Penalty very, very sparingly, and only for the worst crimes.

The thesis of the news article is, in part, that support fo rthe death penalty increases with the crime rate. If there is a corresponding increase in support based on a higher incidence of violent crimes, given that Sioux Falls is quickly becoming known as Crime City, USA, with car jackings and higher incidents of Meth crimes, then the Death penalty is in no danger of going anywhere in South Dakota anytime soon.

What do you think? Any chance of South Dakotans softening on the Death Penalty? Could they accept a candidate for Governor who is opposed?

Or will it remain a litmus issue for candidates who might be required to dole it out?

From Fox News, the US Army Corps of Engineers has done an about face on the Route for the Dakota Access pipeline, and after approving it once, has decided to “study” the route some more:

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers said Sunday that it won’t grant an easement for the Dakota Access oil pipeline in southern North Dakota, handing a victory to the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its supporters, who argued the project would threaten the tribe’s water source and cultural sites.

and…

The four-state, $3.8 billion project is largely complete except for the now-blocked segment underneath Lake Oahe, a Missouri River reservoir. Assistant Secretary for Civil Works Jo-Ellen Darcy said in a news release that her decision was based on the need to “explore alternate routes” for the pipeline’s crossing. Her full decision doesn’t rule out that it could cross under the reservoir or north of Bismarck.

“Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it’s clear that there’s more work to do,” Darcy said. “The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing.”

Read that here.

I didn’t realize it until it was pointed out to me, but we’ve all heard the name of Jo-Ellen Darcy, the woman who announced the decision, before.  In fact, many South Dakotans should be very familiar with her.

She’s the Obama appointee who was in charge when the Army Corps of Engineers flooded our state:

Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., asserted that the corps “needs to be held accountable” for miscalulations that led to a “debacle.”

Corps officials reiterated that they could not possibly have envisioned the freakish rains in the western reaches of the basin last spring that eventually led to dam releases more than double of any previously.

and…

Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Army’s assistant secretary for civil works, deflected senators’ questions about revising the master manual. The last such revision, she noted, took 14 years and cost taxpayers $33 million.

“The public process needs to be involved in any changes to it,” she said, meaning months of hearings along the river that lead to layers of bureaucratic review and, more than likely, court rulings.

An independent review of corps decisions is underway, she added.

Read it here.

“The public process needs to be involved in any changes to it.”  So, what happened to that mantra?

Apparently that was good enough for the master manual. And that’s what they did when they approved the Dakota Access pipeline.  But, when people start lobbing IED’s at police after rigging propane bottles to explode, the previous public process gets thrown out the window for political purposes.

Good God. At least the Inauguration of Donald Trump is approaching. And we can look forward to a housecleaning.

This one is worth a good laugh.

Before he left the state legislature, it was obvious to many that former State Representative Steve Hickey acted like he bumped his head falling off the apple cart by introducing legislation requiring the state to plan for the apocalypse.

But yesterday, he did something far worse, and went from harmless kooky into completely offensive.

Hickey actually put pen to paper, and openly questioned if the woman who accused Democrat Senator-Elect Reynold Nesiba of sexually assaulting her was actually an agent of his opponents, the payday lenders, – because they were “waiting” for them to hit them – and admitted he asked law enforcement to look into the connection:

Read that here.

It didn’t seem that anyone could sink any lower than Nesiba when he claimed that his victim “was playing hard to get.”  Unfortunately, Hickey managed to find a way to do so.

Apparently the “water protectors” have to destroy the water supply to save it:

Those familiar with the camps near Cannon Ball, North Dakota, increasingly are distressed over the pits of human waste and garbage pockmarking the formerly pristine prairie revered by the Standing Rock Sioux as sacred ancestral land.

Rob Keller, spokesman for the Morton County Sheriff’s Department, said the protesters are “saying one thing and doing another” when it comes to safeguarding the environment.

And…

What’s especially alarming is that the camps are located in a flood plain, meaning that the waste and garbage will be carried into the Cannonball River and the water supply as the snow melts and submerges the area.

Mr. Archambault compared the environmental damage inflicted by the protesters to that of fossil fuel companies.

“We’re no different than the oil company, if we’re fighting for water,” said Mr. Archambault. “What’s going to happen when people leave? Who has to clean it up? Who has to refurbish it? It’s going to be us, the people who live here.”

National environmental groups backing the protest, including Earthjustice, the Sierra Club, 350.org and the Indigenous Environmental Network, did not respond to requests asking for comment, but Greenpeace did.

Greenpeace spokesman Perry Wheeler said the blame for any damage lies with those behind the $3.8 billion, 1,172-mile project, which Energy Transfer Partners is building almost entirely on private land in order to transport oil from the Bakken field in North Dakota to Illinois.

Read it all here.

No, contrary to what Greenpeace has to say, the domestic terrorists who are illegally occupying federal land are solely to blame. And it is far past time the federal government needs to come down hard on them, and arrest the lot.

I was just notified of the posting of the committee assignments in the Senate for the upcoming legislative session, and there’s a few surprises coming from incoming President Pro Tempore Brock Greenfield. In speaking with him, his committee philosophy was based on two primary factors – spreading around the committee positions, and keeping an eye on succession planning.

Here’s how it worked out in the Senate:

Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources

Name	Chair/Vice
Cammack, Gary	Chair
Ewing, Bob
Frerichs, Jason
Heinert, Troy
Klumb, Joshua	Vice Chair
Monroe, Jeff
Otten, Ernie
Soholt, Deb
Youngberg, Jordan

Senate Commerce and Energy

Name	Chair/Vice
Jensen, Phil	Chair
Kennedy, Craig
Kolbeck, Jack
Nelson, Stace	Vice Chair
Netherton, Jenna
Novstrup, Al
Tapio, Neal

Joint Committee on Appropriations

Name	Chair/Vice
Ahlers, Dan
Anderson, David	Vice Chair
Bartels, Hugh
Carson, Lance
Cronin, Justin
Haverly, Terri
Hunhoff, Jean
Karr, Chris
Lake, John
Nesiba, Reynold
Partridge, Jeffrey
Peters, Deb
Peterson, Sue
Sutton, Billie
Tidemann, Larry	Chair
White, Jim
Wiik, John
Wollmann, Mathew

Senate Committee on Appropriations

Name	Chair/Vice
Cronin, Justin
Haverly, Terri
Nesiba, Reynold
Partridge, Jeffrey
Peters, Deb
Sutton, Billie
Tidemann, Larry	Chair
White, Jim
Wiik, John	Vice Chair

Senate Education

Name	Chair/Vice
Bolin, Jim	Chair
Heinert, Troy
Jensen, Phil
Klumb, Joshua
Monroe, Jeff
Soholt, Deb
Solano, Alan	Vice Chair

Senate Government Operations and Audit

Name	Chair/Vice
Cronin, Justin	Vice Chair
Nelson, Stace
Peters, Deb	Chair
Sutton, Billie
Tapio, Neal

Senate Health and Human Services

Name	Chair/Vice
Greenfield, Brock
Jensen, Phil
Killer, Kevin
Klumb, Joshua
Rusch, Arthur
Soholt, Deb	Chair
Tapio, Neal	Vice Chair

Senate Judiciary

Name	Chair/Vice
Greenfield, Brock
Kennedy, Craig
Langer, Kris
Nelson, Stace
Netherton, Jenna
Rusch, Arthur	Vice Chair
Russell, Lance	Chair

Joint Legislative Procedure

Name	Chair/Vice
Curd, R. Blake
Frerichs, Jason
Greenfield, Brock	Vice Chair
Haggar, Don
Haverly, Terri
Hawley, Spencer
Langer, Kris
Lust, David
Maher, Ryan
Mickelson, G. Mark	Chair
Novstrup, Al
Peterson, Kent
Qualm, Lee
Stevens, Mike

Senate Legislative Procedure

Name	Chair/Vice
Curd, R. Blake
Frerichs, Jason
Greenfield, Brock	Chair
Haverly, Terri	Vice Chair
Langer, Kris
Maher, Ryan
Novstrup, Al

Senate Local Government

Name	Chair/Vice
Cammack, Gary
Ewing, Bob
Killer, Kevin
Langer, Kris	Chair
Maher, Ryan
Nelson, Stace
Youngberg, Jordan	Vice Chair

Senate Retirement Laws

Name	Chair/Vice
Frerichs, Jason
Heinert, Troy
Novstrup, Al	Vice Chair
Tidemann, Larry
White, Jim	Chair

 

Senate State Affairs

Name	Chair/Vice
Bolin, Jim
Curd, R. Blake
Ewing, Bob	Chair
Heinert, Troy
Langer, Kris
Maher, Ryan
Netherton, Jenna	Vice Chair
Novstrup, Al
Sutton, Billie

Senate Taxation

Name	Chair/Vice
Cammack, Gary
Frerichs, Jason
Kolbeck, Jack	Vice Chair
Monroe, Jeff	Chair
Otten, Ernie
Russell, Lance
Stalzer, Jim

Senate Transportation

Name	Chair/Vice
Bolin, Jim
Curd, R. Blake
Frerichs, Jason
Otten, Ernie	Chair
Russell, Lance
Solano, Alan
Stalzer, Jim	Vice Chair

I don’t have any information on how the House made choices, but here are committee memberships for that body that were also posted today (update – sorry, I should have noted these would be Speaker Mickelson’s choices. I meant I wasn’t aware if he’d based his choices on any specific criteria as Greenfield did. -pp)

House Agriculture and Natural Resources

Name	Chair/Vice
Bartling, Julie
Brunner, Thomas	Vice Chair
Chase, Roger
Glanzer, Bob
Gosch, Spencer
Jensen, Kevin
Lesmeister, Oren
Livermont, Steve
Marty, Sam
Otten, Herman	Chair
Pischke, Tom
Rhoden, Larry
Schaefer, James

House Commerce and Energy

Name	Chair/Vice
Beal, Arch
Gosch, Spencer
Greenfield, Lana
Hawley, Spencer
Johnson, David
May, Elizabeth
McCleerey, Steven
Mills, John
Pischke, Tom
Rounds, Tim	Chair
Steinhauer, Wayne
Willadsen, Mark
Zikmund, Larry	Vice Chair

House Committee on Appropriations

Name	Chair/Vice
Ahlers, Dan
Anderson, David	Chair
Bartels, Hugh
Carson, Lance
Hunhoff, Jean	Vice Chair
Karr, Chris
Lake, John
Peterson, Sue
Wollmann, Mathew

House Education

Name	Chair/Vice
Brunner, Thomas
Frye-Mueller, Julie
Glanzer, Bob
Holmes, Thomas	Vice Chair
Howard, Taffy
Johns, Timothy	Chair
Kaiser, Dan
Kettwig, Jason
McPherson, Sean
Ring, Ray
Smith, Jamie
Stevens, Mike
Tieszen, Craig
Tulson, Burt
Zikmund, Larry

House Government Operations and Audit

Name	Chair/Vice
Anderson, David	Vice Chair
Hunhoff, Jean	Chair
Steinhauer, Wayne
Tieszen, Craig
Wismer, Susan

House Health and Human Services

Name	Chair/Vice
Campbell, Blaine “Chip”
Clark, Michael
Conzet, Kristin
DiSanto, Lynne
Haugaard, Steven
Heinemann, Leslie	Vice Chair
Holmes, Thomas
Livermont, Steve
McCleerey, Steven
McPherson, Sean
Soli, Karen
Steinhauer, Wayne	Chair
York, Nancy

House Judiciary

Name	Chair/Vice
Bordeaux, Shawn
Haugaard, Steven
Jensen, Kevin
Johns, Timothy	Vice Chair
Kaiser, Dan
Lust, David
Peterson, Kent
Reed, Tim
Rozum, Tona
Stevens, Mike	Chair
Tieszen, Craig
Turbiville, Charles
Wismer, Susan

House Legislative Procedure

Name	Chair/Vice
Haggar, Don	Vice Chair
Hawley, Spencer
Lust, David
Mickelson, G. Mark	Chair
Peterson, Kent
Qualm, Lee
Stevens, Mike

House Local Government

Name	Chair/Vice
Conzet, Kristin	Chair
Greenfield, Lana
Jamison, Greg
Kettwig, Jason
Marty, Sam
Otten, Herman
Reed, Tim
Schoenfish, Kyle
Smith, Jamie
Soli, Karen
Tulson, Burt	Vice Chair
Turbiville, Charles
York, Nancy

House Retirement Laws

Name	Chair/Vice
Ahlers, Dan
Haggar, Don	Vice Chair
McCleerey, Steven
Rounds, Tim
Tieszen, Craig	Chair

House State Affairs

Name	Chair/Vice
Bartling, Julie
Beal, Arch
DiSanto, Lynne
Haggar, Don
Hawley, Spencer
Heinemann, Leslie
Latterell, Isaac
Lust, David
Mickelson, G. Mark
Peterson, Kent
Qualm, Lee	Vice Chair
Rhoden, Larry	Chair
Rozum, Tona

House Taxation

Name	Chair/Vice
Campbell, Blaine “Chip”
Dennert, Drew
Duvall, Mary
Goodwin, Tim
Haggar, Don	Chair
Howard, Taffy
Jamison, Greg
Latterell, Isaac
Mills, John
Rasmussen, Nancy
Ring, Ray
Rozum, Tona
Schoenfish, Kyle
Willadsen, Mark	Vice Chair
Wismer, Susan

House Transportation

Name	Chair/Vice
Bordeaux, Shawn
Chase, Roger
Clark, Michael
Dennert, Drew
Duvall, Mary	Chair
Frye-Mueller, Julie
Goodwin, Tim
Johnson, David
Lesmeister, Oren
May, Elizabeth
Rasmussen, Nancy	Vice Chair
Rounds, Tim
Schaefer, James

Fighting for What Matters
By Sen. John Thune

If you tuned in to C-SPAN today, you’d find a much different Senate than the one that existed just a few short years ago. In 2013 and 2014, under Democrat leadership, the Senate repeatedly chose politics and partisanship over bipartisanship and efficiency. The legislative process, including the important work done in our committees, nearly ground to a halt. Only backroom, cherry-picked bills chosen by Democrat leaders made it to the floor. The Senate wasn’t passing the important pieces of legislation that it should have been, and senators were often backed into take-it-or-leave-it scenarios created by politically orchestrated cliffs and countdown clocks. 

Republicans told the American people that if we were given the opportunity to lead in the Senate, we would do things differently. We would focus on the issues that mattered to the people. We would help give them the voice they deserved. After Republicans regained the majority in January 2015, we quickly got to work. Republicans and Democrats were able to participate in the legislative process and offer proposals they thought would make bills better for the people they served. Ideas were debated and considered in committee, and bills that were sent to the floor were better for it.

We passed a balanced budget, appropriations bills, and the first major energy bill in more than a decade. The Commerce Committee, which I chair, worked hard to get a Federal Aviation Administration bill with major airport security provisions through the Senate and onto the president’s desk. And the committee delivered the same result on the first long-term transportation bill since 2005. I’ve always believed that hard work delivers positive results, and there’s no better proof than what we’ve accomplished in the last two years in the Senate. 

We’re just getting started, though, and I’m glad Republicans will have the chance to continue working toward our goal of creating greater economic and national security for the American people. That starts with rolling back some of the Obama administration’s most onerous regulations, particularly the Waters of the United States rule. We’ll work toward repealing and replacing Obamacare, which has been a huge drag on family budgets in South Dakota and across the country. And we’ll continue to protect our nation’s borders and address the threats posed by terrorist groups like ISIS. 

Republicans plan to start the 115^th Congress in January the same way we’re ending the 114th this month – with a lot of hard work and determination. We’re going to have a long list of items to tackle, including confirming a Supreme Court nominee who will judge based on the law and the Constitution. January will be here in no time, and I’m looking forward to hitting the ground running and advancing our pro-growth, pro-jobs, pro-America agenda in 2017 and beyond. 

###

The Electoral College a Vital Piece of our Constitution
By Senator Mike Rounds

The Electoral College was one of the most innovative concepts created by our Founding Fathers when they were setting up our young republic. Embedded in our Constitution, the Electoral College is the system for electing our president through a slate of ‘electors’ in each state, rather than by direct popular vote. It was carefully crafted to satisfy smaller states’ desire for greater representation while balancing popular sovereignty with our Founders’ fear of the tyranny of the majority. To win the presidency, a candidate must receive a majority of electoral votes.

The number of electors in each state is determined by the number of U.S. Representatives it has in Congress, plus two additional votes for each senator. Since South Dakota has two senators and one representative, we have three Electoral College votes. A state with a higher population, such as Texas, which has two senators and 36 representatives, would have 38 Electoral College votes. Today, the Electoral College is made up of 538 electors, including three electoral votes granted to the District of Columbia, which means a candidate must receive 270 electoral votes to win.

By guaranteeing each state—no matter the size—at least three electoral votes, minority rights are protected. It puts smaller states like South Dakota on more equal footing with larger states like New York and California, preventing candidates who may only have a regional appeal from running away with the election. This system encourages candidates to travel across the country to meet with Americans from small towns and big cities and from differing backgrounds and ideologies, since it is impossible to win 270 electoral votes if only one region of the country or one segment of the population supports you. If a candidate spent his or her time campaigning only in big cities or states with large populations, they could likely win the popular vote easily. But, winning the popular vote doesn’t win you the presidency.

Each state’s electors are nominated by political parties, usually at a state convention. Then, when we go to the polls in November, we are actually voting for electors based on party rather than the presidential and vice-presidential candidates listed on the ballot. It is not until well after Election Day that electors meet in their states to vote for the candidate their party represents and a candidate is officially declared the winner. Electoral votes are then counted by a joint session of Congress on January 6 of the year after the presidential election to confirm that the president-elect has the 270 votes necessary to win. This year, the Electoral College is expected to meet on December 19, 2016, to formally affirm Donald Trump as our 45th president to be sworn into office on January 20, 2017. 

When framing the Electoral College, our Founding Fathers wanted to prevent the tyranny of a majority by protecting minority rights in our presidential electoral system. Public sentiment toward the Electoral College will sway after each election, based on which party wins or loses. At the end of the day, our presidential election system is a brilliant concept, one that will continue to stand the test of time.

###

A Different Future for Healthcare
By Rep. Kristi Noem

It’s no wonder why more than half of Americans oppose Obamacare.  Week after week, I talk with South Dakotans who are seeing their health insurance premiums increase by hundreds, sometimes thousands, of dollars per year.  Despite the cost hikes, many are also finding that the 2017 options have larger deductibles, which often translates into higher out-of-pocket expenses too.  Like I said, it’s no wonder. 

Today, we are in the middle of the fourth annual open enrollment period for Obamacare.  Absent a major life event, this is the only time you have to obtain or change health insurance without facing a tax penalty. 

For many South Dakotans returning to healthcare.gov this year, the numbers are pretty shocking.  While the nation as a whole has seen a nearly 25 percent increase in the cost of health insurance premiums for 2017, a 27-year-old nonsmoker purchasing a middle tier plan in South Dakota will face a 39 percent price increase.  That kind of cost surge has the potential to fundamentally alter a person’s annual budget. 

Additionally, some will find fewer options.  For 2017 coverage, around one in five Americans will have only one insurer to choose from, a significant change from last year when just 2 percent of Americans were in the same boat.  Insurers simply can’t afford to be involved in the individual marketplace.

Earlier this year, we learned one insurer operating in South Dakota lost nearly $100 million over the last two years on individual Obamacare plans in Iowa and South Dakota alone.  As a result, they made the decision to no longer offer these plans in 2017 – a decision that impacted nearly 8,000 South Dakotans. 

Many have felt the pain of Obamacare and calls for the law’s repeal have only grown.  While around a dozen minor Obamacare repeals and reforms have been signed into law, this legislation is ultimately beyond repair. 

It was widely understood that President Obama would not sign legislation repealing his healthcare law.  Still, we put the option on his desk; he chose to veto it.

At the start of next year, however, I’m very hopeful Obamacare’s repeal will finally become a reality, as it now sits not only at the top of Congress’ agenda, but at the top of the incoming administration’s agenda. 

Alongside Obamacare repeal efforts, we’ve been working on conservative legislation to replace the healthcare law with a patient-centered approach.  More specifically, our plan would allow individuals to purchase insurance across state lines.  The policy would help ensure you’d have more coverage options while also introducing greater competition into the marketplace to drive down prices. 

Another idea would allow small businesses and individuals to band together through new pooling opportunities.  That increases your purchasing power and would give groups more leverage to negotiate with insurers for lower prices.

Other components of our proposal would increase support for wellness programs, protect patients with pre-existing conditions, and allow young people to stay on their parents’ plan until they turn 26. 

Every American deserves access to quality, affordable healthcare, but experience shows that’s not what Obamacare offers.  We need to give people more choices, not more mandates, and we need to make sure you have the freedom and flexibility to find a plan that’s going to work with your family’s budget and needs.  That’s our vision, and step one in accomplishing it: Repeal Obamacare. 

###

Preparing For A Lean Year 

A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

In 1963 Gov. Archie Gubbard signed a bill into law which requires governors to submit an annual budget report to the Legislature. The report must be given to each member of the state Legislature on the first Tuesday following the first Monday in December. The law says “the Governor may present such report to the Legislature in person.” On Tuesday, Dec. 6, at 1 p.m. in the state House, I’ll honor the tradition of presenting that report in person to the Legislature by giving the annual Budget Address – and I’ll start by talking about the state’s revenue picture.

Since fiscal year 2017 began last July, revenue has been weak. The state’s receipts have fallen short each month: in July revenue fell $1.7 million below projections, in August another $3.8 million below, September was an additional $5.7 million short and October was worse yet with a shortfall of $8.7 million. That leaves us almost $20 million short for the current fiscal year.

The $20 million shortfall is primarily the result of lower than anticipated sales tax numbers. Low commodity prices in our ag sector is one factor which has weakened tax revenues. Although South Dakota exempts most agricultural inputs from the sales tax, large equipment sales are not exempt. When commodity prices were high, ag producers spent more on equipment, and had more to spend on personal items. With lower commodity prices, fewer ag equipment expenditures means less tax revenue and fewer dollars cycling through the economy.

The inability of states to collect sales taxes on some internet purchases is another factor leading to weakened tax revenue. The Bureau of Finance and Management estimates that up to $35 million in these taxes goes uncollected each year.

As I write this, we are still awaiting November’s sales tax numbers. Reports indicate that national retail sales over Thanksgiving week were strong. I hope that strength will be mirrored by South Dakota’s sales tax receipts.

But even if November’s numbers meet our target, it will be a lean year. We won’t have much to support spending increases or take on new expensive projects. This will be a year to focus on our priority areas and maintain our commitments. I do not anticipate a need to make cuts. The situation is not as dire as it was in 2011 when revenue had been declining for two years and we had a structural deficit on our hands. In the last few months our revenue has increased, but the increases have been less than what was projected.

South Dakota isn’t the only state where revenues are coming in lower than projected. A number of states are experiencing the same problem. Fortunately though, South Dakota is in a better position than many to deal with the problem. Over the last few years we have maintained structural balance and adhered to conservative budgeting practices. We don’t have unfunded liabilities or out-of-control spending problems. If we remain vigilant this year, we’ll continue on the right track.

-30-