While the 2015 Year end federal report is bad enough, showing them at $11,362 cash on hand, their state report is even worse. Their state report shows them at – and this is no joke – $340.39.
No, that’s not a comma. That’s a decimal point. They have $340 in their state account. All I could think is that they may need to borrow some money from Paula Hawks. Her own dismal fundraising is better than the SDDP’s.
What’s the problem with the SDDP? Their burn rate for one. In their state account, they started with $14k, they raised about another $13k, and they spent $26.6k.
In the federal account, you’ll note that over the last year, they started with $21k, they raised 278k, they spent $300k, and they’ve ended the year with $11k. And that’s with the national Democrat party propping them up with $86,961 over the course of the year. (KSFY’s Phil Schrek also helped. He was in for $530).
But South Dakota Dems spent Phil’s and the national Dem’s money as fast as they could.
Ann Tornberg is going to find it hard to put that up against the SDGOP’s $265k cash on hand that they’re starting the election with. Oh well. This is how Tornberg’s South Dakota Democrat Party rolls.
Looking at both the state and year end reports for the South Dakota Republican Party, it hasn’t been a bad year. The SD GOP’s combined cash on hand for year end is roughly $265,000 ($168,200 in federal account and $96,837 in state acct).
The big question is “What about those Dems?” Democrats have only posted their FEC report, which shows a comparatively anemic $11,362 in cash on hand at the end of the year. But their state report…. well, we’re still waiting. Either the Secretary of State hasn’t posted it yet… or they have yet to receive it.
What might it be that the Democrats are holding their breath to show us?
“Although, today I will suspend my campaign for President, the fight is far from over. I will continue to carry the torch for Liberty in the United States Senate and I look forward to earning the privilege to represent the people of Kentucky for another term.”
Paul, who was often at odds with other Republican candidates on issues like national security and surveillance, struggled to attract the loyal and enthusiastic following that buoyed his father Ron Paul’s past presidential bids.
I’m started to wonder if people in Pierre are getting up on the crazy side of bed some days.
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 2
Introduced by: Senators Hunhoff (Bernie), Parsley, Peterson (Jim), and Rampelberg and Representatives Brunner and Feickert
A JOINT RESOLUTION, Proposing and submitting to the electors at the next general election a new section to Article XI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, relating to the imposition of a corporate income tax and dedication of the revenue therefrom.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA, THE SENATE CONCURRING THEREIN:
Section 1. That at the next general election held in the state, the following amendment to Article XI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, as set forth in section 2 of this Joint Resolution, which is hereby agreed to, shall be submitted to the electors of the state for approval.
Section 2. That Article XI of the Constitution of the State of South Dakota, be amended by adding a NEW SECTION to read as follows:
§ 16. The Legislature shall impose a corporate income tax. However, this section does not apply to any for-profit educational institution or any insurance company subject to a tax on gross premiums or financial institution subject to the bank franchise tax. The revenue and interest generated by the tax, less the cost of administration, is dedicated for the purpose of providing property tax relief. The rate of taxation imposed on corporate income shall be an amount not to exceed six percent of the federal taxable income. The Legislature may exempt an amount of federal taxable income not to exceed two hundred fifty thousand dollars from the tax imposed by this section.
I really can’t say that I’ve heard a hue and cry across the land for people to place a corporate income tax on businesses, including family farms who have incorporated.
I’m even more shocked to see a couple of Republicans on the measure. You expect this kind of silliness from the Democrats. But the Republicans? This is the kind of bill that is used to crucify politicians.
A group of Liberal Democrats in the South Dakota legislature have introduced a legislative measure to require the Public Utilities Commission to defer to the federal government before any licensure measures for pipelines.
SENATE BILL NO. 134
Introduced by: Senator Heinert and Representatives Killer, Bordeaux, Gibson, Hawks, and Soli
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to prohibit the Public Utilities Commission from granting certain permits until federal approval is granted.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 49-41B-24 be amended to read:
49-41B-24. Within twelve months of receipt of the initial application for a permit for the construction of energy conversion facilities, AC/DC conversion facilities, or transmission facilities, the commission shall make complete findings in rendering a decision regarding whether a permit should be granted, denied, or granted upon such terms, conditions or modifications of the construction, operation, or maintenance as the commission deems appropriate. If, however, the construction requires a Presidential Permit, which the President of the United States has the constitutional authority to require and the United States Secretary of State has the authority to approve under the provisions of Executive Order 13337, the commission may not grant a permit for the construction under this section until the Presidential Permit is approved.
This measure looks to be directed specifically at Keystone, and the recent action by the South Dakota Public Utilities Commission to continue approval of the pipeline.
So, these legislators want to demand that South Dakota submit to the strictures of an executive order issued by President Obama? Why don’t we just call this bill the “bow to Obama” bill, as they ask for South Dakota to cede authority of what happens within the boundaries of our state.
It is particularly telling that Paula Hawks appears as a sponsor on this bill. Because, it is exactly this type of measure Congresswoman Kristi Noem, as well as the rest of our Washington delegation has been fighting.
If South Dakota was unfortunate enough that Hawks would be sent to Washington, I wonder what other areas of sovereignty that she would demand the state knuckle under to Obama for in subservience to the federal government?
Governor Daugaard’s proposals for increasing teacher pay are out and available for review, according to KCCR radio:
HB 1182 would increase the sales tax by a half-penny and dedicate $40 million for property tax relief. The new revenue would increase South Dakota’s average teacher salary from $40,000 to a target average of $48,500.
SB 131 establishes a new funding formula and requires that 90 percent of new funding go specifically to teacher pay. The bill also imposes new caps on school general reserve funds and on the growth of capital outlay levies.
SB 133 includes a number of proposals to recruit and retain more teachers and to create new opportunities for school efficiency.
Hargens was an interesting entry into the Republican primary because he is a legislator that already served for a number of years as Democrat; and he was a Democrat Minority Whip and Democrat Minority Leader during that time. Hargens said he felt the Democrat party moved away from him in its surge to the left. He said the Democrat Party had “Turned the lights out”.
I’m sure by promoting more Republicans on their web site, they hope for something positive to rub off. But unfortunately, that Democrat label is just going to kill them every time.
AFP Led Coalition Releases Letter to Legislators on Internet Sales Tax 23 Conservative Organizations Tell Lawmakers: Don’t Tax The Internet
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. – Today Americans for Prosperity and a broad-based coalition of 23 conservative organizations are releasing a letter to lawmakers urging legislators to oppose the plan to force retailers to collect sales taxes on internet sales.
Americans for Prosperity is joined in signing the letter by Americans for Tax Reform, FreedomWorks, National Taxpayers Union, R Street Institute and 18 other free market organizations.
AFP-South Dakota State Director Ben Lee had the following to say:
“Our coalition letter today shows that taxing internet sales is not the conservative way forward for our state. Online sales began more than 30 years ago and after all these years, starting to collect taxes now would certainly feel like a tax increase to most people.”
“The bill picks winners and losers by favoring big businesses and online conglomerates who have the lawyers, lobbyists and resources to comply — against the small businesses, mom-n-pop’s and individual sellers who do not. If passed nationwide, the bill would require small businesses to comply with more than 9,000 tax codes while their brick-and-mortar counterparts would only have to comply with 1.Legislators should stand together to put an end to this proposal before it goes any further.”
The group said it will continue educating the public and engaging lawmakers on the issue. Its grassroots army of in-state volunteers and activists will continue writing letters to legislators, calling their representatives, and educating their neighbors about the impact of this proposal.
One of the most contentious and controversial issues I can remember in recent legislative history is coming up to be heard in House commerce committee tomorrow – House Bill 1067, a measure which is designed to turn back the vote held in 2014, which was commonly known as the patient choice measure or Initiated Measure 17.
Why is this measure being brought back to be fought over? As noted in an article on KELOland TV yesterday:
Peters says it was her own personal experience paying for health insurance, because she’s self-employed, that led her to co-author a new bill to amend the measure.
“For consumers of health insurance plans, we only get one choice. You have to buy all panel of providers–that then drives up the cost of your insurance plan,” Peters said.
And…
It’s a change that Sanford Health is lobbying for, while physician-owned facilities like the Sioux Falls Specialty Hospital, whose CEO is state legislator Blake Curd, is against.
And…
But changing a law that was overwhelmingly voted into place can be a challenge for those also voted into office.
As I’ve noted before, this former ballot measure passed by the widest margin of any ballot measure voted on in 2014. Making it extremely hard to argue that somehow the will of the voters was misconstrued.
If voters didn’t know what they were doing to themselves, why did they do it in such incredible numbers? I’d argue that a lack of knowledge wasn’t really the case. They went into it with eyes wide open.
One of the things people were slapped in the face with in 2013/2014 was a president who told them distinctly and absolutely that under the president’s health care plan, Obamacare, “if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor.” As he noted in 2013…
But then, just a few months later, in a sit down interview, the president was forced to admit that his prior statement wasn’t exactly correct…
“For someone who didn’t have health insurance previously, they’re going to have to make some choices. And they might end up having to switch doctors in part because they’re saving money.”
The electorate didn’t like it when Obama told them they couldn’t keep their doctor anymore. They really didn’t like it. And, that may have contributed to Initiated Measure17’s success at the ballot box.
But fast-forward 18 months later, and we’re now fighting this battle all over again.
House Bill 1067 has really come down to a battle of wills. On one side, we have the electorate who spoke with an overwhelming voice, and said people would be allowed to use and keep their doctor. Are there consequences? I don’t doubt there are, but can the added costs really be as high as the proponents claim, since the Doctors are required to accept the in-network rate?
Maybe. But, if that’s what the electorate voted to accept, voted as being what they wanted, that’s what they voted for.
IM 17, for better or worse, was the will of the electorate, and an example of prairie populism fully expressed.
Avera has kept a low profile on this, which is interesting, as it brings into question the systemic problems that the measure’s proponent’s claim. They have health plans too – so why aren’t they in the mix?
Clearly, House Bill 1067 is the will of the Sanford Health System, who wants to tell people that if they want to keep their doctor, they want to charge them more. Or what was the point made earlier..? I believe the direct quote was “they might end up having to switch doctors in part because they’re saving money.”
Not exactly a point for Republican lawmakers in South Dakota to campaign on.
If the measure is overturned in Pierre, it’s not like this fight is going to end in the legislature. I’ve already heard that if House Bill 1067 passes, petitions will be circulated to place it on the ballot as a referred measure. So, not only could this fight go on, it could drag on to November.
But for now, the will of the people and the will of Sanford are set to clash tomorrow in committee. Time to grab some popcorn and to watch the fireworks.
Roll Call has an article this morning regarding the political atmosphere in South Dakota, and how Democrats have a difficult time breathing in it. So much difficulty, that US Senator John Thune is getting more and more likelier to be unopposed:
South Dakota Democrats are still looking for a candidate to challenge Republican incumbent Sen. John Thune, and don’t seem to be having an easy time recruiting one in the strongly conservative state.
and…
South Dakota Democrats aren’t ceding the race this time, said Michael Ewald, communication director for the party. But he also said he could not give names of potential candidates at the moment: “There are multiple people.”
What’s the problem with the SDDP? Their burn rate for one. In their state account, they started with $14k, they raised about another $13k, and they spent $26.6k.
