Category: Uncategorized

President Obama’s Distorted View of Reality  
By Sen. John Thune

Year after year, President Obama has used his annual State of the Union address to lecture the American people about his government-knows-best approach, and this year was no different. The president painted a rosy picture of the economic well-being of America’s middle class and his supposed success on the world stage. The president’s distorted view of reality left many people scratching their heads, wondering which America he was actually talking about.

On President Obama’s watch, we have experienced the worst economic recovery since the Eisenhower administration, with stagnant wages and millions dropping out of the labor force as the lasting trademark of the Obama economy. American families are seeing their dreams for the future erode, as they struggle under ever-increasing government burdens and a lack of economic opportunity, and any serious discussion of the state of our union needs to address these challenges and offer solutions. Unfortunately, the president failed to do either.

Then there are the burdensome regulations the Obama administration has imposed, which have made it more challenging for businesses large and small to grow and create jobs. The Obama Environmental Protection Agency in particular has done more than its fair share to make things difficult for Americans. Again and again, I’ve heard from South Dakota farmers and ranchers, homeowners, and small businesses about the difficulties they’re facing thanks to the Obama EPA’s massive new regulations.

If the president’s record on the economy and middle-class opportunity is bad, his record on foreign policy is even worse.

During the president’s last year in office, the White House says, “we can show the world what is possible when America truly leads.” Republicans couldn’t agree more that America should truly lead – the problem is that the president’s first seven years in office have generally been distinguished by a lack of leadership.

In June, former President – and fellow Democrat – Jimmy Carter described President Obama’s successes on the world stage as “minimal.” “On the world stage, just to be objective about it as I can,” Carter said, “I can’t think of many nations in the world where we have a better relationship now than we did when he took over.” Neither can I, and that’s a real problem.

Rather than substantively addressing any of these major problems in his State of the Union address, the president took a victory lap and spiked the football on his presidency. But the American people clearly don’t think there’s much to celebrate, nor do they think America has “made extraordinary progress on the path to a stronger country and brighter future,” as the administration believes it has.

While President Obama might be satisfied with where America finds itself, Republicans believe there is much more work yet to be done. The president still has 12 months remaining in his presidency, and it’s our hope that he spends each month working with us to make the American people’s lives better.

###

National Security: A Top Concern
Left Unaddressed at the State of the Union
By Senator Mike Rounds

In the President’s final State of the Union Address, many of us had hoped to hear him propose serious ideas for reaching across the aisle to address the challenges our country faces. Instead, we heard more of the same rhetoric that has failed to produce the kind of results the American people are looking for. It’s no surprise only 23 percent of our country thinks we are headed in the right direction. The VA is broken, Obamacare is failing, manufacturing has shrunk, our debt has skyrocketed and new regulations being promulgated by this administration are crushing the American dream.

Perhaps most importantly, our national security has taken a hit over the past seven years. During his State of the Union Address, President Obama had an opportunity to lay out a plan to mitigate growing world threats. Instead, he ignored the dangers posed by Iran which was holding 10 U.S. service members as prisoners at the time, meanwhile touting his reckless nuclear deal with Iran.

He also failed to lay out a clear and concise plan to defeat ISIS. This is particularly noteworthy given a recent CBS/New York Times poll showing that 67 percent of Americans think our fight against ISIS is going “poorly.” Americans are right to be concerned. The Islamic terror group continues to maintain significant strength and was the perpetrator or inspiration for recent attacks that killed both civilians and law enforcement officers in Paris, San Bernardino, Istanbul and Jakarta. Yet the president continues to believe our current course of limited action is working.

While we often focus on conflicts in the Middle East, it’s important that we not ignore military aggression and human rights violations occurring elsewhere in the world. I recently cosponsored a bill that would impose broad new sanctions against individuals involved in North Korea’s nuclear program and proliferation activities, as well as officials involved in overseeing the regime’s continued human rights abuses.

I also joined a number of my Senate colleagues in a letter to Secretary of State John Kerry regarding his recent assurances to the Iranian Foreign Minister that new Visa Waiver Program (VWP) restrictions wouldn’t impact Iranian interests. The VWP changes were enacted last month to help make certain terrorists cannot enter our country through loopholes in our system. Iran is the world’s largest state-sponsor of terrorism and yet this administration is seeking to assure them they will not be negatively impacted by new restrictions for foreigners coming into the U.S. We should not be apologizing to anyone for seeking to keep American citizens safe.

As a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, I frequently hear from top military leaders and experts on the national security risks we currently face. As we move forward, we must continue to closely monitor bad actors, including ISIS, Iran and North Korea, to make certain we are taking or are fully prepared to take necessary action to defend our country and our allies.

We live in an increasingly dangerous world. The president would be wise to take threats to the U.S. and our interests more seriously.

###

Stop the Stream of Regulations
By Rep. Kristi Noem

In 2015 alone, the U.S. government put more than 79,000 pages of new regulations in the federal register.  Add these to the list of existing regulations and the economic impact amounts to more than $1.8 trillion or about $15,000 per household annually.  The stream of costly federal regulations needs to stop.

One of the most controversial regulations finalized in 2015 was the Environmental Protection Agency’s “Waters of the U.S.” rule, or WOTUS.  The Clean Water Act enables the EPA and the Army Corps of Engineers to regulate so-called “navigable waters.” In the EPA’s latest WOTUS rule, however, the federal agency broadened the definition of navigable waters to include ditches, prairie potholes, and even seasonally wet areas.  Changing a few words around may seem minor, but it can have a huge impact.

As written, WOTUS could become one of the largest federal land grabs in our lifetime.  Everyday tasks – like treating your lawn for mosquitos, putting up a fence in your backyard, or spraying your crops for disease – could become federally regulated activities that carry fines worth upwards of $30,000 per day if a farmer or homeowner is found in violation.

With a potential impact that significant, it’s no wonder why thousands of people have shared their outrage over WOTUS.  The EPA did its best to camouflage that anger, however.  In fact, a December 2015 Government Accountability Office report found the EPA engaged in “covert propaganda” to create the illusion of grassroots backing.  Not only did they violate the public trust, they broke the law.  They must be held accountable for their actions.

On January 13, Congress put our stamp of approval on a bill that would stop WOTUS from taking effect.  The final step is to get the President to sign on, which frankly, is unlikely.  While a presidential veto is all but certain, I wasn’t going to be discouraged from pursuing our agenda.  We need to keep pushing forward the initiatives that are important to South Dakota and the country.

Even if the President fails to understand the burden WOTUS puts on families, farmers, and small businesses, a federal appellate court has put a temporary, nationwide suspension on the rule’s implementation.  One way or another, I’m committed to stopping this EPA expansion.

I know that sometimes the burden of federal regulations can be difficult to see – especially if they don’t impact us or our work directly.  But the reality is that federal regulations, like WOTUS, stunt America’s growth and threaten the opportunities ahead.  Bureaucrats need to be reined in.

Already this year, the House has passed legislation to reduce the overall cost of current federal regulations by 15 percent.  Our legislation, H.R.1155, would do this by forcing federal agencies to search for unnecessarily burdensome regulations, report them to Congress, and then eliminate them for good.  We’ve also passed legislation requiring bureaucrats to better communicate the purpose and impact of proposed regulations.  You have a right to know what they’re doing in clear, succinct language.

These bills build on legislation we passed in 2015 which would force any major regulation to get approval from Congress before being implemented.  We need to give the people a bigger voice in this process.

2015 was a record-setting year for federal regulations.  By one group’s count, more than 3,300 rules and regulations were finalized.  It’s gotten out of control.  Too much power is being concentrated in the hands of federal bureaucrats and it’s costing hardworking families dearly.  We have to reverse course, and I’m hopeful that will begin with stopping the EPA’s new WOTUS rule.

###

The Year To Act On Education
A column by Gov. Dennis Daugaard:

The 2016 Legislative Session began this week. This year, I am proposing that South Dakota address the issue of teacher pay.

We all know that the key to student achievement is an effective teacher.  We also know that South Dakota’s teacher salaries are lowest in the nation and have been for decades.

South Dakota competes with our surrounding states for teachers, and we are falling further behind them. Ten years ago, South Dakota’s average teacher salary was about $2,000 behind North Dakota. We were 51^st and they were 49^th. Montana was 47^th and Nebraska was 42^nd.

Today, we are still closest to North Dakota among our surrounding states. But the gap is $8,000. We still rank 51^st. North Dakota moved from 49^th to 36^th. Montana moved from 47^th to 28^th. Nebraska moved from 42^nd to 32^nd.

If South Dakota wants to maintain high student achievement, we need a new generation of high quality teachers.

To address this need, I am proposing a one half cent increase in the state sales tax. This will fund a new school funding formula that will move South Dakota’s average teacher salary from $40,000 to a target average of $48,500. At that level, South Dakota will be competitive with surrounding states.

The new funding formula will fund schools based on a target average salary of $48,500 and on a target student-to-teacher ratio for each district. That is not a measure of class size – it is a measure of all instructional staff per student.

Here is what the state is offering schools: the state will give school districts enough funding to pay the target salary, if the district reaches the target student-to-teacher ratio.

This new formula will create a more transparent funding system, based on actual costs. State policymakers will be able to see that schools receive enough money to pay their costs. At the local level, the new formula will lead to informed conversations about how local decisions impact a school’s ability to reach the target average salary.

As we ask schools to pay teachers more, we must also give them tools to be more efficient. My plan includes several measures to allow schools to become more efficient and save money. An expansion of the Statewide Center for e-Learning at Northern State University will make more high-quality online courses available to students, at no cost to their home schools.

The state will also expand successful programs that encourage sharing of services. For example, the state already negotiates centrally for Internet broadband access, and provides that service to schools. This saves schools more than it costs the state. We can expand this approach to other areas, such as purchasing, payroll administration or software licensing.

The introduction of new funding also allows the state to correct inequities. Under our current formula, property taxes are equalized across districts, so children receive uniform education, regardless of property values in their districts. However, the formula does not equalize some revenue sources, such as wind farm taxes, bank franchise taxes, the gross receipts tax on utilities and traffic fines. My proposal will treat all of these sources like property taxes, so that all schools are treated fairly.

The one half cent will generate $40 million in new revenue beyond our needs, however, so I am also proposing that this excess be dedicated to property tax relief. My plan imposes caps on school reserves funds, and limits future growth of property taxes for capital outlay. These are positive steps that benefit taxpayers and ensure that the funds we spend benefit today’s students.

We all want what is best for our children. We want to provide them with a quality education. And we know that requires a strong workforce of great teachers. This is the year to act.

-30-

Well, this got a lot of attention quickly.

The Argus is writing today on a bill that’s going to be introduced to override Initiated Measure 17… or legalize one organization’s interpretation, depending on your viewpoint… affecting a measure that was passed by the voters in 2014 by a 62% vote. And this topic is quickly rising to the status of being this years’ dark horse bill for controversial measures:

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 passed with a solid 62 percent majority.

And…

If passed, the bill would essentially legalize the way Sanford Health Plans interpreted Initiated Measure 17. Sanford began offering a plan that includes all providers who want in, but it has also continued to offer narrow network plans to consumers and employers who want them.  

And…

Shannon Carder, who was the campaign manager for Initiated Measure 17, said lawmakers should listen to their constituents, a majority of which have said they support the provision.

“I can’t imagine that it would be a wise decision to go against the will of the voters,” Carder said. “We worked really hard with the people of South Dakota who wanted this measure. People wanted, plain and simple, to be the ones to choose who their doctor is.”

Read it all here.

It will be interesting to watch this develop. Stay tuned for more!

I had to chuckle a little this morning at the County GOP meeting as legislators were getting a briefing of what is currently going on in Pierre are, and what they see coming up.

One legislator mentioned that he sees the alleged IM17 repeal bill (*confirming that there’s something out there*) as being one of the most controversial measures early on this session, and jokingly referred to it as “the lobbyist employment act,” given the ever increasing numbers of people working the issue in either chamber.

He said this week he had been approached by lobbyists on both sides of the issue, and indicated to me that while he was not a big supporter of legislation that eventually led to IM17, he’s not going to climb on board a proposal to rewrite a law that was supported by 63% of the electorate.

Stay tuned.

  
I’m at the local GOP meeting this morning, and Josh Shields, Senator Thune’s campaign manager is giving us a briefing on the state of the US Senate Race, including the fact that Dems are desperate for a candidate at this point, and are still looking.

Stay tuned…

From the state legislature comes a measure to legalize industrial hemp:

Industrial Pot Legalization

Industrial hemp and some varieties of pot are indistinguishable from each other – which will not be of any benefit to helping make South Dakota Law Enforcement’s job any easier. Not to mention that The United States does not currently allow the cultivation of hemp.

Under Federal Law, all varieties of pot, including hemp, are considered Schedule I controlled substances under the Controlled Substances Act, and Hemp production is controlled and regulated by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). It is illegal to grow hemp without a DEA permit. While some states have legalized hemp it for cultivation, I believe a grower still must get permission from the DEA in order to grow hemp, or face the possibility of federal charges or property confiscation, even if he or she has a state-issued permit.

Sorry, but this is yet another ill-informed backdoor measure at introducing pot to a state, with the eventual goal of it’s full legalization.

Does anyone think this measure is going to make it out of committee? Not me.  And that sounds like it’s as good a place for the measure to die as any.

From KELO-AM news, veteran political observers, even Democrat observers, are saying that the Thune race is a done deal at this point:

South Dakota Political Analyst Bob Burns wouldn’t be shocked if Senator John Thune (R) this year runs unopposed again. Thune ran without competition in 2010.

Burns, a veteran observer of South Dakota politics, says the State Democratic Party doesn’t have “much of a bench” these days for possible candidates for high office in South Dakota. His best bet seems to be that the Democrats will eventually find someone to run against Thune, with little hope of victory, but at least to provide an alternative voice on national issues.

Read it here.

“..wouldn’t be shocked if Senator John Thune (R) this year runs unopposed again”  and “eventually find someone to run against Thune, with little hope of victory”  is not exactly a ringing endorsement for Anne Tornberg’s tenure as Democrat Party Chair.

(I wonder how filling those other 105 seats are going?)

When you talk to people hanging out in the Capitol during session as much as I do, sometimes you hear “things.”   And one of the issues/rumors that you find bubbling out there is connected to the 2014 election, and a ballot measure which passed with strong support.

As part of the 2014 election, there was a measure introduced called the patient’s choice act, or IM17. As noted by the measure’s proponents:

Patient Choice allows insured patients improved and less costly access to highly qualified, quality physicians that may be better suited or more familiar and convenient than those offered by the insurance company chosen by their employer.

In some instances, a change of insurance may make it cost prohibitive for a patient to see their long-term provider.  For example, if an employer selects a new group health insurance plan from a company that uses a closed network, an employee’s longtime primary care provider may be excluded from the network if he is not an employee of the hospital system that owns the insurance company that issued the new group policy. This results in the employee paying expensive out-of-pocket costs or finding a new, unfamiliar provider.

Read that here.

Initiated Measure 17 passed on a decisive vote of 166,401 in favor of, versus 102,792 against – the highest margin of victory for the three measures on the ballot.

Fast forward to the 2016 legislative session.  I’m hearing rumors afoot that there may be a bill brought in the legislature that could potentially alter that language and void IM17 at least in part.  Upon hearing that, a phrase that comes to mind is “the will of the people.”  And for whoever decides to sponsor such a measure, bucking that electoral will could be painful.

I think back to what happened last year; in the session immediately following the elections, a measure was brought to slightly modify a minor provision of another ballot measure, the minimum wage act.  The least popular of the three ballot measures, the minimum wage act was passed 150,819 to 123,167, and was not just controversial, but strongly opposed.

The bill, which was passed, brought outrage in the state’s media, and a petition drive was initiated, where the repeal of a minor portion of the ballot measure was immediately referred for election this year. The fervor of that measure has somewhat died down over the past year, where it might not affect the election fortunes of the measure’s proponents.  At least until their opponents remind the voters of it.

That happened when a minor provision was passed to slightly alter the least popular ballot measure from 2014.  Anger and near-automatic referral. What do you think the reaction will be for the legislator who might attempt a major alteration of the most popular ballot measure from the preceding election, which had virtually no opposition at the ballot box?  Especially coming smack dab in the middle of the election year?

Based on last years’ experience, I suspect it’s going to generate a wave of negative publicity that the legislator probably didn’t contemplate when they put their name on the line to support such a measure.  And that could be a wave that might dash them on the rocks in the next election.

In that instance, taking direct aim at the will of the people in such a manner might not just be an unwise thing. It could prove to be downright painful.