Noem for Governor Release: Noem stands with patients & taxpayers to lower health care costs and improve access

NOEM STANDS WITH PATIENTS & TAXPAYERS TO LOWER HEALTH CARE COSTS AND IMPROVE ACCESS

Jackley Campaign-Allied Trial Lawyers Immediately Go on the Attack

Congresswoman Kristi Noem faced bitter attacks today from trial lawyers backing Marty Jackley for Governor.

“Obamacare did nothing to drive down health care costs, in part because it failed to enact any kind of meaningful tort reform. That’s why I’m proud to stand with President Trump and conservatives on the Protecting Access to Care Act. This bill would save hardworking taxpayers $50 billion while offering reforms that can fundamentally lower the cost of health care in this country. I’m fighting to give families the freedom and flexibility to meet their family’s financial and health care needs. This bill is another step in the right direction,” said Kristi Noem, a Republican candidate for South Dakota Governor.

Conservative Iowa Republican Steve King said the bill will continue to “allow an injured party to receive full compensation for measureable economic harm (such as medical expenses or lost wages) that they have incurred. The damage cap only applies to an award of non-economic damages (such as punitive damages) that are, by their very nature, speculative, subjective, and wildly inconsistent.”

Former South Dakota lawmaker Lee Schoenbeck, an outspoken supporter of Attorney General Marty Jackley, cited the vote of liberal Congressman Steve Cohen (D-TN) as an example of those standing against the bill.  

“Trial lawyer Marty Jackley and his band of trial lawyer supporters may want to rethink their opposition to saving taxpayers $50 billion and lowering health care costs.  I look forward to hearing them explain that to Republican primary voters,” said Justin Brasell, Noem campaign spokesman.

More about the bill:

http://dailycaller.com/2017/06/29/house-passes-medical-malpractice-tort-reform-bill/

###

 

A great counterpoint to the fake news gerrymandering story

This comment was such a perfect example of why the gerrymandering story is utter BS, I wanted to bring it to your attention

From JLB:

It is really easy to blame this on redistricting, but that is really misreading the situation. Lets look at District 27, which encompasses almost the entire Pine Ridge Reservation. That district has a large Native American population, and a large Democratic voter registration advantage. The AP may look at that and assume it is done to keep all the democratic voters out of other more republican districts. However, that was done to comply with prior judicial orders regarding the Civil Rights Act. That is true in a lot of other “reservation districts.” However – note, District 27 still has two GOP House members.

What does this mean? That democrats are simply under-performing, as a start. With the voter registration advantage the Dems have there, it is almost unimaginable to expect GOP victories in that district. Oglala Lakota County was in the top 5 (or so) of highest percentage districts that voted for President Obama in the nation, yet they elected 2 GOP members to the House. That is true in every competitive district as well. The GOP simply has won every close district the last few cycles. This could be for various reasons, but the key is that you can not blame it on redistricting…..

Read the entire comment here.

One of the top 5 Obama districts in the country, and they sent 2 Republican legislators to Pierre.

Gerrymandering? No. Dems falling down as a party? Absolutely.

More fake news about “gerrymandering” being spun at the Argus. #1 factor in Dems losing? Not running candidates and acting like a political party.

After previewing their story with a video, the Argus Leader got around to posting it’s bizarre fantasy about how South Dakota’s poor, poor Democrats were hurt by big bad Republicans gerrymandering them into legislative extinction later in the day yesterday.  And it looks like we have another case of a story being written to somehow try to support a nakedly biased lede, while at the same time they ignore basic facts:

South Dakota’s election map is stacked against Democrats more than any other state in the nation, according to an Associated Press analysis.

Nearly 2 in 5 votes cast in 2016 state House races went to Democratic candidates, but the party captured only 14 percent of seats in the chamber.

and…

What the 2011 committee came up with significantly favored Republicans, according to the Associated Press analysis, designed to find instances where one political party won, widened or retained its grip on power through political gerrymandering.

The analysis concludes that, had South Dakota Republicans won eight more House seats than would have been expected based on the average vote share in districts.

“There are Democrats that can’t win because they’re in districts that have been gerrymandered for decades,” said Sam Parkinson, South Dakota Democratic Party executive director. “Just because you control the majority of seats doesn’t mean you should draw the boundaries.”

and..

“It’s a fantasy for the AP to say the Republican victories can be attributed to gerrymandering,” Dan Lederman, chair of the South Dakota Republican Party, said. “That margin of victory isn’t due to gerrymandering, it’s because of weakness in the Democratic Party.”

Read that here.

As I did yesterday, I’m still calling bullsh*t on the story which ignores and downplays basic facts.

The biggest factor which was ignored in the Argus article was that Democrats will always face difficulties in winning elections when the fail to run candidates. In the last eleciton Dems failed to run candidates in nearly 30% of the races in the State Senate, while Republicans conceded only 17% – and those were the only races that Dems won.

To it’s only credit, the article actually went out on a limb and mentioned voter registration in the tail end of the article, begrudgingly noting “South Dakota Democrats also face significant disadvantages in fundraising, voter registrations and statewide name recognition. Republicans entered the 2016 election with 252,116 registered voters compared to Democrats’ 170,694.”

As my father might derisively note to me when I state the overwhelmingly obvious, “No sh*t, Dick Tracy.

Is it possible that the overwhelming election of Republicans might also be largely attributable to the fact that the South Dakota population is comprised of an overwhelming number of Republicans, and has nothing to do with any ridiculous claims of drawing districts in an unfair manner?  Could be.  

When the Districts were drawn in 2011, they were not drawn in any different of a manner than they had before. And as Bob Mercer notes this morning, Democrats used to be able to do well after Republicans drew them:

Looking back to the 2001 redistricting, Republicans had a two-thirds majority in the House, with a 50-20 advantage in 2002 and a 49-21 advantage in 2003.

The Senate also was in two-thirds control of Republicans, as the chamber went from 24-11 to 26-9.

The 1992 redistricting came amid a brief resurgence, at least on the Senate side of the Capitol. The House of Representatives fluctuated somewhat.

Republicans held a 45-25 advantage in 1991 and a 42-29 advantage in 1993 before returning to 46-24 in 1995.

The Senate switched from an 18-17 advantage for Republicans in 1991, to a 20-15 advantage for Democrats in 1993. The chamber returned to Republican control in 1995 at 19-16.

Read that here.

In two previous redistricting efforts, (1991 and 2001) Republicans actually lost seats after redistricting, and in 1992, Democrats were able to take the Senate Chamber after a Republican led redistricting. Which the Argus conveniently ignored, because it conflicted with the fairy tale they’re trying to spin.

B-BUT HOW DID THEY DO THAT WITH EVIL REPUBLICANS DRAWING THE LINES?

As I noted yesterday, in South Dakota, our redistricting abilities are limited, and the rules require that certain boundaries be followed, and that the population must be split up as evenly as possible.

§ 5.   Legislative reapportionment. The Legislature shall apportion its membership by dividing the state into as many single-member, legislative districts as there are state senators. House districts shall be established wholly within senatorial districts and shall be either single-member or dual-member districts as the Legislature shall determine. Legislative districts shall consist of compact, contiguous territory and shall have population as nearly equal as is practicable, based on the last preceding federal census.

Read that here.

In addition to that, South Dakota Legislative redistricting typically ends up under review by the federal government to ensure minority representation, so whether Republicans like it or not, it has to be played pretty straight.

The biggest difference between previous redistricting and this last time is that Democrats used to have a much more organized presence, and put their efforts into voter registration and fielding a full slate of candidates.  In recent years, actually acting as a political party has been abandoned in favor of promoting ballot measures as panacea to their electoral woes.  And as I’ve said time and again, and has been proven time and again – IT DOES NOT WORK.

But I’m getting off track. I can go on about what Democrats do wrong in elections in this state for hours. This was about the ridiculous story which ignores basic facts.

The naked bias against Republicans being exhibited more and more by the Argus Leader is just tiring at this point. And this article is just yet another example of it.

We always knew they were caricatures. New wrestling villain – “The Progressive Liberal.”

This story is hilarious. And probably too close to the truth:

A wrestler holding a microphone faced an Appalachian crowd before a match and began unleashing a torrent of insults, the nature of which seemed out of place at a pro wrestling tournament.

“I understand now why you all identify with country music. It’s slow and it’s simple and it’s boring, just like each and every one of you.”

As the crowd grew increasing hostile, the wrestler’s remarks became more politically tinged.

“You know what, I think Bernie Sanders would make a great secretary of state.”

And…

Meet the wrestler who goes by the name “Progressive Liberal” Dan Richards, the most hated character in Kentucky’s Appalachian Mountain Wrestling (AMW) program, a small professional wrestling circuit.

Professional wrestling has long included villain characters called heels, someone for the audience to cheer against. Traditionally, though, these are burly, angry men who do “evil” things such as pledging allegiance to the devil or sneak-attacking other wrestlers with chairs and ladders. He’s burly enough, at 6 feet 5 inches tall. But he praises not the devil but Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Read it all here.

No wonder a crowd nearly attacked Cory Heidelberger last election. He was the villain in that show!

Argus claims SD Democrats lost in 2016 because of “partisan gerrymandering?” Now that’s fake news if I’ve ever heard it.

Looking for a prime example of FAKE NEWS? Look no farther than the Argus Leader.  They just posted a video online with a ridiculous claim that South Dakota Democrats “had a harder time winning in 2016 because of partisan gerrymandered districts.”

Wow.

That’s fake news if I ever heard it, and seems to be in the realm of what we’d call journalistic malpractice.

I’d call it an embarrassingly shallow analysis.. but that would assume that someone bothered to actually analyze something.    It seems that someone created a bullsh*t headline, and now there will be a story framed to try to support it.

Unfortunately, the premise is utterly indefensible.

If you look at South Dakota’s political environment, starting out, Democrats in 2016 were already at near historic lows in offices (by doing many of the same things they’ve done for several cycles)

First and foremost, DEMOCRATS FAILED TO FIELD CANDIDATES!  It’s a proven fact that if you don’t run candidates for an office, you will not win that race. In fact, just in the State Senate, before the first vote was counted, Democrats conceded 1/4-1/3 of races by not running anyone.

And later in the cycle, for those candidates who remained to contest Republicans, Democrat state party finances did not provide the basis to support candidates in any significant way.  Instead, Democrats invested their time and efforts into ballot measures instead of political races.

That is, for the money they did spend. A series of post-election meetings across the state noted that Democrats ended the campaign sitting on $100,000 that was unspent during this time of record losses.

Add to that they’ve consistently run weak candidates at the top of the ticket for several cycles. When you have candidates an unlikable as Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket followed by a candidate as inept as Jay Williams, who spent NO money, had no organization, and told everyone he wanted to raise taxes, it’s not much of a choice.

Hmm… people I don’t like, who say they’ll raise my taxes, or the other guys?  Let me think…

In South Dakota, our redistricting abilities are pretty limited, given that it part of the rules requires that geographic and natural boundaries be followed. As noted in the constitution:

§ 5.   Legislative reapportionment. The Legislature shall apportion its membership by dividing the state into as many single-member, legislative districts as there are state senators. House districts shall be established wholly within senatorial districts and shall be either single-member or dual-member districts as the Legislature shall determine. Legislative districts shall consist of compact, contiguous territory and shall have population as nearly equal as is practicable, based on the last preceding federal census.

Read that here.

I’ve been around for three of these now, and I can tell you there’s not a lot of ways to slice it up and follow those rules.

In fact, for two of them, Democrats picked up seats after the redistricting, and then slowly lost them. At the time of the last redistricting, Democrats were beginning their party’s slide into their current state of disorganization, and wasn’t able to capitalize on people not knowing their current representatives and senators as they had before.

Democrats being at a disadvantage has utterly nothing to do with redistricting. In this case, it’s on them, period.

No matter how hard the those in the media try to manufacture a fairy tale. Because the truth is far simpler.

Rounds comments on WOTUS rule recission

From the Rounds Report:

Administration Moves to Rescind Overreaching “Waters of the U.S.” Rule
June 27, 2017

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers today took steps to officially rescind the misguided Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule. As finalized by the Obama administration, the WOTUS rule would have been one of the largest federal land grabs in our country’s history, giving the Army Corps and EPA control of nearly all water, including farm ponds and drainage ditches. It would have caused farmers, ranchers and landowners to spend hours filling out paperwork just to procure permits to conduct normal agricultural activities or spray for weeds along country roads. I’m glad to hear the Trump administration took this important step to undo this unnecessary, misguided overreach.

I encourage South Dakotans to submit public comments as the current EPA and the Army Corps work to rewrite this rule to make it better for farmers, ranchers and landowners. To learn more about the revised proposal and offer your thoughts, click HERE.

Trump Administration Right to Propose Repeal of Obama-era WOTUS Rules, says Noem

Trump Administration Right to Propose Repeal of Obama-era WOTUS Rules, says Noem

Washington, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today applauded the Trump administration for formally proposing a withdrawal of the controversial Obama-era Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS) rule.

“Under the Obama-era WOTUS rules, treating your lawn for mosquitos, putting up a fence in your backyard, or spraying your crops could become federally regulated activities that carry substantial fines if violations occur – knowingly or unknowingly. The Trump administration is right to propose a repeal,” said Noem.

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.

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

###

Thune Statement on Trump Administration Proposal to Withdraw Obama-Era WOTUS Rule

Thune Statement on Trump Administration Proposal to Withdraw Obama-Era WOTUS Rule

“I’m glad EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and his agency listened to the concerns of rural America and are taking steps to repeal this burdensome rule”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today applauded the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers for initiating a formal process to withdraw the highly controversial Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule. The EPA and the Corps now begin a replacement rulemaking process that will gather input and re-evaluate the definition of WOTUS.

“WOTUS was just another example of Obama-era government overreach, which placed unnecessary burdens on South Dakota’s farmers and ranchers,” said Thune. “I’m glad EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and his agency listened to the concerns of rural America and are taking steps to repeal this burdensome rule.”

WOTUS was developed by the Obama Administration’s EPA and the Corps. It greatly expanded the EPA’s federal jurisdiction and scope of waterbodies that are subject to Clean Water Act requirements. It also targeted the Prairie Pothole Region, which includes nearly all of eastern South Dakota, with additional harmful restrictions.

###

Attorney General Jackley Statement on EPA Rescinding Waters of the U.S. Rule

Attorney General Jackley Statement on EPA Rescinding Waters of the U.S. Rule

PIERRE, S.D. – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today the Environmental Protection Agency, under Administrator Scott Pruitt and Corps of Engineers, under Douglas Lamont, have withdrawn the Obama-era regulation that asserts federal authority over state waters.

“It was always my concern that both the EPA and the Corps exceeded their authority granted by Congress. Today, the EPA and the Corps took a step forward in the process of restoring the control back to the States. I look forward to their final action to withdraw the WOTUS Rule and provide relief to the States,” said Jackley.

The proposed withdrawal of the WOTUS rule will be published in the Federal Register and the EPA will receive comments, after which point the withdrawal could be finalized. It is expected that the EPA, with input from the States, will then propose a new regulation to more clearly define its limited jurisdiction under the Clean Water Act.

The States actively sought postponement of the impending implementation of the WOTUS Rule while the courts could fully address the states’ concerns. On June 29, 2015, thirteen states filed in federal district court in North Dakota asking the court to vacate the new rule and bar the EPA and the Corps from enforcing the new definition. Several other states filed in their respective regions. The states contended the new definition of WOTUS violated provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA), the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the United States Constitution. On July 30, 2015, 31 states requested that the EPA and CORPS delay the effective date of the new Rule defining “Waters of the United States” under the CWA.

On August 27, 2015, the Federal Court issued a preliminary injunction to delay the Rules implementation until the Court has an opportunity to fully review the administrative record. The Court found that it was likely that the federal government violated its grant of authority when it promulgated the Rule and likely failed to comply with the requirements in the Administrative Procedures Act. Finally, the Court found the risk of harm to the States is great.

-30-