Are businesses preparing for the impact of the perpetually-increasing minimum wage? Absolutely.  From the Argus Leader:

Sioux Falls McDonald’s customers will soon be able to order and pay for their meals from an app on their cell phone.

The technology will virtually eliminate the odds of some 16-year-old behind the counter messing up your order, checking “ketchup” when you wanted “mustard.”

As for that 16-year old, will their job be the next thing to go away?

Local restaurant owners insist the answer is no, but experts elsewhere predict a radical transformation is on the horizon for retail and restaurant workers as artificial intelligence, robots and other automation takes over many of the tasks humans perform today.

Read it all here.

Sorry local restaurant owners. If you disagree, you’re either kidding yourselves, or the article writer isn’t talking to many of them.  When it becomes cost neutral to install an automated system versus using a live employee, guess which one the employer is going to pick?

And as we experience the perpetually-increasing minimum wage for jobs that aren’t worth $10 or $15 an hour, that trend is only going to accelerate.

I just caught this on facebook, and thought it brought up a few items worthy of discussion, especially taking a contrarian viewpoint just for the sake of it.

There’s been a bit of hullabaloo over the group, and as you might notice by Steve Hickey’s comment below, some demonizing/dehumanizing (see “the industry is slime comment) going on.  But, are their actions worthy of the coverage that former Obama Campaign manager Steve Hildebrand is trying to whip up by calling his buddies in the media to cover?

Noting the post:

First, regarding Steve Hickey’s comment implying there’s something wrong that the group is “in front of Target today collecting signatures and their petitions haven’t been approved by the Secretary of State.”  I think my reply would be “so what?”

There are lots of groups who informally gather names on petitions, with some trying to gauge support on an issue so as to determine whether or not there is support for the change. And I mean lots. If there weren’t, then I suspect change.org wouldn’t exist.

From a political organization standpoint, if you’ve got a group of people hired, and are waiting for the AG and Secretary of State to complete their process, do you really want them sitting on their butts getting paid for doing nothing?  Why not send them out to get signatures of interested people that you can easily go back to.  The people who signed before are clearly identified supporters who signed a preliminary petition of support. It should be child’s play to send people back to them to get a signature on a real petition.

It’s not like they can use them otherwise. They’re signed and dated.

And then, there’s the other part where the Reverend Hickey tries to “raise” the level of discourse – “The industry is slime, and they don’t care about anything but staying in business.”

Pardon me, but how dare they try to stay in business!  Businesses: Steve Hickey believes you are now there to lose money and go bankrupt.  How dare you invest money, build buildings to house your company, hire and pay staff, and think you are allowed to earn a profit off of your efforts. What in the hell do you think this is, a society based on capitalism? We changed to socialism a long time ago, dammit!

And that’s the point. In our allegedly free society, you should be free to choose to patronize a legal business, and do business with them, Or, you’re free not to. No one is holding a gun to your head.

You know, there’s lots of things to get outraged about. Let’s save the shock and outrage for things such as a drug using parent (allegedly) killing their child. Or a government holding a pipeline project hostage for 7 years.

But someone signing up like minded people to support their cause? Or *gasp* thinking that the free enterprise system is alive and well in these United States?

I just can’t gin up the same level of umbrage that others with more time on their hands are able to.

Attorney General Explanation Released for Initiated Constitutional Amendment Establishing Nonpartisan Elections

PIERRE –South Dakota Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today an Attorney General Explanation for a proposed Constitutional Amendment has been filed with the Secretary of State. This statement will appear on petitions that will be circulated by the sponsor of the proposed amendment. If the sponsor obtains a sufficient number of signatures on the petitions by November 9, 2015, as certified by the Secretary of State, the measure will be placed on the ballot for the November 2016 general election. This is a measure to change the Constitution, as opposed to changing state statutes (which requires 13,871), therefore the sponsor will need 27,741 signatures.

1. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing nonpartisan elections
2. An initiated amendment to the South Dakota Constitution establishing nonpartisan elections and requiring secret ballot elections for certain legislative officers

Under South Dakota law, the Attorney General is responsible for preparing explanations for proposed initiated measures, referred laws, and South Dakota Constitutional Amendments. Specifically, the explanation includes a title, an objective, clear and simple summary of the purpose and effect of the proposed measure and a description of the legal consequences.

To view the Attorney General Explanation for the measure, as well as the final form of the measure submitted to this office, please click on the links:

http://atg.sd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=4iP1eFfktCk%3d&tabid=442
http://atg.sd.gov/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=lnmHEaGmj7k%3d&tabid=442

Slick Rick Election Rewrite

(I can’t make it, because I have a different luncheon to attend, but if you’re in Sioux Falls, and are seeking some great conservative camaraderie tomorrow, check out the SD Conservatives Lunch at the W 41st St Pizza Ranch in Sioux Falls. – PP)

You are invited to attend the
South Dakota Conservatives Lunch
on the second Thursday of each month
from 12:00 to 1:00 P.M.
at the Pizza Ranch located at
2717 West 41st Street in Sioux Falls.

Please come share your opinions, voice your concerns, meet fellow conservatives, and learn about the efforts and events of various conservative organizations in South Dakota.

The cost of the buffet lunch and drink is $9.99. For more information, please contact Chad Krier
at (605) 370-2778.

“Thune said the Iran deal is the number one issue that concerns him for the upcoming year.

“You got leaders who are chanting death to America. Normally when somebody tells you they are going to kill you, it’s probably a good idea to believe them,” he said.”

Read it here.

Update:  Nate Silver reached nearly the same conclusions as mine but a lot less deep.  I think he and everyone else is missing the “profile” concentration issue (non-politicos, Senators, Governros).  http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/the-post-debate-losers-walker-and-winners-fiorina/

I want to stress the GOP primary is extremely fluid.  This morning at a regular breakfast, while there were current favorites among everyone there, the true reaction to the debate was universal enthusiasm for virtually the entire field.  The adverse reaction to Trump was what he did and said AFTER the debate.  

We have the first national polling after record-breaking GOP Primary debate from last week.  In reality, I have no idea what it may mean in the end.  In politics, campaigns surge, campaigns fade, campaigns die and they sometimes come back to life.  The following is some information, random thoughts, questions, and some possible scenarios.  What do you think?

Comparing candidates movement from the prior Rasmussen poll, candidates support changed as follows:

Moving Up:  Fiorina (+8%), Rubio (+5%), Undecided (+4%), Christie (+2%)

Moving Down:  Trump (-9%), Walker (-5%), Huckabee (-4%), Bush (-3%)

No or minor change (plus or minus 1%):  Everyone else.

Random thoughts and questions:

1. Fiorina appears to be in the next main debate and on the bubble is Paul, Christie, Kasich and Huckabee (currently outside looking in).
2. Fiorina didn’t get all of her gain from her fellow debate participants.  Collectively, they only fell 3%.  She grabbed 5% of her gain from those in the second debate.  The degree it came from Trump (non-politico) or the former/current Governors is a big question.  This dissatisfaction might imperil the former/current Governor’s as maybe too many won’t listen to what the Governor’s actually have done.
3. Non-politicos (Trump, Fiorina, Carson):  Collective support is 34% and collectively netted a 2% gain.  This indicates the depth of the dissatisfaction with “business as usual.”  If collectively this group maintains 1/3 support we are in for a wild ride because even if they don’t win primaries, they will significantly alter the playing field in each state making predictions and conventional wisdom moot.
4. Former and current Governors (9 candidates):  Collective support is 33% and collectively dropped a net of 10% (8% of which came from the drops of Walker and Bush).  Going into the debate, Governor’s appeared to be the preferred profile with 43% support.  They ran states and by virtually all objective measure have performed or are performing.  In my mind in the debate, each of them touted impressive accomplishments as Governor so I’m wholly surprised by the collective drop.  Walker and Bush may need to have their colleagues drop out to move in the polls if there is no decline in collective non-politico support as I can see large chunks of Huckabee, Christie, & Kasich drifting to either Bush and Walker.
5. US Senators (5 candidates):  Collective support 23% and gained collectively 5% and it was all Rubio.  While Cruz is likely staying in the race for a long time if not the duration no matter how he does in the early primaries, I still wonder about Rubio and Paul.  Their seats are up for re-election this year.  Where do they have to be in the polls to stay in the race vs. going back home to run for re-election?  When do they have to make the decision (legally and practically)?  And, if they drop out, where does their 14% support go?  To a fellow Senator (Cruz or Graham)?  To the non-policos?  To a Governor?
6. From whom did the 4% jump in undecideds come from?  Trump or the Governors?
7. The non-politicos are likely in the race through New Hampshire for sure.  I will be watching to see if Rasmussen’s next poll has them garnering more collective support or less.  It might be the most relevant “measurable” after the next debate.
8. Trump has to stem his decline.  If he falls below 10%, his rise and fall will be seen as too similar to Gingrich & Cain last election.  Rasmussen doesn’t publish cross-tabs and it is my guess much of the decline is from women.  I’m not sure his statement today that he is considering not de-funding Planned Parenthood is a good strategy but we will see.
9. From now and through the next debate, I believe that Bush, Cruz, Rubio and Walker have to mostly do no harm to themselves.  There is a shake-out coming and they best gain by being in a position to attract the 1/3 of the GOP voter population who currently is undecided or with candidates who drop out/become non-viable.  It doesn’t mean they play it safe but don’t err on the side of being too aggressive.
10. Similarly, Fiorina and Carson need to stay the course of raising money and meeting with voters while articulating firm and cogent arguments.  They still are introducing themselves to both voters and the process.  Unlike those I list in #9 above, a misstep could be fatal.
11. The Bubble Candidates (Huckabee, Paul, Christie, Kasich and maybe Perry) have to find away to become more relevant and stand-out.  In my mind, these are the candidates with the toughest decisions to make regarding tactics and strategy.
12. Everyone else, if you don’t break out like Fiorina in the next debate, nobody will care what you do from now on.  Your endorsement won’t even matter.  If you want to be relevant, make an endorsement tomorrow.  At minimum, you’ll gain brownie points with voters because you are no longer taking up space.

Scenario #1:  I see a scenario at year-end of 6-8 remaining viable candidates with support between 12-20% and nobody a clear favorite whereby these candidates stay in the race to the end.  In the end, I think this will insure the GOP picks the best general election candidate who is battle tested like none before.  Unless Trump or Fiorina fade, today I guess it the remaining slots will be:

• Three slots held by the non-politicos, Trump, Fiorina, and Carson.
• Three slots by Bush, Cruz, Walker.  (No Rubio or Paul as I think in this scenario they will choose to run for Senate re-election)
• One or two of the current bubble candidates,
• And maybe a candidate who pulls a Fiorina and gets hot at the right time.

If this is the scenario, I think it favors Bush as nobody will have the money and organization to win primaries in a diverse field as we go through the season.

Scenario #2:  I also see a scenario where Fiorina continues to climb attracting significant support from the other non-politicos (Trump continues to fade and Carson ceases to be intriguing), one of Bush, Kasich, or Walker rises out of the Governor’s category, and one of Cruz, Paul or Rubio rises out of the Senators and going into Iowa we have essentially a three candidate race.  If this is the scenario, I can’t even hazard a guess on who would be the favorite.  Because the field is smaller, Bush’s organization and money advantage will be minimized as the remaining candidates will pick up what isn’t going to those who dropped out.  However, under this scenario, by the end of the season, there will be a nominee and a convention fight is avoided.

Scenario #3:  Finally, I see a scenario where Trump maintains 20-25% support across the country and in most individual states.  In this case, the other candidates fight over the remaining 75-80% whereby different people win different primaries.  Under this scenario, we go to the convention which becomes brokered.  Under this scenario (whether he has a significant block of delegates or not), Donald Trump may become the king-maker.  I think this is ultimately his endgame and why he won’t make the pledge.

I do not see a scenario where we have more than 8 viable candidates going into Iowa.  Not enough money, volunteers, room for people to break-out.

Sidenote:  The Clinton email problem may have reached fatal proportions even if Clinton loyalists don’t see it.  I’m betting the Clinton’s are wishing General Petraeus had not been prosecuted.  A plea deal down to a misdemeanor is as damaging politically as a felony conviction.  Biden and Schumer will soon be entering the Presidential sweepstakes.  

Noem Urges Administration to Prioritize Sanford Lab Research

WASHINGTON D.C. – In a letter to Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, Office of Management and Budget Director Shaun Donovan, and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, Rep. Noem urged the administration to prioritize the Department of Energy’s Long Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF) – a research project planned at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in Lead, South Dakota, along with other facilities across the country.

“The neutrino research to be conducted in South Dakota could lead to faster global communications, better nuclear weapons detection technologies, and a new understanding of how the world around us works,” said Noem.  “To accomplish any of this, however, the administration must see the Long Baseline Neutrino Facility experiment as imperative to our national interests and make the research a priority, as they have done in the past.  This is the future of scientific research.”

The Long Baseline Neutrino Facility experiment focuses on the study of neutrinos – one of the least understood particles in the universe.  It seeks to uncover their structure and behavior in the hopes of developing new technological advances as well as educating and training students.  To study the properties of neutrinos, the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois would produce an intense beam of neutrinos, which would travel 800 miles across the United States to the deep underground lab at the Sanford Underground Research Facility in South Dakota.

Earlier this year, the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (P5) outlined the 10-year strategic plan for high-energy physics experiments in the U.S.  The report specifically recommends research into dark matter and neutrinos, both fields of study the Sanford Lab is recognized for.

The Sanford Underground Research Facility employs 125 individuals full-time at its facility in Lead.

To read a copy of the letter, please click here.

###

South Dakota Joins in Filing Preliminary Injunction in Waters of the U.S. Case (WOTUS)

PIERRE, S.D – Attorney General Marty Jackley announced today that the State of South Dakota and all of the twelve states challenging the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) in the Western Region have filed a motion for preliminary injunction in the Water of the United States (WOTUS) case.

“The EPA and Corps of Engineer’s failure to timely respond to the States’ request to delay the implementation of the Rule has unfortunately necessitated the need to seek further court intervention,” said Jackley. “Our concerns continue to be that these agencies are overstepping their Congressional authority and that our State will be losing considerable decision making control over our waters and land use. The new Rule is creating uncertainty for our agriculture and business community that needs to have fairness and a degree of common sense in federal regulation.”

The States are actively seeking postponement of the impending implementation of the WOTUS Rule while the courts have the opportunity to fully address the states’ concerns. On June 29, 2015, twelve states filed in federal district court in North Dakota asking the court to vacate the new rule and bar the EPA and the USACE from enforcing the new definition. Several other states have 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. Then on July 30, 2015, 31 states requested that the EPA and USACE delay the effective date of the new Rule defining “Waters of the United States” under the CWA. The Rule is currently set to go into effect on August 28, 2015. The States requested the Rule not be implemented for a period of at least nine months in order to give the courts time to review the legal challenges to the Rule.

-30-