It’s that time of the election cycle again.

When spring is in the air, at a time when we’re likely to see no more snow, the fluorescent postcards begin to bloom, as courtesy of the Lautenschlager held South Dakota Gun Owners organization, they spread silliness and poo all over the state’s Republican primaries.

A reader received this one, and just snapped one side for me, but I’m sure there’s more of them coming. Just like last election, as you’ll see in this silly example from 2014, which was a lot of BS:

What’s the big difference from between this year, and last year?

Did I say South Dakota Gun Owners?  Um, that might be debatable. This year the fluorescent postcards are flocking in from on a Rocky Mountain High, as they arrive from Loveland, Colorado. Not Rapid City, where they they were formerly based. That’s because the head of the Lautenschlager group doing all the fluorescent attack postcards, Zach Lautenschlager, hasn’t been living in South Dakota for a while…

…hence the need for the attacks to be launched from two states away.

Can they legitimately call themselves the South Dakota Gun Owners PAC if it’s being ran out of Colorado?  Maybe they could put an asterisk behind it, for the sake of disclosure?  (We’ll watch for it on the others. Or at least the others that show up on time.)

Either way, some of this year’s postcards seem to be remarkable in that a few seem to be traipsing in from “elsewhere,” as they alternately cajole or cheer candidates,

Not just coming via the postcard from the South Dakota Colorado* Gun Owners  above, D35 Senate Candidate Tina Mulalley seems to be getting much of her campaign support from parts elsewhere, as there’s yet another cheer-leading postcard for her originating from several states away – this time, Indiana:

At least she didn’t note “Small Business Owner Supporting Indiana-Made Products” under her “Grow Jobs” section.

(*And no, it’s not that she didn’t use me, I’m completely up to my eyeballs this election season, and just keep getting busier. It’s just silly to go to Indiana to print or mail.)

Just got this in my e-mail.

Do you think there will be free stuff?  Like Political buttons? Or College Tuition? (one of those).

Sanders Campaign to Open South Dakota Office

May 18, 2016

Sioux Falls, S.D. – U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders’ campaign on Wednesday will formally open its Sioux Falls field office. This is the campaign’s first office in the state.

South Dakota is one of the six states voting on June 7.

Here is the itinerary:

Wednesday, May 18
7 p.m. Sioux Falls Office Opening, Sioux Falls Campaign Office, 335 N. Main Street
Information for the public: Doors open at 6:30 p.m. The event is free and open to the public, but RSVPs are strongly encouraged.

###

Noem Testifies on Legislation Protecting Tribes from Costly Employer Mandate

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Rep. Kristi Noem today testified before the House Ways and Means Committee on her Tribal Employment and Jobs Protection Act, which would protect Native American tribes from the Affordable Care Act’s costly employer mandate. The federal government is already responsible for providing healthcare to tribal members.  Imposing the employer mandate on them is unnecessary and duplicative.  Without relief, tribal governments could be required to cut important services while tribally-owned businesses could be forced to cut jobs.

Quote of the day, from Jay Williams rousing endorsement at the Bernie Sanders Rally in memorial park in Rapid City, May 12, 2016:

“I support the fiercely principled and moral US senator, Bernie Sanders, who has staked his entire adult life fighting for the interests of the American people regardless of race, religion, or economic status.”

– Jay Williams wrapping his arms around Bernie Sanders.

Did he say moral? (Link contains adult language.)

That quote of the day is free, by the way. Bernie-type free.

Which means, someone else is paying for it.

Thune, Colleagues Pressure CME to Reassess and Delay Proposed Price Change for South Dakota Live Cattle Delivery Point

“We stringently oppose the CME interfering with the price convergence in only a single market. It would interfere with the process of price discovery based on fundamental supply and demand factors, directly impacting the beef producers in our states.” 

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today led nine of his colleagues in writing to the Chicago Mercantile Exchange (CME) about its status review of the Worthing, South Dakota, delivery point for October live cattle futures. The Worthing delivery point is being singled out for a potential $1.50 per hundredweight (cwt) discount for the October live cattle futures contracts. If implemented, this discount would hurt South Dakota and surrounding states’ cattle feedlot operators who use October live cattle futures with the Worthing delivery point as a hedging tool.

“While we acknowledge the potential logistical issues associated with the high number of deliveries, we stringently oppose the CME interfering with the price convergence in only a single market,” the members wrote. “It would interfere with the process of price discovery based on fundamental supply and demand factors, directly impacting the beef producers in our states.”

In the letter, the members request the CME:

• Delay any proposed price modification action that would impact any October 2017 and later month contracts.
• Commission an independent study executed by one or more land grant institutions to analyze the three-year economic impact of the proposed discount for October contract month deliveries to Worthing, South Dakota.
• Analyze the results of the study, which should include a comprehensive review of all delivery points and the impact of live cattle deliveries on price convergence.

In March, Thune requested an extension of the comment period for the CME proposal, which was subsequently granted. Today’s follow-up letter was necessary to continue applying pressure on the CME and reiterate the members’ strong opposition to this targeting.

Late last month, the South Dakota, North Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa, and Minnesota Cattlemen’s Associations wrote a separate letter to the CME and echoed many of the concerns expressed by Thune and his colleagues.

Joining Thune on the letter were U.S. Sens. Mike Rounds (R-S.D.), John Hoeven (R-N.D.), Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Al Franken (D-Minn.), Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), and Joni Ernst (R-Iowa), and U.S. Reps. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) and Rod Blum (R-Iowa).

Full text of the letter can be found below:

Mr. Tim Andriesen
Managing Director
Agricultural Commodities and Alternative Investments
CME Group
20 South Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL  60606

Dear Mr. Andriesen:

We write to you regarding the proposed amendment to the Live Cattle future rules which would add a seasonal discount of $1.50/cwt on October contract month deliveries tendered to Worthing, South Dakota.

The Worthing delivery area is a viable cattle feeding region that has seen cattle on feed numbers increase steadily over the last decade, and we are firmly opposed to singling out the Worthing delivery point for discount. The Live Cattle Futures market is one of the few, but important, risk management tools available to help beef producers offset their risk; and the proposed discount is prejudicial to our region.

While history indicates local supply and demand conditions in one specific market at one specific time of year might require a higher level of deliveries to bring about price convergence, there is no indication that delivery as a means to achieve convergence isn’t working.

While we acknowledge the potential logistical issues associated with the high number of deliveries, we stringently oppose the CME interfering with the price convergence in only a single market. It would interfere with the process of price discovery based on fundamental supply and demand factors, directly impacting the beef producers in our states.

We also point out that for comparison and analysis purposes that rather than using the All Grades weekly average, only deliverable-grade (Choice 2-3 steers) prices should be used to determine basis. Over the past two years due to tight fed cattle supplies and falling corn prices, fewer months with Choice 2-3 steers have been reported. Accordingly, using a general price series may not provide the same insights and results as restricting the comparison to only delivery-grade cattle.

We request that you:

• Delay any proposed price modification action that would impact any October 2017 and later month contracts;
• Commission an independent study executed by one or more of the land grant institutions in South Dakota, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Iowa that analyzes the three-year economic impact to cattle producers in South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, and North Dakota due to a $1.50/cwt discount to October contract month deliveries to Worthing, South Dakota. This study should also include a comprehensive review of all delivery points and the impact of live cattle deliveries on price convergence.

Thank you for your consideration of our input. We look forward to working with CME Group to ensure the Live Cattle Futures Contract remains a viable risk management tool for the beef producers of our region.

CC:      Phupinder S. Gill, Chief Executive Office, CME

###

Rick Weiland: Sponsor of ballot question called “the South Dakota Government Accountability and Anti-Corruption Act,” which takes money from taxpayers to give to politicians via public funding for campaigns.   Which is the opposite of “anti-corruption.”

Adam Weiland: from KELO….  “(Weiland) will lead a team dedicated to organizing and engaging South Dakotan voters in conversations about Hillary Clinton’s plans to break down the barriers holding South Dakotans back,” the campaign said in a statement.”

Somehow, I think that’s going to be an opposite again.

Delegation Demands Answers From the Indian Health Service
“We want to be helpful in this endeavor, but must also ensure that this approach is viable and responsive to the needs of impacted tribes.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sens. John Thune (R-S.D.) and Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) and U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.) recently joined Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.), chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, in sending a letter to U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Sylvia Burwell requesting that the Indian Health Service (IHS) provide answers regarding the recent system improvement agreements executed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the IHS. These agreements were designed to avert the imminent loss of CMS reimbursement due to non-compliance at multiple IHS facilities in the Great Plains Area.

In the letter, the delegation and Barrasso pose several questions that have yet to be answered by IHS concerning the agreements, despite multiple requests from Indian tribes.

“During a recent briefing for congressional staff, the acting director of the IHS presented a system improvement agreement, which we understand is intended to improve the quality of care at IHS facilities in the Great Plains Area,” the members wrote. “We want to be helpful in this endeavor, but must also ensure that this approach is viable and responsive to the needs of impacted tribes. Unfortunately, during [a] recent briefing, more questions were raised than answered.”

The letter continues to pose seven questions to Secretary Burwell and requests the department’s prompt response. “The speed and efficacy with which your department and its agencies act directly impacts patient care and safety in the IHS system,” the members continued. “We look forward to your prompt response to these questions by June 1, 2016.”

In February, Chairman Barrasso, Thune, and Rounds participated in an oversight hearing and listening session on the substandard quality of care provided by the IHS to the Great Plains Area. Barrasso, Thune, Rounds, and Noem have continued to raise concerns about the quality of care at the IHS, particularly in the Great Plains Area, and remain committed to finding ways to improve the IHS.

Full text of the letter can be found below:

The Honorable Sylvia M. Burwell
Secretary
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20201

Dear Secretary Burwell:

We write to ask for additional information regarding the recent system improvement agreements executed by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Indian Health Service (IHS). As we understand, these agreements were designed to avert the imminent loss of CMS reimbursement due to non-compliance at multiple IHS facilities in the Great Plains Area.

As you are aware, in 2010, Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), then-Chairman of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, produced a report outlining many of the same issues identified this Congress through investigation by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs. Recent congressional investigations made clear that despite significant examination and documentation of the systemic problems at IHS, the agency was still not providing tribal citizens access to safe, quality health care.

During a recent briefing for congressional staff, the Acting Director of the IHS presented a system improvement agreement, which we understand is intended to improve the quality of care at IHS facilities in the Great Plains Area. We want to be helpful in this endeavor, but must also ensure that this approach is viable and responsive to the needs of impacted tribes. Unfortunately, during this recent briefing, more questions were raised than answered.

So that we may assist the Department in its work to improve the quality of care in the Great Plains and be responsive to Indian tribes, we hope your staff can respond in writing to the following questions.

1. Please identify and provide the specific legal authority and legal opinion IHS has relied upon to implement the Rosebud system improvement agreement to contract with a hospital management firm and place federal employees under the direction of private hospital management.

2. What is the estimated cost associated with executing the Rosebud agreement? What is the estimated cost associated with executing the similar systems improvement agreement regarding the Pine Ridge facility? This is an essential piece of information for potential private partners to know when considering whether or not to bid.

3. Will tribes be consulted about the decision of whether to extend these agreements?

As you know, workforce recruitment and retention has been a significant challenge for IHS in the Great Plains Area and nationally, yet the system improvement agreements appear to provide little information about how the IHS plans to improve staff recruitment and retention. The new system improvement plan requires the IHS to “identify needs, barriers, and potential resources and actions to design and implement an effective long term workforce development strategy…”

4. Can you explain with specificity each workforce-related barrier identified by the IHS?

5. Please explain in detail this administration’s current strategy for IHS staff recruitment and retention. If a strategic plan exists, we would welcome a continuing dialogue on how to best address these issues.

Finally, we understand that IHS continues to suffer from significant vacancies, both in the Great Plains Area and nationally.

6. So that we may better understand the nature and scope of this problem, please identify the number and type of vacancies in each IHS Area.

7. Additionally, please identify the comparative cost of filling the same vacancies with full time equivalent employees.

The speed and efficacy with which your Department and its agencies act directly impacts patient care and safety in the IHS system. We look forward to your prompt response to these questions by June 1, 2016.

Sincerely,

John Barrasso
Chairman, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs

John Thune
U.S. Senator

Mike Rounds
U.S. Senator

Kristi Noem
Member of Congress

###

My scan quality could be a little better, but I didn’t feel I wanted to take them out of the case. Friday, I received these ribbons (off of eBay from a Sioux Falls seller) declaring the desire of Sioux Falls and Huron to host the State Capitol.

According to the National Park Service:

The quest proved to be a long and brutal ordeal. In all, six cities earnestly vied to be the capital: Pierre, Huron, Mitchell, Sioux Falls, Redfield, and Watertown. Pierre won the 1889 capital election with 27,096 votes compared to Huron’s 14,944. Although Pierre won, the quest to be the State capital was far from over, because the 1889 election only made Pierre the temporary capital. Article XX of the South Dakota Constitution stated that voters must decide on the location of the permanent capital in the November 1890 election. Pierre and the 1889 runner-up Huron fought hard in the 1890 campaign.  Pierre easily won the capital race once again with 41,969 votes to Huron’s 34,610.

The 1890 election did not settle the issue either.  Legislators introduced bills to move the capital in 1893, 1895, 1897, and 1899, but each failed. In 1904, Pierre’s opponents gained enough support and organization to force another vote.  Among Mitchell, Huron, and Redfield, a caucus of the whole legislature selected Mitchell as Pierre’s opponent. In the final vote, Pierre again won the capital fight with 58,617 votes to Mitchell’s 41,155.

Read it all here.

So, while Mitchell and Huron can officially eat Pierre’s dust, we get to enjoy these relics of our state’s past political battles as they pop up from time to time.

The Argus Leader is reporting that the Dakota Access Pipeline has voluntary agreements with 100% of the landowners along the route, meaning there’s little left to stand in it’s way of improving our nation’s energy infrastructure, as well as freeing up rail cars for use by agriculture, once it is completed:

Six months after the project was approved by the Public Utilities Commission, Dakota Access LLC has inked its last voluntary easements with landowners along the 272 miles of South Dakota land it needs to build its underground pipeline.

The company announced this week that 100 percent of the landowners in both North and South Dakota had signed easements without a legal fight. In Illinois, the voluntary easement figure is 98 percent. In Iowa, it’s 87 percent.

With construction permits from all four states, the project awaits final approval from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, after which an anticipated 4,000 contractors can begin the work of burying 1,168 miles of pipe.

Once completed, the Dakota Access pipeline will move 400,000 barrels of Bakken oil patch crude from western North Dakota to Patoka, Illinois, where it can then be shipped to Texas for refining.

Read it here.

South Dakotans Feeling the Effect of the Obama Economy
By US Sen. John Thune

Late last month, the federal government released preliminary numbers on economic growth in the first quarter of 2016, and let me tell you, the news wasn’t good. The U.S. economy grew at a dismal rate of 0.5 percent during the first three months of the year, which essentially means it barely grew at all. While any one report of slow or nonexistent economic growth is bad, under President Obama, weak growth has become the new norm.

2.1 percent. That’s how much (or how little, depending on how you look at it) the economy has grown, on average, since June 2009 when the recession officially ended. In the typical post-1960 recovery, by contrast, economic growth averaged 3.7 percent. And while a 1.6 percentage point difference might not sound like a lot, it’s a huge difference. It’s the difference between a stagnant economy and a flourishing economy. More importantly, for families across South Dakota, it’s the difference between surviving and thriving.

For too many American families, this slow economic growth and dismal recovery has prematurely ended a lot of their dreams – dreams like owning their own home, sending their kids to college, and having a secure retirement. And the kind of growth we need to turn this ship around is nowhere in sight. Sadly, the Obama economy has some leading economists wondering if 2 percent growth is something Americans should just start getting used to.

Fortunately, though, we’re not condemned to the Obama economy’s weak growth, because if you look at the president’s record, it’s easy to see why our economy is still sputtering along. A failed trillion-dollar stimulus, $1.7 trillion in new taxes, Obamacare, more than 2,700 new federal regulations, and federal debt that has nearly doubled on the president’s watch. I could go on and on. The upside to all of this is that the president’s policies don’t have to be permanent.

We can repeal Obamacare and the incredible burdens it’s placing on families and small businesses. We can replace the president’s tax hikes with comprehensive tax reform that focuses on lowering taxes for families and making America the best place in the world to do business. And we can repeal some of the thousands of burdensome regulations the president has imposed over the last seven-plus years in office.

It’s sometimes easy to forget that every regulation the government imposes, no matter how small, has a cost – and those costs are paid by American families and businesses. Take for example the president’s decision to allow the EPA to regulate ponds and ditches on private land. The Waters of the United States (WOTUS) rule will have significant economic impacts for farmers, ranchers, and other property owners, who will likely be hit with new federal permits, compliance costs, and the threat of significant fines.

Repealing some of the worst of President Obama’s regulations, like WOTUS, would drastically reduce the burdens facing American families and businesses, and that would put more money in families’ pockets and free up business to do what they do best – innovate and create jobs.

If we continue on the path we’re on right now, we might be the first generation of Americans to leave the next generation worse off, but we don’t have to be. We can reverse the course the president has set during his administration and put in place the kind of policies that will grow our economy and lift the burdens on American families. Senate Republicans have already been working to undo the worst policies of the Obama administration, and we’re going to continue to fight until our nation’s economy is thriving and all families have the opportunity to achieve the American dream once again.