Lots of rumors swirling in Sioux Falls. Just got this note:

I’m told by a reliable source that Pam Nelson has filed the paperwork to remove her name as a candidate for Minnehaha County Treasurer.  This happened last night and this morning.

Stay tuned for more on this.

Update:

Also hearing County commission looking into possible appointments to fill term.. Word is that if it happens, City Councilor Pat Start is being mentioned as a dem candidate replacement on ballot.

Well, that’s the pits.

I was ready to go to Florida to be a delegate for South Dakota to the Republican National Convention… and now that’s not going to happen.

Disappointing, but in the age of coronavirus it looks like we all have to make due with virtual meetings.

Politicians are out there sharing their views today. From Congressman Dusty Johnson comes a point that people need to feel free to discuss their views more openly:

Apparently, Libertarian PUC Candidate Devin Saxon has no issue being open with his views, as he indicates that burning down federal buildings in Portland is “a step in the right direction:”

And somehow, I get the feeling in the follow up comment from Libertarian Chair Gideon Oakes, that he wishes that his PUC Candidate would not discuss his views:

From Facebook:

Thune: Next Coronavirus Relief Funding Package Prioritizes Kids, Jobs, and Health Care

“I hope my other Democrat colleagues here in the Senate are ready to look beyond partisan liberal wish lists and focus on negotiating a relief package that addresses the real priorities we’re facing – helping kids and parents, getting Americans back to work, and providing the health care resources needed to fight this virus.”

Click here or on the picture above to watch Thune’s speech.

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today discussed the next coronavirus relief funding bill that Republicans plan to introduce in the near future, which will prioritize kids, jobs, and health care. Thune emphasized the importance of targeting this relief effort and prioritizing the most prevalent needs, since every dollar of additional spending will be borrowedand need to be paid back by future generations.

Thune Statement on USDA Cattle Market Investigation Report

“South Dakota’s cattle producers are facing extreme volatility in the cattle market, and I remain concerned about potential anticompetitive activity in the highly concentrated meatpacking industry.”

WASHINGTON — U.S. Sen. John Thune (R-S.D.) today issued the following statement after the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) released a report on its investigation into cattle market volatility during the coronavirus pandemic and following a 2019 fire at a Tyson Foods beef plant in Holcomb, Kansas. The report provides an analysis on cattle market conditions and considerations for improving the cattle market. The investigation into potential violations of the Packers and Stockyards Act is ongoing.

“South Dakota’s cattle producers are facing extreme volatility in the cattle market, and I remain concerned about potential anticompetitive activity in the highly concentrated meatpacking industry.” said Thune. “I look forward to reviewing the considerations provided in this report, and I will continue to press the Department of Justice to conclude its investigation intopotential price manipulation and other anticompetitive activities in the meatpacking industry.”

On April 8, 2020, Thune urged USDA to take further action to strengthen the integrity of the cattle market by requesting that USDA’s Packers and Stockyards Division investigate the cattle market volatility due to the COVID-19 pandemic and to conclude its investigation into beef pricing margins after the Holcomb, Kansas, Tyson plant fire. The following day, Thune urged Attorney General William Barr to open an investigation into the beef industry. 

###

The State’s Legislature’s State-Tribal Relations Committee met yesterday, and similar to their prior meeting, it leaves a person scratching their head. Every time they meet it turns into a soapbox for some committee members to throw rocks at the administration, and complain that Governor Noem is somehow being disrespectful because she didn’t come to the meeting and kiss their ring.

In the latest meeting yesterday, it seems that the focus of the grumbling is over a lawsuit that the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe filed against the US Government.

As noted in the meeting:

Ravnsborg noted the June 22 lawsuit over checkpoints that was filed in federal court by the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe against U.S. President Donald Trump and members of his administration over the checkpoints. Ravnsborg said the state of South Dakota isn’t a party.

Ravnsborg said he has a concern about potential interactions between tribal members at checkpoints and visiting motorcyclists and others headed to Sturgis for the August rally. Ravnsborg said he has discussed the situation with Ron Parsons, the U.S. attorney for South Dakota, but hasn’t talked with CRST Chairman Harold Frazier.

and..

Haugaard, an attorney, said the CRST lawsuit could be helpful in clarifying the federal law and he said the legislative committee could consider an amicus brief.

and…

Senator Lance Russell, a Hot Springs Republican, said it was “disrespectful” that the governor chose to not meet with the committee after being invited to its previous meeting. Russell said he recently went through several Oglala Sioux Tribe checkpoints and thought the questions were appropriate.

and..

He said he received photographs of people “with Trump hats and Noem hats looking to do some damage” on other reservations, such as Pine Ridge, in response to those checkpoints. “This is a real concern to us,” Lengkeek said

and..

Bordeaux said the committee can call the governor to testify: “I think this committee is owed a response.”

Read the entire story here.

It sounds like there’s a lot of wrong-headedness going on here.  To provide some context, I’d draw your attention to a letter from the US Department of Interior to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe.

6 10 20 Frazier_CRST by Pat Powers on Scribd

If you’re wondering why Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg has a concern over “potential interactions between tribal members at checkpoints and visiting motorcyclists,” one reason might be found within this letter between the CRST, and the Department of Interior (Tara Sweeney, Asst Sec for Indian Affairs):

Per the OJS fact finding operation, we have identified numerous instances in which individuals placed at CRST checkpoints along United States Route 212 (US 212) and South Dakota Highway 63 (SD 63) are presenting themselves as CRST police officers and prohibiting access to US 212 and SD 63. This information is consistent with reports previously provided by State of South Dakota (State) officials, health officers and private citizens.

At check points along US 212 and SD 63, individual operators were observed by OJS wearing tribal police badges and tribal police insignia on their clothing. In conversations with certain individuals operating CRST checkpoints, OJS has learned that checkpoint operators do not meet the below requirements set forth in Federal regulations and the Tribe’s law enforcement contract.

and…

CRST’s actions to deputize individuals who have not completed a background investigation and/or basic police training constitute a threat to public safety. Permitting such untrained individuals to restrict access to public highways presents an unacceptable risk for conflict, liability, and violence.

What the Assistant Secretary is saying to the Cheyenne River Sioux Tribe is pointing out is that they are setting up an untrained group of random people to restrict access on US and State Highways, and it’s a risk for conflict, liability, and violence.  A point underlined by the Attorney General in the committee meeting.

Nevermind that there’s plenty of hyped up claims involved, such as with the completely and utterly ridiculous statement that because of the checkpoints, people “with Trump hats and Noem hats (are) looking to do some damage”

What’s the response? We have some Republican legislators who take the opportunity to claim the Governor is somehow being disrespectful and needs better communication. And that the legislative committee should file their own amicus brief in the lawsuit… (because legislative committees file amicus briefs in federal lawsuits all the time?)

Why does all this seem familiar?  Maybe because it’s a reflection of what we’re seeing in the streets of Seattle and Atlanta.

You have local governments allowing groups to set up their own barricades to interdict traffic, ignoring the rule of law.  You have apologists claiming that allowing it somehow promotes sovereignty and equality, and being critical of “the man.”

Law enforcement is doing their best not to throw fire on it, but they know it’s going to end poorly (as it has in Seattle and Atlanta), because it’s a mess with untrained people claiming authority, and it’s not legal. And they’re backed by the Trump administration agreeing that it’s unlawful, illegal and dangerous.

And somehow Nancy Pelosi believes that President Trump needs to come to committee to testify…  Sorry. And certain members of the committee think they need to call Governor Noem to testify.

Do I have that about right?

The legislature should stay in their lane, and concern itself with writing South Dakota laws.

Because whether they realize it or not, they seem to be giving a lot of cover to those who are picking and choosing the laws they like.

Johnson Helps Lead Bipartisan Effort Calling on FCC to Strengthen Support for Telehealth Providers During Pandemic & Beyond

41 Lawmakers to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai: “The Costs of Standing Up Telehealth Programs and the Insufficient Access to Broadband Internet in Many Parts of the Country are Hindering Providers and Patients from Realizing the Full Potential of These Expanded Flexibilities”

WASHINGTON, D.C. –  U.S. Representatives Abigail Spanberger (D-VA-07) and Dusty Johnson (R-SD-AL) today led a 41-Member, bipartisan effort calling on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to provide greater certainty and support to healthcare providers standing up telehealth services, which are playing an increasingly important role in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

In a letter sent to FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, the bipartisan group of lawmakers described how high costs and insufficient broadband internet connectivity prevent many rural patients and providers from fully accessing the benefits of telehealth. The lawmakers called for more information to be made available to Congress regarding the COVID-19 telehealth program authorized by theCoronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, as they expressed concerns that many eligible providers did not receiving an award from the initial funding package.

“We write to request more information about the funding made available to providers through the COVID-19 telehealth program authorized by the CARES Act. More and more patients are seeking care from providers over telecommunications technology rather than in a brick and mortar office or clinic,” states the letter. “We believe this shift has the potential to improve access to care for marginalized populations, reduce costs, and improve health outcomes by facilitating better monitoring of chronic health conditions.”

“In Central Virginia, we’ve seen firsthand how seniors, veterans, and families have been able to access both routine appointments and lifesaving care through telemedicine. Especially during this public health crisis, we need to keep our most vulnerable neighbors safe, and thankfully, many of our region’s healthcare providers use telehealth to deliver quality care without putting Virginians at greater risk,” said Spanberger. “Unfortunately, unreliable internet access and rising costs often prevent patients from accessing these telehealth services. That’s why I led 40 of my colleagues — Republicans and Democrats — in emphasizing the critical importance of telehealth. I’ve been encouraged by the strong support these innovative, cutting edge healthcare programs have received in Congress so far, and I hope Congress and the FCC will take bold steps that can widen the adoption of these programs and expand high-quality, affordable healthcare access across our rural communities.”

“Because of the CARES Act, hospitals around the country were able to apply for funding through the Federal Communications Commission to increase state access to telehealth services. This program permitted South Dakota hospitals to purchase telehealth equipment, ensuring our hospitals could meet the needs of patients virtually,” said Johnson. “If this program is working across the country like it is in South Dakota, we should reopen the application process to meet demand. I’m looking forward to hearing from the FCC on the viability of such an important effort to expand health care access to Americans.”

“We are grateful for a recent award by the FCC COVID-19 Telehealth program that is supporting telehealth equipment in order to expand our telehealth outreach to care for patients during the COVID-19 public health emergency,” said Dr. Karen S. Rheuban, Director, University of Virginia Center for Telehealth. “We support the program’s continuation, should additional funds be made available, and we appreciate Rep. Spanberger’s interest in this important program.”

“The rising importance of telehealth services is particularly important in our rural areas,” said Rick Shinn, Director of Government Affairs, Virginia Community Healthcare Association. “We applaud Rep. Spanberger and her colleagues on moving forward to bring telehealth services into the mainstream of healthcare.”

Click here to read the letter, and the full letter text is also below.

—

Dear Commissioner Pai,

We write to request more information about the funding made available to providers through the COVID-19 telehealth program authorized by the CARES Act.

Telehealth is playing an increasingly important role in the delivery of health care services across the country. More and more patients are seeking care from providers over telecommunications technology rather than in a brick and mortar office or clinic. We believe this shift has the potential to improve access to care for marginalized populations, reduce costs, and improve health outcomes by facilitating better monitoring of chronic health conditions.

Telehealth is especially relevant during the public health emergency caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. Using telehealth platforms, patients can see providers with minimal risk of spreading or contracting coronavirus. We are pleased that Congress has acted through successive bills to expand flexibilities for federal health care programs to pay for telehealth services during this emergency.

We recognize that the costs of standing up telehealth programs and the insufficient access to broadband internet in many parts of the country are hindering providers and patients from realizing the full potential of these expanded flexibilities, especially during this pandemic. Partially to address these concerns, Congress included a $200 million appropriation in the CARES Act for the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to support health care providers’ provision of telehealth services needed to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus.

FCC moved quickly to begin distributing the CARES Act funds. On April 2, 2020, FCC announced the program and set the maximum award at $1 million. The program has proven to be very popular, and on June 25^th, FCC announced it would no longer accept applications from providers for funding from the program. Finally, on July 8^th, FCC announced the release of the final tranche of approved funding applications from the original $200 million appropriation.

Providers in our districts are very interested in participating in the program. However, we are concerned that many eligible providers and worthy telehealth projects did not receive funding from the initial appropriation.

As such, we respectfully ask for additional data around the following questions:

1. How much more in funding would the agency require to fulfill all pending applications?
2. What was the average funding amount requested by applicants?
3. What technical assistance has the FCC provided to smaller providers that lack experience in applying for eligibility determinations from the Universal Service Administrative Company (USAC) or in dealing with the agency generally?
4. Please provide information about the number of awards and the amount of funding that went to:
   1. Providers in rural and urban areas;
   2. Each category of provider type as described by Section 254(h)(7)(B) of the Telecommunications Act of 1996;
   3. Providers who primarily serve high-risk and vulnerable patients; and
   4. Any additional information that will facilitate Congressional understanding of the program’s impact.
5. What is the average number of patients served by each award?
6. What is the average time FCC takes to process reimbursements for invoiced services and devices by providers?

Thank you very much for your attention to these matters.

###

From Facebook, Governor Noem is out reeling them in on Lake Oahe. From Jason Mitchell Outdoors Television:

Lenore Sutton, the newborn daughter of former Democrat State Senator & Gubernatorial Candidate Billie Sutton, apparently passed away last week on July 15th.  Please keep the family in your prayers.