Remember when “no new taxes” was the mantra for the Republican Party? Well no more.

Senator “California” Carley and State Rep. Heather Baxter have introduced legislation to create a new tax in South Dakota on every retail  transaction taking place in South Dakota. The same new tax that former Senator Julie Frye-Mueller has been trying to create in South Dakota since she was defeated in her last election.

Senate Bill 243 in part:

Section 6. That a NEW SECTION be added to a NEW CHAPTER in title 10:

There is imposed a tax on each retail transaction that generates gross receipts subject to the tax imposed pursuant to chapter 10-45.

For each retail transaction with a final purchase price of fifteen dollars or more, the tax imposed is one dollar and fifty cents. For each retail transaction with a final purchase price of less than fifteen dollars, the tax imposed is ten percent of the final purchase price.

Section 7. That a NEW SECTION be added to a NEW CHAPTER in title 10:

A transaction where more than one sale item is being purchased at the same time and by the same person, and where the final purchase price of the transaction includes all sale items, constitutes a single retail transaction.

Read all of Carley & Baxter’s new mega-tax bill here.

They want to impose a new transaction tax that starts at 10% of what you purchase, and from $15.00, it’s a $1.50 tax that you’re going to be hit with.  It’s literally a low-dollar mega-tax at over twice the tax rate being charged now.

How does a new tax benefit South Dakotans?  It claims that they’ll use it to reduce property taxes, but how long until they creep back up?  Except for the personal property tax, in South Dakota taxes are never eliminated. They might be pushed down, but then they creep back up as government grows.

Except we’ll now be collecting $1.50 tax or 10% every time joe six-pack goes and buys a beer. Buys a hamburger. Or anytime they swipe their debit card at walmart.

It that what they were hoping for when they elected California Carley & Baxter (tax-ter?)? I don’t think so.

The populists who snuck in the door of the Republican Party in the last couple of elections are as bad, if not worse, than some of the Democrats ever were in trying to create new and unusual ways to take more money from our wallets.

It’s a good thing that we have an election in a few months. Because South Dakota needs to offload some of the people who put on a mask and claim they will be our conservative saviors, but are actually tax and spend politicians in disguise.

Guess who’s back. Back again after what many consider to be his problematic chairmanship of the Minnehaha County Republican Party, former legislator, former attorney R. Shawn Tornow’s name is back popping up again now as a lobbyist:

Not finding much.. really, anything on Protect SESD Property Rights whom R. Shawn is attached to as performing a lobbying function for.

He apparently testified against SB 105 the other day, and I probably shouldn’t be surprised, because he did make an appearance last year too. I don’t know that anyone noticed that one enough to flag it for me.

But, as noted, he’s back haunting the halls of the Capitol.

 

Just caught this post on facebook that popped up in my feed:

And yes, the post is coming from the other side of the aisle. But they make a really valid point, and raise a good question about who exactly Brandei Schaefbauer is representing in Pierre?  Because none of her legislation seems to be coming from the people she represents in District 3.  And yes, it seems that she serves as a mouthpiece for ex-newscaster Shad Olson.

Why are people making this claim?  Well look at the list of Schaefbauer’s legislation that she’s turned in and is serving as the prime sponsor of. It’s a short list, so it’s pretty easy to review.

House Bill 1124, the crime of trespass upon a place of worship, which deservedly was defeated yesterday. I had brought this up on the 22nd, and as the writer of East River Blue pointed out in their example..

Does that mean Shaefbauer’s legislation copying the Governor’s bill came solely at Shad’s prompting? Maybe. Maybe not.  But if you look at the other things she introduced, you begin to see a pattern.

Such as Brandei’s bill (HB 1305) to throw people in jail with a felony, as well as being civilly liable if they violate Brandei’s law and commit the crime of noting a public officer’s location. Or really saying much about them in general, despite most things being considered public information.

I was just writing about it below, and how it will protect me from having my location disclosed, by virtue of being married to a former public officer.  I know I wasn’t asking for it.  But who did?

From SDWC’s facebook page, Katie Hoffman, another occupant of the SD Blogosphere who has been the target of Shad dropped this note & attachment in a story about the legislation:

Have you heard of any unhinged leftist violence in South Dakota lately? Me neither. And as for claiming an increasingly stupid electorate, I think the electorate is far smarter than Shad gives it credit for.   This and other related ShadGPT rantings all pre-date this legislation. Yet there’s no one else saying anything about this being an issue in this state.

So, again, who in District 3 is telling Brandei that her Brandei’s law legislation represents a pressing interest for Aberdonians? It appears to be one person.

Observing Schaefbauer’s only other legislative measure she’s acting as the author & the prime sponsor in the house of origin for, Schaefbauer’s 2026 legislative package is rounded out by House Concurrent Resolution 6008, which is simply re-introducing and re-running last years’ HCR 6009 which failed in the Senate.

Where did this legislation come from in the first place? In case you need a reminder from last year:

Again.. we have yet another Brandei bill with another Shad coincidence.  Exactly how many instances of Shad and Brandei teaming up on legislation do we need to question exactly who Brandei Schaefbauer is representing in Pierre and who is directing her legislative agenda?

Because at this point, it does not seem that Brandei Schaefbauer is representing District 3. It seems she’s representing the legislative branch of Shad Olson’s whims, as opposed to the people who live in her District.

If that’s the case, should we just get it over with, and declare that District 3 is now represented by “Shandei” as their legislator?

Which does not sound like good thing.

Oooo.. The Republican legislative press conference this AM got a bit spicy as State Senator Jim Mehlhaff called out Gubernatorial wannabe Jon Hansen for his actions in continually putting up artificial barriers to development, and his constant fear mongering on any large scale project to bring jobs and economic development to South Dakota:

Jim Mehlhaff: and I would just, uh, comment on that.  I think you also, uh. You don’t wanna fear monger on stuff. And I think we’ve seen a, an awful lot of that about just about every, uh, economic development idea that’s come along in the last few years. And I think that is creating a very chilling atmosphere in South Dakota, uh, for developers and people who wanna make investments and improve the economic situation in South Dakota. Are probably, um, maybe looking elsewhere as a result of that. And with respect to a moratorium, I would not, uh, I, I would not support that. I think we can do our work without, uh, putting up another artificial barrier to development.

Jon Hansen: Well, you know, I would say in response to that, you know, characterizing the citizens’ concerns is

Jim Mehlhaff: you, [00:26:00] Mr. Speaker, I hope we don’t have to have a debate on every issue. I’ve kind You’ve had your say on a lot of stuff now. I’ve made one. So,

Jon Hansen: yeah,

Jim Mehlhaff: just I guess if these press conferences are gonna be debates between us and the Senate and that’s what they’ll be, but I don’t think that’s necessary.

Jon Hansen: I I, I’m simply stating that, you know, we’ve seen how these things have played out over the years. You know, you go back, the question was asked about the pipeline. And on the pipeline we just talked about Jared Bosley, and, you know, his house being, you know, entered into by these surveyors, hundreds,

Jim Mehlhaff: Mr. Speaker, was there ever a, an arrest for that home invasion? I’ve heard that. Over and over again. I was wondering if there was ever an arrest for a alleged home invasion.

Jon Hansen: Yeah, no, thank you for allowing me to speak. I appreciate it. So in that case, you know, these people went into [00:27:00] Jared’s house, into his shop, onto his property. In that case, you had hundreds of South Dakota landowners who were sued. And then now in this case, we’re hearing, you know, concerns about rate increases of upwards to 200 plus percent for people’s electric bills as a result of these data centers.

Watch the entire exchange at South Dakota Public Broadcasting and their youtube page.

There was more, including a shot by Senator Mehlhaff about how in the Senate bills are assigned to their proper committees to get a fair hearing… somewhat intimating that this is not a thing that happens in the House. Hansen claimed that that’s what happens in the house as well.. but we all know.

This might be one of the first leadership press conferences that’s worth watching this year!  Go check it out at Public Broadcasting.

Happy Birthday to Governor Larry Rhoden who turns 67 today!  Enjoy your day, Governor and wishes for many more to come!

(You can wish the Governor birthday greetings yourself over on his facebook page.)

After House Bill 1083 (establish the crime of felony stalking of a public official, and provide a penalty therefor) was eviscerated in committee a week or so back, I’m guessing State Representative Brandei Schaefbauer was unhappy.

Because she dusted it off, stripped it down to only keep the bad parts, made those even worse, and has now resurrected it as House Bill 1305 to not just cover state officials and legislators – but now has the felony threat about disseminating information about public officials going from the top, down to anyone who might be or has ever been touched by the term “public officer:”

(Of course, Carl Perry also signed on to it. Because Carl signs on to anything)

What is “public officer” perceived as being under Brandei’s Law?  In Chapter 22, buried in definitions, SDCL 22-1-2, it’s right there:

(39)    “Public officer,” any person who holds a position in the state government or in any of its political subdivisions, by election or appointment, for a definite period, whose duties are fixed by law, and who is invested with some portion of the sovereign functions of government;

Now, go back to the definition that the bill provides “No person may publicly disseminate the employment, home, or school address or location of a current or former public officer, or the officer’s family or household member:”   So, if you disseminate the location of – even just a family member of – a former public officer, someone might be guilty of a felony. Boy, the phone book and city directory publishers are going to be screwed. This is kind of nutty.

Of course, Brandei and Carl will probably go on about intent, and claim that the draconian potential isn’t what we think, but think about how deep and far reaching this is. The local weekly paper might be fighting out intent in court by publishing a photo noting who attended a ball game. Or, a news story about a public official. And considering how expansive this list it – current or former public officer or the officers family or household member – that might take up about everybody. It’s a small state.

Would a legislator be a public officer? Well, yes. Would the lay-person member of the State Board of Funeral Service be a public officer covered under Brandei’s Law? Hell yeah. And not just them, but  according to the language, so would every member of the State Fair Commission, their kids and their spouses (I’m looking at you Justin).  If someone said State Fair Commission member Bell is up at the Capitol being a lobbyist, and they didn’t do it with a smile *BOOM* They could be facing a felony arrest – and let them prove otherwise.

Former Senate President Pro Temp Lee Schoenbeck has taken off his cardigan for the day and he’s out hunting – and you tell people the location of where he is? And he feels you might be trying to be intimidate this former public officer out of his favorite pheasant spot? Brandei’s Law invoked – GO TO JAIL and do not collect $200!  And Lee’s a really good trial lawyer. Expect that if Brandei’s law passes, he’ll see you in court in a civil action too.

Here’s a scenario – a scoundrel who wants to avoid the harsh glare of the public’s eye takes up with a public officer. Under Brandei’s law, now the press might be facing criminal or civil action for making note of it, since they’re now a household member.  In fact, now that I think of it, could KELOland face a lawsuit if they disclose the town where a sex offender is living now under Brandei’s law? I know of at least one who is a member of a former pubic officer’s family.

That’s how bad and outright nutty this legislation is.

Heck, as ridiculous as it sounds, I would even be covered by Brandei’s law. My wife was elected to the Pierre School Board before we moved to Brookings. Because I am a family member of a former pubic officer, if I don’t think someone said “that @$$^&* lives in Brookings” with good intentions – by disclosing my location, they could be facing a Class 6 felony and a civil action in our new police state under Brandei’s Law.

Based on the testimony that was provided in House Bill 1083, the legislation that was rejected earlier, I know I’m failing to come close to describing all the problems with it.  But, if you feel we need Brandei’s law to protect Lee’s and my location like we’re in witness protection.. well, you should take a harder look at the kind of state you want to live in.

As seen at tonight’s Jacks game. It’s like you can’t get away from Josh Haeder!

Dusty Johnson Legislation Removes Statute of Limitations for Murder on Federal Lands

Washington, D.C. – Today, U.S. Representative Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.) introduced Kamisha’s Law to remove the statute of limitations for non-capital homicide crimes on federal and tribal lands. Kamisha’s Law honors Kamisha Nyvold, a toddler who was murdered in Sisseton, S.D., in 1992. Thirty years after the crime, new information led to the prosecution of the murderer, however, the five-year statute of limitations had passed. Prosecutors were unable to charge the defendant with second-degree murder. U.S. Senator Mike Rounds (R-S.D.) introduced identical legislation in the Senate.

“This is a much overdue reform for families like Kamisha’s,” said Johnson. “It’s unfortunate that Kamisha’s killer will only spend ten years behind bars. I’m grateful for Senator Rounds’ leadership on this issue to ensure justice for victims and for the advocacy of Kamisha’s mother, Christine Irwin, and her husband Roger.”

“Prosecution for murder should not have an expiration date,” said Rounds. “In the case of Jay Adams Jr., new evidence was not brought forward until over three decades after Kamisha was murdered. While he was prosecuted under a plea deal, this legislation rights a wrong by eliminating the statute of limitations for second-degree murder on federal lands. I appreciate Kamisha’s mother Christine and her husband Roger for working with my team on this legislation, and I appreciate Representative Johnson agreeing to carry companion legislation in the House. I look forward to working with my colleagues to honor Kamisha’s memory and get it across the finish line.”

“Kamisha’s Law is about accountability, protection, and making sure no other family has to endure the pain we live with every day,” said Christine and Roger Irwin. “Our daughter, Kamisha, is more than a name attached to legislation. She is deeply loved, and her life mattered. This law honors her by turning loss into action and grief into meaningful change. Kamisha’s Law represents a commitment to doing better—to closing gaps that allow harm to continue. No family should have to fight for justice only after the unthinkable has already happened. We call on lawmakers from both parties to come together and pass Kamisha’s Law without delay. Protecting families by ensuring offenders receive appropriate sentences must rise above politics. Bipartisan support sends a clear message that human life, safety, and accountability are shared values. We are grateful to the leaders who have listened, who have shown compassion, and who have chosen to act. Kamisha’s legacy will be one of impact, awareness, and protection for others. We urge Congress to stand united, pass Kamisha’s Law, and ensure that Kamisha’s life leads to lasting change.”

Background:

Kamisha Nyvold was a toddler who was murdered in Sisseton, S.D. in 1992. Thirty years after the crime, new information led to the prosecution of the murderer. However, the five-year statute of limitations had passed. Prosecutors were unable to charge the defendant with second-degree murder.

Prosecutors were forced to strike a deal with Kamisha’s killer, who then had to waive his statute of limitations and plea to manslaughter, resulting in a maximum 10-year sentence in federal prison.

Kamisha’s Law will eliminate the statute of limitations for non-capital homicide offenses on federal and tribal lands for the following crimes:

• Second-degree murder
• Voluntary/attempted manslaughter
• Second-degree murder, voluntary/attempted manslaughter of U.S. government officers and employees engaged in official duties, and those assisting
• Second-degree murder, voluntary/attempted manslaughter of foreign officials, official guests, and internationally protected persons
• Second-degree murder by federal prisoners serving life sentences
• Second-degree murder, voluntary/attempted manslaughter on foreign soil of U.S. nationals by U.S. nationals
• Second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter by escaped federal prisoners serving life sentences
• Second-degree murder, voluntary manslaughter of persons aiding federal law enforcement or state correctional officers

Click here for bill text.

###

From my personal e-mail, just got this note from the Brookings School District:

BSD Families,

The South Dakota Department of Health has informed the district that a spectator who attended Saturday’s Les Tlustos Wrestling Invitational has since tested positive for measles. The Department of Health does not plan to conduct contact tracing related to this event and has not provide additional information.

Families with questions or concerns are encouraged to contact the South Dakota Department of Health directly.

That’s just great.

Had this discussion with my wife a couple of days ago where people mistakenly don’t think measles is a big deal.  And in many cases, it isn’t. But in some, it’s more than bad. And why we get vaccinated.

Measles gives some people a runny nose, high fever, etc. And with some measles causes health complications like pneumonia and encephalitis, and kills some people.

Wonder why we used to have a school for the deaf and it seemed there used to be more hearing impaired children? That’s one reason. Measles infection during pregnancy, particularly close to delivery, can affect the development of the fetus’s auditory system, leading to permanent, profound deafness, among other disabilities. Or miscarriage, premature birth, or (again) brain damage.

That’s why we vaccinate kids with the MMR vaccine. And why we don’t need the goofy anti-vaxxers trying to dictate public policy to remove these requirements in our schools.

KELOland is reporting that a legislative committee voted to send projects that would bring jobs and revenue that could help alleviate tax burden in our state to North Dakota and Nebraska. Again.

Am I talking about CO2 pipelines? No, silly. We killed the revenues and investment that such a project was going to bring to the South Dakota economy last year, and they’ve already left for greener pastures. Today, House State Affairs voted against providing tax incentives to kill more investment in our communities – the mega-million dollar data centers that want to come here.

The same types of tax incentives all of our neighbors are offering. But South Dakota apparently won’t:

The prime sponsor, Republican Rep. Kent Roe of Hayti, said the incentive would attract large data centers to South Dakota. Roe said data centers would pay substantial amounts of property taxes at a time when many people are complaining their property taxes are too high. He noted that 40 states offer sales-tax breaks to data centers, including South Dakota’s six neighboring states.

and..

Voting yes to kill the bill were Republicans Jessica Bahmuller of Alexandria, Spencer Gosch of Glenham, Hansen, Leslie Heinemann of Flandreau, Karla Lems of Canton, Schaefbauer, Overweg and Scott Odenbach of Spearfish, and Democrat Erin Healy of Sioux Falls. Voting no were Emery, Jamison and Republican Tim Reisch of Howard.

Read it here.

And people wonder why their taxes keep going up, and their kids keep moving away?  Because when projects want to come here and pay sales tax on the power they’re going to buy, property taxes on the buildings they put up, payroll taxes on the people they hire to build and staff the places, plus much of the same for the people they bring into the community, people won’t cut them a tax break on computer equipment to go in the buildings?

With the anti-development attitude the NIMBY’s and BANANA’s leading the legislature have, instead of calling South Dakota the Land of Infinite Variety, we should change the slogan to South Dakota. No.