Sibby Online

Dictator Daugaard has his way with the South Dakota legislature on veto day, Executive branch trumps the citizens' Second Amendment rights

In case you don't know who is running this state, yesterday would be a good hint as Governor Daugaards vetos survived. HB1248 is an example of the tyranny in Pierre:

Gov. Dennis Daugaard's veto of a bill that would have allowed most South Dakota adults to carry concealed handguns without a permit was upheld Monday by the state House of Representatives after opponents said the measure would have gone too far in loosening gun-control laws.

A 27-40 vote to override the veto fell far short of the two-thirds majority of 47 needed to pass a bill over a governor's veto. The House had passed the bill 50-18 on Feb. 13, but many representatives changed their view after the veto.

So here is the February 13 vote:

Yeas 50, Nays 18, Excused 2, Absent 0

    Yeas:
Abdallah; Boomgarden; Brunner; Carson; Conzet; Cronin; Deelstra; Elliott; Gosch; Greenfield; Haggar; Hansen (Jon); Hickey; Hoffman; Hubbel; Hunt; Iron Cloud III; Jensen; Killer; Kirkeby; Kloucek; Kopp; Liss; Lust; Magstadt; Miller; Moser; Munsterman; Novstrup (David); Olson (Betty); Perry; Romkema; Rozum; Russell; Schaefer; Schrempp; Scott; Sigdestad; Solum; Steele; Stricherz; Tornow; Tulson; Van Gerpen; Vanneman; Venner; Verchio; Wick; Wink; Speaker Rausch

    Nays:
Blake; Bolin; Dennert; Dryden; Fargen; Feickert; Feinstein; Hawley; Hunhoff (Bernie); Jones; Kirschman; Lucas; Sly; Street; Turbiville; White; Willadsen; Wismer

    Excused:
Gibson; Nelson (Stace)

Here is yesterday's failed attempt to over ride the governor's veto:

 Yeas 27, Nays 40, Excused 3, Absent 0
    Yeas:
Boomgarden; Brunner; Carson; Conzet; Cronin; Gosch; Greenfield; Haggar; Hansen (Jon); Hickey; Hubbel; Jensen; Kirkeby; Liss; Lust; Munsterman; Nelson (Stace); Olson (Betty); Russell; Stricherz; Tornow; Van Gerpen; Venner; Verchio; Wick; Wink; Speaker Rausch

Nays:
Abdallah; Blake; Bolin; Deelstra; Dennert; Dryden; Elliott; Fargen; Feickert; Feinstein; Gibson; Hawley; Hoffman; Hunhoff (Bernie); Hunt; Jones; Killer; Kirschman; Kloucek; Kopp; Lucas; Magstadt; Miller; Moser; Novstrup (David); Perry; Romkema; Rozum; Schaefer; Schrempp; Scott; Sigdestad; Sly; Solum; Street; Tulson; Turbiville; Vanneman; White; Willadsen

    Excused:
Iron Cloud III; Steele; Wismer

I have underlined the 22 legislators who changed their vote. It would be wrong to say the governor directly impacted those votes as some were Democrats and one was simply excused during the first vote. But I suspect that most were influenced by the governor's concern from the law enforcement area that is under his control. And I do respect the concerns of law enforcement as they put their lives on the line to defend us. But we must understand that they cannot be by all of our sides 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. You think the size of the federal debt is large now? So the Second Amendment is there for us to defend ourselves. As legislators, who give their oath to defending the Constitution and our rights, the Second Amendment should have more force than the concerns of law enforcement. Second, the separation of powers are there so the legislative branch can protect our constitutional rights against the authority of the executive branch where law enforcement exists.

Rep. Lance Russell, Rep. Phil Jensen, and Rep. Stace Nelson were the only ones who argued in support of the constitution. Many of the rest argued from emotion and lacked logic. One such argument was the threat of being postcarded by the South Dakota Gun Owners. Rep. Nelson brought up the fact that the SDGOs sent out an email supporting the governor's veto. Their version of this issue was HB1015, which was killed due to legislators who don't like to be held accountable to their constituents for how they vote. That fact did not stop Abdallah from voting against the Second Amendment, as he mislead fellow legislators on his A+ standing with the NRA.

So where does the NRA stand on this? Here is their view on the Wyoming decision to allow "Constitutional Carry":

Sponsored by state Senator Kit Jennings (R-28) of Casper, SF 47 is an important update to lawful carry in Wyoming.  It will allow a Wyoming resident to legally carry a concealed firearm without the burdensome requirement of acquiring a Wyoming concealed carry permit. This legislation will not change the current permitting system, which will still be required for non-residents and those who wish to participate in reciprocal concealed carry permit agreements when traveling outside of the state.

So this is not some attempt by radicals who lack common sense. This is a legitimate constitutional issue where common sense says the governor and 40 legislators did not fulfill their oath of office on legislation that could have gone further in safeguarding our natural right to defend ourselves against those who chose to use force to have their way with us.

Governor Daugaard agrees with Obama, the Second Amendment is meaningless and vetoes the popular HB1248

So if you want second Amendment Rights, the Governor of South Dakota says we have to prove ourselves innocent first and vetoed the popular HB1248:

Gov. Dennis Daugaard has vetoed a measure that would have allowed South Dakotans to carry concealed handguns without a permit as long as they had a driver's license and otherwise met state standards for carrying guns.

In his veto message to the Legislature, the governor says he supports people's right to carry a concealed handgun under the current law that requires a permit. He says the bill would have made it difficult for law enforcement officers to determine whether people are qualified to carry concealed weapons or are prohibited from doing so because they have criminal records or mental health problems.

The Legislature will consider the governor's veto on Monday. A vetoed bill can become law if two-thirds of the House and Senate vote to override the governor's veto.

And note he made this last minute veto in order to give the citizens less time to put pressure on their legislators. Yes, in a gobal economy based on central planning from the United Nations, we citizens don't get to have guns. And wait to here Daugaard tell pro-gun conservatives to send money so that we can defeat Obama. I say, the governor better tell his wealthy globalist cohorts that he is going to need lots of money next election.

This is the kind of votes that the South Dakota Gun Owners usually expose to the public, and that is why liberal Republicans hate them so much.

We have enough votes in the House to override, but we need to change a couple of these anti-gun Senators (only 3 are Democrats) who voted against this bill on 2/28/2012:

Adelstein; Bradford; Buhl; Gray; Holien; Johnston; Nelson (Tom); Peters; Sutton; Tieszen; Vehle

 

Vehle, one of Daugaard's legislative minions, misleading citizens on the state budget, promoting tax and fees increases while voting in tax cuts to big corporate special interests

I let the fur fly in Saturday's Mitchell Daily Republic:

Sen. Mike Vehle’s March 8 column needs correction. His friend who questioned last year’s state budget cuts being spent this year deserves the truth, not political spin.

The 2012 budget was passed last year with a $45 million structural surplus. That number was calculated based on Gov. Daugaard’s budget that I obtained online. I presented the analysis to all three District 20 representatives in a February 2012 forum, and none would respond and none has yet responded constructively.

Now we know they underestimated revenues by $51 million and over-budgeted Medicaid by at least $100 million based on actual spending for the year ending June 30, 2011. So that is how they can spend another $80 million via special appropriations in order to handout 5 percent bonuses to most all government employees, while saying only 20 percent of teachers deserve bonuses, from cuts made in the state aid to K-12 and Medicaid providers. They also moved nearly $40 million of the 2012 surplus to the 2013 budget so they can spend more than they have ever spent before.

Vehle also complained about the expected cut in federal money. Did you know that the state actually spent $232 million “LESS” in 2011 than what they had budgeted? The 2013 budget has $573 million more federal money than what South Dakota spent in federal money during the pre-recession, pre-Obama 2008 fiscal year.

In 2008, South Dakota state spending totaled just over $3 billion, and now it is budgeted at $4 billion for 2013. And Vehle is whining about the need to cut $45 million to $50 million in federal funds? We should be asked to cut 10 times more than that in order to get back to where we were pre-recession instead of passing on $800 million in additional debt to future generations.

But Sen. Vehle won’t work on that. Instead, he says his plan is to wait for the election to get over so he can go back to Pierre and raise our taxes and fees even more, just to give more tax breaks to his wealthy corporate campaign donors.

Anybody ready for a change?

District 20 Senate race takes shape, Sibson vs Vehle, and the Democrats add Quentin Burg

The Mitchell Daily Republic has a front-page report on the upcoming District 20 Senate race:

Steve Sibson acknowledges his will be an uphill battle for District 20’s Senate seat, but he insists he will best represent the little guy.

Sibson, 56, of Mitchell, said this week he has enough signatures to file a petition for the seat but is gathering more to help spread word of his campaign. Assuming he files enough valid signatures, he will set up an inner-party challenge against incumbent Sen. Mike Vehle, R-Mitchell. The primary election is June 5.

“I want to bring back into vogue the conservative Republican platform,” Sibson said. “The basic theme of my campaign two years ago and my campaign now is ‘Making government bureaucracy smaller and making you the citizen bigger.’ ”

Sibson ran two years ago against Vehle as an independent in the general election. Although he got 21 percent of the vote in 2010, Sibson said conservative Republicans were afraid to vote for him because they thought splitting the Republican vote would help a Democrat win.

This year, he hopes his Republican status will bring more votes from conservatives around District 20, which after redistricting will now include Davison, Aurora and Jerauld counties.

He wants to focus on bringing education back into parental control. He said while there’s been a decrease in student population, the state has increased the amount of faculty and staff in the schools. He added that Gov. Dennis Daugaard’s solution to the education situation is “more bureaucracy.”

“Instead of letting the federal government dictate to us what is a quality education, put that decision in the hands of the parents,” he said. “The problem is not the teachers, it is the system.”

Clearly education will be the burning issue. I will be helping put HB1234 on the ballot as it clearly shows how the SDGOP has abandoned their conservative principles and implemented another Obama agenda item. And sadly there are some who don't get it:

Sen. Vehle has not filed for re-election yet, but has petitions out and plans to file before the March 27 deadline, he said.

Asked about Sibson’s candidacy, Vehle said “it’s a free country” and added that it’s good to have people running for office.

Davison County Republican Party Chairwoman Donna Weiland said Vehle has represented the party well, and she sees no reason for a change.

“We will support what we already have,” Weiland said, referring to Vehle and District 20’s two representatives, Lance Carson and Tona Rozum, who are both Republicans from Mitchell.

Now you understand why I ran as an Independent two years ago. Weiland has been given Vehle's extreme left liberal voting record. And I would like to welcome Quentin Burg to the fray:

Former state representative Quentin Burg, of Wessington Springs, has petitions out and plans to file as a Democrat for District 20’s Senate seat as well, he said Tuesday.

He said he’s been frustrated with this year’s legislative session as many legislators seem to have followed whatever Gov. Daugaard wanted.

“When I looked at this legislative session and what they did with education, I was frustrated. There was no real leadership,” he said.

The question for Burg is, don't you know that the SDGOP is only doing what Obama wants? This is from a George Will column that also ran in today's Mitchell paper:

Meanwhile, the Education Department is pretending that three laws do not mean what they clearly say. This is documented in the Pioneer Institute’s report “The Road to a National Curriculum: The Legal Aspects of the Common Core Standards, Race to the Top, and Conditional Waivers” by Robert S. Eitel, Kent D. Talbert and Williamson M. Evers, all former senior officials in the Education Department.

The 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) — No Child Left Behind is its ninth iteration — intruded the federal government into this traditionally state and local responsibility. It said that “nothing in this act” shall authorize any federal official to “mandate, direct, or control” a state’s, local educational agency’s or school’s curriculum. The General Education Provisions Act of 1970, which supposedly controls federal education programs, stipulates that “no provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize” any federal agency or official “to exercise any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction” or selection of “instructional materials” by “any educational institution or school system.”

The 1979 law establishing the Education Department forbids it from exercising “any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum” or “program of instruction” of any school or school system. The ESEA as amended goes further: No funds provided to the Education Department “may be used . . . to endorse, approve, or sanction any curriculum designed to be used in” kindergarten through 12th grade.

However . . .

What authors Eitel, Talbert and Evers call the Education Department’s “incremental march down the road to a national curriculum” begins with the Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSS). It is an initiative not of any state legislature but of a governors association, state school officials and private foundations. This push advanced when the Race to the Top Fund (RTTT, part of the 2009 stimulus) said that peer reviewers of applications for money should favor those states that join a majority of states in developing and adopting common standards. The 11 states and the District of Columbia that won Race to the Top funding had adopted or indicated an intention to adopt the CCSS, which will require changes in curricula.

An Education Department synopsis of discussions with members of the public about priorities in competition for RTTT money says “the goal of common K-12 standards is to replace the existing patchwork of state standards.” Progressives celebrate diversity in everything but thought.

The Obama administration is granting conditional waivers to states chafing under No Child Left Behind’s unrealistic accountability requirements. The waivers are contingent on each state adopting certain standards “that are common to a significant number of states,” or the state may adopt standards endorsed by its institutions of higher education — if those standards are consistent with the Education Department’s guidelines.

We have been warned. Joseph Califano, secretary of health, education and welfare in the Carter administration, noted that “in its most extreme form, national control of curriculum is a form of national control of ideas.”

Here again laws are cobwebs. As government becomes bigger, it becomes more lawless. As the regulatory state’s micromanagement of society metastasizes, inconvenient laws are construed — by those the laws are supposed to restrain — as porous and permissive, enabling the executive branch to render them nullities.

This is why I oppose Daugaard's education plan that will spend $8.4 million on training Common Core Standards, and then tens of millions more to set up a testing to give bonuses to the those teachers who implement the Common Core Standards. This is how we have increased the cost of education without any results in regard to academic performance over that last several decades. Daugaard is only doing what Obama wants, and that is to continue with the federal education agenda that the Bushs', Clinton, and now Obama have already pushed. It is not a change in status quo, and it is the anti-thesis to local control. Daugaard is blindly taking marching order from the National Governors Association whose agenda comes out of Washington DC.

The education issue clearly shows how the leadership of both parties are in the same bed. Their aim is control...control on how and what we think. Time for conservative Republicans, conservatve Populist Democrats, and libertarians to join forces and stand up to the leaderships of both political parties.

Side note: I bet Vehle is telling all his rich special interests that he is going to need a lot of money.

Abortion is the weapon used in the actual war against women

Not just not the health risk of having an abortion, but this is the real danger of abortion to women:

Over the past three decades the world has come to witness an ominous and entirely new form of gender discrimination: sex-selective feticide, implemented through the practice of surgical abortion with the assistance of information gained through prenatal gender determination technology. All around the world, the victims of this new practice are overwhelmingly female — in fact, almost universally female. The practice has become so ruthlessly routine in many contemporary societies that it has impacted their very population structures, warping the balance between male and female births and consequently skewing the sex ratios for the rising generation toward a biologically unnatural excess of males. This still-growing international predilection for sex-selective abortion is by now evident in the demographic contours of dozens of countries around the globe — and it is sufficiently severe that it has come to alter the overall sex ratio at birth of the entire planet, resulting in millions upon millions of new “missing baby girls” each year. In terms of its sheer toll in human numbers, sex-selective abortion has assumed a scale tantamount to a global war against baby girls.

And perhaps this is why the New Age Theocrats are pushing for acceptance of homosexuality. What are all these excess boys going to do with their sex drive when the numbers of girls are unnaturally cut? And you say this could never happen in America?

Obamacare in South Dakota: Does Daugaard think he is in Kansas where grass roots are creating a storm by standing up to Establishment politicians and their deal making in regard to Obamacare's Exchanges?

Republican Governors implementing Obamacare's Health Insurance Exchanges is also an issue in Kansas. And "political deal making" involving possible conflict of interests appears to be motivation for some in GOP leadership to happily implement Obamacare, charge conservative opponents with being extremists, while the GOP uses Obamacare as a reason for conservatives to send campaign money to the GOP in order defeat Obama in November:

Brownback is still catching most of the fire from some grassroots group leaders over Obamacare and the health exchange. Brownback reiterated his opposition today in a statement on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals’ ruling (pdf) that the individual mandate of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.

“The decision confirms what I have believed all along, that Congress does not have the power to compel Kansans to participate in healthcare finance schemes against their will.  This is why I voted against the Affordable Care Act as a United States Senator, this is why I signed the Kansas Healthcare Freedom Act into law protecting the freedom of Kansans to make their own healthcare decisions, and this is part of why just this week Kansas became the second state to opt out of federal early innovator money designed to implement provisions of the ACA dictated from Washington.  As I have consistently said, healthcare policy for Kansas must be guided by the elected representatives of Kansans in the Legislature and in the Executive.  In this way, the wellbeing and protection of Kansans’ health, pocketbooks, and sovereignty will remain the top priority of any healthcare reform.”

Stop Obama Care in Kansas (SOCK), a coalition of 13 grassroots or conservative group leaders plus a 2nd District GOP delegate, have questioned the sincerity of Brownback’s opposition to the health care law. In a letter published August 9 they cite ongoing efforts to research and implement an exchange in Kansas and accuse Brownback of doing a “flip-flop” a-la Senator John Kerry on the issue.

The letter calls for Amanda Adkins to resign as chair of the Kansas Republican Party in part because of a conflict of interest between Cerner Corp. and the grass roots and GOP rank and file. Adkins managed Brownback’s 2004 Senate campaign before taking a job at Cerner in Kansas City, Missouri.

TheStreet.com, a financial news and services website, lists Cerner, a leader in health care information technology, as one of Obamacare’s biggest IT winners. Nancy Ann DeParle, a former member of Cerner’s board of directors, now serves as President Obama’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy. She was appointed director of the White House Office of Health Reform leading the administration’s efforts on health care issues, on the same day Sebelius was appointed secretary of HHS.

Richard Fry of November Patriots signed the letter calling on Adkins to resign. Fry said he thinks political deal making is behind efforts to set up an Obamacare exchange in Kansas. “I think one of the reasons for that is Brownback is connected to Cerner through his campaign manager who is also the chairperson for the KS GOP”

Fry said he did not have any specific indication of impropriety or conflict beyond the general affiliations.

“There is no conflict of interest,” Adkins said in a phone interview. “And I’ve been elected twice with not a single person running against me.“

Adkins said it’s important to understand the difference between a group sentiment and that of a few people. “I know most of the people who are commenting really don’t know what I do at Cerner and actually, most of the work I do is focused on people in private sector companies and families.“

Adkins said she is not authorized to speak about Cerner’s business dealings.

Fry, like a clear majority of those identifying with local tea party groups, said he believes Obamacare is unconstitutional and it is the duty of elected officials to oppose it because they’re sworn to uphold the Constitution. That includes not just sending back the $31.5 million grant but stopping all efforts to implement Obamacare.

SOCK is especially upset that Adkins wrote one of the resolutions coming before the GOP Committee meeting because it does not specifically demand that all work stop on implementing Obamacare, including any work on any exchange.

“Kansans don’t care about the source of the funds,” Fry said. “They care about the end results and they do not want an exchange. So, I just have concerns. We have reason to have concern because of the way the Governor and his administration has tried to cover up and spin what they’re actually doing.”

“It’s clearly deceptive and it’s a breach of their oath of office and a breach of their campaign promise.”

The letter, addressed to Adkins, says, “The SOCK coalition believes that the only prudent thing to do is to stop the design and development of the EIG ‘exchange’ in Kansas by Kansas and return the Early Innovator Grant funds to the HHS. We understand this may not in the best financial interest of your company the Cerner Corporation.”

...

Politicians in Washington and Kansas are struggling with the growing power and influence of conservative grass roots movements. The rapid shift in power is causing problems for old and new power brokers.

“Just like in Washington, some political players in Kansas have characterized tea party activists and those who they helped elect as lacking in understanding, unwilling to compromise, even extremist,” said O’Hara.

“I believe that research needs to be done to make sure that the projects marked for use of the Early Innovator Grants are not being funded by an alternative source,” O’Hara said in an email to KansasWatchdog.

She also said Adkins’ role at Cerner and Cerner’s benefit from Obamacare needs to be watched. “Conflict of interest at times can be a narrow plank to walk.”

“Activists have the right to question the actions of those in public office. If the grassroots hadn’t put pressure on the Brownback Administration to return the Early Innovator Grant, would they have returned the grant?

Is Daugaard just planning or actually implementing Obamacare? UPDATE: Exchange can be established WITHOUT legislative action.

[UPDATE: Looks like Daugaard can implement Obamacare without the blessings of the legislature:

The Governor has stated that South Dakota will not pursue legislation to establish a health insurance exchange during the 2012 legislative session, citing lack of guidance from the federal government and concerns about the Affordable Care Act.⁸ If, however, the state ultimately decides to pursue a state-based exchange, the Department of Insurance‘s review of the legal and regulatory authority for operation of the exchange found the Insurance Director currently has “ample rulemaking authority” to set marketing and sales standards for both inside and outside the exchange.⁹ Once federal requirements for qualified health plans and health plan certification have been adopted, the state will assess the ability of the Division of Insurance to certify health plans in the exchange and draft a standardized application.

Editor note: The state implemented Common Core Standards vit the State Board of Education without legislative action and pre-schools have been created via federal Title I and Headstart despite legislation actions that refused to approve pre-K programming.]

Remember this from January this year:

Gov. Dennis Daugaard has announced that his administration will not pursue legislation to establish a health insurance exchange during this year's South Dakota's legislative session.

In a news release, Daugaard says there is too much uncertainty right now to recommend setting up the kind of exchange included in President Barack Obama's health care overhaul. The law envisions that states would build the exchanges, which would be designed to help people who buy individual insurance plans.

The governor says the U.S. Supreme Court might strike down the health care law, or Congress might eventually repeal it.

Daugaard says he hopes the law is struck down. But he says South Dakota will apply for a federal grant to plan for an exchange in case the state is eventually required to establish one.

In yesterday's Argus Leader was a job opening for this:

Health Insurance Exchange Project Manager
Incumbent will serve as the BIT Health Insurance Exchange (HIX) Project Manager. Incumbent will serve as the BIT representative to other state agencies involved in implementing the exchange and will oversee the work of two other HIX BIT analysts.

Duties will include researching and understanding Federal regulations needed to implement a Health Care Insurance Exchange, part of the Affordable Care Act, for South Dakota; working with other agencies to coordinate efforts to implement HIX; working with BIT Managers to understand the functionality of existing/new computer applications that would ultimately support the implementation of the HIX; and coordinating development work with BIT Development Managers as needed.

Sounds more like South Dakota is actually implementing Obamacare. Since March 2011 Teresa Bray, who lost her campaign for Secretary of State in 2010, is Health Insurance Exchange Project Manager for the Department of Social Services. Kea Warne, another former Secretary of State employee, is the governor's Health Insurance Exchange Project Manager. And on May 19, 2011 Lt. Governor Matt Michels chaired a Health Insurance Exchange Task Force Meeting which minutes said:

Chair Michels talked about how the State of South Dakota is opposed to PPACA and South Dakota joined other states in the PPACA lawsuit.   He mentioned that in spite of the lawsuit, an exchange can serve the people of South Dakota and if South Dakota does not establish an exchange, the federal government will run and regulated an exchange for us.  We need to be ready for 2014 no matter what happens in late court decisions.

And remember what I posted earlier:

Governor Daugaard's campaign promise was to sign any bill repealing ObamaCare that crossed his desk....and he made good on his promise by making sure no such bill crossed his desk this session.  He had several chances to influence those bills by giving "talking points" to legislators to thwart the bills' passage in committee hearings.  Sen. Deb Peters was heard in the halls saying, "I have talking points from (Lt. Governor) Matt Michels to oppose this bill."

"This bill" just happened to be a Health Care Compact bill giving South Dakota the option to join in a compact with other states to opt out of ObamaCare.  Once a majority of states pass such laws, Congressional approval would be sought and granted because no Congressman would vote against the state they represent. 

It is very clear that the SDGOP leadership says then are against Obamacare as they are happily implementing it. And they are not supporting those who want the South Dakota legislature to take a strong stand against Obamacare. So a warning to conservatives, beware of SDGOP leaders wanting campaign money in order to defeat Obama this year. And be careful who you support in the primary.

UPDATE: Here is a link to a April 2011 report on the Health Exchange plan.

Governor's office twisted arms in order to pass Merit Pay for teachers, WITHOUT FUNDING IT!!!

Remember this propaganda from the South Dakota Senate leadership regarding the governor's education plan:

Senate Republican Leader Russell Olson, of Wentworth, said the measure is no longer the governor’s plan, but is now the “people’s plan” because lawmakers changed it after talking with educators and others.

Then why is the governor so happy it passed the House chamber and is heading for his desk:

Gov. Dennis Daugaard shook hands and enthusiastically thanked lawmakers who supported him Wednesday evening, after a majority of members from the House of Representatives approved, without a vote to spare, the package of reforms and bonuses he sought for South Dakota teachers.

But the 36-33 victory might be months from final. Opponents of the legislation are considering a petition drive to force the legislation to a statewide vote on the November election ballot.

I guess we may get to prove that this is not the people's plan. And we do no that the amended bill was still the governor's plan by this:

The Republican governor received a taste of the animosity felt by those who voted against the bill when Rep. Elaine Elliott, D-Aberdeen, approached him during the well-wishing outside the House chamber.

“This isn’t going to be pretty,” her husband, Burt, was overheard to remark, as she began to tell Daugaard and those around him what she thought of the bill.

Elliot, a retired teacher, left no doubt about her defiance when she spoke during the debate about how she wasn’t going to have “my arm twisted by the man on the second floor,” a reference to pressure from the governor’s office on lawmakers.

The governor's arm twisted clearly makes the amended bill his plan. And the report also tells us that the substative change to the plan was...THE MONEY:

One of the changes made by the Senate was stripping any references to funding. That meant the bill could pass on a simple majority rather than the two-thirds support necessary for legislation that contains specific spending. Otherwise the bill would have died in the Senate, where the vote vote Tuesday was 22-12.

And it sure as heck would not have passed the House with the $15 million in the bill. So now we have the SDGOP passing unfunded mandates. How fiscally responsible is that!

Constituents send resolution to South Dakota House supporting Stace Nelson and Lance Russell

The following was sent to House members signed by a number of South Dakota citizens:

Whereas, we the undersigned cannot physically stand beside our fellow citizen from Hanson/Davison/McCook Counties in support and defense of Representative Stace Nelson, District 25, who has displayed loyalty to his constituents and support of the Constitution of South Dakota and the United States of America, and

Whereas, the House Republican Leadership has denied representation to our fellow citizens from Hanson/Davison/McCook Counties by excluding their duly elected representatives from association with his equals in the Republican Caucus, and

Whereas, the House Republican Leadership has denied voice on the floor of the House of Representatives to the duly elected representative of our fellow citizens from Hanson/Davison/McCook Counties, and

Whereas, the votes cast by every member of the South Dakota House of Representatives has equal effect upon all citizens of the State of South Dakota:

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT KNOWN that we the undersigned wish to express our solidarity in approval and support of the efforts made on our behalf by Representative Stace Nelson, and, that we respectfully request that the House Republican Leadership extend collegial courtesy and welcome Representative Nelson back to the Republican Caucus as well as restore his position on the Agriculture Committee, and

we respectjully request that same collegial courtesy and welcome be extended to Representative Lance Russell of District 30.

Stace Nelson the elephant vs Lee Schoenbeck the RINO

An email from Rep. Stace Nelson:

Recently Tim Rave & Tony Post of the SD Republican Party had Lee. Schoenbeck answer some questions posed of the party during a Feb 21st SDPB show.  Even though Mr. Schoenbeck is apparently not even a Vice Chair of a SD GOP county party they invited him to represent the whole SD GOP Party and allowed him to make some pretty despicable comments about me:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oOaKP2i1FMg&feature=youtu.be even though Mr. Schoenbeck has NO first hand knowledge of anything that transpired in Pierre this last year.

SDPB refused to allow me any opportunity to provide the truth, and they refused to provide any clarification that Mr. Schoenbeck in fact DOES not represent the SD Republican party.

Taking Mr. Schoenbeck's criticism of my ineffectiveness on behalf of my constituents to heart, I decided to see what his standard was.  I did a little research of Mr. Schoenbeck's first years in the Senate and offer this factual comparison:

Mr. Schoenbeck first year in SD Senate 1995 (see attached):

(1) Senate Bill Primed: SB 167 -Tabled in Senate Committee

(1) Senate (only) Resolution Passed by Senate

(1) Senate Commemoration

(In fairness, primary sponsorship is not indicated on any House Bills.  Number & any success therein is unknown (see attached))

 

Stace Nelson first year in the House 2011: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2011/MemberBills.aspx?Member=179

(10) House Bills Primed:

HB 1082 41st day in House Ag Committee

HB 1083 Passed Committee, Died on full vote of the House 29-40

HB 1084 41st Day in House Judiciary Committee

HB 1085 Passed into Law

HB 1086 41st Day House State Affairs Committee

HB 1162 Passed into Law

HB 1163 Passed Committee, Died on the full vote of the House 27-40

HB 1164 41st Day House Ag Committee

HB 1178 Passed Committee, Died on the full vote of the House 21-48 (Governor enacted in Oct11 by executive order)

HB 1183 41st Day House Judiciary Committee

 

(1) House Bill entered AFTER cut off time through personally entering it via committee & priming in both House & Senate:

HB 1256 Passed into Law

 

(2) Senate Bills Primed in House:

SB 54 42st Day Senate Judiciary

SB 139 Passed into Law

 

(1) House Concurrent Resolution (passed both Senate & House)

(15) House Commemorations 

 

Mr. Schoenbeck second year in SD Senate 1996 (see attached):

(8) Senate Bills Primed:

SB 99 -passed Senate Died in House

SB 100 Passed into Law

SB 129 36st Day in House Committee

SB 166 Passed into Law

SB 167 Tabled in Senate Committee

SB 168 Tabled in Senate Committee

SB 246 Passed into Law

SB 247 Tabled in Senate Committee

 

(In fairness, primary sponsorship is not indicated on any House Bills.  Number & any success therein is unknown (see attached))

Stace Nelson second year in the House 2011: http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2012/MemberBills.aspx?Member=179

(8) House Bills Primed:

HB 1139 41st Day in House Committee

HB 1140 41st Day in House Committee

HB 1141 41st Day in House Committee

HB 1142 41st Day in House Committee

HB 1143 Died on the House floor 27-43

HB 1230 Passed both House & Senate Awaiting signing by Gov.

HB 1238 Tabled in House Committee

HB 1249 41st Day in House Committee

(1) House Concurrent Resolution (passed both Senate & House)

(19) House Commemorations 

As most SD political junkies know, a senator's vote carrys double over a representative. 

Even with that:

Schoenbeck first term: (9) bills primed (3) bills into law (6) bills out of committee (1) Senate (only) Resolution (1) Commemoration

Nelson's first term: (19) bills primed (5) bills into law* (11) bills out of committee (2) House with Senate Concurrance Resolutions Passed (34) Commemorations (1) Senate bill primed in House passed into law

*Governor expected to sign '12's HB 1230

If I was so ineffective, as claimed by Mr. Schoenbeck, what does that say about his first term?  The facts are a pesky little thing.  Too bad SDPB was not willing to actually do some investigative reporting on the contrived scandals about me this year, they would have found those facts to be different.