Entries Tagged 'Heidepriem' ↓

On some levels I agree with both candidates on stimulus money education funding;

Heidepriem said it’s a good bill that doesn’t increase the nation’s debt.

“This is an administration that accepted all the revitalization dollars, $250 million to balance the budget over the last three years,” said Heidepriem. “This administration accepted $183 million earmarked for roads and bridges in the state of South Dakota, but when it comes to education this administration says no. Strings attached _ we don’t want it.”

Heidi-Scott is right. We accept Federal dollars all the time, and if this helps education, why refuse the money?

Daugaard said regulations yet to be written could force the state to spend money in ways not fiscally responsible. He asked if school boards would have to fire teachers hired or retained with the money if it’s not available next year.

“I am not willing to say that I will accept that money and spend it without knowing first what strings are attached,” Daugaard said. “I think that’s good government.”

Dennis is also right, what kind of stipulations will the Feds throw at us? I guess the simple thing to do is to just ask? Right? A CC company can’t give you a card without giving you their terms of service. I find it hard to believe that the Feds would be handing out money before they tell us how to use it. Seems Dennis is playing politics with this one.

But this statement shocked me a little (well not really);

He (Doogard) said he doesn’t always agree with the governor but made a commitment when he became lieutenant governor not to publicly disagree with Rounds.

And we wonder why government is broken? Too many yes men.

Heidi Scott IS NOT Obama

It is no secret that Indies help carry Obama into office (that, and the fact McCain’s running mate was a batshit crazy extremist) But is he beginning to polarize independents? While it doesn’t surprise me that Doogard is leading in the polls, this tidbit of info did surprise me;

Daugaard has a double-digit lead among voters not affiliated with either major party

Remember, like most indies, I like to vote for the best candidate, most of the time that means voting for the lesser evil. Heidi Scott is the lesser evil, but I have a feeling people are going to associate him with Obama, the early polls are showing that.

The reforms include:

Capping state spending at 3 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower, something Heidepriem has long pushed for in Pierre.  Heidepriem contends that South Dakota cannot sustain its current average growth of 5.5 percent over the past eight years.

The implementation of across the board cuts in every agency and department of state government.  The extent of the cuts will be predicated on the depth of the financial hole the state faces.

Cutting state full-time employee growth dramatically to levels South Dakota had prior to the Rounds\Daugaard Administration.  Heidepriem notes that the current Administration has added approximately 1,500 new state employees during the eight years of the Rounds\Daugaard Administration even though the state’s population has remained relatively static.

Create smaller state government with the consolidation of State Departments particularly combining the offices of State Treasurer and the Commissioner of School and Public Lands. Heidepriem contends that it may have made sense in 1889, the year South Dakota became a state, to have two separate offices
for these functions but with modern technology, the functions of the two offices can easily be consolidated.

Eliminate the practice of the State granting millions of dollars in “no-bid” contracts which stifle competition and create a culture of cronyism in which State contracts too often are awarded to political friends potentially at inflated amounts of state tax dollars.

End the practice of “Pay to Play” in which South Dakota’s top political appointments turn around and contribute significant campaign funds to South Dakota’s Governor and Lt. Governor.

Undertake a complete audit of State Government with the goal of eliminating frivolous and unneeded State spending.  As a couple of examples of this wasteful spending, Heidepriem notes that the state does not need 10 airplanes and he intends to sell all but the absolute essential planes.  He also will eliminate the $200,000 a year federal lobbyists – a position Heidepriem considers “already filled” by South Dakota’s Congressional Delegation of Senators Tim Johnson and John Thune and Representative Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.

Eliminate the controversial and secret “Governor’s Fund” which is nothing more than a hushed political slush fund that opens the door to undue influence over the Governor with no public accountability.

Implement Regulatory Authority Reform making it illegal for departments like the Public Utilities Commission to raise funds from the very companies they regulate in order to finance PUC conventions and workshops.

“These reforms are extensive and long overdue.  They will put South Dakota’s economy on a strong footing and will restore confidence with the people of South Dakota that their government is fiscally sound and responsible while it is more open and honest in the way it does business,” Heidepriem said.

Ending pay to play and having too many FTE’s would save us millions.

One of my pet peeves I have with Democrats is that they never go for the jugular. Why go half-way?

Sen. Scott Heidepriem blamed years of irresponsible spending for the current hole in the state budget, saying South Dakota has not been governed by fiscal conservatives in the last seven years.

Okay, he is right – but go in for the kill, and explain to the voters what that ‘irresponsible’ spending is (campaign contributor no-bid contracts, unneeded FTE’s, airplane fleets, etc.) What do you have to lose? You haven’t held the governor’s mansion in almost 30 years, obviously your pussy foot approach is not working. Tell the voters of SD straight up – Republicans suck and they are bleeding the working class of this state and getting rich from it. Take the freaking gloves off already!

Although the constitutional amendment to allow large casinos in South Dakota has failed, I was telling someone yesterday that I suspected that either Heidepriem or Abdallah had an ‘outside’ force pushing them into it. Who knows if it was true, but apparently I wasn’t the only one putting 2-2 together. South Dakota’s very own Sarah Palin thought so to;

When the House State Affairs Committee rejected a proposed constitutional amendment on gambling sponsored by Senate Democratic Leader Scott Heidepriem of Sioux Falls, House Assistant Republican Leader Kristi Noem of Castlewood questioned Heidepriem’s motives.

 

Noem said Heidepriem’s law firm represents a client involved in gambling.

 

Heidepriem said he was stunned by the suggestion he would promote a measure out of personal interest.

I’m STUNNED a lawyer would think it unusual to question their motives. Give me a f’ing break.

Casino boss buddies Heidepreim and Abdallah are finally offering some sensible legislation;

“With the budget crunch and economy, why do we need (nine)?” he asked. “If everybody has to tighten their belt, we should get rid of our air force.”

The state owns nine planes and one helicopter.

But as usual a state bureaucrat comes to the State’s (Rounds) defense.

Larry Nelson, state Aeronautics Commission chairman from Rapid City, disagreed with the senators’ proposal, saying various departments pay to use DOT planes.

“We have good planes now in the fleet. We have good, safe planes,” Nelson said. “The department is self-sufficient.”

How is a airplane fleet self-sufficient? Does it run on the bullshit coming from your mouth?

Joe Kafka, press secretary for Gov. Mike Rounds, declined to comment Wednesday night.

Surprise! Surprise!

It’s Alive! More stupid legislation.

My favorite (and only qualified journalist in Sioux Falls) Ellis wrote an article today about a new brainchild(?) legislators Heidepreim and Abdallah are cooking up. They want to change the state constitution so we can become (more dependent) on gambling.

Faced with the threat of a large-scale casino resort opening just across the Iowa border, two Sioux Falls lawmakers are proposing a simple but controversial solution: Clear the way for a casino of our own.

A Las Vegas-style gaming casino in or near Sioux Falls would stymie a similar development in nearby Larchwood, Iowa, that officials long have feared will take money out of South Dakota’s pockets.

But the proposal first must overcome a series of obstacles, including a change to the South Dakota Constitution.

Though I do understand their revenue concerns, changing the state constitution to allow more harmful social ills is the wrong move.

Sioux Falls lawyer Brian J. Bauer said he suggested an effort be made to change the state Constitution, an idea that Heidepriem agreed with. Bauer said he doesn’t want to see the Sioux Falls economy hurt by a resort in Iowa.

Study, after study has proven gambling costs taxpayers more than we gain from it, in criminal and social costs. But hey, look who is proposing the change – lawyers – go figure, the very people who suck from the criminal sow’s tit. I’m sure video lottery laoyyists had a hand in this to. This isn’t about keeping the state’s $111 million dollar cut, it’s about keeping their cut, even though, they would like you to think differently though;

He proposes that revenues from the facility be put in a “lockbox” to be used specifically for education.

LMFAO! Lockbox, smockbox. They use this bullshit argument everytime and it is starting to get old. can’t they get more creative and say the money will be used to buy Hoverounds for all Senior citizens that can’t afford them or FREE icecream for kids under six on Sundays?! Cut the crap!

If approved, it could open the door for a significant expansion of gaming in South Dakota.

Bauer realizes the proposal is likely to draw fire.

“Bottom line is, it’s coming to this region anyway,” he said. “You might as well have it on the South Dakota side rather than the Iowa side of the border.”

Enough already. Instead of expanding gaming, start taxing people based on their income, that’s a no-brainer of a plan I would be willing to put a bet on.

Once again Mike Rounds refuses to cut his do nothing-big government programs in Pierre to help fund education;

Democrats have said they want to cut elsewhere in state government to find money for aid to schools. Senate Democratic Leader Scott Heidepriem of Sioux Falls said state government in previous years has forced agencies to cut spending by a certain percentage, and that approach could work again.

“It’s so simple it’s amazing to me,” Heidepriem said, adding that he doesn’t believe the Republican governor is willing to control the size of state government.

It doesn’t surprise me one bit. Even when the economy was good, Rounds refused to properly fund education, now he has an excuse and he is going to run with it.

While more than 90 percent of Democrats said they wanted to boost state aid to schools by more than the 3 percent recommended by Rounds, only about a quarter of Republicans said they believed state aid should increase by more than that.

Even if the legislature gets a super-majority to be veto proof on an education bill (which I don’t see) Rounds will still find a way to overstep the legislators, just like he did with the blender pump tax and laptops (how did that work out for yah, Mike). He simply doesn’t like to be told what to do. This will be a true test for the legislators. Will the typical Republican cheerleaders like Krebs cave to their favorite state Republican? Will the Dems do more then mouth off to the media and internets about how much of a brat Mike is? (seriously, that’s my job, not yours.)

It’s time to show Rounds that he has been extremely ineffective as a governor and quite possibly, unethical (another thing legislators are too chicken-shit to do something about).

POVERTY HAS AN EFFECT ON EDUCATION FUNDING

One has to wonder though, maybe education funding is sufficient in South Dakota. Student test scores are always pretty decent, but high school dropout rates are high. One reason may be the growing problem of poverty in our state.

A couple weeks back a SF School district representative gave a presentation to the city council about poverty in Sioux Falls. Some scary stuff, here are a few highlights.

- 40% of caucasion children in the SF school district are on FREE or reduced lunches, and that number is as high as 75% in minority community.

- Supt. Dr. Homan doesn’t like to have late starts with bad weather because she wants to make sure these kids get something to eat for breakfast.

Some of the other numbers are hard to swallow to. A lot of these kids also have little winter clothing to wear, and often go hungry on the weekends. The amazing part about it is, it is not discussed much by our local or statewide politicians, it is kind of a ‘silent problem’. After the presentation, one councilor even had this to say, “Thank you for the presentation, but what is this council supposed to do with this information?” And maybe this is the problem. I think politicians think if at least 51% of people in the community are doing OKAY, we can ignore the minority. I find it ironic that Sioux Falls spends more per year on mowing an acre of parkland then they do educating a child. Who knew grass was more important than a decent education? Nice priorities, Huh? I also wonder how much money in education funding is going towards feeding, counseling and healthcare for some of these kids? Something that parents should be responsible for, that is, if they can afford it. The problem isn’t just funding education properly, it is also about creating a business atmosphere in SD that creates more living wage jobs. Government can’t create higher paying jobs, but they can help attract those kinds of businesses. Just imagine if we spent half the money we do on tourism for business development, what kind of impact that would have on the state? (of course than Lawrence and Schiller would have to go out and find real clients).

It’s time for our legislators (it’s too late for the governor) to realize the root problem of education funding – Poverty and low wages.