Entries Tagged 'Shantel Krebs' ↓
December 29th, 2014 — Mike Huether, Sam Kooiker, Secretary of State, Shantel Krebs, Snowgates, South Dakotans
Mayor Kooiker continues to surprise me every day;
Kooiker, who estimated he personally collected about 400 signatures, said he was pleased that the City Council’s decision to approve $180 million in bonds for a new civic center arena will be put to a public vote.
What I find amazing about what Sam did, is that not only did he support a public vote, he helped collect signatures. This is in stark reality to our mayor who told everyone he supported snow gates, but when asked to sign the petition to put them on the ballot, he refused, as did many local politicians, including our Secretary of State elect Shantel Krebs, who told petition gathers after refusing to sign, “Initiatives/referendums should be illegal in South Dakota.” Interesting statement from the person that is now in charge of our elections
I want to commend Mayor Kooiker for standing up for democracy in South Dakota and setting an example for other elected officials who don’t really understand the process that well.
June 30th, 2014 — Angela Schultz, Secretary of State, Shantel Krebs
While reading one of Lalley’s meandering columns about Skunk Creek/Big Sioux pollution I found this little tidbit about Shantel interesting;
The rather difficult bit to stomach is the reaction from the lawmakers whose job it is to guard our natural resources, in this case Sens. Shantel Krebs of Renner and Jason Frerichs of Wilmot. They represent their parties as the top managers of the Senate Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee.
And their message, as relayed by Harriman’s reporting, was clear: “Everything is fine.”
Both said they see no need for further regulation.
Both also pointed to urban run-off and lawn chemicals as a contributor to pollution. It’s true, that’s a point of discussion, but it ignores the larger issue.
While Frerichs just kind of throws his hands in the air and blames farmers who probably won’t work with government, Krebs IS a small farmer who probably is polluting the Big Sioux herself. It seems Krebs is happy with the status quo (unless she is working hard to make the referendum and initiative process harder so she can keep good standing with her favorite organization ALEC). This is the kind of person we want for our next SOS? Krebs doesn’t want to improve the lives of South Dakotans, which includes cleaning up the pollution in the Secretary of State’s office. Maybe Krebs as SOS will just continue the blatant prejudice against the Native Americans, continue screwing up the voter lists, continue to let Republican candidates to break the rules while turning in the Dems for breaking the same rules. Maybe she thinks ‘Everything is fine’ in the office, just like she thinks nothing should be done to fix the polluted Big Sioux. I have a feeling that if Krebs wins in November we will just have ourselves a skinnier blonde as SOS, not much else will change, it may even get worse.
As for Krebs’ challenger, Angela Schultz, I have only heard good things. A stellar resume (I didn’t see shoe salesperson in there though).
September 22nd, 2013 — Secretary of State, Shantel Krebs
SKrebs wouldn’t know how to be nonpartisan if it came up to her as a makeup counter attendant and applied the reality. She is an ambitious person who only wants power for herself, family and those who pay, ALEC. Her husband was a nice enough news reader for the second place Sioux Falls TV station who now uses his connections and power to return Marion M. Rounds back to a front row power seat. Shantel is just part of the PG13 program.
Shantel does not believe in the freedoms she espouses. She has proved this in everything she has done in her public and private work (former shoe salesperson). Just the way she blew off the courthouse petition gatherers and let those who witnessed, she did not believe in the petition process.
Krebs is a cog in the wheel of ALEC puppet power system. She will only do what Jason Gant could not get done for them. There must be a complete control system for all positions of responsibility in Pierre and she will make sure Gant’s ALEC plans are carried out.
Montgomery did a good job of outlining why South Dakotans should be afraid of Shantel.
- The statement reported “she would “do whatever it takes” to help Republicans win every single statewide office on the ballot next year, include secretary of state“ says it all when she is in office.
- How much will her husband and his personal connections to power assist in her effort.
- Opposes early-voting sites to three other reservation and probably any other place where the GOP majority could be “harmed”.
- Also note, she went to the former ALEC SOS, Chris Nelson, to get his advice. Doesn’t his make you warm and cozy?
Montgomery also throws more into the pot with this post Nelson hits Gant’s performance. Shantel is getting advice from Nelson as Nelson dumps on Gant. Just remember, Nelson was SOS with control over the Help America Vote Act $9 million fund. He did nothing to help the Native American citizens to vote. Nelson was also SOS during the Lake Andes Native American voter harassment program to scare them away from voting for Daschle.
So Krebs promises to be nonpartisan, sure she will. You betcha, just like Gant and Nelson…
September 11th, 2013 — Secretary of State, Shantel Krebs
While I would agree with Cory, that Gant should resign right now (don’t trust what he will do in the last year of office) I don’t agree with some of the theories coming from the blogsphere;
This announcement comes after a clear vote of no confidence from his own party as Senator Shantel Krebs (R-10/Renner) declared Gant had violated the integrity of the office and began lobbying SDGOP delegates to support her in a convention challenge to Gant’s renomination
Don’t be so sure Cory. I found it a little strange that Krebs had not made a formal announcement even though she had a nice little logo made up and a letter sent to conventioneers. If she lacked so much confidence in the job that Jason was doing, why was she being so quiet about her challenge? The conspiracy theorist in me thinks Shantel knew in advance that Jason was not going to seek a second term, and put herself out there quietly before he made the announcement. Why do I think this? Shantel is a card carrying ALEC member with good standing in the SD GOP. She really isn’t much different then Jason when it comes to her political philosophies. And as a SF conventioneer said to me, there is no way they were voting for her in the convention because of her political views mirroring Jasons’.
May I also note when we were circulating the snowgate petition, Krebs refused to sign, and went so far to tell the petitioner that she doesn’t believe in petitions because making legislation was the job of elected officials. She seemed offended that citizens would want to present their own legislation. Just the kind of SOS I look forward to
Gant’s former cheeseburger eating buddy, Pitty Patt Powwers even throws out more evidence that this was in the works for awhile;
But with the seat now wide open.. others are also expressing an interest in becoming the custodian of official records for the state and chief elections officer.
I’m hearing at least two others are expressing strong interest in entering the contest. I’m also hearing rumors that Senate Assistant Majority Leader Dan Lederman may be renewing the past interest he’d expressed in running for SOS prior to 2010.
Mr. SD ALEC himself is even considering the run. I may be a little thick at times, but if you think all of this excitement about running for Jason’s seat started after his announcement today, you are smoking some pretty good stuff.
And how are the Democrats reacting?
February 17th, 2009 — Cartoon, Shantel Krebs
December 30th, 2008 — Shantel Krebs, South Dakotans, State Funding, Taxes
This is one way to get the money we need.
Once again legislators are punishing the poor and thrifty by suggesting we raise registration fees JUST on the people who can afford it the least; people who drive older cars.
People who own older cars could end up paying more to license them if a group of state lawmakers has its way.
A bill that will be introduced in the next legislative session would require owners of older cars to pay the same fees applied to newer cars. Currently, the owners of any noncommercial vehicle more than five years old pay 70 percent of the original licensing fee.
Depending on a car’s weight, it would cost owners $9 to $19.50 a year in additional licensing fees.
Representative Shantel ‘Al Bundy’ Krebs is leading the fight. Yeah, because shoe sales(wo)men have the best ideas.
Licensing fees for trucks and cars are based on their weight. The heavier the vehicle, the more it costs to license, because heavier vehicles exact a greater toll of wear and tear on highways and roads.
Eliminating the discounts for older vehicles would generate an extra $12 million a year that counties could use to build and maintain roads, said Rep. Shantel Krebs, R-Sioux Falls. Krebs is one of the lawmakers supporting the measure.
Eliminating the discount for older cars makes sense, Krebs said.
Maybe in your bad math, help the priviledged more, mentality.
First off the fee is unfair as it currently stands. If you own a vehicle that is 2,000 pounds and 4 years old your fee is $30 but if you own a vehicle that is 10,000 pounds your fee is $65. Shouldn’t it be $150 if we are truly taxing by weight?
BUT LET’s TRAVEL TO COMMON SENSE LAND FOR JUST A MOMENT(I know this will be hard for my Big Government Republican readers, but please bare with me.)
I think the best solution is to hope for Federal dollars from Obama’s stimulus package. The second solution would be making cuts, cuts, cuts to Rounds Kingdom in Pierre.
But if we still need the money I suggest we fix the weight-to-fee issue as it currently stands. Tax accordingly to the weight (which we are not currently doing).
Charge a retail luxury tax on on personal vehicles over $60,000. If you can afford the vehicle you can afford the tax, and more then likely finance the taxes due in your payments.
If all else fails, we can have a rate increase, but it should be across the board keeping the discounts in place. People who drive older vehicles probably drive less. If they can’t afford a new vehicle, they probably have trouble putting gas in the vehicle they currently have.
Taxing the poor more is a stupid idea, in these economic times, but if we must truly raise fees, make it fair. Once again it proves our legislators are short on progressive ideas. Whadda yah expect?Thirty years of secretive, regressive Republican rule will do that to a state.