April 2013

Is this a satire piece?

l3wis April 28, 2013 8Comments

Monty wrote an article about ‘conflicts of interest’ in the state legislature and how lawmakers ‘don’t see any problems’. LOL. Here are some great comedic snippets;

Sen. Mark Johnston, R-Sioux Falls, who works for Sanford Health, has been involved in many health care-related debates. He was active on the issue of whether South Dakota should expand Medicaid — something Sanford and the other big health systems in the state support — and opposing a health insurance reform the big hospitals opposed.

His experience in the health care industry is a strength, not a problem, Johnston said.

“There’s two sides to every issue,” he said. “Based on my experience, my knowledge, my skills, and the input from the folks that I represent, that’s how I (approach) the particular issue.”

Johnston’s employer, he said, is “irrelevant,” except that it gives him more knowledge to bring to debates.

“I look at it in … what’s best for the citizens, what’s best for the folks that elect me into office,” he said.

And if your side doesn’t hurt after that load of crap, listen to this one;

Rep. Tim Rounds said he took a back seat when the Legislature debated a bill to create a new class of artisan distillery licenses — on the request of two of Rounds’ brothers, Jamison and Tom.

“I voted, but I did not get involved with the bill itself,” he said. “I did not testify. I didn’t speak on it.”

. . . but you voted for it. That would pretty much mean you were ‘involved’.

Oh, and how do you like these apples;

South Dakota does not have an independent standing ethics board, though there are provisions to create ad hoc panels to consider alleged ethical violations. It’s up to each legislator to decide for themselves whether they face a conflict of interest, and if so what to do about it.

Meanwhile, many other lawmakers from both parties say the system work fine as it is.

Because, you know, how else will the SD GOP stay in power for another 35 years?

This last part is actually non-comediclicious;

“The counter-argument was that states with few of the structures to prevent or sniff out corruption might be less likely to find any corruption,” he said.

Whatever the size of a state, Witkin said preventing conflicts of interest is important.

“Avoiding conflicts of interest and avoiding voting in self-interest is a core value of accountability and transparency,” he said.

Duh. When you don’t have an agency that looks for it, it is easy to say it doesn’t exist. It’s kinda like falling off a ladder and breaking your leg and  saying, “My leg isn’t broke, because I didn’t go to the doctor and get it x-rayed.” After watching the Gant/Powers thingy unfold last year, I am even more supportive of having conflict of interest laws put into place, not just for legislators but for state employees.