Bob Mercer fooled? South Dakota Democrats fooled by SDGOP Crony Capitalists?

Unfortunately, there has been very little media coverage of yesterday's South Dakota House floor debate on SB235. Bob Mercer seems distracted with this:

Trying to be the big man yet again, but not understanding what was being sought in my “To Whom It Must Concern” blog post from Monday morning, Rep. Stace Nelson tried to amend the economic- and community-development bill this afternoon during the House debate. I left the House at that moment and returned to the Senate to cover the proceedings there. Nelson, R-Fulton, lost on a voice vote. He didn’t talk to me beforehand. He didn’t provide any warning he was going to do it. I didn’t see his amendment until another reporter showed it to me afterward. That reporter called me “the man of the hour” and said Nelson repeatedly used my name. I really, really wish he hadn’t attempted the amendment and I really, really wish he had never said my name (or ever uses it again). The amendment wasn’t even on the mark regarding my blog post, which in part called for a public hearing before the Board of Economic Development makes a discretionary decision to give money away, as a reinvestment payment aka tax refund, under the legislation, SB 235. I wish I could write what I really think about Rep. Stace Nelson right now. I really, really do. Instead I will move on.

If you go the Mercer's “To Whom It Must Concern” blog post from Monday morning, and then read Stace Nelson's response:

The Amendment:

Section 40. That chapter 1-16G be amended by adding thereto a NEW SECTION to read as follows:

The Board of Economic Development may not take action to award any loan, grant, or other form of financial assistance that involves public funds unless the action is taken at an official meeting for which notice has been posted in accordance with the provisions of section 1-25-1.1 and notice has been published in at least three newspapers of general circulation in different parts of the state. The notice shall be published at least two weeks before the meeting, shall contain a narrative description of the proposed actions, and shall also state where and when the hearing will be held.”

Actually, please note my note this morning on your blog post on the matter where I stated that I was in fact bringing this amendment.

My apologies for calling attention to your writings, and for calling you a “genius.”

Looks like Mercer is off base on more than one count, just like his Monday's column where he repeated the governor's budget lie:

The $127 million of cuts made at the request of Daugaard in his first year as governor showed how difficult — but possible — a 10 percent cut can be.

As this accountant, who has a Masters from the University of South Dakota, has been saying repeatedly to Mercer, legislators, executiove branch officials, and anybody "To Whom It Must Concern", that the cut was only $2 million. Yes Mercer is fooled. Or is it that he just has an agenda that is in line with the crony capitalists, he just believes it should not be a secret, just like Carroll Quigley [Excerpt from the link: The "Hope" in his book's title represented the collectivist one-world society that will exist when the "network" achieves its goal of consolidating its rule. All who resist this man-made millennium represent the "Tragedy," and Quigley asserted that it was too late for ordinary people to fight it.] [Or is this Biblical prophecy]?

What is really sad is the media ignoring the most important argument from Stace Nelson regarding SB235...it is unconstitutional because it contains more than one issue. It includes education funding increases and welfare housing increases that was used to buy off Democrats so they ended up supporting the SDGOP crony capitalism that they whine about continiously. THey even accepted the idea that a corporation is a "person".

Mercer points to the 12 true conservative Republicans who voted against SB235 and the one Democrat who could not be bought off by the SDGOP Crony Capitalist RINOS:

The vote in the House today was 56-13. Twelve of the “no” votes came from Republicans: Blaine Campbell of Rapid City, Scott Craig of Rapid City, Brock Greenfield of Clark, Stace Nelson of Fulton, Lance Russell of Hot Springs, Dan Kaiser of Aberdeen, Don Kopp of Rapid City, Jim Stalzer of Sioux Falls, Jenna Haggar of Sioux Falls, Isaac Latterell of Tea, Elizabeth May of Kyle and Betty Olson of Prairie City. The one Democrat to vote no was Marc Feinstein of Sioux Falls.

Yes the Democrats are crony capitalists too, as it is a form of socialism. When you have increases in funding education (actually indoctrination into creating a worldwide socialist federation that Bill Gates of Microsoft and other corporations provide service too), welfare housing (so construction corporations receive corporate welfare to build the housing), and economic development centered on Obama's Agenda 21 green energy (most of the big projects that SB235 will benefit is wind energy), while excluding oil pipelines...all various things that SB235 does. Stace Nelson was correct to challenge this issue on fhte House floor. The argument is also supported by the variety of special interest proponents to SB235 who testified on a bill that the rest of us taxpayers had no idea what the content was when it hit House State Affairs committee (Red for GOP special interest, blue for Democratic, black for both):

        Bob Sahr, East River Electric
        David Owen, SD Chamber of Commerce and Industry
        Dick Tieszen, Technical Institutes
        Bob O'Connell, Sioux Falls Area Chamber of Commerce
        Wade Pogany, Associated School Boards of SD
        Kitty Kinsman, Rapid City Area Chamber of Commerce (Handout: #1)
        Robert Monson, School Administrators of South Dakota
        Darla Pollman Rogers, SD Rural Electric Association
        Sandra Waltman, SD Education Association
        Mitch Richter, SD United Schools Association
        Steve Willard, SD Electric Utilities
        Deb Mortenson, Associated General Contractors of SD
        Brett Koenecke, Iberdrola Renewables, Inc
        Bill Van Camp, Nextera Energy Resources
        Shawn Lyons, SD Retailers Association
        Matt Krogman, Brookings Economic Development, Corporation
        Bob Riter, SD Manufactured Housing Association
        Dick Howard, SD Association of Towns and Townships
        Julie Johnson, Absolutely Aberdeen

How did all these special interest know enough about the bill to testify in support, while the rest of us had not been given the bill's content. When you have the collectivist agenda of both the fascist GOP and the socialist Democrats coming together in a multi-faceted bill, the individual normally takes the hit. Specically, the individual does not get to participate in the benefits of the funding as found in Section 15 of SB235:

Section 15. Any for-profit entity, nonprofit entity, Native American tribe, housing authority, a political subdivision of this state or its agencies, or any agency of this state is eligible to apply for funding from the fund. No individual may apply for funding directly from the fund.

Then in Section 4, you find the collectivist forcing counties to raise taxes if our local government is to obtain some of the funds:

No county is eligible for a grant for infrastructure improvements, unless the county imposes the maximum wheel tax pursuant to chapter 32-5A or supplements road funds with general funds or other funds in an amount equal to or greater than what may be generated from a wheel tax increase.

So much for local control. Sadly I can't take these criticisms to a committee hearing as the content of this bill was not made available until after both chamber's committees approved SB235. And the Majority Leader of the House stated that SB235 is an seample of how the legislative process should work. I beg to differ. Even Mercer points to the unfinished nature of SB235 (which has passed both chambers technically) as it maybe heading to conference that will consist of only a handful of legislators:

Because the bill began in the Senate, all the Senate can do now is either agree to the House version or send the bill to conference for further negotiation. We know there are several amendments still being sought by various parties.

How many of those "various parties" are simply looking for more pork that is being feed by SB235. And we can expect the governor's staff to be highly involved behind the scenes. This is an example that demonstrates how the South Dakota legislature is no longer representing the people, but instead has become as a rubber stamp to implement the agenda of a shadow government run by the corporatists. With the media being part of the corporate world, don't expect them to tell the people what is really going on in Pierre. And for those of us who learn and become out spoken, the corporatists will look for ways to retaliate. For the mainstream media, that means your advertising revenues will take a hit.

Comments

[LK]

Sibby,

Your previous post pointing out the folly of corporate personhood made a valid point without labeling. It would be good to read more posts that didn't deal with weird labels.

[Steve Sibson]

So Mr. PC policeman, what labels are on your list of words that are banned in the totalitarian police state of Communist America?

[LK]

Sibby,

Relax dude. I paid you a compliment and you get all feisty.

You can say whatever you want. You can put together all of the -isms and -ists that you want and I'll defend your right to do it.

The point I'm making is that more people will listen to the points you make if you don't sound as if you're just throwing out a bunch of made up labels.

[Steve Sibson]

Feisty? I thought it was a clever response. Again, I am more concerned about telling the truth than I am about being popular. I am calling a spade a spade. If you don't like the cards you are dealt, perhaps it is time to stop playing the game.

I provide links to show that I am not just making a bunch of made up stuff. I would think you libs would appreciate the words of Bill Clinton's mentor.