The tax and spend liberals wen after marriage with SB 93 that increases the tax on marriage from $40 to $60.
Sen. Jensen (Phil) moved that SB 93 be amended as follows:On page 1, line 5, of the Senate State Affairs Committee engrossed bill, delete "forty sixty" and insert "forty".On page 1, line 8, delete "forty" and insert "twenty".On page 1, line 8, overstrike "Thirty" and insert "Ten".
Which motion lost.
And the roll being called:
Yeas 20, Nays 15, Excused 0, Absent 0
Bolin; Cammack; Cronin; Curd; Ewing; Frerichs; Haverly; Heinert; Kennedy; Killer; Langer; Maher; Netherton; Novstrup; Partridge; Peters; Rusch; Tidemann; White; Wiik
Greenfield (Brock); Jensen (Phil); Klumb; Kolbeck; Monroe; Nelson; Nesiba; Otten (Ernie); Russell; Soholt; Solano; Stalzer; Sutton; Tapio; Youngberg
So the bill having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill passed and the title was agreed to.
Note that tax increases require a two thirds votes, and SB 93 passed with only a majority vote. The tax and spend liberals got away with this by arguing that this is a "fee" increase that funds the cost of marriage, and thereby not a tax. But $30 goes to a domestic violence fund, and since many of those cases involve relationships outside of marriage, this is a tax and not simple a fee. This is all part of the cultural neo-Marxist feminist anti-male agenda.
Bob Mercer provides us with insight into another anti-male feud going on in the legislature:
Child support and child custody are splitting the Legislature this year.
At odds are lawmakers who want to adjust the child-support payment schedule for the first time since 2009 and lawmakers who want joint custody to become the presumed arrangement in divorce cases.
Each side seems to have enough votes to block the other's legislation.
The latest incident came Tuesday. A Senate panel decided Tuesday to delay its decision on whether to endorse changes in the child-support payment schedule.
The full House of Representatives rejected the same changes 35-31 on Jan. 18.
Sen. Art Rusch, R-Vermillion, introduced the Senate version of the changes on Jan. 31 after their defeat in the House.
An official state commission recommended the changes.
I will provide more analysis on that issue later, and instead focus on the joint custody issue:
The senators who favor joint custody saw their legislation defeated 14-21 in the Senate on Feb. 1. Prime sponsor of SB 72 was Sen. Phil Jensen, R-Rapid City. One of the chief opponents was Rusch, a retired judge.
The question being “Shall SB 72 pass as amended?”
And the roll being called:
Yeas 14, Nays 21, Excused 0, Absent 0
Frerichs; Greenfield (Brock); Heinert; Jensen (Phil); Klumb; Maher; Monroe; Nelson; Netherton; Russell; Stalzer; Tapio; Wiik; Youngberg
Bolin; Cammack; Cronin; Curd; Ewing; Haverly; Kennedy; Killer; Kolbeck; Langer; Nesiba; Novstrup; Otten (Ernie); Partridge; Peters; Rusch; Soholt; Solano; Sutton; Tidemann; White
So the bill not having received an affirmative vote of a majority of the members-elect, the President declared the bill lost.
So we have conservatives supporting family, and liberals (from both parties) protecting their system that creates conflict so that fatherhood can be attacked. The judges. lawyers and Department of Social Services jobs are dependent on the current system being preserved and then given more money. This conflict of interest is one of the elements of corruption one finds in Pierre. This explains it:
The Child Support Industrial Complex is a corrupt system that the judges, magistrates, hearing officers, child support agencies, and others have an economic interest.
If anyone has been a Defendant in a child support case, they knew first hand that they had no chance when they stepped into the court room. They knew that 60 to 65 percent of their income would be gone. The higher the Child Support order the better the agents of the court, county, and state get paid. Because their salaries, pensions, and bonuses are linked directly or indirectly to child support enforcement and collections. Pursuant to Title 42 U.S.C. Section 658, they get reimbursement/incentives in the amount of child support collected and enforced upon. That's the dirty secret, people! It's all about money, in the name of child support.
Children (and the fathers of those children) are being used as money-making apparatuses for the State. Exploitation, extortion, conspiracy, and deprivation are the names of the game. These terms are the proper terms to use when defining what it is the Family Law Courts do. This is why I urge families not to take their disagreements or problems to the court house. The Court will only exploit the misery of the situation for monetary gain. Also, the Court will encourage women to take huge financial blows at their ex-husbands/boyfriends as a parting gift.
Ironically the biggest victims of the corrupt child support system are the children, who lose there fathers. Studies show that such children have contributed to an increase in suicide, crime, drug abuse, and other undesirable outcomes including poverty.
Also note the activity of Senator Rusch in yellow above. Here is some background:
- Former Director/Secretary/Treasurer/President, South Dakota States Attorneys Association
- Former Special Assistant Attorney General, State of South Dakota
- Adjunct Professor, University of South Dakota School of Law
- Judge, South Dakota Supreme Court, First Judicial Circuit, 1995-2011
- Partner, Bogue, Weeks & Rusch Law Firm, 1972-1994
- Former President, South Dakota Judges Association
- Former Member, Vermillion Area Chamber of Commerce
- Former Director, Vermillion Development Corporation
Rusch is also on the state Commission created by governor Daugaard that is pushing to have the legislature approve more money to feed the system of corruption, but to give a break to teachers (who are mostly female). Looks like Rusch could have a conflict of interest. Also note Judge Joni Cutler, a former legislator, is chairman of the commission.