[UPDATE, found this quote regarding Krebs' testimony supporting HB 1072: “As South Dakotans, we value our Second Amendment rights,” Krebs said, “I support our Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms and to further individual South Dakotan’s Second Amendment rights.”]
Yesterday I received an email at 3:13PM from a reader pointing out that Shantel Krebs supported Constitutional Carry. I checked the House State Affairs minutes and confirmed that:
HB 1072: repeal and revise certain provisions relating to permits to carry a concealed pistol.
Presented by: Representative DiSanto (Handouts: #1)
Proponents: Daniel Hall, National Rifle Association of America
Dudley Brown, Windsor, Colorado, self
Shantel Krebs, Secretary of State
Opponents: Matt Konenkamp, Governor's Office
Paul Bachand, SD States Attorneys Association
Tim Doyle, South Dakota Fraternal Order of Police
Mike Leidtholt, Pierre, self
Staci Ackerman, South Dakota Sheriff's Association
Lori Martinec, SD Police Chiefs' Association (Handouts: #2)
So where does Dusty Johnson stand on the issue? Does he support the governor, who has over a million dollars in campaign funds that would come in handy? The Mitchell paper reported on the governor's endorsement of Johnson, but did not mention that the governor was retiring from politics, and therefore has no need to use his campaign funds for his own campaign. (And did the legislature ever do something about campaign funds being used for personal reasons?)
After winning re-election in 2010, I prepared to serve another six-year term on the Commission. Governor Daugaard had other plans, however. The week after the election, facing a $127 million deficit, he asked me to serve as his chief of staff, overseeing much of state government.
Sad that the Argus Leader, the Mitchell Daily Republic, and the Aberdeen News continue to repeat the Daugaard propaganda that there is a $127 million budget deficit due to the supposedly ongoing recession. If you look at page 19 of the Governor's budget summary who will see that General fund revenue projections for FY2012 are going up from FY2010. Sales tax receipts were $652,115,527 in 2010, and are expected to increases nearly 9% to $709,340,328. That is a $57 million increases in sales tax revenues, which means the recession is over. National GDP numbers confirm that point.
The FY2010 revenue from continuing receipts (excludes one-time receipts) was $1,109,795,746 for the General Fund. Actual FY2010 General Fund spending was $1,121,828,785. So the structural deficit in FY2010 was only $12 million, not even close to the $127 million figure everyone (politicians and their media cohorrs) is repeating to South Dakotans. Those same ongoing revenues are expected to be $1,165,243,298 for FY2012, up $60 million from 2010. As noted before, spending is going down $2 million in the FY2012 budget versus actual FY2010 spending at $1,119.988.080. So the FY2012 budget has a $45 million surplus (1.165 billion less 1.120 billion) Therefore, we can increase the FY2012 budget $45 million before we begin to create a structural deficit.
The above analysis completely destroys the point Bob Mercer is making accross the state:
Q. What caused the $127 million structural deficit?
A. State government ran deficits most of the eight years that the previous governor, Mike Rounds, was in office. These were covered at first by budgeting maneuvers. Legislators repeatedly succumbed to pressure by public school lobbyists for extra money in various forms while Rounds was governor.
The deficit problem's roots can be found in several circumstances. There was the repeal of the inheritance tax by voters in 2000, the post 9/11 recession and the loss of much of the gold-mining industry in the Black Hills. The structural deficit then mushroomed as the recession took grip in 2009. State sales tax revenue, for example, actually went backward in 2010.
But as the numbers show, the 2012 estimates on sales tax shows a huge 9% rebound, there is no $127 million structural deficit (in fact we have a huge surplus), and the federal government continues to poor 100s of millions of extra dollars we never had before the recession (a recession that is now over and has been for a while). Not sure why Bob Mercer continues to carry water for the tax and spend liberals of the SDGOP.
We now know that the recession was over, and the tax and spends liberals increased the state General Fund by nearly $400 million. And they are currently whining about how that is still not enough money to hand out to special interests.
And I also suspect Dusty Johnson is also carrying water for the tax and spend liberals of the SDGOP. I gave Dusty Johnson's office a copy of my budget analysis back in 2011, and I never got a response. I guess he may have been still upset for being called a faux conservative. But Dusty is a polished politician who can fool people into believing he is something that he is not. That is why the wealthy special interests will give him money.