Sibby Online

Beware, Pat Powers is in the room

Excerpt from a Pat Powers post:

When I was in Pierre earlier in the session, I was at a gathering where Breard introduced a spokesman for US Term Limits who cautioned the few legislators there that they’d really hate to see South Dakota get into the term limits battle, but they’ll be here to fight the measure if it passes. To me, the discussion shouldn’t involve an outside group such as US Term Limits. It should just be among the voters who passed it.

Typical of the Judas of the South Dakota conservative movement to push the far-left talking points after gaining information at a conservative gathering. Of course Powers promotes web sites of out of state far-left activists hired by the South Dakota Democrat Party to trash conservatives like Steve Kirby. He also promotes the Minnesota Planned Parenthood web site that pushes an immoral agenda on South Dakota. I issue another warning to conservaitves if Pat Powers is in the room. He cannot be trusted.

Now in regard to the term limit controversy. The premise behind those in support of eliminating term limits is that the legislative branch is at a disadvantage to the executive branch and special interest lobbyists because the citizen legislator lacks institutional knowledge. And further, the voters can place term limits on any legislator they deem to be in the back pocket of special interests and are not representative their constituents by not voting for them.

My response to that is how can you argue on one hand that citizens don’t have enough knowledge to be citizens legislators, but have enough knowledge to vote on their representative, let alone ballot issues such as the removal of term limits?

I argue that the imbalance of power is due to too much power in the hands of the executive branch. Look at HB1266, an act to require standards for the exercise of delegated legislative authority. The proposed legislation said in part:

Any statute that delegates an absolute, unregulated, or undefined discretion to an administrative agency is considered to be an unlawful delegation of legislative authority.

That would have prevented citizen legislators from turning over their power to the executive branch. It passed the House 55 to 14. It was killed in the liberally stacked Senate State Affairs 6 to 2. Here are the legislators that should be voted out of office for voting against HB1266:

Hanson (Gary), Heidepriem, Knudson, McCracken, Olson (Ed), Dempster

How many citizens are paying enough attention to know about that vote? I don’t remember the media saying boo about that most important piece of legislation. So how can the voters have enough "institutional knowledge" to make an informed vote?

And in regard to the issue of lobbyist's power, the Clean and Open ballot issue would go a long way toward bringing the power of the lobbyists back in line with that of citizen legislators.

The solution is not to increase the ability of the executive branch and lobbyists to create cozy relationships with legislators by removing term limits. This will not give more power back to the people. Instead we need to diminish the power of the executive branch and the lobbyists so that the people’s representatives have more of chance to represent the people. If there is not enough informed citizens to step up to the plate when their representative are term limited, then we have a huge problem with uninformed voters that undermines the effectiveness of the democratic process. In fact, way too many voters are being mislead by the biased media. How do we fix that? Not with eliminating term limits.

Sparks fly over HP money

This legislature has decided that they do not want to deal with divisive social issues, but instead deal only with issues involving money. Looks like that did not stop division as sparks flew over the restoration of the Highway Patrol budget:

A Sioux Falls lawmaker's bid to restore $2 million to the budget of the state Highway Patrol died late Thursday in a stalemate with House negotiators.

Gov. Rounds' proposal to cut $2 million from the Highway Patrol raised concerns from the beginning that it might affect the way troopers do their jobs. A bill Sen. Gene Abdallah, R-Sioux Falls, introduced to restore the money passed both houses, but included just $1, a sort of placeholder move to set up the final negotiations.

Those negotiations fell through Thursday after several rounds of proposals to restore funding. After essentially admitting defeat on the issue, Abdallah lashed out at Rep. Shantel Krebs, R-Sioux Falls. She had said the House Republicans had a "pretty much take it or leave it" deal of no more than $300,000.

"I wonder who she was representing, the Legislature or the second floor," Abdallah said after the conference committee ended with a unanimous recommendation to scuttle the spending bill and let the budget cut stand.

Krebs, who represents District 10 alongside Abdallah, is married to Mitch Krebs, press secretary to Gov. Mike Rounds. Second floor is a legislative term for the governor's office.

She called Abdallah's comment "completely inappropriate and disrespectful," adding, "I represent the people of South Dakota. I represent my caucus. I represent the taxpayers, and the taxpayers recognize that we are in a tight budget."

Taxpayers need to know that we are not in a tight budget. The Governor has proposed to spend $200,000 more than what was approved by the legislature for 2008. The media is helping perpetuate the myth that money is tight. There was an attempt by the Democrats to amend a bill to use over $3 million of the Future Fund to pay for the cost of starting the REED Internet Project. Knudson put a stop to that idea by saying basically that the Governor does a good job of spending that money for economic development purposes. My question continues to be, who is benefiting the most from the future fund...certain individuals or the taxpayers in general?

I also wonder why the Republican leadership would allow Krebs get into a situation where conflicts of interests would be an issue.

Transparency exposes problem in SD GOP

Here is Terry Woster's report on HB1233:

A bill to create a searchable Web site that gives citizens access to government spending information passed the state Senate 20-14 on Tuesday.

The measure, which already has passed the House, next goes to Gov. Mike Rounds. Officials from his administration have warned the bill would cost as much as $700,000 to implement. A move in the Senate to add an appropriation failed.

A searchable Web site would be more convenient for citizens, said Sen. Jason Gant, R-Sioux Falls. Much information is public but only can be accessed by calls to a specific department, he said.

The bill would require the state Bureau of Finance and Management to have the Web site operational by July 1, 2009. Information on the site would include annual spending, contracts, salaries and wages, bond payments, debt service and aid to local governments, among other items.

Sen. Tom Dempster, R-Sioux Falls, who successfully got the state to create a Web site for hospital prices, said he supports the concept but doesn't think the time is right.

"This is something we must do," he said. "But to do it this quickly, to do it like that, at a cost of $700,000 at a time when $700,000 is very scarce, is not an appropriate thing to do."

Senate Republican Leader David Knudson of Sioux Falls said the bill being passed was poorly written, which he said "shows the difficulty there is in implementing a program like this without the involvement of the (Rounds) administration, which as best I can tell, has not been involved in this bill and has been opposed to it."

That opposition could raise the possibility of a veto, although there was no immediate indication the governor had considered that.

So who is running the leadership of the Senate Republicans...the Governor. The Legislative Branch should pass the policy, and the executive branch should execute it. Dempster's hypocrisy as it relates to the hospital issue and Knudson's insistance that the "administration" should run the legislature should be troubling to anybody who is concerned about the South Dakota Republican Party. We need to find better leaders. The SD GOP needs to be a "Party for the People", not a "Party for the Powerful".

Continuing the change vs reform

Benjamin Shapiro provides this approach to counter Barack Obama:

While Obama believes he can win the presidency simply by uttering the word "change" like a magical incantation, his "change" message has a soft underbelly. His focus on change means he despises this country the way it is. His wife, Michelle, is crystal clear on this. "Our souls are broken in this nation," she said this month at UCLA. "That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this race who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls." She went further in a Feb. 18 speech in Wisconsin: "For the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country, and not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change."

Despite all of its problems, America is not a deeply flawed place. It is the greatest nation in the history of mankind. It allows Barack Obama to run for president; it allows his wife to attend Princeton University and Harvard Law School. The Obamas' constant emphasis on change carries the disturbing undertone that the country is a disaster requiring radical reform. This isn't a message of optimism – it's a message of profound pessimism.

McCain can defeat Obama simply by pointing out the obvious connotations of Obama's "change" message. He can powerfully cite the fact that he was tortured for the best country on the face of the earth – he's always been proud of his country.

And, McCain should say, his country deserves the pride of its citizens. Sure, some policies need change – some policies always need change. But the soul of the country is intact. It doesn't need a soul-fixer. It needs a leader.

I would like to take this approach down a little different path. The change that Obama is talking about is a change that has been going on for decades. It is a change away from traditional American principles. What Michelle Obama is pointing out is an oppressed class that is now rising up in revolt. This Marxist argument provides insight into the kind of change that Obama represents...anti-American Humanist Marxism. Unfortunately McCain is not the man who can articulate a need to reform America back to traditional principles that has created the greatest Nation in the history of this world. That is due to McCain's past efforts to undermine some of America's traditional principles. We are now faced with three Presidential candidates that does not offer what Reagan offered...return to basic American principles.

Obama flip-flops on NAFTA

From WorldNetDaily:

Leading Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama has blasted rival Hillary Rodham Clinton for flip-flopping on NAFTA, but, according to the public record, he has also switch positions.

Obama has turned trade into a centerpiece of his campaign in Ohio, where trade agreements are particularly unpopular as domestic manufacturing jobs disappear.

Texas and Ohio hold nominating contests March 4, and Obama has criticized the North American Free Trade Agreement at campaign stops in both states.

"What the world should interpret is my consistent position, which is I believe in trade," he said after meeting with workers at a manufacturing plant in Ohio. "I just want to make sure that the rules of the road apply to everybody and they are fair and that they reflect the interests of workers and not just corporate profits."

Just last October, however, Obama announced he would vote for a Peruvian trade agreement that would expand NAFTA into that country.

In fact, he was the first presidential candidate to declare support for the NAFTA expansion. He was also the keynote speaker at a luncheon of the Hamilton Project – a Wall Street group working to drive a wedge between Democrats and organized labor on globalization issues.

NAFTA went into effect in 1994 while former President Clinton held office. In her memoir, Hillary Clinton called NAFTA a success, though she says she has a plan to review it and fix it.

Obama said he opposed NAFTA from the start and U.S. workers were not the only ones to suffer from its effects. Wages and benefits in Mexico had not been improved by the treaty, he said.

HB1233 passes Senate

One of the most controverial and under reported issue this Legislative session is HB1233, An act to bring transparency to state spending by requiring the Bureau of Finance and Management to create a website making certain state government information available to the public. It passed the Senate today 20 to 14 with huge support from the Democrats. Originally Senator Heidepriem voted against the measure in committee. Today he admitted that as he confessed to changing his mind and took a strong stand in support, as did Senator Turbak Berry.

While Republican Jasan Gant was the lead sponsor, the debate put the Republican leadership of the Senate on defense. Senator Tom Dempster tried to argue that the intent was right, but there was no money. What was most interesting was the issue of "back filling". This is when the Executive Branch spends more that the budget, and the Legislature will "back fill" the deficit spending. My numbers show a $40 million backfill for this year. Another Senator corrected me by putting out a $27 million figure. I will be investigating that tomorrow.

Conservatie Republicans tried to stand behind the Executive Branch argument that this will increase spending. But the enormous unexplained backfilled deficit spending left that argument hollow in the eyes if this conservative. Obviously more transparency is needed.

Midwives, another grass roots movement

One of the most interesting grass roots movement in the South Dakota Legislature is the midwife movement. Today, the Argus Leader put the issue on the front page of its voices section:

The 2008 Legislature hasn't even adjourned yet, but two southeast South Dakota women are focused on the 2009 session.

Ronda Kvigne and Debbie Pease will spend the next 10 months seeking support for their cause and educating legislators and the public.

They will do this despite knowing that more than one set of eyes will roll when they extol the virtues of home birth.

"Women want natural childbirth, free from intervention when possible," says Kvigne, a Dell Rapids mother of three.

"Of course, the hospital has its time and place. If you have a high-risk pregnancy, that's the best place for it."

Pease, 42, has experienced both hospital and home births. The Centerville woman gave birth to her first three children in a hospital, then had the next four at home. For the last two, she returned to the hospital with a certified nurse midwife in attendance.

Pease would have preferred to continue to give birth at home but had no options.

"My midwife would no longer do births in South Dakota after the midwives were jailed," says Pease, referring to 2003 when two women were sentenced to jail time for practicing midwifery without a license.

Kvigne and Pease have been heartened by a small gain made this legislative session.

Senate Bill 34 is awaiting Gov. Mike Rounds' signature. It will permit CNMs to attend out-of-hospital births under certain circumstances.

However, House Bill 1155 failed in committee, as did an effort to bring it to the House floor.

That is the bill most needed if certified professional midwives are to be allowed to practice in South Dakota, the women say.

A CNM, who has a master's degree, wouldn't be able to help at enough home births to make a living in this rural state, Pease says.

But CPMs, who meet standardized national criteria, would be more likely to come to South Dakota if legislation was put in place.

HB1233, where there is smoke

With the media pushing open government, I can’t believe there is nothing in tonight’s media coverage regarding the smoke out of HB 1233, An act to bring transparency to state spending by requiring the Bureau of Finance and Management to create a website making certain state government information available to the public.

Not only did the bill get smoked out of committee, it came out with a rare "Do Pass" recommendation that puts some real fire behind the measure. Here was the vote:

Voting Yes: Abdallah, Hanson (Gary), Heidepriem, Nesselhuf, Olson (Ed)

Voting No: Knudson, McCracken, Gray, Dempster

The Bill died in the Senate State Affairs committee on February 20 with this vote:

Voting Yes: Hanson (Gary), Heidepriem, Knudson, McCracken, Dempster

Voting No: Abdallah, Nesselhuf, Olson (Ed), Gray

Note the two Democrats (Hanson (Gary), Heidepriem) switched from against to in favor, which was the key change. Republican Bob Gray switched form for to against. Remember my post that pointed out my surprise that the Democrat leadership was not in favor of this open government legislation. Perhaps it was because conservative Republicans were sponsoring it.

I consider this a signature piece of legislation, and I will be traveling to Pierre tomorrow to urge its passage. The key roadblock is the purported cost of over $600,000. It that is true perhaps we can take a little form the Board of Regent’s budget. After all, Tad Perry testified against the Bill in House State Affairs.

It is not obvious, but the idea that the common folk should not have access to the government’s checkbook would come from a University elitist like Tad Perry. Here is what Francis Schaffer said on page 224 of his book, "How Should We Then Live?":

Then John Kenneth Galbraith (1908-) offered his form of the elite. Like the students at Berkeley, this economist has said that we live in a poor culture. Galbraith suggested an elite composed of intellectuals (especially the academic and scientific world) plus the government. In June 1975, 2,000 "futurists" met for the Second General Assembly of the World Future Society in Washington D.C. Socioeconomist Robert Theobald (1929-) endorsed the concept of "sapientary authority," a social structure in which wise men selected by merit would be deeply involved in the governmental decision-making process. :It’s naïve," declared Theobald, "to deny the necessity for some kind of competent elite."

Daniel Bell (1919-), professor of sociology at Harvard University, sees an elite composed of select individuals. He writes in The Coming of Post-Industrial Society (1973), in the chapter entitled "Who Will Rule," that the university – or some other knowledge institute – will become the central institution of the next hundred years because of its role as the new source of innovation and Knowledge." He says that crucial decisions will come from government, but more and more the decisions of both business and government will be predicated on government-sponsored research, and "because of the intricately linked nature of their consequences, [the decisions] will have an increasingly technical character." Society turns into a technocracy where "the determining influence belongs to technicians of the administration and of the economy." Bell sees that in the final analysis the whole state – its business, its education, its government, even the daily pattern of the ordinary man’s life – bec0omes a matter of control by the technocratic elite. They are the only ones who know how to run the complicated machinery of society and they will then, ion collusion with the government elite, have all the power necessary to manage it.

Sounds a lot like Governor Rounds’ 2010 Initiatives…now doesn’t it. Use Higher Education to grow South Dakota’s economy via government-sponsored Research & Development. That is where you will find huge increases in the Governor’s budget proposals. Would it not make sense to provide an easy means for us common folk to find out where our tax dollars are being spent.

Repeal the Johnson Amendment

From Joseph Farah:

The American War of Independence has been characterized as one inspired in the pulpits of the colonies.

"No king but King Jesus ," was one of the slogans of those who fought the British soldiers, leading to the creation of a new independent state and the greatest explosion of freedom the world has ever known.

Because our founders believed churches were essential to maintaining the kind of Christian culture necessary for a free society in America, houses of worship were free of taxation and regulation by government.

Pastors, priests and rabbis were free to say what they wanted to say about politics and the issues of the day through the early history of our nation – in fact, right up until 1954.

That year, Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson, D-Texas, was facing opposition in his re-election bid from Christians and anti-communists, some of whom were speaking their minds freely from the pulpits.

Johnson, a powerful figure in the Senate who would later become John F. Kennedy's vice president and succeed him following the assassination in 1963, had a solution for his own political predicament – to muzzle churches and clergy with federal regulations.

Through what became known as "the Johnson Amendment," the U.S. Congress changed the Internal Revenue Service code, prohibiting non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates.

It should have been seen as a clear infringement of the First Amendment back in 1954, but it wasn't. And this most regrettable action has haunted America ever since.

Recently, Wiley Drake, pastor of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, Calif., was notified by the IRS he is under investigation for endorsing Mike Huckabee's candidacy for president. His crime? Using church letterhead and a church radio show for speaking his mind.

Now his church is threatened with losing its tax-exempt status as a result.

Whether you agree with Wiley Drake or not, he and his church have every right to take a position on who should be our next president without risking the church's tax status. Under the First Amendment, Congress has no power to tax churches. Period. End of story. Under the First Amendment, Congress has no power to stifle freedom of speech.

Ever since 1954, the government has unevenly applied its illegitimate oversight of churches – winking as some pastors turn their churches over to political candidates to make stump speeches, while warning others it is inappropriate.

There is only one real solution – repeal the Johnson Amendment.

...

Over the last 50 years, America's churches have been controlled and intimidated by these hideous IRS regulations. They've been neutered. I blame the clergy for so timidly falling in line with the illegitimate government restrictions as much as I blame the government.

But it's time to recognize the Johnson Amendment was an abuse of the system by a powerful politician who had no respect for the Constitution, for religious freedom and for freedom of speech. Johnson himself, as president, used the illegitimate Fairness Doctrine to target broadcasters who criticized him.

He was a petty tyrant, and we need not live under the dark cloud of suppression he created back in 1954.

Let Barack Obama speak in the churches. Let Hillary Clinton speak in the churches. Let John McCain speak in the churches. Let Mike Huckabee speak in the churches. Free pastors to say what they want, when they want.

It's no threat to freedom. It is an example of freedom.

Islamic fascism on U.S. Soil

From WorldNetDaily:

An undercover survey of more than 100 mosques and Islamic schools in America has exposed widespread radicalism, including the alarming finding that 3 in 4 Islamic centers are hotbeds of anti-Western extremism, WND has learned.

The Mapping Sharia in America Project, sponsored by the Washington-based Center for Security Policy, has trained former counterintelligence and counterterrorism agents from the FBI, CIA and U.S. military, who are skilled in Arabic and Urdu, to conduct undercover reconnaissance at some 2,300 mosques and Islamic centers and schools across the country.

"So far of 100 mapped, 75 should be on a watchlist," an official familiar with the project said.

Many of the Islamic centers are operating under the auspices of the Saudi Arabian government and U.S. front groups for the radical Muslim Brotherhood based in Egypt.

Frank Gaffney, a former Pentagon official who runs the Center for Security Policy, says the results of the survey have not yet been published. But he confirmed that "the vast majority" are inciting insurrection and jihad through sermons by Saudi-trained imams and anti-Western literature, videos and textbooks.