Interesting that both South Dakota political parties have taken a stand against IM10 by saying that there is no corruption found that supports a need for the reforms IM10 will provide. But then we have this allegation:
Democrats are raising questions about Republican Senate candidate Joel Dykstra's role as CEO of a company that's now out of business. State Democrats charge that Dystra's former company, South Dakota Ag Producer Ventures, has failed to pay back hundreds of thousands of dollars in state loans.
South Dakota Ag Producer Ventures was a cooperative of farmers and ranchers that helped line up private and public funding for new agriculture-related businesses in the state. Joel Dykstra was its CEO from 2000 to 2004. The cooperative went out of business two years after Dykstra left. But Democrats claim Dykstra hasn't paid back more than 300-thousand dollars in loans through the Governor's Office of Economic Development. Dykstra says the allegations are false and politically-motivated.
Democrats say Joel Dykstra hasn't been forthcoming with how he ran South Dakota Ag Producer Ventures. They say Dykstra's former company received more than 424-thousand dollars in state loans by the end of 2002. But so far, only one-hundred thousand dollars of that money's been paid back. They want answers about where the rest of that money is.
Democrat Bill Du Bois said, "I would think at the very least, somebody should be saying gee Joel, why don't you pay back some more and did I mention this is all interest-free, taxpayer money?"
Sounds like Clean and Open would be needed in a socialist environment where government is tied in with business interests under the guise of "economic development".
Sycophant Pat Powers uses the typical campaign tactic of mud slinging to show that the Democrats are also guilty of corruption (again note the tie in to government economic development):
Now, one thing I notice about all of this, is that they’re suspiciously protesting against the South Dakota Ag Producer Ventures. Why? Possibly because a Republican US Senate candidate was formerly in charge of it. But… I also notice that they’re conveniently forgetting about another failed venture (also along the I-29 corridor) that just happened to be neck deep in Democrats:
The Flandreau Development Corp., which Sutton heads, loaned Ridgefield $850,000. That money apparently is gone, and plans for the beef processing plant have fallen through. Dennis Wiese was a consultant for Ridgefield and helped secure the loan from the Flandreau Development Corp. Flandreau officials are suing to get their money back.
(Read that here) and…
Ridgefield Farms of South Dakota shareholders agreed Tuesday night to a board recommendation to turn over all assets to a major investor with the exception of 38 acres east of Huron. An estimated 75 investors met in Flandreau, where Ridgefield continues to maintain its offices, after a Madison shareholder called for a session with the management.
and…
Stahly referred questions about investment options and possible reorganization or liquidation to board chairman Paul Symens of Amherst, who was not immediately available for comment.
Read that all here. 2 Democratic Senators and a Gubernatorial candidate. Now how did they forget about them?
So, tonight the Dems are going after the Republican led venture, because Republicans are supposedly corrupt and evil, while ignoring the Democrat led venture, because Democrats are good and pure, and love kitty cats?
Methinks they should remove the log from their eye, before they complain about the mote in the other guy’s.
So why don’t we stop with the Republican/Democrat feud and agree that big government’s involvement in economic development creates an environment that is conducive to corruption, or at least opportunities for unfair treatment to special interests. About the only thing the two parties agree on is that they want to keep that status quo and stand in opposition to the reforms provided in IM10. The real battle the two parties are having is over "who" will have control over all the taxpayers money, and "whose" special interests groups will benefit from taxpayer funds.
Most of us are getting tired of this fraternity fight that ends up being a contest on who can get more of their mud to stick. It is a distraction that prevents a discussion on the real causes to the problems we face. Clearly there is a need for some independent reform minded leaders to step forward.
Comments