Sibby Online

Porkulus causing state budget problem

 

While the South Dakota MSM celebrate Obama’s pork package as our savior for our faux budget crisis, the truth is that Porkulus is causing a future South Dakota state budget crisis. Here is a clue to what I am talking about:

The South Dakota Senate restored funding for the Birth to Three Connections program Monday, reversing a proposed elimination of the program amid broad state government budget cuts.

Birth to Three Connections is part of a federal program called the Early Intervention Program for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities. It is designed to help children with both major and minor disabilities.

The budget cut was proposed last month as part of a broad set of funding reductions proposed by Gov. Mike Rounds. The administration supported the funding this week, however, because the stimulus package required state participation to receive federal funds.

So Porkulus prevents us from cutting state spending. Here is why that is causing a budget crisis:

The approximately $600 million South Dakota will get from the federal economic stimulus measure will help the state get through the next two years and avoid some program cuts, Rounds said. But the governor said he and the Legislature must start preparing now for when the federal money runs out.

State tax collections are unlikely to grow enough to cover spending once the federal aid ends unless something is done to slow the growth of spending or increase revenue, he said.

If nothing is done, ongoing state tax collections could fall $125 million short of projected spending in the budget year that ends in June 2011, the governor said. The state still would be receiving some federal money that year, but the problem would grow worse in the following year when that money ends, he said.

And again here is how Porkulus prevents South Dakota from fixing its current structural deficit spending:

South Dakota is getting nearly $100 million, or about $11 million for each of the next nine quarters, for the state-federal Medicaid program that pays the medical expenses of low-income people, the governor said. The federal government will increase its share of the cost by 6.2 percent, which will save state money, he said.

To qualify for the Medicaid money, the state will have to maintain its program at last year's level, which means cuts proposed by the governor must be withdrawn. He had proposed eliminating payments for dental and chiropractic services.

The governor said South Dakota also is getting $102 million designed to make sure spending is not cut on K-12 education, technical schools and universities. That likely means some proposed cuts in education will have to reinstated, he said.

So the federal government is forcing South Dakota to spend more than it should in order to get money that is being borrowed from taxpayers of future generations. This has to be the height fiscal irresponsibility.

State forcing license plate increase

Sadly, the State House voted to increase license plate fees:

On the final day that legislative bills could pass their house of origin, the South Dakota House resurrected, amended and passed a bill that would raise the cost of vehicle license plates.

The bill needed a two-thirds majority. It failed by three votes on Monday but was reconsidered Tuesday night and passed 57-12 after an amendment raised license plate fees even more than the levels that emerged from a House committee.

The amended measure now goes to the state Senate. Fees are based on the weight of a vehicle, and the cost increases with the weight.

The version that was killed Monday would have added $10 to the cost of most classes of license plates for vehicles. The amended version that passed Tuesday would add $10 on top of that.

Fees also would be raised for two classes of noncommercial motor
homes.Supporters of the fee increase have said South Dakota has some of the lowest fees in the country and that the increase would raise money for local government road and bridge work.

With a possible 90% increase in federal funding for the South Dakota Department of Transportation, not enough is being allowed to trickle down to the county and city level:

South Dakota is receiving a total of $183 million in stimulus money for transportation projects. That is about $6 million less than Department of Transportation officials had been informed earlier.

The 15 cities get about 4.3 percent of the stimulus fund and the counties about 4.8 percent.

Those are the same percentages they normally receive in federal highway aid under the commission’s distribution formula, which has been in use since 1991 for re-allocating federal aid to counties and to Class 1 cities with more than 5,000 population.

So instead of increases the percentage of federal pork, the legislature is instead making local citizens pay more fees to fund local roads. This should inspire a "tea party" type of revolt.

UPDATE: SB201, which increased license plate fees and the gas tax, failed in the Senate mainly due to the votes of Democrats after it was hoghoused.

Legislator with conflict of interest?

Senate Minority Leader Scott Heidepriem is taking hits for a possible conflict of interest:

The ethics and truthfulness of Senate Democratic leader Scott Heidepriem came under scrutiny Wednesday at the Legislature involving his proposal for a constitutional amendment to allow unlimited gambling in South Dakota.

A House committee killed his resolution seeking to put the amendment on the 2010 general election ballot, while House Republican assistant leader Kristi Noem of Castlewood revealed facts suggesting a possible conflict of interest involving Heidepriem over the gambling issue.

Heidepriem is a partner in the Sioux Falls law firm that began representing the Flandreau Santee Sioux Tribe this month in a gambling lawsuit in U.S. district court against the State of South Dakota, Gov. Mike Rounds, the state Commission on Gaming, and state Attorney General Larry Long.

Here are the details:

During the committee’s discussion about the bill, Noem said Heidepriem’s law firm is representing "someone looking for expansion of gaming in the state."

"I would believe there are other motivating factors here. There are ties that haven’t come to light yet," she said.

Within hours of Noem’s questions and statements, Heidepriem fired back at her in a letter. He said in the letter that he contacted his law partners after the hearing and learned the firm had been hired in the lawsuit.

"Until now I was not aware of our firm’s involvement in this case. At the time I testified I was not aware of our firm’s involvement in the case, but it would not have been a conflict in any case," Heidepriem said in the letter.

He further wrote that he was "disappointed" that Noem suggested he was trying to advance the interest of a client.

"In the future, if you have concerns about my ethics, you might consider inquiring of me privately, to avoid suggesting unfounded allegations against a fellow legislator in public, and to spare yourself any appearance of inappropriate partisanship," Heidepriem’s letter concluded.

And there is a potential conflict with a GOP senator:

One of the co-sponsors of Heidepriem’s measure is Sen. Gene Abdallah, R-Sioux Falls. One of the law firm’s named partners is Scott Abdallah, his son.

Sen. Abdallah said Wednesday he didn’t know his son’s firm was working for the tribal government in the lawsuit.

"No, I had no idea," Abdallah said as he ate lunch at his Senate desk. "None whatsoever."

Abdallah was quick to add that he expressed his objections regarding Noem’s action to Senate Republican leader Dave Knudson of Sioux Falls.

Abdallah said he told Knudson the line of questioning by Noem was "improper" in a public setting.

The same law firm also has a lawsuit against state government in state circuit court over K-12 education funding.

So then would there not be a conflict of interest for any legislation dealing with education funding? House democratic Minority Leader Bernie Hunhoff gives us some insight into that question:

Hunhoff told the committee he resented the questioning of a legislator’s motivation for a piece of legislation. He said many members of the Legislature bring issues affecting their livelihoods and specialties, whether farmers or business people.

"That’s the nature of a citizen legislature," Hunhoff said.

And there is no bigger special interest than the Educrats. IM10 was to reform the process, but the NEA funded a propaganda campaign to protect the Pierre Capitol Culture.

As the size of government increases, the potential of greed increases and increases the risk of corruption. Porkulus will double the increase in federal funding of the 2010 budget versus the actual level from 2008. When liberals say the legislature should not be spending their time on moral issues, but instead devote most of their time to the budget, ignore the fact that greed makes the budget process a moral issue.

Greed continues

The greed associated with the Porkulus feeding frenzy continues in Sioux Falls:

The list of proposed Sioux Falls construction projects totals over $300 million, but Thursday the city was given only $3 million from stimulus money sorted out by the state transportation commission. So while the city's grateful for the money, it might not be enough to make a difference.

The money is finally being sorted out, but it's being divided up by the same formula used every year for federal road money. That means $8.5 million will go to counties and $7.7 million to South Dakota cities, so for Sioux Falls that means $3 million. For the biggest city in the state, the amount comes below original expectations.

Sioux Falls is getting 40% of the money allocated to the cities, and they are whining about it? Greed has made the budget process a moral issue.

Obama’s lies

Brad O'Leary exposes Obama’s lies:

But as I have pointed out repeatedly in "The Audacity of Deceit," Obama's use of rhetoric does not hide the fact that it is deceitful in a number of ways. There were two important deceptions in Obama's speech last night.

First, he hid the fact that he has brought back the welfare system that Bill Clinton and congressional Republicans reformed. He announced that 32 percent of Americans who are not obligated to pay federal income tax, because many of them are on welfare, will actually receive money from the government – something he rhetorically calls a tax cut for 95 percent of Americans.

Second, he told Americans his team had found $2 trillion in wasted money that could be cut, and he said there were no earmarks in his budget to be presented to Congress this week. In fact, his budget is at least 8 percent higher than what's needed – so his team actually found nothing to cut, only items to increase spending.

For those lawmakers who can't read or count, that's $30 billion in new money. In addition, there are 9,000 earmarks, which are morally unethical ways of spending another $8 billion in taxpayer funds for projects that were not vetted by Congress.

Already this morning the market is down more than 100 points. Clearly, investors can see through Obama's rhetoric, and they don't like the numbers they are hearing.

Adelstein brings up faith again

Sorry about the lack of posts. One reason was my travel to Pierre on Monday where I witnessed this:

The state Senate decided Monday that South Dakota shouldn't follow the same path taken by then-President George W. Bush eight years ago on embryonic stem-cell research.

Senators voted 20-14 against partially lifting South Dakota's ban against using human embryos.

The proposed legislation would have allowed scientists within South Dakota to use the 21 research lines of embryonic stem cells that existed as of Aug. 9, 2001.

That was the day President Bush issued his order allowing federal funding to be used for work involving only those 21 lines.

"There's a zero chance that an embryo will be destroyed because of this bill," said Sen. Ben Nesselhuf, D-Vermillion.

He is prime sponsor of the measure, SB195.

Sen. Corey Brown, R-Gettysburg, said former Sen. Jay Duenwald came to the Capitol on Monday to express opposition to the repeal. Duenwald, R-Hoven, was a co-sponsor of the 2000 ban.

"I think for us to change that course now would be a mistake," Brown said. "It seems to me that if we approve this bill, we would be taking a step backward."

Stan Adelstein started the MAINstream Coalition to protest those who bring faith to the legislative arena. What the Mercer reports does not cover is Senator Rhoden’s point that scientist refused to use date collected at Hitler’s concentration camps as a show of respect for those killed, and he applied that to this issue. Stan Adelsten brought up his Jewish faith and claimed to be offended by Rhoden comparing those of one faith being compared to one cell. Hypocrisy and bigotry on the part of Adelstein shows the error of his liberal worldview. I pray that God have mercy and bring Stan wisdom.

Uninsured get care

Here we have proof that the uninsured do get healthcare. The private sector is working, keep governmental central control out of it:

Non-physician employees of Avera McKennan Hospital in Sioux Falls are taking a pay cut because of an increase in the number of patients unable to pay their bills.

Top managers will take home 6 percent less. The cut for nurses
and other employees will be about 5 percent. Employees will also
lose five days of vacation and go without raises.

The Catholic hospital says the pay cuts are a way to avoid
layoffs, and it's still hiring.

A spokesman says McKennan had a record number of patients last
year but charity and bad debts are also at record levels. The
hospital expects that amount to top $50 million this year, up from
the $34 million it wrote off in 2008.

And the story does not cover the amount of discounts that the government requires with their Medicare insurance.

Senate passes the Queen of the Nanny State

The Senate passed federal government’s takeover of pre-schools and day cares:

South Dakota should develop eligibility guidelines for preschool and find out how many children might participate in a program, the state Senate says.

The Senate voted 20-15 on Tuesday to pass SB191, which would authorize the state Board of Education to develop eligibility guidelines for a state-supported pre-kindergarten. It would also give interested communities a way to develop a local plan that eventually might be funded by the Legislature.

Supporters of the bill say preschool is essential to help children from lower-income families reach kindergarten with age-appropriate learning skills. The bill would target 4-year-olds from families whose income is no more than 130 percent of the federal poverty level.

Opponents say the community planning process and the state eligibility guidelines would put South Dakota on a path toward mandatory preschool for all youngsters.

Sen. Tom Dempster, R-Sioux Falls, sponsored the bill, denying that it would inevitably lead to universal preschool. The program would be voluntary for families and for existing preschool providers.

"It does not replace parents," he said.

Two years ago Senator Dempster offered legislation that was only to allow the Department of Education to establish standards. I then come to find out that the standards were already done. Dempster has no credibility with me on this issue. There is a hidden agenda here, and Senator Rhoden is smart enough to figure that out:

Sen. Larry Rhoden, R-Union Center, said the bill is the start of government standards for preschool education.

"We end up with another government program that's mandated," he said. "We should stay out of it."

Again I bring forward the Allen Quist research that provides the mechanism in which the federal government is using standards to push their agenda. This is excerpt relates to SB191:

Another means of enforcement is through gaining control of early childhood education, including infant education. It is interesting to compare such statements with one of the slogans thrown around back in the 1990s, associated with both Goals 2000 and STW: "All children will begin school ready to learn." Ready to learn how, by what means, and in what respect? What this statement is really promoting is not families’ beginning educating very small children but rather "arrangements involving families, communities, or institutional programmes, as appropriate…" (quoted on p. 107). A logical mind will want to know: what kinds of arrangements, what kinds of "programmes," and who decides what is "appropriate"? But if there is anything FedEd is not about, it is logic. The phrase again comes from the UN; it is part of the 1990 World Declaration on Education For All. It is more about attempting to instill affective loyalty to such ideas as multiculturalism and universal tolerance, including for homosexuality, into children before they can grasp them cognitively.

The idea is to indoctrinate children at a young enough age to increase the effectiveness. SB191 is about "communities". Yes, most communities will not take the time that I have taken to understand what are in the standards. This is the most dangerous piece of legislation that is currently still alive in the South Dakota legislature. It will take effort from an informed citizenry to put a stop to it. It will next be heard in the House Education committee. The members of that committee need to here the truth. Contact them immediately. I have a host of research under my Public Education links. Become informed and then take action.

Turbak Berry advocates government mandate

Again we have legislators using the authority of government to tell businesses what they can and can’t do. And this one makes health coverage less affordable:

The South Dakota Legislature is considering a bill (S.B. 134) that would require coverage for contraceptives under health insurance policies that cover the cost of prescription drugs, the AP/Sioux City Journal reports. In testimony before a legislative panel on Wednesday, state Sen. Nancy Turbak Berry (D), the main sponsor of the bill, said that the measure is "a first and important step for many of us from different views to come together and start working to reduce unplanned pregnancies in South Dakota." According to Turbak Berry, the cost of insurance coverage for contraceptives adds about $1.50 per month to the cost of premiums. She added that an unintended pregnancy can cost more than $8,000. She said the bill has support from both political parties and a group of female lawmakers with diverse positions on many issues. Turbak Berry also said that 27 other states require coverage.

According to the AP/Journal, the bill would require insurers to cover contraceptive drugs and devices if they already cover prescription drugs, although employers that provide group coverage for their workers could exclude contraceptive coverage based on religious objections. The requirement would also not apply to businesses or other organizations that insure themselves rather than buying commercial insurance. Critics of the bill argue that the mandate would increase premium costs and that insurance companies already offer optional contraception coverage. Dennis Duncan, a lobbyist for Dakota Care, said the state Legislature has imposed 15 mandates on insurance over the years, which have raised premiums.

Rounds joins advocates for government intervention

History shows that government intervention prolonged the Great Depression, and Governor Rounds has joined those that are advocating the same mistake:

Midwestern governors urged the Obama administration Monday to reduce barriers to developing alternative fuels and wind energy, key pieces of economic development in their home states.

Iowa Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, and Republican Govs. John Hoeven of North Dakota, Mike Rounds of South Dakota and Tim Pawlenty of Minnesota want the administration to take several steps to make ethanol blends more available and promote wind energy.

"We will pay a price in the future if we don't have that strategic plan, that vision and that sustained effort behind developing domestic renewable energy," Hoeven said in a news conference surrounding meetings of the National Governors Association.

Touting the benefits of alternative fuels, the governors pressed the Environmental Protection Agency to approve a waiver allowing a higher percentage of ethanol of 13 percent to be blended into gasoline. The U.S. currently allows gasoline to contain 10 percent ethanol.

Auto manufacturers are ramping up their production of so-called "flex-fuel" vehicles that can run on ethanol blends of up to 85 percent ethanol. But they warn that ethanol blends beyond 10 percent can corrode fuel lines and damage hoses, seals and the fuel pump in cars not equipped to run on ethanol. It can impede the car's performance and lead to poor gas mileage.