Sibby Online

Cory Heidelberger, a tax dodging tax and spend liberal

Cory Heidelberger admits that he will dodge a tax if he can:

I rode my bike to the courthouse to get my license plate tags yesterday.

(Pause. Enjoy.)

My renewal isn’t due until the end of May, as is the case for all South Dakotans with last names ending in H, I, or O, but South Dakotans are allowed to renew their noncommercial vehicle registrations any time within 90 days of the renewal deadline.

Expect a lot of Hansons, Iversons, and Olsens in line at the courthouse during the next couple weeks. Senate Bill 1, the big road tax-and-spend bill passed by our Republican Legislature (I’m not saying that’s bad; I’m just reminding you who did it) raises vehicle registration fees 20% starting April 1. Register your Ford F-150 now, and you’ll save $18. HI-O!

Governor Dennis Daugaard almost didn’t let that loophole happen but apparently changed his position when county treasurers said their lives were hard enough preparing for a tax hike with two weeks’ notice.

Then a commenter asked:

We saved about $97 by getting them today.  Sorry but that money is as good in my pocket as it would be “somewhere else”.  Nothing wrong with that is there?

And Cory's reply:

If legislators wanted to make sure they got your $97, they could have crafted the bill to take effect immediately. They could have imposed a fairness charge on next year’s registrations for A–G and J to make sure everyone paid the same increase.

Amazing how big government liberals are quick to say that their money is better in their pockets and not in the hands of government.  How many times has Cory said increasing taxes is good, and conservatives are bad because they are against raising taxes? But he is quick to use a loophole so he doesn't have to pay. So the only good taxes for Cory are the ones somebody else pays. From a Biblical Christian standpoint, that is coveting. From a secular humanist point of view, that is greedy. So how long will it be when we will see Cory whining about tax loopholes for crony capitalists?

And if that isn't bad enough, he again blames Republicans for a bill in which a super majority of Democratic legislators also voted in favor of. This is the kind of stuff I used to point out when I was allowed to comment at Madville. It must really upset Cory and his gang of coveting New Age Theocrats. Somebody should ask Cory if he feels guilty that some single working mother, whose last name starts with a different letter than Cory's, has to pay the extra 20%.

Controversies surround the early implementation of the 20% license plate fee increase. Why were legislators in such a big hurry to implement the massive tax increase?

Mercer gives some insight into the massive tax increases the South Dakota Legisalture passed and Governor Daugaard signed into law:

State lawmakers purposely decided against delaying increases in license plate fees when they approved the highway and bridge funding legislation on the final day of the main run of the 2015 session last week.

The House of Representatives engaged in a sharp debate Friday, largely between Rep. Thomas Brunner and Rep. Dick Werner, about whether county treasurers were ready to charge the 20 percent fee increases on vehicle registrations. The increases take effect April 1.

Here is Brunner's position:

Brunner said county governments wouldn’t have much time to be ready, because the legislation as presented would take effect in its entirety, including the license plate increases, on April 1.

He wanted counties to receive more time, so they could “make it fair for everybody who has to renew their licenses.”

He said “the real fair thing” would be to delay the license plate increases until Jan. 1, so that all renewals would pay the new amounts for the same year.

“With the emergency clause on there, I think we’ve created kind of a wreck for county treasurers,” Brunner said.

Werner and others respond:

Werner said he spoke to an official for the state Department of Revenue on Friday. Werner said he was told the department delayed its next round of renewal mailings that were scheduled to go out Monday.

House Republican leader Brian Gosch of Rapid City said it was time to vote straight up on the measure, Senate Bill 1. A voice vote on Brunner’s amendment failed.

“I think we’re jumping into this ... too quick,” Rep. Dan Kaiser, R-Aberdeen, said.

He described the legislation as a state solution for a county and township problem.

But another Brown County lawmaker, Rep. Dennis Feickert, D-Aberdeen, described it as “the best opportunity to move forward with the some funding.”

He is a former Brown County Commission member.

Turns out Brunner was right:

The Division of Motor Vehicles directed county treasurers Monday to immediately start charging the higher fee if vehicle owners whose registrations expire in May try to beat the April 1 increase, the Rapid City Journal reports. Vehicle owners can renew their registrations 90 days before the month they expire, according to state rules.

Pennington County Treasurer Janet Sayler said the directive has caused "uproar" among county treasurers who feel they would be violating the law by charging higher fees before April 1.

"I cannot charge people more than the law allows," Sayler said. "I do not have the authority to do that."

Brown County Treasurer Sheila Enderson said that she "can't charge a fee that doesn't exist."

"It's not right. People are entitled to buy early," Enderson said.

Looks like Brown County lawmaker, Rep. Dennis Feickert, D-Aberdeen did not represent his County Treasurer very well. The controversy also landed in Davison County:

Some county officials are upset over a directive from the South Dakota Division of Motor Vehicles regarding when county treasurers should impose an increase in vehicle licensing fees.

A new state law increases most motor vehicle license fees by 20 percent, effective April 1. It was signed into law Tuesday by Gov. Dennis Daugaard.

[Davison County Treasurer Christie]Gunkel said she received an email on Monday that included the directive to immediately start charging the higher fee to vehicles owners whose registrations expire in May.

Vehicle owners can renew their registrations 90 days before the month they expire, according to state rules.

So County Treasures were given the directive on Monday, but the Governor did not sign the bill until Tuesday, the next day? Mercer reports that the Governor then stepped in on Wednesday to fix the problem:

Vehicle registrations aren’t renewed in April and treasurers said they were told by state officials they wouldn’t be allowed to give discounts for May renewals that are made before April 1. However, the Daugaard administration changed its position late Wednesday afternoon.

“April 1 is the date when the fee switches according to the new Highway Funding Bill,” Peggy Laurenz, director of the South Dakota Division of Motor Vehicles said in a news release. “For example, if a customer with a May renewal date were to visit a county treasurer’s office or a DMV self-service electronic terminal on or before March 31, they would pay the current fee.”

Wow, there seemed to be a big rush to get these tax increases started. Why? Just a little over a year ago the State Department of Transportation said there was no need to increase road taxes. Was it for the benefit of helping out the counties?

To answer that we first need to better understand where the extra tax revenues are going. If you go to the bottom of a Cory Heidelberger post, you will find a diagram that shows only $17 million of the $85 million annual tax increase comes from license plates fees. The other $68 million from increased gas taxes and excise tax on cars goes to the State Highway Fund, and not the counties.

And if you look closely at the diagram $7 million of the $17 million in extra license plate fees that would have normally gone to the counties is instead being diverted to a "Local Bridge Improvement Grant Fund". SoDakLiberty explains:

Section 1 – Section 1 creates a local bridge improvement grant fund. This fund can be used by any local government to construct, reconstruct, or repair bridges. It will be up to the Transportation Commission to determine who gets the grant money. In order to receive the grant a county must have “adopted and annually updated its county highway and bridge improvement plan pursuant to the provisions of section 3 of this Act”. The county must also have imposed a county wheel tax per § 32-5A-1.

For those unfamiliar with the wheel tax, it currently allows counties to tax each vehicle $4 per wheel up to a total of $16 (basically up to four wheels). If a county has not implemented this already existing tax the state will not help them out with this new grant money. Spoiler alert! Section 25 of this act actually increases the wheel tax from $4 per wheel to $5 per wheel. It also changes the total amount from $16 (four wheels) to $60 (12 wheels).

Section 2 – Section 2 authorizes the Transportation Commission to create rules (pursuant to Chapter 1-26) to decide how local governments will apply for and how they will choose which projects will get the grant money.

Section 3 – Section 3 authorizes the Transportation Commission to create rules (pursuant to Chapter 1-26) to set the requirements for a “county highway and bridge improvement plan that details proposed county highway and bridge improvement projects in a county for the next five years.” Any county that doesn’t create the plan will not be allowed to receive the grant funds created in section 1 of this act.

Section 4 – This section amends § 32-11-34, Local government highway and bridge fund.

This section of the bill states that every quarter $1,750,000 will be transferred from the Local government highway and bridge fund to the newly created local bridge improvement grant fund. Currently the money in the older Local government highway and bridge fund is allocated to the counties and municipalities as laid out in § 32-11-35. Now the change in this bill will take $1.75 million out of that fund each quarter and place it in the new grant fund created in Section 1 of this act. I wonder if there will be some municipalities and counties unhappy with this change. It could lead to fewer funds for counties and municipalities that choose not to play by the rules set forth by the Transportation Commission. It also seems to be a way to co-opt funds meant for all the counties and municipalities into areas favored by the Transportation Commission.

So we are paying higher license plate fees that is suppose to used by counties to fix our roads and bridges. But in order to get half of that back, we have to pay more taxes on aour wheels, plus we have to have a five year plan for the money. Not much for local control here.

So what possible areas would be favored by the Transportation Commission as stated in Section 4? As I noticed before, there was a lot of economic development organizations that were extremely supportive of these tax increases. So what economic development plan could require a huge investment in roads? Perhaps this is one answer from Governor Daugaard:

With the construction of Bel Brands’ new cheese plant in Brookings and other dairy processing companies who are looking to expand in our state, South Dakota farmers will need to increase their dairy cattle herds by several thousand head over the next few years in order to keep up with the escalating demand for milk.

That is why I have attended the World Ag Expo in California for the last three years. The relationships we’ve made at those events have proven valuable to South Dakota and have led to new economic opportunities.

Though we’ve done some work to recruit outside of South Dakota, more than anything, we want our local producers to have opportunities to expand their operations. To that end, the South Dakota Department of Agriculture offers business development opportunities. Through their finance programs, the Department assists our producers in expanding the infrastructure of their current operations.

Daugaard tries to downplay the work to recruit outside South Dakota, but there is a huge effort to bring mega dairies into South Dakota:

That’s where David Skaggs comes in. He’s an Agriculture Development representative with the South Dakota Department of Agriculture.

Skaggs works for South Dakota luring dairies to the state. He met the Azevedos at the World Ag Expo in Tulare, Calif. The dairy pavilion there is often full of recruiters from the Midwest – Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas – all vying for the attention of dairy farmers.

“We have dairies that have relocated from Ireland, England, The Netherlands – numerous other states as well, but California seems to be a good target market for us,” Skaggs said.

Skaggs says his goal is to double the number of dairy cows in the state.

“Since I took over in 2005, we have grown our dairy industry from 81,000 dairy cows to 97,000 today,” he said. “By the end of the year we’ll be over 100,000 cows.”

South Dakota recruits so hard that the state’s governor, Gov. Dennis Daugaard, is involved in the recruiting. The state even uses a hashtag #getsomemilk2014.

“We’re trying to attract California dairymen to look at South Dakota’s advantages for establishing a dairy,” Daugaard said at last year’s expo.

And this explains why the State Transportation Commission want control over where all the road and bridge money is going:

State Secretary of Ag Lucas Lentsch says the dairies they are courting are interested in relocating to get away from the burdens of environmental regulations.

From the audio clip: "Just last month we had 7 different Californians in South Dakota last month looking for sites for dairy, and one from Wisconsin looking for a site. So... and they're not just surveying the atmosphere of South Dakota and thinking about it, they're actively looking for property."

From the audio clip: "You know at any point we can have six to a dozen active relationships that are going on, but one of the things we continue to come back home to is site location and our county site analysis is only a year into the program but where we've had over 30 counties looked at (by) the Dept. of Agriculture to help study their counties for good, better and best for ag development or even livestock development."

http://wnax.com/news/180081-california-dairies-relocating-to-interstate-29-corridor/

The roads that will be getting most of the money will be the ones going to and from the sites selected by the Dept. of Agriculture for the mega dairies needed to supply milk to French cheese maker. And those roads would have to be part of the counties' "5 year plan".  Here is more:

The Oaklake Dairy is believed to be the first dairy that uses Gov. Duagaard’s ‘County Site Analysis Program’. This program pre-certifies land for ag development… primarily sites for CAFO development. A CAFO is a ‘Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations’ which has unusually high densities of cattle under one roof.

400 potential CAFO sites in 4 counties

“Since its launch, 26 of South Dakota’s 66 counties have signed up for the program. Four "pilot" counties have completed the process, resulting in identifying more than 400 potential CAFO sites. Outreach to landowners has begun, and plans are underway to have 11 more counties completed by July 2014.

So the real agenda behind SB 1 was not fixing roads and bridges for the citizens of South Dakota. It seems to be more for subsidizing the transportation infrastructure for mega dairies to supply milk to the French cheese maker in Brookings. So 70 of your state representatives and senators from both parties voted to tax each and every one of us in order to fund the industrialization of South Dakota's agriculture economy that will benefit large corporate entities. How will the small family farmers survive in such an economic environment where the government favors the largest of the large producers? The big (government and business) will turn us all into slaves. And we are all suppose to be happy about all of this because we have a job.

So how close is South Dakota getting to being a totalitarian state?

Representative Lance Russell informs his constituents on this year's tax and spend South Dakota legislature

I found this a Facebook and did not find a link to the Hot Springs newspaper:

Editorial from the Hot Springs newspaper - Please read all of it because it is pertinent to every citizen in SD:

State Representative, District 30 – Lance Russell, Hot Springs SD      March 15, 2015

      Property taxpayers and rural schools are the biggest losers in the 2015 Legislative Session. Governor Daugaard included the sparsity, Common Core Assessment and Technology money in the State Funding Formula for the first time. The state has always paid these payments to the schools outside of the formula. For the first time, the Legislature has given the Governor permission to place these monies into the formula, triggering a $5.2 million property tax increase. I was the only District 30 Legislator to vote against SB 53 which mandated and shifted these costs. Almost all of the new money going to K-12 education this year came off the back of the property taxpayer, with hardly any additional money from the State.

      Since the $127 million cut in 2010, the Governor has spent $300 million a year in on-going money on increased spending in corrections, courts and a plethora of new programs, including creating a new government bureaucracy this year called the Debt Recovery Center. State education funding remains less than prior to the $127 million cut. The only commitment to education coming out of Pierre these days appears to be implementing Common Core and forcing property taxpayers to shoulder a larger and larger burden.

      I was also the only District 30 Legislator to vote against SB 1, which will raise taxes more than $1.5 billion, not million. Gas, excise, license, wheel, and property taxes will all be raised by this legislation. Where a good portion of road problem is, which is in Brown County (Aberdeen), the property taxes will be limited to half what the County Commissioners in Custer and Fall River County will be able to levy. This is a perfect example of a taxing system that is simply broken.

Legislation to tax property for its actual use, not at the crop rate for crop rated soils, would help alleviate the wild swings in agricultural property taxes. The problem is that there are soils that are good enough for planting crops in western South Dakota, but cannot be productive for crops because of inadequate moisture. These areas are currently being taxed at the higher crop rates, rather than the grazing rates. The Governor must support the actual use legislation or it will not pass.

      Property taxpayers had one victory this Session in the House Taxation Committee, of which I am a member. We killed the Governor’s House Bill 1207 that would have raised property taxes another $9.5 million for education. There was NO new state money in this bill for education, only more property taxes at the local level. Through HB1207, the Governor wanted to claim he had given a 3.5 percent raise to education, instead of only the 2 percent raise from SB 53. By killing this measure, your property taxes will rise at least $5.2 million, instead of $14.7 million the Governor proposed.

Cory Heidelberger blames Republican super majority for massive road tax increase, and ignores the super majority of Democrats who also voted Yea

Yesterday Cory Heidelberger did a post of the $85 million road tax increase that begins on April 1:

While a majority of Republicans cheer passage of Senate Bill 1, the $85-million transportation bill, complete with a six-cent increase in the per-gallon fuel tax starting April 1 (yup! Governor Daugaard signed it today!), an eager reader reminds me that, just over a year ago, the Daugaard Administration was telling us that there was no need to raise our road taxes:

South Dakota’s highways are in good shape and there’s no need to boost state highway taxes, Transportation Secretary Darin Bergquist said Wednesday [Chet Brokaw, “Official Says No Need to Boost SD Highway Taxes,” AP via Pierre Capital Journal, 2014.01.15].

So what changed? Cory tries to argue the liberal line that this is needed to replace federal funds:

Cut federal highway funding and short South Dakota $80 million to $90 million?! Whose lame-brained idea is that?!

Next Cory goes after DC Republcians:

It’s Republican Congressman John Mica, Kristi Noem’s good friend (no, not the one she went selfie-shooting on the Great Wall with who now has to resign over overbilling travel expenses—a different friend!). Uff da—thank goodness the Senate was there to check Mica’s cutting urges with their own proposal to spend more money on highways…

…but wait: that was the good old days, when we had a Senate controlled by Democrats. Now we’ve helped turn the Senate Republican by sending Mike Rounds to join John Thune to clap for Majority Leader McConnell and write notes to Iran. Mike and John might consider a federal gas tax increase, but golly gee willikers, they’ve both got re-election to think about. They’d really rather not raise taxes, but they can’t have South Dakotans noticing they’re  failing to deliver on basic infrastructure needs. Boy oh boy, wouldn’t it be nice if they could get someone who isn’t running for re-election to find them $80 million to $90 million to keep them from having to bite the bullet?

Dennis? Dennis! Thanks a million! Thanks $85 million!

Update 20:48 CDT: To be clear, SB 1 raises $85.75 million annually, according to this updated diagram of increased taxes and fees passed by your Republican supermajority (with just enough Democratic help)

Notice how Cory down played the role of the South Dakota Democratic legislators. Here is the recorded vote on final passage from the Senate Journal:

Sen. Vehle moved that the report of the Conference Committee on SB 1 as found on page 719 of the Senate Journal be adopted.

    The question being on Sen. Vehle's motion that the report of the Conference Committee on SB 1 be adopted.

    And the roll being called:

    Yeas 25, Nays 9, Excused 1, Absent 0

    Yeas: Brown; Buhl O'Donnell; Cammack; Curd; Ewing; Frerichs; Haverly; Heineman (Phyllis); Holien; Hunhoff (Bernie); Novstrup (David); Omdahl; Otten (Ernie); Parsley; Peters; Rampelberg; Rave; Rusch; Soholt; Solano; Tidemann; Tieszen; Van Gerpen; Vehle; White

    Nays: Bradford; Greenfield (Brock); Haggar (Jenna); Heinert; Jensen (Phil); Monroe; Olson; Peterson (Jim); Sutton

    Excused: Lederman

    So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the President declared the motion carried and the report was adopted.

Here is the recorded vote from the House Journal:

The question being on Rep. Westra's motion that the report of the Conference Committee on SB 1 be adopted.

    And the roll being called:

    Yeas 55, Nays 11, Excused 4, Absent 0

    Yeas: Anderson; Bartling; Beal; Bolin; Bordeaux; Conzet; Cronin; Deutsch; Dryden; Duvall; Feickert; Gibson; Gosch; Haggar (Don); Harrison; Haugaard; Hawley; Heinemann (Leslie); Holmes; Hunhoff (Jean); Hunt; Jensen (Alex); Johns; Kirschman; Klumb; Langer; McCleerey; Mickelson; Munsterman; Novstrup (Al); Otten (Herman); Partridge; Peterson (Kent); Qualm; Rasmussen; Ring; Romkema; Rounds; Rozum; Schaefer; Schoenfish; Sly; Soli; Solum; Stalzer; Stevens; Tulson; Verchio; Werner; Westra; Wiik; Willadsen; Wollmann; Zikmund; Speaker Wink

    Nays: Brunner; Campbell; DiSanto; Greenfield (Lana); Hawks; Kaiser; Killer; Latterell; Marty; May; Russell

    Excused: Craig; Hickey; Schoenbeck; Schrempp

    So the motion having received an affirmative vote of a two-thirds majority of the members-elect, the Speaker declared the motion carried and the report was adopted.

I highlighted in red the 19 Democratic legislators. Of the 18 that voted, 13 voted Yea. That means more than two thirds, or a super majority, of Democrats voted in favor of the massive tax increase. Cory wants that truth to be ignored. If all of the Democrats would have voted no, the massive tax increase would not have received the required two thirds majority and would have failed.

Of the 20 who voted against SB 1, 15 were conservative Republicans. Another fact that Cory Heidelberger doesn't want his readers to know. Like for example Roger Cornelius:

Interestingly in this increase is the acceptance of republicans raising the gas tax on republicans and the rest of us.

Sad they don't see that these were liberal Republicans joined by liberal Democrats. And the increase in government will be used to supply more money to crony capitalists, who don't want their business taxes but it is OK to tax their customers. So 15 conservative Republicans, a couple of Indians, a feminist, and a handicapped guy in a wheel chair could not stop the bi-partisan tax and spend liberals from taking money from poor people and giving it to the rich. Talking about will to power.

Explaining these truths to the Madvillians can get you banned from their community. And all I was trying to do was promote a logical solution to the problem of crony capitalism...less government.

Cory Heidelberger issues another false cyber attack, the victim this time is Senator David Omdahl

Atheist Cory Heidelberger demonstrates his continuing worship of bikes:

Among the good things to come out of the Legislature is House Bill 1030, which specifies that motor vehicles shall give bicycles a three-foot gap when passing on roads where the speed limit is 35 miles per hour or less and a six-foot gap on higher-speed roads. Since the Governor signed the bill last week Wednesday, HB 1030 takes effect on July 1… but motoring neighbors, feel free to practice those passing gaps now.

HB 1030 did not get to the Governor’s desk without one nasty bit of anti-bikery in the Senate. Senator David Omdahl (R-11/Sioux Falls) tried to amend the bill to  exempt all rural roads from the bicycle-passing requirements. Senator Omdahl wouldn’t have gotten rid of the safe passing gap completely.

Cory then issues a cyber attack directed toward conservatives and then Senator Omdahl, as he uses mockery by photo shopping Omdah's portrait:

I can’t figure out why Senator Omdahl and other conservatives express such antagonism to bicycles. Perhaps more than anyone else on the highway, cyclists embody rugged individualism and self-reliance. They’re not just playing games; they’re getting to work and church and Hy-Vee under their own power. What could be more conservative than that?

As is so often the case in the United States of Koch, conservatism is a mere front for corporate interests and the almighty dollar. Senator Omdahl said he brought the amendment “to protect both the cyclists and the traveling public” (which phrase suggests Omdahl does not consider cyclists part of the traveling public), but his speech to the amendment suggests the primary purpose the amendment was to allow semis to get from point A to point B without having to wait for pesky bicycles.

A very very large percentage of semis used by corporate interests will never be found on rural roads. The few semis found on rural roads are usually small rugged individualistic self-reliant farmers trying to get their crops in before winter hits. Far from the hated Koch corporatists, which would include food processors of products sold at grocery stores like Hy-Vee.  So what is more important to Cory: having food to eat or worshiping his bike? And how many people use rural roads to bike to church or Hy-Vee?

We also should understand that falsely attacking conservative based on crony capitalism, that is actually implemented by liberal Big Business Republicans and liberal Big Government Democrats and not by true conservatives, is more important than the truth for Cory Heidelberger and his gang of New Age Theocrats.

 

Bob Mercer is reporting that SB69 is not a State Board of Elections bill

Bob Mercer has more information on the SDGOP Incumbent protection Senate Bill 69:

 Here’s the sponsor line from Senate Bill 69: “The Committee on State Affairs at the request of the State Board of Elections.” That’s not exactly true. SB 69 came from new Secretary of State Shantel Krebs, who took the ideas that wound up in the original version of the bill to the state board several times, first on Dec. 17 before she officially was in office, and again Jan. 5, the day she began by taking her oath.

After detailing how the bill proceeded through the legislature, Mercer concluded with this:

Some of the bill’s critics are calling for Gov. Dennis Daugaard to veto SB 69. If he does, he might be in for an override. Republicans in both chambers had enough ayes on final passage to meet the two-thirds majorities needed to negate a veto. This is a mushy mess without an easy fix. Don’t be surprised if the State Board of Elections thinks hard before allowing its name on any future piece of legislation for years to come.

This is a SDGOP Establishment bill to further establishment the liberals of the party as the power brokers of this state. It also restricts ballot access for Independents, which may be the only avenue for true conservatives as the SDGOP is Fabian (frog in hot water) Neo-Fascist left and the South Dakota Democrats are hard core revolutionary Neo-Marxist left.

SDGOP Establishment passed SB69 in order to reduce election year competition and maintain their Taxandspendican Party's tyranny

Here is an issue where I agree with Cory Heidelberger. He is pushing Governor Daugaard to veto SB69 with an open letter he posted at his web site. Excerpt:

 As written, Senate Bill 69 will likely be overturned by the courts. Specifically, Section 7 prohibits voters registered as members of recognized political parties from signing Independent petitions. No other state imposes such limits on voters’ right to nominate Independents to the general election ballot. Louisiana had such a law from 1918 to 1948, during which time no Independent candidate made the Louisiana ballot. Citing the Louisiana experience, the U.S. District Court of Arizona overturned a similar Arizona law in Campbell v. Hull (1999), finding, “there is no reason to believe that Arizona can prevent independents from seeking the support of registered Republicans and Democrats as long as those partisan voters have not already performed a nominating act.” The State of Arizona never appealed this decision.

The SDGOP Establishment see a real threat when their liberal candidates win primaries and conservatives decide they want another option by going to an Independent candidate. I am sure Cory could care less about that reason for opposing SB 69. But I give him credit for being right on this issue.

This is yet another action by the SDGOP Establishment that is leaving a bad taste in my mouth for the Republican Party. This is another example of the liberal agenda that fueled this year's SDGOP controlled legislative session. Former Senator Jerry Apa agrees:

The Republican super majority has shown that a majority corrupts and an absolute majority absolutely corrupts. The Republicans need to rebrand their party as the Taxandspendican Party.

[Emphasis mine and Hat Tip to Pat Powers]

SB69 is designed to add more power to that "super majority". But perhaps that huge road tax bill went too far and conservatives across South Dakota will wake up and see the true SDGOP.

Again, the Democrats should have been very happy with thel move to the left that the Fabian Republicans pulled this year. The Democrats whining is about moving South Dakota even further to the left and faster. Look for Democrat's teacher pay crisis to be used by the SDGOP Establishment as another excuse to raise taxes. And like the road taxes, most of the tax revenue will not go to the stated purpose. Most will end up in the pockets of the crony capitalists who fund the campaigns of liberal tax and spend Republicans.

Cory Heidelberger backs up my analysis

This morning I made this observation:

So what is the SDGOP establishment if it is not conservative and not progressive? Or does Cory really understand what the so-called progressive movement is about? Perhaps the SDGOP fits the progressive label better once Cory understands that he is too revolutionary to be considered part of the progressive movement. Cory's political agenda is what should be considered extreme, not Jensen's.

About an hour later, Cory puts up a post that includes this admission:

The Legislature did not do the whole job. The Legislature did not raise teacher pay $10,000 to compete with neighboring states; it left in place the status quo that will underpay teachers and worsen our teacher shortage. The Legislature did not tackle $240 million in road repair needs; it came up with a plan that addresses just over a third of those needs. The Legislature did not expand Medicaid to save lives and money; on that issue, legislators didn’t even shovel my single path.

Cory is not willing to let government grow into a totalitarian state gradually. He wants the government to completely take over now.

So what is the SDGOP Establishment if it is not conservative nor progressive?

Cory makes this conclusion after a discussion with Senator Phil Jensen:

After our conversation, Senator Jensen’s day only got worse. Over his opposition, the Senate passed increased taxes in the road bill and increased spending in the general appropriations bill. We progressives get little satisfaction from the South Dakota Legislature, but neither do members of the extreme right wing like Senator Jensen.

So what is the SDGOP establishment if it is not conservative and not progressive? Or does Cory really understand what the so-called progressive movement is about? Perhaps the SDGOP fits the progressive label better once Cory understands that he is too revolutionary to be considered part of the progressive movement. Cory's political agenda is what should be considered extreme, not Jensen's.

The destruction of America's and thereby South Dakota's Constitutional Republics is being done by a dialectical approach that pits Republicans against Democrats, or the right verses the left. In reality the political ideology of the Republicans is Neo-fascist and the Democrats is Neo-Marxist. The result will be a collectivist totalitarian state. We may not have that yet, but we are "progressing" toward it. Perhaps not as fast as Cory and his gang of New Age Theocrats would like.

Perhaps this helps explain why Democrats have not had much political success. The people don't like their collectivist plans. And the Republicans are moving the plan in much smaller steps so that the people don't see that their conservative coat is only a disguise. I have research that ties this to Fabian Socialism. More on that point to come.

More racism at Madville, now whites are SOWs

Cory bans my comments, but it lets this example of racist hatred by Porter Lansing stay on his web site:

The way to change ….. recognize, label and ridicule. Extremist Republican overreach CAN be mitigated with this centuries old technique. The days of the milquetoast liberal in South Dakota have waned. Join our “BILLY JACK LIBERAL” movement by exposing, consigning and deriding the selfish and arrogant among us. (PS … on “POLITICAL CORRECTNESS” – correct is correct and it matters little what THE SOW’s (selfish overpriviliged whites) say when attempting to deflect their personal bigotry.)