The rationale for this is to be more “democratic”.   Humbug!

There were, and are sound reasons NOT to run our national system as a democracy.  I noted comments earlier on this from Madville Times, as well as on SD Politics, but was distracted from commenting byvarious  meteorological and mechanical events.  It is NOT fun to work on machines without a heated environment when the weather is what the weather was, but I digress.

My own feeling is that this sort of thing is not particularly of benefit.  The constitutional system was designed to be a non-democratic federal republic.  The stake-holders were the states, as well as the people.  The states had their place at the federal table by selecting the senators in the state legislators. (Personally, I think the 17th Amendment is well worth repealing, not that I expect to ever see it happen.)   The people had their input via the directly elected representatives.  The electoral college was a scheme to prevent the more populous states from automatically running rough-shod over the smaller states in the selection of the president.

The most frequently heard complaint about the current electoral college is that it can allow a failure in the Divine Commandment of Vox Populi, Vox Deus, as occurred most recently in 1980, and in a few cases before.  So what?  We survived the experience in good order.  The last time I checked last November the republic was still functional!

I have real trouble seeing how a popularization of the presidential vote can be of any benefit to small states.  I note that Cory cites an example of enabling concentration of funds in the large cities as being a possible GOP advantage, but frankly I don’t see it.  It doesn’t matter HOW much the GOP spends in L.A., Boston, New York, ‘Frisco, etc….they are probably not going to do very well, at least in the inner cities.  (The last time I visited the old home town of St. Louis, 24 of 28 city aldermen were of the Donkey persuasion.)  What would be more likely to happen with a popular vote scheme would be for the Donks to ignore the core cities, and rural areas, and pump THEIR funds into the suburbs to swing enough votes to make a difference.  The GOP would of necessity be forced into the same pattern to avoid being totally swamped.  In both cases, places like ND, SD, WY, MT, etc. would become virtually invisible in presidential elections if the prize automatically went to the pop-vote winner, which could be swung relatively easily by the larger urban areas.  (Farm vote?  We don’t need no steenkin’ farm vote!)

And the problem with that is…?  What is the guarantee to prevent a “democratic” majority for selecting an individual or party with a dedication to running rough over a minority’s interests, up to and including their right to do things like worship, or even live, to cite a couple of commonly denied things.  It behooves one who genuflects before the altar of democracy to recall that such luminaries of humanitarian civilization as Mussolini, Hitler, Ahmadinejad, or even Slobodan Milosevich were all elected!  Also, the inhabitants of the Gaza Strip more recently selected the wanna-be genocidalists of Hamas as their favored rulers.  But hey, that’s all OK if it’s “democratic”, right?

Wrong!  That’s why the designers of our republic’s constitution wisely (IMHO) hobbled the free-exercise of democracy.

(By the way, with the news as it’s been lately, it might be worth recalling just why they denied the vote to the District of Columbia.  It’s the same reason that D.C.’s street plot had all those circles with radiating streets:  cannon strategically placed could easily sweep the streets of rioters! (Look up the effects of the Roman and Byzantine mobs on their imperial politics.)

With a number of tax increase proposals on the table up at Pierre, one wonders whether they actually paid attention to the most notable trend in the last election: the widespread feeling that government at most levels is all too willing to meet any actual or perceived need and/or shortage with a tax increase to meet the self-defined necessity.

The Chief has a budget of his own. When there seems to be a limitation on the availability of disposable income, something’s got to change. Inevitably, what changes is the elimination of desired spending (since I don’t own a printing press like the Federal Reserve does, nor do I have the ability to arbitrarily raise income by a legislative action.

As a result, any number of additional needs, including (but not limited to) a new pickup, several fine firearms of various calibers, some much-needed improvement in the technical capabilities of my HAM radio station installation, just to name a few things. Unfortunately, the income to acquire these wonderful things doesn’t seem to be there, due to the circumstances and vicissitudes of life, so priorities come into play, and such mundane items as food, propane, electricity for example trump the new truck, etc. C’est la vie.

Far too long, the legislative branches of government at all levels have grown accustomed to the idea that the needs of the government deserve a priority in all things that they, in their infinite wisdom deem to be important (certainly things that are more important than the insignificant desires of the citizenry to presume to manage their own money. This attitude has pretty much directly led to the unspeakably obscene federal deficits and debt, as well as the near (and impending) bankruptcy of some state and local governments.

Fortunately, South Dakota is not in that sort of position yet. We have been blessed to have been spared the worst effects of the current, and, despite D.C. cheerleader propaganda to the contrary, continuing economic distress. With the national economic reality catching up to the state, the revenue stream to Pierre is down, and the legislature starts immediately moves to keep the budget in line by raising taxes, rather than cutting spending to keep a budgetary balance.

This is not to deny that budget cuts, deferred spending, or even (shudder) cancellation of wanted spending are pleasant, but when needs must, the devil drives.

South Dakota finds itself with two points of view regarding the prioritizations involved in government finance, and the underlying assumptions that often are present: like the one that assumes that the current structure and composition of governmental agencies of all types is absolutely essential to the continued existence of the state. It MUST be essential, right? Otherwise past legislatures would have never set them up the way they are, right? So shut up and smile while you pay your taxes!

Any honest observer of the last election cycle HAS to note the reaction to the assumption that government (at all levels) must continue to grow, can never be cut, and is morally entitled by legislative fiat to seize however much of the citizens’ wealth it deems necessary to accomplish their aims. In the current SD setting, there are apparently is a financial dichotomy forming between those in the legislature and elsewhere who seek to continue (to some extent at leat) spending as usual, and on the other hand the Governor.

Firstly, IT DOESN’T MATTER HOW GOOD THE STATE’S PROGRAMS, AGENCIES, ETC. (including Education at all levels) ARE…if the money isn’t there, it isn’t there, and can’t be spent. If there is a contingency fund (which there is), it should be left for some emergency need…and shouldn’t be used just to kick the legislative ball down the road for one more year…with the problem only postponed. Sort of like a sinner’s prayer: “Help me Lord to turn away from my sins, but not quite yet.” The stable, and more realistic solution is that of the governor, as reported:
Daugaard: We don’t have any money to give

Gov. Dennis Daugaard defended his proposed budget in a tour of South Dakota communities last week, saying he slashed expenses for every department because the state “can’t give money we don’t have.”

Daugaard sat down with the Enterprise last week prior to giving a speech in Brookings. The governor described in detail his plan to cover an estimated $127 million structural deficit in one year with a proposed 10 percent spending reduction throughout state government.

His budget proposal includes cuts in state aid to school districts and reimbursements to those who provide services to Medicaid patients, both of which would have a significant impact in Moody County [and elsewhere]

Daugaard says he won’t raise taxes and is opposed to using reserves for operating expenses. He’s also pledged to veto any budget this year that doesn’t eliminate the deficit.

On the other hand, legislators are talking about (so far) nine tax increase measures. Even temporary increases are problematic, since a later simple act all too often makes them permanent. With the declines in disposable income than many in the state are experiencing from inflation (check your HyVee receipts, and gasoline costs for examples), and increasing taxes (at all levels), it shouldn’t be too much to expect that the legislature would get the picture, and realize that it’s not time to be raising taxes to continue currently unaffordable spending.

“Remember that a government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything that you have. — Barry Goldwater

Once upon a time, the South was known as the “Solid South” for the Donkey Party and “yellow-dog Democrats” kept it that way. (The name came from a proudly stated determination that they would vote for a yellow dog, if it was on the Democratic ballot.)

Times have changed, and this report on the current situation shows a real similarity between what’s happening in the south and the current condition of party politics in SOUTH Dakota.

For Democrats in the South, the most ominous part of a disastrous year may not be what happened on Election Day but what has happened in the weeks since. After suffering a historic rout — in which nearly every white Deep South Democrat in the U.S. House was defeated and Republicans took over or gained seats in legislatures across the region — the party’s ranks in Dixie have thinned even further.

THe gory details of what’s happening in Dixie have some resemblance to events in SD:

In Georgia, Louisiana and Alabama, Democratic state legislators have become Republicans, concluding that there is no future in the party that once dominated the so-called Solid South.

Hmmm. Nygaard’s jump in the SD Senate comes readily to mind.

The realignment in the South has resulted in more similarity to SD – with the GOP in control of both houses of the legislatures…in many cases for the first time since the post-Civil War reconstruction ended in the 1870’s.

The losses and party switching, one former Southern Democratic governor noted, “leave us with little bench for upcoming and future elections. There’s little reason to be optimistic in my region,…We can opportunistically pick up statewides every now and then, but building a sustainable party program isn’t in the cards.

Looks like the situation of the SD Donkeys at this point. While the benefits of a vigorous “loyal opposition” certainly are worth talking about…there is no entitlement for any party to hold power, win elections, etc. At some point, a pattern of overwhelming defeat HAS to be a big clue that there is a lack of situational awareness, and that there is a major disconnect between the afflicted party and the voters.

If any party continues to advocate and stand for policies and principles that the sovereign voters decide they want no part of, then what else could be expected than a pattern of electoral defeat and political stagnation. In the here and now, as long as the Democratic Party continues, like a stubborn donkey to adhere to the failed liberal-progressive paradigm, they will continue their slide, and IMHO, will deserve nothing more.

Meanwhile, if the Republicans assume they now have a license to play “politics as usual” and turn away from principles, they can easily end up in the same political dust-bin as the Democrats. Time will tell.

South Dakota Democrat switches to GOP after being elected to Senate

The already large number of Republicans in the South Dakota Legislature got a little larger today with the announcement by Sen-elect Eldon Nygaard that he would be switching his party affiliation to Republican just weeks after being elected into the Senate as a Democrat.

Nygaard, who represents District 17 covering Clay and Turner counties, said in a statement he made the move because his philosophy regarding government’s role in society is more in line with the Republican Party.

That being said, Nygaard is certainly free to do whatever he thinks is right regarding party affiliation…just as say, ex-US Senator Spector in Pennsylvania, or in the past, the party change of Scott Heidepriem did. It’s also understandable that District 17 Democrats might feel a bit ruffled about it all. C’est la vie.

This additional evidence of the political dominance of the GOP in South Dakota politics, gives a heavier burden to the Elephant herd, to insure that the party doesn’t fall into the trap of the 90’s GOP Congresses that decided that now that they were in charge, they could do the same kinds of crap that the Donkey party does, and get away with it. (For that matter, this is the same caveat that the new House of Representatives needs to keep in mind…right, Kristi?)

The Chief seriously wonders where the SD Democrats go from here to regain some life…just as an intellectual exercise, mind you, not a shift in the vote.
We can take the SDGOP’s party dominance isn’t based on the type of machine politics and corruption that much of the urban Democratic dominance is rooted in elsewhere in the country. Also, the very real contest between SHS and Noem shows that sizable numbers of registered SD GOP-ers are willing and able to swing across party lines if the spirit so moves them. That thought, if nothing else, should help the GOP keep a good sense of political situational awareness.

This is really a very badly screwed up system…under it’s application in Moody County, some very high productivity land in the southern part of the county had their assessments reduced, while land in the NW part of the county, qualitatively rated as mediocre based both on soil types as well as actual production figures had increases in the range of +50%. Result overall: our smallish county ended up with the highest increased assessment under the new order.

We had the opportunity to visit with Sen. Peterson (D), as well as Sen. Knudsen (R) who were involved in drafting the bill. While both agreed that the implementation in our county was not at all what they thought was in the law, neither could offer any resolution beyond the normal appeal process through the Township Board and thence to the Board of Assessment (County Councilors with a different “hat”.) Beyond that, nothing. It WAS amusing to see my wife literally back Knudsen into a corner as he tried to escape after one of the Gov. candidate forums at Brookings, but it didn’t help any with the problem.

As far as the appeal process…after presenting eleven years of actual and exact production figures for each field, both the township and county were in agreement about the quality and accuracy of our records…and made a minor tweak to the assessment, and said, “Have a nice day!”

As far as the County Treasurer was concerned, she stated to us that her hands were tied by the new law…and that she HAD to make the 55% increase in assessment in one year, which directly contradicted the STATED intent of Peterson, Knudsen, and company in the new law.

So, where does that leave things? Hopefully not where Sen. Rhoden wants them to be. Time will tell…meanwhile we figuratively batten down the hatches and await the onslaught of next years tax bill based on the new assessment. It’s not a joyful prospect.

Drudge Header: SDAkota’s rising star wins…
…which links to this article:
Wave carries Kristi Noem
Anger over economy helps Republican oust incumbent Stephanie Herseth Sandlin

Republican challenger Kristi Noem, riding a wave of voter discontent with President Obama’s administration, defeated Democrat U.S. Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in Tuesday’s election.

With all precincts reporting results, Noem won by a margin of 48.1 percent to 45.9 percent. Shortly after midnight, Noem declared victory, saying “I will do my very best to represent every single South Dakotan.”

“Now make no mistake,” Noem told supporters. “I think we need a strong dose of fiscal conservatism in Washington, D.C.”

You get the picture…