The MSM’s FEAR of the Advertising Tax

by

The MSM pretty much sucks all over our country. I often find myself watching BBC news in the middle of the night just so I know what’s going on in the world (and in our country). Ever wonder why 80% of Europeans support Obama over McCain? Because they are INFORMED! Don’t get me wrong, Obama ain’t no savior but he’s a Hell of a lot smarter then Mr. 890th or something in their graduating class compared to Obama’s Editor of the Harvard Law Review under his belt.
Now to my point. The media, especially our local jokalists pander to advertisers, whenever they have a chance, and if it seems like they are endorsing a position that is not in line with those advertisers they squash the speculation. It’s been called advertorial writing. Disguising advertising as news.

Some magazines don’t have a problem admitting that’s what they are, for example ETC. and SF Woman. Their main objective is to kiss ass and sell advertising. Duh. But what about our local TV news and our only daily newspaper? Isn’t the Fourth Estate supposed to be watching out for us? The citizens? To often they are looking out for their bottom line.
My involvement with the petition drive for the sales tax decrease has reared the Sioux Falls MSM’s ugly head. It all started when I emailed KELO-TV shortly after they ran an episode of Inside Keloland about the sales tax increase. The program featured only one opponent, Councilor Staggers, and no citizens. I told the news director that was wrong. Nothing happened. Recently I posted some stuff on my KELO political blog link about the petition drive. KELO deleted the posts saying I can’t post that stuff because I was directly involved and it makes it look like KELO is endorsing my endeavor.

Bologna.

First off it says right at the top of the political blog page “The views and opinions expressed on this page are strictly those of the blog author. “ on top of that, I have noticed other contributors to the page on both sides of the aisle have consistently promoted their political agendas. They haven’t been deleted.
What do I think the reason KELO-TV deleted my posts and why our daily rag endorsed the sales tax increase?
1) I’m sure someone cried to the station and paper, I’m sure it was an advertiser or a developer, or some other corporate welfare recipient in our town that takes our tax dollars in the form of handouts and tax incentives.
2) The media loves sales taxes because it keeps them from paying taxes on advertising. See, advertising isn’t taxed in South Dakota, because if it was, it would cut into how much profit they could make from an advertiser on a budget. The Fourth Estate doesn’t have a problem with old ladies on fixed incomes paying taxes on food to help pave our streets, build Jr. football fields and putting historically correct million dollar windows in the Pavilion, just as long as it is not coming out of their bottom line.
The MSM in Sioux Falls supports growth, just as long as they don’t have to pay for it. F’ing hypocrites.

What does L & C water system have to do w/Sales Tax? NOTHING!

by

Mayor Munson seems to be up in arms over the sales tax decrease initiative (Argus Leader), which is no surprise, well it kinda is. It will have NO EFFECT on his budget and will have to be dealt with by the next mayor and council. By the time this takes effect, there will be at least 3 to 5 new councilors and a new mayor. Secondly Munson seems to be spinning the story,

Munson bristled at accusations that he hasn’t overseen responsible growth during his time at the helm, pointing to major street construction projects on 57th and 26th streets as recent examples.

“We planned Lewis & Clark for growth,” he said, referring to the water project. “Maybe under their scenario we don’t need Lewis & Clark. I think that’s crazy.”

First off, this decrease won’t take ANY money away from street construction (I’ll get to that later) and secondly Lewis & Clark is being paid by a loan the city took out that is being paid off from increased water rates, not sales tax. We also may receive money from the Federal Government (don’t hold your breath though, it seems neither presidential candidate is too interested in that). Like Rudy Guilliani and 9/11 everytime someone wants to cut the budget, Dave brings up Lewis & Clark. Cut the bull Dave.

As for street construction money being taken away, this is also a myth;

Officials warn that Sioux Falls will continue to lag on new road construction if the tax doesn’t go to a full cent. That, in turn, would hurt economic growth at a time when the national economy already is in precarious shape.Officials warn that Sioux Falls will continue to lag on new road construction if the tax doesn’t go to a full cent. That, in turn, would hurt economic growth at a time when the national economy already is in precarious shape.

It is merely $5 million dollars that will have to be cut from the Capital Improvement Budget (Basically a slush fund that pays for all the goodies (wants) in our city). In fact Munson mentions a great cut in the article.

Munson pointed out that McKennan Park next year is budgeted to receive $615,800 for upgrades.

Huh?! They just received upgrades this year already. Another example of wasteful spending.

And it seems councilor Costello went over to the dark side,

“They are fully within their rights to do what they are doing,” Costello added. “I personally would not sign that petition.”

Why wouldn’t you sign it Pat? I sign petitions all the time with stuff I don’t agree with. I signed the Initiative 11 petition, I signed Nader’s and Bob Barr’s petition to be on the ballot in South Dakota. I think it’s good to let the citizens decide. This is what a democracy is about. Do we want to let citizens decide on what they want to spend $5 million dollars on, or do we want 4 councilors, developers, special interests and a mayor decide?

I think we know the answer to that question.

New SF Chamber Chair; Citizen advocates are ‘Negative’

by

In the Sioux Falls’ Chamber of Commerce News published in the Argus Leader, the new Chamber Chair Dave Fleck had this to say about citizen advocates and half the city council;

“More recently, the Sioux Falls City Council* voted for additional funding sources for the construction of arterial streets and other infrastructure projects. Instead of focusing on negativity, the council had a vision of where Sioux Falls could be and voted for our future.”

*(Only four councilors voted for the increase with the mayor breaking the tie, this equals 50% of the council, not a mandate or a majority).

This kind of divisive language is no surprise from a Chamber member. Over the weekend it was reported that the US Chamber of Commerce was one of the biggest supporters of the Wallstreet bailout, they are also the largest lobbyist in Washington, spending over $40 million dollars last year in lobbying congress. They like it when taxpayer’s give them money for projects like roads. Mr. Fleck seems to think that it is NEGATIVE for government to look out for citizens first. The amendment that councilor Costello offered to make cuts to the budget instead of raising taxes was very POSITIVE because he was saying we can build these roads without raising taxes. Talk about optimism.

Mr. Fleck goes further with his citenzry attack;

“We need to be willing to risk short-term controversy for long-term benefits.”

There is nothing negative or controversial about asking our elected officials to listen to people who pay their wages and fund this city’s government. In fact I can’t think of anything more negative then apathy.