Uncategorized

Intitiated Measure 10; What the party fools aren’t telling you.

l3wis July 1, 2008 2Comments

 I decided to look at Initiated Measure #10 to see what all the hoopla is about. I had read it about a month ago and found nothing in it that I disagree with. So I decided to take a second look to see if I was missing something, since both parties oppose it. Which doesn’t surprise me. Like I have said in the past, parties oppose open government laws because they don’t want the public to know where their campaigns get money. Read the Measure here, with explanations.

http://cleanupsd.com/read-the-sd-open-and-clean-government-act/

My analysis:

I agree with Section 1. It should be against the law to use taxpayer’s money to lobby. We have seen this in the past with the city of Sioux Falls hiring lobbyists.

I agree with Section 2. This basically charges you with a crime if you violate Section 1. Makes sense, because then their is accountability.

I think Section 3 is really unnecessary because those rights are already granted to an elected official under the First Amendment. But it does not take away anything from the measure by keeping it in there.

I strongly agree with Section 4. It basically says your tax dollars cannot be used to buy supposed ‘neutral’ studies that support one position or another. It is up to voters to do their own research when it comes to candidates and ballot issues.

Section 5 is wishy-washy. On one hand I agree with limiting golden parachute jobs, but I also wonder if this will hamper the right for someone to provide for themselves? I think this section needs more clarification.

I strongly agree with Section 6. This has been going on way to long. Awarding contracts to campaign contributors will become illegal under Section 6.

Section 7 goes into more detail about Section 6 and reiterates it. These two sections should have been combined.

Section 8 allows citizens to file complaints in court about violators of Section 7 if state attorney’s choose to ignore complaints. This is good, because it gives citizens the power to hold government officials accountable when state employees fail us.

Section 9 is long overdue. Governor Rounds has been promising a state contract website for a longtime, and he will NEVER deliver it on his own, he has too much at stake to do so. I have also believed this section of  the measure should be on the ballot by itself. As a Pierre insider told me once, “If the citizens of South Dakota knew the enormous waste state contracts are, they would overthrow the government in Pierre.”

Section 10 clarifies what state contracts will apply to Section 9.

I think this measure is long overdue, and I can see why state Republicans and Democrats oppose the measure, it’s all about campaign contributions, favors and PAC money, that’s all it seems they live for these days. If we publicly funded campaigns in the state, there would be no need for this measure, but that’s a whole other debate in itself.

I’m no lawyer, but it seems to me this measure is very solid and constitutional. Of course anyone can challenge it in court if it becomes law, BUT I wonder if any politicians would want to go through that embarrassment? It’s time we tell politicians they work for us, not lobbyists or contractors.

The voting starts today!

l3wis July 1, 2008 17Comments

 

These are the signs I submitted to the UnConvention project. Voting is up and running. They will print the top 50 winners. I think there is about 300 entries so far. The signs will be put around the Republican National Convention in MPLS. You can vote for as many as you want, just not more than once. Go vote!

Sanford Falls may come to fruition

l3wis June 30, 2008 2Comments

The Lakota nation might approve of the name change since the word SIOUX means cutthroat in their language, but I‘m not sure if we want to be named after a hospital. As Egg mentions below in the Gargoyle Leader article, Sanford WANTS to give the city some property which leaves me with a lot more questions then answers. Is this gift Sanford’s version of the Trojan Horse?

Questions that need to be answered first are:

– When did the city council approve accepting the donation? Seems the planning was going on long before public announcement.

– Why would Sanford buy $3 million in land only to give it away a year later? Seems suspicious.

– Why give the land to the city since most of what is going to be built Sanford will pay for and operate themselves? Are they trying to skirt property taxes?

– Why does the city need more football fields? Can Jr. Football use school district fields we already own and maintain?

– Can this project just be privately funded by Sanford without the city being responsible for the property? Seems they are using this as a marketing opportunity while taxpayers will have to kick in some and city will lose property tax revenue.

– How did Lloyd get involved with this project? How will he profit from the city coffers once again?

What concerns me the most about spending this money and losing the property tax revenue is that while our retail tax revenue has doubled since 1998 our city debt has grown from $90 million in 2002 to $280 million today. So ask yourself, if our tax revenue has grown that much wouldn’t our debt be shrinking? Considering that only approximately 30,000 people have moved here since 1998? It’s simple math really. We are spending way too much money on WANTS and getting behind on NEEDS. It’s time to dock this drunken sailor’s ship.

Guy Smylie Post of the Day

l3wis June 30, 2008 3Comments

I’m going to start something new on SouthDacola. The Guy Smylie Post of the day, it will have nothing to do with anything. Apparently that is what Smylie likes, so we will give it to him. This is a picture I took this morning by Paisley Park (not the one Prince records albums at). I finally got a picture of a deer. Now if I can just find that wild turkey again.