The voters in Colorado approved a constitutional measure called Colorado Amendment 64 in November 2012 to approve recreational use of marijuana. Colorado had previously approved medical marijuana use in the State. The Governor of Colorado signed it into the state constitution in December 2012 and the first stores opened this month. Governor Hickenlooper stated at the time, "This will be a complicated process, but we intend to follow through. That said, federal law still says marijuana is an illegal drug, so don't break out the Cheetos or Goldfish too quickly."
The problem with the legalization of marijuana is the legalization is not a coordinated effort between the Feds and the States. Marijuana use, possession and sale remain illegal under federal law. No matter how many states pass medical and recreational use of marijuana laws, it remains an unresolved conflict with federal law and yet the Justice Department remains silent on the issue.
Passing recreational marijuana laws seems to be the next step after jumping into the passing of medical marijuana use statewide. Passing recreational marijuana laws to stave off budget deficits or shortfalls in sales tax hardly seems the right way to create sources of revenue but that seems to be the motivation of state lawmakers. Kind of like the video lottery and legalization of gambling in States. Alcohol, gambling, drugs...potentially addicting behaviors being used to fund government coffers.
Pot makes you dumb in a different way than alcohol. Alcohol makes you dumb too but for a day or two at most unless you become addictive to alcohol which is a whole other problem. Pot makes you dumb for weeks and if you are a long time, consistent toker, you become dumb and dumber. The lingering effect and under the influence of marijuana is troublesome especially for police and employers. What is an acceptable level of "under the influence" for employers with Drug and Alcohol Policies and for Police who administer driving laws?
I am of the opinion that marijuana use for medical purposes may indeed have merit. But legalization for recreational use is a bit of a conundrum to me. Both seem to be the wave of the future. Decriminalization, making possession of a small amount for personal recreational use, is what is driving this major social change in State Legislatures across the country. I think we are in for court battles and challenges for years to come as we navigate this minefield of change to what is considered as part of the war on drugs at the federal level.
I know one thing for certain. The candidacy of Emmett Reistroffer for an at-large seat on the City Council will be interesting to watch over the next couple of months. I do not support changing city policy on this issue before state legislators weigh in on the issue. Based on the politics of this state, that will probably happen when hell freezes over.
Look at those lines of people outside the dispensaries in Colorado. Times are changing and I'm feeling old and slightly out of touch but I am willing to consider new ideas if we can put the horse before the cart or the toke before the flame hits it.
Showing posts with label State Legislature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label State Legislature. Show all posts
Thursday, January 9, 2014
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
When Saying No with No Plan Costs Us Money
It is unsettling to learn that over 14% of this state's population is covered under South Dakota's Medicaid program. That's 116,000 children, adults and disabled people. There are another estimated 48,000 people who would be added under the expanded eligibility as part of the federal health care law, slanged as ObamaCare. South Dakota's estimated 2011 population is 824,082.
Republican State Legislators can wring their hands over their hopes being dashed by the Supreme Court when it upheld President Obama's health care initiative. What the legislature needs to do is come up with solutions on how to deal with the poor and lower middle class workers in this state who have no means to access affordable health care or insurance in this state.
Uninsured Americans cost the American health care system an additional $49 billion. Governor Daugaard believes health care decisions should be left up to each state and he doesn't want to expand Medicaid because he doesn't believe the federal government has the ability to pay for it. He has also decided that SD should opt out of the expansion of Medicaid which was one of the biggest milestones of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The law previously required states to cover their poorest or lose federal funding to Medicaid (federal funding covers 90-100% of the costs) until the supreme court ruling on Obama Care. Now each state can decide whether or not they want to opt out of expanding coverage to their poorest with no penalty. The thing is, we all are impacted by this recalcitrant position of the governor.
Who does the Governor think pays for these expenses? These expenses are not free. All he is doing is cost shifting. That 14% plus population who needs coverage but can't because of the Governor's position will eventually end up in hospital emergency rooms. We all know that going to an emergency room is no way to treat illnesses that are not an emergency. It drives up costs and guess what, you and I are going to pay for it through increased premiums in our own health insurance coverages.
When you are in charge of finding solutions, as an elected official, you cannot say you are not going to do something. Because when you say that, you impact somebody else you represent. It shows you don't see the big picture and don't have a clue how to solve the problem.
Republican State Legislators can wring their hands over their hopes being dashed by the Supreme Court when it upheld President Obama's health care initiative. What the legislature needs to do is come up with solutions on how to deal with the poor and lower middle class workers in this state who have no means to access affordable health care or insurance in this state.
Uninsured Americans cost the American health care system an additional $49 billion. Governor Daugaard believes health care decisions should be left up to each state and he doesn't want to expand Medicaid because he doesn't believe the federal government has the ability to pay for it. He has also decided that SD should opt out of the expansion of Medicaid which was one of the biggest milestones of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
The law previously required states to cover their poorest or lose federal funding to Medicaid (federal funding covers 90-100% of the costs) until the supreme court ruling on Obama Care. Now each state can decide whether or not they want to opt out of expanding coverage to their poorest with no penalty. The thing is, we all are impacted by this recalcitrant position of the governor.
Who does the Governor think pays for these expenses? These expenses are not free. All he is doing is cost shifting. That 14% plus population who needs coverage but can't because of the Governor's position will eventually end up in hospital emergency rooms. We all know that going to an emergency room is no way to treat illnesses that are not an emergency. It drives up costs and guess what, you and I are going to pay for it through increased premiums in our own health insurance coverages.
When you are in charge of finding solutions, as an elected official, you cannot say you are not going to do something. Because when you say that, you impact somebody else you represent. It shows you don't see the big picture and don't have a clue how to solve the problem.
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Insulting SD Voters
Governor Daugaard's reaction to the defeated ballot issues is beyond insulting to SD voters. Here is what the Governor said on KELO-TV on November 7th:
"I think it showed a little voter fatigue on the ballot when you have that many measures, some with great complexity. It's bound to happen," Daugaard said.
Daugaard believes the ballots were long and issues too complex so by the time voters got to the back side of the ballot, they were in a hurry and the mood to vote "no."
"The voters don't have time to dig into and understand the facts that bare upon an informed decision and so when voters don't have that time then most are included to say, 'Well, I don't have time to dig into this and so I'm going to vote no," Daugaard said.
The state sales tax increase to send money to schools and medicaid programs was rejected by the voters. Governor Daugaard's education reform law was rejected by the voters. The economic incentive program requested to the legislature by Governor Daugaard was rejected by the voters.
These comments indicate the Governor is totally out of touch with reality when it comes to his constituents. The complete disregard for the intelligence of SD voters and their ability to understand the issues is mind boggling. Instead of insulting all those "ignorant" voters, maybe the Governor needs to take a more reflective attitude on why these measures failed by a margin of two to one.
Pure and simple, the voters did not agree with him or legislature on these issues and the voters said so in a resounding no. This Governor is obviously tone deaf to the voters in SD and that is a dangerous thing. His complete disregard for the voice of the voter is disturbing. His lack of being able to look inward to assess why the voters said no to these issues is disturbing. Sour grapes, pure and simple. Insult when you don't have a competent thought or valid self reflection on why something has happened.
Who does he think he is representing anyway? He is not in office for himself. He is in office to serve us, the voters. This is not a monarchy and he is not king. This is a democracy whereby the elected officials serve the general voting public not themselves or their particular ideology. Clearly, he has forgotten that by insulting SD voters and not taking responsibility as the state's leader for why these measures were voted down. They were voted down because the voters did not like them and did not agree with them, not because they didn't understand them or were uninformed.
"I think it showed a little voter fatigue on the ballot when you have that many measures, some with great complexity. It's bound to happen," Daugaard said.
Daugaard believes the ballots were long and issues too complex so by the time voters got to the back side of the ballot, they were in a hurry and the mood to vote "no."
"The voters don't have time to dig into and understand the facts that bare upon an informed decision and so when voters don't have that time then most are included to say, 'Well, I don't have time to dig into this and so I'm going to vote no," Daugaard said.
The state sales tax increase to send money to schools and medicaid programs was rejected by the voters. Governor Daugaard's education reform law was rejected by the voters. The economic incentive program requested to the legislature by Governor Daugaard was rejected by the voters.
These comments indicate the Governor is totally out of touch with reality when it comes to his constituents. The complete disregard for the intelligence of SD voters and their ability to understand the issues is mind boggling. Instead of insulting all those "ignorant" voters, maybe the Governor needs to take a more reflective attitude on why these measures failed by a margin of two to one.
Pure and simple, the voters did not agree with him or legislature on these issues and the voters said so in a resounding no. This Governor is obviously tone deaf to the voters in SD and that is a dangerous thing. His complete disregard for the voice of the voter is disturbing. His lack of being able to look inward to assess why the voters said no to these issues is disturbing. Sour grapes, pure and simple. Insult when you don't have a competent thought or valid self reflection on why something has happened.
Who does he think he is representing anyway? He is not in office for himself. He is in office to serve us, the voters. This is not a monarchy and he is not king. This is a democracy whereby the elected officials serve the general voting public not themselves or their particular ideology. Clearly, he has forgotten that by insulting SD voters and not taking responsibility as the state's leader for why these measures were voted down. They were voted down because the voters did not like them and did not agree with them, not because they didn't understand them or were uninformed.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
The Legislature and Public Employees
The South Dakota Legislature is not going to be any different than other Republican state legislatures in this country when it comes to attacking public employees. This state is a right-to-work state and has been for a long time. Unions don't have a foothold in this state except among public employees. Maybe that's because public employees have always been at the mercy of elected officials and historically have wages below a competitive private sector market. The legislature can get away with no raises for state employees because they are the largest employer in the state capital. Where else are all those people going to go work?
The employees working for the City of Sioux Falls did not organize until the late 70's and early 80's and organized because of certain employment practices. There were layoffs of general employees, and physical agility testing for firefighters that energized those public sector employees to petition to hold an election to be represented by a collective bargaining agreement.
Public employees in SD cannot strike. Public employees in SD do not have binding arbitration. I happen to agree with those two positions. I do not think it is in the public interest to allow public employees the right to strike. Nor do I think public employees should have the ability to go to binding arbitration in a labor dispute. An independent third party should not be able to obligate the taxpayers to any amount of money without the express approval of the elected body of the jurisdiction employing those public employees.
However, I do not have a problem with public employees having the right to unionize in SD. I have never been afraid of unions. I have always been of the mindset that private companies and yes, public sector employers usually get an organized effort to unionize when management does not treat their employees fairly or in good faith. Once a union gets into a workplace, it is very hard to decertify that union.
I have worked in a unionized setting as a management employee my entire professional career, both in the private sector and in the public sector. Did management and the unions always agree? No. Was it irritating at times to sit at the bargaining table and listen to what I believed were unreasonable demands. Yes, but there was a benefit to sitting at a bargaining table and discussing matters related to wages, hours and conditions of employment in good faith and there were many instances where we were able to find common ground. It is hard to find common ground when unilateral action is taken by an employer just because they can and employees have no ability to discuss issues relating to their employment conditions.
Let's be clear. In South Dakota, public employees do not have the right to negotiate their pension benefits. South Dakota law is clear on that subject. It is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. We are not like other states where pension benefits are a mandatory subject of bargaining. It is humorous that the legislature is proposing a new law that says the unions could still represent public employees, they just couldn't bargain for wages, hours, and benefits. What the heck is left to represent and bargain for?
The labor laws in this state still side with the employer. Where the two sides cannot come to an agreement, there is mediation conducted by the State. The public employer can still unilaterally implement a disputed labor contract. The labor laws are leaned towards the public employer.
To support taking the ability of public employees to sit down at the bargaining table in good faith to discuss issues and to negotiate for wages, hours and conditions of employment is simply not necessary in this state. All this proposed legislation is going to do is inflame and demean the very people who are for the majority dedicated public employees who work without notice and sometimes a non competitive wage to preserve the public safety and well being of it's citizens.
This proposed legislation is a waste of time in a state that has historically been hostile to a collective bargaining environment and has the laws on the books at the present time to prove it. Public employers still have the ability to say no and the unions in this state can't do anything about it. So, quite worrying about it by passing this unnecessary law. Another example of a legislature that can't see the forrest for the trees.
The employees working for the City of Sioux Falls did not organize until the late 70's and early 80's and organized because of certain employment practices. There were layoffs of general employees, and physical agility testing for firefighters that energized those public sector employees to petition to hold an election to be represented by a collective bargaining agreement.
Public employees in SD cannot strike. Public employees in SD do not have binding arbitration. I happen to agree with those two positions. I do not think it is in the public interest to allow public employees the right to strike. Nor do I think public employees should have the ability to go to binding arbitration in a labor dispute. An independent third party should not be able to obligate the taxpayers to any amount of money without the express approval of the elected body of the jurisdiction employing those public employees.
However, I do not have a problem with public employees having the right to unionize in SD. I have never been afraid of unions. I have always been of the mindset that private companies and yes, public sector employers usually get an organized effort to unionize when management does not treat their employees fairly or in good faith. Once a union gets into a workplace, it is very hard to decertify that union.
I have worked in a unionized setting as a management employee my entire professional career, both in the private sector and in the public sector. Did management and the unions always agree? No. Was it irritating at times to sit at the bargaining table and listen to what I believed were unreasonable demands. Yes, but there was a benefit to sitting at a bargaining table and discussing matters related to wages, hours and conditions of employment in good faith and there were many instances where we were able to find common ground. It is hard to find common ground when unilateral action is taken by an employer just because they can and employees have no ability to discuss issues relating to their employment conditions.
Let's be clear. In South Dakota, public employees do not have the right to negotiate their pension benefits. South Dakota law is clear on that subject. It is not a mandatory subject of bargaining. We are not like other states where pension benefits are a mandatory subject of bargaining. It is humorous that the legislature is proposing a new law that says the unions could still represent public employees, they just couldn't bargain for wages, hours, and benefits. What the heck is left to represent and bargain for?
The labor laws in this state still side with the employer. Where the two sides cannot come to an agreement, there is mediation conducted by the State. The public employer can still unilaterally implement a disputed labor contract. The labor laws are leaned towards the public employer.
To support taking the ability of public employees to sit down at the bargaining table in good faith to discuss issues and to negotiate for wages, hours and conditions of employment is simply not necessary in this state. All this proposed legislation is going to do is inflame and demean the very people who are for the majority dedicated public employees who work without notice and sometimes a non competitive wage to preserve the public safety and well being of it's citizens.
This proposed legislation is a waste of time in a state that has historically been hostile to a collective bargaining environment and has the laws on the books at the present time to prove it. Public employers still have the ability to say no and the unions in this state can't do anything about it. So, quite worrying about it by passing this unnecessary law. Another example of a legislature that can't see the forrest for the trees.
Sunday, January 1, 2012
Cellphone Use While Driving
It looks like the citizens of South Dakota will see a bill in the 2012 Legislature banning texting while driving and/or banning cellphone use while driving. I have to admit that when texting first became available, I texted while driving. I do not text while driving anymore and haven't for quite a long time. I have scared myself silly too many times to continue to do it.
I do not support the whole cellphone use ban, however. I know that probably sounds like a wishy washy stance that doesn't make sense, but at least when a person is talking on their phone, their eyes are not down looking at their phone. I have hands link free system tied to bluetooth in my van that makes it pretty darn easy to answer the cellphone if it rings. The button to answer it is right on the steering wheel. My eyes stay on the road and my hands are on the steering wheel.
The article in the ARGUS LEADER was interesting and in-depth in its coverage of the possibility of a cellphone ban in the Legislature this year. Both Sheriff Milstead and Police Chief Barthel make a lot sense regarding this issue. I would think law enforcement professionals should weigh in heavily on the issue when it comes before the legislature and they should be listened to as the experts. The careless driving statute covers it and enforcing such a law is nigh onto impossible. However, clearer heads have not been the norm with legislators in Pierre.
If the legislators in Pierre want to ban cellphone use, then they should also include banning such activities such as turning your head to talk to your child or other person in the car, putting in a CD, changing the radio station, eating food in the car, putting on your lipstick, blowing your nose, sneezing where you momentarily shut your eyes, drinking coffee or pop, or looking at the person in the car next to you picking his nose. Really, how ridiculous a list do you want to make it?
From a state which has always been about personal freedoms, this is a curious stance. But then why should it surprise anyone considering what the legislature did about the abortion issue last year which will end up costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.
It will be interesting to see what develops regarding this topic in the 2012 Legislature. I say no to legislation on this issue. I agree with the Sheriff and the Police Chief. Why create a law you can't enforce when there is already a law on the books to cover it?
I do not support the whole cellphone use ban, however. I know that probably sounds like a wishy washy stance that doesn't make sense, but at least when a person is talking on their phone, their eyes are not down looking at their phone. I have hands link free system tied to bluetooth in my van that makes it pretty darn easy to answer the cellphone if it rings. The button to answer it is right on the steering wheel. My eyes stay on the road and my hands are on the steering wheel.
The article in the ARGUS LEADER was interesting and in-depth in its coverage of the possibility of a cellphone ban in the Legislature this year. Both Sheriff Milstead and Police Chief Barthel make a lot sense regarding this issue. I would think law enforcement professionals should weigh in heavily on the issue when it comes before the legislature and they should be listened to as the experts. The careless driving statute covers it and enforcing such a law is nigh onto impossible. However, clearer heads have not been the norm with legislators in Pierre.
If the legislators in Pierre want to ban cellphone use, then they should also include banning such activities such as turning your head to talk to your child or other person in the car, putting in a CD, changing the radio station, eating food in the car, putting on your lipstick, blowing your nose, sneezing where you momentarily shut your eyes, drinking coffee or pop, or looking at the person in the car next to you picking his nose. Really, how ridiculous a list do you want to make it?
From a state which has always been about personal freedoms, this is a curious stance. But then why should it surprise anyone considering what the legislature did about the abortion issue last year which will end up costing the taxpayers millions of dollars.
It will be interesting to see what develops regarding this topic in the 2012 Legislature. I say no to legislation on this issue. I agree with the Sheriff and the Police Chief. Why create a law you can't enforce when there is already a law on the books to cover it?
Saturday, April 23, 2011
Dim Lighting in the State Legislature
The Legislature's Executive Board chairman Rep. Charles Turbiville, R-Deadwood, has requested that the new Corrections Secretary come before the board to make a presentation on the prison needs. A day late and dollar short considering the legislature cut the corrections budget by $8.4 million, or 8 percent, for fiscal year 2012 to help eliminate the state's $127 million structural deficit. The state also had to fill a hole left by $8 million in federal stimulus money that made up this year's budget.
The first response to the tragedy at the state penitentiary should be a review of procedures. From an outsider, the internal procedures do not make sense and now a corrections officer lost his life. When something bad happens, the first reaction is to throw money at it. Do the procedures review first. Then look at the budget.
These people put their lives on the line everyday and they get paid ridiculously low wages. Welcome to the world of state government employment where state workers are devalued each year by the Legislature. A state worker lost his life. The people who oversee prisons and the managers who run the prison need to get their act together. Their performance is left wanting and the Johnson family paid the price.
Oh, and by the way, the South Dakota Legislature's light is not shining too brightly either.
The first response to the tragedy at the state penitentiary should be a review of procedures. From an outsider, the internal procedures do not make sense and now a corrections officer lost his life. When something bad happens, the first reaction is to throw money at it. Do the procedures review first. Then look at the budget.
These people put their lives on the line everyday and they get paid ridiculously low wages. Welcome to the world of state government employment where state workers are devalued each year by the Legislature. A state worker lost his life. The people who oversee prisons and the managers who run the prison need to get their act together. Their performance is left wanting and the Johnson family paid the price.
Oh, and by the way, the South Dakota Legislature's light is not shining too brightly either.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
An Embarrassing Legislature
Just when I think I have heard the craziest thing coming out of the SD Legislature, I find something that tops the list
HB 1171: provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain crimes.
Presented by: Representative Phil Jensen
Proponents: Rita Houglum, Eagle Forum
Dale Bartscher, Family Heritage Alliance
Cindy Flakoll, Concerned Women For America
Zach Lautenschlager, Campaign for Liberty
MOTION: AMEND HB 1171
1171ra
On the printed bill, delete everything after the enacting clause and insert:
Moved by: Tornow
Second by: Gosch
Action: Prevailed by voice vote.
MOTION: DO PASS HB 1171 AS AMENDED
Moved by: Gosch
Second by: Turbiville
Action: Prevailed by roll call vote. (9-3-1-0)
Voting Yes: Boomgarden, Hansen (Jon), Kopp, Nelson (Stace), Russell, Tornow, Turbiville, Gosch, Hunt
Voting No: Feinstein, Gibson, Killer
Excused: Abdallah
MOTION: AMEND TITLE OF HB 1171
Moved by: Turbiville
Take a look at an article written about this bill. This article has gone viral on Facebook. South Dakota is being ridiculed because of these people. Laws to mandate gun ownership, laws about restricting abortion rights. South Dakota has voted on the abortion issue. Obviously these people think they don't need to pay attention to what the voters have said. They are in the legislature to push their own personal agenda, period.
Who are the people who keep voting these lunatics to public office. People need to stop voting for a person they know nothing about just because they have an "R" behind their name on the ballot. While we are at it, we need to stop this practice of electing the same people over and over again while they switch between the House and the Senate. I swear, once you get elected, people in this state will forever vote for you just because they recognize your name.
It is an embarrassing legislature, making South Dakota look like a bunch of lunatics. The State has budget problems and all these fringe right wing people want to do is push their own agenda. It is a sad commentary on the state of our State. It's embarrassing that it got out of committee. Let's hope there is still rational thought when it gets to a floor vote. Not everyone there is a nut case, right?
HB 1171: provide that the use of force by a pregnant woman for the protection of her unborn child is an affirmative defense to prosecutions for certain crimes.
Presented by: Representative Phil Jensen
Proponents: Rita Houglum, Eagle Forum
Dale Bartscher, Family Heritage Alliance
Cindy Flakoll, Concerned Women For America
Zach Lautenschlager, Campaign for Liberty
MOTION: AMEND HB 1171
1171ra
On the printed bill, delete everything after the enacting clause and insert:
" Section 1. That § 22-16-34 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished. "
22-16-34. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person while resisting any attempt to murder such person, or to harm the unborn child of such person in a manner and to a degree likely to result in the death of the unborn child, or to commit any felony upon him or her, or upon or in any dwelling house in which such person is.
Section 2. That § 22-16-35 be amended to read as follows:
22-16-35. Homicide is justifiable if committed by any person in the lawful defense of such person, or of his or her husband, wife, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant, or the unborn child of any such enumerated person, if there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony, or to do some great personal injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished. "
Moved by: Tornow
Second by: Gosch
Action: Prevailed by voice vote.
MOTION: DO PASS HB 1171 AS AMENDED
Moved by: Gosch
Second by: Turbiville
Action: Prevailed by roll call vote. (9-3-1-0)
Voting Yes: Boomgarden, Hansen (Jon), Kopp, Nelson (Stace), Russell, Tornow, Turbiville, Gosch, Hunt
Voting No: Feinstein, Gibson, Killer
Excused: Abdallah
MOTION: AMEND TITLE OF HB 1171
1171rta
On page 1, line 1, of the printed bill, delete everything after "to" and insert "expand the definition of justifiable homicide to provide for the protection of certain unborn children.".
On page 1, delete lines 2 and 3.
Moved by: Turbiville
Take a look at an article written about this bill. This article has gone viral on Facebook. South Dakota is being ridiculed because of these people. Laws to mandate gun ownership, laws about restricting abortion rights. South Dakota has voted on the abortion issue. Obviously these people think they don't need to pay attention to what the voters have said. They are in the legislature to push their own personal agenda, period.
Who are the people who keep voting these lunatics to public office. People need to stop voting for a person they know nothing about just because they have an "R" behind their name on the ballot. While we are at it, we need to stop this practice of electing the same people over and over again while they switch between the House and the Senate. I swear, once you get elected, people in this state will forever vote for you just because they recognize your name.
It is an embarrassing legislature, making South Dakota look like a bunch of lunatics. The State has budget problems and all these fringe right wing people want to do is push their own agenda. It is a sad commentary on the state of our State. It's embarrassing that it got out of committee. Let's hope there is still rational thought when it gets to a floor vote. Not everyone there is a nut case, right?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)