Herseth Sandlin is in the fight of her political career. You have to ask why a Democrat such as herself could have won three terms in the House when she won those elections in such a "red" state. When she was re-elected to her third full term in the U.S. House of Representatives, she received more than 250,000 votes, more than 67% of votes cast. Republicans outnumber Democrats in this state so there had to be alot of Republicans who voted for her in past elections.
There are probably many reasons she got the votes. She comes from a prominent political family in this State. She is also a moderate Democrat and has proven time and again that she votes for what is good for South Dakota, not along party lines. She is the Co-Chair for the Administration of the Blue Dog Coalition, which is a group of moderate Democrats committed to fiscal discipline and strong national security.
What has happened since her last election, you might ask? Well, for one thing, the country has its first African American President and he happens to be a Democrat. The whispers are that he is a Muslim too and wasn't even born in the United States. Add to that the Palin factor and those paranoid Tea Partiers and you have the recipe for what is happening to incumbent Democrats in this election cycle.Based on Noem and her political ads, Herseth Sandlin is this liberal Democrat that is in the pocket of House Speaker Pelosi.
It pains me to think that people are so blind to just plain old common sense. Throw out the incumbents, no matter what they stand for seems to be the mantra for this election. Well, why not just put plugs in your ears and throw a bag over your head and throw a dart at a big board and take your chances. That is the same as just blindly throwing out the incumbents because they are incumbents.
The debate between Noem and Herseth Sandlin and that other guy was painful to watch. As one of my friends said, no matter how hard Herseth Sandlin tried to brush off the rantings and accusations of Noem, she just couldn't get it off her person.
It is going to be a sad day for South Dakota if Noem wins election. She is going to cut the deficit and repeal the Health Bill. I doubt it. What she will do is continue to feed the partisan politics in Washington that has basically crippled the ability to get anything done. At least Herseth Sandlin has a mind of her own and has consistently voted for what is good for South Dakota. Noem does not have a mind of her own. She is just a republican robot who will do as she is told by the Republican party leadership.
Saturday, October 30, 2010
Friday, October 29, 2010
Mayor’s Support of Downtown????
Oh my, think what would happen if the Mayor didn’t support the Downtown? After all, he has done so much for Downtown since he took office. His plan to build the Event Center out at the Arena/Convention Center is a sure sign that he supports Downtown, right? He met with the board of directors of Downtown Sioux Falls and told them how they should work together and pay more attention to downtown Sioux Falls. As quoted in the ARGUS LEADER, he said, “We all want it to occur, but there is no one doing it. If no one is going to drive it, then the city will.” Are you kidding me? When I think I have heard everything, something more outrageous comes from the mayor. If he really understood the mission of the Chamber, Sioux Falls Development Foundation and Downtown Sioux Falls he would not recommend they be consolidated under one roof. I can’t wait to hear from Economic Development Czar Smith on what his labors in working for downtown will be in the future. Of course, he can’t go into specifics but announcements will be forthcoming in the weeks and months ahead. The style coming out of the Mayor’s office is to tell people what they haven’t been doing right and how he is going to fix it. Good grief. A one man band does not a team make.
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Proposed City Pension Changes
Well, it’s finally out in the open. The Board of Trustees for the two city pension systems are looking at changes to the benefit structure of the pensions offered city employees. Why? Because the city's contribution is getting extremely high.
A lot of things impact pension assets and liabilities and the city's contribution to the pension funds, but two biggies affecting these two pension systems are the investment returns and retiree health insurance. OPEB changed everything for public pensions when it became effective. Valuing retiree health care benefits and actuarially funding them has caused the cost of the retiree health benefit to climb to astronomical proportions affecting the employer contribution.
The employer contribution is a % of payroll which comes out of the General Fund. Guess who wants money out of the General Fund to pay for the Event Center? The Mayor has to do something to build up that reserve fund.
Where I once administered the two pension systems as the City’s HR Director, I am now simply a retiree who depends on my pension to live and my retiree health benefit to keep me from bankruptcy. Retiree health benefits are an important, but costly benefit. They are especially costly for police and fire employees who can and do retire at 50 or 55 years of age. That’s a long time to fund retiree health benefits for the retired employee, his/her spouse and in some cases dependents. For retirees like me who come from the general employee group, the cost exposure is only 5 years because general employees can’t retire before age 60 unless the general employee has 30 years of service at age 55 where combined age and service gives them the ability to retire early.
As a retiree, I am on the city’s retiree health plan and will be until I turn 65 and become Medicare eligible whereby my city coverage will terminate. Make no mistake about it, it is a valuable benefit to retirees. What are the implications to me if I were to lose my benefit and get a $500 stipend from the pension system? Right now I pay $374.04 for single coverage which is 50% of the total premium. On the face of it, I could get more money in my pocket with this deal, right? I don’t think so.
First, buying single insurance coverage on the open market is a very dicey thing. Second, my age is going to work against me. People my age begin to have health issues and insurance companies hate people my age and older because we cost too much. We have health issues and use our health benefit. Private insurers have the same cost issues the City has with us older folks. Sure, I am probably going to be able to buy some sort of coverage out on the open market, but I am going to pay more in monthly premium, deductible, and out of pocket expenses. Is it going to be a good deal for retirees? No, I don’t think so.
Retirees are powerless, though, because as retirees, we no longer have a voice. We can’t vote. City ordinance requires any change to the pension benefit must be voted on by the membership. A change to the retiree health benefit must be voted on by the membership. The membership is all active employees. Active employees will have to decide if this benefit is important to them and if they are willing to increase their contribution to help pay for it.
I don’t know what is going to happen. When I retired, I made my decision based on certain facts at that time. Taking away a promised benefit after the fact seems unfair to the retirees. I do know pension changes take time. I hope I turn 65 before this goes into effect. I know a $500 stipend will not pay for the kind of insurance coverage I now have as a City Retiree. If it happens, it is surely a broken promise.
A lot of things impact pension assets and liabilities and the city's contribution to the pension funds, but two biggies affecting these two pension systems are the investment returns and retiree health insurance. OPEB changed everything for public pensions when it became effective. Valuing retiree health care benefits and actuarially funding them has caused the cost of the retiree health benefit to climb to astronomical proportions affecting the employer contribution.
The employer contribution is a % of payroll which comes out of the General Fund. Guess who wants money out of the General Fund to pay for the Event Center? The Mayor has to do something to build up that reserve fund.
Where I once administered the two pension systems as the City’s HR Director, I am now simply a retiree who depends on my pension to live and my retiree health benefit to keep me from bankruptcy. Retiree health benefits are an important, but costly benefit. They are especially costly for police and fire employees who can and do retire at 50 or 55 years of age. That’s a long time to fund retiree health benefits for the retired employee, his/her spouse and in some cases dependents. For retirees like me who come from the general employee group, the cost exposure is only 5 years because general employees can’t retire before age 60 unless the general employee has 30 years of service at age 55 where combined age and service gives them the ability to retire early.
As a retiree, I am on the city’s retiree health plan and will be until I turn 65 and become Medicare eligible whereby my city coverage will terminate. Make no mistake about it, it is a valuable benefit to retirees. What are the implications to me if I were to lose my benefit and get a $500 stipend from the pension system? Right now I pay $374.04 for single coverage which is 50% of the total premium. On the face of it, I could get more money in my pocket with this deal, right? I don’t think so.
First, buying single insurance coverage on the open market is a very dicey thing. Second, my age is going to work against me. People my age begin to have health issues and insurance companies hate people my age and older because we cost too much. We have health issues and use our health benefit. Private insurers have the same cost issues the City has with us older folks. Sure, I am probably going to be able to buy some sort of coverage out on the open market, but I am going to pay more in monthly premium, deductible, and out of pocket expenses. Is it going to be a good deal for retirees? No, I don’t think so.
Retirees are powerless, though, because as retirees, we no longer have a voice. We can’t vote. City ordinance requires any change to the pension benefit must be voted on by the membership. A change to the retiree health benefit must be voted on by the membership. The membership is all active employees. Active employees will have to decide if this benefit is important to them and if they are willing to increase their contribution to help pay for it.
I don’t know what is going to happen. When I retired, I made my decision based on certain facts at that time. Taking away a promised benefit after the fact seems unfair to the retirees. I do know pension changes take time. I hope I turn 65 before this goes into effect. I know a $500 stipend will not pay for the kind of insurance coverage I now have as a City Retiree. If it happens, it is surely a broken promise.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
Robbing Peter to Pay Paul
I think there are two essential flaws in the Mayor’s vision to build the Event Center. I know I have blogged about this before, but, honestly, his financial plan is bothering me.
The two flaws as I see it are the use of the general reserve fund and the private naming rights to build the Event Center. Both of these funding sources should be earmarked for the operation of an Event Center once it is built. To use these two funding sources as construction money is essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul in order to get the dang thing built. The second penny sales tax in the CIP and bonding should be the funding sources for construction of the EC.
The Mayor likes to use the last Taskforce Study as his basis for his vision, but the reality is the Arena site is the only thing he has used from the Study. The Taskforce Study recommends that the naming rights should be used for operations. According to projections from the consulting firm Conventions, Sports & Leisure naming rights could generate $250,000 a year which would amount to $5 million in revenue if a company buys naming rights for 20 years plus another $161,000 to $375,000 per year from premium seating. The study says by including that money in the operational costs, the new event center and Arena could make a $185,000 profit annually under one scenario or lose $198,000 under a less optimistic scenario. Removing naming rights and premium seating from the same analysis results in an annual loss of $440,000 to $609,00 as reported by the ARGUS LEADER.
The Mayor doesn’t have a plan yet to pay for the event center’s operating budget, but he said he intends to have one before the public vote. I think he is a day late and a dollar short. He needs to have a financial plan now so the public can read about it, digest it and come to grips with it. I hope he has someone working on those private donors right now instead waiting and giving the public some pie in the sky, wishful thinking instead of the real thing.
It is not enough to come up with the money to build it. The Mayor needs to convince all those skeptics and naysayers out there who vote no on everything that he also has concrete money sources for not only construction but also operations. This is not something he should be doing later. He needs to be doing it now.
I worry that this whole design RFP business is going to be wasted money because of the Mayor’s views that the city is energized about the event center and getting it built. He is backwards on his thinking this process through. Let’s all sit around the campfire and sing kumbayah and it will happen. Yea, right.
The two flaws as I see it are the use of the general reserve fund and the private naming rights to build the Event Center. Both of these funding sources should be earmarked for the operation of an Event Center once it is built. To use these two funding sources as construction money is essentially robbing Peter to pay Paul in order to get the dang thing built. The second penny sales tax in the CIP and bonding should be the funding sources for construction of the EC.
The Mayor likes to use the last Taskforce Study as his basis for his vision, but the reality is the Arena site is the only thing he has used from the Study. The Taskforce Study recommends that the naming rights should be used for operations. According to projections from the consulting firm Conventions, Sports & Leisure naming rights could generate $250,000 a year which would amount to $5 million in revenue if a company buys naming rights for 20 years plus another $161,000 to $375,000 per year from premium seating. The study says by including that money in the operational costs, the new event center and Arena could make a $185,000 profit annually under one scenario or lose $198,000 under a less optimistic scenario. Removing naming rights and premium seating from the same analysis results in an annual loss of $440,000 to $609,00 as reported by the ARGUS LEADER.
The Mayor doesn’t have a plan yet to pay for the event center’s operating budget, but he said he intends to have one before the public vote. I think he is a day late and a dollar short. He needs to have a financial plan now so the public can read about it, digest it and come to grips with it. I hope he has someone working on those private donors right now instead waiting and giving the public some pie in the sky, wishful thinking instead of the real thing.
It is not enough to come up with the money to build it. The Mayor needs to convince all those skeptics and naysayers out there who vote no on everything that he also has concrete money sources for not only construction but also operations. This is not something he should be doing later. He needs to be doing it now.
I worry that this whole design RFP business is going to be wasted money because of the Mayor’s views that the city is energized about the event center and getting it built. He is backwards on his thinking this process through. Let’s all sit around the campfire and sing kumbayah and it will happen. Yea, right.
Wednesday, October 20, 2010
Where are all the progressive voters.
This community can't seem to get the big projects done. I just don't get it. The naysayers seem to be the majority or at least they are the ones who come out to vote so they become the majority by default. Voter apathy is strong and alive when it comes to local issues in this city. I don't think it's fair to say that the Build the New Event Center Downtown group is detrimental to getting the Event Center passed though. That group supports the Event Center. All they want is for both locations to get the same economic analysis. If that analysis says the arena location is the best, then they will get behind the Mayor's pet location. The bottom line is, this city needs an Events Center, period. It amazes me to hear from all those people who still complain about the Washington Pavilion. It's because these are the people who don't see the big picture. Venues like the Washington Pavilion, the Event Center, a community center, sports complexes, etc. bring revenue to the city. If we don't have visitors come to our city, eat in our restaurants, shop, buy gas, etc., we will die as a city and we will all end up paying more taxes. Have you been to Fargo, ND or Rochester, MN lately? Both cities are smaller than Sioux Falls but both cities have a much more progressive feel to them than Sioux Falls. There are a lot of small minds in this town. I suppose as long as they have their pool parlors, Bingo centers, dart tournaments,smoke
Tuesday, October 19, 2010
City's Sales Tax revenue grows by 3.1%
I am encouraged after reading the paper this morning. The Mayor stated he didn't know if it was a trend yet, but it was certainly going in a positive direction. I hope it continues as we go into the shopping season. The Mayor said if there were surpluses, he would look at those holdbacks as well as other city priorities. Good for him. $8.3 million spending freeze in the general fund and $5.3 million spending freeze in the capital fund is significant. I am not saying all of it should be unfrozen but like he said, he will prioritize and reallocate appropriately. Thumbs up, Mayor!
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Cookie Jar (alias for the General Reserve Fund)
I hear sales tax is up. The previous Administration projected 4% growth for 2010 and it is running at or a little above 3%. That's good news for the City. The Mayor says the surplus will go into the cookie jar for the Event Center. Well, there is no surplus yet, is there? What about fixing all those streets he said need fixing? What about all those budget cuts the departments made this year and next year in order to be fiscally prudent with taxpayer dollars? No cost of living adjustments for city employees, again. I seem to recall the Mayor saying he would revisit those budget cuts made to city departments and non-profits. I think it is a little early to be announcing there is surplus money for his cookie jar.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)