I am writing to express my strong support for the proposed TIF district for Libertyland USA in Rapid City, South Dakota. Tax Increment Financing (TIF) is a proven tool for capital formation, and South Dakota’s successful track record over 400 districts since the 1970s shows its historical benefit to local tax revenues and economic growth.

Trusting Leadership Over Bureaucratic Delays

The current bureaucratic hurdles and proprietary detail demands facing the developer mirror transparency measures that have stalled governance elsewhere. We must trust our elected representatives to negotiate these complex deals and move beyond the fear of change that fuels anti-development campaigns in South Dakota.

Libertyland USA’s Economic and Tourism Impact on Rapid City

Libertyland USA represents an extraordinary opportunity to transform underutilized land into a billion-dollar asset. This project will create an economic boom, expand the local customer pool, and boost tourism beyond Mount Rushmore.

Addressing Workforce and Energy Concerns

Opponents have raised concerns about job wages and labor competition, but decisive action is needed otherwise growth will stagnate. Regarding energy demands, even with two thousand power projects canceled in 2025, the federal administration is removing roadblocks to energy projects, ensuring that Rapid City’s development needs are met.

The January 20 Vote and South Dakota’s Business Future

The vote on January 20th will signal whether South Dakota is truly open for business or if bureaucracy and over-democratization will hinder progress. I encourage Rapid City residents to support the Libertyland USA TIF district and the long-term economic growth of the region.

Pierre has been loudly called a swamp to applause at the Brookings anti-pipeline forum, but so speaks the demagogue. I find it shocking that they call the capitol city a swamp when many of the swamp creatures were in that room.

The average number of constituents in South Dakota for State Representatives and State Senators is 5 times less than the average US State. That our state is becoming a populist confederacy of sixty six counties with a weak central authority is the trajectory of our current GOP Leadership. We have seen wild bills presented to our legislature and through cult-like faith, we are to turn away anything that moos, smells, or might hire someone that’s not a local to please every neighbor. We see the chipping away of project development and regulatory uniformity so that South Dakota remains closed to business. Adam Smith’s concept of the Invisible Hand will not work if our state officials manipulate our business environment to fit their personal whims of whats worthy for South Dakota. We embrace change so we don’t create a generation that get their marching orders from fear mongers and do-nothings. We came to the frontier to build it, that was celebrated in would-be settler publications over a century ago. With every railroad tie pulled that promise is vanishing. They came, and we’re here, for opportunity.

JES Farms would have never been allowed in South Dakota today because of the canal system alone. Until I can be disproven, then how are my children inheriting freedom as we’ve lived it? Dreams are never small and inoffensive when it comes to American greatness.

Now our legislature will debate zero property taxes. Property taxes are for compensation to the citizenship for depriving them of the use of that land. Thomas Paine understood how a nation could create its own elite and suffer its tyranny. The founders structured our government to prevent a despotic concentration of power. When did some farmers start looking in a mirror and seeing a King instead of a fellow citizen? It is a bizarre shame that those with little to no land would ever support a zero property tax. It would cause an entrenched oligarchy of landowners, further boosted by the federal farm program. The burden of that missing tax revenue will fall on the shoulders of the people the property taxes were meant to provide for. Instead of zero property tax, we could toil over our pathetic infrastructure to get our goods to market cheaper, or lower interest rates. We should not be toying with the inability to properly fund school teachers and local police. Our property rights should be protected by those that won’t chain them to a mobs popular opinion about its development, as raw land or nothing. Property tax elimination is the destruction of the centuries old paternalism between landowner and village, curbing revolutions that might have otherwise taken place. The despotism is now overflowing with the radical effort to be anti-development by our GOP leadership, weaponising conservatism against our own Republican colleagues.

Republicans are not in control of the South Dakota legislature, the populist conservatives are. I’ve heard pitched xenophobia against both Saudi Arabia and Israel during the anti-pipeline forums. Both American allies slandered. That behavior comes the same way, by demagogues whipping up hysteria to a contrived enemy. It is the devolution of professional politicians and unworthy of our halls. The Eschenbaum Mob should be thrown out for the sake of party integrity. Their tar and feather politics floods local social media repeatedly. They have become gatekeepers to our natural resources, vilifying those neighbors that would resist the paralytic policies that seize our economy. Instead of statesman, we have too many agitators. Instead of willing participants in the free market, we have protests by those who believe they suffer not through its consequence.

Another kid, a good friend of mine, stood up and spoke impromptu after me; it wasn’t often that these presentations prompted rebuttal. He made some powerful counter-arguments to my speech, presenting the case for what he called Intelligent Design.

My friend’s speech shocked me at the time. I didn’t know how anything that I had said could prove so controversial. I hadn’t felt that there were religious implications or counterbalancing scientific ideas. I had simply accepted what I had read in National Geographic as undisputedly true. 

I carried forward the need to accept that just because something is written up in a national journal doesn’t necessarily make it valid or fact! 

  I draw your attention to the recently ejected State Senate Bill 83.  

 This highly commendable initiative, put forward by Senator Jeff Monroe, R-Pierre, set out to encourage freedom of debate in the classroom. Specifically, it would have allowed teachers in Science to present balanced arguments about the full range of scientific questions from those concerning the potential for human involvement in environmental change to human cloning. The fact that it has been effectively shot down by opposition from school boards and the educational establishment is a damaging attack on free speech. This action impoverishes the education of our children, and reeks of the sort of micromanagement that seriously demoralizes educators. 

 Teachers are supposed to challenge students’ minds, not demand intellectual conformity; to do otherwise would not only do our young people themselves a great disservice, but spell the end of innovation. Part of this educative process should involve exposing students to the genuine debates that exist about a range of scientific issues. Every generation (in general, and especially the scientific establishment it seems) may feel that they have it “all figured out”. But it is arrogant to assume always that there are clearly defined right answers to broad questions of societal debate, even concerning questions relating to evolution and the origins of the Universe. We abandoned Einstein’s widely supported concept of the “Static Universe,” to give just one example. 

 Science is NOT about certainty, however the opponents of this Senate Bill clearly believe that it is, on a whole range of fundamental questions, questions that go to the heart of our core beliefs and indeed to the sound running of the economy. They believe them so strongly that the First Amendment has effectively been cut to ribbons in our classrooms; many great teachers go silent for fear of administrative reprisal if they seek to promote discussion and debate. Others are demoralized and seek alternative career paths.  

 What is demoralizing to many in South Dakota is the way in which the ideas of social conservatives, in particular, seem to be targeted for elimination in our schools. It is particularly dangerous when one school of thought is singled out in this way as somehow being too extreme or even “corrupting” to young people. Well respected (and by no means conservative) Professor of Political Theory at Queen’s University, Colin Farrelly, has commented on the deeply ingrained negative views that many of his students have developed about conservative ideology, ideas that stem from a lack of real engagement. “As citizens our students will be expected to engage with conservatives,” he writes, “and so, at the least, they should develop an understanding of (if not an appreciation for the potential value of) conservatism.” 

 I declare that public education should not be simply about delivery of a body of (tightly censored) information and so-called “right answers,” but should be more concerned with providing our children with the ability to think and argue for themselves, thereby preparing them to play an adult part in American society and to fulfill their civic duty. That societal and civic duty is closely entwined with the most American of virtues, which is the right to dissent, and to debate in forum. Please for a moment picture in your mind Norman Rockwell’s painting entitled “Freedom of Speech”. For me, the image of the common man, eyes slightly lifted above the horizon, boldly speaking his mind among his peers, superbly sums up my feeling about the importance of fostering an intellectually courageous youth, as opposed to tomorrows breed of trained victims of deceitful establishment propaganda. In American society we know and are ready to accept that a winning intellectual argument can be delivered, with no lesser value, by a humble beggar, who speaks the truth, as opposed to by an Ivy League elitist who may propagate falsehood.  

 Without any desire to shock those neighbors that abhor mention of religious belief or any utility derived from it, I feel the need to quote from John, Chapter 9, and the verse that ends “…whereas I was blind, but now I see.” It is a story that underlines the reality of human fallibility, and the ability to change your mind. I would contend that this powerful statement of humility is equally applicable to people of no faith, or of other faiths, as well as Christians. And it applies even to our most brilliant scientists, who also potentially suffer from blindness, just like the rest of us. Indeed, a humble nature implies that we are comfortable with our inevitable lack of certainty about so many things. As Socrates said, “The only true wisdom is to know you know nothing”. We all “endeavor” to know, but can never achieve true knowledge. Or, as Isaac Newton is reputed to have put it, when looking back on his scientific career: “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” Wisdom only comes by way of a willingness to doubt. We want to instill this kind of wisdom in the students of South Dakota.  

 The question I have for the opponents of the SB-83 is, “Why do you fear debate?”  

 Our various School Districts already control the body of knowledge that you must be able to command in order to be able to graduate, so what is the harm of allowing proper evidence based argument of some areas of scientific understanding. To allow our teachers to stimulate such debate, where it is appropriate, and also advances educational objectives, cannot be understood as forcing any personal acceptance of any particular viewpoint on the part of our students. That would actually be the standpoint of those who compel students to complete assignments under mandatory headings such as that, currently in existence, which requires them to uncritically set out the scientific underpinnings of the Big Bang Theory. 

 Quite to the contrary, it encourages students to think hard about core issues and empowers them to come to their own conclusions, as free Americans. To take any other course is to follow the part taken by the rulers in ancient Athens, who condemned Socrates as “an evil-doer and corrupter of the youth,” when in reality, Socrates just encouraged his students to think skeptically, by the process of challenging debate. 

 The Bill, which the South Dakota State Senate has now conclusively sidelined, sought to preserve the idea of the value of the teacher as the initiator of discussion that Socrates embodied. And we should not be afraid of this. If we prevent genuine intellectual discourse, argument, and classroom debate, as opponents of the Bill so passionately sought to do, we risk ending up with a classroom that will one day be taught by a computer that is “APPROVED by the School District”. And in this I smell the repugnant stench of the world that George Orwell described in “1984”. The opponents of the bill are fostering and supporting an institutionalized distrust for teachers.  

 Of course, the opponents of SB-83 argued that the proposed legislation was merely a subversive way to facilitate the presentation of Intelligent Design arguments in our high school classes. They want to lead us to believe that Senator Monroe, and the many who supported him, are guilty of some kind of conspiracy theory to undermine received scientific wisdom.  

 But these arguments are very far from convincing. Just for starters, it should surely be acknowledged that there is absolutely no mention of any idea whatsoever connected with religion in the text of the Bill. Indeed, the only people who have brought up the issue of Intelligent Design are those who oppose Senator Monroe’s proposal. 

 And why should issues connected with science not be subject to discussion and argument, as are questions about our history. There are those who suggest, for instance, that the Spanish American War was about sugar, and hence about America’s economic interest, as opposed to a reaction to justified outrage in the face of Spanish Government atrocities. Or that a policy of accommodation, rather than strength, lay behind the downfall of Communism. My belief is that those historians are wrong, but I encourage debate and analysis of the area. I support the right of those historians to make their case. 

 And I believe strongly that debate is strongly needed in the Science classroom, just as it is in the History classroom. Only ignorance will reign supreme without it. I do not believe that, just because a possible ‘rogue’ teacher may pop up and corrupt our children’s minds, as Socrates was accused of, we should condemn our students to a factory style, debateless, and ultimately intellectually bankrupt education. 

In this way our legislators are thereon cajoled, hounded, publicly ridiculed, and threatened politically so as to persuade them to perform in our hallowed halls in the way these lobbyists demand. Now remember that these legislators represent the interests of the people of South Dakota and are directly accountable to their voters. But they’re often out in the cold for public support, when the crisis is greatest, and potentially vulnerable to attacks launched by self-interested lobbying organizations.

The motivation that underpins all this expense and professional effort in lobbying is, of course, very considerable. The people of South Dakota carry the checkbook and many lobbyists are sent in with the direct purpose of placing immense pressure on them to expand government in a myriad of ways which serve their political or financial purposes. Examples of recent undesirable initiatives that have been energetically promoted by lobbyists include, for instance, the dominant role which liberal education groups have played in shaping the content of Common Core education at K-12, with very little sensitivity shown to regional cultural differences. That is troubling when required subjects on the curriculum mandate require students to: “Give evidence to support climate change,” or, “Explain the Big Bang Theory”. Today lobbyists connected with the gambling cartels are pressing hard for an expansion of video lottery rights in establishments across the state, and others continue to seek the abolition of all, but a couple, of the existing exemptions (mostly benefiting agriculture) to the sales and use tax. And unlike our elected legislators, who have a direct connection to the people they represent, these interest groups typically do not care how much taxes a South Dakotan pays. They do not care about how you wish to raise your children, and they don’t care about how you feel about your guns, religion, or your fishing hole.

The particular danger, in these circumstances, of course, is cronyism, the much feared corruption of the government of our Republic, where the legislators themselves come to no longer represent the people but these public interest groups, unions, or business entities. One way in which this most notably happens is through the much fabled existence of a “revolving door” syndrome, whereby our representatives are persuaded to vote in a certain way, or support a certain set of initiatives, in implicit exchange for a cozy lobbying job when they leave office.

This is not to say that many people, throughout the United States, are not increasingly alert to the danger. Across the last five years alone, a number of U.S. Senators have won elections with platforms and campaigns based specifically on fighting cronyism. Senator Mike Lee, of Utah, is a great example of this new breed of representative. “Free enterprise works—morally and materially—because it aligns the interests of the individual and society,” he said in 2014. “It’s a system governed by an ‘invisible hand’ that rewards the creation of value, and by an ‘invisible foot’ that punishes complacency, especially at the top.” He is fiercely critical of cronyism and the considerable danger to our democracy that the problem represents. Cronyism is, indeed, a key element of the stuff that we Americans supposedly left behind when we gained our independence from Britain over two centuries ago.

But, notwithstanding these instances of electoral progress, there is no room for complacency in the fight against lobbyists and special interest groups; there is an ever present need for vigilance. The people must not hide in the shadows if they wish to protect their interests. Instead we must speak up and say that we support our legislator, when he or she pursues conservative policies, because otherwise that representative of the people might become quite convinced that the silver tongued lobbyist is right, and that they are all alone in their wish to represent the people in the way that they would wish to be represented.

All this is not to say that many of these lobbyists, who come to Pierre, are not well-meaning individuals, who are genuinely determined to make life in our state better. Many of them, however, were raised and schooled in a much different cultural environment to that of the average South Dakotan citizen, and are used to traditions that are alien to our way of life. So they genuinely feel justified, based on conscience, in pressuring for changes in our own state government so that we may be as lucky, in our system, as people in Illinois, or some other state that they call home, are in theirs, where these laws or expansions of government already exist.

In truth, South Dakota is an island of conservative government, with a relatively healthy balance sheet to prove it. Our state government rules for the common interest, most the time, based on loyalty among neighbors in a community where everyone knows everyone else. But when our legislators go to 500 East Capitol Avenue they are suddenly bombarded with petitions from lobbyists. For every call or email they receive from actual constituents, they receive a hundred from paid campaigners. Representatives’ voicemails are filled with the incessant demands of those who are paid to influence them. If we are to redress this balance, South Dakotans must make it a sport or a hobby to engage in politics. This is indeed essential if they wish to see their children grow up in a state they recognize and are proud of.

Right now, urgent calls from lobbyists include those for the initiation of both a new state corporate tax, and a new state income tax (some actually advocate both). They seek to change the way we distribute government spending and the total amount of tax we levy, and to change the way our children learn in schools. In fact, there must be literally hundreds of life changing bills that have been thrown on the desks of our legislators. It is difficult sometimes for those who we send to Pierre as our representatives to resist these calls and this pressure.

What a legislator needs in these circumstances from constituents are basic things to indicate support for conservative policy positions. These may include simply writing a letter to a newspaper editor, making a blog posting, organizing a rally, contributing to an online discussion, or making any public statement that can serve the purpose of proving that the embattled legislator is not alone.

Another thing that we would benefit from, in our struggle against special interests, is a better system of checks and balances within government to head off nefarious influences. We live in a state where ethics commissions, Inspector Generals, and other public mechanisms, which might otherwise protect our citizens from abuse at the hands of rogue government officials, are largely nonexistent. The reasons given to the people for governmental disinterest, when it comes to providing these protections, come down to the fact that we haven’t caught enough trouble makers in the past, which necessarily means that they must not exist today. It is almost as if the human frailties, that such political machines as Tammany Hall thrived upon could never manifest themselves here on the Great Plains! Recent examples of possibly questionable conduct, including the EB-5 affair, and the GEAR UP/Mid Central scandal, both of which involved Department of Legislative Audit findings of wrongdoing, and temporarily raised the profile of government ethics, seem to have been overlooked by those who claim that the initiation of more robust checks and balances, to protect our liberties, are not needed.

Admittedly, Governor Daugaard, among some others, has taken modest steps to promote a more transparent government, including recent (limited) freedom of information initiatives. But I suggest strongly that if we do not create more sophisticated and independent safeguards to fight against cronyism in government, that are genuinely free from political blow back, then South Dakota citizens will continue to be victims of silent crimes, and even what amounts to political corruption. There are current initiatives, apparently, on the cards, to examine whether the Department of Legislative Affairs’ authority to examine government records should be further enhanced, or whether the Attorney General should be mandated in any way to confer more routinely with those tasked with the business of Legislative Audit. But these initiatives arguably still do not go far enough. South Dakota needs an Inspector General with wide ranging powers to stamp out abuse.

The majority of South Dakotans are intelligent and freedom loving individuals. They do not choose to live in our great state because they seek a way of life such as that which exists in Los Angeles, New York or Philadelphia; instead, they choose to carve out a unique and robust lifestyle in a part of the country where independence reigns.

And likewise, the South Dakota state government, our state government, is not intended to be the preserve and dominion of those who do not understand our rare people, or even wish to understand who we are in many cases. We do not wish to fear a state government that no longer represents our ideals nor protects our guaranteed inherited rights to property, family, and self-protection. We do not wish to read in our newspapers about how our state treasury is facing overwhelming debt through established entitlement programs, bureaucracy, corruption, and out of control spending.

Certainly the federal government today is in no way friendly to diversity of thought, among the many stars in the United States flag, as is evident from its own increasing power grabs over state resources, rights, and income, not to mention the further federal mandates that impose intolerable burdens on state expenditure across a range of areas from health to education. This makes it even more important for all of us to make sure that, when our own representatives go to our state capitol, they can count on us to stand, alongside them, in protecting our deeply held beliefs ourselves.

For ours is a Republic that was never intended to operate based upon the wishes of the elected, but on those of the people that elected them. We the people ought to rule in South Dakota, under God, and it’s up to us citizens to ensure that we continue to do so.

The newly-created Blue Ribbon Task Force, which drew together twenty-six diverse members, both elected and appointed, was given the urgent task of accomplishing the Governor’s mission. The body first met at the beginning of July 2015 and gave their report—thirty-four pages including recommendations—early in November. They effectively decided that the only way to obtain revenue to increase teacher salaries was to raise the level of the statewide sales and use tax – a measure that would hit South Dakota taxpayers hard. No attempt was made to come up with any creative or intelligent solution to achieving the goals that the Governor had set; in particular, there was no attempt to answer the key question they had been asked to address – why are we being forced to pay more for less when it comes to our state education system?

Unnecessary Meddling and Key Areas of Concern Neglected

Instead, the task force has come up with a whole host of problematic recommendations. Significantly, they have made suggestions that would effectively result in greater central control of educational resources statewide. They have recommended, for example, changing the Per Student Allocation (PSA), which they claim is inequitable. What they have failed to realize, is that in actual practice, this has been a hugely effective budgetary tool for schools, ensuring that funding follows the students, and those who attend larger schools are not disadvantaged by mere circumstance. It is a fitting reward for school district excellence that a parent can effectively award that institution additional funding; by contrast, withdrawing a child punishes a poorly performing school. They have also suggested the capping of school district reserves, backed by the threatened withdrawal of a percentage of General Fund revenue following non-compliance in this area.

In an even worse attempt to butcher our funding model, the Task Force would like to transform the allocation of some taxes so that revenues are spread across school districts, supposedly ensuring fairness in educational resourcing for all – a reform which they indicate could be paralleled with similar unwelcome centralization of revenue generated from traffic fines and wind farms taxes, amongst other sources. Policies regarding our resources that are generated out of envy of ones’ neighbor are not the way forward in our great state – even if they are advocated by liberals elsewhere.

You don’t have to read far to identify the numerous contradictions and lack of logical consistency in the report. On page 21 of the document, for instance, the Task Force sets out its concern about the adequacy of infrastructure investment; while on page 16, the same body writes that capital outlay funds are actually robust and need to be unrestricted for disbursement. It is difficult to know what to make of this kind of intellectual confusion when it comes from a highly qualified body of elected state representatives and educators.

Their measures, recommended by the group, pose a significant threat to educational standards statewide. Recruitment of staff through the reciprocity initiative, for example, which is strongly endorsed, would allow teachers certified in other states to be immediately recognized as qualified to teach in South Dakota schools. This is extremely concerning on a community level, as it works against other efforts to promote consistency in teaching quality and ensuring that teachers are adequately equipped for culturally sensitive education which reflects our local values, concerns and priorities. As a measure, it seems to me to be somewhat akin to taking an automobile to be repaired by a boat mechanic (except education is more important than that!) or boarding a plane when the pilot has only ever flown a helicopter. As Governor Mellette once said, “The province of legislation is… to promote a common education, which is the preserver of all.” How can we guarantee any kind of common, locally sensitive education in South Dakota, when out-of-state educators are routinely assigned to our schools without meaningful checks taking place?

Gratuitous Tax Rises

It is suggested in the Blue Ribbon report, that in order to attract our best teachers, and effectively compete in the national employment market, we need to provide teachers with an average annual salary of $48,000, which is up from the current level of $40,000. To back up this viewpoint, the Task Force provides many pages of illustrative pie charts and statistics although disappointingly, these statistics have been handpicked to fit a politically pre-determined narrative supporting what can essentially be referred to as the ‘monetary rape’ of South Dakotans in order to access competitive education for our children.

I believe other charts— which appear to have been deliberately left out of the report— would support very different conclusions that could negate the need for tax rises. For instance, it could be shown that funding allocation from the General Fund for Education, which includes both K-12 and Higher Education, has swung by over 4% toward Higher Education across the last decade (4% of $352 million is $14 million). Our K-12 system cannot sustain continuing growing favoritism in the General Fund toward Higher Education initiatives, prioritized over our residents’ children’s learning.

In fact, the Task Force has made decidedly dodgy use of statistics throughout their report. For example, the argument is made that education spending in South Dakota has fallen behind that of other sectors of government that are of comparable importance, such as healthcare. But in making this comparison, the year 1996 was picked, for reasons undisclosed, as the baseline for the assessment of the state’s recent, supposedly disappointing, annual growth in the level of educational spending. Could it be possible that this year was selected in order to make use of our explosive growth—of over 279%—in Medicaid spending after that point as an excuse to spend more in Education? Anyway, is it really the case that since we are getting bloodied in Medicaid, we should be fair and allow ourselves to go into deeper debt distress in the realm of education too?

Returning to the statistics, the report recognizes that per student spending on capital outlay is significantly higher in South Dakota than it is in other states; in fact, it is $405 dollars more than the national average. Of course, this should lead us back to the pressing question asked by Governor Daugaard when first setting up the Task Force: Why it is that the state spends more on education, but receives less return in terms of school standards? But the report makes no attempt to answer this pressing question. Perhaps the body lacked the motivation to propose constructive and meaningful reforms, when the ‘easier’ alternative of simply recommending tax increases, with commensurate opportunities for the distribution of pork to interest groups, was readily available. ‘Big government’ enthusiasts across the nation appear to have adopted the knee-jerk reaction of increasing taxes whenever they are faced with a problem, no matter the context of the situation.

By comparison, no alternative recommendations were suggested by the Blue Ribbon Task Force for what would be a more helpful policy of reallocating state funds. Instead of pouring millions of additional taxpayer dollars into increased education spending, we should be cutting out some of the extravagances in our state education system and redistributing the resources currently being wasted. The Governor has vowed to make ‘bold’ decisions, based on the people’s demand for better education in our high schools, so I’ll make a few suggestions that wouldn’t be considered anything less than bold.

First, in the report it is determined that we have 14 students per teacher in South Dakota, which is a ratio to be proud of nationwide. It is the wish of the Task Force to preserve that ratio. I agree with the desirability of this objective. However, it must also be recognized that this may not be an achievable goal as a result of the so-called ‘educational crisis’ based on teacher shortages for K-12. (To give the reader some perspective, it should be noted that our ratio is far superior to the 20 to 1 teacher that exists nationally, or the 23 students to 1 teacher in Minnesota.) It might be more realistic for us to manage an increase in the ratio, possibly scaled, so that older students have larger class sizes than younger ones. If South Dakota budgeted on a ratio of eighteen students to one teacher, this would still be superior to the national average, and this alone would allow us to achieve the Task Force’s objective singlehandedly by refocusing funds. Consider it as being 22% fewer teachers to teach the same amount of kids. If its 9,300 teachers at $40,000 then that makes $372 million. Reallocate 22% and that is nearly $82 million. That would give us an average teaching salary of over $48,000.

Second, there has been well-founded criticism, not least from the state’s schools, of recent extravagant increases in the salaries of university professors within South Dakota’s Higher Education. In a Rapid City Journal article, published on the 16th of December by correspondent Bob Mercer, it was stated that even “…officials in the state Bureau of Finance and Management thought the 3.2 percent for university faculty was “generous” when inflation has been below 1 percent in the past year.” It is too late, of course, to reverse these increases, but future pay raises should be commensurately less extravagant.

Third, we should reduce the unhealthy dependency of Northern State University (NSU) and Dakota State University (DSU) on General Fund revenue. Northern State University and Dakota State University are, in stark contrast to equivalent institutions elsewhere in the state, such as South Dakota State University (SDSU), the University of South Dakota (USD), and the Black Hills State University (BHSU), gravely dependent on state taxpayer revenue in their current operations. Drilling into the detail, it may be shown that whilst SDSU and BHSU today receive roughly the same amount from their state general funds as they do from tuition revenue, in the case of NSU and DSU, the General Fund contributes no less than double the amount that comes from tuition. Reforms are obviously needed to address this disparity.

Semi-privatizing or privatizing NSU and DSU completely over a three-year time frame would necessarily raise the contribution made to operations by tuition costs and force both institutions to dramatically reorganize in order to keep their student offering competitive. The potential saving for the state is dramatic: over $7.5 million of annual revenue could be reallocated from DSU and over $10.5 million from NSU.

(Incidentally, I recognize that the University of South Dakota is not as financially well-off as either SDSU or BSHU. But it does have a rather healthy endowment. In fact, it has more than double that of SDSU, even though fewer students are enrolled. I believe we should have a benchmark that pulls funds from colleges back to facilitate equal General Fund contribution for tuition revenue. This would have the benefit of forcing bloated institutions to undertake reforms. USD would painfully use its burgeoning endowment while they face the transition to a more financially fit model. That would add $12 million back to the General Fund each year.)

Fourth, South Dakota higher education institutions should be compelled to abstain from the ‘arms race’ in spending on non-educational facilities to compete for students nationally. Instead, a low cost, no-frills approach to tuition should be adopted. It should be recognized that keeping public college tuition costs as low as possible (without making unnecessary General Fund sacrifices) is a higher priority than college campus expansion. That is the accountability that must be displayed to the taxpayers.

This no-frills approach could certainly ultimately lead to lower student tuition fees. The ambition should be to slash public college tuition costs by 30% for all South Dakotan children by 2020, thereby removing obstacles preventing our students from attending. This fits very much with the ideals of the great former Governor Arthur Mellette –“All pupils who have thus finished the academic course of instruction should be admitted to the higher educational institutions of the State by a certificate from the county authority and without further examination. We believe that under such a system the attendance in the higher institutions will be largely and rapidly increased, and their running expenses to the State will be greatly diminished.”

Fifth, we should place emphasis within our state universities, on serving the needs of local people as opposed to those who come from outside of South Dakota. At SDSU, 36% of students today come from out-of-state, and 7% of the students are international. These students pay only about $1000 extra in annual tuition a year to attend, yet benefit from our state subsidies provided to the university.

As an illustration of what draws my ire, imagine an average, hard-working South Dakotan family paying even more in sales tax, as the Blue Ribbon Task Force currently recommends, so that Mike or Mallory, from Massachusetts, can attend a college that is heavily subsidized through their tax dollars and then return to Massachusetts upon graduation. This is far from smart. We should clearly be addressing the need to raise out-of-state tuition if we want to resolve the issue of South Dakotans indebting themselves to educate someone else’s children rather than their own.

(The argument that the current extra tuition payment for out-of-state students already covers their missing tax contribution is, of course, flawed two-dimensional thinking, given the sheer level of state subsidy that exists for higher education in South Dakota. Remember tax dollars contribute twice as much as tuition fees to the running of NSU alone. The current extra contribution of $1000 in no way covers this expense. If it did, of course, then this would imply that the state government could pull out all general funding of its higher institutions, and this would only require South Dakotan students’ tuition fees to rise by $1000, which is nonsense.)

Another question, by the way, that should be asked is why our own homegrown rural students choose to attend Agricultural Colleges outside of South Dakota, if they wish to farm or ranch our unique South Dakota soil. A funding priority should be placed on our higher education institutions to promote the state that we actually are, over the cosmopolitan state that some others may wish us to be.

Finally, we should also seek to make savings outside of the area of education. For 2016, according to the Governor’s budget, an increase in $30 million dollars to South Dakota Executive Management funding, in relation to Governor Daugaard’s own office and cabinet staff, has been recommended. That is over a 10% increase that I would scrutinize, particularly when compared to the Governor’s recommended 1.5% increase in all education.

To give one more example, the Corn/ Soybean/Wheat check-off fund should be partially redirected to absorb the expense of the Agricultural Experimentation Station. That will save the state no less than $10 million a year. (Each fund will add enough to the per bushel cost to cover 40% of the total Agricultural Experimental Station’s expense. At the end of the year, we should then review their respective actual share of grain production of South Dakota. That review will result in a producer refund check, where necessary, taken from any fund that did not require allocated funds to contribute their fair share.) Since grain producers are the direct beneficiaries of the Agricultural Station, it seems suitable for those producers to take on the cost of this facility.

These funding changes, without changing the student ratio, would result in a potential annual saving of over $40 million to apply to K-12 teacher salaries.

So the way to get to the $75 million target, set by the Blue Ribbon Task Force, should be founded on reallocation of money from the General Fund; we should also make hard but necessary decisions and consider avoiding expansion of other programs that South Dakotans may want, but do not need. Paying our K-12 teachers an adequate salary is more important than expanding the scope of the state government’s assumed responsibility over the people.

Other legislators have been promoting options without a tax raise. Currently, State Representative Lance Russell is proposing an excellent bill that would redirect South Dakota lottery revenues to pay for the salary increases and thereby entirely fund the proposed teacher salary enhancement fund (TSEF).

I also believe the funding for the teacher pay raises that this Task Force was established to rake in should be also be targeted toward benefiting those teachers currently on lower salaries (say those earning less than $50,000 a year). Of course, this is grossly above the $40,000 a year current average level, which is the rallying cry of the Blue Ribbon Task Force. Such targeting will have the effect of allocating our dollars to the teachers who are most in need of pay increases, whilst still raising the headline state average effectively.

It is often a good idea, particularly in matters related to fiscal prudence, to look back to the founders of our state for guidance. As a figure none other than Doane Robinson explained, “The limitations upon taxation for State purposes made it exceeding difficult to finance the necessary operations of the young state.” It was this necessary discipline, which these limitations imposed on South Dakota at its founding, that gave us our tradition of fiscal responsibility and spending restraint. So repeat after our first Governor: “The present school system is too expensive, inefficient and lacking in that unity and system so necessary in educational matters in order to obtain the greatest public benefit from the public schools for this most important public institution.” – Governor Arthur Mellette. 

This Blue Ribbon Task Force was not up to the task of recommending the sort of hard political decisions that South Dakota urgently needs to take. Instead, it recommended an “easy” solution – we will all pay more for our education system through taxes; and when they can’t make those dollars stretch far enough… another study like this will show how you didn’t dig deep enough yet again.

Say no to the tax and spend, Blue Ribbon Task Force – and identify educated solutions instead!

A few months ago I reviewed Mr. Weiland’s website and since then his website has been changed. Before the revamp of his campaign website Mr. Weiland saluted an article, “Cynicism Is Corporate America’s Greatest Weapon. Disarm It.”, and states that the author “…highlights the growing cynicism of the American public, a cynicism that has grown in lock-step with the rise of big money.” The author writes with great interest about popular upheaval through the generations and beckons the need for it again because he reminds the reader, “They were afraid of Occupy. They’re afraid of you.” All the while and throughout Rick’s old website he pledged to get government working with no more disruptions like that seen with the government shutdown – supposedly caused by Big Business, Big Oil, Big Ag, and perhaps anything Big as long as it’s not Big Government, but nobody and nothing specific. Who started the political fight in Washington and who reacted to who’s poor decisions are questions we continue to fairly debate in political circles, but instead of pointing fingers directly at a House Member, Senator, or President, Rick simply says blame Big Business. As for the undefined “they” who are supposed to be afraid of the anarchist and socialist protesters squatting in city parks, the writer has obviously forgotten about the Red Mayor and the “Hard Hat Riots” of 1970. Americans are just as serious about their freedom today as they were then.

The article “Cynicism Is Corporate America’s Greatest Weapon. Disarm It.” is no longer found on Mr. Weiland’s new campaign website, but he’s still completely focused on Big Money. The new website is careful not to vilify capitalism and instead it vilifies the so-called “1%” as opposed to Big Business. The great majority of everything penned on his campaign website, regardless of topic, condemningly points the finger of blame at the Big Money Super Rich that he feels has hijacked our nation, and this class warfare is the single silver bullet needed to revive America.

Mr. Weiland’s campaign website contains no statements on the federal debt burden, agricultural policy, foreign policy, border security, government surveillance, gun rights, or the military, but does address multiple times the topic of destructive unbridled corporate interests. (He never mentions the necessity of complicity on the part of Big Government necessary for corporate interests to become a problem.) Tom Daschle has grandly endorsed Rick in this election for Rick’s belief in the right to have abortions, the President’s healthcare reform, affirmative action and “equal pay” for women. Nothing is mentioned on Rick’s new campaign website about his views on abortion. Where is Rick’s courage that he has to take on Big Money when it comes to fighting for, as Daschle would suggest, for a woman’s right to choose in our state during the election? Also, as the State Director of AARP he established a Senior Bill of Rights that sought to strengthen Social Security payments yet he refuses to consider any reforms to promote the program’s solvency. Although the government will always send out Social Security checks I’m quite certain that money won’t be worth half as much in the future without reasonable reforms now on government spending. Mr. Weiland has also stated his dislike for Big Ag (I assume he means Cargill and ADM but maybe he means the Sheehans), but then supports the full ethanol mandate to the shock of those that believe that directly causes their grocery bill to increase. The best thing the Democratic Party of South Dakota could have done was find a centrist, but alas Rick is publicly left in political philosophy of President Obama.

I assume for Rick’s political electability that he supports small business owners. When does small business become Big Money? At what size of employer-ship does a business become untrustworthy in a free republic? What is the capital requirement necessary to go from patriot to traitor of the people? Based on Mr. Weiland’s statements, we would assume lobbying arms of corporate entities are the chief villains working against our noble government. Back in reality we know a leading company in an industry can be expected to be an authority on the product or service they provide. It’s in that company’s best interest to promote that industry and to defend it against potential misinformation perpetuated by a competitor or interest that stands to gain from the company’s or industry’s demise. For instance a non-profit organization, labor union, or a government administration with a large war chest may be at odds with a successful and law-abiding corporation and all the power of the corporation may be needed to defend itself and not be crushed. Mr. Weiland would see such a voice smothered. The ability of a corporation to exercise its free speech is essential in a free society.

What Rick never mentions which is the truly “Big” culprit of a free society is Big Government. When elected or appointed government officials have the power to artificially create success or failure for an American business then businesses have no choice but to cater to the inevitable corruption that competition for such favor will give rise too. Simply stated, government manipulation of the free market shifts power to the bureaucrats and they become industry king makers. What we know as Crony Capitalism is at its worst in a controlled economy. Favoritism towards businesses through government interference and discrimination is in the same vein as a feudal society, which sees the country’s resources and justice redistributed by a central authority which can and will create an embedded class system. We have only look at Communist China with its permanent rich upper class and permanently poor lower class to see the end result of centrally planned Big Government. Monopolies become achievable goals when the government is your business partner. Mr. Weiland should realize that by expanding government, which is his ardent wish, he’ll welcome the exasperation of the same problems which disappoint all honest Americans.

Rick also wants to limit campaign contributions supposedly to make elections fair. Rick does offer at gatherings a suggested Constitutional amendment to consider limiting campaign contributions in federal elections. Let me ruminate on his ingenuous proposal. Perhaps the silliest hypocrisy of that belief in limiting campaign contributions is his MoveOn.org sponsored petition against particular government shutdowns. I wager Rick would claim politicians were guilty by association when surrounded by corporate lobbyists, but why can’t I rule the same judgment on him when MoveOn.org has no history of supporting campaign contribution limits and were fined for it in the past? His close companionship with Tom Daschle over the years is filled with irony since Mr. Daschle works for DLA Piper which handles many corporate clients with great influence and success. Such a search for democratic justice is familiar territory with our current President’s similar, and now broken, campaign promises. As has been stated elsewhere and will now be again, political donations are a form of our freedom of speech in an open and fair election.

Rick Weiland’s opus of discrimination and suspicion towards our nation’s most successful, the titans of capitalism, only fantasizes of an America that never existed where nobody with a fat wallet tried his or her hand at political change. The romance of the Have’s and Have Not’s struggle shape his radical political character and in all discussions about the nation’s issues he promotes only classic monoscopic class warfare, which results in economic despair, even less bi-partisanship, and less respect and tolerance for your fellow man or woman. Without the wealthy boogeyman or abstract “Big” villain Rick’s entire platform collapses since there is no one left to blame and therefore nothing left for him to say.

We fought the revolution for representation in government so it is to be expected that it should be a chief concern for our democracy. Our country was founded by those who were very careful to ensure that government always remain the servant of the citizen, and not the few in power. President George Washington, famous for a reserved style of governing, was a firm supporter of a maximum size for voting districts. James Madison, our fourth President of the United States, authored Federalist paper # 55, which analyzed the House of Representatives. He supported the need for a close relationship between elected Representatives and their constituents so that they could better empathize and serve them. Madison also addressed finding a properly balanced voting district size with the goal to best reflect the will of the populace to the federal government.

The U.S. House represents a more accurate depiction of the present will of the people than any other office. It is not meant to duplicate the same purpose of the Senate, where long oratories occur, and the Members are more entrenched. The Senate acts to balance out the “passions” of the U.S. House. The Senate is meant to offer the utmost and equal value we hold for each state in the Union, whereas the U.S. House correlates and respects population changes and locality. The only exception is that each state is guaranteed a voice through one representative regardless of population.

Responsibility for the disconnect between the people and elected Representatives can be attributed to the ever increasing size of voting districts; the number of citizens represented by one U.S. House Member currently averages about seven hundred thousand. When a Representative has too large a constituency, the voters will be effectively disenfranchised through a shrinking fraction of representation as each House Member has to represent more and more voters in their respective districts. This dilution of personal representation leads to voter apathy as people start to think that their vote doesn’t count and populist upheaval becomes more common as people feel more distant from their government. The multiple schisms within the major political parties and numerous recall attempts can be connected to this disenfranchisement of Americans. The movements to split up states, or even secede from the Union, can be blamed on the washing away of our voice through that strengthening and embedded oligarchy in Washington D.C.

Increasing the number of Representatives will further enfranchise our voters. South Dakota could have two or three U.S. Representatives, from separate districts of our state to carry our people’s will to the halls of Congress. Although it may be more appropriate to have separate districts for each U.S. Representative given the cultural differences between east river and west river, historically our Representatives have been voted in by “district at large.” If our Representatives are voted in by “district at large” then we risk having photocopies of candidates, but we won’t have gerrymandering to fear every reapportionment. Either course of action would result in increased representation for South Dakotans. Because the number of U.S. Representatives would be increased equitably across the country and not just in South Dakota, based on smaller district sizes, the ratio of power between parties in the U.S. House will not change significantly. However, the effect on party power is irrelevant to honest governance and all Americans should be further enfranchised on principle even if the end result was a minor change in the ratio balance of power in the House of Representatives.

The reasons that have been given since the last increase in House Membership in 1911 for limiting the number of Representatives include the challenge of finding space to accommodate new members and the claim of greater difficulty in effectively conducting the orderly business of government in a deliberative way. However, given modern day advances in communications and other technology, the U.S. House can adjust to increase the size of its membership and still remain efficient. A gradual increase in Membership at each reapportionment is preferable to a sudden large increase in the number of U.S. Representatives in order to lessen the shock on all government operations that support the U.S. House. The countless committees, especially the “Committee of Oversight and Government Reform”, and the subcommittees and office support staff will make ready the Congressional chamber for the new members. Eventually, building a larger House chamber with additional office buildings is the only rational course. The additional cost for an increase in the Membership would not be insignificant, but it is money well-spent to ensure that all Americans have a voice in the House of Representatives. In comparison to the wasted dollars in pork barrel legislation, we should consider this upkeep of our free society an honorable burden.

Equitable representation is a keystone in our Republic, and it should be the responsibility of our generation to readjust to the growing population. The lack of government respect shown for our constituencies is visibly apparent with a despondent and enraged people. The infusion of hundreds of new members to the U.S. House over time will entirely unravel establishment politics and allow fresh and invaluable debate. The increased representation will enhance voter participation in politics, and our Republic will benefit through the interest, optimism, and activity. The “People’s House” must open its doors again.

A Race to the Top Scorecard, created by the National Council on Teacher Quality – an education reform think tank supported by the Bill & Melissa Gates Foundation – for state administrations, is littered with pictures of a cartoon man running. The unappealing imagery suggests a state government sprinting into the unknown, and appropriately the guidebook mentions that states can receive extra points, out of a total possible 500 points, for faster implementation of the Department of Education’s Race to the Top program. This 4.35 billion dollar program was developed to incentivize dramatic education reform at a statewide level to remedy the supposed inadequate standards of the states. The Department of Education, current federal administration, most state government leaders, and assorted boards support the statement that American children are underachieving in education to such a high level that the profound effects of the Race to the Top program is a needed response so that our children will succeed in a globalizing society.

If the federal government says a state can earn points for implementing a specific program in a contest where funds are awarded based on total points earned, is that not then an endorsed federal government program? When billions of federal tax dollars are earmarked in a national recession for specific programs that transform public education, is that not federal coercion of state behavior? The public is taxed and that money is then used as a carrot on a stick to entice states to reform public education through the Race to the Top program. The funds are not offered for a state’s own discretionary use to bolster its educational system, but only those states that follow the advised prescription will be awarded funding. Also, nearly all the categories that exist to receive points from the Race to the Top program are highly subjective and open to interpretation for judgment of compliance. This lack of clarity has led to accusations of political favoritism, such as in the case of Delaware, where a large number of apparently undeserved points were awarded to the state. This federally pushed program suggests strongly that there is one path to success and if your state is not on that path then it will be exempted from the benefit of the federal coffers.

Race to the Top directly offers 70 points, under the category Standards and Assessment, for adoption of the Common Core Standards. Thus far, Common Core Standards only apply to English and Math. However, the Common Core State Standards Initiative is recommending textbooks to states that will most likely become the primary textbooks for English and Math because of the fear of poor test results by school administrations, and expansion of standards for Science, Art, and other subjects are already being independently developed according to the national CCSSI website. Also, the Common Core Standards can be flanked by additional desired state standards, which would be tested separately, but the tests can not be changed so ignoring undesirable standards is futile. Because only the National Governors’ Association and Council of Chief State School Officers can change the copyrighted tested standards, states that choose to adopt Common Core Standards voluntarily diminish their sovereignty on issues of public education.

Common Core Standards is only one of many financially supported reforms through the Race to the Top program. Race to the Top is often thought of as merely a federal co-opting of K-12 education, but it also now will contain, for 2014 proposed, the “Preschool for All” program that espouses a fervor for “high quality” preschool education similar to the recent support for the Affordable Care Act. Methods are supported in the Race to the Top program that threaten teachers with dismissal if their students do poorly, such as on standardized tests, which disincentives any curriculum diversity. The Common Core Standards program also takes up nearly all of a teacher’s time through sets and subsets of required topics to be tested thereby limiting the diversity of children’s curriculum. It is truly stripping away an educator’s freedom to teach. The enactment of Common Core solidifies a measure of no value for any South Dakotan approach to educational standards where it concerns English and Math.

The U.S. Department of Education cannot by federal law establish a national curriculum. However, the National Governors’ Association has been co-opted by the federal government through the coercive Race to the Top grant program, which through required testing effects curriculum. It is acting as a third party to accept responsibility for the creation of the Common Core Standards, by those interested in centralization of education by keeping the federal government in the blind spot of people sensitive to federal encroachment upon states’ rights. Those that dream of an educational utopia across the United States, where state lines are no longer an obstacle to national uniformity, have the most to gain from the Race to the Top program. It is not a question of if these reforms can improve our school systems or student performance, it is a question of the value of state sovereignty. With the stripping away of a people’s local cultural influence on students’ education it provides the effect of nationalization without direct federal responsibility through the debatable voluntary competition of the Race to the Top program. In South Dakota, Common Core Standards was passed through the Board of Education without chamber-wide approval, and South Dakota did not receive enough points through the Race to the Top program to be awarded any federal funding. It is ironic therefore that our state leaders would be willing to give away our sovereignty over education standards without even achieving a monetary benefit for the state, and not surprising that several State Representatives and Senators are fighting to eliminate the Common Core Standards in South Dakota before planned implementation.

As an employer I know that if I offer adequate compensation the potential employees will apply. Unlike the illogical members of the Board of Regents I also know that if new businesses locate in South Dakota then the local higher education institutions will offer programs that are attractive for potential students that may desire to apply for a job at those new businesses. However, the Board of Regents in its perverse wisdom will probably suggest additional funds to educate blindly for unknown jobs, that have not been produced, at businesses that don’t yet exist based on this press release.

No real deterrent exists for a company in finding a skilled workforce if the need arises. Migration to our state will occur if jobs with reasonable compensation, through salary and benefits, are offered. We have a competitive edge over many other states through our reasonable state tax system that attract both businesses wishing to setup on South Dakota soil and also potential out-of-state job seekers considering relocating to our state. The Board of Regents despairingly imagines a South Dakota with so many skilled job offerings that South Dakota’s educational system can’t keep up with the demand for candidates through our state graduation rates.

The availability of several higher education institutions in South Dakota is a more valid talking point than the factory production of graduates, no different than the presence of adequate police protection being more valid than the number of speeding tickets issued as a measure of performance. With six universities and colleges, complemented by numerous private educational entities, we have more than adequate educational opportunity especially considering our small population when compared to the rest of the nation.

The Board of Regents suggests a strange requirement that all jobs developed in South Dakota should be filled by current South Dakota school children. That requirement is unnecessary if your goal is simply that South Dakota should continue to be financially stable and her people prosperous. A college graduate will always seek out opportunity that best fits his or her purposes and attempting to keep them captive is a fool’s errand. In conclusion, this embarrassing study should be torn up and thrown on the heap of misguided and disingenuous intellectual garbage commonly produced by ever short-funded and overpaid government boards.