We've received an initial response
from Scott which I'll post here, for now.
I intend to focus on building a relationship across the aisle with Republicans who want to work together. We have very little time to waste. Our approach to attracting business is antiquated; our focus must be on growing South Dakota's entrepreneurs and increasing the size and quality of our state's businesses, as opposed to offering incentives to any out of state business that comes along. Our approach to education is scandalous; any state that refuses to invest in children today is bound to invest in corrections tomorrow, and we are living proof.
Finally, the state's priorities are out of whack; our state budget grows, on average, at 5.6% per year over the life of the Rounds/Daugaard administration, at the same time we confine, by law, growth at the school and county level to 3% increases or inflation, whichever is less. It is time state government took some of it's own medicine. Had it not been for the Obama stimulus package, we would have run a structural deficit for the current budget year of some 71 million dollars, more next year, and more the following year. The first place to start carving is in the area of no bid contracts for personal services.
As far as West River issues are concerned I am confident that I will be a leader all South Dakota can be proud of. If you speak with area legislators now, most of whom are Republican, I believe they will tell you that I always give West River a fair shake. Any spending bill in the past three years could have been stopped, including refurbishing the Custer State Park facilities, the corrections facility for Rapid City, the expansion of the new higher education facility in Rapid City. But in each instance I have taken a leadership position in pushing for those projects.
Hopefully Mike will plug them in
to his excellent post below as needed.
Thanks Scott!
Great to hear from you.
BF
Heidepriem:
"The GOP attack tells you more about them than me. In the first place, it is fiction: I do not own a BMW, my house is not listed, and I am still a member of the same country club. So what is the point? That I am successful in my chosen field? I accept the criticism. It is desperate and sad, but also revealing about the state of the GOP.
I intend to focus on building a relationship across the aisle with Republicans who want to work together. We have very little time to waste. Our approach to attracting business is antiquated; our focus must be on growing South Dakota's entrepreneurs and increasing the size and quality of our state's businesses, as opposed to offering incentives to any out of state business that comes along. Our approach to education is scandalous; any state that refuses to invest in children today is bound to invest in corrections tomorrow, and we are living proof.
Finally, the state's priorities are out of whack; our state budget grows, on average, at 5.6% per year over the life of the Rounds/Daugaard administration, at the same time we confine, by law, growth at the school and county level to 3% increases or inflation, whichever is less. It is time state government took some of it's own medicine. Had it not been for the Obama stimulus package, we would have run a structural deficit for the current budget year of some 71 million dollars, more next year, and more the following year. The first place to start carving is in the area of no bid contracts for personal services.
As far as West River issues are concerned I am confident that I will be a leader all South Dakota can be proud of. If you speak with area legislators now, most of whom are Republican, I believe they will tell you that I always give West River a fair shake. Any spending bill in the past three years could have been stopped, including refurbishing the Custer State Park facilities, the corrections facility for Rapid City, the expansion of the new higher education facility in Rapid City. But in each instance I have taken a leadership position in pushing for those projects.
5 comments:
Thanks Mr. Heidepriem for your responses. I promised your responses would be reproduced here unedited and so they shall.
Those who are interested in what you were asked can refer to the post below this one, which I will edit to remove the introductory stuff.
Again, thanks for the response. I'll have some followup questions in a bit.
Okay, so the first question was with regard to the GOP release and that was handled well.
The second question was: In your view, what is the most important issue facing South Dakotans and their next governor? Specifically, how will you, as governor, address this issue?
I'm judging simply by the order of responses that your most important issue will be attracting business and growing entrepreneurs. You also briefly mention education in that response. You also discuss the state's budget process and include some discussion of education there.
Question number 3 asked for specificity on how you would address West River issues. You told us that we would be proud of you and that you have supported refurbishing Custer State Park facilities and the prison facilities here in Rapid City. I think we want to know, 1. if you have postitions on tourism, timber, ranching, etc. and 2., what are they?
You didn't address Ellsworth Air Force Base. Some of us here really do care what happens at that base.
You told us the state's priorities are out of whack. What will you do as governor to bring our priorities int line.
Our fifth question asks about school funding, which you discuss briefly, but without specificity again. You've said the way we do it sucks. Can you tell us HOW you'll do it better?
You did not answer the medical marijuana question. In fairness I sent the marijuana e-mail separatly, so we wait for that response.
In fairness to Mr. Heidepreim gentle readers, he quickly responded to us. We shall hope he is formulating more spcific answers for his next response.
Interesting that Scott is accusing the GOP of misrepresenting the truth and then goes on to say that state law dictates a maximum increase in education funding of 3% Scott knows that is a blatant falsehood. State law mandates a minimum increase in funding of 3% or infation, which ever is less, not the maximum.
I guess Scott believes if he says something often enough, people will start believing it.
to 'anonymous' poster,
This quote is taken directly (ctrl+c, ctrl+v) from Scott's response:
"at the same time we confine, by law, growth at the school and county level to 3% increases or inflation, whichever is less."
I think what Scott meant by 'confine' is that we rarely increase funding beyond the minimum (notice he did not say "maximum"). The values that define the minimum are consistently less than the rate of growth of the budget (5.6%). This means that education (and in turn, the potential for success for our youth) receives proportionately less and less attention every year.
I guess Republicans believe if they spin something often enough, people will start believing it.
To arron,
You should recheck the definition of "confine". It doesn't matter what you think Scott meant.(talk about spin)
Also it is a matter of record that the legislature has made increases above the "minimum" increase for k-12 for a number of years save the last 2.
Post a Comment