It's a beautiful day today. The sun is shining. Kids will be in Rapid Creek, cooling off. Fishermen will enjoy wonderful conditions. The bike path will be cluttered all day with people who have the potential to enjoy a perfect day.
Jennifer Smith will never have another perfect day. Never. She became a widow and lost her son to a motorcycle accident in the Gap. Her grief is unimaginable. And our hearts and prayers are with her and her family.
The accident was avoidable. Right turns on red from Jackson Blvd to east-bound Main should be outlawed. That can happen immediately. A raised median should be constructed from Halley Park to Jackson Blvd. as soon as it can be designed, engineered and constructed. Yes. It's an emergency.
That bit of asphalt, concrete and paint presents an interesting political scenario.
Stan Adelstein and Bob Fischer, both Republicans, have valuable real estate in the Gap, near where Jennifer and her son Kain lost their husband and father; son and brother.
Bob Fischer has already weighed in on the issue in a Rapid City Journal story yesterday.
Mayor Alan Hanks, who was supported by Adelstein in his bid for the mayor's office, announced at last night's council meeting that he has instructed his public works director to study West Main to determine if a raised median is in order.
Of course it is in order, Alan! You know it. I know it. The council knows it. They've known it for years and the only thing that has ever stopped it is an unreasonable fear of Bob Fischer's rath.
Fischer is quick to remind people that he is a man of God. He's a "family values" kind of guy. In fact, he's among the most powerful "family values" guys in the country.
Mr. Adelstein, a lay rabbi, is also a man of God. And he and Fischer have been at odds for many years over the issue of a woman's right to choose what happens to her body. Adelstein has been among Rapid City's most visible philanthropists in his support of community causes. If Mr. Fischer supports anything in this community, other than his church, he's pretty quiet about it. Of course, he supports Rapid City residents with low low prices and no interest for two years if paid in two years....
So now Adelstein and Fischer are both faced with the question: Life or money. Mr. Fischer has made it clear that while Jennifer Smith's tragedy is unfortunate, it does not outweigh his customers' convenience; her husband's and son's lives were not as valuable as his property.
Mr. Adelstein has yet to weigh in. But I'm betting here and now he'll support the city in whatever measures it takes to try to avoid the loss of another life, no matter what effect such action will have on his property value. I could be wrong. And if Mr. Adelstein opposes a raised median on West Main, then I will happily take him to task here.
And so as we all celebrate a beautiful July 21, take a moment from an otherwise perfect day, and consider Jennifer Smith, who prepares to bury her husband and son.
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query adelstein. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query adelstein. Sort by date Show all posts
Tuesday, July 21, 2009
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
And now, Sen. Adelstein
Sen. Stan Adelstein, who has long claimed to be a conservative who supports business:
SB 117 is a self-serving bill to require certain heliports be approved by the South Dakota Aeronautics Commission. This bill is designed to help him in his quest to put a tourism helicopter business out of business because the helicopters pass in front of his view of Mount Rushmore from his palatial Black Hills home. The bill was rightfully killed in the Senate Transportation Committee.
SB 118 was a bill to revise the documentation requirements for obtaining a drivers license. This was an attempt to make the rules set forth by the Department of Homeland Security less difficult to comply with. The problem is that it risks highway funding. And it failed in the Senate Transportation Committee.
SB 119 was a bill which was killed in the Senate Health & Human Services Committee, which allowed counties and municipalities to investigate discriminatory practices based on sexual orientation and gender identity, with respect to employment, labor union membership, housing accommodations, property rights, education, public accommodations or public services.
SB 120 was killed in the Senate Taxation Committee. It was designed to temporarily increase the state sales and use tax and to declare an emergency. This was designed to tax tourists and residents for a short period of time to generate money for the Department of Education. Sen. Adelstein and more taxes go hand in hand.
SB 121 would have expanded medicaid eligibility for pregnant women and would have made an appropriation to do it. Died in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. The bill did not identify which pregnant women would qualify...just pregnant women, leaving the door open for wealthy pregnant women. The bill was rightfully killed and yet another Adelstein tax was averted.
SB 173 would have allowed people trained and certified in "medical-aesthetic services" to perform medical aesthetic services like injecting Botox, Collagen and other substances into another human for cosmetic purposes. Today doctors and nurses do that. Under Adelstien's bill an 18-year-old with "good moral character" and a certificate from somewhere would be allowed to do this. Senate Health & Human Services killed the bill, with good reason.
SB 181 is another self-serving bill which failed in the senate 12 to 22. Sen. Adelstein's son is married to an individual who's brother is currently in civil court accused of alienation of affections. The bill would have repealed "certain tort liability arising out of causes of action based on seduction , abduction, and alienation of affections. (Yes, abduction.)
SB 182 is yet another self-serving bill that says tax increments may not be used for the construction of residential structures "except residential structures which are integral to the project. The costs for the residential structures may not exceed twenty-two percent of the total project costs. No tax increments may be used for construction of any residential structures unless the project is located in the downtown district of a municipality with a population of more than 10,000." Hello?! Mr. Adelstein is a well-known developer in town. I wonder how this legislation might benefit some of his or his friend's projects? The bill was tabled in Senate State Affairs Committee on an 8-0 vote.
House bills he sponsored later...On Senate Bills effectiveness, he is 0 for 8.
SB 117 is a self-serving bill to require certain heliports be approved by the South Dakota Aeronautics Commission. This bill is designed to help him in his quest to put a tourism helicopter business out of business because the helicopters pass in front of his view of Mount Rushmore from his palatial Black Hills home. The bill was rightfully killed in the Senate Transportation Committee.
SB 118 was a bill to revise the documentation requirements for obtaining a drivers license. This was an attempt to make the rules set forth by the Department of Homeland Security less difficult to comply with. The problem is that it risks highway funding. And it failed in the Senate Transportation Committee.
SB 119 was a bill which was killed in the Senate Health & Human Services Committee, which allowed counties and municipalities to investigate discriminatory practices based on sexual orientation and gender identity, with respect to employment, labor union membership, housing accommodations, property rights, education, public accommodations or public services.
SB 120 was killed in the Senate Taxation Committee. It was designed to temporarily increase the state sales and use tax and to declare an emergency. This was designed to tax tourists and residents for a short period of time to generate money for the Department of Education. Sen. Adelstein and more taxes go hand in hand.
SB 121 would have expanded medicaid eligibility for pregnant women and would have made an appropriation to do it. Died in the Senate Health and Human Services Committee. The bill did not identify which pregnant women would qualify...just pregnant women, leaving the door open for wealthy pregnant women. The bill was rightfully killed and yet another Adelstein tax was averted.
SB 173 would have allowed people trained and certified in "medical-aesthetic services" to perform medical aesthetic services like injecting Botox, Collagen and other substances into another human for cosmetic purposes. Today doctors and nurses do that. Under Adelstien's bill an 18-year-old with "good moral character" and a certificate from somewhere would be allowed to do this. Senate Health & Human Services killed the bill, with good reason.
SB 181 is another self-serving bill which failed in the senate 12 to 22. Sen. Adelstein's son is married to an individual who's brother is currently in civil court accused of alienation of affections. The bill would have repealed "certain tort liability arising out of causes of action based on seduction , abduction, and alienation of affections. (Yes, abduction.)
SB 182 is yet another self-serving bill that says tax increments may not be used for the construction of residential structures "except residential structures which are integral to the project. The costs for the residential structures may not exceed twenty-two percent of the total project costs. No tax increments may be used for construction of any residential structures unless the project is located in the downtown district of a municipality with a population of more than 10,000." Hello?! Mr. Adelstein is a well-known developer in town. I wonder how this legislation might benefit some of his or his friend's projects? The bill was tabled in Senate State Affairs Committee on an 8-0 vote.
House bills he sponsored later...On Senate Bills effectiveness, he is 0 for 8.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Sen. Adelstein's New Taxes
Because I'm a resident of District 32, I received last week a nice letter from Sen. Stan Adelstein describing his plans for the upcoming legislative session.
I like Stan. But, I've often stated that as a professed conservative, he sure does like a lot of taxes. Now he wants a "temporary" 1 cent sales tax to relieve the deficit in 2011. "The Governor has been clear on this," he says. "We must prepare."
First, the reality is that there is no such thing as a "temporary" tax. Once the state becomes addicted to the money (and they will) the "temporary" tax will never be allowed to expire.
I've posted the survey Mr. Adelstein included in his letter. Fill it out and tell us what you think, Forumpians.
Second, the governor should have prepared for this years ago, instead of the wholesale spending spree he's been on since taking office. He's added more state government employees than any governor in memory. He has raided and continues to raid the state's reserves to keep the state moving down this economically catastrophic path.
It is up to this Legislature to make heavy cuts in order to balance a budget that many of them helped produce. And they must do so without more taxes on our citizens.
Mr. Adelstein is quick to note that 20 to 30 percent of the new sales taxes collected will come from people who are visiting the state. Whoopee! That means only 70 to 80 percent of the cost of repairing the damage Pierre has done will be born by the people of South Dakota. Nice work.
Mr. Adelstein also wishes to outlaw the use of tanning beds by minors. He does not define minor. Does his proposed law would apply to those under 21, or those under 18 (the age at which young people are allowed to carry guns and shoot other people in defense of their country)?
This is another case of Mr. Adelstein supporting what Mr. Powers at War College likes to call "Nanny State Legislation." We'll discuss Mr. Powers' multiple hypocracies on nanny state legislation in another post at another time.
The tanning booth legislation appears to be an attempt by the government to protect our young people from the hazards of tanning beds and the risk of skin disease they may present. The obvious question is, "What's next, Stan?" Will next year bring a law that says parents who don't use the proper sunscreen will be charged with child abuse? The sun presents a hazard to your health. Will the Legislature soon take up the matter of how much time a young person may spend in the sunshine?
Some things need to be left to parents. Time spent in a tanning booth is among them.
And, finally, Stan wants to fiddle property tax fairness as it relates to school funding. I've not seen his proposal, so I won't comment here.
I like Stan. But, I've often stated that as a professed conservative, he sure does like a lot of taxes. Now he wants a "temporary" 1 cent sales tax to relieve the deficit in 2011. "The Governor has been clear on this," he says. "We must prepare."
First, the reality is that there is no such thing as a "temporary" tax. Once the state becomes addicted to the money (and they will) the "temporary" tax will never be allowed to expire.
I've posted the survey Mr. Adelstein included in his letter. Fill it out and tell us what you think, Forumpians.
Second, the governor should have prepared for this years ago, instead of the wholesale spending spree he's been on since taking office. He's added more state government employees than any governor in memory. He has raided and continues to raid the state's reserves to keep the state moving down this economically catastrophic path.
It is up to this Legislature to make heavy cuts in order to balance a budget that many of them helped produce. And they must do so without more taxes on our citizens.
Mr. Adelstein is quick to note that 20 to 30 percent of the new sales taxes collected will come from people who are visiting the state. Whoopee! That means only 70 to 80 percent of the cost of repairing the damage Pierre has done will be born by the people of South Dakota. Nice work.
Mr. Adelstein also wishes to outlaw the use of tanning beds by minors. He does not define minor. Does his proposed law would apply to those under 21, or those under 18 (the age at which young people are allowed to carry guns and shoot other people in defense of their country)?
This is another case of Mr. Adelstein supporting what Mr. Powers at War College likes to call "Nanny State Legislation." We'll discuss Mr. Powers' multiple hypocracies on nanny state legislation in another post at another time.
The tanning booth legislation appears to be an attempt by the government to protect our young people from the hazards of tanning beds and the risk of skin disease they may present. The obvious question is, "What's next, Stan?" Will next year bring a law that says parents who don't use the proper sunscreen will be charged with child abuse? The sun presents a hazard to your health. Will the Legislature soon take up the matter of how much time a young person may spend in the sunshine?
Some things need to be left to parents. Time spent in a tanning booth is among them.
And, finally, Stan wants to fiddle property tax fairness as it relates to school funding. I've not seen his proposal, so I won't comment here.
Monday, April 26, 2010
Stan Adelstein is..., uh, shall we say..., uh, just plain stupid?
At Blogmore a few days ago, Woster planted a topic string -- "On nice ladies and gangster governments," that you should read. I chimed in after I saw a post by Stan Adelstein that kinda pissed me off, as he more or less touted his own statesmanship. I described how he defamed me gratuitously in a letter to the editor of the RC Journal after I had been placed under court order that prevented me from adequately responding (although I did respond).
In that letter, which appeared late in July last year (I was sentenced on July 6), Adelstein tells a few lies and labels me a "common criminal" for, I guess, being convicted of a marijuana charge. In one of several comments Adelstein left on that topic thread was this gem:
From much authentic and well documented information, Marijuana is an entry drug. If this true, and I believe that it is, then legalized, and widespread use of Marijuana would lead a greater use of other, more damaging drugs like cocaine, heroin and maybe meth (though the information that I was relying on was before the onset of the meth problem)
In that letter, which appeared late in July last year (I was sentenced on July 6), Adelstein tells a few lies and labels me a "common criminal" for, I guess, being convicted of a marijuana charge. In one of several comments Adelstein left on that topic thread was this gem:
From much authentic and well documented information, Marijuana is an entry drug. If this true, and I believe that it is, then legalized, and widespread use of Marijuana would lead a greater use of other, more damaging drugs like cocaine, heroin and maybe meth (though the information that I was relying on was before the onset of the meth problem)
If you accept both the first premise, and would also accept that widespread use of coke, etc is injurious to the general societal good then legislation to prevent that general injury trumps the right of absolute non -governmental intervention in individual choices. If you accept neither the premise or the societal damage, I guess that we would have respectfully disagree.
[...snipped paragraphs...]
By the way, maybe a surprise - many, and I mean many (I am after all 79) years ago I had a girl friend who insisted that Marijuana increased the pleasure of sex. She was beautiful, intelligent, and successful. No matter how many of her cigarettes that I tried - it just did not get any better than with none!
*****
In the course of the conversation, Stan accused me of being a liar and called me a "common criminal" for being convicted of possessing cannabis. He excuses himself from the same classification by virtue of the fact that he was not arrested and charged.
Please go read the thread, "On nice ladies and gangster governments,". Note particularly how "bearcreekbat" takes Adelstein's pants off and burns them.
When Adelstein says cannabis is an "entry" drug, I think he has something else in mind than what the rest of us do. For his definition of "entry," being rich is probably far more effective than having good weed.
Incidentally, I am not posting this because I think what happened to me is anything special. On the contrary, it is all too common. I think it's a pretty good example of how a politician can try to appear to take a stand on something when in fact he is all over the ballfield on the issue, trying to play every position while knowing nothing about the game.
Monday, July 27, 2009
Stanford told a fib
In comments on the story about my sentence that appeared in the Rapid City Journal today, a comment purported to have come from Stanford Adelstein (and I believe the attribution to be accurate) at 2:10 PM says:
Judge Delaney was absolutely correct. To characterize Newland as an advocate for the legalization of marijuana for MEDICAL purposes is untrue. He is only interested in making marijuana available for his friends and others for recreational purposes, and perhaps financial gain.
I met with him at the Capitol in Room 411, (or maybe 412) during the session to offer, to assist for MEDICAL purposes in a Bill, as Chair of Health and Human Services. I said that I would only do so if there were 3 (three) simple changes in the legislation he was proposing.
1. There would be a required prescription from and MD legally authorized to issue drug prescriptions
2.The prescription could only be given if either there was no FDA drug that would accomplish the same as the marijuana or that drug cost three more times the cost of the pot.
3. The marijuana could only come from one or two sites approved and inspected by the SD Dept of Health
He and his friends in the room flatly rejected all three saying that anyone could grow the stuff for anyone else at any time that it was needed. I walked out of the room, knowing that they had no true interest in the help for people with pain and/or suffering. I of course opposed their bill vigorously and it did not even get to the House floor.
Newland is and should be treated as a common felon. The Judge was correct from stopping his phone posturing, I only wish that it was for more than a single year.
Stan Adelstein, State Senator District 32
What actually happened was that Adelstein came into a room where Pat Lynch, a 40-ish multiple sclerosis sufferer was explaining to a number of legislators how cannabis palliates his condition. Adelstein broke into the conversation rudely, made his three-point announcement (ludicrous on its face) as he states above, then turned and walked out without giving anyone a chance to respond.
The sentence given me by Judge Delaney is tolerable. Having an a**ho** lie about an event as important as that one was is not.
A few years ago, an editorial in the Rapid City Journal recounted an Adelstein statement: "I know the marijuana laws work, because only one of my three sons smoked marijuana. I know because they told me so." Common felon, indeed.
I met with him at the Capitol in Room 411, (or maybe 412) during the session to offer, to assist for MEDICAL purposes in a Bill, as Chair of Health and Human Services. I said that I would only do so if there were 3 (three) simple changes in the legislation he was proposing.
1. There would be a required prescription from and MD legally authorized to issue drug prescriptions
2.The prescription could only be given if either there was no FDA drug that would accomplish the same as the marijuana or that drug cost three more times the cost of the pot.
3. The marijuana could only come from one or two sites approved and inspected by the SD Dept of Health
He and his friends in the room flatly rejected all three saying that anyone could grow the stuff for anyone else at any time that it was needed. I walked out of the room, knowing that they had no true interest in the help for people with pain and/or suffering. I of course opposed their bill vigorously and it did not even get to the House floor.
Newland is and should be treated as a common felon. The Judge was correct from stopping his phone posturing, I only wish that it was for more than a single year.
Stan Adelstein, State Senator District 32
What actually happened was that Adelstein came into a room where Pat Lynch, a 40-ish multiple sclerosis sufferer was explaining to a number of legislators how cannabis palliates his condition. Adelstein broke into the conversation rudely, made his three-point announcement (ludicrous on its face) as he states above, then turned and walked out without giving anyone a chance to respond.
The sentence given me by Judge Delaney is tolerable. Having an a**ho** lie about an event as important as that one was is not.
A few years ago, an editorial in the Rapid City Journal recounted an Adelstein statement: "I know the marijuana laws work, because only one of my three sons smoked marijuana. I know because they told me so." Common felon, indeed.
Tuesday, January 10, 2012
Stan Adelstein: TAX EVERYONE!
Stan Adelstein has been called a RINO by those on the radical religious right. Me too.
Where Stan and I separate is that Stan has been active in proposing tax increases at every opportunity. In this session he has said he will re-introduce his plan to increase the state sales tax during the summer.
I cannot think of another Republican lawmaker who has been less effective. Let's look at his 2011 record of bills he sponsored:
SB 104: Anti-bullying legislation to require school districts to adopt anti-bullying policies. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 105: A bill to require ignition interlock on second-offense DUI convicts' automobiles. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 115: A bill to prohibit the use of cell phones while driving. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 116: A bill to confiscate DUI convicts' license plates. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 117: A bill to prevent minors from using tanning devices. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 118: A bill to expand medicaid eligibility for pregnant women and to provide an appropriation therefor. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 151: Revise the grandfathering provisions and renewal requirements of massage therapy licensure. PASSED with amendments, signed by governor. This was a tax on massage therapy license holders who fail to renew their license 30 days prior to its expiration date.
SB 174: A bill to temporarily increase the state sales tax and use tax to fund the state budget shortfall and to declare an emergency. Failed to get a committee hearing.
SB 175: A bill to provide for the participation of independent voters in primary elections. Failed to get out of committee.
CO SPONSOR OF HOUSE LEGISLATION:
HB 1055: a bill to prohibit employers from restricting employees who are volunteer emergency responders in their response to emergencies during work hours. Failed to get out of committee.
HB 1130: A bill to allow certain adult children of overseas citizens to vote in the state. PASSED with three amendments. Signed by governor.
HB 1159: A bill to create and ombudsman position to assist taxpayers with property tax assessment appeals. Failed to get out of committee.
HB 1205: A bill to provide for the distribution of certain stimulus money to state aid to education. Tabled in committee.
HB 1253: A bill to establish provisions for military and overseas voters. Tabled in committee.
In 2009, Sen. Adelstein was eager to wage war on taxpayers when he sponsored SB 194 which increased fuel excise tax on ethanol blends. Failed to get out of committee.
In 2006 Sen. Adelstein sponsored SB 139, would would have allowed the state to confiscate motor vehicles driven by people who are DUI or who has no drivers license. Failed in committee.
In 2005, He was primary sponsor of a House Bill to increase tax on cigarettes. Failed to get out of committee.
He sponsored an increase the tax on alcoholic beverages, which never got to committee. This was the "per drink" tax that would have created a reporting nightmare for every wholesale and retail liquor distributor in the state.
He was the primary sponsor of a House bill to increase the school term and require taxpayers to provide for the costs associated with doing so. Killed in the education committee.
In 2004, he sponsored a bill to increase the tax on alcoholic beverages and revise the distribution of revenue. Died in committee.
He also sponsored HB 1170 which would have repealed the video lottery and replaced the revenue with increases in sales and use taxes. Tabled in committee.
In 2003, he again introduced HB 1204 the old per drink tax. That year he also introduced HC 101 which honored his son, Jonathan for his appointment to the Federal Communications Commission. (That one passed) He was the primary House Sponsor of SB 147 to increase the states percentage of the video lottery income, and SB 186 to impose additional tax on certain alcoholic beverages. Both died in committee.
He has obviously been an opponent of video lottery for some time and back in 2003, he was House sponsor of SB 191 which prevented people in the video lottery industry from contributing to political candidates. That one died too.
In 2003 he co sponsored a bill to impose a tax on cell phone companies. This was Passed with multiple amendments, vetoed by Gov. Rounds and both the House and Senate successfully voted to override the veto.
Also in 2003, he co-sponsored a bill to increase taxes on cigarettes, which passed.
The guy really hates booze and cigarettes. He introduced tax increases on both in 2001. Both bills failed.
He's also big on confiscating the license plates of people he believes can't afford their cars, having introduced legislation in a number of years to do just that, which has always been a failing effort.
All those years in the legislature and what he has to show for it is a series of efforts to tax individuals, businesses, industry. For many years, I have hated the term RINO. In Stan's case, with his love of every new tax that comes down the pike, RINO just might fit.
Where Stan and I separate is that Stan has been active in proposing tax increases at every opportunity. In this session he has said he will re-introduce his plan to increase the state sales tax during the summer.
I cannot think of another Republican lawmaker who has been less effective. Let's look at his 2011 record of bills he sponsored:
SB 104: Anti-bullying legislation to require school districts to adopt anti-bullying policies. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 105: A bill to require ignition interlock on second-offense DUI convicts' automobiles. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 115: A bill to prohibit the use of cell phones while driving. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 116: A bill to confiscate DUI convicts' license plates. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 117: A bill to prevent minors from using tanning devices. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 118: A bill to expand medicaid eligibility for pregnant women and to provide an appropriation therefor. Failed to get out of committee.
SB 151: Revise the grandfathering provisions and renewal requirements of massage therapy licensure. PASSED with amendments, signed by governor. This was a tax on massage therapy license holders who fail to renew their license 30 days prior to its expiration date.
SB 174: A bill to temporarily increase the state sales tax and use tax to fund the state budget shortfall and to declare an emergency. Failed to get a committee hearing.
SB 175: A bill to provide for the participation of independent voters in primary elections. Failed to get out of committee.
CO SPONSOR OF HOUSE LEGISLATION:
HB 1055: a bill to prohibit employers from restricting employees who are volunteer emergency responders in their response to emergencies during work hours. Failed to get out of committee.
HB 1130: A bill to allow certain adult children of overseas citizens to vote in the state. PASSED with three amendments. Signed by governor.
HB 1159: A bill to create and ombudsman position to assist taxpayers with property tax assessment appeals. Failed to get out of committee.
HB 1205: A bill to provide for the distribution of certain stimulus money to state aid to education. Tabled in committee.
HB 1253: A bill to establish provisions for military and overseas voters. Tabled in committee.
In 2009, Sen. Adelstein was eager to wage war on taxpayers when he sponsored SB 194 which increased fuel excise tax on ethanol blends. Failed to get out of committee.
In 2006 Sen. Adelstein sponsored SB 139, would would have allowed the state to confiscate motor vehicles driven by people who are DUI or who has no drivers license. Failed in committee.
In 2005, He was primary sponsor of a House Bill to increase tax on cigarettes. Failed to get out of committee.
He sponsored an increase the tax on alcoholic beverages, which never got to committee. This was the "per drink" tax that would have created a reporting nightmare for every wholesale and retail liquor distributor in the state.
He was the primary sponsor of a House bill to increase the school term and require taxpayers to provide for the costs associated with doing so. Killed in the education committee.
In 2004, he sponsored a bill to increase the tax on alcoholic beverages and revise the distribution of revenue. Died in committee.
He also sponsored HB 1170 which would have repealed the video lottery and replaced the revenue with increases in sales and use taxes. Tabled in committee.
In 2003, he again introduced HB 1204 the old per drink tax. That year he also introduced HC 101 which honored his son, Jonathan for his appointment to the Federal Communications Commission. (That one passed) He was the primary House Sponsor of SB 147 to increase the states percentage of the video lottery income, and SB 186 to impose additional tax on certain alcoholic beverages. Both died in committee.
He has obviously been an opponent of video lottery for some time and back in 2003, he was House sponsor of SB 191 which prevented people in the video lottery industry from contributing to political candidates. That one died too.
In 2003 he co sponsored a bill to impose a tax on cell phone companies. This was Passed with multiple amendments, vetoed by Gov. Rounds and both the House and Senate successfully voted to override the veto.
Also in 2003, he co-sponsored a bill to increase taxes on cigarettes, which passed.
The guy really hates booze and cigarettes. He introduced tax increases on both in 2001. Both bills failed.
He's also big on confiscating the license plates of people he believes can't afford their cars, having introduced legislation in a number of years to do just that, which has always been a failing effort.
All those years in the legislature and what he has to show for it is a series of efforts to tax individuals, businesses, industry. For many years, I have hated the term RINO. In Stan's case, with his love of every new tax that comes down the pike, RINO just might fit.
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
This would be funny, but, well, shit, it's still a law.
The following bill was defeated in committee today.
SENATE BILL NO. 108
(1) The abduction or enticement of a husband from his wife or of a parent from a child;
(2) The abduction or enticement of a wife from her husband, of a child from a parent, or
from a guardian entitled to its custody;
(3) The seduction of a wife, daughter, or orphan sister;
(4) The seduction of a husband, son, or orphan brother.
The Rapid City Journal said this (also reprinted below):
[several minutes after posting what's above] I have now listened to Stan's testimony, which was pretty damned good. Amazingly, no one else spoke in favor of the bill as an initial proponent, which would repeal a crazy fucking law.
There's a lot of "if it saves one child" rhetoric. Even Stan sank to that, but with some reason. The opponents used it like throwing spaghetti at the wall. Really, you should listen to the testimony.
[still later] Senator Vehle: "I hate to have other states look at us and say, 'It's okay to try to break up a marriage.'"
For the record, only 6 other states still allow lawsuits based on "alienation of affection."
Vehle regularly ignores "what other states think of us."
[still later] I'm not very committed to what Mark Kirkeby says about anything, even when he agrees with me.
[and later again] Senator Bradford's testimony is somewhat short of constructive,
SENATE BILL NO. 108
Introduced by: Senators Adelstein, Kirkeby, Lucas, Rampelberg, Soholt, Tieszen, and White
and Representatives Magstadt, Conzet, Erickson, Hajek, Hunhoff (Bernie),
Kopp, and Olson (Betty)
|
FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to repeal certain tort liability arising out of causes of action
based on seduction, abduction, and alienation of affections.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 20-9-7 be repealed.
20-9-7. The rights of personal relation forbid:
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 20-9-7 be repealed.
You can listen to the committee testimony here. You'll have to listen to about 10 minutes of discussion on a different bill first. Stan starts it off by making sure everyone knows he has two assistants, something that I am pretty sure no other legislator has. I say this while agreeing with him on this bill.
The Rapid City Journal said this (also reprinted below):
PIERRE | A South Dakota Senate committee has recommended that the state keep a law that allows people to file lawsuits seeking financial damages from those who allegedly seduce and steal their spouses.The law protects marriages. Right.
The Judiciary Committee voted 4-3 to kill a measure that would repeal the law.
But the measure's main sponsor, Sen. Stan Adelstein (AD'-uhl-steen) of Rapid City, says he might ask the full Senate to override the committee and debate the bill.
Adelstein says South Dakota should get rid of alienation of affection lawsuits because the law mistakenly treats a spouse as property with a monetary value. He says alienation of affection lawsuits particularly hurt the children of those involved in the legal dispute.
But opponents say the law protects marriages by deterring people from trying to seduce married people.
[several minutes after posting what's above] I have now listened to Stan's testimony, which was pretty damned good. Amazingly, no one else spoke in favor of the bill as an initial proponent, which would repeal a crazy fucking law.
There's a lot of "if it saves one child" rhetoric. Even Stan sank to that, but with some reason. The opponents used it like throwing spaghetti at the wall. Really, you should listen to the testimony.
[still later] Senator Vehle: "I hate to have other states look at us and say, 'It's okay to try to break up a marriage.'"
For the record, only 6 other states still allow lawsuits based on "alienation of affection."
Vehle regularly ignores "what other states think of us."
[still later] I'm not very committed to what Mark Kirkeby says about anything, even when he agrees with me.
[and later again] Senator Bradford's testimony is somewhat short of constructive,
Friday, January 18, 2013
Adelstein has a good idea. Doesn't go far enough.
Senate Bill 82, introduced yesterday by Stan Adelstein, proposes to make the Secretary of State's election "non-partisan."
Currently, the Sec. of State candidates are chosen in convention by "official" political parties in So. Dak. The current Sec. of State, Jason Gant, was nominated by the Republican Party convention in 2010, which meant that he was a shoo-in. He had never demonstrated any skills at anything except eating too much, a record he has maintained intact to this day.
Currently, the Sec. of State candidates are chosen in convention by "official" political parties in So. Dak. The current Sec. of State, Jason Gant, was nominated by the Republican Party convention in 2010, which meant that he was a shoo-in. He had never demonstrated any skills at anything except eating too much, a record he has maintained intact to this day.
Adelstein doesn't like Gant, so he filed a proposal to change election law so that one must enter a primary election to get elected to Sec. of State. Adlestein's proposal is that the SoS primary election be conducted on a ballot separate from the other primary ballots, with no mention of the political identification of the candidates. The two candidates on that ballot who receive the highest vote count would go on to the general election, which could (and probably would) result in two "Republicans" (whatever that means?, really) contesting each other in the November election for SoS every four years.
Sounds fine to me. Takes the SoS office out of the hands of the people whose dicks Gant sucked to get nominated.
Why not remove all references to "party" affiliation from all election ballots. Political parties are nothing more than business and social clubs whose aim is to divert public funds to their members/supporters. Why give them free advertising on political ballots?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)