Liar, Liar... Initiated Measure 7's pants are on fire?

By -
I had this note this AM from a supporter of the Dennis Arnold campaign in response to my post on Initiated Measure 7, the Video Lottery Repeal. And they're rather adamant that Dennis does NOT support Initiated Measure 7, and he frankly doesn't know where they got that:
This came up last week from (Name Redacted) and this was my response. I told him he could forward my response on to whoever he wished. I don't know who this secretive group is but wish they would be open and honest with their statements

Dennis

-----Original Message-----

From: Dennis Arnold [mailto:dennis@arnoldconstructioninc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:48 PM
Subject: RE: [Fwd: FW:]

Dear (Name Redacted) :

I don't know who "They" are, but I have clarified personally to (Name Redacted), when I met with him prior to the primary, at my reception publicly and also when I was on KWAT "What's Up" on Monday. My position on Video lottery never comes in any settings except when it comes back to (Name Redacted). All I know to do is respond to the people asking the question with what my response was at the reception and always has been. I am not in favor of the repeal of video lottery and the state losing the revenue generated by it. South Dakota cannot afford to lose revenue that comes in to our state budget. Many areas of state government and services to the public would have to be eliminated or drastically reduced if Initiated Measure # 7 passes. The legislature will be forced into passing additional tax legislation should video lottery go away. I believe the general population in South Dakota does not want any new tax. I am also not in favor of eliminating the tax on wireless communication companies either for the same reason.

Hope this helps.

Dennis
Interesting. Any other candidates who were included on that list care to note if they're really for it or against it?

Because it seems to me to be a pretty serious breach of protocol to use a candidate's name on your measure if they really aren't a supporter.

Comments

Anonymous said…
"Name Redacted" must be a Republican, or PP would have named him and called him a lying Democrat.

Let's just all protect our own like we GOPs did with Foley!
1:55 PM
Anonymous said…
I just spoke with Dennis Arnold by telephone and explained that my information came from the South Dakota Family Policy Council voter guide.

Neither he nor I knows why the voter guide was printed with incorrect information.

I apologized to Dennis and let him know that we will tell people on our site about the error.

For the record, Dennis told me he opposes video lottery, and his problem with Measure 7 is that it doesn't name a replacement funding source. Dennis concedes, however, that a half-penny sales tax would be an easy fix that would not have much of an impact on the average family.
3:25 PM
Anonymous said…
PP-
You should do a little investigative work before name calling. Looks like a honest mistake and Dan deserves an appology. So what kind of names are you going to call the SD Family Policy Council or do they get a pass?
4:31 PM
Anonymous said…
Maybe their question was simply "Do you support video lottery?" Since Arnold says he's opposed to it , it's easy to see how the Yes on 7 people would have misconstrued that. I haven't seen the actual survey.
7:42 PM
Anonymous said…
Dennis saw Dan's post and his comment was pretty straight forward: I support video lottery and he doesn't appreciate the spin Mr Brendtro is putting on this.

If Dennis didn't have two hands in casts right now (a whole new meaning to "casting" your vote), he'd type this himself and then choke Dan and the horse he road in on :)
9:41 PM
Anonymous said…
Isnt the ballot explanation a lie ? 112 million dollar loss to the general fund ??

I thought the gambling revenues went to the proprty tax relief fund ??

At least that is what I am told every time I bring up the issue to a legislator. I accuse them of taking the "gambling money" and putting it in the general fund, and they quickly reply "thats not true, it goes into the property tax reduction fund"

which is it ? where does it go ? If it does not go into the general fund, was it fair for Long to use that statement about a loss of 11% the general fund ?

I am not being sarcastic, I am asking questions
10:16 PM
Anonymous said…
As a former legislator, I agree it's confusing and somewhat dishonest. There is a "property tax reduction fund", but that's just a name. The money goes in and out of it for general government purposes just like it does from the "general fund". Long is actually correct. If our administrations would be more forthright with our money they would quit calling that fund by such a disingeuous name, since it has nothing to do with property tax anymore.
10:36 PM
Anonymous said…
Lee's post is a little confusing. It's written in different"persons", and I'm not sure who all the pronouns refer to. Is he saying Dan is not telling the truth?
10:38 PM
Anonymous said…
been there;

thank you,
I appreciate the comments.
11:44 PM
Anonymous said…
Look at the Family Policy Council voter guide, Schoenbeck. Question # 10 says "Support repealing video lottery?" It lists Arnold's reply as "Y."

http://www.sdfamily.org/var/static/SDFPC-1848VoterGuide1-8.pdf

Looks like an honest mistake to me.
12:08 AM
Anonymous said…
The property tax reduction fund (PTRF) has traditionally been the source from which the state has funded property tax relief, and transfers to the general fund from the PTRF account for 11% of ongoing general fund revenues. In 1996, legislation directed that receipts from video lottery be transferred into the PTRF and checks were written from the fund to the counties to fund the first Property Tax Credit Program. When the new state aid to education formula was implemented in 1997, property tax relief was then paid out of the general fund through state aid to education. The legislature then directed that dollars in the PTRF be transferred to the state general fund for property tax relief.
9:34 AM
Anonymous said…
No apologies to Dan Brendtro for calling him a liar? No castigating the Family Policy Council for publishing false information? No calling Family Policy Council a Liar? Just pitiful?

Why should anyone pay attention to this blog if it is just becoming another right-wing shill with a double standards for those it supports and those it opposes?
10:33 AM
Anonymous said…
10:33 - did you not read Schoenbeck's comments above?

At the very least, there's a difference of opinion between what Arnold thinks he said and what Brendtro thinks Arold said.

Sounds to me like you're being the one with double standards.
12:05 PM
Anonymous said…
So mjb, you agree then that the family policy council misrepresented Arnold's positions when it said that he supports repeal of video lottery?

Where's the outrage over the FPC putting out such misleading information?
2:06 PM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

A note from Benedict Ar... Sorry. A note from Stan Adelstein why he thinks you should vote Democrat this year.

By -
Image
(Click on letter to enlarge) And while it may not be printed at taxpayer expense, I don't see a disclaimer, either. When they hold the special session (supposedly at the end of November) , since he's left them already, I think his colleagues should expel him from the caucus. Sure. At that point it's only going to be symbolic. But since he's already said he's running again in the near future, sometimes symbolism is enough.
Read more

Corson County information on Klaudt Rape Charges

By -
Here's some of the information on the Corson County Charges: COUNT I That on or about December of 2005, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT II That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration with his foster daughter, A.M., through the use of force or coercion; and as to COUNT III That on or about July or August of 2006, in the County of Corson, State of South Dakota, Ted Alvin Klaudt did commit the public offense of SECOND DEGREE RAPE (SDCL 22-22-1(2)) in that he did accomplish an act of sexual penetration, separate and distinct from the act alleged in Count II, with...
Read more

It's about health, not potential promiscuity.

By -
As the only South Dakota blogger out with 5 daughters, I feel I need to weigh in on the whole discussion that's occurring with regards to the HPV vaccine, and Governor Rounds' proposal to make it available. My family (including my three oldest girls) watched my mom, their grandmother, succumb slowly and painfully to cancer which spread throughout her body. If a similar fate from a different type of cancer was preventable through a simple shot, why wouldn't anyone advocate for it? At the age most of my kids are going to be getting it, they're still playing with barbies, and negative influences such as most of the programming on MTV, and other assorted trashy television is verboten in my house. All they're going to know about this vaccination is that it's a shot, just like for teatnus or measles. They'll go "Ow, I don't want a shot," and that will be it. Just another mark on their vaccination record. One check box for DPT, one for HPV, and so on...
Read more