Sandy Jerstad on her first session. Trying to put a positive spin on her success (or lack thereof)

First-term Democratic Senator Sandy Jerstad is writing in the Tea/Harrisburg Champion tonight on how we should not only judge the session on the measures that passed muster among both legislative chambers and the Governor, but we should judge it on what was blocked.

No, really:
An Act to repeal the death penalty and commute certain death sentences to life imprisonment.
After missing the first hearing on her bill to coddle criminals (such as the one in Sioux Falls who chainsawed-up her victim), it thankfully got the ax in committee.
SB 200 An ACT TO: prohibit the state and its political subdivisions from releasing or posting social security numbers on the internet or any other media or domain available to the public.
Senator Jerstad asked that her own bill (designed to correct something that happened in Ohio?!?) be tabled. And it was killed.
SB 201: An Act to provide for the reduction of the sales and use tax on certain food items.
Didn't we just get done killing that kind of measure a couple of years back? Apparently, Senator Jerstad thinks if two different people with different incomes buy $200 worth of groceries, the amount they are taxed on it is unfair.

Maybe she should have noted that there's something already in place for those who are of lower income.
Senator Jerstad - consider yourself judged on the legislation that you've brought, all of which was blocked.

And you have been found wanting.

Comments

Anonymous said…
Sheesh, PP. There are plenty of Rs that didn't get anything through, either. Give Jerstad a break.

Besides, you almost have to agree with her. There's the Senate - which was progressive on several issues, and there were the House Republicans, who played defense the entire time.

Who's glad Rhoden is termed? The only thing that would be better is if Dykstra ran for the Senate as a Republican. That would leave... Deadrick and... who... I wonder who the Majority Leader would be then?

It would have to be someone who represents the farthest position to the right of all positions.

No, Hal Wick is termed. No... they won't let a woman do it - not in the House.

I can't even guess. Whoever it would be, they'd be clueless.

Yup.
Anonymous said…
Jerstad better pass some meaningful legislation within the next term or she will earn herself a very difficult challenge from Hal Wick. I put my money on Jerstad being a one term senator.
Anonymous said…
Actually, while Jerstad did accomplish NOTHING, unless you want to count getting a bunch of meaningless press, she was still an improvement.

Bill Earley is a loyal Republican, but he works backwards and does more damage than good.

So keep up the good work, Sandy. You pose no danger.
Anonymous said…
And pp's been found to be a prick.
Anonymous said…
Poster 8:54, I feel your comment is not necessary!
Maybe you are one also!

This is NOT PP.
Anonymous said…
Hal Wick can't be conisdering another run, can he? That would be disgusing.

Besides... Jerstad is 1 for 8 - Wick is like 1 for 12. And the bill that they got passed, is the same bill.

PP wouldn't put that out there, though, would he?

However, he did block the property tax measure. So, I'm pretty sure the taxpayers in that distict would like to know that he wouldn't pass a measure to lower their taxes.

We'll see.
Anonymous said…
8:39 - you are right. Jerstad is a "zero," but that is better than Early, who was a "negative."
Anonymous said…
Twas the worst assessment of herself that she didn't take credit for. er? Whoever is running against her save this report card!

Freshman can't talk, pass bills, ask questions, or get anything done. She can, however, blame her failures, on the republican caucus. Schools are failing because they're underfunded and teachers aren't paid enough...huh...? Our kids are far from failing - they're actually quite bright. She however...is not.

She's one and done - or worst case scenario she comes back....and doesn't anything again. Yeah Sandy.
Anonymous said…
11pm correction.
..."and doesn't DO anything again."

Sorry, Jerstadism.
Anonymous said…
Good first term legislators get bills passed all the time. If they said shutup and sit in the back of the room, the Dem's in the Senate are smarter then I thought. At least they had the sence to try and keep her from falling on her own sword, well nice try, but she was just to determined to make a fool of herself.
been there said…
Curiuos how many who've never been there judge her so severely. She is right about blocking bad bills, that is almost as important as passing good ones, no matter whose they are.
Anonymous said…
10:38

Your post shows that you don't read much. Learn the issue before you speak. The tax issue was not about lowering taxes, it was about having someone else pay your taxes.

If the people knew what was going on they would through everyone out of office in regards to that issue.
Anonymous said…
12:21 - does that include her own bills?
Anonymous said…
9:56 Thanks for sharing.

However, I thought that comment was perfectly fitting in light of pp's post.

This is NOT PP!
Anonymous said…
10:38

Rep. Wick helped defeat SB173 which would allow 10 billion dollars of SD property to go untaxed. SB173 would hace shifted 150 million dollars of taxes from these tax free properties onto everyone else.

Senator Jerstad voted to allow the owners of 10 billion dollars of property to have their taxes be 150 million dollars less than their fair amount. How can Senator Jerstad demand more money for education and vote for 10 billion dollars of tax exempt property value? Senator Jerstad was okay with shifting the 150 million onto almost every home in SD, almost every business in SD and half of the farms in SD.
Anonymous said…
9:29 needs to get his facts straight. SB 173 did exactly the opposite of what he suggests. I guess he’ll have to get on the Jerstad bandwagon.
Anonymous said…
9:59...

You have no Idea what you are talking about do you?
Anonymous said…
9:59

SB173 did everything I said it did.
SB173 undervalued some ag land by 10 billion dollars and shifted the tax burden (150 million dollars) unto other ag properties.
SB173 increase the tax value and the tax bill on about 1.6 billion dollars of homes and business value.

9:59 Lets hear your explaination as to what SB173 would do.
Anonymous said…
The main point of 173 (which was pushed by the republican leadership) was to eliminate the 150% rule. This would allow for the proper taxation of property in South Dakota. The statement that 173 would “shifted 150 million dollars of taxes from these tax free properties onto everyone else” is absolutely false.
Anonymous said…
Must be Al Novstrup commenting anonymously again. Is that you Al? (9:29, 10:38)
Anonymous said…
I wonder if Senator Jerstad understood that SB173 repealed the 150 rule for business and home owners but locked in the 150 rule problem within agriculture thus shifting taxes onto many homes, business and many East River farms so that a few land owners near Sioux Falls and in the Black Hills could under pay their taxes by 150 million. Thus raising the taxes on almost all of her district.
Anonymous said…
12 Sioux Falls representatives voted against SB173. Two Sioux Falls representatives voted for it. Jerstad voted for it.

I think the 12-2 vote against SB173 by the Sioux Falls legislators would indicate that Senator Jerstad did not understand that SB173 was bad for her district.
Anonymous said…
11:08

You have no idea what you are talking about. The only Sioux Falls Senator to vote against it was Gil Koetzle. Are you just making facts up or are you too incompetent to look up voting records.
Anonymous said…
According to what the Department of Rev and Reg put out, taxes in Hal Wick's district would have went DOWN almost $120 million.

WOW.

And Hal Wick didn't vote for it.

He's got some SPLAININ ta do.
Anonymous said…
What wrong with Jerstad introducing a repeal to the death penalty? Is it more Republican to say that you support the death penalty and then wait until hours before the execution to halt the execution because you suddenly found a problem with the state law? Would you rather that an elected official be honest about the death penalty or a liar, the latter being the incumbent governor?
scimitar said…
How about Dennis Schmidt? First couldn't figure out what party he was in when he took out petitions for Senate - got a pass on that despite false attestation under oath when he took petition out.

Then couldn't figure out how to do petitions right - got a pass on that when invalid petitions were allowed anyway by Secretary of State.

Oh and what a fireball he turned out to be! Backed by a Republican majority in both houses his record of success is??? (go check it out)
scimitar said…
Jerstad did pass a bill as prime sponsor - which PP did not see fit to mention. She was the prime senate sponsor of HB 1163.

PP, you may have told the truth with your post, but you didn't tell the whole truth. Your post was specifically designed to create a false impression - that impression being that Jerstad was completely unsuccessful in her first year.

PP your readers might want to check out the sponsorship/success records of Rep. Lance Carson (R - Mitchell) and Rep. Charlii Gilson (R - Yankton).
Anonymous said…
12:02

The representatives that voted against SB173 were Engels, Glenski, Heineman, Hunt, Miles, Willadsen, Steele, Weems, Feinstein, Thompson, Peters and Wicks.

Krebs and Rave voted for SB173.

Jerstad voted opposite these 12 representatives.

12 for
2 against

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2007/rollcallv036013.htm
Anonymous said…
12:36

Assume you are right when you say, "According to what the Department of Rev and Reg put out, taxes in Hal Wick's district would have went DOWN almost $120 million"

Who would then pay these taxes or would the schools, counties, cites be shorted $120 million?

PS 12:36 You are wrong with your statement. No one knows the tax shift per legislative district. The Dept of Revenue has the tax shift per county only.
Anonymous said…
2:22 –

If you are going to make the claim that Jerstad was out of touch with Sioux Falls because she didn’t vote with the majority of the legislators, you must also put in every senator from Sioux Falls that voted for the bill. That would be:
Dempster
Gant
Hauge
Heidepriem
Knudson

That is quite a list. I don’t think many people would think Jerstad is in bad company.
Anonymous said…
You're right - it was by county and not by legislative district. But, you know just as well as I do how weak an argument that is.

Truth is, this would have lowered property taxes for many home owners in urban areas.

And as far as who would pay - well, taxpayers much don't care who pays, as long as its not them. Wick voted down a property tax cut for homeowners in his district.

In terms of who would pay - well, it's not the schools that would pay. The state makes up the difference for what can't be raised in property tax. The other funds, I don't know. It put a limitation on the other funds so they couldn't grow more than 3% of less. I think the great majority of schools tax less than the maximum right now for capital outlay.

Perhaps you can tell me different, Mr. Wick.
Anonymous said…
3:11

SB173 would have increase the valuation of houses $1,100,000,000 statewide. The mill levy would decrease slightly. How would SB173 lower taxes on urban homeowners?

You are right the schools, counties and cities would not lose taxes. If some taxpayers saved $120 million then other tax payers would have to pay $120 million more. Please tell me which taxpayers would be asked to pay $120 million more and why should they?
Anonymous said…
You keep talking about statewide. Who cares about statewide? I care about MY taxes. MY taxes were going to go down. I know taxes would go up in Brown and Meade - can't really remember the full list.

But, in Lincoln County, TAXES WOULD HAVE WENT DOWN.

And WICK voted against it. Walked around with that little hairy troll and blocked it. My taxes won't go down because of WICK.

And that's true for every voter in Lincoln county that owns a home.

Jerstad voted to lower my taxes.

I'm a republican, I vote my pocketbook. Low taxes is all I care about. It's all that matters in life. Keep my taxes low and I will vote for you.

Go Sandy! Keep voting to lower my taxes, and I'll vote for you!
Anonymous said…
6:54

Wrong again, Idiot.

You know something else SB173 is designed to make inequities in our property tax system.

If your taxes go down by a large amount that mean others are paying your fair share of taxes!

I don't like paying taxes either the only way to make taxes lower is to cut spending, and I WILL NOT SIPPORT OR VOTE FOR PEOPLE THAT MAKE ME PAY THEIR TAXES!!!!

Wick has shown he is for making a fair system. That mean is has integrity, and sir that is what I look for in a person when I vote for them.

Wick can have my vote anyday!!!
Anonymous said…
6:54

SB173 would not lower home taxes in any county.

The 150 rule would be repealed on all homes in SD, thus increasing the valuation of homes in SD by 1.1 billion.

The new taxes on 1.1 billion of new value would be about $200 million. Almost 20 million of that increase would occur in Lincoln County. (better vote Wick)

Under SB173, all of the homeowners are losers.

6:54 Please explain how your taxes would go down under SB173? Would the valuation of your home decrease or would the mill levy decrease? and why?
Anonymous said…
6:54

SB173 would not lower home taxes in any county.

The 150 rule would be repealed on all homes in SD, thus increasing the valuation of homes in SD by 1.1 billion.

The new taxes on 1.1 billion of new value would be about $200 million. Almost 20 million of that increase would occur in Lincoln County. (better vote Wick)

Under SB173, all of the homeowners are losers.

6:54 Please explain how your taxes would go down under SB173? Would the valuation of your home decrease or would the mill levy decrease? and why?
scimitar said…
Look at the sponsorship/success record for PP's favorite R, Rep. Kristi Noem.

PP, have you judged Schmidt, Carson, Gilson, Noem yet? How do you find them - wanting? Come on PP - Elephant got your tongue? Don't hold back
Anonymous said…
ovht10:01

So, it gets rid of the 150% rule. So, now land that is not taxed, can be taxed.

Except, there's a "statewide" trade off, because the value of ag land goes down.

There are cases - in counties with very little agricultural land - where adding value of the land that was previously thrown out (150% land) will increase the taxable valuation of the county - meaning everyone in the county will have to pay less to generate the same amount of taxes.

DUH.

I wonder what Wick has to gain from this personally. He might own some 150 land, huh? Or one of his big business buddies?

He traded my lower tax bill for corporate fat cat support.

Go Jerstad!
Anonymous said…
9:17 AM

Do you know that not all land would be totally out of the 150% Rule?

Meaning Ag land would be taxed differently. Ag assessments would be done through cash rent and cap rates rather than the market value.

You know some about what you are writing about so why didn't you quite spreading half truths. You maybe right in stating taxes might go down in Lincoln County but that means others are going up.

Taxes are a pain, if the state has to tax us than let it be a fair tax and not one that actually helps fat cats. Let the fat cats pay their taxes and quit putting the burden on those that don’t have the ability to own large amounts of very valuable land.
Fat Cat said…
Why should I pay taxes based upon actual value for my rural Minnehaha County land if I can get by paying a lower amount based upon rental value for farming purposes?

If I can continue to shift my taxes to someone else, I'm that much richer. Senator Lintz understands this, and that's why he pushed SB 173. Why can't the rest of you understand this and sympathise with us cash-poor millionaire landowners like me and Sen. Lintz?
Anonymous said…
If you live anywhere but on a farm, 173 would have made your taxes go UP... Plain and simple... anyone who says different is trying to spin the issue...

If you own commercial property, you owe Reps. Wick and Novstrup a HUGE thank you... they killed the beast before it bit you.
fat cat said…
I forgot to say, just because we rural landowners may have property worth $2 million and a net worth to match, it doesn't mean we have cash laying around to pay taxes.

What do you expect us to do, take out a mortgage on our property to pay taxes? Or sell some of the property at fair market value and have the assessment on the rest of our property go up based on the sale price? The bottom line is: property should only be assessed at fair market value for homeowners and businesses - not hard working millionaire farm folk like me.
Anonymous said…
your property is making you money. we aren't asking you to sell it, we're asking you to use part of what you make using the land to pay your taxes.

Popular posts from this blog

Breaking News: After the television commercial salvo fired at them, Vote Yes For Life Fires back.

Heidepreim: Republicans are the party of hate

The Day in politics - October 24th