Lots of political activity today
Volesky on the left, and Volk...
Well, Volk in the middle
According to the Argus Leader, Dave Kranz's column notes that Former State Treasurer, Former South Dakota Secretary of Commerce and Regulation and Former State Director for Congressman Bill Janklow wants to add another title to his resume' - City Councilman:
Open seats on government bodies generally bring quick interest in the job. That's the case with the at-large position held by Sioux Falls City Councilor Andy Howes, who has said he won't seek re-election.Out of courtesy, I'd encourage you Read the whole thing here.
Three men have filed papers in the city clerk's office indicating their intent to run for Howes' seat.
Bob Litz, a contractor, was the first to announce his intent and recently has declared his candidacy.
David Volk, who was state director for former Rep. Bill Janklow, and Matthew Antonitis, a KELO-TV employee, also want the seat.
Since Dave also just added MAINstream coalition Board of Directors to his resume', I'm kind of curious how this will play out in his campaign. This is looking like the first electoral test for the group. Will Dave promise to be moderate? Will he campaign on standing neither on the right nor the left, but down the middle on all issues? Do you take positions?
Joking aside, According to the MAINstream website, here's part of their principles:
We believe candidates for public office should clearly state their goals and positions on issues relevant to the office they seek.I'm pegging this as one to watch, if just to see how this MAINstream thing plays at the ballot box.
BIG Part two of the Day's political news - Ron Volesky. What was the big no-no that came out of his mouth? From the Rapid City Journal:
(Read all of Celeste Calvitto's article here.) Oh for gosh sake. Wasn't it President Walter Mondale who came out and campaigned and said he'd raise our taxes. Oh.. He didn't win?
When Ron Volesky talks about his view of tax reform, he doesn’t hesitate to utter the “i” word — as in “income.” And “corporate” finds its way into the discussion, too.“I’m not afraid to say those words,” the former Democratic state lawmaker said in a recent telephone interview, in which I asked for a preview of his announcement next month that he will challenge Gov. Mike Rounds in 2006. “One of the great issues we face as a state is adequately funding K-12. It can’t be accomplished without tax reform.”
Volesky’s view is that a corporate income tax, combined with a “moderate” state income tax, could lead to a 50-percent reduction in property taxes and a repeal of the sales tax on food, clothing and utilities.
“I am willing to stand up and say that South Dakota has one of the most regressive tax systems in America. Only when we reform our tax system will we adequately fund our number one priority: educating our children. … We need to take the pressure off property taxes for funding too much of K-12,” he said. “We should have a corporate income tax, so the Wal-Marts, Targets and Menards of the world would help pay for education. They do it in 45 other states. ... South Dakota is in the Dark Ages when it comes to a need for a corporate income tax.”
Let's face facts. South Dakotans have rejected a state income tax time and time and time again. Why would Ron come out and say that he wants one? Not only is he talking corporate income tax (like farms aren't corporations too?) but he included "combined with a “moderate” state income tax" in his statement to Celeste.
It's a fact. When a tax is imposed, it goes up. If you impose a new "moderate" tax to offset what another tax takes in, eventually where you had one tax going up, you now have two.
At the ballot box, corporate and personal income taxes have always been a losing issue. It's not going to change anytime soon. If the past 30 years or so are any indication, we're not going to elect a Governor who supports them.