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:
Well, let's look at the bills that were blocked that came from Senator Jerstad. Hmmmm.... That would be every bill she was the primary sponsor of (Senate bills):
SB 161: An Act to repeal the death penalty and commute certain death sentences to life imprisonment.
And you have been found wanting.
No, really:
I learned about the process of committee work, how bills are introduced on the floor, and about lobbying. I learned that new legislators are probably not going to get any bills passed, although they can certainly help get other peoples’ bills passed. There is definitely an unspoken policy that new legislators are not supposed to speak often, and that experienced folks take the lead on everything. And that is as it should be.Read it all here.
and...
The legislature was given a very poor grade as a whole by the media, which was appropriate. We didn’t accomplish a great deal for the people of South Dakota. However, two things should be noted: first, there are two separate chambers, the House and the Senate; and there are two separate parties, the Democrats and the Republicans. In all fairness, their work should be examined separately, and legislation that was blocked should also be noteworthy....
Well, let's look at the bills that were blocked that came from Senator Jerstad. Hmmmm.... That would be every bill she was the primary sponsor of (Senate bills):
SB 161: 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.Senator Jerstad - consider yourself judged on the legislation that you've brought, all of which was blocked.
Maybe she should have noted that there's something already in place for those who are of lower income.
And you have been found wanting.
Comments
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.
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.
Maybe you are one also!
This is NOT PP.
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.
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.
..."and doesn't DO anything again."
Sorry, Jerstadism.
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.
However, I thought that comment was perfectly fitting in light of pp's post.
This is NOT PP!
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.
You have no Idea what you are talking about do you?
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.
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.
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.
WOW.
And Hal Wick didn't vote for it.
He's got some SPLAININ ta do.
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)
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).
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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!
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!!!
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?
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?
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
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!
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.
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?
If you own commercial property, you owe Reps. Wick and Novstrup a HUGE thank you... they killed the beast before it bit you.
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.