Constitutional Amendment P on our ballot would write redundant language into our state constitution to require a balanced state budget. Backers of the amendment characterize the amendment as wearing suspenders with a belt. I suggest that making our state constitution look like a dork is probably a bad idea, especially when the state has toodled along under current constitutional budget language for 123 years and balanced its budget every time.
Senator Stan Adelstein agrees. He runs the following ad in Saturday's Black Hills Pioneer:
"Vote No on Amendment Pee: Don't water down our State Constitution's ban on deficit spending." Senator Stan, I think you should have submitted that line to Secretary Gant for your official Con statement!
When the constitution already gets the job done, introducing new language to do the same thing only introduces opportunities for tricky legislators and lawyers to mess things up. Be conservative; be like Stan. Vote No on Amendment P.
That Stan has a weird sense of humor, I like it and it tells the truth.
My friend, this "new language" does NOT absolutely NOT do the SAME thing. It is a terrible weakening of the present constitution. Read the Con - that the Judge ordered.
Right now in Section XI "if "EXPENSES" exceed "REVENUES", the legislature MUST - no exceptions - pass a new tax!! That is balance. don't water it down!!!
Everyone knows what EXPENSES means and what REVENUE means.
If the P-- amendment passes -- all that is required that the budget does not exceed "ANTICIPATED revenues and FUNDS" Whose 'ANTICIPATION?" This year the "ANTICIPATED" was deliberately set Fifty Million under real. This of course meant huge, painful and unnecessary cuts! (And, with honest foresight, could have prevented the possibility of an unnecessary and regressive PERMANENT, year round badly cobbled commitment one cent sales tax.
Some big spender(S) or buyer of votes with promised Roman Circuses could anticipate hundreds of millions in ANTICIPATED.
What "Funds." In 4 years as a Appropriator - 2 of them vice chair - we always talked about the funds that COULD be raided. No one (outside of committee) even dared to talk about the "Cash Flow Fund," the State's check book -that ranged from $750 Million to $1,400 Million. That fund alone would allow a spender to get his hands on THREE QUARTERS OF A BILLION - That is BILLION. No wonder both the Gov and his toady did not want a Con. They liked to say "we passed a "Balanced Budget Amendment"
An end of the session rushed through proposal that I could get no one to look at seriously, the Gov wanted it and it sounded OK.
Bullroar
Stan A
Click here to Reply or Forward
Well Stan, I am just an old chunk of coal, but I will be a diamond some day. In that regard, I did show sparkle though and was able to see the bullroar in the bill before the "con" came out. I was an early voter and like many, did not appreciate having the wool over my eyes. As I do not trust the current gang in Pierre to do what we the voters asked years ago to be honest in the description of what these laws mean, I read it found it to be out of sorts and voted "con". We have no real leadership in Pierre and the way this gang operates, that will not improve in the near future. The first to go should be Gnat and if Jackley wants to continue to not perform his duties, out the door with him too. Pierre needs to operate like it is 2012 and serve all of its citizens.
Adelstein-backed project causes illegal leak into Battle Creek:
http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/gold-exploration-work-at-keystone-causes-illegal-leak-into-battle/article_77099ab1-04c1-54d8-9a27-c457a0fcbeba.html