It's Pledge Week in the U.S. Senate campaign in South Dakota. State legislator Larry Rhoden (R-29/Union Center) pledges that, if elected, he will serve only two terms in the U.S. Senate. The man who has served 13 years in the South Dakota Legislature says he doesn't want to be "another career politician who becomes part of the problem."
Now wait a minute: it's my job-seeking experience that employers prefer candidates who will be willing to stick around and do a good job for as long as possible. Larry, instead of warning us that you'd probably get weak and become part of the problem if we leave you on the job too long, how about showing us you're tough enough to stay true to South Dakota no matter how long Washington D.C. throws money and rooftop receptions and other perks at you?
Rhoden's pledge pegs his Senate retirement date at the beginning of 2026, when he'll be at a decent retirement age of almost 68. His pledge would place a greater burden on younger challengers like 46-year-old Stace Nelson, whose expiration dates might be farther out than Rhoden's. (Then again, even Stace isn't sure how much life his service-battered knees may have in them).
Stace Nelson himself signed a different pledge this week. He signed a budget pledge from the Coalition to Reduce Spending, committing himself to "consider all spending open for reduction," "vote only for budgets that present a path to balance," and vote against all spending increases and new programs that do not include offsetting cuts... unless, of course, Congress is authorizing the use of force, because we should never stop to consider the full costs of killing people and breaking things.
The Coalition to Reduce Spending is a hybrid mutant of Ron Paul supporters and Koch Brother acolytes, all committed to strangling government with absurd fiscal policy. I invite the pledgeful Rep. Nelson and anyone else to show me one business or one household that operates on an assumption of zero growth forever.
These lemon pledges may make the candidates look a little shinier, but they don't really point us toward the practical service and thoughtful solutions we need from a U.S. Senator.
"The Coalition to Reduce Spending is a hybrid mutant of Ron Paul supporters and Koch Brother acolytes, all committed to strangling government with absurd fiscal policy. I invite the pledgeful Rep. Nelson and anyone else to show me one business or one household that operates on an assumption of zero growth forever.
the question here is what Rep. Nelson and Coalition to Reduce Spending? Yes cut foreign aid but what else? That they won't tell anybody.
Of course the problem is the bums on unemployment (like me) lazy and are living off of the goverenment
"Lemon pledge", I like that. Why are these guys signing and taking meaningless pledges in the first place, glitter.
While they take these pledges, once elected they can't even honor a more binding pledge, their "oath of office", as evidenced by a 84% disapproval rating of congress.
I hear tell that independent candidate for governor Mike Myers pledges to serve no more than 2 terms as governor.
Myers is 77. He'd be 86 at least by the end of term 2, would have to sit out four years, would 90 by the time he could break that pledge.
Thune is waffling on his Grover Norquist pledge. Are you suggesting, Cory, that if the independent candidate for governor makes a 2-term pledge he is likely to abide by it?
"Pledges" are an example of what is wrong with our current political system, and with the bought and paid for special interest candidates. Pledges used to be a favorite tactic of labor unions. Now it's mostly DC-based righty special interest groups that pull these stunts.
At least with the unions, it was just a promise of getting a few more people to man the telephones. With the righty groups, all these pledges come with a nod and a wink promise of money or "independent" expenditures for your candidacy or against your opponents campaign. Only the politically naive think it's anything other than a type of bribery, where politicians sign a "pledge" in order to qualify themselves for some sort of barely legal special interest funding down the road.
Here is the real story behind the Rhoden term limits pledge: https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=715943621753476&set=a.136280389719805.25533.116884104992767&type=1&theater
@Owen Anytime you have approached me and asked me a question, I have given you a respectful reply in person and online. I have it clearly posted on my website what I will consider cutting of our bloated federal government. You want more details, happy to give them to you. Foreign military aid, foreign aid, Federal Dept of Education, Fed Dept of Energy, are just a couple immediate areas that I would consider.
Rep. Nelson also enjoyed TRICARE benefits.
Witty and clever. I like it Cory.
Candidates signing exclusive and absolute pledges is an entirely unhelpful gimic. There ought to be one, and only one pledge - the oath of office. Loyalty to anyone or anything other than that oath and constituents is wrong.
This corrupt campaign finance system we've got is simply bribery. Such bribery is a democracy-killer. It makes me very angry, in large part because it frightens me.
Stace, I can see what might be seen as benefits from cutting spending on those areas you highlight. Just wondering if you've thought ahead and can tell us what the consequences -both intended and unintended- those cuts would have.
Tell us who would benefit and how and who would be hurt and how so that we can evaluate your intentions rather than just be caught up in the he'll cut spending. Heck, I could cut spending by not feeding my kids or taking them to a doctor...but that wouldn't be a good thing.
While you're at it. Tell us why you want to eliminate those expenses that goes a little deeper than being a slave to ideology or a cherry picked abuse of those expenditures.
Just asking you to think out loud through your process and what it would mean for everyone...besides just a vote getting pledge.
My problem with politicians these days is their mouths move to say the things that get them elected and forget those things have consequences.
Please don't ask Nelson to think out loud, please. And also Nelson and the phrase "thought ahead" should not exist in the same sentence. Same as the word "consequences".
@Jana Our country is $18 trillion in debt, experts say way more than that. They are buying up our own bonds (debt) at the rate of $85 Billion a month. Inaction, allowing this problem to continue to grow, will doom this country. Where do you recommend we cut? Do you agree we need to cut? Pretty sure most folks know by now that I don't pander to get votes.
You are making an excellent point Jana.
Judging from history, Republican rhetoric, and pledges galore, it's a given that help for people in need will be the first to go. The talking points will be all about 'welfare cheats, with stories of people who receive government assistance while driving Cadillacs and watching giant screen TVs.
I have one question, which has never been answered:
What about the people who attend the Northern Hills Training Center? What about the folks in the Black Hills Workshop? What about the low IQ ones who wipe down tables at McDonalds?
I want the welfare cheats off the rolls as quickly as anyone. The cheats are clever. Close one loophole and they'll find another one. It's the people in real need; the ones whose mother was a drunk, who have an extra chromosome, who were brain-injured in a motorcycle accident . . .
Those are the people who will be left with nothing.It is government assistance that pays for people to provide them with food, clothing, shelter. Without that aid we'd have to reopen Yankton and pay workers to supervise the vegetables as they sat in the corner rocking.
Nope, I'm not being overly dramatic. Every time thus far, aid cuts have punished the helpless ones. So answer my one question with SPECIFICS!
Democrats need to get onboard with the idea of cutting federal spending. We may differ from Republicans on what cuts should be made, but we should agree with them THAT cuts should be made. The federal government has skin in every game. Every state and local project in the country depends on some sort of federal funding. We can cut that kind of stuff with an axe rather than a scalpel as far as I'm concerned.
State and local governments need to quit relying on federal borrowing to fund their needs and wants. When the federal government quits feeding that addiction, state and local governments will have to raise their own funds - and that is when they will start making better decisions about what is really a need rather than a want. If local folks aren't willing to fund a fish hatchery in Spearfish, then why in the world should the federal government fund it? If it's a worthwhile program (which I think it is) then the GFP is the logical choice to run it. Just one example of something the federal government can cut to better focus on core nationwide priorities - like medicaid for instance. This is the kind of fiscal conservatism that Democrats ought to support - just as Jerry Brown is doing in California. That guy is really a visionary for Democrats.
With the loss of federal funds sent to South Dakota South Dakota children and families must mean we either accept less or drive up local property taxes...right?
Answer the question Stace...what are the intended and unintended consequences. Yes we have a huge debt, nobody is arguing with you on that.
What we deserve is well thought out policies rather than shooting from the hip with populist ideas. Heck, even Rand Paul backed off cutting the Department of Education.
http://bluegrasspolitics.bloginky.com/2010/09/20/what-happens-if-rand-paul-allies-abolish-the-us-dept-of-education/
What the heck Stace, let's look at the Department of Energy. How far will research be set back in becoming energy independent when you gut the department? How about the companies and their shareholders that are leading the charge in this fight...how will they be hurt...you know, the retiree with stock in Lockheed Martin et. al.
Here's a primer of what they do and where their money goes. Take a read and then get back to us on a well thought out synopsis of the intended and unintended consequences.
Thanks for looking into this Stace, I may not agree with you, but I know you won't run away from the issues.
Stace...as far as foreign aid goes. Are you really suggesting as Ron Paul did that we end aid for Israel? How about the aid that is so critical to other foreign countries? What would happen if China or Saudi oil barons stepped in to take our place...would we be safer and more economically secure?
Speaking of the Department of Energy...didn't South Dakota's own POET Energy receive millions of dollars from the DoE that fueled their growth?
Sure they turned down DoE money...but they still fed at the trough when they need the capital.
Heck Stace, I'll make it easier for you. You sere one of our elected Representatives who oversaw where the money was coming into the state from and how it was spent.
You tell us how much we will lose, who will be hurt if we don't replace that money and how we will either replace that money or what we will do without. Especially as it affects ethanol/corn producers and the family farms that supply them.
Oh and Stace...I am sincere in cheering for you in the GOP primary debates. I am glad you are taking on the establishment and your courage to speak truth to power.
When asked about what you would cut...don't pull a Rick Perry oops and forget that you said "Foreign military aid, foreign aid, Federal Dept of Education, Fed Dept of Energy." Perry couldn't remember because it was a talking point and not a conviction.
If Nelson was taking on the "establishment", he would be touting more facts about Rounds but he has no facts, no figures because he didn't serve under his realm and has little to go on...
Thanks, Deb! We should be wary of simple formulas on policy, but when we're talking propaganda, I like the pledge response you and others have proposed: "The only pledge I will take is the oath of office, the pledge to serve you and defend the Constitution." No special interest group should be accorded the same dignity as the Constitution and the general public.
I like the point Stace makes with the Facebook chart on voting records. It's one thing to make a pledge while campaigning; it's another to actually v ote for or against legislation. Contrasting campaign promises with actual votes seems an effective rhetorical strategy.
Deb's point on cheats is well-taken. Cheats will always run some scam. Instead of letting cheats ruin programs for everyone, we should maintain our diligence and determination to catch them while maintaining services for the vast majority of honest beneficiaries. (Lots of doctors cheat Medicare; lots of contractors cheat the military; we don't shut down Medicare and the military.)
R, local folks are willing to fund the fish hatchery. Senator Thune himself acknowledged in his email Thursday that D.C. Booth is a model of public/private partnership. Local fundraising and the city contribute a huge amount to the maintenance of the Hatchery. D.C. Booth serves the interests of local, state, and national agencies; all should contribute.
We Democrats should not necessarily get on the GOP train of cutting federal government. Acceding to their shouts that the federal government is too big and must be cut ignores the fact that the federal government is already smaller under Obama than it has been since Eisenhower. We shouldn't give in to the GOP's denial of reality. Government may be just the right size. Heck, in some areas, it may be woefully undersized. Democrats need to lead the rational conversation about what our country needs (a lot!), what wealth our country has available (also a lot!), and how we want to match needs and wealth.
If nuking the Department of Education just meant getting rid of bureaucracy and pressure for standardized tests, I'd be all for it. But the link Jana offers shows that, like so much else of Paul Ryan-Ron Paul budgeting, cutting the Department of Education would hit the poor the hardest. Dang.
If Nelson is elected to the Senate, he automatically becomes a contributor to the growing national debt and the systemic problems of our government's financial problems.
It is a nice thought to say I'll cut this and I'll cut that, but others have campaigned on those promises and once in office are owned by big money corporations that quickly change the Senator's position.
And, as we know, a single Senator from South Dakota is not going to single handily change a thing. Noem made those same promises. Remember her budget cutting campaign ads and her concerns for her children having to pay their share of the national debt?
Cory, you sidestepped my point entirely with your reply. Once again, my point is that the federal government needs to return decision making and funding of local and state projects to local and state governments. The federal government should focus its limited resources on federal needs rather than the needs and wants of every level of government everywhere.
This alone would result in gigantic savings for the federal government.
Think of it this way. Imagine if your grandpapa has been paying for your phone bill, car insurance, vacation home, and giving you a whole bunch of cash every year. But he's not doing that for just you, he's doing it for your parents, your aunts and uncles, and all 50 of your cousins, and all 100 of their kids. But now grandpapa is having to borrow money to keep doing that because he just can't afford to pay all of his own bills and everybody else's too. So what do you do? Tell grandpapa to get a second job so he can keep paying everybody's bills? Or do you say, "I'm a big boy now, and I can pay my own way." We know that many in your family don't want the gravy train to end. So grandpapa needs to treat everybody equally and give the whole family some tough love by saying everybody has to pay for their own phone bills, car insurance and vacation homes. And if they can't afford the vacation homes without grandpapa's money then maybe they shouldn't have vacation homes.
A voting record can be published over and over. It's what's in the bill that needs to be reviewed. One can say "he voted against it" and indeed he did but it doesn't show the details as to why it was voted against. The detail tells the tale, not the five word summary.
R, do those savings for the federal government matter if they consist almost entirely of cost-shifting? Don't we all end up paying the same in taxes, just to Pierre instead of DC? There may be some political/moral advantage to that scheme, but is it a fiscal advantage?
I'm good with doing things locally. But advocating that as a motivating principle is slightly different from advocating cutting the federal government as a motivating principle.
TG, I'll agree that a full explanation of votes should win over a five-word summary of a vote. I'll still maintain that a five-word summary of a legislative vote showing what a politician has done should win over a campaign pledge showing what that politician would do if elected.
We should read all campaign statements, pledges and critiques of pledges alike, with some skepticism. If someone can show that Nelson is summarizing votes unfairly or dishonestly, bring it on! But until then, Nelson has the debate-round advantage.
Term limits in DC vs. SD are apples and oranges. In SD, you can't make a living off of a 2 month/year legislator's salary with no benefits. In DC, that's a full time job with full time pay with benefits. Not even close to comparable.
Is Larry Rhoden making that distinction?
I would imagine he would agree but that is my distinction. Do you see anything that isn't obvious in my statement? Can you somehow draw a similarity to DC terms (real salary and benefits) and SD terms ($4,000 a year?? maybe and no benefits)? Unless you were a Governor, SOS or in a year round position, you can't make a career out of being a legislator here. Not sure how it is in other states and if they go year round or not; I only know what we do here and you would be at grave poverty level if you relied on that for your career annual income.
Thank you for your question, Cory. Yes, my proposal would involve cost shifting from the federal down to lower levels of government. That's good for the federal government because it generates a lot of savings at that level and re-focuses the federal government on what is important at the federal level.
Besides saving the federal government money, it forces state and local governments to have a more meaningful discussion about what is a need and a want and how they are going to fund it. It brings that adult conversation closer to the end users of the goods and services. Is X worth paying for now that there's not someone from say - Minnesota or some other donor state covering it?
And it would force red welfare states to become fiscally responsible by paying their own way for their own needs & wants. There would be less federal largess for GOP governors to balance their budgets with. So these folks who oppose tax increases and criticize federal deficits while grabbing all the federal cash would have their criticisms silenced and be forced into making some difficult taxing decisions of their own. I really would like to see how SD would run its government if the option of continuing as a welfare state no longer existed.
"@Owen Anytime you have approached me and asked me a question, I have given you a respectful reply in person and online. I have it clearly posted on my website what I will consider cutting of our bloated federal government. You want more details, happy to give them to you. Foreign military aid, foreign aid, Federal Dept of Education, Fed Dept of Energy, are just a couple immediate areas that I would consider."
@Stace. You have Stace and I thank you. I also understand that in a forum like this it can be tough to get specific. How about the military budget here in the United States? You want to drug test people who get government assistance. That is a lot of people to test. How are we going to pay for this? You're against the ACA. If we're going to defund this how do you want to fix the healthcare problem? I'm planning to check out the exchanges in October. I'm losing the tax credit that I receive because of the program I'm on so my Cobra is going from $108 a month to just under $400 a month and this is the only insurance I can get or afford. So when you see me asking you about "Obamacare" it's because I have a huge stake in it.
Again Stace you have been more specific then the other Republican candidates, so I'll give you credit there. But that doesn't mean I agree with you but you've put it out there.
"Cory, you sidestepped my point entirely with your reply. Once again, my point is that the federal government needs to return decision making and funding of local and state projects to local and state governments".
There is nothing quite like local and state governments to waste money often by trying to save pennies or make sure influential A isn't hurt economically or offended because his or her brilliant idea is a classic example of incompetence and ignorance coupled with over-whelming greed.
The reluctance of local and state to collect and use statistics and collect data leads to making the same stupid mistakes over and over again. Now and then the federal government gets enough information to know what to do to start with or know when a problem based on poor or incorrect data demands correction.
Look around at your local decision makers. How many are engineers and scientists? How many have done everything in their power to avoid anything remotely related to science and math for their whole life? How many are completely and totally ignorant of the philosophy of science? How many have never read a book or anything beyond the newspaper sports page?
Which of course also should remind us that while valuable infrastructure like roads, water and sewerage, schools, bridges, etc are falling apart, local citizens end up paying taxes to subsidize sports arenas.
Mr. Wiken, let's assume for the purpose of argument that everything you say is true.
Does it make sense for the federal government to send money to these incompetent local decision makers for every scheme they come up with? That's what's happening now, which I propose to end. Let them come up with full funding for their own schemes rather than relying on the federal government. With less money to play with those incompetent local decision makers of yours would have their hands tied after funding needs like roads and sewers. No?
TG, sure, there is a big difference between a $6000/yr part-time job (with mileage, meals, and lodging) and the perks of serving in Congress. But can't a state legislator become as much of an inertia- and donor-driven dinosaur, defending the status quo and the powers-that-be, as a Senator? Rhoden's critique is about needing "fresh leadership and new voices." Does the lack of pay automatically make a long-time state legislator any fresher or newer?
State legislators accumulate power and prestige. Power and prestige can lure a politician away from making the best decisions. If Rhoden's support of term limits applies to the federal level, I think he'll have a hard time explaining why it shouldn't apply to the local level.
But I'd flip it the other way: there are obviously plenty of legislators who campaign hard to win and keep their seats in Pierre not for the money but because they love serving the public. We could say the same of Congress: after all, if you're just in it for the money, there are more cost-effective ways to land less stressful jobs that pay $174K plus benefits than to wage a multi-million-dollar statewide campaign that will subject you to daily character assassination. If you have people willing to undergo such trials so they might serve the public, why should ever limit those dedicated servants from seeking our further approval and authority to legislate for us?
R, now you're talking more in language with which I can roll. I'm very sensitive to our getting lured into accepting the shallow GOP narrative. I'm much more open to having the serious adult conversation you're talking about, a discussion of the proper functions and responsibilities of state and local governments. That conversation would lead South Dakota to a hard and honest acknowledgement of its moochers status, which would force South Dakota Republicans to at least revisit if not throw out their empty anti-government rhetoric.
Now imagine we had that discussion and we rejiggered priorities to devolve more functions to the states. That would kill any legislators like Stace who had taken pledges never to increase state revenues or expenditures. Either they'd have to break their pledge, or they'd have to say to heck with Title I education assistance, school lunches, and I-90. Pledges like Stace's make it impossible for legislators to consider all reasonable solutions.
But again, let's watch out for absolutism. Sure, that adult conversation likely leads to the conclusion that South Dakota should take on more of the responsibilities that it's been mooching off other states. But R, is there some extent to which richer states should help out poorer states, out of neighborly decency and for the sake of a stronger Union?
Why yes, Cory. Richer or more populous states would still help out poorer or more rural states. As a nation we all benefit from interstate highways, but SD has a lot of interstate miles. SD will always receive help from other states to maintain our interstates. SD will also likely receive more than its per capita share of medicaid money, and SD will certainly receive a disproportionate share of federal money because of our nine Native American reservations. There may be a way to turn our reservations into economic development drivers rather than pockets of extreme poverty, but that is too complicated for a blog comment.