Senator Stan Adelstein has filed an action against Secretary of State Jason Gant.
Senator Adelstein says this is not a “vendetta” against the Secretary. He sent this letter to members of the House and Senate, explaining his position.
The Senator makes a valid point. Amendment P would be a bad change with the possibility of some very negative consequenses for South Dakota.
Thanks Senator Adelstein for presenting this argument against Amendment P.
***Gordon Howie is a nationally syndicated author, host of Liberty Today TV and CEO of Life and Liberty Media***
Get DAILY updates… Friend Gordon on Facebook
Help spread the message by sharing with your email list and facebook friends… and why not pitch in $10 or $20??? Click the Donate button on this page NOW!!
This statement from Senator Adelstein further articulates his position:
Vote NO on Amendment “P” that has been given the phony name “Balanced Budget Amendment.”
Barb Lindberg, former chairman of Citizens for Liberty, of which I am a member, came to my office with her great concern and clear research into the “balanced budget amendment” (Amendment P) proposed by the Governor. She joined me in my concern that the voters’ information booklet (which should be labeled “disinformation”) has carefully set forth the “Pro” for Amendment P and Secretary of State deliberately left the “Con” blank. By so doing, Governor and the Secretary seek to wreak havoc on the budget process for years to come.
As the Constitution now stands, Section 11 makes an unbalanced budget nearly impossible. By Constitution, the legislature and/or the Governor cannot propose a budget where the expenses exceed the revenues, without imposing an additional tax! You and I know that it is virtually impossible to have a tax increase which will pass.
Amendment P wipes out that safeguard by allowing the Governor and/or the legislature to propose a budget that is balanced only to the extent that it does not exceed “anticipated revenues and funds.” There is nothing defining “anticipated!” This year, we are living with a budget that was deliberately chosen by reducing “anticipated revenues” by $50 Million less than actual revenue! The Governor could just as well have made it $50 Million more! As it is, this subjective choice resulted in great hardship and may well result in the imposition of a new one-cent tax by voter referendum.
Even more problematic is the phrase “funds.” In my ten years in the legislature, which funds may be used to cover which budget items have been in continual question. The most serious example of what could happen is the use of the “South Dakota Cash Flow Fund,” which is comprised of more than 250 separately identified state accounts – essentially the checkbook of state government. This fund varies in its balance somewhere between $3/4 of a Billion dollars and something over a $ Billion dollars. The nature of this fund is relatively confusing. Some of the dollars are already allocated by contract with outside vendors or contractors or by federal restrictions – but most of it is not. Ask yourself, if a wild-eyed spender became governor and the legislature wanted to curry favor with the voters by spending more money than we will actually take in by revenue (as NOW required by Constitution Section 11), and they chose to use the South Dakota Cash Flow Fund’s minimum, say even a half a billion dollars to balance the budget.
I am not saying that we would get that kind of governor or that kind of legislature, but it is so easy to have it happen. This has been done in many other states, through the years, much to injury of their citizens.
On Friday, October 5th, I filed a lawsuit against the Secretary, requiring him to comply with the state law (SDCL 12-13-23) via a Writ of Mandamus, a wonderful, miraculous part of this American system. This allows any citizen to go to any court and ask the judicial branch to order the executive branch – or legislative branch – to obey the law when they have not done so. Nowhere else in the world can a citizen do this without fear of imprisonment, at best, and more severe mistreatment, at worst. God has Blessed America with these freedoms.
There are those who are calling my action a “vendetta” against the Secretary of State’s office. Nothing is further from the truth. When he fired Pat Powers my problem with the Secretary of State’s “office “was solved.
This is the second time the Secretary has joined with the Governor to attempt a decision in the elective process – though it is totally improper as he is the state’s chief election official. The Secretary first endorsed the Governor’s candidate in the Republican primary against a seated state senator, on behalf of a Speaker of the House that had done the Governor great favors, and I would assume the Secretary as well. The Secretary now proceeds to allow the’ Governor’s amendment
which would encourage a disastrous budget for years to come. Why? I do not know. Maybe we will hear.
Senator Stan Adelstein