SD-Sessions-- Volume 2002

2002-12-28T18:23:00.000-06:00

COMMENT: SOUTH DAKOTA NEEDS IT'S OWN ARMY?

Just heard on a SD TV station news that some SD legislator is proposing that SD have its own army or some such nonsense in the attempt to generate support for the idea that Bushsub2 is a war president. But, with a peculiar SD slant of course. At one time, SD had so many Minute Men missiles that had the state ceceded from the US, it would have been something like the third most powerful nuclear power in the world. A dubious distinction of course, but I suppose some SD legislator is suffering from missile envy now and thinks having a SD army implies that such lunatic legislators are also more significant...or even relevant in the real world. Perhaps they will combine it with legislation to make blue sky with puffy cumulus clouds THE OFFICIAL SOUTH DAKOTA SKY. That would be almost as much a vote getter as was legislation to have a state topsoil or pastry delight. No limit on dumb with SD Republicans in control of the Governor's office and the legislature. ---------- Doug WIken.........Stay tuned for more on the upcoming legislative session. Janklow is gone from the legislative manipulation front, but the remains of his wonderful plans gone terribly awry are here with budget deficits and "money-making" ideas generating next to nothing..

2002-03-29T12:44:00.000-06:00

NOTICE: The SD Legislative Session for this year has been over for several
weeks. Major legislative session will not be open again until next year. In the
meantime, I will probably not post regularly in this discussion. I will be posting
regularly in three other blog sites however:

Citizen Cites with comments, links.on politics, science, computers

SDPP-ORG with position papers and public propaganda related mostly
to South Dakota issues. Probably a bit more thoughtful than the others listed here..

"Sympathy" for Dung Beetles information and comments on the GOP apologists, blathermouths,
Sabbath gasbags, pompous twits, hypocritical liars et al who move the same old same old
GOP propaganda and distortions around in the manner of dung beetles rolling, rolling......

Please take a look at the above. Should be enough there to keep you reading for awhile.
Thanks for your patience.----------- Douglas Wiken.... March 29, 2002

LAT1=http:/citizencites.blogspot.com/
LAT2=http://sdpp-org.blogspot.com/
LAT3=http://beetlesympathy.blogspot.com/

2002-02-20T15:34:00.000-06:00

COMMENT--- A ROOSTER CROWED and SD GOP LEGISLATORS WOKE UP??????

I noticed in the Sioux Falls ARGUS that some SD Republican legislators are getting concerned about a shift in power from the Legislative branch to the Executive Branch. To borrow a bit from dude-speak...well DUH. The Executive branch has been Wild BILL Janklow for too many years. Whenever Wild Bill would grasp for more power, the Democratic Party might object, but the GOP majority would roll over and play partisan Republicans at the expense of being conscientious legislators.

The problem has been obvious for years and has been a disgrace for years. To now blame it on term limitations (which are a stupid idea incidentally) is a bit disingenuous. Hypocrisy and general lack of responsibility to the sense of a state or federal constitution when push comes to shove or slander or abuse of power seems to be a recent trend in the GOP. Whatever works for today in the wingnut world is good enough. To hell with the consequences and the future of respect for government or legislators and legislatures in particular.

Republican legislators have needed a backbone for many years. The have been sniveling cowards in the face of Wild Bill's incursions into the separation and balance of power.--------- Douglas Wiken

2002-02-16T15:22:00.000-06:00

COMMENT---- OOOPS...Time for me to eat about half a crow.

In a previous comment indicating Gov Wild Bill could not resist making a mediocre story less mediocre, I indicated that
Dell Computers did charge sales tax on computer sales to SD. Well, not quite correct. Maybe even less than half correct.
Their FAQ section indicates they do charge sales tax in several states, but SD is not one of them....except for that part
of a "computer sale" that includes an "at site service contract". Dell does charge sales tax on that part of the sale. But,
instead of paying around $100 sales tax on a computer sale, a buyer from SD might only pay 4% or 6% Sales Tax on
a $50 or $100 service contract. ..something between $2 and $6 perhaps. Dell does state that buyers from most states
would be subject to use taxes, but that they would not collect those..it was an obligation of the buyer.

So, on that one Wild Bill mostly escapes. But, this also indicates the complexity of any idea of applying state sales
tax via a consortiom of some variety. Huge invasive databases or sellers and buyers and sales would be required. Databases
which would require weekly or monthly updates to correct addresses and change city sales tax rates, etc.

A federal tax on remote sales of all kinds would eliminate the complexity. Refund it to states on the basis of population
and the point of sale and the buyer and seller's address are not required. They would not determine how much the
state or any other state got. Only the amount collected by the feds for the states and the established rate. It should
apply to stocks and bonds and many other things as well. It should also require that the legal fraud of "use" taxes be
eliminated as another means to collect sales taxes which would be unconsitutional violations of the "commerce clause".

States attempting to tax internet sales made across borders are not "loosing" tax because those sales can not generally
be charged, but they are attempting to extend a sales tax to a sale they have no right to tax. Border taxes were one
reason the Articles of Confederation were unsatisfactory. ----------- Doug Wiken

2002-02-09T00:36:00.000-06:00

COMMENT--- SD Governor Janklow Just Can't Ever Seem To Tell Quite The Whole Truth

On Friday Feb 09, 2002, Gov. Janklow was blathering away in his usual non-stop rattle. He had been asked to comment on a state internet tax. At this stage that is an attempt to simplify and coordinatie the multiple sales taxes, use taxes, etc from small podunks to large metropolitian to completely rural areas in some 30 states involved in a consortium. Anyway. Wild Bill was trying to make the case that having SD companies being required to charge sales taxes to SD residents while out-of-state companies do not charge SD sales tax. He gave the convenient example of Gateway Computers here in SD and Dell in Texas.
Why, if somebody in SD bought a $1000 computer from Gateway, they would have to pay $40 to $60 of SD sales tax; but....horror of horrors, if Joe Tightwad in SD decided to buy from Dell via internet to Texas, he would not have to pay that egregious tax. Well, he did not say it was egregious, but it is...anyway. All you have to do to test this is log onto Gateway and Dell and then go through the ordering process and plug in a SD zip Code. Ka, Plink, Ka Thunk...you will find that Gateway Charges the SD sales tax and so does Dell but Dell not only does that, but has a database sophisticated enough to determine if you have a ZIP code with multiple tax rates and asks if you are in a city or in a rural area not subject to the city sales tax.

Wild Bill just can't resist making one of his mediocre stories a little less mediocre.

In any case, the complexity and privacy intrusions of any state internet sales taxes strongly suggests that if internet sales are going to be taxed, they should be taxed by the federal government for the states with the collected taxes on remote transactions returned to the states on the basis of population. That removes the
requirment for huge databases of Zip codes and exact addressses tied to local and state sales taxes. The federal tax collected for the states would be the same all across the country on any remote sale whether it was internet, mailorder or whatever. End the State legal fraud of collecting "use" taxes, etc. I suggest
using some kind of a weighted average of the state's sales taxes. That rate would apply no matter where the sale originated, who was the seller, or who was the buyer. Returning the taxes on the basis of population eliminates need for huge databases.

No more need for states to invent some kind of legal mousetrap to make an end run around the commerce clause, no court cases trying to prove the state's tax mulcting is not an onerous burden on interstate commerce, etc.

But, states and state revenue agencies are so interested in enlarging their revenue agencies and preserving their assumed right to be the only agency collecting sales taxes that they do not care how much complexity they generate for consumers and all businesses. While they talk about being "progressive" and desirous of nothing more than some fantasy of a level playing field for business, they are overlooking the best and simplest way to do it.

Internet libertarians automatically go into "no internet tax" mode and the standard antitax litany characteristic of libertarians who hate all govenrment except that which bails out their corporations. I assume some kind of tax on internet sales is inevitable. Rather than have states make a godawful mess of it, they should "hire" the federal government to do it consistently across the US. They should not limit it to books, computers, software, sexy lingerie, or Bibles or whatever.. it should cover all remote transactions including sales of stocks and bonds, insurance policies etc. via internet, mail, across state lines or even across a state if via mail or internet.

Real simplicity and fairness will not come from states cobbling together a tax consortium and rules but by utilizing the national authority of the federal goverment.

And, that is why state internet and all state remote taxes should be fought. But, the primary reason is even more fundamental-- It is not a tax that as claim they are "loosing", it is a tax they should never be collecting. But, the real world fiancing problems of state and local governments means they will try to hop, skip, and jump over that argument with enough smoke and mirrors to bafffle firemen and magicians -------- Douglas Wiken

2002-01-17T20:56:00.000-06:00

Westlaw Provides Complete Nationwide Coverage of Administrative Codes Not having enough money to buy into westlaw is not and excuse---DW

2002-01-16T09:43:00.000-06:00

CHECK OUR OTHER SITE FOR GENERAL POLITICS AND A LOT MORE

Click here to get to Citizen Cites and Comments

Anybody checking this looking for information related to Daschle in South Dakota and rightwing-smear attacks
on him should check the link above. I will also ad it here on static links to left. This note is here because I posted
the wrong link in a SD Forum. Sorry for the inconvenience.--- DW.
LAT= http://citizencites.blogspot.com/

2002-01-15T11:11:00.000-06:00

.REDUCE the BAC LEVELS--COMMENT

I posted the SD legislation designed to reduce the allowable BAC while driving from 0.10% to 0.08% in this area.
This should be happening in all states where it is not already the law. States should not have to be beaten over the head to
do what truckloads of data indicates makes sense. But, legislation like this should be coupled with calls to insurance companies to
reduce vehicle insurance rates if these laws are enacted and enforced.

You can probably assume that something like 25 to 50 percent
of what you may be paying for vehicle insurance results because of fatality and crash costs related to crashes primarily attributed to
drivers who are drunk or impaired. Alcohol apparently reduced the ability to think about or be cognizant of more than one factor at a
time. It was once assumed that alcohol impairment produced some kind of tunnel vision. It doesn't, but for the impaired driver, just
keeping the car between lane markers overloads their mental systems. They may do this many times and think it is safe to drink and
drive but then something out of the ordinary pops up ...a kid runs across the street, or a car pulls out at the wrong time...things that
a sober driver might have no problem avoiding, but conditions or factors beyond comprehension or even awareness of the drunk or
impaired driver. ------- DW

2002-01-14T23:34:00.000-06:00

HB1034 reducing allowable BAC form 0.10 to 0.08
THIS IS LEGISLATION THAT THE SOUTH DAKOTA LEGISLATURE SHOULD HAVE PASSED 20 YEARS AGO. IT IS TIME THEY DID IT WITHOUT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT TELLING THEM TO. IT IS TIME TO STOP KISSING THE LIQUOR INDUSTRY SHINED SHOES--DW.

FOR AN ACT ENTITLED, An Act to reduce the legal blood alcohol limits for motor vehicle drivers.
BE IT ENACTED BY THE LEGISLATURE OF THE STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA:
Section 1. That § 32-23-1 be amended to read as follows:
32-23-1. A No person may not drive or be in actual physical control of any vehicle while:

(1) There is 0.10 0.08 percent or more by weight of alcohol in his that person's blood as shown by chemical analysis of his that person's breath, blood, or other bodily substance;

(2) Under the influence of an alcoholic beverage;

(3) Under the influence of marijuana or any controlled drug or substance to a degree which renders him the person incapable of safely driving; or

(4) Under the combined influence of an alcoholic beverage and marijuana or any controlled drug or substance to a degree which renders him the person incapable of safely driving.
Section 2. That § 32-23-7 be amended to read as follows:
32-23-7. In any criminal prosecution for a violation of § 32-23-1 relating to driving a vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating liquor, a violation of § 22-16-41, or a violation of § 22-16-42, the amount of alcohol in the defendant's blood at the time alleged as shown by chemical analysis of the defendant's blood, breath, or other bodily substance shall give gives rise to the following presumptions:

(1) If there was at that time five hundredths percent or less by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, it shall be is presumed that the defendant was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor;

(2) If there was at that time in excess of five hundredths percent but less than ten eight hundredths percent by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, such fact shall does not give rise to any presumption that the defendant was or was not under the influence of intoxicating liquor, but such fact may be considered with other competent evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of the defendant;

(3) If there was at that time ten eight hundredths percent or more by weight of alcohol in the defendant's blood, it shall be is presumed that the defendant was under the influence of intoxicating liquor.

Percent by weight of alcohol in the blood shall be based upon milligrams of alcohol per 1.0 cubic centimeters of whole blood or 2100 cubic centimeters of deep lung breath.
LAT= http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2002/bills/HB1034p.htm
KWAP=Drunk Driving, Driving under the Influence, DWI, DUI, BAC, Blood Alcohol Content,

2002-01-13T17:47:00.000-06:00

Rules of Professional Conduct for SD Lawyers or lawyers practicing in SD...I assume. THis sure makes comfortable reading. I sure wish I had confidence that all the lawyers in SD behaved as well as suggested by this fine text.--- DW
LAT= http://www.sdbar.org/members/ethics/rules/PC_Rules.htm
KWAP= SD Bar Association, Professional Conduct, Lawyers Responsibilities, terminology, Model Rules of Professional conduct,
diligence, fees (don't assume that anything here will prevent absurd legal charges for services real or imagined however).

2002-01-13T17:38:00.000-06:00

HB 1001 Information on "An Act to ratify the Uniform Sales and Use Tax Administration Act and to implement the uniform and simplified features proposed by the Streamlined Sales Tax Project."

This is the attempt to tinker with state and local taxes to make it somehow possible to fit them into some grand consortium of state tax systems with the aim of taxing internet and similar remote sales. Get text of bills as introduced here. I assume versions of this are being presented in other state legislatures as a way to get around the US Constitution attempts to reduce restrictions on interstate commerce.

These bills deserve a quick death and instead a shift to a federal collection system for all remote sales including stocks, bonds, insurance policies, whatever. The attempt to tax books, computers, etc hits small consumers first and last. Take a look at the proposed legislation here.------- DW.
LAT=http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2002/1001.htm

2002-01-13T17:30:00.000-06:00

Seventy-Seventh Legislative Session includes links to "Bills, Chamber or Comitteee, Members, Reports, Subject Index, General, Bill search option, and a "What's New for 77th Session" link.

2002-01-13T17:28:00.000-06:00

South Dakota Legislature The South Dakota Legislature and Legislative research page includes options for "Current legislators, Current Legislative session, Codified Laws, Admnistrative Rules, Interim Information, Session Laws, Past Sessions, Legislator Historical
Listing, Related Links, and General Information. Also links to the SD Home page, LRC Home Page, Contact information, help, Privacy policy, and feedback.

2002-01-13T09:50:00.000-06:00

----SD INTERNET SALES TAX PROPOSALS---

You have seen a year or so worth of propaganda from State Revenue agencies pushing for some grand conglomeration of simplified
state, local, regional "REMOTE" transactio taxes. I will dig out the fantastic estimates this is supposed to generate for states.
What is surprising is that such large estimates turn up and that they are remarkably similar from state to state..almost without regard
to the size or economy of the states. It is hard not to assume that in the desire to maintain bureaucracies in State Revenue agencies,
numbers were pulled out of clear blue sky to make this look like a bonanza either waiting for exploitation or slipping through the fingers
of these revenue agents.

You have already heard about the highway pirate robber war lords in Afghanistan. They put chains across a road and stick their thugs
with guns by them and then extort a "tax" for going past them. Revolutionary America had an official version of that with the ill-fated
Articles of Confederation. When our present constitution was written, it was intended to prevent state and local taxes which restricted
commerce. Now we have the internet and mail and other "remote" sales going across state lines or from community to community
inside states. State Revenue departments are trying to figure out a way to put chains across all those transactions and pull out their
legal machine guns on the unwary.

The really rabid businessmen and internet geeks say that this is not revenue states are losing, but revenue they should never be
allowed to collect. Their argument suggests state revenue departments are more like thieves lamenting their losses because
a burglar system and tv cameras have been added to their ripest targets. I can see their point, but I suspect that there will be some
kind of transaction taxes on remote sales no matter how much the dotcom denizens rant and rave. So, why not get a system that
works without making a bookkeeping hell for every small businessmen and a huge invasion of privacy for every citizen. The modern
cheapness of data storage and data mining make these state consortium tax ideas ripe for abuse of anybody the state or some
bureaucrat in a state decides to abuse.

The primary problems this will produced is already apparent with the few things I have bought on the internet. I ended up paying SD
sales tax anyway, but not just the 4% sales tax I expected to pay, but also the 2% city sales tax for the adjacent town. Their database
used my zipcode and no way could they get orders with that zipcode out without helping the city mulct taxes from a non-resident.
That is a small example. To make the dreams of the Revenue grubbers into citizen tax nightmares multiply this thousands and millions
of times. The problem with all state and local sales taxes on remote sales is that they require a huge database to determine what
taxes are owed, how much is owed, how much goes to state, how much goes to local, etc. The problem is that these taxes are
not a federal tax and thus require a lot of record-keeping and intrusive nosing into personal details of purchases.

The solution is a federal transaction tax that applies to ALL remote sales. The rate should be the same across the US and be
derived from an average of all the state sales taxes. The major portion of such taxes should then be refunded back to states on the
basis of their census population. No huge database of every Joe Blow's address to the nearest foot and what he has purchased
for the last few years and who he purchased it from etc. etc. If that tax turns out to be 5% or whatever, If a citizen buys a computer
or book by remote sale, that tax must be payed. The seller has to pay it, but he does not have to allocate all those individual sales
to a state or locality or whatever when the business forwards the tax thus collected to the US Government.

Use taxes and other convoluted local presence ideas etc to make an end run around the US Constitution would not be required...in
fact they should be banned and replaced by the uniform federal remote sales tax. The current tax fictions winked at by state courts
and crafted with so many catch 22 provisions would not be required. The inequities of these tax extraction chains across the
road destroy respect for all laws, all courts, and all state legislators.

More on this issue soon.---DW

2002-01-12T23:34:00.000-06:00

The South Dakota Legislature is in Session. Let's consider this Volume 2002 until I can find the sesssion
number. I hope to pull in information on legislation some of which is already introduced and is so blatantly
partisan in GOP nature that it is amazing the legislators even pretend their legislation is anything but crap.

Another feature of the SD Legislature that greatly disturbs me is that Republican legislators seem to view the
legislative branch is just another strong arm of our bully Governor Wild Bill Janklow. Will see what we can do
and also if I can get a few other people to contribute informtion and knowledge to this site.

Most SD Newspapers limit any writer to one letter per month and some also will not print anything that another
paper has printed as a letter. This effectively prevents any consistent presentation of legislative issues to South
Dakotans unless you yourself happen to be running the editorial page. The internet can be a quick way to get
a lot of information to a lot of people. Hope this can be a useful serviice.

I won't even pretend to be unbiased. I have wondered for years why anybody but the very richest and most
authritarian anal retentives vote Republican in South Dakota. The party consistently supports the richest the
best and the very, very richest with the very, very richest service that money can buy. STAY TUNED FOR
MORE Tomorrow.....assuming this works tonight.