I'm reposting some of my comments made over at Madville today in a post titled: Tim Johnson Evolves on Gay Marriage, Tells Dems to Be Dems… or Libertarians!  Here are those comments and a couple additional ones:

Glad you pointed out this is the Libertarian view. I've found them to be generally AWOL on the social issues despite their harping on fidelity to the South Dakota Republican Party Platform. Their stance here reveals them to be RINOs too.

Let's look ahead at marriage evolution. What's next?… Mandated "Gay Infertility" health insurance coverage where taxpayers foot the bill for in vitro fertilization and surrogacy? We are fools if we think marriage evolution stops at gay marriage. Who then are we to say this or that can't marry what or whom they love? When marriage becomes anything, it becomes nothing.

Religious liberty will be a casualty of marriage evolution as it becomes discriminatory and prosecutable for a guy like me to only promote and perform traditional weddings. If you think that's a baseless fear, in Canada it's a hate crime for a minister to preach Romans 1.

Disagreement isn't hate. It's not hate to love only what God loves. We already have marriage equality. I have the same rights as a gay person. I can't marry anyone I love, neither can they. We deny marriage to lots of people, not just gays.

Moral decline has historically precipitated the decline of civilizations. In light of that, looking ahead, what side of history is Sen. Johnson now on?

Yesterday we headed home early from our legislative session to try and beat a huge snowstorm that was sweeping across our state. Today is apparently the one hundred twenty-fifth anniversary of a South Dakota blizzard that killed 500 people - known to us as the Children's Blizzard of 1888. (No real weather to report here in Sioux Falls today except cold and a few flurries.)

The Long Winter is a familiar phrase to all South Dakotans reared on the beloved Laura Ingalls Wilder stories. However, here my reference to a “long winter” has little to do with blizzards or extended cold spells. Governor Daugaard was emphatic in his recent budget address and State of the State address that global and national economic realities could potentially affect South Dakotans dearly.

I'm not sure this is an exact quote but the Governor said something like: we have no idea what will happen in two months. Though he was referring primarily to Congress, the fiscal cliff and the sequestration cuts that are looming, in all economic aspects the only certainty is that things remain very uncertain. South Dakotans are hardy people and give forethought before even driving a distance in the winter. We don’t wait until we are stuck in the snow to think about having blankets in the backseat. Hopefully this is true of us in a fiscal sense.

Many economists agree it’s only a matter of time before America faces the consequences of decades of the devaluation of the Dollar, unsustainable spending, irresponsible consumption and unbridled debt accumulation. Regardless of whether or not we agree a day of reckoning is inevitable, it is the responsibility of our state elected officials to do more than wait and see if and when for example, the Dollar ceases to be the World’s Reserve Currency.

Certainly I don't have the answers, but I do hope to be asking the right questions. Initially I planned to put forth a bill this legislative session that would establish a Long Economic Winter (LEW) Work Group "to ascertain the effects of an extended and significant national economic crisis and/or correction on Main Street, South Dakota and to submit a LEW Findings Report to the 2014 Legislature including legislation recommendations and precautions or suggested considerations for our communities and general population." However, it appears I've been sucessful in getting these questions and concerns on the agenda of our Legislative Long Range Planning Committee and so I won't be bringing a bill.

Here are the questions I'm asking:

1) What would say, a 20% reduction in Federal funds mean to South Dakota? Some tell me it'd put South Dakota back into the Stone Age. Already we have no margin for additional education spending or medicaid providers. The CEO of Avera Health Systems told me they have contingency plans in place for both physical and financial catastrophes. Maybe our state needs to have the same conversations.

2) What would the collapse of the Dollar mean to Main Street, South Dakota? What would it mean to our states large financial sector, which at present is a significant source of state revenue and jobs?

3) What are the possibilities for weaning South Dakota off Federal and other uncertain (or arguably unhealthy) revenue sources?  Are we insulated from the worst of a national economic crisis or correction, or would our present dependent state status mean South Dakota would be the first and/or most deeply affected?

4) What if any measures in South Dakota could be adopted so our present statutes don’t exacerbate difficulties in buying and selling, or bartering? For example, since 2005, fourteen states have introduced bills to provide for the establishment of alternative currencies and Utah and Georgia have done so. Should these be considerations in South Dakota?

5) What current state statutes might a) hamstring people simply trying to take care of themselves and their families and/or b) frustrate or prolong our recovery?

6) What would a significant disruption in the food, fuel or power supplies mean to our population? No kidding, when they closed I-90 and I-29 for three days a few years ago because of snow, the local HyVee here got down to three gallons of milk. America has no food storage, it's all on trucks. A Homeland Security employee told me last year a labor/union issue triggering a trucking strike in the southeast for example would create immediate food shortages and civil unrest in Atlanta, Memphis and Chicago. I was told South Dakota would not be first in line for food.

7) Considering the unstable and unsustainable economic environment beyond our borders, just how much should we keep in our Reserve Funds?

Obvious, I don't believe it's a time to build an events center on the backs of struggling taxpayers so we don't have to drive to Minneapolis to see Huey Lewis and the News. Sorry, that was sarcastic. But you get my point. Frankly it's nuts to be to talking about expanding anything right now with the complete uncertainty of Federal promises and programs.

Sorry for being the pessimistic one, I'd argue it's realism. The consensus is my Long Winter verbiage is too much for some and so we are going to be talking about contingency plans. I don't care what we call it.

I'm grateful that, to date, our city and state have been generally insulated from the harsh economic realities in other parts of our nation/world. But I'm not buying any talk of us being in a recovery because we are building some homes and some revenues are inching back up. If your kids diet was 50% Twinkees/10% candy you couldn't say he was healthy just because he was growing. Folks, that's a picture of South Dakota's budget reality - highly subsidized by the Fed and Video Lottery. It's okay to have some candy and a piece of cake now and then, but what I'm talking about isn't healthy.

I've long said that hard times are the best times for American's to rise up to the challenge of caring for each other and I'm confident South Dakota can lead the way and be a model for other states in this regard. Please know I am conscious of my Rev/Rep roles and I do try to not barge out into the public square with a zillion Bible verses. Even so Proverbs 27:12 needs to be included here: "The prudent see danger and take refuge, but the simple keep going and suffer for it."

The headline this morning - Legislators: Let Us Arm Ourselves - made me think we are getting desperate for some sort of early controversy out of our Legislature this year. Certainly some will come. But, the Governor's State of the State went by this week and both sides of the aisle were very pleased with the proposed criminal justice reforms. Last year the education firestorm was well underway by now.

To me the most noteworthy thing in the State of the State, as it relates to controversy, was that there was no mention of paying teachers more. But, what is there to say? Voters in November said no to three different strategies to pay teachers more and the Governor obviously is respecting the will of the voters. And so education funding is basically at a standstill. Rightly or wrongly, because there are no workable solutions which would result in substantial Ed funding increases, the focus is now on other things. No one is giving up. I heard a great plan this week to get additional funds to pay for our ESL students. There will surely be one time moneys coming to Ed. The controversy in the paper this morning should have been the expansion of Medicaid, not lawmakers wanting guns.

It's interesting that few bills have come in so far. I'm working on nine, so just because we had a slow week doesn't mean more aren't coming. But, despite the headlines today, there is no big gun push in Pierre right now.  Here's what I put in the comments at the Argus this morning on that story:

Probably need to ask Rep Lust if his comments about having this conversation with legislators are recent. I'm guessing he is referring to a couple years ago when Rep. Gabbie Giffords was shot on a day we were all here in the Capitol for the inauguration of Gov. Daugaard (I think that's what we were there for). At that time there were lots of conversations about how exposed elected officials are in the various places we gather. Even Thune was seen to have armed security at a townhall mtg shortly after that shooting. There was talk among us at that time about letting legislators arm themselves but as I recall, the State Patrol changed procedures and that was that. My guess is the reason no one knows about a current effort on this is because there isn't a current effort. It's unfortunate that Rep Lust's picture is next to this headline as he's certainly not one advocating we arm ourselves - which is what that juxtaposition implies. And the reporting we keep seeing on a coming bill to get teachers carrying guns is not the direction the bill is going. Just an fyi.

The inside scoop on that school safety bill is that four of us met with our various approaches to enhancing school safety and we have agreed to merge into one bill we will introduce this week - A School Sentinel Bill; probably (but not for certain) primed by former Rapid City Police Chief, Senator Craig Tiezen and Rep. Scott Craig. That bill will "authorize individual school boards to create, establish, and supervise individual school sentinel programs to promote school safety."  At present, only law enforcement can be armed on a school property. This gives a school board a green light to designate and oversee others to enhance school security and ensure student safety. Some indicate they want this permission, others most certainly don't.

In other words, the legislature won't be designing a one-size fits all school safety program but will merely be letting each district design their own plan with the requirement that whatever they seek to design and implement that it be "interfaced with local law enforcement." The type of plan to arm school employees, or hire security personal, or volunteers is something to be discussed and decided by school boards. No teacher or employee will be asked to be a part of any additional security plan without their free, willing and voluntary consent. Section five basically provides that a school board can decide not to design a school sentinel program and they are not liable to a cause of action charging they did not do more to protect kids.

I'm not sure I like the last part of that but here's the thing… all those who were screaming last year for local control of schools have it right here in this bill. The debate about additional guns in schools will now shift to the local school boards if this passes.

On a related topic, in the Health and Human Services Committee this week I made some comments about mental illness— how we know what bullets the shooters use but there is no reporting on the meds they were on. And, I said some things to our state mental health leaders inviting them to jump into the debate so we aren't just talking about guns. I said, give us a statewide education on early warning signs for those with propensity to violence. No one could give me numbers on how many people are on the streets, medicated, who have a propensity to violence. In the 1960's we had 1200 in our Redfield institution, today we have 130. A cop told me last week he deals weekly with mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves and others.

Friends, it's time to stand with Israel! You'll hear more about this soon but for now, please venture over to Facebook and hit "like" if you'd like to be numbered among those who support Israel. And share this on your Facebook page or Twitter to spread the word.

Our hope is to build a strong coalition of support from South Dakota. This is not a Christian group, per se, and certainly we won't be pushing any particular flavor of theology or prophecy. The idea for this actually comes from my friend Stephen Rosenthal who for years has been a leader in the Jewish community and organizations in our state. He has shared his vision for this with me and I assured him I'm fully on board and I know many others who will be as well. It's also non-partisan.

If you aren't on Facebook and would like to be included in future updates about South Dakotans for Israel, send an email with your contact information to Stephen Rosenthal, rosenthal.stephen@gmail.com or to me, stevehickey67@gmail.com .

Lots of buzz these days in some Christian circles about a bestselling new release book called The Harbinger. A number of folks have asked what I think of it, and so I decided to read it on a long plane ride yesterday.

South Dakota politico's might be interested to know that our very own Tom Daschle was featured as being one of several who unknowingly but very specifically fulfilled an ancient prophecy related to the attacks on September 11 and the economic crash seven years later. Very interesting stuff and if you are now gathering titles for your summer reading list I recommend it to you and welcome your comments.

It's campaign season again and those who run for public office have to step into that uncomfortable self-promotion mode. It really helps if others offer their sentiments and in that vein I'm honored and grateful for these kind words from Governor Dennis Daugaard toward my re-election this coming November.

"Representative Steve Hickey is a thoughtful, grounded legislator who works hard for the people of his district and the people of South Dakota. After only one term in Pierre, Steve has earned my respect and that of his colleagues by listening, considering, and making strong decisions for South Dakota."

Governor Dennis Daugaard

Other endorsements here, here, and Sen. John Thune's statement of endorsement is visible in the upper right corner of this webpage.

Back in February I put up a post here titled: Libertarians in the SD GOP are RINO's too. It was a bit of a response or reflection on some of the tensions in the SD GOP and ambitions to rid Pierre of RINO's.

Of recent, South Dakota Ron Paul supporters are expressing excitement about "Blue Republicans"—"former non-Republicans who are joining the Republican party for one year to help Ron Paul win."

Fascinating. Yet, if a Democrat in South Dakota changes party affiliation to join the GOP there is great great great distain. Not sure if I should expect consistency but in any case, I thought this was an interesting article on Why I'm Not A Libertarian.

If you think of a good punch line to the joke I started in this post title, drop it in the comment section.

A couple years ago when I set my sights on our US House seat people found it odd that a pastor would get political. My response was to remind people that 27 of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence had seminary degrees or were ordained. My joke was this nation was founded on the good work of lawyers and clergy and I think we have enough lawyers.

Nationwide more clergy are running for public office. Here in South Dakota, of course I am running for re-election, and this year we also have Lutheran pastor Rev. Karen Soli (D-District 15 House) and now Rev. Scott Craig (R- District 33 House) running for state house seats.  Also, pastor/rancher Bill VanGerpen (R - District 19 Senate) is seeking a comeback. We are losing Rep. Nick Moser to law school - he's presently a youth pastor. When I heard Rep. Moser was not seeking re-election I was worried I'd be the only guy left to call on when the Pastor of the Day is a no-show and the Speaker needs someone for the opening prayer.

With very few exceptions, no one serving in South Dakota politics has a political or government background. We have a citizen legislature, mostly made up of lawyers and farmers. That is changing with a few ministers in the mix now and,,,, what's up with this surge of chiropractors? Maybe they'll get us straightened out!  Quoting Dr. Fred Deutsch's comment over at Mercer's blog… "Did you notice the number of chiropractors running? Munsterman, Monroe, Stotz, Chicoine, and yours truely. Not sure it means anything other than the state might see adjustments coming."

So far only two medical doctors are running, Dr. Scott Ecklund (R-District 25) has been a Sanford doctor for 25 years and still is, and Dr. Frank Alvine (R- District 13) who I'm told is retired.

I'm not sure you can read anything into any of this as there are very few occupations that can become flexible enough to allow a person to campaign for six months, attend candidate forums on the weekends and interest group legislative briefings each evening in November and early December and take off for January, February and part of March. All for $6000. Not to complain because I didn't need nor did I run to seek another job or additional income, but I did notice the open seat here on our city council pays $17,000. Maybe it was the thought of sleeping in my own bed that made me do a double take on it. Not to worry, I'm not going away.

Oh, and I hear we may have more educators seeking open seats. Time will tell.

As the SDEA announces plans to take HB1234 to the voters this November, I remember listening to President Obama's State of the Union address last month thinking…. sounds like he would have voted for HB1234 in a heartbeat.

I'll quote him directly:

At a time when other countries are doubling down on education, tight budgets have forced States to lay off thousands of teachers. We know a good teacher can increase the lifetime income of a classroom by over $250,000. A great teacher can offer an escape from poverty to the child who dreams beyond his circumstance.  Every person in this chamber can point to a teacher who changed the trajectory of their lives. Most teachers work tirelessly, with modest pay, sometimes digging into their own pocket for school supplies – just to make a difference.

Teachers matter. So instead of bashing them, or defending the status quo, let’s offer schools a deal. Give them the resources to keep good teachers on the job, and reward the best ones. (Applause.) And in return, grant schools flexibility:  to teach with creativity and passion; to stop teaching to the test; and to replace teachers who just aren’t helping kids learn.  That’s a bargain worth making.  (Applause.)

Obama said, instead of "defending the status quo, let's offer schools a deal"…  1. Incentives to attract and keep good teachers. (Applause.) 2. Reward the best teachers. (Applause.) 3. Grant schools flexibility. (Applause.)  4. Boot the bad teachers. (Applause.)

It's almost spooky how closely those comments parallel HB1234. Furthermore, he acknowledges tight budgets have forced states to cut teacher funding. Yet the narrative here in SD is that the funding was cut because Republicans hate teachers.

The sun did come up today despite all the over the top rhetoric about how bad the passing of HB1234 would be for our state. Leading the pack in that type of rhetoric was my Spearfish teacher friend, Cory at Madville Times. Yesterday he likened us passing HB1234 to leading our educators into the gas chambers.

This bill addresses the number one concern in South Dakota education - low teacher pay. It doesn't get a pay increase to all, but it does for some. If you ask teachers in South Dakota, and I have, do you think we should pay good teachers more they will say yes. If is not fair or right for a teacher who works her/his tail off to get the same as the teacher across the hall who barely does the minimums. Yes, we do hear complaints about bad teaching - kids plopped in front of video lectures, teachers who haven't presented anything new in several years. I heard two weekends ago about a drunk teacher passed out in a SD public school classroom.

If you ask teachers if they think there ought to be a better way to get rid of the bad teachers they say yes. There is due process in HB1234. This bill is about the good, the bad and the rare. Pay good teachers more, get rid of the bad ones and offer incentives to attract teachers to the areas we are presently sparce (mainly math and science). If you ask teachers if they think there should be incentives to attract hard to find teachers you'll get a yes.  I believe most who teach in South Dakota are heroes who'd show up and teach if they were paid nothing, but bad teachers exist. And if we are trying to drive student achievement, particularly in math and science, investing in good teachers makes sense.

To suggest this is some sort of affront to teachers or an attack on education is just false. To those who are framing this as an attack, I'd point out the barbs are only coming our way– and they are brutal. Yesterday I was called spineless and compared to Judas selling his soul for 30 pieces of silver. Spineless? The easy vote would have been no. It takes a backbone to stand up and say we aren't just throwing more money at something if doing so historically has proven to not be the answer.

Regarding this sacred Republican value of local control. This bill is now packed with local control - a district can opt out, design their own plan, etc, etc. It's not absolute local control and it shouldn't be - the state is writing the check and money ought to be tied to accountability. That's a very Republican ideal.

History in South Dakota has shown us that more money to education does not translate into higher teacher pay - the districts just hire more at the low wage. In HB1234 the Governor crafted a way to get money directly to teachers.

We've also heard this bill has many subject matters and therefore is unconstitutional as state law says a bill can only have one subject matter. I've read this bill many, many times and there is one, quite narrow subject matter - teacher compensation as it relates to student achievement.

There were good questions raised as to whether or not this bill will actually drive student achievement. I'm convinced it will as student achievement is directly related to good teachers. My good friend Rep. Munsterman named twelve school districts yesterday that had good student achievement but his point was that we don't know why - that hasn't been evaluated. My response is that except for Brookings, the districts he named with the highest student achievement are districts at the bottom of the teacher pay scale. A conclusion could be drawn from those instances that more money doesn't translate into better student achievement. My view is that HB1234 isn't the end all to getting to better student achievement, but it contains key components of the strategy.

It's been no secret I've had great consternation with this bill and I've been specific as to why. My concerns were not so much related to the various tenets in the bill. I have held out hope there is a way to do this needed education reform in South Dakota with the cooperation of those it most affects. Instead they are kicking and screaming. The reason I shifted back to a green vote is because my concerns have been alleviated. The major aspects of this bill have been pushed back to 2014 and 2016 leaving a substantial open window of time and opportunity for all the stakeholders to contribute to the best implementation of every aspect of the bill.

The bill calls for a South Dakota Education Reform Advisory Council that consists of three members of the Senate, three members of the House, the Secretary of the Dept of Ed, three school superintendents, three principals, five teachers, three school board members, one member of the Board of Regents, one rep from the post secondary technical institutes, one rep from the school adminstrators, one rep of the SDEA and one rep of the Association of School Boards.

That's what I wanted to see all along and that is now in this bill… there are a couple years now intervening where all these players will be hands-on in South Dakota education reform.

Rep. David Lust said it best yesterday, "It comes down to inertia vs. movement. Status quo vs. change." This bill is movement in the right direction and that's why I voted green.