24.05.2014 Views

E-Coyote_10-11-12_Layout 1.pdf - Pioneer Review

E-Coyote_10-11-12_Layout 1.pdf - Pioneer Review

E-Coyote_10-11-12_Layout 1.pdf - Pioneer Review

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

Murdo <strong>Coyote</strong><br />

Murdo <strong>Coyote</strong> • October <strong>11</strong>, 20<strong>12</strong> • Page <strong>10</strong><br />

by Donna Adrian<br />

Garlic lovers get ready; garlic<br />

needs to be in the ground at least<br />

one month before ground freezes,<br />

so now through mid-October is the<br />

ideal time to plant. Start by planting<br />

the cloves from the large bulbs.<br />

The larger the clove, the larger the<br />

size of the mature bulb at harvest.<br />

Do not divide the bulb until just<br />

before planting. Some people have<br />

had good luck planting the bulbs<br />

from the grocery store, but it is<br />

recommended to buy your bulbs<br />

from a supplier. Garlic needs fullsun<br />

site with loose soil rich in<br />

organic matter. Add compost to the<br />

bed, plant the cloves, pointy side<br />

up, three to five inches apart at a<br />

depth of two to three inches. Add a<br />

layer of mulch. Plant five inches<br />

apart in all directions is you plant<br />

them in a bed.<br />

In the vegetable garden, be sure<br />

to remove old plants, do a final<br />

weeding and mulch the bed with<br />

straw, grass clippings, or chopped<br />

leaves. These mulches can be<br />

turned into the soil, by the worms<br />

and microorganisms in the soil by<br />

Paid for by Schaefer for House<br />

next spring to help fertilize next<br />

year’s crops.<br />

The perennials need one last<br />

weeding, give them a good layer of<br />

mulch. After the ground is frozen,<br />

mulch around the crowns of your<br />

plants to reduce the chance of frost<br />

heaving and winter kill.<br />

Mow the lawn one last time.<br />

This is one of the easiest solutions<br />

for leaves, it involves no raking.<br />

There is no reason to rake all the<br />

leaves off the lawn. Simply run the<br />

mower at a high setting it will<br />

break up the leaves. The leaves<br />

break down over winter, providing<br />

your soil with nutrients and shading<br />

the soil. Do this once a week<br />

until the leaves have quit falling<br />

and leave your rake in the garden<br />

shed. Mowing and leaving the<br />

grass and leaves lay is equal to one<br />

fertilizing applied to the lawn. You<br />

can spread compost over the lawn<br />

to get it off to a good start next<br />

spring; this is the easiest solution,<br />

as it involves no raking. I stick<br />

with my motto, less weeds, less<br />

water and less work regardless<br />

whether its vegetable garden,<br />

flower beds or lawns.<br />

Delegation requests meeting with Veterans<br />

Affairs Secretary Shinseki in Hot Springs<br />

Senator Tim Johnson (D-SD),<br />

Senator John Thune (R-SD) and<br />

Representative Kristi Noem (R-<br />

SD) today sent a letter to U.S. Secretary<br />

of Veterans Affairs Eric<br />

Shinseki to request a meeting in<br />

Hot Springs regarding the proposed<br />

changes to the Black Hills<br />

Health Care System (BHHCS).<br />

The delegation was joined by Senator<br />

Mike Enzi (R-WY), Senator<br />

John Barrasso (R-WY), Senator<br />

Mike Johanns (R-NE), Representative<br />

Cynthia Lummis (R-WY)<br />

and Representative Adrian Smith<br />

(R-NE).<br />

The Senators and Representatives<br />

expressed “frustration and<br />

disappointment” in how proposed<br />

changes to the BHHCS have progressed.<br />

The BHHCS gave its<br />

word that the process would be<br />

open, transparent, and inclusive.<br />

However, a September <strong>10</strong>, 20<strong>12</strong><br />

meeting between BHHCS officials<br />

and the Save the VA Committee<br />

broke down when the BHHCS said<br />

it was not in a position to negotiate<br />

on its proposal. Since that time,<br />

many stakeholders have lost trust<br />

in the process and fear that the<br />

actions of the BHHCS over the<br />

past ten months were all for show.<br />

The Senators and Representatives<br />

wrote: “We remain committed<br />

to ensuring that our veterans<br />

receive the highest quality of care<br />

and believe that their voices and<br />

concerns need to be a part of any<br />

proposed changes. G i v e n<br />

the recent developments as to how<br />

this process is moving forward, we<br />

are requesting a meeting with you,<br />

the tri-state congressional delegation<br />

and members of the Save the<br />

VA Committee in Hot Springs, SD.<br />

We believe that it is important you<br />

hear directly from the members of<br />

the community, our veterans, and<br />

other stakeholders directly affected.”<br />

The full text of the letter is<br />

below:<br />

October 2, 20<strong>12</strong><br />

The Honorable Eric Shinseki<br />

Secretary of Veterans Affairs<br />

Department of Veterans Affairs<br />

8<strong>10</strong> Vermont Avenue, NW<br />

Washington, D.C. 20420<br />

Dear Secretary Shinseki:<br />

We write to express frustration<br />

and disappointment in how proposed<br />

changes to the Black Hills<br />

Health Care System (BHHCS)<br />

have progressed. We were hopeful<br />

that the BHHCS would keep its<br />

word about making this process<br />

open, transparent, and inclusive,<br />

as you assured us would be the<br />

case in your letter dated May 18,<br />

20<strong>12</strong>. We were assured that public<br />

comment and feedback would<br />

be seriously considered and, as<br />

appropriate, be incorporated into<br />

any final proposal. It has come to<br />

our attention that at a September<br />

<strong>10</strong>, 20<strong>12</strong> meeting between the<br />

BHHCS Veterans Administration<br />

(VA) and the Save the VA Committee<br />

(the Committee), the meeting<br />

broke down when the BHHCS said<br />

it was not in a position to negotiate<br />

on its proposal. Whether this was<br />

a misstatement or fact, trust has<br />

been lost, relationships damaged,<br />

and many fear that the actions of<br />

the BHHCS over the past ten<br />

months were all for show.<br />

When the BHHCS made the<br />

proposal public last December,<br />

stakeholders were led to believe<br />

that this was not a final proposal<br />

and input from the public would be<br />

given full and fair consideration.<br />

The Committee never intended its<br />

counterproposal to be an all-ornothing<br />

alternative to the BHHCS<br />

proposal. They were led to<br />

believe, as were we, that the<br />

process moving forward would be<br />

collaborative. Recently, BHHCS<br />

sent its original proposal and all<br />

other proposals received to the VA<br />

Central Office (VACO) for review.<br />

We remain committed to ensuring<br />

that our veterans receive the<br />

highest quality of care and believe<br />

that their voices and concerns<br />

need to be a part of any proposed<br />

changes. Several Veteran Service<br />

Organizations, tribal governments<br />

and the State of South Dakota<br />

have issued resolutions expressing<br />

serious concerns with the BHHCS<br />

proposal as written and concerns<br />

have also been raised by some veterans<br />

and organizations in<br />

Nebraska and Wyoming. Concerns<br />

such as the extent to which<br />

major components of the BHHCS<br />

plan have been vetted with private<br />

health care providers and facilities,<br />

how the BHHCS proposal can<br />

effectively provide care to veterans<br />

in areas already declared “medically<br />

underserved” or with Critical<br />

Access Hospital designation,<br />

and concerns expressed by Native<br />

veterans relative to the Indian<br />

Health Service need to be considered.<br />

We are worried that these<br />

concerns may not have been<br />

addressed in the BHHCS proposal<br />

submitted to the VACO. These<br />

concerns are addressed in the<br />

Committee’s counterproposal.<br />

Given the recent developments<br />

as to how this process is moving<br />

forward, we are requesting a meeting<br />

with you, the tri-state congressional<br />

delegation and members of<br />

the Save the VA Committee in Hot<br />

Springs, SD. We believe that it is<br />

important you hear directly from<br />

the members of the community,<br />

our veterans, and other stakeholders<br />

directly affected. We ask that<br />

this meeting take place as soon as<br />

possible and any action on this<br />

proposal be delayed until a meeting<br />

can take place. Finally, we ask<br />

for transparency as to how proposals<br />

are evaluated and what criteria<br />

are used to make any final<br />

decision.<br />

We appreciate your attention to<br />

this issue and your timely<br />

response.<br />

Sincerely,<br />

Tim Johnson, United States<br />

Senator<br />

John Thune, United States<br />

Senator<br />

Kristi Noem, Member of Congress<br />

Mike Enzi, United States Senator<br />

John Barrasso, United States<br />

Senator<br />

Cynthia Lummis, Member of<br />

Congress<br />

Mike Johanns, United States<br />

Senator<br />

Adrian Smith, Member of<br />

Congress<br />

Farm and business groups oppose<br />

$180 million state tax increase<br />

People read the<br />

newspaper for many<br />

different reasons. Some want<br />

to stay abreast of the latest local,<br />

state and national news, while others read the<br />

sports pages word-for-word.<br />

Still others scan the latest classifieds.<br />

Call or stop by your local newspaper office<br />

today to subscribe, or subscribe to the online<br />

edition at: www.RavellettePublications.com<br />

The <strong>Pioneer</strong> <strong>Review</strong><br />

Box 788 • Philip • (605) 859-2516<br />

The Murdo <strong>Coyote</strong><br />

Box 465 • Murdo • (605) 669-2271<br />

The Bison Courier<br />

Box 429 • Bison• (605) 244-7199<br />

The Pennington Co. Courant<br />

Box 435 • Wall • (605) 279-2565<br />

The Faith Independent<br />

Box 38 • Faith • (605) 967-2161<br />

A grassroots coalition representing<br />

family farmers and small<br />

businesses is asking voters to<br />

reject what is believed to be the<br />

largest tax increase in the state's<br />

history.<br />

On November 6, South Dakota<br />

voters will decide whether they<br />

are willing to pay $180 million in<br />

new revenue every year to school<br />

boards and Medicaid providers,<br />

such as hospitals and clinics. The<br />

money would come from a 25 percent<br />

increase in the state sales tax.<br />

The funding would be in addition<br />

to what the two groups already<br />

receive from state taxpayers.<br />

Opponents say voters should<br />

put their foot down and vote<br />

against the new tax.<br />

“Initiated Measure 15 is an<br />

enormous tax increase that would<br />

give $90 million in new revenue to<br />

K-<strong>12</strong> school boards, and $90 million<br />

in new revenue to Medicaid<br />

providers, every year, forever,”<br />

says No on 15 co-chair Michael<br />

Held of the South Dakota Farm<br />

Bureau. “Just over the next<br />

decade, that's a whopping $1.8 billion<br />

in new money for those two<br />

The Kadoka Press<br />

Box 309 • Kadoka • (605) 837-2259<br />

groups. Not one cent of the new<br />

tax money would go to infrastructure,<br />

public safety, or higher education.”<br />

Giving more money to schools<br />

and Medicaid providers might<br />

sound good, but the plan has some<br />

major problems, warned No on 15<br />

co-chair Shawn Lyons of the South<br />

Dakota Retailers Association.<br />

“If you read this vaguely-worded<br />

proposal, there is nothing that<br />

says specifically how the money is<br />

to be spent,” Lyons noted. “It doesn't<br />

have to be used to raise teacher<br />

salaries or reduce class sizes, and<br />

it doesn't have to be used to reduce<br />

medical costs. They could stick it<br />

all in reserves if they want to.”<br />

The lack of oversight should be<br />

another red flag for voters, Lyons<br />

noted.<br />

“They have left out any provision<br />

for legislative oversight,” he<br />

said. “That is lousy tax policy. We<br />

have a good citizen legislature<br />

which is vigilant about protecting<br />

taxpayers in the budgeting<br />

process. But if Initiated Measure<br />

15 went through, these two groups<br />

would get a full 20 percent of the<br />

state sales tax dollars without<br />

having to account to the Legislature<br />

for how they're spending it.”<br />

While K-<strong>12</strong> education and Medicaid<br />

providers had their state<br />

funds trimmed last year, members<br />

of the No on 15 Committee point<br />

out that every other part of the<br />

state budget faced similar cuts in<br />

response to poor economic conditions.<br />

Since then, the Governor<br />

and Legislature have restored $18<br />

million of the cuts, and the state<br />

finished the budget year with $48<br />

million in unexpected revenue and<br />

savings.<br />

“Everyone had to tighten their<br />

belts,” Held stated. “So why should<br />

these two groups step in line<br />

ahead of everyone else and get<br />

more state tax dollars back than<br />

was cut from them?”<br />

Lyons also questioned the timing<br />

of the proposal.<br />

“Last year, many of our state's<br />

farms, homeowners and businesses<br />

were hit with huge losses from<br />

flooding. This year, the pendulum<br />

swung the opposite direction, and<br />

people are struggling as a result of<br />

drought. Do we really expect those<br />

people to dig even deeper into<br />

their pockets and fork over 25 percent<br />

more in state sales tax on<br />

nearly everything they buy when<br />

they're not even sure how that<br />

money is going to be spent?”<br />

The No on 15 group says they<br />

don't have the same financial<br />

resources as the people behind the<br />

proposed tax hike.<br />

“We understand that the people<br />

who want this tax increase have<br />

planned an expensive, aggressive<br />

advertising campaign,” Held said.<br />

“Our grassroots coalition represents<br />

the little guys, and we don't<br />

have that kind of money to throw<br />

around. All we have is a firm belief<br />

that the average person in South<br />

Dakota doesn't want higher<br />

taxes.”<br />

Along with the South Dakota<br />

Farm Bureau and South Dakota<br />

Retailers Association, other groups<br />

which are voicing opposition to the<br />

proposed tax increase are the<br />

South Dakota Farmers Union,<br />

National Federation of Independent<br />

Business, South Dakota<br />

Trucking Association, South Dakota<br />

Beer Distributors, South Dakota<br />

Innkeepers Association, South<br />

Dakota Agri-Business Association,<br />

South Dakota Petroleum and<br />

Propane Marketers Association,<br />

Music and Vending Association of<br />

South Dakota, South Dakota Manufactured<br />

Housing Association,<br />

Licensed Beverage Dealers of<br />

South Dakota, South Dakota Association<br />

of Cooperatives, the South<br />

Dakota Grain & Feed Association,<br />

and the South Dakota Coalition<br />

for Responsible Taxation.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!