Well, it was a tough night. So many people put so much effort into our campaign — I just wish we had delivered on your hopes…and mine. But I really do feel proud of the fact that together we all did a brave thing, for the right reasons, under challenging circumstances. So thanks everyone, and here’s to a bright future.

-Matt Varilek

Matt: I’m Matt Varilek, and I’ve had a lot of people ask me why I’m working so hard to voluntarily join that mess in Congress. It’s a funny question with a serious answer.

I’m running for Congress because I believe that we can still do better. I believe we can tackle our challenges, but only if we elect new leaders- leaders who show up, work hard every day, and work together to get results for middle-class families.

I’m Matt Varilek, and I approve this message.

Narrator: What the heck is the Gula Graham Group? It’s Kristi Noem’s campaign firm, caught offering 1-on-1 coffees in return for campaign money. Selling meetings with fat cats, but she’s too busy to show up at the ag committee.

Do you know really pays when Noem sells out to special interests? We do. Sixty-four hundred more in Medicare costs, higher taxes on the middle class, and still, no farm bill. Haven’t we paid enough already?

Matt: I’m Matt Varilek, and I approve this message.

A South Dakota GOP video attacking U.S. House Candidate Matt Varilek is going viral on the internet.  Media outlets from the Washington Post to The Christian Science Monitor have weighed in.

The Varilek campaign says the ad is backfiring against incumbent Congresswoman Kristi Noem in the national press.   But the South Dakota GOP says they’re proud of the ad and hope it gets more hits.

The ad alleges that Matt Varilek is a radical environmentalist and seems to criticize him for studying abroad.   The ad also calls Varilek to task for  a National Corn Dog Day party he held in Washington DC.  Some on-line respondents to the ad charge that it makes South Dakota Republicans look unworldly.  Varilek’s own campaign is actually promoting the GOP ad and helping it go viral. Varilek says it’s strange the GOP is criticizing his overseas study that was paid for by a scholarship from the Yankton Rotary Club.

“When Kristi launched this attack she probably didn’t do her research to realize that it was a South Dakota organization that allowed me to go abroad and study Economics so I think she’s has a little egg on her face over this,” says Varilek.

Varilek says campaign contributions are coming into his office due to the ad.  Campaign officials for Kristi Noem differed comment to the South Dakota GOP who sponsored the Ad.   Tony Post is the Executive Director of the South Dakota Republican party.

“We’re proud of this ad and we’ve gotten a ton of great feedback on it,” says Post.

Post says the ad shows that Varilek is out of touch with the state.

http://listen.sdpb.org/post/varilek-promotes-gop-ad-noem

Argus Leader Media
By David Montgomery
October 26, 2012

Congressional candidate Matt Varilek accused Rep. Kristi Noem of crossing a line in her campaign fundraising.

“Rep. Noem’s campaign is selling access to her,” Varilek said in a news conference Thursday at his Sioux Falls campaign office.

The charge stemmed from an email apparently sent by the fundraising consultants Noem hires to help her raise money.

The email, by Jon Graham of the Gula Graham Group and released by the Varilek campaign, asks for donations to help Noem’s campaign and then appears to offer an incentive: “Happy to credit any contributions now to a 1-1 coffee or event,” Graham said.

Varilek called that “a remarkably explicit example of offering access to an officeholder in return for contributions.”

Noem’s campaign manager, Tom Erickson, called that charge “absolutely untrue” and said the campaign didn’t authorize Graham’s email.

“Kristi’s had over 800 meetings with South Dakotans in her first term,” Erickson said. “This is just a desperate campaign.”

Graham did not return a message asking for comment.

Erickson accused Varilek of false purity, pointing to donations he has accepted from registered lobbyists.

“Varilek has had all these banking and insurance lobbyists give him money,” Erickson said. “These are people who are possibly trying to gain influence with the Senate Banking Committee.”

The Banking Committee is chaired by Sen. Tim Johnson, Varilek’s former boss and an outspoken supporter of Varilek’s campaign.

David Benson, Varilek’s campaign manager, said Erickson was just trying “to change the subject” rather than defend Noem.

Most members of Congress engage in subtle trading of access for money, said Sheila Krumholz, executive director of the watchdog group Center for Responsive Politics.

“Donor rewards programs and offers are a time-honored, bipartisan tradition,” Krumholz said. “Candidates and parties have offered up face time, breakfast, lunch and dinner, ballgames, you name it.”

Krumholz said most donors and politicians assume that’s how “the game is played in Washington.” If the email from Noem’s consultant is accurate, Krumholz said it’s different only in how explicit it is.

“Perhaps some members of Congress have a harder time drumming up contributions without putting a finer point on it of what donors will receive in return,” she said.

Varilek said he’d be different.

“I have not ever sold a meeting, and I will not,” he said.

Asked if Varilek supports any changes to campaign finance laws, he said he does but “as for a particular reform package, I haven’t settled on one.”

Erickson said Varilek was just trying to distract voters from other, more important issues.

“Matt Varilek has built his entire campaign on falsehoods and distractions,” he said. “This is a last-minute attempt to distract the voters.”

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20121026/news/310260032/varilek-noem-sells-access-donation

October 25, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS)–At a press conference this morning, Congressional challenger Matt Varilek called out Congresswoman Kristi Noem for offering meetings to D.C. insiders in return for campaign donations.

A recent alarmed email from Noem’s D.C. fundraising consultant cited a poll of the U.S. House race showing Noem’s lead at only 5.7% and shrinking. He called on corporate donors to help avoid an upset by delivering extra donations, promising to arrange personal meetings with Noem in exchange.

“Happy to credit any contributions now to a 1-1 coffee or event during the lame duck,” wrote the consultant in an October 18 e-mail. Full text of the email is provided below.

“In her panic, Congresswoman Noem has resorted to explicitly selling access to her, and to the official elected public office that she holds,” said Varilek. “She had a chance to be part of the solution, but she chose to become part of the problem. This is exactly what average citizens fear is going on in Washington, and now we see that our lone member of Congress is clearly part of that mess.”

“Throughout this campaign, I’ve talked to regular folks all over South Dakota who are frustrated with a Congress that seems rigged against them and in favor of the biggest corporations,” said Varilek. “Nothing justifies that frustration more clearly than my opponent’s willingness to sell access to her biggest donors. South Dakotans deserve a member of Congress who observes high ethical standards, and I’m going to win this race to make sure we have that kind of U.S. House member once again.”

Noem’s unethical behavior marks a sharp contrast with her words in 2010, when she said, “I think it’s important for the people of South Dakota to know that their representative is working for them and being influenced only by their best interests.”

Since taking office, Noem has accepted over 36% of her fundraising total from PACs, totaling over $836,000. She has paid her fundraising consulting firm, The Gula Graham Group, over $124,00 in fees.

BACKGROUND

OpenSecrets.org, accessed 10/24/12

House Clients: Rep. Kristi Noem (SD-AL). [The Gula Graham Group, accessed 10/24/12]

A look at Noem’s fundraising plans this quarter. “Here’s a look at Noem’s fundraising schedule for this quarter. It’s from an email that was sent by Michael Gula, one of the co-founders of the Gula Graham Group, a Republican fundraising shop.” [Argus Leader, 1/19/12]

“don’t want to pull any fire-alarms here, but things in SD are closer than we’d like them to be for Kristi Noem….she’s going to have to spend everything she raises on this race and any last minute support will go to help avoid an upset here. Happy to credit any contributions now to a 1-1 coffee or event during the lame duck.” [Gula Group e-mail, 10/22/12]

Noem’s financial support mounting for re-election campaign. [Rapid City Journal, 4/28/11]

Noem targets Herseth Sandlin’s lobbyist husband in heated House race. [Rapid City Journal, 9/27/10]

Narrator: Kristi Noem. We know she’s not doing her chores. We know she’s easily distracted.

Chairman Young: Ms. Noem? Get of that machine. It’ll drive you nuts.

Narrator: She certainly spends a lot of time on TV.

Cable News Anchors: Tea Party favorite…tea party favorite…you’re a voice for the tea
party…

Narrator: And when she is at work, votes to end Medicare, tax hikes for the middle. class, tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires and big oil companies. Noem’s not working for middle-class families. Matt Varilek will.

Matt: I’m Matt Varilek, and I approve this message.

Argus Leader Media
By David Montgomery
October 21, 2012

Bill Janklow was a four-term governor. Stephanie Herseth was the scion of a prominent political family. Kristi Noem was a leader in the state Legislature.

So who’s Matt Varilek?

He’s hoping the answer, as it was for Janklow, Herseth and Noem, is South Dakota’s next member of Congress.

But to reach that goal, Varilek will have to persuade voters to turn against Noem, the person they elected only two years ago — and a candidate who this time around seems to have every advantage.

A long shot?

Even Varilek admits he’s an underdog.

“I just don’t think many people expected that we could make it a competitive race. Working every day, in the face of those expectations, was a challenge,” Varilek said. “I felt confident that if I got to talk to enough people about my priorities that the reaction would be good and, slowly, perceptions would change.”

Whether perceptions will change is the question. Varilek has continued to trail Noem in fundraising, but has collected enough money to run television ads for most of six weeks. Data are scarce; no national firms have released any polls of the race, but one local firm suggests Noem leads by fewer than 10 points.

Could Varilek actually win? Analysts are skeptical, but they don’t rule it out.

“In a state like South Dakota, Democrats are starting off in a difficult political position,” said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report. “Any Democrat in the state running this year is going to have to get a whole bunch of Romney voters.”

Jon Schaff, a political science professor at Northern State University, said Varilek has done better than might have been expected.

“An unknown, unfunded candidate — it didn’t look very good for Varilek,” Schaff said. “Varilek is giving Noem a little bit more run for the money than maybe we would have anticipated a few months ago, or maybe a few weeks ago.”

If Varilek does pull off the upset, what kind of person will South Dakota voters be sending to Congress in place of the now well-known Noem?

Eight years on congressional staff

The most recent, and arguably most important, part of Varilek’s background is the eight years he spent as a congressional staff member, first for Sen. Tom Daschle and, primarily, for Sen. Tim Johnson.

Varilek worked on economic development issues for the two senators, first in Washington, D.C., before moving to Sioux Falls in 2007. Businesses that wanted their senator’s help would come to Varilek, who also would represent his boss in meetings across the state.

Later, Varilek became Johnson’s “body man,” the personal aide who traveled with him in South Dakota. Varilek drove Johnson across the state and attended meetings.

“I was with him constantly, from early ’08 on, until I left the office,” Varilek said. “I joke, we got more quality time together than he probably ever bargained for.”

On the campaign trail, Varilek regularly cites his time working for Johnson on economic development.

“Every day I woke up, trying to help the senator’s efforts to help South Dakota become a more prosperous place, trying to help small businesses, trying to find resources for infrastructure,” Varilek said at a recent debate.

But differences between life as a staffer and life as a candidate are vast. Working for Johnson and Daschle, Varilek could stay largely behind the scenes. He earned a good salary with excellent benefits, working for causes he loved, while never having to worry about political opponents digging through his personal life and background and buying television ads attacking him.

From back to front as campaigner

Now he’s the guy in front of the cameras.

“Any mistakes that occur are mine. There’s a lot on the line with every appearance,” Varilek said, adding that he enjoys the new, more exposed role.

He got some advice on how to be a candidate from Johnson, his political mentor and backer.

“I talked to him about what it’s like to run for Congress,” said Johnson, who has won five House elections and three more Senate races over his congressional career. “I told him, ‘Do what’s right, and you’ll get along fine.’ ”
But Johnson has given Varilek more than just advice. Early on, Johnson gave him a crucial endorsement and money, and encouraged other prominent Democrats to support Varilek in his primary battle against Minnehaha County Commissioner Jeff Barth.

Varilek collected endorsements from former Sens. Tom Daschle and George McGovern and raised hundreds of thousands of dollars en route to a landslide primary win.

Republicans paint Johnson and Varilek’s relationship as one of political schemers.

“Sen. Johnson and Matt Varilek, they were plotting his campaign long before he left the office,” said Tony Post, executive director of the South Dakota Republican Party.

Post pointed to a Varilek trip last November to Washington, D.C. It was an official visit for Johnson’s office, paid for by taxpayers. But on the trip, Varilek had discussions with Democratic Party campaign officials about his possible candidacy.

“Right before he left, he expensed the trip to taxpayers, which is troubling to say the least,” Post said.

Varilek said he obeyed all rules about political work by congressional staffers.

“It was most definitely an official trip where I was meeting with other members of staff and working on official issues. That was all done according to the rules,” Varilek said. “It’s inevitable that you have political discussions … and we’re allowed in our free time to have political conversations.”

Environmental analysis work

If Varilek loves to talk about his time with Johnson, Noem’s favorite part of Varilek’s biography is the time between Varilek’s college graduation in 1997 and 2004,when he went to work for Daschle.

During that time, Varilek alternated between graduate education and working on issues related to the environment.

In 1997 and 1998, he was a teaching assistant at the Biosphere II facility in Arizona, which had become infamous several years earlier for the collapse of two ambitious experiments amid infighting and mistakes. By the time Varilek showed up, the Biosphere II was under new management and largely avoided the spotlight.
But it was the start of a period of interest in environmental issues that has become a political liability as Varilek seeks elected office. From 1999 to 2001, and again from 2002 to 2004, Varilek worked as an analyst and broker for Natsource LLC, a company working with emerging markets for pollution emissions.

A decade earlier, President George H.W. Bush’s administration set up a system called cap-and-trade to deal with sulfur dioxide pollution, a contributor to acid rain. The system, in which total sulfur dioxide emissions are capped and companies can buy and sell permits to emit the gas, generally was seen as a success, and policymakers began looking at applying the same system to the larger question of carbon dioxide.

Natsource was at the forefront of carbon emissions markets, viewed by supporters as a way to tackle climate change with minimal economic consequences. At Natsource, Varilek wrote papers about cap-and-trade systems, exploring the laws and rules necessary to set up a working system and predicting the effects different laws would have on emissions markets.

Noem regularly cites these papers in campaign events and debates as proof Varilek is out-of-touch with South Dakota interests.

“Matt has spent years working on policies that would put into place and give a lot of traction to cap-and-trade legislation, which would be devastating to South Dakota and our ag industry and families living here,” said Noem, who in 2010 defeated incumbent Herseth-Sandlin by a margin of 48.1 percent to 45.9 percent. Third-party candidate B. Thomas Marking got about 19,000 votes.

Varilek said he doesn’t support cap-and-trade legislation and never did.

“I was an analyst, and my job was to understand the dynamics in those markets and provide that analysis to various clients,” Varilek said.

Varilek doesn’t bring up his time at Natsource much on his own. It earns a sentence in his official biography, which describes him boosting his “private sector experience” at an “energy commodities brokerage.”
While he cares about the environment, Varilek says his true passion is economic development — the subject of a full paragraph in his bio.

“I think the economic aspect of it is maybe the one I can pinpoint more easily,” Varilek said. “That relates to my upbringing as someone who needed a few helping hands to change my economic status.”

Tight times for family growing up

Varilek was born May 19, 1975, to Dave Varilek and Irene Varilek — now Irene Wolf — in Yankton, where he grew up.

The name Varilek is Czech, and Varilek jokes that even members of his extended family couldn’t agree on how to pronounce it. (Varilek pronounces the “ar” in his name like “air.”)

He said he doesn’t remember much about what things were like for his family when he was young. But by the second grade, when Varilek’s parents divorced and he went to live with his mom, money was tight.

“I come from a family that never had much money,” Varilek said at one of his debates with Noem. “Consequently, I’ve been working my whole life.”

The family wasn’t poor — “I don’t recall any times when we were not provided for,” he said — but there wasn’t “a lot of wiggle room in the budget.”

He worked a string of jobs — delivering newspapers, cooking burgers at Burger King, working as a waiter, a dishwasher and a security guard. Above all, Varilek highlights his time “picking beans” for local farmers.

Varilek later went on to study at prestigious colleges — Carleton College in Minnesota, Glasgow University in Scotland and Cambridge University in England.

Both foreign universities were paid for by scholarships — Cambridge by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Glasgow by Rotary International.

In Varilek’s campaign narrative, this early history of work and scholarships is the foundation for his politics. He said he’s running to represent people trying to reach the middle class, and middle class people trying to stay there.

“That experience shapes the way I see the world, and the fact that we are a state of middle class people dictates that we should have a representative who prioritizes standing up for middle class people,” Varilek said.

Preserving Medicare, no to some tax cuts

If elected, Varilek said he’ll fight to keep Medicare a defined-benefit system, opposing reform proposals from Republicans such as Noem to let younger people choose a premium-support method instead in which the government gives seniors money to buy health insurance.

He supports letting tax cuts expire for incomes over $250,000 a year, and says the money from these increased taxes should help pay down the debt. This, Varilek said, will help protect spending programs he sees as valuable from unnecessarily harsh cuts.

But while Varilek said these proposals grow out of his history growing up without much money, Noem said they reflect an affinity for big government.

“My opponent wants to give the government more control over your businesses,” Noem said at an August debate with Varilek. “He wants to tax you more. He wants to spend more. He wants more EPA and he wants more of a government-controlled society.”

That’s not true, Varilek said.

His voting record, he said, “would be attempting to represent the interests of regular South Dakotans, rather than spending my time taking pledges to defend the interests of those who are already doing so well.”

Signs ‘of a tight race,’ Democrat says

Can Varilek actually win?

Not surprisingly, Varilek argues it’s a tight race.

“Slowly, we’ve gone from a situation where I think folks assumed she would have a cakewalk to now a case where she’s attacking me by name in TV ads,” he said. “I think that’s a sign of a tight race.”

Rothenberg isn’t so sure, from his discussions with political insiders in Washington, D.C.

“Democrats continue to talk about it as kind of a dark horse upset special,” Rothenberg said. But the lack of announcements and investments in Varilek’s race by national Democrats, when they have put money into plenty of long-shot campaigns, suggests they’re not optimistic, Rothenberg said.

“Maybe something could happen there, but it really isn’t on our radar screen,” Rothenberg said. “There’s not enough national buzz about it.”

If Varilek is going to prove that national buzz wrong, he’ll have to win over people such as Don Nugent, who lives south of Madison.

Nugent said Varilek’s ads on TV have made him think twice about supporting Noem.

“I’ve always thought Kristi Noem was doing a pretty good job, but according to Matt Varilek, it’s the other side,” Nugent said.

Now Nugent is undecided, looking into both candidates in the final weeks before the election.

One thing seems obvious, Schaff said: What could have been a landslide for Noem is surprisingly competitive, even if Noem remains the favorite.

“While he’s an underdog, I think people might be surprised how close Varilek makes this,” Schaff said.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20121021/news/310220002/house-race-varilek-striving-win-over-s-d-fast

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)– Matt Varilek, candidate for Congress, released this statement today on the passing of former Senator George McGovern.

“South Dakota and the world have lost a true hero and statesman today. From his work in the U.S. Senate to his efforts to eradicate hunger, Sen. McGovern has been an inspiration to me, as he was to many who seek public office or share a passion for public service. I was humbled and honored to receive his endorsement in this race and to get to know him and his family these past few years. Sen. McGovern’s optimism for life and for the promise of what this country can accomplish will always have a lasting impression on me.”

Mitchell Daily Republic
By Tom Lawrence
October 16, 2012

The stalled farm bill may cost small dairy farmers in the state hundreds of thousands of dollars in lost government subsidy payments, and it could double the cost of a gallon of milk in stores.

The Milk Income Loss Contract program ended Sept. 30. It was a safety net providing payments when national milk prices drop in contrast to feed costs. When the new farm bill did not pass this year, and the old one expired, the MILC program halted and was not replaced.

Roger Scheibe, executive director of South Dakota Dairy Producers and director of industry outreach for the Midwest Dairy Association, said dairy farmers will see the difference in their bank accounts.

“I would say in South Dakota … there’s probably about 250 producers directly impacted by this,” Scheibe said. “It’s definitely going to hurt their revenue stream.”

The federal government, in an effort to maintain dependable production and reliable prices for milk, has long offered milk subsidy programs. Without a farm bill by the end of this year, an old permanent law would take effect. The Congressional Research Service says the government would be mandated to set crop and milk prices at “parity” — the purchasing power of those crops in 1910-1914, when, according to a 1930s study, a farmer’s earning power and purchasing power were equal.

MILC, and other dairy support programs, have prevented imposition of parity. But it could be imposed in 2013 if a new farm bill isn’t passed.

U.S. Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack said that could raise the price of milk in stores to $6 a gallon (milk was selling for $3.50 Monday at a Mitchell grocery store). The prices of milk, cheese and butter are all on the increase.

The dairy industry is undergoing dramatic changes, with far fewer dairy farms than in the past. There are about 51,000 dairy producers in the nation and about 350 remaining in South Dakota.

Most of the milk comes from large dairies; about 65 percent of the milk produced in South Dakota comes from 15 percent of the dairies, according to dairy advocates. But the smaller dairies, where dozens, not hundreds, of cattle are milked still produce and sell milk in South Dakota.

They also received MILC payments, but that ended when the farm bill expired. Most other food and farm programs will continue uninterrupted through at least the end of the year because they’re based on the crop year or appropriations were already made for them.

The loss of the price support program comes at a difficult time, with feed prices spiking due to the drought and cattle producing less milk if they are fed less. Dairy farmers are selling cattle for slaughter. Nationally, the entire American dairy herd is expected to drop by 1.1 percent to 9.11 million head in 2013, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Fewer cows means less milk, which is already translating to higher prices in stores for milk, cheese and butter. According to dairyreporter.com, that is expected to continue.

$3.2 million in 2012

Farm Service Agency Program Director Lynn Stoltenburg, who is based in Huron, said MILC checks for August are still being issued and September payments will be sent out in November.

“We’re always basically two months behind,” Stoltenburg said.

The FSA examines feed costs and compares it to milk prices to determine what subsidies will be awarded during the fiscal year, which runs from October to September.

In the 2009 fiscal year, the FSA dispersed $7 million in South Dakota. In 2010, more than $1 million was handed out, while in 2011 milk prices were up and no payments were issued, he said. During the 2012 fiscal year, $3.2 million was distributed.

Stoltenburg said the FSA has distributed about $235,000 per month in the past four years. If no new safety net program is put into place, and dairy farmers are not reimbursed retroactively, that means South Dakota dairy producers could theoretically lose around $700,000 in the last three months of this year

Jim Neugebauer, who milks about 60 cows on a farm on the Davison-Douglas county line 22 miles southwest of Mitchell, said it will have an impact on him.

“Well, it’s not going to be good,” Neugebauer said. “It’s going to hurt, but we’re going to survive.

“It was a feed adjuster that brought us extra money. It’s not like it will stop us. It’s like your gas, adding $1 on top of it.”

Unlike the large, “factory farm” dairies that operate almost like a plant, with numerous employees and hundreds of cows, smaller operations maintain the look and feel of traditional dairy farms.

Neugebauer operates a farm with several buildings scattered throughout the property. He milks six cows at a time in tight quarters.

A TV is mounted in the milking area so Neugebauer can watch it while he waits for the milkers to drain the white liquid from his Holsteins. On the roof of a barn, the slogan “Got Milk?” is painted in huge white letters.

Marv Post is the chairman of the South Dakota Dairy Producers and milks 60 cows near Volga in Brookings County.

“I can only speak for myself. It won’t affect me,” Post said. “It’s not a large amount.”

Post said his payment for August was $1,600, while he made $20,000 in gross dairy sales. He said he realizes there may not be payments for some time.

“Right now there is no safety net for the dairy industry,” he said.

Post said the MILC program will likely be replaced by a margin insurance program similar to crop insurance.

“If the cost of production was greater than $4 below the cost of milk, it would kick in,” he said.

Another component in that proposed milk stabilization program to assist producers is a mandate to cut production for a period to reduce supply and increase the price.

The program would only be for producers who voluntarily participate in it, and Post said he will not, since he doesn’t want to be forced to reduce production.

“In other words, I’m not in favor of management control on this farm,” he said. “I would ride the market up and down, whatever it would be.”

David Skaggs, the South Dakota Department of Agriculture’s dairy development specialist, said he hasn’t paid close attention to the political debate but feels nothing is set in stone.

“They’re exploring it but it’s all over the board,” Skaggs said.

New farm bill only answer

South Dakota Secretary of Agriculture Walt Bones said there is only one way to repair the damage.

“Other than enacting a new farm bill, nothing that I know of,” Bones said in an email response to questions.

The expiration of the MILC program will impact the smaller producers more than the larger producers, Bones said, because the MILC payment has a cap determined by volume. The larger producers meet that cap in a short time, he said, and max out their payment

“The smaller producers can get a payment every month and not reach the cap,” Bones said in the email. “So while most of the larger producers have reached and received their payment, the smaller dairymen may miss out on some of the later-year payments.”

Bones is a co-owner of Turner County Dairy, a large dairy operation in southeast South Dakota. He said the dairy reaches its cap in about two weeks.

Rep. Kristi Noem said passing the farm bill is the only solution.

“Getting a farm bill done remains my top priority, and that is the single best way to support our dairy producers,” Noem said in an email to The Daily Republic. “The bill we passed out of the House Agriculture Committee included an uninterrupted, continuous safety net for dairy, and I will work to include retroactive coverage for those experiencing disruptions in the final version of the farm bill.”

Democratic congressional candidate Matt Varilek said the stalled farm bill is now being felt in South Dakota.

“The expired dairy program and all the expired livestock disaster programs are just two initial impacts of the U.S. House’s decision to let the farm bill expire,” Varilek said in an email to The Daily Republic. “The impacts will only grow the longer Congresswoman Noem and the rest of the House leadership team fails to bring the farm bill up for a vote.

Perry Plumart, Sen. Tim Johnson’s communications director, said the stalled farm bill has come back to haunt producers and politicians. “The House’s failure to pass a farm bill has left dairy producers without a safety net,” Plumart said.

Sen. John Thune did not respond to a request for comment.

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/71301/group/homepage/

Narrator: Uh oh. First it was the Ag Committee. Now Congresswoman Noem says she’s too busy for other committees too. When she does show up, she voted to end Medicare as we know it, costing seniors thousands. Or she just plays on her phone.

Chairman Young: Ms. Noem? Ms. Noem? Hello? Get off that machine, it’ll drive you nuts.

Narrator: Kristi Noem is not working. Matt Varilek will.

Matt: I’m Matt Varilek, and I approve this message.

RAPID CITY — Pulling into the parking lot of the Rapid City University Center Friday afternoon for the debate between Republican Rep. Kristi Noem and her opponent, Democrat Matt Varilek, required navigation through dozens of orange Noem campaign signs. Walking into room 112, where the debate was held, required more of the same. Despite the fanfare it was Varilek, it seemed, who emerged from the 90-minute debate on top.

Varilek, a 37-year-old lawyer from Sioux Falls, supported many of his assertions with data sourced from his own research and that of outside “fact-checkers,” while Noem largely relied on partisan finger-pointing and the resonance of popular Tea Party idioms.

A good example of this came from a discussion of Noem’s much maligned House Subcommittee attendance record. Varilek stated Noem had only attended four of 20 Agriculture subcommittee meetings, five of 22 Native American Affairs subcommittee meetings and one of seven Early Childhood subcommittee meetings.

Noem responded by saying that her attendance record is a false issue “that’s been a smear campaign started by the democrats,” and that she intentionally decided not to attend specific subcommittee meetings when issues affecting South Dakota weren’t on the agenda.

“I’ve held over 800 different meetings with South Dakota constituents, I’m not going to sit through a meeting just to sit through a meeting, I’m going to go where South Dakota needs me, and that’s what I’ve done over the last two years,” she added.

Varilek revisited the issue later, comparing Noem’s House Subcommittee transcript to those of fellow republicans S.D. Sen. John Thune and former S.D. Gov. the late Bill Janklow when they sat in the House. Noem’s transcript is onepage long while Thune’s is 24 and Janklow’s is 40, he said.

Taxes received a significant amount of attention — whether it was relevant or not to the questions posed by moderator Ryan Clark, an assistant professor at Black Hills State University. In discussing taxes, the support of South Dakota’s struggling middle class emerged as another dominant theme.

Varilek painted Noem as a supporter of America’s “millionaires and billionaires” and maintained that, if elected, he would work hard for South Dakota’s middle class. This thread first appeared during discussion of the federal government’s estate tax, or so-called “death tax.”

Noem shared her personal experience with the so-called death tax, stating that her father died at 49 years old, and that she came home from college to help out on her family farm, only to find out that her family owed the federal government “tens of thousands of dollars because my dad had died,” forcing her family decide between selling their land or taking out a loan. They decided on the latter.

“The fact is that (no matter) where you set the thresholds (this) still makes death a taxable event. I don’t think that should be a taxable event,” she said.

Varilek stated there was a fundamental difference between himself and Noem on the matter.

“We agree we should exempt them (the estate tax) from the ranches; where we disagree is whether we should protect Donald Trump at all costs. I don’t think we should. I think we should protect Medicare recipients at all costs.”

Varilek said Noem voted twice for a bill that would privatize Medicare, adding that an analysis had been done on how that would affect those in South Dakota. Varilek said the analysis showed “that it would cost the average senior an extra $6,400 out of the pocket.” Varilek added that he felt the most alarming thing about Noem’s support of that plan was that it would “impose so much sacrifice on South Dakota seniors partly to give huge, new tax breaks to millionaires and billionaires.”

“Matt Varilek is trying to scare people into thinking that Medicare is in jeopardy, and what we are trying to do is to save the program because it is important,” Noem replied, referring to the Republican House’s efforts to privatize Medicare. She, added that the Obama Administrations Health Care Reform Act will cut Medicare to the tune of $716 billion, an assertion she uses in one of her current TV ads, which condemns Varilek for supporting it.

“I am amazed that you’re still using this $716 billion claim, because, of course, numerous fact checkers have pointed out that it is a falsehood,” Varilek said in rebuttal.

He then asserted that Noem and the Republican Majority in the House voted to cut Medicare by $700 billion themselves through the Paul Ryan budget..

After 90 minutes of exchanges that often bulldozed over set time limitations, Noem and Varilek shook hands amicably and made their way toward small clusters of the nearly 400 individuals who attended the debate, the only one scheduled in Western South Dakota.

http://www.bhpioneer.com/local_news/article_3284962c-14ca-11e2-8944-001a4bcf887a.html

October 12, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–At today’s Rapid City Journal debate, Congressional candidate Matt Varilek aggressively challenged Congresswoman Kristi Noem’s extreme record and countered misleading attacks from Noem and her campaign.

Faced with questions about her lackluster record at this year’s only West River debate, Noem repeated bogus claims on a number of issues in an effort to cover up her record. But her record and her actions–or lack thereof–speak louder than her words.

“I’m in this race to fight for the middle class and protect the Medicare benefits and educational support that our seniors and students count on,” said Varilek. “But my opponent is relying on flagrant falsehoods to explain her record defending billionaires and big corporations at the expense of the rest of us. From her claim that she doesn’t support a plan to voucherize Medicare, while her voting record says the opposite, to her statements on her attendance record, which are simply false, it’s becoming increasingly clear that Congresswoman Noem doesn’t want facts to get in the way of her campaign.”

Noem made a number of claims that she was unable to substantiate or support when pressed by Varilek. Noem twisted the facts–or just made them up–on several issues:

Medicare. Noem doubled down on the debunked claim that Varilek supports a $716 billion cut to Medicare. The reality: Noem herself voted for the exactly same reduction in Paul Ryan’s budget.

Strikingly, Noem claimed that the plan she supported does not amount to a voucher plan for Medicare. Fact-checkers have found this claim baseless. She also referred to the Affordable Care Act as a “complete government takeover.” This was PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year in 2010.

Attendance. When asked if she could name a single committee where she attended even half of the meetings, Noem did not answer.

Noem said she did not attend certain meetings because they have no bearing on South Dakota. Yet she recently chaired a hearing about naming the Tip O’Neill Salt Marsh in Massachusetts, while she skipped an Indian Affairs subcommittee hearing at which Michael Black, an enrolled member of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and head of the Bureau of Indian Affairs, testified.

Farm Bill. Noem claimed she had led the charge on the Farm Bill. But she brought no measurable support to the discharge petition to force a vote on the bill. Not one additional freshman was convinced the discharge petition after Noem did. Noem’s job, as freshman liaison to the leadership, is to whip support from her colleagues in the class of 2010.

Noem offered the excuse that Congress often failed to pass a Farm Bill on time. As Varilek pointed out, Congress’s failure in the past is hardly a reason to accept failure in the future.

Education. Noem praised her own efforts to keep student loan rates low. Yet she voted repeatedly against increasing funding for Pell Grants, which make it possible for many South Dakotans to go to college.

Energy. Noem also claimed to support the production tax credit for wind energy. However, Noem is a member of the leadership team in the U.S. House that plunged South Dakota energy companies into uncertainty by failing even to vote on a bill to extend the PTC.

“As viewers saw in that debate, South Dakotans have a clear choice in this election. There’s a stark contrast between the balanced approach to our budget challenges, which I favor, and the my-way-or-the-highway attitude of Congresswoman Noem and her Tea Party colleagues,” said Varilek. “My opponent would make drastic cuts to Medicare, Pell Grants, and other programs that impact middle class South Dakotans in order to pay for huge tax cuts for those who are already doing just fine. As your congressman, I will work hard and show up every day to fight for the people of South Dakota.”

BACKGROUND

“KELOLAND News has confirmed the fact that Noem has missed ag committee meetings. However, Noem’s office disputes the number of meetings missed. The office says she was at a total of seven of 20 ag committee meetings.” [KELO, TV 10/11/12]

“The Romney-Ryan approach pretty much matches the dictionary definition of ‘a form or check indicating a credit against future purchases or expenditures.’ We think that describes the general way Ryan’s plan would work. For a political discussion aimed at voters rather than policy wonks, we think Obama’s use of the term ‘voucher’ is close enough to earn it a rating of Mostly True.” [Politifact, 8/16/12]

PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year: ‘A government takeover of health care’. [Politifact, 12/16/10]

Noem opposed a substitute amendment to the budget resolution that would increase Pell Grant award to $6500 (from $5500). Vote #144, H.Con.Res. 112

Noem opposed $39 million in extra funding for Pell grants, which would have been offset by cutting administration costs in the Department of Education. Vote #146, 2011, H.R.1.

Noem opposed an amendment requiring the Congressional Budget Office to maintain current funding levels in inflation-adjusted terms for Pell Grants and higher education programs (as well as health care and programs serving seniors and veterans). Vote #31, 2012, H.R. 3578.

Bloomberg: The Affordable Care Act Doesn’t “Cut” Medicare. “The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that Obama pushed for doesn’t cut Medicare; it simply reduces projected future increases in costs by $700 billion over 10 years.” [Bloomberg, 8/13/12]

CBS News Called the Charge “Dubious.” CBS news called the attack “dubious” and wrote: “it’s not the patients who would lose money. It’s the providers.” [CBS News, 8/15/12]

The Affordable Care Act Does Not “Cut” Medicare. As PolitFact noted, “The bill doesn’t take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, it attempts to slow the program’s future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years.” Similarly, FactCheck.org has written “time and again” how “misleading” the charge is. “The law calls for $555 billion in cuts in future growth of the program – over 10 years. The total projected cost of Medicare over that time, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, is $7.1 trillion, even with the cuts.” [PolitiFact.com, 9/12/11; FactCheck.org, 9/17/10]

New York Times Editorial Board: “$716 Billion Is Not A ‘Cut’ In Benefits But Rather The Savings In Costs That The Congressional Budget Office Projects Over The Next Decade From Wholly Reasonable Provisions In The Reform Law.” “A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-income people who are currently uninsured….In reality, the $716 billion is not a ‘cut’ in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]

USA Today: “There Are No Cuts In Benefits” “Q: Does the Obama plan cut about $716 billion from Medicare, as the Romney campaign argues it does? A: Not exactly. There are no cuts in benefits, and, in fact, seniors have already seen preventive services, such as annual exams and cancer screenings, with no co-pays. Instead, the savings comes by decreasing provider payments.” [USA Today, 8/15/12]

Politifact: “Nowhere Does The Bill Actually Eliminate Current Benefits.” “The Affordable Care Act does reduce Medicare spending by $500 billion over the next 10 years. But here’s the catch: Those dollars aren’t taken out of the current budget, they are not actual cuts, and nowhere does the bill actually eliminate any current benefits.” [The Oregonian, Politifact, 11/09/11]

Bloomberg: The Affordable Care Act Slows Growth Of Medicare Payments, But Seniors’ Benefits Were Not Reduced. “The law, the core of which was found constitutional today by the U.S. Supreme Court, also slows the growth of Medicare payments to hospitals and other health providers. Seniors’ benefits weren’t reduced in the legislation.” [Bloomberg, 6/28/12]

Affordable Care Act Specifies That No Cuts To Benefits Can Be Made. “SEC. 3601. PROTECTING AND IMPROVING GUARANTEED MEDICARE BENEFITS….Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act…. Nothing in this Act shall result in the reduction or elimination of any benefits guaranteed by law to participants in Medicare Advantage plans.” [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-148, 3/23/10]

Patients Would Pay More if Romney Restores Medicare Savings, Analysts Say. [New York Times, 8/22/12]

Decoding The $716 Billion In Medicare Reductions. [AARP, 8/26/12]

###

October 12, 2012

(RAPID CITY, SD) — At the only West River debate of South Dakota’s U.S. House race today, Congresswoman Kristi Noem will face the triple challenge of defending her record skipping committee meetings, shameless use of debunked claims in her ads, and the House’s failure to even vote on the Farm Bill.

Today’s Rapid City Journal debate between Matt Varilek and Noem will begin at 12:00 p.m. MDT and will be streamed live here.

Noem’s thin attendance record continues to demand an explanation, with new research showing that her truancy extended beyond the House Agriculture Committee. She also missed 17 out of 22 meetings of the Indian Affairs subcommittee; and for a 12-month stretch on that subcommittee, she attended none at all. She also has an abysmal attendance record in the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education: Of seven hearings, Noem has skipped six.

Noem will also need to explain the inaccuracies in three of her recent TV ads, which make claims that were previously debunked in national and local news sources. In one ad, she charges that the Department of Labor wanted to prevent kids from working on their parents’ farms; this was rated “Pants on Fire” by PolitiFact. In another, she gives vent to arguably the most-debunked claim of the 2012 election cycle: that the Affordable Care Act cuts $716 billion from Medicare. But Noem herself is the only candidate in this race who voted for those very cuts as part of the Ryan Budget.

“Today’s debate will finally give West River voters an opportunity to examine Congresswoman Noem’s record while in Washington,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “But too often, what voters hear from her has little to do with the truth. With her recent ads, she has proved that she’s willing to say anything to gain an advantage in this close race.”

This debate will be the candidates’ first joint appearance since the Farm Bill expired on September 30. Noem promised in August to lead the charge on the Farm Bill, saying, “I’m signing on and championing bringing that farm bill to the floor. Because it’s that important for South Dakota.” Noem, the GOP freshmen class’s liaison to the House leadership, failed to convince a single additional freshman to sign on to the discharge petition that would have forced a vote on the Farm Bill. When Noem and her fellow freshmen adjourned this September, this Congress was ranked as the least productive in history.

October 10, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–Congresswoman Kristi Noem released a new television ad today that relies on debunked falsehoods to attack challenger Matt Varilek’s record.

The ad makes two claims: that Varilek supports a $716 billion cut to Medicare, and that 7 million seniors would lose their coverage under the Affordable Care Act.

Both are false.

Politifact has repeatedly called the $716 billion claim baseless. Not only that, Noem herself voted for those same Medicare cost savings in the Ryan House budgets of 2011 and 2012.

Furthermore, the Affordable Care Act does not cut benefits for a single senior. Numerous news and fact-checking sources have confirmed that “[s]eniors’ benefits weren’t reduced in the legislation.” [Bloomberg, 6/28/12]

“Congresswoman Noem is simply lying in her new ad. Her claim that Matt would reduce coverage for 7 million seniors is not spin or exaggeration or playing politics, it’s simply false,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “And the audacity to claim Matt supports $716 billion in savings in Medicare, when she herself is the ONLY candidate in this race that has voted for those very cuts, is the most hypocritical statement in the history of South Dakota politics.”

“This is what happens when a candidate has no record of her own to run on: She starts firing off attacks with no basis in reality just to see what will stick,” said Benson.

BACKGROUND

Bloomberg: The Affordable Care Act Doesn’t “Cut” Medicare. “The 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that Obama pushed for doesn’t cut Medicare; it simply reduces projected future increases in costs by $700 billion over 10 years.” [Bloomberg, 8/13/12]

CBS News Called the Charge “Dubious.” CBS news called the attack “dubious” and wrote: “it’s not the patients who would lose money. It’s the providers.” [CBS News, 8/15/12]

The Affordable Care Act Does Not “Cut” Medicare. As PolitFact noted, “The bill doesn’t take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, it attempts to slow the program’s future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years.” Similarly, FactCheck.org has written “time and again” how “misleading” the charge is. “The law calls for $555 billion in cuts in future growth of the program – over 10 years. The total projected cost of Medicare over that time, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, is $7.1 trillion, even with the cuts.” [PolitiFact.com, 9/12/11; FactCheck.org, 9/17/10]

New York Times Editorial Board: “$716 Billion Is Not A ‘Cut’ In Benefits But Rather The Savings In Costs That The Congressional Budget Office Projects Over The Next Decade From Wholly Reasonable Provisions In The Reform Law.” “A Republican attack ad says that the reform law has “cut” $716 billion from Medicare, with the money used to expand coverage to low-income people who are currently uninsured….In reality, the $716 billion is not a ‘cut’ in benefits but rather the savings in costs that the Congressional Budget Office projects over the next decade from wholly reasonable provisions in the reform law.” [Editorial, New York Times, 8/18/12]

USA Today: “There Are No Cuts In Benefits” “Q: Does the Obama plan cut about $716 billion from Medicare, as the Romney campaign argues it does? A: Not exactly. There are no cuts in benefits, and, in fact, seniors have already seen preventive services, such as annual exams and cancer screenings, with no co-pays. Instead, the savings comes by decreasing provider payments.” [USA Today, 8/15/12]

Politifact: “Nowhere Does The Bill Actually Eliminate Current Benefits.” “The Affordable Care Act does reduce Medicare spending by $500 billion over the next 10 years. But here’s the catch: Those dollars aren’t taken out of the current budget, they are not actual cuts, and nowhere does the bill actually eliminate any current benefits.” [The Oregonian, Politifact, 11/09/11]

Bloomberg: The Affordable Care Act Slows Growth Of Medicare Payments, But Seniors’ Benefits Were Not Reduced. “The law, the core of which was found constitutional today by the U.S. Supreme Court, also slows the growth of Medicare payments to hospitals and other health providers. Seniors’ benefits weren’t reduced in the legislation.” [Bloomberg, 6/28/12]

Affordable Care Act Specifies That No Cuts To Benefits Can Be Made. “SEC. 3601. PROTECTING AND IMPROVING GUARANTEED MEDICARE BENEFITS….Nothing in the provisions of, or amendments made by, this Act shall result in a reduction of guaranteed benefits under title XVIII of the Social Security Act…. Nothing in this Act shall result in the reduction or elimination of any benefits guaranteed by law to participants in Medicare Advantage plans.” [Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, PL 111-148, 3/23/10] 

###

Mitchell Daily Republic
By Tom Lawrence
October 5, 2012

SIOUX FALLS — Democratic congressional candidate Matt Varilek returned to a familiar topic Tuesday, blasting Congress for allowing the farm bill to expire at the end of September.

Varilek gathered several agriculture producers at his campaign headquarters in Sioux Falls to make the point. The farm bill, which passed the Senate but was never brought to a vote in the House, expired Sunday.

“Today, I heard firsthand the impact of the uncertainty placed on everyday South Dakota producers,” Varilek said in a release after the roundtable meeting.

“With one of the worst droughts in decades, you’d have thought our elected leaders would get the job done.

While crops are being harvested now or are already in barns or on the market, some experts worry that farmers and ranchers are not investing in equipment or other items for the 2013 season.

Banks may also be reluctant to provide loans to producers without the assurance of the farm bill.

Some House Republicans, especially freshmen elected along with Noem in 2010, are reluctant to support the farm bill, which they consider bloated and packed with excessive spending.

Meanwhile, some House Democrats feel cuts to nutrition programs proposed in the House version are too deep.

The result has been a stalled bill, despite rallies across the country and at the Capitol to urge passage of the bill.

Noem made speeches on the House floor and asked the Republican House leadership to schedule a vote, but it has not happened and Congress is now in recess as members take time off or campaign for re-election.

Tom Erickson, Noem’s campaign manager, dismissed the comments as political maneuvering by her opponent.

“It’s really unfortunate to watch Matt Varilek play politics about such an important issue,” Erickson said.

“It’s even worse to see Varilek make ridiculous statements such as this that have no basis for fact,” he said. “As someone who has spent her life farming and ranching, Kristi Noem understands how important this legislation is and has made passing a full five-year farm bill her number one priority.”

During Varilek’s meeting, producers in the room emphasized that in tough economic times, farmers are willing to tighten their belts a bit and accept reduced or eliminated direct payments.

Crop insurance, on the other hand, has given farmers confidence to plant in the face of an uncertain harvest that might be devastated by a single flood, drought or storm.

With crop insurance provisions in place, “we had some assurance that should some things fail that you had no control of, that the rest of the country was behind you,” said Aurora County farmer Ed Arts, “so that you could keep producing food.”

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/70837/group/homepage/

October 9, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–Congressional candidate Matt Varilek released his fourth TV ad of the campaign today, an aggressive spot titled “Chores.”

The ad, paid for by coordinated state party funds and approved by Varilek, shines a light on Representative Kristi Noem’s abysmal track record of not speaking up for South Dakota in Congress. It sets Noem’s first-year record on the House Agriculture Committee beside the first-year transcripts of former Republican Reps. John Thune and Bill Janklow, a contrast where Noem comes up dismally short.

“In his first year, John Thune’s ag transcript filled 40 pages. Bill Janklow’s? 52. And Kristi Noem’s… fits on a single page. During the worst drought in a generation, Noem’s not working. Matt Varilek will,” says the ad’s narrator.

The ad will run statewide on broadcast and cable stations starting today. The spot can also be viewed and shared online here.

“Our new ad is based on one simple, undisputed fact: Congresswoman Noem has failed to actively represent South Dakota in Congress,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “South Dakota has had aggressive, hard-working representatives in the past. We haven’t been getting that leadership for the past two years and especially during the worst drought in a generation.”

Varilek continues his grassroots campaign this week with stops in Mission, Pine Ridge, Hot Springs and Rapid City.

Ad transcript:

Narrator: Kristi Noem’s not doing her chores. In Noem’s first year she skipped 16 of 20 ag committee hearings, and the transcripts show that when she was there, she said almost nothing.

In his first year, John Thune’s ag transcript filled forty pages. Bill Janklow’s? 52. And Kristi Noem’s… fits on a single page. During the worst drought in a generation, Noem’s not working. Matt Varilek will.

MV: I’m Matt Varilek, and I approve this message.

Narrator: Kristi Noem’s not doing her chores. In Noem’s first year she
skipped 16 of 20 ag committee hearings, and the transcripts show that
when she was there, she said almost nothing.

In his first year, John Thune’s ag transcript filled forty pages. Bill
Janklow’s? 52. And Kristi Noem’s fits on a single page. During the
worst drought in a generation, Noem’s not working. Matt Varilek will.

MV: I’m Matt Varilek, and I approve this message.

October 8, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–In a newly released television ad, Congresswoman Kristi Noem showcases her grandmother in claiming that President Obama’s health care reform cuts $716 billion from Medicare.

What you won’t hear in the ad is the fact that Congresswoman Noem voted for the cuts the new ad criticizes. Noem voted twice for the U.S. House’s Ryan Budget, which includes the $716 billion in savings.

“Congresswoman Noem’s willingness to throw facts to the wind has always been pretty astonishing,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “But with this new ad, she’s now attacking her own voting record on Medicare. She had the opportunity to vote against the very savings she’s now criticizing–not once, but twice.”

“Only one candidate in this race voted for the plan that Kristi Noem’s grandmother criticizes: Kristi Noem,” said Benson. “It’s telling that not one but two of her three ads rely on a claim that has no basis in reality.”

In addition to Noem’s failure to disclose her own record on the issue, the claim that President Obama cut $716 billion from Medicare is misleading at best. Fact-checkers at the New York Times, the Washington Post, Politico, FactCheck.org, and Politifact, among many others, have deemed it baseless. The cuts that Noem alludes to are savings in future spending, not a theft of funds. The Affordable Care Act enacts savings in administrative expenses and reduces subsidies to private insurers paid by Medicare in order to slow the program’s growth.

President Bill Clinton addressed this claim in his address at the Democratic National Convention. “Takes a lot of brass to attack somebody for doing what you did,” he concluded.

BACKGROUND

The Medicare fact wars: Checking Obama and Ryan’s AARP speeches. “Ryan claim: ‘First, it funnels $716 billion out of Medicare to pay for a new entitlement we didn’t even ask for.’ False.” [Politico, 9/12/12]

Analysis: Experts see higher co-pays if Romney restored medicare savings. “The 2010 health care law cut Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and insurers, not benefits for older Americans, by that amount over the coming decade. But repealing the savings, policy analysts say, would hasten the insolvency of Medicare by eight years — to 2016, the final year of the next presidential term, from 2024…. Henry Aaron, an economist and a longtime health policy analyst at the Brookings Institution and the Institute of Medicine, called Romney’s vow to repeal the savings ‘both puzzling and bogus at the same time.’” [The New York Times, 8/21/12]

House Democrats support “gutting” Medicare by more than $700 billion to pay for a “big-government healthcare takeover,” Republicans claim. “Pants on Fire…. Republicans are once again attacking Congressional Democrats on Medicare spending cuts, using a line of attack that has been roundly discredited.” [PolitiFact, 8/19/12]

Soledad O’Brien fact checks $700+ billion Medicare cut claim. [CNN, 8/15/12]

Mitt Romney said Barack Obama robs Medicare of more than $700 billion to pay for Obamacare. “Mostly False…. Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.” [PolitiFact, 8/15/12]

Fact Checking the GOP debate: $500 billion in cuts to Medicare? “The Medicare savings in the health care law are aimed at providers, not seniors; meanwhile seniors stand to benefit from aspects of the health care law that Republicans want to repeal…. Two Pinocchios.” [The Washington Post, 6/15/11]

October 8, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–Congressional challenger Matt Varilek announced today that he has received the endorsement of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association in his bid to unseat incumbent Congresswoman Kristi Noem.

The Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association includes leaders from all nine tribes in South Dakota.

“We support Matt Varilek for the House of Representatives because he is knowledgeable about our Treaties and his prior work with Senator Johnson has equipped him to step right in and work for our Tribes and the People of South Dakota,” said John Yellow Bird Steele, President of the Oglala Sioux Tribe and Vice-Chairman of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association. “Matt Varilek has made several visits to the Pine Ridge Reservation to meet with the Oglalas and demonstrated his commitment to work with us unlike his opponent.”

“Matt understands Indian Country and the vital importance of addressing the issues we face each and every day,” said Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate Chairman Robert Shepherd. “Matt will be our voice and will fight for us in Congress and at House Indian and Alaska Native Affairs hearings. Sadly, we haven’t seen his opponent demonstrate a willingness to show up and advocate for Indian Country.”

“I am deeply honored to receive the endorsement of the Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association,” said Varilek. “I’m proud of my past work in Indian Country as a staff member with Senators Tim Johnson and Tom Daschle, and I’m excited to put that experience to work. Our state’s tribes have many reasons to be frustrated with the lack of representation they’re getting right now. Most recently we learned Rep. Noem only attend 5 of 22 Native American subcommittee meetings, and she only went to the last 4 meetings in a row after revelations of her skipping Ag Committee meetings. She even skipped multiple meetings where a member of South Dakota’s own Oglala Sioux Tribe testified,” said Varilek.

The Great Plains Tribal Chairman’s Association (GPTCA) is made up of the 16 Tribal Chairmen, Presidents and Chairpersons in the states of North Dakota, South Dakota and Nebraska. The tribal leaders of the Sovereign Indian Nations meet quarterly to take action on various matters affecting the tribes. The primary purpose of the GPTCA is to unify to defend the tribes’ inherent rights under their treaties, to come together in a forum to promote the welfare of the people, and to take up matters affecting the tribes and to protect the sovereignty of each tribe.

###

]]> http://www.mattforsd.com/2012/10/08/release-varilek-announces-tribal-leaders-endorsement/feed/ 0 http://www.mattforsd.com/2012/10/08/release-noem-tells-sd-organizations-theyre-not-worth-her-time/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=release-noem-tells-sd-organizations-theyre-not-worth-her-time http://www.mattforsd.com/2012/10/08/release-noem-tells-sd-organizations-theyre-not-worth-her-time/#comments Mon, 08 Oct 2012 16:35:54 +0000 david http://www.mattforsd.com/?p=1048 Varilek upholds pledge: “I’ll show up”

October 8, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–This past weekend, Congressional candidate Matt Varilek met with the South Dakota Nurses Association during their annual convention to discuss issues of concern to their critical profession. Varilek also met with members and staff of South Dakota Voices for Children on Friday, to hear their concerns on education and children’s health issues. In addition, Varilek took questions from those in attendance.

Rep. Kristi Noem was invited to meet with both South Dakota organizations. Though she is in the midst of a seven-week recess, she declined their invitations.

Noem continues to reject numerous requests to participate in joint or individual discussions with nonpartisan constituent groups. In just the past few months, Noem also refused invitations to debates or joint appearances from the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association, East River Electric, KOTA and KSFY TV stations, and the South Dakota Farmers Union, which sponsors the State Fair debate.

Varilek asked the organizations to take his presence as a sign of respect.

“It’s the responsibility of our lone representative to be an aggressive voice for all South Dakotans,” said Varilek. “The people of this state deserve an advocate who respects them enough to take their tough questions and engage in a real dialogue, whether they’re farmers or nurses, business owners or factory workers, Republicans or Democrats. The more meetings my opponent skips, the more applause I get from merely stating, ‘I’ll show up.’”

###

October 3, 2011

(SIOUX FALLS, SD) — As Congresswoman Kristi Noem highlights the federal role in school lunch programs, official records reveal she skipped a May 13, 2011 subcommittee hearing dealing with the very issue.

In addition to missing the May 2011 hearing, Congresswoman Noem has an overall abysmal attendance record in the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary and Secondary Education. Of the 7 hearings held, Noem has skipped 6.

Noem, a member of that subcommittee, skipped a May 13, 2011 hearing titled “Examining the Costs of Federal Overreach into School Meals.” According to the subcommittee news release that day, “the hearing… featured testimony from school leaders and child nutrition experts who described the negative consequences stemming from the 2010 law.” Many of the criticisms Noem is bringing up today were discussed at that hearing over a year ago.

The new standards put into place are the result of the Healthy and Hungry-Free Kids Act passed in 2010.

“We’re seeing a pattern here — Congresswoman Noem isn’t showing up for South Dakota. This is now the third committee where Congresswoman Noem has been missing in action,” said candidate Matt Varilek. “She failed to show up to get a farm bill passed, she failed to show up to represent the interests of Native Americans, and now we’re seeing that she failed to show up for our school children.”

In recent months, Noem has received a considerable amount of attention for skipping House Agriculture Committee and Indian Affairs subcommittee hearings since taking office in January 2011.

At Noem’s town hall meeting in Sioux Falls on August 8, 2012, she said she was proud of her appointment to the Education and the Workforce Committee.

“When I was put on that committee, it was the first time in 30 years that we’ve had someone from South Dakota on that committee, and it’s been a good opportunity for me to speak up about rural schools,” she said. But her attendance record tells a different story.

Of the 65 Education and the Workforce Committee hearings Noem has had an opportunity to attend since her election, she has missed 40. On most of those days she had no apparent conflicts, and when she did have overlapping hearings scheduled, she often skipped them both.

“Congresswoman Noem says she one thing in South Dakota and does another when she’s in Washington, D.C.,” said Varilek. “Congresswoman Noem has failed to deliver for South Dakota. It’s time to elect someone who will show up and make sure South Dakota’s one voice in the House is heard once again.”

BACKGROUND

Committee Finds Federal Expansion into School Meals Raises Costs. “Witnesses described a number of challenges resulting from the new law and its regulations, including: Higher Cost…. Wasted Food…. Fewer Children Served.” [House Committee on Education and the Workforce, 5/13/11] Noem Questions New School Lunch Standards. Noem: “Since these are the first major changes in school meals in over 30 years, I believe any changes should be adequately evaluated for cost, consequences, and impact on the people the law is intended to help.” [KSFY, 9/13/12]

Attendance in Congress in question. “But the South Dakota Democratic Party contends that Noem hasn’t been a strong voice for farmers and ranchers, at least not on the House Agriculture Committee. Of 20 committee and subcommittee meetings held since Noem’s appointment in June 2011, South Dakota Democratic Chairman Ben Nesselhuf said she’s attended four…. Even if she was missed by the video cameras, or only attended parts of meetings — which is common for members of Congress, experts maintain — Noem has appeared in transcripts once, Nesselhuf said.” [Argus Leader, 5/12/12]

In Our Opinion: Things we like, dislike: Noem’s absence, Mina’s recognition. “There was a disturbing news story this week that reported South Dakota Rep. Kristi Noem had attended only four of 20 U.S. House Agriculture Committee meetings since her appointment in June 2011. Equally disturbing in the Argus Leader story was the sentence: ‘Noem’s office did not reply to requests for comment on this story’.” [Aberdeen News, 5/16/12]

Editorial: Kristi, Text Us. We need to talk. “Matt Varilek, the contender for Rep. Noem’s job, seems to us to raise a valid issue here about job performance. Kristi Noem needs to explain what business has kept her from doing the nation’s business. And Congress needs to make it easier to keep track of which lawmakers are attending meetings…. it appears that Rep. Noem has not taken seriously the very ordinary, very important work that a lawmaker does in committee in helping shape the discussion of issues important to the country. [Capital Journal, 10/3/12]

US House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Education Regulations: Burying Schools in Paperwork. [3/15/11. Present]

US House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Examining the Costs of Federal Overreach into School Meals. [5/13/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Education Reforms: Exploring the Vital Role of Charter Schools. [6/1/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Education Reforms: Ensuring the Education System is Accountable to Parents and Communities. [9/21/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Education Research: Identifying Effective Programs to Support Students and Teachers. [11/16/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Exploring State Success in Expanding Parent and Student Options. [5/16/12. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education. Education Reforms: Discussing the Value of Alternative Teacher Certification Programs. [7/24/12. Absent]

The issue: The Matt Varilek campaign says that as of Sept. 25, Rep. Kristi Noem had skipped 17 of 22 Indian Affairs meetings since she landed on that U.S. House subcommittee.

Mitchell Daily Republic
By Tom Lawrence
September 27, 2012

Attendance is required in school, but not in congressional meetings.

It does make for political fodder, however, as two members of the South Dakota congressional delegation were under fire Wednesday for missed meetings.

For the second day in a row, Democrat Matt Varilek criticized Rep. Kristi Noem for skipping Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee meetings and meetings of other committees. Varilek and Noem are competing for South Dakota’s sole congressional seat.

Noem sits on three committees and nine subcommittees and has said she has a busy schedule in Washington. Tom Erickson, Noem’s campaign manager, responded Wednesday afternoon to Varilek’s charge.

“Voters deserve to know that Matt Varilek does not consider the more than 600 meetings Rep. Noem has had with South Dakotans to be relevant ‘meetings,’ ” Erickson said in an email to The Daily Republic. “Given the entirety of his work experience has been as a congressional staffer and a radical environmental activist who spent years of his life pushing a national energy tax, maybe he feels uncomfortable making meetings with South Dakotans a priority.”

Varilek has denied he is a “radical environmental activist” and said he opposes a national energy tax. Like Noem’s attendance record, it has been a regular bone of contention in the race.

Noem’s claim that she missed meetings because of scheduling conflicts is false, Varilek said in a press release.

He said “in the vast majority of cases, Noem had no hearings or meetings scheduled that conflicted with those of the Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee. On many occasions she simply skipped all her committee meetings.”

Varilek said Noem missed 17 of 22 meetings of the Indian Affairs subcommittee. In 15 of those instances, none of Noem’s other committees or subcommittees were meeting at the same time. In five cases, the Indian Affairs meeting was her only one of the day.

Noem did attend a fundraiser and do an interview with Fox News on the days she skipped the hearings, according to the Democratic candidate’s research.

Noem said she focused on meetings where issues tied to South Dakota were discussed.

“I think South Dakotans would rather have their one voice in Washington working on South Dakota issues, not meetings specific to tribes in Utah or California,” she said in an email to The Daily Republic Tuesday night.

Varilek said that is proven false by a committee meeting she missed on Nov. 3. Bureau of Indian Affairs Director Mike Black, a South Dakota native and Oglala Sioux member, testified before the Indian Affairs subcommittee on that day.

On that same day. Noem skipped meetings of the Natural Resources Committee, the Agriculture Committee, and the Education and the Workforce Committee.

However, the freshman congresswoman said she was meeting with Department of the Interior Secretary Salazar and several Representatives and Senators regarding funding for the Lewis & Clark water system on Nov. 3.

The other three hearings were at the exact same time, Erickson said, and on other occasions meetings were scheduled at the same time, or Noem was in other meetings with South Dakotans.

“Rep. Noem has been an effective voice for South Dakota,” he said.

At the same time her attendance was under fire, Noem applauded the U.S. Department of Agriculture for signing two memorandums of understanding with the Bureau of Indian Affairs to foster improved access to USDA and BIA programs by tribes and tribal members.

“These agreements are an important step to increasing access to programs and improving communication between the federal government and sovereign tribes,” Noem said.

The South Dakota Republican Party joined the fray Wednesday, advising Varilek to ask his “former boss,” Sen. Tim Johnson, if he was attending committee meetings.

The release, issued by state GOP Executive Director Tony Post, said Johnson, a third-term Democrat, missed 14 of 16 oversight and legislative Hearings of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee.

Johnson’s director of communications, Perry Plumart, disputed that figure and said Johnson had been to a couple more meetings than what was claimed by Post.

Plumart also noted that as chairman of the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs and Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Military Construction and Veterans Affairs, Johnson is kept very busy. He led 111 public hearings and executive sessions in 2011 and 2012, his staffer said.

“Three were related to Indian Country issues, two on housing and one on economic development,” Plumart said. “What I think is important for people to know is that Senator Johnson is on the job for South Dakota.”

Post also criticized Varilek for raising attendance as an issue.

“This latest attack is a last-ditch effort from the Varilek campaign and needs to be called out for the horse hockey that it is,” he said.

South Dakota Democrats released a video of Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Chairman Don Young, an Alaska Republican, teasing Noem for texting and not speaking at a meeting. On Wednesday, Erickson released a statement from Young.

“Many of the hearings held in my subcommittee this Congress have focused on parochial issues and oftentimes on individual tribes,” he said. “The fact of the matter is, Congresswoman Noem cannot be in two places at once and when it comes down to meeting with South Dakotans or sitting through hearings having nothing to do with South Dakota, Congresswoman Noem chooses her constituents.”

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/70533/

Argus Leader Media
By David Montgomery
September 26, 2012

Trying to persuade voters to vote against Rep. Kristi Noem in the November election, her Democratic challenger Matt Varilek this week attacked Noem for poor attendance on the congressional subcommittee dealing with Native American issues.

Noem didn’t dispute Varilek’s claim she missed 17 out of 22 meetings of the House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs, but said she was doing more important work for the state during many of those meetings.

“That is of course a terrible record,” Varilek said. “We simply cannot accept that kind of performance from our one member of Congress.”

Varilek said his staff compiled Noem’s attendance record after the two candidates were asked about tribal issues during an Argus Leader debate Monday.

Noem, a Republican, dismissed the attacks as a “false issue.”

“I always prioritize my meetings, and put serving the best interests of South Dakotans over attending some subcommittee hearings that will have no impact on our state,” Noem said.

Of the 17 native subcommittee meetings Varilek accused Noem of missing, Noem’s staff highlighted four where she said she was doing more important things: hearings on May 26 and June 22, 2011, where Noem was at a different committee, a Nov. 3, 2011, meeting where Noem was at a meeting about the Lewis & Clark water system, and an April 19 meeting where Noem was speaking on the House floor.

Her staff also said six of the meetings Noem didn’t attend involved tribes from other states: the June 22 meeting and five others.

“When you serve on three major committees and nine subcommittees, there’s usually always conflicts,” she said. “I have to decide where to go to be more effective for South Dakota.”

That’s five meetings Noem attended, four for which Noem identified a conflict, five more Noem said were unimportant and eight her staff did not account for, out of 22 total meetings.

Varilek said members of Congress shouldn’t just attend hearings dealing with issues specifically related to their states.

“If members of Congress only went to committees when their own state is affected directly, South Dakota-based committee meetings would be empty except for her,” Varilek said.

http://siouxfallsbusinessjournal.argusleader.com/article/20120927/NEWS/309270027/Kristi-Noem-defends-committee-attendance-record

SIOUX FALLS, SD -South Dakota Congresswoman Kristi Noem is once again facing attendance allegations. Noem’s Democratic House of Representatives challenger, Matt Varilek, says Noem has missed more than 75 percent of the House subcommittee meetings on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Noem says the accusations are a non-issue.

Varilek came forward with similar accusations this past summer regarding the freshmen congresswoman’s committee meeting attendance. Noem maintains she is doing her job and misses meetings because of her demanding schedule.

“I serve on three major committees and nine subcommittees.  Many times those committees are meeting at the exact same time. I have to wake up every day and look and see where I can be most effective for South Dakota,” she said via phone from Clear Lake, South Dakota.

“This absolutely undercuts her explanation for the first set of absences on the Ag Committee. She said she couldn’t go to the Ag Committee because she had other priorities on other committees, and now we find out it was the Native American Subcommittee,” Varilek said.

Varilek says Noem has missed 17 of 22 Native American Affairs subcommittees since she took office two years ago. Noem issued a report detailing why she did not attend those meetings.

“We have a very significant Native American population and significant issues there. And committee work is where work gets done,” Varilek said.

Noem says some of those meetings focused on issues in other states, not on South Dakota’s Native Americans. Other days she was traveling or attending other meetings. Noem says she has worked on issues important to our state’s tribes.

“I’ve been very aggressive on the issues that concern them, such as carrying a bill that would protect their sovereignty when it comes to National Labor Relations Board, making sure Native women have the opportunity to petition for restraining orders in Federal Court rather than just Tribal Court,” Noem said.

And Noem says this latest attack is an effort to avoid the issues, while Varilek says his campaign is doing its part by bringing up a big issue.

“There’s no back-up,” Varilek said. “And so if she is not speaking for South Dakota in the House, that means no one is. Our voice deserves to be heard on Native American issues, ag issues and issues on behalf of all South Dakotans.”

“I have a 99 percent voting record in committee and on the floor and that’s important to me,” Noem said. “I’m where I can do the best good for South Dakota.”

http://www.keloland.com/News/newsdetail6371.cfm/varilek-attacks-noems-subcommittee-attendance/?id=137679

David Montgomery analyzes claims made by Rep. Kristi Noem and her challenger Matt Varilek during their appearance Monday before the Argus Leader editorial board.

Paul Ryan’s Medicare plan

Claims: Rep. Kristi Noem, a Republican, says she supports a plan that lets seniors and anyone else who wants to keep traditional Medicare, while letting younger people opt-in to private accounts. House candidate Matt Varilek, a Democrat, says Noem’s plan would cost seniors an average of $6,400 each.

Quote: “We know that’s a false number and it doesn’t reflect the plan that I’ve supported in this budget that really would save Medicare going into the future.” — Noem

Fact-check: What’s going on here is the confusing overlap of two different Medicare plans. Last year, Rep. Paul Ryan — the Republican nominee for vice president — released a budget proposal converting Medicare to a “premium support” model in which the government would subsidize seniors’ private health insurance. The change would apply only to people who turned 65 beginning in 2022. A review by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office found “most elderly people would pay more for their health care than they would pay under the current Medicare system” and put that figure around $6,000 per year. Noem voted for this budget, which passed on party lines.

But this year, Ryan released a new plan that makes a simple but significant change. People currently under 55 wouldn’t be forced into the “premium support” model, as with Ryan’s earlier plan. Instead, they could choose whether to stay with traditional Medicare or choose the “premium support” model.

The Congressional Budget Office analysis of this plan said too much is uncertain to predict definite effects, noting that higher costs were one of several possible outcomes.

Noem also voted for Ryan’s second, updated plan. That’s the plan she says she wants to enact for Medicare.

So Varilek is right when he says Noem voted for a plan that could raise Medicare costs for future senior citizens. But Noem says that’s not the plan she supports now.

Noem’s bipartisanship

Claims: Varilek accuses Noem of a “lack of willingness to work together.” Noem says she regularly works with Democrats.

Quote: “When I was first elected to represent South Dakota, I decided that when I went there and brought bills forward, I would do all I could to make sure that when I proposed them, I had a Democratic co-sponsor with me. I have the majority of my bills that were able to do that.” — Noem

Fact-check: In her two years in Congress, Noem has sponsored 11 bills. Nine of those bills had at least one co-sponsor.

Of those nine bills, five have at least one Democratic co-sponsor: the Farm Dust Prevention Act (five Democrats, 116 Republicans), a bill redefining “renewable biomass” (one Democrat, no Republicans), the Tribal Labor Sovereignty Act (one Democrat, 62 Republicans), a bill dealing with Farm Service Agency offices (two Democrats, nine Republicans) and the Protect Our Prairies Act (four Democrats, six Republicans). The rest of Noem’s bills had no Democratic co-sponsors.

Medicare cuts

Claims: Noem accuses Varilek of supporting $716 billion in cuts to Medicare. Varilek says Noem voted for the exact same cuts. Noem says her vote had an important difference.

Quote: “You have also voted twice in favor of the same savings.” — Varilek

Fact-check: President Obama’s health care law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, included $716 billion in savings over 10 years from the Medicare program. These weren’t cuts to current levels of Medicare spending. Instead, they reflected slowing the expected growth rate of Medicare, chiefly in payments to insurance companies offering private Medicare Advantage coverage, and in reimbursements to hospitals who don’t meet benchmarks. Those savings were then used to offset increased costs from the Affordable Care Act, also referred to as “Obamacare.”

Varilek has said the Affordable Care Act has problems but does more good than bad and should be reformed, not repealed. Noem uses that to say Varilek supports the law and to tie him to the $716 billion spending slowdown.

Rep. Paul Ryan’s budgets, which Noem voted for, included among their provisions that same $716 billion in Medicare savings. Ryan said he kept those savings but redirected the money to offset other future costs in Medicare – keeping the money in the system.

Both the Affordable Care Act — which Varilek generally supports — and the Ryan plans — which Noem voted for — slow Medicare spending by the same amount, though they use the savings for different health care expenses. Noem, Ryan and other Republicans claim keeping the savings in the Medicare program makes an important difference.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20120925/NEWS/309250022/Fact-check-Noem-Varilek-Two-plans-complicate-debate

House candidate Matt Varilek criticized Rep. Kristi Noem over everything from the budget to tribal issues during a joint appearance before the Argus Leadereditorial board Monday.

Running an underdog campaign against Noem, Varilek turned almost every question from Argus Leader editors and readers into an attack on Noem’s record in Congress.

“My opponent says that she supports it,” Varilek said of the wind energy production tax credit. “And yet even though she’s in the House leadership … the results once again speak for themselves. It hasn’t been extended.”

Unlike a previous debate at Dakotafest in August, Noem didn’t answer each one of Varilek’s attacks with one of her own. She largely focused on explaining and defending her record.

“Anyone who says I’m not working hard to pass the farm bill is just playing political games,” Noem said during a different point in the debate. “I’ve done everything I possibly can to get that farm bill accomplished.”

Voters will decide between Noem, a Republican, and Varilek, a Democrat, in the Nov. 6 general election.

A major point of disagreement for the two candidates was Medicare. Noem said the Medicare system is in need of reform to save it, and supports a plan by Republican vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan to substantially reform the program.

The plan Noem supports would add an option for senior citizens to drop traditional Medicare coverage for private health insurance with government subsidies, a “premium support” model.

“It makes the choice between that person and what their health care option might be rather than putting the government in between that decision,” Noem said.

“The other thing I like about the plan is it’s voluntary — nobody has to change anything if they don’t want to.”

Varilek argued the government subsidies would be inadequate, and said Noem’s focus on what wouldn’t change reflects the plan’s weakness.

“That tells you… it’s not a good plan, and we don’t want to foist it on too many people,” Varilek said. “If it were a great plan that you could be proud of defending, you would be bragging about the changes that it does make.”

In an hour dominated by clashes, the two had a rare moment of agreement when asked about an assault weapons ban. Both candidates said they oppose a ban on private ownership of assault weapons.

“We might agree on this one,” Noem said, with mock shock, after hearing Varilek’s answer.

The hourlong debate was one of a few chances for the two candidates to spread their views to the public for free. Noem and Varilek are scheduled to have five debates, counting the Dakotafest and Argus Leader forums. Three more, including two on television, are scheduled over the 41 days before the election.

The two have clashed over the number of debates, with Varilek offering to debate up to a dozen times and Noem being more selective about when to meet her opponent on stage.

Voters might have a difficult time avoiding the messages the candidates are paying to send.

Varilek said his campaign’s budget is about $1 million, while Noem said she expects to spend between $1.5 million and $2 million. Both said they expect to raise most of their money from South Dakotans.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20120925/NEWS/309250018/Farm-bill-Medicare-ignite-sparks-Varilek-Noem

Rep. Kristi Noem and her Democratic challenger Matt Varilek discussed the budget, the farm bill and tribal issues during an hour-long Argus Leader forum Monday morning.

The two candidates, who face off for South Dakota’s lone House seat in the Nov. 6 general election, took questions from the Argus Leader editorial board and Argus Leader readers during the exchange.

Varilek kept up steady pressure on Noem, turning every question into an argument that Noem was an ineffective representative.

“My opponent says that she supports it,” Varilek said of the wind energy production tax credit. “And yet even though she’s in the House leadership… the results once again speak for themselves. It hasn’t been extended.”

Noem largely avoided criticizing Varilek, spending her time defending and promoting her record.

“Anyone who says I’m not working hard to pass the farm bill is just playing political games,” Noem said, at a different point in the debate. “I’ve done everything I possibly can to get that farm bill accomplished.”

The two had a rare moment of agreement when asked about an assault weapon ban. Both candidates said they opposed a ban on private ownership of assault weapons.

Watch the entire debate at argusleader.com.

Rep. Kristi Noem and her Democratic challenger Matt Varilek appeared before the Argus Leader editorial board at 11 a.m. today. Watch the hour-long exchange here, and add your thoughts and questions.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20120924/NEWS/120924002/Noem-Varilek-clash-Argus-Leader-debate?odyssey=nav|head

Oct. 2, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–This morning, congressional challenger Matt Varilek hosted a roundtable discussion with agriculture producers at his campaign headquarters in Sioux Falls. Varilek and the group of area producers discussed the Farm Bill and impacts of the decision to let it expire last Sunday.

Many programs expired on Sunday, including the Milk Income Loss Contract, which provided a crucial safety net for South Dakota’s dairy producers, including those in the room. In addition, livestock disaster programs remain expired because of the U.S. House’s failure to pass a Farm Bill reauthorizing those programs.

Many farmers also worry that the uncertainty around the Farm Bill may affect their ability to get loans, and the delay means many farmers aren’t investing in new equipment or facilities this fall.

“Today, I heard first hand the impact of the uncertainty placed on everyday South Dakota producers,” said Varilek. “With one of the worst droughts in decades, you’d have thought our elected leaders would get the job done. Their failure to pass a Farm Bill is another reminder of why we need to elect new leaders who know how to work well with others and get results.”

Producers in the room repeatedly emphasized that in tough economic times, farmers are willing to tighten their belts a bit and accept reduced or eliminated direct payments. Crop insurance, on the other hand, has given farmers confidence to plant in the face of an uncertain harvest that might be devastated by a single flood, drought, or storm.

When crop insurance provisions were in place, “we had some assurance that should some things fail that you had no control of, that the rest of the country was behind you,” said Aurora County farmer Ed Arts, “so that you could keep producing food.”

That insurance now faces an uncertain future, and its funding may go on the chopping block in November when the lame duck Congress faces increasing pressure to cut spending.

If the Farm Bill is not reauthorized by January of 2013, even more serious consequences will occur. At that point, major provisions of the 1949 farm bill would come back into effect. Under those statutes, the federal government is required to buy certain crops at prices based on 1914-era costs, which might be as much as double their current levels. This would hike food prices at supermarkets nationwide.

Farmers at the roundtable also voiced their frustration with the House’s refusal to act in a bipartisan manner. They criticized Tea Party representatives whose no-compromises approach ignores the fact that whether Democrat or Republican, all Americans eat.

“The Senate passed a bipartisan bill, with support from Senators John Thune and Tim Johnson. That’s the kind of cooperative approach we need more of. But the Tea Party-dominated House didn’t even vote on the bill. And Congresswoman Noem did not convince a single one of her freshman Tea Party colleagues to force a vote on the legislation. Today I heard firsthand how that failure is impacting South Dakota,” said Varilek.

BACKGROUND

NFU: Pass a Farm Bill in the Lame Duck Session. [National Farmers Union, accessed 10/2/12]

Farm Bill Programs (Mostly) Will Expire September 30; SNAP is Protected. [Coalition on Human Needs, 9/25/12]

Ag experts: Farm bill delay endangers food supply. [Illinois Times, 9/20/12]

So What Happens if the Farm Bill Expires? Not Much, Right Away. “So what does it mean if Congress just leaves it on the table? In theory, some fairly scary things. For example, in the absence of either a new bill or an extension of the 2008 law, federal price supports revert to their 1949 levels. Some farmers would be big winners — the government would pay huge bonuses for wheat, for example — while some farmers would get nothing at all. That’s because some commodities, including soybeans, were added to the list of those supported by government after 1949.” [NPR, 9/19/12]

What happens if the Farm Bill expires? “It’s in 2013 that things go south. That’s when the 1949 farm bill could take effect, putting in place, among other things, a program obliging the government to buy farmers’ crops at prices based on how much commodities cost in 1914. In some cases, that could be twice as much or more, costing the government a ton of money and driving up grocery prices.” [Argus Leader Political Smokeout, 9/18/12]

What’s next for farm bill? “Farmers ‘can go into their banker and say, “I think this is what’s going to happen,” ’ said John Kersteins, director of government relations for the South Dakota Farmers Union. ‘But with all that uncertainty, the banker might say they don’t have the capacity or the stability to go forward’ and give the loan.” [Argus Leader, 9/18/12]

U.S. Representative candidate Matt Varilek has called out Representative Kristi Noem again and this time for her lack of attendance at Indian Affairs meetings.

Varilek claimed Noem has been to five out of 22 Indian Affairs meetings since taking office in January of 2011.

It wasn’t long ago when Varilek called out Noem on missing agriculture meetings, and Noem said it’s unfortunate Varilek has focused on where she is at all times, rather than the real issues.

“It’s troubling to know that South Dakota’s one member of Congress, there one voice in the U.S. House, very often isn’t doing the job and isn’t speaking up on behalf of South Dakota,” said Varilek.

He said the most basic measures of job performance is to show up for work, but Noem said she’s been busy balancing three committees and nine sub-committees and sometimes meetings preside over others.

“I have to prioritize my meetings and put the interest of South Dakota first and I always do that, rather than sitting in sub-committees that aren’t specific to South Dakota,” said Noem.

Varilek fought back and said that’s just an excuse.

“We find cases where South Dakota citizens are testifying and where the top is directly on a South Dakota issue,” said Varilek.

“Matt Varilek is just launching these attacks because he doesn’t want to talk about the real issues in the race,” said Noem.

Issues such as Medicare and National Energy Tax, but Varilek said he’s not backing down, and said he can do the job better.

“Right now, we’re not getting the kind of hard working, focused representation we deserve. With no back up in the U.S. House, it’s very important that we have a hard worker there and that’s the kind of member of Congress I’ll be,” said Varilek.

Noem said there’s no slacking on her part, and says she’s been able to champion a lot of issues important to the state, including those that impact Native Americans and Tribes.

“My commitment to South Dakota Native Americans is very clear, I’ve gotten a lot of results on issues that are important to them,” said Noem.

With the election less than 45 days away, both candidates will continue to fight to represent the state of South Dakota.

According to Noem, attendance isn’t taken during committee meetings and says she’s not sure how Varilek is getting his information.

Regardless where he’s finding her absences, Varilek said Noem says she’s missed certain meetings because other ones are more important to our state.

The General Election is November 6th.

http://www.kdlt.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20694&Itemid=57

September 26, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–After a joint Argus Leader appearance Monday in which Rep. Kristi Noem claimed she had fought for Native American interests in Congress, the Varilek campaign released research showing that Noem has skipped nearly every meeting of the Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee.

In response, Noem made the recycled claim that she missed those meetings in order to attend others. “Many times those committees are meeting at the exact same time. I have to wake up every day and look and see where I can be most effective for South Dakota,” she said in a KELO TV interview.

Noem’s claim that she missed meetings because of scheduling conflicts is false. New findings from the Varilek campaign show that in the vast majority of cases, Noem had no hearings or meetings scheduled that conflicted with those of the Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Subcommittee. On many occasions she simply skipped all her committee meetings.

Noem skipped 17 out of 22 meetings of the Indian Affairs subcommittee; for a 12-month stretch, she attended none of its meetings at all. In 15 of those instances, none of Noem’s other committees or subcommittees were meeting at the same time. In five cases, the Indian Affairs meeting was her only one of the day.

For example:

• On April 1, 2011, the subcommittee hearing she skipped (which concerned tribal energy development) was her only meeting of the day. She attended a Fox News interview later in the day.
• On September 22, 2011, she had four hearings on her schedule and skipped all four. She attended a fundraiser in the evening. She also missed National Parks, Forests, and Public Lands and Water and Power subcommittee hearings on this day, as well as an Education and the Workforce hearing.
• On November 3, 2011, she skipped all four hearings on her schedule. Bureau of Indian Affairs Director Mike Black, a South Dakota native and Oglala
  Sioux member, testified before the Indian Affairs subcommittee on that day. She also missed meetings of the Natural Resources Committee, the Agriculture Committee, and the Education and the Workforce Committee on this day.

Noem also claimed that the meetings she skipped focused on issues that did not affect South Dakota’s Native Americans. This is also false. Those meetings dealt with such issues as universal telecom service mandates in rural areas, the Indian Health Services budget, and the American Indian Empowerment Act.

On the rare occasions when Noem did attend a subcommittee meeting, she often passed on opportunities to speak on behalf of South Dakota. On July 24, 2012, Indian Affairs Subcommittee Chairman Don Young (R-AK) had to repeatedly call on Noem to get her attention because she was typing on her phone. Noem looked up from her phone and declined her chance to speak. Watch the video here.

Noem’s excuses echo claims she made earlier this year, when research found that Noem had attended just 4 out of 20 meetings. Agriculture Committee, the Education and the Workforce Committee, and the Natural Resources Committee.

Varilek called on the Noem campaign to come forward with any evidence showing that Noem did in fact attend any of these meetings. The Noem campaign has not yet responded.

BACKGROUND

Argus Leader Editorial Board Forum: “We have record levels of suicides on our reservations. We have inadequate job opportunities, we have underfunded Indian health services. We have continuing issues with BIA law enforcement on the reservations. What specific plans do you have that are geared toward resolving the problems on South Dakota’s reservations going forward?…And I want to be specific. Not necessarily money, but what efforts are you going to make if you’re elected over the next two years to deal with the issues that we have on South Dakota’s reservations?” (Question from Editorial Board, 9/24/12)

Varilek Attacks Noem’s Subcommittee Attendance. By Kelly Bartnick. [KELO TV. 9/26/12]

Release: Noem Skipped 17 of 22 Indian Affairs Meetings. [Matt for SD. 9/25/12]

###

September 25, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)—During yesterday’s Argus Leader Editorial Board forum between Rep. Kristi Noem and Matt Varilek, Noem was asked a question related to Native American issues. New research by the Varilek campaign shows Rep. Noem has skipped 77% of House Indian and Alaska Native Affairs subcommittee meetings.

Of the 22 meetings that have taken place since Rep. Noem took office in January of 2011, she only attended five. During one year-long stretch, Noem didn’t attend a single meeting (5/24/11-6/26/12).

Even on the rare occasions when she does show up, she fails to advocate for South Dakota’s interests. One notable moment occurred on July 24, 2011. Rep. Noem attended a subcommittee meeting but was scolded by fellow Republican, Subcommittee Chairman Don Young (R-AK), for typing on her phone during her opportunity to speak up for South Dakota at the meeting. Noem looked up from her phone and waved off the opportunity to speak. Watch the video here.

“Once again, the facts clearly demonstrate Congresswoman Noem’s unwillingness to show up and work hard on behalf of South Dakota when she’s in Washington,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “It’s no wonder nothing is getting done — whether it’s not advocating for our Native American communities, the farm bill or the production tax credit for wind energy, Congresswoman Noem has failed to deliver for South Dakota. It’s time to elect someone who will show up and make sure South Dakota’s one voice in the House is heard once again.”

BACKGROUND

Argus Leader Editorial Board Forum: “We have record levels of suicides on our reservations. We have inadequate job opportunities, we have underfunded Indian health services. We have continuing issues with BIA law enforcement on the reservations. What specific plans do you have that are geared toward resolving the problems on South Dakota’s reservations going forward?…And I want to be specific. Not necessarily money, but what efforts are you going to make if you’re elected over the next two years to deal with the issues that we have on South Dakota’s reservations?” (Question from Editorial Board, 9/24/12)

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Oversight Hearing on “The effectiveness of federal spending on Native American programs, and on the President’s FY 2012 budget request for the Bureau of Indian Affairs and the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians” [3/8/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Oversight Hearing on “Tribal development of energy resources and the creation of energy jobs on Indian lands.” [4/1/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearing on H.R. 887. [4/5/11. Present]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Oversight Hearing on “Protecting Long-Term Tribal Energy Jobs and Keeping Arizona Water and Power Costs Affordable: The Current and Future Role of the Navajo Generating Station” [5/24/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1408. [5/26/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1158 and H.R. 1560. [6/22/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1291, H.R. 1234 and H.R. 1421 [7/12/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearings on H.R. 443, H.R. 444, H.R. 1461, H.R. 1556 and H.R. 2444. [9/22/11. Absent ]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2938 [10/4/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearing on H.R. 205 and H.R. 2362. [11/3/11. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearing on H.R. 2467 and S. 292. [1/25/12. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3532. [2/7/12. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearing on H.R. 3973 [2/15/12. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearing on H.R. 1272. [3/1/12. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Oversight Hearing on “Fiscal Year 2013 Budget Request of the Indian Health Service and of the Office of the Special Trustee for American Indians” [3/6/12. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs Legislative Hearing on H.R. 4027 and H.R. 4194 [3/20/12. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Oversight Hearing on “Bureau of Land Management’s Hydraulic Fracturing Rule’s Impacts on Indian Tribal Energy Development” [4/19/12. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Oversight Hearing on “Federal Communications Commission’s rule on the Universal Service Fund and its impact on American Indians and Alaska Natives” [6/8/12. Absent]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Oversight Hearing on “Authorization, standards, and procedures for whether, how, and when Indian tribes should be newly recognized by the federal government” [6/27/12. Present]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Legislative Hearing on H.R. 726, H.R. 3319 and H.R. 6141. [7/24/12. Present]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Oversight Hearing on “Indian lands: exploring resolutions to disputes concerning Indian tribes, state and local governments, and private landowners over land use and development” [8/2/12. Present]

US House Subcommittee on Indian and Alaska Native Affairs. Oversight Hearing on “Per Capita Act and Federal Treatment of Trust Per Capita Distributions.”  [9/14/12. Present]

###

With the drought worsening, so are worries about the passage of a new Farm Bill.

Congressional Candidate Matt Varilek made an appearance at the Stock Growers Convention in Rapid City Saturday.

Varilek says it’s a great way for him to learn from individual producers and the challenges they face.

He says Congress Woman Kristi Noem has not done enough to push for the Farm Bill in Congress.

“But because the U.S. House and Kristi Noem walked away from the Farm Bill, folks here do not have that safety net in place. And we’re dealing with a drought, the Farm Bill expires on September 30th, so it really is pretty irresponsible. I’m here to tell folks that we don’t have to settle for that lack of results,” says Varilek.

Noem was also invited but couldn’t attend due to scheduling conflicts. She did say South Dakotans won’t see any major disruptions from the expiration of the Farm Bill, at least until the end of the year, but says that’s no excuse.

She says she’ll continue fighting to get a five year Farm Bill done.

Noem says only two of the 40 Farm Bills passed have made it in before the September 30th deadline.

http://www.kotatv.com/story/19615064/matt-varilek-meets-local-producers-at-stock-growers-convention

MINNEHAHA COUNTY, SD -

Congress is waiting until after the election to take up the farm bill, allowing the current bill to expire at the end of the month.

Congresswoman Kristi Noem calls the move ‘frustrating;’ her Democratic opponent Matt Varilek says it’s ‘hard to believe,’ and farmers say it shows the ‘lack of responsibility’ in Washington.

While the current bill will expire September 30, important programs like crop insurance will not expire because that program is permanently authorized according to the Congressional Research Service. Most of the commodity programs cover the 2012 crop year, meaning the crops being harvested right now and marketed into the winter and spring are also covered.

Programs that have expired, or will expire, include the livestock disaster program and a program to cover milk income loss for dairy farmers.

But as Congress is getting ready to leave Washington to campaign for November without getting the bill passed, farmers are out in the fields right now in South Dakota getting their work done.

“It shows a complete lack of responsibility. We hired them to do a job and they aren’t doing their job. They do some of their job, but they don’t do all of their job,” farmer Eric Kooistra said.

Kooistra is a farmer from Minnesota who was out harvesting his crop Thursday on land he rents in South Dakota. Kooistra says not getting a Farm Bill passed before the old one expires shows the dysfunction in Washington.

“I don’t think it’s just one party; I think it’s both of them,” Kooistra said.

Noem says she’ll continue to push for passage of a Farm Bill even after the election, but on a scale of one to ten, her frustration is off the charts right now.

“It’s probably an 11 or 12 how frustrating it is for me because really we need to do our work on time and we need to deal with things that are important. Slowing things down and not having people at the table when it’s this critically important is a big frustration for me,” Noem said.

Her Democratic opponent this fall, Matt Varilek, says it’s unbelievable that Congress didn’t even bother to pass an extension to the bill, but he says it shows that Noem’s approach to get the legislation passed didn’t work.

“She wasn’t able to convince her own fellow leadership members to bring this bill up for a vote and now we see the result is no Farm Bill,” Varilek said.

But even though Congress didn’t get its work done on the bill, farmers in South Dakota will continue to do their work and wait on Washington.

“They say they’re going to push it through.  They say they’re going to push it through and they don’t do a dang thing,” Kooistra said.

Not passing a new Farm Bill by the time the old one expires isn’t new.  The Congressional Research Service says in the past 40 years, only the 1973 and 1977 Farm Bill were passed before the September 30 deadline.

http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/congress-to-punt-farm-bill-until-after-election-/?id=137454

Mitchell Daily Republic
By Tom Lawrence
September 18, 2012

Rep. Kristi Noem and Matt Varilek agree that the stalled 2013 farm bill is important to South Dakota. But Varilek, a Varilek v. Noem Democrat in his first race for office, and Noem, a freshman Republican, differ on what exactly the huge package of laws, programs and incentives should contain. They also disagree on why it remains stalled in the House after a version easily passed the Senate.

The two candidates will be on the Nov. 6 ballot.

“The farm bill expires at the end of this month. Getting a new one done is a top priority for me, and it should be a top priority for this Congress,” Noem wrote in a column released Friday. “Our farmers and ranchers deserve certainty, and I will keep fighting every day to make sure they get it. From holding leadership’s feet to the fire to schedule a vote, to gathering signatures for the discharge petition and continuing to educate other members, I will not stop working to get a farm bill done for South Dakota.”

Varilek, who noted what he called Noem’s “multiple positions” on the issue, said she should shoulder part of the blame, even after she signed a discharge petition that seeks to force a vote.

“The big question now is whether Congresswoman Noem will live up to her promise at our Dakotafest debate to ‘lead the charge’ on making the petition successful and getting a farm bill passed,” he said in a statement. “I hope she’ll work to round up support from the tea party freshmen who selected her as their representative.”

Noem said she thinks it’s unfair she is being criticized for the failure of the farm bill to be passed.

“It’s just not correct and he knows it,” she said in an interview with The Daily Republic. “He’s spent more time in Washington, D.C., than I have, and he knows the process.”

Varilek, a former aide to Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., said he is not playing politics, just pointing out an important issue that needs to be discussed.

He said he doesn’t know if his campaign would be helped if a farm bill is not passed.

“It’s a bad thing for South Dakota, I would say,” Varilek said to the newspaper. “It’s going to extend the uncertainty. Honestly, we try not to think about the politics involved. I think the damage is already being done for farmers and ranchers. The sooner they could pass it, the better.”

Noem said she hopes the bill can be passed before the election, but admitted it is a challenge.

“It certainly is more difficult with the time-frame we have left,” she said. “I’m still very optimistic on it.”

Noem said she hopes some deal can be struck to pass the bill before it expires Sept. 30, and before the election.

“I am praying we’re not in that situation,” she said.

Noem said the bill is stuck in the House because Democrats and Republicans in that chamber won’t work together.

She voted for the bill in the House Agriculture Committee, has urged her fellow House members to support it and asked House leadership, including Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, to set a vote on it.

Boehner has not done so, and since the House recessed recently, it now appears certain the bill will not receive a vote in the full House before the election. That’s a point Noem said she “prayed” would not happen.

Varilek has repeatedly said Noem bears some of the blame for the farm bill’s status.

“Now is the time to be aggressive,” he said during a debate at Dakotafest in Mitchell on Aug. 21. He said Noem should have lobbied for the bill’s passage and should have signed a discharge petition, which would have forced a vote on the bill.

Varilek said he would be the “aggressive, hard-working advocate for farmers and ranchers” that South Dakota needs.

Noem initially signed a draft of the petition, then said she would not sign it until it was ready and had clear support.

She said at the Dakotafest debate she was considering signing it and then did so on Thursday. Noem was the third member of Congress, and the first Republican, to sign it.

The petition needs 218 signatures to force a vote on the bill. As of Monday afternoon, there were 51 signers.

When asked if she is concerned whether the House leadership might be unhappy with her action, Noem, a freshman liaison to the leadership, said she is more interested in the views of her constituents.

The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 64-35 on June 21, with both South Dakota senators, Democrat Tim Johnson and Republican John Thune, voting for it.

The Senate bill calls for an end to the farmer subsidies known as “direct payments” while consolidating programs and cutting the federal deficit by $23 billion over 10 years.

The House version calls for $35 billion in savings over the same period. It also wants deeper cuts in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program than the

Senate version. Noem said that is why some Democrats won’t support it, while some Republicans, especially many of her fellow freshmen, want deeper cuts in federal spending.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that the Senate bill would allocate the spending of about $969 billion over a decade. Most 2008 farm bill programs expire Sept. 30; some expired last year.

The House candidates also differ on what should be in a bill that is sent to President Obama for a vote.

“One of the biggest differences is that Matt Varilek wants to make crop insurance less affordable for South Dakota producers by raising the share of premium paid by some farmers,” said Tom Erickson, Noem’s campaign manager. “Kristi strongly opposes this reckless idea because it has the potential to harm the most important risk management tool that is available to South Dakota producers.”

Varilek has called for reducing the premium subsidy for the largest and best-leveraged producers, which would force them to pay more for the insurance.

Erickson said the two candidates disagree on cuts to SNAP, which makes up about 80 percent of the farm bill.

“Kristi also supports reforming the food stamp program,” Erickson said. “The debate over these reforms is one of the biggest reasons for the gridlock over the farm bill, which urban Democrats refuse to even consider. On this issue, Varilek has sided with the extreme liberal wing of the Democratic Party and strongly opposes these reforms.”

Indeed, Varilek said he feels during the current “difficult economic conditions,” he does not favor cuts in SNAP.

“Earlier this year, Congresswoman Noem also voted for the Ryan budget, which would convert SNAP to a block grant and cut more than $130 billion from the program in the process. I agree with the many religious organizations who have decried such cuts as immoral,” he said. “Though there may be little political upside in doing so, I would defend this program for folks who do not abuse it.”

Varilek favors the Senate version of the farm bill, which is seen as better for corn and soybean farmers, while the version passed by the House Agriculture Committee favors peanut and rice growers.

“The Senate version of the farm bill took some important steps in this direction by eliminating direct payments, and strengthening market-based protections like crop insurance and a new shallow-loss program known as Agriculture Risk Coverage (ARC),” he wrote in his position paper on ag issues. “I support this evolution of the commodity safety net.”

Noem agrees that the Senate commodity language is preferable, but said linking crop insurance to conservation rules is dangerous.

“We don’t want to start down that path,” she said at the Dakotafest debate. “That’s the only safety net that our farmers have to depend on when they’re in volatile situations like the drought that we have.”

Noem said she especially likes four sections of the House bill:

• The Livestock Disaster Protection Act, which calls for extending the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP);
• The Livestock Forage Program (LFP), and the Emergency Livestock Assistance Program (ELAP) for the life of the Farm Bill as well as provide coverage for the current fiscal year, since the programs expired in 2011;
• The Protect Our Prairies Act, which encourages conservation of native sod and grassland, save taxpayer dollars and protect the habitat of wildlife critical to South Dakota’s hunting industry;
•  And the National Forest Emergency Response Act, which is designed to help speed efforts to battle pine beetle infestations, such as is happening in the Black Hills.

This spring, Noem, along with Thune, introduced the National Forest Emergency Response Act, which would provide for rapid-response efforts used to combat emergencies like the pine beetle infestation.

The bill didn’t pass, but she said some of her thoughts made it into the final forest response act in the farm bill passed by the House Agriculture Committee

Noem had called for a “categorical exclusion” to assist in the effort for impacted lands of 10,000 acres. That was reduced to 1,000 acres in a draft of the bill, but she teamed with Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., to get the 10,000-acre figure reinstated by the committee.

Noem also successfully inserted an amendment to permanently establish an Office of Tribal Relations within the U.S. Department of Agriculture without allocating additional funds. She said it would make it easier for the federal government to work with tribes.

Varilek said he favors a “strong but fiscally responsible safety net” to protect producers against unsustainable losses, and also backs provisions to ensure that commodity markets provide fair and transparent pricing for buyers and sellers.

At the same time, he supports incentive programs to “conserve land and water resources for future generations” while being fiscally responsible, and ensuring the ag industry is prepared to bear its fair share of the burden of deficit reduction.

“I start from the premise that the federal government can’t afford to subsidize everyone, and it is wrong to try,” Varilek wrote. “If a farmer or a rancher wants to buy up half the county and make it harder for young producers to get started in the business, they should do so at their own risk, without federal subsidies that underwrite their purchase.”

He also favors programs to aid producers in case of livestock losses, just as farmers are assisted with major crop losses.

“Programs like the Livestock Indemnity Program (LIP), the Livestock Forage Program (LFP), and the Emergency Livestock Assistance Program (ELAP) are critically important tools for livestock producers dealing with the impact of disasters, and I applaud the Senate for reauthorizing these programs in its version of the new farm bill,” Varilek said.

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/70176/

Argus Leader Media
By Christopher Doering
September 18, 2012

WASHINGTON— Congress looks unlikely to pass a new $500 billion farm law or extend the current bill until at least November as lawmakers finish their last week of work in Washington before leaving to gear up for the general election.

The 2008 farm bill expires Sept. 30. And with lawmakers set to work only three days this week before leaving Friday, a shrinking calendar has combined with the inability of lawmakers to agree on the best path forward to doom any chance for action. Some Republicans have pushed for extending the current bill for as much as a year, but Democrats in the House and the Senate are opposed.

South Dakota lawmakers said crafting a five-year farm bill is the better choice for farmers and ranchers. That’s because an extension of the current law would further prolong the uncertainty for the agriculture industry by failing to provide a clear road map for what farm policy will look like as farmers prepare for next year’s crop.

“A farm bill extension, whether it be for three months, six months or a year only puts off the inevitable — that a new farm bill must be reauthorized or farm policy will revert back to the 1949 act,” Sen. John Thune said. “If an extension is necessary, a three-month extension is preferable simply because it places a deadline for further action on the farm bill.”

Rep. Kristi Noem said she could embrace an extension if there was bipartisan support for the idea in Congress. Still, Noem, remained optimistic about the prospects for a bill.

“The clock does not stop on Sept. 30. Farm and nutrition programs will continue at least through the end of the year, so we can still finish our work on a new bill,” she said.

The failure to pass a farm bill before the deadline is not uncommon. The last three such bills, in 1996, 2002 and most recently in 2007, were finished a year later than expected. For now, the agriculture sector should not see any major effect if the current farm law expires.

But a long-term delay could cause farm policy to revert back to decades-old measures that would limit plantings and increase the price farmers receive from the government for commodities. Such a development would not be popular because it would throw the agricultural market into turmoil and probably lead to higher prices for consumers on grocery store shelves.

South Dakota Democrats were quick to pin the blame on tea party Republicans and GOP leadership in the House. Sen. Tim Johnson said the tea party has abdicated its responsibility to the farm industry.

“This is especially irresponsible with a crippling drought facing the state and the nation,” he said.

Matt Varilek, the Democratic candidate running against Noem, said the bill is the latest example of Washington gridlock that has worsened since the election of Noem and other Republicans in 2010.

“The stalled farm bill is just the latest in a long line of items where the U.S. House’s my-way-or-the-highway attitude is delivering few results and lots of frustration,” Varilek said.

Congress was progressing on the farm bill until mid-summer. The full Senate passed its measure in June, and a month later the House Agriculture Committee acted on its bill. Since then, the law has been hung up in the House, where a vote by the full chamber is the next step.

As the Sept. 30 deadline approaches, Republican lawmakers in the House are passing around a document to collect signatures that would force GOP leaders to hold a vote on the bill. The discharge petition needs 218 votes to pass. Noem is among 53 lawmakers to sign.

House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio, and Majority Leader Eric Cantor, R-Va., are reluctant to call for a vote on that chamber’s bill or the one passed by the Senate because they don’t think they have the votes necessary to pass either. The opposition to the farm bill has come from both sides, with some Republicans pushing for broader spending cuts and Democrats arguing the proposed reductions go too far, especially in nutrition programs.

“We’re stuck at the moment,” Michigan Democratic Sen. Debbie Stabenow, chairwoman of the Senate Agriculture Committee, told reporters last week. “I cannot imagine that creating economic certainty for rural American and a comprehensive disaster assistance bill within that farm bill is not a priority for the U.S. House. We’ve done our part in the Senate and the House needs to step up.”

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20120918/NEWS/309180029/Anxiety-builds-over-farm-bill

WASHINGTON (AP) — Farm-state members of Congress have campaigned for decades on the back of farm bills delivering election-season subsidies and other goodies to rural voters.

Not this year. The bill is stalled, primarily because House GOP leaders don’t want a noisy fight over food stamps this close to the election. That poses a particular problem for some Republicans in tight races for the Senate or the House who will go home empty-handed when Congress adjourns this week.

Democrats are gloating.

“It’s something that should have been easy,” says Heidi Heitkamp, the Democrat running against Republican Rep. Rick Berg in a neck-and-neck, open Senate race in North Dakota. “Something that should have been done did not get done.”

Heitkamp and other Democratic challengers are using the farm bill as an example of how they say the Republican-run House is ineffective. Current farm law, which extends subsidy payments to farmers and pays for food stamps, is scheduled to expire Sept. 30, with no new law in place for the first time in recent memory.

In addition to the effect on the North Dakota race, the failure to get a farm bill is affecting the Senate race in Montana and House races in Iowa, South Dakota, Colorado and Illinois.

Farm policy has traditionally been one of the more bipartisan issues on Capitol Hill. It still is, to an extent — the Senate in June passed the five-year farm bill with almost two-thirds of the chamber supporting it. A separate version passed the House Agriculture Committee in July with Republican and Democratic support.

Calling it a farm bill is something of a misnomer. Food stamps make up roughly 80 percent of the costs in both versions. The House would cut them 2 percent, angering many Democrats who don’t want them cut at all and Republicans who say they should be cut more. The Senate version would cut them by one-half of 1 percent.

Since 2008, the food stamp program has more than doubled in cost, to $80 billion a year, driven by high, sustained unemployment, rising food prices and expanded eligibility under President Barack Obama’s 2009 economic stimulus law. Food stamps now help feed roughly 46 million Americans, or 1 in 7.

It is unclear how angry rural voters will be about the lack of a farm bill. The farm economy has been strong in recent years, and expiration won’t mean an immediate loss of benefits for most farmers. But farm-state members argue that the certainty of federal policy is necessary for farmers making their annual business plans this fall and approaching bankers for loans.

Punting the bill may also mean less money overall. While both chambers’ versions of the bill would save tens of billions of dollars from current spending, the agriculture committees may be asked to save even more as budgets tighten further next year.

“They are concerned there will be fewer resources if we do it next year, so they worry it will hurt their crop insurance,” Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, said of farmers in his state, where he and Rep. Tom Latham both face serious challenges from Democrats.

King and Berg — along with Republican House colleagues Denny Rehberg of Montana, Kristi Noem of South Dakota and others — have made repeated appeals to Speaker John Boehner of Ohio and other GOP leaders to bring the Agriculture Committee’s bill to the floor before Congress adjourns this week.

“The farm bill is far too important for too many Montanans to let election-year politics get in the way of doing the right thing,” said Rehberg, who is in a competitive Senate race.

Noem, who is defending her House seat against Democrat Matt Varilek, said party leaders are hesitant to bring up a vote on a bill that they think might fail.

“I am sure they are getting tired of seeing me come down the hallway to talk to them about that,” she said. “It’s been a disappointment to me that they’ve made the decisions that they have made.”

Rep. Tim Huelskamp, R-Kan., said the legislation has turned into “a food stamp bill” that has bogged down because of both the presidential and congressional campaigns.

“There’s not 218 votes to pass it,” Huelskamp told reporters. “It’s going to be very tough to do that, even in a lame-duck session.”

Some House Democrats also are scrambling for cover. Rep. Bruce Braley, D-Iowa, who faces a challenge from 2010 opponent Ben Lange, last week introduced a discharge petition to place the bill on the floor calendar over House leaders’ objections.

Though Berg, Noem, Rehberg and a handful of other Republicans signed it, a majority of the House is needed — unlikely when Republicans hold 240 seats to Democrats’ 190 and after conservative groups came out against the bill as too expensive.

“I am frustrated that it’s not progressing,” Berg said of the bill. “The unfortunate thing is that I am seeing it become political, which it really hasn’t been for the last year and a half.”

Heitkamp is up with radio ads in North Dakota criticizing Berg for “toeing the party line” on farm programs and endorsing some agriculture cuts. In the ad, targeted at farmers who listen to the radio while out in the fields, she reminds voters that agriculture is a $6 billion industry in the state.

Democratic Sen. Jon Tester of Montana, who is facing the challenge from Rehberg and is himself a farmer, calls the House’s failure to take up the farm bill “total craziness.”

“It’s going to have some pretty negative effects on agriculture if these people don’t get off their butts and get it passed,” he said in an interview. “I am going to continue to try and talk some common sense into the House of Representatives.”

Also getting criticism on the campaign trail for the farm bill’s collapse are Republican Reps. Scott Tipton in Colorado and Rep. Bobby Schilling in Illinois.

The House in July passed a bill that would help livestock producers who are losing money because of a widespread drought, but the Senate has declined to take that up, with Senate Agriculture Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow saying that similar benefits are included in the larger bill. Republicans Rehberg and Berg have countered Democratic attacks by saying the Senate should consider that legislation.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=161389664

Matt: We have only one representative in Congress, so we need someone who will show up, work hard, and get results.

I’m Matt Varilek, and I’ll stand up for middle-class families. I’ll fight to protect Social Security and Medicare and end tax giveaways to millionaires and big oil. I’ll support spending cuts and tax reforms to tackle our debt in a balanced way.

The special interests have enough representation on their side. Shouldn’t our one member of Congress side with you? I’m Matt Varilek, and I approve this message.

We’re pleased to announce that the Rapid City Journal will host the first and only West River debate scheduled to date between incumbent Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., and her Democratic challenger Matt Varilek on Friday, Oct. 12, in Rapid City.

And we’re especially pleased that the debate, scheduled for noon in the Lecture Room of the University Center, 4300 Cheyenne Blvd., is open to the public and will provide an opportunity for people of all political persuasions to pose questions to the congressional candidates through our newspaper.

This is only the fourth scheduled debate of the Noem/Varilek race, a number that the Varilek campaign finds disappointing.

“After a number of rejected debate invitations by Congresswoman Noem, we’re pleased that a debate has been confirmed and organized by the Rapid City Journal,” said David Benson, Varilek campaign manager. “South Dakotans have a lot of lingering questions for Congresswoman Noem dealing with her failure to deliver a farm bill, votes to privatize Medicare and inability to address wasteful government spending.”

Tom Erickson, campaign manager for Noem, said the core issues of the campaign are the same on both sides of the state. “That is going to be spending and, really, the direction this country is going,” Erickson said.

The first Noem v. Varilek debate was held Aug. 22 in Mitchell, and two more East River debates are scheduled for Oct. 18 and Nov. 2. South Dakota Public Broadcasting and KELO TV will both host debates to be broadcast statewide.

That’s not as many face-to-face debates as the voters of this state deserve and, with just seven full weeks of campaigning left, we hope the Noem campaign will agree to add more.

In fact, this will be the first West River debate in a U.S. House race in two election cycles, since a 2010 debate between Noem and then-Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin here in Rapid City was cancelled by Noem.

“The voters of this state should have plenty of opportunities to help them decide which person to send to Washington as their lone representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, and we’re thrilled to be able to provide one more for them,” said Shannon Brinker, Rapid City Journal publisher.

While the exact format of the Journal’s hour-long debate has not been finalized, we invite our readers to submit questions in advance that they would like to have asked and answered by Rep. Noem and Mr. Varilek. They can do that by emailing their questions to us as at: opinion@rapidcityjournal.com

No matter your political affiliation – Republican, Democrat, independent or nothing at all – you have to acknowledge that the recent political conventions in Tampa Bay and Charlotte were great political theater. We encourage city residents to be spectators at some live political theater right here in Rapid City on Oct. 22. Bring a brown-bag lunch and get there early to get a seat, however, since the Lecture Room seats about 100 people. The University Center is located off Elk Vale Road at the eastern edge of Rapid City.

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/editorial-noem-v-varilek-let-the-debate-begin/article_b6b421b7-3fb6-584b-914d-5c7a846579c9.html

It was a shared experience between two South Dakotans. During their Aug. 21 debate at the Dakotafest agricultural trade show in Mitchell, Rep. Kristi Noem and Matt Varilek smiled as they both said they had “picked rocks” on farms when they were growing up in rural parts of the state. It was a moment of connection, a time to show the candidates, both small-town natives just three years apart in age, were similar in many ways.

But since those peaceful recollections of actual rocks, the two congressional candidates and their supporters have spent a lot of time throwing political rocks at each other. With less than two months to go before the Nov. 6 election, the campaign between the two candidates for South Dakota’s lone seat in the U.S. House has taken a sharp, even bitter turn.

Noem, a freshman Republican from rural Castlewood, has labeled Varilek an “environmental extremist.” She said that while she was raising a family in South Dakota, he was studying in Europe, and later promoted economic theories that would harm the state and the nation.

Varilek is a Democrat who was born in Yankton and now lives in Sioux Falls. During his first run for office, he has continually called Noem a liar, and also has sought to label her a member of the tea party movement. He portrays himself as being in the mainstream of political thought and says Noem is on the far right extreme.

Mainly, the two candidates have battled over the stalled farm bill.

Noem, 40, said she is trying to get it passed, and hopes it is soon brought to a vote. She notes that she voted for it when it passed the House Agriculture Committee.

Varilek, 37, said as a junior member of the House GOP leadership, Noem should bear a chunk of the blame if it is not successfully moved through the House.

They also differ sharply on Medicare, with Noem saying she favors a reform plan to protect and preserve the program, while Varilek said he backs “traditional Medicare.” Both have said their opponent is on the wrong side of the issue.

Varilek and Noem each blame the other for distorting the record and twisting facts in the race.

“It’s indicative of the political games and what people will do for their own benefit and not for the greater benefit of South Dakota,” Noem said.

She said Varilek, a former staffer for Democratic Sens. Tom Daschle and Tim Johnson, knows Washington politics and the intricate ways of government and is trying to manufacture things to make it appear she is not doing her job properly.

Varilek, unsurprisingly, disagrees.

“We have some major differences, and I think it’s appropriate we highlight those differences,” he said.

Varilek said his charges are “based on facts” while Noem is making unsubstantiated allegations.

“I think I have a responsibility to correct them,” he said. “It’s not clear leadership, which leads to confusion.”

Experts, polls

Northern State University political science and philosophy professor Ken Blanchard said he has noticed the sharp tone of the campaign.

“It’s not quite clear how to interpret this,” Blanchard said. “It’s not too surprising on Varilek’s part. Obviously a challenger in a congressional race … the hardest thing is to let people know who you are. He’s got to break through, and one way to break through is to attack the incumbent. That’s not that unusual a strategy.”

But he said for Noem to respond, and in some ways cast the spotlight on Varilek, is unusual.

“Incumbents don’t like to debate the challenger,” Blanchard said. “They don’t want to do anything to focus the camera on that other person and make them seem a serious person. For Noem to spend time fighting back may suggest she finds this challenge more serious than it would usually be.”

South Dakota has been fertile ground for Republicans, especially in recent years. But since the state went to a single congressional district, Democrats have won 11 of 16 races for the seat and have held it for a combined 20 years, with Republicans being in the office for nine. It sat vacant for most of early 2004 after Rep. Bill Janklow resigned.

Blanchard said once South Dakota Democrats are in Congress, they usually stay for a while. The struggle for Varilek is to get there the first time.

Bob Burns, the retired head of the South Dakota State University Political Science Department, said the tone of the race is not a surprise.

“I had anticipated that it would be a pretty conflict-ridden campaign,” Burns said Friday. “I didn’t anticipate it would be a cream and peaches campaign.”

Nielson Brothers Polling, in Sioux Falls, released a poll in July stating Noem held a 1-point lead in the race. A fresh poll will be released soon, according to NBP President Paul Nielson.

Noem said she has not seen polls on the race, but said her campaign staff has kept an eye on them.

“They better,” she said with a laugh. “That’s their job.

“I think we’re in a good position,” she added.

Varilek said he is not aware of any new polling.

“However, the reaction of folks I met at the State Fair and lots of other campaign stops across the state tells me this is definitely a winnable race,” he said. “But whatever the polls say on any given day, I’m going to keep working as hard as I can to earn this victory and give South Dakotans the kind of leadership they deserve.”

Burns said if the NBP survey is correct, that may explain Noem’s campaign decisions to engage her challenger. Blanchard, meanwhile, doubts the early polling results.

“I’d be really surprised if this race is close,” Blanchard said. “I would be amazed. I would be surprised if Varilek is (as close as) 1 point behind. We’ll see.”

He said Varilek remains unknown to most South Dakotans, in his opinion. But Blanchard said a close race would cause Noem to battle hard to hold on to the seat, abandoning the usual tactics of an incumbent.

“If she thinks she is in trouble, she will fight,” he said.

Obama, tea party factors

While Varilek strives to link Noem to the tea party, she tries to connect him to Obama.

“I am in line with the president on a great many issues,” Varilek is quoted as saying on obamavarilek.com, one of two anti-Varilek websites set up by Republicans.

The Noem campaign and the South Dakota Republican Party have also linked him to the health care law known as Obamacare. The GOP has labeled it a massive tax increase that will harm businesses and cost jobs.

Varilek said he does plan to vote for Obama, but he wants to focus on the South Dakota House race.

“I don’t want to highlight the differences I have with him,” he said. “I want to highlight the differences I have with my opponent.”

At the State Fair, he quickly changed the subject when asked about how he agrees with Obama. It’s a touchy subject in a year when Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is expected to breeze past Obama in South Dakota, the electoral votes of which almost always go to Republican presidential candidates.

Noem was not an early or enthusiastic supporter of Romney. While Sen. John Thune, R-S.D., endorsed Romney in 2011, campaigned for him and spoke at the GOP convention, Noem did not back any of the Republican candidates and did not attend the convention. She said she supports Romney for president, even though they differ on issues such as the production tax credit for the wind industry, with Noem being a strong proponent.

Burns, a former Brookings County Democratic chairman and a 1980 Democratic legislative candidate, said Varilek is trying to paint Noem as an extremist.

“Certainly what Mr. Varilek is attempting to do is connect her with the tea party obstructionists in Congress,” he said.

Blanchard, who writes conservative-leaning columns for the Aberdeen American News and South Dakota Magazine’s website, said he’s not surprised Noem has played coy about her ties to the tea party movement.

“Politics is often a dance,” he said. “The tea party is a powerful force in South Dakota.”

It connects with some voters but turns off others, the NSU professor said.

Noem said she does not feel the campaign has taken an unduly harsh tone.

“Everything we release and talk about, we back up with facts,” she said. “I intend to stick to the facts.”

Varilek said he knew it would not be an easy race, but he also feels he and Noem can be “civil” with each other while engaging in a vigorous debate over the issues.

“I understand that politics is a tough business, but I also think we should not make claims that are not supported by facts,” he said. “So I am happy to rebut false claims when they are made.”

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/70090/

September 14, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–The Matt Varilek for South Dakota campaign today called out Rep. Kristi Noem for failing to use her role as freshman class liaison to drum up support for the farm bill discharge petition that Noem now supports.

“Congresswoman Noem has been back in Washington, DC for an entire work week and all we have seen from her is political posturing and a lack of real results,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “What is the point of Congresswoman Noem’s role as freshman liaison to the leadership if she cannot convince a single one of her fellow freshmen to sign on to the farm bill discharge petition? And if that wasn’t enough bad news, she’s starting to lose support from members who had previously signed on to force a vote on the farm bill.”

Not only is Noem not convincing additional freshmen to sign on, she’s failing to stop a loss of support. Besides Reps. Christopher Gibson of New York, Rick Berg of North Dakota, and Rick Crawford of Arkansas, three freshman representatives who have publicly supported the petition for weeks, just two freshmen out of a class of 93 signed on alongside Noem. Both those representatives, Scott Tipton of Colorado and Renee Ellmers of North Carolina, withdrew their signatures today.

BACKGROUND

Signature withdrawn. The following Member(s) withdrew his signature from the foregoing discharge petition: Scott R. Tipton (CO-03), Renee L. Ellmers (N.C.-02). [Clerk of the House, accessed 9/14/12]
 

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)—Today Rep. Kristi Noem announced that she had finally signed a discharge petition to bring the Farm Bill up for a vote in the U.S. House. The petition’s author, Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa had previously expressed dismay when members backed out of their initial support for the effort. Three representatives from both parties–but not Rep. Noem–joined Braley early on in supporting the petition.

It’s been 37 days since Matt Varilek first highlighted Noem’s initial flip-flop in which she withdrew her signature from a letter supporting the petition. The current Farm Bill expires on September 30.

“It’s a shame Congresswoman Noem wavered so much, and waited so long, before reacting to pressure on this issue — but even last-minute support is better than none at all.” said Varilek. “The big question now is whether Congresswoman Noem will live up to her promise at our Dakotafest debate to ‘lead the charge’ on making the petition successful, and getting a Farm Bill passed. I hope she’ll work to round up support from the Tea Party freshmen who selected her as their representative.”

September 13, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–Rep. Kristi Noem, having spent five weeks on recess explaining why the House of Representatives has held up a vote on the Farm Bill, said at yesterday’s “Farm Bill Now” rally that she is fed up with the sorts of excuses she herself has been making all summer.

“I’ve heard a lot of excuses as to why this Farm Bill isn’t done yet. And frankly I’m tired of excuses,” Rep. Noem said.

The most alarming excuse — that a discharge petition forcing a Farm Bill vote could not be formally filed until this week — did not stop Republican Representatives Rick Berg of North Dakota, Chris Gibson of New York, and Rick Crawford of Arkansas, or Democrats Bruce Braley of Iowa and Peter Welch of Vermont from publicly affirming their support for such a petition as early as August 3, 2012.

“She has had every opportunity this summer to push her colleagues to force a vote in the House on this farm bill,” said Matt Varilek. “Instead, Congresswoman Noem spent the summer and the entire August recess making excuses for not getting a farm bill passed. That’s the opposite of leadership, and South Dakota deserves better.”

Over the last few months, Noem has blamed the following things for inaction on the Farm Bill:

House Democrats: “But when we got it out of committee, virtually all of the Democrats have walked away from the Farm Bill now because of the cuts and the reforms in the nutrition programs. So that’s why we can’t pass it on the House Side.” [Philip, SD Town Hall, 9/5/12].

Urban Representatives: “It’s a bigger challenge to make sure we’ve educated the importance [to urban lawmakers] of ag policy and what it does to benefit every family.” [Argus Leader Political Smokeout, 8/29/12]

The Senate: “The House has taken action. We saw the drought…. The House has taken action. We’re waiting for the Senate.” [Dakotafest debate, 8/22/12] (Noem was referring to the stopgap disaster relief program passed by the House to extend certain Farm Bill provisions because they could not agree on a full Farm Bill.)

The President: “We need more leadership engagement, president engagement, all hands on deck to get this Farm Bill done and passed into place before it expires.” [Argus Leader Political Smokeout, 8/29/12]

The House leadership team (on which Noem serves): “The problem is the leadership team hasn’t brought that House bill to the floor for a vote because they don’t think it will pass. They don’t believe that we have enough votes of support in order to make it pass. And that’s really where our problem has been.” [Sioux Falls Town Hall, 8/29/12]

House procedural rules: “Because of procedures, it’s [a discharge petition] not going to be available until the middle of September.” [Sioux Falls Town Hall, 8/29/12]

BACKGROUND

Rally: Clock ticking on Farm Bill. [Mitchell Daily Republic, 9/13/12]

On the farm bill, disinterest from urban lawmakers. [Argus Leader Political Smokeout, 8/29/12]

Farm bill discharge petition runs into roadblocks. “The effort also suffered a blow when Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.), who was originally planning to gather signatures from the GOP side, decided against joining the effort. Noem is a rising star among the House freshmen and might have feared angering her leaders.” [The Hill, 8/3/12]

“I will tell you that the reason we don’t have the Farm Bill on the House floor today is because the vast majority of Democrats are walking away from the bill because of reforms to the food stamp portion of the bill, and they’re holding our ag producers hostage, wanting their demands met in that program.” [Dakotafest debate, 8/22/12]

“What we’ve got this year is that because of the reforms that were put into the nutrition title of the Bill, which is 80 percent of the Farm Bill, goes to food stamps, school lunches, nutrition programs like WIC, we put some reforms in there to make sure that the people who really need those dollars are going to get them, and close some of the loopholes that were being abused across the county. Because of those, we have a lot of people that are just choosing not to support a bill at all.” [Sioux Falls Town Hall, 8/29/12]

“The process of the discharge petition isn’t available until September 15th…. Nobody from either party can do anything on the discharge petition until it becomes available.” [Dakotafest debate, 8/22/12]

“I sent (the President) a letter as well, and asked him to work on his colleagues who aren’t currently supporting a Farm Bill, and asking them, asking him to use his authority and his relationships with them to try to get their support.” [Sioux Falls Town Hall, 8/29/12]

“We could get the leadership team to bring it down there, but they’re very concerned about what happens when you bring the Farm Bill to the floor and it fails, and what that says to the people who care a lot about agriculture.” [Philip Town Hall, 9/5/12]

“What the leadership has told me is that they are not convinced that they have the votes to pass it.” [Roll Call, 9/12/12]

September 12, 2012

Congressional candidate Matt Varilek released his second TV ad of the campaign today, titled “Herd.”

The ad continues to emphasize Varilek’s agricultural roots and his work as Economic Development Director for Senator Tim Johnson. It also underscores just how little Congress has gotten done in general and for South Dakota’s ag community in particular, tapping into the frustration expressed in Congress’s record low approval ratings this term.

“With time running out to pass a new Farm Bill and other important priorities before the next election, the timing of this new ad couldn’t be more relevant,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “Congresswoman Noem is part of the House Leadership team that has delivered little more than gridlock and inaction. That’s why South Dakotans are responding so well to Matt’s message as a new voice in Congress who will truly get to work on behalf of middle class families.”

The ad will run statewide starting today. The spot can also be viewed and shared online here.

Varilek continues his grassroots campaign this week with stops in N. Sioux City, Dakota Dunes and Sioux Falls.

The race between Matt Varilek and Rep. Kristi Noem is getting national attention from media outlets including the New York Times, Boston Globe, and Politico.

From the New York Times: The fate of the current farm bill, which expires at the end of the month, has preoccupied many voters in agricultural states and has haunted lawmakers at constituent meetings, debates, and local and state fairs. In South Dakota, the farm bill was the central topic at a recent debate between Representative Kristi Noem and her Democratic challenger, Matt Varilek

Read entire story:

Congress Comes Back to a Face-Off with Angry Farmers
(WASHINGTON) — When Congress returns to business this week, it will be met not by the Code Pink antiwar protesters or the Tea Party supporters who often gathered near the Capitol last year. Instead, farmers will be out in force, rallying for a bill that lawmakers failed to pass before they recessed five weeks ago.

A one-stop destination for the latest political news — from The Times and other top sources. Plus opinion, polls, campaign data and video.

That unfinished bit of business threatens to cut off aid to farmers across the nation. But lawmakers, fresh off their parties’ conventions, appear to favor action on other bills that emphasize their political agendas over actual lawmaking.

When the Senate reconvenes on Monday, it will move to begin debate on a jobs bill for veterans that is championed by President Obama. The Democratic leadership is also considering yet another vote on Representative Paul D. Ryan’s budget, for no other apparent reason than to embarrass Republicans facing tough re-election battles.

In the House, Republicans will vote on a bill that seeks to phase out the Energy Department’s loan guarantee program that financed Solyndra, the bankrupt maker of solar power equipment. They also want Senate Democrats to come up with a measure like one already passed by the House that would replace the large-scale budget cuts for the Pentagon that are scheduled to take effect with other trims on Dec. 31. The military cuts were set in motion by an agreement to raise the debt ceiling last summer, and they became automatic when a special select committee failed to come up with at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reduction over 10 years.

Stopping the military cuts “topped our July agenda and remains atop our agenda for September,” said Kevin Smith, a spokesman for Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio.

Among its first priorities this week, the House will seek to pass a short-term spending measure to keep the government open, ahead of an Oct. 1 deadline for enacting spending bills for the 2013 fiscal year.

While such temporary measures have convulsed the Capitol before, nearly leading to a government shutdown, leaders in both parties expect the process to be less rocky this month as Republicans try to keep Mitt Romney’s presidential campaign unblemished by Congressional disorder.

But much is left undone.

The fate of the current farm bill, which expires at the end of the month, has preoccupied many voters in agricultural states and has haunted lawmakers at constituent meetings, debates, and local and state fairs. In South Dakota, the farm bill was the central topic at a recent debate between Representative Kristi Noem and her Democratic challenger, Matt Varilek.

Over the summer, the Senate passed a bipartisan five-year farm bill that the House declined to take up. House leaders also refused to consider their own Agriculture Committee’s sweeping farm measure, instead pushing through a short-term $383 million package of loans and grants for livestock producers and a limited number of farmers. Senate leaders declined to take action on that measure because they said it was too limited, a view shared by many farmers.

Mr. Boehner lacks enough votes to pass a bill because Democrats dislike the $16 billion in cuts to nutrition programs, including food stamps, in the House committee’s bill. And many conservative Republicans would like to see more cuts over all in the measure.

According to local news reports in states like South Dakota and Iowa, members of Congress have told their constituents that they anticipate a one-year extension of the current bill. But House and Senate officials said last week that there was no clear path to passage and that negotiations over the summer were not fruitful.

On Wednesday, the National Farmers Union and the American Farm Bureau Federation will hold a rally near the Capitol to press for the approval of a bill. A devastating drought over the summer has inflated commodities prices and ruined many crops, particularly corn in the Midwest.

“The leadership in the House has a dual dilemma,” said Dale Moore, the deputy executive director of the American Farm Bureau Federation. The House Democrats feel the $16 billion in cuts “is too much, and a number of conservative members feel the cut is not steep enough.”

“I have heard a pretty steady drumbeat that members of Congress are hearing from farm families who are making it clear we need to get a farm bill done,” he said.

The farm bill is among other urgent pieces of unfinished legislation. Over the summer, a bipartisan cybersecurity bill that would have established standards for the computer systems that oversee the country’s critical infrastructure was stopped by a Republican filibuster.

The renewal of a usually uncontroversial measure to protect women from domestic violence seems hopelessly stalled, as does legislation to fix the postal system. Some of those issues, as well as tax measures, seem bound for the lame-duck pileup after the November election.

“This is our last window to get something done on jobs and middle-class tax relief before Washington switches to election mode full time,” said Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat and member of the Senate Finance Committee. “It’s a brief work period, but that doesn’t mean we can’t accomplish something.”

A rally urging Congress to pass a farm bill will be held in the nation’s capital today, and a South Dakota official is one of the primary speakers. Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., will join Senate Agriculture Committee Chairwoman Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., Sen. Jerry Moran, R-Kan., and House Agriculture Committee ranking member Rep. Collin Peterson, D-Minn., in speaking out on the stalled farm bill.

Noem will highlight the far-reaching impacts the bill has for the nation’s economy, food supply and national security.

Noem hopes the rally can help push the bill to a vote in the House, according to her spokeswoman, Andrea McCarthy.

“Rep. Noem has been a leader in the bipartisan effort to bring a farm bill to the floor, and tomorrow she will continue the rallying cry,” McCarthy said.

Noem wants to send a message that passing the bill isn’t just important to rural farmers and ranchers, it’s something that impacts all of America, McCarthy added. The rally is being organized by dozens of agriculturerelated organizations, including the two largest general farm groups in the nation, the American Farm Bureau Federation and the National Farmers Union. The South Dakota Farmers Union, which belongs to the NFU, has sent officials to Washington, D.C., to lobby for passage of the farm bill. They will attend today’s rally and have scheduled meetings with South Dakota’s congressional delegation. Noem refused to take part in a congressional debate this summer at the South Dakota State Fair that was sponsored by the South Dakota Farmers Union. She said it was biased in favor of Democrats. But Noem met with its representatives Tuesday in Washington, according to McCarthy. The farm bill has become a heated issue in her reelection campaign, with her Democratic challenger, Matt Varilek, saying Noem needs to work harder to get it passed.

Varilek said he is glad to see the rally is being held and the ag groups are working together.

“But it’s ironic that Congresswoman Noem will be giving a speech at the rally,” he said in an emailed statement to The Daily Republic. “I remember how she tried to downplay all her skipped Ag Committee meetings by saying ‘She didn’t go to Washington to talk’ — yet when it comes to the stalled farm bill, ‘talk’ is about all she’s doing.

“I support a more proactive and constructive path forward: I support the bipartisan effort to force a vote on the farm bill, or else bringing up the Senate version of the farm bill, which earned broad bipartisan support including votes from Senators Johnson and Thune.”

The bill passed the Senate 64-35 on June 21.

Another version passed in the House Agriculture Committee on July 12, with Noem among the members voting for it.

But it has not been scheduled for a vote in the full House, as Speaker John Boehner said he wants to only bring it to the floor when he knows there are enough votes for passage.

Noem is one of two freshmen liaisons to the GOP leadership.

Some members of both parties in the House oppose the current version of the bill in that chamber. Democrats feel the bill makes cuts in nutrition programs that are excessive, while Republicans feel the entire bill is too large.

The Congressional Budget Office reports that the bill will allocate the spending of about $969 billion over a decade.

Most of that, about 80 percent, is for nutrition and food programs, while the remainder covers crop insurance, farm support programs and other ag-related areas.

Johnson has no plans to attend, according to his spokesman, Perry Plumart, but he will monitor it

“The House should pass the Senate farm bill,” Plumart said in an emailed statement to The Daily Republic. “The Senate has done its work on the farm bill. The House needs to act.”

Thune, who is a member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, took the lead in helping to draft the farm bill, specifically by providing a framework for the Commodity Title that achieves the needed savings yet provides a safety net when needed, according to his spokeswoman, Rachel Knust.

“The senator works closely with S.D. agriculture groups and will continue to work with colleagues in both chambers and on both sides of the aisle to get a farm bill done,” Knust said in an emailed statement. “He applauds the efforts of Representative Noem and others for making an effort to raise public awareness of the need for Congress to pass a comprehensive farm bill.” Most 2008 farm bill programs expire Sept. 30, although some expired a year ago. If a new, five-year bill cannot be passed, an extension of the 2008 farm bill is possible, according to South Dakota’s congressional delegation. That would not extend the sections of the bill that expired in 2011. The rally is set to start at 10 a.m. Central time at the Union Square/Capitol Reflecting Pool. It will be broadcast live at www.FarmBillNow.com.

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/69923/group/homepage/

Matt: I suppose Congress is a little bit like this Herd-  a lot of noise, but not much forward progress.

I’m Matt Varilek, and I’m in this race to get things moving.  Whether it was on farms like this or working with Senator Tim Johnson on economic development, promoting growth and job creation, I’ve learned it takes hard work and sometimes a little prodding to get results for South Dakota.

I’ll show up every day to get results for you. I’m Matt Varilek, and I approve this message.

September 10, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD) Rep. Kristi Noem returns to Congress this week after a five-week recess, with just 13 working days left before the November election. Congressional challenger Matt Varilek challenged her today to demonstrate that she will keep promises she made at her rare public appearances in August.

“Now that Congress is back in session, Representative Noem needs to follow through on promises she made during the five-week recess,” said Varilek. “She said Washington is a mess. She said she’d help lead the charge on passing a five-year Farm Bill. She said she would focus on job creation. Let’s hope the final few weeks in session will be more productive than her prior time in office — South Dakotans will be watching to see if she keeps her promises. ”

Noem said at Dakotafest on August 22 that she would sign onto a discharge petition if progress had not been made on the Farm Bill. This marked a departure from her two previous positions on that issue. As of Monday, the House leadership including Rep. Noem has not announced any progress in bringing the Farm Bill to the floor. Yet Noem remains silent on how she plans to advance the bill. While Republican Representatives Rick Berg of North Dakota, Rick Crawford of Arkansas, and Christopher Gibson of New York, and Democrats Bruce Braley of Iowa and Peter Welch of Vermont have announced their support for the discharge petition, Noem has not yet signed on.

Noem has also said repeatedly that jobs and the economy are among her highest priorities.

However, her record does not reflect that concern. Noem has voted repeatedly against penalties for companies that outsource American jobs and has offered tax breaks to those same companies. She even voted against an amendment that would have required companies to disclose how many workers they employ offshore.

She also voted for the Ryan budget, which according to numerous independent analysts would slow job growth, not increase it. A former economist for Senator John McCain’s campaign said the Ryan plan would result in as many as 1.7 million fewer jobs than under the competing proposal.

BACKGROUND

Fed-up farmers will urge lawmakers to pass bill quickly. “According to news reports in South Dakota and Iowa, members of Congress have told constituents that they anticipate a one-year extension of the current bill. But officials said last week that there was no clear path to passage.” [The Boston Globe, 9/9/12]

Fiscal cliff: Congress weighs another round of kick the can. “Congress doesn’t have plans to do much legislating in the highly political pre-election season before November other than keeping the government running past Sept. 30.” [Politico, 9/9/12]

Noem: YES. According to an analysis by the Economic Policy Institute, the House Republican budget “aggressively slows job growth” that would result “in roughly 1.3 million jobs lost in 2013 and 2.8 million jobs lost in 2014, or 4.1 million jobs through 2014.*” The budget resolution was adopted, 228- 191. [H Con Res 112, Vote #151, 3/29/12]

Noem: NO. A motion to recommit H.R. 9 would have issued instructions to eliminate a 20 percent income tax cut for companies that send U.S. jobs overseas. The motion failed, 179-229. [H.R. 9, Vote #176, 4/19/12]

Noem: NO. An amendment to H.R. 9 would have required large U.S. companies to disclose how many of their jobs are based outside the U.S.The amendment was rejected, 175-239. [H.R. 3606, Vote #107, 3/08/12; H.R. 9, Vote #177, 4/19/12]

Blinder & Zandi, How the Great Recession Was Brought to an End (2010).

September 6, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–Congressional candidate Matt Varilek released his first radio ad of the campaign today, titled “Listening.”  The new ad counters a false radio spot from Congresswoman Kristi Noem attacking Varilek.

Varilek’s response ad reminds listeners why Noem is trying so hard to change the conversation away from her own record as a Washington incumbent. Noem would rather not discuss the House’s failure to pass a Farm Bill, the thousands of dollars in campaign contributions she received from oil corporations while voting to retain huge tax breaks for those same corporations, or her own failure to attend more than a tiny fraction of her committee meetings.

“This is what campaigns do when they know they’re in serious trouble: they go on the attack,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “Resorting to false claims is Congresswoman Noem’s attempt to distract voters from her leadership role with the stalled Farm Bill and her votes to turn Medicare into a voucher program. Matt’s ad aims to correct the record and return the focus to the real concerns and issues facing rural South Dakota.”

The ad will run on a variety of radio stations across South Dakota in the next week. The spot can also be heard and shared online here.

A transcript of the ad follows below.

I’m Matt Varilek, and in my campaign for Congress, I’ve been doing lot of listening. I’m hearing from farmers and ranchers fighting through this drought and wondering why the US House hasn’t produced a Farm Bill yet.

One thing I wish none of us had to listen to is the false attack ad Congresswoman Noem is now running against me. The ad is false, it’s wrong, and it’s a pretty sad way to launch her campaign for reelection.

Congresswoman Noem is resorting to these attacks because she doesn’t want to talk about the stalled Farm Bill, or the thousands of dollars in campaign contributions she’s taken from Big Oil companies like Halliburton and ExxonMobil. And she sure doesn’t want to talk about all the committee meetings she’s missed.

Well I will fight tax giveaways for Big Oil. I will work to cut spending and reduce the deficit in a balanced way. And I’ll show up every day to fight for South Dakota in Congress. I’m Matt Varilek, candidate for Congress, and I approve this message.

HURON – Hard-working, middle-class South Dakotans deserve a member of Congress who represents them instead of the country’s millionaires and billionaires, Democratic House challenger Matt Varilek said Saturday.

Compromise must also be a part of doing business on Capitol Hill, he said.

“I share your frustration with the lack of progress in Washington these days,” he said at a one-sided debate at the State Fair. He also decried the “my way or the highway” mentality among some in Congress.

An unwillingness to compromise is hitting particularly close to home with the farm bill, which passed the Senate and the House Agriculture Committee but is stalled in the full House.

Varilek has been hammering Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., for a lack of leadership in convincing her Republican colleagues to bring a bill to the House floor for a vote. In an interview earlier at the State Fair, Noem said she would lead a petition drive to force a vote if the bill is still not on the calendar when she returns from the August recess, but Varilek said that’s her third stand on the issue while he has had only one.

Noem declined an invitation by the South Dakota Farmers Union to appear at Saturday’s debate. As the event was beginning, the debate was renamed a congressional forum.

Varilek is a former staffer for Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., who says he’s in the race because he, like other South Dakotans, has worked hard all of his life and believes he can best represent them.

Farmers and ranchers are willingly giving up direct payments as their contribution to deficit reduction, he said. He also favors an end to counter cyclical payments.

But he said farmers need certainty going forward and must know what kind of a safety net the farm bill will provide them as they plan for next year’s crops.

The Senate bill passed with a healthy margin in that chamber and would be a good law for South Dakota, enjoying the support of Johnson and Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.

Unfortunately, the House has not brought its version up for a vote. With passage it could head to a conference committee for reconciliation with the Senate bill. That could lead to good legislation for all farmers, Varilek said.

“We see no results. We see a farm bill that has stalled,” he said.

He said Noem should have been more focused on her work in the House Agriculture Committee rather than skipping so many meetings and offering little input when she was there. South Dakota has a tradition of House members who have contributed considerably to agriculture committee work, he said.

In her defense, Noem has said she was busy with other matters or attending other committee meetings.

“We’ve got to do better and I will do better,” Varilek said.

An effort by big oil to weaken the renewable fuel standard for ethanol must be thwarted, he said.

“The root of this problem is the drought we’re in right now,” he said.

Still, even with extremely dry conditions there are predictions of the eighth largest harvest in history, he said.

Varilek said he would stand up to big oil and has not taken any campaign money from oil companies, while Noem has accepted $70,000.

To reduce the deficit, Varilek agrees that cuts must be made, but he said the revenue side of the picture must be included, too. Government should not give tax cuts to the wealthiest Americans or huge subsidies to big oil, he said.

A balanced approach is needed so cuts to agriculture research, for example, could be minimized, he said.

Farmers will bear their share of the burden, but must be assured of crop insurance, he said. If a farm bill is not passed soon, the target will be even bigger on the backs of farmers, he said.

“We shouldn’t take the next step and cut into the crop insurance program because we have to preserve that safety net,” Varilek said.

Food stamps should only go to those who truly need them. But there are some in Congress who view the nutrition program as welfare.

Meanwhile, Varilek said he supports the Keystone XL pipeline as long as there is a comprehensive review and all interests along the route are considered.

He also said he does not support an energy tax or a cap and trade system as Noem has charged.

Varilek said voters should elect House members who are willing to compromise if it’s in the interest of the people back home.

“We should not have to settle for the dysfunctional Congress that we have now,” he said. “We can do better.”

http://www.plainsman.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&story_id=17359&page=72

Matt: I’m Matt Varilek, and in my campaign for Congress, I’ve been doing lot of listening.  I’m hearing from farmers and ranchers fighting through this drought and wondering why the US House hasn’t produced a Farm Bill yet.

One thing I wish none of us had to listen to is the false attack ad Congresswoman Noem is now running against me.  The ad is false, it’s wrong, and it’s a pretty sad way to launch her campaign for reelection.

Congresswoman Noem is resorting to these attacks because she doesn’t want to talk about the stalled Farm Bill, or the thousands of dollars in campaign contributions she’s taken from Big Oil companies like Halliburton and ExxonMobil.  And she sure doesn’t want to talk about all the committee meetings she’s missed.

Well I will fight tax giveaways for Big Oil.  I will work to cut spending and reduce the deficit in a balanced way.  And I’ll show up every day to fight for South Dakota in Congress. I’m Matt Varilek, candidate for Congress, and I approve this message.

Help keep Matt on the airwaves by making a contribution!

September 4, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD) – Congressional candidate Matt Varilek released his first TV ad of the campaign today, titled “Horseshoes.” This new ad builds on Varilek’s momentum since winning the Democratic primary with a widely praised debate performance at Dakotafest and participation at the State Fair forum in Huron. Recent polling shows the House race to be a statistical dead heat.

The ad aims to introduce Varilek to viewers, focusing on his deep roots in South Dakota and his experience and record standing up for middle class families. A native of Yankton and Tabor who worked his way through high school and college with jobs on local farms, Matt served for seven years as the Economic Development Director for U.S. Senator Tim Johnson. In that capacity, he helped boost job creation by partnering with small businesses and community leaders across South Dakota. Working together with members of both major political parties, Matt aided successful efforts to expand industrial parks, build business incubators and scientific research facilities, and upgrade water and wastewater infrastructure, making an impact in every corner of the state.

The ad will run statewide starting today. The spot can also be viewed and shared online here.

“In contrast to the misleading distractions we’re seeing from Congresswoman Noem, Matt is beginning his campaign with an ad focused on his personal background and who he’ll fight for in Congress,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “Matt might not hit the mark with his horseshoe throwing, but his message focused on the middle class and growing economic development will be a winner in November.”

Varilek continues his grassroots campaign this weekend, with stops in Sioux Falls for the Sidewalk Arts Festival and Germanfest and addressing the East River Electric Annual Meeting (Rep. Noem declined an invitation to participate in the event’s candidate forum).

Narrator: Matt Varilek: A new choice for Congress with South Dakota roots and middle-class values.

Matt: I worked my way through high school and college washing dishes, flipping burgers, and picking rocks. I like to throw horseshoes. Badly. I worked for Senator Tim Johnson on economic development, helping businesses and promoting opportunity.

Help keep Matt on the airwaves by making a contribution!

September 4, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD) — Congresswoman Noem’s five-week August recess has focused on things that were lacking: her record of missed committee meetings, no action on the Farm Bill, few public meetings on the Farm Bill, and an empty chair at the State Fair Debate.

Hoping to change the subject, she went on the attack, releasing a radio and online ad campaign of false claims. The attacks falsely charge that congressional challenger Matt Varilek supports policy he actually opposes.

“In desperation, Congresswoman Noem has launched her re-election campaign with a false attack on Matt — hardly a vote of confidence in her own record,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “She’s making stuff up. But no amount of wishing will make her claims true. Matt spent years in the private sector as a market analyst at an energy commodities brokerage. He understands the power of markets, and the importance of protecting and expanding affordable supplies of energy.”

“What the attacks do show is how competitive this race has become,” said Benson. “Noem’s record of failure on the Farm Bill and her votes to turn Medicare into a voucher program will force seniors to pay $6,400 more for their health care in order to fund tax breaks for companies that outsource American jobs is the real threat to everyday South Dakotans. She’s decided to go on the attack and distort Matt’s record rather than answering legitimate criticisms about her own.”

August 31, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–On Saturday, September 1, congressional candidate Matt Varilek will take the stage at the State Fair in Huron. Congresswoman Kristi Noem will be visibly absent, having sparked criticism earlier this month when she declined her invitation to the State Fair debate, which all other statewide candidates will attend.

In anticipation of her missed appearance, the Varilek campaign is revisiting a series of falsehoods Congresswoman Noem offered at last week’s debate at Dakotafest in Mitchell.

Country of Origin Labeling, or COOL, would play an important role in increasing demand for American-made products by requiring that agricultural products be labeled with the name of the country where they were produced. Varilek has consistently supported COOL legislation.

“I have long agreed with those who say that consumers should be able to tell where their steak came from, just as they can read the tag on a T-shirt to know where it came from,” said Varilek.

The anti-COOL amendment to the House bill, authored by a longtime COOL foe, is designed to make it easier to fully repeal COOL requirements in the coming years.

BACKGROUND

GIPSA and COOL amendments adopted into House farm bill. “Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, offered the bill that members accepted with 34 votes in favor and 12 votes against. The language requires USDA to turn in a report on COOL compliance progress 90 days after the date of enactment….

“Although Neugebauer said the inclusion of a reporting deadline in the farm bill is reasonable and aims to provide some certainty, National Farmers Union (NFU) President of Government Relations Chandler Goule said the amendment is designed to make full repeal of COOL requirements easier down the road. ‘It’s a ploy to get language into the farm bill so the producer-packer organizations can dismantle the country of origin labeling law behind closed doors,’ Goule said, noting that the language could serve long-term goals to dismantle the COOL law within conference.” [Agri-Pulse, 7/12/12]

August 30, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–On Saturday, September 1, congressional candidate Matt Varilek will take the stage at the State Fair in Huron. Congresswoman Kristi Noem will be visibly absent, having sparked criticism earlier this month when she declined her invitation to the State Fair debate, which all other statewide candidates will attend.

In anticipation of her missed appearance, the Varilek campaign is revisiting a series of falsehoods Congresswoman Noem offered at last week’s debate at Dakotafest in Mitchell. These claims have either been repeatedly debunked by the media or are so outrageous that a five-second Google search exposes them.

Noem Lie: “The health care bill that Matt supports takes 700 billion dollars out of Medicare and… uses it to fund the new entitlement program in the healthcare bill.”

The cuts that Noem alludes to are part of the Affordable Care Act, which enacts savings in administrative expenses and reduces subsidies to private insurers paid by Medicare. The most brazen part of her attack on these savings is that she also voted in favor of them! Noem twice voted in favor of the Paul Ryan budget, which includes the same savings. Even worse, the Ryan Plan would also dismantle the Medicare program seniors know now. It would turn Medicare into a voucher program, costing seniors an average of $6400 in additional out-of-pocket medical expenses each year.

Just this morning, FactCheck.org again countered the lie, saying: “Medicare’s money isn’t being taken away. The Affordable Care Act calls for slowing the growth in spending, a move that — if successful — would keep the hospital insurance trust fund solvent for longer than if the reductions didn’t happen.” [FactCheck.org, 8/30/12]

Varilek is the only candidate in the race who supports preserving and strengthening traditional Medicare for seniors now and into the future. He has issued a position paper outlining some of the positive ways this could be achieved. He opposes cutting Medicare benefits, whereas Noem would cause huge new costs for Medicare beneficiaries.
BACKGROUND

Analysis: Experts see higher co-pays if Romney restored medicare savings. “The 2010 health care law cut Medicare reimbursements to hospitals and insurers, not benefits for older Americans, by that amount over the coming decade. But repealing the savings, policy analysts say, would hasten the insolvency of Medicare by eight years — to 2016, the final year of the next presidential term, from 2024…. Henry Aaron, an economist and a longtime health policy analyst at the Brookings Institution and the Institute of Medicine, called Romney’s vow to repeal the savings ‘both puzzling and bogus at the same time.’” [The New York Times, 8/21/12]

House Democrats support “gutting” Medicare by more than $700 billion to pay for a “big-government healthcare takeover,” Republicans claim. “Pants on Fire…. Republicans are once again attacking Congressional Democrats on Medicare spending cuts, using a line of attack that has been roundly discredited.” [PolitiFact, 8/19/12]

Soledad O’Brien fact checks $700+ billion Medicare cut claim. [CNN, 8/15/12]

Mitt Romney said Barack Obama robs Medicare of more than $700 billion to pay for Obamacare. “Mostly False…. Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget.” [PolitiFact, 8/15/12]

Medicare Scare Ad make False Claims of Cuts for Seniors. “Florida seniors will be living a ‘nightmare’ because Senator Bill Nelson voted for $500 billion in Medicare cuts, the anonymous voice warns in the most-aired advertisement in his re-election race — a message repeated in similar spots targeting other Democrats across the country. It’s also wrong, according to a Republican health-care expert and independent analysts.” [Bloomberg, 6/28/12]

Fact-Checking Romney: Does Health Reform Cut Medicare, Levy $500 Billion Tax? “In February 2011, the CBO estimated that Obama’s health-reform law would reduce the deficit by $210 billion over 10 years. Part of that reduction will come from slowing the rate of Medicare spending growth and imposing taxes.” [ABC News, 6/28/12]

Did President Barack Obama “steal” $500 billion from Medicare? “Mostly False…. The bill doesn’t take money out of the current Medicare budget but, rather, it attempts to slow the program’s future growth, curtailing just over $500 billion in anticipated spending increases over the next 10 years.” [PolitiFact, 9/12/11]

Fact Checking the GOP debate: $500 billion in cuts to Medicare? “The Medicare savings in the health care law are aimed at providers, not seniors; meanwhile seniors stand to benefit from aspects of the health care law that Republicans want to repeal…. Two Pinocchios.” [The Washington Post, 6/15/11]

August 28, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–On Saturday, September 1, congressional candidate Matt Varilek will take the stage at the State Fair in Huron. Congresswoman Kristi Noem will be visibly absent, having sparked criticism earlier this month when she declined her invitation to the State Fair debate, which all other statewide candidates will attend.

In anticipation of her missed appearance, the Varilek campaign is revisiting a series of falsehoods Congresswoman Noem offered at last week’s debate at Dakotafest in Mitchell. These claims have either been repeatedly debunked by the media or are so outrageous that a five-second Google search exposes them.

Noem Lie: Struggling to defend her record of massive campaign contributions from Big Oil, and votes to protect their tax breaks, Noem flat out lied to the Dakotafest audience by claiming Matt Varilek had accepted Big Oil money too.

Reality Check: The Varilek campaign has taken no donations from oil company PACs, and has repeatedly cited tax breaks for Big Oil as an example of something to eliminate for the sake of deficit reduction. Noem, on the other hand, has accepted at least $69,200 in contributions from oil company PACs such as ExxonMobil PAC, and Halliburton PAC, according to OpenSecrets.org. Her number one contributor is Moyle Petroleum, and the oil and gas industry as a whole is her 5th-largest donor by industry. She has also repeatedly voted to protect tax breaks for Big Oil, despite the fact that those tax breaks increase the deficit.

“Representative Noem’s claim about Matt isn’t just spin or exaggeration or distortion, it’s a flat-out lie — and the truth is easy to look up,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “She is in tight with Big Oil — the same companies trying to sink South Dakota’s ethanol industry; the same gigantic companies that profit wildly when high gas prices harm every car and truck owner in South Dakota. Representative Noem takes thousands of dollars from Big Oil, and vote to help those companies in Congress. Matt hasn’t taken a penny from Big Oil, and he never will.”

BACKGROUND

OpenSecrets.org [accessed 8/22/12]

August 29, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)– Buckling under pressure from the Argus Leader and the Varilek campaign, Congresswoman Kristi Noem announced Monday that she would hold her first-ever town hall meeting in Sioux Falls. Her campaign gave just two days’ notice for a meeting to be held today at 4:15 p.m., a time when most working South Dakotans will be unavailable.

The announcement of this last-minute forum comes after the Sioux Falls Argus Leader debunked Noem’s claim that she had been having town halls all month.

Last week at Dakotafest, Noem invented false claims about her accessibility to voters, saying “I’ve held over a dozen town halls, two of them just a couple of weeks ago…. We’ve been having town halls and have been all month.”

The Argus Leader investigated her claims and found no evidence whatsoever of any Noem town hall in the last month. Likewise, there is simply no evidence of her having held anything close to twelve town halls.

“Rep. Noem has been taking heat over refusing to debate at the State Fair, refusing to show up at Ag Committee meetings, and refusing to take questions from her constituents at town hall meetings,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “Under tough questioning from Matt at Dakotafest, Kristi tried to minimize the damage by simply making up some numbers about her record on town halls. The problem is the numbers are pure fiction — and Kristi should be ashamed for looking South Dakotans straight in the eye and lying to them.”

In the 2010 congressional race, Noem criticized her opponent for having too few town halls on the issues of the day. Last year, Noem even published an editorial in the Rapid City Journal describing town halls as essential.

“Noem may spin this single town hall as evidence of newfound accessibility to voters,” said Benson. “But let’s remember this event was thrown together haphazardly, only in reaction to mounting criticism of her secrecy. She seems very fearful about defending her dismal record in Congress. Given her leadership role in this dysfunctional Congress, and her confusion about how to advance the stalled Farm Bill even as our farmers and ranchers suffer through drought, I guess I can’t blame her for being fearful.”

BACKGROUND

House Race split over Matter of Appearances. “Noem’s most recent town hall meetings were in early July, when she held two in one day on a tour of northwestern South Dakota: one in Buffalo, the other in Bison.” [Argus Leader, 8/26/12]

Noem and Varilek Spar over Ag Issues. [Mitchell Daily Republic, 8/22/12]

NOEM: Town hall Meetings Part of Staying Connected. “As our state’s only member of the U.S. House, I take the title ‘representative’ very seriously. Hosting town hall meetings around the state is an important part of that job. I hope you can attend one soon.” [Rapid City Journal, 2/18/12]

 ###

In their first debate last week, Democratic House candidate Matt Varilek ripped Rep. Kristi Noem, his opponent, accusing her of ducking public appearances.

“My opponent has chosen not to do town halls on the farm bill in this (congressional) recess, even though we’ve got five weeks available for that local input,” Varilek said, referring to the House of Representatives’ break from Aug. 4 through Sept. 9.

Noem sharply dismissed Varilek’s attack, insisting she has met with the public regularly, including this month.

“I’ve held over a dozen town halls, two of them just a couple weeks ago,” Noem told Varilek. “The fact that he makes those claims doesn’t make them true.”

Schedules provided by both campaigns show the two candidates have kept up a steady stream of public appearances. Many of those events, however, aren’t scheduled town hall-type forums where voters are encouraged to question the candidates.

For example, Noem’s 16 scheduled public events during the House’s August break include two parades and five fairs. Varilek’s 20 scheduled public events over that same stretch include at least 12 appearances at fairs, festivals and powwows.

During that time, the two have met for one debate, last week at Dakotafest. Varilek also held a “Meet Matt” event in Winner, a town hall-style event where voters are encouraged to question him. Varilek also is speaking at the South Dakota State Fair and the East River Electric Power Cooperative’s annual meeting, both events to which Noem was invited for debates but declined.

Noem’s most recent town hall meetings were in early July, when she held two in one day on a tour of northwestern South Dakota: one in Buffalo, the other in Bison.

Her staff say she’s also planning to hold a town hall meeting in the Sioux Falls area in coming weeks but had no details about when or where that would be, or what format.

Varilek’s campaign said he had held about 20 town hall-style events, though that’s while Varilek has been a full-time candidate and Noem also has been serving in Congress.

Noem said voters have plenty of chances to question her.

“Every appearance I have is open and public and people ask questions,” she said. “We’re out there every day talking with people and small businesses and producers in South Dakota.”

Varilek said Noem owed voters more, especially after she criticized then-Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in 2010 for not holding enough town hall meetings.

“She went after Stephanie Herseth Sandlin for not having enough town halls on the issue of the day,” Varilek said at the debate. “Now we see that what’s good for the goose isn’t good for the gander.”

Noem said that wasn’t a fair comparison, because she said she has held more than a dozen town hall-style meetings since taking office.

“It’s one of those things that I take very seriously, and I am very active doing,” she said.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20120826/NEWS/308260039/House-race-split-over-matter-appearances

MITCHELL— Democratic House candidate Matt Varilek hammered Rep. Kristi Noem over the stalled progress of the farm bill at their first debate Wednesday.

But Noem swung right back, accusing Varilek of supporting expansive government and a cap-and-trade program.

The encounter, at the Dakotafest ag show in Mitchell, was the first of four debates the two have agreed to so far. Varilek, a relative unknown who has worked as an economic development specialist for Sen. Tim Johnson, tried to seize the opportunity to challenge Noem’s record on ag issues.

“The House leadership chooses not to bring (the farm bill for a vote), and our one member of Congress is a member of that leadership,” Varilek said, referring to Noem.

He repeatedly returned to the farm bill, accusing Noem of not supporting an effort to force a vote and of not being vocal at meetings of the House Agriculture Committee.

“We might not be in this situation if my opponent had been more focused on ag issues longer ago,” Varilek said.

Noem defended her record, arguing she was working hard to pass a farm bill and it was the fault of Congressional Democrats the bill hasn’t yet passed. She accused Varilek of lying and making up facts.

“There was so much spin in that story that Matt almost fell out of his chair,” Noem said after Varilek criticized her position on forcing a vote on the farm bill. While Noem chose not to lead that effort, she said Wednesday she plans to support it if there’s still no progress when Congress reconvenes in September.

Varilek, too, accused Noem of untruths. When she attacked him for allegedly supporting a cap-and-trade system to control carbon emissions, Varilek said Noem’s accusations were “just false, folks.”

After the debate, Varilek said he does not support cap-and-trade or an energy tax, and never had.

The exchange over cap-and-trade was part of a broader effort by Noem to paint a picture of Varilek as a champion of big government.

“My opponent wants to give the government more control over your farm… (and) businesses,” Noem said. “He wants to tax you more. He wants to spend more. He wants more EPA and he wants more of a government-controlled society.”

Varilek responded by saying he was a champion of the middle class, not bigger government.

The two candidates did agree on several issues, although both followed that by pivoting to differences. Both said they supported country-of-origin-labeling and like the U.S. Senate’s version of the farm bill’s commodity program, which is friendlier to northern crops like corn and wheat than the House version. Both also opposed proposals to grant a waiver from a requirement to blend ethanol into gasoline and to scrap the federal Conservation Reserve Program.

But the two clashed over a range of issues:

■ Estate tax: Noem called to end the estate tax, saying she didn’t believe “death should be a taxable event,” especially since that money already had been taxed as income. Varilek said an estate tax should be applied to the truly wealthy – citing people like Bill Gates and Paris Hilton – but called for small businessmen and family farms to be exempt from such a tax.

■ Medicare: Varilek criticized a Medicare plan, authored by Republican vice presidential candidate Rep. Paul Ryan, as privatizing Medicare at the expense of future senior citizens. Noem defended that plan for offering seniors a choice about their health care plan, and said it was a way to save Medicare from going bankrupt.

■ Food stamps: Noem supports changes to the federal food stamp program, in the House version of the farm bill, that would save billions of dollars. She said the reforms would ensure only people who need the food aid would get it. Varilek said those changes went too far and would hurt families who rely on those programs.

Both candidates brought plenty of supporters to the debate, leading to regular cheers and jeers from a lively crowd. Debate moderator Jerry Oster of WNAX Radio in Yankton asked the crowd to let the candidates talk on several occasions.

The debate was sponsored in part by the South Dakota Corn Growers and South Dakota State University.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20120823/NEWS/308230041?nclick_check=1

MITCHELL, S.D. — Republican U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem and Democratic challenger Matt Varilek repeatedly stressed the need for Congress to pass a new farm bill Wednesday but disagreed on who’s to blame for it failing to reach the House floor.

Several hundred people gathered inside a packed tent and spilled out onto the outskirts at the Dakotafest farm show in Mitchell to hear the candidates spar mostly on agriculture issues during their first debate.

In July, the House Agriculture Committee, of which Noem is a member, approved a new five-year farm bill that would eliminate much-criticized direct payments, under which farmers are paid even when they don’t plant a crop, to be replaced with new price and revenue support programs. The Senate passed companion legislation in June. But the bill has yet to make it to the House floor, and Congress is currently on a five-week recess.

Varilek said House members need to move away from the “my way or the highway” attitude that causes such gridlock and work together. He said Noem should be doing more to pressure leadership to bring the bill to the floor.

“Not only have they not passed a farm bill, they haven’t even voted on a farm bill,” Varilek said of the chamber to which he’s seeking office.

Noem said she’s been working hard to gather votes and work with House leaders.

Varilek said he prefers the Senate version of the farm bill, which has safety net provisions for commodity growers that are more favorable to corn and bean growers. He said the House version is tilted toward peanut and rice producers.

Noem said she likes the commodity title in the Senate version better than her chamber’s product, but she dislikes how the Senate bill ties crop insurance to conservation compliance.

“We don’t want to start down that path,” she said. “That’s the only safety net that our farmers have to depend on when they’re in volatile situations like the drought that we have.”

Noem added that improvements can be made when the two chambers work on a compromise in conference.

The candidates voiced their support of conservation programs, country-of-origin legislation and the renewable fuel standard, but got into a squabble when Varilek questioned oil companies’ donations to her campaign.

“I’m willing to stand up to big oil companies who are the opponents funding the effort to weaken the RFS,” Varilek said.

Noem said she’s been a longtime supporter of ethanol, and opponents of renewable fuel standards are running a radio ad attacking her for supporting renewable fuels.

“If I’m friends with Big Oil, somebody forgot to tell them,” she said.

On farm subsidy caps, Varilek said there should be a cap on farm payments to cover only family-scale farmers and ranchers, not larger operations that can afford to manage risk.

“We face a deficit, and we can’t afford to subsidize everyone equally,” he said.

Noem said she supports the caps that are in place, but a bigger threat to family farms is the estate tax, which she calls a “death tax.”

She said if the tax is allowed to go back to a $1,000,000 exemption before being taxed at 55 percent, it will greatly affect farmers.

“It’s devastating,” she said. “It’s going to keep people from passing their family farms onto their kids.”

Varilek said he supports raising it to a level in which it wouldn’t affect family farmers and ranchers in South Dakota.

MITCHELL, SD -The stalled Farm Bill took center stage as South Dakota Congresswoman Kristi Noem and Democratic challenger Matt Varilek squared off in their first debate Wednesday at Dakotafest in Mitchell.

For the first few months of the campaign Kristi Noem has been defending her record when it comes to standing up for agriculture in Washington D.C. and Matt Varilek has been attacking the incumbent.

The debate on Wednesday was very similar; the only difference is the candidates did it face to face and in front of hundreds of voters and farmers.

Varilek accused Noem of not doing enough to push the bill forward before Congress took a five week recess.

“She can’t convince John Boehner to bring the bill for a vote. She hasn’t been able to convince many of the fellow Tea partiers to support this Farm Bill, many of whom view it as welfare for farmers because they don’t understand South Dakota agriculture,” Varilek said.

Noem says she voted against adjournment and it’s the Democrats in the House that have been stopping a vote on the bill that is set to expire at the end of September.

“The reason we don’t have a Farm Bill on the House floor today is because the vast majority of Democrats are walking away from the bill because of reroms to the food stamp portion of the bill and they are holding our ag producers hostage,” Noem said.

But at one point during the debate Varilek accused Noem of succumbing to House Republican leadership in preventing a vote on the legislation.

“I would like to ask very directly on behalf of the people who ask me; is it true that you changed your position because of pressure from political leadership?” Varilek asked.

“Absolutely not, it’s absolutely not,” Noem responded.

Varilek says if he were in Congress, he would be pushing for passage as soon as possible.

“I want you to know where I stand. I support forcing a vote on the Farm Bill. I think we need to get this resolved and end the uncertainty you’re facing,” Varilek said.

And Noem said she’ll do just that when Congress reconvenes in September.

“If we do not have a Farm Bill scheduled for a vote when we get back to Washington I’m going to be carrying the charge on a discharge petition (to force a vote). It’s that important for South Dakota farmers,” Noem said.

The Dakotafest debate was the first of four scheduled debates Noem and Varilek will take part in, including a debate that will be broadcast live November 2 on KELO-TV.

http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/farm-bill-center-stage-in-us-house-debate/?id=136210

The stalled farm bill was the major issue under discussion during the first debate between Rep. Kristi Noem and her challenger, Matt Varilek, Wednesday at Dakotafest.

Noem, a freshman Republican, and Varilek, a Democrat in his first run for office, sparred over the farm bill, which has passed in the Senate but has yet to come to a vote in the full House. Varilek sought to cast blame on Noem for that, while she said she is working behind the scenes to bring it to the floor.

“Folks, I’ll tell you, Washington, D.C., is a wreck,” Noem said. “It is a wreck.”

She said she has worked to cut spending and repeal “Obamacare” while trying to make government more responsive to its citizens.

“This Obama administration has been hostile toward agriculture,” Noem said. Its policies and practices have shown that, she said.

“I share your frustration with the my-way-or-the-highway approach in Washington these days,” Varilek said to the audience.

He said he would work for “progress” in Congress and getting a farm bill done would be a major part of that.

“The farm bill is always important for South Dakota because we are a farm state,” Varilek said. “It’s even more important because we have a drought.”

The candidates also fielded audience questions on Country Of Origin Labeling (COOL), the estate tax, ethanol and biofuels and other ag issues.

At the end, they clashed over Medicare, with Varilek claiming Noem was working to end it or force people to pay more, while Noem said she wants to preserve a program that faces severe fiscal challenges.

The two candidates for South Dakota’s lone U.S. House seat held the first debate of their campaign at Dakotafest at a farm on the southeast edge of Mitchell. The debate drew hundreds of people who packed the South Dakota State University tent on a hot late-summer afternoon. Veteran WNAX radio newsman Jerry Oster was the moderator.

Former Sen. George McGovern was introduced by Oster and he drew applause, including from both candidates. Varilek supporters made it a standing ovation from their side of the tent.

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/69180/

Argus Leader Media
By David Montgomery
August 22, 2012

Ag policy will take center stage today when Rep. Kristi Noem and her Democratic opponent Matt Varilek meet for their first debate.

Noem, first elected to the U.S. House of Representatives two years ago, is trying to make the case that her work in Washington deserves a second term. Varilek, a former staffer to Sen. Tim Johnson, plans to challenge Noem’s performance on agricultural issues at the debate at Dakotafest, an ag-centered event in Mitchell.

The face-to-face meeting will give Varilek a chance to introduce himself to voters who might not yet have tuned into the House race. Varilek’s goal at the debate will be to make news, predicted political science professor Jon Schaff of Northern State University.

“He’s the challenger, he needs to give people some reason to pay attention to him,” Schaff said. “Here’s a good excuse to get people to know who you are.”

Noem has raised far more money than Varilek, which could let her spend money contacting voters through direct mail and advertisements. On Tuesday, her campaign announced it was buying radio time across the eastern part of the state to air a 60-second commercial touting her ag accomplishments.

A debate such as today’s lets an underdog such as Varilek attract media coverage without having to buy ads.

Looming over the clash are the drought and the unfinished status of the federal farm bill, which is stuck in the House of Representatives. Noem said she’s trying to round up votes to pass the bill, while Varilek said the continued stalemate proves Noem has failed.

Varilek is eager to keep the focus on Noem and the farm bill.

“This is going to be about Congresswoman Noem defending her record on the farm bill and explaining what she’s done to strengthen South Dakota’s interests as it relates to the farm bill,” said David Benson, Varilek’s campaign manager. “Right now, it’s been a complete failure on her end.”

Noem, in turn, plans on touting her own background in agriculture and defending her record.

“I think you’ll see Kristi make the point that she has been working hard on behalf of South Dakota when it comes to agriculture,” said Tom Erickson, Noem’s campaign manager. “It’s the point she’s been making since the beginning of the farm bill discussion, and she’ll continue to make that point.”

The Dakotafest debate is the first of four debates the two candidates have agreed to. They’ve also accepted televised debates on KELO-TV and South Dakota Public Broadcasting, and a yet-to-be-scheduled Rapid City debate sponsored by the Rapid City Journal.

Varilek challenged Noem to 12 debates across the state. The Noem campaign said they would consider each request, and has so far turned down at least two forums: one at the annual meeting of the East River Electric Power Cooperative, and another at the South Dakota State Fair.

Erickson said Noem’s goal is simply to “get her points across” to voters. Varilek, on the other hand, has a tougher challenge.

“It’s not just the debate, but when people talk about the debate, which means you need to give people something to talk about,” Schaff said about Varilek. “He’ll probably be looking to make something of a splash.”

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20120822/NEWS/308220040/Noem-vs-Varilek-debate-begins?odyssey=nav|head

We are no longer surprised when politicians bow out of scheduled debates or, as is sometimes the case, simply decide not to debate at all.

Nowadays, it’s par for the political course, and about the only thing we are surprised at is how the opposition seems to get so upset by such decisions.

For those who haven’t heard, U.S. Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., last week decided she will not participate in a State Fair debate against her Democratic challenger, Matt Varilek.

Noem said she didn’t want to debate at an event sponsored by the South Dakota Farmers Union, which she said is a partisan organization that leans toward the Democratic Party.

That was Thursday. On Friday, The Daily Republic, which has sponsored many such events in the past, tried to step in as sponsor at some other time during the fair, but to no avail. The State Fair said it couldn’t find the time or space to make a newly scheduled debate happen.

Varilek is upset that Noem backed out. Democrats in general are, too.

But we remember in the not-too-distant past when then-incumbent Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, D-S.D., was accused of ducking a Republican challenger or two. Back then, members of the GOP were upset, while Democrats were mum on the subject. In fact, The Daily Republic was aggressively chastised by a Herseth Sandlin aide after we asked the congresswoman why she only planned three debates against that year’s foe, Bruce Whalen. Whalen, remember, had issued a challenge to debate Herseth Sandlin “anytime, anywhere.”

We harbor no ill feelings toward Herseth Sandlin over the issue, but only bring it up to illustrate that both parties tend to do these things, and also to illustrate that someone on the other side always seems so offended and surprised.

The truth is that in the two elections before she squared off against Noem, Herseth Sandlin was a huge favorite to retain her seat in Congress.

While holding such a large lead in the polls, why would she publicly debate? Although we wish all politicians would agree to numerous debates prior to elections, we at least partially understand the strategies and tactics that are commonly used to minimize an unknown opponent’s chances.

Although Varilek could be a contender in 2012, we wonder if Noem feels she holds a big lead on Varilek. Although they are scheduled for several debates, the favored candidate naturally would try to pare down the number of opportunities for the underdog.

It’s just politics.

Don’t be so surprised.

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/69123/

August 27, 2012

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–On Saturday, September 1, congressional candidate Matt Varilek will take the stage at the State Fair in Huron. Congresswoman Kristi Noem will be visibly absent, having sparked criticism earlier this month when she declined her invitation to the State Fair debate, which all other statewide candidates will attend.

In anticipation of her missed appearance, the Varilek campaign is revisiting a series of falsehoods Congresswoman Noem offered at last week’s debate at Dakotafest in Mitchell. These claims have either been repeatedly debunked by the media or are so outrageous that a five-second Google search exposes them.

“In the debate, Matt highlighted the multiple positions Kristi has taken on this issue,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “She replied with a pre-packaged talking point to say Matt is spinning her record. But the record is clear for anyone to read: Kristi was for the discharge petition, then against it, and now for it again — sort of. Voters at the State Fair unfortunately won’t get the chance to hear her defend her current position, whatever that happens to be at that time.”

In contrast, Varilek has had only one position: he supports forcing a vote on the farm bill as soon as possible. “Now is the time to be aggressive,” he said in the debate, referencing the ongoing drought and looming expiration of the current Farm Bill on September 30.

Noem’s vacillation goes to the heart of Varilek’s criticism of the farm bill situation: South Dakota’s farmers and ranchers have been left with uncertainty about what sort of safety net will be in place when the current bill expires. If Congresswoman Noem wants to take credit for her position on the House leadership team, she also needs to accept responsibility when that same leadership team fails South Dakota.

BACKGROUND

Kristi Noem defends work for farm bill. “Noem considered leading the effort to promote the discharge petition, but decided it might be counterproductive.” [Argus Leader, 8/7/12]

Static discharge. “She ultimately decided not to [support the discharge petition].” [Political Smokeout, 8/7/12]

Farm bill discharge petition runs into roadblocks. “The effort also suffered a blow when Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.), who was originally planning to gather signatures from the GOP side, decided against joining the effort. Noem… might have feared angering her leaders.” [The Hill, 8/3/12]

(Mitchell, SD) Today Congresswoman Kristi Noem was unable to explain her inability to pass a Farm Bill and aggressively advocate on behalf of rural South Dakotans. Once faced with questions about the Farm Bill and her work on the Ag Committee, Congresswoman Noem misled and made bogus claims on a number of issues raised during the debate.

“It was clear that once Congresswoman Noem was unable to justify her record, she resorted to distortions and unfounded claims against Matt,” said Varilek campaign manager David Benson. “From her claim to support Country of Origin Labeling to her flip flop on forcing a vote on the Farm Bill, she was unable to stick to the facts. In addition, Noem’s support for privatizing medicare was exposed along with her lack of attendance on the Agriculture Committee.”

Congresswoman Noem made a number of claims that either she was unable to substantiate or support when pressed by Matt. Noem attempted to put “lipstick on a pig” on the following topics:

Setting the record straight: Big Oil. Struggling to defend her record of votes in favor of tax breaks for Big Oil, Noem made the false claim that challenger Matt Varilek has accepted money from oil corporations, just as Noem has.

This is simply untrue. The Varilek campaign has not received a dime from oil corporations. Noem, on the other hand, has accepted at least $69,200 in contributions from oil companies such as ExxonMobil, according to OpenSecrets.org. Her number one contributor is Moyle Petroleum, and the oil and gas industry as a whole is her 5th-largest donor by industry.

Setting the record straight: the Farm Bill. Noem continued to be unclear and lay out false claims in her attempt to mislead and distract from her record on the Farm Bill, saying that she never opposed a discharge petition.

In reality, Noem opposed an effort to bring the Farm Bill to the floor for a vote. She had signed a letter urging her colleagues to support a “discharge petition,” which could force the House to vote on the Farm Bill despite objections from the House leadership. But her name is conspicuously absent from the final version of the letter, and her spokesperson said Noem opposed the discharge petition. On August 3, The Hill newspaper reported on this about-face, noting that Noem “might have feared angering her leaders.” According to the Argus Leader, “Noem considered leading the effort to promote the discharge petition, but decided it might be counterproductive.”

During the debate, Noem flip-flopped again on the discharge petition, saying she would sign on. As Varilek noted, this marked a change from her stance as of this morning.

Setting the record straight: COOL. Noem resorted to outright falsehoods about her record concerning Country of Origin Labeling. COOL legislation would allow consumers to tell where their steak comes from, just as they can read the tag on a t-shirt to know where it comes from, and both candidates agreed during the debate that COOL would be a win-win for South Dakotans. But Noem’s own record contradicts her words at the debate. Noem voted against a provision to introduce COOL on December 7, 2011.

Setting the record straight: Town halls. Noem failed to explain her record of inaccessibility, claiming baselessly that she did in fact hold town hall meetings in August. “We held over a dozen town halls, two of them just a couple of weeks ago,” said Noem. “We’ve been having town halls and having them all along.”

Noem’s assertion flies in the face of the fact that Noem’s campaign has not publicized any public meetings at all during the August recess. Her official and campaign web sites list no upcoming town hall forums or listening sessions at all. In fact, though event postings have recently been added, as of Sunday her last public event was listed as March 2, 2012.

In post-debate discussions, Noem campaign manager Tom Erickson could not list one town hall meeting to back up Noem’s claims. Erickson was pressed several times by Argus Leader editor Patrick Lalley on when Noem would hold a town hall in the Sioux Falls area. Erickson could not give an answer. “I will let you call her Congressional office and ask that,” he finally said.

Setting the record straight: $700 billion cuts to Medicare. Noem made a claim that has been debunked over and over again in national media when she asserted that Varilek supports a plan that would cut $700 billion from Medicare. The claim has been shot down repeatedly by Politifact and other fact-checkers, because it is demonstrably false.

The fact is that Congresswoman Noem has twice voted for budgets that would turn Medicare into a voucher program, costing seniors an average of $6400 in additional out-of-pocket medical expenses each year. In order to confuse the issue, she accused Varilek of supporting cuts to Medicare.

Varilek is the only candidate in the race that supports preserving and strengthening traditional Medicare for seniors now and into the future.

Access to Medicare benefits is essential for the vast majority of South Dakota seniors, who otherwise couldn’t afford health insurance. Varilek supports strengthening Medicare; Congresswoman Noem has twice voted for budgets that end Medicare.

The cuts that Noem alludes to are part of the Affordable Care Act, which makes savings in administrative expenses and reduces subsidies to private insurers paid by Medicare. Noem supported the reduction in cost when she voted for the GOP-backed Ryan budget, which includes the same savings. But unlike Noem’s plan, the Affordable Care Act does not decrease benefits to future seniors. Varilek is strongly opposed to any plan that would do so.

Setting the record straight: Committee absences. Noem accused Varilek of dishonesty when he pointed out her string of absences from House Agriculture Committee meetings throughout her term. There is simply no dispute that Congresswoman Noem has largely been absent from Ag Committee meetings.

Though lack of transparency in the House makes it difficult to determine attendance with certainty, original research reported in the Argus Leader found that she attended 4 out of 20 committee meetings. Her campaign asserted that she in fact attended 7 out of 20, hardly a good record. In addition, there is no dispute that prior to being called out for her truancy, she spoke on only one occasion in the Ag Committee (to introduce the CEO of Minnesota company).

By any reasonable standard, it is clear that Congresswoman Noem has done a poor job of representing the people of South Dakota while the Ag Committee worked on a new Farm Bill.

BACKGROUND

Medicare: Mitt Romney said Barack Obama robs Medicare of more than $700 billion to pay for Obamacare: Mostly False. “Neither Obama nor his health care law literally cut a dollar amount from the Medicare program’s budget. Rather, the health care law instituted a number of changes to try to bring down future health care costs in the program. At the time the law was passed, those reductions amounted to $500 billion over the next 10 years.” [Politifact, 8/12/12]

Big Oil: [OpenSecrets.org, accessed 8/22/12]

Farm Bill: Kristi Noem defends work for farm bill. “Noem considered leading the effort to promote the discharge petition, but decided it might be counterproductive.” [Argus Leader, 8/7/12]

Static discharge. “She ultimately decided not to [support the discharge petition].” [Political Smokeout, 8/7/12]

Farm bill discharge petition runs into roadblocks. “The effort also suffered a blow when Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.), who was originally planning to gather signatures from the GOP side, decided against joining the effort. Noem… might have feared angering her leaders.” [The Hill, 8/3/12]

There apparently will not be a debate at the South Dakota State Fair between Rep. Kristi Noem and Matt Varilek, no matter who sponsors it.

Noem, a freshman Republican, said this week she would not debate Varilek, her Democratic challenger, at the State Fair because she felt the South Dakota Farmers Union, which was to sponsor the event, was a partisan organization that favored Democrats.

On Friday, The Daily Republic offered to instead sponsor the debate. Varilek agreed to attend, while Noem’s campaign manager said they were mulling the offer. But South Dakota State Fair Manager Jerome Hertel said it was too late to schedule a new debate.

“I’d love to be able to have them both here,” Hertel said. “If it had just been sooner, we would have been able to accommodate it now.”

But he said there is no place available during the fair’s Aug. 30 to Sept. 3 run large enough to handle the crowd expected at such a debate.

David Benson, Varilek’s campaign manager, said the Democrat would have taken part in a State Fair debate organized by The Daily Republic.

“Sure,” Benson said. “The Farmers Union is planning to still hold their event and Matt will be there. We’ve made it very clear that we’re open and we want to do a lot of these events.”

Noem’s campaign manager, Tom Erickson, said she was willing to take part in the State Fair debate if the time met her schedule and they were able to review the format, moderator and how the questions would be presented.

But the lack of available space as the fair nears ended the effort hours after it was launched. It didn’t stop the war of words between the two camps.

Benson said Noem has declined to attend candidate forums sponsored by the South Dakota Stockgrowers Association on Sept. 21 in Rapid City and East River Electric during its annual meeting in Sioux Falls Sept. 6.

Erickson said Noem will be in Washington, D.C., on Sept. 21, since Congress will be in session that day, and had a scheduling conflict that didn’t allow her to attend the East River Electric forum.

But he said they are open to taking part in more debates. In 2010, she and then-Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth Sandlin engaged in seven debates.

“We’re still considering debates,” he said. “We’ll consider invitations from fair, non-partisan organizations.”

Erickson said the Farmers Union didn’t meet that qualification in Noem’s view.

“They have a history of Democratic connections,” Erickson said. “Doug Sombke (the association’s president) has given $750 to our opponent.”

Two Farmers Union staffers have direct ties to the South Dakota Democratic Party. Mitch Fargen, a Democratic state legislator from Flandreau who was defeated in a primary bid for a seat from Sioux Falls, works for the Farmers Union, and Chris Studer, of Huron, is running for a seat in the state Senate as a Democrat.

From 2003-2004, Herseth Sandlin was the executive director of the South Dakota Farmers Union Foundation.

On the other side, Benson said Noem has shown “a pattern” of avoiding public forums and of ducking discussions on agriculture issues.

“Her record caught up with herself,” Benson said.

“I think this brings to light a lot of other issues, whether you go back to her record on the Ag Committee of not showing up, her lack of advocacy for rural South Dakota on the farm bill,” he said. “I think we’re seeing a pattern here and it’s a pattern that I don’t think South Dakotans are going to like.”

The Daily Republic has a track record of holding political forums.

The newspaper sponsored a debate between Noem and Herseth Sandlin at the Corn Palace in 2010. Publisher Korrie Wenzel was the moderator and he would have served in the same role at the State Fair debate between Noem and Varilek.

In 2006, the Daily Republic sponsored a State Fair debate between gubernatorial candidates Mike Rounds, a Republican who was running for a second term, and Democrat Jack Billion. Wenzel, who was then the editor, was the moderator.

He said Friday the newspaper was offering to host the State Fair debate to ensure the two candidates for South Dakota’s lone House seat get an opportunity to share a stage at the fair in Huron.

The debate that Noem declined to join had been scheduled for 1 p.m. Sept. 1. The Farmers Union has said it will go on, with Varilek taking the stage.

If Noem changes her mind, she is welcome to take part, according to the organization, but Erickson said she will not do so.

He said she will attend the State Fair, however.

“I believe so,” he said. “I’m pretty sure she will be.”

The first debate in the race is set for 2 p.m. Wednesday at Dakotafest in Mitchell.

http://www.plainsman.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&story_id=17196&page=72

HURON — Rep. Kristi Noem has declined an invitation to participate in a debate with her Democratic challenger Matt Varilek which was scheduled for Sept. 1, during the South Dakota State Fair in Huron. The scheduled debate was organized and sponsored by South Dakota Farmers Union, a family farm organization based in Huron. Matt Varilek last month confirmed his attendance at the State Fair debate.

“I’m disappointed to learn that the congresswoman won’t be attending the debate,” said South Dakota Farmers Union President Doug Sombke. “Farmers Union members and the public are anxious to see the two candidates side-by-side. We plan to move forward with a program at the State Fair featuring Mr. Varilek on the Freedom Stage at 1 p.m. We will still have an open invitation to Rep. Noem if she reconsiders. Voters will still have a chance to hear Varilek’s views on the agriculture issues facing our state and our country.”

Farmers Union invited Rep. Noem on May 22, before her challenger was known, to participate in the State Fair debate this September. In an email received this week Noem’s campaign manager Tom Erickson wrote, “Thank you for the invitation to the Farmers Union debate at the State Fair, but unfortunately Rep. Noem will not be able to attend. Tom.”

“Family farmers and ranchers are anxiously awaiting passage of the 2012 farm bill which has been held up by House Republican leadership after the U.S. Senate passed the farm bill with bipartisan support,” said Sombke. “This is the worst drought in 50 years, and we need to be able to have an open discussion and an opportunity for family farmers to ask their leaders questions about what’s being done to help producers during this tough time. And we need answers on why a farm bill hasn’t been passed.”

The debate was scheduled during Farmers Union Day at the State Fair, which is traditionally held the Saturday of the fair. Farmers Union has hosted several debates in the past. The latest State Fair debate featured then-gubernatorial candidates Republican Dennis Daugaard and Democrat Scott Heidepriem in 2010. It had the largest attendance of any gubernatorial debate in the state that year.

Farmers Union is set to host another debate Sept. 1 featuring candidates for the Public Utilities Commission on the Dakotaland Stage at the State Fairgrounds. That debate begins at 3:15 p.m. All five candidates for the PUC, Matt McGovern, Kristie Fiegen, Russell Clarke, Chris Nelson and Nick Nemec, have confirmed their attendance.

http://www.plainsman.com/v2_news_articles.php?heading=0&story_id=17196&page=72

Rep. Kristi Noem declined a debate with challenger Matt Varilek at the South Dakota State Fair, citing the sponsoring group’s politics in her explanation.

The South Dakota Farmers Union had invited both Noem and Varilek to debate Sept. 1 at the State Fair in Huron. Varilek accepted, but Noem turned it down, telling the Farmers Union she would be unable to attend.

But Noem and her campaign went further Thursday, raising the issue of whether the Farmers Union would be a fair host.

“We’re still considering debates and looking at them, but we’re going to make sure we do debates in front of fair, nonpartisan groups,” Noem said.

Asked if the Noem campaign thought the Farmers Union was not fair and nonpartisan, Noem’s campaign manager, Tom Erickson, said he would “leave that to your readers to decide.”

The South Dakota Farmers Union officially is nonpartisan but is seen as “more of a liberal farm group,” said Jon Schaff, a political science professor at Northern State University in Aberdeen.

Its staff includes an outgoing Democratic legislator, Rep. Mitch Fargen, and a Democratic candidate for Legislature in Huron, Chris Studer. Noem’s 2010 opponent, Stephanie Herseth Sandlin, once worked as executive director of the South Dakota Farmers Union Foundation.

But Studer and South Dakota Farmers Union president Doug Sombke said Noem’s decision was unprecedented.

“This has never happened before in the history of us holding debates at the State Fair,” Sombke said.

When told Noem’s explanation for the declined debate, Sombke was surprised.

“Well, I’ll be darned,” Sombke said. “I’m thinking the State Fair is a partisan fair, then, apparently.”

Zach Nelson of Performance Radio in Huron was going to moderate the debate, Studer said.

Noem and Varilek both have agreed to three debates: one on Wednesday at Dakotafest in Mitchell, and two televised debates in October on KELO-TV and South Dakota Public Broadcasting.

Varilek said he was “stunned” Noem declined the Farmers Union debate and said it was “hard to understand why she would be afraid to debate me in that setting” of the State Fair.

http://www.argusleader.com/article/20120817/NEWS/308170047/Kristi-Noem-rejects-House-debate-at-State-Fair?odyssey=tab|mostpopular|text|NEWS

It is the beginning of debate season for South Dakota’s congressional challengers.

Rep. Kristi Noem has declined a debate with Matt Varilek at the South Dakota State Fair.

Varilek said Thursday morning that he was stunned by the decision. The debate, sponsored by the South Dakota Farmers Union, had been scheduled for 1 p.m. Saturday, Sept. 1, in Huron.

“I could barely believe my eyes when I read that Congresswoman Noem refuses to debate at the State Fair, of all places,” he said. “I don’t know what she’s afraid of, but South Dakotans deserve more transparency from their one representative in the U.S. House.”

South Dakota Farmers Union President Doug Sombke announced the debate decision in a press release issued Thursday morning.

“In an email received this week Noem’s campaign manager Tom Erickson wrote, ‘Thank you for the invitation to the Farmers Union debate at the State Fair, but unfortunately Rep. Noem will not be able to attend. Tom,’ ” according to the release.

Varilek, of Sioux Falls, is the Democratic candidate for the seat. Noem is a freshman Republican from rural Castlewood.

He has challenged her to 12 debates. So far, they have agreed to three. The first will be Wednesday in Mitchell during Dakotafest.

The other two debates so far scheduled are on TV, with one on South Dakota Public Broadcasting on Oct. 18 that is co-sponsored by the South Dakota Newspaper Association and AARP and a third on KELO-TV in Sioux Falls on Nov. 2.

Erickson offered this comment to The Daily Republic via email.

“We thank the Farmers Union for extending an invitation, but will not be participating in their debate,” he wrote. “Kristi looks forward to debating her opponent at Dakotafest next week, where the candidates will discuss agriculture. We have two additional debates scheduled where agriculture will be among the topics discussed and will continue to evaluate invitations to debate in fair and non-partisan settings.”

“At a time when South Dakotans are faced with uncertainty with the Farm Bill, Medicare and the overall dysfunction of Congress, it’s important that Congresswoman Noem explains her voting record and lack of advocacy for middle class families,” Varilek said in the release.

“The South Dakota Farmers Union gave Congresswoman Noem and me an opportunity to share our views on the Farm Bill and the future of agriculture policy,” he said. “I accepted, and I’m disappointed that she refuses to meet me in front of South Dakotans to discuss her views on these important issues.”

Sombke said Noem will be welcomed if she changes her mind, but the event will go on as scheduled.

“I’m disappointed to learn that the congresswoman won’t be attending the debate,” he said. “Farmers Union members and the public are anxious to see the two candidates side-by-side. We plan to move forward with a program at the State Fair featuring Mr. Varilek on the Freedom Stage at 1 p.m.

We will still have an open invitation to Rep. Noem if she reconsiders,” Sombke said in the release. “Voters will still have a chance to hear Varilek’s views on the agriculture issues facing our state and our country. Unfortunately they won’t hear from Rep. Noem.”

The Farmers Union invited Rep. Noem on May 22, before her challenger was known, to participate in the State Fair debate, he said.

“Family farmers and ranchers are anxiously awaiting passage of the 2012 farm bill which has been held up by House Republican leadership after the U.S. Senate passed the farm bill with bipartisan support,” said Sombke. “This is the worst drought in 50 years, and we need to be able to have an open discussion and an opportunity for family farmers to ask their leaders questions about what’s being done to help producers during this tough time. And we need answers on why a farm bill hasn’t been passed.”

The debate was scheduled during Farmers Union Day at the State Fair, which is traditionally held the Saturday of the fair. Farmers Union has hosted several debates in the past. The latest State Fair debate featured then-gubernatorial candidates Republican Dennis Daugaard and Democrat Scott Heidepriem in 2010. It had the largest attendance of any gubernatorial debate in the state that year.

Public Utilities Commission candidates have agreed to debate on the Dakotaland Stage at the State Fairgrounds at 3:15 p.m. Aug. 1, according to Sombke. All five candidates for the PUC, Matt McGovern, Kristie Fiegen, Russell Clarke, Chris Nelson and Nick Nemec, have confirmed their attendance.

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/69009/

Transcription

Q: What’s your strategy for the request Matt has made with debates between now and November?

KN: Well, we’re having debates. And we’ve got several of them scheduled. My number one goal from my campaign and my campaign manager is that we like to have debates in nonpartisan formats where we agree that they’ll be run fairly, and so that’s what we’re judging those on. Besides, there will be lots of entities that will be asking for debates that have an agenda that they want to accomplish, and I’ve been in debates before that weren’t fairly stacked, and so we just want to make sure that everybody has the opportunity to state fairly and clearly what their positions are. And so we’re going to give lots of opportunities for people to see us together and to have conversations and ask questions. I think they’re important, we have to be able to stand there and let people see the contrasts between the two candidates, so that they know the differences in us and who they think will best represent them. And this year I really believe there’s a big difference between us two. We have a lot of differences, and nobody will know those unless we have debates and talk about our visions for this country and policies.

(Aberdeen, SD) U.S. House of Representatives candidate Matt Varilek issued a statement today regarding Rep. Kristi Noem’s refusal to debate at this year’s State Fair.

“I could barely believe my eyes when I read that Congresswoman Noem refuses to debate at the State Fair, of all places,” said Varilek. “I don’t know what she’s afraid of, but South Dakotans deserve more transparency from their one Representative in the U.S. House.”

“At a time when South Dakotans are faced with uncertainty with the Farm Bill, Medicare and the overall dysfunction of Congress, it’s important that Congresswoman Noem explains her voting record and lack of advocacy for middle class families.”

“The South Dakota Farmers Union gave Congresswoman Noem and me an opportunity to share our views on the Farm Bill and the future of agriculture policy. I accepted, and I’m disappointed that she refuses to meet me in front of South Dakotans to discuss her views on these important issues.”

On August 2nd, Varilek challenged Congresswoman Kristi Noem to a series of twelve debates across South Dakota. So far, only 3 have been confirmed by the congresswoman.

Varilek’s challenge follows similar calls from South Dakota newspapers such as the Rapid City Journal, which wrote in a June 14 editorial: “Election issues shouldn’t be fought with dueling political TV ads. It is through face-to-face debates that voters can better understand the candidates’ views on important issues.”

(SIOUX FALLS, SD)–Congressional candidate Matt Varilek today called on Congresswoman Kristi Noem to explain her continued refusal to hold public events and address South Dakotans’ questions on the Farm Bill and other crucial pending legislation.

“Two years ago, Candidate Noem demanded that her opponent hold more town halls so South Dakotans could ask tough questions on the issues of the day. But now that she’s in office, Rep. Noem refuses to hold town halls or any other public meetings on the stalled Farm Bill. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander, and the people of South Dakota deserve the chance to ask their lone House member questions about the Farm Bill, postal service reform, or whatever’s on their minds.”

]]> http://www.mattforsd.com/2012/08/15/release-varilek-calls-for-noem-town-hall-meetings/feed/ 0 http://www.mattforsd.com/2012/08/13/rapid-city-journal-come-to-rapid-city-and-debate/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rapid-city-journal-come-to-rapid-city-and-debate http://www.mattforsd.com/2012/08/13/rapid-city-journal-come-to-rapid-city-and-debate/#comments Mon, 13 Aug 2012 14:30:27 +0000 david http://www.mattforsd.com/?p=709

Rapid City Journal
Editorial Board
August 13, 2012

Matt Varilek, the Democratic candidate for U.S. House, is renewing his call for a string of debates against Rep. Kristi Noem, R-S.D., before the November election, and he has a number in mind: 12.

We believe that the two candidates should square off in as many debates as possible but, given the short time frame before the election, a dozen may not be a practical number.

Two years ago, former Democratic Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin and Noem faced off in seven debates. That’s a good number to aim for.

So far, Varilek and Noem have agreed to a debate on Aug. 22 at the Dakotafest in Michell. The agriculture exhibition will be a good forum for the candidates to discuss ag policy and the farm bill, which currently is mired in Congress.

On Friday, Noem said she would accept invitations to debates on Oct. 18 on South Dakota Public Broadcasting and on Nov. 2 in Sioux Falls.

Varilek also has proposed that a debate be held in Rapid City. A Rapid City debate in 2010 was canceled when Noem said she had a conflict.

We like the idea of holding a debate in Rapid City and take this opportunity to offer to host a discussion of ideas between Noem and Varilek. The Journal can live-stream the debate on our website at www.rapidcityjournal.com so that viewers across the state can watch the candidates answer questions about issues that are important to West River voters.

On this date in 2010, Herseth Sandlin and Noem were preparing for their second debate. There are 12 weeks of campaigning left before the Nov. 6, and so far only three debates are on the schedule.

South Dakota voters deserve to see a vigorous discussion of the issues between the candidates to help them decide who should be their only member in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Noem and Varilek may look good riding in parades, shaking hands at county fairs and smiling on campaign commercials, but voters need to hear from the candidates what they will do for them in Washington.

Debates will help voters make up their minds by forcing the candidates to defend their positions and challenge the ideas of their opponent. In the view of the Journal editorial board, there should be more debates between Noem and Varilek than have been scheduled.

The Journal makes this formal invitation to Noem and Varilek: Come to Rapid City and debate.

http://rapidcityjournal.com/news/opinion/editorial-come-to-rapid-city-and-debate/article_7576dc02-7db0-5374-8c46-101e4ec16db7.html?comment_form=true

Argus Leader
By David Montgomery
August 7, 2012

On Monday, Rep. Kristi Noem promoted her efforts to pass a farm bill even as her Democratic opponent showed up outside to argue she was a failure.

With the House of Representatives deadlocked over the farm bill as its Sept. 30 expiration draws nearer, Noem said she’s working hard to round up a majority to support the bill.

“There’s nobody that’s worked harder to try to get it to the floor and get a vote on it,” Noem said. “We have been working around the clock to get this done and have been working on farm policy since I got there.”

One tactic Noem hasn’t supported so far is a parliamentary tool called a “discharge petition.” If that petition gets enough signatures from House members, a bill can be forced to a vote. So far House leaders haven’t scheduled the farm bill for a vote of the full House, saying it doesn’t have the votes to pass.

Matt Varilek, the Democrat running against Noem in the general election, said Noem’s decision to not promote the discharge petition shows she’s not willing to fight hard enough to pass a farm bill.

“Unfortunately, Congresswoman Noem is not supporting any additional steps to move the ball forward,” Varilek said.

Noem disputed that. She’s trying to gather signatures of House members on a less confrontational letter urging House leadership to schedule a vote. And she reserved the right to sign the discharge petition if those efforts fail.

Varilek contrasted Noem’s stance with that of another House member — one who was by Noem’s side Monday when she talked about the farm bill with ag producers and the press.

Rep. Rick Berg, R-N.D., previously released a statement on his website calling for “every tool available” to force House leadership to bring the farm bill for a vote.

“I refuse to sit back and watch our farmers and ranchers face uncertainty while Washington plays political games,” Berg said in the statement.

On Monday, Berg defended Noem and said both their strategies are helping.

“Kristi is a strong spokesman for the farm bill,” Berg said. “I’ve seen her on the floor, I’ve seen her off the floor, working leadership, working people to build a consensus and bring this to a vote.”

Noem considered leading the effort to promote the discharge petition, but decided it might be counterproductive.

“I looked at the success rate of a discharge petition, and it’s very low. It can be divisive,” Noem said.

Varilek said he’s not buying that.

“I don’t see why having a vote on an important piece of legislation would be divisive,” he said.

The U.S. Senate has already passed a farm bill. The House version passed out of the House Agriculture Committee, but has run into criticism from both Republicans and Democrats in the full House. Some liberals oppose the bill because they feel it cuts food stamp programs too deeply, while some conservatives don’t feel the cuts are deep enough.

http://siouxfallsbusinessjournal.argusleader.com/article/20120807/NEWS/308070018/Kristi-Noem-defends-work-farm-bill

SIOUX FALLS, SD – There’s a war of words being waged over the Farm Bill.

Congresswoman Kristi Noem of South Dakota was called out by Democratic challenger Matt Varilek after a Noem-sponsored Agriculture Roundtable on Monday.

Varilek questioned why Noem didn’t push for an immediate vote on the Farm Bill in September.

“I would encourage her to explain why she has taken a position allowing the Farm Bill to languish, why she won’t pursue this effort to support a vote even though her friend, Congressman Berg, does support it,” Varilek said.

“For me, at this point in time, I wanted to help during this August period build some momentum among everybody and try and get a coalition to bring it to the floor under regular order. But if I don’t see that being successful during August that discharge petition may be something we have to pursue,” Noem said.

Varilek claimed Noem originally supported the discharge petition in a signed letter with another member of Congress. But Noem’s campaign staff claims that letter was only a draft and she does not support it now.

http://www.keloland.com/newsdetail.cfm/noem-varilek-disagree-on-timing-of-farm-bill-vote/?id=135503

The Matt Varilek campaign has done a favor for South Dakota farmers and ranchers, Democrat and Republican alike, by putting up a website in late June with the intriguing name, http://silentkristi.com/.

Visit it. You don’t have to stand on Matt Varilek’s side of the aisle to appreciate these transcripts from three of our previous House members – Republicans Bill Janklow and John Thune and Democrat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin – during the first year that each spent on the House Agriculture Committee. It’s clear we’ve had some bulldogs.

Then there is Bill Janklow – 52 pages, starting with a meeting in 2003 in which Janklow goes after trade barriers against biotech crops, and so on to Black Hills forest fires; dairy prices; WTO talks on agriculture. There are pages and pages of dialogue (let’s be honest … sometimes it’s monologue) in Bill Janklow’s inimitable style.

Then there are 16 pages from Stephanie Herseth Sandlin’s service on the committee, dealing with issues such as B.S.E.; timber sales and fire risk in the Black Hills; country of origin labeling, and the Farm Credit System.

Of course the Varilek campaign’s motive is not to tell us how involved our lawmakers were in their first year on the House Agriculture Committee. It’s to contrast that written record with what Kristi Noem has done, or not done, in her first year on the committee.

Staffers for the Democratic contender say that as of the time they launched the website in late June, all that is certain is that Noem had once introduced a dairy CEO from Minnesota to the committee.

We’re not sure that Matt Varilek is the right choice to be South Dakota’s lone representative in the U.S. House of Representatives, but we’re sure he is onto an issue of public importance here. If there’s one committee that is vitally important to South Dakota, this is it.

This is not partisan sniping. The Democrats seem to be suggesting we weigh the record page by page, and by that measure, it’s arguable that the Republicans, Thune and Janklow, out-performed Herseth Sandlin, the Democrat, in their first year on the House Agriculture Committee. But Rep. Noem is scarcely even on the record. Is this how she represents her party and her state? Rep. Noem, we’d love to hear from you on this issue. Are we missing something? We’d welcome a piece for this page telling us in your own words how you’re representing South Dakota’s farmers and ranchers, and where you are doing it if not on this crucial committee in Congress. It’s part of the job we hired you to do.

http://www.capjournal.com/opinions/editorial/speaking-up-for-agriculture-is-part-of-the-job/article_40750bbc-df83-11e1-9775-001a4bcf887a.html

(SIOUX FALLS)— At a press conference today outside a closed-door meeting between Congresswoman Kristi Noem and agriculture groups, congressional candidate Matt Varilek called on Noem to explain her flip-flop on a measure that would force a vote on the Farm Bill, which has stalled in the U.S. House.

Varilek released a copy of a letter signed by Noem and Rep. Bruce Braley of Iowa calling on members of Congress to sign a “discharge petition,” which could force the House to vote on the Farm Bill despite objections from the House leadership. But her name is conspicuously absent from the final version of the letter, and her spokesperson recently indicated Noem opposes the discharge petition. On August 3, The Hill newspaper reported on this about-face, noting that Noem, “might have feared angering her leaders.”

“Congresswoman Noem recently signed a letter asking her colleagues to ‘show your support to our nation’s farmers by committing to sign on” to the measure forcing a vote on the Farm Bill,’ and she claims she is working hard to get a new Farm Bill passed before the current one expires,” said Varilek. “But when the time came to back up her words with deeds, she backed down, siding with her party leaders instead of South Dakota farmers and ranchers.”

Today Noem is holding a closed-door meeting with Congressman Rick Berg (N.D.). Unlike Noem, Berg supports the measure that would force a vote on the Farm Bill. Berg’s statement on the issue says: “If House Leadership won’t allow a vote on the Farm Bill, we will use every tool available in our continued effort to push for one,” Berg stated. “I refuse to sit back and watch our farmers and ranchers face uncertainty while Washington plays political games.” Varilek called on Noem to explain her disagreement with Berg.

“Kristi is meeting today with a fellow Tea Party freshman from neighboring North Dakota who is willing to defy his party leaders for the sake of his constituents,” said Varilek. “Farmers and ranchers in our state deserve to know why Kristi backed down from doing the same.”

Meanwhile the drought continues to intensify, with 87% of South Dakota experiencing moderate to extreme drought, even as the U.S. House begins a five-week recess.

BACKGROUND

Farm bill discharge petition runs into roadblocks. “The effort also suffered a blow when Rep. Kristi Noem (R-S.D.), who was originally planning to gather signatures from the GOP side, decided against joining the effort. Noem… might have feared angering her leaders.” [The Hill, 8/3/12]

Berg trying to get farm bill to floor. “Rep. Rick Berg, R-N.D., called party leadership’s inability to move forward on the farm bill unacceptable. He said it’s imperative that the House and Senate versions of the bill find their way to conference committee to produce a final version.” [Bismarck Tribune, 8/2/12]

Drought will have lasting effects. “The potential financial fallout in the nation’s midsection appears to be intensifying. The latest weekly Mid-America Business Conditions Index, released Wednesday, showed that the ongoing drought and global economic turmoil is hurting business in nine Midwest and Plains states, including Minnesota, boosting worries about the prospect of another recession, according to the report.” [Albert Lea Tribune, 8/5/12]

To view the discharge letter signed by Rep. Noem, click here.

The U.S. House race between Rep. Kristi Noem and challenger Matt Varilek is close, according to a Sioux Falls polling firm.

Nielson Brothers Polling released a survey Friday morning that showed Noem, a freshman Republican, with a 47-46 lead over Varilek, her Democratic opponent.

The remaining 7 percent were undecided, according to the poll.

The poll figures are a contrast to The New York Times, which lists the South Dakota race as “solid Republican” in its rundown on House races.

Noem earned her House seat by defeating then-Rep. Stephanie Herseth Sandlin in 2010.

This year marks Varilek’s first bid for elective office. He defeated Jeff Barth in the June 2 Democratic primary.

Tom Erickson, Noem’s campaign manager, said he doesn’t put a lot of stock in the NBP numbers.

“I would have to dismiss anyone who claims someone who supports President Obama’s health care law is getting 46 percent,” Erickson said.

He said Varilek is still unknown to many South Dakotans. In addition, Erickson said the polling firm lacks credibility. He pointed to an October 2010 NBP poll that showed Republican Dennis Daugaard leading Democrat Scott Heidepriem by only three points, 43-40, in their South Dakota gubernatorial race. Daugaard won the November election that year, 61.5 percent to 38.5 percent.

However, that same poll showed Noem with a 44.3-41.8 lead with independent candidate B. Thomas Marking at 6.5 percent and 7 percent undecided. On Election Day, Noem won 48.1-45.9 percent, and Marking garnered almost 6 percent.

Still, Erickson said the data for this new poll was questionable because of the pollster’s partisan ties.

“Paul Nielson ran for state Senate as a Democrat in 2008 in District 9, so it’s not surprising that his ‘poll’ would show Democrats with unrealistic numbers,” he said. “It would be interesting to see the methodology. Did they say if they screen for likely voters? What’s the partisan breakdown of the poll?”

Paul Nielson, president of Nielson Brothers Polling, said the firm took the gender, age and party registration of the people who were interviewed into account as it compiled the polling data.

“We’re very comfortable with the numbers,” Nielson said. “We’re entirely independent and self-funded. The numbers are what they are.”

David Benson, Varilek’s campaign manager, said he believes it’s a competitive race, but he was impressed when told NBP had it a 1-point contest.

“Wow,” Benson said.

He said he feels it is close no matter what polls indicate.

“I do, I do,” Benson said. “And I think that has a lot to do with Congresswoman Noem’s record.”

He said she is a member of a “dysfunctional Congress” that is focused on politics and not getting to work. The five-week congressional break now under way is a vivid example, Benson said.

Republicans lead in every statewide race, according to NBP. The survey was done July 19-23.

Both Public Utilities Commission incumbents are ahead of their Democratic challengers, according to the poll.

Kristie Fiegen led Matt McGovern 43-41 in the poll while Chris Nelson led Nick Nemec 54-30. There were 16 percent undecided in both races.

In the presidential race, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney led President Barack Obama 49 percent to 43 percent, with the remainder undecided.

In 2008, Republican John McCain carried South Dakota, defeating Obama 53.2-44.7, with independent Ralph Nader taking 1.1 percent of the vote. No Democrat has carried South Dakota since President Lyndon Johnson did in 1964.

In the NBP survey, respondents were also asked to evaluate Obama’s job performance, and 27 percent said they strongly approve and 18 percent said they somewhat approve, for a 45 percent overall approval rating. Of the 55 percent who disapprove, 42 percent said they “strongly disapprove.”

The poll questions all drew around 540 responses and had margins of error of about 4 percent.

Nielson Brothers Polling plans to release more findings from the survey, including questions on ballot and social issues, in the coming days.

http://www.mitchellrepublic.com/event/article/id/68545/