Gary Schuster
Elections and appointments
Personal
Contact
Gary Schuster (Republican Party) ran for election to the South Dakota House of Representatives to represent District 12. He lost in the Republican primary on June 7, 2022.
Schuster completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. Click here to read the survey answers.
Elections
2022
See also: South Dakota House of Representatives elections, 2022
General election
Democratic primary election
The Democratic primary election was canceled. Kristin Hayward and Erin Royer advanced from the Democratic primary for South Dakota House of Representatives District 12.
Republican primary election
2022
Ballotpedia survey responses
See also: Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection
Gary Schuster completed Ballotpedia's Candidate Connection survey in 2022. The survey questions appear in bold and are followed by Schuster's responses. Candidates are asked three required questions for this survey, but they may answer additional optional questions as well.
Expand all | Collapse all
Fiscal conservative and constitutional originalist. I was raised on a farm near Pleasantville Iowa. I have a BS in Physics from Iowa State Univ. A PhD in Metallurgical Engineering from the Univ. of Illinois and an MBA from the Univ. of South Carolina. In my professional career I worked as a scientist/engineer and later as a technical manager. While growing up on the farm I did farm chores and learned how hard it is to earn money. That is a lesson I've never forgotten. I've invested in the stock market throughout most of my life. Through my education, professional work experience and investing I have gained a broad knowledge of science, engineering and finance. I've seen how government regulations and taxes impacts companies and the people who depend upon them for products, services and income. Government regulations are necessary, but they can be used to take away our wealth and liberty.
I've always been interested in politics. I'm now retired and have the time to participate in it. My wife, Kelly, and I moved from Oregon to South Dakota. It was a very good decision. Oregon is politically controlled by progressives that respect neither liberties nor property rights. Reasonable people can disagree on what government should do on specific issues. But as a strong supporter of individual freedoms, I believe in minimizing the size (spending) and power of government. By doing this we better protect our liberties and fortunes.
- South Dakota needs to overhaul its K-12 education system by bringing to education the same improvement driving-forces that have made our country great--free market competition. South Dakota should scrap the current method of funding K-12 education, i.e. sending state aid funds directly to public schools, and instead send vouchers to parents letting them choose the schools to send their children.
- The simplest way to keep state taxes low is to keep state spending low. As a state legislator I would keep spending low by only supporting expenditures that are needed to pay for programs that are either: (1) Mandated by law. (2) Have a favorable cost/benefit ratio and impact a significant fraction of the state's population.
- In addition to protecting liberties, I want laws that protect the physical well-being of South Dakotans. In the past few years, the state has approved Constitutional Carry and Stand Your Ground laws. These are great. I will work to pass a similar law for our police. The new law will be written to protect police from being criminally indicted for the use of force against suspects that are both: (1) Not obeying lawful orders and. (2) Acting in a manner that could be reasonably interpreted as threatening.
I'm a strong believer in personal freedom and liberty. Most people take our liberties for granted. My experience is that the people that most appreciate them are the immigrants from places where personal liberties don't exist--Cuba, Venezuela, the old Soviet Block, etc. Imagine having little or no choice as to where you live, where you work and what you can buy. Under these conditions life could become hopeless. People do not readily submit to conditions like this. But, if they do not have the rights to assemble, freely speak, demonstrate and have access to weapons then they are vulnerable to such controls. Typically, such freedoms are lacking in countries with tyrannical governments. That is why we must be vigilant and forceful in defending our constitutionally guaranteed liberties.
In addition to maintaining our rights, we need to maintain the integrity of our government. Our country was born by overthrowing a tyrannical government (the British Monarchy). Our founding fathers fought and died to get us our freedoms. They were leery of the power of government. We should be too. They wrote the Constitution/Bill of Rights to define our freedoms and give us the ability to maintain them. I believe that our constitution is the greatest political document ever written. I am a constitutional originalist because much of the greatness of the Constitution comes from interpreting it to mean what our founding fathers intended.
There have been many great people in American history. I have a particular admiration for Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson was an enlightened man. He studied Science, Mathematics, Philosophy and many languages. He served as governor of Virginia, Secretary of State, Vice President and became the third President of the United States. Jefferson was a Renaissance man who devoted most of his life to the founding and growth of our country.
Jefferson was a great man for many reasons. I chose to focus on him because he was also the principal author of the Declaration of Independence. That document did two things. First it listed the actions of the British King that justified the rebellion. Second, more importantly, it explained why these actions were wrong. In the Declaration he writes what has become perhaps the most famous political assertion in history: "We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness...." The British King's actions went against these Rights and hence the people had the right to rebel.
The Declaration of Independence does not specifically list individual freedoms. This was done later in our constitution by the Bill of Rights. Nevertheless Jefferson’s "unalienable rights" assertion can be seen as the precursor to the Bill of Rights. The rights to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of happiness were effectively required to be explicitly asserted in our constitution. By making his assertion, Jefferson is perhaps more responsible for the freedoms that we now enjoy than anyone else. Jefferson came from a wealthy family and could well have stayed silent during the revolution. Instead he risked everything to help gain us our freedoms. I hope that I would have acted in a similar way.
State legislators should be smart, hard-working, conscientious, courageous and honest. Citizens should expect that their legislators will be smart enough understand the issues. They must also be hard-working enough to seek the knowledge needed to make good decisions. They should be conscientious so that they do not shirk from the work that they need to perform to carry out their duties. They need enough courage to make the best decisions even though they may know that criticism will come from making unpopular ones. Finally, they need to be honest. Citizens will have respect for honest politicians even when they disagree with them. Over the long run dishonest politicians both harm and disillusion their constituents.
--Intelligent and practiced in critical thinking
--Knowledgeable in finance, science and engineering
--Respectful of all people that are honest and trying to live productive lives
--Honest
--Conscientious
--Hard working
--Empathetic with the difficulties of all people--particularly the working poor and ones with disabilities I would like to be a leader for legislation to change the way the State of South Dakota funds K-12 education. The current funding method is for state support to go directly to public schools based on school enrollment. Instead of this the state should be sending funds directly to parents in the form of vouchers. The parents then decide what schools to send their children.
I would like to be a leader for legislation to protect police from criminal indictments for actions they may have taken when dealing with suspects in the line of duty. In particular police should not be criminally indicted for use of force against suspects that were both not obeying lawful orders and acting in a manner that could reasonably be viewed as threatening to the police or nearby citizens.
I would like to earn a reputation as a "budget watchdog." I will work to ensure that wasteful projects are not funded and taxes are kept low. I was nine years old when President Kennedy was assassinated. I remember being in 5th grade. The principal interrupted the class by walking in and announcing that the president had been shot. A short time later a TV was brought in and we all sat there watching the coverage.
I remember, at that age, I did not feel much connection to the world outside of the small town (Pleasantville) that our farm was near. I was aware of the federal government, and world at large, but I didn't think things such as the assassination would have an impact on our family. I do remember thinking about how the president's children were faring.
People say that there are events that everyone remembers where they were and what they were doing when they first heard about them. The first for me was President Kennedy's assassination. The second was the 9/11 attack on the Twin Trade Towers. The attack on the Twin Towers is still discussed and used to explain what is happening in the world today. The assassination of President Kennedy is now not discussed much. The transition to a new president (Lyndon Johnson) occurred with little fanfare or controversy. It is difficult to confidently say how that assassination changed our lives. At the time of the assassination the war in Vietnam was becoming a major issue in American politics. It has been said that President Kennedy was planning to take our country out of that war. President Johnson doubled down sending additional forces to Vietnam in an effort to militarily win the war. By doing that he greatly increased our nation's human and financial costs for that war. This had a major effect on our future foreign policy and created a feeling of distrust of government for many Americans. If President Kennedy was indeed planning to pull out of Vietnam then his assassination may well have had more impact on the country than what occurred on 9/11. I was raised on a family farm. My first "job" was farm chores. Feeding and watering livestock, pulling weeds out of the bean field, shoveling manure, repairing fences, etc. Later I started driving a tractor to do field work. These tasks were done year-round. Winter and summer temperatures frequently made hard jobs even more uncomfortable. In addition to the work being hard it was also sometimes dangerous. I have been charged by cattle and bitten by a boar. The pay was little to nothing. Dad was the paymaster and he believed that my brothers and I were simply doing the things that needed to be done to make our farm successful. We all benefitted from the revenue generated by the labor. I had this job from about the age of seven until I was about 16. At that time my father gave up farming and started working for the Postal Service.
This farm job was by far the most strenuous, unpleasant and lowest paying one that I've had. One benefit was that I did get from it was an understanding of how difficult it is to earn money. There were times when we lost crops due to storms and livestock due to disease. Money was always in short supply. I've never forgotten how hard we had to work to make relatively little money. Because of this experience I've lived frugally even though most of the jobs I've held have paid well. Growing up on a farm also made me a saver and incentivized me to take my father's advice to invest my savings in the stock market.
This is a thought-provoking question for me. I've been successful in life. I have four college degrees (B.S. in Physics, M.S. and PhD in Metallurgical Eng., MBA) all from great schools. I did well academically. I've worked for a number of large companies (GE, Martin Marrietta (now Lockheed Martin), Honeywell, Hitachi Metals) and in doing so progressed to higher levels on the technical and managerial ladders. Having said that, it was not easy. To achieve academic success, I always had to study long and hard. Progress in my career was not rapid. It took considerable time and effort to advance. I know from firsthand experience that some people have a relatively easy path to success. But for me the path to success was not easy. I don't think this is bad. My experiences have made me respectful of all people that work hard and are honest.
Sometimes hard work is not rewarded. This isn't right, but government shouldn't be the entity that decides who gets the rewards. Government's role should be to create an environment where honest, hard-working people are greatly valued. This will increase their chances of being rewarded. Also, government policies should make it easier to start businesses. This is the ultimate way for an individual to achieve success and rewards. If the corporate world is unwilling to reward a person for good, hard work then that person can choose to start their own business. By keeping taxes low and regulations to a minimum, government can make the process of starting a business easier. As a legislator I would work to do this.
Lastly, some people succeed by criminal behavior. Government can discourage such behavior by writing and enforcing laws that punish it. As a legislator, I will try to write and ensure the enforcement of such laws. The governor and legislature should ideally respect and trust one another. Note that our State Government, similar to the Federal, has three branches--executive, legislative and judicial. They are structured to serve as checks to one another. It is expected that there will be disagreements between the branches. This should not be viewed as bad. If they respect and trust one another then they are likely to be able to work out disagreements and come to compromises. Assuming that both are trying to do what is best for the State, then they share the same objective. The mutual respect and trust should make it possible to develop compromise solutions when they disagree. That should generally be fine.
I'll guess that obtaining the revenue needed to pay for the State's budgets will become more challenging. South Dakota's economy has held up well in the past few years. This may not be true in the next economic downturn. The state will receive considerable federal money in 2022 due to various Covid relief programs. I'm concerned that the legislature and governor may be tempted to commit to spending obligations that the state can afford now but will be unable to meet in future years. To avoid this the Legislatures should not overcommit on future spending.
Sometimes it's necessary to compromise in order to pass a bill. But trying to find a compromise is not always the right thing to do. Ideally bills are written to achieve what is best for the citizens of South Dakota. People will have differing ideas of what is best. There are many issues where reasonable people can disagree. However, there is no point in compromising to make a bad bill less bad. Bad bills should simply be killed quickly. Sometimes good bills have bad amendments attached to them. These amendments are not the products of "reasonable" people working toward a "compromise." Rather, these amendments are typically actions that are added to benefit a few at the expense of the many. The few argue that by including these amendments in a good bill, it results in a compromise that will get the bill passed. I won't support a "compromise" such as that. Supporting these sorts of compromises just gives corrupt people a path for getting their special interest legislation through the legislature.
Note: Ballotpedia reserves the right to edit Candidate Connection survey responses. Any edits made by Ballotpedia will be clearly marked with [brackets] for the public. If the candidate disagrees with an edit, he or she may request the full removal of the survey response from Ballotpedia.org. Ballotpedia does not edit or correct typographical errors unless the candidate's campaign requests it.
See also
External links
Leadership
Speaker of the House:Jon Hansen
Majority Leader:Scott Odenbach
Minority Leader:Erin Healy
Representatives
Republican Party (64)
Democratic Party (6)
= candidate completed the Ballotpedia Candidate Connection survey.
