The legislation promised to give teachers significant raises and give South Dakota schools the ability to compete. But now that districts are doing the math, the Governor’s plan isn’t adding up.
I knew from the beginning, from the dirty track record of Rounds and Daugaard when it came to education funding, that his half-penny increase was a ploy to test the waters of a sales tax increase. Don’t we remember the same promises about Video Lottery?
While the half-penny increase will affect all of our wallets, you will soon see the funding to teachers diluted and the money basically going to property tax relief for the largest property owners in the state.
I warned of the precedent.
It’s easy to point our fingers at the Republicans for acting like a flock of sheep (well, not all of them), but it is the Democrats whose chickenshit votes to push this over a 2/3rds majority that really screwed the chicken on this one, when they all knew that there is millions in the education trust fund that could fill the gap of teacher pay WITHOUT RAISING TAXES!
What a mess, and the worst part about it is we will all be paying more for a broken plan that hasn’t even been implemented yet.
I have been following the state legislature for many years, and passing a regressive sales tax increase to give raises to one sector of public employment is probably one of the worst things I have seen our state legislature do in recent memory (besides all the social issues).
I won’t rant about all the other options we had to increase teacher pay without raising taxes, we have seen those options (there are hundreds). One of the best that was actually presented to me a few years ago by representative Hunhoff (who voted yes) was pulling from our gigantic state reserves. We didn’t hear much from Hunhoff on that idea this session. He must have forgotten about it.
So what happened? The only ones voting against this were the cheap skates of the legislature, who would vote against any tax increase. But what about the other Republicans? Are they so scared of property tax and and income tax that they voted to tax the poorest of our society more? Most likely.
But the big losers in this debate? The SD Democratic party. For years they cry about the food tax and general regression of sales taxes to begin with, and when they had a chance to stand up to this and present their own plan they suddenly turn into a gigantic flock of chickenshits.
It doesn’t surprise me our doofus of a governor would concoct such an ignorant plan, I just never imagined 2/3 of our legislature was this moronic to go along with it.
The big problem is that the tax revenue grows three times faster than the state allows school funding to grow,,, The Blue ribbon task farce recommended keeping the inflation up to 3% limitation,,, here is what that causes,,,
Using the trends of the last 5 years – sales taxes have grown at 5.34% per year and k-12 funding has increased by about 1.9% per year, and assuming the schools get 75 million of the half penny.
Assuming these trends continue for the next 10 years,,,
1) The 109 million dollar tax will grow to 183 million.
2) The schools will only receive 91 million of the 183 million tax increase.
3) Leaving 92 million, more than half ! – for our fiscally conservative Rinos’ to spend after just 10 years.
4) by 20 years – the tax grows to about 310 million – schools will get about 110 million and the Rinos’ will have a dainty 200 million dollar slush fund, nearly TWICE AS MUCH as the schools will be getting,,
5) By 10 years or less the schools wiil be broke because of the “inflation up to 3%” limitation and the schools will be screaming for more money and us poor taxpayers will be on FB and blogs asking
WHAT HAPPENED TO ALL THAT SALES TAX MONEY THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO TO EDUCATION
This is as simple as fool me once, fool me twice !!
Cory Allen Heidelberger of Dakota Free Press showed up to the Sioux Falls Democratic Forum on January 15, 2015 to give us a sneak peek of his views concerning the upcoming teacher pay legislative debate.
I’m not going to link all the feel good stories about getting taxed more to give a pay raise to people who work 9 months out of the year to educate children that are not mine.
I already pay their wages with my property taxes.
I figured as a single dude I will paying about $130 more a year in regressive retail taxes so a certain sector of our South Dakota society can make more then me, though I work just as hard.
Do I think teachers deserve more pay. Hell Yah! But I also think balancing ag taxes with urban property taxes would fill this gap. I also think a corporate education income tax would fill this gap.
Why is it that the poorest among us should fill a gap that can be fixed by re-organizing or re-porposing current taxes could fix?
The governor’s plan is not only short-sighted it is directly targeted at the have-nots to pay for the things the rich don’t want to. Not only should the governor and his minions be ashamed at such a half-ass plan, but anyone drooling over it should be to.
We can do better in South Dakota. Tax wealth to educate our children. It only makes sense.
Are you as sick of hearing about it as I am? WE NEED TO RAISE TEACHER PAY! And we need to do it with an increase in taxes.
No we don’t.
First off, the money exists to increase education funding, it’s about priorities that our governor and state legislators make when it comes to funding education. Elect more socially conscious representatives that understand an educated society is a better society, and we can fix the education funding problem in Pierre. Keep electing backwoods hillbillies that are more concerned about shooting critters and unborn children (instead of educating the children that are already born) and there will never be more teacher pay.
Secondly, even if it was about raising taxes to increase teacher pay, why would any worker in this state support a tax increase to pay teachers more while their wages remain stagnant?
They won’t. This notion that somehow we are going to convince the hardworking citizens of South Dakota of another unnecessary tax increase to benefit one sector of our workforce (public teachers) just won’t fly.
So you ask, what is the solution? Don’t get me wrong, I think teachers should get paid better. A LOT BETTER! But I also think nurses, welders, plumbers, construction workers and hospitality workers should get paid better also in our state. This is why teachers will never have the support of other working South Dakotans for a salary hike, because we get tired of you whining about a pay increase when you won’t go to bat for the rest of us. Many workers in South Dakota in multiple fields are leaving the state in droves for better pay, we are all in this together, not just the teacher. Heck the state with the help T. Denny had to create an indentured servant program to keep welders here (Dakota scholarships).
My point is simple, when the teachers advocating for higher pay realize this just isn’t about them, but about all South Dakota workers, we will advocate for them, but they need to advocate for us to, you know, the ones paying their salaries.
I’m all for higher teacher pay, but are teachers for higher pay in other fields also? I’m guessing they are. Share the love.
In 2014, Sanford first told KELOLAND News about Z, the mascot of the Sanford Harmony Program. Z is a Martian from a planet that doesn’t have boys and girls. He’s supposed to start an open dialogue so boys and girls get a chance to talk openly about gender.
Apparently on the planet Z the storks deliver the newborns. Didn’t we have enough problems with the Tele-Tubbies? While I think it is good to teach kids that boys and girls can grow up to do whatever they want to and to work together, I’m not sure how an asexual alien from the planet Z is going to get this message across? Or how this is going to end divorces? I have often joked if you want to end divorces don’t get married to begin with. Why do we always have to travel to cartoon fantasy land to teach kids things about LIFE?
I bet Denny got the idea from an old Star Trek episode.
South Dakota ranks 3rd among US states for its fiscal health, based on its fiscal solvency in five separate categories.
South Dakota’s strong fiscal position in FY 2013 was driven by very high revenues relative to spending and by low levels of debt. The state’s cash position indicates that South Dakota had between five and eight times the amount of cash needed to cover short-term spending in FY 2013. South Dakota’s revenues exceeded expenses. Long-term liabilities accounted for 9 percent of total assets, and the state had excess assets after meeting its debts. Debt levels were among the lowest in the nation at 1.3 percent of state personal income. Under its own accounting assumptions, South Dakota’s pension system was fully funded. However, when calculating the pension liability on a guaranteed-to-be-paid basis, the unfunded liability amounted to $6.7 billion.
After reading this, I thought I may be living in another state and don’t know it. We often hear the constant drum beat from Pierre that ‘the money isn’t there’ not just for education, but we heard it with road funding also. Unless the accountants at the Mercatus center got their wires crossed, it seems the state could afford more money for education, roads and even sending some of their extra revenue to strapped counties so they don’t have to continue to opt-out. So why is the state hoarding money that could be spent? Isn’t that what we pay taxes for? To be spent on programs to help the residents of our great state. If I knew the state was interested in keeping a savings account, I say just reduce my taxes instead, and I will take care of my own savings.
12-27-20. Expenditure of public funds to influence election outcome prohibited. The state, an agency of the state, and the governing body of a county, municipality, or other political subdivision of the state may not expend or permit the expenditure of public funds for the purpose of influencing the nomination or election of any candidate, or for the petitioning of a ballot question on the ballot or the adoption or defeat of any ballot question. This section may not be construed to limit the freedom of speech of any officer or employee of the state or such political subdivisions in his or her personal capacity. This section does not prohibit the state, its agencies, or the governing body of any political subdivision of the state from presenting factual information solely for the purpose of educating the voters on a ballot question.
Source: SL 2007, ch 80, § 20.
You can’t use district property maintained by taxpayers to promote your cause. If your parents want to hold a party at their house after school hours, that is perfectly legal. Does Roosevelt HS have any civics teachers that have a clue, or for that matter administrators? Geezsch!
Maybe this is what they are teaching in government class at Roosevelt HS.