IM 25 is a bad way to fund education

Forget the fact that IM 25 will probably become a slush fund for state government, it is a horrible way to fund Technical education.

Am I against increasing tobacco taxes? Not at all, if the money was directed at cessation, prevention, healthcare or even drug treatment programs, I would be all for it.

So the question remains, how do we fund Technical education? The first question we have to answer is “Why is South Dakota the highest in the region for tuition?” My educated guess (no pun intended) is because of high administrative costs and staffing. I know the teachers are NOT making highest wages in the region, in fact most tech teachers make less than K-12 instructors.

So after we get that part straightened out, how do we get costs down for the students? I think it is simple. First, make apprentice programs easier, and pay the apprentice. Many of these students could skip technical education all together and start in these jobs right out of HS.

As for the more technical skills for the medical field, electronics, engineering, etc. make the industries that need these positions the most pay into a scholarship fund that students can apply for with the agreement they will work in SD for so many years.

If we want extra money for tech schools, shouldn’t the employers who need these employees pay into a special fund or tax since they are the ones benefitting from reduced tuitions with skilled labor? Seems like an easy solution that makes sense.

Still don’t know how they linked tobacco to tech schools. Of course, we only have to look at the clown who cooked this up, Former Lord of the Lords, Mark Mickelson who wants to make money off of the backs of poor smokers. Some things never change in South Dakota, the business elite want handouts and welfare and they want the poor to pay for it.

And this is why IM 25 is Lame, just like it’s creator. VOTE NO!

UPDATE: If you watch the Rotary debate today, both Noem and Sutton voted against IM 25 and cited some of the same reasons I stated above for voting against it (and I posted this before watching the debate – HA!)


#1 White Panther on 10.29.18 at 9:39 pm

If you over-tax cigarettes or make them illegal they will just make them in China or Mexico and sell them on the black market.

#2 Analog Taco on 10.29.18 at 10:45 pm

I find it interesting that a Republican wants to raise taxes to fund a government program, but did you notice he wants to raise taxes that tend to be directed at working class folks, however.

Mickelson mentions “Big Tobacco” in his ad as though it’s evil, but what about “Big” corporate farms, which he often represents and facilitates?

It seems to me that if only businesses would raise wages that workers would show-up and be more willing to accept the costs of our current vo-tech opportunities in this state. But we cannot do that, can we? Fore, such an idea would then tax Mickelson’s class, would it not?

The Lord, or Speaker, is a classic example of a member of the upper crust trying to find a way to further facilitate the service needs of that class by taxing for the most part the lower classes only; and channeling those lower classes to a subservient reality void of any greater mobility, in order, ironically, to apparently get the job done.

#3 D@ily Spin on 10.30.18 at 10:18 am

I’ll vote YES. The best way to get people to quit tobacco is unreasonable taxation. Marijuana should be legal for the same reason. Together, this is what could make this state wealthy like Colorado. I’d rather see foolish government reapportionment than public health expenditure for smokers and second hand smoke. IM 25 might well be the best way to run tobacco lobbyists out of the state. It’s could get lonely in Pierre. I like designating revenue toward Tech Schools. It might not happen with this bill but someone will have to explain why and there will be new focus on productive (not educated dysfunctional) education.

#4 Polyurethane Taco on 10.30.18 at 1:09 pm

“Productive education?” That sounds like a bunch of Bolshevik to me… 😉