J. J. Perry of the Aberdeen American News tweets the following Seussical take on the South Dakota budget delivered at yesterday's legislative crackerbarrel in Aberdeen by Rep. Elaine Elliott (D-2/Aberdeen):
We do not like the cuts to schools.
We do not like to look like fools.
We do not like the budget jam.
We would rather eat green eggs and ham.
Perry reports that Rep. Elliott then advocated a simple solution to a budget deficit caused by a decade of irresponsible GOP budgeting: an income tax. "I'm standing here probably cutting my own political throat," says Elliott. "I don't care, throw me out."
Actually, Rep. Elliott, I'm not convinced those knives would point at your throat any more. I'm hearing more people are are disgusted enough with Governor Daugaard's budget and the GOP's refusal to do right by students and old folks and everyone else that a serious, fair tax proposal to save our schools and pay our own way could make you a hero.
I agree with Rep. Elliott. If our so called busines friendly tax environment was on the mark and working, we would not have funding crisis in Pierre, now would we. Instead we seem intent on more handouts(TIFS and REDI Fund), than working on financing the needs and services of SD residents. Perhaps school districts should operate under a TIF------not pay their bills for x number of years and tell the rest of us it's just economic development that will create jobs and prosperity. We need a new taxing system for our schools. Better education expects to be funded(BEEF).
PS Most business people will tell you infrastructure is what drives good business to start up and locate----good roads, reasonable utilities, excellent schools, parks, recreation, quality homes.
Cory, Bob Mercer set off my race radar. Any thoughts?
[CAH: no ping on my radar!]
What sort of income tax? Personal? Corporate? Both? What exemption level? What rates? How much would Rep. Elliott actually pay if her ideas were implemented effective right now?
A state income tax based on federal tax liability would cost a significant number of taxpayers absolutely nothing.
The best tax is the one that the other person pays.
With the current furor in Wisconsin and other places involving the teachers' unions, enacting a state income tax in South Dakota would be like pouring rocket fuel onto a smoldering fire.
Lots of people would burn, and more than a few would flee. I bought that 2-acre lot in Wyoming for more than one reason.
The comment section for Mercer's column in the Aberdeen American News examined how could get greater value out of the state owned grassland leases:
http://www.aberdeennews.com/news/aan-south-dakota-legislators-cannot-dodge-budget-reality-20110304,0,3506237.story?track=rss
Why do I get the feeling that Pierre is not looking at everything on the table in terms of revenue or cuts?
We drove into Minnesota and back, and noticed the Great Faces sign that greets us at the South Dakota border. Why aren't we posting large billboards at every border entrance that says, "Welcome to Income-Tax-Free South Dakota" as an economic development and residential development tool? One time investment and decades of exposure to visitors and business owners. Our governor is short-sighted on his education funding cuts. Our best economic development comes from within, starting with our children's education.
I think Rep. Elliot might need to show up to session once in a while if she is going to support something like this.
Elaine Elliot has missed a lot of time in Pierre. She should resign and let her husband take her job... At least he was there and well respected.
In my opinion, Gov. Daugaard proposed his budget as a "starting point." I think he'll be open to targeted cuts. That's just my gut feeling, but these days, gut feelings seem to correlate with the truth as well as anything I read on the Internet!
I'm not entirely averse to a tax increase of some kind, if no other option exists to prevent serious cuts to education and nursing homes. However, we ought to take a realistic view, and think about options that the public would actually approve.
I suspect that Stan Adelstein's proposed summer sales tax increase would pass a public referendum, although not by a very big margin.
It's possible that a penny increase in the sales tax year-round, with an exemption for groceries and essential children's clothing items, might also pass a public referendum.
I believe that a state income tax or a gross receipts tax (which is essentially an income tax on sterioids) are "dead on arrival" in the public view in South Dakota. Of course, I could be wrong again -- but keep in mind that quite recently, in liberal Washington state, a public referendum for a millionaires-only state income tax failed by a two-to-one margin.
If we can't raise taxes by referendum alone (as some here have said), could we have a referendum to the effect that whatever else might take place, no cuts should be made to education or nursing homes? The Legislature and the Governor could then figure out the work-around. Is that legal?
Again, I should reiterate that while I would not completely rule out a tax increase, I think it should come only as a last resort. I remain dead-set against any brand new tax.
Stan, unless the media has totally dropped the ball, the majority of the heat at crackerbarrels this session has come from people who are mad about the cuts and want us to pony up the revenue to pay our own way. Just as last year, when more of the fire seemed to be coming from folks who's elect someone like Kristi Noem, this year it's coming from the folks who say don't do what the Noem types would do. There may well be a critical mass willing to challenge the conventional wisdom and support a new tax if not a whole new tax system.
And I'm reading Governor Daugaard differently. If his budget really was a starting point, he hasn't shown much sign of budging from it since the budget address. He's playing hard chicken, and if there's any swerving, it's happening only behind closed doors, behind this smokescreen of abortion legislation and phony legislative support for a tax initiative.