Last updated on 2022.06.08
Cross-posted at South Dakota Magazine!
Picking your candidates on the South Dakota ballot should be easy. Just mark all the Democrats: they're better for your pocketbook!
The ballot issues require a little more cogitation. Here's one South Dakotan's recommendation for how to vote on the 2012 South Dakota constitutional amendments, referred measures, and initiated measure.
Amendment M: No. I considered voting yes, based on new language that would authorize the Legislature to "enact laws governing the operation and dissolution of corporations." Then when my socialist comrades take over in Pierre, we'd have an easier time dissolving Citibank and nationalizing (state-a-lizing?) all the mega-dairies to convert them to grass-fed beef operations. Then I remembered that until the glorious revolution, Amendment M opens the door for our crony-capitalist Legislature to give corporations more leeway for monkeyshines. Nuts to that!
Amendment N: Yes. State employees get realistic mileage reimbursements for the travel they conduct while doing the work we hire them to do. Legislators are state employees, yet we make them take a loss on their mileage costs with one archaic provision of our constitution. Removing that archaic provision is a fair labor practice. Leaving it in place is nothing but petty.
Amendment O: No. Legislators want to change disbursements from the state cement plant trust fund from a fixed $12 million a year to a percentage keyed to the fund value. That sensible change would keep us from depleting the account when the stock market goes bad (see 2007 recession). However, legislators made one mistake: Amendment O also removes the provision that this disbursement be used to support but not replace state aid to education. That provision goes, and so does a guaranteed extra $12 million to support education. Oops. Try again in 2013, legislators!
Amendment P: No. South Dakota has balanced its budget, more or less, 123 years in a row, thanks to good sense, stinginess, and a constitutional rule saying we can't go more than $100,000 into debt. Amendment P would add an explicit balanced-budget rule. The Governor and legislators say adding this rule is like wearing suspenders with a belt. I say we shouldn't make our constitution look like Steve Urkel.
Initiated Measure 15: Yes. This measure caused me the greatest heartburn and uncertainty. I'm still queasy, but I've made my call. This 25% sales-tax hike bolsters funding for K-12 education and Medicaid, both of which have suffered not just from the Governor's draconian 2011 budget cuts but from over a decade of state neglect. Yet it does so by making worse South Dakota's regressive tax structure. I thus vote Yes with hesitance and say to legislators, "We've handed you more revenue; now ease the burden on the poor by working on a food-tax exemption." I also turn to school boards and say, "Here's $700 more per student. Target that money toward your most needy students, so they get a fair return on the investment their low-income parents are making." $700 a year could subsidize a lot of student breakfasts.
Referred Law 14: No. Corporate welfare for out-footloose out-of-state vulture capitalists doesn't build lasting economic prosperity. If we must support state intrusions on the free market, we do more good for South Dakota by investing our tax rebates in lots of small local entrepreneurs and quality-of-life projects like roads, schools, and parks.
Where do you get the $700 per student number?
Cory Heidelberger supporting the Corporate Medical Establishment that is using children as political pawns only to put them more in debt. What's the problem Mr. teacher, those dollar signs in your eyeballs have you blind?
Sibby if your lot weren't electing people that didn't represent South Dakotans, we wouldn't have to do so much of our elected officials work for them in ballot measures.
Justin, I tried to fix District 20 but my "lot" was in teh minority. I agree with the Dems assessment regarding the problems of crony capitalism. Unfortunately they want to do more of what has caused that problem, which is grow government. And that is what IM15 does. It is illogical to put more money into a corrupt system thinking that will fix the problem.
Once you understand the the $90 million going to Medicaid will be matched with twice as much federal debt, then it is easy to see the IM15 ads are mostly funded by the corporate healthcare lobby, using education as political cover to line their pockets. And this would not have worked if Daugaard had not created a false budget crisis. Both true conservative Republicans and the Democrats need to wake up.
If passed, the added funding will allow the legislature to appropriate money from the 4% of current state sales tax to restore the programs that also saw a 10% cut. State employees will see pay raises that they have had denied over and over again. There will be many beneficiaries besides the schools and nursing homes that are deserving as well. The state is no going to just hand over a blank check to the school district to do what ever they choose with additional money. There will be strings attached. None of this is necessarily bad. Spending more money on things that save you money later on or to dramatically improve quality of life is smart government.
14 No
15 NO, do not raise my taxes regressively, on my food, and give it only to two groups of greedy bastards who didn't get cut as much as they whine and not to all the other groups that got cut
16 Yes. Was going to vote no, but now I need to nullify Mr. H's vote because he wants to raise the tax on my food. I hope the scores go bad for language teachers.
I'm with you Mr. H - except on 15. You're worried about corporate monkeyshines if Amendment M passes (me too)? Big legislative monkeyshines if 15 passes. Watch them lock up more in the trust funds rather than giving it to schools & medicaid providers. Won't pass though.
Guess we disagree on a few of them Cory. I will put a link to your list at Dakota Today with my own. I may have missed a few problems that you caught. I wonder what we will hear on Thursday night at SDPB-TV. Won't make much difference to me and wife however. We both voted early today. I had forgotten that we just can't vote straight Democratic anymore.
Rev Hickey: yes on 1234.
Corey Heidelberger: yes on 15.
Both voting yes on legislation they know is bad. I assume you are willing to make peace with the good Rev, Corey, publicly I hope.
Btw Corey, your first paragraph states, better for your pocket book.
You're better than that on 15 Corey.
Also tell me who you personally trust to fulfill your dream of money into Ed if 15 passes.?
Mr. Les, the fatcat administrators with the reserved parking spaces in Spearfish will build a new teacher's lounge for Mr. H, give math teachers a token raise, get some better volly nets and outfit the band with new fancy uniforms. That is what will happen.
Administrative costs are so bloated, and the districts are so top heavy, that the teachers who are actually doing the work can't get a decent salary because they are being bled dry by a parasitic and unfair union organization. Meanwhile members of the Board of Regents sit on their asses making useless pronouncements on $350,000 a year.
Consolidate superintendents living in the Big House on the Hill in every town and consolidate the university presidents and regents! Give that money to teachers where the rubber meets the road.
Michael, $700 per student is the standard estimate I've heard an in-service here and seen in other discussions. Take K-12's half, $90 million, divide by 128,000 students, you get $700 per student. See notes from Spearfish, Beresford, and Mobridge.
Amendment N: Nope. Every time they've brought this up, the detailed explanation that I've read has said the 'ancient rate' only applies to the initial trip to Pierre and the final trip home. Any other travel is reimbursed at current rates. Since they all say they want to 'serve' us, I figure they can get reimbursed at the old 5 cent rate for a single round trip as a reminder of state history. Basically, if you really want to serve your district, you can pay for one round trip to Pierre. :)
Steve, I'm not blinded by any dollar signs. I anticipate no great personal windfall is this tax passes. My current employer might raise salaries, but it seems more likely that they will try to put back programs that they have cut during the decade of declining state support for education that preceded Daugaard's ax.
Les... you've got me. I deserve your heat. I am voting for legislation that I know is not as good as it should be. How do I differentiate myself from Rep. Hickey in his advocacy for the very bad HB1234? Does it make a difference that I'm not caving to pressure from the Governor or seeking to boost my political stock with anyone with this vote? I'm not voting to boost the Governor's power; I'm voting to challenge his and Russ Olson's fiscal anorexia.
Les, there is always the possibility that the Legislature will find a way to divert this money. The bill is written about as stiffly as it can be to prevent such chicanery. If that language can't guarantee funding for education and Medicaid as intended, then there's no hope for any good policy in that direction.
However, if this tax increase passes, it will be a landmark event in South Dakota politics. A majority of our neighbors will have said to Pierre, "Yes, tax us more." That majority won't be casual or fleeting; they will have looked closely at the bill, assured themselves that it's a good idea, sending money to deserving programs. They will be more attentive than usual to whether the Legislature does what it's told. If the Legislature does not, there will be pitchforks (metaphorical, right Charlie?).
Come on, jd, that's just cheap. What's the practical good of that "reminder"? They agree to serve us, and then we raise just one more barrier, albeit a small one, that makes it harder for regular working class folks to serve? We hire them to do a job. They deserve decent compensation for all of their necessary expenses.
Where did the lotto revenue go? Some say it was stolen from Ed, but it was shown by the numbers to be going into Ed.
It's a shell game, lotto replaces other revenue and this tax will replace other revenue and the end result will be a payoff to someone and I doubt the teacher will see much.
jd, even my conservative neighbor Michael Woodring says Amendment N is a reasonable measure to remove a 19th-century rule that unfairly impoverishes our public servants.
Les, I will be watching for those unjust payoffs carefully. So will many other South Dakotans and legislators... if it passes.
Impoverished by a round trip to Pierre lol. But Cory is right about this I think - does it really make sense for mileage rates to be in our constitution? A constitution is supposed to a basic framework to base laws on, relatively unchanging, so it certainly doesn't make sense for it to contain monetary values.
"impoverish" is Mr. Woodring's word.
We seem to have a lot of state constitutional amendments frittering about in policy details. Does anyone have some perspective on why things like the disbursement formula for the cement trust fund and the reimbursement rate for this specific bit of legislative travel are in the constitution and not statute?
I think putting something in the constitution tying the mileage rate for legislators to whatever the state employees are paying would be a good idea. Let's not give the legislature too much leeway for setting compensation. After all, we've already got the guy that runs the retirement system making nearly half a million dollars a year. It's too bad teachers in the state can't get a decent raise too.
If South Dakota is serious about getting better Legislatures they need to raise the pay and benefits of being one. There is a reason we see some of the same people, its almost like a revolving door, yeah they may leave for 2 or 4 years but many times they come back. Because when you look at a district you can only find few that can both afford and want to do it. As far as I can remember its been 4-5 guys rotating the 3 position in my district. And I'm guessing the same can be said about most districts throughout South Dakota.
As far as 15 and 16. IM 15 is needed. I know people point to bloated administration and no doubt some schools do have it, but many schools don't. Look at Avon High School where the Principal coaches, and teaches 2 classes, or Colome where the Principal is also a math teacher, many school districts share Superintendents all ready. I had a discussion with a school board member about over paying Superintendents, and he said that most of them have the credentials (Doctorate degree) to get a $80-100K job somewhere else if not. So if you want someone qualified you need to pay them. I do agree though that more schools need to share them, but I think the state could help with that without starving the school districts.
As far as Sibby saying that the medicaid money would just go to big healthcare. I understand your concern but there are limits on how much they can charge per person. Most of it will be directed in the form of block-grants to the nursing homes. Go ask a nursing home administrator about it. Its tough right now. I talked to the two ladies that run the local nursing home (1 democrat, 1 republican) and they both said if Romney's proposed cuts to Medicaid were implicated they would have to close their doors. And this wasn't a political conversation.
And 16 is just a flat out bad bill. I unlike some am not totally against merit pay, I think it can work in some situations, but in South Dakota where you have school districts with less then 100 kids K-12 and then you have Sioux Falls and Rapid City which are much larger. The bill is terrible because of that. competition doesn't work too well when you have 5 teachers in the high school.
As far as the tenure part of the bill, I don't have a problem with getting rid of it, except there are school districts that already have gotten rid of it. Its something that should be negotiated locally.
South Dakota needs a Unicameral legislature possibly with split sessions to insure citizen scrutiny of bills introduced in first session. Bicameralism makes no sense for state legislatures since the one-man-one-vote court ruling or legislation of about 40 years ago. We don't have bi-governors, bi-attorney generals, bi-supreme courts, bi-highway patrols, etc. (that refers to two bureaus rather than sexual preference).
Huh. Sounds like a progressive step closer to pure democracy to me.
Doug, before we get our state legislators to float a unicameral amendment for the 2014 ballot, let me ask: do we lose opportunities for public input by cutting the committee hearings and floor votes in half? Consider HB 1234: we didn't beat it, but at least with the House vote, then the Senate vote, then the House reconciliation vote, we had more opportunities to contact legislators with our input and lobby for votes. We knocked the Yes votes down by six, just one shy of stopping it. Is that part of the process valuable?
Joo Boo, you are comparable to my liberal sister. Les I need your money to help all these needy and deserving people.
It wasn't that long ago on the topic of collecting the Internet sales tax(DUE) for South Dakota, you liberals were screaming bloody murder about a new tax.
Well now you're not only getting one and wanting it, you're taking the most regressive tax increase we could possibly design and laying on the backs of those who can least afford it.
And I'll hear again, Les I need your money to help all those needy and deserving people out there.
But, there wont be as many because all the state employees got the raise they've been looking for and the school districts finally all had to opt out realizing the state makes the rules.
We will end up with a 25% sales tax increase and higher RE taxes with the new opt outs.
One gets the sense that Doug's comment is tinged with cynicism in Pierre's Politburo Perfunctorialism: having the discussion might be a ton of fun, though.
Should this massive tax on my food increase, no liberal in this state may ever again whine "regressive! regressive!" and that's double for Mr. H.
Regressive! Squawk. Regressive!
Thanks for the breakdown. It happens to match up with my own research on the ballot issues. :P