Last updated on 2021.04.07
Habemus budget! The South Dakota Legislature passed Senate Bill 187, the general appropriations bill for Fiscal Year 2014, and got the heck out of town at 8 p.m. last night.
David Montgomery does fine work spreadsheeting the numerous budget amendments that were proposed yesterday. At peril of positing a false dilemma, I offer two amendments for comparison.
Senator Billie Sutton (D-21/Burke) took one more swing at expanding Medicaid. He moved to amend $1.9 million into the budget to put South Dakota on board with the Medicaid expansion offered under the Affordable Care Act. The Joint Appropriations Committee said no.
Joint Appropriations could not bring itself to spend $5.3 million to bring South Dakota's per-student spending back to 2011 levels. They settled for Senator Bill Van Gerpen's (R-19/Tyndall) amendment to put $2.2 million above what Governor Daugaard asked into K-12 education.
That education amendment puts another $16.72 toward teaching each of our 130,000-plus K-12 students. The Legislature wants to direct that money to teacher salaries, which will boost each of our K-12 teachers' pay about $220, which moves us 9% of the way to not being last in the nation and 1.3% of the way to catching up with Minnesota.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not going to say no any dollars the Legislature is willing to put toward paying South Dakota teachers what they are worth. But let's put on our green eye shades.
$2.2 million for K-12 is good, but it constitutes 0.65% of the general fund allocation for state aid to K-12 education, $341 million.
$1.9 million would have been a similarly small increase in South Dakota's general fund expenditures for Medicaid, 0.63% of $301 million. But it also would have brought into the state $273 million in federal spending, a 59% increase over the $464 million we already get.
We could have done both. We could have added more money for K-12 and expanded Medicaid. But if we had really been down to our last $2.2 million in mad money, and if someone had said take your pick, boost teacher pay $220 a head or expand Medicaid, I might have had a hard time leaving $273 million dollars in medical assistance and economic stimulus on the table in favor of marginal pay increases that will not noticeably alleviate our teacher pay crisis.
It is all about the selling of the numbers to the gullible public. We could have easily funded the schools to the 2011 level and then added the bonus for the teachers along with the Medicaid expansion and still created a huge surplus with the federal offset monies. But the republicans choose to do great harm by inflicting as much damage as possible and then come up with the great lie of a pay raise for teachers. Sounds like Dick Wadhams had his lying hands on this steaming pile.
Mississippi is considering giving all teachers a $1,500 bump this year and $1,000 bump next year. There's a weird merit pay plan for a 3rd year that might scuttle the plan, but it's likely $220 is not going to keep up with any other state.
You're right the legislature should have done both. Given that the money seems a trade off with increased Medicaid funding, I'm going to look for some charity to give the $14 or $15 monthly take home. (Paychecks are spread out over 12 months.)
This is a reverse Robin Hood plan that I don't want to benefit from. I'll take my chances with whatever else local negotiations come up with.
Forgot to add link for Mississippi numbers. http://blog.gulflive.com/mississippi-press-news/2014/03/mississippi_house_senate_must.html
That totally puts this into prospective Kal Lis with the payroll deductions spread over a year as a slap in the face for being a legitimate raise for professional work. But you can see evil at work here by saying the teachers got a deserving $ 2,200,000.00 dollar raise, the gullible public seems assured that huge amount means you are all buying new BMW's to parade around with. That takes the argument of our beleaguered republican lawmakers to even consider any more discretionary monies for something as important as healthcare for our working white poor.
Oh, the poor republican souls that shoulder that responsibility. South Dakota republicans have a hate on for poor working white people and in that segment of the population, they have also landed educators.
Kal Lis, thanks for that link! It's very important that we compare our boost to the boosts our competing states are offering. Our teaching candidates certainly will be making that comparison.
Same old Republicans, same old Republican crap.
Cory, putting the teacher pay in competition with the Medicaid expansion is doing the GOP's work for them: it is an artificial competition that need not exist.
Funding is always a question of political will. When government (and this is not restricted to Pierre or the GOP) wants something, funding will always be found. Conversely when the political will is weak, funding is dry - a convenient way to distract from the real question of political will.
When the national average teacher salary is $56,385, and SD's average is $39,580, the "extra" (above however the 3% shakes out locally on salary) $220.00 may well not gain SD teachers any ground over all of our market competitors for attracting or retaining the best teachers.
I felt uneasy about posing that false dilemma, Steve, and I can very much imagine the GOP using this vote for cover: "What? We finally put some money toward education, and you guys still complain? How dare you!" I believe 100% that we could expand Medicaid and increase teacher pay.
I'm not at all trying to say, "You darn teachers kept us from expanding Medicaid!" But stuck in a bad spot, if we had had the opportunity to horse trade, and if we had to choose, which policy initiative would do more good for South Dakota? Which would you have chosen?
Perhaps I should oppose apples to apples:
"Daugaard’s analysts proposed reducing the state’s Medicaid budget by $3.2 million. Republican lawmakers countered with a proposed $9.2 million decrease. They compromised at $5.2 million in anticipated savings" [David Montgomery, "Legislature: Budget help for teachers, low-income South Dakotans," that Sioux Falls paper, 2014.03.16].
So Legislators found $4 million more than they originally planned to spend on Medicaid. Does any portion of that $4 million bring the kind of matching funds the $1.9 million for Medicaid expansion would?
Cory, I don't in any way interpret what you say as, "teachers raises cost SD expansion of Medicaid." Your positions on helping the poor of SD (including her poor teachers) has been clear and consistent (and appreciated). I am sure that part of the cover Pierre will be looking for about denying that expansion of Medicaid is that the popular spending on education, especially our valued teachers, took priority with "available funds." Certainly this is all part of a large political calculation.
Medicaid expansion was DOA politically from long before the opening bell of this session. Opposition was never about the ABILITY for SD to expand. As such, I also don't believe there was ever an opportunity to horse trade ANY spending for that expansion.
The teachers who are whining about getting more than a 3% raise should probably all turn their money over to the poor.
Grudz,
The only money dedicated to pay raises is the $2.2 million not the 3% that schools can use as part of their total operating budget.
I've already said that the $220 I am scheduled to get will go to charity because I don't want to be seen to benefit from this weird albeit bogus political calculus.
You should demand that your schools give you your share of raises from their 3% increase then. Otherwise it is one of those local control issues it seems. The good schools give teachers raises, the bad ones blow it all on fat cat administrators.
increases in health insurance rates will more than wipe out the $200 raise. Even if they get that plus a 3% raise it still won't cover the rate increase
grudznik, "you should demand that your schools give you . . . " "Demand?" In a right-to-work state, exactly how does an employee make such a "demand?" Insurance carriers can make demands for higher health care premiums by just increasing the premiums. Textbook companies can demand more money for textbooks by increasing their prices. It is really after everyone BUT the teachers demand their increases that the salary increases are decided, and then that will be in conflict with the demand there be a higher reserve in many districts still fearful of Pierre's funding commitment after the big cut year.
In the face of any demand, school boards have the power to impose any contract on teachers.