The District 31 Legislative candidates met Tuesday evening at a Tea Party forum hosted by the Northern Hills Patriots. To the local Tea Party’s credit, their first question was not about fighting ObamaCare or Agenda 21 or abortion (that nutty stuff came later). The forum opened instead with a straightforward question about how to balance the budget and develop a reserve without raising taxes:

Rep. Fred Romkema hit this question out of the park. In a room full of voters whose party seems not to like incumbents, Rep. Romkema made his experience in Pierre sound as positive as possible. He noted that when he came to Pierre in 2009, South Dakota had been running a structural deficit around $25 million for eight straight years. That deficit ballooned to over $100 million as the recession took its bite out of revenues. Rep. Romkema took credit for solving the problem, saying that thanks to his support for Governor Daugaard’s extreme, draconian 10% budget cuts last year, we have balanced the budget and restored our retirement system to full funding.

Rep. Romkema said we are now a fiscal model to other states. I find alarming the prospect of other states trying to emulate our anti-education budget. However, in front of this audience, Rep. Romkema says all the right things.

Rep. Romkema then spreads some practical jam on that just-right toast. Rejecting fiscal absolutism, Rep. Romkema says we may need to increase taxes to deal with emergencies. Things like last year’s Missouri River flooding and the Black Hills pine beetle epidemic (and fires that may arise therefrom) cost money to fight; Rep. Romkema says we must be prudent and be ready to raise more money if necessary. Romkema is George H. W. Bush, not Grover Norquist.

On this same question, challenger John Teupel gives a weak swing and a miss. He tells the Tea Party that he was part of the budget problem. When he served in the House from 2001 to 2004, Teupel says he voted for the final Janklow budget, which created the structural deficit. He says he and other legislators thought they’d be able to rein the budget overrun back the next year under the new governor. When that new governor, M. Michael Rounds, arrived, he proposed a 3% increase for education and employees which Teupel says locked us into that structural deficit. Teupel says “we’re back on track now” with conservative governor Dennis Daugaard; we just need more conservative legislators.

Note how in one question, Teupel strikes out with all sectors of the electorate. The ultra-conservatives in the audience hear Teupel saying he caused the problem that his opponent Rep. Romkema just took credit for fixing. The Rounds backers in the audience hear Teupel casting aspersions on the former governor.  Voters in general hear Teupel admit to being a big spender who lacked the political courage to pay for that spending.

Tim Johns says some safe things about how maybe it’s time to stop some of the growth in government. He waves the magic wand of economic development as a solution to revenue shortfalls.

That answer is at least more on point than Gary Coe’s. Playing the local Steve Sibson, Coe covers up his lack of knowledge and experience on a big policy question by shoehorning it into his preferred talking points on ObamaCare. Elect this man, and you’ll get nothing done.

At both Spearfish forums, we’ve heard the line that in Pierre, there are two issues: the budget, and everything else. On this major issue, Rep. Romkema shows the the most pragmatic budget approach and, at least from a conservative perspective, the best record. John Teupel admits to a failed record. Stressing what he considers his budget success is Rep. Romkema’s surest route to keeping Teupel from taking his seat in Pierre.

Gordon Howie’s propaganda machine gripes and moans (again, linklessly! Why does South Dakota’s right-wing blogosphere have to suck so badly?) that healthcare is a privilege, not a right attested in the Declaration of Independence.

Maintaining a military presence in other sovereign nations isn’t a right, either, but that doesn’t stop the United States of America from stationing troops in (depending on how you count) over 600 bases in 130 other countries. Hmmm… how many foreign countries have troops on U.S. soil? (The U.N.’s black helicopters don’t count.)

Other countries choose to spend more on protecting their citizens from daily threats like disease, injury, and economic insecurity. And don’t forget: countries that have single-payer health insurance spend less on health care.

But here in America, we are determined to spend more money on our John Wayne fantasies of storming every beach and desert stronghold than on taking care of our neighbors. For example, check out the priorities of the latest budget proposal from the House Republicans. Rather than allow the $55 billion in military spending cuts called for by last summer’s debt agreement, Rep. Kristi Noem’s pals want to shift those cuts to “lower-priority spending.” Greg Kaufmann at The Nation documents our “lower priorities”:

But for House Republicans, their preferred alternative of cutting lower-priority spending means… a $36 billion cut in food stamps (SNAP), which largely helps the elderly, disabled people, children and the working poor. Two million people would lose their benefits entirely and 44 million would have their benefits reduced—the current average benefit is $4 per person per day. Two hundred and eighty thousand low-income children would also lose automatic access to free school breakfast and lunch. The bill also cuts the SNAP employment and training program by 72 percent, making it more difficult for jobless recipients to find work. It’s important to note that SNAP kept 5 million people from poverty in 2010 and reduced poverty rates by 8 percent in 2009.

Cuts to lower-priority spending means… denying the Child Tax Credit to 5.5 million children—that’s an average of $1,800 out of the pockets of working families earning sub-poverty wages. The Child Tax Credit lifted 1.3 million children out of poverty in 2009.

Cuts to lower-priority spending means… eliminating the Social Services Block Grant (SSBG), which 11 million children rely on—including 4 million children who receive child care assistance, 1.7 million receiving protective services and 451,000 children in foster care. It also funds meals on wheels programs, services that help protect over a half-million seniors from abuse, and community-based care that allows elderly and disabled people to remain in their homes rather than be placed in expensive institutions [Greg Kaufmann, "This Week in Poverty: Republicans Define 'Lower-Priority Spending'," The Nation, 2012.05.11].

House Republicans will pour money into breaking things and killing people overseas. But they don’t see the value in spending money right here in America in ways that feed people, get them out of poverty, and save us money in the long run. Raising false spectres of “control and dominance,” Republicans will sacrifice their neighbors and gut social programs to pay for very real American control and dominance of other sovereign nations.

Friends, I try to keep the Jon Stewart posts to a minimum. But when our man Thune makes the show, how can I resist?

On Monday, Senator John Thune rose with his Republican colleagues in opposition to the Buffett Rule, President Obama’s proposal to set a minimum federal income tax rate of 30% for folks making over two million dollars a year.

Senator Thune said the Buffett Rule is unworthy of the Senate’s attention because (0:45 in the Stewart clip below) it would only generate revenue equivalent to “half of one day’s worth of federal spending.” Thune and his colleagues pegged that additional revenue at $47 billion over ten years; advocates estimate slightly larger potatoes of $160 billion over ten years.

So why does this statement from Senator Thune get Jon Stewart’s attention?

…because a year and a week ago, Senator Thune spoke from the Senate floor (1:50 in the Stewart clip) to support the House GOP budget that would have eliminated funding for Planned Parenthood:

I think most of these—a lot of legislative things, a lot of things that get funded in government are an expression of someone’s ideology. Now, there are some of us who happen to believe the taxpayers in this country should not be supporting abortion; that taxpayer funds should not be going to support abortions.

The broader debate about funding for Planned Parenthood is not just ideological, it is a funding issue because they have received somewhere on the order of over $300 million a year in taxpayer funds. So when you are looking at ways to trim government, you are looking at every area of the government. You are by definition making decisions that in some cases may be based on someone’s ideology [Senator John Thune, remarks from the Senate floor, Congressional Record, April 8, 2011, p. S2293].

Senator Thune finds savings of $300 million a year worth mentioning in Senate debate when it serves his ideology and backs fellow Senator Jon Kyl’s blatant lie about Planned Parenthood. But reducing the debt by $4.7 billion a year (that’s more than 15 times as much) is peanut shells, not worthy of his support.

In other words, Thune will happily squeeze every penny of debt reduction he can from women who need health care, but he’ll balk at debt reduction that cuts into purchases of champagne and summer homes.

So did you hear the one about the state that decided to hand out employee bonuses because the economy and budget were looking up, then realized it had to take out loans to cover the bonuses? Ah-ha-ha ha ha! Ah-ha-ha—oops:

The state Board of Regents will consider allowing South Dakota’s six public universities to borrow money to provide the 5 percent one-time bonuses that Gov. Dennis Daugaard and the Legislature authorized for all state employees.

Regents Executive Director Jack Warner is proposing the loans come from the student tuition reserve. They would cover about $1.9 million of a much larger shortfall facing the universities over the bonuses.

The estimated cost of the bonuses throughout the state’s university system is nearly $11.9 million. The Legislature appropriated $5,161,357 in general funds to pay for the bonuses to university employees whose jobs are under category of revenue.

The universities must come up with the rest [Bob Mercer, "Regents Could Allow Universities to Borrow Money for Bonuses," Aberdeen American News, 2012.03.23].

The Regents had better act fast: HB 1137 requires that we cut those bonus checks on Friday, March 30.

Governor Dennis Daugaard brags about balancing South Dakota’s budget for the 123rd year in a row. Balancing the budget is a breeze when you pass legislation without appropriating the funds necessary to pay for it. Making the universities borrow money and pay off the difference through further budget cuts and hopes for more student enrollment is almost hilarious. Almost.

Sioux Falls School Board President Kent Alberty is running on the Democratic ticket for the District 12 Senate seat. His opponent, incumbent Senator Mark Johnston, voted for House Bill 1234, Governor Daugaard’s really bad education reform law. Kent, take your cues from Mike Knudson and Pam Merchant.

Meanwhile, the Sioux Falls School District blog observes the following disparity between state support for K-12 education and growth in the rest of state government:

The 2012 South Dakota Legislative Session again ended with education funding growing at a rate that significantly lags behind the growth in the rest of State government. The ongoing general fund state aid formula grew 2.3 percent, as did the total amount, including one-time funds, sent to schools on a per student basis. In contrast, the rest of the State general fund budget grew 7.2 percent. While the FY12 per student levels in the ongoing state aid formula remain below the FY08 level, the rest of the State general fund budget is at an all time high, over 3 percent above its previous mark ["Legislative Wrap-up," District Dialogue, 2012.03.12].

Read that again: The state general fund is at an all-time high, while K-12 is being asked to do its job while spending less than it did five years ago. Are you spending less now for groceries, electricity, and insurance than you did five years ago?

Run hard, Kent!

Madison City Commission candidate Pat Mullen gets the Chuck Clement treatment in last night’s Madison Daily Leader. On the good side, Mullen emphasizes his budget and planning chops as an administrator at Marty Indian School. He rightly amplifies citizen concerns about the city’s maxed-out debt load.

But then he gets wrapped up in this inapt phrasing:

Even before the April 10 election, Mullen expects to do some homework to run for a city commissioner’s job. He planned to study the latest municipal infrastructure improvement plan that was approved in 2011 by the commissioners. Mullen also wanted to review the last few city budgets [Chuck Clement, "Mullen Plans Move from Education to City Government," Madison Daily Leader, 2012.03.19].

I don’t know when Clement interviewed Mullen, but the April 10 election is three weeks away. Pat, you shouldn’t be expecting to do some homework to run. You’re running! It’s on! You ought to have a lot of homework done and ready to show us in nice tight “Vote for me and here’s why” bullet points. You should already have looked at the 2010–2012 budget books and 2008–2010 audited financials available on the city finance office webpage and be able to tell us what you like and don’t like about the financial priorities manifested therein.

Mullen’s interview is more vague than the previous two from competitors Mike Waldner and Jeremiah Corbin. He hopes increased sales tax revenues will help Madison pay down its debt, and that’s a perfectly reasonable position. However, on economic development, all we get is this oracular pronouncement:

“I think the city has a role in helping the community grow, but we also want to be cautious and not jeopardize what we already have” [Pat Mullen, quoted in Clement, 2012.03.19].

Into what specific actions would you translate that role, Pat? Are there ways the city has been incautious in economic development? Has the city commission or the LAIC somehow jeopardized what Madison has? And heck, just what does Madison have to jeopardize?

For those answers and more, I guess we’ll have to wait for the Chamber forum on April 3. Do that homework, Pat!

What’s that degree Congresswoman Kristi Noem is getting in May? Democratic candidate Jeff Barth thinks it’s a B.S. in math:

And here I thought Noem’s main math problem was her ability to exaggerate the potential job creation of the Keystone XL pipeline by a factor of 100.

Note that Barth’s pointed language on spending and handouts to the wealthy goes just a little soft on the tax side of the equation. “We need to restrain our spending and keep our income up. In fact, we’re all going to have to pull together to solve this problem.” He does support raising some taxes (and that’s one perfectly logical debt solution, paying for what we’re getting from government).

One other math note: someone write Barth a check now so he can get a better webcam! I’m all for homemade, but my Blackberry Playbook can shoot better video than that… and I’m not running for Congress. Heck, B. Thomas Marking had better quality video than this one (although he’s closed his YouTube account, so we can’t enjoy his homemade campaign clips any more, darn it!).

The official corporate federal income tax rate in America is 35%. But corporations like Mitt Romney (corporations are people, so people are corporations, right?) often pay an effective tax rate less than 15%.

Corporations get a similar break on state taxes. A new report—aptly titled “Corporate Tax Dodging in the Fifty States“— from the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy finds that while the average corporate state tax rate is 6%, Mitt Romney’s base manages to cut its effective tax rate in half, depriving states of $42.7 billion. (Nationally, the projected state budget shortfalls for FY 2013 total $44 billion.)

One big reason states lose out on corporate taxes is as obvious as Referred Law 14 on South Dakota’s ballot: corporate welfare that doesn’t produce the economic development on which it is predicated:

The first reason is that state lawmakers persist in enacting targeted tax breaks for specific industries or companies without any evidence that these are effective economic development strategies….

It’s important for state lawmakers to maintain a healthy skepticism about whether state corporate tax breaks can ever be a job creator. I say that because the tax environment is different at the state level than it is at the federal level. States have to balance their budgets. Any tax cut has to be paid for. In the current fiscal environment, when a state gives a corporation a $100 million tax break, it has to make this up somehow. It could be in the form of spending cuts — less road construction or salary cuts — or by hiking other taxes. This isn’t an especially good approach to growing state economies. Moreover, the real losers in this zero sum game are often the other companies that are competing with the companies that get the tax breaks. It’s profoundly anti-free market. There’s nothing more antithetical to the free market than having the tax system pick winners and losers. State lawmakers lose sight of the fact that targeted tax breaks amount to social engineering [Matthew Gardner, executive director, ITEP, quoted in Penelope Lemov, "Losing out on Corporate Taxes," Governing, 2012.01.18].

South Dakota is one of six states that doesn’t have a corporate income tax, but we find plenty of other wealth to transfer from citizens to corporate pockets to incentivize business activity that would have happened anyway.

I hate being tricked like that. So should you. Let’s get corporations to pay their fair share for the general welfare.