Students returning this week will attend classes in buildings without adequate ventilation or fire detection systems and in historic landmarks with buckling foundations. A space crunch is making it difficult for researchers to obtain grants and putting the accreditation of several programs at risk, administrators say.
“It’s embarrassing,” said North Dakota state Representative Kathy Hawken, a Republican from Fargo who sits on the higher education funding and budget committees. “We have a divided legislature on higher ed: Some think we put too much money into it and some think we don’t put enough. Buildings aren’t people, so we don’t put dollars there” [Jennifer Oldham, "North Dakota Universities Crumble as Oil Cash Pours In," Bloomberg, 2014.08.26].
Moving that money from petro-tax revenues to classrooms is complicated: Oldham reports that 30% of the money is locked up in a state trust fund until 2017, while another big chunk goes to municipalities. The $300 million the North Dakota Legislature gets faces competition from road needs. While the universities need $808 million in repairs, the state also needs $925 million to fix roads statewide over the next two years, including $485 million for repairs to industry-battered oil-patch roads.
Taxpayers will spend almost $4 million annually paying off Perdue’s Go Fish aquatic wildlife and fishing education center, some new equine and livestock facilities at the Georgia National Fairgrounds near his home and the purchase of the Oaky Woods conservation property at a price some lawmakers considered excessive. All are in Houston County, where Perdue was born, raised and plans to return when he leaves office.
The state is making debt payments on those three projects — worth a total of $60 million — at a time when legislators are approving tight budgets that forced teacher furloughs and layoffs, and brought spending cuts on everything from economic development efforts to health care.
The three projects are part of the about $1.2 billion a year the state is now paying on long-term debt, up about 60 percent from the year Perdue took office [James Salzer, "Perdue Pushed Pet Projects," Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 2011.01.03].
The last couple pages of the Legislative Research Council's 2014 Statistical Comparison offer a summary of the funds appropriated by the South Dakota Legislature every year since statehood. The 1890 Legislature appropriated $438,708 to the general fund. In the coming fiscal year, our general fund has $1.389 billion dollars, 3,166 times the amount of money our founders gave Governor Mellette to spend.
Of course, we have much more than $1.389 billion in government money coursing through our state veins. The general fund makes up just under a third of the total FY2015 state budget of $4.259 billion. 27.8% of that spending comes from other fees and licenses, while 39.6% comes from Uncle Sam.
The 2014 Statistical Comparison starts breaking down the budget by general, other, and federal funds in 1978. South Dakota's total budget that year was $457 million. In FY2015, South Dakota government will spend 9.3 times that amount.
Now let's compare that growth to what's happened in Washington. Crunching numbers from USGovernmentSpending.com, I find that federal spending in FY1978 was $458 billion. Federal spending in FY2015 is projected to be $3.9 trillion. Over the period that South Dakota's government spending has increased by a factor of 9.3, federal spending has increased by a factor of 8.5.
Or let's compare annual growth. Since 1978, South Dakota's total state budget has grown at an average of 6.3% each year. Over the same period, the federal budget grew at an annual rate of 6.0%. South Dakota's budget grew faster than the federal budget in 25 of those years; federal budget growth outpaced our state budget growth in just 13 of those years.
Governor Dennis Daugaard and his predecessor-cum-Senate candidate Mike Rounds like to talk about how Washington ought to apply South Dakota common sense to its budget. But if South Dakota had matched federal spending patterns, our state budget would be 8.8% less than it is now.
The House panel that decides defense spending came out with a $570 billion blueprint Thursday that spares the USS George Washington aircraft carrier....
The spending bill echoes the broad defense policy bill that the House overwhelmingly passed last week that saves ships and aircraft despite pleas from senior military officers for the reductions....
Military leaders have warned that sparing what they consider to be parochial programs will undermine their ability to train soldiers, sailors and airmen to fight. But lawmakers are determined to protect favorite weapons [Donna Cassata, "House Panel Snubs Pentagon on Defense Spending," AP, 2014.05.29].
The Pentagon requested a modest pay raise; Congress went beyond what was requested.
The Pentagon requested a slight increase in out-of-pocket costs for housing and food, in order to help control the cost of benefits; Congress turned down the request.
The Pentagon requested retiring the U-2 spy plane and the A-10 Warthog; Congress funded them anyway.
The Pentagon requested shuttering unnecessary bases; Congress is keeping them open.
Lawmakers, at least on the right, aren’t just throwing unwanted money at the department, they’re also ignoring military leaders on policy matters – the Pentagon wants to close the detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, and Congress doesn’t care [Steve Benen, "Pentagon Asks for Less; Congress Spends More," MSNBC: MaddowBlog, 2014.05.30].
I thought candidates liked to get hyped up about listening to the military and not making battlefield decisions from political perspectives. But apparently neither the practical advice of the generals nor their own deficit-hawkery can stop Congresspeople seeking re-election from throwing money at the Pentagon.
Cheers to the Mitchell Daily Republic for recognizing that GOP U.S. Senate candidate Marion Michael Rounds is pulling our legs when he pander-shouts that he'll eliminate the federal Department of Education:
HISSES to former governor and current U.S. Senate candidate Mike Rounds for repeating, during his Friday night visit to Mitchell, his earlier call to abolish the U.S. Department of Education. The same day we printed his comments about that, we also printed a separate story revealing that South Dakota is third-most dependent among all states on federal government aid for K-12 education, receiving 16.4 percent of its K-12 budget from the feds. A man who governed a state so dependent on federal education money lacks the credibility to claim the federal government should have no role in K-12 education. Change and improve the Department of Education? Fine. But calls to abolish it strike us as unrealistic political pandering [editorial board, "Hisses and Cheers," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2014.05.25].
Normally Rounds's feigned ignorance of fiscal reality would end on June 3, when he could stop having to recycle old-conservative dog whistles to beat Stace Nelson and focus instead on calling Rick Weiland a liberal. But if Rounds wins the primary, he'll have to keep saying silly things like "Nuke the Department of Education!" to beat back the conservative challenge from Gordon Howie.
And the longer Rounds has to do that, the longer voters will have to see that Rounds is a spineless panderer with no credibility.
Remember, this reliance on Uncle Sam comes in a state where we don't take Medicaid expansion money because we don't trust the federal government to sustain its spending levels.
Only Mississippi and Louisiana get a greater portion of their K-12 budget from the feds. Nationwide, the feds provide 10.0% of K-12 funding.
Alas, the savings from the federal largesse don't trickle down to local school districts; they all accrue to Pierre. Nationally, state and local funding for K-12 education is about an even split, 45.5% to 44.5%. In South Dakota, the state provides 30.5%, while locals provide 53.1%. No state provides less funding as percentage of total K-12 spending than South Dakota.
Here's the data for South Dakota and its neighbors:
K-12 education funding from federal, state, and local sources, 2012
Our K-12 lean on the federal crutch is not new; it is chronic South Dakota irresponsiblity, reported for years on this blog, from Republican governors and state legislators who subsidize their low-tax promises by taking money hand over fist from an ever-forgiving Uncle Sam and the generous liberals in other states who can't turn their backs on the children we hold hostage.
Hmmm... imagine what would happen if liberal neighbors in Minnesota, Iowa, and Wyoming(!) got tired of giving in to our demands. They might decide to save money by saving the hostages. They're paying for our students' learning anyway; why not just recruit their families to move out and come to Marshall and Minneapolis, Hawarden and Des Moines, Cody and Cheyenne, where they'll find happier, better-paid teachers and lower local school district tax burdens.
We are an independent lot who believe in self-reliance, perseverance, and determination.... South Dakotans are also some of the most compassionate and generous people you will ever meet [Governor Dennis Daugaard, explaining to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius why South Dakota has chosen not to expand Medicaid, letter, 2014.01.30].
"South Dakota needs to spend time and effort preparing its young people for the world of work," says Governor Daugaard. Time, effort, but no mention of money... at least not of the money he took away from the schools:
As school districts have struggled with budget constraints, one means that they've used to manage their expenses is to reduce some of the electives that our students have available in high school, and some of these electives unfortunately are career and technical education opportunities, those welding classes, those ag classes, those health ed and engineering classes that give students elective course opportunities that can also be explorations of potential careers. And it costs too much money to have every one of these high schools offer these career opportunities [Dennis Daugaard, campaign video, 2014.05.09].
That's odd: maybe not every one, but a lot more of these high schools offered these career opportunities, programs that local school boards decided were as vital for their students as English, math, science, and history, before the Janklow-Rounds-Daugaard regime applied twenty years of budget pressure to strangle the schools. "It costs too much" is not an objective statement of fact; it is a value judgment in which Bill Janklow, Mike Rounds, and Dennis Daugaard have said, "We don't want to spend what it takes to provide every student with good in-house career and technical education."
But in rides Dennis to the rescue, like the mining companies contaminating the water supply, then rolling in to town with trucks of bottled water:
So it made sense to me that we try to regionalize the offerings and find a high school in every region of the state that could create a very good career and technical education package of classes and offer it not just to that school district but to all surrounding school districts as well.
So just last February the state utilized Future Funds to grant over $8 million in grants to a whole array of school districts around every region of the state to create programs and to reinvigorate programs in electronics, in machining, in the building trades, in the health care industry, in accounting [Daugaard, 2014.05.09].
Let me remind the Governor what is wrong with that statement:
Future Funds: in other words, one-time money. When Democrats ask the Governor to use surpluses (surpli!) from other budget lines to give education a boost, he insists that we can't give schools false hope by handing them one-time money. But when he wants to make up for damage his budget cuts caused, he has no problem taking money from his economic development slush fund and dropping it, one time, on the school districts.
The governors' budget cuts have replaced a first-class vocational education system with a second-class vocational education system. Twelve favored schools get in-house technical education. Students in surrounding school districts get to take those classes, but only if they rearrange their schedule to bus over to those tech-ed centers or take the classes online. In either situation, the remote students get less of an education. It's better than nothing, but if I'm a parent with a practical choice of school districts, I send my child to the school that offers more on-site opportunities.
Governor Daugaard is taking steps to make up for the damage he did to career and technical education, but as Mr. Larson points out, schools have cut much more than vocational classes to survive 20 years of gubernatorial miserliness:
YOU HAVE GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!!!! Those extensive "budget constraints" were caused by his budget! He is the one that has de-invested in education. I am blessed to be in a district that offers great technical/career education programs which include agriculture, wood technical, art programs, health programs; along with some great teachers in foreign languages, math, chemistry, English, and social studies. We made it through the cuts beat up, but thanks to some wonderful administrators and school board members we got through it but had to close an elementary school to do so.
If Dennis Daugaard really wanted to do education a favor, he wouldn't have waited until re-election year to dole out one-time favors to a handful of lucky school districts for one corporate-favored slice of the curriculum. He'd have put forward the time, effort, and money to fund quality education in all subjects and all schools in 2011.
A report released this week by the Tax Foundation, a non-partisan research think tank based in Washington, D.C., said 41.5 percent of South Dakota's general fund dollars in Fiscal Year 2012 came from federal transfers — the third highest percentage of all states in the country.
Being a large, rural state with a sparse population means depending on federal support is almost unavoidable. But Joy Smolnisky of the South Dakota Budget and Policy Project says we also make choices that increase our dependence on Uncle Sam:
"Don't let the stand-alone fact that we get a higher percentage of federal money than other states do suggest something else," she said. "No, we just collect less from ourselves."
Dilges doesn't disagree. "The policy makers in our state have decided we want to keep taxes lower for our citizens," he said. "As a result, we try to get as much federal participation as we can" [Young, 2014.05.16].
Suppose a woman on the street said, I choose to work fewer hours at McDonald's, so I'm going to apply for more food stamps. We'd take offense, right? We'd shout about the need for responsibility and self-reliance, right?
Well, didn't he Governor's budget chief just say the same thing? We choose to spend less of our own wealth on our needs, so we try to get more federal assistance.
If Republicans are going to keep telling us that government budgets work like family budgets, when will South Dakota Republicans start applying the same kitchen-table responsibility they preach to working folks to our own state budget decisions?
P&R Miscellany Governor's Debate Shuns EB-5: Governor's debate...Just reading the reports and I see this in the Argus story."None of the audience-submitted questions chosen by the moderator addressed EB-5." The Farmers Union has…
South DaCola Is the Pavilion coming around? Maybe.: I suppose I could talk about the (non) press conference about the buckling siding at the EC, but there was so much Beautiful Sunshine going on there, I think they had a couple of skid loaders waiting…
Constant Conservative Breaking a Few Friday Targets: Racism is alive and well, in Cuba. That would probably come as no surprise to Milton Friedman, who understood the motivations of human beings better than most. Speaking of motivations, what must motiv…