Minnehaha County is going after mobile-home owners who are behind in their taxes:

Pay your taxes or we’ll seize your home.  That’s the message from the Minnehaha County Sheriff’s Office as they try and collect on more than 300 mobile home owners who haven’t paid their taxes.

…The unpaid taxes on all the mobile homes adds up to more than $139,000 [Ben Dunsmoor, "Hundreds of Mobile Homes Behind on Taxes," KELOLand.com, 2012.04.23].

Over 300 owners shorting us over $139K… that’s about $460 a head. I’m all for dropping the hammer on folks who don’t pay their fair share in taxes, but I have to wonder: are low-income mobile-home owners the highest value target Minnehaha County can find? Before closing up shop a couple years ago, the Sioux Falls Stockyards alone was $100,000 in arrears. Across the state in Pennington County, Gordon Howie owed $60K in property taxes when he ran for governor. I don’t have a list of property tax delinquents handy, but if Minnehaha County tracked down just a couple of big-ticket delinquents like Howie and the Stockyards, they could recoup at least as much in back taxes as they will sending the sheriff out to knock on over 300 aluminum doors.

But hey, maybe if Minnehaha County seizes a bunch of mobile homes, they can offer a deal on cheap rent to the Minnehaha Republican Party, which had to move its headquarters to Lincoln County because they couldn’t afford life in the big city.

Or maybe the county can turn a profit selling those seized mobile homes to the Minnesota Republican Party, which will soon be looking for new headquarters:

The debt-plagued Republican Party of Minnesota is getting kicked out of its party headquarters near the state Capitol.

Massachusetts-based Hub Properties Trust filed paperwork in Ramsey County on Wednesday to evict the state GOP for failing to pay more than $96,000 in rent over the last year.

…The eviction action follows a series of revelations last winter regarding debts accrued by the party during the reign of former RPM Chairman Tony Sutton. In December, an internal review of  finances revealed that the party owes $1.23 million to creditors, plus more than $700,000 in legal fees accrued during the 2010 gubernatorial recount, and is facing possible fines from the Federal Elections Commission for undisclosed debts. The party is also currently being investigated by the state campaign finance board [Paul Demko and Briana Bierschbach, "State GOP Served with Eviction Papers for Its St. Paul Office Space," Politics in Minnesota, 2012.04.23].

Ah, yes, the Republican Party, the party of fiscal responsibility.

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.

The latest Madville Times poll tests the thesis offered by some K-12 superintendents trying to tamp down a referendum effort by their teachers. Here’s what you said over the last three days:

How will referring HB 1234 to a public vote affect the chances of passing the extra-penny sales tax?

• No effect either way: 48% (53 Votes)
• Tax less likely to pass: 32% (35 Votes)
• Tax more likely to pass: 20% (22 Votes)

Total Voters: 110

A strong two-thirds majority of folks checking in here reject the idea that referring HB 1234 will hurt the chances of passing Initiated Measure 15, the extra-penny sales tax for education and Medicaid.

I don’t hear a lot of support for the superintendents’ stated reasoning that adding another ballot measure will “confuse” voters. However, Mr. Gibilisco does get me thinking about an alternative interaction effect that could cause the HB 1234 referendum to undermine the sales tax initiative. Placing HB 1234 on the ballot reminds voters of how badly our Legislature spends our tax dollars. A drumbeat of campaign rhetoric decrying Pierre’s choices could weaken some voters willingness to trust Pierre with more money.

But if the referendum petition drive fails, HB 1234 stays on the books and on people’s minds. Legislative candidates will hammer incumbents on their bad votes on education policy. A referendum on HB 1234 doesn’t seem to pose a unique disadvantage for folks trying to sell a tax increase in a time of economic stress and cynicism about government.

I’ve heard no rumblings that the superintendents’ admonitions are holding teachers back. Referendum petitions continue to circulate… as well they ought. I do not believe a referendum on HB 1234 will have any identifiable effect on voting patterns for the sales tax initiative. But even if it did, I’d still advocate referring and overturning this very bad public policy. HB 1234 will do great damage to our schools that even the extra $80 million or so promised by Initiated Measure 15 could not undo.

The Census Bureau yesterday issued its report on state tax collections for 2011. Some fascinating numbers:

• South Dakota collected $1.38 billion in state taxes in 2011, the least amount collected by any state in the Union last year.
• The next-lowest collecting state, Montana, raked in $2.30 billion, 67% more than South Dakota did.
• New Hampshire and Vermont have similarly small populations and a lot less ground to cover with highways and snowplows. Yet they collected $2.32 billion and $2.69 billion, respectively (ranking 48th and 46th).
• North Dakota collected $3.82 billion, almost triple the amount South Dakota has to spend on schools, bridges, and a social safety net. $1.88 billion of that came from Bakken-frackin’ severance taxes.
• North Dakota led the nation with a 44.5% increase in state tax collections over 2010. Minnesota performed ninth best on this metric, rounding out the small group of states that saw double-digit increases, with a 10.1% boost in state tax revenues.
• The Census Bureau says South Dakota saw an 8.9% increase in sales tax revenues. Meanwhile, the state is increasing its per-student funding for education in the Rapid City school district by just 0.8%.

How can I not quote our President when he offers commentary this sharp? The President spoke Wednesday in favor of the “Buffett Rule,” a policy to ensure that rich folks pay a proportion of their income in taxes similar to what us middle-class folks pay:

Some years ago, one of my predecessors traveled across the country pushing for the same concept. He gave a speech where he talked about a letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress why that was wrong. So this president gave another speech where he said it was “crazy”—that’s a quote—that certain tax loopholes make it possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking class warrior was Ronald Reagan.

He thought that, in America, the wealthiest should pay their fair share, and he said so. I know that position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days, but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we’re calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility; everybody doing their part. And if it will help convince folks in Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan Rule instead of the Buffett Rule [President Barack Hussein Obama, quoted in Oliver Knox, "Obama on Reagan: "A Wild-Eyed, Socialist, Tax-Hiking Class Warrior," Yahoo News: The Ticket, 2012.04.11].

The Reagan Rule: perhaps I should be nervous about a general election turning into whether the Republican or the Democrat can act more like Reagan. But I rather like the idea of Barack Hussein Obama telling 15%-tax Willard Mitt Romney that on substantive issues, he and his party aren’t following their movie-star icon at all. Bring it on, Barack!

Dr. Blanchard will not be pleased.

From the “Credit Where Credit Is Due” Department, I note that Governor Dennis Daugaard is at least consistent in his expressed desire to expand energy jobs. Last week he cosigned a letter on behalf of the National Governors Association urging Congress to extend the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind energy.

Governors are pursuing a wide variety of strategies to promote job creation and economic development in their states. Continued development of renewable energy resources and manufacturing is an important component of these efforts. Renewable energy provides Americans with high-tech manufacturing jobs, secure sources of energy, and our states with crucial economic development opportunities.

To supplement state efforts, governors support the continuation of the production tax credit (PTC) for wind and renewable energy and the investment tax credit (ITC) for wind as well as the recent legislative proposal to institute ITC’s for the first 3,000 megawatts of offshore wind facilities placed into service. Such measures can help promote environmentally responsible, efficient, and secure affordable energy to fuel America’s future [Governors Dannel P. Malloy and Dennis Daugaard, letter to Congressional leaders, National Governors Association, 2012.04.04].

Even though the governors’ statement undermines her and Daugaard’s prior contention that government doesn’t create jobs, Rep. Kristi Noem has shown support for extending the PTC. Senator Tim Johnson backs PTC. So does Senator John Thune… even though some conservatives call the PTC pure corporate welfare. The wind industry says it was catching up in price competitiveness until gas prices plummeted; they say extending the PTC would help them sustain jobs and development through their current recessionary period and not have to start over from scratch when the gas bubble bursts in a few years.

Is my boss telling me to sit down and be quiet? And am I telling my boss he’s wrong? That’s how you might oversimplify the South Dakota School Superintendents Association’s request to the South Dakota Education Association to drop its drive to refer HB 1234 to a public vote:

The executive board of the South Dakota School Superintendents Association wrote a letter last month to the South Dakota Education Association urging them to “consider not moving forward with your petition drive” on House Bill 1234 [Josh Verges, "Teachers Get No Help on Reform Law Referral," that Sioux Falls paper, 2012.04.05].

Are the superintendents saying they think Governor Daugaard’s education reform package is a good idea? No, mostly not. They’re worried that the referendum campaign against HB 1234 will get in the way of the campaign to pass Initiated Measure 15, the education and health care communities’ effort to pass an extra-penny sales tax, and to defeat last year’s HB 1230:

Brookings Superintendent Roger DeGroot, the SDSSA president, said most superintendents think HB1234 is bad policy, but they’d like the union to focus its efforts on the sales tax initiative.

“I don’t think anyone worked harder than me” to defeat HB1234, he said, “but we need that $90 million in education” [Verges, 2012.04.05].

The SDSSA’s board worries that we can’t handle explaining to voters why they should vote No on HB 1234 (not to mention No on Referred Law 14) but vote Yes on Initiated Measure 15.

Um, excuse me, boss? At Montrose, you hired me to teach literature, speech, composition, and algebra all in one day. At Spearfish, I now have the relative ease of just two preps, French I and French II. Some teachers have six different preps and coach after school. I think we can handle doing two things at once.

SDEA exec Bryce Healy notes that some superintendents are still working to defeat HB 1234 by circulating referendum petitions. Healy says those superintendents and other circulators are not having to work very hard to educate voters to get their signatures. Says Healy, “This is the easiest petition I’ve ever circulated.”

The SDSSA board is missing the strong possibility that putting HB 1234 on the ballot will motivate education supporters to come to the polls and defeat Referred Law 14 and pass Initiated Measure 15. Education organizations face a hard sell on getting voters to approve IM 15′s new tax, but at the very least, urging voters to reject a separate money-wasting policy won’t hurt that effort. It may even enhance our fiscal credibility. Instead of just arguing that the schools need more money (and our conservative opponents are ready to hammer us on that point), we can use HB 1234 (as a counterexample!) to engage voters in a deeper conversation about the policies on which we ought to spend that money.

Now the superintendents aren’t saying they’ll campaign against teachers and try to block the referral. But it seems counterproductive that they would publicly criticize a petition drive against a law they generally agree is bad for the schools they run (a bothersome exception: a survey of SDSSA members found 60 out of 105 superintendents expressing support for the very bad idea of yanking the due process rights of continuing contract). SDEA announced its intention to refer HB 1234 on March 7. They hit the streets with petitions on March 19. SDSSA sent its letter to SDEA on March 21. Did SDSSA’s board really think that SDEA would commit political suicide by firing up lots of volunteers and signers, then throwing their petitions in the trash?

Superintendents, don’t worry. Teachers and voters can handle a ballot with multiple items on it. Referring HB 1234 to a public vote, engaging the public in a deep conversation about education policy, and stopping Governor Daugaard’s bad ideas will serve our schools and our state well.

Mike Knutson at Reimagine Rural notes that Rebecca Ryan is keynoting the  SD Governors Office for Economic Development Annual Conference. (Hey, she can’t do worse than Kristi Noem at the NDGOP convention.) Ryan appears well tuned to the idea that making your local economy grow is much less about the traditional metrics of low taxes and corporate incentives and much more about creating a vibrant culture and quality of life that will attract the creative class (see also NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg,  “Cities must be cool, creative and in control,” Financial Times, March 27, 2012).

Along those lines, I follow Knutson’s link to a December 2008 Wisconsin survey of local high school students, college students, and young professionals on what attracts them to communities. Given a list of 31 items, here are the qualities they chose as the most attractive:

High School Students: 

1. Affordable
2. Jobs
3. Place for Family
4. Public Schools
5. Safe Streets
6. Low Taxes
7. Walkable Streets
8. People My Age
9. Beach/Waterfront
10. Nightlife

College Students: 

1. Affordable
2. Safe Streets
3. Place for Family
4. Public Schools
5. Jobs
6. Low Taxes
7. Walkable Streets
8. Beach/Waterfront
9. Scenic Beauty
10. Friends/Family

Young Professionals:

1. Safe Streets
2. Place for Family
3. Affordable
4. Public Schools
5. Scenic Beauty
6. Sense of Community
7. Walkable Streets
8. Low Traffic
9. Friends/Family
10. Beach/Waterfront

YP Natives:

1. Safe Streets
2. Place for Family
3. Affordable
4. Public Schools
5. Jobs
6. Friends/Family
7. Low Taxes
8. Scenic Beauty
9. Walkable Streets
10. Low Traffic

YP Boomerangers:

1. Safe Streets
2. Affordable
3. Place for Family
4. Scenic Beauty
5. Public Schools
6. Sense of Community
7. Friends/Family
8. Walkable Streets
9. Beach/Waterfront
10. Low Traffic

YP Transplants:

1. Safe Streets
2. Place for Family
3. Scenic Beauty
4. Affordable
5. Public Schools
6. Sense of Community
7. Low Traffic
8. Concern for Environment
9. Trails/Parks
10. Walkable Streets

Interestingly, low taxes figure highest among those with least direct experience of taxes, the high school and college students. The only young professionals who mention low taxes in the top 10 are the young professionals native to the area. Three of the top items for young professionals—safe streets, walkable streets, and good public schools—require more investment of tax dollars.

So it would seem that, at least among the Wisconsin population surveyed here, attracting young talent requires something more than South Dakota’s “low-tax no-tax” cheerleading… and probably more than sending Ag Secretary Walt Bones out to twist arms in favor of every stinky feedlot. Let’s see if the Governor’s Office of Economic Development gets that message.

Update 17:41 MDT: Back at you: my friend The Displaced Plainsman contributes to the discussion of attracting talent to rural communities by mentioning another key quality of life: the chance to be creative. I wonder: is high-plains libertarian tolerance enough (that crazy artist can do what he wants in his barn, as long as he doesn’t bother me), or does real talent recruitment require communitarian encouragement?