On the eve of the Stand up for Education rally in Pierre, Representative Steve Hickey (R-9/Sioux Falls) takes to his blog (perhaps the busiest legislative blog in the state) to ask for our input on a tax increase. But as is his wont, the good Hickey turns his poll questions to suit his inclinations. Unlike Rep. Patricia Stricherz's blog poll, which mirrored other results showing overwhelming popular support for an extra-penny sales tax to tackle the state budget deficit, Rep. Hickey doesn't ask whether we should pass a tax increase. Instead, Rep. Hickey gives us these three options relating to calling a special election:
- The Legislature so dollars can be allocated to Education, Medicaid, and a Medicaid Increase Cost Account
- The Education Community so dollars can be allocated to Education
- The Legislature should not provide for a special election for a sales tax increase
Now my first problem with these questions is that they skew the view of the popular will. My preferred answer would be #3, no special election, because I believe the Legislature should take the bull by the horns and raise revenues themselves. But if I mark #3, casual readers (e.g., Senate Majority Leader Russell Olson, R-8/Wentworth) may read that third line as saying, "Golly, look at all those people who oppose a tax increase."
The larger problem with this poll is that it operates on false assumptions. Rep. Hickey proved his willingness to raise some revenues (and buck the governor!) with his vote for HB 1192 to raise vehicle registration fees. But Rep. Hickey looks at veto-proof majorities in both houses on this bill and decides finding support for other tax increases is impossible. He cites a group becoming more popular among Republicans, the "silent majority" they claim are contacting them behind the scenes, out of the headlines, to support their preferred worldview that taxes are bad, bad, bad. Never mind the boisterous crowds at the crackerbarrels telling the legislators to find the money to avoid cutting education. Never mind poll after poll after poll finding big majorities supporting tax increases over job-killing budget cuts (this just in: 56% of South Dakotans oppose the Daugaard budget cuts). Rep. Hickey is appealing to the invisible Russ-Olson mandate not to raise taxes. This poo-pooing of facts about the popular will sounds like Rep. Manny Steele shouting "Point of order!": telling the majority to shut up doesn't make the majority or their beliefs go away.
At least Rep. Hickey acknowledges the contradiction between campaigning as a Tea Party populist and then running and hiding behind cries of "We're a Republic, not a Democracy!" to defend defying the popular will. But we're here to fix the budget, not dig into a debate over political philosophy. If the Legislature wants to divine and defer to the popular will, it doesn't need to go through the expensive exercise of a special election. The open, public expressions of popular will show clear support for raising taxes over cutting services and jobs.
Rep. Hickey and his fellow legislators need to stop pretending their current opinions are immutable facts. Show some leadership. Change those votes. Raise revenue. Fix the budget. Save the schools. It's what the voters want. It's what South Dakota needs.
* * *
Bonus Economics 101: Mr. Feser points out new calculations from economist Mark Zandi that the federal budget cuts supported by Speaker Boehner and Lapdog Noem would kill 700,000 jobs nationwide. Macroeconomics apply at the national level and the state level.
Thanks for driving people to my poll - I hope other blogs do the same. Your #4 isn't an option because those votes aren't there. The options that I have are the options before us. Pick one.
Obstipation! That's the diagnosis. Insufferable.
"Those votes aren't there"—that sounds like when we tell Katarzyna she can have carrots or peas and she asks for potatoes. Potatoes aren't impossible; Mom and Dad just aren't choosing to put them in the pot.
If the public wanted option #4, would a legislator be justified in fighting to write that option into an amendment to some pending bill, even if he knows that, at the last caucus, the headcount showed general opposition among the 105 people in Pierre?
I love the call for a special election when the legislature is too chicken or incompetent to do the job they were elected to do.
"Governin' is hard! Let someone else do it!" Great job, ruling party.
"... (this just in: 56% of South Dakotans oppose the Daugaard budget cuts)." ...
... Missing words: "for education."
"The good Hickey turns his poll questions to suit his inclinations" ...
... as other people can tailor their interpretations to suit theirs.
I say, let us have a voter referendum. On the ballot, we could see something like, "Would you approve a penny summer sales-tax increase for the next three years (or whatever) specifically for the purpose of avoiding cuts in the funding for education and nursing homes?"
That'll be the poll that matters.
I'll take a referendum if that's the best we can do to solve the budget crisis without killing the local economy. But if it's the right thing to do, I wish our legislators would show the courage to do it now, as they do on so many other issues they find worth their efforts in Pierre.
Cory, I think a referendum is the only method that will actually work.
I question the figures in some of the polls (especially the 73-percent figure in the Dakota Poll), but I do suspect that if the matter of a summer sales tax increase for education and nursing-home funding were put to a referendum, it would pass.
We may spin elegant theories and entertain noble illusions; but in the end, what matters is the real-world outcome. In this case, I think it's clear that if the people want their will done, they will have to wrest the decision-making power away from their legislators.
One might argue that we ought not to have a special tax or a special referendum for every little trivium (is that a word?). But I would argue that education and nursing homes are hardly trivial.
As such I would vote "Yes" in the referendum, specifically on Stan Adelstein's proposal.
Meanwhile, I did e-mail the Governor as follows. The worst that can happen is nothing ...
"Dear Gov. Daugaard:
"Have you considered making a plea to the citizens of South Dakota to voluntarily calculate and pay use tax on purchases from out-of-state sources (mainly on the Internet, but also from old-fashioned paper ads and catalogs)?
"I suspect that most citizens don't know that they owe use tax. Of those who do know about the tax, most don't know how to go about paying it. And of those who do know how to pay it, most of them don't actually do it!
"You might promise that any use tax voluntarily paid will go straight into a special fund dedicated to education and nursing homes -- Not only this year, but evermore thereafter.
"This measure might raise significant revenue without actually increasing any tax or fee. I admit that it might play on people's guilt a bit, especially those folks clamoring for a tax increase while neglecting to pay all of the tax required by current law.
"Best regards, Stan Gibilisco."
Stan, keep talking nicely, and you may coax me off my soapbox to engage in realism. But why are our legislators so unrepresentative of the apparent popular sentiment in favor of raising revenue to pay for the services we need instead of cutting them? Or is the difference here simply that a tax could get the simple majority needed in a referendum but not the 2/3 needed in the Legislature?
And wait a minute: didn't someone say we can't do a referendum to raise taxes?
"...why are our legislators so unrepresentative of the apparent popular sentiment in favor of raising revenue to pay for the services we need instead of cutting them?"
Cory, that is an excellent question. As for an answer, I have a few notions, but no solid clues.
Maybe the revenue-raising sentiment is more apparent and less real than we think.
Maybe the staunch anti-tax people (of whom I am usually one) are making more noise at our legislators than the rest of us.
Maybe our legislators simply think that they know better than we do what's good for us.
As someone who has seen an effective pay cut of more than 50 percent since 2006, I do have a lot of respect for our Governor when he takes a firm stance on the notion that government ought to run more like a business and less like, well, a spoiled kid with an allowance.
Targeted cuts are the answer. When we go on weight-loss diets, we try to spare muscle mass and lose fat.
...or the legislators could be more ideological and less practical than the typical voter. Cuts should definitely be targeted, not just a blind number to satisfy some arbitrary political goal.