Pot-kettle-black!
If Secretary Gant certifies the HB 1230 referral petitions he received yesterday, we'll have plenty of time to duke it out on this issue during the 2012 general election. But South Dakota Republican chairman Tim Rave, who voted for this corporate welfare measure in March, is wasting no time in arguing that Dems are playing politics against a really good practical policy.
Tee hee: Tim, that's kind of like how you and your fellow Republicans keep passing unconstitutional and unhealthy anti-abortion laws, in the slim hopes that you'll find a drunk judge. That's kind of like how your GOP pals in Washington play chicken with the national debt and a renewed global economic crisis just to win more tax breaks for the rich and strengthen the hand of your limping 2012 nominee against Obama. [Dang: mixed that metaphor!]
But back to the real issue, Tim: your claim that you voted to reduce corporate welfare is just plain wrong, as Bob Mercer explained back in April:
Assuming [contractors' excise tax revenues] get back to somewhere between $70 million and $78 million in 2013, the 22 percent diversion to the new grant fund that first year would be in the range of about $15 million to $17 million.
That's more than the actual refunds in three of the past four years. The refund program automatically expires at the end of 2012. Daugaard wants the grants as a replacement [Bob Mercer, "Opinion: Use of SD Tax Money for Grants Prompts Questions," Mitchell Daily Republic, 2011.04.04].
Chairman/Senator Rave, you voted to extend a program that would have ended without your intervention. That means you're spending more money. And don't forget, Tim: your vote for HB 1230 puts a lot more money toward handouts to big companies (and yes, only big companies, since the minimum project size is $5 million) than South Dakota spent back in 2006 when the state revenue situation was arguably better than it is now.
I know it's early. If we get to vote on HB 1230 at the polls, Chairman Tim has a whole year to come up better arguments. But for the moment, all he has is the old GOP mirror trick—shout that Democrats are guilty of exactly the political games his own party so blatantly plays—and a lot of smoke to obscure the real numbers.
Smoke and mirror—good grief, Tim! You better tell your new Minnesota executive director to finish up picking wallpaper for his new Sioux Falls office and get to work on some truly rave-worthy talking points!
So, Mr. Rave, this is good "practical policy?" For whom? Let me take one guess: your wealthy party contributors? Of course, cut everything else that the government is responsible for providing, so, you can fill the pockets of big business who will probably support your party. It does not appear that your party supports the common interests of our constituency in this state and for quite some time it has become more apparent.
Note that I testified against this bill in Senate State Affairs and I helped collect signatures to refer this. This legisation is "NOT" at all something a limited government conservative should be advocating. At the same time, a limited government conservatifve should not be pushing to instead fund the education system that is providing free job training to these same big corporate special interests. The solution is to remove the excise tax entirely.
Intersections upon intersections: Steve, as you may recall, my neighbor Gerry Lange would agree with you on the need to eliminate the contractors' excise tax entirely.
As I told folks when I gathered signatures, repealing HB 1230 does not automatically send that $16–20 million into funding for education or any other specific program. It simply leaves that money in the general fund, where the 2013 Legislature might choose to do any number of whacky things with it. Pour it into education, rebuild roads, cut taxes... all sorts of options are possible. But even Steve appears to agree with me that there are many better uses for that money than corporate handouts.
(Steve! Let's call Ben Nesselhuf! He could send us on the road to stump for the repeal together!)
"(Steve! Let’s call Ben Nesselhuf! He could send us on the road to stump for the repeal together!)"
Now that would be a real dog and pony show.
I get to be the dog. Steve, you still have that ponytail?
No I don't. The beard is gone too.
Seriously, we need to unite on this issue. And in the process we can learn. First off capitalism is simply communism lite. Second, capitalists centralize the wealth via government. Third, bigger government is the problem, not the solution. The limited role of government should be to prevent coercion and force from a competitive free-market so that we all have a level playing field. Taking money (excise tax) from a small construction company and give it to large companies (HB1230) is the use of force that gives advantage to the big guy.
Agreed! We'll unite on this issue. Round up your 9-12 friends!
So what do we call the just economic system lies outside the common unjust boundaries of capitalism and communism? Is there a third way?
And how will we recognize you sans tail and whiskers? (I still get to be the dog. :-) )
"So what do we call the just economic system lies outside the common unjust boundaries of capitalism and communism?"
You will recognize it when parents can educate their children with a no-strings-attached voucher. A free-market for education. Pro-choice education. So ready to unite!?
I will gladly be a donkey and tell the elephant-in-the-room party it elects many hypocrites. Limited and smaller state government, my ass! Self-reliance, my ass! Rugged individualism, my ass! Individual rights and responsibility, my ass! But they're so good at sales. I wish just-one-more -than half of voting South Dakotans had a brain, because if they did they would not keep electing these clowns.
Republicans like to talk about "open playing field", but what their corporate sponsors really want and what Republican congress critters support is instead more like a bulldozer on a bowling alley.