Rep. Stace Nelson (R-19/Fulton) continues to play unpredictable GOP gadfly. You'd think his strong conservatism would have him holding the line on any increased spending. But he tells Kevin Woster that Governor Daugaard's proposed 3% increase to K-12 funding is not enough given the hard cuts imposed by the Governor's "new norm."
The Democratic delegation in Pierre is too small to wage effective opposition to the Republican agenda in Pierre. But if they can leverage the contrariness of rebel Republicans like Stace Nelson, we may see something like two-party rule and real checks and balances in our state government.
it is long overdue, that's for sure.
I don't mind Stace being a bull in a china shop. Daugaard, Dusty and Tony have not shown an interest in listening to the people of SD. It's as if Daugaard won a kingship to them.
We are seeing Stace as a master populist more than a conservative. Sure he wants smaller government but I think he also likes sticking it to certain Republicans as much as he likes smaller government.
Getting out front and calling for more education spending might bring over some timid Republicans who have wanted more spending for education but didn't have the guts to say so.
2013 will be interesting.
Big loser of the past 2 years has to be Dusty Johnson. He was riding high as PUC Commissioner and probably on his way up the ladder rung in the near future.
The way he has completely abandoned whatever it was that made Dusty Johnson special is stunning to me. He's completely thrown in with the my way or the high way attitude that is plaguing Daugaard's agenda.
Dusty might have gained some influence by being Chief of Staff but he's losing that special quality he had when he first ran for office.
Again too many of these guys come off as if they think themselves kings instead of how they originally campaigned.
(Sorry for the rant)
I think most don't understand that if the state's sales tax pays more, out local property taxes pay less. I see a lot of money wasted in education that should instead be going to those teachers who deserve it.
I experienced Dusty's transition when he first went to Pierre as a PUC official. Maybe it is the water.
how do you decide what teachers deserve more money Steve?
Isn't that an administrative decision Owen?
Indeed, Les, I think that has long been said. For years as the whining went on about being 52nd in national teacher pay and the schools bloated their reserves and made more reserved parking spots and built new buildings, people always said "Hey, whiners, the taxpayers keep shoveling money at the schools and they decided not to give it to teachers."
Then last year they tried to shove even more money that would go right to good teachers and the voters said "no do not give good teachers more money."
So indeed the decision is back in the fat cat administrator's hands. I bet you a country platter that the first to yell the loudest when the legislatures start to meet will be these same fat cat administrators with the fancy parking spaces.
The road that brought us to this place in K-12 funding started a long time ago, 1996 to be exact. The reason the schools "bloated reserves" is because in 1996 everyone was funded to a level that was just below average spending per student. Obviously all the districts that were spending less than the average had big money forced down their throats. These small districts were not about to make teachers the highest paid folks in the county, so the put the money in the bank. The rest of the districts cut spending to the average and cheated their teachers and kids, and that is sad.
At best, education funding will be level or decrease slightly compared last year. The feds are going to be giving significantly less money to everyone so that they can get their financial house in order. You can't spend more money than you take in no matter how good the cause. We have already reached the debt limit and the Treasury Dept. is just putting off the inevitable. Congress is unlikely to pass any increase in the debt ceiling without draconian cuts in entitlements: food stamps, school lunch programs, Medicare, Medicaid and social security.
Michael's comment puts me in mind of this classic old Muddy Waters tune. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgHQalqG6E8
"You can't spend what you ain't got. You can't lose what you done never had."
Luckily, we can still overcome the lack of funding in education through improved use of technology and innovative teaching methods, but we must realize there will soon come a time when more money will have to be given just to maintain the status quo. The love of teaching will only go so far if you have trouble putting food on the table and good people will leave education and not come back.
Where are they going Michael as we descend into second and third world status?
Good corporate citizens want to give more money to the best math and science teachers.
http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/community_math.aspx
Educators were promised a full 3%. I am supporting a full and actual 3% increase to K-12.