Rep. Rev. Steve Hickey (R-9/Sioux Falls) had another good idea shot down in the Legislature last week. Continuing to confound those of us who'd like all Republicans to fall into a neat category of people who are always wrong, Rep. Hickey proposed House Bill 1227, which would have significantly changed the way we use video lottery funds.
Currently, South Dakota uses its cut of video lottery revenue to reduce property taxes. HB 1227 would have reduced the amount going from video lottery to the property tax reduction fund by ten percentage points each year until FY 2024. From that point on, no video lottery proceeds would go toward alleviating the burden on property tax payers.
Where would Hickey have put the video lottery money? Education. HB 1227 would have used increasing percentages of video lottery money to build a 700-million-dollar education enhancement trust fund, from which up to 4.5% of the market value would be eligible each year for distribution to education and property tax reduction.
4.5% of $700 million: that's over $30 million. Used properly, that additional funding could raise teacher pay over $3,000 a head... which would vault South Dakota from 51st in the nation for teacher pay to 50th.
But House Taxation lacked the courage to take that bold step and killed HB 1227 on a 9-to-4 vote.
Gubernatorial candidate Rep. Sue Wismer will tell you that video lottery is already supporting education funding and that the real solution for South Dakota's K-12 budget woes is to work up our fiscal courage and tap new revenue streams. But I appreciate Rep. Hickey's effort to more clearly dedicate video lottery money to education.
Bravo, Rep. Hickey. I'm finding that there are several issues where we share common ground. Money for education, death penalty, short term loans, carnival inspections.
CA, this is a GREAT idea. Speaks to what we were discussing on Twitter last week. It would allow us to address both the tech needs of our schools and the pathetic state of teacher salaries in SD.
Too bad it failed.
Using lottery funds for property tax reduction is extremely discriminatory. Many lottery players are renters whereas all income demographics use the public schools. Older angry white male conservative selfishness snowballs on.
OT,but wasn't there a Phil Schreck on Sioux Falls news or sports awhile back? Seems to me that name is familiar.
And I've heard rumors that this Phil Schreck is interested in politics! Rep up the Sioux Falls Dems, Phil, run for State House!
Rev up the Sioux Falls dems (I meant).
Phil could bring some climate change to Pierre.
Porter, can you find better data on demographics for people who participate in the South Dakota Lottery? I'm leery of broad statements without data.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding the topic, but asking the 68% of South Dakotans who are homeowners to pay an extra 30% in property taxes seems like a heck of a kick in the shorts, especially considering how regressive property taxes are. It's bad enough fighting every year to stop them from assessing my house way above the market value so they can raise more funds through the levy.
I'm not opposed to paying more taxes, mind you... but I'm leery of what damage this will do to the South Dakotans on fixed incomes or marginally above the poverty line. I'd much rather we find a way to raise revenue that doesn't adversely impact those with lesser means, or punish behaviors we want to promote (like home ownership).
Way back when there a public vote to legalize gaming in South Dakota the big push by proponents of gaming was that the proceeds were going to be used for education.
There were several votes to repeal gaming and the same argument was made, money for education.
It wasn't until years later that most of us learned that gaming revenue was not being used for education, various state educational agencies apparently didn't want to accept money from video lottery.
South Dakota deceived the public way back when, and they continue to do so.
If we can have a referendum on making gaming legal, we should be able to have a referendum mandating also gaming proceeds to go to education.
Porter, Wayne, I'll stake the position that lotteries are a shoddy way to fund the state. Which tax mechanism would spread the burden most fairly?
I think it's incumbent upon the folks who want to change the status quo to offer the ideas. ;-)
I'm not convinced state lotteries are a "shoddy" way to help fund state operations. They're a wholly voluntary tax, much like that which we pay for hotels, booze, and dining out. Revenue from gambling also allows us to generate funds from folks who come & visit us (e.g. Sturgis, pheasant opener, etc.) rather than placing the burden solely upon us residents.
Your absolutley right Roger. In the beginning lottery revenues were supposed to go to education. But it didn't.
So this bill was trying to do what lottery was supposed to do to begin with.
Thanks for trying Rev. Hickey!